HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.16.99 Council Packet
COUNCIL MEETING
REGULAR
February 16, 1999
6:30 P.M. CHAMBER/COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. APPROVEAGENDA
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS
a) Coreen Hoeft, Congressman Luther's Office - Train Whistles
6. CITIZEN COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments)
a) John Engrav - Stop Sign Concern
7. CONSENT AGENDA
a) Approve Council Minutes (2/1/99) (Regular)
b) Adopt Ordinance - Amend City Code - Heritage Preservation Commission
c) Adopt Resolution - Capital Outlay Purchase - Parks and Recreation
Department
d) School and Conference Request - Fire Department
e) Approve Bills
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a) Adopt Resolution - County Road 72 Project
9. AWARDOFCONTRACT
a) City Towing Contract Award
10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a) Lakeville Comprehensive Plan Review - Supplemental
b) Comprehensive Plan 2020 Update - Discussion
c) Authorize Encumbrance 2000
11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a) Feasibility Report Addendum - Downtown Streetscaping
b) Adopt Resolution - Downtown Sliplining Project Feasibility Report
12. NEW BUSINESS
a) Defer Action on Personnel Appointment
13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE
14. ADJOURN
Action Taken
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.d.farmington.mn.us
60J
FROM:
Mayor, Councilmembers and
City Administrator ~
Daniel M. Siebenaler
Chief of Police
TO:
SUBJECT:
Citizens Comments
Stop sign request.
DATE:
February 16, 1999
INTRODUCTION
During its regular meeting of February 1, 1999, the Council received a request for a stop sign on Elm
Street between Burger King and City Center. Staffhas addressed the request and responded to the citizen.
DISCUSSION
The request for a stop sign between Burger King and More 4 has been made several times over the past
few years. The request is based on the difficulty of entering onto Elm St. during heavy traffic periods,
particularly in attempting to cross one lane of traffic in order to travel the opposite direction. Another
complaint resulted from the difficulty of pedestrian traffic crossing between the two locations.
Elm Street is also designated County Road 50. Maintenance and signage are the jurisdiction of the Dakota
County Highway Department. The City of Farmington has no authority to post any signs without County
approval. Staff has researched the request thoroughly with Dakota County over the past few years and has
reached the following conclusions.
. The function of publicly posted traffic control devices is to facilitate the movement of traffic on and
between public roadways.
. No known standard for the placement of stop signs allows for such placement anywhere but at the
intersection of public roadways unless such a hazard exists as to warrant the placement.
. Traffic volumes in this area, as measured by the Dakota County Highway Department, do not warrant
the installation of stop signs. While short delays do occur at certain peak traffic times, no significant
delays or special hazards appear to exist. Since the installation of the Center Turn Lane in the area, the
number of accidents has been minimal.
. Pedestrian traffic is discouraged from crossing streets mid-block. Crosswalks, supported by a 4-way
stop sign have been installed by Dakota County at the intersection of 3rd St and Elm St, at the request
of the City of Fanning ton, to allow the safe movement of pedestrian traffic.
Staff has researched these conclusions with representatives of the Dakota County Highway Department to
ensure that they remain valid.
ACTION REOUESTED
Information only.
Respectfully submitted,
Daniel M. Siebenaler
Chief of Police
cc: John Engrav
2410 220th St.
Fannington, MN 55024
!
{"e--. ...~.l
la.,
COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR
February 1, 1999
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 7:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Ristow led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
3.
ROLL CALL
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Also Present:
Ristow, Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan, Verch
None
City Administrator Erar, Attorney Joel Jamnik, City Management
Team
4. APPROVE AGENDA
MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS
a) Staff Introduction
Mr. Tom Dubbels was introduced as the new Park Keeper in the Parks and
Recreation Department.
6. CITIZEN COMMENTS
Mr. John Engrav, 2410 220th Street W, inquired regarding placing a stop sign on Elm
Street between Burger King and More 4. Staff will prepare a written response for the
February 16, 1999 Council Meeting.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
Item 7a) Council Minutes 1/19/99 were pulled as Councilmember Strachan was absent
from that meeting and wanted to abstain from voting. MOTION by Cordes, second by
Soderberg to approve Council Minutes 1/19/99 (Regular). Voting for: Cordes,
Soderberg, Verch. Abstain: Ristow, Strachan. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION by Strachan, second by Verch to approve the Consent Agenda as follows:
b) Approved capital outlay - Police Department
c) Approved appointment recommendation - Parks and Recreation Department
d) Adopted RESOLUTION R07-99 accepting donation - Ice Arena
e) Adopted RESOLUTION R08-99 accepting Metro Meals on Wheels
Collaborative Grant
f) Adopted RESOLUTIONS R09-99 and RI0-99 approving Park Grant
Applications
g) Received 1998 Liquor Store Sales Report
h) Approved bills
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
Council Minutes (Regular)
February 1, 1999
Page 2
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a) Hearing Continuance - Seed Property Annexation
The Hearing was continued from the January 19, 1999 Council Meeting. Staff
presented a draft Orderly Annexation Agreement between Empire Township and
the City of Farmington. The Agreement contains the following provisions:
- The subject area is the entire Seed Family property which comprises
approximately 960 acres.
- The properties in the subject area cannot be petitioned for annexation unless all
owners have signed a petition requesting annexation.
- The property would have to be contiguous to the City and no longer enrolled in
the agriculture preserve program, which expires December 31, 2001.
- The use or development proposal for the property is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
- Public sewer or water is available or proposed to be made available to serve the
property .
The only exception to these conditions is 80 acres owned by Mr. Gerald Stelzel.
An Amended Option and Put Agreement between the Seed and Stelzel families
provides that the Seed Family will not petition this portion of the property, within
the Orderly Annexation Agreement, for annexation into the City until the earlier
of:
- The date Gerald Stelzel no longer serves in any elected or appointed capacity
for Empire Township; or
- The date Gerald Stelzel no longer occupies the property identified as his
homestead; or
- The date of death of Gerald Stelzel; or
- January 1,2009.
The Empire Town Board approved this agreement at their January 12, 1999
meeting. Approval of this agreement will allow the City to include this area in its
Comprehensive Plan update. A letter was received from Genstar, stating upon
approval of this agreement, Genstar would withdraw their original 60-acre
petition. Mayor Ristow questioned because of all the land being annexed and in
agriculture preserve, why wait three years? Staff replied it was suggested the land
stay in Empire Township while in agriculture preserve, as the landowners made a
commitment not to develop the land for a certain number of years.
Councilmember Soderberg asked if Genstar is planning to bring in all 960 acres at
once. Mr. Steve Juetten, Genstar, replied he cannot answer that right now.
Genstar will work with staff over the next three years to work out what is best for
everyone. Councilmember Soderberg then asked what is Genstar's vision for the
property. Mr. Juetten replied, Genstar will do a market study on the property and
determine what the best uses are for the site. Councilmember Cordes, asked if it
was seven years before the City can petition for more MUSA. Staff will work on
a MUSA expansion plan within the next 5-7 years. MUSA expansion plans are
typically done in five-year increments, therefore, the next MUSA expansion effort
Council Minutes (Regular)
February 1, 1999
Page 3
will begin in 2005. MOTION by Strachan, second by Cordes to close the Public
Hearing for the Seed Property Annexation. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to execute Joint Resolution No. 1999-
1 establishing joint planning and orderly growth. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION by Strachan, second by Cordes to acknowledge withdrawal of petition
for annexation from Genstar, property owner. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
9. AWARD OF CONTRACT
10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a) Conflict of Interest Information
Information was presented to Council in an attempt to clarify any potential issues
that may arise given the changing dynamic of Council. The information
summarizes the legal opinion of the City Attorney. As issues arise, this will be
the guide that Council and staff will use to resolye issues.
b) Draft Land Use Plan - Presentation
Staff reviewed previous discussions regarding development of the Land Use Plan
and Policy Statements. The Planning Commission adopted the Land Use Plan at
their January 12, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning staff divided
the Land Use Plan into six separate districts including the North Central, North
East, Central, IndustriallBusiness Park, Downtown and West Rural districts. Each
district was discussed. The Policy Statements were derived from the information
formulated at the Visioning Sessions held in July of 1998. The policies will be
utilized as a yardstick against which proposed ordinances and programs can be
measured. The policies deal with land use, natural resources, housing and staged
development. The Plan was presented to Council for their information and
recommendations.
Mr. Steve Albrecht, a representative of Mr. Allen who has a purchase agreement
on the Neilen property, outlined the uses and benefits of the property. This
property will be part of a revised Comprehensive Plan in the next 5-10 years.
c) Dakota County HRA Legislative Proposal
The Dakota County HRA is proposing to amend the special law that created the
HRA. The proposed change would involve changing the name to the Dakota
County Community Development Agency and that it be authorized to exercise
both the powers of a Housing and Redevelopment Authority and an Economic
Development Authority. The County HRA is seeking comments from cities in
the county that can be forwarded to the County Board. MOTION by Cordes,
second by Soderberg authorizing a letter be submitted to the Dakota County HRA
in support of their proposed special legislation seeking Economic Development
Authority powers. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
Council Minutes (Regular)
February 1, 1999
Page 4
11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a) Council By-Laws Language Revision (carry-over 1/19/99)
This clarifies language that allows Council to submit itemized requests for
reimbursement or advancement. It removes redundant or obsolete language.
MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan to amend the proposed By-Laws.
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
b) Council By-Laws Research Issues (carry-over 1/19/99)
This was presented for Council information regarding attendance of
Councilmembers and members of Boards and Commissions.
12. NEW BUSINESS
a) Adopt Resolution - 1999 Sealcoat Project Feasibility Report
The Feasibility Report for the 1999 Seal Coat Project was presented. Streets in
Deer Meadows 1 st Addition and Deer Meadows 2nd Addition will all be seal
coated for the first time. Dakota County Estates 1 st Addition and several
downtown streets and parking lots have not been seal coated in over seven years
and are proposed to be included in the project this year. The 1999 Seal Coat
Project is included in the 1999 Capital Improvement Plan. Several streets in the
project have been previously assessed through their Development Contracts and
the remaining properties will be assessed through the City's special assessment
policy. Any remaining costs would be funded through the City's Road and Bridge
Fund. Total estimated cost is $81,000. Two options were presented for assessing
this project. The rate has increased slightly each year. Option 1 recommends the
assessment rate be $57.00 per unit. Option 2 would be to assess the project at
50% as stated in the City's Assessment Policy. Councilmember Strachan asked if
the estimated amount comes back at a lower bid, does that reduce the assessed
amounts per property. Staff replied the rationale for staying consistent with the
policy is so people are not treated differently from what happened in the past.
Councilmember Strachan suggested making the motion for a 50/50 split not to
exceed $60.48 per unit to adhere to policy. Mayor Ristow stated Council is trying
to be fair so the amount assessed the first year would be equal to the amount
assessed in year seven. Staff stated if the Council sets the amount at $60.48, that
is what will be assessed, no matter what the bid comes in at. No one can expect to
pay the same amount in year one as in year seven, as costs go up. Do not set the
price at $60.48, set it as a 50/50 split, not to exceed $60.48. Then the assessment
will be at 50% or $60.48, whichever is lower. Council agreed to accept Option 2,
a 50/50 split with the exception the assessed amount should not exceed $60.48.
MOTION by Strachan, second by Cordes to adopt RESOLUTION Rll-99
accepting the Feasibility Report, authorizing the preparation of plans and
specifications and scheduling a public hearing for March 1, 1999. APIF,
MOTION CARRIED.
Council Minutes (Regular)
February 1, 1999
Page 5
b) Schedule Council Workshop Date -1999 Council Goal Setting
A Council Goal-Setting Session is being planned to address a number of policy
issues that Council may wish to consider for 1999. The accomplishment of these
goals would then be monitored throughout the subsequent year, with a final report
transmitted to Council upon completion. Council approved April 1 0, 1999 for the
Council 1999 Goal-Setting Workshop.
13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE
Councilmember Strachan: The first ALF Ambulance Board meeting was held last
week.
Councilmember Soderberg: He read in the paper, it was Lakeville's intent to develop to
the Northeast. Approximately 475 building permits will be issued this year. Mr.
Endersbe approached Council last year requesting open dialogue with the City. If
Lakeville is adding 475 homes and Farmington adding 300 homes, it will have a
significant impact on the schools. Staff suggested during the Goal-Setting meeting in
April, to set up a schedule to meet with surrounding cities and decide on the issues to be
discussed.
Councilmember Cordes: Ms. Coreen Hoeft, of Congressman Luther's office offered
to update Council on train whistle legislation and to inform Council of technology Coon
Rapids is taking advantage of. Staff will follow-up.
Councilmember Verch:
Hwy3.
Received a report from a citizen regarding jake-braking on
City Administrator Erar:
Welcomed Mayor back from vacation.
Community Development
Director Olson: There will be an Information Meeting February 3, 1999 at
the Library to update citizens on individual septic systems and pumping requirements.
14. ADJOURN
MOTION by Verch, second by Strachan to adjourn at 8:55 p.m. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
Respectfully submitted,
~?7?~
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
7~
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~
FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager
SUBJECT: Amend Ordinance Regulating Historic Preservation
DATE: February 16, 1999
INTRODUCTION
The City Ordinance regulating Historic Preservation should be amended to coincide with the
Historic Preservation element of the Comprehensive Plan.
DISCUSSION
In October of 1992 the City Council adopted an ordinance regulating historic preservation in
Farmington by establishing an HPC (Historic Preservation Commission). Since that time the
Commission has established goals and policies and has prepared inventories in several
neighborhoods including the Downtown.
During the City Visioning sessions this past summer, the Commission identified issues and
visions and prepared a draft plan reflecting these issues, to be incorporated in the proposed
Comprehensive Plan.
To implement this plan and achieve the vision of an effective city preservation program, the
current ordinance should be amended. The proposed amendments have been thoroughly
discussed with the City Planner, Community Development Director, Planning Commission and
the Development Committee.
The existing ordinance states that the Commission shall review all activities which are proposed
for a heritage preservation site. The major change to the proposed ordinance is to limit the
Commission's review to the following three activities:
. Every application for a city permit to demolish any building located on property designated
as a Farmington Heritage Landmark shall be reviewed by the HPC
. Every application for a city permit to move any building to or from a property designated as
a Farmington Heritage Landmark shall be reviewed by the HPC, and
. Every application for a city permit to construct a principal building or accessory structure on
a property designated as a Farmington Heritage Landmark shall be reviewed by the HPC
All other changes are basically modifications to support these three actions. The City Attorney
has reviewed and approved the proposed amendments to the ordinance.
ACTION REQUESTED
Adopt the attached ordinance amending the Heritage Preservation Commission Ordinance.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Karen Finstuen
Administrative Services Manager
2-11-1
SECTION:
2-11-1 :
2-11-+~:
2-11-~J:
2-11-~:
2-11-42,:
2-11-~:
2-11-&1:
2-11-8:
2-11-1 :
2-11-2
ORDINANCE NO. 099-
CHAPTER 11
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Amendment
Declaration of Public Policy and Purpose
Definitions
Heritage Preservation Commission EstaelisheaPowers and Duties
Designation of Heritage PreservatiaR SitesFarmington Heritage Landmarks
l\aaitiaRa1 Pewers aHa Dl:tties of the CaHlHlissioHDesign Review
R-evi0w efPefHlitsViolations and Penalty
Repository for Documents
AMENDMENT: Title 2 ofthe City Code of the City of Farmington shall be amended bv
amending Chapter 11 as follows:
2-11-+~: DECLARATION OF PUBLIC POLICY AND PURPOSE: The Farmington City Council
hereby declares as a matter of public policy that the preservation, protection, perpetuation
and use of areas, Jllaees, buildings, sites. structures, aHa other objects. and districts having special
historical interest or value is a matter of public necessity, and is required in the interest of the health,
safety, welfare and prosperity of the people. The purpose of this Chapter is to:
(A) Safeguard the heritage of the City by preserving buildings. sites~ aREl-structures. obiects and
districts which reflect elements of the City's 6almral, saeial, eeaRaHlie, Jlalitieal, ':isaal or
aF6hiteemral histary;historical. architectural. archeological. or cultural heritage:
(B) Protect and enhance the City's appeal to residents, visitors and tourists, and serve as a support and
stimulus to business and industry;
(C) Foster civic pride in the beauty and notable accomplishments ofthe past; and
(D) Promote the preservation. protection and eeRtiRaea use of historic buildings. sites~ aa&-structures~
obiects and districts-for the education and general welfare of the people of the City. (Ord. 092-289,
10-5-92)
2-11-~J:
DEFINITIONS: For the purpose of this Chapter. the following words and terms shall have
the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section:
Building: A structure created principally to shelter a form of human activity. such as a house.
commercial building. school. or church.
Certificate Of .^.13Jlra'iaIAppropriateness: +Bat- The documentation provided by the Heritage Preservation
Commission which evidences approval of activities proposed for a heritage JlreservatiaR siteFarmington
Heritage Landmark.
2-11-3 2-11-4
HERIT:\GB
P~SBRV:\TIC>>J SITB:
:~~~' area, ~laee, InlilaiRg, straet1:ll'es, laRas, laRase&fliRg, BaildiRg
iRterier, aistriets, aajaeeRt ~l'e~erty er et;Rer ebjeets v.41iea aa'le BeeR
se aesigRatea j3afsaaRt te tRe j3revisieRs estal:llisaea BY tRis Ca&flter.
(Ora. 992 2&9, 19 5 92)
Design Review: The process of finding out whether proposed changes to a historic property meet
standards of appropriateness.
District: A discrete. geograhicallv definable area possessing a concentration. linkage or continuity of
buildings. sites. structures or objects united historically bv plan or physical development.
Farmington Heritage Landmark: A historic property so designated bv resolution of the City Council.
Object: A construction that is primarilv artistic in nature or relativelv small in scale and that is
associated with a specific historic setting or environment.
Historic Property: Anv building. site. structure or object that is significant in history. architecture.
archeology or culture.
Significance: The historic preservation value and importance of a historic property to the history.
architecture. archeology. or culture of the City of Farmington. the State of Minnesota. or the United
States.
Site: The location of a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity that possesses historic. cultural. or
archeological value.
Structure: Constructions made for purposes other than creating human shelter. such as bridges.
roadwavs. silos. and grain elevators.
Survey: The process of identifying and gathering information on historic properties.
2-11-~:
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION BST.^.:BLISHBDPOWERS
DUTIES:
AND I
(A) Members: There IS aerelly ereatea aRa estal:llisHea aThe City of Farmington Heritage
Preservation Commission (hereinafter the "CemmissieRHPC") wftieft-shall consist of up to seven
(7) voting members. adult residents of the City of Farmington. to be appointed by the City
Council. A~' memller &fl~eiatea te serve eR tRe CemmissieR saall Rave a aameRstrateel iHterest
aR9Ier e*flertise iR Risterie ~reservatieR. :\t least twe (2) memBers mast Be j3refessieRals iR a
fialel relatea te j3reservatieR (areRiteet1:lre, Ristery, ~laRRiRg, aesigR, eeRsfruetiea, 1&\'" ana se
fertk). .^~ flHeram SHall eeRsist of a majerity ef &fl~eiRtea memBers. MemBers sRall Be resiaeRts
of tHe City. (Ora. 994 32(;, 2 22 94)HPC members shall include professionals in the disciplines
of history. architecture. architectural history. archeology. planning. or related disciplines and
such other persons as have demonstrated interest or knowledge of historic preservation. Ex-
officio. non-voting members of the HPC shall include a representative of the Dakota County
Historical Society. the Farmington Historical Society. and a member of the Farmington Planning:
Commission.
2-11-4 2-11-5
(B) Terms of Office: All appointments for voting members shall be made for a term of three (3)
years. Members may be reappointed. Term expiration shall be staggered so that no more than
three (3) positions shall be filled each year. Members shall serve without compensation and
continue to hold office until their successors have been appointed. (Ora. 992 2&9, 19 5 92)
(C) Organization: The CamlHissieR \."keR farmeaHPC shall elect from its members such officers as
it may deem necessary. The C01HIHissieR HPC shall have the power to designate and appoint
from its members various committees. The CelHmissieR HPC shall make such bylaws as it may
deem advisable and necessary for the conduct of its affairs, for the purpose of carrying out the
intent of this Chapter, which are not inconsistent with the laws of the City and the State of
Minnesota. The CamlHissieR shalllHake aR ar.nllal repert eamaiRiRg a statalHeRt ef its aeti'lities
aRa plaas ta the City CellReil eR er Befere OeteBer 31 fer the pariea af OeteBer 1 thfellgB
SeptemBer 39 aRa this repert shall seRtaiR iRfermatiaR reEtlliraa B)' the State Histarieal
PreservatieR Offiee. (Ora. 991 32~, 2 22 91)
(D) Program Assistance: To accomplish the intent and purpose of this Chapter, the City shall provide
the CalHlHissieR HPC with staff support and technical assistance. The FaflHiRgteR WallsiRg ana
RaaeyelaplHeRt ;\1:Hkerit), (HR.'\.) Difester aRa.^~alHiRistf:ath'e .^.ssistaRt, ar thair aasigRees, '.vill
ast as this staffslippert. (Ora. 9922&9, 19 5 92)
(E) Unless otherwise specified herein. the powers and duties of the HPC shall be as follows:
1. Conduct a continuing survey of historic properties in the city which the HPC has reason to
believe are or will be eligible for designation as Farmington Heritage Landmarks.
2. Nominate properties for designation as heritage landmarks.
3. Review and comment upon permit applications and plans relating to heritage landmarks.
4. Increase public awareness of historic preservation and historic properties.
5. Make recommendations to the City Council concerning grants and gifts from federal and
state agencies. private grOUPS and individuals and the utilization of budgetary
appropriations for historic preservation programs.
6. Prepare a comprehensive historic preservation plan for the City.
7. Make an annual report containing a statement of its activities and plans to the City Council.
8. Anv other functions which may be designated bv the City Council.
2-11-4.2.: DESIGNATION OF FARMINGTON HERITAGE PRESBR'I.^.TIO}I
~LANDMARKS:
(.^.) Re~srts: The City CSllReil, ll~SR reElllest sf the CsmmissiaR, may elireet Cit), ~ ts ~repare
smelies \\'hieh eatalag ellileliRgs, laael, areas, elistriets, ar ether eBjeets te ee eSRsielereel fer
aesigRatisR as a heritage ~reservatieR site.
2-11-4.2. 2-11-5
J8A) Eligibility Criteria. The CsmmissisR shall reeemmeRel te the City Cellaeil areas, ellileliRgs,
elistriets ar sejeets ts ee elesigRateel heritage ~reser\'atisR sites. IR eSRsieleriag the elesigRatisR ef
heritage ~resef\'atiaR sites, the CsmmissisR shall ap~ly the fslls',yiRg stateel eriteria anel ather
ap~lieable eriteria that may ee estaelisReel BY the Seeretary ef IRterisr frsm time ts time.The
following criteria shall guide the HPC and the City Council in evaluating properties for
designation as Farmington Heritage Landmarks:
1. Its ehaFaeter, iRterest sr vallie as ~art sf the elevels~meRt, heritage sr ellltafal eharaeteristies
sf the City, State sfMillllessta, ar the URiteel States.
2. Its leeatisR as a site, ar esRkie\ttiRg elemeRt iR ~FeKimity ts a site sf sigRifieaRt histerie
0'/eRt ar ~reeess.
3. Its emeeelimeRt ef elistiagllishiRg 0hal'aeteristies af lHlaf0hiteetafal style, ~erieel, farm ar
treatIHeRt.
1. Its ieleRtifieatiaR '.vith a ~ersaR ar ~erseRs \'Ala sigait.ieaRtly eaRkie\tteel ta the ellltHre aRel
elevela~meRt eftHe Cit),.
5. Its emeeelimeRt sf elemeRts af arehiteemral elesigR, aetail, materials ar eraftsmanshi~ '.'Ieieh
re~reseRt elistiReti-ve afehiteetafal ilHle'/atisa.
~. Its lHliEJ.lle laeatiaR ar siRglllar ~hysieal ehal'aeteristies re~reseRtiRg estaelisheel aRel familiar
as~eets af a ':is...'.', '/ista, site, afea ar elistriet iR the City.
1. The significance in history. architecture. archeology. and culture present in buildings. sites.
structures. obiects and districts including location. design. setting. materials. workmanship.
feeling. and association. and:
a. that are associated with specific events or a pattern of events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history: or
b. that are associated with the lives of persons or groups significant in our past: or
c. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type. period. or method of construction.
or that represent the work of a master builder. or that possess high artistic values. or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity those components may lack individual
distinction: or
d. that have yielded. or may be like Iv to yield. information important in prehistory or
history.
2. The physical appearance. historic character or aesthetic value of an established or familiar
feature of a neighborhood or community within the City.
(C) IRtra City CemlHllRieatieR: The CelHlHissieR shall establish aRelHaimaiR eelHlHlHlieatieRs ':Iith
the City PlaRRiRg CelHlHissiaR, HellsiRg aRG ReaeyeleflmeRt .'\.1:Hkerity aRe ethers iRterestee iR
or affeeteG BY a heritage ~reservatieR site aesigRatioR.
2-11-5 2-11-5
(~~) Findings aRe ReeelHlHeReatieRsof Significance: The CelHlHissieR HPC shall determine if a
flreflosee heritage ~reservatieR sitehistoric property is eligible for ~reservatieR as eetermiaee BY
the eriteria estaBlisllee BY this Chapter aRG ap~lieaele Seeretal1' efIRterier staReares, aRe e1:H'feRt
~roeeallre as reeolHlHeaeeG BY the State Histerieal PreservatieR Offiee.designation as a
Farmington Heritage Landmark and issue a written finding of significance.
(~) Council Designation, Hearings: The City Council, upon recommendation of the COlHlHissieR
HPC, may by resolution designate a heritage ~reservatiaR siteFarmington Heritage Landmark.
Prior to such designation~ the City Council shall hold a public hearing, notice of which shall have
been published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the date ofthe hearing and
mailed notice sent to the owner(s) of the property which is proposed to be designated a heritage
flreservatieR site landmark and to all owners of property lying ilHlHeeiately adjacent to the
flFOflosee sitehistoric property.
(~D) Communication with ~the Minnesota Historical Society: Prior to designating a ~repesee
heritage ~reser\'atieR siteFarmington Heritage Landmark, the CelHlHissieR City shall forward
information concerning the proposed designation to the ~Minnesota Historical Society for
review and comment withiR sh.t), (~Q) Gays. The eeeisieR ef the Heritage PreservatieR
CelHlHissiOR aRe Cit), CelHlsil shall Be seRt te the State Histerieal Sesiety in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, section 471.193, sll98i-'/isieR 5.
(G) .^~eEJ.llisitiea: The CelHlHissieR lHay feeelHlHeae te the Cit)' CellReil that eeFtaiR ~reflert)' eligiBle
for eesigRatieR as a heritage flreservatioR site Be aeEJ.lliree BY gift, BY RegetiatioR, ar ether legal
lHeaRS as ~raviGee iR ehapter 117 ef MiRReseta Statutes. (OrG. Q92 2&9, 1 Q 5 92)
(E) Designation of Heritage Landmarks on the Zoning Map: The City shall place designated
Farmington Heritage Landmark properties on the official city zoning map.
2 11 5: .'\DDITION.^.L POWERS :\ND DUTIES Of TIm C01\'f.MISSION: The
CelHlHissieR shall ha'/e the felle'.viRg ~ewers aRe eHties iR aaGitieR te these athecv/ise
s~eeifiee iR this Chapter:
(.^.) The CelBlHissiaR shall eeRellst a eeRtialliRg sllrve)' ef all areas, ~Iaees, BllileiRgs, stA:letafes ar
ebjeets iR the Cit), whish the CelHlHissieR, aR the Basis ef iRfermatieR a';ailable er flfeseRtee to
it, has reaseR te Believe afe sigaifieaRt te the elllmral, seeial, eeeRelHie, ~elitieal ar arelliteetafal
historyeffaflHiRgtaR.
(R) folle'.viRg eesigRatieR ef a heritage ~reservatiaR site, the CemmissieR shall aet as a fesellree ane
iR aR ael--:isery eapaeity te eWRefS ef saie ~reflerties regafeiRg ~reservatiea, festemtieR aRe
rellabilitatieR aeti'/ities. CemlHissieR aeti,/it)' iR this regare shall iaelllee ~artiei~atieR iR the
fllaRRiRg aRe ilHfllemematiaR ef aetYlities witltiR the ee\wtev.'R aRe eesigRatee aejaeeRt
flreflerties aae ether leeal heritage ~reservatiaR sites.
(C) The CefRlHissioR shall '.verk fer the seRtilHliag eallsatieR eftHe eiti~eas aftHe City with res~eet
to the ei':ie aRa arehiteetafal keritage eftHe Cit),. It shall keep e1:H'feRt aRe ~llBlie a register ef
aesigRatee aRe ~re~esee heritage ~reservatieR sites aRe area aloag \'/itH the ~laRS aRe flFegrams
that ~ertaiR te them.
(D) The CelHlHissieR lHay reselHlHeRe te the Cit), the asee~taRse sf gifts aRe eeRkiBHtieas te Be
lHaee te the City aRe ts assist the City staff iR the flre~afatieR of ap~lieatiaRs fer gt'aRt fuass te
Be lHaae thi'OllgB the City fer the ~lH'flese efheritage ~reservatieR. .A~y eeRtriB1:ltisas er gifts
,....m Be eKf>eReee iR the lHaRRer ~rsvieea tHrsllgh tke aseal ~sliey eftHe City.
(E) ,AA the siseretioR ef the CelHlHissiea, ~llBlie keariags lHay Be iaitiatea te selie it ~llBlis iR~\tt
regaraiRg ~Fe~esee aetivities te a heritage ~reser\'atioR site. (Ore. Q92 2&9, 1 9 5 92)
2 11 l'i: REVIEW OF PERMITS:
V.) The CelHlHissieR shall rede'll all aetivities whish are ~fef)SSee for a heritage ~reservatieR site
withiR farmiRgtsR. The CelHlHissieR shall re':iew aetivities iR aseereaBse with this Chapter aRe
Bylaws as aee~tee BY the CefRlHissieR.
1. To iRitiate review BY the CelHlHissieR, the e'NBer sr eesigRatee re~reseatati':e of a heritage
f)reservatieR site shall ~ref)are aRe SllBlRit fllans te the Cit), eetailiRg all flre~esee aeti,:ities. UfleR
Feeei~t ef saie ~lans aRe fee iR aeeeraanee '.vitH the Bylil\vS estaelishee BY the CemlHissiaR, the
flreflesee aetivities shall Be eeRsieeree BY the CefRmissiaR.
2. fellewiRg revie'.Y sf the flre~esee aeti'/ities aRe eetailee ~laRs, the CelHlHissieR shall :ferwafe its
reeafRlHeReatieR aRe eertifieate ef apflre'/al ef the Cit)' RllilaiRg Offieial, as Reeessary, aRe ether
flersaRs iRterestea iR er af:feetee BY the ~repesal at the eissretieR ef the CSlHlHissiea. The
RllileiRg Offieial shall eeR)' any Bllileiag ~ermit ap~lisatieR fer ':Iark ~rs~ssee eR a heritage
~reservatieR site whish has aet BeeR eeasieefea BY the CefRlHissieR sr '.ykish is iaeeRsisteRt witH
reeelHlBeaaatioRs lHaae BY the CelHlHissieR.
3. If the s':.'R:er or eesigaatee fe~reseRtatiYe sf a heritage flreSef\'atiaR site eBjeets te the
reeomlHeRaatieRs lHaee BY the CemlHissiea, aR apfleal lHay Be lHaee te the farmiRgteR City
CellReil. Ia eeasieeriRg aR apfleal, the City CelHleil will re'liew all iRfermatieR geReratee felati'/e
to the flre~esea ~fsjeet aRa thereafter, iSSlle a aesisieR BY feselHtieR of the City CelHleil.
(R) TYfles ef .A~sti'/ity te Be R-evie'.vea:
1. RelHeael, re~air er ehaRge iR any lHaaRer that will alter the e1lterisr appearaRee ef aR eJdstiRg
BllileiRg ar site, iasllleiRg flaiRtiRg, sigRage, aWRiRgs, lanaseapiRg aRe flermaReRt iRterier
remeaeliRg ','o'hieh affeets the e1l4:erier ap~earaRse; ar
2. }-Ie'.v eeRstrustiea, iRsllleiRg the eKflaRsieR or eRlargelHeRt ef aR eRistiRg Bllilaiag er site; er
3. MeYiRg ef BllileiRgs; or
4. DemelitisR iR "i:lele er ~art; or
5. IRterier relHeeeliag, reflair er 6haRge ef a heritage flreservatieR site; or
2-11-6
2-11-6
~. PllBlie ilH~reYelHeRt t>rejeets whieh eireetly er iBaireetly affeet a heritage ~feservatieR site.
(C) .AJI lHeetiRgs of the CelHlHissieR shall Be seheelllea aRe eeaSlletee iR eelH~liaRee with the
MiRResata O~eR MeetiRg La'...: aRa Bylaws as estaelishee BY the CelHlHissieR.
(D) ERfereemeRt: }ore aetivity as eefiRee BY ereiaanee shall eeeHf eR a heritage ~reservatieR site
'.vitheHt haviRg first reeeivee a eertifieate ef apt>roval issllea BY the CelHlHissieR. }ore ap~lieatieR fee
saall Be retufRee te aa apfllisaRt lHHil the sertifieate ef apflre':al is t>Fe':iaee. f~etivit)' iRitiatee er
eem.~letee witHeHt tHe eORseRt ef the CeIHIHissi0R aRe City as reEJ.lliFee shall Be eeRsiaeree te Be iR
':ielatieR ef this Chliflter.
lJ.t>OR eitiRg aR)' yielatieR ef this Chapter, the CelHlHissioR shall iRitiate aetieRs Resessary te resey:e tHe
'/ielatieR. If a violatieR SaRRot Be resoy:ee '.vith the eeloperatieR ef the af:feetea ~arties, the CefRlHissieR
shall iRitiate the followiRg t>reeeeares:
1. .A. writteR Retiee ef 'lielatieR will Be t>revieee te the eWRer er eesigRatee ret>reseRtati'/e ef the
heritage }'lresef\,atioR site. Saie Retise shall s}'leeify the Ramre ef the violatieR aRe ~essiBle lHeaRS fer
reetifyiRg saie '/ielatieR.
2. Saie Rotiee saall Be iSSllee BY registereelHail or haRe aeli'/eree, reeeiflt feEJ.llestea, te the e'.viler er
aesigRatee re~reseRtative ef the heritage ~reservatieR site. U~eR reeei~t ef the Retiee ef '/ielatieR, teR
(19) aays will Be allewee te restify the 'lielatioR ef the satisfaetieR ef the CeHlmissieR.
3. If the 'lielatieR is aet reetifiee te the satisfaetieR ef the CelHmissioR as reEfllirea, the Cit), shall
~reeeee te t>reseeHte the lHatter as a lHiseemeaner ~llRishaBle BY fiRe, ilH~risoalBeRt er Beth iR
aee0reaRee 'Nith the laws eftHe State elf MiflIleseta. (Ore 992 2&9, 1 Q 5 92)
2-11-6: DESIGN REVIEW:
(A) Review of Permits: The HPC shall review and make recommendations to the City Council
concerning the issuance of city permits to do any of the following in relation to a property
designated as a Farmington Heritage Landmark:
1. Demolition of a historic building or structure.
2. Moving a historic building. structure. or obiect.
3. New construction ofa principal building or accessory structure.
(B) The HPC shall determine whether the proposed activity will alter. disturb. deface or materially
change the appearance or use of a heritage landmark. The HPC may recommend to the City
Council conditions for permit approval that it deems reasonable and appropriate.
(C) Certificate of Appropriateness: No permit will be issued bv the City unless a certificate of
appropriateness has been granted bv the HPc. A COpy of the certificate of appropriateness shall
be attached to the permit when issued. and a COpy filed with the City Building Official. A
certificate of appropriateness shall become void twenty-four (24) months after issuance unless a
city permit has been issued.
2-11-6 2-11-8
CD) Development Proiects: Every application for a preliminary or final plat. variance or conditional
use permit in relation to a significant historic property in the city shall be reviewed bv the HPC
and their recommendation shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration in
making their recommendation to the City Council. In determining whether or not a proiect will
have an adverse effect upon a significant historic property. the HPC shall consider the following
factors:
1. Whether the development will substantially alter the appearance of a historic building. site.
structure. obiect or district so as to remove the features which distinguish the historic
property as a heritage landmark: and
2. Whether the use of the property will destroy. disturb or endanger a known or suspected
archeological feature.
(E) Design Review Standards and Guidelines: The Secretary of the Interior's standards for the
treatment of historic properties shall be the required basis for permit review decisions. The City
may adopt design review guidelines: in the absence of such guidelines. design review decisions
will be based upon the current Secretary of the Interior guidelines for preservation.
rehabilitation. restoration and reconstruction.
CF) Outside Technical Advise: The HPC may seek technical advice from outside its members on
any design review.
CG) Appeals: Anv party aggrieved bv a decision of the HPC shall. within ten (0) days of the HPC's
action approving or denying a certificate of appropriateness. have a right to appeal such decision
to the City Council. When denying a certificate of appropriateness. the HPC shall advise the
permit applicant of their right to file a written notice with the City Administrator requesting City
Council review of the action taken bv the HPC. Upon receipt of the notice of appeal. the City
Administrator shall transmit one COpy to the HPC.
2-11-7: VIOLATIONS AND PENALTY: It shall be a misdemeanor to alter. disturb. deface or
materially change the appearance or use of a designated Farmington Heritage Landmark without
a Certificate of Appropriateness.
2-11-8: REPOSITORY FOR DOCUMENTS: The office of the City Administrator is designated
as the repository for all reports. studies. minutes. and other documents produced bv the HPC.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.d.farmington.mn.us
7c
TO:
Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~
James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Adopt Resolution - Capital Outlay Purchase - Parks and Recreation Department
DATE:
February 16, 1999
INTRODUCTION
Sealed bids were opened on Tuesday, January 26, 1999 for the automated refuse packer and chassis.
DISCUSSION
Bids were requested for an automated refuse packer and chassis. The City received two bids which were
opened and reviewed by staff. The companies providing bids for this equipment are as follows:
1. McQueen Equipment
2. McQueen Equipment
3. Koening Equipment
Total Bid $167,902.58
Total Bid $169,458.54
Total Bid $180,601.63
This specialized equipment is only available from limited suppliers. The McQueen bids are for the same
packer with a different brand of chassis. Four additional companies contacted the Solid Waste
Supervisor about the upcoming purchase, however, no bids were received from them.
BUDGET IMPACT
Funds were budgeted for this purchase in 1999. The cost savings of the budgeted amount of $175,725
and bid price of $167,902.58 is $7,822.42.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached resolution approving the purchase of the automated refuse packer and chassis with
dollars as described above.
Respectfully submitted,
J~ ~.J2Jl
James Bell
Parks and Recreation Director
PROPOSED
RESOLUTION No. R
AWARDING BID TO VENDOR FOR AUTOMATED REFUSE PACKER AND
CHASSIS
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 16th day
of February, 1999 at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following:
WHEREAS, pursuant to properly published notice, bids were received, opened and
tabulated, which complied with the advertisement; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has received a recommendation from the Parks and
Recreation Director on the award for this equipment purchase.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Farmington hereby awards
the contract for the automated refuse packer and chassis to McQueen Equipment in the
amount of$167,902.58.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote ofthe Farmington City Council in open session
on the 16th day of February, 1999.
Mayor
Attested to the
day of February, 1999.
City Administrator
SEAL
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
lei
TO:
Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrato~
Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief
FROM:
SUBJECT:
School and Conference Request - Fire Department
DATE:
February 16, 1999
INTRODUCTION
The Fire Department is planning for Jeffrey Jacobson and Terry Thraen to attend the Minnesota
State Fire School on March 6-7, 1999 in North Mankato.
DISCUSSION
The courses will be held at the North Mankato South Central Technical College. Courses to be
taken include: L.P. Gas Emergencies
Incident Safety Officer ISO
Anhydrous Ammonia Emergencies
Mobile Home Fire Attack
Intro to Computers and Windows 95/98
Relief Association Management - Refresher
BUDGET IMPACT
Cost is $430.00 which includes travel, registration, room and meals. These funds are available in
the 1999 Budget.
ACTION REOUESTED
F or Council information.
Respectfully submitted,
~j(Jw,~
Ken Kuchera
Fire Chief
1a..,
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator9~
FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: County Road 72 Project - Public Hearing
DATE: February 16, 1999
INTRODUCTION
At the January 4th, 1999 City Council meeting, the Council scheduled a public hearing for
February 16, 1999, on the County Road 72 Project.
DISCUSSION
The Council accepted the feasibility report for improvements to County Road 72 at the June
15, 1998 City Council meeting. Dakota County has included this project in their CIP as a
tumback. The County has indicated that they would participate financially in the County Road
72 street improvement project within the City limits as part of the tumback agreement. Dakota
County's financial participation would be according to the County's current policies. The
project has two parts; a reconstruction part and a new construction part.
Reconstruction
The reconstruction part encompasses the existing roadway from Trunk Highway 3 to the
easterly Hospital property line (Sta. 0+00 to Sta. 13+65). The proposed improvements for this
section include: 1) reconstruction of the roadway, 2) installation of storm sewer, 3)
installation of sanitary sewer and 4) installation of water services.
The installation of sanitary sewer and water services are for the benefit of properties on the
north side of Co. Rd. 72 since the Hospital and Clinic currently have sewer and water service.
The properties in the Township on the north side of the road would have both sewer and water
services stubbed to them. Several of the properties in the City on the north side of the road
have already had water service installed and those properties would only need sewer service
stubbed at this time. Those properties in the City that have neither water nor sewer service
would have both stubbed to them.
New Construction
The new construction part is in the area of the existing gravel roadway located between the
easterly Hospital property line and the easterly City limits (Sta. 13+65 to Sta. 33+00). The
proposed improvements include roadway construction along with storm sewer, sanitary sewer,
water main and related costs. These improvements are for the benefit of the Hospital property
and East Farmington on the south side and Bristol Square on the north side.
Neillhborhood concerns
Staff held a neighborhood meeting for the project on December 17, 1998. Those present at the
meeting are shown on the meeting notes attached. Several concerns were raised by the
residents on the north side of the road and are addressed below:
The residents do not feel that the project benefits them and they do not want to pay for
the improvements.
The City's Special Assessment policy outlines the cost sharing necessary on public
improvement projects. The appraisal of the properties affected by the improvements asserts
that the properties would benefit from the proposed improvements (see attached). Properties
do receive a valuation benefit from new streets, storm sewer water service and sewer service.
The benefit of sewer and water service to these properties versus septic systems and wells is a
firmly established tenet in market appraisels.
The residents feel that they were promised in the past that the sewer would be located
behind their homes and not in the street, thus saving them connection costs since their
septic systems are, for the most part, in their back yards.
Staff has not been able to locate any documentation that indicates that the City committed to
installing the sewer along the back yards of the residents. It is staff s strong recommendation
that the sewer be placed in the street for maintenance, accessibility and cost implications.
Locating the sewer in the backyards of the residents causes various difficulties. Currently there
is at least one building that would be directly over where the sewer would need to go. That
building would need to be moved. Other buildings are in close proximity to where the sewer
line would need to be placed. Easements would need to be acquired from the property owners.
Those easement areas would need to be kept clear of any structures (existing buildings would
need to be moved) or trees so that access could be maintained. At the public hearing for the
Glenview Townhomes development, the residents negotiated with the developer for screening
along their rear property line, which would not be able to be placed in that easement area if the
sewer is located there.
Even if easements were granted and access was maintained, it would be much more difficult to
access the sewer and perform maintenance or emergency service on the sewer. The backyards
would still not allow as much room for heavy equipment and problems would be encountered
if the ground was soft. In the street there would be at least sixty feet to work and maneuver,
while in the backyards it would be difficult if not impossible to obtain an easement greater than
thirty feet wide. The question has been raised whether paving a trail over the sewer would
alleviate the concerns. A trail would introduce additional cost and there still would not be as
much room to maneuver heavy equipment, as there would be in the street. In the case of a
sewer plug, City staff needs to be able to respond as quickly as possible to clear the line. It
will take more time to access the sewer and maneuver a truck and the sewer rodder if the sewer
is in a backyard easement. It is also staff s understanding that the residents in the past have
been opposed to a trail along their rear property line.
Staff has researched the costs involved with running sewer services to County Road 72 versus
the rear property line. In two out of seven cases it is estimated to be less expensive to run the
sewer service to County Road 72. In the other five cases, the range of additional cost to run the
service to County Road 72 is estimated to be approximately $330 to $620 (see attached memo).
The residents do not want the proposed trail along the north side of the road. The
residents feel they will lose their front yards and trees and that their property values will
go down if the trail is installed as proposed.
The proposed eight-foot wide bituminous trail would be placed within the current roadway
right-of-way. The trail would connect Trunk Highway 3 to the trail system that traverses the
Prairie Waterway, portions of which are already in place. The sidewalk proposed for the south
side of the street will be consistent with the sidewalk in the East Farmington development and
is appropriate for the institutional properties on the south side of the road. County Road 72 is
considered a neighborhood collector and is required to have a sidewalk or trail on at least one
side of the road.
The residents are concerned with the increased traffic on County Road 72 due to the new
developments and asked if staff has traffic volumes.
Staff has researched this issue with the County. The current traffic counts on County Road 72
according to Dakota County is 1850 (1996 ADT). Council would need to authorize staff to
perform a traffic study in order to estimate the additional traffic volume on County Road 72
due to East Farmington and Bristol Square.
The residents inquired about assessment deferments.
City ordinance and Minnesota Statute both allow for deferment of assessments under certain
criteria circumstances. The City Attorney will go over those procedures at the meeting if the
question is raised.
BUDGET IMPACT
The estimated total project cost is $1,474,200. As stated previously, Dakota County has
included the turnback of this road in their CIP for 1999. In discussions between City and
County staff, it has been indicated by County officials that the County would be willing to
participate in the costs of the improvements as outlined in their Transportation Policy as part of
a turnback agreement with the City. The remaining costs would be funded through appropriate
City funding mechanisms.
The funding of the two parts of the project, the reconstruction and the new construction, are
addressed separately as the funding mechanisms are unique to each part. Following are the
total cost splits:
Reconstruction, Sta. 0+00 to 13+65 (TH 3 to easterly Hospital property line)
In the reconstruction area, there are two township properties that are adjacent to the County
Road. Per the County's policy, the County would fund 100% of the roadway costs in front of
the Township and 55% of the roadway costs in front of properties in the City. The water main,
sanitary sewer and storm sewer would be assessed 100% to the benefiting properties per the
City's Special Assessment Policy. The township properties could not be assessed until such
time they come into the City. The following table outlines the funding breakdown.
Fundine: Source
Item County City Assessed Total
Roadway Improvements $256,400 $96,000 $51,700 $404,100
Water Main $31,100 $31,100
Sanitary Sewer $104,200 $104,200
Storm Sewer * $35,400* $35,400
Miscellaneous Costs $1,900 $1,900
Total $256,400 $96,000 $224,300 $576,700
New Construction, Sta. 13+65 to 33+00 (easterly Hospital property line to easterly City limit)
This section of roadway is adjacent to two new developments, a portion of the Hospital
property and a section of the Prairie Waterway. The County would participate in 55% of the
roadway costs, leaving 45% of the costs to be funded otherwise. In accordance with the City's
Special Assessment Policy, new roadway construction and utility installation is 100% assessed
and it is recommended that the Hospital and the developments on either side of County Road
72 split the remaining costs that the County does not fund. The developments in question are
East Farmington and Bristol Square (formerly the Adelmann property). The following table
outlines the funding breakdown.
Funding Source
Item County Assessed Total
Roadway Improvements $280,100 $229,200 $509,300
Water Main $117,700 $117,700
Sanitary Sewer $65,900 $65,900
Storm Sewer * $202,700* $202,700
Miscellaneous Costs $1,900 $1,900
Total $280,100 $617,400 $897,500
*The County will participate in some of the costs of the storm sewer; however, the amount will
need to be determined during the preparation of plans and specifications.
Assessments to benefiting properties
Attached is correspondence from the appraiser contracted by the City that indicates the
proposed assessments are sustainable. The appraiser asserts that the properties to the north of
County Road 72 would receive benefit from the proposed improvements of $12,500 to $17,500
per lot. The proposed improvements would benefit adjacent commercial properties up to 50%
of the land value of the property and the proposed assessments to the Clinic and the Hospital
fall within this range. The maximum benefit to the Clinic is $93,000 and the maximum benefit
to the Hospital is $540,000.
These assessments could be spread over a period of 10 to 15 years in accordance with past
policies, and per the recommendation of the City Finance Department.
The breakdown of assessed costs to the benefiting property owners is as follows:
Reconstruction, Sta. 0+00 to 13+65 (TH 3 to easterly Hospital property line)
North side of Co un tv Road 72
City lots (not needing water service - 5)
City lots (needing water service - 4)
Township lots - 7
Commercial water servIce to Benham
property
South side of County Road 72
River Valley Clinic
Trinity Hospital
Approximate Amount to
be assessed per lot*
$9,300
$11,300
$8,200
$13,100
$11,600
$38,300
*These estimated assessments would be reduced based on the participation of the County in the
storm sewer costs.
New Construction, Sta. 13+65 to 33+00 (easterly Hospital property line to easterly City limit)
Approximate
Amount to be Assessed*
Benefiting Property
Bristol Square
East Farmington
Trinity Hospital
$312,400
$221,600
$83,500
*These estimated assessments may be reduced based on the participation of the County in the
storm sewer costs.
The developer of Bristol Square has agreed to pay their proportionate share ofthe project costs
in the development contract for the plat. Sienna Corporation has agreed to pay their
proportionate share of the costs through the development contract for East Farmington 4th
Addition and the attached letter. Trinity Hospital, River Valley Clinic and the properties on the
north side of County Road 72 are subject to the MS. 429 process. The assessments to the
township properties would be deferred until such time the properties come into the City.
County participation
The County has agreed in principle to turn the road back to the City and participate in the costs
per their Transportation policy. An agreement is currently being prepared that will outline the
terms of County financial participation.
City participation
The project costs that the City would participate in would be funded through the Road and
Bridge fund, the Sanitary sewer fund, the Water Utility fund and the Storm Water fund. A
project debt service schedule will be available at the meeting.
ACTION REQUESTED
Adopt the attached resolution ordering the project and authorizing the preparation of plans and
specifications.
Respectfully submitted,
~M~
Lee M. Mann, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
cc: file
PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NO. R -99
ORDERING PROJECT, AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS, PROJECT 99-08, COUNTY ROAD 72 PROJECT
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Farmington, Minnesota was held in the Civic Center of said City on the 16th day of February
1999 at 7:00 P.M.
The following members were present:
The following members were absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following resolution:
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 4th day of January 1999, fixed a date
for a council hearing on the proposed County Road 72 project.
WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given,
and the hearing was held thereon on the 16th day of February 1999, at which all persons desiring
to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard thereon.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Farmington,
Minnesota,
1. Such improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as detailed in the feasibility
report.
2. The County Road 72 street and utilit~ improvements are hereby ordered as proposed in
the Council resolution adopted the 1St day of June, 1998.
3. Glenn Cook is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. The engineer
shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the
16th day of February 1999.
Mayor
Attested to the
day of
,1999.
SEAL
ClerkJAdrnirristrator
County Road 72
Neighborhood Meeting
Trinty Hospital Meeting Room
December 17, 1998 6:30 p.m.
Name Address
Jackie Franke 3359213 St. W
Jerry & Elaine Schultz 3403213 St. W
Jill Franke 3359213 St. W
Dan Benham 21228 Chippendale Ave
Lowell Benham 21228 Chippendale Ave.
Mayor Jerry Ristow Farmington
Lee Mann City Engineer
Craig W Larson Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik
Lee Mann introduced the project to the audience and gave a brief explanation of the
scope of the project. The discussion addressed the proposed construction of the sanitary
sewer, storm sewer, water main, sewer and water services, street construction, and the
trails along County Road 72. Mr. Mann also discussed how the project might be funded
along with the County's participation in the cost of the street construction. Since the City
has not received the appraisals for properties along County Road 72, specific assessment
amounts to particular properties were not addressed. It was pointed out that the City
cannot assess residents more than the increased value that the project would benefit their
specific property. Craig Larson described the scope of the construction work and the
effect it may have on the residents during the construction. The location of new sewer
and water services would be based upon direction from the property owners. It was also
indicated that Construction Notices would be sent to the residents during the construction
to keep them informed.
The consensus of the residents that were present was that they are not in favor of the
project and specifically they are not in favor of paying for the improvements. The
following items were discussed and the residents voiced their opinions on the following:
. The residents questioned why the sanitary sewer would be placed in County
Road 72 when their septic systems are toward the rear of the lots. The
residents indicated that it will cost them more to connect to the sewer if it is
located in the street, rather than in the backyard, closer to their septic systems.
Mr. Mann explained the main reason was so that the utility lines are accessible
to maintenance vehicles, in the event of a plugged line, or other routine
maintenance.
. The residents stated that the previous City staff had told them that the sanitary
sewer would be placed in their backyards, and not in the front. When asked if
they had any documentation, they responded that they probably did not have
anything, and they thought they should be able to trust what a City Employee
tells them. Mr. Mann explained that we would research City records to see if
anything was documented regarding the location of the sanitary sewer.
. Mr. Mann also discussed the increased cost to install the sewer line in the
backyards. There are buildings along the property line, which would require
that portions of the sanitary sewer be jacked, thereby increasing the cost of the
project. The backyard sewer location will also pose difficulties with the
landscape screening that the development to the north is required to install.
. Residents questioned whom the road is being upgraded for. Mr. Mann
explained the participation of the County and why the project is being
considered at this time. City staff will look to see if the County has any traffic
counts on County Road 72.
. Several residents remarked that they do not want the road to be upgraded, and
are not happy with the assessment it would generate. They also remarked that
they are not happy they came into the City.
. Residents question the need for a bituminous trail being placed on the north
side of County Road 72. They felt the construction of the trail would require
the trees in their front yards to be removed and they would also lose "their
front yards". They felt the addition of a trail would cause their property value
to go down. They also questioned the need for a sidewalk on one side and a
bituminous trail on the other side - wondering if that wasn't overkill. Mr.
Mann explained that the trail as proposed would tie into the master trail
system and staff would forward the residents concerns to Jim Bell, the Park
and Rec Director.
. There was concern that the cost of the project could pose problems with
residents on fixed income. It was indicated that City staff would research the
policy on deferring assessments.
. The residents also feel they are losing the "small town atmosphere" of
Farmington and are not happy with the increased growth of the City.
Specifically are not happy with the increased traffic from the Bristol Square
development.
Notes taken by Craig W. Larson,
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO: Lee M. Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
FROM: David R. Sanocki, Engineering Division
SUBJECT: County Road 72 Improvements - Sanitary Sewer Connection Comparison
DATE: January 28, 1999
Attached is a table comparing sanitary sewer service connections made to County Road 72 and to the
rear lot property line north of County Road 72. Five.ofthe seven residents would pay between $330
and $620 more to connect to County Road 72.
I have also attached a drawing showing the proposed sanitary sewer service connection routes for the
two alternatives.
If you have any questions regarding this memo please feel free to talk to me.
SincerellYJJ R U
David R. Sanocki
Engineering Division
cc: file
C/)
I-
Z
W
~
W
>
o
~
0...
~
C\I
I'-
o
<(
o
~
>-
I-
Z
::>
o
u
z
o
U)
~
:
:e
o
o
z
o
i=
o
w
z
z
o
o
w
o
~
w
U)
a:
w
3:
w
U)
>-
a:
~
z
<C
U)
~o
......
LL.....N
!:!::U......
OWO
.....ZO:::
~~~
UUU
~ f
o -
uwo
ouC!
w5~
.....O::fIt
<(W......
:E(J)Z
-O:::Z
t>OO
WLLU
Z~~
ZO::~
001If
u.....z
WI:J
~..... .
>e>c"
a:::zO
WWO:::
(J)...Jc"
..... t='
(J) LL
o -
UWO
OUC!
w5~
.....O::fIt
<(W-:'
:E(J)z
-O:::Z
~OO
WLLU
z~
ZU_
00.....
U.....lli
WILL
U...........
>e>N
o:::Z......
WWO
(J)...JO:::
CJ)
CJ)
W
0:::
o
o
<(
-
o
o
~
N
<0
......
fit
o
o
ex)
N
......
.....
fit
;
.....
o
o
~
.....
.....
fit
N
C>>
Q)
"iU
"0
C
Q)
Q.
a.
:E
U
00
N
N
.....
N
o
o
N
M
V
fit
o
o
N
.....
C>>
fit
<0
......
o
o
~
....
fit
N
.....
.....
N
......
"0
lU
o
0:::
~
C
::J
o
U
M
o
V
M
-
o
o
to
....
o
N
......
fit
o
o
ci
<0
.....
N
fit
o
00
.....
o
o
~
.....
fit
N
.....
N
......
"0
lU
o
0:::
~
C
::J
o
U
C>>
......
M
M
o
o
~
M
fit
o
o
ci
<0
C>>
fit
o
00
o
o
~
.....
fit
N
.....
.....
N
......
"0
lU
o
0:::
~
C
::J
o
U
C>>
lO
M
M
o
o
~
N
<0
fit
o
o
cO
.....
00
f>'t
00
<0
o
o
ci
;.
.....
f>'t
o
N
.....
N
......
"0
lU
o
0:::
~
C
::J
o
U
.....
C>>
N
M
o
o
~
('I)
o
o
to
M
M
f>'t
fit
o
o
ci
<0
C>>
o
o
N
.....
C>>
f>'t
o
00
f>'t
<0
......
o
o
~
o
o
ex)
v
C'I!..
.....
.....
fit
N
.....
.....
f>'t
~
.....
N
......
"0
lU
o
0::
~
C
::J
o
U
M
......
N
M
N
......
"0
lU
o
0:::
~
C
::J
o
U
.....
<0
N
M
___--4'
r/ i
i
;'-.. \
I "
" \
~--
\ I
\ \ J-- -- -'
\ \ -
J.. -,- ,-
-~-'
--
--
--
--
-
~
(
i
I
I --
...-
!
I
I
I
~
I
, I
I __
i '----1-'
f __-
,~ . ---
I'" J __
.---.------- .~
I --___________ ___ .
I . ----
1>- ,
I <{ I
Ii +
10 . ..
II
I
1\
I
I
.' ,.'
,._n ...:-;
I
I
I
070~26
I
I
i
'.
I
I
,
I
,
I
Tl
I I
--L-J
-<>- EX.a"C/P ~
012-25
.,
.--' L,
~.---e:J r-;
G L... 01l-2~
l !;
i......:..
a"x8"TEE
~ .... ..~.::~~; N ~
t=~ -~---~, I
-, ()2~-27 ~ ! i I I
- L ~-=. - - ----.-. ..---...- -- --- --'- - ----- --- ---- -- ----.: T
'----'
~
I i
I
. ->'. ~~.~-..,
/
; I
C3C-27
SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS
FAf"'\N1INGTON, MINNESOTA
COUNTY ROAD 72 IMPROVEMENTS
-
\ 141800\ 141800R3.DWG 6/1/98
COMM. 14193
PRECISION APPRAISALS
& Home Inspections, Inc.
.. Div. of Access Information Systems, Ine
Mr. Lee Mann
City of Fanning ton
32S Oak Street
Farmington.MN. 55024
RE: County Road 72
Dear Mr. MlUUl,
This will acknowledge your request for my opinion regarding the value increase which would aCCTU8 to the
propertiel$ along County Road 72 (213th Street W. ) Fannh1gton.
You have provided me wiLb a copy of the feasibilily report ~om Boncstroo, Rosene, Anderlik &;
Associates, Inc. whleh details the proposed improvcmonls and estimated costs.
I have Ilnalyzed each of the existing properties located in the City of Farmington and have concluded that
the value increase for the improvcment$ which would be similar to that of a new lot. This is espeoially tnl/il
since the street is beirli renewcd and the water and or sewer arc bein.l: hooked to the properties..
Lot prices in tho community for similar value properties adjacent to County Road 72, range from $25,000
to 535,000. On this basis a totallllscssment in the $15,000 range would appear feasible. Assessments based
upon approximately 50% DC the lot value are considered within the DOrm.
Please note that Lbe Brekke property has been divided to create lots which are similar in size to those in the
neighborhood. Assessments to each lot on the basis indicated would appear reasonable.
The commercial property has not been as closely examined. but the assessment of this property on a ,inu1ar
ba.'lis would also be reasonable. CoDlIlletciallot values Tange from $2.50 to 53.00 per square foot.
generally.
Thanks for the opportunity to examine this property.
~Y?r
lJ,jF. Sny '.
Precision App~isa1s
Vice PresldentlGenml Manager
li?10IJEST96TH5 TREET. BLOOfllNGTON. nN 55Lf31
PH: C672J 888.8135 FX: f57c1888-5562
TnTOI P iii?
.. SIENNA
CORPORATION
February 4, 1999
Mr. Lee Mann P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
RE: Assessments for County Road 72 Installment
(Public Works Project 99-08)
Dear Lee:
Sienna Corporation hereby agrees to accept payments for all prorata assessments for the
above referenced project -The building of County Road 72 along the northern edge of our
East Farmington PUD and the installation of sewer & water service.
It is further Qur agreement that these assessments will be placed on all lots in the East
Farmington Fourth Addition and on Outlot Q of East Farmington First Addition. The
amounts to be spread and the method of spreading them will be determined prior to the
final assessment hearing.
This letter is agreed to this
ifA- day of February 1999 by
Sienna Corporation
~~,
by Rodney D Hardy
Vice President
cc: Cathy Thornhill
Planners . Developers.. Contractors
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
r~
FROM:
Mayor, Councilmembers and
City AdministratorF-
Daniel M. Siebenaler
Chief of Police
TO:
SUBJECT:
Towing Contract
DATE:
February 16, 1999
INTRODUCTION
The City has advertised a Request for Proposals for towing services in compliance with statutory
requirements. The deadline for submittal was originally set for December 28, 1998. Due to the fact that no
complete proposals were submitted the RFP was re-advertised with a deadline of February 5, 1999.
DISCUSSION
As of the close of business on Friday, February 5, 1999 the City received three proposals. Two of the
proposals were incomplete, lacking required submittals. One proposal was submitted in full.
The City's current vendor, Dakota County Towing, has submitted an incomplete proposal. Vermillion
Township has held a Conditional Use Public Hearing but as of the City's RFP deadline had not advised
Dakota County Towing on either approval or denial of its Conditional Use Permit to operate a vehicle
storage yard in the Township.
Magnum Towing of Rosemount has also submitted an incomplete proposal. The vendor currently lacks an
indoor storage facility but proposes construction ofa building in the Summer of 1999.
Starr Auto has met all requirements of the City Towing RFP. I have included a tabulation of newly
proposed prices as compared to the 1998 contract for Council review. As noted in the tabulation, charges
for towing services will increase significantly under the new contract.
BUDGET IMPACT
During the 1998 Contract year the Police Department spent a total of $706.00 for Towing Services. The
contract proposal before Council represents a 280% increase in fees. If the City requires a similar level of
service, as anticipated, the new contract will cost the City approximately $1976.00 per year. A budget
adjustment will be required for Towing Services as part of the overall budget adjustments completed in
November. A similar rate of increase will be experienced by the owners of all other towed vehicles within
the limits of the City's towing service.
ACTION REOUESTED
After consulting with the City Attorney, staff has learned that the Council has two options available at this
time.
. Approve the Towing Contract with Starr Auto for 3 years (1999 - 2001) at the rates described.
Under this option the City will notify Dakota County Towing of its intent to terminate the existing
contract with 30 days notice. The new contract would take affect on or about March 18, 1999.
. Reject the single, complete proposal as non-competitive and order a new RFP.
If the Council selects this option it would be recommended that the City extend the existing contract
with Dakota County for a period of 180 days. This should allow sufficient time for vendors to receive
zoning decisions or meet other requirements of the City's RFP.
It should be noted that due to the contract proposal's significant increase in service costs, no staff
recommendation is being forwarded to Council.
Respectfully submitted,
r"',"",., \"1
)'Jv. ;J.. i L- <,( L t... '" 4:'. ..~,___
Daniel M. Siebenaler
Chief of Police
City of Farmington
T owing Contract
The RFP for the City of Farmington towing service was advertised in local newspapers in
accordance with established process. RFP's were accepted from responsible contractors
through 5:00 PM on Friday, February 5, 1999. One complete RFP was submitted by the
deadline. The following is a tabulation comparing the 1998 Contract with the 1999
proposed contract.
CONTRACTOR:
1998
Starr Auto 1999
TOWINGIHAULING:
Base Tow* $25.00
$45.00 ($10.00 additional for
flatbed)
Hauling per loaded mile .$L5.Q
After 5
~
Dolly $15.00
$25.00
Winch $20.00 (flat)
$45.00 (Minimum)
Police Vehicles 00
$25.00 (Winch $45.00)
Special Events (per hr) $28.00
$60.00
Administration fee* .Q.Q..
$25.00
* Included in all tows.
SPECIAL CHARGES:
Service calls $35.00
Pull drive shaft $ 5.00
Unlock $20.00
Tire change $20.00
Release at scene $20.00
Snow shoveling (pr 1/4 hr.) $ 5.00
Car starting $20.00
Disconnect linkage $ 5.00
Storage per day $10.00
$30.00
$30.00
~
$30.00
$10.00
$15.00/ quarter hour
$30.00
No Charge
$15.00 outdoor
$20.00 indoor
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
/Oa...
TO: Mayor & Councilmembers
FROM: John. F. Erar, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Supplemental Agenda
DATE: February 16, 1999
It is requested that the February 16, 1999 agenda be amended as follows:
PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
10 (a) Lakeville Comprehensive Plan Review
Attached is a summary of issues that have been identified by staff during the review of the
proposed Lakeville 2020 Comprehensive Plan update.
Respectfully submitted,
John F. Erar
City Administrator
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
Mayor, Counci1me~rs
City Administrator I
David L. Olson
Community Development Director
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Discussion Points Regarding Lakeville 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update
DATE:
February 16, 1999
INTRODUCTION
The following is a summary of issues that have been identified by staff during the review
of the proposed Lakeville 2020 Comprehensive Plan update. A meeting was held with
Lakeville City staff on February 10th to discuss these issues.
DISCUSSION
Transportation Issues
. Lakeville opposes an extension of CR 46 westward from County Road 5
into Scott County. They support the County Highway 42 Corridor Study
recommendation that the possible location for the next principal arterial
south of County 42 either the 185th Street (CSAH 60) or County Road 70
corridor be studied in more detail. A copy of a December 29, 1998 letter
from Keith Nelson, Lakeville City Engineer to Dakota County is attached
regarding the County's proposed alignment of CSAH 60 (185th Street)
East of Cedar Avenue. Note: Farmington City staff would agree with
Lakeville 's suggestion that the County move up the Central Area Corridor
Study from 2000 to 1999 and that the County should coordinate with both
Lakeville and Farmington to determine the most appropriate east-west
arterial roadway locations. These discussions would also have to include
Empire Township and possibly Scott County.
. Lakeville proposes to pursue a full interchange at 185th Street and 1-35 to
provide an east-west connection to 1-35 as an alternative to County Road
46.
. Lakeville proposes to realign 1920d Street with 195th Street to facilitate
east/west traffic in the central area of Lakeville. This realignment would
connect 1920d with CSAH 50 to the west, however, a direct connection
with 1-35 would not come from this realignment. 195th Street to the east is
shown through Lakeville as a minor arterial from Cedar Avenue towards
the east. Dakota County shows 195th Street from Dodd Blvd. to TH 3 in
Farmington.
. Lakeville proposes the improvements of 1-35 and CSAH 70 interchange,
bridge and frontage road. Lakeville and Dakota County propose the
connection of CSAH 70 to CSAH 50 east of Cedar Avenue. This will also
provide a direct east/west route to/from 1-35, however, CSAH 50 through
downtown Farmington does not allow for expansion of the roadway thus
creating further traffic congestion problems along this corridor.
Mass Transit Issues
. Lakeville proposes to work with Minnesota Valley Transit Authority
(MVT A) and the Regional Transit Board, to encourage development of
transit routes to multiple activity centers and meet basic transportation
needs.
. However, transit is seen as premature at this time and may been seen as a
possibility in the future. Note: Farmington City Staffis scheduled to meet
with representatives of MVTA and the Met Council on Friday, February
12, 1999 regarding transit issues. Staff will present an overview of the
outcome of this meeting at the February 16,1999 Council meeting.
Population and Household Forecasts, Wastewater Flow Estimates
. Lakeville and Met Council forecast population increases of an additional
32,493 people from 2000-2020.
. Lakeville and Met Council forecasts would add 15,000 households from
2000-2020 to accommodate this population increase, thereby estimating a
yearly rate of 750 households. However Lakeville indicates a desire to
maintain an average growth rate of 400 to 450 single-family homes per
year in their recently adopted Growth Management Strategies and in the
Comprehensive Plan Update.
. Lakeville would have to provide for at least 5,000 additional acres of
residentially designated land at density of 3 dwelling units per acre to
accommodate the maximum forecasted growth.
. Lakeville references their 1996 Sewer Plan in their proposed
Comprehensive Plan update. This 1996 Sewer Plan indicates a projected
flow of 1,789 million gallons per year (MGY) in the year 2000 compared
to 1,563 MGY Projected Preferred Flows to the Empire Plant provided by
the Met Council when the City of Farmington received approval of its
MUSA expansion. In 2010, Lakeville indicates 2,683 MGY in flow to the
Empire Plant compared to 2,149 MGY indicated in the Met Council
Preferred Project Flows to Empire for Lakeville. Note: Lakeville City
staff has indicated that they will reference the Met Council's Projected
Preferred Flows to the Empire Plant in their 2020 Comprehensive Plan
Update and indicate that they will conform with these flows.
Proposed Staged Development
. A large portion of the MUSA Expansion request for 2005 and 2010 by
Lakeville will take place within the Independent School District # 192
boundaries. (Please see attached map)
. A considerable amount of the MUSA expansion areas show medium to
high density at the borders of Farmington. (Please see attached map)
Lakeville City staff indicated that these designations were a result of
proximity to major transportation corridors (Cedar Avenue and Pilot Knob
Road) and the fact that some of these areas have shallow depth to
groundwater which necessitates slab on grade construction. (Le.
townhouses and other multi-family style housing.)
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff recommends that the City submit a letter to the Metropolitan Council indicating that
the City of Lakeville limit its wasterwater flows to the Empire Plant to the levels
contained in the Preferred Projected Flows as prepared by the Met Council and also to
indicate that Farmington desires to work closely with Lakeville, Empire Township, and
Dakota County to identify the most appropriate east-west transportation corridors that
would extend through Farmington.
Re~C~I~ ~
~lson ~
Community Development Director
cc: Robert Erickson, City Administrator
Michael Sobota, Community and Economic Development Director
Keith H. Nelson, City Engineer
December 29, 1998
J C --- -Z. ...-'
--A..~ ~. ~~plr"\- ~
(
Ms. Lezlie Vermillion
Dakota County Highway Department
Western Service Center
14955 Galaxie Avenue West
Apple Valley, MN 55124-8579
Re: Future CSAH 60 (185th Street) Alignment East of Cedar Avenue
~
Dear Lezlie:
Staff reviewed the last draft of the Dakota County Road Plat Review Needs exhibit submitted by
your office for review. The extension of 185th Street east of Cedar Avenue has been realigned
from previous exhibits to intersect Pilot Knob Road at the Lakeville/Farmington border.
As you know, the extension of any road east of Pilot Knob Road at this location will cross
through the newly constructed wetland banking site recently constructed in conjunction with the
CP31-31 Project west of Pilot Knob Road. The City has also planned for the future extension of
175th/179th in the same \icinity now shown for CSAH 60. Attached is a traffic review study
prepared by SRF Consulting Group showing the proposed alignment of future roads in
accordance to our transportation plan.
There is only one 80-acre tract of land that remains undeveloped west of Flagstaff Avenue, lying
north of Farmington and south of the Greenridge development. A sketch plan has been
submitted for this area, and the City has completed acquisition of 16 acres from this parcel for
regional ponding as identified in our Comprehensive Stormwater Plan. The ponding area was
constructed last year with the Greenridge development to reduce flows into Farmington. The
balance of this parcel is likely to develop in the near future.
Based on comments received from Dakota County at the time we finalized our 1994
transportation plan, the thinking was that 185th Street would terminate at Cedar A venue from the
west, and that another arterial roadway would be extended east of Cedar A venue into the City of
Farmington at or near 19Sth Street.
As previously suggested, Dakota County should arrange a meeting with the City of Lakeville and
the City of Farmington to resolve transportation links and arterial roadway issues. Again, this is
another reason to move up the Central Area Corridor Study from year 2000 to 1999 as both cities
are developing rapidly in this area.
City of Lakeville
20195 Holyoke Avenue · Lakeville, MN 55044 · (612) 985-4400 · FAX 985-4499
R_kd pdfHr. 'IT/ ink
December 29, 1998
. Page Two
Please call if any questions.
Sincerely,
f
KHN:kjh
c: Robert Erickson, Lakeville City Administrator
John Erar, Farmington City Administrator
Lee Mann, Farmington City Engineer
Paul Krause, Dakota County Commissioner
Don Theisen, Dakota County Highway Engineer
Attachment
:comptran\lezleevermillion
(
/06
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO: Mayor, Council Members,
City Administrator ~
FROM: Lee Smick, AICP rv D
Planning Coordinator r
SUBJECT: 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update - Discussion
DATE: February 16, 1999
INTRODUCTION
The proposed 2020 Land Use Plan and Policy Statements are being presented as
discussion items with the City Council to determine the future land uses and policies to
meet the visions of the City of Farmington.
DISCUSSION
2020 Land Use Plan
The proposed 2020 Land Use Plan was presented to the City Council on February 1,
1999. At the meeting, several possible minor changes were discussed by the Council
regarding the proposed plan. These possible changes included the location of an
industrial land use designation in the northwest comer of the North East District on the
west side of the CP rail line and the relocation of medium-density residential along
Denmark Avenue and a possible commercial designation at the comer of Denmark
Avenue and Ash Street on the Neilan property.
The Planning Commission reviewed these recommendations at their February 9, 1999
meeting (see the attached memo to the Planning Commission dated February 9, 1999).
The Planning Commission made the following comments concerning the
recommendations made by the City Council:
1. The Planning Commission stated that any type of industrial use located next to a rail
line would typically be heavy industrial and would not be compatible with the
proposed location in the northwest comer of the North East District. The Planning
Commission proposes that rail line service for industrial uses continue to be reviewed
south of Dakota Electric and St. Michael's Catholic Church.
2. The Planning Commission reviewed the recommendations concerning the Neilan
property and agrees with the City Council to show medium-density residential along
Denmark Avenue and low/medium-density residential on the west side of the
property.
The Planning Commission stated that the commercial land use shown at the
intersection of Denmark Avenue and Ash Street would not be consistent with a prior
commitment to the downtown business owners concerning the development of
commercial areas on the fringes of the downtown area.
The commitment to not allow small commercial areas on the fringes of the downtown
area (especially to the west) that would take business away from the downtown was
reached at a Visioning Retreat held at the Senior Center in March of 1996.
Representatives from the City Council, Planning Commission and other Commissions
as well as the downtown business owners were in attendance at this meeting.
Therefore, the Planning Commission feels it is important to continue to uphold the
agreement to not allow commercial areas on the fringes of the downtown area and
recommends that the commercial area be deleted from the 2020 Land Use Plan.
The Planning Division has made revisions to the 2020 Land Use Plan to reflect the
Planning Commission's recommendations as shown on the attached plan. The Planning
Division has also completed revisions to the plan in order to meet the Livable
Communities Act. Final land use calculations have been made and are illustrated in the
attached table.
2020 Comprehensive Plan Policy Statements
The proposed 2020 Comprehensive Plan Policy Statements were sent to you on Monday,
February 8, 1999 for your review prior to the City Council meeting on February 16, 1999.
Staff will present the policies and ask for any comments or recommendations from the
Council. As a reminder, please bring your policy statements to the February 16, 1999
meeting.
Staff recommends the acceptance of the policy statements, however, if Council wishes to
have additional time or make further comments, a request for acceptance of the policy
statements may take place at the March 1, 1999 City Council meeting.
The policy statements are derived from the information formulated at the Visioning
Sessions held in July of 1998. The policy statements propose a definite course or method
of action selected to guide and determine the present and future decisions concerning
development of the community. The policies will be utilized as a "yardstick" against
which proposed ordinances and programs can be measured.
The policies deal with land use, natural resources, housing and staged development. In
an overall review of the policies, several issues or themes remain constant. The City of
Farmington wants quality controlled growth, the maintenance of the small town
character, the concept of a central area for community connection, the need to provide
available land for housing, further development of business and industrial uses, the need
to provide housing for all income levels, the need to preserve the working farms while
creating a natural buffer and the need to preserve natural resources and river corridors.
City staff respectfully requests that Council review the policy statements and provide
comments and recommendations as appropriate.
ACTION REQUESTED
The City Council is requested to act upon two separate motions concerning the proposed
2020 Land Use Plan and Policy Statements. The actions include the following:
1. Accept the 2020 Land Use Plan to be included in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan
Update upon review of the Planning Commission recommendations.
2. Accept the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Policy Statements by the City Council to be
included in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update. If Council desires additional
review time, a motion to defer approval of the policy statements until March 1, 1999
is requested.
Respectfully submitted,
~C4
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ct.farmington.mn.us
TO: City Planning Commission
FROM: Lee Smick, AICP /t /J
Planning Coordinato~
SUBJECT: 2020 Land Use Plan
DATE: February 9, 1999
INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION
The City Council reviewed the 2020 Land Use Plan and the recommendations by the
Planning Commission concerning the proposed land use plan on February 1, 1999. The
attached memo dated February 1, 1999 to the City Council addresses the land use plan in
six different districts in order to discuss proposed land uses within the separate districts in
detail. Also attached is the most current proposed 2020 Land Use Plan for your review.
The comments and recommendations by the City Council are as follows:
1. Utilize the North Branch floodway to act as a buffer to the west, the rail access and
the proposed CSAH 60 roadway to designate an industrial park at the northwest
comer of District 2 on the SeedlGenstar property.
City Council Rationale: Location has roadway and rail line access and the North
Branch floodway provides a buffer area from the houses towards the west.
2. Relocate the medium density land use designation along Denmark Avenue on the
Neilan property and designate a neighborhood commercial district at the comer of
Denmark Avenue and Ash Street.
City Council Rationale: Medium density located across from the Farmington High
School would not be seen as detrimental to the area. The number of senior housing
needs is on the rise and seniors because of the close proximity to the downtown could
utilize areas such as this. The location of a dense housing development keeps large
amounts of people downtown. Finally, the commercial area at the intersection of
Denmark A venue and Ash Street provides convenient services in walking distance
from the housing development.
The Planning Division has made changes to the 2020 Land Use Map as well in order to
meet the Livable Communities Act. Medium density residential areas have been
removed because the percent of multi-family housing stock compared to the total housing
stock in the City is well above the City's 32-36% goal. Staff is revising the land use
numbers to make a more accurate prediction on potential housing types in the future.
ACTION REOUESTED
This is presented as a discussion item and any recommendations from the Planning
Commission will be presented at the February 16, 1999 City Council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
a /:,) ~.,
'/'"
\.---//1 ~--C::..' .' ")
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
2020 Land Use Totals/Existing Land Uses
land Use Total Acres Percent of Total
Business 104.42 1.18%
Business Park 176.26 1.99%
Environmentally Sensitive 1470.88 16.57%
High Density 86.51 0.97%
Industrial 329.59 3.71%
Low Density 1953.7 22.01%
Low/Medium Density 397.46 4.48%
Medium Density 369 4.16%
Public Park/Open Space 446.73 5.03%
Public/Semi-public 275.49 3.10%
Restricted Development 312.67 3.52%
ROW 720 8.11%
Urban Reserve 2232.29 25.15%
8875 100%
Source: City of Farmington
Existing land Use Total Acres Percent of Total
Agriculture 1120 14.20%
Agriculture Preserve 1275 16.17%
Existing Commercial 36 0.46%
Vacant Commercial 25 0.32%
Existing Industrial 189 2.40%
Vacant Industrial 330 4.18%
Existing Low Density 1016 12.88%
Vacant Low Density 800 10.14%
Existing High Density 41 0.52%
Vacant High Density 182 2.31%
Rural Estate 168 2.13%
Natural Open Spacetwater 1315 16.68%
Park Space 430 5.45%
Public/Semi-Public 304 3.85%
ROW/Misc. 655 8.31%
7886 100.00%
Note: 989 acres exist in the Genstar annexation petition (950 acres of property139 acres of existing ROW)
February 11, 1999
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
IOe
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Authorize Capital Outlay Encumbrance for Fiscal Year 2000
DATE: February 16, 1999
INTRODUCTION
A review of heavy equipment needs in the Public Works Department over the next two years has
been completed. This review identifies the need to purchase two additional plow trucks in fiscal
year 2000 and one additional vehicle in 2001. The purpose of this request is to seek Council
authorization to encumber funds in fiscal year 2000 to allow for the ordering of two plow trucks
during fiscal year 1999. In addition, the need to properly plan for a proposed fire pumper in
budget year 2000 suggests that this effort should begin in the later half of 1999 to develop
vehicle and equipment specifications.
DISCUSSION
Authorization from Council to encumber funds in fiscal year 2000 does not authorize the
expenditure of funds until formally presented to Council for approval during the year 2000
budget process. This fiscal action by Council would allow the City to designate or earmark
specific future revenues for the anticipated expenditure, but would still require that this
expenditure be identified and approved in the proposed fiscal year 2000 Budget. Accordingly,
Council would have to adopt the proposed 2000 Budget to authorize fund expenditures for these
specific capital items.
As indicated in the attached memorandum, the rationale underscoring the need for a capital
outlay encumbrance is as follows:
. The time frame associated with actual delivery of these two vehicles if ordered in fiscal year
2000 would be approximately 12 to 18 months. This would mean that the vehicles would not
be delivered until possibly Spring 2001, which would make them unavailable for snow
plowing operations until the year 2002.
. Financial aspects of encumbering funds and placing an order for these two vehicles in this
fiscal year would allow the City to save approximately $16,200 on these vehicles. The
opportunity to purchase Year 2000 vehicle models at 1998 prices is very attractive from a
financial perspective.
. The operational need to provide adequate snow removal operations is a core public service
function of the City. Accordingly, the need to appropriately plan for increased service levels
due to expanding infrastructure requires additional capital equipment investments.
. This action would provide the City with the ability to order needed equipment from the State
Bid, but still retain the flexibility to refuse delivery of the equipment with minimal exposure
to the City. Encumbrances, in this regard, are still subject to normal budget development
processes and Council approval.
. Finally, if Council authorizes the encumbrance of these funds in 1999, and approves the
capital expenditures within the 2000 Budget, payment for the delivered equipment would not
occur until the year 2000.
Fire Department Pumper
In addition, staff reviewed the need for the Fire Department's capital request that was made for a
new pumper in 1999 Budget discussions. As Council is aware, the conclusion of that discussion
resulted in a decision to again review this request in fiscal year 2000. As indicated to Fire Chief
Kuchera during 1999 budget discussions, while this office would support a budget request in the
year 2000 for a new replacement pumper, final approval remained with Council. Preliminary
discussions with other cities suggest that the cost for a new pumper could approach $300,000,
without trade.
In appropriately planning for this significant capital expenditure, the City will need to develop
vehicle specifications for this proposed capital acquisition in fiscal year 1999. The need to
adequately plan for this capital expense should begin in 1999, to allow for timely ordering in
2000. In terms of ordering this piece of equipment, delivery of this piece of equipment is
anticipated within normal time frames and would not require a fiscal encumbrance for the year
2000.
BUDGET IMPACT
The encumbrance of $200,200 in fiscal year 2000 will have no substantial effect on City
finances, with the exception of being identified as a future fiscal liability. The underwriting of
two snowplow trucks and fire pumper, if authorized by Council in budget year 2000, would be
accomplished by issuing equipment certificates notes over a 3 to 5 year period.
ACTION REOUESTED
Authorize a capital outlay encumbrance for fiscal year 2000 in the amount of $200,200.
Respectfully Submitted,
Attachment
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ciJarmington.mn.us
TO: John Erar, City Administrato~
FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Bill Weierke, Public Works Supervisor
Robin Roland, Director of Finance
SUBJECT: Capital Equipment Acquisition Issues - Public Works Department
DATE: February 5, 1999
It has been determined that over the course of the next two budget years (2000, 2001), the
City will need to acquire three additional plow trucks. The 1980 Ford and the 1995
Chevy one-ton truck that are currently being utilized to plow on separate routes need to
be removed from plowing duty. The third truck is necessary so that the plowing
operation can keep up with the growth of the City. The truck that is in the 1999 budget
will replace the one-ton multi-tech truck on the plow route.
The 1980 Ford regularly breaks down during plowing operations. The two one-ton trucks
do not have the weight or the power to accomplish the plowing job satisfactorily. The
one-ton multi-tech has had on-going transmission problems and three A-frames have
been replaced on the 1995 Chevy's plow. The problems with the one-ton trucks are
attributed to their being utilized for plowing that they are not capable of handling. These
one-ton trucks would be removed from plowing duty, however they will still be utilized
for other operations as is the current practice.
In addition to the projected growth of the City, the County will be turning back Akin
Road to the City probably early in the year 2000, which combined, indicates the need for
the third truck.
The recommended timing of acquisition of these trucks is follows. Two trucks are
needed in 2000 and the third truck will be needed in 2001.
Under normal operating procedures, the trucks needed in 2000 and 2001 would be
budgeted for in their respective years. The issue that needs to be addressed is the timing
of acquisition. Trucks ordered in January of 2000 will not be delivered until June of
2001. If the trucks are not ordered until January of 2000, as normal operating procedures
dictate, the City will not be able to acquire them in the needed time frame.
In order to address the acquisition time frame, there is an option that could be considered.
Through the State bid process, the City could order two trucks now and pay 1998 prices
for 2000 model year trucks. The current price per truck (as just ordered) is $100,100.
The anticipated savings realized by obtaining 2000 model year trucks for 1998 prices is
estimated at $8,100 per truck for a total of $16,200 for both trucks. These trucks would
be delivered in the Spring of 2000.
Due to the acquisition time frames and the cost savings involved, we recommend serious
consideration of the option of ordering two additional plow trucks now through the State
bid process. The deadline for ordering the trucks through the State bid process and
guaranteeing the prices and delivery time frames is February 17, 1999.
It is understood that there are several implications if the decision is made to move
forward in this direction. We would like to meet with you as soon as possible on this
issue to discuss this recommendation. For the City to place an order by the 17th of
February, the issue would need to be brought before Council on the 16th of February.
Respectfully Submitted,
tKtm~
Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
~~
Bill Weierke, Public Works Supervisor
~~/
Robin Roland, Director of Finance
W
o
z
:s
i:i
o
z
::)
LL
~
r/)
W
C)
Z
r/)O~
O~O
"'!:LLO
J Z Z
L 0 <c
I- - .
Ol-(/)
wUiw
-,-0::
0::)::)
0::01-
0..0-
...J<cg
<...Jw
I-~o..
ii:-><
<eo..W
o <c .
Or/)
W
::)
Z
W
[ij
0::
LL
o
I-
Z
W
:IE
W
S
r/)
o
w
..-en
00
00..
NO
0:::
0..
o
w
Oen
00
00..
NO
0:::
0..
"Otu
~~C>
0) 8"0
"-"0::>
l'llen
..
o
o
o
&6
'V
N
..
o
o
o
as
..-
..-
o
o
o
&6
0)
CIOm
0) :J
O)"t)
"-<e
I'-
10
..-
as
..-
..-
<(
u
<(
J:
I
l/)
Q)
:J
c:
l/) Q)
~ ~ l/)
I-l'll 0::: C
- 0)
~J!lE ~
0) 5i ~ l/) c:
a.EO) :J~
e E ~ 0 0)
=0.. 0)<( ~o:::
5~&~.l11i)~m
>c....~c:~o~
Q) O)~ a.e!~~
o::C>EenC>E..:::
o
o
o
o
..-
o
o
o
o
..-
o
o
o
o
..-
OM
ON
10M
M&6
..-
o
o
o
&6
10
N
o 10010
o 'VO'V
o 01010
&6 "":aSo
N OMI'-
..- N M
..
..
o
o
o
as
N
..-
co
I'-
N
cO
N
10
o
o
o
&6
o
..-
..-
o
N..
CIO
CIO
N
0)
I'-
0)
cO
M
..-
c:
o
:;::;
Oiij
05
l/) 8" l/)
~ <( ~
::I - 0)
~5ic:
'gE.!!!
ca."Q)
Q) .- 0
e- 5- o~
WW~
ooco
Ol'-'V
10 M ..-
maS~
0),,-C2j
00)0
0) coco
NCIOM
&6"":..-
co co
M
..-00)0
100)010
MNMo)
&6MaS
I'-..-CIO
..- ..-
l/)
0)
Cl
....
l'll
_ .r:.
c: 0
O)m
E 0
0) l/)
....l;:::
~"O
0::: c:
l'll
l'll_
a.l/)
00 ~
oS: ~
C:.E
o
o
o
&6
N
..-
o
o
o
o
10
10
O'V
OClO
OClO
0&6
ON
M
-
O'V
OClO
o CIO
0&6
Mo)
;s...-
--
MOl'-
I'-ON
000)
"":oN"
NMO
..- ..-
--
l/)
0)
....
:J
-
'6
c:
0)
a.
X
w
m
(5
I-
Ul l/)
Q) l/) 0)
~-g ~
li~ ~
Q)e Cl
~ 0.. c:
6 ~ Og
(/) ~ l'll
Cl !E c:
c~ u:
.- 0) ....
gu "SO)
ca_.so=
c5il!?l!?~
U::E~~J!l
:;a.l/)l/)O
.c 05 fa fa l-
e M~ ~
o
o
0_
10
N
..-
10
10
'V.
0)
o
o
q
o
10
10
'V
10
CIO
M
M
-
co
I'-
'V_
o
~
-
I'-
0)
CIO
~
10
..-
-
l/)
0)
:J l/)
c: 0)
~ ~
0) :J
0::: 0
_en
o Cl
~oB l/)
c: c: ~
O)l'll.a
00 oS: '6
l;:::LLC:
0) .... 0)
(0)0.
-.r:. x
~5~
0) "0 0)
o c: >
anl'110
o
10
1'-_
o
N
..-
co
0)
CIO
cO
CIO
N
I'-
M_
I'-
'V
..-
0)
co
N
N"
o
M
....
l'll
0)
>-
'0
Cl
c:
02
c:
00,
0)
en
-
l'll
~
c:
l'll
m
en
'g
c:
:J
LL
10
o
N
o
M
..-
m
:am
l'll l/)
o l'll
0) l'll
.r:. E
- ....
.... 0
.ELL
:--e
l'llo..
a. _
o o!!!
- 0
"0 c:
0) l'll
:J c:
~u:
0- ....
l/) l'll
0) 0)
~~
l;::: 0)
:e-;;;
0) .
u~
cu
~ ~ ~
.9- e 'S:
:Jo~
Me"t)
~ 0)
c: 0
O.r:. '[
O)l/)a.
o 0)
.~ m ]i
:g ~ 'g.
lieo
0).2"0
"0 0) e
l/) l/) l'll
~ 0) ~
8.~ o~
g. . 0)
l/)-g~
~m~
~"fi'g
x....'O
~ is. e
~ C oQ
O)O)m
a. E .S:
o a..c
.... 05 E
0.. tT 0
.. 0) 0
o
10
I'-
o
N
..-
co
0)
CIO
cO
CIO
N
I'-
M
....:
'V
..-
....
l'll
0)
>-
-
o
"0
e
W
m
0)
o
e
l'll
m
en
"0
c:
:J
LL
~
o
:J
....
-
....
0)
a.
E
:J
a.
~
l;:::
0)
c:
o
"0
c:
l'll
l/)
.:>It.
o
:J
....
-
~
a.
o
~
0)
"0
:J
13
oS:
"0
"3
~
"0
~
05
tT
o
l'll
-
e
0)
E
a.
'5
tT
W
..
..
'"
z
zQ
) Ii:
-:!8
C)iilN
z'" .
!i~8!
a::!~
c(O:o
u.l2~
u.olrl
00:-,
0..0
>--'0:
1-<0..
_13
OZ
<
z
u::
8~~8~1O~
(\Ior-..,..."'"".....O)
~li~~::i...:
N.....NNCf>
11)- -ti
...
8 ~~IUiii~
("II ciriai8~l'ia:i
........-v .-
CO.....N M
..; ri
8~~8~~~
C\I ~ _ ~ ~ _ .
OMC\ltl)Q)Cll)
~ti~~re
..; ri
lIl"'~lil""~ili
~lll....co:g",~
~a~~la;
..; ri
8X~""l?!1Il~
CiS....;il;o>co~
N ~lig~~a:i
CJ)II)"'ON
ri ri
XOCOO>"'!2~
0<0......("1111).])......
N "t"ll'.u:t..... _~
"""''''llillilCO
CZ:glil,,"N
ri N
...
8~~~g~~
C\I NM.,.:r--:ctfcD
cn....NII)....
('I)tl)C")IOC\I
ri N
N8l2CO,,"!llCO~
C\I ~~~_~:;;_~
l!!~~~~~
ri N
...
8~~~~~~
("II ..._"lI:...._II)_CX)_~
ma!!l~~S!
N N
8~~~S!~a:;
"'''II'.....N.....N......
~~~~~...:
N .
8l....CO~"'''"~
~ ~~m.~.~.C';
g:Sl<t:;:~N
II)(")CW')"""
N ~
...
m~~~S2a~
(J)NN(J)C5:....~
~ ~~t8~..
..,(")('1).....
N .,.:
...
S;~~Lt)II)~~
~ "!,,,.81.~,,!"1
~~~~~~
N .,.:
~iil&l~~
, co C\I ..... CD
:818~~
(J).NMM.
~ ~
~~
~ ~
11)'- co co
.." ....
...~ >- >-
'Ii u l5 5
~c.<( 'C'C
CI).!!D.. 13 0..0..
--,O~.!!!EE
]J~08,g,g
~U:~S~g.
ii i i!!
D:::..J..J..JOO
i::~~
C>>.o ...
N~
""
co
ai
:l;~~
"t~::J:
"'~
""
'"
ai
...
"'~~
~.~ ::J:
o>~
~
ai
...
....~~
;:::.~ ~
""~
:;:
...:
...
<D~~
\:;.~ ~
!;1~
""
<D
...
N~~
....0'"
("').0 ..,.
~~
<D
CO~~
~~~
"'~
It;
.,;
...
m~~
<'!.~~
~~
.,;
""~~
~~~
"'~
o
<D
..j
<D~~
00'"
......0...
""~
~
..j
...
...
~CO$!CO~
ilS~o::l8
airictio;N
~~o$"'"
.,.: ri"":
N ~
!2CO~""~
",~:g;:::8
~~~g~
...........(0(0
~ l'i'!i
Si~~~~
2rig~~
(SCON..-
~ N:,
OCO~~~
fett~~8
oiriritrir-J
~lilmCZ~
'!i .,.:~
lllCO"'N~
,,"~!;1t;8
tsfct8~
co 10..... Cf>
~ ...:::-
,,"CO!l!!<~
m~ilS08
ilim~~
_.0..,....-
~ .,.:~
lllCO~,,"~
II)~S~g
"':riri~.N
(0...-0 ,...
.."''''
~ "':0;
"'CO::!~~
~~iD~8
"':riri~..o
Ol......M .....
<D....~
ai ~oi
~~&t~~
"'....0>....8
N::ig~~
~"""'o
af r-:
oCX)m(W)~
1;;~;il;:!8
Nrir-:C'Ii..n
&l~~~or-
r-: Jtj
S!~~
~.;:!; ~
8
co
ri
lll!llN~~
.....,"'<Dm
~~~~..
qj lti
N~~
"'''"'''
CD~C'Ii ...
~.
u;
ri
!!(W)CX)""~
m~~~~
Mairi~a)
~~CZ~
qj 1rJ.
~~~
"'0'"
"'~d ...
""~
o
<D
ri
!H!~~~
~~~l~
.0 ~
15
'"
~
N
ri
~
o
....
18~18~
,...QSor-""
r-:.oaiC'li
::J:~~;,o
.. C'i
..
l!!
"
~l~
8.:'0
~t~
~if;l
-ell
l!e-
5;u.8
(!) &.9
![;i~
0'" ..
1-0--'
>~~
oEe
~:sC)..
-l5~.2
~o~~>
~lll@~~
~:ei[<g
l5 !. E tV'-
i-15 ~o~
o_clile
lil5-1-C)
';cr:~!c:
:g = ;2.~ ~
~ss~ct
~~....~
~. co ~...
o ""
N ....
...
"'~o~
~coi'"
~ ....
!2~"'~
wU)l.O...
. ...:
co '"
~ ....
~~CO~
~. co ~...
"" N
~ ....
~~~~
<D 8
~ ....
<D~,,"~
1.0 co 1.0...
<D "
~ a;
~ '"
~~~~
. ""
.... ""
~ '"
....~~~
Sl:O)~or-
~ ~
fil~lil~
,...~ d
~ III
CO~..,~
Nmoor-
r--.. ,...;
:: ~
"'~CO~
~. O)::s ~
o '"
~ '"
~~"'~
t;.(W)~cq
0> '"
'"
"'~CO~
:g"'''1~
. ""
0> ""
'"
o
i::
ai
~
o ~
"c ..
0.. ..
E :::
~,g ~&
~~ .~~
0]1"00
~ g. K~
ac..Wc..
~.s ~.s
~ &S-g.
c Iii ~ ..
c"''''''
<00..0
~8~
~.o.o
0""
N'"
ri
~~~
aig.,;
18NI;;
N
...
"'!<8
~oo
~~g
N
~~~
og.,;
!::IN&'!
N
...
~8~
<Dgo
~N~
N
...
~~~
riosi
~~"'
...
g8~
r-:olli
,,"ON
co. 1.0 (W)
...
ln~
~g~
1.0.1.0 N
...
~~~
ggg
(W).IO or-
...
~8~
:;;gg
or-.LO or-
...
~~
~g
~.'"
...
8~
~g
~.'"
...
~u;
""~
NN
""~
0.'"
...
'"
0>
..-;
""
'"
~~
~~
...
~~~
Sm...J
~~i i
.i!."~~ ~~O
f!~-Sm~
.._,l1! <--' ~
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
~~
:8~
..j
~~
:8~
ri
~~
0.0
<D~
ri
~~
li8"
'"
ri
!<'"
01;;
li~
o
ri
~~
.oaf
'" CO
""
N
~~
.or-:
"''''
'"
N
~s
.oM
"';il;
N
~~
g~
N
~~
15"':
~
~~
g~
"".
~8
";8
.... "".
~51
.oai
....N
<D.
~~
lli.o
....N
"'.
""~
"''''
""~
...:
'"
'"
"'~
NO
"'~
~
N
~~
..j
N
CO~
,,"0
"'~
ri
~
<D~
N~
CO~
ri
~
~~
.,;
~
"'~
"'~
<D~
ri
$!
CO~
~N
....~
ai
~
m'$.
"'....
CO~
...:
$!
~~
N
~
""~
"''''
....
g
~~
N
ai
'"
o
""
<D
~
N
..
..
>-
is
"c
0..
Ii;~
Ei~
~~
" ..
--'--'
u.u.
C)C)
,S .S
" ..
0l0l
C C
.. ..
"''''
00
~~
~ N
"'CO
C!C'Ii
.... '
N
~~
llli::
t-:C'Ii
.....
N
~~
"'N
'" ""
~C'Ii
'" .
N
~~
~18
~C'Ii
<D '
N
~~
i8~
"N
<D'
N
~~
~iil
~c)i
N
~~
"'0>
""'"
C'fC'li
CO .
N
~~
NO
""'"
::J"'i
N
~~
~ ""
NN
~"'i
~~
""....
"'~
~.q
~~
~t::
M~
'"
~~
ON
CZ"1
..-;"1
'"
~~
"''''
8"1
~o
~
~
~
l
Ii;
"
>-
~
o
"c
0..
~ E
O:,g
..
'g i
~6
lil5
1-1-
~
....
N
N
~
..
N
~
'"
..
N
~
'"
~
~
N
~
~
""
~
~
l!! I
g ~
Ui 0
00. C
~ ~
~ G
1; 8-
b ..
o ~
~ 8.
i ~ ~
O~ ui'~ E
ll: l5 i '5
!I! ~~ ii !
i!: "(J .. 0
>- jri :.,;~
.... en ~ ..c m lD
3 ~j! "OCEc
::) 0" ~~=s
OIl: ..~"~..91g>"
9 s ~"~! "g>~"~ ~
::) 5=Sii~.tV~en
i€!i~l!!~i.
'"' ~ 5 010 0", 9l .l:! ..
~:ti~.5ii gN ;~.;
Lu ~ .~~ i 1ii , S l! m
:Ie" "-s~s""-
o ~; 8:~i i'i~g
~ 8~.e:: -0 ~B~
Oi~()~:gsis=g
"'1il 011" 8.S....-=
~~..c.~';~~i~~i8.
! " = C) 0 ~ 1i ~.E E en
~._ een ..c :=:g.en
:t ei"~~i" lll_.2
~~~il~i~~'gi~i-
Ii ..:ii -5>i ~~ [8 .. "&0
!II~~ ~~,g g>]i- ~Gi~
i~<~"!! lll"U;"ii.~ s ~'O
oco ..."mr! "=c..
uo;<cS! -6_~4'icaen..
1Il"-J:a;! ~ c C":"-'o;.c
t::;!:~;;s~:s~~:Sl!!!S
Ol;;enelDEj"Oj!en:JQlJ9
....lD:! ca E."''!! 8::~ 5ib:ti
.. ;:-0 m i! ~ 5 iil ~ i& 0 !;!
i! 8.s~ 8 c'2sto:~ ~
i!;~:g,g=~""o>lil~E
_"'... ~ID"C 1-,g0
l:l~s~,;u.calll~l5~
...tii~~<~ !H~ 8.'!l~
ll!91..~c"..51ile.c"
co lDlDt-lDo-~a..:s:J
C( l!;I- E.S:'5'iU e en~
!2~lD~Emj!"c(oi:5a;
o:;;~~~=-g"lilz"s
i~:ai.~& ~arB ~~ i.s
~:i&'i~~e~8-~~~
1Il.2!.!!!--, ~!! ~~ &'!l e
CIJ~ 0:J >-2~ lDe>> en..c eft
~~!i ~~.':=..~'O18~"~
Cl5eLLjjd" mlDe en
U ~i! ~~~'O"e-li"s lll!
12~~~: ~ &~ ~~~ ~
I!llil=lil"..~,l!l"-e"Q.
i';;;~I-<s ~~,g OlJf~
5.osss..0..iOJ!l
Ob<J!lS" Q.@"5 ,,- ~
::I0="'~ ~~~ 8:,5 ~ l:S
~~~~~g!~aJ8~:
lU e en en en en en en en en lD lD
j!:"t- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
" ::J:S:::J:J::J:::J:J:::J en en
~(!);2==~fA=;2~~~
i~~~~..n~~~o;~~
~
'"
..
N
~
<D
..
N
~
N
..
N
~
..
N
~
":
~
N
~
o
~
~
~
N
~
'"
N
N
~
~
lll~
il
"e- i
0..0:
]i'O
.it~
o
'"
15
~
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO: Lee M. Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
FROM: David R. Sanocki, Engineering Division
SUBJECT: Downtown Streetscape Project - Neckout and City Logo Option
DATE: February 8, 1999
INTRODUCTION
At the January 19, 1999 Council meeting, staff was authorized to prepare a report addressing
additional options for the Downtown Streetscape Project. This option would include adding
neckouts and a City logo, constructed with concrete pavers, at the intersection of Oak and Third
Street. This memo presents the updated design and cost estimates for the neckouts and City logo
options.
DISCUSSION
Currently there are two existing catchbasins located at the northwest and southwest comers of the
Oak and Third Street. These existing catchbasins serve as the drainage collection point for a portion
of Oak, west of Third Street, and the west side of Third Street both north and south of Oak Street.
The drainage on the east side of third street, both north and south of Oak Street, flow along the curb
east and is collected in catchbasins located at the intersection of Oak and Fourth Street (See Figure 1
for the existing storm sewer layout).
The installation of neckouts will expand the sidewalk area at the four comers of the intersection of
Oak and Third. The curb would be brought out farther into the street to the end of the parking stalls
(See Figure 2). The additional sidewalk area created by installing the neckouts would provide space
to place welcome signs, landscaping, benches and/or other aesthetic items. The neckouts would also
allow for improved sight distance in the intersection for both vehicles and pedestrians.
Construction of neckouts at Oak and Third necessitate additional storm sewer in the intersection.
The geometrics of the neckouts would require additional catchbasins to pick up the storm water. In
addition, removal and replacement of concrete curb and gutter and pavement sections are required
for this option (See figure 2).
Figure 3 shows the City logo that could be constructed in the intersection out of pavers. The logo
would be constructed within a circular area edged with concrete.
COST ESTIMATES
The estimated total project costs for adding neckouts at the intersection of Oak and Third Street is
$91,500 including contingencies, engineering, legal and administrative (See Attachment A).
The estimated total project cost for adding a thirty foot diameter City logo at the intersection of Oak
and Third Street is $21,600 including contingencies, engineering, legal and administrative costs (See
Attachment B).
PROJECT FINANCING
A portion of the costs of these options would be assessed per the City's Special Assessment policy.
Attached are spreadsheets outlining the additional costs to the benefiting property owners, based on
the three assessment methodologies previously identified. The total cost splits would be as follows:
Option
Neckouts
Logo
Assessed Costs (35%)
$32,000
$7,600
City Funded Costs (65%)
$59,500
$14,000
Respectfully Submitted,
lJ.;J R. U
David R. Sanocki
Engineering Division
cc: File
Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator
Jerry Auge, Engineering Division
lliJ
lliJ EX CB
l-
(/)
o
~
r<)
o~~ OAK ST
8TH HH 15' 8TH PIPE
[g
N
lliJ = GLOBE LIGHT
[g = COBRA LIGHT
~ = TREE I" = 30'
~~
EXISTING CONDITIONS
FIGURE I
G'>
;;j
"
,..
o
~
'"
:;;
m
n
....
~
~
I-
(f)
o
0::::
r<)
[gJ
G'>
....
AI
"
,..
o
~
!I [gJ
Ii
NOTE: REMOVE EXIST. C80S ON WEST SIDE
OF INTERSECTION AND THE PIPE CONNECTING
THEM TO THE STORM MH.
[gJ
GTR FLOW DIRECTION_
OAK ST
GTR FLOW DIRECTION_
[Q
..............
[gJ
z
o
;::
u
w
'"
is
~
o
...J
"-
'"
f0-
e>
N
[gJ = GLOBE LIGHT
[Q = COBRA LIGHT
= TREE
I" = 30'
PROPOSED NECKOUTS
WITH STORM MODIFICATIONS
FIGURE 2
r-
ef)
o
rl::
~
"4. ~
.. .,1 Lfu:
'. ~.." .'
.~ ./. .p. EX HYD I(l
. ..: ... IIGV ~!
':. .. ':"':'';.. <, ~". '.'; .<1.' ...
OAK 5T
i~~..'.
%f~
N
rnJ = GLOBE LIGHT
[g = COBRA LIGHT
;~'~, = TREE III = 30 I
g = PAVER BRICK
DOWNTOWN INTERSECTION
FOCAL POINT CONCEPT
FIGURE 3
DOWNTOWN SIDEWALK AND STREET LIGHTING PROJECT
NECKOUT ALTERNATIVE
ATTACHMENT A
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
EST. UNIT EST.
ITEM UNIT QUANTITY PRICE COST
Bituminous sawcut LF 1100 $ 2.00 $ 2,200.00
Remove existing pavement SY 740 $ 2.00 $ 1,480.00
Remove existing catchbasin manhole (4' depth) EA 2 $ 500.00 $ 1,000.00
Remove existing 12" storm pipe LF 90 $ 5.00 $ 450.00
Remove existing B624 curb and gutter - sawcut incidental LF 360 $ 4.00 $ 1,440.00
Reconstruct existing storm MH (8' build) EA 1 $2,000.00 $ 2,000.00
4' diameter storm manhole w/1642B casting EA 1 $1,600.00 $ 1,600.00
4' diameter catch basin manhole w/R-3067-V casting EA 2 $1,600.00 $ 3,200.00
2' x 3' catch basin w/R-3067-V casting EA 4 $1,000.00 $ 4,000.00
15" RCP, Class 5, in place LF 320 $ 28.00 $ 8,960.00
Improved pipe foundation per 6" increment LF 640 $ 1.00 $ 640.00
Mechanical trench compaction LF 320 $ 1.00 $ 320.00
Common excavation CY 380 $ 7.00 $ 2,660.00
B624 concrete curb and gutter LF 560 $ 10.00 $ 5,600.00
Bituminous patching TON 220 $ 45.00 $ 9,900.00
Sand (7" and 1" sections) CY 90 $ 8.00 $ 720.00
CI. 5 Aggregate base (100% Crushed) TON 490 $ 10.00 $ 4,900.00
Concrete pavers SF 3200 $ 4.50 $14,400.00
Estimated Construction Cost $65,470.00
10% Contingencies $ 6,550.00
Subtotal $72,020.00
27% Engineering, Legal, Admin. $19,450.00
Total Estimated Project Cost $91,470.00
DOWNTOWN SIDEWALK AND STREET LIGHTING PROJECT
CITY LOGO ALTERNATIVE
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
EST. UNIT EST.
UNIT QUANTIT PRICE COST
LF 120 $ 3.00 $ 360.00
SY 80 $ 3.00 $ 240.00
TON 8 $ 80.00 $ 640.00
SF 710 $ 20.00 $ 14,200.00
Bituminous sawcut
Remove existing pavement
Bituminous patch
City logo (30' diameter - pavers)
Estimated Construction Cost $ 15,440.00
10% Contingencies $ 1,550.00
Subtotal $ 16,990.00
27% Engineering, Legal, Admin. $ 4,580.00
Total Estimated Project Cost $ 21,570.00
ATTACHMENT B
DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE NECKOUT AND CITY LOGO OPTION
* PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS - OPTION 1
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT AMOUNT - PROJECT COSTS SPLIT EQUALLY PER PARCEL
AREA
OWNER
ADDRESS
LOT
AREA (SF)
NECKOUT
ASSESSMENT
AMOUNT
CITY LOGO
ASSESSMENT
AMOUNT
1 Leslie Kotval 310 3rd Street 25781 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
2 Heikkila Publications Inc. 320 3rd Street 4806 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
3 Corinthian Lodge 67 324 - 328 3rd Street 7448 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
4 James Gerster 332, 340 3rd Street 1720 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
5 James Gerster 332, 340 3rd Street 1928 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
6 Hosmer Brown 340 3rd Street 3108 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
7 William Storlie 400 3rd Street I 408 3rd Street 10327 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
8 HRA of Farmington 325 Oak Street 3365 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
9 HRA of Farminoton 325 Oak Street 3425 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
10 HRA of Farminoton 325 Oak Street 7927 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
11 HRA of Farmington 325 Oak Street 5770 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
12 City of Farmington 431 Oak Street 6209 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
13 Gary & Margaret Ziegler 427 3rd Street 3684 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
14 David & Kathleen Thelen 425 3rd Street 2400 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
15 G Roaer & Janet Cook 423 3rd Street 1880 $ 604.05 $ 14244
16 Svpal-Lundgren Post 7662 421 3rd Street 4366 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
17 Souheil E Ailabouni 417 3rd Street 1913 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
18 Harvey & Mary Snyder 409 3rd Street 5045 $ 604.05 $ 14244
19 Patricia Jane Murphy 302 Oak Street 3756 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
20 Thomas Trevis 405 3rd Street I 300 Oak Street 2439 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
21 Thomas D Quam 345 3rd Street 2380 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
22 Stanley & Marilvn Overbv 341 & 343 3rd Street 4179 $ 604.05 $ 14244
23 Glenn & Kimberlv Friedrich 331 3rd Street 3299 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
24 Peter & Aristea Kontinakis 329 3rd Street 4228 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
25 Farmington HRA 325 Oak Street 4399 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
26 Farmington HRA 325 Oak Street 3299 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
27 Kenneth M Labeau 313 3rd Street 2436 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
28 Kenneth M Labeau 313 3rd Street 2727 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
29 City of Farminaton 305 3rd Street 5774 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
30 David & Karen Finneaan 321 2nd Street 5609 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
31 Northern States Power Co 201 & 205 Oak Street 5039 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
32 Dennis & Ladonna Riste 209 Oak Street 1890 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
33 Dennis & Ladonna Riste 211 Oak Street 2213 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
34 Hosmer Brown 217 Oak Street 1845 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
35 Patricia A Darflinoer 309 Oak Street 839 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
36 Patricia A Darflinger 311 Oak Street 521 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
37 Citv of Farmington 325 Oak Street 7023 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
38 City of Farminaton 325 Oak Street 3199 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
39 City of Farm inaton 325 Oak Street 20439 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
40 City af Farmington 325 Oak Street 10217 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
41 1 st National Bank af Farm inaton 324 Oak Street 20437 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
42 Premier Bank 316 Oak Street 10221 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
43 Premier Bank 316 Oak Street 2542 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
44 Marvin & Berneice Wier 314 Oak Street 5908 $ 604.05 $ 14244
45 Michael Heise 306 Oak Street 9211 $ 604.05 $ 14244
46 Lee & Marlene Palmer 216 Oak Street 4702 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
47 Carroll Westenberg 212 Oak Street 4317 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
48 Gary & Bonnie Van Erp 210 Oak Street 9317 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
49 P H Feely & Sons Inc. 204 Oak Street 12093 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
50 Walkwav to 2nd Street 325 Oak Street 3418 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
51 City of Farminaton 325 Oak Street 1704 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
52 David & Karen Finneaan 300 Elm Street 2241 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
53 Prem ier Bank Metro South 316 Oak Street 1773 $ 604.05 $ 142.44
. Project costs based on memo dated February 3, 1999
TOTAL
$
32,014.65 $
7,549.32
65% oITotal Project Cost
35% oITotal Project Cost
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$
$
$
59,455.50 $
32,014.50 $
91,470.00 $
14,020.50
7,549.50
21,570.00
Assessment Amount Per Lot
$
604.05 $
142.44
NOTE:
Preliminary assessment amounts would be added to those
stated in the January 7, 1999 neighborhood meeting handout.
DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE NECKOUT AND CITY LOGO OPTION
* PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS - OPTION 2
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT AMOUNT PER EQUIVALENT UNIT
AREA
OWNER
ADDRESS
NECKOUT
LOT EQUIVALENT ASSESSMENT
AREA (SF) UNITS AMOUNT
CITY LOGO
ASSESSMENT
AMOUNT
1 Leslie Kotval 310 3rd Street 25781 4.77 $ 2,878.50 $ 678.77
2 Heillila Publications Inc. 320 3rd Street 4806 0.89 $ 536.60 $ 126.53
3 Corinthian Lodge 67 324 - 328 3rd Street 7448 1.38 $ 831.58 $ 196.09
4 James Gerster 332, 340 3rd Street 1720 0.32 $ 192.04 $ 45.28
5 James Gerster 332, 340 3rd Street 1928 0.36 $ 215.27 $ 50.76
6 Hosmer Brown 340 3rd Street 3108 0.57 $ 347.01 $ 81.83
7 William Storlie 400 3rd Street I 408 3rd Street 10327 1.91 $ 1,153.03 $ 271.89
8 HRA of Farminoton 325 Oak Street 3365 0.62 $ 375.71 $ 88.60
9 HRA of Farmington 325 Oak Street 3425 0.63 $ 382.41 $ 90.18
10 HRA of Farm ington 325 Oak Street 7927 1.47 $ 885.07 $ 208.71
11 HRA of Farmington 325 Oak Street 5770 1.07 $ 644.23 $ 151.92
12 City of Farminoton 431 Oak Street 6209 1.15 $ 693.25 $ 163.47
13 Gary & Margaret Ziealer 427 3rd Street 3684 0.68 $ 411.33 $ 96.99
14 David & Kathleen Thelen 425 3rd Street 2400 0.44 $ 267.96 $ 63.19
15 G Rooer & Janet Cook 423 3rd Street 1880 0.35 $ 209.91 $ 49.50
16 Sypal-Lundoren Post 7662 421 3rd Street 4366 0.81 $ 487.47 $ 114.95
17 Souheil E Ailabouni 417 3rd Street 1913 0.35 $ 213.59 $ 50.37
18 Harvey & Marv Snvder 409 3rd Street 5045 0.93 $ 563.28 $ 132.83
19 Patricia Jane Murphy 302 Oak Street 3756 0.69 $ 419.37 $ 98.89
20 Thomas Trevis 405 3rd Street I 300 Oak Street 2439 0.45 $ 272.32 $ 64.22
21 Thomas D Quam 345 3rd Street 2380 0.44 $ 265.73 $ 62.66
22 Stanlev & Marilvn Overby 341 & 343 3rd Street 4179 0.77 $ 466.59 $ 110.03
23 Glenn & Kimberly Friedrich 331 3rd Street 3299 0.61 $ 368.34 $ 86.86
24 Peter & Aristea Kontinakis 329 3rd Street 4228 0.78 $ 472.06 $ 111.32
25 Farmington HRA 325 Oak Street 4399 0.81 $ 491.16 $ 115.82
26 Farmington HRA 325 Oak Street 3299 0.61 $ 368.34 $ 86.86
27 Kenneth M Labeau 313 3rd Street 2436 0.45 $ 271.98 $ 64.14
28 Kenneth M Labeau 313 3rd Street 2727 0.50 $ 304.48 $ 71.80
29 City of Farmington 305 3rd Street 5774 1.07 $ 644.68 $ 152.02
30 David & Karen Finnegan 321 2nd Street 5609 1.04 $ 626.26 $ 147.68
31 Northern States Power Co 201 & 205 Oak Street 5039 0.93 $ 562.61 $ 132.67
32 Dennis & Ladonna Riste 209 Oak Street 1890 0.35 $ 211.02 $ 49.76
33 Dennis & Ladonna Riste 211 Oak Street 2213 0.41 $ 247.09 $ 58.26
34 Hosmer Brown 217 Oak Street 1845 0.34 $ 206.00 $ 48.58
35 Patricia A Darflinoer 309 Oak Street 839 0.16 $ 93.68 $ 22.09
36 Patricia A Darflinoer 311 Oak Street 521 0.10 $ 58.17 $ 13.72
37 Citv of Farmington 325 Oak Street 7023 1.30 $ 784.13 $ 184.90
38 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street 3199 0.59 $ 357.17 $ 64.22
39 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street 20439 3.78 $ 2,282.06 $ 538.13
40 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street 10217 1.89 $ 1,140.75 $ 269.00
41 1 st National Bank of Farm ington 324 Oak Street 20437 3.78 $ 2,281.83 $ 538.08
42 Prem ier Bank 316 Oak Street 10221 1.89 $ 1,141.20 $ 269.10
43 Prem ier Bank 316 Oak Street 2542 0.47 $ 283.82 $ 66.93
44 Marvin & Berneice Wier 314 Oak Street 5908 1.09 $ 659.64 $ 155.55
45 Michaei Heise 306 Oak Street 9211 170 $ 1,028.43 $ 242.51
46 Lee & Marlene Palmer 216 Oak Street 4702 0.87 $ 524.99 $ 123.80
47 Carroll Westenbero 212 Oak Street 4317 0.80 $ 482.00 $ 113.66
48 Gary & Bonnie Van Erp 210 Oak Street 9317 1.72 $ 1,040.26 $ 245.30
49 PH Feely & Sons Inc. 204 Oak Street 12093 2.24 $ 1,350.21 $ 318.39
50 Walkway to 2nd Street 325 Oak Street 3418 0.63 $ 381.63 $ 89.99
51 City of Farminoton 325 Oak Street 1704 0.31 $ 190.26 $ 44.86
52 David & Karen Finnegan 300 Elm Street 2241 0.41 $ 250.22 $ 59.00
53 Prem ier Bank Metro South 316 Oak Street 1773 0.33 $ 197.94 $ 46.68
. Project costs based on memo dated February 3, 1999
TOTAL
286735.9 53.00 $ 32,014.66 $ 7,549.32
5410.11
$ 604.05 $ 142.44
$ 59,455.50 $ 14,020.50
$ 32,014.50 $ 7,549.50
$ 91,470.00 $ 21,570.00
AVERAGE SF PER LOT
COST PER UNIT
65% oITotal Project Cost
35% oITotal Project Cast
TOTAL PROJECT COST
NOTE:
Preliminary assessment amounts would be added to those
stated in the January 7, 1999 neighborhood meeting handout.
DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE NECKOUT AND CITY LOGO OPTION
* PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS - OPTION 3
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT AMOUNT PER FRONT FOOTAGE
FRONT
NECKOUT CITY LOGO
ASSESSABLE ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT
AREA OWNER ADDRESS FOOTAGE (Fn FOOTAGE AMOUNT AMOUNT
1 Leslie Kotval 310 3rd Street 170 170 $ 2,322.20 $ 547.40
2 Heillila Publications Inc. 320 3rd Street 40 40 $ 546.40 $ 128.80
3 Corinthian Lodge 67 324 - 328 3rd Street 40 40 $ 546.40 $ 128.80
4 James Gerster 332, 340 3rd Street 22 22 $ 300.52 $ 70.84
5 James Gerster 332, 340 3rd Street 23 23 $ 314.18 $ 74.06
6 Hosmer Brown 340 3rd Street 45,70 80 $ 1,092.80 $ 257.60
7 William Sto~ie 400 3rd Street I 408 3rd Street 60, 170.5 145.25 $ 1,984.12 $ 467.71
8 HRA of Farminoton 325 Oak Street 28 28 $ 382.48 $ 90.16
9 HRA of Farmington 325 Oak Street 28.5 28.5 $ 389.31 $ 91.77
10 HRA of Farminoton 325 Oak Street 66 66 $ 901.56 $ 212.52
11 HRA of Farmington 325 Oak Street 48 48 $ 655.68 $ 154.56
12 City of Farminoton 431 Oak Street 51 51 $ 696.66 $ 164.22
13 Gary & Margaret Ziegler 427 3rd Street 32 32 $ 437.12 $ 103.04
14 David & Kathleen Thelen 425 3rd Street 20 20 $ 273.20 $ 64.40
15 G Roger & Janet Cook 423 3rd Street 16 16 $ 218.56 $ 51.52
16 Sypal-Lundgren Post 7662 421 3rd Street 30 30 $ 409.80 $ 96.60
17 Souheil E Ailabouni 417 3rd Street 22 22 $ 300.52 $ 70.84
18 Harvey & Mary Snyder 409 3rd Street 50.5 50.5 $ 689.83 $ 162.61
19 Patricia Jane Murehv 302 Oak Street 18 - 3rd, 24- Oak 42 $ 573.72 $ 135.24
20 Thomas Trevis 405 3rd Street I 300 Oak Street 102,24 75 $ 1,024.50 $ 241.50
21 Thomas D Quam 345 3rd Street 34,70 69 $ 942.54 $ 222.18
22 Stanley & Marilyn Overby 341 & 343 3rd Street 38 38 $ 519.08 $ 122.36
23 Glenn & Kimbe~v Friedrich 331 3rd Street 30 30 $ 409.80 $ 96.60
24 Peter & Aristea Kontinakis 329 3rd Street 38.5 38.5 $ 525.91 $ 123.97
25 Farmington HRA 325 Oak Street 40 40 $ 546.40 $ 128.80
26 Farminoton HRA 325 Oak Street 30 30 $ 409.80 $ 96.60
27 Kenneth M Labeau 313 3rd Street 22 22 $ 300.52 $ 70.84
28 Kenneth M Labeau 313 3rd Street 25 25 $ 341.50 $ 80.50
29 City of Farmington 305 3rd Street 52 52 $ 710.32 $ 167.44
30 David & Karen Finneoan 321 2nd Street 51 51 $ 696.66 $ 164.22
31 Northem States Power Co 201 & 205 Oak Street 65 65 $ 887.90 $ 209.30
32 Dennis & Ladonna Riste 209 Oak Street 20 20 $ 273.20 $ 64.40
33 Dennis & Ladonna Riste 211 Oak Street 20 20 $ 273.20 $ 64.40
34 Hosmer Brown 217 Oak Street 30 30 $ 409.80 $ 96.60
35 Patricia A Darflinaer 309 Oak Street 25 25 $ 341.50 $ 80.50
36 Patricia A Darflinger 311 Oak Street 15 15 $ 204.90 $ 48.30
37 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street 10 10 $ 136.60 $ 32.20
38 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street 50 50 $ 683.00 $ 161.00
39 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street 120 120 $ 1,639.20 $ 386.40
40 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street 60 60 $ 819.60 $ 193.20
41 1 st National Bank of F armin 324 Oak Street 120 120 $ 1,639.20 $ 386.40
42 Premier Bank 316 Oak Street 60 60 $ 819.60 $ 193.20
43 Premier Bank 316 Oak Street 25 25 $ 341.50 $ 80.50
44 Marvin & Bemeice Wier 314 Oak Street 35 35 $ 478.10 $ 112.70
45 Michael Heise 306 Oak Street 72 72 $ 983.52 $ 231.84
46 Lee & Ma~ene Palmer 216 Oak Street 28 28 $ 382.48 $ 90.16
47 Carroll Westen berg 212 Oak Street 25 25 $ 341.50 $ 80.50
48 Gary & Bonnie Van Ere 210 Oak Street 54.5 54.5 $ 744.47 $ 175.49
49 P H Feely & Sons Inc. 204 Oak Street 54 54 $ 737.64 $ 173.88
50 Walkway to 2nd Street 325 Oak Street 20 20 $ 273.20 $ 64.40
51 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street 10 10 $ 136.60 $ 32.20
. Project costs based on memo dated February 3,1999
TOTAL (LF)
2343.25 $ 32,008.80 $ 7,545.27
$ 13.66 $ 3.22
$ 59,455.50 $ 14,020.50
$ 32,014.50 $ 7,549.50
$ 91,470.00 $ 21,570.00
COST PER FOOT
65% ofT otal Project Cost
35% ofT otal Project Cost
TOTAL PROJECT COST
NOTE: Preliminary assessment amounts would be added to those
stated in the January 7, 1999 neighborhood meeting handout.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
II/;
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~
FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Downtown Sliplining Project Feasibility Report
DATE: February 16, 1999
INTRODUCTION
Attached is the Feasibility Report for the Downtown Sliplining Project. The project
consists of rehabilitating the existing clay sewer pipes on Third Street between Spruce
and Elm and on Oak Street between Second and Fourth.
DISCUSSION
The existing sanitary sewers in the downtown area are in need of rehabilitation or
replacement. The City's 1993 Facilities Improvement Plan and the City's 1994
Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan recommended the reconstruction of the sanitary
sewers in the project study area; therefore this project was included in the City's CIP. The
existing sewers have various structural problems and evidence of significant infiltration.
The reconstruction of the sewers is recommended to be done by sliplining or trenchless
construction as described in the attached report.
BUDGET IMPACT
The total estimated project cost is $194,000. Under the City's Special Assessment
policy, 35% of the costs of reconstruction of sanitary sewer is assessed to the benefiting
properties and the City funds the remaining 65% of the costs. The benefiting properties'
share of the total costs is $67,900. The City's share of the costs is $126,100 and would
be funded through the Sanitary Sewer fund. Attached are spreadsheets outlining the costs
to specific property owners for the sewer reconstruction based on two of the previously
identified assessment methodologies for the Downtown Streetscape project.
ACTION REQUESTED
Adopt the attached resolution accepting the feasibility report for this project.
Respectfully submitted,
OZ::m~
Lee M. Mann, P .E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
cc: file
RESOLUTION NO. R -99
ACCEPT FEASBILITY REPORT
PROJECT 99-13
SLIPLINING OF DOWNTOWN SANITARY SEWERS
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of Farmington,
Minnesota, was held in the Civic Center of said City on the 16th day of February, 1999 at 7:00
P.M.
The following members were present:
The following members were absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following resolution:
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Council approval of the 1999 Capital Improvement Plan, the City
Engineer has prepared a preliminary report with reference to the following improvement:
Proi. No.
99-13
Description
Downtown Sanitary Sewer
Rehabilitation
Location
Oak Street (from 2nd to 4th Street)
Third Street (from Spruce to Elm Street)
; and
WHEREAS, this report was received by the City Council on February 16, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project IS
necessary, cost effective, and feasible.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Farmington,
Minnesota that:
1. The feasibility report is hereby accepted.
2. The Council will consider the improvement of such sewer utilities in accordance with
the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the
improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of
improvement of $194,000.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the
16th day of February, 1999.
Attested to the
day of
,1999.
Mayor
SEAL
City Administrator/Clerk
DOWNTOWN SLlPLlNING PROJECT
* PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS - OPTION 1
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT AMOUNT - PROJECT COSTS SPLIT EQUALLY PER PARCEL
LOT
PROPOSED
ASSESSMENT
AREA OWNER ADDRESS AREA (SF) AMOUNT
1 Leslie Kotvel 310 3rd Street 25781 $ 1,331.37
2 Heikkile Publications Inc. 320 3rd Street 4806 $ 1,331.37
3 Corinthian Lodae 67 324 - 328 3rd Street 7448 $ 1,331.37
4 James Gerster 332, 340 3rd Street 1720 $ 1,331.37
5 James Gerster 332, 340 3rd Street 1928 $ 1,331.37
6 Hosmer Brown 340 3rd Street 3108 $ 1,331.37
7 William Storlie 400 3rd Street I 408 3rd Street 10327 $ 1,331.37
8 HRA of Farminoton 325 Oak Street 3365 $ 1,331.37
9 HRA of Farminaton 325 Oak Street 3425 $ 1,331.37
10 HRA of Farminaton 325 Oak Street 7927 $ 1,331.37
11 HRA of Farminaton 325 Oak Street 5770 $ 1,331.37
12 City of F arminaton 431 Oak Street 6209 $ 1,331.37
13 Garv & Maraaret Ziealer 427 3rd Street 3684 $ 1,331.37
14 David & Kathleen Thelen 425 3rd Street 2400 $ 1,331.37
15 G ROller & Janet Cook 423 3rd Street 1880 $ 1,331.37
16 Svpal-Lundaren Post 7662 421 3rd Street 4366 $ 1,331.37
17 Souheil E Ailabouni 417 3rd Street 1913 $ 1,331.37
18 Harvev & Marv Snyder 409 3rd Street 5045 $ 1,331.37
19 Patricia Jane Murphv 302 Oak Street 3756 $ 1,331.37
20 Thomas Trevis 405 3rd Street I 300 Oak Street 2439 $ 1,331.37
21 Thomas D Quam 345 3rd Street 2380 $ 1,331.37
22 Stanlev & Marilvn Overby 341 & 343 3rd Street 4179 $ 1,331.37
23 Glenn & Kimberlv Friedrich 331 3rd Street 3299 $ 1,331.37
24 Peter & Aristea Kontinakis 329 3rd Street 4228 $ 1,331.37
25 Farminaton HRA 325 Oak Street 4399 $ 1,331.37
26 Farminaton HRA 325 Oak Street 3299 $ 1,331.37
27 Kenneth M Labeau 313 3rd Street 2436 $ 1,331.37
28 Kenneth M Labeau 313 3rd Street 2727 $ 1,331.37
29 CiIv of Farminaton 305 3rd Street 5774 $ 1,331.37
30 David & Karen Finneaan 321 2nd Street 5609 $ 1,331.37
31 Northern States Power Co 201 & 205 Oak Street 5039 $ 1,331.37
32 Dennis & Ladonna Riste 209 Oak Street 1890 $ 1,331.37
33 Dennis & Ladonne Riste 211 Oak Street 2213 $ 1,331.37
34 Hosmer Brown 217 Oak Street 1845 $ 1,331.37
35 Patricia A Darflinaer 309 Oak Street 839 $ 1,331.37
36 Petricia A Darflinaer 311 Oak Street 521 $ 1,331.37
37 C' of Farmin ton 325 Oak Street 7023 $ 1,331.37
38 C' of Farmi ton 325 Oak Street 3199 $ 1,331.37
39 Cit of Farmi ton 325 Oak Street 20439 $ 1,331.37
40 Ci of Farmin on 325 Oak Street 10217 $ 1,331.37
41 1st National Bank of Farminaton 324 Oak Street 20437 $ 1,331.37
42 Premier Bank 316 Oak Street 10221 $ 1,331.37
43 Premier Bank 316 Oak Street 2542 $ 1,331.37
44 Marvin & Bemeice Wier 314 Oak Street 5908 $ 1,331.37
45 Michael Heise 306 Oak Street 9211 $ 1,331.37
46 Lee & Marlene Palmer 216 Oak Street 4702 $ 1,331.37
47 Carroll Westenbera 212 Oak Street 4317 $ 1,331.37
48 Garv & Bonnie Van Erp 210 Oak Street 9317 $ 1,331.37
49 P H Feelv & Sons Inc. 204 Oak Street 12093 $ 1,331.37
50 Walkwav to 2nd Street 325 Oak Street 3418 $ 1,331.37
51 CiIv of Farminaton 325 Oak Street 1704 $ 1,331.37
. Project costs based on feaSibility report dated February 16, 1999
TOTAL
$
67,899.87
65% of Tatal Project Cost
35% of Total Project Cost
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$ 126,100.00
$ 67,900.00
$ 194,000.00
Assessment Amount Per Lot
$ 1,331.37
DOWNTOWN SLlPLlNING PROJECT
* PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS - OPTION 2
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT AMOUNT PER EQUIVALENT UNIT
PROPOSED
LOT EQUIVALENT ASSESSMENT
AREA OWNER ADDRESS AREA (SF) UNITS AMOUNT
1 Leslie Kotval 3103rd Street 25781 4.65 $ 6,191.69
2 Heillila Publications Inc. 320 3rd Street 4806 0.87 $ 1,154.23
3 Corinthian Lodae 67 324 - 328 3rd Street 7448 1.34 $ 1,788.75
4 James Gerster 332, 340 3rd Street 1720 0.31 $ 413.08
5 Jemes Gerster 332, 340 3rd Street 1928 0.35 $ 463.04
6 Hosmer Brown 340 3rd Street 3108 0.56 $ 746.43
7 William Storlie 400 3rd Street J 408 3rd Street 10327 1.86 $ 2,480.18
8 HRA of Farminaton 325 Oek Street 3365 0.61 $ 808.15
9 HRA of Farminaton 325 Oak Street 3425 0.62 $ 822.56
10 HRA of Farmington 325 Oak Street 7927 1.43 $ 1,903.79
11 HRA of F arminaton 325 Oak Street 5770 1.04 $ 1,385.75
12 C~y of Farminaton 431 Oak Street 6209 1.12 $ 1,491.18
13 Garv & Maraaret Ziealer 427 3rd Street 3684 0.66 $ 884.77
14 Dayid & Kathleen Thelen 425 3rd Street 2400 0.43 $ 576.40
15 G Roger & Janet Cook 423 3rd Street 1880 0.34 $ 451.51
16 Sypal-Lundaren Post 7662 421 3rd Street 4366 0.79 $ 1,048.56
17 Souheil E Ailabouni 417 3rd Street 1913 0.35 $ 459.44
18 Harvey & Marv Snyder 409 3rd Street 5045 0.91 $ 1,211.63
19 Patricia Jane Murohy 302 Oak Street 3756 0.68 $ 902.06
20 Thomas TreYis 405 3rd Street J 300 Oak Street 2439 0.44 $ 585.76
21 Thomas D Quam 345 3rd Street 2380 0.43 $ 571.59
22 Stanley & Marilyn Oyerby 341 & 343 3rd Street 4179 0.75 $ 1,003.65
23 Glenn & Kimberly Friedrich 331 3rd Street 3299 0.60 $ 792.30
24 Peter & Aristea Kontinakis 329 3rd Street 4228 0.76 $ 1,015.42
25 Farmington HRA 325 Oak Street 4399 0.79 $ 1,056.48
26 F arminaton HRA 325 Oak Street 3299 0.60 $ 792.30
27 Kanneth M Labeau 313 3rd Street 2436 0.44 $ 585.04
28 Kenneth M Labeau 313 3rd Street 2727 0.49 $ 654.93
29 City of Farmington 305 3rd Street 5774 1.04 $ 1,386.71
30 Dayid & Karen Finnegan 321 2nd Street 5609 1.01 $ 1,347.08
31 Northern States Power Co 201 & 205 Oak Street 5039 0.91 $ 1,210.19
32 Dennis & Ladonna Riste 209 Oak Street 1890 0.34 $ 453.91
33 Dennis & Ladonna Riste 211 Oak Street 2213 0.40 $ 531.48
34 Hosmer Brown 217 Oak Street 1845 0.33 $ 443.10
35 Patricia A Darflinaer 309 Oak Street 839 0.15 $ 201.50
36 Patricia A Darflinaer 311 Oak Street 521 0.09 $ 125.13
37 City of Farmin ton 325 Oak Street 7023 1.27 $ 1,686.68
38 Citv of Farmin ton 325 Oak Street 3199 0.58 $ 768.29
39 City of Farmin ton 325 Oek Street 20439 3.69 $ 4,908.73
40 City of Farmin ton 325 Oak Street 10217 1.84 $ 2,453.76
41 1 st National Bank of Farmington 324 Oak Street 20437 3.69 $ 4,908.25
42 Premier Bank 316 Oak Street 10221 1.84 $ 2,454.72
43 Premier Bank 316 Oak Street 2542 0.46 $ 610.50
44 Marvin & Bemeica Wier 314 Oak Street 5908 107 $ 1,418.89
45 Micheel Heise 306 Oak Street 9211 1.66 $ 2,212.16
46 Lee & Marlene Palmer 216 Oak Street 4702 0.85 $ 1,129.25
47 Carroll Westenbera 212 Oak Street 4317 0.78 $ 1,036.79
48 Garv & Bonnie Van Ero 210 Oak Street 9317 1.68 $ 2,237.61
49 P H Feely & Sons Inc. 204 Oak Street 12093 2.18 $ 2,904.31
50 Walkway to 2nd Street 325 Oek Street 3418 0.62 $ 820.88
51 C~y of Farminaton 325 Oak Street 1704 0.31 $ 409.24
'Project costs besed on feasibility report dated February 16, 1999
TOTAL
282722 51.00 $ 67,899.85
5543.57
$ 1,331.37
$ 126,100.00
$ 67,900.00
$ 194,000.00
AVERAGE SF PER LOT
COST PER UNIT
65% of Total Project Cost
35% of Total Project Cost
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Report for
Sliplining of Downtown
Sanitary Sewers
Farmington, Minnesota
February, 1999
File No. 141-98-814
City Project No. 99-13
~
-
1\11
Bonestroo
Rosene
Anderlik &
Associates
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo, PE. . Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E. . Marvin L Sorvala, PE. .
Richard E, Turner, PE. . Glenn R, Cook, PE. . Robert G, Schunichl. P.E. . Jerry A. Bourdon, PE. .
Robert W, Rosene, P.E, and Susan M. Eberlin, c.PA., Senior Consultants
Associate Principals: Howard A. Sanford, P.E. . Keith A. Gordon, PE, . Robert R, Pfefferle, PE. .
Richard W, Foster, PE. . David 0, loskota, PE, . Robert C. Russek, A.I.A. . Mark A. Hanson, PE. .
Michael T. Rautmann, P.E, . Ted K,Field, PE. . Kenneth P Anderson, PE. . Mark R, Rolfs, PE. .
Sidney P Williamson, PE" LS. . Robert F. Kotsmith . Agnes M. Ring. Michael P Rau, PE. .
Allan Rick Schmidt, PE.
Offices: SI. Paul. Rochester, Willmar and St. Cloud, MN . Milwaukee, WI
Engineers & Architects
Website: www.bonestroo.com
February 16. 1999
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
Re: Feasibility Report
Sliplining of Downtown
Sanitary Sewers
Our File No. 141-98-814
Dear Mayor and Council:
Enclosed for your review is our Report-on the rehabilitation of the sanitary sewers in the
downtown area.
This report describes the improvements necessary to rehabilitate the sanitary sewers
along Third Street from Spruce to Elm Street and Oak Street from Second to Fourth
Street. These improvements are necessary to address structural and infiltration issues
with the existing sewer pipes. Cost estimates for the proposed improvements are
included in the Appendices
We would be pleased to discuss this report further with the City Councilor City staff at
any mutually convenient time.
Respectfully submitted,
~TROO, R SE
~c
NDERLIK & ASSOClA TES, INC.
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that lam a duly re . stered Professional
En~er the law th tate 1 mnesota.
-....
Frederic J. Stenbor, . .
Date: February 16~1999
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311
Table of Contents
Letter of Transmittal .............................................................................. 1
Table of Contents. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .. ... . .. 2
Introduction ........................................................................................ 3
Discussion .......................................................................................... 3
Cost Estimate...................................................................................... 5
Project Financing ... ...... ...... ... ... ... ......... ... .... ........... ... ... ... ... ....... ........... 6
Conclusion and Recommendation ......... ... ......... ... ... ............ ... .................... 7
List of Figures:
Figure 1 -
Figure 2 -
Project Area
Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Appendix:
Cost Estimates
Project Cost Tracking Sheet
2
Introduction
The City Council has requested this report to determine the feasibility to rehabilitate and
reconstruct the sanitary sewers in the downtown area of Farmington. The proposed
project area includes Oak Street from Second to Fourth Street and Third Street from
Spruce to Elm Street (See Figure 1).
This report describes the existing sanitary sewer conditions in the project area and
presents the feasibility and costs of rehabilitation or reconstruction of the system. The
proposed sanitary sewer improvements are shown on Figure 2.
Discussion
The existing sanitary sewers in the study area are in need of rehabilitation or replacement.
The sewers were inspected in 1998 with closed circuit television equipment. The sewers
were found to have various structural problems and evidence of significant infiltration.
The City's 1993 Facilities Improvement Plan and the City's 1994 Comprehensive Sewer
Policy Plan recommended the reconstruction of the sanitary sewers in the project study
area. The reconstruction work in this area was recommended to be done by sliplining or
trenchless construction
Existing sanitary sewer in this project area consists of 8" vitrified clay pipe (VCP) on
Oak Street and 10" VCP on Third Street. The sanitary sewer was televised in 1998 to
determine the condition of the clay pipes, manholes and service connections. Previous
studies recommended the trenchless reconstruction ofthe sewers in the project area.
The inspection found numerous cracked and displaced pipe joints. Four of the six
manholes were found to have structural defects and in need of repairs. The majority of
sewer service connections were found to be in very good structural condition. Four
service connections were found' " protruding into the main sewer pipe.
Cured-In Place-Pipe (CIPP) lining is the proposed method of reconstruction and
rehabilitation of the sewer pipes. CIPP lining provides for full structural rehabilitation
and seals/eliminates all existing sewer pipe joints. This method of rehabilitation allows
for a minimum of surface disruption. The pipe liner is pulled through the existing pipe,
expanded to the existing pipe size and allowed to cure. Sewer services will be!eQpened
internally. Protruding sewer services can be internally repaired without excavation.
The sewer lining process will require the sewers to be cleaned and flows bypassed during
the CIPP liner installations. This involves a 10 to 12 hour time period where sewer
service may be interrupted. Business owners and residents will be notified of the progress
of the work. This CIPP work is typically started in the late evening/early morning to
avoid any high sewer flows. Also there is usually very little flow from sewer services.
The service interruption time can therefore be minimized.
3
Manholes will be repaired with limited surface disruption or excavation. The barrel
sections of two manholes need to be reconstructed due to poor structural condition.
Cover and casting assemblies need replacement on three manholes. Bottom sections on
two manholes need to be repaired or reconstructed. All these structures can be repaired
with a limited impact on street traffic.
The repair work is expected to achieve removal of seasonal infiltration/inflow (III) from
leaking pipe joints and manholes. The estimated annual flow reduction is about 4.6 to 6.4
million gallons. This reduction provides for an estimated savings of $ 6,000 to 8,400 in
MCES wastewater charges.
4
Cost Estimates
The project costs for these improvements are outlined in this section. The itemized cost
estimates are provided in the appendix. The costs include 10% for contingency and 27%
for legal, engineering and administration of this project. The cost estimates are based on
unit prices as projected for the 1999 construction season. (ENR 6000 Mpls.)
Estimated Project Costs
Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Improvements
10% Contingencies
Subtotal
$137,350
$13,735
$151,085
27% Engineering, Legal, Administration
Misc. Testing and Crew Costs
Total Estimated Project Cost
$40,795
$2,000
$193,880
5
Project Financing
The total estimated project cost is $194,000. Under the City's Special Assessment
policy, 35% of the costs of reconstruction of sanitary sewer is assessed to the benefiting
properties and the City funds the remaining 65% of the costs. The benefiting properties'
share of the total costs is $67,900. The City's share of the costs is $126,100 and would
be funded through the Sanitary Sewer fund.
6
Conclusions and Recommendations
The proposed improvements described in this report are feasible as they relate to general
engineering principles and construction procedures. The feasibility of the project as a
whole is subject to the financial review. The project is cost effective as proposed and
necessary due to the condition of the existing infrastructure. Based on information
contained in this report, it is recommended that:
1. This report be adopted by the City of Farmington as a guide for construction of the
Oak and Third Streets Sewer Rehabilitation.
2. The City conduct a legal and financial review of the proposed project prior to a public
hearing.
3. A public hearing be held as required by Minnesota Statute 429. The property owners
adjacent to the sewer work would be notified for hearing purposes.
4. The following Schedule be implemented for the project:
Tentative Schedule for planning purposes
Accept Feasibility report February 16, 1999
Set Public Hearing Date March 1, 1999
Hold neighborhood meeting Week of
March 15, 1999
Hold Public Hearing / Order Project / Authorize Preparation
of Plans and Specifications AprilS, 1999
Approve Plans and Specifications / Authorize advertisement
for bids May 3, 1999
Bid Date June 1, 1999
Council Accepts Bid / A wards Contract June 7, 1999
Start Construction July 5, 1999
7
o
o
~
z
o
o
N
o
O~ 'H'l / O~ 'H'\7'S']
tJm~~~~m~
:~B ~~~~ mM~~ mm Hll
~~~~~~~~~~L1EIJg H19
z <i. ~ & HI!; 3 ~ g;
~~~~ ~ ~~D~~R.LLduLu
tJ v E3DIITIDIJ
~~ ~ tJjm ~~
~ttffiI1ffi~tffi
:L
133M1S 1 1 ! ~~~ ~~
I-
(I)
::J
I33~IS NDI IAIa g
...J
o O!) gj i
e ~
IJiJ -
. ~c~l
l-
i
~
W
0::
::>
Cl
c;:
:Ii
f!! .s
z ~
W :J: .
:::?; w
W 0::
>
o 0:: Ul
0:: w '"
a.. 4:?: J,
:::?; b 1Il ';'
- Ul -
0:: w.....=
W ~ Ul "
3: - a ~
W :::!; a:: -'
(/) .L~
Z I- -
>- 0 'f
0:: I- a Ul
<( ~ z 'l'
!:: ~ 4: ;;
Z 0::::'::;;
tJj ii ~ !
o
IX)
~ "!l ~ j
iilCD~.1Q
CD ~i is
c::: (1)1:) 0
~~ c::::! ..
~cjj
N
W
a::
::>
<.;)
G:
Appendix
8
SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
BRA Project 141-98-814
Oak Street and Third Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Farmington
Oak Street:2nd St. to 4th St.
Third Street: Spruce St. to Elm St.
ITEM
Unit st. Quant Unit Price
Total
CIPP Lining for 10"VCP Sewer LF 870 $ 80.00 $ 69,600.00
CIPP Lining for 8"VCP Sewer LF 550 $ 65.00 $ 35,750.00
Reopen Sewer Services in CIPP Lining EA 71 $ 200.00 $ 14,200.00
Repair of Protruding Service Connections EA 4 $ 300.00 $ 1,200.00
Reconstruct/Replace Existing Manhole EA 2 $ 2,400.00 $ 4,800.00
Reconstruct Existing Manhole Bottom Se EA 2 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,000.00
Replace Manhole Cover/Casting Assembl EA 3 $ 600.00 $ 1,800.00
Temporary Bypass Sewage Flows LS 1 $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00
Total Construction Cost $ 137,350.00
10% Contingencies
$
$
151,085.00
13,735.00
Subtotal
27% Engineering, Legal, Adm $
40,792.95
Total Project Cost
$
191,877.95
Preliminary
Project Cost Tracking
Project - 1999 Downtown Slipline Project
Description of Project- Senitery sewer slipline on Oak Street (from 2nd to 4th Straet) and
Third Street (from Spruce to Elm Street)
Project No.- 99-13
Items Date Name of Company Cost
1. Construction Costs S 137.350.00
Total Conslnl.'lon Costa $ 137,350.00
2. Contingencies (10 %) S 13,735.00
(Contingences and Totel Construction Costs) Subtotal c $ 151,015.00
3. Engineering, Legol, Administration (27%) S 40,7112.95
(Totalolltems 1-3) Subtotal . $ 191.177.95
4. Soil Boringo Braun lntertec S
Subtotal . S .
5. Survey Work Estimate S
Subtotal . S
6. WeUand Delineation & Mitigation Estimate
Subtotal . S
7. Permits (list)
S
Subtotal . S
8. Chango Orders S
Subtotal c S
9. Environmental Studies, testing and monitoring - EAW S
Subtotal . S -
10. Testing Services Estimate S 2,000.00
Subtotal . S 2,000.00
11. EesementlRighl of Wo:y Acquisition Estimated Right of Wo:y acquisition
SUbtotel = S .
12. Demolition/moving
SUbtotal = S
13. OUtside Consuhants Bonding Costs with Capitalized Interest S .
SUbtotal . S
14. SWCD. plats mainly. development cost NA
SUbtotal = S -
15. Stroet & Utilily craw costs S .
S -
S
Subtotal = S
$ 193,177.95 I
ITotal Estimated Project Cost =
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
I~a-
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Defer Action on Personnel Appointment
DATE: February 16, 1999
INTRODUCTION
My office has been notified that officer elections in the Fire Department have been conducted.
The results of those elections are attached for Council review. This memorandum will serve to
formally request that Council defer personnel action on the re-appointment of Fire Chief
Kuchera until March 1, 1999.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to the City Code, Subsection (E) and Subsection (E) subd. (3), my office is obligated to
make such recommendations on the hiring and dismissal of City employees. Under the terms and
conditions of the City Code, the appointment of the Fire Chief, as a department director, falls
under the hiring provisions of the Code as the effective term of the Fire Chief is for no longer
than 3 years. The need for a new election under Fire Department By-Laws effectively calls for a
new hiring decision that must be ratified by the City Council.
In review of this matter with the City Attorney, Council will also need to consider performance
data, disciplinary actions and other related personnel information in situations where a personnel
recommendation is not forthcoming. In this specific situation, my office is not prepared to
provide Council with a recommendation until a formal review of Mr. Kuchera's personnel data is
performed by Council. The City Attorney is currently researching a variety of issues associated
with process, data privacy, legal and administrative options.
According to the City Attorney, Council deliberations relative to the administrative
recommendation on the appointment of a Fire Chief may be conducted in Executive Session,
unless Mr. Kuchera requests a public hearing. Mr. Kuchera has been notified of this right, and
my office will take the appropriate action regarding the type of meeting to be scheduled for the
March 1, 1999 Council meeting~
Due to the fact that City Attorney Jamnik will not be in attendance at the February 16, 1999
meeting, and the need for time to assemble the necessary information, it is recommended that
Council defer any action on the appointment of a Fire Chief until March 1, 1999.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council defer action considering the appointment of Ken Kuchera as Fire
Chief until March 1, 1999. Pursuant to Fire Department By-Laws, elected officers assume their
duties immediately, subject to the approval of Council. The implications of this language allow
Mr. Kuchera to remain in his current position unless Council takes specific action to replace him
in this position. It is recommended that Council take no action to replace Mr. Kuchera at this
time until a formal decision is made by Council at the March 1, 1999 meeting regarding his
appointment status.
In review of election results naming Bob Curtis as Assistant Chief, and Troy Corrigan as
Secretary/Treasury, no recommendation is provided as these two officers report to the Fire Chief
position. .
Respectfully Submitted,
!It~
'00 F. Erar
file
TO:
JOHN ERAR, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM:
KEN KUCHERA, FIRE CHIEF
SUBJECT: FIRE DEPARTMENT ANNUAL ELECTIONS
DATE:
fEBRlJARL 9,' ~ 999
On February 8, 1999 the members of the Farmington Volunteer Fire
Department held the annual elections. Ken Kuchera was re-elected
to the position of Fire Chief which is a three year term. Bob
Curtis was re-elected to the position of Assistant Chief which is
a two year term. Troy Corrigan was re-elected to the position of
Secretary/Treasure which is a two year term.
Article 6, Section 6 of the Farmington Fire Department Bylaws reads:
The elected officers will assume their duties immediately, subject
to the approval by the City Council.
I am requesting to have this placed on the Council Agenda as soon
as possible.
~ }(~VL
Ken Kuchera
Fire Chief
cc: FFD Board of Directors
F i Ie