HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.03.97 Council Packet
COUNCIL MEETING
REGULAR
NOVEMBER 3, 1997
:00 P.M. - PARAC Interviews
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. APPROVE AGENDA
4 . CITIZEN COMMENTS
a) Introduction of New Employees
b) Swearing In Ceremony - Police Officer
5 . CONSENT AGENDA
a) Approve Minutes - 10/20 (Regular)
b) Gateway Sign Update
c) Set Public Hearing Date - Review Various Annual License
d) Industrial Park Curb Breaking Situation
e) Third Quarter Building Permit Report
f) Amend Council By-Laws - Roll Call
g) Ordinance - Amend Annexation Ordinance Legal Description
h) Ordinance - Amend Tobacco Ordinance
") Organizational Realignment-Position Reclassification
Resolution - Setting Public Hearing for issuance of Medical
Clinic Revenue Bonds
k) Approve Bills
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS/AWARD OF CONTRACTS
a) Amend East Farmington PUD
b) Rezone Genstar Property Located in NW 1/4 of SW 1/4, Section 24 -
R1 to R3 PUD
c) Resolution-Accept Bids/Awards Contracts - Team Rooms/Bath
House/Rest Rooms (Supplemental)
7. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a) Marcus Cable Premium Channel Rate Increase
b) CDBG Distribution Formula - Proposed Change
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a) Response to Eagle's Club Concerns
b) Traffic Control Issue at Third & Elm Streets
c) Revised Weed Ordinance
NEW BUSINESS
a) Right of Way Ordinance Presentation/Introduction
Action Taken
b) Amend Cable Franchise Ordinance - Extension
10. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS/BOARDS/COMMISSIONS
11. ROUNDTABLE
a) Citizen Petition - Response to Complaint- Dakota County Lumber
12. ADJOURN
TO:
Mayor, Councilmembers,
City Administrator
FROM:
John. F. Erar, City Administrator
SUBJECT:
Supplemental Agenda
DATE:
November 3,1997
It is requested that the November 3, 1997 agenda be updated as follows:
Item 6c - Resolution-Accept Bids/Awards Contracts -Team Rooms/Bath House/Rest
Rooms
Sealed bids were opened and bids were over the engineering estimates, therefore
staff needs additional time to analyze the bids before presenting them for
Council action.
Item 8a - Traffic Control Issue at Third & Elm Streets
Additional information along with a proposed resolution is attached for council
action.
Resp:ctfU:(X submitted,
;1/' I~,
;. " '-' r~/ /-
i ~ l LUUL-/
John F. Erar
!City Administrator
Citlj. of Farminf/ton 325 Oak Street · FarminfJton, MN 5502~ · (612) ~63. 7111 · FaX' (612) ~63.2591
TO:
Mayor, Councilmembers
City Administrator~
FROM:
James Bell, Parks and Recreation
Director
SUBJECT:
Adopt resolution accepting bids and
awarding contract for Ice Arena Team
Rooms, ADA upgrades at Swimming Pool
and Rambling River Park Restrooms
DATE:
November 3,1997
INTRODUCTION
Sealed bids were opened on Thursday, October 30 for the arena team rooms and ADA upgrades at the
pool bath house and Rambling River Park restrooms.
DISCUSSION
Seven valid bids were received for the construction of the Ice Arena team rooms and ADA upgrades at the
pool bath house and Rambling River Park restrooms. The bids are over the engineering estimates,
therefore staff needs additional time to analyze the bids before presenting them for Council action.
ACTION REQUESTED
It is reconunended that Council delay action on the bids.
Respectfully submitted,
^---,,' :.:---.-. >-'~
-- (...!(,..----\
,/ ,)
~ .~'-.:: ",
James Bell
Parks and Recreation Director
CitlJ. of Farminf/,ton 325 Oak Street · Farminflton, MN 5502~ · (612) ~63.7111 · Fa}( (612) ~63.2591
FROM:
Mayor. Councilmembers and
City Administrator1~
Daniel M. Siebenaler
Chief of Police
TO:
SUBJECT:
Elm St. and Third St.
Supplemental Information
DATE:
November 3, 1997
INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION
On Friday October 31, 1997 the City Administrator and Police Chief, along with Sheldon Johnson of
Bonestroo, met with Dave Everds and Pete Sorenson of the Dakota Highway Department to discuss the
results of their traffic survey at Third and Elm Streets. As you saw in the initial response included in this
agenda item the request for a four way stop at that intersection was denied due to insufficient warrants.
During the course of our discussion the issue concerning the need for a pedestrian crossing was identified.
The County study did not take into consideration the need for a pedestrian crossing at Third and Elm, as
the County staff was under the misperception that there was a pedestrian crossing at Fifth Street. While
that intersection is posted as a School Crossing there is no such crossing at that location.
One of the County criteria for placement of a stop sign is the accident rate at an intersection. The accident
rate at Third and Elm is incredibly low, with only three accidents in the past year. County staff is
concerned that the placement of a Four Way Stop at this intersection would probably not improve the
intersection's accident rate and may actually contribute to an increase in the number of accidents. In
addition County staff expressed concerns that the platooning effect of Stop Lights at Highway 3 and at
County Road 31 would be diminished by the placement of a Four Way Stop. That is, those gaps in traffic
created by the existing stop lights would be reduced and make entry onto Elm Street more difficult. City
staff suggests that the desired platooning effect created by the two stop lights is already ineffective at Third
Street due to the merging of other traffic onto Elm Street between the lights and the Third St. intersection.
County staff conceded that this was a possibility and acknowledged that their study did not consider the
platooning effect as it directly related to the intersection of Third and Elm.
As a result of our discussions County staff has agreed to forward our response and request to the County
Board of Commissioners for action. There are two conditions to the action. First, in order to place the
Four Way Stop at Third Street it will be necessary to remove two existing mature trees on the south side of
Elm St. west of Third St. These trees have been the subject of obstructed vision complaints in the past and
would certainly obstruct the view of any Stop Sign posted at that location. Second, the County staff has
concerns that the installation of these signs will result in future requests for similar signs at the intersection
of First and Elm Streets. They state that they could not support any such installation. City staff agrees that
the function of Elm Street, as a collector, is to move a large volume of traffic efficiently and such an
installation would be counterproductive to that goal.
CitlJ. of Farmin9ton 325 Oak Street · Farminljton/ MN 55024 · (612) 463.7111 · Fait (612) 463.2591
ACTION REOUESTED
Adopt the attached resolution requesting the installation of a Four Way Stop at the intersection of Third
Street and Elm Street and authorize the removal of the two boulevard trees in the 200 block of Elm St. on
the south side to facilitate the installation of those signs.
Respectfully submitted,
'~-3Y/~
Daniel M. Siebenaler
Chief of Police
PROPOSED
RESOLUTION
REQUESTING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE
THIRD AND ELM STREETS
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington,
Minnesota, was held in the Civic Center of said City on the 3rd day of November, 1997 at 7:00 P.M..
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following:
WHEREAS, Elm Street in the City of Farmington is a County Road also know as County Road 50; and
WHEREAS, Traffic on Elm Street continues to increase in volume; and
WHEREAS, The intersection of Third Street and Elm Street is the hub of Farmington's central business
district and therefore the focus of vehicular and pedestrian traffic; and
WHEREAS, It is increasingly more difficult for traffic on Third Street to enter onto Elm Street; and
WHEREAS, It is difficult and dangerous for pedestrian traffic to cross Elm Street safely at any point and
panicularly at the intersection with Third Street.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:
The City Council of the City of Farmington petitions the Dakota County Board of Commissioners to order
the installation of a Four-Way Stop sign configuration at the intersection of Third Street and Elm Street in
the City of Farmington.
This resolution adopted by the recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 3rd
day of November, 1997.
Mayor
Attested to the _ day of November, 1997
SEAL
Clerk! Administrator
4\0
FROM:
Mayor, Councilmem~rs and
City Administrato~
Daniel M. Siebenaler
Chief of Police
TO:
SUBJECT:
Oath of Office
Officer Robert Sauter
DATE:
November 3, 1997
INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION
Robert Allen Sauter was hired by the City of Farmington as a Police Officer effective October 27, 1997.
His oath of office is to be administered at this meeting of the City Council. -
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
ACTION REOUESTED
Oath of Office to be administered by City Administrator, John Erar.
Respectfully submitted,
~~Jd--51L-J~
Daniel M. Siebenaler
Chief of Police
CitlJ. of FarminlJton 325 Oak Street · Farmintjton, MN 5502~ · (612) ~63.7111 · Fax (612) ~63.2591
FARMINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT
OATH OF OFFICE
ROBERT ALLEN SAUTER
NOVEMBER 3, 1997
I Robert Allen Sauter, do solemnly swear
That I will support and defend the constitution of the United States
and the State of Minnesota
against all enemies, foreign and domestic,
That I bear true faith and allegiance to the same.
That I take this obligation freely
without mental reservation or purpose of evasion.
That I will well and faithfully discharge
the duties upon which I am about to enter.
I do further swear
That while a member of the Farmington Police Department
I will not advocate
nor become a member of any political party or organization
that advocates the overthrow.ofthe Govemment of the
United States or the State of Minnesota by force or violence
so help me God.
Signature
Witneaa
Date
Date
Chief of Pollce
COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR
OCTOBER 20, 1997
50.-.
1. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 7:00 P.M..
Members Present: Ristow, Cordes, Gamer, Strachan.
Members Absent: Fitch.
Also Present: City Administrator Erar, Attorney Grannis.
2. Mayor Ristow welcomed and introduced the Council and members of City staff to
a group of Boy Scouts and their leaders who were in the audience.
3. Mayor Ristow led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. MOTION by Gamer, second by Cordes to approve the agenda with the following as
presented. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
5. Three proclamations were on the agenda for Council consideration.
· Member Strachan read a proclamation recognizing the Church of the Advent's
125th Anniversary.
· Member Cordes read a letter from Mayor Ristow which was addressed to
Farmington Middle School principal Dr. David Thompson and Member Gamer read a
proclamation recognizing the School's receipt of a Blue Ribbon National School
of Excellence Award.
. Mayor Ristow read a Certificate of Recognition for Rosemary Swedin in honor of
her 30th anniversary of employment with the City
6. Citizen Comments.
George Flynn: Reported on an incident which occurred on Saturday morning at the
intersection of Elm and Third Streets. The incident caused him
great concern for the safety of pedestrians, particularly the young and the
elderly, attempting to cross Elm Street at that location. He requested Council
and staff take action on the installation of a traffic control device at the
intersection. Police Chief Siebenaler noted that a traffic study had been
completed and the results would be presented at the November 3, 1997 Council
meeting.
7. Consent Agenda
MOTION by Strachan, second by Cordes to approve the Consent Agenda as follows:
a) Approve Minutes - 9/30/97 (Special) and 10/6/97 (Regular).
b) Adopt ORDINANCE NO. 097-405 amending the Solid Waste Ordinance and policy.
c) Approve a contract with Robert Vogel for HPC Consultant services for 1998.
d) Authorize the advertisement for bids for the City'S towing contract.
e) Appoint Robert Sauter as a Police Officer, effective 10/27/97
f) Appoint Richard Deeg as Fire Marshal/Building Inspector, effective 11/3/97.
g) Approve School/Conference request - Parks and Recreation Department.
h) Approve School/Conference request - Administration Department.
i) Approve Contract for Wetland Ordinance and Mapping update with Bonestroo,
Rosene and Anderlik.
j) Accept Resignation - Clerk/Typist.
k) Approve Development Process update dealing with erosion control measures.
1) Adopt RESOLUTION NO. Rl19-97 approving entering into a cooperative funding
agreement.'ith MnDOT for improvements to the Ash Street, prairie Waterway and
Henderson Storm Sewer projects.
m) Approve installation of a handicapped accessible door at the Senior Center.
n) Approve purchase of a portable oxygen kit for a Police squad car.
0) Approve payment of bills as submitted.
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
8. South Suburban Medical Center Issues
Representatives from South Suburban's Board of Directors were present. Board
Chair, Dr. Ralph Nordine, thanked the Council, staff and the community for their
expressions of support following the recent decision by River Valley Clinic to
send their patients to Fairview Ridges Hospital rather than South Suburban. Dr.
Nordine informed those present that, while the decision had been unexpected, they
were moving forward with plans to complete their current clinic expansion and
hire physicians to staff it. Mayor Ristow requested Council adopt a resolution
pledging continued support of South Suburban. MOTION by Gamer, second by Cordes
to adopt RESOLUTION NO. R120-97 pledging continued support of South Suburban
Medical Center. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
9. Council noted PARAC interviews would take place November 3, 1997 at 6:00 P.M.
prior to the regular Council meeting. They also approved the joint City, Castle
Rock Township and Fair Board meeting date of November 19, 1997 at 7:00 P.M. at
the Dakota County Fair Board meeting room.
10. 208th Street Alignment
City Engineer Mann introduced Sheldon Johnson, a traffic engineer from Bonestroo,
Rosene and Anderlik. Mr. Johnson had been requested to study the effect proposed
changes to the alignment of 208th Street. The changes were suggested by the
School District to accommodate an expansion of the Middle School facility
currently on 208th Street. Mr. Johnson informed Council that 208th Street's
designation as a collector street was of great importance to both the City's and
County's future transportation plans, noting the scarcity of east/west
connections within both the City and County. He stated that the School
District's suggested changes would defeat its purpose as a collector since the
tight curves and right hand turns would negatively affect traffic flow. Mr.
Johnson noted that the speed design of the roadway could be reduced somewhat. He
also felt that there was an opportunity to meet the needs of both the City and
School District, although both would need to compromise. School Board member
Robert Brownawell was present and read a letter from School Board Chair John
Switzer which reiterated the District's request to either terminate 208th Street
at its current location or realign it to avoid the Middle School campus. Mr.
Brownawell also stated that the District was running out of time to make a
decision on purchasing the land for the expansion. Discussion continued between
Council, staff and District representatives in an effort to arrive at a consensus
on some sort of compromise. MOTION by Gamer, second by Cordes to approve Option
2, which would dedicate right of way for 208th Street in the alignment shown on
the City'S Transportation Plan. City Administrator Erar reviewed the
ramifications of Option 2. Councilmember Strachan suggested attempting wording
the motion in a way which would leave room for additional City/School dialogue.
Member Gamer rescinded his motion. MOTION by Strachan, second by Gamer to
dedicate right of way for 208th Street in an alignment which would be in
accordance with its designation in the City'S Thoroughfare Plan as a collector
street. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
In a related issue, Mrs. Ordell Nordseth requested the City consider swapping 30
acres of land currently in MUSA for 30 acres not in MUSA to accommodate a
development proposed by Jack Benedict. City Administrator Erar pointed out that
the City did not have the authority to do so; the Metropolitan Council controlled
MUSA designation. He also noted the City was currently well into the process of
requesting a large MUSA expansion and requesting changes at this time was not
advisable. He also stated that since the School District had not yet purchased
the existing 30 acres in question, any swap at this time would be premature.
MOTION by Gamer, second by Cordes to direct staff to pursue a 30 acre MUSA
exchange if and when the School District purchase was finalized. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
Council took a recess at 8:35 P.M. and reconvened at 8:45 P.M..
11. Surface Water Management Plan
Erik Peters and Dan Edgerton of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik presented the updated
Surface Water Management Plan for Council consideration. The presentation
covered the Plan's goals and policy issues, suggestions for area charges,
conditions unique to the City, and recommendations for implementation. Mr.
Peters informed Council that communities in the surrounding area were working on
their surface water issues also, and that the area charges suggested in the plan
were comparable to those charged by the neighboring communities of Lakeville and
Rosemount. MOTION by Gamer, second by Cordes to adopt the Surface Water
Management Plan as prepared. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. The new charges will be
included in the 1998 Fees and Charges Schedule adopted the first meeting in
January.
12. Appoint New City Auditing Firm.
Finance Director Roland stated that 9 requests for proposals had been sent out
for a new auditing firm and 3 firms had been interviewed by her and the City
Administrator. Following the interviews, the firm of Kern, DeWenter, Viere, LTD.
was selected for Council consideration. MOTION by Gamer, second by Strachan to
appoint the firm of Kern, DeWenter, Viere, LTD as the City's auditing firm.
APIF, MOTION CARRIED. City Administrator Erar recognized the Finance Director
for her efforts in the selection process.
13. MOTION by Gamer, second by Cordes to set the following dates and workshops:
a) Municipal Control of Public Infrastructure in Private Development - 10/28 @ 7
PM.
b) Code of Ethics Ordinance/Conflict of Interest - 10/28 @ 7 PM.
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
14. Roundtable
Councilmember Strachan: Complimented Officer Jerry Wacker for his work on a
recent investigation.
Councilmember Gamer: ALF Ambulance has been affected by River valley Clinic'S
decision to change hospitals. Noted that it will
particularly affect senior citizens since Medicare will not cover ambulance trips
to an outside hospital when there is a hospital in the city in which they live.
City Administrator Erar: Informed Council that council agendas are now published
on the Internet at the City's web site (www.ci.farmington.mn.us).
.
Water Board Member Wier: Stated his feelings regarding the School District's
failure to communicate with City staff, officials and
Board/Commission members on proposed projects in time to allow adequate review
and response. He stated he was pleased the Council did not abandon its long
range planning goals in order to accommodate the District's short sightedness.
Mayor Ristow: Thanked the Clerk Typist for her past service to the City.
Informed Council the City had received Tree City USA designation
for 1997. Requested that an amendment to Council by-laws be added to the next
regular meeting agenda. Requested staff to investigate a citizen complaint he
had received.
15. MOTION by Gamer, second by Cordes to adjourn at 9:20 P.M.. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Hanson
Clerk/Typist
5b
FROM:
Mavor. Councilmembers
City Administrator ~
James Bell. Parks and Recreation
Director
TO:
SUBJECT:
Gateway Sign Update
DATE:
November 3. 1997
INTRODUCTION
The gateway sign costs and locations have been finalized.
DISCUSSION
The design of the signs are as approved by Council at the August 4, 1997 Council meeting. Staffhas
received quotations and final design standards for the gateway signs from the manufacturer. The cost of
the signs are reduced if more than one is ordered.
It has been determined that the City could obtain three signs by combining 1997 and 1998 budgeted funds.
The remaining two signs will be proposed in the 1999 Budget. Attached is a copy of the Council
approved design.
Staff is proposing that the location for the first three signs be on the east and west boundaries of
Farmington along highway 50 and south on highway 3. The County Road 31 reconstruction project
should be done before placing a sign on that corridor. The sign along Highway 3 north will need further
study determining the nearest City / Township boundary.
BUDGET IMPACT
The cost of the three signs is within the $25,000 budgeted in the 1997 and 1998 C.LP. This approach will
result in significant cost savings to the City.
ACTION REQUESTED
For Council information.
Respectfully submitted.
,-J-~ c;s:-9SJ
James Bell
Parks and Recreation Director
CitlJ. of FarminiJ.ton 325 Oak Street · Farmintjton, MN 55024 · (612) 463-7111 · Fax (612) 463-2591
I f;.. j
.,~:: -,.,.::: -'::-:-~:::~~~~~~:~;~~3:~
..
5c..,
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers,
City Administrator~
FROM: Karen Finstuen,
Administrative Service Manger
SUBJECT: Set Public Hearing, Licenses and
Permits
DATE: November 3,1997
INTRODUCTION
A public hearing needs to be set to review various annual license renewals for the year of 1998.
DISCUSSION
Each year the following licenses expire December 31, and are required by ordinance, to be
reviewed at a public hearing prior to renewal:
On-Sale Liquor Licenses
Sunday Liquor Licenses
Club Licenses
Therapeutic Massage License
ACTION REQUIRED
Set a public hearing for 7:00 P.M., November 17, 1997, to review licenses.
Respectfully submitted,
1
i -:2- :_ -+-
~J~
Karen F instuen
Administrative Service Manager
CitlJ. of FarminfJton 325 Oak Street. Farmint}.tonl MN 5502~ · (612) ~63.7111 · Fa~ (612) ~63.2591
~d
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Industrial Park - Curb Breaking
Situation
DATE: November 3,1997
INTRODUCTION
As Council is aware, Mr. Colin Garvey, owner of C.G. Construction, was cited for a violation of
the curb breaking permit proc~ss requirements as established under the City Code. A number of
issues associated with this situation remain unresolved, and to a great extent, cannot be fully
resolved to the satisfaction of the City without the business owner's full cooperation.
DISCUSSION
This issue has been discussed and reviewed with Mr. Garvey, and it is clear that unless the City
is willing to expend a considerable amount of staff time and incur additional legal expense to
completely resolve the situation, Mr. Garvey's driveway approach in the City's right-of-way will
remain unchanged.
In attempting to partially resolve this matter, Mr. Garvey has submitted a $5,000 bond to ensure
that should the driveway approach deteriorate or become defective within the next two years, this
bond would be utilized by the City to perform the necessary improvements.
Without going into great detail and addressing all the pertinent issues and actions taken by the
Council and the City to resolve this issue, acceptance of Mr. Garvey's bond by the City will
allow the driveway approach in question to remain intact as-is. Consequently, unless Mr.
Garvey decides to modify the driveway entrance at his own choice, no change to the existing
driveway approach will occur. Accordingly, acceptance of Mr. Garvey's bond by Council
constitutes an exception to or waiver of the curb breaking permit process under the City Code.
As a means of accomplishing the stated objectives of the City Code and preserving future
development standards in accordance with the covenants of the Industrial Park and the Uniform
Building Code, it is suggested that any future City/HRA permit approvals or financial assistance
associated with the expansion to or modification of Mr. Garvey's facility be dependent upon a
pre-signed agreement with Mr. Garvey to upgrade the driveway approach in accordance with
City standards and as approved by the City Engineer.
BUDGET IMP ACT
None. '....
CitlJ of Farminf/.ton 325 Oak Street. FarminiJton, MN 5502~ · (612) ~63.7111 · Falf (612) ~63.2591
ACTION REQUESTED
Acceptance of Mr. Garvey's bond for the stated purpose of curing any deterioration or defect to
the driveway approach contained within the City's right-of-way for a period up to two years.
Should Mr. Garvey choose to expand his facility at any time in the future, upgrading of the
existing driveway approach to City standards as evidenced by a signed agreement with Mr.
Garvey and as approved by the City Engineer would be required as a precondition to the granting
of any City permits or financial assistance in connection with facility expansion or modification.
Respectfully submitted,
/1 " J ~
, .... . } I..../y
L./t-j(,;,t '-1. ~
John F. Erar
City Administrator
cc: Colin Garvey
1',"
.,~
5e
From:
Mayor, Councilmembers,
City Administrator q ~
Michael Schultz, Planning Department
To:
Subject:
Third Quarter Building Report
Date:
November 3, 1997
INTRODUCTION
This memo was prepared to keep Council informed on how actual building activity compares with recent
past quarterly reports and projected growth in the city.
DISCUSSION
The third quarter has recently yielded sixty-two (62) new single-family housing units from the time period
of July 1 to September 30. Last year's third quarter yielded 71 single-family housing permits. The
valuation on the homes totaled $6,849,844.00. The value of housing units ranged from $71,800 to
$164,000, for an average valuation of$110,481.35. A breakdown of the ranges in shown on the attached
sheet. No multi-family housing permits were issued during this quarter.
The year-to-date total for single-family building permits is 192. At this rate the year-end total will near
only 250 single-family units. This projects to be a 90 unit drop off from the previous year, or 26.5%
decrease in the building construction rate. The projected year-end total will fall short of the 275 unit per
year estimate made in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
The metropolitan area has reported a sluggish market throughout the fIrst half of this year, and the lack of
lot selection locally, may have played a role in the reduction of new home construction within Farmington
during this year to date. Many of the subdivisions in the City are 80% or more completed in their existing
additions. This has resulted in less selection for the consumer in housing style, lot size and location.
Staff believes that with the opening of East Farmington's 3rd Addition these numbers could be better in the
fourth quarter, resulting in a modest recovery from the previous two (2) quarters. Several other
developments have just begun and will soon be allowing new housing construction, they include: Troy Hill
4th, Nelsen Hills Farm 6th, and Pine Ridge Forest.
ACTION REQUIRED
For information only.
cc: Dave Olson, Community Development Director
Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator
Lee Mann, City Engineer/Director of Public Works
Citl}. of Farminf/.ton 325 Oak Street · Farmintjton, MN 55024 · (612) 463-7111 · Fax (612) 463-2591
Third Quarter Building Report, 1997
July 1to September 30
Va....Mions
$69 999 $89 999
$ 71 800.00
$ 74900.00
$ 75.200.00
$ 78 000.00
$ 79 500.00
$ 80.300.00
$ 80.300.00
$ 80.300.00 T..., 0116 -,
$ 81 .00
$ 83 000.00
$ 83 600.00
$ 84 400.00
$ 86.300.00
$ 87 000.00
$ 88 800.00
$ 89.000.00 $90 000 - $109 999
. "J.J,....... $ 90 800.00
$ 91 200.00
$ 92.200.00
$ 92 700.00
$ 93100.00
$ 93 400.00
$ 94 100.00
$ 94--:-00
$ 94 500.00
$ 95 00-00 Total of 22
$ 96 100.00
$ 96 900.00
$ 96 900.00
$ 100 600.00
$ 100 8".00
$ 104 .00
$ 104 800.00
$ 105900.00
$ 106 000.00
$ 107 800.00
$ 108 800.00
$ 109 400.00 $110 OOO-$la 999
$ $ 110500.00
$ 110 700.00
$ 120 700.00 Total of.
$ 125400.00
$ 125700.00
$ 128000.00 $130 000 - $149 999
721,000.00 $ 130.800.00
$ 134 600.00
$ 139.200.00
$ 140 400.00
$ 143 500.00
$ 1" 600.00 Total of 12
$ 1" BOO.OO
$ 145 600.00
$ 145 600.00
$ 145.800.00
$ 1".800.00 $150.000 -181.990
$ 147 100.00
. $ 151__.00
$ 153 000.00
$ 153 700.00
$ 110 700.00 T..., ol8
$ 18 .00
$ 164,900.00
. ....900.00
Total Pre-s." Housing Value for 3rd Qtr. 1997
6.849.1144.00 I $
Average Cost
110.481.35 I
62 Tolll' SingIHamity
Permits Issued
Third Quarter Pnt-Sale Housing Values
$150,000-169,999
10%
TMd au..... ~R.,m. 1897
Sf
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Amend Council By-Laws - Roll Call
DATE: November 3, 1997
INTRODUCTION
At the October 20, 1997 Council meeting, Mayor Ristow requested that the Council Agenda be
modified to include a section for Roll Call.
DISCUSSION
In order to facilitate this change, Council By-Laws, Section IV, Order of Business, Subd. 1
would need to be amended by adding section three (3) entitled "Roll Call". It is suggested that
Roll Call be added after the Pledge of Allegiance as the third item on the Council Agenda, prior
to the Approval of the Agenda.
In accordance with this modification, it is proposed that the City Administrator call off the title
and member name of the Council with each member present responding in the affirmative.
BUDGET IMP ACT
None.
ACTION REQUESTED
Amend Council By-Laws, Section IV, Order of Business, Subd. 1, to include Roll Call as the
third item on the Council Agenda to be initiated at the November 17, 1997 Council meeting and
thereafter.
Respectfully submitted,
~/~
JOhn F. Erar
/City Administrator
CitlJ. of FarminiJton 325 Oalt Street · FarminfJton, MN 55024 · (612) 463-7111 · FaIr (612) 463-2591
SECTION IV - ORDER OF BUSINESS
SUED. 1 - Each meeting of the Council shall convene at the time and place
appointed therefore. Council business shall be conducted in the
following order:
(1) Call to Order
(2) Pledge of Allegiance
(3) Approve Agenda
(4)
Citizens Comments
(5 minute limit per person for items not on the agenda)
(5) Consent Agenda (All items will be approved in 1 motion with no discussion
unless anyone wishes an item removed for discussion.)
(6) Public Hearings/Award of Contracts
(7) Petitions, Requests and Communications
(8) Unfinished Business
(9) New Business
(10) Reports from Commissions/Committees/Council
(11) Adj oum
(12) Upcoming Meetings
SUED. 2 - The order of business may be varied by the presiding officer, but
all public hearings shall be held at the time specified in the notice
of hearing.
SUED. 3 - Each person shall be allowed a maximum of 5 minutes to address the
Council under Citizens Comments.
SECTION V - MT~~S
SUED. 1 - Minutes of each Council meeting shall be kept by the Clerk, cr, in
his absence, his designee. In the absence of both, che pres~ding
officer shall appoint a secretary pro tern. Ordinances, resolutions and claims
need not be recorded in full in the minutes if =hey appear in other permanent
records or the Clerk and can be accurately identified from the description g~ven
in the min'..ltes.
S~~D. 2 - The minutes of each meeting shall ~e reduced to typewr~tten form.
shall be signed by the taker, and ccp~es thereof shall ce delivered to
eachCouncilmember as soon as pract~cable after the meeting. At ~he next regula,
Council meet~ng follow~ng such delivery, approval of ~he minutes shall ~e
-+
Ss
TO:
Mayor, Councilmem~~
City Administrator f'crc-
FROM:
Karen Finstuen
Administrative Service Manager
SUBJECT:
Ordinance Amending Legal Description
DATE:
November 3, 1997
INTRODUCTION
The attached ordinance amends Ordinance 095-361 correcting two typographical errors.
DISCUSSION
The proposed ordinance correcting the typographical errors in Ordinance 095-361 is an identical
duplication of the original ordinance with the exception of the two changes marked on the
enclosed copy. Attorney Grannis received approval of this procedure from the Minnesota
Municipal Board and the description has been approved by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation.
ACTION REQUIRED
Adopt the proposed ordinance amending Ordinance 095-361.
Respectfully submitted,
~ ~)..-Y~~
Karen Finstuen
Administrative Service Manager
CitlJ of Farmin9ton 325 Oak Street. Farm;nfjton/ MN 5502~ · (612) ~63.7111 · FaJr (612) ~63.2591
CITY OF FARMINGTON
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
An Ordinance Annexing Certain Properties
Abutting the City of Farmington
WHEREAS, the City of Farmington (IICityll) received a petition
for annexation from all of the property owners of each of the
following described properties ( collectively "Properties") :
a. The East 80 feet of the West 740.55 feet of the South 193
feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
Section 32, Township 114, Range 19 West, Dakota County,
Minnesota;
b. The East 84.44 feet of the South 193 feet of the
Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 32,
Township 114, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota;
TOGETHER WITH:
The West 10 feet of the South 193 feet of the Northeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 32, Township
114, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota;
c. Lot 6 of Dooley Addition, according to the plat thereof
on file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of
Titles in and for the County of Dakota, State of
Minnesota;
d. The West 90 feet of the East 174.44 feet of the South 6
acres of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter
of Section 32, Township 114, Range 19, according to the
United States Government Survey thereof and situate in
Dakota County, Minnesota;
e. That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter of Section 32, Township 114, Range 19, Dakota
County, Minnesota, described as beginning at a point on
the south line thereof 580.55 feet East along the said
south line from the Southwest corner of the said
Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, thence North
parallel with the West line of the said Northwest Quarter
of the Northwest Quarter 193 feet; thence East parallel
with the South line of said Northwest Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter 80 feet; thence South parallel with the
West line of the said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter 193 feet to the South line of said Northwest
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence West along the
South line of said Northwest Quarter of said Northwest
Quarter 80 feet to the point of beginning and there
terminating.
WHEREAS, each of the Properties is located in Empire Township,
Dakota County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, each of the Properties abuts the City; and
WHEREAS, the area of each of the Properties is sixty acres or
less; and
WHEREAS, none of the Properties are served by public sewer
facilities nor are public sewer facilities otherwise available; and
WHEREAS, the City held a public hearing on November 6, 1995,
after providing 30 days written notice of the public hearing by
certified mail to Empire Township and to all landowners within and
contiguous to each of the Properties; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Minn. Stat.
~ 414.033, the City Council of the City of Farmington may by
ordinance declare the Properties to be annexed to the City; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance is adopted to correct typing errors in
Ordinance No 095-361.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED THAT the City of Farmington
hereby annexes the Properties, pursuant to the procedures set forth
in Minnesota Statutes ~ 414.033.
Enacted and ordained the 6th day of November, 1995.
2
CITY OF FARMINGTON
Mayor
Attest:
City Administrator/Clerk
SEAL
This ordinance approved as to form the __ day of
City Attorney
Published in the Farmington Independent the __ day of
1997.
I 1997.
-3-
CITI' OF FARMINGTON
DAKOTA COUNTI', MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO 095-361
An Ordinance Annexing Certain Properties Abutting the City of Farmington
WHEREAS, the City of Farmington ("City") received a petition for annexation from
all of the property owners of each of the following described properties (collectively
"Properties"):
a. The East 80 feet of the West 740.55 feet of the South 193 feet
of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section
32, Township 114, Range 19 West, Dakota County, Minnesota;
b. The East fiill feet of the South 193 feet of the Northwest
Quarter ohtl'e Northwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 114,
Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota;
736938. 1
TOGETHER WITH:
The West 10 feet of the South 193 feet of the Northeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 114,
Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota;
c.
Lot 6 of Dooley Addition, according to the plat thereof on file
and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for
the County of Dakota, State of Minnesota;
d.
The West 90 feet of the East 174.44 feet of the South 6 acres
of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section
32, Township 114, Range 19, according to the United States
Government Survey thereof and situate in Dakota County,
Minnesota;
e.
That part O~f.. e Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter
of Section 29 Township 114, Range 19, Dakota County,
Minnesota, escribed as beginning at a point on the south line
thereof 580.55 feet East along the said south line from the
Southwest corner of the said Northwest Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter, thence North parallel with the West line of
the said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter 193 feet:
thence East parallel with the South line of said Northwest
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter 80 feet; thence South parallel
with the West line of the said Northwest Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter 193 feet to the South line of said Northwest
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence West along the South
line of said Northwest Quarter of said Northwest Quarter 80
feet to the point of beginning and there terminating.
WHEREAS, each of the Properties is located in Empire Township, Dakota County,
Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, each of the Properties abuts the City; and
WHEREAS; the area of each of the Properties is sixty acres or less; and
WHEREAS, none of the Properties are served by public sewer facilities nor are public
sewer facilities otherwise available; and
WHEREAS, the City held a public hearing on November 6, 1995, after providing 30
days written notice of the public hearing by certified mail to Empire Township and to all
landowners within and contiguous to each of the Properties; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Minn. Stat. 9 414.033, the City
Council of the City of Farmington may by ordinance declare the Properties to be annexed
to the City; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED THAT the City of Farmington hereby
annexes the Properties, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Minnesota Statutes 9
414.033.
736938.1
2
5h
FROM:
Mayor, Councilmembers anp
City Administrator 9?i!/
Daniel M. Siebenaler
Chief of Police
TO:
SUBJECT:
Tobacco Ordinance
DATE:
November 3, 1997
INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION
The City of Farmington has been commended repeatedly for its early initiatives in the establishment and
enforcement of a Tobacco Ordinance. In its 1997 session the Minnesota Legislature passed a new law
requiring municipalities to enact such ordinances to license vendors of tobacco products and conduct
compliance checks on those vendors.
The League of Minnesota Cities has provided a model ordinance as a recommendation for municipalities.
While the original city ordinance does comply with the basic statutory requirements and in some cases
exceeds those requirements, it is not in the same format as the recommended model. Rather than attempt
to reconfigure the existing ordinance to comply with the recommended model, staff believes that it will be
more efficient to repeal the existing ordinance and adopt the model ordinance as submitted.
This ordinance has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
ACTION REQUESTED
Repeal the existing ordinance Title 3 Chapter 7 Distribution of Tobacco Products and adopt the Proposed
ordinance of the same Title and Chapter.
Respectfully submitted,
1 ':
~~
Daniel M. Siebenaler
Chief of Police
CitlJ of FarminfJ.ton 325 Oak Street · Farmin9ton} MN 55024. (612) 463.7117. FaJt (612) 463.2591
PRO P 0 SED
CITY OF FARMINGTON
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE
An Ordinance Amending Title 3 - Business Regulations - Chapter 7 - Distribution
or Tobacco Products
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOW:
SECTION I: Title 3, Chapter 7 shall be amended by deleting
current language in its entirety and
substituting the following language in its place.
CHAPTER 7
DISTRIBUTION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS
3-7-1: PURPOSE.
Because the City recognizes that many persons under the age of 18 years purchase
or otherwise obtain, possess and use tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco
related devices; and such sales, possession, and use are violations of both
State and Federal laws, and because smoking has been shown to be the cause of
several serious health problems which subsequently place a financial burden on
all levels of government; this ordinance shall be intended to regulate the sale,
possession, and use of tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco related devices
for the purpose of enforcing and furthering existing laws, to protect minors
against the serious effects associated with the illegal use of tobacco, tobacco
products, and tobacco related devices, and to further the official public policy
of the State of Minnesota in regard to preventing young people from starting to
smoke as stated in M.S. 144.391.
3-7-2: DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS.
Except as may otherwise be provided or clearly implied by context, all terms
shall be given their commonly accepted definitions. The singular shall include
the plural and the plural shall include the singular. The masculine shall
include the feminine and neuter, and vice-versa. The term "shall" means
mandatory and the term "may" means permissive. The following terms shall have
the definitions given to them:
Tobacco or Tobacco Products: Any substance or item containing tobacco leaf,
including but not limited to, cigarettes; cigars; pipe tobacco; snuff; fine cut
or other chewing tobacco; cheroots; stogies; perique; granulated; plug cut;
crimp cut; ready rubbed and other smoking tobacco; snuff flowers; cavendish;
shorts; plug and twist tobaccos; dipping tobaccos; refuse scraps, clippings,
cuttings and sweepings of tobacco; and other kinds and forms of tobacco leaf
prepared in such manner as to be suitable for chewing, sniffing or smoking.
Tobacco Related Devices: Any tobacco product as well as a pipe, rolling
papers, or other device intentionally designed or
intended to be used in a manner which enables the chewing, sniffing or smoking
of tobacco or tobacco related products.
Self Service Merchandising: Open displays of tobacco, tobacco products, or
tobacco related devices in any manner where any
person shall have access to the tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related
devices, without the assistance or intervention of the licensee or the
licensee's employee. The assistance or intervention shall entail the actual
physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device
between the customer and the licensee or employee. Self service merchandising
shall not include vending machines. (NOTE: Under the FDA tobacco regulations
adopted in 1996, self service sales are interpreted as being any sale where
there is not an actual physical exchange of the tobacco between the clerk and
the customer.)
Vending Machine: Any mechanical, electric or electronic, or other type of
device which dispenses tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco
related devices upon the insertion of money, tokens, or other form of payment
directly into the machine by the person seeking to purchase the tobacco, tobacco
product or.tobacco related device.
Individually Packaged: The practice of selling any tobacco or tobacco product
wrapped individually for sale. Individually wrapped
tobacco and tobacco products shall include, but not be limited to, single
cigarette packs, single bags or cans of loose tobacco in any form, single cans
or other packaging of snuff or chewing tobacco. Cartons or other packaging
containing more than a single pack or other container as described in this
subdivision shall not be considered individually packaged.
Loosies: The common term used to refer to a single or individually packaged
cigarette.
Minor: Any natural person who has not yet reached the age of eighteen (18)
years.
Retail Establishment:
Any place of business where tobacco, tobacco products,
or tobacco related devices are available for sale to the
Retail establishments shall include, but not be limited to,
convenience stores, and restaurants.
general public.
grocery stores,
Moveable Place of Business: Any form of business operated out of a truck, van,
automobile, or other type of vehicle or
transportable shelter and not a fixed address store front or other permanent
type of structure authorized for sales transactions.
Sale:
Any transfer of goods for money, trade, barter or other consideration.
Compliance Checks: The system the City uses to investigate and ensure that
those authorized to sell tobacco, tobacco products, and
tobacco related devices are following and complying with the requirements of
this ordinance. Compliance checks shall involve the use of minors as authorized
by this ordinance. Compliance checks shall also mean the use of minors who
attempt to purchase tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices for
educational, research and training purposes as authorized by State and Federal
laws. Compliance checks may also be conducted by other units of government for
the purpo.se o.f enfo.rcing appro.priate Federal, State o.r lo.cal laws and
regulatio.ns relating to. to.bacco., to.bacco. pro.ducts, and to.bacco. related devices.
3-7-3: LICENSE. No. perso.n shall sellar o.ffer to. sell any to.bacco., to.bacco.
pro.ducts, o.r to.bacco. related device witho.ut first having
o.btained a license to. do. so. fro.m the City.
A) Applicatio.n: An applicatio.n far a license to. sell to.bacco., to.bacco. related
pro.ducts, o.r to.bacco. related devices shall be made an a farm pro.vided by the
City. The applicatio.n shall co.ntain the full name o.f the applicant, the
applicant's residential and business addresses and telepho.ne numbers, the
name o.f the business far which the license is so.ught, and any additio.nal
info.rmatio.n the City deems necessary. Upo.n receipt o.f a co.mpleted
applicatio.n, the City Clerk shall fo.rward the applicatio.n to. the Co.uncil far
actio.n at it next regularly scheduled co.uncil meeting. If the Clerk shall
determine that an applicatio.n is inco.mplete, he o.r she shall return the
applicatio.n to. the applicant with no.tice o.f the info.rmatio.n necessary to. make
the applicatio.n co.mplete.
B) Actio.n: The Co.uncil may either appro.ve o.r deny the license, o.r it may delay
actio.n far such reaso.nable perio.d o.f time as necessary to. co.mplete any
investigatio.n o.f the applicatio.n o.r the applicant it deems necessary. If the
Co.uncil shall appro.ve the license, the Clerk shall issue the license to. the
applicant. If the co.uncil denies the license, no.tice o.f the denial shall be
given to. the applicant alo.ng with no.tice o.f the applicant's right to. appeal
the Co.uncil's decisio.n.
C) Term: All licenses issued under this o.rdinance shall be valid far up to. o.ne
(1) calendar year fro.m the date o.f issue, but all licenses issued under this
o.rdinance shall expire an the 31st day o.f December o.f each year.
D) Revo.catio.n o.r Suspensio.n: Any license issued under this o.rdinance may be
revo.ked o.r suspended as pro.vided in the Vio.latio.ns and Penalties sectio.n o.f
this o.rdinance.
E) Transfers: All licenses issued under this o.rdinance shall be valid o.nly an
the premises far which the license was issued and o.nly far the perso.n to. wham
the license was issued. No. transfer o.f any license to. ano.ther lo.catio.n o.r
perso.n shall be valid witho.ut the prio.r appro.val o.f the Co.uncil.
F) Mo.veable Place o.f Business: No. license shall be issued to. a mo.veable place
o.f business. Only fixed lo.catio.n businesses shall be eligible to. be licensed
under this o.rdinance.
G) Display: All licenses shall be pasted and displayed in plain view o.f the
general public an the licensed premise.
H) Renewals: The renewal o.f a license issued under this sectio.n shall be
handled in the same manner as the o.riginal applicatio.n. The request far
renewal shall be made at least thirty (30) days but no.t mare than sixty (60)
days befo.re the expiratio.n o.f the current license. The issuance o.f a license
issued under this o.rdinance shall be co.nsidered a privilege and no.t an
abso.lute right o.f the applicant and shall no.t entitle the ho.lder to. an
auto.matic renewal o.f the license.
3-7-4: APPLICATION FOR LICENSE OR PERMIT: Unless otherwise provided,
applications for a license or
permit shall be made in writing to the City Clerk and applicants shall state the
location of the proposed activity and such other facts as may be required for or
be applicable to the granting of such license or permit.
3-7-5: BASIS FOR DENIAL OF LICENSE. The following shall be grounds for
denying the issuance or renewal of a
license under this ordinance; however, except as may otherwise be provided by
law, the existence of any particular ground for denial does not mean that the
City must deny the license. If a license is mistakenly issued or renewed to a
person, it shall be revoked upon the discovery that the person was ineligible
for the license under this Section.
A) The applicant is under the age of 18 years.
B) The applicant has been convicted within the past five years of any violation
of a Federal, State or local law, ordinance provision, or other regulation
relating to tobacco or tobacco products, or tobacco related devices.
C) The applicant has had a license to sell tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco
related devices revoked within the preceding twelve months of the date of
application.
D) The applicant fails to provide any information required on the application,
or provides false or misleading information.
E) The applicant is prohibited by Federal, State or other local law, ordinance
or other regulation, from holding such a license.
3-7-6: PROHIBITED SALES. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for any
person to sell or offer to sell any tobacco, tobacco
product, or tobacco related device:
A) To any person under the age of eighteen (18) years.
B) By means of any type of vending machine, except as may otherwise be provided
in this ordinance.
C) By means of self service methods whereby the customer does not need to make a
verbal or written request to an employee of the licensed premise in order to
receive the tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device between the
licensee or the licensee's employee, and the customer.
D) By means of loosies as defined in Section 3-7-2 of this ordinance.
E) Containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna, strychnos, cocaine,
marijuana. or other deleterious, hallucinogenic, toxic, or controlled
substances except nicotine and other substances found naturally in tobacco or
added as part of an otherwise lawful manufacturing process.
F) By any other means, to any other person, or in any other manner or form
prohibited by Federal, State or local law, ordinance provision or other
regulation.
3-7-7: VENDING MACHINES. It shall be unlawful for any person licensed under
this ordinance to allow the sale of tobacco, tobacco
products, or tobacco related devices by the means of a vending machine unless
minors are at all times prohibited from entering the licensed establishment.
3-7-8: SELF SERVICE SALES. It shall be unlawful for a licensee under this
ordinance to allow the sale of tobacco, tobacco
products, or tobacco related devices by any means whereby the customer may have
access to such items without having to request the item from the licensee or the
licensee's employee and whereby there is not a physical exchange of the tobacco,
tobacco product, or the tobacco related device between the licensee or his or
her clerk and the customer. All tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco related
devices shall either be stored behind a counter or other area not freely
accessible to customers, or in a case or other storage unit not left open and
accessible to the general public. Any retailer selling tobacco, tobacco
products, or tobacco related devices at the time this ordinance is adopted shall
comply with this Section within fourteen (14) days.
3-7-9: RESPONSIBILITY. All licensees under this ordinance shall be
responsible for the actions of their employees in
regard to the sale of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices on
the licensed premises, and the sale of such an item by an employee shall be
considered a sale by the license holder. Nothing in this section shall be
construed as prohibiting the City from also subjecting the clerk to whatever
penalties are appropriate under this Ordinance, State or Federal law, or other
applicable law or regulation.
3-7-10: COMPLIANCE CHECKS AND INSPECTIONS. All licensed premises shall be
open to inspection by the City
police or other authorized City official during regular business hours. From
time to time, but at least once per year, the City shall conduct compliance
checks by engaging, with the written consent of their parents or guardians,
minors over the age of fifteen (15) years but less than eighteen (18) years, to
enter the licensed premise to attempt to purchase tobacco, tobacco products, or
tobacco related devices. Minors used for the purpose of compliance checks shall
be supervised by City designated law enforcement officers or other designated
City personnel. Minors used for compliance checks shall not be guilty of
unlawful possession of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices
when such items are obtained as part of the compliance check. No minor used in
compliance checks shall attempt to use a false identification misrepresenting
the minor's age, and all minors lawfully engaged in a compliance check shall
answer all questions about the minor's age asked by the licensee or his or her
employee and shall produce any identification, if any exists, for which he or
she is asked. Nothing in this Section shall prohibit compliance checks
authorized by State or Federal laws for educational, research, or training
purposes, or required for the enforcement of a particular State or Federal law.
3-7-11: OTHER ILLEGAL ACTS. Unless otherwise provided, the following acts
shall be a violation of this ordinance.
A) For any person to sell or otherwise provide any tobacco, tobacco product, or
tobacco related device to any minor.
B) For any minor to have in his or her possession any tobacco, tobacco product,
or tobacco related device. This subdivision shall not apply to minors
lawfully involved in a compliance check.
C) For any minor to smoke, chew, sniff, or otherwise use any tobacco, tobacco
product, or tobacco related device.
D) For any minor to purchase or attempt to purchase or otherwise obtain any
tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device, and it shall be a
violation of this ordinance for any person to purchase or otherwise obtain
such items on behalf of a minor. It shall further be a violation for any
person to coerce or attempt to coerce a minor to illegally purchase or
otherwise obtain or use any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related
device. This subdivision shall not apply to minors lawfully involved in a
compliance check.
E) For any minor to attempt to disguise his or her true age by the use of a
false form of identification, whether the identification is that of another
person or one on which the age of the person has been modified or tampered
with to represent an age older than the actual age of the person.
3-7-12: VIOLATIONS.
A) Notice. Upon discovery of a suspected violation, the alleged violator shall
be issued, either personally or by mail, a citation that sets forth the
alleged violation and which shall inform the alleged violator of his or her
right to be heard on the accusation.
B) Hearings. If a person accused of violating this ordinance so requests, a
hearing shall be scheduled, the time and place of which shall be published
and provided to the accused violator.
C) Hearing Officer. The City of Farmington shall serve as the hearing officer.
D) Decision. If the hearing officer determines that a violation of this
ordinance did occur, that decision, along with the hearing officer's reasons
for finding a violation and the penalty imposed under Section 3-7-13 of this
ordinance, shall be recorded in writing, a copy of which shall be provided to
the accused violator. Likewise, if the hearing officer finds that no
violation occurred or finds grounds for not imposing any penalty, such
findings shall be recorded and a copy provided to the acquitted accused
violator.
E) Appeals. Appeals of any decision made by the hearing officer shall be filed
in the district court for the city in which the violation occurred.
F) Misdemeanor Prosecution. Nothing in this Section shall prohibit the City
from seeking a prosecution as a misdemeanor for any alleged violation of this
ordinance. If the City elects to seek misdemeanor prosecution, no
administrative penalty shall be imposed.
G) Continued Violation. Each violation, and every day in which a violation
occurs or continues shall constitute a separate offense.
3-7-13: PENALTIES.
A) Licensees: Any licensee found to have violated this ordinance, or whose
employee shall have violated this ordinance, shall be charged an
administrative fine of $75.00 for a first violation of this ordinance;
$200.00 for a second offense at the same licensed premises within a twenty
four month period; and $250.00 for a third or subsequent offense at the same
location within a twenty four month period. In addition, after the second
offense the license shall be suspended for not less than three (3) days;
after the third offense the license shall be suspended for not less than
seven (7) days.
B) Other Individuals: Other individuals, other than minors regulated by
Paragraph C of this Section, found to be in violation of this ordinance shall
be charged an administrative fee of $50.00.
C) Misdemeanor: Nothing in this Section shall prohibit the City from seeking
prosecution as a misdemeanor for any violation of this ordinance.
3-7-14: EXCEPTIONS AND DEFENSES. Nothing in this ordinance shall prevent the
providing of tobacco, tobacco products, or
tobacco related devices to a minor as part of a lawfully recognized religious,
spiritual, or cultural ceremony. It shall be an affirmative defense to the
violation of this ordinance for a person to have reasonably relied on proof of
age as described by State law.
3-7-15: SEVERABILITY AND SAVINGS CLAUSE. If any section or portion of this
ordinance shall be found
unconstitutional or otherwise invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, that finding shall not serve as an invalidation or effect the
validity and enforceability of any other section or provision of this ordinance.
SECTION II: After adoption, signing and attestation, this
ordinance shall be published one time in the
official newspaper of the City and shall be in effect on and after the day
following such publication.
Enacted and ordained the
day of
, 1997.
5/
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Organizational Realignment -
Position Reclassification
DATE: November 3, 1997
INTRODUCTION
A management evaluation of the currently vacant clerical support position in the Department of
Administration has suggested the need to revise the position to more effectively respond to
changing organizational demands and requirements.
DISCUSSION
As part of a continuing effort to recognize changing organizational needs, and effectively direct
staff resources to meet service needs, the position of Clerk-Typist will be eliminated and
replaced with a new confidential position of Executive Assistant. New position responsibilities
will be expanded and upgraded to include support of the City's human resource function, the
City Administrator's office, as well as provide administrative and secretarial support for the
Department of Community Development, as needed.
In light of the need to maintain confidentiality in the area of personnel and labor negotiations,
this position will be classified as confidential and will not be part of the bargaining unit.
BUDGET IMP ACT
Funding for this position is authorized in the 1997 Budget.
ACTION REQUESTED
For information only.
~.. .spe;~tfu17l~bJI1itted,
,~~ 't~
:,'
/'1ohn F. Erar
City Administrator
CitlJ. of FarminfJ.ton 325 Oak Street · Farminljton, MN 55024 · (612) 463.7111 · FaJf (612) 463.2591
TO:
Mayor and City Council
City Administrato; ~
Robin Roland, Finance Director
FROM:
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Public
Hearing on Proposed Issuance
of Medical Clinic Revenue Bond
DATE:
November 3, 1997
INTRODUCTION
South Suburban Medical Center is seeking to issue $1.6 million of Medical Clinic Revenue Bonds
through the City of Farmington.
DISCUSSION
South Suburban Medical Center (SSMC) has approached the City with a request to sell Medical
Clinic Revenue Bonds. These bonds would be issued under Minnesota State Statutes 469.152-
469.165 and the proceeds would fund the acquisition of the medical clinic adjacent to SSMC.
John Kirby (Dorsey & Whitney) and Eric Lunde (Miller & Schroeder) are working with SSMC on
this bond issuance. The bonds, if issued, would not be a debt or liability of the City. Under the
aforementioned statute, the City acts as a conduit for the debt issuance but is not the borrower
and therefore, has no fiscal responsibility for the issue.
The process dictated by the above mentioned statutes requires the City to issue a resolution
setting a public hearing for the sale of the bonds. That resolution is attached, along with the
suggested notice of the public hearing.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
ACTION REQUIRED
Adopt the attached resolution setting a public hearing on the $1.6 million Medical Clinic Revenue
Bonds for December 1, 1997.
ReSpectfu;?/j
~nd
Finance Director
Sj
CitlJ of Farmint}.ton 325 Oak Street · FarminlJton, MN 55024 · (612) 463- 7111 · Fa/( (612) 463-2591
RESOLlJTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PUBliC HEARING ON THE
PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF MEDICAL CLINIC REVENUE BONDS
(SOUTH SUBURBAN MEDICAL CENTER. INC. PROJECT)
WHEREAS, South Suburban Medical Center, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the
"Borrower") has requested that the City of Farmington, Minnesota (the "City") issue its revenue
bonds punuant to MinnesOta Statutes, Sections 469.152-469.165 (the "ActIO), in a principal
amount not to exceed $1,600,000 (the "Bonds"), to fund the acquisition of an approximate 11,000
square foot medical clinic facility located on the Borrower's medical campu.\l at 3410 213th Sl-reet
West in the City; and
WHEREAS, the Act, and Section 147(0 oftbe Internal Revenue Code of 1986, require
thai: a. public hearing on the proposal to issue the Bonds be conducted after notice given in
accordance with said laws and applicable regulations;
NOW, THEREFORE, Be It Re.~olved by the City Council of the City of Fannington,
Minnesota, that the City Council shall conduct a public hearing on the proposal to issue the Bonds
on Monday, December 1, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Hall. Notice of hearing shall be published
in the official newspaper substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit k
Adopted NovembeT 3, 1997.
STATE OFMINNESOT A
COUNTY OF DAKOTA
The undersigned, being the duly appointed, qualified and acting City Administrator
of the City of Fannington, Mh\nesota, hereby certifies that the foregoing is a full, true and correct
copy of a resolution duly pa...'8ed and adopted by the City Council of said City at its meeting duly
called and held on November 3, J 997, by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
and that said resolution has not subsequently been amended and is now in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hCmloto set my hand and the seal of the City
this _ day of November, 1997.
(SEAL)
City Admiostrator
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA
$1,600,000 MEDICAL CLINIC REVENUE BONDS
(SOUm SUBURBAN MEDICAL CENTER, INC: PROJECT)
Notice is hereby given by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota (the
"City") that it will hold a public hearing at the City Hall. 325 Oak Street, Farmington. Minne!\ota,
on Monday, December 1, 1997, at 7:00 p.rn. to consider a proposal to iAAue not to exceed
S 1 ,600,000 aggregate principal amount of its Medical Clinic Revenue Bonds (SouLh Suburban
Medical Center, Inc. Project) (the "Bonds") pursuant to Minnesota Statute!\, Sections 469.152-
469.165. as amended (the "Act"). The proceeds of the Bonds will be used to fund a loan to South
Suburban Medical Center. Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "Borrower"), and used by
the Borrower to pay ~1S of acquiring an approximate 11,000 square foot mcdicni clinic facility
located on the Bonowcr's medical campus at 3410 213th Street West in the City. The Bonds. if
issued, will not be deemed to constitute a debt or liability of the City or the State of Minnesota or
any political subdivision thereof or a pledge 01' the faith and credit and taxing powers of the City or
the State or any such political subdiVision.
A draft copy of the application to the Department of Trade and Economic Development for
approval of the issue, with all attachments and ex.hibits, is available for public inspection at the
office of the City AdministraIor n.t the City Hall between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on
Monday through Friday. All parties desiring to appear at the public heming will be afforded an
opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal to issue the Bonds. Written
comments may be submitted to the City Administrator at the City Hall prior to the hearing. which
written comments will be read and considered at the hearing.
Is/John Erat
City Administrator
COUNCIL REGISTER
Council Meeting 11/3/97
VENDOR
51<
30-0CT-1997 (11:37)
AAA ONE BUILDING SERVICE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTIVITY
DESCRIPTION
CHECK AMOUNT
CK-SUBSYSTEM
<*>
ABH PROPERTIES
<*>
ACT ELECTRONICS INC
<*>
ACTION OVERHEAD DOOR CO INC
<*>
AERIAL COMMUNICATIONS INC
<*>
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR
<*>
ALCORN BEVERAGE CO. INC.
<*>
APPLE VALLEY, CITY OF
<*>
BARLAGE, HEIDI
<*>
BELLBOY CORPORATION BAR SUPPLY
<*>
BENTLY, CORY
<*>
BIFFS INC
<*>
BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK INC
<*>
BRANDL ANDERSON HOMES
<*>
BT OFFICE PRODUCTS INTERNATION
<*>
BUDGET OIL CO
EXCHNG BANK BLDG BLDG IMPROVEMENT 3,780.00 OH
3,780.00*
SEWER OPEATIONS EQUIP MAINT/RENT 100.00 OH
SOLID WASTE EQUIP MAINT/RENT 1,500.00 OH
STREET MAINT EQUIP MAINT/RENT 290.00 OH
1,890.00*
STREET MAINT EQUIP MAINT/RENT 109.82 OH
109.82*
BUILDING MAINT EQUIP MAINT/RENT 414.00 OH
414.00*
ADMINISTRATION UTILITIES 57.89 OH
COMM DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES 27.57 OH
SEWER OPEATIONS UTILITIES 12.43 OH
SOLID WASTE UTILITIES 4.00 OH
STREET MAINT UTILITIES 12.44 OH
WATER UTILITY UTILITIES 12.44 OH
126.77*
BUILDING INSPCT UTILITIES 29.97 OH
POLICE ADMIN UTILITIES 152.59 OH
182.56*
LIQUOR MERCH FOR RESALE 10,736.85 OH
10,736.85*
RECREATION PROGR OPER MAT & SUPPL 188.86 OH
188.86*
Recreation prog OPER MAT & SUPPL 40.00 OH
40.00*
LIQUOR MERCH FOR RESALE 386.26 OH
386.26*
Recreation prog OPER MAT & SUPPL 387.50 OH
387.50*
EXCHNG BANK BLDG EQUIP MAINT/RENT 1. 72 OH
1. 72*
ASH STREET PROJE PROF SERVICES 116.86 OH
COUNTY ROAD 31 PROF SERVICES 2,173.32 OH
DEVLPR CAP PROJ PROF SERVICES 8,815.43 OH
ELM ST EXTENSION PROF SERVICES 1,242.55 OH
ENGINEERING SERV PROF SERVICES 4,550.00 OH
G.I.S. PROF SERVICES 70.00 OH
HWY 50 RECONSTR PROF SERVICES 98.75 OH
IND PK - PH II PROF SERVICES 83.54 OH
LARCH STREET PROF SERVICES 823.86 OH
PARK IMPROVEMENT PROF SERVICES 524.64 OH
RESERVOIR CONSTR PROF SERVICES 4,760.71 OH
SEWER OPEATIONS PROF SERVICES 280.00 OH
STATE AID STREET PROF SERVICES 518.61 OH
STORM WATER UTIL PROF SERVICES 1,546.60 OH
STREET MAINT PROF SERVICES 980.00 OH
WATER UTILITY PROF SERVICES 280.00 OH
26,864.87*
ESCROW FUND ESCROWS PAYABLE 1,500.00 OH
1,500.00*
ADMINISTRATION OFF & PAPER SUPP 69.85 OH
69.85*
BUILDING INSPCT TRANSPORT COSTS 77.41 OH
ENGINEERING SERV TRANSPORT COSTS 52.75 OH
COUNCIL REGISTER
VENDOR
ACTIVITY
30-0CT-1997 (11:37)
DESCRIPTION
CHECK AMOUNT CK-SUBSYSTEM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUDGET OIL CO
<*>
BULAU, JEFF
<*>
BURNSVILLE SANITARY LANDFILL I
<*>
CAP AGENCY
<*>
CAREY, PAT
<*>
CATARACT FIRE RELIEF ASSOC
<*>
COLLEGE CITY BEVERAGE INC
<*>
COMPUTER CHEQUE OF MINNESOTA I
<*>
CONTROLLED AIR
<*>
CUI - CAREER TEMPS
<*>
CULLIGAN WATER CONDITIONING
<*>
CURTIS, ROBERT
<*>
DAKOTA COUNTY LUMBER COMPANY
<*>
DAKOTA COUNTY SOIL AND WATER
<*>
DAKOTA COUNTY TECHNICAL COLLEG
<*>
DAKOTA COUNTY TREASURER
<*>
DAKOTA COUNTY TREASURER/AUDITO
<*>
DAKOTA ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION
<*>
DUEBERS DEPT STORE
<*>
EMERGITEK CORPORATION
<*>
ERAR, JOHN
<*>
FARMINGTON BAKERY INC
<*>
FARMINGTON EMPLOYEE CLUB
<*>
FIRE SERVICES
PARK MAINT
PATROL SERVICES
SOLID WASTE
STREET MAINT
TRANSPORT COSTS
TRANSPORT COSTS
TRANSPORT COSTS
TRANSPORT COSTS
TRANSPORT COSTS
Recreation prog OPER MAT & SUPPL
SOLID WASTE PROF SERVICES
Senior Center PROF SERVICES
Recreation prog OPER MAT & SUPPL
FIRE RELIEF PROF SERVICES
LIQUOR MERCH FOR RESALE
LIQUOR MISC
ICE ARENA EQUIP MAINT/RENT
ADMINISTRATION PROF SERVICES
ICE ARENA EQUIP MAINT/RENT
FIRE SERVICES SCHOOL & CONF
STREET MAINT OPER MAT & SUPPL
DEVLPR CAP PROJ PROF SERVICES
COUNTY ROAD 31
FLEET MAINT SERV SCHOOL & CONF
PROF SERVICES
MIS
PATROL SERVICES
EMERG MGMT SERV
ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING MAINT
RECREATION PROGR
FIRE SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
MIS
SCHOOL & CONF
PROF SERVICES
EQUIP MAINT/RENT
OFF & PAPER SUPP
OPER MAT & SUPPL
OPER MAT & SUPPL
EQUIP MAINT/RENT
SCHOOL & CONF
OPER MAT & SUPPL
RECREATION PROGR OPER MAT & SUPPL
Senior Center OPER MAT & SUPPL
GENERAL FUND
EMPLOYEE CLUB
40.50
221.68
265.73
443.10
193.57
1,294.74*
62.00
62.00*
9,223.44
9,223.44*
1,552.90
1,552.90*
356.50
356.50*
32,960.00
32,960.00*
6,679.70
6,679.70*
109.88
109.88*
24.06
24.06*
373.50
373.50*
408.98
408.98*
186.80
186.80*
23.96
23.96*
497.50
497.50*
55.00
55.00*
1,096.16
1,096.16*
300.00
67.10
367.10*
10.66
10.66*
9.60
19.87
5.38
34.85*
54.98
54.98*
276.75
157.61
434.36*
7.50
18.00
25.50*
42.00
42.00*
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
COUNCIL REGISTER
VENDOR
ACTIVITY
30-0CT-1997 (11:37)
DESCRIPTION
CHECK AMOUNT CK-SUBSYSTEM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OH
OH
FARMINGTON INDEPENDENT
<*>
FARMINGTON PRINTING INC
<*>
FARMINGTON, CITY OF
<*>
FARMINGTON-SELECT ACCOUNT, CIT
<*>
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
<*>
FEED-RITE CONTROLS INC
<*>
FERRELL GAS PRODUCTS CO
<*>
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF FARMING
<*>
FISCHBACH, MARK
<*>
FRANKLIN QUEST
<*>
FRITZ COMPANY INC
<*>
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS INC
<*>
GALE, MARC
<*>
GALL'S INC
<*>
GOPHER SIGN CO
<*>
GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC
<*>
GRAND VIEW LODGE
<*>
GRIGGS COOPER & CO
<*>
HEALTH PARTNERS
<*>
HEMISH, THOMAS
<*>
HYDRO SUPPLY CO
<*>
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457
<*>
IKON CAPITAL
<*>
INDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO INC
<*>
INTERSTATE BATTERY TWIN CITIES
PARK IMPROVEMENT PRINT & PUBLISH
PLANNING/ZONING PRINT & PUBLISH
Recreation prog
ADMINISTRATION
GEN ACCOUNTING
GENERAL FUND
PARK MAINT
PATROL SERVICES
GENERAL FUND
GENERAL FUND
WATER UTILITY
ICE ARENA
GENERAL FUND
FIRE SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
LIQUOR
ADMINISTRATION
Recreation prog
FIRE SERVICES
STREET MAINT
SEWER OPEATIONS
WATER UTILITY
INVESTIGATION
LIQUOR
GENERAL FUND
RESCUE SQUAD
WATER UTILITY
GENERAL FUND
ADMINISTRATION
PARK MAINT
STREET MAINT
OPER MAT & SUPPL
PRINT & PUBLISH
SCHOOL & CONF
BURNING PERMITS
OPER MAT & SUPPL
OPER MAT & SUPPL
SELECT-PRETAX
SAVINGS BONDS
OPER MAT & SUPPL
OPER MAT & SUPPL
STATE TAX WITHHO
SCHOOL & CONF
OFF & PAPER SUPP
OPER MAT & SUPPL
UTILITIES
OPER MAT & SUPPL
OPER MAT & SUPPL
SPEC ACT SUPPL
PROF SERVICES
PROF SERVICES
SCHOOL & CONF
MERCH FOR RESALE
MEDICAL INS
SCHOOL & CONF
OPER MAT & SUPPL
lCMA
EQUIP MAINT/RENT
PROF SERVICES
EQUIP MAINT/RENT
43.20
63.60
106.80*
145.26
145.26*
34.53
28.55
10.00
36.19
1. 05
110.32*
1,005.80
1,005.80*
25.00
25.00*
2,056.04
2,056.04*
122.62
122.62*
5,408.17
5,408.17*
186.80
186.80*
111.19
111.19*
1,042.49
1,042.49*
70.72
70.72*
449.50
449.50*
77.25
77.25*
189.21
189.21*
348.25
348.25
696.50*
8.46
8.46*
14,855.78
14,855.78*
2,257.24
2,257.24*
172.74
172.74*
107.64
107.64*
3,278.90
3,278.90*
287.89
287.89*
100.00
100.00*
61. 72
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OR
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
COUNCIL REGISTER
VENDOR
<*>
JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR COMPAN
<*>
JURAN & MOODY
<*>
KEYLAND HOMES
<*>
KOCH MATERIALS COMPANY
<*>
KUCHERA, KEN
<*>
KWIK TRIP
<*>
LAKEVILLE PUBLISHING INC
<*>
LAKEVILLE, CITY OF
<*>
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES
<*>
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES - P
<*>
LOCAL GVMT INFO SYSTEMS ASSN.
<*>
LONG BRANCH
<*>
LUNDAHL , TIM
<*>
LUVERNE FIRE APPARATUS CO LTD
<*>
MANKE , JOHN
<*>
MARSCHALL LINE INC
<*>
MARTIN, JUDY
<*>
MC NAMARA CONTRACTING INC.
<*>
MEDICA
<*>
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
<*>
ACTIVITY
LIQUOR
30-0CT-1997 (11:37)
DESCRIPTION
CHECK AMOUNT CK-SUBSYSTEM
MERCH FOR RESALE
TAX INC REFD BND PROF SERVICES
WATER UTILITY PROF SERVICES
ESCROW FUND
PARK MAINT
FIRE SERVICES
BUILDING INSPCT
FLEET MAINT SERV
INVESTIGATION
PARK MAINT
PATROL SERVICES
SEWER OPEATIONS
STREET MAINT
WATER UTILITY
ICE ARENA
FIRE SERVICES
PATROL SERVICES
GENERAL FUND
ESCROWS PAYABLE
PROF SERVICES
SCHOOL & CONF
TRANSPORT COSTS
TRANSPORT COSTS
TRANSPORT COSTS
TRANSPORT COSTS
TRANSPORT COSTS
TRANSPORT COSTS
TRANSPORT COSTS
TRANSPORT COSTS
PRINT & PUBLISH
PROF SERVICES
PROF SERVICES
LELS UNION DUES
ADMINISTRATION SCHOOL & CONF
COMM DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL & CONF
BUILDING INSPECT
GEN ACCOUNTING
MIS
PAYROLL
HRA/ECONOMIC DEV MISC
PROF
PROF
PROF
PROF
SERVICES
SERVICES
SERVICES
SERVICES
FIRE SERVICES
Recreation prog OPER MAT & SUPPL
TRANSPORT COSTS
BUILDING INSPCT
Recreation prog
ICE ARENA
PARK MAINT
STREET MAINT
GENERAL FUND
MISC
OPER MAT & SUPPL
EQUIP MAINT/RENT
OPER MAT & SUPPL
OPER MAT & SUPPL
MEDICAL INS
EXCHNG BANK BLDG EQUIP MAINT/RENT
61.72*
9,989.46
9,989.46*
774.00
775.93
1,549.93*
3,000.00
3,000.00*
157.76
157.76*
247.31
247.31*
47.68
19.40
-30.32
408.59
174.61
54.54
609.67
21. 64
1,305.81*
48.50
48.50*
1,455.35
2,911. 14
4,366.49*
132.00
132.00*
40.00
40.00
80.00*
384.76
748.18
545.80
280.45
1,959.19*
28.60
28.60*
188.00
188.00*
305.22
305.22*
15.00
15.00*
216.25
216.25*
42.59
42.59*
637.63
466.27
1,103.90*
12,345.44
12,345.44*
230.00
230.00*
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
COUNCIL REGISTER
VENDOR
ACTIVITY
30-0CT-1997 (11:37)
DESCRIPTION
CHECK AMOUNT CK-SUBSYSTEM
OH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIORNME
<*>
MICHAEL MULARONI & ASSOCIATES
<*>
MINNEAPOLIS, CITY OF
<*>
MINNESOTA AFSCME COUNCIL #14
<*>
MINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOCIATION
<*>
MINNESOTA PIPE AND EQUIPMENT
<*>
MINNESOTA RECREATION & PARK AS
<*>
MINNESOTA UC FUND
<*>
MINNESOTA, STATE OF
<*>
MORE 4
<*>
MOTOR PARTS SERVICE CO INC
<*>
MVTL LABORATORIES INC
<*>
MYRON MANUFACTURING CORPORATIO
<*>
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY
<*>
NTFC CAPITAL CORPORATION
<*>
o K CORRAL
<*>
PEDERSEN AUTO SHOP INC
<*>
PELLICCI HARDWARE & RENTAL
<*>
PEOPLES NATURAL GAS
<*>
PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC
<*>
PITNEY BOWES
<*>
SEWER OPEATIONS MCES FEES
EXCHNG BANK BLDG PROF SERVICES
ELECTIONS
GENERAL FUND
GENERAL FUND
WATER UTILITY
OPER MAT & SUPPL
AFSCME UNION DUE
MBA/MN BENEFITS
RECREATION PROGR SCHOOL & CONF
OPER MAT & SUPPL
BUILDING INSPCT
FIRE SERVICES
SENIOR CITIZEN
POLICE ADMIN
ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING MAINT
ENGINEERING SERV
POLICE ADMIN
SOLID WASTE
Senior Center
PARK MAINT
STREET MAINT
WATER UTILITY
ADMINISTRATION
EMERG MGMT SERV
SIGNAL MAINT
ADMINISTRATION
Senior Center
STREET MAINT
SALARIES-FULLTIM
SALARIES-FULLTIM
SALARIES-FULLTIM
UTILITIES
OPER MAT & SUPPL
OPER MAT & SUPPL
OPER MAT & SUPPL
OPER MAT & SUPPL
SPEC ACT SUPPL
OPER MAT & SUPPL
OPER MAT & SUPPL
EQUIP MAINT/RENT
PROF SERVICES
OFF & PAPER SUPP
EQUIP MAINT/RENT
UTILITIES
UTILITIES
OPER MAT & SUPPL
EQUIP MAINT/RENT
ENGINEERING SERV OPER MAT & SUPPL
ICE ARENA OPER MAT & SUPPL
IDEA SCHOOL OPER MAT & SUPPL
SENIOR CITIZEN OPER MAT & SUPPL
BUILDING MAINT
SWIMMING POOL
LIQUOR
ADMINISTRATION
UTILITIES
UTILITIES
MERCH FOR RESALE
EQUIP MAINT/RENT
33,542.00
33,542.00*
1,355.24
1,355.24*
45.00
45.00*
367.09
367.09*
278.73
278.73*
2,184.10
2,184.10*
434.00
434.00*
369.26
369.27
283.00
1,021.53*
270.00
270.00*
10.65
42.54
9.86
41.89
121. 45
78.44
304.83*
56.96
56.89
113.85*
42.00
42.00*
298.74
298.74*
6.28
2,932.25
2,938.53*
422.91
422.91*
273.00
273.00*
11.00
11. 00*
3.61
-1.05
18.09
2.23
22.88*
8.51
20.24
28.75*
5,846.18
5,846.18*
709.89
709.89*
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
COUNCIL REGISTER
VENDOR
POLFUS IMPLEMENT AT ROSEMOUNT
<*>
PROMASTER PLUMBING
<*>
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT AS
<*>
RIVER VALLEY CLINICS
<*>
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION INC
<*>
ROLAND, ROBIN
<*>
SAUBER PLUMBING & HEATING CO.
<*>
SAVOIE SUPPLY CO. INC.
<*>
SCHMITTY & SONS SCHOOL BUSES
<*>
SCHULTZ, MICHAEL
<*>
SELECT ACCOUNT
<*>
SHOWCASE DESIGNS
<*>
SKB ENVIRONMENTAL INC
<*>
SMICK, LEE
<*>
SPEIKER, MARILYN
<*>
ST CROIX COUNTY
<*>
STATE CAPITOL CREDIT UNION
<*>
SWEDIN, ROSEMARY
<*>
TERRY'S ACE HARDWARE
<*>
THISWEEK NEWSPAPERS
<*>
TOM TIX PLUMBING & HEATING
<*>
TWO-WAY COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
<*>
UNITED STATES FIGURE SKATING A
<*>
UNITED WAY FUND OF ST. PAUL AR
<*>
UNITOG RENTAL SERVICES
<*>
UNIVERSAL LIGHTING CO.
<*>
ACTIVITY
PARK MAINT
GENERAL FUND
GENERAL FUND
FIRE SERVICES
30-0CT-1997 (11:37)
DESCRIPTION
CHECK AMOUNT CK-SUBSYSTEM
OPER MAT & SUPPL
OTHER PERMITS
PERA
PROF SERVICES
ENGINEERING SERV PROF SERVICES
GEN ACCOUNTING TRANSPORT COSTS
SEWER OPEATIONS OPER MAT & SUPPL
BUILDING MAINT OPER MAT & SUPPL
Senior Center OPER MAT & SUPPL
PLANNING/ZONING TRANSPORT COSTS
EMPLOYEE. EXPENSE PAYROLL EXPENSES
ADMINISTRATION MISC OFF & FURN
SOLID WASTE PROF SERVICES
PLANNING/ZONING TRANSPORT COSTS
BUILDING MAINT OPER MAT & SUPPL
GENERAL FUND CHILD SUPPORT
GENERAL FUND ST CREDIT UNION
PAYROLL SCHOOL & CONF
PARK MAINT OPER MAT & SUPPL
PERSONNEL PRINT & PUBLISH
SOLID WASTE PROF SERVICES
PATROL SERVICES TRANSPORT COSTS
ICE ARENA OPER MAT & SUPPL
GENERAL FUND UNITED WAY
FLEET MAINT SERV
SOLID WASTE
STREET MAINT
WATER UTILITY
LIQUOR
OPER MAT &
OPER MAT &
OPER MAT &
OPER MAT &
SUPPL
SUPPL
SUPPL
SUPPL
OPER MAT & SUPPL
836.09
836.09*
25.00
25.00*
8,064.88
8,064.88*
119.00
119.00*
26.65
26.65*
31.70
31.70*
3.80
3.80*
406.29
406.29*
301.50
301.50*
42.64
42.64*
224.40
224.40*
554.87
554.87*
172.00
172.00*
41.54
41.54*
36.19
36.19*
138.78
138.78*
1,501. 07
1,501. 07*
12.31
12.31 *
13.83
13.83*
338.62
338.62*
232.67
232.67*
158.40
158.40*
348.00
348.00*
29.00
29.00*
14.33
56.24
108.07
8.82
187.46*
257.98
257.98*
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
COUNCIL REGISTER
30-0CT-1997 (11:37)
VENDOR
ACTIVITY
DESCRIPTION
CHECK AMOUNT CK-SUBSYSTEM
VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER SEWER OPEATIONS EQUIP MAINT/RENT 218.60 OH
<*> 218.60*
WALSH, PAUL AND MARY PARK MAINT EQUIP MAINT/RENT 180.00 OH
<*> 180.00*
WALZ, DAVID ESCROW FUND ESCROWS PAYABLE 390.00 OH
<*> 390.00*
WEISENBACH SPECIALTY PRINTING SOLID WASTE SPEC ACT SUPPL 769.37 OH
<*> 769.37*
WINE COMPANY, THE LIQUOR MERCH FOR RESALE 440.00 OH
<*> 440.00*
WOLTERS, MIKE Recreation Prog OPER MAT & SUPPL 449.50 OH
<*> 449.50*
XEROX CORPORATION ADMINISTRATION EQUIP MAINT /RENT 964.88 OH
<*> 964.88*
240,826.39* <*>
APPROVALS:
RISTOW
GAMER
FITCH
CORDES
STRACHAN
~.........-
bO-
FROM:
Mayor, Councilmembers,
City Administrator ~p1J'
Lee Smick,
Planning Coordinator
TO:
SUBJECT:
East Farmington PUD Amendment
DATE:
November 3, 1997
INTRODUCTION
Sienna Corporation is seeking an amendment to the East Farmington PUD in order to provide additional
single-family lots, include the Sauber property within the PUD and create a new typical block configuration.
DISCUSSION
Sienna Corporation proposes the following amendments to the PUD:
. Revise the multi-family use to single-family along County Road 72
. Include the recently annexed Sauber property within the PUD
. Create a new typical block with 18 lots within a block measuring 360' x 385'.
Sienna Corporation proposes to change the existing multi-family use located to the south of County Road 72
to single-family because market pressures are requiring more single-family homes than multi-family housing
at this time. The multi-family use called for 4ll2Proximately 65 units, whereas, 65 single-family lots are
proposed to be developed not only on the multi-family use acreage, but also within the East Farmington 4th
Addition. Sienna intends to locate the single-family lots along County Road 72 in order to create a more
compatible entrance into East Farmington by providing the single-family characteristic to the neighborhood
in this location. SieE~in the two other multi-family locations to the west of the PUD
and along Highway 50 t01.he south. Sienna feels that th~se locaj:(ons_f~mtinue to be better suited for multi-
family uses because of their access to traffiZcorridors. -- ---.-'
Sienna also proposes to amend .!!!.e PUD by including the recently annexed Sauber property located to the
south of County Road 72. This property was annexed into the City after approval by the City Council on
September 15th and will provide additional land acreage for the proposed 65 single-family lots in the East
Farmington 4th Addition. The existing house on the Sauber property will remain and will be connected to
City sewer and water within one year.
The third amendment to the East Farmington PUD will create a ne~typical block configuration with 18 lots
within a block measuring 360' x 385'. This block will add more lots to its location because it is larger in
area than other typical blocks measuring 360' x 360'. This block will be located on the east side of Twelfth
Street in Outlot D.
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the proposed amendments and the Planning Commission
approved the amendments on October 14, 1997 with the following contingencies:
1. The newly created block located in Outlot D shall be site specific to that location. This block size and
- number of lots may not be utilized elsewhere in the PUD.
2. The developer shall be required to maintain the remaining multi-family areas shown on the original
~PUD and shall not be allowed to stray from the original PUD plan. The remaining multi-family areas
fulfill the obligations of the City for the Livable Communities Act and must be developed as planned in
the original PUD.
CitlJ of Farmin9ton 325 Oak Street · FarminfJton} MN 5502~ · (6 72) ~63.77 7 7 · Fax (672) ~63.2597
---
3. The developer should pursue the development of the multi-family areas as soon as possible to provide
those types of uses within the City.
4. Additional engineering infonnation must be addressed by the developer.
ACTION REQUIRED
Approve the East Farmington PUD amendments for revising the multi-family use to single-family along
County Road 72, including the recently annexed Sauber property within the PUD and creating a new typical
block with 18 lots within a block measuring 360' x 385' contingent on the requirements approved by the
Planning Commission and the approval of the final acceptance of the annexation ordinance by the Minnesota
Municipal Board.
~:Q:e
,--.
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
City of Farmington
Community Development Department
Planning Division
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
Community Dev.
Planning
Building Insp.
(612) 463-1860
(612) 463-1820
(612) 463-1830
To:
Farmington Planning Commission
From:
Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator
Date:
October 14, 1997
RE:
East Farmington PUD Amendment
Planning Department Review
Applicant/Owner:
Rodney Hardy
Sienna Corporation
4940 Viking Drive Suite 608
Minneapolis, MN 55435
Surveyors/Engineers:
Jim Sturm
James R. Hill, Inc.
2500 West County Road 42, Suite 120
Burnsville, MN 55337
Referral Comments:
1. Location Map
2. Plat Map
3. Typical Blocks
4. Dakota County Survey & Land Information
Department (see attached)
Report Attachment:
1. City Engineer's Comments
Plat Data
Location of Property:
The property is located to the south of 213th Street
(County Road 72) and to the east of South Suburban
Terrace.
Zoning:
The property is zoned R-2 PUD (Medium Density -
Single Family).
Proposed Amendment:
1. Revise the multi-family use to single-family along
County Road 72.
2. Include the recently annexed Sauber property
within the PUD.
3. Amend the typical block A or C configuration to
allow 18 lots within a block measuring 360' x 385'.
Additional Comments
Sienna Corporation is seeking an amendment to the East Farmington PUD in order to provide
additional single-family lots and include the Sauber property within the PUD. .Sienna Corporation
proposes to change the multi-family use to single-family because market pressures are requiring
more single-family homes than multi-family housing at this time. The multi-family use called for
approximately 65 units, whereas, 65 single-family lots are proposed to be developed not only on
the multi-family use acreage, but also within the East Farmington 4th Addition. Sienna intends to
locate the single-family lots along County Road 72 in order to create a more compatible entrance
into East Farmington by providing the single-family characteristic to the neighborhood in this
location. Sienna will continue to retain the two other multi-family locations to the west of the
PUD and along Highway 50 to the south. Sienna feels that these locations continue to be better
suited for multi-family uses because of their access to traffic corridors.
The effect of amending the multi-family area to single-family concerning the Livable Communities
Act is minimal. The Livable Communities Act requires that the City provide between 32 and 36%
multi-family housing within the City. Therefore, the City must provide between 95 to 200 acres of
multi-family housing to meet the Act's goals. The City recently applied for and additional 714
acres for MUSA expansion, and within those acres, 142 acres are scheduled for multi-family use.
The multi-family area proposed to be amended in the 4th Addition of East Farmington consists of
5.5 acres, therefore, no impact will be foreseen from the removal of this multi-family area from
the calculations of the Livable Communities Act.
Sienna also proposes to amend the peD by including the recently annexed Sauber property located
to the south of County Road 72. This property was annexed into the City after approval by the
City Council on September 15th and will provide additional land acreage for the proposed 65
single-family lots in East Farmington 4th Addition. The existing house on the Sauber property will
remain and will be connected to City sewer and water within one year. The architectural elements
of the Sauber house meets the requirements set fonh in the Developer's Agreement for East
Farmington and is allowed to remain at its existing location.
The third amendment to the East Farmington PUD involves the revision of the typical block A or
C configuration. The existing typical block A contains 15 lots and block C contains 16 lots.
These blocks measure 360' x 360'. Sienna Corporation proposes to revise this typical block to
measure 360'x 385' and will contain 18 lots. This block will be located on the east side of Twelfth
Street in Outlot D. The City Attorney has determined that since the proposed block is larger, a
greater number of lots may be allowed within the block.
Staff recommends the following:
1. The proposed block amendment located in Outlot D shall be site specific to that location. This
block size and number of lots may not be utilized elsewhere in the PUD.
2. The developer shall be required to maintain the remaining multi-family areas shown on the
original PUD and shall not be allowed to stray from the original PUD plan. The remaining
multi-family areas fulfill the obligations by the City for the Livable Communities Act and must
be developed as planned in the original pun.
3. The developer should pursue the development of the multi-family areas as soon as possible to
provide those types of uses within the City.
4. Additional engineering information must be addressed by the developer.
Recommendation
Approve the East Farmington PUD amendment and forward the amendment to the City Council.
-- ------ -. ---.
I'
i
I
I
I
I
I
~)I
I
.1
01
-,
~
CO. RC.~D ~O. 72
" \~...
t'
~./
"
>-
<:
3:
I
C'
...;..
~
Z
~
Ct:1
l-
I
I
~
I-
<:
l-
V)
.. '. .......
: :,~"< ! . I '. ~ . ':'., :: ~
. "."' I :. . I : f
" \ ~ i ~ i ~ Yi i
c,~
,\>-
c,<-'"
';' ~ '~{l -, J [' ., l!':'-' .
";I;';.j-_l 1. i 1 . ,.:- !
,'! -.1. _. '.~ "', 1:'\~"4
- - ". . -
Il STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 50
. SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 114, RANGE 19
NO SCALE
.-,..
H
.
.., I.' '" ~
, I " ,.
~I ' _.~ -
i 1 r '
,/ / ---- ~
.:.::::::.:.5
,
\
\
...... ~,-
I,~--:'''';'--~l
'Sl <.::> ~ \
_ II . .,_:0'. '
... - -- - - - - -
I ... :'" : l
: ,- .-\
'. . I'f-~ I
--------
I :- - - .:;:: :;..- - -: I
\,~ ~ ~\
',- ~'':''~'"='-'';
1 (* - -:"""7";3"1 --
,~1 'i
;::1 ...j c
''';1 ..
I ~ _._'''_':.o~ - .:
,- - - ~ ~.- - j
,
I
I
~ ,_ _ :..:~,.i.,t'2-_ ~
'> C'l -
..
t- - - --
. 0.: ~.:u
1 '
I~I ~ r-
-I
'- _:-:~-!:....s~ _ ~
- - :.~_. --
\ .~
o
'- _ ~'L'~~'\_ ~
i.- -rr:~ - - -
.1 '
I~I N ..
"I 1. ~:''':'':''':ll''
L _ _..,.:~)~ - --
r - - ,,-:;,.,- - -:
'.
'.l:"'.~ ~
~ - - :..'~!- - ~
r - " :1 - .., i r - '.~ :::;~' i r - - " - - :r - c. ;, - -: ; r -0:': -: \
II : I t.. I I....:! ~_ "'1 'r-~.. : I ~ :
\'''' ... - I. I " '
. "'J ,.. .> I - - , ... -' .. ,
;1 ;:: I'~ ~.., ~ I ~; ~ :~ I ~; ,..., ~ I~; N :~ l
'I '\.:; "\; "I'~ .,\1-: I
I 'I' III :11 , I I
L. -r;"{l - .: I ~ - c:: 1'7( - ~ ,la -~: : - ~ I\..- r~-:: - .:. It. -"-'''~ .;
1.:::::<::15
r-"l\':'-j r-:::~-,lr.-~'~-~
I I '.. I 1 ,
~I & :.:: ~ -= ~
~I~.., ^.,~ ~~:--.~
~ ~- -.':., ."
I I :: I = t
I I I I 1 1
L _ !f!! _ J l.. _ ~;.&_.l I. _ r-!:_ J
r - -",-000" - - -:
ol ...:......;:>e 81
:;t ~ 01
.., '. -I
'- _._I.":Ci...:C~ _ ..;
r -~~-; r-"""-~i
, 1 1 I
-- i ~ t~
~ . ~,... I~
" 0 ~ Co"" I~
~ I = I
!. I I I
I.~.!"::C_ J '- .!"_"'_..1
\r--o,~..--"
~ ....~~ ~
t' -.'- r
'-_ !..'.t.'~_.J
r -- ~5Ot- - i
r - -..;,,;; - - i
~ n _!:
'"l '''I
L _..:I....*....:rj _ ~
! - ~.:
: - ~~
L_ !.~:.~~_J
.- - -1~O1& - - -,
,- - - ..J 0:.- - .,
t ~ ;~
(" .o.l."..~ .-
~-_'!:~'--...;
~I N ~~
:;1 ...
... ...:.~:"C:' 4,
\.__~rs.I_-..;
r - ;; ., - '"I r - .,. - - '"I i r - ~.- - '"i I r - .., ::" - - I .. - - - .,
. 1 1 0;. ... . I Ie... r:T"='":" r.r ..J: 'i....;..
I I ~ I :-' ~ :- t to" I -
::I r;'::: l:) ~;: ~., ft2,..~ ~ ~ l:: C;
:..;1 - ~: ~ ... :.;;;' - '..:: If:.- ... j.:": ~ I;.
_. ., ;:: -, \;;:: ,-,;.:: I ,::: .
I I .- I ( I " : t I
. ,Ii I , .. \. ' '- .
-----. ------ ------ ----- ----
I.I I' \": C'I .-: ':..:.. ,:",., tr..'-:.t
.
i
I
I
;..;.:.\::~:::no.:J
I ". I ~ loll , oX .... I ...... ....~ ~,,' .,
1------. r-----,r----.... r-----; r----'
\ , , ! 0_ I I j " I '.'
1_. . ~ \ ::. I . : \ :.' ~: -
-: ...j ~! D ,.." S = F ~ u: :"::'~ C>
... ! -"';_. '-' 0 ~ ~ :"- 0< ~ t::) ~
1..1 !.:.. :',1 ~ /,!"I
. ": _: ;..: _...... I' :~ ~ \ ?' . ;-l: ,I .. I:'''': :'~ t
,._____ 1.... .,1 _ ,1.___.__
. - - - - - - .!. ~ _" I _. ~'I.... _ .... ';.."'" _ _ _ - _
j :~:r.-~ ...::.,{'.... ~.~ I.._~<"'~~~\~..~.... ...--;:. X~L-:
s. .J ~ c..t~ I r7:"~"\. 0 'f
; r' ~ to I:SS I,
I .;--)_ " ,.... _, ., ~ '., I-
~~--~~---- ~--~~~~--~
l_:::;-c.:-~7---: r---~;:.---..,
.;: ~.: n:-OJ;' ~~ ~ - - :~
1_, .; -. ," 0 1-
~:..__~__:_~!! _ _.: '- __.....;~..I.:.....::.~~_ _.J
i-
l- L: ~C .~.:. - - -1. ;~-:.;..~.::.- ---:
~ ;-:. _'. N' ,f 0 N ;=-
- -I -&" ~., - '.
,..., I .... ")..~., :..:-~;-. 'I r -rXc"i - ., ',\i,. t';-..... .....r:#:..~ ~~I!~~..::.,~.
~: ~.-:;~-:.~(.~'" :\~. :II~. ~~~;llr-~il-'
: . " ~. , :.. ~ :.. I 1\ 1
: .' ~! i ~.: ~ '. I ~ l,,'") ~ I;; '<" 1 I:'" _ I
~" .. , " \.~ ~ I ,I 1'~ I ,:; " ,~.
-1 ~':~ -, a ';\"~ :;. .~ :.
I ~____~il~--_-~II~-___~ ~____~\I~___-J I
... ~. l'J ~: ,.... 1'1' .,~ ....1 r't"'.....l ~
i-l.1~~'~-= l-~ii-l,f'
",' \oj
r---'
. I
:: I
~ ~ ~
::: I
, 1
L_"".1'!. .l
r ---,"~ ,
1.. 1
_ AI
." ..
Z C) :;;
;: I
. ~";1
l.. -,,":J" _ .l
r :~.-,
. I
.: I"
~ 0 ,~
~ - I~
:: 1.
I I ~
'- !'~..1 I
I ;-~-;:; ;--"'~i ;.:"-'~i
"I ~ ~ ~:;, i
~ ~.., ~ 2 ~ s: ;c r-- z:
f' 'j a i;a i
I I I I 1 I
'-~"'!...1 l.. ..o<.1"_.l l.. ..a:~_ .l
Mr--rEt5--"
....:. -=-- I
i: ~ ~I
n -.
I ~ _._.::_,~ - ~
I)" - -o;--s ~ ~
!:J n ..1
., -I
, ~~~-'i.'!!'_ ~
tr~'t 05 ~ .. - :;~
a-J'.' ("'II ~l
..." J ..
I' ...:.,.-~ I
'- _ _:c..~ _ _ ~ .
1 ;- %;; ;1\; -:i'~ ; I ; -,.-~;
I 1:-' I ~ J
r':.~ - ::\:i ~ ~~ .. ~ ::
.,- .. .... .~
.s -, ~ -I t: -I
I 1 I , I I
'-__'-: l..___": l..___":
I"C~ nc~' IIC::'
~
c:
r--~;;..,--.., .i
, 1.'.....00. t I
;::: l~
r _ J....0S<"2"_ ~ \
r - - ::~- -,
tq N 1f'
~~_ - I:
'"0 I'
L ..,:~'~'5:0'!'C_.J
... 1- _.) . - .. .,
'",:" j ;';''''' 1
r:'..) - If.
,.. '2..1' ,~.:.CtI ...
'-__~~__..J
I' -c'::" , r -,z:. 1 .. L.c':"t'"
I I I I I I
!" I ... I .. :_ i
~ ~ ~ r. .::
I~ ~ ~.., ~
.r. :) If. - ~ c: - ~, :
~ -I I~ I ':: r
:t
I I I 1 1 I I
\.___.l \.___.l ,-__..J
""". r.:M t'J','"
1-
'"
/
..
/
/
'{T ~
L_~J
1\.,rL ~
~I
:::J
, .
~
n ~ ~
~
l\fI
I~
I (1 ><:l'
~
ni$
IUL_-
~
J
l"!'?,>:.o.t ~ :~ ~~:S
\.. .. I ..
~ J
0
..'1 ..
... I
s :s
I
\ I
s :s
0 .", ,
.. .. I I
z
I - 'I .. i
1 .. ..
>-
<. l':"?I>:.o.t C 16 lC:S
:: I .. oo,",.,"
:c
l:)
:c .. .. . -
I 's
...
. . S
~ -
Z .. ..
)~r-- ..
T'I1'ICAl. [ 15 LOTS
I w \
I- -
<.
l- I
t.n
7':?".:,&.:. 5
14 lOlS
~ ~ , ..
I.
i
A
:1
:s
I
i
~I:AL 0 16 lOTS
~
.~
n?IC.AI. r 11 LO lS
1yPICAL C 17 LC~S T':?:AL H \1 L01S
J .. . r"!
I !
.. .. -
... ...
S
s elf
.",
s
.. ...
,. .. ..
,
.. ..
.. .. ..
bb
FROM:
Mayor, Councilmembers,
City Administrator~ /~
Lee Smick, . () I )
Planning Coordinato~
TO:
SUBJECT:
Charleswood PUD
Schematic Plan
DATE:
November 3, 1997
INTRODUCTION
Charleswood PUD is located to the south of 195th Street (County Road 64) and to the west of the proposed
Pilot Knob Road expansion.
DISCUSSION
The property is currently zoned R-l and consists of 396 acres and is included in the MUSA Expansion
application dated August 22, 1997. The developer proposes to rezone the property to R-3 PUD and develop
the land in phases consisting of Low/Medium density at 105.9 acres; Commercial/High density at 34.5 acres;
Medium density at 14.7 acres; Parkland and Open Space at 186.0 acres; Future Development at 9.0 acres;
and possible Future Development at 34.4 acres.
The fIrst phase will consist of the Low/Medium density area in the northwest portion of the site. The number
of possible housing units in this location will range from 211 to 741. The road layout shown on the plan is a
schematic and will not reflect the fmallayout of the roadway system.
At this time, no sewer services are readily available for the property. A sanitary sewer study is being
performed by the City's Engineering Division in order to construct a trunk line from the industrial park to the
north to provide services to Charleswood. The study will be completed shortly and the construction of the
trunk line will coincide with the construction of the County Road 31 expansion.
The following are contingencies to the approval of the schematic plan by the Planning Commission:
1. The slopes on the plan are required to be protected and left in their natural state as per Ordinance 11-4-8.
2. The road layout shown on the Schematic Plan shall not be accepted as part of the Schematic Plan
approval.
3. The road layout shall conform to the City's Thoroughfare Plan.
4. The Medium and High Density Residential areas shown on the schematic Plan shall be developed as
shown in order to meet the Livable Communities Act requirements and were included in the MUSA
Expansion application dated August 22, 1997.
ACTION REQUIRED
Amend the R-l zone to R-3 PUD by approving the Charleswood Schematic Plan, contingent on requirements
stipulated by the Planning Commission.
Re..s.pec.tfullY sUbm~itted' __
-~/ A; -'
._.~.'-......
~. Lee Smick, AICP -
Planning Coordinator
Citl}. of FarminiJton 325 Oak Street. FarminiJton, MN 5502~ · (612) ~63.7111 · Fait (612) ~63.2591
City of Farmington
Community Development Department
Planning Division
325 Oak Street
Farmington, l\L.~ 55024
Community Dev.
Planning
Building Insp.
(612) 463-1860
(612) 463-1820
(612) 463-1830
To:
Farmington Planning Commission
From:
Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator
Date:
October 14, 1997
RE:
Charleswood Schematic Plan
Planning Department Review
Applicant/Owner:
Genstar Land Company Midwest
11000 West 78th Street
Suite 201
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Surveyors/Engineers:
Westwood Professional Services
14180 West Highway 5
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Report Attachment:
1. Location Map
2. Concept Land Use Plan
3. Natural Features Map
4. Submittal Letter from Genstar Land Company
5. Thoroughfare Plan
Plan Data
Location of Property:
The property is located to the south of 195th Street
(Coumy Road 64) and to the west of the proposed Pilot
Knob Road Expansion
Existing Zoning:
The property is zoned R-l (Low Density - Single
Family).
Proposed Zoning:
The property is proposed to be rezoned to R-3 PUD.
Proposed Development:
This development consists of 396 acres of land to be
developed into phases of Low/Medium Density - 105.9
acres, Commercial/High Density - 34.5 acres, Medium
Density - 14.7 acres, Parkland and Open Space - 186.0
acres, Future Development - 9.0 acres and Possible
Future Development - 34.4 acres.
Streets:
The Schematic Plan shows the property is bounded on
the nonh by 195 Street and on the east by the Pilot
Knob Road Expansion. The streets shown on the plan
are conceptual, and staff recommends that the layout of
the street system shown on the plan should not be a
part of the approval for the Schematic Plan. Further
review must be completed by the developer and City
Engineer.
Topography:
The site is characterized by gently rolling hills at the
north side of the property and wetlands, farmland and
natural areas to the south side of the property. The
drainage for the property generally flows to the
southeast.
Wetlands:
Farmington's Surface Water Management Plan
indicates that wetlands exist on the southertn portion of
the property and will be left in its current state, until
funher studies by the developer are conducted.
Public Utilities:
At this time, no sewer services are readily available for
the property. A sanitary sewer study is being
conducted by the City's Engineering Division in order
to construct a trunk line from the industrial park to the
north to provide services to Charleswood. The study
is soon to be completed, and after approval and
funding sources are determined, the line will be built
Parkland Dedication:
by the City. No timeline has been determined by the
City as to when the trunk line will be constructed.
The Farmington Park & Recreation Board has
reviewed the proposed locations of parks on the site
and has initially approved the locations. The developer
has stated that they would install playground equipment
in the parks to complete the park and would designate
this contribution as their park dedication requirement.
The Parks & Recreation Board has agreed to this
dedication.
Density:
Commercial/High Density
High/Medium Density
Medium Density
Low IMedium Density
Total Density
15 to 18 VIA
5 to 18 V I A
4 to 7 V I A
2 to 7 V I A
2.6 to 10 VIA
Additional Comments
Staff requires the following items to be addressed by the developer:
.! The slopes on the plan should be protected and should be left in their natural state. Ordinance
11-4-8 requires that slopes over twenty percent shall not be altered from their natural drainage
system state.
.! The road layout shown on the Schematic Plan shall not be accepted as part of the Schematic
Plan approval.
.! The road layout shall conform to the City's Thoroughfare Plan as shown on the attached
information.
.! The Medium and High Density Residential areas shown on the Schematic Plan have been
included in the MUSA Expansion application dated August 22, 1997 and were calculated to
meet the Livable Communities Act's objectives. Therefore, staff recommends that these areas
continue to development as proposed in order to meet the objectives of the Act.
Recommendation
Staff recommends amending the R-l zone to R-3 PVD by approving the Charles wood Schematic
Plan and forwarding the plan to the City Council on November 3, 1997.
V I I ct I It::;) 'J\I U U U
L..ULictlIUII
lUIUP
------ - ---~-----------.- -- ..---..----
.-
. ..
." ... ..- .
'.,
.- .....
- ..--' ..
- - .'
'. .. .'. ..-. ,-'
...... ......
" .... -'. .'
..... .-' ~ i.::' ~ ..
- ...-.._. -..:."::..... ...;.~_. .::.:-- ....'?
..; ;..-.
... ... '. .~..
.'
00' . ',-. :.... -,
.:. ::;.:,':" ~ :...- .",:
. .c. ". ." -._
',' .......
.. -:-:'.~ ". :.:
.: ~
,. .'~ - '." : .."
.. .......-
.,;..-
':' '. .',
. ....
!~I1~:i~
l....,/,~.,.,~.:.},....,'<..l \ .'.
--~~~;~1;~~;;"~' ''''lr :-,..._:-;_{t~_~l~~~___
____.1 ~.- =i--~---_.",'
I _.__---, ! e,' -. .~. .~~.~_,
: ; ---~
i r ; ~ --::-...
-=-_ !..___ J::~-" ! - .. .. _...!-~: =-;..~.=-
, I. & ... '.. -....:I. ... .~- ...... ..
o ;. .--. ~!! I:" r;---; j . .--.~~-.~.~.,. ~ !...
1 ,-_..l I' I ___." ---------" ". ....-.......u
; _~ 1 ! i ; ~::::t ~__ i- ! _41...,'" r"
_ t ___-_........_____.1---,---1.----.---.-. s:--
---.-- .-- --,-"'- ;; I ;~;._,,'-J ~ ! ..0 ~:! .:~t2.._~... ..
.' ~. I ...:' .' "'. .... .'" -'-"".
I I :: ;>_'K'~'>!''''1 ...."'.~,.._._--'" !.
" : .~~-::M;:~iiri:;=';-:+-:~~~"'~-::=' L_
. . .=--:.:.:. fi;..;.(._ ";;i;l1.~ ';;I-m ~ r":~ ,-- l i
: ; '~~T;;~::'Ul;?.t.~~i""'j~!~' ~1:-.l.j :: -: :
.." ,!;,r.;! ! i :.Ii .-
! ! rT--"
~_I__-
.... ..
!
______i
,
;
!
--~-__r_.~-~.-
I L__....~
! -----{ ,
:----i ---,
: r-j !
. .
!. 1
-. .
/\ /" Pilot Knob Road Realignment
& City Boundary
:~j City Map
N
W+E
s
l.l '.
\
.;l
,
t..
" ffil
-i -i .\11: .. ';'1'\ I'.:
-i :J. -i -i ,) ,) " .Jit "'. ::.
II 0 <( <( <( <( 4. <C, <( 4.
~ -; () () III III r- II"" () '1" () ~~
I , -c 2 '1" -t ui .' '1' -Ii ...
~ l.l ~~
" .' 0) S:1 <fI ~ lit c
L D <fI N i: ~ c
-.!
3' if' .,; ~~ ~n ~~
~ Ii-
0 ';;) "' Cl
fol c c "'- '< d::
D <) :or ~ ~ b ~ .
~ D D ,(
I '" I!:: L
:::,
" Q E c E .,; :> '"
:n 0 :> ~ :> ~ IL 0 ,,~
~ ";) 1) Q 1) ~~
~ 0 '- Q ~ lo)
~ n. 0) <) ~ Q :n ~
0 ~ ~ ~ Q ";;j '"
}1 ~ -fi, ~ r ..~ S b i
> 0 :> 1J
01 !,) u I :;: .J LL 0.. L.
f- D ()
j 1
'-~
I
<(
t I
1
~
I i J
I ~ f
] l
=
A
,~
I I I
, I,
I I
I \
I(
;J ~I
w, -; {
~ I ~t...,1
ll.. 11\ 1\
IfI " i -
7-
IU f\ \
ll..
0 \1 \.
~
\,-,~ 1'\ (;.--
,r,
,(
I
oc
. !
: i
i ~
! 1
I
OC
..,'
01
;J;l
.J~~~
~Hi:
~
~
1?!-,",SICl IOO~?S
II!H haJJ.
5..
t'H
:;oB
.1;) ..0 ......< U,>'K-. ~t_..-
\
\
\.
II D
on
'"'-----" l.l
\11 0...
\l c 1:1
-- ~I in on ~ <-
1:1
c % Q
-- Q. Q 'U
l.l ~ \l \)
(\)\ l.l \l ~
-1 Iii ii:
(",
,
"-- ..~
"
,-,-,~ ,
I
,
'I I
, I
- ,f-
~~ j I
~ Ii: ~;,.
V It J
,,1 ~
z
"
~----------
/ '"
'-
/
/'i/
~ v,)
\-//
"'-//
, )
~,
, ,~
'v C,
'0
/ ,'J
I '
\....1......1
11\ II
Ij i -
, I
t'! 1
. 1\ ~
I,
~I (
)~
,~
(\ \
~' I"~
r--
.
)
I,
II
1~""
1?:
,. !
;
(
! I
;,':1
.
.
.
.
.
.. .
:i ';
,
,
. __.~_l--'; ~'H''::
, ;-'~-.{: --.r' -
" . . !, .......~~ -
~:4~/" "; 1 L
,'- 'f;.. .' t
~~t.t ' ~<" .
~ . ,,' '---1-"-- --'- a
':-.. ,"'.' ,',,'I~. I I~' I, .0
.::d' .~~':' ~ '-1: I J
- >--r-'-~
; -;--- -l------t-- 1-
, 1 I I
r'.~rz~T'-1
_f _-
./-
. '-...J '.
, .>/
'~I
L
PI.t;"Ia I004">S
IPH FiOJ.1.
in-e,,,,!;,.. Lfr-.'-' a....tJ....."-<!"
1 I
~ I
o.
i
~
! }I
} 1 i
jl
~
~
~ 1
! !
"D'
01
0'-
,!I!!
.1."2
':I:ii
... .t
t"~
~
GENSTAR
Genstar Land Company Midwest
; ; 000 .'1est 78th Street
S:.;ite 201
Eden Prairie. MN 55344
Tel: (612) 942-7844
Fax: (612) 942-8075
September 19, 1997
Mayor and City Council
Planning Commission
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, Minnesota 55042
RE: Astra Genstar Partnership, L.L.P., P.U.D. and Schematic Plan Submittal.
Dear Mayor, Councilmembers, and Commission Members;
The Astra Genstar Partnership, L.L.P., is requesting P.U.D. and Schematic Plan approval
from the City of Farmington for Charleswood, an approximately 166 acre (developable)
parcel located southwest of the future 195th Avenue South and County Road 31 intersection
(legal description is attached).
We are requesting a P.U.D. approval to designate the subject property land uses that will
allow both you and us the ability to respond to market demands and changes as the planned
community matures. The flexibility that we are requesting is necessary to develop a quality
master planned community that can respond to market trends and result in a quality project.
Ownership and Experience
The Astra Genstar Partnership, L.L.P., is a partnership formed between Astra Projects, Inc.
(Seed Family) and Genstar Land Company Midwest (Genstar). Genstar serves as the
managing partner throughout the development process. The Partnership was formed in 1993
to facilitate the planning and development of the Seed Family holdings throughout the Twin
Cities Metropolitan area. Upon approval of a fmal plat, the Partnership, will purchase the
property legally described by the final plat from the Seed Family. Once owned by the
Partnership, the Partnership will service, market and sell individual lots and parcels to home
builders, individuals or commercial developers. Individually, each partner has been
developing property for several decades. The Seed Family has developed property in the
cities of Brooklyn Park (the Edinburgh Golf Course Area), Savage, Anoka, and Farmington.
Genstar has developed property since 1950 throughout North America (see the attached
History and Activity of Genstar and the attached Genstar company brochure). In the Twin
Cities, Genstar has developed, or is developing projects, in Anoka, Savage, Brooklyn Park
and Woodbury.
Page Two
Charleswood P.D.D.
September 19, 1997
Character of the Charleswood Master Planned Community
Charleswood will primarily be a residential community that consists of a variety of
residential styles and densities. In addition, because of the anticipated construction of
County Road 31, there is the potential for commercial (retail and/or office) to be developed
at the intersection of 195th Avenue South and County Road 31.
Charleswood will be developed in several phases (see phasing below). The first phase will
be a detached single family neighborhood located directly south of Troy Hill and 195th
Avenue South' Oow/medium density residential property). This neighborhood will consist
primarily of 75 foot wide lots marketed toward housing in the $120,000 to $200,000 price
range. As each subsequent phase of the property is planned, the land plan will be refined to
better address the physical characteristics and the ever-changing market conditions. This
refmement will most likely modify the road layout, lot configuration (size and location), and
potentially the land use Oow density to medium density). The schematic plan that has been
submitted is for illustrative purposes only, the plan is not intended to be a final development
plan for the entire low/medium density property. The southern portion of the property
Oabeled possible future development and open space) will be left in its current state, farming
and natural, until further studies can be completed to determine its best long term use. If it
is determined that any portion of the property is developable or appropriate for some other
use than what the property currently is used for, an amendment to the Charleswood P.D.D.
will be requested.
Along with the traditional construction of roads and utilities, an amenity program will be
introduced that will include low maintenance entryway features, boulevard tree plantings,
wetland preservation, parkland dedication, standardized mailbox structures, and architectural
controls that will ensure the construction of a quality neighborhood. Further, a marketing
program will be implemented that will include five to seven preferred builders, model
homes, semi annual builder events, marketing brochures, and controlled identification and
directional signage. Lots will also be sold to other builders and private individuals to
increase the variety of housing styles.
Develonment Schedule
We have started the planning process now with the intent of gaining P.D.D. and Phase I
development approval over the next several months. With these approvals, we plan to start
grading the property and constructing utilities and streets in the spring, 1998 with completion
by August, 1998 and have model homes open for viewing for the Builders Association 1998
Fall Parade of Homes (September, 1998). The one timing consideration that is out of our
control is the extension of the trunk sanitary sewer to this property. Prior to any house
being occupied on this property, the City must construct the sanitary trunk line from the
industrial park north to this property. It is important that this schedule be achieved in order
Page Three
Charleswood P.D.D.
September 19, 1997
to take advantage of the current favorable market conditions (interest rates and housing
demand) .
Subsequent phases will depend on the absorption levels in phase I, the completion of County
Road 31, and the interest of multiple family builders and commercial developers in the
medium and high density residential and commercial parcels. With a strong market and the
timely completion of off-site infrastructure, Charleswood could be completed in five years.
However, if the market slows or the completion of the off-site infrastructure is not completed
in a timely manner, it could take several additional years to complete Charleswood.
Ultimate Ownership
All low density residential neighborhoods will have public streets, utilities, and ponding
areas. Any amenity constructed on the site (i.e. entryway feature) will be either maintained
by an individual homeowner or a homeowners association. The medium/high density
neighborhoods will have some public streets and utilities that will be maintained by the City
of Farmington. There is also the likelihood of some privately owned streets, parking areas,
and utilities in the medium/high density residential developments that would be privately
owned and maintained by a homeowners association. The ultimate ownership of the streets
and utilities in the medium/high density neighborhoods will depend on the type of
medium/high density developments that are constructed. Any commercial development will
have public street access with privately owned and maintained parking areas.
Services Provided
Charleswood will be part of the City of Farmington and will rely on the City of Farmington
and School District #192 to provide standard municipal services. Services such as police and
fire protection, ambulance service, utility service, street maintenance, public education,
recreation programs, etc. are expected to be provided by the City of Farmington. Any street
or utility that is privately owned will be maintained by the private property owners.
PODuIation projections
Below is a projected population range for the project. It should be noted that the information
is only a guess-estimate. Given the ever-<:hanging demographic characteristics of the Twin
Cities Metropolitan Area, it is extremely difficult to predict household trends into the future.
The estimates are conservatively high, specifically for the Low/Medium density portion of
the property. If the Low/Medium density property develops as all low density, the total
population would be reduced by approximately 700 persons and the school aged population
would be reduced by approximately 450 people.
Page Four
Charleswood P.D.D.
September 19, 1997
Land Use Units Pop. Total Total Adult Total Total School
Calc. Population Age Children Aged
Com/High o to 207 1.8 o to 372 o to 372 o to 167 o to 133
High/Med 172 to 621 1.8 309 to 1, 117 170 to 1, 117 o to 502 o to 401
Medium 58 to 103 1.8 104 to 185 57 to 185 o to 83 Ot066
Low/Med. 211 to 741 2.5 527 to 1,852 210 to 1,481 105 to 1, 111 84 to 888
Total 411 to 1,672 N/A 940 to 3,526 437 to 3,155 105 to 1,863 84 to 1,422
Assumptions:
(1) The range of the adult and children population per each unit for each land use is as follows:
Percent of total population of each land use
ComIHigh
HighlMed
Medium
LowlMed
Adult Population
55% to 100%
55% to 100%
55% to 100%
40% to 80%
Children Population
0% to 45%
0% to 45%
0% to 45%
20% to 60%
(2) 80% of the population not classified as adults (population calculator less adults) are school age
children.
Astra Genstar Partnership, L.L.P., looks forward to working with you and your staff on
Charleswood and future Seed Family property in the City of Farmington. If you or any of
your constituents ever have a question regarding our plans or practices, please feel free to
contact me.
Sincerely
Genstar Land Company Midwest
~
Steven P. J uetten
Development Manager
attachments
GENSTAR
September 1997
mSTORY AND ACTIVITY OF GENSTAR DEVELOPMENT
AND GENSTAR LMTD COl\fPANY
Genstar traces its roots back to the Simkin family in Winnipeg, Canada. For decades the family
had been in the business of supplying coal and wood to heat homes. They ventured into the
construction business under the name of BACM Industries, Ltd., and in 1950 moved into the
land development aspect of construction when they financed and serviced a residential parcel for
private sale to homebuilders.
By the time the Company was sold to Genstar Corporation in 1973, BACM had expanded their
land development operations to include Calgary and Edmonton. Also, in 1973, the head office
for the land development group was moved from Winnipeg to Vancouver where lands were
acquired in the Lower Mainland to continue the expansion of the business in Western Canada.
The land development operation name changed from BACM Development Company to Genstar
Development Company.
Genstar Corporation acquired Abbey Glen Corporation in 1976. The Abbey Glen lands were
rationalized and integrated with the existing Genstar land inventory, doubling the size of the
holdings to approximately 30,000 acres and adding Toronto to the sphere of operations. At the
same time, Genstar began an active acquisition program in the United States.
Imasco Limited of Montreal acquired Genstar Corporation in 1986. All of the operating
companies that made up Genstar Corporation, including the land development operations in the
United States, were sold off by Imasco, except for Canada Trust and Genstar Development
Company in Canada. Imasco Limited is a major Canadian consumer products and services
company with operations in Canada and the United States. Its wholly-owned operations include
Imperial Tobacco, Shoppers Drug MartlPharmaprix, Fast Food Merchandisers and Genstar
Development Company. I1T!asco also owns approximately 98% of the common shares of CT
Financial Services, Inc., the parent of the Canada Trust group of companies.
In 1991, Genstar again began an active acquisition program in the United States.
In 1994, the U. S. operations of Genstar were incorporated under Genstar Land Company and
the Head Offices for Genstar Development Company and Genstar Land Company were relocated
to San Diego.
Genstar constructs serviced lots and parcels for sale to home builders and property developers
in master-planned communities. Genstar does not build houses, apartments, shopping centers
or industrial buildings, although all are land uses that may form a part of our master-planned
community. Nor does Genstar engage in tied selling. Builders who purchase from Genstar are
free to purchase materials from any supplier they may wish, arrange fmancing with an institution
of their choice and engage or not engage any real estate broker as they may choose.
Page Two
Genstar History
September 1997
Under close direction and strict instruction from Genstar's management, the Company employs
and relies upon local consultants for all of its requirements for planning, engineering, surveying
and construction. All work is tendered or negotiated and all sales are performed without conflict
of interest.
Genstar is directed by its own Board of Executives. Its head office is in San Diego with
regional offices in Burnaby, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Minneapolis, San
Diego, Portland, Spokane, Atlanta and Tampa.
CHARLESWOOD
DENSITY CALCULATIONS
Land Use Acres n,velling Estimated
C.ategory Units Per Total Units
Acre
Commercial! 11.5 15 to 18 o to 207
High Density (if high density)
Residential *
High/ 34.5 5 to 18 172 to 621
Medium Density
Residential **
Medium Density 14.7 4 to 7 58 to 103
Residential **
Low/ 105.9 2 to 7 211 to 741
Medium Density
Residential **
Total all Land Use 166.6 2.6 to 10 441 to 1,672
Categories
* The Commercial/High Density Residential designation allows the City and Astra Genstar
the opportunity to respond to market forces at the time the property is available for
development. With this mixed designation, there is the potential for the site to be developed
solely as commercial, high density residential, or a combination of both. Based on this, if
the property is developed as commercial, no residential units will be constructed on the site.
* * Similar to the frrst land use designation, the remaining three land use designations allow
the City and Astra Genstar the opportunity to respond to market forces at the time of
development. The property will develop as residential. What is not known today is what
type of residential. Given the ever changing demographics and consumer preferences, the
higher density residential developments continue to change in character and appearance.
Today we can see detached townhouses, twin homes, quad homes, attached townhouses, etc.
As we proceed with development of this area, the type of residential will become better
defined.
CHARLESWOOD
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The Southeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 114, Range 20, according to
the Government Survey thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota.
The Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, Section 26, Township 114,
Range 20, according to the Government Survey thereof, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
The Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, Section 25, Township 114,
Range 20, according to the Government Survey thereof, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
The Northeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 114, Range 20, according to
the Government Survey thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota.
~Marcus Cable
70--
City of Farmington
Mr. John Erar
3625 194th St.
Farmington MN 55024
OCT 2 3 .L~,:,
October 10, 1997
Dear Mr. Erar,
We at Marcus Cable understand how important it is to offer our customers the best possible
service at the best possible prices. However, like every business in town we are faced with
increased operating costs. Effective November 15, 1997 our customers will begin seeing an
adjustment to the monthly rate of premium services. Outlined below are the rate adjustments
present and effective November 15, 1997.
CHANNEL(s) CURRENT RATE NEW RATE ADJ.
Home Box Office $11. 95 monthly $12.95 monthly $1.00
Showtime $10.95 monthly $11.95 monthly $1.00
Cinemax $10.95 monthly $11.95 monthly $1.00
The Movie Channel $10.95 monthly $11.95 monthly $1.00
MVP Package $21.95 monthly $23.95 monthly $2.00
MVP Package Plus $26.95 monthly $28.95 monthly $2.00
HBO/Music Choice Combo $15.95 monthly $16.95 monthly $1.00
Marcus Cable's new rate structure meets federal price guidelines and remains consistent with the
regulations established by the Federal Communications Commission as well as the terms of our
franchise agreement with the City of Apple Valley MN.
If you have any questions or need additional information. please feel free to call.
Sincerely,
Marcus Cable
Karen Sanderson
District Manager
.: _l Y'
') "'~()SeITl()tl 11 [, ,i 1 r~ r11=~:i_) T-~l
U----<"';J '; 1._
'"
16
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
City Administrator.1k
I
FROM: David L. Olson
Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Change to CDBG Allocation
DATE: November 3,1997
INTRODUCTION
The City of Farmington is a member of District 4 of Dakota County for the purpose of the
distribution of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds that are received by
Dakota County. The other member Cities are Lakeville, Rosemount, and Hastings. The
Dakota County HRA and the member cities are proposing to amend the distribution
formula for CDBG funds starting in Fiscal Year 1999.
DISCUSSION
For a number of years, the four cities have shared equally in the amount of CDBG funds
appropriated for District 4 which amounted to $306,024 in 1997. The program was set up
so that Farmington and Lakeville each share half of the total amount in odd numbered
years and Rosemount and Hastings each share half of the total amount in even numbered
years. This formula resulted in Farmington receiving $153,012 in 1997 most of which is
being used at the Senior Center and for accessibility improvements at the Swimming Pool
and several parks.
The Dakota County HRA staff and representatives from the four member cities r<:?~ently
met and reached a tentative agreement to modify the formula to have half of the~
distribution based on th_l? l!ldD formula_which relies heavily on population and the other
half of the distribution would be made on equal sh~~!)Jo ~fQ!!!cities. Representatives
of the larger cities indicated that the current formula is not the most equitable
arrangement and that the arrangement should be similar to the distribution of funds in
other Districts in the County. The current arrangement in District 4 is unique when
compared to the rest of County.
BUDGET IMP ACT
~ Ci!)' of Farmington will see a reducti~~Jts allocation of approximately
$22,033 per year or $44,066 for a two year period, it is difficult to continue to justify the
CitlJ. of Farminfj.ton 325 Oak Street · Farmint}tonJ MN 5502~ · (612) ~63.7111 · FaJr (612) ~63.2591
previous formula when the rest of the cities in the County receive allocations based on a
population weighted formula. These proposed changes will also result in the distribution
of CDBG funds every year as opposed to every other year. This may allow for smaller
scale projects to be done each year or the City could bankroll its appropriation for more
than one year to complete larger projects.
ACTION REQUESTED
If Council has no objections to the revised formula, I will indicate at the next District 4
m=.:ting in Janu~998 that Farmington is agreeable to the proposed changes.
R.~spectfull sUbmitt.e.d..'
~/
. ~~~
David L. Olson
Community Development Director
~OT.-\ COUNTY
Huu~tn2 & ReJeH'I')I'lllel1t .-A.uthuritv "i~,4~q,,'\'
. .
~-7d0~j"':':;rh:--:t. \\" . ;;,,',,-'!Il\'lI11t, '\1'-.1::;\.'(-"'-1. T,r".ll. (,j2~-t~),,,]>~. r-\\ ('l~-"':'~ ~
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
October 22, 1997
OCT 2 3
'" " ~ --
J.~;~//
TO:
Dave Olson, City of Farmington
Dave Osberg, City of Hastings
Michael Sobota, City of Lakeville
Dan Rogness, City of Rosemount
FROM:
--/ .,-/
Lee Smith~'
. >
RE:
District 4 CDBG Program
Allocation Plan
cc:
Kari Gill
At the District 4 CDBG Committee meeting held on
September 24, 1997 at the Dakota County HRA offices, the
consensus of the Committee members regarding changes in the
allocation plan for CDBG funding within the District was to
propose that, beginning with the Fiscal Year 1999 CDBG
Program, one half of the total District funding would be
allocated to Cities in accordance with the contribution of
each City to the total District funding according to the
formula established by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development. The remaining one half of each year's
funding would be split evenly between the four cities.
Under this plan, the 1997 CDBG funding would have been
distributed to Cities as follows:
Total District 4 funding: $306,024
City Formula Amount Share Amount Total
Farmington $ 16,220 (10.6%) c: 38,253 $ 54,473
'-'
Hastings $ 43,608 (28.5% ) S 38,253 $ 81,861
Lakeville $ 66,101 (43.2%) $ 38,253 $104,354
Rosemount $ 27,083 (17.7%) S 38,253 $ 65,336
,-\N EQL\L ,-~lprORTLNITY D.!PLCYER
Keep in mind that funding under this proposed plan would be
distributed to each City each year, rather than on a two-year
cycle, as it is currently.
As we discussed at the meeting, we would like each of you to
discuss this plan within your organization or with your City
Council. We will then ask that a decision be made to amend the
allocation plan at the District Committee meeting that will be
held early in 1998 to review and discuss the FY 1998 CDBG
Program. If no decision can be made at the District Committee
level, we would need to bring the matter to the County Board of
Commissioners if any change to the CDBG allocation plan was to be
made.
Thank you all for the constructive discussion we had at the
September meeting. Please call me at 423-8113, or Kari Gill at
423-8111, if you have questions or comments.
2
~Q
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers
City Administrator ~
FROM: David L. Olson
Community Development Director
Lee M. Mann, P .E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Eagles Club Project Concerns
DATE: November 3, 1997
INTRODUCTION
The Eagle's Club presented a written list of concerns and issues regarding costs that they have
incurred in the development of their new facility located on 200 3rd Street. The following are
responses to these issues.
DISCUSSION
Building Site -
It is difficult to respond to statements and recommendations made by City employees that are no
longer with the City. However, the issues regarding the extent of the property owned by the C.P
Railroad became known in May of this year and after several meetings with the C.P. Railroad, a
preliminary agreement to purchase the needed property was reached. The HRA Board agreed in
July to provide additional tax increment financing assistance in an amount not to exceed $45,000.
This amount represents 84% of the purchase price. Originally, the HRA proposed to fund 75% or
$30,000 of the original estimated purchase price of $40,000. This amendment to the Contract for
Private Sale was approved prior to the Eagle's Club reaching final agreement with C.P. Rail on a
price. I do not believe it was ever the intent that the HRA cover all of the additional property
acquisition costs.
The Eagles were advised in January of this year that they should retain an attorney to complete
necessary property title review and other issues associated with the proposed purchase of the real
estate for their new site. The Eagle's Club chose not to retain the services of an attorney until
much later in the process. While the former HRA Director may have suggested this site as a
possible location, the HRA was not involved in any of the negotiations with former property
owners.
The Eagles Club also elected to proceed with the start of construction of their project prior to the
final resolution of the property acquisition of the railroad property. They were also informed that a
requirement of the Contract for Private Sale that was executed requires that they construct the
previously shown parking lot.
Citl}. of FarminiJton 325 Oak Street. Farmini}tonl MN 5502~ · (612) ~63.7111 · FaJr (672) ~63.2591
Finally, the possibility of the City HRA acquiring the entire spur line right-of-way was mentioned
during one the several discussions with the Eagles Club. This would have been a considerably
larger and more complicated acquisition and would have taken considerable more time to evaluate
and review which would have resulted in a delay of construction for the Eagles project. At a
minimum, this construction season would have been missed.
Exterior Plumbing -
Staff spoke with the plumbing contractor for the Eagles Project and it was stated to staff that the
decision to connect the water service to the water main in Third Street was made by the Eagles
Club representatives because it was more cost effective than connecting to the water main in Main
Street. Third Street had to be tom up in order to complete the sewer service connection. There
were obstacles such as building footings in the way of making the conection to the water main in
Main Street. Due to these factors, it appears that the water connection to the water main in Third
Street was the more cost effective choice.
Curbs -
In all previous discussions with staff, the representatives of the Eagles Club were made aware of
the requirement to replace the existing curb along Third Street (see attached letters dated May 12
and July 22, 1997). This requirement is consistent with current and past redevelopment projects in
the downtown area of the City.
Staff requested that the Eagles Club install curb around the perimeter of the Eagles Club Parking
Lot for several reasons. The curb is necessary to channel the flow of Storm water drainage to the
north end of the parking lot, where the drainage will flow onto Third Street, north of the railroad
tracks. If there is no curb on the east side of the future parking lot, the water will flow onto Third
Street south of the tracks and contribute to the ponding and icing problems that occur in that area
where the small culverts go under the tracks.
Installing curb around the parking lot will lower future maintenance costs by keeping the edges of
the parking lot from crumbling away due to undermining from storm sewer and winter icing and
by keeping the plows from tearing up sod and plantings around the perimeter of the parking lot.
Section curbs are not permanent structures on that they can be damaged more easily by plows and
if they shift or are not installed flush, the exposed ends can be caught by the plow blade and whole
sections of the curb can be tom out.
From a drainage, maintenance and aesthetic standpoint, poured in place curb is significantly more
desirable that either no curb or section curb.
Public Sidewalk -
Construction of the sidewalk has been identified as a requirement in staff s meetings with the
Eagle's Club representatives (See attached letter dated May 12, 1997). This requirement is
consistent with current and past projects in they downtown area, including the project directly
south of the Eagle's Club site. If Kwik Trip had not been required to bring the sidewalk all the
way to their northerly property line, then there would be no sidewalk in place to get to the new
Eagle's Club now. In the future, when the properties north of the Eagle's Club are redeveloped,
they will be required to connect to the sidewalk the Eagle's Club will be installing and carry it
through their property. In addition, patrons parking along Third Street will utilize the sidewalk.
The amount of runoff the sidewalk will contribute is negligible in comparison to the Eagle's Club
building and their parking lot.
Storm Water Drainage-
The Eagle's Club is being charged Surface Water Management fees as all development in the city
is charged, per City Code. The fees are charged for the future construction of Trunk Storm Sewer
Improvements that benefit all properties in the City. The fees for Trunk Storm Sewer
Improvements are not excessive when compared to other communities as shown in recently
updated Surface Water Management Plan. The cost for these improvements is not being solely
borne by the Eagles Club, but all new development in the City.
The City's Surface Water Management Plan that has been adopted by the Council clearly
delineates the justification for the Trunk Storm Sewer System and is available for review at any
time. The Water Quality Ponding fee was the option chosen by the Eagle's Club to take care of
their Water Quality. The policy, at the time of review, was that any site with more that one (1)
acre of impervious area needs to build a Water Quality Pond. Due to site constraints, the Eagle's
Club was given the option of paying a fee equal to the cost of building a pond on their site (see
attached letter dated May 12, 1997). The fee will be used to expand the size of a pond elsewhere
in the City, so that the new reduction of pollutants into the Vermillion River from the City as a
whole would remain the same as ifthe Eagle's Club had built a pond on their site.
Water Treatment Plant Fee-
At the time ofthe estimated fee memo (see attached memo dated March 25, 1997), the estimate of
the SAC units for calculating the Water Treatment Plant Fee was eight (8). Upon final review of
the building plans, the SAC units were determined to be ten (10) by the Building Official. There is
a set formula for determining SAC units set forth by the MET Council, over which the City has no
discretion. Per the City's adopted fee resolution, as set forth by the Council and Water Board, the
Water Treatment Plant fee is $470 per SAC unit.
Staff Review Time per hour -
Staff review time is billed per the City's fee resolution, as outlined on the review memo to the
Eagle's Club (see attached memo dated July 22, 1997). All development is charged for staff
review time.
Development Agreement-
Both myself and Ernie Darflinger HRA Attorney reviewed the legal description for the Eagles
Club site. This description is based on the description of the property purchased from Mr.
Finnegan as well as the additional property owned by c.P. Rail and the street and alley right-of-
ways. If the Eagles feel they have a more accurate legal description, they should provide the City
with a copy.
The Eagles Club is correct in pointing out one and possibly two provisions of the Contract for
Private Sale may need to be amended. Section 3.13 states that the purchase of the property is to be
completed by November 1, 1997. That was felt to be a sufficient amount of time back in July,
when the agreement was executed. Obviously if delays have occurred with completing the
transaction with C.P. Rail, I do not think it will be a problem to amend the contract to reflect a new
date by which this will be completed.
The other date of October 30, 1998 was the date that all improvements are to be completed. At
this time I feel it is difficult to say whether this is going to be a problem. It is my assumption that
the concern the Eagles Club has with this date is as it pertains to the completion of the parking lot.
It is not recommended that this date be changed at this time.
BUDGET IMPACT
As was indicated, the HRA has agreed to provide up to $145,000 in tax increment assistance. This
will require at least six years of increment to reimburse this amount of eligible public costs based
on the estimated increment amount of $28,859 per year. If the amount of assistance is to be
increased, it will require that the Contract for Private Sale be amended again. The maximum
duration of this TIF District is 15 years. While it is possible to provide additional assistance with
additional years of increment, it will result in a LGAlHACA penalty that begins in Year 5 at
$1,473 and increases to $11,784 in Year 12.
ACTION REQUESTED
For Council's information only.
Respec,. ly SUbm:tt".e~d/2.' ...
/////~&/
, /' ~(~
----
David L. Olson
Community Development Director
--
~>>1~
Lee M. Mann, P .E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
cc: file
Jeff Rice, Eagles Club President
. Domestic Development 1n~~
14244 Garden View Drive
Apple Valley, MN 55124-:9552
March 25, 1997
Dear Sir,
. We are pleased to see the plans for the proposed new Eagles Club at 200 Third Street. As
you'requested, I have calculated the estimated fees for this project based on a building
valuation of $494,500.00.,
,-,::OIS,.,
. Pre plat surety.
. Pre plat adm fee
Building permit. $2862.25
Plan check 1860.46 .
Stat~Stircharge . ' ' , ' 247.25
Service Availability Charge or SAC 9500~00 including one-site credit.
SUrfa~ewater management': '11812.60 ' .
Erosion-iediment tontrol . -- 150.00 pius $39.00 /hr inspection
Reserve Capacity Connection or WAC 2287.00
, Water connection permit 50.00
Water beI.lefit charge 1092.00
Water stub out charge 1250.00
Water quality management 89.40'
Watermain ~ area ~harge 1913.00 '
Water treatment plant " ' 3760.00
2"Compound mete~ with remote- 1552.39 including tax
, . Sewer connection permit .' 50.00
. Sewer benefit ~harge . . " .~ 1545.00 "
, Se~er stub ouf ~harge. . .-' ''-' ': ;' .850.00
, Mechanic~ p'ennit based an $70,000.oq:", :> ,73S.00
~1LJ?lbingpermitbasedon$30,090.00' :.-....::_, Jis.oO : . "'.
Street / C':ll"b breaking peimit ' " _' ., ~;':_ < 50.00 i,nspection 'fee plus min. $350.90 .
:: ;', ~ deposit tobe re~ewed by '_,:'_' . ','
, '" ,~ -: '., ',> ",~:': '<;:':'~":'~~:\~':9~~:~n:e.e~;g.,: ,"' :: '
',' . ,:,> 130.00
:, 759.00 "
eit~ o.~ fta,1f,ming.to.n 325 CJ.aIi St~. g.Q..~, ..itN. 55024 · (612) 463-7111 · !}.a/.r. (612) 463-2591
~
Total estimated fees come to $42,957.20
Also Landscape and Parking lot surety will be required. These can be covered with a cash .
escrow or ~ irrevocable letter of credit based on 125 percent of the cost. Review the cost .
. \\ith Planning and Engineering.
. . .
These fees are only estimates at this time. If you have any questions, please call 463,-
1831.
(1T~~. ·
: ~anke -
Build~g O~cial
cc: : John Erar, Adrninistnitor
Karen Finstuen, Administrative Assistant
Lee Mann, Int~nm Asst. City Engineer . :
Lee Smick, Planner
Jeff Rice
'.
. -- . - ... . ,.. ~
~
"."\, '.
..
..-'-- ". .
.:,. -."
- . --'
":;-- ".-
- - -... - ,-
. .
. ... . .-'"
'. '- ~,_.....
.- ~ .' -
'.
. . -- .
. -.""" . .
. - . ~ .
; "'-:..
... - - -" .'.. ~.'
..C -.
. . -
'. .
- ~ ". '.
. ~ ~ - . .'- :-- -. :... ,:.:.' . . " '-
.. ~ ,.: ~', .' - - . ~ . ~
- -- '-,
. , -_:.
.. ..' .., '. ~. .
May 12, 1997
Mr. Roger Grothe
Domestic Development
14244 Gardenview Drive
Apple Valley, MN 55124-9552
RE: Eagles Club Comments
Dear Mr. Grothe,
Following are conunents based on review of your preliminary grading and drainage plan.
1. The proposed finished floor elevation needs to be raised to at least 906.0.
2. In regards to the drainage and water quality issues, there are three options that would be
acceptable.
a) Drain the site towards the railroad tracks. A ditch will need to be excavated along the
tracks to the river. All design and coordination with the railroad will be the
responsibility of your engineer . Water quality aspects will be achieved by the runoff
traveling through the vegetated ditch. The ditch would be constructed like a trench with
draintile at the bottom and pervious and organic soils above. More details of how this
ditch would need to be constructed will be conveyed if this option is chosen. The design
of the ditch would determine if the site could sheet flow into the ditch or if it would
have to be piped.
b) Drain the site to the north and convey the runoff in a pipe across Third Street to a
ditch/ponding area in the railroad right of way. Runoff would then be conveyed through
a pipe to the storm sewer system in Fourth Street. It might be possible to utilize a
filtration ditch as described previously. Water quality requirements could be satisfied
Citff oJ !1aft,min.g.to.n 325 eAR St'teet. ia'tmin.tJUut, J(X 55C24 · (612) 463-7111 · j.aa; (612) 463-2591
~
with this option. This option would also allow for more flexibility with the parking lot
design since catch basins could be located at strategic points.
c) The third option would be to drain the site' to Third Street. The majority of the drainage
would need to outlet north of the railroad tracks as shown on the preliminary grading
plan. Since this option has no feature to address water quality, a fee will need to be paid
that will contribute to the construction of a future pond.
3. A sidewalk along Third Street from Kwik Trip extending the length of your property will
be required. Pedestrian ramps will be required at the driveways.
4. Existing curb openings on Third Street that will not be utilized will need to be closed with
ne'w curb and gutter.
5. The perimeter of the parking lot will need to be curbed with B618 curb and gutter.
6. A utility, grading and drainage and landscaping plan for construction purposes will need to
be submitted and reviewed by staff. Your engineer can coordinate with staff as to what is
required to be shown on these plans. These plans will need to be complete and staff
comments incorporated before a building permit can be issued.
7. The parking lot will need to be constructed in 1997.
This review is preliminary, based on the preliminary information submitted. Please submit your
construction documents referred to in Item 6 as soon as possible so that staff can perform the
necessary review. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call me at 463-1601.
Sincerely,
~m~
Lee M. Mann, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
LMM/ll
cc: file
John Erar, City Administrator
Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator
John Manke, Building Official
TO: John Manke, Building Official
FRO~I: Lee M. Mann, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
S"LlUECT: Eagles Club
DATE: July 22, 1997
I have reviewed the above referenced project. Following are engineering comments and fee
calculations .
A. Comments
1. The curb openings and damaged curb along 3rd Street will need to be replaced. Call out
curb replacement on the plans that will be approved for the building permit.
2. Call out on plans that all water and sewer service connections shall be per City of
Farmington Standard Plans and Specifications. Show curb boxes on plans for water
services. Show water and sewer services and connections on plans to be approved for
the building permits.
It is understood that the parking lot plan will be submitted at a later time, and shall be subject to
City approval. Approval of the building permit in no way constitutes approval of the parking lot.
B. Fees
Surface Water :Management Fee
29,980 x $0.182 =
Erosion and Sediment Control
\Vater Connection Permit
$5,456.36
$150.00 plus $39/hour
$50 x 2
Water Quality l\lanagement Fee
0.69 ac x $69/ac
\Vatennain Trunk Area Charge
0.69 ac x $1,913/ac =
\Vater Treatment Plant Fee
Reserve Capacity Connection (WAC)
Sewer Connection Permit
Utility Construction Permit
$100.00
$47.61
$1 ,319.97
$470.00 x number of SAC units
$1,286.00
$50.00
$50.00
Citl}. of FarminfJ.ton 325 Oak Street. FarmintJton, JoiN 55024 · (612) 463-7111 · FaX' (612) 463-2591
Street/Curb Breaking Permit
GIS
0.69 ac x $65/ac =
'Yater Quality Pond Fee in Lieu of Pond on-site
29,980/65,383 x $6,350 =
Staff review time will be billed by the City
Finance Department by separate invoice.
S50.00 inspection fee plus minimum S350
deposit, amount to be determined by
engmeermg.
.
$44.85
$2,911.66
The plan with the changes needs to be resubmined for approval and fees need to be paid prior to
issuance of the building permit. .
Sincerely,
~)n~
Lee M. Mann, P.E.
Director of Public W orIes/City Engineer
LMM/ll
cc: file
John Erar
Lee Smick
Roger Grothe, Domestic Development
Fraternal Order of Eagles
Farmington, MN #4031
313 Third Street
Farmington. MN 55024
Listed herein are some issues which the Eagles Club wishes to
address with the City regarding the new club facility we are
building in Farmington:
Building Site: When we first approached City staff for preliminary
approval of our building plan and proposed site, Jerry Hendricks,
the then Director of HRA, recommended a different site, Lots I, 2
and 3, Town of Farmington. We had our plan redesigned to fit on
the new site and agreed to purchase the site from its owner. We
were aware that the property had a railroad right-of-way for two
sets of unused spur tracks running through it and that the same
would have to be vacated. What we didn't know is that the railroad
actually owned approximately 2/3 of the site that we thought was
included in the Lots 1, 2 and 3. Over time, we were able to
negotiate an agreement with the railroad to purchase its property
for $53,530.00, plus all the costs normally paid by the seller,
including legal and abstracting and surveying fees to prepare the
legal description of several very irregular parcels and prepare an
abstract from scratch, pay all seller's closing costs such as state
deed tax, title search, etc. The railroad is also requiring us to
install a fence and gate along the property line between this
property and the railroad right-of-way for its main track lines.
We must also incur the cost of removing the tracks, if Dakota
Lumber does not exercise an option with the railroad to have the
tracks left in place for possible future service to its business.
At this point, we do not know or have an estimate of the total
amount of all the extra costs involved. There also seem to be
problems with the title ownership of the railroad property and over
$10,000.00 in back taxes owed on part of it, both of which could
have an affect on our ability to close the purchase of this
property from the railroad. The City has generously agreed to
increase our Tax Increment Financing an additional $45,000.00 for
the amount we had estimated to be the price of the railroad
property. The price was $8,530.00 more plus numerous and costly
additional expenses involved. We spent a great deal of time and
effort to get the railroad to agree to sell the property and are
still working to get it closed. The railroad would have preferred
to sell to the City the entire spur right-oi-way from its main
right-of way to Highway", but the City was not interested.
- 3
Exterior PlWDbing: We have incurred additional expense for
installation of our exterior water and sewer lines. We were of the
understanding that the water service would be connected at Main
Street, so the water line would be run under the dirt from the
building to Main Street. But the City changed the connection to
Third Street, where there was no stop box or stub line running to
the main located in the middle of the street. So we had to install
the stop box and dig the water stub line to the water main, which
involved digging through and later repairing the pavement on Third
Street. This added approximately $6,500.00 to our estimated cost
of installing the exterior plumbing lines.
Curbs: We must incur the cost to install new curb on Third Street
where the present curb is in poor condition or non-existent. The
City should be responsible for curb that already needs replacement
or is missing altogether. The City is requiring us to place
permanent curbs around the entire parking lot interior. In
addition to being very expensive to install and maintain, the curbs
will make snow removal more difficult. We would suggest that no
interior curbs be required, or at the least, section curbs be used.
Public Sidewalk: We must incur the cost to install a public
sidewalk on the boulevard. Since there will not be any walking from
the north end of the lot, if any public walk should be required, it
should run only from the Quick Trip to the front entrance of our
building. Any additional sidewalk would increase the impervious
area thus causing more water runoff.
Storm Water Drainage: We are required to incur additional costs
for storm water drainage because the City's storm sewers are
inadequate and in need of r~pair/replacement. The City is charging
a Surface Water Management Fee of $5,456.36 for the building site
plus $6,443.35 for the parking lot site totalling $11,899.71. In
addition to this fee, the City is also charging and Water Quality
Ponding Fee of $2,911.66 for the building site plus $3,438.34 for
the parking lot site totalling $6,350.00. We feel these fees are
excessive and are caused by the poor condition of the City's storm
sewer infrastructure, which should not be born solely by us just
because we are currently constructing. These storm sewers would
soon have to be updated by the City whether or not any new
construction was done.
Water Treatment Fee: Charge was $4,700.00 instead of the $3,760.00
per original estimate.
Staff Review Time per Hour: ?
Development Agreement: Some discrepancies between various articles
of the agreement, especially as related to the legal descriptions.
Of major concern is the required date of November 1, 1997, that all
property must be purchased, and as mentioned above, there are some
problems to be resolved to get the railroad property closed. Also
of concern is that all phases must be completed not later than
October 30, 1998. Hopefully, the closing of the purchase of the
railroad property will not drag on to the point that we cannot meet
this deadline.
....
TO:
Mayor, Councilmem?.:2 and
City Administrator 1;;r:-
Daniel M. Siebena1er
Chief of Police
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Traffic Control Issue
Third and Elm St.
DATE:
November 3, 1997
INTRODUCTION
The City of Farmington petitioned the Dakota county Highway Department to conduct a traffic study at
the intersection of Third and Elm Streets. The results ofthat study have now been returned to staff.
DISCUSSION
As you can see in the attached comments from the Dakota County Highway Department based on the study
conducted at our request there are insufficient warrants at this intersection to justify a four way stop.
Specifical1y, the number of accidents, the number of vehicles and the delays for vehicles are insufficient to
justify the signs.
It is staff opinion that the study does not address the original critical issue of pedestrian crossing. Staff has
requested that the County review the area with appropriate consideration to pedestrian access. At this time
the Highway Engineer has agreed to review the study for that purpose.
ACTION REQUESTED
Information only.
Respectful1y submitted, i
r:;;>>. ~.;J //
." /' /--~j:,c .-J'*!
, '-
Daniel M. Siebenaler
Chief of Police
~b
CitlJ of Farmin9ton 325 Oak Street · Farmint}ton, MN 550211 · (612) 1163- 7111 · Fa/( (612) 1163-2591
,II"
DAKOTA COUNTY
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
14955 GALAXIE AVENUE. 3RD FLOOR
DAVID L. EVERDS, P.E.
COUNTY ENGINEER
(612)891-7100
Fax (612) 891-7127
APPLE VALLEY. MINNESOTA 55124-85
October 10, 1997
Dan Siebenaler
Police Chief
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
RE: CSAH 50 (Elm St.) at 3rd Street
Dear Chief Siebenaler,
As you requested we have completed a traffic study at the intersection to determine the
appropriate traffic control. The results of our study indicate that the present traffic control is
operating safely and efficiently. The number of vehicle crashes within the last three years has
been very low.
Our study consisted of detailed study of approaching traffic volumes for all hours of multiple
days and included manual observations of P.M. peak period traffic taking measurements of
vehicle delays to traffic on 3rd Street. The results of the delay study indicated average peak hour
delay at 15 seconds per vehicle northbound and 16 seconds per vehicle southbound. While there
were higher vehicle delays measured, they were specifically caused by train activity across
CSAH 50 and these vehicles cleared the intersection area ShOliiy after the train had l:fOssed.
These train-caused delays would not be alleviated by traffic control changes at the 3rd Street
intersection.
At the present time I do not recommend a change in the traffic control at this intersection. The
present natural platooning of traffic offers opportunities for traffic to access and cross CSAH 50
in this area. If an all-way stop were to be installed, this platooning would be eliminated and
locations away from 3rd Street would experience greater difficulty turning onto and crossing
CSAH 50. We have reviewed the intersection data and it does not meet the warrants for a
signalized intersection. Signals may introduce safety hazards which can increase the occurrence
of highway crashes.
Printed on recycled Daper. 2~% post-consumer
o
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
..
Please contact me further if you have questions or concerns regarding this study.
Sincerely,
{-JZ~ ,/~lVvV#<-
Peter L. Sorenson
Traffic Engineer
cc: Joseph A. Harris, Commissioner
Brandt Richardson
Louis J. Breimhurst
N :pcsiebenaler.doc
~e
TO: Mavor. Councilmembers. Citv
r .'1 .
Administrator -,/C
FROM: Lee M. Mann. P.E..
Director ot Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Draft Weed Ordinance
DATE: November 3. 1997
INTRODUCTION
At the August 18, 1997 Council meeting, staff was directed by Council to look at revising the current
\veed ordinance to more clearly address several issues that have been raised (See attached memo).
DISCUSSION
The attached ordinance reflects revisions to the current weed ordinance that would address the issues
discussed at the August 18 meeting. The requirement to remove noxious weeds and to mow growing
grasses on platted lots would not change except in the following instances:
1. Slope areas: Slopes that are in excess of 3:1 (33%), would be allowed to be left in a natural
state-due to the safety concerns relative to mowing on a steep slope.
.,
Pond~etlands: Property around ponds or wetlands may be left in a natural state and in those
areas \-vhere the City owns the land surrounding the pond or wetland. mowing would be the
responsibility and at the discretion of the City.
.). NaturaUWildlife areas: Natural areas. including Parks. \vetlands/ponds. unplatted land and
other Cit)~esignated natural areas would be allowed to be left in a natural state.
~. ~ Natural Areas on Platted Lots: Natural areas would be allowed on platted lots m the backyard
subject to a six foot setback from property lines. This would allow peoDle to have a natural area
in their yard yet leaves a but fer for an adjacent neighbor that would not Tind a natural Jrea
desireable in their yard.
.\gain. propert~: owners would still be required to remove any noxious weeds per State and County
regulations and natural areas \vould not be allo\ved in front yards.
Citl}. of FarminiJ.ton 325 Oak Street · Farmin9ton~ MN 5502~ · (612) ~63-7111 · FaJr (612) ~63-2591
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
RECOMMENDATION
This draft ordinance is presented to for Council review and discussion.
Respectfully submitted,
~>>1~
Lee M. Mann, P .E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
cc: file
Jon Nordstrom
Gina Lusty
Chapter 7
WEEDS
SECTION:
6-7-1:
6-7-2:
6-7-3:
6-7-4:
Weed Defined
Notice to Destroy
Action Upon Noncompliance
Charge a Lien
6-7-1: WEED DEFINED: For the purpose of this section, the term "weeds" means
noxious weeds as defmed by State law. All weeds or growing grasses upon any
platted lot in the city which are in excess of one foot (1 '), or have gone or about to go to seed, are
hereby declared to be a nuisance and dangerous to the health, safety and order of the City with the
following exceptions:
1. Slope areas: Slopes in excess of 33% may be left in a natural state.
2. Pond/Wetlands: Property adjacent to ponds may be left in a natural state. Property
owners will not be allowed to mow City property, including that property surrounding
ponds.
3. Natural/Wildlife areas: Natural areas which include parks, wetlands/ponds, unplatted
land and other City designated areas may be left in a natural state.
4. Natural areas on platted lots: Natural areas will be allowed on platted lots in backyards
from the most rear corner of the home subject to a six foot (6') setback from the property
lines, except in the case where the natural area is adjacent to another natural area.
It shall be unlawful for an owner, lessee or occupant of any land described above to allow, permit
or maintain a nuisance as defmed herein on any such land or along the sidewalk, street or alley
adjacent thereto.
6-7-2: NOTICE TO DESTROY: The City Administrator/designee is hereby authorized
and empowered to notify, in writing, the owner of any such lot, place or area within the City, or
the agent of such owner, to cut, destroy and/or remove any such weeds or grass found growing,
lying, or located on such property or upon the sidewalk or boulevard abutting same. Such notice
shall be by registered mail, addressed to said owner, at his last known address.
6-7-3: ACTION UPON NONCOMPLIANCE: Upon the failure, neglect or refusal of
any owner or agent, so notified, to cut, destroy and/or remove such weeds or grass
within ten (10) days after receipt of the written notice provided for in Section 6-7-2 hereof, the
City Administrator is hereby authorized and empowered to pay for the cutting, destroying and/or
removal of such weeds or grass or to order the removal by the City. (Ord. 086-180, 7-7-86)
d:\llarson\weeds.doc
10/29/97
6-7-4: CHARGE A LIEN: When the City has effected the removal of such obnoxious
growth or has paid for its removal the actual cost thereof, plus accrued interest as
provided by law, and penalty as set forth from time to time by resolution of the City Council, if
not paid by such owner prior to thereto, shall be charged to the owner of such property on the next
regular tax bill forwarded to such owner by the City, and said charge shall be due and payable by
said owner at the time of payment of such tax bill, pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statute
429. (Ord. 083-158, 12-19-83)
d:\llarson\weeds.doc
10/29/97
1Q
TO:
~vlayor. Counci~meJ1bers. City
Administrator W
FROl\I:
Lee M. ~,lann. P .E..
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SCBJECT:
Weed Control Ordinance Review
DATE:
August 18, 1997
INTRODUCTION
In the past several months, there have been several questions raised by residents and staff regarding
the implementation of the City's Weed Ordinance (see attached).
DISCUSSION
IJ
The current City Ordinance regarding weeds is summarized as follows: All weeds or growing
grasses on any platted lot in the city which are in excess of one foot (1 ') are declared to be a nuisance
and dangerous to the health, safety and order of the City. The ordinance then goes on to state that
the Administrator is empowered to notify a property owner that the weeds must be removed. If the
weeds are not removed within ten (10) days of the receipt of the letter, then the City has the right to
remove the weeds at the owners expense.
Recently, several questions have been raised in regards to the ordinance and how to interpret it for
various unique situations, as described below.
Slopes - The ordinance does not address weeds that are on a slope. There are slopes in the City that
are too steep to mow safely. The ordinance could be revised to exempt slopes that are too steep to
mow. If the ordinance were to exempt slopes that are too steep to mow, the property owner would
still be required to spray or remove any noxious weeds that are present on that slope.
Ponds - Typically, the vegetation around ponds grows fairly tall. There are two reasons for this.
Number one, there is a safety issue with trying to mow too close to the pond. Secondly, the native
vegetation around the pond provides habitat, erosion control and a "natural" appearance. The
noxious weeds would still have to be removed if the ordinance is changed to exempt ponds which
the current ordinance restricts. The ponds in questions are typically within platted outlots.
Natural/Wildlife Areas - Natural and Wildlife Areas are typically found in undeveloped private
land or parkland. As these areas are not platted, they are not currently addressed in the ordinance.
Again. any noxious weeds need to be removed from these areas.
CitlJ. of Farminf,ton 325 Oak Street. Farmin9ton, MN 55024 · (612) 463.7111 · Fax (612) 463.2591
Natural Areas on Platted Lots - The question has been raised whether or not people living on a
platted lot should be allowed to have "natural" areas of prairie grasses and flowers, which typically
grow in excess of a foot. Allowing this would necessitate a change to the existing ordinance.
Noxious weeds, however could not be permitted.
Each unique circumstance could be addressed in the weed ordinance or the ordinance could be re-
worded such that situations not specifically addressed by the ordinance would be dealt with at the
discretion of the City Engineer.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
RECOMl\lENDA TION
That the council direct staff to rewrite the weed ordinance incorporating the changes discussed in this
memo and/or changes as discussed at the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
~)n ~J
,:~...~:.\
I
Lee M. Marm, P .E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
cc: file
.
....
q{l
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: John F. Erar. City Administrator
SUBJECT: Right-of-Way Ordinance-
Introduction
DATE: November 3.1997
INTRODUCTION
Cities have long held that the management and control of local right-of-way be retained by the
local jurisdiction. Through efforts at the state and federal level to protect local jurisdictional
control, cities have been authorized to adopt local ordinances that delineate specific rights and
controls local jurisdictions have relative to the management of public right-of-way.
The attached proposed ordinance is the result of a collaborative effort between the League of
MN Cities, City Engineers Association of Minnesota and the City's telecommunication
consultant Mr. Thomas Creighton representing the law firm of Bernick and Lifson, P .A.
In addition, a separate attachment from the League of MN Cities (LMC) 1998 Policy Goals
outlines the significant issues affecting cities in rights-of-way management issues, and the
LMC's relative position on these issues. The proposed right-of-way ordinance as presented
addresses these issues and provides the City with an effective means to safeguard and preserve
local government concerns.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Creighton will be in attendance at this evening's Council meeting to present significant
regulatory control elements of the proposed Right-of-Way Ordinance and to address any
questions or concerns Council may have regarding the future adoption of the attached ordinance.
Several key elements of this ordinance are highlighted below:
_ Imposes fair, efficient, competitively neutral, uniform and reasonable regulations on the
placement and maintenance of equipment currently within or to be placed in the right-of-way
_ Institutes a cost approach that provides for the recovery of out-of-pocket and projected costs
from persons using the right-of-way.
_ Requires all persons who may construct, install, repair, remove. relocate. or perform any
work, or use any equipment in the right-of-way to be registered with the City.
_ 0Jo person may obstruct or excavate any right-of-way without first obtaining a right-of-way
permit from the City to do so.
_ Should the City desire to use or access the right-of-way for public purposes requiring the
other occupants to move their facilities. the movement of such equipment would be at the
expense of the owners, and not the City.
Citl}. of Farminf/.ton 3250akStreet-Farmin9ton,MN55024 - (612) 463-7111-FaJ( (612) 463-2591
Mayor and Councilmembers
Right-of- W ay Ordinance - Introduction
Page 2 of2
...
.
· Proper restoration of the right-of-way shall be in the sole determination of the City and fees
for work to be performed shall be equal to the cost of restoration under a Performance and
Restoration Bond. In lieu of restoration, a fee for degradation of the right-of-way may be
charged to compensate the City for any loss affecting the useful life of public improvements
in the right-of-way.
· Establishes guidelines that the City may use as a basis to deny right-of-way permits to
persons desiring to do work in the City's right-of-way that may negatively affect the City's
interests and/or regulatory controls (See Section 1.17).
· Requires all persons with equipment in the right-of-way to provide "Mapping Data" to the
City providing information on the location of all equipment owned and/or under its
respective control.
ACTION REQUESTED
For information only. A final version of this ordinance will be presented to Council for adoption
in the near future.
Respectfully submitted,
~ " /J ()
.t-d'<-f<-;?~
John F. Erar
/ City Administrator
-4 1..J.
;
,
15
16
17
18
19
:::0
, 1
-.
,"
....
dispute. Instead. the board has the authority only ..to review the propose change. and make a
.,
recommendation to the Commissioner." It is the Commissioner of Transportation who ultimately
~
.)
makes the final decision on \vhether to "approve the establishment. construction. reconstruction. or
..J.
improvement of a county state-aid highway recommended by the board." The statute does not
5
outline any formal due process that must be followed to ensure fairness to all parties. ,-\dditiona!Iy.
6
there is no mediation or non-binding arbitration prerequisite as exists in other areas of law dealing
7
with dispute resolutions.
8
Response: The Legislature should provide a mediation or non-binding arbitration
9
alternative to assist parties in reaching a resolution on their own without involving the
10
Commissioner. Additionally, to ensure that sound recommendations are made by dispute
11
resolution boards, formal due process and specific criteria should be established. For
11
situations where negotiations do not produce an agreeable resolution, cities should be
13
authorized to request that a board be established.
LE-17. Management of Rights-of-Way
Issue: Demand for all types of uses of rights-of-way. both surface and subsurface. is increasing
.:xponentially. forcing consideration by cities of how best to allocate this \'ery limited resource.
Because public rights-of-way have been acquired at public expense through local Noperty tax
sources or other local action. cities have traditionally had the fundamental responsloility ana
J.ttendam liability for facilitating the safety and convenience of all nght-of-\vay users. Rights-or"..\vay
management responsibilities are complex. numerous. and site soecnlc. as are the oarticular interests
..,f citi.:s in cstaolishing J. value tor private use of puolic SDace in the iocal rights-or'-\vay. These
tictors underscore the fact that rational and expeditious decisions em only be made at the iocallevei.
1998 City Policies
31
." ,
Cities support existing federal nondiscrimination requirements that local administration not
.
J
impose unreasonable delays or burdens on access. entry. or other reasonable use of rights-of-way.
3
Cities should be authorized, as provided in federal law. to require telecommunications providers to
4
meet local requirements for public. educational. and government access to their networks as well as
)
financial and technical support for such actions.
6
Local rights-of-way are a limited and valuable asset held in trust by municipalities for the public.
..,
/
Unlike other businesses which pay for the use of public rights-or-way. telephone companies
8
currently pay property taxes only on a fraction of their facilities located in public rights-of-way and
9
nothing for the value of the right to use them.
10
Response:
11
· The responsibility for managing and protecting public rights-of-way must remain with
12
cities and other units of government entrusted with protecting the health, safety, and
13
convenience of the community.
14
· Construction and safety standards are of paramount importance to cities, and consistent
15
with respective industries' desire for uniformity, should be developed by the municipal
16
engineering community for adoption by cities to ensure effective rights-of-way
17
management.
18
· Cities and other governmental units responsible for the protection and management of
19
public rights-of-way should be authorized to require reasonable compensation which
:::0
reflects the policy and fiscal ob,jectives of their community.
21
· The courts should remain the primary forum for resolution of allegations that communities
v,
have exercised their authority in an unreasonable. arbitrary, or capricious manner.
32
League of Minnesota Cities
BERNICK AND LIFSON, P .A.
SUITE 1200, THE COLONNADE
5500 WAYZATA BOULEVARD
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416
11:.L. (612)5~1200
FAX (612) 5~1003
JUN 1 2 1997
lVIEMORANDUM
FROM:
Thomas D. Crei
TO:
Municipal Clients
DATE:
June 4, 1997
SUBJECT:
Differences Between B&L Model Ordinance
and LMC/CEAM Model Ordinance
We previously sent you a Memorandum dated May 14, 1997 explaining the impact of S.F. 442
which was recently enacted and which clarifies municipal authority to regulate and manage use
of rights-of-way ("ROW") via a ROW ordinance. The legislation encourages creation of a
"model" ROW ordinance for use by municipalities throughout the state in an effort to
standardize and make uniform right-of-way management provisions. In addition, the Public
Utilities Commission ("PUC") is required to convene a task force of industry and municipal
officials and to produce statewide right-of-way construction and installation standards by
March 1, 1998.
Accordingly, the League of Minnesota Cities ("LMC"), in conjunction with the City
Engineers Association of Minnesota ("CEAM") have been working to produce a model
ordinance. A task force was organized for this purpose. We were members of the task force
and helped produce a model ordinance which will be released by the LMC in the near future
("LMC/CEAM Model").
However, we believe that a number of modifications to the LMC/CEAM Model are
warranted. We produced a model right-of-way ordinance well over one year ago which has
been used by municipalities throughout the country in states other than Minnesota. We have
determined that many of the changes we suggest to the LMC/CEAM Model have proven
effective in many other jurisdictions. Rather than provide suggestions, amendments, and
advice regarding the LMC/CEAM Model to our clients on an individual basis, which we
believe would be inefficient, we have produced our own model ordinance ("B&L Model")
based for the most part on the LMC/CEAM Model, but including some changes we would
advise our clients to make in that model. The B&L Model is enclosed for your review.
1
We advise that you consider the adoption of a ROW management ordinance as soon as
possible. Work is still being done on a possible formula for the calculation of permit fees.
You need not wait for such recommended formula. It is still advisable to proceed with
consideration of an ordinance to establish a registration and reporting procedure for ROW
occupants.
)
Also enclosed are sample forms you could use to implement the ordinances.
We would ask that you send us a copy of any such ordinance you enact so that we can keep
track of the level of uniformity of municipal response.
We are, of course, available to advise your City Staff or Council. We, as always, prefer to
work through and with your City Attorney since they remain the primary advisor to the City in
ordinance matters. If you are a member of a joint powers cable commission, you may wish to
consider joint informational work sessions for your Council at the cable commission level.
This is a complex issue, deserving thoughtful deliberation by your Council and staff.
Since you will be receiving both the B&L Model and a very similar model from the League,
we have attempted to compare the two so as to avoid confusion at the local level and to aid
your policy considerations. Below please find a bullet point analysis of the distinctions
between the B&L Model and the LMC/CEAM Model. It is quite possible that your
municipality may wish to incorporate portions of both models as a "hybrid". These are policy
decisions for your municipality.
COMPARISON
. The B&L Model contains a fmdings and purpose statement which incorporates the
fmdings in the new legislation regarding municipal authority to regulate ROW. In
addition, the B&L Model indicates that the ordinance provisions are reasonable and
impose fair, efficient, competitively neutral, uniform standards and regulations on the
placement and maintenance of equipment within ROW. The LMC/CEAM Model does
not include such language.
. The definitions in the B&L Model and the LMC/CEAM Model differ in some respects.
In addition, the B&L Model contains fewer definitions in an effort to simplify the
ordinance.
For example, "City Costs" are defmed in both ordinances using language from the new
legislation. The new legislation generally allows recovery of all actual costs of ROW
management. Therefore, the B&L definition more broadly includes such costs as
creating and updating mapping systems, budget analysis, record keeping, legal
assistance, systems analysis, etc., which are not included hi the LMC/CEAM Model.
2
....
Further, the B&L Model uses the term "City" throughout the ordinance rather than
identifying the "Director" or the "Department" or, in some cases, the "City" as in the
LMC/CEAM Model. B&L believes that some cities may wish to make a delegation of
authority while others may not. Further, some cities may wish to delegate authority to
people or positions not currently referred to as the "Director" or the "Department".
Finally, the definition of "Right-of-Way" in the B&L Model is somewhat broader than
that found in the LMC/CEAM Model. The B&L Model generally applies to any
property "in which the City has an interest". The LMC/CEAM Model applies only to
City property used for travel or utility purposes. Because the ordinance regulates use
of the ROW, the definition of this term is important and should be as broad as is
allowed by law.
. The LMC/CEAM Model has stricken references to a municipality's legal authority to
adopt a ROW ordinance and franchise certain ROW users. The B&L Model
specifically indicates that municipalities have authority, pursuant to the new legislation
and historical police power, to regulate the ROW. The B&L Model further indicates
that municipalities have franchising authority with respect to non-telecommunications
users of the ROW.
The distinction is that the B&L Model contemplates exercise of the full scope of
municipal authority depending on the nature of the ROW user. The LMC/CEAM
Model arguably fails to provide for the exercise of franchise authority with respect to
those ROW occupants that can be franchised.
. The LMC/CEAM Model provides an optional provision for the inclusion of a "user
fee" to be applied to ROW users Q!hg than those telecommunications providers
specifically exempted from franchising and franchise fees. The user fee apparently
replaces a franchise and franchise fees.
The B&L Model simply makes provision for the franchising of any and all providers
which can be franchised pursuant to law. We believe that the authority to franchise
includes more than mere authority to charge a rental or occupancy fee and includes
broader regulatory authority than that found in either model ordinance. Further, cities
may wish to continue existing franchises or franchising processes with providers in the
manner that such providers have been franchised in the past. The B&L Model accounts
for this.
. The B&L Model makes provision for a "Performance and Restoration Bond" as part of
registration with the City. Such bond requirement is specifically authorized by the new
legislation. The purpose of such bond is to secure funds to ensure compliance with the
ordinance including obligations to fully restore the ROW.
3
The LMC/CEAM Model has removed the concept of a general bond and instead
contemplates recovering all costs including restoration costs via the permit fee. This
provides the City with less security and makes setting the permit fee at the proper
amount critically important. Therefore, B&L believes that a bond is warranted.
..
. Both ordinances allow providers to elect not to perform restoration and both allow the
providers to require the City to perform such restoration. This result is mandated by
the new law.
However, the new law also provides the City with a right to mandate that the City
retain the right to perform ill restoration regardless of the providers' election. The
B&L Model incorporates this authority while the LMC/CEAM Model does not.
. Both ordinances contemplate that if a provider elects not to perform restoration itself,
and the City similarly opts not to perform such restoration, the City may require
payment of a degradation fee. Such fee is permitted by law. Both ordinances clarify
that payment of a degradation fee does not relieve the provider from any obligation to
perform restoration.
However, the B&L Model clarifies that the degradation fee must include a component
to cover the costs of future restoration to allow the City to perform the same should the
provider fail to do so.
. The B&L Model contains a specific provision regarding appeals from permit denials
and revocations and registration denials, all in accordance with the new state law. The
LMC/CEAM Model does not contain such a provision.
. Attached to the B&L Model are examples of forms which the City may wish to use to
implement the ordinance. These forms may be modified as the City sees fit or used in
their present form.
CONCLUSION
Both the B&L Model and the LMC/CEAM Model are consistent with the new state legislation
and both are acceptable for adoption by your municipality. In some respects, the B&L Model
and the LMC/CEAM Model reflect different policy choices. The City should undertake an
aggressive discussion of such policy issues leading to the adoption of an ordinance. Please
feel free to contact this office with questions about either model.
C:\ YOSE\B&L-LMC.MOl
4
'"
MODEL RIGHT-OF-WAY
ORDINANCE
by
Thomas D, Creighton
Robert 1. V. Vose
Bernick and Lifson, P .A.
1200 The Colonnade
5500 Wayzata Boulevard
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416
(612) 546-1200
Modeled after the
Ordinance prepared by the
City Engineers Association of Minnesota and the
League of Minnesota Cities
June 1997
;
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MODEL RIGHT-OF-WAY ORDINANCE
SECTION
PAGE
Sec. 1.01. Findings and Purpose. ................................................. 1
Sec. 1.02. Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Sec. 1.03. Administration.................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Sec. 1.04. Registration, Bonding and Right-of-Way Occupancy. ........................6
Sec. 1.05. Right to Occupy Rights-of-Way; Payment of Fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Sec. 1.06. Franchise; Franchise Supremacy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Sec. 1.07. Registration Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Sec. 1.08. Reporting Obligations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Sec. 1.09. Permit Requirement. ..................................................9
Sec. 1.10. Permit Applications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Sec. 1.11. Issuance of Permit; Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Sec. 1.12. Permit Fees. ........................................................ 11
Sec. 1.13. Right-of- Way Restoration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Sec. 1.14. Joint Applications. ................................................... 13
Sec. 1.15. Supplementary Applications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Sec. 1.16. Other Obligations. ................................................... 14
Sec. 1.17. Denial of Permit. .................................................... 15
Sec. 1.18. Installation Requirements. ............................................. 17
Sec. 1.19. Inspection. ......................................................... 17
Sec. 1.20. Work Done Without a Permit. ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Sec. 1.21. Supplementary Notification. ........................................... 18
Sec. 1.22. Revocation of Permits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Sec. 1.23. Appeals. ........................................................... 19
Sec. 1.24. Mapping Data. ............. .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Sec. 1.25. Location of Equipment. ............................................... 21
Sec. 1.26. Relocation of Equipment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
Sec. 1.27. Pre-Excavation Equipment Location. ....................................22
Sec. 1.28. Damage to Other Equipment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Sec. 1.29. Right-of-Way Vacation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
Sec. 1.30. Indemnification and Liability. .......................................... 23
Sec. 1.31. Future Uses. ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Sec. 1.32. Abandoned and Unusable Equipment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Sec. 1.33. Reservation of Regulatory and Police Powers. .............................25
Sec. 1.34. Severability. ....................................................... 25
Sec. 1.35. Non-Exclusive Remedy. .................................,...............26
City of
Model Ordinance
County, Minnesota
An ordinance to enact a new Chapter
of the Code of Ordinances
to manage and administer use of the
public Right-of-Way in the public interest, and to provide for the
issuance and regulation of Right-of-Way Permitsl
THE COUNCIL OF
ORDAINS:2
SECTION 1
Chapter _ of Code of Ordinances (hereafter "this Code") is hereby repealed
in its entirety, and is replaced by the following new Chapter 1, to read as follows:
Chapter 1
Right-of-Way Management
Sec. 1.01. Findings and Purpose.
Subd. 1. General. In order to provide for the health, safety and well-being of its citizens,
as well as to insure the structural integrity of its streets and the use of the Rights-of-Way, the
City strives to keep its Rights-of-Way in a state of good repair and free from unnecessary
encumbrances. Although the general population bears the financial burden for the upkeep of the
Rights-of- Way, a primary cause for the early and excessive deterioration of its Rights-of-Way is
their frequent Excavation by Persons whose Equipment is located therein.
Right-of- Way Obstruction is a source of frustration for merchants, business owners and
the general population which must avoid these Obstructions or change travel or shopping plans
because of them and has a detrimental effect on commerce. Persons whose Equipment is located
within the Right-of-Way are the primary cause of these frequent Obstructions.
1 This ordinance may supersede existing permitting ordinances or similar regulations.
Any such conflicting ordinances should be repealed.
2 Enacting clauses are different in various charters. The statutory City enacting clause is
used here.
The City holds the Rights-of- Way within its geographical boundaries as an asset in trust
for its citizens. The City and other public entities have invested millions of dollars in public
funds to build and maintain the Right-of-Way. The City recognizes that some Persons, by
placing their Equipment in the Right-of- Way and charging the citizens of the City for goods and
services delivered thereby, are using this public property for private gain and profit.
The Minnesota Legislature has recognized that it is in the public's interest that the use
and regulation of Rights-of- Way be carried on in a fair, efficient, competitively neutral, and
substantially uniform manner, while recognizing such regulation must reflect distinct
engineering, construction, operation, maintenance, and public and worker safety requirements
and standards applicable to various users of Rights-of- Way. Further, the Legislature has
determined that because increasing numbers of persons may seek usage of Rights-of- Way,
municipalities such as the City must be and have been authorized to regulate use of Rights-of-
Way. Consistent with this mandate, the City has endeavored to model its Right-of-Way
regulations consistent with those of models enacted or under consideration by municipalities
throughout the state. Further, the City has endeavored to create competitively neutral Right-of-
Way standards and regulations of general applicability.
In response to the foregoing, the City hereby enacts this new Chapter 1 of this Code
relating to Right-of-Way Permits and management, together with an ordinance making necessary
revisions to other Code provisions. This Chapter imposes fair, efficient, competitively neutral,
uniform, and reasonable regulations on the placement and maintenance of Equipment currently
within its Rights-of-Way or to be placed therein. This Chapter is intended to complement the
regulatory roles of state and federal agencies. Under this Chapter, Persons disturbing and
o bstructing the Rights-of-Way will bear a fair share of the fmancial responsibility for their
integrity. Finally, this Chapter provides for recovery of out-of-pocket and projected costs from
Persons using the Rights-of-Way.
Subd. 2. Legislative Power. By enactment of this Chapter, the Council hereby exercises
its lawful police power and common law authority, and all statutory authority which is available
to it, including, but not limited to, the powers conferred on it under Minn. Stat. ~~ 237.162 and
237.163, while preserving all power and authority to further require franchises from Right-of-
Way users under Minn. Stat. ~~ 216B.36, 222.37, 300.03, and 412.11, and other provisions of
law.
Sec. 1.02. Definitions.
The following definitions apply in this Chapter of this Code, (hereinafter, "this Chapter).
References hereafter to "Sections" are, unless otherwise specified. references to Sections in this
Code. Defmed terms remain defined terms whether or not capitalized.
(a) "Applicant" means any Person requesting permission to Excavate or Obstruct a Right-of-
Way.
2
"'
(b) "Business District" means that portion of the City lying within and bounded by the following
streets: (insert your City definition here)
(c) "City" means the City of , Minnesota. For purposes of Section 1.30, City
means its elected officials, officers, employees, agents or any commission, committee or
subdivision acting pursuant to lawfully delegated authority.3
(d) "City Cost" means the actual costs incurred by the City for managing Rights-of-Way
including, but not limited to costs associated with registering of applicants; issuing, processing,
and verifying Right-of-Way Permit applications; revoking Right-of-Way Permits; inspecting job
sites; creating and updating mapping systems; determining the adequacy of Right-of-Way
restoration; restoring work inadequately performed; maintaining, supporting, protecting, or
moving user equipment during Right-of-Way work; budget analysis; record keeping; legal
assistance; systems analysis; and performing all of the other tasks required by this Chapter,
including other costs the City may incur in managing the provisions of this Chapter except as
expressly prohibited by law.
(e) "City Inspector" means any Person authorized by the City to carry out inspections related to
the provisions of this Chapter.
(f) "Degradation" means the accelerated depreciation of the Right-of-Way caused by Excavation
in or disturbance of the Right-of-Way, resulting in the need to reconstruct such Right-of-Way
earlier than would be required if the Excavation did not occur. .
(g) "Emergency" means a condition that (a) poses a clear and immediate danger to life or health,
or of a significant loss of property; or (b) requires immediate repair or replacement in order to
restore Service to a customer.
(h) "Equipment" means any tangible thing located in any Right-of-Way; but shall not include
boulevard plantings or gardens planted or maintained in the Right-of-Way between a Person's
property and the street curb.
(i) "Excavate" means to dig into or in any way remove or physically disturb or penetrate any part
of a Right-of-Way, except horticultural practices of penetrating the boulevard area to a depth of
less than 12 inches.
3 The term "City" is used throughout. The City could designate the City engineer, the
street superintendent, or the City manager, or in each case, his or her designee to perform some
or all of the functions contemplated herein. Some cities prefer to designate the City manager or
administrator as the administrative authority in all cases.
3
.,.
(j) "Excavation Permit" means the Permit which, pursuant to this Chapter, must be obtained
before a Person may excavate in a Right-of-Way. An Excavation Permit allows the holder to
Excavate that part of the Right-of-Way described in such Permit.
(k) "Excavation Permit Fee" means money paid to the City by an Applicant to cover the costs as
provided in Section 1.12.
(1) "In", when used in conjunction with "Right-of-Way", means over, above, in, within, on, or
under a Right-of-Way.
(m) "Local Representative" means the Person or Persons, or designee of such Person or Persons,
authorized by a Registrant to accept Service and to make decisions for that Registrant regarding
all matters within the scope of this Chapter.
(n) "Obstruct" means to place any tangible object in a Right-of-Way so as to hinder free and
open passage over that or any part of the Right-of-Way.
(0) "Obstruction Permit" means the Permit which, pursuant to this Chapter, must be obtained
before a Person may Obstruct a Right-of-Way, allowing the holder to hinder free and open
passage over the specified portion of a Right-of-Way by placing Equipment described therein on
the Right-of-Way for the duration specified therein.
(p) "Obstruction Permit Fee" means money paid to the City by a Registrant to cover the costs as
provided in Section 1.12.
(q) "Performance and Restoration Bond" means a performance bond or letter of credit posted to
ensure the availability of sufficient funds to assure that all obligations pursuant to this Chapter,
including, but not limited to, Right-of-Way Excavation and Obstruction work, is timely and
properly completed.
(r) "Permittee" means any Person to whom a Permit to Excavate or Obstruct a Right-of-Way has
been granted by the City under this Chapter.
(s) "Person" means any natural or corporate Person, business association or other business entity
including, but not limited to, a partnership, a sole proprietorship, a political subdivision. a public
or private agency of any kind, a utility, a successor or assign of any of the foregoing, or any other
legal entity which has or seeks to have Equipment located in any Right-of-Way.
(t) "Probation" means the status of a Person that has not complied with the conditions of this
Chapter.
(u) "Probation Period"'means one (1) year from the date that a Person has been notified in
writing that they have been put on Probation.
4
~
(v) "Registrant" means any Person who (1) has or seeks to have its Equipment located in any
Rigl' )f- Way, or (2) in any way occupies or uses, or seeks to occupy or use, the Right-of-Way or
any Equipment located in the Right-of-Way and, accordingly, is required to register with the
City.
(w) "Restore" or "Restoration" means the process by which an Excavated or Obstructed Right-
of- W ay and surrounding area, including, but not limited to, pavement and foundation, is returned
to the same condition that existed before the commencement of Excavation.
(x) "Restoration Fee" means an amount of money paid to the City by a Permittee to cover the
cost of Restoration.
(y) "Right-of-Way" means the area on, below, or above any real property in which the City has
an interest including, but not limited to any street, road, highway, alley, sidewalk. parkway, park,
skyway, or any other place, area, or real property owned by or under the control of the City,
including other dedicated Rights-of-Way for travel purposes and utility easements.
(z) "Right-of-Way Permit" means either the Excavation Permit or the Obstruction Permit, or
both, depending on the context, required by this Chapter.
(aa) "Service" or "Utility Service" includes, but is not limited to, (i) those Services provided by
a public utility as defined in Minn. Stat. S 216B.02. Subds. 4 and 6 (1996), (ii) a
Telecommunications Right-of-Way User, pipeline, community antenna television, cable
communications systems as defined in Minn. Stat. Chap. 238, fire and alarm communications,
water, electricity, light, heat, cooling energy, or power services, (iii) the services provided by a
corporation organized for the purposes set for in Minn. Stat. 9 300.03 (1996); and (iv) the
Services provided by a district heating or cooling system.
(bb) "Supplementary Application" means an application made to Excavate or Obstruct more of
the Right-of-Way than allowed in, or to extend, a Permit that had already been issued.
(cc) "Telecommunications Right-of-Way User" means a Person owning or controlling a
facility in the Right-of-Way, or seeking to own or control the same, that is used or is intended
to be used for transporting telecommunication or other voice or data information. For
purposes of this Chapter, a cable communications system defmed and regulated under Minn.
Stat. Chap. 238, and telecommunications activities related to providing natural gas or electric
energy services are not included in this definition for purposes of this Chapter. This definition
shall not be inconsistent with Minn. Stat. 9 237.162, Subd. 4.
(dd) "Unusable Equipment" means Equipment located in the Right-of-Way which has remained
unused for one (1) year and for which the Registrant is unable to provide proof that it has either a
plan to begin using it within the next twelve (12) months or a potential purchaser or user of the
Equipment.
5
r
Sec. 1.03. Administration.
The City may designate a principal City official responsible for the administration of the
Rights-of-Way, Right-of-Way Permits, and the ordinances related thereto.4 The City may
delegate any or all of the duties hereunder.
Sec. 1.04. Registration, Bonding and Right-of-Way Occupancy.
Subd. 1. Each Person which occupies, uses, or seeks to occupy or use, the Right-of-Way or
any Equipment located in the Right-of-Way, including by lease, sublease or assignment, or who
has, or seeks to have, Equipment located in any Right-of-Way must register with the City.
Registration will consist of providing application information to and as required by the City,
paying a registration fee, and posting a Performance and Restoration Bond.
The Performance and Restoration Bond required in this Section, and in Sections 1.10,
Subd. 2; 1.13, Subd. 2(b), and Section 1.32, Subd. 1(b)(3) shall be in an amount determined in
the City's sole discretion, sufficient to serve as security for the full and complete performance of
the obligations under this Chapter, including any costs, expenses, damages, or loss the City pays
or incurs because of any failure to comply with this Chapter or any other applicable laws,
regulations or standards. During periods of construction, repair or Restoration of Rights-of- W ay
or Equipment In Rights-of-Way, the Performance and Restoration Bond shall be in an amount
sufficient to cover 100% of the estimated cost of such work, as documented by the Person
proposing to perform such work, or in such lesser amount as may be determined by the City,
taking into account the amount of Equipment in the Right-of-Way, the location and method of
installation of the Equipment, the conflict or interference of such Equipment with the Equipment
of other Persons, and the purposes and policies of this Chapter. Sixty (60) days after completion
of the work, the Performance and Restoration Bond may be reduced in the sole determination of
the City.
Subd.2. No Person may construct, install, repair, remove, relocate, or perform any other
work on, or use any Equipment or any part thereof located in any Right-of-Way without first
being registered with the City.
Subd. 3. Nothing herein shall be construed to repeal or amend the provisions of a City
ordinance permitting Persons to plant or maintain boulevard plantings or gardens or in the area of
Right-of- Way between their property and the street curb. Persons planting or maintaining
boulevard plantings or gardens shall not be deemed to use or occupy the Right-of-Way, and shall
not be required to obtain any Permits or satisfy any other requirements for planting or
4 The City manager would usually make the appointment. A council resolution should be
used in the typical weak mayor, non-manager City. The mayor of strong mayor cities would
typically make this appointment.
6
maintaining such boulevard plantings or gardens under this Chapter. However, Excavations
deeper than 12 inches are subject to the Permit requirements of Section 1.09 of this Chapter.
Sec. 1.05. Right to Occupy Rights-of-Way; Payment of Fees.
Subd. 1. Any Person required to register under Section 1.04. which occupies, uses, or
places its Equipment in the Right-of-Way, is hereby granted a right to do so if and only so long
as it (1) timely pays all fees as provided herein and (2) complies with all other requirements of
law.
Subd.2. The grant of right in Section 1.05, Subd. 1 is expressly conditioned on, and is
subject to, the police powers of the City, continuing compliance with all provisions oflaw now
or hereinafter enacted, including this Chapter as it may be from time to time amended and,
further, is specifically subject to the obligation to obtain any and all additional required
authorizations, whether from the City or other body or authority.
Sec. 1.06. Franchise; Franchise Supremacy.
The City may, in addition to the requirements of this Chapter, require any Person which
has or seeks to have Equipment located in any Right-of-Way to obtain a franchise to the full
extent permitted by law, now or hereinafter enacted. The terms of any franchise which are in
direct conflict with any provision of this Chapter, whether granted prior or subsequent to
enactment to this Chapter, shall control and supersede the conflicting terms of this Chapter
provided, however, that requirements relating to insurance, bonds, penalties, security funds,
letters of credit, indemnification or any other security in favor of the City may be cumulative in
the sole determination of the City or unless otherwise negotiated by the City and the franchise
grantee. All other terms of this Chapter shall be fully applicable to all Persons whether
franchised or not.
Sec. 1.07. Registration Information.
Subd. 1. The information provided to the City at the time of registration shall include, but
not be limited to:
(a) The Registrant's name, Gopher One-Call registration certificate number, address and
e-mail address if applicable, and telephone and facsimile numbers.
(b) The name, address and e-mail address, if applicable, and telephone and facsimile
numbers of a Local Representative. The Local Representative or designee shall be available at
all times. Current information regarding how to contact the Local Representative in an
Emergency shall be provided at the time of registration.
7
(c) A certificate of insurance or self-insurance:
(1) Shall be on a form approved by the City,
(2) Shall verify that an insurance policy has been issued to the Registrant
by an insurance company licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota; or is
covered by self-insurance which the City determines to provide the City with
protections equivalent to that of a Minnesota licensed insurance company, legally
independent from Registrant,
(3) Shall verify that the Registrant is insured against claims for personal
injury, including death, as well as claims for property damage arising out of the
(i) use and occupancy of the Right-of-Way by the Registrant, its officers, agents,
employees and Permittees, and (ii) placement and use of Equipment in the Right-
of- Way by the Registrant, its officers, agents, employees and Permittees,
including, but not limited to, protection against liability arising from completed
operations, damage of underground Equipment and collapse of property,
(4) Shall name the City as an additional insured as to whom the coverages
required herein are in force and applicable and for whom defense will be provided
as to all such coverages,
(5) Shall require that the City be notified thirty (30) days in advance of
cancellation of the policy, and
(6) Shall indicate comprehensive liability coverage, automobile liability
coverage, workers compensation and umbrella coverage in amounts established
by the City of the office of risk and employee benefit management in amounts
sufficient to protect the City and carry out the purposes and policies of this
Chapter.
(d) lfthe Registrant is a corporation, a copy of the certificate required to be filed under
Minn. Stat. S 300.06 (1996) as recorded and certified to by the Secretary of State.
(e) A copy of the Registrant's certificate of authority from the Minnesota Public Utilities
Commission, where the Registrant is lawfully required to have such certificate from said
Commission.
(D Such other information as the City may require.
Subd. 2. The Registrant shall keep all of the information listed above current at all times
by providing to the City information of changes within fifteen (15) days following the date on
which the Registrant has knowledge of any change.
8
"
Sec. 1.08. Reporting Obligations.
Subd. 1. Operations. Each Registrant shall, at the time of registration and by December 1
of each year, file a construction and major maintenance plan with the City. Registrants must use
commercially reasonable efforts to anticipate and plan for all upcoming projects and include all
such projects in a construction or major maintenance plan. Such plan shall be submitted using a
format designated by the City and shall contain the information determined by the City to be
necessary to facilitate the coordination and reduction in the frequency of Excavations and
Obstructions of Rights-of-Way.
The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following information:
(1) the specific locations and the estimated beginning and ending dates of
all Projects to be commenced during the next calendar year (in this Section, a
"Next-year Project"); and
(2) the tentative locations and beginning and ending dates for all Projects
contemplated for the five years following the next calendar year (in this Section, a
"Five-year Project").
The term "Project" in this Section shall include both Next-year Projects and Five-year Projects.
By January 1 of each year the City will have available for inspection in its offices a
composite list of all Projects of which it has been informed in the annual plans. All Registrants
are responsible for keeping themselves apprised of the current status of this list.
Thereafter, by February 1, each Registrant may change any Project in its list of Next-year
Projects, and must notify the City and all other Registrants of all such changes in said list.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Registrant may at any time join in a Next-year Project of
another Registrant that was listed by the other Registrant.
Subd. 2. Additional Next-vear Projects. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City may, for
good cause shown, allow a Registrant to submit additional Next-year Projects. Good cause
includes, but is not limited to, the criteria set forth in Section 1.17, Subd. 3 concerning the
discretionary issuance of Permits.
Sec. 1.09. Permit Requirement.
Except as otherwise provided in this Code, no Person may Obstruct or Excavate any
Right-of- Way without fust having obtained the appropriate Right-of-Way Permit trom the City
to do so.
9
,-
(a) Excavation Permit. An Excavation Permit is required to allow the holder to Excavate
that part of the Right-of-Way described in such Permit and/or to hinder free and open passage
over the specified portion of the Right-of-Way by placing Equipment described therein, to the
extent and for the duration specified therein.
(b) Obstruction Permit. An Obstruction Permit is required to allow the holder to hinder
free and open passage over the specified portion of Right-of-Way by placing Equipment,
vehicles, or other obstructions described therein on the Right-of-Way for the duration specified
therein.
No Person may Excavate or Obstruct the Right-of-Way beyond the date or dates specified
in the Permit unless such person (i) makes a Supplementary Application for another Right-of-
Way Permit before the expiration of the initial Permit, and (ii) a new Permit or Permit extension
is granted.
Permits issued under this Chapter shall be conspicuously displayed at all times at the
indicated work site and shall be available for inspection by the City Inspector and authorized
City personnel.
Sec. 1.10. Permit Applications.
Subd. 1. Application for a Permit is made to the City. Right-of-Way Permit applications
shall contain, and will be considered complete only upon compliance with, the requirements of
the following provisions:
(a) Registration with the City pursuant to this Chapter.
(b) Submission of a completed Permit application form, including all required
attachments, and scaled drawings showing the location and area of the proposed project and the
location of all existing and proposed Equipment.
(c) Payment of all money due to the City for:
(1) Permit fees and costs due;
(2) prior Obstructions or Excavations;
(3) any loss, damage, or expense suffered by the City as a result of Applicant's
prior Excavations or Obstructions of the Rights-of-Way or any Emergency actions taken by the
City; and
(4)- franchise fees, if applicable.
10
Subd.2. When an Excavation Permit is requested for purposes of installing additional
Equipment, and a Performance and Restoration Bond which is in existence is insufficient with
respect to the additional Equipment in the sole determination of the City, the Permit applicant
may be required by the City to post an additional Performance and Restoration Bond in
accordance with Section 1.04, Subd. 1.
Sec. 1.11. Issuance of Permit; Conditions.
Subd.1. lfthe City determines that the Applicant has satisfied the requirements oftrus
chapter, the City may issue a Permit.
Subd.2. The City may impose any reasonable conditions upon the issuance of a Permit and
the performance of the applicant thereunder in order to protect the public health, safety and
welfare, to ensure the structural integrity of the Right-of-Way, to protect the property and safety
of other users of the Right-of-Way, to minimize the disruption and inconvenience to the traveling
public, and to otherwise efficiently manage use of the Right-of-Way.
Sec. 1.12. Permit Fees.
Subd.1. Excavation Permit Fee. The Excavation Permit Fee shall be established by the
City in an amount sufficient to recover the following costs:
(1) the City Cost;
(2) the Degradation of the Right-of-Way that will result from the Excavation;
(3) Restoration, if done or caused to be done by the City.
Subd. 2. Obstruction Permit Fee. The Obstruction Permit Fee shall be established by the
City and shall be in an amount sufficient to recover the City Cost.
Subd.3. Disruption Fees. The City may establish and impose a disruption fee as a penalty
for unreasonable delays in Excavations, Obstructions, or Restoration.
Subd.4. Payment of Permit Fees. No Excavation Permit or Obstruction Permit shall be
issued without payment of all fees required prior to the issuance of such a Permit unless the
Applicant shall agree (in a manner, amount, and substance acceptable to the City) to pay such
fees within thirty (30) days of billing therefor. All Permit fees shall be doubled during a
probationary period. Permit fees that were paid for a Permit which was revoked for a breach are
not refundable. Any refunded Permit Fees shall be less all City Cost up to and including the date
of refund.
11
JIf"
Subd.5. Use of Permit Fees. All Obstruction and Excavation Permit Fees shall be used
solely for City management, construction, maintenance and Restoration costs of the Right-of-
Way.
Sec. 1.13. Right-of-Way Restoration.
Subd.1. The work to be done under the Permit, and the Restoration of the Right-of-Way as
required herein, must be completed within the dates specified in the Permit, increased by as
many days as work could not be done because of circumstances constituting force majeure or
when work was prohibited as unseasonal or unreasonable under Section 1.16, Subd. 2 all in the
sole determination of the City. In addition to repairing its own work, the Permittee must restore
the general area of the work, and the surrounding areas, including the paving and its foundations,
to the same condition that existed before the commencement of the work and must inspect the
area of the work and use reasonable care to maintain the same condition for thirty-six (36)
months thereafter.
Subd. 2. In its application for an Excavation Permit, the Permittee may choose to have the
City restore the Right-of-Way. In any event, the City may determine to perform the Right-of-
Way Restoration and shall require the Permittee to pay a Restoration Fee to provide for
reimbursement of all costs associated with such Restoration. In the event Permittee elects not to
perform Restoration, City may, in lieu of performing the Restoration itself, impose a fee to fully
compensate for the resultant Degradation as well as for any and all additional City Costs
associated therewith. Such fee for Degradation shall compensate the City for costs associated
with a decrease in the useful life of the Right-of-Way caused by Excavation and shall include a
Restoration Fee component. Payment of such fee does not relieve a Permittee from any
Restoration obligation.
(a) City Restoration. If the City restores the Right-of-Way, the Permittee shall pay the
costs thereof within thirty (30) days of billing. If, during the thirty-six (36) months following
such Restoration, the Right-of-Way settles due to Permittee's Excavation or Restoration, the
Permittee shall pay to the City, within thirty (30) days of billing, the cost of repairing said Right-
of-Way.
(b) Permittee Restoration. If the Permittee chooses at the time of application for an
Excavation Permit to restore the Right-of- Way itself, such Permittee shall post an additional
Performance and Restoration Bond in an amount determined by the City to be sufficient to cover
the cost of restoring the Right-of-Way to its pre-Excavation condition. If, thirty-six (36) months
after completion of the Restoration of the Right-of-Way, the City determines that the Right-of-
Way has been properly restored, the surety on the Performance and Restoration Bond posted
pursuant to this Subd. 2(b) shall be released.
Subd. 3. The Permittee shall perform the work according to tfte standards and with the
materials specified by the City. The City shall have the authority to prescribe the manner and
12
.
extent of the Restoration, and may do so in written procedures of general application or on a
case-by-case basis. The City, in exercising this authority, shall be guided but not limited by the
following standards and considerations:
(a) the number, size, depth and duration of the Excavations, disruptions or
damage to the Right-of-Way;
(b) the traffic volume carried by the Right-of-Way; the character of the
neighborhood surrounding the Right-of-Way;
(c) the pre-excavation condition of the Right-of-Way; the remaining life-
expectancy of the Right-of-Way affected by the Excavation;
(d) whether the relative cost of the method of Restoration to the Permittee is
in reasonable balance with the prevention of an accelerated depreciation of
the Right-of-Way that would otherwise result from the Excavation,
disturbance or damage to the Right-of-Way; and
(e) the likelihood that the particular method of Restoration would be effective
in slowing the depreciation of the Right-of-Way that would otherwise take
place.
Subd. 4. By choosing to restore the Right-of-Way itself, the Permittee guarantees its work
and shall maintain it for thirty-six (36) months following its completion. During this thirty-six-
month period it shall, upon notification from the City, correct all Restoration work to the extent
necessary, using the method required by the City. Said work shall be completed within five (5)
calendar days of the receipt of the notice from the City, not including days during which work
cannot be done because of circumstances constituting force majeure or days when work is
prohibited as unseasonal or unreasonable under Section 1.16, Subd. 2 all in the sole
determination of the City.
Subd. 5. If the Permittee fails to restore the Right-of-Way in the manner and to the
condition required by the City, or fails to satisfactorily and timely complete all repairs required
by the City, the City at its option may perform or cause to be performed such work. In that event
the Permittee shall pay to the City, within thirty (30) days of billing, the cost of restoring the
Right-of-Way. If Permittee fails to pay as required, the City may exercise its rights under the
Performance and Restoration Bond.
Sec. 1.14. Joint Applications.
Subd. 1. Registrants may jointly make application for Permits to Excavate or Obstruct the
Right-of-Way at tlie same place and time.
13
Subd.2. Registrants who join in and during a scheduled Obstruction or Excavation
performed by the City, whether or not it is a joint application by two or more Registrants or a
single application, are not required to pay the Obstruction and Degradation portions of the Permit
Fee.
Subd. 3. Registrants who apply for Permits for the same Obstruction or Excavation, which
is not performed by the City, may share in the payment of the Obstruction or Excavation Permit
Fee. Registrants must agree among themselves as to the portion each will pay and indicate the
same on their applications.
Sec. 1.15. Supplementary Applications.
Subd.1. A Right-of-Way Permit is valid only for the area of the Right-of-Way specified in
the Permit. No Permittee may perform any work outside the area specified in the Permit, except
as provided herein. Any Permittee which determines that an area greater than that specified in
the Permit must be Obstructed or Excavated must before working in that greater area (i) make
appiication for a Permit extension and pay any additional fees necessitated thereby, and (ii) be
granted a new Permit or Permit extension.
Subd.2. A Right-of-Way Permit is valid only for the dates specified in the Permit. No
Permittee may begin its work before the Permit start date or, except as provided herein, continue
working after the end date. If a Permittee does not finish the work by the Permit end date, it
must make application for a new Permit for the additional time it needs, and receive the new
Permit or an extension of the old Permit before working after the end date of the previous Permit.
This Supplementary Application must be done before the Permit end date.
Sec. 1.16. Other Obligations.
Subd.1. Obtaining a Right-of-Way Permit does not relieve Permittee of its duty to obtain
all other necessary Permits, licenses, franchises or other authorizations and to pay all fees
required by the City, any other city, County, State, or Federal rules, laws or regulations. A
Permittee shall comply with all requirements of local, state and federal laws, including Minn.
Stat. SS 216D.OI-09 ("One Call Excavation Notice System"). A Permittee shall perform all work
in conformance with all applicable codes and established rules and regulations, and is responsible
for all work done in the Right-of-Way pursuant to its Permit, regardless of who performs the
work.
Subd.2. Except in the case of an Emergency, and with the approval of the City, no Right-
of- W ay Obstruction or Excavation may be performed when seasonally prohibited or when
conditions are unreasonable for such work.
Subd.3. A Permittee shall not so Obstruct a Right-of-Way that the natural free and clear
passage of water through the gutters or other waterways shall be interfered with. Private vehicles
14
........
may not be parked with or adjacent to a Permit area. The loading or unloading of trucks adjacent
to a Permit area is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Permit.
Sec. 1.17. Denial of Permit.
The City may, in accordance with Minn. Stat. S 237.163, Subd. 4, deny any application
for a Permit as provided in this Section.
Subd. 1. Mandatory Denial. Except in the case of an Emergency, no Right-o1'- Way Permit
will be granted:
(a) To any Person required by Section 1.04 to be registered who has not done
so;
(b ) To any Person required by Section 1.08 to file an annual report but has
failed to do so;
(c) For any Next-year Project not listed in the construction and major
maintenance plan required under Section 1.08 unless the Person used
commercially reasonable efforts to anticipate and plan for the project;
(d) For any project which requires the Excavation of any portion of a Right-
of-Way which was constructed or reconstructed within the preceding five
(5) years;5
(e) To any Person who has failed within the past three (3) years to comply, or
is presently not in full compliance, with the requirements of this Chapter;
(f) To any Person as to whom there exists grounds for the revocation of a
Permit under Section 1.22; and
(g) If, in the sole discretion of the City, the issuance of a Permit for the
particular date and/or time would cause a conflict or interfere with an
exhibition, celebration, festival, or any other event. The City, in
exercising this discretion, shall be guided by the safety and convenience of
ordinary travel of the public over the Right-of-Way, and by considerations
relating to the public health, safety and welfare.
5 This requirement may be objectionable to industry and could be contested as a "barrier
to entry". The City may elect to shorten this moratorium although we do not believe such
modification is required by law.
15
Subd. 2. Permissive Denial. The City may deny a Permit in order to protect the public
health, safety and welfare, to prevent interference with the safety and convenience of ordinary
travel over the Right-of-Way, or when necessary to protect the Right-of-Way and its users. The
City may consider one or more of the following factors:
(a) the extent to which Right-of-Way space where the Permit is sought is
available;
(b) the competing demands for the particular space in the Right-of- \Vay;
(c) the availability of other locations in the Right-of-Way or in other Rights-
of-Way for the Equipment of the Permit Applicant;
(d) the applicability of ordinance or other regulations of the Right-of-Way that
affect location of Equipment in the Right-of-Way;
(e) the degree of compliance of the Applicant with the terms and conditions of
its franchise, if any, this Chapter, and other applicable ordinances and
regulations;
(t) the degree of disruption to surrounding communities and businesses that
will result from the use of that part of the Right-of-Way;
(g) the condition and age of the Right-of-Way, and whether and when it is
scheduled for total or partial reconstruction; and
(h) the balancing of the costs of disruption to the public and damage to the
Right-of-Way, against the benefits to that part of the public served by the
expansion into additional parts of the Right-of-Way.
Subd. 3. Discretionary Issuance. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec. 1.18, Subd. 1 ( c)
and (d) above, the City may issue an Permit in any case where the Permit is necessary (a) to
prevent substantial economic hardship to a customer of the Permit Applicant, or (b) to allow such
customer to materially improve its Utility Service, or (c) to allow a new economic development
project; and where the Permit Applicant did not have knowledge of the hardship, the plans for
improvement of Service, or the development project when said Applicant was required to submit
its list of Next-year Projects.
Subd. 4. Permits for Additional Next-year Projects. Notwithstanding the provisions of
Section 1.18, Subd. 1 (c) above, the City may issue a Permit to a Registrant who was allowed
under Section 1.08, Subd. 2 to submit an additional Next-year Project, or in the event the
Registrant demoQStrates that it used commercially reasonable efforts to anticipate and plan for
16
the project, such Permit to be subject to all other conditions and requirements of law, including
such conditions as may be imposed under Section 1.11, Subd. 2.
Sec. 1.18. Installation Requirements.
In accordance with Minn. Stat. ~~ 237.162, Subd. 8(3); 237.163, Subd. 8; and other
provisions of law, and until the Public Utilities Commission adopts uniform statewide standards,
the Excavation, Restoration, and all other work performed in the Right-of-Way shall be done in
conformance with "The Standard Specifications for Street Openings" as promulgated by the City
and at a location as may be required by Section 1.25, Subd. 2. The City may enforce local
standards prior to adoption of mandatory, preemptive statewide standards pursuant to its inherent
and historical police power authority.
Sec. 1.19. Inspection.
Subd.1. When the work under any Permit hereunder is completed, the Permittee shall
notify the City.
Subd. 2. Permittee shall make the work-site available to the City Inspector and to all others
as authorized by law for inspection at all reasonable times during the execution and upon
completion of the work.
Subd.3. At the time of inspection the City Inspector may order the immediate cessation of
any work which poses a serious threat to the life, health, safety or well-being of the public. The
City Inspector may issue an order to the Registrant for any work which does not conform to the
applicable standards, conditions or codes. The order shall state that failure to correct the
violation will be cause for revocation of the Permit. Within ten (10) days after issuance of the
order, the Registrant shall present proof to the City that the violation has been corrected. If such
proof has not been presented within the required time, the City may revoke the Permit pursuant
to Section 1.22.
Sec. 1.20. Work Done Without a Permit.
Subd.1.
Emergencv Situations.
Each Registrant shall immediately notify the City or the City's designee of any event
regarding its Equipment which it considers to be an Emergency. The Registrant may proceed to
take whatever actions are necessary in order to respond to the Emergency. Within two (2)
business days after the occurrence of the Emergency, the Registrant shall apply for the necessary
Permits. pay the fees associated therewith and fulfill the rest of the requirements necessary to
bring itself into compliance with this Chapter for the actions it took in response to the
Emergency.
17
JIll"""
.
In the event that the City becomes aware of an Emergency regarding a Registrant's
Equipment, the City may attempt to contact the Local Representative of each Registrant affected,
or potentially affected, by the Emergency. In any event, the City may take whatever action it
deems necessary in order to respond to the Emergency, the cost of which shall be borne by the
Registrant whose Equipment occasioned the Emergency.
Subd.2.
N on- Emer~ency Situations.
Except in the case of an Emergency, any Person who, without first having obtained the
necessary Permit, Obstructs or Evacuates a Right-of-Way must subsequently obtain a Permit, pay
double the normal fee for said Permit, pay double all the other fees required by City ordinance,
including, but not limited to, criminal fmes and penalties, deposit with the City the fees
necessary to correct any damage to the Right-of-Way and comply with all of the requirements of
this Chapter.
Sec. 1.21. Supplementary Notification.
If the Obstruction or Evacuation of the Right-of-Way begins later or ends sooner than the
date given on the Permit, Permittee shall notify the City of the accurate information as soon as
this information is known.
Sec. 1.22. Revocation of Permits.
Subd. 1. Registrants hold Permits issued pursuant to this Code as a privilege and not as a
right. The City reserves its right, as provided herein and in accordance with Minn. Stat. S
23 7.163, Subd. 4, to revoke any Right-of-Way Permit, without fee refund, in the event of a
substantial breach of the terms and conditions of any statute, ordinance, rule or regulation, or any
condition of the Permit. A substantial breach by Permittee shall include, but shall not be limited
to, the following:
(a) The violationoLmy material provision of the Right-of-Way Permit;
(b) An evasion or attempt to evade any material provision of the Right-of-Way
Permit, or the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any fraud or deceit upon the
City or its citizens;
(c) Any material misrepresentation of fact in the application for a Right-of-Way
Permit;
(d) The failure to maintain the required bonds andlor insurance:
(e) The failure to complete the work in a timely manne?; or
18
.,
(f) The failure to correct a condition indicated on an order issued pursuant to
Section 1.19, Subd. 3.
Subd.2. If the City determines that the Permittee has committed a substantial breach of a
term or condition of any statue, ordinance, rule, regulation or any condition of the Permit, the
City shall make a written demand upon the Permittee to remedy such violation. The demand
shall state that continued violations may be cause for revocation of the Permit. Further, a
substantial breach, as stated above, will allow the City, at the City's discretion, to place
additional or revised conditions on the Permit.
Subd.3. Within twenty-four (24) hours of receiving notification of the breach, Permittee
shall contact the City with a plan, acceptable to the City Inspector, for its correction. Permittee's
failure to so contact the City Inspector, the Permittee's failure to submit an acceptable plan, or
the Permittee's failure to reasonably implement the approved plan shall be cause for immediate
revocation of the Permit. Further, Permittee's failure to so contact the City Inspector, or the
Permittee's failure to submit an acceptable plan, or Permittee's failure to reasonably implement
the approved plan shall automatically place the Permittee on Probation for one (1) full year.
Subd. 4. From time to time, the City may establish a list of conditions of the Permit which,
if breached, will automatically place the Permittee on Probation for one (1) full year, such as, but
not limited to, working out of the allotted time period or working on Right-of- Way outside of the
Permit.
Subd. 5. If a Permittee, while on Probation, commits a breach as outlined above,
Permittee's Permit will automatically be revoked and Permittee will not be allowed further
Permits for one (1) full year, except for Emergency repairs.
Subd. 6. If a Permit is revoked, the Permittee shall also reimburse the City for the City's
reasonable costs, including Restoration costs and the costs of collection and reasonable
attorneys' fees incurred in connection with such revocation.
Sec. 1.23. Appeals.
Subd.1.
A Person that:
(a) has been denied Registration;
(b) has been denied a Right-of-Way Permit;
(c) has had its Right-of-Way Permit revoked; or
(d) believes that the fees imposed on the user by the City do not conform to
the requirements of law,
may have the denial, revocation, or fee imposition reviewed, upon written request, by the City
Council. The City Council shall act on a timely written request at its next regularly scheduled
19
meeting. A decision by the City Council affirming the denial, revocation, or fee imposition must
be in writing and supported by written findings establishing the reasonableness of the decision.
Subd.2. Upon affirmation by the City Council of the denial, revocation, or fee imposition,
the telecommunications Right-of-Way user shall have the right to have the matter resolved by
binding arbitration. Binding arbitration must be before an arbitrator agreed to by both the City
and the Person. If the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, the matter must be resolved by a
three-person arbitration panel made up of one arbitrator selected by the City, one arbitrator
selected by the Person, and one arbitrator selected by the other two arbitrators. The costs and
fees of a single arbitrator shall be borne equally by the City and the Person. In the event there is
a third arbitrator, each party shall bear the expense of its own arbitrator and shall jointly and
equally bear with the other party the expense of the third arbitrator and of the arbitration.
Subd. 3.
fees.
Each party to the arbitration shall pay its own costs, disbursements, and attorney
Sec. 1.24. Mapping Data.
Subd. 1. Except as provided in Subd. 2 of this Section, each Registrant shall provide to the
City information indicating the horizontal and vertical location, relative to the boundaries of the
Right-of- W ay, of all Equipment which it owns or over which it has control and which is located
in any Right-of-Way ("Mapping Data"). Mapping Data shall be provided with the specificity
and in the format requested by the City for inclusion in the mapping system used by the City.
Within six months of the acquisition, installation, or construction of additional
Equipment or any relocation, abandonment, or disuse of existing Equipment, each Registrant
shall supplement the Mapping Data required herein.
Each Registrant shall, within six (6) months after the date of passage of this ordinance,
submit a plan to the City specifying in detail the steps it will take to comply with the
requirements of this Section. Said plan shall provide for the submission of all Mapping Data (a)
for the Downtown Business District within two (2) years after the date of passage of this
ordinance, and (b) for the remainder of the City as early as may be reasonable and practical, but
not later than five (5) years after the date of passage of this ordinance.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Mapping Data shall be submitted by all Registrants for all
Equipment which is to be installed or constructed after the date of passage of this ordinance at
the time any Permits are sought under this Chapter.
After six (6) months after the passage of this ordinance, a new Registrant, or a Registrant
which has not submitted a plan as required above, shall submit complete and accurate Mapping
Data for all its Equipment at the time any Permits are sought under this Chapter.
20
.....
"
Subd.2. Information regarding Equipment of Telecommunications Right-of-Way Users
constructed or located prior to May 10, 1997, need only be supplied in the form maintained,
however, all Telecommunications Right-of-Way Users must submit some type of documentary
evidence regarding the location of Equipment within the Rights-of-Way of the City.
Subd.3. At the request of any Registrant, any information requested by the City, which
qualifies as a "trade-secret" under Minn. Stat. S 13.37(b) shall be treated as trade secret
information as detailed therein. With respect to the provision of Mapping Data, the City may
consider unique circumstances from time to time required to obtain Mapping Data.
Sec. 1.25. Location of Equipment.
Subd. 1. Under~rounding. Unless otherwise permitted by an existing franchise or
Minnesota Statute 216B.34, or unless existing above-ground Equipment is repaired or replaced,
or unless infeasible such as in the provision of electric service at certain voltages, new
construction, the installation of new Equipment, and the replacement of old Equipment shall be
done underground or contained within buildings or other structures in conformity with applicable
codes unless otherwise agreed to by the City in writing, and such agreement is reflected in
applicable Permits.6
Subd.2. Corridors. The City may assign specific corridors within the Right-of-Way, or
any particular segment thereof as may be necessary, for each type of Equipment that is or,
pursuant to current technology, the City expects will someday be located within the Right-of-
Way. Excavation, Obstruction, or other Permits issued by the City involving the installation or
replacement of Equipment may designate the proper corridor for the Equipment at issue and such
Equipment must be located accordingly.
Any Registrant whose Equipment is located prior to enactment of this Chapter in the
Right-of- Way in a position at variance with the corridors established by the City shall, no later
than at the time of the next reconstruction or Excavation of the area where its Equipment is
located, move that Equipment" to its assigned position within the Right-of- Way, unless this
requirement is waived by the City for good cause shown, upon consideration of such factors as
the remaining economic life of the facilities, public safety, customer service needs and hardship
to the Registrant.
Subd. 3. Nuisance. One year after the passage of this ordinance, any Equipment found in a
Right-of- W ay that has not been registered shall be deemed to be a nuisance. The City may
6 This Subsection is optional and could be applied only within certain specified districts
of the City, i.e., the Business District, or may be omitted entirely ifundergrounding is not a
priority objective of the community. Note that the City may specifically agree to exempt
Equipment from this requirement.
21
exercise any remedies or rights it has at law or in equity, including, but not limited to, abating the
nuisance or taking possession of the Equipment and restoring the Right-of-Way to a useable
condition.
Subd. 4. Limitation of Space. To protect health, safety and welfare, the City shall have the
power to prohibit or limit the placement of new or additional Equipment within the Right-of-
Way if there is insufficient space to accommodate all of the requests of Registrants or Persons to
occupy and use the Right-of-Way. In making such decisions, the City shall strive to the extent
possible to accommodate all existing and potential users of the Right-of-Way, but shall be guided
primarily by considerations of the public interest, the public's needs for the particular Service, the
condition of the Right-of-Way, the time of year with respect to essential utilities, the protection
of existing Equipment in the Right-of-Way, and future City plans for public improvements and
development projects which have been determined to be in the public interest.
Sec. 1.26. Relocation of Equipment.
The Person must promptly and at its own expense, with due regard for seasonal working
conditions, permanently remove and relocate its Equipment and facilities in the Right-of-Way
whenever the City requests such removal and relocation, and shall restore the Right-of-Way to
the same condition it was in prior to said removal or relocation. The City may make such
requests in order to prevent interference by the Company's Equipment or facilities with (i) a
present or future City use of the Right-of-Way, (ii) a public improvement undertaken by the City,
(iii) an economic development project in which the City has an interest or investment, (iv) when
the public health, safety and welfare requires it, (v) or when necessary to prevent interference
with the safety and convenience of ordinary travel over the Right-of-Way.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Person shall not be required to remove or relocate its
Equipment from any Right-of-Way which has been vacated in favor of a non-governmental
entity unless and until the reasonable costs thereof are first paid by such non-governmental entity
to the Person therefor.
Sec. 1.27. Pre-Excavation Equipment Location.
In addition to complying with the requirements of Minn. Stat. SS 216D.Ol-.09 ("One Call
Excavation Notice System") before the start date of any Right-of-Way Excavation, each
Registrant who has Equipment located in the. area to be Excavated shall mark the horizontal and
approximate vertical placement of all said Equipment. Any Registrant whose Equipment is less
than twenty (20) inches below a concrete or asphalt surface shall notify and work closely with
the Excavation contractor in an effort to establish the exact location of its Equipment and the best
procedure for Excavation,
22
.
Sec. 1.28. Damage to Other Equipment.
When the City performs work in the Right-of-Way and finds it necessary to maintain,
support, or move a Registrant's Equipment in order to protect it, the City shall notify the Local
Representative as early as is reasonably possible. The costs associated therewith will be billed to
that Registrant and must be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of billing.
Each Registrant shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any Equipment in the Right-
of-Way which it or its Equipment damages. Each Registrant shall be responsible for the cost of
repairing any damage to the Equipment of another Registrant caused during the City's response
to an Emergency occasioned by that Registrant's Equipment.
Sec. 1.29. Right-of-Way Vacation.
Subd. 1. If the City vacates a Right-of-Way which contains the equipment of a Registrant,
and if the vacation does not require the relocation of Registrant or Permittee Equipment, the City
shall reserve, to and for itself and all Registrants having Equipment in the vacated Right-of-Way,
the right to install, maintain and operate any Equipment in the vacated Right-of-Way and to enter
upon such Right-of-Way at any time for the purpose of reconstructing, inspecting, maintaining or
repairing the same.
Subd. 2. If the vacation requires the relocation of Registrant or Permittee Equipment and:
(a) if the vacation proceedings are initiated by the Registrant or Permittee, the Registrant or
Permittee must pay the relocation costs; or (b) if the vacation proceedings are initiated by the
City, the Registrant or Permittee must pay the relocation costs unless otherwise agreed to by the
City and the Registrant or Permittee; or (c) if the vacation proceedings are initiated by a Person
or Persons other than the Registrant or Permittee, such other Person or Persons must pay the
relocation costs.
Sec. 1.30. Indemnification and Liability.
Subd. 1. By reason of the acceptance of a registration or the grant of a Right-of-Way
Permit, the City does not assume any liability: (a) for injuries to Persons, damage to propeny, or
loss of Service claims by parties other than the Registrant or the City; or (b) for claims or
penalties of any sort resulting from the installation, presence, maintenance, or operation of
Equipment by Registrants or activities of Registrants.
Subd. 2. By registering with the City, a Registrant agrees, or by accepting a Permit under
this Chapter, a Permittee is required to defend, indemnify, and hold the City whole and harmless
from all costs, liabilities, and claims for damages of any kind arising out of the construction.
presence, installation, maintenance, repair or operation of its Equipment. or out of any activity
undenaken in or near a Right-of-Way, whether or not any act or omission complained of is
authorized, allowed, or prohibited by a Right-of-Way Permit. It further agrees that it will not
..,..,
'::'.J
.
bring, nor cause to be brought, any action, suit or other proceeding claiming damages, or seeking
any other relief against the City for any claim nor for any award arising out of the presence,
installation, maintenance or operation of its Equipment, or any activity undertaken in or near a
Right-of- Way, whether or not the act or omission complained of is authorized, allowed or
prohibited by a Right-of-Way Permit. The foregoing does not indemnify the City for its O\-VTI
negligence except for claims arising out of or alleging the City's negligence where such
negligence arises out of or is primarily related to the presence, installation, construction,
operation, maintenance or repair of said Equipment by the Registrant or on the Registrant's
behalf, including, but not limited to, the issuance of Permits and inspection of plans or work.
This Section is not, as to third parties, a waiver of any defense or immunity otherwise available
to the Registrant or to the City; and the Registrant, in defending any action on behalf of the City,
shall be entitled to assert in any action every defense or immunity that the City could assert in its
own behalf.
Sec. 1.31. Future Uses.
In placing any Equipment, or allowing it to be placed, in the Right-of-Way the City is not
liable for any damages caused thereby to any Registrant's Equipment which is already in place.
No Registrant is entitled to rely on the provisions of this Chapter, and no special duty is created
as to any Registrant. This Chapter is enacted to protect the general health, welfare and safety of
the public at large.
Sec. 1.32. Abandoned and Unusable Equipment.
Subd.1. A Registrant who has determined to discontinue its operations with respect to any
Equipment in any Right-of-Way, or segment or portion thereof, in the City must either:
(a) Provide information satisfactory to the City that the Registrant's obligations for its
Equipment in the Right-of-Way under this Chapter have been lawfully assumed by
another Registrant; or
(b) Submit to the City a proposal and instruments for transferring ownership of its
Equipment to the City. If a Registrant proceeds under this clause, the City may, at its
option:
(1) purchase the Equipment, or
(2) require the Registrant, at its own expense, to remove it, or
(3) require the Registrant to post an additional bond or an increased bond amount
sufficient to reimburse the City for reasonably anticipated costs to be incurred in
removing the Equipment.
24
, ..
Subd. 2. Equipment of a Registrant which fails to comply with the preceding paragraph
and which, for two (2) years, remains unused shall be deemed to be abandoned. Abandoned
Equipment is deemed to be a nuisance. The City may exercise any remedies or rights it has at
law or in equity, including, but not limited to, (i) abating the nuisance, (ii) taking possession of
the Equipment and restoring it to a useable condition, (iii) requiring removal of the Equipment
by the Registrant or by the Registrant's surety; or (iv) exercising its rights pursuant to the
Performance and Restoration Bond.
Subd.3. Any Registrant who has unusable Equipment in any Right-of-Way shall remove it
from that Right-of-Way during the next scheduled Excavation, unless this requirement is waived
by the City.
Sec. 1.33. Reservation of Regulatory and Police Powers.
The City by the granting of a Right-of- Way Permit, or by registering a Person under this
Chapter does not surrender or to any extent lose, waive, impair, or lessen the lawful powers and
rights. which it has now or may be hereafter vested in the City under the Constitution and
statutes of the State of Minnesota (or the Charter of the City) to regulate the use of the Right-of-
Way by the Permittee; and the Permittee by its acceptance of a Right-of-Way Permit or of
registration under those ordinances agrees that all lawful powers and rights, regulatory power, or
police power, or otherwise as are or the same may be from time to time vested in or reserved to
the City, shall be in full force and effect and subject to the exercise thereof by the City at any
time. A Permittee or Registrant is deemed to acknowledge that its rights are subject to the
regulatory and police powers of the City to adopt and enforce general ordinances necessary to the
safety and welfare of the public and is deemed to agree to comply with all applicable general
laws and ordinances enacted by the City pursuant to such powers.
Any conflict between the provisions of a registration or of a Right-of- Way Permit and
any other present or future lawful exercise of the City's regulatory or police powers shall be
resolved in favor of the latter.
Sec. 1.34. Severability.
If any Section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Chapter is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court or administrative agency of competent
jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and
such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. If a regulatory body
or a court of competent jurisdiction should determine by a final, non-appealable order that any
Permit, right or registration issued under this Chapter or any portion of this Chapter is illegal or
unenforceable, then any such Permit, right or registration granted or deemed to exist hereunder
shall be considered as a revocable Permit with a mutual right in either party to terminate without
cause U90n giving sixty (60) days written notice to the other. The requirements and conditions of
such a revocable Permit shall be the same requirements and conditions as set forth in the Permit.
25
., ,
right or registration, respectively, except for conditions relating to the tenn of the Pennit and the
right of tennination. If a Pennit, right or registration shall be considered a revocable Pennit as
provided herein, the Pennittee must acknowledge the authority of the City Council to issue such
revocable Pennit and the power to revoke it. Nothing in this Chapter precludes the City from
requiring a franchise agreement with the Applicant, as allowed by law, in addition to
requirements set forth herein.
Sec. 1.35. Non-Exclusive Remedy.
The remedies provided in this Chapter and other Chapters in the Legislative Code are not
exclusive or in lieu of other rights and remedies that the City may have at law or in equity. The
City is hereby authorized to seek legal and equitable relief for actual or threatened injury to the
public Rights-of-Way, including damages to the Rights-of-Way, whether or not caused by a
violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter or other provisions of the Legislative Code.
SECTION 2
This Chapter shall take effect following its passage and publication according to law.
Passed by the Council this _ day of
,19
Mayor
Attest:
Clerk
Published in
on
C,'.CABLE.'.rrO\MTO.#6
26
--- --- .S :::
~ ~ 0
:a :a ~ <t:
<U <U
.~ .~ .:: ~
c.. ~. ~ ~
- "2: 2
0.. ~
<U a- u
'- '~ on '- ;:::
:.::- :.::- ~
..... u OJ
en on 0.. @ U
on on '-l OJ
~ U ~ :@ ..::::
'- ..... z u
"0 "0 :; :.11 :::l
"0 "0 on
< -< u OJ '-
0 ~ 0 OJ
- ....J >
'ca .::; u ?-> .2
-5 ;;::
:::E :::E ::; .9
1 ~ ..... TI
~ U u G "0
~ U :J OJ
::: ::: :.11 .....
0 .9 .2 'g.
u
:::i '.)
.9 ;: .....
~ on ..2 ;:;.
'00
0 u .9 ==
..:::: ~ '-
0.0 "0 ~
::: :; u ~
:.a '-
..... '- u .~
~ u ..... ....
.0 .0 <U 6 '.) -
5 ~ 0.0 ::: (.l
'.) ~
z ..... 0 'S! '-
Z ::: '- ::; ;;:;
.9 '.) '0'0
..:l ~ ::; ..:::: "0 OJ
'8 ~ :J ::::::
6 0 "0
'Vi 'Vi ..... -5
.... 0
u u 2 '" u
~ ~ :.l
, t.I. t.I. .S ,... ..... ~
- ::; .....
Z ~ '" :::!
::: ;: ~ ~
< ~ ~ on \0
.....
..... '0'0 0
Q.; ~ :::l U 0 -
;J U ~ 0
0 0 .~
U M
~ ::- :00 .~
U ::
0 Z i:J 2 ,...
0 ..... ..... ~ :.11 0
~ - ~ 15 -:S U
< Eo- .0 '"
6 5 6
~ < :::l 0 .- :fJ
~ z Z .;:: :::E
I ~
~ Eo- ~ l:! '" ..... ::l
.:::! OJ
0 r:J1 13 ~ g
- ..... .~
I ..:::: .;
Eo- ~ 0.. :a
~ ;:r 0"
:c ~ u ::i .:: ~ ~
C-' ~ E- E- '- ~
- 2 .3 :5
~ '" '"
~ ,g
.5 ~
~ :;
:; .....
::; .9 ~ .e
~ ..... -
:a ::;
'" ..:::: ..... ...::
en ~
'" '" .; S ,S'
u u '0'0 ~
..... ..... ;:- OJ
"0 .0 ~ u :::i .....
"0 ..... ~
15 .... ~
< -< ~ g
~ 0.. -<
~ ~
a .~ '-
- 0
~ .5 .... :.l U
;:! :.::- :;
01J :::i .2 ~
'Vi ....
OJ
0 ~ :::i ..... ::i
g ..... u
'- ~ ::... :..;
::; 0 ;:= -5
l~ u ~ 18 -
,:: 1= ~
~ 1! -
""::: ~ ~
OJ '.) ~ I~
I~ '"
::: ~ :::; u ,...
::; :.l ::: ~ 3
Z '" ;:r !~ ~ ~ .~
:.l >. .~
'" .::::: g t '" ] ::i
;:r I. ~
-; :J 1-
::; ~ 0.0 \g :;
u .....
..... 3 = :.l U r '
~ ~ '" '" '" '-J
'01J ~ u '0'0 ~ ~
<I.> - ; :J == == ~
:::::: t- -. .:::::; '"
r
..
Eo-
Z
1-
-
;:;J
u
u
o
>
~
3:
I
:;;.
o
. I
eo-
-
-
c.;:
-
c::::
;>-.
==
~
E
o
U
aJ
U
...... =
rn ~
::l I-i
S ::l
aJ ~ ;>-.
U .- ;;
= c::: .~
e ~ .5
i3l ..s :;
~ c:
........ i:! 0
o e ~
rn ti 8-
~ '01 ......
~ aJ 8 ~
d ~ ~ = 'e;;
0...... aJee..o
.;::.iJ .:; i3l ~
e u 0 .S ._8
~O.J .:~
.-..c:: -.J - ~
e..o...... (l)aJ-
aJ aJ ~ rn U
...u n;>-.......
.:!l == rn .0 ~
.... ~
-:: .S == "'0 'e;;
o '"0 ~ (I) e..o
......I-i.~.ot)~
aJ 0 ;>-. rn >- '"0
~ ;>-. u'-::: ~ 8 ~
~ ~ rn ::l
I-i :> 0 ;>-..- ~
~ ~ ~ .sa .... .--
=........--=""
- 9 ;>-. & e .-
~__...c ............
o .= 0 .:!l =
e..o -0 u e..o ~
rn ._ (I) = (I) I-i
~ c::: i; e c::: .~
~ "" I-i::l e..o
t: ;>-. c.. en ~ aJ 0
..... :::: a-.S - ~ ..c
tu....==l-iaJ..::
uCl.l=~o,:;c
~ 0 ...... ~ ..... ......
-=-=~$"""~=
~ .9 ~ -:: 5l .:; ~"
...........-cg;>-.-
~ = 0 ._ ._= ~ .S
Cl.l ~ "' I-i .... en
~:::x~~Cl.l
10.., c.n"'" ~ ~ > ~~ .....-.. ....-..
2 3 ~ .- :=
c..c."2:Q S'
........
o
(I)
~
-
c.I)
aJ
..c::
.....
(I)
e..o
~
-
=
~
-0
;>-.
t::
(I)
c..
9
5..
I-i
c.2
.S
""
""
aJ
=
'U;
:::
.0
o
"0
o
.....
"'0
(I)
rn
=
Cl.l
.~
-
en
.S
~
u
en
~
-
Qj
:==
..c::
-
~
o
'"0
.SO
~
~
o
:;;.
~
U
Z
~
~
;:;J
V)
Z
-
-
en
'-'
I-i
Cl.l
.0
a
:::
Z
;>-.
.~
"0
0...
"0
.2
u
.5
-
en
(I)
~
~
;a
0..
==
o
U
aJ
U
I::
~
!:::::
....
Vl
I::
.......
........
o
aJ
==
;a
Z
- N
....
c.2
'"0
I::
~
o
15
~ en ~
Vl c:: c::.~ Vl
(I) (I) 0 - t
aJ e.o';:: 0.. ~
;>-. ~:: c.. ....
.9 _ ~ 0
c.. en aJ '"0 :==
S t) go = ;>-.
o u ~ u 0
~ tE1:5 aJ .- e..o
en _ U 0 ~
-0(1) .... c..~
I:: en _.0 ....
Cl.l....0" "'"' (I):>
~.- a I:: -5 uO
....... 0 .-
enl::U ~ O.Q
I-i~~ ~ -:=
Cl.l ~ \:;; 0-'-
UenO'"O .0
tE '01';: ~ .~ .~.
o 0.." .- --
en~ = g. Qj~
::= dJ "c;j OJ ,...U_ .0
r- ._ ~
~ _ I-i ~ 0
i:!;:'~ "" us
e.o.Q ~ CO
ti ;>-.:: e aJ '5
'01 ~ :0 ~ U ~
~ ;;> .~ 0 ~ U
_r.o.!..- U :>e..o
(1)0..... aJ "'O~
...= ..!.;g .s ~ '-
;:. ~ .~ a .S ~
.0 c::: ~ 9 ~ U .q
>. _ _ ~.Qu
~ 0) 0 :== "'0'-
~ .:; .;:: 0 0::: ~
I c::U - M~-::
'0 .- ~ en - ;>-.
,-0 ~ "'0:""'.0
...c:::n_~a 1:5 ~~~
~ ;............ 'Vi ..0
c::: c.. c ::: 0 I:: .-
.-....... ~ ~ ~ >
aJ::l"'O c:: en 0'= 0
.=0"'(1)'"- Cl.l.oaJl-i
[.:.l - ;..:= e.o .... c..
........ ........ .;: ; ~ ~ I-i c.._
o 0 .S Q.. 0 t) .9 c:: :::::
U;>-. aJ - 0 .;:: >- u 0 ::a
_ I-i ._ 0 (I) U
_ = 0 0.. -0 U .!::::: ........ "'0
;; =........"9__00 g
s-. "$2 -:: 0 10'-1 U --- ,.... .-
1:J;a.oaJC::::l.QoS
u ~ ro ~ ._.~ ~
o i:! e..o 0.. en - U .- ~
"'0 (I) = ~ ~ ~ 0) :> Cl.l
c:: s:; 0 .Q0-5 2"0
::J 8:= u.u-....... o.~
Cl.l ~ U "'0 en ~ ~ .A
"-1_c~o:o.c......:::
::: 0..._ ::a .= "'0 ..... ...... I::
_ Cl.l Cl.l ~ :::
aJ "'0 .!::::: ~ 0
~ .:;: := u a
;; 9 ~:; ~
Z Q. 0:: ~ .S
::l
"" 0"
(I)[.:.l
~
..:= -0
a I::
I-i :::
(I) 0
-g 0... ~
~ "'0 t)
1::"'0
~ ~ I::
:::
~en........
.... ~ 0
c:: ;>-. 0
;:: 0
Cl.l e.o
o...o..~
"'0 a ~
= 0 '"0
~
en
~
-
-
u
a
.s-.
0)
~h
t
>-
o
U
~
Cl.l
....
.0
S
:::
I'
Cl.l
.0
-
-
.-
:==
o
CIl
....
~
(I)
'"0
c::
o
....
~
==
~
c::
.g
~
en
c::
Cl.l
0..
....
....
o
U
-
'"0
-;j'c
t , (
b
U
-5
....
-
.~
c
..::::
0.
<l.)
~
;:g
~
c
.~
....
0
.=
~
8
-0
~
c
.9
~
.5
Vl
c
0
u
~ ~
<l.)
~ ==: iE
Z 0 ...:
< ~ ~
~ .<l.)
~ ~ >,
U Z u
- ~
U ~ <IJ
0 ==: .....
0
~ 0 -
Vl
< ~ -
~ ....
=: <IJ
==: .0
I E
~ ==: <IJ
u
0 < <IJ
I ~ Q
~ ~ >,
- .0
.....
~ ~ "S!
- ~ <<i
==: \;l;;J c
Z .9
;:;
....
u;
'So
<IJ
....
.....
0
~
.S
-5
;:;
';;;
::3
8
.q
u
-5
.S
~
....
~
Q ,
eJ)
C
.-
"Q
C
~
~
....
~
Q
eJ)
c
.-
c
c
.-
eJ)
~
==
.:=:
l-o
0
=:
;0...
0
~
""
=
....
~
Z
c
.S:
....
~
I;,J
0
,
-
,...
<<i
....
';;;
'So
<l.)
~
u
~
:;J
'"
.~
~ c
= 0
- ....
~ OJ
~~
"',:: ~
5 .
u ~
6:0
o ~
c u
..: .~
o 0.
_ 0
9 ~
-.0
~t:
i:: .
<2 rl
s~
2> u.
'e: ;3
~ .::
.S :::
eJl
c Vl
<IJ .~
~ ::::
~:::
"g, 11
o .
~-g
~gtti
-;:; ~ ~
.g~-a
~2o
.S ~ ~
~ c ~
== ~ :::
= -g g
:n ::3 '_
o..Ot)
~ to ::s
a L..t .:::
..:=.g~
g g 8
<:1')-0"0
<IJ <IJ
-0 OJ .:::l
~ 2 ~
-_?5 u; 'u
C <lJ
;:;g~
:U <l.) 0.0
.0 .0 .S
::l3"2
a ~ ~
en ~ e
- 0
~ 0. C
"0' ::: .g
0: ~ ~
~ ':J t:
[i :;: 2
>- ="B .S
;;;...::-=
<l.) . <IJ
Z 3.S
J;~~
- .~ a
~ ~ ~
<<i
~o~
~ - C
:: = ~
""0 ;:: -0"
:;-iU
~ ..-
;: ~-;:;
.... - -
::::.a~
c... -= .~
..:.;g.o
:;J ':'; 3
~ ~ u'
-
U
::l
Vl
.....
o
'"
-=
~
t::
Vl
'00
<IJ
c=::
....
~
0,
-;:;
]
b
U
-5
c
g
Vl
::l
E
.5
on
OJ
<IJ
'::::\I
i::
0.
....
~
:U
t
><
:U
C
.....
o
-
=
<IJ
>-
.0
.0
~
<IJ
-5
U
<IJ
"i3'
d:
>,
~
:U
~
:;;
.c
u
>,
E
,...
:;;
....
t;;
'00
iU
0::
u
~
'-'
:;;
>-.
~ .:2
-::)-
r. ""0
:, .:;;
c= ~
N '"
= ~
.'"'
Zu
2:-
C
-5
~
(;
~
~
5:!
~
~
.5
2
::
.[
~
::;
~
g
....
v;
I:::
0
U
~ ""
Eo- ~ ..::
Z 0 t.=
~ ....
I;;;. ""
~
;J ~ ;>.,
u z u
U - ""
E-o ~
0 ......
~ 0
>- 0 v;
< Q., -
....
~ ~ ~
~ .0
I a
I;;;. ~ ~
0 u
< ~
I 0
E-o ~
- >- .2
....
~ ~ ~
- > (;
~ - c::
;... .S
r;
....
v;
'c.o
~
....
......
c
.@
.s
r;
~
.2
u
.s
,....
(;
....
'l;
OeD
~
:::
~
~
....
~
Q
OJ)
:::
:e
:::
~
~
....
~
Q
OJ)
:::
.-
:::
:::
.en
~
=
~
\.0
0
~
-
0
~
\.0
::
....
~
Z
:::
.=
....
~
~
0
, ,.
-
) - , .
'"
, ~
c:: 05
0 u
c:: .5:!
""
...... 0..
0 0
I::: ....
.S ~
.0
r; C
a on
.... ~
..2 :0
.S ""
'..J
~ on
.~ ~
....
~ '2:
~
c::
'00 on
c:: ~
u
~
:a 'u
.:; ~
0..
0 ":::l
.... I:::
0..
0.. :::l
"" 9 v.i
Oil I:::
:; ~ ..::=
~ ;> 0..
-g C ....
.0 0
U "" '"
.:: "0 "0
c:: ~
- "" ~
'"
5 "0 ,...
= .9
:::l
'" 0 u
~ ....
- OJ) :::l
a .... ....
~ v;
,... "0 I:::
U c:: 0
:::l :::l U
<:I) "0 "0
~ ~
,... ~ .~
~ E 05
:2 '" 'u
= ~
..:;;: 0 0..
u '"
~ OJ)
.... ~
"" .0 I:::
'" 9 :e
= ...
"" "0 ""
C. OJ)
u ~
'" ....
u 0
t.:: 0.. .s
'u 0
...
~ 0.. ~
0..
'" '"
c: ~ ~
~ ~
>< 'u
~ ~
-5 ~
9
S "0 ...
~ ~
"0 0..
u '8 ;:.
.0
U (;
i: g ~
:a
"" '5
.0
~ .0 "0
""
oil =
I::: .:::!
Vi ~ .5
~ u ~
;:: =
a .- oS
:u
-:l !: -
""
'" r; u
0 I::: "ij
0..
0 ~ on
... '"
Q.. .~ '"
ci.i u 0
"0 .... ~
E- c U
0 s: :u
Z U OJ
~
:t;
:;::.
;..;
I
.....
-
. I f -
.. 00
~
(!J
..c
.....
......
0
en
(!J
.-
;...
~
"'0
c::
::l
0
.0
~
.....
0
.....
(!J
>
.-
..... >.
~
a3 ~
;... ~
~~
en 0
c:: ,
o .....
.- ..c
~ 00
~ U c:2
.9
~ -;; >.
0 c::
.~ ~
~ t:: c::
~ (!J .-
~ - > "0
Z ~ "0 (!J
~ Z - ~
S 0 ~ U
- -;; .9
u ~ en
~ = .-
U ~ 0 ..c
0 N U
.-
~ ;... :.a
;... 0 0 ;::
..c
~ (!J "0
Z .:: c::
I - ~
~ -- 00 _
0 ~ c:: 0
~ .- ;...
I ..... .....
~ ~ ~ c::
::0 .... .~ 0
- "0 U
'"' e" c en
- .- ~
~ Z c:: ..c
- .9 .....
:.. .-
.....
:.. ~ ..c
- .~
~ c::
~ ;... -
] ~
;...
(!J
-= >
.~ 0
;...
>. 0
..... en
U c::
;::
(!J 0
-
- .';::::
.....
(!J ....
-0 U
.:; :a
0 ;::
;...
0.. .....
tl c
(!J
::: 8
8 0..
..... '5
....
~ 0"
;... ~
.....
:n -
'5il -;;
(!J
e::; >.
- ~
"D ;::
~ ~
~ 0
>.
~
~
~
o
,
.....
..c
00
c:2
~
0..
o
a3
>
(!J
"0
o
.....
b
.-
u
(!J
..c
.....
-
.9 ~
~ 8 >.
u c::
.s ~ ~
,- .-::
~ e 8
:: .E ..0
- 00 ::l
o (!J en
~~.9
~
"'0
;::
.9
-;;
o
.....
C
~
<:Il
<:Il
(!J
U
(!J
c
>.
:0
~
c::
o
en
~
(!J ;...
;... (!J
~ c
..... c::
~ ~
"0 8
t) 00
IlJ c
'8' .~
0..0
-0=
c::.,8
~
00(!J
c-=
oa Q
0.. .-
~"O
.... (!J
c:: :::
.~ 'S
E.o
- :::
.... <:Il
<:Il
..... (!J
<:Il.o
::: .....
8 ~
en E
..5 Q
'- .9
'u ....
~ CI:l
...... c::
;:: i:
(!Jc.8
c:: .5
00_
.5 U
..... :::
gV')
;...
~ =
c:: a:i
o .....
(J <:Il
~ ~
~ gf
::
:n . 0..
. 01) 0..
IlJ CI:l
~ 8
~ -
;... .-
oo~tS
.S ::..> 0
~ ~ .....
.;;< 9 ~
(!J - ~
.......- ~ ~
.- c:: .....
,- :'a r.f.)
.a t:"@)
::: en (!J
en '01) e::::
~ (!J ;...
~e::::.,8
:.a ~ 0,,)
--=:0
(J >. CI:l
tS..oE.
-5'"08
::: g u
~ - ~
o .~ c::
~ C ::t
U '; .:!3
g,.8~
on _
~ E >.
._.::_ .0 .-::
"Zu
;::..c(!J>.
.........c......
...: c:: ..... ;.~
en .- c:: '-'
~ -0 :.8 (!J
...~-:
r-~ .-::'~ c:::
C'I c:: ._
C'I.o~-=
~ ~:E'~
6(!J:a.....
-..oCl:lC'l
>. >. ~ C'I
~ .:'0 = ........
~ ::: ~ ..
"':;-"""0
o ~ 0-
..... ~ .... >.
;... "0 0 CI:l
o <:Il'- ~
.- .....
- .- :e
o..~ U 0
~c-'.s""
~ . ~.~
~b..c;...
I .- .... c..
'0 u 00-0
.:.. (!J .S (!J
-=-="'0.....
.?:l:: ;; B
.v .= 00 0
--(!J-
(!J .-:: ;... en
.:: :> (!J.~
;;-- u -..
~ ~ ,....-
,- .g 1:) ~
en ._ :"3 ~
.~ 'w t 00
.~ ~ >-..S
~...~ ~ ~
-:: CI:l
-=-00
.:: ~ ~ ~
::: .= = :..
:n :: ~
~ '@) x .9
-~.-.-
~_ ,...,. "'0 ~
;... .... c::
tl IlJ 'S i:
.- ..: - 0
tp ~ ~. c..;;___
O::o~
-a
""
~
'-
t
:;;:
~
=
<
;...
II( (. {
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Registration on file? 0
Applicant's Local Representative:
Insurance on file? 0
Bonds on file? Standard bond 0
Construction bond D
Restoration bond D
(if Applicant restores Bond)
Mandatory Denial D
Conditions complied with?
(Section 1.17, Subd. 1)
Discretionary Issuance? D
(Section 1.17, Subd. 3, if Mandatory
Denial conditions not complied with.)
Permissive Denial D
Factors complied with or waived?
(Section 1.17, Subd. 2)
Permit Fee(s) Paid? D
Mapping Data Submitted? 0
Applicant on Probation?
Yes D No D
APPROVED BY:
City Seal:
C:\VOSE\PERMIT.APP
"" t. l' t.--
'"
[To be filled out by the City]
PERMIT FEES
1. Excavation I>ermit Fee: $
[To be filled out by the City.]
a: City Cost: $
b: Cost of Restoration (if done by the City) $
c: Degradation Cost: $
(In an amount to fully cover costs associated with the decrease in the useful life of the Right-oF-Way
caused by an excavation.)
2. Obstruction Permit Fee: $
(In an amount sufficient to cover the City's Cost.)
3. Disruption Fee: $
(Note: The City will impose $_ per day for delays in the completion of an Excavation or
Obstruction beyond five (5) days past the period indicated in this Permit.)
Note 1:
"City Cost" means the actual costs incurred by the City for managing Rights-
of- Way including, but not limited to costs associated with registcring of
applicants; issuing, processing, and verifying Right-of-Way Permit
applications; revoking Right-of-Way Permits; inspecting job sites; creating and
updating mapping systems; detcrmining thc adequacy of Right-of- Way
restoration; restoring work inadequately performed; maintaining, supporting,
protecting, or moving user equipment during Right-of-Way work; budgct
analysis; record keeping; legal assistance; systems analysis; and performing all
of the other tasks required by this Chapter, including other costs the City may
incur in managing the provisions of this Chapter except as expressly prohibited
by law.
Note 2:
The Excavation or Obstruction Permit Fees must be paid at the time of
application or within thirty (30) days of billing therefore by the City. In no
event will the City issue a Permit prior to payment of Permit Fees.
CONDITIONS OF PERMIT
(The City Inspector is authorized to impose reasonable conditions upon the performance of any
work involving the Right-of-Way including standards for installations or construction in the Right-of-Way.)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
... L" II
RIGHT-OF-WAY OCCUPANT
PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
[To be filled out by the Applicant]
1. Name of Applicant:
2. Date of Registration with the City:
(Note: AUach a copy of the Registration form to this Application.)
3. Attach scaled drawings showing the area and specific location of the proposed
project, and the specific location of all existing and proposed equipment currently
located or to be located in the Right-of-Way. Maps must be "survey quality" ,
accurately depicting streets, boundaries and other landmarks, and distances of the
proposed existing equipment therefrom. Maps need not be certified by a registered
surveyor. (This is an option for the City; the City may require maps certified by a
surveyor or in electronic format for GIS mapping.)
4. Dates of work to be performed:
5. Description of the nature of the work to be performed:
(Specifically indicate whether the work will necessitate an Excavation Permit or an Obstruction Permit.)
6. Description of the nature of the Equipment and Facilities to be located in the
Right-of-Way:
7. Election regarding restoration:
D Applicant Restoration
D City Restoration
The Applicant must indicate whether it will perform Right-of-Way Restoration or whether the City will
perform such Restoration. (Note: The City retains the right to perform and all restorations and City
may indicate such election to perform any and all restoration in a permit grant).
Cfb
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Amend Cable Franchise Ordinance -
Extension
DATE: November 3,1997
INTRODUCTION
The cities of Farmington, Apple Valley and Rosemount have been negotiating with Marcus
Cable for the renewal of a cable franchise agreement. The expiration date of the City's cable
franchise ordinance with Marcus Cable is December 6, 1997. As it appears that negotiations with
Marcus Cable will not be completed prior to the December 6, 1997 renewal date, the City will
need to extend the current agreement for another twelve (12) months.
DISCUSSION
Extending the franchise agreement will bring the City of Farmington's expiration date more in
line with the cities of Apple Valley and Rosemount, and allow for a more uniform negotiating
position with Marcus Cable.
Mr. Thomas Creighton, the City's telecommunication consultant, has been negotiating on behalf
of the three cities and suggests that the City negotiate for an increase in the City's franchise fee
from three (3) percent to five (5) percent during the extension period. A five (5) percent
franchise fee has been adopted by a majority of cities in the state of Minnesota and has been
allowed under federal law for at least the last thirteen years. In addition, this is a key component
of the franchise renewal document currently under negotiation with Marcus Cable.
Attached, please find a copy of the proposed cable franchise ordinance that would allow for the
extension of current terms and conditions, with the exception of an increase in the franchise fee,
with Marcus Cable until December 31, 1998.
Finally, if a new cable franchise agreement is negotiated before the extension date, the new
ordinance would take effect upon adoption.
BUDGET IMPACT
An increase in the City's franchise fee from three to five percent would have a positive effect on
City General Fund revenue streams.
CitlJ. of Farminf/.ton 325 Oak Street. FarminiJtonJ MN 55024 · (612) 463.7111 · Fax (612) 463.2591
Mayor and Councilmembers
Amend Cable Franchise Ordinance - Extension
Page 2 of2
ACTION REQUESTED
Adopt the attached ordinance amending Cable Franchise Ordinance No. 88-203 and extending
the franchise period until December 31,1998.
Respectfully submitted,
)UC/~
~hn F. Erar
City Administrator
::j5'
..
City of Farmington
Ordinance No.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CABLE FRANCHISE ORDINANCE NO.Q88-20,3
CHAPTER 8., SECTION 8-8-6, FRANCHISE TERMS AND
SECTION 8-8-37, FRANCmSE OR LICENSE FEE.
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 088-203, Chapter 8., Section 8-8-6, Franchise Terms, is
hereby amended to read:
8-8-6: FRANCHISE TERMS:
This franchise Chapter shall expire on December 31, 1998, and any renewal thereof
shall be limited to not more than fifteen (15) years.
SECTION 2. Ordinance No. 082-137, Chapter 8., Section 8-8-37, Franchise or License
Fee, is hereby amended to read:
8-8-37: FRANCHISE OR LICENSE FEE:
During each of the years subsequent to the effective date of this Chapter, the
franchisee shall pay for the use of streets, easements, rights of way and other facilities of the City
and for Municipal supervision of the franchisee's operations within the City, an annual franchise
or license fee of three percent (3 %) of the annual gross revenues of the franchisee, the same being
due on January 15, 1984 and each January 15 thereafter. Effective January 1, 1998, the
franchisee shall pay a franchise fee of five percent (5 %) of the annual gross revenues of the
franchisee, the same being due quarterly. Said payments shall be accompanied by a certified
statement reflecting the calculation of gross revenues including all sources of revenue included
in such calculation.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and official publication or
such date thereafter as set forth herein.
PASSED by the City Council this _ day of
ATTEST:
Introduced
Adopted
Published
Effective
Accepted by Grantee this _ day of
,1997.
Mayor
John Erar
City Administrator
, 1997:
MARCUS CABLE PARTNERS, L.P.
By:
..
.:j
C: \CABLE\3-CITIES\F ARMING .AMo
: ,~'-
. ,
I! Q
TO:
Mayor, Councilmembers,
City Administrator ~
FROM:
Lee Smick.
Planning Coordinator
SUBJECT:
Complaint concerning Dakota
Lumber Company
DATE:
November 3, 1997
INTRODUCTION
A complaint was received by the City Council at its roundtable session on October 20th concerning dust,
debris and screening problems associated with Dakota Lumber Company located at 28 8th Street in
Farmington. The complaint was signed by a number of neighbors adjacent to Dakota Lumber Company.
DISCUSSION
City staff met with Mr. Steve Finden, owner of Dakota Lumber Company, on October 27th to discuss the
concerns raised by residents adjacent to the property. The following are the concerns stated in the complaint
presented to the City Council:
1. Dust and debris is being emitted from the property, therefore, they are requesting black top to be placed
on the lot.
~ Screening (along the north property line) is requested to match the screening on the south side of the
property.
.-
The City Code does not address the requirement to pave storage yards. The City does require parking lots to
be paved. At the City Council meeting on July 21, 1997, the portion of the lot in question was considered a
storage lot, therefore, the lot is not required to be paved. However, Mr. Finden stated on October 27th that
he will pave the lot.as soon as he can fmance the project.
Dust control is required per the contingencies approved by the City Council for Dakota Lumber Company's
grading permit at the July 21st meeting. The contingency states that dust control is required within the
storage area yearly. Mr. Finden has stated that new limerock has recently been applied and must be
compacted before any dust coating can occur. He is researching a new product for dust control which would
replace the widely used calcium chloride technique. He stated that he will apply the new product annually to
the limerock and will begin the application in the Spring of 1998.
The second issue concerns the screening of the storage yard along the north side of the site. The residents
are requesting screening to match the south side of the lumber yard which includes a hedge of lilac shrubs.
City staff reviewed the possibility of installing lilac shrubs along the north side of the fenee with Mr. Finden,
however, because the newly installed chain link fence is located on the property line, there is not enough area
to install the shrubs on Dakota Lumber's property.
Therefore, Mr. Finden will be installing plastic slats along the north fence line to meet the requirements of
screening a storage area within 100 feet of a residential zone as stated in City Code 10-6-13 (B). Mr. Finden
ordered the gray colored slats to match building colors on his lot on October 28th and will begin the
installation of the slats the week of November 3-7. He has also stated that he would be interested in
installing trees on his property to further screen views from the home at 701 Willow. The trees will need to
be approved by the Parks & Recreation Director because they will be located within the City's boulevard.
CitlJ. of Farminf/.ton 325 Oak Street · FarminiJtonJ MN 55024 · (612) 463-7111 · Falf (612) 463-2591
ACTION REQUIRED
This item is informational only.
~Ub~~
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
cc: Mr. & Mrs. F.W. Lehr, 701 Willow Street
Ms. Yvonne Arendt, 609 Willow Street
Mr. Willis Bauer, 605 Willow Street
Ms. Debra Pack, 615 Willow Street
Mr. Jeff Ford, 621 Willow Street