Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.18.00 Council Packet ~ COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR December 18, 2000 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 (12/4/00) (Regular) b) Approve LMCIT Excess Liability Coverage - Finance c) Approve Training Agreement Dakota County Technical College - Police Department d) Appointment Recommendation - Public Works e) Capital Outlay - Fire Department t) Consider Resolution - Historic Preservation Consultarlt Services - Administration g) Consider Resolution - Approve COLA Non-Bargaining Unit - Administration h) School and Conference - Parks and Recreation i) School and Conference - Police Department j) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARDOFCONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Authorize RFP Professional Survey Services - Administration b) Consider Resolution - Silver Springs 3rd Addition Preliminary and Final Plat - Community Development c) Consider Resolution - Supporting Public Facilities Sales Tax Exemption Legislation - Administration d) Consider Council Workshop Date - Akin Road Tumback - Administration e) Consider Legislative Proposal - Minnesota Municipal Beverage Association - Finance t) Communications LMCIT 2001 City Insurance Information - Finance 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Developer Request for Public Improvement - Sanitary Sewer - Community Development (continued item) - Action Taken b) Consider Resolution 2001 Budget and Property Tax Levy - Finance c) Consideration of Purchase Tax Forfeited Property - Community Development (continued item) 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Appointments to Boards and Commissions Process - Set Interview Date- Administration b) Consider Resolution - Establishing Charges and Fees for Licenses and Permits - Administration 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION- a) Akin Road Turnback - County Settlement Issues b) Newberg Litigation Settlement Outcome 15. ADJOURN I ~ ~ COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR December 4, 2000 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Ristow led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Ristow, Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan Verch City Attorney Jamnik, City Administrator Erar, City Management Team 4. APPROv.EA GENDA MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Citizen Recognition Mr. David Scott Blaiser was presented with a Meritorious Service Award for coming to the aid of a police officer. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Todd Brennan, Friedges Landscaping, appeared at the Council Meeting regarding renewal of a mining permit. Staff will contact him. a) Burning Permit Issuance Request Mr. Al Deaton, 18775 Pilot Knob Road, had expressed concerns regarding issuance of a burning permit. Staffhas scheduled a meeting with Mr. Deaton. b) County Road 72 Assessments - Citizen Request Mrs. Elaine Schultz, 20475 Chippendale Avenue, former owner of 3403 213th Street, had appeared before Council at the November 20, 2000 Council Meeting requesting a deferral, waiver, or reduction of special assessments against the property on 213 th Street. She also appeared at the December 4, 2000 Council Meeting regarding staff's response to her request. Mrs. Schultz stated she understands Council needs to follow legalities. Through verbal conversations with City Engineer Mann, there was either misleading information or misunderstandings between them. She met with City Administrator Erar, but could not resolve the problem. As far as she is concerned there is a problem. Council Minutes (Regular) December 4,2000 Page 2 When properties are assessed, is it per linear feet, or per lot, or how is it done? City Engineer Mann replied the method is per lot or per unit, not a linear foot basis. The cost for the north side of CR 72 in the reconstruct area was split on a per lot basis. Each lot got the same assessment regardless of size. Large, undeveloped lots of 300 feet wide were looked at as being able to be developed in the future into several lots. So there were equivalent units for larger pieces of property. Mrs. Schultz asked if that would include their extra lot, which is not a buildable lot, but because there was a shed on there, the assessment would change from what it originally was? City Engineer Mann replied there were two parcels. One parcel has a home on it, the other parcel has a shed on it. At the time of the assessment hearing, for the parcel with the shed on it, the sewer and water assessment were deferred as there were to be no connections at this time. However, the roadway and storm sewer improvements were levied, as the lot is being utilized as a piece of property. Mrs. Schultz replied they did not dispute the $2,825.99 at the Public Hearing because per verbal conversation, they were told that it was money owing. When they received the March 29, 1999 letter from City Engineer Mann showing the estimated assessment, she understood the property was considered as one lot, and does not understand why it went into two lots when sold to Darcy and Daniel States. Because it had two property LD. numbers? But it was still considered one lot as the other parcel was not a buildable lot. They understood the amount in the letter was the full amount. She does not understand when the other assessment occurred and would like to know when it did and why they were not notified. If they had known there was that much price differential they would have worked out something different. She feels the problem is between them and City Engineer Mann. She does not feel the States should be responsible for paying the assessment and it should not be certified to their taxes. The Schultz's will pay the assessment. Regarding the staffmemo of December 4,2000, Mrs. Schultz disagrees that the assessment was changed, because to her knowledge it never had changed. When she wrote the letter of May 14, 1999 to City Administrator Erar and City Engineer Mann, she requested the stub in for water and sewer not be installed because it is not a buildable lot because of the placement of the shed. City Administrator Erar explained to her that it is a future buildable lot. She stated they cannot account for the future, as they no longer own it. Councilmember Strachan asked if the concept of buildable means could conceivably be built on whether there is a shed on it now or not. City Engineer Mann replied that is correct. Councilmember Strachan stated he understands Mrs. Schultz, but they have to deal with the present, as ten years from now if it is built on, and the assessment is deferred until that time, that money is not accessible to pay the project now. Nonbuildable means the lot is full of water or something, and could not put a structure on it ever. Mrs. Schultz stated she understood the lot is unbuildable because of the way the shed is situated. Councilmember Strachan replied the shed could be tom down. Mrs. Schultz asked why they should be accountable for something in the future. Councilmember Soderberg replied the same concept would apply if there were a house stratling a property line. There would still be two buildable lots. Council Minutes (Regular) December 4,2000 Page 3 The March 29, 1999 letter indicates the estimated assessment per lot. Mrs. Schultz stated it refers to properties, and she believes the per lot, because of verbal conversations, was one lot because the second lot was not buildable. Councilmember Soderberg replied an unbuildable lot could never be built on. He asked if the street assessments are being deferred as well. City Administrator Erar replied on the lot containing the shed the storm sewer and street assessments have been certified to that property, as the property is benefiting from the improvement. Mrs. Schultz asked why that was not included in the assessment. When they spoke with City Engineer Mann, it was considered as one parcel even though it had two ID numbers. Councilmember Soderberg stated he does not see where the City considered it one parcel. Mayor Ristow asked if Mrs. Schultz thinks she should have gotten two letters. Mrs. Schultz replied that is correct. When the property was sold to the States, they received two letters. One stating $10,140 for the second parcel and $8,840 for the other parcel. She asked why they did not receive anything for the second parcel as it had an ID number? City Administrator Erar stated the March 29, 1999 letter was the result of a conversation the City had with the Schultz's regarding proposed costs associated with those two lots. Staff has reviewed the special assessment notice, and as indicated in the staff memo of December 4, 2000, the assessment notice listed both ID numbers contained in one document. The Council Minutes of October 2, 2000 contains the fact there were two properties identified. There was also a separate Assessment/Sewer Connection Agreement that also identified two separate parcels. It indicates on the second page the final assessment amount will be determined subsequent to the completion of the improvements. This would indicate these were not final costs. These costs were only associated with the first parcel for sanitary sewer and water. Because there was no need for sanitary sewer and water, there was no need for a connection, on the second lot. Staff feels the City has done everything properly and appropriately with respect to the process that was followed. Councilmember Cordes offered an apology to Mr. and Mrs. Schultz and she can see where there is confusion by the Schultz's through verbal conversations, but Council must stick to the policies. The request for reduction, deferral or waiver of special assessments in the amount of $2,825.99 was denied. 7. CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Cordes pulled the November 20, 2000 Council Minutes to abstain, and Councilmember Soderberg pulled the November 8, 2000 Special Minutes to abstain. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan to approve the Council Minutes (11/20/00) (Regular). Voting for: Ristow, Soderberg, Strachan. Abstain: Cordes. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Cordes, second by Strachan to approve the Minutes (11/8/00) (Special). Voting for: Ristow, Cordes, Strachan. Abstain Soderberg. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: b) Accepted 2000 CIP Status Report c) Ratified Appointment Recommendation - Public Works Council Minutes (Regular) December 4,2000 Page 4 d) e) f) g) Approved bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Ratified Appointment Recommendation - Parks and Recreation Received Information Capital Outlay - Fire Department Adopted RESOLUTION R96-00 approving Tree City USA Application 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Truth in Taxation Hearing The Truth in Taxation Hearing is for taxes to be levied in 2000 payable by residents of the City of Farmington in 2001. Highlights of the budget and tax levy were presented. Councilmember Strachan commented it is good to see the trend line of expenditures less than the trend line of growth. Councilmember Strachan complimented Finance Director Roland and staff on the fact that the tax capacity rate is under 30% with a fund balance over 25%. Adoption of the Final Budget and Levy will take place at the December 18, 2000 City Council Meeting. MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg to close the Public Hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Consider Developer Request Building Permit Issuance - Farmington Family Townhomes Mr. Jim Deanovic, of Farmington Family Townhomes, is attempting to proceed with the installation of sewer and water mains, fire hydrants, and class 5 base for the private street this year. Building permits would not be sought until after utilities have been installed. Installation of curb and gutter and paving of the street would be completed in the Spring. A portion of the financing for this rental townhome project requires that the rental units be put in service by December 2001. Mr. Jim Deanovic stated City Engineer Mann and Community Development Director Olson have been incredibly thorough and very cooperative. MOTION by Strachan, second by Cordes authorizing approval of the issuance of building permits upon approval of plans and completion and acceptance of water (including fire hydrants), sewer and class 5 street access to Farmington Family Townhomes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Consider Developer Request for Feasibility Report _19Sth Street Arcon Development, developer of Autumn Glen, has requested the preparation of a feasibility report for the extension of 195th Street to the easterly property limits of the Autumn Glen 3rd Addition. The segment of 195th Street between Akin Road and Trunk Highway 3 has been identified in the City's Transportation Plan as an essential east-west corridor for the City. Dakota County has also recently undertaken a study that has identified 195th Street as an east-west corridor for the County system. The County's policy is to participate in those identified County Council Minutes (Regular) December 4,2000 Page 5 alignments that provide a connection between existing County or State corridors. The project that is proposed for the subject feasibility report would not make such a connection at this time. Therefore, the County would not participate in this segment of I 95th Street. When 195th Street is extended to Trunk Highway 3, the County would participate in that segment of the project. The developer has indicated the commitment to pay Autumn Glen's proportionate share of the costs for the project. The remaining benefiting properties along the alignment would be assessed for costs. The Limerock Ridge development was assessed for the improvements to CSAH 31 and therefore, will not be assessed for 195th Street, as is the case with any property that was assessed for CSAH 31. MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg adopting RESOLUTION R97-00 authorizing the preparation of a feasibility report for the 195th Street extension. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Consider Adoption Adult Entertainment Ordinance The proposed ordinance is intended to replace the current interim ordinance to regulate sexually oriented adult businesses in the City of Farmington. During the November 20, 2000 Council Meeting, the issue of requiring a conditional use permit was raised. According to the City Attorney's office, requiring a conditional use permit raises the issue of "unlawful prior restraint of the First Amendment." Therefore, it is recommended not to require conditional use permits for adult uses. A question was also raised regarding whether the interim ordinance could be extended. The interim ordinance had been in place for 18 months. However, since the interim ordinance has expired, it cannot be extended. Councilmember Soderberg agreed with establishing an ordinance now rather than trying to regulate an established business. He noted the ordinance states there can be no sale of alcohol on the premises. Can alcohol be brought in? City Attorney Jamnik replied no. Councilmember Soderberg proposed to increase setbacks for greater site visibility around the building and lighting for protection of police officers. He also suggested fencing on three sides so someone cannot flee from police officers. City Attorney Jamnik suggested adopting the ordinance as proposed and the changes can be analyzed by his office. Another Public Hearing would be held for any amendments. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes adopting RESOLUTION R98-00 establishing findings of fact that zoning regulations of sexually oriented businesses are necessary to minimize secondary adverse effects of such businesses in the City of Farmington. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg adopting ORDINANCE 000-457 amending Title 10 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, by making provisions for the opportunity as well as the control of sexually oriented businesses. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg approving the ordinance summary to be published in the City's legal newspaper. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) December 4,2000 Page 6 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Consider Approval of Joint Powen Agreement Dakota County Narcotics Task Force The City of Farmington has been an active participant in the Dakota County Drug Task Force for nine years. In 2000 two Dakota County Task Forces joined together to form a single organization. Therefore, a Joint Powers Agreement must be renewed annually. Membership provides the Police Department access to resources that can be used to conduct investigations and follow-up to narcotics cases in Farmington. The Police Department commits approximately 350 hours per year to the Task Force. Two Farmington representatives spend an average of four hours per week assisting in Task Force investigations. This is the City's in- kind contribution which off-sets the requirement for a local cash contribution. MOTION by Strachan, second by Cordes approving the Dakota County Drug Task Force Joint Powers Agreement and authorize participation by the Farmington Police Department. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Consider Issuance of Certificates of Indebtedness The budgets for 2000 and 2001 include the purchase of several significant pieces of equipment. Funding of these purchases has been identified as coming from the issuance of Certificates of Indebtedness. The City may borrow funds for the purchase of equipment by issuing Certificates of Indebtedness with a term not exceeding five years. The cost of the equipment to be purchased with the proposed certificates totals $710,000. Quotes were solicited from three local banks. Marquette Bank Lakeville proposed the best terms, with an interest rate of 5.5% for the five-year period. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan adopting RESOLUTION R99-00 issuing $710,000 of Certificates of Indebtedness at a rate of 5.5% payable over five years to Marquette Bank of Lakeville. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Public Facilities Site Planning and Project Budget Update According to City Administrator Erar, site and facility planning efforts are moving forward and remain on schedule. Also attending the Council Meeting were Mr. Barry Badinger ofE&V Construction Management, Mr. Mike Cox and Mr. John McNamara of Wold Architects, and Mr. Wally Sapp, Facility Task Force Chairman. Mr. Mike Cox gave a presentation on the progress of the public facilities. He indicated they are in the final stages of design and development. Councilmember Strachan stated he was under the impression the future possible satellite fire station would be attached to one of the facilities. City Administrator Erar replied there was a preliminary concept that the police and fire facility could be attached in the future. The site issues suggested the police and future fire station would be better configured as shown. There is a utility easement which prevented putting the facilities together as well as traffic coordination of vehicles having to exit the building at the same time. Council Minutes (Regular) December 4,2000 Page 7 Councilmember Strachan asked what materials would be used for the Central Maintenance Facility. Mr. Cox replied the materials will be precast concrete for the high bay areas and the front administrative area would be brick. Councilmember Strachan stated the police facility is built with growth in mind. What about the Central Maintenance Facility? Mr. Cox replied the site plan showed an outline for the current facility as well as future growth. Councilmember Strachan asked if all the angles in the police facility add to the cost? Mr. Cox replied there is a slight increase, but it is not significant. Councilmember Strachan asked, regarding the police facility, what the difference is between an emergency operations room and a conference room. Mr. Cox replied it can serve as a big conference room. But it also has plug-ins and accessories for fax machines and telephones. There are not any other large conference rooms. Councilmember Strachan asked if there was a reason the conference room is in the Central Maintenance Facility instead of the Police Facility. Mr. Cox replied they did consider a Community Room in the Police Facility, but for cost reasons it could not be used for a dual purpose. So the room in the Central Maintenance Facility has a folding wall, so it is bigger than the emergency operations center. Councilmember Soderberg asked if police and fire vehicles would have to exit from the entrance to the east and then to the north. Mr. Cox replied there is an entrance to Pilot Knob. Councilmember Soderberg stated he does not want fire trucks going by the houses. Mr. Cox stated the roads cannot cross the utility easement so there is a roadway that connects all the buildings. There is access to the road along the east. Councilmember Strachan asked if the soil corrections would cover a future fire station and future facilities or will the issue come up again? City Administrator Erar replied the soil corrections only cover the Central Maintenance and Police Facilities. As future facilities are looked at, similar steps would have to be taken to deal with those issues. Councilmember Cordes asked if there is adequate room to relocate City Hall on the site. City Administrator Erar replied there is not room, due to the easement. Councilmember Soderberg asked if there is a reason the clear well is situated to the north of the water treatment instead of to the west? Mr. Cox replied the close proximity of the buildings is very important. City Engineer Mann replied due to the elevation criteria that needs to be kept between the clear well and the water treatment facility, the current situation is best. Police Chief Siebenaler commented regarding emergency vehicles exiting the site, police response is usually handled by patrol officers at random locations throughout the City. So the police are not as directly affected by response from the police station as the fire station would be. Councilmember Cordes stated as a citizen she would find it frustrating to have to visit the police station and have to drive through the Council Minutes (Regular) December 4,2000 Page 8 driveways. Is there any reason why there cannot be access directly from CR 64? Mr. Cox stated signage will be needed at the intersection, but there are requirements as to where access can be from the road. Police Chief Siebenaler replied the County does control both of the roads surrounding the area and they do have spacing guidelines for intersections. The access points shown are the closest that are allowed. City Administrator Erar replied an adequate amount of signage should cover any problems reaching the police station. City Administrator Erar presented the budget for the project. It is estimated the Central Maintenance Facility will cost approximately $3,638,643. This is currently under budget. For the Police Department the cost is $2,495,000. This is slightly over budget. Estimated site development costs are $550,000 over preliminary budget assumptions. By applying entire budget contingency, the project is still under budget by $21,224. The request for Council to consider is an additional contingency of$230,510. Current budget is $7.4 million. The money would come from bond issuance. It is recommended the bonds be insured and that the City carry a debt reserve. With the increased bond contingency as well as an increase in bond issuance costs, there is a total bond issuance cost of $8,539,490. In terms of campus infrastructure, a cost of$317,659 has been identified for road infrastructure, water service and sanitary sewer service. The Water Board has agreed to provide the City with the additional costs of providing water as well as their participation in the internal road structure. Approximately $100,000 was identified for capital equipment necessary for the Central Maintenance Facility. The total project cost is $8,958,000. Councilmember Strachan asked what was the campus infrastructure figure and the capital equipment figure in the original project budget? City Administrator Erar replied the task force did not have any solid figures to go with on the campus. Councilmember Strachan asked if the figures from the Water Board, as well as road and bridge, solid waste, and storm sewer were budgeted? City Administrator Erar replied not during the Facility Task Force process. The City is budgeting them now. This process is essentially the feasibility report. Councilmember Strachan asked if $1 million for site development for a project like this is typical? Mr. Cox replied it is hard to say what is typical due to soil conditions. City Administrator Erar stated the City is looking at approximately $600,000 in soil costs, so the question is why did the City chose this site and should the City be looking at a different site? This has been discussed by staff and would like Council to see the big picture items and put that question on the table for Council to consider. After this Council Meeting the project is moving forward as the project has to be put out to bid in February for award in March. The Facility Task Force identified a number of sites throughout the site selection process. The consensus was to select this site on the corner of 195th Street and CSAH 31. The site was purchased in coordination with the Water Board, who also went through a very thorough review. This site provides access to major thoroughfares - CSAH 31 and 195th Street which will ultimately go to Highway 3. The location also Council Minutes (Regular) December 4,2000 Page 9 establishes a City presence in the northern area. The City wanted to connect north and south and this site is a central geographic location. There is also the opportunity for campus development. There are six public facilities that can be placed on one site. The City already owns the site, as it was purchased in conjunction with the Water Board. This is an important economic element. Project expenditures are within 3.2% of overall budget assumptions. Even with $600,000 worth of soil corrections this is very good in terms of keeping costs where they need to be. Soil correction costs are manageable. City Administrator Erar put the question before Council if a different site should be looked at? He wanted Council to consider that the existing site would have to be sold. Project could be delayed 1-2 years and the inflationary cost increase could be approximately $750,000, at 5% per year on materials and labor. That would wipe out any potential savings in terms of soil conditions. The City paid $15,000 per acre 3 1/2 years ago. A new site would cost an average of $35,000 - $45,000 per acre. There are no guarantees associated with a new site. The City could have different but similar cost development issues. Alternative sites where thoroughly reviewed by the task force. The transportation accesses could be lost with a new site as far as dual access for the north and south. One issue with the current site is the utility easement, and that has been dealt with. As far as the soil conditions, it is temporary and fixable. Councilmember Cordes stated it is disheartening to learn about the soil corrections. But the City could pay anywhere from $700,000 to $1 million for land. This is the site the Task Force kept coming back to after reviewing other sites. Mayor Ristow asked if it is common to do soil testing? City Administrator Erar replied the soil testing that was done was to determine if there were any hazardous materials on the site. Mr. Barry Badinger stated after they found out the depth of the soil excavation needed they met with the architects and soil engineers to discuss if it would be better to put the buildings on piers. This could be done, the costs were about equal, but the City's risk is less with an original foundation. Councilmember Strachan asked if he felt the current estimate for soil corrections would cover the cost. He stated he does not want to see this come back in six months. Mr. Badinger replied based on the plans given by the civil engineers, this represents what is there. Mr. Wally Sapp stated there were extensive meetings on this site. Soil conditions are not unusual for this area. There was no indication of bad soil when the water tower was built. Mayor Ristow stated the only additional amount requested is $230,000 difference other than the insurance for the bonds. So we are still within the original proposed budget. City Administrator Erar replied that is correct. The $230,000 requested is over the original budget amount by 3.2%. The cost to insure the debt service is $695,000 that has to be put in reserve for future debt service payment. That reserve is used for the last payment of a 20-year debt. Finance Director Roland stated the difference between an uninsured lease revenue bond and an insured revenue bond is about 1/2 - 3/4% point in interest rates. Without a debt Council Minutes (Regular) December 4,2000 Page 10 service reserve you cannot get an insured bond. When the Task Force was convened the proposal put forward did not include an insured bond, because the market was different and the interest rates were different. Councilmember Strachan stated when we go out for bid soil correction would be part of the bid. So if that is substantially different from what we are expecting as well as the construction bid, we have the flexibility to change direction at that point if we have to. City Administrator Erar replied that is correct and staff has very innovative ways of dealing with this. Because of private development occurring to the east and west, the City will be talking with developers to see if there is some exchange of value that the City could obtain, in terms of having them do the site grading in exchange for taking the bad soil off and using it on their site. Councilmember Soderberg asked since this is a lease revenue bond and the HRA is involved, would they also have to weigh in on this decision? City Administrator Erar replied staff has already approached the HRA and they did approve it. He will be attending the January meeting to move forward with the changes identified. Finance Director Roland stated the HRA would own the bonds in name only. The City will own the facilities and the City will be responsible for the annual appropriations. The HRA's only responsibility is issuing the bonds. Councilmember Strachan asked even with this change will the project still be at or below the debt service levy goal? City Administrator Erar replied based on the proforma which includes the additional cost factors, it does keep the City within the original projections. Finance Director Roland stated the proforma is as discussed in the past and the 25% debt service limit is not exceeded in this current situation. This is under the current scenario. Because of how any future bond issues are funded, if funded through the debt service levy adding those bond issues for future projects would add to the debt levy. Councilmember Strachan then stated when looking at the police facility, he felt the entrance could be cut back to something simpler. City Administrator Erar replied every meeting held focuses on budget considerations. There are some environmental issues associated with the glass and the southern exposure as far as heating. Staff will keep an eye on it. Councilmember Soderberg stated he was asked by a resident if the City was really spending $7 million on the building. He reminded the resident the City is building two buildings and wondered what the perception will be when the public looks at the project costs going from $7.4 million to $8.5 million. It is disheartening. Councilmember Strachan stated we are still at the point of making it what it should be while still saving where we can. Councilmember Soderberg stated he does not want to get to the end of the project, receive the bill and it is closer to $10 million. City Administrator Erar replied this falls under a public improvement process. The next time this is brought to Council will be to award Council Minutes (Regular) December 4,2000 Page 11 the bids. Council will be asked if the bids are in line with project estimates. At that point, Council can reject the bids. It is important to note each of the two facilities are still within the original project budget. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to authorize the following actions: 1. Authorize additional project funding in the amount of $230,51 0 for contingency reserves that will increase the total public facilities project budget to $7,400,000. 2. Authorize increasing the amount of bond issuance from $7.6 million to $8.54 million to allow for bond insurance, a debt service reserve and an increased project budget. According to City fiscal consultant projects, debt service levies should actually be lower than originally assumed due to lower borrowing costs. 3. Authorize appropriate project funding sources to underwrite campus site infrastructure elements that will support the overall site in the form of an interior road and site utilities. Final amounts will be based on lowest, qualified bids. 4. Authorize appropriate project funding sources to underwrite additional capital equipment for the Central Maintenance Facility. Final amounts will be based on actual contract prices at the time of purchase. APIF. MOTION CARRIED. 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Council member Cordes: She saw an article in the newspaper where Apple Valley is starting a Traffic Committee. Mayor Ristow stated this would be a good consideration for a Council Workshop. City Administrator Erar stated staff has been working on this and will be bringing a proposal to Council at a workshop. City Administrator Erar: He received notice from Representatives Ozment and Pariseau indicating support for a special City bill for the upcoming legislation providing an exemption from sales tax on the facilities. This would result in approximately $200,000 in sales tax. Council pictures will be taken the first meeting in January for the website. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Strachan to adjourn at 10:25 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~h7~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant City of Farmington 325. Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us 76 TO: FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ Robin Roland, Finance Director SUBJECT: DATE: LMCIT Excess Liability Coverage December 18, 2000 INTRODUCTION The City has historically purchased excess liability coverage as part of its insurance coverage. Accordingly, the City must decide annually whether or not to waive statutory liability limits to the extent of the excess coverage purchased. DISCUSSION LMCIT's basic liability coverage provides limits of $750,000 per occurrence, but offers cities the option of additional liability coverage. As in recent years, the City has chosen under its insurance coverage for 2001 to accept excess liability coverage limits of $2,000,000 from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. In accepting this excess liability coverage, the City protects itself from liability claims which are not covered by the statutory limits. The election not to waive the liability limits results in a 25% reduction of the City's premium for this excess coverage. ACTION REQUIRED The City Council should adopt a motion electing NOT TO WAIVE the monetary limits on tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04. Respectfully submitted, ~~ . Robin Roland Finance Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 fax (651) 463-2591 www.cI.farmlni:ton.mn.us l~ TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator1~ Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police FROM: SUBJECT: Law Enforcement Training Contract DATE: December 18, 2000 INTRODUCTION The Police Department has received notification requesting the annual renewal of its agreement to participate in the Law Enforcement Training Program at the Dakota County Technical College. DISCUSSION The Farmington Police Department is obligated under the rules of the Minnesota Police Officers Standards and Training (POST) Board to provide a variety of training to its police officers. Much of that training is mandated by statute. The remainder of the training covers liability issues and career development. In the past the City of Farmington has entered into a training agreement with the Law Enforcement Training Program at the Dakota County Technical College. Participation in this training consortium is a cost effective method of providing officer training. During 2000 approximately 512 hours of POST approved classes were offered by the Technical College. The cost of this training is $298.00 per officer. It should be noted that courses offered by competitive training institutions cost between $50 - $150 per day long session. BUDGET IMPACT The cost of this Training Agreement is funded in the 2001 Budget and is reimbursed annually by the POST Board. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the Law Enforcement Training Agreement with Dakota County Technical College. Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 1d TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Appointment Recommendation - Department of Public Works DATE: December 18, 2000 INTRODUCTION The recruitment and selection process for the appointment of a full-time Assistant City Engineer to fill an existing opening authorized in the 2000 Budget in the Public Works Department, Engineering Division has been completed. DISCUSSION After a thorough review of applicants for this position by the Public Works Department and Human Resource Office, an offer of employment has been made to Mr. Timothy Gross, for the position of Assistant City Engineer subject to ratification by the City Council. Mr. Gross has worked for a number of municipalities in either a staff or consulting civil engineer capacity since March 1997. Prior to his current position with a private firm as a Sales Engineer, Mr. Gross worked for the cities of Bloomington and Woodbury overseeing a wide range of municipal projects. Mr. Gross also worked for two other private firms as a construction observer on a number of street reconstruction and utility projects and a laboratory technician. Mr. Gross has substantial experience in project management, road construction and reconstruction, utilities, working with contractors and consultants, and in technically related fields. Mr. Gross has a Bachelor's of Science Degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Minnesota, and will be acquiring his professional engineer license from the State of Minnesota, as a condition of employment with the City. Consequently, Mr. Gross is fully qualified to assume the duties and responsibilities of Assistant City Engineer. BUDGET IMPACT Funding for this position is authorized in the 2001 Budget. RECOMMENDATION Approve the appointment of Mr. Timothy Gross as Assistant City Engineer in the Department of Public Works, Engineering Division, effective January 2, 2001. Respectfully submitted, 7~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator7~ FROM: Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Capital Outlay - Fire Department DATE: December 18,2000 INTRODUCTION The Fire Department is planning to purchase an Arrow Stick Light Bar and Haz-mat equipment. DISCUSSION The Arrow Stick Light Bar will add to the visibility of the apparatus installed on, and provides for directing traffic away from the apparatus. The Haz-mat equipment includes a Scott Mobile Air Cart and a comfort fit mask. BUDGET IMPACT Approved in the 2000 Capital Outlay Budget. ACTION REOUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, ~. K~.,- Ken Kuchera ~ Fire Chief City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463~7111 Fax (651) 463~2591 www.ci.fal.Jl1ington.mn.us IF TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~ FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Service Manager SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Historic Preservation Consultant Services DATE: December 18, 2000 INTRODUCTION Attached is a proposed contract for Historic Preservation Consultant Services with Robert Vogel, who has provided this service for the past five years. The contract is for the period of January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001 and establishes an annual retainer fee and an hourly wage. DISCUSSION The Historic Preservation Commission has applied for and been approved to receive CLG (Certified Local Government) Grant Funds. This contract is required to establish an hourly wage which will be used for in-kind services that Mr. Vogel will provide in conjunction with the grant. The grant is being used to designate five historic sites throughout the City. BUDGET IMPACT A retainer fee. in the amount of $316.66 per month, ($3800.00 annually) is included in the 2001 budget. ACTION REOUIRED Adopt a resolution approving the contract for Historic Preservation Consultant Services. Respectfully sUb~mitted: - C~(~ Karen Finstuen Administrative Services Manager RESOLUTION NO. R -00 APPROVING THE CONTRACT FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANT SERVICES 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 18th day of December, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has applied for and been awarded a CLG (Certified Local Government) Grant; and, WHEREAS, this contract is required to establish an hourly wage which will be used for in-kind services provided by Mr. Vogel in conjunction with the grant; and, WHEREAS, the grant will be used to designate historic sites throughout the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Farmington hereby approves the Contract for Historic Preservation Consultant Services. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 18th day of December 2000. Mayor day of December 2000. Attested to the City Administrator SEAL CONTRACT FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANT SERVICES CITY OF FARMINGTON THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into as of this 18th day of December, 2000, by and between the City of Farmington, Minnesota, herein referred to as the "City," and Robert C. Va gel and Associates, herein referred to as the "Consultant." WITNESSETH THAT WHEREAS, the City is desirous of retaining professional historic preservation services on an as-needed basis, and; WHEREAS, the Consultant is a qualified histaric preservation professional; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions hereinafter contained, it is agreed by and between the City and Consultant as follows: I. SCOPE OF SERVICES The Consultant will provide the following services on an as-needed basis as determined by the City Administrator: A. Pravide historic preservation consulting services to the Farmington Heritage Preservation Commission and the Farmington City Council. B. Advise the City an matters relating to historic preservation planning and identification, evaluatian, registration and treatment of historic resources in Farmington. C. Prepare applications for Certified Local Government and other grants for historic preservation purposes. D. Serve as principal investigator and project director for the City's ongoing historic resources survey. II. COMPENSATION A. The City will pay the Consultant to provide the services as outlined in A, B, C above, a monthly fee of$316.66, ($3800.00 annually) to be paid upon completian of services, beginning January 1,2001. B. The City may pay such additional Cansultant compensation at the rate of farty dollars ($40.00) per hour for additional work which may be specifically authorized by the City Council. C. The Consultant shall invoice the City for all work authorized by the City on a monthly basis. III. COMMENCEMENT AND TERMINATION This contract shall run from January 1,2001, until December 31,2001. The contract may be renewed upon a passing motion by the City Council. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, either party may terminate this contract on thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. IV. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS The Contractor is an independent contractor and is not a City employee. IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties have set their hands this 18th day of December, 2000. CITY OF FARMINGTON BY: John Erar, City Administrator CONSULTANT BY: Robert Vogel, Consultant City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us ~ ~ TO: Mayar and Cauncilmembers FROM: Jahn F. Erar, City Administratar SUBJECT: Cast-of-Living Adjustment for Nan-Represented Employees DATE: December 18,2000 INTRODUCTION The City typically appraves cost-af-1iving adjustments far non-represented emplayees at the last regular Cauncil meeting af the calendar year far the fallawing year. These adjustments wauld take place effective January 1,2001. DISCUSSION Cast-of-living adjustments far nan-bargaining employees have been reviewed and are proposed at three (3) percent for fiscal year 2001, effective January 1,2001. Nan-bargaining emp1ayees for purposes of this cost-of- living adjustment include canfidential and nan-represented emplayees, supervisary staff, and senior-level management personnel. Surveys af metrapalitan cities, regianal ecanomic factors and other wage and benefit data suppart the prapased annual wage adjustment. All ather emplayees belang to. callective bargaining units which requires the City to formally negatiate changes in the terms and canditians af employment through the collective bargaining pracess. City labar negotiations with organized bargaining units includes a similar three (3) percent increase affer in wages for 2001. In discussians with the City Attorney, Cauncil member Verch shau1d abstain fram vating an the attached resalutian as this cost-af-living adjustment will directly affect his campensation as a member of the Farmington Fire Department. BUDGET IMPACT Funding far cost-af-living adjustments is included in the 2001 City Budget. ACTION REOUESTED Adopt the attached resalutian approving a three (3) percent wage adjustment effective January 1,2001 for non- represented City emp1ayees. mitted, RESOLUTION No. R -00 APPROVING COST -OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS FOR ALL NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2001 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 18th day of December, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution. WHEREAS, cost-of-living adjustments for non-bargaining employees are in order to recognize annual inflationary increases in cost-of-living standards as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), and regional economic and market-based indicators; and, WHEREAS, the annual percentage adjustments of three (3) percent effective January 1, 2001 are within the expenditure guidelines established in the 2001 Budget; and, WHEREAS, non-bargaining employees are defined as those public employees not formally represented by an exclusive bargaining group as defined under Minnesota Statute. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves cost-of-living adjustments of three (3) percent effective January 1,2001 for all non-represented employees. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 18th day of December, 2000. Mayor Attested to the day of , 2000. City Administrator SEAL City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463~711l Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 71 TO: Mayor, Councilmemben, City Administrato~ James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director FROM: SUBJECT: School and Conference - Parks and Recreation Department DATE: December 18, 2000 INTRODUCTION Attendance at the National Rocky Mountain Revenue Management School held February 3-7,2001 in Colorado is being planned. DISCUSSION This conference is a training session for Parks and Recreation staff. Sessions are scheduled for education of staff on revenue resources in programming activities. These educational sessions include areas such as writing business plans, fee setting/cost recovery, grants/accessing funding, facility program design for revenue production, marketing and promotions. BUDGET IMPACT The 2001 budget includes funding for this conference. ACTION REOUESTED Foruuonnmiononry. Respectfully submitted, ~~ James Bell Parks and Recreation Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cl.farmlngton.mn.us ~. TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator~ Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police FROM: SUBJECT: School and Conference, Police Department DATE: December 18, 2000 INTRODUCTION Staff of the Public Safety Programs Division will be attending the Juvenile Officer's Institute January 31 through February 2, 2001. DISCUSSION The Juvenile Officer's Institute (JOI) is an annual training conference for Criminal Justice professionals. It is the single annual opportunity for police officers that serve school districts to meet with other related professionals and receive nationally recognized training. The topics ofthe 2001 conference include: . Interviewing and Interrogating Juveniles . Response to Child Abduction / Homicide Cases . Policing in the Southeast Asian Community . Hispanic Gangs in Minnesota . Funding Alternatives. BUDGET IMPACT This conference is funded in the 2001 City Budget. ACTION REQUESTED Information only. cy- Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /OOJ TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Authorize Request for Proposals - Professional Survey Services DATE: December 18,2000 INTRODUCTION During the Council's 2000 Goal Setting Workshop, Council adopted a goal that requires the conduction of a community survey in 2001. With the adoption of the 2001 Budget, funding has been appropriated for this activity. DISCUSSION . In support of this Council goal, my office is recommending that a Request for Proposals be authorized to solicit professional service proposals. Research conducted by my office has indicated that there are several firms specializing in community-based surveys in the metropolitan area, in addition to the firm previously identified during the goal-setting session. These firms have been contacted relative to their level of potential interest. Accordingly, it should be in the City's interests to solicit competing proposals. It is important to note that factors beyond financial cost should be considered in awarding a contract for this service. The degree and recency of firm experience, the quality of the survey instrument, references and the relative capabilities of each firm are also important considerations. Finally, the City Council is not obligated to select the lowest cost firm, but may consider other factors as identified. Staff will solicit and review proposals, with a recommendation to Council regarding the firm that most closely meets City needs in this area. BUDGET IMPACT The 2001 Budget provides funding in the amount of$15,000 for this project, with the Communications Capital Project Fund underwriting this cost. ACTION REOUESTED Authorize a Request for Proposals for Professional Survey Services. . ~~ JOhn F. Erar CITY OF FARMINGTON REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS The City of Farmington is soliciting proposals from qualified firms for the purpose of conducting a community survey to gather the views and opinions of City residents on a wide range of community topics. The City expects to begin the survey process in mid-February 2001 after selection of a qualified firm. Firms should include the following information: 1) Name, address and contact person; 2) firm experience in conducting community surveys including references and contacts; 3) a copy of a recent sample survey instrument; 4) the firm's proposed methodology, including data collection, analysis, summary and presentation of results; 5) a suggested approach in developing an appropriate survey instrument and 6) the firm's fee for the contracted survey work, including all fees and reimbursables. If requested, the firm should be prepared to make a presentation of its proposal. Failure to submit information as requested may result in disqualification. Proposals should be sent to: Office of the City Administrator, Department of Administration, 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024. Deadline for submittal is end of business day, January 15,2001. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals and/or modify or waive any procedural irregularity in order to select the firm best qualified to. meet City requirements and/or needs. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street. Farmington. MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmintton.mn.us lOb TO: Mayar, Cauncil M.w~s, City AdministrataIlfJ ~'j ct1 Lee Smick, AICP nl\ Planning Caardinator Y FROM: SUBJECT: Silver Springs 3rd Addition Preliminary & Final Plat DATE: December 18, 2000 INTRODUCTION Tim Giles, P.O. Bax 51, Elka, MN 55020, proposes to. plat approximately 4 acres afland in the northeast quadrant af the intersection af CSAH 31 (Pilat Knab Raad) and 190th Street. The Preliminary and Final Plat shows three autlats and one platted lot of record. DISCUSSION The applicant, Tim Giles is seeking appraval af the Preliminary & Final Plat far Silver Springs 3rd Additian. On Octaber 12,2000 the Planning Cammissian approved a Canditianal Use Permit to canstruct a day care facility on Block 1 Lot 1 of the Silver Springs 3rd Addition. Far reference, the Canditional Use Permit staff memo. is attached to this document. Mr. Giles prapases to. plat the remainder afhis property as outlots and also identify the realigned English Avenue right-af-way. The fallawing table shows the size af each lat: Block 1 Lot 1 Outlot A Outlat B Outlat C Right-af- Way 40,000 s.f. 7,076 s.f. 28,730 s.f. 67,990 s.f. 31,313 s.f. The Planning Commissian reviewed the Silver Springs 3rd Addition Preliminary & Final Plat at the November 14, 2000 meeting and recammended cantinuance afthe public hearing in arder to. determine if the appraved Canditianal Use Permit cauld be appealed. As stated in the letter fram Dave Olsan to. Mr. Michael Falken, City Ordinance 2-4-3 requires an appeal to. be filed within 10 days af a decision by the Zaning Baard af Adjustment, which required the appeal to. be filed by Octaber 20, 2000. It was determined that the appeal by the affected residents did nat meet the appeal deadline. The public hearing was cantinued to. the December 12, 2000 Planning Cammissian meeting, where the Cammission recammended approval contingent an the fallawing: 1. Campliance with Engineering review memo. dated Navember 8, 2000. 2. The City Cauncil reviews the safety needs far a street light at the intersectian af English Avenue and 190th Street. 3. The Engineering staff reviews the need far a right turn lane and bypass lane an 190th Street. 4. The cantinued review aftraffic related activities at the daycare ance it is in aperation. The Navember 14, 2000 and December 12, 2000 staff memos to. the Planning Cammissian are attached far review by the City Cauncil. The City Attarney has reviewed and approved the Silver Springs 3rd Additian Preliminary and Final Plat. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolutian approving Silver Springs 3rd Additian Preliminary & Final Plat cantingent an the abave-mentianed items. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Caardinatar cc: Tim Giles Karol Bednar RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT AND AUTHORIZING SIGNING OF FINAL PLAT SILVER SPRINGS 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 of said City on the 18th day of December, 2000 at 7 :00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member _ introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, the Developer has filed an application for preliminary and final plat review and approval Silver Springs 3rd Addition; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the 14th day of November, 2000 and continued on the 12th day of December, 2000, preceded by 10 days' published and mailed notice, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the preliminary and fma1 plat at its meeting held on the 12th day of December, 2000; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has rendered an opinion that the proposed plat can be feasibly served by municipal service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above preliminary and final plat be approved and that the requisite signatures are authorized and directed to be affixed to the final plat with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Engineering review memo dated November 8, 2000. 2. The City Council reviews the safety needs for a street light at the intersection of English A venue and 190th Street. 3. The Engineering staff reviews the need for a right turn lane and bypass lane on 190th Street. 4. The continued review of traffic related activities at the daycare once it is in operation. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 18th day of December, 2000. Mayor Attested to the _ day of December, 2000. City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street. Farmington. MN 55024 (651) 463-1111 Fax (651) 463..2591 www.d.farminlfon.mn.us TO: . City Planning commif}QSia Lee Smick, AICP . Planning Caardinatar FROM: SUBJECT: Silver Springs 3rd Additian Preliminary & Final Plat DATE: December 12,2000 INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION The attached letter fram Dave Olsan, Community Develapment Directar to. Mr. Mike Falken explains the City Ordinance far an appeal af a decisian by the Zaning Baard af Adjustment. As nated in the letter, City Ordinance 2-4-3 requires,an appeal to. be filed within 10 days af a decisian by the Zaning Baard af Adjustment. Therefare, an appeal to the Canditianal Use Permit far the. Farmer in the Dell Daycare needed to. be filed by Octaber 20, 2000 to. meet the ordinance requirements. Also. attached is a memo from Shelly Jahnsan, the City's Transportatian Engineer that addresses traffic-related issues and concerns expressed to him by Mr. Folken. In light af the expiratian af the appeal period, the Planning Cammissian shauld determine whether the Silver Springs 3rd Additian Preliminary and Final Plat meets the City's zaning requirements. As stated at the Navember 14, 2000 Planning Cammissian meeting, City staff recommended approval of the plat contingent an the Engineering memo dated Navember 8, 2000 (see attached mema). - ACTIONREOUESTED Recammend approval of the Silver Springs 3rd Additian Preliminary & Final Plat contingent on the Engineering memo. dated Navember 8, 2000 and farward the recammendation to. the City Council. Respect~ sub~~d, ~ ~1UU"(C- Lee Smick, AICP Planning Caardinatar cc: Tim Giles, TC Canstructian Karol Bednar, Farmer in the Dell Daycare City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us November 17,2000 Mike Folken 18851 Emblem Caurt Farmington, MN 55024 RE: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit - Farmer in the Dell Daycare Dear Mr. Folken Upon further review afthe issue you raised prior to and during the Planning Commission meeting an November 14,2000, it has been determined that City Ordinance 2-4-3 requires that an appeal to a decision of the Zoning Baard af Adjustment (Planning Cammission) be filed within 10 days of their final decision (see attached ordinance). This ardinance is not part af Zaning Cade chapter but rather is located in another chapter that outlines the compositian and authority of the Board af Adjustment. The City Attarney has confIrmed that date af the decisian af the Board of Adjustment is the date af the meeting at which the vote was taken. In the case afthe Farmer in the Dell Daycare, the Planning Cammissian voted to approve the canditiona1 use permit at their October 10,2000 meeting and thus the appeal periad expired an October 20,2000. I also cansulted with the City Attorney as to whether there is any means to extend the appeal periad and he indicated that there was not. If you have any further questions, please contact me at 651.463.1860. ~~ ~on -~ Community Development Director cc: Mayor Councilmembers Planning Cammissian John F. Erar, City Administrator Jael Jamnik, City Attorney Carol Benar, Farmer in the Dell Daycare Tim Giles, TC Construction 2-4-3 2-4-3 2-4-3: APPEALS TO CITY COUNCIL: A party may appeal a decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustment when issues of fact, procedure or other finding made by the Board are in dispute. Appeals must be filed with the City within ten (10) days of the final decision of the Board of Adjustment. Building permits shall not be issued after an appeal has been filed with. the Planning Department. If permits have been issued before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and construction and/or usage shall cease until the City Council has made a final determination of the appeal. The City Council shall conduct a hearing within sixty (60) days after the receipt by City staff of the appeal from an action by the Board of Adjustment. As provided in subsection 10-8-6(0) of this Code, notice of the hearing shall be mailed to property owners adjacent to the subject property disregarding public rights of way. Any person may appear and testify at the hearing either in person or by duly authorized agent or attorney. A fee to be established by resolution of the City Council shall be paid by the appellant at the time the notice of appeal is filed. (Ord. 097-393, 4-7-1997) 398 City af Farminltan City of Farmington 3%5 Oak Street, farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-1111 fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmi~n.mn.us TO: Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator Dave Olso~ Community Development Director FROM: David Sanoclci, Engineering Division SUBJECT: Silver Springs 3rd Addition Preliminary and Final Plat review DATE: November 8, 2000 Engineering staff has reviewed the preliminary and final plat that was submitted for the above referenced project. The following comments need to be addressed prior to the next submittal: 1. There is a twenty-foot permanent easement for the sanitary sewer that runs through the lot. A portion of this easement, far the sanitary sewer removed, will have to be vacated. 2. Plat an easement large enough, ten feet an each side of centerline of pipe, to allow for sanitary connection (include dead end manha1e an property). 3. Maintain easement an the south side af the existing watermain (ten feet an each side of centerline af pipe). 4. Provide a drainage and utility easement an the north side af the parking lot to canfine drainage to the lot. A storm pipe may be utilized to. pick up lat drainage. Design changes due to the above listed items could affect the easement locations for the praposed plat. smcere4J R )~. David R. Sanocki Engineering Division Cc: Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer JLJ.4 - 1J1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Bonestroo, Rosene. Ander/ik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative ActionlEqual Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned Principals: Otto Bonestroo, P .E. . MalVin L. SOlVala. P .E. . Glenn R. Cook, P .E. . Robert G. Schunicht, P.E. . Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. Senior Consultants: Robert W. Rosene, P.E. . Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E. . Richard E. Turner, P.E. . Susan M. Eberlin, C.P.A. Associate Principals: Howard A. Sanford, P.E. . Keith A. Gordon, P.E. . Robert R. Pfefferle, P.E. . Richard W. Foster, P.E. . David O. Loskota. P.E. . Robert C. Russek, A.I.A. . Mark A. Hanson, P.E. . Michael T. Rautmann, P.E.. Ted K. Field, P.E.. Kenneth P. Anderson, P.E.. Mark R. Rolfs, P.E.. David A. Bonestroo, M.B.A. . Sidney P. Williamson, P.E., L.S. . Agnes M. Ring, M.B.A., . Allan Rick Schmidt, P.E. Offices: SI. Paul, Rochester, Willmar and SI. Cloud, MN . Milwaukee, WI Website: www.bonestroo.com Engineers & Architects Memorandum TO: David Olson Directar af Cammunity Development COPY TO: Lee Mann City Engineer FROM: Shelly Jahnsan DATE: December 6,2000 RE: Issues/Cancerns - English/190th Street - Proposed Day Care Facility Our File No. 141-99-101 Responses have been farmu1ated far the issues/concerns expressed to me by Mr. Mike Folken, who resides at 18851 Emblem Court in Farmington. These issues/cancerns are in regard to. the proposed day care facility and traffic operatians in the vicinity af the English A venue/190th Street intersectian. The fallowing pravides a statement of each issue/cancern and the traffic engineering/planning response to the issue/concern. 1. Issue/Cancern -- Can the praposed day care driveway, located along English Avenue, be restricted to right turn aut anly? Response -- The restriction af left turns fram the driveway is not necessary since the expected valumes using the driveway, caupled with the traffic an English A venue, do not pose a situation that we feel will be a safety cancern. We do nat recammend restricting the turns from the driveway since English Avenue is a facility that allows far access to praperties and accammadating "short" trips that would have to utilize Pilat Knob Raad if English were nat available. The functian af Pilot Knob Raad is to accammodate regional and sub-regional trips at a higher speed and nat to accommodate the sharter trips. A prohibition of left turns from the driveway wauld be ignored by many of the motorists since they would not see why a left turn can't be made at this lacatian. The placement af traffic contrals ar turn restrictions that are not necessary to. solve a traffic prab1em are aften ignared by the travelling public. 2. Issue/Cancern -- Can the driveway be placed on 190th Street rather than on English Avenue? Respanse -- The driveway to the proposed day care facility is more aptly placed on English Avenue than on 190th Street. 190th Street is a major callector roadway on the City thoroughfare 2335 West Highway 36. St. Paul, MN 55113. 651-636-4600. Fax: 651-636-1311 plan and as such driveways need to. be very carefully limited in arder to protect the capacity and safety functions of the major collector. English Avenue is a lower classified roadway that functions as an access roadway.to praperties and as a neighborhood collector facility. Access to English Avenue is the correct street for access to the proposed facility given the function of the two. roadways. 3. Issue/Cancern -- Can there be a ane-way inbound driveway on English and a one-way exit driveway to 190th Street? Response -- The answer to this questian is the same as that stated in number two above. The valumes are not of sufficient magnitude to warrant such driveway treatment and safety should not be a significant issue with the praposed two-way drive anto English. 4. Issue/Cancern -- The proposed driveway is on an "s" curve and the concern is to sight distance aspects af the driveway 1acatian. Response -- This is a legitimate cancern with any driveway placement and a sight distance assessment needs to be accamplished in arder to. ensure that sight distance is adequate for this driveway. This will require an up-ta-date sight plan and capy af English Avenue as-built drawings in this area. The City Engineer may have already addressed this situation. 5. Issue/Cancern -- Peaple drive to.o fast on the English Avenue "s" curve already referenced and due to. this excessive speed, they crass over the center line in this "s" curve area. Response -- I have nat, persanally, abserved the accurrences mentianed in the above issue. If this daes accur. then the issue is carrect, it is an unsafe driving practice. If this can be documented, then placement af curve speed sign warnings ar pravision af a depressed rumble strip area may be two. methads that cauld be applied in arder to notify motarists af the speed warning and the lacatian af the roadway center line. The documentatian of the reported practice must present sa lid evidence that this unsafe practice accurs and natjust one ar two vehicles during the day. The city may desire to review this situatian in the field. 6. Issue/Cancern -- Dominos and ather traffic use this as a thoroughfare. Response -- As previausly stated, English Avenue's functian is to provide access to properties and allaw far traffic to. mave narth-sauth withaut having to. travel an Pilat Knab Road for the sharter trips. It may be that some traffic drives the entire length of English A venue, but that is nat expected to be a very high percentage af vehicles that make up the English traffic. Some drivers that live or have business in the English Avenue corridar may well chaose to. use English and that is expected and encauraged in arder to. help pratect Pilat Knob Raad for the regional and sub-regional trips. The va1umes an English Avenue are nat of such magnitude to present a capacity ar safety prablem. 7. Issue/Concern -- There aren't any turn lanes an 190th Street at the intersection with English Avenue. Response -- It is my belief that the turning volumes at the intersection are not of sufficient magnitude to recommend the installatian af turn lanes on 190th Street. I am sure that the 2335 West Highway 36 n St. Paul, MN 55113 n 651-636-4600 n Fax: 651-636-1311 intersectian capacity is sufficient to accommodate the existing and expected traffic volumes withaut intersectian widening. The accident recards can be checked to see if there is a significant accident history at this location. 8. Issue/Cancern -- There isn't a street light at the 190th/English intersectian, making this hazardous during conditions of darkness. Respanse -- The accident history can be evaluated to. determine the occurrence of nighttime accidents at this location. If the histary indicates a potential prablem, and if a nighttime survey indicates a potentially unsafe situation, remedies can be praposed to mitigate the situation. 9. Issue/Cancern -- There aren't any street lights a1ang the "s" curve an English Avenue. Response -- Again, the respanse to. issue number eight above is appropriate. 10. Issue/Cancern -- Can speed bumps be installed along English Avenue? Response -- The City Cauncil can order such an installatian. Hawever, a speeding problem needs to. be dacumented befare any such actian is recammended. Other remedial measures should be cansidered befare physical speed cantral is built. Increased enfarcement is one method to. help reduce speeding, if it is documented to. be a problem. Physical changes such as Speed Humps (not bumps) ar intersection and midblack "chokers" have praven to have some success in slowing traffic if praperly placed. Again, the speeding prablem must first be documented. I believe that previous speed surveys canducted by the Farmingtan Palice Department have cancluded that speeding is not excessive along this carridor. While it is my belief that an unmanageable ar unsafe traffic prablem will not occur with the pravision af the day care facility, the situatian shauld be manitored and reviewed after the facility is apen. If any specific problems accur, a plan to mitigate such prablems cauld then be developed. 2335 West Highway 36 n St. Paul, MN 55113 n 651-636-4600 n Fax: 651-636-1311 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street. Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farminiton.mn.us TO: City Planning Commission FROM: Lee Smick, AICP f'\ n Planning Caardinator ~ SUBJECT: Silver Springs 3rd Addition Preliminary & Final Plat Applicant: Tim Giles DATE: Navember 14, 2000 INTRODUCTION Tim Giles, P.O. Bax 51, Elka, MN 55020, propases to plat approximately 4 acres ofland in the nartheast quadrant of the intersectian af CSAH 31 (Pilat Knob Raad) and 190m Street. The Preliminary and Final Plat shaws three outlats and ane platted lat af record. Plannin!!: Division Review Applicant: Tim Giles P.O. Box 51 Elko, MN 55020 Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Application Location Map Preliminary and Final Plat Site Plan for Block 1 Lot 1 Farmer in the Dell CUP Merna Location of Property: Nartheast carner of Pilat Knob Road and 190th Street Surrounding Land Uses: Single-family residential surrounds the plat boundaries. Existing Zoning: R-I (Low Density) Comprehensive Plan: Law Density Lot Area: Black I Lat 1 Outlat A Outlat B Outlat C Right-af- Way 40,000 s.f. 7,076 s.f. 28,730 s.f. 67,990 s.f. 31,313 s.f. .0.- _____.~---. . ..--------. . -_.-.. ---~.-._-..-_. -_.. DISCUSSION The applicant, Tim Giles is seeking approval of the Preliminary & Final Plat for Silver Springs 3rd Addition. On October 12,2000 the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit to construct a day care facility on Block 1 Lot 1 of the Silver Springs 3rd Addition. Far reference, the Conditional Use Permit staff memo is attached to this document. Mr. Giles proposes to plat the remainder af his praperty as autlots and also. identify the realigned English Avenue right-af-way. Attached is a memo. fram the Engineering Divisian identifying the need for additional easements to be shown on the plat. Plat approval is contingent on the requirements identified in this memo.. RECOMMENDATION Approve the Silver Springs 3rd Addition Preliminary & Final Plat contingent on the Engineering memo. dated Navember 8, 2000 and forward the recommendatian to the City Cauncil. ;;:~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coardinatar cc: Tim Giles ------ .. .'~:\..rti e~ r;~U'-! "Vi ~ ~!\\r ; . .:....-...1 "_ L...;...J w!...:=:J: I'~ ;; ':i I., I!; AP?LIC.ATION FOR PLAT REVIEW I" " ':11 i: !!. OCT 2 O3JOO il' ;:1 1/:\\,11;)1 DAn: _\0- )C\-OO pl..;. Wl IV 1 i I ~~ I ~~ 5 .;\vec- Sp,;~~~..J P\JJ:i:oAoJ LOCATION s \a.J V4..5 C2c:.. \"'3 T u..'p. IIY 1\1. K 'U) ~ ..'" -1 \ AlU:A BOUNDED BY I C\.o S+C"~ l2.~ v.J.-J Ce. eJ - '3',J E ~ :'5 h. A\JQ. 'tOur. GROSS AREA 4: tJ;Z & ZONI~G DISnIC't'(S) R - \ ~C)(YS+ . NAMES & ADDRESSZS OF ALL Ow~S T C PHONE: crsz- '1b/- 3 ~ 811 NAME & ADDRESS OF !.AND SURv~~OR/ENG!m:n ~~~~ Oa......\o ~LS Do.....e.4..l ~I'@r- p~~ Pro'oe t:~7..JqeC"7,..,C, l~~ ~~,r--..)~u~l\C' 1"\-..> ?EONE~S"~-4.J'2.-.3~O NAMES & ADDRESSES OF AU. ADJOINING ?ROPERTI OWNDS ..\VA.!!.ABLZ :3.0M: ON: PLAT REVIZW OPTION: PRELL'1!NARY & E'!NAL 'tOGZ-==~: PRE PLAT ADMI~TISTEAIIil'E ~: X PA-1D IN SEQUENCE: PRE PUT SURETY: rill D I HE..'U':BY CERTIFY !EAT I AM (r,.,r; ARE) TIlE r.c.E Ow"NE!t(S) OF 'mE ABOVE ~'ID, !EA1' 'IRE PERSON PREP ARnIG 'tEE PLU' a:.~S RECEIV'ED A COPY OF 'tITLE 11. CEAPTEltS 1 mu S. ENtI'!!..ED "SUBDIVISIONS" .u'ID 't!TU la, CRAFTERS 1 !ERU L2 EN'I'I'!!.ED "ZONING" OF m F.L\RM!NGTON CITY CODE: .u'ID ~N"'!!.L PlU:!'.~ DE PUT IN ACCOR.D.u\fCE r,.;I~ -:-.:E P:tOVISIONS CONTAINED TREREIN. 2~~ SIG~IlJRE OF Ow"'NE::" /0 - / r - Oa DA!! ADVISORY MEETING: 1 . SKETCE PUJ,\f 2. ST.~: &'fD DEVELOPER CONSENSUS - ~~ I I I I I - - - """'<; -- - ~ jiiiiiii 0 I ..., ......... - .. j ~ =::: '12- H H, S. W - :) I;iJ, u ~ ,; - ~ - " ...1 y-y Y v~ ~ - Yr.\, ~ - ~ I l ~V' f-- ~~ ~ 1 ><ST,", 's,T ^' ~ ~ ~/I Q~ ~ect Property 1 -- ............ I---. 11~U rH ST~ ~ - \ ~ j "] .------ "-Jr ~ ) .... \ ~)N~ ~ ~ t! "'-- ~ - '--- r w p - I;. I ( - \ l \ \ r Property Location I I pal 8~ I I ~i : I :\2: I I I', Ot I , , I I "5 ~ ,iI ,~ ~I lIl, ILl , ~ G~. llil ,. 'o! I ~~ Ii :!~ ,: I !I ':! I i.; I~ I ~ l~ P:l I I- '. ;S ~ I III I~ !I....o 0 I ,; ." ~ &... I '~ ,.... <:) S ::1: II' (J ./ iil I ~,~ &..../ ,,~ I g', ~ .~..;.O I I ~ /' <:) ~ C' I It'" lOt: :!; -'" .- ...,\V ~t.tI.~.J ~ft _ ~ ----~~~a- I Xil~ l1li'_ co't!lll Ol.teon... .IC.ot.IO-V : "OO.Ot.ooN I..! - - - - - ~._.....- "IC.oc.2ON " II~. _ 1T"tftl1-a\ I .8' . gl.oo-'I! I 861 'ON d\f~'~ M/C! a\foC! AINnOJ VIO>l\fa iii _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.,- _ JE 'Of-!. !-lIIAH_SJH al~ ?lU_S_'AlN!l9~ _ _ _ _ _111 MOZ '.....".1 ',. ',.. ,/... ,/,.. lNI'II5"-',I OllOM eON>! 101ld L I I ~ II 11;;1 i ~--T.-r;.T-. I. I I~ :..,.: :..,.: N ~ ~ f---+._-!---+-- I II . '~1-' ,~'" . I il!;1 ~ !---J---dz---L. " ,,' ~ ~ II i!l ~ II n ':l !.....,.! ! .....,.! ----- I ., . d 20 i---+---j----t,-- -, ilill ~... N !.! ~ ..z : :""1-: : '" I, ..,=~ > I .... I I illil .!!io ~ I ~iv II a:.. i z o 1-1 E-t 1-1 o o < o ~ OJ ~! d ~ ~i ~! i ~~ ~Illi ~i l!Ji ~~ili ~ oJ ~::J1lI 1Ii1ll ~i~ ~.~. ~!:!~ ~@~ S~ s~g; i:!ll:I i:!l:I ~~: ~jjji ~~ o . m ~ Z 1-1 ~ 0... m , , , '.I - -"-< C'} , I,,', , I '~09 .1-1-" (,.....;...1 ~ ,..........f en ,~-> ~ II ~ III III n: ~ III III &... C S c ~ r:iI ~ 1-1 m I I I I I C:\ I (II : ,-~>'- I " {-c',.- I tJ'" I r . I I \':' ~, . __~_____-.J 01 ,t..t./ I --'.. 3nN3^ 1I HSI1SN3 I "Ot._ 0n:0ll "1IO.oooOOll O!l"L21 ~8 " . I _..:..:~..., "...... 'V . 1....t>t.aDM ,. ~I I!~ ;I ....'7' o I.'.J ,..; o -.l City of Farmington 32S Oak Street, farmingtOn, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmineton.mn.us TO: City Planning Commission FROM: Michael Schultz IJt..fJ Associate Planner/" SUBJECT: Conditional Use Pennit - Construct Day Care Facility within R-l (Low Density) Zoning District Applicant: Karol & Mike Bednar DATE: September 12, 2000 INTRODUCTION Karol and Mike Bednar have submitted for a Conditional Use Pennit to construct a Day Care Facility serving 14 ar more persons within an R-l (Low Density) Zoning District proposed at the northeast comer of Pilot Knob Rd and 190th Street. Planning: Division Review Applicant: Karol & Mike Bednar 18877 Englewood Way Farmington, MN 55024 4. 5. 6. Application Location Map Section 10-3-2; Pennitted and Conditional Uses, R-l (Low Density) District Preliminary Site Plan Preliminary Floor Plan Preliminary Elevations Attachments: 1. 2. 3. Location of Property: Northeast comer of Pilot Knab Rd and I 90th Street Surrounding Land Uses: Single-family to the east, west and south. The developer has indicated possible twin hames to the north. Existing Zoning: R-l (Low Density) Comprehensive Plan: . Low Density Lot Area: +/- 40,000 square feet DISCUSSION The applicants, Karol and Mike Bednar are seeking Planning Commission approval for a Conditional Use Pennit to constrUct a day care facility within an R-l (Low Density) Zoning District. The Bednars would utilize approximately half of the 7,625 square foot building for the use of their day care facility, the other half of the building would be used for a pre-school facility run by Living Spring Community Church. The applicants are anticipating having up to 60 children within their facility, ranging in age from o to 8 years old. The estimated number of children within the Living Springs Community Church preschool facility is 50 (the CUP application does not include the preschool facility, the infonnation is included only in the determination of required parking and trip generation), with ages ranging from 2 to 5. Pro Dosed Buildin2 The building is proposed to have a residential appearance, allowing it to blend into the surrounding neighborhood. The building materials includes vinyl siding and trim, vinyl-clad windows, pre-finished aluminum fascia & sofit. pitched roof and asphalt roof shingles (the color af the building and roaf within the elevation drawings do not necessarily reflect the finished product). Windows are propased along each wall of the building providing natural daylight within the building and continuing the residential look. A vestibule is proposed for the main entrance to both af the spaces along the west side of the building. The interior of the building is designed per the requirements of the State guidelines for childcare. The daycare area includes an infant and crib room, preschool room and a room far toddler and school age children. An office, kitchen, janitor and mechanical room is proposed within the center of the building. The leased space is proposed along the north portion of the building which will have access to the toilets for preschool, the mechanical room, 2 closets and the outdoor play area. There are nine bathrooms proposed to facilitate the number and age groups of the children. Parkin2 Lotffraffic Generation/Road Access The proposed parking lot contains 23 parking spaces, 1 accessible handicap space and a drop aff area in front of the building. The drop off area is unmarked on the plan, but is estimated to be 60- 65 feet in length; allowing for stacking of approximately 3 to 4 vehicles. The estimated number of trips per day is 500 (250 in and 250 out) for both the day care and pre-school facility (110 total children), this is based on 4.52 trips per child. The number of estimated trips for just the day care facility would be approximately 270 (135 in and 135 out) (information provided by Shelly Johnson, Bonestraa Engineering based on ITE Trip Rates). The propased driveway access is located off af English Ave and is approximately 250 feet from the intersection of English Ave and 190th Street; this distance provides adequate stacking distance fram the English Ave stop sign. The access is also situated in a locatian that is visible for southbound traffic along English Ave. Access is not pennitted onto 190m Street ar Pilat Knob Raad. LandscaDin2 Landscaping is provided along the boulevard on English Ave and 190th Street. Staff recommends that the trees along English Ave be placed seven (7) feet off of curb instead of within the property line. The trees along 190th Street can be kept along the property line in order to avoid the overhead utility lines and allow for snow storage within the boulevard (there are no trees planted within most of the boulevard along 190th Street). Staff notes that the deciduous trees along English Ave will need to be planted at 2 1/2" caliper instead of the proposed 2" caliper according to the City's Landscape Ordinance. Landscaping is also provided around the perimeter of the parking lot, within the parking island and in the front of the building. The perimeter plantings include 6' evergreens spaced 20' on center along the north property line provide screening for future residential. The perimeter planting also includes 1 1/2" caliper ornamental and 12" deciduous shrubs and coniferous shrubs. Staff will work with the architect and applicants an the details of the variety and species of plantings on the property. Exterior Li2htin2 The applicant's architect is proposing four (4) perimeter parking lot luminaries that will be low watt, shoebox design that is directed downward to minimize light spill to the property line. Staff is recommending that the applicant add one additianal luminaire near the ingress/egress to the property to pravide light within the area of the driveway. Details of the lighting will be supplied to staff and reviewed during the building permit application. PlaV2round Area The play area is proposed in the rear of the building near English Ave and will be contained by a four (4) faot chain link fence. The play area is sized for no more than 30 school aged children to be using it at any given time; the State formula calls for 75 square feet of playground space for the maximum number of children, this equates to 2,250 square feet, the proposed playground is 2,285 square feet. The area could be enlarged either to the north or south of the proposed location. Waste Mana2ement Staff and the applicant originally discussed the possibility of having roadside garbage collection because of the lack of waste that was anticipated (the applicant was considering that meals would not be provided). Staff has since discussed this issue with the applicants and due to the anticipated number af children in both the day care and preschool facility has suggested constructing a dumpster enclosure along the south portian of the parking lot. The dumpster enclosure will be added to the diagram during construction plan submittal. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow for a day care facility serving more than 14 persons within the R-I (Low Density) Zoning District subject to the following conditions: 1) The property is platted prior to a building permit being issued for the construction of the building; 2) The proposed trees along English Ave are planted within the boulevard and to the City standards outlined according to Section 10-6-14 of the City Code; 3) An additionalluminaire be added near the entrance of the property to provide driveway lighting; 4) The architect and staff work together on adding brick veneer as detailing on the building; 5) The architect and staff work together on placing a six (6) foot high dumpster enclosure someone along the perimeter of the parking lot; 6) The architect and staff work together on the placement and variety of plantings around the perimeter of the parking lot; 7) The applicant's architect/engineer work with Engineering staff on the City's standards and requirements for the construction of the parking lot; 8) The applicants submit landscape and parking lot sureties in an amount acceptable to the Planning Coordinator and City Engineer. ;D~ Michael Schultz t Associate Planner cc: Karol & Mike Bednar Paul Humiston, AlA ~ ~ U;". ij~ ft -r~~ g I . 'l ~ ~~ O. .N .. ..~ F' d' ~ ~ Ii' ,t-. ') L .~ ~ .0 .- 0;::...... If 1a-T" +-\ ~ IJ\ L~~- r. 61.~. ~. F~- ('fI_')f. t\I:.~ q ~ \ N I) tc-..f: <J if t:i ~+ ~ > tr t ...~.'~".~ \) . "y~~~.. If;; J ~ ~ 11 t ~ I{I \I--.:) ~ ~ ~ i s: ~1fI~~-F ijJ~, -0 :+:s;:o<S ~ ~ J <) ~.. j i u~ ~ -t S ~~ i\ ~ .~ M ~ d '"f'" ~ "3~ ~ . ~ 1::1 ~~ ~~:f ~ ~J ~ l ~ ~ $.L 8~~c:H ~0\\ <;10 ;j': ~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /O~ TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Consider Resolution - Supporting Public Building Sales Tax Exemption Legislation DATE: December 18, 2000 INTRODUCTION As Council is aware, staff has been working with the League of Minnesota Cities, the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities and interested cities regarding the introduction of special legislation in this upcoming legislative session. DISCUSSION Attached, please find a copy of a draft bill for Council consideration. This special legislation, if approved by the legislature, would provide the City with a sales tax exemption for taxable materials, supplies and equipment. The cities of Arden Hills, Blaine, Hugq, and potentially a number of other cities, including Dakota County, will be introducing similar legislation. My office has contacted the City's legislative representatives and received feedback that they are in favor of the special legislation and will support its passage in the upcoming session. BUDGET IMPACT Based on preliminary estimates, the City should experience a direct sales tax savings of approximately $200,000 based on a materials estimate cost of $3,000,000. Depending on the full scope of the exemption, final figures could be greater. These savings will be added to the project's contingency, with any unspent contingency committed to debt service. ACTION REOUESTED Consider the adoption of the attached resolution supporting special legislation authorizing a sales tax exemption on public facilities. RESOLUTION NO. R -00 SUPPORTING SPECIAL LEGISLATION EXEMPTING MATERIALS, SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT USED IN CONSTRUCTING CITY FACILITIES FROM THE STATE SALES TAX 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 18th day of December, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, the City of Farmington is planning the construction of two public facilities in the form of a Police Department and Central Maintenance Facility in 2001; and, WHEREAS, public expenditures for the construction of these two facilities will total approximately $7.4 million, with expenditures for materials, supplies and equipment totaling $3,000,000; and, WHEREAS, sales tax paid to the State of Minnesota will approximate $195,000 and directly increase the cost of these buildings by that amount; and, WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota, as a matter of public policy, does not impose sales tax on school districts related to building project materials, equipment and supplies; and, WHEREAS, the City of Farmington desires to introduce special legislation that would allow building project expenditures in the form of materials, equipment and supplies to be exempted from sales tax. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Farmington City Council hereby supports special legislation to exempt public building construction projects from the sales tax and authorizes City staff to work with the City's Legislative Delegation to introduce such legislation. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 18th day of December, 2000. Mayor Attested to the day of , 2000. City Administrator SEAL - Association of Metropolitan Municipalities FROM: RE: Navember 28, 2000 Joe Lynch-Arden Hills Terry Past-Arden Hills Jahn Erar-Farmington Roger Fraser-Blaine Gene Ranieri-Executive Directar Public Building Sales Tax Exemptian Legislation DATE: TO: Enclosed for your review and camment are copies af special legislation for each city as well as a general law exemptian. The special laws have the follawing: Specific exemptions for projects in each city. The special law amends the general sales and use tax law's exemption section (MS 297 A.25). The section includes appraximate1y 80 exemptions fram the sales and use tax. Amang them are exemptians far canstruction materials for such projects as Lake Superiar Center (Duluth), the Science Museum of Minnesota, indoor ice arenas (Mighty Ducks), Minneapa1is Canventian Center, River Centre arena, and the Earle Brown Heritage Center (Brooklyn Center). The 2000 legislature provided exemptians for canstructian materials, supplies and equipment for an agricultural processing facilities (park and beef) and machinery and equipment far ski areas. Language that provides for the exemption regardless af who. purchases the materials, supplies or equipment. An effective date that is January 1,2001 for Farmingtan and Arden Hills. The Blaine effective date is the same as the 2000 legis1atian. Please review the legislation and if you have any questians, ar changes please contact me at 651-215-4001. 145 University Avenue West Saint Paul, Minnesota 55103-2044 Telephone: (651) 215-4000 Fax: (651) 281-1299 E-mail: amm@amm145.org A bill for an act Relating to taxation; exempting certain sales to. gavemments from the sales tax; amending Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 297 A.25 subdivisian 11. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Sectian 1. Minnesota Statues 2000, Sectian 297 A.25 subdivision 11 is amended to. read: Subd. 1. Sales to government. The grass receipts fram all sales, including sales in which title is retained by a seller or a vendar or is assigned to a third party under an installment sale ar lease purchase agreement under section 465.71, of tangible personal property to and all storage, use ar consumptian af such praperty by, the United States and its agencies and instrumentalities, the University of Minnesota, state universities, cammunity colleges, technical colleges, state academies, the Lola and Rudy Perpich Minnesata center for arts educatian, an instrumentality of a political subdivision that is accredited as an aptianal/special function schoal by the North Central Associatian af Colleges and Schaals, schaal districts, public libraries, public library systems, multicaunty, multitype library systems as defined in sectian 134.001, caunty law libraries under chapter 134A, the state library under section 480.09, and the legislative reference library are exempt. As used in this subdivisian, "schaol districts" means public school entities and districts of every kind and nature arganized under the laws of the state of Minnesota, including, withaut limitation, school districts, intermediate school districts, education districts, service coaperatives, secandary vacatianal co. operative centers, special educatian coaperatives, jaint purchasing coaperatives, telecommunicatian coaperatives, regianal management infarmatian centers, and any instrumentality of a schaal district, as defined in section 471.59. Sales exempted by this subdivision include sales under sectian 297 A. 01, subdivision 3, paragraph (f). Sales to haspitals and nursing homes owned and operated by political subdivisions of the state are exempt under this subdivision. Sales of supplies and equipment used in the aperatian of an ambulance service owned and aperated by a political subdivision of the state are exempt under this subdivision provided that the supplies and equipment are used in the course af providing medical care. Sales to a palitical subdivisian of repair and replacement parts far emergency rescue vehicles and fire trucks and apparatus are exempt under this subdivisian. Sales to a palitica1 subdivision of machinery and equipment, except far mator vehicles, used directly far mixed municipal sa lid waste management services at a solid waste disposal facility as defined in sectian 115A.03, subdivision 10, are exempt under this subdivision. Sales to political subdivisions of chore and homemaking services to be provided to elderly or disabled individuals are exempt. Sales to a tawn of gravel and af machinery, equipment, and accessaries, except motar vehicles, used exclusively for road and bridge maintenance, and leases af matar vehicles exempt fram tax under section 297B.03, clause (10), are exempt. Sales of telephone services to. the department af administratian that are used to. provide telecommunications services through the intertechnalagies revalving fund are exempt under this subdivisian. This exemptian shall Bet; apply to building, constructian or reconstruction materials purchased by a contractar or a subcontractor as a part af a lump--sum contract or similar type af cantract with a guaranteed maximum price covering both labor and materials far use in the constructian, alteratian, ar repair of a building or facility. This exemptian daes nat apply to. canstructian materials purchased by tax exempt entities ar their cantractars to be used in canstructing buildings ar facilities which will nat be used principally by the tax exempt entities. This exemptian does not apply to. the leasing af a motar vehicle as defined in sectian 297B.Ol, subdivision 5, except far leases entered into. by the United States or its agencies or instrumentalities. The tax impased an sales to palitical subdivisians of the state under this section applies to. all palitical subdivisions ather than thase explicitly exempted under this subdivisian, notwithstanding section 115A.69 subdivision 6, 116A.25, 360.035, 458A.09, 458A.30, 458D.23, 469.101, subdivisian 2,469.127,473.448,473.545, or 473.608 or any ather law to the cantrary enacted befare 1992. Sales exempted by this subdivision include sales made to other states or political subdivisians of ather states, if the sale would be exempt fram taxation if it occurred in that state, but do. not include sales under section 297A.01, subdivision 3, paragraphs (c) and (e). A bill far an act Relating to. taxation; exempting sales af canstructian materials used to. build a palicy facility and public warks garage in the city afFarmingtan; amending Minnesata Statutes 2000, sectian 297 A.25, by adding a subdivisian. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Sectian 1. Minnesata Statutes 2000, sectian 297 A.25, is amended by adding a subdivisian to. read: Subd. ---. [Canstructian Materials; Farmingtan pa1ice facility and public warks garage]. Purchase of materials. supplies or equipment used ar cansumed in the canstructian. equipment. and impravement afthe Farminlrtan palice facility and public works garage is exempt. This exemptian applies regardless af whether the materials. supplies ar equipment are purchased bv the city ar bv a canstructian manager ar contractar. Sec. 2. [Effective Date.] Sectian 1 is effective far sales and purchases accurring after January 1. 2001. A bill far an act Relating to. taxation; exempting sales af canstructian materials used to. build city hall in the city of Arden Hills; amending Minnesota Statutes 2000, sectian 297 A.25, by adding a subdivisian. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Sectian 1. Minnesata Statutes 2000, sectian 297 A.25, is amended by adding a subdivisian to. read: Subd. ---. [Canstructian Materials; Arden Hills City Hall]. Purchase afmateria1s. supplies ar equipment used ar consumed in the canstructian. equipment. and impravement af the Arden Hills city hall is exempt. This exemptian applies regardless of whether the materials. supplies ar equipment are purchased bv the city or bv a constructian manager or cantractar. Sec. 2. [Effective Date.] Section 1 is effective far sales and purchases accurring after January 1. 2001. H.F No.. 4034, as introduced Page 1 of 1 MlnMSOtaHouseof~ KEY: otrio](on = old language to be removed underscored = new language to be added NOTE: If you cannat see any difference in the key above, yau need to change the display of stricken and/or underscared language. Authars and Status · List versions H.F No. 4034, as introduced: 81st Legislative Session (1999-2000) Posted an Mar 6, 2000 1.1 A bill for an act 1.2 relating to taxation; exempting sales of construction 1.3 materials used to build city hall and police 1.4 department facility in the city of Blaine; amending 1.5 Minnesota Statutes 1998, section 297A.25, by adding a 1.6 subdivision. 1.7 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 1.8 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1998, section 297A.25, is 1.9 amended by adding a subdivision to read: 1.10 Subd. 84. [CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS; BLAINE CITY HALL AND 1.11 POLICE FACILITY.] Purchases of materials, supplies, or equipment 1.12 used or consumed in the construction, equipment, and improvement 1.13 of the Blaine city hall and police department facility are 1.14 exempt. This exemption applies reqardless of whether the 1.15 materials, supplies, or equipment are purchased by the city or 1.16 by a construction manaqer or contractor. 1.17 Sec. 2. [EFFECTIVE DATE.] 1.18 Section 1 is effective for sales and purchases occurrinq 1.19 after June 30, 2000. http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/bldbill.pl ?bill=H4034. 0&session=ls81 11/17/00 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us lOci TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Akin Road Tumback Praject - Schedule Council Workshop DATE: December 18, 2000 INTRODUCTION As staff prepares to address final project issues that were identified in the feasibility study, the Council has been provided with several options regarding potential tumback improvements associated with Akin Road. Two neighborhoad meetings have been held, with Council in attendance at one of those meetings, to discuss the full range af improvement optians and associated cost estimates as well as to receive citizen feedback. Feedback from the neighborhood meetings was incorporated in the feasibility report as potential project options and presented by the City Engineer. DISCUSSION In review of these issues, a Council workshop shauld be held to receive final legislative direction on the scape af improvements to be incorporated in the final project plans and specifications. Once determined, staff will prepare final praject plans for Council approval. A review of the particular options and their related casts will be presented to Cauncil far review and discussion at the workshop. As two neighborhood meetings have already been held, Council may wish to consider whether another neighborhood meeting should be held following the workshop to disseminate Council's consensus of the options in the form of actions most likely to be considered in the final project tumback plans. BUDGET IMPACT Depending upon final Council direction, proposed project funding components will be identified at the Council workshap. ACTION REOUESTED Pursuant to Council palicy, a workshop may be scheduled for Wednesday, January 17,2001 at 7:00 p.m., as the third Wednesday of the month, or Wednesday, January 24, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /0 e... FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~ Robin Roland, Finance Director TO: SUBJECT: Consider Legislative Proposal - Minnesota Municipal Beverage Association DATE: December 18, 2000 INTRODUCTION A bill to allow sales of wine in grocery stores has been proposed to the Legislature by the Minnesota Grocers Association. This bill will be debated in the upcoming Legislative session. DISCUSSION The legislation proposed by the Minnesota Grocers Association (MGA) would allow wine to be sold in grocery stores, in addition to the 3.2 beer they currently are able to sell. The MGA is marketing this idea to grocery customers as "Wine with Dinner" and seeking public support for the concept (and legislation). The Minnesota Municipal Beverage Association (MMBA), of which the City of Farmington is a member, has stated its opposition to this legislation. MMBA has identified their concern in the area of increased risk of sales of alcohol and tobacco to minors if this legislation were to pass. The League of Minnesota Cities also opposes "any proposal that could result in increased risks of youth access to alcohol and tobacco products and expanded off-sale venues for the sale of such products". As the City has a liquor operation, which provides an annual contribution to the Parks and Recreation, staff is sensitive that the proper operation of the liquor stores balances the profits secured from this funding source with the appropriate controls to minimize the risks of youths accessing alcohol and tobacco. Our liquor clerks receive special training in how to handle the verification required to avoid sales to minors. Our liquor stores do not allow persons under the age of 21 to even enter the store, unless accompanied by an adult, thereby effectively restricting sales of not only liquor but cigarettes as well to those over 21. The proposed "wine in grocery" legislation does not give any definition of what is a grocery store. This could be broadly interpreted to mean all convenience stores, Target, Wal-mart, etc. Clerks in these establishments can be as young as 16 and do not have the special training necessary to handle liquor and tobacco compliance. If this legislation is passed, more compliance checks by local authorities will be required, resulting in higher costs to the taxpayer. Other cities within the MMBA have addressed their concerns with the legislation by passing formal resolutions supporting the MMBA and LMC position. ACTION REQUIRED Consider whether the City of Farmington wishes to endorse the MMBA position of opposition to the proposed wine in grocery store legislation with a formal council resolution. ]lJic{ Robin Roland Finance Director RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSING THE SALE OF WINE, FOR OFF-PREMISE CONSUMPTION, IN OUTLETS OTHER THAN THE MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORES 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 18th day of December, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member _ introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, there is a proposal before the Minnesota Legislature that, if adopted and made law, would allow convenience stores, grocery stores, gas stations and other similar retail outlets to sell wine, wine coolers and associated products for off-premise consumption; and WHEREAS, the City of Farmington is endeavoring to curtail youth access to alcohol and tobacco products; and WHEREAS, the proliferation of types of outlets where the sale of alcohol provides additional opportunities for youth to have access to alcohol; and WHEREAS, the sale of wine in any (city) business outlet for off-premise consumption, other than the City's municipal liquor stores would be detrimental to the financial condition of the City; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Farmington that they hereby oppose the sale of wine, for off premise consumption, in outlets other than the authorized municipal liquor stores. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 18th day of December, 2000. Mayor City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us {Of FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ Robin Roland, Finance Director TO: SUBJECT: LMCIT 2001 City Insurance Information DATE: December 18, 2000 INTRODUCTION The City of Farmington has property/casualty and workers compensation insurance through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT). LMCIT recently notified all member cities of the 2001 rate adjustments for this insurance coverage. DISCUSSION In a memo from LMCIT dated November 16, 2000, the following rate changes were acknowledged: Workers Comp Municipal Liability Property No change 3% decrease 10% increase Auto Liability Auto Physical damage Boiler & Machinery 5% increase No change No change In dollar terms, the various property/casualty rate changes will roughly offset each other and most members will not see a significant change in their total insurance expense for these items. Additionally, the League has notified member cities of their 2000 property/casualty dividend. This will amount to $12,969 for the City of Farmington. This is 60% of the amount the City received in 1999. The dividend pool shared by all LMCIT policy holders was $5 million. Dividends are based on the individual City's total premiums and total losses for all years of participation. The losses experienced by all the cities in the pool, coupled with the LMCIT board's decision to strengthen the program's retained fund balance, resulted in less dividends returned this year as compared to 1999. BUDGET IMPACT The 2001 budget projected increases in both the workers compensation insurance premiums and the propertylliability insurance premiums. These budgeted increases should cover the projected premiums in both areas. ACTION REQUIRED For information only. A??2Z/ Robin ROla,7"~ Finance Director LMC 145 Cniversity Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 phone: (651) 281.1200 · (800) 925-1122 TOO (651) 281.1290 l1"\lC Fax: (651) 281-1299 · 11\1CIT Fax: (651) 281.1298 Web Site: http://www.lmnc.org League of Minnesota Cities Cities promoting e"cel/flnce Navember 16, 2000 To.: Member cities and agents Fram: LMCIT Baard afTrustees Re: Workers compensation and property/casualty rates and dividends Here's a summary afwhat LMCIT member cities will see far the caming year. · There will be no change in the averalllevel af workers compensation rates far 2001, but we will be adjusting the relative levels af rates far different payrall classes to. reflect actual lass experience. These changes will affect cities differently, depending an which classificatians the city's payralls fall into.. · Rates far property caverage will increase 10%. · Rates far liability caverage will decrease 3%. · Rates far auto liability coverage will decrease 5%. · Rates for the Open Meeting Law Defense Cost caverage and the Petrofund Supplement caverage will decrease 10%. · Rates far auto physical damage, liquor liability, bonds, and machinery breakdown will remain unchanged far the caming year. The liability rate decreases will offset much af the increase in property rates. Mast cities shauld see little change in their tatalpremiums, ather than those resulting from changes in the city's expasures ar experience rating. · LMCIT property/casualty program members will share a $5 million dividend. · The LMCIT workers compensation pragram will nat return a dividend this year. AN EQUAL oppaRTUNITYI AFFfRMA TIVE ACTlaN EMPLaYER Workers compensation rates and dividends No work comp dividend this year. Our current estimates af what the ultimate cost will be far wark camp benefits, bath far year 2000 injuries and for injuries from past years. are slightly higher than what we had estimated a year ago.. Hawever, far 2001 the state has reduced the Special Campensatian Fund (SCF) assessment rate from 30% to. 20% af paid indemnity benefits. That reductian in SCF casts roughly affsets the increase in benefits casts. The "safety margin" that we build into. the wark camp rates is smaller than what we build into. the praperty/casualty rates, but it did caver the slightly higher than anticipated lass casts far the current year. The battom line is that the LMCIT wark camp pragram essentially ran an a break-even basis far the past year. As a result, no. additianal unneeded funds are available to. be returned to. members as a dividend this time around. Rate levels for 2001. We estimate that wark cQmp benefits casts in 2001 will be higher, but because the SCF assessment rate will be 1awer, we're still able to. hald the LMCIT wark camp premium rates to. the same overall level. This will mark the third straight year af no. change in wark camp rates, fallawing several years in which rates dropped sharply. LMCIT Work Comp Premiums A\erage Rate per $100 payroll $6.00 /-.------- ... ... - c $4.00 ,... c ... ,.. $2.00 -1- -[ - ~~-Jr. $0.00 ,~ """ ,- ,.- g1 g2 g3 g4 gS g6 g7 ga gg ~O ~1 The class rate adjustments. While the averall premium level will nat change, we are adjusting the relative rate levels far the different classes afpayralls. LMCIT's practice is to. make these adjustments every three years, based an LMCIT cities' actual lasses by payroll class. These adjustments are ane afthe taals to. help assure that the rating system allacates casts fairly and equitably among members. Far mast payroll classes, the current rates were nat taa far aff fram where the lass experience said they shauld be. Rates far valunteer firefighters and far volunteer ambulance services both needed to. be increased appreciably to. get them mare in line with the lass casts, while rates far waterwarks, building maintenance, and nursing home prafessional emplayees warranted significant decreases based an the lasses. These class rate adjustments will affect different cities' differently, depending an which classes the city's payralls fall into.. To. temper the patential far a shack effect on premiums fram these changes, rate changes far individual classes were capped at plus or minus 20%. But even with that damping factar, a few members cauld see a little mare valatility than usual in their wark camp premiums far 2001. What are work comp losses looking like? The picture daesn't laak quite as pasitive as it did a year ago., but there are still same very pasitive trends alang with a cauple things we need to. keep an eye an. Here' s a snapshot: . The number aflast-time injuries each year drapped steadily thraughaut the '90's, and cantinues to. be flat ar passibly still drapping a bit in recent years. . The average cast per claim far indemnity benefits an last-time injuries has decreased far each accident year since 1997. That's a very pasitive trend; all else being equal we'd expect to. see indemnity casts rising prapartianate to. wage increases. This indicates that cities are daing a gaad jab af getting injured emplayees back to. wark quickly. . The tatal number afreparted injuries spiked up sharply in late 1999 and 2000. The increase seems to. be in relatively minor injuries that dan't result in last time; sa far at least we haven't seen a carrespanding jump in the number af indemnity claims. We're not yet sure if this is a trend or just a temparary aberratian, but in any case we'll need to. watch this clasely. If the injury frequency really is rising, it's virtually certain that same af them will eventually turn aut to. be seriaus. . The average medical cast per claim has cantinued to. decline slightly far accident years since 1997. Given what we knaw abaut the cast afhealth care generally, this is very unexpected. Part af the explanatian may be that prescription drugs, which are a majar factar in rising health care casts generally, are a less significant element in the cast aftreating injuries than far treating diseases. Nevertheless, it's still very surprising to. see average medical casts decreasing, and it seems prudent to. assume that this pattern will reverse at same paint. Overall, what the data shaws is that cities are daing a pretty gaad jab af reducing and avaiding warker injuries, and af helping city emplayees get back to. wark quickly when injuries do. accur. Abaut all there is to. say is "keep up the gaad wark an emplayee safety. " Propert)' and liability rates and dividends This year's dividend. Members af the praperty/casualty program this year will share a $5 millian dividend. Ifyau need a quick rough estimate afthe dividend yaur city will receive, figure 5/7 aflast year's amaunt; it wan't be exact but shauld get yau fairly c1ase. As in the past, the dividend allacatians will be based an the member city's tatal premiums and tatallasses far all years af participatian. Cities can expect to. receive the dividend checks in mid- December. LMCIT Dividends $140 million since 1987 $30,000,000 ,rm...m... ..mmm.... . ... ..... $20000000 Ie ----.-.-.-----------... , , I, $10,000,000 I. $0 I., '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 The funds far this year's dividend result fram the cambined effect af several factars: __ .___u...._.___ _._..__...-.. __ o Property/casualty. Work Comp -- ~---- . - ------- --- - .'- ..--.- · There's a "safety margin" built into. each year's rates, in case lasses shauld turn aut greater than projected. · It naw appears that tatallass casts far the current underwriting year will be less than the rates were designed to. caver. Mast af that difference is in liability lasses. · As liability claims fram the 1997 underwriting year are clased, we naw estimate that' the tatal cast far thase claims will be less than the reserves established far thase claims. The LMCIT Baard also decided to. strengthen the pragram's retained fund balance samewhat, in arder to. be able to. maintain investment incame. Investment incame is an impartant element afthe pic pragram's funding, praviding abaut 12% aftatal revenues, and the premium rates are based an that investment incame being available. The invested funds are a cambinatian af lass reserves and fund balance. The tatal reserves LMCIT halds far lasses and lass develapment have declined aver the past several years. Increasing the fund balance helps assure that we'll be able to. generate the needed investment incame. If investment incame were to. decline, premium rates wauld need to. be raised to. make up the difference. Property casualty rates. Two. main trends pretty much explain what's happening with praperty/casualty rates: · Member cities are daing a gaad jab af cantrolling and reducing liability lasses; and · Praperty lasses have been high far several years running. Property lasses have been running cansistently high since 1997. A gaad part (but nat all) af this pattern is weather- related; we've seen significant starm- related praperty lasses in each af the past several years. We've also. seen several large fire lasses aver that same peri ad. The revised property caverage farms that LMCIT intraduced in 1997-98 may be a factor as well, since those revisians were designed to. broaden the caverage and give cities better pratectian. LMCIT Property Rates $0.15 - r- r- ~ -- .". .+ $0.10 $0.05 $0.00 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 We've also seen same increase in aur praperty reinsurance casts. This is partly a matter af a very significant hardening in the reinsurance market, and partly a matter af several years af significant property lasses in the reinsured layers. Because af increased lass and reinsurance casts, we've had to. increase property rates in recent years. Liability lass experience, an the other hand, General Liability Premium Rates cantinues to. laak pasitive, with tatal liability lass casts halding stable. Cities $15 Ul are cantinuing their success in reducing and g ~ $10 avaiding emplayment liability claims, and &; :.g the number and the cast af land use ~ ~ $5 CII litigatian claims has held fairly stable as $0 well. These are impartant trends, since '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 emplayment, land use, and palice claims Underwriting Year typically make up abaut half af LMCIT' s__ _ __ tatalliability lass casts. Because tatallass casts have been flat while city budgets have grawn with inflatian, we've been able to. gradually bring liability rates dawn. ~ i Auto liability rates will be reduced 5% far the caming year, while auto. physical damage rates will be unchanged. Perhaps mare impartantly, we're also. making an impartant change in the premium rating system far auto. caverage. Beginning with the city's first renewal after Navember 15, premiums far bath auto. liability and auto. physical damage cave rage will naw be based simply an the list af vehicles the city has at the beginning af the palicy term. Newly acquired vehicles will be cavered autamatically, and no. langer need to. be reparted to. LMCIT. This campletely eliminates the need far endarsements to. add ar delete vehicles during the year. It also. eliminates all afthe additiana1 premium charges to. add vehicles midterm, and premium credits far deleting vehicles. Cities will still need to. maintain a list af city vehicles, since we'll need that infarmatian far figuring premiums at the beginning af the pal icy year. But this change shauld eliminate a lat af angaing paperwark, endarsements, and baakkeeping far the city during the year, as well as eliminating the risk that a vehicle will be averlaaked and fall thraugh the cracks. What's ahead? Ultimately, it depends an what the lasses turn aut to. be, but here's aur best guess an what cities shauld be ready far: · Lookfor further increases in property rates. We've held this year's property rate increase dawn samewhat in arder to. maderate the effect an city budgets. If praperty lasses cantinue at the level afthe past 2-3 years thaugh, praperty premiums will need to. increase further. With cantinued gaad liability experience, we may be able to. further reduce liability rates in the future; if sa, that cauld affset same ar all af the property premium increases we anticipate. Hawever, the reinsurance market is clearly hardening, and there's a goad chance aur reinsurance casts will increase. That cauld put same pressure an liability and auto. rates as well. · Future property/casualty dividends will likely be smaller and there may be years in which no dividends are returned. Dividends are anly passible if lasses came in at ar belaw what we prajected when setting premium rates. There is a safety margin built into. the property/casualty rates, but that margin is naw smaller than it's been in the past. Far this reasan, future pic dividends are likely to. be similar to. this year's amaunt ar less, rather than the amaunts cities received in the mid- and late '90's. We'll prabably also see same times when lasses came in enaugh abave prajectians to. use up that margin, in which case there wauld be no. unneeded funds available to. be returned as dividends. · Several factors could put pressure on fi/ture work comp rates. So far, aur wark comp medical casts haven't been hit by the dauble-digit cast increases we've seen in health care generally; that's a pleasant surprise, but nat necessarily a trend we shauld bet an for the lang term. If the recent spike in the number af reparted injuries cantinues, it wauld not be surprising also. to. see an increase in the number af last-time injuries. There's a lawsuit challenging the fund transfer that made it passib1e far the state to. reduce the SCF assessment; if successful. that cauld mean higher SCF casts in the future. Any af these patential develapments cauld mean increased work camp lass casts and higher work camp premiums. · Future work comp dividends, if any, would likely come at irregular intervals. Campared to. the property/casualty program, the safety margin built into. the wark camp rates is smaller. Even relatively small percentage changes in the estimated cast af claims from previaus years can easily exceed that margin. In any year then, there's less likelihaad af generating substantial unneeded funds sa that a dividend is possible. I / Q..> City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administrato~ FROM: David L. Olson Community Development Director SUBJECT: Developer Request for Public Improvement - Sanitary Sewer DATE: December 18,2000 INTRODUCTION The City has recently received the attached letter dated December 8, 2000 from Jim Allen. DISCUSSION As the letter indicates, Mr. Allen is now withdrawing his previous request to extend trunk sanitary sewer to his property located at the NW comer of Denmark and Ash streets. Mr. Allen feels that the request can be considered at a later date after the determination has been made on the MUSA. ACTION REQUESTED For information only, no action is required. ~lYS~/ David L. Olson Community Development Director cc: James Allen, Bristol Development Corporation December 8th, 2000 City of Farmington c/o Mr. David Olson Community Development Director 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Re: Withdrawal of request for Extension of Trunk Sanitary Sewer Allen Property ( formerly Neilan property) . Honorable Mayor and City Council Members; At this time I would like to withdraw my original request for extension of trunk sanitary sewer on my property. After reviewing our project time schedule, we believe there will be adequate time for this request at a later date and still allow the project to move forward on a timely bases. Please contact me if you have any questions or require any additional information. I look forward to working with you on this project in the near future. Ja es E. Allen ristol Development Corporation 952-894-1473 \ \b City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ Robin Roland, Finance Director TO: SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Establishing the Tax Levy for the year 2001 collectible and Adopting the 2001 City Budget DATE: December 18, 2000 INTRODUCTION The City Council adopted a proposed Tax Levy and budget for 2001 with Resolution R72-00 at the Council meeting on September 5, 2000. This Tax Levy and Budget must now be finalized in order . that it may be certified to the County Treasurer/Auditor before December 28, 2000. DISCUSSION After Council reviewed the levy and budget, a Truth in Taxation Hearing was held at the City Council meeting on December 4, 2000 pursuant to State Statute. Residents and other concerned citizens were able to attend and express their opinions and concerns on the proposed budget and tax levy. Council was present at this hearing and took under advisement all comments. The Truth in Taxation hearing was closed without continuance, Council having heard all attendees' opinions and concerns. Certification of the Tax Levy by the attached resolution provides for the Tax Revenues to be collected from all taxable property within Farmington. The proposed resolution also establishes the 2001 Budget plan for funding all City expenditures. However, as one Council member will be financially impacted in that part of the City Budget and Levy related to the compensation and retirement benefits provided to firefighters, the resolution prepared for Council consideration contemplates two separate votes on the budget and levy. This resolution recognizes the need for the affected Council member to excuse himself from. participating in the deliberations and decision regarding those aspects of the budget, as well as maintain the involvement of all council members to the fullest extent legally possible in City fiscal matters. While this procedure is unique and has the potential for parliamentary problems should there be negative votes on either the fire service portion of the budget/levy or the non-fire service items, it is the City Attorney's opinion that it is the best means of accommodating the various statutory requirements while ensuring that each Council member has the opportunity to participate in City Council matters to the fullest legal extent. ACTION REQUIRED 1. Motion to adopt the revenue and expenditure budget for 2001 and proposed tax levy, excluding elements related to the City's fire service. 2. Motion to adopt the revenue and expenditure budget for 2001 and proposed tax levy related to the City's fire service. Council member Verch should abstain from this particular Council action. ;Z4/~ Robin Roland Finance Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: John Erar, City Administrator FROM: Joel Jamnik, City Attorney SUBJECT: Additional conflict of interest information DATE: December 20, 1999 INTRODUCTION The law regarding conflicts of interest is one of the most challenging areas of municipal law to provide training to local officials. It is a relatively simple matter to discuss the law, since only a few statutes and court cases are involved in establishing the rules regarding conflicts of interest. The real problem is trying to apply the rules to the wide variety of fact situations encountered by local officials. LEGAL DISCUSSION As stated in the orientation manual, the general rule is that a city council member may not have a personal financial interest in a sale, lease, or contract with the city, nor personally benefit financially therefrom. (Minn. Stat. 99 412.311 and 471.87) The personal financial interest can be either direct or indirect, which means that city contracts with family members or business associates of a councilmember are covered by the law as well as contracts where the councilmember is actually a party . Every councilmember who violates this provision is guilty of a gross misdemeanor, which may carry a penalty up to a $3,000 fine and one year in jail. However, the law allows for certain limited exceptions. The city council "by unanimous vote, may contract for goods or services with an interested officer of the council in limited cases, including "a contract with a volunteer fire department for the payment of compensation or retirement benefits to its members." (Minn. Stat. 9 471.88, Subdivisions 1 and 6) This exception applies notwithstanding any other charter or statutory provision. (Minn. Stat. 9 471.881) There is a condition to this exception, though. Contracts made under this exception is void unless there is a resolution by the city council finding the contract price is as low or lower than the goods could be obtained elsewhere and the interested councilmember files an affidavit with the city clerk stating: (a) the name of the officer and the office held by the officer; (b) an itemization of the commodity or services furnished; (c) the contract price; (d) the reasonable value; (e) the interest of the officer in the contract; and (f) that to the best of the officer's knowledge and belief the contract price is as low as, or lower than, the price at which the commodity or services could be obtained from other sources. This process must be followed for each contract. Simply stepping down from the council table is not enough, although the councilmember with the conflict should not participate in deliberations or vote on the contract. Examples of contract-type conflicts could be budget approvals, expense reimbursement policies, uniform allowances, etc. Finally, the exception is narrow: contracts which might provide a personal financial benefit to a volunteer firefighter/councilmember other than contracts for compensation or retirement benefits are outside the exception. NON-CONTRACT CONFLICT SITUATIONS Additionally, there may be city council decisions that do not involve contracts that could raise conflict of interest questions. In non-contract situations, the case law in Minnesota is similar to the case law of other states. Those cases adopt a basic principle that anv official who has a personal financial interest in an official action that may conflict with the public interest generally is disaualified from DarticiDatina in the action. Examples of official actions commonly confronted include public improvement projects that serve an official's or employee's residence or the issuance of a building or zoning permit concerning property owned by the official or employee. Actions involving a church or fraternal organization the councilmember is a member of are usually allowed, although if there is a unique or special financial involvement or concern there may be a problem. For a councilmember who also serves the community as a volunteer firefighter, it is difficult to anticipate many non-contract conflicts that could result in a personal financial benefit. One important feature of the common law conflict of interest rule is that the prohibition is basically against participating in the decision or decisions. It is not a ban or prohibition on having the conflict, but merely being involved when a conflict exists. PRACTICAL ADVICE I realize that the preceding discussion may be frustrating, and certainly it is difficult to provide general legal advice, but certain conclusions are possible. First, while potential conflicts can arise for anyone in government regardless of their job or title, the legislature has specifically recognized that the law should allow a volunteer firefighter to serve as a councilmember. Second, the analysis of conflict of interest laws is highly dependent on the particular fact situation. Identifying possible problem areas well in advance of council meetings is beneficial in allowing time to prepare a proper response, including statutorily required resolutions and affidavits. Third, because criminal penalties may be imposed for certain violations, it is important to be aware of the general rules and to seek competent legal advice regarding the details. If you have an actual or potential conflict of interest, ask the City Attorney for advice. Err on the side of caution, however, because even the appearance of a conflict can expose a councilmember to public criticism. RESOLUTION NO. ADOPTING A BUDGET AND ESTABLISHING THE TAX LEVY FOR THE YEAR 2001 COLLECTIBLE 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 18th day of December, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member _ introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, the City of Farmington is annually required by State Law to approve a resolution setting forth an annual tax levy to the Dakota County Auditor; and, WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes currently in force require certification of the tax levy to the Dakota County Auditor on or before December 28, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the summary details of the proposed budgets are contained in the budget submitted to this Council by the City Administrator, as revised; and, WHEREAS, Council member Verch, who also serves the City of Farmington as a Firefighter, has a direct financial interest in the fire levy since a portion of that levy is used for compensation and relief association benefit funding; and, WHEREAS, dividing this resolution to allow Councilmember Verch to vote on the portions of the budget unrelated to the fire service or levy is consistent with state law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Farmington, that the revenue and expenditure budget for 2001 as reviewed and amended by the City Council, is adopted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following sums of money be levied in 2000, collectible in 2001, upon the taxable property in the City of Farmington for the following purposes: Tax Levy Members voting in favor of the revenue and expenditure budget for 2001 and proposed tax levy, excluding elements related to the City's fire service: Members voting against: ; Abstentions: Members voting in favor of the revenue and expenditure budget for 2001 and proposed tax levy related to the City's fire service: ; Members voting against: _' Abstentions: This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 18th day of December, 2000. Mayor Attested to the 18th day of December, 2000 City Administrator SEAL 2001 BUDGET Summary of Debt Service Levy to be Attached and Become part of Resolution Fund Title Improvement Bonds of 1986A Improvement Bonds of 1987 Improvement Bonds of 1992B Improvement Bonds of 1993A Improvement Bonds of 1994A Wastewater Treatment Bonds 1995 Certificates of Indebtedness 1996 Certificates of Indebtedness 1997 Certificates of Indebtedness 1999 Certificates of Indebtedness 2000 Total LeVY Amount $ 76,675 114,040 32,194 12,068 77,381 85,367 5,275 47,000 100,000 35.000 $ 585,000 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us lie, FROM: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administrato~ David L. Olson Community Development Director TO: SUBJECT: Consideration of Purchase Tax Forfeited Property DATE: December 18, 2000 INTRODUCTION The City previously received notice of tax forfeited former railroad property located between 3rd Street and 5th Street north of Elm Street. DISCUSSION The City has recently received noticed that the former railroad property as shown on the attached map that has been forfeited to the State of Minnesota for non-payment of property taxes was done so in error. As the attached letter from Carl Britt of the Dakota County Treasurer-Auditor's Office indicates, a previous transfer of ownership was not recorded properly. As a result of this error, the property will not be available as a tax forfeited property. ACTION REOUESTED Since this property is no longer considered a tax forfeited property, no further action by the HRA or City Council is necessary. Respectfully submitted, ~ David L. Olson ~ Community Development Director Cc: Steve Finden, Dakota County Lumber ~ ~ (1) c.. 0 s- a. "'C (1) ..... . - (1) 't: VJ "C 0 0 0 u. U. "C "0 Ol >< ";:: m CO ~ - I CO ..... 0 en (1) "- t: t: ------- .- :E "I- '0 (1) ..... CO ..... C/) PeOJ ~I ~ \1 1 .-- tLI .+. - l- I- ~ (f) (f) f- ~ - w (f) -l Z Z w a... <( - I-- 0 ~ l{) . :r: - <( (f) () - 18 H1S P" L- ,-- Q) c. m- u 0 VJc. "CQ) cO m ...J l I 1 ,--- c. .;:: ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ---------- -- I--- Treasurer-Auditor Dakota County Administration Center 1590 Highway 55 Hastings. MN 55033 651:438:4576 Fax 651:438.8260 Fax 651:438:4399 www.co.dakota.mn.us n t.J Printed on recycled paper with 30% posu.consumer waste. AN EQUAl OPPORT1..NTY El1't.OYEl\ ~~ December 1, 2000 Mr. David Olson City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Re: PID #14-77000-020-32 Dear Dave; Recently it was discovered by individuals in the Treasurer-Auditor's Office that an error had occurred in processing documents relating to the above- mentioned property. Because of these errors, the parcel, which originally was listed as forfeit and offered to the City of Farmington for acquisition, will not be made available. Previous owners of the property have provided documents to substantiate their claim that the parcel was actually sold and should have been recorded in the name of the new owners. This action did not take place and therefore has to be rectified. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you and/or the Farmington HRA in planning for the acquiring of this particular parcel. If I can be of any assistance to you in the near future, please call me at (651) 43R-4362. Sincerely, ~ Carl Britt Taxation Supervisor Cc: Carol Leonard Treasurer-Auditor Dakota County Administration Center 1590 Highway 55 Hastings, MN 55033 651:438:4576 Fax 651:438.8260 Fax 651:438:4399 www.co.dakota.mn.us o Printed on reeycled paper with 30% posUoconsumer waste. AN EQUAL OfPORTUNlTY Er-f'LO'r'ER ~~ September 21, 2000 Ms. Karen Finstuen City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN. 55024 Dear Ms. Finstuen: The attached is a classificatio~ Ilst on non- conservation land located in your municipality. The described parcels have been forfeited to the State of Minnesota for non-payment of property taxes. As provided in Minnesota Statutes 282.01, we request that you either approve the parcel(s) for public auction or request a conveyance to your municipality for public use. The redemption period for the parcels in forfeiture expires on October 16, 2000. We require a certified copy of the Council Resolution authorizing any action taken. If you request that a parcel be conveyed to your municipality, we also require that the form PT Form 962, "Application By A Governmental Subdivision For Conveyance of Tax Forfeited Land" (Revised 10/11/96), be completed and mailed to this office. Please be advised that if the Council fails to respond within ninety (90) days of the date of this letter, the sale will be deemed approved. If you have any questions in regards ~o these parcels please call Carl at 438-4362 Sincerely, ~.~~ Dakota County Treasurer-Auditor class CERTIFICATE OF COUNTY BOARD OF CLASSIFICATION OF FORFEITED LANDS PROVIDED BY CHAPTER 386, LAWS 1935 AS AMENDED. To the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY of FARMINGTON We, the members of the County Board of the County of Dakota, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the parcels of land hereinafter listed are all of the lands which have been classified by us as NON conservation lands, from the list of lands forfeited to the State of Minnesota for non-payment of taxes for the year or years 1993 & 1995 as provided by by Minnesota Statutes 1945, section 282.01 as amended. SUBDNlSION 14-03100-030-02 SECTION 31 TWN 114 RANGE 19 CMSP&P RR RIW RUNNING N & S THRU NE 1/4 3111419 14-77000-02ll-32 TOWN OF FARMINGTON FORMER RR IN BLKS 25 28 29 30 & 32 IN TOWN OF FARMINGTON LYING E OF MAIN TRACK 2 32 In Witness hereof we have hereunto subscribed our names this day of Attest: rI/ County treasurer-Auditor The forgoing classification sale is hereby approved. By the or the or FARMINGTON Dated City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us / d a..., TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administratorr FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Service Manager SUBJECT: Appointments to Boards and Commissions DATE: December 18, 2000 INTRODUCTION Each year a number of seats on various Boards and Commissions expire on January 31. Traditionally the City Council has interviewed incumbents and.new applicants for these positions and ultimately appoints at the second meeting in January. DISCUSSION Articles will be published in the December 21, and December 28, 2000 issues of the Farmington Independent and the January/February issue of the City Newsletter, informing residents of the availability of seats on Boards and Commissions. Information is also posted on the bulletin board on the Government Channel 16. The deadline for applications is January 3, 2001. Letters have been sent to incumbents notifying them of the expiration of their term and requesting them to reapply if they are interested. Currently there is a vacancy on the Park and Recreation Commission. The Council has traditionally interviewed on Saturday morning to accommodate the applicants schedules. If it is Council's desire to do so again this year, it is recommended that a special meeting be set for Saturday, January 6, 2001 at 8:15 a.m. Interview periods comprised of20 minute time slots will be scheduled, and information will be provided to you prior to the meeting. ACTION REOUIRED Set a special meeting of the City Council for Saturday, January 6, 2001 at 8:15 a.m. at City Hall. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~. Karen Finstuen Administrative Service Manager Attachment A 2001 BOARDS AND COMMISSION TERMS TO BE FILLED COMMISSION STATUS TERM FROM TO Heritage Preservation Commission Bev Marben (Incumbent) 3 yr. 2/01/01 1/31/04 Harbee Tharaldson (Incumbent) 3 yr. 2/01/01 1/31/04 Housing and Redevelopment Authority Michael Matheson (Incumbent) 2 yr. 2/01/01 1/31/03 Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Paul Gerten (Incumbent) 2 yr. 2/01/01 1/31/03 Vacated Seat 2 yr. 2/01/01 1/31/03 Planning Commission Chaz Johnson (Incumbent) 2 yr. 2/01/01 1/31/03 Dirk Rotty (Incumbent) 2 yr. 2/01/01 1/31/03 Senior Center Advisory Board Amy Jensen (Incumbent) 3 yr. 2/01/01 1/31/04 Chris Common (Incumbent) 3 yr. 2/01/01 1/31/04 Water Board Robert Shirley (Incumbent) 3 yr. 2/01/01 1/31/04 CATV Advisory Board Jerry Ristow (Incumbent) * 1/01/01 12/31/04 Lacelle Cordes (Incumbent) * 1/01/01 12/31/04 Steve Strachan (Incumbent) * 1/01/01 12/31/04 Reforestation Advisory Commission Dirk Rotty (Incumbent) 2 yr. 2/01/01 1/31/03 Jerry Ristow (Incumbent) * 1/01/01 12/31/04 Lacelle Cordes (Incumbent) * 1/01/01 12/31/04 Steve Strachan (Incumbent) * 1/01/01 12/31/04 * This appointment will run concurrent with Council term. Note: All incumbents will be interviewed if they apply, along with new applicants. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmin~on.mn.us Jdb TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: Resolution Establishing Fees - 2001 DATE: December 18,2000 INTRODUCTION Each year a Resolution establishing fees and charges for licenses, permits, development fees and various services has been adopted by the City Council at the annual organizational meeting held the first meeting in January. Last year and again this year the resolution is being advanced for approval at the final meeting of the year so that new fees can be applied as of January 1. DISCUSSION The attached resolution lists fees which were in effect in 2000, along with recommended changes that are underlined for 2001. All of the proposed changes to the Fee Schedule have been reviewed by the Management Team and several are outlined below: Liquor Licenses - On and Off-Sale Beer, On-Sale Liquor and On-Sale Wine License fees are regulated by the municipality in which they are located. On-Sale Club, and On-Sale Sunday Liquor Licenses are regulated by the State. The fees for 2001 were increased proportionately and a survey of other similar communities suggests that rates should be increased again in 2002 to ensure that the costs of issuance and enforcement are appropriately reflected in license cost. The survey is attached. City Code dictates that liquor licenses be applied for 60 days prior to expiration (December 31 of each year) which requires this change be adopted at this time for implementation in 2002. It is recommended that the On-Sale Temporary Beer, Display and Consumption and transfer fee remain unchanged. Metro Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) - This fee is established by the Metropolitan Council and is typically increased by $50 each year. The fee is collected with each building permit and then submitted to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES). Dedicated Tree Cost - The Park and Recreation Department will plant a tree dedicated in honor or memory of an individual. $150.00 represents the actual costs of the tree, post, sign and labor. Senior Center Rental Rates - Schedule G has been developed to address all stake holders concerns. Suggested fees are the result of meetings held with various groups who utilize the Senior Center facility Schedule C, Appendix A, Solid Waste User Fee Schedule - Solid Waste Rates - In 1999, the City reduced Solid Waste rates for single family residential customers at the 30, 60, and 90 gallon levels. For 2001, reductions are proposed for single family residential customers at the 120 gallon to 270 gallon levels (multiple containers). The rate reductions proposed amount to a 5% decrease for these customers, based on the City's analysis of the cost of an additional container pickup at the same location. Currently, this change will affect 45 customers, and will result in a decrease of $1 ,500 in annual costs. Separate multi-family residential rates will no longer be part of the rate schedule. Multi-family buildings will fall under multi-container rates or the institutional rates. BUDGET IMPACT Proposed changes in 2001 Fees were taken into consideration during the preparation of the 2001 City Budget. Proposed fee schedule changes have been extensively reviewed to ensure that City fees are equitable and comparable with other communities. ACTION REOUESTED Consider adoption of the attached Resolution Establishing 2001 Charges and Fees for Licenses and Permits effective January 1, 2001. Respectfully submitted, ~g,~ Karen Finstuen Administrative Service Manager RESOLUTION NO. R -00 ESTABLISHING CHARGES AND FEES FOR LICENSES AND PERMITS 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 18th day of December, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present: The following members were absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Farmington has by various authorities the right to establish certain fees and licenses and permits; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that various licenses and permit fees should be established. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Farmington that the following schedule of fees be adopted and put into full force and effect, effective January 1,2001. LICENSE. GENERAL Animal License License Enforcement Service Charge Late Registration Fee AMOUNT $5/yr/dog neutered or spayed $10/yr/dog not neutered or spayed $25 per dog $2.00 Note: Pursuant to Ordinance 6-2-16 the owner shall pay an additional $25 as appropriatefor 3rd dog and an additional $50 for 4th dog. Amusement Machines Billiard Parlor Cigarette/Tobacco Sales Reinstatement after Revocation Dog Kennel (3 or more dogs) Exception - New residents - see note under animal licensing above. Exhibition, Temp. Outdoor Explosives, Sale & Storage Fireworks - Community Event Gambling License Premise Permit Investigation Fee Gambling Event $15 per location and $15 per machine Annual - $50 1 st machine, $20 ea. additional $150 Initial Investigation Application/Renewal - $25/yr $25 plus Administrative Time per Fee Schedule $300/year $15/occasion $10/year $10 $50 $50 $50 Sales: Permit Issuance Fee Peddler Solicitor Transient Merchant Saunas Taxi Driver Company Therapeutic Massage Business License Therapist Investigation Investigation (Therapist) Renewal Investigation LICENSE.. LIQUOR Beer, Off Sale Beer, On Sale Beer, On Sale Temporary Display & Consumption Liquor, On Sale Investigation Fee Liquor, On Sale Club Liquor, On Sale Sunday Transfer Fee Wine, On Sale PERMITS.. Special Annexation Petition Legal Costs Antennas & Towers Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment Legal and Engineering Costs Conditional Use/Spec. Exception. Admin. Fee $25.00 plus itemized amount below: $25/month; $250/year $15/day; $75/month; $125/year $50/quarter; $150/year Annual Business - $5,000 Orig. Investigation - $300 Renewal Investigation - $150 $25 each $25/unit/year $50 (Includes 1 therapist) $50 $300 $200 $0 AMOUNT ~2001 Dilline: ~$40/year ~$150/year -0- $300/year $2,500$2.750/year Not to exceed $200 (Administrative Costs) $300/year $200/year $300 ~$225/year AMOUNT ~2002 Dilline: $4G$50/year $+W$175/year -0- $300/year $2,750$3.000/year Not to exceed $200 (Administrative Costs) Set by State Set by State $300 ~$250/year $~220 + $20 per acre up to 10 acres, $5 per acre over 10 acres x 1.25 Uniform Building Code $350 x 1.25 $200 2 Excavation and Mining 0-1000 cu yd. $50 1000-25,000 $150 25,001-50,000 $300 50,001-250,000 $500 * 250,000+ $1,000 * (Grading Plans required + Engineer Review Fee at staff time) Filling * Landfills, Sludge Ash, Incinerator Ash, etc. $75 + staff time Rezoning, Admin. Fee Sign Permit, Review Plans Initial - $150,000 Renewal - $60,000/yr + $30/ton $300 Street/Curb Breaking 1. Estimated Value To $500 $20.00 500.01-1000 30.00 1000.01-2500 60.00 Over 2500 80.00 2. Signs which need a conditional use permit must pay both the established sign permit fee, plus the conditional use permit fee. 3. Fees are not required for signs exempted by Section 4-3-5(B) Min. $350 surety + ~$60 inspection fee $75/stafftime x1.25 Subdivision Waiver, Adm. Fee Legal and Engineering Costs Telecommunications, Review Plans $60 $150 $150 $150 $60 Variance Request Appeal of Zoning Decision Vacation of Public RIW Fee Utility Const. Permit Fee, Review Plans (Telephone, gas, cable, electric, etc.) Wetland Alteration Permit * $250 + staft:consultant review time (Note: Staff review to be billed at fle\:lfly rate 1 hr miaimam) Legal and Engineering Costs x 1.25 Zoning Certificate, Verification of Zoning * - A Conditional Use Permit is Required $25 PERMITS - Buildine AMOUNT Buildine: Permit As Built Certificate Of Survey, Turf Establishment Current Uniform Building Code $2,000 Single Family Residential Lot surety for all buildings to be refunded after issuance of final C.O. 3 As-builts and Silt Fence/Erosion Control Inspection Add $100 $500/IDlit Malti family .^.:ttaehed (3 ar more anits) surety for all buildings ta be reftmded after fiBal. gratle is approved by City staff TellfjJOFRI'j' Certijie6.tes of OeellpRlley Temporary Buildings on Construction Sites Misc. Insp (Moving-pre-insp.) Window Replacement Roof Siding Garage Addn Detached Garage All Basement Finish Gazebos - Freestanding Building, Moving (Requires Special Exception in Addition to Fees Listed Below) - House - Garage - Surety Building, Demolition Ind. On Site Sewage Treatment Reinspection (After 2 Fails) Plumbine: Permits Residential New Construction Repair/Addition Reinspection Commercial Reinspection Mechanical Permits Fireplace Residential Heating New Construction Repair/Replace Reinspection Commercial Heating Reinspection $52 $150 As per Table lA ofUBC $47 (46.50 + .50 state surcharge) $47 (46.50 + .50 state surcharge) $47 (46.50 + .50 state surcharge) $15 sf $15 sf UBC (No plan + .50 per 1000 State Surcharge) (.0005 x value) $47 + (46.50 + .50 State Surcharge) $150 + cost of utility locations $50 + cost of utility locations $10,000 Flat Uniform Building Code ~$260 - ($40 County + $MQ$220 City) $47 m$80 (~79.50 + .50 state surcharge) $35 (34.50 + .50 state surcharge) $47 1 % of contract cost + state surcharge (contract valuation x .0005) INCLUDES SPRINKLING SYSTEMS (Minimum of $50.00) $47 $35 (34.50 + state surcharge) m$80 (~79.50 + .50 state surcharge) $35 ($34.50 + .50 state surcharge) $47 1 % of contract cost + state surcharge (contract valuation x .0005) Minimum of $50.00 $47 4 ErosioB COBtrol Il'litial Erosiofl Col'lkol Il'lspeetioB -4 st ~RtI Reil'lspeetiol'ls 3+ Reiflspeetiofls PERMITS - Subdivisions/Develouments Environmental Assessment Worksheet and Environmental Impact Statement Legal and Engineering Costs GIS Fees (Geographic Information System) *** Note Fee Calculation Formula on Page 6 Parkland Contribution Parkland and Trail Fees - All Residential Zones No Charge $50 $50 eaeh AMOUNT Staff time, eOl'lswtatiol'l consultant eoms 8:flEI review time direetly related eosts xl.25 New and Redevelopment *** $30/lot or $70/ac minimum Land Money 12.5% Set Annually based on attached Appraisal Information Parkland and Trail Fees - Commercial/Industrial Zones 5% Total Land Value Set Annually based on Appraisal Information Plat Fees Preliminary Plat Surety Provides security to cover staff time in case a plat does not proceed. Fee is refunded upon signing a Development Agreement. Preliminary Plat Fee Final Plat Fee P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) P.U.D. Amendment Subd. Imp. Admin. Fee Pub. Imp. - Private. w/o Assess Roll Pub. Imp. - Private with Assess Roll Legal Fees will be charged at actual cost plus 25% Surface Water Mgmt. Fee (Development) *** The Surface Water Management Fee funds the trunk storm water improvements identified in the City's Surface Water Management Plan. $200/acre $750 base + $91O/lot $300 - Schematic Plan - $500 + $22/ac $300 Final Proiect Costs 1/2% 1% $0.11460.1172 /sq.ft. - Residential, low density $0.20310.2078 /sq.ft. - Residential, high density $0.24460.2502 /sq.ft. - Comm./Industrial/ Institutional *** Notefee calculationformula below. Surface Water Mgmt. Fee (Redevelopment/Unplatted) - See Policy A attached. *** Water Main Trunk Fee The Watermain Trunk Fee funds the trunk improvements identified in the City's Water Supply and Distribution Plan. 5 Area Charge (Development) Area lA IB lC ID IE IF 2Al 2A2 2Bl 2B2 2Cl 2C2 2Dl 2D2 Remaining Undeveloped Area Unplatted Land *** Area Charge (per acre) $1,071.991.096.00 $1,532.001.567.00 $1,746.901.786.00 $1,562.001.598.00 $1,876.001.919.00 $1,766.001.807.00 $1,192.001.219.00 $1,871.001.914.00 $1,672.001.710.00 $1,971.002.016.00 $1,782.001.823.00 $2,001.002.047.00 $1,981.002.027.00 $2,049.002.096.00 $2,059.002.106.00 See Policy B attached Surface Water ~uality Manaszement The Surface Water Quality Management Fee is collected to fund future excavation of sediments deposited in sedimentation ponds. Residential (Single/Multi) Commercial/Indust/SchooVOther $~55/acre $+M-120 /acre Water Treatment Plant Fee $W&-520 /REU All parcels being developed are charged 1 REU minimum. - Commercial, Industrial, Institutional developments and redevelopments are charged multiple REUs based on 1 REV = 274 gpd. Established in 1997. this fee will help fund the future Water Treatment Plant Note: REV = Residential Equivalency Unit Sanitary Sewer Trunk Area Charsze *** The Sanitary Sewer Trunk Area Charge funds trunk improvements identified in the City's Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan. $~1.627 /acre ***Fee Calculation Formula *** Fees shall be based on the gross area of the development, less floodways, and delineated wetlands. Credit for Sanitary Sewer Trunk Area Charge See Schedule F MUNICIPAL SERVICES Deferred Assessment Roll AMOUNT Per assessment roll Sewer Metro Sewer Avail. Chg. (SAC) City Sewer Avail. Charge (CSAC) Benefit Charge Connection Permit Lateral Equiv. Chg. Servo Connection Fee (Akin Road) Stub Out Charge $+,lOO1.150/single unit $~368 $~1.632 $60 each See assessment rolls $2,020 Construction Cost + Street Breaking Permit 6 User Rates - Residential (Based on Winter quarter) - Metered Commercial Reserve Capacity (SW 1/4 of Sec. 25) (See Asmt. Roll #144) Solid Waste Collection Storm Water Utility Sump Pump Ordinance Non Compliance Water Benefit Charge Connection Permit Reserve Capacity Connection (WAC) fee funds future construction of Water Towers. 3/4 or 1 " 1 1/4" I 1/2" 2" 2 1/2" 3" 4" 6" 8" Water connection charge will not apply to fire sprinkler lines Lateral Equiv. Chg. (Pine Knoll) Metered Rates Water Reconnection Fee Stub Out Charge Hydrant Usage Overhead Water Filling Station Meters Meter Testing Fee Meter Horn Fee Penalties Late Payment Penalty Certification Fee Water Use Restriction Penalties 1 st Offense 2nd Offense and subsequent during a calendar year 7 $26.50 1 st 10,000 gallons $2.20/1,000 gallons thereafter $3.25/1,000 gallons (65.30/qtr min.) $1,125/acre See Policy C attached $7.00 /storm water unit/quarter $100/month added to sewer bill $~1.151 each $ 60 each $&M--629 $9@-- 982 $1,385 1.417 $~2.519 $3,313 3.389 $4;J* 4.455 $~ 10.079 $22,162 22.672 $39,40640.312 See assessment roll $10.80 + $1.00/1,000 under 25,000 $1.16/1,000 over 25,000 $60 Construction costs + Street Breaking Permit $2/1,000 gallons - $60 minimum $2/1,000 gallons - $29 minimum Actual Cost + (10% or $25, whichever is less) $75 $35 10% of current delinquent charge 10% of delinquent balance + interest $25 $50 CURRENT SERVICES AMOUNT Personnel Hourly rates for staff time will be multiplied by a factor of 2. 7, which includes salary, benefits, and organizational overhead charges. Specific rates available from Finance Department upon request. Consulting Engineeringfees will be charged at Actual Cost plus 25% for processing, accounting, and overhead administrative and facility use charges. Projects - Public The following engineering costs will be considered a part of the total project cost for public improvement projects: Feasibility Report Plans, Specs, Bidding Staking, Insp., Supr. With Assessment Roll Total 3% of Actual Construction Costs 6% of Actual Construction Costs 7% of Actual Construction Costs 1 % of Actual Construction Costs 17% of Actual Construction Costs. *For the purposes of bonding, engineering costs will be calculated based on the estimated construction costs. 4% of Actual Construction Costs 1 % of Actual Construction Costs Actual Cost + 25% Administration Fees Assessment Roll Legal Fees Projects - Private All other private developments will be charged for review and inspection based on staff time using current hourly rates as described above. A summary of staff review time for a project will be forwarded upon written request of the developer. Erosion control inspection by the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District will be charged at the County's current rates. Ifi..~......................................................................................................................... Fire/Rescue Response (Non Contracted Services) $150/hour + Current Personnel rate per manhour Sprinkler System - New or Altered 1 % of Contract Cost (minimum of $50) Inspections: Fire Alarm System - New or Alteration Reinsoection Flammable Tank System 500 gallons or less 501-1000 gallons 100 I plus gallons Tank Removal 1 % of Contract Cost (minimum of $50) $47 $15 $25 $25 + $10 for each additional 500 gallons $65 per tank Hood and Duct Cleaning Commercial Cooking Vent Systems Reinspection Fire Permit Processing MPCA Permit - 30 days (limited to 2 per year) Recreational Fire Permit - Annual $40 $40 $20 $10 8 False Alarms (after 3, per ordinance) Residential Non Residential $75 $150 $15 Fire Report Fee Fire/Rescue Standby (Org. Request) Current hourly rate/person Dedicated Tree Cost $150.00 J>>~..~ illl(l ~~~Jr~~ti()I1......................................................................................... Municipal Pool Rates Resident Season Pass Rates: $50.00 for each Individual Season Pass $120.00 for a Family Pass of 4 persons or less (immediate family members only) $10.00 for each additional immediate family member Non-Resident Season Passes: Not Available Resident Ticket Books: 10 tickets for $15.00 ($1.50 per ticket) Non-Resident Ticket Books: 10 tickets for $18.00 ($1.80 per ticket) Buy 5 Ticket Books at one time and get your 6th book free. Unused tickets are good through August of the following year. Regular Session Admission: Swim Lessons (12 lessons/session) Afternoon Swim Lessons (10 lessons/session) IP AP Lessons $2.00 per person over 42"large pool $1.00 per person 42" aT lesssmall pool ~28.00 ~22.00 +8.0020.00 Private Pool Lessons I Person - 5 sessions @ 30 minutes each 2 Persons - 10 sessions @ 30 minutes each Ice Arena Rates Dry Floor Rental Open Skating (Prime Time Session) (Tues. & Thurs. Lunch) 43.75 97.50 7/1/00 - 6/30/01 $315/day + $80 set-up/day $3.00/person $1.00/person Open Patch - 90 minute session $&:OO12.00/person each session non-contract $6.00/oerson monthly rate contracted Skating Lessons Skate Show $6Q.QO$62.00/session $75.00/session Ice Time Prime Time 6:00 A.M. 9:45 P.M. 10:00 P.M. 10:15 P.M. 10:30 P.M. 10:45 P.M. 11 :00 P.M. (Non Prime Time) 7/1/00 - 6/30/01 $ 125.00 130.001hr $ 95.00$100.001hr $120.00125.001hr $115.QQI20.001hr $11O.00115.001hr $105.0011O.001hr $100.00105.001hr $ 95.00$100.001hr 9 7/1/~1- 6/30/~2 $ 135.001hr $100.001hr $ 13 O.001hr $ 125.001hr $ 120.001hr $ 115.001hr $110.001hr $105.001hr Civic Arena Advertising Rates Full 4 x 8 Sheet One Year Three Years 10/1/99 - 9/30/00 $400.00/year $350.00/year 10/1/00 - 9/30/01 $400.00/year $350.00/year 4 x 4 Sheet One Year Three Years $250.00/year $225.00/year $250.00/year $225.00/year Ice Resurfacer One Year Three Years $500.00/year $450.00/year Puppet Wagon Performances Resident Non-Resident $50.00/performance $100.00/performance Senior Center Annual Membership Fees Resident and Participating Townships Participating Townships are entitled to resident rates. $3.00/person - Individual $5.00/couple - Joint Spousal ;\A/.^J8flOB R-eRtals $6.00/person - Individual $10.00/couple - Joint Spousal $50.00/month per e'leaiBg and grO\:lp Non-Resident Senior Center Rental Rates See Schedule G Resident NOR R-esideat Main Roem $35 Base Fee -+- $15 per ROur $70.00... $15 per ReUl' Large Aetivity R-eom. $25 Base Fee -+- $15 per hol:H' $50.00... $15 per Reur Small.^..etivity Room. $15 Base Fee... $15 per ROl:H' $30.00... $15 per Reur KiteheR $20 Base Fee... $15 per ROl:H' $40.00... $15 per Rom AJl1'6e1'lta $1 ()() refil1'ldahle depeait if 1'6e1'lts/efjblip1'l'le1'lt are elesR/dfHl'lsge free. ~lIl>li~ ~()..~......................................................................................................... Billed at equipment rate listed below plus personnel rate for staff time. Staff time is billed at a 2 hour minimum. Equipment rates during regular work hours are billed at a one hour minimum; call outs after regular hours are billed at a two hour minimum. Pick Up Truck 5 yd. Dump Truck Sewer Rodding Machine Road Patrol (Grader) Ind. Ford. Tractor (backhoe +/- loader) Street Sweeper Air Compressor, Hammer, Hose Compacting Tamper Trash Pump Paint Striper Mower Skidster Router Blower $22.00/hour $24.00 /hour $71.00/hour $61.00 /hour $35.00 /hour $58.00 /hour $34.00 /hour $13.00/hour $13.00/hour $27.00 /hour $56.00 /hour $23.00/hour $26.00/hour $11.00/hour NOTE: All City equipment must be operated by a City employee 10 J>>()lic=~ ~~~i<<=~s.................................................................................................. Police Officer - 2 hour minimum Squad * 2 hour minimum Barricades $30/hour $20/hour Residents - N/C if picked up and returned $5/day if delivered by Police Dept. Non-Residents - $5/day if picked up and returned $10/day if delivered by Police Dept. Non Resident Fingerprinting No charge for resident * All Police units must be operated by Police Department Personnel. $15 Accident Reports for Insurance Purposes Copy of Driving Record $5 $eResident - No Fee Non-Resident $5 $1 per page $201hr - 1 hour minimum $5 per copy $5 per copy (license holder only) Investigative Case Reports Research Fee Photographs Driver's License Report (non residents only) Subpoena Service $M25 Tapes - Copy Audio VHS $+925 $~35 $10 $20/week Permit to Carry Concealed Firearms Public Data - Offenders List MISCELLANEOU~ AMOUNT $75 $2.00/parcel x term of assessment, County fee Per est. costs of code compliance Per est. costs of code compliance 125% of project cost $5.00 - 10,000-100,000 population Bond Rate + 1.5% $20 Min. $25/request + hourly $30 (2nd notice same growing season) Ag Preserve Filing Assessment Roll Bonds - Surety Wetlands Excavation/Filling/Mining Subd. Devel. Impr. Candidate Filing Finance Charge (Interest Rate) Returned Checks Mandatory Information Requests Weed Notice - Adm & Inspec. Counter Sales Mylar Blue Line Copy Photo Copies Color Copies (8 1/2 x 11) Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Maps Comprehensive Plan Document Redevelopment Plan 2' Contour Map (Spec. Order) Budget $5.00 per copy $3.00 per copy (exc. 2' contour) $.25 each $1.00 each GIS Fees (See Schedule E) $25 $10 GIS Fees (See Schedule E) $15 11 Comp Storm Water Plan.Surface Water Management Plan Water Supply & Dist. Plan Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan Engineering Guideline Manual Standard Detail Plates Assessment Roll Search (pending & levied) Individual Assessment Search FAX Machine Long Distance FAX Financial Audit $50 $30 $30 $~30 $50- $15 + .25/page $10 $.50/page Call costs ($5 min) + page chg. $25 This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 18th day of December, 2000. Attested to the day of , 2000. SEAL 12 Mayor City Administrator 12/31/00 SCHEDULE A COMPREHENSIVE STORM DRAINAGE PLAN POLICY FOR DEVELOPMENTIREDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY BACKGROUND STATEMENT The Municipal Storm Sewer utilizes a fee structure for storm water improvements based on anticipated development. A parcel's contribution is determined by size and land use under the principal that a parcel should pay for past, present and future storm sewer improvements necessary to meet the needs of the parcel. The fees are set forth in the Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan dated September, 1985 as updated (Storm Water Area) and policy dated September, 1989 (Storm Water Utility). Storm water utility fees are based on size and land use on the basis that more intense land use pay a higher fee. Utility fees are paid by all developed property on a quarterly basis. Storm water area charges are paid at the time of development to help offset storm water improvements associated with the development of the property and are based by land use on a per acre rate. Presently, the Storm Water Area Charges only address developments associated with platting. Therefore, a policy is required which addresses development not associated with platting. When adopted, this policy will be incorporated as part of the Farmington Storm Water Drainage Plan. POLICY STATEMENT The purpose of this policy is to set forth the basis of fees and charges relating to past, present and future storm water improvements necessary to serve anticipated land use for development activities not related to the platting of property. AFFECTED DEVELOPMENTS A. A Storm Water Area Charge shall be paid before any building or development permits are approved, or before any improvements are made to a City owned park, which significantly affects stormwater runoff. B. Storm Water Area Charges are not required for the following activities: 1. Building permits on platted property. 2. Residential or agricultural accessory structures or additions. PROCEDURE A. It is the responsibility of the property owner or his agent to present to the City Engineer or his designee the following information: 1. Site plan showing location of all existing and proposed buildings and other developments relative to property lines. B. The City Engineer shall calculate the Storm Water Area Charge as follows: 1. Undeveloped Property a. The Engineer shall determine the area of development upon review of the site plan. The following minimum areas shall apply: 13 Residential Commercial Industrial C-I, F-l, F-2, F-3 10,000 square feet 10,000 square feet 40,000 square feet 80,000 square feet b. The Engineer shall multiply the estimated area by the rate set forth in Table 3 of the Farmington Storm Drainage Plan as amended. 2. Redevelopment a. The Engineer shall determine the area of development and change in land use upon review of the site plan. The following minimum areas shall apply: Residential Commercial Industrial C-l, F-I, F-2, F-3 10,000 square feet 10,000 square feet 40,000 square feet 80,000 square feet b. lfit is determined there is no change in land use classification as described in Table 3 of the Farmington Storm Water Drainage Plan, and the property has previously been charged the storm water area charge, no fee is to be charged. c. If it is determined there is a change in land use, the fee shall be calculated as follows: Area x (Existing Land Use Rate - Proposed Land Use Rate) = Fee If the fee is less than $0.00, no fee will be charged. 14 , ' SCHEDULE B WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION PLAN FOR UNPLATTED PROPERTY BACKGROUND STATEMENT The Municipal Water Utility utilizes a fee structure for water supply and distribution improvements based on anticipated development. A parcel's contribution is determined by the parcel's size and land use under the principal that a parcel should pay for past, present and future water system improvements necessary to meet the anticipated water needs of the parcel. The fee schedule set forth in the Farmington Water Supply and Distribution Plan dated June, 1988 as updated sets forth charges for water area and water hookups. The water connection fee is primarily used for present and future pumping and storage capacity and is based on type of land use. The water area charge is primarily used for past, present and future oversizing of mains and is set at a uniform per acre rate for future development. Also, the water area charge presently only addresses development associated with the platting of property. Therefore, a policy is required which sets forth fees for development not associated with platting. When adopted, this policy will be incorporated as part of the Farmington Water Distribution and Supply Plan. POLICY STATEMENT The purpose of this policy is to set forth the basis of fees and charges relating to past, present and future improvements necessary to serve anticipated land use for development activities not related to the development of property. AFFECTED DEVELOPMENTS A. A water area charge shall be paid before any building permit is approved, unless specifically exempted under Section B. B. Water Area Charges for the following activities are not required: 1. Any building permits on platted property, except buildings on parkland platted after Jan. 1, 1995. 2. Residential or agricultural accessory structures. PROCEDURE A. It is the responsibility of the property owner or his agent to present to the City Engineer or his designee the following information: 1. Site plan showing location of all existing and proposed buildings and other development relative to property lines. B. The City Engineer shall calculate the water area charge as follows: I. The Engineer shall determine the area of development upon review of the site plan. The following minimum areas shall apply: Residential Commercial Industrial C-l, F-l, F-2, F-3 10,000 square feet 10,000 square feet 10,000 square feet 80,000 square feet 2. The Engineer shall multiply the estimated area by the rate set forth in Table 14 of the Farmington Water Supply and Distribution Plan dated June, 1988 as amended. 15 . . SCHEDULE C APPENDIX A Solid Waste User Fee Schedule Solid Waste Rates Single Family Residential: 30 gallons............................... $39.50/quarter 60 gallons............................... $49.50/quarter 90 gallons............................... $56.50/quarter 120 gallons............................. $94:-:W86.40/quarter 150 gallons............................. $104 .5095.40/quarter 180 gallons............................. $114.75101. 70/quarter 210 gallons............................. $144 .00137.25/quarter 240 gallons............................. $155.25146.25/quarter 270 gallons............................. $165.25 I 52. 55/quarter M1:1lti family (2 4 1:1flits) with. (1) 90 Gal./UBit M1:1lti family (5+ 1:H1its) ...Ath 300 Gal. COBtwBer .^"dditieBaI300 Gal. COBtaiBer CommerciallInstitutional with 300 Gal. Container Additional 300 Gal. Container 600 Gallons 900 Gallons 1200 Gallons 1500 Gallons 1800 Gallons Special Pickups Out of Cab Charge Curbside Recycling Services Return Collection Trip Charge EXTRA BAG CHARGE (lids that do not appear to be closed or additional garbage deposited by customers at the time of collection.) Private Hauler - Commercial Dumpster Annual Fee Wood Recycling Dumpster - 8 cy rolloff disposed $64 .00/-qtr/1:1flit $240.50/qtr x piek1:1psl'::k $98.75/qtr x piek1:1ps/wk $240.50/qtr x pickups/wk $98.25/qtr x pickups/wk $339.00/qtr x pickups/wk $437.75/qtr x pickups/wk $536.25/qtr x pickups/wk $678.00/qtr x pickups/wk $776.75/qtr x pickups/wk pass on charges from contractor per agreement $5.00/stop per contract $7.50/trip 1-2 bags per occur. -- no charge-residential 3+ bags per occur.--$3.00/bag-$9.00 min. $6.00 per occurence-commercial/300 gal. $100.00 $125.00/pull * Customers who overfill their containers more than 50% of the time during a quarter and do not request a level of service change will automatically be raised to the next level of service. 16 Digital Data (DFX/ Autocad Format) Hard Copy Map Sales 1/2 Sec. - Property Only 1/2 Sec. - Prop. & Planimetric 1/2 Sec. - Prop/Planimetric/Contour 1/8 Sec. - Prop/Planimetric/Contour 1/2 Sec. - Aerial Photo Old Section and 1/4 Section Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Maps Black and White, 11" x 17" Color, 11" x 17" Color, C size (17" x 22") Color, D size (22" x 34") Street Maps City Street Map, D size, Black and White City Street Map, Black and White 11" x 17" City Street Map, D size, color Special Requests SCHEDULE E G.I.S. FEES County City Total $535/mega byte $20 $554 $10 50 150 40 6 5 $ 5 $ 15 5 55 20 170 5 45 o 6 o 5 $ 0 $ 0 o o $ 1 $ 1 4 4 8 8 15 15 o 2 o 1 o 4 See Engineering Department 2 1 4 17 SCHEDULE F TRUNK SANITARY CREDITS - SEWER DISTRICT 1 OCTOBER 27, 1994 SEE MAP "A" PROJECT 71-25(A) Parcel #8 )\ssessnnentl)\cre Trunk Sewer Fee w/Credit 1 IA IB IC ID IE lEE $ 498 198 244 198 202 76 76 $~1.129 $~1.429 $~1.383 $~1.429 $~1.425 $~1.551 $~1.551 Formula: Trunk Sanitary Sewer Fee - Previous Trunk Assessment 1999 - Example (Area lC) = $~1.627 - $198 = $~1.429 TRUNK SANITARY CREDITS - SEWER DISTRICT 3 OCTOBER 27, 1994 PROJECT 89-5 (A) Name PID Trunk Asnnt Asmtl Ac Sewer Fee w/Credit Dak. Co. 14-03600-012-05 $10,111 $ 2,022.20 $.00 S. Broske 14-03600-011-03 809 1,011.25 578.75615.75 Duo Plastics 14-03600-012-29 3,033 1,011.11 578.89615.89 Duo Plastics 14-03600-013-27 3,741 1,011.08 578.92615.92 FE! 14-03600-016-29 3,033 3,033.00 .00 W. Berglund 14-03600-020-08 870 859.94 739.06767.06 W &B Berglund 14-03600-015-29 26,906 859.94 739.96767.06 B. Murphy 14-03600-012-27 40,445 1,011.13 578.87615.87 No. Nat. Gas 14-03600-019-08 74,721 1,906.15 .00 S. Hammer 14-03600-011-05 60,667 2,022.23 .00 D&M Petersen 14-03600-010-33 80,889 1,011.11 578.89615.89 Formula = Trunk Sanitary Sewer Fee minus Previous Assessnnent 1998 - Example (Petersen) = $~1.627.00 - $1,011.11 = $578.89615.89 NOTE: Trunk fees cannot be reduced below $0 - no refunds will be made on previous assessments. 18 Schedule G ~armiYlJton CommunifJ Senior Center 43f 7hirl JYreet · ~armiYlJton, UN 5502.4 · (G5f) 463-482.8 Fees and Procedures January, 2001 Fee Class Definition: Class 1: Class 2: Class 3: Class 4: City of Farmington Sponsored Events and Dakota Valley Arts Council Nonprofit, Community Service and Civic Groups Residents of the City of Farmington and/or Senior Center Members Nonresidents and/or Commercial Groups Deposit: Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 C\ass 4 No base fees No base fees Main Room $35.00 Main Room $70.00 Large Activity Room $25.00 Large Activity Room $50.00 Kitchen $20.00 Kitchen $40.00 Srmll Activity Room $15.00 Srmll Activity Room $30.00 No Hourly Rate $10.00 per rneeting* $15.00 per hair $15.00 per hair $100.00 refundable $100.00 refundable deposit $100.00 refundable deposit deposit -Reservations should be made 30 days in advance .- Base Fees: Hourly Rate: *Class 2 users who volunteer their time to the Farmington Community Senior Center may qualify for a discounted rental rate. The discount will be calculated as follows: $5.00 per hour, per person. Class 2 volunteer time will be governed by the Senior Center Coordinator. ~ All rentals require a damage deposit that will be returned when all equipment and rooms have been found clean and damage free. ~ All reservations are made on a first come first served basis with priority given to Class 1 users. ~ All groups reserving space in the Farmington Community Senior Center must have current signed contracts. On-going contracts must be resigned annually. ~ The City of Farmington reserves the right to terminate any contract due to groups causing damage to the facility, complaints logged from the surrounding neighborhood and any other item deemed to necessitate termination. Fundraisers: Class 2 groups requesting to hold a fundraiser will pay Class 3 fees if (1) there will be more than 50 people in attendance OR (2) the fundraiser will last 3 or more hours. PRECISION APPRAISALS & Home Inspections, Inc. a Div. of Access Information Systems, Inc December 4, 2000 Mr. James Bell Parks and Recreation Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 55024 Re: Land Value for Raw Land Sales in Farmington Dear Mr. Bell: I have addressed finding sales of raw land in Farmington in order to give you an update of any new sales which would affect our conclusions in December of last year. As we discussed it is difficult to give an estimated value that will be valid in all situations, due to the many factors that must be considered in estimating value for land. The number of reported sales is again very limited in the City itself. We consider any information we receive from sales in Lakeville, Empire, Castle Rock and Eureka Townships as well as Farmington valid for our market area. Again, it is my feeling that the values indicated are the mean of several sales and are not to be considered as an estimate for any particular property. In order to accomplish this, a specific appraisal would be necessary. The mean value for MUSA property in the city and ready for development based upon three sales in that circumstance is: Thirty Thousand Dollars per acre ($30,000.00) The mean value for Non MUSA property in the city, based upon only two sales, and municipal water and sewer is not immediately available is: Eleven Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars per acre ($11.900.00) 1270 tJE5T96TH5TREET. BLOOrtINGTON. rtN 55'-131 PH: [9521 BBB-BB5 FX: [9521 BBB-5562 The mean value for land considered being rural in nature, based upon four recent sales, and development in the near future is limited: Three Thousand Four Hundred Dollars per acre ($3,400.00) If you have questions please give me a call or drop me a note. Thanks for the opportunity to work on this project. Si~C relYo ~/ PRECISION RPPRRISRLS & HOrtE INSPECTIONS, INC. g~~~~~~~~~g~5-g~~~ -~m~o~<m30~OOo~~~m ~<~~~O~~ ^~- m^~ 0 ~~a~~<~3~~~~~^~5SI~ ~m~~~~~o~ m~^II~~~~ ~ cr~ 9 m-lll ~~< :I - ~ CD .... .... ~ i'3 8 .... ............NNNNNNNN(,.)(,.)(,.)C1l0 8~tc88~~~~~:g88~~8 N~ ON OlD OCD CD .. "~~~NN 8~~~88 N 01 o N 01 o (,,)(,,)01 8....01 NO o N:I oin 0. ....- CD N~ ON OlD OCD CD .. Ng gin ....!. CD ...... .................. C1l.WC1l~C1lC1lenC1lC1lC1l0C1l000 0000C1l0000<XI000000 .... C1lC1l..C1l~ 00100001 ~ 01 o .... .... 0100 000 NNNC1l.(.o)..C1l ~~~~8~~88 000000000 .(.o).~C1len 80N....C1lO O~.OO 001000 NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN 000000000000000 000000000000000 en S' 10 NNN 000 000 enNNNC1l.U1. 0101.""'(,.)0001 0010010000 00000000 (JJ iii m (,.)enwen 0101001 0000 en S' - CD <XI (.0) en 0~U1 0010 en 01 o NN 00 00 01 8 o .~U1 N....U1 ~.O 0100 Nr- 0- O.a oC 0 .. 0 :I Nin ~ O. o- n ....CD m z r- fA NE m oC 00 ." 0" 0 N m :I 0 m in 0 fA N!. 0 OCD c:: 00 N ~ ....- l; 0 0 m r- - < NE ::u oC 00 m 0" fA 0 :I c:: in r- N!. ~ OCD fA Oen ....C ? ~~ 0_ 0:1 CD 0 :I Nin 0. 0- ....CD .... N NN NNNNUI(.o)U10.N~U1~00<XI OOOUlOOUlOO<XICOOUlOOO 0000000000000000 N .... ONNNNUI 8~8tc~8 ....01 00 .... o o .... 01 00 .... ~ . n ....~ o .... .... 01 01 3" 3" ~ . o n ~ ....:T o U1(,.)NUI 0000 0000 (JJ iii m (,.)01(,.).(,.) 0000(.0) 00000 01 o o N o o 01(.0). 000 000 N o o N o o NNN 000 000 NN 01 01 ~OO 01 0 0100 0 0 000 Co) (.0) ..... .... .... C1I 0 01 01 a + iir a: ;:;: .... II e CD ~ ~ < ~ < ii CD ~. CD ~. a iii (.0) ... .... g if 01 a: ~ ~ ~ ~ < CD CD ~. lD N: 0- 0. 0;3 :a o 2. N-t 0. O~ ....- CD . 01 .... .... ....01 0 !:2 a 01 a~N2. 3 ~ 3" ~30:l II < ~ s.~ go g. ~. 0 ~ fjl:T 'a > .... .... .... 3 ~ ~ 01 a: NC ~ o. II III < OCD g. 0 ~. "'0 ~ , ICE RATE SURVEY 2001 - DISTRICT 7 RINKS ARENA 1999-2000 2000-2001 Apple Valley Sports Center Bloomington Ice Garden Bumsville Ice Center Chaska Community Center Cottage Grove Ice Arena Eagan Civic Arena Eden Prarie Community Center Fannin9ton Civic Arena Hastings Civic Arena Inver Grove - Veterans Memorial Community Center Lakeville - Ames Arena New Prague Area Community Center Northfield Arena Prior Lake - Dakota Sports and Fitness Red Wing - Bergwall Arena Rosemount Community Center Shakopee Community Recreation Center River Falls - Hunt Arena $140.00 $135.00 $140.00 $130.00 $130.00 $135.00 $135.00 $125.00 $113.50 $140.00 $130.00 $120.00 $100.00 $130.00 $95.00 $135.00 $120.00 $97.50 $145.00 $135.00 $140.00 $130.00 $130.00 $145.00 $140.00 $130.00 $118.50 $140.00 $140.00 $120.00 $100.00 $135.00 $95.00 $140.00 $130.00 $100.00 Average Median Mode $125.00 $117.50 $130/$135 $128.50 $120.00 $140.00