The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12.19.05 Council Packet City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Mission Statement Through teamwork and cooperation, the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserve our proud past and foster a promisingfuture. AGENDA PRE-CITY COUNCIL MEETING December 19, 2005 6:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVE AGENDA 3. CITIZEN COMMENTS 4. COUNCIL REVIEW OF AGENDA 5. STAFF COMMENTS 6. ADJOURN PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT ouncil workshops are conducted as an informal work session, all discussions shall be considered fact-finding, hypothetical and unofficial critical thinking exercises, which do not reflect an official public position, Council work session outcomes should not be construed by the attending public and/or reporting media as the articulation of a formal City policy position. Only official Council action normally taken at a regularly scheduled Council meeting should be considered as a formal expression of the City's position on any given matter, City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Mission Statement Through teamwork and cooperation, the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserve our proud past and foster a promising future. AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 19, 2005 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Action Taken 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVE AGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENDATIONS 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (12/5/05 Regular) (11/30/05 & 12/8/05 Special) Page 1 b) Approve Temporary On-Sale Liquor License - Administration Page 2 c) Adopt Resolution - Approve Gambling Event Permit - Administration Page 3 d) Adopt Resolution - Approve Gambling Event Permit - Administration Page 4 e) Authorize Advertisement for Bid Sale of Garbage Containers and Lids - Parks and Recreation Page 5 f) Adopt Resolution - Approve 2006 Tax Levy and Budget - Finance Page 6 g) November 2005 Financial Report - Finance Page 7 h) Approve Sewer Sharing with Lakeville - Engineering Page 8 i) Approve Assessment Agreements - Ash Street Project - Engineering Page 9 j) Approve Change Order Ash Street Project - Engineering Page 10 k) Approve Proposed Concept Review Policy (Southeast Region) and Proposed Criteria Regarding Multi-Family and Mediurn-to-High Density Housing- Community Development Page 11 1) Adopt Joint Resolution - Approving Seed/Genstar Property Annexation- Community Development Page 12 m) Adopt Resolution - Approve 2006 Non-Bargaining COLA Agreement - Human Resources Page 13 n) Adopt Resolution - Approve Clerical, Technical, Professional Contract- Human Resources Page 14 0) Adopt Resolution - Approve Maintenance Contract - Human Resources Page 15 p) Approve Bills Page 16 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Adopt Ordinance - Approving 2006 Fee Schedule - Administration Page 17 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Adopt 2006-2010 CIP - Finance b) Discussion of Citywide Broadband Connectivity - Information Technology Page 18 Page 19 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) 203rd Street Wetland Buffers - Engineering Page 20 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. ADJOURN City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Mission Statement Through teamwork and cooperation, the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserve our proud past and foster a promising future. AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 19, 2005 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVE AGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENDATIONS 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (12/5/05 Regular) (11/30/05 & 12/8/05 Special) b) Approve Temporary On-Sale Liquor License - Administration c) Adopt Resolution - Approve Gambling Event Permit - Administration d) Adopt Resolution - Approve Gambling Event Permit - Administration e) Authorize Advertisement for Bid Sale of Garbage Containers and Lids - Parks and Recreation f) Adopt Resolution - Approve 2006 Tax Levy and Budget - Finance g) November 2005 Financial Report - Finance h) Approve Sewer Sharing with Lakeville - Engineering i) Approve Assessment Agreements - Ash Street Project - Engineering j) Approve Change Order Ash Street Project - Engineering k) Approve Proposed Concept Review Policy (Southeast Region) and Proposed Criteria Regarding Multi-Family and Medium-to-High Density Housing- Community Development 1) Adopt Joint Resolution - Approving Seed/Genstar Property Annexation- Community Development m) Adopt Resolution - Approve 2006 Non-'Bargaining COLA Agreement- Human Resources n) Adopt Resolution - Approve Clerical, Technical, Professional Contract- Human Resources 0) Adopt Resolution - Approve Maintenance Contract - Human Resources p) Approve Bills Action Taken Approved Approved Ri32-05 Ri33-05 Authorized Ri34-05; Ri35-05 Information Received Approved Approved Approved Approved Ri36-05 Ri37-05 Ri38-05 Ri39-05 Approved 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Adopt Ordinance - Approving 2006 Fee Schedule - Administration 9. AWARDOFCONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Adopt 2006-2010 CIP - Finance b) Discussion of Citywide Broadband Connectivity - Information Technology c) Management Assessment City Administrator Candidates 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) 203rd Street Wetland Buffers - Engineering 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. ADJOURN Ord 005-546 Approved Research Options Martin McAllister Restore Buffers City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Robin Roland Acting City Administrator SUBJECT: Supplemental Agenda DATE: December 19, 2005 It is requested the December 19,2005 agenda be amended as follows: PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS tOe) Management Assessment for City Administrator Candidates Quotes have been received from PDI and Martin-McAllister for conducting management assessments on the City Administrator candidates. Acting City Administrator 7~ COUNCIL MINUTES PRE-MEETING December 5, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Soderberg at 6:30 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson None Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Robin Roland, Acting City Administrator/Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant 2. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by Wilson, second by McKnight to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. CITIZEN COMMENTS 4. COUNCIL REVIEW OF AGENDA Councilmember Fogarty noted the solid waste exemption is for a rental property and asked if it will be vacant for a long period of time. Staffhas typically allowed an exemption until it becomes occupied. Councilmember Fogarty suggested a policy for when properties are vacant for a short period of time so it can be approved administratively. Staff is currently working on criteria for exemptions. Staffwill check if it is required by ordinance or state statute that exemptions need to be approved by Council. Councilmember Wilson asked about the contract for Mr. Robert Vogel for HPC consultant services and asked what the City was getting for $4,000 that staffwas not able to provide. Administrative Services Director Shadick replied they receive his expertise and he interprets Department of the Interior Standards for historic preservation. The hourly wage has to be established to account for Mr. Vogel's hours when submitting the reimbursement forms to the state for the CLG grant. By setting a wage we can use his services in a variety of ways, rather than paying by project. The Heritage Landmark designation is the main focus right now. Council Minutes (Pre-Meeting) December 5, 2005 Page 2 Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if when people apply for Boards and Commissions they receive information as to how many times they meet and when. Staff replied for new applicants they are informed they meet monthly. A calendar will be available showing when the meetings are held. Councilmember Wilson noted the S-year term for the EDA is a long time. Councilmember Fogarty stated eventually all the seats on the EDA will be for five years except for the Council seat. Mayor Soderberg confirmed Council will receive a history of their attendance prior to the interviews. This is included in the interview packets. 5. STAFF COMMENTS Human Resources Director Wendlandt has e-mailed a list of questions to the Council for the City Administrator interviews. The Council will meet at 8:30 on December 8, 2005 for the interviews. Council will narrow the 20 questions down to 13. 6. ADJOURN MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson to adjourn at 6:46 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, , #p ,-"";' ~~ , /7~ ae-~ /~C/LCdL i_"" Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR December 5, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Soderberg at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Soderberg led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Audience: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson None Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Robin Roland, Acting City AdministratorlFinance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Chris Gore, Ben Rowan, Chris & Ravit Berg, Roxanne Mainz 4. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by McKnight, second by Pritzlaffto approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (11/21/05 Regular) (11/17/05 Special) b) Set January 7, 2006 for Boards and Commissions Interviews - Administration c) Adopted RESOLUTION R131-05 Approving HPC Consultant Contract- Administration d) Received Information HPC 2005 Annual Report - Administration e) Acknowledged Resignation Police Department - Human Resources t) Acknowledged Resignation Administration - Human Resources g) Approved Solid Waste Exemption - Parks and Recreation h) Approved Assessment Agreements - Ash Street Project - Engineering i) Approved Sewer Meter Contract - Engineering j) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) December 5, 2005 Page 2 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Truth-in-Taxation Hearing - Finance The purpose ofthe hearing is to outline the impact of the City's budget on 2006 property taxes. The proposed levy is $6,668,204 which is a 14% increase over the 2005 levy. The 14% was arrived upon by using the growth in the market value of all properties in Farmington. This is partially due to adjustments in the valuation of homes and also new homes. General fund revenues are estimated at $7.765 million which is 67% from property taxes. There was no levy limit for 2006. Expenditures are proposed to increase by 9.1 % due to operation cost increases, fuel utility costs, existing contracts and additional staffing. After the requested reduction of the 2006 budget by Council, staffing was adjusted by $60,000- 70,000. The levy also includes $175,000 for acquisition of capital assets. Staffing includes two new patrol officers, a promotion to administrative sergeant, an accounting technician, a maintenance worker/mechanic and an administrative support specialist for Park & Rec. These positions will be filled throughout the year. Ofthe 14% tax levy increase, 11 % will go to the general fund and 3% will go to debt service requirements and the capital acquisition levy. The overall revenue increase in the general fund is 9.1 % as is the expenditures. This is a balanced budget. The tax levy dropped one percentage point from 2005 to 2006. The City's portion ofthe increase is equal to or less than the increase in the market value. The county's website shows for each property what the 2005 taxes were and the 2006 taxes. In each case the City's portion dropped by 1.5%. However, the property taxes on other areas such as the county, the school district, or other taxing districts did not have the same effect. In 2005 the cost to a homeowner for City services was $66/month. In 2006 the cost for City services will drop to $65/month. Ms. Roxanne Mainz, 18941 Englewood Ct., asked why the tax base and the levy must go this way. Finance Director Roland stated that is what we aim for. If the tax base grows at a certain percentage and the levy grows that percentage or less, then if your home stays the same price two years in a row, your taxes should stay the same two years in a row. If the levy is less than the growth in the tax base, then your taxes should go down. Ms. Mainz thought that would be more the goal rather than trying to keep it even. She asked if the City was increasing the tax quite a bit. Finance Director Roland replied the goal of Council is to be able to capture the growth in the market value. Out of the last four years, three of those years there has been growth in the market value of over 20%. We have not increased the levy by that 20% due to levy limits. In a growing community you need services and money to provide those services. As the community grows, so do the expenditures. Once there is a stable, built-out community there should not be the need for an increase in expenditures and the levy amount should level out less than the growth amount. Ms. Mainz stated what she disagreed with was there should be some efficiencies gained as we grow and she was not seeing those. Instead of adding more administration, police officers sure, but if we cannot get all the garbage picked up, maybe we should outsource that instead of doing it in- Council Minutes (Regular) December 5, 2005 Page 3 house. Her business looks at efficiencies. As they grow, they do not add more staff. They look at how they can make efficiencies with what they have and she is not seeing that in the government. She would like the City to look at those issues as corporations are doing. She is getting to the point where she cannot live in her house anymore because she cannot afford to. Mayor Soderberg noted we do look at efficiencies as we can and there will come a point as the City grows where efficiencies will take over. Weare not quite there yet. As we approach 30,000 - 40,000 we won't see the necessary need for increase in administrative staff and support personnel. Police officers and fire and rescue yes. As far as the goal of not raising the levy as much as the tax base and the market values, we made a little progress now as the rate went down a percentage point, although it is small. Ms. Mainz asked the Council to seriously consider efficiencies as she may have to move. Mayor Soderberg noted the increase is divided between several taxing entities. The City is doing what they can to keep it as low and manageable as possible. The increase in the City's portion was due to the increase in the value of the property. Councilmember Wilson noted the City is working with the county on High Performance Partnership programs. Mayor Soderberg stated this program is the major cities and the county working together to find efficiencies. One example in the process is joint dispatch to consolidate dispatching services and still maintain the same level of service. Finance Director Roland stated she received a call from a resident asking how he can get involved in this process. She recommended between April and May he should send an e-mail to Council and identify the things in the community that were important to him. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) 203rd Street Wetland Buffer Discussion - Engineering At the April 18, 2005 Council Meeting, Council reached a compromise for the wetland buffer issue raised in late 2004 and discussed in a workshop early 2005 regarding wetland buffers on private property. Wetland buffers are no longer allowed on private property. They are on City outlots. The compromise was to allow the buffers to be reduced in width to a minimum of 10ft. along the back property line if a resident was willing to grant the City a permanent conservation easement. The easement will stay with the title of the property. Staff sent out forms to residents in August 2005 regarding the conservation easement. Two situations have been identified. Council Minutes (Regular) December 5, 2005 Page 4 The first property is at 5215 203rd Street. There is an encroachment into the City buffer. Sodding has occurred past the property comer. The original buffer runs close to the limits ofthe deck. There is also an irrigation system installed within the buffer and close to the property line. These encroachments were installed prior to the discussions in 2004. The as-built was approved with the sod the way it is. The second property is 5241 203rd Street. There is also an encroachment into the City property with landscaping that goes well into City property. The 10ft limit of the conservation easement is just beyond the stone retaining wall. The owner has sent the Conservation Easement paperwork to their mortgage company for signature so it was their intent to grant the City the conservation easement. The improvements installed beyond the conservation easement were installed subsequent to the mailing of the materials for the conservation easement. During the construction of the first portion of the landscaping there were rocks installed beyond the conservation easement line and the building inspector indicated to the landscaper the rocks needed to be brought back behind that line. So the original landscaper was notified ofthe buffer line. The enforcement and protection of wetland buffers and City property in the past has required that a property owner remove the objects of encroachment from such areas at their own expense. In the case of 5215 203rd Street the sod and irrigation system in the buffer and on City property would need to be removed by the owner at their expense. In the case of 5241 203rd Street the landscaping would need to be removed from the buffer and City property at the owner's expense. Seed for restoring the buffer has been provided by City staff in the past. Both property owners have been informed ofthe situation and of staff's recommendation to remove the amenities at the owner's expense. Jessica and Ben Rowan, 5215 203rd Street, stated they are aware of the meetings the City had regarding the wetland buffer and agree that the buffer should be protected. They did not attend the meetings because the City had approved and released their escrow. They believe the wetland buffer should begin at their property line which would leave 50 ft. of wetland buffer. They closed on their home on November 21,2003. On December 9,2003 an as-built survey was sent in. In the Spring of 2004 they added the deck and were aware of a drainage easement on the original survey. Part ofthe deck was within that easement, it was revised and then the deck was approved by the City. In June and July 2004 the building inspector directed the job supervisor to correct the grade at the rear property line before the sod and irrigation was installed. On August 4, 2004 the City approved the landscaping, sod, grading and released the escrow. On September 9,2004 the wetland buffer sign was installed, one year after closing on their home. On September 22, 2004 they received a letter from the City requesting the land beyond the sign be returned to natural vegetation. They contacted staff regarding their concerns. December 14,2004 a revised as-built Council Minutes (Regular) December 5, 2005 Page 5 survey was sent to their builder with the wetland buffer line on the survey through the rear of the property. Their house is for sale. They have a purchase agreement signed by a potential buyer. This has since been terminated because the City advised the buyers that the rear of the property was to be returned to its natural vegetation. This is a major concern for the buyers and for the Rowan's. Mr. Rowan noted on the sign posted in their garage regarding easements and buffers, it states wetland buffers cannot be affected by grading. He felt when the inspector has the job supervisor grading along the wetland buffer before the sod and irrigation system is installed that is a double standard. Mayor Soderberg noted this situation arose with other property owners and that is why the compromise was reached. He was not sure where the ball was dropped. Developers should tell the builders, and builders should tell the excavators. The buffer still needs to be maintained to protect the wetland. Ms. Rowan felt for other homes on that side of the street it was brought to their attention before landscaping was installed. In their case, they were the first house in that phase of the development. Their landscaping was installed 6 months to one year before other neighbors. Mayor Soderberg noted the developer was aware ofthe buffer before they started grading the road. There was a communication lapse between the developer and when the home was purchased. Ms. Rowan stated it did not make sense to her that when the grading is being inspected and when the property is being approved, it is not brought to their attention. They were made aware of this months after the fact. Mr. Rowan stated ifthey had known about the buffer requirement they would have abided by it. He did not feel they should suffer for it or they cannot sell their house to the potential buyers because they cannot leave their property the way it is. It was not their mistake, they should not have to suffer for it. Mayor Soderberg stated issues like this are the reason it was changed to not allow conservation easements on private property. In the future, this type of issue will not come up again. It is unfortunate, but Council made the compromise in giving back as much of the backyards as possible and still maintain the integrity of the wetland. When there is a problem with a transaction like this, it usually ends up in a court action to take it back to the builder. Mr. Rowan clarified that Council was blaming the builder and not the fact that a City employee did not get the sign in the yard with the sign in the diagram placed in the garage stating there is a wetland buffer there. The sign was not in place. That is the City's fault. Mayor Soderberg replied but the notice was in place. Mr. Rowan said there was no sign in his yard, so why should he think there is a wetland buffer. He has the original survey from the builder and the wetland buffer is not shown. Councilmember McKnight looked at the small area beyond the property line, and stated he has a problem directing staff to do this when the City approved the permits. He asked if we can look at a compromise on getting the area that is beyond the property line back to the natural habitat. Mr. Rowan stated initially they were very serious about sodding their property to the property line and not beyond. With the steep grade in the lot next to them, when it rained the dirt washed onto the sod, so their landscaper agreed to pull out the wrecked sod and Council Minutes (Regular) December 5,2005 Page 6 replace it. The sod then went over the line. Councilmember McKnight stated he appreciated Mr. Rowan's comment that ifthey had known about the easement, they would not have done this. They have a permit and he has a problem with saying remove the irrigation system and pay for it. Councilmember Wilson stated he had a concern in March when they approved the conservation easement. We will have to accept that we cannot treat every property equally. If the as-built is approved, there is nothing suggesting you cannot do exactly what the property owners did. The property comer on 5241 will have to be looked at significantly differently as that is extending well beyond the property line. He cannot in good conscience vote to take away property that the City approved when it is impacting the sale of the property. Councilmember Fogarty agreed with Councilmember Wilson. There were other people who dropped the ball and City staff made some assumptions. There was clearly miscommunication back then. Once we are looking at an irrigation system, the City dropped the ball. Once a permit is issued, that is our job to make sure everything else falls in line. She was not thrilled about letting part of the buffer go because it is very important and she absolutely expects the property line cleaned up. Councilmember McKnight stated the key issue is all the work was done before this was an issue. Councilmember Pritzlaff thought the compromise was good, but in this case, the work was done before everything else. He agreed with Council, to make them remove this would not be fair. If the inspectors missed this, that is our responsibility. There were some communication issues with the builder and the developer. He would like to see a straight line along the rear property line. Attorney Jamnik stated a resolution will have to be ratified because there will have to be an Encroachment Agreement approved by the Council. This will be brought back to the December 19, 2005 meeting. Mayor Soderberg asked if this sets a precedent for enforcement of other property. Attorney Jamnik replied Council is revisiting the Apri118, 2005 compromise which is based on a pre- existing condition. Other people in a similar situation will possibly approach the Council for the same or similar deal. There are parcels to the east that have acted following the compromise but as mentioned, they did not have sod down or an irrigation system installed within that conservation easement. But Council will be asked by property owners for the same or similar treatment and Council will have to justify the departure in this case from those situations. Mayor Soderberg asked if there was anything the City can do to put some teeth into these boundaries. Attorney Jamnik replied there are, but none are perfect. There are set iron monuments on the property comers. In two situations you not only have encroachment into an easement or a setback requirement but you have encroachment onto City owned property beyond the monuments for the property lines. There is no perfect solution to protect City property. Council Minutes (Regular) December 5, 2005 Page 7 Councilmember Pritzlaff stated the silt fencing is not supposed to be beyond the original buffer limit. If we wanted to enforce something, if the inspectors see a silt fence is not erected in the right spot or is down during construction we could implement some type of fine to make sure nothing is done beyond the silt fence. Mayor Soderberg asked how much buffer is beyond the property line. Mr. Rowan showed the survey to Council which showed 25 ft to the property line, so there should still be 50 ft. of buffer. Mayor Soderberg stated in regard to the property at 5215 203rd Street, because this was a pre-exiting condition before Council's discussions on the revision of the original buffer limit to a conservation easement and because there were City permits issued and approved, the property line will be the new buffer line for this property and this property only. Anything beyond that will be restored to natural grasses. Seed will be provided by Engineering. This will be placed on the December 19,2005 Council meeting. Attorney Jamnik will draft an Encroachment Agreement for Council approvaL Councilmember Pritzlaffnoted due to the winter weather now, this will have to be worked out with the future buyers to do the work in the Spring. Chris and Ravit Berg, 5241 203rd Street, they closed on their home on October 8, 2004 and started their landscaping within a day or two. The original landscaper installed a retaining wall and brought it to the rear of the property line. The City inspector came to inspect the property to release the escrow. At that time, the Bergs were told that the retaining wall exceeded the wetland buffer zone. Mr. Berg stated that was the first time they heard about the buffer. The City asked them to remove the portion of the retaining that extended into the buffer, which they did. The City signed off on the original portion of the retaining wall. Based upon discussions with staff they understood that the change to the conservation easement would allow them to retain the entire easement back to the property line. Once they had that space back, they thought they could do what they liked. As far as the second addition to the retaining wall, which extends into City property, that was a mistake on their part. There was a misunderstanding as to where their rear property line is. The installed the retaining wall to try and resolve some issues with the neighbors to try to keep the mud back. They are willing to remove this portion in the Spring back to the property line. They would like to keep the remainder of their landscaping. In the photograph, Mayor Soderberg noted there is another house where the silt fence is placed in the wetland and grading has been done. He felt there is something that needs to be done to stop the builders from doing this. Attorney Jamnik stated if we can catch them while they are in construction, it is possible to red tag the building permit and stop construction until they conform to the ordinance requirements. If the City misses it from an inspection process, then we might deal with it after the fact similar to the previous property. City Engineer Mann noted the original retaining wall had been placed further into the easement area and the inspectors asked that it be moved back. That portion of Council Minutes (Regular) December 5, 2005 Page 8 the wall is now where it should be. None of City staffwere aware or at all condoned any ofthe construction beyond that line. Mayor Soderberg added moving the wall back was in anticipation ofthe conservation easement being granted. Mr. Berg stated there is still some misunderstanding between what was communicated to them and what was just said. It sounds like the City had no knowledge of what was going on out here and that is not true. We discussed this with staff several times and the inspectors walk through the back on a weekly basis. Their understanding was that they could do this with the change in the easement. Mrs. Berg stated the silt fence was wrapped around the trees and the silt fence is approximately where the end ofthe yard is. As a result of removing the retaining wall there will be the same mud problem. Mayor Soderberg noted that is why we will provide the seed to restore the area. Councilmember Pritzlaff felt the mud issue will go away with seed. If you draw a straight line, will you abruptly take out the rock or will you have to come back further into the buffer to feather it out. Mr. Berg stated it was a very steep grade going down and there was not thick vegetation to keep it in place. City Engineer Mann stated they will have to regrade the area so a buffer can be established. There cannot be a drop off. Staffwill determine from the original grading plan what the grade was. It appears there was fill brought in where the rock are so the grade is higher now than it was. Staffs intent was to re-establish the buffer in all areas the developer has encroached into. There does have to be a buffer established and vegetation that will impede erosion. Councilmember McKnight noted Mr. Berg talked about an April timeline and there being some confusion as far as what they could do. Mr. Berg replied he does not understand where the miscommunication was. He did not know if it was within the City itself or if they misunderstood. Mrs. Berg stated they worked with their builder. Mr. Berg stated they were in communication with the City and told staff what was being done. This has been going on since March or April 2004. They did not know there was an issue until two weeks ago. Mr. Berg was not sure what the original grading plan called for, but there is a steep drop off. The whole area is steep. It was not built up by them. There was a steep hillside and they had to build the retaining wall to hold it back. Either the builder built up their property or the neighbor cut theirs down to make it level. Councilmember McKnight asked what communication was done with residents in March or April. City Engineer Mann replied they kept all the neighbors informed as to the meetings. There was a workshop in January and it went to Council in April. Staff communicated with the neighbors as to the outcome. Councilmember McKnight asked if there was communication sent in January or was it communicated after it was resolved. Jen Collova, Natural Resources Specialist, replied all the residents were told in April. They were sent a packet of information. Once the paperwork went through the legal process and staff received the Conservation Easements, the residents were sent the easements to sign with information about what this meant. After those are signed, she sends them an updated survey with where their lot line is and where their conservation easement and where their useable new yard is. Council Minutes (Regular) December 5,2005 Page 9 Since the Bergs have not gotten their Conservation Easement signed yet, she has not yet sent them that additional letter. Mrs. Berg stated she just received this information within the last couple weeks. City Engineer Mann showed the revised survey to Council which showed it was revised in March 2005 showing the wetland buffer. It also shows the rock retaining wall going beyond the buffer, which the inspector had them remove up to the buffer line. They did that up to the conservation easement line. Councilmember Wilson stated the silt fence is not meant to be a property line. It is placed where there is a steeper grade to prevent erosion. City Engineer Mann replied the silt fence does not have to be on the property line. It depends on what the grades are. The silt fence should have been put on the original buffer line because the ordinance states the buffer should be untouched during the grading process. In this case, that was completely disregarded by the developers' contractors to begin with. This was continued on by the developers' lack of communication to the builder. Councilmember Wilson stated there are varying levels of blame depending on where the property is. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked what kind of communication we had with the neighborhood. Was it a public hearing as they would have been sent a notice of the hearing. He asked if everyone on 203rd Street was notified. City Engineer Mann was not certain if everyone was notified ofthe Council workshop. However, everyone was notified after the April 18, 2005 Council meeting. Mrs. Berg stated the residents were not notified because if they knew there was a hearing, they would have been here. If they knew there was a workshop, they would have been here. They did not know about anything until they received a letter showing the new boundaries one week ago. Mr. Berg agreed they never heard about the workshop. Mayor Soderberg thought the City notified everyone who had a wetland buffer. Mayor Soderberg asked Council what they wanted to do with the portion between the proposed conservation easement line and the property comer. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated if they go from property comer to property comer is the City liable for re-grading. Mrs. Berg stated they will have the landscaper come and he can re-grade it if the City will give him a recommendation on how to do it. Mr. Berg asked how it would be re-graded without coming way into the yard. City Engineer Mann replied there will have to be some type of transition and it will have to be designed to make it work. Mr. Berg asked if something can be planted on the steep grade to hold it back. Attorney Jamnik asked ifit was the sense of the majority of the Council to re-establish the proposed conservation easement between that line and the property comer to the extent we can by blending in with the neighboring property owner as well as the outlot. Mayor Soderberg stated he would be inclined to do that very thing. To establish the original conservation limit that was proposed and work on establishing a transitional grade. The reason he would go back to the original proposed conservation limit is because the inspector advised the Bergs' to remove a portion Council Minutes (Regular) December 5, 2005 Page 10 back to that point. Mayor Soderberg assumed that was done in anticipation of the conservation easement. Had the inspector followed what was in place at that time, it would have gone back to within feet ofthe deck and most of the retaining wall would had to have been removed. Councilmember Fogarty agreed, this is a completely different situation than the previous one. There was a misunderstanding, but she felt the City did their best to explain what was happening. The fact someone pointed out you cannot go past this limit, they were taking into account the conversation Council had already had. She agreed the grading needs to be fixed. She would like to see the proposed conservation easement limit imposed. Councilmember McKnight stated he agreed, but would like to get an answer on the notification issue before any final action is taken. Councilmember Pritzlaff also agreed, it has to go back to the conservation easement line to feather it out. Councilmember Wilson clarified doing landscaping does not require a permit. It is up to the owner to verify lot comers, placement of trees, etc. He supported the conservation easement limit. Mr. Berg asked about grading towards the neighbor's yard. It is a 6 ft. drop. Mayor Soderberg stated that will also be reviewed. Mrs. Berg stated the area between the proposed conservation easement limit and the property comer there is an in-ground pond. She did not like it that Council was not understanding they did not get any notification at all as to the workshop. She does themail in the house and they did not receive any notice. They have spent a fortune. She called the City several times and the inspectors are in the back on a regular basis. They are willing to compromise to the property comer, but not as far as the pond is concerned. It is on their property. She asked if a permit needed to be pulled and was told it was not needed. She talked to staff about the pond and talks to the inspectors on a regular basis. Mrs. Berg stated she has no intention oftaking out the pond unless someone else wants to dig it up. They will remove the stones beyond the property comer and will comply with grading. Mrs. Berg stated she appreciated not being invited to any of the workshops. They are tax paying citizens and should have been invited. Mrs. Berg continued to insist she talks with staff on a weekly basis. They just finished their basement and had many inspectors there who saw the landscaping. Mayor Soderberg stated the list of who was notified which occurred in January and April will be verified. This will be on the December 19, 2005 Council agenda for action. Mrs. Berg continued to insist that she opens the mail and they did not receive any notification. They invested a 10t of money in this landscaping. Councilmember Wilson recalled Council directed staff to notify any affected owners. It was never the intent to exclude any residents. Council would like to examine what paperwork and inspections were done by the City. Mrs. Berg stated they felt excluded and they will look into that further. They talked to staff a million and two times and have never been invited to anything. The City will be disturbing their yard and the wetland and it will cost them a fortune. Mr. Berg stated as far as the retaining wall, their intention was not to do damage, but to Council Minutes (Regular) December 5, 2005 Page 11 protect from erosion. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated this issue came to Council in November 2004 and assumed there were articles in the newspaper. There have also been inspectors telling them to move back to the conservation line. Mrs. Berg suggested a compromise where they would remove the retaining wall back to the property line, but they will need a suggestion as to how to retain the dirt. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated that was not his compromise. He was saying if they remove the rock to the property line, what would staffhave to do to feather it in. Mrs. Berg agreed with that and they have a landscaper who can work with staff, but from the conservation easement limit to the property comer they have a large pond and she wants to leave it there because it is on their property. Mayor Soderberg stated staff will do the research for the next Council meeting. b) Approve Funding Metro Watershed Partners - Engineering At the last meeting there were some questions as to the fact that Farmington and the Dakota County Vermillion River Watershed has participated and there was a question as to why both entities would participate. Staff has recommended to be involved with the Metro Watershed because they produce many articles, materials, brochures, exhibits, etc. that assist the City with the MPDES Phase II best management practices. It shows the City is committed to addressing storm water issues and meeting educational requirements. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson to approve the expenditure of $1 ,500 to support the Metro WaterShed Partners for 2006. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Cataract Relief Association Pension Request - Finance In August the Council intended to receive a request from the Cataract Fire Relief Association with regard to their 2006 pension request. That item was tabled to allow the Cataract to speak with the Council at a workshop. Subsequent to the last workshop, they were informed they needed to bring forward a request before the end of the year in order for it to take effect January 1, 2006. The Cataract Association request contains $62,500 as the annual payment to the Association from the City in order to fund the pension. There is a slight difference in the second portion of the request. The Association is still requesting $3,500 per year of annual service for benefits. At the workshop, the amount put forward by the Council was $3,350. The action requested was to approve an amendment to the Fire Relief Association's by-laws increasing the annual pension from the current level of$3,200 per year of service to $3,350 per year of service effective January 1,2006 as per Council's discussion at the budget workshop. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted the $62,500 is an increase from $60,000. The original request was $3,500 and $65,000. During the workshops he felt going from $3,200 to $3,350 was doing something for the long-term firefighters and going from $60,000 to $62,500 was showing something for the short-term which is 20 years and less and newcomers. The firefighters provide a great service to the City and he thanked them for that. The rest of Council agreed. Mr. Jay Clinkscales, Treasurer of the Cataract Relief Asssociation, stated they have met several times to come to a resolution. In the past, when the funding is at Council Minutes (Regular) December 5,2005 Page 12 the appropriate percentage there has not been any question. According to past practice, they submitted their request to Council using state guidelines recommending an increase from $3,200 to $3,500. In the workshop, he recalled that if they were above the 90 percentile funding the increases would not be an issue. Taking an increase of $300 would keep them within the 90% funding ratio. The Association cannot understand the position of staff and the Council to not allow that increase. The City has used the Stanton Group 6 for salary comparisons for all City staff. The Fire Department pension benefit was more than $700 below the median point for this group. It is a 22% difference from what the current proposal is from the City. At a 4.7% increase it would take over five years to get the department to the pension of a 2003 level. The funding is there for the increase to $3,500. The Association has a responsibility to maintain the funding investments within the state guidelines. So the chances ofthe fund taking a dive are very slim. Mayor Soderberg stated at the workshop we discussed this number for this year and early next year look at the fund balance and look at adjustments for next year. Mr. Clinkscales agreed they discussed moving forward in a manner that would increase the City contribution. Mayor Soderberg added as well as the benefit. Mr. Clinkscales stated there was a disagreement at that point. The Association disagreed with that stance that we would not increase to $3,500. The Association appreciated the City's proposal to increase the City's contribution to $62,500 versus the $60,000 that was originally in the budget. However, in past practice if the funding was there it was not an issue for the Association to take an increase in the pension within the budgeting guidelines. In the past if the funding was not there, they did not submit for an increase in the pension. Ifwe follow past practice, the $300 increase falls well within those guidelines. Councilmember Prizlaff spoke with Mr. Bill Sauber this past week. There are six members that have 20 years of service or above and are at an age to where they can take their retirement. The goal is to keep the fund at 95%. He asked Mr. Sauber that if all six firefighters were to retire in one lump sum this year the fund would drop to 88% at $3,500. Mr. Clinkscales stated that is correct, but the chances of all six retiring at one time are very slim. Councilmember Wilson stated he appreciated the Fire Department wanted to come to the budget workshop and Mr. Clinkscales was right about Council not worrying about the type of investments. The point that is of concern to the Council is the number of people who could retire. Mr. Clinkscales felt the funding is there and past practice shows the sound judgment they have made. Having six people eligible for retirement and collecting their pension has been a past issue and has not been a problem. At 4.5% they will never get to the Stanton Group 6 guideline which is used for every other department. Mayor Soderberg stated when this was brought to Council's attention it was late in the process and that is why next year they want to start earlier. This is not to diminish the value of the firefighters to the City. Mr. Clinkscales stated the support of$3,500 would show that support by the Council. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he does not want it to be portrayed that ifhe does Council Minutes (Regular) December 5,2005 Page 13 not agree to the $3,500 that he does not value the service of the firefighters. As a Councilmember he has to 100k at the 88% and the 95%. The firefighters are valued 100%. You cannot put a price on what they do for the City. The service the firefighters provide is one thing, this is completely different. He thanked all the firefighters for the service they provide and it is a great service to the City. Mr. Clinkscales stated taking the increase to $3,500 would not cost the City a dime. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by McKnight to amend the Fire Relief Association by-laws increasing the City's contribution to the pension fund of $62,500 and an increase in the benefit to $3,350. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Pritzlaff: Thanked the Chamber for the ribbon cutting ceremony at the new Liquor Store. This weekend was the first weekend for the Village Holidays at the Fairgrounds. It also runs next weekend. He volunteered to work at the admission gate. City Attorney Jamnik: Regarding the Angus lawsuit, the District Court granted summary judgment and dismissed the lawsuit. The property owner has the right to take the parcel through the PCA voluntary cleanup program at which point contribution from the City may be sought. Regarding the Xcellitigation, oral arguments at the Court of Appeals are scheduled for next Wednesday. Finance Director Roland: As a part of the Hipp partnership, there was a letter from the Administrators to the co-chairs of the house and senate capital investment committees indicating the county had done their part and bonded for the Dakota Communications Center and they were requesting that the state take up the balance of the funding for that center under the state's bonding program. December 7, 2005 from 4:30 -7:00 p.m. there will be a reception to meet the City Administrator candidates at the Maintenance Facility. Mayor Soderberg: It is a great new liquor store. He asked Finance Director Roland to provide a report to Council showing what the City has done to retain current businesses and attract new businesses and what we are currently doing. As we have an economic development person on staff, hopefully we have seen some activity in that regard. Acting City Administrator Roland stated that report will be provided in mid- January. She noted there should also be a report on the status of the goals set in March. Mayor Soderberg stated he had a conversation with the President of the NDC about having an economic summit where Council would talk casually to business owners about what can and cannot be done to attract and retain businesses. This would take place in the earlier part of next year. Council Minutes (Regular) December 5,2005 Page 14 Council recessed at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30 p.m. for Executive Session. 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION Discussion regarding ISD 192 litigation. Respectfully submitted, ~)r?~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES November 30, 2005 1. Call to Order Mayor Soderberg called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Present: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson Rotty, Barker, Johnson, Larson Absent: Richter Also Present: Robin Roland, Acting City Administrator/Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director, Lee Mann, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Lee Smick, City Planner; Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Audience: Randy Becker, Bart Winkler, Doug Bonar, Kara Hildreth, Michelle Leonard 2. Approve Agenda MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by McKnight to approve the agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Discussion of Proposed Concept Review Policy (Southeast Region) The first issue has to do with how and when concept plans are reviewed for certain sections of the City. Staffhas divided the southeast region into two zones. Zone A is small parcels and are close to town. Zone B is larger parcels, mostly agricultural. The area to the south has been the subject of discussions with Castle Rock Township regarding an orderly annexation agreement. The area to the east has been discussed with Empire Township. Concept plans for the areas in Zone A could be moved forward without any comprehensive overview and without waiting for the system plans to be completed. The properties in Zone B need more attention as far as Comp Plan amendments and all system plan updates should be completed before any planning is done. The Planning Commission was in support of how to handle concept plans for this area. Some properties in Zone A are part of an Orderly Annexation Agreement. Staffs policy has been to start with a concept plan which was consistent with past history. Recently there was some controversy regarding reviewing a concept pIan prior to annexation. The process for Zone A is the way things are handled currently. The Planning Commission wanted to make sure they and the Council were on the same page. Chair Rotty felt the concept plan for the Perkins property was different than the MUSA plan. He felt the proposed process is reasonable. Councilmember McKnight would prefer to have system plans completed and a joint resolution before anything is done for Zone B. A joint resolution with Castle Rock should be done early next year. Staff noted the process for Zone B is also consistent with the current process. If someone comes in with a concept pIan staff could do a preliminary review of the concept pIan, but the system plans should be updated before any final review. With the system plans it is nice to lmow how many units are anticipated to determine if the system can handle it. Staffwould sti1llike to see concept plans at a stafflevel. Staffhas to base the system plans on an assumption. It needs to be determined what else can be served with the Council/Planning Commission Workshop November 30, 2005 Page 2 current system. It is best to determine the land area and the density and can the system handle it. Right now staff is verifying the system can serve a certain area. There is an area in the original water comprehensive plan that will not come in. The sewer and water plans will be done February 1, 2006. Staff needs to determine if development will occur beyond that area, what is needed. Chair Rotty felt we need to discuss what we want and need. He felt they should decide as a group rather than have the developer come in with what they want. Mayor Soderberg noted there are some parcels within Zone B that are in the City and the land owners have indicated a desire to develop their land and they have been granted MUSA. This needs to be addressed. Staff asked for a consensus as to whether staff can review concept plans for Zone B. City Engineer Mann noted if we look at a small area in Zone B, there would be complete flexibility. Ifwe decide to build in all of Zone B, the options would be more limited. The City's growth will play more of a limiting factor than it did in the past. Chair Rotty agreed limiting is the key factor. Just because we have the capacity we should still build what the City wants and needs rather than letting developers decide. Councilmember McKnight felt we should take the next two months to draw the circles of what we want in that area while the system plans are being finished. He does not want to see concept plans from the developer. Council agreed with this. All agreed to wait for the completion of the system plans for Zone B before reviewing concept plans. Concept plans can be reviewed at a staff level. Council, Planning Commission and staff will determine together what should be in Zone B. Staff confirmed the Zone A process is approved as is. The Zone B process will be modified by noting concept plans will be reviewed by staff in step one. Step two will be made a pre-requisite rather than a step as steps 1-8 cannot be done until the system plans are updated. Staff can work with the developer on the steps, but not bring anything to the Councilor Planning Commission until the system plans are done. Staff can discuss the concept pIan, annexation, or MUS A, but no formal action will be taken until the system plans are done. Step six which is the Comp Plan designation and zoning classification will be decided as a group. Staffwill finish the system plans and then everyone will meet again as a group. Staffwill modify the process and bring it to the December 19,2005 Council meeting. 4. Discussion of Proposed Criteria Regarding Multi-Family and Medium-to-High Density Housing Staff developed criteria for multi-family and medium-to-high density housing to make the Planning Commission's analysis and the Council's analysis more fair with respect to concept plans. This will enable staff to act in a consistent way with Council's goals. These criteria will be used for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. A discussion followed on the Met Council's requirements for affordable housing. All members agreed with the criteria for multi-family and medium-to-high density housing. Staffwill bring this to the December 19,2005 Council meeting. 5. Discussion of "Savanna Pointe at Dean Lakes" Development in Shakopee The developer of the Perkins property gave the above development as an example of a development that has detached townhomes on 36 ft. lots. The revised Perkins concept pIan has 36 ft. and 46 ft. lots. Commissioner Johnson toured the development and noted there is only 12 ft. between the houses. They had a pool and a park just off the property which was not on the Perkins concept plan. He felt this was a nice amenity. The Council/Planning Commission Workshop November 30, 2005 Page 3 developer ofthe Perkins property is proposing this type of housing for two sides of the market - college graduates and retirees. Commissioner Johnson felt it has its place in a limited use area. This development would be done as a PUD rather than a new zoning classification. Commissioner Larson liked the concept, but was concerned with the lower income level housing. He would like to lower the density and increase the price to make it a better neighborhood. It is a lot of houses in a little area. Staff noted what has been proposed for the Perkins property is a significantly lower density than Bristol Square and Glenview. All cities need to be concerned about very high concentrations of housing in areas without a lot of amenities. This can be addressed through parks, trails, recreational amenities, ponds, etc. Councilmember Fogarty liked the housing type. She would like to see parks in the plan and sidewalks. Councilmember Wilson also liked the plan and felt any concerns could be minimized with the design style. Staff noted any design standards could be added to the PUD. Councilmember Pritzlaffliked the different look. Chair Rotty stated if it can be done as a PUD and the developer is willing to go along with the comments, this plan provides for a transportation route. The housing is landlocked and will not continue to grow. The appearance ofthe houses can be addressed in the PUD. Councilmember McKnight said no to the plan for now. Mayor Soderberg stated the appeal of the project for him is the extension of210th Street. Staff wanted to clarify if they want sidewalks on every street or enough to get access around the development. Councilmember Wilson would like to see how they would affect the Park and Trail Master Plan. Mayor Soderberg felt a sidewalk was not needed on every street. Chair Rotty stated the setback can be the same as other developments. The lots are just narrower. 6. Discussion of Bridgeland Development's Concept Plan for Perkins Property The developer appreciated the comments. This type of housing is what the market is asking for. This is moving up to a different style from the attached townhomes. The developer will advise staff if they can make the changes for the December 13,2005 Planning Commission meeting. 7. Adjourn The group will wait to meet again until the system plans are updated which would be in mid-late January 2006. MOTION by McKnight, second by Pritzlaff to adjourn at 6:31 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted ~ci- /v?~ c/ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant COUNCIL MINUTES CITY ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEWS December 8, 2005 Present: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson Absent: None Also Present: Joel Jamnik, City Attorney and Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director. The Council interviewed the following five candidates for the position of City Administrator: Mark Winson, Ed Treska, Peter Herlofsky, Jr., Pat Klaers and Jeff O'Neill. Interviews began at 8:30 a.m. and were held in the Council Chambers. There was a short discussion on the process moving forward including scheduling top candidate(s) for a management assessment through either PDI or Martin McAlister. The Council also discussed which candidate( s) to move forward in the process. A motion was made to advance three candidates, Herlofsky, Winson and O'Neill to the next level. Motion was made by Steve Wilson, seconded by Christy Fogarty. Motion carried. A motion to adjourn was made by Christy Fogarty, seconded by David McKnight. The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, .JUA [1-?~~/~ Brenda Wendlandt Human Resources Director " 7b City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, Interim City Administrator ~ FROM: Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Temporary On-Sale Liquor License - Knights of Columbus Council #2400 DATE: December 19,2005 INTRODUCTION The Knights of Columbus Council #2400 is requesting a Temporary on-sale Liquor License for a Bingo event, to be held February 4,2006. DISCUSSION This event will be held on St. Michael's Church property located at 22120 Denmark Ave. Per State Statute, a Temporary Liquor license must first be approved by the City and then forwarded to the State for approval. BUDGET IMPACT A City fee has not been established for a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License. Per the Liquor Control Commission, the State of Minnesota waives all fees for Temporary Liquor Licenses for non-profit organizations. Therefore, no license fee is proposed at this time. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the attached application for a Temporary Liquor License for the Knights of Columbus, 22120 Denmark Ave., for February 4,2006. Respectfully submitted, ~u7.A~ Lisa Shadick Administrative Services Director Minnesota Department of Public Safety Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division 444 Cedar St-Suite 133 St. Paul, MN 55101-5133 (651)296-6439 TDD (651)282-6555 APPLICATION AND PERMIT FOR A TEMPORARY ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSE '100 hm PHONE STATE n11 }I-t HOME PHONE ('J~ 953-01 1 DATE ORGANIZED ORGANIZATION OFFICER'S NAME ADDRESS Location where license will be used. If an outdoor area, describe ~p..I)J) Qe-h?PAr.. r-f. Av.JL f:: fA r II'n, i ?f f-.ot 1Ywt < Will the applicant contract for intoxicating liquor services? If so, give the name and address of the liquor licensee providing the service. N6 Will the applicant carry liquor liability insurance? so, the carrier's name and amount of coverage. (NOTE: Insurance is not mandatory.) 0 APPROVAL APPLICATION MUST BE APPROVED BY CITY OR COUNTY BEFORE SUBMITTING TO ALCOHOL & GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT CITY/COUNTY CITY FEE AMOUNT DATE FEE PAID DATE APPROVED LICENSE DATES SIGNATURE CITY CLERK OR COUNTY OFFICIAL APPROVED Alcohol & Gambling Enforcement Director Note: Do not separate these two parts, send both parts to the address above and the original signed by this division will be returned as the license. Submit to the city or County at least 30 days before the event. PS-09079 (6/98) City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7c TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, Interim City Administrator r FROM: Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Gambling Event Permit - Knights of Columbus Council #2400 DATE: December 19,2005 INTRODUCTION The Knights of Columbus Council #2400 is requesting a Gambling Event Permit for a Binge event. DISCUSSION Per State Statute 349.166 and pertinent City Code, a Gambling Event Permit must be issued by the City for this type of event. An application has been received, along with the appropriate fees. The City Attorney has reviewed the application and the attached resolution approving the request. BUDGET IMPACT Gambling fees are included in the revenue estimates of the budget. ACTION REOUESTED Consider the attached Resolution granting a Gambling Event Permit to the Knights of Columbus at St. Michael's Church, 22120 Denmark Avenue, on February 4,2006. Respectfully submitted, ~c?g~ Lisa Shadick Administrative Services Director RESOLUTION NO. R -05 APPROVING A MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION FOR KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS #2400 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 19th day of December 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, pursuant to M.S. 349.166, the State of Minnesota Gambling Board may not issue or renew a Gambling Event Permit unless the City Council adopts a Resolution approving said permit; and, WHEREAS, the Knights of Columbus #2400 have submitted an application for a Gambling Event Permit to be conducted at St. Michael's Church, 22120 Denmark Avenue for Council consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Farmington City Council that the Gambling Event Permit for the Knights of Columbus #2400 to be conducted at St. Michael's Church, 22120 Denmark Avenue, is hereby approved. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 19th day of December 2005. Mayor Attested to the day of December 2005. Acting City Administrator SEAL City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7d TO: Mayor, Council Members, Interim City Administrator t FROM: Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Gambling Event Permit - Southern Dakota County Sportsmen's Club DATE: December 19,2005 INTRODUCTION The Southern Dakota County Sportsmen's Club is requesting a Gambling Event Permit for a raffle to be held at the Farmington American Legion. DISCUSSION Per State Statute 349.166 and pertinent City Code, a Gambling Permit must be issued by the City for this type of event. An application has been received, along with the appropriate fees. The City Attorney has reviewed the application and the attached resolution approving the request. BUDGET IMPACT Gambling permit fees are included in the revenue estimates ofthe budget. ACTION REQUESTED Consider the attached Resolution granting a Gambling Event Permit to Southern Dakota County Sportsmen's Club at the Farmington American Legion, 10 N 8th Street, on January 21,2006. Respectfully submitted, ~t1~/l~ Lisa Shadick Administrative Services Director RESOLUTION NO. R -05 APPROVING A MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION FOR SOUTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY SPORTSMEN'S CLUB Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting ofthe City Council ofthe City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 19th day of December 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, pursuant to M.S. 349.166, the State of Minnesota Gambling Board may not issue or renew a Gambling Event Permit unless the City Council adopts a Resolution approving said permit; and, WHEREAS, the Southern Dakota County Sportsmen's Club have submitted an application for a Gambling Event Permit to be conducted at the American Legion, 10 North 8th Street for Council consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Farmington City Council that the Gambling Event Permit for the Southern Dakota County Sportsmen's Club to be conducted at the American Legion, 10 North 8th Street, is hereby approved. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 19th day of December 2005. Mayor Attested to the day of December 2005. Acting City Administrator SEAL 7e City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 55024 (651) 463-7111 . (651) 463-2359 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, and Interim City Administrator ~ Benno Klotz ~ Solid Waste SupervisoV FROM: SUBJECT: Authorize Advertisement for Bid Sale of Garbage Containers and Lids DATE: December 19,2005 INTRODUCTION & DISCUSSION The Farmington Solid Waste Division offers incremental levels of garbage service to meet customer needs and to satisfy State requirements. To serve those customers that generate small quantities of garbage a 30-gallon liner was riveted inside a larger 60 or 90 gallon waste container, which accommodated the automated arm on the garbage trucks. The supplier of this 30-gallon liner has discontinued manufacturing it and staff has been unable to find another manufacturer of a 30-gallon liner similar to the existing liner. However, staff was able to locate a manufacturer of a smaller waste container that will work with the automated arms on the garbage trucks. 400 of these containers were recently purchased to replace the 30-gallon liner. While the 60 and 90 gallon waste containers that the 30 gallon liners fit into have been cleaned up and can be saved for later use, staffwas unable to salvage the 30 gallon liners because when the liners were removed from the 60 and 90 gallon waste containers the liners broke apart. The lids that were used on the 30 gallon liners do not fit the new waste containers and so there is also an excess oflids that Solid Waste can no longer use. Staff is requesting permission to place an advertisement to sell approximately three hundred (300) black waste container lids that were used to identify 30-gallon liners. In addition, there are close to one hundred (100) used 90-gallon waste containers that held the 30-gallon liners that are of no use to Solid Waste and a request is being made to also advertise them for sale. ACTION REQUESTED Authorize staff to place an advertisement for bid for the sale ofthree hundred (300) 30 gallon waste container lids and up to one hundred (100) used 90-gallon waste containers. Respectfully Submitted, f~ Kl1 Benno Klotz Solid Waste Supervisor 7F City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council Members FROM: Robin Roland, Acting City Administrator/Finance Director SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Approve 2006 Tax Levy and Budget - Finance DATE: December 19, 2005 INTRODUCTION The City Council adopted a proposed Tax Levy and budget for 2006 with Resolution RI09-05 at the Council meeting on September 6,2005. The Tax Levy and Budget must now be finalized in order that it may be certified to the County Treasurer/Auditor before December 28, 2005. DISCUSSION & BUDGET IMPACT After the preliminary levy was adopted, budget workshops were held on September 28th and October 26th for the Council to give input on the proposed budget. The required Truth in Taxation Hearing took place at the City Council meeting of December 5, 2005. Residents and other concerned citizens were able to attend and express their opinions on the proposed levy and budget. There being limited testimony, the hearing was closed without continuation. Certification of the Tax Levy and adoption of the 2006 budget and 2005 revised budget must now take place in order that tax revenues may be collected from all taxable property in Farmington. ACTION REQUIRED 1. Adopt the attached resolution setting the 2006 Collectible Property Tax Levy. 2. Adopt the attached resolution approving the 2006 Budget and Revising the 2005 Budget. Respectfully submitted, L., /~;>/;; / ./1 / / l#I^--'ftb7 ~ /' 'Robin Rolan/ Acting City Administrator/Finance Director RESOLUTION NO. R -05 ADOPTING THE TAX LEVY FOR THE YEAR 2006 COLLECTIBLE Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 19th day of December, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member _ introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, the City of Farmington is annually required by State Law to approve a resolution setting forth an annual tax levy to the Dakota County Auditor; and, WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes currently in force require certification of the tax levy to the Dakota County Auditor on or before December 28,2005; and, WHEREAS, summary details of the proposed budgets are contained in the budget submitted to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Farmington, that the following sums of money be levied in 2005, collectible in 2006, upon the taxable property in the City of Farmington for the following purposes: Tax Levy General Fund Debt Service (see attached schedule) Capital Acquisition Fire Levy Gross Levy Less: Fiscal Disparities Net Levy $ 5,235,701 1,195,003 175,000 62,500 $6,668,204 (794,764) $5,873,440 This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 19th day of December, 2005. Mayor Acting City Administrator 2006 BUDGET Summary of Debt Service Levy to be Attached and Become part of Resolution Fund Title Improvement Bonds of 2003A GO Refunding Bonds of 2004A Wastewater Treatment bonds of 1995 Public Project Revenue Bonds of2001A Certificates of Indebtedness 2004 Total Levv Amount $ 236,658 24,607 60,000 455,438 418,300 $1,195,003 RESOLUTION NO. R -05 ADOPTING THE 2006 BUDGET AND REVISING THE 2005 BUDGET Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 19th day of December, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member _ introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, the City of Farmington Ordinance Chapter 7, Section 1-7-3 requires that an annual budget be submitted to the City Council which accurately reflects the financial needs of the City organization; and, WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes require approval of a resolution setting forth an annual budget and tax levy to the Dakota County Auditor on or before December 28,2005; and, WHEREAS, Resolution RI0S-04 adopted the 2005 operating budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Farmington, that the 2006 operating budget shall be adopted and the 2005 operating budget shall be revised as follows: 2005 Revised 2006 General Fund Revenues: Taxes 4,750,293 5,298,201 Licenses & Permits 791,175 1,006,756 Intergovernmental 356,896 350,000 Charges for Services 454,500 439,000 Fines & Forfeitures 79,000 83,100 Other Revenues 235,000 238,500 Transfers In 236.000 347.900 Total 6.902.864 7.763.457 Expenditures: Administration 594,752 650,710 Human Resources/Information Tech 290,023 332,944 Finance 411 ,888 457,719 Community Development 673,043 798,021 Police 2,369,910 2,679,280 Fire 478,959 531,006 Public Works 984,070 1,076,386 Parks & Recreation 883,544 1,029,861 Transfers Out 200.000 207 .530 Total 6.886.189 7.763.457 2005 Revised 2006 Other Funds Revenues: HRA General Fund 220,000 20,000 Police Forfeitures Fund 8,200 8,000 Park Improvement Fund 346,000 296,000 Recreation Operating Fund 288,500 298,030 Arena fund 252,500 252,500 Total Special Revenue 1,115,200 874,530 Debt Service Funds 3,859,224 2,538,389 Total Debt Service 3,859,224 2,538,389 Sanitary Sewer Trunk Fund 380,000 380,000 Capital Acquisition Fund 1,243,727 693,300 Road Const. & Maint. Fund 5,095,724 6,705,000 Private Capital Projects Fund 462,000 400,000 Storm Sewer Trunk Fund 585,000 450,000 Total Capital Projects 7,766,451 8,628,300 Liquor Fund 874,000 961,400 Sewer Fund 1,500,000 1,510,000 Solid Waste Fund 1,748,077 1,917,000 Storm Water Utility Fund 295,000 300,000 Water Fund 1,670,000 1,745,000 Total Enterprise Funds 6,087,077 6,433,400 Fleet Operations 205,390 192,780 Employee Expense 1,311, 786 1,341,478 Total Intemal Service Fund 1,517,176 1,534,258 Expenditures: HRA General Fund 42,200 42,100 Police Forfeitures Fund 8,200 8,050 Park Improvement Fund 399,282 528,000 Recreation Operating Fund 280,977 290,977 Arena fund 245,759 247,159 Total Special Revenue 976,418 1,116,286 Debt Service Funds 5,060,816 2,518,291 Total Debt Service 5,060,816 2,518,291 Sanitary Sewer Trunk Fund 406,208 281,475 Capital Acquisition Fund 1,096,678 936,464 Road Const. & Maint. Fund 2,587,486 6,486,000 Private Capital Projects Fund 420,000 420,000 Storm Sewer Trunk Fund 157,431 471,000 Total Capital Projects 4,667,803 8,594,939 Liquor Fund 693,406 883,472 Sewer Fund 1,544,297 1,505,743 Solid Waste Fund 1,753,790 2,030,008 Storm Water Utility Fund Water Fund 2005 Revised 400,884 1.061.388 5,453,765 196,776 1.308.296 1,505,072 2006 335,066 1.432.823 6,187,112 213,140 1.604.465 1,817,605 Total Enterprise Funds Fleet Operations Employee Expense Total Internal Service Fund This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 19th day of December, 2005. Mayor Acting City Administrator ~ CITY OF FARMINGTON SUMMARY OF REVENUES NOVEMBER 30, 2005 91,67 % Year Complete $ ))) il:l.llrli;lill iilli'lii:I':.I:ili::il::I::::I:llil Ili::lllllllilll % $ % GENERAL FUND Property Taxes Licenses Permits Fines Intergovernment Revenue Charges for Service Investment Interest Miscellaneous Transfers Total General Fund 4,750,293 2,396,704 50.45 1,806,518 50,97 28,655 7,086 31,005 108.20 29,063 131,80 1,096,250 114,527 621,844 56.72 698,335 74,64 78,100 7,495 58,865 75.37 74,802 94,69 310,000 1,147 358,893 115,77 384,109 119,66 386,000 4,758 311,014 80,57 172,740 35,60 225,000 18,750 206,250 91,67 220,000 68,75 10,000 163 15,348 153.48 85,488 240.81 236 000 19666 216333 91.67 284 167 91,67 7120298 173 592 4216256 59.21 3755222 62,04 SPECIAL REVENUE HRA Operating Fund 20,500 2,745 117,004 570,75 307,023 97.41 Police Forfeitures Fund 8,050 375 8,421 104,61 8,228 102,21 Park Improvement Fund 292,000 42,756 676,712 231,75 195,023 128,56 Recreation Operating Fund 301,500 229,967 76.27 220,491 82.36 Ice Arena 247,500 29,650 202,866 81.97 0,00 ENTERPRISE FUNDS Ice Arena 0.00 183,743 64,51 Liquor Operations 3,715,746 292,188 3,056,538 82,26 2,679,928 86,25 Sewer 1,533,857 98,693 1,094,736 71.37 1,118,215 82,03 Solid Waste 1,748,077 134,917 1,430,568 81,84 1,335,043 89,21 Storm Water 235,000 22,658 340,492 144,89 251,370 96,84 Water 1 695 000 249 684 1 682 454 99.26 1 292 087 81.40 Total Revenues 16917528 1 047258 13,056014 77,17 11,346 373 76,18 CITY OF FARMINGTON SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES NOVEMBER 30, 2005 )PEROENT: )):)2004t:::}} Jl~ERCENr .......................... ........................... ........................ ........................... ............................ ........................ ......................... . ::::::::::::::::::Y!ttf::::::;:::::::: ::::::::::::::ioijiir:;::::::::: """""""!O'O$,. r~/{: ~:~rr:r~.. " '. : . .:?r~{:~ ......... ... ......... ....... ....... ::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:.:;:.:,',:::;:;:;:;:::i:;::.;:;:;:;:;:::;:' . ....::;:;:;:::::;: GENERAL FUND % $ % Legislative 67,162 1,901 88,579 131,89 55,286 86,04 Administration 455,528 31,254 461,990 101.42 378,987 87,99 Elections 10,875 0,00 8,846 0,00 Communications 70,882 5,661 58,192 82,10 57,990 82,77 Human Resources 195,206 12,190 164,491 84,27 175,826 96,22 Information Technology 107,783 5,082 100,220 92,98 43,842 79,92 Finance 413,638 29,487 369,717 89,38 368,680 94,26 Planning 174,080 11,136 154,241 88,60 163,626 96,16 Building Inspection 406,738 26,788 333,061 81,89 343,042 97,96 Community Development 158,997 12,359 109,471 68,85 79,651 85,31 Police Administration 603,905 25,781 500,883 82,94 481,437 91.99 Patrol Services 1,518,203 111,119 1,324,992 87.27 1,176,004 101,86 Investigation Services 277,602 27,189 310,313 111.78 221,106 85,50 Emergency Management 5,200 3,030 89,151 1714.44 2,063 128,94 Fire 425,849 122,827 394,696 92,68 359,063 91.44 Rescue 43,110 689 34,372 79.73 29,664 76,00 Engineering 284,465 (30,490) 225,600 79,31 288,062 106,82 G,I.S. 9,798 0,00 4,348 46,59 Streets 472,632 26,155 382,478 80,93 490,082 117.05 Snow Removal 102,935 8,689 88,734 86.20 63,555 64,95 Signal Maint 105,600 9,490 90,006 85,23 85,105 86,84 Natural Resources 56,285 332 41,023 72,88 0,00 Park Maint 407,186 21,138 353,666 86,86 309,608 118.62 Forestry 0 0,00 57,408 55.77 Building Maint 157,995 4,843 101,469 64,22 87,174 71,19 Recreation Programs 375,644 29,515 348,854 92,87 353,481 114.80 Outdoor Ice 0 0.00 3,375 87,66 Transfers Out 213000 142 086 66,71 129750 75,00 Total General Fund 7120298 496 165 6 268 285 88.03 5817061 96,10 SPECIAL REVENUE HRA Operating 42,100 91 19,957 47.40 278,058 96,15 Police Forfeitures Fund 8,050 57 13,989 173,78 9,666 85,90 Park Improvement Fund 528,000 49,598 298,584 56,55 284,095 129,37 Senior Center 148,444 10,570 124,861 84,11 128,382 101,37 Swimming Pool 142,533 (36,955) 101,667 71,33 132,803 98,97 Ice Arena 247159 18629 244 794 99.04 0 0,00 ENTERPRISE FUNDS Ice Arena 0 0 0,00 249,591 95.08 Liquor Operations 3,561,633 296,675 3,205,059 89,99 2,631,662 85,14 Sewer 1,541,497 98,464 1,047,068 67.93 1,108,696 30,92 Solid Waste 1,770,599 134,671 1,433,382 80,95 1,470,908 97.26 Storm Water 400,884 46,389 279,779 69.79 239,947 63,39 Water Utility 1 140558 55,514 669 834 58,73 685 864 27,87 Total Ex enditures 16,651,755 1,169,868 13,707,259 82,32 13,036,733 71.93 7~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us FROM: Mayor, Councilrnembers, Acting City Administrator ~ Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer TO: SUBJECT: Sewer Sharing with Lakeville DATE: December 19,2005 INTRODUCTION Pulte Homes has contacted Farmington in regards to potential development in Lakeville just north of Dakota County Estates. Farmington has a sewer line that serves a portion of the northern area of the City that traverses north through Lakeville and connects to the Met Council interceptor north of the City (see attached map). DISCUSSION Pulte Homes has indicated a desire to either share in the extra capacity in Farmington's existing sewer line or reconstruct the line to expand the capacity as part of their proposed development. Staff has contacted Lakeville and Lakeville's City Engineer has indicated that Lakeville would be open to entering into a joint powers agreement regarding the shared use of Farmington's sewer line. Farmington staff would insure that sufficient capacity is reserved in the sewer line for Farmington's needs. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED Approve, in concept, the sharing of the sewer line with Lakeville north of Dakota County Estates and authorize staff to work with Lakeville to draft a joint powers agreement that would address the shared use of the sewer line. The joint powers agreement will be brought back to Council for final review and approval. Respectfully Submitted, ~m~ Lee M. Mann, P .E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file ~ -; I '" -; '" f"'l f"'l -; >( f"'l '" -; FLAGSTAFF AVENUE n 0 -l -l -< -< D D ~ ~ ~ r ]> ]> Al ^ 3: fTl Z < Cl P -l r ~ fTl rr ~ -. ..,~ t.d" ~ s (\') EMBERS ~ ~A\'(~ ~'-- ~ - / ~ / // / ./ (")-0;:0 / ~~~ ./ / ~Ul~ /' ~0~../ .. r / ( r : ----- /0/ ./ / / 0" / ~ /' / /' / / .--/ ~ ..-' ~ /"" ~ -; :I: '" :-< 3: o m (f) )>(f) 2m o~ m 0:;0 0 .cr' 2 2 2 --i m m n :;0 --i () - m 0 -u 2 --i -00 0::::0 - (f) 2 --i m en ~ m :;0 )> :;0 m ):> (/) I j - -- 7/~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilrnembers, Acting City Administrator r FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Approve Assessment Agreements - Ash Street Project DATE: December 19,2005 INTRODUCTION Michael and Helen Penney, 702 Highland Circle, and Bruce Durham and Catherine Durham, 3760 220th Street, have petitioned for connection to the recently installed sanitary sewer and water on Ash Street. DISCUSSION Michael and Helen Penney, the property owners of 702 Highland Circle, and Bruce Durham and Catherine Durham, the property owners at 3760 220th Street, have requested that the connection fees for the sewer and water be assessed. The Durham's need to connect immediately to City water since their well was impaired due to the Ash Street construction de-watering. Under the City's ordinances, these property owners would not be required to connect to water until November 1 st, 2006. Allowing the connection fees to be assessed is consistent with the City's practice of working with property owners that have annexed into the City. The proposed assessment agreements are attached. BUDGET IMPACT The amount that would be assessed for 702 Highland Circle is $3,665.00. The amount that would be assessed for 3760 220th Street is $8,495.00. The Durham's assessment amount will be deferred for 1 year :from the time of connection, and then will be assessed against the property over a ten year period accruing interest at the rate of five percent per annum. The Penney's amount will be assessed against the property immediately over a ten year period accruing interest at the rate of five percent per annum. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the Assessment Agreements between the City of Farmington and Michael G. and Helen A. Penney for the property at 702 Highland Circle, and Bruce K. Durham and Catherine Durham, for the property at 3760 220th Street. Respectfully submitted, ~ Wi mCVv\A-- Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT (parcel 072375004000) THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") made this day of November, 2005, by and between the CITY OF FARMINGTON, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") with offices at 325 Oak Street, Farmington, Minnesota 55024, and BRUCE K DURHAM and CATHERINE DURHAM, husband and wife, whose address is 3760 220th Street West, Farmington, Minnesota 55024 ("Owners"). Recitals: A. The Owners own the real property located in Dakota County legally described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein ("Subject Property"), also referred to as Tax Parcel 072375004000; and . B. The Subject Property shall be assessed costs, fees and charges associated with the provision of sanitary sewer and water to the Subject Property. The connection of sewer and water service benefit the Subject Property; and C. The actual costs, fees and charges to be assessed against the Subject Property ("Assessments") are set forth on Exhibit "B". NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS SET FORTH HEREIN, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Subject Property is hereby assessed by the City for the Assessments. The total Assessments are: $ 8,495.00. The foregoing amount shall be assessed against the Subject Property over a ten (10) year period accruing interest at the rate of five percent (5%) per annum. The Assessments shall not exceed the amounts set forth on Exhibit "B". 121835 1 2. The Assessments shall be deemed adopted upon execution of this agreement by the City. The Assessments, less any prepayments, will be certified on November 1, 2006. The Owners, by signing this Agreement, acknowledge that all procedural and substantive objections to the Assessment are hereby waived unconditionally, such waiver includes any rights of Owners, their successors or assigns to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the Subject Property. The Owners further waive any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to M.S.A. ~ 429.081. 3. Owners further acknowledge that if the Subject Property is platted or subdivided in the future into two or more parcels, that the additional parcel( s) thereby created shall be subject to a deferred assessment for the costs, fees and charges associated with the provision of water service to the additional parcels resulting :from the subdivision or platting of the Subject Property, with interest as stated in Paragraph 1, and further waive any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to M.S.A. ~ 429.081 CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Kevan Soderberg, Mayor By: Robin Roland, Acting City Administrator PROPERTY OWNERS ~a ruce K. Durham a&d~ oQ)~~~ Catherine Durham STATEOFMINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of November, 2005, by Kevan Soderberg and Robin Roland, the Mayor and Acting City Administrator of the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public 121835 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this z.q fI\ day of November, 2005, by Bruce K. Durham. SUSAN J. MILLER NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA My Commission Expires 01.31.2010 (' ~~~A Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this $(;, ~ day of November, 2005, by Catherine Durham. Not!d~ THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Campbell Knutson Professional Association Suite 317 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 Telephone: 651-452-5000 AMP/cjh 121835 3 EXHIBIT" A" to ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT Legal Description: The north 150 feet of the east 1 00 feet of the west 199 feet of Lot 4, ALEX EMPEY'S ADDITION TO FARMINGTON, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota 121835 4 EXHIBIT "BI" to ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT Sewer and Water Utility Connection fees Sewer Metro Sewer Availability Charge $ 1 ,450.00 City Sewer Availability Charge $ 410.00 Connection Permit Charge $ 70.00 Septic Abandonment Permit Charge $ 60.00 Subtotal Sewer $ 1,990.00 Water Reserve Capacity Connection rNAC) $ 720.00 Water Treatment Plant Fee $ 600.00 Water Meter (5/8) $ 285.00 Connection Permit Charge $ 70.00 Subtotal Water $ 1,675.00 Dakota County Assessment Fee $ 30.00 Service installation $ 4,800.00 Total $ 8,495.00 121835 5 121835 EXHIBIT "BI" to ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT Pro.....1 SAUBER PLUMBING AND HEATING COMPANY 100 THIRD STREET · FARMINGTON. MN 55024 PHONE: (651) 463-7434 PropoealsablDhiedto N.... Bruce Darlla. Street _ Ash Street City FarmiadoD. MN S5024 TelephoDt Number Cellf# 95:t 334-3789 Work to be perfOl'lDed at Street S)B Ash Street City FarmlDdon Stat. MIL Proposal Data 9-11-05 w. bereby propOM to fumisb an the matarlals aDd perform aD tb. labor -ry for the COIIlpletioa of: This proposal is to furnish all labor. equipment and material to install a Water & Sewer Conversion at the above address. This includes 4" PVC sewer line and I" K copper water line, from house to stub-in. inside water and sewer hookups, pump and fill 2 - old tanks. plumbing work in laundry room to turn sewer out West wall with I - new floor drain, concrete removal & replacement, jack hammer. misc. pipe and fittings, 1 - 4" cleanout installed outside. We will separate top soil. where possible, and cleanup and leveling included. No: pennits or meter No: blackdirt seed or sod. No: De- Watering. or Frostripping. Total or S 4.800.00 AD .......... paruteed to be u apedlIed. ..d ... ....... ......10 be pa1Nmcd .. .cconJallCC"" ... dnwlDp ud spedIltMIMI.....w r.... ....... wert ... _...... \a . .._.1iaI ........UIre ....... r....... ... .r DoIJan ($. .uoo.Ol INoIIO 11:.._ ) ""' pa,....lI.. be _de .. roa-: ._ .-altClD. . I/.aJ ......110. .... dnlalloa haI.......lpeCiIka.... hmlMlII nCn tlIIIt, will be tutRd ..., ...... -"- n- ad wID ....... - ...,.. ""or." .......... ........ Worbl.... c_.........oa... PubUt Ualllllty 11IIIIft..... ........ 10 be......al b7 Sa'" PI..IIII11 ad B..... Co. All '_"11 are .....ad payable .. raU ..l1li. 31 da1' or........ -.letIoa ...... _...... u.......1IoYe. nerafttr. aD ___........r ........ Respectfully Subm .bl Nota - This ro I may be withdnwa as I' DOt ucepted wlthlD ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL The above prices. .pedlieatlou aad coDditloD' are utlsfactory aDd are hereby accepted. VOIIare autllorlzed to do tbe work as .pecified. Paymeat win be ..ade a. oadlaed above. Aceepted Signatare Data 6 ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT (Parcel ill 0763240130) THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") made this day of 2005, by and between the CITY OF FARMINGTON, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") with offices at 325 Oak Street, Farmington, Minnesota 55024, and Michael G. Penney and Helen A. Penney, whose address is 702 Highland Circle, Farmington, Minnesota 55024 ("Owners"). Recitals: A. The Owners own the real property located in Dakota County legally described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein ("Subject Property"), also referred to as Parcel Identification number 0763240130; and B. The Subject Property shall be assessed costs, fees and charges associated with the sanitary sewer and water service connection to the Subject Property. The service connections of sanitary sewer and water benefit the Subject Property; and C. The actual costs, fees and charges to be assessed against the Subject Property ("Assessments") are set forth on Exhibit "B". NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS SET FORTH HEREIN, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Subject Property is hereby assessed by the City for the Assessments. The total Assessments are: $3,665.00. The foregoing amount shall be assessed against the Subject Property over a ten (10) year period accruing interest at the rate of five percent (5%) per annum. The Assessments shall not exceed the amounts set forth on Exhibit "B". 2. The Assessments shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed 1 ~ . by the City. The Owners, by signing this Agreement, acknowledge that all procedural and substantive objections to the Assessment are hereby waived unconditionally, such waiver includes any rights of Owners, their successors or assigns to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the Subject Property. The Owners further waive any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to M.S.A. ~ 429.081. CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Kevan Soderberg, Mayor By: Robin Roland, Interim City Administrator 1?&4J ~ (0 er) ---\\~~~~ (Owner) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2005, by Kevan Soderberg and Robin Roland, the Mayor and Interim City Administrator of the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public 2 STATEOFMINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) C\ f\ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this qrt\....day of Ul!Qm\Q./JI\ ,2005, by J\Ai(ltl61i YPJ\(lf1- and ~\en VPJ)(}{"L{' I 17 TAMMY J SUNDET , ; :GT ARY PUBUC. MINNESOTA j"y Commission Expire.~ Jan. 31,2010 THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Campbell Knutson Professional Association Suite 317 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 Telephone: (651) 452-5000 AMP/cjh 3 EXHIBIT "A" to ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT Legal Description of the Subject Property: Lot 13, Block 1, REINARDY ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota 4 . EXHIBIT "B" to ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT Ash Street Utility and Reconstruction Project Sewer and Water Utility Connection fees (Not including lateral benefit costs) Sewer Metro Sewer Availability Charge $ 1 ,450.00 City Sewer Availability Charge $ 410.00 ~ Connection Permit Charge $ zMO: I Septic Abandonment Permit Charge $ ~:!i1if Total Sewer $ 1,990.00 Water Reserve Capacity Connection (WAC) $ 720.00 Water Treatment Plant Fee $ 600.00 Water Meter (5/8) $ 2~ Connection Permit Charge $ Total Water $ 1,675.00 Total Both $ 3,665.00 5 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7' j TO: Mayor, Councilrnembers, Acting City Administrator ~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Approve Change Order - Ash Street Reconstruction and Utility Improvements DATE: December 19, 2005 INTRODUCTION Forwarded herewith for Council's review and consideration is Change Order #4 for the Ash Street Reconstruction and Utility Improvements Project. DISCUSSION Change Order #4 provides for additional bid items necessary to provide for payment for work completed by the contractor. BUDGET IMPACT The total cost for the change order is $31,696.90. This amount is within the project budget. ACTION REQUESTED Approve by motion, Change Order #3 for Ash Street Reconstruction and Utility Improvements project in the amount of$31,696.90. Respectfully submitted, 7L- )/n ~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file i CITY COpy ./1. Bonestroo Own . Ci .lUll Rosene er. G Anderlik & Contractor: Fried es Contractin Com an , 21980 Kenrick Ave., Lakeville, .MN 55044 1\1 1 Associates ngineers & Architects Date November 21,2005 Bond No: MNC41016 CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 ASH STREET RECONSTRUCTION & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS BRA FILE NO. 000141-03205-0 Descriotion of Work This Change Order provides for additional Bid Items for Payment for work completed. Contract Unit Total No. Item Unit Quantity Price Amount CHANGE ORDER NO.4 1 SALVAGE 15" CMP AND DELIVER TO FGlN Y ARI: LF 190 $9.15 $1,738.50 2 8"CMP LF 190 $22.05 $4,189.50 3 ADJUST WATER SERVICES LOCATIONS LS 1 $2,746.41 $2,746.41 4 ADDITIONAL 2X3 CATCH BASINS FOR STORM EA 17 $1,119.97 $19,039.49 SEWER REALIGNMNET (1/3 TO BE PAID EACH, BY AQUILA GAS, CITY, DAKOTA COUNTY.) 5 7' DIAMETER STORM SEWER CBMH EA $3,983.00 $3,983.00 TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO.4: $31,696.90 14103205CH04.xls Original Contract Amount Previous Change Orders fhis Change Order Revised Contract Amount (including this change order) $2,295,871.58 $55,513.62 $31,696.90 $2,383,082.10 CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIMES Original Contract Times: Substantial Completion (days or date): Ready for final Payment (days or date): Increase of this Change Order: Substantial Completion (days or date): Ready for final Payment (days or date): Contract Time with all approved Change Orders: Substantial Completion (days or date): Ready for final Payment (days or date): Recommended for Approval by: BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INe. {Pb-t~ Date: //~ 2'...2- -6~<\ Approved by Contractor: FRIEDGES CONTRACTING COMPANY Approved by Owner: CITY OF FARMINGTON ~ // >-.,2.:2 --as , Date Date cc: Owner Contractor Bonding Company Bonestroo & Assoc. 14103205CH04.xls 7/( City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, City Council and Acting City Administrator ~ FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: 1. 2. Adopt Concept Review Process (Southeast Region) Adopt Multi-Family and Medium-to-High Density Housing Criteria DATE: December 19, 2005 INTRODUCTION Two development-related policies that have been discussed at prior meetings are now ready for adoption. DISCUSSION The City Council and the Planning Commission discussed a proposed Concept Review Process (Southeast Region) and proposed Multi-Family and Medium-to-High Density Housing Criteria at the following series of meetings: 10/19/05 10/26/05 11/08/05 11/21/05 11/30/05 Joint Planning Commission/City Council Workshop Meeting City Council Workshop Meeting Regular Planning Commission Meeting Regular City Council Meeting Joint Planning Commission/City Council Workshop Meeting A copy of a Memo that was prepared for the November 21, 2005 meeting has been attached hereto for reference. At the Joint Workshop Meeting on November 30, the Planning Commission members and the City Council members indicated that the format ofthe proposed Multi-Family and Medium-to- High Density Housing Criteria (see attached Exhibit A) was acceptable. However, some modifications ofthe proposed Concept Review Process for the Southeast Region were recommended. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a revised version of the proposed Concept Review Process. The revisions have been highlighted in yellow to assist you in comparing the new version to the earlier draft. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the attached Concept Review Process for the Southeast Region (Exhibit A) and the attached Multi-Family and Medium-to-High Density Housing Criteria (Exhibit B). :e~.e.~ Il~sub tted~ ~~ ommunity Deve opment Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, City Council and Acting City Administrator FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Development Issues - Proposed Concept Review Process (for Southeast Region) and Proposed Criteria for Multi-Family and Medium-to High Density Housing DATE: November 21,2005 INTRODUCTION A joint Planning Commission/City Council workshop meeting was held on October 19,2005. Some of the topics that were addressed at that time were discussed again at a City Council workshop meeting that was held on October 26, 2005. This memo will summarize relevant portions of those two past discussions, and provide (for discussion purposes) further information regarding staffs proposed handling of certain types of pending or anticipated development concept plans. A. CONCEPT REVIEW PROCESS (SOUTHEAST REGION) The aforementioned discussions that took place on October 19 and October 26 included questions about the desired or preferred processing of concept plans, especially with regard to the timing or sequencing of the required steps in the review/approval process. More specifically, questions were asked about whether concept plans should be reviewed for parcels that are not within the City, or that have not previously been involved in the MUSA review process, or that do not have Comprehensive Plan designations or City zoning classifications. It was suggested to the City Council at its October 26 meeting that the answers to the preceding questions may depend upon the locations of the parcels in question. We have prepared a map (attached) that divides the area east of Highway 3 and south of 220th Street/Highway 50 into two zones. The characteristics of, or differences between, the two zones include the following: Zone A Primaril City arcels Primarily small (under 20 acres) Many, relatively s eakin Yes (Ash Street Project - Orderly Annexation Agreement) Close Minor Existing residential, commercial and industrial Zone B Primarily Townshi arcels Primarily larger (over 60 acres) Few, relatively s eaking No (discussions are in progress with Empire and Castle Rock) More distant Potentially major Primarily agricultural At this stage, it may be appropriate for the City Council to consider the possibility of adopting a concept review policy that takes into consideration the distinctions between the properties located within Zone A and Zone B. Any such policy could, in effect, represent a "formalization" of the factors that City staff members have previously considered in connection with developments such as the Hometown Addition. More specifically, the proposed processing sequences for Zones A and B are as follows: Step Two Review/Approve Joint Resolution re: Annexation Petition (if required)3 Step Three Review/Approve MUSA request (By City Council if under 5 acres; by MUSA Review Committee, Planning Commission and City Council if over 5 acres i Adopt Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning classification Met Council review/approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment (MUSA and land use) Step Four Step Five Step Six Review/Approve Preliminary Plat Step Seven Review/Approve Final Plat n/a n/a Preliminary Review of Concept Plan (if desired b owner/develo eri Finish System Plan Updates (surface water management plan, sanitary sewer plan, water distribution lant Final Review/Approval of Concept Plan Review/Approve Joint Resolution re: Annexation Petition (ifrequired)6 Review/Approve MUSA request (By City Council if under 5 acres; by MUSA Review Committee, Planning Commission and City Council if over 5 acres) Adopt Comprehensive Plan designation and zonin classification7 Met Council review/approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment (MUSA and land use) Review/ A rove Prelimina Plat Review/A prove Final Plat I The City's current practice is to not process an annexation petition or discuss it informally with the affected Township until City staff members believe that there is a reasonable likelihood that proposed development will receive all required City approvals. Minnesota state statutes provide that annexation should not take place until development is "imminent." 2 The scope and complexity of concept plans for the larger Zone B parcels may warrant a "two-stage" concept review process. It may be possible and useful to discuss some general parameters (example: relative proportions of single family detached and multi-family housing) for development even before the system plan updates are completed. 3 The City's preference is for Orderly Annexation Agreements and Joint [City/Township] Resolutions regarding annexation, rather than annexations by ordinance (which is the procedure through which properties are annexed despite the Township's opposition). 4 The completion of the system plan updates does not need to be a prerequisite to the consideration or approval of concept plans for Zone A parcels. Most, if not all, of the Zone A parcels are covered by the City's existing system plans, and the development of the (relatively smaller) Zone A parcels would have a negligible impact on City's systems. Conversely, many of the Zone B parcels are not covered by one or more of City's existing system plans, and development of the (relatively larger) Zone B parcels would have a significant impact on the City's systems. 5 Steps 3 and 4 could potentially be reversed in some cases, but the City must make a formal MUSA decision and a formal land use decision before Met Council approval is sought. 6 See footnote #1 above. 7 Steps 5 and 6 could potentially be reversed in some cases, but the City must make a formal MUSA decision and a formal land use decision before Met Council approval is sought. This proposed "sequencing" of development plans for parcels located in the southeast region of the Farmington/Empire Township/Castle Rock Township area was discussed by the Planning Commission at its meeting on November 8, 2005. The Planning Commission members indicated that they agreed with and would support a formally adopted concept review policy that included the proposed "sequencing. " B. MUL TI-F AMIL Y AND MEDIUM- TO-HIGH DENSITY HOUSING -- Criteria The other major topic that arose during the October 19 workshop meeting, and that remains somewhat unclear, deals with the circumstances under which multi-family or medium-to-high density residential development can or should be considered. City staff members are assuming that any properties that are located within the City limits, and that are currently zoned R-3, R-4 or R-5, can be developed in a manner consistent with those zoning classifications. However, areas have been (and will continue to be) proposed for residential development that do not currently have residential zoning classifications, either because they have not yet been annexed or because they were automatically given an A-I zoning classification upon annexation. The City does not currently have a formally adopted or generally accepted set of criteria that can be considered in order to help determine where and when multi-family or medium-to-high density housing would be appropriate or acceptable. Accordingly, we are proposing the following set of criteria for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider: Is the proposed development located near existing or proposed major transportation corridors? 2 Will the approval of the proposed development complete, or contribute to the completion of, a necessary or desired roadway connection? 3 Is the proposed development located near commercial or industrial uses, or existing multi-famil or medium-to-high density housing? 4 Are there unusual or extraordinary infrastructure costs associated with the proposed project? (Bridges, collector or arterial roadways, etc.) 5 Are there physical features present (wetlands, floodplains, high water tables, steep slopes, power lines, gas lines, railroads, etc.) that render the property in uestion less suitable for low densi residential develo ment? 6 Does the size of the proposed development make the inclusion ofa higher- density component desirable? (Suggestion: indicate that a higher-density component is desired for projects of up to 40 acres, and required for projects of 80 acres or more.) 7 Does the proposed project assist the City in achieving its general goal of " rovidin a varie of housin es for eo Ie in all sta es of life?" 8 Does the proposed project assist the City in achieving its Livable Communities Housing Goals regarding affordability and density? 9 Will the proposed development provide more benefits (customer base, affordable housing for employees, etc.) for existing and planned commercial areas than lower density housin would rovide? In theory, a project that satisfies many ofthese criteria would be appropriate for multi-family or medium-to-high density development, and a project that satisfies none (or few) ofthese criteria would be less suitable for that type of development. However, it should be emphasized that the proposed criteria are not intended to serve as a "litmus test" that would automatically dictate what type of residential development would have to (or could not) occur on any given parcel of property. Rather, the criteria would merely serve as a guide or tool to help property owners, developers, their consultants and the general public better understand the City's general intentions, preferences or expectations regarding which locations may be more appropriate than others for multi-family and medium-to-high density residential development. This information would be especially helpful for those who are currently engaged in preparing concept plans that will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council later this year and/or during 2006. The proposed criteria in question were discussed by the Planning Commission at its meeting on November 8, 2005. At that time, the Planning Commission members indicated that they would support the criteria as long as it was understood that the criteria were intended to be a general, flexible guide rather than a rigid formula. ACTION REQUESTED 1. Approve the concept review policy (including the proposed sequencing of development plans) set forth above with respect to properties located within Zones A and B. 2. Approve the proposed criteria for multi-family and medium-to-high density housing. Respectfully submitted, Kevin Carroll Community Development Director EXHIBIT A CONCEPT REVIEW PROCESS (SOUTHEAST REGION) Adopted December 19,2005 Step Zone A Zone B Step One Review/Approve Concept Plan Preliminary Review of Concept Plan 12y. City' staff (if desired by owner and/or developer)2 Step Two Review/Approve Joint Resolution re: Finish System Plan Updates (surface water Annexation Petition (if required)3 management plan, sanitary sewer plan, water distribution plan)4 Step Three Review/Approve MUSA request Final Review/ Ae.e!"~~ of Concept Plan p~ (By City Council if under 5 acres; by City st~, Planning Commission and City, MUSA Review Committee, Planning Council Commission and City Council if over 5 acres )5 Step Four Adopt Comprehensive Plan designation Review/Approve Joint Resolution re: and zoning classification Annexation Petition (if required)6 Step Five Met Council review/approval of Review/Approve MUSA request' Comprehensive Plan Amendment (MUSA (By City Council if under 5 acres; by MUSA and land use) Review Committee, Planning Commission and City Council if over 5 acres) Step Six Review/Approve Preliminary Plat Adopt Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning classificationS Step Seven Review/Approve Final Plat Met Council review/approval of Comprehensi ve Plan Amendment (MUS A and land use) Step Eight n/a Review/Approve Preliminary Plat Step Nine n/a Review/Approve Final Plat I The City's current practice is to not process an annexation petition or discuss it informally with the affected Township until City staff members believe that there is a reasonable likelihood that proposed development will receive all required City approvals. Minnesota state statutes provide that annexation should not take place until development is "imminent." 2 The scope and complexity of concept plans for the larger Zone B parcels may warrant a "two-stage" concept review process. It may be possible and useful for City. staff to discuss some general parameters (example: relative proportions of single family detached and multi-family housing) for development even before the system plan updates are completed. However, concept plans will not be formally. considered by' the Planning CoIiiiiiiSSlQii"'OF ~ -- ~ City. Council until the sy'stem Rlan uRdates have been comRleted. 3 The City's preference is for Orderly Annexation Agreements and Joint [City/Township] Resolutions regarding annexation, rather than annexations by ordinance (which is the procedure through which properties are annexed despite the Township's opposition). 4 The completion of the system plan updates does not need to be a prerequisite to the consideration or approval of concept plans for Zone A parcels. Most, ifnot all, of the Zone A parcels are covered by the City's existing system plans, and the development of the (relatively smaller) Zone A parcels would have a negligible impact on City's systems. Conversely, many of the Zone B parcels are not covered by one or more of City's existing system plans, and development of the (relatively larger) Zone B parcels would have a significant impact on the City's systems. 5 ---- Steps 3 and 4 (for Zone A) could potentially be reversed in some cases, but the City must make a formal MUSA decision and a formal land use decision before Met Council approval is sought. 6 See footnote #1 above. City staff may -discuss annexation-rehted issues regarding Zone B properties witn owners/developers and the affected township(s) prior to the completion of the system plan updates, but City'''-Council }eview/approval of annexation petitions will be deferred until after the system plan updates are completed' iCity staff and the MUSA Review Committee may discuss MUSA-related issues regarding Zone B prope~it11 bwners/developers prior to the completion of the system plan updates, but City Council review/ap.Rroval of ~nnexation p'etitions will be deferred until after the sy'stem p,lan up-dates ar~p'leted Steps 5 and 6 (for Zone B) could potentially be reversed in some cases, but the City must make a formal MUSA decision and a formal land use decision before Met Council approval is sought. L ~ Jliil '~~~, !J ~ D :::s::r:perty ~ ~~~' ~ ~~ :::: Property < v H. ~5;;1,i'i:;.~;i'm' in Zone B ' if! I "'" ~:......:...... ; .~ ~ame~ate~,; ~ ;' ~~~! ~;?if~i'!i;';ii;~J!:i;ji;~ ~ZONE B ~ /:c [ill,I/II,I,'!'ii' b_ f) . / 1[,;"",,'i;;;".J II>==. ')- ----r <i:~:'/::)::;::.:::':':':(i::,::::.)..::-::':'::":::: ~ ~ ~llliIf ~' 1J...fuj''''':'' ~ 'I ~ ~i~l :. ~...... [0 ~i II~ i,l ffiffi ~HHtJ ffiHlj ffi r n~ I ,~~~I~ ~IIIII ~1~~~81 I erq ~~~~ml '~~~Uh~~g II ~ 1111 B ggD~a DDD ng .~ ~~ ~ii.lml_l~ II ~ ~ II I f---JL-;:.:::q ::: .'i;::I':..I::~ WlIl, <D"B I I I- ::;'i :::lJ -..' '''':":Ii'<:' . \ U .....:;.:.: '-) I........ ...:.: " ~ ~ ~ I --I ./ .,.. E!HffiffEj ".,: /--.... I] : ffi!HHHf3 T . . - '.C,:. ':::.:.:i' .':.::;, '::...::.: :.:. ::. ::.''-:': :.::.: :" ... .:.'..i":. '.. <.:.: :.. U:.. :.< :>.:.:. :: .:.: '.: .:::: :....:.:.:. ::':.:. I:.':::. :."::.:: ::' :c:,." .... ," .::<:::::,,: :..' ':<::,'.. ." :::.:., ::: .::: ..... .,... .... .,..; ::". , ...:...:.:.:....i( "".: :.::. :.c::::. ..........: .:::.. ,..... :; .':: ......:: :.-: I..... :.:..:.:.:. "::..:.::.:::: .-.::-.:,',':: :-....:..:::,:...:.:..:.:.:...,. :.....<.:.. <: ., .": ':.':':'. :.:. :0:;:.: ...........:....:.:> ..... ::,.;:-.: :':.:..::: tJ ~ ....-:::;;::::; ',: c.: ':.:: ::';.-....: :::... :.,:,,:...' .....:.:. :.:::.::... :'.:.: ::.' ::.::.:. ,.,:.,..., '.:::- I .::.:.: .::::: '.:':::',::::,: :::...., ..:.i .::: .:.:: :..:.:.... :,.:':: .': .... .:,'. ":.:.-.r htS :1 ---\~ "\ .....: rl ":.. c::. :::.:......: '.:. .... >::: :::.: :'::...:::''--': 'c:. : .:i,': .. o created on November~, 200:; EXHIBIT B Multi-Familv and Medium-to-Hh!:h Density Housine Criteria Adopted December 19, 2005 1 Is the proposed development located near existing or proposed major transportation corridors? 1 Will the approval of the proposed development complete, or contribute to the completion of, a necessary or desired roadway connection? 3 Is the proposed development located near commercial or industrial uses, or existing multi-family or medium-to-high density housing? 4 Are there unusual or extraordinary infrastructure costs associated with the proposed project? (Bridges, collector or arterial roadways, etc.) 5 Are there physical features present (wetlands, floodplains, high water tables, steep slopes, power lines, gas lines, railroads, etc.) that render the property in question less suitable for low density residential development? 6 Does the size of the proposed development make the inclusion of a higher-density component desirable? (Suggestion: indicate that a higher-density component is desired for projects of up to 40 acres, and required for projects of 80 acres or more.) 7 Does the proposed project assist the City in achieving its general goal of "providing a variety of housing types for people in all sta es of life?" 8 Does the proposed project assist the City in achieving its Livable Communities Housing Goals regarding affordability and density? 9 Will the proposed development provide more benefits (customer base, affordable housing for employees, etc.) for existing and planned commercial areas than lower density housing would provide? 7!. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us FROM: Mayor, City Council and Acting City Administrator ~ Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director TO: SUBJECT: Approve Joint Resolution - Newland Communities Annexation, Phase I DATE: December 19,2005 INTRODUCTION Empire Township has agreed to enter into a Joint Resolution with the City of Farmington regarding the annexation of approximately half (520.22 acres) of the Newland Communities property (also sometimes referred to as the Seed/Genstar property). DISCUSSION Please see the attached letter dated November 21, 2005 to Ms. Kathleen Krippner, Clerk/Treasurer of Empire Township, which provides relevant background information regarding this matter. I have also attached a copy of the Joint Resolution that is referred to in the aforementioned letter to Ms. Krippner. The Joint Resolution includes attachments that depict the property that is the subject ofthe Joint Resolution. The Joint Resolution was considered and approved by the Empire Town Board at its meeting on December 13, 2005. If the City Council approves the Joint Resolution, it will be submitted to the Municipal Boundary Adjustment Unit of the Office of Administrative Hearings after it has been signed by the Mayor and the Acting City Administrator. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the Joint Resolution between the City of Farmington and Empire Township regarding the annexation of 520.22 acres of the Newland Communities (or Seed/Genstar) property. Rfi'~nlltte /L~I Community Development Director cc: Ms. Krista Fleming, Newland Communities City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us November 21, 2005 Ms. Kathleen Krippner, Clerk/Treasurer -and- Board of Supervisors Empire Township 3385 19ih Street W. Farmington MN 55024 VIA E-MAIL AND HAND-DELIVERY RE: Newland Communities (Seed/Genstar) Property Dear Ms. Krippner and Town Board, Pursuant to the discussion that occurred at the November 10 meeting ofthe Empire/Farmington Planning Advisory Committee [EF-P AC], I have enclosed several copies of a proposed Joint Resolution regarding the initial boundary adjustment related to the Newland Communities development. The enclosed Joint Resolution is a revised version ofthe draft that was discussed on November 10. The primary change can be found in Paragraph 6. The initial draft did not provide for any "phasing out" of Township property taxes on the property in question, mostly because the 1999 Orderly Annexation Agreement [OAA] was silent on that particular topic. Whatever the intentions of the parties may have been in 1999, the members ofthe EF-PAC now seem to agree that the tax impact (to the Township) of an OAA should be no worse than the impact that would have resulted from an annexation by ordinance. As you know, under an annexation by ordinance, the Township would have been entitled to receive (pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ~414.033, subd. 12) a gradually declining percentage (90-70-50-30-10) of the property taxes that were payable to the Township in the year of annexation. Paragraph 6 of the revised Joint Resolution includes a provision whereby the Township would retain 100% of the property taxes payable on the annexation area during 2006. In 2007, the City would pay to the Township 90% ofthe amount that the Township received in 2006. Each year thereafter, the City would pay 20% less than the amount that been paid in the preceding year. This "phasing out" would conclude with a 10% payment in 2011. This phased approach to the tax issue has not yet been discussed with the City Council as a whole, but I am prepared to recommend it to them, as is EF-PAC (and City Council) member Christy Fogarty. We have chosen to include the phasing language in the Joint Resolution in the belief that the City Council will support and approve it. Four existing real estate parcels are located entirely within the boundary of the proposed annexation area. Four other parcels are partially located within the annexation area. Ofthe latter four, one (120180001175) appears to have about 90% of its acreage within the annexation area, so we've treated it as being 100% within the area. The other three parcels appear to be anywhere :from 30% to about 70% within the annexation area, so we've averaged them by including 50% of the property taxes for each of the three parcels in our calculations. We believe that these approximations are sufficient under the circumstances, and we hope that you agree. If not, let me know. You will note that Exhibit A does not yet include a legal description for the proposed annexation area. Newland Communities has provided the City with a survey ofthe annexation area, and we are currently verifying the accuracy ofthe legal description. Our hope is that the other Exhibits will provide an accurate enough picture of the annexation area for you to be able to discuss the Joint Resolution at your Town Board meeting on November 22. If the Joint Resolution is approved and signed by both jurisdictions, we will make certain that the copy that we file with the State of Minnesota includes a correct legal description. If your Town Board votes to approve the Joint Resolution, please call me at 651-463-1860 when you have two signed copies ofthe document available for me to pick up. I will then put this matter on the agenda for the City Council to consider, and provide you with one fully-executed copy ofthe document for your records after it has been signed by the Mayor and the Acting City Administrator. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Thanks. Vh'~ evin Carroll ~.Ca 4 Community Development Director cc: Dean Johnson Robin Roland, Acting City Adminsitrator TOWN OF EMPIRE CITY OF FARMINGTON IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF EMPIRE AND THE CITY OF FARMINGTON, ANNEXING PROPERTY PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED FOR ORDERLY ANNEXATION PURSUANT TO M.S. ~414.0325 JOINT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of Farmington and the Township of Empire in 1999 previously approved and filed with the Minnesota Department of Administration a Joint Resolution for Orderly Annexation of unplatted property currently located in Empire Township, a portion of which is legally described as stated in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the conditions specified in the Joint Resolution for annexation of a portion of that property have been met, including the required petition :from the property owner for annexation (dated October 21,2005) and extension of city services; and WHEREAS, the City of Farmington can provide the requested urban services to the property. NOW, THEREFORE, the Township of Empire and the City of Farmington jointly agree to the following: 1. The Township and City hereby designate for immediate annexation into the City that portion of the previously established Orderly Annexation Area (IIOAA") as shown on the attached Exhibits B and C and legally described on Exhibit A. The property abuts the existing northern corporate boundaries of the City west of Highway 3, is approximately 520.22 acres in size, and has a current population of 2 people. 2. That the purpose of the annexation of the OAA property involved in this annexation is to transfer jurisdiction over the property in order to provide urban services including but not limited to sewer, water, refuse collection, police and fire protection from the City of Farmington. 3. That in order to accomplish this purpose, the property owned by the petitioner, the James M. Seed Issues Trust, described herein should be immediately annexed to and made part of the City of Farmington. 4. Upon approval by the respective governing bodies of the City and the Township, this joint resolution and agreement shall confer jurisdiction upon the Director of the Office of Strategic and Long-range Planning (or his or her successor designee responsible for administering Minnesota Statutes Chapter 414) so as to immediately annex the lands described in the attached Exhibit A in accordance with the terms of this joint resolution and agreement without need for any subsequent resolution(s) of the parties. -1- 68272 5. The City and the Township mutually state that no alteration by the director to the OAA boundaries, as illustrated on Exhibits B and C and described in Exhibit A, is appropriate or permitted. 6. The City and Township agree that upon annexation all planning, official controls, and governmental services for the annexed area shall become the responsibility of the City, and that Minnesota Statutes ~414.035 authorizing differential taxation for the annexed property will not be applied in this proceeding. However, as authorized by Minnesota Statutes 9414.036, the city shall reimburse the Township for portions of the loss of the Township taxes resulting from the annexation. The parties agree that the Township shall receive 100% of the taxes payable in 2006, and that the amount(s) to be paid by the City to the Township no later than July 1 of each of the years :from 2007 through 2011 (inclusive) shall be calculated as follows: a. The "base amount" of the taxes to be paid by the City to the Township shall consist of 100% of the taxes payable by the property owner in 2006 on the following parcels (#8, #10, #11, #12 and #13 on the attached Exhibit D): 120180001175 120180001176 120190001325 120190001601 120190001026 plus 50% of the taxes payable by the property owner in 2006 on the following parcels (# 5, #7 and #9 on the attached Exhibit D): 120180001002 120180001150 120180001352 b. For purposes of illustration only, the "base amount" of the property taxes payable in 2005 on the parcels listed above is $3,368.60, as summarized on the attached Exhibit E. A similar process shall be followed with respect to the calculation of the "base amount" for property taxes payable in 2006. c. Of the ''base amount" of the property taxes payable in 2006, as calculated pursuant to Paragraph 6(a) above, the City shall pay to the Township 90% thereof in 2007, 70% in 2008,50% in 2009,30% in 2010, and 10% in 2011. d. At the City's option, payment of amounts due or payable under this paragraph may be made at any time in advance of the established schedule. 7. The City and the Township mutually state that the annexation of the property will not result in any change of electrical service and will not require joint planning since upon final approval of this joint resolution and issuance ofthe annexation order by the Director the property will immediately be fully subject to the official controls and other ordinances ofthe City of Farmington, including all land use controls. -2- 68272 8. Having designated the area illustrated on Exhibits Band C and described in Exhibit A as in need of orderly annexation, and having provided for all of the conditions of its annexation within this document, the parties to this agreement agree that no consideration by the director is necessary. The director may review and comment but shall within thirty (30) days order the annexation in accordance with the terms ofthis Resolution. A~proved and A~~-. this ~ day of - 2005. Approved and Adopted this _ day of ,2005. CITY OF FARMINGTON BY: Kevan A. Soderberg Its Mayor Kathleen Krippner Its Town Board Clerk AND Robin Roland Its Acting City Administrator AND -3- 68272 EXHIBIT A That part of Section 18 and Section 19, Township 114, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of the Northeast Quarter ofthe Northeast Quarter of said Section 18; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 17 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the south line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 18 a distance of72.00 feet to the westerly right of way of Highway Number 3 per Book 62 of Miscellaneous Records, Page 165; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 17 seconds West, along the south line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 18, a distance of 1665.91 feet; thence South 12 degrees 35 minutes 45 seconds West, a distance of 1579.23 feet; thence South 67 degrees 58 minutes 19 seconds West, a distance of 1637.35 feet; thence South 22 degrees 01 minutes 41 seconds East, a distance of516.88 feet; thence North 89 degrees 49 minutes 14 seconds West, a distance of 54.01 feet; thence South 22 degrees 01 minutes 41 seconds West, a distance of 1433.51 feet; thence North 89 degrees 47 minutes 56 seconds West, a distance of 1226.27 feet; thence North 35 degrees 26 minutes 04 seconds West, a distance of766.11 feet; thence North 80 degrees 27 minutes 24 seconds West, to the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 18, a distance of 606.62 feet; thence South 00 degrees 05 minutes 40 seconds East, along said west line, a distance of 721.13 feet to the southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 16 seconds West, along the west line ofthe Northwest Quarter of said Section 19, a distance of2639.01 feet to the southwest corner of said Northwest Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes 19 seconds East, along the south line of said Northwest Quarter, a distance of2,537.43 feet to the southeast corner of said Northwest Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes 19 seconds East, along the south line ofthe Northeast Quarter of said Section 19, a distance of795.02 feet; thence North 22 degrees 01 minutes 41 seconds West, a distance of 463.90 feet; thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes 19 seconds East, a distance of858.53 feet; thence North 00 degrees 02 minutes 17 seconds East, a distance of 209.92 feet; thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes 19 seconds East, a distance of 180.09 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 41 seconds East, a distance of53.40 feet; thence North 89 degrees 47 minutes 01 seconds West, a distance of 50.06 feet; thence North 00 degrees 02 minutes 17 seconds East, a distance of203.50 feet; thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes 19 seconds East, a distance of 944.23 feet to the westerly right of way of Highway Number 3 per Book 62 of Miscellaneous Records, Page 165; thence northerly, along said westerly right of way, along a non-tangential curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 343,849.68 feet, a central angle of 00 degrees 01 minutes 51 seconds, and an arc length of 185.58 feet, the chord of said curve bears North 00 degrees 03 minutes 44 seconds East; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 41 seconds East, along said westerly right of way, tangent to said curve, distance of 578.65 feet; thence northerly, along said westerly right of way, along a tangential curve, concave to the west, having a radius of85,868.67 feet and a central angle of 00 degrees 04 minutes 59 seconds, having an arc distance of 124.53 feet; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 41 seconds East, along said westerly right of way, not tangent to said curve, a distance of25.00 feet; thence northerly, along said westerly right of way, along a non-tangential curve, concave to the west, having a radius of85,893.67 feet, a central angle of 00 degrees 14 minutes 24 seconds, and an arc length of359.79 feet, the chord of said curve bears North 00 degrees 07 minutes 31 seconds West; thence South 89 degrees 45 minutes 17 seconds West, along said westerly right of way, not tangent to said curve, a distance of25.00 feet; thence northerly, along said westerly right of way, along a non-tangential curve, concave to the west, having a radius of 85,868.67 feet, a central angle of 00 degrees 02 minutes 07 seconds, and an arc length of 52.81 feet, the 68272 chord of said curve bears North 00 degrees 15 minutes 46 seconds West; thence North 00 degrees 16 minutes 49 seconds West, along said westerly right of way, tangent to said curve, a distance of 430.58 feet; thence South 89 degrees 56 minutes 54 seconds East, along said westerly right of way, a distance of 13.66 feet; thence North 00 degrees 13 minutes 50 seconds West, along said westerly right of way, a distance of942.57 feet; thence northerly, along said westerly right of way, along a tangential curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 49,181.89 feet and a central angle of 00 degrees 26 minutes 44 seconds, having an arc distance of 382.34 feet; thence North 89 degrees 53 minutes 43 seconds West, along said westerly right of way, not tangent to said curve, a distance of 15.00 feet; thence northerly, along said westerly right of way, along a non-tangential curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 49,196.89 feet, a central angle of 00 degrees 12 minutes 17 seconds, and an arc length of 175.69 feet, the chord of said curve bears North 00 degrees 19 minutes 02 seconds East; thence North 00 degrees 25 minutes 10 seconds East, along said westerly right of way, tangent to said curve, a distance of 166.67 feet; thence South 89 degrees 34 minutes 50 seconds East, along said westerly right of way, a distance of 15.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 25 minutes 10 seconds East, along said westerly right of way, a distance of982.63 feet; thence continue North 00 degrees 25 minutes 10 seconds East, along said westerly right of way, a distance of 1,312.46 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating. Except railroad right of way as located. 68272 PHASE 1 PROPERTY TAXES (PAY # PID ANNEXATION PHASE 2005) 1 120070001076 Phase 2 N/A 2 120180001026 Phase 2 N/A 3 120180001325 Phase 2 N/A 4 120180001301 Phase 2 N/A 5 120180001002 Phase 1 (50% of Total) $650.02 6 120180001151 Phase 2 N/A 7 120180001150 Phase 1 (50% of Total) $106.54 8 120180001175 Phase 1 $255.93 9 120180001352 Phase 1 (50% of Total) $52.75 10 120180001176 Phase 1 $639.23 11 120190001325 Phase 1 $336.02 12 120190001601 Phase 1 $967.56 13 120190001026 Phase 1 $360.55 TOTAL 2005 TAXES: $3,368.60 c rofesslonol SePAces. Inc. " " ) - , '" J II ~ n . ... n ., .. w " ... " Sheet: 1 OF 2 11/8/05 ~ Date: "~ Westwood ~1Servk8s,.1nc. 1699 o<\Ngram Drive Eden PTairie. MN 55344 P'HONE 'S2.9)1.SISO fA)( 952-9)1-5821 TOU 'RU 1.......)1.5150 __<Om Newland Empire Site Annexation Graphic Westwood Farmington, Minnesota 8 ~,-' ( 2001103fJSKH14 owe: c ~-'UO:J Wi'st wood f " oteS<';IOfH]1 ~~., Vices, Ifle Project Boundary Jl ~ Annexation Boundary Sheet: 2 01' 2 Date: 11/8/05 '" W~ProleWonal~~ Inc_ 169'J Ao.g,am DrN. [~Prairie, MN 55]44 Newland Empire Site Site Context PHONE 952-,)1-5150 fAX 952-9)1-5812 TOllfR[[ 1-888-911-51 so Westwood www.We.\twoodps.com Farmington, Minnesota " '" : 'I )/ ~' l' ',I , )' , 'i. e 'O2()05 Westwood Professional Services. Inc. '" o i'''' .,cJ.';S.;!.'I;::'<'~' ,.. ..I ~~::fi I .;;~~ ;:~~~ i4.. II " 0, 0; I ~. " ,y (. Sheet: 1 01' 2 Date: 11/8/05 ". Westwood Prot.ulon.1 Servkft. In<. 7699 Anegram Orive (den PYafrie. MN SSJ44 PHON( 951-917-5154 FAX 9S2-9n-5Q2 TOU fR(( 1.....9]7-5150 www,~com Newland Empire Site Annexation Graphic Westwood Farmington, Minnesota ";-J.:'x, 71l(J1lOjhSKr04 OWG 1> 7/'V) City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Cost-of-Living Adjustment for Non-Represented Employees DATE: December 19, 2005 INTRODUCTION The City typically approves cost-of-living adjustments for non-represented employees. These adjustments would take place effective January 1,2006. DISCUSSION Cost-of-living adjustments for non-bargaining employees have been reviewed and are proposed at two and one-half percent (2.5%) effective January 1, 2006. Non-bargaining employees for purposes of this cost-of-living adjustment include confidential and non-represented employees. Additionally, the City contribution for group insurance is proposed to remain at the 2005 rate of $690.00 per month. All other employees belong to collective bargaining units which require the City to formally negotiate changes in the terms and conditions of employment through the collective bargaining process. BUDGET IMPACT Funding for the cost-of-living and insurance contribution increase is included in the 2006 City Budget. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution approving the Cost of Living wage adjustment effective January 1, 2006 for non-represented City employees. Respectfully submitted, \v1,~~~~ ~~~a Wendlandt, SPHR Human Resources Director cc: file RESOLUTION No. R APPROVING COST -OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS FOR ALL NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2006 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 19th day of December, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: WHEREAS, cost-of-living adjustments for non-bargaining employees are in order to recognize annual inflationary increases in cost-of-living standards as measured by regional economic and market-based indicators; and, WHEREAS, the annual percentage adjustments of two and one-half percent (2.5%) effective January 1, 2005 are within the expenditure guidelines established in the 2006 Budget; and, WHEREAS, the City shall contribute a flat rate amount for health, dental and life insurance. This rate will be $690.00 per month for 2006. WHEREAS, non-bargaining employees are defined as those public employees not formally represented by an exclusive bargaining group as defined under Minnesota Statute. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves cost-of-living adjustments of two and one-half percent (2.5%) effective January I, 2006 for all non-represented employees. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 19th day of December, 2005. Mayor Attested to the day of ,2005. Acting City Administrator SEAL /~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, and Acting City Administrator ~ FROM: Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director SUBJECT: AFSCME Clerical, Technical, and Professional Unit Settlement DATE: December 19,2005 INTRODUCTION This memorandum has been prepared to update Council on the status of the City's labor settlement with the AFSCME Clerical, Technical and Professional unit. DISCUSSION The City has reached a collective bargaining agreement with the AFSCME Clerical, Technical and Professional bargaining unit effective January 1, 2006. This agreement provides for a two and one- half percent (2.5%) wage adjustment effective January I, 2006 and a two and three quarter percent (2.75%) wage adjustment on January 1,2007. The City will continue to contribute a flat rate amount for group insurance provided by the City. This contribution amount will remain at $690.00 per month for 2006 and increase to $720.00 per month for 2007. BUDGET IMPACT Settlement costs negotiated with the AFSCME Clerical, Technical, and Professional bargaining unit are provided for in the 2006 City Budget. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution ratifying collective bargaining agreement for the Clerical, Technical, and Professional Unit. Respectfully submitted, ,v4/~U/~;1~ IB~nda Wendlandt, SPHR Human Resources Director cc: file RESOLUTION NO. R -05 A RESOLUTION APPROVING WAGE INCREASES BETWEEN THE CITY OF FARMINGTON AND AFSCME, COUNCIL 5, LOCAL UNIT 3815 CLERICAL, TECHNICAL, AND PROFESSIONAL BARGAINING UNIT FOR THE CONTRACT YEARS OF 2006 AND 2007 Pursuant to due call and notice, thereof, a regular meeting of the City council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 19th day of December, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: WHEREAS, the City of Farmington recognizes AFSCME as the exclusive bargaining representative under M. S. Chapter 179A, for the clerical, technical and professional classifications identified in the collective bargaining agreement; WHEREAS, the City has negotiated in good faith with representatives of AFSCME for the purpose of reaching a collective bargaining agreement for the contract years 2006 and 2007; and WHEREAS, the settlement terms have been successfully negotiated between the City and the membership of AFSCME, Council 5, Local Union 3815 Clerical, Technical and Professional bargaining unit in accordance with procedures established by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Farmington, Minnesota approves the following: 1) A two and one-half percent (2.5%) wage adjustment effective the 1st day of January, 2006. 2) A two and three-quarter percent (2.75%) wage adjustment effective the 1st day of January, 2007. 3) The City shall contribute a flat rate amount for health, dental and life insurance. This rate will be $690.00 per month for 2006 and $720.00 per month for 2007. Adopted by the Farmington City Council this 19th day of December, 2005. Mayor Attested to the day of December 2005. Acting City Administrator SEAL City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farminJrton.mn.us 70 TO: Mayor, Councilrnernbers, and Acting City Adrninistratort FROM: Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director SUBJECT: AFSCME Maintenance Unit Settlement DATE: December 19,2005 INTRODUCTION This memorandum has been prepared to update Council on the status of the City's labor settlement with the AFSCME Maintenance unit. DISCUSSION The City has reached a collective bargaining agreement with the AFSCME Maintenance bargaining unit effective January 1,2006. This agreement provides for a two and one-half percent (2.5%) wage adjustment effective January 1, 2006 and a two and three quarter percent (2.75%) wage adjustment on January 1,2007. The City will continue to contribute a flat rate amount for group insurance provided by the City. This contribution amount will remain at $690.00 per month for 2006 and increase to $720.00 per month for 2007. BUDGET IMPACT Settlement costs negotiated with the AFSCME Maintenance bargaining unit are provided for in the 2006 City Budget. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution ratifying collective bargaining agreement for the Maintenance Unit. Respectfully submitted, \~^'~U/--. I~renda Wendlandt, SPHR Human Resources Director cc: file RESOLUTION NO. R -05 A RESOLUTION APPROVING WAGE INCREASES BETWEEN THE CITY OF FARMINGTON AND AFSCME, COUNCIL 5, LOCAL UNIT 3815 MAINTENANCE BARGAINING UNIT FOR THE CONTRACT YEARS OF 2006 AND 2007. Pursuant to due call and notice, thereof, a regular meeting of the City council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 19th day of December, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: WHEREAS, the City of Farmington recognizes AFSCME as the exclusive bargaining representative under M. S. Chapter 179A, for the maintenance classifications identified in the collective bargaining agreement; WHEREAS, the City has negotiated in good faith with representatives of AFSCME for the purpose of reaching a collective bargaining agreement for the contract years 2006 and 2007; and WHEREAS, the settlement terms have been successfully negotiated between the City and the membership of AFSCME, Council 5, Local Union 3815 Maintenance bargaining unit in accordance with procedures established by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Farmington, Minnesota approves the following: 1) A two and one-half percent (2.5%) wage a~justment effective the 1 sl day of January, 2006. 2) A two and three-quarter percent (2.75%) wage adjustment effective the pt day of January, 2007. 3) The City shall contribute a flat rate amount for health, dental and life insurance. This rate will be $690.00 per month for 2006 and $720.00 per month for 2007. Adopted by the Farmington City Council this 19th day of December, 2005. Mayor Attested to the day of December 2005. Acting City Administrator SEAL City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /O~ TO: Mayor, Council Members FROM: Robin Roland, Acting City Administrator/Finance Director SUBJECT: Approve 2006 - 2010 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) DATE: December 19,2005 INTRODUCTION The 2006 - 2010 Capital Improvement Plan has been completed. The document outlines intended projects for City Buildings, Public Works, and Parks over the coming five year period. DISCUSSION Council reviewed the CIP on October 26th. Since then, staff evaluated each project and assigned each a place in the year by year schedule. Each project was reviewed for funding sources and costs. The final document includes individual project sheets which reflect the description of each project, its funding sources and uses and commentary on potential effects on operating costs and other future projects. The individual projects are summarized in the document by category and then in total. The document also includes the potential levy effect of each project. BUDGET IMPACT All 2006 Capital improvement projects outlined in the CIP document have been included in the 2006 Budget for funding. ACTION REQUIRED Approve the 2006 - 2010 Capital Improvement Plan as summarized. R:;%IY submitted, r/#J Robin Roland Acting City Administrator/Finance Director z o I- C/) \@>-I-o -o:::()~ <(WO """JC\I :2:0. :2:0:::(0 Ll.=>a.g OC/)Q:C\I >- () I- (3 ~ ~ U') 00 00 _0 00 0 lIlO 00 0 o - "':0 ,..: ()g 00 M -(0 U')OO 0)_ CIl . ~ - -I"- M ~ .;3.~ ~ ;;; 0 0 C\I 0) 0 0 C\I 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0000 0 MM C\I ~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 1"-0 0 OM M o<<:l. (0 C\l1"- ,..: ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0 ,..: ,..: 0 0 0 U') U') 0 ~ ~ C\I I~ ~ Cl I~ ~ ii5 III ~ '0 CIl Ll. .s,a :0 ~ a. E e Iu:: I~ - ~ C/) .l!l 0 (I) 'U 0 l!1 CIl 0 ii5 Ll. en ~ C\I 2l X ~ ~ 0 5 .s 2 C/) C/) "0 ~ ~ e: e: CIl ~ 0 "E CIl'(ji (!) e: !:2 -~ oCO ~~ ~~ ii5Ll. -:2: () ~() .l!l l,) CIl .~ e 0.: 01 c:: ~ '5 113 b' oa. 0000000000000000000000000000000 0ggggggggggggggggg~ggg~gggggg$ m8ggggggggg~ggg~gg~~Rggggg~g~g~ >~~~m~~~g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ U').;3. ~ ~ ~~ ~~;;;~ ~~~~~ ~~ o o C\I o o o o o o Lfi ~ o o o O)Lfi 00) o~ C\I 00 00 00 enLfi ~I"- ~ M ~ o o 0) o U') ~ ~ ~ o o o Lfi C;; ~ 00 00 00 0000 00)U') o~~ C\I ~ 000000 000000 000000 ooooct5Lfi 1.01.000__,..... ..... "r-" 0) ('t) ~ ('I') ~~~N ~ ~ o o o o I"- U') ~ o o o o o """- ;;; o o o Lfi 0) """ ~ o o o o o ~ C\I ~ o o o o o <<:l. """ ~ o o o I"-Lfi 000 o~ C\I 00 00 00 "':Lfi ~I"- ~ M ~ 000 00(0 001"- oLfiLfi OC\lC\l U')U')U') -~~ ;;; o o o o U') o N ~ o o o o o U')_ ;;; o o o (00 000 o~ C\I 0000 0000 0000 ";000 T"'"LOLOO ~ I"- M C\I ~M~ ~ 00 00 00 ~o MO 000 NN ~~ ~ o o o o o 0) ~ 10:: (3 ~ ~ ~ Cl CIl 0 I~~ ~ C3 :s cO I~ ~ g "0 C\I a-= ci '5 O/l Z' () :@-g ~ CIl ~~ Ci5 ~ ()e: 0 Cl <(:.;2 ~ E C/)<(.s e J:i I~ 5i I::;: a; !:!:: o (I) '"' (I) ffi ~~ >- ~I_I_ M (I) M(I) :5: C/)I~a; ~ ~ ~~ I =~l!1 ~ <( ffi C/)e: .s ~~ii5 CIl C/) ~ Qg III (1)0-. i ~ ~ -g~ ~ ~O/l~M > ~ o OCll g III COIe:O e: .~ 0:::0 'E CO~:5:~gO/l <(~ -e c~-= ~ II~o_u= a. ggco I- I~g=~i~ ~ U)~c: ..... O;;Q)-o'~- -0 e m .....1.2 Q) I~ g ~ "t: 8 g (I) c _x~C/)g~ g~ii5m(l)~ () .~~_CIl 8 co ~~~~~~C/) ~~E~0:::2 .s ~ .~ -0 QoQ)-ro~~a28mro~m ~ '5 00 0.2 e~~5a~~nmQ)=5~C:8 e: ~ u ~ 00 ~o~'~~C:I~~C:8~g~Ci5 .....~~~ ~ ~ ~co"o _~~e:e:8e:~ -e~e:~~MI"-<(.g(l) 0::: (l)j~ 5io~II(I)ge:~8e:.~nII~e~E ~ l!1mO::: E~=>ww~08_ I~~~<(<(sa.~g ogm~~~m 2le~a;a;~i~~I~Wa;~()~~lg~~~ t 1~~gso~g~~~rogg~~I~Ci5~~ge~ss~2~ro CIl 0 O..c: "0 0::: ..c: > ~ CIl !!! C/) C/)I~ 0 ~I":::: (I) ;: C/) <(I ~ 0.1- ~ ~ ~=I~~~~I~(I)O:::~~~~I~() IQ>(I)I~-S~U')9W~ ~ _a.E_o=E~n~~Q~~0IEOC/)I~~~CIlI(OC/)~g 0.: CIlO/l~-ge:a.~0:::~omEE5C1l<(=>CIl~E~>E<(O:::"Om~ ~ 8-a.o~0/la."O~ -=>=> WC/)-l!1~=>C/)05iC/)()e:"Os ~ co~0/l0:::~a;0/le:()0/l~a;a;ma;I~~<(~a;~a;Cl()~5e:C/) ~ ~t~~~g~~~~~gg~g~~~~g~g~.....gm~~ __~Oe:O/lc/)O(!)co_ C/)C/)(I)C/)~ ~l!1C/):C/)I"-MC/)~$~ ~~~~z~..c:..c:z(!);:CIl2l..c:..c:~..c:C/)2lC/)-..c:>"OII..c:~=(I) a'5c:~~oo~~~~~2roro ~E2-o~romM<<~~~C ~~~w:5:~~~:5:",,"m~S~~I~wl~~~~~~~~~m~~ o o o o o o Lfi ~ o o 0) ..; U') ~ ;;; o o o ct5 0) 0) M ;;; 00 0(0 01"- 0"': 01"- 0U') ~,..: ~~ 000 00 00 00 M9 ~~ ~ 00 o o Lfi 0) C\I o C\I ~ z o ~ en ~>-~o -tru.... ......UJO ....""'>N ~O. ~tr<o 1i.~Q.8 Oen9::N >- U ~ (3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ",0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO LO 0 LO LO LO 0 LO LO 0 LO 0.0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 .0 ro:- ai 0 ai ..; .0 0 0 .0 .0 ro:- N N ~ q C") 0 LO LO CO LO 0 I'- ~ I'- 0 LO CO CO 0 LO N (1l~ ~ .... C") N ~ .... C") LO N ~ ~ ;; ~ ~ ~ .... ~ N M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ as 0 ;; ;; ~ ~ 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 0 C") LO 1'-0 <0 ~ ~ ~.... N ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 LO 0 LO LO 0 LO 0 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 0 cD 0 LO ~ ~ I'- ~ ~ LOa> q N ~ ~ C'l ;; ~ ;; 00 0 00 0 00 00 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 ....0 I'- LOO ~ ~~ ~ 0 .... C") LO 0 M ~ ~ ~ ..; ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 00 LO 0 0 .0 .0 ro:- .0 .00 r0:- O .... ~ ~ ~I'- 1'-0 I'- ~ ~ N ~.... ~ ;; ~ ~ ;; 0 00 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 LO LOLO LO .0 .0 0 .00 0 ..; ..;..; as N N.... NO LO ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ....C") ~ LO ~~ ~ - "E 0) ..I< ~ (ij Q. 0 ..I< Qi > 0) 0) l!1 0 u '" ~ "C~ C (1l l!1~ "C ~Q. (1l (1l (1l 0) ;: "E -~ Q. ~ 0) 0) '" ~ ..I< 06 ..I< 'S: a en $ (ij ~ (ij ..I< C .!!l (1l ~ Q. (1l ..I< ..I< (ij 0 ;: Q. (ij Q. '" (1l 0) '" Q. (ij e:. Qi 0 UJ ~ iO' Q. > ~ Ql Q. 0 Q. '" > ~ ~ ~ ..I< ~ e t ..I< 0) (1l ~ (ij ~ > (ij C ..I< od:: (ij 0 Qi C ~ Q. (1l ~ ~~ " "C c:: u; ~ 0) iO' l!1 ::) Q. $ Q. (1l C (1l Q. "C (1l .~ C 0) .~ C C l!1 C ii5 0 Q. 0 ;: (1l 0 Q. ~.!!l ~ E 0) 0) u :s: "C 0) U C :s: ,fg "en " 0) C ~ 0) C ;:"5 " :0 P 0) 0 !II 2l (1l :c Z .~ ~ :c .~ 8- "0 ~ 0)""'> 9J.Ql ~ E "C Ql :c E Ql ::) ~ '" 0) .- 0) e~ 0) "C (1l > "Q. ..I< 'en 0) .~ C '- .2:..1< 0) (1l 0) > ~ 0) 15 c:: (1l .= :s: i:i: 'en == (1l en > ~ tr en UJ 0 en 0 0 Q. Ii. J:....J mu >-- LO- ~ o c; N a> o o N CO o o N I'- o o N <0 o o N J!l l.l .~ a:- -e:. ~Q. CO <0 .... o a> a> as <0 ~ o o o o <0 N .0 ~ o o '<to u; C") M ~ o o o M ~ oq. N ~ o <0 N .0 CO .... ro:- .... ~ CO o LO o LO C'l N ~ I/) I- (.) W ""'> ~ a.. a.. o oJ oJ od:: oJ od:: I- o I- ~a..... City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council members, Acting City AdministralOr~ FROM: Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance Establishing Fees - 2006 DATE: December 19, 2005 INTRODUCTION The City Council of the City of Farmington, pursuant to statutory authority or directive, requires certain licenses, permits or other City approvals for certain regulated activities. As a condition of issuing these licenses and permits the City Council establishes fees, by ordinance, effective January 1, 2006. DISCUSSION The attached proposed ordinance lists fees, which were in effect in 2005, along with recommended changes for 2006. All of the proposed changes to the Fee Schedule have been reviewed by the Management Team to ensure that City fees are equitable and comparable with other communities. Sanitary Sewer Rates The fee schedule includes a proposed increase to user rates for Sanitary Sewer service. A 2% increase is proposed for 2006. This would make the residential base rate $27.00 (for the first 10,000 gallons of winter quarter water usage) and $2.25 per 1,000 gallons thereafter. The metered commercial rate would go to $3.30 per 1,000 gallons ($66 per quarter minimum). The rate increase is necessary to keep up with rising Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) fees for wastewater treatment and for necessary upgrades to reduce 1&1 (Inflow and Infiltration) by 2007, lest the City incur additional surcharges under new MCES policy. The last change to City Sewer rates was in 1999. BUDGET IMPACT Proposed changes in 2006 Fees were taken into consideration during the preparation of the 2006 City Budget. ACTION REOUESTED Consider adoption of the attached Ordinance Establishing 2006 Charges and Fees for Licenses and Permits effective January 1, 2006. Respectfully submitted, ~d~~a~ Lisa Shadick Administrative Service Director CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 005- AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CHARGES AND FEES FOR LICENSES, PERMITS OR OTHER CITY APPROVALS AND SERVICES FOR CALENDAR YEAR ~2006 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS: SECTION 1. FEES FOR LICENSES AND PERMITS. The City Council of the City of Farmington, pursuant to statutory authority or directive, requires certain licenses, permits or other City approvals for certain regulated activities, and as a condition of issuing these licenses and permits establishes the following fees, effective January 1, ~2006. License Enforcement Service Charge Late Registration Fee AMOUNT $&lQ/IYr/dog neutered or spayed $~30/2..yr/dog not neutered or spayed $25 per dog $2.00 LICENSE. GENERAL Animal License Note: Pursuant to Ordinance 6-2-16 the owner shall pay an additional $25 as appropriate for 3rd dog and an additional $50 for 4th dog. Amusement Machines $15 per location and $15 per machine Bed and Breakfast $25 Cigaretteffobacco Sales Reinstatement after Revocation Annual - $50 1 st machine, $20 ea. additional $150 Initial Investigation ApplicationlRenewal - $150/yr $100 plus Administrative Time per Fee Schedule $300/year Billiard Parlor Dog Kennel (3 or more dogs) Exception - New residents - see note under animal licensing above. Permitted in Affficultural zone onlv. Exhibition, Temp. Outdoor Explosives, Sale & Storage $15/occasion Fireworks - Community Event $10/year $50 plus expenses Gambling License Premise Permit Investigation Fee Gambling Event $50 $50 $50 Sales: Permit Issuance Fee Peddler Solicitor Transient Merchant $25.00 plus itemized amount below: $25/month; $250/year $15/day; $75/month; $125/year $15/day; $50/quarter; $150/year J Saunas Taxi Driver Company Therapeutic Massage Business License Therapist Investigation Investigation (Therapist) Renewal Investigation LICENSE. LIQUOR Beer, Off Sale Beer, On Sale Beer, On Sale Temporary Display & Consumption Liquor, On Sale Investigation Fee Liquor, On Sale Club Liquor, On Sale Sunday Transfer Fee Wine, On Sale PERMITS. Special Annexation Petition Antennas & Towers Annual Business - $5,000 Orig. Investigation - $300 Renewal Investigation - $150 $25 each $25/uni t/year $50 (Includes 1 therapist) $50 $300 $200 $0 AMOUNT 2006 Billinl.!: $75/year $200/year -0- $300/year $3,500/year Not to exceed $200 (Administrative Costs) $300/year $200/year $300 $300/year AMOUNT $250 + $20 per acre up to 10 acres, $5 per acre over 10 acres Uniform Building Code Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment $350 $200 Conditional Use/Spec. Exception. Admin. Fee Excavation and Mining 0-1000 cu yd. 1000-25,000 25,001-50,000 50,001-250,000 250,000+ (Grading Plans required + Staff Review Time) 2 - ,. ~2007 Billinl.!: $75/year $200/year -0- $300/year $3,500/year Not to exceed $200 (Administrative Costs) Set by State Set by State $300 $300/year r l ~ $50 $150 $300 $500 * $1,000 * -~ c Filling* Landfills, Sludge Ash, Incinerator Ash, etc. $75 + staff time Initial - $150,000 Renewal - $60,000/yr + $30/ton Rezoning, Admin. Fee $300 Sign Permit, Review Plans 1. Estimated Value To $500 500.01-1000 1000.01-2500 Over 2500 80.00 2. Signs which need a conditional use permit must pay both the established sign permit fee, plus the conditional use permit fee. $20.00 30.00 60.00 Street/Curb Breaking Subdivision Waiver, Adm. Fee Min. $350 surety + $~70 inspection fee $ 125/staff time Appeal of Zoning Decision Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Vacation of Public RIW Fee $200 $150 $150 $200 Variance Request Utility Const. Permit Fee, Review Plans $~70 (Telephone, gas, cable, electric, telecommunications, etc.) Wetland Alteration Permit * $250 + consultant review time . r Wetland Buffer, Conservation, and Natural Area Signs Actual Cost ~ Future Through Street Sign Zoning Certificate, Verification of Zoning * - A Conditional Use Permit is Required Site Plan Review Actual Cost $25 $100 PERMITS - Buildin2 AMOUNT Buildinl! Permit 1997 Ufliform Building CodeLeague of MN Cities 2003 Schedule (See Schedule I) $2,000 Single Family Residential Lot surety for all buildings to be refunded after work is complete As Built Certificate Of Survey, Turf Establishment As-builts and Silt FencelErosion Control Inspection Temporary Buildings on Construction Sites Add $100 $150 3 II. MisceJIaneous Inspections Window Replacement Roof Siding Garage~-A6E!fl DetaeHed Garage AJI Basement Finish Roof/Siding Combo Permit Gazebos - Freestanding Decks $50 $60 (59.50 + .50 state surcharge) $60 (59.50 + .50 state surcharge) $60 (59.50 + .50 state surcharge) $22.11 sfSee Schedule 1 $22.11 sf See Schedule IUBC (No plan .... .50 per 1000 State SureHarge) (.0005 x value) $100 (99.50 + .50 state surcharge) See Schedule 1$60 (59.50.... .50 State Surcharge) See Schedule 1 " I See Schedule 1 Porches $60 (59.50 + .50 state surcharge) Bathroom Finish Building, Moving (Requires Special Exception in Addition to Fees Listed Below) - House - Garage - Surety Pools Building, Demolition Ind. On Site Sewage Treatment Reinspection (After 2 Fails) Plumbinl!: Permits Residential New Construction Repair/Addition Reinspection Commercial Reinspection Mechanical Permits Fireplace Residential Heating New Construction RepairlReplace Reinspection Commercial Heating Reinspection $150 + cost of utility locations $50 + cost of utility locations $10,000 Flat $100 (99.50 +.50 state surcharge) See Schedule 1 1997 Uniform BuilEiing Code $260 - ($40 County + $220 City) $47 $85 (84.50 + .50 state surcharge) $47 (46.50 + .50 state surcharge) $47 1 ~ 1 % of contract cost + state surcharge (contract valuation x .0005) INCLUDES SPRINKLING SYSTEMS (Minimum of $50.00) $47 $47 (46.50 + .50 state surcharge) $85 (84.50 + .50 state surcharge) $47 (46.50 + .50 state surcharge) $47 I % of contract cost + state surcharge (contract valuation x .0005) Minimum of $50.00 $47 4 t PERMITS - SubdivisionslDeveloDments AMOUNT ~ Review of Environmental Assessment Worksheet and Environmental Impact Stat~ment, AUAR GIS Fees (Geographic Information System) *** Note Fee Calculation Formula on Page 6 Parkland Contribution Staff time, consultant review time New and Redevelopment *** $~55/lot or $~90/ac minimum Parkland and Trail Fees - All Residential Zones See Parkland Dedication Ordinance Parkland and Trail Fees - Commercial/Industrial Zones See Parkland Dedication Ordinance Park Development Fee - Residential, Commercial/ Industrial Zones Plat Fees Preliminary Plat Surety Provides security to cover staff time in case a plat does not proceed. Fee is refunded upon signing a Development Agreement. Preliminary Plat Fee Final Plat Fee P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) P.U.D. Amendment Surface Water Mgmt. Fee (Development) *** The Surface Water Management Fee funds the trunk storm water improvements identified in the City's Surface Water Management Plan. *** Note fee calculation formula on page 6. 2005 $16,335 per acre of land required to be dedicated for parks ~2006 $~16.825 $200/acre $750 base + $1 O/lot $300 $500 + $22/ac $300 $0.133670.1377 /sq.ft. - Residential, low density $~0.2441 /sq.ft. - Residential, high density $~.2939 /sq.ft. - Comm.llndustrial! Institutional Surface Water Mgmt. Fee (RedevelopmentfUnplatted) - See Schedule A attached. *** Water Main Trunk Fee The Watermain Trunk Fee funds the trunk improvements identified in the City's Water Supply and Distribution Plan. Area Charge (Development) Area lA IB lC lD IE IF *** Area Charge (per acre) $1,250.00$1.290.00 $1,790.00$1.845.00 $2,010.00$2.100.00 $1,825.00$1.880.00 $2,190.00$2.255.00 $2,065.00$2.130.00 5 2Al 2A2 2B1 2B2 2Cl 2C2 2D1 2D2 Remaining Undeveloped Area Unplatted Land Surface Water Quality Management The Surface Water Quality Management Fee is coIlected to fund future excavation of sediments deposited in sedimentation ponds. Residential (Single/Multi) Commercial/Indust/School/Other $1,390.00$1.435.00 $2,185.00$2.250.00 $1,950.00$2.010.00 $2,300.00$2.370.00 $2,080.00$2.145.00 $2,335.00$2.405.00 $2,315.00$2.385.00 $2,390.00$2.465.00 $2,105.00$2.480.00 See Schedule B attached $75/acre $ 155/acre Water Treatment Plant Fee $600-620/REU All parcels being developed are charged 1 REU minimum. - Commercial, Industrial, Institutional developments and redevelopments are charged multiple REUs based on 1 REV = 274 gpd. Established in 1997, this fee will help fimd the future Water Treatment Plant Note: REV = Residential Equivalency Unit Sanitary Sewer Trunk Area Charge *** The Sanitary Sewer Trunk Area Charge funds trunk improvements identified in the City's Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan. $~ 1.930/acre ***Fee Calculation Formula *** Fees shall be based on the gross area of the development, less floodways, and delineated wetlands. Credit for Sanitary Sewer Trunk Area Charge MUNICIPAL SERVICES Sewer Metro Sewer A vail. Chg. (SAC) City Sewer Avail. Charge (CSAC) Lateral Connection Charge Connection Permit Lateral Equiv. Chg. Servo Connection Fee (Akin Road) Stub Out Charge User Rates - Residential (Based on Winter quarter) - Metered Commercial Reserve Capacity (SW 1/4 of Sec. 25) (See Asmt. RoIl #144) Solid Waste CoIlection Storm Water Utility Sump Pump Ordinance Non Compliance See Schedule F AMOUNT $+;4W 1.550/single unit $4W420 $~1.930 $70 each See assessment roIls $~2.320 Construction Cost + Street Breaking Permit $~27.00 1st 10,000 gaIlons $~2.25/1,000 gallons thereafter $~3.30/1,000 gaIlons (65.30/qtr min.) $~ 1.290/acre See Schedule C attached $8.50/storm water unit/quarter $100/month added to sewer bill 6 ( Water Lateral Connection Charge Connection Permit Reserve Capacity Connection (WAC) fee funds future construction of Water Towers. 3/4 or 1" 1 1/4" 1 1/2" 2" 21/2" 3" 4" 6" 8" Water connection charge will not apply to fire sprinkler lines Lateral Equiv. Chg. (Pine Knoll) Metered Rates Water Reconnection Fee Stub Out Charge Hydrant Usage Overhead Water Filling Station Meters Meter Testing Fee Penalties Late Payment Penalty Certification Fee ( Water Use Restriction Penalties 1 sl Offense 2nd Offense and subsequent during a calendar year CURRENT SERVICES $~ 1.325 each $ 70 each $720.00$745.00 $1,120.00$1.155.00 $1,620.00$1.670.00 $2,875.00$2.965.00 $3,870.00$3.990.00 $5,300.00$5.460.00 $11,500.00$11.845.00 $25,865.00$26.640.00 $15,985.00$47.365.00 See assessment roll # 196 $10.80 + $1.07/1,000 under 25,000 $1.25/1,000 over 25,000 $70 Construction costs + Street Breaking Permit $2/1 ,000 gallons - $60 minimum $2/1 ,000 gallons - $29 minimum Actual Cost + (10% or $25, whichever is less) $75 10% of current delinquent charge 10% of delinquent balance + interest $25 $50 AMOUNT Personnel Hourly rates for staff time will be multiplied by afactor of2.7, which includes salary, benefits, and organizational overhead charges. Specific rates available from Finance Department upon request. Consulting Engineeringfees will be charged at Actual Cost plus 25%for processing, accounting, and overhead administrative and facility use charges. Projects - Public The following engineering costs will be considered for estimating the total project cost for public improvement projects: Feasibility Report, Plans, Specs, Bidding, Staking, Insp., Supr. With Assessment Roll Total Administration Fees Legal Fees 17% of Estimated Construction Costs* *For the purposes of bonding, engineering costs will be calculated based on the estimated construction costs. 5% of Actual Construction Cost 5% of Actual Construction Cost 7 un__----, Projects - Private All other private developments will be charged for review and inspection based on staff time using current hourly rates as described above. A summary of staff review time for a project will be forwarded upon written request of the developer. Erosion control inspection by the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District will be charged at the County's current rates. Fire.............................................................................. ... ......... ........................ ...... FirelRescue Response (Non Contracted Services) $200/hour + Current Personnel rate per manhour Sprinkler System - New or Altered +% 1.5% of Contract Cost UP to $10.000 (minimum of $50) I % of Contract Cost over $10.000 Inspections: Day Cares Fire Alarm System - New or Alteration Tank Removal $50 +% 1.5% of Contract Cost up to $10.000 (minimum of$50) 1 % of Contract Cost over $10.000 $47 $15 $25 $25 ..... $10 for each additional 500 gallons 1.5% UP to $10,000 1 % over $10.000 $65 per tank Reinspection Flammable Tank System 500 gallons or less 501-1000 gallons 1001 plus gallons Hood and Duct Cleaning Commercial Cooking Vent Systems Reinspection Fire Permit Processing MPCA Permit - 30 days (limited to 2 per year) Recreational Fire Permit - Annual $47 $47 $20 $10 False Alarms (after 3, per ordinance) Residential Non Residential $75 $150 $15 Fire Report Fee FirelRescue Standby (Org. Request) Current hourly rate/person Fireworks Establishments with mixed sales (fireworks sales as accessory item) Establishments selling fireworks only $100 $350 $40 Tents and temporary membrane structures p arks and Rec re a ti 0 n..................... ........................................ ............................ Dedieated Tree Cast $250.00 8 Municipal Pool Rates Resident Season Pass Rates: $55.00 for each Individual Season Pass $130.00 for a Family Pass of 5 persons or less (immediate family members only) $10.00 for each additional immediate family member Non Resideflt Seasofl Passes: Not A...ailable Punch Cards 10 punches - $25 ($2.50/punch) 20 punches - $40 ($2.00/punch) Unused punches expire at the end of the season. arc good through June of the followiFlg year. Regular Session Admission: $3.00 per person large and small pool Evening Family Hours Swim Rate $10.00* *Rate apJ3lies dl:HiRg daily J3.m. open swim ^ family is 5 or less J3eople witli at least I adult (1 g years) Programs, Lessons and E'.'ents Fees are-based on covering all direct costs at least a break eveR basis Special Event Minimum or no fee charged Ice Arena Rates 7/1/05 - 6/30/06 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 Dry Floor Rental $400/day + $100 $500/day + $150 set-up/day set-up/day Open Skating (Prime Time Session) $3.00/person $3.00/person (Tues. & Thurs. Lunch) $2.00/person $2.00/person Ice Time 7/1/05 - 6/30/06 7/1/06 - 6/30/07 Prime Time $ I 45.00/hr $150.00/hr 6:00 A.M. $110.00/hr $115.00/hr 9:45 P.M. $ 140.00/hr $145.00/hr 10:00 P.M. $135.00/hr $140.00/hr ~ 10:15 P.M. $130.00/hr $1 35.00/hr 10:30 P.M. $ 125.00/hr $130.00/hr 10:45 P.M. $ 120.00/hr $125.00/hr 11:00 P.M. (Non Prime Time) $115.00/hr $120.00/hr Civic Arena Advertising Rates 10/1 /06 - 9/30/07 10/1 /07 - 9/30/08 Full 4 x 8 Sheet One Year $425.00/yr $425.00/vear Three Years $375.00/yr $375.00/vear 4 x 4 Sheet One Year $275.00/year $275.00/vear Three Years $250.00/year $250.00/vear Ice Resurfacer One Year $600.00/year $650.00/vear Three Years $550.00/year $600.00/vear Puppet Wagon Performances $100.00/performance 9 Rambling River Center Annual Membership Fees Resident and Participating Townships Participating Townships are entitled to resident rates. Non-Resident Rambling River Center Rental Rates Rambling River Center Key Deposit Rambling River Center Fitness Room Membership Membership only available to Rambling River Center members who are age *50 and older. Annual membership runs January I-December 31. Rambling River Center Newsletter Advertisement Large Picnic Shelter Rates (Rambling River and Evergreen Knoll Parks) Small Pienic Shclter (Tamarack and Mcado'.\'view Parle and Prairie Waterway Picnic Shelter Rates (Rambling River Park. Meadowview Park. Tamarack Park. Evergreen Knoll Park and Hill Dee Park) Events (weddings. large gatherings) in Parks Outdoor Field Use -~-I 1 $,S;008.00/person - Individual $&oo14.00/couple - Joint Spousal $+G-:OO 15.00/person - Individual $H:0020.00/couple - Joint Spousal If membership purchased from Nov I-Dee 31. then membership would be valid for the following entire year See Schedule G $50.00 $~5.00 yearly resident ~60.00 yearly non-resident No couple's discount If purchased from Nov I-Dee 31. then membership would be valid for the followinN entire year. Fees pro rated 00 or after Jl{ly I to$15.00 ami $22.50. $50/vear $20/Aalf day (7:00 a.m. 2:45 p.m. or 3:15 p.m. II :00 p.m.) $35 full day $15.00 full day $25.00 half day (7:00 a.m. until 2:45 p.m. or 3: 15 p.m. until II :00 p.m.) $40.00 full day $200.00 plus Insurance Certificate. portable toilet and garbage service costs f \ See Schedule H Pub lie W 0 r ks....................................................................... ................................ Billed at equipment rate listed below plus personnel rate for staff time. Staff time is billed at a 2 hour minimum. Equipment rates during regular work hours are billed at a one hour minimum; call outs after regular hours are billed at a two hour minimum. Pick Up Truck 5 yd. Dump Truck Sewer Rodding Machine Sewer Jetter Road Patrol (Grader) Ind. Ford. Tractor (backhoe +/- loader) Street Sweeper Air Compressor, Hammer, Hose Compacting Tamper Trash Pump $25.00/hour $30.00/hour $75.00/hour $75.00/hour $65.00/hour $40.00/hour $65.00/hour $35.00/hour $15.00/hour $15.00/hour 10 .... Paint Striper Mower . Skidster Router Blower $30.00 /hour $60.00 /hour $30.00/hour $30.00/hour $12.00 /hour NOTE: All City equipment must be operated by a City employee p 0 lie e S e rvi c es.................................................................. ........................... ..... Billed at equipment rate listed below plus personnel rate for staff time. Staff time is billed at a 2 hour minimum. Equipment rates during regular work hours are billed at a one hour minimum; call outs after regular hours are billed at a two hour minimum, Subpoena Service Barricades $W40 Residents - N/C if picked up and returned $5/day if delivered by Police Dept. False Alarms (after 3, per ordinance) Residential Non-Residential Non Resident Fingerprinting No charge for resident $75 $150 $H20 Accident Reports for Insurance Purposes Copy of Driving Record $5 Resident - No Fee Non-Resident $5 Investigative Case Reports Research Fee Photographs Driver's License Report (non residents only) $1 per page $20/hr - 1 hour minimum $5 per copy $5 per copy (license holder only) , Squad * 2 hour minimum $25/hour I * All Police units must be operated by Police Department Personnel. Tapes - Copy Audio VHS CDIDVD $25 $35 $35 Permit to Carr)' COfleealed Firearms Public Data - Offenders List $10 $20/week Pawn Shop Investigation $300 MISCELLANEOUS AMOUNT $75 $3.00/parcel x term of assessment, County fee Ag Preserve Filing Assessment Roll Bonds - Surety Wetlands Excavation/Filling/Mining Subd. Devel. Impr. Per est. costs of code compliance Per est. costs of code compliance 125% of project cost 11 Candidate Filing Finance Charge (Interest Rate) Returned Checks Mandatory Information Requests Weed Notice - Adm & Inspec. Counter Sales Mylar Blue Line Copy Photo Copies Color Copies (8 1/2 x 11) Color Copies (11x17) Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Maps Comprehensive Plan Document Redevelopment Plan 2' Contour Map (Spec. Order) Flood Plain Map (copy of FEMA map) Flood Plain Map (other) Budget Surface Water Management Plan Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Water Supply & Dist. Plan Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan Engineering Guideline Manual Standard Detail Plates Assessment Roll Search (pending & levied) Individual Assessment Search FAX Machine Long Distance FAX Financial Audit VHS Tapes Audio Tapes CD/DVD Photographs $5.00 - (10,000-100,000 population) Bond Rate + 1.5% $30 Actual cost plus $.25/page $30 (2nd notice same growing season) $5.00 per copy $3.00 per copy (exc. 2' contour) $.25 each $.50 each $1.00 GIS Fees (See Schedule E) $40 $10 GIS Fees (See Schedule E) $M5 $15- $30 $60 $40 $50 $50 $30 $50 $10 + .25/page $10 $.50/page Call costs ($5 min) + page chg. $30 $35 $25 $35 $5/copy SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE AND CODIFICATION. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and shall govern all licenses, permits, and approvals for regulated activities occurring or undertaken in the 2005 calendar year. This ordinance need not be codified but may be attached to the City Code as an Appendix. (- ADOPTED this 20th day of December 2004, by the City Council of the City of Farmington. CITY OF FARMINGTON Attest: SEAL By: By: Kevan Soderberg, Mayor Robin Roland Acting City Administrator Approved as to form the day of ,20_. City Attorney 12 " f Summary published in the Fannington Independent the 13 day of ,20_. SCHEDULE A r COMPREHENSIVE STORM DRAINAGE PLAN POLICY FOR DEVELOPMENTIREDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY BACKGROUND STATEMENT The Municipal Storm Sewer utilizes a fee structure for storm water improvements based on anticipated development. A parcel's contribution is determined by size and land use under the principal that a parcel should pay for past, present and future storm sewer improvements necessary to meet the needs of the parcel. The fees are set forth in the Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan dated September, 1985 as updated (Storm Water Area) and policy dated September, 1989 (Storm Water Utility). Storm water utility fees are based on size and land use on the basis that more intense land use pay a higher fee. Utility fees are paid by all developed property on a quarterly basis. Storm water area charges are paid at the time of development to help offset storm water improvements associated with the development of the property and are based by land use on a per acre rate. Presently, the Storm Water Area Charges only address developments associated with platting. Therefore, a policy is required which addresses development not associated with platting. When adopted, this policy will be incorporated as part of the Farmington Storm Water Drainage Plan. POLICY STATEMENT The purpose of this policy is to set forth the basis of fees and charges relating to past, present and future storm water improvements necessary to serve anticipated land use for development activities not related to the platting of property. AFFECTED DEVELOPMENTS A. A Storm Water Area Charge shall be paid before any building or development permits are approved, or before any improvements are made to a City owned park, which significantly affects stormwater runoff. , B. Storm Water Area Charges are not required for the following activities: 1. Building permits on platted property. 2. Residential or agricultural accessory structures or additions. PROCEDURE A. It is the responsibility of the property owner or his agent to present to the City Engineer or his designee the following information: 1. Site plan showing location of all existing and proposed buildings and other developments relative to property lines. B. The City Engineer shall calculate the Storm Water Area Charge as follows: 1. Undeveloped Property a. The Engineer shall determine the area of development upon review of the site plan. The following minimum areas shall apply: 14 Residential Commercial Industrial C-l, F-l, F-2, F-3 10,000 square feet 10,000 square feet 40,000 square feet 80,000 square feet b. The Engineer shall multiply the estimated area by the rate set forth in Table 3 of the Farmington Storm Drainage Plan as amended. 2. Redevelopment a. The Engineer shall determine the area of development and change in land use upon review of the site plan. The following minimum areas shall apply: Residential Commercial Industrial C-l, F-l, F-2, F-3 10,000 square feet 10,000 square feet 40,000 square feet 80,000 square feet b. Ifit is determined there is no change in land use classification as described in Table 3 of the Farmington Storm Water Drainage Plan, and the property has previously been charged the storm water area charge, no fee is to be charged. c. Ifit is determined there is a change in land use, the fee shall be calculated as follows: Area x (Existing Land Use Rate - Proposed Land Use Rate) = Fee If the fee is less than $0.00, no fee will be charged. 15 .. ~ 'n SCHEDULE B WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION PLAN FOR UNPLATTED PROPERTY BACKGROUND STATEMENT The Municipal Water Utility utilizes a fee structure for water supply and distribution improvements based on anticipated development. A parcel's contribution is determined by the parcel's size and land use under the principal that a parcel should pay for past, present and future water system improvements necessary to meet the anticipated water needs of the parcel. The fee schedule set forth in the Farmington Water Supply and Distribution Plan dated June, 1988 as updated sets forth charges for water area and water hookups. The water connection fee is primarily used for present and future pumping and storage capacity and is based on type of land use. The water area charge is primarily used for past, present and future oversizing of mains and is set at a uniform per acre rate for future development. Also, the water area charge presently only addresses development associated with the platting of property. Therefore, a policy is required which sets forth fees for development not associated with platting. When adopted, this policy will be incorporated as part of the Farmington Water Distribution and Supply Plan. POLICY STATEMENT The purpose of this policy is to set forth the basis of fees and charges relating to past, present and future improvements necessary to serve anticipated land use for development activities not related to the development of property. AFFECTED DEVELOPMENTS A. A water area charge shall be paid before any building permit is approved, unless specifically exempted under Section B. B. Water Area Charges for the following activities are not required: I. Any building permits on platted property, except buildings on parkland platted after Jan. 1, 1995. 2. Residential or agricultural accessory structures. PROCEDURE A. It is the responsibility of the property owner or his agent to present to the City Engineer or his designee the following information: ,. <. 1. Site plan showing location of all existing and proposed buildings and other development relative to property lines. B. The City Engineer shall calculate the water area charge as follows: 1. The Engineer shall determine the area of development upon review of the site plan. The following minimum areas shall apply: Residential Commercial Industrial C-I, F-I, F-2, F-3 10,000 square feet 10,000 square feet 10,000 square feet 80,000 square feet 2. The Engineer shall multiply the estimated area by the rate set forth in Table 14 ofthe Farmington Water Supply and Distribution Plan dated June, 1988 as amended. 16 ~... ( SCHEDULE C APPENDIX A Solid Waste User Fee Schedule Solid Waste Rates * * Customers who overfi 11 their containers more than 50% ofthe time during a quarter and do not request a level of service change will automatically be raised to the next level of service. 30 60 90 allons 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 600 900 allons 1200 allons 1500 allons 1800 allons Snorts Tournaments ~2006 Rates (300 gallon container delivery included to one site 1-20 teams $120.00 $25.00 delivery charge per each additional site) 21-60 teams $180.00 61-90 teams $240.00 90 teams or more will be addressed on an individual basis. t $50 per hour additional labor charge if more than one dumping of garbage is required plus $20.00 per container dumped. ~2006 Rates Special Pickuns Pass on charges from contractor ner agreement. Out of Cab Charne $5.00 ner stop Staff Time $4G60.00 /hour - Yz hour minimum Temnorarv Discontinuance Fee $30.00 :Curbside Recvclinl! Services Per contract It-Return Collection Trip Charge (90 gallons or $7.50/trip/container less) Return Collection Trip Charge (300 gallons or $20 .00/tri pi container ~~ . EXTRA BAG CHARGE (lids that do not 2 or more bags per occurrence - $2Ibag-$4 minimum appear to be closed at the time of collection or (bag eoual to 13 gal. or tall kitchen bag) 1 2 bags per eeellr. Re bags outside of container) el1arge resitleRtial ~ 1.. M" . . Private Hauler - Commercial Dumpster $100 Annual Fee Rolloffs (MSW or construction/demolition) 60/hour nlus actual disnosaJl nrocessinl' costs ,ft .~ . . 17 "" -...,.....-----~.--.---------~,..---.-------~ SCHEDULE E G.I.S. FEES ~..... , County City Total Digital Data (DFX/Autocad Format) $535/mega byte $20 $554 Hard Copy Map Sales 1/2 Sec. - Property Only $ 10 $5 $ 15 1/2 Sec. - Prop. & Planimetric 50 5 55 1/2 Sec. - Prop/Planimetric/Contour 150 20 170 1/8 Sec. - Prop/Planimetric/Contour 40 5 45 1/2 Sec. - Aerial Photo 6 0 6 Old Section and 1/4 Section 5 0 5 Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Maps Black and White, 11" x 17" $ 0 $ 1 $ 1 Color, 11" x 17" $ 0 4 4 Color, C size (17" x 22") 0 8 8 Color, D size (22" x 34") 0 15 15 Color, E size (24" x 44") 0 20 20 Street Maps City Street Map, D size, Black and White 0 ;;~ 2 City Street Map, Black and White 11" x 17" 0 1 1 City Street Map, D size, color 0 4 4 Special Requests See Engineering Department ...... 18 , I Parcel #8 1 lA 1B lC 1D IE lEE Name Dak. Co. S. Broske Duo Plastics ". ... Duo Plastics l FE! W. Berglund W &B Berglund B. Murphy No. Nat. Gas S. Hammer D&M Petersen SCHEDULE F TRUNK SANITARY CREDITS - SEWER DISTRICT 1 OCTOBER 27, 1994 SEE MAP "A" PROJECT 71-25(A) Assessment! Acre Trunk Sewer Fee w/Credit $ 498 198 244 198 202 76 76 ~$1.432 ~$1.732 ~$1.686 ~$1.732 $-l,66&$1. 728 $+,194$1.854 $+,194$1.854 Formula: Trunk Sanitary Sewer Fee - Previous Trunk Assessment 2003 - Example (Area lC)=~$1.930- $198 =~$1.732 TRUNK SANITARY CREDITS - SEWER DISTRICT 3 OCTOBER 27,1994 PROJECT 89-5 (A) Trunk Asmt Asmt! Ac Sewer Fee w/Credit PID 14-03600-012-05 14-03600-011-03 14-03600-012-29 14-03600-013-27 14-03600-016-29 14-03600-020-08 14-03600-015-29 14-03600-012-27 14-03600-019-08 14-03600-011-05 14-03600-010-33 $10,111 809 3,033 3,741 3,033 870 26,906 40,445 74,721 60,667 80,889 $.00 ~918.75 ~918.89 ~918.92 .00 10 1O.Oe 1070.06 1010.0el070.06 ~918.87 .0023.85 .00 ~918.89 $ 2,022.20 1,011.25 1,011.11 1,011.08 3,033.00 859.94 859.94 1,011.13 1,906.15 2,022.23 1,011.11 Formula = Trunk Sanitary Sewer Fee minus Previous Assessment 2003 - Example (Petersen) = $+,8-+() 1.930.00 - $1,011.11 = $~918.89 NOTE: Trunk fees cannot be reduced below $0 - no refunds will be made on previous assessments. 19 SCHEDULE G F ARMINCTON COMMUNITY RAMBLING RIVER CENTER FEES AND PROCEDURES " ( Fee Class Definition: Class I: City of Farmington Sponsored Events Class 2: Nonprofit, Community Service and Civic Groups Class 3: Residents of the City of Farmington and/or Rambling River Center Members Class 4: Nonresidents and/or Commercial Groups Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Base Fees No base fees No base fees Main Room $40.00 Main Room $80.00 Large Activity Room $30.00 Large Activity Room $60.00 Kitchen $25.00 Kitchen $50.00 Small Activity Room $20.00 Small Activity Room $40.00 Hourly Rate No Hourly Rate $W,0015.00 per $H,0020.00 per hour $~O.OO per hour room maximum 2 hour rental Deposit $100.00 refundable $100.00 refundable deposit $100.00 refundable deposit deposit **Reservations should be made 30 days in advance. ** . All rentals require a damage deposit that will be returned when all equipment and rooms have been found clean and damage free. . All reservations are made on a first come first served basis with priority given to Class 1 users. . All groups reserving space in the Farmington Community Rambling River Center must have current signed contracts. On-going contracts must be re-signed annually. ~... ( . The City of Farmington reserves the right to terminate any contract due to groups causing damage to the facility, complaints logged from the surrounding neighborhood and any other item deemed to necessitate termination. Fundraisers: Class 2 groups requesting to hold a fundraiser will pay Class 3 fees if (I) there will be more than 50 people in attendance OR (2) the fundraiser will last 3 or more hours. 20 -.... \ SCHEDULE H ",.. ~2006 OUTDOOR FIELD USE FEE SCHEDULE , 11 Non-Tournament Outdoor Field Use Charges: Summer Outdoor Use Fee - Groups primarily $ 6.00 per participant serving local youth under 19 years of age. Calculated based on the number of registered participant as of the first day of scheduled practice Youth Groups not qualifying or choosing not to pay $ 25.00 per field per day the Seasonal Use Fee Adult Groups $ 25.00 per field per day Tournaments Outdoor Field Use Charges: Baseball and Softball Fields $ 25.00 per field per day (Fee includes use plus initial dragging, setting of the base path and pitching, and painting of foul and fence lines once each tournament) Soccer Fields $ 25.00 per field per day (Full size soccer fields may be sub-divided into small fields but are only charged per full size field. Any portion of a full size field constitutes use of that full size field.) Other Services and Fees Additional dragging baseball or softball fields $ 6-7.00 per field per dral!l!inl! Soccer field lining $ 32.50 per hour for labor $ 10.00 per hour for painting equipment Cost of supplies Additional labor or materials requested by grOUP At prevailing rates "Diamond Dry" $ 10 per bag Portable Toilets Arranged and billed to the user by the provider 21 ,-. [ SCHEDULE I LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 2003 SCHEDULE - ~ Building Value Range Fee Schedule $0 - $500.00 $25.00 $500.01 - $2.000 $25.00 for the first $500 $3.25 per additional $100 $2,000.01 - $25.000 $73.50 for the first $2.000 $14.75 per additional $1.000 $25.000.01 - $50.000 $413.00 for the first $25.000 $10.75 per additional $1.000 $50.000.01 - $100.000 $681.75 for the first $50.000 $7.50 per additional $1.000 $100.000.01 - $500,000 $1.056.75 for the first $100.000 $6.00 per additional $1.000 $500.000.01 - $1.000.000 $3.456.75 for the first $500.000 $5.00 per additional $1.000 $1.000.000.01 and UP $5.956.75 for the first $1,000.000 i4.00 ner additional $1 000 l .. *Changes per LMC report of 11/03/03 This fee schedule was developed cooperatively by members of the League of Minnesota Cities and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities. with information provided by the State Building Codes and Standards Division. ~ l J Residential Buildinl> Valuations Cost ner S uare Foot Sinple Familv Dwellings - Tvue V - Wood Frame First Floor $72.66 Second Floor $72.66 Sinl!le Familv Dwellinl!s - Basement Finished Basements $19.70 Unfinished Basements $14.70 Crawl Snace $7.54 Conversion (Basement Finish) $5.00 Garal7es Wood Frame $22.11 Masonrv Construction $24.93 22 '" l Carnort $15.11 Pole Buildinl.!: $14.60 Decks $15.00 ~Entrv Covered Porches $25.00 I" Four Season Porches $72.66 . I Three Season Porches, Wood Framed $49.35 [ Gazebos. Wood Framed/Screened $49.35 23 CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 005- AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CHARGES AND FEES FOR LICENSES, PERMITS OR OTHER CITY APPROVALS AND SERVICES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2006 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, on December 19, 2004, Ordinance No. 005- was adopted by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that, because of the lengthy nature of Ordinance No. 005- , the following summary of the ordinance has been prepared for publication. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the fees for licenses, permits and services established by the ordinance include for example licenses regulating the keeping of animals, gambling, tobacco and liquor sales, zoning, development and building approvals and licenses, charges for staff and consultant services, and charges for use of public facilities A printed copy of the whole ordinance is available for inspection by any person during the City's regular office hours. APPROVED for publication by the City Council of the City of Farmington this 19th day of December, 2005. CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Kevan Soderberg, Mayor ATTEST: By: Robin Roland Acting City Administrator SEAL Approved as to form the _ day of 2005. By: City Attorney Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of 2005. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ciJarmington.mn.us lOb TO: Mayor, Councilrnembers, and Acting City Administrator ~ FROM: Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director SUBJECT: Discussion of Citywide Broadband Connectivity DATE: December 19,2005 INTRODUCTION There has been interest :from Council and residents to explore municipal broadband connectivity options in order to provide broadband access to community residents and businesses. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide general information to Council to facilitate a discussion regarding offering broadband access to the community. DISCUSSION The Mayor, Acting City Administrator and the Human Resources Director attended a Municipal Technology Summit that focused on municipal broadband connectivity options and the costs (both hidden and apparent) associated with such a project. The summit included a roundtable discussion based on Chaska's and St. Louis Park's experience. There are a number of other cities, across the nation, that have assumed a leadership role in creating both a wired and wireless community. The City of Windom, MN has the highest speed telecommunications network in the country and sells phone, cable and other services directly to residents and businesses. In April of this year, they began offering services through its fiber optic network and can deliver 100 Mbps to every home and business and their system will be able to meet telephone, internet, and video demands for the foreseeable future. As other communities can attest, high speed telecommunications networks are rapidly being considered as an essential service for a community's quality of life and economic vitality. It can be a powerful economic and residential development tool and the City is well positioned to explore such options due to the recently installed fiber optic network. This provides the core infrastructure needed to offer both wired and wireless broadband access to our community. Therefore, now is the perfect time to have a discussion as to what role the City should play in providing broadband access service. BUDGET IMPACT Costs of broadband access will vary depending on services and capital expenditures. A feasibility study could better outline potential project costs and revenue sources. ACTION REQUESTED Council discussion and direction to staff. Respectfully Submitted, ~~..~../.....//.'~' . %J' . ... ". vuf{A Brenda Wendlandt, SPHR Human Resources Director cc: file /1eL- City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers, Acting City Administrator t Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer TO: SUBJECT: 203rd Street Wetland Buffers DATE: December 19,2005 INTRODUCTION At the December 5, 2005 City Council meeting, the City Council considered two cases regarding wetland buffer issues in regards to properties along 203rd Street. DISCUSSION 5215 203rd Street, Beniamin and Jessica Rowan The Council considered the issues in regards to this property and indicated that, since the improvements were already in place at the time the buffer issue was identified and various approvals were granted that did not take the buffer into consideration, the Rowans' would be allowed to keep their sod and sprinkler system up to the rear property line. Attached is an encroachment agreement that would need to be signed by the Rowans' if the sprinkler system is to be allowed in the City's easement and buffer area. 5241 203rd Street, Christopher and Ravit Berg The Council considered the issues in regards to this property and asked for a time1ine of buffer discussions and the communications regarding the buffers with the resident which are provided as follows: . July 23, 2004 - Resident called questioning wetland buffer rules - noticed the buffer sign in rear yard. . October 18, 2004 - At the City Council Meeting, Mr. Michael Pierce, 5137 203rd Street, requested that the City vacate the wetland buffer behind his home. Council directed staff to research the issue. . November 15, 2004 - At the City Council meeting, staff recommended not vacating the drainage and utility easement and/or reducing the wetland buffer. Council directed staff to discus the issue with the DNR and the Soil and Water Conservation District and bring this back to Council. Staff to also advise how many properties have this wetland buffer issue. Mr. & Mrs. Michael Pierce and Mr. Derek Christensen, 5289 203rd Street, were present. Wetland Buffer Discussion December 19, 2005 Page 2 . December 20, 2004 - At the City Council meeting staff reported to Council that the analysis of affect properties has been completed requested including this topic at the next Council workshop. . January 3, 2005 - At the City Council meeting, Council was asked to schedule wetland buffer workshop. It was decided to schedule a Council Workshop on January 19,2005. The Pierce's and Christensen's were sent a copy of the Council memo. . January 19, 2005 - Council workshop to discuss the wetland buffer issue. The Pierce's and Christensen's were sent a copy of the council memo. At the workshop it was decided to survey affected residents regarding a reduction of the wetland buffer. Mr. & Mrs. Pierce and Mr. Christensen were present. . February 18, 2005 - Wetland buffer survey sent to all affected residents. . February 28, 2005 - Wetland buffer surveys were due. . February 2005 - Resident returned buffer survey. Resident is interested in reducing buffer but believes restrictions should be put on the buffer reductions such as no tree removal, filling and construction. Resident does not want to see homeowners destroying natural habitat. . April 5, 2005 and April 7, 2005 - Resident called to change survey response to indicate a desire for no reduction to the buffer. . April 13, 2005 - Resident called to express concern about the native vegetation being harmed if the buffer were to be "given back" to homeowners. . April 18, 2005 - Resident called to inform staff that they would not be attending the City Council meeting dealing with buffers. . April 18, 2005 - City Council meeting to finalize the decision regarding the wetland buffers. All affected residents were mailed the council memo. It was decided by Council to work with each homeowner to sign off and allow reduction of the wetland buffer (when desired by the homeowner) to 10 feet and place it in a conservation easement to be granted to the City by the property owner. Mr. & Mrs. Pierce were present. . May 2, 2005 - Resident called inquiring on the timeline for the buffer issue resolution. . May 13,2005 - Resident called about the wetland buffer decision. . May 16, 2005 - Resident called about the wetland buffer decision. . August 1, 2005 - Conservation easement paperwork was sent out to all affected residents. . August 10, 2005 - Resident called to ask if a building permit was needed for a fish pond. No indication was given by the resident as to the size or location of the potential improvement. . November 22, 2005 - Staff was made aware of the encroachment of the landscaping/amenity on the buffer and City property. City staff was not made aware of the location of the landscaping/amenity in the buffer area and on City property prior to or during the construction of the landscaping/amenity and the City staff did not grant any permissions or approvals for the landscaping/amenity to be placed in those areas. BUDGET IMPACT None at this time. Wetland Buffer Discussion December 19, 2005 Page 3 ACTION REQUESTED 1. 5215 203rd Street - Approve the attached agreement allowing the encroachment of the sprinkler system at 5215 203rd Street in the City's rear yard drainage and utility easement, contingent on the signing of the agreement by the property owner. 2. 5241 203rd Street - It is staffs recommendation, based on past practice and in order to avoid significant costs to the City now and in the future, that staff be directed to require the removal of the encroaching items from the City property and the buffer at the expense of the property owner. Respectfully Submitted, ~YYl~ Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Benjamin and Jessica Rowan Christopher and Ravit Berg ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT made this day of ,20-, by and between the CITY OF FARMINGTON, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and BENJAMIN ROWAN and JESSICA ROWAN, husband and wife ("Rowan"). RECITALS A. Rowan is the fee owner of Lot 7, Block 1, MIDDLE CREEK 5TH ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota (the "Subject Property"). B. The City owns easements for drainage and utility purposes over, under and across the Subject Property pursuant to the drainage and utility easements dedicated to the public pursuant to the plat known as MIDDLE CREEK 5TH ADDITION recorded in the Office ofthe County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota (Easement Area). C. Rowan has constructed and wants to maintain an irrigation system on the Subject Property which will encroaches into the City's Easement Area. 122393 NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL COVENANTS THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City hereby approves the encroachment of the existing irrigation system on its Easement Area. 2. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed a waiver or abandonment of the City's ownership or easement rights. 3. Rowan shall be responsible for all costs relating to construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and repair of the irrigation system, shall keep the system in good repair and working condition, and shall remove the system upon its replacement or discontinuance of use; 4.. Rowan, their successors, heirs, and assigns, do hereby agree to defend, indemnify, and hold the City and its successors or assigns harmless from all costs and expenses, claims and liability, including attorney's fees, relating to or arising out of the grant to Rowan of permission to encroach on the City's Easement Area and from any claims arising out of damages to the irrigation system that might occur during the City's and its successors or assigns use, repair, maintenance or replacement of the Easement Area, except as otherwise provided herein. 5. The City and its successors and assigns may terminate this Agreement at any time at its sole discretion upon thirty (30) days written notice to Rowan of its intentions to terminate this Agreement and Rowan shall remove the irrigation system within that thirty (30) day period or the City may have the system removed and assess the costs of removal of the system against the Subject Property. Rowan expressly waives any rights to a hearing or to challenge the amount of the assessment under Minnesota Statutes ~~429.081, 429.101, or other law. 6. This Agreement shall run with the land and shall be recorded against the title to the Subject Property. 112215 2 CITY OF FARMINGTON (SEAL) BY: Kevan A. Soderberg, Mayor AND: Robin Roland, Acting City Administrator BENJAMIN ROWAN JESSICA ROWAN STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20---, by Kevan A. Soderberg and by Robin Roland, respectively the Mayor and Acting City Administrator ofthe City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC 112215 3 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20-, by BENJAMIN ROWAN and JESSICA ROWAN, husband and wife. NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association 1380 Corporate Center Curve, Suite #317 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (651) 452-5000 JJJ :srn 112215 4 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farminQton.mn.us C 'h CH' 'it!) -b @I LJ. 7- 05 {o ~--u.e '* Please check one: wc.",-\-S ft. D No, I am not interested in the City eliminating all but ten (10) feet of the wetland buffer in my back yard, I want my buffer to stay as is. ~ Yas, I am interested in the City reducing the wetland buffer in my L.LLJ backyard to a width of ten (10) feet. Comments r ~~~ ~'^~ ~ 'S-cL~ O-,^,,\~ }-J...~~ ~ C9..", ~ ~~\.~~~ - "'^~ ,"~.:"",^,ov\~ oR- ~~~~ - "'Q ~,,\- ~t~ J- c(;)'-" ~~~~OJ' ~ -\.Q~~ ~~ ",,~~\'o..\ ~~~~ ~.~s ~~'^--J Q.~~t ~~~ D,._~-: lC:l'^-. .'C k Q;-~, os-~_o.. - o~~~"" ~o..@.. \~~~ cI- SC>"-'L \c~~\-- e>Z ~~~ ^~ "' ~~~, T ~~ c.uO--~ ~ ~~ \--o..~~~ ~\""'~ ~ ~,~ "- "'""~~ ~ ~''''''~ ~ ""o....~ \ ...J ~!' ~ ~"'- \'^'^-~ cJ-. ~~ ~ Please Return by Monday February 28, 2005 to: City of Farmington Attn: Jen Collova 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 \\'... ~'" ~ Mtl~ ~ ~ ~'^ ~O~. ~~~. ~er8' S2.4'/ /?,r-,"< ed S +- '-- <"'~.-:.J CI) 0> ctl_ O>CI) 1::>- o l/) E CI) .... .c:::::l -- .- ctl 3: C ~.g> o l/) ~ g CI) I a. . ctl 0 0.0 .... _ I CI) l/) =l/) CI) 0 CO C l/).c .... >- "C :t:: ~ 0 dJ c'- >- ~ C - CI) CI) . l/) CI) C ~ ctl-~O ~ ~ 2 -c ~ (: CI) CI)~ ctl cCl)C "C i~~~ ~~ 0 ~ i2~0 ~ 5 .c&CI) 3: ~I~S C ..cCl)C.... ctl CI).... -:::::l....CI) _ - :::::l - 0:::::0 ctlCl)c.coE l/)~C .c ~ ~a.ctlE ~ - g~l/) ~ ~ ~ CI)~CI).c I~~~i~ ~~~ ~E ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~B5: ~ ~ a.~ ~:t::.c:::::l~~! ;> .... > >- 0::::: .... . c = .... O....:::::l.s:.... .0 .0 0 - l/) 1:: ~ "C 0 "C CI) C '" .- C "C .- B ;,;: CI) 0> C CI) 0 ;>:t:: .- 0> - - .Q - ._ CI) - CI) .... 0 ::> 0.... - ctl.... l/):::::l _ CI) C 0 C :::::l "C "C ...., C ctl -:::::l .c a. ~ ~l/) a. ~ L. :;:; ~ 16 .. ~ - 0 10 l/) ctl 0 3: 3: g>.c Cctl Cctl .5 :0 .c i ~ 0 >-0 a.;>:::::lctl .c CI) .c>o.c ....OCl)- "C - .0 .c....l/)ctlctl"C l/)EO ::> 3:roCl/)O- 0 .CI)CI).c1OCl) .. .. = cCI)'E:::::lctl ::>a.CI).... C _ _;> - - o.....c l/)_.c CI) CI) :::::l CI)-ctl~ ;> CI) E 0 l/) .- 1: 0 ~ . - 0> ~ >- l/) E C _ CI) E -0 - 3: 3: .0 l/) ctl "C >- 0>50U~~ -~ctl~~ ~....CI)~~~ "C~~~16o>~ CI) CI) ctl CI)~~C~ C ICI) 0 >--CI)l/) CCI)(:-;> CI) CI).c .c.c - .cOOctla. ~o Q.CI)- ctlCl)a.l/)"C o.c:::::lUCI)- =.c....o-~O> - - - ---"CE ~-"Cl/)"C~ l/)....l/)-C :;:; l/)~CI)O ctlCl)a.->-~c - - ~ ="C=CI) ~ "C 0 C ctl 0 0 0 0 - ;,;: l/) .5 -.;; C 0 .c x. ctl CI)';:: :::::l :::::l l/) 3: CI) ctl - 0 cCI)O-....ctl -E-~O Cl)c~~Ol/) o>-CI)~l/)E~ 0 0 ctl _=0100 -"C3:O>O>.c "C>-"CE- :::::lO>CI)....cCI) ....OOctlo ~ .0 .0 0 Cctl OCl) "C "C "C C - CI) C CI) "C ~.- l/) O. CI) - - - - C ctl ctl - CI) O' 0> CI) 0 C :0 ~ ~ = ctl = CI) CI) . "C l/) _ ~ l/)ctl "C 16 al C "C .0 "C '0 .- "C "C "C :E C 'E ~ ctl = l/) .- = ._.... ctl ctl l/) = "C CI) .... C > _ ~ . 0 CI) C CI) C "C CI) CI) CI) l/) '" ctl l/) 0> ctl"C~:::::l-2 ol/)OctlctlCl)=CI)CI)CI).cc.cl/):;:;=CI)=:::::lCl) = = = CI)->- 1:: Oc .c"CO> cctlcCl)01::ctl:t::"C=OCl)ctl....Octl>ctlO= ctl ctl ctl ....~~~o c ctl E l/) c >- ctl 3: ctl . C ctll 0 ~'en CI) :::::l :E .c ~ :::::l 0 '0, 0 0 ctl 0 0 0 I CI) octl - E ctl o>>ctlCl) ::>CI)::>l/)ctl~IO> Cl)all/)l/)-LC)"CO>= 0> 0 0> 0> 0> "C- .~ ::> "9- ~ ctl - C 0;>.... 0;> cO::> ,.... CI) "" l/) CI) ctl 0 ~ .... CI) .... .?;- 0> .... .... .....c CI).~.c l= ~ ;>.... oo:::::lo CI) ;>O>CI).c~ .c"".... CI).cCl)-.... CI) CI) CI) -....0-.... S "C .~ 0 E 0::: .c 0::: 0 0 C I al - LC) ~ 0 ~ .a ~ 0 al al 0 CI) al al al ~ 10 .c - 0 .c ~~""'''C .- .CI)O::::;:; ."Co:t:::;:; .ctl...lc.o .CI)al . . .ctlOOCl) .-c II) . o>.c _l/) CI) 3: l/) ~ .....c . Cl)1 l/) CI) 0 :::::l 0 C C '" 0 l/) - l/).c. l/) l/) l/) :t::. l/) l/) ctl 0 _ ~ CI) 0 c .c 0 ~ ~ ~ - ~ Cl)E' ~ .~ N .0 :::::l .Q 0> "C - ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ctl ~ .Q ~ .c :;:; c 0::::: LC) ctl _.... 0::::: l/) LC) 0>0::::: ,0::::: - >- "C - C C CI) 0::::: CI) 0::::: 0>00::= 0:::::.0:::::.0::::: _ - 0::::: 0 0::::: ~ ctl CD -q- ~ 0 3: g 0 LC) ctl 0 .5 LC) =. -q- g .... g> ~ g 's;.. ctl l/) LC) 3: LC) C 0::::: cD LC) C LC) C LC) "C 00 -q- 0 LC) 3: i:: EOO...lOEL.Ul/).~OO~"COOO_~~...._....OLC)COO....O:OLC)CO~O~OCl)LC)O-O~- E I '" 0::: .., I _ ,- .... I C I .... oJ ....." .... 0 I '" I 0'- I l/) I l/) I ~ 0 I I .... ~~_ l/) O_"CNctlN:::::l~.c~:::::l~~~la.~~CO~I~~~~~O~ICO~Nm~ O~ctl6(1)CI)~M~C~O>NO~l/)CI)"C:::::lOCl)~l/)~:::::l~=~E~CI)~CI)~CI)~~CI)~a.O omo_5.co_~ctl_~_0......1~~.cO"C-q-~-q-.c-q-ctlLC):;:;LC)"CLC)"CCOc~-3:......l/)0 >- ~ .... :::::l l/) "C ~ 'co E >- .0 CI) l/) C o a. l/) CI) 0::: C ~ C CI) l/) 0 C 0::: CI) ctl - l/) 0 0> .;:: 'en .... .c CI) l/) al 0 CI) ...., - '0 oI:S 'S: ctl ctl .... .5 0::: l- E oI:S oI:S CD ctl l/) ~ E'C CI) .;:: .... ftl CI) .c CI) Zal 0 0 II) ~ - ftl - t/) - c (I) E (I) II) ftl W o U CO (5 ~ CO o o - - c Q) I/) ~ Q) c cc 1/).... ~ "E ~ = >- - .... ~"t:l 0:;: 5 ~ ~ :: ~ tS .~ ~ &5 ~ c ~ ~ &5 :;; ~ "t:l g:> ~ - .... 0 I/) 5 ~ c ~ :i2 ..... Q) ~' I/) Q).o I I/) a> ~ c co "t:l Q) ~ I/)Q) .0 ~ ro =01/) ~Q)Q) cocco ~ ~ :5 ~ ~ ~ ffi :5 I/) ~ co~. ~ ~~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ co 2 (5 cE "5 co lD =g>i>- ~15~ J:_~ co g ~ ~ ffi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .0 co 5 i E.s Q) _ ~ ECO cc_ =Q)O 0 ~ u ~ 1 is ~ ~ g o~~ Iii IB~ ~ ~ E i ~ ~~ ! ~ ~ ~~~ ~:~~E~~ ~ .E !E ~ Q)S 0 I/) ~ O:!!Q) .=0) cOCOJ: 0- 0- .~ -0 . :> _ 0 - C .0 "t:l 'S; co = :> -c .... - Q) ~ -"t:l~- _"t:l "t:lQ)_Q)>I/)CO> .....0 .... o c CQ)~~"t:l ~ ~~C"t:l"t:ll/)Uo-t- S ~ i~~ ~~ii ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~:5~;~~ ~ ~ ro ;; ~ ~ ~ :0_ E U Q).... .... c. Q) - U co "t:l J: ~ a. I/) U Q) I/) Q) Q) Q)..... .- .s= Q) - Q) ro >- :> co I.... I/) Q) .0.... Q) - 0) 0) E. , ....Q) ~ Q) C J: ~ Q) .0 U co >->c Q)Q)I/) ....cc CQ). ._-....-""J: l COQ)"t:l ~=....co E .oEQ)~ ~I/)~=~N~~N-~ ~ O ~J:C -~IQ) co E~ ~co-o ~~ ~-o~ > .--co 'ro.o1O U COQ)Q) Q)Q)roc .Q)....J:Q) 0 co IlD~EOOlDuQ)o~ UI/)OO oocuco~~=g~lDJ:~~ lI)en= O.==J:O- I/) .co. '0=-00::: .coo.,cl/)Q).. _ ~......... ~ co - C\I - 1/)' .::: .... Q) I/) 1/)._ co I/)Q)':::; I/) - - .;:: :> ~ > .;:: c~.o.!g;~.o- I/) ':>,.0 .:::; ~..... ....co- 1....00 c.:::; >.... co.:::; (I)."t:l':::; ."t:lOOC~."t:l~1O IOI/)~ ~2:00~.~ -1000~1O Eo c. ~o CIO g! ~"'6.a0 .0510..:10 Q)IO golO ~~oc ~>.o E~~9o~coo>....~u~Q)~u9Q)91/)9~~9:>O)N~Q)lD~ 0~~mE~~~"5~co2~~~Q)~~~c~=C\I~~(5~""~J:~ o~~~~m~~.o~~U~~~=~.o~8~~~~~c~a~u~ I/) .Q) >- 050~ U _ _ U Q)CO~c O)CUQ) co .!2l co J: 0)1/).0- t >-- lD o C C C ECOQ):> _I/)> O~Q)O -O.oQ) c==E Q)'-'- 0 I/)~~J: Q) .... = ~ .~ .... ::J ........ . c:S .E .0 &5 OQ)Q) Q) I/)-oUt:J:.... Q) J: Q)Q)0-0 .~ - ~ U 0) U -0 - -. ~COC"t:l "Q) CO I/) I/)"t:l O)'--Q) E ="t:ll/)Q)tl/)rox :;:; cQ)....oCOJ:CO C co ~Q)>Q)E~Q)- Q) O"t:l.9:1.oQ)~.oQ) "t:l C c...."Q)o ....c.o 'Ci) 0 ~~.o:: = ~ 0 s ~ g> co....Q)Q)coC"t:l- en '':: U 18 ~ ~ = 8. ~ &5 lD .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J:.~ OJ:I/)J:I/)-~I/) (5 "t:l - o-o&5ffico }:n ..: ~ "t:l .~ - I/) - E al Q) ..... Q)- Q)"t:l"t:lc"t:l en ..:=~ 1ijo~co~~~c ~~I/) ul/)ro~rocoUo .0.... _Q)U -UQ)I-u ~ i ~ ~= co ~ co en E U -u- ~Q)O)>-O)cOQ) ~~e C>lD~"5~8~~ ="t:lal .J:C>.oC> C Q) ....Q) 'Q)'I/):>. .Q)J:.... ............ ....>1/) -I/)J:O uQ)~~~I/)....~...._...,,gQ) 1O=1O.!!llOt~ 2:~ CIO 1/).... o 0 OSIO~1000:;"'.a ,~, lD' I/)Ol/)O"t:l' coco ~clO_"'" , 'Q)~C)C ~coC\l'5~Q)~lD~-o~~ ~ ~ ~ .0 ~ ~ ~ J: ~ ~ ~ C> "Ci) Q) J: - co J: - "t:l JB co - I/) 10 o , ~ I ~ II) Q) - C C 0 (l)J: E ~ E>- 0.0 o.~ >-;C (1);0 ~. g. ~ Q) t/)~ >- 10 0 10 ~ 1010 10' 0 09 o~ , ~ ' ~ ~ I/) I ~ ~ ' , 0, ,. ~ "t:l C\I. .Q) Q) ~ '>- >-c C '(ij C\lQ) ~~ 0 x 2: J: E ~~ ~~ ~ >- >-1/) 1/)>- >- .0 .0 _ _ .0 .0 Q) Q) C C Q) Q) I/) I/) Q) Q) I/) I/) C C I/) I/) C C 0 o ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~= =~ ~ I/) I/) CO co I/) I/) ~ ~Ci5 Ci5~ ~ II) (I) >~ ~ I/) co C "t:l C co 00 .9:1 E co ..., ~ >- co ~ "'6 (I) I E co ftl .~ zC> .... Q) 0) C 'N - 'Q) 00 C Q) Q) ::E - co ~ ~ ~ .... co ~ Q) .... .0 E co U co C C o o ~ J: ~ Q) I/) o ..., N - 'Q) ~ co 'u '':: - co a.. ~ 0) :J o o ..... 00 J: C5 o _C\I (1)0 (1)10 b~ t/)IO ..... 00 J: - o o C\I . ~ ~ 10 ..... 00 J: - o o C\I ~ ~ ~ 10 ..... 00 J: - o o C\I ~ o ~ 10 J: - . "0_ o 0 O~~ ~ II) ~~ ftl g J:_ om. C\I ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ I/) .... Q) J: - o .... al C ~ co o ~ C co '':: al - co 0) :J C> ..., al ~ I/) ".:: J: U ..... 00 J: - o o C\I o C\I ~ 10 ..... 00 J: - o o C\I . . ~ 10 10 ~ . ..... ~ ~ III 0 0 ::I U U - lG ro ro - (5 - C/) 0 - .::i:- .::i:- C ro ro Gl C C E 0 0 Gl - - - - III C C lG Q) Q) w (/) (/) ~ (/) - . Q) - '0 0 e: e: ~c:t: 0;: ~ e: e: =;: Q) e:~ ~ e: :t:Q)::I e:Q)~ o~ ~ E ~Q) E (/);:0 ~ O~ ~- ::1'0.0 (/)e: ~- ro Q) ro ro ~'O (/)~\V ~~ ::I ~ .o';;)Q) ro_:so! 5i"5 .9 ~ -5 ~ ;: Q).::i:- Ero(/) rob .0 - en E ~:5 : ~ ~ . C\I a. ,g ~ . ro Q) ~ E ro ~ :5 g en ~ ~ -~ ~ Q) 0> ~ 5 ~'O~ ~'Oc 8 ~ ~ro Q)~:O:3'O .~'ci'O 15~ O>15en;:g ~~ (/) :S Q) 0 ro ffi ~ 15 ffi f!? Q) :: en 5 i . ~ ~ .g'~ '.!a ~ 2 (/) :5 ~.E :5 ~ .E 8 ~ ~ :3 :5 ~ Q) '0 ~ Q) 0>. 0 e: .- e: . - . ~ '0 0 .- :t: e: :t: '0 ~ ~ ~::I 15 - ~ Q) '3 ;;; ~ e: ~ ~ ...... 8 15 0 I = (/) -g (5 . - ro e: e: ro::2!: ;: ro Q)'Q) .~ (/) ~ ~ 0' ~ "5 .!a E ~ ro oE ~ t: ~ ~ _ E Q).I ~ ~ ro e: I 5 ~ -g g en ~ .g en ~:5 . ~ ~ - ~ - 0 ~ ::I en 0 c: \V (/) ~ .!:: .::i:- I ro ~ ~ '0.0 0 E Q) ~ Q) - - 15 .E ~ :t: ..0 e:,Q)'O ~;: EQ):5 Q),E ::I51~ Q)'3ro'Oro::l~:t:o.Eo.~e:!!:::Q) ~ Q) ro'Oro o ~ e: E e: Q) a. ::I e: 0' ~.- :t: 0 I '3 ~'O 0 ::I Q) ~ a.... =.::i:- ~ - '0 ~ en ~ ~ 0> ~ ro 5 ro e: ~ ro ~ 55 :;: .!: c: I '0 ::I;: I g> 0 Q) ~ 1: .0 ~,E ro 32 ~ (/) ~ :t: e:::I E 0'- e: . Q) Q) - ~ Q) .- a. (/) ~::I 0 Q) Q) .0 _ .';:: 0 C: .- '0 .!: ~ 0 t: ro 0 S ~ (/) ~ E g- .;:: . C:::I .!: t: ~ 0> coo 0 - 0.1 ij) '0::1 .'5 - ::I ro 0 e: .9 0 Q) - ~ 0 Q) (/) Q) e: .Q Q) e: .- I ::I (/) Q) - 0 - - ~ '0 ro I .- .0' 0' ro (/) (/) - ro -;: (/) - '0 ;: .- c: ~ .- g- (/) .!a .9 g. 0 - Q) '0 '0 :!: Q) ~ ~ ~ _ . e: :5 '0 .::i:- '0 :;:::; :E '0 ro e '0 .0 _Q) Q) C .- e: 0 e: - ~ '0 ~ - '0 E Q) Q);: = c..o ro '0 .'- (/) Q).!: Q) Q) 0> Q) ~ ;: a. Q) '0 0 Q) - .- e: ~ Q) a. c Q) ~::;;; ::;;; ~ ~ Q)' - ;: e: '. '0 0> e: ~ 'i5 ;: 'Q) = :t: - Q) 'i5 '3 16 ~ ~ - Q) '0 '0 Q)- -Q)Q) =w", ..,,- .... Ie: ro .Q)e:~- ~ro::le:~oo -- 'O.oQ) Q) '0::1 ro ~ (/) ro ro o:t: 0 e: e: E I Q) Q) ro:;:::; ,=.- 2 '0 0 Q) 0 .0 Q) - 0 e: .!: c Q) - = ';;).0 0_ Q) 0 Q) e: 0 e: 5 0 Q):so!~..(/) ~ .~c Q) e: (/):5.!: (/) :so! O~.::i:- 00>Q) = [Qro ro Q) Q) _ e:' 0'0 0" (/) (/) (/) _. ro ~ '0' ro ~ ro ~ ~ '0 (/) - Q) ~ 0 '0 ro 0 o ~ ~ ffi 0.0 0 (/) (/).- (/)..., - ro I Q) O. ;: ~ I Q) - Q) ~ - 0> Q) Q) e: Q) '0 - 0 e: e:._ 0 ~ e: o I - ~ '0 (/) e: - ro - ro cD ::I Q) I ~ ~ _ e: ro.::i:- o..::i:- Q) ~.!: Q) = ro ~ 0 ~ ~ ro .~ (/) ~ ~ ro . '0 It) e: .g> Q) '3 c: "5 8 ~ a. ~ - 0> ~ . I I '0' e: 0 ~ 0 Q) o:t: 0 ;: - ~:a5 I (/)0 c: 0> 0 ~ ro:t: 0> (/) 5 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 s ~o ~ [Q ~ ~ roo> . ~.It) Q)j~ ~ rog ~ g .E ::2!: EO C\I ::2!: ;: It) 32::2!: ~ 0 E It) ~::I 02 n; 0 ~ 00::: 0 ~ (/) ~ . > . ro (/) 0,0 '0,.- Q) Q), ~ ro ~ . 0 0::1' ro :c '0 0 .o:C ro III u.. 0 ro 0:::: (/)"5' - (/) ~ (/) C t: ~ 010 rol (/) o.~' . e: . Q) (/) Q) - Q) Q) 0 0 (/) a. ~ Q) 0 en '0 ~ en - ~ C\I ~ ~ c ~ e: ~ 5 ~ (/) ~ 0 oE 0:::: '0.. C\I ~. ~ E .!:, ~ '0 ~ :5 ~ ::I ...... t= :5 C\I 0 ~ - ::2!:::I C\I '::2!: e: ::2!: - C::2!: C:' 0 '::2!: Q) 0 ~ .- Q) - It) Q) c:- . .- >J e: - e: 0 e: C:' ~ e: e: C:' e: ro e: GlE ro 15 ~ l:: ~ Q) It) 15 It) ~It) c :t: 0 Q) ro [Q,1t) 0 :!:...,. ro It) 0 ..,. ~ - ..,. .- ro Q) It) Q)E ..,. ~ ro 01.0:;:::; It) Q) E t'; 2 e: 0 ~ ~ 5i ro 9 E 9 0>9 Q) 0 ~ oj 2 ;:'.,9; :51.9 ~ 9 ~ 9 5 ~ 9 ~ 2:5 9 Q) 0 e: ::I:g 0 ~ 0 E I .0 (/) ::I I a. Z co 5 M t: It) (/) '0...... E..o _'...... Q) .-....... :t: co ro I""- 0 Q) M ~ .0 _ I""- (/) rD 8.0 ::I cJ, ~ ~ OM Q) ro'Om Q) ro Q)......_C\I OC\l Q)'ffio OQ) roM Q) ~C\I::IC\I;:C\I (/) Q)...... 0 Q) ro...... ro Q)C\I (/) Q)'O...... Q)C\I ro o a.b u.. ;: ~ cO :5 a. C cO .!: cO E cO .0 a....... 0 u.. :5 cJ, e: co:: rD .0 N ro ~ '0 ;: cO en u.. :5 a.b Q) :5 ~ '0 u.. ~ cO :5 a.b Q) ~ ~ ::I (/) III '0 - ~ C 'ffi Gl E E E, ~ .0 0 Q) 0 (/) ~ e: Gl 0 ~ a. (/) ::I Q) C/) a:: III Gl ~ ...... 0 Z ~ It) ~ ~ 0 ~ I Q) Q) ...... It) > C: M 0 ~ ::I I I ::I ::I (/) M CO (/) (/) '0 Q) C\I '0 '0 ~ I ~ ~ e: C\I 'ffi 0 >< 'ffi 'ffi E ~ $ E E a. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) e: e: e: e: e: 0 0 0 0 0 a. a. a. a. a. (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ~ ~ ro C) E ~ Q) ro ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 :> e: Q) ::2!: ~ 0 e: Q) .::i:- ~ e: '0 ~ 0 e: ro ~ ro 0> ro 0 0> ro ro ~ 0> 0> a:: .;:: (/) C ~ Q) 0 ~ a.. :c ;: Q) 0 ~ e: a.. 0 ~ Q)::2!: ro Q) ~ ~ Gl ~ e: ...J .!: Q) ~ ro E - .- en E ~ ~ - > E 0 lG ro Q) ::I ro 0 ~ Z ::2!:~ i= ...., u ~ ....; ....; ....; ....; ....; ....; ....; CJ)CJ) CJ) CJ) CJ) CJ) CJ) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - C5 - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I GlO C\I ..,. 0 ..,. CO 0 GlCO I""- CO 0 ...... C\I ..,. bco CO CO m m m m C/)It) 1.0 1.0 It) It) It) It) - OM C\I ...... 0 .J...... ...... ...... ...... m CO I""- M M M M III :;, - ftS - t/) - C G) E G) III ftS W Q) "OE ~ Co co~ "0 (/)c "5 "E: o CO 0 :;: "0- "0 ffi(/) C -Q) CO . (/) ~ "O~Q)I Q),Q:5 E~cc: :;, 000 Q5 a. Q) '(j) .... (/).!:: (/) >-CO:;,:;, Q).e O'~ 2: U.!:.- :;':;'0"0 ~E-Q5 C(/)"O~ Q)co~:;' "0 ro..c '(j) -g U "0 Q) CO C C ....:;:::;co~ lQ)u- LO:;:C~ OQ):;' 1Il0.e0Q) ..N..........:= ; 2:'~~o E~cqg(/) E.c5..2 8.f.9;b"* >- Q) > .... :;, (/) III "0 -Q) C= G) CO E E E >- 0..0 o~ >\C G)O ~g. :;, Q) t/)O::: III G) >- o z..... C CO U C :;, o ~ :;, ...., ~ G) >- E ~ ftS:= z~ .,..; C/) .e - o o _N G)N G)LO -=0) t/)LO .e - "It "C_ O 0 O...JCO ~ III ~~ ftS g .e _ OCOC") .!2 .....e Q)- ~:20 ~:;:- .... .... Q)Q)O .e := .;:: -:;,a. 0>..0 .... .!: Q) ~ u 10 :;, .g .;:: ..0 Q) a._ .... e 0 .!: a. Q) "0 a. ffi Q) CO :;: iii~co Q) - 0 cua;.!!2 c.eco .-....... f/) -(/)CO g.~ :;: .!2 g c Q) Q) c g>:2 ~Q)lB lB:5O::: O:::iiiaj LO:;'U ol::co ffi":'"Oo.. ~ M ffi.!: o u CO - o ~ CO o o - - C Q) (/) :;: aj Q) Eo Q) .e >-- __C 0(/)'- C CO Q) C - U CO ::: CO u "0 0.. Q)Q):;::' :;, .e:;:c ..cc:>-o~ >-o.eEa. :!2 ..cU:;:>-o :;, ...: "0 :;, 0>::: C ~~~"OcUc _.!2 Q)';:: Q) CO "O....E....Q).eu C ..0 Q) "0 - "0 co"O(/).eS(/)C "Occo~>Eco - Q) ~ :;: Q) ;>.- C lB =Q5c(/)"O~co (/) ~:;:Q)o~uu _ "O-coQ)Q) C lB ~ '(j) ~ u I .e ~ ~ - Q).- N . -:;:: '(j) cc....-Q)....... Q) Q)'- I "0 .... Q) .e .... O:::~LO"5 Q)~:;: LO .- OOQ.:;'(/) 0 (/)cO> ...0.... 0 ....0 ;>...."OQ) ~"ON"O~ c"O N. "0 2:' C "It CO C >- C "ItOCCOCOO:;:::;~ .ffig I CO:;,..... Q);>....:;,u N(/)....Q)N:;:OQ)....:;, N- ..c~N (/):t::..c"O cb.g.f~cb~:a:~.f~ C o 0> C :;:; Q) Q) E CO Q) ~ Q) .e - C o .... Q) ;g ~ :;, ..0 0> C :;:; (/) Q) :;, 0' Q) .... >- ~ :;, (/) .!: Q) 0>_ .... CO 0 oo>c >- t:: I CO 0 .aEEQ5 :!~O>-Z- t/)....c~c -Q),:;,:;' cCQ)roO G):;:....cu E020>0 G) Q) CO.- - III EC(/)- ftS 0>' C WO._OQ) .e(/)U(/) o u CO - o ~ CO o .9 - C Q) (/) .... C "0 .E 0 ~ ~S g>~ro 5 ro "0 2:Q)S .-....Q) :;:; U"O C :;,..0:;:; ~~ g ~ sffi 2 (/)"O~ Q)S ~ .... ~ u>- ~ Q5"5.... ~a._ 0.E C .... ;> ~~.E co=:;:; ~ 0 2m co :;,;>c "Oa.(/) co .... u iii.... _ ..0 Q) .- "5 - Q) U. 0 0 CQ) :;, Q):;,Q) oC.e o~- - O.e 0 .e(/).... >Q)- -U"O "0 u- ..0 _(/)0 ;>Ec ....COQ) ~ "0.9 co ro;E OQ)Q) ~..c~ ro ro(/) 0> .e~c j~j ~~u u c"O C --Q) ~Q)~ >(/) (/) 0.... :!; >- C .e en' en Q) 0 Q) Q) OCO :;, ~Q):;: co~co~:5EE E ~~ ! o~"O OOOQ)roQ)O~O .0::; _;>C -U->.e..cI_I E~ "0 "O"OCO "OQ)"OO_ COCCO o~ ~ ~~~ ~:5~EQ)~ro~ro ~~ ~ ~~lB ~~~~~~s~s -Q) Q) .Q)CO> .Q)(/)Q)..ca.(/)C/)coC/) :;,.- U Q) U'- CO Q) U U (/) Q) coo. ....(/)....0 _....Q)....-Q)"O.e .e U. Q)-Q)(/)$..cQ)UQ)~....C:::C::: Q)~...:~~~:a:~~~~~>LOCO:;:g:;: ~=~....:"" . .5CO .Q) .~o~-t:co-t: ~~o:;,~a.~co~~(/)~=~..cco2:co C"It~..c"lt~~~uQ)~2:'~Q5>-~~Q)~c G)EO~"OOULOlB>-..cLOSLO~ffi~LO~LOQ) EMQ)ffiMQ59(/)6"0900:;,:;,co909E ~..c:;:::;~~o(/) "5~c~..c.cQ)"ItUcoQ) oocQ)O:;,~COQ)ONQ)"",Q)Q)c""'Q)N~ O.....o:;:.......cC"):;::5:;:~:5,.:.:5u.:;,,.:.:5,.:.Q) LO >- LO >- >- >- Q) Q) ~ Q) 0 > 0 > > . .... . .... .... .... ~ :;, 0 :::::l :;, :::::l I (/) C") (/) (/) (/) C") . "m "0 C") "0 "0 "0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E 'm LO 'm 'm 'm I E E E E Q) 0 >- >- I >- >- >- ~ ..0 ..0 I ..0 ..0 ..0 Q) Q) C") Q) Q) Q) (/) (/) Q) (/) (/) (/) C C 0> C C C 0 0 CO 0 0 0 a. a. (/) a. a. a. (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) 0::: 0::: ~ 0::: 0::: 0::: :::::l CO Q) (/) .;:: CO 0. Q) :::::l C/) ~ .... Q) ~ LL. C 'S; ~ CiS .e o o N "It co 0) LO LO C") ..... ..... (/) ~ ro C> Q) C C >- ....J ~ :t:: Q) ...., C o C (/) Q) C~ .e C ~ Q) ~o::: Q) ~ 'fi:.:i ::E~ ~~ - ffi 0 .;:: E mi= N ~ Q) 0. .... Q) .e - CO Q) I ~ "0 's; CO o .,..; C/) .e - o o N co ~ 0) LO ...:.....: C/)C/) .e.e - - '00 00 N N NCO co co 0) 0) LOLO .,..; C/) .e - o o N "It 0) 0) LO "It C")N C") C")C") C") Q) U .... Q) ~ co .... CO ....J ~ Q) G) CO E.e ftS.~ Z~ (/) Q) E o I CO - CO C o C/) .,..; C/) "E C") o N .,..; C/) "0 .... C") o _N G)~ !C") -..... t/)LO ..... co ..... LO .e - It) ~ G) G) .... o ~ "C :2 :E co ..... II) ~ - ca - C/) o () CO - o ~ CO Cl o - - c: Q) o - c: CD E CD II) ca W - c: CO 0) ~ ~Q) 0 = .~ 3= c: ~ ~ c: ~ c: 0 0=-- 5 - 0 ~ ~ ~Q)~CO~c: ~ >- E - u - .- Q)_ ~ ~ .0 0 ~::lCO"'OQ) 0 CO c: - ~ ~ -"'O~Q)> ~ ~ E Q) C:Q) ~ ~ 0) ~ ::lQ)___ ~ ~ 0 ;; ::l "'0 CO ~ ~ '(j) () .0 ~ ui ~ C3 () c: J2 c: ::l 0- OU- c: Q) .~Q)OCO Q) 0 ~ 0 :e g>& ;~ 5 .9 = =~t ~~ = ~ ~ ~ 5 =g '';~C:Q).oQ)~ ~ -o::l ~.Eo~c:~ -o::l .Q~; ; .0 Q)~~O c: -- -0 ~COQ)_Q) co 0 i!! ro c...~ ~ 0 ~ i!! ro a."'O E ~ ~ .0 = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 0) 7 ~ ~ ffi Q) 0) .E ~ ~ ~ co _Q)-c:~0 ~ c: _-c:.o c: >0 0 o = ~ ~ .- Q) CO . c: :!: "'0 0 U 0 - :!:_ -Q) OE Q)E Q)E _ 3=UCO"'O.oO"'O- ::l Q)Q)~~~ ::l - "'0 _ CO ~ Q) '^ - Q) "'0 0'" c: c.. CO:> 0'" 0 0 ~ c:.oQ)=~"'O>Q) c: ~OCO~>- ~ .Q)I~I Q) "'O:e CO 3= Q) 0 - .'- Q) I "ffi =: ~ ~ .0 C ~ ~Q)::lU~=Ero~~ ~ oU _~ ~"'Oi!!Q)i!! 0=.oQ)Q)~Q)U~= >-~~C:Q) 03coEco Q) Q)CO=C:~ ~Q)::lCO Q)Q)OC:~ ro c:0C:Q)C: c: ~ E CO ::l ::l Q) Q) c:.o, U :>. c: ~ ~ Q) - U >J 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ ::l I ~~..... c: .0 ::l"'O. ~" ::l U > - ~"c.. 0 (f) ... (f) ~ ~ "'0 >-Q) C' t .... ::l 0 ~ Q) Q) :: a .0 co .- co -..... . '"~ 0 t Q) > ~ co "'0 ~ - t U. Q) 0 _VI Q) _ 0)= Q) ~.1:B "'0 = Q) = ~ co _(jc:t co c.. c: ~~~c:-c:-C (j "ffi ~ ~ . J2 ,~ ~ (j -5. t5 ~ !B;; 2 ~ -g (j ~. LO co 3= .Q 3= ~ . U 0 0 Q) '-' Q) . Q). . Q) "'0 - 0 - co . Q) 0 Q) ~ . ~ co o . ~ LO c: ~ ~ . c: 0 ~. 0 ~ .- ::l.- = r!? ~ 0 :0 l;:; ~ l;:; c.. S ~ 0 co 0 .- ~ :> r!? "'0 ~ co I ~ ::l 1:B 0 ~ 3= c: -==::l N co ~ Q)'" ~ -c: c: ..::; 5 Ci5 0 ~ ~ '0 ~ 3 ..::; 0)"::; .0 ~ ~ 0 0 ,Q ..::;.0 ~ c: ..::; ..::; CD LO .- N _ 0 0 LO c:.~ "'0 LO _ U C 0 ~"'O"'- 0 LO ~ LO Q) E 0 C3 LO ~ 0 I Q) LO ~ 0 '-,0 c: 0 c: Q) 0' 0 c: co 0 0 0 E E I .;:: 0 U Q) 0) Q) 0 :> I .~, I co I 0.0 ~ ::l ~ I co 2 Q)co ~ 8 ,).. Q) 0_ I ~ ~Q) N _ I - 0 Q)...... - co ~ .- U ::l..... - .0 ... -- o N 0 I"'- co _ I I"'- ro ..... U.('t') Q) 0 - = 0 0 _ ('t') Q) ~ ..... Q) N 0 o ..t ~ M ~ .~ ~ ~ M 3= cD ~. a:, 3= N g.';: ~ '5 .2 a:, 3= ~ 5 t-!.. = t-!.. m >- Q) c: ::l o 11)"'0 -Q) c:= CD co E E E >- 0.0 o ~ c: o c.. o Q) a::: >- ~ ~ ::l o "'0 ~ 'co E >- .0 Q) o c: o c.. o Q) a::: >- ~ ~ ::l o "'0 ~ 'co E >- .0 Q) o c: o c.. o Q) a::: II) CD >..... ..... o Z II) ~ - ca - C/) - c: CD E CD II) ca w o o C3 ::l COQ)O ~ ,- :> - x _eo c: c.. c: Q)o- "'0_0 'en 0 co Q)-Q) ""'c:~ .....coco . 3: Q) "'0 ~ Q) .- Eo l;:; ::l- '"~ -"'O~ ~ Q) U >-00 Q)CO_ c:"fi~ ::l~.o o is. co -c:Q) C:Q).o ~~O 'en 3=; Q)~~ ~Q)= IlI:::"'O LO::l- o.o::l _0 S~o3= i >-~"S ~ Eroco.o . ::l3=~0LO E..cco~~9 oQ)O::lQ)'";'" ou.c:.o3=~ >- Q) c: ::l o 11)"'0 -Q) c:= CD co E E E>- 0.0 o~ >.C: CD 0 ~g. ~ Q) C/)a::: LO o I ..... I ~ Q) c: o ~ c.. >- .0 Q) o c: o c.. o Q) a::: x J!:! II) CD >..... o Z ..... ..... ..... 0 t Q) Q) c: .0 ::l ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 a::: t 0 Q) ~ 2 co ~ C9 co - C9 0 N Q) c: co Q) Q) E co c: E Cl J2 Q) co E 0 jjJ I I- ~ CD~ <( co ~ 3= ~ - CD c: ~ E= co E 'S; ~ c: "'0 ca ~ 0 ca Q) c: Za:l -:l (f) Z~ <( 0 0 co -= -= Q. (f) (f) 0 "'0 "'0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ('t') ('t') 0 0 Cl N N l)a; ..... 0) LO II) N ~ I"'- CDLO ('t') ('t') ('t') CD bo - LO LO LO ca C/)N ~ - - II) It) W ~ ~ - CD CD 00 f ('t') N ! ..J..... 0) 0 0 CD CD ~ =ti =ti u :2 :2 0 :E ..... ..... :E diN N II) ~ - ca - en - c CI) E CI) II) ca W - >'0 (I) 1:: C .!::: (I) I/) :::l 0...- g-eS .- 0...:.:: 000 --CO "0 0....0 ~:::lC CO I/) (I) 0'- > "0'- -00) t;.. (/) (I) _ ...0 C-"O ~~"S .!;;; E g >(1):> CO I/) = '(3 m ~ .- CO <(-c>. . 0= .:.:: ..._ s.... (proro 0 s: ~ 5 ~, :> (I);; (I) o 1/).- c.. c"O CO 1I)3:0~0.. _(1)0 ~ C Z (I) 0 c. CI) Lt) ~ C ;;. Eo:;ol/) Ecb:::ll/)~ o~,g~CT OO)CO:=~ SLt) co CI) · EI';- E~ o C O~ >->. CI) (I) c: ~ ~ :::l en(/) I/) (I) E o ::c (I) (I) CI)-7 E C ca~ z<( I/) I/) CO c.. I/) ~ Cl -..... Cl)co II) e co CI)_o 'tUenN - II) W .lll: CI) e o CI) ::s :5! ::E - o ..JLt) .lll: U o mN II) ~ - ca - en c:i (,) CO - o .lll: CO Cl >. ..0 "0 (l)Lt) "00 .... I 0""'" ON (I) I ....co - c CI) E CI) II) ca W (I) & s ... ]5 :::l 0) 'iii CO ..0 C 'S; I/) 0) ;; (I) :::l C (I) - C ;; (I) 'iii :::l ~ E (I) ~ :::l (I) :5 ('I) CT - .... I/) ~ .~ .E CO >. C ..... ~ . (I) 0 ro c~~ ffi.OO (I) O:::l 0.. (1)1/) .lll: "O:::ll/) C .-"0 C :::l';:: CO ~~:::: _co~ a:::.... C (1)"0- .&~ ~5s C:::l -0"0 .- ..0 - "0..0 (I) _ C (1)_= C(I)(I) =cco (I).:.::~ CO (I) 0 1/):=1/) OE.... ~:2 ~ .... (I) ~ ~:::lLt) ~I/)= ~oo =cooo:= :::l 3: . ~ (I)"::: II) I/) O.!a 1/)"': 1: I -g~1/) ...::c~ Cl)Lt)co....co~l/)Lt) E 0 ~ .!;;; Lt) I/) 0 ELi> .ocoE9aLi> ON (I) ""'" 1/)..... ON u..~cb:ocb 5 ~ & ~ C"O .... ;; I/) C ~(I) (I).... & CO CO CO (1)0) "0 ECO :::l(l) ~.......E ~ > CO (I) C (I)~ ..0:5 (1)'- (I) .... :; .!;;; :5 CO I/) ..... 0 0 "':I/)"O~CO .... I/) CO .... co-..... - (l)CC:::l~ 2 ....0 2 (1)0 CO C~ =o'~..o- ~ (p"O-..... C (/)- I/)~(I) 0- 0 - ~_"O :::l cOI/) - ,~,(I)o..c ..0 _0(1) ..0 .-co (1)"0 .:.::....~"O(l)_ (I) 00"0 (I) ro~ 0 ...."0 ro&o o~~ :5 ffi~-g :5 ~lI= s.~ ~ ~ E ~ ~.9 "0 3: "0..... I/) ~,~ "* ~ ~ 15 ~ ~ (I) :5 :=."0 ~ ,g 2 CO .!a '(3 ~ C - ~ ~ :5 m I/) :5 ~ >. ~ - I/) ~ ~ 'E ~.!;;; g E CT"O >.= o _ .lll: 1::.._ CO :::l :::l 0 CO ~ - ,.. ,.. CO CO - :::l I/) (1),1:5 C 0 CT >. (I) _ :; "0 - Co ~OCO~C~ ~ ~iCo ~g~~ J(I)I/)I/) o~S~~~ a c~~ ~~"O_:; "O=o;~(I)co 0)(1)"0 "0 (l)C ~(I)-~(I) ~C(I),.. "0 ~ ~ (1)"0 co (I) "0 0 (I) _ >.- .... -- o--~-- - -I/)~ I/) (I) co rol/)ro"O I/)rooroo=~~ ro ~co~ ~~~~ o~oc I/) 0...._ 0 ....3:... 2:::lc3: C cCO >'(1)(1)-'1/) C '~c cl/)~- 5~coE"O"" COI/)I/)C :::l (I) ~ (I)'Y- ~ 1/)~~o"01/) I/) "o~(I) ~""Eco E..o co ~~~~I~ ffi~I~~ ~~~~ ~~~~. "0 . .'- 0 I/) ::c ~ o::C I/) ,o:>...I:c -' .- I/) I/) I/) ..... gC . -0..... . (l)co (I) 0 o. . (I).... ...: ~ (l)c 1/)........-..... ............. CN.... II) 00:= (I) ~ ~ C ~ ~ & ~ ~ >.:= j ~ 0 .... ~ ..::: 1/):= a:::Lt)Lt)(I)(/)co~Lt)co(/)Lt)~ ~ Lt)c ~"OLt):C Lt)ooELt)l/)cO~Lt)O~ COlJ)og Lt)(I)Oc 0" (l)o-co' ~o ,_ 25 'OO~oEcb'- I N 0 I/) I ffi:;::; ""'" '5 ' 0 "0 ..0 .;:: ~ (I) 0 ..:.. _:::l....., C I';-~~col';->~~gl';-~c (I):::l'r:::lCO~(I)CO~ ('I)NCO(l)('I)>:>N:>('I)('I)CO u..OCOCT"OO).... I/) Lt) o , Lt) II)~ -N i x E~ E >. 0..0 o~ >oc CI),O c: g. ~ (I) en a::: >. ~ .... :::l I/) "0 ~ '(5 E >. ..0 (I) I/) C o 0.. I/) (I) a::: Lt)Lt) 00 I . 00 ('I) ('I) I I ('1)('1) 0606 Lt)Lt) 00 I , r--r-- I I ('1)('1) (I) (I) 0) 0) co co I/) I/) I/) I/) (I) (I) ~~ Lt) o . r-- . ('I) II) CI) >..... o z ..... 1:: (I) ..0 E co ...I Cl)1:: E~ ca 0 za::: E .... (5 ~ ::c '(5 c:::C:: co co ~ .!a 06...1 _06 (1)- '2 <5 co 0 Cl,(/) .... (I) ~ o I/) u:: I/) (I) 1/)3;2 o 0 ~> ....206 2'2 (I) I/) C I/) 'cu (I) .;:: 00:=-,(1) ":::06(,) '=~ ~ 5 c: ";:: ~~~ .... ~ ~ "0 .... co 3: "0 W ...; .....: (,) (,) .... .... e e (I) (I) 0.. 0.. E E w w -Lt) 0) Cl)N ('I) - e co co (1)-0) 0) ..... en ..... ..... "':I"':!"':!"": cD '2 1'2 !'2 ,'2 ~ 0,0 0 0 ,.. '-:'-:'-,'- u; (1).(1),(1).(1) ._ 0.. 0... 0.. 0.. 0> EEIE E C WWWWW Lt)r--Lt)('I)O ""'"Lt)cor--co CO co co co co 0)0)0)0)0) ~ ~ ~ ~ - ON ..... ..J..... ..... .lll: U o m""," ""'" 0) C E (I) 0) "0 C 'E - o C "0 '5 o 3: - C (I) "0 'iii (I) .... I Lt) o I r-- I ('I) (I) C o ~ 0.. >. ..0 (I) I/) C o 0.. I/) (I) a::: >. (I) ~ :::l I/) "0 ~ '(5 E >. ..0 (I) I/) C o 0.. I/) (I) a::: Lt) o , r-- , ('I) (I) 0) CO I/) I/) (I) ~ ..... ..... C (I) I/) C CO ::c CO I/) :::i 06 >. o .... I- .lll: '2 I/) :::l ::c (I) .!a C (I) Cl 06 C t co ~ C C co E ~ o ...I co "0 C U 06 ~ 0.. (I) I/) o -, .... (I) - I/) o a) ~ ~ .!a 0> C w o 0) co 0) ..... (I) ~ ~ .!a 0> C w o o 0) 0) ..... (I) ~ ~ .!a 0> C w o N 0) 0) ..... N ('I) Lt) cor-- Lt) Lt) Lt) III ~ - Cll - t/) - C CD E CD III Cll W III - C CD E E o o ~UJQ) _ C)~ . c_ ffi .9 .....w C Q) S .... .- .... "E e~(ij UJ ro .2 ~:g :c ~ c...c 0- .S; 0 Q)oo e ~ea. ~ UJ Q)~"'O Q) ~ eQ)e ~ "'0 cas::::::J.... """'" o >.- '"' 5Q)....t::ro e -<U~Q)S ro g>S ~ g. >. -g .- _ 0-.... ro > -e ..lIo::: ro 0- UJ .- UJ~Q)UJo Q) - ~ ro-S:c- 16 ~ .;;; "'0 "'0 "'0 "'0 .... "'0 ... Q) Q) Q) "- Q) >. .- ~ =mUJo=-oQ) UJ . ro-o..llo:::roe~ ~ "'0 (J en 0- 16 (J ro:J . . _Q) e O-..c e:;::; UJ"'O "'0 Q)..O Q)Q) Q)Q) (ij "'0 .. "'0 Q) "'0 3: I (J- (J .S; en e S .S; Q) Il) .g (ij ~ ...J-oro ...J~0Q)(J ro ...;M",o-g...;-O....~ en ::2offio::2J!3N....S Il) Il) N >. ~ 1l).E ~ ~ CJ) o...;oe......coro~:J1l) 'Q)'oro I ......co O)~Il)>.Q)roN ..cQ)' ~:J~:J""~~ Q)Q)~ M ..c N C).S; ro oq- u.. UJ M C) e .0 :J "'0 ~ .S; "'0 Q) - UJ ~ Q) - .S; .S; - e Q) UJ UJ ro 3: >. ~ :J UJ "'0 ~ .ffi E >. ..c Q) UJ e o 0- UJ Q) 0:: Il) o I o M I M >. ~ :J UJ - e Q) UJ Q) .... ~ ro en ..... e 0 :+:: ro E .... S .S; t) ro - ro ro e e .... 8 .... Q) ro ~ - m (J :J :J 0 >. ~ ~ "'0 - :J ro .~ e ...., .... Q) ~ ro .S; "'0 CJ) - e 3: ~ e ~ Q) Q) .... e UJ ..c -0 ~ Q) 0 e <( .... m <( Q) 3: UJ >. cD cD cD Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ :J UJ ~ ~ (ij .!!l .!!l Cl Cl e 0 e e :+:: W LU '0 0 oq- "'0 N oq- ro 0 0 Q) 0 0 .S; N N "C Z ... jg (It) ..lIo::: 0 CD z f ..... NM oq- Il) c.o 0 .! ..lIo::: "C (J :2 .2 :E N NN N N N ~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farminsrton.om.us SUBJECT: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator ~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer Michael Pierce; Vacate Wetland Buffer at 5127 203Td Street West TO: FROM: DATE: November 15,2004 INTRODUCTION At the October 18th City Council meeting, Mr. Michael Pierce, 5137 203rd Street West (Middle Creek 5th Addition), requested that the City Council vacate the drainage and utility easement (which contains a wetland buffer) behind his home. He has indicated that he was not aware of the buffer when he bought his property and he has less usable space than he thought he had. DISCUSSION Pursuant to consultation with the City Attorney, City Staff does not recommend vacating the easement or giving up a portion of the wetland buffer. The wetland buffers are required by City ordinance to provide protection to wetlands. At the time of the development of the plat that contains Mr. Pierce's property, the code did not require that wetland buffers be platted in an outlot; they were allowed to be on private property. It was made clear to the developers at the time, the necessity to communicate to prospective property owners the existence of the wetland buffers. Attached is an excerpt of the paper work that was included in the purchase agreement with the builder for 5137 203Td Street. A copy of part of the grading plan is included that shows the wetland buffer. Since that time, the code has been revised to require that wetland buffers be platted in an outlot, instead of private property, in order to avoid the circumstances of the issue currently before Council. BUDGET IMPACT None at this time. ACTION REQUESTED Staff does not recommend vacating the drainage and utility easement and/or reducing the wetland buffer. Respectfully submitted, ~ 'YL1~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Mr. Michael Pierce, 5137 203rd Street West 7CL COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR November 15, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Ristow led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Ristow called for a moment of silence for Sheila Mayhew. She was the receptionist at City Hall for six years and a very dedicated employee. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: . Members Absent: Also Present: Audience: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg None Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; David Urbia, City Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Lee Smick, City Planner; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Tom Wartman, David Pritzlaff, David McKnight, Steve Wilson, Laura and Mike Pierce, Derek Christensen, Jim Manthey, Ross Heintz, Nick Haugen, Tyler Van Zuilen, John Iskoff, Zach Haugen, Pat Haugen, Neil Michels, JeffIbinger, Brian Lane, J.R. Runyan, Ann Manthey, Randy Oswald 4. APPROVE AGENDA Councilmember Cordes pulled item 7a) Council Minutes 11/3/04 Special to abstain. Item 1 Oe) Enterprise Fund Rate Analysis was pulled for a future agenda. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Cordes to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Acknowledge Mayor's Service on Council- Administration City Administrator Urbia presented a plaque to Mayor Ristow for his service on the City Council. He served as Councilmember :from 1993-1996 and as Mayor :from 1997 - 2004. Mayor Ristow thanked all the Councilmembers he has served with and the residents. He was grateful for the employees and staff that made his job easier. Each Councilmember thanked him for his service. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. David Pritzlaff, 20255 Akin Road, thanked the Mayor for his service. 1 Council Minutes (Regular) November 15, 2004 Page 2 Mr. Derek Christenson, 5289 203rd Street, spoke regarding the wetland buffer behind his home. He chose his lot for the view. In June there was a sign posted in his backyard noting a wetland buffer. His papers show a drainage and utility easement. He lost 25 feet of land on both sides. He finds it hard to believe the wetland was not established before June. The signs should have been posted. He has weeds six feet beyond his back porch. He is expected to pay taxes on land, and felt he was lied to. Mr. Mike Pierce, 5137 203rd Street, also spoke regarding the wetland buffer. He understood the Engineering department reached a conclusion last Wednesday. The residents disagree with their conclusion. City personnel have been very understanding regarding their situation yet they do not believe this vacation should happen. This situation does not concern just the Middle Creek properties. The residents consulted with real estate agents and were told it would cause a significant decrease in the value of the property and decrease the number of buyers they could bring to the property as they are competing with homes in the same price range with a much bigger lot. Attorney fees could not be included in a lawsuit. He felt the Council and Engineering were putting the burden on the residents rather than the builder and developer. The wetland buffer was not shown on the survey. They want to be given a choice to select a piece of property they could develop and enjoy and they do not feel it is fair they should have to take on the attorney fees of $1 0,000 - $20,000. Regarding Councilmembers whose terms are up, he did not feel they would want this left as part of their legacy that all these properties are being forced to encumber these wetland issues. The Councilmembers have achieved great things during their term and wanted Council to look at it compassionately. They feel they are being penalized as residents as opposed to the developer and builder who were given instructions and did not pass them along to the residents. If Council chooses not to do this, they will be sending a message to builders and developers that they can do whatever they wish and when they wish. Staff included information that was part of the Purchase Agreement between the developer and the builder. Several property owners have said they were not informed regarding the buffers. Councilmember Soderberg noted this situation has been corrected for the future as buffers are no longer included in the size ofthe lot. This change was made in August 2003. There used to be a 300 ft buffer for wetlands. The new ordinance was put in place approximately a year before the August 2003 change. The ordinance change was done after the plat for these properties was approved. Mr. Derek Christensen asked why the signs weren't posted. All the residents moved in and then the signs were posted. They have documents showing drainage and utility easements and they have covenants saying all easements must be sodded. Staff stated the drainage and utility easements are incorporated with the wetland buffer. The survey is used to verify that the lot is graded to the correct elevation. This became an issue with homes when the ordinance was changed. Mr. Christensen stated there is 50 ft. beyond where their lot ends to the pond. Having weeds 6 ft. from the patio ruins the property. Why should he pay taxes on something he was not aware of and have it useless. They are taking 25 ft. away :from a 100 ft. lot. 2 Council Minutes (Regular) November 15,2004 Page 3 City Attorney Jamnik stated the ordinance requiring the drainage and utility easement and the buffer was in place at the time the plat was approved. The ordinance was changed after the plat was approved to require the buffer to be located outside of the lots. Council saw a 25 ft. drainage and utility easement on the plat. The problem is that the easement in the buffer strip is more restricted than normal drainage and utility easements. You are not allowed to install structures in drainage and utility easements. Because of the wetland buffer there is the additional restriction of not being able to mow and maintain normal sod. Given the problem with making sure the signs went up during development, and stayed up, staff stated this is not working. People were not realizing how restricted the buffer area is. Since 2003 the City has required the buffer area be outside of the lots. The problem with vacating one, Council will be asked to vacate another and on a plat by plat basis. This will defeat the purpose of the buffer strip, which is to provide additional protection and infiltration. Previously, the 50 ft. was outside of the platted lot, and 25 ft. was inside of the platted lot. Since 2003, all 75 ft. is outside of the platted lot. There will still be a drainage and utility easement on the back of the lots, but it will not be 25 ft. Mr. Christensen stated they moved in in December and the sign was not posted until June. Mr. Jamnik agreed this should not have occurred. Engineering felt this situation affects 30-40 lots throughout the City. The developer is required to install the signs. If it is winter, and the ground is :frozen, then the City will install the signs later. City Attorney J amnik stated if Council vacates the easement, we would not be complying with the City's wetland conservation ordinance or state standards. He would not recommend a full vacation, and even a partial vacation raises a question if you do it for one lot or all the lots approved in this 3-4 year period. Staff stated the ordinance requires a 10ft. setback from the buffer line. If the wetland vegetation does not take as the City would like, they have gone back and put in the proper type of vegetation. Mr. Pierce stated if the document shows wetland buffer, this was only given to the developer and the builder, not the residents. He understood they are setting a precedent and this affects a lot of homes. He asked who is in charge of enforcing the silt fence and that it stays up during construction. City Engineer Mann stated the builder is in charge of keeping the fence up and the City inspects it and enforces it. Mr. Pierce asked if this was the same person that would be in charge of making sure the monuments are there. They did have a stop work order on their home if the builder did not replace 3 ft. of silt fence that was knocked down by the driveway. If someone is going to be so diligent to make sure the silt fence is up, why did they not look to see if the signs were not posted and that the residents knew the wetland buffer exists. Staff replied that issue could have been raised at that time. Erosion control is also regulated by other state agencies and there is a process in place. Staff has dealt with the sign issue to varying degrees of success. As far as whether the City can issue a stop work order because of the wetland sign not being up, depends on the how the development contract is worded and state statute. Mr. Pierce stated ifhe builds a deck behind his house, he would have 7 ft. left to the wetland buffer. Councilmember Fitch stated enforcement is continually a problem if the people they are meant for continue to ignore the regulations. Council has taken action to rectify the situation of homeowners not being informed by the builders. Part of the residents' 3 Council Minutes (Regular) November 15,2004 Page 4 argument is not with the City, but with the builder, developer and real estate person as they are representing what they are selling. Mrs. Laura Pierce, 5137 203rd Street, when talking about the silt fence and requiring it remain up, why was that not enforced for the silt fence that should have been in the backyard. The silt fence still remains outside of the property line on the east side and to the north. It is 5-7 ft. outside of the property line. When they received the final plat for their lot, it was marked in red where the City said the silt fence should be. If the City is going to enforce the silt fence in the front by the driveway and issue a stop work order, why was it not enforced in the back of the property where the wetland buffer would be. There has never been a silt fence along the back, it has always been on the outside of the property to the east and the north. They bought the property when the silt fence was already there and the property was graded flat. Her husband mentioned they had spoken with some attorneys, it would be a great expense to them, and they would win. Winning would mean they would have to move out of their house, the builder would give them their money back, and they would have to start over again. That is not winning when you have built a home, wanted to stay in Farmington, and have children in school and the athletic programs. The suit would be against the builder. City Engineer Mann stated they do not require silt fence around the entire lot. The silt fence is placed where the water would drain off the lot. Staffwill review where the silt fence was placed on their lot. Staff agreed that grading should not have occurred within the wetland buffer area. Mr. Tom Wartman, stated with his landscape background, he asked ifthere was a way the 25 ft. would be sodded and additional buffering put at the 25 ft that would help maintain the clear water process. It is a trade-off and some expense to the homeowner, but there is 25 ft. of sod and there is additional buffer that would be permanent and would have to be maintained. Mr. Christensen stated that is what they have been asking for because there is an additional 50 ft. beyond their property. City Engineer Mann stated they will research whether there are other best management practices that would achieve the same affect. They will have to talk with the DNR and Soil and Water Conservation District. It would still require a variance to the ordinance. If there is something that will accomplish the same thing, staff can bring it back to Council. City Engineer Mann agreed they have had problems with builders grading where they shouldn't. Councilmember Fogarty stated she supported the ordinance change a year ago, because she was so frustrated with builders and developers not communicating with residents. She would consider giving them back a part of the 25 ft. if there are some type of plants that would work. She wanted it to stay on their property so they need to maintain it. As homeowners come forward and there is another solution, Council could agree to it and place it back on the homeowners to maintain it. 4 Council Minutes (Regular) November 15,2004 Page 5 Mr. Pierce stated this was one of their options. Mayor Ristow cautioned that if the area is more manicured with less wetland buffer, this allows the water to come up closer to the homes in a heavy rain. Councilmember Soderberg stated they do have wetland buffers outside of the buildable lots. He asked if it would be better for the City to place the signs. If grading is done, then citations could be issued. City Engineer Mann stated staffhas installed a lot of signs already and in some cases the signs are up first. With grading taking place, it is hard to keep the signs up. Councilmember Fogarty stated the policy would be, if residents come in, they will have to follow it by whatever precedence is set. City Engineer Mann stated posting the signs is similar to any other item the developer should take care of. If the developer does not complete the item, the City does the work and charges the developer. Staffwill discuss the issue with the DNR and the Soil and Water Conservation District and bring it back to Council. Staffwill also advise how many properties have this wetland buffer. Mr. Steve Wilson, 5342 203rd Street, stated he lives across the street from these residents. He has a number of issues with the builder and developer. He is not a big fan of more government regulation. He was very pleased with his situation as he had a lot of good direction from Sue Miller and the building inspectors. These issues do not surprise him. He almost had his irrigation system and sod installed, and if it had not been for the staff in building inspections, he would not have been aware of the fact he needed 6-8 inches of black dirt put in beforehand. On one hand, he thanked building inspections for being on top of it, but also to point out where reasonable it would be a good idea for Council and Planning Commission that as these developments move forward, to make sure the developers and builders are fully aware of what they need to convey to the homeowners. If it had not been for the good communication with Sue Miller, he would have had an issue himself. He hoped staff would be able to find a workable solution for the residents. 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fitch to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (11/1/04 Regular) b) Adopted RESOLUTION R92-04 Approving submittal of Application for Landfill Abatement Funds from Dakota County - Parks and Recreation c) Accepted Resignation Heritage Preservation Commission - Administration d) Approved Various Licenses and Permits - Administration e) Approved Heritage Preservation Project - Administration f) Approved Agreement ISD 192 School Resource Officers - Police g) Approved Appointment Recommendation Police Officer - Human Resources h) Acknowledged Retirement Fire Department - Human Resources i) Acknowledged Retirement Fire Department - Human Resources j) Adopted RESOLUTIONS R93-04 and R94-04 Annexations within Southeast Trunk Project Area and Approval of Administrative MUSA - Community Development 5 Council Minutes (Regular) November 15, 2004 Page 6 k) Adopted ORDINANCE 004-521 Maximum Driveway Width - Community Development I) Approved Assessment Agreement - Southeast Trunk Utility and Pond Project- Engineering m) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Soderberg approving Council Minutes (11/3/04 Special). APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Approve 2005 License Renewals - Administration A public hearing was held for renewal of On-Sale Liquor licenses, On-Sale Sunday licenses, Club licenses, On-Sale Intoxicating Malt Liquor and ON-Sale Wine licenses and Therapeutic Massage licenses. The license for B&B Pizza was approved contingent on receiving the Certificate of Insurance. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty approving the above licenses with the contingency. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Adopt Resolution - Certification of Delinquent Municipal Services - Finance According to statute, the City can certify delinquent utility bills to their taxes for a one year assessment for the following year. All residents with delinquent utility bills over 90 days overdue were mailed notices. The notice stated residents may pay these bills prior to November 30,2004 to avoid certification. There were 655 accounts which totaled $232,637. A number of payments have been received and staff expects to receive more payments. Any bills outstanding after November 30 will be certified to their taxes. Finance Director Roland stated when residents move they should inform the City they are moving and provide a forwarding address. The new owner is left with any outstanding bills from the previous owner. A number of the delinquent bills have to do with closing bills that did not reach the previous owner. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes adopting RESOLUTION R95-04 certifying the delinquent accounts as special assessments to the 2005 taxes of the appropriate properties. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Adopt Resolution - Parkview Ponds Preliminary Plat - Community Development The developer for Parkview Ponds is Manley Land Development. This is located south of Autumn Glen. The Murphy property is to the east and City property to the west. The plat contains 147 single family lots on 88 acres. There will be 6 //6 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmimrton.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator ~ IA---- FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Wetland Buffer Issue - Schedule Workshop Date DATE: January 3,2005 INTRODUCTION At the October 18th City Council meeting, Mr. Michael Pierce, 5137 203rd Street West (Middle Creek 5th Addition), requested that the City Council vacate the drainage and utility easement (which contains a wetland buffer) behind his home. He has indicated that he was not aware of the buffer when he bought his property and he has less usable space than he thought he had. DISCUSSION Pursuant to the November 15th City Council meeting, staff has met with the Department of Natural Resources, the Soil and Water Conservation District and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to discuss the wetland buffer issue and whether or not there is a way to address any of the property owner's issues and still provide adequate protection to the wetlands. There were several ideas that came out of that meeting that required staff to perform some analysis on a lot by lot basis to quantify the effect of those ideas. Staff has completed the analysis and at this time would recommend that the Council schedule a discussion of this issue at a future workshop. Potential options to addressing the issues involve some procedural complexities that most likely will warrant discussion at some length. BUDGET IMPACT None at this time. ACTION REQUESTED Schedule a Council Workshop to discuss the aforementioned wetland buffer issues. 72 Respectfully Submitted, ~ Y1Il~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Mr. Michael Pierce Mr. Derek Christiansen 73 3 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, 1'.1N 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn..us TO: Mayor, Councihnembers, City Administrator ~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Wetland Buffer Issue DATE: January 19, 200S INTRODUCTION The issue of wetland buffers on private property has been raised by several residents in the City. When the City's wetland buffer ordinance was first put into place, buffers were allowed on private property (this practice is no longer allowed, buffers must now be contained in outlots dedicated to the City). Lots were platted with a drainage and utility easement that encompassed the buffer on the property. However, it was the developer's responsibility to insure that home buyers knew of the buffer since wetland buffers are not allowed to be shown on the plat. A copy of the plat of the lot is what the homeowner typically receives. There is evidence that there were efforts by the developers to inform the builders who bought the lots about the buffers. This communication may have been lacking between some builders and homebuyers. Some residents have indicated that they had no knowledge of the buffers before they bought their homes and became aware only as the City has begun enforcement to preserve those buffer areas. The residents are very concerned because in some cases there is 40+ feet of wetland buffer on their property (rear yard) and they have much less usable space than they thought when they bought their home. DISCUSSION Pursuant to the November lSth City Council meeting, staff met with the Department of Natural Resources, the Soil and Water Conservation District and the Minnesota pollution Control Agency to discuss the wetland buffer issue and whether or not there is a way to address any of the property owner's issues and still provide adequate protection to the wetlands. There were several ideas that came out of that meeting that required staff to perform some analysis on a lot by lot basis to quantify the effect of those ideas. Staffhas completed this analysis at this time. The proposal that was discussed at the meeting is to reduce the amount of required buffer on the private property to 10-feet, the width of the standard drainage and utility easement on a rear lot line. Staff has analyzed all of the lots that are affected to determine how much buffer is left after applying this criterion (see attached chart). At the meeting with the agencies, it was discussed that if the buffers are reduced, it would still be desirable to retain a total of a 30-foot buffer on Manage 1 type wetlands and a total of a SO-foot buffer on Protect type wetlands. As shown on the attached chart, there are several lots that would not quite meet these criteria. Wetland Buffer Issue JanualY 19, 2005 Page 2 Staff has been in further communication with Brian Watson of the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District and he has indicated that, in light of all the circumstances, the approac1 outlined above is reasonable, as long as the City will strictly enforce the buffer limits and encourage those property owners that wish to keep the current buffer width to do so to enhance the wetland and wildlife protection. Several issues that arise for discussion ifthis concept is adopted are as follows: 1. The City would need to consider whether or not to go ahead and allow this "variance" to only those property owners that lodge a complaint, or should the City contact all property owners affected and offer the "variance" to all at the same time? 2. A decision would need to be made as to whether the City would go ahead and vacate those portions of the existing drainage and utility easements that were platted to encompass the buffers that are larger than the standard drainage and utility easements (lO-feet). If the easements are vacated, there would be the opportunity to incorporate language in the vacation document that identifies the buffer area that would show up in future title searches when the properties are sold. Future owners should then be aware of the buffers. Vacating the easements would involve a cost and stafftime. 3. The City would need to decide if the concept would be applied across the board or if the residents have a choice. If there are residents that are happy to have a 40- foot buffer on their property, does the City still vacate a portion of the easement and document the 40-foot buffer, or is the 10- foot buffer documented and the buffer width is left up to the property owner? BUDGET IMPACT None at this time. As actions are determined, staff will bring back cost implications at a future meeting. ACTION REQUESTED Council discussion and direction to staff on how to proceed on this issue. Respectfully Submitted, ~~~ Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Mr. Michael Pierce Mr. Derek Christianson Brian Watson, Dakota County SWCD PatLynch,Mn.D~ COUNCIL WORKSHOP JANUARY 19, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Soderberg called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Present: Also Present: Soderberg, Fogarty (arrived 5:40 p.m.), McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; David Urbia, City Administrator; Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, City Engineer/Public Works Director; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Lee Smick, City Planner; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Audience: Brian Watson, Michael and Laura Pierce, Derek Christensen 2. APPROVE AGENDA The agenda was approved. 3. DISCUSSION OF WETLAND BUFFERS Residents had expressed concerns that they were not aware the wetland buffer behind their homes was included in their lot size and it takes up a significant amount of their back yards. For future developments, wetland buffers are no longer allowed on private lots, only outlots. Staff met with environmental agencies to come to a solution. It was decided to reduce the amount of the buffer by the 10-foot drainage and utility easement. The 10- foot easement must be sodded and the buffer line left untouched. If this concept is adopted, Council needs to consider does the City allow vacating the easements on a case by case basis or vacate the easements on all properties in one action. Vacating an easement requires a public hearing. The easement vacation would be recorded on the title for the property so new owners would be aware of the buffer. Council discussed that some people might want the wetland buffer and if the easements are vacated for all the properties they could have the opposite problem. However, if this was done for all properties, and the City maintains the buffer area, it would look more uniform. It was decide~~~.&)T~ affected residents asking if they would like to leave the buffer as is or have it reduced the amount of the 10- foot drainage and utility easement. 4. COUNCIL ORIENTATION a) Questions and Answers b) Legal Issues - E-mails; Open Meeting Law; Public Comments City Attorney Jamnik explained howe-mails are public information, the open meeting law and what constitutes an open meeting, and provided ii1formation from the League of Minnesota Cities on these topics. Council Workshop Minutes January 19,2005 Page 2 5. DISCUSSION OF SPEED AND TRAFFIC ISSUES Police Chief Siebenaler distributed information on the quota law. This law prohibits a supervisor from requiring an officer to issue tickets. The MN standard speed in residential areas is 30 mph. The exception is a road that is a local street less than 1/2 mile long. This type of street can have a speed limit of 25 mph. Police Chief Siebenaler is in favor of the 25 mph speed for residential areas and for photo cop. Photo cop is a stop light camera that takes a picture of the license plate. There are also speed enforcement cameras that are mounted on trailers with radar. Currently these are not allowed in MN. Council agreed to support legislation to allow cities to set residential speed limits at 25 mph. Staffwill present a resolution at the February 7, 2005 Council Meeting. As far as supporting cameras, Councilmember Pritzlaff was in support of them, but had concerns they assume the owner of the car is driving. The remainder of Council did not support cameras. Council was divided but leaned toward not repealing the quota law. With regard to signs, the City does not install Children at Play signs. They will install blind or deaf child signs when a request is received from a doctor. Signs become invisible after 6 weeks. Council needs to be careful about the effectiveness of signs. Staff asked if Council wanted any changes in past practice. Councilmember Pritzlaffwanted to look at sign issues. The remainder of Council did not want any changes. Police Chief Siebenaler then discussed crosswalks. Crosswalks create a perception of safety. To mark a crosswalk without a stop sign is asking for an accident. A crosswalk does not require a stop sign, but signage is required ahead of the crosswalk. Councilmember Soderberg would like to see vigorous enforcement of the crosswalk at Dallas Avenue and 208th Street. 6. SETBACKS FOR MINOR COLLECTORS At the end of the term for previous CouncilI?embers, Councilmember Fitch suggested staff look at the setbacks for minor collectors. Currently there is a 20-foot front-yard setback. Larger setbacks would provide for more sight distance and less tunneling. Council agreed to go with whatever staff would recommend. Councilmember Fogarty felt widening setbacks would make the speeding worse. 7. DISCUSSION REGARDING LEGISLATIVE POSITION OF THE CITY City Administrator Urbia received policies from AMM and LMC. He recommended working with Lakeville for CR70 to become a state highway and to break Hwy 3 into segments for widening and upgrades. Staffwill provide copies of the policies to Council and Council should provide comments regarding legislative issues to City Administrator Urbia. He will condense the list to 3-5 major issues. 8. ADJOURN MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adjourn at 9:26 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Re~ectfully.."submitted, ~:y-..? ~~/7-7~ EYnthia Muller . Executive Assistant City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us February 18, 2005 Resident 5137 203rd St. Farmington, MN 55024 Re: Wetland Buffer Survey Dear Resident: The purpose of this letter is to solicit feedback regarding the location of wetland buffers on your property. A number of residents have expressed their concern to the Farmington City Council about the wetland buffers located on their property. The Council has directed City staff to conduct this survey to determine what action, if any, should be taken regarding wetland buffers on private property. Wetland buffers are an undisturbed or re-established vegetated area adjacent to a wetland which serves as an integral part of the wetland ecosystem by providing filtration of pollutants and wildlife habitat. The City's original buffer ordinance required developers to provide buffers surrounding all wetlands, but it did not prohibit locating these buffers on private property. Because "Wetland Buffer Easements" are not an allowable type of easement on recorded plats in Dakota County, drainage and utility easements were platted, encompassing the buffers to give the City the necessary control for maintenance and preservation of the buffers. Drainage and utility easements are shown on the official lot survey that is presented to a buyer when closing on a property, however, the buffer is not referenced per Dakota County Rules. There is evidence that developers made efforts to inform home builders about the presence of these buffers. It is unknown what level of communication existed between builders and homebuyers. Some residents have indicated that they were made aware of the buffers, however, others have indicated that they had no knowledge of the buffers before purchasing their homes and only became aware of the buffer restrictions when the City began to enforce them. Some residents are very concerned because in some cases there is 40+ feet of wetland buffer on their property (rear yard) and they have much less usable space than they thought when they bought their home. Staff has met with the Department of Natural Resources, the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to discuss the wetland buffer issue and to determine if there is a way to address any of the property owner's issues and still provide adequate protection for the wetlands. The proposal discussed at meetings with the agencies and the City Council is to reduce the amount of buffer required on private owned residential single family lots to 10-feet, the width of a typical rear lot line drainage and utility easement. The City Council is considering whether or not to vacate those portions of the existing drainage and utility easements encompassing wetland buffers that are larger than the proposed 10-feet. The City Council would like to receive your feedback regarding this proposal. The City Council would like to know if you, as a property owner affected by this issue, would prefer to keep the buffer on your property as it is currently required, or if you would prefer to have the buffer on your property reduced to a width of to-feet. Please fill out the attached wetland buffer survey and return it to City Hall at 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024. If you have any questions about the survey please contact Jen Collova at (651) 463-1605 or Tim Gross at (651) 463-1607. Thank you for your response. Sincerely, Jennifer Collova Natural Resource Specialist icollova@ci.farmington.mn.us cc: file City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farminQton.mn.us Please check one: D Yes, I am interested in the City vacating all but ten (10) feet of my backyard buffer easment. D No, I am NOT interested in the City vacating my backyard buffer easment. Comments Please Return by Monday February 28, 2005 to: City of Farmington Attn: Jen Collova 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 /l~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City AdministratorJ!V"\~. FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Wetland Buffer Issue DATE: April 18, 200S INTRODUCTION The issue of wetland buffers on private property has been raised by several residents in the City. When the City's wetland buffer ordinance was first put into place, buffers were allowed on private property (this practice is no longer allowed, buffers must now be contained in outlots dedicated to the City). Lots were platted with a drainage and utility easement that encompassed the buffer on the property. Residents had expressed concerns that they were not aware that the wetland buffer behind their homes was included in their lot size and in many cases it takes up a significant amount of their back yards. Staff met with the DNR, MPCA and SWCD to discuss possible options to address the residents concerns. The proposal that was discussed at the meeting is to reduce the amount of required buffer on the private property to 10-feet, the width of the standard drainage and utility easement on a rear lot line. The agencies are amenable to this proposal if the remaining buffer areas are strictly enforced. At the January 19, 200S City Council Workshop, the Council directed staff to survey the affected residents to find out how many ofthe property owners would be in favor of this proposal. DISCUSSION 44 wetland buffer surveys were sent out on February 18, 200S and 36 have since been returned. Of that 36, 4 property owners were in favor of the wetland buffer staying as it currently is and 32 property owners were in favor of reducing the buffer to 10 feet, so the survey results indicate that the majority of the residents are in favor of reducing the buffer on their property to lO-feet. If it is determined that the buffers should be reduced, the following issues will need to be addressed: 1. A decision would need to be made as to whether the City would go ahead and vacate those portions of the existing drainage and utility easements that were platted to encompass the buffers that are larger than the standard drainage and utility easements (lO-feet). If the easements are vacated, there would be the opportunity to incorporate language in the vacation document that identifies the buffer area as a conservation easement (granted by the property owner) that would show up in future title searches when the properties are sold. Future owners should then be aware of the buffers. Vacating the easements would involve a cost and staff time. 2. The City would need to decide if the concept would be applied across the board or if the residents have a choice. For the residents that are happy to have a 40-foot buffer on their property, does the City still vacate a portion of the drainage and utility easement and document the 40-foot buffer (in a conservation easement), or is the lO-foot buffer documented and the buffer width is left up to the property owner? BUDGET IMPACT None at this time. As actions are determined, staff will bring back cost implications as requested. ACTION REQUESTED Council discussion and direction to staff on how to proceed on this issue. Respectfully Submitted, ~/11~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Affected Residents City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us August 1, 2005 Resident 5241 203rd St. Farmington, MN 55024 Re: Wetland Buffers, Conservation Easements Dear Resident: Wetland buffers are an undisturbed or re-established vegetated area adjacent to a wetland which serves as an integral part of the wetland ecosystem by providing filtration of pollutants and wildlife habitat. The City's original wetland buffer ordinance required developers to provide buffers surrounding all wetlands, but it did not prohibit locating these buffers on private property. Because "Wetland Buffer Easements" are not an allowable type of easement on recorded plats in Dakota County, drainage and utility easements were platted to encompass the required wetland buffers. Drainage and utility easements are shown on the official lot survey that is presented to a buyer when closing on a property; however, the buffer is not referenced since buffers are not shown on the plat per Dakota County Rules. The buffer areas have become an issue in some cases because on some properties there is up to 40+ feet of wetland buffer on a property (rear yard) and some homeowners have less usable space than they thought when they purchased their home. In response to the residents concerns, on April 18, 2005 the Farmington City Council decided to allow the vacation of portions of the existing drainage and utility easements encompassing wetland buffers that are larger than the standard 10-foot width rear yard drainage and utility easement. Therefore, wetland buffers on private property can be reduced to 10-feet at the back property line. However, in exchange, any property owner that would like a reduced buffer (minimum of 10-feet) needs to grant the City a perpetual conservation easement over the 10-foot buffer area so that future property owners will be aware of buffer in the title work for the property. In the past few months City staff and the City Attorneys' Office have been preparing conservation easement forms for the properties in question. Enclosed please find three copies of the conservation easement. Each copy needs to be signed by the homeowner(s)" and notarized. Each copy also needs to be signed and notarized by the mortgage company for Dakota County recording purposes. Once all signatures are obtained, please return the copies to City Hall, at 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024, for signatures from Mayor Kevan Soderberg and City Administrator David Urbia. If you have any questions please contact Jen Collova at (651) 463-1605. Sincerely, Jennifer Collova; Natural Resource Specialist jcollova@ci.farmington.mn.us cc: file Values Statement Excellence and Quality in the Delivery of Services We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional and cost-effective manner. Fiscal Responsibility We believe that fiscal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds is essential for citizen confidence in government. Ethics and Integrity We believe that ethics and integrity are the foundation blocks of public trust and confidence and that all meaningful relationships are built on these values. Open and Honest Communication We believe that open and honest communication is essential for an informed and involved citizenry and to foster a positive working environment for employees. Cooperation and Teamwork We believe that the public is best served when departments and employees work cooperatively as a team rather than at cross purposes. Visionary Leadership and Planning We believe that the very essence of leadership is to be visionary and to plan for the future. Positive Relations with the Community We believe that positive relations with the community and public we serve leads to positive, involved, and active citizens. Professionalism We believe that continuous improvement is the mark of professionalism and are committed to applying this principle to the services we offer and the development of our employees.