HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.05.97 Council Packet
AGENDA
COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 5, 1997
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3 . APPROVE AGENDA
4. CITIZENS COMMENTS (5 minute limit per person for items
not on the agenda.)
a. Parking Concern - 8th Street between Elm and Spruce Streets
b. Proclaim May 11-17 as Preservation Week (Presentation)
c. proclaim June 20, 21 and 22 as Founder's Festival Days
d. proclaim Emergency Services Week
5. CONSENT AGENDA (All items approved in 1 motion unless
anyone wishes an item removed for discussion)
a. Minutes - 4/21 (Regular)
b. Renew Recycling Contract with Dick's Sanitation
c. Development Agreement for prairie Creek Center (Stegmaier)
d. Purchase of Welder - Public Works
e. Temporary 3.2 On Sale Permit - Fastpitch Softball Tournament
f . ALF Audit Report
g. Conference Requests - LMC Annual Conference
h. Approve Payment of Bills
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS/AWARD OF CONTRACT
a. pine Ridge Forest preliminary Plat
b. Seal Coat Project Bids/Award Contract (Supplemental)
7 . PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. Marcus Cable Rate Increase
b. Potential Tax Levy Limits
c. Storm Sewer Assessment Policy Information (Supplemental)
8 . UNFINISHED BUSINESS
9. NEW BUSINESS
a.
b.
Ordinance Amendment - Fences
City/Townships Recreational Programming Issues
Fall Clean Up Day
Development Agreement and Process Revisions
Pine Ridge Forest Development Agreement (Supplemental)
Cancel Fall
Approved with
c.
d.
e.
10. ROUNDTABLE
a. Fire Response - Citizen Concerns East of Railroad Tracks
b Railroad Train Whistles
c. LMC Annual Conference - Council Attendance
11. ADJOURN
TO:
Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM:
John F. Erar,
City Administrator
SUBJECT:
Supplemental Agenda Items
DATE:
May 5, 1997
It is requested that the May 5, 1997 agenda be updated as follows:
Item..6b - Seal Coat Project Bids/Award Contract
Memo from City Engineer Mann.
made to award the contract.
item.
Bids were received and a recommendation has been
The attached information should be added to this
:Item 70 - Storm Sewer Assessment Policy Information
Memo from City Engineer Mann.
:Item ge - pine Ridge Forest Development Agreement
Memo from Planning Coordinator Smick. The attached development agreement has
been reviewed by City Attorney Grannis and the developer. A resolution approving
the agreement and authorizing its signing should be adopted.
Respectfully submitted,
Citlj of FarminlJ.ton 325 Oak Street. Farminfjtonl MN 550211 · (612) 463.7111 · Fa/( (612) 1163.2591
FROM:
1a
Mayor, Councilmembers and
City Administrato~
Daniel M. Siebenaler
Chief of Police
TO:
SUBJECT: Parking Complaint
805 Spruce St.
DATE:
May 5, 1997
INTRODUCTION
At the regular City Council meeting of April 21 there was a concern expressed during Citizen's Comments
that there was excessive on street parking in the area of 8th Street north of Spruce St. Staffhas
investigated that complaint.
DISCUSSION
The residence at 805 Spruce St. is an owner occupied single family dwelling under construction. As of this
date the yard and driveway at the residence have not been completed by the contractor MW Johnson. The
project was started over the Winter months and completion was not possible. According to Building
Inspection staff this is a common occurrence and the contractor is given a "reasonable amount of time" to
complete the construction in the Spring.
Staffhas spoken with the resident at 805 Spruce St. and h<>5 been informed that he is anxiously awaiting
the completion of both his yard and driveway. Once the construction is complete it is his intention to make
full use of the garage and driveway on the Spruce Street side of the residence. The resident anticipates
completion in the very near future.
Staffhas observed a total offour vehicles parked in the area at various times in connection with the
residence. While they are parked on the street they are not parked in violation of any City Ordinance or
State Statute. It should be noted that City Ordinance allows on street parking for up to 72 hours. These
vehicles are moved on a regular basis. Even though there is no violation the resident has stated that on
street parking is not acceptable and that it will cease when the construction is complete.
Staff has spoken with the original reporting person and explained the situation to him.
ACTION REOUESTED
No action required. Information only.
Respectfully Submitted,
~~/4
Daniel M. Siebenaler
Chief of Police
c/ c Pat Akin
Citlj of FarminiJton 325 Oak Street. Farmin9tonJ MAl 55024 · (612) 463.7717 · Fa~ (612) 463.2591
Ii;
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers,
City Administrator ofv
FROM: Karen Finstuen,
Administrative Service Manager
SUBJECT: Preservation Week, May 11-17, 1997
DATE: May 5, 1997
INTRODUCTION
Historic Preservation Week is May 11 - 17, 1997.
DISCUSSION
Attached is a proclamation declaring Preservation Week be celebrated in the City of Farmington
and asking the citizens to join citizens across the United States to recognize and participate in
observing this week.
The Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) would like to recognize two families that have
resided at 520 Oak Street for their roles in preserving and restoring that residence. Patricia
Murphy and George Flynn, members of the HPC will present the awards to Ann and Norman
Muzzy and Ronald and Beverly Marben at the May 5, 1997 Council meeting.
I have also included a press release in observance of Preservation week.
ACTION REQUIRED
Adopt the enclosed proclamation.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~
Karen Finstuen
Administrative Service Manager
I
Citlj of Farminf/.ton 325 Oak Street. Farmin9tonJ MN 55024. (612) 463.7111 · Fa~ (612) 463.2591
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, HISTORIC PRESERVATION IS AN EFFEcmfE TOOL FOR MANA6IN6 6ROMH, REVlTAUZIN6
NEI6HBORHOODS, FOSTElUN6 LOCAL PRIDE AND MAINTAININ6 COMMUNrn' CHARACTER WHILE ENHANCIN6
UVABIUn'; AND
WHEREAS, HISTORIC PRESERVATION IS REI.EV ANT FOR COMMUNmES ACROSS THE NATION, BOTH URBAN
AND RURAl., AND FOR AMERICANS OF AIJ. A6ES, All WAI.KS OF UFE AND All ETHNIC BACK6ROUNDS;
AND
WHEREAS, IT IS IMPORTANT TO CEI.EBRATE THE ROLE OF HISTORY' IN OUR UVES AND THE CONTRIBUTIONS
MADE BY' DEDICATED INDIVIDUALS IN HEI.PIN6 TO PRESERVE THE TAN6IBLE ASPECTS OF THE HERlTA6E
THAT HAS SHAPED US AS A PEOPI.E; AND
WHEREAS, "PRESERVATION BE6INS AT HOMEn IS THE THEME FOR NATIONAL PRESERVATION WEEK 1997,
CO-SPONSORED BY'THE FARMIN6TON HERITA6E PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND THE NATIONAL TRUST
FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE HONORABLE MA Y'OR 6ERALD RISTOW AND THE COUNCIL. OF THE
Crn' OF FARMIN6TON PROCI..AIM
MA Y 11 - 17, 1997 AS PRESERJlA TlON WEEK IN THE CITY OF FARMIN6TON
AND CALL UPON THE CmZENS OF FARMIN6TON TO JOIN THEIR FELLOW cmZENS ACROSS THE
UNITED STATES IN REC06N1ZIN6 AND PARTlCIPATIN6 IN THIS SPECIAL OBSERVANCE.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HA YE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND CAUSED THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF
FARMIN6TON TO BE AFFIXED THIS 5TH DA Y OF MA Y,' 1997.
MA YON 6ERA.LD RISTOW
DA TE
LIe
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers,
City Administrator~
FROM: Karen Finstuen,
Administrative Service Manager
SUBJECT: Proclaim June 20-22, 1997
Farmington Founders Festival
DATE: May 5, 1997
INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION
The annual community celebration this year will be in observance of Farmington's 125 years of
incorporation. Farmington Founders Festival will be held June 20-22, 1997 and the committee
encourages citizens to join in celebrating the City's proud heritage.
ACTION REQUESTED
Adoption of the attached proclamation is requested.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Karen Finstuen
Administrative Service Manager
Citlj of FarminiJ.ton 325 Oak Street · Farminf}tonJ MN 55024 · (672) 463-7177 · Fax (672) 463.2597
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS. IN 1856, JUST FIVE Y'EARS AFTt:R THE TREATI' OF MENDOTA OPENt:D THE AREA FOR
SE1TLt:MENT, THE DAKOTA WEEKLY' JOURNALSAlD THIS ABOUT FARMINGTON, "THIS PLACE IS
RIGHTLY' NAMt:D, FOR IT LOOKS UKE A VILLAGE OF FARMS. GOOD SOIL. GOOD WATER, GOOD TIMB~,
AND INTt:WGENT cmZENS IS THEIR WEALTH.n
WHEREAS, THIS VILLAGE OF FARMS WAS INITIALLY'SETI1.EJ) BY' PIONEER FAMIUES FROM NEWY'ORK
AND LATER BY' CIVIL WAR Vt:TE.RANS WHO BECAME FARMINGTON'S FIRST MERCHANTS,
MANUFACTURERS. DOCTORS, LAWYERS AND EDUCATORS,
WHEREAS, IN 1872, FARMINGTON BECAME THE SECOND COMMUNIn'1N THE COUNITTO INCORPORATE.
AND ORGANIZE A MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.
WHEREAS, FOR 125 Y'EARS, THE cIn' OF FARMINGTON HAS SERVED THE NEEDS AND INTERESTS OF
ITS RESlDt:NTS BY' PROVIDING QUAun' PUBUC SERVICES, PERSONAL AND PROPERTI' PROTECTION,
ATIRACTIVt: AMENmES AND A HEALTHY' ENVIRONMENT.
WHEREAS, THE FARMINGTON FOUNDERS FESTJ.V AL COMMEMORATES THE cIn"s 1 25 Y'EARS OF
INCORPORATION AND RECOGNIZES THE GENERATIONS OF cIn' AND TOWNSHIP RESIDENTS WHO
CONTRIBUTt:D TO THE BUILDING OF THE COMMUNIn',
THt:Rt:FORE, BE IT Rt:SOLVIm THAT THE HONORABLt: MAY'OR GERALD RISTOW AND THE COUNCIL OF
THE cIn' OF FARMINGTON PROCLAIM
JUNE 20, 21 AND 22, 1997 AS FARMJN6TON FOUNDERS' FESTIJlAL DAYS
AND ENCOURAGES THE CITIZENS OF FARMINGTON TO JOIN IN CELt:BRATlNG THE cIn"s PROUD
Ht:RITAGE BY' PARTICIPATING IN THE MANY ACTIVITIES COMMEMORATING THE 125TH ANNIVERSARY'
OF IT'S INCORPORATION.
IN WlTNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MYHAND AND CAUSED THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF
FARMINGTON TO BE AFFIXED THIS 5TH DA Y OF MA Y,' 1997.
MAYOR 6ERALD RISTOW
DATE
l/d
MEMO TO:
Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM:
John F. Erar, City Administrator
SUBJECT:
Proclamation Designating
Emergency Medical Services Week
DATE:
May 5, 1997
INTRODUCTION/DISCUSSION
The ALF Ambulance Board has requested the Council adopt a proclamation
designating the week of May 18-24, 1997 as "National Emergency Medical Services
Week". In recognition of the valuable, pot.~ntially life saving service provided
by paramedics and other medical emergency personnel, the attached proclamation
is submitted for Council adoption.
REQUESTED ACTION
Proclaim May 18-24, 1997 as National Emergency Medical Services Week in the City
of Farmington.
Respectfully submitted,
!f;Y!~
ohn F. Erar
City Administrator
CitlJ. of FarminiJ.ton 3250aIcStreet.FarmintjtonJMN55024. (612) 463-7111.Fa/r (612) 463-2591
PRO C LAM A T ION
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK
WHEREAS, emergency medical servicess is a vital public service; and
WHEREAS, the members of emergency medical services teams are ready to provide
lifesaving care to those in need, 24 hours a day, seven days a week; and
WHEREAS, access to quality emergency care dramatically improves the survival and
recovery rate of those who experience sudden illness or injury; and
WHEREAS, emergency medical services providers have traditionally served as the
safety net of america's health care system; and
WHEREAS, emergency medical services teams consist of emergency physicians,
nurses, medical technicians, paramedics, firefighters, educators, administrators
and others; and
WHEREAS, approximately two-thirds of all emergency mediccal service providers are
volunteers; and
WHEREAS, members of emergency medical service teams, whether career or volunteer,
engage in thousands of hours of specialized training and continuing education to
enhance their lifesaving skills; and
WHEREAS, Americans benefit daily from the knowledge and skills of these hightly
trained individuals; and
WHEREAS, injury prevention and appropriate use of the EMS system will help reduce
national health care costs; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate to recognize the value and accomplishments of
emergency medical services providers by designating Emergency Medical Services
Week.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the honorable Mayor Gerald Ristow and the Council
of the City of Farmington proclaim
May 18 - 24, 1997 as Emergency Medical Services Week
and encourages the community to observe this week with appropriate programs,
ceremonies and activities.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City
of Farmington to be affixed this 5th day of May, 1997.
Mayor Gerald Ristow
Date
COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR
APRIL 21, 1997
ja.
1. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 7:00 P.M..
Members Present: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch, Gamer, Strachan.
Members Absent: None.
Also Present: City Administrator Erar, Attorney Grannis.
2. Mayor Ristow led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. MOTION by Fitch, second by Gamer to approve the agenda with the addition of
supplemental materials for Item 6c (IRE's for precision Engineering), Item 8b (G.O.
Bonds for Water Reservoir), and Item 8c (Loader Bids).
AP~F, MOT~ON CARRIED.
4. Citizen Comments
Pat Akin: Multiple vehicles parking on street between Elm and Spruce Streets on
8th Street. Creating traffic problems. Police Department will
investigate.
Administrator Erar: Introduced new staff members David Olson (Community Development
Director) and Brenda Wendlandt (Human Resources Coordinator)
5. Consent Agenda
MOTION by Gamer, second by Strachan to approve the r~nsent Agenda as follows:
a) Approve minutes - 4/7 - Regular.
b) Adopt RESOLUTION NO. R43-97 accepting donation of tree from Dakota Electric
c) proclaim April 25th as Arbor Day and the month of Mayas Arbor Month
d) Adopt RESOLUT~ON NO. R44-97 accepting bid/awarding contract for purchase of rapid
rail box from MacQueen Equipment
e) Approve replacement of panels on Parks and Recreation sign at the arena
f) Approve appointment of Lee M. Mann as City Engineer
g) Receive adopted 1997 Budget
h) Approve CIP (Other City Projects and Parks)
i) Approve repairs to City Garage door
j) Approve payment of the bills as submitted.
AP~F, MOTION CARRIED.
6. Public Hearing - Eagles Club TIF District
Financial Consultant Thomas Truszinski provided Council and audience members with
information regarding the financial impact of establishing the proposed TIF District
noting: the TIF District would allow the removal of two deteriorated buildings and
the construction of a new building with an assessed market value of $622,600; would
generate $32,000+ per year in TIF; the District would run for 15 years; the first 5
years of the district would be LGA/HACA penalty free (Option A); and the City could
decertify before any penalties come due. There were no citizen comments. MOTION by
Gamer, second by Cordes to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARR~ED. MOTION
by Gamer, second by Strachan to adopt RESOLUT~ON NO. R45-97 establishing TIF
District 13 and approving and adopting a tax increment financing plan. APXF, MOTXON
CARRIED.
7. Public Hearing - Amend Original Downtown Redevelopment District
Consultant Truszinski stated that the action being presented for Council
consideration was to amend, not extend, the original district. The purpose of the
amendment was to eliminate a blighted building and aid in the construction of a
restaurant on the northwest corner of the intersection of Third and Spruce Streets.
Discussion followed relating to the tax impact/liability on the City if the
restaurant would fail. It was noted that taxes were the responsibility of the
property owner and, since financing was established on a "pay as you go" basis,
there would be no tax liability for the City. There was no public input. MOTION by
Gamer, second by Fitch to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION
by Cordes, second by Gamer to adopt RESOLUTION NO. R46-97 approving the amendment to
the redevelopment plan for the Original Downtown Redevelopment District. APIF,
MOTION CARRIED.
8. Public Hearing - precision Engineering Industrial Revenue Bonds
Verlane Endorf of Dorsey and Whitney and Dave Hawkins~of Precision Engineering
were present to answer questions and concerns of Council and audience members. The
$2 million bond would be used to construct and complete a 40,000 square foot
expansion of precision Engineering in the Industrial. The bonds will be backed by a
letter of credit from First Star Bank and the City has no financial obligation for
repayment of the bonds although City approval of the bond sale is a legal
requirement. There was no public comment given. MOTION Gamer, second by Cordes to
close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Strachan, second by
Cordes to adopt RESOLUTION NO. R47-97 authorizing the issuance of bonds on behalf of
Precision Engineering. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
9. South Suburban Medical Center Expansion/Elm Street Extension
Engineer Glenn Cook presented the request by South Suburban for City construction of
street and utility improvements necessary for expansion of their facility. The
medical center signed a petition which provides for all expenses incurred in
producing the feasibility study and constructing the improvements to be paid by
South Suburban.' Council requested that property owners adjacent to the proposed Elm
Street extension be asked if they prefer the street to end in a cul de sac or have
direct access to Highway 3 from Elm Street. MOTION by Gamer, second by Fitch to
adopt RESOLUTION NO. R48-97 authorizing preparation of a feasibility study for South
Suburban Medical Expansion street and utility project. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
10. Public Improvement/Capital Project Schedule Process
City Administrator Erar stated that the creation of the document was in response to
confusion regarding the order of steps in the improvement project process. It was
noted that Council approval of the City CIP was, in effect, approval of the
preparation of feasibility studies for the various projects. The feasibility
studies would be prepared and presented as time and the urgency of the projects
dictated. MOTION by Gamer, second by Cordes to approve the process as presented.
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
11. Water Reservoir Bonds
Finance Director Roland and Consultant Truszinski informed Council that 5 bids had
been received for the sale of the bonds and that the City had received a very
favorable interest rate. Mr. Truszinski also informed Council that the City had
received a AAA rating, which was a very positive sign for the City. Water Board
Chair Robert Shirley stated that the Water Board was very pleased with the bid
results and recommended approval of the bond sale. Member Fitch gave credit to the
Water Board for their fiscal responsibility in planning ahead and saving monies to
help in the repayment of the bonds. MOTION by Gamer, second by Strachan to adopt
RESOLUTION NO. R49-97 awarding the sale of G.O. Revenue Bonds for the water
reservoir site acquisition and construction to Piper Jaffrey at the net interest
rate of 5.39%. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
12. Accept Bids/Award Contract for Front End Loader
Finance Director Roland stated that three bids had been received for purchase of the
front end loader and the apparent low bid was received from St. Joseph Equipment for
a Case load~r. It was noted that the budget had set aside $150,000 for the purchase
and the bid of St. Joseph Equipment had come in at $140,011. Since the bid had come
in lower than anticipated, Ms. Roland stated excess funds would be used to pay down
the $155,000 Certificate of Indebtedness for Equipment bonds. Questions regarding
the pros and cons of purchasing the Case loader versus the John Deere model were
raised and discussed. Representatives from both manufacturers were present and
provided their input in the discussion. MOTION by Gamer, second by Strachan to
adopt RESOLUTION NO. RSO-97 accepting the bids and awarding the contract for the
purchase of a front end loader to St. Joseph Equipment. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION by Gamer, second by Cordes to adopt RESOLUTION NO. RSOa-97 authorizing
$155,000 Certificate of Indebtedness for Equipment purchase. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
13. Industrial Park Phase II Assessments.
Finance Director Roland informed Council that verbal waivers of hearing had been
received from all affected property owners. She also noted that a sentence in the
proposed resolution adopting the assessment roll needed to be added. MOTION by
Fitch, second by Gamer to adopt RESOLUTION NO. RSl-97 adopting assessments for
Industrial park Phase II contingent upon receiving written waivers from affected
property owners. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
14. Henderson Area Stor.m Sewer Project
Engineer Glenn Cook stated the project was part of the 1993 Facilities Plan and was
designed to reduce groundwater levels in the Henderson area. He reviewed the
various aspects of the project. Of the total estimated project cost of $397,900,
$91,200 would be assessed. Preliminary assessments indicate a per lot assessment of
$1,531 for residential property and $6,568 per acre for commercial property. MnDOT
may contribute some funding for the project, however, those monies may not be
available until a later date which would delay the project. At this point, Council
took a 5 minute recess. Discussion regarding several properties being assessed for
both the Henderson project and the Ash Street project took place. While there were
properties which would be assessed for both projects, those properties would not be
assessed twice for the same improvement (i.e., storm sewer, street improvements,
etc.). A question was raised as to whether storm water utility funds could be used
to offset some of the assessment. Staff responded that those funds would be used to
fund the City's portion of the project, but not individual assessments. MOTION by
Fitch, second by Cordes to adopt RESOLUTION NO. RS2-97 accepting the feasibility
report for Henderson Area Storm Sewer project and setting the public hearing date
for May 19, 1997. VOTING FOR: Fitch, Strachan, Ristow, Cordes. ABSTAIN: Gamer.
MOTION CARRIED.
15. Air Space Safety Height Ordinance
Planning Coordinator Smick noted that the proposed ordinance was part of a
Metropolitan Council requirement for the MUSA/Comprehensive Plan amendment. Both
the Planning Commission and City Attorney had reviewed and approved the amendment.
MOTION by Strachan, second by Gamer to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 097-394 adding building
height regulations for airspace safety to Title 10, Chapter 5 of the City Code.
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
16. Roundtable
Councilmember Fitch: The Fire Department has been receiving numerous grass fire
calls. Would like public be mindful of the dry conditions
and potential for fires.
Mayor Ristow: Has received comments from residents concerned about response time of
fire/rescue equipment is trains would be blocking railroad crossings
at time of emergency.
- Received request from Dawn Johnson of PARAC to meet with a couple of
Councilmembers to discuss park funding issues.
- Middle School swimming pool groundbreaking ceremony on May 5th at 4:30 P.M..
- City Weed Inspector needs to be delegated for 1997 growing season.
17. The Council adjourned the regular meeting at 9:23 prior to beginning Executive
Session.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Hanson
Clerk/Typist
5b
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City
Administratorf
FROM: James Bell
Parks and Recreation Director
SUBJECT: Renewal of Recycling Contract with
Dick's Sanitation Service, Inc.
DATE: May 5, 1997
INTRODUCTION
The City entered into an agreement with Dick's Sanitation Service, Inc. to provide commercial recycling
services in October of 1995. This contract was based on Requests for Proposals which requested bids for a
three year time period. The Council should acknowledge the renewal of this contract.
DISCUSSION
The contract runs from April 1, 1996 through March 31, 1997 with options for extending the agreement two
additional one year periods; 4/1/97 to 3/31/98 and 4/1/98 to 3/31/99. Due to staffing changes during the
first quarter of 1997, the approval of this renewal should be retroactive to 3/31/97.
The City requested the three year proposals to lock into favorable recycling rates. Dick's Sanitation Service,
Inc. ' s performance during the first year has been satisfactory.
BUDGET IMPACT
The recycling program is providing the commercial customers with a cost effective service. Recycling costs
are passed on to the customers.
RECOMMENDATION
Acknowledge the executed agreement with Dick's Sanitation that will automatically renew the agreement for
the second term as provided in the contract.
Respectfully Submitted,
,J..- ~1~~_
James Bell
Parks and Recreation Director
cc: file, Robin Roland, Arvilla Neff, Benno Klotz, Lena Larson
Citlj of Farminf/,ton 325 Oak Street. Farmin9ton, MN 55024 · (612) 463.7111 · FaIr (612) 463.2591
5c
FROM:
Mayor, Councilmembers,
City Administrator ft
Karen Finstuen
Administrative Service Manager
TO:
SUBJECT:
Agreement with Progress Land
Development
DATE:
May 5, 1997
INTRODUCTION
An agreement addressing the use of the Stegmaier Homestead, has been drawn up as part of the
amendment to the Prairie Creek PUD.
DISCUSSION
At the City Council meeting of February 3, 1997, the Prairie Creek PUD was amended by
changing the land use of the Stegmaier Homestead from residential to professional office use.
This was subject to the submittal of an executed agreement guaranteeing the continuation of
professional office use and retention of the building footprint as shown on the approved original
PUD. A staff approved landscaping plan was also required and has been received.
ACTION REQUIRED
Approve the attached agreement which will be filed with the property at the County Recorders
office.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Karen Finstuen
Administrative Service Manager
Citlj of FarminiJton 325 Oak Street · Farmin9tonJ MN 55024 · (612) 1l63-7111 · Fa/( (612) 463-2591
AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY OF FARMINGTON
AND PROGRESS LAND COMPANY, INC.
THIS AGREEMENT is made this ____ day of
1997, by and between the CITY OF FARMINGTON, a Minnesota municipal
corporation (the "City") and Progress Land Company, Inc., a
Minnesota corporation (the "Developer").
1.
Reauest for Approval.
The Developer has requested that
the City amend the land use of Lot 1, Block 2, Prairie Creek Second
Addition (the "Property"), from a R1-PUD to B2-PUD, General
Business. Whereas, the City agrees to amend its' zoning ordinance
in this manner, however, it is conditional on the Developer
entering into this development Agreement.
The Property is legally described as follows:
Lot 1, Block 2, prairie Creek Second Addition
Dakota County, Minnesota.
2. Conditions of Approval. The City hereby approves this
Agreement on the following terms and conditions:
a. the Developer enter into this Agreement, and
b. the land use allowable on the Property shall be a
professional business office only.
c. should the ~xisting structure be destroyed and/or razed,
any new str~cture shall retain the footprint of the
original building.
3. Development Plans. The Developer shall develop the
Property in accordance wich the following plans. The plans will
not be attached to this Agreement. The plans maybe prepared by the
Developer, subject to City approval, after entering into this
Agreement but before any commencement of work on the Property. If
the plans vary from the written terms and conditions of the
Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall control. The required
plans are as follows:
Plan A - Staging Plan
Plan B - Landscape Plan
Plan C - Architectural Plans (This shall include
plans for all structural improvements and additions)
4.
Landscaoinq.
The Developer shall landscape the Property
in accordance with Plan B. The landscaping shall be accomplished
in accordance with a time schedule approved by the "City".
5. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its
agents, employees, officers and contractors, a license to enter the
Property to perform all necessary work and/or inspection deemed
appropriate by the City during the time of construction.
6. Resoonsibilitv for Costs.
A. The Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or
the City in conjunction with the development of the Property,
including but not limited to, legal, planning, construction costs,
engineering, the preparation of this Agreement, and all reasonable
costs and expenses incurred by t~e City in monitoring and
inspecting the project.
B. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers
and employees harmless from claims made by itself and/or third
parties for any damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from
approval and construction of this project. The Developer agrees to
indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers and employees
for all costs, damages or expenses which the City may payor incur
as a result of such claims, including reasonable attorney's fees.
-2-
C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs
incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including
engineering and attorney's fees.
7. Limitations as to Use. At no time is the Property to be
used for anything other than business office purposes. Should the
existing structure be destroyed and/or razed, any new structure
must retain the footprint of the original building. Further, all
plans and specifications must be submitted and approved by the City
prior to any new construction or reconstruction.
8. Miscellaneous.
A. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties,
their heirs, successors or assigns, as the case may be.
B. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the
Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits.
C. The invalidity or unenforceability of any particular
provision of this Agreement shall not affect the other provisions
of this Agreement, and this Agreement shall be construed in all
respects as if such invalid or unenforceable provisions were
omitted.
D, This written document expresses the entire agreement
among the parties and supersedes any prior Agreements or
understandings concerning the subject of this Agreement. No
amendment shall be valid unless it is in writing and signed by all
the parties.
E. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be
recorded against the title co the Property.
-3-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement
effective the day and year first above written.
Developer:
CITY OF FARMINGTON
PROGRESS LAND COMPANY, INC.
By: 1J~
Warren . Israelson
It's President
By:
Gerald Ristow
Mayor
By:
John F. Erar
City Clerk/Administrator
State of Minnesota
ss.
County of Dakota
The foreqoing instrument was acknowledged before me this J(i~h
day of ~~r'\ I 1997, by Warren J. Israelson, President of
Prooress Lan Comoanv, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws
of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation.
,
e AMY E ISRAELSON
; '. NOTARYPUBUC-MINNESOTA
SCOTT COUNTY
MY COMM. EXPIRES 1.31.2000
---R.6Y1/C Jjd/A' j~
Notary P l~c
State of Minnesota
ss.
County of Dakota
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___
day of I 1997, by Gerald Ristow, Mavor, and John
F. Erar, City Clerk/Administrator, of the City of Farmington, a
"Tinnesota municipal corporation on behalf of the corporation and
pursuant to the authority granted by the City Council.
Notary Public
Drafted By:
GRANNIS & GRANNIS, P.A.
412 Southview Boulevard
Suite 100
South St. Paul, MN 55075
(612) 455-1661
chris\farmingt.civ\farmpud.ste
-4-
;<-3-97
W~(h C'J? 717( ~L,-<-~
9. Prairie Creek PUD Amendment - Stegmaier Homestead
Progress Land Company, Inc., developer of prairie Creek PUD, requested an
amendment to the PUD in order to change the land use of the "Stegmaier Homestead"
(Lot 1, Block 2, prairie Creek 2nd Addition) from Residential PUD to Limited
Business. The exterior of the existing structure would be refurbished and a
front porch added. The interior would be remodeled into professional office
space. The Developer wished to preserve the homestead, however, because of the
cost to renovate and its location on Pilot Knob Road, its use as a residential
dwelling was not feasible. It would, however, provide a good buffer between
Pilot Knob Road and the residential neighborhood to the east. Planning Intern
Schultz displayed drawings of the revamped building and provided feedback
received at the hearing held by the Planning Commission on January 14th.
Concerns were raised regarding what would occur if the land use were changed to
business use and the building was later destroyed and/or replaced. What would
prevent a business which was not compatible with the residential neighborhood
from being built on the site? QuestioD3 and concern about allowing PUDs to be
amended and consistency with granting such requests were also raised.
Councilmember Strachan stated that the Stegmaier Homestead was an historically
significant structure and should be saved. Planning Commission Chair Schlawin
noted that it was always the intent of both the developer and the Planning
Commission that the structure be saved and that allowing the change in land use
was the most viable way of doing so. City Attorney Grannis stated that the
amendment could be granted subject to the execution and recording of an agreement
which guaranteed that the use and footprint of the building would remain as
approved. He also noted that PUDs were desig_.ed to allow this type of
flexibility. MOTION by Strachan, second by Gamer to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 097-387
amending the prairie Creek PUD by changing the land use of the Stegmaier
Homestead from residential to professional office use subject to the submittal of
a staff approved landscaping p~an and the execution of an agreement guaranteeing
the continuation of professional office use and retencion of the buildings
footprint as shown on the approved original PUD. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
10. Snowmobile Ordinance
Parks and Recreation Director Bell briefly reviewed the materials contained in
the Council's agenda packet for this item. Comments from Council, audience
members and staff covered a variety of topics including the use of County right
of way to travel within the City (allowed unless specifically restricted by
City), snowmobiles driving against oncoming traffic at night (illegal practice),
enforcement issues (residents should record license numbers and report illegal
activities to Police, and not confront or chase down snowmobiles themselves),
installation of markers or barricades by residents in rights of way to prevent
snowmobile use (illegal, residents could be liable for injury or damage). MOTION
by Gamer, second by Cordes to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 097-388 deleting the existing
snowmobile ordinance in its entirety and substituting the proposed new language
in its place. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Mayor R~stow complimented Police Chief
Siebenaler and Parks and Recreation Director Bell for their work on formulating
the new ordinance, map and informational items to be provided to the public.
Marvin Wier informed Council that the snowmobile club was working on a trail on
the west side of County Road 31 behind existing housing in an effort to alleviate
problems on County 31.
5cI
FROM:
Mayor and City Council
City Administrator(Jv
Robin Roland, Finance Director
TO:
SUBJECT: Purchase Wire Feed Welder
DATE:
May 5, 1997
INTRODUCTION
A wire feed welder was budgeted for in the 1997 capital outlay budget, in the Fleet Maintenance
division.
DISCUSSION
Quotes have been received from the two vendors for the wire feed welder. The lower of the two
quotes is from West Weld supply at a cost of $2,816.93.
BUDGET IMPACT
The 1997 budget for this expenditure item was $3,728.
ACTION REQUIRED
The item has been ordered from West Weld. For information only.
P#~
'" Robin Roland
Finance Director
Citlj of FarminiJton 325 Oak Street. Farmin9tonJ MN 55024 · (612) 463.7117 · Fa~ (612) 463-2591
5e
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers,
City Administrator t
FROM: Karen Finstuen,
Admininstrative Service Manager
SUBJECT: Temporary 3.2 Permit
DATE: May 5, 1997
INTRODUCTION
Farmington Independent Softball Team is requesting a Temporary 3.2 On-Sale License for their
Fastpitch Softball Tournament on the weekend of June 14 - 15, 1997. This permit requires
Council approval.
DISCUSSION
This tournament is a fundraiser for the Independents Softball Team. The applications for the
tournament and the Temporary 3.2 License have been submitted and approved by the appropriate
departments.
ACTION REQUIRED
Approve the temporary 3.2 license for this softball tournament.
Respectfully submitted,
cIhw-- ~~
Karen Finstuen
Administrative Service Manager
Citlj of FarminfJ.ton 325 Oak Street. Farmington, MN 55024 · (612) 1,63-7117 · Fair (612) 1,63-2591
,.
i'
NON INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR
AFFIDAVIT OF GROSS ANNUAL SALES
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the prior year1s gross annual sales of on-sale non
intoxicating malt liquor did not exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) or off-sale non
intoxicating malt liquor did not exceed twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) at the
. following establishment.
Further, at such time during the term of the license period, gross sales of on-sale non
intoxica.,ting malt liquor shall equal ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) or off-sale non
intoxicating malt liquor gross sales shall equal twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) all
further sales of non intoxicating malt liquor shall cease until proof of financial
responsibility as provided by Title 3, Chapter 12, Section 9 of the Farmington City Code
as demonstrated.
Signature
~~ tl\~
Place 0
l
J \J-t'/
usmess
;&/loCfh
Dated thi~;' 2- ~ day of
.;)1~ veL
, 19 cr 7
Notary:
"oO;"
...
-f.
~ ';':'T . ," · .... ""~.
..- - ----.. -.....,
~~R.Uy 3.2 C~ s.~~ :.::z::S!
~AHE OF ORGA:;IU'IION APP!.!l::G
!'!l'! OF OllG.W:UnON: (FORMAL) (SO-r;OLE:.. ~ ~aN-;:?OF!': ,(P~~a.1~E:7l'). j
~ D.lI!S: FiOII ;Iv<--- 17? 1'0 _ :>fVL.. 1,r;d 7
Lac.\!:O~ OF !.ICDSE e,-~/'\- I JV~I/ Be-I /fi~/J s. I
.J
~
TYl'! OF EmIT
Sd'rJ~G.1 /
7" ~ tl,/' V'\ "- V'
/
PURPOSE OF :. \[EYI
~ J- J,;~ 's-.., - ,.,L;--
~~<:...~
~ALS-e' ~
I
N&'!E: OF APP!.::.\.'rr:
(P~v:lh. f4.~ s5?1Y~
J
/728/ :TJ-- (!J,
ADDRESS OF A2PhT
'J? /~., ~ 7
DAtE { ,
r &!lE!Y REC~. I ':1iIS APP!.:
~-
SIG:;an:u OF ::OLICZ Cli!~
"''"'''''''''~ I'2K
~,,7;;!,~~~.~~:;' ~' "t',. ..'.'.. ,,'
(D~IE:l)'
/9? 7
:S := ~:: :0 BE HEUl I~1 A c::-r !' .UK': V c: S
!F SO.
S !~~~~ :: "2 _\..~ .-il1D
;iEt~-:- ~'Z:::;
-------...
~ _:...:.~.....'\.
'..n:I.:. :& E:~~"'I' REQUIlU: A S~..=; :0 3E: C:'=S~::l'! tJ 0
IF SO.
S!G:iArwT.Z JF GC=~ ~~VICES
~ .;30VE .;::!.:c.;:::o~: ~.;~ .~l'?!O~ ':v 7!! :::-: :::::C::'
to "" ~~ '.f1:~"'~
.~.. _ ..___ ..--__..-.J
OF
:!~~~ --
.::::: .~~:S~:OR.
:'''~
'" 4.J..
5t
'.-.-- ~. _.~
- -. .-.-,
AUDITOR'S COMMENTS ON COMPLIANCE
To the Board of Directors
ALF Ambulance
Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124
We have audited the financial statements of ALF Ambulance as of and for the year ended
December 31, 1996, and have issued our report thereon dated March 11, 1997.
We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and the
provisions of the Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Local Government,
promulgated by the Legal Compliance Task Force pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
6.65. Accordingly, the audit included such tests of the accounting records and such other
auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.
The Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Local Government covers five main
categories of compliance to be tested: contracting and bidding; deposits and investments;
conflicts of interest; public indebtedness; claims and disbursements. Our study included ail
of the above listed categories.
The results of our tests indicate that for the items tested, ALF Ambulance complied with
the material terms and conditions of applicable legal provisions. Further, for the items not
tested, based on our audit and the procedures referred to above, nothing came to our
attention to indicate that ALF Ambulance had not complied with such legal provisions.
This report is intended solely for the information of ALF Ambulance. However, this
report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited.
Respectfully submitted,
~ ,&.~~ I ~ U;T.
TAUTGES, REDPATH & CO., LTD.
Certified Public Accountants
March 11, 1997
4810 !hite Bear Parkway. White Bear Lake. ,Viinnesota 55110 . 512.A26c7000. :=,~Xi426-5004 . !'Ilemoer OT riLE"",
53
MEMO TO:
Mayor, Councilmembers,
City Administrator
FROM:
City Administrator Erar
SUBJECT:
Conference Request
LMC Annual Conference
DATE:
May 5, 1997
INTRODUCTION/DISCUSSION
The annual League of Minnesota Cities Conference provides valuable experience
and information for municipal management and professional development.
Community Development Director Olson and I will be attending this conference.
BUDGET IMPACT
There are adequate funds available to cover the cost of attendance.
ACTION REQUIRED
Approve conference attendance.
Respectfully submitted,
t/J {~
J hn F. Erar
, ity Administrator
JE1
Citlj of FarminfJton 325 Oak Street. FarminiJtonJ MN 55024 · (612) 463-7117 · Fa~ (612) 463-2591
REQUEST FORM
SCHOOLS/CONFERENCES/TRAINING
DEPARTMENTF9~i~i~~~EsigD_ DATE OF CONFERENCE_&=lQ__/_Q=ld__
Fl'~om To
LOCATION
---------------------------------------------------
St. Cloud
EMPLOYEE(S) ATTENDING: 1)
2)
John Erar
----------------------------------
----------------------------------
3)
----------------------------------
TYPE OF CONFERENCE
TOPICS 1)
LMC Annual Conference
-----------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
2)
--------------------------------------------------
3)
----------.----------------------------------------
METHOD OF TRAVEL
Amount Provided in Adjusted
19_~~ Budget $__~~QQ_____
1) Travel $_______________
2) Registration $_~j~~~~__
3) Rc.c.rn $ _________}}J__JJ__
4) Meals $________________
5) Other Expense $________
Amou1".t Request $___~liQ._____
Amt Rerna i 1"1 i 1"lg $ __~~4..1.._____
~Jjjt7__
Date
Finance Director Date
-----------------------------------------------------------
TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL
I RECOMMEND THE ABOVE REQUEST BE APPROVED.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
Date
ACTION TAKEN BY THE COUNCIL
ON THE ______ DAY OF __________________, 19
(APPROVED)
(NOT APPROVED)
Rev 9/86
REQUEST FORM
SCHOOLS/CONFERENCES/TRAINING
DEPARTMENT_~_~___________ DATE OF CONFERENCE2:1~___/2=1]---
Fl'~om To
LOCATION
St. Cloud
---------------------------------------------------
EMPLOYEE(S) ATTENDING: 1) David Olson
----------------------------------
2)
----------------------------------
3)
----------------------------------
TYPE OF CONFERENCE_____~~S_~EE~3~_S2E~~I~ES~_______________
TOPICS 1)__________________________________________________
2)__________________________________________________
3)
--------------------------------------------------
METHOD OF TRAVEL
-------------------------------------------
Amol.ll".t Request
Amt Remaining
$ 380.00
$ ----8-s-0-:1fo--
1) Travel $_______________
2) Registration $_1j2~~~--
3) Rc.c.m $_________112-=.9.9--
4) Meals $________________
5) Other Expense $________
Amount Provided in Adjusted
19Y1_ Budget $___33~~~~__
Department Head Date
Finance Director Date
-----------------------------------------------------------
TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL
I RECOMMEND THE ABOVE REQUEST BE APPROVED.
--------------------------
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
--------------------------
Date
ACTION TAKEN BY THE COUNCIL
ON THE ______ DAY OF __________________, 19
(APPROVED)
(NOT APPROVED)
Rev 9/86
COUNCIL REGISTER
Council Meeting of 5/5/97
VENDOR
ACTIVITY
01-MAY-1997 (09:33)
::,h
DESCRIPTION
CHECK AMOUNT CK-SUBSYS
4 PAWS C/O CURT FINCH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<*>
A T & T WIRELESS SERVICES
<*>
AA EQUIPMENT COMPANY
<*>
ABH PROPERTIES
<*>
AIRLAKE FORD MERCURY
<*>
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR
<*>
ALCORN BEVERAGE CO. INC.
<*>
ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC
<*>
BATTERIES PLUS
<*>
BAUER BUILT TIRE & SERVICE
<*>
BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK IN
<*>
BT OFFICE PRODUCTS INTERNATION
<*>
BUDGET OIL CO
POLICE ADMIN
ENGINEERING SERV
SEWER OPEATIONS
STREET MAINT
WATER UTILITY
LIQUOR PILOT KNB
SEWER OPEATIONS
SOLID WASTE
STREET MAINT
STREET MAINT
BUILDING INSPECT
POLICE ADMIN
RESCUE SQUAD
LIQUOR
FIRE SERVICES
SEWER OPEATIONS
WATER UTILITY
STREET MAINT
1997 IMPROVE
COUNTY ROAD 31
DEVLPR CAP PROJ
EAST FGTN PUD
ENGINEERING SERV
LARCH STREET
NELSON HILLS FRM
PARK IMPROVEMENT
PRAIRIE WAT PH 2
PRAIRIE WAT PH 3
RESERVOIR CONSTR
RIVERSIDE ADDIT
SEWER OPEATIONS
STATE AID STREET
WATER UTILITY
ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING INSPECT
CITY HALL REM
BUILDING INSPECT
ENGINEERING SERV
FIRE SERVICES
PARK MAINT
PATROL SERVICES
SEWER OPEATIONS
SNOW REMOVAL
ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES
PHONE CHARGES
PHONE CHARGES
PHONE CHARGES
PHONE CHARGES
PARTS/SUPPLIES - REMODEL
MAY'97 BLDG RENTAL
MAY'97 BLDG RENTAL
MAY'97 BLDG RENTAL
PARTS/REPAIRS
CELL PHONE - MANKE
CELLULAR PHONE - SIEBENALER
CELLULAR PHONE PURCHASE
BEER RETURN
PURCHASE/INSTALLATION OF RADIO
BATTERY
BATTERY
SERVICE CALL
DAKOTA LUMBER PROJECT 141-106
ENGINEERING FEES
CAMERON WOODS
EAST FARMINGTON 3RD ADDN
ENGINEERING FEES
E FARM. LARCH ST ACCESS
NELSON HILLS 6TH ADDITION
PARK REFERENDUM PLAN.&SUPPORT
ENGINEERING FEES
ENGINEERING FEES
ENGINEERING FEES
RIVERSIDE DEVELOPMENT
ENGINEERING FEES
ENGINEERING FEES
ENGINEERING FEES
SUPPLIES PO#6752
SPECIAL ORDER STAMP PO#6751
SUPPLIES PO#6753
FUEL CHARGES
FUEL CHARGES
FUEL CHARGES
FUEL CHARGES
FUEL CHARGES
FUEL CHARGES
FUEL CHARGES
640.00
640.00*
11.21
15.63
31.25
15.62
73.71*
8,905.60
8,905.60*
100.00
1,500.00
290.00
1,890.00*
14.30
14.30*
31. 89
144.38
261. 99
438.26*
12,016.36
12,016.36*
950.00
950.00*
27.50
27.49
54.99*
170,28
170.28*
90.00
516.90
3,510.00
1,243.00
4,714.65
71.50
450.00
343.40
186.85
1,834.15
124.20
296.50
329.50
455.40
4,503.10
18,669.15*
438.16
29.02
827.51
1,294.69*
85.51
13 .14
68.44
76.84
387.21
70.36
302.65
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
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
COUNCIL REGISTER
VENDOR
BUDGET OIL CO
<*>
BURNSVILLE SANITARY COMPANY
<*>
C P RAIL LIMITED
<*>
CARLSON TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT
<*>
CARQUEST
<*>
CDP IMAGING SYSTEMS
<*>
CEEF
<*>
CHAPIN CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN I
<*>
CITY OF FARMINGTON
<*>
CITY OF FARMINGTON - SELECT AC
<*>
COLLEGE CITY BEVERAGE INC
<*>
COMMUNICATION BRIEFINGS
<*>
CULLIGAN WATER CONDITIONING
<*>
D & J GLASS SERVICE
<*>
DAKOTA COUNTY FINANCIAL SERVIC
<*>
DAKOTA COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIE
<*>
DAKOTA ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION
<*>
DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF MINNESOTA
<*>
DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
<*>
DIESEL COMPONENTS INC
<*>
DISNEY EDUCATIONAL PRODUCTIONS
<*>
DUEBERS DEPT STORE
<*>
DYNA SYSTEMS
<*>
ACTIVITY
SOLID WASTE
STREET MAINT
Senior Center
SOLID WASTE
STORM WATER,UTIL
SNOW REMOVAL
STREET MAINT
ADMINISTRATION
LIQUOR
STATE AID STREET
ADMINISTRATION
FLEET MAINT SERV
INVESTIGATION
PARK MAINT
GENERAL FUND
LIQUOR
RECREATION PROGR
ICE ARENA
SNOW REMOVAL
GENERAL FUND
ADMINISTRATION
EMERG MGMT SERV
SIGNAL MAINT
SEVERANCE FUND
POLICE ADMIN
STREET MAINT
FIRE SERVICES
SENIOR CITIZEN
FLEET MAINT SERV
01-MAY-1997 (09:33)
DESCRIPTION
FUEL CHARGES
FUEL CHARGES
FUEL CHARGES
MARCH DUMPING FEES
66" STORM SWR
SKID SHOE
DISCONNECT SET
MIN 5420 QTRLY MAINTENANCE
FOUNDERS FESTIVAL SPONSOR
SEALCOAT BID AD - 2 WKS
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
W/H 4/25/97
BEER
SUBSCRIPTION
SALT
AUTO GLASS PO#6679
CHILD SUPPORT 4/25
OVER THE YEARS BROCHURE
SIREN - PILOT KNOB ROAD
STREET LIGHTS - 9TH STREET
DENTAL PREMIUMS
1ST QTR CJDN CHARGES
PARTS
VIDEO-I'M NO FOOL W/FIRE
TOY
SUPPLIES/PARTS
Dakota County Lumber Company BUILDING MAINT WOOD DOWELS & GLUE
- - y--~-,- ---
'-'"""~"'"-"-""--"--'---"~-"-"'"-''---''~''~'''''-'---eS'.PRBi!l'l'-MltHf'i'-"-'-""-"'-"S~'!-iil'S--'-"' .'.,....,'....- ,-.."
<*>
-'l~~'~: M' :.fti4"~' ~~If""-<:':'_ M,~..~~"-4.:_r,_ .-
~.....,...~..-J:-d..._.H-
j lU 1 IljI
II :~c:~~lIJ]JI~~:~~:,;:;-".- ,. '~:w,,:,~--~~:l~_:': .~:.;-;...;~-,'-;;4;;..T-,~..,.~~::;,:;::::,::~-~:~;~J:(~::',::::I.','.:~:~I~:~,:L~;;;J-L~"'__I.',:_l_~:~~:
',""
... ~
CHECK AMOUNT CK-SUBSYS
309.84
417.67
28.29 OH
1,759.95*
6,793.25 OH
6,793.25*
180.00 OH
180.00*
65.38 OH
65.38*
9.04 OH
9.04*
446.00 OH
446.00*
50.00 OH
50.00*
168.00 OH
168.00*
71.76 OH
3.00 OH
2.00 OH
5.07 OH
81.83*
1,005.80 OH
1,005.80*
6,581.15
6,581.15*
79.00 OH
79.00*
100.00 OH
100.00*
259.76 OH
259.76*
302.00 OH
302.00*
80.00 OH
80.00*
5.33 OH
2,061.66 OH
2,066.99*
1,619.20 OH
1,619.20*
270.00 OH
270.00*
78.66 OH
78.66*
124.00 OH
124.00*
5.31 OH
5.31*
209.84 t1
209.84*
34 .10 uti
'""'~"""",'_",~",~.~--~'.,----.",.' " 4-~6"-- "-'-~H--"
98.16*
--~-_'Ili.i:i"
1'----
_i_".~'-
, I ..] ,
~~,-~~~_~JI.(~~: ~:":_---;:=:~~~[~~~~:-ar;~.,~~'~:~;;,~;.''';:~--_'_-:':':#::;-=0:_~:;,,-~J;:::=.:lC~.;t
COUNCIL REGISTER
VENDOR
ACTIVITY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDUCATION CENTER INC, THE
RECREATION PROGR
<*>
ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR INC
SOLID WASTE
<*>
ERAR, JOHN
ADMINISTRATION
<*>
ERNEST J. DARFLINGER
HRA/ECONOMIC DEV
<*>
FARMINGTON EMPLOYEE CLUB
GENERAL FUND
<*>
FARMINGTON INDEPENDENT
ADMINISTRATION
HRA/ECONOMIC DEV
LARCH STREET
PLANNING/ZONING
SOLID WASTE
STATE AID STREET
STREET MAINT
TREE MAINTENANCE
<*>
FARMINGTON PRINTING INC
COMMUNICATIONS
FIRE SERVICES
SEWER OPEATIONS
SOLID WASTE
WATER UTILITY
<*>
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
GENERAL FUND
<*>
FEED-RITE CONTROLS INC
WATER UTILITY
<*>
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF FARMING
GENERAL FUND
SOLID WASTE
<*>
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS
ADMINISTRATION
<*>
GEISE, TRACY
GEN ACCOUNTING
<*>
GODFREY'S CUSTOM SIGNS
COMM DEVELOP
<*>
GOPHER SIGN CO
STREET MAINT
<*>
GOPHER STAGE LIGHTING INC
ICE ARENA
<*>
GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC
SEWER OPEATIONS
WATER UTILITY
<*>
GPJu~IS & GRANNIS,P.A.
ADMINISTRATION
COMM DEVELOP
EAST FGTN PUD
ENGINEERING SERV
GEN ACCOUNTING
LEGISLATIVE CTRL
LIQUOR
PINE KNOLL
PLANNING/ZONING
POLICE ADMIN
01-MAY-1997 (09:33)
DESCRIPTION
CHECK AMOUNT CK-SUBSYS
ARTS & CRAFTS IDEAS BOOKS
REPAIRS
CAR ALLOWANCE - JOHN ERAR
LEGAL FEES
EMPL CLUB DUES 4/25
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIC
PUBLIC HEAR. NOTICE-IND DEV BD
AD FOR BIDS - LARCH ST ACCESS
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIC
AD FOR BID-GARBAGE T
NOTICE OF HEARING-SEALCOATING
AD F0R BID-LOADER/PL
HELP WANTED-SUMMER PKS WORKER
UPDATE
SUPPLIES
FOLD UTILITY BILLS
EARTH DAYS FLYER
FOLD UTILITY BILLS
SAVINGS BOND W/H 4/25
CONTAINER DEMURRAGE
FED/ST/FICA W/H 4/25
LOAN PYMT 89043
PHONE CHARGES
MILEAGE - LOGIS MTG 4/21
RELETTER SIGNS/COMM. DEV. DIR.
STOP SIGNS
LIGHT RENTAL
MARCH 97
MARCH 97
LEGAL FEES
LEGAL FEES
LEGAL FEES
LEGAL FEES
LEGAL FEES
LEGAL FEES
LEGAL FEES
LEGAL FEES
LEGAL FEES
LEGAL FEES
52.85
52.85*
60.93
60.93*
200.00
200.00*
3,780.00
3,780.00*
41. 00
41.00*
94.50
36.45
70.20
10.80
54.00
86.40
56.70
10.00
419.05*
569.08
106.90
9.94
248.27
9.94
944.13*
25.00
25.00*
1,046.30
1,046.30*
19,609.87
35,841.26
55,451.13*
76.04
76.04*
19.53
19.53*
120.00
120.00*
414.96
414.96*
438.59
438.59*
77.88
77.87
155.75*
693.50
19.00
57.50
304.00
38.00
566.00
95.00
47.50
237:50
3,759.15
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
OH
COUNCIL REGISTER
VENDOR
GRANNIS & GRANNIS,P.A.
<*>
GREG LARSON SPORTS INC
<*>
GRIGGS COOPER & CO
<*>
Gartner Refrigeration & MFG In
<*>
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457
<*>
IDEALS PUBLICATIONS INC
<*>
IKON CAPITAL
<*>
INTERNATIONAL PERSONNEL MGMT A
<*>
Independent Black Dirt Co. Inc
<*>
JG WEAR
<*>
JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR COMPAN
<*>
JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
<*>
KELLY ELECTRIC INC
<*>
KINDSETH, TODD D
<*>
LABOR RELATIONS ASSOCIATES INC
<*>
LAKEVILLE, CITY OF
<*>
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES
<*>
LAWSON PRODUCTS INC
<*>
LEAURE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INS
<*>
LEHMANN FARMS
<*>
MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT
<*>
MALLOY MONTAGUE KARNOWSKI RADO
<*>
MANDERS DIESEL REPAIR INC
<*>
MENARDS
<:*'5"
METROPOLITAN AREA MANAGEMENT A
-.-i-'ilfi.~~~"~"i~~~_ii
-;:lIjt-~ :;I....
! I
,:;:'_-::~'::;f{'~--_-::';""'~:~_~:~~_~~:-=-' - lrllr-';~,:;;~~;;:;;;~j.;", ;,,-~_ -:;'~4. -: ~-,:ul- -I'_~:,'.'~~: .~~~,::-':-,"-.-__ ::':::=~'T u_~=G-"- - . - - ~~-,': .;:: .
ACTIVITY
PRAIRIE WAT PH 2
RECREATION PROGR
RESERVOIR CONSTR
Wausau Alignment
Recreation prog
LIQUOR
ICE ARENA
GENERAL FUND
SENIOR CITIZEN
ADMINISTRATION
PERSONNEL
STREET MAINT
PARK MAINT
LIQUOR
RESCUE SQUAD
LIBRARY SERVICES
FIRE SERVICES
PERSONNEL
PATROL SERVICES
RESCUE SQUAD
GENERAL FUND
STREET MAINT
GEN ACCOUNTING
LIQUOR
SOLID WASTE
STREET MAl NT
GEN ACCOUNTING
HRA/ECONOMIC DEV
SOLID WASTE
LIQUOR PILOT KNB
ADMINISTRATION
",A :';(.4iW_l::-J.il~/l(:;';::;":"";':;~:~-~
01-MAY-1997 (09:33)
DESCRIPTION
CHECK AMOUNT CK-SUBSYS
LEGAL FEES
LEGAL FEES
LEGAL FEES
LEGAL FEES
57.00
171.00
19.00
28.50
6,092.65*
28.36
28.36*
8,174.06
8,174.06*
2,379.58
2,379.58*
2,808.90
2,808.90*
19.95
19.95*
314.93
314.93*
219.00
219.00*
20.00
20.00*
157.90
157.90*
6,098.34
6,098.34*
21. 95
21.95*
88.34
88.34*
52.50
52.50*
725.50
725.50*
2,859.44
1,429.74
4,289.18*
148.50
148.50*
78.22
78.22*
500.00
500.00*
438.58
438.58*
180.63
11.11
191.74*
5,336.00
2,000.00
7,336.00*
25.13
25.13*
34.39
-""34 :'3'9"'""''''
16.00
OH
OH
OH
OH
16" PLAYGROUND BALL/BALL SET
OH
LIQUOR
OH
PLANT SHUT DOWN
OH
DEF COMP 4/25 W/H
OH
SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL
OH
MTHLY LEASE/RENT COPIER
OH
AGENCY MEMBERSHIP ANNUAL DUES
OH
SUPPLIES
OH
T-SHIRTS w/ SCREENPRINT
OH
LIQUOR
OH
SUBSCRIPTION
REPLACE BALLAST IN LIBRARY WR
OH
MEALS
OH
LABOR RELATIONS ISSUES
OH
MARCH DISPATCH CHARGES
MARCH DISPATCH CHARGES
OH
OH
LAW ENFORCE UNION DUES 4/25
OH
PARTS
OH
INSURANCE CLAIM - ROBINSON
OH
MERCH FOR RESALE
OH
PRESSURE SWITCH
OILITE TOW BAR BUS
OH
OH
CITY AUDIT THRU 3/31
HRA AUDIT THRU 3/31/
OH
OH
COVER
PARTS/SUPPLIES
OH
LUNCHEON 4/17/97
;~ ,.
w..A_~ -4 "4
'--~..."
I '~].,:; .-Ie
III r ,
...::~- -- -iil-L,~._. :.~-: -'j' n- nD;lL
U_'~""
COUNCIL REGISTER
VENDOR
ACTIVITY
01-MAY-1997 (09:33)
DESCRIPTION
CHECK AMOUNT CK-SUBSYS
<*>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vrl
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIORNME
<*>
MINNESOTA AFSCME COUNCIL #14
<*>
MINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOCIATION
<*>
MINNESOTA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATI
<*>
MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY
<*>
MINNESOTA MUTUAL
<*>
MINNESOTA RECREATION & PARK AS
<*>
MORE FOUR
<*>
MVTL LABORATORIES INC
<*>
NAPA
<*>
NATROGAS, INC.
<*>
NORTHERN HYDRAULICS INC
<*>
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY
<*>
NORTON, LINDA K
<*>
NTFC CAPITAL CORPORATION
<*>
OWENS SERVICES CORPORATION
<*>
PALM PRODUCTIONS
<*>
PARKER'S FLOOR COVERING & APPL
<*>
PEOPLES NATURAL GAS
<*>
PERFORMANCE TRAINING ASSOCIATE
<*>
PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC
<*>
PITNEY BOWES
<*>
SEWER OPEATIONS
GENERAL FUND
GENERAL FUND
STREET MAINT
BOARDS & COMM
SEVERANCE FUND
Recreation prog
BUILDING INSPECT
BUILDING MAINT
FIRE SERVICES
HRA/ECONOMIC DEV
POLICE ADMIN
WATER UTILITY
FIRE SERVICES
STREET MAINT
WATER UTILITY
STREET MAINT
FIRE SERVICES
BUILDING MAINT
EMERG MGMT SERV
EXCHNG BANK BLDG
HRA/ECONOMIC DEV
SIGNAL MAINT
PERSONNEL
COMMUNICATIONS
ICE ARENA
PATROL SERVICES
LIQUOR PILOT KNB
HRA/ECONOMIC DEV
FLEET MAINT SERV
LIQUOR
ADMINISTRATION
MAY SEWER SERVICE
UNION DUES 4/25/97
W/H 4/25/97
D.O.T. STICKER REPLACEMENT
CONFERENCE REGISTRATION FEE
LIFE INS PREMIUMS
TEAM REGISTRATION - 21 TEAMS
FILM
SUPPLIES
FILM
COM DEV DIR RECEPTION
BATTERIES
COLIFORM, MF TESTING
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
NATROGAS
PARTS/SUPPLIES
626 HERITAGE WAY
CIVIL DEFENSE SIREN
344 3RD STREET-EXCH.BANK BLDG
308 ELM STREET - P & R SHOP
STREET LIGHT SERVICE
CONSULTING SERVICES - APRIL
PO #7102 CALLER ID PH SYSTEM
REPAIR FURNACE-114 W SPRUCE ST
CLASS TUITION - BLUE SENSE
STORE REMODEL - CARPET/FLOORIN
P & R GARAGE- 308 ELM ST
TRBLSHTING HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS
LIQUOR
MAIL MACH/SCALE QTRLY CHGS
16.00*
33,542.00
33,542.00*
320.49
320.49*
278.63
278.63*
2.00
2.00*
70.00
70.00*
201.60
201.60*
336.00
336.00*
11.15
26.02
8.88
27.39
9.35
82.79*
62.00
62.00*
176.56
31. 08
24.54
232.18*
303.54
303.54*
355.97
355.97*
112.40
12.56
224.48
105.82
2,809.92
3,265.18*
475.00
475.00*
397.66
397.66*
1,608.26
1,608.26*
45.00
45.00*
2,366.30
2,366.30*
168.91
168.91*
395.00
395.00*
1,580.17
1,580.17*
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
OR
COUNCIL REGISTER
VENDOR
POLFUS IMPLEMENT AT ROSEMOUNT
<*>
PRENTICE HALL REMITTANCE PROCE
<*>
PRESERVATION ALLIANCE OF MINNE
<*>
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT AS
<*>
QUALITY WINE AND SPIRITS CO
<*>
R & R SPECIALTIES INC
<*>
REEDS SALES & SERVICE
<*>
ROLAND, ROBIN
<*>
SAM'S CLUB
<*>
SAVOIE SUPPLY CO. INC.
<*>
SCAN AIR FILTER INC
<*>
SELECT ACCOUNT
<*>
SKB
<*>
SNYDER APPRAISALS
<*>
SOUTH SUBURBAN MEDICAL CLINIC
<*>
ST CROIX COUNTY
<*>
STATE CAPITOL CREDIT UNION
<*>
SUPERIOR PRODUCTS MFG. CO.
<*>
THISWEEK NEWSPAPERS
<*>
TOLL GAS AND WELDING SUPPLY
<*>
UNITED WAY FUND OF ST. PAUL AR
<*>
UNITOG
<*>
VAUGHN DISPLAY & FLAG
<*>
W W GRAINGER INC
<*>
WACKER, MARILYN
<*>
WALSH, PAUL ,mIl-MARY
<*>
__~j_MI:l: M'","~JIfl1....A.~,:;,.,~....c"'!II'MiliMl'..
ACTIVITY
PARK MAINT
RECREATION PROGR
BOARDS & COMM
GENERAL FUND
LIQUOR
ICE ARENA
SWIMMING POOL
GEN ACCOUNTING
LIQUOR
LIBRARY SERVICES
ICE ARENA
SEVERANCE FUND
SOLID WASTE
IND PK - PH II
FIRE SERVICES
PERSONNEL
GENERAL FUND
GENERAL FUND
LIQUOR
STREET MAINT
SOLID WASTE
GENERAL FUND
FLEET MAINT SERV
SOLID WASTE
STREET MAINT
BUILDING MAINT
LIQUOR PILOT KNB
POLICE ADMIN
, PARK:MAUff-
:':";''';'''IIIIIIW..11ll., ~I<\~.~
01-MAY-1997 (09: 33)
DESCRIPTION
PARTS
LIFETIME ENCY LETTRS REV
MEMBERSHIP
4/25 W/H
WINE COOLER
84" ICE BLADE GRIND
REPAIRS
MILEAGE/PARKING COSTS
2107104225
PARKS SUPPLIES PO#7162
SUPPLIES
PARTICIPANT FEES
DUMPING FEES
APRAISAL REPORT- IND PK PROP.
FIRE DEPT PHYSICALS
DRUG SCREEN
CHILD SUPPORT W/H
W/H 4/25/97
MERCH FOR RESALE
BIDS-LOADER - 2 WEEKS
CYLINDER RENTAL
UNITED WAY 4/25
UNIFORMS
UNIFORMS
UNIFORMS
U.S. FLAG & MN FLAG
SUPPLIES
SEW PATCHES ON SHIRTS
MAY'97 BLOO RENTAL
'"'c,!!'!!l.m:i _l ____~,~lJ!%I,.d.J.,!lI~J~,,_~..;iJ;lJL_.~._~..~...._,. ""~.,.__.,' "~;.=_1.~1::o. ~_,__JlLjL._J .,.,._,_
s".h,~ ."......, _, ,_, ,^' ~J"",J._~" -....:l!'II'l!!::J'J'l,.,..~ ,,' "!ii-:m'!l!llll!',,, ,'~_'''''''' l ,n.~ , ., ,....,_""""""",":"" ~ _, ~ , ",,~__Jl,J L ._~
CHECK AMOUNT CK-SUBSYS
132.71
132.71*
44.13
44.13*
50.00
50.00*
8,425.94
8,425.94*
1,085.76
1,085.76*
59.45
59.45*
631.06
631.06*
75.80
75.80*
85.00
85.00*
652.63
652.63*
49.61
49.61*
224.40
224.40*
157.00
157.00*
1,500.00
1,500.00*
204.00
50.00
254.00*
144.83
144.83*
1,296.33
1.296.33*
259.48
259.48*
81. 24
81.24*
5.27
5.27*
29.00
29.00*
10.04
91.05
202.42
303.51*
208.33
208.33*
127.25
127.25*
12.00
12.00*
18<f,:.e.g....
180.00*
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
f')"
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
l?slL'
~""
_ .Jill,
--
~"
_. -c'
~/f
COUNCIL REGISTER
01-MAY-1997 (09:33)
VENDOR
ACTIVITY
DESCRIPTION
CHECK AMOUNT CK-SUBSYS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WINE COMPANY, THE LIQUOR WINE 1,392.15
<*> 1,392.15*
XERGON FLEET MAINT SERV DURA-WELD ELECTRODE 410.19 OH
<*> 410.19*
XEROX CORPORATION ADMINISTRATION COPIER RENTAL CHARGE 892.53 OH
<*> 892.53*
236,623.79* <*>
Approved:
Ristow
Cordes
Fitch
Gamer
Strachan
(()a-
TO:
Mayor, Councilmembers,
City Administrator~
FROM:
Lee Smick,
Planning Coordinator
SUBJECT:
Pine Ridge Forest PUD
Preliminary Plat
DATE:
May 5, 1997
INTRODUCTION
Pine Ridge Forest PUD is located south of the Terra development and north of Nelson
Hills Farm and directly west of the proposed Cameron Woods PUD. The preliminary
plat proposes 68 single-family lots to be constructed in two phases on a 30.61 acre site.
DISCUSSION
The public hearing scheduled for this project was originally set for preliminary and final
plat approval. At this time, the Planning and Engineering Departments have not received
all required information in order to approve the final plat for Pine Ridge Forest PUD.
Therefore, the Preliminary Plat will be reviewed at this time. The reason to go forward
with the Preliminary Plat review at this time is to allow preparation and approval of the
developer's agreement. Once the developer's agreement is signed by the developer and
the necessary fees are paid and the grading plan is approved by the City Engineer, the
developer will be allowed to begin site grading in accordance with the City's
development process.
This process will allow the developer to begin grading sooner than if the preliminary and
final plat were reviewed together at the May 19th City Council meeting. The developer,
Tim Giles, has indicated the desire to begin grading as soon as possible and his request
can be accommodated by the above mentioned process. The history of the project has
shown that the developer and his engineer have been contacted by City staff on numerous
occasions to provide all the necessary information required by the platting process,
however, engineering and planning issues required for final plat approval have not been
met.
The Planning Commission approved the preliminary and final plat for Pine Ridge Forest
PUD on February 28, 1997. Final plat approval will tentatively be set for May 19, 1997 at
the City Council meeting. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved this process. It
Citlj of Farminf/.ton 325 Oak Street. Farmin9tonJ MN 55024 · (612) 463-7117 · Fa~ (612) 463-2591
is anticipated that the developer's agreement will be added to the May 5th agenda
provided that all issues have been resolved to the satisfaction ofthe City Engineer.
ACTION REQUIRED
Adopt a resolution to approve the preliminary plat for Pine Ridge Forest PUD, subject to
the execution of a developer's agreement, the submission of erosion control requirements
and temporary grading agreement for the Donnelly property and authorizing the signing
of the final plat within 60 days.
c7ZYj~
Lee Smick
Planning Coordinator
PRO P 0 SED
RESOLUTION
APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
- PiNE RIDGE FOREST -
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Civic Center of said City
on the 5th day of May, 1997 at 7:00 P.M..
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following:
WHEREAS, a public hearing to review pine Ridge Forest preliminary plat was
held on the 5th day of May, 1997 after notice of the same was published in the
official newspaper of the City and proper notice sent to surrounding property
owners; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended favorable action by the
Council with certain conditions after receiving and evaluating comments from
various parties; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has rendered an opinion that the proposed plat can
be feasibly served by municipal service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED that the above preliminary plat be approved with
the following stipulation:
1. The City and Developer execute a developer's agreement as prepared by the
City of Farmington which shall set forth various conditions and fees.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open
session on the 5th day of May, 1997.
Mayor
Attested to the _____ day of May, 1997.
City Administrator
· bb
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City
Administrator~
FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: 1997 Seal Coat, Project 97-05
DATE: May 5, 1997
INTRODUCTION
The City has a seven year seal coating program in place. Four bids for this year's project have
been received.
DISCUSSION
The City Council approved the plans for the 1997 Seal Coat Project at the April 7th meeting.
Council authorized staff to proceed with the Advertisement for Bids on this project. The attached
map indicates the areas to be seal coated in 1997. Those areas are:
· Prairie Creek I, II
· Silver Springs I, II
. Nelsen Hills I, II
. Fairhills
. Riverside
. Pine Knoll
· Miscellaneous locations throughout the City
Caldwell Asphalt submitted the low bid in the amount of $45,724.70. Based on this bid, a 10%
contingency of $4,572.47 and legal, engineering and administration costs (18%) of $9,053.49
bring the total project cost to $59,350.66. The engineer's estimate presented to the Council on
April 7 was $71,000.
BUDGET IMPACT
The cost of the project will be funded partially by special assessments and the remainder by the
Road and Bridge Fund. The Pine Knoll and Riverside developments have already been assessed
and those funds reside in the Road and Bridge Fund. The amount that is anticipated to be assessed
from the other developments in the project based on $53.00 per buildable lot is $20,500. The total
funds coming from the Road and Bridge Fund based on the bid price is $38,850.66.
Citlj of Farminl}.ton 325 Oak Street · Farmin9tonJ MN 55024 · (612) 463-7117 · Fa~ (612) 463-2591
I '
RECO~NDATIONS
1. Accept the base bid of Caldwell Asphalt for $45,724.70 and award the contract.
2. Direct staff to prepare the proposed fmal assessment roll utilizing a unit price of $53.00 per
buildable lot and set public hearing for August 4, 1997 at 7:00 P.M..
Respectfully submitted,
~m~
Lee M. Mann, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
LMMIll
cc: file
'C
" ~
~
'" ,.
" '"
,~ ...
,~ ~
'S ~
0; :s;
'S 'c-
$ '" ....
c
t: .5 ~
~
~ ~ N
oS
~ ~
..
..,
....
r--
="
="
.,..-4
I ..
r--.-4
=">t
E-o<
U~
8Z
~O
=--~
E-oS
<=:l
O~
UO
~Z
<0
~~
~E-o
r--<
="~
=";;J
.-4=:l
<
E-o
z ~ 8 8 8 g
vi g g ~
0 0: r-
(i) '<T. '" '<T. N
Z V'l 00 V'l ,.., N
~ ~ N III
:t
u ><
~ :t \tl
'" ll. ~ ~ ~ ~ ....
-< '"
-< 8 0 ~ 8
t:: V'l
r- ,...: V'l ~
00
z 0 '<T
;:l
~ ~ ~ ~
z 8 8 8 8 g
:! 0 <i ..c ..;
0 r- oe "'" '"
(i) r- 0 V'l ,.., r-
'" '" z 00 i .; M Q
;:l ~ ~ N III
0
Z ~
:E \tl
E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ....
0
~ 8 0 0 N
~ '<T ~ ~
t: 00 ~
'" 00 =
z 0 '"
;:l
~ ~ ~ ~
z 8 8 ~ 8 g
0 '" vi '<T '" ~
'<T '" '<T N
(i) N V'l or, ""'. 0
ll. Z ,.: i on - ~
~ N ~
Q ~
\tl
~ U \tl
:s ~ ~ ~ ~ ....
~ 0 ~ 0 '"
t: '" N ~
'" ~ ..c V'l
z 0 v
;:l
~ ~ ~ ~
0 8 0 ~ =
z V'l ~ r-
~ <i '" ,.., ..;
0 '" 0 V N
(i) '" r- v. N r-
:l z on ti '" M ~
~ ~ N
\tl
~ ><
9 :t \tl
ll. ~ ~ ~ ~ ....
'"
-< -<
u V'l 00 "'" -
... "'" 0 "'! 00
Z 00 ...; 00 0
0 N
;:>
~ ~ ~ ~
8 0 0 8
.-; g V'l ~
'" o. ,..,
'" ~ -
\tl N
~ =
.Sl = = s
.. .9 .9
;:l co
'" '" '"
u u u
co co co
i5. i5. i5.
.~ ,S '=F
'CO '" '" u
0 'CO 'CO 'CO
::E u co co co
.. ~ '"
~ ~ ~
'" co co
'" co co co
~ co co co
a 'CO "" N
u ..( Q
~ 0 1;:
u :g \l., -
!i .. =
co '" ::E 1l ...l
::E '" co ~
N N co
..( ..( >
is ..
\l., \l., '"
8~~~
..c..cNoO
...oNO'I"'d"
NN~("'j
N.nr:ci
V'l V'l-
""'.,.,.""'~
800'"
v '<T '"
~Mr--:.,.;
~8a6g
0";";0
V'l V'l-
~""""6II't
800r-
r- r- '"
r--:....:oO"';
o~o:~
C;~M~
v V'l
.". EtiIIt ""'.".
~~~~
~Nr--tf'i
Nt'-oO"l.V'\
t"-tnNO
on';o~
v V'l
""'~~.".
z~
o~
~f:;
=U7
ze;:l~
o>-~:e
-u!;iQ
...zz-<
U ~ 0 .
~"u"
E-~...lz
~ !l: -< ~.
ooS~
uu......l
>-
i
fIl
r-
N
..;
~
oc
!i
....
.....
r-
...;
III
oc
,,;
~
....
r-
=
..;
~
~
....
~
~
g
.....
~
III
....
~
o
U
E-
U
~
a
~
...l
~
12
,...
~
!!2
ICl
~g
g:~~I::o
ll.-c:iz~Z
...i ~::E. ~ ~
~~-g":'~
coU 00
::EV'lU~""
o
~~
r-
c1i~
'" V'l
::J V'l
~ =
~ ~
~~
E co
~a
.,.,
N
00
N
z~Q
::E":'~
rn N '"
:.s~~
~~ '"
=
=
~
'"
i:;:
V'l V'l
zr;:;Q
::E~~
. N ~
.; "!'
ON~
",iC
i5.
i
c u
co >
;; .(
'0. -5
ugj
iil~
~
\tl~
ZN",
.gCii~go
"'-5z"!'z
ll<:V'l::E~al
-5 ~ . N
~O~M~
... 8 'i iC V'l
v co
N::t
en
..J
X
ci
iIi
,...
'"
~,
. '-1
CITY OF FARMINGTON
1997 SEAL COAT PROGRAM
PARKING LOTS & ALLEYS
1997 - RAM8UNG RtVER ~OT . EI..M ST.
1997 - RAM8UNG RIVER ~OT - PINE ST.
1997 - Al..l..EY SO. OF POST OFFICE
1997 - Al..l..EY SO. OF ~18RARY
1997 - Al..l..EY NO, OF VFW
~
~
~
~
~
J
\}
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
!
,
,
. ,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
1
,
,
,
,
,
;;; .
CSAH 50
:I:
<t
""
U
,,-
Q
Q:
'"
0'
~i
]fll~
~;~
!
~
~
~
..J
0:: '
w
Q: ,
~ :
I- '
~ :
... ,
\~;\
"~::::::------~..
Cl"fII'~
...----------..... QM;,;,-,.;;;;;.;--...-------------------------------
I
'~r CITY OF FARMINGTON I
FIGURE I
~ ,"
I "
I /.
. .'
I ,_,
I ",
I /,-"
I ,:1",
~~*:' ! f
" ,.
....' "
--~~lr~~~'.~-:.---l If
,.........' I ,.
-",/ ..",,::--" llir-I~----~/!
. _Iii ii
t ... II
! i ..
i
~
I
soo
I I I I
o 1000 ZOOO
I
3000
SCALE
Attaclun.ent.A
Street Between
Egret Court
Egret Way
Elk River Trail
186th Street W.
187th Street W.
188th Street W.
189th Street W.
English Avenue ............................... 189th Street to D .C.E. 9th Addition
Emblem Court
Ellite Court
Elgin Avenue
Eureka Avenue
Eureka Court
Euclid Path ..................................... 195th Street to Englewood Way
Euclid Court
Estate Avenue
Englewood Way............................... between Euclid Path
Englewood Circle
Englewood Court
190th Street West............................. Pilot Knob to one block west of Euclid Path
206th Street West
207th Street West
Dallas Avenue
Devonshire Avenue
203rd Street
Dunbar Avenue ............................... Akin Road and Eaves Way
204th Street
Eaves Way
RESOLUTION NO. R -97
AWARD BIDS FOR PROJECT NO. 97-05
1997 SEAL COAT PROJECT
PREP ARE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
Pursuantto due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington,
Minnesota, was held in the Civic Center of said City on the 5th day of May , 1997 at 7 :00 P.M..
The foUowing members were present:
The foUowingmembers were absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following resolution:
WHEREAS, pursuant to properly published notice, the following bids were received, opened
and tabulated, which complied with the advertisement:
Contractor Total Base Bid
Caldwell Asphalt ............................... $45,724.70
AlliedBlacktop .................................. $49,017.00
BituminousRoadways ... ..................... $50,734.00
AstechAsphalt .................................. $52,266.00
;and
WHEREAS, it appears the fIrm of Caldwell Asphalt is the lowest responsible bidder.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED that:
1. The base bid of Caldwell Asphalt, a Minnesota corporation for $45,724.70 is hereby accepted and
awarded and the Mayor and Clerk and hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract
therefore.
2. Staffis hereby directed to prepare the proposed fInal assessment roll utilizing a unit price of$53 .00
per buildable lot.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 5th day of
May, 1997.
Mayor
Attested to the
day of
, 1997.
SEAL
Clerk! Administrator
31
Proposed RESOLUTION NO. R - 97
CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING
- PROJECT NO. 97-05 -
1997 SEAL COAT PROJECT
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farm-
ington, Minnesota, was held in the Civic Center of said City of the 5th day of May, 1997 at 7 :00
P.M..
The following members were present:
The following members were absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following resolution.
WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution no. R -97 of the Council adopted on the 5th day of May, 1997, the City Clerk was
directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the costs of the following improvements:
Proiect
97-05
;and
Description
Seal Coating Streets
Location
see Attachment A
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:
1. A hearing shall be held in the Council Chambers in City Hall on the 4th day of August,
1997 at 7:00 P.M. to act upon such proposed assessment at such time and place and all
persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be
heard with reference to such assessment.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment
to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he
shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. He shall also cause mailed notice
to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two
weeks prior to the hearings.
3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time, prior to certification of the assess-
ment to the County auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest
accrued to the date of payment, to the Clerk/Treasurer, except that no interest shall be
charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of the
assessment. The owner may at any time thereafter pay to the Clerk/Treasurer the entire
amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the
year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or
interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year.
22
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the
5th day of May, 1997.
day of
,1997.
Attested to the
SEAL
Mayor
Clerk! Administrator
23
nMarcus Cable
1a
April 17, 1997
Mayor Jerry Ristow
City Council Members
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington MN 55024
APR 2 5 1997
Dear Mayor Ristow and Council Members,
Marcus Cable has elected to make an annual adjustment to our rates for basic cable selVice and
the cable programming basic selVice tier. While cable franchises are regulated at the local level,
rates are set in accordance with FCC rules. On June I, Marcus Cable will adjust rates from:
$10.46 to $10,54 for Basic Cable, and
$15.60 to $17.50 for Cable Showcase,
This year's adjustment is the result of our increased operating costs, programming costs,
equipment, pole attachment fees, and increases in regulatory fees. Marcus Cable's new regulated
rates are in accordance with FCC rules as well as the provisions of our franchise with the cities we
selVe.
Among other additions, in the past year; we launched our "On Time Guarantee" program which
pledges that if we miss a service call or installation--it's free, we trained our customer service staff
on the PACE (Pursuing A Commitment to Excellence) program, and added selVices to our
programming line-up.
As competition in telecommunications grows, we at Marcus Cable understand how important it is
to offer our customers the best possible selVice at the best possible price. However, like every
other business, we are faced with increased operating costs, which makes this adjustment
necessary. Marcus Cable still remains one of the lowest cost video providers available.
Should you have any questions or need any additional information, please call me.
Sincerely,
~ ~Ch.~",,-,
Karen Sanderson
District Manager
ce:"AdqIinistratol
16900 Cedar Avenue South · Rosemount, Minnesota 5506R · (612) 432-2610. Fax (612) 432-5765
t1Marcus Cable
Cable Rates
A Recent History
The question many of our customers, franchise officials, employees, and members of the press ask
is~ "What goes il1to setting the cable rate?" Five years ago Congress passed the Cable Act of
1992, This legislation in part, through a complex series of forms and calculations adjusted rates
for all basic cable services. The law was designed to bring all basic cable rates into compliance
with Federal Communications Commission guidelines.
Due to the complex regulation process, very few customers received a decrease in their cable
rates. Another of the unintended consequences ofthe 1992 Cable Act was the stagnation of the
cable industry. Given the onerous regulations, the financial community became extremely
conservative. Funding for new cable programming services crept to almost a standstill. Capital
for cable operators to rebuild their cable systems also slowed considerably. Rebuilding cable
systems to increase channel capacity and add new services such as the ESPNII and others was not
a widespread option even as customers and franchise officials clamored for new channels and
programmmg.
In 1996 Congress revisited cable regulation with an eye toward letting competition set rates for
. telecommunications services. Congress simplified the rate regulation procedures. Basic cable
rates are still regulated so senior citizens and those with the least ability to pay, still have access to
cable. Expanded basic services like CNN, ESPN, and others will be regulated until March of
1999. Premium services like HBO may be adjusted at anytime and are not regulated.
Cable operators are also allowed to recover costs associated with upgrading systems and adding
new services. Maracus Cable has made serious commitment to bring upgraded plant and new
services to our customers.
Often overlooked are the impact programming license fees have on cable rates. Many customers
are under the impression that Marcus receives the Discovery Channel, CNN, ESPN and other
such services for free. In fact programming costs are Marcus Cable's most significant
expenditure. This year alone, cable operator costs for non-sports programming is expected to rise
17% to 20%. Sports programming costs are the most expensive and are expected to increase
from 30% to 50%.
Marcus Cable's annual adjustment in rates complies with the rules established by the FCC to
ensure that rates are fair and reasonable. In addition our pricing structure and notification
practices are consistent with the terms of the agreement Marcus has with our communities.
16900 Cedar Avenue South · Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 · (612) 432-2610 · Fax (612) 432-5765
16
FROM:
Mayor and City C~il
City Administrat07'-'
Robin Roland, Finance Director
TO:
SUBJECT: Proposed Property Tax Reform
Legislation
DATE:
May 5,1997
INTRODUCTION
Both houses of the Minnesota Legislature are looking at property tax reform legislation. Similar
proposals are under consideration in both the House and Senate at this time. These proposals
should concern the City of Farmington as they would significantly impact the City's ability to levy
tax revenues to fund the necessary growth in services required by our growing population.
DISCUSSION
The primary concern in both legislative proposals is the imposition of levy limits. This means that
the City of Farmington would be required to limit the total amount of dollars for the total city levy to
what was levied in the prior year plus an inflation factor. Proposed inflation factors range
anywhere in these bills from 1.5% to 3% for 1998 and 1999.
However, according to Dakota County Assessor's Office, the Tax Capacity Value for the City of
Farmington has already grown 21 % over the value used to determine our 1997 levy. Our tax base
has been growing at close to this rate for several years. The demand for City services,
accordingly, has grown in similar proportion, however, public service costs, given this significant
growth in population and infrastructure, have not grown at the 3% inflation rate prescribed and
currently under review by the Legislature.
In the 1997 budget process, staff identified increased costs for various City activities, with utilities
and transportation at increases of between 5% to 7%. When the feasibility study for the
sealcoating project was done, petroleum costs were estimated at 15% to 20% over last year.
Unforeseen increases of this magnitude would not be covered by the levy limit inflation factor.
Historically, legislators have proposed levy limits to restrain local government spending by limiting
the amount of revenues available to them. In reality, cities have been forced to levy the maximum
amount allowable to fund expenditures which grow as their cities grow. Rather than promoting
sound fiscal policy and encouraging city councils to reduce their levies (thereby reducing
spending), levy limits promote the exact opposite.
It is interesting to note, that State spending has consistently outpaced the 3 percent factor which
the Legislature is currently thinking of imposing on local governments, yet there is minimal
discussion of enacting the same spending limitations on state agencies and departments.
The City of Farmington has been committed to keeping its tax capacity rate stable over the last
three years. Any growth in the levy has come from the growth in the tax base. This makes sense;
the tax base grows, required services grow and revenues to fund those services come from the
increase in taxable value, not in the tax rate, and adding no additional tax burden to existing
property owners. Proposals for levy limits ignore the City's attempt to be fiscally responsible and
"live within its means."
Citlj of Farmin9ton 325 Oak Street · Farmin9tonJ MN 550211 · (612) 1163-7111 · Fa~ (612) 463-2591
BUDGET IMPACT
Levy limits would significantly impact the City's ability to fund the necessary services required by
our growing community. The City's very limited fund balance would not grow, and could very well
decline. This would significantly impact our ability to finance future services and increased costs of
maintaining City infrastructure. In addition, the implications of a levy limit on City debt could also
negatively affect the City's ability to meet debt service obligations.
ACTION REQUIRED
This has been a summarization of impacts that pending legislative proposals could have on the
City of Farmington's finances. This is for Council information only.
Respectfully submitted,
~6\'~ ~~~
Robin Roland ~
Finance Director
LMC
I...".. a/ ~ (.~
I cm-~..AL-
140 Univertity A\penue West, St. &ul, MN 55103.2044
phonet (612) 281.1200 · (800) 925-1122
fax: (612) 281p1299 · TDD (612) 281-1290
April 14, 1997
ACTION ALERT!
To AU City Officials
House Committees pau and-city tax bill
;
The House of Rcprcsentati\fes omnibus tax bill, H.F. 2163. has plenty to concern local officials -
levy limits. referenda and reverse referenda requirements. The bill will be debated on the floor
this Friday, April 25. Can or fax your Representative tonight or early tomoItOW morning to get
these pro'Visions out of the House version of the tax bill.
Levy Limits - would apply for three years aDd be adjusted for inflation. population changes, and
aidchangcs. Debt levies and certain flood-related expenses would be ex.empted.
Message~
. Levy limits do not allow the flexibility cities need to cope with unforscen expenses.
Examples: the floods and blizzards. a new wastewater treatment plant, or ex.amples from
your city.
. Levy limits are unnece.o;;sary - city budgets have risen only slightly higher than inflation in
the past ten years. Two thirds of the increase in property tax levies since 1990 have been
for schools. only ten percent has been for ciries.
Voter Referenda to appr~ve or reject levies above the levy limit and
Reverse Referenda by petition of five percent of the voters to approve or reject any levy
increase
Message: i
,. Referenda requirements erode the a~thorlty of local officials to make the taX and budget
decisions they are elected to make- I '
. Referenda requiremenl.'l may require expensive special elections,
. Referenda requirements add uncertainty to the local budget process and make long-range
planning more difficult.
. Citizens are already involved in the local budget process through public council meetings
and the Truth in Taxation process.
Please contact your Representative right away and request that these provisions be removed from
the House tax. bill on the floor tomoJTOW.
AN EQUAL OPfORTUNITY/.AFF.IRJ&4TIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
1e-
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City
Administrator 1-
FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Storm Sewer Assessment Policy
DATE: May 5, 1997
INTRODUCTION
This memo is presented to Council for informational purposes regarding the current City policy on
assessing storm sewer improvements.
DISCUSSION
Attached is the City of Farmington Assessment/Improvement Policy. Following is a discussion of
the policy regarding storm sewer assessments, in both existing and new developments.
A. Existing Developments
Section VI in the Assessment/Improvement Policy addresses improvements in existing
developments. In this section, storm sewer improvements are divided into two categories, trunk:
and lateral. Lateral storm sewer is further split into two differently assessable categories.
The policy states that the costs for Storm Sewer Trunk shall be 100 % financed by the City.
Therefore, storm sewer trunk: costs are not assessable against benefiting properties.
There are two different cases for storm sewer lateral. The costs for a New Storm Sewer Lateral
Enhancing Existing System are 35 % assessed against the benefiting properties and the City
finances the remaining 65 %. This case occurs when there is already a storm sewer system in place
and additions or upgrades are installed. The costs for New Storm Sewer Laterals are assessed
100% against the benefiting properties. This case occurs when there is no storm sewer currently
and a new storm sewer system is installed in an area. Lateral Gosts are assessed per buildable lot in
the area that drains to the storm sewer system (both cases).
This is the policy that is currently in effect and the staff follows these guidelines when preparing
the assessment rolls.
Citlj of Farminf/.ton 325 Oak Street · Farmin9tonJ MN 55024 · (612) 463-7171 · Fa~ (612) 463-2591
B. New Developments
Section V in the Assessment/Improvement Policy addresses improvements in new developments. In
new developments, the intent of City Policy is that no developmental costs are incurred by existing
lots or parcels or by the City in general. Therefore, the storm sewer costs for the development are
borne by the developer. The exception is for improvements which are determined to have an area
wide benefit which exceeds the scope of the development.
Each development is charged a Surface Water Management fee. This fee is intended to fund past,
present or future storm sewer costs of trunk improvements that provide an area wide benefit as
shown in the City's Surface Water Management Plan. When a developer constructs storm sewer
improvements that are identified in the Surface Water Management Plan as trunk improvements,
the developer receives a credit against his surface water management fee to cover the costs of those
trunk improvements.
BUDGET IMPACT
The City has two sources of revenue to fund storm sewer improvements. As outlined above, a
Surface Water Management fee is charged to all new developments that is intended to fund the
trunk storm sewer improvements identified in the City's Surface Water Management Plan.
The second source of revenue is the City's storm water utility fee. This fee was adopted in 1990 as
a funding mechanism for storm sewer maintenance and construction in the existing areas of
Farmington.
ACTION REQUESTED
None required as this memo is presented for information only.
Respectfully submitted,
CZ;:fYl~
Lee M. Mann, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
CITY OF FARMINGTON
ASSESSMENT/IMPROVEMENT POLICY
APRIL 27, 1988
PREPARED BY:
LARRY THOMPSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FIRST DRAFT:
APPROVED:
REVISED:
REVISED:
REVISED:
REVISED:
REVISED:
REVISED:
REVISED:
4/27/88
6/20/88
5/06/91
10/21/91
2/14/92
3/16/92
9/20/93
1/3/94
6/1/94
INTRODUCTION
This document sets forth the methods and policies relating to local
improvements and special assessments practiced in the City of Farmington.
It is emphasized that the following summarization is general in nature and
that certain circumstances may justify deviations from stated policy as
determined by the City Council.
A local improvement involves one or more of the following types of
improvements:
Roadway grading and base
Bituminous surfacing
Curb and gutter
Sidewalks and driveways
Water trunks and laterals
Sanitary sewer trunks and laterals
Service connections
Storm sewer trunks and laterals
All appropriate appurtenances associated with the above
Improvements are classified as follows:
1. New Developments - The construction of improvements related to newly
developed areas, normally made in conjunction with the plat approval
process.
2. Rehabilitation - Complete or partial reconstruction of the
abovementioned improvements including bituminous overlays.
3. Extensions - Construction of improvements generally made to extend
services to a certain area. Extensions normally pertain to water,
sanitary sewer and storm sewer trunks and limited access streets.
The special assessment is a financing tool employed by the City as a means
to allocate the cost of specific improvements to benefitted properties and
to spread those costs over a number of years.
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 regulates the procedure for the construction
and financing of local improvement projects when at least part of the cost
is defrayed by special assessments. Special assessments are collected from
the property owner along with real estate taxes. When an improvement is of
benefit to certain areas, it is the intent of the Council that special
assessments be levied against benefitted properties. A major goal of this
document is that special assessments be allocated and levied in an
equitable and consistent manner.
SECTION I
DEFINITIONS
Sanitary Sewer Lateral
Sanitary sewer mains 8" or less in diameter and buried to a depth of 8' or
less, 4' diameter or less manholes, and all appropriate appurtenances or
equivalent costs of oversized mains.
Water Lateral
Water mains 8" or less in diameter and buried to a depth of 7' or less,
hydrants, leads, gate valves, and all appropriate appurtenances on
equivalent costs of oversized mains.
Storm Sewer Lateral
Storm sewer mains 21" or less in diameter and buried to a depth of 8' or
less, 4' diameter or less manholes, catch basins, leads, and all
appropriate appurtenances; or equivalent costs of oversized mains.
~anitarv Sewer Trunk
Sanitary sewer main costs which are not considered sanitary sewer lateral
costs.
Water Trunk
Water main costs which are not considered water lateral costs.
Storm Sewer Trunk
Storm sewer costs which are not considered storm sewer lateral costs.
Drivewav Apron
Portion of a private driveway extending three feet (3') behind the curb
line.
Drivewavs
Portion of private driveway excluding apron.
Limited Access Street
Minor arterial and collector streets as defined in the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
lees. Charqes and Sure tv
Per schedule adopted annually by the City Council.
(See Appendix
SECTION II
GENERAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
The following are general principles, policies and procedures applicable to
all types of improvement:
1. Project costs shall include the cost of all necessary construction work
required to accomplish the improvement, plus engineering, legal,
financing, easement acquisition, fees or charges and contingent costs.
2. Assessable costs are project costs minus the City share, County share
and other credits. MSA funds will not be credited.
3. Special assessments will be levied as soon as practical. Normally this
will be within one year after completion of the project.
4. Pursuant to M.S. Chapter 429.051, the City does not defer assessments
to benefitted areas outside of the City, but rather assumes any non-
assessable cost as the City share. When property is annexed and served
by the original improvement, the City can create a new assessment to be
reimbursed for all or any portion of the prior assumed municipal costs,
including interest, related to the improvement.
5. Publicly owned properties, including municipal building sites, schools,
parks, State and Federal building sites, but not including public
streets and alleys, are regarded as being assessable on the same basis
as if such property were privately owned.
SECTION III
SPECIFIC POLICIES
Proiect Initiation and Hearinq Process
This section intends to describe the initiation of improvement projects and
the administration required to final Council action, pursuant to the
requirements of MSA 429.
A. Project Initiation
1. By Petition: petitions for initiating improvements will be prepared by
City staff upon request. Such petitions, circulated by
the affected owners should bear the signatures of the property owners of
35% of the benefitted property. Petitions may be requested and submitted
at any time. The normal time required for receiving, processing,
scheduling hearings and preparing construction documents is six months.
Projects for petitions received after February 1 will not be scheduled
until the construction season of the following year.
2. By Council Action: If the Council determines that an improvement is in
the best interest of the City, it can, without
~etition, initiate the improvement.
3. By 100% Signed Petition: When a petition is signed by 100% of the
property owners benefitted by the
improvement, and there is no City cost participation, the Councll may order
the improvement without holding an improvement hearing.
4. By Developers Agreement: Improvement projects for new development will
only be considered upon execution of a
developers agreement signed by 100% of the benefitted property owners. The
Council may order the project without a public hearing.
B. Hearing Process
1. Improvement Hearing: After a petition is filed and its adequacy
determined, or the Council initiates the project,
the City Engineer is directed to study and report as to the feasibility of
the improvement. If after reviewing the report, the Council feels the
project has merit, a public hearing is scheduled, notice published twice,
and all persons benefitted by the project notified in writing.
When an improvement project is to be financed by the sale of improvement
bonds, t::.ere is a statutory requirement that at least 20% of the total
costs of the project be assessed against the benefitted property.
:f after the improvement hearing, at which all persons are heard, the
Council feels that the project still has merit, then the Council will
authorize the preparation of necessary plans and specifications, and upon
receipt and acceptance of those plans, will authorize the advertisement fo
bids by resolution.
C. Final Hearing (Assessment)
After the improvement is ordered and bids received, or the improvement is
completed or nearing completion, a roll will be prepared and the affected
property owners will be mailed a Notice of Assessment Hearing stating the
time and date that an assessment hearing will be held. An assessment roll
will be prepared and will be posted at the City Clerk's office for review
prior to the assessment hearing. All interested parties shall have an
opportunity to be heard regarding the assessment.
Necessary and proper adjustment to the assessment roll can be made by
Council at the time the hearing is being held. If an appeal is made
regarding the amount of the special assessment, written notice must be
filed with the Council prior to or at the assessment hearinq.
After the hearing, the assessment roll is adopted by the Council. The
property owners have a 30 day period in which to pay their assessment in
part or in full at the City Hall, interest free. After this period, the
assessment begins to accumulate interest. On or about October 10th of each
year, the assessment roll is certified to the County Auditor's office where
it is added to the tax roll for the following year.
The assessment shall be levied over a period to be established by the Cit1
Council, in equal annual installments on the principal with interest on the
declining balance. The annual interest rate shall also be established by
the City Council upon the sale of the improvement bonds.
SECTION IV
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND EXPECTED LIFE
Minimum Desiqn Standards
The following are minimum design standards. Oversizing may be required to
serve areas extending beyond the scope of the project.
A. Sanitary Sewer Laterals
Minimum 8" PVC (SDR35) or DIP (CL52). Manholes a maximum 400' apart.
B. Sanitary Sewer Services
Minimum 4" PVC (SDR35) or CISP.
C. Water Main Lateral
Minimum 6" loop or 8" dead end DIP (CL52).
D. Water Main Services
1, Single Family Residences - Minimum 1" DIP (CL52) or Type K copper.
2. Multiple Family Residences - To be determined by City Engineer
based on UBC.
3. Commercial/Industrial - To be determined by City Engineer based on
UBC.
E. Storm Sewer System
Pipe size shall be designed to handle a 5 year event and pond shall be
designed to handle a 100 year event. Catch basins shall be placed so
that overland drainage does not exceed 1000'. Concrete swales a
minimum of 3' wide shall be installed where overland drainage crosses
an intersection.
F. Residential Streets
A minimum of 38' curb back to back with concrete curb and gutter.
Minimum 7 ton design.
G. Truck Routes/Commercial/Industrial
A minimum of 44 feet curb back to back with concrete curb and gutter.
Minimum 9 ton design.
H. Driveways
A minimum of twelve feet (12') and a maximum of ~wenty four feet (24')
with six inches (6") of concrete extending from the curb line to the
property line.
I. Trees
Per City code. See Appendix
Useful Service Life
Public improvements are judged to have a normal useful life expectancy.
For the purpose of this policy, this life expectancy shall be as follows:
A. Surface Improvements
Concrete Curb and Gutter
Bituminous Roadways
Sidewalks
30 years
30 years
50 years
B. Subsurface Improvements
Water Main
Sanitary Sewer
Storm Sewer
50 years
50 years
60 years
C. When any existing improvement is ordered to be renewed or replaced, the
assessments to be levied will be prorated from 0% at one-half life
expectancy to 100% at full life expectancy or beyond.
SECTION V
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN NEW DEVELOPMENTS
General Procedures and policies
City Code requires execution of a developer's agreement at the time of land
platting. The developer's agreement normally references means and methods
of providing for public improvement construction.
As a standard, the City of Farmington has pursued policies by which all
costs of improvement are directly attributable and fully paid by cost
allocation or assessments against the development, developer or properties
requiring and benefiting by the improvement. The policies are established
with the intent that no developmental costs are incurred by existing lots
or parcels, by the existing residents, or by the City in general. The
exception is for improvements which are determined to have an area wide
benefit which exceeds the scope of the development.
At the time of platting, the cost responsibilities for any development for
trunk improvements shall be defined. This responsibility includes trunk
sanitary sewer facilities, trunk water facilities (including source,
supply, storage and distribution components), storm water drainage and
:ontrol facilities, arterial street, park dedication, pedestrian walkway
systems and other public improvements, existing or proposed, of an area
wide benefit. Normally the City will require a cash payment by the
developer for the development's share of improvements of an area wide
benefit, however, it may be assessed equally against each parcel of
property over a 10 year period with interest set at
1 1/2% over the prime rate at the execution of the development agreement as
stated in the Wall Street Journal. The amount to be determined annually by
resolution of the City Council.
At the time of platting, the development agreement may provide details on
construction and timing of local or lateral improvements of various nature
for the benefit and improvement of the individual properties as required by
the Farmington Subdivlsion Ordinance.
Minor arterial and collector streets shall be assessed, or the developer
shall be charged in accordance with Section VII of this policy.
City Improvement Financinq and Construction
As a general policy, the City of Farmington will assist developers in the
financing and construction of public improvements through authority granted
to the City by Chapter 429 of Minnesota Statutes. Such assistance is
granted by specific Council action for each development proposal based on
)erception by the Council of the project, viability, and development
)enefit to the City. The City may elect to sell bonds for such improvement
and assess the costs of bond retirement against individual benefitted land
parcels for a period of repayment as seen appropriate.
Typically, the total project costs for improvements benefiting the
development will be assessed on an equal basis against all buildable lots
in the development.
For such City assessed developments and improvements, the City, through the
development agreement, requlres a cash deposit, letter of credit or escrow
agreement equal to a minimum of 2 years principle and interest payment on
project costs to protect the City from potential project default, and
requires assessment payment concurrent with building permit issuance. For
such City assisted projects, the City Engineer provides design,
construction supervision and assessment certificate services, and other
City staff provides legal, fiscal and administrative input. The standard
form for such agreement is found in Appendix and incorporated as part
of this policy. ----
Public Improvement Work bv Private Developers
No public improvements may take place before a developer's agreement has
been executed. The standard form for such agreement is found in Appendix
___ and incorporated as part of this policy.
A private developer may have his plans prepared by other than City forces
under the following conditions:
1. All plans, drawings, specifications and related documents required
shall be prepared by a professional engineer, registered in the State
of Minnesota and approved by the City.
2. The developer must keep the City informed as to the time table of
development and design, the letting date of a construction contract,
and the starting date of construction work.
3. In order to warrant the construction for the life expectancy as
previously set forth, the City will provide inspection of all phases of
construction as set forth in the contract documents.
4, The City of Farmington may perform construction surveys, staking and
other engineering services when requested by the contractor or
developer. The City will also assist the contractor in interpretation
of the contract documents, ordinances, codes and other items necessary
~o meet the criteria as established by the City of Farmington.
5. No public improvement work shall be performed by any developer or other
private party in City right of way or easement unless a developer's
agreement has been executed.
6. The City will require a surety deposit of 125% of the estimated project
costs in the form of cash, escrow deposit, certified check or
irrevocable letter of credit.
The City and its representatives shall at all times have access to the wor,
in order to complete the services as herein provided, and the developer
shall give the City timely notice of his readiness for inspections or other
work to be rendered. Permits, licenses and easements or permanent changes
in existing facilities shall be secured and paid for by the developer.
The developer shall be charged for these services, and the value of the
services shall be determined on a percentage basis as agreed upon by the
developer and the City before the project is started. The fee for plan
review and City administration is set annually by resolution of the City
Council. All inspection costs will be billed on an hourly basis.
Upon proper completion of sanitary sewers, storm sewers, water mains, curb
and gutter, roadway base, surfacing and sidewalk by the developer, the City
will accept said improvements by resolution under a one (1) year guarantee
to the City.
SECTION VI
IMPROVEMENTS IN EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS
I. Goal
It is the goal of this section to equalize assessments for public
improvements as much as practical. Assessments will be generally based on
a per unit basis as opposed to area or front footage. Because of the
various characteristics associated with different sections of the City, it
may be necessary for the Council to adjust the policy in order to achieve a
more equitable assessment.
II. Initiation
Public improvements may be initiated by petltion pursuant to MS Chapter 429
or by Council action.
III. Assessable Costs
A. Project costs for the following improvements shall be assessed on a pro
rated basis:
1. Street Base and Bituminous Replacement
2. Curb and Gutter Replacement
3. Sanitary Sewer Lateral Replacement
4. Sanitary Sewer Service Replacement
5. Water Lateral Replacement
6. Water Service Replacement
7. Storm Sewer Replacement
8. New Sidewalk and Sidewalk Replacement
9. New Driveway Apron and Driveway Apron Replacement
10. New Sanitary Sewer Lateral Enhancing Existing System
11. New Water Lateral Enhancing Existing System
12. New Storm Sewer Lateral Enhancing Existing System
13. New Trees, Tree Replacement and Sod
B. The above mentioned improvements shall be prorated on the following
basis:
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992 and beyond
25% assessed
25% assessed
25% assessed
30% assessed
35% assessed
C. The following improvements shall be 100% assessed:
1. New Sanitary Service Lines
2. New Water Service Lines
3. New Water Main Laterals
4. New Sanitary Sewer Laterals
5. New Storm Sewer Laterals
6. Driveways
7. New Street, Curb, Gutter and Driveway Aprons
D. The following improvements shall be 100% financed by the City.
1. Sanitary Sewer Trunk
2. Water Main Trunk
3. Storm Sewer Trunk
E. Seal coating shall be assessed at a 50% rate.
IV. Typical Method of Assessment
A. Assessments shall be based on the following method:
1.
2.
3.
4 .
5 .
6 .
7.
8 .
9 .
NOTE:
Services - per service unit
Street/Curb/Gutter - per building unit
Sanitary Sewer - per building unit
Water - per building unit
Storm Sewer - per building unit
Sidewalks - per building unit
Driveways - (including apron area)
Trees/Sod - per building unit
Seal Coating - per building unit
- Service units are the actual number of service lines extended to the
property.
- Building units are defined as the number of buildable lots possible by
reasonably subdividing based on minimum lot requirements of the City
Zoning Ordinance and existing development. Such determination will be
made at the project hearing. The Council shall take the shape of the
lots, location and condition of buildings and the likelihood of the
property splitting into consideration when determining the number of
lots.
Service lines will be installed to the maximum number of potential lots.
- Lots exceeding 125' will be assessed on a per foot basis for seal coating
projects.
B. Assessments shall be based on the number of affected units within each
improvement district. For the purpose of this section, the following
rules shall apply:
1. Assessable Improvements, except sanitary sewer, minor arterial and
collector streets.
a. Improvements abutting predominantly short sides - Actual building
units in the improvement district.
b. Improvements abutting lots with predominantly long sides - To
midpoint. (If the improvement area long side lots abut only one
assessable street, all building units within the entire improvement
area shall be assessed.)
2. Sanitary Sewer Improvements
a. Improvements abutting predominantly platted short sides - Actual
building units within the entire improvement area.
b. Improvements abutting lots with predominantly long sides - City
pays 100% of the project.
* NOTE: If 20% or less of the front footage of a lot abuts the improvement
or falls within the midpoint of an improvement district, it shall
not be assessed. If 80% or more of a lot abuts the improvement or
falls within the midpoint of an improvement district, it shall be
assessed one building unit. Lots which abut between 20% - 80% of
an improvement area or within the midpoint of an improvement area
shall be assigned a service unit on a pro rated basis.
3. Driveways and Driveway Aprons
a. Aprons shall be replaced in conjunction with curb and gutter
replacement.
b. Driveways between the apron and property line shall be replaced as
determined by the City Engineer. Driveway replacement beyond the
property line shall not be made unless written consent is given by
the property owner. No driveway replacement shall be made until
the owner is notified, in writing, as to the section of driveway to
be replaced, new width and estimated assessable cost. A copy of
the notification shall be initialed by the Owner and kept on file
4. Minor arterial and collector streets shall be assessed in
accordance with Section VII of this policy.
5. Storm Sewer Improvements
a. Total assessable (lateral) storm sewer project cost shall be
divided by the actual number of buildable lots within the
drainage area. The resultant shall be multiplied by the number
of buildable lots determined for each individual property
owner. The percentage of each owner's buildable lot(s) that
are actually drained by the project is then multiplied by this
assessment amount. The resultant shall be the owner's storm
sewer assessment.
C. Method of Payment (Interest on the assessments will begin accruing from
the date of the adoption of the assessment roll.)
1. The owner may pay the entire or partial amount of assessment within
30 days of adoption of the assessment roll without interest. The
remaining amount shall be paid in equal principal installments
(typically 10 years) plus interest as determined by the Council
(typically 1.5% above the net interest rate of the bond issue) .
Annual payments will be remitted with the property taxes. An owner
may payoff the assessments in full at any time, but will be
charged the entire year's interest.
V. Assessment of Sanitary Sewer to Unserviced Areas
1. All improvements, except sanitary sewer mains and services, shall be
assessed in accordance with Section IV.
2. Sanitary sewer mains and services shall be apportioned in accordance
with Section IV but may be offered a credit of up to 50% of the
proposed sanitary sewer assessment upon inspection and certification by
a City contracted inspector that the septic system has been constructed
and maintained in accordance with current Minnesota Rules 7080
regulations or may be offered a credit of up to 25% of the proposed
sanitary sewer assessment upon inspection and certification by a City
contracted inspector that the septic system is an older system that
does not meet the letter of Minnesota Rules 7080, but could reasonably
be modified to meet the current criteria of Minnesota Rules 7080.
Systems which shall not be issued a credit are cesspools or seepage
pits without both drainfields and adequate soils, or systems where raw,
untreated sewage has been observed pooling at the surface, running down
slopes, or discharging directly to surface or underground waters.
The owner shall agree to pay 50% of the cost of this inspection before
the inspection is made, which shall be paid to the City before the
inspection is perfor.med.
3. Property owners will be required to pay a fee equal to the apportioned
cost plus accrued interest as determined by the City Council at the
time of hookup to the sanitary sewer.
4. Property owners will be required to connect to the system and pay such
fees upon failure of the septic system to meet Federal, State or local
laws.
SECTION VII
IMPROVEMENTS ON LIMITED ACCESS STREETS
(Minor Arterials and Collectors)
The City recognizes that while property abutting minor arterials or
collectors does not receive the total benefit of a minor arterial or
collector because of limited access, the property does nonetheless receive
benefit. It is determined that abutting properties which have been platted
and which access an alternative street receive marginal benefit and,
therefore, are not assessed. Unplatted property or property having direct
access to a limited access street shall be assessed as follows:
A. Extension
1) As part of proposed subdivision:
100% of the assessable costs per Section VI, Part 3 shall be assessed
to the owner of the improved frontage (50% per side). Non-improved
frontage, to a depth of 1000 feet, shall be assessed at a prorated
basis of 25%. One half of the assessment would be assessed at the end
of the project, while one half would be deferred until access or
connections to the improvements were made by the property owner. Said
total assessable costs shall be multiplied by the unimproved frontage
and divided by the total frontage of the project.
2) Without proposed subdivision:
Assessed equally on both sides to a depth of 1000 feet, shall be
assessed at a prorated basis of 25%. One half of the assessment would
be assessed at the end of the project, while one half would be
deferred until access or connections to the improvements were made by
the property owner. Said total assessable costs shall be multiplied by
the unimproved frontage and divided by the total frontage of the
project.
B. Rehabilitation/Upgrade
Assessments shall be on a per homesite/buildable unit basis and/or lineal
foot of non-improved frontage to a depth of 1000 feet.
Any residential dwellings or businesses having direct access to said
limited access street shall be assessed equally, on a per buildable unit
basis. 150 lineal feet will be designated as frontage for said buildable
units.
Non-improved frontage, to a depth of 1000 feet, with or without an included
residential dwelling, shall be assessed equally, on a per lineal foot
basis. The assessable costs shall include the improvements included under
Section VI, Part III.
35% shall be used to prorate the assessable cost under Part III of Section
VI for the buildable units. The applicable total assessable costs shall be
multiplied by the front per buildable unit and divided by the total
frontage for the project.
25% shall be used to prorate the assessment costs under Part III of Section
VI for the unimproved frontage. One half of the assessment would be
assessed at the end of the project, while one half would be deferred until
access or connections to the improvements were made by the property owner.
Said total assessable costs shall be multiplied by the unimproved frontage
and divided by the total frontage of the project.
TO:
Mayor, Councilmembers,
City Administrator ~
Lee Smick,
Planning Coordinator
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Revised Fence Ordinance
DATE:
May 5, 1997
INTRODUCTION
The revised fence ordinance will amend Section 10-6-15 to include a clarification of
fence requirements on comer lots and establish material and maintenance requirements.
The ordinance will also provide a procedure for citizens to observe when constructing a
fence over four feet in height.
DISCUSSION
Review of the existing fence ordinance was generated by the recent increase in variance
requests presented to thl;; Board of Adjustment concerning height requirements for tences
on comer lots. The existing fence ordinance requires fences to be a maximum of four feet
in height when located in the front yard setback.
The City Code states that lots which abut on more than one street shall provide the
required front yard setback along each street, thereby requiring that all fences located on
comer lots to be a maximum of four feet in height within the front yard setback. This
requirement is sometimes viewed as placing property owners on comer lots at a
disadvantage because they are not provided the privacy opportunities in backyard
locations that interior lot owners can achieve with a six foot high fence. The Planning
Commission has reviewed numerous issues concerning this topic and has determined that
the requirement for four foot high fences on comer lots is valid.
The reasons cited for maintaining the existing fence height at four feet on comer lots
includes 1) the high visibility at street intersections, 2) increased aesthetics at street
comers due to the elimination of tunneling effects caused by taller fences, 3) and the
increased neighborhood appeal from the "open" character at street comers as witnessed in
Farmington's older residential district.
While not revising the fence requirements on comer lots, the Planning Commission did
revise other requirements to increase the effectiveness of the ordinance. Revisions to the
fence ordinance include the following:
Cfct
Citlj of FarminfJton 325 Oak Street. Farmin9tonJ MN 55024 · (612) 463-7111 · Fa}( (612) 463-2591
. Clarification of fences located on corner lots and the citing of front yard setback
requirements for corner lots from Sec. 10-4-1 (A).
. Deletion of conflicting language to allow eight foot high fences within buildable areas
on any lot.
. Addition of a variance requirement for fences over six feet and up to eight feet in
height in residential districts.
. Addition of a site plan or legal survey to be submitted to the Building Inspection
Division when fences are over six feet in height and the submittal of an application
when fences are constructed to exceed six feet in height.
. Addition of the requirement for fences to be constructed of materials widely accepted
in the fencing industry and a list of materials not allowed in the construction of a
fence.
. Addition of language to require that fences be maintained in a good condition and
vertical position and the repair offences to be accomplished in a timely manner.
The Planning Commission and the City Attorney have reviewed and approved the
proposed revisions to the fence ordinance.
ACTION REQUIRED
Amend Section 10-6-10 by approving the revised fence ordinance.
RespectfWly submitted,
~~Q
Lee Smick
Planning Coordinator
/J&
PRO P 0 SED
CITY OF FARMINGTON
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE
Amending Title 10, Chapter 6, Section 15 - Fences
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I:
Title 10, Chapter 6, Section 15 - Fences - shall be
amended by adding (underlined) and deleting (struck)
as follows:
10-6-15: Fences: Fences shall be permitted in all yards subject to the
following:
A) Fences in residential districts may be located on any lot line to a height of
four feet (4') except that a fence up to six feet (6') in height may be
erected on the side and rear lot line behind the nearest front corner of the
principal building.
B) Fences on corner lots may be located on the lot line abuttin~ both streets ~
shall be constructed to a maximum height of four feet (4') in both required
front yards as required by Section 10-4-1(A).
C) Should the fence be located between principal buildings with varying setbacks
on adjacent lots, a fence up to six feet (6') in height may not extend beyond
the average setback of the two (2) buildings.
D) Fences construetea .lithin the auilaaale areas of any lot may be up to ei~ht
feet (8') in aei~ht. D) Should the rear lot line of a lot be common with
the side lot of an abutting lot, that portion of the rear lot line equal to
the required front yard of the abutting lot shall not be fenced to a height of
more than four feet (4').
E) A variance is required for fences over six feet (6') and ~p to eight feet (8')
in hei~ht when constructed within the buildable areas of lots in residential
districts.
F) Fences located within commercial and industrial districts may be located on
any lot line up to a height of eight feet (8') except in the required front
yard.
G) A site plan or le~al survey with the location of the proposed fence shall be
submitted to the Building Inspection Division for approval for all fences over
four feet (4') in height. An application for a building permit is required
for all fences exceeding six feet (6') in height.
H) Fences in all districts. except agricultural. shall be constructed of
materials widely accepted in the fencing industry. No plywood boards. canvas.
plastic sheeting. metal sheeting or similar material shall be used for any
fence construction.
I) All fences shall be maintained in good condition and vertical position. and
any missing or deteriorated wood slats. pickets. other fencing material. or
structural elements shall be replaced in a timely manner with the same quality
of material and workmanship.
SECTION II: After adoption, signing and attestation, this
ordinance shall be published one time in the official
publication of the City and shall be in effect on and after the day following
such publication.
9h
FROM:
Mayor, Councilmembers
City Administrator f~
James Bell,
Parks and Recreation Director
TO:
SUBJECT:
Recreation Programming in Townships
DATE:
May 5, 1997
INTRODUCTION
Staff has received a request from an Empire Township resident to have a puppet wagon performance conducted in the
township.
DISCUSSION
A policy should be established to deal with this type of request. Areas which must be considered are reimbursement of
City expenses and a procedure for township residents to follow when initiating a request.
BUDGET IMPACT
The cost of the program must be considered. In addition to the costs incurred constructing and maintaining the puppet
wagon, puppets and props, a City vehicle is needed to transport the puppet wagon to various performance locations.
Each performance requires a minimum of two summer Recreation employees (more depending upon the number of
characters in each play), preparation time (practice, designing and finding props) plus the time actually spent
performing and traveling from site to site.
The 1997 Budget does not include costs for any performances other than those scheduled within the City's park
system.
ACTION REQUESTED
. Establish a policy requiring each Township Board to approve and request performances or programs in their
Township.
. All programs and/or performances will be conducted by City staff and will follow the established schedule.
. Adopt the attached resolution setting a fee of $100.00 for each performance. Council could consider a multiple
performance discount.
~G~
James Bell
Parks and Recreation Director
cc: Joy Lillejord
PARAC
Citlj of FarminiJ.ton 325 Oak Street. Farmin9tonl MN 55024 · (612) 463.7117 · Fa~ (612) 463-2591
PRO P 0 SED
RESOLUTION
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. R8-97 (1997 FEES AND CHARGES)
BY SETTING FEE FOR PUPPET WAGON PERFORMANCES CONDUCTED IN TOWNSHIPS
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Civic Center of said City on
the 5th day of May, 1997 at 7:00 P.M..
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following:
WHEREAS, the City Council has the right to establish fees for services provided
by the City; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that a fee should be established to cover
the costs of Parks and Recreation Puppet Wagon performances conducted in the
townships.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following fee for Puppet Wagon
Performances conducted in the townships be established:
Puppet Wagon Performance (Townships)
$100.00 per performance
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open
session on the 5th day of May, 1997.
Mayor
Attested to the _____ day of May, 1997.
City Administrator
9e-
FROM:
Mayor, Counc>>Jf.ie embers and City
Administratonrv
James Bell, Parks and Recreation
Director
TO:
SUBJECT:
Fall Clean Up Days
DATE:
May 5, 1997
INTRODUCTION
The City has held two clean up days annually since 1990 one in the spring and one in the fall. A
comparison of past clean up days has been prepared for the Council's consideration.
DISCUSSION
The City of Farmington has held many successful clean up days. Typically, there is a lower turn
out in the fall. Below is a chart outlining past attendance.
Clean Up Days - # of Vehicles
600
500 . ~511
~~ ~ ~..,
400: ".,;$ll;$~: ~
-- .. ..... .. ..
.3'54 '... "....
1 ... ' .. ..
, - .
300 i '- - . ~"... - . :3Q2 _
. .'278
- -
- . 260
200 '
100
_spring
- . - fall
o
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Several cities in Dakota County hold clean up days, either annually or periodically. Most cities
charge nominal fees for each material collected at their clean up days. However, Council has
offered this service at no cost to City residents.
Citlj of Farminf/,ton 325 Oak Street. Farmin9tonJ MN 5502~ · (612) 463-7111 · Fa~ (612) 463-2591
When reviewing the total cost of the clean up days in relation to the vehicles through the gate, it is
clear that, although the overall cost for the Fall Clean Up Day is less, the cost per vehicle is higher
than in the spring.
aean Up Days - Cost per Vehicle
1995
1996
IlilFall
o Spring
1994
So
$5,00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
$30.00
$35.00
$40,00
After reviewing this information, the Council may want to consider discontinuing the Fall Clean
Up Day. This information would be distributed at the Spring Clean Up Day, put into City
newsletters and advertised in the newspaper.
The savings resulting from this change could be used for one 10 yard cage for cardboard
recycling. There is a definite need for a cage on the east side of Farmington near the Larch Street
entrance. The east Farmington cage could be placed at the Budget Mart on T .H. 3. The cost for
one 10 yard cardboard cage is $2,850.
BUDGET IMPACT
There is $24,480 budgeted for special activities for 1997. $7,000 to $10,000 could be saved if the
Fall Clean Up Day were discontinued.
~
RECOMMENDATION
1. Consider discontinuing the Fall Clean Up Day
2. Purchase one 10 yard cardboard recycling cage.
Respectfully Submitted,
James Bell
Parks and Recreation Director
cc: file
Benno Klotz
Lena Larson
~.' ~
~Jj ':11,",
(~j;V;~
WELDING & MANUFACTURING, INC.
We Do 1/ AI All Angles
4-11-97
City of Farmington
RE: Quote on Cardboard Containers.
ATlN: Ben
Here are the prices you requested:
2--Cardboard Containers $2675.00 each.
If you have any questions please call 487-5055.
Sincerely,
Michael Frascone
274 Atwater Street . .., StPa~l. t.>1N. 25JI}4t. (6121487,5055." .'E!~,{~J.,},.4~ja"z9:;,;;<:..:
~~=-'._..--".__. ----. ':",-- - --... :,.U'.L"I~~;:I"..'. :'
~:' . -~ ., ~~!:l.':.~.!.J!,~~2:~~~~~~,_N";'" -"~':--"'""';':-;;:;-'":'-'" "."".,--",,,, ~L.-~Iil~~'" .]~3. ~-=~~ ~~ . ~<_:Jll..~; ::~:_.' .-~;~[!,_~-,,:: ;-: _,~.;-:___._ .~1_. ...:: . . ...._
_.~:;:i'--'1~~.li.' ,"~~,."":'~'4~ "., . , .. "_
i
~. ~. .~-\~:~.-~~.:~~~:~ I
=::::=::::: '-~-~..~
FABCO
PORTABLE WELDING
4-11-97
City of Farmington
. RE: Roll Off containers to specs per phone conversation.
2 Cardbo~d Roll-Offs; $2900.00 each. ,.
. .
.tc~
Mark Holland
.
'..
. .
. .
642 RUTH ST. NO.. ST. PAUL, MN 55119.
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Development Agreement and
Process Revisions
DATE: May 5, 1997
INTRODUCTION
A number of issues relative to proposed revisions in both development agreement language and
private development processes have been reviewed. These proposed changes are being
introduced due to a variety of concerns which have been expressed by involved staff in the
private development process.
DISCUSSION
Accordingly, these modifications suggest that the City needs to adopt more contemporary
planning, administrative and engineering practices in terms of private development interaction
processes. Simply stated, the Ci~T needs to revise its internal organizational review of privat~
developments to ensure that the needs of both our short-term and long-term customers are
satisfied.
Attached please find information relating to these changes which have been prepared and
discussed by administration, planning and engineering staff. The following goals and supporting
statements are summarized below:
. To ensure that all planning and engineering issues are resolved before a Preliminary Plat is
approved, it is proposed that all issues would be resolved and approved by the Planning
Commission, before the Preliminary Plat is forwarded to the City Council for approval.
. Statutory provisions require only one public hearing for review of a plat. Historically, two
public hearings have been held at both the Planning Commission and City Council levels.
Staff, in consultation with the City Attorney, Planning Commission, and in review of existing
practices and past problems and concerns, suggests that only one public hearing be held at
the Planning Commission level. This change in practice would still require City Council
review and approval of both the preliminary and final plat, but it would appear to make more
sense to ensure that all issues are fully explored, examined and finalized by the Planning
Commission prior to submittal to the City Council. In addition, having only one public
hearing would streamline existing planning review processes and enhance the City's
customer service practices. This proposed change in the City Code has been reviewed and is
recommended by the Planning Commission, the City Attorney and involved staff. If Council
Citlj of FarminlJton 325 Oak Street. Farmin9tonJ MN 55024 · (612) 463.7117 · Fa~ (612) 463-2591
Mayor and Councilmembers
Development Agreement and Process Revisions
Page 2 of3
· That notices for public hearings on development plats would be scheduled at the discretion of
Community Development and Engineering staff providing that the developer has submitted
all necessary information and, most importantly, that staff has had adequate time to review
this information, normally within 21 calendar days at the Planning Commission level.
Statutory provisions allow cities up to 60 days to review private development proposals once
all necessary information has been provided.
· That City staff will have the professional discretion to determine the suitability and
appropriateness of the information requested and submitted to accurately and prudently
review development plans.
· Finally, that the mission of City staff regarding private development submittals is the
recognition that there are essentially two customer groups; the developer as the short-term
customer; and the home buyer as the long-term customer. Accordingly, each customer group
has somewhat different needs, expectations, motives and short and long-term interests.
Consequently, in order for staff to meet these needs, staff will need to have the discretion to
implement development review processes which support these objectives in a professional,
competent and objective manner.
Short-term Plannine: and Development Customer Service Expectations
Developer expectations of staff, as a short-term customer in the development planning process,
has needs related:
1. to timely process approvals, which includes eliminating unnecessary delays,
2. expecting that information on City Development processes is received in a timely manner by
staff;
3. expecting reasonable time schedules to submit information and receive staff feedback on
development proposals in a reasonable amount of time;
4. expecting timely, courteous and competent staff services;
5. marketing an attractive and affordable housing product; and
6. minimizing unnecessary costs associated with their respective development proposal.
Conversely, staff's expectations of the developer, as a customer, is the following:
1. that information requested by staff is submitted in an acceptable format for review;
2. that information requested is submitted in a timely manner to allow staff adequate time to
review the information and the recognition that the respective developer's proposal is one
among many and will be reviewed in the order received;
3. that as questions and/or issues emerge during the review process that the developer provide
responses in a timely and appropriate manner;
4. that the developer is responsible for preparing the plat in accordance with explained City
Code provisions and acceptable municipal engineering standards as may be required. Staff's
responsibility is to explain requirements, review, comment and ask questions on submittals
and ensure that development planning and engineering issues are appropriately addressed;
5. that the developer conduct himlherself in a courteous, professional manner;
Mayor and Councilmembers
Development Agreement and Process Revisions
Page 3 of3
6. that plat submittals and supporting engineering information be provided to staff by the
Developer's project staff without excessive staff inquiries and telephone calls concerning the
timeliness of the information requested.
7. Finally, that developers be held accountable for their portion of the information requested
and that their failure to do so will ultimately result in delays in the private development
planning review and approval processes.
Lone:-term Development Plannine: and Ene:ineerine: Objectives
Staff responsibilities are to ensure that alII) planning, 2) engineering, 3) administrative, 4)
environmental, 5) quality of life and 6) legal requirements are satisfied to ensure that the long-
term customer's interest, as a future resident and taxpayer in the community are safeguarded.
Development Ae:reement Lane:uae:e and Flow Chart Modifications
Attached, please find additional information concerning the private development process and
new proposed development agreement language that will facilitate the development process and
prevent certain problems from occurring. The attachments will be presented by staff at the
Council meeting.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
ACTION REQUESTED
Council action is requested relative to:
1) Preliminary approval requiring only one (1) public hearing in the private development
process. If Council concurs amending language to the City Code will be brought to Council
for adoption in the near future.
2) Acknowledge the Short-term Planning and Development Customer Service Expectations as
described above as information only
3) Acknowledge the Long-term Development Planning and Engineering Obiectives as
described above as information only.
4) Acknowledge the Development Approval Process Chart as information only.
5) Acknowledge the additional language to the City's Development Agreement as information
only.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
City Administrator
CITY OF FARMINGTON
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS
1. Initial meeting with staff to I *Denotes meeting date I
determine project & possible
issues
1
2. Submit sketch plan & 1
corresponding
information 3. Review by development
committee & staff - Review
proposal at Planning
4. Developer submits Commission meeting
preliminary plat to Planning &
Engineering staff with 1
comments addressed and all
required information along 5. Notice for Public Hearing is
with payment of fees - 60 day published 10 days prior to
time limit begins Planning Commission hearing
6. Planning Commission date for preliminary plat review
Public Hearing for preliminary
plat with all issues resolved, 1
recommends plat be 7. Planning staff prepares report
sent to City Council for City Council concerning
review of preliminary plat at City
1 Council
8. Preliminary Plat is
reviewed by City Council - 9. Developer prepares final plat
Upon approval, resolution for and submits to Planning
preliminary plat is adopted Coordinator along with payment
of fees
I
1 11. Final Plat is reviewed by
10. Planning Commission City Council - Upon approval,
reviews final plat and sends resolution provides for
recommendations to acceptance of all agreements for
City Council improvements, public dedication
and other requirements indicated
. by City Council
12. Developer's Agreement is
drafted by CD/Planning 13. Developer's Agreement is
& Engineering staff included on consent agenda and
approved by City Council upon
1 approval of developer
14, Developer provides all 15. Final Plat is signed by
required fees, final plat Mayor and Chair of Planning
documents and signs Commission and released to
developer's agreement developer for recording along
with certified Developer's
Agreement
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
CITY OF FARMINGTON
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS
An initial meeting with staff to determine project requirements and possible issues.
This meeting serves as a mechanism for the developer to become aware of City
development ordinances and standards. Staff also prepares development approval
schedule, discusses checklist and informs developer of associated fees involved in
development process.
Submit sketch plan and corresponding information. The Developer submits the Sketch
Plan to the Planning Coordinator along with other pertinent information.
Review by Development Committee and City Staff-Review proposal at Planning
Commission meeting. Planner reviews the proposal with the Development Committee,
City Staff and Planning Commission to provide all groups the opportunity to become
familiar with the project prior to formal action or public hearing. It gives the developer
the chance to receive feedback prior to the expense of detailed plan preparation on
projects that may need substantial revision before formal approval is given.
Meeting 1 - Sketch Plan is reviewed at Planning Commission meeting.
Developer submits preliminary plat to Planning and Engineering staff with comments
addressed and all required information along with payment of fees - 60 day time limit
begins. The developer shall submit a) an application for preliminary plat, b) fifteen (15)
copies of the plat, c) five (5) copies of support documents, d) an abstractor's list of
property owners living within three hundred fifty feet (350'), and e) filing fees and
surety as specified in the City's annual fee schedule. All of this information must be
included in the submission in order for the Planning Commission to act upon the
preliminary plat. Major engineering and planning issues must also be addressed before
the preliminary plat is approved at the Planning Commission level and sent to the City
Council for review. The 60 day time limit for reviewing and approving the preliminary
plat begins when all of the above information along with engineering and planning
issues are addressed.
Notice of Public Hearing is published 10 days prior to Planning Commission hearing
date for preliminary plat review. Notice of public hearing is mailed to properties on
abstractor's list and affidavit of mailed notice is filed. Planning staff notifies affected
agencies, jurisdictions and utilities and requests comments concerning preliminary plat.
Planning Commission Public Hearingfor preliminary plat with all issues resolved,
recommends plat be sent to City Council. Planning Commission does not approve
preliminary plat until all information is submitted and all issues are addressed. If
approved, Planning Commission recommends plat be sent to City Council.
Meeting 2 - Preliminary Plat is reviewed at Planning Commission Public Hearing.
Step 7
Planning staff prepares report for City Council concerning review of preliminary plat at
City Council.
Step 8
Preliminary plat is reviewed by City Council - Lpon approval, resolution for
preliminary plat is adopted. City Council reviews preliminary plat and adopts resolution
for preliminary plat upon approval.
Meeting 3 - Preliminary Plat is reviewed at City Council meeting.
Step 9 Developer prepares final plat and submits to Planning Coordinator along with payment
of fees. The developer submits a final plat of any portion that was not recorded by
providing twelve (12) copies of the final plat and two (2) copies of all final engineering
drawings. Planning and Engineering staff reviews and prepares agenda report materials
on the plat.
Step 10 Planning Commission reviews final plat and sends recommendations to City Council.
Planning Commission reviews plat and forwards recommendation to the City Council.
Meeting 4 - Final Plat is reviewed at Planning Commission meeting.
Step 11 Final plat is reviewed by City Council - Upon approval, resolution provides for
acceptance of all agreements for improvements. public dedication and other
requirements indicated by City Council. City Council adopts resolution approving and
authorizing signing of plat contingent upon preparation of developer's agreement.
Meeting 5 - Final Plat is reviewed at City Council meeting.
Step 12 Developer's Agreement is drafted by Communiry Development/Planning and
Engineering staff. Developer prepares cost estimates for required developer
improvements and City Engineer prepares financial guarantees for developer's
agreement. After preparation of agreement, staff forwards draft developer's agreement
to City Attorney for approval. After approval by City Attorney, staff forwards draft to
developer for review, comment and, if necessary. to arrange for a meeting to work out
unresolved issues.
Step 13 Developer's Agreement is included on consent agenda and approved by City Council
upon approval of developer. Developer's Agreement is reviewed and upon approval of
developer. City Council approves Developer's Agreement.
Meeting 6 - Developer's Agreement is reviewed at City Council meeting.
Step 14 Developer provides all required tees, final plat documents and signs developer's
agreement. Developer provides all required fees, final plat documents, including one full
size and one 8 1/2" x 11" mylar of final plat, and signs developer's agreement. Three
copies of agreement are required to be submitted to City.
Step 15 Final plat is signed by Mayor and Chair of Planning Commission and released to
developer for recording along with certified Developer's Agreement.
31. Miscellaneous.
A. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors or
assigns, as the case may be.
B. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for
denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties.
C. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase
of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement.
D. Building permits shall not be issued prior to completion of rough site
grading, installation of erosion control devices and submittal of a surveyor's
certificate denoting all appropriate monuments have been installed. Only
construction of noncombustible materials shall be allowed until the water system is
operational. If permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of public
improvements, the Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in
completion of public improvements and damage to public improvements caused by the
City, Developer, its contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, employees, agents or
third parties. Normal procedure requires that streets needed for access to approved
uses shall be paved with a bituminous surface before certificates of occupancy may be
issued. However, the City Engineer is authorized to waive this requirement when
weather related circumstances prevent completion of street projects before the end of
the construction season. The Developer is responsible for maintaining said streets
in a condition that w~ll assure the access of emergency vehicles at all times when
such a waiver is granted.
E. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or
amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers
shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the
City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this
Agreement shall not be a waiver or release.
F. The Developer represents to the City, to the best ot its knowledge, that the
plat is not of "metropolitan significance" and that an environmental impact statement
is not required. However, if the City or another governmental entity or agency
determines that such a review is needed, that the Developer shall prepare it in
compliance with legal requirements so issued from said agency. The Developer shall
reimburse the City for all expenses, including staff time and attorney fees, that the
City incurs in assisting in the preparation of the review.
G. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The Developer represents to the City
that the plat complies with all City, County, Metropolitan, State and Federal laws
and regulations, including but not limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning
ordinances and environmental regulations. If the City determines that the plat does
not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow any construction or
development work in the plat until the Developer does comply. Upon the City'S
demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance.
H. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title
to the property. After the Developer has completed the work required of it under
this Agreement, at the Developer's request the City will execute and deliver a
release to the Developer.
I. Developer shall take out and maintain until six months after the City has
accepted the public improvements, public liability and property damage insurance
covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may
arise out of the Developer's work or the work of its subcontractors or by one
directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury or death
shall not be less than $500,000.00 for one person and $1,000,000.00 for each
occurrence; limits for propercy damage shall not be less than $200,000.00 for each
occurrence. The City shall be named as an additional named insured on said policy,
and Developer shall file a copy of the insurance coverage with the City prior to the
City signing the plat.
J. The Developer shall obtain a Wetlands Comoliance Certificate from the City.
K. Upon breach of the terms of this Agreement, the City may, without notice to
the Developer, draw down the Developer's cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit
as provided in paragraph 25 of this Agreement. The City may draw down this security
in the amount of $500.00 per day that the Developer is in violation. The City, in
its sole discretion, shall determine whether the Developer is in violation of the
Agreement. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 29 hereof, this determination may
be made without notice to the Developer. It is stipulated that the violation of any
term will result in damages to the City in an amount which will be impractical and
extremely difficult to ascertain. It is agreed that the per day sum stipulated is a
reasonable amount to compensate the City for its damages.
L. The Developer will be required to conduct all major activities to construct
Plans A-F during the following hours of operation:
Monday - Friday
Saturday
S~d~
7:00 A.M. ~til 7:00 P.M.
8:00 A.M. ~til 5:00 P.M.
Not Allowed
This does not apply to activities that are required on a 24 hour basis such as
dewatering, etc. Any deviation from the above hours are subject to approval of the
City Engineer.
M. The Developer is responsible to require each builder within the development to
provide a Class 5 aggregate entrance for every house that is to be constructed in the
development. This entrance is required to be installed upon initial construction of
the home. See City Standard Plate No. 362A for construction requirements.
N. The Developer shall be responsible for the control of weeds in excess of
twelve inches (12") on vacant lots or boulevards within their development as per City
Code 6-7-2. Failure to control weeds will be considered a Developer's Default as
outlined in Paragraph 30 of this Agreement and the Developer will reimburse the City
as defined in said Paragraph 30.
9(
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers,
City Administrator~
FROM: Lee Smick,
Planning Coordinator
SUBJECT: Pine Ridge Forest PUD
Development Agreement
DATE: May 5,1997
INTRODUCTION
The Development Agreement for f'ine Ridge Forest PUD has been drafted in accordance
with the conditions presented at the February 3rd City Council meeting.
DISCUSSION
The Pine Ridge Forest PUD Development Agreement requires the following conditions
to be agreed upon with approval of the preliminary plat:
. the Developer enter into the Development Agreement;
. the Developer provide necessary security in accordance with the terms of the
Agreement;
. the Developer obtain approval of and record the final plat within sixty (60) days.
The Development Agreement has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
ACTION REQUIRED
Approve the execution of the development agreement and adopt a resolution authorizing
its signing.
~Respect~y sUb~mitte~, ()
I . ~#
I~' .
.! Lee S~ick
Planning Coordinator
Citlj of Farmin9ton 325 Oak Street. FarminfJton, MN 55024 · (612) 463.7111 · Falf (612) 463.2591
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
AGREEMENT dated this day of 19 , by and between the City of
Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation (CITY) and Pine Ridge of Farmington,
LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership (DEVELOPER).
1. Request for Plat A~proval. The Developer has asked the City to approve the
preliminary plat for Pine Ridge Forest (also referred
to in this Development Contract [CONTRACT or AGREEMENT] as the PLAT). The land is
legally described as:
See Attached Exhibit "A"
2. Conditions of Approval. The City hereby approves the preliminary plat on the
condition that:
a. the Developer enter into this Agreement;
b. the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of
this Agreement; and
c. the Developer obtain approval of and record the final plat within sixty (60)
days.
3. Development Plans. The Developer shall develop the plat in accordance with the
following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this
Agreement. The plans may be prepared by the Developer, subject to City approval,
after entering into this Agreement but before commencement of any work in the plat.
If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, subject to paragraphs 6
and 30G, the plans shall control. The req~lred plans are:
Plan A - Final Plat/phasing Plan
Plan B - Final Soil Erosion Control and Grading Plans
Plan C - Landscape Plan
Plan D - Zoning/Development Map
Plan E - Wetlands Mitigation as required by the City
Plan F - Final Street and Utility Plans and Specifications
1
Developer shall use its best efforts to assure timely application to the utility
companies for the following utilities: underground natural gas, electrical, cable
television, and telephone.
4. Sales Office Requirements. At any location within the plat where lots and/or
homes are sold which are part of this subdivision,
the Developer agrees to install a sales board on which a copy of the approved plat,
final utility plan and a zoning map or planned unit development plan are displayed,
showing the relationship between this subdivision and the adjoining neighborhood.
The zoning and land use classification of all land and network of major streets
within 350 feet of the plat shall be included.
5. Zoning/Development Map. The Developer shall provide an 8 1/2" x 14" scaled map
of the plat and land within 350' of the plat containing
the following information:
a. platted' property;
b. existing and future roads;
c. future phases;
d. existing and p~oposed land uses; and
e. future ponds.
6. Required Public Improvements. The Developer shall install and pay for the
following:
a. Sanitary Sewer Lateral System h. Sidewalks and Trails
b. Water System (trunk and lateral) i. Site Grading and Ponding
c. Storm Sewer Traffic Control Devices
d. Streets k. Setting of Lot & Block Monuments
e. Concrete Curb and Gutter l. Surveying and Staking
f. Street Signs m. Landscaping, Screening, Blvd. Trees
g. Street Lights
2
The improvements shall be installed in accordance with Plans A through F, and in
accordance with City standards, ordinances and plans and specifications which have
been prepared by a competent registered professional engineer furnished to the City
and approved by the City Engineer. The Developer shall obtain all necessary permits
from the Metropolitan Council and other agencies before proceeding with construction.
The Developer shall instruct its engineer to provide adequate field inspection
personnel to assure an acceptable level of quality control to the extent that the
Developer's engineer will be able to certify that the construction work meets the
approved City standards as a condition of City acceptance. In addition, the City
may, at the City's discretion and at the Developer's expense, have one or more City
inspector(s) and a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or part time basis. The
Developer or his engineer shall schedule a preconstruction meeting at a mutually
agreeable time at the City Council chambers with all parties concerned, including the
City staff, to review the program for the construction work. Within sixty (60) days
after the completion of the improvements and before the security is released, the
Developer shall supply the City with a complete set of reproducible "As Built" plans.
The Developer shall also supply the City with a 3.5" diskette contain~~g the
following information in an Autocad Release 12 compatible fo~mat (.o#g or .dxf
files) :
- approved plat
- proposed utilities (storm sewer, water main, sanitary sewer)
- layer names should be self explanatory, or a list must be
included as a key.
If the Developer does not provide such informacion, the City will digitize the data.
All costs associated with digitizing the data will be the responsibility of the
developer.
7. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required public
improvements by October 31, 1998. The Developer may,
however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it
shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect
cost increases.
3
8. Ownership of Improvements. Upon the completion of the work and construction
required to be done by this Agreement, the
improvements lying within public easements shall become City property, except for
cable TV, electrical, gas, and telephone, without further notice or action.
9. Warranty. The Developer warrants all improvements required to be constructed by
it pursuant to this Contract against poor material and faulty
workmanship. The warranty period for streets is one year. The warranty period for
underground utilities is two years. If all improvements are installed by one
contractor, the warranty period shall commence after the final wear course has been
completed and the streets have been accepted by City Council resolution. If streets
and underground utilities are installed by separate contractors, the warranty period
on streets shall commence after the final wear course has been installed and accepted
by City Council resolution and the warranty period on underground utilities shall
commence following their completion and acceptance by the City. All trees shall be
warranted to be alive, of good quality, and disease free for twelve (12) months after
planting. Any replacements shall be warranted for twelve (12) months from the time
of planting. The Developer shall post maintenance bonds or other surety acceptable
tc the City to secure the warranties. The City shall retain ten percent (10%) of the
security posted by the Developer until the bonds or other acceptable surety are
furnished to the City or until the warranty period has been completed, whichever
first occurs. The retainage may be used to pay for warranty work. The City standard
specifications for utilities and street construction identify the procedures for
fi~al acceptance of streets and utilities.
10. Grading Plan. The plat shall be graded and drainage provided by the Developer
in accordance with Plan B. Notwithstanding any other provisions
of this Agreement, the Developer may start rough grading the lots within the
stockpile and easement areas in conformance with Plan B before the plat is filed if
all fees have been paid and the City has been furnished the required security.
Additional rough grading may be allowed upon obtaining written authorization from the
City Engineer.
4
If the developer needs to change grading affecting drainage after homeowners are on
s~ce, he must notify all property owners/residents of this work prior to its
initiation.
11. Erosion Control and Fees. After the site is rough graded, but before any
utility construction is commenced or building permits
are issued, the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented by the Developer
and inspected and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion
control requirements if it is determined that the methods implemented are
insufficient to properly control erosion. All areas disturbed by the excavation and
backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work
in that area. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched and disc anchored as
necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in
controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion control plan
and schedule, or supplementary instructions received from the City, the City may take
such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion. The City will endeavor to
notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do
so will not affect the Developer's and-the City's rights or obligations hereunder.
If the Developer does not re~mburse the City for any costs of the City incurred for
such work within thirty (30) days, the City may draw down the letter of credit to pay
any costs. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be ~ssued
unless the plat is in full compliance with the erosion control requirements.
The Developer is responsible for a $400.00 Erosion and Sediment Control fee based
upon ~he number of lots in the plat, plus inspection fees at the current rate of
$39.00 per hour as charged by the Soil and Water Conservation District. The
Developer is also responsible for a Water Quality Management Fee of $572.57 based
upon th'; number of acres in the plat.
12. Landscaping. The Developer shall landscape the plat in accordance with Plan C.
The landscaping shall be accomplished in accordance with a time
schea _e approved by the City.
5
13. Phased Development. The plat shall be developed in two (2) phases in
accordance with Plan A. A portion of the westerly phase as
shown on Plan A is outside the City of Farmington MUSA boundary.
No earth moving, construction of public improvements or other development shall be
done in any phase until the corresponding Plans A-F have been approved by the City
Engineer and the necessary security has been furnished to the City. Once Plans A-F
have been approved by the City Engineer and necessary security has been furnished,
the Developer may commence with earth moving, construction of public improvements or
other development in the easterly phase of the development as shown on Plan A.
In the westerly phase of the development as shown on Plan A, the Developer will be
limited to rough grading and storm sewer installation until such time that City of
Farmington's MUSA boundary is extended to includ~ the entire westerly phase of the
development. Also, this agreement shall require the Developer to install the storm
sewer improvements in the westerly phase of the development since these improvements
are necessary to drain the stormwater from the easterly phase of the development.
Subject to the terms of this Agreement, this Development Contract constitutes
approval to develop the plat.
14. Effect of Subdivision A~proval. For two (2) years from the date of this
Agreement, ~o amendments to the City'S
Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the current urban service
area, or removing any part thereof which has not been final platted, or official
controls shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout
or dedications or platting required or permitted by the approved preliminary plat
unless required by State or Federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the
Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to ~he contrary,
to the full extent permitted by State law, the City may require compliance with any
amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan (including remO'I:.ng unplatted property
from the urban service area), official controls, platting or dedication requirements
enacted after the date of this Agreement any may require subcission of a new plat.
6
15. Surface Water Management Fee. The Developer shall pay an area storm water
management charge of $ 89,788.53 in lieu of the
property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed
against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a 10 year period with interest on the
unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The assessment shall be
deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may
be assumed or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and
substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments
exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise
available pursuant to MSA 429.081.
16. Wetland Conservation and Mitigation. The Developer shall comply with the 1991
Wetlands Conservation Act, as amended, and
the Wetlands Mitigation Plan. The Developer shall pay all costs associated with
wetlands conservation and the Wetlands Mitigation Plan.
17. Water Main Trunk Area Charge. The Developer shall pay a water area charge
of $ 31,651.81 for the plat in lieu of the
property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed
against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a ten (10) year period with interest
on the unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The assessment
shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The
assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. ~he Developer waives any and all
procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the
assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal
rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081.
The Developer shall receive a credit of $81,260.00 for trunk water main installation
and oversizing, resulting in a net credit of $49,608.19. The City will reimburse the
Developer for this credit when the water main work for the entire project is complete
and accepted by the City.
7
18. Sanitary Sewer Trunk Area Charge. The Developer shall pay a sanitary sewer
trunk area charge of $ 23,567.08 for the plat
in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall
be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a ten (10) year period
with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The
assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City.
The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and
all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that
the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal
rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081.
19. Park Dedication. The Developer shall pay a park dedication fee of
$ .00 in satisfaction of the City'S park dedication
requirements for the plat. The park dedication fee shall be assessed against the
lots (not outlots) in the plat over a ten (10) year period with interest on the
unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The assessment shall be
deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may
be assumed or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and
substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments
exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise
available pursuant to MSA 429.081. The park dedication fees for subsequent phases
shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the
Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. City shall allow Developer
to tree spade and save as many pine trees as possible. Said trees shall be stored
above ground on the park site until such time as Developer can remove them and plant
~em elsewhere.
20. Sealcoating. In lieu of assessing sealcoating three years from completion of
the road construction, the Developer agrees to pay a fee of
$3604.00 for initial sealcoating of streets in the subdivision. This fee shall be
deposited in the City Road and Bridge Fund upon execution of this Agreement.
21. ~IS Fees. The Developer is responsible for a Government Information System fee
of $1700.00 based upon the number of lots within the subdivision.
8
22. Easements. The Developer shall furnish the City at the time of execution of
this Agreement with the easements designated on the plat.
23. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers
and contractors, a license to enter the plat to perform all necessary
work and/or inspections deemed appropriate by the City during the installation of
public improvements by the City. The license shall expire after the public
improvements installed pursuant to the Development Contract have been installed and
accepted by the City.
24. Clean Up. The Developer shall weekly, or more often if required by the City
Engineer, clear from the public streets and property any soil, earth
or debris resulting from construction work by the Developer or its agents or assigns.
All debris, including brush, vegetation, trees and demolition materials, shall be
disposed of off site. Burning of trees and structures shall be prohibited, except
for fire training only.
25. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Agreement, payment of
real estate taxes including interest and penalties, payment of
special assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements in the plat and
construction of all public improvements in the plat, the Developer shall furnish the
City with a cash escrow, irrevocable letter of credit, or alternative security
acceptable to the City Administrator, from a bank (security) for $1,343,550.00. The
bank and form of the security shall be subject to the approval of the City
Administrator. The security shall be for a period ending October 31, 1998. The term
of the security may be extended from time to time if the extension is furnished to
the City Admir.istrator at least forty-five (45) days prior to the stated expiration
date of the security. If the required public improvements are not completed, or
terms of the Agreement are not satisfied, at least thirty (30) days prior to the
expiration of a letter of credit, the City may draw down the letter of credit. The
Clty may draw down the security, without prior notice, for any violation of this
Agreement. The amount of the security was calculated as follows:
9
Grading/Erosion Control $ 153,200.00 Monuments $ 13,600.00
Sanitary Sewer Lateral $ 175,300.00 St. Lites/Signs $ 24,150.00
Water Main $ 312,200.00 Blvd. Trees $ 58,400.00
Storm Sewer $ 179,400.00 Blvd. Sodding $ 31,400.00
Street Construction $ 338,400.00 Bike/Pedestrian Tr. $ 14,300.00
Two Years Principal and Interest on Assessments $ 43,200.00.
This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the
security.
26. Responsibility for Costs.
A. The Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction
with the development of the plat, including but not limited to, Soil and Water
Conservation District charges, legal, planning, administrative, construction costs,
engineering, easements and inspection expenses incurred in connection with approval
and acceptance of the plat, the preparation of this Agreement, and all reasonable
costs and expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and inspecting the development
of the plat.
B. The Developer, except for City's willful misconduct, shall hold the City and
its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for
damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat approval and development.
The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs,
damages or expenses which the City may payor incur in consequence of such claims,
including attorney's fees.
C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs ~ncurred in the enforcement
of this Agreement, including engineering and attorney's fees.
D. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City within
thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt
all plat development work until the bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within
thirty (3) .'cays shall accrue interest at the rate of eight per~::mt (8%) per annum.
:0
E. The Developer agrees to complete the road connection of Everest Path with
the southerly development (Nelsen Hills 5th Addition as shown on Plan F). This work
consists of finishing the curb and gutter, first lift of blacktop and sewer and water
to complete the improvements between Pine Ridge Forest and Nelsen Hills 5th Addition.
The Developer shall pay all costs associated with these improvements. The Developer
agrees to be responsible for these costs and failure to complete these improvements
will constitute a violation of this agreement. Upon such violation, the City may
draw down the security in order to complete these improvements.
27. Trash Enclosures. The Developer is responsible to require each builder to
provide on site trash enclosures to contain all construction
debris, thereby preventing it from being blown off site, except as otherwise approved
by the City Engineer.
28. Existing Tree Preservation. The Developer will walk the site with the City
Forester and identify all significant trees which
will be removed by on site grading. A dialogue between the Developer and City
Forester regarding alternative grading options will take place before any disputed
tree is removed. All trees, stumps, brush and other debris removed during clearing
and grubbing operations shall be disposed of off site.
29. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the
work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work
and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the
City, provided the Developer, except in an emergency as determined by the City, is
first jiven written notice of the work in default, not less than 72 hours in advance.
This Agreement is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for
the City to seek a Coc:rt order for permission to enter the land. When the City does
any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in
whole or in pa~t.
11
30. Miscellaneous.
A. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors or
assigns, as the case may be.
B. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for
denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties.
C. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase
of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement.
D. Building permits shall not be issued prior to completion of rough site
grading, installation of erosion control devices and submittal of a surveyor's
certificate denoting all appropriate monuments have been installed. only
construction of noncombustible materials shall be allowed until the water system is
operational. If permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of public
improvements, the Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in
completion of public improvements and damage to public improvements caused by the
City, Developer, its contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, employees, agents or
third parties. Normal procedure requires that streets needed for access to approved
uses shall be paved with a bituminous surface before certificates of occupancy may be
issued. However, the City Engineer is authorized to wa~ve this requirement when
weather related circumstances prevent completion of street projects before the end of
:he construction season. The Developer is responsible for maintaining said streets
in a cc~dition that will assure the access of emergency vehicles at all times when
such a waiver is granted.
E. The action .c inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or
amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers
shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the
City Council. The City'S failure to oromptly take legal action to enforce this
Agreement shall not be a waiver cr release.
F. The Developer represents to the City, to the best of its knowledge, that the
plat is not of "metropolitan significance" and that an environmental impact statement
is n c required. However, if the City or another governmental entity or agency
12
oetermines that such a review is needed, that the Developer shall prepare it in
compliance wi~h legal requirements so issued from said agency. The Developer shall
reimburse the City for all expenses, including staff time and attorney fees, that the
City incurs in assisting in the preparation of the review.
G. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The Developer represents to the City
that the plat complies with all City, County, Metropolitan, State and Federal laws
and regulations, including but not limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning
ordinances and environmental regulations. If the City determines that the plat does
not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow any construction or
development work in the plat until the Developer does comply. Upon the City's
demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance.
H. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title
to the property. After the Developer has completed the work required of it under
this A9reement, at the Developer's request the City will execute and deliver a
release to the Developer.
I. Developer shall take out and maintain until six months after the City has
accepted the public improvements, public liability and property damage insurance
covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may
arise out of the Developer's work or the work of its subcontractors or by one
directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury or death
shall not be less than $500,000.00 for one person and $1,000,000.00 for each
occurrence; limits for property damage shall not be less than $200,000.00 for each
occurrence. The City shall be named as an additional named insured on said policy,
and Developer shall file a copy of the insurance coverage with the City prior to the
City signing the plat.
J. The Developer shall obtain a Wetlands Compliance Certificate from the City.
K. Upon breach of the terms of this Agreement, the City may, without notice to
the Developer, draw down the Developer's cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit
as provided in paragraph 25 of th~s Agreement. The City may draw down this security
in the amount of $500.00 per day that the Developer is in violation. The City, in
its sole discretion, shall determine whether the Developer is in violation of the
Agreement. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 29 hereof, thlS determination may
13
be made without notice to the Developer. It is stipulated that the violation of any
term will result in damages to ~he City in an amount which will be impractical and
extremely difficult to ascertain. It is agreed that the per day sum stipulated is a
reasonable amount to compensate the City for its damages.
L. The Developer will be required to conduct all activities to construct Plans A-
F during the following hours of operation:
Monday - Friday
Saturday
Sunday
7:00 A.M. until 7:00 P.M.
8:00 A.M. until 5:00 P.M.
Not Allowed
This does not apply to activities that are required on a 24 hour basis such as
dewatering, etc. Any deviation from the above hours are subject to approval of the
City Engineer.
M. The Developer is responsible to require each builder within the development to
provide a Class 5 aggregate entrance for every house that is to be constructed in the
development. This entrance is required to be installed upon initial construction of
the home. See City Standard Plate No. 362A for construction requirements.
N. The Developer shall be responsible for the control of weeds in excess of
twelve inches (12") on vacant lots or boulevards within the plat as per City Code 6-
7-2. Failure to control weeds will be considered a Developer's Default as outlined
in Paragraph 29 of this Agreement and the Developer will reimburse the City as
defined in said Paragraph 29.
14
31. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be
either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the
Developer by certified or registered mail at the following address:
Tim Giles
Pine Ridge of Farmington, LLP
8343 210th Street West
Lakeville, MN 55044
Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either and delivered to the City
Administrator, or mailed to the City by certified mail or registered mail in care of
the City Administrator at the following address:
John F. Erar
City Administrator
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
15
SIGNATURE PAGE
CITY OF FARMINGTON
By:
Gerald Ristow, Mayor
By:
John F. Erar, City Clerk/Administrator
DEVELOPER:
pine Ridge of Farmington, LLP
By:
Timothy Giles
Its: President
Drafted by:
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmlngton, Minnesota
55024
\612) 463-7111
16
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
(ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of
19_____ by Gerald Ristow, Mayor, and by John F. Erar, City Clerk/Administrator, of
,-he C~ty of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the
corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by the City Council.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA
(ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of
19____ by , the of Pine Ridge of Farm~~gton, a
limited liability partnership under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the
corporation.
Notary Public
17
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PINE RIDGE FOREST
The West 26 acres of the S 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 14, TWP 114, R20W, Dakota
County, Minnesota.
Subject to easements of record.
That part of the NW 1/4 of Section 14, TWP 114N, R20W of the Fifth Principal
Meridian, Dakota County, Minnesota, according to the Government Survey thereof
described as follows:
Beginning at the SE cor of said NW 1/4; thence on an assumed
bearing S 89D 45M 37S W, along the S line of said NW 1/4 a
distance of 298.00 ft; thence N 02D 58M 09S E a distance of
657.88 feet; thence N 89D 43M 12S E a distance of 265.00 feet
to the E line of said NW 1/4; thence S OOD 05M 38S W, along
said E line, a distance of 657.05 feet to the beg~nning.
Subject to easements of record, if any.
Also together with Outlot C, Nelsen Hills Farm 4th Addition
Also together with Outlot A, Nelsen Hills Farm 5th Addtion
18
PRO P 0 SED
RESOLUTION
APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
- Pine Ridge Forest -
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a special meeting of the City Council
of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Civic Center of said City
on the 5th day of May, 1997 at 7:00 P.M..
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following:
WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution of the City Council the Pine Ridge Forest
Addition preliminary plat was approved contingent upon, among other things, the
signing of a development agreement; and
WHEREAS, a development agreement is now before the Council for its
consideration setting forth, among other things, the following:
Surety
Surface Water Management Fees
Water Main Trunk Area Charge
Sanitary Trunk Sewer Area
Park Dedication
$1,343,550.00
$ 89,788.53
$ 49,608.19 credit to developer
$ 23,567.08
$ .00
and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:
1. The aforementioned developer's agreement, a copy of which is on file in the
Clerk's office, is hereby approved.
2. The Mayor and Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to sign such
agreement.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open
session on the 5th day of May, 1997.
Mayor
Attested to the ____ day of May, 1997.
SEAL
Clerk/Administrator
/O~
TO:
Mayor, Councilmembers,
City Administrator~
FROM:
Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief
SUBJECT:
Response to Citizens Concerns
Fire Response East of RR
DATE:
May 5, 1997
INTRODUCTION
At the April 21st Council meeting, a concern was raised regarding fire emergency
response time east of the railroad tracks.
DISCUSSION
Blockage of crossings by trains does happen and will continue to happen.
Occasionally, delays in emergency response have occurred because of the
blockage. Prior to the construction of the present Fire station on Denmark
Avenue, the delay was experienced on calls on the west side of the tracks, now
the delay is experienced on calls on the east side.
These delays have been anticipated and provisions have been made to deal with
them. Via radio communication from Fire Department personnel, trains are
notified of emergency situations and that a crossing is blocked. In the event a
blockage continues after this communication, Department personnel also have the
option of contacting C.P. Rail System to have the train moved.
The only solution which would be certain to resolve this problem would be the
construc~ion of a satellite station on the east side of the tracks.
Consideration has been given to housing some equipment at City Hall, however, I
do not believe this to be a practical solution for the following reasons:
maintaining partial equipment and gear in two locations would be inefficient;
storage space at City Hall is not adequate; Department personnel would still
need to get to the east side of the tracks to respond.
Our ISO (Insurance Service Office) rating is affected by response time and
hydrant placement and indicated a need for a satellite station on the north side
of the City due to continued population growth. A station may be constructed on
the new water tower site. If 195th Street is constructed between Pilot Knob
Road and Highway 3, another ~oute to the east from this north station would be
opened.
CitlJ of FarminlJton 325 Oak Street. Farmint}ton/ MN 55024 · (612) 463.7111 · Fa~ (612) 463.2591
ACTION RECOMMENDED
No action is recommended at this time, however, Council may wish to consider
authorizing a fire protection needs study for the City. Ideally, complete
coverage for all areas within our fire response area would be provided by three
stations, one of which would be on the east side of the railroad tracks.
~~:z:mitted'
Ken Kuchera ~
Fire Chief
FD3
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Train Whistles
DATE: May 5, 1997
Citizen complaints concerning the blowing of train whistles during the early morning hours has
been to my attention by Mayor Ristow. This issue, while not new, has been experienced by many
communities where residents have been awakened during the middle of the night to what many
have described as excessive whistle blowing at railroad crossings.
DISCUSSION
I have contacted several communities for information including my former city, where this issue
has been under review. At this date, I am still awaIting information on contact persons at the
Federal Railroad Administration and at Congressman Luther's office. The issue of train whistles
or more precisely the authority of the railroad to exercise their rights when approaching a
railroad crossing has been a topic for local governments for many years.
Ostensibly, federal law provides that railroad conductors/operators have the right, when in their
judgement and discretion, the safety of pedestrians and motorists is in question to blow warning
whistles when approaching crossings. This right has been challenged, but essentially remains
intact when weighed against public safety considerations.
It is suggested that this issue be brought back to Council when additional information is received.
BUDGET IMP ACT
None.
ACTION REQUESTED
For information only.
Respectfully submitted,
/&~~
/John F. Erar
Citv Administrator
CitlJ of FarminiJton 325 Oak Street. Farmintjton, MN 5502~ · (612) ~63.7111 · Fair (612) ~63.2591
IOe-
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Annual League of MN Cities
Conference Attendance
DATE: May 5,1997
INTRODUCTION
The annual League of MN Cities Conference is scheduled to be held in the city of St. Cloud from
June 10-13, 1997.
DISCUSSION
This annual conference provides a variety of useful information on topics and issues affecting
city government, including economic development, programming, legislative changes affecting
local government, technology, and responding to changing community dynamics.
BUDGET IMP ACT
Costs for conference attendance are determined by the date of registration and whether
attendance will be for the full conference or mini-conference. Early registration deadline is May
9th, with the cost for full attendance at $245 or mini-conference (one day) at $115. In addition,
housing reservations need to be made as soon as possible subject to availability.
There is approximately $1,165 available in the 1997 Budget for conference attendance.
ACTION REOUESTED
If Council members are interested in attending this conference, please contact Mary to make
your registration and housing arrangements.
Respectfully submitted,
ij,4.1. ~
.JOhn F. Erar
tity Adrninistrator
I
CitlJ. of FarminfJton 325 Oak Street. Farminf/ton, MN 5502~ · (612) ~63-7111 · Fax (612) ~63-25~