The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09.08.98 Council Packet ... COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR September 8, 1998 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVEAGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Employee Service Recognition 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes 8/17/98 (Regular) 8/19/98 (Special) b) Adopt Resolution - Accept Police Department Donation c) Adopt Resolution - Approve Application for Landfill Abatement Funds d) Adopt Resolution - Private Development Project Closeout e) Adopt Resolution - Troy Hills Development Contract Addendum f) Approve Contract - Water Meter Reading Services g) School Conference Request - Community Development h) Accept Revision to Ice Rental Contract i) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARDOFCONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Acknowledge Development Approval Process - Revision b) Proposed Orderly Annexation Agreement Empire Township - Set Workshop Date c) Public Towing Contract - Set Workshop Date d) Citizen Petition Oak Street Parking Request e) Dakota County of the Future - Conference Summary f) Castle Rock Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Agency Clarifications g) Accept Community Profile and Comprehensive Visioning Statement 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Hickory Street Storm Water Drainage Project - Feasibility Report b) Adopt Ordinance - Amending Gambling Regulations c) Middle Creek Sanitary Sewer Line Extension - Fair Hills Action Taken .... '" d) Citizen Petition Prairie Creek 3rd Addition - Set Workshop Date e) Heritage Development Issues - Builders Association Response f) Ash Street Project Committee - Meeting Issues 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Adopt Resolution - Preliminary 1999 Tax Levy/Set Date - Truth in Taxation b) Adopt Resolution - Agreement with Dakota County - Electronic Voting System 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE a) Animal Control- Hours of Operation 14. ADJOURN City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 5a " TO: Mayor, Councilmembers City Administrator~ James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director FROM: SUBJECT: Employee Senice Recognition DATE: September 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION In recognition of 25 years of dedicated employee seIVice with the City of Farmington, the City would like to recognize Paul Speiker with the Solid Waste Division of the Parks and Recreation Department. DISCUSSION On September 4, 1998, Paul Speiker celebrated his twenty fifth year of continued seIVice with the City of Farmington. Throughout the many changes the City of Farmington and Solid Waste Division has experienced in these past years, Paul has changed with them to perform his duties in an efficient, enthusiastic and cooperative manner. ACTION REOUESTED Recognize Paul Speiker for 25 years of dedicated seIVice to the citizens of the City of Farmington. Respectfully submitted, ~6~ James Bell Parks and Recreation Director .. .. z o ~ ~ ~ z ~ o u ~ z ~ Q) u .E Q) r/l ~ ~ Q) 0 ~ ~ OJ) u ~ ....... -1""""'1 ] ~ e~ o~ tJ') 0 ~o Q)'- ~u lr) Q) ~.;3 OJ)~ ~ .~ .N ~ .~ o u Q) ~ "'O~ a i:f ~ !:: .~ ~ ~ o .c U .s ..9 .~ fIl~ ~ 0) >. ..... gj 0.. 0) fIl 0) ..9 !:: ..... "'0 0) C) !:: 0) '1:: 0) ~ ~"'O 0) a gj ~~ ..c:: 0) E ~ 0) S ~ ~ fr'.g Q ~ 0) 0.. ..... 0 gj 0 ~~ ~ a - C) 0..... r/)..... fIl "'0 cd a .~ s~ bOO) !:: ~ ..... E ~'6 ~\.i:i ~<.+-< o 0) .ca ..... !:: u..... 0) fIl ..9.~ fIl ;:l 0)"'0 bllfll a..... ..c::..c:: C) e ~~ s 8- 0) 0 ..c::..... ..... ~ s o 0) ..c::..9 bll..c:: ;:l .t:: ~~ ... 0) ~~ ~-5 ~ gj ~..c:: ~] ..... !:: 0) S >. o ]- 0) ~ o ~ 0) >. ~ t;:: I € ~ fIl :E "'0 0) tiS ~ ,.D 0) - 0) C) ~ ] ..... 0) 0.. r/) ] ~ oo~ 0"1 0\ - ~ ~ 0) "S ~ fr r/) !:: o 00 < ~ ~ = ~ fIl :E !:: o S ..... ..c:: ~ g ..8 "'0 !a 0) N '8 bll o C) ~ >. - C) ..... :g 0- .s bll !:: 'E t;:: fIl ..... ..... ..... O)~ C) 'E 0) fIl ~ o "E o C) 0) ~ 0) ~ ~ ~ ] 0) . -E ~ 0) _ s cd >. ;> 0 ]1 ~~ o~ !:: 0 .g l>- 's ~ bll~ o 0) .~ j .....c:: 00c:l:: <..... ~~ ~€ ~~ o E-; ~ ~~ 0;;;J ~t: E-;E-; u~ ~~ E-;~ ~~ 000 ~z .....0 u..... ~E-; oj U;;;J ~E-; =~ E-;~ =z E-;o ~U ~~ ~~ =u E-;z ~..... ~tJ') o~ E-;~ "'0 ~~ Oz ~~ ~~ ...~ ~~ 0= ~~ ~~ ~= ~~ ~o ~~ ~~ ~..... o~ ~ ... ~~ ~E-; =~ E-;~ ~~ 0< z~ ~ ~ ~ c;"j ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ r~ ~ ~c~ ~~~ -..J l:c:: C ~~~ llooJ~~ ~~u ~~ ~~ l~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ "'0 -5 00 fIl :s "'0 0) ><: S cd 0) ,.D o ..... !:: .s bll !:: .~ ~ ~ o .c U 0) ..9 ~ o ~ 0) r/) .s "'0 0) fIl ~ C) ] ] S' t) fIl o ~ 0) ~ 0) ..c:: 0) ~ ..c:: - ror; o ~ ~ ~ 00 0000 ~O"I z~ E-; ~ ~! ~~ ~ ~ ~ "'0 ~ ~ 0) ~ ~ o ~ ::E .e- . "" !:: u~ 0) s::: ..9 ..... 1:l ~ "a ~ O)~ r/) 0 0) tiS Q }a..... COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR August 17, 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 Gamer, second by Fitch to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS Police Officer Gary DeutscWe was administered the Oath of Office. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS John Richardson, 35 Elm Street, was satisfied with the City's response regarding the property at 300 First Street. The City will contact the owner, giving him 30 days to correct the situation. The City will contract to mow the yard and Park & Recreation will mow the boulevard. 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Fitch, second by Cordes to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes 8/3/98 (Regular) b) Approved Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting Date c) Approved school and conference request - Finance Department d) Approved school and conference request - Fire Department e) Adopted RESOLUTIONS R72-98, R73-98, R74-98, R75-98 accepting private development projects f) Adopted RESOLUTION R76-98 approving election judges for 1998 primary g) Accepted quarterly building permit report h) Approved budget reappropriation - Fire Department i) Approved capital outlay request - Fire Department j) Accepted Prairie Creek punch list update k) Approved bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) August 17, 1998 Page 2 I) Adopt Resolution - Gambling Premise Permit Outreach Group Homes is requesting a gambling premise permit under the current ordinance. At a future meeting, staffs recommendation will be to amend the ordinance. Attorney Jamnik informed the Council that any changes in the ordinance will need to be adhered to by Outreach and any current gambling permits. MOTION by Gamer, second by Strachan to adopt RESOLUTION R77-98 approving a gambling premise permit at Farmington Lanes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Adopt Resolution - Glenview Townhomes Final Plat The Mayor stepped down from his seat at the table. A neighborhood meeting was held on August 11, 1998 concerning the proposed Glenview Townhomes & Commercial Final Plat. Property owners within a 350-foot radius who did not receive notice of the public hearing on February 24, 1998 were allowed to discuss concerns and issues related to the proposed development at this neighborhood meeting. Eight property owners were in attendance along with the Developer's Engineer and City staff. The following are recommendations from the Planning Commission as generated by the property owners: 1) Recommend an appropriate buffer between the Glenview property and single-family homes along 213th Street, especially in the area of the emergency access roadway. 2) Require the Developer to contain snow on the Glenview property when snow removal is needed, especially in the area of the emergency access roadway. 3) Request Developer restrict foot traffic between the Glenview property and the single-family homes along 213th street. 4) Re-address the County Road 72 Feasibility Study to review the feasibility of locating a sanitary sewer line along the shared proEerty line between Glenview Townhomes and the single-family homes along 213 Street to allow for sewer hook-up for the single- family homes. The Developer, Mr. Tim Giles, was asked to address these issues. Mr. Giles agreed to give the homeowners a certificate for 2-3 trees to be planted on their property. These trees will then become the homeowner's responsibility. The Developer has no control over foot traffic between 213th Street and the Glenview Townhomes. Regarding snow removal, the snow will be pushed to the East and West and this will be stated in the association contract. The Developer looked at putting the sewer line along the back property line. A 20-foot easement would be needed and no buffering would be allowed. This area would be very difficult to access for any repairs. Staff recommended putting the sewer line in County Road 72. Councilmember Fitch thanked the Developer and Staff for their patience during the last two weeks. Jill Frankie, 200 213th Street, stated the Developer sent his Engineer to the August 11, 1998 meeting and felt the residents were snubbed at the meeting. Council Minutes (Regular) August 17, 1998 Page 3 The Developer explained that the Engineer was representing the company, and often knows more about what needs to be done. The Developer also stated the trees to be used as a buffer will be planted on 40- foot centers along the property lines, so some homes will have two trees and some three trees. Jackie Frankie, 200 213th Street, asked if they had to be pine trees. The Developer replied residents can pick the type of tree they want for the dollar amount of the certificate. Jill Frankie felt controlling foot traffic is the responsibility of the Developer. Councilmember Gamer stated the homeowners association will have to address the problem. Jackie Frankie felt it would be a problem for kids to catch the bus and asked if congestion at the comer had been considered. Councilmember Cordes asked what is a reasonable effort regarding assessing benefitting properties? Staff replied the City tries to collect, going through the full assessment procedure. Councilmember Cordes felt there would be a problem with assessing homeowners. Staff stated the road would have remained as is without the development. Property owners have a right to develop their property, and the frontage road will be an improvement to the development. Councilmember Strachan inquired if the city can enforce traffic and parking on private roads? Staff replied the City cannot. It becomes the residents' responsibility. Any stipulations regarding traffic and parking should be stated in the homeowners association rules by the Developer before he leaves the project. The Developer should set up a meeting with townhome residents to elect officers for the association or hire a management company. MOTION by Fitch, second by Cordes to adopt RESOLUTION R78-98 approving the Glenview Townhomes Final Plat. Voting for: Cordes, Gamer, Fitch, Strachan, MOTION CARRIED. b) Adopt Resolution - Glenview Townhomes Development Contract The Mayor stepped down from his seat at the table. The Glenview Townhomes & Commercial Development Contract requires the following conditions to be agreed upon: 1) The Developer enters into the Development Contract. 2) The Developer provides the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 3) The Developer pays $1000 per building permit issued for each of the first 45 townhome units, said amount to be held by an escrow agent mutually agreed to by the parties for the purpose of paying a portion of the Developer's obligation for necessary improvements to the east frontage road along Trunk Highway 3. 4) The City shall construct the frontage road along Trunk Highway 3 in accordance with paragraph 2(C) in the Development Contract, within two years from the execution of the Development Contract, unless the parties agree to a different time frame by a written amendment to the Development Contract. The City requested approval of the execution of the Glenview Townhomes & Commercial Development Contract and adopted a resolution authorizing its signing, contingent upon approval by the Engineering Division and City Attorney. MOTION by Strachan, second by Fitch to adopt RESOLUTION R79-98 approving the Glenview Townhomes Development Contract. Voting for: Cordes, Gamer, Fitch, Strachan, MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) August 17, 1998 Page 4 c) Adopt Resolution - Bristol Square Preliminary/Final Plat Bristol Square is located to the east of the proposed Glenview Townhome development, South ofWausau Supply Company, west of County Road 72 and the Prairie Waterway and north of County Road 72 and the East Farmington single- family residential development. The entire site contains 19.7 acres with the Developer platting 42 units in the First Addition on 4.09 acres and providing outlots for the remainder of the property in an R-3 zone. The First Addition of Bristol Square consists of the platting of 42 units on 4.09 acres located at the southwest comer of the property directly north of County Road 72. The remaining property will be platted as 14 separate outlots. The overall plan for the development proposes 173 townhome units on 19.7 acres yielding a density of8.8 units/acre, falling well below the maximum density of 14.0 units/acre allowed in the R-3 Zoning district. The proposed plan will contain four accesses. Two from the south intersect with County Road 72 and line up with 12th and 13th Street in the East Farmington subdivision. The third access is from the west connecting the Glenview Townhome development. The fourth access is to the east and intersects with County Road 72. County Road 72, which surrounds the entire property, is being reviewed by the City and County regarding the feasibility of upgrading the road to collector status and turning the road back to the City of Farmington to the City limits and Empire Township beyond the City limits. The improvement of County Road 72 must be agreed to by the Developer to confer special benefit to the Bristol Square plat. The City shall assess the lots created by the plat in accordance with the City's local improvement policy based on the final project costs. In a meeting with the City, Sienna Corporation, Developers for Bristol Square, and East Farmington determined that Sienna Corporation will install the proposed utility improvements within the street right-of-way this Fall for purposes of expediency. It was acknowledged that the three benefiting properties, Bristol Square, East Farmington and South Suburban Medical Center would need to arrive at an agreement for sharing the costs of the improvements. The City recommends approval ofthe Bristol Square - First Addition Final Plat subject to the following conditions: 1) The improvement of County Road 72 must be agreed by the Developer to confer special benefit to the Bristol Square plat and must waive any objection to the assessments for the construction of County Road 72, including the claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. 2) Easements need to be granted to the City for all public utilities and need to be shown on the plat. 3) The right-of-way for County Road 72 needs to be verified and depicted correctly at the Southeast comer of the site in the area of the curve on the County road. 4) The location and funding of a trail along the northern and eastern edge of the site on City property needs to be coordinated with the Parks and Recreation Director and the Developer. 5) Final Plat approval is contingent on the preparation and execution of the Development Contract and approval of the construction plans by the Engineering Council Minutes (Regular) August 17, 1998 Page 5 Division. MOTION by Gamer, second by Fitch adopting RESOLUTION R80-98 approving the Bristol Square PreliminaryIFinal Plat. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Adopt Resolution - Bristol Square Development Contract Bristol Square Development Contract requires the following conditions to be agreed upon: 1) The Developer enters into the Development Contract. 2) The Developer provides the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 3) The Developer participates in the costs for the improvements to County Road 72 proposed in the feasibility report accepted by the City Council on June 15, 1998. The City anticipates outside funding for public road costs. If not, the project will be done as a 4-29 and costs will be spread over a number of years. The City anticipates the project will begin in 1999. The City requested approval of the execution of the Bristol Square Development Contract and adopted a resolution authorizing its signing, contingent upon approval by the Engineering Division and City Attorney. MOTION by Gamer, second by Cordes to adopt RESOLUTION R81-98 approving the Bristol Square Development Contract. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Ash Street Environmental Contamination - Update Over the last two weeks, discussion with Mr. Louis Breimhurst, Director of Physical Development with Dakota County, has occurred relative to the statutory definition of what constitutes an "imminent threat to public health or safety." According to 1997 State Statutes, the definition of an imminent threat to public health or safety included "cesspools." A recent change in the 1998 law, signed into law in April 1998, removed cesspools from the definition of imminent threats. In review of this statutory change, the Legislature added cesspools to section (f) in the same subdivision (5a) of M.S. 115.55 defining all cesspools as failed systems, and requiring all cesspools to "be upgraded, replaced, or its use discontinued... " According to the MPCA, the 1998 legislative removal of cesspools as an imminent threat was prompted more by political considerations associated with the time frame (30 days) of replacing cesspools vs. 10 months for other types of failing systems. Under existing state statute, sewage discharges to surface water are considered an imminent threat given the fact that contaminated groundwater eventually makes its way into the water table, and inexorably into surface water. Cesspools are a cause of groundwater contamination. Tests of the lift station were performed and the integrity of the lift station was not compromised. The City and Council are trying to work with the Township in resolving the situation. The Mayor stated Gordon Wichterman informed him residents of the West and East sides of Ash Street have been invited tola public meeting on August 24, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. at the New Town Hall in Castle Rock. Council Minutes (Regular) August 17, 1998 Page 6 f) Heritage Development - Street Cleaning Requirement Concerns The City Council and Planning Commission have received a letter from Mr. Thomas Bisch, Director of Heritage Development of Minnesota, Inc., dated August 5, 1998, complaining of excessive street cleaning requirements and citing the increasingly negative reputation of the City. Developers are required to clean streets once a week. Staff stated it is unfortunate they would receive this type of letter from Mr. Bisch, as the City is trying to work with the Developer. Staff stated Mr. Bisch can contact the Finance Director regarding bills for street cleaning. No charges are being made to properties already finished. Councilmember Strachan stated the letter is unprofessional. Staff will draft a letter to the BA TC for the Mayor's signature. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Prairie Creek 3rd Addition Citizen Petition - Update At the July 20, 1998 City Council meeting, several citizens that reside in the 3rd Addition of Prairie Creek brought a petition forth requesting that the City perform a feasibility study in order to identify solutions to drainage problems they are experiencing. Engineering staffhas completed the field work necessary to evaluate the area in question and several possible options have been identified that could potentially relieve some of the drainage issues referenced in the resident's petition. At this time, staff needs additional time to further analyze the options and meet with the Developer in order to determine a recommended course of action. It is Staffs intent to bring recommendations back to Council at the first meeting in September. The Developer is working on the punch list items. Steve Jones, 18765 Embers Avenue, informed Council nothing has been done on the West side of Embers Avenue regarding drainage. There is now trash floating through the water. Mr. Jones thanked Lee Mann and Dave Sanocki for their help so far. 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Cordes: She was informed by a neighbor that a week ago another neighbor checked on her barking dog and was bitten by another dog. She called dispatch and was told animal control was sleeping. Staff stated animal control is open 24 hours. Councilmember Fitch: Good job on getting punch list items done. City Administrator Erar: The Senior Center Anniversary will be held August 18, 1998 at 5:00 p.m. Community Development Director Olson: The 2nd Street Parking Lot project is well underway. Council Minutes (Regular) August 17, 1998 Page 7 City Engineer Lee Mann: The Middle Creek Trunk Sanitary Sewer is moving along. Mayor Ristow: The Fair parking went very well. He has received compliments on the train whistle ordinance. A retirement party for Warren Sifferath will be held on August 18, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. He stated the City has a fine group of volunteer firefighters. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Fitch, second by Gamer to adjourn at 8:55 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~7r?Je0 Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant l . . ,. COUNCIL MINUTES WORKSHOP August 19, 1998 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 6:30 p.m. 2. ROLE CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Mayor Ristow, Councilmembers Fitch, Gamer Councilmembers Cordes, Strachan City Administrator Erar, City Management Team 3. APPROVEAGENDA MOTION by Gamer, second by Fitch to approve the agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. COUNCIL BUDGET DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS The proposed 1999 budget meets the City Council and staff s commitment to maintain the 1999 Local Tax Capacity rate at the same level as in 1998, reduce the local tax capacity rate from 33.6 to 32.5% and to maintain the debt service levy at 21.6% of the total City levy. The budget process contained a comprehensive review of capital equipment, a team approach that encourages strategic planning and a management philosophy that supports the implementation of Council policies and goals of a rapidly growing community. Staff informed Council of the ability to reduce solid waste rates for 1999 on 30 and 60 gallon containers by $4.50 per quarter and on the 90 gallon container by $7.50 per quarter. Council was very appreciative of the process used and of staff meeting Council's goals. The proposed 1999 budget will be presented to Council at the September 8th meeting for approval. 5. PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Discussion on this topic was deferred to the September 2, 1998, City Council/Planning Commission joint workshop. 6. ADJOURN MOTION by Gamer, second by Fitch to adjourn at 7:45 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Karen Finstuen Administrative Service Manager 7.6 TO: Mayor, Councilmemb~rs and City AdrninistratoroliV~ FROM: Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police SUBJECT: Resolution to Accept Donation Police Department DATE: September 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION The Investigations Division of the Farmington Police Department applied for and received an equipment grant from Progressive Insurance Company. The equipment is a cellular tracking device valued at $900.00. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached Resolution accepting the equipment donation from Progressive Insurance Company. Respectfully submitted, ~ Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police I CitlJ of FarminfJ.ton 325 Oak Street · Farmint}tonl MN 5502~ · (612) ~63.7111 · Fa/( (612) ~63.2591 PROPOSED RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATION FROM PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting ofthe City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Civic Center of said on the 8th day of September, 1998 at 7 :00 PM. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: Whereas, The Farmington Police Department applied for an equipment grant from Progressive Insurance Company, and Whereas, Progressive Insurance Company has proposed to donate a cellular tracking device, valued at $900.00 to the Farmington Police Department; and Whereas, It is in the best interest of the City to accept such donation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Farmington hereby accepts the generous donation of a cellular tracking device from Progressive Insurance Company to be used by the Police Department. Mayor Attested to the _ day of September, 1998 City Administrator SEAL City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us l~ TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator.../tl. I FROM: James Bell Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT: Approving Submittal of an Application for Landfill Abatement Funds from Dakota County DATE: September 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION Dakota County has provided landfill abatement funding assistance to communities in Dakota County since 1989. DISCUSSION Dakota County Board Resolution No. 88-651 states that the County's portion of funding of recycling implementation and operating costs incurred by cities and townships will be through performance based funding. Communities over 5,000 population are eligible to receive a $5,000 base per community plus $1.60 per household, based on 1997 household estimates. BUDGET IMPACT The 1999 maximum reimbursement for Farmington is $10,413. RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached resolution approving submittal of a grant application to Dakota County. Respectfully Submitted, ~6~ James Bell Parks and Recreation Director Proposed RESOLUTION NO. R -98 APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR LANDFILL ABATEMENT FUNDING ASSISTANCE 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 8th day of September, 1998 at 7:00 PM. The following members were present: The following members were absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, according to Dakota County Board Resolution No. 88-651, Dakota County presently provides funding assistance for landfill abatement activities based on performance based funding; and WHEREAS, the City presently has an integrated resource recovery system of which curbside pickup of yard waste and recyclables are major components, and would be eligible for funding under the County program. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Dakota County Landfill Abatement Funding Assistance, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, is hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to execute and forward the application for Landfill Abatement Funding Assistance. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 8th day of September, 1998. Mayor Attested to the day of ,1998. Clerk! Administrator SEAL City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7/ TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator1~/ FROM: David R. Sanocki, Engineering Division~ SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Private Development Project Closeout DATE: September 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION The improvements outlined in the Development Contracts for Nelsen Hills 2nd Addition have been completed. DISCUSSION The Nelsen Hills 2nd Addition Development Contract was signed on August 23, 1993 between the City and Heritage Development. The completion date for this project was July 1, 1994. The project was completed when several minor punch list items were addressed during August ofthis year. BUDGET IMPACT None ACTION REOUESTED Adopt the attached resolution accepting the street and utility improvements for Nelsen Hills 2nd Addition. ReSP~~llY]JJ FU David R. Sanocki Engineering Division cc: file RESOLUTION NO. R -98 ACCEPTING NELSEN HILLS 2ND ADDITION STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. 93-17 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 8th day of September, 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 August 2, 1993, Heritage Development of Little Canada, Minnesota has satisfactorily completed the requirements of the developers agreement for Nelsen Hills 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 8th day of September, 1998. Mayor Attested to the day of September, 1998. SEAL City Administrator/Clerk City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7e~,Ltz TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator1JL. FROM: David R. Sanocki, Engineering Division ~ SUBJECT: Troy Hills Development Contract Addendum - Landscaping DATE: September 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION The street and utility improvements outlined in the Development Contracts for Troyhills 1st through 3rd Additions have been completed except for project landscaping and minor punchlist items. DISCUSSION A number of developers have expressed a desire to establish a landscaping letter of credit, covering the placement of project trees and boulevard sod, so that the project streets and utilities could be closed out in a reasonable timeframe. Past history indicates that it may be up to three to five years after the streets and utilities are installed that all the lots, including the placement of trees and boulevard sod, are completed. It is staffs opinion that it makes sense to accept and closeout the project while retaining surety for landscaping. If the landscaping is complete before the homes are built, trees and sod will be destroyed during subsequent home building. Staff is currently reviewing a potential policy change that would require the builder to install the trees and sod rather than the developer, which will eliminate this issue. BUDGET IMPACT None ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution accepting the addendum to the development contracts for landscaping for Troyhills 1st, 2nd and 3rd Additions. Respe;r;:Ji: LL David R. Sanocki Engineering Division cc: file RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING ADDENDUM TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT S - TroyHills 1st through 3rd Additions - 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 8th day of September, 1998 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution Nos. R80-94, R47-96, R69-96, the City Council approved the preliminary and final plats of TroyHills 1 sl 2nd and 3rd Additions contingent upon the execution of a development agreement; and WHEREAS, an addendum is now before the Council for its consideration setting forth, among other things, a surety in the amount of $22,250.00 for the completion of the landscaping for Troyhills 1 s" 2nd and Third. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. The aforementioned addendum to the development contract, a copy of which is on file in the Clerk's office, is hereby approved. 2. The Mayor and Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to sign such contract. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 8th day of September, 1998. Mayor Attested to the _ day of May, 1998. City Administrator Addendum to the Development Agreement for Landscaping AGREEMENT dated this day of , 19 _, by and between the City of Farmington, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation (City) and Builders Development, Inc. (The Developer). WHEREAS, the City has approved the Developer's plans and specifications for a landscaping improvement as part of the final plat and developer agreement for Troyhills 1 st Addition, Troyhills 2nd Addition and Troyhills 3rd Addition, and; WHEREAS, all other public improvements, payments, dedications, and other obligations of the Developer have been met except for the landscaping improvements, and; WHEREAS the Developer and the City wish to finalize the plat with the exception of all warranty periods and landscaping improvements. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above and other good and valuable consideration, the Parties hereby agree as follows: The Developer agrees to construct such required improvements according to the provisions of the plans and specifications attached as Exhibit "A" (approved Landscaping Plans) and incorporated herein by reference. The Developer, further agrees to comply with all such additional conditions as may have been established by the City in Exhibit "B", which is attached and incorporated herein. To guarantee completion and compliance with the terms of this Agreement the Developer shall furnish the City with a cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit from a bank for $22,250.00. This Agreement and surety is provided to guarantee completion and compliance with the terms set out in this Agreement within the time period specified in Exhibit "B". Both the bank and the form of letter of credit shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator. The security shall be for a period ending September 2, 2000, at which time all remaining landscaping shall be complete. If the required improvements are not completed, or the terms of the Agreement are not fully satisfied, at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of a letter of credit, the City in its' sole discretion may draw down the security, without any prior notice. The City may review annually the adequacy of the surety or letter of credit. The City reserves the right to at anytime direct the letter of credit to be increased to reflect inflation, changed conditions, or compliance with this Agreement. "The Developer" The City of Farmington By: Jerry G. Ristow It's Mayor By: By: John F. Erar It's Administrator . . , TROYHILLS 1ST ADDITION LANSCAPING STATUS REPORT Address Evening Star Way Evening Star Way Evening Star Way Everest Path Pond Outlot (Everest Path) Evening Star Way Evening Star Way 193rd Street 193rd Street 193rd Street Everest Path Everest Path NOTE: Block Lot 5 5 4 1 1 1 2 4 4 4 4 Totals EXHIBIT B Inspected 8/27/98 # Dead 11 9 16 10 8 2 1 2 2 6 7 # Missing 1 0 1 0 1 0 o 3 o 4 1 0 o 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 o 2 1 0 8 11 All remaining landscaping trees will be required to be placed before September 2, 2000. . . EXHIBIT B TROYHILLS 2ND ADDITION LANSCAPING STATUS REPORT Inspected 8/27/98 Address Block Lot # Dead # Missing Evenston Drive 4 16 0 2 Evenston Drive 4 14 0 2 Evenston Drive 4 10 0 3 Evenston Drive 4 9 0 3 Evenston Drive 4 8 0 3 Evenston Drive 4 7 0 2 Evenston Drive 4 6 0 3 Evenston Drive 4 4 0 3 Evenston Drive 4 3 0 2 Evenston Drive 4 2 0 3 Evenston Drive 5 10 0 2 191st Street 1 18 0 3 Evening Star Way 1 14 0 3 Evening Star Way 1 13 0 2 Evening Star Way 1 12 0 3 Evening Star Way 1 11 0 2 Evening Star Way 1 9 0 3 Evening Star Way 1 8 0 3 Evening Star Way 1 7 0 3 Evening Star Way 1 5 0 3 Evening Star Way 1 4 0 2 Evening Star Way 2 4 0 2 Evening Star Way 2 5 0 3 Evening Star Way 3 4 0 2 Evening Star Way 3 5 0 3 Evening Star Way 3 6 0 2 Totals 0 67 NOTE: All remaining landscaping trees will be required to be placed before September 2, 2000. .. . . . EXHIBIT B TROYHILLS 3RD ADDITION LANSCAPING STATUS REPORT Inspected 8/3/98 Address Block Lot # Dead # Missing Everest Trail 2 7 3 Totals o 3 NOTE: All remaining landscaping trees will be required to be placed before September 2, 2000. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us 71' FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ Robin Roland, Finance Director TO: SUBJECT: Approve Contract - Water Meter Reading Services DATE: September 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION At their meeting on August 24, 1998, the Water Board approved contracting for Water Meter Reading Services effective September 1998. DISCUSSION Upon the resignation of Dick Nordling (meter reader) at the end of June, options were explored to identify the most cost effective method of reading the 3,300 residential water meters in the City of Farmington. The options included hiring a new meter reader, self-read meter cards and a contracted meter reading service. These options were presented to the Water Board at the August meeting and it was their decision to hire RMR Services, Inc. RMR Services is a contracted water meter reading service. They currently read the water meters for the City of Apple Valley, City of Golden Valley and the City of Rosemount. They also read Dakota Electric meters. BUDGET IMPACT RMR Services will charge $.49 per meter read per quarter. This will equate to approximately $6,500 annually for 3,300 meters. ACTION REQUIRED Approve and sign the attached contract for water meter reading services through RMR Services, Inc., effective September 1998 pursuant to the Water Board approval. d2#1 -Robin Roland Finance Director METER READING SERVICE AGREEMENT: CITY OF FARMINGTON AND RMR SERVICES, INC. For valuable consideration as set forth below, this contract dated ~. ~ I, 14 t; ~ is made and signed by the City of Farmington (hereinafter "City") and RMR ervices, Inc. (hereinafter "Contractor") . 1. CONTRACTOR DOCUMENTS The Contractor hereby promises and agrees to perform and comply with all the provisions of this contract and specifications, all of which are incorporated hereby by this reference. This Contract shall comprise the total agreement of the parties hereto. No oral order, objection or claim by any party to the other shall affect or modify any of the terms or obligations contained in this Contract. 2. THE WORK The work to be performed by Contractor under this Contract (hereinafter the "Work"), is defined in Exhibit A, Scope of Services. Any modifications to the work defined in Exhibit A will be made in writing by the Finance Director of the City of Farmington. 3. COMPENSATION A. The City will pay the Contractor once per month. Contractor shall submit to the City a monthly billing statement indicating the total number of meters read and the City shall pay the Contractor within 30 days following the City's receipt of such statement. B. The City shall pay the Contractor $.49 for each meter read. 4. TERMS A. The contract will become effective on September 5, 1998 and shall terminate on June 20, 1999. B. This contract may be terminated by the City at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days written notice to the Contractor. , , EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES A. Meter Readinl! Services: I. Contractor shall read all residential water meters with outside registers located within the City of Farmington in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit A. Contractor shall not be responsible for reading any water meter which services more than four residential dwelling units, any meter which is not equipped with an external mounted index, or any water meter which services any commercial, institutional, industrial, church, or school facility. 2. All meter reading services performed and furnished by contractor under this Contract shall be in accordance with the following requirements: a. All meter readers shall be trained by contractor to properly provide the services. b. All meter readers shall be in contractor supplied uniform and bearing a contractor supplied picture identification badge; c. All meter readers shall operate from vehicles conspicuously identifying such individual as a meter reader for contractor; d. Meter Readers shall read meters during the following time period: Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., unless an extension thereof is granted in writing by the Director of Public Works. B. City Suoolied Eauioment The City shall provide 2 handhelds (also known as data entry device) to the contractor for the performance of the work. Contractor's meter readers shall submit readings entered into the device to the City during normal business hours in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit "A". Contractor shall be solely responsible for any costs incurred to the City for the replacement or repair of any data entry device which is lost or damaged through the fault of contractor or its agents or employees. C. Meter Readinl! Schedule DISTRICTS District # I MONTHS READ March, June, September, December Total of approximately 3,300 meters. Meters may be read beginning the 5th of each month and must be completed by the 20th of each month. Contract Meter Reading Services Page 3 5. INSURANCE/BOND Before beginning actual work under this contract, the Contractor shall submit to the City and obtain the City's approval ofa certificate of insurance on Standard Form C.I.C.C.- 701 or ACCORD 25 forms, showing the following insurance coverage and listing the City as a loss payee under the policies: a. General Contractor Liability: $1,000,000.00 b. Automobile Liability for all automobiles: $1,000,000.00 c. Workman's Compensation: Statutory Amounts This insurance certificate must provide for the above coverage's to be in effect from the date of the contract until 30 days after the Completion Date, and must prove the insurance coverage's will not be cancelled by the insurance company without 30 days prior written notice to the City of intent to cancel. The certificate must further provide that the contractor's insurance coverage is primary coverage not withstanding any insurance coverage carried by the city that may apply to injury or damage relating to the maintenance or repair of the city's streets or right-of-ways by either the city or any employee, agent, independent contractor or any other person or entity retained by the City to perform the herein services. 6. LAWS. REGULATIONS AND SAFETY The Contractor shall give all notices and comply with all laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations applicable to performance under this Contract. 7. INDEMNIFICATION To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees from against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorney's fees, arising out of or resulting from the performance of Work provided that the claim is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission of the Contractor, any Subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder. Contract Meter Reading Services Page 4 8. ASSIGNMENT The Contractor shall not assign or transfer, whether by an assignment or notation or otherwise, any of its rights, duties, benefits, obligations, liabilities or responsibilities without prior written consent of the City. 9. NOTICE The address and telephone number of the Contractor for purposes of giving notices and any other purpose under this contract shall be: RMR Services, Inc. Attention: Keith Anderson 1228 South 7th Street Minneapolis, MN 55415 The address of the City for purposes of giving notices and any other purposes under this contract shall be: City of Farmington Attention: Finance Director 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Contract have hereunto set their hands and seals as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF FARMINGTON By Mayor By City Administrator ~~ , Keith P. Anderson Its: President . . ~, . Contract Meter Reading Services Page 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. ) COUNlY OF DAKOTA On this day of , 1998, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared to me personally known, who being each by me duly sworn, each did say that they are respectively the (position) of the City of Farmington, the municipality named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed on behalf of said municipality by authority of its Water Board and said (job title) acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipality. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. ) COUNlY OF HENNEPIN On this -.21 day ofAuo~.Jr ,1998, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared KEITH P. ANDERSON, to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that he is the President ofRMR Services, Inc., the corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and that said instrument was signed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors and said President acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of the corporation. A~ '~NV.tVV"Y ",,' V'."./"^^^^'\i~. !t''2~;,'" , THOMAS M. HEBIG I f;%::'- ,:,,' ~,o~~J~\j~~~~~'~~~TA _J'~~ ? , '. "y '>i:"':.I~>:on ::Xplre. Jan. 31. 2000 "'..'V '[ "V'!V\~. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 1 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administrator "'17& FROM: David L. Olson Community Development Director SUBJECT: State Planning Conference Attendance DATE: September 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION Attendance at the Minnesota State Planning Conference, held September 23-25, 1998 in Bemidji is being planned. DISCUSSION This conference is an annual event for Planners in Minnesota. Conference events include session on affordable housing, infill development, public/private development, sustainable development to name several. BUDGET IMPACT The adopted 1998 budget includes funding for this conference. ACTION REQUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, Z:~ - David L. Olson Community Development Director ',\'<It, REQUEST FORM },.. E SCHOOLS/CONFERENCES/TRAINING DEPARTMENT _s;:;;;..~Cl;..at/:._ DATE OF CONFERENCE_14.~/ _._~~ F~' :p&-r-'=' LOCAT I ON-_&~L4'-'7-&~------'------------------------ EMPLOYEE(S) ATTENDING: 1)_~~~_~~~~----------_-_- . ; ~' 2)__________________________________ 3) ---------------------------------- C) 1) Travel $__~___________ 2) Registration .$_L~_____ 3) RClc.m $ Sf:> .f.t.f#~- Amount Request $~L~~~ 4) Meals ;===____=__====== ~2;~ :~lit~~~~-:-;;~ Department Head 0%7...... .&~,ffofr:e"tor Date t, Amount Provided in Adjusted 19_2'.$ Budget $4~z.:?:::.---- . - (l ----------------------------------------------------------- TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL ~,'i' I RECOMMEND THE ABOVE REQUEST BE APPROVED. CITY ADMINISTRATOR Date . " !f ACTION TAKEN BY THE COUNCIL ON THE ______ DAY OF __________________, 19 ~ -- (APPROVED) (NOT APPROVED) Rev 9/86 ~:Jltf City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /,4 TO: Mayor, Councilmembers City Administrator FROM: James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT: Accept Revision to Ice Rental Contracts DATE: September 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION The City has a policy that charges users a 15 % fee for contracted ice that is returned to the arena. DISCUSSION Staff has determined in discussions about the Ice Arena finances that the cancellation of contracted ice hours is becoming a problem and is having a negative effect on Ice Arena revenues. The 15 % fee that is currently being charged has not deterred users from canceling these ice hours, and seeking a refund of the rental fee balance. These hours are extremely difficult to resell because most users have already set their schedules for the season, thus revenue from prime hours that could have been sold is being lost. Staff has determined that an increase in the fee for ice hour returns to 50 % may deter this problem. Other arenas in the area have no return policies or policies that limit the return of ice hours in cancellation situations. ACTION REQUESTED Accept the revision to the ice rental contracts changing the fee for returned ice hours from 15 % to 50 %. Respectfully submitted, ~\S~ James Bell Parks and Recreation Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us lOa- TO: Mayor and Councilmembers, City Administrator i~OE 'A, .. Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator FROM: DATE: September 8, 1998 RE: Revised Development Approval Process Policy INTRODUCTION The Planning Division has revised the Development Approval Process Policy in order to provide a more streamlined process for reviewing development plans and has created a detailed step-by- step approach to track the development through the process. Attached is the original Development Approval Process that was reviewed and approved by the City Council on June 16, 1997. This version provided a step-by-step approach, however, it did not address preliminary and final plats filed simultaneously or propose time frames for reviewing plats by City staff and outside agencies. DISCUSSION As development continues to increase in Farmington, it has become apparent that a more detailed Development Approval Process Policy is required in order to track the platting process, provide a clearer understanding of submittal requirements and time frames for review, and at any time, determine where the plat is in the process. The development approval process information will be delivered to the Developer at the time of the initial meeting with City staff and any questions concerning the process will be addressed in this meeting. The following is a list of revisions made to the Revised Development Approval Process Policy: 1. The process is divided into two options. Option I is when the preliminary and final plat is filed separately. Option 2 is when the preliminary and final plat is filed simultaneously. City staff determines which Option can be pursued. 2. For all submittals to the City, including schematic plan, preliminary plat, final plat or other required documents, City staff will inform the Developer by fax and mail if any items are missing from the submittal within 5 working days after the submission. If information is missing, City staff will return all submittal information to the Developer by the end of the 5- day period. If all information required has been included, City staff will inform the Developer by fax and a mailed letter that review of the project will commence. 3. Any required information such as an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, Floodplain Study, MUSA approval or other information required by outside agencies should begin before or shortly after the schematic plan submittal and must be completed before the preliminary plat is scheduled for a public hearing at the Planning Commission. 4. When the preliminary and final plat is filed separately, the time frame for review by City staff for a schematic plan is three weeks. City staff has five weeks to review the preliminary plat and schedule a public hearing at the Planning Commission and staff has three to four weeks to review the final plat and schedule a meeting at the Planning Commission. 5. When a preliminary and final plat is filed simultaneously, the time frame for review by City staff for a schematic plan is three weeks. City staff has five weeks to review the preliminary and final plat and schedule a public hearing at the Planning Commission and staff has four weeks to review the preliminary and final plat and schedule a meeting at the City Council. 6. Engineering construction plans need to be substantially complete as determined by the City Engineer before the City Council reviews preliminary and final plat. 7. The Developer has 75 days after final plat approval to record the plat. The Developer may request an extension if submitted in writing and is reviewed by the City Council. However, a request for a time extension may be allowed only once in the final plat process. 8. The Developer may begin grading of the site once the Development Contract is executed. No building permits will be issued for construction of any structure on any lot on any plat until the City has received evidence of the plat being recorded by Dakota County. It is important to note the expectations of both the Developer and City staff throughout the Development Approval Process. Those include the following: The Developer's expectations of staff, as a short-term customer in the development planning process, has needs related to: 1. timely process approvals, which includes eliminating unnecessary delays; 2. expecting that information on City Development processes is received in a timely manner from staff; 3. expecting reasonable time schedules to submit information and receive staff feedback on development proposals in a reasonable amount of time; 4. marketing an attractive and affordable housing product; and 5. minimizing unnecessary costs associated with their respective development proposal. Conversely, staff's expectations of the Developer, as customer, is the following: 1. that information requested by staff is submitted in an acceptable format for review; 2. that information requested is submitted in a timely manner to allow staff adequate time to review the information and the recognition that the respective developer's proposal is one among many and will be reviewed in the order received; 3. that as questions and/or issues emerge during the review process that the developer provide responses in a timely and appropriate manner; 4. that the developer is responsible for preparing the plat in accordance with explained City Code provisions and acceptable manner; 5. that the developer conduct him/herself in a courteous, professional manner 6. that plat submittals and supporting engineering information be provided to staff by the Developer's project staff without excessive staff inquiries and telephone calls concerning the timeliness of the information requested; 7. and finally, that developers be held accountable for their portion ofthe information requested and that their failure to do so will ultimately result in delays in the private development planning review and approval process. In revising the Development Approval Process Policy, City staff is certain that the above issues are addressed in a detailed process that will allow increased communication between the City and the Developer concerning the status of the development. As other issues come up in the process that require revisions, the Planning Division will once again review the process and propose additional revisions to the Planning Commission and City Council. As stated above, the revised development process will further streamline reviews of the project and insure that the Developer and the City are producing and receiving quality developments. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the revisions to the policy. The Planning Commission approved the policy at their August 25th meeting. The Builders Association of the Twin Cities also had the opportunity to review and comment on the revised policy and the City received comments from one developer within the organization. ACTION REQUESTED Acknowledge the attached Revised Development Approval Process Policy. The effective date for this process will be for applications filed after October 15, 1998. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator cc: Builders Association of the Twin Cities 00 00 ~ U ~ ~ ....;l -< ~ >00 0"0 ~.2:l ~::: ~ e -<.c Eo-< = z~ ~ e:s ~6: ~'; o c ....;l .. ~~ >"0 ~ ; Q I ; z .5 o e ~= c;;l ~ '7 loo ~~ ~... ~Z ~9 ~Eo-< O~ >00 Eo-< .... U o ..... '_~ ..... gp<2 ~ a oil .D ] 08 gpo> 000 .S =...c: =.. Q).~ 8 ~ .~ ~ a ~ S Q) .....::c~Q)(';I8...c: o ::3 o...c: Q.. 0 .~ 80..-;:: a ?-oU::c .~.~ 0 ,- ca OJ) ~ "0 'C ~ = = 0.. Z 01} 0..'. .. .. .S '" 8 8 2 ~ .,.;8;>.8:.:::(';1'0 ~~0~l5:...c: ...... u 0.. ;>. '" (';I .... = ::= "'0 o.9.~ 80 <+=< ~ = .g fj ~'';.9 rJJ ~ 'So l=i (/) .B ~ ~ (l.) a.~ ~ 0.. o...c 0 e 0.. o c.t:: U,Q e ~(';Iegp~o (l.).5;'::::'- (l.) c..> 08Q)Su .. e ~ = . ~ ,_ _ 0 ~I:::"",:l.; 0.. ~ .s"g 00 ~ E= c.!:! 01) = Q).. ;> = 0 ~ e u ~'2 .~ .~ g. o(l.~ a ''; Q)-Q)~-;::;: p:::~Q)d,:l.;e Q):t::;::;;>.o ,..; 0 's ] ,Q U 8~ 81 U 01} .. = ;>. ~ t;i:.a~Q) e = I .. Q) 0 II') ;> ...c: 1E' 1 ~ ~ Q) = = .~ 5.g.~ e u e:s '" .g o(l s 's 00=<8.g . (';I = '" N Q..'. ..n = 'So Q) ,Q "0 o 'C Q) 0.. "0 ..s a .~ ~ .'!J ..n OI}'. = Q) .S S S ~ ~ E ~ .~ e ~.;;...!:! ] .s ~~ ~~=~ :.s.s~o.. '" '0' .....; .... 0.. '"0 .g ~ g. .~ ~ '" ",..c .- <) > .- ~:E "'" ::l '" p., '" ~ ~<S '" '" .::: or> "'" ::: ~~ E '0 as ~ ::l ~.s li: "","8 '" .- '" ... ~ g. '" ~ ~ '" ..c .- f- > ~ Q) "0 c~8~~Q)- .~ .0 = .9 .s ': .g ..s 11 'g t;i u 8..:2 ~.... 0.. o:.a ::3 - .., 0 u = ."0 = 0 ,:l.; ;>....... '" u ~ .'!J =.. U -,Q I Q)(';I;::;=(';I", (';1"0_........ Q) Q) =t::.c. = Q)'. -. ,p ~ d 0 Q) U .. ~ u (';I - 01) ~.. d Q)=;>0~(';I;>t;i;::;Q) :.;; g .....:c;:::: 8.~ ~ ...c: - ~ U 8:';; (';I 0.."0';; ;. (';I 8 '0 .s ~ g',Q 0.. .... '" "'"0 0 ~ 8 ";;; OI}';; ~ a ~ .S ~ <.S '.0 C 2a"O~g ~'m a ~ U ,:l.; .~ t;i e .0 o;~~~u o (';I u utE~ ~ .i!l rn ~"s gp ~ '" '0 ~ ~ ;:!l~ '0 ~]I _ V" _ "0 o..;;j ~ "0'2 S 15 g C ;> o..aat;i~-(';Io o - s:::;::; s::: a - t;i ,:l.;.. ;>. s:::.. 0.. Q)-o"O(';I:Ee(';l ~ 0...... 8 o...t::.. ota uo..s~] s::: .. 0.. exile ~ .~ ~ .... 0 s::: (';I Q).t:: 0...- ;:;'>.Ud ..... ..... ~. s:::;::; ......~ Q) >-. ,- t\S:'= t:: 0.. .... U ta Q) 0 ~ 0 ~Ecoeo..~-g 's"O 1 '.p :::> ,.:.... .~ .. Q):;:::: ;>. I (';I.... a)~u~"'~(';I d:: Q) S I .S .... Q.. . .;; 0 ~ ~ 8: .... l'-~U""',Q(';I<2 ~ 8 ~] (';I <+=< .;; 0.. tn t::.u Q) OI}os:::....ia .5 ~ g gp s::: s::: .... U'N'. s::: '" .. e ~ e .0 8:'::: ,:l.; 8,'. e ~ ,"; Q) U e 0.. ""' a ::3...... '" 0 s ~ 0", "'" .- '"0 S e.g '" "'" '" '" '" p., ... '" ~ ~ ::: ~5 E '0 as ~ ::l ~ .5 ii: "0 .... Q) 01} .~ a 01} "0 o..s::: .....S a ..9..9"0 .... t;i o s::: ~(';It3 s::: Q) ..... l5: ~ a s::: Q) OI}.. e U _ 0 o .S 1:: 0.. ~ ta :E ,:l.; 'm = ;>........~ 0"E8..9s::: ~,Q~8 ~8.s~0 "0'. 8 Q) Q)'. Q) U -iQ)~0 ~::~O ..... .@>u U ,*<2 '" .... ~.. "0 '" Q) s::: 10-4.=:..... .~ Q) ::3 (';I '" g.g'o.."O - Jo-.._ s::: ~ = g (';I Q)(';Ile.'!J o ~ ",. ~ ,..;:g38 ..... ~ <+=< B .... 0 0.. "0 .... s::: S ti g.E - s::: Q) 0 ~u o a = .... .... 0 0 ~"O<+=<.9 eQ)(';I- 0.. ~ "O'u v 0- = s::: ;> a):;~::30 ~ .;: .:': 8 a O~~C~ .b "'.. N s::: aU .....8u ~~ o(l 'E ~ .~ OI}"O .b s::: s::: ~ a.9 g '2 .s U t;i <.t:: a "'.... s::: -0I}~l::"g ~.5 e <2 ;> o [) ~.S '8 U~..9""Q) ......so ~ ~ .... .....~o(';l ,.; Q) 0.. o a) ;> Q) o Q) t;i "0 01} .S .... Q) Q) 8 '" Q) .... o s::: Q) o * co 0'1 --- ...... S2 0'1 o = .9 '" .;; Q) p::: OPTION 1 Preliminarv and Final Plat Filed Seoarately Development Approval Process Step 1: An initial meeting with staff to determine project requirements and possible issues. This meeting serves as a mechanism for the Developer to become aware of City development ordinances and standards. . Staff prepares development approval schedule, discusses checklist and informs Developer of associated fees involved in development process. Step 2: Submit schematic plan and corresponding information. The Developer submits a complete schematic plan to the Planning Coordinator along with other pertinent information prior to the review of the project by the Planning Commission. Revision 08/20/98 1 Step 3: . . . Review of schematic plan by Development Committee, City Staff and Planning Commission. . . The schematic plan is also sent to the Parks and Recreation Commission, Water Board and Housing and Redevelopment Authority, if applicable, for review. This gives the Developer the opportunity to receive feedback from all groups prior to the Planning Commission meeting. . . Meeting 1 - Schematic Plan is reviewed at Planning Commission meeting. . Step 4: The Developer submits the preliminary plat to Planning and Engineering staff with schematic plan review comments addressed and all required information along with payment of fees. Revision 08/20/98 2 . . The Developer shall submit the following documentation prior to the scheduling of a public hearing before the Planning Commission: a) an application for preliminary plat, b) fifteen (15) copies of the plat, c) d) five (5) copies of supporting documents e) an abstractor's list of property owners living within three hundred fifty feet (350'), and f) filing fees and surety as specified in the City's annual fee schedule shall be paid prior to scheduling a public hearing before the Planning Commission. . . . Major engineering and planning issues must be addressed before the preliminary plat is approved at the Planning Commission level and sent to the City Council for reVIew. . . Step 5: Notice of Public Hearing is published 10 calendar days prior to Planning Commission hearing date for preliminary plat review as required by Minnesota State statutes. Revision 08/20/98 3 . Notices are mailed to properties on the abstractor's list to be provided by the Developer and an affidavit of mailed notice is filed as required by Minnesota State statutes. Meeting 2 - Preliminary Plat is reviewed at Planning Commission Public Hearing. Step 6: Planning staff prepares report for City Council summarizing review of preliminary plat and schedules review at City Council meeting. . Meeting 3 - Preliminary Plat is reviewed at City Council meeting. Step 7: Preliminary plat is reviewed by City Council - Upon approval, resolution for preliminary plat is adopted. . meeting. . of fees and submits to Planning Coordinator along with payment Step 8: . The developer submits a final plat by providing twelve (12) copies of the final plat and three (3) copies of all engineering construction drawings. Revision 08/20/98 4 . . . . Meeting 4 - Final Plat is reviewed at Planning Commission meeting. Step 9: Planning Commission reviews final plat and forwards recommendations to City Council. Meeting 5 - Final Plat is reviewed at City Council meeting. Step 10: Final plat is reviewed by City Council - Upon approval, resolution provides for acceptance of all agreements for improvements, public dedication and other requirements indicated by City Council. . City Council adopts resolution approving and authorizing signing of plat contingent upon preparation of Development Contract. Step 11: Community Development/Planning and Engineering staff draft Development Contract after information is receivedfrom the Developer. . Developer prepares cost estimates for required developer improvements and City Engineer prepares the amount of financial guarantees for Development Contract. . After preparation of agreement, staff forwards the draft Development Contract to the City Attorney for approval. Revision 08/20/98 5 · After approval by the City Attorney, staff forwards the draft to the Developer for review, comment and, if necessary, to arrange for a meeting to work out unresolved Issues. Step 12: Development Contract is placed on consent agenda for City Council to approve. Meeting 6 - Development Contract is reviewed at City Council meeting. Step 13: Developer provides all required fees, final plat documents and signs Development Contract. · Developer provides all required fees, final plat documents, including one full size and one 8 1/2" x II" mylar of final plat, and signs Development Contract. · Three copies of the Development Contract shall be submitted to the City. Step 14: Final plat is signed by Mayor and Chair of Planning Commission and released to Developer for recording along with certified Development Contract. **Highlighted text represents new requirements. Revision 08/20/98 6 rr.J rr.J ~ U";; o 5 i:l: ~ ~ = ..:l~ <: = ;> e 0'- i:l:rr.J ~~ ~:: <: .- Eo-,g Z = ~rr.J ~~ ~- o:=: ..:l ~ ~ .S: ;>r.. ~-= c:l = I ~ Z loo o ~ Eo- .- e,:, .5 Z'QZ _ loo ~~ i:l: .. <:N r..Z r..O o~ !:~ - u !l - .~ v .- C<$ 5 OIl al ~ 5 tE ;.:::.5 u p.. ~~s~15g _~'a-=u al ~ 0 '" 0.. i>> :>> .... 'en .- ..9 "l ~ c.8.~ !::: ~ .5 0 '" 5 .~ al !::: 1"-1 .5 5 '" Cl ;.S OIl 0 .- ~~]U 5 '<i 0.. p.. .g '" ..... .- I "" -g c= ~ .~ C d) QJ <<) :;'0 ~ Q. 1:!!E ~ ~ ....., ::S._._ d tI:l t.l... > s::.5 ~ al U ~.~ OIl .- 5 !::: :>> 5 al '2 .Da..ca!::: o u -.9 ~Uen~ ~ ._... I ~.- >!:::~.Da ~ S C<$ ~ a 0..V5 ~ 0 M ..9 .o.2:a U ~ U ~ Qo(J.... Ugp:>> '~:a~ ~ ~ 6 .A'> ~ ..c 0.. I ~'M ~ ~ !::: !:::] .t:: ~.g.~ ~ 5 U C<$ '" 0 .g o(J ErS '5 en !::: c.8.g 0.. .~!::: '" N 0..'- ~ .s a .~ ~ tl 00'- !::: ~ .5 e ~ = tt) ~ ~ .~ al al .... a ~'5 ~ ~ B ~~ '"E ~ ~ 0 ..:::n~o.. CI'J '0' .....: .... 0.. Q:::..... C<$ ~ '" o(J .e .t:l .- oo~ o!::: S 5 !::: _ .- 0 .- ~ U ~..... !:::en.....=""" aoo!:::t::~ a:::.5 ala c.8 ~ .::::::: M 0'- Cl al g..- 8 u~Q)t~ cxi 'M ~ ~ ~Cl ...; al 0.. o Q) > al Cl ~ ~ al I ~ 1 .~ !::: a: ~ '" .^..... C<$ al:= I ,,",<;j~ C'- U 0.:::1 > 0.. C<$~SN~O....-d = .... O"".D a.9 ~ .- '" U ..... 0.. - ~ a .- 0 .t:: C<$ !::: 0.. ;.::: ~ .0 al 5 !:::.9.g Q.)...-.- (.);.::::: 0 ~ <<S ~;:-U a al 0.."= '~E<;ja~5l I"-t;:: CO'';::: ~ ..... O<;j 1a~....~tE t; 1::: 'u '> ~ gp8.s~a . '2 ~ 0 gp C] !::: '" U._ C<$ 0.. ..:g e o.~ t:: ~ C<$._ !a's '" fru a:..= ~ a 5 ~ ;:::l 0.. '" o .... U .... gp c.8 <;j OIl .- "0'- OIl ""' !::: '" ::c al !::: !::: t.:l '2:g . ;:::l..c !:::.- !::: 0 OIl ~ .~ ~ !a -g C<$..c .5 .....::c~2:aC<$E:!:::!a 0;:::l0"" ^Oal al 0....... !::: C a: 'en ..c .~ tn ~.9 ~ tU.~ (.) '0 '-'C ~.- ';; e:.::: z gp 0..'-.5 ~ 5 .g .- rJl e...= 0 ~ .n~~g~]U ::t ~ U 0.. 0.. "" ~ .g OJ OJ ~ Q. ... ~ ::: OJ o .- "'" > ~ ""_ OJ c: E .!ol BS ~ ::: .;a ~ ~ .- -..... i:l... .- "'0 ~en .~ a gp ~ g. !::: .....- J...4'- C _ 0""0 ..... C<$o!:::O:lal<;jal!::: E: ~ a 6 ~ OIlS s ti - "'" E: .- ...... .5 1::: 0.. C<$ C<$~ ~ ~alo.t:l !::: .........._ 0 .... U _ !::: .- ~ 0 d ..... 0 al 0 ~.D....!:<~u.s>u "0 .- a al al'- al .....:alC<$o~....a:Cl ....!:::OUal.... .~ Q) c.8 '" .... ~ ~ _ J~ ... .~ &::s..:gtnE o as o..~ al ..... Q)....<ilaa~ >:::: !::: '" o...t:l alC<$t;::.......9!::: Cl~"'~~o '''OalaalU 8 '> ~ ;:::l Cl 2 g 0.. ~ 6 .... 1::"Oc.80 al al C<$ ..... 5~~:= 0..- !::: U oo..al!::: Q).~ ~ g >..........u alU!:::>. Cl .s ~ .t::' .!::: !:::u 0"1 0 0 U U ~ ~~ - al ~ "0 OIl .5 ..... al al a '" al ..... 0 !::: Q) al Cl > * 0 .... - 0.. QO g. 0"1 -- M 0 -- 0"1 0 !::: .9 '" '> ~ OPTION 2 Preliminary and Final Plat Filed Simultaneously Development Approval Process Step 1: An initial meeting with staff to determine project requirements and possible issues. This meeting serves as a mechanism for the developer to become aware of City development ordinances and standards. . Staff prepares development approval schedule, discusses checklist and informs Developer of associated fees involved in development process. Step 2: Submit schematic plan and corresponding information. The Developer submits the Schematic Plan to the Planning Coordinator along with other pertinent information prior to the review of the project by the Planning Commission. Revision 08/20/98 1 Step 3: Step 4: Review of schematic plan by Development Committee, City Staff and Planning Commission. . · The schematic plan is also sent to the Parks and Recreation Commission, Water Board, Heritage Preservation Commission and Housing and Redevelopment Authority, if applicable, for review. This gives the Developer the opportunity to receive feedback from all groups prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Meeting 1 - Schematic Plan is reviewed at Planning Commission meeting. . The Developer submits preliminary and final plat to Planning and Engineering staff with comments addressed from schematic plan process and all required information along with payment of fees. . Revision 08/20/98 2 · The Developer shall submit the following documentation prior to the scheduling of a public hearing before the Planning Commission: a) an application for preliminary and final plat, b) fifteen (15) copies of the plat, c) d) five (5) copies of supporting documents e) two (2) copies of final engineering plans f) an abstractor's list of property owners living within three hundred fifty feet (350'), and g) filing fees and surety as specified in the City's annual fee schedule shall be paid. . . · Major engineering and planning issues must also be addressed before the preliminary and final plat is approved at the Planning Commission level and sent to the City Council for review. . Step 5: Notice of Public Hearing is published 10 days prior to Planning Commission hearing date for preliminary and final plat review as required by Minnesota State statutes. Revision 08/20/98 3 . Notices are mailed to properties on the abstractor's list to be provided by the Developer and an affidavit of mailed notice is filed as required by Minnesota State statutes. Meeting 2 - Preliminary and Final Plat is reviewed at Planning Commission Public Hearing. . Step 6: Planning staff prepares report for City Council summarizing review of preliminary and final plat. . . Meeting 3 - Preliminary and Final Plat is reviewed at City Council meeting. Step 7: Preliminary and final plat is reviewed by City Council - Upon approval, resolution provides for acceptance of all agreements for improvements, public dedication and other requirements indicated by City Council. . meeting. . City Council adopts resolution approving and authorizing the signing of the final plat contingent upon preparation of the Development Contract. Step 8: Community Development/Planning and Engineering staff draft Development Contract after information is received from the Developer. Revision 08/20/98 4 . · Developer prepares cost estimates for required developer improvements and City Engineer prepares financial guarantees for Development Contract. · After preparation of agreement, staff forwards the draft Development Contract to the City Attorney for approval. · After approval by the City Attorney, staff forwards the draft to the Developer for review, comment and, if necessary, to arrange for a meeting to work out unresolved Issues. Step 9: Development Contract is placed on consent agenda for City Council to approve. Meeting 4 - Developer's Agreement is reviewed at City Council meeting. Step 10: Developer provides all required fees, final plat documents and signs Development Contract. · Developer provides all required fees, final plat documents, including one full size and one 8 1/2" x 11" mylar of final plat, and signs Development Contract. · Three copies ofthe Development Contract shall be submitted to the City. Step 11: Final plat is signed by Mayor and Chair of Planning Commission and released to Developer for recording along with certified Development Contract. **Highlighted text represents new requirements. Revision 08/20/98 5 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-71 I I Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission Members Lee Smick, AICP (} () Planning Coordinator ~ FROM: SUBJECT: Revised Development Approval Process Policy DATE: August 25, 1998 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission reviewed the Revised Development Approval Process Policy at the July 28, 1998 meeting. Enclosed are revisions made to the policy as recommended by the Planning Commission. Attached is a memo from the July 14th Planning Commission meeting illustrating the revisions to the original policy approved on June 10, 1997. DISCUSSION The Planning Commission Chair made a number of recommendations to the proposed policy including grammatical revisions, format revisions and requested a flow chart for each option in order to clarify the steps provided in the policy. City staff reviewed these recommendations and made a number of changes to the grammatical language and other revisions throughout the text. The flow charts have been included for each option of the development approval process and illustrate each step in detail. By providing the flow charts along with the text, Developers will be able to move through the development process in an effective and knowledgeable manner. Concerning revisions to the format of the documents, the Planning Commission expressed their concern for the redundancy of the steps throughout both options. However, City staff feels that by detailing each step of the process, even to the point of being redundant at times, the ability to track a development by staff and the Developer through a step-by-step approach will be beneficial. Also, since City staff works daily with Developers in the development process, staff understands the confusion Developers may have when starting new development projects. With the step-by- step approach and the attached flow charts, staff is certain that they can assist the Developer more efficiently and effectively with the proposed policy. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the Revised Development Approval Process Policy and forward the policy to the City Council. Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 CITY OF FARMINGTON Development Approval Process (Approved June 10, 1997) An initial meeting with staff to determine project requirements and possible issues. This meeting serves as a mechanism for the developer to become aware of City development ordinances and standards. Staff also prepares development approval schedule, discusses checklist and informs developer of associated fees involved in development process. Submit schematic plan and corresponding information. The Developer submits the Schematic Plan to the Planning Coordinator along with other pertinent information. Review by Development Committee and City Staff - Review proposal at Planning Commission meeting. Planner reviews the proposal with the Development Committee, City Staff and Planning Commission to provide all groups the opportunity to become familiar with the project prior to formal action or public hearing. Schematic plan is also sent to the Parks and Recreation Commission, Water Board and Housing and Redevelopment Authority if applicable for review. It gives the developer the chance to receive feedback prior to the expense of detailed plan preparation on projects that may need substantial revision before formal approval is given. City staff determines if the preliminary and final plat shall be reviewed separately in the review process or simultaneously. Meeting 1 - Schematic Plan is reviewed at Planning Commission meeting. Developer submits preliminary plat to Planning and Engineering staff with comments addressed and all required information along with payment of fees - 70 day time limit begins. The developer shall submit a) an application for preliminary plat, b) fifteen (15) copies of the plat, c) five (5) copies of support documents, d) an abstractor's list of property owners living within three hundred fifty feet (350'), and e) filing fees and surety as specified in the City's annual fee schedule shall be paid prior to scheduling a public hearing before the Planning Commission. All of this information must be included in the submission in order for the Planning Commission to act upon the preliminary plat. Major engineering and planning issues must also be addressed before the preliminary plat is approved at the Planning Commission level and sent to the City Council for review. The 70 day time limit for reviewing and approving the preliminary plat at the Planning Commission level begins when all of the above information along with engineering and planning issues are addressed. An extension may be granted if the developer submits written letter to City requesting time extension. Notice of Public Hearing is published 10 days prior to Planning Commission hearing date for preliminary plat review. Notice of public hearing is mailed to properties on abstractor's list and affidavit of mailed notice is filed. Planning staff notifies affected agencies, jurisdictions and utilities and requests comments concerning preliminary plat. Step 6 Planning Commission Public Hearing for preliminary plat with all issues resolved, recommends plat be sent to City Council. Planning Commission does not take action on preliminary plat until all information is submitted and all issues are addressed. If approved, Planning Commission recommends plat be sent to City Council. Meeting 2 - Preliminary Plat is reviewed at Planning Commission Public Hearing. Step 7 Planning staff prepares report for City Council concerning review of preliminary plat at City Council. Step 8 Preliminary plat is reviewed by City Council - Upon approval, resolution for preliminary plat is adopted. City Council reviews preliminary plat and adopts resolution for preliminary plat upon approval or disapproval of plat. The public may ask questions or voice concerns at this meeting. The City Council has 50 days to review the plat once all information is submitted to the City Council. Meeting 3 - Preliminary Plat is reviewed at City Council meeting. Step 9 Developer prepares final plat and submits to Planning Coordinator along with payment of fees. The developer submits a final plat of any portion that was not recorded by providing twelve (12) copies of the final plat and two (2) copies of all final engineering drawings. Planning and Engineering staff reviews and prepares agenda report materials on the plat. Step 10 Planning Commission reviews final plat and sends recommendations to City Council. Planning Commission reviews plat and forwards recommendation to the City Council. Meeting 4 - Final Plat is reviewed at Planning Commission meeting. Step 11 Final plat is reviewed by City Council - Upon approval, resolution provides for acceptance of all agreements for improvements, public dedication and other requirements indicated by City Council. City Council adopts resolution approving and authorizing signing of plat contingent upon preparation of developer's agreement. Meeting 5 - Final Plat is reviewed at City Council meeting. Step 12 Developer's Agreement is drafted by Community Development/Planning and Engineering staff Developer prepares cost estimates for required developer improvements and City Engineer prepares financial guarantees for developer's agreement. After preparation of agreement, staff forwards draft developer's agreement to City Attorney for approval. After approval by City Attorney, staff forwards draft to developer for review, comment and, if necessary, to arrange for a meeting to work out unresolved issues. Step 13 Developer's Agreement is included on consent agenda and approved by City Council upon approval of developer. Developer's Agreement is reviewed and upon approval of developer, City Council approves Developer's Agreement. Meeting 6 - Developer's Agreement is reviewed at City Council meeting. Step 14 Developer provides all required fees, final plat documents and signs developer's agreement. Developer provides all required fees, final plat documents, including one full size and one 8 1/2" x 11" mylar of final plat, and signs developer's agreement. Three copies of agreement are required to be submitted to City. Step 15 Final plat is signed by Mayor and Chair of Planning Commission and released to developer for recording along with certified Developer's Agreement. The final plat must be approved within 60 days of approval by City Councilor plat automatically becomes approved. CITY OF FARMINGTON DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS 1. Initial meeting with staff to r. * Denotes meeting date I determine project & possible issues 1 2. Submit schematic plan & 1 corresponding information 3. Review by development committee & staff - Review proposal at Planning 4. Developer submits Commission meeting preliminary plat to Planning & Engineering staff with 1 comments addressed and all required information along 5. Notice for Public Hearing is with payment of fees - 70 day published 10 days prior to time limit at PC begins Planning Commission hearing 6. Planning Commission date for preliminary plat review Public Hearing for preliminary plat with all issues resolved, 1 recommends plat be 7. Planning staff prepares report sent to City Council for City Council concerning review of preliminary plat at City 1 Council 8. Preliminary Plat is reviewed by City Council - 50 9. Developer prepares final plat day time limit begins - Upon and submits to Planning approval, resolution for Coordinator along with payment preliminary plat is adopted of fees T 1 11. Final Plat is reviewed by 10. Planning Commission City Council- Upon approval, reviews final plat and sends resolution provides for recommendations to acceptance of all agreements for City Council improvements, public dedication and other requirements indicated J; by City Council 12. Developer's Agreement is drafted by CD/Planning 13. Developer's Agreement is & Engineering staff included on consent agenda and approved by City Council upon 1 approval of developer I 14. Developer provides all 15. Final Plat is signed by required fees, final plat Mayor and Chair of Planning documents and signs Commission and released to developer's agreement developer for recording along with certified Developer's Agreement City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us lOb TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administrator '):%& FROM: David L. Olson Community Development Director SUBJECT: Proposed Orderly Annexation Agreement With Empire Township - Set Workshop Date DATE: September 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION Several months ago, the Farmington/Empire Joint Planning Board recommended that a draft orderly annexation agreement be explored to address joint planning and annexation issues. Dean Johnson, the Planning Consultant for Empire has prepared a draft agreement for discussion purposes which is attached. DISCUSSION This agreement is intended to identify an Orderly Annexation area that the Township and City feel would be appropriate for annexation into the City provided certain conditions exist (Le. the availability of sewer and/or water and the desire of the property owners to be annexed). This area is identified on Exhibit A and includes the area east of TH 3, south of Co. Rd. 66 and north ofTH 50 up to one mile east of the current City limits. In exchange for this area being identified as an orderly annexation area, the remainder of the Township would be designated as Commercial Agriculture with the exceptions noted in paragraph 6 of the agreement for a period of 10 years. This would include the Seed Trust Property. Discussions have also included the expansion of the area identified as the Rural Center by the Township. This expansion could include an additional 160-300 homes. It has been indicated by the Township that in exchange for the orderly annexation agreement, the City would agree not to oppose this residential expansion in the township. A Joint Planning Board would be established with representatives of both the City and Township to develop a land use plan for the Orderly Annexation Agreement. BUDGET IMPACT Unknown at this time. ACTION REQUESTED It is recommended that this matter be scheduled for a Council Workshop on Wednesday. September 16th at 7:00 Dm in Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, ~R ---.... David L. Olson Community Development Director RESOURCE STRATEGIES August 6, 1998 CORPORATION 14001 RIDGEDALE DRIVE SU liE 300 \/11~I~JE7D'\jK.~., "V'i 55305 s , 2/ 5 ' 3.9548 FAX 612/513.9549 '" ~.,) Mr. Floyd Henry Clerk/Treasurer Empire Township 3385-l97th Street W. Farmington, MN 55024 Mr. John Erar City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Re: Revised Draft Orderly Annexation Agreement Gentlemen: Enclosed please find a copy of Draft #2 of the proposed Orderly Annexation Agreement (OAA) between the Town of Empire and the City of Farmington. The revisions reflect concerns expressed and issues raised by Dave Olson, City Community Development Director, and Joel Jamnik, Campbell Knutson, City Attorney, in our meeting yesterday. I have been asked to prepare revisions to the original draft, based upon these discussions. The revisions are shown in a strike through/underline format and notes. It is understood that neither party has taken any formal positions on the OAA; however, these revisions may bring the City and Township closer together on several points that require discussion and consensus. The revisions have not been screened or endorsed by Dave or Joel; rather, they reflect my understanding of the issues raised by City staff It is also my understanding that the City will identify some possible meeting dates for a joint meeting of the elected officials, as the next step in the process. Sincerely, ~ Dean R. Johnson Empire Township Planner Enclosure cc: Dave Olson, Farmington Community Development Director Joel Jamnik, Campbell Knutson Peter Schmitz, Schmitz and Ophaug JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 1998-1 TOWN OF EMPIRE AND CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA A JOINT RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JOINT PLANNING AND ORDERLY GROWTH WHEREAS, Empire Township (the "Township") and the City of Farmington (the "City") desire to plan appropriately for growth and development in each community; and WHEREAS, the Township and City desire to prevent the premature conversion of agricultural land for urban development; and WHEREAS, the Township and City desire to establish a development framework, which promotes contiguous and orderly growth patterns, consistent with the goals and policies of each community's comprehensive plan and the Metropolitan Council's Regional Growth Strategy; and WHEREAS, the Township and City acknowledge it is in the best interests of the residents of each community to work cooperatively in the future planning and development of the areas abutting the common borders of the communities; and WHEREAS, the Township and the City desire to establish terms and conditions that promote common goals for growth in the area; respect individual community identities; create certainty for local land use decisions and long term public and private investment strategies; promote joint planning for certain areas; and protect the public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Township and City agree to the following terms and conditions: 1. The Township and City establish an Orderly Annexation Area ("OAA") as authorized by Minnesota Statute ~414.0325, Subdivision I, as shown on the attached Exhibit A and legally described on Exhibit B. Note: The City has requested that the area west of TH 3 at the 20Sth Street/CSAH 66 corridor (area lying between the Vermillion River and Edmar Addition) be considered as a part of the Orderly Annexation Area as illustrated on the original map. 2. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ~414.0325, Subdivision 5, the Township and City hereby establish a Joint Planning Board, consisting of six members, three appointed by each party. All appointments shall be for staggered three year terms, with one Township and one City term expiring each year. The Joint Planning Board shall have exclusive planning, zoning and subdivision jurisdiction, prescribed in Minnesota Statutes ~462.351-462.364, for all township land within the OAA. shall act as the administrator for the Joint Planning Board. Draft #2 8/6/98 Joint Resolution No. 1998-1 Page 2 0/4 Funding to administer the Joint Planning Board shall be paid as follows: The Joint Planning Board shall have the immediate responsibility of preparing a land use plan for the area described on Exhibit A and Exhibit B. The City and the Township shall include the land use plan in each community's respective comprehensive plan for review and approval by the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council's failure to approve the land use plan for the area shown on Exhibit A shall not invalidate the purpose of the plan or the terms and conditions of this joint resolution. The Joint Planning Board shall complete a land use plan, including a development staging concept, by October 31, 1998. Empire Township land use controls, including the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance, in effect on the date of this joint resolution, are hereby adopted by reference and shall remain in effect within the OAA until amended or modified by the Joint Planning Board. 3. The Township and City will apply jointly for additional grant funding through the Metropolitan Council to cover the costs of the joint planning and preparation of a land use plan. In the event a planning grant is not available, the Township and City agree to share in the costs as follows 4. The Township and City agree to amend the land use plan as needed over the life of the terms and conditions of this joint resolution. Funding for ongoing planning of the Joint Planning Board shall be determined by condition number 3 above, unless modified in writing by the parties. 5. Properties located within the OAA, shown on Exhibit A and described in Exhibit B, may be annexed to the City without contest by the Township when the following conditions are met: a. The property is contiguous to the City. b. All property owners have signed and presented to the City a petition requesting annexation. c. Public sewer aBd or water must be immeeiately available to serve the property. d. A development plan for the property has been reviewed by the Joint Planning Board and determined to be consistent with the land use plan described in condition number 2 above. e. A parcel of land that has been laterally benefited by City sanitary sewer or City water improvements for a period of two (2) one (1) years and is surrounded by the City, according to criteria established in Minnesota Statute 9414.033, may be annexed to the City without petition by the landowner. 6. The Township shall develop a comprehensive plan that identifies commercial agriculture as the predominant land use in the Township. Exceptions to this may include minor expansions of the existing Township public utility service area, located between 194th Street and 20Sth Street. No expansion of the public utility service area shall occur north of the 194th Street Draft #2 8/6198 Joint Resolution No. 1998-1 Page 3 of 4 alignment or south of the main branch of the Vermillion River. This area is generally consistent with that area described as the Rural Center in the 1993 Empire Township Comprehensive Plan. Other potential exceptions to agricultural land uses may include minor designations of service commercial or light industrial uses. These potential uses will be limited to the Southern Hills Golf Course property and an area along TH3 within one-half mile of 160th Street. The Township does not propose to serve these areas with public utilities at this time. Note: The City has requested that the OAA Map (Exhibit A) illustrate the "exceptions to commercial agriculture". I think this is a good idea but the general areas excepted in the section require consensus by the Township. preferably in their comprehensive plan. This is not done at the present time: however. the exceptions can be discussed more carefully by the Planning Commission and Town Board prior to completion of the Comprehensive Plan. The City has also asked that the OAA map illustrate the area west of the Soo Line Railroad as "conservancy". which is the present designation in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. This can be added to the OAA without debate. 7. As long as the terms and conditions of this joint resolution remain in effect, the City shall not initiate, endorse, encourage or accept any annexation by petition or ordinance outside of the OAA, as illustrated on Exhibit A and described in Exhibit B. Any amendment to the Empire Comprehensive Plan shall require an amendment to this ioint resolution. unless one of the following conditions apply: a. The City informs the Township it may place the plan amendment into effect without requiring an amendment to this ioint resolution. b. The plan amendment does not involve a land use change. a land use density change or a public utility change. c. The plan amendment does not involve any property within one (0 mile of the City of Farmington. 8. It is the intent of the parties that the terms of this agreement act to prohibit annexation under any laws currently in force if annexation under such laws would be contrary to the annexation procedures set out in this agreement. It is also the intent of the parties that changes in the law subsequent to the date of this agreement not alter or affect the rights or obligations of the parties as set out in this agreement. In the event changes occur in annexation-related laws subsequent to the date of this agreement, the parties shall meet to discuss the possibility of modifying this agreement to reflect some or all of the changes in said laws, but neither party to this agreement shall be required to modify this agreement as a result of changes in said laws. Draft #2 8/6198 , , . . Joint Resolution No. 1998-1 Page4of4 9. Upon approval by the respective governing bodies of the City and the Township, this joint resolution and agreement shall confer jurisdiction upon the Minnesota Municipal Board ("Municipal Board") so as to accomplish the orderly annexation of the lands described in the attached Exhibit A in accordance with the terms of this joint resolution and agreement. 10. The City and the Township mutually state that no alteration by the Municipal Board to the OAA boundaries, as illustrated on Exhibit A and described in Exhibit B, is appropriate or permitted. 11. Having designated the area illustrated on Exhibit A and described in Exhibit B as in need of orderly annexation, and having provided for all of the conditions of its annexation within this document, the parties to this agreement agree that no consideration by the Municipal Board is necessary. 12. The terms and conditions of this resolution shall remain in full force and effect for a period offifteea (15) ten (10) years from the date of the joint resolution. The parties may amend this ioint resolution by mutual consent at any interval but agree to discuss the extension of or other amendment of this joint resolution no later than eight (8) years from the date of this ioint resolution. Approved and Adopted This _ day of , 1998. Approved and Adopted This _ day of , 1998. EMPIRE TOWNSHIP CITY OF FARMINGTON Chair Mayor Clerk Clerk Draft #2 8/6198 . . Empire Township Orderly Annexation Area J .. Farmington ,. ....& & o 0.5 1 Miles City of Farmington D 300' Shoreland [&J Orderly Annexation Area ~~~ Floodplain +aaomoa ......nGID -..TIOl'I Parcels, Floodplain and Shore land Overlays provided by the Dakota County Survey and Land Information Department Exhibit A 5/18/98 IOc- TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator~- FROM: Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police SUBJECT: Set Workshop Date Municipal Towing Contract DATE: September 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION In January, 1998 the City Council awarded the municipal towing contract. At that time the Council requested that a workshop be set up later in the year for the purpose of discussing the issues surrounding that contract. The issues involved in the discussion would include the following: < Location of contractor and impound lot. < Duration of contract. < Language changes. ACTION REOUESTED Staff recommends scheduling the Towing Contract Workshop on September 23,1998 at 7:00 PM. Respectfully submitted, S0~fi Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police I CitlJ. of FarmintJ.ton 325 Oak Street · FarminfJtonl MN 550211 · (612) 1163-7111 · Fait (612) 1163-2591 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us IOe TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Dakota County of the Future Conference - Executive Report DATE: September 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION Attached, please find an executive summary of a report produced by the Dakota County of the Future Conference group. DISCUSSION This report is the culmination of a long-term effort to identify issues affecting the future vision of Dakota County from a variety of socio-political and economic perspectives. Main findings are summarized in the executive summary and detail initiatives that need to be acted upon to ensure the long-term success of the County as a whole. One significant finding indicates that the growth of the labor force in the County will actually be higher than the actual population growth. The implications of this finding suggest the need for regional transportation access, affordable housing opportunities, and continuing emphasis on work force training and educational opportunities. ACTION REQUESTED For information only. Respectfully Submitted, t}6/7 J - (') .,' ,#~i-i2::::::::r ,John F. Erar / TABLE OF CONTENTS . EXECUTIVE SUMMARy.......................................................................................... ..... 2 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 4 Dakota County's Economic Performance.................................................... 6 Unique Features of the County........................................................ ........... 7 Major Cities and Industrial Centers.............................................................. 9 Main Industry Clusters in Dakota County.................................................... 11 I. Aerospace (and related industries)............................................... 11 II. Plastics and Chemicals.................................................................. 14 III. Computers, Software and Information Technologies.................. 16 IV. Food Processing and Agribusiness.............................................. 18 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSiONS................................................. 22 Key Elements of a Successful Clustering Strategy................................. 22 Citizens League Report Recommendations............................................ 24 CONFERENCE DISCUSSION POINTS................. ........................................... 26 Appendices Location Quotient figures for key Dakota County industries 1990-1995 County Property Tax Rates 1991 Labor Force Survey (1990 census) Job Growth in Dakota County 1990-2000 County Population Projections 1980-2020 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose of the study The objective: to determine an optimum strategy for making Dakota County a world class competitive region for investment and industry. Dakota County economic profile I. Physical features that make Dakota County an attractive place to invest: . Land. There is a good availability of industrial land in all the major cities in the county. Property tax rates are the lowest in the Metro area. . Infrastructure. All the major industrial and residential centers are adequately connected with public utilities and other services, as well as with communications links. . Communication Network. There are strong links between this region and the rest of the country. This region is accessible by four local airports, the Mississippi River, the rail system and major freeway interchanges. All these make Dakota County conveniently located for suppliers, wholesalers and consumers. . Tradition of entrepreneurship. A significant proportion of enterprises in Dakota County indicate self-employment. There are a large number of start- up businesses here. . Technically skilled labor force. Technical and Community Colleges ensure the continued availability of technically skilled labor supply for local industry. II. Major economic trends and some future projections: . The population growth rate of Dakota County is higher than that of the Metro region. This rate is lower than the growth of its labor force; the number of people currently employed in county businesses. Labor force growth is expected to remain higher than population growth figures over the next decade. . Trends show that though the greatest number of jobs in the county are administrative support staff, this is a declining category. The growth sectors are all 'white collar', comprising executive, professional and management positions. . Property tax rates are the lowest of all the Metro region counties. The per capita tax rate is also the lowest in the Metro region. 2 Industry Clusters The four strategic clusters for Dakota County include: . Aerospace · Plastics and Chemicals · Computers, Software and Information Technologies . Agribusiness Main Findings and Recommendations Some of the main strategies that provide focus and economic growth · Collaboration and partnership between private interests, the government and critical intermediary organizations is crucial. These links will help overcome public policy hurdles and keep information channels flowing. · Linking up education and technical skills with the main industrial clusters is important, making the academic environment more responsive to the needs of the job market. Links with the University of Minnesota as a center of research excellence will be critical. · Making the state, or the county government a strategic consumer of certain products and services, e.g. computers and software will create demand and increase the size and capacity of the market. · Encouraging establishment of mediating institutions and trade associations that provide the forums for the exchange of information, technology and trade links. · Ensuring the availability of capital for start-ups as well as for expansion of established firms. The enterprise spirit of Dakota County should be treated as an asset which needs to be nurtured. · Ensuring that the quality of life in the area is maintained so that it continues to attract and retain its productive workforce as well as managerial talent. 3 INTRODUCTION This study has been commissioned by the Dakota County Economic Development Partnership (DCEDP). It is to inform and focus discussion during its County of the Future Conference to be held on May 19, 1998. This report draws on ideas of research conducted on the different economic sectors in Dakota County as well as some essential issues generated by studies conducted by the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development. Its contents therefore are mostly a synthesis of the different plans and strategies already articulated for the region and the state at various times; it represents an attempt at integrating different visions into a coherent strategy based on the competitive advantage which this county possess. The section on the industry clusters summarizes trends that are current in economic development and industry-related literature nationwide and globally, of relevance to the debate here at Dakota County. Conclusions and recommendations at the end of the report bring together experiences of clustering and strategic initiatives from other parts of the country; it is a sort of compendium of 'best practices' that can be beneficially applied here in Dakota County. The purpose of the study The purpose of this report is to explore the hypothesis that Dakota County can be a world class economic community, establishing and attracting the best industries and firms in an environment of competitive cooperation, in order to benefit the county as well as its investors and residents. It postulates a strategy that rests on a mutually beneficial partnership between pubic institutions, private parties and intermediary groups, with a joint interest in the advancement and prosperity of this area. Such a partnership would extend to formulation of joint strategies encompassing education, training, workforce, tax, and regulatory issues that lie within the jurisdiction of the County government. Industry Clustering as an Economic Development Strategy Industry clusters are geographic concentrations of competing, collaborating and related businesses that drive a region's economy. They include upstream supplier firms as well as horizontally linked competing and complementary firms. Clustering takes place around economic sectors dominated by one or a handful of dominant firms, with a demonstrated competitive ability. These economic clusters are supported and assisted by public and private institutions the community and other shareholders that affect a region's competitiveness. 4 In the emerging global economy, the local 'city region' will be the new economic powerhouse. Michael Porter, the originator of the clustering strategy, describes the importance of this phenomenon: "Innovation and upgrading depend on specialized local conditions that are not mobile - the critical masses of highly specialized and interconnected skills, applied technologies, competitors, suppliers and supporting institutions unique to particular areas". Increasingly important as part of this emerging phenomenon is the idea of local innovation that comes from home demand and local competitive pressure. Local consumer preferences, as well as competing and collaborating firms help enhance a firm's competitive edge, and largely determine how well it will perform in the global economy. Therefore, local govemment institutions become important players, providing incentives and benefits to the local firms that enable them to compete both locally and internationally. Local govemments make increasing expenditures on international trade promotions. Strategies include a focus on 'Key Industries' that emphasize the development of local strengths. Others aim to develop 'Core Competencies' that cut across several industries and form the basis of the thinking that underpins the cluster approach. A balancing act is critical. There needs to be a core group of companies competing as well as collaborating with one another. To achieve this, it is essential to pool resources, information, trade practices and technical expertise, while leading in the open market with a superior productive output. Successful clusters - such as the industry located around California's Silicon Valley - often build on the creation and maintenance of informal information links and networks that exist between such competing and collaborating firms. Information exchanges, one of the most important strategic principles, are used to continually upgrade and innovate and become the essential principles of sustained competitiveness. New strategies in economic development redefine 'competitiveness'. It is seen presently not so much in terms of a competing for development but on the successful development of the long term competitiveness of a state or region. This concept is based on Porter's "diamond of competitive advantage", incorporating four basic principles for all industries: · Competitive Advantage. This establishes that the Location Quotient should be greater than one and preferably increasing over time. It is intended to single out the industries that are potential exporters to other regions (or countries) and therefore bring money into the local economy. · Home Demand. This is crucial in giving local industry a head start. Discerning local consumers are important in determining the initial market 5 , . appeal of the product, and to act as vital pointers to the market for the future. Companies will often founder for lack of a sophisticated local consumer market. . Related and Supporting Industries. All major industrial groups and combines are essentially clusters of other industries that feed into them. These include the primary producers, the raw material suppliers and the component manufacturers. Frequently, they are successful spin-offs of some of the larger producers. Their importance is two-fold: they are often quick innovators with the potential to benefit the entire industry, and they provide vital competitive and collaborative skills for the larger companies. . Factor Conditions. Local availability of raw material, a skilled labor force and a basic entrepreneurial spirit are essential for giving companies a competitive advantage. If such essential inputs have to be sought out from other regions, it will add to the cost of production making local producers less able to compete. Dakota County's Economic Performance Trends in employment, labor market composition and population and taxes over the last decade along with some projections for the future are displayed in the appendices at the back of this report. Some of the salient features and trends from Metropolitan Council studies are summarized here. They indicate a critical element of dynamism and growth in the region. This affects its industrial potential relative to the rest of the state as well as the national economy. Labor and Employment: The job growth in the county over the past decade has been phenomenal. From 63,300 jobs in 1983, the economy grew to accommodate 106,491 in 1990. This is expected to go up to 142,960 by the turn of the century. There will be a leveling off after that and between 2000 and 2020 it is expected that only about another 25,000 jobs will be added. The critical feature is that the job growth rate (3.4%) will continuously outstrip the county population rate (2.4%). Labor Force composition: According to the 1990 census, the most important categories of the labor force were Admin Support 19%, Executive/Managerial 15%, Professional 14%, Sales 13%. Trends between 1980 and 1990 show a significant growth in Executive, Professional, Technical and Sales jobs, and a decline in the Admin Support work. This supports the conclusion that the county's labor force is becoming more 'white collar'. Population trends: The annual population growth rate far outstrips that of the Metro region. From 1980 to 1990, it averaged 4.2% annually, and this is expected to decline to 2.4% during the present decade, and 1.5% during the 6 next. Comparatively, the growth rate of the Metro region is expected to decline from 1.5% annually to 0.8% in the first decade of the next century. Tax rates: The Dakota County government has the lowest property tax capacity rate in the entire metro area: 22.54%. (Scott is highest with 39.04%). Additionally, Dakota County has the lowest per capita tax levy in the metro region, at $229.05. This tax rate has been kept low, despite the high rate of population growth compared to the rest of the metro region. Unique Features of the County The County has some unique features that make it an attractive place to invest as well as setting it apart from the surrounding region. They have been the impetus for the explosive growth in the County over the last decade will provide the main competitive advantage of this region in the future. Some of the features are owed to policy steps taken by the county government to induce private sector led development. Others are the result of long term development trends that are described briefly below. 1. land: There is significant acreage in all the major cities of Dakota County set aside for industrial another commercial ventures. The amounts of land available are described in the individual city profiles below. 2. Infrastructure: Public utilities, power supply, public agencies, disposal systems are all adequately connected and supplied in all major centers. Dakota County is considered as giving a higher per capita coverage of such services and utilities than the Metro region average. 3. Transportation Network: A sophisticated transportation network is crucial to the global competitiveness of any industry. Strong links will ensure better relationships with suppliers, distributors and customers. Good roads and other transportation methods will lead to quicker manufacturing and distribution processes. · The County has convenient access to four airports, one of which _ Minneapolis-St. Paul International- is a major hub for Northwest Airlines, an international airline. The other three airports are all located within a reasonable distance of the industrial centers in Dakota County. They are Airlake Airport in Lakeville, the St. Paul Downtown Airport; and South St. Paul Municipal Airport. 7 . . ~ . . Besides this, there is a well-connected and efficient road network that includes a major nationwide freeway, 1-35 as well as the 494/694 routes, suitable for long distance transport for exports. All the major cities within the county are connected to and accessible by this road network. . Additionally, there is access to the Mississippi River for transportation on barges. This is suitable for heavier products to be shipped to markets in the south, and may be a viable alternative for some firms with links to the southern regions of the US. . The rail system also serves the area, providing yet another form of linkage coast to coast, as well as to Canada. These are important links with the other economic regions of the country. . 4. Technically skilled labor: There are two high quality colleges - one Technical Training College and one Community College - creating a competitive and educated workforce for local employment. Having a local pool of technically qualified people readily available makes it easier for the local firms to establish themselves and produce in this area. 5. A tradition of entrepreneurship: This is amply evidenced by the degree of self-employment in the county. In surveys conducted in 1990, over 12,000 people reported self-employment, a figure that is expected to have increased substantially over time. There are also lots of small producer, service and construction firms in the region. Dakota County Capital, LLC This fund is available for start-up businesses, in order to provide that crucial infusion of cash at the start of a private for-profit venture. This facility is extended to those sectors (such as the ones selected below for the cluster study and promotion) which it is felt will create positive additions to the growth and continued prosperity of this county. They are also extended to exporters and other firms which it is expected will extend their operations to beyond the county and will make substantial gains for it in the region and nationally and perhaps internationally. 8 . . . . Major Cities In Dakota County Following are the major cities in Dakota County, all with land available for industrial expansion. They are all well connected to utilities and other services that are necessary for establishing industrial centers. Apple Valley Pop (1994 est.): 39,188 Major private employers: Target (395), Cub Foods (352), A.V. Health Care Center (270), Minnesota Zoological Gardens (260). Burnsville Pop (1994 est.): 54,525 Major private employers: Fairview Ridges Hospital (880), Rosemount Aerospace (800), EF Johnson (600), Pepsi-Cola Bottling (526), Northern Hydraulics (500), and Yellow Freight System (500). Eagan Pop (1994 est.): 54,957 Major private employers: West Group (7,000), Blue Cross & Blue Shield (3,000), Lockheed Martin (1,750), United Parcel Service (1,435), Northwest Airlines (1,100), Cray Research (900), Coca-Cola Bottling (885), Unisys Corp (736), Kraft American (400). Farmington Pop (1994 est.): 6,870 Major Private employers: Dakota Electric Association (475), Duo Plastics (115), and Marigold Foods (70). Hastings Pop (1994 est.): 16,200 Major employers: Dakota County (1,644), Smead Manufacturing (901), Regina Medical Complex (400), and Intek Weatherseal Products (240) Inver Grove Heights Pop (1994 est.): 25,243 Major private employers: Cenex I Land 0' Lakes (450), Evergreen Industries (425), Southview Chevrolet (150). lakeville Pop (1994 est.): 32,978 Major private employers: Grist Mill (500), Merillat Industries (400), Ryt-Way Industries (300), Despatch Industries (200), ReXam Flexible & Medical Packaging (195), Arden Industrial Kitchens (189), Menasha Corp (180). Mendota Heights Pop (1994 est.): 10,636 Major private employers: Northland Insurance (456), Ecolab Research Center (260), Tempco Manufacturing (200), and Solvay Animal Health (175) 9 . . . . Rosemount Pop (1994 est.): 11,086 Major private employers: Koch Refining (850), Greif Brothers (160), Spectro Alloys (110), Reese Enterprises (100). South St. Paul Pop (1994 est.): 20,396 Major private employers: Sportsman's guide (890), Waterous Co (300), and Long Prairie Packing (200). West St. Paul Pop (1994 est.): 19,332 Major private employers: Dakota Children Inc (480), Target (300), Southview Acres (300), Tapemark Co (290), and Cub Foods (200) 10 .... . .. Main Industry Clusters in Dakota County The main industry cluster groupings in Dakota County are: 1. Aerospace 2. Plastics and Chemicals 3. Computers, Software and Information Technologies 4. Food Processing and Agribusiness Selection Criteria: . A primary criterion for the selection of the above clusters is the location quotient of the industry (see data in attached Appendix). A location quotient greater than 1.0 indicates a potential exporter in a given industry. However, this measure by itself is by itself an inadequate determinant of performance. . Other factors help create competitive industries, and make clustering efforts economically viable. Industries are also grouped together based on some of the other clustering principles cited above: 'related and supporting industries' a principle that considers the horizontal and vertical integration of industries with one another. . Another important factor is the traditional industries in the region, and how they have historically contributed to the local economy. Some older and better-established firms and industrial groupings have the potential to pull in many other similar producers, and therefore raise the competitive potential of the region. . Also important is the regional, national or international profile of a company or industry, which makes. it part of an economically viable cluster. Such established firms are able to attract investment and capital in valuable though non-quantifiable ways. They tend to be industry leaders nationally, or even globally. I. AEROSPACE (and related industries) SIC codes: 45 (air transport) 38 (navigation and guidance systems) Some examples of local firms: Northwest Airlines, Lockheed Martin, Rosemount Aerospace, Kavourus Inc. Industry Profile: The cluster leader in Dakota County - Northwest Airlines - is one of the largest national providers of civil passenger transport. Other firms in 11 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us lOci ... TO: Mayor, Council Members, City AdministratorfcfL-. FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Oak Street Parking Request DATE: September 8, 1998 INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION The City has received a petition (attached) from the commercial residents along the south side of the 200 block of Oak Street in downtown Farmington. The petition requests that 15 minute parking restrictions be imposed from 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM along the south side of the 200 Block of Oak St. All affected commercial residents have signed the petition. City staffhas discussed the request and finds no reason to deny the request. BUDGET IMPACT The cost per sign is estimated to be approximately $35.00. It is anticipated that 4-5 signs would be installed for a total estimated cost of approximately $175.00. Funding for these signs is available in the 1998 budget. ACTION REOUESTED Authorize the parking restrictions as requested and order the placement of signs describing those restrictions. Respectfully Submitted, oz;: Yh~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file -.6' .... TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Farmington City Council Business/Building Owners 200 Block Oak St. Parking Restrictions September 8, 1998 The area of the south side of the 200 Block of Oak Street is occupied by businesses that rely on a high volume of short term customers. The on-street parking situation, as is currently exists, does not take these short term parking needs into consideration. The following will serve as the petition of those businesses to the Farmington City Council to impose parking restrictions in that area. The undersigned merchants and / or property owners of Oak Street, do hereby petition the Farmington City Council to impose parking restrictions along the south side of the 200 Block of Oak St. We specifically request the installation of signs indicating 15 Minute Parking 8AM to 7 PM. NAME ADDRESS o L.\noL IDl~Sl(.lJ 13&724 4/.\ J JJfOAJ 3l~ l<t:::jri 212- 0 ll.t< PHONE t...Ib3-~3f A0 P/4 ,d/ltfbf!G ~ . , I-J A~ bEt:. ~lr Y- 2/0 04k --000 I ~ ft'-.b L/w-62txJ ..i/~ tJ t:d' /1 Us ~t O~fl(i= , \/\0 tJCUL., \-1\, 1 - ~y) SIGNATURE ~ 'O,\llL-. ~ ~. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us /0/ TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administrator FROM: David L. Olson Community Development Director SUBJECT: Castle Rock Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Agency Clarification DATE: September 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION An article in the August 20th Farmington Independent inaccurately stated the City's actions regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the proposed CommerciallIndustrial area in Castle Rock Township. The following is a clarification of this issue. DISCUSSION The attached article indicates that the City requested the Met Council extend the review period for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to October 9th. The fact is the City Council authorized comments to be submitted to the Met Council on July 6th which stated the City's concerns with the proposed amendment. No request was made by the City relative to extending the review period. Other issues identified in the article relative to comments made by Township representatives regarding reasons for the delay and approvals by outside agencies are also questionable. The City has been informed by the Met Council that a number of issues are still under review. (see attachments). Met Council staff subsequently requested a meeting with City staff which took place on August 13th during which the City Administrator and I basically reiterated the same comments which the Council had previously authorized. As the attached letter from the Met Council indicates, the Met Council extended the period by which they are required to make a decision to allow additional time for several issues to be further clarified. This clarification was published in the August 27th Farmington Independent. (copy enclosed). BUDGET IMPACT None ACTION REOUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, ~a David L. Olson Community Development Director on ~teaK nuu:;~ eet, Farmington · 463-3726 LY SPECIALS: ~ EVERYDAY SPECIAL Steak Burger with Baked Idaho Potato, ~ 25 Texas Toast and Salad ..,.~. l ~ ...'-- J ~~\ izsl ~69L'L\. ,7 oD~YS'AtWEiK ~ TAKE-OUT ORDERS AVAILABLE CHILDREN'S MENU Hot Dog .............................. $1.55 CHICKEN NUGGETS ........... 1.55 CHEESEBURGER ............... 1.55 HAMBURGER ON A BUN.. 1.25 POPCORN SHRIMP ............ 1.75 FISH ......................................1.55 Children's Orders come with Fries TJCHES and DINNERS .....................................................................$1.75 .......................................................................3.35 5 OZ. T-BONE STEAK ................................$9.25 .......................................................................8.94 .......................................................................5.59 .......................................................................5.49 ........................................................................3.85 ........................................................................4.99 ..............;.........................................................4.65 ........................................................................5.65 . ........................................................................3.75 ...........................................................3.94 ...........................................................5.10 .........................................................................4.94 .........................................................................4.65 Texas Toast. Baked Idaho Potato and Salad POP - $ .57 PIE - $ .94 FRENCH FRIES - $ .94 COFFEE - $ .65 J. YLckfnnanJ PYL d Public 5'l.ccountant .ness Accounting Services :)uterized Bookkeeping aration of Statements puterized Payroll =>lanning J Tax Planning and Preparation :vidual Financial Planning treet. Farmington - 460-6106 a .ater Softener lng Properly? -------iI I For A Home . ~ PAVECO BLACKTOPPING ~ . Driveways. Parking Lots . Streets · Repairs · Sealcoating · Striping · Grading Senior & Church & Apartment Discounts Family Owned and Operated For over 25 years. All Work Guaranteed 740-3761 luau WUU1U U"",, .."...."'Uvu '-'II",", UJ.",",U property. "City code states that everything has to stay on the property," Smick said in response to those concerns. "When we draft up a snow removal I contract... it will be right in there that the' snow will be pushed to the east and west," Giles added. Finally, the residents asked that the city reconsider its plans to locate a new sanitary sewer line along County Road 72. The j residents suggested running the line along the back property line of their homes. According to City Engineer Lee Mann, though, the location that the residents have requested would Castle Rock qI~ continued from page 1 1'6 The city wants the township to agree to its plan: the town board members call it unfair. The township maintains that because the source of the bacteria in water in the Ash St. ditches has not been identified, the level of contamination has significantly I decreased. and shallow wells were not contaminated. the city's nearby lift station may have caused the problem. They say that although most of the Highland Circle septic systems do not meet current codes, they have not failed and are function in as desi ned. n ustrial site dispute The request of David Nicolai and his partners for approval of four '-"" Residential Free Estimates ~,></ c;;. --' ---r-- the fun payment or a surety for the costs of the fronHlge road improvement. Once all the issues had been addressed, the council voted unanimously to approve the Glenview Plat. Four contingencies were attached to the approval: that the Developer make the $1.000 payments for the first 45 units, that the city construct the frontage road along Highway 3 within two years; unless a different time frame is worked out; that the City Engineer approves the resolution of engineering issues; and that a Development Contract agreed upon gricultur:ll induStrial lots east of the golf course has been delayed at Farmington's request. The city asked the Metropolitan Council to extend the review period until Oct. 9, and the council agreed. A technical error on a map was the reason for the delay. "It's all politics," Angus said. "The Corps of Engineers and the Soil and Water Conservation Service have signed off on it," Nicolai said. "We've actually cut back on development (with this plan)." Angus said. Because it will increase the school tax base, it will help all residents of Farmington, he said. "And we're doing it all without T1F (tax increment financing)." . Other business commercial ~ Fully Insured ,~ __ ,/..---, _,'; '---c The . Farmington Independent SUBSCRIBE NOW! Just fill out the form below and enclose with your $18.00 ($23.00 out of state) and you will receive 52 issues of The Farminl!ton Independent, a complete and consistent going contaminati( water ditches. Bot\-: have been thorougi operations staff discounted as poso contamination. " Street cleaning poi In an August 5 . city council an Planning Commiss Director of Herita of Minnesota, "ridiculous constar requirements you imposing in Nelser In his letter Bis, mud and dirt wilI The board also: - Approved chan~ $808 for the new t _ Accepted a bi Valley Cooperativ\ - Chose ADT a security system fo - Discussed their obtaining from t cost discarded 0 excellent conditic $ 10 per hour an volunteers who m -Learned that in receive $1.7 Government A $16,675 in l- Agricultural Cre Is s( I . annl~ I capable staff." vth Iias'not a1ways been ;h admitted, but he that difficulties are part cess. "Change causes 's not always easy, but I lfdes of that is Over id. d that some supporters ,ached him and asked ( reelection -- "You get uls," he said -- but has 'icially announce his Cathy and Michael Werner discuss threshing for the Dakota City Thresherman's Dinner with event co-chairmen Roger Wood and Stan Ehlers. Thresherman's Dinner and Harvest Fest to be held Saturday at Dakota City On August 29 Dakota City Will host an old-fashioned Threshermen's Dinner and Harvest Fest including a threshing demonstration and buggy rides. The Werners will be threshing oats mer, another council from 3-5 p.m. with audience aring the end of his first participation encouraged. There Id not be reached for ....will bl: Dakota style lemonade for He has in the pa:,t, thirsty folks whether watching or ldicated little interest in lection. e a number of questions wered in the month;' to the election, but the ocess is still in its early ing -- for a $2 fee -- is September 8. Only after viII it become entirely vill be competing for the Jots, whether Gamer and decide to try to defend Icil seats and run for ur ye . or leave it to ~sted :s to tight for "If we put in the Prairie Waterway and a holding pond, will I pay?" a business owner asked. "Yes, no doubt you will be ,assessed for more," Board Chair AIyn Angus said. "It's premature to think about that," Erar said. Bill Cook asked the city to figure the cost savings from eliminating the lift station. and to bring that information Wednesday night. Residents also wanted to obtain costs from contractors for septic system upgrades and for installing and pumping holding tanks. City would benefit Town board members said that the new utility lines would be trunk 'rom page 1 ......:-.litles that would benefit the city; t three projects where lherefore, the costs should be ~hared water were added in an by the two governmental bodies. lelopment. ~ichterma~ led E~ar through. a desired information senes of questions deSigned to pomt ty rates for water and ?ut that if ~he sanitary se~er line is wer hook-up charges' mstalled, It would service many ed a~sessments. ' more h~mes than the 34 specified (ant to give people a lot by"the city. . . ?" ," Erar said. "There are . Would Sunnyside use It. ance, ways to deal with W~chter;,nan ask~d. e city will work with Yes, Erar SaId. would have 15 years to "Would you eliminate the lift If taxes." station and hook up to it?" "Yes," Erar said. IS. . Rock HAIHTEHAHCE SERVICE TO PROTECT AHD IEAUTIF'\'~ hem Seal since 1990 ~""""----._- ESIDENTIAL &. COMMERCIAL :.AL --AnNG '. CRACK FILUIIG .T l . [PIIIG . ASPHALT REPAIR FREE EsnMATES! CALL 469-6688 Jf satisfied customers in Lakeville, Apple Valley, Bumsville, lnd surrounding a~as. Ask abourour 2 yearguaranteel --- - - -.- --:- - .' participating. Buggy fides around the village will be given by Joan Ryan and her horse i3el\c. The photography studio will also be open or taking period portraits in 1900 era costumes. From 5 to 6 p.m. roast beef dinner will be servt:d family style by the Farmers' Daughters. The dinner will be followed by a program of musical entertainment and prize drawings. Tickets for this event arc $25.CO per person and are available by calling 460-8050. All proceeds will be used to restore the newly . acquired house at Dakota City. "Would the cost be spread over Farmington's policy requires all?" annexation if utility service is "Are we going to charge again for provided, but Wichterman said that Sunnyside? No," Erar said. other cities do not have this rule. "Would they benefit?" Spring Lake Twp. and Prior Lake "You're putting council members recently signed a 20-year contract on the spot." Cordes said. "We for township sewer service, he said. don't have the answers. Wait until "1 have a feeling this will be Wednesday night." decided Wednesday night," Angus "Our consultant said they can't told the residents at the ~ substantiate their numbers." Angus meeting. "Then X9JYWill have 10 ~. said. "He suggested a new ~~e." , / / feasibility study." This stucry:-CI .f. f ~.;1-7'/7B would base the costs on usaoe an art lea Ion runoff factors, not on acreage~ The. Metropoli~an C?uncil's "We've only said. 'Treat us fair.'" extenSIon of the reVIew penod for a Angus said. Castle Rock Twp. comprehensive " .. plan amendment was requested by . ~ho Will benefit from. t~e tru~ the council staff, not by . hne: ~ha\~oes.the (e;(lstmg) hft Farmington, as stated in last week'S) statIO~ cost. ~Ichter~a~ asked. Independent. The issue concerns a He SaId t~at the h~t st~tIon IS costly four-lot commercial development in for the city to mamtam. and when the township. it is pumped, there is a potential for ' leakage. Annexation is issue Several residents were concerned that the city might force them to be annexed. That was considered unlikely. ews and Advertising deadline: Mondays at noon ;, See your State Farm Agent: Paul Eggen 14450 S. Robert Trail Rosemount 423-3535 ~- .W4Xf&iZ'WYWtiffnl ;r 8Tla1lll~ilIIlII A ~liI!SS . HUG-24.9B 14:03 FROM: TO: 612 463 1611 PAGE: 02/03 '. Mr. Alyn Angus Town Board Chair Castle Rock Township 2806 225111 Street Fannington, MN. 55024 RE: Review Period Extension -Castle Rock Township Comprehensive Plan Amendment- Commercial District Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 16596-2 Metropolitan Council District 16 Dear Mr. Angus: The Metropolitan Council received the Castle Rock Township Commercial District Comprehensive Plan Amendment for review on June 17.. 1998 and detennined it complete for Council review. Council staff commenced the sixty-day (60) review through August 10, 1998 to complete or extend the review period. Under the Laws of Minnesota 1995, Chapter 248, Article 18, the Council has 60 calendar days to review comprehensive plans and plan amendments submitted by local goverrunents. Under the law. an additional 60 days can be added to the review period by the reviewing entity after notice to the local governmental unit that advises of the need for the extension and why such an extension is needed. The plan amendment has raised several issues that require additional clarification. These issues involve land use, septic system management, storrnwater and groundwater management. As a result, the Council will not be able to complete its deliberations within the initial 60-calcndar day deadline. At [his time, the Council notifies Castle Rock Township that it is adding an additional 60 days to its review period for the Castle Rock Commercial District Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the reasons stated above. This action officially extends the review period until October 9, 1998, although we do not ex.pect to take the full sixty (60) days to resolve these questions. Tfyou have any questions about this letter or the extension, please contact Linda O'Connor, principal reviewer, at 602-1098. We will be contacting you regarding a meeting in the near future. Sincerely, Richard E. Thompson Supervisor, Comprehensive Planning CC; Terrence F. flower. Council District 16 Jeffrey J. Connell, Resource Strategies Corporation Thomas McElvin, Deputy Director. Housing, Development and Implementation Carl Schenk, Linda Milashius, Linda O'Connor, OLA Don Bluhm, Jim Larsen, MCES; Ann Braden, Chauncey Case. Transportation 'AUG':24 98 14:1214 FROM: TO: 612 463 1611 PAGE: 1213/1213 o Y ~li~ ~ CAST~::::::~::ETING ~ . Land Use -What types of land uses will be permitted? -What types of land uses are planned or proposedfor this area? -What types of standards or requirements will tile Townsllip place on the development? Tentative Agenda . Septic System Management - Who inspects new systems? -Has there been progress developing a Maintenance Program? -Wltat do we know about the location and problems of the failed systems along the Ash Street corridor? What is the plan to correct the problems? . Storm water Managemellt -What is the impact On proposed storm water ponding? -Are drainage calculations accurate? -How is storm water going to be 11Ulnagedfrom this site? -Has the towllship adopted the erosion control ordinance? . Groundwater -The CastleRock plan suggests the groundwater acquifer is sensitive to pollution in this area. -How will tl,is resource be protected? . Other Issues City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /0r . .. TO: Mayor and City Council City Administrat01&t, FROM: David L. Olson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Community Profile & Comprehensive Visioning Element DATE: September 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION The "Community Profile & Comprehensive Visioning Element" of the Comprehensive Plan has been completed and will be presented by RLK-Kuusisto, LTD. City staff is seeking the adoption of both of these elements by the City Council. DISCUSSION The presentation will consist of an overview of the Comprehensive Planning process including a report on the initial interviews held with community leaders in June. The report will also discuss the Community Profile concerning population, households, employment and land use projections. A summarization of the visions generated at the July 8th and 29th Visioning Workshops provides the Community Visioning Element for the Comprehensive Plan (see attached). The seven vision points will be discussed in detail and include the following: 1. Downtown 2. Connection 3. Value Received for Taxes 4. CommerciallIndustrial Base 5. Quality/Controlled Growth 6. Public/Semi-Public Uses 7. Environmental 8. Planning for a Greater Community The presentation will conclude with a determination of "Where we go from here". The City Council along with Planning Commission will play an important role through the Comprehensive Planning process by providing review and recommendations of each of the Comprehensive Plan elements within the next few months. An updated project schedule will be presented at the September 8th meeting. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the Community Profile and Community Visioning Elements for the Comprehensive Plan. Respectfully Submitted, ~ David L. Olson Community Development Director cc: RLK- Kuusisto, L TD ilIt, 'li.;. , ~. " ... . ,. , ~. g oJ:. +Ii, .it: \. . ","", .. . , ~, . .. '1' ,:,:__i 6'~ .00 .s S=', 0- . '.~ trJ. .~ >-. ~" o....,~' ~ .cu .,~ . ;> ~~ cu' . > o ft~ ,'11:" t ~ ' ",1' '~ '~, <If, . ~ 0\ N ~ ~ ~ ~ .9 ..d 00 00 00 ~ 5 o .;!3 ~ Q ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ d "Vi 0-'- .- - :> ;> t'\S J2 ~ .. "i". IlI'Z'l . ...,~ ~ .. ,":...'f' ....... ~,. :t, .. ----,~- _.__'n,________~ -.-".-, "'; ~~-:--::l"-",.r::-----'~ .., ,-..;;-~ 1 J. '.1 . '" ,.. ".;. , '" ~ 00 ~ ~ - . , . .,., , . Q) rn rd ..s::: ~ CO ~ rn L.. ca J; ~ r;: '.E Q 0 ~ rn ~ "~ ~]~:E "~ S g ~ Q) CI:S = ",.!.. o .- 0 e ~ ~ u ~ Q) d C- = l=O ._ 0 ca e ca ;.::: >88~ Q) .... ~ ~ ~ o 0 [) Ol .C;; .~ ~ 8 =~>r~ ~ Q) U =\..1 0 ~ .;!3 0 ~ bl) 8Q~.... Q) ";;: g cE C ~ &S g.c gp'~ >.g ~ t:: .~- ~ Q) rl-\ 0 .... '-' ~ Q) ~~s:8~ 8 ~ t ~ .. '.\ .. ~' t. ... .. ~ . , ..... . 'l!l:. ~ ~ .. . . " $-.. ~ 1 }.. c.. .. , , .,;;.. ., " >t, .= ~.~ .0' ~ . = .. . ' .. .~ .. . 0,.. ,........ .".... .:~. = . ,..-.4 .C\S . ~ .~, +--t -/, " .,..-.4. . .C\S .~., ... .. ~ i ~ . .. ~. , "",~, .. fY~. .'" -.... .. ., .", .. . . .0 bIJ d .~ .:d rn bIJ .fi .~ ,t ~ ~ ~ ~ Q) C'\ 0 ~ S bIJ Z Q) rn U d ~ ~ .~~ .~ d C'\ ~ cd rn 0 .~ ~ Q) ~ ~ bIJ .~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ C) d rn t r/l .~ a cr bIJ~ '"'0 rn Q) ~ .~ .~ Q) ~ ~ rn ~ rn ;> a ~ Q) Q) .~ 0 :>< ~ ~ < Q~ ~ ::r:: ~ (. 'E ~ Q) .....-4 C'\ ~ '"'0 .....-4 C'\ ~ rn d ~ Q) C) Q) .~ 0 (1) .~ ~ ;> ~ ..d C,.) ~ 0 0 rJ'J = ~ 0 (1) a rn r/l C .~ .~ 0 Q) = ::r:: .....-4C'\ ~ .....-4 (1) (1) bIJ .~ .....-4 ~ > ~ C'\ ~ ~ cr C,.) d ~ ~ ~ 0 = .....-4 ~ .~ .~ rn ~ ~ Q) C) ~ Q) $....l 0 .~ Q) = d OJ) C,.) ~ .~ ~ 'E Q) ~ '"'0 C) .....-4 0 ~.O Q) Q) o ~ Q) .- rJ'J~ 0 '>~J~;;il' .".., rJ'JU U ~ ~ ~ .- > " ~ --'-~-'-'~---';;--'-'--'~;C:-~--':~'---~~:~-1-::-:---'-._-~-_.~--;----_.~::~-:.._-- , .l .10 ; l- . . . ;~ ' ,0 ~ <l(. "'" "" .', ~ t- .~:. .... - "I; "'" '1! ~. " ""'. " cO .:t' ,,'\ "". .. ..' ., f: ... .,' f'P'- .~~ ~.' ' cj' ~ ... . . ~" ~ .....-I ~ U .~ ..d ~~ ~ 0 OJ) .~ o t) ~~ ~~ .....-1.....-1 (1) ~ > b (1) ~ o B ~ ... ,..,.' . . .. .r' *""- ;....'; ..~' J}, .. .J ", f-',"" .. _.~;(", .' .::r ~ . ";.'.'~' ....,.... " .. ~ 'f .. M aJ ;> EgE aJ aJ ~[ ~~ a ~ ~Q ~ o .~ ~ e ~ u _ u e ~ ..;:: CI) .~ s ~ .~ ~"tJ') ;S ~ ~o= tlj ca ~,J::l tJ') ~= ~tJ') ~ 8.€ =.~ . ~ ~ tJ') ~.~ 0-~ ,B:= ca ~~ tlj U 'oJ ~~ ot. .' i '" .. .fi tIl I " U a .fi VJ..,. :::s .~ ~ 0 (1) ~ :::s .p>~' \ZJ. .fi ~ 0 .u:,. . ~ tIl .....-I \ZJ. -0 .~ (1) ~ -- ~ 12 ~ .~ 0 ~ ~ aJ M ,,~ Z aJ aJ (1) 0 ;:: aJ ~ ~ z .Q """j' ;:: ~ ". ~.., r/1 .~ r/1 .,r:J ~ 'Q) tIl ;S c:j ~ . ~ ;S t) = 0 tIl II,; 5 ,= V) 00 ~ (1) (1) > tIl ~" 0'\ ..c: 0 > s .~ .~ == .....-I ....... V) tIl ~ Ii ~'. tIl ("'I ~ < 0 ~ u 0 ~ ~ (1) ..d (1) <Ko. ~ .,. ~ .?;p".~ ,W~ ~ @ .0 ~ ",~ ~,,'iN ~ ! s .,. u .. ',~' > (1) u ~, ~. 4i ','. :. fro . ...." '~ , --,._--~- ~ ~~--- .;# " ::.c <\, "; t. J. f,' ::.. " ~ ~' .:;:-~. .. '.. ......~., Ii~---'~--'----~~ .' - ;!i . i. ."~ H";,_ ~ . ."1..;-'.....'" i t ... ~; 't .... .f. , ~... .... ... ~, ~, ' '.. '!'t'j .;. ""',. '" .~ ' ,. 'oli_.. '" ""-j<O ~if ,- ,w -'"l ~ . ...{' '" '!HI' .- ~'...... ~ .- ...:.. ., j(i ~ 1l. Q) ~. "E r/l ... ....1\. S ~ <1) Q) s ;;> i- t'J') " ~' . ....-I ~ .~ 4. M "'0 .~\ .. ".'f' <1) 0 <1) -" Q) "E <1) C > ~ , r/l ~ <1) 0 '" VJ. ~, ~ "'C S .~ 0 (])- i 0 > .8 .~ ;; ~ .., ~ f,i 0 <1) -" ~ Q) .oc, M ~ Q) r/l Q) 0 ::s "'0 e\:$ E ::E -',~ Ci e\:$ ..!::J ~ 0 0 u 0 ~~.~: ~ ~ . 0 ~ ~ . ~ ~ (. 0.'" <( ,-.I ~ ~ ... C'\ ~ ~ - d -> t'J') . ....-I ,.,; ~ ~ C'\ t'J') t'J') .~ <1) ~ ~ <1) 'Q.) .....-1 ~ ~ . ....-I .0 ~ ~ t . ....-I "'C ,-..... t'J') . ....-I -" C'\ -" . ....-I U . ....-I 0 ~ t'J') ~ . ....-I -" ..~ "E "-' Q . ....-I .' ~ Q d .s J:;J ~ 0 ~ ~ (]) a ] . ....-I C . ....-I J,. Q) ~ ~ t'J') t'J') s . ....-I t'j t'J') <1) . ....-I ;;(\; '~~ ~ Q 6 ,-..... ~ ~ 8 J3 > . ....-I ~ ~ -" ~ ~ u C'\ . "'0 <1) t'J') d ~ e\:$ -...... ~ , ~' 0 -" ~ -" . ....-I ~ rn. <1) d a .;3 . ....-I ~ "'C '\0; .(1) ~ . ....-I ~ Q ~ == Q) <1) ~ 0 ~ . ....-I. ~. <:: z M <1) ~ -" ~ ~. "~'" ~..[; ~ 0 u .~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ t'J') I . .- ~Q %';5! "t rI..l ,,;;~~ :11:':1 . . 'C\S .- ~ ;> > , "~i-''' .(. .,,\ .....1' :1 . . , ~ " ~ -"it ..- ( ..._._--~~-_._.. }, I .'... . i. Jv. ._"___h_._____,-;--____.,__~.,-- t. . *--::.~~ .--- J;. ',. f' - .~._-' "-'" "-" ~' ? ~ ,,~ .... ~ i<. ...10 : ":- :, ... .fr- ... . 'f.- ... . , ,....:" ~. .. ~. *-, ~ , \,; " ". .. ~. % ~. ~ ~ . .ik .... .. . ,,"f, Jl, ,. .. " "'.. i. f... oil: ~ II' ,t.: , ~Q.) rJJ ,'~.."' 'CQ .c f .~ .~~ - ~ ~., ,'rJ}"'~' .~. 'tj .~ ,~ -', ~ ,...-..4" ~-' .~ ' 'U ~ .(1) er er o u T I;. " ...' i . . .~,. ...,~ ~, ... .. "" ,~ ..'"...."'~ '" .' ;.... cB ~ Q) = a Q) ~ s ~~ 8 > Q) Q)'"O .:f5 ~ Q) ~ '0 0 s= ",. 0 ~ ~~ gp .- tZl cd ~ ~ .- ~ ~ ...0 ~ ~ ] U 0 ,,- o 1:: l) 8 ~ ~ o 0 tZl U Q < "1"} " ~""- . ...~ == o .- ~ .- > .. :l.. ------ ;/ .. ~ .'., .... Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ . ..... J:j t/.) ~ .S '"0 ~ ~ ~ d .- .b tZl ~ ~ .- '"0 ~ o U Q) tZl 0.. o - o >~ o a Q 0.. . . Q) ~ '"0 ~ S '"O~ ~.ea ~ 5 ~s Q) ~ ..,~ ~ Q) Q) > z~ l= OJ) .- ...c: ~ tZl ~ tZl s::: ~ ._ tZl .:d ~ OJ) .- ._ tZl - ~ o.D a...c: ::E g ~ . . -~-,..._,.......- N"~. ..~~ ---~--'~-~- 1;." I .. ~..'f .... ~, ,,\-.~, ,. 00"' tZl o "' U ...0 ~ '"0 '"0 5 0 ._ 0 ~ OJ) I ~ Q) o > tZl cd ~ ...c: <;-B ~ ~ . ..... (,) ;.... I~ (,) A At/.) ~ ~ ~ .S Q) t/.) Q.E + -~ 'f' ~' ~ ,.,'( .. .' oS .- .~ f .. .;; ,,-.\ ~ U ._ tZl ~ 0 s::: tZl o ~ ud s::: .- .- ~ o s::: .D~ ~ .- o tZl s::: ~ ii, .. ,~,,~ of ", .~ tZl Q) r/) ~ '"0 o ~ ~ OJ) o 1:: 1--\ tJ') Q) .- .~ - .- u tJ') ~ ~ ~ S ta u .. .s .- ~ .- = tJ') ~ ~ ~ - .': .s ~ .g .- ] t) .- ..= Q) Q) tJ') M M Q) M "',.. :-i\-::l:'{o "'",0'>> ~. . L ~ .,",.; .>. '-'-:~'-:~"-.-----' - ---T --~-- ..~ "'~'-.,.~!'.' :.6 _ . J< ; .It t .. ~ ..- ....J. '\" ~ ': '~ .. .;; ... .' ~ "*. ~ 10.; "". . ~, ".~",,'$." . .,,; ~ ~, -~ .. .y . :,.,...- ~, .. i', .~ '<~ o .~ ~.o ,'~ Q) 1 I ~ .0 >~ ~ ,.",,~. o U > ~. ~ .' ~ 1 ,J 'cd ~, .. C/.... .. fl, . ~' Ii ;. ~, , <:,. .. CU ..J::J .8,0 .~ "ES CU ;:j S d ~O ~"'Cj ~ ~ ,0 curo;=: "'Cj ..J::J . ~ :>"'Cj~ ? CU ~ o OJ}.~ ~ tli:S ro ::;: ~ > """'-l...t 00 ro = Q .,. ~ .,. > ~ U (l) .~ ~ .b.;) 00 . ~ "'Cj "'Cj d ~ ro o 00 O"'Cj ~ CU U CU 00 d S,O :>;=: ? .~ ~ ~ O~ ~ 5 "... ;r <, "" .... - - ~ ~ CU ..J::J d CU CU bh 00 CU 00 ;:j ~ tli:S B ~ - ;:j - U .~ ~ ~ d .~ ro "E .~ ro ~ CU OJ} ro ....... ;:j o U d CU "'Cj 8 00 d o .~ d U o ~ d ~ = .~ CU ~ S ~~ Sa) CU > CU~ ;:j .s ,0 ~ .~ d~ o ro u& .. - - d ~ o ~ ~ ~ ro S 00 - - .s ro 00 "E ro .~ CU ro a ~ CU ~ U 00 ~.~ u~ I .~ cB d ;=:.@ cu 0 ~ ~ s ~ cu OJ} "'Cj d .~ .~ > 00 o ;:j ....... 0 ~~ ~'J OJ} d .~ ~ cu cB d o bo .s ~ ~ cu ~ ~ ~ o ~ cu > cu Q .', '" ,.,.' ~ .. ., >t '""""' . " ~ ' ~ 1; . ~ 00 ro 00 ro~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ da) d ~ CU"'Cj >~ ~ 0 ~~ ~~ .. l .. .,.. ....A J:" ""'i' ~. 4, .' .. <it, t; .. ~ ..i; ~ "' .... . -"'" . -"'----i---:""- ",::.-~;;;i;;,-'-"-----'~-"--~-':-:-::~"'---"-'--'~":---':-~., ~~-~- 'R,' .... . } .' A ' ... .' t "'J.. J. A < "'If. ., 'it . ~ --1. ~ ' ...;, . ,. t. .. .- :...,l.- . ~ ~,; "t,;, . ~ ,,-. . , , " . ~. .. ..!. 1l( "< .oi1 .. -J Iii .. 'J !t? 00:".'..... (]) r.r.J ~ (.) .~. ,~' ;.0 ..~ ~- I .~ s.~ (]) VJ. ~ u .~ ~.'" ,;.0 ~ .~ ~, i. ~ ". .,:} ~. ,i;< .. ,- "tj >-. a .~. (I) S ~s a S > 8 ~ en ~ ~ o en ~"tj o S = (I) 0.9 N $0...4 ~ . ..... OJ) u :-;:: I-; ~ ~.~ $0...4 ~~~ ~'. oj'." ;f' "'Of'" -Jt ~ ",~ .. .~ ~":f ~. if. ~, !"t r/) ~ o a - ~ """" .s ~ J Z '"'d '/iI!; en (I) (I) '"'d . ..... c ~ a . ..... ~ . ..... . ..... ~ 3 u ~ ~ (I) ~ (I) u 00 "tj a . ..... ~ a ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ,0 00 u ~ ~ (I) .- 0 ,b "" ~ - ~ ~ .- 00 = ~ u 0 ~ u ~ ~ .- . ..... 4S E (I) - u "'0 ...r:J .- en U - 0 . ..... ~ 0 ~ ~ > ~ $0...4 (I) 0 """" ~ a en ~ ~ ~ > ~ .- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ u (I) 00 . ..... $0...4 $0...4 0 ~;!i~ c..~'i# 0 C en -- (I) 0 ~~'. ~ 5 en ~ ~ . ..... .,!;~~ ~~~.~ ~ u (I) u U u a .t , . V,!': == Q .- r:I..l .- ~ .. ,. ~ o ] U en ~ o (I) ~ en ~ en $0...4 (I) (I) '.+j ~ . ..... ~ OJ) ...... ...... u ~~ $0...4 en c.S ~ en ~ ~ u o ...... ...... ~ ~~ u ~ (I) ~ E .~ o S U (I) - (I) en ~ "tj ... 00 ...... U .- > ~ :> o~ ~ [ 00 000 =a E ~ ~ 00 """" o 1:: o u .fi ~ o ~ ~ o .- d o """" u ~ ~ o -- d u ~ ~ -----;--;-"'.,-",----- . . .,' ' , . _,' . "', -:r;::---:- .---,c-~ ,"-0; :,,* '. ~. '" j It. '4. ~ c, ~, ...;, , . ';'.,~. ~ '. \ ., Ii -.-i! .. ~.~ . .. oritj Ii --.,...~. '.01:: .~,,::.;Ji; "''''<< .. "~"" .. ,- " . ". rI) ,,;, <- e ., AI.. """", i 1Iti --:, .....-l cf! '. . , ~ ~ ~- .:~ . S ~ ... , ..~. c.S rI) ,-.... OJ) ~ ".. .....-l .~ rI) = <.'!: ~ rI) ~ ~ .~ = "'tj ,b ~ a) .. ~jt ~ ~ ~ ... a 0 ~ ~ rI) .. . , a) .....-l = ~ ~ ~ = > ~ 0 ~ 0 . .~ a) .S ~ ~. ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ OJ) ~ .f 4'1,- a) C,) ~ 0 .S ... -,. N ... a) ~ ~ .....-l )0,,' .... rI) = a) ~ i),. .~ ~ E a) " ~ .....-l ~ .~ > .~ a) ~ .t ~ a) ~ a 0 ~ ::E Q ..;: C,) ~ -~j.'i' ;._~~'eo ;~',;t!f .. , '\I; .. :. ,. ...; "'-. _','II' . ~ ~_J- '. -'. '~" ". -,. or.. l ,1;.- * ~ "". i. .0 a) .. I," : .~ rI) > . .....-l "'tj ~ .~ ~ ~ rI) . = a ~ a) rI) 4.' ... a) a ~ ~ rI) > ~ "'tj ~ .'= 0;- ~ a rI) .~ .....-l a) "'tj ~ ~ ~ "'<0' ~ .....-l a a) E c.S . ~ ~ ~ a) .....-l rI) 0 a) 8 ~ a) a) s ~ "'tj ~ ~ = '"tJ 0 .~ ,. '" a) a) ~ 0 ~ a) > > > .....-l > 0 Q""'. rI) rI) 0 .. 0 ~ .....-l tJ) ~ ~ ~ a) .... ~ a) rI) a) ~ == en rI) (1) 0' a a) a) > rI) '"tJ ~. a) C,) a) Q ~ a) a) a) C,) ~ a ,b ~ Q ~ .- ,...... ~ rI) ~ ~ .J ~ ~.~ .- ;> ,,:J.;-~] ",,;'itl,i _,:~_'ll ":>;'::~ > "~ . .. ~. ',."'.,..\...." - .t " ~ rI) a) rI) = Ii j, . .It-' , ~. ~ . k "',"-:.' i '~-"'-~;~'-~---'-'-'-,:.'-'~-'-'-~'-:~?7'~--""""~~... -~---1c-~:j' ~~,~'-'- ;' f " .1- .... . . '0. . ...,;. iff( l . :> ~'" i. "'~"" i - ;;;J,;------------------------ .. C' i · .~i~:::-- ~ ~ ~" w ... ~ ~ ~ . ~ ... S i'f' .-Ii , < , , ~ ",<. -, .. 0 ~ , ~ ~ S #.. ~.,...J; . ~, ,"r, ~ ~ ,. rfJ. .-0 - . I , 0 .-...,...J, ~ ~ '"", (l) rfJ. ,. ~ . 0 '" ~ ,.;. "" .~ .~ .. 0 . ~ . ~ . ~ '" "',~ I t. ~ 001 ~ '..+ .. 0 ~ . . "". __.u~"_."~"'_ ,. t ,!~ ~ ...w" ,. ...... .. . ..... . . D. D. ~ E Ii. 0 a. ~ III ~ .. ~,' . . . C) N C) 110 N - en N C) ~ " C) N " en ~ N 110 (,0 C) N - " N en C) 110 ~ " N C") CO C") N C) C) C) C) - ~ 110 (,0 C) " C) 110 N en " C") - 110 N 110 C) C) - " CO C) en CO C") N 110 II) C") - C) ~ C) C) C) CO C) C) C) C) C") N N N ~ C") - CO (,0 C) C) en en " " en en 110 C) - en C") C") a. a. 0 J: E 0- J: W C N C N II) ... C N C ... C N- Il) C C N C C c~ N CD eft eft ... C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C II) C II) C II) C") N N ... ... ~~.- . ' <<" ,~ .. ..... . . ~,- ~ '1_ , ... <II. ... '~ ,," . ~. '~" ,,'0, "'. , "lh. '" -<to 'l ~,~l 'Ii",~ .,. .. .. .J .. .J m. !\j .(1) . (]) Z'!>' , ,', .~'~'-'~. Q) ..m. ~ ~ -. \""I, -'~', ,~ ~ ~ " ~, ,~ .. ~v C) en 00 CQ 00 N CQ en en N C) N .. - .N - CO') ." CQ N 00 C) - CO') en It) en C) C) .. CQ N - N C) CQ CQ N N - CO') 00 N It) C) 00 .. N N N It) 00 N C) CO') C) CQ 00 C) - C) CQ .. ClCl N - C) CO') .. ClCl .. C) CO') It) 00 ..... C) It) N CO') N - 00 C) CQ en It) en CO') CO') ClCl N en .. - N - - en ~ '- CU c.. - CU - - CU CU U - :;:: C '- CU CD C 0 '- :;:: E - CD en "C .- E ::J .;; "C "C 0 "C CD <( 0 c a:: - .<i~,. ~-~: ". .. In ~ .. <<S a.. - <<S - - .- <<S <<S (.) - .- .. <<S ... C CD .t:; C 0 CD .- E ... ... In "0 .- E ::s .- "0 In "0 0 "0 CD <( 0 c 0= - . . . . c C 1ft CIf) c c c CIf) c C 1ft N c c C N c C 1ft ... c c c ... c C 1ft ...,w#: , or; c 0 N 0 N U) ~ 0 N 0 ~ 0 N U) 0 0 N 0 0 0 N .... CO Q) Q) ~ >. '~~ :.;"', (. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us l , //~ TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator1~../' FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Hickory Street Storm Water Drainage - Feasibility Report DATE: September 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION Council has authorized staff to review the feasibility of installing a storm water lift station on Hickory Street that would pump standing water out of the low spot that has no place to discharge. DISCUSSION Staff has attached drawings and cost estimates for a storm sewer lift station that would pump water from Hickory Street to the median in Trunk highway 3. Two options are shown and it would be up to MnDOT to decide which option would be utilized. From a construction standpoint, the lift station is feasible. Based on the City's special assessment policy, the cost and implications of the lift station and related improvements, it is staff s opinion that the project is not financially feasible from an economic standpoint. BUDGET IMPACT The maximum estimated total project cost for the Hickory Street Storm Sewer improvements is $84,000. Since this project would essentially create a new storm sewer system and is not a reconstruct of an existing system, the costs are 100% assessable under City policies. There are approximately eleven homes that would benefit from the improvements, which would make each assessment approximately $7600. In the appraisal that was completed for the Henderson Storm Sewer project, it was determined that the homes in the area could sustain an assessment for storm sewer of between $1600 - $1800. Therefore, an assessment of $7600 for the lift station could not be justified. In addition, the total amount to be assessed for the original Henderson project was estimated at approximately $91,200, which would have resulted in an estimated assessment of approximately $1500 for each benefiting property. The total cost for the Henderson project was estimated at approximately $400,000 and would have provided storm sewer for a much greater area than the currently proposed project and would not have necessitated the installation of a lift station. ACTION REOUESTED Council consideration of Hickory Street storm drainage improvements. In light of the information presented to Council regarding project costs and related engineering considerations, no recommendation is being presented to move this project forward at this time. Respectfully Submitted, ~Jn~ Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Ie ORY S 12" STORM SEWER ] ~ SITE PLAN o REPLACE CATCH BASIN REPLACE CATCH BASIN I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 , 10 1- 1-1 ,(') II , I I I 1 4" HOPE FORCE MAIN (DIRECTIONAL BORE) OPTION A LIFT STATION , I 1 1 I Is:.:! 1-1 ,(') II \ I I I \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ I 1 I I 1 \ 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I 1 ! o 25 Io..........d Scale In feet (/) ~ . :c . VI . fl. Bonestroo ~ Rosene a Anderlik & . \J' Associates Englfl86rs & Architects FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA FIGURE 1 HICKORY STREET STORM SEWER LIFT STATION 1 41 GEN\ 1 41 LS AUG 1998 COMM. 141GEN 6- PRECAST CONC. COVER o EL 902.00 _ ~ ALUM. ACCESS HATCH ~ 2'-0- x 2'-0. 11 I I " . : ~. ~- . i" " ".. . .... ". I I GAlVANIZED UFTlNG CHAIN I . . . . . : 60- PRECAST CONCRETE MANHOLE SECTIONS , ,a . <l 897.00 PUMP ON o <l 898.00 12-DIP FROM CATCH BASIN PUMP AND MOTOR GROUT -: - . . , . <l 898.00 0 4. HOPE DISCHARGE TO DITCH AT HWY 3 <l 896.50 PUMP OFF .. o EL 894.00 8- PRECAST CONCRETE MANHOLE BASE . '- - . -" ." LIFT STATION . fl. Bonestroo ~ Rosene a Anderlik & '\J' Associates Eng/netIts & Arr:hItecta FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA FIGURE 2 HICKORY STREET STORM SEWER LIFT STATION 141GEN\141LS AUG 1998 COMM. 141 GEN HICKORY STREET LIFT STATION PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Option A Farmington, MN BRA File No. 141-gen Item No. Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total 1 Flygt CP-3085-438MT LS 1 8000 $8,000 2 Base elbow / guide rail LS 1 3000 $3,000 3 Hatch LS 1 700 $700 4 Controlpanel/floMs LS 1 7500 $7,500 5 Structure excavation / dewatering LS 1 5000 $5,000 6 5' - 0" manhole 8 ft deep LS 1 5000 $5,000 7 4" DIP FT 10 30 $300 8 4" bends / fittings LB 200 3 $600 9 4" HDPE directional bore FT 180 40 $7,200 10 12" RCP FT 40 40 $1,600 11 2' x 3' catchbasin EA 2 1500 $3,000 12 Common fill CY 30 10 $300 13 Class 5 gravel CY 10 12 $120 14 Electrical service / secondary LS 1 5000 $5,000 15 Remove existing structure EA 2 1000 $2,000 16 Bituminous patching LS 1 2000 $2,000 17 Sod YD 200 3 $600 18 OVHDAP $5,472 Total Construction Cost $57,392 10% Contingencies $5,739 27% Legal, Admin, Engineering $17,045 Total Estimated Pump Station Cost $80,177 This price contingent that MnDOT will allow storm water to be pumped into median Flygt CP-3085-438MT Capacity 150 gpm @ 14 ft TDH HICKORY STREET LIFT STATION PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Option B Farmington, MN BRA File No. 141-gen Item No. Description Unit Ouantity Unit Price Total 1 Flygt CP-3085-438MT LS 1 8000 $8,000 2 Base elbow / guide rail LS 1 3000 $3,000 3 Hatch LS 1 700 $700 4 Control panel/floats LS 1 7500 $7,500 5 Structure excavation / dewatering LS 1 5000 $5,000 6 5' - 0" manhole 8 ft deep LS 1 5000 $5,000 7 4" DIP FT 10 30 $300 8 4" bends / fittings LB 200 3 $600 9 4" HDPE directional bore FT 250 40 $10,000 10 12" RCP FT 40 40 $1,600 11 2' x 3' catchbasin EA 2 1500 $3,000 12 Common fill CY 30 10 $300 13 Class 5 gravel CY 10 12 $120 14 Electrical service / secondary LS 1 5000 $5,000 15 Remove existing structure EA 2 1000 $2,000 16 Bituminous patching LS 1 2000 $2,000 17 Sod YD 200 3 $600 18 OVHDAP $5,472 Total Construction Cost $60,192 10% Contingencies $6,019 27% Legal, Admin, Engineering $17,877 Total Estimated Pump Station Cost $84,088 This price contingent that MnDOT will allow storm water to be pumped into median Flygt CP-3085-438MT Capacity 150 gpm @ 14 ft TDH City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us //6 TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrato~ Joel Jamnik, City Attorney FROM: SUBJECT: Lawful Gambling Ordinance DATE: September 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION At the August 3, 1998, council meeting, the City Council requested that the City Code be updated to reflect current state law concerning lawful gambling. Pursuant to the City Council's request, a draft of a proposed ordinance revising the City Code concerning lawful gambling is submitted for review by the Council. Ordinance Summary The proposed draft updates the City Code to more closely conform to current state laws that regulate gambling. The effect of these changes is to reduce City restrictions and make training and other compliance initiatives easier for gambling organizations. For instance, staff proposes to ~ the following Code provisions that are more restrictive than state law: . Requiring a separate surety bond to the City as well as to the state. . Prohibiting the payment of compensation to gambling employees. . Requiring duplicate records and reports. . Limiting the maximum daily total prizes to $1,000, individual pull-tab winners to $150, and annual prize limits to $35,000. By deleting these extra requirements, gambling organizations would only have to provide the City with copies of the reports, records, and bonds required by the state. They could reimburse employees to the extent allowed by state law, and could award prizes in accordance with state limits. The organization's gambling managers would only have to be trained to follow state laws and rules: there would not be a second set of rules to learn and follow. Staff is proposing two new or additional requirements on gambling organizations operating within the City. The fIrst is to require payment of a nominal investigation fee for premises permits. State law authorizes a maximum fee of $1 00 but the Police Chief has indicated that the Department should be able to conduct the investigation for $50. This new fee will not affect organizations currently operating within the City unless they propose to move their activities to a new location. " The other new requirement could potentially affect organizations currently operating within the City. State law authorizes local governments to adopt limited restrictions on where the proceeds of charitable gambling are spent. The statutory authorization for this type of restriction was enacted after the City last updated its ordinances, so there is currently no restriction on where gambling profits must be spent. Many other cities have adopted this type of restriction and staff is proposing that the Council consider requiring that a specified portion of gambling profits be expended within the City and its surrounding trade area (defmed by law to include other abutting local governments). Based on review of other communities, it is suggested that a 50% trade area spending requirement be adopted. Council, however, is free to adopt a higher or lower percentage as it deems appropriate. RECOMMENDATION Because several policy decisions are presented to the Council in this draft, staff is suggesting that a meeting be scheduled with gambling organizations after this initial consideration of the ordinance by Council and that the Council delay fmal adoption of the ordinance until the September 21st or October 5th meeting. Respectfully submitted, CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association BY:~~~~ Joel Ja ik City Attorney t ' ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, CHAPTER 19 OF THE FARMINGTON CITY CODE CONCERNING REGULATION OF GAMBLING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Title 3, Chapter 19 of the Farmington City code is amended in its entirety to read: Section: 3-19- 1: 3-19- 2: 3-19- 3: 3-19- 4: 3-19- 5: 3-19- 6: 3-19- 7: 3-19- 8: 3-19- 9: 3-19-10: 3-19-11: 3-19-12: 3-19-1: Chapter 19 GAMBLING REGULATIONS Purpose Provisions of State Law Adopted Lawful Gambling Profits Investigation Fee City Permits Conduct of Gambling Compensation Records and Reporting Requirements Eligible Premises Distribution of Proceeds Penalties PURPOSE: The purpose of this Ordinance is to regulate and control the conduct of gambling, to prevent its commercialization, to insure integrity of operations, and to provide for the use of net profits only for lawful purposes. 1 ISee Section 6-1-26 for Unlawful Gambling Provisions 64912.04 3-19-2: PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW ADOPTED: The provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 and Laws of Minnesota, 1998, Chapter 322, relating to the defInition of terms, licensing and restrictions of gambling are adopted and made a part of this Ordinance as if set out in full. 3-19-3: LAWFUL GAMBLING: There shall be no gambling in the City except as authorized pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota ~ ~ 349.11 through 349.22, and in the rules adopted pursuant to the authority contained in the Statutes. 3-19-4: PROFITS: Gross profIts from lawful gambling may be expended only for lawful purposes or allowable expenses as provided under Minnesota Statutes ~ 349.15 and the defInition of "lawful purposes" as defmed under Minnesota Statutes ~ 349.12. 3-19-5: INVESTIGATION FEE: Upon being notifIed by the Board that an organization has applied for issuance or renewal of a license, the organization shall pay to the City an investigation fee in the amount of $50.00. Failure to promptly pay the required investigation fee shall be grounds for disapproval of a license. 3-19-6: CITY PERMITS: (A) No organization may conduct a gambling event which would otherwise be allowed pursuant to the exemptions set forth in Minnesota Statutes ~349.166, without fIrst securing a permit from the City and paying a permit fee in an amount set from time to time by Council resolution. (B) Lawful gambling may not be conducted at any premises without the owner of the premises fIrst obtaining a permit from the City and paying a permit fee in an amount set from time to time by Council resolution. The Owner of the premises must comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes ~ 349.18 in renting or using the premises for lawful gambling. 3-19-7: CONDUCT OF GAMBLING: (A) Gambling Manager. All lawful gambling conducted by a licensed organization must be under the supervision of a Gambling Manager. The Gambling Manager designated by an organization shall be responsible for gross receipts and profIts and for its conduct in compliance with all laws 64912.04 2 and rules. The Gambling Manager shall be responsible for using profits for a lawful purpose. (B) Bond. The licensed organization or Gambling Manager shall maintain a fidelity bond in favor of the organization and the State in an amount and form as required by state law, and a copy of said bond must be filed with the City Clerk. (C) Qualifications of Gambling Manager. The Gambling Manager must possess a valid license by the Minnesota Gambling Board and must qualify as a Gambling Manager under Minnesota Statutes ~ 349.167. 3-19-8: COMPENSATION: Compensation may be paid to persons in connection with the conduct of lawful gambling only as provided under Minnesota Statutes ~ 349. 168. 3-19-9: RECORDS AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: Each organization licensed to operate lawful gambling shall keep records and shall report as required by Minnesota Statutes ~ 349.18. In addition, copies of all reports filed with the State should be submitted to the City Clerk at the time the reports are filed with the State. 3-19-10: ELIGffiLE PREMISES: An organization may conduct lawful gambling only on premises it owns or leases, except as authorized by Minnesota Statutes ~ 349. 18. 3-19-11: DISTRIBUTION OF PROCEEDS: Each organization conducting lawful gambling within the City must expend at least L %) percent of its net profits derived from lawful gambling on lawful purposes conducted or located within the trade area of the City, which shall include the corporate limits of the City or any municipality contiguous to the City. 3-19-12: PENALTIES: (A) Criminal Penalty. Violation of any provision of this Ordinance shall be a misdemeanor. A person convicted of violating any provision of this Ordinance shall be subject to a fme of not more than seven hundred dollars ($700.00) or imprisonment for a term not to exceed ninety (90) days, or both, plus, in either case, the costs of prosecution. Additionally, a violation of this Chapter shall be reported to the Minnesota Charitable Gambling Board and a recommendation shall be 64912.04 3 made for suspension, revocation or cancellation of an organization's license. (B) Suspension and Revocation. Any permit may be suspended or revoked for any violation of this Ordinance. A permit shall not be suspended or revoked until the procedural requirements of subsection (C) have been complied with, provided, that, in cases where probable cause exists as to an ordinance violation, the City may temporarily suspend upon service of notice of the hearing provided for in subsection (C). Such temporary suspension shall not extend for more than two (2) weeks. (C) Procedure. A permit shall not be revoked under subsection (B) until notice and an opportunity for a hearing have first been given to the permittee. The notice shall be personally served and shall state the ordinance provision reasonably believed to be violated. The notice shall also state that the permittee may demand a hearing on the matter, in which case the permit will not be suspended until after the hearing is held. If the permittee requests a hearing, one shall be held on the matter by the Council at least one week after the date on which the request is made. If, as a result of the hearing, the Council fmds that an ordinance violation exists, then the Council may suspend or terminate the permit. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage. , ADOPTED this the City of Farmington. day of , 1998, by the City Council of CITY OF FARMINGTON BY: Gerald Ristow, Mayor ATTEST: Karen Finstuen, Clerk 64912.04 4 '. t.1.lllllm::::I~:~::::::j::II:::::::::::::'::::j:jjjjj:::j:Ij:::::::::::::: Ir.BB:::mB:::I~G=mmN 1.111:11111111~.:li_llillll :y~~~~~I~I~~:~.z 1_IEllrIIBrllllrllll_lmIlIIllBlltIJ&::lm!+9!t::::\::::1 i:'lt:t1'1!j;:r>t"1:~::::"'~t::t:~:t:4:i.fft::::",'tt;ti:'lt:'t'1~t:&JrM::j:~'b.t'd:::;(ti):~fii:f~~~iii,:(:::~~:~j:i:j~f;'S:':,I ~~.~~~~~..~~~~~~~~..~.~.~. ,- ... ....~~..~~~~~~~.~~. .. ~:;:;/:::;:;:::;:::;:::::~:;:::::;:::::::;:~:::::~:~:;:::;:~:~:~:::::::::::::::;:::~:::::;:f)~:::~:::::;:::;:::;:::;:;/:~:::::;:::::::;;;:~:f~:;:::;:;:::;:::::;:::;::::;~:~:::::;:::::::;:~:::::~:~:;:::;:~:~:~:::::;:::::;:::;:~:~:~:;:::;:~:;:::~:::::::::::::;:::;:::;:::;:::::::::~:::::::::;:::f::::~:::::;:::::::::~:::::~:~::;::::::::;:::::::;:::::::::;:::;:;:::;:::::::::::::~:::;:::~~~ K_~ Chapter 19 GAMBLING REGULATIONS Section: 3-19- 1: Purpose 3-19- 2: Provisions of State Law Adopted ~~ 1i~ 3~: per;;~e::i~i:~eq~~:e:~~2e!"I!.I~rl~~~] {3 19 5 L. F} :[;:r:::I:j~l:::::::$.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::1"::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::1:::::::::::::::::e:::::::::::r""""""'" {3 19 6 ~ p~~~~e ees L::::;:::j:::}:;;::j:::::;:;,]::j::::::::j:::~:::::::j:::::::j:j::::::::PI!!::;:::::"j'i:::::pqt:)::~:: H1t:!fl1:j::I!~::::::::::::::::::::lil::::li.il~: 3-19- 7: Conduct of Gambling 3-19- 8: Compensation '3-19- 9: :m;;IIItj,::::I.l Reporting Requirements 3-19-10: EHglble'Premises ~~ 1 i~ 1 :;: B~rizes }~I~!I~.li:::iij::lrgi~ll!l 3 19 13}[I:i:I::~:*]: Penalties 3-19-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of this Ordinance is to {closely} regulate and K~""L_ 64912.04 '. 3-19-2: 911::::t91:~:~II.:::I1.!~l.. 1 PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW ADOPTED: The provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 and Laws of Minnesota, {1978,} :[:~~IIU Chapter :(1111~, relating to the definition of terms, licensing an(i"re'strictions <ifgambling are adopted and made a part of this Ordinance as if set out in full. 3-19-3: {LICENSE REQUIREMENT: No person shall directly or indirectly operate a gambling device or conduct a raffle without a license to do so as proyided in this Ordinance. 3 194: PERSONS ELIGIBLE FOR A LICENSE: ~A..liceB:Se shall be issued only to fraterffil.l, religious and ';ctcrans organizations, or any corporation, trust or association organized for exclusively scientific, literary, chariEable, educational or artistic purposes, or any elub which is organized and operated cxelushl'ely for pleasure or recreation. Such organization must have been in existence for at least three (3) years and shall OO';C at least thirty (30) acti';e members. 3 19 5: LICENSE FEES: The Council shall establish by resolution from time to time annual fees for paddle wheel, tipboard and raffle respectively. V..) ~A..pplication Procedure. ~A..pplication for a licease shall be made upon a form prescribed by the Couneil. No person shall make a false represeetion in an application. The Council shall act upon said application within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of application, but shall not issue a lieense until at least thirty (30) days after the date of application. 3 19 6: PROFITS: Profits from the operation of gambling devices or the conduct of - SUtWt"""'!,'34.f),'lS"" '[ffij"nm'ij'''fi''''d'''''''''''I'ltl'''''''fUl''''''''''' """ """""""AS"dJ'tiied 1IiIIIiIli,li:r,ill'lllll:il~:illlillj9):t~:(::"~:::\:/)':IHfI9.tJt::::::::::~'~:::::,~t;:::::::;:::,:::::,:;:::: ISee Section 6-1-26 for Unlawful Gambling Provisions 64912.04 2 '. 3-19-7: CONDUCT OF GAMBLING: (A) (B) (C) 64912.04 3 '. 3-19-8: _~91::::~~!I.::::I::::i:II~::I:ll~:. COMPENSATION {N . h ll} r.:,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:,:,:.tir:'::':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':'J b paid to {any perso~} [fI.~iP~~~::C~iOan wi~:;:;!l~~;~~~!*i: a e ~ {raffle by a licemed organization. No person v;ho is not an active member of an organizatioB, or the spouse or SUrvi'liflg spouse of an aeti';e member, may participate in the orgtl.ftizatioB's operation of a gambling de'lice or eonduet of a raffle. ;3 19 9 l['~::::::l':fi::::b::':::::::::::::::::fi:~:m,^'fi:fi:ti::::::::;t::""tfitl' REPORTING REQUIREMENTS t . ..a..... .:~..:t.li:................:ft:C.~V-~0....~~:U. . .~:.\;i~\:::r~:::[~:~::;lmntrjt::;::i;~::;;;::::::;;~:;::::;~;::~;::::::::;:::;;;:::::;;::::~~t/:::;;::;~::;:~;:::;:;/.:. . ~ recordsofksngr()sSnreceif)t3,n expenses afldnpr6tlis for eaeh single gathering or oeeasion at which gambling de'liees are operat-ed or a raffle is conducted. All deductions from gross receipts for each single gathering or occasion shall be documented ':lith receipts or other records indicating the amount, a description of the purchased it-em or service or other reason f-or the deduction and the reeipient. The distribution of profits shall be itemized as to payee, purpose, afBount and dat-e of payment. (B) Separation of FuOOs. Gross receipts from the operatioB of gambling de';ices and the coOOuct of raffles shall be segregated from other re'lenues of the organization and placed in a separate account, the person ':;ho accouBts for gross receipts, expenses and profits from the operation of gambling de'lices or the conduct of raffles shall not be the same person who accounts for other revenues of the organization. (C) 1fonthly Reports. Eaeh organization licensed to operate gambling devices or to conduct rafflcs shall report monthly t-o its membership, and to the City Clerk, its gross receipts, expenses aOO profits from gambling deyiees or raffles, and the distribution of profits. The licensee shall preserve such records for three (3) years}. ~=b~~ Coftl:hi'etednby"a:"llcemed organization only upon premises 'l,hich} it owns or leases, except {that tickets for raffles may be sold off the premises. Lcases shall be in writing and shall be f-or a term of at least twel'le (12) months. No lease shall pro~/ide that rental payments be based on a pereentage of receipts. /'... copy of the lease shall be filed .....ith the City Clerk. (Ord. 078 64, 6 19 78)} :[I~::::liE_ 3-19-10: 64912.04 4 .. ' .. , !1:~:~rI.!lft:llltl:::~~::~~ill~::!~I~::::~:::~:] {3 19 11: PRIZES: M.S.fi. 349.26, subd 15 provides: "Total prizes from the .~p.:7.:~~~~?~.,?,!..p.~~~",~Y:~~~~~,.,!.~~?~~~~",,~~~,,:~?!:!:,:,:~:~,~:.:.:~.~,:,:,:'.',~,~~!~~j,~:~:.:.:.l.:.:Iillj...:.:., ':.:.:.:.:.:.:.:':':':.:.:.:....:...: ':. :.:.:.:.:.:. '1'1.'..DISmIUBIJmI0NJ.DE'PJl0G1BUms.'.."'lEibli"""""....mmti""'.""'..''tid..cting.l....'.IaI.D {av;arded iH a single day in which they are operated shall not exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). Total prizcs resulting from any single spin of a paddle wheel or from any single seal of a tipboard, each tipboard limited to a single seal, or from a single pull tab or tieket jar shall not exceed one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00). Total prizes awarded in any calendar year by any organization from the operation of paddle 'lIheels, tipboards, pull tabs or ticket jars and the conduct of raffles shall BOt exceed thirty five thousand dollars ($35,000.00). Merchandise prizes shall be ',altled at fair market retail vallie. (Ord. 083 140, 1 17 83) 3 19 12: BINGO: Nothing in this Ordinftnee shall be construed to authorize the conduct of bingo witho\:1t acquiring a separate bingo license. 3 19 13 } [!il:lilill : PENAL TIES: (A) Criminal Penalty. Violation of any provision of this Ordinance shall be a misdemeanor. A person convicted of violating any provision of this Ordinance shall be subject to a fine of not more than fHvet [ggill hundred dollars {($500.00) a~lm.f:.~l or imprisonment for"'i"''!erm not to exceed ninety (90) days, orbodi~Hpll.1s, in either case, the costs of :::::::::::::;:::;:;:;:;:;:;:::;:;::::::::J: (B) Suspension and Revocation. Any {license} JPiBt] may be suspended or revoked for any violation of this Ordinance.:.........:A:"....{license }Ii.~l shall not be suspended or revoked until the procedural requiremenisHof subsection (C) have been complied with, provided, that, in cases where probable cause exists as to an ordinance violation, the City may temporarily suspend upon service of notice of the hearing provided for in subsection (C). {such} t.IV1,91 temporary suspension shall not extend for more than two (2) weeks~HHHHH 64912.04 5 ~. . J _,. to' (C) Procedure. A {license} _itl shall not be revoked under subsection (B) until notice and an opportUriity for a hearing have first been given to the {lieef15ee} :::::{u,II.i.l. The notice shall be personally served and shall state the oidhia:tice"'provision reasonably believed to be violated. The notice shall also state that the {licef15ee} :...] may demand a hearing on the matter, in which case the {lieefiS'er_il will not be suspended until after the hearing is held. If the -{iIcens'e'e} lillUfiJ. requests a hearing, one shall be held on the matter by the Council at least one week after the date on which the request is made. If, as a result of the hearing, the Council fmds that an ordinance violation exists, then the Council may suspend or terminate the {lieef15e. (Ord. 078 64, 6 19 78)} fR!.t~:::::t 1.!!II:~:~f:::::::::.::::III.!::::!II~::::I!::::II~1YI::::lllillt!~I:::ple::::~I:::tll~III~::::: ~~ C"" :111.';1: ":;:;'Q:.,:"fi:;::'fi"lIRMf::: ::;:':"; ':,:; "N':' :Q....:.ma,' ':,',::'N';" .......... ...... ............ ..... " .' .'. . .'. . .'. ..... ...... . ... ......... ......... ... .. .. ... .... . ............ ....... .............. . ... .... ..... ...... ::::::::::::::~;::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::i;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: lJ.rt::~;:::::::::~:::~:~:::::~r::::::~::m:;:::::::::":rr';:::::~::::~:::::::::::@::~::::::m:::;:::;:'::m:m:::~::::::::::;@:::r;:;m:::@@::~m@:::::::m::':: ;:;';:;:;;:;;:;:;:;;;:......I~I::::1~191~:::::lllllr... I.ilm~: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::;:;;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::;:;:;:;:;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::;:;::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ;11;:l:;I;II~:.;l:;~;~;l::;:?i;\:;i;i;:;:;:;:;:;::ri;wi'i/;\ ................................................................. ................................................................ 64912.04 6 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us ! / ~ TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator 1:?f:..- FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Middle Creek Trunk Sanitary Sewer - Fairhills Extension DATE: September 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION At the July 6th City Council meeting, Council authorized staff to request a quotation from the contractor for the above referenced project to extend the sewer in order to eliminate the Fairhills lift station. DISCUSSION The bids for the Middle Creek sanitary sewer project came in well under the estimated costs. Therefore, it is recommended that the extension of the trunk sewer to the north of 195th street through the Fairhills area be considered. The extension of the sanitary sewer to the north would allow for the elimination of the Fairhills lift station. BUDGET IMPACT The cost submitted by the contractor to extend the sewer is $ 200,006.54. It is not anticipated that additional easements for the project will be necessary. By law, change orders to a project cannot exceed 25% of the original contract amount. 25% of the contract amount for the Middle Creek sanitary sewer project is approximately $270,000. The cost for the sewer extension is well within this amount. The additional cost of the extension is also well within the project budget and the bond proceeds obtained for the project. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt a motion authorizing the attached change order for the sewer extension to the Middle Creek Trunk Sanitary Sewer project. Respectfully Submitted, ~J11~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file .n. Bonestro e Rosene o Anderlik 1 ~ 1 Associate Engineers & Architec o Owner: City of Fannington, 325 Oak Street, Fannington, MN 55 Date September 2, 1998 & Contractor: Latour Construction, 2134 Cty Rd 8 NW, Maple Lake, MN 55358 S Bond Co. ts CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 MIDDLE CREEK AREA TRUNK SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS BRA File No. 141-98-082 Description of Work The installation of a trunk sanitary sewer from MH -40 on 195th Street to the existing Fair Hills lift station on 193rd Street. The installation of this sanitary sewer will provide gravity flows for the area north of 195th Street and the eliminate the existing lift station. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Item 10" PVC, SDR35, 0' - 8' dp. 10" PVC, SDR35, 8' - 10' dp. 10" PVC, SDR35, 10' - 12' dp. 10" PVC, SDR35, 12' - 14' dp. 10" PVC, SDR35, 14' to 16' dp. 10" PVC, SDR35, 16' - 18' dp. 10" PVC, SDR35, 18' to 20' dp. 10" PVC, SDR 35, Jack or auger in steel casin 8" PVC, SDR 35, 0' - 14' dp. Cross under 24" RCP Cross under 12" RCP Std. MH, 8' dp., 4' dia. wi cstg. MH Depth greater than 8' 8" Outside Drop Remove existing 8" sanitary sewer Connect to existing sanitary sewer Remove existing MH Traffic control Imp. pipe foundation Mech. trench compaction Clear and grub Bituminous surfacing removal Class 5 aggregate base (100% crushed) Type 31 bituminous base course - 3" dp. Type 41 bituminous wear course - 1.5" dp. Bituminous material for tack coat 1:\141\ 141 82\CHANGEORemail Unit LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA LF LF LF EA EA LS LF LF LS SY TN SY SY GL Contract Quantity 425 21 23 190 131 109 10 443 60 1 1 6 28 11.1 60 2 1 1 1070 1310 1 400 250 360 360 18 Unit Price 35.1 38.4 41.7 45 48.3 51.6 54.6 199.5 43 1770 1570 1485 69.8 232.4 4.4 1850 540 300 0.01 0.01 900 3.1 11.8 12.5 11.7 3 Total Amount $14,917.50 $806.40 $959.10 $8,550.00 $6,327.30 $5,624.40 $546.00 $88,378.50 $2,580.00 $1,770.00 $1,570.00 $8,910.00 $1,954.40 $2,579.64 $264.00 $3,700.00 $540.00 $300.00 $10.70 $13.10 $900.00 $1,240.00 $2,950.00 $4,500.00 $4,212.00 $54.00 27 Remove concrete C&G LF 40 4 $160.00 28 Install concrete C&G LF 40 32.6 $1,304.00 29 Remove & transplant trees EA 7 205 $1,435.00 30 Silt fence LF 600 1.6 $960.00 31 Rip Rap - Class III CY 30 39.5 $1,185.00 32 Topsoil Borrow CY 900 10.6 $9,540.00 33 Sod wi 4" topsoil SY 9000 2.3 $20,700.00 34 Seed with topsoil, mulch, and fertilizer AC 1.3 435 $565.50 Total Change Order No.1 $200,006.54 I:\141\14182\CHANGEORemail Original Contract Amount Previous Change Orders This Change Order Revised Contract Amount (including this change order) $1,089,607.15 $200,006.54 $1,289.613.69 Recommended for Approval by: BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~~ Approved by Contractor: LATOUR CONSTRUCTION YvVYI ;1~~ cc: Owner Contractor Bonding Company Bonestroo & Assoc. 1:\141\ 14182\ehangeord.wb2 date: Approved by Owner: CITY OF FARMINGTON City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-71 II Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us 'j //;01- TO: Mayor, Council Members, City AdministratOl>~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Citizen Petition Prairie Creek 3rd Addition - Schedule Workshop DATE: September 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION At the July 20th City Council meeting, several citizens that reside in the 3rd Addition of Prairie Creek brought a petition forth requesting that the City perform a feasibility study in order to identify solutions to drainage problems they are experiencing. DISCUSSION Staff has analyzed the existing storm sewer system in the Prairie Creek 3rd and 4th Additions and has identified options to improve the storm water drainage in the subject area. The cost implications are still being reviewed and staff recommends that the issues be presented at a Council workshop for discussion. BUDGET IMPACT Cost estimates for identified options will be presented at the workshop. ACTION REOUESTED Staff recommends that the Council schedule this issue for Wednesday, September 16, 1998, on the same agenda with the discussion regarding orderly annexation. Respectfully Submitted, ~>>1~ Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Steve Jones City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us / Ie. ~, TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Heritage Development Issues - Builders Association Response DATE: September 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION At the August 17, 1998 Council meeting, Council discussed a letter written by Mr. Thomas Bisch of Heritage Development. It was Council's desire that the Builders Association of the Twin Cities (BA TC) be contacted in writing regarding their response to what was identified as an inappropriate communication by Heritage Development. Mayor Ristow, on behalf of the Council, transmitted a letter to BA TC on August 18, 1998 articulating Council concerns. DISCUSSION Attached, please find the BA TC letter in response to Council's communication. My office has been informed that both the Mayor and the City Engineer have been contacted by Mr. John Dobbs, Heritage Development, and that apologies regarding Mr. Bisch's letter have been received. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED For Council information only. ~Sp';~IY AUbmitted, ,.~lt. ~~ ~ John F. Erar i August 25, 1998 Mayor Jerry Ristow City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55025 Dear Mayor Ristow, I have not seen the letter written by Mr. Bisch, an employee of Heritage Development, but I appreciate that you informed me of Mr. Bisch's comments in general and I am pleased you gave me this opportunity to respond. For the record, Mr. Bisch's company is a member of the Builders Association of the Twin Cities but he, nor any representative of his firm, is a member of the special Farmington task force established by the council in the spring of 1998. Therefore, Mr. Bisch does not speak for the Builders Association of the Twin Cities nor for the task force as it currently exists. Any comments Mr. Bisch communicates to the city represent his own views and presumably those of his company. As to the value of the Farmington task force, the BA TC builder and developer members participating with city staff, feel the task force has been very beneficial to the development and residential building process in the city. While our work is not complete, it is well underway and the process has provided a forum for beneficial information exchange between all parties. To stop this process at this time would be a serious mistake. Specifically to the issue of street cleaning, the task force discussed this issue at two separate meetings and as Mr. Erar's memo of August 17, 1998 suggests, the task force members are in agreement with this policy. Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to your letter. If you have further questions or comments please call me at your convenience at 697-7571. Sincerely, C;~~ Gary Laurent Public Policy Chairperson t~ Karen Christofferson Public Policy Director cc: Members Farmington City Council; John Erar City Administrator; Lee Mann, City Consulting Engineer; David Olson, City Community Development Director; Members of the Farmington Builder/Developer Task Force; Tom Bisch and John Dobbs, Heritage Development Corp. 2960 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, Minnesota 551 13~1 122 ~ "'Ol11es~ 1948-1998 Celebrating the 50th year of the Parade of HomesSM! 612/697~1954 Fax 612/697~7599 Parade Fax 612/697~7575 " City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us August 18, 1998 Ms. Karen Christofferson, Public Policy Director Builders Association of the Twin Cities 2960 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Dear Ms. Christofferson: The Farmington City Council and Planning Commission were recently sent a letter by Mr. Thomas Bisch, Director for Heritage Development of Minnesota, Inc., characterizing City street cleaning requirements as retaliatory in nature and unnecessary in application. It was the opinion of Council that the issues raised by Mr. Bisch were not communicated in a very professional manner essentially describing this City requirement as "ridiculous". Mr. Bisch's complaints were researched by City staff, and were found to be inaccurate to say the least. It is my understanding that you have received a copy of the staff report, as well as a copy of the letter in question. At the August 17th Council meeting, Council members questioned the appropriateness of these comments in the general context of City-Developer relations, and felt a strong need to communicate their displeasure with Mr. Bisch's comments to your association. It was Council's understanding that your organization represents the development community in the Twin Cities area, and that these types of issues would be discussed in an environment conducive to their respective resolution. Frankly, the Council is questioning the value of continuing to meet with your association if these types of issues continue to be presented in such an inappropriate manner. The Council is interested in your association's reaction to this situation, and what actions, if any, your office is contemplating in response to Mr. Bisch's letter. In closing, we believe that this Council and staff have attempted to meet with your association in a good faith effort to resolve issues of mutual concern without the use of inflammatory rhetoric and derogatory accusations. On behalf of the City Council, I would appreciate hearing from you on this matter. Ms. Karen Christofferson August 19, 1998 Page 2 of2 ~e~eto. ~~ Mayor Jerry Ristow Cc: City Council Planning Commission John Erar, City Administrator Mr. Lee Mann, City Engineer Mr. David Olson, Director of Community Development Mr. Thomas Bisch, Director, Heritage Development Mr. John Dobbs, Heritage Development City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us Ilf TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Ash Street Project Committee - Meeting Issues DATE: September 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION Ash Street Project Committee representatives attended two meetings at the Castle Rock Township Hall on August 24, 1998 and August 26, 1998. The meeting on August 24, 1998 was called by Township officials to determine the level of support by affected township residents relative to proposed project improvements, resulting assessments and the question of annexation. Councilmembers Cordes, Gamer, and I attended this meeting as observers. During the course of this meeting, numerous questions were asked of the City delegation relative to specific project costs. The later meeting was held as a formal project committee meeting to continue discussions on unresolved issues affecting participating jurisdictions and, in part, to answer questions that emerged at the township meeting held on August 24, 1998. DISCUSSION Attached, please find copies of the information that was distributed at the August 26, 1998 committee meeting. A brief summary of the issues and concerns that continue to be discussed by Township officials and residents are indicated below. Special Assessments - An open letter circulated at the August 26th meeting on behalf of the township residents affected by the Ash Street project describes strong opposition to any assessment in excess of $8,000 per improved lot. In effect, the balance of any assessment over $8,000 would need to be financed by an alternative source of project funding. Ostensibly, based on committee meeting conversations to-date, it continues to be suggested that the City should underwrite the balance of township resident project costs. In those terms, City taxpayers would be asked to subsidize the cost of water and sewer service connections, as well as storm sewer improvements to non-municipal residents. Cost of the Improvements - Information requested by the Township continued to focus on specific costs of improvements. City representatives, in response, qualified financial information Mayor and Councilmembers Ash Street Project Committee - Meeting Issues September 8, 1998 on project costs as those contained within the 1995 Feasibility Study, and indicated that these costs could change. Further, staff responses continued to emphasize that the Township will only be assessed for their specific costs--whether that cost is higher or lower from the 1995 feasibility estimates. It should be pointed out that the basis for committee meetings with the Township, Fair Board, Dakota County and Extension Service was to discuss and reach agreement on project principles. A new feasibility study, once agreement has been reached on multi-jurisdictional principles, will address cost concerns at the appropriate time. At this time, no substantive agreement has been reached on project principles. Cesspools as Failing Systems - It was expressed at the August 26, 1998 meeting by certain township residents that cesspools should not be characterized as "failing systems". Commissioner Harris indicated that cesspools should be viewed as "non-conforming" as opposed to failing. If Council will recall, Mr. David Swenson of the County Environmental Services Department, at an earlier meeting, had previously indicated that cesspool systems were failing systems. State statute, county ordinances, and other independent sources, including the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and University of Minnesota substantiate the City's position that cesspools are "failing systems". Cesspools were "designed" to allow human wastes to seep into groundwater due to the absence of tank bottoms. This type of seepage into the groundwater is viewed as highly undesirable from both an environmental and public health perspective, as contamination eventually makes its way into the water table. As Council is aware, in 1997, the State Legislature went so far as classifying cesspools as an "imminent threat to public health or safety", which they later modified for the express purpose of extending the time frame necessary to replace such a system. Based on research from a number of different sources, cesspools are considered failing systems, and should be replaced. Updating private ISTS as an alternative option - Considerable discussion was held on the option of allowing township residents to update their own private septic systems. City representatives requested that if this option is considered, that an independent review be conducted under the auspices of the Township, to assess the viability of private system updates. Holding tanks were also discussed as an option to a standard septic system upgrade, however, it was pointed out that the cost of replacement and routine annual or monthly pumping could, over time, actually exceed the cost of estimated project assessments overall. It was requested that a written report be provided by the Township within the next 2-4 weeks detailing whether all township properties could be upgraded, and include the cost of respective property system upgrades. It was discussed that this option would have to include all properties with failing systems in lieu of bringing in City sewer and, according to the County Ordinance, must be performed by an independent inspector/septic system installer. Allowing the Township to construct and manage the City sewer line - This issue was discussed in terms of allowing the township to construct, own and manage the sanitary sewer trunk line and connections. With respect to this particular issue, significant concerns are identified below: Mayor and Councilmembers Ash Street Project Committee - Meeting Issues September 8, 1998 1. How would the City ensure that appropriate infrastructure construction standards are followed? 2. Difficulties associated with the City controlling future connections to an extended line impacting its system, but not within its respective jurisdiction. 3. Questions relative to township project management, infrastructure financing and system maintenance and repair, and customer service. 4. City ordinances specifically prohibit water service connections without annexation. In addition, the construction, financing, ownership, and maintenance of water lines in a non- municipal jurisdiction would need specific approval by the City Water Board. 5. Questions of whether urban-style residential and commercial development is appropriate in a township. Invariably, the extension of sewer services in any geographic area invites new development. Council will need to determine if providing the township with its own sewer system is in this community's best interests. 6. Questions of how this would affect the City's current MUSA allocations. 7. Profound complications associated with serving both City and township residents on a township-owned trunk line. For example, billing services, delinquent account collections, new connections, service termination, sewer back-ups, etc., are just a few of the anticipated complications associated with a system extension into a township area that would also serve City residents. Finally, in terms of construction cost, staff would not expect any significant difference in estimated project costs regardless of which entity actually constructs the improvement. Consequently, the issue of below-cost assessments raised by township residents remains virtually unchanged relative to how the project would be funded, and more importantly, who will fund the difference. If the position of the township residents and the Fair Board remain as-is, project funding and how the costs are to be allocated remains a significant financial obstacle. City policies on Annexation in Exchange for Municipal Service - County Commissioner Harris indicated that the City's policy on requiring annexation in exchange for municipal service is not uncommon. It should be further emphasized that annexation requirements are a dominant local policy theme in cities across the state of Minnesota, along with the requirement that the extension of City infrastructure is underwritten through project assessments against benefiting property. Benefits to the City due to Ash Street Improvements - Questions continue to emerge regarding the benefits to the City relative to the elimination of lift stations in the project area. With respect to the Sunnyside lift station, the cost of eliminating the lift station would be a separate City project expense. Lift stations constructed on a lateral line are subject to special assessments as they are part of a lateral benefit. The elimination of lateral line lift stations would be classified as sewer reconstruction, and in accordance with Council policies 35 percent of the costs would be assessed against benefiting City properties. If the lift station were part of a trunk facility, the City would be responsible for 100 percent of the cost of reconstructing the sewer trunk line. In the final analysis, costs associated with elimination of lift stations would be excluded from any project costs that would be assessed against township properties. Mayor and Councilmembers Ash Street Project Committee - Meeting Issues September 8, 1998 If, however, the Fairgrounds lateral line lift station were eliminated, those costs would be proposed to be assessed against Fairground property. The elimination of that particular lift station would directly benefit the Fairground property as the lift station currently pumps sewer effluent from the Fairgrounds in to the 2nd Street sewer line. In terms of storm sewer improvements, it would be appropriate for the City to consider assessing 100 percent of the new storm sewer lateral costs to private properties with no existing storm sewer system in place pursuant to City policies. If additional City properties are incorporated into the project area, these properties would be evaluated based on whether or not existing storm sewer laterals are in place. ACTION REQUESTED For information only. The next Ash Street Project Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September 9, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. to be held at Castle Rock Township Hall. Respectfully Submitted, //) '() M.L4:..,>-=I~... """--.;._'__ ~..1 /u~ John F. Erar Cc: Commissioner Harris, Dakota County Brandt Richardson, Administrator, Dakota County Lou Breirnhurst, Director, Dakota County Gordon Wichteman, Castle Rock Township Alyn Angus, Castle Rock Township Darlene Grabowski, Citizen Committee Representative Gene Thurmes, Citizen Committee Alternative Ron Thelen, Citizen Committee Alternative TO WHOM IT MA Y CONCERN: August 25, 1998 The residents of Castle Rock Township who are affected by the proposed Ash Street improvement project strongly oppose the estimated assessments of over $12,000 per lot for the residents along Ash Street and over $23,000 per lot for Highland Circle residents. These improvements include water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and street improvements. These estimated figures were from the 1995 feasibility study report and we are assuming that these figures would only be higher at today's cost. We feel these assessments are excessive and unfair for a few residents to bear the bulk of the cost, when it seems the present Farmington Ash Street Area sanitary and storm sewer is inadequate. These improvements would be benefitting a large number of residents in the City of Farmington as well as eliminating the Sunnyside lift station. After evaluating the councils proposed considerations as stated in the July 20, 1998 letter, we feel these considerations would not off set the costs,enough for the residents to reconsider annexation. Most assuredly, HQ Highland Circle resident would agree to waive their rights to appeal special assessments related to the reconstruction of the road, curb and gutter. It was determined during the August 24th discussion that the majority of the Castle Rock t~~idents may consider annexation if the total assessment would not exceed $8000 per lot. This amount, in part, was derived after reviewing what other Farmington residents have paid for similar improvements in the past few years. We are asking the Farmington Council to reconsider their proposed assessments and renegotiate fairly. Otherwise residents have decided to upgrade their septic systems in compliance with today's standards and remain residents of Castle Rock Township. ASH STREET WATER AND SEWER PROJECT D I understand that if I hook up to Farmington city water and sewer my property will be annexed to the City of Farmington. What area are you located in? D Ash Street D Highland Circle D East of Hwy. 3 What would be the maximum amount you would pay to hook up to Farmington city water and sewer, and to have storm sewers, curbs, and gutters installed? D $0.00 D Up to $8,000.00 D $8,000.00 To $12,000.00 D $12,000.00 To $15,000.00 D $15,000.00 To $20,000.00 D $20,000 And Above -~.. If the cost is higher than the box I checked, I wish to upgrade my own private water and septic system. DYes D No Signature: (Voluntary) Lot Development Costs Charleswood Phase 1 8/26/98 14:48 83 Number of Lots Plat Acreage Erosion and Sediment Control Fee Water Quality Management Fee Surface Water Management Fee $0.093 per square foot Water Main Trunk Area Charge $1,552.00 per acre Water Treatment Plant Fee $ 470.00 per lot Sanitary Sewer Trunk Area Charge $ 1,550.00 per acre Park Dedication $ 15,000.00 per acre 32.29 acres (12.5% of developed area) Sealcoating $ 55.00 per lot GIS Fees $ 25.00 per lot Infrastructure Items Sanitary Sewer Water Main Storm Sewer Street Construction Other ( grading, landscape, surveying etc.) Fees Per Lot Infrastructure per Lot Total Cost per Lot $425 $1,615 $130,809 $50,114 $39,010 $50,050 $60,544 $4,565 $2,075 total $339,206 $4,087 Construction Cost $206,000 $157,000 $170,000 $276,000 $385,600 $1,194,600 $14,393 $18,480 ... " CITY OF FARMINGTON UTILITY BILLING EXAMPLES RESIDENTIAL - Average Utility Bill based on 30,000 gallons of water usage, and 90 gallon solid waste receptacle at 1 pick-up a week. Water $ Sewer Storm Water Solid Waste Sales Tax TOTAL $ Quarterly Monthly 41.60 $ 13.87 65.30 21.77 6.50 2.17 64.00 21.33 5.12 1.71 182.52 $ 60.84 COMMERCIAL - Average Utility Bill based on 65,000 gallons of water usage and sewer usage, and 300 gallon solid waste receptacle at 3 pick-ups per week, and includes extra hauling charges. Water Sewer Storm Water Solid Waste Sales Tax TOTAL 8/26/98 $ Quarterly Monthly 82.20 $ 27.40 211.25 70.42 27.37 9.12 857.10 285.70 100.57 33.52 1,278.49 $ 426.16 $ Billing Rates.xls City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /o?a- . . FROM: Mayor, City Council, City Administrator 4f / Robin Roland, Finance Director TO: SUBJECT: Approval of Preliminary 1999 Tax Levy and Establishment of Dates for Truth in Taxation Hearing DATE: September 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION State statutes require a preliminary tax levy to be certified to the County by September 15, 1998. This preliminary levy is used by the county to develop the proposed property tax statements issued to taxpayers in conjunction with the Truth in Taxation process. Once the proposed tax levy is adopted, the City Council may lower the levy, but cannot increase it. Dates must also be selected for the Truth in Taxation hearings and included in the Preliminary Tax Levy resolution. DISCUSSION AND BUDGET IMPACT The City Council was presented a copy of the Proposed 1999 Budget on August 3, 1998. A budget workshop was held August 19th. The preliminary tax levy is part of the proposed budget and was discussed with Council at the August 19th workshop. The Tax Levy proposed as part of the budget is $1,741.465 and includes $550,000 for debt service and $50,000 for the Fire levy. This levy amount differs from the amount presented to Council at the workshop due to a difference in the amount of Fiscal Disparities Aid. Fiscal Disparity Aid numbers received from the County were less than staff had anticipated due to the effects of the Legislative change to the tax capacity valuation on commercial/industrial property. The net effect resulting from a reduction in Fiscal Disparities Aid means an increase in the actual levy dollars collected by the City. The proposed Tax Capacity Rate (based on the County's "best guess" at this time) remains at 32.50%. This rate is unchanged from that presented at the budget workshop. Within the last week, staff received the revised 1999 Local Government Aid allocation announcement. This revised amount is $22,079 less than the amount presented in the budget at the August 19th workshop. Consequently, the budgeted revenues for the General Fund in 1999 are $3,849.424 of which $1,141.465 will come from the Tax Levy. No changes to expenditures were made. However, the amount designated for the Fund Balance reserve for 1999 was reduced from $65,043 to $42,964. Further discussion of the 1999 Proposed Budget will occur at the Truth in Taxation hearing. Dates available for the Truth in Taxation hearing, which do not conflict with the County, School District or Special Taxing District Truth in Taxation hearings, would be Tuesday, December 1st or Tuesday, December 8th. A continuation hearing, if necessary, could take place on December 8th. If no continuation hearing is necessary, the City Council could adopt the 1999 Budget and Tax Levy at the City Council meeting on December 7th. Otherwise, the Council will need to approve the Final Tax Levy and 1999 Budget at the December 21st meeting. , . ACTION REQUIRED Adopt the attached resolution, certifying the 1999 Preliminary Tax Levy of $1,741,465 to Dakota County and establishing December 1, 1998 at 7:00 P.M. as the City of Farmington's Truth in Taxation hearing for Tax Levy collectible 1999. ;;!4V Robin Roland Finance Director , . RESOLUTION NO. R -98 APPROVING PROPOSED 1998 TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 1999 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 8th day of September, 1998 at 7:00 P.M.. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes currently in force require certification of the proposed tax levy to the Dakota County Auditor on or before September 15, 1998; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, is in receipt of the proposed 1999 revenue and expenditure budget; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Farmington, 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: HACAlLPA Net Levy $1,930,069 550,000 50,000 $2,530,068 (393,478) (395,126) $1,741,465 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Truth in Taxation public hearing will be held on Tuesday December 1,1998 at 7:00 P.M.. If needed, the continued hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 8, 1998 at 7:00 P.M.. If no continuation is necessary, the Tax Levy will be adopted at the City Council meeting on December 7,1998. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 8th day of September, 1998. Mayor City Administrator . , 1999 BUDGET Summary of Debt Service Levy to be Attached and Become part of Resolution Number -98 Fund Title Levy Amount 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 $ 21,180 31,212 78,928 132,804 79,143 26,366 85,367 35,000 15,000 45.000 $ 550,000 Total . , . ,. City of Farmington. Minnesota Property Tax Levy General Fund Levy Certified 1997 1,072,754 Certified 1998 1,111,008 1999 Proposed 1,141,465 Debt Service Funds Supplemental Levy 42,608 105,509 Against City Property 361,696 361,239 349,491 Equipment Certificates 150,455 146,153 95,000 *T otal Debt Service 512,151 550,000 550,000 Capital Project Levy Fire Levy 45,000 45,000 50,000 Total Capital Projects Total City Levy 1,629,905 1,706,008 1,741 ,465 HRA Levy TOTAL LEVY 1,629,905 1,706,008 1,741 ,465 Tax Capacity Rate 34.903% 33.640% 32.500% **Adjusted Tax Capacity Value $ 4,669,808 $ 5,071,367 $ 5,358,355 *Preliminary 1999 Debt Service Levy is based on City's Debt Management Study. ** Adjusted Value determined by deducting Fiscal Disparities and Tax Increment estimates. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /~b ,. TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator 1~ FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Service Manager SUBJECT: Agreement with Dakota County - Electronic Voting Equipment DATE: September 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION Dakota County has agreed to initially fund a new electronic voting system for use in the year 2000. DISCUSSION Dakota County will prepare specifications and solicit competitive bids for the purchase of a new electronic voting system for cities within the County. Bids will include maintenance, assurance of sufficient parts, supplies and warranty service of the equipment. Ownership will be retained by Dakota County and the cities will store and use the equipment. The City will give the existing voting equipment, which is obsolete due to the unavailability of parts, to the County as a trade-in for credit on the new system. The City will retain ownership of voting booths and other related equipment and supplies. Upon receiving the new equipment, the City shall provide safe storage. BUDGET IMPACT Initial costs for the purchase of the Electronic Voting System will be funded 100% by Dakota County. Each City will pay to Dakota County, 25% of the costs, without interest, in three equal annual installments beginning July 1, 2000 estimated at $3195 per year. Each City will also pay its pro rata share of on-going annual maintenance. .. ACTION REQUIRED Adopt the attached resolution approving the agreement with Dakota County to arrange for the purchase, use and maintenance of an electronic voting system. Respectfully submitted, ~g~ Karen Finstuen Administrative Service Manager .. RESOLUTION NO. R -98 AGREEMENT TO ARRANGE FOR THE PURCHASE, USE AND MAINTENANCE OF AN ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEM 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 8th day of September 1998 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, Dakota County has agreed to initially fund an electronic voting system for use in the year 2000; and, WHEREAS, Dakota County will prepare specifications and solicit competitive bids; and, WHEREAS, bids will include maintenance, assurance of sufficient parts, supplies and warranty service ofthe equipment. Ownership will be retained by Dakota County and the cities will store and use the equipment; and, WHEREAS, the City will give the existing voting equipment to the County as a trade-in for credit on the new system; and, WHEREAS, initial costs for the purchase of the Electronic Voting system will be funded 100% by Dakota County; and, WHEREAS, each City will pay Dakota County 25% of the cost incurred by the County in providing the necessary electronic voting equipment for the City, without interest, in three equal annual installments beginning July 1,2000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the agreement to arrange for the purchase, use and maintenance of an electronic voting system hereby be approved. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 8th day of September 1998. Mayor Attested to the 8th day of September 1998. SEAL City Administrator .(,.- .' . .~ AGREEMENT TO ARRANGE FOR THE PURCHASE, USE AND MAINTENANCE OF ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEM This Agreement is between Dakota County, 1590 West Highway 55, Hastings, Minnesota (referred to in this document as County) and the City of , (address), (referred to in this document as City), and concerns the cooperative efforts of the County and City (collectively referred to as the parties) to arrange for the purchase, use and maintenance of electronic voting system. WHEREAS, the parties desire to purchase new electronic voting system hardware and related software and to have all equipment in place for elections to be held in year 2000, and after; and WHEREAS, County has agreed to initially fund 100 percent of the purchase price of the equipment upon the terms and conditions set forth in this agreement; and WHEREAS, the parties intend by this document to enter into a written agreement on all issues related to the purchase and use of this equipment including, but not limited to, factors such as the allocation of the purchase price, insurance and maintenance costs, storage of the equipment and ultimate replacement of the equipment. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the covenants of the parties set forth below, the parties agree to the following: A. COUNTY RESPONSIBILITY: 1. The County, in consultation with all the local governmental units located in Dakota County, will prepare specifications for the purchase, through a competitive bidding process, of an electronic voting system meeting the requirements stated in Minn. Stat. ~ 206.57 and ~ 206.58. It is anticipated that the specifications will include vendor-supplied technical maintenance of all equipment for at least eight years after the purchase, including assurances of sufficient parts, supplies and accessories, warranty service of the equipment, wherever stored, and trade-in allowance for all existing voting systems owned by the parties. Competitive bids will be solicited in a manner consistent with the provisions of Minn. Stat. 9 471.345. Results of any bids received will be tabulated by the County and made available to all local governmental units in Dakota County. The final decision on lowest responsible bidder, and award of contract, will be made by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners. County will defend and indemnify the Cities and hold them harmless from any claims for damages arising out of the public bidding process utilized by County. 1 .. .~- . . , .. 2. In addition to purchase of sufficient, necessary equipment, County will contract with the vendor for warranty repairs and regUlar maintenance of the voting eqtripnaent, vvhereverstored. 3. County will arrange for purchase and delivery of sufficient voting machines to meet the needs of the voting precincts in the City. In addition, County will purchase spare, replacement eqtripment as well as ballot tabulation eqtripnaent for use by the Dakota County Treasurer/Auditor's Office. The initial costs for the purchase of the necessary eqtripment will be paid by the County, minus the City's share of 25 percent as required by Section B(4). 4. County will list the election eqtripment on its commercial property casualty insurance policy to provide for coverage against loss or damage to the equipment resulting frona theft, fire, or other loss covered by the existing policy. s. County will arrange for timely training of election judges using the voting equipment as well as on-going training for upgrades to new software or hardware, as necessary . 6. Ownership of all electronic voting eqtripnaent purchased pursuant to this agreement will vest in Dakota County, regardless of where the eqtripment may be stored or used. County will consult with City before any fmal decision is made in the future on trading in or replacing the system to be purchased pursuant to this agreement with a different or new voting system. B. CITY RESPONSIBILITY 1. City will give County any existing ballot tabulation eqtripment and ballot boxes currently belonging to City along with a proper bill of sale transferring ownership of the eqtripment to County. County will use the old equipnaent as a trade- in for credit on the purchase of the new voting system contemplated in this agreenaent. City will retain ownership of voting booths, signs, tables and related polling place eqtripment. 2. City will consult with the County in preparing specifications for the new electronic voting system and in preparing an itemized listing of new eqtripnaent needed by City to properly eqtrip the voting precincts in the city. City will accept and use only the voting system approved and purchased by CoUnty. 3. City will provide safe storage and proper handling of election eqtripment used by City. Maintenance needs of equipment stored by City will be reported, in writing, to vendor directly by a person designated by City to arrange for service. City will provide vendor with a list of individuals authorized to arrange repair or service calls on the voting eqtripment. 2 ", ..' ." . .. ," ,.. 4. Each City will pay to County 25 percent of the cost incurred by the County in providing the necessary electronic voting equipment for the City. Payment of the City share will be for actual cost without interest, paid in three equal annual installments beginning on July 1,2000. Prepayment of the City's share may be made at any time. Each City will pay to the County its pro rata share of the ongoing annual maintenance costs for the voting equipment. Pro rata share is determined by dividing the total number of voting machines purchased by the number of machines required by City. The payable date will be based on the County billing dates. The City payments for maintenance costs will be deposited in a holding fund to be established by County to pay for maintenance of the equipment. 5. City will continue to select and pay necessary election judges and arrange with County for timely training of the judges to use the voting equipment. 6. City will coordinate with County to order additional election equipment from the vendor as local voting precincts are added. The purchase price of additional equipment will be at the same 75 percent-25 percent split, with the City's 25 percent share to be paid to County in one lump sum at the time of delivery of the additional equipment. IN WIlNESS WHEREOF, the City and County have caused this agreement to be duly executed in its name and on its behalf, and the City's seal to be affixed hereto. COUNTY OF DAKOTA CITY OF By: By: Mayor By: City Clerk K1C97-193 3 /3a... FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator~ Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police TO: SUBJECT: Animal Control Hours of Operation DATE: September 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION Staff received an inquiry from Council regarding the hours of operation for the Contracted Animal Control service. The inquiry stems from a citizen who reportedly requested animal control services in the early morning hours through Lakeville Police dispatch. The citizen states he was told that "They were probably asleep and couldn't be disturbed." DISCUSSION The City of Farmington contracts animal control services with 4-Paws Animal Control. The contract calls for response to requests for service through the Farmington Police Department 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I spoke with the citizen regarding the incident. He informed staff that at approximately 3 :30 AM on August 9, 1998 he got up to take care of his barking dog when he saw that another dog was in his yard. That dog chased him to the house. The man states he called the Lakeville Police dispatcher and asked for Animal Control. The male dispatcher offered to send a Police Officer, but the caller declined, stating that he didn't need a Police Officer but that he did need an Animal Control Officer. The dispatcher then gave him the phone number of 4-Paws Animal Control but advised him that he would be unable to reach them because they were probably sleeping. The caller then told the dispatcher that he would deal with the stray dog himself. The citizen told staff that he did not try to call 4 - Paws after the dispatcher told him it would be fruitless. Police Department staff informed the citizen that the 4 - Paws contract with the City of Farmington does provide service 24 hours a day. Staff apologized to him for the inconvenience and misinformation. The citizen was also encouraged to call the Farmington Police any time he needed assistance. I also contacted Lakeville Dispatch to remind them that 4 - Paws is a 24 hour service provider. ACTION REQUESTED Information only. Respectfully submitted, I Citl}. of FarminiJ.ton Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police 325 Oak Street · FarminfJtonJ MN 5502~ · (612) ~63-7111 · Fa~ (612) ~63-2591