The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12.07.98 Council Packet COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR December 7,1998 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVEAGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) 1998 Distinguished Budget Presentation Award 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes 11/16/98 (Regular) b) Approve Various Licenses and Permits c) Adopt Resolution - Tree City USA Application d) Adopt Resolution - Private Development Project Closeout e) Adopt Resolution - Joint Powers Agreement - Fire Department f) Adopt Resolution - Grant Application - Dakota County Environmental Program g) Adopt Resolution - Accept Equipment Grant - Police Department h) Adopt Resolution - Health Care Facilities Revenue Bonds i) Capital Outlay Request - Administration j) Capital Outlay Request - Fire Department k) Towing Agreement Request for Proposal I) Approve Law Enforcement Training Contract m) 1998 - 2002 CIP Project Completion and Status Report n) CAP - Meals on Wheels Contract 0) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Annexation Petition - Seed Family Trust Property 9. AWARDOFCONTRACT a) Adopt Resolution - Sewer Lift Stations, Generators and Electrical Work (Supplemental) o. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Individual Sewer Treatment Systems Ordinance Update b) Empire Township Communications - Highway 3 Gateway Signage c) Castle Rock Township Project Committee - Update d) Cable TV Franchise Agreement - Update (Supplemental) Action Taken 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Adopt Resolution - 1999 Budget and Property Tax Levy b) Prairie Creek Development Punchlist Status c) Deer Meadows 2nd Addition Citizen Petition - Update 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. ADJOURN City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmin~on.mn.us TO: Mayor & Councilmembers FROM: John. F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Supplemental Agenda DATE: December 7, 1998 It is requested that the December 7, 1998 agenda be amended as follows: PUBLIC HEARINGS 8 (a) Annexation Petition - Seed Family Trust Property (Additional Information) Empire Township requests that the City Council abandon the process of annexing the Seed property prematurely by ordinance and establish a cooperative process with the Town of Empire and the property owner for orderly annexation. AWARD OF CONTRACT 9 (a) Adopt Resolution - Sewer Lift Stations, Generators and Electrical Work Requesting Council to adopt a resolution awarding the contract for sewer lift station generators and electrical work. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 10 (d) Cable TV Franchise Agreement - Update Franchise renewal negotiations with Marcus Cable have been occurring over the past 18 months. Several key matters remain unresolved as of this date. Respectfully submitted, ohn 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 ~cL TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administrator ~ FROM: David L. Olson Community Development Director SUBJECT: Annexation Petition - Seed Property DATE: December 7,1998 INTRODUCTION The City received a copy of the attached resolution from Empire Township on Friday, December 4, 1998. DISCUSSION The attached copy of Empire Township Resolution 1998-123 was adopted by the Empire Town Board on Thursday, December 3, 1998. For the reasons stated in the resolution, Empire Township: requests that the City Council of the City of Farmington abandon the process of annexing the Seed property prematurely by ordinance and establish a cooperative process with the Town of Empire and the property owner for orderly annexation. The communities have already drafted such an agreement, which can be easily modified to address the Seed property. The Town Board will not require that the City endorse or remain silent on issues of Township urbanization as a condition of the orderly annexation agreement. This request has been discussed with the City Administrator and City Attorney as well as the representatives of the property owner(s) that have filed the petition. It is the consensus of staff that the Council has two options. Option #1 would be to adopt the prepared annexation ordinance to annex the 59 acres contained in the current annexation petition at the December 7, 1998 meeting and pursue orderly annexation agreement discussions for the balance of the Seed property. Option #2 would be to continue the public hearing to a date specific to determine whether agreement can be reached on an orderly annexation agreement for the entire Seed property. Staff would suggest that the hearing be continued to a date no later than the January 19, 1999 City Council meeting. It is also suggested that if this option is pursued, the Council should indicate that it would be its intent to adopt this current annexation ordinance on January 19, 1999 if agreement cannot be reached on an orderly annexation agreement by that date. Staff s recommendation would be to pursue Option #2 and continue the hearing for the current annexation petition to January 19, 1999 and to pursue discussions on an orderly annexation agreement during this interim period. BUDGET IMPACT None ACTION REQUESTED Continue the public hearing on the Seed Family Annexation Petition to Tuesday, January 19, 1999. David L. Olson Community Development Director cc: Steve Juetten, Genstar Land Company Dean Johnson, Resource Strategies Corporation Dec-04-9a 10:23A Resource Strateg;es Corp. 612 513 9549 P.02 RESOURCE STRATEGIES CORPORATION 14UO 1 RIDGED^I r DRIVE SlJlHIOO MINNETONK^. MN ') 11 ~() ~) !; 12/', 1 i .lj'AlJ f^X fi 12/') 1 VJ'i49 o December 4, 1998 Mr. John Erar, City Administrator Mr. Dave Olson, Community Development Director City of Farmington 325 Oak. Street Farmington, MN 55024 .VIA FACSIMILE'" Re: Annexation Petition - Seed Propertv Gentlemen: In consideration of my phone conversations with Mr. Seed and correspondence from the City, the Empire Town Board of Supervisors adopted the attached Resolution last evening. Sincerely, 0~ Dean R Johnson Township Planner Enc!. cc: Mr. James M. Seed Dec-?4-98 10:23A Resource Strategies Corp. 612 513 9549 P.03 RESOLUTION 1998- \ "2.. 3 EMPIRE TOWNSHIP A RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE PREMATURE, INCREMENTAL ANNEXATION OF THE SEED PROPERTY nOM THE TOWN OF EMPIRE AND, AL TERNATIVEL Y, REQUESTING COOPERATION fROM THE CITY OF FARMINGTON IN ESTABLISHING AN ORDERLY ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMUNITIES WHEREAS, the City of Farmington is aware that the Seed Property in Empire Township is legally enroUed in private covenants IlDdt:r the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Act, Minnesota Statutes ~ 473H.Ol- 473 H.t8; md WHEREAS, the Agricultural Pracrves covenants prohabit non-agricultural uses from occurring on the property until after expiration of the covenants in the year 2002; and WHEREAS. remaining wastewater treatment plant capacity at the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) has Dot been designated or set aside for any urban development on the Seed property; and WHEREAS. the Metropolitan Council has not identified any wastewater treatment alternatives that would expand wastewater treaDnent capacity prior to 2005, for communities utilizing the Empire WWTP; and WHEREAS, the City of Farmington has public:1y acknowledged that development of the Seed Property should not occur for five to seven years, because of other development priorities in the City. NOW, lHEREFORE, BE IT FURniER RESOLVED. the Board of Supervison requests that the City Council of the City of Farmington abandon the process of aDlJeXing the Seed property prematurely by ordinance and establish a cooperative process with the Town of Empire and the property owner for orderly umexatiOD- The communities have already drafted such an agreement, which can be easily modified to address the Seed property. The Town Board will not require that the City endorse or remain silClll on issues of Township u:rMn;7~tion as a condition of the orderly annexation agreement. Adopted this 3rd day of December 1998. ~e (~/? G.E. Stetzel, Chair ....- City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us h- TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - A ward Contract for Sewer Lift Station Generators and Electrical Work DATE: December 7, 1998 INTRODUCTION Bids were received for the sewer lift station generator and electrical work on Thursday, December 2, 1998. DISCUSSION The generator and electrical work for the sewer lift stations was bid together with generator and electrical work for the water supply wells for the purpose of obtaining better bid prices. The Water Board will be awarding the work for the water supply wells (Part 1) and will be solely responsible for the costs associated with Part 1. The work that is related to the sewer lift stations (Part 2) is the work presented to Council for award. Electrical Installation & Maintenance has submitted the low base bid in the amount of $145,760.00 (see attached bid tabulation). The amount for Part 2 (sewer lift station work) is $76,110.00. The estimated total project cost for Part 2 based on the bid is $106,300, which includes contingencies, engineering, legal and administrative costs. BUDGET IMP ACT The project costs for Part 2, the sewer lift station work, will be funded out of the Sanitary Sewer Fund. Part 1, which consists work for the water supply wells will be funded by the Water Board. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution accepting Part 2 of the base bid of Electrical Installation & Maintenance in the amount of$ 76,110.00. Respectfully submitted, ?bm~ Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file jJ1j Bonestroo U~ Rosene . Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects December 7, 1998 'iOll('ttr,Jn, lIu~ftor!, An((.!rtlk .Inrt AuudJrL"S. 1m: r\ ,In A"/,mdr/V~ .A.,'/ItHJ rLftMI OI-""'~lrtfHlIty F"",I"p" "t"IC'piO". ()tl\/ G. B<meltroo. PF. . Jllleptl C "'nt1~rlik. ~r. . Marv,n I ~",v"',,, ~.(. . RI""1"" L rLlr~r, p.r. . Cilermll (,,,,k. r[ . Ur,l)cr' (; ~c hul'lll~hl. I'~. . ."..rrv A 1l"",c.JOtl. P.E. . ~"I'lr.rt W. R",,,,,e, Poe, itn" ~lll..n M. fbe""1, C.PI\.. ~r.n'ur Cu",ullilnts AlJl'C'i.,ltc P",'CI/J.IW Howarc.1 A. 'i..q/llf(J, ~.E. . Keltn A (,,,,till", r.r..' RoDert K Pfrfl..r'p.. ~(. . RldHrd W. F"t~et, PoG:. . DJVld 0 II),k"t.., PE. . lIo/Jerl ( RII"..k. A.I A . MdrK A H,,"'lJn. Pf . Mlthaell. R.11.lIm;Onn. PE. . led p;.Hl'ld, P.f. . Krtlnelh P ^n(t,.."",1. pr. . Malk If. Rol/l. ~~ . sidney P Wllhlllnlon, ~r.. l..S. . Rotlcrl ~ ~\lI\l"iU", . ^gnl.'S M. Ilmq . Mj~,"...,,' r If.IlI, PE. . AlIlIll RicK sr.l1mldl, 1',6. Off/e'''': SI. P;lul,llocl1cltcr. W,lImll' drIll R CI,"'.Id. IVIN . M,lw..uk"e. WI WeDsrtc' www.boneilroo.r.om City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Fannington,~ 55024 Re: Emergency Generators BRA File No. J 4 J .98-806 Honorable Mayor and City Council: Bids were opened for the project stated above on Thursday, December 3, 1998. Transmitted herewith are ten (10) copies ofthe bid tabulation for your information and file. Copies will also be distributed to each bidder. The following summarizes the results of the five low bids received. Low #2 #3 #4 NS Contr9clor Electrical Installation & Maint. Total Construction & Equip., lm~. Klein Electric, Inc. Bacons Electric Co. Kehne Electric Corp<>ration BQJe IJld $145,760.00 $147,569.00 $157,352.00 $169,69S.00 $171,190.00 The low bidder on the project was Electrical lnstallation & Maint. with a Base Bid of5145,760.00. This compares favorably with the engineer's estimate ofS220,OOO.OO. These bids have been reviewed and found to be in order. There/ore, we recommend that the project be awarded to Electrical Installation & Millnt./or the Total Base Bid amount of $14J, 160.00. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call. My direct number is (612) 604-4872. .,. Rospectfully, .. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOClA TES. INC. ~(~~ MRR:jms:enc '~:. . 9~O:ON {""'O~/~OI::\1l"'O.~,:,~,,;,h\.~::lI6'/1 I~OI./';I<:t P;IIIII MN a;1Ijj113 · 612-636-4600 · Fax: 612-636-1311 ::I c. ~ '/::1'" 0 L c.... ~~~~9~9~S9 S )II1M30NV 3N3S0M OO~lS3N08 .:.... .Q .t2 :i ,~ 1J "J Cl ,', '" . ~ :.... ~ 8 ~ QO ~ - ~ ....... U d Z ~ 4;1 r." re ~ go ~ - ...1.. .~ " " ..1.. .. '. . 1 '(j ~ a a. Z :;. Q~ ~j ~ ~ .......J ~ e .~ Il~ ...... o 8 ';l ..!! ::s ~ loI ~~1 i!~ ~ 1 ....;] ,0 II ;! ~ .... f f"l_ or-l Z .! ;52 IJ N 0 I o ~-I Z-q "I:l:3\;1l =~r:d ~l !! ~ tI ~;e !i 1; ! ! nt :all :g!i ~, j!1';II,. --..;..~ 1..--- 8 i :;;J ~ 8 g ~ ! ~ ! ; $ ~ ID 8. ! I 0\ ~ ! 8 ~ .,;' ~ .,;' i I ... ~ a ~ .... 8 8 " ~ ; QD .,;'.;; QD 9~O :ON ~O/~O: Q OfJ: ~ ~ 96/ lO/2~ i fool ~ 8 ~ 8 ~ $ ~ i. V', g r~ ;, .,., ! $ ~ ~ 8 ~ DO .,., 8 :Q "\ .,., 8 g ~~ .,., Cl' "'" 1 1-0 :3 ~ l:s: a 1"'1 '4t :3 ':J "t V"\ :3 ~ V"\ 8 ~ ~ :3 ~ IlIIl 00 .,., :3 ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ .., 88 ~~ ..,. -D I'- 8 ~ ..; 8 ! ~ ~ ~ ~ .-i.j ,... 8 ~ N 8 ~ N 8 o ~ N 8 ~ 8 8 ~! '" 8 g ~ 8 ~ ,.( III ...l fI:l ...... f] ~ 1 i ~ if j~Js. j~l. Iii I ~ t 1 i8 1 .8 In} ~t~ 1.Jll.1tl;!i~ Z~llj=:l!- 111 11], i ..:.~ lr ~-arlll~iHj:l=lI. ='~ . 11'~ Ii 'j! 1 .~ !ii! '; '!2 .- 8 .~ lI.!: ",,1iI~Jl:l1i: ~jl:jU.N:S.Nl- ~ - N ~ ~ ~~~~9~9~~9 A 8 ~ 't ~ ~ ..., !;; f"l $ 00 ::l ~i $ .... &; ,.( :3 ~ g g ..,. ..; :3 ~ N :3 g ..,. of ~ N .,., r~ - '" 8 ~ N :3 ~ ~ ~ g 8 ~ ,...; - ai .,., g ~ :3 ...j ,., r0- o' :3 ~ - ;; ~. ..I '" ~ g I": ... \() ~ ~ 8 8 r.~ - 1"'1 < IoU In ..J _ 'l:I '0 ;, fa _ ~ il ~Iiij~j Ji' ~"?~l!~~ ., ~] ~ 'il] ~ .'4 ..! S :I'''' S J ~ J t 5 1 ~ ~ g J &. t3 'i! ~ "'.~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~& .~ ~ ~~ ;J~..~~..'O~!1u ~ ~ s~, i ] ! ...... ~ ] " .~ G ~ ~ ft' ~ ; t ~' ~6:;~",~el:l:ts:!! V"\ '.tl "'" ~I1M30N~ 3N3S0M OOM1S3N08 ~ co ... .Cl ~ .... ~ S I~J ~~ ~ '.c; ~-:I "? CI:l 'J;' ~ '1 ..' - - .: 8 8. 8 8. 8. 8. 8. 8 8 I ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ,., I~ ~ ~ gg .. M .... N r! - 8. i 8 g g ; ~ N ~ i ~' ~ N .... N I 8 $ 8 8 8 8.~ 8 I ! l<'i ~ ~ l<'i l ~. ~ ! ~ ~ .... .... ..-) .... - t ~ ,.... - I 8. 8 8 8. 8 8 '" .,.; ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~. .... l"'I "" '" - I 8. ~ 8 8 8. 8.~ g 8 i ~ ~ 8 ~ l ~ N "'1 ~i ~ ~ .., .... ,., ~ g ... I s. I 8 8 8 8 ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ,... .... I'i l 8 8. 8 8. ; 88 8 8 . ~ ! ~ &<: ~~ ~ a\ , 0. =. r; ""; "r N N ~ .... f; ""' .. 0 8. i. 8 8 8. 8 11 - <',~ p~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ! J 1Il 8:- N N ot, ',', I 8. 8. 8 8 ~ 8. 0 8 ... s ~ , ' ~ ~ ei ; ; i~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ... ;:r - ~ M M N ~ ~ ... . 8. 8 8 8. ; g a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,..; ;:i ri N '.. ... !J ~ :l ~ ~ ~ ~ '1 1 11 -,11 i 1 ! , 1 ~ -I- 1~~ 11~ ~ , 11 '~.Ii l.s ; .5 G ~ 'S 1 I J .! I ~ '1) ~. ~ e 1 ! ~ 11 . ~ 11 -I J "b Iii ~ili~~l ~]2i~i 1 j 11 ~ ~ 1 t i ! j 1 ~ ] J 1 ,j .~ j 1 .j t 1 J f!l ~ ~ 19 !~~~l ~H ! , ~'di 3Jd~~d3~lhl:f~ 'lj~ lJ!';'E~~..!il~gut~ II 'I Q ::: - ~ 11 ,f ~ ~ l~ ~ ~ l'a ~ ~ I, i '... ! j I ~ . I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. Q\ ~ M -' .... ... i : I J . I I ! ~ ~ J ! 1 J ! ! ! R~O:ON so/~o: Q O~:SL R6/l0/2L LL~L9~9LS9 S i I ~ ~ ~ l ~ a 0 = ~ ~ t e ~ :g ~ !! ~ 4( ,,' .&> i:s 15 ~ "'i' '7' q- .. ~ s .., ] ~ "" 5 e Ii 'Q !! ~ ~ t ~ B ~ .~ ... ;; ';) ~ C '<:I .. ~ _ :e 0( "' ;0 0::' "'i' '" ~ - .". .". ~I1H3aN~ 3N3S0H OOHlS3N08 .. ...1>> ~ ! . ,:~ iii ~ lr\ _ ~ . '11:1 ;: .l~~;~I] :!.~!~~i' ~~ r:' ..:. d ~ ~ J :,' I ~ i.hiHjH~ .j . ~ JPB~ l Hhuh~ -,~ ... . $: . :. 'jlr\ ....~! Hh~] ~11'1,.ul] . ...~.i~!92!;'!~ , '. . ., . 0- . ~1'1"]' .. !( ~ ~ :9 ~ .. ~ ~ 'Cl = 0 I I .J~1~!~~fl ..J,~ =~ . u ~ i ., g~O:ON so/so: rQ o~:s~ g6/l0/2~ ~~~~9~9~S9 S! '"' ~ /:Xl r'. .LJ ::l ~ "';' "" ~ ..,. \0 ~ 'TJ '7,' ';f - ... ..,. - ~Il~30N~ 3N3S0~ OO~lS3N08 RESOLUTION NO. R -98 AWARD CONTRACT FOR PROJECT NO. 98-34 GENERATOR WORK 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 7th day of December, 1998 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 an advertisement for bids for Generator Work, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: Contractor Total Base Bid Electrical Installation & Maintenance ........$145,760.00 Total Construction ......................................$147,569.00 Klein Electric ... ............ ............. ............ ..... .$157,352.00 ;and WHEREAS, it appears the firm of Electrical Installation & Maintenance IS the lowest responsible bidder ;and WHEREAS, the City Council will be accepting Part 2 of the bids for generator work for the sanitary sewer system, in the amount of $76,110.00 ;and WHEREAS, the Farmington Water Board will be accepting Part 1 of the bids for generator work for the water supply wells in a separate action. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. Part 2 of the base bid of Electrical Installation & Maintenance for $76,110.00 is hereby accepted and awarded and the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract therefore. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 7th day of December, 1998. Mayor Attested to the day of December, 1998. SEAL Clerk! Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /Od TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Marcus Cable Franchise Agreement - Negotiations Update DATE: December 7, 1998 INTRODUCTION As Council is aware, franchise renewal negotiations with Marcus Cable have been occurring over the past 18 months. Mr. Thomas Creighton was retained by the cities of Apple Valley, Rosemount and Farmington to conduct joint negotiations on behalf of the three communities. While a number of franchise issues have been settled, several key matters remain unresolved as of this date. DISCUSSION Outstanding issues with Marcus Cable include primarily a capital grant of which Marcus Cable continues to resist in terms of applicability, duration, annual amounts and implementation. As previously communicated to Council, the issue of a capital grant was discussed with Marcus Cable from the outset of renewal negotiations, almost 18 months ago. Prior to the most recent meeting with the cities of Apple Valley and Rosemount on November 23, 1998, it appeared, based on e-mail communications from Mr. Creighton, that Marcus Cable had tentatively agreed to figures presented by the three cities. The figures presented called for a first year capital grant of $60,000, and $12,500 each year to the City thereafter for the life (15 years) of the agreement. Without prior warning to the contrary, Marcus Cable representatives at the meeting indicated that these figures were unacceptable. On Friday, December 4, 1998, the company submitted a counteroffer that was deemed unacceptable to the three cities. Council should be aware that negotiations with Marcus Cable have unfortunately been drawn out and become difficult. During this negotiation period, Marcus Cable has been in the process of being sold and ownership transferred to a third party concern, but initially neglected to comply with the terms of the existing franchise agreement. While this particular issue has been resolved by Mr. Creighton, it has been reported that Marcus Cable representatives have attempted to circumvent the process by directly communicating with city staff and commission members seeking to weaken the unified negotiations approach approved by the three cities' respective Councils. Mayor and Council Members Marcus Cable Franchise Agreement - Negotiations Update Page 2 of3 During negotiations, Marcus Cable representatives have attempted to advance an argument suggesting that capital grants will result in an increase in their rates, and that the cities' capital grant requests are unreasonable. The three cities have regarded Marcus Cable's position in this matter as inflammatory and without merit. As the continued profitability of the company was an obvious factor in the recent acquisition of the company by a former Microsoft Corporation senior executive, their position becomes even less credible. Moreover, a rate survey of other metropolitan communities prepared by Mr. Creighton suggests that the company's rates, absent any type of capital grant contribution coupled with no commitment to provide an institutional network in the three cities, is generally high, in comparison to other surveyed communities in which those cable companies already make capital grant contributions and provide a significant institutional network. Furthermore, Marcus Cable continues to expand its telecommunications business into the voice, video and data markets that will continue to generate additional market share and enhanced corporate profitability. Marcus Cable is not obligated to raise its rates to recover capital grants but rather is allowed to pass on these costs under federal law if they so chose in their rate structure. Consequently, any decision by Marcus Cable to pass on these costs is entirely their own, as evidenced by numerous other rate changes which have been implemented by the company over the last two years. While federal law requires the cities to consider the cost of any demand in renewal, the company's decision to raise its rates to increase its profitability as a result of renewal commitm~nts is not a City consideration. As other metropolitan cities have received capital grants and institutional network commitments as part of their franchise renewals, the cities' request is neither unusual or extravagant. In an effort to provide Council with a first hand account on the status of cable negotiations, Mr. Creighton will be in attendance at the Council meeting to discuss next step issues and answer any questions Council may have regarding the potential implications associated with the non-renewal of the Marcus Cable Franchise Agreement. I S.D. 192 Technical Assistance In the course of several conversations with Acting Superintendent Endersbe relative to the City's goal to update the Council Chambers with voice, video and data enhancements, the district has generously offered to provide staff assistance and expertise. School District Information Technology Director Rosalyn Pautzke will be assisting City staff in the technical aspects of updating the Council Chamber with new equipment that will hopefully be purchased with cable franchise capital grants. In addition, Mr. Endersbe has offered the City the opportunity to utilize student interns to both operate and train City staff on the use of the video equipment during Council meetings, and the use of their multimedia studio to produce any special City programming. I would ask Council to Mayor and Council Members Marcus Cable Franchise Agreement - Negotiations Update Page 3 of3 join me in extending our sincere thanks and gratitude to the I.S.D. 192 School Board and Mr. Endersbe for their cooperative spirit and efforts in assisting the City with this endeavor. ACTION REQUESTED The failure to negotiate an acceptable franchise agreement to-date with the three cities is a company responsibility specified under the terms and conditions of the franchise agreement. As Marcus Cable utilizes public rights-of-way and is expected under federal law to support public access, the City has a legitimate public and legal right to negotiate an appropriate agreement from this private for-profit service provider. Mr. Creighton will present his views on a recommended course of action at the meeting. In light of the fact that Marcus Cable has attempted to circumvent the appropriate negotiation format, an attached resolution is presented for Council's consideration and adoption. The adoption of this resolution is of particular importance to the City as the negotiations with Marcus Cable are at a critical juncture. This action will underscore the importance of maintaining support for the cities' unified negotiation approach as integral to the successful conclusion of the renewal process. Cc: John Gretz, Apple Valley City Administrator Tom Burt, Rosemount City Administrator Tom Creighton, City Franchise Negotiator RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION LIMITING CITY COUNCIL INDIVIDUAL CONTACT IN CITY CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE RENEWAL AND TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP NEGOTIATIONS WHEREAS, the cities of Apple Valley, Rosemount and Farmington (Hereinafter "Cities") are currently involved in cable television franchise renewal negotiations with Marcus Cable Partners, L.P. (Hereinafter "Marcus"); and WHEREAS, the Cities are also in the process of reviewing a request from Marcus to transfer ownership of the cable television system and franchise; and WHEREAS, both the renewal negotiation and the transfer analysis have reached delicate points requiring maximum access by the public to all communications received by Members of the Farmington City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Farmington believe that regarding both the franchise renewal discussions and the transfer of ownership analysis, anything worthy of communicating to one Member of the City Council is worthy of communicating to all Council Members and the general public; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Farmington has previously authorized the joint negotiations of the City's Franchise Agreement through a Memorandum of Understanding with the cities of Apple Valley and Rosemount designating the appropriate franchise negotiation representative. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Dakota County, Minnesota, that: 1. Any communication to individual Members of the City Council from Marcus, or any representative or agent of Marcus must be made either in writing to all Members of the City Council, with copies to the City Administrator and the City's Franchise Negotiation Representative, and made a part of the public record, or must be made at a public meeting of the City Council: and 2. Any individual written or oral communication to any Member of the City Council from Marcus will be reported to the entire council at the next public meeting of the City Council and recorded in the public record as a violation of this Resolution: and 3. A copy of this Resolution shall be forwarded to Marcus. ADOPTED this _ day of ,1998. Gerald Ristow, Mayor ATTEST: John F. Erar, City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us Sa.. TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: 1998 Distinguished Budget Award Presentation DATE: December 7, 1998 INTRODUCTION The City Management Team is very pleased to announce that the City has been notified by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), the national professional organization of chief financial officers, that the 1998 City Budget submittal has been awarded the "highest form of recognition in governmental budgeting": the Distinguished Budget Award Presentation for fiscal year 1998. DISCUSSION Presenting the award on behalf ofthe GFOA is Mr. Edward Burrell, Chief Financial Officer for the city of Roseville. This national award recognizes excellence in budgeting in four major areas: as a Policy Document; as a Financial Plan; as an Operations Guide; and as a Communications Device. Proficiency in these four areas of budgetary management and reporting recognizes the City as one of a select few communities across the country that have been able to meet strict, national standards on financial management and reporting. The City Council, management team, and especially the Finance Director and her staff, can take great pride and credit in producing a document that is recognized at a national level for excellence in financial management, reporting, planning and strategic vision. Congratulations to the City Council, department directors and staff for an outstanding and inspiring commitment to the highest ideals of financial accountability and responsibility to the taxpayers of this community. ACTION REOUESTED Council acceptance of the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award on behalf of the citizens and staff of the City of Farmington. ReSP~d, f:~ 7~ COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR November 16, 1998 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, Fitch, Gamer, Strachan None City Administrator Erar, Attorney Joel Jamnik, City Management Team 4. APPROVE A GENDA MOTION by Fitch, second by Gamer to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS a) Mr. John Richardson, 35 Elm Street, Water Concerns At the November 2, 1998 Council Meeting, Mr. Richardson expressed concern regarding the water system and the fire damaged house at 300 1 st Street. Staff replied the water service was shut off the day of the fire at the residence. It was shut off at the curb box. 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Strachan, second by Gamer to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: Item 7b, Organizational Realignment - Parks and Recreation Department, was pulled for discussion. Councilmember Cordes inquired if changing the position from one full-time person to two part-time people will have a negative effect on the Recreation program, and if the job duties have been assigned. Staff replied the full-time hours of operation will be covered. This gives the City the opportunity to have two qualified people working on recreational programs. Job duties are still being worked out, and the situation will be monitored. Both positions are supervisory positions and the assistant would report to both supervisors. Item 7h, Adopt Resolution - Request MnDOT Cooperative Agreement, was also pulled, as the Mayor abstained from voting. Council Minutes (Regular) November 16, 1998 Page 2 a) Approved Council Minutes 11/2/98 (Regular) and 11/4/98 (Special) b) Accepted organizational realignment - Parks and Recreation Department c) Approved 2nd Street parking lot change order d) Adopted 1999-2003 Capital Improvement Plan e) Adopted RESOLUTION R114-98 approving application for Elderly and Disabled Transit Providers Grant f) AJ'proved Development Contract Release, lot 2, block 1, Dakota County Estates 9 Addition g) Approved placement of Neighborhood Watch signs h) MOTION by Fitch, second by Gamer to adopt RESOLUTION R115-98 requesting MnDOT Cooperative Agreement. Abstaining: Mayor Ristow. Voting for: Cordes, Fitch, Gamer, Strachan. i) Approved bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Certification of Delinquent Municipal Services Minnesota State Statutes grants municipalities the authority to certify delinquent utility accounts to property owners' real estate taxes as a special assessment for collection. All property owners with delinquent utility bills (over 90 days overdue) have been notified by mail and may pay their delinquent amount by December 1, 1998 to avoid certification. This includes water, sewer, garbage, and storm water. MOTION by Gamer, second by Cordes to close the Public Hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Strachan, second by Gamer to adopt RESOLUTION R116-98 approving certification of delinquent municipal services. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Certification of Delinquent City Service Charges Minnesota State Statutes grants municipalities the authority to certify delinquent City service accounts to property owners' real estate taxes as a special assessment for collection. Five accounts in the total amount of$599.91 were outstanding. These accounts were billed for mowing or weeds. MOTION by Gamer, second by Cordes to close the Public Hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Fitch, second by Gamer to adopt RESOLUTION R117-98 approving certification of delinquent City service charges. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Various Licenses and Permits On-Sale Liquor Licenses, On-Sale Sunday Liquor Licenses, Club Licenses, and Saunas and Therapeutic Massage Licenses for various establishments need to be renewed. The required attachments, fees and insurance information have been submitted with the applications. The Police Chiefhas reviewed the forms and approved the applications. MOTION by Strachan, second by Gamer to close the Council Minutes (Regular) November 16, 1998 Page 3 Public Hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Gamer, second by Cordes to approve the various licenses and permits. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Customer Service Satisfaction Report All citizen contacts with the City are documented in terms of complaint type, referring department, priority of service request and service outcomes. On average, over 95% of citizen requests for service are handled and addressed within a 1-3 day period. In terms of how "promptly the City reacted to citizen requests," the degree of "how personally satisfied citizens were with service outcomes," and was City staff "courteous and helpful" in responding to citizen requests, response data suggests a very high level of customer satisfaction in all three categories. In terms of core customer service skills, City staff have achieved an impressive 99% rating in "courteous and helpful service" regardless of how personally satisfied a resident was with service outcomes. This reflects a true customer service philosophy. b) Adopt Resolution - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cameron Woods Co- op Housing Project Mr. Benedict is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from the existing low-density residential to medium-density residential. The proposed development for the property consists of a senior cooperative housing facility on 13.7 acres. Mr. Benedict will dedicate 1.72 acres of the site to the City for parkland at the southwest corner of the property. The City will also receive 3.53 acres of unbuildable land from Mr. Benedict located at the southeast corner of the property, thereby creating a natural buffer to the west and south of the property. The developer, Wensmann Homes, has met with the residents to discuss the development. Ms. Kelly Murray, Wensmann Homes and Wensco, stated the housing will be for people age 62 and over and explained how the co-op works. The application to amend the Comprehensive Plan was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at their October 29, 1998 meeting. MOTION by Gamer, second by Strachan to adopt RESOLUTION R118-98 approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from low-density residential to medium-density residential for 13.7 acres owned by Mr. Jack Benedict, subject to Metropolitan Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) November 16, 1998 Page 4 c) Adopt Ordinance - Zoning Change Cameron Woods Co-op Housing Project Mr. Benedict is requesting to rezone his property consisting of 13.7 acres as amended in the Comprehensive Plan for the existing R-l PUD - Low Density- Single Family Planned Unit Development to R-2 PUD - Medium Density - Single Family Planned Unit Development. The proposed development consists of two, 3-story, 41-unit buildings. The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the application to rezone the Benedict property at their October 29, 1998 meeting. MOTION by Gamer, second by Strachan to adopt ORDINANCE 098-418 approving the rezoning of the Jack Benedict property and the proposed schematic PUD plan subject to Metropolitan Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) BATC Task Force Communications A communication from the Builders Association of the Twin Cities (BA TC), dated November 4, 1998, has been received. The BATC has indicated a strong desire to have additional involvement in the preparation of City Fee Schedules that would affect both the type and amount of fees proposed on new development in the City. The Council and Staff agreed that the City is not interested in pursuing this line of involvement. Staff will draft a letter to the BA TC on behalf of Council. MOTION by Strachan, second by Gamer to limit BATC's involvement in the private development process to improved communications in the areas of engineering guidelines and community development design standards. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Prairie Creek 3rd and 4th Storm Sewer Project - Update The City Council held a workshop on September 16, 1998 to discuss staffs findings regarding the petition forwarded by the citizens in Prairie Creek 3rd Addition. Council was informed that the current storm sewer system in the 3rd and 4th Addition does not meet City standards for storm sewer design. Staff met with the developer, Mr. Israelson, on October 8 and 12, 1998 to inform him of the situation and supply him with staffs calculations regarding the storm sewer design. Mr. Israelson has indicated that he would not be willing to pay for the improvements as identified by staff that would upgrade the system to meet City design standards. Mr. Israelson did indicate that he would be willing to pay for the installation of a pipe that would help alleviate the ponding in the back yards of the residents along Embers Avenue. However, this proposal would not bring the storm sewer system into compliance with the City's standards for storm sewer design. Staff informed Council anything less than City standards is unacceptable. The developer's letter indicates he is not willing to comply with what is necessary to alleviate the problem, therefore the situation should be referred to the City Attorney. Council Minutes (Regular) November 16, 1998 Page 5 Mr. Israelson stated there are two issues here. The first issue is solving the problem stated in the petition. Installing a pipe will solve the problem of ponding in the backyard. The second issue is the design standards. There are three issues to designing storm sewers. Two of them are left to the engineer's judgement. When you have different engineers involved, you will have different answers. Mr. Israelson stated it is not necessary to redesign the storm sewer. He also informed Council he will be selling the property to the east to MW Johnson and Keyland Homes. Mr. Bill Johnson, MW Johnson, stated he needs lots and wants to develop the remaining property. He wants to make sure the current situation doesn't affect future development. Staff commented that any future development has to be tied in with what is there now. Councilmember Fitch stated the Council has approved the project in the 1999 CIP. Therefore, the developers need to be told this is what needs to be done. Councilmember Strachan stated he needs three things: 1) to be comfortable with the outcome for the homeowners, 2) he needs to know that City Engineer Mann is comfortable with the outcome and it resolves the issues, and 3) regarding linking a new area with 3rd and 4th Addition, he needs an answer as to why are we looking at developing this land that will have water problems when the current one has water going in people's basements? Staff will begin preparation of the feasibility report and it should be available in early 1999. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Adopt Resolution - Accept Downtown Streetscaping Project Feasibility Report Staff presented the feasibility report requested by Council regarding the improvements associated with reconstructing the downtown sidewalk and street lighting. The three options for reconstructing the sidewalk are: 1) a base option (regular concrete), 2) concrete with pavers (50% regular concrete / 50% pavers) and 3) pavers alone. An issue for Council to consider is whether or not to include the alley between 2nd and 3rd Street in the project. The report also includes cost estimates for removing and replacing the streetlights and trees and adding various amenities. The City's Special Assessment Policy indicates that 35% ofthe project costs for reconstruction projects are to be assessed against the benefiting properties, subject to an appraisal of the properties verifying the amount of benefit. The remaining 65% of the project costs would be funded by the City. Councilmember Fitch stated the City's policy of 35% - 65% needs to be clear before the neighborhood meeting. Staff stated Council is only accepting the feasibility report, not the funding. However, 35% of the cost must be assessed. MOTION by Gamer, second by Cordes to adopt RESOLUTION R119-98 accepting the feasibility report. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) November 16, 1998 Page 6 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Bond Sale - G.O. Improvement Bonds of 1998 The City Council authorized the sale of General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1998 to fund the City's portion of the County State Aid Highway 31 project. The City received 4 bids. Piper Jaffray was the low bidder at a net interest rate of 4.39%, making the total interest cost $915,465. MOTION by Gamer, second by Strachan adopting RESOLUTION R120-98 awarding the sale of the $2,325,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1998 to Piper Jaffray at a net interest rate of 4.39%. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Adopt Resolution - 1998 Budget Reappropriations A review of the 1998 budget suggests a need to revise the adopted revenue and expenditure levels to more closely reflect department service levels. The revenue projected in the 1998 adopted budget was $3,542,640. Revised projections show General Fund revenues of $3,854,316 - an increase of $311 ,676. This increase is due primarily to an increase in the amount of MSA maintenance funds allocated to the General Fund which was not identified in the adopted budget, reimbursement of flood expenses from the 1993 FEMA grant, and increased grants, police and fire aid revenues. The 1998 adopted budget called for $3,511,652 of General Fund expenditures. The revised projection calls for $3,597,187 - an increase, before transfers out, of$85,535. This increase is primarily due to changes in accounting practices and represents a 2.4% change in revised expenditure forecasts from the adopted budget. MOTION by Gamer, second by Cordes to adopt RESOLUTION R121-98 approving the 1998 Revised Budget. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Adopt Resolution - Request Extension for Comprehensive Plan Update The City needs to adopt a resolution to request approval of an extension of the Metropolitan Council's deadline of December 31, 1998 for completion of the City's Comprehensive Plan Update. While considerable progress is being made towards the completion of the Plan, it will not be possible to complete the Plan and allow for the 60 day review and comment period to be completed by December 31, 1998. It is suggested that the requested deadline extension be June 30, 1999. MOTION by Cordes, second by Gamer to adopt RESOLUTION R122-98 approving a six-month extension for the submittal of the Comprehensive Plan Update. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Gamer: Reminded everyone ofthe meeting at Castle Rock Town Hall regarding Ash Street and the 3 rd phase of the Prairie Waterway. Council Minutes (Regular) November 16, 1998 Page 7 Councilmember Fitch: It has been brought to his attention that a public official has been discussing with newly elected councilmembers, the future of our City Administrator. The Council appoints the Administrator to make decisions with the City's best interests in mind and according to policy set by Council. He asked for examples of where policies have not been carried out. He stated the entire Staff has performed their jobs at an extremely high level of professionalism and competence. He is thankful for the opportunity to work with this Staff which has made Council look very favorable in the citizen's eyes. City Administrator Erar: There is a joint Council/Planning Commission meeting at 7 p.m. on November 18, 1998. Community Development Director Olson: He talked to a trustee of the Eagles Club. The curb work is done and the goal is to get the parking lot done. Parks & Rec Director Bell: The P A system is in the arena. The team rooms are 99% done. Mayor Ristow: The lights are on in the 2nd Street Parking Lot. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Fitch, second by Gamer to adjourn at 9:20 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 76 Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrato~ Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Various City License Renewals DATE: December 7, 1998 INTRODUCTION City Ordinance 3-2-5 states that the Council has the authority to approve Off-Sale Beer Licenses; Ordinance 3-25-7 regulates the granting of licenses for Billiard Halls; Ordinance 3-7-3 regulates the granting of Cigarette Licenses; Gaming Device Licenses are renewed by the City Council after application has been made in accordance with Ordinance 3-16-2. DISCUSSION The following establishments have submitted their applications for renewal: Beer Off-Sale - Gaming Device License - Billiard License - Cigarette License - Tom Thumb Superette, 22280 Chippendale Budget Mart, 705 8th Street Kwik Trip, 217 Elm Street Super America, 18520 Pilot Knob Road Farmington Lanes, 27 5th Street Farmington Billiards, 933 8th Street B&B Pizza, 216 Elm Street Farmington Billiards, 933 8th Street Longbranch Saloon & Eatery, 309 3rd Street Farmington Lanes, 27 5th Street American Lefion, 10 North 8th Street VFW, 421 3r Street Farmington Eagles Club, 200 3rd Street Farmington Municipal Liquor Stores, 18320 Pilot Knob Road Farmington Municipal Liquor Stores, 305 3rd Street Townsedge Car Care, 957 8th Street More4, 115 Elm Street Tom Thumb, 22280 Chippendale Blvd K wik Trip, 217 Elm Street Budget Mart, 705 8th Street Budget Mart, 18266 Pilot Knob Road Speedway SuperAmerica, 18520 Pilot Knob Road The appropriate forms, fees and insurance information have been submitted with the applications. Police Chief Dan Siebenaler has reviewed the forms and approved the applications. BUDGET IMPACT The fees collected are as proposed in the revenue portion of the budget. ACTION REOUESTED Approve Licenses for the above mentioned applicants. Respectfully submitted, J/Wu-- T~ Karen Finstuen Administrative Services Manager City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7c TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director FROM: SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Tree City USA Application DATE: December 7, 1998 INTRODUCTION Council consider the adoption of a resolution authorizing application for the City's Tree City USA designation. DISCUSSION The City has received the Tree City USA designation the past number of years. Council adoption of the attached resolution will authorize the application for the Tree City USA designation for 1998. This designation honors cities that have demonstrated a commitment to forestation efforts in their respective communities. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the application for the 1998 Tree City USA designation. Respectfully submitted, -L-~ James Bell Parks and Recreation Director PROPOSED RESOLUTION No. APPROVE APPLICATION FOR TREE CITY USA DESIGNATION 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 7th day of December, 1998 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, the City ofParmington has been designated a Tree City USA in the past; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to become a Tree City USA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Farmington hereby directs staff to submit an application to the National Arbor Day Foundation for the 1998 Tree City USA designation. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 7th day of December, 1998. Mayor Attested to the day of December, 1998. City Administrator SEAL City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmineton.mn.us /d FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ David R. Sanocki, Engineering Division ~ TO: SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Private Development Project Closeout DATE: December 7, 1998 INTRODUCTION The improvements outlined in the Development Contracts for East Farmington 2nd Addition have been substantially completed. DISCUSSION The East Farmington 2nd Addition Development Contract was signed on June 3, 1996 between the City and Sienna Corporation. The completion date for this project was October 30, 1997. The project has been substantially completed except for four minor punchlist items (concrete and grading related). The developer has submitted a check, in the amount of $2,000.00, to cover the remaining punchlist work that will be completed next year. BUDGET IMPACT None ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution accepting the street and utility improvements for East Faimington 2nd Addition. J!(JRV David R. Sanocki Engineering Division cc: file RESOLUTION NO. R . -98 ACCEPTING EAST FARMINGTON 2ND ADDITION STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. 96-17 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 7th day of December, 1998 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 a written contract signed with the City on June 3, 1996, Sienna Corporation of Minneapolis, Minnesota has satisfactorily substantially completed the requirements of the developers agreement for East Farmington 2nd Addition. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota that the work completed under said agreement is hereby accepted by the City. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 7th day of December, 1998. Mayor Attested to the 8th day of December, 1998. SEAL City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us k TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administratorfi- Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief FROM: SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Approving Joint Powers Agreement - Fire Department DATE: December 7, 1998 INTRODUCTION The Farmington Fire Department would like to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Apple Valley for Fit Testing Firefighter Respirators. DISCUSSION The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has adopted new regulations that require "before an employee may be required to use any respirator with a negative or positive pressure tight-fitting facepiece, the employee must be fit tested with the same make, model, style and size of respirator that will be used." The Farmington Fire Department is without testing equipment to administer the quantitative testing under the OSHA requirements. The Apple V alley Fire Department shares in the ownership of the necessary testing equipment with two other cities and has the staff and resources available to provide fit testing of respirators to the Farmington Fire Department. BUDGET IMPACT The cost for this service will be provided to the City on an hourly basis. Funding for this annual requirement will be appropriated through the 1999 Budget. ACTION REOUESTED Adopt the attached resolution approving the Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Apple Valley. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Ken Kuchera .. Fire Chief CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Attorneys at Law November 19, 1998 Joel J. Jamnik Andrea McDowell Poehler Matthew K. Brokl* John F. Kelly Matthew J. Foli Marguerite M. McCarron George T. Stephenson :'. A/51) licensed in \\?isconsin Thomas J. Camphell Roger N. Knutson Thomas M. Scott Elliott B. Knetsch Suesan Lea Pace (651) 452-5000 Fax (651) 452-5550 Mr. John Erar City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Re: Joint Powers Agreement Between City of Farmington and City of Apple Valley for Fit Testing Firefighter Respirators Dear Mr. Erar: Enclosed herewith please find a copy of the Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Farmington and the City of Apple Valley for Fit Testing Firefighter Respirators and a proposed Resolution approving the Joint Powers Agreement. At the request of Fire Chief Kuchera, please place this matter on the December 7, 1998 City Council agenda. If you have any questions regarding the above, please give me a call. Very truly yours, CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association BY:ClUz~~ Andrea McDowell Poehler AMP:cjh Enclosure cc: Fire Chief Ken Kuchera Suite 317 · Eagandale Office Center · 1380 Corporate Center Curve · Eagan, MN 55121 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FARMINGTON AND THE CITY OF APPLE V ALLEY FOR FIT TESTING FIREFIGHTER RESPIRATORS TIDS AGREEMENT, entered into by and between the CITY OF FARMINGTON, a Minnesota municipal corporation, ("Farmington"), and the CITY OF APPLE VALLEY, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Apple Valley"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has adopted new regulations at 29 C.F.R. ~ 1910 that require: "before an employee may be required to use any respirator with a negative or positive pressure tight-fitting facepiece, the employee must be fit tested with the same make, model, style and size of respirator that will be used;" WHEREAS, Farmington Fire Department is without testing equipment to administer the quantitative testing under the OSHA requirements; WHEREAS, the Apple V alley Fire Department shares in the ownership of the necessary testing equipment with two other cities and has the staff and resources available to provide fit testing of respirators to the Farmington Fire Department; NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL COVENANTS THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. PURPOSE. This Agreement, entered into by the Cities of Farmington and Apple V alley pursuant to statutory authorization provided for by Minnesota Statutes ~ 471.59, is for the purpose of providing respirator fit testing required under 67254.02 Rev: 11/19/98 OSHA regulations by the Apple Valley Fire Department to the Farmington Fire Department. This Agreement may be modified by subsequent agreements of the cities. 2. APPLE VALLEY'S RESPONSIBILITIES. A. Apple Valley shall provide a qualified technician to annually perform quantitative fit testing of each of the Farmington firefighters in accordance with OSHA requirements under 29 C.F.R. ~ 1910. The City of Apple Valley will be solely responsible for compensating the technicians engaged in fit testing under this Agreement, including any overtime wages incurred, as well as any insurance or employee benefits provided under the policies or agreements of the City of Apple Valley. B. Apple Valley shall provide the T.S.I. Port-A-Count and one of the adapters required to conduct the testing under 29 C.F.R. ~ 1910. 3. FARMINGTON'S RESPONSIBILITIES. A. The City of Farmington will, upon presentation of a periodic, detailed billing of services provided, and time spent pursuant to this Agreement, compensate the City of Apple Valley at the rate of Twenty-three and 61/100 Dollars ($23.61) per hour for services rendered under Paragraph 2 of this Agreement. B. Farmington shall provide all software costs, which include a computer to hook up to the T.S.I. Port-A-Count and one of the adapters for the breathing apparatus. 67254.02 Rev:11/19/98 -2- 4. INDEMNIFICATION. Each party to this Agreement agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the other party to this Agreement from any claim or cause of action for death, personal injury, property damage or other acts or omissions which are caused or occasioned by its personnel or equipment under this Agreement. 5. TERMINATION, SEPARABILITY. A. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon ten (10) days notice provided to the respective City Administrators of Farmington or Apple Valley. B. Upon termination, any and all records or property of the respective cities will be returned to the appropriate city. C. This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. D. In the event that any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the other provisions remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Cities of Farmington and Apple Valley have pursuant to the authorizing resolutions hereto attached, caused this Agreement to be duly executed effective on the day and year last entered below. CITY OF FARMINGTON CITY OF APPLE V ALLEY Gerald Ristow, Mayor Gary Humphrey, Mayor John F. Erar, City Administrator John Gretz, City Administrator Date Date 67254.02 Rev:11/19/98 -3- RESOLUTION NO. -98 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FARMINGTON AND THE CITY OF APPLE VALLEY FOR FIT TESTING FIREFIGHTER RESPIRATORS 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 7th day of December, 1998 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has adopted new regulations at 29 C.F.R. ~ 1910 that require: "before an employee may be required to use any respirator with a negative or positive pressure tight-fitting facepiece, the employee must be fit tested with the same make, model, style and size of respirator that will be used; " WHEREAS, Farmington Fire Department is without testing equipment to administer the quantitative testing under the OSHA requirements; WHEREAS, the Apple Valley Fire Department shares in the ownership of the necessary testing equipment with two other cities and has the staff and resources available to provide fit testing of respirators to the Farmington Fire Department; WHEREAS, Apple Valley is willing to provide fit testing of Farmington Fire Department respirators pursuant to the Joint Powers Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A. 67461.02 Rev:11/19/98 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA: The Joint Powers Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby approved. ADOPfED this day of , 1998, by the City Council of the City of Farmington. CITY OF FARMINGTON (SEAL) BY: Mayor ATTEST: Clerk 67461.02 Rev:11/19/98 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us If TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator~ FROM: Lena Larson, Public Works Administrative Assistant '?- Joy Lillejord, Recreation Program Supervisor SUBJECT: Dakota County Environmental Education Program Grant Application DATE: December 7, 1998 INTRODUCTION The Dakota County Environmental Education Program has grant funds available for water quality and wetland education efforts. The Engineering and Recreation Division's plan to submit an application for funding for an educational project at the Farmington Middle School. DISCUSSION The purpose of the educational project is to provide the Farmington Middle School with the Minnesota Science Museum's Water Trunk for a three week period and their Three Rivers assembly programs (see attached project description). Students and their teachers will explore the biology, ecology, water quality and interdependence of the St. Croix, Minnesota and Mississippi river systems. Staff has contacted the appropriate school district staff and they are in favor of the program. The project will take place in the spring of 1999. BUDGET IMPACT Grant applicants must be able to provide a 25% match to the grant dollars requested in the application. The grant amount being requested is $770.00. The 25% match ($192.50) will come from staff time and/or storm water funds. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the attached resolution approving submittal of a grant application to Dakota County Environmental Education. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Lena Larson Public Works Administrative Assistant o. ,~/-L ~- ~&~ Joy Lillejord Recreation Program Supervisor RESOLUTION NO. R -98 APPROVING SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A GRANT FROM THE URBAN NONPOINT POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM 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 7th day of December, 1998 at 7:00 P.M.. The following members were present: The following members were absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, the City of Farmington has applied for a grant from the Dakota County Environmental Education Program, under its Urban Nonpoint Pollution Prevention Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Farmington is committed to implementing the proposed project as described in the grant application if funding is received; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Farmington authorizes and directs the City of Farmington to submit the application for Urban Nonpoint Pollution Prevention funds to Dakota County for the Three Rivers Assembly Program and Water Museum Trunk. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 7th day of December, 1998. Mayor Attested to the day of December, 1998. Clerk! Administrator SEAL Dakota County Environmental Education Program Urban Nonpoint Pollution Prevention Program Request for Funding City: Address: City/Zip: Amount Requested: Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington $770.00 Contact: Phone: Fax: Lena Larson/Joy Lillejord (651) 463-1610/463-1852 (651) 463-1611 Description of educational project (Please keep responses as concise as possible) Overall project goal(s) or outcome(s): To encourage students and teachers to examine the St. Croix, Minnesota, and Mississippi river systems. Students will explore the biology, ecology, water quality and interdependence of these backyard waterways. How outcomes will be measured: (Cities can suggest questions be added to the fall 1997 countywide environmental survey.) Outcomes will be measured through classroom discussions and activities utilizing the Water Museum Trunk provided by the Science Museum. Education project strategies and implementation steps: 1. To help students and their teachers explore the biology, ecology, water quality, and interdependence of the St. Croix, Minnesota and Mississippi river system. 2. To help teachers, students and their parents understand the desirability of healthy rivers and water quality. 3. To help students, teachers, and parents understand the connections between storm sewers and river systems in urban areas. 4. To motivate students to talk with their parents about the importance of healthy river systems and water quality. How the educational project will be evaluated: The Science Museum distributes evaluations to teachers. Results will be shared with the City of Farmington. Target audience(s): rJh, 1h and {fh graders Timeline (all projects must be completed by October 1, 1998): Presentations and water trunk delivery will be scheduled by the Science Museum to be made in April of 1999. Local partnerships involved (i.e., school or youth group, citizen lake association, civic organization business(es) or business organization, etc.): Collaboration with School District 192, and the City of Farmington's Solid Waste and Parks and Recreation Departments with funding partially provided by Dakota County Environmental Education Program through the Urban Nonpoint Pollution Prevention Program. How money will be spent (staff time, specific activity, printed materials, promotional campaign, etc.): One Water Museum Trunk will be delivered to the Farmington Middle Schoolfor a three week period, with three assembly programs scheduled within that three week period The Water Museum Trunk and Assembly Programs are through the Science Museum of Minnesota. The cost of the trunk will be $225 for the trunk, and $475 for three assembly programs of Three Rivers, a $70 fee for a Teacher In Service program, plus any City staff time incurred Total project cost is $770.00. Source of the 25% local match and the way in which the match will be monitored (i.e. staff time spent on the project will be calculated at $30 per hour, hours will be recorded; or city will pay $X for particular item.): The City of Farmington will pay 25% of the fees, either through staff time calculated at approximately $30 per hour or a cash match, thereby ensuring that there will be no cost to participants. Local goal and educational strategies supported by this project, including the source of that goal (i.e., Storm Water Management Plan goal to protect water quality by working with shoreland owners to install best management practices): The Water Museum Trunk includes a 3D water cycle model and a groundwater model, water testing and field equipment, video-tapes and books, which will be shared by teachers with the students. The Three Rivers Assembly will reinforce what is learned in the classroom. Education of the above mentioned issues is a goal is stated in the City of Farmington's Surface Water Management Plan, September, 1997. Local watershed management organization goals(s) and educational strategy supported by this project: Objectives met by this project, which are targeted in the Vermillion River Watershed Management Plan follow; . Improve surface water quality. . Maintain and improve groundwater quality. . Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitats and water recreational facilities. This project is related to the following educational priority and strategy identified in the 1994 Dakota County Water Resources Plan. Check all that apply: Construction Erosion Control: Promote the use of the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District urban erosion control standards to builders, contractors, local government land use planners and engineers, elected officials, and planning commission members. Garden and Lawn Chemical Use: Identify and promote best management practices for garden and lawn chemical use within the county. Provide information that identifies sensitive watershed. areas and encourages limited application of chemical fertilizers and pesticides within those areas. On-site Sewage Treatment System: Provide information to septic system owners, government officials, and students. X Shoreland, Wetland, and Wildlife Habitat Protection: Provide easy access for local officials and staff, developers, and landowners who live along shorelands or have wetlands on their property to the information they need about complying with current regulations. Increase the access of landowners adjoining streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands to information about local flood plain, shoreland, and wetland best management practices. X Identify and disseminate general information about shore land best management practices and the roles wetlands play in water resources and wildlife habitat protection. Stormwater Management: Promote best management practices related to stormwater in specific areas sensitive to ground water or surface water contamination to homeowners and students. Authorized signature: Authorized project official: Title: Director of Public Works/City Engineer Date: 11/20/98 Return seven (7) copies of this application form to: Charlotte Shover, Dakota County Environmental Education Coordinator 4100 - 220th Street West, Farmington, MN 55024-9539 Phone: 651.480.7734, Fax: 612.463.8002 Deadline: There is no specific deadline for the grant applications. Grants can be requested at any time, but grant funded projects must be completed by October 1, 1998. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrato~ Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police FROM: SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Equipment Grant Department of Public Safety DATE: December 7, 1998 INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION The City has received notification from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety that our recent Equipment Grant has been approved. A Grant application was submitted for four (4) Automatic Electronic Defibrillators (AED). The Department of Public Safety received requests for over 600 of the devices. The City of Farmington was successful in obtaining two of the units. An Automatic Electronic Defibrillator is a device used to treat patients in heart attack situations. During this type of medical emergency it is imperative that treatment be initiated as soon as possible. These AED units could save precious minutes in patient treatment when used by the first responding Police Officers. In order to receive the AED units, the Council must adopt a resolution accepting the devices. BUDGET IMPACT None ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution accepting the Department of Public Safety Equipment Grant and authorize Chief Daniel M. Siebenaler to sign the Grant Agreement. Respectfully submitted, ~ Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police ?5 RESOLUTION RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION GRANT AGREEMENT Be it resolved that the City of Farmington enter into a Grant Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety to accept two (2) Automatic Electronic Defibrillators for use in the Farmington Police Department. Police Chief Daniel M. Siebenaler, is hereby authorized to execute and sign such Grant Agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City of Farmington. I certify that the above resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Farmington on December 7, 1998. SIGNED: WITNESSETH: (Signature) (Signature) (Title) (Title) (Date) (Date) City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 1h TO: FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ Robin Roland, Finance Director SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Health Care Facilities Revenue Bonds DATE: December 7,1998 INTRODUCTION At the December 1, 1997 Council meeting, the City Council held a public hearing on the sale of $1.6 million Health Care Facilities Revenue Bonds for South Suburban Medical Center and adopted a resolution authorizing that sale. However, the sale did not close at that time and subsequently, South Suburban now wishes to issue and sell the bonds which were authorized last December. DISCUSSION South Suburban Medical Center sought to sell Health Care Facilities Revenue Bonds under Minnesota State Statutes 469.152-469.165. These statutes allow bonds to be sold using the City as a conduit. However, since the City is not the borrower, the City has no fiscal responsibility for this debt. Certain resolutions and documents are required of the City under the Statutes. In order for the sale to take place at this time, the resolution passed after the public hearing last December must be updated. That revised resolution is attached to this memo. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUIRED Adopt the attached resolution providing for the issuance and sale of Health Care Facilities Revenue Bonds, series 1998 (South Suburban Medical Center Project). Respectfully submitted, ~J Finance Director Resolution No. Resolution providing for the issuance and sale of Health Care Facilities Revenue Bonds (South Suburban Medical Center Project), Series 1998, pursuant to Sections 469.152 - 469.165, Minnesota Statutes, and authorizing the execution of certain documents in connection therewith. WHEREAS, South Suburban Medical Center, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "Company"), has requested that the City of Farmington, Minnesota (the "City") authorize the issuance of its Health Care Facilities Revenue Bonds (South Suburban Medical Center Project), Series 1998, in a principal amount not to exceed $1,600,000 (the "Bonds"), the proceeds to be loaned to the Company and used, along with certain other funds, to acquire a medical office building in the City located at 3410 213th Street West (the "Project") and to pay a portion of the costs of issuance of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152- 469.165 (the "Act"), the City is authorized to issue the Bonds; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Act and Section 147(t) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), the City has held a public hearing on the proposed issuance of the Bonds on December 1, 1997 after published notice as required by the Act and Code and has previously approved the issuance of the Bonds by resolution adopted December 1, 1997; and WHEREAS, due to delay in the issuance of the Bonds and modifications made to the provisions of the documents hereinafter referred to, it is deemed desirable to confirm the approval of the City for the issuance of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, forms of the following documents relating to the issuance of the Bonds have been submitted to the City Council and are now on file in the office of the City Administrator: (a) Loan Agreement (the "Loan Agreement"), dated as of December 1, 1998, between the City and the Company, whereby, among other things, the City has agreed to sell the Bonds and loan the proceeds to the Company to finance the Project, and the Company has agreed to repay the loan at the times and in the amounts required to pay principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds, solely from the revenues of the Project; (b) Indenture of Trust (the "Indenture"), dated as of December 1, 1998, from the City to National City Bank of Minneapolis, Minneapolis, Minnesota, as Bond Trustee, whereby the City authorizes the issuance of the Bonds and whereby the City assigns to the Bond Trustee its interests in the Loan Agreement (other than certain rights to indemnification and payment of expenses) as security for the Bonds; and (c) Assignment of Mortgage Agreement (the "Mortgage Assignment"), dated as of December 1, 1998, from the City to the Bond Trustee whereby the City assigns to the Bond Trustee all of its right, title and interest in the Mortgage Agreement, dated as of December 1, 1998 (a copy of which is also on file), granted by the Company to the City to secure its obligations under the Loan Agreement and the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF F ARMINGTON, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. Findings. It is hereby found and determined that: (a) The City is authorized to issue the Bonds pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota law, and the issuance of the Bonds will promote the public welfare by assisting the Company in expanding its medical campus in the City, thereby helping to assure that adequate health care facilities will be available to residents of the City and the surrounding area. (b) The Company has represented to the City that the Project would not be undertaken at the present time without the provision of tax exempt fmancing by the City. (c) There is no litigation pending or, to the best of its knowledge, threatened against the City relating to the Bonds, the Loan Agreement, the Mortgage Assignment or the Indenture, or questioning the organization of the City or its power or authority to issue the Bonds or to execute and deliver the Loan Agreement, the Mortgage Assignment or the Indenture. -2- (d) To the best knowledge of the City, the execution and delivery of, and the performance of the City's obligations under, the Bonds, the Loan Agreement, the Mortgage Assignment and the Indenture do not and will not violate any material order of any court or other agency of government, or any material provision of any indenture, agreement or other instrument to which the City is a party or by which it or any of its property is bound, or be in conflict with, result in a breach of, or constitute (with due notice or lapse of time or both) a default under any such indenture, agreement or other instrument. (e) The Bonds shall recite that the Bonds are not to be payable from nor charged upon any funds other than amounts received by the Bond Trustee pursuant to the Loan Agreement, the Mortgage, or the Indenture, or funds and investments held by the Bond Trustee under the Indenture; the City is not subject to any liability thereon; no Holder of the Bonds shall ever have the right to compel the exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City except the revenues specifically pledged to the payment thereof pursuant to the Indenture; and the Bonds do not constitute an indebtedness of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. 2. A,pproval and Execution of Documents. The forms of Loan Agreement, Indenture and Mortgage Assignment referred to above are approved. The Loan Agreement, Indenture and Mortgage Assignment shall be executed in the name and on behalf of the City by the Mayor and City Administrator in substantially the form on file, but with such changes therein -3- as may be approved by the officers executing the same, which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by the execution thereof. The Mayor and City Administrator are also authorized and directed to execute such closing certificates and other documents as may be necessary to complete the issuance and delivery of the Bonds, upon approval of the form thereof by bond counsel to the City. 3. Approval of Terms and Sale of the Bonds. The final terms of the Bonds shall be as set forth in the Indenture. The Mayor and City Administrator are authorized to approve the fmal bond terms (such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution of the Indenture), provided that (i) the principal amount of the Bonds shall not exceed $1,600,000, (ii) the average coupon rate of the Bonds shall not exceed 6.50% per annum and (iii) the final maturity of the Bonds shall not be later than 20 years from the date of issuance thereof. The Bonds shall be sold to the Purchasers at a price of not less than 98% of par plus accrued interest to the date of Issuance. 4. Execution and Delivery of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be executed by the facsimile signatures of the Mayor and City Administrator, and the Bonds shall be delivered to the Purchaser upon payment of the purchase price therefor, and upon receipt of the signed legal opinion of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, bond counsel, and other documents as specified in the Indenture. 5. Certifications. The Mayor and City Administrator of the City are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to Dorsey & Whitney LLP, bond counsel, to the Company, the Bond Trustee and the Purchaser certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City -4- relating to the Bonds, and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the facts appearing from the books and records in the officers' custody and control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute representations of the City as to the truth of all statements contained therein. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA The undersigned, being the duly appointed, qualified and acting City Administrator of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, hereby certifies that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City at its meeting duly called and held on December 7, 1998, by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Nays: Absent: and that said resolution has not subsequently been amended and is now in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City this _ day of December, 1998. (SEAL) City Administrator -5- City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ;;. TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Capital Outlay Request - Administration Department DATE: December 7, 1998 INTRODUCTION The ability to cross-utilize staff relative to program processing, data entry and retrieval, and general information sharing across departments is a key information systems management objective. Staff in the departments of Administration and Parks and Recreation have recognized an opportunity to jointly enter, process, share and access program data through multiple network terminals that will allow for shared program support of recreation programming activities. DISCUSSION In an effort to provide multiple data entry points between the departments of administration and parks and recreation, the need to upgrade an existing, older computer terminal is required. The existing computer terminal does not possess the expanded processing capabilities necessary to run existing software database programs. In light of the fact, that this computer will be heavily utilized to process recreational programming data, it is suggested that funding for a new computer workstation would be appropriated from Special Recreation Operating Revenue Fund. This special revenue fund was created over two years ago in an effort to properly account and track special recreation programming revenues and costs separately from the General Fund. Essentially, a majority of all special recreational programming is financially self-sufficient as participant fees generally offset program-related costs. This special revenue fund is an excellent example of shifting the cost of underwriting special programs to the actual users of the service. This "user fee" financial approach has been articulated to and approved by Council on several occasions, and has effectively reduced the general taxpayer burden by targeting costs for special programming to the actual users of the service. This approach is similar to that of other public enterprises that rely upon specific users of the service to fund service operations. BUDGET IMP ACT A financial review of this special revenue fund has been completed by the Finance Department and suggests that adequate funding is available for the purchase of a new computer workstation. It is anticipated that the cost for this new workstation will be approximately $2,000. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the purchase of this new computer workstation utilizing special revenue recreation program funding. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7. o TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrato~ Ken Kuchera FROM: SUBJECT: Capital Outlay Purchase - Fire Department DATE: December 7, 1998 INTRODUCTION The Fire Department is planning to purchase back pack style pump tanks from Clarey's Safety Equipment. DISCUSSION The items to be purchased are model #90G - 5 gallon Indian Pump Tanks. Five pump tanks will be purchased at a cost of$160 each. Total cost of $800. BUDGET IMPACT Approved funding is available in the 1998 Budget. ACTION REOUESTED For Council information. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Ken Kuchera Fire Chief City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us If TO: Mayor, Councilmembers anJi City Administrator1~ Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police FROM: SUBJECT: Agreement for Towing Services DATE: December 7, 1998 INTRODUCTION At the October 21, 1998 workshop, the City Council authorized changes in the existing Towing Contract. Staffhas made those changes in the form of an Agreement for Towing Services. The Agreement has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. DISCUSSION The current Towing contract will expire on February 2, 1999. In order to provide adequate notification of changes the Council will have to authorize the new Agreement at it's first meeting in January, 1999. Staff is prepared to advertise for proposals pursuant to Council policy established at the October workshop. Under the Request for Proposal format, the City is not required to accept the lowest contract cost but may consider other factors in the decision making process. Proposals will be accepted along with the required submittals until December 28, 1998. Council should note that staff is recommending one additional change not discussed at the Towing Workshop. Under provisions in the new Agreement the Contractor will be required to make the legal notifications to vehicle owners and lienholders. This will require confirmation of registration and lienholders through the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. This service is available to tow companies for a monthly access fee ofless than $10.00 plus a small transaction fee. The Contractor would recover this cost through the previously approved Administrative Fee. This requirement relieves the City of notification responsibilities and costs and is currently in place in several other communities. ACTION REQUESTED Authorize the format for the Agreement for Towing Services. Respectfully submitted, Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police Request for Proposals Towing Services The City of Farmington will accept Proposals for towing services through December 28, 1998. The Agreement will be effective for three (3) years. Interested vendors may contact the Farmington Police Department, Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM to receive a copy of requirements of the Agreement as well as a list of required submittals. The City of Farmington reserves the right to reject any or all Proposals. AGREEMENT FOR TOWING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this between The City of Farmington and ("Contractor") day of , 1999 IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS CONTAINED HEREIN, THE CITY AND CONTRACTOR AGREE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I Purpose of the Agreement The purpose of this agreement is to designate a specific Contractor to perform the services of towing, hauling, moving, storing and! or impounding vehicles when ordered to do so by the City, which is defmed as "contract" services. This agreement does not involve or control transactions which result from calls made to the Contractor by the City at the voluntary request of a private citizen, defmed herein as "courtesy" services. Additionally, this agreement is intended to ensure the provision of services as to: type, adequacy, availability, dependability, reputability, and cost. SECTION II Contractor Performance The Contractor agrees to perform as follows: I. Availability Calls for contract service will be handled 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. 2. Contact Numbers Telephone Cellular Pager Fax 3. Personnel. The contractor shall ensure that all drivers towing vehicles under provisions of this contract shall possess a proper Drivers License and be free of warrants. The contractor agrees to train all drivers in proper towing of all vehicles, including those containing hazardous materials in accordance with federal and state laws. 4. Response Time. Arrival time at the scene following a call will be as prompt as possible and will not exceed twenty (20) minutes. 5. Equipment. Adequate equipment, specifically designed to satisfy the intent of this agreement will always be maintained in serviceable condition and will be at the disposal of the contractor. Equipment shall include at least I (one) flatbed truck and I (one) wrecker. When multiple tows are requested by Police the primary responding unit must be a flatbed. - 1 - 6. Storage Facility. The contractor shall maintain a properly zoned storage facility within ten (10) miles ofthe City that will include suitable, secure inside storage adequate to meet the needs ofthe Police Department. Outside storage must be within an area which is secured by at least a six (6) foot high chain link fence, secured by lock at all times. The storage facility shall have space for no fewer than 30 vehicles. 7. Operation. No vehicle shall be towed under this Agreement without the specific authorization from an employee of the City. All vehicles shall be towed, not driven (except when authorized by the Police Department), without damage to the vehicles, directly to the storage facility. 8. Clean up. The contractor will clean up and remove debris resulting from accidents as well as other towing services. 9. Notification of an Owner or Lienholder. Upon impound of a vehicle into a storage facility, the Contractor shall send to the registered owner and lienholder of record within five (5) days, by certified mail, a notice specifying the date and place of the tow, the year, make, model and serial number of the vehicle towed and the procedure to reclaim the vehicle. A record of this notice shall be retained by the Contractor. If a vehicle remains unclaimed after thirty (30) days from the date of impound a second notice shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the registered owner and all identifiable lienholders of record. The contractor may charge a reasonable Administrative Charge, as defmed in Schedule A to cover the costs of notifications as required in this section. 10. Reclaim Convenience. No vehicle shall be released without proper proof of ownership and insurance if the vehicle is to be driven from the storage facility. Vehicles ordered held by the Police Department shall not be released without authorization from the Police Department. The Contractor shall supply personnel and reasonable hours for the release of vehicles. Minimum hours shall be 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday and two hours on Saturdays. The contractor shall provide for release of vehicles within a reasonable time, by appointment, outside normal business hours including Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays. II. Sales and/ or Disposal. When the total of all charges for towing, storage, and other eligible charges equals or exceeds the value of the vehicle impounded and / or the registered owner and lienholder of record voluntarily agree to same, the contractor shall, with the permission of the Chief of Police, sell the vehicle at a Sheriff s auction or otherwise dispose of the vehicle by lawful means. The Chief may authorize the lawful sale of other vehicles when so requested by the Contractor after proper notification has been made to the registered owner and lienholder of record in accordance with applicable State laws. 12. Liability. The contractor shall be responsible for the loss of or damage to, any vehicle, equipment thereon and contents due to the fault of the Contractor or its agents, from the time the Contractor takes custody of the vehicle, whether that be by the signing of a receipt or by the hooking or hoisting of the vehicle. The Contractor shall be responsible for the safekeeping of personal property with or on the vehicle as identified on the impound form. -2- 13. Public Contact. The Contractor shall recognize that they represent the City of Farmington and as such shall represent themselves in accordance with the City of Farmington Code of Citizen Service. 14. Department of Public Safety In order to comply with all of the requirements of this Agreement the Contractor shall, at Contractor expense, maintain a computer link to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Division of Driver and Vehicle Services. 15. Reports. The Contractor shall keep records of all vehicles towed, stored, released or otherwise disposed of pursuant to this Agreement in a form acceptable to the City and shall provide the City with monthly and annual reports as requested by the City. All towing and impound records pertaining to this Agreement shall be available for inspection by the City upon request. SECTION III Towing and Storage Charges The contractor reserves the right to specify the manner of payment for all charges and fees. The maximum charges that can be incurred by the owner of a vehicle handled under the terms of this agreement are set forth in the current rate schedule attached hereto as "Schedule A". All towing charges shall be the responsibility of the vehicle owner. SECTION IV Indemnification The Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its employees and agents, from all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including attorneys fees, which it may suffer or for which it may be held liable because of bodily injury, including death, or damage to property, including loss of use, as a result of the fault of the Contractor, its employees, agents or subcontractors in breach of performance of this agreement. Bond Contractor agrees to obtain and maintain a letter of credit or Performance Bond addressed to the City of Farmington, during the life of this Agreement, in the amount of $2,500.00 to assure the timely performance of this Agreement. Insurance The Contractor shall obtain and maintainability insurance for coverage of not less than the following amounts: Hazardous Load Workers Compensation Employer's Liability Automobile Liability General Liability Garage Liability As required by State and Federal Laws Statutory $100,000/ $500,000/ $100,000 $1,000,000 Bodily Injury/ Property Damage $1,000,000 Bodily Injury/ Property Damage $60,000 each occurrence for vehicles in the care, custody or control of the Contractor -3- The insurance shall cover all operations under this Agreement whether undertaken by the Contractor, subcontractor, or anyone employed or retained by the Contractor. Coverage for Bodily Injury and Property Damage shall be written under Comprehensive General and Comprehensive Automobile Liability policy form, including coverage for all owned, hired and non-owned motor vehicles. The insurance shall also cover indemnification liability set forth under Indemnification as described in this Section. The Insurance company shall deliver to the City insurance certificates of all required coverage on a form acceptable to the City, signed by an authorized representative of the insurer. The authorized representative shall have in effect, errors and omissions coverage in limits of not less than $100,000 per occurrence and $300,000 aggregate. SECTION V Compliance Statutory Compliance Minnesota Statute Chapter 168B is incorporated herein by reference. To the extent that anything in this Agreement conflicts with any current or future statutory requirement, this Agreement shall be deemed amended to be in conformity with the statutory requirements. Compliance with Laws In providing services pursuant to this Agreement, the contractor shall abide by all statutes, ordinances rules and regulations pertaining to the performance of this Agreement. Any violation shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and entitle the City to terminate this Agreement. Non-Discrimination The Contractor agrees during the life of this Agreement not to discriminate against any employee, application for employment, or individual because of race, color, sex, age, creed, national origin, sexual preference, or any other basis prohibited by federal, state or local law. The Contractor shall include a similar provision in all subcontract entered into for performance of this Agreement. MNDOT Registration. Contractor will meet requirements of Minnesota Department of Transportation, Intrastate For- Hire Motor Carrier of Property Registration pursuant to statute 221.0251. SECTION VI Contractor Designated Independent Contractor At all times and for purposes hereunder, the Contractor is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. No statement herein shall be construed so as to [md the Contractor an employee of the City. Subcontractors The Contractor shall not subcontract this Agreement or any portion thereof without prior written approval of the City, except for assistance in emergency or unforeseen circumstances. All subcontractors shall be covered by all terms of this Agreement. Non-Assignability The Contractor may not assign its interest in the Agreement or subcontract with third parties. If the signers of this Agreement cease to be majority owners of the Towing Company named herein, the City may terminate this Agreement with thirty (30) days written notice. -4- Agreement Period This Agreement shall commence on the date approved by the City and shall continue for three (3) years. The Agreement may also be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days written notice if the other party fails to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement through no fault of the terminating party. SECTION VII Whole Agreement This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between parties including all prior understandings and agreements, and may not be modified except in writing, signed by all parties. CITY OF FARMINGTON (contractor) BY: BY: John F. Erar, City Administrator AND dba Daniel M. Siebenaler, Police Chief DATE DATE -5- SCHEDULE "A" Schedule of Authorized Charges TOWING / HAULING 1. Vehicles less than I ton, includes cars, motor cycles, scooters, snowmobiles. A TV s, boats and boat trailers, 2. City Vehicles less than I ton. 3. Special Events / Construction, maintenance, or as ordered by Police Department or Public Works. 4. Administration Charge SPECIAL CHARGES 1. Service Call 2. Pull drive shaft of dis- connect transmission. 3. Tire Change 4. Release at Scene 5. Snow Shoveling (Snowbird, Ditch work) 6. Car Starting 7. Disconnect Linkage 8. Storage Fee 9. Storage Fee OTHER SERVICES AVAILABLE Base MILEAGE per hour. / quarter hour / per day, outdoor / per day, indoor Dolly hour minimum Winch SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS The following documents must be submitted with any proposal. Contractors who fail to provide the required information will be considered ineligible. ITEM DOCUMENTA nON PROVIDED Proof of Insurance. List of required contact information. Certificate of Zoning. Description of Facilities Description of Equipment Proof of State computer connection. Note: This is a requirement to prove eligibility for connection. Actual connection must take place prior to activation of Agreement. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7i FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator fJf- Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police TO: SUBJECT: Training Agreement Dakota County Technical College DATE: December 7, 1998 INTRODUCTION Dakota County Technical College sponsors the Law Enforcement Training Program. This Program provides law enforcement agencies with access to Continuing Education as required by the Minnesota Police Officers Standards and Training (POST) Board. DISCUSSION There are two methods to participate in the Program. The first method is through contract membership. Under this method a police department pays a single fee of$298.00 per officer and has access to all available training with no daily course fee. The second is a pay as you go system with course fees at $40.00 to $100.00 per day. Under this system, annual POST mandated classes alone would cost more than membership. The Farmington Police Department has participated in the Law Enforcement Training Program under a membership contract for over 10 years. It is staffs recommendation to continue this membership as the most cost effective method of providing continuing training. BUDGET IMPACT The cost of this contract is included in the 1999 Budget. ACTION REOUESTED Approve Training Contract with the Dakota County Technical College for Law Enforcement Training services. Respectfully submitted, Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police Cost Center: [insert #} Obj. Code: Amount: Vendor #: P.O.#: STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA ST ATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES DAKOTA COUNTY TECHNICAL COLLEGE CUSTOMIZED TRAINING INCOME CONTRACT Dakota County Technical College (hereafter CollegetUniversity) by virtue of its delegated authority from the Board of Trustees of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities) Farmington Police Department (hereafter "Purchaser") agree as follows: I. DUTIES OF THE COLLEGEIUNIVERSITY. The CollegetUniversity agrees to provide the following: Title ofInstruction/ Activity/Service: Dakota County Training Association Date(s) ofInstruction/Activity/Service: 1/1/99 through 12/30/99 Instructor/Trainer/Consultant: varies Location: Dakota County Technical College Other Provisions: The Law Enforcement Training Program of Dakota County Technical College will provide a minimum of 300 hours of POST approved training for the above period. Courses not covered bv this training agreement include the Firearms Qualification Training and the Decision Driving Training. II. DUTIES OF THE PURCHASER. The Purchaser agrees to provide: [nout on courses and curriculum. III. SITE OF INSTRUCTION/ACTIVITY/SERVICE: Dakota COlmtv Technical Colleile shall make all of the arrangements, including any payment, for the location to be used for the Instruction/Activity/Service. IV. CONSIDERATION AND TERlvlS OF PAYMENT. A. Cost. Cost of Instruction/Activity/Service: $298.00 vel' officer Other fees: Notwithstanding the thirty (30) day notice period established in paragraph VII, in the event that the Purchaser desires to cancel or reschedule the Instruction/Activity/Service due to low enrollment, Purchaser shall give at least J days notice in writing to the CollegetUniversity's authorized agent to cancel or reschedule. If the Instruction/Activity/Service is canceled as provided herein, the CollegelUniversity shall be entitled to payment calculated according to paragraph VII. If the Instruction! Activity/Service is rescheduled as provided herein, payment shall be according to this paragraph IV. B. Terms of Payment. The CollegelUniversity will send an invoice for the Instruction! Activity/Service performed. The Purchaser will pay within 30 days of receiving the invoice. Please send payment to: Caroline Harris Dakota County Technical College 1300 East 135m Street Rosemount, MN 55068 V. AUTHORIZED AGENTS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CONTRACT. A. Purchaser's authorized agent: Chief Dan Siebenaler B. CollegelUniversity's authorized agent: Sharon LaComb or Gary Hebert VI. TEIUA OF CONTRACT. A. Effective date: 1///99 B. End date: /2/3//99, or until all obligations set forth in this contract have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first. VII. CANCEL LA TION. This contract may be canceled by the Purchaser or the CollegelUniversity at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. In the event of such a cancellation, the CollegelUniversity shall be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for work or Instruction! Activity/Service satisfactorily performed. VIII. ASSIGNMENT. Neither the Purchaser nor the CollegelUniversity shall assign or transfer any rights or obligations under this contract without the prior written approval of the other party. IX. LIABILITY. Purchaser agrees to indemnify and save and hold the CollegelUniversity, its representatives and employees harmless from any and all claims or causes of action arising from the performance of this contract by the Purchaser or the Purchaser's agents or employees. This clause shall not be construed to bar any legal remedies the Purchaser may have for the CollegelUniversity's failure to fulfill its obligations pursuant to this contract. X. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COMPLIANCE. The Purchaser agrees that in fulfilling the duties of this contract, the Purchaser is responsible for complying with the applicable provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101, et seq. and regulations promulgated pursuant to it. The CollegelUniversity IS NOT responsible for issues or challenges related to compliance with the ADA beyond its own routine use of facilities, services, or other areas covered by the ADA. XI. AMENDMENTS. Any amendments to this contract shall be in writing and shall be executed by the same parties who executed the original contract or their successors in office. XII. DATA PRACTICES. The Purchaser agrees to comply with the Minnesota Data Practices Act as it applies to all data provided by the CollegelUniversity in accordance with this c.mtract and as it applies to all data created, gathered, generated, or acquired in accordance with this contract. XIII. RIGHTS IN ORIGINAL MATERIALS. The Dakota County Technical College shall own all rights, including all intellectual property rights, in all original materials, including any curriculum materials, 2 inventions, reports, studies, designs, drawings, specifications, notes, documents, software and documentation, computer based training modules, electronically or magnetically recorded materials, and other work in whatever form, developed by the College/University and its employees individually or jointly with others or any subcontractor in the performance of its obligations under this contract. This provision shall not apply to the following materials: N/A XIV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. This contract, and amendments and supplements thereto, shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. Venue for all legal proceedings arising out of this contract, or breach thereof, shall be in the state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. XV. OTHER PROVISIONS. (Attach additional page(s) if necessary): N/A IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this contract to be duly executed intending to be bound thereby. APPROVED: 1. PURCHASER: PURCHASER certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed the contract on behalf of PURCHASER as required by applicable articles, by-laws, resolutions, or ordinances. 2. l\UNNESOT A STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES Dakota County Technical College By (authorized signature) By (authorized college/university signature) Title Title Date Date By (authorized signature) Title B Date MnSCU003 10/28/96 3 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ~ TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: 1998-2002 CIP Project Completion and Status Report DATE: December 7, 1998 INTRODUCTION Council adopted the 1998-2002 CIP on January 5, 1998. CIP projects proposed in 1998 had anticipated expenditures of $6,249,990. The purpose of this staff report is to provide Council with a year-end status report of projects authorized for completion in 1998. DISCUSSION The following table identifies projects proposed in calendar year 1998 and indicates the current status of projects to-date relative to Council actions. Furnace inspected and determined to be mechanically sound . *This project was advanced due to new subdivision construction to the north and south ofCR72 and turn-back interest by Dakota County. BUDGET IMPACT Projects proposed in the CIP are underwritten by a variety of funding sources and are separately reviewed and authorized by Council. ACTION REQUESTED For Council information. Respectfully Submitted, 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 Administrato~ James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director FROM: SUBJECT: CAP - Meals on Wheels Contract DATE: December 7, 1998 INTRODUCTION The contract for mobile meals with the Community Action Program (CAP) needs to be renewed. DISCUSSION The Mobile Meals program at the Senior Center provides inexpensive lunch time meals to "shut in" seniors throughout the community. The City has a contract with CAP to provide these meals, and staff, with volunteer help, distributes them to qualifying seniors. The cost of the meals is passed on to the users of the program. BUDGET IMPACT The 1999 budget will not be affected by the increased cost of the meals. ACTION REQUESTED For Council infonnation only. Respectfully submitted, --3o-5fl- James Bell Parks and Recreation Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ~CL TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administrat~ FROM: David L. Olson Community Development Director SUBJECT: Annexation Petition - Seed Family Trust Property DATE: December 7, 1998 INTRODUCTION The City has received an annexation petition from the Seed Family Trust to annex approximately 59 acres currently in Section 19 of Empire Township and contiguous to the City. A location map and legal description is attached. DISCUSSION The Seed Family has filed the current annexation petition under MS 414.033 Subd.2 (3) which states the following: Subd 2. Conditions. A municipal council may by ordinance declare land annexed to municipality and any such land is deemed to be urban or suburban in character or about to become so if: (1) the land is owned by the municipality; (2) the land is completely surrounded by land within the municipal limits; (3) the land abuts the municipality and the area to be annexed is 60 acres or less, and the area to be annexed is not presently served by public sewer facilities or public sewer facilities are not otherwise available, and the municipality received a petition for annexation from all the property owners of the land; or Minnesota Statutes also require that a 30 day certified mail notice of the hearing to consider annexation by ordinance requests be provided to the Township and abutting property owners. These requirements have been met. The findings that are required to be met under this section for the current petition are as follows: . The land included in the current annexation petition abuts the City as well as to the current MUSA boundary of the City of Farmington and contains approximately 59 acres. . The land is not presently served by public sewer facilities and the facilities are not otherwise available. While there is currently a 48" Metropolitan Council Interceptor Sewer bisecting the property, the Township does not currently have approved MUSA in this area nor anywhere else in the Township. The connections that have been authorized by the Met Council on the east side of TH 3 have been described as an "anomaly" by Met Council staff, and it is the City's position that since we currently have approved MUSA that abuts this property, the City would be the entity to seek an expansion of their existing MUSA to serve this property. While Empire Township may elect to challenge this finding however, the City feels it has a strong argument to make against the Township's position. . The City has received a petition from all of the property owners of the area proposed to be annexed. There are a number of planning issues that support the annexation of the Seed property to City. They include the following: The City and the Metropolitan Council anticipate a growth rate averaging 275 new households a year for the next 20 years in the City of Farmington. Based on the developable acres currently in the MUSA, the City will have to identify an additional 750 acres outside the current MUSA for residential development to meet municipal development needs for the next 20 years. The possible locations of this additional land include the NW quadrant of the City along Flagstaff A venue or the NE quadrant which includes the Seed Property. The advantages of developing the Seed property to meet these land use needs versus the property along Flagstaff are outlined in the attached October 27, 1998 memo from Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator. The conclusions that can be reached from this staff report suggest that because of 1) proximity to present or planned infrastructure, 2) a desire of the landowners to develop the property, and 3) the vision of connecting the northern and southern portions of Farmington, the annexation and development of the Seed property as part of the City of Farmington would result in sound land use planning. In terms of the most efficient and effective provision of needed governmental services, this geographical area would be highly preferable to the City's NW quadrant. It is also stated in MS 414.01 that municipal government most efficiently provides government services in areas intensively developed for residential, commercial, industrial, and government purposes; and township government most efficiently provides government services in areas used or developed for agricultural, open space, and rural residential purposes. BUDGET IMPACT The financial impact of this annexation to the City should be relatively obscure over the next 5-10 years. Minnesota Statutes require the Township to receive a declining portion of the property taxes generated over a five year period. This would provide for 90% of the current township taxes for this property to be retained by the Township in year one after the annexation, 70% in year two etc. until it reaches 10% in year five. Since this property is currently in Ag Preserve until the year 2002, the amount of taxes being generated is fairly nominal. ACTION REOUESTED Adopt the attached ordinance declaring the 59 acres contained in the attached petition to be annexed to the City of Farmington. Respectfully submitted, O~d- David L. Olson Community Development Director cc: Steven P. Juetten, Genstar Land Company Midwest CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 98- An Ordinance Annexing Certain Properties Abutting the City of Farmington WHEREAS, the City of Farmington ("City") received a petition for annexation from all of the property owners of the following described property ("Property"): "'h..... P"!"-- oJl ......9 "'-"'-~""""S- Cu..a--",- os.....: "'10,,,,, Nc--:......-"'S- C" ~--a- ....~ s""c-~........ ., .oW'" Z'~ _ ..... L''-'__ __."'l'a... -- ....___ ...'-1. I...... . _ ............ ___ _ _ '-_ IIIiiiiiO ....__... 19 , '1'~IiIIr...sh.:.;: l.2.4., Ra:-.ge 1 9 , Cak~,,:;a C~u:~;:y, M::'~'":eso'ea, casc=:.=ec as fc~~c:ws: Set;:.:m:..:-.; a<: ,,:ha scu~::.wes~ o::=a: c: sa':'~ Nc:~~was,,:; Cua:-":a=; ":=.a~::s on an as~~ac bea=i~s c~ Sc~t~ as ~~g=3es 59 ~~~":;as 19 SSC::~~3 !as~! along ~~a sc~~~ line c: 3a~d No=,,:;~wes~ C~a=~a= ~C Nc~~aa3~ Qua~3:, 3220.50 faa~ 'to t~a ~~~a:3ec~':'c~ c: 't~a wes~a=ly l':'~a c: S~O t~r.a Ra~l=oac; t~ar.ca Nc=~~ 22 dsg:aes 4C m':'r.~~as 17 seC:~:3 Wast, ~:or.g sa:.d Was~a=!1' l~~e, ~'::.59 ~=a-:i -:::sr:::s Scu~.:: s; cag:aes 5; m':'~c~sg 1; sec:~d3 !as~ 967.C2 :se~; ~~ar~a ~C:~~ 00 c:ag=ae 00 r:1~::.~-:e 4: sacc~cs E:as-: 209. S2 f~-e-:; 't_-:a~C3 Sc~ ~~ a; da~=8es 59 m~~~~as l; ;ac~~~3 E~s~ ~39.Ca faa~; ~~a~~3 ~c=~~ :J ces=-~e CO m:..::~~a 4: seC:::::3 E:a3"': ;:.33 :ae~: ~:~~c.s ~c=-:~ ~7 ~~g~3e~ :s m~~~~a3 19 3ac=~=3 Wa3~ 4:52.:0 :=e~ ~= ~~a ~~~==~ec~~:~ wi~~ t~e ~es~ 2~~s o! 3a~: Nc=~~~es~ C~a=~s=; ~~a~=s sc~~~, a::~; S4!~C was'": li:ls, -== -:~e ~:~~~ ~: =eg~::.~.:..~;. ::::'::e;~ t='i! :,:.;~,,: c= ~:~. 0: sa~: Sc~ L~~9 ~a~::=ac. WHEREAS, the property is located in Empire Township, Dakota County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Property abuts the City; and WHEREAS, the area of the Property is sixty acres or less; and WHEREAS, the Property is not served by public sewer facilities nor are public sewer facilities otherwise available; and WHEREAS, the City held a public hearing on December 7, 1998, after providing 30 days written notice of the public hearing by certified mail to Empire Township and to all landowners within and contiguous to the Property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the procedures setforth in Minn. Stat. 414.033, the City Council of the City of Farmington may by ordinance declare the Property to be annexed to the City. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED THAT the City of Farmington hereby annexes the Property, pursuant to the authority and procedures setforth in Minnesota Statutes 414.033. Enacted and ordained the 7th day of December, 1998. CITY OF FARMINGTON Mayor Attest: John F. Erar SEAL City Administrator / Clerk This ordinance approved as to form the _ day of , 1998. City Attorney Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of ,199_. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: City Planning Commission Lee Smick, AICP OJ) Planning Coordinator FROM: SUBJECT: Seed Family TrustlGenstar Land Co. Properties Annexation Interest DATE: October 27, 1998 Introduction At the Planning Commission meeting held on October 13, 1998, the Commissioners determined that additional discussions should be held concerning the Seed property identified on the attached map as being a potential for annexation into the City. The Commissioners requested City staff prepare items for discussion concerning the annexation proposal at the October 27th Planning Commission meeting and set a joint City CouncillPlanning Commission meeting in November. The City Council has set the date for the joint City CouncillPlanning Commission meeting for November 18, 1998 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers to discuss the Seed property annexation. Discussion On October 19, 1998, Genstar Land Company distributed a letter to the Mayor and City Council concerning the intention to annex 59 +/- acres in Empire Township into the City of Farmington. The letter of intent, formal petition, proposed description and location of the proposed annexation area is attached for your review. Upon receipt of this petition, City staff placed the notice of intent to annex the Seed property and the annexation petition on the City Council agenda for October 19, 1998. At the October 19, 1998 meeting, Council acknowledged receipt of the letter of intent from Genstar Land Company and the Seed Family to annex their property totaling approximately 950 acres in increments of 60 acres as provided for under Minnesota Statutes. The City Council also acknowledged the receipt of the annexation petition and scheduled a public hearing for Monday, December 7, 1998 to review the petition. A 30-day notice is required before the Council may schedule a public hearing for review of the annexation. As stated at the October 13, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, the City will not likely be in a position to petition the Metropolitan Council for MUSA for another 5-7 years. As Minnesota Statutes state, a petitioner has the option of requesting annexation by ordinance in 60-acre increments. Therefore, the entire 950 acres owned by the Seed Trust and Genstar Land Company will take some time to be annexed into the City using this format. At the Planning Commission meeting on October 13th, the Commissioners expressed concern about showing the annexation on the Comprehensive Plan update. Staff has had numerous discussions concerning this topic. According to Carl Schenk of the Met Council, they would only approve the Comprehensive Plan in this area under the following conditions: I. The land has already been annexed into the City at the time of plan review by the Met Council. 2. There is an orderly annexation agreement between the City and Empire Township. In the first draft of the Comprehensive Plan update, growth occuring in the northwestern portion of the City will need approximately 753 acres of residential land to meet the needs of the community to the year 2020. Upon notice of the intention to petition for annexation of the Seed property, City staff determined the following reasons for illustrating growth on the Seed property as opposed to the northwest comer of the City: 1. The owner (Seed Family) desires to develop the property in the future. 2. The Seed property is adjacent to Trunk Highway 3, which is an under-utilized traffic corridor and will provide existing access to a minor arterial roadway. 3. Dakota County has proposed the location of County Road 60 to be north of the City limits, creating a highly desired east-west corridor from 1-35 to Trunk Highway 3. Therefore, major traffic corridors will be located on the north and east boundaries of the Seed property providing adequate corridors for moving traffic. 4. An existing 48" trunk sanitary sewer interceptor line is located within the proposed property. However, the line would need to be extended to the east under the existing rail line to serve the eastern portion of the property. 5. The Water Distribution Plan proposes a 16" water line along with an underground water storage tank within the Seed property. 6. The Surface Water Management Plan shows the need for ponding areas along North Creek and the rail line. These areas are required to meet the surface water management plan 7. A wetland plan shows a large wetland area along North Creek on the western side of the rail line. A wetland boundary survey is required at the time of development. These areas will provide natural habitats as well as require the need for clustering developments throughout the Seed property creating a variety of land uses. 8. The vision of providing an agricultural buffer on the western side of the City adjacent to the City of Lakeville will be met by showing growth on the Seed property and fulfilling the 753 acres of residential land needed by the year 2020. 9. The vision of connecting the northern portion of the City to the southern portion will be fulfilled because the Seed property is located closer to the center core of the City as opposed to proposing growth in the northwest comer and creating no connection between the north and the south. The area in the northwest portion of the City that was originally proposed as a growth area was determined by City staff to be unsuitable for growth because of the following reasons: I. The owners of property in this part of the City have indicated a desire to keep it as an agricultural use. 2. Flagstaff Avenue would require an extensive and costly upgrade to the City's transportation system considering the condition of the existing roadway and the need to upgrade the entire road (to CR50) to a collector status as proposed in the Thoroughfare Plan. 3. A IS" sewer line is proposed for this area, however, the nearest connection for the trunk sanitary sewer facility would be at 195th Street at the northern edge of the Charleswood development. 4. The Water Distribution Plan proposes a 20" water line along with an underground water storage tank in this area. A 16" water line has been constructed at the western edge of Pine Ridge Forest and provides a readily accessible connection for water services in this area. 5. The Surface Water Management Plan indicates ponding in the southeastern portion of the area. These areas are required to met the surface water management plan 6. The wetland plan shows a wetland area on the east side of Flagstaff Avenue. The plan also shows a greenway along the eastern portion of the area. A wetland boundary survey is required at the time of development. 7. The vision of providing an agricultural buffer on the western side of the City to the year 2020 would be fulfilled if the 753 acres of residential development is proposed elsewhere in the City. Therefore, it is important to note that the Seed property annexation will not create an increase in the amount of projected growth in the City, it will only shift where that growth will occur. The Future Land Use Plan will reflect the Seed annexation in order to set aside the 753 acres of residential development in this location, thereby, preserving the northwest comer of the City for agricultural use to the year 2020. ACTION REOUESTED Presented for discussion. Approve the joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting on November 18, 1998 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator cc: Mayor and Council Members City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmine.ton.mn.us IOe, TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administrator~ FROM: David L. Olson Community Development Director SUBJECT: Notice of Intent / Annexation of Seed Family Trust Properties DATE: October 19, 1998 INTRODUCTION The City has received the attached letter from the Genstar Land Company Midwest indicating that it is the desire of the Seed Family and Astra Genstar Partnership, L.L.P to annex the 900+ acres they control in Empire Township. DISCUSSION The attached map identifies the limits of the Seed Property proposed for annexation into the City of Farmington. The Seed Family in partnership with Genstar Land Company propose to begin the process of annexing this property in increments of 60 acres as provided for under Minnesota Statutes. It is their stated intent to develop this property in a manner consistent with Metropolitan Council policies. Representatives of Genstar have been informed that it will be a number of years (approximately 5-7) before the City will be in a position to petition for additional MUSA from the Metropolitan Council. Development of this property will also be contingent on the capacity issues being resolved at the Empire Treatment Plant. ACTION REOUESTED Acknowledge receipt of the letter of intent from Genstar Land Company and Seed Family to annex their property into the City of Farmington. Respectfully submitted, . . /~~ David L. Olson Community Development Director GENSTAR Genstar Land Company Midwest 11000 West 78th Street Suite 201 Eden Prairie. MN 55344 Tel: (612) 942-7844 Fax: (612) 942-8075 October 14, 1998 Mayor and City Council 325 Oak street City of Farmington Farmington, Minnesota 55024 Re: Annexation Petition for 59 +/- acres in Empire Township Dear Mayor and City council; Attached please find the above stated annexation petition. It is the desire of the Seed Family to process the petition as quickly as possible. Astra Genstar Partnership, L.L.P. was formed to develop the Seed Family land holdings throughout the Twin cities Metropolitan Area. In developing the property, it is the position of the Partnership and the Seed Family to do so consistent with Metropolitan Council policies. Further, it is our opinion that Metropolitan growth should occur in cities. Thank you for your attention to the attached petition. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Genstar Land Company Midwest ~-_.- --.- / <::: / ~~./ .. Steven P. Juetten Development Manager attachment cc: Mr. James Seed City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /o~ TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administrator r~ . \~ .. . FROM: David L. Qlson Community Developmerit Director SUBJECT: Annexation Petition - Seed Family Trust Properties DATE: October 19, 1998 INTRODUCTION The City has received the attached annexation petition from the Seed Family for 59 acres located in Empire Township adjacent to the City as identified on the attached map. DISCUSSION The attached annexation petition can be processed as an annexation by ordinance. This process requires that a public hearing be held by the City Council and that a 30 day notice be provided. If it is the desire of the Council to proceed with processing of this annexation petition, a hearing will be scheduled for Monday, December 7, 1998. It is also recommended that this petition be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to the City Council hearing. ACTION REOUESTED Acknowledge receipt of the annexation petition and schedule a public hearing for Monday, December 7, 1998. '" Respectfully submitted, ~/ .~ ~~ v:/ ~ / ..-'i:::>' /'''- D~'~- Community Development Director --- cc: Steve Juetten, Genstar Land Company Location Map of the Seed Family Trust/Genstar Land Co. Properties ':1": ,~('..J.k,,;':IU= I ~=~i~'J' /1 ,,----;1 '-:::~' "~" <l rl, 111,='-, 3,~' ~,',' "'~< ''-;::1 , "':::=' ," t~,<_'3 , , ' " , ::;A,<(/~ )..,v'" ~ ~D' ~""/0;> / ; , "" "0 , ",/~;-r-;-:', ,<...::~o I \ ~0/ ^~ j:::!:'-:''':' v.:t: ::::c::::r::III ~ tE, S, ~A'Y~ ~~ :IIIIIII!IIJ S ~," '~r'~,'I,,:~:rw:IIIIW=l cr::::::: , ~ \~' ' :IE Ok:: EHHffiHE 3 \ u:::::::::J c-.,----- I":=)' ~ - =l ~ \ 111111 ~r: C' h:"%: ~ ,iHBffifB 5 dO \:';)',<="',";"1'1' ';,;::::J;::l i" ;L(; 'L' \ .1 ,.11 /r..-.- ~" /,~-'" ~~..s; ~~/'~I Ii' .' II- ~...,~-'1 " 1, ~,.:I~,~v,"',", ' ,;'" ,-'~'~ r;::; , b~" I C:!~I ~' S?~ ;!E..uJ: ;;1 ,I' ' ~,~~::;I ~.::::..:.::, ~;~, .' : "'" <"';''1~' ," :::;-" ~...::' I' /~ ^ //-~,. ~ "~ ',-"'" ,,--r- I /..... ~ ' _ ...;" "~" ,--- ...... ~')- i ,'frrm":: ~ V\ ~ '~ '::::: ~~ ,~~~" ~ ,(::_, , , S I, ; ,.:T--:>:'~'<';r;-..... ::::::-:~(,~' E~~,><<,~~:::: -:--"," '....-..... a, I ' ,'-', /',' ~~~ ,.-' (,@""j::: '------' /-~<~q " ' ...., - --.i::.,^ v'" ~H /,,0'/, ..--t~~,; '/"-',-'~\""-:::'\.. ':/", ~.....:., 'x',' -- .........."...-- '/ "\. / - ~\..Y":../ lr~...........,.,..:--,.-..-"/~~\.~..(.,' <~- 00-:::: \~ ! ~ ,c=: ,- sf'~:"'()~~;/j '''/(':::::/0':;''--' "'\',' '\', I, I ---r,):",~~l "'J " i '" . \ " :1'\1 "" . -' ',. ./ ... -/ .... ......,: ~ ' :. ~r i .; ,,-' ~,' .-::/', //'... 2.~jlj~~ I ' ~~/:_'.I/) -~I~'~" "I" "".', -,-;' ", ''''''/,~',I ',', , "", '~I-" '?/~~, --.~~. ........~'" j..--o"',1 :''''''/'^ ;::::::c::;~i 'f:::2.i..i':::.:...c.., ':::-~<//\ ::::::,.~ ~l, ~J.~'~'. r ' : I~;<('~';>\ ~$J ""'" -- ~ (',';:J.- -'.--J,:=: -~~-~; '" -,...-:~. ~>. "',0# '. ~L-.~-' ________r---~~-./"'(/~ ,:::?J,17r-1 c--, ~? ::::U\'C !,-'-'~.\..C\ _,'N.::.( ,c:::::. '/--' ,c:::, c- : 1-, ~'" '-.:.J :.; I "/ I I~ '. ' _P- 11':-:::''--''-:- 'c-" ',~ -,t::J ~ '~tI:: r~"--- ~ ~~;;~"",".'\:,\\ -r:::/?*- ~",/' ~I' ' 'I ' " , I." ' ','I", ~;;..:::., -:"1.J.'-I..,<../, ~"~-'l ,~~r 0,'-"/-, 1 l~.'_;:: /"(/'\....-" ,! \ :- ::::]'-,__)"-<':'...J -</~-'\\ \ ;::-~'h::: .:.!/;c:: hi,i ;:: ~c::;::;:: /)\,:, ,_I: ' ,-~'0~ ?-"~-il'l \~~ =::l c:I::::::oJ I , \/ ' ",I: , ;::, ii! I ill ' , I ;;~,: ' . , i ~ :L", ',i ! , " I I " ! " \ I. ' , ! \ :\ I ,s' , \;\\,' I ,~.~" ' '<~~,! "<.... \,\\ 1\\ \\ \\ I i Empire Township ~ Genstar Company Land Holdings (\v'; City Boundary City of Farmington N W+E &1 AeEII To 86 A,.,NElC.O s City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us Grace M. Seed, John C. Seed and James M. Seed as In the Matter of the Petition bYrT'1c::r.::>.::>c:: ,...,f rh.::> m;:!Ti r;:! 1 rTllc::r l"'T.::>;:!t-t=>n llnni=>T rhat certain aareement dated March 23. 1979. as amended. with Fred M. ~eed as Property Owner(s) for annexation ofland to the City of Farmington pW'Suant to Minnesota donor. Statutes No. 414.01 Et.Seq. To: The City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota Copies to: Minnesota Municipal Board 165 Metro Square St. Paul, MN 55101 Dakota County Board of Commissioners 1590 West Highway 55 Hastings. MN 55033 Town Board of Empire Township By signature hereunder, petitioner(s) affirm that he/she (they) is (are): ~ the sole property owner(s) of the area proposed for annexation; or _ all of the property owners of the area proposed for annexation; or _ a majority of the property owners of the area proposed for annexation. It is hereby requested that the City of Farmington annex the property herein described and now located in tblf~ Empire Township , Dakota County, Minnesota: (Provide the legal description of the property, parcels of property of area proposed for annexation; provide attachments containing the legal description if it is too long for inclusion in this space. The area of the property proposed for annexation: (Note: The size of the property will determine the manner and timing of the process for considering this Petition.) Less than 40 acres x More than 40 acres but less than 60 acres Less than 200 acres More than 200 acres I:\PLANNING\Annexation\AnnexPetitionF orm.doc As to the property proposed for annexation, annexation is sought because the property is: 1. Owned by the City of Farmington 2. Completely surround by land within the Farmington City limits. Abutting the City of Farmington on the N S W@circ1e one) boundary. 3. x 4. Not now served by public sewer facilities and public sewer facilities are not otherwise available. 5. After August 1, 1995, it has been approved by preliminary or final plat for residential development lots averaging 21,780 square feet or less in area and is land within two miles of the boundary of the City of Farmington (applicable only if all property owners join the petition). 6. Not abutting the City of Farmington, but is within an existing orderly annexation area and all property owners join in the petition. 7. 40 acres in size or less and at least sixty percent (60%) of the property abuts the City of Farmington. 8. ----- ~ The property is not located within an area presently under consideration by the City of Farmington or the Municipal Board for boundary adjustment. -- Note: Before your property can be annexed, Minnesota Law requires that a public hearing be held preceded by at least 30 days written notice by certified mail to the Town or Towns in which the property is located and to all landowners within and contiguous to the area proposed for annexation. The costs incurred by the City in identifying the persons to whom this notice is to be mailed and the mailing list itself will be charged to the petitioners and must be paid before the mailing goes out. Dated: (',) c . ..j. CJ b e i 1<1- , 19 9' B Signature(s) ofPetitioner(s) John C. Seed ~un .-- ~ --- --- , ~. James M. Seed 1:\PLANNING\Annexation\AnnexPetitionF orm.doc / j PRO~OS20 OESCR!FT:ON Th~t part of the Northwest Quer~er and ~ha Northeas~ Q~ar~ar of Section 19, Township 114, Range 1 9 , Oakota County, Mir.nesota, described as fellows: ae~innin9' at: the sou"thwest co:r:r.ar of said Northwest Quarte::: thence on an assumed bearing of Sout~ 89 c9grees 59 minutes 19 seconc3 East, along the sc~th line of said Nc=thwest Quarter and Ncr1:heas~ Quartsr, 3226.50 faet to the i~tarsect~cn of the westerly line of Soo tine Railroad; t:-.ance Ncr~h 22 de~re9s 4C minutes 17 secenc3 West, elong said Wes'":arly line, 45=.59 feat; tr..snce Scu'th 89 degrees 59 min~1:e3 19 seconda East 967.C2 feet; thence North 00 degree 00 minut:e 41 seccnds aast 209.92 fee":; thence Sou t:h S; de~=ees 59 min~~as 19 aacen~3 East 139.00 fae~: t~anC9 Ner'":h CO deg::"~e CO minu~a 41 sacc::c3 East 98.33 :8e1:; thence Nor-:::. at; ~e9~ees 59 minu~a3 19 seccncs Wes~ 4152.68 fae~ ~: ~ha in~=rsec~i=n with the wes~ li~e 0= saic Ncr~~wes~ Oua=~sr; ~~e~~a scu~n, alc~; said was'": line, ~o ~he ~cint c: beginning. !xce~t the righ~ c: way of said See Li~9 Railroad. 1/30/95 #lO~47 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 WWW.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Dave Olson, Community Development Director FROM: Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Discussion with Carl Schenk - October 14, 1998 DATE: October 14,1998 I spoke with Carl Schenk concerning whether the Met Council will allow the City to show the proposed annexation of 950 acres of land owned by the Seed/Genstar group on the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the Met Council would only approve the Comprehensive Plan in this area under the following conditions: 1. The land has already been annexed into the City at the time of the plan review by the Met Council. 2. There is an orderly annexation agreement between the City and Empire Township. He also stated that when the property is annexed into the City at 60 acres, it still must be reviewed by the MMB. Carl asked if the City will request an extension. I stated that in light of the annexation issue, that we would be requesting an extension. Therefore, Carl will send us an extension packet by next week. L.lJ",-- ---1- -- --r- -- r-- \\ J."mi ri;J1 \~? -- ]~~ - i ~~I 0Jr ~~ - N .;~ a =, -i.' o ~~~~ m!n' ~\I ~~ ~ iii ("0 1.::1 - L < fj ill. ..y ' ~ I .JLJlll-I ~\\- mm jel1U.$jfiE "/ iJ '\ ~ if m ~~i1~ ~_, /~~=:::-_ ~ 0 1 !~~ -...... a' / -. ..-;::::::--- -;: -- _ d:~ El3~EiII III :,.. - ~,;;;; ;; -./ - ",'Z ii1L11~ .f~-~1:~lP ~ tf~ -- -~I I o~. _;\ ~.../..ltl'_~ 1l:./ ~~r v,!!.li I 0 (0 ;',...J J- y '7 ,.~~~'.,... ~ ~ _ - /ii~~-\j~ ,~~ .0< 'f ~~ rt-~U- o Ei I 11 J- - ---11 I ..... , - 8 " 80 ~~ _~~~'6 0 a __~~~\ I~I _.1 ~ I T I \ \ _ L~' ? I ~ I I,...' . ~~ ~ ,b ~ ~ I~II-: ~ i: -'~ ~ /--........__ /1..(' _--"~ ..... U ,)L__ ,.....l '~ cj== ~;. ___: r-' \; _ .0, t~'1 ~ . " I I ~ I - :: ~--.;:/-. ~ --4- '- '6 AEi / ~ ~ '....'....( '7 ~.i...1 ----A....-..\I '7 ~~",...,? I til. -, ~ - .... _ ~ '6 \ ~ .. f .; co I 'y" ~ \ I \ l:.:..:.j }L .01 ~,1j I ~ -_.J)I '-'," I \ ~ J..J I ' Z .:4 ft 1 ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ J } ~-- d_ o ,,~ 0 \ _ _ _ _ ~ 7 ... ... .t. r co I ,... ') ,: ~ /" -i 4-f) .-<~ .r 1-1 / ill ~ ~ b- \, ... <--;' ~.....2 13...~ y-.... li . tM.. ~Jc..,.. \ 18 I 0 I' Ih -~ I. ~k. [I I --l; U"J ~ \ , l V-~- N I !! :t1~V,.., l~_ \ ~ \( ~ ~ [ \ .../ / \ I ~ fi \' ~ I ~ I \ o.~ I 0 '-( / ~ :' '6 / - ~ , , ' I 0 I (i: W I I .,'-,.. ~,...~ I f] I -I ft I ~ ~ t: -----r-J IJ ~-- _ _ =-llL -=dJ_ _-L I r-' I _J___ __1 i - ill 8 2 o 2 r ) / , rIT--__ :0 .8 J \;1 it ~ - (),.- b j V \f\ JO j ~ rJ) ~ f5 L.. >0'- !t>> ~ii "'COc >o"Oc ,!~O L.c.9 V"c- td::JlD ~::lIii "OcOoG>> c L. c m 21-9c6t)t) I-i :.2 m 't:'i: olDoii--- co :!:,!o.!!.!! :;: Q. C w 't: "0 "0 .!!o.__..o.o .cL.O:C.-::lI::J WCLCL-IOCIJCIJ ~ ~ a . . Ol I ..... o co CD ... <( ..... c: CD E Q. o - CD > CD C CD .....Q. COco E:a: Sc: -0 <( .- ..... -CO (.) ._ 0 ~...I CD Q. o ... Q. ~ - .- E CO U. 'a CD CD (/) w z*- ~ r-~'"~-"-'--l-.-'=-'~"-T~~-"--" ,-. i'- .-'."~ 'r I 1 I I I I I i I : J' i! I I ~- -----+, T J-i I I j I i I I bCl!1 ~J I I ) L__.___ L ! p I I +- I ( " ~ ....0 -~ ... ~ ~ ~ ()- ~{}.. 3 4 'Dj;:b ";I.m ~ J-111I11~ !~. '~~-. ~ttJrI'ITj!~lliL~~ I "-, I ~EHIlIIfm .lliffB(~~,@ I"J \ ~ t hIITIlIT..r:m lTIITIIIiU-JJ-- \' .___""-_ _ ,JiI'.l:WUl lil1I!mai.L':.::J.. . ~ nl ~,-: . ~ rY' ~rr __ >---. -. ~--._ Ilru '.' I ---:.:;;.-;.." "-"''::'r~---:::~-~~._" I .... ... I I ~-_ .J' ;-;- --- I I -- . /" . --------....---.-..---.-..-.-j , .......,. I . I; I , 1-- I .--.-- ---,_.. .... lr I I ~ . I · __J I I ____ I --~.--1:-- o ..... ... ... '0 > '0 ... > 4) ... II 4) 4) II II: 4) 4) II: 01 4) aI C 01 ... Ii aI 0 ... - c E 0 CO Ii - ... ... CO E 4) 4) ... - ... - "<<) aI 4) aI - ~ - ~ 0 aI aI ~ 'Q ~ 'Q Z 4) 4) W 01 II 01 II 0 .s: 0 .s: 0 w - Q, - Q, ~ II 0 II 0 >C ... >C ... W Il.. W Il.. N . . ....: ~ l~d i -~r-rt <<0 l'\1: ---1 I ~ ........ I I u . co 4) Ii E 'Q 4) "'" ... aI E c ::J ;( i '0 z >- ... aI 'Q c ::J >- 0 ... m aI .. 'Q G) c ... 5 ~ m >- >- '0 _ ::J (3 (;i -L ~ LJ.....:-L. 1 __--1'. - \. -":T" - ~ ~~ & i ~ ij. .. h ti I j II Ii " I :<~~~< - ~ ;;. 0( ~:.i.? r i I Ii ~ ~- t ~ ro Il ~ i ,___--1.. j I I s a ~ - ill.'- : :,911 I · ... 1J....1, CleW.. J iii .. j j :;; 1 4J. ---~~j ii ~ - !iq.illi ~ "O.l!j~~a:c3 Iii r-: ~ ,-" ~ I ~"\ _. i II rf11:! [: ; : t 0( .,1 - <~'-(-:::C'" ~~-'-l-- ' .,' -j(. ~,I..J L-!, '-' '" - i . ~- ~--------;7', '1'< /. I"~/, >.:: :f.~ ..,--::: "',~ I 1 I", . '\ . --'I"'lJD..~Cr~~1 -~ I , ..,"', ~ .,-1" '" I_~;::'::? L~~"':II: ~~,...;~~~.~, I 1:.. \ , -'-L~' ~'1:J'~-'" -' /" 'I "'1 ~'1' _ -, ^ .' GO, / /' I ~:'~8.:1::F'~lal:_L},.-;;; "., I -;:':/., '1i!1:.i'l,~~-'='h'.:::_ 't':':.If 1" / " \ ~" :< -:-'~' b~ ~I-~ LIJ fti I~"...t; - / >:- X '-,-If.:; t.:::.. ~ ~~'':'' ~ I' . .' lD,~,-+t-ll "" / - "_. J .[::-,.~ - ~"'':'':\:.::cr.:l:-t,'t'.__ J,".'/~' :,~~~~:-:...~ :11' :' '\-n_,~__.. , i "/'; F <i:.T- i"O:J L11 d-" r::e I~ ~,-- , ....... ., "/", !:~ . r1 --;-' ,.-,.'1, ,1_ ~ _, ~~'.;r:'~.:t~~:~rW9r8L~~tr:, '4'</:'::;:~jj/;~j (.:i;:J'-:~,~ .j-....:-:~ 'II' ~ J r~':r.1 '.~r:-t:v'tj~,=1lii'J:.jr:'-Y"_"', ''rl" l'~r-' II ~ t-:i; 1- '" 8ffiUJI- /";t..:;tr'a-'~;:'~~r~>- ~tfJ~(';->;;-1W /,' ~ ~--:~LL..i:~ ".::f ti.i, _ ,I lIL;t: -it'rf'..liC1L:H:il.U~ -.:;;" '::'-~i::,:-;~':'L.,...l.t-:=__> ('~~TW-;-f"- 151 ...J I .- ; ~~ I';:~ EHl ~~~,r:-~J)2 ~ r ~, ~1 '-='-~ $ f;;J{;l ~'-i:f . :-7t, ~~~:@ ~:: f ~ ~ '7- -; 'I ~ "f~~~ ~~..~t~~ /"; ../~~1-~r~ ~-+'M' ., t:J-:J !:~-:J l-' .~,. r.c:::- J t-?!.~/."", ~, / :! Ii :! \ _~~ ' ',- /, 9 t.t! ~)::":'-I i 'r\ ,/ h +;-:.1 r; .-.< _l LP ':tJ ' ~;I Co. -j , . ~ ----.1.:.0 ~ 'j ../ 'J I, . __~, l-tr~/:./ :~;1 \\J~~L.l1:'~'.z:.,~..:::~t-;:~jc:.~~_'/ ii ./ g', ':::::i__:.:J ';:'~___ ~ -t,.~~~=---,--_.- \\ W':;:~r\P:'(.. J..:;'...--: ~ LT 1 Tl <;Ili.J..W.~ ~TT.:.:.. :..; :- -~' ...:.'frti~- ~,- i ~%E:~!l :;./, j:U[[J:rn.L~(._='~'==;-::fIr"-::':.:f'-~f/T-:-'\" /> ''';rCT,' :;_Jt:\~.;\,\.:."'j'"1 ~./ ; -=--~"~C:;-'~t-1I ......~":,;,p"-='.r1..1jr.-- ',-- .~H":'1L7"'~\~__~ "v::l ."""'t ( . I r',; I~- -roC'. 'D r;-,->.. '>..LJ~'-, .,' -('',.-\'\_-'~''-:;'';' '.:n.~~~ ~,/~. '''0 ' 1,- Ir......lr~...; I Ll I,~.. ,.-~ I--..~"..'-:::'<( -' --m'. n ',..;;,.:.......__~,r -,'1, 'II _.-: .: I ,- C.l-J '': i-H. 0(,' c -< ',.',;,~- '. ',-<'y ___,... 1 \' \~"'-:', T, I . -"",1, ""I~. ..... I ~~ >-'r--.ll.t'!'......,.. ;;. Ii. """, ,'- ,:",' ;-:'- '1' ,q~:..l- ~~' ,'/'H"! I ~ / -1'I-J,-I-~'~rll.......,CIl 0(" '-'-";"^~'" .j'~.' __ :;,..,'.J~'..J ""Ii. 1<'1i1\L~~-,~.:.;--1!i l --.,/, <i}[Jj.:0'~".;? ...;,"-'..- _. . r~,. :;:'!1tt:j;' f ~ : :(qlct~.t?/~.y , - '>:>;:j\" ....:.'L>-2:'..;~'it)--...--~~~,r.J:trtLJI.~ .t.' _, r -.;:-' I ;;.:' \..;:;.J'~lr"'< - i '1.-.""..... ::;! 1 it=:',"r~~'~JJi ,....... I 0 ~'.' ~~l..,".'ri,..~,f:i '\ ,,. ~ \ / II '" ! (\ .:"7,):-':\.-.:.., 'f .... ..L....I \ . "\,1,..,,_..,\=, I; J'. ) -/ "'V"'/\('Sj"'I' \,) ,- - ~.' : t::-"r r:'8rJ I.";.:, '" - __ I i 't,.' ".\>~"""~. i,' _ "- ~ -..t-::r.d" ilill--e I ~/ .... ...., i ,r\::'d--<.i.::ill ~I 1;:;;/. . '_-=: u.~Im 8 I i \ I ! .... i i::.' bJpl-. j~.,;:-, I. , ...; "': f:'H!L~l::1 J I 'I I '- /,~., ',....,-,.,... i I 0( '1rTJ'CI ''-, I..... ..._ ;;. -n"'-'- '~I.-;..., \.1 -._ ..( r:rr?J !~..::...; c> "! :l! ~ " s- j~ oc Itii ~~ ~ !i~ i !~~ i ~iJ . . n f ~, ~~ ~ '- -0 -tl 3 ,..1". \ \ \ \ I' I 'I './'_ _u.__ >-t------.r..... , ). -.........: / ;") / / 21 I'~ " 1 .J_ - ~ I / . -'I ~ -r , /..... ',/ i- '~~ ~}.,,' "! ' ". ....../ -r i ,.u. Ji 6u..-~-==.... " _:L-.J ---~.~ --~.,.- '1 , -~r=_-......,...-..:.;v-~I-6i1:l 1::1:;l Fll~ j ~ , :( I :;;\1~ l'i ./' - -'":;:\~ I I "';' - -"-0 l ~ ~~l'f\! L - - I \ <to 12;! -It' "- I - -::!! ..\. _ _11-- / Ilhr -< '..... - \ '" J / \ I . ) -- I \ - - !, I --- I / :( : ( '" ,I vOj-IN,.,.,-,3 t. l,.:..?; "! ~ ~ ':.,.-~~" ...J'" / 1 I ~ ~ o , I I ~,., . .'1 d . r' ,'I' I : i oJ :", I '" 'I. " I ,j I c:.-~ : I .... I' / . . l-.k~' . '. . >+ ; / I.'''' " I --I' : " ." I ... ", \, I ~'=~""<?" .\. s:~ .-t. 'r-'.'t,{J - - Ff~'-'_,J" 'r"--.' ~ '" .... ,. ~ CD \\\It "I,:>~: ! g' :L-.::~~4 -: c: '~'\~,~(.S:'.;~' ~ ~ I i,/I,I'." 0.5 CD \(\\~II/" U ti:2 /. ....: 0 'x.~ j , 'i' . .>', _ wO ': :'/,' i. 1-:" 'i" ..' "'\l:dYd~l ~ ~ j \J~ - "1 ~-j " 0 oJ ,.......... ... ~4: -t.. CiC \ ~. CD a; .9- 8. c: 0- ._ c: ~ 'C 0- III .2.. CDC).c:5S 1/1 c:Um-- o .- c: Q. ti CD - o .- Q. ~e Q:~o.eD ii , i";- > ;;- >- t;; i ~j JLb- ~ 1). ~ V\ -' .... (J .;:: .... .... (J 1/1 .;:: :c .~ .g o CJ) 1/1 CD~ CD~'~ c)1ll c)1ll E ~-g ~-g :::i 'iQ ::J OiQ::J ?: I ~o ~o .-, OeD OeD U ~ " '" " <. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us lOa.. TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administrator~ FROM: David L. Olson Community Development Director SUBJECT: Individual Sewage Treatment Systems Ordinance Update DATE: December 7, 1998 INTRODUCTION The City has had an ordinance for several years that regulates the design, installation and maintenance of on-site Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS). The following report is an update as to the enforcement of this ordinance. DISCUSSION The City has been enforcing the requirements of this ordinance as it pertains to new and replacement ISTS installations for some time. However, the verification of pumping of existing systems has not been actively enforced to date. Both the Metropolitan Council and Dakota County are now indicating to local units of government that these maintenance requirements for existing systems should be enforced. This requires every property owner in the City with an ISTS to provide evidence that their system has been pumped within the last three years. (City ordinance currently requires pumping every two years, however it is recommended that the ordinance be amended to require pumping every three years to be consistent with County ordinance and State law.) In addition to the ISTS pumping requirements, the licensed pumper is required to evaluate the system to determine whether the ISTS is in working order and is in compliance with Minnesota Rules 7080. The licensed pumper is required to indicate whether there is any evidence of system failure or surface discharge. This information is then filed with both the City and the County. If there is any indication of a failing system or imminent threat to public health and safety, the City will then need to take necessary actions to gain compliance. (Compliance is required in 30 days for imminent threat to public health and 10 months for a failed system). The City is in the process of establishing and verifying a database of all existing ISTS in the City of Farmington. Staff has identified approximately 90 existing ISTS within the City's jurisdiction. Included in this list is an ISTS that was identified in the Ash Street reconstruction project. This system was not inspected by City staff and refused to allow County inspection, consequently its condition and compliance status is unknown at this time. In January 1999, it is anticipated that notices will be sent to all property owners with ISTS indicating the requirement that they provide evidence that their system has been pumped in the last three years. Upon providing this evidence to the City, the property owner will receive a permit that would expire upon three years from the date of the most recent pumping of the system. It is proposed that a $10 annual permit fee be charged to ISTS property owners for this maintenance permit program. If an ISTS is identified as a failing system, the City will be required to take the necessary enforcement action as provided in the ordinance. BUDGET IMPACT It is anticipated that the proposed annual maintenance permit fees along with permit fees collected for new or replacement systems will cover the cost of enforcement of this ordinance. ACTION REQUESTED 1) Authorization to proceed with the enforcement of the existing ISTS Ordinance requirements; and 2) Initiate an amendment to Section 7-3-7(D) to require pumping every three years rather than two years and an amendment to Section 7-3-11 to allow ten months rather than the current six months to bring failing systems into compliance. Both changes will make the City Ordinance consistent with County and State requirements. If Council concurs with these proposed ordinance amendments, they would be placed on the December 21, 1998 Council Agenda. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Community Development Director 7 -3-1 7 -3-1 CHAPTER 3 DESIGN, INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ON-SITE INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS (ISTS) SECTION: 7-3- 1: 7-3- 2: 7-3- 3: 7-3- 4: 7-3- 5: 7-3- 6: 7-3- 7: 7 -3- 8: 7-3- 9: 7-3-10: 7 -3-11 : 7-3-12: 7-3-13: 7 -3-1 : Definitions Administration Holding Tanks Design Of ISTS Installation Of Individual Sewage Treatment Systems Testing For ISTS Design Permit Required Systems Causing Imminent Threat To Public Health And Safety Schedule For Initial Permits Limits On Commercial And Industrial Discharge Failed ISTS Penalty Inconsistency DEFINITIONS: The following terms in this Chapter shall have the following meanings as set forth below: The permanent and proper termination or decommissioning of an individual sewage treatment system (hereinafter ISTS) or part thereof. ABAN DONM ENT: All those relevant sample collection, preser- vation, analytical and statistical reporting methods known to accurately and precisely represent physical, chemical, biological and radiological parameters of interest or concern in wastewater or water. Approved testing methods shall be regulatory or consensus standards and shall not be limited to standard methods for APPROVED TESTING METHODS: 597 City of Farmtngton 7 -3-1 BAFFLE: COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL: CONTAMINANT: CONTAMINATION: DWELLING: FAILED INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM: 597 7 -3-1 examination of water and wastewater (APHA. AWWA. WPCF) methods for chemical analysis of water and waste (EPA) and. where applicable, test methods for evaluating solid waste (SW-846, EPA). A device installed in a septic tank for proper operation of the tank and to provide maximum retention of solids, and includes vented sanitary tees and submerged pipes in addition to those devices that are normally called baffles. Any use of a building or property other than a single-family, duplex or triplex residential dwelling unit. Any physical, chemical, biological, or radiological substance or matenal in water which tends to degrade the environment by contributing toxicity, constituting a hazard or otherwise impairing its usefulness. The presence of certain infectious or toxic agents or certain hazardous characteristics capable of causing disease or other harm. Any building or portion thereof, which is designed or used exclusively for residential purposes but not including rooms in motels. hotels, nursing homes, boarding houses, or trailers, tents, cabins or trailer coaches. A soil treatment system that is allowing sewage, sewage tank effluent, or seepage from the soil treatment system to be discharged to the ground surface, abandoned wells, or bodies of surface water, or into any rock or soil formation the structure of which is not conducive to purification of water by filtration. or into any well or other excavation in the ground. "Faiied individual sewage treatment system" also means an individual sewage treatment system that uses cesspools, leaching pits, seepage pits, or systems with less than three feet (3') of City of Farmzngton 7 -3-1 GROUND WATER: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: HOLDING TANK: IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY: INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM (hereinafter ISTS): MOUND SYSTEM: OWNER: 7 -3-1 unsaturated soil distribution device characteristics. or sand and the between limiting the soil Subsurface water in the vadose (unsaturated) and phreatic (saturated) zones occurring naturally in soil and rock formations. whether or not capable of yielding such water to wells. and shall specifically mean that subsurface water present in the saturated zone defined by a perched, free or confined ground water surface. Any substance, which when discarded, meets the definition of hazardous waste in Minnesota Rules 7045. A watertight tank for storage of sewage until it can be transported to a point of approved treatment and disposal. Situations with the potential to immediately and adversely impact or threaten public health or safety. An imminent threat to public health or safety shall include all ground surface or surface water discharge of wastewater and any systems causing sewage backup into a dwelling or other establishment shall constitute an imminent threat to public health or safety. A sewage treatment system or part thereof, serving a dwelling, or other establishment, or group thereof, which uses subsurface soil treatment and disposal, including approved holding tanks. A system where the soil treatment area is built above the ground to overcome limits imposed by proximity to water table or bedrock or by rapidly or slowly permeable soils. All persons having possession of, control over, or title to an ISTS. 597 City of Farmmgton 7 -3-1 POLLUT ANT: PUBLIC NUISANCE OR PUBLIC HEALTH NUISANCE: PUMP OR PUMPED: PUMPER OR CERTIFIED PUMPER: RESERVE AREA: SECONDARY DISCHARGE: 597 7 -3-1 A contaminant whose form concentration or other attnbute in an environmental medium such as soil or water, exceeds established. acceptable criteria and standards prescribed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and. therefore, may be capable of causing disease, injury or death in humans. animals or plants. contributing to the risk thereof, otherwise degrading the environment or creating a public nuisance. Defined as in MSA chapter 145A, as amended, and restricted in this Chapter to those conditions in which wastes, wastewaters, sewage, septage, sludge and other releases or related activities contribute to the annoyance or endangerment of persons or the degradation of the environment and which require appropriate prevention, control or abatement to resolve. The removal and sanitary disposal of septage from the septic tank. Removal of septage also includes complete removal of scum and sludge. A person or company that has been licensed to pump septic systems. That portion of a property that is designated to be protected from all vehicular traffic. construction and other disturbances to the original, natural soils such that a future wastewater treatment system or device may be constructed meeting all Chapter requirements when the existing primary system or device malfunctions, becomes irreparable or when it fails to comply with this Chapter. Those solids and liquids discharged intermittently which are not part of the business: commercial and/or industrial process. including, but not limited to, floor drains and overtlow from containment areas. City of Farmington 7 -3-1 SEPTAGE: SEPTIC TANK: SEWAGE: SEWAGE TANK: SEWAGE TANK EFFLUENT: SOIL TREATMENT AREA: SOIL TREATMENT SYSTEM: 7 -3-1 Those solids and liquids removed during periodic maintenance ot a septic or aerobic tank or those solids and liquids which are removed from a holding tank. Any watertight, covered receptacle designed and . constructed to receive the discnarge of sewage from a building sewer, separate solids from liquid, digest organic matter, and store liquids through a period of detention, and allow the clarified liquids to discharge to a soil treatment system. Any water-carried domestic waste, exclusive of footing and roof drainage, from any industrial, agricultural, or commercial establishment, or any dwelling or any other structure. Domestic waste includes liquid waste produced by toilets, bathing, laundry, culinary operations and the floor drains associated with these sources and specifically excludes animal waste and commercial or industrial waste water. A watertight tank used in the treatment of sewage and includes, but is not limited to, septic tanks and aerobic tanks. Liquid which flows from a septic or aerobic tank under normal operations. Area of trench or bed bottom which is in direct contact with the drainfield rock of the soil treatment system. For mounds. it is the area to the edges of the required absorption width and extends five feet (5') beyond the ends of the rock layer. A system where sewage tank effluent is treated and disposed of below the ground surface by filtration and percolation through the soil, and includes those systems commonly known as seepage bed, trench, drain field, disposal field and moundS. 597 City of Farmington 7 -3-1 7-3-4 STANDARD SYSTEMS: An ISTS employing a building sewer, sewage tank, and the soil treatment system consisting of trenches. seepage beds or mounds whIch are constructed on original soil which has a percolation rate equal to or faster than one hundred twenty (120) minutes per inch. WATER TABLE: The highest elevation in the soil where all vOids are filled with water, as evidenced by the presence of water or soil mottling or other information. (Ord. 094-343. 12-19-1994; amd. Ord. 097-389, 2-18-1997) 7-3-2: ADMINISTRATION: Standards for installation, maintenance and repair of ISTS are as established herein. Adoption of MPCA Rule 7080 and any subsequent amendments thereto, and Dakota County Environmental Management Department Ordinance 113 and any subsequent amendments thereto, in the most current editions are hereby adopted by reference and shall be part of this Chapter as if set forth herein. (Ord. 097-389, 2-18-1997) 7-3-3: HOLDING TANKS: Holding tanks conforming to the requirements of this Code are limited to the following installations: (A) Tanks with a capacity not exceeding two thousand (2,000) gallons may be used for collection of secondary discharge not suitable for on-site treatment. (B) Replacement of failed ISTS on existing uses when no other means of treatment are possible. (Ord. 094-343, 12-19-1994) 7-3-4: DESIGN OF ISTS: In addition to requirements contained within MPCA Rule 7080 and Dakota County Ordinance 113, as amended, all new, rebuilt or otherwise modified ISTS located in the City shall be designed by a person licensed as a site evaluator qualified to design such systems. Said person shall submit proof of certification to the City's Building Inspection Division at the time the ISTS design is submitted for approval. No building permit will be issued until the design is approved by the Building Inspection Division. (Ord. 097-389, 2-18-1997) 597 City ot' Farmington 7-3-5 7-3-7 7-3-5: INSTALLATION OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS: The installation of an ISTS shall occur only at the location approved by the City's Inspection Division. Installation of the system at any other location shall require submission to and approval of revised design and location plans by the City's Building Inspection Division. The system shall only be installed by a person or company licensed as qualified to install such a system. Failed systems shall be abandoned at the time a new system is installed by pumping the tank, removing the top' and bottom, and placing fill material in the tank up to existing grade. (Ord. 094-343, 12-19-1994) 7-3-6: TESTING FOR ISTS DESIGN: Prior to approval of any preliminary or final plat, waiver of platting or permit issuance for any and all buildable and existing lots of record in unsewered areas, the landowner shall submit to the City Building Inspection Division the following: (A) Two (2) separate ISTS site evaluations for both a primary and secondary reserve area sewage/soil treatment system; (B) A minimum of four (4) soil borings; (C) Two (2) percolation test results; (D) A complete site analysis for both the primary and secondary ISTS soil treatment systems per MPCA 7080.0110. Said analysis must show existence of adequate land area for both sites and take into account seasonably saturated soils, soil types and conditions, topographic features, flooding potential and mandatory setback requirements as dictated by City ordinance and applicable State and Federal regulations. Failure to provide any of the above required information shall be grounds for denial of building and ISTS permits. (Ord. 097-389. 2-18-1997) 7-3-7: PERMIT REQUIRED: Subject to Section 7-3-9 of this Chapter, no ISTS shall be used unless the owner of the ISTS has received a permit from the City and the permit is in force and effect. (A) Mandatory Pumping; Maintenance Permit: The owner of every single-family residential sewage tank, septic tank or holding tanK shall apply for the tank maintenance permit from the City's Building 597 City of Farmington 7-3-7 7-3-7 Inspection Division. The permit shall be issued by the Building Inspection Division only if the following requirements are met: 1. The owner of the ISTS shows evidence to the Building Inspection pivision in the form of a written certificate from the pumper that the septic or sewage tank has been pumped in accordance with subsection 7-3-7(C) of this. Section, within twelve (12) months prior to permit application. 2. The owner of the ISTS shall show evidence to the Building Inspection Division in the form of a written certificate from the pumper on the average pumping frequency and volume of holding tank(s). 3. The owner of the ISTS or holding tanks pays the required permit fee as set forth from time to time by resolution of the City Council. (B) Commercial And Industrial Operational Permit: The owner of every commercial and industrialiSTS shall apply for an individual sewage treatment system permit from the City's Building Inspection Division. The permit shall be issued by the Building Inspection Division only if the following requirements are met: 1. The owner of the ISTS shows evidence to the Building Inspection Division in the form of a written certificate from the pumper that the septic or sewage tank has been pumped in accordance with subsection 7-3-7(C) of this Section, within twelve (12) months prior to permit application. 2. The owner of the ISTS shall show evidence to the Building Inspection Division in the form of a written certificate from the pumper on the average pumping frequency and volume of holding tank(s). 3. Inspection shall be completed by the City Building Inspection DivIsion to verify water use and suitable effluent quality for on-site treatment. For an increase in discharge rate due to a change of use or building addition, the owner will be responsible to complete an ISTS evaluation to determine capacity of existing system. A permit will not be issued unless the system is capable of handling discharge. 4. The owner of the ISTS pays the required permit fee as set forth from time to time by resolution of the City Council. 597 City of Farmmgton 7-3-7 7-3-7 5. A new operatIonal permit is required when a change of ownership, building use or building addition occurs. (Ord. 094-343, 12-19-1994) (C) ISTS Maintenance: Upon successful completion of ISTS maintenance per MPCA 7080.0175 and Dakota County Ordinance 113, as amended, the licensed pumper/inspector shall submit a sewage system maintenance log sheet to the Dakota County Environmental Management Department within thirty (30) days with the appropriate County recording fee. The log sheet must be completed in its entirety and all information recorded must be verified in writing by the signature and date of the licensed pumper/inspector completing the maintenance. The log sheet must state the condition of and work done on the following: 1. The sewerage or septic tank(s) has/have been thoroughly pumped by a licensed pumper to remove all solids and scum in accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Rules chapter 7080.0175. Exception: Pumping is not required if a licensed pumper/inspector determines the accumulated sludge and scum layers do not exceed the levels required for pumping per Minnesota Rules chapter 7080.0175. 2. An ISTS evaluation is completed by the licensed pumper/inspector verifying that the baffles and tank(s) are in working order and in substantial compliance with Minnesota Rules chapter 7080 and if there is any evidence of ISTS surface discharge or failure. (Ord. 097-389, 2-18-1997) ~~e: (3) (D) Duration: The duration of the permit shall be for tV/6 (2) years and shall be renewed by the owner again making application to the City for such permit. The permit shall be deemed revoked if the system becomes a failed ISTS. (E) Relation To Zoning Code: Permits will not be issued if the building or property use is not in conformance with City Zoning Code. No building permits, variances or conditional use permits shall be issued unless a current maintenance permit has been issued. (F) Timely Application: If an owner has not obtained the permit as required in subsections A through E of this Section by the date specified in the City letter of notification, the permit fee shall be doubled. (Ord. 094-343, 12-19-1994) 597 City at' Farmmgton 7-3-8 7 -3-" 7-3-8: SYSTEMS CAUSING IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY: The owner of any ISTS determined or found to be causing or having the potential to cause an imminent threat to public health or safety shall immediately replace. modify or reconstruct the ISTS in conformance with MPCA Rule 7080. (Ord. 097-389. 2-18-1997) 7-3-9: SCHEDULE FOR INITIAL PERMITS: The owners of ISTS shall obtain a maintenance or operational permit as required no later than July 1, 1995. (Ord. 094-343,12-19-1994) 7-3-10: LIMITS ON COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE: No animal waste or commercial wastewater or industrial wastewater shall be discharged on the surface or into the subsurface unless the person allowing or causing the discharge first obtains a State disposal system permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Such discharges must comply with the terms and requirements of the State disposal system permit in order to continue. An ISTS that is used for the discharge of animal waste, commercial or industrial wastewater prior to the effective date of this Chapter, may continue to be used for such purposes until such system becomes a failed ISTS or the MPCA orders discontinuance, whichever occurs first; then, in such case, the new installed system must comply with this Chapter. (Ord. 094-343, 12-19-1994) 7-3-11: FAILED ISTS: The City shall inspect all existing ISTS systems within the City within one year of the effective date of this Chapter, and periodically thereafter, to determine compliance with this Section. The owner of a failed ISTS shall replace, modify or reconstruct the failed system within six (6) months of the inspection, either in conformance with MPCA Rule 7080 and Dakota County Ordinance 113, as amended, or, if allowed by the Building Official, in conformance with MPCA Rule 7080.0190. In the alternative, the owner shall permanently discontinue use of the failed system within' months of the inspection. Upon application by the owner, the ity Council may allow the failed system to be used up to one year from Co ncil approval of the application. The City shall not issue a building permit variance or conditional use permit until the existing ISTS is determined 0 be in compliance with MPCA Rule 7080 and Dakota County Ordinance 1 3, as amended. (Ord. 097-389, 2-18-1997) ~ C/o) 597 City of Farmington 7 -3-12 7 -3-13 7-3-12: PENALTY: Violation of this Chapter shall be a misdemeanor. Presentation to the City of any false or intentionally misleading statements, certificates or applications by the owner or by the certified pumpers, or certified designers or installers of ISTS shall also be a misdemeanor. A separate offense shall be deemed committed each day during or upon which a violation occurs or continues to occur. (Ord. 097-389, 2-18-1997) 7-3-13: INCONSISTENCY: If any provision of this Chapter is inconsistent with MPCA Rule 7080 or Dakota County Ordinance 113, as amended. then that provision which is more demanding or provides a greater level of requirements or restrictions, or provides an earlier date of compliance shall prevail and be controlling. If any provision of this Chapter is inconsistent with any City code, then that provision which is more demanding or provides a greater level of requirements or restrictions, or provides an earlier date of compliance shall prevail and be controlling. (Ord. 097-389. 2-18-1997) 597 City of Farmmgton City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /O.b TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrat01~ David L. Olson, Community Development Director FROM: SUBJECT: Empire Township Communication - North TH 3 Entrance Sign DATE: December 7, 1998 INTRODUCTION Empire Township has contacted the City recently regarding the City entrance sign that was placed in the right-of-way of Trunk Highway (TH) 3 this past summer. Attached is a copy of the correspondence received from Empire Township and the City's response. DISCUSSION The attached letter dated October 22, 1998 from Floyd Henry, Clerk/Treasurer for Empire Township indicates that the Township has received several complaints regarding the entrance sign that was installed this past June and cites that a permit was not obtained by the City from Empire Township. Empire Township also transmitted a letter dated November 17, 1998 to Keith Van Wagner of MnDOT (attached.) Upon consultation with the City Attorney, the City's response dated November 24, 1998 is attached. The City's position regarding Empire Township's concerns are as follows: . The installation of the current sign replaced an existing entrance sign at the same approximate location. . The City received a permit from MnDOT to place the new entrance sign in their right-of-way in compliance with all oftheir requirements. . Official identification signs are permitted in the right-of-way based on the Township's Zoning Ordinance. Based on this information, it is the City's position that no additional permits are required. ACTION REQUESTED For information only. Respectfully SU~ ~ 1(1 L. Olson Community Development Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us November 24, 1998 Floyd G. Henry Clerk/Treasurer Empire Township th 3385 197 Street West Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Mr. Henry: This letter is in response to your recent correspondence regarding the Farmington Entrance Sign that was placed in the right-of-way for Trunk Highway 3 earlier this summer. The City's position on the concerns expressed by the township board are as follows: . The installation of the current entrance sign replaced the previous entrance sign that was in the same approximate location. . The City received a permit from MnDOT to place the current identification entrance sign in their right-of- way in compliance with all of their applicable requirements. . In reviewing the requirements of the Empire Township Zoning Ordinance, which was adopted February 15, 1994, the current sign falls under the description of an "official identification" sign in the public right-of- way as defined by Section 11.2. Based on the wording of the ordinance, these types of signs are a permitted use rather than a conditional use, and consequently, would not require a conditional use permit or a public hearing. If the position of the Township remains that a building permit is required, the City respectfully requests a copy of Empire Township Ordinance No. 420. It is the City's understanding, pursuant to the township's zoning ordinance, that a building permit would not apply relative to official identification signs in a public right-of-way. The City would be willing to meet with representatives of Empire Township to discuss any of these issues further. Please feel free to contact me at 463-1860. Sincerely, ~C~4t//U~'~ e~ David L. Olson Community Development Director cc: Mayor and City Council John F. Erar, City Administrator Jim Bell, Park and Recreation Director Joel Jamnik, City Attorney Keith Van Wagner, MnDOT Dean Johnson, Resource Strategies ~mpir:e mofunslyip 3385 197th ST. WEST FARMINGTON, MN 55024 (612) 463.4494 October 22, 1998 City of Farmington John F. Erar, City Administrator 325 Oak Street Farmington MN 55024 Dear Sir: It has been brought to our attention that the City of Farmington has placed a sign in Empire Township without the necessary permit from Empire Township. We have received several complaints from residents in the area of the sign. The Town Board of Supervisors would like to meet with the City of Farmington and residents to see if the sign has to be removed or if resident concerns can be met. In either case a sign permit is required. A reply is requested. Sincerely, 30/ Y ffi/~~ Floyd G Henry, clerJ#Treas. Empire Township ~mpir.e Wofunsl1ip 3385 197th ST. WEST FARMINGTON, MN 55024 (612) 463-4494 November 17, 1998 Rei r.h Van \'!agner 1500 \vest County Road B2 Roseville NN 55113 Dear Sir: I am writing this letter to express the 'T.'ownship of Empire's concern on the Farmington Welcome sign placed in Empire Township this fall. I am aware that your department did issue a permit to Farmington, but. Empire Township has a sign ordinance that also requires a permit and hearing process for signs over 3' x 5'. He have notified Farmington but they have deemed it unnecessary to reply. I am enclosing copies of letters by Empire Township and concerned residents for your review. At a recent meeting several residents wer.e in attendance to express their views on the sign. rt is only 33' from the edge of Highway 3 in an area of many incidents of cars sliding off the road in the winter. due to icy conrlitions and speed reduction from 55 mph to 45 mph and the int.ersection of Dakota County 66. One resident whose driveway is next to the s iqn said it blocl:-.s his view of traffic on Highway 3. Also as the plantings grow t.hey will further block the view. The courtesy of a reply is requested. Sincerely, Floyd G. Henry, Clerk/Trease Empire Tmvnship cc; . city of Farmington~ Schmitz Ophaug, Township Attorney I III . III . . . Wetland banking. Wetlands may be restored or created within the Township for purposes of deposit in the wetland bank in accordance with Minn. Rules parts 8420.0700-.0760. The Town Board is responsible for approving bank plans, certifying deposits, and monitoring of banked wetlands and enforcement under the rules. Appeals. Decisions made under this Section may be appealed to the Board of Water and Soil Resources under Minn. Rule part 8420.0250, after administrative appeal rights under the official controls have been exhausted. Variances. The Township may issue variances from the official controls of the Township so long as the variances do not vary requirements of the Act or the Rules. Technical evaluation panel. The Township shall appoint a person to serve on the technical evaluation panel. The person must be a technical professional with expertise in water resources management. Decisions under this Section must not be made until after receiving the determination of the technical evaluation panel regarding wetland public values, location, size, and/or type if the decision-make, the landowner, or a member of the technical panel asks for such determinations. This requirement does not apply to wetlands for which such data is included in an approved comprehensive wetland management plan per part 8420.0240. The Township shall consider recommendations, if any, made by the technical evaluation panel in making replacement plan decisions. Section 11. SIGNS 11.1 Intent The regulations established in this chapter are designed to protect property values, create a more attractive environment, enhance and protect the physical appearance of the community, prevent and reduce potential traffic hazards caused by distracting and obstructing signs, and to remove safety hazards to pedestrians that may be caused by signs projecting over public right-of-way. V 11.2 Public Right-of-Way 1\ Only official identification, directional, or traffic control signs shall be allowed within the public right-of-way. 11.3 On-Site Advertising Signs All new signs larger than 20 square feet in area shall require a conditional use permit. No advertising sign may exceed 80 square feet or twenty feet in height. : ! I . . 11.4 Off-Site Signs . Off-site signs shall be allowed in all districts as conditional uses, but are limited to non- commercial messages or directional information and may not exceed 12 square feet in area. 11.5 Electronic Message Signs Electronic message signs, in excess of 12 square feet, are prohibited, except for display of time and temperature. 11.6 Poorly-Maintained Signs Unpainted signs, broken signs and signs on vacated buildings shall be removed from the premises on order of the Town Board. 11. 7 Symbolic Signs Symbolic signs such as a barber pole which are traditional in nature and size shall be 41 ~-~~P"!I - . ,.....rll~,.."-'~.......--..-...-. '- '" ~..... 42 . . . . . . . . . . . II II II II II II II II permitted. Small identifying signs under canopies or on retractable awnings shall also be permitted. 11.8 Announcement Signs Signs for the following purpose not exceeding ten (10) square feet in area and placed back twenty (20) feet from front lot line shall be permitted in all districts: (1) A sign advertising only the sale, rental, or lease of the building or premises on which it is maintained. (2) An announcement sign or bulletin board for the use of a public, charitable, or religious institution occupying the premises. (3) An advertising sign in connection with a lawfully maintained non-conforming use. ( 4) Political signs. 11.9 Portable SignsfLighting Portable signs and signs illuminated by flashing, intermittent rotating or moving light or lights are prohibited, except for temporary uses, which require conditional use permits.. In all districts, any lighting used to illuminate a lot or structure (including signs) thereon shall be arranged so as to deflect light away from adjacent lots and streets. The source of light shall be hooded or shielded so as to prevent beams or rays of light from being directed at any portion of adjoining properties or streets. 11.10 Non-Conforming Signs Signs erected prior to the date of enactment of this Ordinance, which do not conform with the sign regulations contained herein, shall not be expanded, modified or changed in any way except in conformity with these sign regulations. Non-conforming signs must be removed or modified to conform to this Ordinance within five (5) years of adoption of this Ordinance. 11.11 General No sign may exceed twenty feet in height or eighty square feet in area. Wall signs may not exceed eighty square feet or twenty percent of the wall area, whichever is less. Roof signs are prohibited. One freestanding sign is permitted for each authorized non- residential use. Small directional, advisory or informational signs (less than three square feet) are permitted in addition to freestanding signs. Section 12. RESPONSmILIlY; EFFECT 12.1 Responsibility Neither the issuance of a permit or compliance with the conditions thereof, nor with the provisions of this Ordinance, shall relieve any person from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for damage to persons or property; nor shall the issuance of any permit hereunder serve to impose any liability on the Township of Empire or its officers or employees for injury or damage to persons or property. A permit issued pursuant to this Ordinance does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility for securing and complying with any other permit which may be required by any other law, ordinance or regulation. 12.2 Penalty Any person who violates the provisions of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be punished by maximum of imprisonment and a fine permitted by law. Each day the violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. ~'1.WTT?'lb'3'%1 FEB 03 1998 ""\~~ I MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION fIb\. c.s. t APPLICATION FOR INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES OR 1~~1 R.P. MISCELLANEOUS WORK ON TRUNK IDGHWAY ~OF~4' District /YI Permit' tl5.~ 9f- /JtJ6Y RIGHT OF WAY (DO NOT COMPLETE TH/S SECT/ON. FOR OFFICE USE O.VLY.) ACH A SKETCH OF THE PROPOSED WORK AND RELATION TO TRUNK HIGHWAY. SUCH SKETCH SHALL BE DRA WN TO SCALE WHEN REQUIRED BY TIlE ENGINEER. PRINT OR TYPE APPLICATION. SIGN IN SPACE PROVIDED. SUBMIT TO LOCAL OFFICE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. / 'l:1-.1 T.H. 3 APPLICANT TELEPHONE ADDRESS (Street. City. SUite, Zip) City of Farmington PARTY PERFORMING WORK ( 612 ) 463-7111 TELEPHONE 325 Oak Street - Farmington, MN 550= ADDRESS (Street. City. State, Zip) City of Farmington WCATION OF PROPOSED WORK in Dakota County (CIRCLE ONE) 1 Miles ~ . ~ - E . W (SPECIFIC ROAD. LANDMARK. OR ROAD INTERSECTION) Highway NATIJRE OF WORK 3 CSAH 50 & 3 Place entrance sign and landscaping. SURFACE OR SHOULDER TO BE DISTURBED (Chcc:k Appropriate Boxes) o Roadway o Gravel o Concrcu: DEP1H OF EXCAVATION BEWW SURFACE 2 - 48" deep holes WORK TO START ON (Date) May 1998 o Shoulder N1JMBER '" SIZE OF EXCAVATIONS 2 - 16" diameter TIME REQUIRED TO COMPLETE WORK 1 week o Bituminous o None ME11IOD OF INSfALLATION/CONSTRUCTION IS TRAFFIC DETOUR lII"ECESSARY? DYes XlXNo (IF YES, TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN IS REQUIRED.) I. We. Ibc undersigned, herewith accept the tenDS and conditions of the regulations of the Commissioner of Transponation and acrcc 10 fully <:omply therewith 10 the satisfaction of the Minnesota Oc:partnlcft of Transponation. It is agreed dw no work in conncc:tion with this application will be staned until the application is approved and the permit issued. It is further understood that this permit is issued subjcctto the approval of local city. village or borough authorities having joint supervision over said SUCCl or highway and subject 10 applicant's compliance with the rules and regulations of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board and any other affcc:tcd govc:mmental agencies. rmore. except for negligent acts of the State. its agents and employCcs. the applicant or his agents or <:ontraClOr shall assume all liability for. and save the Swc. its agents and employees. IS ftom. any and all claims for damages. actions or causes of action msing out of the work 10 be done herein and the <:ontinuinC usqe. <:onstruc:tinc. rcconsuuc:ting. maintaining and using of said utility/miscellaneous worle under this application and permit for <:onstrUction. Date Jc----~ C-~~ SIgnature 0 pp lcant 2-/':-/q~ 00 NOT WRn'E BELOW mJS LINE PERMIT NOT VALID ~ BEARING SIGNATIJRE AND NUMBER AUTHORIZATION OF PERMIT SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR PERTiNEl'lT REGULATIONS AND LIMITATIONS It is expressly undcrSlOOd Ihat Ibis pcrmil is c:onditioncd upon rqllac:emCnt or rcsloration of the trunIt hi&hway to ilS original <:ondilion or.1O a satisfactory condition. In consideration of the applicant' s agreement 10 <:omply in all rcspcc:ts with the regulations of the Commissioner of Transportation <:overing such operations. permission is hereby granted for the work to be performed as described in the above application. said worle to be performed in accordance with special provisions u hereby stated: SEE ATTACHED SPECIAL PROVISIONS All Work To Be Completed By Date MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPO ~//tJ/t:I Om ' DISTRIBUMON U OrilinallO Applicant o Area MaintcnanCC Engineer o Subarea Supervisor o Roadway Regulations Supervisor DEPOSIT REQUIREMENTS o No Deposit Required o Deposit Required in die AmouDI of S Date Deposit Received Deposit to be returned upon satisfadory completion or all work. DEPOSIT TYPE Cashier's Check , CcniflCd Check , Money Order , Bond' DATE WORK CO;\IPLETED (lbe date wben the work is completed must be reponed to the Area Mainteoa.oc:e Engineer.) : . EXPLANATION This application fonn shall be used for installations of utility service connections that do not cross the trunk highway roadbeds. for miscellaneous guys and anchors. and for placing temporary obstructions on the highway right of way. , Utility applications for overhead and underground installations and extensions thereto shall be made on Fonn 2525 and submitted to the Utilities and Agreements Engineer. State Transponation Building for issuance. PERTINENT REGULATIONS Safety 1.. Signs, channelizing devices, warning lights. and barricades shall be erected to protect traffic, employees. and pedestrians. All traffic control devices and methods shall confonn to the Minnesota Manual on Unifonn Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD). Minnesota Standard Sign Manuals Parts I, U, and ill and the appropriate provisions of Standard Specification 1710. 2. If work to be done lies within a municipality or platted town, permission must be obtained from such village, town, or city. 3. Excavations must be cribbed when necessary, depending upon type of soil. in order to prevent cave-ins. 4. No guys or stays or any structure are to be attached to trees on trunk highway right of way. S. Underground construction Jl\ust be so constructed as not to hann or unnecessarily destroy the root growth of spec:iman trees. r PERTINENT REGULATIONS Roadway 1. Installation of pipe under concrete or high type of bituminous pavements shall be done by jacking or boring or other approved methods. 2. When open trenching or excavating in existing roadways. all subgrade. base. and surfacing materials shall be replaced with the same type and like kind of materials which were removed. 3. All backfill must be placed in 6" or less layers and thoroughly tamped and material must be flush and even with the adjacent surface when finally in place. 4. If pavement or roadway is damaged. same shall be restored to original condition. S. All pavements shall be replaced in accordance with State specifications. 6. If settlement occurs or excavation caves in so that replaced materials settle (bituminous mat or concrete base), same shall be restored to its original condition. 7. No poles, anchors, anchor braces, or other construction shall be placed on the roadway shoulder or within the prescribed clear zone, except by pennit authorization. 8. No driving onto highway from ditch or driving on shoulders where damage will occur. 9. No foreign material such as dirt, gravel. or bituminous material shall be left or deposit~ on the road during any construction activities LIMITATIONS 1. No lugs shall be used on equipment traversing road which will damage the road surface. 2. Roadside shall be cleaned up upon completion of all work. 3. If Department of Transponation shall make any improvements or change on all or any part of its right of way upon, over, under, or along the highway, then and in every case the applicant herein named shall ~fter notice from the Commissioner of Transponation or his authorized agents proceed to alter, change, vacaIe, or remove from trunk highway right of way said works necessary to confonn with said changes without cost whatsoever to the State of Minnesota. 4. Drainage on the trunk highway right of way shall be done under Fonn 30795-02 available at the District/Area Maintenance office. S. After work on a project is completed said persons doing such work must notify the Maintenance Engineer in which district the work is being perfonned that such work has been completed and ready for final inspection and acceptance by the State of Minnesota. 6. Cutting and trimming of trees within the right of way and remoYal of resulting stumps require prior approval of the Maintenance Engineer or his authorized representative. NOTE: CeI1ified Check or Bond may be required to insure proper restoration of highway surfaces and to cover payment for any damage to highways or State property. Additionally, any expense incurred by the Minnesota Department of Transportation above the posted deposit will be assessed agaiDst the applicant. In the event that the construction bas not been started by this date, this permit becomes null and void and deposit refunded. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us lOCo- TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Ash Street Joint Project Committee - Status DATE: December 7, 1998 INTRODUCTION . A j oint meeting with Castle Rock Township representatives was held on Tuesday, November 17, 1998 to continue discussions on the proposed construction of Phase III of the Prairie Waterway. Councilmembers Cordes and Gamer, Councilmembers-elect Soderberg and Verch and alternate City resident representative Eugene Thurmes attended the meeting. The committee discussed project points that were previously communicated to the Castle Rock Town Board in a November 5, 1998 correspondence from the two Council representatives. DISCUSSION According to statements made by Township Supervisors Alyn Angus and Gordon Wichterman at this meeting, it would appear that the township would support a number of key project points that have been previously articulated by the City Council. It is the City's understanding that the two township supervisors will bring the following issues back to the full Township Board for consideration and approval. While the project sub- committee tentatively agreed to the following project principles, township board ratification is necessary prior to progressing to the next project stage. Consequently, it is suggested that any action by Council on authorizing a new project feasibility study be deferred until full Township Board approval is formally received. The following points of information were tentatively agreed to by the township representatives: 1. Township representatives confirmed that the entire project area would be included in a new feasibility study. Moreover, given the Council's consistent position on municipal services relative to Ash Street reconstruction, the study would also include updated costs for the installation of municipal services. In terms of municipal services, it was discussed that if Ash Street were reconstructed then the Council's position would be to include water and sewer services. Township representatives agreed to discuss the installation of municipal services presented in a new feasibility study as authorized by the two jurisdictions. Ostensibly, the project area would be substantially similar to the area identified in the 1995 Mayor and Council Members Ash Street Project Committee Meeting - Status Page 2 of4 Feasibility Study, and could be expanded to include the Sunnyside subdivision at Council's discretion. It was further indicated by township resident representative Jim Czech, in response to a question, that speaking for himself, he would be willing to pay more than the $8,000 assessment cap previously discussed for municipal services. Similarly, the position that any properties served by municipal services would be annexed into the City and connection fees would be borne by the property owner and/or township was not disputed. The City's position relative to this issue, as previously determined by Council that costs for extending municipal services to township residents would not be underwritten by City taxpayers. 2. Referencing the November 5, 1998 Council correspondence, issues contained within point #2 became moot relative to apparent agreements on project area, and inclusion of municipal services in a new feasibility study. 3. Township representatives agreed that they would fund their proportionate share of storm sewer run-off from township properties, with the caveat that run-off would be based on the zoned use of property in terms of measuring contributing flow. This position is not substantially different from previous discussions by Council in terms of using contributing acreage as a basis for calculating storm water, except for the township's position that land use in the township should reflect more of an agricultural use as opposed to a low-density residential use that was anticipated in the City's storm water comprehensive plan. City Engineer Mann agreed that flows could be calculated based on less intensive land use, but as land use is modified the need to expand storage capacities would become self-evident. Township and municipal engineers would work together to calculate storm water generation coefficients subject to existing and planned uses of township properties. 4. The issues associated with project management remained essentially unresolved. It was expressed that the City's position is based on project management expertise, available staff resources and engineering capabilities. The City and Township could hopefully come to some agreement relative to establishing a multi-jurisdictional framework overseeing the construction of the waterway. Notwithstanding, Township and City representatives indicated that this issue could hopefully be amicably resolved at a future date. In addition: . Township representatives agreed that if the property containing Phase III remains within the township that they would assume primary maintenance responsibility. . Township representatives indicated that they would be adopting a storm water management plan and would collect all necessary fees from township properties. . Township representatives indicated that they would issue the bonds and assess all properties including the Fairgrounds, and other non-municipal properties contributing storm water runoff to the project. 5. Township representatives agreed that the new industrial park site would be assessed retroactive for storm water generated on the site by the Township. Mayor and Council Members Ash Street Project Committee Meeting - Status Page 3 of 4 6. Finally, Township representatives consented to a written agreement that would delineate the scope of the feasibility study, township/city financial participation and other pertinent project particulars. It should be emphasized that while the points of agreement discussed above are certainly encouraging in moving the project forward, neither the City or Township agreed to do anything more than convey this information back to their full boards. As the City's position has remained virtually unchanged since beginning discussions, it is suggested that the Council defer any decision on this matter until formal communications are received from the Township Board anticipated sometime in January, 1999. In addition, while it was discussed that a feasibility study could conceivably be authorized by both jurisdictions, no commitment was made relative to ordering the project. In essence, there is no guarantee that a newly commissioned feasibility study in itself will result in the project being ordered. In other words, Council should be advised that public expenditures for an updated feasibility study would not necessarily result in the desired project outcomes, and could be viewed critically as a purposeless use of public monies. Township Resident Sanitary Sewer Connection Request It was also discussed that a study should be made relative to providing municipal sanitary sewer connection to Mr. Don Wilson's property at 516 Ash Street. The discussion focused upon the possibility of connecting this property to the nearest gravity-fed line. While staff would not be particularly adverse to studying this potential sewer connection alternative for this subject property, it was pointed out that the costs associated with this study should not be underwritten by City taxpayers for the benefit of a non-municipal property. Township representatives requested that a City cost proposal for this study be forwarded to the Township Board. However, in light of the fact that the full Ash Street Project is now back under consideration, it may be premature to authorize a study for a single township connection. In addition, this type of connection would create similar concerns in terms of other properties and their desire to be connected to the City's system. Dakota County Road Improvement Position Following adjournment of the joint committee meeting, it was suggested by County Commissioner Harris that conceivably the County Board would not authorize reconstruction of Ash Street unless it included full project improvements. This information was substantially confirmed by the Dakota County Engineer. It would be my understanding that full project improvements would have to include the installation of municipal sewer and water services, as well as storm sewer improvements along Ash Street. BUDGET IMPACT Mayor and Council Members Ash Street Project Committee Meeting - Status Page 4 of 4 As previously indicated, the cost of a new feasibility study is anticipated to range from $10,000 to $20,000 for each jurisdiction. Funding for the City's share of an updated feasibility study would be appropriated from the Road and Bridge Fund. Accordingly, the Council should be aware that if the project does not move forward the City would absorb these costs. Typically, project feasibility costs are charged to the project and recovered through project bonding once approved. ACTION REQUESTED The following actions are presented for Council consideration: It is suggested that, pending formal confirmation from the Castle Rock Township Board, Council authorize the City Attorney to draft a multi-jurisdictional project participation agreement relative to the terms, conditions and scope of a new feasibility study. With the exception of developing a draft multi-jurisdictional project participation agreement, it is recommended that the Council defer any action on this matter until after January 1, 1999 for reasons associated with Township and Council board changes. The draft agreement would be presented to Council at the January 4, 1999 Council meeting. Council should consider whether a cost proposal should be developed relative to the aforementioned township property and direct City staff to prepare and transmit a cost proposal to the township board. There are a number of policy implications associated with pursuing this type of individualized feasibility study in terms of the overall Ash Street project. R:SP.<ctfuI~~ fJ Emr Cc: Council Member-Elect Soderberg Council Member-Elect Verch Joe Harris, Dakota County Commissioner Castle Rock Township Board Supervisors Jim Czech, Castle Rock Committee Resident Representative, 1112 Highland Circle, Farmington Don Wilson, 516 Ash Street, Farmington Brandt Richardson, Dakota County Administrator Don Theisen, Dakota County Engineer Carl Schenk, Metropolitan Council, District Representative Gerald Stelzel, Dakota County Fair Board Administrative Director, Dakota County Extension Service Darlene Grabowski, Farmington Committee Citizen Representative Ron Thelen, Alternate Farmington Committee Citizen Representative Eugene Thurmes, Alternate Farmington Committee Citizen Representative City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us November 5, 1998 Castle Rock Township Board of Supervisors Attn: Town Clerk P.O. Box 6 Farmington, MN 55024 Gentlemen: The Farmington City Council met on November 2, 1998 to review and discuss the recent township communications regarding the construction of Phase III of the Prairie Waterway. In particular, the Council appreciated the Township Board's decision approving a joint engineering effort on the project by each respective jurisdiction, and agreeing to eliminate the need to utilize a third party engineering firm. The Council also discussed the proposed meeting date of Tuesday, November 17, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. at the Castle Rock Township Hall. While the meeting date and time would work for our City representatives, the Council would like to extend the invitation of meeting at the City Hall as opposed to the Township Hall as the last several meetings have taken place at the Township Hall. In review of past meetings, the Council discussed the need to identify and resolve specific project concerns prior to moving forward with a new feasibility study. Past issues which remain unresolved to this point will need to be reviewed and discussed in tenns of establishing mutual points of agreement. Council members voiced concerns associated with expending additi~nal public funds for a new feasibility study without having reached some basic understanding on specific project principles and issues. The following issues and questions are offered for your review and consideration as it would be our intent to fully discuss these points prior to the authorization of a new feasibility study. I) What would be the specific land area relative to stonn water drainage that would be included in the new project feasibility study? This question relates to the original Council position that if stonn sewer is constructed then the reconstruction of Ash Street would most likely occur. Accordingly, it has been the Council's position that any reconstruction of Ash Street should include the installation of supporting municipal services, i.e. sewer and water, along with the position that project costs be in proportion to the area served by the improvements. 2) Relative to point #1, if the area for storm sewer improvements includes only property east of Highway 3, and would not include Ash Street, the Council would question what incentive or benefit there is for the City in terms of its financial participation? Council's position on this point is that the storm sewer improvements should include the same project area as identified in the 1995 Feasibility Study, with the possibility of including the Sunnyside subdivision in the new study. 3) It remains the Council's position that the project costs associated with the construction of storm sewer and holding pond shall be allocated in proportion to the property acreage served by the project. This issue needs to be addressed as a matter of project principles. Castle Rock Township Board of Supervisors November 5, 1998 Page 2 of2 4) It remains the Council's position that project management and construction oversight be retained by the City, with consideration given to township ownership of the trunk facility under the following conditions: . That the City be designated as the project manager in the construction of the pond and related storm sewer under the oversight of a multi-jurisdictional board . That if the property remains within the township's jurisdiction that any maintenance costs be assumed by the township . That the township issue the necessary bonded debt to cover the cost of constructing the pond and shall assume primary responsibility of underwriting and collecting jurisdictional contributions, i.e. Fair Board, Dakota Ext. Service, township residential and commercial properties . That the township adopt a stonn water management plan and collect the necessary fees on all new development affecting the storm water trunk facility 5) As it is Council's understanding that no storm water management fees are currently being collected from the new township industrial site, how will this new development contribute to the construction of the storm sewer ponding facility? 6) Prior to the authorization of a new Feasibility Study, the Council would desire to negotiate a written agreement on project feasibility scope, payment of services, financial participation and other project particulars. The Council looks forward to discussing these issues at the meeting scheduled for November 17, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. Please contact our City Administrator at 463-1801 regarding whether the change of meeting location is agreeable to your representatives. On Behalf of the Fannington City Council, J // /) // ~?-c..~ LE c.dLc..,':;; ) d $--' ~-d~ . e.."/ Council Member Don Gamer Council Member Lacelle Cordes Cc: Mayor and Council Members Council Member-Elect Soderberg Council Member-Elect Verch Joe Harris, Dakota County Commissioner Brandt Richardson, Dakota County Administrator Carl Schenk, Metropolitan Council, District Representative Gerald Stelzel, Dakota County Fair Board Administrative Director, Dakota County Extension Service Darlene Grabowski, Farmington Committee Citizen Representative John Erar, City Administrator Joel Jamnik, City Attorney Lee Mann, City Engineer David Olson, Director of Community Development \ \ a.... City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ Robin Roland, Finance Director TO: SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Establishing the Tax Levy for the year 1999 collectible and Adopting the 1999 City Budget DATE: December 7, 1998 INTRODUCTION The City adopted a proposed Tax Levy and budget for 1999 with Resolution R86-98 at the Council meeting on September 8, 1998. This Tax Levy and Budget must now be finalized in order that it may be certified to the County Treasurer/Auditor before December 28, 1998. DISCUSSION AND BUDGET IMPACT After the proposed tax levy and budget were reviewed by Council, a Truth in Taxation Hearing was held on December 1, 1998 pursuant to State Statute. Residents and other concerned citizens were able to attend and express their opinions and concerns on the proposed budget and tax levy. Council was present at this hearing and was able to take under advisement all comments. The Truth in Taxation hearing was closed without continuance, Council having heard all attendees opinions and concerns. Certification of the Tax Levy by the attached resolution provides for the Tax Revenues to be collected from all taxable property within Farmington. The proposed resolution also establishes the 1999 Budget plan for funding all City expenditures. ACTION REQUIRED Adopt the attached resolution, certifying the 1999 Tax Levy of $1,741,465 and adopting the 1999 City Budget as presented. RespecUU~ ~nd Finance Director RESOLUTION NO. R -98 ADOPTING A BUDGET AND ESTABLlSING THE TAX LEVY FOR THE YEAR 1999 COLLECTIBLE Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Civic Center of said City on the 7th day of December, 1998 at 7:00 P.M.. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, the City of Farmington is annually required by State Law to approve a resolution setting forth an annual tax levy to the Dakota County Auditor; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes currently in force require certification of the tax levy to the Dakota County Auditor on or before December 28, 1998; and WHEREAS, the summary details of the proposed budgets are contained in the budget submitted to this Council by the City Administrator, as revised. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Farmington, that the revenue and expenditure budget for 1999 as reviewed and amended by the City Council is adopted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following sums of money by levied in 1998, collectible in 1999, upon the taxable property in said City of Farmington for the following purposes: Tax Levy General Fund Debt Service (see attached) Fire Levy Gross Levy Less: Fiscal Disparities Less: HACA/LPA Net Levy $1,929,924 550,000 50,000 $2,529,924 (393,478) (394,981 ) $1,741,465 This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 7th day of December, 1998. Mayor City Administrator 1999 BUDGET Summary of Debt Service Levy to be Attached and Become part of Resolution Number -98 Fund Title Improvement Bonds of 1990A Improvement Bonds of 1992B Improvement Bonds of 1994A Fire/Arena Refunding Bonds 1992 Improvement Bonds of 1986A Improvement Bonds of 1986B Wastewater Treatment Bonds 1995 Certificates of Indebtedness 1994 Certificates of Indebtedness 1996 Certificates of Indebtedness 1997 Total Levy Amount $ 21,180 31,212 78,928 132,804 79,143 26,366 85,367 35,000 15,000 45,000 $ 550,000 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us lib TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Prairie Creek Development Punchlist Update DATE: December 7, 1998 INTRODUCTION In June 1998, the City exercised its option under the Development Contracts for the Prairie Creek projects and drew down the letter of credit in the amount of $148,678 for outstanding punchlist items. DISCUSSION Punchlist Status Since June, the Developer has been given the opportunity to complete all of the punchlist items and obtain a refund of the funds that were obtained from his letter of credit. At the November 16, 1998 City Council meeting, the Developer asserted to the Council that his punchlist items were complete and he requested that the funds obtained from his letter of credit be refunded. The punchlist items for the Prairie Creek Development are not complete contrary to the statement made by the Developer at the last City Council meeting. In addition to staff s inspection and findings that the punchlist items are not complete, attached is a letter from Progress Land Company dated October 26, 1998, stating that the punchlist work behind the residence at 18650 Easton Avenue (4th Addition punchlist) is not going to be completed this year. 18650 Easton Avenue is the residence of Mr. Todd Bowe. Mr. Bowe was in attendance at one of the Council meetings when these issues were being discussed and expressed extreme frustration with the conditions he has to live with in his back yard. It was staff s understanding at that meeting that the Developer was going to resolve Mr. Bowe's issues this construction season. Additionally, subsequent to the time the letter of credit was pulled, concerns have been raised regarding the stability and safety of the retaining wall on Embry Avenue. Staff has attempted to resolve the retaining wall issue with the Developer and those attempts are outlined later in this memo. Following is a summary of the outstanding items in the Prairie Creek Development and the recommended corresponding amount to retain: Phase Items to be completed Amount to Retain P.C. 1st Addition Landscaping, grading $1,000 P.C. 2nd Addition Landscaping $3,300 P.C. 3rd Addition Landscaping $15,900 Embry Ave. Retaining Wall $70,000 P.C. 4th Addition Landscaping, grading and pavement work. $42,500 Total $132,700 Embry Avenue Retaining Wall The Developer was initially informed of issues with grading and retaining walls in the 3rd Addition in April of this year (see attached correspondence). In July, after the letter of credit was pulled, the Developer was notified of the City's concerns regarding the Embry Avenue retaining wall specifically (see attached). This correspondence included a memo from the City's consulting structural engineer, Mr. Jerry Pertzsch, which outlined his concerns regarding the wall. On August 12, 1998, City staff met with Mr. Israelson and Mr. Frank Hernandez of Progress Land Company regarding various issues, including the Embry Avenue retaining wall. At that meeting, staff was told that Progress would be contacting Mr. Pertzsch to discuss and resolve the issues surrounding the wall. On October 30, 1998, another letter was sent to the Developer requesting that the issues be resolved since Mr. Pertzsch had not yet been contacted. Staff has estimated an amount to be retained for the retaining wall issue. At this time, since the extent of any work that will need to be done on the wall is unknown, staff has estimated the retainage for the wall based on retaining a geotechnical consultant to analyze the situation and costs to reconstruct the entire wall. Once the wall is analyzed a more detailed cost estimate can be provided and the retainage may be revised. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED . Based on the above information it is recommended that the amount of $15,978 be refunded to Progress Land Company. The remainder should be retained for the outstanding punchlist items and the Embry Avenue retaining wall. . As the Development Contract authorizes the City to move forward and complete the outstanding punchlist items, staff will move ahead and utilize the funds from the Developer's letter of credit and complete the punchlist work as soon as possible. Landscaping items could be exempted from this approach if a separate letter of credit is established for landscaping items as has occurred in other developments. No action is required by Council, for information only. . Pursuant to legal advice, it is recommended that Progress Land Company be given a final deadline of December 31, 1998 to respond to the retaining wall issue. If no action is taken by the Developer by that date, it would be staff s intention to move forward and resolve the retaining wall issue utilizing funds from the Developer's letter of credit. Council's concurrence with this plan of action is requested. Respectfully submitted, ~Jn~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Warren Israelson, Progress Land Company PUNCHLIST PRAIRIE CREEK I November 6, 1998 Note: What follows are the remaining punchlist items and numbers referenced from the punch list dated July 15, 1998. t~()(J 3. Where is emergency overflow on English Ave through outlot? Note: A portion of the swale has been regraded except that additional areas within the swale (toward the pond) require regrading. f .?oo 6. Sod/seed all outlots (overflow on English Avenue). ; {OdQ 1270() +~-" f ?,3l>O PRAIRIE CREEK II PUNCHLIST November 6, 1998 Note: What follows are the remaining punchlist items and numbers referenced from the punchlist dated July 15, 1998. 3. Install trees: ;2100 1300 ;~oo b. Historical building - 0 planted, plan shows 7. c. 18586 Egret Way -1 needed. d. 18558 Egret Crt. - 1 needed. 4. Replace trees: ~ 366 b. 18550 Egret Way -1 dead (corner lot 18550 Egret Ct or 18546 Egret Way) t ~ g. 18546 Egret Way - 1 dead ;/Sj '9 tJtJ r 1~(#J 'f15; t{06 PRAIRIE CREEK III PUNCHLIST November 6, 1998 Note: What follows are the remaining punch list items and numbers referenced from the punchlist dated July 15, 1998. 3. Install trees at: b. Embry Ave. - approx. 22 lots have no trees. k. 18896 Embers - 4 missing. o. 18758 Embers - 1 missing. p. 18905 Embers - 4 dead. Note: Retaining wall off of Embry Avenue is falling down in areas. Also, the retaining wall and grading plan issue stated in the letter dated April 29, 1998 needs to be addressed. ~ .s; ()(JD fl5ao r ; 7$"00 I>~ f 4ZJ ~o PRAIRIE CREEK IV PUNCHLIST November 6, 1998 Note: What follows are the remaining punchlist items and numbers referenced from the punchlist dated July 15, 1998. 36. Grading (seed, sod, wetland vegetation and silt fence): ./ S"ooo a. Regrade swale to pond S. of Lot 2, Block 4; Where is emergency overflow? :f. S-ooO .:I.5?xx:> b. Grade pond/emergency overflow east of FES #4 (East of Lot 7, Block 2). d. Regrade swale at rear lots of block 3. * Place silt fence after completion of grading and establishment 39. Place remaining project trees. :Sb e 300 40. Place remaining project seed & sod. Note: Place one row of boulevard sod and seed parkland area by Lake Julia. 41. Correct bump in pavement at phase line between Prairie Creek 3rd and 4th (187 Street) NOTE: There are lowest floor elevations shown on the grading plan that are lower than the high water level of the ponds within the development. The City will be forwarding a letter regarding this issue upon review. QIIIUID. . .ROGRE.SS "llANo COMPANY INC. October, 26, 1998 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN. 55024 A1:tlL: Jerry Auge Re: Storm Sewer Revisions (18650 Easton Avenue) Jerry: I aln regretfully writing to iIUorm you that the installation of the st()rm sewer structures for the .above referenced address will not be completed this year as per our understanding. Our intention is to install these structures as part of the next phase of development upon approval of the design pacltage for Prairie Creek Fifth Addition. I apologize for thein~nvenience this decision will undoubtedly create for you since your assistance and assurahce was paramountin dealing with the residents affected by this matter. The revised design. and requiredca1culations you requested will be part ofthe plans we submit for Prairie Creek Fifth Addition which we are currently working on and l10pc t() re~bmit to your ofliceinthen.ear future. Please contact me .should you have any questions regarding thismatter1 Hernandez Progress Land Company Enclosures (l) cc Todd Bovie 18650 Easton Avenue 6001 Egan Drive · Suite 100 · Savage, MN 55378 (612) 226-3200 · FAX (612) 226-3201 April 29, 1998 Mr. Warren Israelson Progress Engineering 6001 Egan Drive Suite 100 Savage, MN 55378 RE: Prairie Creek Third Addition Grading Plan Dear Mr. Israelson: Staff received a print of a grading plan for Prairie Creek 3 rd Addition from your office on December 4, 1997. It was indicated to staff that this plan was the most up to date grading plan for the project. This plan shows revisions to the approved plan that include changing the house types and substantially changing the grading by eliminating retaining walls along the west side of Embry Avenue. Staff has contacted the previous City Engineer and he has stated that the grading plan attached to his letter of June 23, 1995, is the only plan that was approved. Therefore, the plan submitted on December 4, 1997, is not approved by the City. The grading, retaining walls and house types shown on the approved grading plan dated 6/20/95 are required. In addition, staff has concerns that the previous City Engineer's approval signature appears to be "sticky-backed" on the plan. Two of the homes constructed on the west side of Embry (Lots 13 and 14) do not currently match the approved grading plan and the retaining wall shown for Lots 11-15 is not constructed. The grading on the project needs to conform to the approved grading plan as stipulated in the Development Contract for this project. The homes built on Lots 13 and 14 need a retaining wall constructed in the back yard as shown on the approved grading plan. I CitlJ of FarminfJ.ton 325 Oalc Street · Farmington} MN 550211 · (612) 1163- 7111 · Fa~ (612) 1163.2591 Since the grading on the project does not conform to the approved grading plan as stipulated by the Development Contract in Paragraph 3 and a retaining wall needs to be built on two properties that are already occupied, issuance of building permits and certificates of occupancy will be suspended in the 3rd Addition until these issues are resolved as outlined in Paragraph 31-B of the Development Contract. In addition, no further reductions to the surety will occur until these issues are resolved. If you have any questions, please call me at 463-160 I. Sincerely, ~Yl1.~ Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public works/City Engineer cc: file John Erar, City Administrator Dave Olson, Community Development Director Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator Joel Jamnik, City Attorney John Manke, Building Inspections Sue Miller, Building Inspections City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us July 23, 1998 Mr. Warren Israelson Progress Engineering 6001 Egan Drive Suite 100 Savage, MN 55378 RE: Prairie Creek Third, Fourth Addition Issues Dear Mr. Israelson: There are several issues regarding the above referenced projects that need to be addressed. 1. The first issue is in regard to the grading plan for the Third Addition that was the subject of the letter to you dated April 29, 1998 (see attached letter). The grading on the project does not coincide with the approved grading plan. 2. The second issue is in regard to the rock wall that was constructed along the hill west of Embry A venue. Due to staff and resident concerns, the wall has been inspected by a structural engineer and various concerns have been raised (see attached memo). 3. In the Fourth Addition, issues have been raised regarding the floor elevations in relation to the pond elevations. This issue may affect the design of future phases of Prairie Creek. These issues need to be addressed as soon as possible. Please call me at your earliest possible convenience so that a meeting can be arranged to discuss these issues. Sincerely, Ok~~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public works/City Engineer cc: file John Erar, City Administrator Dave Olson, Community Development Director Memo a Bonestroo -=- Rosene ~ Anderfik & 1\11 Associates Engineers & Architects Project Name: Embry Avenue Retaining Wall Client: Farmington To: Lee Mann File No: 141-98-000 From: Jerry Pertzsch Date: July 6, 1998 Re: Site Visit Observations Remarks: Site observations of the retaining wall were made on June 11, 1998. The following observations were made: · The wall is approximately 240 feet long · At the tallest point, the wall is approximately 18 feet tall · In general, the wall is terraced with each tier being approximately four feet high and having a four foot setback from the lower tier · Several rocks varying in size from small to quite large were at the base of the hill · Mature trees and vegetation is at the top of the hill · Crushed limestone was observed on the hill behind and between some rocks Based on the upon described observations, the following issues need to be considered for the "wall": 1. Are the rocks on the embankment acting as a retaining wall or just as rock facing? In general, the setback between tiers of a retaining wall should be at twice the height in order to eliminate or minimize a surcharge load from the upper tier on the lower tier. The setback between tiers is about the same as the height of each segment. Therefore, it appears to need to be designed as a retaining wall. Another item that is important to consider in this discussion is the geotechnical analysis and evaluation of the hill. If the hill is stone with a rock facing, then the hill would not need to be designed as a retaining wall. If the hill is soil, then a slope stability analysis of the hill should be performed by a geotechnical engineer. 2. Do the rocks on the hill present any safety concerns? There are several rocks of varying sizes from small to quite large at the base of the hill. These rocks appear to have gotten there by rolling down the embankment and have come to rest on the flat area at Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. Sl Paul Office: 2335 West Highway 36 St. Paul. MN 55113 Phone: 612~36-4600 Fax:612~36-1311 Milwaukee Office: 1516 West Mequon Road Mequon. WI 53092 Phone: 414-241-4466 Fax: 414-241-4901 Rochester Office: 2222 Hwy 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 Phone: 507-282-2100 Fax: 507-282-3100 Willmar Office: 205 5th Street SW Willmar, MN 56201 Phone: 320-214-9557 Fax: 320-214-9458 st. Cloud Office: 2008 8th St. North St. Cloud. MN 56303 Phone: 320-251-4553 Fax: 320-251~252 Memo a BonestlOo Rosene G Anderfik & 1\11 Assodates Engine... "ArcI1Itects the base of the hill. With a house located close the base of the hill at the north end of the wall, unstable rocks on the hill are a concern of the homeowners and others close to the wall. Existing rocks on the hill also appear to be subject to rolling down the hill if some movement would occur. Some of these rocks are quite large. Therefore, based on the finding of rocks at the base of the hill and visually looking at the placement of the rocks on the hill, it appears that rocks could roll (possibly have rolled) down the hill and could cause harm to the present house and/or residents at the north end of the wall or future houses and/or residents along the remainder of the wall. Recommendations The next step would be to have a geotechnical analysis of the embankment performed. This would include taking borings to check the type of material in the embankment and performing a slope stability analysis by a geotechnical engineer. Based on the mature trees at the top of the hill, it appears to be a reasonable assumption that geogrid was not placed with the rocks. As part of this analysis, a more detailed survey of the embankment should be made to more accurately define the cross-section. An accurate survey will be necessary for the slope stability calculations and evaluation to be performed. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. st. Paul Office: 2335 West Highway 36 St. Paul, MN 55113 Phone: 612-636-4600 Fax: 612-636-1311 Milwaukee Office: 1516 West Mequon Road Mequon, WI 53092 Phone:414-241~66 Fax: 414-241-4901 Rochester Office: 2222 Hwy 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 Phone: 507-282-2100 Fax: 507-282-3100 Willmar Office: 205 5th Street SW Willmar, MN 56201 Phone: 320-214-9557 Fax: 320-214-9458 st. Cloud Office: 2008 8th St. North St. Cloud, MN 56303 Phone: 320-251-4553 Fax: 320-251-6252 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us October 30, 1998 Mr. Warren Israelson Progress Land Company Inc. 6001 Egan Drive Suite 100 Savage, MN 55378 RE: Embry Avenue rock wall Dear Mr. Israelson: On August 12, 1998, City staff met with you and Frank Hernandez to discuss various issues relating to Prairie Creek 3rd, 4th and the proposed 5th Addition. The design and safety of the rock wall behind the homes along Embry A venue was raised as a concern, as documented in the memorandum forwarded by Jerry Pertzsch, a structural engineer who made a field visit to the site at the request of City staff. At the meeting, it was indicated that you or your staff would be contacting Mr. Pertzsch in order to start the process of resolving the design and safety issues that were raised. In my discussion with Mr. Pertzsch this morning, he indicated that he has not yet heard from you or your staff. The design and safety issues related to the rock wall in question need to be addressed. Please advise the City as to when you plan on addressing this issue as was agreed upon at our August 12, 1998 meeting. Sincerely, ~/J1~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer Cc: file John Erar, City Administrator Jerry Pertzsch, BRAA David Sanocki City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us I/~ TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Deer Meadows 2nd Addition Citizen Petition - Update DATE: December 7, 1998 INTRODUCTION At the November 2, 1998 City Council meeting, staff forwarded a petition from several residents in the Deer Meadows 2nd Addition, citing drainage and water issues that the residents want resolved. Staff had previously held a neighborhood meeting on October 27, 1998 to gather information regarding the complaints. At the November 2nd meeting, it was indicated that staff would be meeting individually with the residents to investigate their issues. Those meetings have occurred and the results are presented here for Council review and consideration. DISCUSSION Two main issues were encountered with the petitioning residents, water and/or moisture in the basements and drainage/standing water issues in the yards. Attached is a report from the staff that performed the investigations with the residents' which details the individual resident issues. Internal home issues The issues related to the moisture in the basements and recommendations are summarized as follows: · Some of the homes have landscaping that appears to be trapping water and possibly causing water to enter the house foundation blocks. The grade adjacent to some of the homes is too high, thus there is the potential for water to enter the foundation block. Similarly, in some cases the ground is sloped toward the homes instead of away, directing water at the foundation blocks instead of away. · Sump pumps are not permanently installed, thus allowing water to be trapped under basement slabs. . Some of the moisture observed in the homes may be due to poor air circulation within the heating and ventilation system. . Various appliance malfunctions or improper installation could be causing water and moisture problems in the basements. The internal home issues will need to be addressed at the discretion of the homeowners. City staff cannot be involved with insuring that these issues inside the home are resolved. The aforementioned suggestions may help to resolve some of the issues; however, it is recommended that the homeowners contact a professional home inspection service if problems of this nature continue to be encountered. External home issues The issues related to the drainage in the yards is summarized as follows: . The drainage and utility swale located on the north side of the development has high and low spots that hold water and add to ground saturation which makes it difficult to mow. Areas of this swale could be re-graded to allow for better drainage. Drain tile could be extended to this swale to help the swale dry out faster. . There is a chain link fence that runs through the drainage and utility easement for this swale that potentially can act as a dam. Grass, leaves and construction debris can be caught up in this fence and impede the drainage. Removal of the fence from the City's drainage and utility easement would help to alleviate the problem. . Landscaping and/or grading around the house foundations has caused areas where water can be trapped. These areas should be re-graded. . The southwest comer of the pond located on the south side of the development is eroding and should be re-established with seed/blanket to curtail further erosion into the pond. In regards to the external drainage issues, a cost estimate to extend drain tile to the swale as described above could be provided by staff. If it is decided that drain tile is to be extended to the swale, the grading issues with the swale can be addressed as a part of that project. The issue with this swale is similar to the backyard drainage issue that occurred in Dakota County Estates 8th Addition. The swale in question in Deer Meadows was designed with a grade of less than 1 %. An exhibit showing the area will be presented at the Council meeting. It is recommended that the City consider requiring the fence to be removed from the drainage and utility easement for this swale. The landscaping and grading issues around the homes would be the responsibility of the homeowners. ------- BUDGET IMPACT Any work that would be considered for the swale in question or the seeding and turf establishment of the pond would be funded through the Storm Water Fund. ACTION REQUESTED Direct staff to put together a cost estimate for extending the drain tile along the swale and for seeding the pond. Staff would bring back the costs and final recommendations to Council regarding these issues at a subsequent meeting. Respectfully submitted, ~J?1~ Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Deer Meadows resident petitioners Bruce Valen, Attorney at Law City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us TO: Lee M. Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer FROM: David R. Sanocki, Engineering Division SUBJECT: Deer Meadows 2nd Resident Petition DATE: November 24, 1998 In the past two weeks Darrel Gilmer, Jerry Auge and myself have met with various residents, within the Deer Meadows 2nd Addition, to investigate the concerns the residents brought forward in their petition to the City Council at the November 2, 1998 City Council meeting. A neighborhood meeting was held on October 27, 1998 to receive clarification from the residents regarding their issues. At that meeting it was decided that City staff would set up meetings with each resident individually to investigate the issues. Following is a summary of staff s findings regarding the resident's issues: William Jensen (5827 180th Street) Staff met with Mr. Jensen at 10:00 on Wednesday, November 4, 1998. Concerns: Mr. Jensen stated that he had no major concerns or problems inside his house but that his basement foundation block has shown excessive amounts of moisture. Mr. Jensen's primary concern was the swale located in the back of his home. He stated that it is extremely wet for extended periods of time, making it difficult to mow. Internal Findings: Staff noticed that the foundation block was slightly damp in one location in the basement. External Findings: Staff determined that Mr. Jensens yard is graded too high adjacent to the house. State code requires that the finished grade adjacent to the house should be 0.5 feet below the top of block (bottom of vinyl siding). Water may be getting in the block due to the high grade adjacent to the house and this may explain the dampness observed in the basement. There is a catch basin structure located in the northwest comer of Mr. Jensen's property and within the drainage and utility easement. Twenty four hours after a rainfall event on November 10, 1998 it was observed that the swale area was not ponding water but was very saturated. The swale area was probed and it appears that the swale consists of a saturated clay material. Betty Krue:er (5922 180tb Street) Staff met with Ms. Kruger at 11 :00 on Wednesday, November 4, 1998. Concerns: Ms. Kruger showed us an area in her basement where she had observed a puddle of water in the past. Ms. Kruger also stressed her dissatisfaction for the pond located toward the back of her yard, specifically the aesthetics of the slopes and pond. Internal Findings: Staff did not observe any water in the basement during our visit. There was no visual sign or presence of water on the floor. Insulation board was installed over the basement walls and no observation of the existing block could be made at that time. No visible cracks in the floor were observed. The water softener drain is attached to the floor drain. Water may flow across the floor from the water softener drain. External Findings: Staff observed draintile pipes running into the pond on the southwest comer of the pond. Staff also observed slope erosion entering the pond from the west end. Erosion of this slope has caused washouts. Staff observed rock landscaping around on the West Side of the home that is sloped toward the house. The slope towards the house could potentially cause water to enter the basement. Linda Gvist (5853 180tb Street) Staff visited the Gvist residence at 1:45 on Wednesday, November 11, 1998 and also at 1:00 on Monday, November 16, 1998. Concerns: Ms. Gvist had various concerns relating to moisture in her home and standing water in her yard. Internal Findings: During our first visit on November 11, 1998 it was observed that the home was extremely humid upon entry. On November 16, 1998 it was not humid at all, contrary to the visit on November 11, 1998 (Note that the laundry room is directly to the left inside the front door area). At the time of the November 11, 1998 meeting the residents were using the laundry but no laundry was being done during the November 16, 1998 visit. During the visit of November 11, 1998 staff observed moisture on the inside of the upstairs windows and possible signs of mold on the windowsills. The windows were manufactured by Windsor Windows. Moisture was noted on the inside sills on the downstairs windows on November 16, 1998. 2 Staff observed the downstairs water softener running during our 2nd visit on November 16, 1998. The discharge is directed into the basement floor drain. Darrel Gilmer had noted that this softener had been running for an extensive period of time. Staff advised contacting the installer for repair. Staff observed the water heater leaking and rusting during the November 16, 1998 visit. Staff advised to have water heater fixed/repaired. This condition could cause moisture in the house as it was observed that the insulation around the water heater was saturated. Staff observed the furnace thermostat operating in the automatic position vs. the normal position. Staff advised to switch to normal position for better air circulation. The furnace was equipped with a humidifier, but was not presently operating. Staff also opened the downstairs heating/air conditioning vents that were closed to allow for better home air circulation. External Findings: Staff observed low spots in the swale located within the drainage and utility easement in the back yard that holds water after a rain event. This easement area was also wet 24 hours after the rain event on November 10, 1998. A non-sodded portion of Ms Gvist's back yard, located on the West Side of the property, is also ponding water and should be established with turf. A few of the old siltfence posts are still installed and will need to be removed prior to yard establishment. Stafr observed, through ground probing, that there is approximately a one to two foot area adjacent to the home that was backfilled with granular material. Sue Pettit (5841180th Street) Staff met with Ms. Pettit on Wednesday, November II, 1998 at 1:00 PM. Concerns: Ms. Pettit had various concerns relating to moisture in her home and standing water in her yard. Internal Findings: Ms. Pettit showed us two areas of concern. The first was upstairs near the inside garage entrance to the house where she pointed out two areas where you could see a yellow stain on the linoleum surface. Her builder, Rob Jarvi, stated that one possibility for this might be a chemical reaction between the glue, concrete floor and linoleum. The second area of concern related to the water in her basement on her lowest floor. Sue stated that water did come up through the cracks in the floor until her builder had installed a sump pump in her basement. No visual signs or presence of water were observed during this visit. 3 External Findings: Staff observed low spots in the drainage and utility easement swale in her back yard that hold water after a rain event. This area was also wet 24 hours after the rain event on November 10, 1998. A portion of the front yard (southeast side) was also observed to be ponding water. Staff observed a fence located along the east and west side of the property, through the drainage and utility easement that slows down the drainage through this swale. Staff observed a covered egress window located on the East Side of the house. Roof and surrounding ground drainage slope directly to this area. Staff observed landscaping areas, especially around the southeast comer of the house, that have settled and are currently sloping toward the house. There is a rain gutter outlet that discharges water to this area. The air conditioning pad in this area has also settled. The landscaping areas have wood chips placed around the front and side of the house without a plastic barrier between them. Staff observed, through ground probing, that there is approximately a one to two foot area adjacent to the home that was backfilled with granular material. Ken Y oun!!: (5917 180tb Street) Staff met with Mr. Young at 2:30 PM on Wednesday, November 11, 1998 and also at 2:45 PM on Monday, November 16, 1998. Internal Findings: On November 11, 1998 staff observed moisture around the upstairs and downstairs windows. These windows were manufactured by Windsor Windows. Staff also observed a substantial amount of moisture in the unfinished portion of the basement between the insulation and the built-right material. Mr. Giles met on site with staff on Monday, November 16, 1998 to look at the basement where the moisture was observed. Prior to the meeting, Mr. Young had removed the majority of the insulation for drying purposes. After Mr. Young removed insulation and turned his furnace fan on (manual) the walls appeared dry. Mr. Young questioned the possibility of additional moisture between the walls upstairs. Mr. Giles stated that he would have his siding contractor on site to remove a few outside siding panels and built-right to insure that there was no moisture within these areas. External Findings: Staff observed areas around the home that are not completely graded and other areas that are graded and slope toward the home. Clearance below top of block and vinyl is less than six inches. There are also areas that were graded up to and even above the bottom of the vinyl, which staff suggested to Mr. Young, should be re-graded down to six inches below the bottom of the vinyl. Runoff water has apparently created a void under the front sidewalk. 4 Jeff Forga (5880 180th Street) Staff met with Mr. Forga at 2:00 PM on Monday, November 16, 1998. Internal Findings: Mr. Forga informed staff that he has had water in his sump basket and also water has come up through the cracks in the basement floor. Mr. Forga stated that he inserts a temporary sump into the sump basket and pumps the water out the back door whenever the sump has a substantial amount of water in it. Staff advised Mr. Forga to install a permanent sump pump that will turn on automatically as needed. External Findings: Staff observed areas where the landscaping has trapped water and the water is unable to flow away from the house. There are also areas around the home that have rock placed above the bottom of the vinyl siding (rock/landscaping should be a minimum of six inches below the top of block and siding). Staff advised Mr. Forga to lower the rock landscaping next to the house. Conclusions Internal Home Issues Staff concludes that the cause of the wet basements can possibly be attributed to a number of situations. 1. Some of the homes have landscaping that appears to be trapping water and possibly causing water to enter the house foundation blocks. 2. The grade adjacent to some of the homes is too high, thus there is the potential for water to enter the foundation block. Similarly, in some cases the ground is sloped toward the homes instead of away, directing water at the foundation blocks instead of away. 3. Sump pumps are not permanently installed, thus allowing water to be trapped under basement slabs. 4. Moisture in homes due to poor air circulation. 5. Various appliance malfunctions or improper installation could be causing water and moisture problems in the basements. These issues will need to be addressed at the discretion of the homeowners. City staff cannot be involved with insuring that these issues inside the home are resolved nor can staff guarantee that the suggestions offered will solve all ofthe problems within the resident's homes. 5 External Home Issues Following is a summary of staff findings regarding the drainage in the yards: 1. The drainage and utility swale located on the north side of the development is saturated for an extended period of time thus making it very difficult to mow in this area for days. Drain tile could be extended within swale to help the swale dry out faster. 2. The drainage and utility swale located on the north side of the development contains high and low spots that hold water and add to ground saturation. Areas of this swale could be regraded to allow for faster sheet drainage off this site. 3. There is a chain link fence that runs through the drainage and utility easement located at the north side of the development that potentially can act as a dam. Grass, leaves and construction debris can be caught up in this fence and impede the drainage. Removal of the fence from the City's drainage and utility easement would help to alleviate the problem. 4. Landscaping and/or grading around the house foundations has caused areas where water can be trapped. These areas should be re-graded. 5. The southwest corner of the pond located on the south side of the development is eroding and should be reestablished with seedlblanket to curtail further erosion into the pond. A design and cost estimate to extend drain tile to the swale as described above can be provided at your request. If it is decided that drain tile is to be extended to the swale, the grading issues with the swale can be addressed as a part of that project. The landscaping and grading issues around the homes is the responsibility of the homeowners. It is recommended that the City consider requiring the fence to be removed from the drainage and utility easement. It is further recommended that the pond be re-established in the spring with turf. 6 Page I of2 From: sue e pettit <spettit4@juno.com> To: kevan@mninter.net <kevan@mninter.net> Date: Saturday, December 05, 1998 2:24 PM Subject: December 7th City Council hearing on Deer Meadow 2nd Addition Dear Kevan, It is unfortunate that I can not attend the meeting on Monday night, but I will be out of town working. Since this letter is my only way of being heard I am asking that you pass it on to the rest of the Council members and to the Mayor and that it is read either before the proceedings began or during the meeting. The four references to my fence in the letter from Lee Mann to the Council brings the tally of threats against my personal property to 9 so far. When I first approached Dave Sanocki on May 21 st of this year my neighbor Linda Gvist and I were treated in a rude, condescending and intimidating manner by him. He threatened me 3 times that day alone that he could make me take my fence down, even though my yard was filled with water, silt and mud. Before the fencing company installed my fence, they informed me that the grade of my property was so uneven that it would be impossible for them to be able to get the bottom to touch the ground in many spots. They understood that this posed the risk that my dogs could get out of the yard underneath these gaps. Of particular concern to them were both sides of the drainage bed, along the top of the property bordering the wooded area and down the east side to the drainage beehive. I had to agree to these terms before they would install the fence. As it turned out, the grade was so uneven and the gaps so high that the dogs did get out and I had to fill in with chicken wire. If you inspect the west side of the drainage area you will notice that the area is so sunken in that the water sits on MY side of the fence because it is not graded properly so it can drain. My yard is so saturated now that it is not usable. If my fence is blocking the flow why do I continue to have these nightmarish problems with my yard? My neighbor Bill Jenson is to the east of me and his yard doesn't drain properly either. His flow has nothing to do with my fence, yet he is experiencing problems also. Am I correct in assuming that by removing the fence Dave and Lee hope to obtain different findings in the future when they conduct the same "geotechnical studies" that led them to this drastic conclusion? Before the Council advocates destruction of my personal property I want to be assured that this is absolutely necessary. I ask the council to examine and determine if the threats against my personal property are a way for Dave and Lee to distract all of us from the real problems that factually exist not only in Deer Meadow addition, but also in Nelson Hills, Dakota County Estates and Silver Springs. My water problems started long before I did the small amount of landscaping deemed responsible for water around my whole foundation. Betty Kruger paid $17,000.00 for landscaping that is now thought to be causing her water problems. Jeff Forga does professional landscaping but the landscaping he did around his own house is said to be lL./J/':IO causing his problems. The City said that my foundation has settled and that I now have "low spots" in my yard - both front, back and between houses. Since natural settling occurs for every house, why should our foundations be so saturated? What about the "sand veins" that the City cited? Are those underground springs going to cause even more serious problems for us in the future? I am asking the council to take a look at the big picture - that being all of the areas affected by water problems and to perhaps go back and visit with the concerned constituents who have asked for your help before we did. My property has already lost a lot of its value because of this mess. Mrs. Kruger and the Gvists are not able to sell their homes because they will have to disclose the problems. I no longer want to endure the intimidation, harassment and threats against my property that Lee and Dave have been responsible for since last May. If I am forced to incur a large debt to protect my property and myself, and to find out why there are at least 4 developments that have water problems, I will do so. In the mean time, if the Mayor and the Council consider taking action against their constituents and their property, I hope the considerations are based on knowledge, truth and unassailable data. Thank you for your time. Sue Pettit 5841 180th St W You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.iuno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866J 1 L.J.) 1':;1 0 Page 2 of2 From: soettit4t@juno.com (sue e pettit) Dear Kevan, Linda Gvist has drafted a letter and asked me to E-mail it to you. She would also like her thoughts heard at the December 7th City Council meeting. Thank you for your assistance. The rest of the text is Linda's own. In response to Lee Mann's letter to the Council re: the Deer Meadow 2nd addition water problems and the conclusions that were drawn, I would like to rebutt some of those conclusions. 1) Water saturating the yards: My neighbor Sue Pettit, my daughter Julie and I met with Dave Sonacki in May of this year. I told Dave that it did not take a trained eye to see that the drainage system and grading of this development was not going to work. Dave said that it was a plan submitted by Tim Giles and approved by the City and that the City could not force Tim to amend it. My daughter asked Dave if Tim had more authority than the City if that was the case. Dave became increasingly hostile and unreceptive. I suggested bee hive basins at the bottom of the hills and a drain tile system running out to Pilot Knob before the road construction was completed. Dave said that he would look into the matter and get back to us. He never did. Were you notified way back in May of our large problems? Because of our soft, soggy and sometimes drenched yard my family is not able to use the property that we pay taxes on. Our yard is saturated in back, both sides and in front. The Engineers' conclusions are not a remedy. 2) The Windsor Windows and the mold growing inside the home: Mold was blamed on the windows. We have a letter from the regional sales manager of the windsor windows saying that the windows are so constructed and coated for this reason. 3) The water conditioner is not defective. It runs on demand during day hours so we won't be disturbed in our sleep. It is programmed to do this. 4) The humidity in the home: Our home is not "air tight". We have drafts.! crack a window so the moisture does not form on windows but I still have to wipe the windows down. When there is so much water around the exterior of the home you will have problems on the inside of the home. As far as the venting goes, we keep the vents closed downstairs because we don't use that part of the house. We have done this in EVERY home we have owned and never had a problem. Contrary to what the letter states, at the time of the Nov. 11th visit, we told the City reps that we had not done any laundry for 2 days prior to this date. This is a false statement and just another excuse for the moisture in our home and a way to intimidate us. 5) I told Dave in May that I have been sick and on numerous medications since moving into this house. Ken young has also had adverse reactions since he moved in and has had to be on medication. 6) Mr Jarvi had his plumber fix the water heater this week. I assure you that this will not solve all the problems we have here. An informed City Administration would never have approved this development's plan and a reliable developer would have never built on natural springs without taking care of the problems beforehand. Linda and Richard Gvist 5853 180th St W QC1' - ~' 9 SIMON) 12: 42 C. B. BURNET TEL:612 435 3030 P. 002 P.02 Cc~-16-ga 06:~9p -~ . .- Ocu"Ibor 6, 1998 ThiR pctitiun iH in the Cat,)' of F~n-m"'Rton and developer Tim Clles r(H lhe unsolved water problem ("Ir the Dcermeadow 2Dd Addlllon or Farmingtl."ID. linth purlielJ hu\'c been Ilware or' tbe sihuJlIl.1n ~incc the "pring or 9K ilml have rof'1.tl\cd tt.'l take ~lOy rcspun!libiliLy. AI; htln'CClWncr~ we are Tt!L4uc9th\S immediate resnJuliun. lCAf< . .~aS3~/J'~~1(-'!riJw.e 'i tJtJkvpu/W. ~~ --t?;-~~~-t. . ~Us::.~ ~_~Z::~~~~__..,_3-k____:J.I-L~~--__------ f; :!>> ~ ~JJ.:{L-!.Jjl~~LL-!f.f2.=..J 5 Z L-Z JJl1lL~I!__J;!1f~_2!:) '_JfpJA_.Si~~.uJ_____'t1!!._:21_~E.___---- ~~~_ SV_?L[~_0.:-~__~_:..?--1L-'-____ :f--2..,=~..'iD-~":_:~.1lL_~.:__Y5!L____- _M " j __ 5..'i_:L~__~..!.f.~~.=1JL!;,j_~:_J.L2~..o___- ....." " __G.i.~:Z~L:dQ ~_;i.J!~_L-!iJP-_--6_l ~1.- _~~s;'G_fet"~~ ~~ 1st) ..1.JJ2 t'- ~~~_~__.t' 3 - ~_~~~___ 1J. _ .. .j...Nl,..,,' }-;.11 I, -Q ,~ ,s ~~ ~ .J '. .LI bD ~ . '.J.1.W!-~LfI'..IJ.e.4..l.~_~...J..lU_-Q--~--~~-QlJ:J.~o.- ~~1L4_:L~(~~.,J_..Ke 1&-_<_~JJk.J.Je"1_J~rL______:Lk 3.-.3 7~.~=-_ "-' - ah ~ It :'~:'!t._t:_rL1~fL_f.~,-'5't.L_~~L~!2_1f'.Q::...s1_~~____fL~:..?.t.ZL_- ~J.6..J.~_~~i: ~-,-------S7:J~-~\.~' fl.-J_?._.JA.I._*,-..a._~2'1-_ ~ :{5-ECU&1!:Y:~____'t6..2:..~!Z:.SI~- ---------------------~-~~------------------------------~------- ------------------------------------------------------------------