Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.20.01 Council Packet COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR February 20, 2001 CHAMBER/COUNCIL MEETING 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) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (2/5/01) (Regular) b) Approve Enron Encroachment Agreement - Public Facilities - Administration c) Capital Outlay - Finance d) Consider Resolution - Accepting Donations Senior Center - Parks and Recreation e) MN Department of Health - Testing Results - Engineering f) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARDOFCONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Wetland Health Evaluation Program - Dakota County b) 2000 Fiscal Review - Finance c) 2005 MUSA Allocation Process Update - Community Development d) Housing Affordability Legislation - 2001 Legislative Initiatives - Community Development e) Consider Resolution - Tamarack Ridge 3rd Addition Development Contract- Engineering f) Acknowledge Resignation - Administration Department 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Consultant Appointment Recommendation - 2001 Community Survey- Administration !. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. ADJOURN Action Taken Approved Approved InformanonReceived R20-0J Information Received Approved Information Received Information Received Accepted Information Received R2J-OJ Accepted Approved ? CJ-, COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR February 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 None City Attorney Jamnik, City Administrator Erar, City Management Team 4. APPROYEAGENDA MOTION by Verch, second by Soderberg to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Mr. Dave Grundstrom, CEO - Trinity Hospital Dr. Thomas Jones - Trinity Hospital Mr. Dave Grundstrom, CEO of Trinity Hospital stated the hospital board has made the difficult decision to cease operations of the hospital portion of the Trinity campus. The last day of operation will be February 9, 2001. The contract with Health Partners for the Farmington Family Clinic will continue through March 31, 2001. The remaining campus will focus on services for aging adults and access to primary care physicians. To facilitate this, they are trying to restructure the bond debt on the campus. Health Partners has the ability to make the decision as to whether they stay in the community and grow the presence they currently have. Councilmember Strachan asked what will be there a year from now. Mr. Grundstrom stated they hoped the campus will stay as it is. They will redo the hospital space to provide services for aging adults with more of a private room option. They are also looking at an assisted living environment. Mayor Ristow asked if Health Partners decided not to stay, would the board be looking for another clinic? Mr. Grundstrom replied the building is built for a clinic, so they are looking for other health systems, but are trying to keep Health Partners. A new clinic would take about four years to establish a solid financial base. The clinic opened 106 new patient charts last year. It was heading in the right direction, just not fast enough. Ms. Cindy Godfrey, 19446 Ellington Trail, asked if the clinic is receiving more patients, how can it close? She does not see any marketing, or new equipment for doctors. The doctors are taking patients elsewhere for better equipment. Mr. Council Minutes (Regular) February 5, 2001 Page 2 Grundstrom replied the board is trying to get a partner clinic to shore up the base, but so far has been unsuccessful. Mr. Joe Petrofeta, 5571 Bristol Lane, Minnetonka, stated the ambulance and urgent care makes sense. Why sell equipment, etc. and start over? Focus should be on areas making money and build that base. Mr. Grundstrom replied they are searching for areas making money, such as services for aging adults. Trinity would be a landlord with, for example, Health Partners. Dr. Thomas Jones, 18835 Embers Road, asked what percent of the Farmington population is using Trinity Hospital? Mr. Grundstrom replied there is a 5% inpatient admission. Approximately 92% are admitted to Fairview Ridges. A solid base of physicians is needed to be successful, and this community has had a long history of changes. The last couple years this has stabilized. Dr. Jones stated if such a small portion of the population has been using Trinity, has everything been explored as far as advertising. Mr. Grundstrom replied advertising in a newspaper does not bring patients to the hospital. Physicians bring patients. Dr. Jones stated he has heard a lot of the people do not know where Trinity Hospital or Farmington Family Clinic is. Mr. Grundstrom replied you can always do more advertising, but when you are in the hole it becomes an issue of how many dollars do you spend doing that. The board has been interviewing physicians and promoting the community and have come in second. They recruited three new physicians from Health Partners that would be interested in coming to the clinic, but with Health Partners trying to decide whether to stay with the campus, their moving here is on hold. Dr. Dave Chisek, 201 West Burnsville Parkway, stated he has been operating from Trinity Hospital for six years and has performed 325-450 operations a year. The staff is truly wonderful, and the patients receive excellent care. He asked if there were any ideas on an ambulatory surgical center and if the surgical aspect generated any revenue. Mr. Grundstrom replied it generated revenue, but not to the degree needed. An ambulatory surgery center has great potential. Dr. Thomas Jones stated every physician admitting patients to Trinity Hospital also has privileges at Fairview Ridges Hospital. Hospitalized patients will have to go to Fairview Ridges. This could change ifNorthfield builds a new hospital. It should not impact the community, but will be an inconvenience. A large part of the community realizes how efficient it is to have local care. It is a terrible shame what is happening with Trinity, but the numbers cannot be ignored. The board has done everything possible. Councilmember Strachan stated two things are happening. Part of Trinity is closing, but at the same time, we are adding a full-time ambulance to Farmington. Mayor Ristow stated we have a strong community that will be able to overcome this. Council Minutes (Regular) February 5, 2001 Page 3 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS 7. CONSENT AGENDA Item 7a) Approve Minutes (1116/01) (Regular) was pulled'so Councilmember Cordes could abstain from voting as she was absent from that meeting. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Verch approving Council Minutes (1116/01) (Regular). Voting for: Ristow, Soderberg, Strachan, Verch. Abstain: Cordes. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: b) Approved Changeorder Downtown Streetscape Project - Engineering c) Approved Appointment Recommendation - Fire Department d) Authorized Advertisement for Bids - Fire Department e) Received Information Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation t) Received Information Capital Outlay - Public Works g) Approved Safety Training Agreement - Administration h) Approved CEEF Funding Request - Administration i) Adopted RESOLUTION RIO-OI- Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation j) Adopted RESOLUTION Rll-OI- Amend Fees - Parks and Recreation k) Received Information 2000 Liquor Operation Sales Report - Finance 1) Received Information School and Conference - Fire Department m) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTSAND COMMUNICATIONS a) Consider Ordinance - Riverbend Schematic PUD - Community Development Astra Genstar Partnership proposes to develop approximately 126.2 acres of land in the northeast comer of the City directly east of Dakota County Estates. The developer proposes to rezone the property from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) and F-3 (General Flood Plain) to R-2 PUD (Medium Density Residential Planned Unit Development) within the 67 acres of developable land. Because of strong opposition from the neighbors within Dakota County Estates, the Riverbend Schematic PUD has been revised eliminating the multi-family land use. The revised concept shows 272 single-family lots on 67.1 acres of upland area resulting in a 4.01 unit/acre density. Four accesses are proposed, two to the west through Dakota County Estates at Upper 1820d Street and Upper 183rd Street, and two accesses proposed to the south through the proposed Prairie Creek East subdivision. Lot sizes range from 6,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet. In the first phase, the Developer proposes 60 to 70-foot wide lots in the southwest comer of the property marketed in the $120,000 to $180,000 price range. Water access is available through Dakota County Estates and sewer will be available through the Prairie Creek East development. Council Minutes (Regular) February 5, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Patrick Hanson, 5037 Upper 182nd Street, is concerned with traffic and the width of the streets. Upper 183rd Street will be an exit, but you cannot turn left off of Pilot Knob so that leaves two accesses. The streets are not wide enough. These are starter homes and there are a lot of kids on the streets. In the summer there are cars parked on both sides of the street. If there is oncoming traffic or a child runs out from between cars, there could be an accident. Why does it have to be rezoned? Mayor Ristow stated it is a request by the developer and the request meets all the requirements. In the 2020 Comprehensive Plan this area has been designated as an R-2 area. Mr. Hanson stated the majority of the bigger lots are to the south rather than to the north. It would be nice to spread them out more. He is very concerned about the traffic situation. Councilmember Soderberg stated an EA W will be done which will include a traffic analysis, but that cannot be done until it is rezoned. MOTION by Cordes, second by Strachan adopting ORDINANCE 001-459 approving the Riverbend Schematic PUD rezoning the 67 acres of developable land from R-l and F-3 to R-2 PUD. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Consider Resolution - Charleswood 4th Addition Final Plat - Community Development Newland Communities is seeking Final Plat approval of98 single-family lots within the Charleswood 4th Addition; this is the final plat involving the single- family portion of the Charleswood Planned Unit Development. The Charleswood development will have a total of300 single-family platted lots. Because of the alignment of 200th Street at Pilot Knob Road, to the west will be 200th Street and east of Pilot Knob Road will be 203rd Street. There will be a trail on the north side of 200th Street leading eastward toward Pilot Knob Road and the future construction of a trail along Pilot Knob Road leading to the trail system throughout the remainder of the development. A park is planned on the east side of the development, and wetlands are planned to the south and the east. The Planning Commission recommended approval contingent upon the following: 1. The developer submit an easement agreement acceptable to the City to provide street and utility access to the Nordseth property across Lot 14, Block 1; 2. Amend the Landscape plan substituting the sugar maples with another tree species accepted in Title 1O-6-14(G); 3. Correct the street name from 203rd Street W to 200th Street W; 4. Engineering review and approval of final construction plans; 5. Execution ofthe Development Contract MOTION by Verch, second by Strachan adopting RESOLUTION R12-01 approving the Charleswood 4th Addition Final Plat contingent on the above conditions. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) February 5, 2001 Page 5 c) Consider Resolution - Middle Creek Final Plat - Community Development D R Horton and Arcon Development jointly propose to plat 87 single-family lots and 11 outlots in the first phase of Middle Creek. The 87 lots are located east of Pilot Knob Road and west of the Northern Natural Gas easement and are part of the 143 single-family lots proposed for the entire development. The final plat shows two accesses from the property. The first access is 203cd Street to the west that intersects with Pilot Knob Road. The second access connects to the north through the proposed Vermillion Grove development. The City's Traffic Engineer states that the proposed 87 single-family lots in the first phase can operate with access to CSAH 31 and does not require other access. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Verch adopting RESOLUTION R13-01 approving the Middle Creek Final Plat contingent on Engineering comments and the execution ofa Development Contract. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Consider Resolution - Middle Creek 2nd Addition Final Plat - Community Development D R Horton and Arcon Development jointly propose to plat 66 townhome units on one block and plat one outlot within the Middle Creek 2nd Addition. The 66 townhome lots are located directly east of Pilot Knob Road and west of the 87 single-family lots proposed to be platted in the first phase of Middle Creek. The final plat shows one access. The access is 206th Street that intersects with Pilot Knob Road to the west and is proposed with a 60-foot right-of-way and 34-foot roadway measured from the back of curb to the back of curb. This roadway is shown as a future east/west minor collector on the 2020 Thoroughfare Plan. The roadway will be constructed to the plat's easterly line to allow access to Pilot Knob Road from the private drives to the north. The 500-foot long cul-de-sac measured at 30 feet from back of curb to back of curb is a private drive and will be maintained by the homeowners association. Councilmember Soderberg questioned 206th Street being a minor collector measuring 34 feet curb to curb and in the other development 203cd Street, the minor collector, measured 40 feet curb to curb. What is the difference? Planning Coordinator Smick replied because of the amount of traffic being generated on 203cd Street versus 206th Street. Councilmember Soderberg asked if it is typical to have driveways on minor collectors? Staff replied yes there are many. MOTION by Cordes, second by Verch adopting RESOLUTION R14-01 approving the Middle Creek 2nd Addition Final Plat contingent on landscape and Engineering comments and the execution of a Development Contract. Voting for: Ristow, Cordes, Strachan, Verch. Voting against: Soderberg. MOTION CARRIED. e) Consider Resolution - Tamarack Ridge 3rd Addition Final Plat - Community Development James Development Company is seeking Final Plat approval for Tamarack Ridge 3cd Addition, which consists of710ts on approximately 6.8 acres located east of Council Minutes (Regular) February 5, 2001 Page 6 Trunk Highway 3 and south of County Road 66. The plat will contain 64 multi- family townhome units. This development is part of a homeowner's association and all roadways proposed are private. The construction of 208th and 209th Streets will begin sometime this spring and be completed by mid-summer. A neighborhood meeting concerning the future assessment for the roadway will need to be rescheduled due to the canceled meeting on January 29, 2001. The issue of traffic control was raised due to the streets being private. Traffic control would be up to the homeowner's association. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan adopting RESOLUTION R15-0l approving the Tamarack Ridge 3rd Addition Final Plat contingent on the preparation and execution of the Development Contract and approval of the construction plans for grading, stonn water and utilities by the Engineering Division. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. f) Consider Resolution - Vermillion Grove Final Plat - Community Development Rottlund Homes has submitted the Final Plat for the first phase ofVennillion Grove. The final plat consists of 49 single-family lots platted on 27.4 acres, 60 villa townhome units platted on 8.1 acres, 16 gardens on 2.1 acres and 41 garden townhomes on 11.1 acres. Rottlund Homes proposes to develop approximately 122.5 acres of land in the southeast quadrant of the intersection ofCSAH 31 and CR 64 as a single and multi-family development. The development in its final build-out phase will consist of 94 detached residential units and 283 attached residential units. The developer proposes two accesses. One access will be available to Pilot Knob Road on the west and a second access to 195th Street on the north. A third access to the south will be available when roadway construction is completed in Middle Creek. A fourth access will eventually be available to the east connecting with Akin Road in a future plat. For the easterly access, the road connection to Akin Road is imperative to the subdivision's circulation patterns by maximizing ingress/egress options for emergency vehicles and reduces the overload of anyone connection thus causing traffic-related concerns on that one connection. Water service will be provided to the site by the trunk water main that was installed along CSAH 31 during the 2000 construction season. The Planning Commission recommended that a lift station is the preferred alternative to providing sanitary sewer service to the Vennillion Grove Development. The three options to route the sewer system through the Vennillion Grove Development were reviewed by the Commission. The first option routed a gravity sewer line through the streets of the subdivision. The second option routed a gravity sewer line behind the homes in the wetland buffer along the DNR protected wetland. This option would necessitate the removal of a significant corridor of trees along the DNR wetland and would require extensive retaining walls to be installed to allow for maintenance access to the sewer line. The third option would involve installing a pennanent lift station that would be located at the northwest corner of the DNR wetland. The lift station would be equipped with back-up power in case of power outages. This option would eliminate the need to remove the corridor of trees and install extensive retaining Council Minutes (Regular) February 5, 2001 Page 7 walls along the DNR protected wetland. The Planning Commission recommended that the permanent lift station be approved by the City Council, based on review and consideration of all the issues, environmental and operational. Councilmember Verch asked how many years the gravity sewer line would work versus the lift station. Staff replied there is a time frame that the mechanical parts of the lift station would need to be replaced. Councilmember Verch asked regarding the private villas would the developer be responsible for the sewer? Staff replied it is a public City sewer system, so the City would maintain it. Councilmember Soderberg inquired about the lift station on the comer of the DNR wetland. Staff replied the route of the gravity sewer line along the DNR wetland would run 150 feet to the south, thus removing a corridor of trees. With the lift station there is no piping going along the wetland. Councilmember Soderberg asked what the lift station would service. Staff replied everything including the City facilities. There will be approximately 400 homes using the lift station. Mayor Ristow asked what is the typical number of homes using a lift station. Staff replied the lift station is designed according to the number of homes using it. Councilmember Cordes asked if the homes to the south sit lower than the proposed lift station. Staff replied the lift station is lower. Councilmember Cordes stated so if there is a breakdown, the flow would have to go uphill before it would back up into basements. Staff replied that is correct. Mayor Ristow asked if when the preliminary plat was reviewed did we know about this situation? Staff replied at that time we were looking at all options. The lift station will be placed so the lowest portion of the homes, is above the top of the lift station. City Administrator Erar stated check valves were reviewed and it was recommended not to install check valves in the homes, because the lift station is at the lowest point, and other technical reasons. The lift station will have a permanent back up generator, it has a submersible pump, dual pumps, a brand new SCADA system, and staff is on call 24-7 in case of a problem. Mayor Ristow stated he has seen more problems with lift stations than pluses, we have tried to eliminate lift stations, and here we go back to it. If the public works facility is based on this lift station, then the public works facility should not go forward. There are a lot of complications in the future that could arise. If it fails, it has to seep out onto the land or go somewhere, then we will have the DNR and MPCA to deal with. He would like to see more studies. He knows the people to the east are interested in a sewer system, but he feels there is still time to resolve the situation without a lift station. City Administrator Erar stated installing a lift station is common, and a substantial amount of time has been spent studying other options. Council Minutes (Regular) February S, 2001 Page 8 Councilmember Cordes stated she feels staffhas explored all options and is recommending the best option. Council needs to decide if we want to approve it with a lift station or not approve it at all. Councilmember Strachan stated it is a Council goal to eliminate or reduce the use of lift stations. In this instance, there is a tremendous impact on topography, wetlands, and natural features. We have commented on the reliability of the lift station and how it would be maintained. It does not change the fact that we prefer not to use lift stations. He does not think it is inappropriate to approve a lift station when there is an extraordinary circumstance. Mayor Ristow stated his concern over lift stations in the past. Staff stated the new lift stations have different technology which deals with the previous problems. Councilmember Cordes stated with this project there is no other option. Mayor Ristow stated there are three options. Councilmember Cordes stated but at what cost to the surrounding City, wetland, and trees. Mayor Ristow stated it is not our job to worry about cost to the developer. City Administrator Erar stated this has nothing to do with developer cost. If there were any other way, it would have been provided and recommended. A lift station is the best solution to the situation. The developer is paying for the lift station and the backup generator. Councilmember Soderberg stated it is a certainty that the wetlands will be damaged running a sewer line through it. It is a possibility there will be damage if the lift station should fail. It is a difficult choice to make. Mayor Ristow stated he cannot support this recommendation. There have been problems with lift stations in the past. The Planning Commission also had a lot of questions and concerns with the lift station. He feels the City will have long term problems. There were no problems with infrastructure when the preliminary plat was brought to Council. MOTION by Strachan, second by Cordes adopting RESOLUTION R16-01 approving the Vermillion Grove Final Plat contingent upon Engineering comments and the execution of a Development Contract and final settlement of the pending assessment appeal for CSAH 31 improvements serving the property. Voting for Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan. Voting against: Ristow, Verch. MOTION CARRIED. g) Consider Annexation Petitions - Community Development The City has received annexation petitions for three properties in Empire Township and one property located in Eureka Township. These properties are owned by Mike and Eileen Devney and Lawrence Rother and are each seeking to annex 60 acres. The third property in Empire Township is owned by Bernard Murphy and is located east of the Finnegan property and immediately south of the Seed-Genstar orderly annexation area. The fourth property, owned by William and Audrey Adelmann, contains 150.96 acres located in Eureka Township at the southwest comer of Denmark Avenue and Ash Street. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Verch authorizing the scheduling of a public hearing and the 30 day notification to Empire Township and abutting property owners for the three 60 acre properties in Empire Township, and authorizing the 90 day notification Council Minutes (Regular) February 5,2001 Page 9 process for the 150.96 acre parcel in Eureka Township. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. h) Cable TV Rate Adjustment - Administration A letter has been received from Charter Communications indicating an adjustment to the Cable TV rates effective March 1, 2001. i) Consider ISD 192 Request - 190th Street Improvements - Engineering The school district has asked for a feasibility report for the extension of 190th Street to serve the proposed new elementary school. MOTION by Cordes, second by Verch adopting RESOLUTION R17-01 authorizing the preparation of a feasibility report for the 190th street extension. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. j) Schedule Council Workshop - Traffic Safety Committee - Administration Council authorized the creation of a Traffic Safety Committee to review and respond to public requests for additional traffic safety control devices. A Council Workshop was scheduled for March 21,2001 to discuss Council comments on the proposed structure and draft guidelines for the committee. II. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Progress Land Company Settlement Presentation - Administration Mr. James Golembeck, representing the law firm of Jardine, Logan and O'Brien, defended the City against claims made by Progress Land Company. Mr. Golembeck stated in December 1998 the City was sued by Progress Land. Progress Land alleged the City had breached Development Agreements, and there was a conversion of a Letter of Credit in the amount of $148,000 due to the delay of Prairie Creek East. They alleged the City interfered with a buyer for the property and that the City violated constitutional rights. All substantial claims and complaints brought against the City were dismissed. The City will pay no legal fees to the plaintiffs attorneys, will be indemnified for any claims, past, present and future, for the retaining walls in question and will receive payment for previously unpaid engineering costs associated with past project development. In the second action, City Attorney Joel Jamnik, representing the law firm of Campbell, Knutson P .A., brought action against Progress Land Company on behalf of the City to recover costs primarily associated with the reconstruction of storm sewer infrastructure in the Prairie Creek subdivision. The developer agreed to reimburse the City for a substantial portion of project costs, with applicable interest. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes approving the settlement terms and conditions as outlined in the agreement stipulations. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Akin Road Turnback Project - Executive Summary - Administration Council was presented with information on the Akin Road Project. Proposed estimated Special Assessments of $332.26 are a one-time charge against developed property. No properties assessed for CSAH 31 will be assessed for Council Minutes (Regular) February 5, 2001 Page 10 Akin Road. A neighborhood meeting will be held on February 22, 2001 to convey the recommended project improvements. A Public Hearing will be held at the March 5, 2001 Council Meeting. MOTION by Verch, second by Soderberg adopting RESOLUTION R18-01 approving the recommended project improvements. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Consider Resolution - 2001 Sealcoat Project - Engineering The Feasibility Report for the 2001 Seal Coat Project consists of seal coating specified residential streets. The streets in Pine Ridge Forest Addition, Nelson Hills Farm 6th 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 Hilldee Addition, Westview Acres, 208th Street from Akin Road to the east, Spruce Street from 4th Street east to the frontage road of CSAH 50ffH 3, and 5th, 6t1i, 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. The total estimated project cost for the 2001 Seal Coat project is $85,200. The estimated assessment is $62.28 per residential equivalent unit. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg adopting RESOLUTION R19-01 receiving the feasibility report, authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications and scheduling a public hearing for March 5, 2001. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Strachan: There will be an ALF Goals and Objectives meeting on February 22, 2001. Extended congratulations to Jerry Wacker who received a Chamber of Commerce award. City Administrator Erar: The next Council Meeting will be held February 20, 2001 due to President's Day holiday. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Strachan to adjourn at 11 :30 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~/Y'~ /?7~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us 7S TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Approve ENRON Encroachment Agreement - Public Facilities Project DATE: February 20, 2001 INTRODUCTION Encroachment issues associated with a natural gas utility easement located on the City public facilities property site have been under review and discussion with Northern Natural Gas (ENRON). The natural gas easement was granted to ENRON in 1948 to construct, operate and maintain a natural gas pipeline through the property. The easement runs from north to south beginning at the northwest comer of the site and travels slightly diagonally to the east and south of the site (see attachments). DISCUSSION Issues under review with ENRON involved the siting of the two facilities, storm sewer and related parking facilities and streets to minimize potential encroachments on the easement. Accordingly, the City and ENRON were successfully able to address these issues consequently leading to the attached encroachment agreement. The agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney and is recommended for Council approval BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the encroachment agreement between the City and ENRON as presented. I SU~~d~;1 7: CA'J~'L-' file Line No.: MNM-80901 Tract No.: 80901-06 AGREEMENT This instrument made and entered into this 20th day of February, 2001, by and between NORTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "Northern"), with principal offices at P.O. Box 3330, Omaha, Nebraska 68103-0330, and The City of Farmington Minnesota, a political subdivision under the laws of Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"). WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, Northern is the holder of an easement granted by Earl C. Granger and Edith Granger, his wife, on the 21st day of October, 1948, covering the following described premises in Dakota County, Minnesota:. The North 20 acres of the Northwest Quarter (NWY-.) of Section 25, Township 114, Range 20; and the Southwest Quarter (SWY-.) of Section 24, Township 114, Range 20, excepting about 40 acres and 39.2 rods heretofore surveyed from the Northeasterly portion of said tract of land by Peter Parker; and tracts commencing at the Southeast corner of Chas. R. Rollins land in the Southwest Quarter (SWY-.) of Section 24, Township 114, Range 20, and running 37 and % degrees'west of south 13 chains and 54 links; thence North 35 and ~ degrees, West 6 chains and 30 links; thence 47 and ~ degrees East of North 3 chains and 89 links; thence 25 and ~ degrees, West of North 9 chains and 60 links to the line ofsaid Rollins land; thence 65 and ~ degrees East of the South 15 chains to the place of beginning. Also commencing at the Southwest corner of Tolcot Alderman's wood lot in the Southwest Quarter (SWY-.) of Section 24, Township 114, Range 20, running 65 rods easterly to a stake and mound, thence southerly 10 rods to a stake and mound; thence westerly 65 rods to a stake and mound, thence northerly 10 rods to the place of beginning. which easement was recorded on the 27th day of June, 1949, as Document No. 202653 in Book 225 of Deeds at Page 354-355 in the Office of the County Register of Deeds for Dakota County, Minnesota, and was defined by a Modification and Amendment of Easement Grant dated the 19th day of October, 1970, recorded the 1 ih day of November, 1970, as Document No. 56332 (hereinafter referred to as "Easement"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority contained in said Easement, Northern has constructed and currently operates and maintains a 24-inch pipeline, along with the right to install additional pipelines and facilities from time to time (hereinafter referred to as "Pipeline Facilities"), across and through the above described premises; and WHEREAS, Owner is the present Owner of the following described real property, with Pipeline Facilities situated upon the following described land in Dakota County, MN (hereinafter referred to as the "Owned Premises"): W.O. No. Line No. Tract No. [OWNED PREMISES], WHEREAS, Owner plans to construct various roads, utilities and landscaping (hereinafter referred to as "Encroachment") as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" upon and within a portion of the confines of Northern's lOO-foot right-of-way width (hereinafter referred to as "Easement Area"), with this written consent; and WHEREAS, Owner has been advised by Northern that Northern is a natural gas transmission company; that Northern operates a high pressure underground natural gas pipeline through the Owned Premises; and WHEREAS, Owner has requested permission from Northern to maintain, use, and enjoy the above-described Encroachment upon a portion of Northern's above-mentioned Easement; and WHEREAS, Northern is willing to grant such permission upon the terms and conditions set forth as follows. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Northern hereby grants permission to Owner to maintain, operate and use upon the Owned Premises within the Easement area of Northern's Pipeline Facilities, the said Encroachment, subject to the following conditions: A. That Owner assumes all risks for damages, injuries, or loss to either property or persons, which may be incurred by Owner or its respective agents, invitees, or licensees present on or in the vicinity of the Easement Area and in any way associated with said Encroachment. B. That the permission granted herein is limited exclusively to the proposed Encroachment upon the Owned Premises within the Easement Area of Northern's Pipeline Facilities. Owner shall not alter the grade or permit such alteration anywhere on the land upon which Northern has reserved its easement right, without the prior express written consent of Northern. C. That Owner shall at all times conduct all its activities on said Easement Area in such a manner as not to interfere with or impede the operation of Northern's Pipeline Facilities and activities in any manner whatsoever. D. That Owner shall not plant any trees or shrubs within the confmes of Northern's Easement Area without the prior express written consent of Northern. 2. Owner agrees to indemnify, protect, and hold Northern, its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries, and their directors, officers, employees, representatives, and agents harmless from -2- W.O. No. Line No. Tract No. and against any and all actions or causes of action, claims~ demands, liabilities, loss, damage, injury, suit, proceeding, judgment, cost, or expense of whatever kind or nature, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from or as a result of any incident, act, action, cause of action, negligence, transaction or omission of Owner in connection with, or incidental to the construction, operation, maintenance, or use of the said Encroachment with and upon the Easement Area, or from the operation, maintenance, use or presence of Northern's Pipeline Facilities upon or in the vicinity of the Easement Area except where such loss, cost, liability, or expense was proximately caused by the negligence of Northern or its employees. 3. Owner agrees that protection of Northern's Pipeline Facilities will be maintained at all times. 4. Should Northern need to remove any of Owners' said Encroachment within its Easement Area in order to construct, maintain, operate, repair, remove, or resize Northern's existing or additional Pipeline Facilities, Owner or its respective heirs, successors, and assigns shall pay the cost of removing and replacing or reinstalling said Encroachment. In addition, all repair and maintenance work performed by Northern, on its existing or additional Pipeline Facilities located on the Owned Premises, shall be performed in a reasonable workmanlike manner and Northern shall restore the surface and grade of Owned Premises where the work is performed, but shall not be liable for loss, damage, or replacement to Owners' said Encroachment or any associated equipment and facilities that exist within the Easement Area, and in this regard, Owner hereby release Northern, its employees, agents'; officers, and directors from any and all liability for any such loss or damage. 5. That owner shall reimburse Northern for any and all costs that result from said encroachments, over and above the normal cost of exercising the rights contained in the above referenced Easement and Modification and Amendment of Easement documents. 6. The Parties hereto understand that this Agreement in no way constitutes a waiver by Northern of its rights to enjoy its Easement unencumbered by the construction of said Encroachment within Northern's Easement Area. 7. It is expressly agreed to by and between the parties hereto that if Owner is in violation of any terms or conditions set forth in this Agreement, Northern, at its option, may terminate this Agreement upon ten (10) days' notice to the Owner. In the event of such termination, Owner shall immediately remove any and all of said Encroachment which may be situated on the Easement Area, or if Owners fail to remove any and all of said Encroachment, Northern may, at its option, remove said Encroachment at the expense of owners and without any liability whatsoever. It is further agreed that the failure by Northern to exercise such option as to any such violation shall not constitute a waiver of Northern's future right to exercise such option as to the same or any future violation. 8. The provisions of the Easement, and all rights, powers, privileges, and duties, obligations, and liabilities created thereby, remain in full force and effect and are not affected hereby except to the extent and in the manner set forth above. -3- W.Q,No. Line No. Tract No. 9. Owner agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Northern, its parent and affiliated companies, and the directors, officers and employees of any such corporate entities harmless from and against any liability, damage, claims, loss, cause of action, suit, proceeding, judgment, cost (including the cost or expense of environmental response, removal or remediation activities), fees or expense, including reasonable attorney's fees arising from: (1) non- compliance with any laws, regulations and orders applicable to the ownership or the operation and maintenance of the said Encroachment on the Owned Premises described herein, and (2) any incidents, acts, releases, negligence, transactions or omissions, or conditions on or affecting the Easement Area that would (i) contribute to or constitute a violation of any local, state or federal environmental rule, regulation, law or judicial order, (ii) result, in whole or in part, in any requirement to clean up or otherwise remedy or remediate a condition, (iii) give rise to any lien, liability, injunction, order, restriction, claim, expense, damage, fine or penalty, or (iv) adversely affect human health or the environment at or near the Easement Area. This instrument and the covenants and agreements herein contained shall extend to and be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the parties and the benefits of this Agreement shall run with the land. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this instrument the day and year first above written. "NORTHERN" "OWNER" NORTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY CITY OF FARMINGTON By Title: Title: AJlent and Attornev-in-Fact Title: -4- W.O, No. Line No. Tract No, Line No.:MNM8090l Tract No.: 80901-06 STATE OF ) ')SS ) COUNTY OF On this _ day of , 2001, before me a Notary Public duly commissioned and qualified in and for said county and state, personally came , the Al?ent and Attorney-in-Fact of Northern Natural Gas Company, who is personally known to me to be the identical person whose name is affixed to the above instrument in the capacity stated, and he acknowledged the said instrument to be his free and voluntary act and deed and the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal at Minneapolis, in said county and state, the date aforesaid. (S E A L) Notary Public My Commission Expires COUNTY OF ) )SS ) STATE OF On this day of , 2001, before me a 1'l'otary Public duly commissioned and qualified 10 and for said county and state, personally came , the ~ ,~ cl the city of Fannington and Municipal Corporation under the laws of Minnesota. personally known to me to be the identical person(s) whose names are affixed to the above instrument in the capacity stated, and they acknowledged the said instrument to be their free and voluntary act and deed and the free act and deed of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal at and state, the date aforesaid. , in said county (S E A L) Notary Public My Commission Expires This Instrument Drafted By: Righl-ot~ Way Department Northern Natural Gas Company 1650 Wo:st 82nd Street, Suile 1250 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 612.887.1730 Return This Instrument To: Righl-of-Way Department Northern Naturnl Gas Company 1650 West 82nd Street, Suite 1250 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 -5- I ~ffi lL z. ~ I ! P""'I ~ ~ ~~I .... ~ tJ U'I... (/j lU . c= Q') a ...t ~ ~ Cl U ~ I l=l "'d <l: r::J ~ ~ C P=l 0 N z ~ ::.::: I- r::J ...J ~ ....... ~ a.. ... U ..4 Z C') lU .:.: cj . . z ... :::: .... :::: l=l - <[ r::J ,I:l CI! >- I- U Z ::::l r::J '-l w ~ I ~ "C I '0 - I ~ 0 I v9 'ON a'Y'D~ I u \ ~ I i i ;" \ \ r \ \ \ \ \ \ '\ "\ [- - --- ...JI ~(f)~ i ~. I-::JW 1-1 ~ I- 5::>0..(f) II ~I o n::Z::;;<( if ~' C: O::J<(I. . 13 z::;;uo.. t. .ilZ!') 1r ~ I' Ilil:i '\ mar-.=--- "I , ' I ' 'I ~- c__ _1 t I I j ---~';--' ~$ ~ IJJ~ "" ~! r ~~-tj Gli r6J- ///----...." - / \ I \ I \ : -~ \ C! " \~ / .~-~------'\\ '......_--_.:..\.,... ~. ~~~ iU n <~~ Gli - \ \ --_.._~ tL--.;;:.. -- --.:..-- J~\ I -" ~I'" I" '-- < 1\ I' r~, \ It~i. ,Il~ -' 'l"l " II '. \ Wi 1 r \ .<, ~~ \, ~m; " \ ~~r , . ~ ' ~, 1\ I f :\1 :.' I' " '\ ",: ~ I : - - -hI \ : 1\ : II \ : \ ~! L , ---, ,-4- I ,I ...J -, I ~i~1 ,0 '~I : 100 ",01 ~,Z I r; I It 1t I 0/ . ~i~ I ~:~ I :I~ I ,0 '~ ~I~ I o'Z '::J I Dlo =;U I .. ! I i I : I -+,1 II , II ,,~~ m~-~ -h.3~~lS -H!g~1 ~ -t9 -':c[N_aYQ~_AJ.N_nQ::[ ~ - - - - - -=-F';"_\~ o .. 0 ~ }. 1" n 0 J I 15l1"1 H ! ... b I i~r IW ~ .,- I I i hH <( :h! "1 z .,- ~ U Ef)t :::i z f.S; t WW<( n:::':::--.J II;, . (Un (L II I I' hi .~ ..l' i , ~ .... IUOJPO_ I ill oU1ld"i'5! <I( l..o.. ::! City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us 7e TO: FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~ Robin Roland, Finance Director SUBJECT: DATE: Capital Outlay - Finance February 20, 2001 INTRODUCTION The 2001 budget authorizes acquisition of a new receipt printer for the Finance Department. DISCUSSION During the next six months, the Finance department will be converting to a new financial software system. Implementation of this system requires a new cash receipts printer. as the one the City currently has will not work with the new system. The receipt printer to be purchased will work with both the current and future software packages and will be installed as soon as it is received, BUDGET IMPACT The printer will be purchased from Hawk Electronics. at a cost of $344. well within the 2001 budgeted amount. ACTION REQUESTED For information only. ;&;;;;;:) Robin Roland Finance Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ciJarmington.mn.us lei TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ Renee Brekken, Recreation Program Supervisor FROM: SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Accepting Donations - Senior Center DATE: February 20, 2001 INTRODUCTION Donations have been received by the Senior Center from the Farmington Area Senior Club and the family of Lloyd Klaus. DISCUSSION Farmington Area Senior Club has donated $403.16 to the Farmington Senior Center to be used for window replacement. A donation of $260.00 has been made to the Farmington Senior Center in memory of Lloyd Klaus. It is to be used as deemed necessary. Staffwill communicate the City's appreciation on behalf of the Council to the Farmington Area Senior Club and the family of Lloyd Klaus for their generous donations. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution accepting the donations of$403.16 and $260.00 to the Senior Center. Respectfully Submitted, ~-~ Renee Brekken Recreation Program Supervisor RESOLUTION No. R -01 ACCEPTING DONATION OF $663.16 TO THE SENIOR CENTER 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 20th day of February, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, Farmington Area Senior Club has donated $403.16 and, the family of Lloyd Klaus donated $260.00 to be used at the Senior Center; and, WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to accept such donations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Farmington hereby accepts the generous donation of $403. 16 from Farmington Area Senior Club to be used for window replacement, and the donation of $260.00 in memory of Lloyd Klaus to be used as deemed necessary. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 20th day of February, 2001. Mayor day of February, 2001. Attested to the City Administrator SEAL City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7e TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Minnesota Department of Health - Testing Results DATE: February 20,2001 INTRODUCTION Attached is the Department of Health's Drinking Water Reliability and Consistency Determination for the City of Farmington. DISCUSSION The Department of Health has determined that results of the testing at Well #5 indicate that contaminant levels are consistently and reliably below the maximum contaminant level. Therefore, monitoring will be reduced and future results will be evaluated to ensure reliable and consistent behavior. Monitoring had been ongoing on a quarterly basis since the well was put into operation. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, ~m~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Protecting, maintaining and improving the health of all Minnesotans February 5, 2001 City of Farmington c/o City Clerk Farmington City Hall 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 55024 Dear Council Members: SUBJECT: Drinking Water Reliability and Consistency Determination for Farmington, Dakota County. PWSID 1190008 The following is a summary of results including the most recent sample(s) collected from your public water supply in accordance with Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4720. Results of contaminant(s) detected at the following sample point(s) have been determined to be reliably and consistently below the maximum contaminant level (MCL). Monitoring will be reduced and future results will be evaluated to ensure reliable and consistent behavior. Any uncertainty in the reliability and consistency of the contaminant in question will trigger quarterly monitoring. Sampling Site: Well #5 Entry Point Contaminant: Xylenes MCL Violation Criteria: Annual Average must exceed 10000.0 ,ug/I Date Collected 01/22/2001 11/06/2000 08/17/2000 OS/24/2000 Results Units Sample # Annual AveraQe 0.20 ,ug/I 200101402 0.4 0.20 ,ug/I 200035410 0.4 Not Detected ,ug/I 200026896 0.5 1.00 ,ug/I 200012545 1.0 Contaminant: Toluene MCL Violation Criteria: Annual Average must exceed 1000.0 ,ug/I Date Collected 01/22/2001 11/06/2000 08/17/2000 OS/24/2000 Results Units Sample # Annual Average Not Detected ,ug/I 200101402 0.4 Not Detected ,ugll 200035410 0.5 Not Detected ,ugll 200026896 0.8 1.50 ,ug/I 200012545 1.5 General Information: (651) 215-5800. TDD/TTY: (651) 215-8980. Minnesota Relay Service: (800) 627-3529. www.health.state.mn.us For directions to any of the MDH locations, call (651) 215-5800. An equal opportunity employer City of Farmington PWSID 1190008 -2- February 5, 2001 This report should be placed in your records and a copy maintained on or near the water supply premises and available for public inspection for not less than ten (10) years. If you have any questions, please contact Patricia McKasy at 651/215-0759. ...----------- Richard D. Clark, P.E. Supervisor of Community Public Water Supply Unit Environmental Health Division P.O. Box 64975 St. Paul, Minnesota 55164-0975 RDC:PAM:cls Enclosure cc: Water Superintendent Beth Oman, Site Remediation Section, MN Pollution Control Agency Bassam Banat, Metro South District Engineer, St. Paul Minnesota Department Of Health - Environmental Laboratory Pinal Report - Client Copy - Report Of Analytical Results I Samples: 200101402 - 200101402 I Date Received: Date Generated: Request Page: Date Reported: 22-JAN-2001 2S-JAN-2001 1 of 3 Program: HC Program Name: COMM WATER SUPPLI:ES (SAN.) JAN 2 S 2C31 ~n'lprr Dr 22-JAN-2001 Field Blank ~nll 'T'imp ColI ID 1601 Field Res Collecrnr Ni'lme Banat Bassam City PARMI:NGTON Orig Samp PWS No 1190008 Site ID 1190008 Facility Name FARMI:NGTON Trip Blank Type QTR I: P04 Res Isample No: 200101402 I Receiving Comments: Field No BB4S1 LocID BOS Sampling Point WELL SENTRY POI::N'l' ****************************** SAMPLE RESULTS ****************************** Unit: ORGANI:C CBEHI:STRY Result Rept Level Units Analysis Date Note: positive Organic Results are indicated by BOLD. 465 VOCs in Water 24-JAN-2001 Acetone < 20 20 ug/L Allyl chloride < 0.5 0.5 ug/L Benzene < 0.2 0.2 ug/L Bromobenzene < 0.2 0.2 ug/L Bromochloromethane < 0.5 0.5 ug/L Bromodichloromethane < 0.2 0.2 ug/L Bromoform < 0.5 0.5 ug/L Bromomethane < 0.5 0.5 ug/L n-Butylbenzene < 0.5 0.5 ug/L sec-Butylbenzene < 0.5 0.5 ug/L tert-Butylbenzene < 0.5 0.5 ug/L Carbon tetrachloride < 0.2 0.2 ug/L Chlorobenzene < 0.2 0.2 ug/L Chlorodibromomethane < 0.5 0.5 ug/L Chloroethane < 0.5 0.5 ug/L Chloroform < 0.1 0.1 ug/L Chloromethane < 0.5 0.5 ug/L 2-Chlorotoluene < 0.5 0.5 ug/L 4-Chlorotoluene < 0.5 0.5 ug/L 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane < 0.5 0.5 ug/L 1,2-Dibromoethane < 0.5 0.5 ug/L Dibromomethane < 0.5 0.5 ug/L 1,2-Dichlorobenzene < 0.2 0.2 ug/L 1,3-Dichlorobenzene < 0.2 0.2 ug/L 1,4-Dichlorobenzene < 0.2 0.2 ug/L Dichlorodifluoromethane < 0.5 0.5 ug/L v' L 1.1-Dichloroethane < 0.2 0.2 ug/L \. Group 133940 Sample Page 1 of 3 Minnesota Department Of Health - Environmental Laboratory Fina~ Report - C~ient Copy - Report Of Analytical Results I Samp~es: 200101402 - 200101402 I Date Received: Date Generated: Request Page: Date Reported: 22-JAN-2001 2S-JAN-2001 2 of 3 Program: HC Program Name: COMM WATER SOPPL:IES (SAN.) rollp~r Dr roll T;mp ColI ID 1601 QTR Field Res Collecror Nrlme Banat Bassam City FAlUI:INGTON Orig Samp PWS No 1190008 Site ID 1190008 Facilitv Name FARM:INGTON 22-JAN-2001 Field Blank Type :I Trip Blank P04 Res Isample No: 200101402 I Receiving Comments: Field No BB4S1 LocID EOS Sampling Point WELL SENTRY PO:INT ****************************** SAMPLE RESULTS ****************************** unit: ORGAN:IC CB:EM:ISTRY Resu~t Rept Leve~ units Note: positive Organic Results are indicated by BOLD. Ana~ysis Date 465 VOCs in Water (Cont. ) 24-JAN-2001 l,2-Dichloroethane < 0.2 0.2 ug/L l,l-Dichloroethene < 0.5 0.5 ug/L cis-1,2-Dichloroethene < 0.2 0.2 ug/L trans-1,2-Dichloroethene < 0.1 0.1 ug/L Dichlorofluoromethane < 0.5 0.5 ug/L l,2-Dichloropropane < 0.2 0.2 ug/L l,3-Dichloropropane < 0.2 0.2 ug/L 2,2-Dichloropropane < 0.5 0.5 ug/L l,l-Dichloropropene < 0.2 0.2 ug/L cis-1,3-Dichloropropene < 0.2 0.2 ug/L trans-1,3-Dichloropropene < 0.2 0.2 ug/L Ethylbenzene < 0.2 0.2 ug/L Ethyl ether < 2.0 2.0 ug/L Hexachlorobutadiene < 0.5 0.5 ug/L Isopropylbenzene < 0.5 0.5 ug/L p-Isopropyltoluene < 0.5 0.5 ug/L Methylene chloride < 0.5 0.5 ug/L Methyl ethyl ketone < 10 10 ug/L Methyl isobutyl ketone < 5.0 5.0 ug/L Methyl tertiary butyl ether < 2.0 2.0 ug/L Naphthalene < 0.5 0.5 ug/L n-Propylbenzene < 0.5 0.5 ug/L Styrene < 0.5 0.5 ug/L l,l,l,2-Tetrachloroethane < 0.2 0.2 ug/L l,l,2,2-Tetrachloroethane < 0.2 0.2 ug/L \ 1 Tetrachloroethene < 0.2 0.2 ug/L \v "-- Tetrahydrofuran < 10 10 ug/L :v \ \ \ Ii Group 133940 Sample Page 2 of 3 Minnesota Department Of Health - Environmental Laboratory Final Report - Client Copy - Report Of Analytical Results I Samples: 2001014.02 - 2001014.02 I Date Received: Date Generated: Request Page: Date Reported: 22-JAN'-2001 2S-JAN'-2001 3 of 3 Program: HC Program Name: COMM WATER SUPPLZES (SAN.) ('ollp~t: Dr 22-JAN'-2001 Field Blank roll 'T'imp ColI TD 1601 Field Res r(')llp~t:(')r Name Banat Bassam City FARMZNGTON Orig Samp PWS No 1190008 Site ID 1190008 Facility Name FAlUIZNGTON Type QTR I P04 Res Trip Blank !Sample No: 200101402 I Receiving Comments: Field No BB4S1 LocID EOS Sampling Point WELL 5 ENTRY POIN'I' ****************************** SAMPLE RESULTS ****************************** t7nit: ORGANJ:C CHEMISTRY Result Rept Level t7nits Analysis Date Note: positive Organic Results are indicated by BOLD. 465 VOCs in Water (Cont. ) 24-JAN-2001 Toluene < 0.2 0.2 ug/L l,2,3-Trichlorobenzene < 0.5 0.5 ug/L 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene < 0.5 0.5 ug/L 1,1,1-Trichloroethane < 0.2 0.2 ug/L 1,l,2-Trichloroethane < 0.2 0.2 ug/L Trichloroethene < 0.1 0.1 ug/L Trichlorofluoromethane < 0.5 0.5 ug/L 1,2,3-Trichloropropane < 0.5 0.5 ug/L 1,l,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane < 0.2 0.2 ug/L l,2,4-Trimethylbenzene < 0.5 0.5 ug/L 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene < 0.5 0.5 ug/L Vinyl chloride < 0.5 0.5 ug/L o-Xylene < 0.2 0.2 ug/L p&m-Xylene 0.2 0.2 ug/L \ ;\ 'v \" \ ' \, Group 133940 Sample Page 3 of 3 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /OCi-J TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrat01~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Wetland Health Evaluation Program - Dakota County DATE: February 20, 2001 INTRODUCTION The City has participated in Dakota County's Wetland Health Evaluation Program. DISCUSSION Diane Rouse, a representative of the Wetland Health Evaluation Program will be present at the meeting to present the results of last years study. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, Xfi1~ Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /06 FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers, City AdministratorfV' Robin Roland, Finance Director TO: SUBJECT: 2000 Preliminary Fiscal Review DATE: February 20, 2001 INTRODUCTION Preliminary review of 2000 General Fund Revenues and Expenditures has been completed, A copy of the Budget to Actual comparison is attached to .this memo. 1999 audited figures are included to give the City Council a basis for comparison. DISCUSSION In November of 2000, the City Council adopted a resolution revising the 2000 Budget to more accurately reflect the expected revenues and expenditures. These budget numbers are reflected in. the attached comparison. Council should note that these numbers are preliminary and subject to independent audit. Revenues for 2000 exceeded budget by $171,144, primarily due to building permit activity in the last two months of the year which exceeded all expectations. Other additional sources included investment interest earnings and fine revenues. Expenditures for 2000 were under budget by $68,675 or 1.6%. Due to allocation of resources between activities within a department, certain activity expenditures might be over budget while others might be under budget. Ultimately, however, total expenditures must be within approved budgetary guidelines. Variances in excess of the revised budget include the salaries and overtime in the Police Department due to the .Safe and Sober" grant. The revenues from this grant are reflected as additional income to offset the expense, but both revenues and expenditures for this program were not foreseen in the revised budget approved by Council in November. BUDGET IMPACT This preliminary review indicates an increase to the General Fund Balance of $338,283 as compared to a budgeted increase of $98,464, This increase will bring our Fund Balance to 31% of our Operating Expenditures for the coming year, This represents a significant increase from prior years and is consistent with Council guidelines of improving the level of General Fund reserves. ACTION REQUIRED For Council's information. Respectfully submitted, ~~J Robin Roland Finance Director CITY OF FARMINGTON SUMMARY OF REVENUES & EXPENDITURES AS OF DECEMBER 31,2000 These numbers am pmliminary and unaudited. REVENUES Property Taxes 1,587,236 $ 1,594,182 $ 6,946 $ 1,584,943 $ 1,593,748 $ 8,805 Licenses/Permits 776,750 923,437 146,687 693,025 701,080 8,055 Fines 70,000 79,512 9,512 45,000 57,995 12,995 Intergovernment Revenue 1,130,225 1,125,329 (4,896) 1,069,411 1,105,432 36,021 Charges for Service 278,138 213,976 (4,162) 296,276 229,859 (66,417) Interest 220,000 232,385 12,385 60,000 94,638 34,638 Miscellaneous 32,200 36,872 4,672 33,750 96,872 63,122 Transfers 192,500 192,500 333,936 333,936 Total Revenues 4,287,049 4,458,193 171,144 4,116,341 4,213,560 97,219 EXPENDITURES Administration 575,110 538,923 (36,187) 534,274 507,561 (26,713) Finance 314,472 313,414 (1,058) 285,829 288,668 2,839 Community Development 427,348 423,201 (4,147) 361,003 380,929 19,926 Police' 1,184,650 1,210,399 25,749 964,032 1,003,693 39,661 Fire 298,089 289,174 (8,915) 289,345 289,677 332 Public Works 691,663 669,972 (21,691) 698,592 635,129 (63,463) Parks & Recreation 617,253 654,827 (22,426) 701,000 686,268 (14,732) Subtotal 4,168,585 4,099,910 (68,675) 3,834,075 3,791,925 (42,150) Transfer. Close Municipal Bldg 45,013 45,013 Transfer. Arena Operations 20,000 20,000 Total Expenditures 4,188,585 4,119,910 (68,675) 3,879,088 3,836,938 (42.1 50) Excess of Revenues over (under) Expenditures 98.464 338,283 239,819 237,253 376,622 139,369 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us fOe TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator tit-' Lee Smick, AICP (\ n Planning Coordinator y.x FROM: SUBJECT: 2005 MUSA Review Committee - Executive Summary DATE: February 20,2001 INTRODUCTION The following information describes the proposed function, process and schedule for the 2005 MUSA Review Committee. Acceptance of the methodology of this Executive Summary is requested by the City Council, Planing Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission and Independent School District #192 School Board. BACKGROUND The City Council approved the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Expansion Criteria on October 2, 2000 upon approval of the 2005 MUSA Designation Postponement Period. The 2005 MUSA Review Committee is proposed to be formed to act as a canvassing board performing within a legislative process to recommend to the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council the designation of MUSA acres to properties petitioned by the owner. Committee Membership The voting portion of the Committee would comprise the Mayor, Planning Commission Chair, Parks & Recreation Chair, ISD #192 School Board member along with the City's Community Development Director, This Committee will recommend whether to grant 2005 MUSA designation to requesting properties. City staff will serve as ex-officio non-voting members and include the City Administrator, Director of Public Works/City Engineer, Chief of Police, Parks & Recreation Director and Planning staff in providing technical resources to the Committee during the review and evaluation process, Staffs role in the initial Committee was limited to determining the relative importance of Council approved 2005 MUSA Expansion Criteria and preparing a Calculation Spreadsheet for the voting Committee. The voting Committee is charged with the task of evaluating 12 properties within the City limits and potentially 4 other properties currently being considered for annexation to determine the feasibility of designating MUSA to these properties. The Committee will work within the boundaries of the legislative process evaluating and recommending to the Planning Commission and City Council which properties best meet the requirements for MUSA designation. The Committee is limited to allocating 610 acres (less the acreage utilized for the approved exceptions) of MUSA identified as the 2005 MUSA Expansion in Table 4.1 of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, DISCUSSION 2005 MUSA Expansion Criteria The voting Committee would utilize the following criteria to evaluate the properties for possible designation of MUSA: 1. Proximity of property to transportation corridors (i,e. 195th Street between Akin Road and TH 3, 20Sth Street between CSAH 31 and TH 3, etc.) to promote construction of transportation corridors as identified in the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan. 2. Proximity to existing infrastructure and whether it is economically feasible to connect to existing and/or planned infrastructure identified in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, 3. Proximity to the central area of City to promote the connection of the northern and southern portions of the City. 4, Feasibility of providing municipal services (police, fire, public works, or parks) to the proposed property, 5. Other criteria that may be determined by the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff suggestion: Development must occur within 5-year time frame. 6, Variety of land uses proposed by developer (i.e. Low, Low/Medium, Medium and High Density Residential, Business, Industrial, etc.) that supports the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan. 7. MUSA expansion areas should generally follow section lines, natural drainage ways and sanitary sewer districts. Methodology for Assigning Weights to the Criteria As previously discussed, City staff is recommending relative weights to be assigned to each criteria and preparing a Calculation Spreadsheet for the voting members of the Committee. The final score that will determine if a property will receive MUSA will be a composite of the fixed weight percentage multiplied by a points variable. In preparing the 2005 MUSA Review Committee Calculation Spreadsheet, the Committee determined that the list of criteria should be weighted in order of priority on a percentage scale. The variable points assigned to each property would be in the range of 1 to 5; thereby creating a composite score that takes into account the Committee's perception of the property's importance for MUSA designation and multiplied by the assigned weight for each criteria. The attached table shows a sampling of the MUSA Property Rating System for two fictional properties. In the table, Property A was assigned points depending on the criteria calculating to 29,5. Property B acquired the same number of total points (29.5) but were scored differently because of the weights assigned to the points. In the case of Property A, the final score totaled to 4.1 and the score for Property B was 4.325 thereby ranking Property B at a higher level of importance for receiving MUSA designation. This sampling shows that points assigned may calculate to the same number, however because of the assigned weights and how they scored for each weight assists the review committee in achieving a qualitatively distinct, but statistically valid outcome to the final scores. 2 The following discusses each criteria and the rationale for weighting the criteria as shown in the calculation spreadsheet. 1. Proximity of property to transportation corridors (i.e, 195th Street between Akin Road and TH 3, 20Sth Street between CSAH 31 and TH 3, etc.) to promote construction of transportation corridors as identified in the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The Committee determined a weight of 0.20 of a total of 1,0 for this criteria because the property under consideration should have immediate or future access to the City's transportation system. The property owner should also illustrate the ability to connect to the City's transportation system via proposed transportation corridors and the willingness to participate in the cost of constructing these corridors. 2. Proximity to existing infrastructure and whether it is economically feasible to connect to existing and/or planned infrastructure identified in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The Committee determined a weight of 0.20 noting that to make the property developable, access to existing and/or planned infrastructure was crucial to the viability of the development. 3, Proximity to the central area of City to promote the connection of the northern and southern portions of the City, The Committee determined a weight of 0.15 because the central area of the City, even though some parts lie outside of the City limit line, should be considered a valuable location transportation corridors, commerce and open space. The connection of transportation routes (195th Street, 151 Street, 20Slh, etc.) could increase traffic flows throughout the City and the region. Areas for commerce could be expanded north of the Downtown Business District. Housing and open space areas could be more centrally localized to the City, Finally, the accumulation of properties to the west of Trunk Highway 3 could assist in formalizing the City's boundaries. 4. Feasibility of providing municipal services (police, fire, public works, or parks) to the proposed property. The Committee weighted the criteria at 0.15 because the property under consideration will need to be provided with police, fire, public works services and park facilities, 5 Other criteria that may be determined by the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff suggestion: Development occurs within 5-year time frame. The Committee weighted the criteria at 0,15 because of the importance of developing the property in a timely manner. This eliminates the possibility of wasting valuable MUSA acreage to properties that are not prepared to be developed and/or avoid land speculation that would unnecessarily drive housing costs to higher levels. 6. Variety of land uses proposed by developer (i.e. Low, Low/Medium, Medium and High Density Residential, Business, Industrial, etc.) that supports the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The Committee weighted the criteria at 0.10 identifying the need to vary the types of land uses on a property to provide for lifecycle housing while supporting the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The 3 criteria was weighted at a lesser degree because the properties seeking MUSA designation should comply with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. 7. MUSA expansion areas should generally follow section lines, natural drainage ways and sanitary sewer districts. The Committee weighted the criteria at 0,05 noting that this was given the least priority due to fact that not all properties can follow section lines, natural drainage ways or sanitary sewer districts. However, the criteria still remains important to formalizing the City's boundaries and utilizing existing or proposed infrastructure in the sanitary sewer districts, Methodology for Revisions to the 2005 MUSA Expansion Criteria At the October 2, 2000 City Council meeting, the Council approved various criteria for determining if a property met the requirements of receiving MUSA. Given the importance of ensuring appropriate criteria in the MUSA evaluation process, the 2005 MUSA Review Committee reviewed the criteria in greater detail and determined that revisions were needed. The following illustrates revisions made to the original list and the justification in removing or adding criteria. Removal of Criteria from the 2005 MUSA Exoansion Criteria List Criteria #3: Property within the IndustriallBusiness Park or other industrial/commercial areas to promote tax base as identified in the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The criteria was removed from the original list because Industrial Park expansion has been identified as an exception to the 2005 MUSA Postponement Period. The exception was approved by the City Council on October 2,2000. There are two lots remaining in the Industrial Park. The HRA has authorized negotiations to begin with the property owner of the next planned phase of the Industrial Park and the HRA will need assurance that MUSA will be available if an agreement is reached to purchase the property and the financing for the expansion is approved. Secondly, the criteria was removed because the proposed Business Park currently has 125.65 acres within the MUSA. This provides for an adequate surplus of acreage in this category to 2005. Additionally, the southern portion of the proposed Business Park outside of the current MUSA is landlocked until development occurs along CSAH 50 or CSAH 31 is extended to CR 72. Plans for an extension of CSAH 31 have not been discussed by the County and would most likely be beyond the 2005 timeframe. Finally, Table 4.1 shows that business park acres have not been allocated for MUSA Expansion until after 2015, This allocation may change to 2010 by either shifting the allocation or utilizing unanticipated growth acreages as the need for business park acres increases, however, this will not occur before 2005 because of the adequate supply of business park acreage. Criteria #5: Property that provides location for necessary public facilities - public, quasi-public and other institutional uses, The criteria was removed from the original list because the public facilities were included as exceptions to the MUSA Expansion. The exceptions include non-profit and other governmental uses, In this case, the new elementary school for the Farmington School District needed assurance that MUSA would be available for construction to commence in a timely manner on their site. Additionally, Farmington Lutheran Church is a part of this exception category because of its institutional use status. 4 Criteria #9: Property cannot be considered for MUSA designation until an annexation petition has been filed and approved by the Council and filed with the State Planning Agency, The criteria was removed because the Committee determined a property must be within the City limits at the time of MUS A designation. Additions to 2005 MUSA Expansion Criteria Criteria #5 Development must occur within 5-year timeframe. The Planning Commission and City Council determined that it was important that any property owner receiving MUSA be prepared to develop the property within a 5-year timeframe, This eliminates the possibility of wasting valuable MUSA acreage to properties that are not prepared to be developed and/or avoid land speculation that would unnecessarily drive housing costs to higher levels. Additionally, the 5-year development timeframe allows the City to track the number of housing units through proposed development plans, giving the City a better perspective on future growth trends in 5-year increments. Methodology for Revisions to the Property Owners List In reviewing the properties on the original list of petitioners, the following were added for MUSA designation consideration for the various reasons. Additions to the Propertv Owners List Additions to the list include property owners that have recently petitioned for MUSA designation include the following: H - Dave Finnegan (East of Akin Road and south of Autumn Glen) - This property was added after the property owner filed a request to receive MUSA on the property. A petition to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Rezone the property is required before the property may be considered for MUSA designation. I - Molly Murphy (North of the Farmington Middle School Campus) - This property was added after the property owner filed a request to receive MUSA on the property, A petition to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Rezone the property is required before the property may be considered for MUSA designation. J - Babe Murphy (Within City limits, north of Molly Murphy Property) - This property was added after the property owner filed a request to receive MUSA on the property. A petition to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Rezone the property is required before the property may be considered for MUSA designation. L - Dakota County Highway Shop (South of CSAH 50) - This property was part of the MUSA swap with Bristol Square and Glenview Townhomes. Approximately 5 acres was removed from the Dakota County property for the MUSA swap. Therefore, the property has been included in the list of properties to be considered for MUSA designation. P - Michael Devney (East of the Prairie Waterway along CR 72) This property was added after the property owner filed an annexation petition for the property. A petition to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Rezone the property is required before the property may be considered for MUSA designation. 5 Scheduling The following is a tentative schedule for the MUSA Review Process: Presentation and acceptance of 2005 MUSA Review Committee methodology at City Council February 19,2001 Presentation and acceptance of2005 MUSA Review Committee methodology at Planning Commission February 27,2001 Presentation of2005 MUSA Review Committee methodology at Parks & Recreation Commission March 7, 2001 Meeting of 2005 MUSA Review Committee to Designate MUSA April 30 - May 4,2001 The week long meeting of the 2005 MUSA Review Committee will take place between April 30 and May 4, 2001. During this time the committee will review the petitioned properties and utilize the MUSA Calculation Spreadsheet to determine the final score for each property. Each committee member will score the property separately and final tabulations will be averaged for a final score. ACTION REQUESTED Consider acceptance of the Executive Summary, methodology and schedule for the 2005 MUSA Review Committee and forward any recommendations to the Planning Commission and Parks & Recreation Commission, Respectfully submitted, g~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator 6 SAMPLE MUSA PROPERTY RATING SYSTEM Property A Property B Points Score Points Score 3 0.6 5 1 4 0.8 5 1 5 0.75 3 0.45 4 0.6 3.5 0.525 5 0.75 5 0.75 3.5 0.35 4 0.4 5 0.25 4 0.2 29.5 4.1 29.5 4.325 Criteria 1. Proximity to Transportation Corridor 2. Proximity to Existing Infrastructure 3. Proximity to Central Area 4. Feasibility of Providing Municipal Service 5. Development Occurs within 5 Years 6. Variety of Land Uses 7. Section Lines Total Weight 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.05 1.00 Location of Properties Petitioning for 2005 MUSA - flHHIIffi1 =I[j (I tJLJt ~J ~ , ~~ :=J n ~ ~ C LreJ c [ K n.h ~ .----- I ~ ,~ ~ M ~d = - .J I ~ u l - I . '\ .' Cny Boundary ~ V MUSA Boundary l>rciperty Owners _ MATHIAS H FISCHER (A) _ ROBERT F ADELMANN (B) _ JAMES E & NANCY A ALLEN (C) U SEED FAMILY TRUST (D) _ WILLIAM & AUDREY ADELMANN (E) _ 0 R HORTON & ARCON DEVELOPMENT (F) _ JOHN & MARY A DEVNEY (G) _ DAVE FINNEGAN (H) \ ~ MOLLY CATHERINE MURPHY (I) _ BERNARD 0 MURPHY (J) D OR DELL T NORDSETH (K) _ COUNTY OF DAKOTA (L) _ BERNARD 0 MURPHY (M) _ WILLIAM & AUDREY ADELMANN (N) _ LAWRENCE J ROTHER (0) _ MICHAEL DEVNEY (P) ~ '\ ~. ....& U 'km \ .. yW~ ~ -~ - ~,~~~ ~ AtiR:\\ .'1; .~ ~ ~ T\f' ~ u ~ Ii r ~~1 L,~mlLt~., ~T-'r =~ I - ~ ~ 1 1 A ~ 8~1~ ~4 IllDflmiilflffilffil ~ r - ~A.tjLi IIII ~ ~lII!illnll@l'IlIIJ gg~ e gmJiiJ~1IJ II~n !I~W ~ _ml ~ rJ1Dl ~ I E!llllllIID -E~~ ~ ~ o r h rl IlJ ; t >---- - :::l n 0.5 , , , , :JJ ~ L ('0 ~ ~ ] 15' } If / ~ Lll ~n rrr f-- U ~ A 1111 I, Scale N ~E o 0,5 1 Miles , s E ~ e- o en U ~ Cl) r/) .... u b ~ ~ ~ 0\ en I ~ ...... a:l ~ 01) 0 Cl) = U en r/) = Cl) ~ .... Cl) ~ ~ 1.0 00 en I ~ :I: 4-; ~ 0 ~ 0 ..... en U en = ~ ::a Cl) r/) ..c:: .... 0 u ...., --- = ~ I >. 0 ~ Cl) en c;l = Q) V') :> Z N en Cl) ..... Cl A.. ..s 00 Cl) 0 .... ~ 0 en U Cl) r/) ~ d) .... Cl) ~ ~ .tl v: Vl ~ r- .- en Cl ..... A.. I ~ = ~ ~ 0 S en U Q) ~ r/) u "0 ~ <: V') - N - ,- 0\ CO en N ..... I A.. ~ "0 Cl) = .... ~ en en 0 ~ .~ Cl) U ..... .... Vl Cl) 'S u ~ ~ = V') "0 S ~ Cl) S Cl) .- r/) 0 .- en U N ..... I A.. Cl Cl) "0 .... 0 ] en U € Cl) r/) S .... '0 ~ ;.::: ~ Cl) I 0.. """ u 2 CX! ~ A.. .- en < V') ..... A.. = ~ ~ S 0 Q) en U "0 ~ r/) <: ~ t: 00 Cl) .D \0 ~ N en it I co ~ en 0 .... u Cl) ~ Vl ..c:: u en ~ ~ on I .- <: 0 en .- ..... A.. ~ .... 'C -= = = lI'l In In = In ~ ~ M M ,...; ,...; ,...; ,...; = .... .... .C ~ = = = = = = = U ~ .... en Cl) 0.. Cl) 01) 1:: 0 u '~ = Cl) Q) 'S S :> en Cl) ..... .... Cl) = 0.. U 0 Cl) r/) ~ 0 Cl .t: ~ "0 .... ~ ~ Q) >. en~ ..... .S .a Q) Cl) en Cl) 0.. Cl) :> .D = i:5 :> 0 u 'u -= Cl) ~ "0 ~ '0 ~ u E ..... Cl Cl) Q ~ 'S u .... >. c.t:: en = Cl) .... = en = .D - 0 ~ .... .... 0 ~ ::;E 'u Cl) 0.. .9 ..... ~ e .~ c.t:: ~ "0 .5 2 ..... 'S = ~ Cl) = u ~ e .... t: ...... < 01) = = ..... A.. Cl) r/) 8 = ~ OJ) = .@ 0 a en r/) ~ 0 :a u vi' ,;g U 0.. = e Cl) ~ -= .;; Cl) en ~ .... ,.-... ~ rIl en '';:: Cl) .0 >. :::J oS Cl) en 1 ~ en 1:: 0 ..... ~ ..... ..... .~ Cl) u V') ;B 't: = ~ Cl) .... "0 "0 .;: e f-; ~ U A.. = a:l u '0 ~ Cl) ~ 4-; .t: "0 :a "0 01) ..c:: 0.. ~ c=. S 0 0 0 a:l ..... .....:l "'3 ~ u V') 00- ..... .... E .~ ~ < .e .0 .0 g 4-; 0 = ~ 4-; = .t: = 0 '@ 0 VJ. = .s 's u .9 .... ..c:: '--' 8 ;e = .0 en 00- 8 ~ .... en Cl 1; '~ .~ '~ .... en U Cl) en ~ en Cl) 's u .~ ~ --' = - 0 0 2 ~ ..s 0 Cl) ~ < 8 = .... .... Cl) .... .... E-- .- In ~ A.. A.. A.. ~ 0 S ..... ;> <: .a = - en o ~ = ~ 0 = r--:~ M U .- N M ..t- V') u 8 \0 E-- 8 >. Cl) Cl) = Cl) .... :> .t: 0 Cl) ~ u Cl .@ en r/) ~ ~ ] A.. u 4-; Cl) ~ ..c:: 0 1a 0 u ..... ~ 1.0 ~ en ~ en ..... ~ A.. I A.. Cl) Cl) .... .... .t: 0 ~ en U Cl) ';j ~ Vl ..s .... ~ ~ A.. u ~ 4-; Cl) 1.0 = 0 1a 0 I ..... ~ -.0 .~ 0 en """ en ~ ..... ~ ~ A.. Cl) = = <: Cl) ~ 0.. ;e Cl) :.a .... 0 en 8 en u en ~ en 0 Q) Cl) Vl A.. "0 .... <: 0 ~ f-; --' ~ .- --' V') .- ~ CO Cl) .- en I .... ..... = A.. Z ~ >. ~ -=-= e-,j) 0 u = 0\ en Vl ::;E .- ~ <+-- ~ Cl) 0 ~ ..c:: 0 ..... 1.0 CO = en I 0 ..... Vl A.. ::;E € 0.. ~ = 0 0 0 ..c:: u U r/) en Vl Cl) ~ ~ .... ..... u ~ ~ ~ ~ -= V') Cl 01) en ::a ..... I A.. .....:l "0 ..c:: 0 Cl) ..... 0 Cl) ~ .... en 0 "0 en u .... ~ en Vl ~ .... ~ ~ u -= ~ ~ U """ 0 4-; C"'l 0 en I ..... ..... en A.. ~ Cl) ~ .0 ~ U 0 = en U Cl) :.a Cl) Vl .D en .... ~ ..... ..... u CO '~ 'S ~ I ~:.= 1.1'] ...., -= """ e- """ en ..... = A.. ::;E ~ .... .... -= ... = = In In In = lI'l ~ ~ M M ,...; ,...; ,...; ,...; = .... .a:; .C ~ = = = = = = = U .... en Cl) Cl) 1:: 0.. u 01) 0 '~ = Cl) Q) 'S 8 :> en .... Cl) = 0.. Cl) '0 0 Cl) r/) ~ 0 Cl ''; ~ "0 .... ~ E: Q) en~ 'S .a Q) >. en Cl) :> .D Cl) i:5 0.. Cl) = :> 0 u 'u ..c:: Cl) 8 "0 '0 u 2 'S ..... 0 ~ Cl) ~ ~ u ..... E c.t:: en = ~ = en = ..:..: 0 0 ~ ::;E 'u Cl) 0.. .9 .~ .~ c.t:: ~ "0 .5 0 ..... a:l ~ = Cl) Cl) = .... u .... 01) ...... <: = = ..... A.. Cl) r/) 8 0 OIl = .@ 0 a en Vl 0.. .s ~ :a u Cl) ~ vi' ~ .;; Cl) en ~ .t: ,.-... en ..... .... E .0 >. ~ 0 E en = ..... en = 2 - ~ ..... ~ '~ Cl) u V') ;B ,- = ~ Cl) A.. "0 "0 .... '0 ~ U = a:l u 4-; ~ "0 :s Cl) -= 0.. 0 0 0 0 .t: = .....:l "0 01) - ~ ~ ..... ..... ..... Cl) ~ .~ = V') .0 .0 .0 g .~ 4-; 0 = ~ 4-; .... = 0 '@ 0 'S 'S 'S u ,9 .... ..c:: '--' .- = .0 en 00- 8 :2 en Cl .~ .~ .~ .... en U Cl) en ~ en Cl) 's u '~ ~ - = 0 0 0 ~ ..s 0 Cl) ~ < 8 .... .... .... Cl) .... .... E-- A.. A.. A.. ~ 0 8 ..... ;> < = '~ en 0 = 0 .- N C"'l """ V') u 8 \0 I E-- S City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.c:i.farmington.mn.us / Or;( TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administrat~ FROM: David L. Olson Community Development Director SUBJECT: Housing Affordability Legislation DATE: February 20, 2001 INTRODUCTION The Builders Association of Minnesota (BAM) and the Minnesota Association of Realtors (MAR) have recently introduced a legislative agenda dealing primarily with City fees that they cite as barriers to the development of affordable housing in the state. DISCUSSION The legislative agenda which has been characterized as a wish list for developers and builders, contains the following suggestions: . A requirement that Enterprise Funds or Special Revenue Accounts be established for all development and building fees with no general fund crossover. . A requirement for detailed reporting to the state regarding fee revenue that was both collected and expended. . A mandatory 10-day turn around on building permit applications. Failure to provide a written rationale why the approval may take longer would result in mandating local governments refund all fees and the permit would be deemed approved. . Special assessment appeals waivers for developments would be prohibited. . A Plan Check fee would not be allowed for subsequent plan reviews unless there are substantial modifications to the plan for the original application. The League of MN Cities (LMC) and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) are working with representatives of the builders and developers organizations to determine if there are regulatory requirements and whether the imposition of some fees may be repetitive. Staff will continue to monitor the legislative issues that have been introduced and keep the Council apprised of any pending bills that may come before the legislature. BUDGET IMPACT Unknown at this time. ACTION REOUESTED For informaiton only. Respectfully submitted, David L. Olson Community Development Director Remi Stone Public safety housin stipend The House Local Government Committee met last Wednesday.]an. 24 to discuss HF 172, authored by Rep. Harry Mares (R-White Bear Lake), The bill would give the city of Mahtomedi the authority to acquire or lease residential property, or other- wise provide housing assistance, to volunteer firefighters with paramedic training who work the day shift. The committee took testimony on the bill and laid it over for further discussion. It was the wish of the committee to determine whether a 1952 attorney general opinion still controlled whether the legislation was necessary. In the event a new AG opinion confirms that the law is needed, the bill will likely be amended to apply statewide. Similar Senate committee action was taken on its companion bill, SF 9, authored by Sen. ChuckWiger (D-North St. Paul). t" Reminder {'d ~ ~ :i ~ League of Minne- sota Cities staff would like to remind city officials to keep us informed on an ongoing basis, of any changes in elected officials, clerks, managers, or department heads in your city. This will help us keep our records up-to-date at all times. Thank you for your cooperation. Page 12 Builders, developers, and realtorg~~ cities as barriers to affordable housing (' Remi tone The Builders Association of Minnesota (BAM) and the Minnesota Association of Realtors (MAR) unveiled their legislative agenda last week, citing city government regulation and develop- ment fees as barriers to affordable housing in the state. The theory presented by the home building industry and real estate community asserts that city zoning and subdivi- sion requirements, coupled with fees charged to inspect construction sites and review building plans, work to stop affordable housing in its tracks, Components driving housing costs can include land prices and availability, labor and material costs, fees, land use requirements-including density, set backs, wetlands, shoreland, etc" market demands, property taxes, building codes, and profit margins. Information on the package was released during a Senate Jobs, Housing & Community Development Com- , mittee Jan. 24, The committee agenda was slated to be a discussion about the how affordable housing developments are structured. The private building industry took the opportunity to suggest "regulatory reform" to improve the affordable housing market. The agenda is clearly a wish list for the real estate development and construction industry, Among the ideas: . Enterprise Funds or Special Revenue Accounts for all development and building fees with no general fund crossover. . Mandatory 10-day turn around on building permit applications. Failure to provide a written rationale why the approval may take longer than 10 days would result in mandating the local government refunding all fees and deeming the permit approved. . Special assessment appeals waivers for planned unit developments would be prohibited. . Mandatory detailed reporting to the state regarding fee revenue collected and spent. . Plan check fees will not allowed for subsequent plan reviews unless there are substantial modifications to the plan from the original application. 'Fortunately, the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) and the League are working with proponents of the agenda. During a meeting late last Friday with the builders and realtors, a number of areas in the proposal indicated that cities and the industry can work together to improve regulatory requirements and~he imposition of some fees that may be repetitive. t" Tort immunity expansion Andrea Stearns HF 177, introduced by Rep, Carol Molnau (R-Chaska), provides immunity from tort claims arising out of the use of recreational vehicles on municipal rights-of-way, Municipalities would remain liable for conduct that would entitle a trespasser to damages against a private person, A similar bill was signed into law last year that created immunity but only applied to state rights-of-way. HF 177 would clarify that the immunity applies also to municipal rights-of- way, An amendment added in the House Transportation Committee last week further clarified that the immunity will apply on city streets which are not part of the municipal state aid system, The bill passed as amended and was re-referred to the House Civil Law Committee, t" (~.:., LMC Cities Bulletin It:.u;Ol~ H'i '10'+0 P.2 r, VVL JAN 29 '01 02:44PM LEAGUE OF MN CITIES ,..IAN, ;-24' 0111YJ:.UJ 14:UI MN \.iOY KJ:.LAllUN:) liNu /?-?/MC/jz Housing Affordabilfty Legislation Builders Association of Minnesota (SAM) Minnescta Association of Real10rs (MAR) The Builders Association of Minnesota and the Minnesc13 Assodatlon of Realtors have develcped a jcil1t legislative agenda to address the housing afford~l::llllty issue ti'om the market per:$pedlve. Unjus1il'led fees. excessive government regulation, delays and Inconsistent enforcement of codes and regulation increase the cost of housing. For every $1,000 Increase In the "nee of hom=, 3.400 f3mllles are priced out of the market. The following is a summary of our legislative proposals: Development & Construction fees chal'13l'd by Iccal governmental units for inspectron and other ComriruGtlon FU$: ccnstnlct10n relstea tees should not exceed trle estimated reasonable costs of providing the service for which the construction fees are c:harged. Tha fees should remain in the Department providing the services. and not to the General Fund to pay for other aclivities. This is culnntJy :II r8(luirement fl:l.. 5tate govelTlment and would put Into .statute what Is in CiS3e law. Many dties are using building and development fees to fund other unrelated adivities in the city. If a municipality co~mingJes thQ inceme from fees with Its general fund. Ctlurts generally conclude that th. fee i$ a tax. A t=x Is defined as a revenue generating measure. A fee is defined as a regula- tory measure. Tax revenues may be deposited Into a general fund and made available fer general curposes. In contrast, fees: should be eam'larked by being placed into a separate intenlst-bearing trust and may only be used for the pur- pose for whicl1 the fees were collected. A '!'Inual Reporting at :r Development & Construction Fees: Limit Plan Check Fee: Action on Building Permits: Each municipality must annually. by March 1. file a report on a form prescribed by the Department of AdminlstraUon of all construction related fees colleded cy each municipality from the develoClers. builders. and subccntt':;ldors. The annual report must inclUde the number and valuatioli of units. building permit fees, plan review fees. administ\"ative fe~. Qngineering fees. inn$trtJdure fees, and any oth&r construction and development related fees. ThIS annual report must also indude all expenses associated with the fees charged. Cities already Individually report .some information on construction in their cIty to the Oepartment Of Admlnlstl'3t1on for the state surcharge. This would be an expansIon or trlat report. After a develocment or building plan has been approved as meetlng local ordinance and code. &I govemm.nt unit shan not charge an additional fee fer a wplan check" unlo..s there has be,en substantial modifications made to me original plan. The plan check fee must be based on the bid supplied by the contractor, receiving the plan ~ew. Require dtIes to act on all building pennit applications within 10 working days of certt1led receipt of pennit applications under penally of full rQfund. Denial of pennits with specified pericd must state, in writing. eol1c:rete reasons for rejection. Absent a written rationale to thg applic.:ant by the go~mmcntal unit. the govemmental unit will refUnd aU fees and the building pSm'lit{s} will be deemed approved. If a permit is not received Wltnin 20 days of 3Pplication. eonstnJctiQl\ may begin. It is currently taking up to four weeks to get a building permit. over - JAN 29 '01 02:44PM LEAGUE-OF-MN ClfIES----- P.3 Binding Inter'pfBtatfon Of the State Building Cade: 60 Oay Rule- ExtensJon: Development Agreement cannot Requirw RIghts to Be Waived: Disputed Fee - Put In Escrow~ Plumbing Code: Oisclosure of Fees to Nsw Hom90wn81'$: HousIng Impact Statement: roo 'J Give SfaW[ory authority to rhe Department of Administration to issue binding interpretation of the state building code. Inconsistent enforcement of the building code costs money. time and increases liability for b\J.ilders. The new energy code Is a prim:ary examplo of how the building code i:s being enforced IneonsSstently. If at aiL The Department of Administration must also have authority to issue cease and desist otdel'$ on building omdals, Establish language to anew an appeab, pro- Q!SS (timeline yet to be determined - maybe 72 "ou.n;) for bt.IJ1ders Bnd building officials. No development agreement or ordlnanea can have reQuirements mare stringent than those pre$aibed in the Minnesota State but1ding code_ Government extensions /:I.yond the allowable 60 day proee:ssing time fer approval cr denial of a reque$t for zoning, ,.ptfc: systems. or the MUSA line under Law of 1995. Chap. 246 Article 1 e must express specmc reasons for the exten~iOn i!lnd be in writing. Absent a written tatlcnale, there will be 110 extensior and any fee charged to the appncant by the governmental unit must be automati. cally re!\lnded within 10 business days. If a permit application Is determined to be Incomplete, the local governmental uni must state in writing what needs to be done to c:cmplete me application. Clartty what is c:mIl!lred by the 5o..d;lY rule. Make It iIIegal1'cr 10C3t governments {Cltlesltownsnipslccuntles} to require . a developer/builder to waive herlhis rights to appeal special assessments to Q=t a development agreement approval. Make it iilegal for a governmental unit tQ hold up a building pl"Qj~ct over a flile di$pute. Fee would be put in oscrow (held by an Independent agenoy), negotIated and 8rt:litrated without time cost of money leverag$ over builderl developer. Move ttle plUmbing co~a from the Department of Health to the Department of Administration. The local unit of government must send a fClrm prasoibed by the Dep.1rt:ment of Commerce to the homeowner 80 d~y. aftar the Cortlfic:ata of Occupancy is issLled staUng all fee&: associated with the development and con$tnJction of their name by the local unit of government. Require me Department ot Finance to do an analysis of legislation or rule chang as that affect housing to determine the Impact on the cost of housin9- 8~9v HZ II g: 13J. 1N~ SN01LV1~~ h09 NW LO:vl (Q~)tO .vl- 'NV City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us IDe TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Consider Resolution - Tamarack Ridge 3rd Addition Development Contract DATE: February 20,2001 INTRODUCTION The Development Contract for Tamarack Ridge 3rd Addition (Centex) is forwarded herewith for Council's consideration. DISCUSSION The final plat for Tamarack Ridge 3rd Addition was approved by the Planning Commission on January g, 2001 and by the City Council on February 5, 2001. The contract has been drafted in accordance with the approvals and conditions placed on the approvals of the Preliminary and Final Plat and has been reviewed by the City Attorney. Following are conditions of approval for the development contract: a) the Developer enter into this Agreement; and b) the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. c) The developer will be responsible for the construction of 209th Street between Trunk Highway 3 and Cantata Avenue in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City. The improvements to 209th Street include water main construction. The construction of 209th Street will be completed by December 1 S\ 2001. The Developer will post a surety for said improvements by April 1 S\ 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. d) The developer will be responsible for the construction of Cantata Avenue and 20gth Street between Cantata A venue and Cambodia Avenue in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City. The construction of Cantata A venue and 20gth Street will be completed by December 1 S\ 2001, The Developer will post a surety for said improvements by April 1 S\ 2001. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution approving the execution of the Tamarack Ridge 3rd Addition (Centex) Development Contract and authorize its signing contingent upon the above conditions and approval by the Engineering Division. Respectfully submitted, ;z:: ~ ~ Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file RESOLUTION NO. R - 01 APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT TAMARACK RIDGE 3rd ADDITION Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers in City Hall of said City on the 20th day of February, 200 I at 7:00 P.M. The following members were present: The following members were absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. R37-00, the City Council approved the Preliminary Plat of Tamarack Ridge. WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. RI5-01, the City Council approved the Final Plat of Tamarack Ridge 3rd Addition subject to the following conditions. a) The Final Plat approval is contingent on the preparation and execution of the Development Contract and approval of the construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering Division. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Development Contract for the aforementioned subdivision, a copy of which is on file in the Clerk's office is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: a) the Developer enter into this Agreement; and b) the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. c) The developer will be responsible for the construction of 2091h Street between Trunk Highway 3 and Cantata Avenue in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City. The improvements to 209th Street include water main construction. The construction of 209th Street will be completed by December 1 SI, 2001. The Developer will post a surety for said improvements by April 1 s" 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. d) The developer will be responsible for the construction of Cantata Avenue and 20Sth Street between Cantata Avenue and Cambodia Avenue in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City. The construction of Cantata Avenue and 20Sth Street will be completed by December IS" 2001. The Developer will post a surety for said improvements by April 1 s" 2001. The Mayor and Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to sign such contract. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 20th dav of Februarv, 2001. Attested to this _ day of SEAL , 2001. Gerald Ristow, Mayor John F. Erar, City Administrator DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AGREEMENT dated this 20th day of February 2001, by and between the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation (CITY) and Centex Homes, a Nevada general partnership (DEVELOPER). 1. Request for Development Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a development for Centex Homes Third Addition (also referred to in this Development Contract [CONTRACT or AGREEMENT] as the DEVELOPMENT). The land is legally described as: OUTLOT G, TAMARACK RIDGE, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. 2. Conditions of Approval. The City hereby approves the development on the condition that: a) the Developer enter into this Agreement; and b) the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. c) The developer will be responsible for the construction of 209th Street between Trunk Highway 3 and Cantata A venue in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City. The improvements to 209th Street include water main construction. The construction of 209th Street will be completed by December I't, 200 I. The Developer will post a surety for said improvements by April l't, 200 I. 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. d) 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. The construction of Cantata Avenue and 208th Street will be completed by December 1st, 200 I. The Developer will post a surety for said improvements by April 1't, 2001. 3. Development Plans. The Developer shall develop the plat in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Agreement. The plans may be prepared by the Developer, subject to City approval, after entering into this Agreement but before commencement of any work in the plat. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, subject to paragraphs 6 and 31 G, the plans shall control. The required plans are: Plan A - Final Plat Plan B - Soil Erosion Control and Grading Plans Plan C - Landscape Plan Plan D - Zoning/Development Map Plan E - Wetlands Mitigation as required by the City Plan F - Final Street and Utility Plans and Specifications 1 The Developer shall use its best efforts to assure timely application to the utility companies for the following utilities: underground natural gas, electrical, cable television, and telephone. 4. Sales Office Requirements. At any location within the plat where lots and/or homes are sold which are part of this subdivision, the Developer agrees to install a sales board on which a copy of the approved plat, [mal utility plan and a zoning map or planned unit development plan are displayed, showing the relationship between this subdivision and the adjoining neighborhood. The zoning and land use classification of all land and network of major streets within 350 feet of the plat shall be included. 5. Zoninl!lDevelopment Map. The Developer shall provide an 8 1/2" x 14" scaled map of the plat and land within 350' of the plat containing the following information: a. platted property; b. existing and future roads; c. future phases; d. existing and proposed land uses; and e. future ponds. 6. Required Public Improvements. The Developer shall install and pay for the following: a. Sanitary Sewer Lateral System b. Water System (trunk and lateral) c. Storm Sewer d. Streets e. Concrete Curb and Gutter f. Street Signs g. Street Lights h. Sidewalks and Trails i. Erosion Control, Site Grading and Ponding j. Traffic Control Devices k. Setting of Lot & Block Monuments I. Surveying and Staking m. Landscaping, Screening, Blvd. Trees The improvements shall be installed in accordance with Plans A through F, and in accordance with City standards, engineering guidelines, ordinances and plans and specifications which have been prepared by a competent registered professional engineer furnished to the City and approved by the City Engineer. Work done not in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, without prior authorization of the City Engineer, shall be considered a violation of this agreement and a Default of the Contract. The Developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the Metropolitan Council and other agencies before proceeding with construction. The Developer shall instruct its engineer to provide adequate field inspection personnel to assure an acceptable level of quality control to the extent that the Developer's engineer will be able to certify that the construction work meets the approved City standards as a condition of City acceptance. In addition, the City may, at the City's discretion and at the Developer's expense, have one or more City inspector(s) and a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or part time basis. The Developer or his engineer shall schedule a pre-construction meeting at a mutually agreeable time at the City Council chambers with all parties concerned, including the City staff, to review the program for the construction work. Within sixty (60) days after the completion of the improvements and before the security is released, the Developer shall supply the City with a complete set of "As Built" plans as specified in the City's Engineering Guidelines. If the Developer does not provide such information, the City will produce the as-built drawings. All costs associated with producing the as-built drawings will be the responsibility of the Developer. Before the security for the completion of the utilities is released, iron monuments must be installed in accordance with M.S. 9505.02. The Developer's surveyor shall submit a written notice to the City certifying that the monuments have been installed. 7. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required public improvements by November 1, 2002, in accordance with the requirements set forth in the City's Engineering Guidelines. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases. An extension of the security shall be considered an extension of this contract and the extension of the contract will coincide with the date of the extension of the security. 2 8. Ownership ofImprovements. Upon the completion of the work and construction required to be done by this Agreement, and written acceptance by the City Engineer, the improvements lying within public easements shall become City property, except for cable TV, electrical, gas, and telephone, without further notice or action. 9. Warranty. The Developer warrants all improvements required to be constructed by it pursuant to this Contract against poor material and faulty workmanship. The warranty period for streets is one year. The warranty period for underground utilities is two years. The warranty period for the streets shall commence after the [mal wear course has been completed and the streets have been accepted by City Council resolution. The warranty period on underground utilities shall commence following their completion and acceptance by the City Engineer in writing. It is the responsibility of the Developer to complete the required testing of the underground utilities and request, in writing, City acceptance of the utilities. Failure of the Developer to complete the required testing or request acceptance of the utilities in a timely manner shall not in any way constitute cause for the warranty period to be modified from the stipulations set forth above. All trees shall be warranted to be alive, of good quality, and disease free for twelve (12) months after the security for the trees is released. Any replacements shall be warranted for twelve (12) months from the time of planting. The Developer shall post maintenance bonds or other surety acceptable to the City to secure the warranties. The City shall retain ten percent (10%) of the security posted by the Developer until the bonds or other acceptable surety are furnished to the City or until the warranty period has been completed, whichever first occurs. The retainage may be used to pay for warranty work. The City's Engineering Guidelines identify the procedures for [mal acceptance of streets and utilities. 10. Gradin2 Plan. The plat shall be graded and drainage provided by the Developer in accordance with Plan B. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, the Developer may start rough grading the lots within the stockpile and easement areas in conformance with Plan B before the plat is filed if all fees have been paid and the City has been furnished the required security. Additional rough grading may be allowed upon obtaining written authorization from the City Engineer. If the developer needs to change grading affecting drainage after homeowners are on site, he must notify all property owners/residents of this work prior to its initiation. This notification cannot take place until the City Engineer has approved the proposed grading changes. 11. Erosion Control and Fees. After the site is rough graded, but before any utility construction is commenced or building permits are issued, the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if it is determined that the methods implemented are insufficient to properly control erosion. All areas disturbed by the excavation and back-filling operations shall be re-seeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule, or supplementary instructions received from the City, or in an emergency determined at the sole discretion of the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion immediately, without notice to the Developer. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and the City's rights or obligations hereunder. If the Developer does not reimburse the City for any costs of the City incurred for such work within thirty (30) days, the City may draw down the letter of credit to pay any costs. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in full compliance with the erosion control requirements. The Developer is responsible for Erosion and Sediment Control costs that are billed as part of inspection fees at the current rates. The Developer is also responsible for a Water Quality Management Fee of $374 based upon the number of acres in the development. 12. Landscapin2. The Developer shall landscape the development in accordance with Plan C. The landscaping shall be accomplished in accordance with a time schedule approved by the City. Retaining walls with 1) a height that exceeds four feet or 2) a combination of tiers that exceed four feet or 3) a three foot wall with a back slope greater than 4 to I shall be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by a structural or geotechnical engineer licensed by the State of Minnesota. Following construction, a certification signed by the design engineer shall be filed with the City Engineer evidencing that the retaining wall was constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. All retaining walls that are part of the development plans, or special conditions referred to in this Contract that are required to be 3 constructed, shall be constructed and certified before any building permit is issued for a lot on which a retaining wall is required to be built. 13. Phased Development. The development shall be developed in one (I) phase in accordance with Plans A-F. No earth moving, construction of public improvements or other development shall be done in any subsequent phase until a [mal plat for the phase has been filed in the County Recorder's office and the necessary security has been furnished to the City. The City may refuse to approve [mal plats of subsequent phases until public improvements for all prior phases have been satisfactorily completed. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, this Development Contract constitutes approval to develop the plat. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until development agreements for such phases are approved by the City. 14. Effect of Subdivision Approval. For two (2) years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the current urban service area, or removing any part thereof which has not been final platted, or official controls, shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications or platting required or permitted by the approved preliminary plat unless required by State or Federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by State law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan (including removing unplatted property from the urban service area), official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement and may require submission of a new plat. 15. Surface Water Mana2ement Fee. The Developer shall pay an area storm water management charge of $61,552 in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a 10 year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081. Storm sewer charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. 16. Wetland Conservation and Miti2ation. The Developer shall comply with the 1991 Wetlands Conservation Act, as amended, and the Wetlands Mitigation Plan. The Developer shall pay all costs associated with wetlands conservation and the Wetlands Mitigation Plan. 17. Water Main Trunk Area Char2e. The Developer shall pay a water area charge of $14,321 for the development in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081. Water area charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. 18. Water Treatment Plant Fee. The Developer shall pay a water treatment plant fee of $33,280 for the development in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the development over a ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081. Water treatment plant fees for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. 19. Sanitary Sewer Trunk Area Char2e. The Developer shall pay a sanitary sewer trunk area charge of $11,064 for the development in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including 4 any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081. Sanitary Trunk Sewer charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. 20. Park Dedication. The Developer shall pay a park dedication fee of $25,500 in satisfaction of the City's park dedication requirements for the plat. The park dedication fee shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081. The park dedication fees for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. 21. Sealcoatin2. In lieu of assessing sealcoating three years from completion of the road construction, the Developer agrees to pay a fee of $0 for initial sealcoating of streets in the subdivision. This fee shall be deposited in the City Road and Bridge Fund upon execution of this Agreement. 22. GIS Fees. The Developer is responsible for a Government Information System fee of $476 based upon the number of acres within the subdivision. 23. Easements and Dedications. The Developer shall furnish the City at the time of execution of this Agreement with the easements designated on the plat. Conservation Easements covering the ponding areas will be granted to the City by separate instrument. 24. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors, a license to enter the plat to perform all necessary work and/or inspections deemed appropriate by the City during the installation of public improvements by the City. The license shall expire after the public improvements installed pursuant to the Development Contract have been installed and accepted by the City. 25. Clean UP. The Developer shall weekly, or more often if required by the City Engineer, clear from the public streets and property any soil, earth or debris resulting from construction work by the Developer or its agents or assigns. All debris, including brush, vegetation, trees and demolition materials, shall be disposed of off site. Burning of trees and structures shall be prohibited, except for fire training only. The City has a contract for street cleaning services. The City will have the right to clean the streets as outlined in current City policy. The Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for street cleaning costs. 26. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Agreement, payment of real estate taxes including interest and penalties, payment of special assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements in the plat and construction of all public improvements in the plat, the Developer shall furnish the City with a cash escrow, irrevocable letter of credit, or alternative security acceptable to the City Administrator, from a bank (security) for $45,182. The bank and form of the security shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator. The security shall be automatically renewing. The term of the security may be extended from time to time if the extension is furnished to the City Administrator at least forty-five (45) days prior to the stated expiration date of the security. If the required public improvements are not completed, or terms of the Agreement are not satisfied, at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of a letter of credit, the City may draw down the letter of credit. The amount of the security was calculated as follows: Grading/Erosion Control Sanitary Sewer Water Main Storm Sewer Street Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Monuments St. Lights/Signs Blvd. Trees Blvd. Sodding Wetland Mitigation $ 1,750 $0 $0 $0 $N/A Two Years Principal and Interest on Assessments $43,432 This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. 5 27. Responsibility for Costs. A. The Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the development of the plat, including but not limited to, Soil and Water Conservation District charges, legal, planning, administrative, construction costs, engineering, easements, inspection and utility testing expenses incurred in connection with approval, acceptance and development of the plat, the preparation of this Agreement, and all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and inspecting the construction for the development of the plat. B. The Developer, except for City's willful misconduct, shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages or expenses which the City may payor incur in consequence of such claims, including attorney's fees. C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including engineering and attorney's fees. In the event that the City receives claims from labor, material men, or others that have performed work required by this Contract, that the sums due them have not been paid, and the laborers, material men, or others are seeking payment from the City, the Developer hereby authorizes the City to commence an Interpleader action pursuant to Rule 22, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to draw upon the letters of credit in an amount up to 125% of the claim(s) and deposit the funds in compliance with the Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and dismiss the City from any further proceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine attorneys' fees pursuant to this Contract. D. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all plat development work until the bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum. If the bills are not paid within sixty (60) days, the City has the right to draw from the Developers security to pay the bills. 28. Trash Enclosures. The Developer is responsible to require each builder to provide on site trash enclosures to contain all construction debris, thereby preventing it from being blown off site, except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 29. Existinl! Tree Preservation. The Developer will walk the site with the City Forester and identify all significant trees which will be removed by on site grading. A dialogue between the Developer and City Forester regarding alternative grading options will take place before any disputed tree is removed. All trees, stumps, brush and other debris removed during clearing and grubbing operations shall be disposed of off site. 30. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer, except in an emergency as determined by the City or as otherwise provided for in this agreement, is first given written notice of the work in default, not less than 72 hours in advance. This Agreement is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a. Court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. 31. Miscellaneous. A. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors or assigns, as the case may be. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any part of it. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement. B. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties. C. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. 6 D. Building permits shall not be issued prior to completion of site grading, utility installation, curb and gutter, installation of erosion control devices, retaining walls, site seeding, mulching, disk anchoring and submittal of a surveyor's certificate denoting all appropriate monuments have been installed. Only construction of noncombustible materials shall be allowed until the water system is operational. If permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of public improvements, the Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in completion of public improvements and damage to public improvements caused by the City, Developer, its contractors, subcontractors, material men, employees, agents or third parties. Normal procedure requires that streets needed for access to approved uses shall be paved with a bituminous surface before certificates of occupancy may be issued. However, the City Engineer is authorized to waive this requirement when weather related circumstances prevent completion of street projects before the end of the construction season. The Developer is responsible for maintaining said streets in a condition that will assure the access of emergency vehicles at all times when such a waiver is granted. E. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or release. F. The Developer represents to the City, to the best of its knowledge, that the plat is not of "metropolitan significance" and that an environmental impact statement is not required. However, if the City or another governmental entity or agency determines that such a review is needed, the Developer shall prepare it in compliance with legal requirements so issued from said agency. The Developer shall reimburse the City for all expenses, including staff time and attorney fees, that the City incurs in assisting in the preparation of the review. G. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The Developer represents to the City that the plat complies with all City, County, Metropolitan, State and Federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances and environmental regulations. If the City determines that the plat does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow any construction or development work in the plat until the Developer does comply. Upon the City's demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance. H. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. The Developer covenants with the City, its successors and assigns, that the Developer is well seized in fee title ofthe property being [mal platted and/or has obtained Consents to this Contract, in the form attached hereto, from all parties who have an interest in the property; that there are no unrecorded interests in the property being [mal platted; and that the Developer will indemnify and hold the City harmless for any breach of the foregoing covenants. After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Agreement, at the Developer's request the City will execute and deliver a release to the Developer. I. Developer shall take out and maintain until six months after the City has accepted the public improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of the Developer's work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury or death shall not be less than $500,000.00 for one person and $1,000,000.00 for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall not be less than $200,000.00 for each occurrence. The City shall be named as an additional named insured on said policy, the insurance certificate shall provide that the City must be given 10 days advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance and the Developer shall file a copy of the insurance coverage with the City prior to the City signing the plat. 1. The Developer shall obtain a Wetlands Compliance Certificate from the City. K. Upon breach of the terms of this Agreement, the City may, subject to paragraph 30, draw down the Developer's cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit as provided in paragraph 26 of this Agreement. The City may draw down this security in the amount of $500.00 per day that the Developer is in violation. The City, in its sole discretion, shall determine whether the Developer is in violation of the Agreement; this determination may be made without notice to the Developer. It is stipulated 7 that the violation of any term will result in damages to the City in an amount which will be impractical and extremely difficult to ascertain. It is agreed that the per day sum stipulated is a reasonable amount to compensate the City for its damages. L. The Developer will be required to conduct all major activities to construct Plans A-F during the following hours of operation: Monday - Friday Saturday Sunday 7:00 A.M. until 7:00 P.M. 8:00 A.M. until 5:00 P.M. Not Allowed This does not apply to activities that are required on a 24-hour basis such as de-watering, etc. Any deviation from the above hours are subject to approval of the City Engineer. M. The Developer is responsible to require each builder within the development to provide a Class 5 aggregate entrance for every house that is to be constructed in the development. This entrance is required to be installed upon initial construction of the home. See City Standard Plate ERO-09 for construction requirements. N. The Developer shall be responsible for the control of weeds in excess of twelve inches (12") on vacant lots or boulevards within their development as per City Code 6-7-2. Failure to control weeds will be considered a Developer's Default as outlined in Paragraph 30 of this Agreement and the Developer will reimburse the City as defmed in said Paragraph 30. 32. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified or registered mail at the following address: Scott Richter Centex Homes 12400 Whitewater Drive #120 Minnetonka, MN. 55343 952.936.7833 Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either and delivered to the City Administrator, or mailed to the City by certified mail or registered mail in care of the City Administrator at the following address: John F. Erar, City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 651.463.1800 8 SIGNATURE PAGE CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Gerald Ristow, Mayor By: John F. Erar, City Administrator DEVELOPER: Centex Homes, a Nevada general partnership By: Centex Real Estate Corporation, its managing general partner By: Its: Scott J. Richter Division President Drafted by: City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 55024 (651)463-7111 9 STATE OF MINNESOTA) (ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 20_ by Gerald Ristow, Mayor, and by John F. Erar, City Administrator, of the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by the City Council. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) (ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,20 by Scott 1. Richter, the Division President of Centex Real Estate Corporation, a Nevada Corporation, its managing general partner of Centex Homes, a Nevada general partnership, on behalf of the partnership. Notary Public 10 City' of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmineton.mn.us SUBJECT: Supplemental Agenda TO: Mayor & Councilmembers FROM: John Erar, City Administrator DATE: February 20, 2001 It is requested that the February 20, 2001 agenda be amended as follows: PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 10 (t) Acknowledge Resignation - Departm.ent of Administration. . . Accept the resignation of City Administrator, John Erar, effective April.2. 2001. ~~ hnErar City Administrator " City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Acknowledge Resignation - Department of Administration DATE: February 20, 2001 It is with both a sense of sadness, yet personal and professional excitement that I tender my letter of resignation as City Administrator. I want to thank the Mayor and City Council for the remarkable opportunity of having been able to serve this community over the past five years. It has been a pleasure and honor working with the City Council, both current and past members, staff and citizens and a distinct privilege in representing the City of Farmington as City Administrator. I have accepted an offer from the City of Andover, Minnesota as their new City Administrator and, consequently, will be leaving this position. My last day of employment with the City of Farmington will be April 2, 2001, which exceeds the 30-day notification requirements. This decision has nothing to do with the exceptional opportunity you have provided me with over the course of my tenure, but with decisions associated with personal and professional growth and career opportunity. I have enjoyed the opportunity to serve the citizens of Farmington, and will relish the extraordinary accomplishments and milestones that have been achieved over the last five years. It is with a sense of personal humility and heartfelt professional pride that I express my belief that this organization employs some of the finest professional staff that I have had the privilege of working with since beginning my career in public service. The same can also be said of the many citizens and community leaders that have committed their time and energy into making Farmington an exceptional place with "a truly promising future". I wish the City continued success, and want to thank all of you for allowing me to be a part of your team. Please feel free to contact me at any time if I can be of further assistance in helping with a smooth transition. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us / I a.., TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Consultant Appointment Recommendation - 2001 Community Survey DATE: February 20, 2001 INTRODUCTION At the December 18, 2000 meeting, Council authorized a request for proposal process that would lead to the appointment of a qualified firm to conduct a community survey. DISCUSSION The City received four proposals from interested firms. Proposals were very similar in terms of survey process, proposed survey sample group population (400 households), survey analysis and the preparation of an executive suminary. Each of the four proposals were carefully reviewed with respect to firm qualifications, relevant firm experience, referenced clients, and proposed community survey approach. Consultant proposals ranged from a high of $26,639 received from CJ Olson Market Research, Inc., to a low of $8,600 from Decision Resources Ltd. The other two proposals, Cook Research and Consulting and Anderson, Neibuhr & Associates submitted costs at $13,800 and $22,000, respectively. Each firm submitted a fee proposal, which included the completion of a telephone questionnaire using a 400 household random sample group DRL's client list, qualifications and experience is extensive, and includes on-going efforts with a number of metropolitan communities. Decision Resources, Ltd. indicated that their base survey fee is $8,600 that would include approximately 60 to 70 questions, with additional questions at $130 per question. It is suggested that the issue of adding more questions be addressed during the survey instrument design phase in conformance with DRL's proposal. Preliminary discussions with DRL regarding a suggested project approach include preparing a draft survey document in conjunction with City departments followed by a Council workshop that could include inviting one representative from each City Commission. In order to move the process forward, a Council workshop date is suggested for March 28, 2001. Proposed topics and questions could then be reviewed by Council and Commission representatives at the workshop, with Council submitting additional topics and questions as desired and appropriate. A final survey draft would then be prepared and presented to Council for approval on April 16, 2001. It is anticipated that the process will take approximately 6 weeks, with a final report tentatively scheduled for presentation to Council on May 21, 2001. BUDGET IMPACT The 2001 Budget provides for a professional service expenditure of$15,000 for this purpose. ACTION REOUESTED After careful review, the firm of Decision Resources, Ltd. (DRL) is recommended for appointment, subject to Council ratification and authorization to execute the attached professional service agreement with DRL (attached). Council may also wish to consider setting a workshop date at this time for March 28, 2001. File Attachments Cc: Ms. Diane Traxler, DRL, 3128 Dean Court, Minneapolis, MN 55416 AGREEMENT I. PREAMBLE Whereas, Decision Resources, Limited, (hereinafter referred to as DRL) offers its services to organizations in the public and private sectors for the purpose of conducting market research by telephone survey to ascertain such information as may be requested by its clients, and Whereas, City of Farmington (hereinafter referred to as CLIENT) wishes to employ DRL for the above stated purpose, DRL and CLIENT agree to the following terms, conditions, and fees governing such employment. II. SERVICES (A.) DRL shall conduct a telephone survey the sample size of which shall be four hundred (400) randomly selected households. The number of questions shall be determined at a later point. The survey shall be contained within the City of Farmington. (B.) DRL will submit the questionnaire for the survey to CLIENT for his approval prior to the commencement of interviews. The specific details of the survey as to timing, questionnaire content, and population sample to be surveyed (except as otherwise specified in paragraph A) shall be mutually agreed upon by the parties as circumstances may require. In the event the parties fail to agree, CLIENT shall have the final authority to determine the subject matter content of the survey, while DRL shall have final authority to determine the specific wording of questions on the questionnaire and the specific individuals within the given population to be sampled. DRL shall not be obligated to ask questions of persons interviewed in addition to those questions included on the approved questionnaire or to provide data or interpretations with respect to topics or issues not covered by the questionnaire. DRL will proceed with a survey only after it receives notice of CLIENT's approval of the questionnaire. (C.) The survey shall be commenced as soon as is practicable following: (1) Approval of the questionnaire by CLIENT, and (2) Payment of all fees due to date as required. (D.) Upon payment of all fees due to date, DRL shall furnish to CLIENT a written report of the survey results including interpretations which may be reasonably drawn therefrom. At that time, CLIENT, in consultation with DRL, will schedule meetings for the presentation and discussion of these results. Both the President ofDRL and the Project Director of this study shall be available for meetings and supplementary analysis not to exceed twenty additional hours of time. Further time commitments ofDRL personnel deemed needed by CLIENT shall be billed upon a mutually agreed-to hourly basis prior to their execution. III. FEES CLIENT shall remit to DRL fees in the amounts, at the times, and in the manner specified hereunder: The TOTAL AMOUNT of all fees due under this agreement shall be $8,600.00 FOR A SEVENTY (70) QUESTION SURVEY. EACH ADDITIONAL QUESTION WILL BE $130.00. TIME FEES DUE (A.) One half of the total fee under this agreement shall be due at the time CLIENT affixes his signature hereto. DRL shall not be obligated to commence interviews for the survey until the fee called for in this paragraph (A.) has been paid in full. (B.) The balance of the TOTAL AMOUNT remaining unpaid shall be due prior to delivery by DRL to CLIENT of the written report required under Section II (D.). (C.) All fees due under this agreement shall be payable by ordinary check, except that DRL reserves the right to require payment by certified check, after having given CLIENT three days notice of such requirement. IV. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS AND DISCLOSURE The written report required under Section II (D.) shall become the sole property of CLIENT after payment to DRL of the TOTAL AMOUNT required in Section III. The survey questionnaires and replies and all related data, materials, and information shall remain the property ofDRL. DRL agrees not to divulge or use for any purpose, including but not limited to advertising and public relations, the information obtained in the survey without the written consent of CLIENT; provided, however, if the data or results of the survey are directly or indirectly made public by CLIENT or anyone else, DRL may make public the following information: the population from which the sample was taken, the method of obtaining the interviews, including the size and design of the sample, and the basis of the data if the sample is less than the total sample, the dates and times when the interviews were conducted, the exact wording of questions asked and the client's name. CLIENT agrees that ifit or anyone else acting on its behalf wishes to release in whole or in part to the public by press release, speech, or otherwise, the data or results of the surveyor contents of the written report, that CLIENT or such other person will first notify DRL in writing, and that there will be also stated in the release, speech, or otherwise, that the survey was done by DECISION RESOURCES, LIMITED, OF MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA. CLIENT agrees, at all times both during the term of this Agreement and thereafter, to keep in confidence all knowledge or information as to the processes, methods and techniques of DRL and not to disclose or make known such knowledge or information to any other person, firm, corporation or organization, including but not limited to competitors ofDRL, except when specifically authorized to do so in writing by DRL. CLIENT further understands and agrees that the names and addresses of interviewers used by DRL and the names and/or addresses of persons sampled are confidential and will not be made available to CLIENT. V. EXCLUSION OF WARRANTIES DRL agrees to utilize its best efforts to insure the accuracy of any survey by it pursuant to this Agreement. However, it is specifically understood and agreed that nothing in this Agreement, or any surveyor written report furnished under Section II (D.), shall be considered as either a prediction or guarantee of the results of any election or the outcome of any event, and any representations or warranties, express or implied, to that effect are hereby excluded. In addition, DRL shall not be responsible or liable for any failure by it to conduct any surveyor render any written report if such failure results from labor disturbances, fires, floods, wars, riots, civil disturbances, and other events beyond the control of DRL. VI. MODIFICATIONS Modifications of this Agreement shall not be enforceable unless in writing and signed by the party to be charged. Neither parties' waiver of any rights due him/her under this Agreement shall have the effect of waiving other or subsequent rights due hereunder. VII. MISCELLANEOUS (A.) This Agreement merges and supersedes all other agreements, verbal and written, between the parties and represents all agreements between them and binds their administrators, heirs, successors, and assignees. (B.) Any provision of this Agreement which may be held unenforceable shall be severable and the balance of the Agreement enforced. (C.) CLIENT agrees that it shall comply with all laws respecting disclosure of this Agreement. (D.) DRL reserves the right to use the findings from this survey in anonymous form as to the specific population and client for purposes of aggregate and comparative analyses to be made available to other clients ofDRL or publications. In witness whereof, the parties affix their signature on this 20 . day of DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. CLIENT By: _W~V. Moryw___ By: PRESIDENT (Position) DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. 3128 Dean Court Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 (612) 920-0337 January 9, 2000 Mr. John Erar City Manager City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 55024 Dear Mr. Erar: Decision Resources, Ltd., is pleased to present this survey research proposal to the City of Farmington. This prospectus is organized in three parts: a discussion of the goals of the research; a potential design and schedule; and, estimated project costs. As you will see, I am certain DRL can provide the City of Farmington with the information it seeks in both a cost-effective and timely manner. GOALS OF RESEARCH: The survey would assess the attitudes and opinions of City of Farmington residents on four separate, but interrelated issues: 1. Evaluation of Quality of Life: What do residents value most about living in the community? What would they like to see improved? When they think of Farmington, what comes immediately to mind? How connected are residents to each other? Their neighborhood? The city as an entity? How empowered do residents feel? 2. Taxes and City Services: How satisfied are residents with the current services and taxes in the City of Farmington? What do they see as the unmet needs of the community? Are there any priorities for augmentation or expansion of current city services? Are there any services which seem duplicative or unnecessary? Under what conditions would they accept a property tax increase for either maintaining or enhancing city services? What types of services would they be willing to forgo to avoid a tax increase? 3. Direction of the Community: How safe do residents feel? Do they see a need for prioritizing certain types of public safety services? When residents view their neighborhood, are there changes they would like to see the City undertake or spearhead? Is there support for specific types of development and redevelopment? Is traffic an issue? Do current parks and recreational facilities meet residential needs? How well does the City communicate with residents? What are effective communication channels? Which ones are ineffective? 4. City Demographics: What is the current demographic profile of the community? Do newly arriving residents generally resemble or differ from residents who have been in the community for longer periods of time? Do residents generally share the same perceptions, or are there cleavages within the community concerning certain issues? How different, if at all, are renters from home owners? Does intended out-migration have policy consequences for the future? DESIGN AND SCHEDULE OF THE RESEARCH: Decision Resources, Ltd., proposes to conduct a telephone survey of 400 randomly selected households in the City of Farmington. A sample of 400 residents would provide results projectable to the entire adult community within::l:: 5.0 percent in 95 out of 100 cases. The sample is also of sufficient size to permit the city to be divided into a maximum of four categories for more detailed analysis, such as age, mobility, home owners, and other demographic characteristics. To insure the integrity ofthe sample, DRL places the most exacting sampling standards in the industry on our procedures. Before an alternate household is substituted for a designated target, at least ten tries are made to contact the initial households during a three day period. The telephone calls take place during various times on weekday evenings and during the weekend. Our interviewers are also instructed to seek convenient appointments with interviewees, cutting our non-contact rate to less than five percent on average. An unbiased selection process is also used to identify the adult member of the household to be interviewed. To validate the completed sample, the latest United States Census updated population characteristics are utilized as a standard of comparison. The questionnaire would be administered by DRL trained and supervised personnel. The computer analysis will be obtained from our in-house C-:MENTOR and SPSS statistical analysis systems, insuring both access to the most current analysis programs and confidentiality of the data set. The City of Farmington will be presented with two bound copies of the final report, highlighting all the major findings of the study. DRL will also speak to any major differences from and similarities with other recently completed residential attitudes studies. In addition, any "tracking questions" from similar studies would be explicitly compared. A volume of all computer generated cross tabulations and other multivariate statistical techniques will also be included to provide the "raw" data required for further secondary analyses. The findings will be presented at a meeting or work session specified by the Farmington City Council. 1. Planning meeting with City Council Members, City Staff, and/or relevant citizens committees, to establish the topics to be covered in the survey. Based on these topic concepts, DRL would word specific, neutral questions. This activity to be completed within two weeks of the initiation , of the contract. 2. Structuring of questions and final approval ofthe survey instrument. These activities to be completed within three weeks of the initiation of the contract. 3. Final determination of the field dates for interviewing. 4. Pre-testing and, ifneeded, approval of resulting revisions. This activity to be completed by the second day of fieldwork. 5. Completion of all fieldwork within a two week period. 6. Computer analysis and preparation of written report. All analytical tests and commentary will be available within four weeks after completion of the field work. 7. Meeting with the City Council and Staff and/or citizens committees in either a work session or formal presentation to explain and discuss the results of the study. The final discussion and strategy session can be arranged at a time convenient for City Council Member and/or Staff after delivery of the report. On-going telephone consultation about any part of the study, analysis, or implications is also included. PROJECT COSTS: The cost of a survey is driven by two factors: sample size and questionnaire length. A sixty-to- seventy question unit, 400 household random sample of the City of Farmington would cost $8,600.00. Each additional question unit beyond the initial allotment would be $130.00. General quality oflife studies in the past have run between that base figure and as high as $19,000.00; the latter cost, of course, reflected a very comprehensive questionnaire covering a fairly larger number of topics. As company policy, DRL requires one-half of the cost prior to the commencement offield work; the remainder is due upon delivery of the final written report. Unless otherwise arranged, DRL invoices clients for the initial payment at the time of the initiation of the contract; the remainder is due at the time of the receipt of the final written report. I hope this proposal sufficiently covers all the information you require. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact either Bill Morris, Diane Traxler or me. We look forward to the opportunity to work with the City of Farmington. Peter Leatherman .11 Decision _1IR.esources Ltd. CAPABILITIES STATEMENT Tbe Firm Decision Resourees, Ltd. is a tUlI-service marketand researcJtfinn. DRLwas incorpo~.in 1983, and has served clients across the nation in the private, public, and political sectors..' The firm'smain offices are located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and DivisionalPersonneheside in Miami, Florida. Asafull-serviceflrm, all word processing, duplicatioI), printing, sample selection, interview tabulation, and computer analysis are undertaken on-site. All telephone surveys areC01l~ at the DRL phonebank located in Saint Paul; Minnesota. Local in-home andeIite/speci~ ' interviews are administ~red by company personnel. . In addition to internal.WM computer facilities, the finnalsohas a remote entry ~ss to the VAX system at the University of Minnesota. Computer anaylsis is . obtained from our in-house MENTOR computer system,to insure the both access to the most current statistical analysis programs andconfidentiality otthe' , data set. The company is composed of sixty full-time and part-timeeinployees. 'The main principals Of the firm possess extensive backgrounds in marketing, public affairs, survey research, and statistical methods. This cross-disciplinary background allows DRL to approach research problems from manydifferentperspectives, and to evaluate potential strategies from a myriad of theoretical bases. Recent and Current Clients Private and Publk. Sector Clients: Municipalities and State Govertnr).ent City dfPlymouth,Park Referendum Analysis, Plymouth, Minnesota City of Plymouth, City Services Assessment,. Plymouth, Minnesota City. of Plymouth, Quality of Life Study,. Plym<>uth, Minnesota City of Plymouth, Quality. of Life Tracking Study , Plymouth, Minnesota City of Bloomington, . Quality of Life Study, Bloomington, Minnesota City of Inver Grove Heights, Solid and Hazardous Waste Disposal Study, Inver Grove Heights, . Minnesota 31 28 Dean Court - Minneapolis, Minnesota55416 - (612) 92().Q337 -Fax (612)929-6166. City.ofInver Grove Heights, Parks and Recreational Facilities Needs Analysis, Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota City of Roseville, Quality of Life Study, Roseville, Minnesota City ofRoseville, Quality of Life Tracking Study, Roseville, Minnesota City of Shore view, Quality of Life Study, Shoreview, Minnesota City of Shoreview, Quality. of Life tracking Study, Shoreview, Minnesota City of Cottage Grove, Economic Development Study, Cottage Grove, Minnesota City of Eagan, Parks and Recreational Facilities Needs Analysis, Eagan, Minnesota City of Chaska, Quality of Life Study, Chaska, Minnesota City of Chaska, Community Center Needs . Study , Chaska, Minnesota City of Woodbury, Referendum Planning for the Administrative Facilities Proposal, Woodbury, Minnesota City of Little Canada, Parks and Recreational Facilities Needs Analysis, Little Canada, Minnesota City. of Mounds View, Quality of Life Study ,Mounds View, Minnesota City of Hopkins, Residential Needs Analysis, Hopkins, Minnesota City of Lakeville, Quality of Life. Study, Lakeville, Minnesota City of Lakeville, Quality of Life Tracking Study, Lakeville, Minnesota City of Bumsville, Vision: 2010 Project, Bumsville, Minnesota City of Bumsville, Park Referendum Issues Study, Bumsville, Minnesota City of Richfield, Municipal ServiceslEconomic Development Study, Richfield, Minnesota City of Richfield Marketing Task Force, City Image and Population Mobility Study, Richfield, Minnesota City of Oakdale,Parks and Recreational Facilities Needs Analysis, Oakdale, Minnesota City of New Brighton, Residential Needs Analysis, New Brighton, Minnesota City of New Brighton, Community Center Analysis, New Brighton, Minnesota City of Minnetonka, Employee Census, Minnetonka, Minnesota City of Minnetonka, Quality of Life Study, Minnetonka, Minnesota City of Rose mount, 2010 Project, Rosemount, Minnesota City of Arden Hills, Community Needs Analysis, Arden Hills, Minnesota City of Crystal, Quality of Life Study, Crystal, Minnesota . City of Elk River, Park and Recreation Needs Analysis, Elk River, Minnesota City of West Saint Paul, Budget and Services Study, West Saint Paul, Minnesota Cities of Spring Lake Park, Fridley, New Brighton, and Mounds View, Regional Senior Center Study, Fridley, Minnesota City of Brooklyn Center, Quality of Life Study, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Washington County, ResidentialAttitudes Survey, Stillwater, Minnesota Washington County, Communications Study, Stillwater, Minnesota Dakota County, Household Hazardous Waste Program Evaluation, West Saint Paul, Minnesota Dakota County, Residential Attitudes Study, Hastings, Minnesota Dakota County, County Budget Study, Hastings, Minnesota Dakota CoUnty, Lawn Care .and Water Quality Study, Farmington, Minnesota Minnesota World Trade Center, Regional Feasibility ~tudy, Saint Paul, Minnesota Government Training Services, Study for the Energy Division of the State Department of Administration, Saint Paul, Minnesota COf,pOrate Quality Pt:9grams 3M, MedicalProducts Group, Life Sciences Division, Study of Employee Attitudes on ~rate . Quality Program (Q90's), Saint Paul, Minnesota 3M, Public Relations Departmen4. Study of Empowerment and Quality Program Issues, Saint Paul, Minnesota . 3M, Leisure Time Products, Sales Professionalism and Quality Service Operaoons, Saint Paul, Minnesota CO(pOrations Cowles Communications, Inc., Theatre Market Segmentation Analysis, Minneapolis, Minnesota 3M, Public Relations Departmen4 Corporate Culture Analysis, Saint Paul, Minnesota 3M, Issues Management Task Force, Image and Issues Analysis, Saint Paul, Mmn~sota 3M, Public Relations Department, Group Facilitation Methods, Saint Paul, Minnesota. 3M, Public Relations Department, Internal Communications Study, Saint Paul, Minnesota 3M, Public Relations Department, External Communications Study, Saint Paul, Minnesota 3M, Public. Relations Department, Market Analysis of Local Publications, Saint Paul, M~ota. .. 3M, Public Relations Department, EmployeePerceptionsofConnnunications, Saint Paul, Minfiesota 3M, Public Relations Department, Business Customer Perceptions, saint Paul, Minnesota 3M, Public Relations Department, StafIPerceptions Focus Groups, Saint Paul, Minnesota 3M, Public Relations Department, Course on Public Relations Strategy, Saint Paul, Minnesota 3M, Public Relations Department, Practicum on Public Relations Strategy, S$t Paul, Minnesota 3M, Executive Offices, CnsisManagementTeamlProduct Failure, Saint Paul, Minnesota 3M, Leisure Time Products Division, Packaging Analysis, Saint Paul, Minnesota 3M, Leisure Time Products Division, Direct Response Customer Profile, Saint Paul, Minnesota 3M, Leisure Time Products Division, Direct RespOllse Prediction Model, Saint Paul, Minnesota 3M, Leisure Time Products Division, Retail Store Buyer Analysis, Saint Paul, Minnesota 3M, Leisure Time Products Division, Point-of-Purchase Effectiveness Study, Saint Paul, Minnesota 3M, Leisure Time Products Division,.Customer Satisfaction Survey, Saint.Paul, Minnesota . 3M, Specialty Chemicals Division, Plant Community Surveys in Missouri, Minnesota, Alab~ andlllinois-;Iowa, . Saint Paul, Minnesota 3M, Adhesives Division, Plant Community Survey on Annexation in Corona, California,Saint Paul, Minnesota CFS-Minnesota, Inc., Planning and Communications Focus Group Sessions, Golden Valley, Minnesota . CFS-Minnesota,Inc., Sexual Harassment and Appropriate Behavior Focus GrolJP Sessions, Golden Valley, Minnesota Continental Cablevision Sierra Region, Fresno City Utility Tax Referendum, Continental^ Cablevision, Stockton, California . Northern States Power Company, Economic Development Study, Minneapolis, Minnesota Financial Institutions and Realtors Franklin State Bank, Rural Viability Study, Franklin, Minnesota Twin City Federal Savings and Loan, Market Study, Minneapolis, Minnesota James Hoffin.an and Associates, RuralHousing Study, Willmar, Minnesota First Bank Minneapolis, Metropolitan Area Quality of Life Study, First Banks System, MiImeapolis,Minnesota Northeast State Bake,. Community Reinvestment Act.Compliance Study,Minneapolis~ Minnesota Business Orjl:aQ.izatioils . Greater Minneapolis.Chamber of Commerce, Major League Baseball Task Force" Twins Market Study, Minneapolis, Minnesota Greater Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, Convention Center Preference Study, MiIin~lis, Minnesota MinnesotaProject on Corporate Responsibility, Leadership in Transition Study, Minneapolis; Minnesota Minnesota Association of Commerce . and Industry, Membership Survey Series, Saint.Paul, Minnesota Minnesota Automotive Service Association, MeIllbership Survey, Roseville, Minnesota Minnesota:Business Partnership, Statewide Attitudes Study, Minneapolis, Minnesota School Districts Bloomington School District, Communications Audit, Bloomington, Minnesota Mounds View School District, Referendum Planning Study, Roseville,Minnesota Mounds View School District, Boundary Changes Study, Roseville,Minnesota West Saint Paul School District, Referendum Planning Study, West Saint Paul, Minnesota Worthington School District, Referendum Planning. Session, Worthington, Minnesota Anoka-Hennepin School District, Referendum Planning StUdy, Coon Rapids, Minnesota Hopkins-Minnetonka School District, Referendum Planning Study, Hopkins, Minnesota . Minneapolis School District, Referendum Planning Study, Minneapolis, Minnesota Minneapolis School District, Communications Study, Minneapolis, Minnesota Minneapolis School District, Attitudes Tracking Studies, Minneapolis South Washington County School District, Prior Referendum Analysis, Cottage Grove, . Minnesota South Washington County School District, Referendum Planning Study, Cottage Grove, . . Minnesota Minnetonka.School District, Prior Referendum Analysis, Excelsior, Minnesota Robbinsdale School District, Referendum Planning Study, New Hope, Minnesota Saint Anthony-New Brighton School District, Communications Study, Saint Anthony, Minnesota Saint Louis Park School District, Referendum Planning Study, Saint Louis Park, Minnesota Waconia School District, Prior Referendum. Study, Waconia, Minnesota Stillwater School District, Referendum Planning Study, Stillwater, Minnesota Stillwater School District, Attitudes Study of Stakeholders, Stillwater, Minnesota Blue Earth School District, Combination and Building Referendum Study, Blue Earth, Minnesota Wayzata School District, Referendum Planning Study, Plymouth, Minnesota Edina School. District, Referendum Planning Study, Edina, Minnesota Melrose School District, Prior Referendum Study, Melrose, Minnesota Education District 2001 Community Education Programs Study (Elk River, . Delano, Maple Lake, Howard Lake-Waverly, and Rockford School Districts), Cokato,Minnesota Hutchinson School District, Referendum Planning Study, Hutchinson, Minnesota Chaska School District, Referendum Planning Study, Chaska, Minnesota Diocese of Saint Augustine, Catholic Education in the Jacksonville Area Study, Jacksonville, Florida Diocese of Saint Augustine, Catholic Education in the Saint Augustine Area Study, . Saint Augustine, Florida All Souls Catholic School, Market Segmentation Study ,Sanford, Florida Totino-Grace High School, Market Segmentation Study, Fridley, Minnesota Bethlehem Academy, School FeasibilityStudy; Faribault, Minnesota Holy Angels High School, Perceptions Study, Richfield, Minnesota Saint Matthews Elementary School, Parish Family Preference and Future Policies Analysis, Saint .. Paul, Minnesota Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Dakota County School Feasibility Study,Sairtt Paul, Minnesota Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, North East Regional Catholic School Markefuig Study, Minneapolis, Minnesota Reli(:ious Or(:anizations Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Development Office,.Annual Catholic Appeal Market Segmentation Analysis, Saint Paul, Minnesota Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Development Office, Annual Catholic Appeal Market Segmentation Analysis Update, Saint Paul, Minnesota School Sisters of Notre Dame, Community and Ministry Satisfaction Study, Mankato, Minnesota Non-Pr<~tit ~d Cultural/Arts Organizations Ramsey County Historical Society, Membership Survey and New Member Drive, Saint Paul, Minnesota O'Shaughnessy Dance. Series, Market Segmentation Analysis, College of Saint Catherine, Saint Paul, Minnesota The Minnesota Opera, Potential Audience Study, Development Office, Saint Paul, Minnesota . The League of Minnesota Cities, Membership Survey, Saint Paul, Minnesota Northwest Community Television, Cable Subscribers Satisfaction Study, BrookIynCenter, Minnesota Northwest Community Television, Subscriber Tracking Study, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Northwest Community Television - King Cablevision, Subscriber Tracking Study, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Northern Dakota County Cable Commission, Subscriber Needs Analysis, West Saint Paul, Minnesota Southwest Community Television, Programming Study, Eden Prairie, Minnesota Burnsville-Eagan Cable Communications Commission, Subscriber and Non-Subscriber Study, - Eagan, Minnesota Ranisey- Washington Suburban Cable Co.mmission, Subscriber Satisfactio.nStudy, Maplew~. Minnesota The Nature Conservancy, Attitudes toward Conservation in the Cannon River Valley, Minneapolis, Minnesota The Land Stewardship Project, Attitudes toward Preservation in Washington County, Marine-on-Saint Croix, Minnesota The Saint PaulYWCA, Needs Analysis of Summit Hill Area, Saint Paul, Minnesota The Ramsey County Libraries, Library Services Study, Shoreview, Minnesota The Washington County Fair Committee, Washington County Fair Audience Study, Lake Ehno., Minnesota ' Hazelden Foundation, Center City, Minnesota . .. Decision ....ResourcesLtd. PROFESSIONAL RESUME WILLIAM D. MORRIS EMPLOYMENTIIISTQRY: 1983-Prese~t, President, Decision Resources, Ltd., Minneapoli$; Minnesota. '1. 1987-Pr~ent, Adjunct Professor, Department of Political Science, Augsburg , College, Minneapolis, MiIfuesota. . . 1985-;1988, Adjunct Instructor, Department of Political Science; College . of Saint Thomas, Saint Paul, Minnesota 1981..1983, State ChairUlan, Independent-Republicans of Minnesota, SaintPaul, Minnesota. ' 1974-1981, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Department of Political Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. ' 1973-1974, InstfuctorofPolitical Science and Management Systems, Department of Political Science and School of Economics andManage~nt, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan. EJ)UCATIO~' i B.A.. (Magna cUm Laude), Political Science and Mathematics, OaklaDd University, (Rochester, Michigan), August, 1970. Ph.D., Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie-Mellon University, (pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), June, 1975. AWARDS Ford Motor Company Fund Scholar. Woodrow Wilson National Fellow. .. 3128 Oeqn Court -Minneapolis. Minnesota 55416 ,. - (612) 920-0337- Fmd(12)9200166 ....Decision ..Resources .Ltd. WILLIAM D. MORRIS Williani D. (Bill) Morris was born and raised on the "East Side" of Detroit, Michigan. After finishing public elementary and high schools within. the city, he attended Oakland University. ill Rochester, Michigan. In 1966, he was awarded a Ford Motor Company Fund ' Scholarship, one of thirty~two students designated n.ationalty by the Corporation. Graduating Magn.a Cum Laude ill 1970 withajoillt major in Mathematics and Political Science, Morris spent one year teaching mathematics to minorities and ecooomicalty disadvantaged students in :, the federalgovemment's "Upward BOUlld" Pro.gram. Morris moved to Pittsburgh,Penn.sylvania and was accepted into the Carnegie~Mellon School of Urban and Public Affairs. In 1973, he accepted ajoint Instructorship at his und~rgradua.te alma mater in the Departmeht of Political Science and School of Bus mess an~' Management., One year later, he became.an Assistant Professorm the. Department of PolitiCal. . Science at the University of Minnesota. In 1975, Morris was granted a Ph.D. in PublicPoticy Analysis from Garnegie~Mellon;his dissertation, "The SportofK.ings: PresidentialPreference Primaries" was used and cited heavily by the Democratic Party's Commission on party , Reform. Durmghis.tenure at the UniversityofMinnesota, Morris wrote and published articl~in the CanadianJowna1 of Political Science, Quality and Quantity, Publius, and the YaJeLawand. Policy Review. He also presented papers regularly at the American Association of Political: . Science, the Southern and Midwestern Political Science Associatio~ and the Public Choice Society . . Morris'founded Decision Resources, Ltd., a nationwide survey and market researchfirrh in1983. The firm specializes in corporate issues management, local government assessmentS, ., and referendum campaigns. During the past decade, DRL has beenillvolved in over one hund:re4 · referendum elections; its success rate is ninety~four percent. Morris' most recent successes . illclude the passage of the first successfulMimleapolis excess levy referendum in twenty.:;five years 'by. a two-to-:onemargill and the passage of a school bond referendum for a new Stillwater High School after it had failed five times during the past twenty years. The firm ~~ntly employs fifty full~timeand part;.time personnel. ,. '.' Although making the decision to leavefull~timecollege teaching ill 1983, Moms-still maintains ties to the academic community. He is cUrrently an AdjUllct Professor with the Political Science Department at the. Augsburg College. ,Morris is married to Diane Traxlet,bis partner inDecision Resources, Ltd. 3128 Dean Court · Minneapolis. Minnesota 55416 · (612)92(}{)337 · Fax(61~)929-6166