HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.11.05 Council Packet
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
Mission Statement
Through teamwork and cooperation,
the City of Farmington provides quality
services that preserve our proud past and
foster a promisingfuture.
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL / SCHOOL BOARD MEETING
JULY 11, 2005
8:00 A.M.
MT. OLIVET RETREAT CENTER
1. CALL TO ORDER
2, APPROVE AGENDA
3, DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL ALTERNATE SITE(S) - CITY
4, SCHEMATICDESIGN PROCESS UPDATE - SCHOOL
5, PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN COMMENTS - CITY
6. TRAFFIC STUDY UPDATE - SCHOOL
7, FLAGSTAFF FEASIBILITY STUDY UPDATE - CITY
8, 195TH STREET FEASIBILITY STUDY UPDATE - CITY
9. ADJOURN
PUBliC INFORMATION STATEMENT
Council workshops are conducted as an informal work session, all discussions shall be considered fact-finding, hypothetical and unofficial critical thinking exercises,
which do not reflect an official public position.
Council work session outcomes should not be construed by the attending public and/or reporting media as the articulation of a formal City policy position. . Only
official Council action rwrmally taken at a regularly scheduled Council meeting should be considered as a formal expression of the City's position on any given matter.
Farmington Schools
Economic Impact of Choosing a New Site for the New High School
June 16, 2005
[Presented by Dr, Meeks at the June 20,2005 Meeting of the Farmington City Council)
High School Project (Current Plan)
Cost of Land
New School & Site
Road and Utilities (Flagstaff Avenue)
Total for New High School
Cost of Choosing Another Site
Land Sale Proceed Must Pay Toward Bond
Replacement Land (site Suggested by City Staff)
Construction Inflation to delay project 1 year
Architectural Redesign for New Site
Roads and Utilities (Flagstaff Avenue)
Road and Utilities (195 Street per City CIP)
Architectural Fees for Christensen Design Work
Total Cost for Choosing Another Site
1
"Land sale Proceed Must Pay
Toward Bond"
~t~t~1'f+
$3,893,407
2
"Replacement Land (site
suggested by City Staff)"
$11,000,000
3
"Construction Inflation to
delay project 1 year"
$3,840,020
3,893,407
76,800,000
6.266.700
$86,560,509
3,893,407
11,000,000
3,840,020
?OO,OOO
( 6,266,700)
4,500,000
500.000
$17,966,727
This is the purchase price of the Christensen property, which
ISD 192 will be entitled to get back if the site is not used for a
school. ISD 192 has identified this amount as a "cost,"
implying that the money will be lost if another site is chosen.
It will not be lost - the entire amount will presumably be used
to reduce the District's debt, thereby improving the District's
overall financial circumstances by that amount. Further, all of
this assumes that the "returned" money cannot be used to buy
another site, even though doing so would seem to be entirely
consistent with the language and intent of the (2002) $10
million bond referendum.
There are two problems with this number. The first is that it
incorrectly treats the assumed gross sales price of the alternate
site as the land cost differential between the two sites. The
differential or "added cost" is actually the net difference
between the cost of the two sites, so at most this figure should
be $7.1 million ($11 million minus $3.9 million) rather than
$11 million.
The second problem is the implication that City staff members
have suggested that ISD 192 incur $11 million in costs by
buying 110 acres at$100,OOO per acre. Rather, the staff
position has always been that the District could reduce the
impact of a higher price per acre ($100,000 vs. $35,000, for
example) by reducing the amount of land that it purchased.
The City could assist the District in doing so by placing new
City athletic fields adjacent to the high school site for the
District's use. A 60-acre high school site adjacent to 30 acres
of City athletic fields would result in a $6 million land cost for
the District (at $100,000 per acre), for an increased cost of
$2.1 million ($6 million minus $3.8 million) rather than the
$11 million increase claimed b ISD 192.
This is highly speculative, at best. There is, thus far, no
evidence that building on an alternate site would result in a
dela of one ear.
EXIlI8'17 A
4 "Architectural Redesign for $500,000 This figure, which is identical to the figure on Line #7 below,
New Site" implies that none of the design work that has been done to
date would be of any value whatsoever if the already-designed
(or at least partially designed) school was built on another site
and that the interior and/or exterior of the school would have
to be completely redone even if the alternate site was similar
to the original site. This seems unlikely.
5 "Roads and Utilities (Flagstaff ($6,266,700) Using $6.26 million as the infrastructure cost, rather than the
Avenue)" City's estimate of$10.6 million, has the effect of artificially
inflating the cost differential between the two sites by $4.34
million.
6 "Roads and Utilities (195tn $4,500,000 This figure incorrectly assumes that ISD 192 would be
Street per City CIP)" expected to pay 1 00% of the cost of extending 1951h Street
through the Seed/Genstar property. In reality, Dakota County
is expected to pay 55% of the cost, which will leave $2.025
million to be paid by others. If the assessment area for the
road project is assumed to include the southern 300 acres of
the Seed/Genstar property, and ifISD 192 bought 60 of those
acres, the District's pro-rated share of the assessment would
be about $405,000 rather than the $4.5 million claimed by the
District.
7 "Architectural Fees for 500,000 As with Line #2 above, this figure does not accurately
Christensen Design Work" represent an "added cost" of building the high school on an
alternate site. This is a cost that the District has already
incurred. The cost differential, if any, would be accounted for
by a "Line #4 number" that reflected the actual cost of
modifying the existing design work to accommodate an
alternate site.
l/l
Ql
...
0 8
l/l nl ~I
l!! It)
0 M
nl G> l/l
l/l It) l!!
..... ;:,
l/l l!! :c 0
l!! 0 i;; nl
0 nl l/l l/l l!! ..c:: 0
nl 0 l!! l!! 0 ......
- ......
0 l/l It) 0 0 .= nl
CX! l!! N nl nl :S S
...... 0 It) a> "0
...... .... '<I: ~ Ql .iij
nl c:
~ l/l
0 l/l l!!
l/l 0:: l!! 0
l!! ..c:: 0 l/l l/l nl
l/l 0 ;) nl l/l l/l l/l l!! l!! ......
Ql nl ''It l!! l!! l!! M
... 0 0 CD l/l 0 0 c:i
0 N 0 0 0 nl nl
CIO c:i nl nl nl l!! ......
nl cD ..... a> CD
CD 0 CD M CIO 0 a> N .... l/l
CIO ~ U; :Q "! "! "! nl M ..t .2 l!!
N ...... CIO 0
Ql OJ a> N OJ nl
0 3: c:i ......
~ 0:: c: ...... N Co; c: ''It
..c:: :;;: "0 "0 :;;: CIO
- - ... "0 "0 "0 ra Qj Qj ... en
;:, Ql ;:, Qj Qj Qj
0 Ql 0 nl N ;;: ;;: nl
U ... l/l a. ;;: ;;: ;;: nl a.
U) ii: (ij (ij - E
c: (ij (ij (ij (ij c:
.!!l 0 ..c:: .0 .0 Ql ;:,
c: ..c:: :e .0 .0 .0 .0 Ql Ql "0 "0
- ~ ~ ~ ~ 1:: l/l l/l
c: CIO ;:, .l!l
1Il 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C1l nl U)
l- N a. U) U) U) U) z m m U)
---
-
-
-
-
1II
~
U
c(
CO
CO
..;
- ~ -
_--- -~(fO --
....... _ t.._
....... -- ---
/' ....... ---
./ .......
/ ".
])
\.'\:>
.J'>.
':-.. ~
"''''''' s
::::,. <:>
~(.)
,~
~
--z.
~
~
~
"l
'"?'
~
l>-
::;:
'"
<3"-
"
M-If
~
~
,~,Jf'
>,
~
:~
~
..-
::...
~
=
.~ U"I
~ ~I
~
~'P-
~
~
~
-":v'
" .!.....
\.~
.J'
~
S
Q
U
"
\~ ~
U ~
-z.. ~
~ ~
~ ~
"-7
~ 7"~
r.>.- ~
~
~
<>
....:>
i.~<
'":l
...... ... iT- .~
,f,
(.I-
,. :.
.....
-..:~'
. . J
t.:
'vi
~
l'--
ct...
.........
MH
IQ
::...
~
=
.~ I"
~':.I
~~
~ts
~
~
~
....s"\
~~
..:::... "S
o 0
~c::..:>
\.~ '"
~ ~
~ ~~
a.. ~
; ~
~ ~
D- c>
k
"'"
~
'"
1).,,"
......
~
"-~;:;:4~~;~;~':"i
'"
:--.t
..\'
"A:'
~.
.;:::.
t'
,f
::...
~
=
~
'- &I)
:s:~
~:::-
~~
~
~
ff
if. t'
~,
-.
- -;W .-
.' ...