The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08.01.05 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 August 1, 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 a) 2006 Budget Scenarios 6. ADJOURN PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT ouncil workshops are conducted as an informal work session, all discussions shall be considered fact-finding, hypothetical and unofficial critical thinking exercises, which do not reflect an official public position. Council work session outcomes should not be constroed by the attending public and/or reporting media as the articulation of a formal City policy position. Only official Council action normally taken at a regularly scheduled Council meeting should be considered as a formal expression of the City's position on any given matter. - ~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Mission Statement Through teamwork and cooperation, the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserve our proud past and foster a promising future. AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 1, 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 a) Commissioner Joe Harris b) Ms. Marion Brown, SWCD c) Adopt Resolution - Accept DV AC Donation for Depot Way Arts Park- Parks and Recreation 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open/or Audience Comments) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (7/18/05 Regular) (7/11/05 & 7/18/05 Special) b) Approve Beer and Tobacco License - Administration c) Adopt Resolution - Approve Gambling Event Permit - Administration d) Adopt Resolutions - National Incident Management System and Intrastate Mutual Aid Agreements - Police e) Adopt Resolution - Accept Donation Mom's Club - Parks and Recreation f) Adopt Resolution - Accept Donation New Arena Sign - Parks and Recreation g) Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation h) Capital Outlay - Administration i) School and Conference - Administration j) Appointment Recommendation - Police k) Approve Contract 2005 Striping Project - Engineering 1) Adopt Resolution - Schedule Assessment Hearing 2005 Sealcoat Project - Engineering m) Adopt Resolution - Schedule Assessment Hearing Ash Street Project- Engineering n) Adopt Resolution - Industrial Park 3rd Addition Development Contract - Engineering Action Taken Information Received Information Received R91-05 Approved Approved R92-05 R93-05 R94-05 R95-05 R96-05 Information Received Information Received Approved Approved Authorized R97-05 R98-05 R99-05 0) Adopt Resolution - Riverbend Development Contract - Engineering p) Adopt Resolution - Vermillion River Crossing Development Contract - Engineering q) Authorize Sale of Fire Department Tanker Truck - Fire Department r) Authorize Sale of Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus - Fire Department s) Ash Street Project - Property Annexations - Community Development t) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) June 2005 Financial Report - Finance b) Appointment to Cedar Avenue Transit Group - Administration c) Cataract Fire Relief Association 2006 Pension Request - Administration 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. ADJOURN RIOO-05 Tabled 8/8/05 Authorized Authorized RIOI-05, RI02-05 Approved Information Received Jared Agerter Tabled 8/15/05 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 AUGUST 1, 2005 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Action Taken 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVE AGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENDATIONS a) Commissioner Joe Harris b) Ms. Marion Brown, SWCD c) Adopt Resolution - Accept DV AC Donation for Depot Way Arts Park - Parks and Recreation Page 1 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (7/18/05 Regular) (7/11/05 & 7/18/05 Special) b) Approve Beer and Tobacco License - Administration c) Adopt Resolution - Approve Gambling Event Permit - Administration d) Adopt Resolutions - National Incident Management System and Intrastate Mutual Aid Agreements - Police e) Adopt Resolution - Accept Donation Mom's Club - Parks and Recreation f) Adopt Resolution - Accept Donation New Arena Sign - Parks and Recreation g) Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation h) Capital Outlay - Administration i) School and Conference - Administration j) Appointment Recommendation - Police k) Approve Contract 2005 Striping Project - Engineering 1) Adopt Resolution - Schedule Assessment Hearing 2005 Sealcoat Project - Engineering m) Adopt Resolution - Schedule Assessment Hearing Ash Street Project- Engineering n) Adopt Resolution - Industrial Park 3rd Addition Development Contract - Engineering Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 0) Adopt Resolution - Riverbend Development Contract - Engineering p) Adopt Resolution - Vermillion River Crossing Development Contract - Engineering q) Authorize Sale of Fire Department Tanker Truck - Fire Department r) Authorize Sale of Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus - Fire Department s) Ash Street Project - Property Annexations - Community Development t) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) June 2005 Financial Report - Finance b) Appointment to Cedar Avenue Transit Group - Administration c) Cataract Fire Relief Association 2006 Pension Request - Administration 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. ADJOURN Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Se- City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers aod City Administrator ~. Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director FROM: SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Accepting Depot Way Arts Park Donations DATE: August 1,2005 INTRODUCTION The Depot Way Arts Park was a vision that was created after much input from the arts community and former City staff and spearheaded by the Dakota Valley Arts Council (DV AC). DISCUSSION In 2000, the DV AC undertook an effort to create an outdoor arts park for the City. Over the course of the past five years, much planning and physical work went into creating Depot Way Arts Park. The work has blossomed into a linear park complete with a variety of sculpture and art pieces that celebrates the arts. Countless volunteer hours were spent by the DV AC and others in the community to create the arts park. Through a combined effort of DV AC and City staff, the arts area has been landscaped to provide an attractive place to view the art work on display. Several grants were acquired by the DV AC that were either matched by in kind labor or through City or DV AC money. DV AC would like to formally donate the art work that they either created and/or fundraised to purchase. The City has also never formally received the art work and has never recognized the time and effort that the DV AC has given to this project and that is why this item is before the City Council tonight. Carolyn Papke from DV AC will be making a presentation to the City Council summarizing the work completed at Depot Way Arts Park. Attached is Exhibit A, which provides history about the arts park, information about the community contributors to the Depot Way Arts Park and the value of the art pieces being given to the City. By the way, the Depot Way Arts Park is not finished. The City is currently undertaking a master planning process for Depot Way Arts Park that will further explore the possible expansion of the arts park to the south and north and City staff and the consultant from Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. met last week with the DV AC to discuss this possible expansion. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution accepting the donation from DV AC for the work that has been completed thus far in Depot Way Arts Park. ;jt4i);o Randy Distad Parks and Recreation Director e\(J~\~jt A Depot Way Arts Park in Farmington Background Information: In 2000 the Outdoor Art Committee of the Dakota Valley Arts Council worked with Forecast public Artworks of St. Paul to help the city staff, council and Farmington residents determine the pros and cons of developing outdoor art projects. The group worked up current and long-range plans for an art park. The city designated Depot Way Park as public space to be used for display of artworks, and the Park and Recreation Dept. renamed the space as Depot Way Art Park in the spring of 2000. It is located near the railroad between 2nd and Oak Street and Highway 50 in downtown Farmington. Our strategic plan calls for permanent outdoor art interspersed with a rotation of new pieces through leasing or temporary exhibit options. This collaborative effort between the city and the Arts Council with help from local businesses and the school district has created a significant attraction to downtown Farmington for residents and visitors. It is highly unusual for a city this size to have a sculpture park! This year, 2005, a small booklet and map has been published by the McKnight Foundation under the direction of Jack Becker of Forecast, nyou are here, exploring art in the suburbs". After reviewing digital pictures of all of our art they selected a picture of "Picasso Portrait" by Jordan Schmitt (grade 3) to show in the map-brochure. Farmington Depot Way Art Park is featured as one of 68 art sites to visit in 8 counties of the metro area! The contact is Farmington City website. Extra copies may be available from www.forecastart.org or www.mcknight.org. Wouldn't it be nice to have a local brochure of all the special art, historical buildings, and nature areas in Farmington for people to explore. Art in the Park: Since 2000 we have made several acquisitions which currently complete the permanent art: . Artist Joel Sisson of the Green Chair Project built two seven-foot Adirondack chairs for permanent display. Their dramatic size creates attention. He also worked with 25 Boy Scouts and their leaders to create eight normal-size chairs. Four were decorated by local artists and sold to raise money for the art in the park. Four were purchased and decorated by Friends of the Library, Farmington Area and are located at the Library. Although he established his Green Chair project in Minneapolis, Joel Sisson grew up in Farmington. . The Eliptical Form by William Saltzman. Mr. Saltzman is known for his sculptures and paintings. He developed the Rochester Mn. Art Center years ago and resides in Edina. . The Blue Horse by Marcia McEachron. Ms. McEachron is an artist and blacksmith from Minneapolis, and her metal sculptures are in numerous public and private locations around the U.S. She also works with students in various Artist in the Schools projects. She designed the Archways and Pergola in the art park. . Hexicolor by Highschool Art Students under the direction of Art Teacher Pam Schoolmeester. This is a colorful interactive piece. . Bruce Mainquist, metal artist from Colfax, Wisconsin, makes flat steel look like paper cutouts. He has three disks in the park: Snowflake, Frog Pond, and Wave Disk. . Three community art projects have been installed with the help of grants from the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council, the McKnight Foundation and funds designated for the arts by the State of Minnesota, as well as local funds: . Two metal and tile Archways at each entrance to the park were designed by Marcia McEachron and Pam Schoolmeester. The metal decorations and 240 individual clay tiles were made under their guidance in 2002 by community volunteers and artists. They reflect the nature and local history of the area. . A related theme and style was used for a Pergola (a shaded seating area) which is located in the middle of the park. It was also designed by Marcia McEachron and Pam Schoolmeester. In 2003-4 this project was crafted with the help of numerous volunteers and contributions by Dakota Electric Assn, Performance Industrial Coatings, Auto Body Excellence, purchasers of name plates, the city of Farmington, and the Dakota Valley Arts Council . Each of six Farmington elementary students' artwork was reproduced on a 2'x3' format for display in the park. These bright, bold, colorful works add spark to the park. Line Painting by Ashley Knutson, gr. 1; Tempera Bird by David Calvin, gr. 1; Abstract by Alyssa Hagen, gr. 5; Blue Jay by Elliesha Klingberg, gr. 4; Sunflower by Jake Hanson, gr. 4; and Picasso Portrait by Jordan Schmitt, gr. 3. Sponsors: Sponsors of the Depot Way Art Park who have donated funds, materials, and talent over the years have been Dakota Valley Arts Council, City of Farmington, Dakota Electric Assn., Anchor Bank, Farmington Area Arts Network, Performance Industrial Coatings, Farmington VFW, many purchasers of name tiles and clay plaques, volunteers, and numerous Community Artists. Currently: An art park is expensive because of art purchases and installation, and regular maintenance is necessary for the grounds and the art. Leasing requires an ungoing need for funds. The benefits are a beautification and attraction for the city, and a place for inspiration and relaxation. We have an ungoing need for contributions of money (tax-deductible), volunteer help from time to time, sources of sculpture for display, and good stewardship of the park. One way of contributing to the art park is the purchase of $50 arts supporter name plates to be attached to the pergola. (Contact Carolyn Papke, 651-463-8546, or committee members for information.) Outdoor Art Committee of the Dakota Valley Arts Council: Jim Bell, LaDonna Boyd, Randy Distad, Karen Finstuen, George and Sharon Flynn, Sherry Lamb, Carolyn Papke (Chair), Pam Schoolmeester, Guy Smith. July, 2005 c ,+ I ,- ~ , - :J ,)t ill I.LI I.LI l: ~ ~ o ~U OZ 00 NI- I~ OZ 0- O~ N<c ~I.L. O:::Z <c- o..~ I-<C 0:::0::: <cO >0 <cO ~~ 1-0 o _f o..u LLJz c::::) LLJo ::I:u I-~ 00::: I-<C V') > o:::~ O...J I-~ ::J<c !!:!I- 0:::0 I-~ z<c 00 U~ o ~ ~ I.LI 0 Q) :::! I- '" 'u ~ 92 ::::) ~ .- a ~ ~ '" <CQtr .::s:._::J U ~ on o ii2 .!!:! '- ~ (9.... ~. ~ '" 5 :::; U e!I '- U I- Q. "0 Q) O'C I:: U U .::s:. ~ I:: ltl .- Q) 9( >- .... .::s:. Q)' .... '- U U E 'u 1::.0..... Z "0 0 ltl _ .8 "0 .~ ::J ~'c ~ Q) :::; '- I:: O~ ~!~$I::~~ 6ltl ~ ~~ ~ ~~ I::~ ~ ~ u'" ltll-ltlI2iQ)~ 1::15 I Q)' '- - Oltl 0 Q) Q.l I:: .-ltlQ)U.... ltl. ~~ ltl ltlQ) "'.... VI > ...J := I:: 2 ~ Q) >- Q) '- ..:i '- ~ .... U :E :;: :E '- "0 I:: Q) ;> <c'" o....c:'--gltl:E~luQ) Q)'-Q) ::J,- _....~ ~ '" '-Q) "'ltl - _ >-.::s:. Cl :a >- < - -, Q) .... ~ I:: Q) U ...J::J >- 0 ~ 0 .... ",.::s:. ltl Cl 'E '--' '- 0 Ultll::~uUl::l::l::i~~"" ~-'I:: Q)6!~~=~g~~~Q) Q)~!~ Z~~~",~.8.8.8~Q)"'~ ~~~ 31::....uz~c:b5~~~ Cl~t~ <C5'-"O~I::~~~51::~"'~\.::>:EE~-~~~ltl ~o>-luw~ ~a>~ Z_o-'-o--- ~~"O!~~ltl_oQ):E"'I::~O Q)-ltl"'~I::Q)Q) i:i: 0 ~ ~;g -: E E E E 'C ~ ~ ~ t .::: =Il: "E -5 I:: ,~E E -5 ~:e E ~ lu 1S ~ I:: I::-e ~<I::Clo~UCl'-ltlltlltlltl~~~~~~~~o::Jl::~ltlOo'-SE~~~oQ)~~ltl ~ ~~~~<~~~<<;>_...J...J<<~I- <VI~<~~~ClCl~ lu ~ on on ~ ! lulu Q) ~ .0.0 Q) on '-....1:: "0 E ~ Q)~! 0 o "0 .0>",_0 o I:: Q.l;> Q.l,~3: ~ e!I ~ 0 3:~3:~>- ~= ~.~~ ~ >-ltl:::: "'''0 ....I::~ '-Q)I:: tOlui5:Ee-g~ Q) "0 '- U Q).:; ltl '-ltl .... '- .... '-ltl ~ ~ >- '-E Q) - ~ "0 ;> .... I:: .... Z ...., ;> ~ >!.~a OVlltl~ Q)~ Q)U ~ I::~ VIE VlQ)~ > E~ltl o ~ ~ >- VI I:: Q) I:: VI >- Q) >- 0 'E .~ ,~ Q) E "0 >- ~ ~ ~:;: -g ~ -g to -e .~ E ~~&~~~i5~i5:~i5~~~>~ "0 I:: ltl '" Q.l '" '" ltl U .., '- < -0 o .... "0 ~ ~ t "0 I:: ~ U ~ ,-,-.::s:.1:: ltll::.... VI .8 .::s:.Q)~ ~.!!:!_51:: ~ltl ~ ~ I::$'-~~\.::> ",>~Q)~~~E o~ 0I1,-0",,-Q)1::Q) ltl::JEl::ltl....I-"''-u- .- ~ ~ 0 0 I:: -, ::J .- '" Q) '" > ~~luUO'-Cl-,NltlQ)~~~EI::Q)I::~;> -u"O>-ou"OltlO-'1:: -Q)VI'E-I-~;>ltl e<I::EuQ)~"O~""-wQ)...J'- 1::>-"0 Q.l1::<Q)::JoI::Sltl~~~!>-~~~;>~~ >ltlQ),-ltlUO-'-E'-UUltlEl::ltlEonE Q.l>-0Q)Q)-Q)~0 ~ltl~~ Q)~-~ VI~-,-,~Z...J<...J<U~<VI<~VI~<< - '- Q) .::s:. .... Q) I:: I:: Q) Q) ltl U"O .::s:. tn ~ g g. "0 I:: '- 3: ^ ._ Ou ~ >"''-">- I:: ltl~I::"O .0 >->-Clltlltl I:: EOQ)"O~E&. '-'!::C.c.""'" ~~Eltll-~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3: ,~ lu.o~~-gE E ~~~~~~~ VI'" 0::: on 0-5 I-ltl ::::) 0 'u CQ~ I:: -ltl ::J 0::: 'C ~ 8 I-~I::I::'" Z::J20-e 8 -g w "bn< ~ ~.5 >- o U~ E2 Z~>-~to 52 E~L.l..> I '-~~1S Z .E 0 >-~ -Qj~~ctJ ~<UCl '" .., I:: Q.l on -g '- .., ~I::~ VI on 0 .- >-1::~l::l::tlE 1..'- ono'-::J~ ltl~ltl~S2l::u 'E:~:I:ltlltl~VI Q.l"O ltl:I:~ >-~ E.- ~ Q) ~2"O 2~~~:::55 ~Cl<-,~<-, - '" '- E Q) I:: ltl.... I:: "Og ~ ~ '- < ~ ::J:::: ~ U I::Q) ltl 0 I:: ltl I::.::s:. ltl"O ::::"0 Cl g ltl :E 2u - "01:: Q)~"O-I::>-I::'- I::>-E Q) to-l::.!!:! Q)I:: ~<Q)~Q)>-~~Q)~! ~~ltl~ .0 ~>-I::E~8t .....::s:.o ~!ltl.o>-~O-'OO""VlQ)....I::>O E"OI::Q)<o--:::: og.~ ltlVl5~~~~"Ogo~~i~~~Ionltll::<-5~~~z~",e~Q) ~~z 1-~~~ClCl~Q)ltl~1:: lus...J3"O~....:EI::~~~~l::t ~1::~~~>-uI::Oltl>-~l::e!I\.::>\.::>ltl2~~~"O~:E'-Q)ltlQ)Q)OOO~~ ._ltl U .... u.::s:. Q) onE~ 0.... . ,-.- _....~- _ 0- "O",l::ltlEI::Cl-ltlU,-OQ) ....'-ltl-,Q)>Q)I::.o'-$u-I::_'-::J ~~g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<~g~~~~~~~~~~& '" Q.l ::;, tr ltl Q. "0 I:: ltl '" 2 :ti I:: ~ I:: >- - >- .!!:! I:: ~ i:i: U .::s:..8< 1::1::'" ,-:::: I:: onu 00Q.l o Q) ltl 1::'- I:: '- 1: E _~~'-b ~Q) ltl 0 ltl o >-.::s:. E lrl ~ .3 ~ u-, ~~~~ijj ~.5~~ ~ ~I- _ltlCl~Q)"02 6~20b~~e!I~~ o E ~ >-.::s:. '- '- 0 "0 L.. .... ltl~ltlQ)ltlQ):;:ltl ~~UUCl\.::>~\.::>:E:E [~h'c~,+ A VALUE OF ART WORK Outdoor Art in Farmington Projects in Depot Way Arts Park Dakota Valley Arts Council Art Work 2000-2005 Cost Medium Seven foot Chairs by Joel Sisson 900 Wood Eliptical Form by William Saltzman 5700 sheet copper The Blue Horse by Marcia McEachron 2500 powd. coat steel Two Metal & Tile Arches by M. McEachron, P. Schoolmeester 8273 steel/clay tile Metal and Tile Pergola by M. McEachron & P. Schoolmeester 10,235 steel/clay tile 650 steel 900 steel 800 steel "Snowflake" disk by Bruce Mainquist "Wave" disk by Bruce Mainquist "Frog Pond" disk by Bruce Mainquist 6 Elementary Art works & framework (artwork to be managed by DV AC) 298 wood Total $30,256 Contributions for artwork projects in Depot Way Art Park: Acquisition Aug, 2000 Aug, 2000 Nov. 2000 June 2002 June 2004 May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 June 2004 Grants from the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council, direct contributions from Dakota Electric Assn., Dakota Valley Arts Council, Anchor Bank, VFW, Friends of the Library, Farmington Area Arts Network, Adirondack Chair sales, Individual contributors for plaques and tiles, plus numerous inkind contriibutions. RESOLUTION No. ACCEPT DONATION OF ART WORK IN DEPOT WAY ARTS PARK VALUED AT $30,256.00 FROM THE DAKOTA VALLEY ARTS COUNCIL 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 I st day of August, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: introduced and Member I seconded the following: Member WHEREAS, the Dakota Valley Arts Council has donated time, money and materials to create an arts park in the City; and, WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to accept such donations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Farmington hereby accepts with gratitude from the Dakota Valley Arts Council the generous donation of art in Depot Way Arts Park valued at $30,256.00. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 1 st day of August 2005. Mayor Attested to the _ day of August 2005. City Administrator SEAL Jet.. COUNCIL MINUTES PRE-MEETING July 18, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Sooerberg at 6:30 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson None Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; David Urbia, City Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant 2. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by Wilson, second by McKnight to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. CITIZEN COMMENTS 4. COUNCIL REVIEW OF AGENDA Councilmember McKnight asked about the Executive Estates Preliminary Plat and the two unresolved issues, the park issue and 225th Street. He asked if it was appropriate to have this on the agenda. Councilmember Wilson agreed. City Administrator Urbia stated this is the preliminary plat and issues can be worked out prior to final plat. Councilmember McKnight noted these issues have been outstanding as long as he has been on the Council. City Administrator Urbia stated those issues do not impact the preliminary plat. City Attorney Jamnik stated this will facilitate the meeting with Castle Rock regarding the access points. This is one of the contingencies of approval. The Township's legal counsel has been apprised ofthe plat and is evaluating the Township's position as well as capability of approving the connections or the access points. The processing ofthe preliminary plat does not mean it will be how the final plat looks. It will indicate what the City preliminarily believes is acceptable. Councilmember Wilson stated he had the same concerns. He wanted to make sure Council is not getting the final plat with unresolved issues. Regarding the area on the east side, he recalled the park master plan envisioned a park in the area. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated it was a 4-acre park. Mayor Soderberg asked ifthe seven lots on the east side equal 4 acres. Staff replied it ends up being 3.4 acres. The Council Minutes (Pre-Meeting) (July 18, 2005) Page 2 developer would be required to dedicate 3.6 acres of parkland. Councilmember Wilson asked if it was risky to allow the building of those seven homes for a possible future park. Parks and Recreation Director Distad noted that is the issue. Without having control of the land which is outside ofthe City, the biggest issue is if the lots on the east side are given up, there is no way of requiring any future parkland in that part of the community because everything else is outside ofthe City limits. That is the position ofthe Park and Rec Commission. Mayor Soderberg asked if there was a reason this was looked at on the east side versus having a park on the northwest side next to the Tollefson property. Staff replied one of the things the Park and Rec Commission has looked at was trying to get parkland on the northeast comer with the idea that ifthe golf course did come in at a later date, they could add parkland to the park to make it a larger park and make it contiguous with the wetland. The issue the Park and Rec Commission is trying to address is to stay away from smaller 1 or 2 acre parks and try to get parks that are at least 5 acres in size. Mayor Soderberg noted the area is platted as homes and with the understanding that rather than being here it would be in some other location in the golf course. Staff stated if it is outloted they can swap it in the golf course development, provided the same developer develops the golf course. Mayor Soderberg asked if it was pre-mature to have this before Council tonight with those issues unresolved. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated the Park and Rec Commission has forwarded their recommendation and they are not going to go away from this. They wanted to go on record showing they need a park in this area. They feel they are doing their job by recommending a park in this area because the closest parks are across two busy highways for this development to access. The other issue is the distance from parks. The national standard states no resident should be more than half a mile from a park. The Planning staff is in agreement with the Park and Rec Commission as to what the outcome should be. Some direction from Council is what will allow this to move forward. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated ifthis park area is not created in this development and the golf course does not develop, then the next closest parks are more than a half mile away in addition to having to cross busy highways. Mayor Soderberg stated ifthe golf course is developed by the same developer and he puts that same amount of parkland in that area and it moves further east, does that make the western portion of this development and the Tollefson development more than a half mile from the park. Staff stated they will have to make sure when the golf course develops, that it is not more than a half mile away. Councilmember Fogarty asked if Tollefson will be required to put any parks in their area. Staff stated they will not be required to put in a park because it is a small development and will take into consideration the ponding area. The City will be taking cash in lieu. Councilmember Fogarty asked how many units are in the Tollefson development. Community Development Director Carroll replied they originally were thinking about a single family development when they realized the impact the pond was going to have. Then they shifted to a multi-family plan. That plan has not been finalized yet. Mayor Soderberg stated it should be left on the agenda and a decision can be made during the regular meeting. Council Minutes (Pre-Meeting) (July 18, 2005) Page 3 Mayor Soderberg stated regarding the school issue, the school has requested an extension of the City's review ofthe comp plan. During the course ofthat item, he would like to address their request to extend it. There is the official extension of the review, which staff has administratively done and then there is Council's action of tabling it two meetings ago. He would like to honor their request by continuing the item and moving it from 11a to after the public hearing. 5. STAFF COMMENTS 6. ADJOURN MOTION by McKnight, second by Fogarty to adjourn at 6:47 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~p7~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR July 18, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Soderberg at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Soderberg led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Audience: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson None Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; David Urbia, City Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Lee Smick, City Planner; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Doug Bonar, Jay & Pat Christensen, Brad Meeks, John Gilbertson, Grant Jacobson, Tom Ford, John Kapustka, Mike & John Devney 4. APPROVE AGENDA Councilmember Pritzlaff pulled items 7h and j for discussion. Mayor Soderberg moved item 11 a to follow the public hearing. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by McKnight to approve the agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Wilson, second by Pritzlaffto approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (7/5/05 Regular) b) Received Information School and Conference - Parks and Recreation c) Adopted RESOLUTION R85-05 Accepting Donation Safety Camp -Parks and Recreation d) Received Information School and Conference - Police e) Received Information School and Conference - Finance f) Received Information School and Conference - Human Resources g) Received Information First Half Building Report - Community Development i) Approved Quick Claim Deed - Cascade Drive - Engineering Council Minutes (Regular) July 18, 2005 Page 2 k) Authorized Expenditure of Funds to Remove City Hall Radio Tower - Police 1) Authorized Department of Homeland Security Safer Grant - Fire Department m) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. h) Approve Joint Annexation Resolutions Devney Property and Winkler Property - Community Development Community Development Director Carroll stated there are two properties on the east side of town. The property on the north is the Devney parcel and the one on the south is the Winkler parcel. There is a small strip of property on the far east side of each property. In 2000 the owners applied for annexation. At that time the City entertained annexations of60 acres or less regardless of whether the township opposed it or not. The township spoke in opposition to those annexations, but they were annexed anyway. The reason the parcels were split into two pieces was to meet the 60 acre requirement. That left a 13 acre piece on the east side of each parcel that have remained in the township since then. Staff has indicated to the Empire/Farmington Planning Committee that staff would not recommend those properties be annexed until a development plan came forward that had a likelihood of approval. Staff has received concept plans for both properties. Staffhas spoken with the township and they are in agreement with the annexation. The development of these properties will result in construction of Biscayne Avenue that is needed to connect CR50 with CR66. Staff is discussing other traffic issues with the developer. A preliminary plat should be available before the end of the year. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson adopting RESOLUTION R86-05 approving the annexation ofthe Devney property and adopting RESOLUTION R87-05 approving the annexation ofthe Winkler property. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. j) Approve Change Order - Ash Street Project - Engineering The two items on the change order are for watermain offsets and a temporary water supply was needed for Sunnyside for fire protection. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if there was a written response to the citizen regarding the fire hydrant. Staff replied there was. He spoke at the pre-meeting and some e-mails were exchanged and costs were obtained. Staff can verify who received the information and who was involved. Councilmember Pritzlaff recalled seeing the e-mails, but he did not remember seeing the actual response to the resident. City Engineer Mann stated it would be helpful to clarify how the protocol follows with a pre-Council meeting comment versus a citizen comment at a Council meeting, ifthere is a similar protocol or a different protocol, or if it is dealt with outside ofthe meeting, does that need to be brought back. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated the resident was asking if we were going to move the hydrant and asked if Council needed to vote on it. City Engineer Mann stated he will make sure the resident was informed. Council Minutes (Regular) July 18, 2005 Page 3 Mayor Soderberg clarified Councilmember Pritzlaffwas asking if Council had to take action on whether to move the hydrant. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated the resident asked a specific question whether we would move the fire hydrant. Did staff tell him no, or is he going to come to Council for a decision. City Engineer Mann stated he will research how far it went with the staff that handled it and they will bring it back. The cost to move the hydrant is estimated to be $5,000. He will bring that back to the next meeting. City Administrator Urbia stated regarding protocol, even if it is at a pre-meeting we will show what our response was with our recommendation, and then if someone on the Council wished to do something different than the recommendation they would have to take affirmative action. If no one took that action, then staf:f s recommendation would stand. Mayor Soderberg stated that was his intent to talk about the protocol of pre-meeting citizen comments that they would be identical to those during the regular Council meeting. Council reached a consensus. With regard to Councilmember Pritzlaf:fs question regarding the citizen, he wanted to see a response back to Council with staf:fs recommendation. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated it would be nice to see what was sent out. We have gotten them in the past. MOTION by Wilson, second by Pritzlaffto approve Change Order # 1 for Ash Street reconstruction and utility improvements project in the amount of $20,090.80. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Approve Therapeutic Massage License - Administration Ms. Nicole Krenzel has submitted an application for a therapeutic massage license. She will be operating out of Reach for the Stars Salon. MOTION by Wilson, second by Pritzlaffto close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by McKnight, second by Pritzlaffto approve a therapeutic massage license for Nicole Krenzel at Reach for the Stars Salon. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Adopt Resolution and Ordinance - Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning Christensen Property - Community Development This item was tabled from a previous meeting. The school district has requested a 60-day extension for the review which staffhas granted. Mayor Soderberg suggested continuing this item. Dr. Brad Meeks stated the district applied for a comp plan amendment on May 20, 2005. That 60-day time period is approaching. In the interim there was a meeting with the Council, school board, and staffto discuss the Christensen property and other options that may be available for the school district. As a result of that meeting, a letter was submitted on July 14, 2005 to Council for consideration of extending the 60-day period to allow Council, staff, school district and staff an opportunity to better explore those options discussed at that meeting. He asked for Council's approval to extend that deadline. Since the meeting, they have been Council Minutes (Regular) July 18, 2005 Page 4 trying to find a date to meet within the next two weeks. The earliest the school would be able to bring a recommendation to the Council and school board would be August 15 at the earliest. If a recommendation or consensus has not been reached at that time, he suggested they still give an update to both bodies. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked Dr. Meeks 'if he has explored anything from the last meeting from the school board's position. Dr. Meeks replied it has only been five working days since the meeting. They have been trying to schedule time to better explore the options. They want to be able to get the City, school board, architects, and engineers all in the same room to look at the property proposals and see how the school district's programs and site needs best fit each ofthe sites. As far as the district exploring those more, they have just been trying to organize the meetings. Mayor Soderberg agreed it would be best to have the City and the school district working together so the course taken is appropriate so when we talk to any developer the City and the school district are talking from the same page. It would be his goal in extending this is to make sure on August 15 City staff and school staff make a joint recommendation to both bodies. Councilmember Pritzlaff agreed on working together, but he asked ifthe school board members are willing to change and to look. He left the meeting with some expectation, he knows meetings have to be set and it has only been five days, but to come to me after five days and say there has not been a lot done, he expected the school would either have a special board meeting or have a sense on dealing with the issues as to whether this will work. Dr. Meeks stated it was his understanding they were to find some dates where collectively they could sit down together. He did not think the direction was for each body to sit down separately and explore the options. When they left the meeting, City Administrator Urbia was going to contact Newland to see when they would be available for a meeting, we were trying to find dates for a meeting with the architects to look at program issues so they are trying to organize at least two meetings and find multiple dates. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he does not like extending this because his point of view is he will hear from the school board members that the City just made the timelines that much worse. He will not vote for the extension. Councilmember McKnight stated the extension is for 60 days and he does not want it to take that long. He hoped for a decision at the August 15 meeting. He is ready to move on this. Mayor Soderberg stated he and Dr. Meeks have discussed this and it is both of their goals to have some sort of resolution or at least an update jointly from City and school staff. Councilmember Fogarty stated there is a press release the school put on their website and she asked Dr. Meeks to take it off. The school can do with this request what they want, but she found it a little inaccurate as to the content of the meeting. She found it a little inflammatory and they want to work together. This Council Minutes (Regular) July 18, 2005 Page 5 is a request from her to the school board and the school district. She thinks it took us one step in the wrong direction. MOTION by McKnight, second by Wilson to table this to the August 15,2005 Council meeting. Councilmember McKnight stated we are working on this extension together. Mayor Soderberg agreed and it is both the goal of himself and Dr. Meeks to have a unified recommendation by August 15,2005. Voting for: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Wilson. Voting against: Pritzlaff. MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Appointment to Facilities Planning Committee - Parks and Recreation Staff requested two Councilmembers volunteer to be on the Facilities Planning Committee. In the 2005 Annual Work Plan, a facility master plan study was identified. Part of that master plan is to analyze the existing facilities, determine current and future storage needs as well as look at existing facilities as far as what facilities need to be improved or replaced with a new facility. Staff would like to put together a committee to go through this study. There would be 2-4 meetings. The idea is to incorporate this facility master plan into the capital improvement plan. Councilmembers Wilson and McKnight volunteered. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Fogarty to appoint Councilmembers Wilson and McKnight to the Facilities Planning Committee for Parks and Recreation. Voting for: Soderberg, Fogarty, Pritzlaff, Wilson. Abstain: McKnight. MOTION CARRIED. b) Adopt Resolution - Executive Estates Preliminary Plat - Community Development The property contains 47.8 acres. 225th Street runs along the south, hwy 3 along the west side and CSAH 50 runs along the north. Fountain Valley Golf Course is to the east. The Tollefson property is next to Executive Estates. The developer proposes 99 single-family lots. The City annexed the property in September 2004. The Municipal Board approved the annexation on November 10, 2004. MUSA was granted on August 16, 2004 contingent upon annexation into the City. Both MUSA and the comp plan amendment will go to the full Met Council on July 27,2005. The comp plan amendment was from non-designated to low density residential and A-I to R-1 zoning. All ofthe lots are 10,000 sq. ft. or more. The lots along the cul-de-sac are larger. The developer proposes two accesses along 225th Street. The City requests the developer pave 225th Street from hwy 3 all the way to the second access. Castle Rock Township would like to see the developer pave from hwy 3 to the Fountain Valley Golf Course lot line. However, staff believes wherever the property goes, is where the pavement goes. There will definitely be paving to the second access. The other access is to the north to the adjacent Tollefson development. Staff has also requested the Council Minutes (Regular) July 18, 2005 Page 6 developer make an east-west connection. There will be a need to do a wetland mitigation plan. There are proposed ponds so some ofthe wetland mitigation might have to go in that area to the south. There will be the need for a formal application to W ACA for approval. That will come at the final plat stage. Engineering has recommended approval of the preliminary plat contingent on the satisfaction of engineering requirements. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary and final plat contingent on engineering review and park and rec review. At their July 13, 2005 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the trail and park plan for Executive Estates. Prior to the meeting, staff met with the developer to discuss trails, sidewalks and park issues. The developer and staff reached a compromise as far as trails and location. At the meeting the Commission agreed with those locations. However they also wanted to add a trail around the south side and the east side of the wetland connection to a trail coming out ofthe business park and a trail going to the future golf course area to potentially connect to a park in that development. The Commission also discussed park dedication. They recommended to have the area along the east outlotted for the potential to swap the land for the same park acreage within the golf course if that development occurs. The Commission feels that since the closest parks to this development are across two busy highways, they wanted to keep the park area option open with the idea that if development occurs in the golf course area, the lots would be able to be platted and the land could be swapped to create a larger park in the golf course development. The other issue with Executive Estates and the Tollefson development is the issue of having residents within a half mile of a park. If there is no park area in either development the closest parks would be more than a half mile away. This is a national standard the City tries to adhere to and to date they have been able to achieve that. If the golf course is developed and there is a park the two developments would be within a half mile of that park provided the park area in the golf course is towards the west side. The Park and Rec Commission wanted to go on record to show they support having the outlotted area to protect the half mile and to protect residents from having to cross over busy streets to access a park. City Planner Smick stated the Planning Commission recommended a trail around the wetland not be approved and they were interested in seeing the outlotted area developed and wait for the golf course to develop and that is where the park would go. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated regarding the outlotted area, there seems to be speculation that ifthe golf course will come in that Park and Rec plans for a trail going over there and plans for the development to come in so why outlot the area. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated the Park and Rec Commission tried to leave the option open. If the trail does not go in when the development is built, it is hard to come back later and put the trail in. Whatever happens in the golf course area, trails will be needed to get into that development. There is also a Council Minutes (Regular) July 18, 2005 Page 7 plan for a trail to come along 225th Street. With the distance between the two trails staff feels it is appropriate to have a trail on the north side and the south side. Councilmember Pritzlaff feels the developer should be able to build the lots in the outlotted area. What if the golf course comes in and the park does not fit in that area of the golf course. Staff replied they want the developers to come in to the Park and Rec Commission prior to developing a concept plan and talk about the location of parks so they can plan their development around the parks. It all comes back to having contiguous parkland and being able to expand and have a larger park area contiguous to the wetland. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked what if the golf course park comes in further south. Then you are splitting parks. Staff was saying if they are able to swap the land they would like to have the park in the general location because of the distance from the development. If it is any further east, it becomes more than a half mile away. That is why they want the developers to come in early to meet with the Park and Rec Commission so they can articulate what they would like as far as having the developer meet the standards and also meet the plan map's intent. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked why one developer has to build a park for another development. He knows it is not a large piece of land, but does not think it is fair to say one developer has to have a park because another does not have a large enough piece ofland. Building a park within a half mile of the Tollefson development and making someone else do it is not fair. Staff stated given the size of the Tollefson development and the size of the Executive Estates development, they will be able to get more parkland in the Executive Estates development. The Commission is trying to get away from the 1 and 2 acre parks and have 5-7 acre parks or larger. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated at what cost. At a cost to one particular developer? Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated in both of these developments by requiring park dedication land in Executive Estates they can get more acreage. Park dedication land would be considerably less in the Tollefson development. Mayor Soderberg stated they are still requiring park dedication but it is cash in lieu rather than land. Councilmember Fogarty stated the park in Executive Estates is not larger because of Tollefson it is the same size regardless of what is required from Tollefson. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated a 1 acre park is better than none. It is better than forcing someone else to do it. The Planning Commission recommended taking cash in lieu for the seven lots and build a better park when the golf course comes in. He does not want to see the developer outlot that area and then 30 days later the golf course is annexed. The other issue is how many times has this changed for the developer. The map from the Planning Commission meeting shows nothing drawn around the outlots and nothing around the pond. The map now is totally different. Staff replied the plan from the Planning Commission meeting was another option to consider, it was not set in stone. Staff talked with the developer the following afternoon and they came up with a compromise as shown except for the trail along the pond and the outlot which the Park and Rec Commission continued to push for at their July 13, 2005 meeting. Staff and the developer agreed on the remaining trails. Council does have the choice to go against what the Park and Rec Commission is Council Minutes (Regular) July 18, 2005 Page 8 recommending. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated the developer has also stated he would run the trail all the way along 225th Street if the golf course comes in. Councilmember Wilson asked about the 224th road and if Tollefson's were getting a road at no cost. City Planner Smick stated the road ends at the Executive Estates line and Tollefson takes care of the rest. Councilmember Wilson asked if the goal of the outlotted area is to be held or be developed right away. Parks and Recreation Director Distad replied the idea was to provide up to two years for the developer to bring the golf course in and then do the land swap. With taking cash in lieu it is based on today's value. When the golf course comes in, that is on tomorrow's value. Staffhas seen land prices go up significantly. It is to protect the City is getting equal land for land they are giving up. Councilmember Wilson asked if all options have been explored to have the trails on the front of the homes as opposed to the back and wind up to the north. Staff replied because ofthe sidewalk, they thought it would be better to have the trails behind the homes, along a more scenic area with the wetland. There are some other issues with mitigation for a wetland that was filled in. Councilmember Wilson stated as an alternate could they look at starting at the western edge of the park and instead of going behind 10-12 homes, go in between two lots. Staff replied the idea was there is a trail coming out ofthe industrial park to make the connection. Councilmember Wilson stated that would still occur and go straight down as opposed to going west behind the homes. Staff asked for the Council to decide if they want the trail and the developer needs to speak in regards to the wetland mitigation and whether the trail is feasible. Staff asked Council to decide on the trail issue and the park issue separately. Councilmember McKnight stated on the southeast side there is a third leg connecting to 225th Street. He asked why the paving of 225th would not go to that point. Staff replied the developer is working out an arrangement that someone might purchase that piece. There is an existing driveway that someone has been using for a very long time. They are working on a purchase agreement. Councilmember McKnight commented on the trail and the fact he is not a supporter oftrails in back yards. Councilmember Fogarty stated she likes the trails in the back but it seems that lot 13 is getting nailed with trails on three sides. She asked what if the trail continued north and did not cross behind the homes and continued past lots 12, 11, 10,9,8 and cross between 7 and 8 or 8 and 9 and then follow along the top still making the connection. Staff noted there is a berm extending into the back of the lots so by putting the trail there you would be infringing on the size of the lots. Councilmember Fogarty asked about going behind lots 8 and 9. Councilmember McKnight stated the concern is to run the trail more to the east to connect to the trail in the business park. Staff replied the issue is the berm and storm water ponding. There is not enough room for a trail. A part ofthe area will require a boardwalk. City Planner Smick noted the height of the berm is 8-10 ft. It is partially landscaped to provide screening from the industrial park. Mayor Council Minutes (Regular) July 18, 2005 Page 9 Soderberg asked ifthere was a storm water function or just landscaping. Staff replied it is mostly landscaping with some storm water function. Councilmember Fogarty stated she is in favor of setting aside the outlot. Until the golf course comes into the City she is not willing to let any parkland go. Mayor Soderberg stated ideally with the Tollefson development and Executive Estates with parkland development ifboth contributed land and those parcels adjoined we would have a greater than 4 acre park. Barring that holding the area as an outlot on a short term basis to see if the property to the east comes into the City ensures there will be some parkland somewhere close. He favored the outlotting. With regard to the trail, staff and the developer worked out an agreement and the trail is a last minute change he is not excited about. If it had been worked out before hand, great, but because it came in after the fact he would be inclined to let that go with the exception of making some connection to the trail in the business park either connecting it between two lots or moving it to the east. Mr. Colin Garvey stated as far as the outlot, that was discussed over a year ago. They would have put the park further to the west where there are less desirable lots. At that time they wanted bigger lots. They are almost 17,000 sq. ft. lots. Instead they put in the berm. This came up in April. At staff meetings they were recommended to have one entrance. At the April meeting a second entrance was required. All these changes become hard and difficult. They did do their work and would have put in the park to the west and put in a berm to divide the houses from the business park. They could have used the park as the buffer. As far as connecting the trails, Mr. Garvey showed on the map how various trails connect. There is a park on the other side ofhwy 50 that is within a halfmile. He also showed an east-west connection for future development. He disagreed with running the trail out to the industrial park and dumping it into the cul-de-sac. There are a lot of trucks in the area. Councilmember McKnight noted Mr. Garvey stated he talked with staff about this a year ago and asked where that took place. Mr. Garvey replied at staff meetings. They discussed cash in lieu and at the September 15, 2004 Planning Commission meeting they discussed cash in lieu instead of the park. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he agreed with Mr. Garvey about dumping the trail into the cul-de-sac. He feels Mr. Garvey should be able to develop the seven lots and people can use the park across the road. He asked about the price of the lots that are proposed to be outlotted. Mr. Garvey stated they are 17,000 sq. ft. lots and one ofthem is his. The smallest lot is 10,000 sq. ft. in the development. Councilmember Pritzlaff agreed the trail to the south should be eliminated. He stated ifit were not for this development Tollefson would have only one access into his development. Mr. Garvey has worked on this a long time. Mayor Soderberg asked about the wetland mitigation that will take place along the south. Mr. Garvey stated it will take place in the buffer zone and there is enough to do the required mitigation. Council Minutes (Regular) July 18, 2005 Page 10 Councilmember Fogarty stated it is also in the Parks Master Plan to have a 4-acre park in that area. It has been ever since the Parks Master Plan was adopted. Crossing hwy 50 to get to a park is not conducive to family life. Mr. Garvey stated he would have put the park to the west and not put in the berm. Now he has the cost in the berm and it will be landscaped and it provides drainage for storm water retention. He would have designed it differently. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated that is his point. He had an area slated for a park in the middle of the development. He did what he was supposed to do and put in a berm and now the park is forced to the east side. Mayor Soderberg stated ideally that would have been the best choice. What Park and Rec is trying to accomplish is not trying to prevent the developer from developing this area as homes, they are just trying to ensure that there is going to be this equivalent land just east ofthis as park. This is just delaying development on these seven lots for up to two years. If the land to the east is annexed into the City and starts to develop sooner, then the outlot becomes platted as shown and the park gets developed to the east. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked Mr. Garvey what that does to build the lots in two years. Mr. Garvey replied that puts a burden on him because they will have to bring in fill. They want to do all the excavating for sewer and water at the same time. All the lots have to be filled. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated Park and Rec has been saying ifthe golf course comes in, but still they have planned trails going to that area. He felt there could be a bigger and nicer park in the golf course area and not have Mr. Garvey have more cost to develop the area at a later date. Councilmember Wilson stated Mr. Garvey mentioned the area to the center and north. When that was discussed was there a possibility that could work or wasn't there enough acreage. Parks and Recreation Director Distad replied the Park and Rec Commission was trying to follow the plan map which was revised on September 10, 2004 and have a 4-acre park to the east. The idea was to create a larger park in the southeast part of town where you could put in a soccer field and one or two ball fields to serve the southeast part of town which does not have those facilities right now. Councilmember Wilson asked how many acres are in the central portion. Staff replied if the lots are 10,000 sq. ft. it takes four lots to make an acre. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked when the City adopted the half mile rule. Parks and Recreation Director Distad replied it has always been a standard followed and believed it was in the comp plan as a requirement. This is a national standard. No resident should be further than a half mile from a park. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked how many times that happens in the City. Staff replied right now we do not have any areas outside the half mile. Staffhas done a GIS survey and can provide that to Council. As the City was developing the previous Park and Rec Director, Jim Bell, was also very aware of that standard and followed it as well. Councilmember Pritzlaff was trying to figure out where a park is in relation to Embers and 195th. Staff replied there would be a park in Parkview Ponds that Council Minutes (Regular) July 18, 2005 Page 11 will be less than half a mile. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated when Embers was developed there was not park there and there still isn't a park there. Staff noted there is a large open space in Autumn Glen and trails around the ponds. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated trails is one thing, Mr. Garvey has all kinds of trails. Councilmember Wilson stated it is too late to start changing this, but if the developer is willing to lose that section in the center and build the homes on the east side, should the golf course develop in the future, there would still be parkland dedication to develop over there. In the absence ofthat option working, he wants to see the outlotted area reserved as identified by Park and Rec. Mr. Garvey stated he did not say he was willing to give up the center area. They had talked about if there was going to be a park at that time, that is where he would have put it. Instead they decided cash in lieu so they put in the berm with landscaping. Councilmember Wilson stated that area is identified on the Parks Master Plan and he did not feel it was unreasonable given there is not a park and he did not want kids to cross dangerous roads. He wanted to work with Mr. Garvey, but he firmly believes every child in a development should have safe access to a park and not cross a busy road. They cannot set a timeline as to when the golf course will develop, but he would like to reserve the area to the east and at some time Mr. Garvey will be able to develop it. The City is not taking it away from him. Mr. Garvey stated right now they have 40,000 yards of black dirt they are dealing with from the Ash Street pond project. That was designed to go in that area to develop the lots. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if the cash in lieu agreement was with the City. Mr. Garvey replied that was last summer and we agreed to cash in lieu. Mr. Garvey stated it was discussed at the September 15, 2004 Planning Commission meeting, the City needed to get going on the project, things have been rushed and he has been working on the project ever since. He did not hear about this situation until April. Councilmember Pritlzaff asked staff if an agreement was made for cash in lieu why are we at this issue now. Parks and Recreation Director Distad replied there was not a written agreement. We had to wait until the land was annexed into the City. When staff met with the developer this summer it was prior to the land being annexed into the City. Prior to being annexed, staff revised the plan map knowing that land would be annexed. At that time they showed the park area. The former Assistant City Planner made a comment in his memo to the Planning Commission for the September 15, 2004 meeting saying that "there are no parks or trails shown on the concept plan. Mr. Garvey has met with staffto discuss options regarding parks and trails. The area adjacent to the wetland located on the Empey property may be an appropriate location for a park. Another option discussed was to accept payment in lieu of park dedication and create a larger park to the east of the Empey property when it develops. Staffwill continue to work with Mr. Garvey on this issue as the preliminary plat is prepared." Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he agrees with the Planning Commission and Council Minutes (Regular) July 18, 2005 Page 12 would be willing to take cash in lieu for those seven lots and let Mr. Garvey develop the lots. An agreement was made before and he would have put a park in the center. To change it on him now does not warrant that kind of cost for him to build the lots later and run the infrastructure. The Planning Commission recommended cash in lieu and to eliminate the trail to the south and that is where he stands. Staff replied the issue is that the Planning Commission has a different feeling than the Park and Rec Commission. Normally it is a consensus between the two commissions. Their goal now is to get the developer in early before they go to the Planning Commission with a concept plan so they do not have these issues in the future. City Administrator Urbia stated it is not staff changing this. Staff advocated on behalf of what the Parks and Rec Commission put forward after that September timeline. It is not just an arbitrary change by staff. The road connection that came up would have been nice to know that straight away. As both ofthe plans come in you start to see how it fits and then emergency personnel make their recommendations. It was intended to be disruptive to developers. It was what is in the best interest ofthe City for emergency vehicles. These were not arbitrary changes by staff to slow development down. With areas that are annexing into the City it becomes a little tougher to manage. Mayor Soderberg stated with regard to the trail, he would want the trail to the south removed. It was after staff and the developer agreed on another plan. Councilmember McKnight agreed. Councilmember Fogarty would like to see something in there, but she cannot justify lot 13 with trails on three sides. If that trail is removed, she feels they need to go back to the Farmington Business Park and amend it and take out the piece that will dump into the business park. Mayor Soderberg agreed. Councilmember Pritzlaff agreed to take out the trail to the south. Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmember Fogarty. Mayor Soderberg stated with regard to the park outlot, Park and Rec has asked that this be done as an outlot to ensure there is some park there because there is no assurance otherwise and it is limited to a two year time period. He did not know ifthere was a workable compromise. There needs to be a park near there. He would prefer to have the park further east of where it is conjoined with parkland dedication from the adjoining land to create a larger park, but how do we ensure that happens without platting this as an outlot. City Attorney Jamnik stated it would require some cooperation on the part of Mr. Garvey, but cities do have the authority to own parkland outside of the City limits. We could take an option or a deed for a portion of the golf course property in advance of its platting. If it is annexed or developed or comes into the City or if not, we acquire some acreage outside the City limits in that area for the park. Mayor Soderberg stated it would require Mr. Garvey to have fee title to it. City Attorney Jamnik replied correct. That is the only way he knows the City can secure an interest in the future parkland area with any certainty ifhe has title to that land to take an option or ownership interest and deed a portion immediately. Whether you take the outlot Council Minutes (Regular) July 18, 2005 Page 13 area and hold it for two years or you take an interest in the property to the east that the City finds acceptable for the same period of time it is still an equivalent amount ofland. If Mr. Garvey has title and he is willing to convey that and give the City an interest we could do that. Mayor Soderberg stated that would be his concern to make sure the City has equivalent land to combine with additional land. City Attorney J amnik stated they can work on that option between the preliminary and final plat. The third contingency could be modified to indicate that either we have that outlot or an equivalent amount of land deeded or optioned to the City to the east sufficient to meet the park needs. Mayor Soderberg stated he would want to see that secured so we have the acreage available to the east so it can connect to a larger piece of parkland. Councilmember Fogarty stated this is a preliminary plat and if we were to accept this as an outlot tonight and between now and final plat time we can come up with an agreement we could amend it at that point. City Attorney Jamnik replied that is what he is saying. Mayor Soderberg stated this would be an outlot on the preliminary plat tonight pending some alternative negotiation. Councilmember McKnight supported the Planning Commission's recommendation to build the lots now and have a larger park when Fountain Valley is developed. Mayor Soderberg stated that is also his concern, but how do we ensure that happens. Councilmember McKnight replied taking the cash in lieu for that property when it comes in and taking the park dedication for the golf course land when it comes in, putting it together and working with the developer. He is willing to let Mr. Garvey develop the lots now to have a larger park in Fountain Valley. He cannot see putting in the extra cost on coming back to put in services to the seven lots. Councilmember Fogarty stated we would lose almost 4 acres of parkland. Councilmember McKnight stated but you have the dollar equivalent. Mayor Soderberg stated that would be determined at the final plat. City Attorney Jamnik replied correct and there may be ways to finesse that particular equivalency issue. We can take an option for the acreage. Mayor Soderberg stated we could do this as an outlot tonight with the hope that something could be arranged so they can get the equivalent land amount to the east. Councilmember Pritzlaff felt Mr. Garvey should be able to develop the lots, take the cash in lieu and have a better and bigger park in the future. Mayor Soderberg stated the concern he has is the change in land values unless we can lock in the equivalency for acreage based on the dollar amount. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he is willing to take the gamble. Mayor Soderberg replied he is not willing to take the gamble. Councilmember Wilson supported the outlot. Councilmember Fogarty supported taking it as an outlot. She is not willing to give up the acreage. Ifwe can ensure it by final plat in addition to making a larger park, but she is not willing to give up the acreage. Council Minutes (Regular) July 18, 2005 Page 14 Mr. Garvey suggested taking out a comer of the development and the City can work with him to get rid of the extra black dirt from Ash Street and eliminate two lots and make them go into the industrial park. This has changed so many times if he has to give up parkland, then let's use that comer. Councilmember Fogarty stated then we have two options to either agree on what we are going to approve tonight or table it and let them work more on the preliminary plat. Mr. Garvey stated he would like to get going on the project or they will miss their season. Councilmember McKnight stated that was the basis for his question at the pre- Council meeting. Is it too early to be on the agenda? Mayor Soderberg stated there were two issues to work on with Castle Rock on 225th Street and he supported staff's recommendation on that. Councilmember McKnight stated there is nothing saying you cannot approve the preliminary plat tonight and then compromise before it comes back, but he would like to see it before that state in the future. Mayor Soderberg stated he cannot start grading or putting in utilities until the final plat, so he believed something can be secured for the future between now and final plat to guarantee the land equivalency somewhere to the east. Once that assurance is there, then there is no problem with removing the area as an outlot and allowing the development to go ahead at final plat. Councilmember Wilson stated he hates to see Mr. Garvey come in after the plat to develop seven lots after everything has been done. He asked Mr. Garvey when he planned on developing that cul-de-sac. Mr. Garvey stated everything would be done right away. As far as staff recommendations when he met with City Planner Smick and Parks and Recreation Director Distad he was recommending cash in lieu on Wednesday. It was the Park and Rec Commission's recommendation that it be an outlot. Councilmember Wilson stated his position is to see it as an outlot. But he hates to see the cost for the developer go up, because that means the cost for the homeowner goes up. At the same time we need to protect areas for parkland. There has to be a middle ground and maybe City Attorney Jamnik identified it. Park and Rec wants a rock solid assurance that we are not going to lose the 4 acres and we will have some ability to develop the area into a park. It is premature to be talking about what will occur in areas that are not part of the town right now. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated the reason the Park and Rec Commission is recommending that is to create a situation where we are trading acres for acres versus taking cash and then not being able to buy an equal amount of acres. If there is some way to guarantee the same amount of land in a future park development, the Park and Rec Commission would be satisfied with that. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated Mr. Garvey said ifthe City will work with him on getting the black dirt out he will put the park in that area and alleviate this area. That tells him he does not feel confident he can secure the golf course property. Mr. Garvey stated rather than have that as an outlot he would rather work with Tollefson instead of cash in lieu. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated the other option is to try and secure land to the east. Mr. Garvey stated you cannot guarantee that right now. Parks and Rec Commission Director Distad stated if Council Minutes (Regular) July 18, 2005 Page 15 you took cash in lieu put something in the agreement that says the City can buy acreage in the golf course at the same price as the cash in lieu so they get acre for acre. It does not do anything as far as guaranteeing a park in the area, but it does allow us to get the same acreage in the golf course in addition to the park dedication requirements. Mr. Colin Garvey stated as far as acre for acre, if the golf course does come in that would be acceptable. He would work with that and not have the area as an outlot. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated with the speculation of that not coming in, are you more inclined to say forget the eastern outlot, keep the lots and put the park in the northeast comer. Mr. Garvey replied no, staffwas concerned about acre for acre in a future development. He said he would match it in the golf course when that is developed. Councilmember Fogarty asked if Mr. Garvey would be willing to not only give the City the park dedication that would be required for the golf course, you would also be willing to sell the City the 4 acres at the same price we took for cash in lieu so the City would have that 4 acres of park in addition to whatever is required in the golf course. Mr. Garvey stated when that gets developed, yes. Councilmember Fogarty stated if we pass this tonight with an outlot that can be worked out between now and when final plat comes in, you would be willing to work with staff to make that happen. Mr. Garvey replied yes. Councilmember Fogarty stated she is comfortable with that. Councilmember Wilson agreed. Community Development Director Carroll stated someone should point out that would work as long as Mr. Garvey ends up being the developer. Councilmember McKnight stated there is still a risk. City Attorney Jamnik stated not necessarily, as long as he is the owner when he gives us the option. He does not have to be the developer he has to be the owner. Councilmember Pritzlaffwas comfortable with that. Mayor Soderberg stated we will plat this as an outlot pending the details getting worked out between now and final plat. Mr. Garvey asked if they were saying the area would still be platted as an outlot. If this has to be an outlot and they cannot work something out with the golf course. . . Mayor Soderberg stated this is just preliminary plat. Between now and final plat all of the details of that arrangement will be worked out. Mr. Garvey asked if it could be worded as parkland rather than an outlot, because if it cannot be worked out, he would move the park to another area. City Attorney Jamnik stated the recommendation from Park and Rec is to ensure as a contingency if we cannot guarantee land in the golf course that you have the land available in this development. This would be shown as an outlot for a City park sufficient to meet the needs unless we get a guarantee of the land to the east. Mr. Garvey stated he would prefer no outlot. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to adopt RESOLUTION R88-05 approving the preliminary plat outlotting 3.4 non-specified acres with the rest of the contingencies. Voting for: Soderberg, Fogarty, Wilson. Voting against: McKnight, Pritzlaff. MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) July 18, 2005 Page 16 c) Adopt Resolution - Farmington Industrial Park 3rd Addition Preliminary and Final Plat - Community Development Airlake Development has submitted a preliminary and final plat that would create three new industrial lots and two commercial lots within the industrial park 3rd addition. CSAH 50 runs along the south and CSAH 31 runs along the west. The proposed alignment of208th Street runs along the north. The portion to the north is owned by Mr. Devney, however, there have been discussions between Airlake and Mr. Devney to purchase that portion of the plat. 210th Street stubs into the area. Outlot A has been rezoned to B-1. Outlot B is also a portion of the commercial area. The lots proposed for platting include lot 1 which is 2.15 acres, lot 2 is 18.01 acres and lot 3 is 9.72 acres which contains the existing Duo Plastics building which is vacant and is proposed for redevelopment by Marschall Bus Lines. A trail is proposed along the east side of CSAH 31. There is a proposal for a private road with a right-in, right-out along the north side ofthe MW Johnson building and running north along the east side of the commercial lot and connecting with 208th Street. The 208th Street extension is very important to this commercial area and to R&L Carriers. There is an access onto 208th Street for the proposed industrial outlot and there is a private drive into R&L Carriers. 210th Street is proposed for an emergency access into R&L Carriers. Engineering requirements have been approved. On the lot for Marschall Bus Lines there is an easement 135 ft in width. There are 24 inch and 16 inch gas pipe lines in the easement. Staff is requesting Airlake Development provide an encroachment agreement and obtain approval from Northern Natural Gas. On May 16, 2005 Council approved a bus and truck terminal for Marschall Bus Lines. The Planning Commission approved the conditional use permit. Marschall Bus Lines is relocating from Chippendale Avenue to the industrial park. Staff has also required they put in landscaping around the parking lot. They are proposing to relocate the pond to the north. They do meet the 40,000 sq. ft. requirement ofthe industrial park, and all parking requirements. 208th Street runs along the north side. At the access there is a guard shack and a fence will be required around the entire area. This is a truck terminal 990 ft in length and 100 ft. in width. There are 159 dock doors. This is for the loading and unloading of products. There is also a maintenance facility and a pump station. The agreement for the encroachment over the gas line will be very necessary because of all the truck traffic, water line, etc. The area off of 21 oth Street will be utilized as an emergency access. The Planning Commission granted a 4.7% variance, 65% lot coverage with both building and parking lot. Contingencies to the preliminary and final plat are: 1. Northern Natural Gas approves an encroachment agreement with the developer to allow the developer access into the gas line easement for paving, parking of trucks, and the encroachment of a water line and concrete drainage ditch into the easement. Council Minutes (Regular) July 18, 2005 Page 17 2. A storm sewer easement to the north of the Devney property needs to be filed for recording before the Farmington Industrial Park 3Td Addition Preliminary and Final Plat is recorded. 3. The satisfaction of any engineering requirements including the construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities. 4. The satisfaction of any Park and Recreation Advisory Commission comments concerning fees and trails. 5. The Final Plat approval is contingent on the preparation and execution of the Development Contract and approval of the construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering Division. Councilmember Fogarty asked about the bus circulation. She thought they were going to empty out into the cul-de-sac and utilize both ends and now it sounds like they are not going to use the cul-de-sac. Mr. Pat Regan stated they discovered they are better served if they park the buses facing north and exit the building north bound. They have room for 40 large buses in the building. They will enter on a side door, turn inside the building and go out the north. Most of the passengers are situated to the north of the facility. They do have an agreement with R&L properties that they will grant them an easement so they have access to the north without having to put the buses out onto hwy 50. They will go out 21 Oth Street, up Edmonton and utilize the new 208th Street and turn right. The maintenance shop will be close to the office and it will be cold storage of vehicles. Councilmember Fogarty clarified the buses will be empty so Mr. Regan does not see an issue with mixing with the truck traffic. Mr. Regan replied no, they tried to design this so the trucks go in and out of their property and the buses go in and out of our property and the other lots go directly onto public streets where they already have access. Councilmember McKnight asked about the construction of the building versus the extension of208th Street to Pilot Knob. City Engineer Mann replied 208th Street will be built next year. City Planner Smick stated construction will start during the winter and they will open in the spring. Mayor Soderberg noted 210th Street is a public street that terminates without a cul-de-sac. How do we deal with that? City Engineer Mann replied at this time we are planning on leaving it the way it is. Maintenance issues will have to be worked out between the property owner and the City as far as where the end of the snow will go. Whether there are any options to vacate that is something that could be explored in the future. Councilmember Wilson asked what kind of materials R&L Carriers will be hauling. Mr. Bruce Rydeen, R&L Carriers, stated it will be general freight. The trucks come in, unload the goods, reorganize, and go out again. This does not include hazardous waste. Council Minutes (Regular) July 18, 2005 Page 18 Mayor Soderberg stated he supports this and it helps with getting 208th Street accomplished. Mr. Pat Regan commented on the contingencies. 1. Northern Natural Gas does have an encroachment agreement and an easement agreement prepared and agreed to with Airlake Development and it is in the hands ofR&L Carriers. They are reviewing the agreements and do not anticipate any problems. 2. The storm sewer easement to the north on the Devney property is a stipulation in the purchase agreement with the Devney's and they have agreed to that. 3. The satisfaction of engineering requirements is moving along. There have been no problems. 4. He had a clarification regarding the stipulation of any Park & Rec Commission comments concerning fees and trails. He wanted to make it clear that their understanding of that today and in the future will be that they will provide a trail along Pilot Knob Road south of208th Street and they would prefer that trail be provided when the property develops. The main reason is they might risk a nicer design in the future if they put down a 10ft. wide blacktop trail that goes from nowhere to nowhere. They would rather come to the City with a nice plan for the commercial development that says yes we have agreed to put the trail in and here it is. They will put the trail in, but they would like to see what it serves as far as their commercial property. They would like to turn it into a nicer amenity for their property as well as pedestrian and bicycle traffic. He did not want there to be any misunderstanding that they will be putting trails in around ponds and anything more than they have agreed to on the park dedication. There is a trail that deserves to go in along Pilot Knob Road south of208th Street along the property they own. 5. Most of the open items are directly related to what the storm ponds can handle. They have an agreement with staff on everything else. Mayor Soderberg stated he is not excited about running trails around storm water ponds especially along a truck terminal. He did not think there was any problem with doing a better trail later on. City Engineer Mann stated it is good to plan for the future and wait for the future development as long as everyone keeps in mind the trail needs to also work with Dakota County and a trail along a county road. It may not be able to meander into a particular development. Parks and Recreation stated when the outlot is replatted that is when they would require trails to go in. They have no intention of going around the ponds in the industrial park. The other idea would be to punch the trail out to the CR50 trail in the county right-of- way. MOTION byPritzlaff, second by Wilson to adopt RESOLUTION R89-05 approving the Farmington Industrial Park 3rd Addition Preliminary and Final Plat with the contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) July 18, 2005 Page 19 d) Adopt Resolution - Amend 2020 Comprehensive Plan from Industrial to Commercial for Property Generally Located at the Northeast Intersection of CSAH 31 and CSAH SO and Northeast of Duo Plastics - Community Development Staff is requesting approval of a comp plan amendment from industrial to commercial. The contingency would be the Met Council approves the 2020 comp plan amendment. MOTION by Wilson, second by McKnight to adopt RESOLUTION R90-0S amending the Comprehensive Plan from industrial to commercial for the above area. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Temporary Signage 19Sth Street - Police Last week the Assistant City Engineer pointed out a situation developing on 195th Street that had the potential for disaster. The speed limit on 195th Street east of Akin Road is 55 mph. For quite some time some ofthe developers of Mystic Meadows and Parkview Ponds have been hauling a large amount of fill into the area. There is frequent truck traffic along that stretch at 55 mph. As long as that was the only traffic in the area it posed no threat. Over the past week residential construction has begun in Parkview Ponds. At the same time the final fill for the streets is being hauled in. At that point we have a situation of conflicting traffic which is a combination of very large dump trucks as well as contractor's trucks and smaller commercial vehicles in addition to the pre-existing residential traffic out of Autumn Glen. Add to that the dry conditions and even though dust control has been applied frequently it has created large dust clouds so these trucks are appearing out of nowhere. Police Chief Siebenaler stated in order to ensure visibility he had the Engineering and Public Works division install no parking signs on the south side of 195th Street. This allows a clear field of vision for traffic entering onto 195th Street. He also ordered a reduced speed limit of 40 mph on 195th Street. Since that time the situation has improved dramatically but it is temporary. He does not have the authority under his own power to order this for long term. He asked the Council to institute these measures for the duration of this major construction of these two developments, 40 mph on 195th Street and no parking within 300 ft of the intersection of Embers Avenue and 195th Street. Mayor Soderberg asked ifit was 300 ft either side of the intersection. Police Chief Siebenaler replied that is correct. The trucks are proceeding past the intersection into the Mystic Meadows development and will be for quite some time. Councilmember Wilson asked ifthis would be until the last home is put up. Staff suggested it remain in place until the large development issues are taken care of, such as the large dump trucks. That is where the major issues arised. The parking on 195th Street is only necessary because they are trying to do the finish work on the streets in Parkview Ponds. The developer is constructing an off-street parking area for the workers. Council Minutes (Regular) July 18, 2005 Page 20 Councilmember Pritzlaff asked how the no parking on the south side of 195th Street is affecting the sight ofthe people coming out of Embers Avenue. Staff replied there was no parking on the north side and he has encouraged they pay attention to where they are parking. The contractors now have parking closer to where they want to be and he has suggested if they see a problem developing on the north side that will also be posted. That has not been an issue yet. The reason staff chose 40 mph is it makes a consistent speed limit from Pilot Knob to the east. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated some developments tell developers to run a street sweeper once a week. He asked if that would help the dust clouds. Staff replied these developers sweep the streets every day. The dry conditions have created the dust issues. They are doing frequent dust coating. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson to authorize the installation of temporary speed and parking limitations in the area of 195th Street and Embers Avenue as indicated. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 1) Ash Street Project Update - Engineering (Verbal) The Sunnyside lift station has been abandoned. Another one was abandoned earlier with the Middle Creek development in Pine Knoll. Regarding the schedule ofthe street construction and the Fair, it was staffs hope to get the paving done before the Fair. Due to the de-watering issues on the project, they will not be able to meet that goal. Dakota County has met with the fairgrounds and it has been decided that Ash Street will be open for the Fair from hwy 3 so there will be full access during the Fair. The road will be graded and dust coated and there will be personnel on call to take care of any issues that may arise during that week. The fairgrounds have done some improvements to their site and helped some access issues. The Third Street entrance has been paved and the ticket booth area off of hwy 3 is being widened. There is another meeting on Thursday with Dakota County and the fairgrounds to discuss any potential mitigation factors they may employ in order to make sure things go smoothly. Councilmember Wilson asked when paving will commence. City Engineer Mann replied we are a month out of where we hoped to be so paving should be in September. Counci1member Pritzlaff asked if there are any updates on the sewer line. City Engineer Mann replied the sewer should be finished this week as far as getting all the way down to the end of where they need to go. Once that is completed they will work on services and bring the watermain up. The pipe work is moving quickly. Mayor Soderberg asked if the sidewalk will go in after the blacktop goes down. Staff replied correct. City Engineer Mann clarified he looked at the minutes from the pre-Council meeting and it states staff will respond regarding the fire hydrant issue in regard Council Minutes (Regular) July 18, 2005 Page 21 to the cost. Staff has responded regarding the cost in an e-mail. He asked Council for some clarification as to how to bring this issue back to Council in the public forum. He asked if Council wanted just the cost at the next meeting, does Council want a recommendation, he wanted clarification from Council. Mayor Soderberg asked how it would have been handled ifthe citizen had come to a regular Council Meeting. He was not sure if staff would have given a recommendation or a cost estimate, but however staff would have responded. He believed the recommendation was not to move it. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated if a resident speaks during pre-Council meeting with an issue, those responses from staff have always been sent to the resident and put in the Council packet. With other issues on Ash Street, Council has always had the information staff sent out. In this particular case, we can all make a decision on what to do because of the cost, but it would not hurt to put the recommendation in, although the answer would have been the same. On the aspect ofthe response, it should be treated the same way as if it would have been a normal Council meeting and the response would have been in the packet. Mayor Soderberg asked if Council wanted staff to bring a recommendation to the next meeting. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he is not suggesting changing it, so it could be looked at for the future. To save staff time on this particular issue he is not looking at changing it, he was looking at the procedure. Mayor Soderberg stated based on the cost he was not interested in moving the hydrant. Councilmember Wilson stated it sounds like staff is just looking for how comments during pre-meeting should be treated. He felt they should be treated similar to the regular meeting. Mayor Soderberg asked with regard to this particular issue, do we want to see it next time. Councilmember Wilson stated he does not need to see it, Mayor Soderberg stated he does not need to see it either. 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE City Administrator Urbia: The Fire Department has one engine out for 4-6 weeks. This means we are with one engine for the near future. Coffee with Council is Thursday and Councilmembers Pritzlaff and Fogarty are on the schedule. Councilmember Pritzlaff cannot attend so Mayor Soderberg will attend. Tomorrow staff will meet with the school to work out scheduling issues with the alternate sites. There is an open house on Tuesday from 4:30-7:30 regarding the east-west corridor at the Central Maintenance Facility. The ground breaking for fire station #2 will be held next Monday at 6 p.m. Parks and Recreation Director Distad: On Wednesday the next round of master planning meetings will be held. The Council and community is invited to give input on the three parks planned for this year. It will be held at 6 p.m. at the Central Maintenance Facility. Council Minutes (Regular) July 18, 2005 Page 22 Mayor Soderberg: There was a donation from Dakota Electric and he thanked them for their contribution. Council recessed at 9:36 p.m. to go into Executive Session. They reconvened at 9:45 p.rn: 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Collective Bargaining 15. ADJOURN Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant )~ CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP VERMILLION RIVER CROSSINGS DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT MINUTES July 18,2005 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Soderberg called the meeting to order at 5 :00 p.m. Members Present: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson Also Present: Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; David Urbia, City Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Audience: Dick Allendorf, Bob Pittner, Sid Inman 2. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by Wilson, second by McKnight to approve the agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. DISCUSS VERMILLION RIVER CROSSINGS DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT City Administrator Urbia reviewed the contingencies for the final plat. They are as follows: 1. The planner shall approve the landscape plan along with design details for the 4 site amenity areas required in the Spruce Street Design Standards before any permits are issued. 2. The satisfaction of any engineering requirements including construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities. 3. The satisfaction of any Park and Recreation Advisory Commission comments concerning trails. 4. Execution of a Development Contract between the Developer and the City of Farmington and submission of security, payment of all fees and costs and submission of all other documents required under the Development Contract. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated the trails have been worked out as far as location. At the last Park and Rec Commission meeting the developer made a request to give full credit for park dedication based on gas easement and wetlands that would be deeded to the City. The Commission has decided to give them credit for the town square which is .7 acres and also give credit for the lOft. wide trail for the linear distance. Staff will compute this and determine whether all of the park dedication requirements have been satisfied. City Administrator Urbia stated Mr. Allendorf and Mr. Pittner were concerned about the timing for the Development Contract. Staff is planning to bring the Development Contract to Council on August 1, 2005. City Engineer Mann stated the issue is whether staff has all the information needed to complete it and the time frame to go back and forth with the details. Staffwill try to provide the developer with a draft. City Administrator Urbia asked if there was an update on the landscape plan. Community Development Director Carroll was not sure if City Planner Smick has had any interaction with anyone in the last few days. The developer will work with her directly. City Council Workshop July 18, 2005 Page 2 City Administrator Urbia stated the main issue with the development contract is the abatement issue. There has not been any tax increment considered in the City for quite some time and not during the tenure of any of the Councilmembers. Finance Director Roland explained her understanding of abatement and what would be proposed for this project. Mr. Allendorf and Mr. Pittner provided staffwith a cash flow analysis of their project. This analysis has been reviewed by the developer and Mr. Sid Inman of Ehlers and Associates. In Minnesota and as part ofthe City's business subsidy policy, staff must have the developer prove that for any assistance to be given to them from the City that they have a need or a but for situation that would require the City to assist them for their project to go forward. The issue has always been the Spruce Street extension and bridge project which the City will receive grant funding for, but which the total feasibility study shows a cost of$3 million. Staff provided Council with an analysis of how the cost breaks out. Under the current situation, staff proposed that the project be done in 2006 as a 429 project, meaning it would be assessed back to the development based on the amount of developable acres and the total cost less the Met Council grant. This is consistent with the way staff handles all developers in the City, both residential and commercial. If it is a new improvement, the City assesses 100% of the cost against the benefiting properties. The budget for the feasibility study is $3,046,000 less the Met Council grant of$955,000 and the balance of the cost of$2,091,000 would be per developable acre, an assessment of$48,617. There are five lots currently on the final plat. Each lot would be assessed to cover the Spruce Street extension and bridge project. Abatement is the assessment that would be spread on the properties over a period of time and the taxes and assessments would be paid as with any property. If a major national corporation purchased or leased one ofthe lots and built on it, the assessments and taxes would be paid on a semi-annual basis. The assessments would come to the City and be used to pay the debt service, but if the Council agrees to abatement the amount paid in taxes up to whatever point the Council decides will be rebated to the developer. Abatement can run up to 20 years, however if you choose to abate taxes over 10 years, you have to ask the county and the school district if they want to participate. The City would issue a 429 improvement bond to pay for the project and the debt service would be paid by the assessments that were paid. The lots would be assessed and the owner of the lots would pay the assessments with the property taxes annually. The City would pay back the abated taxes up to the amount of the assessment in that particular year. If the property owner does not pay the assessment or the taxes the City would be r~quired to cover the cost ofthe debt service. This is the risk the City is taking. However, there would not be any abated taxes to pay back to the developer. Mr. Sid Inman stated the county or school district would have to deny the abatement to go over 10 years. This would be done through a letter, and ifthey say no, the county has to pass a resolution and then you can go up to 20 years. There are no qualified costs like there are in tax increment. You can spend the money any way you want to. You can do the abatement for any number of years. You can match the timing of the development. A public hearing must be held with 10 days notice and it is subject to business subsidy law and the developer will have to provide a guarantee of jobs. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if this would be for 11 years or stay under 10 years. Finance Director Roland replied that is up to the Council. In the normal situation we have a 429 project and we have taxes and you collect the money on the assessments to pay for the bonds and collect the taxes. In a situation where you abate the taxes you are paying back the developer the amount, so you are not getting those tax dollars into your City Council Workshop July 18, 2005 Page 3 tax base because you are choosing to use those tax dollars to pay for the 429 project, the road and the bridge project. Councilmember McKnight asked if we levy back the abated amount. Mr. Inman replied you have to levy it back, but you cannot levy over and above. Councilmember McKnight stated we are going to be short X from the levy because of giving back the abated amount. Can we increase the levy by X. Mr. Inman stated you can, but it is not related to this. Whatever your levy limits are you can do that. You can also abate abates. You could abate every piece of property in the City. So part of this discussion should be a policy decision that he would recommend that the City never abates the existing taxes because then you will have a reduction. Council only has to make one finding and that is that Council believes the benefit of abating the taxes exceeds the cost and in this case you would be getting public improvements that everyone in the City would use so it is fairly easy to make that finding in this case. Finance Director Roland stated so in a year without levy limits we could levy whatever we chose to. Ifwe had levy limits it would not go above and beyond that. Councilmember McKnight stated if we go through the budget process and the levy will be $1 million, that is what we need to pay the bills for the year, but we abated $50,000 for this project. His question is can we change the levy to $1,050,000 so we can in the end collect $1 million if everyone pays their taxes so we would have all the money we needed for the year. Councilmember Wilson stated in other words make an assumption this project will have cost to it that we will have to pay for. Councilmember McKnight replied the $50,000 potential abatement which we would collect and give it right back. If we did not levy $1,050,000 we would only have $950,000 to pay our $1 million in bills. Mr. Inman stated another alternative, but he is not suggesting this, is we do have cities that abate any or all of the annual amount. So you could run it for 20 years and abate 40% a year and keep the 60%. The abatement term is longer, but you do get some general fund taxes. In addition, none of the estimates include market value inflation. Based on your history that is 11 years, but it would probably be done a lot sooner because we could set the resolution to abate any increase in market value that the assessor puts on. Councilmember Pritzlaff clarified the $8,258 is per year. Finance Director Roland replied that is the assumption at this point. That would go up every year as the market value on the property would go up and the taxes. The overall growth in the tax base has been 15%-25% over the last number of years. The total build out or total cash flow gave Mr. Inman enough documentation and some assumptions were made about the size and variety of different commercial buildings that would be built and their value, so the entire buildout ofthe project in order to repay the full $2 million ofthe bond would take a market valuation of $39 million over a period of 12 years to pay back the entire amount. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked we are out of this tax money that we are abating so does that go back to the developer and the City would never recoup that. Finance Director Roland replied no, after the assessments are paid those tax dollars would not be abated and would come back onto the tax roles. Mr. Inman stated normally they would issue an abatement revenue note to the developer or land owner. If the City wants to get the note paid as fast as possible, then they would pledge 100% of the taxes. It could be 11, 8, or 7 years. Then the note goes away and the agreement is designed so the following year those taxes come back onto the tax role and you are done with that. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked what happened to the money we gave to the developer. City Engineer Mann replied those taxes are going to pay for the road. Mr. Inman stated they are suggesting the 429 is to ensure that iftaxes do not get paid, they have a lien against the City Council Workshop July 18, 2005 Page 4 property so the taxpayers eventually would get paid back ifthey have to pay some. This is to give the City protection in case something happens in future phases and the taxes do not get paid. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if this is the only phase this will have to be done on for this project. Finance Director Roland replied no, it will have to be done on all phases ofthe project. For the developer or property owners to recoup the full effect of their special assessments we would need a $39 million market tax base which would be full buildout of the project and that would repay the $2 million over a period of 12.5 years. There is limited risk to the City in this case because the developer or property owner is still responsible for paying the assessments on the property. They are also responsible for paying the taxes and once they pay the taxes and the assessments then they would get the amount of the assessment back. Councilmember Wilson stated there is not the benefit ofthis project being here for a period of time. Finance Director Roland replied correct. The question is in 5-10 years if the market value increases on the properties and we were able to pay back the developer faster than the $8,000 a year we could get the property back on the tax roles faster. Community Development Director Carroll stated the tax benefits are not the only benefit that will come from the project. Because of the pivotal position of this development it is important to get it started sooner rather than later. He felt this outweighs the loss of tax revenue. Councilmember Wilson asked how common this strategy is. Mr. Inman stated this is the only tool the City has other than a grant, which you are already using. Councilmember Fogarty stated because it goes out as a 429 it does count against the City's bonding capacity. Finance Director Roland replied a 429 does not count against the debt limit because we do not have to levy to make those bond payments. They are asking for abatement on the full $2 million. The City is not asking anything of them that the City does not ask of other developers. Other developers put in City roads which are turned over to the City or they can ask the City to build those roads for them. The City determined as part of the Master Plan for this area that this particular road as a connection to the downtown was necessary and that it would provide a second access to the development. As such the costs for this particular project should be assessed back to the benefiting properties. The developer has indicated they cannot, without some help, finance the improvements. Finance Director Roland stated this is the City's first abatement. TIP has been the tool of choice up until the abuses by other cities caused there to be more stringent rules. TIP is different from abatement because TIP is not only the City's portion it is the school district, the county and the state portion. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted staff said this is similar to other developments, does that mean residential developments too. Finance Director Roland replied commercial/industrial is different because this is one of the amenities that Council has identified as something they want in the City. With residential development, they build their own roads at their own cost. In this case because ofthe grant funds and because the City wants the road built, we would build it. A number of residential developers would rather build City roads themselves, because they feel they can get it done cheaper than the City and they can then include the price in the cost of the lots. There are a number of internal roads in Vermillion Crossings that the developer will build themselves. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked why we would not get a request for half the project rather than the full project. Finance Director Roland stated because the cash flow for the entire City Council Workshop July 18, 2005 Page 5 project does not support repayment of the $2 million in assessments because the developers do not feel they can charge enough for lease rental or in purchase price for the lots in order to cover the special assessments outright. Councilmember Wilson asked what is causing those factors. Is it that we are not at a point to fully support this type of development or is it general market forces? Mr. Inman replied the problem with commercial development is their vision of how fast the volume of a product will move in a location at what cost. The numbers indicate this is what is needed to jump start the market. Mr. Allendorf stated the proforma assumed very high lease rates. They assume a market rate based upon Lakeville and Apple Valley. The fact is, they have 61 acres and 38 that are developable and we have Spruce Street that we do not need. It does not do anything for the project. It may be very good as far as the Spruce Street development connecting with the downtown. If you took the 38 acres and developed it without Spruce Street it is a market project that would not need any help and they would not be here asking for help. Once you include the $2 million assessment for Spruce Street it makes the price of the land so high that they cannot bear it. They cannot charge any more for lease rates and expect to lease it. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if we would be better to bond for the bridge or is more than the cost of the bridge the problem. Mr. Allendorfreplied the cost of$2 million is the problem. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if we could just bond for that. City Administrator Urbia stated that includes the bridge and the road to the town square. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated you could get away from the abatement and just do a bond for a bridge and we are in it for $2 million. Councilmember Wilson stated that would bump against our level among other things. Mayor Soderberg stated this puts the assessment back on the property and it is much safer. Councilmember Fogarty asked how many tax dollars annually they are looking at forfeiting. Finance Director Roland stated forfeiting is not the right way to look at it, because ultimately we will get those tax dollars. It would be $2 million over 11 years. It would take the full 11 years at around $126,760 per year for the tax dollars. This would be for the whole project. As the developer's project is laddered, you have these five properties that are the initial plat. You then have the following plats that come on over a period of time. The first year we may have only one property that we are going to abate the taxes on for the $8,000. The second year we may have all five properties which we are collecting the assessments to pay the bonds, but we are also rebating $20,000 or $30,000 back to the developer to cover the cost. The third year we may have 10 properties. It will gradually increase as the property value increases over time. We are using the flat 11 or 12 years, but in reality the period of time may be extended in order to get where we need to be. Council could choose to do 100% abatement from the start and just pay the developer back as fast as we could, or you could say we are only going to do 50%. It might take longer to pay back the developer, but you would have the other 50% that would pay the City's taxes. It is a choice the Council has to make. Councilmember Fogarty asked if we can choose a time limit versus 100% or 50%. Mr. Inman stated 20 years on any abatement no matter whether you take 100% or 50%. Each one is limited to 20 years maximum. Councilmember Fogarty asked what do we collect in taxes on that property now. Finance Director Roland replied we would collect the taxes on the growth or the difference in the property. That would be the amount that is abated. We would still collect the abated amount plus the base taxes. City Council Workshop July 18, 2005 Page 6 Mr. Inman stated the decision you have to make is do you want to do it and if you do is your goal to pay them back as fast as you can and get them back on the tax rolls or would you rather keep some yourself on an annual basis to help offset the general fund. Mayor Soderberg asked how much additional service will be required by this project, as far as police patrol, etc. City Administrator Urbia stated there are private streets so there is not much more mileage. Mayor Soderberg asked if staff has any idea how much additional burden this development will place on the general fund. Finance Director Roland stated she cannot answer that. Mayor Soderberg asked if the $39 million market value was a reasonable assumption. Mr. Inman thought it was less than the full buildout. Mayor Soderberg stated $39 million is the target market value to generate $126,000 a year to make the payment. Finance Director Roland stated that is half a year's payment. It would actually be $252,000 a year. Mayor Soderberg stated as far as the risk to the City, if the development does not take off and there are only one or two buildings out there then what. Finance Director Roland replied then we pay the bond with levy dollars over the period of time and we have a lien against the property which is before the mortgage. Councilmember Wilson asked ifthis will be an expectation for future developments. Finance Director Roland replied she does not know what other developers will expect. They can ask. We have provided assistance to developers in industrial and commercial projects in the past. Mayor Soderberg stated we just approved one in the industrial park and we used MSA funds to develop a street. Community Development Director Carroll stated we started using TIF in the early stages in the industrial park and it got to a certain point it had taken off and we just stopped using it. He felt we could do the same thing with abatement. Mayor Soderberg asked ifthis meets the but for test. Mr. Inman replied according to the abatement law, yes. They analyzed their whole proforma. The amount of the assessment is too high for them to sell the property and make any kind of a reasonable return. He is comfortable with the assumptions they gave him. Councilmember Wilson asked if the road was taken out of the project, would it dramatically change what we need to do with this development. City Engineer Mann stated Mr. Allendorf indicated they do not need the road. From the standpoint of the developer not needing those burdensome costs that have met the but for test, that is one way to phrase it. However, it has been and continues to be staffs position and recommendation that the southerly half of the development cannot develop without that access. He asked what portions of the agreement need to be in the development contract and part of the contract in order for it to go forward if we are going for an August 1 date. Does the abatement agreement have to be part of it or is it enough for the developer to waive their rights to object to the assessments. City Attorney Jamnik replied the latter. Finance Director Roland stated we will address that in the development contract under the standard wording that would address the fact that we will be assessing for this project and that they waive their right to the assessments. Do we have to mention there would be a future abatement? City Attorney Jamnik replied we would not have to. Finance Director Roland stated the abatement agreement will be a separate agreement. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if this issue was a factor a year ago. Mr. Allendorf stated as soon as the idea of Spruce Street being assessed to this property came up they let those people know that is a burden they cannot take. Finance Director Roland stated we discussed the assessments for the Spruce Street bridge and extension at a meeting on September 30, 2004 where Gene and Randy Pederson were there, and staff was informed that the $2 million would kill the project. Staff has worked on ways to go forward from City Council Workshop July 18, 2005 Page 7 there, however, it was not until after the first of this year the idea arose to find another way to pay for those assessments. Staff has known the developer had an issue. What took the time to develop was the but for where they had to come up with why they cannot afford it. Mayor Soderberg asked if staff was comfortable this is minimal risk to the City and the direction we should go. Finance Director Roland replied it is our recommendation at this point that Council consider abatement for this particular project. Councilmember Wilson asked if we were to not abate the project and assume the $2.1 million cost for Spruce Street and the bridge one factor would be to buy down the bondable limit. Finance Director Roland stated you would reduce the amount of debt limit you have left. Councilmember Wilson asked if we would be money ahead over the course of 10-12 years by paying for that on the City's part versus collecting the tax and the assessments along the way. Mr. Inman stated it would still be $2 million. The problem with assessment bonds is you have to be able to assess at least 20% of the project. Mayor Soderberg stated he considers this an investment in the Spruce Street extension and bridge and he would favor doing this. Councilmember Fogarty stated these are special circumstances with the special ponding and money they have had to invest. She is comfortable with the abatement and would like to see it run for a specific number of years. Councilmember McKnight stated the developer will be back with future tax abatement requests for the whole development, the rest of the lots, and that would be $252,000 a year when it is fully built out. He confirmed the developer is leasing the properties. Mr. Allendorf stated it is a combination. Councilmember McKnight stated this is a big red flag to him. However, this commercial development will not happen without it. He would go with the 10 year maximum and hopefully it would take less. He does not want to do this after this development. Councilmember Fogarty agreed. Councilmember Pritzlaff agreed that if we want it we have to invest in it. He thought the issues didn't just arise, so knowing it was a problem in the past makes him more satisfied. He agreed with the abatement for 10 years if that. Councilmember Wilson stated he is not completely comfortable with this. He had to believe there was some type of City risk only for the services that have to be provided. He asked if we can get a rough idea of what we can reasonably expect to have to pay for services out there over the course of an abatement time period. Finance Director Roland stated that would be difficult to determine. Councilmember Wilson stated he would like to proceed cautiously. Councilmember McKnight stated he would like to get it done and back on the tax roles. Secondly, he does not think there is a need for the City to ask the county, school or the state to participate. Councilmember Wilson stated we could set it up for 10 years but it is possible to get to that $39 million in 7.5 years. Mr. Inman stated the note would be written that any additional taxes over the scheduled payment would go to principal and therefore the term is 10 years or when it is paid off, whichever is shorter. Every dollar over the schedule goes to principal and reduces the interest. Community Development Director Carroll stated it is 10 years per parcel. 4. ADJOURN MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adjourn at 6:08 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. City Council Workshop July 18, 2005 Page 8 Respectfully submitted, ~/r7~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant 7CL JOINT COUNCIL/SCHOOL BOARD MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING JULY 11, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Soderberg at 8:00 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Soderberg led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. Council Members Present: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson School Board Members Present: Davis, Donnelly, Manthey, Privette, Weyandt Also Present: David Urbia, Robin Roland, Kevin Carroll, Dan Siebenaler, Randy Distad, Lee Mann, Lisa Shadick, Brenda Wendlandt, Brad Meeks, Doug Bonar, Aaron Tinklenberg, Steve Dibb, Rosalyn Pautzke, Jane Houska, Bill Patterson, Karen Bergman, Barb Duffrin, Carla Nohr Schulz, Monica Kittock-Sargent, Lori Jensen, Kevin Littman, Griff Davenport, Ed Terhaar, Tom Kaldunski Audience: Tom Ford, Michelle Leonard 2. APPROVE AGENDA Councilmember Pritzlaff added 3b) Council discussion on three requests from the school at the last Council meeting. Mayor Soderberg noted at some point in the discussion we will talk about the Flagstaff site and at that point the district would ask for Council's thoughts on those requests. Dr. Meeks agreed. Mayor Soderberg stated the City received the traffic study this week and he received a hard copy after the close of business on Friday. The City Engineer has not had any opportunity to review it. The Traffic Engineer reviewed it and made some comments to the school's Traffic Engineer. Mayor Soderberg suggested adding the comments to item 7 on the agenda. 3. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL ALTERNATE SITE(S) - CITY Community Development Director Carroll stated staff has looked at options for other sites. Staff has looked at this for three reasons. One is because residents have asked if this is the only viable site, are there other sites, if so what are the pro's and con's of each site. The second reason is that staffhas been asked similar questions by Councilmembers and felt the need to provide them with information in that regard. The third and most important reason is because generally speaking staff believes having options and alternatives available is always a good thing, especially when it is difficult or impossible to predict how other agencies including the Met Council are going to handle issues such as the comp plan amendment that would be required here. Everyone is aware even if the Council chooses to approve the comp plan amendment it still needs to go to the Met Council. No one knows what the Met Council would do with that. Some have said that if the City Council recommends a comp plan amendment to the Met Council that the Met Council is almost certain to approve it. Others have said that the Met Council will reserve its jurisdiction and its discretion to decide for itself what sort of impact the comp Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 2 plan amendment would have on the City of Farmington and the region generally. With regard to the comp plan amendments recently submitted to the Met Council they seem to be getting a higher level of scrutiny than anticipated. Even with regard to relatively straight forward comp plan amendments. There is as-acre infill development on the east side of Akin Road, Mattson Farms. Staff hoped the Met Council would approve it administratively by their staff but they have decided it needs to go through the entire Met Council review process which means a multi-level staff review, then it goes to the Community Development Committee and then it goes to the Met Council as a whole. This is for as-lot, 5-acre uncontested type of development. There is at least a chance that something of this magnitude would get at least that level of scrutiny by the Met Council, which is why staff feels looking at alternatives and trying to determine if there are any that would be less problematic for the Met Council, is not a fruitless endeavor. Staff believes there are a number of alternatives, but for this discussion staff has selected one for consideration. It has been suggested to staff that the Seed-Genstar property would be an appropriate location for a high school under some circumstances. It makes sense that when you are looking at the largest building project that the City will ever do that you look at the largest single property owner or the largest future developer in Farmington to see if a site can be accommodated on their property. Staff distributed an aerial photo showing the boundaries ofthe Seed property. The property is still in Empire Township, but an orderly annexation agreement has been in place for a number of years. Under the terms of that agreement the City has the unilateral right to annex the property without any opposition from the township. Staff focused attention on the southern portion of the site. The property has been broken up into segments. The area to the east ofthe railroad tracks, which run through the site from the southeast to the northwest, separate off a couple parcels on the east side too small to consider for high school sites. On the east side of the railroad tracks between the tracks and hwy 3 there are some parcels both north and south of the future alignment of 195th Street that could potentially serve as a high school location. Staff focused attention on parcel E. This is 94 acres. There is a gas pipeline that separates the area into two pieces. There is a 60-62-acre piece on the east side ofthe gas pipeline and on the west side ofhwy 3. Along the railroad tracks there is a 30-acre parcel. Staff has had past discussions with school district representatives indicating conceptually the City would consider the possibility of placing City parkland adjacent to a high school site so that the school district would be able to reduce its acreage requirements and thereby reduce the cost of acquiring the land. Staff took the latest site plan and separated out the individual components and assigned acreages to them. The high school itself is a little less than 12 acres, the stadium and related fields are a total of 10 acres, and the 952-space parking lot is a little more than 10 acres. You have 30-32 acres out ofthe 110 acre site that consists ofthree main elements, the non-athletic field components. The 208th Street right-of-way has been identified as a separate portion because there will be some discussion as to whether the 208th Street right-of-way can be used for football or soccer fields as shown on the site plan. The 208th Street right-of-way cuts off almost a 4-acre remnant in the corner that is probably largely unusable. If you take out the 208th Street right-of-way and the remnant parcel a 110-acre sight goes down to 94 usable acres, which is comparable to the Seed-Genstar property. Staff cut out the individual portions of the site plan and arranged them on the aerial photo Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 3 of the Seed-Genstar property to show which components could physically fit on the site. It is not intended to be a design of the school district's property. The aerial photo also shows the proposed alignment of 195th Street. 195th Street is being extended to the east as part of the Parkview Ponds development on the south side of 195th Street. It will be extended further to the east as part ofthe Mystic Meadows subdivision. The alignment has been preliminarily determined to be the eventual alignment by the City Engineers. There will be a bridge over the railroad tracks and either a bridge or some type of spanning over the wetlands on the west side of the railroad tracks. The area for the fields is 30-34 acres. The area for the school building and parking lots is about 60 acres. All the structures, fields, building, parking lots are on property owned by Seed- Genstar. The primary access to the site would be a north-south road that would intersect with 19Sth Street. On the south side there would be a road passing in front of the parking lot. The State has been working on a Hwy 3 Access Management Study. They have anticipated there would be a full four-way intersection at 195th Street and hwy 3. They have anticipated the other full intersection would be at 19ih Street and hwy 3. 197th Street runs in front of the Empire Town Hall. The map shows potential other connections which are existing connections to hwy 3. The State has indicated a desire to eventually close off accesses like that. If those accesses were closed offbecause of spacing requirements it would necessitate some other type of connection to enable the people on 194th Street to get out. That would involve either a frontage road along hwy 3 or a backage road along the railroad tracks. If the property to the south is ever developed they would need some north-south roads in the vicinity of the railroad tracks for internal access. That provides another access to the high school site from the south. There are a variety of different ways to arrange the pieces. Staff has shown 7 soccer or football fields and 2 baseball fields. That does not mean that is what has to happen. Staff is prepared to recommend to the Council that any combination of fields go on that property. The expectation of the Park and Recreation Director is that the competition fields remain on the high school property, and practice fields remain on the adjacent City property. The fields could be arranged in any way. This is just a conceptual layout. Dr. Meeks asked for a narrative of what Community Development Director Carroll is explaining. Staff will prepare one after the meeting. Member Donnelly asked about the curve in the alignment of 195th Street to the northeast and why they did not go straight to hwy 3. Community Development Director Carroll replied that was the original plan. In the City's Thoroughfare plan in the 2020 Comp Plan it was anticipated it would go straight which would have been a better connection. Dakota County did not move quickly enough to reserve right-of-way on the east side of hwy 3. Empire Township platted a residential development on the east side ofhwy 3 that blocked that access. Empire Township has factored this alignment in with their Providence Development. Community Development Director Carroll distributed other concept plans showing a 60- 62 acre high school site at 195th Street and hwy 3 and 30-32 acres of City athletic fields adjacent to that. That is the type of partnership opportunities that exist here that may not Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 4 exist on the Christensen site. There is so little residential development near the Christensen site and so little that is anticipated near there, staff did not know if the Park and Rec Commission would have an interest in putting athletic fields on the far western side ofthe community at this stage. There is an interest in having them on the Seed- Genstar property because ofthe amount of development that will occur in the vicinity. The common elements are the access off of 195th Street to the south. The road would curve and intersect to hwy 3. This would have to be a right-in, right-out based on the County's spacing guidelines. Staff feels this would work well. This access would be used for traffic emptying out to hwy 3 and going south. Traffic going to other areas of Farmington would use the full intersection on the north side and take 195th Street to the west. There would be very little traffic taking 195th Street to hwy 3 and go north or south. The golf course has been identified as a development location also. A company has an option to purchase it. Development would be occurring within a year or two. Staff provided a comparison ofthe Christensen property and the Seed-Genstar property and looked at the site with regard to the parameters identified two years ago as part of the high school siting process. The first 18 parameters are captioned land acquisition history probably prepared by Evergreen. The document indicates that Evergreen searched for properties matching certain size and location parameters provided by the district. There was a sub-committee ofthe district's planning committee that had O. Rider and two school board members and later Directors Pautzke, Bonar and Principal Kittock-Sargent joined the sub-committee and then seven volunteers met to discuss their preferences on location, recreational amenities and other aspects of site selection. The public input was given to the sub-committee and the properties were ranked according to the parameters. Stafflisted the parameters exactly as they were and staff objectively looked at which of the sites more closely matched the parameters. The comments indicate why staff indicated which one was the prevailing site. Staff highlighted the main points. There was a document distributed after the July 5,2005 Council Meeting prepared by staff that indicated under the right circumstances and based on assumptions staffthinks have validity it is possible that building a high school on the Seed site could save several million dollars. Staff acknowledges that the land costs are going to be greater than the cost of the Christensen property. There could be a reduction of90% in the infrastructure costs related to the development ofthe site. Regarding proximity to a major road, even if Flagstaff is paved staff believes hwy 3 has been and will always be more of a major roadway. It would be easy to describe to people how to find it. Regarding proximity to population, staff distributed a map showing areas in the urban reserve according to the comp plans of Farmington and Lakeville. The Seed-Genstar site is identified, the Christensen site and also the Fountain Valley Golf Course. The map also indicates where development is now occurring or expected to occur in the near future. The Seed-Genstar property, without a high school, is projected to have 2400-2800 housing units. Mystic Meadows and Parkview Ponds will have 800 units and 147 units respectively. The developments going in in Empire Township on the east side ofhwy 3 will have between 600-800 units when built out. This relates to parameter number 3 - proximity to Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 5 population. The Seed-Genstar property will be more proximate to those developments in addition to being closer to existing developments in Farmington. MUSA approval- the southern 250 acres ofthe Seed-Genstar site already has MUSA and has for a number of years. This was approved by the Met Council in 2000 when they approved the 2020 comp plan update. That property was not included in the MUSA review process a year ago because the property already has MUSA. City of Farmington support was identified as a factor as well as township support if applicable. Empire and Castle Rock would theoretically be more interested in the Seed-Genstar property than the Christensen site because of the distance to the site from where the residents live. Both sites are comparable with regard to soil conditions, water table, etc. Access onto the site is an important issue with regard to timing of construction. Staff understands building on the Christensen site would necessitate either working around the improvements made to Flagstaff including paving and installation of other utilities and/or building a temporary road that would access Cedar Avenue to come in from the west. Access to the Seed site could be obtained immediately either through an entrance placed near the future intersection of 195th Street and hwy 3 or there is a farm road access to the north of this property that could be used to gain access to the site for construction purposes. Staff feels it would be faster and easier to get into the Seed site. Sewer and water extensions - as the Seed property is developed or 195th Street installed it is anticipated that sewer and water would be extended as part of that or shortly thereafter. The distances are shorter than extending utilities to the Christensen site and most importantly from a cost perspective, rather than the school district bearing the majority of the cost of the sewer and water extension, the cost could be borne primarily by the developer that would benefit from that. There is cost sharing with the Seed site you would not have available elsewhere. Regarding visibility - showcase location - community pride, the City would be proud of the school regardless of where it is located. In terms ofthe showcase, staff recalled a discussion at a recent meeting about the Christensen site being a gateway to Farmington. You could consider it a gatew'Z if there were a gate nearby. There will be an access from Cedar Avenue along the 208 Street alignment eventually that will be one way into Farmington, but it is unknown at present as to when that road will be constructed. Hwy 3 has always been a gateway to Farmington and probably always will be. In terms of visibility the views to the north and the east will be residential, athletic fields to the south will be screened by some heavily wooded trees, and the views to the west will be athletic fields, open space, etc. The area to the south of the Christensen site and on the north side of hwy 50, staff feels most likely the use of that property will be commercial or industrial. Hwy 50 is a major corridor and it would be wasted to put residential units against hwy 50 between the high school and hwy 50. The views to the south from the Christensen site would be the backsides of industrial or commercial operations. Connection to agriculture - the Christensen property has been farmed for some time. The Seed-Genstar property includes Fair Hills Farm which has been there for a long time, the Seed family was very involved in the Cargill Corporation. Having agricultural curriculum in the high school program would work as well on the Seed site as anywhere. Avoiding a condemnation or hostile relocation - on both sites there is no need to relocate anyone. There are some people renting some space on the Seed property, but there plan is to go elsewhere and would not be affected by any development Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 6 south of 195th Street. It is undetermined if condemnation would be needed for the site and that is related to the fact as to whether you have a willing seller. The Christensen site meets that parameter more clearly because the property has already been sold to a willing seller. Staff has had indications from the owners or developers of the Seed property that they would consider selling. They would be potential willing sellers under the right circumstances. The topography of both sites is the same. The shape of the lot is more rectangular or square than the Christensen site. An L-shaped site creates some challenges for design that a rectangle or square would not. Other relevant factors that were not specifically considered as part of the process that resulted in the initial factors being adopted included the comprehensive plan. The City's comp plan already shows the Seed- Genstar property being designated as residential. It could be zoned to a designation consistent with the comp plan designation. The bottom line is no Met Council approval would be needed for the MUSA or for the comp plan amendment. So that would be eliminated as a factor or a potential risk. Environmental review is a question that has come up recently. The entire Seed-Genstar property was subject to a 6-9 month AUAR. The AUAR includes traffic analysis, soil conditions, depth to bedrock, topography, etc. City Engineer Mann addressed the distinctions between the Christensen property and the Seed property with regard to environmental review. Staff distributed a memo outlining the difference in the time frames and the steps that would have to be taken to revise the AUAR. The AUAR could be revised without any objections in an 8-week period, which compares to an EA Wand the range of 4-6 months. If the revision process were to begin on August 1 it could be complete by the end of September. The Christensen site is in the Special Waters area. The Seed-Genstar site is not and therefore has some additional flexibility in the design. The major issue for the AUAR for Seed-Genstar was storm water running to North Creek. There are provisions in the AUAR for that. There is a portion of the site that does flow to the east under hwy 3 and through Empire Township. There is more flexibility and overall comprehensive plan for the storm water drainage on the Seed-Genstar site that could allow for additional flexibility. The trout stream is called the Special Waters district by the MPCA. Based on proximity that any site is to the special waters, the Vermillion River and South Creek, would require a higher level of storm water mitigation especially in the area of temperature. The main way to deal with that is with infiltration and swales to allow the water to evaporate or infiltrate and not sit in ponds. Counci1member Wilson asked if the requirements with the Special Waters would be similar to Vermillion River Crossing and would a timeframe to work through that be over and above the 4-6 months. City Engineer Mann replied it would be similar to Vermillion River Crossings. The Christensen site being further away may have some different issues but the overall issue of temperature mitigation would be treated the same. If the Christensen site moves forward, staff would need to meet with the agencies to find out what they would be looking for and what would satisfy the MPCA rules and incorporate that into whatever environmental review is being done. Community Development Director Carroll noted there are a number of agencies that get involved in environmental issues. All agencies have already looked at the Seed-Genstar site as part of the AUAR. None of the agencies have given any consideration to the Christensen property. Staff Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11,2005 Page 7 does not know how involved that may be. The environmental issues for the Spruce Street area took much longer to resolve than anticipated. This was due to the fact that a lot of the agencies had not coordinated things very well in advance with regard to what their requirements were. Those types of complications could arise with any site. It is a plus all the agencies have already looked closely at the Seed property. Dr. Meeks asked about the process with the AUAR or the EA W, when they are out there reviewing it do they do that knowing what is being proposed for development? When they first looked at the Seed property, they probably thought houses. Now with the school going out there would their review take a different angle? Community Development Director Carroll replied the 60-acre area shown as a potential site, Dr. Meeks is right, that was identified as a low-density residential development. The agencies made certain assumptions as to what the storm water runoff would be and how much traffic would be generated. The main reason for amending the AUAR would be to give the agencies new information as to what would go on that property. 60 acres at a density of 3 units an acre might have been looking at 180 houses. They would have to compare the storm water runoff from the impervious surface related to 180 houses and compare that to what it would be for the school facilities. They do the same thing with traffic. They made some assumption as to how much traffic would be going onto 19Sth Street or hwy 3 based on those 180 houses. They would have to look at what a high school would generate in terms of volume of traffic and timing. That is the main reason for revising the AUAR. They would look at that as only one part of the entire development. The revision process exists to give the agencies an opportunity to comment on whether they see those changes to be significant. Staff feels they would respond favorably. The 30-34 acre park site would have very little storm water runoff compared to putting houses on that property. In some ways it might be more attractive. Community Development Director Carroll wanted to address one concern that was raised. Staff acknowledged railroad tracks and pipelines are issues that have to be dealt with. As shown in Concept A the distance from the gas pipeline to the closest portion of the school building is greater than the distance between the gas pipelines that exist near the middle school and the gas pipeline that exists near Akin Elementary. In both cases, the gas pipelines are located 900-1000 ft. from the nearest portion of the building. At the middle school site there are three gas pipelines passing through the western portion of the athletic fields along Akin. At Akin Elementary there is one gas pipeline running along the west side of the fields. Dr. Meeks had sent an e-mail regarding parking on City property on the parkland. Part of the reason for showing spaces is to put in additional parking if required. If the school believes that putting more parking on the park property benefited the school more than putting fields there, the City would be prepared to consider that. The pipeline is an issue, but some gas companies have been more willing to allow things to be put on and within the gas pipeline easement area. If the school wanted more parking to the west, having parking on the pipeline easement may be an option. The school district has had some amount of contact with Newland Communities which is the managing partner ofthe partnership that owns the Seed-Genstar property. Those Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July II, 2005 Page 8 contacts have been directed primarily to having an elementary school on the Seed- Genstar property. Staff does not know if Newland Communities would be receptive to having an elementary school and a high school. They may be concerned about the loss of developable acreage. A viable option for an elementary school is a slight modification of some of the work already done with regard to the acquisition of the Angus property. Staffis prepared to work with the district to maximize the value ofthat acquisition. Currently the property is not contiguous to the City, which means the City could not annex it right now even if they wanted to. Since it cannot be annexed, the City cannot provide services to it. They probably would not be receptive to the idea of having any type of school that would have a well and a private septic system. Staff has had some contact with Mr. Colin Garvey regarding his option agreement on the Fountain Valley Golf Course. The fact staff has talked so much about the Seed-Genstar property is not meant to imply that there is not an option of placing the high school on the Fountain Valley Golf Course property. Mr. Garvey indicated he would be receptive to that idea under the right circumstances. Ifthe school concluded there was some merit to considering the Seed-Genstar site, there are a number of things that could occur with regard to the Angus property and the golf course property that could work. If the school decides that 35-40 acres at the northeast or northwest comer of the golf course property would be a suitable elementary school location, Mr. Garvey has indicated he would consider selling property for that purpose, he would exercise his option on the property and be prepared to sell it to the school district. He also indicated he would be willing under the right circumstances to trading property. He would consider trading golf course property for portions of the Angus property so there would be no out of pocket cash expenditure required by the school district. He is receptive to looking at it only if circumstances can be created under which he can develop at some point in the near future the Angus property or the remainder ofthe golf course property. There are some long term issues there that involve our working relationship with Castle Rock, their willingness to allow that property to be annexed without opposition. There are issues involving sewer capacity. There is enough sewer capacity in the City's existing system to serve a 35-40 acre elementary school site without the installation ofthe future Met Council interceptor line. These are the main factors why staff is recommending the school consider the Seed-Genstar site because of the timing issues involved. Things could happen much faster on the Seed-Genstar property than the golf course property or the Frandrup property mostly because ofthe time required to continue fruitful discussions with Castle Rock. Ifthe Council was prepared to annex property over the township's opposition, we could move forward immediately. That is a question for the Council to consider. Castle Rock has indicated some preliminary willingness to consider portioning off a part of the northwest comer of the township. Staff has talked about an annexation boundary that would remain in effect for a number of years whereby properties on one side ofthe line could be annexed by the City without opposition, and the City would not consider annexations on the other side of the line. The line is on the east side ofthe Fountain Valley Golf Course and extends to the south and encompasses the Angus property. Staff is prepared to recommend the Council look at ways to accommodate getting an elementary school on the golf course property because the access would be better or if necessary on the Angus property. Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 9 Mr. Tim Weyandt stated one ofthe intrigues of the elementary school is the neighborhood concept and kids walking. The intrigue ofthe Seed-Genstar site was the neighborhood, the 3700 homes around it. It would reduce busing costs and continue with the concept of servicing the neighborhood. To stick something at the golf course or at the Angus property for an elementary has no intrigue or desire from this board. Community Development Director Carroll replied the concept of having an elementary school in the neighborhood could also apply to the southeast comer of Farmington. There is a lot of development activity that is about to occur there. On the east side of town, the Winkler and Devney properties will have 500 units of housing. A property to the south, owned by Don Peterson is 160 acres, and the Empey property is adjacent to that. Both the Empeys and Don Peterson have expressed interest in having that property developed. Staff has indicated the Devney and Winkler properties will be required to build a portion of Biscayne Avenue on the east side oftheir properties. Don Peterson has indicated a willingness to have Biscayne constructed through the middle of his property. Mr. Garvey has an interest in developing his property even with an elementary school there he would have another 120 acres for residential development. Mr. Garvey is planning on putting 100 units on the Empey property. If you add up the developments already in the planning stages and take into consideration the development that will occur in Castle Rock Township, you are getting close to the number of residential units in the Seed-Genstar property. Castle Rock has formed a discussion group to look at what other townships have done to facilitate residential development within the township itself. Staffhas received numerous calls from people who own property south of the Empey/Garvey property and south of the Angus property and there will be significant residential development in that area in the near future. An elementary school on that site would serve the neighborhood concept just as well. Mr. Weyandt asked how many homes would be on the Peterson site. Community Development Director Carroll replied it is 160 acres, so there could be 450 houses. If there were high density, there would be more. Mr. Weyandt noted they still have to service 3700 homes. Staff replied there are existing elementary schools that are reasonably close to the Seed-Genstar property. There is some expansion at Meadowview. From a planning perspective it is much easier to find sites for an elementary school than for a high school because ofthe reduced acreage requirements and transportation issues. Staff remains available to work with the school to identify other elementary school sites in the event the school believes there is not a need to have one in the southeast comer of town. There are other potential sites. In the area between Mystic Meadows and hwy 3, there are a number of individual property owners there that will eventually be developed residential. The opportunity is right to work out something with those properties if the school believes it is necessary to have an elementary school in a more central location. There will still be school needs in the southeast comer. Mayor Soderberg stated the focus for the high school site has been on Seed-Genstar. The golf course is also a potential site, and then have Seed-Genstar for an elementary school. Staff noted Mr. Garvey wants to develop the property, but he cannot do it unless special arrangements are made to provide services. Providing services to a high school on that Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 10 site would expedite the development he wants to occur. If the school believes it is more important to have an elementary school on the Seed-Genstar site and it outweighs having a high school on that site, staffwill work with the school on either the golf course property or the Angus property. There could be things staff or Council could do to deal with the township opposition. Staff emphasized they do not see anything they are suggesting as being a radical departure from what the school staff and school board have already talked about. Both sides are talking about putting a school on the Seed-Genstar property and in the southeast comer of town. Staff sees this has building on some of the school's preliminary work. Staff does not disagree the Christensen site is a good location for a school of some kind. The question is whether now is the time or if later would be a better time. One ofthe things learned is that there is a benefit to identifying school sites far in advance. That is something the school or the City has not done. Maybe there is a way to preserve some of the Christensen site for a future elementary or middle school, get back a portion of the money paid for the site, have the City look at a comp plan amendment that would identify that as a future elementary or middle school site and specify when that would occur, or indicate it would occur with development in that vicinity at the time. Staff sees opportunities to save the district substantial amounts of money by shifting some of the infrastructure expense to developers that will be paying it anyway and staff believes at least the Seed-Genstar site and perhaps the golf course site could be developed sooner and faster than the Christensen site. Councilmember Wilson mentioned the types of partnerships that can exist within Seed- Genstar such as parkland, etc. and asked ifthose types of partnerships also exist with the golf course or the Angus property. Community Development Director Carroll felt they did. One of the distinctions between the Seed property and the golf course property has to do with the amount of parkland you can obtain as part ofthe development. If the City wanted to take land for the park dedication requirements for the Seed-Genstar property the City could get 10-15% of the developable land which would be 80-120 acres of parkland. That makes it easier to split off 30-35 acres and make it available for school district use. There is not as much acreage available with the Garvey property. There are 160 acres and with the same percentages it would be 16-24 acres. You cannot create as many City athletic fields adjacent to the school as you could on the Seed property, but that does not mean it cannot be done. Maybe the Garvey and the Angus properties could be developed jointly. If the Angus property were converted to partial residential development you have additional acreage that could be converted into parkland to create more park opportunities. Staffis prepared to look at those joint use opportunities in any location where the City had a reasonable need to have those fields now or in the near future. Dr. Meeks asked if the City would look at the Community Center going on the Seed- Genstar property. Parks and Recreation Director Distad replied what the City is looking at now is the next step which is looking at 7-8 different sites. One of the sites is the Seed-Genstar site, however there are other sites. They will have those sites narrowed down within the next two months. Dr. Meeks recalled the City was looking at 55 acres, so if you designate 30 acres for fields that leaves 25 acres north of 195th Street. The original plan Dr. Meeks saw was that the fields would be across the creek. Parks and Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 11 Recreation Director Distad stated they would be abutting the wooded area. Community Development Director Carroll stated they saw athletic fields next to the high school as not being a substitute for the other fields but they would be in addition to the fields already shown in the City's master plan. The Park and Rec Commission has talked about having an adult softball complex. Park and Recreation Director Distad stated that is planned in the Mystic Meadows development. There will be a 25-acre park in the next phase ofthat development. With splitting out the fields, if the City were to take park dedication and give the developer credit for those fields between the pipeline and railroad it would reduce the amount of dedication you could get next to the wooded area where they had identified a youth complex. With the soccer fields, it would be much like what is happening now at the Middle School, those would be routinely used. Community Development Director Carroll noted the four lighted softball fields across hwy 3 to the east. There may be a concentration of athletic fields in a limited area which is good for purposes of tournaments, etc. The Seed concept that showed the softball fields along hwy 3 was prepared to show how you could have seven softball fields located within one area. It is divided by the highway, but you would have tournament opportunities there. There is the same situation with the soccer fields. The concept shows 8 or 9 soccer fields in one area with additional fields located to the west just north of 195th Street and more fields in Mystic Meadows. City Administrator Urbia stated regarding the two sites discussed, Seed-Genstar and the golf course, both staffs could set up meetings with the representatives to explore the recommendations. Dr. Meeks asked what staff sees happening with Diamond Path, with that being a future road, will there be an assessment the school will be responsible for. Community Development Director Carroll replied the main benefit of Diamond Path is that it will be built as part of the Mystic Meadows development and Parkview Ponds. That will create a new north-south route to enable people to get from 195th Street to Akin Road. Last year the City adopted some modifications to the thoroughfare plan that showed the Diamond Path alignment intersecting with Akin Road in the vicinity of the Lutheran Church. The portion north of 195th is uncertain. When the thoroughfare plan was done, staff tried to line it up so eventually Diamond Path would continue north through Lakeville and up to l60th Street in Rosemount. The stretch through the Seed property is a little uncertain. The City has the discretion to either require that be built as part of the Seed-Genstar development or possibly defer that until a later time. Staff sees the high school location being far enough away from Diamond Path so that it would be hard to argue that the school receives a significant benefit from that, which means it probably would not be assessed to the school district. Staff sees this as being different than the situation with 208th Street as it goes through the Christensen site. That goes right through the Christensen property and would become a primary access to the school site. When that project is done, the school district would be assessed some portion of that cost. Dr. Meeks stated regarding needing Met Council approval, ifthe school district were to entertain the Seed-Genstar site, this would be a significant change from what they submitted to the state for review prior to bond. The school would have to re-submit to Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 12 the state for some kind of approval. He does not know where they would fall. The state may have some issues with traffic, the railroad and the gas pipeline. Community Development Director Carroll replied as far as the railroad tracks and the pipeline are concerned, the Dept of Education should not be any more concerned about that here than they were with regard to Akin Elementary and the Middle Schools. These railroad tracks are quite a bit further away from the school building itself than the tracks are from the back ofthe Middle School. From the tracks to the Middle School is about 150 ft. There is considerable more distance on the Seed property. If you are looking at a City field or park in that location, it would be the City's responsibility to install any kind of fencing necessary along the tracks. There would be more fencing in this vicinity than currently exists behind the Middle Schools. As far as the acreage change, staff's understanding of the state's guidelines is that for a school of2,000 students or less their general expectation is a site of at least 60 acres is necessary. There is a provision that says that under special circumstances such as topography or high land costs, the state will consider modifications of its standards. Staffhoped if they were presented something the City and the school district were in agreement on whereby the school district would have access to City fields and perhaps even first priority to use those fields, that the state would see that as meeting the school district's goals. It might be seen as more beneficial than the school district building and maintaining the fields. You spare an ongoing operating expense. Parks and Recreation Director Distad has made some changes to the provisions regarding park development fees. In addition to having to give up land for parkland, developers have to pay park development fees. They pay cash that is put into an account used for the development of fields on the land the City gets from the developers. That means that instead of the school district paying for the construction and maintenance of the fields it would be the City's responsibility. The state should see this as beneficial in reducing future operating costs for the district. Dr. Meeks stated to keep things in perspective the current high school sits on 58 acres. They would be doubling the students on the same amount of acreage. Community Development Director Carroll stated between the 60-acre high school site and the 33-34 acre park site you are effectively doubling the amount of acreage for the high school. Dr. Meeks stated summer programs right now are not on campus. Students travel off campus to compete for swimming, baseball, etc. Dr. Meeks asked if staff had a suggested timeline if Seed was approved, how do the timelines work out to meet the district's anticipated need by fall 2008. Community Development Director Carroll stated they would move as quickly as they can and as fast as Seed-Genstar would allow. Most of the decisions are made by a corporate person from San Diego. They have been here for one meeting and have indicated in writing that in the event some collaborative interest in some of their property is demonstrated they would be happy to meet with us to talk about that. The goal is getting to the point where we can effectively convey to them there is some collaborative interest, that there is genuine interest by both parties. That seems to be the prerequisite they have set for getting together to meet. Ifthe Council receives indications it is something the school considers worth exploring without any commitment, ifthe school is willing to convey that to Newland Communities, we could meet next week if they are available. There are various incentives the City can offer to Seed-Genstar that the school district does not have available to offer as incentives. For Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 13 example, if they are concerned about the loss of 60 or more acres of developable property, staff could consider looking at densities elsewhere within their development. Right now their development is single family with some isolated pockets of medium density along hwy 3. Ifthey wanted to create an environment to add some medium density or high density staff would be prepared to consider that. Staff would take the initiative on whatever comp plan amendments would be required. The City has some discretion as to what assistance they provide for the 195th Street extension. Initially, the expectation is that the developer pays the full cost ofthat subject to contributions by other parties that benefit. Staff has anticipated that Dakota County would pick up most of the cost. There may be opportunities with Council's consent for the City to carry some portion of the county's cost on a short term basis until they can get that into their CIP and reimburse the City. There are things the City can offer the developer if they have some reservations about the wisdom of this. Mayor Soderberg stated Dr. Meeks' question was how do the timelines compare with getting development done on the Christensen property versus Seed-Genstar. With the advent of an EA W required for the Christensen site that will delay things 4-6 months from the time it starts. A revision of the AUAR diminishes from 4-6 months to 6-8 weeks. Councilmember McKnight noted there are other potential timelines as far as the Dept. of Education, Genstar agreeing to this, and questions that cannot be answered yet. Dr. Meeks stated the district has finite resources. Mr. Garvey may want to trade or want more money over and above, we do not know where Genstar's bottom line is, etc. Mayor Soderberg asked is there enough information to warrant looking at other sites such as the golf course or Seed-Genstar. Member Privette asked if Genstar has seen this concept plan. Community Development Director Carroll replied they have not seen this drawing because it is so recent. They have discussed with them about the high school going south of the 195th Street alignment and indicated it would be in the southern portion of their property. From their perspective it is so speculative since they do not know what the school district's position is, they have not given it a lot of consideration. Staff prepared the concept plan because they believe they can lessen whatever resistance Seed may have to the idea by putting the school and the fields in a location that is separated from the rest ofthe development. The map showing a 94-acre parcel on the north side of 195th Street is more of an intrusion into the residential development. Councilmember Wilson stated the direct answer is the City has not gone to Newland and said here is what this is going to look like. The City has taken a position based on conversations with staff and Newland that the City would only talk with them jointly with the school. He asked if there was enough information to warrant that joint meeting. Member Weyandt stated his concern is based on information shared with the school from their professionals. They have $5.9 million worth of resources left to purchase property. We have to figure out how to come up with two pieces of property at $5.9 million. Regardless of what he wants to do, the reality is they have a problem. Going back to the people would do a couple of things. It would change the complexion of this whole thing if it were turned down. It would irritate people again in this community to go back and ask them again for funding for another piece of property although the ultimate bottom line may not be affected because they have been given their resources back. The reality Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 14 is we have done this once for you, we are not going to give you money again. To go back to the public again and try to get funds for more property would not be a viable option. His biggest concern is where will he get the funds to buy this property. Community Development Director Carroll realized this is something the school needs to be concerned about. There is probably enough brain power available here in terms ofthe Council, school board, staff and consultants to figure out a way to deal with that. On the surface it seems like if the school were to consider putting an elementary school on either the Angus property or the golf course property, there are ways to accomplish that without any additional expenditure of funds. As far as the high school is concerned, if the school sees 60 acres being sold at $100,000/acre as costing $6 million and the school has $5.9 million left, on the surface it seems like the school does not have enough money. Keep in mind that there is a multi-million dollar infrastructure expense for the Christensen site. As far as the Seed property, ifthey got a certain amount of value from the school district, they would not care in what form that came to them. They will have several million dollars worth of expense for 195th Street. Maybe an arrangement can be achieved whereby instead of spending $7-9 million on roads and infrastructure for the Christensen site, maybe the school spends $2 million. Maybe the school could pick up some portion of Newland's infrastructure costs. The school is already spending $7-9 million on that, so why not spend $2 million on that, take it off the purchase price, and the school pays the difference. The school has more than enough cash to do that even if they cannot get any of the Christensen money back. The school would not have to go back to the voters. There are ways of structuring the financing with Newland to accomplish that. Member Weyandt asked if Newland has said they will be creative with the school or is staff assuming that. Community Development Director Carroll replied the City has not had any further discussions with Newland because of the understanding that was going to be done jointly. Staff feels it would be presumptuous to go to Newland and try to negotiate financial arrangements on the school's behalf. If the school is receptive to exploring that, staff would do that with them jointly or if the school wanted to designate some of staff to take the lead and report back to the school, staff is prepared to do that. Staff does not want to do that without the school's knowledge, participation and consent. Staffwill stay away from Newland completely with regard to every aspect until there is some level of assurance that we are looking at this jointly. That is what Newland wants. Member Privette stated his concern with the cut and paste plan, is stafftook all the components of the building on the Christensen site and put them in where they would fit. A couple of concerns the school has is their duty to educate kids and have natura11ight, position of the building, etc. It fits the way staff shows it, but that is not necessarily what is best for kids in the design. It is put together like a puzzle. It does not layout on this property with regard to the education ofthe kids and the best learning places. Member Privette did not feel the building fits on this property. All the components from the Christensen site fit, but they are just bits and pieces where there was room. He feels they are premature in buying a piece of property or looking at an alternate site if they cannot get their design to fit on a piece of property. He asked if the architect can show them how it will fit without cutting programs. It is premature to talk about buying it ifthey do not know if it will fit the way it is supposed to fit. There is no flow to the design. To talk to Genstar together is premature. Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 15 Councilmember Wilson stated the reason we are here with this problem is because one side moved ahead to propose a site in an area that was not consistent with the comp plan ofthe City. Ifwe had that mutual working relationship prior to my getting on the Council, we would not be at this point. While the drawings may not do justice to the good work DLR can do, we are trying to find creative solutions to make this work out where it is mutually agreeable. The residents just want to get this done. Ifthere is any moving from one area to another, it is in the best interest of the City and the school, he would go to bat and provide any cover that needs to occur to protect the interest of the school knowing we are working on this together and it is a win-win. Member Privette stated he was not disputing that. It does not do us any good to go together without a suitable flow to the building. Councilmember Wilson stated the only way to resolve this issue is to approach Newland jointly. The architects can come up with a way to make it work out. The bottom line is, Newland is not interested in having this conversation unless it is jointly. Member Privette stated he agreed with that, but we have to go with a joint plan. Community Development Director Carroll stated the City does not expect the school to buy property or even consider buying property based on a drawing like this. Dr. Meeks stated the bottom line is whose decision is it to acquire school property. Is it not the school board's responsibility? Committees make recommendations to elected officials to make a final decision. We can come up with all kinds of plans, but it comes to the school board to make that final decision. The school district has to be responsible for whatever decision is made on these school projects. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated on the plan shown, the savings from the Christensen property to the Seed property is a savings of $8,750,000. Ifit is about that amount, the school has to look at the money they will be using to pave Flagstaff and factor that in plus the $8,750,000. Is the design exactly what you have now? Maybe not, but it is a great savings to the taxpayers and that should change a few things. You may have to give a little to save that kind of money. The flow may not be the same, but the City will not make it so it is not a workable situation. Community Development Director Carroll stated that figure is based on certain assumptions. He stated he agrees with Member Privette. Ifthe school decides it will be useful to devote some consultant time to looking at this property and try to figure out what will work best in terms of building layout, staff is expecting the school to do that. This is just an illustration. If the school wants to do that before approaching Seed-Genstar, that is the school's right and staffwould expect them to do that. Ifthe school wanted to talk generally with Newland about acquiring property, they can do that too. It is a matter of the highest priority, getting the initial indication from Newland as to whether they would be receptive or wait until the school knows the site will work. Staffwill work with the school either way. Dr. Meeks stated the savings are based on a lot of assumptions. People voted on the plan that included a lot of the infrastructure costs. They knew $6 plus million would go for infrastructure. They were willing to spend those tax dollars already. Member Weyandt stated there is a realistic possibility of someone in the community coming after us. From a financial standpoint, the school has to listen to the professionals around them. They want to make sure they do not expose themselves to future litigation because they have Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 16 altered what the bond had promised to people. Based on people who study that law, there is a possibility you could be subject to litigation. If that happens, who pays for that? Councilmember Pritzlaff replied the taxpayers. On the comp plan, promises were given to people there. Residents on Flagstaff could come to the City and we would find ourselves in the same position. The taxpayers would pay for that. Member Weyandt stated a comp plan is not a promise. It is a working document to try to build a City around and the City has made some 36 amendments to it. A comp plan is not a promise that is binding in anyone's court. It is a working document the City has given people to try to build and work around the City so they build where it will be feasible. It is not a promise. It is not subject to litigation. It is a working document that breathes because you have changed it 36 times. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated we have made minor changes not major changes. Member Weyandt replied it is a change. People will be affected no matter where they build. He is worried about the financial end and the functionality of it. When we are done with the biggest project that this City will ever see, he does not want to look at the public and say we made it work. The funds were not appropriated to make it work. His commitment was to bring this project on time, under budget, it will not be a gross display of affluence, it will be extremely functional, and when you go to another community, they will say those Farmington schools are gorgeous. That was his commitment to people. He still feels strongly this is an opportunity to do something not good, but great. He wants to take advantage ofthat. He is not saying this cannot work. This has to flow properly, have room for 2400 students, and ifhe signs it he wants to be proud of it. Along with that, what have we publicly committed legally and a bond is a legal and binding document. Councilmember Fogarty stated the City could help them out with the liability ofthe school and that is on July 18, 2005 the Council can deny the comp plan change. The school would have no options. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated we are willing to work together and if we deny the change, what would the school do. Member Weyandt stated they are making alternative plans for that right now. The school has to figure out how to keep the classrooms less than 30 students. They will be bringing in satellite classrooms. They will be doing many things to accommodate the students in 2008 wherever we build, but 2008 we have a problem. We will all hear from parents when we start putting 28-30 kids in a classroom. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if all the money put together to pave the rest of Flagstaff from I 95th Street north was taken from this bond. Member Weyandt replied yes. Finance Director Roland stated the Christensen site was purchased from money with the 2002 bond, not from the $10 or $18 million bond. The school confirmed that is correct. Finance Director Roland stated the bond issued in 2002 was to purchase land. When the school talks about site plans, etc. and obligations for bonds, the City is aware of what the obligations are for bonds. In 2002, the school had not identified the Christensen site as a piece of property to be purchased. So the school bonded for money to purchase sites for schools which you are doing with this money. The school talks about conceptual sites, etc. that was not in the school's brochure that went out to the public. The school told the public you were going to build a high school. It did not show site plans. Councilmember McKnight stated the Christensen site was in the information. Finance Director Roland asked if it looked like that. Member Weyandt stated no we had infrastructure costs on the Christensen site and a map showing where it was. Finance CounciVSchool Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 17 Director Roland stated the dollars that are paying for the additional infrastructure, from 195th Street to Lakeville, are those dollars coming from the $118 million bond. The school said yes. Finance Director Roland stated even though the purchase price came from the other bond. The school said yes. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he was told there was a million dollars from the previous bond that would go into the infrastructure and when you say you cannot take $3.8 million from a land issue and buy other land it raises questions. Member Manthey stated that might have been her misunderstanding. Dr. Meeks stated they have previous building funds that have money left over. Some of that was used to purchase new library books and some was used to purchase land. There is money left from the previous high school project that they will use on that building. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if there was any money from Meadowview that will be brought into this project. Ms. Jane Houska, Assistant Finance Director, replied not that she is aware of. Dr. Meeks stated some of the previous bonds also had money to purchase land. They are trying to clean up those accounts. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated the understanding of some of the taxpayers is when a project is done and there is left over money, to use it for books is okay, but otherwise it should be returned to the taxpayers and do an operating cost. Member Weyandt stated on the last bond they had money left over and the school asked ifthey could appropriate some ofthose funds for this project. That was used for building the east addition. Councilmember Wilson stated the school has expressed the timeline as one of the top issues. The intention in talking about this is not for the school to digest a new site now. It is to discuss the possibility of a new site. At the June 20 meeting he said he did not think the Christensen site was the best site or the worst site. Community Development Director Carroll has presented a lot of compelling information from a tax perspective, from a collaborative partnership perspective, from a timing perspective that certainly would warrant his interest. There are still issues with the review and comment, etc, but the fact is the EA W is a 4-6 month process. Overlay that with any kind of requirements associated with the special waters district, maybe that is included. The earliest the comp plan could be approved is next week. Then there is site plan review, preliminary plat, etc. He does not see digging dirt at the Christensen site until February/March 2006. DLR has to do some work to see if alternate sites will fit with what the school is looking for. He feels with an alternate site, the City could help the school achieve breaking ground in 2005. Dr. Meeks states this is the first time the school has seen in any kind of detail what the City's thoughts are. The school will review the information and see ifit is possible. It is the school board's final decision. They have to determine ifit is cost prohibitive, timeline prohibitive, issues with the railroad and the gas line, etc. There were other properties that were dismissed right away because ofthe pipeline. Mayor Soderberg stated ultimately, Dr. Meeks is correct. The decision on how the school lays out, selection of the site, purchase of the property, development of the building, belongs to the district. Land use belongs to the City. If the school district picks a property that does not work with the land use, you can buy all the property you want Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 18 and design all the buildings and plans you want, but if it does not work with the City, it does not work, you are not going to get it. We have to work together, it is not an option. What the City has been telling the school since November is that the Flagstaff site does not work from a land use perspective. He does not want to close the door on that site, but if that is the only option left, right now he is hearing there is not even a willingness to consider alternative sites. There is all this resistant to even considering the Seed-Genstar site, which in his mind from the evidence presented, is a very viable site. He does not know ifit will fit, but we have documentation showing the soil conditions, the AUAR has all the information that is needed to make that determination in very short order. There has not been that level of detail work done on the golf course and the Angus site has greater difficulty than the golf course. Seed-Genstar, the golf course, and the Angus site in that order present difficulties, Seed-Genstar with the least amount of difficulties. The golf course has potential, but has greater difficulty than Seed-Genstar, but nothing that cannot be overcome. The Angus site is considerably more difficult. Mayor Soderberg stated he is feeling the resistance to even consider the Seed-Genstar site. Member Weyandt stated there is a lot of information here. He feels like they are just making it work. Ifthe City said Seed-Genstar had a few more acres and they had to move the elementary somewhere else and legally they could make it work, and ifDLR said it is a go and it flows, why would he oppose it? He wouldn't oppose it, but legal has to say it is right and DLR has to say it works. He cannot feel like they just got it done and stuffed it in. It has to work for their professionals and he has to be proud of it when it is done. He feels like it is crammed in. 60 acres does not quite get it. Mayor Soderberg stated he called the Board of Education and talked to the gentleman that does the review and comment for the Board of Education and for a school the size being proposed, 60 acres is the minimum required by the state. He asked about the review and comment and the Board of Education said they wanted to make sure there was at least 60 acres, that the soils would work and that the school was not being put on wetland. That is the review and comment ofthe Board of Education. After that it is a local decision. It is a decision that has to be made between the school board and the City, where it will go and the size. That is why the proposal was to put parkland with some ofthose fields to give the school the space they need. Mayor Soderberg asked if the whole 110 acres needs to be owned in title by the school district or can it be a 90-acre campus owned cooperatively between the City and the school district to the benefit of the district. Member Weyandt stated that may be a great place to start, but based on a school of 2000, he is very concerned. He believes they will be up to 2400 students much sooner than they anticipate. Mayor Soderberg stated he does not doubt that for a second, in fact he has heard the long range plan is 3-5 years after this is open they will be looking at a second high school. Member Privette asked out ofthe 94 acres, how many units was Genstar going to put in there. Mayor Soderberg stated ifit was 400 acres it would be 300 homes. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated the City would lose the taxes for those 300 homes. Councilmember McKnight asked how many acres they started looking for. Member Privette stated 100 acres. They are on 50 acres now and they knew they would have to double that. Dr. Meeks stated this will be a 1 OO-year building and they wanted enough space to expand. One of the concerns with this site, is that once it is in place it is land locked. Member Privette stated they tried to build a second story on the current high CounciVSchool Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 19 school and the state would not let them. The footings would not support a second story. Mayor Soderberg asked if Mr. Davenport would have an initial feeling ifthis would fit on the site. Mr. Griff Davenport stated he has participated in authoring guidelines at the State Department of Education for Facility Planning. He appreciated the assessment of site size. The one thing not taken into account is the communities whose functions vary significantly from community to community. Adding a stadium to a component forces a minimum site size to go beyond its borders. That is a 10-12 acre consideration by the time you have adequate seating, etc. The issue is not whether or not this can be developed on the site. He is fairly sure they could find a way to organize the building, positioning the building east-west, but the long-term value in the community would be questioned. They need to look at some fundamental things in terms of how the building sits and its adjacency to hwy 3. It would take a couple weeks to fit a plan on a site like this. This site is not without topographic challenges. To a large part the building on the Christensen site was driven by where the stadium fits and how the building sits on there so they created a balanced site. He would like to find that same balance here because of the construction cost impact. The financial impact is the biggest issue the school may face. Minimizing the infrastructure costs enables some monies to go back to the building project. It is important all parties understand that construction inflation does exist. In May the Dept of Administration said construction in 2007 represents a 13 % increase in construction costs. He suggested they bear in mind that there is $70 million worth of building. It will not be $70 million if mid-point of construction goes to June 2008. It will be 10-13% higher than that. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked about starting the project on the Seed property earlier than the Christensen site, would we come in under cost. Mr. Davenport stated if the school were to change sites, we have 6 weeks of re-design once a topographic survey is done. The original timeline is to award bids in September and start construction in October. He felt it was highly unlikely to get the site redrawn, agreed to, re-platted, go through the entire process and still enable a construction start in October 2005. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked about the difference between acres from the Christensen site minus the right-of-way for 208th Street opposed to the acres for Seed-Genstar are close to the same. Community Development Director Carroll stated ifthe right-of-way cannot be used for athletic fields and if a portion ofthe southwest portion of the property is cut off by the 208th Street extension and cannot be used, that takes the site down from 110 acres to 98 acres. You then have to consider whether or not the ponding shown on the plan is sufficient given the special waters considerations. If you have to start injecting infiltration basins in addition to ponds, there is a question as to how much additional acreage will be lost. Staff understands the challenges with making the site work and knows the school is concerned about having to make it work. The reality is it may be necessary to make the Christensen site work once more is known about those issues. If you assume a little additional ponding is required, you are looking at comparable sizes between the two sites. Initially the school's focus may be on a 60-acre high school site. If you set aside or reject the idea of adjacent City athletic fields and the school were to buy the 94-acre parcel and the school would own it, would that address the school's concerns about acreage, if you end up with a comparable amount of acreage as you have with the Christensen site. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated there is slated to Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 20 be fields in the 208th Street right-of-way and he does not want to be in a position when 208th Street goes through to tell the school to shrink their fields. Ifthe City says the school cannot put a field in the 208th Street right-of-way and it comes down to the same amount of acreage as Seed-Genstar we are comparing apples to apples. Looking at changing the site now together we have discussed someone could file a lawsuit against the school, if we deny the comp plan amendment, what will the school legally have to do? The school has not discussed that. Mayor Soderberg realized the pipeline runs through the 94 acres. He assumed the discussion about 60 acres for the school and 30 acres for City parkland, the pipeline bisects the property in that manner so 60 acres is east of the pipeline and 30 acres is west of the pipeline. Community Development Director Carroll stated it has not been surveyed. That is based on the information in the GIS system. The portion east ofthe pipeline is 60-63 acres and the portion to the west ofthe pipeline is 30-34 acres. Mayor Soderberg noted Mr. Davenport said adding a stadium to the site warrants getting 70 acres. Mr. Davenport replied that assumes topography that accepts it very easily. Part of the inefficiency of some of the sites was extreme topography. Even the Christensen site negates some topography use. Councilmember Wilson wanted to make sure the school understands the 4-6 months for the EA W alone, takes digging. If the comp plan is approved next week and there are no unique circumstances with the water shed issue we are still talking 4-6 months. It is constantly suggested that the City is stalling the school's process and that is far from the truth. There are environmental situations, standard review process that the City has no control over and no involvement in that has to occur. What we have discussed has the possibility of saving some time. On the current course, there is no way things will be ready by October. It is frustrating when it is being continually portrayed that the City is slowing down the process when there seems to be a lack of acknowledgement there are certain process steps the state laws have in place. Police Chief Siebenaler asked if the school has taken into consideration the special waters trout stream issues that will be associated with the Christensen site. Member Davis asked why the Seed-Genstar property is also not in the special waters? Is the creek that runs to the west a tributary of the Vermillion? City Engineer Mann replied it is. Trout streams are designated by sections of land. Every stream within that section is considered a special waters whether it has trout in it or not. Any tributary that comes to the Vermillion River within the section designated is also considered a trout stream. Beyond that, when a tributary comes up to the edge of the section where it would end and enter a new section, there is a 2000 ft. rule that anything that drains to that tributary within 2000 ft of the special waters has to be treated like a special waters as well. In the Seed-Genstar property it is far enough north of the designated reach of the Vermillion to be outside of the designated section and the 2000 ft. Therefore, it is not considered a special waters. Police Chief Siebenaler stated unless a developer takes that into very serious consideration, you run into a very large obstacle. It happened with Vermillion River Crossings and it has delayed the process by over a year. Member Davis could understand the Spruce Street area, but on the Christensen site, where would the water drain? It does Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 21 not have access to the creek. City Engineer Mann stated there is a tributary to the north that the site would be draining to. If you are draining within that 2000 ft to a tributary you are considered in a special waters area. Part ofthe overall issue is how far away do you have to be that you are not affecting temperature for the trout stream. The PCA rules state if you are inside this area, the temperature is an issue. Member Davis stated it sounds like another government plan that has run amuck. You are talking about a site that runs downhill into a creek and someone has caught a trout and you have another one that is no where near in geographical relationship. Councilmember Wilson stated they are not trying to invent obstacles, they are just pointing out the reality of what is going on. He wished there wasn't a 4-6 month EA W process, but there is. That does dictate the timeline and it does not have anything to do with any Council action. The meeting recessed at 10:36 a.m. for a break and reconvened at 10:55 a.m. Member Davis asked about the City owning adjacent land next to a high school. He asked ifthe City would be amenable to allowing school district policy to control the usage ofthe land. In other words, by state statute the school does not allow alcohol or tobacco use on school district property. Councilmember Wilson and Fogarty felt it was regulated by state statute. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated that is why they wanted the youth and adult athletic complexes separated. Member Davis asked if the City would post signs. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated some communities ban smoking in parks. Community Development Director Carroll asked if they planned on banning it completely for all types of activities whether school district or City or just banning it during the time when used for school district activities. Member Davis stated let's say all cases. He asked if the City would put up signs saying "no alcohol, no tobacco." Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated if there is an ordinance, there would be signs. Member Davis stated recently they requested no alcohol be used on the fields during a softball tournament that an ex-Councilmember organized. He believed there was an ordinance that gives the City discretionary authority to identify a restricted area and allow a one-time permit issue for the use of alcohol on City park property. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated that is a permitting process. Alcohol is allowed in parks under current ordinance. When there is a tournament they are required to go through a permitting process to sell alcohol for the softball tournaments. Member Davis stated the adjacent City park area could allow alcohol and tobacco use. Police Chief Siebenaler stated under current City ordinance, if it is City parkland alcohol and tobacco use is permitted. What the school is talking about is the passage of an ordinance that would prohibit it on that property. Barring a change in the ordinance there would be no tobacco or alcohol use on that property. Member Privette clarified you can specify a certain property and Police Chief Siebenaler agreed. Community Development Director Carroll stated if it is a weekend and you have soccer fields there and there is no school district competitions or practices occurring and the City has made the fields available for a couple of adult teams to play soccer, would the school want the City to prohibit smoking and alcohol use on those fields at that time even though there were not any school activities going on. Member Davis stated his problem is that type of usage has a tendency to migrate from area to area. Member Privette stated they do not allow it now for non-school use. Mr. Siebenaler asked how they enforce that. Member Privette Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 22 replied self-enforcement. Dr. Meeks stated they are told they cannot play their tournaments here anymore. Mr. Siebenaler stated that is future prevention, not enforcement. Under an ordinance, the City has the right to enforce it on the spot. The City cannot enforce it on school property, but it can be enforced on City property. Mayor Soderberg stated there are 60 acres identified for a potential high school site on the Seed-Genstar property that mayor may not work. That is undetermined. Another alternative is the golf course site. There are still some unknowns with that and it mayor may not work but it at least has some potential. With the amount of information received, it at least warrants some investigation. The City Administrator has suggested that a work group get together and talk about it and explore the potential with the different developers. Is that what we want to achieve as an outcome from this discussion. Member Davis asked if the purpose would be to identify Seed-Genstar has a high school building site. Mayor Soderberg replied yes. Member Davis asked ifthere was any flexibility for joint negotiations with Newland in regards to a possible elementary school site. Mayor Soderberg replied that is a possibility, but at this point, the pressing issue is the high school site. Member Davis stated the pressing issue is going to be an elementary school site. Mayor Soderberg stated he realized that, but today we are talking about a high school site and that seems to be the hitch. Without the high school the waterfall does not happen. Mr. Davenport stated the Middle Schools cannot make it which has to happen for one of the elementary schools to become a reality and the other elementary school is a separate issue. Mayor Soderberg stated the high school is the pressing issue. While the elementary school is not an easy site to place, it is a much less difficult issue than the high school. Ifthe determination is made that the Seed-Genstar site is not workable with the topography, the acreage requirements, the gas pipeline bisecting the property at a 60-30 split, then it is determined. We have another alternative with the golf course and a very willing developer there. Dr. Meeks stated with the Seed-Genstar site, it slopes and the areas are unbuildable. The Christensen site is 110 acres and it is all buildable. If a right-of-way has to be granted so there are no permanent structures on the gas line and the slopes and soil conditions, they need to know what that acreage will be. Mayor Soderberg stated that is something we cannot determine here, but it is something the school has access to and staff will make available all the data they have regarding the site. Staffwill get more precise acreages to the school so they are aware of the acreages. Dr. Meeks assumed you have to be some distance away from the railroad tracks. Mayor Soderberg stated that would be a City issue as the railroad tracks are west of the pipeline. With regard to the parcel we are identifying as a potential for an alternative high school site on the Seed-Genstar property, the City needs to know if we can approach them jointly and talk about this. The school needs to determine if the site itself is workable and staff will make that data available. There is the potential for a high school on the golf course. There are some questions that need to be answered and the City is willing to help the school get those questions answered, because the City does not have the answers and would like to have them as well. Dr. Meeks stated the question for Genstar is does it have to be this location or could it be somewhere else. Mayor Soderberg stated he is open to that if Newland is open to that. MUSA is already designated for the entire area, but it is designated in phases. To go much north ofthe identified area, gets into a later phase of MUS A. Community Development Director Carroll stated much ofthe area Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 23 north ofthe 195th Street alignment, shown as D, is within the area that currently has MUSA. Member Privette asked if some of the land is in ag preserve and staff replied no, none of it is. Member Weyandt asked if there is a dwelling in the northeast quadrant. Staff replied yes, it will be going as part of the development. Dr. Meeks stated with the MUSA issue, he did not believe the Angus property or Fountain Valley has MUSA. If there were some shuffling of MUS A, could it be transferred there or pull it off sooner, or grant MUSA to Fountain Valley or Angus. Community Development Director Carroll replied during the MUSA Committee meetings they discussed the Met Council has been receptive to the idea of cities on the fringe granting MUSA at whatever rate they think they can accommodate through development. If the MUSA Committee recommended MUSA for the golf course site or for the Angus property and the City knew there was a way to serve one or both ofthe properties physically, it is likely the Met Council would approve MUSA. Part of the reason Counc:il has not approved MUSA for those properties is they did not have firm development concepts for the properties and there is the capacity issue. Member Privette asked where Castle Rock comes in. Councilmember McKnight stated he does not want to have any discussions about the school on the Angus property without Castle Rock being here. He asked how much the school has met with Mr. Garvey or Seed-Genstar on the high school topic. Dr. Meeks replied they had several meetings with Genstar about the elementary school. They had a conference call for 15 minutes in April because ofthe idea ofthe high school. Mr. Garvey came in either before or after the referendum and asked if Christensen is the site or can his property come into play. It was a 10-minute conversation. Member Manthey stated the City is wanting to know if the school is willing to work with them to have a joint meeting or not. Member Weyandt would like to establish the criteria that would preclude a site from being functional or a useable site. He would like to have that long-established before so it does not come up later. He wants to make sure we have established what criteria will keep it from happening. Member Davis replied some of the criteria is the railroad and the gas line and would say no as part ofthe criteria package when they started the land search process. He does not have a problem going to Newland and talking about sites. This was the same thing at the meeting on day six. At that meeting he and Chair McKnight could not make promises. It was a board issue. There were no promises made. It was a lose agreement to have these discussions. He went back to what Chair McKnight brought up about the two-track process that is in place. The school has had a process for three years trying to find land and build the buildings. The demographic studies were conducted in 2002 which lead to the bonding election for the money to purchase the land. This did not happen over night. This is a nice meeting and a good presentation, but he is wondering why this did not happen one year ago. Member Davis believed a year ago the City was aware that the Christensen property was a viable piece of property the school was looking at, regardless if it was going to be a high school site or an elementary school site. It was on the short list. It was his understanding the City was aware of this list. They needed to have this discussion a year ago. Things are being slowed down right now. There is the possibility the train will get knocked offthe track and it is not because the school board is going to derail the train. He wished they would have done this a year ago. A lot of these problems could have been avoided. Maybe he was out of contact, but until January of this year he did not Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 24 realize and had no idea that the Christensen site was such a problem. He thinks he just became aware of the City's 2020 Comp Plan as of January of this year. He might have heard about it in the past, but he did not understand how serious a document the City considered it to be. The school has been into this process for years. He does not have a problem talking to these people, but it is important for the school district to maintain the two-track system. The school has started some tremendous processes in motion and he did not think they were doing themselves or the community any justice by stopping this and saying we are going off on this other track. The school has to continue to move along on these two tracks. Mayor Soderberg stated he does not disagree that the discussion should have taken place two years ago. He asked the school to try to remember the climate two years ago. A two-track system is something two ofthe Councilmembers agreed would be an acceptable approach because the track on Flagstaff is a dangerous track, it is very difficult. That is part of the reason he is willing to close the door on that site. As he said a month ago at the Council meeting, ifhe called the question that night, they would have derailed the train then. We still need to pursue the two-track issue. He is not convinced there aren't less expensive alternatives available. He has no problem examining and working through the criteria already established. There might be some tweaking that could be accomplished, but we need to work on two tracks. Two tracks is a good idea, but the second train has not left the station. Member Privette asked what is the work group that should be put together? City Administrator Urbia stated it would be Dr. Meeks, himself, and whoever is appropriate to bring the knowledge to the table to meet with the developers to get the facts out and ask the right questions. It would definitely include Community Development and Engineering. Councilmember Wilson stated whatever we do it has to be quick. Member Privette asked if we will get to a point where that is it. Eventually we have to pull the train back into the station. Are we going to put a deadline on this or are we going to go on. This is our fourth or fifth meeting. He was not looking for a definite time, but we need a drop dead date of when we are going to stop. We could go on with these meetings forever. He asked the City if this is what they have for alternative sites. If for some reason, that Genstar does not work, are you going to come back with another site? Mayor Soderberg stated the only other site he has heard about is the golf course until the City has some discussion with Castle Rock Township. Member Privette stated eventually we have to stop. Councilmember Wilson suggested September 1 as a deadline and also asked the school to respect the fact that the City does want to have this further review and that the school approach this honorably and be willing to have open-minded discussions relative to the other side. Everyone from the City is very excited about the possibility of being able to give this a thumbs up and know that it is a win-win situation and we are moving forward. He asked this be done efficiently, by September 1, and then determine what the results are and move forward. City Administrator Urbia stated the EA W has not been started yet and with the time window discussed, doing the second track is not the delay. The school will have to sort through the EA W requirement and at the same time we can work on the other sites. He felt it is helping some Councilmembers with valid concerns to answer more questions. Councilmember McKnight asked how this does not delay the one track if we do not take action until September 1 on what is in front of us today. City Administrator Urbia replied when you are saying dual track, you are Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 25 spending money on the one track. Member Privette had a problem with September 1 as a deadline. He did not think they wanted to get into a deadline. We could decide next week if it is good or not good. Councilmember Wilson stated if the vote is this Monday he is voting no. If you do not get a 4-1 vote, it is done and the City has forced the school to look at a different site. Council can do that and be done with it. Councilmember Wilson felt he was being reasonable by saying let's continue looking at the option while exploring other options. If the school wants action on Monday, so they know where they sit, he will vote no, because he knows there are other options that at least have the possibility of being a better situation for both sides. He stated he may be completely wrong and will admit that at the end ifSeed-Genstar, Fountain Valley, and discussions with Castle Rock do not work. Dr. Meeks stated you are telling us right now is that unless we agree to meet with the City and move ahead, we are done. That does not sound like a spirit of cooperation. Councilmember Wilson stated it is. Member Privette stated not it is not, you just told us you would vote no. How is that cooperation? Councilmember Wilson stated if you want action on Monday and you want to be on a dual track, he was telling the school how he will vote on it. Ifwe explore the possibility and it does not work out for a different site and we are down to the Christensen site, then that's where we are going. He has never said he is done with the Christensen site or that he is done with Flagstaff. Member Privette stated you just said that. You said you would vote no. That tells me you are done with it. Councilmember Wilson stated if we decide this on Monday he will vote no. Ifwe want to continue the dialog to a date certain, such as September 1, July 30, whatever it is. .. Dr. Meeks stated all you are asking us to do is to extend the deadline for Monday. Councilmember Fogarty added and genuinely consider the other options. Councilmember Wilson stated he does not want to derail the train. DLR has done a lot of work and everyone has invested a lot of personal time and energy. So rather than derail the trail, which he does not feel comfortable doing, let's have the discussions, we have the possibility of continuing the comp plan amendment. He has residents saying vote it down and others say keep it going. There is a 50/50 split. If the school wants a decision on Monday and wants the Council to act in a way so the school knows where they stand, it is on the agenda. Councilmember Pritzlaffhas talked to a lot of people and the word is let's get it done. Council is taking a lot of heat as Councilmembers to take a vote. They voted us into office to get the decisions done, not worry about the little things. We have delayed it once and it is on the agenda to move it forward. Ifthere is anything on this site the school says they will not look at honestly, and will be setting up another meeting by themselves, ifthere is a slight chance anyone wants to do something outside of what the City is asking, it goes to vote on Monday. Councilmember McKnight stated the school set up criteria looking at all of the land. You talked about gas lines today and railroads. How will the school bring these two issues in as obstacles to the site? Dr. Meeks stated there is also access to emergency vehicles with the railroad going through. Councilmember McKnight asked if the City sees these as valid reasons from the school district's point of view. Councilmember Fogarty stated the road will go over the tracks as part of 195th Street. Councilmember McKnight asked what about the gas line. Councilmember Fogarty stated there are other schools with gas lines just as close in proximity if not closer in other areas of the district. It would be a little inconsistent for them to throw this site out based on this gas line. Councilmember Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 26 Wilson felt it was reasonable that it is a concern. Member Davis stated we do not cross it. That is the difference. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he agreed with Councilmember Fogarty as far as Akin Elementary the gas line runs along Pilot Knob. It is not crossing it, but there are fields there. Weare talking about fields here and maybe parking over this gas line. Staff also talked about rerouting the gas line more towards along hwy 3 or closer to the railroad tracks. Dr. Meeks felt it was pre-mature to talk about that. These are just pieces ofthe puzzle. We do not know how this will lay out. We have not accounted for the right-of-way for the gas line, we have not subtracted the acreage we cannot build on, that will totally affect how this lays out. Until an architect can tell him how it will work, he cannot answer any questions. Member Davis asked about item 13 regarding condemnation and that is presently unknown whether condemnation would be needed for the Seed site. That was one oftheir criteria. We are not going to use hostile eminent domain. Councilmember Fogarty stated we are not asking that you do. Member Davis said it is on paper as one of our criteria. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he agreed with Councilmember McKnight to get answers on it and ask the rest of Council about their position on the ballfields on the 208th Street corridor. Council could easily say there will not be a field in that corridor and the school would lose three fields. Dr. Meeks stated it would have been nice to know that a long time ago. Member Davis stated can you tell me that 208th Street will be extended in the next 3-5 years. City Engineer Mann stated in the past when no development was happening in the area we did not have a timeframe. Everyone knows it has been identified as a corridor by Dakota County. With the development of a school, as far as a timeframe, it throws it into a guess. There may be a need for that road to go through sooner rather than later. Lakeville has talked about developing that area and wanting to put the road through to Flagstaff. The City does not have a good handle on when that road will go through. The issue is that we need to ensure it can go through. The minute the City received a concept that showed fields in that area, we identified that. The first concepts did not show fields in the 208th Street right-of-way. Just like we did with the Middle School, to grade the road and set it aside so we know the road will go through is a very important recommendation to the Council. As far as when it gets built, we do not know. When the Middle School was put in, the issue of taking 208th Street to hwy 3 was not known then either and that was 6-7 years ago. A feasibility report has been done on that section so how many more years that will be, staff does not know. It is the same with 208th Street to the west. With the school going there the potential for it to happen sooner occurs. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he does not care when the road goes in. If there is a corridor there and it is 10 years from now, you know what will happen. We will have people saying save our fields. The school is asking the City to amend the comp plan and the school will come to the City again and say amend our roads to accommodate the fields. Councilmember Fogarty said no one but the school has ever proposed if that road will be built. The county and the City have always said that road will be there. It is on the east-west corridor plan. Member Davis stated Lakeville does not have a lot of respect for the corridor, they put a development there requiring this tremendous curve in the road. It will curve north and parallel 202nd Street. City Engineer Mann stated in the thoroughfare plan it is shown going somewhat to the north. Member Davis asked ifthere is really a reason why 208th Street has to go in west of Flagstaff. City Engineer Mann replied yes, to provide an east- west corridor. Member Davis stated half a mile to the south you have a four-lane trunk Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 27 highway. City Engineer Mann stated when the County did their east-west corridor study they identified that as one oftheir four important corridors. Based on traffic studies that were part ofthat analysis, they identified that as a necessary corridor. Staffwill obtain a copy of the study for anyone who wants to review it and see why the road is necessary. Member Weyandt stated it is a collaborative effort and asked Mr. Davenport share some information to see if they can find some common ground. Mr. Davenport stated the issue is whether these sites can work programmatically. We have a reasonable understanding of the program components. DLR was not involved in the site selection so there needs to be someone involved from a design team to represent the site selection criteria. In the design process, whether it is the building or the site, we do a design charrette where we bring all the parties involved, not a team of 30, but include a Civil or the City Engineer, City Planner, an owner representative where we would dedicate a specific amount of time, it might be two days, where we lock ourselves in a room and explore the design potential for the sites being suggested. That is not without some expense. This does not have to be this "here is the site, you do your thing, submit for review, and come back and review." It does not have to be a six-week effort. If the parties were interested in that process we could come to some fairly quick resolve in terms of programmatically does it work and quick resolve to identify significant issues that may still exist, then we might take a break for a few days to allow some engineering to occur or some cost estimating and then dive back into the same thing. The process might last two weeks rather than two months. Mayor Soderberg felt it was a very reasonable suggestion. Mr. Davenport stated it does involve assembling some high powered people to get that done. DLR would be willing to schedule something that may even involve a Saturday. Member Donnelly asked ifbefore we do that wouldn't we have to find out if we can even buy the land from Genstar. We cannot make plans to build on someone else's land. We have to find out if we can acquire the land. City Administrator Urbia stated the first step would be to meet with Newland and the second step would be the Castle Rock meeting. Member Davis stated the reality is we have a piece of property that is concrete. This other proposal is a lot of pretty pictures. It is purely hypothetical. We have this process that has been moving along and he cannot say stop it and jump to the other track. It has slowed down considerably, and we have to keep it going. Member Privette stated the City has had more conversations with Genstar than the school. Member Weyandt asked how much is sellable and how much do they want for it. Mayor Soderberg stated that is what we have asked is to put together a team from the school and the City because Genstar does not want to talk to the City or the school district alone. They want us to come to them together in agreement and talk to them. Member Privette stated we are taking 300 homes out of the development and that has to be a huge number for them. Mayor Soderberg stated Community Development Director Carroll as identified some incentives the City can do by offering them greater densities in other areas to make up for that. Councilmember McKnight stated we have not talked about any of this. Mayor Soderberg confirmed there have not been any discussions, but those are things we can do. Member Weyandt asked Councilmember McKnight ifhe could start that track and asked when the next joint meeting is with the township. Councilmember McKnight stated he could give a preview oftheir reaction. The school has gone through it once, but he will bring it up. Councilmember McKnight stated we have to have a partnership with the township, no matter what the issue is. Member Privette asked if we are going to meet with Genstar. Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 28 Member Weyandt asked if we could do this through a conference call rather than fly someone in from San Diego because that will prolong the event. Mayor Soderberg stated City Administrator Urbia and Dr. Meeks can establish the date, time and format. Community Development Director Carroll did not want to assume they would be unwilling to send someone to talk with them in person. They have done that at least once already. Both sides agreed it would be preferable to meet with them face to face if someone would be available. Community Development Director Carroll stated it was discussed earlier there was no point in meeting with Seed-Genstar until the school determined the site was workable for their purposes. We have now gone to the other side of that and we are going to talk with them about buying the land before the school has determined whether the site is workable and that is okay. Member Davis stated Genstar may suggest their own site. Councilmember Fogarty stated Genstar has asked them to jointly come up with a proposal to bring to them that the school board and the City can both agree on. Member Davis stated this is the City's hypothetical site. Staff added for today's discussion. That is one ofthe things we have to work out in a setting other than this. If the concept is we are going to talk with them about a specific site or about the idea of putting a high school somewhere on their property, we need to be open to the idea they may want it somewhere else. When we set up the meeting, staff can find out how Genstar would like to approach the issue. We can either say this is a conceptual location that the City and the school would like to talk to them about or we can say the City and the school would like to explore the possibility of putting a high school somewhere on your property. Would you be receptive to that and if so, what would work best. Most people tend to react better with a concrete proposal. The City and school should be in agreement on how to approach it when we meet with them and not try to work that out during the course ofthe meeting on the fly. Dr. Meeks stated a high school changes drastically what Genstar was trying to achieve in this area. How much ofthat 750 acres was going to be designated commercial? Community Development Director Carroll replied there was a commercial node on hwy 3 toward the northeast comer ofthe property of 20-30 acres. Dr. Meeks stated one thing he has heard is the high school being able to attract business. He would assume that 20-25 acres of commercial/industrial would have to expand. Staff asked why. Dr. Meeks stated before it was purely housing, now you are bringing in a high school, 2000 students every day, hosting major events and one of the rationale he has heard is somehow drawing business through downtown. If you are going to serve that area, he would assume the City would want to take advantage of having a high school there and expand the economic base and put more commercial/industrial nearby. Community Development Director Carroll replied certainly not industrial. We have adequate plans for commercial space reasonably close to this property already. When 195th is done, traffic can go west on 195th Street and take Diamond Path or Akin south and within 5 minutes you are in the Spruce Street area. Dr. Meeks stated in his previous high school projects, usually the school district had a conversation with the City about what types of businesses would go in nearby the school. So we may want to have a conversation about what the City intends near the school. Community Development Director Carroll replied we would have to define what near is. You would have to go out to hwy 3 and quite a ways north to get to the area shown on the comp plan. That is a comp plan designation. If Genstar comes in with a concept plan that shows more or less commercial or commercial in a different place, the City would CounciVSchool Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 29 have to talk at a staff level and with the Council about whether we want to change that or not. The school is right. They have a right to understand what sort of businesses would go anywhere reasonably close. Right now we do not have zoning on the property. We have a comp plan designation that shows commercial. We have to have a discussion about what sort of commercial that is, B-1, B-2, or B-3. We have a variety of zoning districts. The zoning district that would go there would dictate what the uses are. Putting the high school there does not mandate that the commercial area be increased. If it is 25 acres, that does not mean we have to make it 50 acres. There is other commercial space reasonably nearby. Most of the traffic going to a high school is looking for convenience, fast food and gas. Staff saw those types of convenience uses happening along hwy 3 and not a shopping center type of environment. That is why we have a couple hundred acres set aside on the south side ofhwy 50 to provide that type of shopping environment. That is reasonably close to the site. Dr. Meeks stated he can see a hotel going nearby, which would be good. Member Davis asked Community Development Director Carroll what he meant by people go to a high school wanting convenience, fast food and gas. Staff stated if you have people coming from other areas, he was not sure they would see shopping in Farmington as a primary component of the trip ifthey come for a football game or tournament. If they want to shop in Farmington we would be happy to have them do so. Most of what we will see along hwy 3 are convenience type uses. That does not mean nothing else can occur out there. The concept plan for some development on the east side ofhwy 3 envisions similar types of commercial centers. Member Davis stated then high school users who would be attending events at the high school are not much more than a convenience type of store user. Community Development Director Carroll stated do not put those words in my mouth. If someone comes to a high school event and wants to shop in Farmington we would be happy to have them do that. They take 19Sth Street to hwy 3 and go south, they take 195th Street to the west and get on Diamond Path and go south. In less than 5 minutes they are in downtown Farmington or in the Spruce Street commercial area. They can spend all day there and we would be happy to have them do that. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated an issue was brought up about doing all this work whether we own this land or not. He asked if the school has it worked out, or is it in the same time frame, when they are doing the infrastructure on Flagstaff and also building the school, is it true the school would need access to Cedar in order to get construction materials into the school and if so, has that plan been worked out with the property owner or does the school see themselves assuming that will be done. Mr. Kevin Littman, Mortenson Construction, stated we have discussed that quite a bit. Until they know who, when and how Flagstaff will be improved, they have not received a lot of detail, but they envision using Flagstaff throughout the construction period of March 2006 through April 2008. The secondary access off Cedar would be helpful, but that is not their first preference. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if they see at some point they will need that access. Mr. Littman replied it depends on how Flagstaff is constructed. One of the options is to develop Flagstaff in two phases. Start from the mid-point ofthe site and work north and allow the south access to be available. When that improvement is done to the north, open the north and improve the south. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated his concern is that they do not depend on one more person coming in and giving them Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 30 something they need such as another access to the site. Mr. Littman asked ifhe was referring to the City of Lakeville. As far as they are concerned with estimating purposes and planning out construction activities they have not factored that in as an immediate need or necessity. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked ifthe timelines come down to a more crucial time would that decision change. Mr. Littman stated as far as the current processes they are not providing a temporary access to the northwest. Mayor Soderberg stated it is agreed the City staff and school staffwill get together and meet with the land owner and after discussions with the township, potentially with the second land owner and town board. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if this will be delayed on Monday night. Mayor Soderberg stated he was going to wait until the board meeting to address that, but he asked the question now of the board and will give them the opportunity to answer it after tonight's meeting. Member Privette stated Chair McKnight could not be here and he has to get the information to her and does not want to speak for her. He will defer the question until after they talk to her. Mayor Soderberg stated he will throw the question out and not expect an answer at this point and expect an answer after tonight's board meeting. The question will be what will the school district have the Council do on Monday night. Extend the comp plan review or take an actual vote on Monday. The school can reply to the Mayor directly or through the City. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if we extend it to the first Council meeting in August as DLR said we would lock people in a room and get this done in a short amount oftime, would the first meeting in August go beyond the deadline where we would have to extend it another 60 days. Mayor Soderberg stated if Council delays action on Monday night, then we have to extend the review 60 days. City Administrator Urbia replied that is correct. Community Development Director Carroll stated the application for the comp plan amendment and zoning was filed on May 22, 2005 so state statutes say the City needs to either approve or deny it within 60 days. If it looks as if the decision will not be made within that span, then we need to send out a letter extending it for another 60 days. The extension ofthe time for making a decision is different than the continuance issue. If it is decided on Tuesday to continue it, on Monday you would have to decide whether you are going to continue it to a specific future meeting. It would have to be within 60 days after July 22,2005. Councilmember Pritzlaffnoted the first meeting in August is August 1. Would that have any relevance? Mayor Soderberg stated he would like to give the school district an opportunity to answer the question on whether they want action on Monday night or they want to extend it for 60 days, which is different than continuing it. It is an extension ofthe comp plan review. Ifthey want to extend it for 60 days, then we could talk about continuing it to a date certain. Community Development Director Carroll noted the decision to extend it for 60 days does not mean the City will take 60 days. It means that is the ceiling on the amount of time available. Ifthe decision is made in 30 days, that can be done. Mayor Soderberg stated this is a decision the City could make unilaterally, but he is asking for the school district's input on that decision. 6. TRAFFIC STUDY UPDATE - SCHOOL Mayor Soderberg stated the City has not actually received the study and the City Engineer has not had time to review it. Mr. Ed Terhaar of Benshooft & Assoc, traffic Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 31 engineers, stated they were hired by the school district to do a traffic impact study for the proposed high school site off of Flagstaff. They submitted a draft report to the City late June and received comments from the consultant and incorporated the updates in the report. Some items covered include a description of the existing conditions, discussion on potential future roadway changes, traffic forecasting, traffic analysis, the potential need to pave Flagstaff north of 195th Street, and conclusions and recommendations. At the beginning ofthe project, they collected traffic count data at two key locations, 195th intersection with Flagstaff and CR 50 with Flagstaff. They had someone sitting at the intersection recording vehicles going through the intersection from 7-9 a.m. and 2-6 p.m. They also collected daily volume information on Flagstaff itself and recorded the existing roadway geometrics and stop sign control. The site plan used was a little different than what it is now. It assumed two access points off of Flagstaff. They did not assume the connection to 208th Street. They found some existing daily volume information in the MnDOT state aid system which were connected to county and city data and the data they collected in May. On the far north at the border in 2002 the MnDOT information showed 300 vehicles per day and they counted 470 so there has been an increase. Other volume information from MnDOT from 2003 showed volume increases to the south towards 195th and farther south the volumes trail off. North ofCR 50 there was an increase from 2003 than what they counted of 350 vehicles per day. As far as traffic forecasting, they developed trip generation estimates for three time periods, the a.m. peak 7-8 a.m., the exiting time which is 2-3 p.m. and also 4-5 p.m. They came up with numbers for 2000 students and 2400 students. In the morning there were many more entering trips than exiting. There were 976 entering and 167 exiting. There was an opposite pattern in the 2-3 p.m. time period with more exiting. In the afternoon the trips are spread out more. During 4-5 p.m. the trips are much less. Councilmember Wilson asked if there were really 5 times as many student drivers as staff drivers. Dr. Meeks stated there are 75 faculty at the high school. Member Weyandt stated three years ago there were 450 student drivers a day. Mr. Terhaar stated for 2400 students there would be more trips. The next piece was determining where students would be coming from and going to. They received some good information from the school census that gave the distribution percentages for students and for staff as they would be expected in 2008. He included what they anticipate for growth. There is 16% to and from the north on Flagstaffnorth of 195th, 51 % in the entire area to the east on 195th, 29% to the other areas to the east on CR 50 and smaller amounts to and from the south and to and from the west. This is important to remember when we get into the volumes that we have these large percentages that will want to access the site primarily by 195th Street and some by CR 50. They also had information on staff. They are more spread out. Using this information and the information collected they developed traffic volumes for the peak hour 7-8 a.m. and it showed the turn movement volumes at each intersection. On the north there is 195th intersecting with Flagstaff and he showed the numbers for 2005 and for 2008 without the school and the estimate with the school in place. In the morning there is a large increase of people coming from the east on 195th that want to make a left turn on Flagstaff to head south to the school. The 2008 number without the school is 27 during 7-8 a.m. and it Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 32 jumps to 463 with the school. There is an increase from the north going from 8 to 151 and some increase from the south as people are exiting. At the access points the access to the north showed 508 and the south access showed 527. Coming from the south from CR 50, the right turn increased from 3 to 302. The time period from 2-3 p.m. showed 363 left turns and 239 right turns. 91 and 60 at the access points and large increases from 23 right turns to 321 right turns and at CR 50 there is an increase in left turns from 5 to 225. For the 4-5 p.m. time period the increase is much less. As far as volumes, they estimated the 2008 daily volumes over a 24 hour period for the same locations. The numbers were with and without the school. The forecast of 550 vehicles per day without the school jumps to 1220. There are similar increases to the south. The next step was to analyze each intersection to compare the capacity of each intersection to the expected volume. Today on 195th and Flagstaffthere is one lane in each direction. There is stop control on 195th. At CR 50 and Flagstaffthere are two lanes in each direction on CR 50 with turn lanes and Flagstaff is a single lane in each direction. With the volume of 463 vehicles wanting to turn, that movement experiences significant delays. As other movements on Flagstaff are not stop controlled, they operate okay. Th~ one movement in the morning that showed up as a difficulty was the left turn onto Flagstaff. With a school you have a concentration of trips within a IS-minute period especially in the morning and upon exiting. This was taken into account in the analysis. At the access points everyone from the north is making a right turn so they do not experience a delay. They do cause delay for people coming from the south as people coming from the south making a left turn have to yield to them and therefore they experience delay. At CR 50 the entering traffic in the morning operates fine with the right turns. There is some additional delay for vehicles wanting to turn on to CR 50, however those volumes are not real high. The key in the morning with 195th being the one access point for all these people that would be their desired route to take 195th, the left turn does become difficult and there are some difficulties for the entering traffic at the access points. In the afternoon during 2-3 p.m. the 195th intersection operates a little better because there is exiting traffic. The right turns are able to go on their own. There is far less left-turn traffic that operates okay with stop control. The real difficulties are seen for the exiting traffic because they need to make a left turn. There is not much traffic expected on Flagstaff itself because there is not much development. But with the crush of vehicles trying to leave within 15 minutes after school there are difficulties and the left turn at the north operated at level service F (the worst) the south was not quite as bad, but there are delays. The location where there were difficulties was at CR 50 and Flagstaff. The left turn on to CR 50 at that time also operated at level service F. During 4-5 p.m. there was much less impact. The question is what should be done at those locations. In the morning if this delay occurs they will stay further east, come down CR 50 and make their way over. People coming from the south have one option to turn in and they would experience some delay. That combined with the other time period leads to the potential for, especially at CR 50 and Flagstaff, a traffic signal. They would also recommend that Flagstaff consist of at least two approach lanes from the north, one for left turns and one for through and right turns. They recommend from the school they have turn lanes in each direction so there would be left turn lanes at each access point, a dedicated right turn lane and a through lane from the north. 195th south should be wide enough for two approach lanes, one for left and one for right and if and when 195th is extended, that would also be a location for a potential traffic signal. Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 33 There are improvements needed to accommodate the expected volumes. The other item for the school itself, they recommended a traffic control plan be established to determine the best way for vehicles to get in and out during the rush times and there may need to be officer control or some sort of control at that point and it may some day lead to a traffic signal. When 208th Street is extended it will provide an additional way in and out. Any additional access points would be beneficial and help relieve some of the conditions. Member Manthey asked about the two access points to the high school and suggested making one entrance going north and one entrance going south. Mr. Terhaar stated that is where the traffic control plan would come into play and it depends on how the site is actually built. It is inevitable there will be delays if everyone tries to leave at the same time. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated in some areas there would be three lanes and some there are two lanes. Mr. Terhaar replied you would have the turn lanes on one side. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked ifthat is how staff always thought it would be or for the school district, is that your knowledge as to how that road would be and if not, does that up the number of the cost of the road. City Engineer Mann stated the City has always acknowledged the potential for turn lanes at all the intersections. They had not been identified specifically until now. Staffhas not done any layouts, they did a conservative estimate to encompass some of the unknowns. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if staff was still comfortable that the estimates would pay for the road. City Engineer Mann replied that is our hope. Member Weyandt stated from 2003 there was 40-60% and from 2008 there was a 20% increase. When that was taken into account did the traffic engineer include any housing or future development. Mr. Terhaar replied not specifically. They applied a 5% growth rate to the existing volumes to bump them up to 2008. (Councilrnernber Fogarty left at 12:25 p.rn.). Police Chief Siebenaler asked when they looked at the growth rate over a 2-year period, is it safe to assume that something changed as a destination out there. Mr. Terhaar stated that is a big part of it. Member Weyandt asked what criteria is used for blacktopping. City Engineer Mann replied when a developer comes in and takes the road, they blacktop the road. The City has not had a criteria based on traffic counts. It gets built as development occurs. There are opinions out there. Some research was done and is shown at the back of the study. That will speak for itself. It is a moot point now as far as whether it will get paved or not. Member Davis asked if counts right now by some generic formula would dictate a need to pave Flagstaff. City Engineer Mann replied there are opinions that it should occur at a particular level, but there are a lot of gravel roads that have this much traffic or more and it boils down to if development is there and if economics work. He does not think there are a lot of gravel roads driven by traffic counts unless there is something happening in the area that forces that. Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 34 Member Davis noted Mr. Terhaar said there was someone out there watching cars and asked how that was done. Mr. Terhaar stated it was done for one weekday from 7-9 a.m. and 2-6 p.m. That was in May when school was in session. Mayor Soderberg stated when you look at the accesses from the school, were spacing requirements from the access to the school site to future 208th taken into account. Mr. Terhaar replied he has not looked at that specifically. City Engineer Mann noted that is more of a site plan issue than a traffic study issue. The meeting recessed for lunch at 12:28 p.m. and reconvened at 1 :05 p.m. 4. SCHEMATIC DESIGN PROCESS UPDATE - SCHOOL Mr. Davenport stated they are very near the end of the schematic design process which from a school district standpoint the building is very nearly taking shape. They have been working with Mortenson's and would anticipate a formal presentation towards the end of the month with the school board. The bottom line is the district and staffhave come a long way towards development of a footprint that makes a lot of sense. He stated so there is no uncertainty, the building plan has been built very specifically to the site. Without question the way the building is oriented, primarily in an east-west direction, the way in which the athletic components and activities have been organized on the site all respond directly to the topography ofthis site. There is a two-story component that goes above grade and a two-story component that goes below grade so the gyms are all top loading and follow the natural topography of the site to get down to the lowest level which is within a few feet ofthe field level. The main entry component continues to slope down to the football field. The lowest level of the building would be built on or about the same grade as the football field. The building has been designed nearly exclusively for this site. There is very solid, sustainable, energy-conscious orientation. They do not want to see a lot of west exposure to lots of windows and things that are difficult to control. That is why a lot ofthe classrooms ended up on the east end ofthe building for natural daylight. The other significant driver ofthe site was working with the natural topography. The way the building lays out and crosses the ridge line which comes across the site worked out very favorably in terms of creating a cut and fill. 750,000 yards of dirt will be moved, but it all stays on site. He has received some comments back from the school and the City. Most of the comments that have been made are ones we are well aware of in terms of providing access and entry lanes. They spread out the entries onto Flagstaff as far as they can given the low points on the site. There was one issue about not allowing an entry onto the curve. The one comment most difficult to address was the City's concern over placement of the parking area and the orientation to the football field as well as the orientation of the building. The topography ofthe site and the organization of the site and the necessity to really locate the building drives the placement for the rest of the parking. DLR has worked very hard with the school district to try to develop a strong relationship with the main body of student parking into the student entry ofthe building. The students will enter from the north plaza entry court. There continues to be some slight modifications to the building. One CounciVSchool Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 35 of the characteristics of the site and maybe this will provide some direction as to how they would think about looking at alternative sites, would be a strong design component which has been the ring road. They are trying to maintain the traffic way on the outside of all the development so they never have a student trying to go 40 mph and have someone cross the street. They anticipate some onsite traffic control with stop signs, etc. The one thing not shown on the plan is an ongoing conversation about an intersection. In the morning the bulk of the students would come in from the south and access the student parking. They have been trying to decide if they allow a roadway to happen or force traffic to go all the way around and gate the area so it becomes more of a pedestrian area during the school day. Loading the building is one thing, unloading the building is another. The parking is fundamentally student parking. They will need 1,000 parking stalls for students plus staff parking. There continues to be debate as to how much parking is needed in front of the building for staff and visitors. Staff and visitors will be entering the building from the south face. Student and activity entrance would be on the north. This was their first pass at concept sketches. By now there are updates on the website from the June 22 presentation. From a schedule standpoint, they are just about done making final adjustments inside the building to get to schematic completion. They are unofficially in design development in some portions of the building. Councilmember Wilson complimented Mr. Davenport and his team on the conceptual drawing. He asked if there were to be a different site location, he assumed there would be parts that could work on a different site or would they have to start from scratch. Mr. Davenport replied that is the worst case scenario. The thing that is most troublesome and has taken so long to develop are things like the loading dock and how it slides underneath the building and works with the grade and how they stack up so much of the building primarily to create an efficient floor plate, but also to save on construction costs. He did not know what would happen if they go to a site that does not have a sloping area to deal with. It is very difficult to carve out a bunch of earth to accept a two-story, top-loading gymnasium without the topography to allow it. The thing they can use they have developed a relationship on the academic end of the building which defines the relationship to the spaces. They might have to be configured slightly differently depending on the shape and topographic configuration of the site, but these relationships between planning center and small learning community should not change. They have expended a lot of time exploring this. Depending on the topography of the site, it is quite possible it could be a 75% redo. It would be a big stroke ofluck to pick this building up as it currently exists, find a topography that is fairly close to it and make it work. He would absolutely try it, but to force it would be difficult to do. There are some primary design considerations with a building ofthis magnitude you have to deal with. One of those primary issues is a major east-west orientation. Is it possible to have most of the exposure north and south? Is it possible to get the athletic components working in a near north-south orientation? Those are the primary drivers that started this months ago. From his perspective that is the first place you should go when you start evaluating sites as you place this big block of building on the campus and say does it work in a north- south direction. It would be highly unlikely to be able to pick up this plan and move it somewhere else. The district is into this for $500,000. Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 36 5. PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN COMMENTS - CITY Community Development Director Carroll stated the City received the latest version of the sketch plan on June 30. As indicated in his memo of July 8, due to the holiday and other reasons staff only had I ~ days to respond, but it was discussed at a Development Committee meeting. Most ofthe comments are engineering related. City Engineer Mann stated a lot ofthe items are being addressed with the traffic study and the feasibility report as far as turn lanes, etc. There are a couple comments about internal traffic issues. 208th Street is a significant issue. Having the fields in the right-of-way is one thing but the grade is another very important issue. Depending on the layout, the grade ofthe road needs to work on the site without a 30 ft. retaining wall. The feasibility report will confirm that the intersection of 208th and Flagstaff as shown will work. Further study needs to happen as far as what the vertical alignment is going to be through the site. Right now the horizontal line works well. The vertical alignment may be available by the time the draft feasibility report is done. Storm water issues have already been discussed. Mr. Davenport has dealt with the parking issues. Police Chief Siebenaler stated he does have concerns about the parking lot. Weare going to double the size of the parking lot and we are going to put a number of vehicles in there and reduce the number of exits and accesses to it compared to the current high school where there are three accesses on two different roads. We are going to dump all of the traffic out of two exits onto the same road. This will cause a significant delay in emptying out the parking lot. These parking lots could take up to an hour or more to empty at the end ofthe day and that is under good conditions. We have experience at the existing Middle School and Meadowview that shows we need to keep a separation between the bus traffic and student/parent traffic. On the north entrance, at least while the buses are present, that will have to be gated. You have to keep a complete separation or it will add significant delays to your bus schedule as well as the potential for accidents. Ifit is 15-20 minutes for buses to be present, that increases the amount of traffic using the southern entrance. So for at least a portion of the day you will be looking at one access to a parking lot serving 952 cars and that is troublesome. We need to see ifthere is anyway possible of finding an alternate exit. We work very hard to require multiple accesses both from a public safety access standpoint and getting into that can be a problem during peak traffic times in particular. Some of it can be addressed with internal gating, but he wanted to make the school aware it will take a long time under the existing configuration even with the two driveways to empty out the parking lot. Dr. Meeks asked ifthat was based on the lot being totally full and all cars exiting after school and does it take into account after school activities. Police Chief Siebenaler replied you are dumping 400 cars out of a parking lot out of three exits it takes 20 minutes. Here you are going to potentially double that number out of one entrance. Ideally, if we put traffic control at Flagstaff Avenue, put an officer out there directly and stopping all of Flagstaff, you can move 18-20 cars out that intersection with a turn movement per minute. 952 cars at 18 cars a minute takes you up to 54 minutes to get out, and that is ideal. It does not include any student impatience or short cuts. Dr. Meeks stated when 208th Street goes to the north that could be the third access. Police Chief Siebenaler agreed, but it needs to be planned for. He looked at some of the preliminary topography maps and he realized the Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 37 topography is only schematic, but some of the slopes coming offthe parking lot would appear to preclude that. They look very steep on the schematic drawings. He does not know what it will look like to the north, but it is something that needs to be taken into consideration. He encouraged the school to have at least one more access out of the student parking lot. The focus of the parking area is the football stadium. That alone, six times a year, is going to be your single biggest traffic event. You see it at the current location where traffic backs up substantially. It can be dealt with but you have to plan for it in the design phase. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked Police Chief Siebenaler when you were talking about three accesses were you talking three for now on Flagstaff or when 20Sth goes through. Police Chief Siebenaler replied ideally you would have three now when you start understanding you only have one road and dumping all the traffic on a single road does not do much more than two accesses. If you plan for it in the future, at least the misery is short term. You would have two accesses and one access when the busses are present. A third access onto Flagstaff is not the answer, you need a different road. 20Sth Street seems to be the logical place. It is a matter of planning. Mr. Davenport stated planning around an ideal is not something many school districts have the ability to do anymore. From a design standpoint having three accesses to this site is long term. Something needs to happen whether it is 20Sth Street, 202nd Street over to Cedar, etc. Even as the building opens the ability to dedicate what could be $250,000 in a bus corral that is used by the busses and when it is empty cannot be used anymore is probably not a wise expenditure of money. Nor does it have a lot of precedence in high schools that are being built of this magnitude in the metro area. While he appreciates the separation and the necessity to separate bus traffic from vehicles and pedestrians, through scheduling there may have to be some ability to dump part of the parking lot into the northern exit lane to assist with the exiting of the building. The other thing that happens is when you do an onsite traffic assessment and you look at the number of kids you will be dealing with and users for after school activities, it is not like everyone leaves at once, filtration happens. Half leave the minute the bell rings and after that there is a trickle effect. If you look at area schools you will not find any dedicated bus loops. The land use does not give us that flexibility. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he talked to a representative from DR Horton and he said for the high school in Lakeville the only bus traffic is off of 70, not off the north road. Mr. Davenport stated Farmington would be doing the same thing. You could have no bus traffic on the south entrance. For the outflow in the afternoon, he does not know if you could designate a certain area just for busses. Police Chief Siebenaler stated that is not the suggestion. The suggestion was during the time they are there that you would direct access. As far as Meadowview Elementary, they spent the better part of the year trying to adjust the traffic flow to accommodate the mixture of busses and private vehicles. He does not want to see that again here. Mayor Soderberg stated that comes down to traffic management that the school has to work out. Member Weyandt stated there are 7-10 busses. Mr. Davenport stated they planned on 15 at the peak. Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 38 7. FLAGSTAFF FEASIBILITY STUDY UPDATE - CITY City Engineer Mann stated they met with the school district two weeks ago and they are looking at getting 90-95% cost estimates by July 22,2005. The goal is to bring a draft report to hand out the week of August I, 2005. Council and the school district can meet to discuss it and see ofthere is anything not addressed they would like added. The final report would be brought back after that. The big issues are turn lanes. That will be included. Staff still needs to meet with the Met Council to determine where the Met Council and Lakeville are at with the potential trunk sewer line down Flagstaff. It will be sized for the City's and school's purposes in the feasibility report up front. There are some cuts and fills through the alignment between 5-1 0 ft. in a couple areas. The City does not anticipate needing significant amounts of right-of-way for the design. There will be several culvert areas that will need to be replaced. The project as of the meeting was close to balancing. They had 5,000 yards of export so one thing discussed was there are some opportunities to balance out the export. Councilmember Wilson noted City Engineer Mann mentioned discussing the report jointly. Ordinarily this would be a presentation on the agenda. He asked ifthere was going to be a joint meeting where this would be presented. City Engineer Mann replied they were going to discuss how the process would go. That has not been finalized yet. The goal is to have the report draft done the week of August 1. If Council wants a presentation or read it first, there are different options. Mayor Soderberg stated Councilmember Pritzlaff wanted the questions addressed from Dr. Meeks with regard to the paving of Flagstaff. The first request was MSA funds, the county CIP, and Met Council. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he takes the word "interfered" with the word "condition". He wanted each member of the Council to comment on each of the questions. When he looks at the word "request" and the word "condition" meaning ifthe majority ofthe Council says no to one or more of the requests, is the offer of paving the rest of Flagstaff off the table. Is it a condition or a request? Question one he does not have a problem with, except there is no money, so it is a mute point. Dr. Meeks asked what about the funds used now in the budget to maintain the road. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated from the information he has received, even the money used for maintenance now, maintaining an asphalt road does incur at least the same amount of cost, if not more. Although we would not be spending money on gravel, there is a certain amount of maintenance that would still be involved. City Engineer Mann stated from the standpoint of gravel and maintenance that is a cost. On the other side, with the asphalt, the biggest cost on Flagstaff will be keeping the striping up to date initially. As things get older there will be cracks, etc. He has not done an analysis on the life cycle and what the costs will be, but he can do that. Member Weyandt stated they requested that quite a while ago. City Engineer Mann replied the request was what the maintenance costs are now. As far as what it will cost, that has not been done. Finance Director Roland stated she will provide those numbers and share them with the school by the end ofthe day tomorrow. Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 39 Councilmember Pritzlaff stated regarding question two, he is against it because the county CIP is to do 195th to the west then northerly and further to the west to hook up with IS5th Street over to Cedar. As that is on the county's CIP, it is not in his interest to ask the county to put in a short section of Flagstaff/CR 64 on the CIP. With all the projects and requests we have to the county, he does not want the county to think we are after every last penny. Dr. Meeks asked if the county has to help maintain the road now. City Engineer Mann replied the county does maintain their section of it. Staff spoke with the county regarding that stretch and whether they would be interested in putting it on their CIP and they indicated it wasn't based on the future plans for 195th Street and the fact that portion of Flagstaff would get turned back to the City. Dr. Meeks asked how the turnback program worked. It was his understanding that anything they turn back they have to do so in improved conditions. City Engineer Mann was not sure statutorily that is the case. Agencies have a tendency to discuss those issues. In one case (Akin Road) that did not occur. In this case, with 195th Street going to the west there have been discussions about the county turning back that section of Flagstaff then they would pay the full cost of 195th Street going to the west instead of the 55/45 City/county split. That is a concept that has been discussed, but it has not been approved by the county board. Dr. Meeks stated so you are negotiating something. City Administrator Urbia stated it is in the City's interest to have the 45% share go away versus paving a portion of Flagstaff or 200th Street which has limited use to the City. 195th Street is a lot more important. If we had to pay for that share it would be difficult, if not impossible to finance it. Staff recommended to Council against considering the request. Dr. Meeks was not sure how you gage the City's interests. He heard City Engineer Mann say it does not matter where the traffic volume is on Flagstaff even though it will approach 1,000 cars a day. He would assume that would be in the City's interest since he has heard several times from the City about safety issues. Increased traffic on a gravel road, chances are you will have increased traffic accidents. City Administrator Urbia replied there are economic issues and a 10t of people use it as a short cut. He cannot see using public tax money to make a short cut smoother. It does not make sense. The development is not out there. The City cannot afford that kind of money. The City cannot legally bond for it. It is not in the realm ofthings. Dr. Meeks stated they are not asking the City to bond for it, they are asking for the use of state aid dollars which falls into that category. The City receives money for that road. City Administrator Urbia stated that would take away from other areas that we need to make connections on such as future commercial development. There will be $200,000 for the extension west of Pilot Knob then we have to meet with Xcel and Murphy to figure out how to get 20Sth Street connected to Akin. Then we have to work with Rother's to connect 20Sth Street to hwy 3. Because there is already development there and there is tax base expansion there it is more important. If we just put it on Flagstaff, we have no more resources for the 20Sth Street connections. It is not to be difficult, it is reality. There is only so much money and there are priorities. Member Weyandt stated they were asked the scenario, what if the Council voted no, what was the school's plan. What if three kids get hurt out there in the next year and public safety dollars were not used for public safety, but rather expansion, what do you do then? When does public safety become more important than development? City Administrator Urbia replied there are alternatives to that road. You do not need to use Flagstaff. People Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 40 do not need to use that road to get where they are going. Member Davis stated couldn't the district use that same logic to say why should we pave it? City Administrator Urbia stated once development occurs, that is the trigger. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated what we are missing is in the bond, the school stated they will pave 19Sth Street south to CR SO. That is the section we are talking about, so that is already in the bond. It would be more of an argument if this road was to the north of 195th that the school was asking the City to put this on the CIP. Since this is already south ofthat and in your bond, the voters approved it, it is already paid for, so why involve the county. Member Weyandt replied this is one thing you could do without generating your own funds to help us. We will have to take money from something else for the north end, which the school is willing to do. It is something you do not have to bond for, it will not cost any money. We asked for your help in this. This is one of the things you could do to help us. Mayor Soderberg replied it would cost money because the MSA funds available have been earmarked for other projects. Ifwe move them from those other projects, then we have to levy that difference back to the voters of Farmington. It does cost the City more money to do that. If the citizens of Farmington have to pay a disproportionate share of the taxes to do this, then he will not support it. Member Davis stated if that road gets paved up to the Lakeville border, the number of people using it for school district purposes, the amount of time during the day will be very limited. Most of the people using it during the day will be Farmington community members. There will be more using it if you pave it, so why not levy. Mayor Soderberg replied legally we cannot. City Administrator Urbia added unless we allow development to occur. You cannot assess 20% on the farmland, they do not have the benefit. Once development occurs you can either bond or force the developer to build it. The Council is saying they will somewhat consider this narrow amendment to the comp plan for the school, but they do not want to do anything else, realizing there will be an immense amount of pressure ifthey let this go through. Mayor Soderberg stated the other alternative would be to have the Donnelly's and the other land owners north of 195th allow the City to assess them for it. Dr. Meeks asked ifthe state dollars received are based on population ofthe area. City Engineer Mann replied it is based on how many miles of road we have in the City and then what the needs are for the routes we have designated. There is a certain percentage ofthe roadways in the City and percentage of mileage that the City is allowed to designate. Then the needs for each of those routes is calculated based on what it would take to build or upgrade the route to a state aid standard and come up with what the needs are. They take all ofthe cities and all of the needs and spread out those funds. Dr. Meeks asked if the state aid dollars are collected from gas tax. City Engineer Mann believed so. Dr. Meeks stated so you could say everyone in the state that buys gas contributes to that fund. Going back to Member Davis' point, everybody benefits whether you are a Farmington resident or not, because we are all contributing to that fund. Mayor Soderberg stated to put that in perspective, the tax dollars that are collected from Dakota County, the county gets less than their share back. We get $.38 on a dollar. It is going to greater Minnesota. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated even ifhe was in favor of having the county put it on the CIP, the chances of them turning that down are at the same point. He does not want to ask the county for it to threaten some other funding we have slated for other things in their CIP. City Engineer Mann stated the county staff has indicated they would not see that as something they would put on the CIP. Dr. Meeks stated he does not think it is a deal breaker. It is Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 41 something the school acknowledges is a county road and they requested the City to assist the school in making the request. If the county said no, they said no, but at least we made the request because it is a county road. Councilmember Wilson stated the fact we might ask the county to put this on their CIP, that would not be unreasonable. City Engineer Mann stated his discussion with the staff was an informal request. It was verbal, not in writing, but that is what they indicated. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated it does not matter what order it came up, but this is why he wanted this after the alternative site plan in case any of this would be a deal breaker and make the alternate site more presentable. Councilmember Pritzlaff then addressed number three where the school asked the Council to work on affirmative action with the Met Council on the comp plan amendment as well as affirmative action on all governmental approvals that the school will need from the City in the future including without limitation preliminary and final plat approvals and granting conditional use permits. As far as the Met Council, Councilmember Pritzlaffwas not in favor of having City staffhelp this through the Met Council. They can do their normal procedure and that is was it is. He also has the majority of the Council's position that he would go with residents to the Met Council if this got a 4-1 vote with documentation of meetings and ask the Met Council to turn this comp pIan down. He does not believe in the comp plan amendment. That was another reason why he wanted this after the alternative site. He wanted to be up front and honest. When it comes to the Met Council on the comp plan amendment, that is where he stands. As far as any other governmental approvals, from a school standpoint the school would assume that some of the governmental agencies would be your own work. He does not know how many more governmental agencies other than the Met Council there is, but that is where he will leave the Met Council and the comp plan. He is against it and he would be at the public hearing at the Met Council in opposition ofthem amending it. As far as approvals of the City for preliminary and final plat and granting conditional use permits, this is telling him that the school wants his vote now that he will approve a preliminary and a final plat and a conditional use permit without seeing them. He will not do that. He would like to have the other Councilmembers give their comments on these three issues. Councilmember Fogarty has left, but she can speak for herself. Member Davis stated you did not think it was appropriate for one governmental agency to ask for assistance from another to get something done. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he does not believe his position can help get this through any other governmental agencies. He was not sure what other governmental approvals are needed, but he was looking solely at the Met Council. Community Development Director Carroll stated there would be an agency for the EA W. Member Davis clarified Councilmember Pritzlaff was talking about the high school site issue only. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated this is for this site. The requests were given to us due to the fact the school was going to pave Flagstaff. He looks at them as conditions. He also thinks that saying the school will pay for a section ofthe road, now that the school knows his position, is that a deal breaker. Dr. Meeks stated Councilmember Pritzlaff is reading way too much into this. He knew the comp plan has been amended many times. He asked what the history is with the Met Council on approving amendments for the comp plan. Community Development Director Carroll replied comp plan amendments are a two step process. The first step is Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 42 getting it approved by the City Council and then going to the Met Council. The last time the Met Council approved a comp plan amendment was when the comp plan was updated in 2000. The City Council has approved some comp plan amendments since then and the City is in the process of submitting those amendments for action by the Met Council in conjunction with developments as they move forward. For example, when the environmental review was done for Mystic Meadows and the City received a plat and could calculate sewer flows and traffic, etc. then the City submitted the comp plan amendment to the Met Council. That came some time after the City Council had approved it. The City does not have much of a track record with the Met Council for comp plan amendments since it was updated in 2000. Ifwe follow the Met Council's guidelines as we go forward with the amendments, they will get approved. Staff talks with the Met Council representative to find out where the problems are in advance of submittal. He feels the City will have a good track record on a conventional amendment. Conventional means going from industrial to commercial. That is a minor modification. With Mystic Meadows, the issue is giving them MUSA. Dr. Meeks asked if in the history of Farmington if there has ever been a comp plan amendment turned down by the Met Council. Community Development Director Carroll replied not since he has been here, but they have not submitted one and actually had action taken on one since he has been here. This is the most significant comp plan amendment the City has ever envisioned. He knows it is likely the Met Council will take a very close look at it. They have procedures they use to determine if comp plan amendments can get approved administratively by staff or whether it has to go through the entire review process. One of the factors they look at is what they call cumulative impact. They want to know ifthe comp plan amendment they are looking at is going to have some impact beyond the boundaries of the parcel they are dealing with. Changing the comp plan for the Christensen site may lead to or necessitate comp plan amendments on other properties nearby. So they will have to look at it and decide if what is proposed is too radical a departure from the comp plan they approved five years ago. He cannot predict what their position is. He would say ifthe majority ofthe Council approves the comp plan amendment then his role as a staff member is to try to persuade the Met Council that they should also approve it. And that is what he will do. The Council will set the standard as to how aggressive he should be about that. His natural tendency would be to be very aggressive and persuade them to approve it. But ifthe Council wants him to take a different approach, he will take their lead. Police Chief Siebenaler noted the school keeps asking about the Met Council approving it. One of the things Community Development Director Carroll mentioned earlier needs to be addressed. First it has to get past the City Council and that is where comp plan amendments have been stopped in the past. Four years ago a comp plan amendment was proposed for a residential development. At that point the City Council brought it to a grinding halt and vehemently said it is not in the comp plan, we are not changing it and he believed the words were "it is chiseled in granite." Community Development Director Carroll stated a lot ofthe amendments do not even get to the Council level. Mr. Bonar asked the comp plan amendment that changed the restricted development section is currently the Manley and Giles Murphy property, has not been presented to the Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 43 Met Council, but has been strictly a Council level decision? Community Development Director Carroll replied the comp plan designation for Parkview Ponds is restricted development. Staff does not have to change the comp plan for Parkview Ponds. The definition of restricted development is basically a lower density type of development that is sensitive to the environmental issues involved. All we had to do with Parkview Ponds is rezone it. We did not need to change the comp plan. Mr. Bonar stated a close review of the 2020 comp plan envisions that to be a green space corridor or golf course. He considers this action to convert it to low or medium density housing to be a transgression or a movement away from the comp plan. Community Development Director Carroll replied he would not. The golf course was identified as a potential use of that property but there were also references to using it for higher amenity residential housing, which Parkview Ponds is considered to be. Mr. Bonar stated his second question would be related to the trail and park overlay that was presented to Council months ago. Does that also not require Met Council approval? Community Development Director Carroll replied at some point it will need to be reviewed and approved by them. It is still being fine tuned. Part of the decision staff has to make with changes made as they go along is at what point do we present it to the Met Council. Do we present it every time we look at a minor change or wait until we have it finalized before we take it to them. Mr. Bonar asked if it would be consistent to say it is being used as the standard or format for development currently. Community Development Director Carroll replied we give copies to developers and indicate to them that is the vision that has been agreed upon by the Planning Commission, by the City Council, and by the Park and Rec Advisory Commission. We ask them to draft their concept plans and plats in accordance with that. Dr. Meeks stated as far as whether the conditions or requests are deal breakers for the board's offer, he would say so. They simply asked the City to look within it's resources that they have and see if there is a way the City could contribute towards this project. He thinks we have all indicated the school is a very important project to the community and the school district. We have all talked about partnering, so we are trying to find some ways to invite the City in to partner in a financial way. Ifthe City can't and you have commitments to other projects, so be it. The school is prepared to move ahead on that. As far as 195th and 200th the recognition of the district is that it is a county road, so we wanted to make sure we have explored all avenues to receive some funding to help offset the school's investment in the road. Ifthey say no, they say no. As far as the Met Council, if this is the decision to move ahead on this particular site, that is the decision of the Council and he would hope staff and the Council would support that decision so we can move ahead together. As far as the last part of the paragraph, from the district's perspective, we do not have to recreate this exercise every time we go for approval at another level. We do not want to go through this every time. Once it is approved and it is done, they do not want to have to repeat themselves again. Mayor Soderberg did not think that would be the case. If the comp plan gets amended the direction from the Council to staff would be to advocate for amendment at the Met Council. Councilmember Pritzlaffwanted to make it clear that as a citizen he would go to the Met Council and advocate it be denied. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated when we talk about Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July II, 2005 Page 44 partnerships and helping, his belief in helping is in the fields that were presented on the Seed-Genstar property. Dr. Meeks stated from the district's perspective we are still the one's taking the risk on switching the site. The bulk of the money, all the changes and the plan and the loss of investment is still the district's risk. There isn't a risk to the City from the school's perspective. Member Davis asked when exactly in the development phase does staff deliver the comp plan to the developer. Community Development Director Carroll replied they typically do not have to deliver it to them. When they get a developer that has not worked in Farmington the first thing they ask is what is the comp plan designation for a certain property and the zoning and they ask about MUSA. In cases where they find out what they want to do is inconsistent with the comp plan that is often the end of the discussions with most developers. Others are interested in seeing if the Council and Planning Commission are willing to amend the comp plan. Because ofthe amount of money they have involved in the project, they do not want to get too far into the process until they have some strong assurances that the comp plan is actually going to get changed. Finance Director Roland asked Mr. Bonar when he got his copy of the comp plan. Mr. Bonar stated he did not recall. Mayor Soderberg asked if Member Donnelly and Dr. Meeks wanted to hear comments on those three points from the rest of Councilor proceed with the rest of the agenda. Dr. Meeks wanted to hear the rest ofthe comments. Councilmember Wilson stated one thing he has heard a lot from the school and that the City would like to do is partnerships and try to expedite the time frame. The one thing they do not have the ability to do with this site is there are a lot of partnership opportunities they can engage in without causing some serious compromising with the City's CIP plan that directly tie in with plans for commercial/industrial type development. Relating to question one, he would like to be able to provide assistance in the way ofMSA dollars ifit did not jeopardize the other projects that are in place. One thing that has been brought up is that it is a school development project and developers normally do pay for roads and infrastructure. Yet the City of Farmington taxpayers, which are 60-65% of the district's population are assuming 100% of some cost versus the other portion of the school district and that is a little bit of an unfair deal. Dr. Meeks asked about the percentage. Councilmember Wilson stated 60% of the district population is in Farmington, which is a 60-40 split. Dr. Meeks stated those are your numbers. Councilmember Wilson stated any MSA dollars spent are going to go for other City projects that we have already prioritized. He did not have an opinion one way or the other on question two. As far as question three, he did not have a strong opinion other than the project has to stand on its own merit. Ifhe gives it approval that will give an indication to the Met Council how he views the plan and ifhe gives a thumbs down, that will also give them an indication. Councilmember McKnight stated regarding issue number one his common sense approach tells him ifhe is eamingMSA funds off of Flagstaff mileage he should be , Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 45 putting some money back into it to either maintain or potentially rebuild this road in the future. He does not know if that is where the City takes funding from for maintenance. He would be willing to look at it, but would not promise any dollars. The second issue of the county CIP, he does not have an opinion either way, because he does not hold any hope that the county would put it on the CIP so it is not that big a deal. Regarding issue three, if the amendment did get approved by four of the Councilmembers he would expect the City to be there hand in hand with the school at the Met Council. Like any issue he would expect all City Councilmembers to respect the opinion of the majority. In terms ofthe other parts with preliminary and final plat and conditional use permit the school would be expected to meet the rules in place for any type of development. If it does get approved, he would expect to be there hand in hand. Mayor Soderberg stated regarding the approvals, the Met Council and plat approvals, his views would be identical to Councilmember McKnight's. Regarding the county CIP, 195th Street is already on the county CIP and that envisions a turnback ofthat segment on Flagstaff. So part of that segment on Flagstaff would be used for the 195th Street portion. So for the City to ask them now to consider it on the CIP would be changing our direction with the county and it would put a strain on the relationship with the county. It does not make sense to ask the county to consider doing improvements on 64 for that segment of Flagstaff. 195th Street going through to Cedar Avenue and then over to 185th Street will provide some relief on the north-south track. With regard to MSA funds, moving MSA dollars from one project to Flagstaffputs a disproportionate burden on the taxpayers of Farmington. The City can look at how much MSA dollars are generated from Flagstaff and how much MSA dollars are used to maintain it. Ifwe are generating dollars from that segment of road, we certainly should be putting dollars on that road. To move more funds over to contribute to the improvement of Flagstaff over and above that he would not be interested other than the portion of dollars we would normally use. Member Davis stated he would argue that if we get that portion of Flagstaff paved the majority of people using it would be Farmington residents going up to Dodd. City Administrator Urbia stated once 195th goes through to Cedar that will lessen the load. Mayor Soderberg stated that is on the county's CIP for 2009. So without development on Flagstaff in 2009 we are looking at some relief on Flagstaff Avenue. With development there will be significant increase in traffic. Member Davis asked if it will go straight through. City Administrator Urbia replied it will go northwest. Mayor Soderberg stated the long range plan for 195th Street is to get to the interstate. Police Chief Siebenaler stated to show you that the completion of 195th Street does benefit the school, the traffic engineer talked about the significant back ups that will occur with left-hand turn movements from 195th Street onto southbound Flagstaff Avenue. 400 cars a day will make that movement compared to 151. There is a significantly larger number of turn movements than through traffic from 195th Street south. When 195th Street is completed across as a county road, that becomes the thoroughfare. Flagstaff then becomes the controlled route, so Flagstaff traffic stops to allow 195th Street to move. How that control takes place, by stop sign or stop light, it will allow a much smoother flow of traffic from 195th Street onto southbound Flagstaff Avenue. So the completion of 195th Street from Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 46 Flagstaff west is a definite benefit to the school's project. Dr. Meeks did not disagree. Member Davis noted that is a year after they propose to open. Councilmember Wilson made an additional comment about MSA. Ifwe are able to provide some assistance which does not jeopardize projects in place that are on a timeline and that might be dollars we allocate toward maintenance, it would be reasonable to see if those can be applied. Dr. Meeks stated they are not going anywhere and will be there for a long time. Mayor Soderberg asked ifthe school had a general consensus from Council on the requests. Dr. Meeks replied yes it does not change the district's position for funding the road. 8. 195TH STREET FEASIBILITY STUDY UPDATE - CITY City Engineer Mann stated the goal is to have this study completed by the beginning of August. The major issues are the bridge across the railroad tracks and a bridge across North Creek in order to mitigate the floodplain issues. Staff has talked with the county about the alignment. They are good with the alignment the way it is shown. A draft report will be ready the beginning of August. They will be looking closely at the intersection of 195th and TH3. There are some grade changes that will need to happen in the future at that intersection. The developer of the Seed-Genstar site, as well as the developer across the road in Empire and the state and the City have been having discussions about how to have that intersection grade change happen sooner rather than later because there are some cost savings if it can be done now rather than put in improvements and turn lanes and then ten years down the road, raise the intersection 3 ft. Dr. Meeks asked when the study started. City Engineer Mann replied about the same time as the Flagstaff study. Dr. Meeks asked ifit would change the scope of the study knowing if the proposal was for the high school to go there. Would the City look at moving 195th further north to try not to land lock the building? City Engineer Mann replied the only issue with moving it north is first of all the alignment on the other side has been locked down by the development on the other side. So moving it north puts it in the golf course area. It also changes the spacing on the access management plan, which is still officially a draft, so the alignment has pretty much been set as far as where the intersection will be. Dr. Meeks stated moving it south would work too. City Engineer Mann replied south was blocked by the platting that occurred by Empire Township before the county had their east-west corridor study done. That would be a major change that would be difficult to deal with. The access to the west ofTH3 cannot be pushed any farther west or east. He would not see any major changes to the report ifthat site were considered for the high school. Member Donnelly asked when is the road supposed to be completed. City Engineer Mann replied the developer talked about early next year but staff thinks it will be 2006- 2007 for it to connect from Parkview Ponds to TH3. Council/School Board Minutes (Special) July 11, 2005 Page 47 Mayor Soderberg stated we have completed the agenda and extended his appreciation and thanks to the school district, consultants, all of the staff and City staff for locking ourselves in a room and hammering through this. Police Chief Siebenaler stated he has been around long enough and has heard often enough from residents moving in with a field in their backyard who have said we were promised that would stay a field forever and how dare you put any kind of buildings in there. He encouraged the school as they look at the Flagstaff site to consider the future. You have what has been described as the jewel of the school district on this hill overlooking scenic hwy SO and it is a beautiful site there all by itself. But what happens when someone decides to put a Wal-Mart on the corner of Flagstaff and hwy 50 in 15 years and obstructs the view ofthis gorgeous facility. If the school has any plans of preserving that site now is the time to start thinking about view and what is in your back yard and front yard and how well it can be seen. If visibility is an issue, today is the time to think about it. Not when Wal-Mart puts up a coming soon sign. It is likely to be commercial across hwy SO. City Administrator Urbia added it could happen sooner than later because ofthe pressure of 20gth and the sewer. Police Chief Siebenaler stated even if it is 10-15 years out, it will still be sitting there for the rest of the school's life. Member Davis stated it sounds like any site. You will put retail around them anyway. Police Chief Siebenaler stated he is not saying the school needs to change sites. You need to consider it now if you want to preserve your views, now is the time to start considering that. In other words lock up the property or whatever it takes. Member Davis stated that is part of the problem. All this discussion is because our check book got a little fatter a few months ago. But there is a limit. Police Chief Siebenaler stated he is not telling the school what they need to do. They have been told what this will be. Member Davis stated views are not at the top of his list when building a school. Councilmember McKnight stated he was quoting me and is giving a heads up for the future. 9. ADJOURN MOTION by McKnight, second by Pritzlaffto adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, {!:~ m~ / Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7/; TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator ~J/\ FROM: Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Approve Tobacco License and "Off-Sale" Beer License - Kwik Trip, Inc. DATE: August 1, 200S INTRODUCTION City Ordinances 3-2-S and 3-7-3 state that the Council has the authority to approve "Off-Sale" beer licenses and tobacco licenses, respectively. DISCUSSION Kwik Trip, Inc. has submitted applications for an "Off-Sale" 3.2 beer license and a tobacco license. The appropriate forms, fees and insurance information have been submitted with the applications. The Police Department has reviewed the forms and approved the applications for Issuance. BUDGET IMPACT The fees collected are as proposed in the revenue portion ofthe budget. ACTION REQUESTED Approve an "Off-Sale" beer license and tobacco license for Kwik Trip. Respectfully submitted, ~d.~. 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 ~ TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator Pn ~ Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director FROM: SUBJECT: Gambling Event Permit - Dakota County Ducks Unlimited DATE: August 1, 200S INTRODUCTION The Dakota County Ducks Unlimited is requesting a Gambling Event Permit for a raffle to be held at the Eagles Club on September 13, 200S. DISCUSSION Per State Statute 349.166 and pertinent City Code, a Gambling Permit must be issued by the City for this type of event. An application has been received, along with the appropriate fees. The City Attorney has reviewed the application and the attached resolution approving the request. BUDGET IMPACT Gambling permit fees are included in the revenue portion of the 200S budget. ACTION REQUESTED Consider the attached Resolution granting a Gambling Event Permit to Dakota County Ducks Unlimited at the Eagles Club, 200 Third Street, on September 13, 200S. Respectfully submitted, ~d~~ Lisa Shadick Administrative Services Director RESOLUTION NO. R -05 APPROVING A MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION FOR DAKOTA COUNTY DUCKS UNLIMITED 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 1 st day of August 200S at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, pursuant to M.S. 349.166, the State of Minnesota Gambling Board may not issue or renew a Gambling Event Permit unless the City Council adopts a Resolution approving said permit; and, WHEREAS, the Dakota County Ducks Unlimited have submitted an application for a Gambling Event Permit to be conducted at the Eagle's Club, 200 3Td Street for Council consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Farmington City Council that the Gambling Event Permit for the Dakota County Ducks Unlimited to be conducted at the Eagle's Club, 200 3Td Street, is hereby approved. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 1 st day of August 200S. Mayor Attested to the day of 200S. City Administrator SEAL ?d 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 /J/l A A~ City Administrator tj/f /1// r ) FROM: Daniel M. Siebenaler, Police Chief SUBJECT: Homeland Security / Energency Management Resolutions DATE: August 1, 200S INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION Pursuant to Presidential Order the Federal Department of Homeland Security / Emergency (HSEM) formerly FEMA has ordered that all jurisdictions, Federal, State, County, Local and Tribal adopt a uniform standard of Emergency Management. That system has been titled The National Incident Management System (NIMS). NIMS is intended to provide a uniform system to replace the existing Emergency Management Plans which exist in a variety of forms in various States. These two attached resolutions are the first of nine components that will eventually be adopted by each jurisdiction. These two resolutions deal first with the Adoption of the National Incident Management System as the emergency management standard for the City of Farmington, and second to promote the adoption of Intrastate Mutual Agreements. In the metropolitan Twin Cities area the concept of Mutual Aid Agreements is widely accepted and implemented. The City of Farmington alone has numerous existing Mutual Aid and Joint Powers Agreements, as demonstrated during the recent storm, which fulfill this Federal requirement. Over the next year the City will be completely rewriting its Emergency Plan to fully comply with NIMS. It will be a time consuming but necessary compliance process. It should be noted that the City is not required to participate in NIMS however Federal funding is attached to compliance. In the event of Federally Declared Disaster only NIMS compliant jurisdictions will be eligible for Federal Disaster Assistance. BUDGET IMPACT The known budget impact for NIMS compliance will be the time commitment of personnel resources in training and rewriting the City's Emergency Management Plan. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the two resolutions attached. A Resolution Adopting the National Incident Management System (NIMS), and a Resolution Promoting Intrastate Mutual Aid Agreements Respectfully s "tted, Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police State and Local Guide: Resolution Adopting the National Incident Management System & Resolution Promoting Intrastate Mutual Aid Agreements RESOLUTION NO. R 05 DESIGNATION OF THE NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AS THE BASIS FOR ALL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT IN FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City council ofthe City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 1st day of August, 200S at 7:00 PM. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, the President of the United States of America issued Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 to enhance the ability ofthe United States to manage domestic incidents by establishing a single, comprehensive national incident management system; and WHEREAS, the President, in Homeland Security Presidential Directive S, tasked the secretary ofthe U.S. Department of Homeland Security to develop and administer a National Incident Management System; and U{HEREAS, the secretary ofthe U.S. Department of Homeland Security developed and administered the -ational Incident Management System (NIMS) to provide for interoperability and compatibility among federal, state, and local capabilities, the NIMS will include: a core set of concepts, principles, terminology, and technologies covering the incident command system; multi-agency coordination systems; unified command; training; identification and management of resources (including systems for classifying types of resources); qualifications and certification; and the collection, tracking, and reporting of incident information and incident resources; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty issued Executive Order OS-02: DESIGNATION OF THE NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (NIMS) AS THE BASIS FOR ALL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA; and WHEREAS, the collective input and guidance from all federal, state, local, and tribal homeland security partners has been, and will continue to be, vital to the development, effective implementation, and utilization of a comprehensive NIMS; and WHEREAS, it is necessary and desirable that all Farmington agencies and personnel coordinate their efforts to effectively and efficiently provide the highest levels of incident management; and WHEREAS, the NIMS standardized procedures for managing personnel, communications, facilities, and resources will improve the ability of Farmington to utilize federal funding to enhance local and state agency readiness, maintain first responder safety, and streamline incident management processes; and THEREAS, the Incident Command System components of the NIMS are already an integral part of various incident management activities throughout Farmington including current emergency management training programs; and WHEREAS, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks (9-11 Commission) recommended adoption of a standardized Incident Command System; and OW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE City of Farmington hereby establishes the National lncident Management System (NIMS) as the Farmington standard for incident management. This resolution adopted by recorded vote ofthe Farmington City Council in open session on the 1 st day of August, 200S. Mayor Attest to the _ day of August, 200S City Administrator SEAL State and Local Guide: Resolution Adopting the National Incident Management System & Resolution Promoting Intrastate Mutual Aid Agreements Resolution Adoptin2 the National Incident Mana2ement System [NIMS) Compliance requirement: To recognize formally the NIMS principles and policies. States, territories, tribes and local entities will meet this requirement by approving a resolution that adopts NIMS as the standard for incident management. Please note that jurisdictions currently receiving homeland security grant funding and any county, city, township, or tribal government that intends to apply directly for federal preparedness, prevention or planning grants must adopt and implement NIMS at the local government level. State and Local Jurisdiction Compliance NIMS principles and policies State and Local Implementation Steps jurisdictions shall approve a resolution - Take appropriate measures to ensure that the governing authority for your that recognizes and jurisdiction (i.e., city council, county board, etc.) approves a resolution that recognizes adopts the NIMS. and adopts the NIMS. Jurisdictions may use the sample resolution below in preparing a NIMS resolution. Such resolution must be adopted by the - Notify Ben Kosel, HSEM state agency coordinator, when the resolution has been state or local adopted. Fax a copy of the approved resolution to his attention as soon as possible. jurisdiction no later than December 31, - If your jurisdiction has already complied with the step of adopting a NIMS resolution, 2005. fax the resolution to Ben Kosel at: 651-296-0459 Contact Information: Ben Kosel State Agency Coordinator Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 444 Cedar Street Suite 223 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Phone: 651.215.6937 mail: Benjamin.kosel@state.mn.us .rax: 651.296.0459 RESOLUTION NO. 05 RESOLUTION BY FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA PROMOTING THE USE OF INTRASTATE MUTUAL-AID AGREEMENTS Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City council ofthe City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 1 st day of August, 200S at 7 :00 PM Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, Chapter 12, Section 12.331 allows for Intrastate Mutual Aid, and direct, timely assistance between jurisdictions is critical; and WHEREAS, the possibility ofthe occurrence of natural and other disasters of major size and destructiveness exists and is increasing; and WHEREAS, there is a need to ensure that preparations of Farmington will be adequate to deal with disasters; generally protect the public peace, health, and safety; and preserve the lives and property ofthe people of the ate; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to provide for the rendering of mutual aid among the political subdivisions of the state and to cooperate with the federal government with respect to carrying out emergency management functions; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of Minnesota that all emergency response functions of this state be coordinated to the maximum extent with the comparable functions ofthe state government, including its various departments and agencies, of other states and localities, and of private agencies of every type, to the end that the most effective preparations and uses may be made of the state's labor supply, resources, and facilities for dealing with any disaster that may occur; and WHEREAS, the director of each local organization for emergency management may, in collaboration with other public and private agencies within this state, develop or cause to be developed mutual-aid arrangements for reciprocal emergency management aid and assistance in an emergency or disaster too great to be dealt with unassisted. These arrangements must be consistent with the local emergency operations plan and, in time of emergency, each local organization for emergency management and its members shall render assistance in accordance with the provisions of the mutual-aid arrangements. l~OW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Farmington, Minnesota promotes the efficiency and effectiveness of intrastate mutual aid by designating a Farmington Administrator and all Department Directors or designees, or other employee who, exercising discretion and considering the needs of the political subdivision and its inhabitants, to dispatch equipment and personnel as considered necessary if a danger of fire, hazard, casualty, or another similar occurrence exists outside the political subdivision and by its suddenness it would be impractical for the governing body of Farmington itself to authorize the dispatch of equipment and personnel to combat that emergency or disaster. Mayor Attested to the _day of August, 200S SEAL City Administrator Adopted by (COUNTY/CITY) on this ##th day of MONTH, 200S _ _ttest: SIGNATURE (FIRST NAME LAST NAME) Date: MONTH /DAY. 200S ?e... 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 Administrato FROM: Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Accepting Donation to Park Improvement Fund DATE: August 1, 200S INTRODUCTION A donation has been received from the Mom's Club of Farmington. DISCUSSION The Mom's Club of Farmington completed a fundraising event and wishes to make a donation of $270.00 to the Park Improvement Fund. Staff will communicate the City's appreciation on behalf of the City Council to the Mom's Club of Farmington for their generous donation. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution accepting the donation of $270.00 to the Park Improvement Fund from the Mom's Club of Farmington. Respectfully Submitted, ~~JJ# Randy Distad Parks and Recreation Director RESOLUTION No. ACCEPTING DONATION OF $270.00 FROM THE FARMINGTON MOM'S CLUB TO THE PARK IMPROVEMENT FUND 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 I st day of August, 200S at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: seconded the following: Member introduced and Member WHEREAS, the Mom's Club of Farmington has donated $270.00 to the Park Improvement Fund. WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to accept such donations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Farmington hereby accepts with gratitude the generous donation of $270.00 from the Mom's Club of Farmington to the Park Improvement Fund. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 1 st day of August 200S. Mayor Attested to the _ day of August 200S. City Administrator SEAL 7-F City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 55024 (651) 463-7111 . (651) 463-2359 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Administrato~ FROM: Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Accepting Donation for New Schmitz-Maki Arena Sign DATE: August 1, 200S INTRODUCTION A donation has been received from the hockey community for the purchase of a new Schmitz-Maki Arena sign. DISCUSSION Keith Kramer and Jim Cordes have coordinated a fundraising effort and have raised the funds needed to purchase a new sign for the arena. If you remember, the City Council previously approved renaming the arena from the Farmington Civic Arena to the Schmitz-Maki Arena. The cost of the new sign is $1,943.63. A check was presented to the City in this amount to cover the cost ofthe new sIgn. Staffwill communicate the City's appreciation on behalf of the Council to Mr. Kramer and Mr. Cordes ACTION REQUESTED Approve the attached resolution accepting the donation for the new arena sign. fS~:;P Randy Distad Parks and Recreation Director RESOLUTION No. ACCEPTING DONATION OF NEW SCHMITZ-MAKI ARENA SIGN VALUED AT $1,943.63 FROM THE FARMINGTON HOCKEY COMMUNITY 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 I st day of August, 200S at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, the Farmington hockey community has donated a new Schmitz-Maki Arena sign valued at $1,943.63; and, WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to accept such donations. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Farmington hereby accepts with gratitude the generous donation of a new Schmitz-Maki Arena sign valued at $1,943.63 from the Farmington hockey community. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 1 st day of August 200S. Mayor Attested to the _ day of August 200S. City Administrator SEAL City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7J TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City AcJ.mjnistrawr ~ FROM: Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT: Capital Outlay: Playground Equipment for Parks DATE: August 1, 200S INTRODUCTION New playground equipment was identified to be installed in Vermillion Grove and Silver Spring Parks. A new picnic shelter was identified to be installed in Hill Dee Park. DISCUSSION Six vendors submitted proposals for playground equipment and climbing boulders in Silver Spring and Vermillion Grove Parks. The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) reviewed the six proposals and have determined that the playground equipment and climbing boulders should be purchased from the following vendors in the two parks: · Silver Spring Park playground equipment from Flanagan Sales, Inc. at a cost of $28,000 · Silver Spring Park climbing boulder from Minnesota/Wisconsin Playground at a cost of $lS,OOO · Vermillion Grove playground equipment from Minnesota/Wisconsin Playground at a cost of $20,000 · Vermillion Grove climbing boulder from Flanagan Sales, Inc. at a cost of just under $27,000 I have attached copies of pictures of the various playground equipment and climbing boulders that PRAC selected. Four vendors submitted picnic shelter proposals for Hill Dee Park. The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission reviewed the four proposals and have determined that the picnic shelter should be purchased from Flanagan Sales, Inc. I have attached a copy of a picture of the shelter. It is the same size and model of the shelter that the City purchased last year for Meadowview and Tamarack Parks. BUDGET IMPACT The cost to purchase the playground equipment at Silver Springs Park and Vermillion Grove Park, the climbing boulder at Silver Springs Park and the picnic shelter at Hill Dee Park all came in at the budgeted amount. The climbing boulder at Vermillion Grove Park came in at $3,000 less than was budgeted. ACTION REQUESTED No action is requested. This is for informational purposes only. )[7C~I~, k~tad, Parks and Recreation Director cc: Park and Recreation Advisory Commission members Flanagan SILVER SPRINGS PARK Sales, Inc. ,,!~ -IFARMINGTON, MINNESOTA little tikes . PlIIy....-1IJ PlIIy- ( For ......Iofo...-. Please COIltact: Mike Dorsey Flanagan Sales, Inc. ADa' Flanagan Sales, Inc. Ard1itechlnll" R_OllllI Products 1-800-328-3SS7 IS67 East CounIy Rood "E" Ph: 6SI-633-0123 Sl. Paul, MN SSIIO FIX: 651-633-ISIS www.tIonopnsoIes.comEmoil:wecanhelp@/l.............com O~~ R kCraft eSlgns <;~ I v6{ Spi!."1> t> oJk LIZARD BOULDER Approximately 6.5' high (top of Lizard) 5 foot diameter Granite look. Made of fiberglass and polymer-reinforced 65 mpa concrete over steel frame Jd handcrafted in our factory/studio. c/w 15 Year Limited Warranty Capacity 12 Suggested site layout with safety zone UZNlll llOUlDf> 0'_.... ~ NB: RockCraft Designs requires a minimum of 8' Safety Zone. Total minimum use zone required 23'. 1-866-786-1635 www.playwalls.com Our Climber/Artists hand craft and test each boulder for grip and safety. The boulders are designed with downward drainage so that there can be no water pockets, which could result in freeze/thaw cracking. After painting, we apply a UV protected clear coat that allows for graffiti removal. Ii ~ ~ ~ = ~ I! .. . ~'~ .':y"\~ }:~ ':i';;i;;:~:' '. . , ,'('U ,.>t-,ii,~: ': t'"-'-';'""" ' " .>, ,<;;'::~!.~'~; . ."p,m. I :. ,~ ?t~';t:'~ :< :, \: ~l.> ".d.\t,~\.~~' .<;~ "'-',' .;. .~:((l.' ';f f'~;^~fN~ E o u >- <'ll 0.. ~ I:: E ~ ~ ~ LJ') N '<t LJ') N N \0 o o 00 , ~ Sport Rock IntI., Inc., one of the nations leading manufacturers of climbing walls, has developed an incredibly realistic boulder with an unsurpassed aesthetic appearance and the incredible real feel of a natural rock surface. The climbing surface is made of a specially formulated ceramic based resin (CBR) with a reinforced fiberglass interior laminate for strength and durability. Grey or brown granite are standard colorations. Custom colorations and sizes are also available. Stain~ess steel receivers are cast directly into the exterior surface, which allows the use of our modular color matched hand holds. The handholds be can rearranged with a special tool to create very easy climbing. or spaced to create more difficult 8ftW X 9ft. L X 9ft. H 1400 Ibs. 50 hand holds Price: $14,750.00 plus shipping .PORT ROOK IIIITL., 11110. 805/481-5686 PO Box 32 Pismo Beach CA 93448 website: www.sportrockintl.com e-mail: info@sportrockintl.com Oxf6~d eIexagonal Gazebos GXO 1 4 GXO 1 8 GXO 22 (Former (Former (Former GOX 12) GOX 16) GOX 20) 4$2 J:$" ~12 /.r"~.~12 ! \ ,12 / / \ 1 I r +< ~ ~lifi1rml ~ Lcn ~lU _l_ ~l JP1"3.5"Cil0Ci~i j+ 15,.~.5::~to~ f l j I 19'-3.5"~to~ f I I 1 . 14'.0" Dia. l . t8-0 Dla. . . 22'-0" Dia. I Area: 127 sf Area: 210 sf , Area: 314 sf ' , GXO 28 (Former 1'. GOX 24) ..)0; // \:::::". 12 __/.-=:r~~,,~ 8 / GXO 32 (Former /' GOX 28) GXO 40 (Former ~y ~26) ~ 12 ~--- - ~, -~8 -~:~ ~~4~~.- ..-- ~ :0 I .j... -:::::::::-~-=::.::.=:~~.::.:~~-:::~,,:~.==:.-_--=;: . ';;-' ~: ' : .:' cJ:-'~r:---:- .' I (Xl, + f! 11 27'-2" Cl toCl 32'-0" Dia. Area: 665 sf t i , I I 4 35'-2" CltoCl 40'-0" Dia Area: 1039 sf :~ CUPOLAS ARE STANDARD ON THE GXO 14, 18 AND 22 ONLY CUPOLAS, HANDRAILS AND ORNAMENTATION ARE OPTIONAL ._' . .." - r' -." '. ". ~.. ,,,'. ''16' W~...'~. .. '.. ,'" , ,",,:-' -- - '~--..." _,~, . _ ._ _ ' , ,.' ..-....r:-" ~'-,J ." ," ;f ..,- ,'~;~:.:://'r -. _ ; ~.>~~.". "'1Iir~ :.i.~ ., ~;. ; , - " "'.,... ....''''I'i". -.J"'J,-' i' ..,# 1" L., ' ~', t..... ,...." 4o:.':;;;rr. ,.... "rA:."" ,,,,'''. -" '.' .~. - ...., " :'f!!ti'il :";f . / ;:-": )' .,.....~P,. . ", ?';, It;"'A' ' '. _,'J .- +;....:.~- ..;.7 23'-3.5" Clto~ 28'-0" Dia. Area: 509 sf ..",.'~~ ._~ ~ ~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us /~ TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ FROM: Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Capital Outlay - Digital Video Recorder DATE: August 1, 200S INTRODUCTION In 2004, the Apple Valley, Farmington, Rosemount Cable Commission (AFRCC), agreed to upgrade the recording equipment in all three cities from VHS to digital. DISCUSSION To record digitally a digital video recorder (DVR) is required in each City's television control room and all three cities have included a DVR in their 200S budgets. The AFRCC has received the following three price quotations for a digital video recorder system: Alpha Video, Inc. $S089.00 before shipping and sales tax EP A Audio Visual, Inc $SISS.00 before shipping and sales tax Techware $4997.00 before shipping and sales tax After review of the quotations, the AFRCC has chosen to purchase the digital video recorders from Techware. The total cost of the DVR with shipping and sales tax is $S329.79. BUDGET IMPACT This item was budgeted at $SOOO.OO in the 200S Budget. The total cost of the DVR with shipping and sales tax comes to $S329.79. However, the DVR will be purchased through the Communications Fund and will not impact the General Fund. ACTION REQUIRED For information only. Respectfully submitted, ~ tl-JAa~ Lisa Shadick Administrative Services Director 7,' City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: David Urbia, City Administrator SUBJECT: School and Conference DATE: August 1, 200S INTRODUCTION Administration staffis planning attendance at the 200S League of Minnesota Cities Clerks' Orientation Conference. DISCUSSION This conference covers various aspects of City Clerk responsibilities including finance, human resources, liquor laws, open meeting law, election laws, etc. The conference will be held August 23-2S, 200S in St. Paul. BUDGET IMPACT Cost ofthe conference is $22S. ACTION REQUESTED Approve school and conference request to attend the 200S LMC Clerks' Orientation Conference to be held in St. Paul, August 23-2S, 200S for Administration staff. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us }' U TO: Mayor and Councilmembers /121 /\ ../'"' City Administrator ? V - FROM: Daniel M. Siebenaler, Police Chief SUBJECT: Appointment Recommendation, Police Department DATE: August 1,2005 INTRODUCTION The 2005 budget provides for the addition of 3 new officers to the Farmington Police Department. Staff has completed the background investigation, psychological and physical testing of the next candidate as approved by the Human Resources Division of the City and is prepared to recommend the second of those new positions. DISCUSSION Miss Cassandra Johnson is currently a part time Community Service Officer for the City of Farmington. She began her employment with the City in January 2005. She was formerly employed by the City of Prior Lake in a similar capacity. Since joining Farmington's staff Miss Johnson has completed the academic portion of her Law Enforcement Program, followed by the Basic Skills program. She has recently passed her POST Licensing exam and is eligible to become a fully licensed Police Officer. While in the employment of the City, Miss Johnson has demonstrated a commitment to the job and to the City. She will be a welcome addition to the Farmington Police Department. ACTION REOUESTED Approve the appointment of Cassandra Johnson to the position of Police Officer with the Farmington Police Department effective August 30, 2005. Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us lk TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrat~ David R. Sanocki, P.E., Civil Engineer ~ FROM: SUBJECT: Award Contract - 200S Striping Project DATE: August 1, 200S INTRODUCTION Three quotations were received for the 200S Striping Project. DISCUSSION Akin Road and 208th Street are proposed to be striped as part of the 200S Striping Project. AAA Striping Services Co. has submitted the lowest bid for the 200S Striping Project in the amount of $14,3S1.33 (See attached tabulation of bids). BUDGET IMPACT The funding for this project is included within the Street Construction and Maintenance Fund (Commonly referred to as the Road and Bridge Fund). ACTION REQUESTED Authorize by motion the award of contract for the 200S Striping Project to AAA Striping Services Co. in the amount of$14,3S1.33. ReSPffJJJi.u~ David R. Sanocki, P .E. Civil Engineer cc: file Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer Bill Weierke, Street & Utility Forman 6 "~ OJ ~ ~ ":= ~'g t:~ ~ .. .s ~~ ~ 13 ->:: l:l ...... OJ trl = = N '" = tiN .2, .e- = =' ... ~ =-- = bfl = .s <I.l c..~ .C = .....'+-l 00. = trl = = = = .... N~ - =' ..c ~ E-4 ~ 0\ <::> ..,. ~ "~ g "~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 V) 0 0 III 0 0 0 0 0 - r- ~ 0 M 5 0 0 00 ai 0 00 00 ai .,; ClCl 0 0 ~ 00 - r- ~ ~ :! ~ CIl N 00 00 N N M 00 0Cl .,; .,; 00. 0-. N" e; ffi t'l f-< ) >< ~ <A <A <A <A <A <A <A <A <A .... "1:l il 0 0 0- N 0 0 - N 00 ~ 0 0 N '" 0 M M '" V) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r- - f-< N N - ~ <A <A <A <A <A <A <A <A <A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C> 0 0 0 0 0 V) '" C> ... 5 M N -0 N 0 00 N -0 V) iii V) M r- ~ 00 0 0 ~ ~ 0Cl CIl 0-" N 0 r- r- - N N "l. - N. or) or) '" tl) ffi ... <.) ~ <::: tl) ~ ~ C <A <A <A <A <A <A <A <A <A .... .a <::: 0 0 0 00 tl) 00 '" 0 00 00 u 0 0 - M 0 0 - - - f-< M M 0 0 0 .",: 0 0 0 ~ 0- 0- '" <A <A <A <A <A <A <A <A <A 0 0 0 0 00 0 V) 0 0 t'l 0 0 0 C> or: V) r- V) C> t'l 0 5 0 0 00 V) M .,; 00 .,; V) ...; 0- '" ~ 00 00 r- '" 0 M III U CIl 00. - 0- r- 0- - - N "l. '" - N. M" ~" ..... tl) ffi ... <.) "E ~ tl) <;Il ~ bl) <A <A <A .... <A <A <A <A <A .... <::: "6. "j:; 0 0 :! 0 '" 0 V) V) :! 0 0 M ~ V) - - <;Il 0 0 0 0 V) -0 0 0 0 ~ f-< 0- '" r- ~ <A <A <A <A <A <A <A <A <A - ~ 0 0 ::J r- V) 0 0 V) N S:! r- V) ~ N N 0 0- M N N V) - - f-< 00" - CI N f-< ;'iJ ;'iJ < ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ....:l ....:l ~ ....:l ....:l ....:l C C C "oa ~ C C "oa ~ "oa C "oa ~ ~ C c.. ~ C "oa ~ "oa ~ "oa ~ "oa ~ ~ 0 ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ c.. ~ c.. ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 c.. c.. ~ , .9 ~ ~ c.. 0 c.. ~ , I c.. ~ . c.. ~ , I ~ il ~ ~ , ::E , , tl) ~ , ~ .9 ~ ~ il ~ "~ ~ t: .9 ~ ~ ..I<i ~ ~ <I:: Cl 1 tl) tl) ~ g tl) tl) tl) tl) <::: <::: ~ <::: <::: '" c.. <::: :.:s :.:s ... '" '" :.:s :.:s '" "C :.:s "1:l "1:l =:I '" '" I: ciS tl) tl) tl) tl) :2 :2 u :2 .<:: .<:: .... ::E ::E c.. ~ ~ -< "0 "0 C ;r, 0 "0 f-o ~ ~ <;Il <;Il "oa ~ ciS <;Il Cl Cl 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M ;:..., ~ ~ ~ f-o Il) o o C:! Il) C:! ,.... -g~ ~rri V) r- V) '" r- <::: r-'" ~~~:h~ ~~~n~~ <I.)~~&;'&;' ;; N bl) '" '" Cl:!~t;,t;, V) N 0 V) tl) V) .c ;> ~~ lU "C r- f-< Cl r- r- "t:l o~ M !ij tl) r- r- iD N ~4 ej ~ ~ Cl ....:l'" '" c: '<::0- III - ~ ~ "0. .3f;d '" ,-..,-.. ";:: 0 ~ - - V) V) ii) <:! ~ 0 ee ~ Il) 0 0 N ~ r- M tl)" V) ;> V) N r- <::: <0- ~~ V) 0 V) '" ~~ "I' ..I<i <.) CI'J"'~ 00 "C ;:l ~ N ~ ClIll b"l:f'-.::I" !ij N bl)'-"'-" 0-0 "1:lMM Q 0"'''' M " ~r-r- V)~ "-' "-' 7L City of Farmington 325 Oak Street. Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Admjmstra~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - 2005 Seal Coat Project DATE: August 1,2005 INTRODUCTION /DISCUSSION The 200S Seal Coat Project is complete. The fmal project costs for this project will be allocated using the methodology presented at the project hearing. BUDGET IMPACT The final project costs and proposed assessment roll will be available prior to the assessment hearing. The Council would consider adopting the final project assessment roll at the assessment hearing for this project. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution directing staff to prepare the final assessment roll and setting the assessment hearing for the 2005 Seal Coat Project (Project OS-OI) for September 19,2005. Respectfully submitted, ~fh~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file RESOLUTION NO. R -05 CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING - PROJECT NO. 05-01 - 2005 SEAL COAT 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 of the 1 st day of August, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution. WHEREAS, a contract has been let and costs have been determined for the following improvements: Proi. No. 05-01 Description Seal coating Location various - see Attachment A ;and, WHEREAS, the improvements for the project are complete. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. Staff is hereby directed to prepare the proposed final assessment roll for the project. 2. A hearing shall be held in the Council Chambers in City Hall on the 19th day of September, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. to act upon such proposed assessment at such time and place and all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and the clerk shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. The clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearings. Notice shall be provided in accordance with the requirements provided under M.S. section 429.061 subdivision 1. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 1 st day of August, 2005. Mayor Attested to the _ day of August 200S. City Administrator SEAL Attachment A Streets Location 18Sth Street West North phase line of Dakota County Estates 9th Addition to the south phase line of Dakota County Estates 9th Addition English Avenue to the east phase line of Dakota County Estates 9th Addition English Avenue Euclid Path Euclid Street Enhance Court Esquire Way Essence Trail Pilot Knob to the south phase line of NeIsen Hills Farm 3rd Addition Euclid Path to north phase line of Nelsen Hills Farm 3rd Addition All Euclid Path to west phase line of Nelsen Hills Farm 3rd Addition Euclid Path to west phase line of Nelsen Hills Farm 3rd Addition 193rd Street Epic Court Enchanted Way Encore Court Enchanted Court English Avenue Pilot Knob to Akin Road All All All All 193rd Street West to 190th Street West 194th Street West Elmwood Circle Elsmere Court Ellington Trail Akin Road to Ellington Trail All All All 193rd Street West Embry Lane 192nd Street 191 st Street Echo Lane Akin Road to the east phase line of Akin Park 1 st Addition All Embry Lane to Echo Lane Embry Lane to Echo Lane All Eaglewood Trail All North phase line of Prairie Creek 3rd Addition to the south phase line of Prairie Creek 3rd Addition Embers Avenue to the east phase line of Prairie Creek 3rd Addition Embry Avenue Embers Avenue Elkridge Trail Embers Avenue Embers Avenue to the north phase line of Autumn Glen 3rd Addition 19Sth Street to the north phase line of Autumn Glen 3rd Addition Pilot Knob to the west phase line of Charles wood 4th Addition 200th Street West to the north phase line of Charles wood 4th Addition 200th Street West to Everhill Avenue Excelsior Lane to the east phase line of Charleswood 4th Addition 200th Street West Everhill Avenue Excelsior Lane Export Trail Municipal Drive All 203rd Street West Erickson Path Erickson Court Enright Court Erickson Knoll English Avenue Pilot Knob to the east phase line of Middle Creek 3rd Addition All All Enright Way to the east phase line of Middle Creek 1 st Addition All 203rd Street West to the north phase line of Middle Creek 3rd Addition Enright way Oak Street Spruce Steet 2nd Street 3m Street 4th Street 5th Street 6th Street 7th Street Alley south of Post Office Alley south of new library Alley north of VFW All 4th Street to HWY 3 2nd Street to 4th Street Elm Street to Spruce Street Spruce Street to Walnut Elm Street to Walnut Street Elm Street to Yz block south of Oak Street Elm Street to Yz block south of Oak Street Elm Street to Yz block south of Oak Street All All All City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /h7 TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City AcJmjnistra~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Consider Resolution - Ash Street Area Improvements DATE: August 1, 200S INTRODUCTION /DISCUSSION The Ash Street Area Improvements are nearing substantial completion. BUDGET IMPACT The proposed assessments for this project as outlined at the project initiation are set by the benefit appraisal. The proposed assessment roll will be available prior to the assessment hearing. The Council would consider adopting the final project assessment roll at the assessment hearing for the proj ect. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution directing staff to prepare the final assessment rolls and setting the assessment hearings for the Ash Street Area Improvements (Project 93-01) for October 3,2005. Respectfully submitted, ~}M.~ Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file RESOLUTION NO. R -05 CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING - PROJECT NO. 93-1- ASH STREET PROJECT PHASES I & II 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 ofthe 1 st day of August, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution. WHEREAS, a contract has been let and costs have been determined for the following improvements: Proi. No. 93-1 Description Ash Street Area Improvements Location Ash Street and areas adjacent from 1 st Street to Trunk Highway 3, Trunk Highway 3 from Ash Street/Trunk Highway SO southerly; Trunk Highway SO from Trunk Highway 3 easterly to East Farmington and properties adjacent to Trunk Highway 50 south of Trunk Highway 50 and east of Trunk Highway 3. ; and, WHEREAS, the improvements for the project are complete. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. Staff is hereby directed to prepare the proposed final assessment roll for the project. 2. A hearing shall be held in the Council Chambers in City Hall on the 3Td day of October, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. to act upon such proposed assessment at such time and place and all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and the clerk shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. The clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearings. Notice shall be provided in accordance with the requirements provided under M.S. section 429.061 subdivision 1. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 1 st day of August, 2005. Mayor Attested to this _ day of ,2005. City Administrator SEAL City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us //] TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administra~ Tim Gross, P.E., Assistant City Engineer C:::::t- FROM: SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Farmington Industrial Park 3rd Addition Development Contract DATE: August 1, 2005 INTRODUCTION The Development Contract for Farmington Industrial Park 3rd Addition is forwarded herewith for Council's consideration. DISCUSSION The preliminary plat for Farmington Industrial Park 3rd Addition was reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 12, 2005 and the final plat was approved by the City Council on July 18, 2005. The contract has been drafted in accordance with the conditions placed on the approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat and has been reviewed by the City Attorney. Following are conditions of approval for the development contract: 1. the Developer enter into this Agreement; and 2. the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms ofthis Agreement; and 3. the Developer record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 6 months after City Council approval of the final plat. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution approving the execution ofthe Farmington Industrial Park 3rd Addition Development Contract and authorize its signing contingent upon the above conditions and final approval by the Engineering Division. Respectfully Submitted, ~. Tim Gross, P.E. Assistant City Engineer cc: file RESOLUTION NO. R -05 APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FARMINGTON INDUSTRIAL PARK 3RD ADDITION 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 in City Hall of said City on the 1 sl day of August, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. Members present: Members absent: seconded the following resolution: Member introduced and Member WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. R84-05, the City Council approved the Preliminary and Final Plat of Farmington Industrial Park 3rd Addition subject to the following conditions: 1) Northern Natural Gas approves an encroachment agreement with the developer to allow the developer access into the gas line easement for paving, parking of trucks, and the encroachment of a water line and concrete drainage ditch into the easement. 2) A storm sewer easement to the north on the Devney property needs to be filed for recording before the Farmington Industrial Park 3rd Addition Preliminary & Final Plat is recorded. 3) The satisfaction of any engineering requirements including the construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities. 4) The satisfaction of any Park & Recreation Advisory Commission comments concerning fees and trails. 5) The Final Plat approval is contingent on the preparation and execution of the Development Contract and approval of the construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering Division. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1.) The Development Contract for the aforementioned subdivision, a copy of which is on file in the Clerk's office is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: a) the Developer enter into this Agreement; and b) the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; and c) the Developer record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 6 months after City Council approval of the final plat. d) The developer record a right of way easement for the 208th Street alignment per the following legal description: The north 100.00 feet of the south 544.33 feet of the SW ~ of the SW ~ of Section 25, Township 114, Range 20, Dakota County, Minnesota. and; 2.) The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to sign such contract. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 1 st day of August, 2005. Mayor Attested to this _ day of August, 2005. SEAL City Administrator DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AGREEMENT dated this 1 st day of August, 2005, by, between, and among the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation (CITY) and Airlake Development, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (DEVELOPER) and Patrick D. Regan and Mary K. Regan, Husband and Wife (DEVELOPER), and John M. Devney and Mary A. Devney, Husband and Wife (DEVELOPER). 1. Reauest for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for Farmington Industrial Park 3rd Addition (also referred to in this Development Contract [CONTRACT or AGREEMENT] as the PLAT). The land is situated in the City of Farmington, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, and is legally described on the attached Exhibit "A": 2. Conditions of Approval. The City hereby approves the plat on the conditions that: a) the Developer enter into this Agreement; and b) the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; and c) the Developer record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 6 months after City Council approval of the fmal plat. 3. Development Plans and Ri2ht to Proceed. The Developer shall develop the plat in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Agreement. The plans may be prepared by the Developer, subject to City approval, after entering into this Agreement but before commencement of any work in the plat. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, subject to paragraphs 6 and 34G, the plans shall control. The required plans are: Plan A - Final Plat Plan B - Soil Erosion Control and Grading Plans Plan C - Landscape Plan Plan D - Zoning/Development Map Plan E - Wetlands Mitigation as required by the City Plan F - Final Street and Utility Plans and Specifications The Developer shall use its best efforts to assure timely application to the utility companies for the following utilities: underground natural gas, electrical, cable television, and telephone. Within the plat or land to be platted, the Developer may not construct sewer lines, water lines, streets, utilities public or private improvements or any building until all of the following conditions have been satisfied: a) This agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, b) The necessary security has been received by the City, c) The plat has been submitted for recording with the Dakota County Recorder's Office, and d) The City Clerk has issued a letter stating that all conditions have been satisfied and that the Developer may proceed. 1 4. Sales Office Requirements. At any location within the plat where lots and/or homes are sold which are part of this subdivision, the Developer agrees to install a sales board on which a copy of the approved plat, fmal utility plan and a zoning map or planned unit development plan are displayed, showing the relationship between this subdivision and the adjoining neighborhood. The zoning and land use classification of all land and network of major streets within 350 feet of the plat shall be included. 5. Zonin2lDevelopment Map. The Developer shall provide an 8 1/2" x 14" scaled map of the plat and land within 350' of the plat containing the following information: a. platted property; b. existing and future roads; c. future phases; d. existing and proposed land uses; and e. future ponds. 6. Required Public Improvements and Pilot Knob Road/ CSAH 31 Improvements Assessments. The Developer shall install and pay for the following: a. Sanitary Sewer Lateral System b. Water System (trunk: and lateral) c. Storm Sewer d. Streets e. Concrete Curb and Gutter f. Street Signs g. Street Lights h. Sidewalks and Trails i. Erosion Control, Site Grading and Ponding j. Traffic Control Devices k. Setting of Lot & Block Monuments 1. Surveying and Staking m. Landscaping, Screening, Blvd. Trees The improvements shall be installed in accordance with Plans A through F, and in accordance with all laws, City Standards, Engineering Guidelines, Ordinances and plans and specifications which have been prepared by a competent registered professional engineer furnished to the City and reviewed by the City Engineer. Work done not in accordance with the fmal plans and specifications, without prior authorization of the City Engineer, shall be considered a violation of this agreement and a Default of the Contract. The Developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the Metropolitan Council and other agencies before proceeding with construction. The Developer shall instruct its engineer to provide adequate field inspection personnel to assure an acceptable level of quality control to the extent that the Developer's engineer will be able to certify that the construction work meets the approved City standards as a condition of City acceptance. In addition, the City may, at the City's discretion and at the Developer's expense, have one or more City inspector(s) and a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or part time basis. The Developer or his engineer shall schedule a pre-construction meeting at a mutually agreeable time at the City Council chambers with all parties concerned, including the City staff, to review the program for the construction work. Within sixty (60) days after the completion of the improvements and before the security is released, the Developer shall supply the City with a complete set of "As Built" plans as specified in the City's Engineering Guidelines. If the Developer does not provide such information, the City will produce the as-built drawings. All costs associated with producing the as-built drawings will be the responsibility of the Developer. All bike trails and sidewalks to be constructed as part of the development must be completed before building permits will be issued. The developer shall be responsible to pay for the construction of 208th Street from Pilot Knob Road/ CSAH 31 to the existing 208th Street terminus in the Industrial Park. The City will contribute MSA funds in the amount of 28% of the project costs not to exceed $200,000. Before the security for the completion of the utilities is released, iron monuments must be installed in accordance with M.S. ~505.02. The Developer's surveyor shall submit a written notice to the City certifying that the monuments have been installed. 2 Pilot Knob Road/ CSAH 31 Improvements Assessments The parent parcels of Farmington Industrial Park 3rd Addition have been assessed for improvements to Pilot Knob Road! CSAH 31 Improvements. The total levied assessment amount for the portion of the parent parcels within the plat is: (Regan Parcel) (Devney Parcel) Parcel Nos. 140360001529 140250001057 Total amount levied: $0 $ 41,289.56 (through 12/31/05) The assessment ($11,012.60) levied against the Devney parcel (140250001057) being dedicated as right-of-way for 208th Street shall be waived when the deed for the right-of-way is recorded with the Dakota County Recorders Office. The remainder of the assessment against the parent parcel ($68,989.77) shall remain pending. A portion of the levied assessment plus interest becomes due with the fmal platting of Farrnington Industrial Park 3rd Addition. The amount due with Farmington Industrial Park 3rd Addition will be calculated proportionally based on the area of Farmington Industrial Park 3rd Addition being developed in relation to the entire area of the property. The remaining balance of the levied assessment shall remain levied against the unplatted portion of the parent parcel. The Developer may elect to pay the assessment in cash at the time of fmal plat approval or have it prorated and reassessed to the lots and blocks of Farmington Industrial Park 3rd Addition. If assessed, the assessments shall be spread over a 10-year period with 6.5% interest on the unpaid balance from the time of the initial adoption of the assessment to the parent parcel. The reassessments shall be deemed adopted on the date this Contract is signed by the City. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessments, including but not limited to, hearing requirements and any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to M.S.A. 429.081. 7. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required public utilities, by November 30, 2006, in accordance with the requirements set forth in the City's Engineering Guidelines. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases. An extension of the security shall be considered an extension of this contract and the extension of the contract will coincide with the date of the extension of the security. 8. Ownership of Improvements. Upon the completion of the work and construction required to be done by this Agreement, and written acceptance by the City Engineer, the improvements lying within public easements shall become City property, except for cable TV, electrical, gas, and telephone, without further notice or action. 9. Warrantv. The Developer and the Developers Engineer represent and warrant to the City that the design for the project meets all laws, City Standards, Engineering Guidelines and Ordinances. The Developer warrants all improvements required to be constructed by it pursuant to this Contract against poor material and faulty workmanship. The warranty period for streets is one year. The warranty period for underground utilities is two years. The warranty period for the streets shall commence after the fmal wear course has been completed and the streets have been accepted by City Council resolution. The warranty period on underground utilities shall commence following their completion and acceptance by the City Engineer in writing. It is the responsibility of the Developer to complete the required testing of the underground utilities and request, in writing, City acceptance of the utilities. Failure of the Developer to complete the required testing or request acceptance of the utilities in a timely manner shall not in any way constitute cause for the warranty period to be modified from the stipulations set forth above. All trees shall be warranted to be alive, of good quality, and disease free for twelve (12) months after the security for the trees is released. Any replacements shall be warranted for twelve (12) months from the time of planting. The Developer shall post maintenance bonds or other surety acceptable to the City to secure the warranties. The City shall retain ten percent (10%) of the security posted by the Developer until the bonds or other acceptable surety are furnished to the City or until the warranty period has been completed, whichever first occurs. The retainage may be used to pay for warranty work. The City's Engineering Guidelines identifY the procedures for fmal acceptance of streets and utilities. 10. Grading: Plan. The plat shall be graded and drainage provided by the Developer in accordance with Plan B. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, the Developer may start rough grading the lots within the stockpile and easement areas in conformance with Plan B before the plat is filed if all fees have been paid, a MPCA 3 Construction Storm Water Permit has been issued, and the City has been furnished the required security. Additional rough grading may be allowed upon obtaining written authorization from the City Engineer. If the developer needs to change grading affecting drainage after homeowners are on site, he must notifY all property owners/residents of this work prior to its initiation. This notification cannot take place until the City Engineer has approved the proposed grading changes. A MPCA Construction Storm Water Permit must be obtained before any grading can commence on the site. 11. Erosion Control and Fees. After the site is rough graded, but before any utility construction is commenced or building permits are issued, the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if it is determined that the methods implemented are insufficient to properly control erosion. All areas disturbed by the excavation and back-filling operations shall be re- seeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule, or supplementary instructions received from the City, or in an emergency determined at the sole discretion of the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion immediately, without notice to the Developer. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and the City's rights or obligations hereunder. If the Developer does not reimburse the City for any costs of the City incurred for such work within thirty (30) days, the City may draw down the letter of credit to pay such costs. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in full compliance with the erosion control requirements. The Developer is responsible for Erosion Control inspection fees at the current rates. The Developer is also responsible for a Water Quality Management Fee of $ 3,125 based upon the number of acres in the plat. This fee is due and payable at the time of execution of this agreement. 12. Landscapine:. The Developer shall landscape the plat in accordance with Plan C. The landscaping shall be accomplished in accordance with a time schedule approved by the City. A. The Developer shall be solely responsible for the installation of all project landscaping including but not limited to the boulevard trees. The responsibility for the installation of boulevard trees will not be transferred to builders, homeowners, etc. B. All graded areas, including fmish grade on lots, will require a minimum of 6" of black dirt/topsoil. The responsibility for the installation of black dirt/topsoil shall not be transferred to homeowners. C. Retaining walls with 1) a height that exceeds four feet or 2) a combination of tiers that exceed four feet or 3) a three foot wall with a back slope greater than 4 to 1 shall be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by a structural or geotechnical engineer licensed by the State of Minnesota. Following construction, a certification signed by the design engineer shall be filed with the City Engineer evidencing that the retaining will was constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. All retaining walls that are part of the development plans, or special conditions referred to in this Contract that are required to be constructed, shall be constructed and certified before any building permit is issued for a lot on which a retaining wall is required to be built. All landscaping features, including those constructed within public rights of way, remain the property and responsibility of the developer and subsequent property owners, subject to the City's or other governmental unit's rights to access and maintain their rights of way. 13. Phased Development. The plat shall be developed in one (1) phase in accordance with Plans A-F. No earth moving shall be done in any subsequent phase until the necessary security has been furnished to the City. No construction of public improvements or other development shall be done in any subsequent phase until a fmal plat for the phase has been filed in the County Recorder's office and the necessary security has been furnished to the City. The City may refuse to approve fmal plats of subsequent phases until public improvements for all prior phases have been satisfactorily completed. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, this Development Contract constitutes approval to develop the plat. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until development agreements for such phases are approved by the City. 14. Effect of Subdivision Approval. For two (2) years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the current urban service area, or removing any part thereof which has not been fmal platted, or official controls, shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications or platting required or permitted by the approved preliminary plat unless required by State or Federal 4 law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by State law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan (including removing unplatted property from the urban service area), official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement and may require submission of a new plat. 15. Surface Water Manaeement Fee. The Developer shall pay an area storm water management charge of$ 250,540 in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. Storm sewer charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. A credit of $ 426,799 will be given to the Developer for regional ponding and storm sewer oversizing within the plat. The net result is a credit of$176,259 which will be applied against future phases of the development. 16. Wetland Conservation and Mitieation. The Developer shall comply with the 1991 Wetlands Conservation Act, as amended, and the Wetlands Mitigation Plan. The Developer shall pay all costs associated with wetlands conservation and the Wetlands Mitigation Plan. 17. Water Main Trunk Area Charee. The Developer shall pay a water main trunk area charge of$ 48,484 for the plat in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at five percent (5%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081. Water area charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. A credit of$ 14,951 will be given to the Developer for Water Main Trunk oversizing within the plat. The net result is that the Water Main Trunk Area Charge to be paid with this plat is $ 33,533. 18. Water Treatment Plant Fee. This fee will be calculated and becomes due upon the issuance of building permits. 19. Sanitary Sewer Trunk Area Charee. The Developer shall pay a sanitary sewer trunk area charge of$ 37,699 for the plat in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at five percent (5%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081. Sanitary Trunk Sewer charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. 20. Park Dedication. The Developer shall be required to dedicate 1.01 acres ofland for park purposes. The Developer shall pay the City $ 86,687 as cash in lieu of land in satisfaction of the City's park dedication requirements for the plat. The park dedication fee shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at five percent (5%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081. The park dedication fees for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. 21. Park Development Fee. The Developer shall pay a Park Development Fee of$ 16,766 that will be used to pay either for development of the park located in the development, or if no land is taken for park purposes, in the park closest to the development. The park to which the Park Development Fee for Farmington Industrial Park 3rd Addition shall be credited/coded to is the Middle Creek Park (2319-5046). The City shall allow the Developer to either pay the entire park development fee at the time of fmal plat filing or to pay the park development fee on a per unit basis at the time that the building permit is issued for each unit to be constructed in the development, provided that all park development fees shall be paid within five (5) years of approval of the fmal plat. 5 22. Sealcoatina. The Developer agrees to pay a fee of $ 6,147 for initial sealcoating of streets in the subdivision. This fee shall/be deposited in the City Road and Bridge Fund upon execution of this Agreement. 23. GIS Fees. The Developer is responsible for a Geographic Information System fee of$ 1,714 based upon the acreage or number oflots within the subdivision. This fee shall be due and payable upon execution of this Agreement 24. Easements. The Developer shall furnish the City at the time of execution of this Agreement with the easements designated on the plat. 25. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors, a license to enter the plat to perform all necessary work and/or inspections deemed appropriate by the City during the installation of public improvements by the City. The license shall expire after the public improvements installed pursuant to the Development Contract have been installed and accepted by the City. 26. Clean UP. The Developer shall weekly, or more often if required by the City Engineer, clear from the public streets and property any soil, earth or debris resulting from construction work by the Developer or its agents or assigns. All debris, including brush, vegetation, trees and demolition materials, shall be disposed of off site. Burning of trees and structures shall be prohibited, except for ftre training only. The City has a contract for street cleaning services. The City will have the right to clean the streets as outlined in current City policy. The Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for street cleaning costs. 27. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Agreement, payment of real estate taxes including interest and penalties, payment of special assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements in the plat and construction of all public improvements in the plat, the Developer shall furnish the City with a cash escrow, irrevocable letter of credit, or alternative security acceptable to the City Administrator, from a bank (security) for $ 661,080. The bank and form of the security shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator. Letters of Credit shall be in the format and wording exactly as shown on the attached Letter of Credit form (Attachment "C"). The security shall be automatically renewing. The term of the security may be extended from time to time if the extension is furnished to the City Administrator at least forty-ftve (45) days prior to the stated expiration date of the security. If the required public improvements are not completed, or terms of the Agreement are not satisfted, at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of a letter of credit, the City may draw down the letter of credit. The City may draw down the security, without prior notice, for any violation of this Agreement or Default of the Contract. The amount of the security was calculated as follows: GradinglErosion Control Sanitary Sewer Water Main Storm Sewer Street Construction $ 169,172 $146,660 $ 142,456 $ 131,271 $N/A Monuments St. Lights/Signs Landscaping $863 $ 4,169 $ 25,588 Two Years Principal and Interest on Assessments $ 40,903 This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. Upon receipt of proof satisfactory by the Developer's Engineer to the City Engineer that work has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and speciftcations, and terms of this Agreement, and that all fmancial obligations to the City, subcontractors, or other persons have been satisfted, the City Engineer may approve reductions in the security provided by the Developer under this paragraph from time to time by ninety percent (90%) of the fmancial obligations that have been satisfted. Ten percent (10%) of the amounts certifted by the Developer's engineer shall be retained as security until all improvements have been completed, all fmancial obligations to the City satisfted, the required "as built" plans have been received by the City, a warranty security is provided, and the public improvements are accepted by the City Council. 28. Responsibility for Costs. A. The Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the development of the plat, including but not limited to, Soil and Water Conservation District charges, legal, planning, administrative, construction costs, 6 engineering, easements, inspection and utility testing expenses incurred in connection with approval, acceptance and development of the plat, the preparation of this Agreement, and all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and inspecting the construction for the development of the plat. B. The Developer, except for City's willful misconduct, shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages or expenses which the City may payor incur in consequence of such claims, including attorney's fees. C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including engineering and attorney's fees. In the event that the City receives claims from labor, materialmen, or others that have performed work required by this Contract, that the sums due them have not been paid, and the laborers, materialmen, or others are seeking payment from the City, the Developer hereby authorizes the City to commence an Interpleader action pursuant to Rule 22, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to draw upon the letters of credit in an amount up to 125% of the claim( s) and deposit the funds in compliance with the Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and dismiss the City from any further proceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine attorneys' fees pursuant to this Contract. D. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all plat development work until the bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of five percent (5%) per annum. If the bills are not paid within sixty (60) days, the City has the right to draw from the Developers security to pay the bills. 29. Trash Enclosures. The Developer is responsible to require each builder to provide on site trash enclosures to contain all construction debris, thereby preventing it from being blown off site, except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 30. Portable Toilets. The Developer is responsible to require each builder to provide an on site portable toilet, except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 31. Wetland Buffer and Natural Area Sil!ns. The Developer is responsible for installing Wetland Buffer signs around all wetlands and wetland buffers, and City Natural Areas signs around all ponding areas, in accordance with the City's Engineering Guidelines and City detail plate GEN-13. Conservation Area signs will be installed as directed by the City Engineer. Wetland Buffer line limits; and Wetland Buffer, Natural Area, and Conservation Area sign locations must be indicated on individual lot surveys prior to the issuance of a building permit for that lot. 32. Existinl! Tree Preservation. The Developer will walk the site with the City Forester and identify all significant trees, which will be removed by on site grading. A dialogue between the Developer and City Forester regarding alternative grading options will take place before any disputed tree is removed. All trees, stumps, brush and other debris removed during clearing and grubbing operations shall be disposed of off site. 33. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer, except in an emergency as determined by the City or as otherwise provided for in this agreement, is first given written notice of the work in default, not less than 72 hours in advance. This Agreement is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. 34. Miscellaneous. A. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors or assigns, as the case may be. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any part of it. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement. B. Breach of the tenns of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties. 7 C. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. D. Building permits shall not be issued prior to completion of site grading, submittal of as-built grading plan, public and private utility installation, curb and gutter, installation of erosion control devices, installation of permanent street signs and wetland buffer and natural area signs, paving with a bituminous surface, retaining walls if any, site seeding, mulching, disk anchoring and submittal of a surveyor's certificate denoting all appropriate monuments have been installed. Only construction of noncombustible materials shall be allowed until the water system is operational. If permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of public improvements, the Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in completion of public improvements and damage to public improvements caused by the City, Developer, its contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, employees, agents or third parties. Normal procedure requires that streets needed for access to approved uses shall be paved with a bituminous surface before building permits may be issued. However, the City Engineer is authorized to waive this requirement when weather related circumstances prevent completion of street projects before the end of the construction season. The Developer is responsible for maintaining said streets in a condition that will assure the access of emergency vehicles at all times when such a waiver is granted. E. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or release. F. The Developer represents to the City, to the best of its knowledge, that the plat is not of "metropolitan significance" and that an environmental impact statement is not required. However, if the City or another governmental entity or agency determines that such a review is needed, the Developer shall prepare it in compliance with legal requirements so issued from said agency. The Developer shall reimburse the City for all expenses, including staff time and attorney fees that the City incurs in assisting in the preparation of the review. G. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The Developer represents to the City that the plat complies with all City, County, Metropolitan, State and Federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances and environmental regulations. If the City determines that the plat does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow any construction or development work in the plat until the Developer does comply. Upon the City's demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance. H. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. The Developer covenants with the City, its successors and assigns, that the Developer is well seized in fee title of the property being fmal platted and/or has obtained Consents to this Contract, in the form attached hereto, from all parties who have an interest in the property; that there are no unrecorded interests in the property being fmal platted; and that the Developer will indemnify and hold the City harmless for any breach of the of the foregoing covenants. After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Agreement, at the Developer's request the City will execute and deliver a release to the Developer. I. Developer shall take out and maintain until six months after the City has accepted the public improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of the Developer's work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury or death shall not be less than $500,000.00 for one person and $1,000,000.00 for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall not be less than $200,000.00 for each occurrence. The City shall be named as an additional named insured on said policy, the insurance certificate shall provide that the City must be given 10 days advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance and the Developer shall file a copy of the insurance coverage with the City prior to the City signing the plat. J. The Developer shall obtain a Wetlands Compliance Certificate from the City. 8 K. Upon breach of the terms of this Agreement, the City may, without notice to the Developer, draw down the Developer's cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit as provided in paragraph 27 of this Agreement. The City may draw down this security in the amount of $500.00 per day that the Developer is in violation. The City, in its sole discretion, shall determine whether the Developer is in violation of the Agreement. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 33 hereof, this determination may be made without notice to the Developer. It is stipulated that the violation of any term will result in damages to the City in an amount, which will be impractical and extremely difficult to ascertain. It is agreed that the per day sum stipulated is a reasonable amount to compensate the City for its damages. L. The Developer will be required to conduct all major activities to construct Plans A-F during the following hours of operation: Monday - Friday Saturday Sunday and Holidays 7:00 A.M. until 7:00 P.M. 8:00 A.M. until 5:00 P.M. Not Allowed This does not apply to activities that are required on a 24-hour basis such as dewatering, etc. Any deviations from the above hours are subject to approval of the City Engineer. Violations of the working hours will result in a $500 fme per occurrence in accordance with paragraph K of this section. M. The Developer is responsible to require each builder within the development to provide a Class 5 aggregate entrance for every house that is to be constructed in the development. This entrance is required to be installed upon initial construction of the home. See City Standard Plate ERO-09 for construction requirements. N. The Developer shall be responsible for the control of weeds in excess of twelve inches (12") on vacant lots or boulevards within their development as per City Code 6-7-2. Failure to control weeds will be considered a Developer's Default as outlined in Paragraph 30 of this Agreement and the Developer will reimburse the City as defmed in said Paragraph 33. O. Third parties have no recourse against the City under this contract. 35. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified or registered mail at the following addresses: Pat Regan Airlake Development, Inc. C/O Schoolhouse Square 919 Vermillion Street Suite 210 Hastings, MN 55033 Phone: 612-759-2786 Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either and delivered to the City Administrator, or mailed to the City by certified mail or registered mail in care of the City Administrator at the following address: David M. Urbia, City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 9 SIGNATURE PAGE CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Kevan A. Soderberg, Mayor By: David M. Urbia, City Administrator DEVELOPER: Airlake Development, Inc. By: Its: Patrick D. Regan President Patrick D. Regan and Mary K. Regan, Husband and Wife Patrick D. Regan Mary K. Regan John M. Devney and Mary A. Devney, Husband and Wife John M. Devney Mary A. Devney Drafted by: City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 55024 (651) 463-7111 10 STATE OF MINNESOTA) (ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 by Kevan A. Soderberg, Mayor, and by David M. Urbia, City Administrator, of the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuantto the authority granted by the City Council. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) (ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,20 by , the of Airlake Development, Inc., a corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) (ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 2005, by Patrick D. Regan and Mary K. Regan, Husband and Wife. NOTARY PUBLIC 11 STATE OF MINNESOTA) (ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of and Mary A. Devney, Husband and Wife. NOTARY PUBLIC 12 2005, by John M. Devney EXHIBIT" A" Farminl!ton Industrial Park 3rd Addition Lel!al Description The Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 114, Range 20, Dakota County, Minnesota, subject to the right-of-way for Dakota County State Aid Highway Number 50 along the southerly boundary thereof as shown on Dakota County Road Right-of-way Map No. 170. Except the west 240 feet of the south 590 feet ofsaid Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter. AND The south 444.33 feet of the SW % of the SW % of Section 25, Township 114, Range 20, Dakota County, Minnesota. 13 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us LETTER OF EXEMPTION DAKOTA COUNTY PROPERTY RECORDS 1590 HIGHWAY 55 HASTINGS MN 55033-2392 To Whom It May Concern: Please find enclosed, deed(s) on the parcel(s) listed below. We are requesting the parcels be classified as Exempt Properties. PARCEL ID# LEGAL DESCRIPTION USE (wetland, storm water facility, park or well site) Please sign letter below and return to me at the address above verifying the exemption status. Thank you. Sincerely, Tracy Geise Accounting Technician/Special Assessments Enclosure(s) Signature Date 14 EXHIBIT "e" IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT No. Date: TO: City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Sir or Madam: We hereby issue, for the account of of Credit in the amount of $ undersigned bank. . and in your favor, our Irrevocable Letter , available to you by your draft drawn on sight on the The draft must: a} Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit No. , dated (Name of Bank) "; b} Be signed by the Mayor or City Administrator of the City of Farmington. c} Be presented for payment at (Address of Bank) , 20_, of This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms from the date indicated above unless, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date, the Bank delivers written notice to the Farmington City Administrator that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel, this Letter of Credit. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows: Farmington City Administrator, 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024, and is actually received by the City Administrator at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date. This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified, amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement, whether or not referred to herein. This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than one draw may be made under this Letter of Credit. This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 400. We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly honored upon presentation. [NAME OF BANK] By: [name] Its: [identify official 15 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ~ FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Adrninistrat~ Tim Gross, P.E., Assistant City Engineer -;1:.' TO: SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Approving Development Contract and Allowing 30 Day Extension for the Filing of the Plat - Riverbend DATE: August 1, 2005 INTRODUCTION The Development Contract for Riverbend is forwarded herewith for Council's consideration. DISCUSSION The preliminary plat for Riverbend was reviewed by the City Council on December 17,2001 and the final plat was approved by the City Council on August 16,2004. On February 7,2005, the Council approved a 6 month extension for filing ofthe Final Plat to August 7, 2005. The contract has been drafted in accordance with the conditions placed on the approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat and has been reviewed by the City Attorney. Following are conditions of approval for the development contract: 1. the Developer enter into this Agreement; and 2. the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms ofthis Agreement; and 3. the Developer record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles by September 7, 2005 4. The Developer place a drainage and utility easement across all of outlot D BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution: 1. approving the execution of the Riverbend Development Contract and authorize its signing contingent upon the above conditions and final approval by the Engineering Division. 2. approving a 30 day extension for the filing of the Riverbend Final Plat to September 7,2005 Respectfully Submitted, Tim Gross, .E. Assistant City Engineer cc: file RESOLUTION NO. R -05 APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND ALLOWING A 30 DAY EXTENSION FOR THE FILING OF THE PLAT - RIVERBEND 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 in City Hall of said City on the 1 st day of August, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. Members present: Members absent: seconded the following resolution: Member introduced and Member WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. RI15-0l, the City Council approved the Preliminary Plat of Riverbend subject to the following conditions: 1. The preliminary plat approval is contingent on the approval of the construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering Division. WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. R64-04, the City Council approved the Final Plat of Riverbend subject to the following conditions: 1. Execution of a Development Contract between the Developer and the City of Farmington and submission of security, payment of all fees and costs and submission of all other documents required under the Development Contract. 2. Any engineering issues be addressed and approval of construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering Division needs to be granted. WHEREAS the Farmington City Council at the February 7,2005 regular council meeting approved an extension for filing of the Final Plat to August 7, 2005. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: A 30 day extension for filing of the Final Plat for the aforementioned subdivision to September 7, 2005 is hereby approved; and, The Development Contract for the aforementioned subdivision, a copy of which is on file in the Clerk's office is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: a) the Developer enter into this Agreement; and b) the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; and c) the Developer record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles by September 7, 2005 d) The Developer place a drainage and utility easement across all of outlot D The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to sign such contract. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 1 st day of August, 2005. Mayor Attested to this _ day of August, 2005. SEAL City Administrator DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AGREEMENT dated this 1st day of August, 2005, by, between, and among the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation (CITY) and Mattamy (Minneapolis) Partnership, a Minnesota general partnership (DEVELOPER). 1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for Riverbend (also referred to in this Development Contract [CONTRACT or AGREEMENT] as the PLAT). The land is situated in the City of Farmington, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, and is legally described on the attached Exhibit "A": 2. Conditions of Approval. The City hereby approves the plat on the conditions that: a) the Developer enter into this Agreement; and b) the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; and c) the Developer record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles by September 7,2005 3. Development Plans and Ril!ht to Proceed. The Developer shall develop the plat in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Agreement. The plans may be prepared by the Developer, subject to City approval, after entering into this Agreement but before commencement of any work in the plat. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, subject to paragraphs 6 and 31G, the plans shall control. The required plans are: Plan A - Final Plat Plan B - Soil Erosion Control and Grading Plans Plan C - Landscape Plan Plan D - Zoning/Development Map Plan E - Wetlands Mitigation as required by the City Plan F - Final Street and Utility Plans and Specifications The Developer shall use its best efforts to assure timely application to the utility companies for the following utilities: underground natural gas, electrical, cable television, and telephone. Within the plat or land to be platted, the Developer may not construct sewer lines, water lines, streets, utilities public or private improvements or any building until all of the following conditions have been satisfied: a) This agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, b) The necessary security has been received by the City, c) The plat has been recorded with the Dakota County Recorder's Office, and d) The City Clerk has issued a letter stating that all conditions have been satisfied and that the Developer may proceed. 4. Sales Office Requirements. At any location within the plat where lots and/or homes are sold which are part of this subdivision, the Developer agrees to install a sales board on which a copy of the approved plat, fmal utility plan and a 1 zoning map or planned unit development plan are displayed, showing the relationship between this subdivision and the adjoining neighborhood. The zoning and land use classification of all land and network of major streets within 350 feet of the plat shall be jncluded. 5. ZonimuDevelopment Map. The Developer shall provide an 8 1/2" x 14" scaled map of the plat and land within 350' of the plat containing the following information: a. platted property; b. existing and future roads; c. future phases; d. existing and proposed land uses; and e. future ponds. 6. Required Public Improvements and C.S.A.H 31/Pilot Knob Road Assessments. The Developer shall install and pay for the following: a. Sanitary Sewer Lateral System b. Water System (trunk and lateral) c. Storm Sewer d. Streets e. Concrete Curb and Gutter f. Street Signs g. Street Lights h. Sidewalks and Trails i. Erosion Control, Site Grading and Ponding j. Traffic Control Devices k. Setting of Lot & Block Monuments 1. Surveying and Staking m. Landscaping, Screening, Blvd. Trees The improvements shall be installed in accordance with Plans A through F, and in accordance with all laws, City Standards, Engineering Guidelines, Ordinances and plans and specifications which have been prepared by a competent registered professional engineer furnished to the City and reviewed by the City Engineer. Work done not in accordance with the fmal plans and specifications, without prior authorization of the City Engineer, shall be considered a violation of this agreement and a Default of the Contract. The Developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the Metropolitan Council and other agencies before proceeding with construction. The Developer shall instruct its engineer to provide adequate field inspection personnel to assure an acceptable level of quality control to the extent that the Developer's engineer will be able to certify that the construction work meets the approved City standards as a condition of City acceptance. In addition, the City may, at the City's discretion and at the Developer's expense, have one or more City inspector(s) and a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or part time basis. The Developer or his engineer shall schedule a pre-construction meeting at a mutually agreeable time at the City Council chambers with all parties concerned, including the City staff, to review the program for the construction work. Within sixty (60) days after the completion of the improvements and before the security is released, the Developer shall supply the City with a complete set of "As Built" plans as specified in the City's Engineering Guidelines. If the Developer does not provide such information, the City will produce the as-built drawings. All costs associated with producing the as-built drawings will be the responsibility of the Developer. All bike trails and sidewalks to be constructed as part of the development phases must be completed before building permits will be issued for each phase. Before the security for the completion of the utilities is released, iron monuments must be installed in accordance with M.S. ~505.02. The Developer's surveyor shall submit a written notice to the City certifying that the monuments have been installed. C.S.A.H 311Pilot Knob Road Assessments The parent parcels of Riverbend have been assessed for improvements to C.S.A.H 31/Pilot Knob Road. The total levied assessment amount for the parcels is: Parcel Nos. 140130001001 Total amount levied: Principal: Interest as of 12/31/05: Total: $ 98,170.00 $ 54,384.86 $ 152,554.90 (Note: 6.5% interest since 1/1/98) 2 A portion of the levied assessment plus interest becomes due with the fmal platting of Riverbend. The amount due with Riverbend will be calculated proportionally based on the area of Riverbend being developed in relation to the entire area of the property. The remaining balance of the levied assessment shall remain levied against the unplatted portion of the parent parcel. The Developer may elect to pay the assessment in cash at the time of fmal plat approval or have it prorated and reassessed to the lots and blocks of Riverbend. If assessed, the assessments shall be spread over a 10-year period with 6.5% interest on the unpaid balance from the time of the initial adoption of the assessment to the parent parcel. The reassessments shall be deemed adopted on the date this Contract is signed by the City. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessments, including but not limited to, hearing requirements and any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to M.S.A. 429.081. 7. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required public utilities in accordance with the phasing plan attached as Exhibit "D". Public utilities for construction Phase 1 and construction Phase 2 shall be installed by November 30, 2006 and November 30, 2007 respectively, in accordance with the requirements set forth in the City's Engineering Guidelines. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases. An extension of the security shall be considered an extension of this contract and the extension of the contract will coincide with the date of the extension of the security. Fees and charges to be assessed against the lots will be phased per Exhibit "D". The fees and charges shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at five percent (5%) per annum. The assessments shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments for the lots included in Phase 1 shall be levied and interest begins accruing on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments for the lots included in Phase 2 shall be levied and interest shall begin to accrue on the date that utility construction is commenced for Phase 2 or by April 1, 2007, whichever date occurs first. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. 8. Ownership of Improvements. Upon the completion of the work and construction required to be done by this Agreement, and written acceptance by the City Engineer, the improvements lying within public easements shall become City property, except for cable TV, electrical, gas, and telephone, without further notice or action. Outlots A, B, C, and E shall be deeded to the City following the completion and approval of improvements as required under Plans A - F. Outlot D shall be retained by the Developer pending future replatting or grading plan revisions. A portion of Outlot D shall be dedicated in the future as park to satisfy the Park Dedication requirements of the plat. Ten percent (10%) of the total security amount shall be held until the required outlots are deeded to the City and the required As-built plans are submitted and approved. A Letter of Exemption, attached to this contract as Exhibit "B", shall be submitted to the County for each outlot at the time that the deed for the outlot is filed with the County. 9. Warranty. The Developer and the Developers Engineer represent and warrant to the City that the design for the project meets all laws, City Standards, Engineering Guidelines and Ordinances. The Developer warrants all improvements required to be constructed by it pursuant to this Contract against poor material and faulty workmanship. The warranty period for streets is one year. The warranty period for underground utilities is two years. The warranty period for the streets shall commence after the fmal wear course has been completed and the streets have been accepted by City Council resolution. The warranty period on underground utilities shall commence following their completion and acceptance by the City Engineer in writing. It is the responsibility of the Developer to complete the required testing of the underground utilities and request, in writing, City acceptance of the utilities. Failure of the Developer to complete the required testing or request acceptance of the utilities in a timely manner shall not in any way constitute cause for the warranty period to be modified from the stipulations set forth above. All trees shall be warranted to be alive, of good quality, and disease free for twelve (12) months after the security for the trees is released. Any replacements shall be warranted for twelve (12) months from the time of planting. The Developer shall post maintenance bonds or other surety acceptable to the City to secure the warranties. The City shall retain ten percent (10%) of the security posted by the Developer until the bonds or other acceptable surety are furnished to the City or until the warranty period has been completed, whichever first occurs. The retainage may be used to pay for warranty work. The City's Engineering Guidelines identify the procedures for final acceptance of streets and utilities. 10. Gradine: Plan. The plat shall be graded and drainage provided by the Developer in accordance with Plan B. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, the Developer may start rough grading the lots within the stockpile and easement areas in conformance with Plan B before the plat is filed if all fees have been paid, a MPCA 3 Construction Storm Water Permit has been issued, and the City has been furnished the required security. Additional rough grading may be allowed upon obtaining written authorization from the City Engineer. If future changes to the grading plan occur that necessitate wider or additional easements, the Developer shall deed these easements to the City at no cost to the City. The Developer shall make every effort to communicate to the purchaser of the lot the location of additional easements and shall provide a letter to the purchaser upon the closing of the property notifying them of the easement modifications. If the Developer needs to change grading affecting drainage after homeowners are on site, he must notify all property owners/residents of this work prior to its initiation. This notification cannot take place until the City Engineer has approved the proposed grading changes. A MPCA Construction Storm Water Permit must be obtained before any grading can commence on the site. 11. Erosion Control and Fees. After the site is rough graded, but before any utility construction is commenced or building permits are issued, the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if it is determined that the methods implemented are insufficient to properly control erosion. All areas disturbed by the excavation and back-filling operations shall be re- seeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule, or supplementary instructions received from the City, or in an emergency determined at the sole discretion of the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion immediately, without notice to the Developer. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and the City's rights or obligations hereunder. If the Developer does not reimburse the City for any costs of the City incurred for such work within thirty (30) days, the City may draw down the letter of credit to pay such costs. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in full compliance with the erosion control requirements. The Developer is responsible for Erosion Control inspection fees at the current rates. The Developer is also responsible for a Water Quality Management Fee of $ 7,262 based upon the number of acres in the plat. This fee is due and payable at the time of execution of this agreement. 12. Landscapine. The Developer shall landscape the plat in accordance with Plan C. The landscaping shall be accomplished in accordance with a time schedule approved by the City. A. The Developer shall be solely responsible for the installation of all project landscaping including but not limited to the boulevard trees. The responsibility for the installation of boulevard trees will not be transferred to builders, homeowners, etc. B. All graded areas, including finish grade on lots, will require a minimum of 6" of black dirt/topsoil. The responsibility for the installation of black dirt/topsoil shall not be transferred to homeowners. C. Retaining walls with 1) a height that exceeds four feet or 2) a combination of tiers that exceed four feet or 3) a three foot wall with a back slope greater than 4 to 1 shall be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by a structural or geotechnical engineer licensed by the State of Minnesota. Following construction, a certification signed by the design engineer shall be filed with the City Engineer evidencing that the retaining will was constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. All retaining walls that are part of the development plans, or special conditions referred to in this Contract that are required to be constructed, shall be constructed and certified before any building permit is issued for a lot on which a retaining wall is required to be built. All landscaping features, including those constructed within public rights of way, remain the property and responsibility of the Developer and subsequent property owners, subject to the City's or other governmental unit's rights to access and maintain their rights of way. 13. Phased Development. The plat shall be developed in one (1) phase in accordance with Plans A-F. Construction will occur in two (2) phases in accordance with Exhibit "D" as described in paragraph 7. No earth moving shall be done in any subsequent phase until the necessary security has been furnished to the City. No construction of public improvements or other development shall be done in any subsequent phase until a fmal plat for the phase has been filed in the County Recorder's office and the necessary security has been furnished to the City. The City may refuse to approve fmal plats of subsequent phases until public improvements for all prior phases have been satisfactorily completed. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, this Development Contract constitutes approval to develop the plat. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until development agreements for such phases are approved by the City. 4 14. Effect of Subdivision Approval. For two (2) years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the current urban service area, or removing any part thereof which has not been fmal platted, or official controls, shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications or platting required or permitted by the approved preliminary plat unless required by State or Federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by State law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan (including removing unplatted property from the urban service area), official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement and may require submission of a new plat. 15. Surface Water Manae:ement Fee. The Developer shall pay an area storm water management charge of$ 563,750 in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a 10 year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at five percent (5%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessment shall be levied in accordance with paragraph 7. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081. Storm sewer charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. 16. Wetland Conservation and Mitie:ation. The Developer shall comply with the 1991 Wetlands Conservation Act, as amended, and the Wetlands Mitigation Plan. The Developer shall pay all costs associated with wetlands conservation and the Wetlands Mitigation Plan. 17. Water Main Trunk Area Chare:e. The Developer shall pay a water main trunk area charge of $ 232,852 for the plat in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at five percent (5%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessment shall be levied in accordance with paragraph 7. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081. Water area charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. A credit of $40,758 will be given to the Developer for Water Main Trunk oversizing within the plat. The net result is that the Water Main Trunk Area Charge to be paid with this plat is $192,094. 18. Water Treatment Plant Fee. The Developer shall pay a water treatment plant fee of $ 84,000 for the plat in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at five percent (5%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessment shall be levied in accordance with paragraph 7. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081. Water treatment plant fees for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. 19. Sanitary Sewer Trunk Area Chare:e. The Developer shall pay a sanitary sewer trunk area charge of $ 181,053 for the plat in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at five percent (5%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessment shall be levied in accordance with paragraph 7. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081. Sanitary Trunk Sewer charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. 5 20. Park Dedication. The Developer shall be required to dedicate 6.228 acres of land for park purposes. The land to be dedicated shall be a portion of outlot D acceptable to the City, and shall be conveyed to the City no later than the completion date of the Phase II improvements or such later date as specified in paragraph 7. The Developer shall pay the City $ 622,800 as cash in lieu of land as security for the dedication of a portion of Outlot D the City's park dedication requirements for the plat. The Developer shall furnish the City with a cash escrow, irrevocable letter of credit, or alternative security acceptable to the City Administrator, from a bank (security) for the cash in lieu Park Dedication requirement. The bank and form of the security shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator. Letters of Credit shall be in the format and wording exactly as shown on the attached Letter of Credit form (Attachment "C"). The security shall be automatically renewing. The term of the security may be extended from time to time if the extension is furnished to the City Administrator at least forty-five (45) days prior to the stated expiration date of the security. If the required public improvements are not completed, or terms of the Agreement are not satisfied, at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of a letter of credit, the City may draw down the letter of credit. The City may draw down the security, without prior notice, for any violation of this Agreement or Default of the Contract. 21. Park Development Fee. The Developer shall pay a Park Development Fee of$ 103,590 that will be used to pay either for development of the park located in the development, or if no land is taken for park purposes, in the park closest to the development. The City shall allow the Developer to either pay the entire park development fee at the time of fmal plat filing or to pay the park development fee on a per unit basis at the time that the building permit is issued for each unit to be constructed in the development, provided that all park development fees shall be paid within five (5) years of approval of the fmal plat. A credit of$ 70,257 will be given to the Developer for park and trail improvements within the plat. The net result is that the Park Development Fee to be paid with this plat is $ 33,333. 22. Sealcoatin2. The Developer agrees to pay a fee of $ 16,736 for initial sealcoating of streets in the subdivision. This fee shall be deposited in the City Road and Bridge Fund upon execution of this Agreement. 23. GIS Fees. The Developer is responsible for a Geographic Information System fee of $ 8,230 based upon the acreage or number of lots within the subdivision. This fee shall be due and payable upon execution of this Agreement. 24. Easements. The Developer shall furnish the City at the time of execution of this Agreement with the easements designated on the plat. 25. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors, a license to enter the plat to perform all necessary work and/or inspections deemed appropriate by the City during the installation of public improvements by the City. The license shall expire after the public improvements installed pursuant to the Development Contract have been installed and accepted by the City. 26. Clean UP. The Developer shall weekly, or more often if required by the City Engineer, clear from the public streets and property any soil, earth or debris resulting from construction work by the Developer or its agents or assigns. All debris, including brush, vegetation, trees and demolition materials, shall be disposed of off site. Burning of trees and structures shall be prohibited, except for fire training only. The City has a contract for street cleaning services. The City will have the right to clean the streets as outlined in current City policy. The Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for street cleaning costs. 27. Securitv. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Agreement, payment of real estate taxes including interest and penalties, payment of special assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements in the plat and construction of all public improvements in the plat, the Developer shall furnish the City with a cash escrow, irrevocable letter of credit, or alternative security acceptable to the City Administrator, from a bank (security) for $ 3,720,523. The bank and form of the security shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator. Letters of Credit shall be in the format and wording exactly as shown on the attached Letter of Credit form (Attachment "C"). The security shall be automatically renewing. The term of the security may be extended from time to time if the extension is furnished to the City Administrator at least forty-five (45) days prior to the stated expiration date of the security. If the required public improvements are not completed, or terms of the Agreement are not satisfied, at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of a letter of credit, the City may draw down the letter of credit. The City may draw down the security, without prior notice, for any violation of this Agreement or Default of the Contract. The amount of the security was calculated as follows: Grading/Erosion Control $ 197,716 Monuments $ 35,000 6 Sanitary Sewer Water Main Storm Sewer Street Construction $ 640,061 $ 591,971 $ 545,565 $ 1,227,646 St. Lights/Signs Blvd. Trees Blvd. Sodding Wetland Mitigation $ 50,188 $ 132,039 $ 25,358 $N/A Two Years Principal and Interest on Assessments $ 274,979 This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. Upon receipt of proof satisfactory by the Developer's Engineer to the City Engineer that work has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, and terms of this Agreement, and that all fmancial obligations to the City, subcontractors, or other persons have been satisfied, the City Engineer may approve reductions in the security provided by the Developer under this paragraph from time to time by ninety percent (90%) of the fmancial obligations that have been satisfied. Ten percent (10%) of the amounts certified by the Developer's engineer shall be retained as security until all improvements have been completed, all financial obligations to the City satisfied, the required "as built" plans have been received by the City, a warranty security is provided, and the public improvements are accepted by the City Council. 28. Responsibilitv for Costs. A. The Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the development of the plat, including but not limited to, Soil and Water Conservation District charges, legal, planning, administrative, construction costs, engineering, easements, inspection and utility testing expenses incurred in connection with approval, acceptance and development of the plat, the preparation of this Agreement, and all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and inspecting the construction for the development of the plat. B. The Developer, except for City's willful misconduct, shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages or expenses which the City may payor incur in consequence of such claims, including attorney's fees. C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including engineering and attorney's fees. In the event that the City receives claims from labor, materialmen, or others that have performed work required by this Contract, that the sums due them have not been paid, and the laborers, materialmen, or others are seeking payment from the City, the Developer hereby authorizes the City to commence an Interpleader action pursuant to Rule 22, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to draw upon the letters of credit in an amount up to 125% of the claim(s) and deposit the funds in compliance with the Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and dismiss the City from any further proceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine attorneys' fees pursuant to this Contract. D. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all plat development work until the bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of five percent (5%) per annmn. If the bills are not paid within sixty (60) days, the City has the right to draw from the Developers security to pay the bills. 29. Trash Enclosures. The Developer is responsible to require each builder to provide on site trash enclosures to contain all construction debris, thereby preventing it from being blown off site, except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 30. Portable Toilets. The Developer is responsible to require each builder to provide an on site portable toilet, except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 31. Wetland Buffer and Natural Area Siens. The Developer is responsible for installing Wetland Buffer signs around all wetlands and wetland buffers, and City Natural Areas signs around all ponding areas, in accordance with the City's Engineering Guidelines and City detail plate GEN-13. Conservation Area signs will be installed as directed by the City Engineer. Wetland Buffer line limits; and Wetland Buffer, Natural Area, and Conservation Area sign locations must be indicated on individual lot surveys prior to the issuance of a building permit for that lot. 7 32. Existinl! Tree Preservation. The Developer will walk the site with the City Forester and identify all significant trees, which will be removed by on site grading. A dialogue between the Developer and City Forester regarding alternative grading options will take place before any disputed tree is removed. All trees, stumps, brush and other debris removed during clearing and grubbing operations shall be disposed of off site. 33. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer, except in an emergency as determined by the City or as otherwise provided for in this agreement, is first given written notice of the work in default, not less than 72 hours in advance. This Agreement is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. 34. Miscellaneous. A. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors or assigns, as the case may be. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any part of it. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement. B. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties. C. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. D. Building permits shall not be issued prior to completion of site grading, submittal of as-built grading plan, utility installation, curb and gutter, installation of erosion control devices, installation of permanent street signs and wetland buffer and natural area signs, paving with a bituminous surface, retaining walls if any, site seeding, mulching, disk anchoring and submittal of a surveyor's certificate denoting all appropriate monuments have been installed. Only construction of noncombustible materials shall be allowed until the water system is operational. If permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of public improvements, the Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in completion of public improvements and damage to public improvements caused by the City, Developer, its contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, employees, agents or third parties. Normal procedure requires that streets needed for access to approved uses shall be paved with a bituminous surface before building permits may be issued. However, the City Engineer is authorized to waive this requirement when weather related circumstances prevent completion of street projects before the end of the construction season. The Developer is responsible for maintaining said streets in a condition that will assure the access of emergency vehicles at all times when such a waiver is granted. Building permits may be issued prior to the completion of public improvements for Lot 5, Block 4; Lots 1 and 9, Block 5; and Lot 1, Block 6 for the purposes of constructing model homes or the placement of a model trailer. Gravel construction entrances for these models per the City's Standard Details shall front either Dunbury Avenue or Duluth Street as applicable, and shall extend from the lot to the end of the pavement of the respective street. This construction entrance shall be the only entrance by which all deliveries and access to the home site shall occur. The Developer's engineer shall verify the foundation grades and submit verification of compliance with the approved grading plans in writing to the City prior to commencement of building construction. No certificate of occupancy will be issued for these lots until the completion of improvements as outlined in this agreement. All work shall cease on these lots during the installation of curb and gutter, sidewalk and bituminous paving. High early concrete shall be used for all concrete work fronting these lots. No construction or deliveries may occur for the lots under construction for 1 week following concrete curb and gutter and sidewalk installation to allow for adequate curing. The developer shall adhere to the letter and map attached as Exhibits "E" and "F" respectively. The Developer assumes all liability to cure any issues that arise from the issuance of building permits before street construction is completed. E. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as 8 often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or release. F. The Developer represents to the City, to the best of its knowledge, that the plat is not of "metropolitan significance" and that an environmental impact statement is not required. However, if the City or another governmental entity or agency determines that such a review is needed, the Developer shall prepare it in compliance with legal requirements so issued from said agency. The Developer shall reimburse the City for all expenses, including staff time and attorney fees that the City incurs in assisting in the preparation of the review. G. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The Developer represents to the City that the plat complies with all City, County, Metropolitan, State and Federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances and environmental regulations. If the City determines that the plat does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow any construction or development work in the plat until the Developer does comply. Upon the City's demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance. H. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. The Developer covenants with the City, its successors and assigns, that the Developer is well seized in fee title of the property being fmal platted and/or has obtained Consents to this Contract, in the form attached hereto, from all parties who have an interest in the property; that there are no unrecorded interests in the property being fmal platted; and that the Developer will indemnify and hold the City harmless for any breach of the of the foregoing covenants. After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Agreement, at the Developer's request the City will execute and deliver a release to the Developer. I. Developer shall take out and maintain until six months after the City has accepted the public improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of the Developer's work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury or death shall not be less than $500,000.00 for one person and $1,000,000.00 for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall not be less than $200,000.00 for each occurrence. The City shall be named as an additional named insured on said policy, the insurance certificate shall provide that the City must be given 10 days advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance and the Developer shall file a copy of the insurance coverage with the City prior to the City signing the plat. J. The Developer shall obtain a Wetlands Compliance Certificate from the City. K. Upon breach of the terms of this Agreement, the City may, without notice to the Developer, draw down the Developer's cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit as provided in paragraph 27 of this Agreement. The City may draw down this security in the amount of $500.00 per day that the Developer is in violation. The City, in its sole discretion, shall determine whether the Developer is in violation of the Agreement. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 30 hereof, this determination may be made without notice to the Developer. It is stipulated that the violation of any term will result in damages to the City in an amount, which will be impractical and extremely difficult to ascertain. It is agreed that the per day sum stipulated is a reasonable amount to compensate the City for its damages. L. The Developer will be required to conduct all major activities to construct Plans A-F during the following hours of operation: Monday - Friday Saturday Sunday and Holidays 7:00 A.M. until 7:00 P.M. 8:00 A.M. until 5:00 P.M. Not Allowed This does not apply to activities that are required on a 24-hour basis such as dewatering, etc. Any deviations from the above hours are subject to approval of the City Engineer. Violations of the working hours will result in a $500 fme per occurrence in accordance with paragraph K of this section. 9 M. The Developer is responsible to require each builder within the development to provide a Class 5 aggregate entrance for every house that is to be constructed in the development. This entrance is required to be installed upon initial construction of the home. See City Standard Plate ERO-09 for construction requirements. N. The Developer shall be responsible for the control of weeds in excess of twelve inches (12") on vacant lots or boulevards within their development as per City Code 6-7-2. Failure to control weeds will be considered a Developer's Default as outlined in Paragraph 33 of this Agreement and the Developer will reimburse the City as defmed in said Paragraph 33. O. Third parties have no recourse against the City under this contract. 35. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified or registered mail at the following addresses: Andy Chase Mattamy (Minneapolis) Partnership/ Chase Homes 2100 W. County Road 42 Burnsville, MN 55337 Phone: 952-898-2100 Fax: 952-898-2187 Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either and delivered to the City Administrator, or mailed to the City by certified mail or registered mail in care of the City Administrator at the following address: David M. Urbia, City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 10 SIGNATURE PAGE CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Kevan A. Soderberg, Mayor By: David M. Urbia, City Administrator DEVELOPER: Mattamy (Minneapolis) Partnership By: Its: President Andy Chase Drafted by: City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 55024 (651) 463-7111 11 STATE OF MINNESOTA) (ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 by Kevan A. Soderberg, Mayor, and by David M. Urbia, City Administrator, of the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by the City Council. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) (ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,20 by , the President of Mattamy (Minneapolis) Andy Chase Partnership, a Minnesota general partnership, under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public 12 EXHIBIT "A" That part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 114, Range 20, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying southwesterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the north line of said Northeast Quarter distant 925.52 feet from the northwest corner of said Northeast Quarter; thence South 36 degrees 23 minutes 03 seconds East, assuming said north line of the Northeast Quarter bears South 89 degrees 50 minutes 45 seconds East, a distance of 1704.14 feet; thence South 06 degrees 26 minutes 10 seconds East, a distance of 530.08 feet; thence South 38 degrees 30 minutes 36 seconds East, a distance of 930.00 feet to a point on the south line of said Northeast Quarter distant 50.00 feet from the southeast corner of said Northeast Quarter and said line there terminating. 13 EXHIBIT "B" City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us LETTER OF EXEMPTION DAKOTA COUNTY PROPERTY RECORDS 1590 HIGHWAY 55 HASTINGS MN 55033-2392 To Whom It May Concern: Please find enclosed, deed(s) on the parcel(s) listed below. We are requesting the parcels be classified as Exempt Properties. PARCEL ID# LEGAL DESCRIPTION USE (wetland, storm water facility, park or well site) Please sign letter below and return to me at the address above verifying the exemption status. Thank you. Sincerely, Tracy Geise Accounting Technician/Special Assessments Enclosure(s) Signature Date 14 EXHIBIT "e" IRREVOCABLE lETTER OF CREDIT No. Date: TO: City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Sir or Madam: We hereby issue, for the account of of Credit in the amount of $ undersigned bank. . and in your favor, our Irrevocable Letter , available to you by your draft drawn on sight on the The draft must: a) Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit No. , dated (Name of Bank) "; b) Be signed by the Mayor or City Administrator of the City of Farmington. c) Be presented for payment at (Address of Bank) , 20_, of This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms from the date indicated above unless, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date, the Bank delivers written notice to the Farmington City Administrator that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel, this Letter of Credit. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows: Farmington City Administrator, 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024, and is actually received by the City Administrator at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date. This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified, amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement, whether or not referred to herein. This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than one draw may be made under this Letter of Credit. This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 400. We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly honored upon presentation. [NAME OF BANK] By: [name] Its: [identify official 15 EXHIBIT "D" Riverbend Build-out and Fee Phasing 9" ie 0U'T10'r~ ........ \.\', ... - - - - / / .-- - -" \'\ ~~ / / ~'').'\ ~ 0- .~ ~ ~~ll " ~'" ~ "'~' \ \ / .'},:;.'\. =. ...... " ".:i~ / ' ,,\~ ,". 1'- "". '- ~~. ' ,j' I ~ ~~ \ / ,~ . . L i"J::'li.~, \ /, ~, >:-"" W ~\ '\ / / ~', Ii""" "".{:', ~~ ':~~ ~\ \ \~ /~'" I~'~"" '- . '''-.' :,~x,,,.,, ~~ \ Y"g_ ~~~ -A""'~~J..I~~~~'. ~~~~\\'\\ r- ~'l:: ," ,___}"'"'" '" ::::;:::, '{ '\ ~ \ r-~- ...., ~~ .~ ,f~""" (;;-. '\ ~?i \~ '\ _ 0l1'l~. ~~':-\.:~~, :: ~~ I. on.M "'-'. -- '\ '" \ I ~ .. ~ , \ :".~ ~... ~" . ~~ " I - ~,~ ,- ,~. .>.i ". ~-:- - \ ~ \. o. I A"', .~. ':~~" ~-_ - )~\ L - ~. , ~x '~'\...~ "",. ...,' / / . - - ,\ , r ,'~....... "~c_..~, \." 0lIETU0Cl - .....<' , "- L:- f1.;;'.~. \. ~ ~'VY ~ ~' I", ~::. -:: _-:~/ '\'\\ \ ~. :<: ~~ ~ ~-7~~"~ ct",' ':..~~.. \ \ ~, II ~-~, ,j-( ~~~ ;;~-~ '~, \~\ ,,""'....... ,,- ~ -.,;..--- -- = ;'. ((" .,~ \ i I - ,~....... ; \ ~ (. ...: > \ \.. 0 ~ \ I - ~~"", ~" - - . 1/ " \ ~ )) ~" ~ \ ."- ,\- / ''\\. ' I -.,-,t ~\') ~ ~ ^ '" '-: .~ \,"'~; ~ ~ 1'-/" .~ _ " ~Il'i. " ~ \ ; III" ,,~ ~:: 'f'" '~\~ '\\,' ".~ ~j ."", \ \:< > f: i ~i'5- ~~ ~ '\':"'. . ~., ... " ~\ . '/~~ ~\f L ,. ~ - '/ /'7~ ' /;/>;" r- . oun...e~. :-..~\~ ~~,) ~~ / J\/~'~ / / ,/ ~ //~v' ... r:= ~ ~~\\~'~ ~,...,",,/Z:~ /, '7jc.!~ /~~/'\\\':--" I ;.<It~ ~/~' ""\7:.,0:;-"::-- '.~ "'~ /;//' '\,\ A L~ v / r / -..;;;.\, ~7 ;~:. v. y / '. . ',' />/ / \ ~ ,_.1 /V./ / ~ ~\~,~. ~ ~~ ri', I " V~/, / , ~ L__:J~ ~~L 0, ,- " cf.~~'~' , '.'~' ~~'" r~-"'-~~ '-r'- ,~~ ,7....,5://! " ?~'~f':' .~ 'j % / V / ",' ~ ~ ~ ~:/~, 'v.-,&A r - yj 1/ L. _ -:." B. ' ,.I~ ~.- c /' ~ '.' UA\ ,- ~.(. ~~, ,'.~. ~//~~",~~~ r-~/#/ VYh, I -/" ~,#" j.) ~ ~ ~ '- ~~~.y//% ~ :J. /:' ;(.".~ #- o/'/Y'z')r( /,' ~ ,'X" ~, ~ /y '~, } ~~~'. ,_ .' 7~. 7/? ~/~ _~~'.' , .~ ;: VQ 'i'-:/1~ //11(/ ~~. :~:~;; v;, L /4' ~. .'~ ' ~\._ ~ //1 0 i / ~,,(0 y~/t",V/~T/> 7. v/ ~ ~f /- "/'" ...,,/ , h4IDDL( CRE[1( 4TH ADDITION 16 EXHIBIT "E" July 25, 2005 CD ^ 1I.mAIY~ Mr. Timothy Gross P .E. Assistant City Engineer Engineering Division 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN. 55024 Re: Riverbcnd Model Homes Dear Mr. Gross: Homes by Chase has identified the potential of(4) lots in Riverbend we would like to proceed with a model home once the grading is completed on these lots. The lots are Lot 5, Block 4; Lots 1 and 9, Block 5; Lot 1, Block 6. These lots are adjacent to Dunbury Avenue and Duluth Street and have fire hydrants near by. We also, are requesting one sells/oonstruction trailer be allowed on any of the above lots in lieu of a model. Attached for your infurmation is a copy of a sells/construction trailer we have provided in our previous developments. The sellslconstnlction trailer would be removed once a model is completed. We may still need a construction trailer once the grading, utilities and streets are completed within its phase and would work with the city to identify the exact location. >k~~cf} William Pritchard Homes by Cbue Enclosure 17 EXHIBIT "F" MODEL AND FIRE PROTECTION/HYDRANT LOCATIONS 'j J i I j ... : ,,/.---., fill , / ~.I I '1 , I , I I , , , : i : i , , , , : i : i ... , ! ~'i I ! :. 1 ,~ I ,. I f / I I ! i j-.j : " II : 'I: ! i" ,t-"f '~'" 'JV f i \ ,.. -~ ! i ',"c';-, ~~ ",._., I ',,,,\ ....~ .",," ./II{' ", '~~~ ":'~ ./ ./ ,i I I "'<~'>,,\~"" ';~ / f i '(I ", ", /' ',(,. : ,jl I ',)00"'" . t- .i '...""',./ Ii :. .". .-' " '-", / r. ,I "" '.. )..', I I " .>-, '''', : I ./ "",'\ : ;I' \', ,', : ./' ",',\ : ",' " """ / " ~ ~ .. I 1 ~. I I , ! U I I ~ I f I : ! ! i , I ~ I I I : } t-..' I I - - - - - ......., - - - _""2 _ _ _ --L;':;;':"'^___ ~ _ _-----.J. Wl.'N71' Esr.~rE5 ,rli AwrlON . I;UI --"" /-' d \ f::~ I . , t" I i -- . . I if! >- is . " ." ~ "1 ~: ~ ~ 111 <to ~ ./ / / / / / " / /' / / I >- ~ } ~ / I l ..... iftl .J ......'" "~.~ ....~-.. I I 18 J :~Ii i~IJl lal' t.l -.$. 1111 h~' ,~ ,~ I~i I ill 'Jr ~ m .~'"~ s ~ . " . H IS ,I f~ ,1 .' I Zl City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ~ TO: Mayor, COWlcilmembers, City Administraro~ Tim Gross, P.E., Assistant City Engineer~ FROM: SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Vermillion River Crossings Development Contract DATE: August 1, 2005 INTRODUCTION The Development Contract for Vermillion River Crossings is forwarded herewith for Council's consideration. DISCUSSION The preliminary plat for Vermillion River Crossings was approved by the Planning Commission on June 28,2005 and the final plat was approved by the City Council on July 5, 2005. The contract has been drafted in accordance with the conditions placed on the approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat and has been reviewed by the City Attorney. Following are conditions of approval for the development contract: 1. the Developer enter into this Agreement; and 2. the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms ofthis Agreement; and 3. the Developer record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 6 months after City Council approval of the final plat. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution approving the execution of the Vermillion River Crossings Development Contract and authorize its signing contingent upon the above conditions and final approval by the Engineering Division. Respectfully Submitted, 1~ Tim Gross, P .E. Assistant City Engineer cc: file ( RESOLUTION NO. R_-05 APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT VERMILLION RIVER CROSSINGS 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 in City Hall of said City on the 1 sl day of August, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. Members present: Members absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. R84-05, the City Council approved the Preliminary and Final Plat of Vermillion River Crossings subject to the following conditions: 1. The planner shall approve the landscape plan along with design details for the 4 site amenity areas required in the Spruce Street Design Standards before any permits are issued. 2. The satisfaction of any engineering requirements including the construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities. 3. The satisfaction of any Park & Recreation Advisory Commission comments concerning trails. 4. Execution of a Development Contract between the Developer and the City of Farmington and submission of security, payment of all fees and costs and submission of all other documents required under the Development Contract. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Development Contract for the aforementioned subdivision, a copy of which is on file in the Clerk's office is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: a) the Developer enter into this Agreement; and b) the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; and c) the Developer record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 6 months after City Council approval of the final plat. The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to sign such contract. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the l8t day of August, 2005. Mayor Attested to this _ day of August, 2005. SEAL City Administrator DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AGREEMENT dated this 1 st day of August, 2005, by, between, and among the City of farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation (CITY) and Vermillion River Crossing, LLC, a Minnesota corporation partnership (DEVELOPER). 1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for Vermillion River Crossings (also referred to in this Development Contract [CONTRACT or AGREEMENT] as the PLAT). The land is situated in the City offarmington, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, and is legally described on the attached Exhibit "A": 2. Conditions of Approval. The City hereby approves the plat on the conditions that: a) the Developer enter into this Agreement; and b) the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; and c) the Developer record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 6 months after City Council approval of the fmal plat. 3. Development Plans and Rie:ht to Proceed. The Developer shall develop the plat in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Agreement. The plans may be prepared by the Developer, subject to City approval, after entering into this Agreement but before commencement of any work in the plat. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, subject to paragraphs 6 and 34G, the plans shall control. The required plans are: Plan A - final Plat Plan B - Soil Erosion Control and Grading Plans Plan C - Landscape Plan Plan D - Zoning/Development Map Plan E - Wetlands Mitigation as required by the City Plan f - final Street and Utility Plans and Specifications The Developer shall use its best efforts to assure timely application to the utility companies for the following utilities: underground natural gas, electrical, cable television, and telephone. Within the plat or land to be platted, the Developer may not construct sewer lines, water lines, streets, utilities public or private improvements or any building until all of the following conditions have been satisfied: a) This agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, b) The necessary security has been received by the City, c) The plat has been submitted for recording with the Dakota County Recorder's Office, and d) The City Clerk has issued a letter stating that all conditions have been satisfied and that the Developer may proceed. 1 4. Sales Office Reauirements. At any location within the plat where residential lots and/or homes are sold which are part of this subdivision, the Developer agrees to install a sales board on which a copy of the approved plat, final utility plan and a zoning map or planned unit development plan are displayed, showing the relationship between this subdivision and the adjoining neighborhood. The zoning and land use classification of all land and network of major streets within 350 feet of the plat shall be included. 5. Zonin2lDevelopment Map. The Developer shall provide an 8 1/2" x 14" scaled map of the plat and land within 350' of the plat containing the following information: a. platted property; b. existing and anticipated future roads; c. future phases of the development; d. existing and proposed land uses; and e. future ponds within the development. 6. Reauired Public Improvements and Assessments. The Developer shall install and pay for the following: a. Sanitary Sewer Lateral System b. Water System (trunk and lateral) c. Storm Sewer d. Streets e. Concrete Curb and Gutter f. Street Signs g. Street Lights h. Sidewalks and Trails i. Erosion Control, Site Grading and Ponding j. Traffic Control Devices k. Setting of Lot & Block Monuments 1. Surveying and Staking m. Landscaping, Screening, Blvd. Trees The improvements shall be installed in accordance with Plans A through F, and in accordance with all laws, City Standards, Engineering Guidelines, Ordinances and plans and specifications which have been prepared by a competent registered professional engineer furnished to the City and reviewed by the City Engineer. Work done not in accordance with the fmal plans and specifications, without prior authorization of the City Engineer, shall be considered a violation of this agreement and a Default of the Contract. The Developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the Metropolitan Council and other agencies before proceeding with construction. The Developer shall instruct its engineer to provide adequate field inspection personnel to assure an acceptable level of quality control to the extent that the Developer's engineer will be able to certifY that the construction work meets the approved City standards as a condition of City acceptance. In addition, the City may, at the City's discretion and at the Developer's expense, have one or more City inspector(s) and a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or part time basis. The Developer or his engineer shall schedule a pre-construction meeting at a mutually agreeable time at the City Council chambers with all parties concerned, including the City statI, to review the program for the construction work. Within sixty (60) days after the completion of the improvements and before the security is released, the Developer shall supply the City with a complete set of "As Built" plans as specified in the City's Engineering Guidelines. If the Developer does not provide such information, the City will produce the as-built drawings. All costs associated with producing the as-built drawings will be the responsibility of the Developer. All bike trails and sidewalks to be constructed as part of the development must be completed before building permits will be issued. The developer shall be responsible to pay for the construction of Spruce Street from Denmark A venue/ CSAH 31 to the Town Square per the approved Spruce Street Alignment. The City will contribute grant funds not to exceed $955,000 toward the improvements. Before the security for the completion of the utilities is released, iron monuments must be installed in accordance with M.S. ~505.02. The Developer's surveyor shall submit a written notice to the City certifying that the monuments have been installed. 7. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required public utilities, by November 30,2006, in accordance with the requirements set forth in the City's Engineering Guidelines. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to 2 reflect cost increases. An extension of the security shall be considered an extension of this contract and the extension of the contract will coincide with the date of the extension of the security. 8. Ownership of Improvements. Upon the completion of the work and construction required to be done by this Agreement, and written acceptance by the City Engineer, the improvements lying within public easements shall become City property, except for cable TV, electrical, gas, and telephone, without further notice or action. Outlots G, H and I shall be deeded to the City following the completion and approval of improvements as required under Plans A-F. Outlots A, C, D, F and J are to be developed in future phases (except for grading as previously provided for under the preliminary plat) and will require separate development contracts. 10% of the total security amount shall be held until the required outlots are deeded to the City and the required As-built plans are submitted and approved. A Letter of Exemption, attached to this contract as Exhibit "B", shall be submitted to the County for each outlot at the time that the deed for the outlot is filed with the County. 9. Warranty. The Developer and the Developers Engineer represent and warrant to the City that the design for the project meets all laws, City Standards, Engineering Guidelines and Ordinances. The Developer warrants all improvements required to be constructed by it pursuant to this Contract against poor material and faulty workmanship. The warranty period for streets is one year. The warranty period for underground utilities is two years. The warranty period for the streets shall commence after the final wear course has been completed and the streets have been accepted by City Council resolution. The warranty period on underground utilities shall commence following their completion and acceptance by the City Engineer in writing. It is the responsibility of the Developer to complete the required testing of the underground utilities and request, in writing, City acceptance of the utilities. Failure of the Developer to complete the required testing or request acceptance of the utilities in a timely manner shall not in any way constitute cause for the warranty period to be modified from the stipulations set forth above. All trees shall be warranted to be alive, of good quality, and disease free for twelve (12) months after the security for the trees is released. Any replacements shall be warranted for twelve (12) months from the time of planting. The Developer shall post maintenance bonds or other surety acceptable to the City to secure the warranties. The City shall retain ten percent (10%) of the security posted by the Developer until the bonds or other acceptable surety are furnished to the City or until the warranty period has been completed, whichever first occurs. The retainage may be used to pay for warranty work. The City's Engineering Guidelines identify the procedures for fmal acceptance of streets and utilities. 10. Gradinl! Plan. The plat shall be graded and drainage provided by the Developer in accordance with Plan B. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, the Developer may start rough grading the lots within the stockpile and easement areas in conformance with Plan B before the plat is filed if all fees have been paid, a MPCA Construction Storm Water Permit has been issued, and the City has been furnished the required security. Additional rough grading may be allowed upon obtaining written authorization from the City Engineer. If the developer needs to change grading affecting drainage after homeowners are on site, he must notify all property owners/residents of this work prior to its initiation. This notification cannot take place until the City Engineer has approved the proposed grading changes. A MPCA Construction Storm Water Permit must be obtained before any grading can commence on the site. 11. Erosion Control and Fees. After the site is rough graded, but before any utility construction is commenced or building permits are issued, the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if it is determined that the methods implemented are insufficient to properly control erosion. All areas disturbed by the excavation and back-filling operations shall be re- seeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule, or supplementary instructions received from the City, or in an emergency determined at the sole discretion of the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion immediately, without notice to the Developer. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and the City's rights or obligations hereunder. If the Developer does not reimburse the City for any costs of the City incurred for such work within thirty (30) days, the City may draw down the letter of credit to pay such costs. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in full compliance with the erosion control requirements. 3 The Developer is responsible for Erosion Control inspection fees at the current rates. The Developer is also responsible for a Water Quality Management Fee of $ 2,967 based upon the number of acres in the plat. This fee is due and payable at the time of execution of this agreement. 12. Landscapin2. The Developer shall landscape the plat in accordance with Plan C. The landscaping shall be accomplished in accordance with a time schedule approved by the City. A. The Developer shall be solely responsible for the installation of all project landscaping including but not limited to the boulevard trees. The responsibility for the installation of boulevard trees will not be transferred to builders, homeowners, etc. B. All graded areas, including fmish grade on lots, will require a minimum of 6" of black dirt/topsoil. The responsibility for the installation of black dirt/topsoil shall not be transferred to homeowners. C. Retaining walls with 1) a height that exceeds four feet or 2) a combination of tiers that exceed four feet or 3) a three foot wall with a back slope greater than 4 to 1 shall be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by a structural or geotechnical engineer licensed by the State of Minnesota. Following construction, a certification signed by the design engineer shall be filed with the City Engineer evidencing that the retaining will was constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. All retaining walls that are part of the development plans, or special conditions referred to in this Contract that are required to be constructed, shall be constructed and certified before any building permit is issued for a lot on which a retaining wall is required to be built. All landscaping features, including those constructed within public rights of way, remain the property and responsibility of the developer and subsequent property owners, subject to the City's or other governmental unit's rights to access and maintain their rights of way. 13. Phased Development. The plat shall be developed in one (1) phase in accordance with Plans A-F. No earth moving shall be done in any subsequent phase until the necessary security has been furnished to the City. No construction of public improvements or other development shall be done in any subsequent phase until a fmal plat for the phase has been filed in the County Recorder's office and the necessary security has been furnished to the City. The City may refuse to approve fmal plats of subsequent phases until public improvements for all prior phases have been satisfactorily completed. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, this Development Contract constitutes approval to develop the plat. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until development agreements for such phases are approved by the City. 14. Effect of Subdivision Approval. For two (2) years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the current urban service area, or removing any part thereof which has not been fmal platted, or official controls, shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications or platting required or permitted by the approved preliminary plat unless required by State or Federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by State law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan (including removing unplatted property from the urban service area), official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement and may require submission of a new plat. 15. Surface Water Mana2ement Fee. The Developer shall pay an area storm water management charge of$ 237,890 in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. Storm sewer charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. A credit of $ 475,872 will be given to the Developer for regional ponding and storm sewer oversizing within the plat. The net result is a credit of$ 237,982 which will be applied against future phases of the development. 16. Wetland Conservation and Miti2ation. The Developer shall comply with the 1991 Wetlands Conservation Act, as amended, and the Wetlands Mitigation Plan. The Developer shall pay all costs associated with wetlands conservation and the Wetlands Mitigation Plan. 17. Water Main Trunk Area Char2e. The Developer shall pay a water main trunk area charge of$ 42,011 for the plat in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. Water area charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. A credit of $ 44,482 will be given to the Developer for Water Main Trunk oversizing within the plat. The net result is a credit of$ 2,471 which will be applied against future phases of the development. 18. Water Treatment Plant Fee. The water treatment plant fee shall become due upon the issuance of building permits. 4 19. Sanitary Sewer Trunk Area Chan!e. The Developer shall pay a sanitary sewer trunk area charge of$ 35,796 for the plat in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at five percent (5%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights with respect to such assessment otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081. Sanitary Trunk Sewer charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. 20. Park Dedication. The Developer shall be required to dedicate .9571 acres ofland for park purposes, of which 0.31 acres have been dedicated as trail easement. The Developer shall pay the City $ 63,613 as cash in lieu of land for the additional 0.6451 acres needed to satisfy the City's park dedication requirements for the plat. The park dedication fee shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at five percent (5%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights with respect to such assessment otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081. The park dedication fees for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. 21. Park Development Fee. The Developer shall pay a Park Development Fee of $15,919 that will be used to pay either for development of the park located in the development, or if no land is taken for park purposes, in the park closest to the development. The park to which the Park Development Fee for Vermillion River Crossing shall be credited/coded to is the Town Square Park. The City shall allow the Developer to either pay the entire park development fee at the time of final plat filing or to pay the park development fee on a per unit basis at the time that the building permit is issued for each unit to be constructed in the development, provided that all park development fees shall be paid within five (5) years of approval of the fmal plat. 22. Sealcoatine:. The Developer agrees to pay a fee of $ 5,837 for initial sealcoating of streets in the subdivision. This fee shall be deposited in the City Road and Bridge Fund upon execution of this Agreement. 23. GIS Fees. The Developer is responsible for a Geographic Information System fee of $ 1,627 based upon the acreage or number oflots within the subdivision. This fee shall be due and payable upon execution of this Agreement 24. Easements. The Developer shall furnish the City at the time of execution of this Agreement with the easements designated on the plat. The developer shall deed to the City a trail easement 12' in width on the west side of the Pipeline Easement per document No.468908, from the northern line of Outlot J to the north boundary of the plat. 25. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors, a license to enter the plat to perform all necessary work and/or inspections deemed appropriate by the City during the installation of public improvements by the City. The license shall expire after the public improvements installed pursuant to the Development Contract have been installed and accepted by the City. 26. Clean UP. The Developer shall weekly, or more often if required by the City Engineer, clear from the public streets and property any soil, earth or debris resulting from construction work by the Developer or its agents or assigns. All debris, including brush, vegetation, trees and demolition materials, shall be disposed of off site. Burning of trees and structures shall be prohibited, except for fire training only. The City has a contract for street cleaning services. The City will have the right to clean the streets as outlined in current City policy. The Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for street cleaning costs. 27. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Agreement, payment ofreal estate taxes including interest and penalties, payment of special assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements in the plat and construction of all public improvements in the plat, the Developer shall furnish the City with a cash escrow, irrevocable letter of credit, or alternative security acceptable to the City Administrator, from a bank: (security) for $ 3,030,627. The bank: and form of the 5 security shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator. Letters of Credit shall be in the format and wording exactly as shown on the attached Letter of Credit form (Attachment "C"). The security shall be automatically renewing. The term of the security may be extended from time to time if the extension is furnished to the City Administrator at least forty-five (45) days prior to the stated expiration date of the security. If the required public improvements are not completed, or terms of the Agreement are not satisfied, at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of a letter of credit, the City may draw down the letter of credit. The City may draw down the security, without prior notice, for any violation of this Agreement or Default of the Contract. The amount of the security was calculated as follows: Grading/Erosion Control Sanitary Sewer Water Main Storm Sewer Street Construction $ 800,438 $ 171,843 $ 319,642 $ 317,910 $ 636,296 Monuments St. Lights/Signs Landscaping Site Amenities $ 1,250 $ 206,250 $ 176,250 $ 375,000 Two Years Principal and Interest on Assessments $ 25,748 This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. Upon receipt of proof satisfactory by the Developer's Engineer to the City Engineer that work has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, and terms of this Agreement, and that all fmancial obligations to the City, subcontractors, or other persons have been satisfied, the City Engineer may approve reductions in the security provided by the Developer under this paragraph from time to time by ninety percent (90%) of the fmancial obligations that have been satisfied. Ten percent (10%) of the amounts certified by the Developer's engineer shall be retained as security until all improvements have been completed, all fmancial obligations to the City satisfied, the required "as built" plans have been received by the City, a warranty security is provided, and the public improvements are accepted by the City Council. 28. Responsibilitv for Costs. A. The Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the development of the plat, including but not limited to, Soil and Water Conservation District charges, legal, planning, administrative, construction costs, engineering, easements, inspection and utility testing expenses incurred in connection with approval, acceptance and development of the plat, the preparation of this Agreement, and all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and inspecting the construction for the development of the plat. B. The Developer, except for City's willful misconduct, shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages or expenses which the City may payor incur in consequence of such claims, including attorney's fees. C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including engineering and attorney's fees. In the event that the City receives claims from labor, materialmen, or others that have performed work required by this Contract, that the sums due them have not been paid, and the laborers, materialmen, or others are seeking payment from the City, the Developer hereby authorizes the City to commence an Interpleader action pursuant to Rule 22, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to draw upon the letters of credit in an amount up to 125% of the claim( s) and deposit the funds in compliance with the Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and dismiss the City from any further proceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine attorneys' fees pursuant to this Contract. D. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all plat development work until the bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of five percent (5%) per annum. If the bills are not paid within sixty (60) days, the City has the right to draw from the Developers security to pay the bills. 29. Trash Enclosures. The Developer is responsible to require each builder to provide on site trash enclosures to contain all construction debris, thereby preventing it from being blown off site, except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 6 30. Portable Toilets. The Developer is responsible to require each builder to provide an on site portable toilet, except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 31. Wetland Buffer and Natural Area Sie:ns. The Developer is responsible for installing Wetland Buffer signs around all wetlands and wetland buffers, and City Natural Areas signs around all ponding areas, in accordance with the City's Engineering Guidelines and City detail plate GEN-13. Conservation Area signs will be installed as directed by the City Engineer. Wetland Buffer line limits; and Wetland Buffer, Natural Area, and Conservation Area sign locations must be indicated on individual lot surveys prior to the issuance of a building permit for that lot. 32. Existine: Tree Preservation. The Developer will walk the site with the City Forester and identify all significant trees, which will be removed by on site grading. A dialogue between the Developer and City Forester regarding alternative grading options will take place before any disputed tree is removed. All trees, stumps, brush and other debris removed during clearing and grubbing operations shall be disposed of off site. 33. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer, except in an emergency as determined by the City or as otherwise provided for in this agreement, is first given written notice of the work in default, not less than 72 hours in advance. This Agreement is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. 34. Miscellaneous. A. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors or assigns, as the case may be. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any part of it. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement. B. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties. C. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. D. Building permits shall not be issued prior to completion of site grading, submittal of as-built grading plan, public and private utility installation, curb and gutter, installation of erosion control devices, installation of permanent street signs and wetland buffer and natural area signs, paving with a bituminous surface, retaining walls if any, site seeding, mulching, disk anchoring and submittal of a surveyor's certificate denoting all appropriate monuments have been installed. Only construction of noncombustible materials shall be allowed until the water system is operational. If permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of public improvements, the Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in completion of public improvements and damage to public improvements caused by the City, Developer, its contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, employees, agents or third parties. Normal procedure requires that streets needed for access to approved uses shall be paved with a bituminous surface before building permits may be issued. However, the City Engineer is authorized to waive this requirement when weather related circumstances prevent completion of street projects before the end of the construction season. The Developer is responsible for maintaining said streets in a condition that will assure the access of emergency vehicles at all times when such a waiver is granted. E. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or release. 7 F. The Developer represents to the City, to the best of its knowledge, that the plat is not of "metropolitan significance" and that an environmental impact statement is not required. However, if the City or another governmental entity or agency determines that such a review is needed, the Developer shall prepare it in compliance with legal requirements so issued from said agency. The Developer shall reimburse the City for all expenses, including staff time and attorney fees that the City incurs in assisting in the preparation of the review. G. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The Developer represents to the City that the plat complies with all City, County, Metropolitan, State and Federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances and environmental regulations. If the City determines that the plat does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow any construction or development work in the plat until the Developer does comply. Upon the City's demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance. H. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. The Developer covenants with the City, its successors and assigns, that the Developer is well seized in fee title of the property being fmal platted and/or has obtained Consents to this Contract, in the form attached hereto, from all parties who have an interest in the property; that there are no unrecorded interests in the property being final platted; and that the Developer will indemnify and hold the City harmless for any breach of the of the foregoing covenants. After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Agreement, at the Developer's request the City will execute and deliver a release to the Developer. I. Developer shall take out and maintain until six months after the City has accepted the public improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of the Developer's work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury or death shall not be less than $500,000.00 for one person and $1,000,000.00 for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall not be less than $200,000.00 for each occurrence. The City shall be named as an additional named insured on said policy, the insurance certificate shall provide that the City must be given 10 days advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance and the Developer shall file a copy of the insurance coverage with the City prior to the City signing the plat. J. The Developer shall obtain a Wetlands Compliance Certificate from the City. K. Upon breach of the terms of this Agreement, the City may, without notice to the Developer, draw down the Developer's cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit as provided in paragraph 27 of this Agreement. The City may draw down this security in the amount of $500.00 per day that the Developer is in violation. The City, in its sole discretion, shall determine whether the Developer is in violation of the Agreement. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 33 hereof, this determination may be made without notice to the Developer. It is stipulated that the violation of any term will result in damages to the City in an amount, which will be impractical and extremely difficult to ascertain. It is agreed that the per day sum stipulated is a reasonable amount to compensate the City for its damages. L. The Developer will be required to conduct all major activities to construct Plans A-F during the following hours of operation: Monday - Friday Saturday Sunday and Holidays 7:00 A.M. until 7:00 P.M. 8:00 A.M. until 5:00 P.M. Not Allowed This does not apply to activities that are required on a 24-hour basis such as dewatering, etc. Any deviations from the above hours are subject to approval of the City Engineer. Violations of the working hours will result in a $500 fme per occurrence in accordance with paragraph K of this section. M. The Developer is responsible to require each builder within the development to provide a Class 5 aggregate entrance for every house that is to be constructed in the development. This entrance is required to be installed upon initial construction of the home. See City Standard Plate ERO-09 for construction requirements. N. The Developer shall be responsible for the control of weeds in excess of twelve inches (12") on vacant lots or boulevards within their development as per City Code 6-7-2. Failure to control weeds will be considered a Developer's Default as outlined in Paragraph 33 of this Agreement and the Developer will reimburse the City as defmed in said Paragraph 33. 8 O. Third parties have no recourse against the City under this contract. 35. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified or registered mail at the following addresses: Richard K. Allendorf 4624 Mounthall Terrace Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone: 952-935-6017 rallendorf@rnn.rr.com Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either and delivered to the City Administrator, or mailed to the City by certified mail or registered mail in care of the City Administrator at the following address: David M. Urbia, City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 9 SIGNATURE PAGE CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Kevan A. Soderberg, Mayor By: David M. Urbia, City Administrator DEVELOPER: Vennillion River Crossing, LLC By: Its: Drafted by: City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 55024 (651) 463-7111 10 STATE OF MINNESOTA) (ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 by Kevan A. Soderberg, Mayor, and by David M. Urbia, City Administrator, of the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by the City Council. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) (ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,20 by , the ofVennillion River Crossing, LLC, a limited liability company under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the company. Notary Public 11 EXHIBIT" A" VERMILLION RIVER CROSSINGS - LEGAL DESCRIPTION That part of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 114, Range 20, Dakota County, Minnesota lying west of the west right-of-way of Denmark Avenue, EXCEPT the west 10 acres thereof. 12 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us LETTER OF EXEMPTION DAKOTA COUNTY PROPERTY RECORDS 1590 HIGHWAY 55 HASTINGS MN 55033-2392 To Whom It May Concern: Please find enclosed, deed(s) on the parcel(s) listed below. We are requesting the parcels be classified as Exempt Properties. PARCEL ID# LEGAL DESCRIPTION USE (wetland, storm water facility, park or well site) Please sign letter below and return to me at the address above verifying the exemption status. Thank you. Sincerely, Tracy Geise Accounting Technician/Special Assessments Enclosure( s) Signature Date 13 EXHIBIT "C" IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT No. Date: TO: City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Sir or Madam: We hereby issue, for the account of of Credit in the amount of $ undersigned bank. . and in your favor, our Irrevocable Letter , available to you by your draft drawn on sight on the The draft must: a) Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit No. , dated (Name of Bank) "; b) Be signed by the Mayor or City Administrator of the City of Farmington. c) Be presented for payment at (Address of Bank) , 20_, of This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms from the date indicated above unless, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date, the Bank delivers written notice to the Farmington City Administrator that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel, this Letter of Credit. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows: Farmington City Administrator, 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024, and is actually received by the City Administrator at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date. This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified, amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement, whether or not referred to herein. This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than one draw may be made under this Letter of Credit. This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 400. We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly honored upon presentation. [NAME OF BANK] By: [name] Its: [identify official 14 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: Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Sale of 1978-LN800 Ford 1800 Gallon Tanker - Fire Department DATE: August 1, 2005 INTRODUCTION The Fire Department has replaced the 1978 Ford LN 800 Tanker with our new Semo 3,000 gallon Peterbuilt tanker. DISCUSSION The 1978 Ford Tanker was advertised in a number of fire service publications for the required periods of time. Our first attempt resulted in a bid of $500.00. This bid was rejected and the truck was re-advertised. Our second attempt resulted in a bid of $2,550.00. This bid, considering the age of this truck, is acceptable. The original Certificate of Origin (title) for this truck could not be located. The process of duplicating the title has proven to be a timely experience. We expect to receive the new title very soon. BUDGET IMPACT Included in 2005 budget. ACTION REQUESTED Pending the issuing of the new title, staff is requesting Council approval to sell the 1978 Ford Tanker to Darrel Gilmer, owner of Gilmer Excavating, Inc. at the bid price submitted of $2,550.00. Respectfully submitted, ,~;Y~~ Ken Kuchera ~ Fire Chief cc: Robin Roland Todd Reiten FFD Board of Directors Rosemary Swedin .~ GILMER EXCAVATING, INC. P.O. Box 491 CASTLE ROCK, MINNESOTA 5501 0 612 - 463-7273 507 - 645-8641 March 17, 2005 Ken Kuchera Fire Chief Farmington Fire Department 325 Oak Street . Farmington, MN 55024 Re: 1978 Ford Water Truck This letter serves as a formal bid for the above referenced Ford truck. My formal bid is Two thousand five hundred fifty dollars ($2,550.00). It is understood that this bid is on an as equipped basis. If you have any questions regarding this bid, feel free to call me at (651) 463-7273 or (651) 775-6118. s~~ Darrel Gilmer r Mar,/2, 1997 6:29PM No.loo4 p. Z Statement of Facts . . Photographs that show all sides of the vehicle must accompany the application to title and/or register the vehicle. Note: photos are not required for trail,ers regiJ;tered under 6000 pounds gross vehicle weight. Vehicle Information. (t:#=;. Model Year---1!!l..2..1L-MakeJ! 1) D3 BodyType/Style !>Je -oYW-:ls'5"DO :s Vehicle Identification Number (Serial Number) rl ~ ~ F'V'B ~ 83;;1 0 LastKnownPlateNumberandExpirationDateN/A - FikE '-P~TF (()NL V Vehicle History ~.o. r tbe Above Des. cribe.d Veblcle ~~ ~ The vehicle was purchased/acquired on this ,date: . -J '7 o. . . The vehicle was purchased/acquired from: J.~w, . - 1::;:L;. f<u ;;'p '" . (Name):~ ~~D . _ _ (Address) ~ \ \ -:3 ~<!_ - (City)fi;..t ~ '^ (State)-1'l1 tJ . . S'S(J~ What were lbe circwnslances ~er which this vebicle was ""qu~red and why i. ~ no d"."umeutary . . . proof of ownership? UA~ ~ tv\... Note: If anymajor parts were replaced on the vehicle, you must attach invoiceslbills of sale. An affidavit of Reconstruction must also be completed. }..J r -fr ************.******.***~******************.*..*...*....*. Affidavit of Protection I attest to the accuracy of this information and agree to defend and protect the Statt of Minnesota against any and all future claims of ownership that may ari,e if ~ i issued . Minneso~ title and/of :egistration card. Applicaut'.Siguature ~ K~.. I ~ ~ Applicant's Printed Name-Xe t'\n e f6-.J<' U ch. e.x-,^- Applicanes Address ..3c;1.5 . OG\.k Sf.. CitY_1=.ii<l<~~"'_ State-.h1l\J. Zip Code '51;; ()~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /r TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator j)vv---- FROM: Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Sale of Used Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus - Fire Department DATE: August 1, 2005 INTRODUCTION The Farmington Fire Department was recognized and awarded $110,043 in grant funding from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in March of2005 (see attached memo). DISCUSSION The major portion of the grant request identified the purchase of26 new self-contained breathing apparatus. The Fire Department has received the new SCBA purchased from Clarey's Safety Equipment located in Rochester, MN. With the addition of the new SCBA to our inventory, we recognized the need to eliminate 11 of our older SCBA units. The requirements of advertising these units has been followed and completed. Two contacts of interest have been presented. Clarey's Safety Equipment has offered $60 to $80 per complete used SCBA (see attached). This offer is not acceptable. Our second request/offer to purchase the used SCBA was received from Knutson Beyer Group, Inc., Hudson, WI (see attached). Their offer is for $200 to $250 per used SCBA unit. BUDGET IMPACT The total $2,650 will be placed in the Fire Department capital projects fund for future identified usage. ACTION REQUESTED The Fire Department is requesting Council approval to sell 11 used SCBA units to Knutson Beyer Group at the total purchase price of $2,650. Respectfully submitted, /!~)( ucL:~ <F~ Ken Kuchera Fire Chief cc: Robin Roland JoelJamnik FFD Board of Directors City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us IOct TO: MAYOR, COUNCIL & CITY ADMINISTRATOR P" KEN KUCHERA, FIRE CHIEF FROM: SUBJECT: 2004 ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT PROGRAM DATE: MARCH .16, 2005 The fire department received official notification of the 2004 assistance to firefighters grant program administered by the U.S Department of Homeland Security this'past week. We as a department are very excited and thankful for being recognized to receive this grant. This program has been offered for the past three years and our attempts up till now have not been successful. The grant award provided was $110,043 with a required match from the city of $12,227. The total amount identified'is $122,270. The required 10% matching funds from the city are available in the 2005 Capital Acquisition fund budget. The budget calls for $12,000 from the fire department to be spent on a feasibility study which has been identified as unnecessary since the budget was adopted. The remaining dollars will be funded from the departments general operating budget. The grant award is specific to the equipment requested. Our request consisted of 26 self contained breathing units and 6 complete sets of firefighter turnout gear. I have attached a memo from Fire Captain Troy Corrigan along with the official written notification from the U.S Department of Homeland Security. ~}<~~ Ken Kuchera Fire Chief Cc: Robin Roland, Finance Director FFD Board of Directors Ken Kuchera From: t: Theodor Beyer [tbeyer@pressenter.com] Tuesday, July 05, 2005 5:46 AM Ken Kuchera Re: SELF CONTAINED BREATHING APPARAtUS ......l.Iject: Dear Ken, I trust you had a good 4th of July. Thank you foryou:t:' ph9r'ie cal.ls.,Here is the letter that I forgot to send you earlier. To Whom it may Concern, If you need further clarification or information, plea.se Ted Beyer-Senior $cientist Knutson Beyer Group, Inc. 725 4th Street Hudson WI 54016 715 386;..2253 , , , , Knutson Beyer Group, Inc. of 725 4th street Hudson WI 54016 intends tci purchase'froin the Farmington Fire Department six 4.5 Scott SCBA' s withmasks,'at$250@, thre:e2.2 Scott SCBA with masks and tanks at $250.00 and two 2.2 ScottSCBA with tanks at$2.ob@ . To'tal $2650.00. At 09:37 AM 7/1/2005 -0500, you wrote: >GoOq Morning Ted, > >~r my voice mails, I have not recieved your letter. We have jumped ~ough all the hoops required by city staff and the city attorney. ___e only remaining step is to get our new packs in'serviceis the >replacement 6fthe regulators to satisf,y the CBRNrequ:irelTlent.Please >get back to me when you can. ' , > ' >Emailing your letter will work also. Have a grea.t day. Ted ,Beyer Senior Scientist Knutson Beyer Group, Inc. 715.386.2253 725 Fourth Street Hudson, WI 54016 1 ~. .. z. -. - ---..-- - ..~... . .... ":::....:_- -- . .:::. .:.::=':::~:' ," . DETAILS: -- \ (~, ----- TO: \ \0\. FAX: # . Co \~~ FROM: DATE: .. PAGES: 3 5L~~l{ ~'l~iat.~~ 10d dlZt~o so 8Z ~ew . ; March 28, 2005 The Farmington Fire Department is see dng qUOtatiOI ~ for the purchase of 26 new Self Contained Breathing Apparatus and ace essories. Quotations should be faxed to Troy Co rigan at (612) 492-3236 or mailed to: Farmington Fire Department, Attn: Troy Corrigan, 25 Oak Stree ., Farmington, MN 55024. Contact Troy Corrigan at (612) 492-42 6 (work) or (c 12) 360-3236 (cell) with any questions that you may have. Please provide prices for the following tems: Item. Unit No. Quantity Descriptio Cost Total Cost .A. 26 4.5 Scott NxG2 Air Pak 50 WPA 1981, $ 2,907.00 $75,582.00 2002 compliant SCBA witlJ 45 minute Carbon Cylinder, backfram , regulator, facepiece and 1 set ofbatteJ es. Scott Par mt31"-Q2. with Pak Alert SE ''i"'.1nr ""l-()_()? ?()f) 1 a_f)' B. 26 Alternate Add - item A to 1 ~NIOSH $ 3,032.00 $ 78,832.00 CIt~ ~RM- ?~~!fla; # 200331-02 I ."\ C. 26 4.5 45minute Carbon CyIm ers. Scott Pa: ~ $ 638.00 $16,588.00 #200129-01 D. 26 Polyester fleece facepiece b gs. Scott Pat $ 11.80 $ 306.80 #805534-0 I E. 26 Voice amplifier with one se of batteries. $ 229 ...00 $ 5,954.00 Scott Part #804564-01 F. 20 Voice amplifier brackets fo A V3000 $ 12 . 8.6 $ 257.20 Facepiece. Scott Part #805 87-01 G. 6 Voice amplifier brackets fo A V2000 $ 11.30 $ 67.80 Facepiece. Scott Part #8046 36--01 H. 8 Replace 4.5 4Sminute . cylinder val ires $ $ 196.00 1,568.00 with NxG2 valve. 18057 B3-01 1 2 RIT Pak n with 6' EBSS, 1 ) RIC hose, C2 se $ 1,027.00 $ 2,054.00 and EBSS Regulator. Scott Part. #20022 - 02 J. 2 4.5 60 Minute Carbon Cylb der. Scott Pa ~# $ 791.00 $ 1,582.00 804723-01 G'd dlG:~O so BG ~ew '.. . /K. Trade In AUc .lee TBD A. AhRmnwn221630mmt e cylmders $ 10.00 TBD B. Fiberglass 4545 Minute Cylinders $ 10. 00 TBD C. 2.2 Air Pak less cylinder $ 50.00 TBD D. 2.2 Air Pak 50 with Pale \led Less $ 75.00, Cylinder , TBD E. 4.5 Air Pak Less Cylinde $ 50.<;>0 TBD F. 4.5 Air Pak 50 with Pale \loo Less $ 75.00 Cylinder L. 1 Tiain Personnel on operatioI s, cleaning M ~ $ No Chg. $ No Chg. maintenance of SCBA's , ,JT-:J ..Ln ,.,.,,... n-:l lao.' s:-'d - ------- 75 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us FROM: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrato~ Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director TO: SUBJECT: (1) Joint Resolution for the Annexation of Twenty-three Properties Currently Located in Castle Rock Township (2) Resolution Approving Administrative MUSA for the Subject Properties Contingent upon Annexation DATE: August 1, 2005 INTRODUCTION The City is proposing the annexation of twenty-three (23) separate properties currently located in Castle Rock Township. The properties total 10.17 acres ofland and all contain existing single-family residences. In order to extend sewer service to the properties, the properties must be located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Since all of the individual properties are less than five (5) acres in size, the City Council has the authority to grant MUSA without a recommendation from the MUSA Review Committee or the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION Annexation In August of 2003, the City of Farmington and Castle Rock Township entered into a Joint Powers/Orderly Annexation Agreement related to the Ash Street Reconstruction and Utility Improvements Project. One of the stated purposes of the Agreement was to ".. . facilitate the orderly annexation of identified properties receiving urban services." Article 8.0(A) of the Agreement states that Castle Rock Township consents to the annexation of the properties described and depicted in the proposed Joint Resolution provided that the above-mentioned project is at least 85% or more complete. The twenty-three properties identified in the attached Joint Resolution are included within the orderly annexation area. At this time, the Ash Street Reconstruction and Utility Improvement Project is approximately 85% complete, and connection to City services for the subject properties can be facilitated ifthe property owners request the connection. With regard to any properties that lie within the "Joint Powers area," the Joint Powers/Orderly Annexation Agreement provides that "Castle Rock Township and Farmington agree to adopt the necessary orderly annexation agreement amendments to this agreement to accomplish the annexation of the properties." The City Attorney has indicated that the proper mechanism for effectuating the required amendment of the Joint Powers/Orderly Annexation Agreement in this instance is a Joint Resolution. A proposed Joint Resolution has been attached for your review. Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUS A) A property cannot be connected to City sewer unless it lies within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Subject to subsequent approval by the Metropolitan Council, the Farmington City Council decides which parcels ofland in Farmington will or will not be included within Farmington's portion of the Met Council's Metropolitan Urban Service Area. The City Council adopted a MUSA policy on November 3,2003 that allows properties consisting ofless than five (5) acres to be granted MUSA administratively. Administrative MUSA still requires approval by the City Council, but does not require a recommendation from the MUSA Review Committee or Planning Commission. A resolution approving MUSA for the subject properties (contingent upon annexation) is attached to this memo. RECOMMENDATION (1) Adopt the attached Joint Resolution regarding the annexation of approximately 10.17 total acres currently located in Castle Rock Township. (2) Adopt the attached Resolution regarding the extension of MUS A to the subject properties. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ C~,....,e-'2 rev' Kevin Carroll Community Development Director TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK CITY OF FARMINGTON IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK AND THE CITY OF FARMINGTON, DESIGNATING AN UNINCORPORATED AREA AS IN NEED OF ORDERLY ANNEXATION AND CONFERING JURISDICTION OVER SAID AREA TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT OFFICE, PURSUANT TO M.S. ~414.0325 JOINT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, by previous joint resolution and agreement entered into between the City of Farmington and Township of Castle Rock in August of2003, the properties legally described below were included in the designated orderly annexation area but were not made subject to immediate annexation; and WHEREAS, the Township of Castle Rock and the City of Farmington jointly agree to the following: 1. In accordance with Article 8.0(A) of the previously approved joint resolution dated August 2003, the Ash Street Reconstruction and Storm Water Facilities projects are at least 85% completed, thereby allowing for the immediate annexation ofthe properties described below and depicted in Exhibit "A" attached hereto: Parcell - 3850 220th Street West Property Owner: John R. Klaus Tax ID #: 07-23750-060-00 Legal Description: West 19 feet ofthe North 200 feet of Lot 5 and the East 87 feet of the North 200 feet of Lot 6, Block One (1) Alex Empey's Addition Parcel 2 - 3840 220th Street West Property Owner: Traci and Scott Sax Tax ID #: 07-23750-051-00 Legal Description: East 90 feet ofthe West 109 feet ofthe North 151 feet of Lot 5, Block One (1), Alex Empey's Addition Parcel 3 - 3840 220th Street West Property Owner: Traci and Scott Sax Tax ID #: 07-23750-053-00 Legal Description: East 90 feet of the West 109 feet of the South 49 feet of the North 200 feet of Lot 5, Block One (1), Alex Empey's Addition Parcel 4 - 3828 220th Street West Property Owner: Doug and Jessica Peterson Tax ID #: 07-23750-052-00 Legal Description: East 311 feet of the North 200 feet of Lot 5, Excluding the West 90 feet thereof of Lot 5, Block One (1), Alex Empey's Addition Parcel 5 - 500 Ash Street Property Owner: David and Kathleen Peterson Tax ID #: 07-23750-045-00 Legal Description: North 121 feet ofthe West 4 rods of Lot 4, Block One (1), Alex Empey's Addition Parcel 6 - 3782 220th Street West Property Owner: Martha Graham Tax ID #: 07-23750-046-00 Legal Description: West 6 rods of Lot 4 Excluding the North 121 feet of the West 4 rods of Lot 4, Block One (1), Alex Empey's Addition Parcel 7 - 3760 220th Street West Property Owner: Bruce and Catherine Durham Tax ID #: 07-23750-040-00 Legal Description: West 100 feet ofthe North 150 feet ofthe East 14 rods of Lot 4, Block One (1), Alex Empey's Addition Parcel 8 - 512 Ash Street Property Owner: Harriet M. Grove Tax ID #: 07-23750-041-00 Legal Description: East 60 feet of the West 160 feet of the North 150 feet of the East 14 rods of Lot 4, Block One (1), Alex Empey's Addition Parcel 9 - 516 Ash Street Property Owner: Donald and Teresa Wilson Tax ID #: 07-23750-042-00 Legal Description: West 4 feet of the North 150 feet of Lot 3 and the East 71 feet of the North 150 feet of Lot 4, Block One (1), Alex Empey's Addition Parcel 10 - 612 Ash Street Property Owner: Lucilla C. Johnson Tax ID #: 07-63240-110-00 Legal Description: Lot 11, Block One (1), Reinardy Addition Parcel 11 - 616 Ash Street Property Owner: Virginia Carey Tax ID #: 07-63240-120-00 Legal Description: Lot 12, Block One (1), Reinardy Addition Parcel 12 - 702 Highland Circle Property Owner: Michael and Helen Penney Tax ID #: 07-63240-130-00 Legal Description: Lot 13, Block One (1), Reinardy Addition Parcel 13 -1104 Highland Circle Property Owner: Louis and Jean Schmitz Tax ID #: 07-63240-100-00 Legal Description: Lot 10, Block One (1), Reinardy Addition Parcel 14 - 11 08 Highland Circle Property Owners: Holly Ann Toutges Tax ID #: 07-63240-090-00 Legal Description: Lot 9, Block One (1), Reinardy Addition ParcellS -1112 Highland Circle Property Owners: James and Theresa Czech Tax ID #: 07-63240-080-00 Legal Description: Lot 8, Block One (1), Reinardy Addition Parcel 16 -1116 Highland Circle Property Owners: Lucille Korsman Tax ID #: 07-63240-070-00 Legal Description: Lot 7, Block One (1), Reinardy Addition Parcel 17 - 1120 Highland Circle Property Owners: William and Marlys Cook Tax ID #: 07-63240-060-00 Legal Description: Lot 6, Block One (1), Reinardy Addition Parcel 18 -1124 Highland Circle Property Owners: Beverly P. Morell Tax ID #: 07-63240-050-00 Legal Description: Lot 5, Block One (1), Reinardy Addition Parcel 19 -1128 Highland Circle Property Owners: Michael D. Hunter Tax ID #: 07-63240-040-00 Legal Description: Lot 4, Block One (1), Reinardy Addition Parcel 20 -1132 Highland Circle Property Owners: Eric and Julie Simonsen Tax ID #: 07-63240-030-00 Legal Description: Lot 3, Block One (1), Reinardy Addition Parcel 21 -718 Ash Street Property Owners: Ronald and Beverley Ersfeld Tax ID #: 07-63240-020-00 Legal Description: Lots 1 and 2, Block One (1), Reinardy Addition Parcel 22 - Property Owner: Vernon Johnson Tax ID #: 07-63240-150-00 Legal Description: Lot 15, Block One (1), Reinardy Addition Parcel 23 - Property Owner: Vernon Johnson Tax ID #: 07-63240-140-00 Legal Description: Lot 14, Block One (1), Reinardy Addition 2. That the purpose ofthe annexation ofthe Subject Parcels is to provide urban services, including city sewer and water services. 3. That in order to facilitate the construction and financing of the improvements necessary for development that is urban or suburban in character and the efficient delivery of governmental services, all ofthe properties should be immediately annexed to and made part ofthe City of Farmington. 4. That as a result of the Ash Street Reconstruction Project and the Storm Water Facilities Project, the previously described area in Castle Rock Township, Dakota County, is subject to orderly annexation pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ~414.0325, and the parties hereto designate this area for immediate annexation under this orderly annexation agreement. 5. That both the Township of Castle Rock and the City of Farmington agree, pursuant to M.S. ~414.0325, Subd. 1(t), that no alteration of the stated boundaries of this agreement is appropriate. 6. Furthermore, each party agrees that pursuant to M.S. ~414.0325, Subd. l(g) no consideration by the Office of Boundary Adjustment is necessary, and that upon receipt ofthis resolution and agreement, passed and adopted by each party, the Director ofthe Office of Boundary Adjustment may review and comment but shall, within thirty (30) days, order the annexation in accordance with the terms of this joint resolution. 7. That the annexation ofthe properties will not result in any change of electrical service and will not require joint planning since upon final approval of this joint resolution and issuance of the annexation order by the Director the property will immediately be fully subject to the official controls and other ordinances of the City of Farmington, including all land use controls. Further, that differential taxation under M.S. ~414.035, or reimbursement under M.S. ~414.036 is not required. 8. That the population of the parcels to be annexed pursuant to this joint resolution is approximately 69 and the total area to be annexed is approximately 10.17 acres. Approved and Adopted this _ day of , 2005. Approved and Adopted this _ day of , 2005. TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK CITY OF FARMINGTON BY: BY: Its Town Board Chair Its Mayor AND AND Its Town Board Clerk Its City Administrator aA\j alepuadd!LI:l ~ @) ~ ~ to (@)~ ..... ..... ~ r-- l.O ~@ ..... ..... M ..q o ~E;) ..... EXHIBIT A ro 0. '(3 '22 I- ::> co ~E ~ oIl'X C/) e Olo. co. = co 0 Ol Ol OJ~ co co .!: (/) co Ol o'~ .. '0 Ol C -::> o 0 Z.o (V) me -C') ro('\J ~ 0_ l"- I '+- 0 ........ 0 CJ) q Q) ..-- @ 0 s "0 00 Z-l Q)I- "'tJ =(f) Q) LL~ 0 X Q) ~ c c <( Q) .0 0 E Q) ........ Vi CJ) >, (f) Q) Q) c: U Ol Ol ro'- L- c: U) .- Q) eo ~o 0... 0(::- >,ro ro c: Q. ~'E Q)= - Q) eo ro ..... ~ so... .~ Q) 'm u c: L- eo 0... <jz Cl. :.c U) Q) c: Ol ::: ro u.. 0- 1-0 0 -"!.U) IS) () Q) N 02 0::: .- Q)::2: ~ ro 0 0 ffi 0 ~ IS) N RESOLUTION NO. R_-05 APPROVING THE ADDITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES TO FARMINGTON'S METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA 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 of the day of ,2005 at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, the City of Farmington is proposing the annexation of twenty-three (23) properties located in Castle Rock Township (see Exhibit "A") in order to provide City sewer service; and WHEREAS, upon annexation, the subject properties must be included within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) to receive City sewer service; and WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority to grant MUSA to individual properties consisting of less than five (5) acres without a recommendation from the MUSA Review Committee or the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, City sewer service is available near the subject properties and can be extended to the properties immediately upon annexation and MUSA approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves the extension of MUSA to the twenty-three (23) properties depicted in the attached Exhibit "A" contingent upon annexation into the City. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the day of , 2005 Mayor Attested to the day of , 2005. City Administrator SEAL EXHIBIT A ro a. '0 'c $ I- :J co ~E u.. o/l'X t=2 l/l e a> a. ca. =co Q a> a> O>~ co co C l/l .~ .~ OCO ,,'0 a> C - :J ~ o 0 Z.o ("') iDe C") -("') roN t-- ~ o- r- T"" T"" I \f- a +-' 0 en ~ (]) ~ 0 @ S "0 00 Z-l Q)I- "'0 =(f) I..L.<( (]) 0 x <( (]) c c <( (]) ...0 @ a E ~ Q) +-' 1il en >, (f) (]) Q) C OJ OJ U ,~ '~ L- eo ~o 0- 02:- >,ro ro C ~'E 0.. Q)= -Q) eo ro .... ~ so... Q) 'C (]) 'Iii .... () 0... L- eo 0- ~ <1z 0.. :.c <fl Qi C :s: ro a> 0- LL 1-0 <fl a -'<:Q) 1.0 () C N o C 0:: ,- Q)2 t5 ro 0 ("') a oo::t - 0 m ~E;) T"" ~ a 1.0 N ~ @) a^v alepuaddlll~ @ ~ ~ 0) oo:t @~ T"" (0 \0)~ T"" T"" co ~~ T"" T"" ~ ~E /o~ CITY OF FARMINGTON SUMMARY OF REVENUES June 30, 2005 50.00 % Year Complete . . :...... ::"::':.:-:':'::: ". .... .... . : : ... . . . . . . . . . :::::)H))H2~i)$)):' . . . ...:::::.., ::PERCeNt:: :::::::::201)4::::::::: :::flE~CEtitt: :::::::::H:j+~M.$.:::::::::( . .. ..... ... .... . >H$VQ$~t?~t).~ENl. . >HYTPH>> :U::~@5:::::::: :::::::::Yrp:m::::: ::::::::~~~:::::::: $ $ $ % $ % GENERAL FUND Property Taxes 4,750,293 1,332,000 1,343,383 28.28 10,139 0.29 Licenses 28,655 289 15,468 53.98 16,295 73.90 Permits 1,096,250 46,442 268,312 24.48 482,466 51.57 Fines 78,100 6,282 24,359 31.19 29,908 37.86 Intergovernment Revenue 310,000 510 82,461 26.60 88,234 27.49 Charges for Service 386,000 39,102 141,129 36.56 89,815 18.51 Investment Interest 225,000 18,750 112,500 50.00 120,000 37.50 Miscellaneous 10,000 380 14,337 143.37 47,855 134.80 Transfers 236 000 19 667 118000 50.00 155,000 50.00 Total General Fund 7120298 1 463 422 2119949 29.77 1 039712 17.18 SPECIAL REVENUE HRA Operating Fund 20,500 319 203,440 992.39 301,620 95.70 Police Forfeitures Fund 8,050 - 1,810 22.48 6,205 77.08 Park Improvement Fund 292,000 56,666 249,294 85.37 148,175 97.68 Recreation Operating Fund 301,500 83,248 155,547 51.59 138,647 51.79 Ice Arena 247,500 23,719 133,114 53.78 0.00 ENTERPRISE FUNDS Ice Arena - - 0.00 118,873 41.73 Liquor Operations 3,715,746 321,580 1,527,137 41.10 1,366,511 43.98 Sewer 1,533,857 135,245 604,951 39.44 591,649 43.40 Solid Waste 1,748,077 178,481 788,705 45.12 733,273 49.00 Storm Water 235,000 59,675 188,298 80.13 141,226 54.41 Water 1 695 000 153661 760 790 44.88 637 578 40.17 Total Revenues 16917528 2,476016 6 733 035 39.80 5,223.469 35.07 CITY OF FARMINGTON SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES 50.00 % Year Com lete June 30,2005 ...... . :d~u.o~Eln .:~ili:O~l::::::::~b::::::::r::~r:~~~m::)':H:~~: $ $ $ % $ ....::~ffl~~~: % .................... ... HHHiteM&.H<<<< . . . . GENERAL FUND Legislative Administration Elections Communications Human Resources Information Technology Finance Planning Building Inspection Community Development Police Administration Patrol Services Investigation Services Emergency Management Fire Rescue Engineering G.I.S. Streets Snow Removal Signal Maint Natural Resources Park Maint Forestry Building Maint Recreation Programs Outdoor Ice Transfers Out Total General Fund SPECIAL REVENUE HRA Operating Police Forfeitures Fund Park Improvement Fund Senior Center Swimming Pool Ice Arena ENTERPRISE FUNDS Ice Arena Liquor Operations Sewer Solid Waste Storm Water Water Utility Total Expenditures 67,162 455,528 10,875 70,882 195,206 107,783 413,638 174,080 406,738 158,997 603,905 1,518,203 277,602 5,200 425,849 43,110 284,465 9,798 472,632 102,935 105,600 56,285 407,186 o 157,995 375,644 o 213000 7120298 42,100 8,050 528,000 148,444 142,533 247159 o 3,561,633 1,541,497 1,770,599 400,884 1 140558 16,651,755 1,901 38,862 5,762 12,965 19,047 32,554 15,388 30,493 7,009 34,749 103,092 20,028 44,844 24,243 10,433 29,872 19 61,745 214 9,003 1,771 35,682 11,799 47,936 53 250 652661 439 10,275 22,891 15 423 318,097 82,706 220,100 16,775 47058 1,386,932 40,282 222,907 32,330 86,952 58,097 214,433 79,139 178,453 42,309 285,062 692,209 150,116 45,953 126,775 21,740 148,176 117 224,441 73,723 43,364 16,400 180,921 56,817 176,757 106 500 3 303 973 507 11,160 3,789 103,098 66,433 60,040 127 496 o 1,497,352 555,435 799,825 132,650 287 997 6,949,248 59.98 48.93 0.00 45.61 44.54 53.90 51.84 45.46 43.87 26.61 47.20 45.59 54.08 883.71 29.77 50.43 52.09 1.19 47.49 71.62 41.06 29.14 44.43 0.00 35.96 47.05 0.00 50.00 46.40 26.51 47.07 19.53 44.75 42.12 51.58 0.00 42.04 36.03 45.17 33.09 25.25 41.73 26,998 198,969 6 31,304 86,407 21,229 204,021 84,291 178,063 42,454 281,424 606,205 117,525 1,978 127,127 20,821 144,918 4,240 228,576 50,684 42,603 155,887 30,887 40,172 170,469 3,240 86 500 2986.998 272,078 4,870 98,885 65,438 35,673 o 140,409 1,233,591 687,495 711,426 147,080 411 369 6,795,312 42.02 46.19 0.00 44.68 47.29 38.70 52.16 49.54 50.85 45.47 53.77 52.51 45.45 123.63 32.38 53.34 53.74 45.43 54.59 51.79 43.47 0.00 59.73 30.00 32.80 55.36 84.16 50.00 49.35 94.09 43.28 45.03 51.67 26.59 0.00 53.49 39.91 19.17 47.04 38.85 16.72 37.49 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /06 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: David Urbia, City Administrator SUBJECT: Cedar Corridor Transportation Infrastructure Group (Cedar Group) DATE: August 1,2005 DISCUSSION Dakota County Commissioner Willis E. Branning, who is also chair of the Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority has sent an invitation to the City of Farmington for active participation in the work of the Cedar Corridor Transportation Group (Cedar Group). Councilmember Pritzlaff and City Administrator Urbia are the two appointed city representatives (with Councilmember Wilson as the alternate). The first meeting was attended, with the next meeting scheduled for August 3rd in Apple Valley. The City may, at its discretion, appoint a business or community representative. The City sought interested volunteers. Mayor Soderberg and City Administrator Urbia held interviews on the afternoon of August 1 st. There were two interested volunteers, Jared Agerter and Doug Bonar, both from Farmington. ACTION REQUESTED City Council to consider verbal recommendation of Mayor Soderberg for appointment of a community representative to the Cedar Group. David M. Urbia City Administrator JOe.. 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: David Urbia, City Administrator SUBJECT: Cataract Relief Association DATE: August 1,2005 INTRODUCTION Every year, prior to or on August 1 S\ the City Clerk must review the pension schedule completed and certified by the relief association officers and advise the governing body of any required municipal contribution at its next regularly scheduled meeting. DISCUSSION Attached are the following documents: Form SC-05/Page 5; Request for pension and city contribution increase; City prepared proj ection of pension obligation and funding ratio; and Office of State Auditor Pension Comparisons. Finance Director Robin Roland and I met with the CATARACT Board on Tuesday, July 26th to discuss this proposal. The board's first proposal was that the city's contribution should be calculated on a per member basis, meaning in 1996 there were 36 members and a city contribution of $45,000, the per member amount would be $1,287. With a three percent annual increase, this per member amount would be $1,667. So for the current budget authorization of 44 members, the city contribution at $1,667 per member would be $73,348. The department has requested in the 2006 budget an increase to 52 members attributed to the second station, meaning the city contribution would increase to $86,684. Review the city prepared spreadsheet, one can see other factors to this pension funding other than solely the city contribution on a per member basis. There is a state contribution attributed to the two percent surcharge on homeowners' !businesses' insurance premiums. This contribution is increasing with the growth of buildings and valuation in the community. Investment earnings (both gains and losses) playa significant role as well. The funding ratio projected for 2006 is at 93%, taking into account an increase ofthe per service year benefit from $3,200 to $3,500 and an addition in staffing from 44 to 48. This has been arrived at using conservative estimates in state funding and investment earnings and maintaining the city's contribution at $60,000. Another factor to consider is how our benefit compares to other jurisdictions. I have included comparison information from the State Auditor's office as recent as 2002. More recent information will be available on-line shortly. BUDGET IMPACT There would not be a budget impact this year with a benefit per year increase and by keeping the city contribution the same. ACTION REQUESTED Provide direction to staff on the options presented. Decision can be deferred to August 15th council meeting if more time for review and consideration is necessary. Respectfully submitted, JO~lYl.t/~ tl--..J David M. Urbia City Administrator Form SC-05 CATARACT / Page 5 This Schedule must be fully completed, certified by the relief association officers, forwarded to the municipal clerk on or before August 1, 2005 and submitted to the State Auditor's Office to be eligible for state rwe aid. OFFICER CERTIFICATION We, the officers of the. Cataract Relief Association, certify that this Schedule was prepared under Minn. Stat. ~ 69.772 and that the annual benefit level was established according to the average amount of available financing. We further certify that based on the financial requirements of the Relief Association's Special Fund for the 2005 calendar year, the required 2006 municiPal contribution is $ 435. If the bylaws of the Relief Association changed in 2005, we have attached a copy of the amendment or updated bylaws. We have also enclosed a copy of the municipal ratification of this amendment if required under Minn. Stat. ~ 69.772, subd. 6. ~~7~ Signature of President w; /lld W\ l.. 5~u. hl!?/~ Print Name 7 - ;;16 --dS- Date h~~L/~, Signature of Secretary IHorv1.A S C~. I-IE/h !''ill Print Name 7-d6-O~ Date qn{l~L ignature of Treasurer 4"/ Irl {!~~jsepk5 Print Name 7hb~S- Date MUNICIPAL CLERK CERTIFICATION (For relief associatio~ affiliated with municipal fire departments only.) I am the municipal clerk of err ~ oF' fi<l",,, 111)>7: h JI..) . I received on :I;)/> 105 , the completed Schedule from the Cataract Relief Associa Ion.!I bave reviewed Lines 14 and 21 of the Schedule. eitli Line 14 or Line 21 show a required municipal contribution, I cert' hat I will dvise the govrning mu 'cipal body of any required municipal contribution at its n xt re ly sche uled meeting. '---C:> ,q V J JJ J..1 'A ~ k J'R{5 ~ Print Name 'i- - -;Jw- C5 5 Date ( 05/) '1u3- I ~tJl Business Telephone . . Please retain a copy of the Schedule for your records and submit the signed original to: State Auditor's Office, Pension Date: July, 27, 2005 To: Mayor & City Council From: Farmington Fire Department Cataract Relief Association Subject: Association Pension Request for 2006 The Board of the Farmington Fire Department Cataract Relief Association met on July 26,2005 to discuss the pension request for 2006. After much discussion the Board felt that an increase in the city's contribution was in order due in part from the increase in members, along with an increase in our yearly pension. The Cataract Relief Association is requesting a yearly increase in the pension of $300.00, which would put it at $3,500.00 per year. The city's contribution would be $65,000.00, a $5,000 increase from 2005. If you have any questions please feel free to contact President Bill Sauber, Treasurer Jay Clinkscales, or myself Thank you. Respectfully submitted, :b '... /. .-> I CO /' /1 (/. "~" ?::%r7?-r~Q c.. LJ~.1'"v.- 0.." Thomas E. Hemish Secretary '...... ..'....,~--...,-....._---,.> --, _.~ c~c. Dave Urbia, City Administrator Robin Roland, City Finance Director Cataract Board of Directors File e 02 ro oQl J5 o e o OUj e QI 0.. "0 QI <:; QI "e- o.. "0 e e o ell _ 00 ell QI '0 ~ 0"" eOO"O B ~ 5i ~~ ~ 0- _ UJ E & <Ii ~t)~ -elle o .... QI z..l!! > 0_ ClI QI t.)t.)0:: "0 co QlO -0 ~N "'" 00 QI "OLO QlO -0 ~N ~ QI '<l" o o N M o o N N o o N o o N o o o N 0> 0> 0> ...... 00 0> 0> ...... I'- 0> 0> ...... co 0> 0> ...... ...... CD. N ~ 000 o LO 0 0......0 ocO.n cooco ...... ...... CD cO 0> ~ 000 000 000 O.nM cooco ...... o o 00. ...... co N. ON I'- OMCO 0000> .nr--:-cO LOO'<l" ...... ...... 00 I'- ~ ...... o 0> Ol'-'<l" OLOOO OCOO .nr--:-M LOI'-M N '<l" ...... M cO LO 0> OOON ONCO 00>'<l" .no cO LOCOCO ...... ~ o co ~ ...... I'- q 0"""" 00__ OCOLO'<l" 000000> c5~o)~ LOLO'<l" ...... ~ I'- LO 00 o o ...... OMN 000...... OMM ooi.n LOMO ...... 0> co ...... M o 00 01'-...... ONCO OM I'- Or--:-cO LOMN N M 00 ~ N co ococo OCOO> 01'-1'- .n.nN '<l"MO ...... 00 co I'- cO ~ 0000 OCOI'-N 00>'<l"'<l" .nN~N '<l"MOO co N LO r--:- N '<l" OOOLO Ooc-CO...,- 0..... LO "'" ..oN~ - '<l"MLO Ui ...... 00 Q) Q) .~ .... ~!9~~ t.)(/)UJO QI ::> e QI > QI 0:: ~ ell ::> e ell ., l3 e ClI Iii ell o LO ...... M M N o o o cO N N 0> 0> ": ...... M ~ I'- .n co M '<l" M LO N LO 0> N 0> .n ...... 00 00 o cO M N co LO M 00 ...... o LO 00. '<l" co ...... LO M '<l" o M ...... Iii "0 f- "0 olii 0- 00 $! QI e QI QI .aCIl 'i5 e QI 0- X UJ ...... I'- 00 cO o '<l" '<l" '<l" oi co ...... o o 1'-. N o o o r--:- co 0> '<l" M o ...... o o '<l" cO ...... LO 00 00 r--:- LO M 0> ...... ~ 5 00 "'" l3 e1 02: $ Q) e 00 .... oe""' !!! "Oe= <(0..0 o o o .n o o o .n O>LO ......N LO .n 0> ...... 0> N N o ...... N co 0> N N 0>0 O>N 1'-...... N co I'- o N o LO o N r:: 00. ...... ...... ...... o o o .n 00 00 0>. '<l" I'- ...... 0> ...... co .n N o ...... N co 0> N oi co 00 co N M ...... o o '<l" cO ...... co I'- o N LO M (l) oi LO M 0> ...... ...... '<l" Iii "0 f- o 0> 00 N '<l" ": ...... ...... co. ...... N co. ...... CD cO 0> ~ o o ~ ...... co N. 00 I'- ~ o 0> '<l" M cO LO 0> o co ~ r:: q I'- LO 00 o o ...... 0> co ...... M o 00 M 00 ~ ...... N co 00 co I'- cO ~ M CD .0 E l3 QI o QI u e ClI Iii ell 0> LO o M I'- ~ N '<l" N M M 1'-. o M '<l" N N ~ o o 0> cO 00 LO. '<l" o ~ ...... M '<l". '<l" '<l" M oi M. '<l" 00 M M I'- N. N co r--:- o 00 I'- LO I'- M co co N '<l" ~ ...... CD o 00 M. '<l" 00 LO 00 e o ~ oQl J5 o "E QI E IE ~ 0:: Oi' i! co 'P" ...... CW; o 0) M ...... M ~ ...... ...... ...... Oi' co M N ~ s o ...... .n N !:2 <0 N co oi N e S M o M co !:2 ~ N 1'-. o ~ LO '<l" o M 0> N N ~ oi M ...... ...... '<l" o o ...... N ...... co r--:- !eo Qi' Q) ~ o .s:::. .e 00 00 l3 x UJ ~ \Y)- i! <0 CW; (l) ~ NJ'"' ?fl. N to 00 ~ <:::. 1")"'" ~ o LO oi I'- ~ Y\' ?fl. o M co ~ \'1\"' ~ o LO N I'- ~ 1"1" ~ o N ..t 00 r2 (") \6 ?fl. M to M ...... ~ rt ?fl. q ...... N ...... ~ r-- -: ?fl. <!:! o ...... ~ ~ ~ o '<l" cO 00 ~ <:) ~ --::- { rA Appendix A Summary of Relief Associations by Benefit Category All Reliefs Reliefs in Report Plan Type Benefit Level Benefit Category 89 88 Defined Contribution Defined Contribution Defined Contribution 7 4 Lump Sum $10, but less than $100 per yas* 10 - 100 16 14 Lump Sum $100, but less than $200 per yaS 100 - 200 24 24 Lump Sum $200, but less than $300 per yaS 200 - 300 102 100 Lump Sum $300, but less than $500 per yaS 300 - 500 220 219 Lump Sum $500, but less than $1,000 per yaS 500 - 1,000 109 107 Lump Sum $1,000, but less than $1,500 per yaS 1,000 - 1,500 47 46 Lump Sum $1,500, but less than $2,000 per yaS 1,500 - 2,000 33 33 Lump Sum $2,000, but less than $2,500 per yaS 2,000 - 2,500 II 11 Lump Sum $2,500, but less than $3,000 per yaS 2,500 - 3,000 4 4 Lump Sum $3,000, but less than $3,500 per yaS 3,000 - 3,500 23 23 Lump Sum $3,500 or more per yaS 3,500 or more 5 4 Monthly Pension Monthly Service Monthly 18 18 Monthly/Lump Sum Monthly/Lump Sum Combination Monthly/LS 708 695 Total Volunteer Firefighter Relief Associations * yaS = Year of Service 123 Table 2 Funding Status and Ratios For the Year Ended December 31, 2002 Deficit 1 Relief Net Accrued Surplus or Funding Amortization Association Assets Liabilities (Deficit) Ratio Payment LITTLE FALLS 544,965 592,879 (47,914) 92% 1,445 LONG PRAIRIE 258,552 299,888 (41,336) 86% 3,111 LUVERNE 1,031,284 1,054,021 (22,737) 98% 63,124 MAPLE PLAIN 516,534 657,160 (140,626) 79% 6,618 MAPLETON 311,203 321,180 (9,977) 97% MORA 340,753 510,894 (170,141) 67% 11,462 MORRISTOWN 374,017 512,782 (138,765) 73% 6,890 MOTLEY 187,047 320,064 (133,017) 58% 8,524 MOUNTAIN IRON 405,164 440,495 (35,331) 92% 1,468 NEW MARKET 371,758 250,590 121,168 148% NEW SCANDIA TWP 261,414 430,368 (168,954) 61% 16,099 NISSW A 307,348 431,628 (124,280) 71% 9,395 OAK GROVE 394,879 552,947 (158,068) 71% 5,143 OSAKIS 268,261 307,923 (39,662) 87% OSSEO 330,986 415,110 (84,124) 80% 156 PELICAN RAPIDS 424,160 570,608 (146,448) 74% 15,234 PEQUOT LAKES 320,139 334,912 (14,773) 96% 2,244 PINE ISLAND 280,875 392,874 (111,999) 71% 8,136 ROGERS 463,904 607,688 (143,784) 76% 15,823 ROSEAU 306,269 321,264 (14,995) 95% SAINT ANTHONY 533,523 529,790 3,733 101% SAINT CHARLES 371,707 462,694 (90,987) 80% 6,480 SAINT CLOUD TWP 648,266 561,391 86,875 115% SAINT JOSEPH 572,655 841,900 (269,245) 68% 26,784 SAINT PAUL PARK 569,066 653,888 (84,822) 87% SAINT PETER 642,907 821,319 (178,412) 78% 22,817 SCANDIA V ALLEY 233,535 353,610 (120,075) 66% 8,373 VICTORIA 299,880 538,804 (238,924) 56% 18,951 W ACONIA 391,067 676,324 (285,257) 58% 20,106 W ADENA 397,699 513,546 (115,847) 77% 3,657 WAITE PARK 323,548 373,350 (49,802) 87% 1,210 Lump Sum - $2,000 or more, but less than $2,500 per year of service ALBERT LEA TWP 205,024 319,953 (114,929) 64% 10,491 BECKER 645,729 798,983 (153,254) 81% BUFFALO 430,093 568,080 (137,987) 76% 9,576 CASS LAKE 364,500 421,194 (56,694) 87% 624 CHlSAGO CITY 429,765 495,404 (65,639) 87% 2,020 CHISHOLM 584,917 709,225 (124,308) 82% 11,904 DASSEL 461,983 640,872 (178,889) 72% 5,741 EAST BETHEL 569,003 602,070 (33,067) 95% EAST GRAND FORKS 537,402 610,850 (73,448) 88% 25 Table 2 Funding Status and Ratios For the Year Ended December 31,2002 Deficit 1 Relief Net Accrued Surplus or Funding Amortization Association Assets Liabilities (Deficit) Ratio Payment GARRISON 416,592 407,440 9,152 102% HAM LAKE 638,291 741,043 (102,752) 86% 2,838 HAMEL 576,232 836,891 (260,659) 69% 34,214 HERMANTOWN 645,215 932,332 (287,117) 69% 32,763 HUGO 355,328 510,560 (155,232) 70% 18,666 INTERNATIONAL FLS 468,675 588,093 (119,418) 80% 7,398 LAKE CITY 299,544 470,560 (171,016) 64% 14,407 LE SUEUR 525,025 635,281 (110,256) 83% 2,014 LINDSTROM 532,669 634,374 (101,705) 84% LONG LAKE 862,828 982,315 (119,487) 88% LORETTO 611,652 702,473 (90,821 ) 87% LOWER ST CROIX VAL 631,910 690,222 (58,312) 92% MILACA 484,152 491,348 (7,196) 99% 404 MONTICELLO 722,036 901,211 (179,175) 80% 15,760 NEW PRAGUE 469,696 630,580 (160,884) 74% 16,557 NORTH BRANCH 525,221 849,698 (324,477) 62% 24,680 NORTH MANKATO 631,526 682,121 (50,595) 93% PARK RAPIDS 590,156 607,866 (17,710) 97% 1,189 REDWOOD FALLS 735,249 844,677 (109,428) 87% 4,902 SAINT BONIF ACIUS 173,413 330,498 (157,085) 52% 12,963 TWO HARBORS 436,534 432,912 3,622 101% VADNAIS HEIGHTS 602,099 776,668 (174,569) 78% 14,328 W ASECA 809,126 982,980 (173,854) 82% 10,968 WINDOM 616,887 605,143 11,744 102% Lump Sum - $2,500 or more, but less than $3,000 per year of service COTTAGE GROVE 1,146,524 1,433,282 (286,758) 80% 5,726 INVER GROVE HTS 1,710,107 1,227,709 482,398 139% LITTLE CANADA 1,174,287 1,387,837 (213,550) 85% 11,526 MAHTOMEDI 659,456 793,234 (133,778) 83% 7,111 NEWPORT 703,548 828,583 (125,035) 85% 3,693 NORTHSTPAUL 981,049 1,148,424 (167,375) 85% 10,391 PRINCETON 938,355 1,170,290 (231,935) 80% 20,730 SAUK RAPIDS 451,848 727,054 (275,206) 62% 13,246 THIEF R FALLS 769,031 658,682 110,349 117% WILLMAR 1,240,706 1,282,214 (41,508) 97% ZIMMERMAN 453,924 614,534 (160,610) 74% 7,177 ~ Lump Sum - $3,000 or more, but less than $3,500 per year of service CATARACT 901,678 1,431,304 (529,626) 63% 38,775 FERGUS FALLS 1,176,308 1,300,406 (124,098) 90% 1,812 LAKE ELMO 473,980 574,796 (100,816) 82% 2,402 26 Table 2 Funding Status and Ratios For the Year Ended December 31, 2002 Deficit 1 Relief Net Accrued Surplus or Funding Amortization Association Assets Liabilities (Deficit) Ratio Payment PRIOR LAKE 1,028,668 1,001,667 27,001 103% Lump Sum - $3,500 or more per year of service ALEXANDRIA 1,056,473 1,954,262 (897,789) 54% 60,088 BAYPORT 1,225,626 1,391,040 (165,414) 88% BEMIDn PIONEER 1,168,337 1,605,269 (436,932) 73% 29,781 BRAINERD 1,640,805 2,346,763 (705,958) 70% 18,085 CENTENNIAL 1,371,446 1,580,321 (208,875) 87% 1,574 ELK RIVER 1,037,180 1,259,144 (221,964) 82% 15,025 EXCELSIOR 2,021,492 2,331,693 (310,20 I) 87% 22,577 FOREST LAKE 791,872 1,359,707 (567,835) 58% 39,953 GOLDEN VALLEY 2,879,389 3,282,990 (403,601) 88% 16,654 GRAND RAPIDS 1,023,737 1,417,300 (393,563) 72% 47,591 HASTINGS 1,830,644 2,182,553 (351,909) 84% 7,743 HOPKINS 2,423,167 2,629,654 (206,487) 92% LAKEVILLE 2,676,351 2,950,518 (274,167) 91% 10,532 MAPLEWOOD 3,224,676 4,584,950 (1,360,274) 70% 126,030 MARSHALL 1,342,801 1,469,099 (126,298) 91% 558 NEW BRIGHTON 1,150,645 1,490,914 (340,269) 77% 36,805 NORTIIFIELD 1,316,051 1,873,185 (557,134) 70% 19,258 OAKDALE 1,011,508 1,243,054 (231,546) 81% 9,198 OW ATONNA 810,043 1,358,488 (548,445) 60% 53,557 ROSEMOUNT 1,030,119 1,158,066 (127,947) 89% SHAKOPEE 1,625,640 2,753,195 (1,127,555) 59% 145,826 STILLWATER 1,450,713 1,624,760 (174,047) 89% WOODBURY 2,789,916 3,271,444 (481,528) 85% 59,027 Monthly Service HUTCHINSON 1,092,232 1,571,825 (479,593) 69% 26,330 MOUND 2,314,920 4,079,954 (1,765,034) 57% 118,348 PINE CITY 539,225 504,309 34,916 107% SPRING LAKE PARK 5,586,611 6,767,299 (1,180,688) 83% 18,431 MonthlylLump Sum Combination APPLE VALLEY 2,154,890 3,773,867 (1,618,977) 57% 105,997 BENSON 368,982 493,593 (124,611) 75% 9,834 BROOKLYN CENTER 2,540,231 2,964,972 (424,741) 86% 20,898 CHANHASSEN 1,251,669 2,311,967 (1,060,298) 54% 62,232 DETROIT LAKES 1,062,970 904,992 157,978 117% EDEN PRAIRIE 8,585,549 11,642,450 (3,056,90 I) 74% 98,786 FAIRMONT 1,794,210 2,509,367 (715,157) 72% 37,017 GLENCOE 487,288 826,089 (338,801) 59% 33,363 LAKE JOHANNA 3,329,830 4,465,940 (1,136,110) 75% 92,309 27 Table 2 Funding Status and Ratios For the Year Ended December 31, 2002 Deficit 1 Relief Net Accrued Surplus or Funding Amortization Association Assets Liabilities (Deficit) Ratio Payment MINNETONKA 7,990,072 8,804,311 (814,239) 91% NEW ULM 1,873,813 2,115,113 (241,300) 89% 14,807 PIPESTONE 404,727 751,911 (347,184) 54% 18,601 PLYMOUTH 3,717,656 3,917,860 (200,204) 95% 46,179 ROBBINSDALE 754,383 1,206,358 (451,975) 63% 72,995 ROSEVILLE 5,127,888 7,489,194 (2,361,306) 68% 156,919 SAVAGE 1,746,959 2,876,733 (1,129,774) 61% 79,567 WHITE BEAR LAKE 3,523,250 4,511 ,982 (988,732) 78% 88,113 WORTHINGTON 727,842 1,309,899 (582,057) 56% 104,011 DefiCit Net Accrued Surplus or Amortization TOTALS Assets Liabilities (Deficit) Payment Defined Contribution 43,432,178 43,432,178 0 0 Lump Sum 165,317,015 192,569,597 (27,252,582) 2,293,546 Monthly 9,532,988 12,923,387 (3,390,399) 163,109 Monthly/Lump Sum 47,442,209 62,876,598 (15,434,389) 1,041,628 Grand Total 265,724,390 311,801,760 (46,077,370) 3,498,283 1 For lump sum type plans, the Deficit Amortization Payment amounts are based on projected amounts as of August 1,2002, as reported by the relief associations on the 2002 Schedules. For monthly type plans, the Deficit Amortization Payment amounts are obtained from actuarial valuations or actuarial estimates prepared according to the benefit provisions applicable on December 31, 2002. 28 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.