Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.07.05 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 promising future. AGENDA PRE-CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 7, 2005 6:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVE AGENDA 3. CITIZEN COMMENTS COUNCIL REVIEW OF AGENDA 5. STAFF COMMENTS 6. ADJOURN PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT Council 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 aformal 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 NOVEMBER 7, 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 , CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Openfor Audience Comments) a) Response to Mr. Tarryl Olson 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (10/17/05 Regular) (10/19/05 & 10/26/05 Special) b) Approve Submittal of Application for Landfill Abatement Funding - Parks and Recreation c) Set Public Hearing Various Licenses and Permits - Administration d) Set Counci1/HPC Workshop Date - Administration e) Set CouncillPlanning Commission Workshop Date - Administration f) Approve Enhancing Mutual Aid Agreements - Fire Department g) Adopt Budgetary Policies - Finance h) Adopt Council Policy - Human Resources i) Approve Change Order Ash Street Project - Engineering j) Approve Change Order - Fire Station No.2 - Engineering k) Approve Surface Water Management Plan Update - Engineering I) School and Conference - Fire Department m) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Adopt Resolution - Approve Acquisition and Redevelopment ofRiste Building - Community Development b) Adopt Resolution - Approve Acquisition and Redevelopment of Vacant Lot - 201 4th Street - Community Development 9. A WARD OF CONTRACT Action Taken Page 1-1 Page 2-1 Page 3-1 Page 4-1 Page 5-1 Page 6-1 Page 7-1 Page 8-1 Page 9-1 Page 10-1 Page 11-1 Page 12-1 Page 13-1 Page 14-1 Page 15-1 Page 16-1 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 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 promisingfuture. AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 7,2005 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) a) Response to Mr. Tarryl Olson 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (10/17/05 Regular) (10/19/05 & 10/26/05 Special) b) Approve Submittal of Application for Landfill Abatement Funding - Parks and Recreation c) Set Public Hearing Various Licenses and Permits - Administration d) Set Counci1/HPC Workshop Date - Administration e) Set CouncillPlanning Commission Workshop Date - Administration :t) Approve Enhancing Mutual Aid Agreements - Fire Department g) Adopt Budgetary Policies - Finance h) Adopt Council Policy - Human Resources i) Approve Change Order Ash Street Project - Engineering j) Approve Change Order - Fire Station No.2 - Engineering k) Approve Surface Water Management Plan Update - Engineering I) School and Conference - Fire Department m) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Adopt Resolution - Approve Acquisition and Redevelopment ofRiste Building - Community Development b) Adopt Resolution - Approve Acquisition and Redevelopment of Vacant Lot - 201 4th Street - Community Development 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT Action Taken Information Received Approved R125-05 Nov 21, 2005 Jan 18, 2006 Nov 30, 2005 Approved Adopted Adopted Approved Pulled Approved Approved Approved R126-05 R127-05 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Approve Settlement Farmington Department Directors' Association - City Attorney Approved 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. ADJOURN ~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor and Councilmembers tf cV Acting City Administrator ~ (-~~ Jt~ _~ ,?-"Y?-A . ak-J FROM: Daniel M. Siebenaler, Police Chief SUBJECT: Response to Citizen's Comments (10-17-05) Tarryl Olson TvVVL:\ j f{D {\, II" () O'neo..L CD~/rh. (1~ , C G , "'IVV'. -J j , ~L' .. \ DATE: November 7,2005 e.~~-d/ /~s INTRODUCTION At its regular meeting of October 17, 2005 the City Council received a Citizen's request to review winter parking options for 520 3rd St including the possibility of some type of On-Street Parking Permit. Staff has reviewed the situation. DISCUSSION 520 3rd St is a small residential lot at the corner of 3rd St and Walnut St. The lot currently has no driveway from either street. Staff has discussed the situation with Mr. Olson over the past two years and offered options for his consideration including: . Discussing a rental agreement with the neighbor immediately to the west. . Discussing rental of parking space on the currently vacant property at the intersection of 2nd St and Walnut with an existing driveway access. In addition staff has reviewed the actual property at 520 3rd St. While the property is currently fe~y~\~ there does appear to be ample space available to park 2 vehicles on the southwest cornerof;rh~ property. Staff has discussed this option with Mr. Olson and provided him with the procedure to procure a curb breaking permit through the office of the City Engineer. With alternatives clearly available staff cannot recommend the issuance of a Special Permit that would allow on-street parking at this location. Such a permit is only likely to encourage oJ~yS property owners to resort to similar permits rather than solving the problem within accepted standards on their private property. ;j):., .-.... "'". .' f ~ .,.<- ACTION REQUESTED Staff recommends that no on-street seasonal parking permit be issued. Respectfully suJtmitted, 9~L Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police "' iid 7~ COUNCIL MINUTES PRE-MEETING October 17, 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 Andrea Poehler, City Attorney; Robin Roland, Acting City Administrator/Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief; 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 Pritzlaffto approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. CITIZEN COMMENTS 4. COUNCIL REVIEW OF AGENDA Councilmember Fogarty asked about the disposal of forfeited vehicles and asked ifit would be wise for the City to keep the vehicles as pool vehicles. Police Chief Siebenaler stated they only get rid of the vehicles they do not want to keep. There are some vehicles available for use. Councilmember Fogarty asked about the Executive Estates Development Contract. She noted the money for the park development fee will be going to Evergreen Knoll Park. She asked if the language was a concern if we wanted to divert that money to a different park later. Finance Director Roland stated no, that is an accounting function and those funds will be held in reserve when a park is developed in the area of Executive Estates. It will be set up as a payable to another park when that park comes on line. Councilmember McKnight asked staff to review the building permit issue with Executive Estates regarding 225th Street. Community Development Director Carroll stated there have been discussions with Castle Rock regarding 225th Street as far as how far to the east it should be paved. In the beginning Castle Rock wanted Mr. Garvey to pave it all the way to the southwest corner of the golf course property. Staffs position is that we can require him to pave to the easterly access to his property but not beyond that. That is more of an issue between Mr. Garvey and Castle Rock. The issue with regard to paving the portion that is not in dispute, staff s position is that building permits should not be issued until the road is paved. There is so much construction traffic when the houses are ..:~ .. Council Minutes (Pre-Meeting) October 17, 2005 Page 2 being built, you do not want to have some houses built and people having to drive through road construction. Mr. Garvey wants building permits issued as soon as possible and do some of the road construction this fall and the remainder in the spring. Mayor Soderberg noted this is part of the Development Contract and ifit needs to be discussed, it should be pulled for discussion. City Engineer Mann stated there is a caveat that allows for some deviation from the requirement of pavement based on weather related conditions. That option has not been exercised without coming back to Council. The recommendation is that pavement happens before building permits which is the same for any development. Mr. Colin Garvey had a letter from Castle Rock and stated he met with Assistant City Engineer Tim Gross to discuss the options. He spoke with City Attorney Jamnik who told him this should not hold up his project and that he should be allowed to get building permits. Mayor Soderberg stated he was not comfortable redrafting language in a Development Contract. If we want to make changes, it would delay getting the Development Contract approved. Mr. Garvey stated Attorney Jamnik told him amendments could be made after it is approved. City Engineer Mann agreed amendments can be made in the future. It was decided to leave this on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Garvey stated 225th Street would not be tarred until spring. The interior streets would be tarred. Councilmember McKnight asked about the text amendment for screening for roof mounted equipment and what prompted this. He also asked the City Attorney about the language regarding except where the property owner can show it is not feasible. Staff replied it is an aesthetic issue and was prompted by the new building in the City Center and the fact the roof mounted equipment is not screened. As far as whether it is feasible, that pertains to larger buildings such as schools where it may not be possible to centrally locate the equipment on the roof. Attorney Poehler stated she has strengthened that language to what it is now and the screening is the biggest issue. Councilmember Wilson asked if the owners ofthe new building in the City Center would voluntarily screen the equipment even though the code is coming after the construction. Staff has not had direct contact with them, but could ask at a minimum it be painted a neutral color. It may be too late to put up any screening. Councilmember Wilson then asked about expenditures in the police forfeiture fund and where we would spend money in that category. Police Chief Siebenaler stated anything that comes up that is not part of the budget comes out of that fund. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked about the comprehensive utility plans. City Engineer Mann replied the plans for sewer, water, and storm water need to be updated because of development pressure. On the agenda is a proposed cost to update the sewer plan and the water plan to determine what can be served in the area east ofhwy 3 and south of Ash Street. 5. STAFF COMMENTS Council Minutes (Pre-Meeting) October 17, 2005 Page 3 6. ADJOURN MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by McKnight to adjourn at 6:53 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~??/~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR October 17,2005 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 Andrea Poehler, City Attorney; Robin Roland, Acting City Administrator/Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Kara Hildreth, Troy Corrigan 4. APPROVE AGENDA Mayor Soderberg pulled item 70) Executive Estates Development Contract for discussion. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) 2004 Life Safety Achievement Award - Fire Department Mayor Soderberg presented this award to Fire Chief Kuchera. This is the second time the Fire Department has received this award recognizing the Fire Department for no fire injuries. Mayor Soderberg also noted the City received a Certificate of Appreciation for 32 years of continuous membership from the Chamber of Commerce. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Wilson, second by Pritzlaffto approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (10/3/05 Regular) (9/28/05 Special) b) Approved Temporary On-Sale Liquor License - Administration Council Minutes (Regular) (October 17, 2005) Page 2 c) Adopted RESOLUTION R118-05 Approving Gambling Event Permit- Administration d) Adopted RESOLUTION R119-05 Approving Gambling Event Permit- Administration e) Adopted RESOLUTION R120-05 Approving Gambling Event Permit- Administration f) Approved Disposal of City Property - Police Department g) Approved School and Conference - Fire Department h) Approved School and Conference - Fire Department i) Acknowledged Receipt of Grant - Fire Department Mayor Soderberg noted this is a very substantial grant. Fire Chief Kuchera stated this is the second year they have received this grant from the Department of Homeland Security. The money will be used to purchase additional new turnout gear, breathing apparatus and a new breathing air compressor. Mayor Soderberg noted the grant amount is in excess of$116,000. j) Received Information Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation k) Adopted RESOLUTION R121-05 Accepting Donation - Parks and Recreation Mayor Soderberg noted the Farmington Rotary Club has donated ten benches to be placed throughout the City. This was part ofthe Rotary's Centennial project. I) Approved Solid Waste Exemptions - Parks and Recreation m) Received Information September 2005 Financial Report - Finance n) Adopted RESOLUTION R122-05 Approving Wetland Conservation Act Permit Executive Estates - Community Development p) Approved Updating of Comprehensive Utility Plans - Engineering q) Approved Change Order Main Street Phase II - Engineering r) Received Information Third Quarter Building Report - Community Development s) Adopted ORDINANCE 005-545 Text Amendment Screening of Roof Mounted Equipment - Community Development t) Approved Bills u) Adopted RESOLUTION R124-05 Approving Gambling Premise Permit- Administration APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 0) Adopt Resolution - Executive Estates Development Contract - Engineering Councilmember Pritzlaff asked when Mr. Garvey wanted to pave 225t Street. His concern was that is the only road leading to that development and the residents living on the north side of the road will have all the dust from the construction. Mr. Garvey stated if it is dusty they will put chloride on the road to keep the dust down. He plans on paving the road in the spring. Mayor Soderberg asked if a lot of work needs to be done to upgrade the road for paving. Mr. Garvey stated they have to totally rebuild the road. Councilmember Wilson noted the letter from Castle Rock indicates any concerns with the extension ofthe road to the golf course property have been alleviated. Mr. Garvey stated they still need to work out the length of the road. Council Minutes (Regular) (October 17, 2005) Page 3 MOTION by Wilson, second by McKnight to adopt RESOLUTION R123-05 approving the Executive Estates Development Contract. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Ash Street Project Special Assessment Objection - Engineering At the last Council meeting there was an objection to the Ash Street assessment from 816 2nd Street. Staff recommends the assessment stand as stated on the assessment roll. Councilmember McKnight noted in their letter they mention requesting from the Council a traffic study and a petition to the Council. Staff explained these requests were made of the previous Council and those requests were addressed at that time. MOTION by McKnight, second by Pritzlaff, that the assessment stands as presented. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 12. NEWBUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember McKnight: Thanked Parks and Recreation Director Distad and his staff and community residents for coming to the sign unveiling at the Schmitz-Maki Arena. There was a large crowd and it was a good event. Councilmember Wilson: He also attended the sign unveiling and it left a lasting impression of the work Mr. Schmitz and Mr. MaId did for hockey in Farmington. He looked forward to the dedication for the Feely Fields. He wanted to look at future workshops with the HRA and the HPC before the end of the year to talk about things that are happening. He would also like to have a broader economic development workshop with the Management Team to discuss things Community Development is working on and discuss the direction Council would like to go with commercial and economic development. This could be done in early 2006 when we have a new City Administrator. Councilmember Pritzlaff: Also thanked everyone involved with the dedication of the Schmitz-Maki Arena. He also wanted to look at tree preservation and the amount of trees that are taken down in developments and the amount replanted. Recently there is a development of five acres on Akin Road. An adjacent property owner used to have trees outside his property, now he will be looking into a walkout basement in the new Council Minutes (Regular) (October 17, 2005) Page 4 development. If we do not have a tree preservation ordinance, when a development starts we should require a developer to put in x number of trees for the development or per lot, etc. Councilmember Wilson asked ifhe was considering a formal tree preservation policy such as a two to one ratio. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated in the development on Akin Road, the trees were clear cut. Currently there is no enforcement for the developer to replace trees. Acting City Administrator Roland stated previous Council's have brought up a tree preservation ordinance. Unfortunately, it has been very difficult for Council to agree on how they want the ordinance written and how they will enforce it. Staff could revisit the issue and bring it back to Council. Mayor Soderberg stated it is to the developer's benefit to have trees. Sometimes the terrain does not make it possible. There is a requirement for developers to plant a certain number of trees on the boulevard, however there is not a requirement for screening on the lots. There is a requirement for screening in the industrial park between industrial and residential use. Acting City Administrator Roland stated a landscape plan is required of every development. Staff will have to look at the landscape plan for the five acres on Akin Road and bring it back to Council. Police Chief Siebenaler stated when screening has been required in the past it has been part of the Developer's Contract. With Cameron Woods a 50 ft. buffer was required between the condominiums and the residential development to the north. He was not sure if you can add requirements to a previously approved Development Contract. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he may talk with the adjacent property owner to see ifhe wanted to contact the developer about splitting the cost for a buffer. He would like to institute a tree preservation ordinance for developments that have not yet taken place. Staffwill research the issue and bring it back to Council. Finance Director Roland: There will be a Chamber lunch October 19 at 11 :30. The Community Development Director and Economic Development Specialist will be giving a presentation about what they do and an update on commercial and residential development. October 20 at 7:30 a.m. will be Coffee with Council. Councilmembers Pritzlaff and Wilson will be attending. Acting City Administrator Roland will be absent for a couple days and Community Development Director Carroll will be Acting City Administrator. Community Development Director Carroll: A packet for the Joint Council/Planning Commission Workshop was given to Council for the meeting on October 19 at 5:00 p.m. A lot ofthe information is regarding the City's housing goals, what progress has been made, areas for improvement, how to process concept plans, and background information. Police Chief Siebenaler: He will also be absent for a few days. Parking restriction warnings begin November 1 and tickets will be issued November 15. A phonemaster message will be sent out as a reminder. City Engineer Mann: Regarding the Ash Street project, they started placing curb today and will finish this week. Paving will be done next week. Council Minutes (Regular) (October 17,2005) Page 5 Mayor Soderberg: Saturday he went to the river with the DNR to observe their surveying of the river where they shock and count fish. He could not believe the size of the fish. The Vermillion River is a world class river. He learned a lot about the river. He received a call today from Mr. Frank Madden, the attorney representing the City in contract negotiations. Because of notification requirements, he could not be here tonight. We need three days notice. Mr. Madden has some information for Council that would take no more than 15 minutes. Mayor Soderberg encouraged Council to have a Special Meeting with Mr. Madden on October 24,2005 at 5:30 p.m. This will be an Executive Session for contract negotiations. 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION -ISD 192 Litigation Matters Council recessed into Executive Session at 7:36 p.m. 15. ADJOURN Respectfully submitted, /1 L~ #'~ /':/T - - a.- /Y?~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant JOINT COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES October 19, 2005 1. Call to Order Mayor Soderberg called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Present for the Council: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson Absent: None Present for the Planning Commission: Rotty, Barker, Johnson, Larson Absent: Richter Also Present: Robin Roland, Acting City Administrator/Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Lee Smick, City Planner; Tony Whippier, Assistant City Planner; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Audience: Doug Bonar, John Anderson, Frank Blundetto, Joel West, Yvonne Perkins 2. Approve Agenda MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by McKnight to approve the agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Overview of Objectives for Joint Workshop The meeting was intended to accomplish the following: 1. Low pressure - no formal action can be taken. 2. Provide information related to broader questions. 3. Although specific projects are identified, it is not intended to be a public hearing. This is not intended to be a site review for any projects. 4. Provide information as to where developers are proposing multi-family. Mayor Soderberg stated there were some questions about properties not in the City and some pressure to annex them and develop and there is no plan as to how to do that such as densities and types of developments. Councilmember Wilson mentioned the housing information brought out by the Met Council and what do we do with it and also the City participates in the Livable Communities program. Is it worth determining ifthere is a return on investment for our participation? Staffwill discuss these topics later in the workshop. Commissioner Larson asked if we will be discussing properties outside the City that we know will come in. Community Development Director Carroll replied there are some properties staff feels are appropriate to include in the City's boundaries. Number 5 on the MUSA map is not in the City and we do not have an annexation petition. However, developers have shown interest in the property. There are some properties where staffhas not seen a concept plan. Commissioner Larson felt if properties are on the radar, they should be discussed. Staff has identified five properties to be discussed. 4. Summary of Pending Concept Plans That Include Multi-Family and/or Medium- Density to High-Density Components City Planner Smick discussed concept plans that have been received. Council/Planning Commission Workshop October 19, 2005 Page 2 a) Don Peterson and Adelmann Properties - Town & Country Homes (Vermillion Landing) The developer is changing what was originally proposed in the Master Plan for the Spruce Street development. There was a lot of high density and now the developer is proposing more medium density. This will have to be discussed in the review process. Commissioner Larson recalled we wanted high density for a purpose which was to get people into that area to support the businesses. Originally there were 52.5 acres for medium density on the Master Plan. The developer is now proposing 109 acres. The Met Council is requiring all cities to have a 3 unit/acre overall density. Staff had planned on using this high density to fulfill that requirement. Staff and the developer have agreed to not have any single-family in the Spruce Street development. b) Giles Properties LLC - Mystic Meadows 2nd Addition The east side of the concept plan shows future which is the Harris property which is not in the City. There is also a huge floodplain on the east side. The floodplain takes out the whole west side of the railroad tracks. The plan has multi-family and single~family. They are proposing 104 single-family and 282 multi-family. There are 198 platted acres. There will also be a regional park. Diamond Path will go through the center of the development. c) Mike Devney Property - Manley Land Development They are proposing 48 single-family and 184 multi-family. The Devney property is F and 3 on the MUSA map. On the north side is 21 oth Street, to the east is the proposed Biscayne roadway which will be a north-south collector in the future. There is a lot of opportunity to move people out of this area through 21 oth Street and through Biscayne. 210th Street will be crucial for the connection to hwy 3. The Traffic Engineer has stated 213th Street cannot handle the traffic and a stop light will not be allowed at 213 th Street and hwy 3. A stop light would be installed at 210th Street and hwy 3. He also proposed 213th Street be a right-in, right-out in the future. d) Bart Winkler Property They are proposing 106 single-family lots and 96 multi-family. The multi-family will be in the southeast corner. Biscayne would be the major north-south collector for this development. This is G 4 on the MUSA map. 213th Street will be the north route. Spruce Street is to the south. Getting Spruce Street across the Prairie Waterway to East Farmington will be critical. The Council and Planning Commission should consider opening Spruce Street to East Farmington. This is what was envisioned in the Thoroughfare Plan. e) Neil Perkins Property - Bridgeland Development This is a revision from what was shown at the Planning Commission. They had originally shown multi-family on the 17.9 acres. Now they are proposing to continue 21 Oth Street and propose detached townhomes. They are looking at 69 units around the outside that have 46 ft. lot widths. In the center there will be 41 units at 36 ft. in width. This would be zoned R-3. There would need to be a change in the zoning ordinance, or it could be done as a PUD. They have rear garages with an alley in the middle. This would be an association. The homes are Council/Planning Commission Workshop October 19, 2005 Page 3 approximately 960 sq. ft. The price range might be $193,000 or below which is considered affordable housing. 5. Review and Discussion of "Life Cycle Housing Implementation Program and Action Plan" (from 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update) a) General Housing Goals and Policies - 2020 Comprehensive Plan In 1995 the City entered into discussions with the Met Council about life cycle housing and housing goals. At that time the Council passed a resolution agreeing on housing goals. A few years later those goals were incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. These goals covered the next 15 years. In 1995 the goal was 36% and staff negotiated down to 32% for multi-family. As far as affordability in 1995,92% ofthe owner-occupied residences met the affordability standard at that time. The Met Council agreed the City could reduce it's affordable housing; Of the rental housing, 73% were affordable. The Met Council also agreed the City could reduce affordable rental housing. In 1995 18% of the housing units were non-single family detached. The goal was 32%-36%. For owner/renter mix, 76% housing units were owned by the people that lived in them and 24% were not. The goal was 70/30%. The density for single-family was 2.2 units/acre and the multi-family was 14 units/acre. Staff submits to the Met Council a Comp Plan amendment for MUSA or land use change. If there are densities for a development of3 units/acre or above there would be a Met Council staff level review and they can approve it. If there is a development with a density of below 3 units/acre or if the citywide density has slipped below 3 units/acre then there is a more extensive review process. The Met Council is an advocate of having a wide range of housing opportunities. b) Livable Communities Program - Participating communities Farmington has been a member of the Livable Communities Program for a number of years. A City does not have to be a part of this program. If Cities do participate in the program, the Met Council makes money available to them. How you meet your goals determines whether you will receive the money. c) Livable Communities Demonstration Account Projects (1996-2004) The LCA Demonstration Account is how the City obtained the $900,000 grant for the Spruce Street bridge. If the Council and Planning Commission decide they want to do new things in the housing realm that have not been done before, we could qualify for some of this money. For the Spruce Street development staff pointed out the mixed-use buildings and the walkable community, etc. and staff was successful in obtaining the grant. Staff is considering going back for another grant. Information was provided as to projects other cities have done to obtain grants. Council/Planning Commission Workshop October 19, 2005 Page 4 d) Farmington's Housing Goals (Affordability, Life Cycle, Density) - Progress to Date Every year staff has to fill out a questionnaire and the Met Council gives the City a score for housing performance. Last year our score was 70 this year it was 42. The score covers a two-year period and some ofthe things the City has done in the past have fallen off. The City has gone down a bit in their standing with other cities. Ifthe Council and Planning Commission want to work toward raising the score, staff can provide recommendations as to what types ofthings can be initiated to accomplish that. Commissioner Larson mentioned for years they have been asking for larger lots. Community Development Director Carroll noted those will be available in Parkview Ponds. Commissioner Larson was concerned if we keep going for what the Met Council wants, we will not have the upper life style available. Chair Rotty agreed it was important to look at both ends. Community Development Director Carroll stated staff is not saying all we can build is affordable housing. The Met Council would like to see more of it than we have now. In the Spruce Street area ifthere are 100 acres of commercial/retail, the people working there may want to live here and we do not have much to offer them. That is why staffhad discussed apartment buildings in that area to create affordable housing so they can live and work in their community. We do not have as much as we need. Commissioner Johnson stated you need to determine what is affordable and for who. Acting City Administrator Roland noted when the homes in East Farmington were built, they were considered affordable. Commissioner Johnson stated with some of these concept plans, we do not want apartment buildings in those locations. If there are apartment buildings, amenities should be nearby. Spruce Street is the most logical area for apartment buildings. He asked if Council wants to continue East Farmington the way it is designed right now with that style housing and neighborhood. If it is, that gives the Planning Commission something to go on. There are a lot of things to accomplish such as transportation, flood plain issues, etc. Weare getting bits and pieces instead of an overall perspective of what the Council and Planning Commission want the City to be. When Commissioner Johnson started on the Planning Commission the objective was to connect the northern and southern sections of the City. After that it was to get 195th Street across and then Spruce Street. How do we tie this together? The developers are coming in wanting to develop on the east side and we do not even know what we want. He asked Council for their thoughts and what they want for densities. He felt the overall picture was more important rather than piece mealing the City together. Councilmember Wilson asked if we finish what is in the pipeline and then impose a moratorium. Commissioner Johnson did not think that was the answer. It is a matter of good planning. He felt Spruce Street should be a focus and determine how to develop around that to make it a flourishing area. East Farmington needs to wait until there are more north-south corridors or there is some major thought process. City Planner Smick stated the Council has authorized staff to start the process for the system update plans. These plans include transportation, sanitary CouncilJPlanning Commission Workshop October 19,2005 Page 5 sewer, water, storm sewer for the east side. These system update plans will be the backbone for the entire east side. Commissioner Johnson felt it was premature to do anything on the east side until the Council has had a chance to review those updates. Chair Rotty stated last year when we did the MUSA planning, everyone felt comfortable with the plan. Recently a concept plan came to the Commission for the Perkins property which is not in the City yet. They felt they were doing reactive planning. He asked how serious are we to develop to the east? He felt we need to be on the same page as to where and how to grow. He has nothing against Livable Communities. It is the right thing to do. We need to provide everything we can. He asked if we have abandoned the MUSA map. Community Development Director Carroll replied all the numbers and letters on the MUSA map were property-owner initiated. Do we prohibit properties from development because the owners chose to not participate in the MUSA process 2-3 years ago? 6. Discussion of "Sequencing" of Approval Process for New/Proposed Residential Developments Community Development Director Carroll stated people have asked why we look at concept plans ifthe property is not in the City. The City has a good relationship with Empire Township because the City has agreed to not annex a property until the Council is certain development is imminent. When properties F and G on the MUSA map were annexed, it caused a problem with Empire Township because they said it was premature. Staffwill not present an annexation petition to Council until there is a concept plan that has some validity. The owners ofthe Devney and Winkler properties gave staff concept plans as part of the MUSA process. To start the process, staff asks the developer to give them a concept plan and then staff talks with the township to determine if they believe the property is ready to develop. If the township feels it is, then they would proceed with the annexation. Once the property is in the City, it does not mean the property has to develop exactly according to the concept plan. We have to determine whether it will be residential or commercial and the density. This needs to be determined before it is brought into the City. System plan updates do not apply to all areas of the City because some areas are already in the system plan. The MUSA process follows because staff needs to make sure we can service the area first and a concept plan is needed to show the Met Council what is planned for the area. Next is annexation, because what is the point of annexing a property if we cannot tell someone that MUSA is likely to be approved by the Met Council. Next is the Comp Plan designation because property has to be in the City before a designation is made in the Comp Plan. Staffhas been trying to determine which properties have the fewer amount of issues to move them forward and save the properties with the larger issues for the Comp Plan update process. Staff would like some guidance if the smaller properties can move forward without everything stopping while we spend a year or two working out a Comp Plan amendment. If services can be provided up to Biscayne then staff can get into some allocation. If we are going to focus attention on one area and not accept plans for other areas that is in effect a moratorium. Are we only going to allow high densities south ofthe Spruce Street area and focus our attention on that and disregard other areas of the City in the meantime? Commissioner Johnson CouncilJPlanning Commission Workshop October 19, 2005 Page 6 replied there are no parameters. His concern is that ifhwy 3 is the north-south corridor we have to plan what will go in east ofthere. Dakota Estates is an example. There is no east-west corridor. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated some of the properties that may come in on the east side and properties already in the City that want to develop are all areas that are able to bring us plans. Further to the west is the 2020 Comp Plan. We cannot make people develop. There are properties on the east side that want to develop and we have to have a plan in place as to what we want. Owners are coming to the City wanting to develop and we have to accept them. Community Development Director Carroll stated part of the reason there is a benefit to allowing development is there is a gap of four properties along Biscayne that have showed an interest in developing. That portion ofBiscayne could be paved and alleviate traffic on hwy 3. Acting City Administrator Roland stated we have been talking for the last 5-6 years about filling in the middle of the community. We have properties H, Q, 8 and below that Q, 6, 9 on the MUSA map. Nine is the Rother property. Giles development discovered there are wetland and flood plain issues which Rother has as well. Therefore the 208th Street extension looks more distant due to funding concerns from any developer who would look at that property. Rother may not be as admirable a MUSA property as we need. Maybe Rother does not get MUSA at this time and it goes to F and G. Things are different today than when we started the MUSA process. 195th Street is now a $13 million project. Commissioner Larson stated 10 years ago we had workshops on how to save the downtown. Biscayne was an option. For the downtown to survive the consultants said you will have to build to the south and the east. Do we need the bridge on 1 95th Street, because when 18t Street was abandoned for the Eagle's Club there was supposed to be an at-grade crossing. Councilmember Fogarty replied it was not documented anywhere and so we do not get it. Acting City Administrator Roland stated they met with the County and 195th Street has to have a bridge because of the flood plain. Commissioner Larson commented on the Seed-Genstar property and we need to be very careful what we do. They are selling off land to other developers. He heard that was to get out of building the road. He wanted everyone to think about who will pay for the road. He did not want this to be missed so the City ends up paying for portions of 195th Street we did not plan on. Acting City Administrator Roland replied they met with Newland and the County yesterday, but they are committed to 195th Street. Councilmember Fogarty noted MUSA was granted to Seed Genstar not Homes by Chase. Weare talking about the big picture and she felt the MUSA Committee could be working harder. We reconsidered Devney and Winkler because we had new information. Maybe part ofthe process should be if Perkins wants to come in, they need to discuss it with the MUSA Committee. Maybe the MUSA Committee needs to meet four times a year to give people an opportunity to discuss their plans. Councilmember McKnight stated in lieu of any other plan, the current MUSA plan is the plan. We have deviated from it in less than a year. The plan for the Perkins property is not what he wants for East Council/Planning Commission Workshop October 19,2005 Page 7 Farmington. He does not want hundreds oftownhomes and dozens of houses. But this is what we get when we don't stick to the plan. Commissioner Johnson stated when Spruce Street came in, his first question was how do we transition the downtown to the Spruce Street corridor to make the connection. Councilmember Fogarty added you are talking about laying out a plan between downtown and Spruce Street that as properties become available we have a map. Commissioner Johnson stated we have to have a thought process and a goal. The same for East Farmington, if we don't want what is currently there, what are your thoughts. He is not against bringing in apartments. He just wants them in the right spot with the amenities that should be there to make it flourish. Community Development Director Carroll stated staffhas some parameters in mind, but have never submitted them to the Planning Commission or the Council. Staff could provide these for the Commission and Council to review and they would have this to look at for any concept plans. Commissioner Johnson stated it would be nice to have a grasp of what is there to work with. Mayor Soderberg asked why can't the Perkins property be industrial. We have industrial to the north. We have a shortage of industrial space. Commissioner Johnson asked what would be the ramifications to the residents. Mayor Soderberg agreed the question has not been answered as to what we want it to look like to the east. Councilmember Fogarty felt it was time for the EFP AC Committee to step up and make sure we have some hard lines out there. This would solve some of the issues. Hard lines with a timetable would be beneficial to both sides. Commissioner Larson would be supportive to say here is the line and nothing will happen past this for 10 years. City Planner Smick added the system update plans may determine the line. Community Development Director Carroll stated the ideal spot for more industrial would be along hwy 50 continuing from the industrial park. Chair Rotty had a problem with seeing Biscayne as being the savior. He asked if we were trading road problems from one to the other. He did not feel we could abandon the residents on the north side that have been told 195th Street and 208th Street would be good to get across. He is still looking at the MUSA map and thinking we had some criteria and yet he did not know if we have met that. Councilmember Fogarty stated the little things can make a big difference. It shows the City is trying to make the roads safer. Chair Rotty stated he is not against Biscayne he is having a hard time justifying the benefit. The question is what do we want to do on the east side. If we want to go to Biscayne, they will come to us. There will be a lot of development to the east and the roads to get people to hwy 3 are not very good. For Spruce Street to cross the Prairie Waterway will be expensive. There will be a lot of traffic on 213th Street. There will be a lot of pressure to go to the east. That will be the growth of Farmington without accomplishing anything we talked about in 2004 on the MUSA Committee. The Planning Commission will look at the plats and send them to Council and if Council is comfortable with them, that is great. Commissioner Barker stated the Comp Plan shows no development on the west side so the focus will be to the east. Commissioner Johnson noted they have not discussed the golf course property which is 160 acres. Councilmember Fogarty stated she has no desire to develop the golf course as residential. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated what is able to be annexed can come in a lot sooner than the western side which is CouncilJPlanning Commission Workshop October 19,2005 Page 8 in the 2020 Comp Plan. If we want development we will have to go to the east. Commissioner Johnson stated the question is still what does the Council want the east side to look like. Chair Rotty is trying to figure out who is the catalyst for development. Is it the City? Or is it developer and property owner interest? Councilmember Fogarty felt the City is in a switching zone. It used to be developer/property owner pushed. Ifwe can develop hard lines, that puts it back in the City's control. Commissioner Johnson asked if they want apartments on the east side. But it is not his perception of what he wants to see. Community Development Director Carroll clarified that staff has not received any concept plans that include apartments for the east side. Commissioner Johnson asked if Council wants to see apartments, townhomes, multi-family, etc. on the east side. Councilmember Pritzlaff felt this meeting was to obtain information leading up to that and that another meeting would be necessary to discuss what they want to see on the east side. Chair Rotty agreed we do not want to do off-the-cuff planning, but we do want to make sure we are all on the same page. Part of the decision might come when the system plans are done. Commissioner Larson felt the decision as to what we want should be done with the Council and Planning Commission together. Mayor Soderberg stated he felt Council's general feeling is that development will occur to the east. Councilmember Fogarty replied yes, to Biscayne. Councilmember Wilson stated that is what the Comp Plan suggests. Mayor Soderberg stated we have indicated that to staffby defining hard lines. Councilmember McKnight replied maybe, there are too many questions that are not answered. Commissioner Barker left at 7:09 p.m. 7. Review of Status and Future Handling of MUSA Review Process Engineering wants to look at the System Plan Updates because they are a decade old. They are focusing on the southeast quadrant. That should be done late this year, early next year. There are three System Plans, surface water management plan, the sanitary sewer system, and the water distribution plan. The last one will dictate what the boundaries will be. Transportation will be a part ofthis review. Chair Rotty stated he was still operating under the MUSA map. The Planning Commission should not make any recommendations to Council deviating from the MUSA map. If Council gives the Planning Commission direction to go to the East, that would give the Commission some new information. Community Development Director Carroll stated some believe that the amount of MUS A remaining should dictate the amount of development we do. Now that the Met Council has expanded the waster water plant and installed an interceptor, the Met Council is in favor of development that is consistent with their goals regardless of how much MUSA we have left. He asked Council and the Planning Commission to think about what type of housing stock they want. If there should be more diversity in housing than we have, where should we put it. Acting City Administrator Roland suggested continuing this at the November 16 Council workshop. Council/Planning Commission Workshop October 19, 2005 Page 9 8. Adjourn MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adjourn at 7:17 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, C;~~~ ?r?~ // 'Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES October 26, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Soderberg called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Present: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson Also Present: Robin Roland, Acting City Administrator/Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief; Jay Clinkscales and Tom Hemish, Cataract Fire Relief Association; Rosemary Swedin, Accountant; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant 2. APPROVE AGENDA Acting City Administrator Roland noted one of the Councilmembers wanted to discuss the next steps after the Counci1/Planning Commission Workshop last week and scheduling future meetings. This was added to the agenda. MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to approve the agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. 2005 BUDGET REVISIONS Finance Director Roland presented revisions to the 2005 budget. As there is a revenue shortfall in building permits, staff chose to cut the budget by the amount ofthat shortfall of $333,000. The City received increased amounts in Police and Fire aid. There is an increase in charges for services of $68,500 due to the School District requesting a second liaison Police Officer. The total reduction of revenues is $217,434. Staffhas made reductions in every department. In Administration, the elections were in the budget, but as an election was not needed there has been a reduction of $9,695. This does not include the additional payout ofthree months salary which would be the first three months of 2006. That will need to be adjusted along with compensated absences. In Human Resources/IT there is a savings in the area of training. The Human Resources Director did not attend a national conference that had been budgeted. There are also reductions due to not hiring the IT Specialist until March. Finance cut some data processing costs and there is the potential to reallocate the cost of insurance. Community Development offered $11,000 in cuts in professional services and supplies. They also did not hire a % time Building Inspector which is a savings of $41 ,309 in salary and benefits. There was also an adjustment for personnel who left and some who were hired. The total cut for Community Development was $66,772. The Police Department has committed to $35,000 in cuts. Every department has told their employees no overtime and no comp time with the exception of snow plowing. The Police Department is also not letting officers take vacation. The Fire Department did cut their budget $10,000, however they received an additional $20,000 more than what was budgeted in revenue. This is the Fire Relief money. There was $86,000 budgeted for 2005 as far as revenue and it came in at $107,000. Public Works has committed to $47,645 in cuts. Parks and Recreation has Council Workshop October 26, 2005 Page 2 reduced expenditures $57,281. $41,000 is due to the Parks position that was not hired in 2005 and there were also savings in the areas of professional services and supplies. In the transfers line Recreation operating has been reduced by $13,000. Staff anticipates it will be more. The swimming pool made money this year. Councilmember Wilson felt there was value in national conferences for training and development for staff. He hoped we can make that work for the Human Resources Director for next year. He then mentioned about re-evaluating the budget during the year and asked ifthere is ever a general discussion about potentially coming short and to start preparing for potential cuts in October/November. Finance Director Roland replied this has been discussed all year and they knew there was the possibility of a shortfall. Staff hoped the building permits would come in the beginning of September rather than October. Staff has been holding back on certain line items. The two positions not hired was a conscious decision from the beginning of the year. Staff did not want to hire them until there was the revenue to support them. Mayor Soderberg noted the expenditures each month are right on target or lagging behind so everyone has been holding the line. Finance Director Roland noted there are a couple line items on the books as pre-paid expenses. One is the study for the facilities which cost $14,000 for Wold Architects. This is to be split between the Ice Arena, the Liquor Store and other different funds. This should have no impact on the General Fund. There are also the legal bills for the EQB powerline situation. So far this amounts to $30,000. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked about the cuts and it being so late in the year where most ofthe budget should be spent, how did the department heads come up with this many deductions. Finance Director Roland replied you are not looking at cutting from what is actually happening. You are looking at cutting from the adopted budget. When the 2005 budget was adopted we thought Administration would cost $604,000. Of that amount, there was an additional expenditure of$10,000 for an election. Now, we know we will not spend that $10,000 so it can show up as a reduction in the budget. We will still spend all but the $10,000, but we knew we were not going to spend the $10,000 to begin with. That is budgeting conservatively. We over estimate expenses and under estimate revenues. City Engineer Mann noted there were some areas where we decided to stop blacktopping. There were some areas where we did not need as much gravel, such as Flagstaff. Public Works did not do any training for GIS. Finance Director Roland stated as far as Community Development, there is a salary for a % time Building Inspector who was not hired. Therefore, the entire budgeted amount for this position can be seen as a reduction in expenditures which amounts to $41,000. There are also professional services in Building Inspections and Planning where if those services are not used, that money is not spent and that is also part of the reductions. There is also the choice departments made of no overtime. Reductions for positions not hired in 2005 total $80,000. These positions are in the 2006 budget. In June if building permits had picked up, we might have needed the Building Inspector position so it might have been a savings of 3-4 months in salary and benefits rather than the full year. The department heads are responsible to make sure the numbers do not exceed the bottom line at the end ofthe year. Finance Director Roland also noted part of the Police Department's $35,000 cut was there was one additional position left to hire in 2005. This has been postponed to 2006. Council Workshop October 26, 2005 Page 3 Councilmember Fogarty was concerned about no overtime in the Police Department. Human Resources Director Wendlandt explained that some of the officers may not be going to extra meetings because they would be paid overtime for it. Councilmember McKnight asked if the school paid for the School Resource Officer in one lump sum. Finance Director Roland replied it is billed on a quarterly basis. He then asked about the three months salary she mentioned earlier. Finance Director Roland stated when the City Administrator left there was six months salary paid out. Three months is budgeted for 2005 and three months is budgeted for 2006. We will need to adjust the numbers to include that additional three months salary. There are also compensated absence adjustments that need to be made at year end. He was carrying a large quantity of vacation that was also paid out. When the budget is presented to Council in December for them to vote on, it will have a revised budget number that should be close for that particular area. Councilmember McKnight stated of the changes that have been made for this year, a large amount will be back in the budget January 1 for next year. Finance Director Roland stated that is correct, except for the changes Council will see for 2006. Councilmember McKnight then asked about the licenses and permits being cut to $791,000 and through September ofthis year we had a total of $446,000, so we have $350,000 to go. Finance Director Roland stated between October 1 and October 15 we increased the number of permits by 33%. We went from 100 permits at the end of September to 133 permits by October 15. We have 14 permits in the wings and will be recorded with additional cash by the end of this week. We will not make the number of permits, but we believe we will hit the dollar figure. Approximately $45,000 year to date has been paid in building permits for commercial/industrial which was not budgeted for. Staff anticipates R&L will be bringing in their commercial/industrial building permit for the third phase of the industrial park yet this year. That is a 100,000 sq. ft. building. Mayor Soderberg asked if any building permits are anticipated from Vermillion River Crossing. Finance Director Roland replied they are not counting on anything. Community Development Director Carroll stated to encourage builders and developers to come in with building permits sooner they sent a letter to all the developers and builders indicating they could help even out the busy time if they apply for building permits by November 30 for any buildings they plan to construct later this year or early next year. Permits could be completed within two weeks. This would shift some of the January - March permit applications into November and December so there would be that additional revenue this year. They would be paying 2005 permit fee rates. Councilmember McKnight asked what that will do to the number for next year. Finance Director Roland did not know ifthis will reduce the number of building permits for 2006. That revenue has already been reduced to 300 permits. Community Development Director Carroll felt the impact will be less in the dollar amount than other things the Council has control over. Finance Director Roland noted if there are special assessments for lots in new developments, staff receives phone calls from closers asking for the amount. Mystic Meadows closed on a number oflots and those building permits are expected soon. Council Workshop October 26, 2005 Page 4 4. 2006 BUDGET REVISIONS a) Discuss Itemized Revisions Council had asked staffto reduce the number of building permits expected for 2006, therefore the 2006 budget had to be cut by $125,000. Finance Director Roland presented the amounts cut by each department. There is an increase in general property taxes of $2,500. This is in anticipation of the Fire Relieflevy going to $62,500 instead of $60,000 in the original budget. The tax levy would then be reduced by $2,500 in the area of capital acquisition because the Fire Department has received a grant which will pay for a number of capital outlay items, none of which are in 2006, but they are in 2007. In 2006 there was $23,000 for sirens. Used sirens were purchased for less money this year, therefore this reduces the amount needed in the 2006 budget to $172,500 for capital acquisitions. The $125,000 in cuts was achieved by staffing shifts. New positions for 2006 were delayed by a few months from the anticipated hiring date. Other items cut were line items in different departments. There is a $60,975 savings in personnel for 2006. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted we have discussed having our own fuel tanks at the Maintenance Facility. Finance Director Roland stated the original plan was a 6,000 gallon tank for regular and a 6,000 gallon tank for diesel. Right now we are buying 10,000 gallons of gas in a month. So the size of the tanks would need to increase. The payback is not a quick payback. Councilmember Pritzlaff felt by waiting the savings gets pushed back. City Engineer Mann stated the cost for both tanks is approximately $150,000. The question is when do we have the money to do it. Mayor Soderberg asked if we had our own tanks ifthere was a state bid to purchase fuel. Finance Director Roland will research this issue. Mayor Soderberg suggested putting this in the CIP sooner rather than later. Finance Director Roland provided Council with information on the impact ofthe tax rate on different home values. Ifthe value ofthe home stayed the same in 2006 as it was in 2005, the City property taxes would go down. If there is an increase in someone's taxes it is due to the increase in the value ofthe property. Mayor Soderberg felt this showed the City is doing its part in holding taxes down. b) Cataract Fire Relief Discussion Finance Director Roland polled the Council as to what they wanted to see. The consensus was to split the difference. So rather than a $65,000 increase for 2006, it was split between $60,000 and $65,000 at $62,500 and the City would increase the benefit to $3,350. The City's contribution would be an increase of$2,500 per year, so this would be $5,000 over two years instead of $5,000 over three years. It was assumed there would be no retirements this year, but starting in 2006 the highest person would be paid out over time. Mr. Jay Clinkscales stated the Cataract Relief Association had proposed to stay at $60,000 and staying with the $3,500 pension benefit. In the past, the Cataract has made significant jumps in their pension due to gains on their investments. The request this year to go to $3,500 was in line with previous years. They did not get Council Workshop October 26, 2005 Page 5 involved in the budget process soon enough, so they proposed to stay at $60,000 rather than asking for an increase, but the gains in investment should be awarded to the members. Councilmember Wilson asked why they felt the $3,500 was more important than the contribution. Mr. Clinkscales replied the contribution level is what was budgeted, they got into the budget process late, everyone is making cuts so for them to ask for an increase did not seem right. Mr. Tom Hemish stated they are 94% vested. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he spoke with Mr. Bill Sauber who at the last meeting wanted the numbers to be at $3,500 and $65,000. Councilmember Pritzlaff suggested splitting the numbers to $3,350 and $62,500 because there are a number of members close to 20 years of service. He wanted to do something for them, but he also wanted to show the newer members the City was also doing something for them. Mr. Clinkscales noted where the benefits are paid out over the next few years, that does not hurt the projected percentage funding. By 2008, the funding level is at 99%. Finance Director Roland noted it will reflect negatively ifnext year instead of the top person going you have two people who go. The top two people would cost over $220,000 if they both went in the same year. That will affect the funding ratio more so than any contribution by the City. Councilmember McKnight agreed with supporting both ends by increasing the City's contribution by $2500 and increasing the benefit level by $150. Councilmember Fogarty agreed with splitting the difference. Mr. Clinkscales noted just in the liability with the people they are adding next year it is over $8,000. He asked if the City is prepared to increase the dollars to make up those differences. Finance Director Roland stated you are not fully vested until you are there ten years. Mr. Hemish asked if the increase in the pension is a 3% increase. Finance Director Roland replied the benefit level is a 5% increase. Councilmember Wilson supported the split as it reflects treatment of the Cataract Association as consistently as possible with other City employees. Mr. Clinkscales stated in the past when they have had the funding to take the increases available to them, it has never come into play. He did not recall one not being approved on the consent agenda. He was trying to understand what the difference is now from then. Mr. Hemish stated they are more funded now than in years past. Mayor Soderberg stated the goal was to stay around 95%-100%. We want to make sure the fund is able to perform. If the numbers peak, the benefit level goes up to reflect that. The assumptions show 2006 at a 96% funding level. Mr. Hemish stated if that is the way we are going, he felt it was a good approach to have a set mark to go by for an increase. Mr. Clinkscales stated the goal is to stay above 90% funding. Mayor Soderberg felt Council was comfortable with doing these increases. Staff will bring to Council a resolution that adopts the level of benefit. The Cataract Relief Association will re-submit their request for the November 7 Council agenda. Councilmember Wilson asked Mr. Clinkscales ifhe felt Council listened to their concerns and how the process went. Mr. Clinkscales replied it was good to be more involved in the workshop. Getting involved earlier next year will be a benefit. He does not agree with the outcome. They have worked hard to get to the funding they are at and believes the members deserve the rewards for the work that has been done. Council Workshop October 26, 2005 Page 6 5. 2006-201 0 CIP City Engineer Mann reviewed the CIP. City building projects include a new City Hall in 2007, 1 st Street garage/storage facility in 2006, and a CMF expansion in 2008. The estimate for new City Hall was $7,630,000. Staff will look at the bids for other City Halls to obtain an updated estimate. The 1 st Street garage is needed because with a new City Hall, the Blaha building would no longer be available for storage. Regarding Public Works projects, there is the annual sealcoat project, Well No.8 and pumphouse has been ordered by the Water Board and is a Water Board expenditure. Also for 2006 is the sidewalk and curb replacement program and an annual mill and overlay project for the Sunnyside Addition. The Spruce Street bridge and utility/street extension is estimated to be $3,200,000. Regarding the 208th Street extension to Pilot Knob, in an agreement with R&L Carriers, the City agreed to pay up to $200,000 of state aid dollars to help fund this extension. There will also be a utility/street reconstruction in the Hill Dee area. The 195th Street construction to hwy 3 is estimated to be $14,000,000. A certain amount the County has agreed to fund. The remainder would be funded by the developer. The City may be participating in some aspects of the construction. The goal is to bring the final report to Council the second meeting in November for Council to order the proj ect. The developer is asking for some options which may push the report out further. This may be a two-phase project in 2006 and 2007. Acting City Administrator Roland stated the developer has assured her that the only parts of their land they are in the process of selling is Riverbend and the commercial property on Charleswood Crossing. Staffhas received the annexation petition from Newland. This is for Rl and half ofR2 on the MUSA map. Other projects include a bike trail around the pond in the southeast trunk project near Castle Rock Bank and a Fairhills Pond bank stabilization project south of 190th Street. The Hill Dee project is a full reconstruction which are hard to plan for. City Engineer Mann asked for a consensus that Council would not be opposed to staff starting a preliminary survey to enable getting the project done next year. The project could be ordered in February. Mayor Soderberg noted some of the projects the City will have to bond for and asked how this will impact the debt ratio. He did not want the debt levy to surpass the 25%. Finance Director Roland stated they have not done the analysis for 2006 for new projects. When it was done last year, they were within the 25%. Mayor Soderberg's other concern was the number oflarge projects for Engineering. 195th Street is a big goal, Hill Dee will be a significant project and also Spruce Street. City Engineer Mann replied Spruce Street is already designed. There will be minor items to finalize. He agreed Hill Dee will be a big project. For 195th Street, they have the ability to expand staff. It is more up to the developer. Council was not opposed to staff doing the preliminary survey work for Hill Dee if staff can handle all the projects. Councilmember Fogarty stated in the Community Center discussions it has been discussed combining the City Hall and the Community Center and moving it. She realized there was a committee that studied a new City Hall and they were adamant about it being downtown. There could be a cost savings. Mayor Soderberg noted this would be a tough sell to the community. Before this was brought to Council, the Facilities Task Council Workshop October 26, 2005 Page 7 Force would be brought back to discuss this with them. The proposed location is the Town and Country development along hwy 50 in the Spruce Street development. Finance Director Roland stated ifit is a project for 2007, they would want to take bids in March 2007 assuming it does not go with the Community Center. Staff would have to work on design elements in mid-2006. City Engineer Mann brought up the Henderson storm sewer project. This would extend storm sewer from East Farmington to the west, down Hickory Street, behind Farmington Mall, and pick up the wetland pond next to hwy 3, go across hwy 3 to handle the ditch drainage and pick up Hickory Street which has a low point that needs to be pumped when it rains. He asked if Council would like to see this as a project or at least update the feasibility report. The cost was approximately $600,000. Mayor Soderberg suggested looking at this for 2006. Councilmember Fogarty left at 7:59 p.m. Parks and Recreation Director Distad outlined the park projects. For 2006 work is scheduled to be done on Silver Springs Park, Vermillion Grove Park, Mystic Meadows Park, Seed Genstar Park and Meadow Creek Park, Evergreen Knoll, Depot Way Arts Park, Dakota County Estates Park, Daisy Knoll Park and Westview Park. There are also a number of boardwalk projects. Soil borings will be done in the next couple weeks and construct the boardwalks in February depending on the costs. Councilmember Wilson asked about the trail system. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated in the operating budget they requested to do maintenance for crack filling. They do not do sealcoating. An overlay would be done in 10-12 years. The total amount for park projects is $548,500. This entire amount is covered through park development and cash-in-lieu fees. 6. NEXT STEPS Acting City Administrator Roland asked for clarification from Council as to what they want to see as the next step after last week's Joint CounciVPlanning Commission Workshop. Another workshop could be scheduled in November. In December Council will be interviewing City Administrator candidates and might not want to have a workshop in December. There was also a discussion of having an economic development workshop. Staff wanted to know where Council wanted to go next and when. Acting City Administrator Roland asked for direction for workshops for the next three months. Mayor Soderberg stated the Planning Commission wants some direction for the east side. In addition to the Perkins property, Community Development Director Carroll noted the concept plans for the Devney and Winkler property have been received. Mayor Soderberg felt the Planning Commission wanted guidance similar to what a Comp Plan would be. He did not know if they have the time to do a full Comp Plan which would take 12-18 months. He suggested doing comprehensive planning in a regional fashion. He envisioned saving some property along hwy 50 for commercial or retail, but he saw the bulk of it being residential. The Comp Plan for the whole City would have to be done in 2008. There are people that want to annex and get development going now. He did not want to push them off for 2-3 years. Councilmember McKnight would rather spend the time and look at the entire City as a whole and include an economic development plan. Mayor Soderberg suggested looking at the area to the east where they expect development to occur. Councilmember McKnight did not want to do this piece meal. Council Workshop October 26, 2005 Page 8 Mayor Soderberg noted for areas on the edges we need the system plans update. Councilmember McKnight wanted the economic development plan to be part of this. Councilmember Wilson felt the meeting with the Planning Commission was very productive. He left feeling swamped with good information, but needing more information. Hiring the Economic Specialist should help in completing the economic development plan. Mayor Soderberg felt the Council would need to meet with the EDA on the economic development plan. Community Development Director Carroll suggested if there is another meeting with the Planning Commission, they could plan on how to do the planning. The long term planning and economic development plan will take a long time to do right. There are some things smaller in nature that staff has an opportunity to address right away. At the next meeting they could discuss if they want to put a line on the map and say everything to the west are smaller properties and the system plans do not need to be updated in order to discuss what to do with them. This would include the Perkins property, the Regan property, properties north ofthe Legion that are still in the township, and the Corinthian Cemetery property. The next part is what do we do east of the line. There should not be any long-term planning for these properties until the system plans are done. Mayor Soderberg and Councilmember Wilson agreed. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated his vision of the meeting with the Planning Commission had good information, but it was not what he envisioned. He thought they were actually going to do some planning. He would like to have a map of the City with the eastern properties and the total number of acres, give it to the Council and the Planning Commission, and on their own time each person write down on the map what they want to see for each property. The maps could be brought to the next meeting for review. Acting City Administrator Roland stated this would be valuable when they revise the Comprehensive Plan. Everyone had different expectations for the meeting. She felt it would be productive to have a meeting to plan how to plan. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated when the Perkins property was brought to the Planning Commission and they said to wait until we know what we want to do in that area, we needed this plan a month ago. We had a meeting in October, now another one in November, we do not want to do one in December and then we are in January. We are four months from getting this accomplished. Mayor Soderberg stated this is comprehensive planning and why he suggested doing it in sections. Comprehensive planning takes time. Councilmember Pritzlaff agreed the economic development plan should be included. Community Development Director Carroll stated the housing goals are what they will have to deal with the most. They need to discuss the policy level decisions that they need the Council and Planning Commission to weigh in on verses the day to day decisions. Weare hovering at 3 units/acre. If the Councilor Planning Commission said they want an area to be all low density residential, that decision alone could pull us below 3 units/acre overall. The Met Council would not approve this. There is a threshold policy level for different types of housing. This would establish the framework and should be discussed at the next joint meeting with the Planning Commission. Staffwill contact Council and the Planning Commission to set a date for the next workshop. Council Workshop October 26, 2005 Page 9 7. ADJOURN MOTION by McKnight, second by Pritzlaffto adjourn at 8:38 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~~p?~ (" Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant 76 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 Interim City Administrator 0/ Lena Larson \)"- Public Works Administrative Assistant 15:./ FROM: SUBJECT: Approving Submittal of an Application for Landfill Abatement Funds from Dakota County DATE: November 7, 2005 INTRODUCTION & DISCUSSION Dakota County has provided landfill abatement funding assistance to communities in Dakota County since 1989. Dakota County Board Resolution No. 88-651 states that the County's portion of funding of recycling implementation and operating costs incurred by cities and townships will be through performance based funding. Communities over 5,000 in population are eligible to receive a $5,000 base per community plus $1.60 per household, based on 2004 Metropolitan Council household estimates. These funds assist the City in producing and distributing literature, promotional items, and programs and events that promote waste reduction and recycling programs in Farmington. BUDGET IMPACT The year 2006 maximum reimbursement for Farmington is $14,600. RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached resolution approving submittal of a grant application to Dakota County. ~ectfullY Submitted, ~n~ Public Works Administrative Assistant RESOLUTION NO. R -05 APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR WASTE ABATEMENT FUNDING ASSISTANCE Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 7th day of November, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, according to Dakota County Board Resolution No. 88-651, Dakota County presently provides funding assistance for landfill abatement activities based on performance based funding; and, WHEREAS, the City presently has an integrated resource recovery system of which curbside pickup of yard waste and recyclables are major components, and would be eligible for funding under the County program. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Dakota County Waste Abatement Funding Assistance, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, is hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to execute and forward the 2006 Community Funding Application. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 7th day of November, 2005. Mayor day of ,2005. Attested to the 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 76 TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, Acting City Administrator W FROM: Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Set Public Hearing - Various Licenses and Permits DATE: November 7,2005 INTRODUCTION A public hearing is required for the renewal of various licenses and permits for the 2006 cl1endar year. DISCUSSION Each year the following licenses expire December 31, and are required by ordinance, to be reviewed at a public hearing prior to renewal: On-Sale Liquor Licenses Sunday Liquor Licenses Club Licenses On-Sale Wine Licenses Therapeutic Massage Licenses ACTION REQUIRED Set a public hearing for 7:00 p.m., November 21,2005, to review license renewal applications. Respectfully submitted, , ~//Jia~ Lisa Shadick Administrative Services Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ?d TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and Interim City Administrator ~ FROM: Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Set Council/HPC Joint Workshop DATE: November 7,2005 INTRODUCTION ~ , On May 2, 2005, Council approved a Certified Local Government Grant to begin a local designation project designating a minimum of five properties as Farmington Heritage Landmarks. DISCUSSION As part of the grant designation project, the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) would like to hold a workshop with the City Council and owners of properties worthy of becoming Farmington Heritage Landmarks. The intent of the workshop would be to "walk through" the designation process to educate Council and property owners on the process and the value of Farmington Heritage Landmark Designations. HPC Members, staff and the City's historic preservation consultant, Robert Vogel, will be available to answer questions Councilor property owners may have on the designation process. As Council has identified the third Wednesday of each month as potential workshop dates, the HPC would like to hold this workshop with Council and participating property owners in the Council Chambers on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. ACTIONREQUESTED Approve the scheduling of a Council/HPC Joint Workshop for Wednesday, January 18, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, .... ~d~a~ Lisa Shadick Administrative Services Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7e. TO: Mayor, Council Members FROM: Robin Roland, Acting City Administrator SUBJECT: Set Joint Planning Commission / City Council workshop date DATE: November 7,2005 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission and City Council had a joint workshop on Wednesday OctolJer 19th and both bodies expressed a desire to meet again to continue the discussion. DISCUSSION Staff has polled both the Commission and the Council and found that the next available date for both parties was Wednesday, November 30,2005. The workshop will begin at 5:00 PM. ACTION REQUIRED Set Joint Planning Commission / City Council Workshop date for Wednesday, November 30, 2005 at 5 :00 PM. Respectfully submitted, ~~? /1 /.'. . .. ./..,//,/ /.'./ l~~/., /~ "~.~ 'I / I'. . q... . .i.C' . t) . ..... / .. / Robin 01 d Acting City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7,( TO: Mayor, Council Members and Acting City Administrator ~ FROM: Ken Kuchera Fire Chief SUBJECT: Request for Approval Regarding Enhancing Mutual Aid Agreements Under Defined Circumstances DATE: November 7,2005 INTRODUCTION The Farmington Fire Department receives and provides mutual aid to other fire agencies around our servIce area. Under existing mutual aid agreements, specific equipment must be requested from the Incident Commander based on their judgment. Many times an Incident Commander has many tasks to deal with at an incident and sometimes a call for mutual aid can be delayed. Automatic mutual aid would allow communications personnel to request mutual aid based on information received at the time of the call. This action would deliver the needed help sooner. DISCUSSION During discussions with our mutual aid partners, it was determined that tanker response to areas where no fire hydrants exist could be upgraded to automatic aid under the following conditions: Report of a fire in a structure. Report of visible smoke in a structure. Report of smoke or flame visible from outside a structure. Vehicle fires within a structure or impinging on a structure. Any other circumstances whereby it is possible to articulate the likelihood of a fire. By providing Automatic Mutual Aid under these terms, more aggressive tactical decisions can be made by incident commanders while dealing with fires in areas where no hydrants exist. t' t ' . . . BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED Authorize approval of the enhancement to our existing mutual aid agreements to allow for Automatic Mutual Aid for fire tankers in areas where fire hydrants do not exist. Respectfully submitted, t!J2-<J ~L-~~/tOcL/ l!~-..-J Ken Kuchera Fire Chief -. Letter of Understanding for Automatic Mutual Aid Purpose: To enhance existing mutual aid agreements by creating internal policies within each of the communities allowing communications staff to make decisions regarding mutual aid response to predetermined areas of their service areas. Expectations: Communications staff will be authorized to ask for a mutual aid response based on, but not limited to, the following conditions. · Report of a fire in a structure. · Report of visible smoke within a structure. · A report of smoke or flame visible from outside of a structure. _i' · Vehicle fires within a structure or impinging on a structure. · And other circumstances whereby it is possible to articulate the likelihood of a structure on fire. -. Each fire department will provide an initial response of a water tender/tanker vehicle. Each fiXe department will pre-determine which mutual aid agency will respond to which locations within their response area. Canceling or augmenting the mutual aid response will be done by the requesting departments'supervisor. In the event a department being requested is unable to respond, they will notify the requesting community immediately, so alternative resources can be obtained. 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 SUBJECT: Adopt Budgetary Policies DATE: November 7,2005 INTRODUCTION The Finance department has been working on several policies which guide operations .fll1d as such, impact the City budget. Those polices are attached with this memo. DISCUSSION The Revenue Policy presented outlines the types of revenues collected by the City and how those revenues are to be handled and accounted for. This policy also addresses the City's Petty cash and Change funds. Cash handling procedures are separate internal operating guidelines. The Purchasing Policy presented includes the requirements of State Statutes and other areas of concern such as internal control, conflict of interest and departmental responsibilities. The Policy also discusses what information is required on a Purchase Order form. Both policies reflect the status quo of operations as they occur now. ACTION REQUIRED Adopt the Administrative Policies on Revenue and Purchasing as presented. Respectfully submitted, Robin Roland Acting City Administrator ~ ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY 11/07/05 REVENUES Purpose: To establish a framework to guide and comply with sound financial policy in order to maintain an advantageous financial position. Revenue Sources Taxes: General Property Tax Levy Fiscal Disparities Debt Service Levy Delinquent Taxes Special Assessments Delinquent Special Assessment Tax Increment A notice with detail regarding the payment is received from Dakota County. They then send an e-mail to the Finance Director when payment will be made. The payment is directly deposited into the City's bank account. A journal entry is written by the Finance Department to distribute the funds to the appropriate general ledger accounts. Licenses and Permits: The Administration Department issues licenses and permits for various activities based on the levy certification for the budget year. The license or permit fee must be received and receipted before the license or permit may be issued. City Departments: Revenues are collected in various divisions such as the Swimming Pool, Arena, Liquor Store and Rambling River Center. When these divisions receive money, a receipt is rung on their cash register. All backup information and summaries shall be attached to the Finance Department's copy of the receipt. No money shall be kept overnight by any department unless in a locked safe. The Swimming Pool and Liquor Store make their own deposits while the Arena and Rambling River Center deliver their deposits to the Administration Receptionist for inclusion with the City's daily deposit. Donations: Donations must be received by the Finance Department and a receipt written. The only exception is donations received by the Rambling River Center. The Senior Center Coordinator shall issue a receipt from their cash register for each donation received. One copy goes to the customer and one to the Finance Department. This donation will become part of the Rambling River Center's daily deposit and submitted to the Administration Receptionist for deposit. Accounts Receivable: The Accounting Technician bills for developer, engineering, fire, police services, weed notices and park and recreation reimbursements. Payments for these invoices need to be submitted to the Accounting Technician for coding direction before receipting in order to relieve the invoice being paid on the Accounts Receivable subsystem. Other Revenue: All other revenues shall be received by the Administration Receptionist and a receipt written and coded to the appropriate accounts. Petty Cash: A petty cash fund is held by the Accountant and is for the reimbursement of supplies and expenses amounting to less than $15.00. Documentation needed for reimbursement is a receipt with date, description, amount, account number to expense and the signature of a Department Head. Separate procedures for handling petty cash are outlined in a subsequent document. Change Fund: The purpose of a change fund is to have cash for where cash drawers are required to make change. There are change funds at City Hall, the Arena and the Liquor Stores. Each change fund is the responsibility ofthe immediate supervisor ofthe function/activity and ultimately the responsibility ofthe Department Head. Amounts of each change fund are determined by the volume of business activity and are subject to increase/decrease based on the discretion of supervisor/Department Head. Change funds are subject to annual audit as well as internal audits. Administration: The Finance Department will oversee all proper procedures for revenue handling and will hold all appropriate Department Heads accountable for their respective areas. ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY 11/07/05 PURCHASING Purpose: The purpose of this policy is to establish specific guidelines for the purchase of goods and services by the employees ofthe City of Farmington. The use of public funds requires diligent scrutiny and careful regulations. The controls necessary are in two areas. First, the statutory law, which clearly details procedures for the purchase of goods and services by City employees. Second, the controls not required by statute, but that are important to a good system of internal control and a sound management program. This policy will outline the laws governing contracts and bids and describe the basis for a good internal control system. Following the law and the City's purchase system should help City officials obtain maximum benefit from each dollar of public funds. Note: Purchasing goods and services using a credit card is covered under the City's Credit Card Use Policy. Contracting-Bid Laws A city entering into an agreement for the sale or purchase of supplies, materials, equipment or the rental thereof, or the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of real or personal property must abide by the statutes relating to contracting and bidding. Minnesota Statute 471.345 was established to provide dollar limits for all cities upon contracts which shall or may be entered into on the basis of competitive bids, quotations or purchase or sale in the open market. This statute puts the following basic requirements on cities (based on the estimated contract amount); 1. For contracts over $50,000 - sealed bids shall be solicited by public notice in the manner and subject to the particular requirements of the City. The sealed bids shall be solicited by public notice and be kept on file. 2. For contracts from $10,000 to $50,000 - sealed bids or by direct negotiation, by obtaining two or more quotations for the purchase or sale when possible, and without advertising for bids or otherwise complying with the requirements of competitive bidding. All quotations obtained shall be kept on file for a period of at least one year after receipt thereof. 3. For contracts under $10,000 - the contract may be made upon quotation or in the open market, in the discretion of the City. If the contract is made upon quotation it shall be based, so far as practicable, on at least two quotations which shall be kept on file for a period of at least one year after their receipt. The provisions noted in this policy are not intended to be an exhaustive list of Minnesota bid laws. Internal Controls The primary basis for the City's system of internal control is the City's annual budget. The budget, as adopted by the City Council, serves as the basis for the City's spending for that year. The appropriate level of responsible official must approve any expenditure over budget. Also, any expenditure that would utilize money budgeted from one area of a department budget for another purpose must be communicated by that department head to the Finance Director for his/her verbal approval. In addition, all purchase orders and invoices presented for payment must be approved by the appropriate department head or supervisor and reviewed for reasonableness and proper account coding by the Finance Department. Conflict of Interest It is forbidden to: 1. Use information available to an employee because of his /her position with the City for personal profit or advantage. 2. Directly or indirectly furnish information or services to prospective bidders on contracts, unless all prospective bidders have access to this information. 3. Use an employee's position with the City to solicit business of any kind to make purchases at discounts or special concessions for private gain. Support of Local Firms and Merchants It is the policy of the City to support local firms and merchants. To facilitate this policy, when products or services can reasonably be supplied by local merchants or firms, requests for bids or quotations shall be solicited by phone, mail or facsimile and/or advertisement in the official City newspaper and/or trade journals to attempt to provide an opportunity for local merchants to participate in the bidding process. Advertisements for bids shall be published in accordance with the state law. Award of bids or quotations shall be made in accordance with state law to the lowest qualified bidder. Responsibilities: Department Heads Department Heads and other persons authorized to purchase are responsible for certain functions related to purchasing and payment for goods and services received. The responsibilities are: 1. Purchasing done on a competitive basis and consistent with the approved annual budget. 2. Control of purchased goods and services to ensure only authorized use. 3. All terms and conditions (including pricing) of the purchase as specified in the purchase order and applicable contract are attained prior to the payment of the claim. 4. Providing the Finance Department with approved invoices in a timely manner. 5. Immediate notification to the Finance Department of any circumstances affecting acceptability, performance, or any other reason which may lead to withholding of payment. 6. Cooperation with the Finance Department in resolving disputes with vendors regarding terms, quantity, or any questions of performance. 7. Designating budget coding of all invoices. Responsibilities: Finance Department 1. Assistance in seeking vendors to provide the best price availability. 2. Reasonable audit tests to determine fund availability, legality and validity of obligations for payment. 3. Pay authorized bills that meet procedural requirements. Purchase Orders Competitive Price Quotes/Bids: 1. Purchaser must obtain competitive price quoteslbids for services or commodities as outlined in Contracting Bid Law Section. 2. Purchaser will prepare a purchase order or documented invoice and submit to the Department Head and the Finance Director for approval. 3. A documented invoice allows all necessary information and approvals to be placed directly on the invoice. This would apply to emergency purchases of goods and services and to routine items such as utility bills. 4. Purchase orders are to be used to request/receive approval to purchase an item or service. Do not prepare purchase orders after the item has been purchased. Purchaser is responsible for the most accurate cost when filling out a purchase order (including sales tax and freight, if possible). Purchase Orders Must Include: 1. Explanation justifying request. 2. Tabulation of quoteslbids where appropriate. 3. Account number including business unit and object code. 4. Budget appropriation for item or service requisitioned. 5. Department Head approval. 6. Date ordered and approximate date to be received. 7. Full vendor name/address - no abbreviations. 8. All items purchased must be listed separately with respective costs. 9. Vendor shall list the PO# on the invoice when billed. 10. All packing slips shall be signed/dated and with the appropriate department/division indicated on them and forwarded to the Finance Department. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ?4 ~\J TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, and Acting City Administrator VI FROM: Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director SUBJECT: Elected Official Travel Policy DATE: November 7,2005 INTRODUCTION The City is required to develop and adopt an elected official out-of state travel policy by January 1, 2006. DISCUSSION Minnesota Statute ~471.661 requires that the governing body of each statutory city must develop a policy that controls travel outside the state of Minnesota for elected officials. The attached policy was drafted for Council approval and includes all the required elements as outlined in the Statute. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the attached Elected Official Out-of-State Travel Policy. Respectfully Submitted, &C-ti /.. ?f':; .I/..;~~l ., // .~ l" 0U- ((/v~c/VFv f .' Brenda Wendlandt, SPHR Human Resources Director cc: file COUNCIL POLICY 08 ELECTED OFFICIAL OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL POLICY Purpose The City of Farmington recognizes that its elected officials may at times receive value from traveling out of the state for workshops, conferences, events and other assignments. This policy sets forth the conditions under which out-of-state travel will be reimbursed by the City. General Guidelines 1. The event, workshop, conference or assignment must be approved in advance by resolution by the City Council at an open meeting and must include an estimate of the cost of the travel. In evaluating the out-of-state travel request, the Council will consider the following: . Whether the elected official will be receiving training on issues relevant to the city or to his or her role as the Mayor or as a council member; . Whether the elected official will be meeting and networking with other elected officials from around the country to exchange ideas on topics of relevance to the City or on the official roles of local elected officials. . Whether the elected official will be viewing a city facility or function that is similar in nature to one that is currently operating at, or under consideration by the City where the purpose for the trip is to study the facility or function to bring back ideas for the consideration of the full council. . Whether the elected official has been specifically assigned by the Council to visit another city for the purpose of establishing a goodwill relationship such as a "sister-city" relationship. . Whether the elected official has been specifically assigned by the Council to testify on behalf of the city at the United States Congress or to otherwise meet with federal officials on behalf of the city. . Whether the city has sufficient funding available in the budget to pay the cost of the trip. 2. No reimbursements will be made for attendance at events sponsored by or affiliated with political parties. 3. The city may make payments in advance for airfare, lodging and registration if specifically approved by the council. Otherwise all payments will be made as reimbursements to the elected official. 4. The City will reimburse for transportation, lodging, meals, registration, and incidental costs using the same procedures, limitations and guidelines for City employees as outlined in Administrative Policy 4.2 Business Travel Expenses. 5. Elected officials attending the event will report back to the Council at an open meeting on the results of the trip and make available all materials obtained during the course of the event. 6. Elected officials who have announced their intention to resign, not to seek reelection, or who have been defeated in an election will not be eligible to attend any out-of-state event on behalf of the City. 7. No more than two elected officials will be authorized to attend the same out-of-state event. Any exceptions to this policy must be approved in advance by resolution by Council at an open meeting. 7; City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, Acting City Administrator 0/ Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer FROM: SUBJECT: Approve Change Order - Ash Street Reconstruction and Utility Improvements DATE: November 7,2005 INTRODUCTION Forwarded herewith for Council's review and consideration is Change Order #3 for the Ash Street Reconstruction and Utility Improvements Project. DISCUSSION Change Order #3 provides for additional Bid Items for Payment for work completed by the Contractor. Items no. 1, 2, and 3 are for work done for the K & K Auto Ranch lot. Those items are being assessed to the property owner. BUDGET IMPACT The total cost for the change order is $6,216.07. 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$6,216.07. Respectfully submitted, ~fY!~ Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Date October 12, 2005 Bond Com an : Merchants Bondin Co. Mutual), ,2100 Fleur Dr., Des Moines, IA 50321 Bond No: MNC41016 CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 ASH STREET RECONSTRUCTION & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS BRA FILE NO. 000141-03205-0 Description of Work This Change Order provides for additional Bid Items for Payment for work completed by the Contractor. Items no. 1, 2, and 3 are for work done in the K & K Auto Ranch lot. Those items will be reimbursed to the City by property owner Ivan Jansen. Contract Unit Total No. Item Unit Quantity Price Amount CHANGE ORDER NO.3 12" RCP STORM SEWER, DES 3006, CLASS 5 LF 146 $23.37 $3,412.02 2 4' DIAMETER STORM CBMH EA $1,346.80 $1,346.80 3 27" DIAMETER STORM CB EA $1,101.75 $1,101.75 4 12" SLEEVE EA $355.50 $355.50 TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO.3: $6,216.07 14103205CH03.xls City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ciJarmington.mn.us ~. J TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, Acting City Administrator ~ FROM: Tim Gross, P .E., Assistant City Engineer ~ SUBJECT: Approve Change Order - Fire Station No.2 DATE: November 7, 2005 INTRODUCTION Forwarded herewith for Council's review and consideration is Change Order #1 for the Fire Station No.2 Project. DISCUSSION Change Order #1 provides for additional Bid Items for Payment for work completed by the Contractor. Specific descriptions for each change order item are listed on the attached memo from the architect. BUDGET IMPACT The total cost for the change order is $26,673. This amount is within the project budget. ACTION REQUESTED Approve by motion, Change Order #1 for the Fire Station No.2 project in the amount of $26,673. Tim Gross, P .E. Assistant City Engineer cc: Lee Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer John McNamara, Wold Architects and Engineers file MEMORANDUM TO: Tim Gross St. Paul, MN Elgin, IL FROM: John McNamara Troy, MI DATE: October 21,2005 Denver, CO COMM. NO: 042170 SUBJECT: Farmington Fire Station No.2 MINNESOTA OFFICE 305 St. Peter Street ST. Paul, Minnesota 55102 651.227.7773 Fax 651.223.5646 www.woldae.com Mail@woldae.com The following are recommended contract changes for Fire Station No.2 at the North Municipal Campus. The approved costs have beep reviewed ~nc;l represent a fair value for the work performed. .; . Item Descriotion PR #1 Mechanical motorized dampers, variable speed drives and differential pressure sensors were deleted during shop drawing coordination. These items are not needed and a credit was received from the contractor. PR #2 The drainage pond size and depth was changed based on input from City Engineering after bid award. The revised size relates and depth relates to the adjacent development across Pilot Knob and maximizes the drainage pond for the future water treatment facility. PR #3 At the request of City Engineering, the native seeding specified was deleted and native seeding by Prairie Restoration was added. Prairie Restoration currently maintains native seeding for the City. PR #4 Additional backflow preventer's were needed based on plan review by the State of Minnesota. SI #1 A Supplemental Instruction was issued to change from metal furring strips at the canopy to plywood for attachment of the ElF'S. This reflects the cost upcharge for plywood. Misc. Cost #12 Additional hardware was needed for a 90 minute fire rated door. Total Change Order #1 AOl'roved Cost <$950> $14,898 $4,788 $6,002 $1,650 $285 $26,673 Upon approval by City Council, we will issue Change Order #1 for the project. If you have any questions, please call. cc: Robin Roland, City of Farmington Michael Cox Jodi Engles W 0 L D ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS 7,f City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: ffi"-. Mayor, Councilmembers, Acting City Administrator '~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Approve Surface Water Management Plan Update DATE: November 7,2005 INTRODUCTION At the August 15,2005 City Council meeting, Council authorized staff to initiate the updating of the City's comprehensive utility plans. DISCUSSION The area proposed for consideration for the Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) update is shown on the attached map. The proposed study boundary takes into consideration the drainage patterns in the area and does not necessarily indicate future jurisdictional boundaries. For example, the properties east of Biscayne Avenue would be affected by development west of Biscayne, since the drainage pattern in this area is from west to east. The Surface Water Plan Update tasks would include background data collection, a wetland inventory and classification, several meetings and interviews with city staff, the MnDNR, Vermillion River Watershed JPO and the Dakota County SWCD, a meeting with the University of Minnesota research group that is currently collecting data on the Vermillion River, a ground water assessment, provision of alternative storm water management approaches, development of storm water quantity models, development of storm water quality models, preparation of the draft report, appendices and maps and delivery to the pertinent agencies for comment. A full City-wide update of the SWMP will subsequently need to occur within two years after the plan for the Vermillion River Watershed is adopted. Further research is needed to determine how that requirement will match up with the City's requirement to update the City's Comprehensive Plan by 2008. The update will be completed by March 15,2006. Surface Water Management Plan Update November 7, 2005 Page 2 BUDGET IMPACT The estimated cost to update the Surface Water Management Plan is $68,100. This update would be funded out of the storm water fund. The scope includes the work up to and including the delivery of the draft report to the agencies. Approximately one-fourth of the project budget is for up-front meetings with the agencies with a goal of minimizing agency comments on the draft report. An estimate of further cost to address agency comments will be submitted after comments are received and before the report is finalized. ACTION REQUESTED Authorize by motion the updating of the Surface Water Management Plan as described herein. Respectfully submitted, ~h\~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file 71.. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers Acting City Administrator FROM: Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief SUBJECT: School and Conference - Fire Department DATE: November 7,2005 INTRODUCTION The Fire Department is planning attendance at the Hybrid Vehicle Safety and Airbag Safety course. DISCUSSION A representative from North Memorial Emergency Medical Services Education will be coming to the Fire Station to provide instruction on the proper technique of vehicle safety for hybrid vehicles and airbags. This is a two-hour course and will be held on December 12,2005. BUDGET IMPACT The cost ofthe course is $352.88 and is approved in the 2005 budget. ACTION REQUESTED Approve attendance at the Hybrid Vehicle Safety and Airbag Safety course. Respectfully submitted, )(~ y~~ t!--./ Ken Kuchera Fire Chief North Memorial Medical Center EMS Education ~orth Memorial EMS Education Course Contract Contract Date: October 26, 2005 PARTIES: North Memorial EMS Education 3500 France Ave No, Suite 103 Robbinsdale, MN 55422 ("WE", "US", "OUR") AND Farmington Fire Department FACILITY A.l.E ("YOU," "YOUR," "FACILITY") 912 W estgail Court FACILITY ADDRESS 800-994-9780 Fax: 763-520-4969 Farmington, MN 55024 FACILITYCI'IY, STATE,ZIP 612.730.1270 FACILITY PHONE NUMBER ("YOU", "YOUR", "FACILITY") The purpose of this contract between North Memorial EMS Education and YOU is the promotion and implementation of high quality education for YOUR training needs. ONCE A CONTRACT HAS BEEN MAILED TO THE FACILITY. YOU MUST FAX OR MAIL THE SIGNED CONTRACT BACK TO NORTH MEMORIAL EMS EDUCATION WITHIN (7) SEVEN WORKING DAYS UNLESS OTHER ARRANGEMENTS HA VE BEEN MADE. The following criteria: :: :: :: ::I o .... ..... ::r 3 II> 3 YOU agree to pay North Memorial EMS Education a non-refundable deposit of N/A for our guaranteed appearance on date(s) listed above. A check ~ must accompany the return of this signed contract! The deposit amount will,be deducted from your total cost upon completion of your program. Full l:U payment is due at conclusion of contracted session(s) unless prior arrangements have been made with North Memorial EMS Education. 1. Course materials, if any, will be coordinated by North EMS Education. 2. Course materials, if any, will be mailed to YOU for distribution to course participants. 3. Coordination of instructors will be the responsibility of North EMS Education. 912 Westgail Court in Farmington CoURSE locATION December 12,2005 :OURSE DATE Christopher Matek, NREMT-P COURSE COORDINATOR n o 3 Program: Two Hour - Hybrid Vehicles $275.00 *plus expenses Expenses: *Mileage: 68 miles round trip x $.41 *Travel Fee: 2 hours x $25.00 per hour $ 27.88 $ 50.00 Total: $352.88 rnn !l ~b I-J }JJJ~ North Memorial EMS Education to .-;)&; r{J ~ Date 4 Facility Rep,rese tative l/b/o r Date D Checks should be made out to North Memorial EMS Education - ALERT/Awareness Program. ] North Memorial EMS Education is now requiring a deposit upon return ofthis contract. YOU will find that amount listed above. D Cancellation of assigned course{s) will also sustain a 10% fee in addition to a $175.00 handling fee plus any other out-of-pocket expenses that may arise (airline tickets, etc.). This amount will be invoiced to YOU, the contracting facility. 3500 France Avenue North, Suite 103 . Robbinsdale, MN 55422 . Phone: (763) 520-5451 ~6 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 Interim City Administrator~ FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consider Proposed Acquisition/Redevelopment of Vacant Lot at Southeast Comer of 4th Street and Main Street DATE: November 7, 2005 INTRODUCTION The Farmington Housing and Redevelopment Authority [HRA] has authorized and directed staff to investigate the possible acquisition of the vacant lot located at the southeast comer of 4th Street and Main Street. A public hearing regarding the proposed acquisition will be conducted during the City Council meeting on November 7,2005. DISCUSSION The vacant lot located at the southeast comer of 4th Street and Main Street in Farmington is a tax forfeiture parcel. It was forfeited to the State of Minnesota on or about January 6, 1992. It has been vacant for at least 12 years. Prior to that time (from about 1932 to the late 1950's), there was a gas station located on the lot. The property has remained vacant primarily because of contamination issues associated with the site. See the attached e-mail (Exhibit A) from Dakota County dated October 14, 2003 for additional background information. For the last eight years (at a minimum), the Farmington HRA has been interested in returning the lot in question to some type of productive use. In 1997, the Farmington HRA retained Peer Environmental to conduct Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments [ESAs] regarding the property. The Phase II ESA disclosed the presence of several non-petroleum compounds (PCE and related breakdown products) at elevated concentrations. The source of these compounds was believed to be a plume of contaminated groundwater that originated at the site of a former dry cleaning operation that was located near the comer of 3rd Street and Oak Street. The non-petroleum contamination issues have, for many years, been considered unresolved by the MPCA. During that time, neither the HRA nor the City nor Dakota County nor the State of Minnesota took any formal steps to resolve the issues or return the property to any type of productive, tax-generating use. Over the last few years, a substantial number of individuals have approached the City, the HRA and Dakota County about the possibility of acquiring the lot, but the unresolved contamination issues and related uncertainty about how to proceed ultimately dissuaded all of the prospective purchasers from continuing to pursue the acquisition of the lot. During 2005, Mr. Joseph Heinen contacted HRA staff to inquire about potential relocation sites for a house that he wanted to move. Mr. Heinen owns the commercial building located at the northeast comer of 3rd Street and Elm Street, along with two homes (rental properties) located just east of the commercial building. Mr. Heinen wants to expand the commercial building to the east, or construct a new commercial building in that area, and he would prefer to avoid demolishing the two houses if possible. Both ofthem are brick structures that are structurally sound and architecturally interesting. HRA staff recommended to Mr. Heinen that he consider the possibility of moving one of the two brick houses to the vacant lot at the comer of 4th & Main, which is only one block away. (See the aerial photo that has been attached hereto as Exhibit B.) The lot is appropriately zoned, and it is more than large enough to accommodate the house in question (that is, it would comply with the City's lot coverage and setback requirements). Although Mr. Heinen shared the concerns that others have previously expressed regarding the contamination issues, he was the first person who was willing to expend his own funds to address those issues. He has incurred at least $4500.00 thus far for additional environmental testing that he personally authorized Peer Environmental to conduct in order to further clarify the nature and extent of the contamination in question. This letter will be accompanied by a portion (Exhibit C) of Peer's report dated August 11, 2005. This report was discussed by Dakota County staff, City staff and Mr. Heinen at a meeting that was held at the Dakota County Western Service Center on September 1,2005. At the September 1 meeting, Mr. Heinen and City staff indicated their desire to initiate whatever process might be required to transfer ownership of the lot from the State of Minnesota to the Farmington HRA, so that the HRA could then transfer it to Mr. Heinen. City staff subsequently prepared and submitted to Dakota County the required application form and a related HRA Resolution. The topic in question was on the agenda for the September 20 meeting of the Dakota County Board of Commissioners (see Request for Board Action, attached hereto as Exhibit D.) At the September 20 meeting, the Board approved the proposed conveyance of the lot in question to the Farmington HRA. Dakota County then submitted a request to the State of Minnesota regarding the approved conveyance of the lot to the HRA. City staff asked that the State not prepare or send a deed until the City had finished addressing some liability issues related to the property. City staff wanted to make certain that the HRA would not be subjecting itself to any legal or financial responsibilities if it briefly appeared in the "chain of title" before ownership of the lot was transferred to Mr. Heinen. To clarify the liability issues, Peer prepared and submitted applications to the MPCA's Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup [VIC] Program and the MPCA's Petroleum Brownfields Program. (See two letters dated September 29,2005, attached hereto as Exhibit E.) Peer's applications to the MPCA led to the issuance of the following responses from the MPCA: 1. A "No Association Determination" letter dated October 27, 2005 from the MPCA's VIC program (attached hereto as Exhibit F). 2. A "Petroleum Storage Tank Release Liability" letter dated October 14, 2005 from the MPCA's Petroleum Brownfields Program (attached hereto as Exhibit G). 3. A "Petroleum Storage Tank Release Site File Closure Confirmation" letter dated October 14,2005 (attached hereto as Exhibit H). The aforementioned letters have been forwarded to the City Attorney for review. If it is determined that these letters provide adequate protection against any possible future claims against the HRA 2 related to the current condition of the property, it should then be possible for the City Council to take action on the HRA's request that the Council approve the HRA's acquisition of the property. Section 469.028, subd. 5 of the Minnesota Statutes (attached hereto as Exhibit I) provides that an HRA can, with the consent of its governing body (the City Council), acquire parcels of real property if the proposed acquisition "... will contribute to the elimination of blight or deterioration within the area or that the acquisition is necessary to relieve hardship." The governing body is required to hold a public hearing on the proposed acquisition. After the public hearing, the City Council can approve the attached Resolution if it desires to move forward with the proposed acquisition. In this instance, the hardship that the HRA is trying to relieve is the fact that the property in question has long been considered contaminated, which has deterred anyone from pursuing the redevelopment of the site. Now, however, the HRA is fortunate enough to have an individual involved who is both willing and able to incur the expense(s) and inconvenience(s) of addressing and resolving the contamination issues with the HRA, the City, Dakota County, and the MPCA. One could also argue that the HRA's acquisition of the property would eliminate (or prevent) blight or deterioration, by facilitating the redevelopment of a lot that would otherwise remain vacant, and/or by allowing Mr. Heinen to make needed repairs and improvements to the existing brick house prior to its relocation to the currently vacant lot. Under the law, the City and the HRA do not need to have a specific redevelopment plan prepared or approved in order to acquire the vacant lot at 4th and Main. Although the general objective (moving a nearby house onto the lot) is clear, several details still need to be addressed, including the protective measures (if any) the MPCA might expect or require regarding the footings/foundationlbasement, the sale proceeds that Dakota County might expect the HRA to collect from Mr. Heinen and then transfer to Dakota County (the HRA will be acquiring the property for $1, but Dakota County expects that any subsequent sale to a private party will be for "fair market value"), and the amount by which the fair market value can be reduced to take into consideration the costs that Mr. Heinen has incurred (and will incur) in connection with the contamination issues referred to above. It is anticipated that these and other issues will be addressed after the City Council approves the HRA's proposed acquisition of the lot, but before the ownership of the lot is actually transferred to Mr. Heinen. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the Farmington HRA and Cit~ staff to proceed with the proposed acquisition of the vacant lot located at the northeast comer of 4t Street and Main Street. cc: Mr. Joseph Heinen 3 RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING THE EARLY ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 469.028 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 7th day of November, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: introduced and Member _ seconded the following: Member WHEREAS, there is a vacant, tax-forfeited lot (Pill 14-77000-061-26) located at the southeast comer of 4th Street and Main Street in the City of Farmington; and WHEREAS, the Farmington Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has determined that the parcel ofland in question is suitable for redevelopment; and WHEREAS, the HRA proposes to acquire the parcel from the State of Minnesota, with the consent and participation of Dakota County, for $1; and WHEREAS, state law (M.S. 469.028, Subd. 5) authorizes the HRA, with the approval of the City Council, to acquire individual tracts of real property prior to the preparation and approval of a redevelopment plan; and WHEREAS, the statute requires that the governing body shall hold a public hearing on the proposed acquisition activities after published notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality at least once not less than ten days nor more than 30 days prior to the date of the hearing; and WHEREAS, the required hearing has been conducted pursuant to law; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, as required by the statute, that: 1) the proposed acquisition will contribute to the elimination of blight or deterioration within the area and/or that the proposed acquisition is necessary to relieve hardship, and 2) there are no persons displaced by the proposed acquisition; and WHEREAS, the governing body, in approving early acquisition, will not assume any responsibility for any loss that may arise as a result of the acquisition of land and related activities, including any costs of demolition, removal, and relocation, in the event that the property so acquired is not used for urban renewal purposes because the urban renewal plan is not approved, or is amended to omit the acquired property or is abandoned for any reason. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Farmington City Council hereby approves the early acquisition of the identified parcel of land by the Farmington HRA pursuant to the conditions specified herein. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 7th day of November, 2005. Mayor Attested to the _ day of November, 2005. Acting City Administrator SEAL Kevin Carroll rom: 'ent: To: Cc: Subject: Spong, Ron [Ron.Spong@CO.DAKOTAMN.US] Tuesday, October 14, 20039:16 AM Harthun, Jeff; Britt, Carl Leonard, Carol; Kevin Carroll; Tim Saari (E-mail); Muller, Terry RE: Tax Forfeit Parcel; !1l _uster Disposals.jpg (5 MB) I spoke with Kevin Carroll, Farmington Community Development Director & HRA Exec. Director, about the Luster property (201 Fourth Street), a former service station. The property is vacant and has been tax-forfeit for a number of years. He has a potential buyer, a Tim Saari, who would buy it from the City if HRA acquires it first. Kevin will be taking this issue to the HRA Board tonight. I had talked with Tim Saari about the site and property earlier this year and had provided him with what information that we had. For limited liability protection, I referred Kevin to MPCA VIC and recommended entry into the program as a voluntary party seeking either "no action" or "no association" (if the site is a contamination source) or "off-site source determination" (if groundwater is contaminated upgradient with no contribution from this site). At a minimum, the site's soil and groundwater should be tested to determine if (1.) the source of the contamination is off-site (e.g., the former Daisy or Quick Cleaners located by City Hall on Oak) or on- site (i.e., the Luster site itself) , (2.) the groundwater is being impacted by contaminants emanating from the site, (3.) the volatile organic chemical vapors can migrate through utility trenches or through soil into a basement, or (4.) any contaminated soil is present above MPCA SRV and/or SLV, which may have to be removed or otherwise resolved. lur Department and the MPCA conducted joint, limited investigations in 2000 utilizing direct push probe technology (e.g., Geoprobes). The investigations hoped to define the approximate extent of the Northeast Farmington VOC (volatile organic compounds) Plume, which is on the State Superfund List (i.e., the plume itself and not the possible sources at this time). VOCs (tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, and other chlorinated hydrocarbons) were first detected in 1996 in the shallow groundwater above the State's HRL (Health Risk Limit) when the Department conducted a groundwater receptor survey in the area and sampled residential and commercial wells in the vicinity of Chippendale Avenue (TH 3). The Department's investigation traced the northern plume, whereas the MPCA tracked the southern plume. While the data appears to show that there are at least two distinct plumes that converge into a single plume in the vicinity of Pine Street and Fifth Street, it should be cautioned that the data analysis is based on a number of assumptions and limited datapoints (Geoprobe locations). There has been no further investigation of the plume by the MPCA. It is not known if the Luster site (201-4th St.) is one of the possible, multiple sources of the VOC contaminants in the shallow groundwater or if the VOC plume passes under the site without any contribution from the site. Testing of the Luster site's soil above the groundwater for VOCs would help resolve that issue. If significant VOCs are detected in unsaturated soils at the Luster site, then the conclusion that the Luster site is one of the plume's sources can be stated. At this point, only the LUST (leaking underground storage tank) has been addressed and resolved on-site. I have attached a map of the Luster site and its environs. The four potential sources of the VOCs are identified, as is the approximate extent of the plume. <<Luster Disposals.jpg>> on Spong Environmental Program Manager Dakota County Environmental Management Dept. 14955 Galaxie Ave. W., Apple Valley, MN 55124 1 E1JI,1I17 " . ... '..:~.;:,"':~:'';:-':''<'':;..::.;.:.:... ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION RESULTS TAX-FORFEITED PROPERTY SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 4TH STREET AND MAIN STREET FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA AUGUST 11,2005 Prepared for: Mr. Joe Heinen 1200 Willowbrook Drive Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Prepared by: Peer Engineering, Inc. 4801 West 81 st Street, Suite 118 Bloomington, Minnesota 55437 (952) 831-3341 Peer File #15083.00 @ Peer Engineering, Inc., 2005 E#I&" <!. Additional Environmental Investigation - Peer #15083.00 Tax-Forfeited Property, Farmington, Minnesota 1.0 INTRODUCTION Peer Engineering, Inc. (Peer) was retained by Mr. Joe Heinen to complete an additional environmental investigation at the tax-forfeited property located at the southeast corner of 4th Street and Main Street in Farmington, Minnesota. The purpose of the investigation was to further define the extent and sources of potential soil and groundwater contamination, and to detennine the affect of the identified contamination on future site acquisition and redevelopment for residential use. A description of the additional investigation activities completed and a summary of the results are presented herein. 2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The property is located at the southeast corner of 4th Street and Main Street in Farmington, Minnesota (see Figure 1). The property is a tax-forfeited vacant parcel that is approximately 7,650 square feet in size. A general site diagram is provided as Figure 2. 2.2 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS In 1997, the City of Farmington Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) retained Peer to review available historical land use information in order to facilitate the potential acquisition and redevelopment of the property. The historical information reviewed by Peer indicated the property as the location of a former gasoline service station from approximately 1932 until the late 1950's. Based on this information, a Phase II Investigation was performed to determine if impacts had occurred to site soil or 'ground water. The initial Phase JI investigation included cqmpletion of three probes (GP-I, GP-2 and GP-3) ne:.ar the estimated location of the former underground storage tanks associated with the gasoline s~rvice station, and collection and' analytical testing of soil and 'ground water samples for petroleum-related analyses. In summary, low concentration of petroleum constituents were detected in the ground water samples collected from probes GP-l and GP-2. No evidence of soil contamination was detected in the probes. Based on the initial investigation results, a petroleum release was reported to the State Duty Officer and was assigned Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) SiteJD#: LEAKOOOI0830. t' \:_ ,....\ \t. ~',~ 1;1 l::~r '>>; ~ ~ . t., .:,of .;;"t, Additional Environmental Investigation - Peer #15083.00 Tax-Forfeited Property, Farmington, Minnesota 2 Based on the levels of contamination identified probes GP-l and GP-2, the HRA authorized Peer to complete two additional probes (GP-4 and GP-5) at the property. While analyzing the ground water samples from the probes GP-4 and GP-5 for petroleum, the laboratory indicated that several non-petroleum compounds were also present in the samples at elevated concentrations. At the request of the HRA, the laboratory performed additional analysis to quantify the levels of non-petroleum compounds present in the samples. In summary, the laboratory detected elevated concentrations oftetrachloroethene (PCE) in both samples, along with three other breakdown products commonly associated with PCE. The source of the non-petroleum compounds was not determined by the Phase II investigation. The results of the Phase II Investigation were summarized in letter reports dated October 23, 1997 and October 24, 1997. Copies of these letter reports are included in Appendix A. The findings related to the non-petroleum findings were reported to the MPCA. Based on the results of the Phase II investigation results, the HRA did not pursue purchasing the property. The petroleum leaksite was closed by the MPCA on September 11, 2003. The non- petroleum contamination issues associated with the property are considered unresolved by the MPCA. 3.0 ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION A description of the recent additional environmental investigation completed at the property is provided in the following sections. Field methods and procedur~s are presented in Appendix B. 3.1 FIELD INVESTIGATION 3.1 J .. Overview The additional environmental investigation at the property included the following elements: . Completion of six sampling probes at the property, Additional Environmental Investigation - Peer # 15083.00 Tax-Forfeited Property, Farmington, Minnesota 3 · Field screening of soil samples collected from the probes for organic vapors using a photoionization detector (PID). · Collection of soil samples from selected probes for laboratory analysis. · Collection of ground water samples from each probe for laboratory analysis. · Collection of a soil vapor sample from one of the probes for laboratory analysis. The sampling probe locations were selected to supplement the previous investigation locations and maintain good spatial coverage of the property. 3.1.2 Sampling Probes Six sampling probes (GP-6 though GP-ll) were advanced at the prope11y on July 25, 2005 using a truck-mounted hydraulic-operated Geoprobe@ rig. The probe services were provided by Bergerson Caswell of Maple Plain, Minnesota. The sampling probes were advanced to a depth of 12 feet below ground surface (bgs). The probe locations are shown on Figure 2. Soil samples were collected continuously from each probe and screened in the field for organic vapors using a photoionization detector (PID) equipped with a 11.8 eV lamp. In addition. all samples were also observed for evidence of potential contamination including odors, staining or debris. The soil samples were classified in the field in accordance with ASTM D2488-93. Soil samples were selected for laboratory analysis based on visual observations and PID screening results. Copies of the sampling probe logs are included in Appendix C. All probing equipment was decontaminated prior to use to reduce the risk of potential cross-contamination. Upon completion, the sampling probes were abandoned in accordance with MDH regulations. I Additional Environmental Investigation - Peer #15083.00 Tax-Forfeited Property, Farmington, Minnesota 4 3.2 ANALYTICAL TESTING Soil Samples One representative soil sample from each of probes GP-6, GP-7, GP-9 and GP-IO. The samples were submitted for analytical testing of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EP A Method 8260. Ground Water Samples Ground water samples collected at the water table from each of the six probes were submitted for analytical testing of VOCs by EP A Method 8260. A trip blank sample was also submitted for analysis ofVOCs for quality assurance/quality control purposes. Soil Vapor Sample A soil vapor sample collected at probe location GP-6 was submitted for analytical testing ofVOCs by EPA Method TO-IS. 4.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS 4.1 HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS Regional According to published references and available information, the ground surface elevation at the property is approximately 900 feet above mean sea level. The property and surrounding terrain is generally flat. The referenced publications indicate that surficial deposits in the vicinity of the pro]?erty consist of sand and silt. The depth to bedrock is estimated to be approximately 200 feet bgs. Bedrock consists of dolomite of theP~airie DlJ Chien Formation. Published information suggests that the ground water elevation in the area is at approximately 10 feet bgs. The published maps depict regional shallow ground water flow to the east. Additional Environmental Investigation - Peer #15083.00 Tax-Forfeited Property, Farmington, Minnesota 5 Site Specific Soils encountered in the sampling probes consisted of approximately 3 to 4 feet of silty sand overlying medium to coarse sand. Ground water was encountered in the probes at a depth of approximately 10 feet bgs. In general, the soils encountered in the probes were consistent with the published information. 4.2 ORGANIC VAPOR SCREENING/ OBSERVATIONS The organic vapor (PID) screening results are shown on the soil sampling logs included in Appendix B. In summary, no elevated PID readings [i.e. greater than 0 parts per million (ppm) or above background levels] were measured in any of the soil samples collected from the six sampling probes. In addition, no unusual odors or staining were observed in the soil. 4.3 ANALYTICAL TESTING RESULTS The laboratory analytical testing reports and chain-of-custody forms are included in AppenQix C. The following observations are provided regarding the results: · No VOCs were detected at or above the method detection limits in the four soil samples analyzed during this investigation. · No VOCs were detected at or above the method detection limits in the ground water samples collected during this investigation. · Low levels of several VOCs were detected in the soil vapor sample collected at probe location GP-6 (see Table 1). Of the VOCs detected, tetrachloroethene (PCE) was detected at the highest concentration at 1?9 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3). The other detecte'd compounds included' vanous petroleum and non-petroleum GC?mpounds. Applicable indoor air standards established by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) are provided in Table 1 for comparison purposes. Additional Environmental Investigation - Peer #15083.00 Tax-Forfeited Property, Farmington, Minnesota 6 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The additional environmental investigation identified measurable concentrations ofVOCs in a soil vapor sample collected at the property. The specific source of the compounds detected in the soil vapor sample was not determined by the investigation. The lack of measurable VOC contamination detected in the soil and ground water samples from the recent investigation suggests that no significant on-site contamination source exists. Recommendations for additional site investigation do not appear warranted at this time. Based on the results of this Phase II investigation, the property appears suitable for residential development provided that appropriate regulatory approvals are obtained from the MPCA and Dakota County prior to proceeding with development. The following specific recommendations for redevelopment are provided: · The property should be enrolled in the MPCA Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIe) Program and Petroleum Brownfields Program. Appropriate regulatory assurance letters including a No Association Detennination (from the MPCA VIC Program) and Petroleum Tank Removal Verification Letter (from the MPCA Petroleum Brownfields Program) should be obtained prior to property acquisition. · An Environmental Contingency Plan should be prepared to address appropriate handling and disposition procedures for potential contaminated media encountered during excavations for site redevelopment. The Environmental Contingency Plan should be submitted to the MPCA VIC and Petroleum Brownfields Programs for review and approval. A copy of the Environmental Contingency Plan should also be provided to Dakota County. · A high quality vapor barrier should be installed beneath the foundation slab to any site structure placed at the property to minimize the potential for subsurface vapors entering the structure. If basements or .sub-grade living areas are contemplated, ill:st~natiqn 9f a passive venting system benea~h the vapor barrier should also be considered. The vapor barrier and passive venting system designs should be submitted the MPCA VIC and Petroleum Brownfields Programs for review and approval. A copy of the vapor barrier and passive venting system designs should also be provided to Dakota County. Estimate of Environmental Project Fees Southeast Corner of 4th Street and Main Street Farmington, Minnesota August 30, 2005 Low Hieh Additional Investigation Work Performed - August 11,2005 $ 5,150.00 $ 5,150.00 Estimated Follow-on Work (Phase I, DRAP/ECP Preparation) $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 MPCA VIC Estimated Fees $ 2,000.00 $ 3,000.00 Installation of Vapor BarrierIPassive Venting System $ 5,000.00 $ 15,000.00 Project Total $ 18,150.00 $ 29,150.00 Sep.21.2005 8:28AM DAKOTA COUNTY No.4738 p. 2/3 DAKOTA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUESrFOR BOARD ACnON 11.1 . Approval Of Application From City Of Fannlrlgton Housing And Redevelopment Authority To Acquire Tax Forfeited Land Meeti/lg Date: Item Type: Division: . Department Contact: Prepared by: Reviewed by: 09120/05 Consent-Action PUBLIC SERVICES AND REVENUE Treasurer.Auditor Mary Kennedy Telephone: 651-438-4362 Mary Kennedy N/A N/A FlecaUFTE Impact: IZI None o Amount included in current budget o Budget amendment requested D FTE included in current complement o New FTE(s) requested-N/A o Other PURPOSE/ACTION REQUESTED . Approve application by a governmental subdivision for conveyance of tax-forfeited land for development and conveyance. PIO 14-77000-061-27 SUMMARY Governmental subdivision: Parcel location: Date of forfeiture to the state: Size of parcel: Intended public use: Housing and Redevelopment Authority - City of Farmington Farmington 01~06-1992 7,598 Sq Ft Development and sale for a productive, taxable parcel Minn. stat ~ 282.01, subd. 1a, provides: Tax-forfeited lands may be conveyed by the county board to a subdivision of the state for any public purpose for which the subdivision Is 8uthorl2:ed to acquire property. The commissioner of revenue may convey by deed, in the name oftha state, a tract of tale-forfeited land held in trust in favor of the taxing districts to a governmental subdivision for an authorized public use. This conveyance may occur if an application is submitted to the commissioner which Includes a statement of facts as to the use to be made of the tract and the need therefore and the recommendation of the county board. Currently title to the parcels resides with the State of Minnesota as tax forfeited property. The City of Farmington Housfng and Redevelopment Authority wants to acquire the parcel under Minn. Stat S 469 for no consideration, This would BIIo~ the HRA to sell to a third party, tax-forfeited property for the public plJrpose of development and returning property to the tax role5. City of Farmington Housing and Redevelopment Authority Board of CommissIoners and the Dakota County Board of Commissioners must approve the applications for conveyance of tax"forfelted larid. The site has remained on the Tax-forfeited list of parcels because of contamination. Several interested parties have been deterred due to the contamination. The Farmil1gton HRA is aware of the contamination and is willing to aCQuire the property. The HRA plans to apply to enter the property into the MPCA VlC program to protec,t parties from liability. Several soil samples have already been examined and determined to have minimal contamination. Upon receiving the deed to the parcels from the State of Minnesota Department of Revenue, the City of Farrnlngton-HRA has stated that the property will be con...eyed to a private developer for clean up according to MPCA Development Response Action Plan (DRAP) and Environmental Contingency Plan (ECP). In addition, a public hearing will be held prior to the sale of the property as required under state law. EXPLANATION OF FISCAUfTE IMPACT Assessed Value: $15,100 (Currently reflects lower value due to contamination) According to Dakota County Policy No. 8003, Conveyance of Tax~Forfeited Property to local Govemment Units, when a tax-forfeit parcel, which has been acquired by a /ocal government unit for no consideration. has been conveyed to a private person or entity for consideration, the acquiring local government entity returns to Dakota County the proceeds from the sale after the expenses of the acquiring local government unit have been met 911312005 2:43 PM Pago 1 t:\final boal'CMlek09-20-05 hra.doc 6'<"ii-:i, -r Of> Sep.21.2005 8:28AM DAKOTA COUNTY No.4738 p. 3/3 Supporting Documents: Attachment A: Application Attachment B: Statement of Fact Attachment C: ParcellVlaps Attachment 0: FarmlngtDn t-tRA Board Resolution AttaChment E: Engineering Results PmvlOU8 Board Action(s): RESOLUTION Approval Of Application From City Of Farmington Housing And Redevelopmont Authority To Acquire Tax Forfeited Land WHEREAS, in accordance with Minn. Stal ~ 282.01, tax~rDrfeited land may be conveyed by the County Boar~ to a subdivision of the state for any public purpose for which the subdivision Is authorized to acquire property; and WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Farmington has applied for conveyance of the following parcel for economIc development and returning property to tax rolls; and PID #: 14-71000-oB1~Z7 City of Farmington N 84 fT OF W HALF OF LOT 5 BLK 27 N 84 FT OF 627 : and WHEREAS, Dakota County Policy No. B003 requires that the acquiring local government agency returns to Dakota County the proceeds from the sale after expenses have been md: and WHEREAS, the County Treasurer-Auditor recommends this conveyance based on the application and statement of facts submitted by the governmental subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Dakota County Board of Commissioners hereby approves the application from the City of Farmington Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the conveyance of the above- described parcel of tax-forfeited land, 9S recommended by the Dakota County Treasurer-Auditor, and requires that the City of Farmington Housing and Redevelopment Authority return to Dakota County the net proceeds from a subsequent sale to a private entity. tmlnlstrator'Sl Comments: Recommend ActIon Do NDt Recommend Action o Reviewed-No Recommendation o Reviewed-Information Only D j3~mf2:~!:t:- COUI1 A.dminlstrator 911312005 2:43 PM Page 2 t:'4I"al board\mak09-2D-05 hra.doc ilewed by (If required): County Attorney's Office Financial Services D Risk Management o Employee Relations o Information TechnolDQY [] Agenda Page No. 059 Peer Engineering, Inc. 4801 West 81st Street, Suite 118 Bloomington, Minnesota 55437 952 831-3341 Fax 952 831-4552 Peer Engineering Integrated Environmental Solutions ~s.PatriceJensen Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup Program Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road N. St.Paul,~ 55155 September 29, 2005 RE: MPCA VIC Program Application and Request for No Association Determination Letter Tax-Forfeited Property Southeast Comer of 4th Street and ~ain Street Farmington, Minnesota Dear ~s. Jensen: Peer Engineering, Inc. (Peer), on behalf of Mr. Joe Heinen, is submitting the enclosed Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) Program Application for the above referenced property. An application to enter the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Petroleum Brownfields Program has also been submitted under separate cover. Previous Environmental Investigations In 1997, the City of Farmington retained Peer to review available historical land use information in order to facilitate the potential acquisition and redevelopment of the property by the City. The historical information reviewed by Peer indicated the property as the location of a former gasoline service station from approximately 1932 until the late 1950's. Based on this information, a Phase II Investigation was performed to determine if iinpacts had occurred to site soil or ground water. The Phase II investigation included completion of three probes near the estimated location of the former underground storage tanks associated with the gasoline service station, and collection and analytical testing of soil and ground water samples for petroleum- related analyses. In summary, low concentration of petroleum constituents were detected in the ground water samples collected during the investigation. No evidence of soil contamination was detected in the probes. Based on the initial investigation results, a petroleum release was reported to the State Duty Officer and was assigned MPCA Site ID#: LEAKOOO10830. Based on the levels of contamination identified during the investigation, the HRA authorized Peer to complete two additional probes at the property. While analyzing the ground water samples from the probes for petroleum, the laboratory indicated that several non-petroleum compounds were also present in the samples at elevated concentrations. At the request of the HRA, the laboratory performed additional analysis to quantify the levels of non-petroleum compounds present in the samples. In summary, the laboratory detected elevated concentrations of tetrachloroethene (PCE) in both samples, along with three other breakdown products commonly associated with PCE. EXII,8,., E 11s.PaDiceJensen .Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Page 2 September 29, 2005 The results of the Phase II Investigation were summarized in letter reports dated October 23, 1997 and October 24, 1997. The findings related to the non-petroleum findings were reported to the :MPCA. The petroleum leaksite was closed by the MPCA on September 11,2003. The non- petroleum contamination issues associated with the property are. considered unresolved by the :MPCA. Based on the results of the 1997 investigations, the City of Farmington did not pursue purchasjng the property. Recent Additional Investigation Peer recently completed an additional environmental investigation at the subject property. The purpose of the investigation was to further define the extent and sources of potential soil and groundwater contamination, and to determine the affect of the identified contamination on future site acquisition and redevelopment for residential use. A copy of the Additional Investigation Results report is enclosed. In summary, the additional environmental investigation identified measurable concentrations of volatile organic compounds (including PCE) in a soil vapor sample collected at the property. No measurable contamination was detected in the soil and ground water samples collected during the investigation. Overall, the subject property appears suitable for residential development provided that appropriate regulatory approvals are obtained for development. Planned Site Redevelopment A Response Action Plan (RAP) is currently being prepared to address environmental considerations for the planned site redevelopment. The RAP will include appropriate handling and disposition procedures in the event that contaminated soil is encountered during excavations for site redevelopment, and will include a requirement for the installation of a vapor barrier beneath the foundation to the planned site structure. The RAP will be submitted to both the :MPCA VIC Petroleum and Petroleum Brownfields Programs for review and approval when complete. ReQuested Assurance Letters The following letters are or will be requested from the MPCA VIC Program for this project: · No Association Determination (to be issued prior to property acquisition) · RAP Approval · No Further Action Letter (to be issued after DRAP Implementation) Each of the requested letters should be addressed to Mr. Joe Heinen and the City of Farmington. Additional assurance letters will be requested separately from the MPCA Petroleum Brownfields Program. . . .'~ : ,.~... ,'. ,,\~."'~h...-Pi ""e... " l '~'... Ms. Patrice Jensen Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Page 3 September 29, 2005 For purposes of the requested No Association Determination letter, it is requested that the "Identified Release" include the individual compounds detected in the soil gas sample from the recent additional environmental investigation. A copy of the table from that report is attached as Table 1. The following Proposed Actions should be included in the No Association Determination letter: ~ Acquisition of the Site ~ Construction of a foundation to support a residential structure moved from another location. ~ Routine maintenance and use of the property for residential purposes. ClosinJ?: Remarks The requested No Association Determination is requested by October 19,2005 to facilitate the scheduled property closing. Please contact us at (952) 831-3341 if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Peer Engineering, Inc. /P1Ij/ J:;;;tf {;L~E., P.G. Vice President Attachment: Table 1 Enclosures pc: Mr. Joe Heinen Mr. Kevin Carroll, City of Farmington Mr. Mark Koplitz, MPCA Petroleum Brownfields Program Table 1 Identified Release Farmington, Minnesota Sample Identifier and Compound/Parameter Date Collected GP-6 (7.5-8') 7/25/2005 MDH Chronic HRV MDH ISC ;r015 MSV),IR ih~mlcrb9ram's 'perbubi'c meter (ugln'ls) . ' . ~- - ., ~ .; r '.\ . 0; ~- ~ I . 1,1,1- Trichloroethane 7.3 NE NE 1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene 7.8 NE NE 2-Butanone (MEK) 54.3 NE NE 2-Hexanone 2.5 NE NE Acetone 106 NE NE Benzene 5.8 1.3 to 4.5 NE Chloroform 55.7 NE NE Cyclohexane 3.7 NE NE Ethylbenzene 9.7 NE NE m,p-Xylenes 8.7 NE NE n-Heptane 3.3 NE NE o-Xylene 2.6 NE NE Propylene 23.1 NE NE T etrachloroethene 189 NE 3.33 Toluene 13.4 400 NE All other reported compounds <DL NOTES: <DL = Reported result is below laboratory detection limit Indicated in laboratory report. NE = No regulatory limit has been established for this compound. MDH = Minnesota Department of Health HRV = Health Risk Value ISC = Interim Screening Concentration Peer Engineering, Inc. 4801 West 81st Street, Suite 118 Bloomington, Minnesota 55437 952 831-3341 Fax 952 831-4552 Peer Engineering Integrated Environmental Solutions Mr. Mark Koplitz Petroleum Remediation Program Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 September 29, 2005 RE: Petroleum Brownfields Program Application Tax-Forfeited Property Southeast Corner of 4th Street and Main Street Farmington, Minnesota LEAK: 10830 Dear Mr. Koplitz: Peer Engineering, Inc. (Peer), on behalf of Mr. Joe Heinen, is submitting the enclosed Petroleum Brownfields Program Application for the above referenced property. An application to enter the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) Program has also been submitted under separate cover. Previous Environmental Investigations In 1997, the City of Farmington retained Peer to review available historical land use information in order to facilitate the potential acquisition and redevelopment of the property by the City. The historical information reviewed by Peer indicated the property as the location of a former gasoline service station from approximately 1932 until the late 1950's. Based on this information, a Phase IT Investigation was performed to determine if impacts had occurred to site soil or ground water. The Phase IT investigation included completion of three probes near the estimated location of the former underground storage tanks associated with the gasoline service station, and collection and analytical testing of soil and ground water samples for petroleum- related analyses. In summary, low concentration of petroleum constituents were detected in the ground water samples collected during the investigation. No evidence of soil contamination was detected in the probes. Based on the initial investigation results, a petroleum release was reported to the State Duty Officer and was assigned MPCA Site ID#: LEAKOOO10830. Based on the levels of contamination identified during the investigation, the HRA authorized Peer to complete two additional probes at the property. While analyzing the ground water samples from the probes for petroleum, the laboratory indicated that several non-petroleum compounds were also present in the samples at elevated concentrations. At the request of the HRA, the laboratory performed additional analysis to quantify the levels of non-petroleum compounds present in the samples. In summary, the laboratory detected elevated concentrations of tetrachloroethene (PCE) in both samples, along with three other breakdown products commonly associated with PCE. Mr. Mark Koplitz Petroleum Remediation Program Page 2 September 29, 2005 The results of the Phase II Investigation were summarized in letter reports dated October 23, 1997 and October 24, 1997. The findings related to the non-petroleum findings were reported to the MPCA. The petroleum leaksite was closed by the MPCA on September 11,2003. The non- petroleum contamination issues associated with the property are considered unresolved by the MPCA. Based on the results of the 1997 investigations, the City of Farmington did not pursue purchasing the property. Recent Additional Investigation Peer recently completed an additional environmental investigation at the subject property. The purpose of the investigation was to further define the extent and sources of potential soil and groundwater contamination, and to determine the affect of the identified contamination on future site acquisition and redevelopment for residential use. A copy of the Additional fuvestigation Results report is enclosed. fu summary, the additional environmental investigation identified measurable concentrations of volatile organic compounds (including PCE) in a soil vapor sample collected at the property. No measurable contamination was detected in the soil and ground water samples collected during the investigation. Overall, the subject property appears suitable for residential development provided that appropriate regulatory approvals are obtained for development. Planned Site Redevelopment A Response Action Plan (RAP) is currently being prepared to address environmental considerations for the planned site redevelopment. The RAP will include appropriate handling and disposition procedures in the event that contaminated soil is encountered during excavations for site redevelopment, and will include a requirement for the installation of a vapor barrier beneath the foundation to the planned site structure. The RAP will be submitted to both the MPCA Petroleum Brownfields and VIC Programs for review and approval when complete. Requested Assurance Letters The following letters will be requested from the MPCA Petroleum Brownfields Program for this project: · General Liability Letter · Leaksite File Closure Verification Letter . RAP (DRAP) Approval Each of the requested letters should be addressed to Mr. Joe Heinen and the City of Farmington. Additional assurance letters will be requested separately from the MPCA VIC Program. Mr. Mark Koplitz Petroleum Remediation Program Page 3 September 29, 2005 Closing Remarks The requested General Liability Letter and Leaksite Closure Verification Letter is requested by October 19, 2005 to facilitate the scheduled property closing. Please contact me at (952) 831-3341 if you have any questions regarding the enclosed information. Sincerely, Peer Engineering, Inc. -%tilL Kenneth A. Larsen, P.E., P.G. Vice President Enclosures pc: Mr. Joe Heinen Mr. Kevin Carroll, City of Farmington Ms. Patrice Jensen, MPCA VIC Program .....----19.!.26/2005 15: 08 FAX 6512969707 MN. POLLUTION CONTROL (gj 002 Minnesota Pollution CQntrol Agency October 27, 2005 Mr. Kevin Carroll City of Fanning ton 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 RE: 4th Street and Main Site SE oorner of 4th Street and Main Street. Farmington :rvfPCA Project Number 32VP2.1170 No Association Determination Dear Mr. Carroll: This letter is in response to the request from Ken Larsen of Peer Engineering for a determination under Minn. Stat. ~ 115B.178 that certain actions proposed to be taken by the City of Fannington at the 4th and Main Street site, located at the address referenced above (the Site), will not constitute conduct associating the City of Fannington with the release or threatened release of hazardous substances. pollutants, or contaminants atthe Sitc~ for the purpose of Minn. Stat fi lISa.03, subd. 3(4) (2004). The MirifLesota Pollution Control Agcmcy (MPCA) staff in the Voluntary fuvestigation and Cleanup (VIC) Unit has reviewed the'documents submitted for the SIte. The Site is a further gas station that operated from approxImately 1932 until the late 1950's. Soil samples collected at the Site contained no contaminants above the MPCA residential Soil Reference Values (SRVs) and Soil Leaching Values (SL Vs). Ground water samples from the Site had contained tetrachloroethene (also mown as perchloroethylene or PCE) and associated breakdown products ofPCE at concentrations below the Minnesota Department of Health.s Health Risk Limit. The Site is at. the edge of a ground Water plume of PCB that is being investigated under the MPCA Superfund Program as the .Fannington Ground Water Plume Site. The source of the PCE is believed to be a former dry cleaner.located a few blocks south and west of the Site. For the purpose of this letter,. the Identified Release for the Site is the PCE and associated breakdown products in the ground water at the Site. Based upon a review of the infonnatil)n provided to the MPCA VIC Program, and subject to the conditions set forth in this letter, II detennination is hereby made pursuant to Minn. Stat ~ 115B.178, subd, 1 that the proposed actions (proposed Actions) as described in an e-mail letter from Ken Larsen to Lynne Grig~r of the MPCA, dated October 26,2005 (the Letter) will not associate the City of Fannington with the Identified Re1ea!:e for the. purpose of Minn. Stat. ~ 115B.03. subd. 3(4) (2004). .The Proposed Actions for- which this detennination applies include the purchase and general maintenance of the Site as vacant property. This deteimination is made in accormlnce ~jth Minn. Stat ~ 11SB.178, subd. 1. and is subject to the following conditions: ' 1. The Proposed Actions shall be carried out as described in the herein; 520 Lafayette Rd. N.; Saint Paul, MN 55155-4194; (651) 296-6300 (Voice); (651) 282-5332 (TrY); www.pca.state.lTVl.us St. Paul- Brainerd - Detroit I.akes . Duluth - Mankato . Marshall- Rochester. Will mar Equal Opportunlly Employer. Printed 00 recyllled paper contafnlng alleast 20 pIlreanl floors from paper recycJed by consLlmers. &1/111., 1=. 10/26/2005 15:08 FAX 6512969707 MN. POLLUTION CONTROL ~003 .. " Mr. Kevin Carroll Page 2 2. 'The City of Farmington shall cooperate with the,MPCA, its employees, contractors, and others acting at the MPCA's direction, in the 'event that the MPCA takes, or directs others to take, respotlse actions at the Site to address the Identified Release or any other as yet unidentified release or threatened release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant, including, but not limited to, granting access to the Site so that response actions can be taken; 3. The City of Fannington shall avoid actions that contribute to the Identified Release or that interfere with response actions re1luired tmder any MPCA-approved response action plan to address the Identified Release; and 4. rn the event that any su~pected hazardous substances are encountered during Site activities (i.e., property maintenance, etc.), the City ofFarrnington sha11 notify the l\1PCA project staff immediately in order to detennim: appropriate handling, sampling, analysis, and disposal of such wastes. Pursuant to Minn. Stat fi 115B.178, subd.l, when the City of Farmington takes the Proposed Actions in accordance with the determination in this'letter, subject to the conditions stated herein, th~ Proposed Actions will not associate the City of Farmington with the Identified Release for the purpose of Minn. Stat. ~ ll5B.03, subd, 3(4) (2004). Please be advised that the determinati.on made in this letter is subject to the disclaimers found in Attachment A and is contingent on cC1inpliance with the terms and conditions set forth herein. If you have any questions ab~1.J.t the c.:>ntents of this letter, please contact Nile Fellows at (651) 296-7299 or LYnne Grigor at (651) 296-8572. Sincerely, ~k~ Barbara Jac.(J,: Supervisor Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup Unit Superfund Section Remediation Division BJ/ais Enclosure(s) cc: Joe Heinen..' 21200 WiIlowbrookRoad Wayzata, MN 55391 Ken Larsen, Peer Engineering . 10/2ff/2005 15: 08 FAX 6512969707 MN. POLLUTION CONTROL @004 ATTACHMENT A . DISCLAIMERS 4th Street and Main Site MPCA Project Number 32VP21170 1. Reservation of Authorities Th~ MPCA Commissioner reserves the authority to take any appropriate actions with respect to . any release. threatened release. or other conditions at the Site. The MPCA Commissioner also . r~rves the authority to take suell actions if the voluntary party does not proceed in the manner . described in this letter or if actions taken or omitted by the voluntary party ~ith respect to the . Site contribute to any release or. threatened release, or create an imminent and substantial danger to public health and welfare. 2. No MPCA Assumption of~a:biIi.tY The MPCA. its Commissioner and staff do not asswne any liabilitY for any releaSe, threatened release or other conditions at tlie Site or for any actions taken or omitted by the voluntary party . with regard to the release, threatened release, or other conditions at the Site. whether the actions taken or omitted are in accordano~ with this letter or otherwise. 3. Letter Based on Current Information All statements, cOnclusions and r€~presentations in tbis letter are based upon information knoWn .- to the MPCA ~ommissioner and :;taff at the time this letter was issued. The MPCA . Commissioner and staff reserve the authority to modify or rescind any such statement, conclusion .'.or representation and to take any uppropriate action under his' authority if the MPCA Commissioner or staff acquires information after issuance of this letter that provides a basis for such modification or action. . 4. . Disclaimer Regarding Use or pevelopment oithe Prop.erty The MPCA, its Com.m.jssioner ancl staff do not warrant that the Site is suitable or appropriate for any particular use. . S. Disclaimer Regarding Investigative or Response Action at the Property Nothing in this letter is inten~ed to authorize any response action under MiIm.' Stat. ~ .115B.17, subd. 12. . Page 1 ofl Minnesota Pollution Control Agency October 14,2005 Mr. Joe Heinen 21200 Willowbrook Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Mr. Kevin Carroll City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Re: Petroleum Storage Tank Release Liability . Site: Tax Forfeited Property, SE comer of 4th and Main Street, Falmington, MN 55024 Petroleum Brownfields Site ID#: LEAKOOOI0830 Dear Mr. Heinen and Mr. Carroll : Under Minn. Stat. S 115C.021 (2002), the general rule is that a person is "responsible" for a release from a tank if that person owned or operated the tank during or after the time of the release. As the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) interprets this rule, if a person comes into possession of property after the tanks have been removed that person is not a "responsible person" and cannot be ordered to take corrective action under Minn. Stat. Ch. 115C (2002). Liability is further limited for lenders. Minn. Stat. S 115C.02l, subd. 4 (2002) provides that mortgagees that foreclose or receive a deed in lieu of foreclosure may not be responsible persons even if the tanks are present, provided they do not operate the tanks or aggravate a release. However, the definition of "owner" implies that a mortgagee that forecloses on property with tanks may be considered a responsible person if the mortgagee operates the tanks or fails to complete the cleanup as a "volunteer." See Minn. Stat. S 115C.02, subd. 8 (2002). Chapter l15C created a fund that can be used by responsible persons and "volunteers" to help fund the cost of corrective action (the Petroleum Tank Release Cleanup Account or Petrofund). A volunteer is a person who has legal or equitable title to the contaminated property (tank release contaminated property) but who is not a responsible person [Minn. Stat. S 115C.09, subd. 3b (2002)]. A responsible person or a volunteer who takes corrective action can receive reimbursement for 90 percent of corrective action costs up to $1,000,000. As a result, it is fair to say that, unless there are compliance or cooperation issues, the liability of a responsible person, volunteer, or a lender will usually be limited to 10 percent of the costs of cleanup. Some costs are ineligible, and certain cost control requirements must be complied with. See Minn. R. ch. 2890 (rules of the Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Board or Petro Board). The Petroleum Tank Release Cleanup Account is continually funded. See Minn. Stat. S 115C.08, subd. 2 (2002). 520 Lafayette Rd. N.; Saint Paul, MN 55155-4194; (651) 296-6300 (Voice); (651) 282-5332 (TTY); www.pca.state.mn.us St. Paul · Brainerd · Detroit Lakes · Duluth · Mankato · Marshall · Rochester · Willmar ~~.. Equal Opportunity Employer. Printed on recycled paper containing at least 20 percent fibers from paper recycled by c~~ T G I , Mr. Joe Heinen Mr. Kevin Carroll Page 2 This letter represents the views of the MPCA and is based upon information disclosed to the MPCA as of the date hereof. Depending on your circumstances, it mayor may not be construed as releasing any person from liability under state or federal laws. If you have questions concerning your particular situation, the MPCA recommends that you discuss your concerns with your legal counsel. If you have any questions pertaining to this letter please call me at 651/297-8577. Sincerely, ~/LJ{~ Stacey Hendry-Van Patten Project Leader Petroleum Remediation Unit Petroleum and Closed Landfill Section Remediation Division SHV:ls cc: Kenneth Larsen, Peer Engineering Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Mr. Joe Heinen 21200 Willowbrook Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Mr. Kevin Carroll City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Re: Petroleum Storage Tank Release Site File Closure Confirmation Site: Tax Forfeited property, SE comer of 4th and Main Street, Farmington, MN 55024 Site ID#: LEAKOOOI0830 Dear Mr. Heinen and Mr. Carroll: The above-referenced site was the location of a petroleum storage tank release reported on October 8, 1997. The file pertaining to the petroleum storage tank release at the site was closed on September II, 2003. As of the date of this letter, MPCA staff is not aware of any information which would change the site's closure status. As a result, pursuant to Minn. Stat. ~ 115C.03, subd. 9 (c) (2002), the Commissioner hereby confirms that a petroleum release has occurred at the site, and the MPCA has issued a file closure letter and closure status has not been revoked. This confirmation extends to the successors and assigns of the entity to which it originally applies, if the successors and assigns are not otherwise responsible for the release. If future development of the site or the surrounding area is planned, it should be assumed that petroleum contamination is present. Property with petroleum contamination to soil or ground water may cause on-site vapor risks to future occupants. The MPCA can assist you with environmental risk and development plan review, MPCA Petroleum Brownfields staffwill review and approve plans for property development. If petroleum contamination is encountered during future development work, the MPCA staff should be notified immediately. This letter represents the view of the MPCA, and is based upon information disclosed to the MPCA as of the date hereof. Depending on your circumstances, it mayor may not be construed as releasing any person from liability under state or federal laws. If you have questions concerning your particular situation, the MPCA recommends that you discuss your concerns with your legal counsel. If you would like to obtain information regarding petroleum contamination at this site, please call the Petroleum Remediation Program File Request Program at 651/297-8499. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please call me at 651/297-8577. Sincerely, ~ ~ Stacey Hendry-Van Patten Project Leader Petroleum and Closed Landfill Section Remediation Division SHV:ls cc: Kenneth Larsen, Peer Engineering 520 Lafayette Rd. N.; Saint Paul, MN 55155-4194; (651) 296-6300 (Voice); (651) 282-5332 (TTY); www.pca.state.mn.us St. Paul · Brainerd · Detroit Lakes · Duluth · Mankato · Marshall · Rochester · Will~~~ . .... Equal Opportunity Employer. Printed on recycled paper containing at least 20 percent fibers from paper recycled ~, 01" T H 469.028 Municipal governing body. Subd. 5. Early acquisition. When an authority has determined the location of a proposed redevelopment project, but prior to the approval of the redevelopment plan and project as provided in subdivision 2, the authority may acquire individual tracts of real property with the approval of the governing body as to each separate tract. Before approving early acquisition, the governing body shall hold a public hearing on the proposed acquisition activities after published notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality at least once not less than ten days nor more than 30 days prior to the date of the hearing. The authority shall not proceed with the acquisition unless the governing body finds by resolution that (1) the proposed acquisition is necessary to carry out public improvements in the area, or that the acquisition will contribute to the elimination of blight or deterioration within the area or that the acquisition is necessary to relieve hardship; and (2) there is a feasible method for the relocation of families and individuals to be displaced by the proposed acquisition. The governing body may, in approving early acquisition, agree to assume the responsibility for any loss that may arise as a result ofthe acquisition ofland and related activities, including any costs of demolition, removal, and relocation, in the event that the property so acquired is not used for urban renewal purposes because the urban renewal plan is not approved, or is amended to omit the acquired property or is abandoned for any reason. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to waive the requirement for public hearing upon the redevelopment plan for the redevelopment project. EJII, II -r ::r::. ~a- 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 Interim City Administrator ~ FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consider Proposed Acquisition/Redevelopment of Riste Building (209 Oak Street) DATE: November 7,2005 INTRODUCTION The Farmington Housing and Redevelopment Authority [HRA] has authorized and directed staff to investigate the possible acquisition of the property that is locally known as the "Riste building," located at 209 Oak Street in the City of Farmington. A public hearing regarding the proposed acquisition will be conducted during the City Council meeting on November 7,2005. DISCUSSION The general location of the structure that is locally known as the "Riste building" is depicted on the attached Exhibit A. The building in question is situated on two adjacent lots or parcels. The dimensions of the two lots are shown on Exhibit B. The owner of the property is a corporation known as "2004 Real Estate Company." The President and Secretary of the corporation are Hosmer A. Brown III and Hosmer A. Brown IV, respectively. 1. Condition of Prooertv. The Riste building has been vacant for an extended period of time, primarily due to its poor physical condition. In August of 2004, Building Official Ken Lewis and Fire Marshal John Powers inspected the property and determined that it was not habitable for residential or commercial purposes. In a letter dated August 24, 2004 (attached hereto as Exhibit C), the Fire Marshal advised the owner that the building should not be occupied and that electrical service to the building should be immediately disconnected. The owner of the building initially believed that it might be possible to renovate or rehabilitate the building. However, after further investigating that possibility, the owner determined that it probably would not be cost-effective to attempt to bring the building into compliance with the applicable building and safety codes. Photos depicting the current condition of the interior and exterior of the building have been attached hereto as Exhibit D. I have also attached, as Exhibit E, a copy of a memo dated August 11, 2005 that was written by Building Official Ken Lewis. He prepared it in order to provide the HRA with a more detailed analysis of the condition of the building and the feasibility of renovating it. (I have provided you with some, but not all, of the 37 pictures that are referred to in the memo; the remaining photos are available for inspection upon request.) 2. Use of CDBG funds for acquisition. The business operations located across the street from the Riste building (including the Post Office and the Farmington Bakery) generate a considerable amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. City staff and the HRA shared the belief that having a vacant and dilapidated structure in such a high-visibility location did not reflect favorably upon the downtown business climate. Accordingly, City staff and the HRA began to discuss the possibility of using Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] funds to acquire the Riste building as a redevelopment site. At its meeting on January 18, 2005, the City Council approved a staff/HRA recommendation that 50% ($32,750) of the City's 2005 CDBG allocation be earmarked for the acquisition of the Riste building. The Council also approved a recommendation that $70,792.06 of "unspent" CDBG funds from prior years be re-allocated to the Riste redevelopment project. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a copy of the staffmemo that was prepared for the January 18 meeting, along with a signed copy ofthe related Resolution that was approved by the City Council on that date. 3. Purchase Ae:reement After finalizing the aforementioned funding mechanism for the acquisition of the Riste building, City staff and the HRA' s legal counsel began negotiating the terms of the anticipated real estate transaction. Those negotiations resulted in the creation of the Purchase Agreement that is attached hereto as Exhibit G, along with two related documents (a Hold Harmless and Indemnity Agreement and a Grant of Permanent Easement). The HRA approved the format and content of all three documents, and they were signed by the current owner on October 17,2005. We are holding the original documents at City Hall, and they won't be signed by the HRA's President until the City Council has approved the proposed acquisition. 4. Environmental Site Assessment. The terms of the Purchase Agreement make the HRA's final acquisition of the property contingent upon the HRA's satisfaction with the environmental condition of the property. That is, the HRA's President could sign the Purchase Agreement, and a closing date could be set, but the HRA could still decline to close on the property if significant environmental concerns developed prior to the closing date. Nevertheless, it is in the HRA's best interests to obtain at least some preliminary, reliable information about environmental issues prior to the finalization of the Purchase Agreement. Accordingly, the HRA authorized staff to retain Peer Engineering to prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment [ESA] on the property. The ESA (dated November 1, 2005) was delivered to City Hall on November 2. The first 20 pages of the ESA have been attached hereto as Exhibit H. (The remainder of the ESA, consisting of about 80 pages of maps, charts, tables and other records, is available for review upon request.) The ESA concluded (see Part 7.4 on page 17) that "... there is no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property," with the possible exception of off-site sources that may have caused soil or groundwater contamination at the Riste building site. Frankly, this could be said of virtually any property located within the downtown area, due to (a) a previously identified plume of contaminated groundwater that runs, or ran, from the general vicinity of 3rd and Oak toward the intersection of 5th and Main, and (b) an underground fuel storage tank located near 600 2nd Street that reportedly leaked in 1990. It will be possible to test the soil and the groundwater beneath the Riste building after it is demolished. If contamination is discovered at that time, and if the redevelopment of the property is likely to disturb any such contamination, the HRA can work with the MPCA to properly address that situation. A de minimus level of contamination may not 2 require any special precautions at all. A "worst case " scenario might involve removing some contaminated soil as part of the excavation for any new construction and/or taking special steps to prevent contaminated groundwater from infiltrating into any newly-constructed basement or crawl space areas. In any event, it is not practical or feasible to attempt to address these matters until after demolition has been completed. 5. Hazardous Materials Survey: Demolition. A hazardous materials ["hazmat"] survey does not have to be completed prior to the signing of a purchase agreement, or prior to a closing on a parcel of property. However, in any situation in which federal [CDBG] funds will be used to acquire and demolish a structure, a hazmat survey must be completed prior to the demolition of the structure. In this instance, City staff would prefer to defer incurring the cost of a full hazmat survey until it is clear that the City Council is in favor of the acquisition of the Riste building. Accordingly, we have asked Peer Engineering to prepare a preliminary written hazmat report that is based upon observations that Peer staff members made during the property inspection that they conducted as part of their Phase I ESA. Further, we have asked Peer to return to the property to obtain samples of the three potential asbestos-containing materials (floor tiles, ceiling tiles and roofing materials) that they noted during their ESA inspection. The samples will be tested, and the results should be available by November 4 or November 7. Peer will incorporate the test results into the preliminary written hazmat report referred to above, which will be provided to the City Council before or at the City Council meeting on November 7. This report will include a conservative estimate of the cost of removing and properly disposing of any identified hazardous materials. City staff members have also made arrangements to obtain a preliminary estimate of the cost of demolishing the building, which will also be provided to the City Council before or at the Council's meeting on November 7. If the Council approves the HRA's proposed acquisition of the Riste building, City staff members will then proceed to obtain a final and complete hazmat survey well in advance of the closing date. After the closing, the HRA will be required to use a competitive bidding process to select contractors to handle the hazmat removal and the demolition. (There are some companies that can do both). We currently plan to ask the HRA and the City Council to devote some or all of the City's 2006 CDBG funds to the hazmat removal and the demolition. 6. Resolution. Section 469.028, subd. 5 of the Minnesota Statutes (attached hereto as Exhibit I) provides that an HRA can, with the consent of its governing body (the City Council), acquire parcels of real property if the proposed acquisition "... will contribute to the elimination of blight or deterioration within the area or that the acquisition is necessary to relieve hardship." The governing body is required to hold a public hearing on the proposed acquisition. After the public hearing, the City Council can approve the attached Resolution if it desires to move forward with the proposed acquisition. Given the age and condition of the Riste building, City staff members believe that the demolition of the building would eliminate "blight or deterioration." The acquisition of the Riste building would also "relieve [a] hardship," in the sense that the proximity and appearance of the building may be adversely affecting the value and/or marketability of the nearby commercial properties. 3 Under the law, the City and the HRA do not need to have a specific redevelopment plan prepared or approved in order to acquire the Riste building. A number of options and opportunities for redevelopment exist, all of which can be discussed by and with the HRA, the City Council and others after the property has been acquired. The primary goal at this point is to simply gain control of the property, so that the City can promptly eliminate what is generally considered an "eyesore" and take a more active role in promoting the growth, improvement and success of the City's traditional and historic downtown area. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the Farmington HRA and City staff to proceed with the proposed acquisition of the Riste building and the two parcels of property upon which it is situated, or, alternatively, Continue the public hearing to the City Council's November 21st meeting if there is additional information that the Council wants City staff to obtain before the Council takes action on the attached Resolution. 4 RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING THE EARLY ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 469.028 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 7th day of November, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: introduced and Member _ seconded the following: Member WHEREAS, there are two adjoining parcels of land (Pill 14-77000-030-22 and Pill 14- 77000-040-22) located within the City that are available for purchase, upon which a structure that is commonly referred to as the Riste building is located (as shown on the accompanying attachment), and: WHEREAS, the Farmington Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has identified and determined that the area in which the parcel of land is located is an area proposed for redevelopment; and WHEREAS, the HRA proposes to acquire the parcel using CDBG funds that it has at its disposal; and WHEREAS, state law (M.S. 469.028, Subd. 5) authorizes the HRA, with the approval of the City Council, to acquire individual tracts of real property prior to the preparation and approval of a redevelopment plan; and WHEREAS, the statute requires that the governing body shall hold a public hearing on the proposed acquisition activities after published notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality at least once not less than ten days nor more than 30 days prior to the date of the hearing; and WHEREAS, the required hearing has been conducted pursuant to law; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, as required by the statute, that: 1) the proposed acquisition will contribute to the elimination of blight or deterioration within the area and, 2) there are no persons displaced by the proposed acquisition; and WHEREAS, the governing body, in approving early acquisition, will not assume any responsibility for any loss that may arise as a result of the acquisition ofland and related activities, including any costs of demolition, removal, and relocation, in the event that the property so acquired is not used for urban renewal purposes because the urban renewal plan is not approved, or is amended to omit the acquired property or is abandoned for any reason. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Farmington City Council hereby approves the early acquisition of the identified parcel of land by the Farmington HRA pursuant to the conditions specified herein. This resolution adopted by recorded vote ofthe Farmington City Council in open session on the 7th day of November, 2005. Mayor Attested to the _ day of November, 2005. Acting City Administrator SEAL 3rd Street on c 0- "'0 -- 0- :::s CO OJ ..., V) 0- 0::: , I I ........ I ::s "'I::<::} I 13 I I:: 0 I:: ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~.g ~~ I <;;- ~ ::s '- I:: <;;- I ~ ~CXl ii5........ I ii5 ~ S .~ ~ ...... ~ ~~ ", ..lo:<::} '-:.::: E ~ ~ I 10 ~ ~ ~ ..lo: _'" I ~ -S:l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I:: I:: 0 I:: I:: I:: J::::SI3~ 10...... ~ 13 13 ~V'j ...... ~ ~~-S! I Cl.!::S~ I ~ ~ ", ......, '-" CXl\.) 13 e ~ 13 13l' ~::::: ~ ~ e~13l I ~ ~ I 0 13 ~~ CXl I3l ::s CXl I3l C o ~ I-J" ~~ I:: -J~ ~ I 13 I:: 13 I:: .'" ~ ..s:: ..s:: .~ CXl I .~ ~ 8- ~ I ~ -S I:: l-S~ I 1::2 .!E; ~ I .- I3l ~ I:: I ~- u '- I u ~ E ~ I ........ ~ I:: I:: I3l '-.::. I ~ ~ .~ o~~ I ~13::::: CXl'=:!.~ I D I I ~ - - - - - - - I r I I:: I I I I::~ ~ '- I I I o ::s ~CXl I I I CXl~ ", I 01) I I ig I C I I .- I - I ~ I L.. I ItS I I D.. I E ", ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ..s:: ...... ~ ...... 13 0 I I ~~~ I ~ I .......... on c - J -- .- :::s CO c o V) ~ m ...J .......... on c 0- "'0 -- 0- :::s CO ~ c m CO OJ on C tS U >< LLJ JiJiJAJS PUc ... ~ b VI ~ ~ o ~,81-r " U) 0'1 C .- "C :J al (J) ~ U) 0:: ......... >- 0'1 L.. (J) C W (J) U X o v ~ ".- ~ ~ c:: CO UlOl Q).!:: C'l"tJ c::= CO ::l .L:Ul U X W Q) Q) LL o N 1 L_ o ~ c::C'l o.!:: ~"tJ ~3 Ul o ~ o ~ ,OL o N C'l Q) c:: ... . ~ .06 ex: .- ::l Ul .-t N e- If) o m 00 .-t~ ... Q) Q) L.. ... lJ) ~ co o ~ ~ -l I I I I I I I - I ~ I I I I I I I L .06 >- ~C'l Q) c:: c:: .- w;g -::l Q)Ul ~ " v e- If) m M o Ln~ ,us-------- - I Ln \0 -------------- ~ FA I 11trIfltlTfil FII E 'BI'1 ITl\x(~'ITr~ ~ =~~JOOL~= ~r ~ '!JI= ~ ~~~, ,:.. .,...,E =~~ ~ JLV1!t~,!! 1!. iir-m II} 'I~: . .,';.. ,-;~:, JJo-:-"';t.,~'r--..,. ,[: at;;.....,'~.:.,. "". ~. I \1--\':" -" . -- ~ ,- O!!;{"'-r ~?", - Q' -.' · ~,~.' \:;.. .<:-.,,__.t . ~ August 24, 2004 Established 1 880 . 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 55024 Hosmer A. Brown 5050 France Avenue Edina, MN 55435 Re: 209 Oak Street (Riste Building) Dear Mr. Brown, A ~::':'~"f;:";; ~,,~~::r'(~-:,~'. :)::::_:';~':)~2riZ~~-.~;,~ 1,~; - ..'" "i,i< . ..j":';;:~'F';;. . .::.\~n,;~;~:~):8.;;z;~:}"?\~..,; On August 24, 2004, Bui14iligOf:fici~d KeriTewjsand I ;mspect~(ftheiwoperty located at the above mentioned address,.;'.Asa. 'result of the inspection, it hasbe'endet~i?nined that the building is unsafe. ' ':" ",.";", (~2 .:," ,-,/~"':'"':"""""_ __'~' ._'_, :"'~' "', .,; ,,---.... ..,._n -,,,::::/" }~:1# There are several structur.al, pli.iin,1;>ing,~he'atiIig and fire safety issues tha~'~e present. :'.~.~ -"'~"~~,~"-""'-' ,";'.,' ......0;-.->.:.,,, -, -":ftf f(\DO Nof6CcuPYTlIIS'STR.UCTuRE.;~J:; ~,;;..',.' .. , The following hazard mus~pe aoatc::d'fmmediately per Millilt:lSota Stat~Fire Code Section 110..~~,[~ '.,. .;i;~if ~ Disconnect electric~'~.ervice to the structure.,c'Live;expose&,{:"iring pose a safety and fire hazard. '(:h,.......:;.},.g;t '.,' ,,.,'-'. :.~:,l' .c.;.!l;:;"':F.;;C.,.,y:.,;....;.; '" .y,.'n.,' ..\ ":i"'-!,,di;/' If you have any questions, please do not hesitatetocallme'iit'(651) 463-1840. This matter has also been forwarded to the Farmington Building Department. You may also contact Ken Lewis, Building Official at (651) 463-1833 to discuss options regarding this building. John Powers Farmington Fire Marshal cc: Dave Urbia, City Administrator Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief Ken Lewis, Building Official Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director E)QfI&-r ~ \, .\ ~\. ... \ .. \.' '~ \~~ ,- ~z. " , .~~ -i.' ". t~ \,\' ~ '. , .tp, ,,\ \ \ J l! I} ~1 , .~ ~ , C i.1 rl ~. \ ~,. '\1 , ./J',t ~ I ;j .~ / ~;.u .,. ~ G b~/(-;&'7 D- / ~~-. mll'l"'~~..ll" \ . ~, II @ D-3> e \1<; ,.. , I' i I t~ , '\ ~ ,lI n III U '. I' II I' ~\ ... ~~ @ D-f ~ '1111. i~>" 'U' ~I~ <.~"< \i >~.~'~ ~." , :" .L~ \;_01 .."1 ~ i) - to J .,~I I -, , , -------,.,~l\ _ <, , I 1 f I I I I @ j)- -7 .' 7, '" .. ' J' I' u' ,,- -1 i 1. . _ f' !~. [ 1 '.f It, 'I ~' ,'~' II C) \l J'~''''''':'''''''''-~~~ 1'" n i' 1'''' _.~~,.u....-:,~ 'II::~ ,L .. ~:-"": ~ ~:~, ...~~ ~ . j ,. ",1'., .' It'1" ~ . L ~.., ,) 11 ~'l: '" ~:'Yi~~}~!. y 1 \ .~y.) I" . · , f7 I fi," I. '.,1 'i t J~ '~' P," ~ ~,I,,'/ . .\, '~~"J J ~.J.i I '. (,t, ~.. ~ ,.,~ ,,_ _' ..'L ~ ~1.~' ",4 ..0"- .!. ' l~ ' .~ f ,. o -- ... ... l I '"""\ t..... I , t- --.' ~ );J ", . If ....~..... .....",.:--- .cJ""'t - .... '15 , P.!; 0...-;. ---... -, ~ t ...... .~-"""!!' --- ~ I ~ ~~;L 1'- -~ I I I ;10 " . ~ ,~- - .1 ",ij ...... ...... - .... -.--- ~ ' I :ill-P .... I t, ~ " . . "'" - ~......... . ~.J 'J ....lMfi~T:]~ '=: ""'! ". . ,~f . ill '\ '" .,j. to ~ ilMI ~ >> ~.... ~ ili .:!,' ... ,.. @ j)-g City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Kevin Carroll Community Development Director FROM: Ken Lewis Building Official SUBJECT: Riste Building - 213 Oak Street DATE: August 11, 2005 I recently inspected the building, located at the above mentioned address, for purposes of possible renovation to the structure. Based on my inspection of the property, it would not be feasible to repair this building. The following is the reasoning behind my decision: Main Floor 1. As seen in the pictures 1-12, the condition of the upper floor/ceiling is structurally unstable. Sagging floor joists and beams deems it as a hazard. All heat runs that are existing, are not compliant with the International Building Code. The existing heat runs would need to be replaced and new ones installed to be in compliance. There are 6 total heating units and 2 water heaters in the building. Three of these units are located on the main floor and used as part of the business area. One out of the three is still in good condition including the 2 water heaters. The other 3 units used in residential apartments, are in poor condition and need to be replaced. Plumbing appears to be in the same condition as the mechanical. To be in compliance all existing plumbing would need to be removed and all new lines and fixtures would need to be installed. It appears that the electrical would also need updating to be compliance (picture 8). 2. Structurally, the existing post beams are in bad condition (see pictures 5,6,7). Beams are undersized, sagging and deteriorating. Supports are undersized and not supported per code requirements (picture 7). Floors above and below are also sagging due to poor support. Bearing wall on west side is being pushed out considerably (picture 11). It would likely not be feasible to repair. All beams and supports, floor joists and existing outer exterior wall supports would need to be replaced. Upstairs Apartments 1. The joists below are sagging, due to essentially no support. The floors upstairs are leaning and sagging approximately 3-5 inches in mos?iIl;'ii:, 7 E . , bad condition and would need to be completely replaced (pictures 15,17,18). Ceilings and parts of the floor are missing and there is evidence of rodent infiltration (picture 21). Most steps are non-conforming (pictures 13,18,25). Mechanical and plumbing are in approximately the same condition as the main floor and would require total replacement to be code compliant. Basement a. Stairs are non-conforming (picture 28) and has a sewer line going through this area. Foundation of the building exterior is rapidly deteriorating and needs to be replaced n most areas (pictures 29,30,31). Plumbing and some mechanical need to be replaced due to damage and the use of improper supports (pictures 30,31). Exterior of BuUdine: a. Bricks/veneer in front (picture 32) falling off and' deteriorating (picture 32). West wall veneer being pushed out due to exterior bearing wall problems (picture 33). Dilapidated siding and exterior sheathing in poor condition due to lack of maintenance. Electrical and gas piping has non-conforming installation. Exit door from upstairs (picture 31) needed for compliance. This is a condensed list of some of the existing issues at this building. To renovate this building would be an enormous task and quite expensive. In my opinion, it is definitely the worst structure presently in the City of Farmington. Respectfully Submitted, ~/~ Ken Lewis Building Official City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: 1. 2. 2005 Community Development Block Grant Application Reprogramming of Undisbursed Funds from Prior Years DATE: January 18, 2005 INTRODUCTION The City has the right to apply for $65,500 in Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] funds for CDBG Program Year 2005 [July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006]. To secure the grant money that is available, the City must prepare and submit an application that specifies eligible activities or projects to which the City intends to apply the available funding. The completed application must be submitted to the Dakota County Community Development Agency [CDA]. The City also has the right to "reprogram" unspent CDBG funds from prior years, so that they can be used for current or anticipated projects. DISCUSSION 1. 2005 Community Development Block Grant Application For the last several years, the City has received [federal] Community Development Block Grant funds, which have been administered and distributed by the Dakota County Community Development Agency [CDA]. The next CDBG "program year" will run from July 1,2005 through June 30, 2006. The exact amount of money that will be available is presently unknown, but it will probably be about $65,500. In order to obtain the available CDBG funds, the City must complete and submit an application, as it has done in past years. The application must identify the project(s) for which the CDBG funds will be used, and the specific project activities to which the funds will be applied. CDBG funds can only be used for "eligible" projects or activities that satisfy certain "National Objectives." Typically, such objectives include redeveloping slums or blighted areas, creating or improving housing that benefits individuals who fall within "low to moderate income" guidelines, or creating jobs that pay wages that fall within certain ranges. At the Farmington HRA meeting that was held on December 13, the HRA Board discussed projects or activities that could potentially be included in the 2005 CDBG application. At that time, the HRA ~~-r F members indicated a desire to allocate the upcoming program year's CDBG funds to the cost of acquiring and demolishing the structure that is locally known as the "Riste" building, located at 209 Oak Street in downtown Farmington (directly across the street from the Farmington Bakery). A "No Occupancy" notice was posted on the building in August of 2004, due to the existence of a number of issues related to plumbing, heating, fire safety and structural integrity (see attached letter from Fire Marshal). The HRA is interested in exploring the possibility of acquiring the building, demolishing it, and making the site available for redevelopment. At its meeting on December 13, the HRA indicated a preference for devoting 100% of the 2005 CDBG funds to the aforementioned project ifpossible. However, they indicated that if that could not be done for any reason, they would be in favor of allocating all or a portion of the 2005 CDBG funds to one or both of the following uses: first, to any costs incurred by the HRA in redeveloping the "McVicker lot" between Gossips and the Farmington Steakhouse, and second, to the housing rehabilitation fund that is administered by the Dakota County Community Development Agency [CDA]. After the December 13 HRA meeting, the Dakota County CDA indicated that no more than 50% of the 2005 CDBG amounts could be allocated to "slum and blight" projects. Accordingly, the staff recommendation is that $32,750 (50%) of the 2005 CDBG amount be allocated to the Riste building (which meets the "slum and blight" criteria) and that $32,750 (50%) be allocated to any costs related to the redevelopment of the McVicker lot (which may meet the "low and moderate income" criteria for the housing units that are planned for the upper level of the building, if the income levels of the initial tenants fall within certain ranges). 2. Reprogramming of Undisbursed Funds from Prior Years The HRA has some "unspent" CDBG money available from past years. These funds were allocated to projects that either (a) did not proceed as planned or (b) were less expensive than originally projected. The City has the right to "reprogram" these funds by allocating them to new projects where the funds will be spent. The amount that is available is $70,792.06 (see attached e-mail from Dan Rogness dated January 13, 2005). The "50% test" referred to above does not apply to these funds. The funds were previously allocated to "slum and blight" projects, so 100% of the unspent CDBG funds can be reprogrammed for a new "slum and blight" project. The staff recommendation is that the entire amount be applied to costs related to the acquisition and demolition of the Riste building and/or the adjacent Xcel Energy [former NSP] building. *************************** I have attached a proposed Resolution that has been prepared in the format required by the Dakota County CDA. If the Resolution is approved by the Council, an application that is consistent with the terms of the Resolution will be completed, attached to the Resolution and submitted to the Dakota County CDA. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the attached Resolution approving the City's application for Program Year 2005 Community Development Block Grant funding and approving the reprogramming of unspent CDBG funds from prior years, as summarized below: 1. Allocating $32,750 (50%) of the City's 2005 CDBG amount to costs associated with the acquisition and demolition of the Riste building, located at 209 Oak Street. 2. Allocating $32,750 (50%) of the City's 2005 CDBG amount to costs associated with the redevelopment of the McVicker lot( s), located at 317 and 323 Elm Street. 3. Reprogramming $70,792.06 in undisbursed CDBG funds attributable to past fiscal years, by allocating that amount to costs associated with the acquisition and demolition of the Riste building, located at 209 Oak Street, and/or the Xcel Energy/NSP building, located at 205 Oak Street. Respectfully submitted, Kevin Carroll Community Development Director CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. R5-05 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT [CDBG]FUNDING, AND APPROVING THE REPROGRAMMING OF UNDISBURSED CDBG FUNDS FROM PRIOR FISCAL YEARS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Farmington as follows: 1. That the Community Development Director is authorized to submit an application to Dakota County for a Community Development Block Grant in Fiscal Year 2005. 2. That the Mayor and the Community Development Director are hereby authorized to execute a Fiscal year 2005 CDBG Application that is consistent with the direction provided by the City Council at its meeting on January 18, 2005. 3. That the Dakota County CDA be designated as the administrative entity to carry out the program on behalf of the City. Adopted by the City Council of Farmington this 18th day of January, 2005. Ayes: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson ~ Attested to the.E11li day of " 1J<J)VU.~r 2005. . . ~ ~L - . - - t ia, ty Adminis or Nayes: None SEAL REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, (the "Agreement") made on or as of the day of , 2005, by and between the HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF FARMINGTON, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of the State of Minnesota, with offices at 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (referred to herein as the "Buyer") and, 2004 REAL ESTATE CO., a Minnesota corporation, with offices at /)) t> /~t171 <. /:- /11/ F 5~ (referred to herein as the "Seller"). /'1,p L 50 /"-l-r\ 3' 5- '-i / ?7 IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants and agreements herein, it is hereby mutually agreed by Seller and Buyer as follows: SECTION 1. SALE AND PURCHASE OF LAND 1.1) Seller shall sell to Buyer and Buyer shall purchase from Seller, upon the terms and conditions hereof, the following property (all collectively referred to as the "Subject Property"): 1.1.1) The land in Dakota County, Farmington, Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein, together with all right, title, and interest in and to any roads, rights of access, or alleys adjoining or servicing such land, rights-of-way, or easements appurtenant thereto. 1.1.2) Any improvements and fixtures located on the Land as ofthe date of Closing; 1.1.3) All rents, leases, contract rights, causes of action, permits, licenses, and other rights relating to the Subj ect Property. SECTION 2. PURCHASE PRICE 2.1) The purchase price for the Subject Property (the "Purchase Price") shall be Ninety-three Thousand Two Hundred and No/toO Dollars ($93,200.00) and shall be payable by Buyer to Seller as follows: 2.1.1) Five Thousand and No/toO Dollars ($5,000.00) earnest money ("Earnest Money"), to be deposited with Seller (as hereinafter defined). The Earnest Money shall be distributed to Seller (i) at the time of closing to be applied against the Purchase Price, or (ii) as liquidated damages and as Seller's sole remedy, in the event the Seller performs all of its obligations under this Agreement and Buyer fails to close as required in this Agreement. The Earnest Money shall be returned to the Buyer in the event of (i) refusal of the Seller to perform its obligations under this Agreement, or (ii) Buyer's termination ofthis Agreement within the Contingency Period, as hereinafter set forth. Buyer's sole remedy if Seller refuses to perform its obligations shall be to have the Earnest Money returned. 121251 G)Q/,8~-r G 2.1.2) The remainder of the Purchase Price in cash on the date of closing. SECTION 3. TITLE MATTERS 3.1) Seller, at its own expense, shall furnish to Buyer within twenty (20) days of execution hereof by Seller a current commitment for the issuance of an AL T A Form B owner's policy oftitle insurance (the "Commitment") issued by a Title Insurance company acceptable to buyer ("Title") in the amount of the Purchase Price, committing to insure that Buyer will have good and marketable title to the Subject Property, except for the following easements, declarations, restrictions and covenants: (a) standard exceptions to title; (b) zoning and all other governmental ordinances, regulations, requirements and laws; (c) easement reserved under this agreement by Seller; and (c) except matters to which Buyer may consent in writing. Buyer shall have twenty (20) days after receipt of the Commitment to make any objections to the matters disclosed in the Commitment. Such objections to be made in writing or deemed to be waived. The Commitment shall show all matters affecting title to the Subject Property, with copies of all instruments referred therein, and shall bind the title company to issue to and in favor of Buyer at Closing an owner's policy of title insurance insuring marketable title to the Subject Property, affirmatively insuring any appurtenant easements, deleting the standard exceptions upon receipt ofthe Survey and the title affidavit. 3.2) In the event any exceptions are listed in the Commitment other than the items waived under Section 3.1, the Seller shall cause the exception to be removed on or before the Closing Date. Ifthe Seller fails to remove the same within the time allowed for closing on the Subject Property, the Buyer (at Buyer's option) shall have the right to: (a) terminate this Agreement; or (b) cause the exeption(s) to be removed and credit Buyer's cost to remove the exception( s) against the Purchase Price. 3.3) Seller shall furnish to Buyer a copy of any surveys ofthe Subject Property that Seller has in its possession within fifteen (15) days of the execution ofthis Agreement. SECTION 4. CLOSING 4.1) The closing (the "Closing") shall be at a location designated by Seller, and shall occur on or before December 15, 2005 ("Closing Date"). Notwithstanding any other provision herein to the contrary, Buyer may extend the Closing Date for an additional ninety (90) days if all of the contingencies set forth in Section 7 (Buyer's Contingencies) and other conditions set 2 ",.,,,~ , <:1, \~ '!:~;, '=' "~... c:~" " t,II" .;.q. forth in this Agreement have not been satisfied, provided Buyer is diligently pursuing the satisfaction thereof. 4.2) On the Closing Date, Seller shall deliver to Buyer possession ofthe Subject Property free of any and all debris, and all personalty not included in the sale of the Subject Property. 4.3) On the Closing Date, Seller shall execute and deliver to Buyer: 4.3.1) A duly executed warranty deed, subject only to the exceptions listed in Section 3.1 as the same may be amended, modified or terminated by the parties thereto; standard exceptions of title; and to any exceptions consented to by Buyer; and 4.3.2) A customary affidavit that there are no unsatisfied judgments of record, no actions pending in any state or federal courts, no tax liens, and no bankruptcy proceeding filed against Seller, and no labor or materials have been furnished to the Subject Property for which payment has not been made, and that to the best of Seller's knowledge there are no unrecorded interests relating to the Subject Property. 4.3.3) A non-foreign affidavit, properly executed, containing such information as is required by Internal Revenue Code Section 1445(b)(2) and its regulations. 4.3.4) A Certificate signed by Seller warranting that to Seller's knowledge there are no "Wells" on the Subject Property within the meaning of Minn. Stat. ~ 1031 or if there are "Wells", a Well Certificate in a form required by law. 4.3.5) A certificate in a form acceptable to Buyer that all of the covenants, representations and warranties of Seller as set forth in Section 5 are true and correct as of the Closing Date. 4.4) Seller shall pay at Closing all general real estate taxes levied against the Subject Property due and payable for all years prior to the year of Closing. Installments of special assessments due and payable in and for the year of Closing shall be paid by Seller. If the Closing occurs after December 31, 2005 (by agreement of both parties), installments of special assessments will be paid by Buyer. General real estate taxes levied against the Property due and payable in the year of Closing shall be prorated between the Seller and Buyer on a calendar year basis to the actual Date of Closing. Buyer shall assume all other special assessments levied or pending as of the date of this Purchase Agreement. Buyer shall pay for all general real estate taxes due and payable in years subsequent to the year of Closing. 4.5) Seller shall pay at Closing: 4.5.1) state deed tax; 4.5.2) all costs associated with obtaining a title insurance commitment, including name searches, tax searches, bankruptcy searches, and property inspection fees; 3 G-3 4.5.3) recording fees for corrective instruments required to remove encumbrances and place marketable title in Buyer's name; 4.5.4) one-half of the Closing fee charged by the title company; 4.5.5) the obligations of Seller under Section 4.4. 4.6) Buyer shall pay at Closing: 4.6.1) all recording fees and charges relating to the filing of the deed; 4.6.2) title insurance premiums; 4.6.3) one-half of the Closing fee charged by the title company; SECTION 5. COVENANTS. REPRESENTATIONS. AND WARRANTIES OF SELLER 5.1) Seller, as an inducement to Buyer to enter into this Agreement, and as part of the consideration therefore, represents, warrants, and covenants with Buyer and its successors and assigns that: 5.1.1) There are no leases, options, purchase agreements, rights to redeem, tenancy agreements, written or verbal, and no person or party has, or will have any rights of adverse possession, regarding the Subject Property; 5.1.2) To the best knowledge of Seller, no entity or person has, at any time: i) "released" or actively or passively consented to the "release" or "threatened release" of any Hazardous Substance (as defined below) from any "facility" or "vessel" located on or used in connection with the Subject Property or adjacent tracts; or ii) taken any action in "response" to a "release" in connection with the Subject Property or adjacent tracts; or iii) otherwise engaged in any activity or omitted to take any action which could subject Seller or Buyer to claims for intentional or negligent torts, strict or absolute liability, either pursuant to statute or common law, in connection with Hazardous Substances (as defined below) located in or on the Subject Property or adjacent tracts, including the generating, transporting, treating, storage, or manufacture of any Hazardous Substance (as defined below). The terms set within quotation marks above shall have the meaning 4 (;-1 given to them in the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act, 42 U.S.c. Sec. 9601 et seq., as amended ("CERCLA") and any state environmental laws. 5.1.3) To the best of Seller's knowledge, Seller, or any other person or entity, has not, at any time, ever installed, used, or removed any underground storage tank on or in connection with the Subject Property; and 5.1.4) To the best of Seller's knowledge, all wells located upon the Subject Property have been capped and sealed as required by State law. 5.1.5) Seller has the present full authority and power to execute this Agreement and to close the sale ofthe Subject Property. 5.2) Seller shall remove all debris and all personal property not included in this sale from the property before possession date. 5.3) The covenants, representations, and warranties contained in Section 5 shall be deemed to benefit Buyer and its successors and assigns and shall survive any termination or expiration of this Purchase Agreement or the giving of the Deed. All of Seller's covenants, representations and warranties in this Agreement shall be true as of the date hereof and of the Closing Date, and shall be a condition precedent to the performance of Buyer's obligations hereunder. Subject to the liability limits set forth in Minn. Stat. Chapter 466, Seller indemnifies Buyer from any breaches of the covenants, warranties and representations set forth in this Section 5. If Buyer discovers that any such covenant, representation, or warranty is not true, Buyer may elect prior to Closing, in addition to any of its other rights and remedies, to cancel this Agreement, or Buyer may postpone the Closing Date up to ninety (90) days to allow time for correction. 5.4) Buyer shall have the right to have inspections of the property conducted prior to closing. Unless required by local ordinance or lending regulations, Seller does not plan to have the property inspected. Other than the representations made in this Section, the property is being sold "AS IS" with no express or implied representations or warranties by Seller as to physical conditions or fitness for any particular purpose. SECTION 6. ENVIRONMENTAL/SOIL INVESTIGATION AND TESTING 6.1) Buyer and its agents shall have the right, at the sole option of Buyer and at Buyer's cost and expense, to enter upon the Subject Property without charge and at all reasonable times from the date of the execution of this Agreement to perform such inspections of the Building, environmental investigation and soil tests as Buyer may reasonably deem appropriate. If Buyer investigates and tests the Subject Property pursuant to this section, Buyer shall pay all costs and expenses of such investigation and testing and shall hold Seller harmless from all costs and liabilities arising out of Buyer's activities. If the purchase and sale contemplated by this 5 G-s, Agreement is not closed, Buyer shall, at its own expense, repair and restore any damage to the Subject Property caused by Buyer's investigation and testing, and shall return the Subject Property to substantially the same condition as existed prior to such entry. Buyer shall contract for any inspections of the Building, environmental investigations and soil tests within twenty (20) business days from the date of execution ofthe Agreement by the Seller and complete all inspections and testing within seventy-five (75) days of the execution of this Agreement by the Seller and shall inform Seller in writing within ninety-five (95) days after the execution ofthis Agreement by Seller whether or not Buyer is satisfied in its sole discretion with the results of the inspections, environmental investigation and/or soil test and whether or not Buyer waives this contingency. If Buyer does not object to the Building's condition, environmental condition of the Subject Property or the soil condition within said ninety-five (95) day period, Buyer will be deemed to have waived its right to object thereto. If Buyer is not satisfied with the environmental condition or the condition ofthe soil as it relates to construction of the improvements contemplated by Buyer, Buyer may terminate this Agreement. SECTION 7. CONTINGENCIES 7.1) The obligations of Buyer under this Agreement are contingent upon each of the following: 7.1.1) Buyer obtaining a Survey of the Subject Property at Buyer's sole cost and expense, on or before December 15,2005 ("Survey"). 7.1.2) Buyer and Title Company determining on or before December15, 2005, that they are satisfied with the results of the matters disclosed by the Survey ofthe Subject Property and the Commitment, both as referenced in this Agreement. 7.1.3) The representations and warranties of Seller set forth in Section 5 ofthis Agreement must be true as of the date ofthis Agreement and on the Closing Date, and Seller shall have delivered to Buyer at Closing a certificate dated the Closing Date, signed by Seller, certifying that such representations and warranties are true as ofthe Closing Date; 7.1.4) Buyer shall have determined on or before the Closing Date, that it is satisfied, in its sole discretion, with the results of the environmental/soil investigations and tests of the Subject Property; 7.1.5) The parties entering into the Hold Harmless Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "B" relating to the demolition of the building located on the Subject Property. If any of the contingencies have not been satisfied on or before the Closing or the dates listed above, the Buyer may, at Buyer's option, terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Seller on or before the Closing Date or Buyer may extend the period of time for the satisfaction ofthe contingencies set forth above for any additional period of ninety (90) days by giving written notice to the Seller on or before ninety (90) days from the date of the execution of 6 G-~ this Agreement by Seller. If Buyer elects to terminate this Agreement, neither party shall have any further rights or obligations under this Agreement and the Buyer shall execute and deliver to Seller a Quit Claim, which Quit Claim Deed shall memorialize the termination ofthis Agreement. SECTION 8. EASEMENT AGREEMENT At closing, Buyer shall grant Seller an easement over the northerly 20 feet ofthe Subject Property for access to First Street in Farmington, Minnesota, in the form of the Easement Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "C." SECTION 9. MISCELLANEOUS 9.1) Any notice, demand, or request which may be permitted, required or desired to be given in connection herewith shall be in writing and sent by certified mail, hand delivery, overnight mail service such as Federal Express or Western Union Telegram or other form of telegraphic communication, directed to Seller or Buyer. Any notice shall be deemed effective when delivered to the party to whom it is directed. Unless other addresses are given in writing, notices shall be sent to Seller or Buyer at the applicable address stated on the first page ofthis Agreement. 9.2) Time shall be of the essence in this Agreement. If any date or time prescribed by this Agreement falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, such date or time shall automatically be extended to the next normal business day. 9.3) Each party hereto shall promptly, on the request of the other party, have acknowledged and delivered to the other party any and all further instruments and assurances reasonably requested or appropriate to evidence or give effect to the provisions of this Agreement. 9.4) This Agreement represents the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the Subject Property and all prior agreements, understandings, or negotiations between the parties are hereby revoked and superseded hereby. No representations, warranties, inducements, or oral agreements have been made by any of the parties, except as expressly set forth herein, or in other contemporaneous written agreements. This Agreement may not be changed or modified except by a written agreement signed by Seller and Buyer. 9.5) If Buyer defaults under any ofthe terms hereof, Seller shall have the right to retain the Earnest Money but shall not have a further right to such damages or specific performance. 9.6) If Seller defaults under any of the terms hereof, including, without limitation, the delivery of marketable title to the Subject Property as set forth in Section 4 hereof, then Buyer 7 G--7 shall have the right to pursue any remedies that are available to Buyer at law or in equity, including without limitation, specific performance and damages (excluding attorney's fees), and to the cancellation of this Agreement. 9.7) If any provision of this Agreement is declared void or unenforceable, such provision shall be deemed severed from this Agreement, which shall otherwise remain in full force and effect. 9.8) Failure of any party to exercise any right arising out of a breach of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any right with respect to any subsequent or different breach, or the continuance of any existing breach. 9.9) This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. 9.10). Seller and Buyer represent and warrant to each other that they have not engaged or dealt with any broker or agent with respect to the Subject Property. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Buyer and Seller shall each defend, indemnify and hold the other harmless from and against all claims, losses and liabilities incurred by the indemnified party in connection with any claim or demand by any person or entity from any brokers, finders, or other fee or compensation in connection with the indemnifying party's entry into this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. SELLER: 2004 Real Estate Co. BUYER: Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Farmington, By: ;~!:~. -1 a::A4"<--v;JjlJ3y: Its ! A. v(' c', ~(J'{,,:;___-z::- Its ;)~~~ (" ~ D1 :u~~ By: Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2005, by and Kevin Carroll, the President and Executive Director, respectively, of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Farmington, Minnesota, a public body 8 G-~ corporate and politic under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf oJ he public body corporate and politic. 0:- le" STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoim! instrument was acknmvledged before me this m day of ~ 2005 b r/ot'h~A A .t'3Aow.lY ~ fT"'Al::.-' - f 00 I C . , Y i'/(J,j^M/:A A~;\1l;>.1W ,the lVk4A }^t:r:'/~t:."t7~V 0 2 4 Rea Estate 0., a mnesota :O~~~I"Mon. , J My Commission Expires Jan. 31. 2008 . THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON, P.A. 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 Telephone: (651) 452-5000 9 G--Cj EXHIBIT A Legal Description The North 15 feet of the South 90 feet ofthe East 21 feet of Lot 3, Block 22, Town of Farmington, County of Dakota, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situated in Dakota County, Minnesota AND That part of Lots 3 and 4, Block 22, Town of Farmington, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast comer of Lot 3, Block 22; thence West 21 feet; thence North 75 feet; thence East 21 Feet; thence North 15 feet; thence East 40 feet; thence South 20 feet; thence West 20 feet; thence South 70 feet; thence West 20 feet to the place of beginning. 10 HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT 2004 REAL ESTATE CO., a Minnesota corporation ("2004"), is fee owner of the building and property located in the City of Farmington, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, and legally described on the attached Exhibit "A" (the "Larson Building Site"). 2004 has entered into a Purchase Agreement with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority In And For the City of Farmington, dated ,2005, to which this Agreement is attached as an Exhibit, for 2004's conveyance of property abutting the Larson Building to the Farmington HRA (the "Riste Building Site"), which property is legally described on the attached Exhibit "B". The HRA intends to demolish the Riste Building located on the Riste Building Site. As a condition of the conveyance of the Riste Building, the HRA requires that 2004 enter into this Hold Harmless and Indemnity Agreement. 2004, on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, agrees to indemnify and hold the HRA, its contractors, successors and assigns, harmless from any claims, losses, judgments, damages, or costs incurred, excluding attorney's fees, for nonstructural damage to the brick veneer or fayade on the west wall of the Larson Building or any other non-structural damage to the Larson Building located on the Larson Building Site, resulting from or allegedly resulting from the demolition of the Riste Building on the Riste Building Site. In the event of any structural damage to the Larson Building caused by the demolition of the Riste Building, as determined by a licensed structural engineer, the HRA agrees to share in one-half the construction costs to repair the structural damage. The selection of a structural engineer shall be agreed upon by both parties. If the parties 57731.02 r04/21/98 G-IO cannot agree on a structural engineer, they shall either appoint a neutral mediator, or shall submit such disagreement to the American Arbitration Association for binding arbitration. Unless agreed to by the parties, the appointed structural engineer may not be an engineer hired or contracted by either party or the City of Farmington in the five years prior to the date of appointment. The structural engineer's fees for the review required hereunder shall be borne equally by both parties. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property described in Exhibit "A". 2004 Real Estate Co. Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for e ity of Far ton, By'. ~. ~?d2 .c"'~lg ~t~-'-' ;:z:: (~,. ""i:C:/-L4L-?"t. l_tpo, B. Its ,/"U!..L-<.~ ~,. --r:-- 'J I /y /J TTT- -/'f'1~~ L 7 1~M//Y1 .-- By: /)..4 ~ Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I f,JJt day of (;L '7 ".,3 ~005, by "l C.'O P ~ and Kevin Carroll, the President and Executive Director, respectively, of the Housing and edevelopment Authority in and for the City of Farmington, Minnesota, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the public body corporate and politic. Notary Public STATEOFMlNNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foreg?ing. instrumen . was ac~ledged before me this 11ln, day of 0 croJ? e.( , 2005, by /-Io..5/oJEI\ .' ,q~/.I)lI,.-tIfe of 2004 Real Estate Co., a Mmnesota t? /f () ~'/1I3",fJ f) B;~ PW-A/ JIJ 57731.02 . 104/21/98 G -II corporation, on behalf of the co ,ation. JENNIFER L. MORICAL I NOTARY PUBLIC. MINNESOTA My Commission expires Jan. 31, 2008 . TEml NT WAS DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON, P.A. 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan,MN 55121 Telephone: (651) 452-5000 57731.02 r04/21/98 6-/"2- EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LARSON BUILDING SITE: The West 30 feet of the following described property: Part of Lots 4 and 5, Block 22, Town of Farmington, County of Dakota, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situated in Dakota County, Minnesota, commencing at the southeast comer of Lot 5, thence west 100 feet, then north 70 feet, thence east 20 feet, then south to a point 44.4 feet north of the south line ofthe East 80 feet, thence east 10 feet, thence south 44.4 feet to the beginning. 57731.02 104121/98 (J-/3 EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF RISTE BUILDING SITE: The North 15 feet ofthe South 90 feet ofthe East 21 feet of Lot 3, Block 22, Town of Farmington, County of Dakota, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situated in Dakota County, Minnesota AND That part of Lots 3 and 4, Block 22, Town of Farmington, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast comer of Lot 3, Block 22; thence West 21 feet; thence North 75 feet; thence East 21 Feet; thence North 15 feet; thence East 40 feet; thence South 20 feet; thence West 20 feet; thence South 70 feet; thence West 20 feet to the place of beginning. 57731.02 104121/98 G-I,/ (Reserved for Recording Data) GRANT OF PERMANENT EASEMENT HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF FARMINGTON, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of the State of Minnesota, ("Grantor"), in consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant unto 2004 REAL ESTATE CO., a Minnesota corporation, the Grantee (hereinafter referred to as the "Grantee"), its successors and assigns, forever, a permanent easement for the ingress and egress by pedestrian and vehicular traffic upon, over, across, on, under, and through land situated within the County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, as described on the attached Exhibit "A" ("Easement Premises"), for the purpose of providing access between First Street and the property described on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof ("2004 Property"). INCLUDING the rights of the Grantee, its contractors, agents, servants, and assigns, to enter upon the easement premises at all reasonable times to construct, reconstruct, inspect, repair, and maintain said pedestrian and vehicular access systems over, under, across, on, under, and through the Easement Premises, together with the right to grade, level, fill, drain, and excavate the Easement Premises, and the further right to remove trees, bushes, undergrowth, and other obstructions interfering with the location, construction and maintenance of said pedestrian access. This Easement Agreement is subject to the following conditions: 1. Grantee shall not make any alterations, improvements, or installations in or to the Property without Grantor's prior written consent, which consent may not be unreasonably withheld. 2. Any additional expense of repairing or maintaining Easement Premises caused by Grantee's use shall be paid promptly by Grantee to Grantor upon Grantor's notice to Grantee of such additional cost. 121175 1 G-/ro 3. Grantee, its successors and assigns shall indemnify and hold harmless Grantor, its contractors, successors and assigns, against any claim of liability or loss arising from personal injury or property damage resulting from or arising out of the use and occupancy of the Easement Premises by Grantee, its servants, agents, guests, or invitees, excepting, however, such claims or damages as may be due to or caused by the sole negligence of Grantor, its agents, employees, guests or invitees. The above named Grantor, its successors and assigns does covenant with the Grantee, its successors and assigns, that it is well seized in fee title of the above described Easement Premises; that it has the sole right to grant and convey the easement to the City; that there are no unrecorded interests in the Easement Premises; and that it will indemnify and hold the Grantee harmless for any breach of the foregoing covenants. IN T.ES~~M2NY WHEREOF, th~ Grantor hereto has signed this Grant of Permanent Easement thIS ~ day of tJ (, '1 ~g t,....1l- , 2005. By: -r I vG=- P I ~G-z" v1L- And: Its: 2004 REAL ESTATE CO. /)/ / /) /'/ By: 'if:~~r:c- ~ -"j;;;? 'aJ V{/ ,;~ . )/ <h~~ fl. ?~ L.U- ~ 121175 2 G-/7 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) '/.. A (ss. COUNTY OF OA{vv~ ) The foregoing instrumenll"'~~ ~O~ledged before ,'f!;e tbis ~ day of (J (:1 c e~{L ,2005, by ~f'rn.6(OvV N ).{\ the President of 2004 Real Estate Co., a Minnesota corponition, on behalf of the corporation. 1;. j-JoS/Y r fi. A $i{ (/ tV AI .!IF'" ... STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this/~ day of (;Cft-BC--iL ,2005, by /(" ~ f) ~I and Kevin Carroll, the President and Executive Director, respectively, of the Ho~evelopment Authority in and for the City of Farmington, Minnesota, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the public body corporate and politic. fJ11 ~l JENNIFER l. MORICAlI NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA My Commission ExpIres Jan. 31, 2008 . 11"'. DRAFTED BY: Campbell Knutson, Professional Association 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporation Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 (612) 452-5000 AMP 121175 3 (;-I? EXHIBIT" A" to GRANT OF PERMANENT EASEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENT PREMISES: A permanent easement for the ingress and egress by pedestrian traffic upon, over, across, on, under, and through the north 20 feet of the following property: The North 15 feet ofthe South 90 feet of the East 21 feet of Lot 3, Block 22, Town of Farmington, County of Dakota, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situated in Dakota County, Minnesota AND That part of Lots 3 and 4, Block 22, Town of Farmington, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast comer of Lot 3, Block 22; thence West 21 feet; thence North 75 feet; thence East 21 Feet; thence North 15 feet; thence East 40 feet; thence South 20 feet; thence West 20 feet; thence South 70 feet; thence West 20 feet to the place of beginning. 121175 4 (;-/7 EXHIBIT B Legal description of 2004 Property: The following described lot, piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the County of Dakota and State of Minnesota to-wit: That part of Lots Four (4) and Five (5) in Block Twenty-two (22) ofthe Town of Farmington more particularly described as: Commencing at the Southeast comer of Lot Five (5) in Block Twenty-two (22); thence West along the south line of said Block, 100 feet to a point; thence running North parallel with the East line of said Block, 70 feet to a point; thence running East and parallel with the south line of said Block, 20 feet; thence South and parallel with the East line of said Block to a point 44.4 feet north ofthe South line of Lot Four (4); thence East 80 feet to the East line of said Block Twenty-two (22) to a point 44 feet north of the Southeast comer of Lot Five (5); thence south along the East line of said Block, 44 feet to the point of beginning according to the plat thereofnow on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder within and for said County and State. 121175 5 {:-Z6 I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I .:.~! Integrated EnvIronmental Solutions PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Riste Building 209 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota Prepared for: Farmington HRA November 1, 2005 6 YII/L3/1 1-1 PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT RISTE BUILDING 209 OAK STREET FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 1, 2005 Prepared for: Farmington HRA 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 55024 Prepared by: Peer Engineering, Inc. 4801 West 81st Street, Suite 118 Bloomington, Minnesota 55437 (952) 831-3341 Peer File #15153 @ Peer Engineering, Inc., 2005 , J! -;< I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I , I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTR 0 D U CTI ON.. ...... .......... .......... .............. ....... ....... ......... .......... .... ...... .................. ....... ..... .... 1 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................................................ 1 1.2 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS .................,................................,............,.................. I 1.3 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDIDONS .............................................................................2 2.0 SITE DES CRIPTI ON....... .... ..... ..... .... .... .... ..... .......... ......... ......... ......... ...... ..... ....... ............... ..... 2 3.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMA TION ...................................................................................... 3 3.1 TITLE RECORDS......................................................................................... ........................ 3 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL LIENS AND USE LIMITATIONS ..................................................3 3.3 VALUATION REDUCTION ...............................................................................................4 3.4 REASON FOR PERFORMING PHASE I........................................................................... 4 4.0 REeD RDS REVIEW .. ..... .......... ......... .... ........ .......... ..... ......... ....... ......... ........ .............. ........ ..... 4 4.1 SffE GEOLOGy..................................... ...................... ............................................ ..... ....... 4 4.2 HISTORICAL LAND USE INFORMATION .....................................................................5 4.2.1 Historical Sources ................................................................................................... 5 4.2.2 Fire Insurance Maps........................................................................... ...................... 6 4.2.3 Aerial Photographs.................................................................................................. 7 4.2.4 City Directories....................................................................................................... 8 4.2.5 Topographic Maps......... ..... ........ ....... ..... ....... ......... ... ....... ..... ........ ......... ................. 8 4.2.6 Protected Waters and Wetlands Map ...................................................................... 9 4.2.7 Dakota County Records Review....... ............. .......... ........... ....... ........... .................. 9 4.3 GOVERNMENT REGULATORY DATABASE SEARCH REPORT ............................ 10 4.3.1 Source.........................,.............................................................,............................ 10 4.3.2 Subject Property............... ............... ..................... .................................... ...... ....... 10 4.3.3 Surrounding Properties......................... .......................................... ......... ...... ........ 10 5.0 SITE REeD NNAISSAN CE ..................................................................................................... 13 5.1 METHODOLOGY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ....................................................... 13 5.2 SUBJECT PROPERTY ..............,.............................................................,.......................... 13 5.2.1 Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products.................................................... 13 5.2.2 Aboveground or Underground Storage Tanks ...................................................... 14 5.2.3 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)....................... ............. ......... ...... ...... ............... 14 5.2.4 Other Items or Activities of Potential Environmental Concern ............................ 14 5.2.5 Asbestos-Containing Materials...... .................... ........................... ............... ......... 14 5.3 ADJOINING PROPERTIES ...... ... ............. ...... .... ............................................................... 15 6.0 INTERVIEWSIINQillRIES .................................................................................................... --15 7.0 FINDINGS AND OPINION ..................................................................................................... 16 7.1 RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS...................................................... 16 7.2 HISTORICAL RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ............................16 7.3 DE MINIMIS CONDITIONS ..... ......................... ....... ................... ..................................... 16 7.4 ADDIDONAL ISSUES .................... ......... ............. .................. .......................................... 17 8.0 CON CL USI 0 NS........................................................................................................................ 17 )-/-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I (: I I I ! I I , 9. 0 DEVIATIONS ....... ....... ....... .... ..... .................................. ...... ..... ........... ..... ...... ........... ...... ... ....... 18 10.0 REFEREN CES ... ...... .... .......... .... ..... ... ...... .......... .............. I.................. ..... ....... .... ........ ... .... ....... 18 11.0 GENERA.L REMARKS ........................................................................................................... 19 11.1 STANDARD OF CARE.................................................................... .................................. 19 11.2QUALIFICATIONS AND SIGNATURES........................................................................ 20 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Site Location Map LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Dakota County Real Estate Inquiry Results B Fire Insurance Maps C Government Regulatory Database Search Report D Summary of Qualifications J-! - L/ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Peer #15153 209 Oak: Street, Farmington, MN 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES Peer Engineering, Inc. (Peer) was retained by Farmington HRA to perform a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the property located at 209 Oak Street in Farmington, Minnesota (subject property). The purpose of this assessment is to provide information to the user that may be used to qualify for the innocent landowner defense to CERCLA liability. The objective of this assessment was to identify Recognized Environmental Conditions associated with the property according to the ASTM E 1527-00 "Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process" . The ASTM E 1527-00 Standard defines the term recognized environmental condition as meaning "the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances 'or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. The term includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with laws. The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not be subject to an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. Conditions determined to be de minimis are not recognized environmental conditions." The Scope of Services performed by Peer is defined by the ASTM E 1527-00 Standard and the methodologies and procedures described in the body of this report. 1.2 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS This Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was performed in accordance with ASTM E 1527-00 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments. Any limitations, additions, or exceptions from this scope are as stated in the body of this report. JI-5' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Peer #15153 209 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 2 1.3 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDmONS Peer provided a Proposal letter dated October 14, 2005 to the City of Farmington. The Proposal letter defines the Scope of Services for this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. This report has been prepared exclusively for the use of Farmington HRA (the User). No additional parties may rely on the contents of this report unless written authorization is obtained from Peer. Supporting documentation for this assessment is included in the Appendices. Selected documentation referenced in this report was excluded from the Appendices as a cost saving measure. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property consists of two adjoining parcels located along the north side of Oak Street and just east of 2nd Street in Farmington, Dakota County, Minnesota (see Figure 1). A search for property information was conducted using the Dakota County Real Estate Inquiry Internet Site. A copy of the Dakota County Real Estate Inquiry results for the subject property is included as Appendix A. The Real Estate Inquiry results include property size, building date of construction, parcel identification number (PIN), tax description, property type, plat map, and a 2002 aerial photograph that depicts the shape of the individual parcels. The west parcel (PIN 14-77000-030-22) has the address of 209 Oak Street. A parcel tax description is listed as the east 21 feet of the south 90 feet of Lot 3, Block 22, City of Farmington. The parcel measures approximately 0.04 acres. The east parcel (PIN 14-77000-040-22) does not have an assigned address. A parcel tax description is listed as the west 20 feet of the south 70 feet and the north 20 feet of the south 90 feet of the west 40 feet of Lot 4, Block 22, City of Farmington. The parcel measures approximately 0.05 acres. }/- ~ I I I I I I I I: I I I I I I I I I I I Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Peer #15153 209 Oak: Street, Farmington, MN 3 The subject property is occupied by a vacant, two-story building with two partial basements that appears to have been constructed by 1885. The building has a finished floor space of approximately 6,100 square feet. The subject property is connected to local municipal water and sanitary sewer systems. The property building is heated by natural gas-fired forced air systems. The building was originally constructed as a saloon and was later renovated for office space with the upper level used for residential use (there are three apartment units on the upper floor). The building essentially occupies the entire property. The building is proposed to be demolished and the subject property subsequently redeveloped. Land use activities adjoining the subject property include: NORTH: EAST: SOUTH: WEST: Retail businesses (324-328 3rd Street) followed by a storage garage (212 2nd Street) and a vacant bank building (320 3rd Street). A vacant retail/office building (213-17 Oak Street) followed by another vacant retail/office building (344 3rd Street) and then 3rd Street. Oak Street followed by a Napa automotive parts retail store (204-210 Oak Street), a bakery (212 Oak Street), and the Farmington Post Office (216 Oak Street). Feely & Sons Grain-Feed-Seed (grain elevator) is located to the southwest of the subject property across Oak Street. Northern States Power office building (205 Oak Street) followed by 2nd Street and then a parking lot and a railroad right-of-way. Residential and commercial properties, including the Lampert Lumber yard to the southwest, are located beyond the railroad track. 3.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION 3.1 TITLE RECORDS The User did not provide recorded land title records pertaining to the subject property. 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL LIENS AND USE LIMITATIONS The User did not identify any environmental liens or use limitations currently recorded against the subject property. 1-1- 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Peer #15153 209 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 4 3.3 VALUATION REDUCTION The User did not provide any actual knowledge that the value of the subject property is significantly less than the value of comparable properties. 3.4 REASON FOR PERFORMING PHASE I It is assumed the reason for performing this assessment is to provide information to the User that may be used to qualify for the innocent landowner defense to CERCLA liability. 4.0 RECORDS REVIEW 4.1 SITE GEOLOGY Site geology can influence the susceptibility to, and relative magnitude of environmental impacts and liabilities associated with on-site and off-site sources of contamination. The following maps and publications were used to estimate the physical characteristics of the subject property: · Farmington, Minnesota, 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map, 1974 (photorevised 1993), United States Geological Survey. · Geologic Atlas Dakota County, Minnesota, County Atlas Series, Atlas C-6, 1990, United States Geological Survey. · Protected Waters and Wetlands Map, Dakota County, Minnesota, 1984, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The surface elevation of the subject property is approximately 910 feet (:t 10 feet) above mean, sea level. The ground surface of the subject property is relatively level. Surficial deposits consist of mixed outwash deposits composed of sand, loamy sand and gravel. The depth to bedrock is estimated to be approximately 200 feet below the ground surface. Bedrock consists of dolostone of the Prairie Du Chien Formation. J!-~ Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Peer #15153 209 Oak Street, Fannington, MN 5 The regional water table is estimated to occur at a depth of approximately 10-20 feet below the ground surface. Regional ground water flow is estimated to be northeasterly. It should be noted that the depth and gradient of the water table can change seasonally in response to variations in precipitation and recharge, and over time in response to urban development, such as storm water controls, impervious surfaces, and pumping wells. The Protected Waters and Wetlands Map for Dakota County depicts no protected waters or wetlands on the subject property or adjoining properties. 4.2 HISTORICALLAND USE INFORMATION 4.2.1 Historical Sources Information sources consulted to evaluate past and present land use activities at the subject property included the following: SOURCE SOURCE LOCATION 'Ej.re}#stiranceMllPs Minneapolis Public Library Online Database, .-.'. :.' .. ,. .'. http://www.mpls.lib.mn.us/datasubs.asp. A~i1at':gij~~9~rf1,p~ .... ., Historical Information Gatherers, Inc. Hopkins, MN. ,,-., Dakota County Website www.co.dakota.mn.us. , ." .' " :>. - . City qh~~~~9J:i~~ _" ,.: ,"". University of Minnesota Wilson Library, Minneapolis, MN. ""':'..'-:', ,....' ',"': , University of Minnesota Borchert Map Library, Minneapolis, MN. 1'9PQgr~pl1!c,M~p~ '0,-.-'.-.-,-.- ........_,.'. _, ':""'.. ph)t~tt~a"'Wijters"jind Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Waters. ~~~l~~4~M~p '" " The ASTM Standard requires that all obvious uses of the subject property be identified from the present back to the subject property's first developed use, or back to 1940, whichever is earlier. This task requires reviewing only as many of the "Standard Sources" as are necessary and both reasonably ascertainable and likely to be useful. Historical information concerning the subject property was available back to 1885 in fire insurance maps. Based on a review of the historical information, the subject property has been developed for commercial use since at least 1885. Peer determined that review of additional historical sources of information outlined in ASTM E 1527-00 would not likely provide additional useful information regarding the past use of the subject property. !-I-7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Peer # 15153 209 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 6 4.2.2 Fire Insurance Maps Fire insurance maps were historically published to aid the rue insurance industry in assessing potential fire and explosion hazards associated with developed properties. As a result, these maps often give an indication of potential environmental concerns, including the locations, sizes and contents of chemical and petroleum storage tanks, chemical and petroleum storage areas, and electrical equipment. These maps also typically depict physical and cultural features such as buildings, addresses, property names, land uses, property configuration, and other miscellaneous information. Fire insurance maps published for the years 1885, 1891, 1899, 1905, 1910, 1917, 1928, and 1936 were available for review. Copies of the maps are included as Appendix B. Subject Property Based on a review of the rue insurance maps and the information obtained from the Dakota County Real Estate Inquiry search, the subject property occupies portions of Lots 3 and 4 of Block 22. On the 1885, 1891, and 1899 maps, a saloon is depicted on the west parcel of the subject property. The saloon has the address of 204 Oak Street on the 1885 map and of 104 Oak Street on the 1891 and 1899 maps. An addition to the saloon is first depicted on the 1891 map. The east parcel is depicted as vacant on the maps. On the 1905 through 1936 maps, the structure on the west parcel appears to be relatively unchanged in size and shape. The address is still 104 Oak Street. The structure is still labeled as a saloon on the 1905 and 1910 maps, is labeled as clothes vending on the 1917 map, and as a retail store on the 1928 and 1936 maps. A structure is depicted on the east parcel of the subject property on the 1905 through 1936 maps. The address is depicted as 104A Oak Street. The structure is labeled as an office on the 1905 map, as a jewelry store on the 1910 and 1917 maps, and as a retail store on the 1928 and 1936 maps. No chemical or petroleum storage tanks are depicted on the subject property on any of the maps. 1-1- /0 I I I I I I I I I I I Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Peer #15153 209 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 7 Surrounding Properties The surrounding land is developed for commercial uses on all of the maps. A hotel is depicted adjoining the subject property to the north on the 1891 through 1910 maps and retail buildings are depicted to the north on the subsequent maps. Retail buildings are depicted to the east of the subject property on all of the maps. Oak Street is depicted along the south side of the subject property on all of the maps. Retail businesses are depicted to the south of Oak Street on all of the maps. A gasoline storage tank is depicted on the 1928 and 1936 maps just south of the subject property in Oak Street and in front of a garage located at 216A Oak Street. A hotel is depicted to the west of the subject property on the 1885 through 1928 maps. This parcel is vacant on the 1936 map. A driveway and railroad tracks are depicted beyond the adjoining parcel to the west on all of the maps. A railroad station is depicted just southwest of the subject property on the maps. 4.2.3 Aerial Photographs Aerial photographs were examined for information regarding current and past site features and land use activities. Due to the scale and resolution of each photograph reviewed, only large features and general land uses were apparent. Details of site- specific features were not readily identifiable. Photographs were available for review for the years 1937, 1940, 1951, 1957, 1964, 1970, 1979, 1991, 1997, and 2002. Subject Property A structure is apparent on the subject property on all of the photographs. No bulk chemical or petroleum storage, indications of dumping, or uses of potential environmental concerns are apparent on the subject property in any of the photographs reviewed. Surrounding Properties The adjoining land is developed for commercial uses on all of the photographs. Residential use is apparent beyond the adjoining properties. The structures appear to be similar in size, shape, and orientation as those depicted on fire insurance maps. No bulk chemical or petroleum storage, indications of dumping, or uses of potential environmental concerns are apparent on the adjoining properties in any of the photographs reviewed. )-/-1/ I I Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Peer #15153 209 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 8 4.2.4 City Directories I I I I City directories list property occupants by individual property address and when available can often aid in determining historical property uses. City directories were examined for the years 1995-96, 2000, and 2005. The directories were examined for current and potential past subject and adjoining property addresses. The City of Farmington was not covered in the 1995-96 and 2000 directories. Subject Property I The subject property address of 209 Oak Street is not listed in the 2005 directory. The address of 209Y2 Oak Street is listed as "no phone" in the 2005 directory. I Surrounding Properties I I The existing commercial businesses in the vicinity of the subject property are listed in the 2005 directory, 4.2.5 Topographic Maps Topographic maps produced by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) depict cultural as well as natural surface features and elevation contours. The following USGS topographic map was examined: · Farmington, Minnesota, 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Map, 1974 (photorevised 1993), United States Geological Survey. The subject property and surrounding areas are shaded purple on the map, which indicates that this area was considered urban at the time the map was published. Because only landmark buildings are depicted in urban areas on USGS maps, no structures are depicted on the subject or surrounding properties on the map. No environmentally suspect conditions, unexpected changes in surface elevation or unexplained features were depicted on the subject or adjoining properties. I-!-/~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Peer # 15153 209 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 9 4.2.6 Protected Waters and Wetlands Map The Protected Waters and Wetlands Map for Dakota County (referenced in Section 4.1) depicts protected waters and wetlands as well as cultural features including underground pipelines. No protected waters or wetlands or environmentally suspect cultural features such as underground pipelines are depicted at the subject property. 4.2.7 Dakota County Records Review Peer conducted a search of the Dakota County Real Estate Inquiry database. A copy of the available information obtained from the search is included as Appendix A. According to information obtained from the search, the following items regarding the subject property were noted: West Parcel · The property identification number 14-77000-030-22. · The address is listed as 209 Oak Street. · The tax description is listed as east 21 feet of south 90 feet of Lot 3, Block 22. · The owner is listed as 2004 Real Estate Co. · The parcel measures 0.04 acres. · The Payable 2002 ASMT Usage is listed as "commercial- residential". · The property building was constructed in 1900. · The property building has a finished floor space of 3,060 square feet. · The property building is listed as an office. East Parcel · The property identification number 14-77000-040-22. · No address is assigned to the parcel. · The tax description is listed as west 20 feet of south 70 feet and north 20 feet of south 90 feet of west 40 feet of Lot 4, Block 22. · The owner is listed as 2004 Real Estate Co. · The parcel measures 0,05 acres. · The Payable 2002 ASMT Usage is listed as "commercial- residential". · The property building was constructed in 1900. · The property building has a finished floor space of 3,060 square feet. · The property building is listed as an office. )-/-13 ( I I I Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Peer # 15153 209 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 10 4.3 GOVERNMENT REGULATORY DATABASE SEARCH REPORT 4.3.1 Source I I I I A federal and state database review was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), a commercial regulatory database services firm. An EDR report was generated for the subject property on October 26, 2005. This report was used to identify verified or potential hazardous substance and petroleum release sites in the vicinity of the subject property. A copy of the report is included in Appendix C. The federal and state regulatory agency databases that were evaluated and the minimum search distances specified are consistent with the requirements of the ASTM Standard. A description of the databases reviewed is provided in the EDR report. 4.3.2 Subject Property I I I The subject property was not identified on any of the databases reviewed by EDR. 4.3.3 Surrounding Properties Adjoining Properties Based on a review of the EDR report and on observations made at the time of the site reconnaissance, the following listings identified in the EDR report were determined to be for adjoining properties: · NAPA Farmington 210 Oak Street, located on an adjoining property to the south across Oak Street, identified on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) as a small quantity hazardous waste generator (SQG). The RCRIS is a compilation by the EP A of facilities that generate, store, or transport hazardous waste. These sites are permitted for particular wastes and are not necessarily the locations of releases. The EDR report indicates that there are no violations related to the generation of hazardous waste. No releases related to the generation of hazardous waste have been reported at the subject property. Therefore, the inclusion of NAP A Farmington on the RCRIS-SQG database is not considered to be a recognized environmental condition as defined by ASTM. J-/ - /'1 r ~ Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Peer #15153 209 Oak Street, Farmington, MN II ~ · Farmington Printing Inc., 328 3rd Street, located on the adjoining property to the northeast, identified on the RCRIS-SQG database. I Based on observations made at the time of the site reconnaissance, this site is currently occupied by a karate school. The EDR report indicates that there are no violations related to the generation of hazardous waste. No releases related to the generation of hazardous waste have been reported at the subject property. Therefore, the inclusion on the RCRIS-SQG database is not considered to be a recognized environmental condition as defined by ASTM. I Mapped Sites Within 1.0 Mile Radius Of The Subiect Property (Not Adjoining) The EDR report identified 49 additional database listings within one mile of the subject property. Some of these sites were listed on more than one database. Based on site- specific information indicated in the EDR report including: the type of database listing; regulatory status; distances from the subject property; locations relative to the estimated northeasterly direction of ground water flow; and/or previous work conducted by Peer in the vicinity of the subject property, these sites do not appear to represent recognized environmental conditions with the possible exception of the following: · Farmington Groundwater Plume, listed as from 3rd Street to 5th Street and from Main Street to Oak Street (this would make the western edge of the plume less than 0.1 mile east of the subject property), identified on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) database, on the Site Remediation System Database (SHWS) as an orphan site, and on the List of Sites (MN LS) database as an orphan site. Orphaned listings are sites for which EDR could not determine an exact location due to incomplete or inaccurate database information. The CERCLIS-NFRAP database pertain to sites where, following an initial investigation, no contamination was found, contamination was removed quickly without the need for the site to be placed on the National Priority List (NPL), or the contamination was not serious enough to require Federal Superfund action or NPL consideration. The SHWS database includes all sites that the State Superfund Program is, or has, dealt with. Inclusion on the MN LS simply indicates that the property is listed on other state databases, as noted, such as SHWS. fI-/5 r r Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Peer #15153 209 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 12 ~ According to the EDR report, tetrachloroethylene (TCE) was detected in a ground water collected at the location of a former service station (the location of the former station was not provided in the EDR report). The source of the TCE was unknown and it was noted that residential wells in the area may be threatened. ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Although there is no documentation or other evidence that the subject property was impacted by this release, the proximity of the identified release site to the subject property indicates there is a potential for residual impacts to the subject property. Based on the proposed redevelopment of the subject property, this potential represents a recognized environmental condition. · Farmington/Lakeville Oil Co., 600 2nd Street, located approximately 0.2 mile south- southwest of the subject property, identified on the registered underground storage tank (UST) database. One 1,000-gallon gasoline UST, one 1,000-gallon diesel UST, one 20,000-gallon fuel oil aboveground storage tank (AST) and four 15,000-gallon fuel oil ASTs are registered to this site. According to the EDR report, all of these tanks are listed as "removed" . The EDR report plots a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site in the vicinity of this site. The release is identified as Jerry Zimmer/CMC Heartland Partners at Walnut and 2nd Street. The release was reported in 1990 and was subsequently "closed" by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in 2000. The "closed" designation indicates that the MPCA has determined that the concerns associated with the release do not appear to represent a material threat to human health or the environment but does not necessarily indicate that no contamination exists. According to the EDR report, ground water was contaminated by this release and there is off-site contamination associated with the release. Based on previous work conducted by Peer less than 0.1 mile south of the subject property, low levels of petroleum-related products were detected in ground water. H-/~ r ~ Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Peer #15153 209 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 13 ~ r I I I I I Based on the quantity of product formerly stored at the FarmingtonlLakeville Oil Co. site and on the presence of low levels of petroleum product detected in ground water on a site located less than 0.1 mile south of the subject property during a previous investigation, there is a potential the reported release, or past unreported releases, at this site may have impacted soil and ground water at the subject property. Based on the proposed redevelopment of the subject property, this potential represents a recognized environmental condition as defined by the ASTM Standard. ~ II. rt J Orphan Listings The EDR report identified II additional database listings that are identified as "orphan". Orphan listings are listings for sites for which EDR could not determine an exact location due to incomplete or inaccurate database information. Based on a review of the listings, they include sites located beyond the appropriate search distances (as determined by the limited location information provided), sites previously identified as mapped sites, or sites that represent de minimis conditions. 5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE 5.1 METHODOLOGY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS On-site observations of the subject property were performed by Mr. Kelly Brown of Peer on October 27, 2005. Photographs were taken at the time of the site reconnaissance and are on file at Peer, Access was provided by Mr. Ken Lewis, City of Farmington Building Official, and Mr. John Powers, City of Farmington Fire Marshal. Access was available to all areas of the property building and grounds. No conditions were encountered at the time of the site visit that significantly limited the purpose of this assessment. Observations of adjoining properties were made from the subject property and public roadways. A general description of the subject and adjoining properties is included in Section 2.0. 5.2 SUBJECT PROPERTY 5.2.1 Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products No hazardous substances or petroleum products were observed at the subject property. /-J -/7 I r ~ 11 II I I I I I I I I ( I I I I I Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Peer # 15153 209 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 14 5.2.2 Aboveground or Underground Storage Tanks No aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) or evidence of underground storage tanks (USTs), such as fill and vent pipes or dispensing pumps, were observed at the subject property. Mr. Lewis and Mr. Powers had no knowledge of any storage tanks at the subject property. 5.2.3 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Manufacturers of various types of electrical or hydraulic-powered equipment historically used polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) as a dielectric fluid coolant and stabilizer. No potential PCB-containing equipment was observed outside of the subject property. Fluorescent light fixtures are present throughout the property building.. Ballasts in fluorescent light fixtures that were manufactured prior to 1979 can contain small amounts of PCBs. Since the property building was constructed prior to 1979, the ballasts may contain PCBs. Ballasts that contain PCBs should be properly disposed when removed from service. 5.2.4 Other Items or Activities of Potential Environmental Concern No evidence of ground water monitoring wells, dumping, domestic water wells, septic systems, pools of liquid, corrosion, pits, ponds, lagoons, stained soil, stressed vegetation or additional items or activities of potential environmental concern were observed at the subject property during Peer's site reconnaissance. 5.2.5 Asbestos-Containing Materials Peer conducted visual observations for suspect asbestos-containing materials (ACM) during the site reconnaissance. Materials observed in the property building that are typically considered suspect included ceiling tile, textured ceiling material, floor tile, and vinyl sheet flooring. No samples of suspect ACM were collected. The observations conducted during this assessment are not intended to represent an asbestos building survey as defined by the Minnesota Department of Health or other regulatory agencies. )-1- /~ II ,...'..... . ..1:' ( I [: [ Ii I I I I I I I I I I I I Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Peer #15153 209 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 15 5.3 ADJOINING PROPERTIES Observations of adjoining properties were limited to those made from the subject property and public thoroughfares. A description of the adjoining properties is included in Section 2.0. No hazardous substance or petroleum product storage or use is readily apparent on the adjoining properties. No apparent outdoor storage or manufacturing activities was observed on the grounds of the surrounding properties. No monitoring wells were observed on adjoining properties. No industrial wastewater pits, ponds, or lagoons, industrial wastewater discharges or wastewater treatment processes were observed at adjoining properties, 6.0 INTERVIEWSIINQUIRIES Interviews were conducted at the time of the site reconnaissance with Mr. Ken Lewis, Building Official, and Mr. John Powers, Fire Marshal. In addition to the information provided in Section 5.2, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Powers indicated that west half of the property building was constructed before the east half and that there has been an addition to the east half, They added that the building was originally used as a saloon and then was renovated into offices and that the upper floor was always used for residential use until approximately two years ago. Peer made specific inquiry during the interview regarding knowledge of existing or former storage tanks, leaks, spills, dumps, water wells, septic systems, or additional potential environmental concerns on the subject property. The interview identified no environmental concerns at the subject property. Mr. Powers stated that a small tank farm located to the south of Spruce Street at the southern end of the Feely and Sons grain elevators was decommissioned approximately one month ago, All of the storage tanks were removed. Soil impacts and evidence of leaking to the sewer system were encountered at that time. Mr. Lewis and Mr. Powers had no knowledge if the Farmington Groundwater Plume, as discussed in Section 4.3.3, has impacted the subject property. Mr. Lewis added that the property building is serviced by municipal water and sewer systems and the local gas and electric utility companies. He added that the property building is heated by natural gas-fired, forced air furnaces. H -/7' I I: [: [' I: I~ I Ii ( I I I I I I I I I I I Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Peer #15153 209 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 16 7.0 FINDINGS AND OPINION 7.1 RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDmONS This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property with the exception of the following: · The subject property is located within an area that has been developed for commercial use for over 100 years. It is not uncommon for historically developed commercial areas to have ground water impacts associated with their operational activities. Government database records indicate that petroleum and/or hazardous substance contamination has been identified or is suspected at sites located near and/or potentially up gradient of the subject property relative to the estimated direction of ground water flow (see Section 4.3). These off-site sources represent a: potential for impact to the subject property and therefore are recognized environmental conditions. 7.2 HISTORICAL RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDmONS The ASTM E 1527-00 Standard defines the term historical recognized environmental condition as meaning "an environmental condition which in the past would have been considered a recognized environmental condition, but which mayor may not be considered a recognized environmental condition currently". This assessment has revealed no evidence of historical recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property. 7.3 DE MINIMIS CONDITIONS The Government Records review identified several additional sites in the surrounding area. Based on factors affecting the significance of these sites relative to the subject property, these sites represent de minimis conditions. Conditions determined to be de minimis are not recognized environmental condition as defined by ASTM. /-I-~o I I I r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Peer # 15153 209 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 17 7.4 ADDffiONAL ISSUES Suspect asbestos-containing materials (ACM) were identified in the property buildings. No samples of suspect ACM were collected as part of this assessment. The observations and sampling activities conducted during this assessment are not intended to represent an asbestos building survey as defined by the Minnesota Department of Health or other regulatory agencies. 8.0 CONCLUSIONS We have performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527-00 of 209 Oak Street, Farmington, Minnesota (the subject property). Any exceptions to or deletions from this practice are described in Section 9.0 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property with the exception of the following: · Off-site recognized environmental conditions have been identified in connection with the property as described in Section 7.1, which indicate there is a potential for soil and ground water contamination at the subject property. Even though some of the releases have a "closed" or "no further action" status as issued by the MPCA, redevelopment of the property may disturb contaminated soil and/or ground water, effectively triggering a reassessment by the MPCA. Phase II investigation of soil and ground water would be necessary to evaluate the environmental conditions at the subject property. Additional Concerns This assessment has identified the presence of suspect asbestos-containing materials and possible presence of PCB-containing light ballasts. Since the property building is targeted for demolition, a hazardous materials inventory must be conducted prior to demolition to ensure compliance with current regulations pertaining to building demolition. )I'd! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Peer # 15153 209 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 18 9.0 DEVIATIONS Based on the historical information, the subject property was developed for retail use by 1885. Conclusive documentation of the first use of the subject property was not readily available. However, based on the early date of available historical information, review of additional historical sources was deemed not necessary or likely to be useful for purposes of this assessment. Supporting documentation for this assessment is included in the Appendices. Selected documentation referenced in this report was excluded from the Appendices as a cost saving measure. No additional deviations to the standard are noted. Limiting conditions are discussed in Section 5.1. The deviations and limiting conditions encountered during the course of this assessment were not considered as significantly affecting the purposes of this assessment. 10.0 REFERENCES GEOLOGICAL REFERENCES · Farmington, Minnesota, 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map, 1974 (photorevised 1993), United States Geological Survey. · Geologic Atlas Dakota County, Minnesota, County Atlas Series, Atlas C-6, 1990, United States Geological Survey. · Protected Waters and Wetlands Map, Dakota County, Minnesota, 1984, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. HISTORICAL REFERENCES Fire Insurance Maps - University of Minnesota Borchert Map Library, Minneapolis, MN · Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Sanborn Map Company, 1885 (Sheet 1), 1891 (Sheet 1), 1899 (Sheet 1), 1905 (Sheet 1), 1910 (Sheet 1), 1917 (Sheet 1), 1928 (Sheets 2 and 4), and 1936 (Sheets 2 and 4). #- de:? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Peer #15153 209 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 19 Aerial Photographs - Historical Information Gatherers, Inc., Hopkins, MN. · 1937,1940,1951,1957,1964,1970,1979, 1991, and 1997. Aerial Photograph - Dakota County Real Estate Inquiry Website YEAR 2002 City Directories - University of Minnesota Wilson Library, Minneapolis, MN. . Cole's St. Paul and Suburbs Cross Reference Directory, Cole's Information Services, 1995-96,2000, and 2005. Dakota County Records - http://www.co.dakota.mn.us REGULATORY · Federal and State Database Review - Environmental Data Resources, Inc. lNTERVIEWSIINQUIRIES · Mr. Ken Lewis, City of Farmington, 10/27/05. · Mr. John Powers, City of Farmington, 10/27/05. 11.0 GENERAL REMARKS 11.1 STANDARD OF CARE The services performed by Peer Engineering, Inc. have been conducted with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by reputable members of the profession, practicing in the same locality under similar budget and time constraints. No other warranty is made or intended. }I-~3 I I ( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Peer #15153 209 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 20 11.2 QUALIFICATIONS AND SIGNATURES A summary of corporate and individual qualifications for Peer and the individuals associated with this project is included in Appendix D. Prepared by: Reviewed by: ~rown Senior Environmental Professional ~J- ~ E. Stephan Manager of Real Estate Services - J-I-~ V 469.028 Municipal governing body. Subd. 5. Early acquisition. When an authority has determined the location of a proposed redevelopment project, but prior to the approval of the redevelopment plan and project as provided in subdivision 2, the authority may acquire individual tracts of real property with the approval of the governing body as to each separate tract. Before approving early acquisition, the governing body shall hold a public hearing on the proposed acquisition activities after published notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality at least once not less than ten days nor more than 30 days prior to the date of the hearing. The authority shall not proceed with the acquisition unless the governing body finds by resolution that (1) the proposed acquisition is necessary to carry out public improvements in the area, or that the acquisition will contribute to the elimination of blight or deterioration within the area or that the acquisition is necessary to relieve hardship; and (2) there is a feasible method for the relocation of families and individuals to be displaced by the proposed acquisition. The governing body may, in approving early acquisition, agree to assume the responsibility for any loss that may arise as a result of the acquisition of land and related activities, including any costs of demolition, removal, and relocation, in the event that the property so acquired is not used for urban renewal purposes because the urban renewal plan is not approved, or is amended to omit the acquired property or is abandoned for any reason. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to waive the requirement for public hearing upon the redevelopment plan for the redevelopment project. Gxl/-1~ T :r:. 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: November 7,2005 It is requested the November 7, 2005 agenda be amended as follows: PUBLIC HEARINGS Sa) Adopt Resolution - Approve Acquisition and Redevelopment of Riste Building- Community Development Attached is additional information for this item. Respectfully submitted, Jt?-dJ Acting City Administrator ~Q... Peer Engineering, Inc. 4801 West 81st Street, Suite 118 Bloomington, Minnesota 55437 952 831-3341 Fax 952 831-4552 Peer Engineering Integrated EnvIronmental Solutions Mr. Kevin Carroll Community Development Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 55024 November 7, 2005 RE: Limited Asbestos Sampling Riste Building 209 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota Peer File #15153 Dear Mr. Carroll: Peer Engineering, Inc. (peer) was authorized to conduct limited sampling of suspect asbestos. containing materials (ACM) at the above referenced property. The purpose of the limited sampling was to determine if ACM was widely used on the property. The assessment was not intended to be a comprehensive asbestos survey as defined by the Minnesota Department of Health and other regulatory agencies. The results of the limited sampling are provided in this letter report. General Information Mr. Kelly Brown, a Minnesota Department of Health Certified Asbestos Inspector, of Peer conducted the limited sampling activities on November 3, 2005. The property is occupied by a vacant, two-story building with two partial basements. The building is proposed to be demolished. The activities performed included observations and sampling of readily visible suspect ACM. Destructive sampling techniques were not performed. Suspect ACM that was observed included textured ceiling material. textured paint, drywall, pipe wrap, plaster, brick and mortar, wall insulation, paper ceiling material, window caulk, and various types of ceiling tile, floor tile, Yinyl sheet flooring, and roofing materials. The following materials were determined to be non-suspect ACM and were not targeted for sampling: pipes insulated with fiberglass or foam, concrete, concrete block and fiberglass ceiling panels. Mr. Kevin Carroll Page 2 November 7,2005 Sample Analysis Bulk samples of the suspect ACM were collected for laboratory analysis. The bulk samples were analyzed by EMSL Analytical using polarized light microscopy (PLM) in accordance with EP A analytical protocol {EPA-600 R93/116}. A copy of the laboratory report and the chain-of- custody form for the samples is attached. The EP A defines ACM as any material that contains greater than one percent asbestos. Materials found to contain one percent or less asbestos are not regulated as ACM. Friable ACM is defined as any material that contains greater than one percent asbestos, and which can be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. Category I non-friable ACM means asbestos-containing packings, gaskets, resilient floor covering, and asphalt roofing products containing more than one percent asbestos. Category I non-friable ACM is not allowed to remain in place during renovation or demolition if it is in a condition where the renovation or demolition activities might cause it to become friable. Under current Federal regulations, if the PLM results detect asbestos at a concentration of less than 10% in one or more of the samples from any sample unit, the owner or operator of the building may (1) elect to assume the amount to be greater than I % and treat the material as ACM or (2) require verification of the amount by utilizing the Point-Count Method. If the Point-Count Method analysis determines that the concentration of asbestos is greater than one percent, the material will be determined to be regulated ACM. If the Point-Count Method analysis determines that the concentration of asbestos is one percent or less, the material will be determined to be unregulated and non-asbestos containing. Analytical Results Based on the analytical results, the following sampled building materials were determined to be friable ACM: · Vinyl sheet flooring (lower layer) in the 2nd floor bathroom on the west side of the building ~ and on the north side of the floor (sample 11). It is estimated that there is 30 square feet of the vinyl sheet flooring. Abatement of vinyl flooring material typically costs between $2. 00 ~ 0 and $4.00 per square foot. !1(~lf ----- 17..0 Based on the analytical results, the following sampled building materials were determined to be Category I non-friable ACM: · Wall plaster on the 15t floor on the west side of the building (sample 5). Asbestos was detected at a concentration of less than one percent in the plaster. Based on the limitations of the sampling and analysis, the plaster should be assumed to be ACM until further testing and .~, /. 0 1- ;; CO analysis is completed. It is estimated that there is 500 square feet of plaster. Abatement of ~ ~ " plaster walls typically costs approximately $5.00 per square foot. Mr. Kevin Carroll November 7,2005 Page 3 i-.tf// . Exterior window caulk (larger windows) on the north and south side of the building (SamPle?' 13 and 14). There are three windows. Abatement of these types of windows typically costs 1 r;() approximately $300.00 per window. ,II~H- ~ 9()c . Vinyl flooring on the 1 st floor on the west side of the building and on the south side of the floor (sample 18). It is estimated that there is 420 square feet of the vinyl flooring., i Abatement of vinyl flooring material typically costs between $2.00 and $4.00 per square ~t.f 0 foot. Ib<6C> . Tan flooring material associated with ceramic floor tile on the 1 st floor on the west side of the building and the south side of the floor (sample 19). It is estimated that there is 50 square feet of ceramic floor tile. Abatement of ceramic floor tile typically costs between $5.00 and Z~ 0 $7.00 per square foot. g~O . Red vinyl flooring on the 1 st floor on the east side of the building and on the south side of the floor (sample 22). It is estimated that there is 600 square feet of the vinyl flooring. 1'1,~O Abatement of vinyl flooring material typically costs between $2.00 and $4.00 per square foot. 'j..~ ~O · 12" x 12" off-white floor tile on the 1 st floor on the east side of the building and on the north ~&f ~(p side of the floor (sample 24). It is estimated that there is 864 square feet of the floor tile. " 'V ~ Abatement of vinyl flooring material typically costs between $2.00 and $4.00 per square foot. . 9" x 9" red and white floor tile on the 2nd floor on the west side of the building and on the south side of the floor (sample 25). It is estimated that there is 180 square feet of the floor '2(.?O f 1,.0' tile. Abatement of vinyl flooring material typically costs between $2.00 and $4.00 per ~ square foot. · 9" x 9" red floor tile on the 2nd floor on the west side of the building and on the north side of (JOQ the floor (sample 28) located beneath a 12" x 12" gray mosaic floor tile (sample 29). It is Jf rO -, estimated that there is 225 square feet of the floor tile. Abatement of vinyl flooring material typically costs between $2.00 and $4.00 per square foot. C. Old roof deck located on the 2nd floor on the east side of the building and on the north side of the floor (sample 30). It is estimated that there is 500 square feet of roofing material. Abatement of roofing material typically costs between $1.00 and $2.00 per square foot. ~.5~~o'" ?40tS- ~ '="/L 5c;~(t.c.c- (;.p- ~S~ P,btta.e...s~ 3~<Oo ~;.4o · Tar on the exterior roof flashing (sample 33). It is estimated that there is 230 linear feet of J I 6 II sO tar. Abatement of roof tar typically costs approximately $5.00 per linear foot. ~ _____ / 7 Lf 7 g- ;tf'l~q" Mr. Kevin Carroll Page 4 November 7,2005 Based on the analytical results, the following materials were determined to be non-ACM and, therefore, are not regulated: · Textured paint (sample set I) located on the 1st floor on the west side of the building in the bathrooms. · Textured ceiling and wall material (sample set 2) located on the 2nd floor on the west side of the building and on the north side of the floor. · Pipe wrap (sample 3) located in the basement on the east side of the building. · Insulation (sample 4) located in a pipe chase on the I st floor on the east side of the building and on the south side of the floor. · Fibrous wall insulation (sample 6) behind plaster wall on the 1st floor on the west side of the building and on the south side of the floor. . Drywall (sample 7) on the 1st floor of the west side of the building and in the bathrooms. · 2' x 4' ceiling tile (sample 8) on the 2nd floor on the west side of the building and in the south bathroom. · 2' x 4' textured ceiling tile (sample 9) on the 2nd floor on the east side of the building and in the south apartment. · Gray vinyl sheet flooring (sample 10) on the 2nd floor on the west side of the building and in the north bathroom. · Tan mastic (sample II) associated with the vinyl sheet flooring (lower layer) in the 2nd floor bathroom on the west side of the building and in the north bathroom. · White vinyl sheet flooring (sample 12) on the 2nd floor on the west side of the building and in the south bathroom. . Exterior brick and mortar (sample 15). . Tarpaper behind exterior brick (sample 16). · Paper ceiling material (sample 17) on the 2nd floor on the west side of the building and on the south side of the floor. Mr. Kevin Carroll Page 5 November 7, 2005 · Mastic and tar felt (sample 18) associated with vinyl flooring on the 1st floor on the west side of the building and on the south side ofthe floor. · Ceramic tile and tan layer (sample 19) on the 1st floor on the west side of the building and the south side of the floor. · 12" x 12" off-white floor tile and associated tan mastic (sample 20) on the 1st floor on the west side of the building and in the bathrooms. · 12' x 12" gray floor tile and associated tan and black mastics (sample 21) on the 1st floor on the west side of the building and on the north side ofthe floor. · Black mastic (sample 22) associated with red vinyl flooring on the 1 st floor on the east side of the building and on the south side of the floor. · Black floor tile and associated tan mastic (sample 23) located on the 1 st floor on the east side of the building and on the south side of the floor. · Tan mastic (sample 24) associated with 12" x 12" off-white floor tile on the 1 st floor on the east side of the building and on the north side ofthe floor. · Tan mastic and tar felt (sample 25) associated with 9" x 9" red and white floor tile on the 2nd floor on the west side of the building and on the south side of the floor. · 12" x 12" wood pattern floor tile and associated tan mastic (sample 26) on the 2nd floor on the west side of the building and on the south side of the floor. · 12" x 12" tan floor tile and associated yellow mastic (sample 27) on the 2nd floor on the west side of the building and on the south side of the floor. · Brown mastic and felt (sample 28) associated with 9" x 9" red floor tile on the 2nd floor on the west side of the building and on the north side of the floor. · Black and yellow mastics (sample 29) associated with 12" x 12" gray mosaic floor tile on the 2nd floor on the west side of the building and on the north side of the floor. · Roof decking material (sample 31). · Roof flashing material (sample 32). Mr. Kevin Carroll Page 6 November 7, 2005 Limitations Sampling activities were limited to readily visible suspect ACM. Access to the roof of the building was limited due to safety concerns. Destructive sampling was not conducted as part of the limited sampling activities. Destructive surveying for ACM must be conducted prior to conducting any future demolition activities. Destructive surveying and testing is specifically required to ensure compliance with current state and federal regulations for demolition projects. Any additional asbestos survey work must be completed by a licensed asbestos inspector. Based on the limitations, there is a potential that previous renovations covered old floors, roofs, walls, pipe chases, or duct work that may not be encountered until after demolition activities have been initiated. Therefore, there is a potential for unidentified interstitial spaces that might contain ACM. Any unidentified materials that may be encountered during any future demolition should be assumed to contain asbestos until they are sampled and analyzed. Conclusions and Recommendations The following conclusions and recommendations are provided based on the results of the limited asbestos testing: )I . Based on the limitations of the testing and the safe access of the roof, it is likely that there are additional unidentified buried roofing materials. Therefore, the entire of the roof of the building should be assumed to be asbestos-containing at this time. It is estimated that there is 3,060 square feet of roof decking material. Abatement of roof decking material typically costs between $1.00 and $2.00 per square foot. . Appropriate removal and disposition of all regulated friable and potentially friable ACM by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor prior to initiation of any future demolition activities. . If left in place, Category I non-friable ACM must be segregated and disposed of as asbestos- containing waste. . Completion of destructive surveying and testing prior to initiating any future renovation activities. Destructive surveying and testing is specifically required to ensure compliance with current state and federal regulations for renovation projects. Any additional asbestos survey work must be completed by a licensed asbestos building inspector. Mr. Kevin Carroll Page 7 November 7, 2005 Closing We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us at your convenience. Sincerely, peerEngin~ ~~wn Senior Environmental Professional MDH Asbestos Inspector Lic.# AI3036 GJ ~es E. Stephan Manager of Real Estate Services Attachments A. RISTE BUILDING - SUMMARY OF CDBG FUNDING Unused CDBG funds from prior years - reallocated to Riste Building $ 70,792.06 Plus: CDBG funds allocated to Riste Building for fiscal year 2005 32.750.00 Subtotal $103,542.06 Less: proposed purchase price of Riste Building (93.200.00) Subtotal $ 10,342.00 Plus: CDBG funds potentially available in fiscal year 2006 for "slum and blight" projects, including hazardous material removal and demolition; calculated as follows: FY2005 CDBG amount of $65,000 X .95 = $61,750 X .50 = 30.875.00 Total (amount potentially available for hazmat & demo in 2006): $ 41,217.00 Hazmat abatement (low estimate): Hazmat abatement (high estimate): $12,498.00 $20,296.00 B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. City Council authorizes execution of Purchase Agreement. 2. HRA executes Purchase Agreement; closing date set. 3. Seller and HRA participate in closing; HRA acquires property. 4. HRA and City Council approve allocation of 50% of FY2006 CDBG funds to removal of hazardous materials ["hazmat"] from Riste Building. 5. HRA solicits competitive bids for removal of hazardous materials. 6. HRA awards contract for removal of hazardous materials to low bidder. 7. Contractor removes hazardous materials from interior of building only, at a cost not to exceed $10,342 (maximum $ available during FY2005, which ends on 6/30/06). 8. HRA identifies preferred Developer of site. 9. City Council approves proposed redevelopment plan. 10. HRA and Developer execute Contract for Private Development. 11. After 7/1106 (beginning of FY2006), contractor removes any remaining interior hazardous materials, plus exterior hazmat (roofing materials, window caulk, etc.) 12. Developer selected by HRA and City demolishes building (Developer pays all or most of demolition expense) and initiates new construction. 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 FR()M: JoelJamnik City Attorney SUBJECT: Supplemental Agenda DATE: November 4, 2005 It is requested the November 7, 2005 agenda be amended as follows: UNFINISHED BUSINESS Add lla) Approve Settlement - Farmington Department Directors' Association Attached is the Labor Agreement between the City of Farmington and the Farmington Department Directors' Association. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ JoelJamnik City Attorney lie<- 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: JoelJamnik City Attorney SUBJECT: Approve Settlement - Farmington Department Directors' Association DATE: November 7, 2005 INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION Attached for Council consideration is the negotiated Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Farmington Department Directors' Association. ACTION REOUESTED Approve the settlement with the Farmington Department Directors' Association. Respectfully submitted, f2~/..(d2~~~ (7'v /H _. _~;:; JoelJamnik City Attorney NOV-01-2005 12:18 FARMINGTON POLICE P.02/02 Frank Madden Madden and Associates 505 NorthHwy 169 Suite 295 Plymouth, MN 55441 November I, 2005 I . Mr. Madden, . On Tuesday, November 1, 2005 the Fannington Department Directors Association met to discuss the final draft ofthe 2005-2006 contract proposal. A votet was held with all members present and the contract was ratified unanimously. We request that you forward the document to the City Council for their approval at this time. We look forward to signing the fmal agreement. Daniel M. Siebenaler FDDA Received Time Nov. 1. 12:26PM TOTAL P.02 MASTER LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF FARMINGTON AND FARMINGTON DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS' ASSOCIATION ARTICLE I - PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into between the CITY OF FARMINGTON, hereinafter called the EMPLOYER, and the Farmington Department Directors' Association, hereinafter called the ASSOCIATION. It is the intent and purpose ofthis AGREEMENT to: 1.1 Establish procedures for the resolution of disputes concerning this AGREEMENT'S interpretation and/or application; 1.2 Place in written form the parties' agreement upon the terms and conditions of employment contained herein for the duration of AGREEMENT; and 1.3 Promote harmonious relations between the EMPLOYER and the ASSOCIATION. ARTICLE II - RECOGNITION 2.1 The Employer recognizes the ASSOCIATION as the exclusive representative for: All Department Directors of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, who are public employees within the meaning of Minn. Stat. S 179A.03, Subd. 14, excluding employees already in other appropriate unit, confidential non-supervisory employees and the City Administrator. 2.2 In the event the EMPLOYER and the ASSOCIATION are unable to agree as to the inclusion or exclusion of a new or modified job class, the issue shall be submitted to the Bureau of Mediation Services for determination. 2.3 The EMPLOYER shall not enter into any agreements covering terms and conditions of employment with employees of the bargaining unit under the jurisdiction of this AGREEMENT, whether individually or collectively, which in any way conflicts with terms and conditions of the AGREEMENT, except through the certified representative. ARTICLE III - EMPLOYER AUTHORITY 3.1 The EMPLOYER retains the full and unrestricted right to operate and manage all staff, facilities, and equipment; to establish functions and programs; to determine whether services are to be provided or purchased; to set and amend budgets; to determine the utilization of technology; to establish and modify the organizational structure; to select, 1 direct, and determine the number of personnel; to establish work schedules, and to perform any inherent managerial function not specifically limited by this AGREEMENT. 3.2 Any term and condition of employment not specifically established or modified by this AGREEMENT shall remain solely within the discretion of the EMPLOYER to modify, establish, or eliminate. ARTICLE IV -ASSOCIATION SECURITY 4.1 In recognition of the ASSOCIATION as the exclusive representative, the EMPLOYER shall: 4.11 Deduct each payroll period an amount sufficient to provide the payment of dues established by the ASSOCIATION from the wages of all employees authorizing in writing such deduction, and 4.12 Remit such deduction to the ASSOCIATION. 4.2 The ASSOCIATION may designate an employee and an alternate from the bargaining unit to act as stewards and shall inform the EMPLOYER in writing of such choice. 4.3 The ASSOCIATION agrees to indemnify and hold the EMPLOYER harmless against any and all claims, suits, orders, or judgments brought or issued against the City as a result of any action taken or not taken by the City under the provisions of this ARTICLE. 4.4 When requested to do so by the ASSOCIATION, the EMPLOYER agrees to deduct from the wages of those employees who are not members of the ASSOCIATION a fair share fee that shall not exceed eighty-five percent (85%) of the regular monthly dues and shall forward such monies to the ASSOCIATION. This provision shall remain operative only as long as it is specifically provided by the law and is otherwise legal. 4.5 The EMPLOYER will provide the ASSOCIATION with the names of new hires within the bargaining unit. 4.6 The EMPLOYER shall make space available on the employee bulletin board for posting ASSOCIATION notice(s) and announcement(s). ARTICLE V - EMPLOYEE RIGHTS - GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 5.1 DEFINITION OF A GRIEVANCE A grievance is defined as a dispute or disagreement as to the interpretation or application ofthe specific terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT. 5.2 ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATIVE The EMPLOYER will recognize a representative designated by the ASSOCIATION as the grievance representative of the bargaining unit having the duties and responsibilities 2 established by this Article. The ASSOCIATION shall notify the EMPLOYER in writing of the name of such ASSOCIATION representative and any successor when so designated. 5.3 PROCESSING OF A GRIEVANCE It is recognized and accepted by the ASSOCIATION and the EMPLOYER that the processing of grievances as hereinafter provided is limited by the job duties and responsibilities of the employees and shall therefore be accomplished during normal working hours only when consistent with such employee duties and responsibilities. The aggrieved employee and an ASSOCIATION representative shall be allowed a reasonable amount of time without loss in pay when a grievance is investigated and presented to the EMPLOYER during normal working hours provided that the Employee and the ASSOCIATION representative have notified and received the prior approval of the designated supervisor who has determined that such absence is reasonable and would not be detrimental to the work programs of the EMPLOYER. 5.4 PROCEDURE Grievances, as defined by Section 5.1, shall be resolved III conformance with the following procedure: Step 1. Step 2. Step 3. An Employee claiming a violation concerning the interpretation or application of this AGREEMENT shall, within twenty-one (21) calendar days after such alleged violation has occurred, present such grievance to the City Administrator in writing setting forth the nature of the grievance, the facts on which it is based, the provision or provisions of the AGREEMENT allegedly violated and the remedy requested. The City Administrator, the Employee and the ASSOCIATION representative shall meet to discus the grievance and the City Administrator shall provide a written answer to such Step 1 grievance within ten (10) calendar days after the Step 1 grievance meeting. A grievance not resolved in Step 1 shall be appealed in writing to Step 2 within ten (10) calendar days after the City Administrator's written answer in Step 1. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 2 by the ASSOCIATION within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. A grievance unresolved in Step 1 may be submitted by the ASSOCIATION to the Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services for mediation or to arbitration within ten (10) calendar days following the City Administrator's Step 1 written answer. If the grievance is submitted to mediation and is not resolved at mediation, it may be appealed in writing to arbitration within ten (10) calendar days following mediation. A grievance unresolved in Step 2 and appealed to Step 3 by the ASSOCIATION may be submitted to arbitration. If the parties are unable 3 to agree on the selection of an arbitrator, the ASSOCIATION shall request a list of arbitrators to be submitted to the parties by the Bureau of Mediation Services. 5.5 ARBITRATOR'S AUTHORITY A. The arbitrator shall have no right to amend, modify, nullify, ignore, add to, or subtract from the terms and conditions of the AGREEMENT. The arbitrator shall consider and decide only the specific issue(s) submitted in writing by the EMPLOYER and the ASSOCIATION, and shall have no authority to make a decision on any other issue not so submitted. B. The arbitrator shall be without power to make decisions contrary to, or inconsistent with, or modifying or varying in any way the application of laws, rules, or regulations having the force and effect of law. The arbitrator's decision shall be submitted in writing within thirty (30) days following close ofthe hearing or the submission of briefs by the parties, whichever be later, unless the parties agree to an extension. The decision shall be binding on both the EMPLOYER and the ASSOCIATION and shall be based solely on the arbitrator's interpretation or application of the express terms of this AGREEMENT and to the facts of the grievance presented. C. The fees and expenses for the arbitrator's services and proceedings shall be borne equally by the EMPLOYER and the ASSOCIATION provided that each party shall be responsible for compensating its own representatives and witnesses. If either party desires a verbatim record of the proceedings, it may cause such a record to be made, providing it pays for the records. If both parties desire a verbatim record of the proceedings, the cost shall be shared equally. 5.6 WAIVER If a grievance is not presented within the time limits set forth above, it shall be considered "waived." If a grievance is not appealed to the next step within the specified time limit or any agreed extension thereof, it shall be considered settled on the basis of the EMPLOYER'S last answer. If the EMPLOYER does not answer a grievance or an appeal thereof within the specified time limits, the ASSOCIATION may elect to treat the grievance as denied at that step and immediately appeal the grievance to the next step. The time limit in each step may be extended by mutual written agreement of the EMPLOYER and the ASSOCIATION in each step. ARTICLE VI - DISCIPLINE 6.1 The EMPLOYER will discipline employees for just cause only. Discipline will be in one or more of the following forms: a. oral reprimand; b. written reprimand; c. special written reprimand or suspension; 4 d. demotion; or e. discharge. 6.2 A special written reprimand may be used at management discretion in lieu of a suspension and will carry the same weight of short-term suspensions (not to exceed 10 working days). Each special reprimand will specify the weight of the equivalent suspenSIOn. 6.3 Notice of suspensions, demotions, and discharges will be in written form and will state the reasons for the action taken. The Association shall be provided with a copy of such notice upon approval of the employee. 6.4 Written reprimands, notices of suspension, and notice of discharge which are to become part of an employee's personnel file shall be read and acknowledged by signature of the employee. The employee will receive a copy of such reprimands and/or notices. 6.5 Employees will not be questioned concerning the investigation of disciplinary action unless the employee has been given an opportunity to have an Association representative present at such questioning. ARTICLE VII - PROBATIONARY PERIOD 7.1 The probationary period for a newly hired or promoted full-time employee shall extend six (6) months from the date of hire or promotion. 7.2 A probationary full-time employee accrues vacation and sick leave beginning the date of hire. Earned sick leave may be used by a probationary full-time employee in accordance with ARTICLE VI. Earned vacation may not be used until completion of the probationary period. 7.3 During the probationary period, a newly hired or rehired employee may be discharged at the sole discretion of the EMPLOYER. During the probationary period, a promoted or reassigned employee may be replaced in the position previously held at the discretion of the EMPLOYER. ARTICLE VIII - SICK LEAVE 8.1 Eligible full-time employees will accrue sick leave benefits at the rate of eight (8) hours per month to a maximum of one thousand and forty hours (1,040). Eligible part-time employees shall receive pro-rated sick leave based on actual hours worked. 8.2 Employees who are hired before the fifteenth of the month shall accrue sick leave for that month. Employees hired after the fifteenth of the month shall not accrue sick leave until the following month. 8.3 Eligible employees may use sick leave benefits for an absence due to their own illness; exposure to contagious disease or legal quarantine; medical and dental examinations; or an illness or medical or dental appointment of an immediate family member who resides 5 in the employee's household or meets the definition of immediate family. "Immediate Family" shall include the employee's parents, siblings, spouse, children, grandparents or grandchildren ofthe employee or the employee's spouse. 8.4 Sick leave shall only accrue when an employee is on compensated regular hours or is on approved military leave in accordance with federal and state law. 8.5 Sick leave usage shall be subject to approval and verification by the City Administrator. ARTICLE IX- VACATION 9.1 Eligible full-time employees shall earn paid vacation in accordance with the following schedule based on years of continuous service: Years of Eligible Service 1 through 4 years 5 through 10 years After 11 years After 12 years After 13 years After 14 years 15 through 25 years After 25 years Accrual Per Pay Period 3.07 4.62 4.92 5.23 5.54 5.84 6.15 7.69 Annual Accruals 10 days 15 days 16 days 17 days 18 days 19 days 20 days 25 days 9.2 Employees may take vacation only with the prior approval of the City Administrator or designee. Scheduled vacations are subject to postponement in the case of emergency. 9.3 New hires on probationary status shall earn but shall not use vacation until the employee has successfully completed the probationary period. 9.4 Employees who are on unpaid leave of absence, excluding Military Leave, or who have been suspended without pay shall not earn vacation during that period. Additionally, the accrual dates will be adjusted accordingly. 9.5 Employees using earned vacation leave will be considered to be working for the purpose of accumulating vacation or sick leave. Additionally, no employee will be permitted to waive vacation leave for the purpose of receiving double pay. 9.6 In the event that available vacation is not used by the end of the benefit year, employees may carryover up to the maximum amount established in the following table. Any hours above this maximum will revert back to the City, unless approved in writing by the City Administrator. Vacation time accruals begin again in the next benefit year. Vacation Accrual Maximums 1 through 10 years 20 days 10 through 20 years 30 days 20 plus years 40 days 6 9.7 Employees who have completed the probationary period shall be compensated for vacation earned and not used at the time of resignation. Accrued, unused vacation shall be calculated to the nearest day worked and shall be paid at the employee's base pay rate which was in effect at the time of resignation. 9.8 When a holiday occurs while an employee is using approved vacation leave, the employee will receive holiday pay in lieu of vacation for the day on which the holiday is observed. 9.9 Employees having accrued vacation will be allowed to donate a portion of such accrued leave in accordance with the Donation Policy. ARTICLE X - HOLIDAYS 10.1 The EMPLOYER recognizes twelve days as paid holidays for regular full-time employees as follows: Holiday New Year's Day Martin Luther King Day President's Day Memorial Day Independence Day Labor Day Veteran's Day Thanksgiving Day Day after Thanksgiving Christmas Eve Day Christmas Day Floating Holiday Date January 1 st January - 3rd Monday February - 3rd Monday May - last Monday July 4th September - 1 st Monday November 11th November - 4th Thursday November - 4th Friday December 24th December 25th Employee's choice 10.2 In order to be eligible for paid holidays, employees must be on compensated payroll status the last scheduled work day preceding the holiday and the first scheduled work day following the holiday. 10.3 When a holiday falls on a Saturday, the previous Friday is designated as the holiday; when on a Sunday, the following Monday is designated as the holiday. 10.4 To be eligible for the floating holiday an employee must have worked for a minimum of six (6) continuous months in a calendar year. 10.5 Floating holidays will be scheduled with prior approval of the City Administrator and must be taken before the last payroll in December begins. 7 ARTICLE XI - SEVERANCE 11.1 Regular, full-time employees who retire or terminate their employment in good standing with a minimum of fourteen (14) calendar days advance written notice shall receive severance pay calculated at the employee's current rate of pay in accordance with the following schedule: 11.1.1 Upon completion of five (5) years of continuous service, twenty-five percent (25%) of the accrued sick leave in the employee's general sick leave account up to 1,040 hours. 11.1.2 Upon completion of ten (10) years of continuous service, fifty percent (50%) of the accrued sick leave in the employee's general sick leave account up to 1,040 hours. 11.2 An employee who is discharged or who resigns without giving advance notice of fourteen (14) calendar days shall not be eligible for severance pay. 11.3 In the event that the employee is deceased, the severance pay benefit shall be paid to the employee's beneficiary. ARTICLE XII - INSURANCE 12.1 Effective January 1,2005, the EMPLOYER will pay six hundred ninety dollars ($690) of the cost of insurance coverage for regular, full-time employees for the EMPLOYER'S group health, basic life, supplemental and dependent life, long-term and short-term disability, accident and dental insurance. ARTICLE XIII - PARENT AL LEAVE 13.1 The EMPLOYER shall grant unpaid parental leave m accordance with applicable Minnesota statutes and federal laws. 13.2 An employee who is temporarily disabled due to pregnancy or childbirth may use earned sick leave in accordance with ARTICLE VI - SICK LEAVE in addition to any applicable Minnesota statues and federal laws. ARTICLE XIV - JURY DUTY 14.1 An employee who is required to serve as a juror or who is under subpoena as a witness in court for the EMPLOYER will be paid the difference between the employee's regular take-home pay and fees received as a juror or witness less any expenses allowed by law while serving in such capacity. An employee is required to notify the City Administrator prior to serving as a juror or as a witness. 14.2 An employee excused from jury duty prior to the end of the employee's duty day shall return to work. 8 ARTICLE XV - LEAVE FOR DEATH IN THE FAMILY 15.1 The EMPLOYER will approve leave with pay in cases of death in the immediate family. For regular, full-time employees such leave shall be limited to a maximum of twenty-four (24) work hours within a calendar year. 15.2 The term "immediate family" as referred to in this Article shall include the employee's parents, siblings, spouse, children, grandchildren and grandparents of the employee or the employee's spouse. 15.3 The employee is required to provide advance notice ofleave for death in the immediate family as soon as possible and must keep the City Administrator informed of the approximate date of the employee's return to work. ARTICLE XVI - MILITARY LEAVE OF ABSENCE 16.1 Military leaves of absence will be administered in accordance with applicable laws. ARTICLE XVII - WAGES 17.1 Effective January 1, 2005, all wage rates shall increase by two percent (2.0%) to be applied to salary grades covered by this AGREEMENT and effective July 1, 2005, all wage rates shall increase by an additional adjustment of one percent (1.0%). Effective January 1,2006, all wage rates shall increase by two and three quarter percent (2.75%). 17.2 Progression through the step schedule on the employee's anniversary date shall require performance evaluation of at least meets expectation as determined by the EMPLOYER in order to progress up to the mid-point of the salary schedule. Thereafter, progression on the salary schedule will be subject to the above noted meets expectation performance requirement plus demonstration that the employee has successfully completed the achievable performance goals previously agreed upon by the EMPLOYER and the employee. 17.3 The wage schedule, found in Appendix A of this AGREEMENT, shall not constrain the EMPLOYER from hiring an employee at any step in the schedule. ARTICLE XVIII - PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 18.1 The EMPLOYER shall pay the travel and subsistence expenses of an employee for professional and official travel, meetings and occasions adequate to continue the professional development of the employee and to adequately pursue necessary official and other committees thereof which the employee served as a member. Employees shall seek prior City Council approval for any professional development activity that necessitates out-of-state travel or registration and/or expenses in excess of $300.00. The employee shall use good judgment in outside activities. 9 ARTICLE XIX - SAVINGS CLAUSE This AGREEMENT is subject to the laws of the United States, the State of Minnesota and the City of Farmington. In the event any provision of this AGREEMENT shall be held to be contrary to law by a court of competent jurisdiction from whose final judgment or decree no appeal has been taken within the time provided, such provisions shall be voided. All other provisions of this AGREEMENT shall continue in full force and effect. The voided provision may be re-negotiated at the written request of either party. ARTICLE XX - WAIVER 20.1 Any and all prior agreements, resolutions, practices, policies, rules and regulations regarding terms and conditions of employment, to the extent inconsistent with the provisions of this AGREEMENT, are hereby superseded. 20.2 The parties mutually acknowledge that during the negotiations which resulted in this AGREEMENT, each had the unlimited right and opportunity to make demands and proposals with respect to any term or condition of employment not removed by law from bargaining. All agreements and understandings arrived at by the parties are set forth in writing in this AGREEMENT for the stipulated duration of this AGREEMENT. The EMPLOYER and the ASSOCIATION each voluntarily and unqualifiedly waives the right to meet and negotiate regarding any and all terms and conditions of employment referred to or covered in this AGREEMENT or with respect to any term or condition of employment not specifically referred to or covered in this AGREEMENT, even though such terms or conditions may not have been within the knowledge or contemplation of either or both of the parties at the time this contract was negotiated or executed. ARTICLE XXI - DURATION This AGREEMENT shall be effective as of January 1, 2005 and shall remain in full force and effect until December 31, 2006. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT on this day of ,2005. For the EMPLOYER For the ASSOCIATION 10 =" e Q.,:= ~ e 00 .~ ~ ~ QC Q., ~ ..... 00 l"- Q., ~ ..... 00 \C Q., ~ ..... 00 lI'l..... Q., .S: ~ = ..... 00"0 ~ ...,. Q., ~ ..... 00 -< .~ "0 == ~ Q., Q., -< ~ Q., ~ ..... 00 N Q., ~ ..... 00 ...-4 e Q.,:= ~ e 00 .... == ~ ~ .S: =..... ~~ == = .... ..... ~ = ~ lrl lrl lrl lrl lrl 00 t-- \0 \O\O\O\O-.::t 00 lrl lrl lrl lrl lrl t-- 0'\ f'.... ~ r---: ~... t"f"\ ......-4... '\Or. 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0 0 {A{A{A{A{A-- {A {A lrl lrl lrl lrl lrl \0 0 t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- 0'\ M t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- 00 M~ M~ M~ M~ M~ t--~ (".f 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0 {A{A{A{A{A{A- {A -.::t -.::t -.::t -.::t -.::t C"l -.::t 00 00 00 00 00 -.::t t-- 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 00 \0 O'\~ 0\ 0\ O'\~ O'\~ M~ OO~ 00 00 00 00 00 0'\ 0'\ {A {A {A {A {A {A {A -.::t-.::t-.::t-.::t-.::t0t-- 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ - -----OOlrl ..0- ..0- ..0- \O~ \O~ 0\ .,f' 00 00 00 00 00 00 0'\ {A {A {A {A {A {A {A MMMMM\O- OOOOOM\O -.::t -.::t -.::t -.::t -.::t 0'\ M C"l~ C"l~ C"l~ C"l~ C"l~ lrl~ O~ 00 00 00 00 00 00 0'\ {A {A {A {A {A {A {A C"l C"l C"l C"l C"l -.::t -.::t -----000 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 0'\ C"l COr. 00'" 00.... 00 00'" ,......jf"\ \Or. t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- 00 00 {A {A {A {A {A {A {A C"l C"l C"l C"l C"l 0 00 C"l C"l C"l C"l C"l M -.::t 000000000000 -.::t~ -.::t~ -.::t~ -.::t~ -.::t~ OO~ C"l~ t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- 00 {A {A {A {A {A {A {A C"l C"l C"l C"l C"l 00 0 MMMMMt--O'\ 00000000 ,.....-4... ,.,.....-I.... ......-4" ............. ,_.:" "'::::tr. ["-." t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- {A {A {A {A {A {A {A ------.::t-.::t -.::t-.::t-.::t-.::t-.::tC"lM C"l C"l C"l C"l C"l - t-- t--~ t--~ t--~ t--~ t--~ 0 ~ M \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 t-- t-- {A {A {A {A {A {A {A C"l C"l C"l C"l C"l M -.::t \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 0000000 ~ C => N I-< I-< .8 o 0 t) ~ ~ a 1-<.8 a ~ .8 ~ 00 II) 0 I-< 88 ~a 'E 0.. a l::: 11)..9 000 II) ....... CZl>t;8ca II) II) .... I-< II) >Oo;:ll-< 00 ....... \U 0 0 4-< ~ ca .c.::::; 00 B II) I-< ;:J '2 0 ~ ~ :E g '8 ;:l 8 0 ~ ~ ~ 's ~ ~ ~ ~ .3 ~ "'00;3;"'-""'- -"'" uo.........,... C\l 0 ;:l ......... ~.......~~~ lI'l => => N t' ~ := == ~ I-< II) II) o ....... OJ) o ~ .c U ~ o .... o II) I-< a -----\Ot-- -.::t-.::t-.::t-.::t-.::t\Olrl lrllrllrllrllrlt--O 00 oo~ 00 oo~ oo~ C"l~ oo~ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0 0 {A{A{A{A{A-- {A {A C"lC"lC"lC"lC"l-.::t0'\ -----t--lrl t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- 00 -.::t~ -.::t~ -.::t~ .,f' -.::t~ oo~ M~ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0 {A {A {A {A {A {A - {A -.::t-.::t-.::t-.::t-.::t0- 00 00 00 00 00 00 \0 00 00 00 00 00 t-- \0 o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ -.::t~ O'\~ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ {A {A {A {A {A {A {A \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 00 C"l lrl lrl lrl lrl lrl 00 \0 ooooot---.::t t--~ ~ t--~ t--~ t--~ 0 lrl~ 00 00 00 00 00 0'\ 0'\ {A {A {A {A {A {A {A t--t--t--t--t--lrl-.::t C"l C"l C"l C"l C"l 0'\ \0 C"l C"l C"l C"l C"l t-- C"l ~ ~ ~... ('r)r. ('f")f"\ 'D"" ,.....; 00 00 00 00 00 00 0'\ {A {A {A {A {A {A {A 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ M \0 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0 \0 MMMMMOOO 0\ O'\~ O'\~ O'\~ O'\~ C"l~ t--~ t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- 00 00 {A {A {A {A {A {A {A 00000000 t--t--t--t--t---\O lrl lrl lrl lrl lrl 00 00 If'i' lrl~ lrl~ lrl~ lrl~ 00 C"l~ t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- 00 {A {A {A {A {A {A {A C"lNNNNOOO'\ -.::t-.::t-.::t-.::t-.::t-\O t--t--t--t--t--oo\O ......-4"',....-I..........-4..........-4.............f\ "'::::t.... 00.... t--t--t--t--t--t--t-- {A {A {A {A {A {A {A -.::t-.::t-.::t-.::t-.::tlrl- -----C"lt-- 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 00 -.::t ~ t--~ t--~ t--~ t--~ 0 .,f' \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 t-- t-- {A {A {A {A {A {A {A NC"lNC"lNM-.::t \0\0\0\0\0\0\0 0000000 '?J. ~ ...-4 I-< I-< .8 o 0 .... II) o I-< I-< ~ a 1-<.8 a ~ .8 ~ 00 II) 0 I-< 88 ~a 'E g. a 0 II) - 00 0 CZl ~ I-< 8'~ 1I)1I).8~1I) .2:: 0 ~ 0 b 4-< ~ ca >,1-< 00 II) II) ~ 1-<.t::a~~:E 0 tis "'Ou~ '2 8 8'~ ~ II) 0 ~ 8 8 8 ~ .3 ~ -"'" UO .S .$ ~"O ;:l ......... ~.......~~~ lI'l => => N ~ ~ I-< II) II) o ....... OJ) l::: ~ .c U ~ o .... o II) I-< a -----C"l00 lrl lrl lrl lrl lrl 0'\ C"l C"l~ C"l~ C"l~ C'! C"l~ lI"l" o~ ......-4,...-.4......-4 ......-4 ,..-..4 V)'......-4 000000- ......-4......-4......-4 ......-4 ......-4......-4......-4 {A {A {A {A {A {A {A t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- 0 lrl ......-4 ......-4 ......-4 ......-4 ......-4 0'\ ......-4 MMMMM-.::tt-- t--~ t--~ t--~ ~ ~ -~ \O~ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0 0 {A{A{A{A{A- - {A {A -.::t-.::t-.::t-.::t-.::tt--- 0000000000000 MMMMMM-.::t M~ M~ M~ M~ M~ t--~ C'.f 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0 {A {A {A {A {A {A - {A OOOOOlrlOO lrl lrl lrl lrl lrl 00 00 -.::t-.::t-.::t-.::t-.::tC"l0 0\ O'\~ O'\~ O'\~ O'\~ M 00 00 00 00 00 00 0'\ 0'\ {A {A {A {A {A {A {A \0\0\0 \0 \OC"l-.::t -----oot-- lrl lrl lrl lrl lrl - t-- lrl~ lrl~ If'i' lrl~ lrl~ O'\~ M~ 00 00 00 00 00 00 0'\ {A {A {A {A {A {A {A C"lC"lC"lC"lC"l0- 00 00 00 00 00 00 \0 lrl lrl lrl lrl lrl 0 -.::t ........."" ............ '11"""""'1'" ,....--.I... '11"""""'1'" l.r).... 0--.,... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 {A {A {A {A {A {A {A 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 00 t-- -.::t-.::t-.::t-.::t-.::tt---.::t \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 0'\ - t--~ t--~ t--~ ~ t--~ o~ lrl~ t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- 00 00 {A {A {A {A {A {A {A lrl lrl lrl lrl lrl \C M _____t--M t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- 00 00 MMM~M~M..o-O t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- 00 {A {A {A {A {A {A {A C"lC"lNC"lNMO'\ 00 00 00 00 00 t-- - t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- t-- lrl O'\~ 0\ 0\ O'\~ O'\~ C"l~ ..0- \0 \C \0 \0 \C t-- t-- {A {A {A {A {A {A {A C"lC"lC"lC"lC"lM-.::t \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 0000000 '?J. lI'l l"- N I-< II) I-< ~ I-< .8 ....... o 0 OJ) t) ~ l::: ~a 1-<.8 ~ a ~ .8 ~ .,q 0011) 01-< U 8 8 ~ a 'g 'E g. a 0 t) II) Q) 00 .g ~ CZl>1-<8ca a ~Q~~~ 00 .~ >,~ ~ ~1:)~ ~ 'S a ~ ~:E 0 ....... ;:l II) 0 0 U ~ .S 8 0 ~ ~ II) 0 88~~~]~ ~8~::c~~o:: \C => => N t' ~ := == ~ ~ 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.