Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.05.05 Council Packet City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Mission Statement Through teamwork and cooperation, the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserve our proud past and foster a promisingfuture. AGENDA PRE-CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 5, 2005 6:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVE AGENDA 3. CITIZEN COMMENTS a) Interview Heritage Preservation Commission Applicant COUNCIL REVIEW OF AGENDA 5. STAFF COMMENTS 6. ADJOURN PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT Council workshops are conducted as an informal work session, all discussions shall be considered fact-finding, hypothetical and unofficial critical thinking exercises, which do not reflect an official public position. Council work session outcomes should not be construed by the attending public and/or reporting media as the articulation of a formal City policy position. Only official Council action normally taken at a regularly scheduled Council meeting should be considered as aformal expression of the City's position on any given matter. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Mission Statement Through teamwork and cooperation, the City of Farmington provides quality , services that preserve our proud past and foster a promising future. AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 5, 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. APPROVEAGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENDATIONS a) Acknowledge Retirement - Police Department b) Oath of Office - Police Department c) Mayoral Proclamation Recognizing COL Lawrence John Cook Acknowledged Sworn-In Proclaimed 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (6120/05 Regular) b) Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes - Parks and Recreation c) Approve Heritage Preservation Commission Appointment - Administration d) Appointment Recommendation - Human Resources e) School and Conference - Police f) School and Conference - Administration g) Adopt Resolution - Mystic Meadows Development Contract - Engineering h) 20Sth Street Extension to Pilot Knob Road (Industrial Park) - Community Development i) Approve Bills Approved Information Received Approved Approved Authorized Approved R83-05 Approved Approved 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARDOFCONTRACT o. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Preview of Conversion from Housing and Redevelopment Authority to Economic Development Authority - Community Development Information Received b) Adopt Resolution - Vermillion River Crossings Revised Preliminary Plat and Final Plat - Community Development R84-05 c) Adopt Ordinance - Text Amendment to Allow Public and Parochial Schools in the B-2 District - Community Development d) Adopt Ordinance - Text Amendment Defining Special Event Signs and Allowing Special Event Signs - Community Development e) Adopt Ordinance - Text Amendment to Increase the Size of Garage Sale Signs - Community Development f) Adopt Ordinance - Text Amendment to Allow A-frame Signs on Private Property - Community Development 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Progress Report Council/Staff Retreat Goals - Administration 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. ADJOURN Ord 005-537 Ord 005-538 Ord 005-539 Ord 005-540 Information Received 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 promisingjUture. AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 5, 2005 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVE AGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENDATIONS a) Acknowledge Retirement - Police Department b) Oath of Office - Police Department c) Mayoral Proclamation Recognizing COL Lawrence John Cook 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (6/20/05 Regular) b) Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes - Parks and Recreation c) Approve Heritage Preservation Commission Appointment - Administration d) Appointment Recommendation - Human Resources e) School and Conference - Police f) School and Conference - Administration g) Adopt Resolution - Mystic Meadows Development Contract - Engineering h) 20gth Street Extension to Pilot Knob Road (Industrial Park) - Community Development i) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT Action Taken Page 1 Pages 2-37 Pages 38-39 Pages 40-41 Page 42 Pages 43-46 Pages 47-48 Pages 49-69 Pages 70-71 Page 72 o. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Preview of Conversion from Housing and Redevelopment Authority to Economic Development Authority - Community Development Pages 73-77 b) Adopt Resolution - Vermillion River Crossings Revised Preliminary Plat and Final Plat - Community Development Pages 78-93 c) Adopt Ordinance - Text Amendment to Allow Public and Parochial Schools in the B-2 District - Community Development Pages 94-101 d) Adopt Ordinance - Text Amendment Defining Special Event Signs and Allowing Special Event Signs - Community Development Pages 102-105 e) Adopt Ordinance - Text Amendment to Increase the Size of Garage Sale Signs - Community Development Pages 106-107 f) Adopt Ordinance - Text Amendment to Allow A-frame Signs on Private Property - Community Development Pages 108-111 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Progress Report Council/Staff Retreat Goals - Administration Pages 112-114 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. ADJOURN s~ PROCLAMATION Honoring Colonel Lawrence John Cook WHEREAS, Colonel Cook is a 1968 graduate of Farmington High School, a three-sport athlete, an honor society member, and; WHEREAS, Colonel Cook has served 30 years in the U.S. Army as a U.S. Army Dentist, and; WHEREAS, Colonel Cook has held a variety of military positions in a variety of locations within the United States and overseas, and; WHEREAS, Colonel Cook has received numerous awards and decorations, and' , WHEREAS, Colonel Cook will be retiring from service on October 31, 2005. THEREFORE, I, Kevan Soderberg, Mayor of the City of Farmington, submit this Proclamation honoring the military service of Colonel Lawrence John Cook. Kevan Soderberg, Mayor let- COUNCIL MINUTES PRE-MEETING June 20, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Soderberg at 6:30 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson None Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; 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 2. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. COUNCIL REVIEW OF AGENDA The interview for the Heritage Preservation Commission applicant was postponed to the next meeting, therefore item 7h) approving the appointment was removed from the regular agenda. Regarding the item on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning for the high school site, Mayor Soderberg stated he did not want to rehash the Planning Commission hearing. He asked that staff give a brief introduction, citizens and the school board will be allowed to present new information, and he will poll the Council as to whether they feel this is a financial or philosophical decision. This will be done by seniority, so Mayor Soderberg would speak first. Councilmember Fogarty noted there is a huge jump in appliances for the curbside clean- up. She knew it was still under budget, but asked ifthe budget would be adjusted in the future. Staffwill meet with Lakeville Sanitation on the issue. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked about the solid waste exemptions. He asked if those residents were still using the curbside clean-up. Staff noted these are exemptions that were not received in time for the last Council Meeting. As far as participation in curbside clean-up, staff would have to research if any items were placed on the curb at those sites. Staff can do this through Lakeville Sanitation. Council Minutes (Pre-Meeting June 20, 2005 Page 2 4. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Darcy Zehnder, 20602 Flagstaff Avenue, stated people have been calling them regarding the school issue and some of the information given was not factual. Sites they referenced and costs were not correct. They were told the site was at 195th Street and Flagstaff, not across the street from them. He has concerns with traffic. There are two middle schools, a campus just built, and there will be some fairly young uneducated drivers with very little experience driving past, there will be a lot of neighborhoods with kids walking to school, working farms with slow moving equipment, a lot of traffic turning into the school and a lot of school buses. It seems like there will have to be additional police force, because it is a ways out from the City due to the amount of traffic disturbances that could happen. They will probably be forced to hook up to utilities that are added and that is something they would not have had to do for another 15 years. He felt the school should pick up some of that. In the spring and fall there are dry conditions out there with a lot of long grass. He worried about additional traffic and cigarette butts starting grass fires. Mr. John Glynn, 20850 Flagstaff Avenue, stated he has lived there for 28 years. He had three main issues. One is the comprehensive plan. If the school goes in you can forget the comprehensive plan. He did not think anyone had any idea as to what this will do to the western quadrant of Farmington. Now there are less than 200 cars a day going past his house. He estimated that would go up to 2,000 if the school goes in and the road is paved. It will change the whole area. You have to beat the developers offwith sticks if you think you will maintain the comprehensive plan. It will not work. If you are for the comprehensive plan, vote no on the school site. The school district can work it out and there are other areas that would work. The other issue is safety. The traffic will not only be people using the school facilities, that will be an open north-south highway all paved and it will be like Cedar Avenue, only a narrow Cedar Avenue. It will be a real problem. Flagstaff is all hills, he did not know ifthe $6.8 million will take the hills out. It is a dangerous area to put a school. There is slow moving farm equipment, heavy grain trucks, milk trucks, tractors pulling heavy equipment, etc. Now you will have people coming over the hills at 50-60 mph and it will be a real problem. Also, law enforcement. The City might as well hire a couple more officers already, because it will be needed if the school goes in. The speeds will have to be kept down to 25-30 mph through the hilly area. It will have to be strictly enforced. Another problem is with hunting. He literally on more than one occasion has had bullets flying over his head. That is on his own property. Hunters are hunting birds and deer. This cannot happen with a school. There will have to be ordinances preventing that and it will have to be heavily enforced. This is all cost. The heavy equipment will be hard on the roads and will be hard to maintain. Who will pay for all that? Ms. Julianne Almquist, 18574 Explorer Court, presented a petition signed by 135 residents in support of amending the comprehensive plan. Council Minutes (Pre-Meeting June 20, 2005 Page 3 5. STAFF COMMENTS a) Cable Commission Audit Review The cable commission hired HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. To do an audit review of franchise fee payments from Charter Communications from 2001-2003. 6. ADJOURN MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by McKnight to adjourn at 6:48 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~?r7~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR June 20, 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 Leon Orr, Kris Akin, JJ Akin, Bill Fischer, Jake Shaffer, Dan Moore, John and Alexis Glynn, Kevin and Julie McKnight, Randy Oswald, Jeff Carpenter, Jim and Theresa Wolfe, Ann Manthey, Brad and Terry Meeks, Pam and Darcy Zehnder, Sue Rydberg, Julianne Almquist, Carla Nohr Schulz, Karen Bergman, Dale Sundstrom, Tim Weyandt, Monica Kittock-Sargent, Kari Dotting, Mike and Lisa Lawrence, Ryan Weyandt, Marlo Dahl, Randy Becker, Chris Weyandt, John Kapustka, Terry Donnelly, Dan Privette, Mark Beltz, Debbie Donnelly, Bob Donnelly Jr., Julie Endersbe, Cheryl Retterath, Mike Devney, Steve Devney, Trey Davis 4. APPROVE AGENDA Item 7h) Approve Appointment Heritage Preservation Commission was pulled from the agenda. The order was changed for items 12a) and b). MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Introduce Promoted Employees - Police Department Detective Sergeant Lee Hollatz and Patrol Sergeant Brian Lindquist and Patrol Sergeant Bob Sauter were introduced to the Council. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 2 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Wilson, second by Pritzlaffto approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (6/6/05 Regular) (6/1/05 Special) b) Approved Appointment Recommendation - Police Department c) Approved Appointment Recommendation - Police Department d) Received Information Curbside Clean-up Day Report - Parks and Recreation e) Approved Solid Waste Exemptions - Parks and Recreation f) Acknowledged Resignation - Human Resources g) Received Information School and Conference - Human Resources i) Received Information May 2005 Financial Report - Finance j) Approve Shooting Range Agreement - Police Department k) Approved License for Utility to Cross Protected Waters - Engineering I) Approved Conservation Easement for Wetland Bank - Charleswood Development - Engineering Adopted RESOLUTION R77-05 Tamarack Ridge 4th Addition Development Contract - Engineering Adopted RESOLUTION R78-05 Bristol Square 5th Addition Development Contract - Engineering Adopted Joint RESOLUTION R79-05 Approving Bauer Property Annexation- Community Development p) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. m) n) 0) 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) 2004 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report - Finance Finance Director Roland presented the 2004 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for 2004. The general fund for the end of 2004 saw a decrease in the fund balance of$534,828 taking the fund balance total to $1,494,664. This is 24% of the 2004 annual expenditures. The preferred fund balance is 35%-40% of annual expenditures. It is staffs goal this year to present a plan to re-build the fund balance to 35%-40%. In 2004 general fund revenues were less than budgeted by $121,772 or 1% ofthe budgeted revenues. The expenditures were $413,056 more than budgeted. The combination ofthe two resulted in the decline of the fund balance by 26%. Staff will be addressing comments made in the management report. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson to accept the Annual Financial Report for the period ending December 31, 2004. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Spruce Street Project Update - Administration The Council ordered the feasibility study on January 5, 2004, the feasibility study was accepted on September 7,2004, the improvement project public hearing was Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 3 held on October 18,2004 and Council ordered the project on October 18, 2004. To complete the project this year, Council would have to authorize the advertisement for bids tonight and bids would be awarded on July 18, and the project would start August 1,2005. The problem with this timeline is staffwas looking at the financial information from the developer and they are requesting consideration of some program as they cannot pay all of the assessments. Normally development pays for itself. Council would need time to consider this request. The timing also needs to be considered. The plat would be presented at the June 28,2005 Special Planning Commission meeting and presented to Council on July 5,2005. There are still steps with the development contract. Once the final plat is approved, they will start grading. The developer has discussed starting the second phase in 2006 or 2007. Even if the road and bridge were constructed this year, it would not connect with the developer's plans for another year. As the details are not in order, it will expose the City to some capitalized interest. This is an unnecessary cost. Staff recommends working through the details with the developer and bid over the winter. Councilmember Wilson understood staff is working diligently with the developer. He asked if communication was good with the developer. City Administrator Urbia replied it is and staff is working with them. This is not to delay the project. Once the final plat is approved, grading will begin for the initial businesses. Councilmember Wilson stated the grant can be extended. City Administrator Urbia stated the grant is due June 30,2006 and it can be extended to June 20, 2007 if staff can guarantee it will be done. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked what businesses would be completed this year to help the developer. Staff replied one is a nationally recognized fast food operation, a well-known financial institution, and a hotel. They are working with other businesses for the second phase. At least one business will be in operation by the end of the year. Council agreed to delay the Spruce Street Extension and Bridge Project construction until 2006. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Approve Bond Sale - Finance There were three separate bond sales. Ms. Shelly Eldridge, Ehlers & Associates, coordinated the bond sale. The first bond sale was for $2,635,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds to finance the reconstruction of Ash Street. The low bidder was Wells Fargo Brokerage Services with an interest of 3.9389%. , This is a IS-year bond. MOTION by Wilson, second by Pritzlaff adopting RESOLUTION R80-05 awarding the sale ofthe $2,635,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds of2005B to Wells Fargo. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. The second bond sale was for $2,280,000 General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds to pay for the construction of Fire Station #2. There is a Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 4 reverse referenda on this. After May 16, 2005 if 5% of the population would have petitioned to vote on this, the bonds would have required a vote. That did not happen. Wells Fargo was the low bidder. This is a 20-year issue at 4.2027%. MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight adopting RESOLUTION R81-0S awarding the sale of the $2,280,000 G.O. Capital Improvement Plan Bonds, Series 2005C to Wells Fargo. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. The third bond sale was for $730,000 General Obligation Equipment Certificates to finance budgeted 2005 equipment purchases. These are 5-year bonds and are 100% supported by tax levy. Wells Fargo was the low bidder with an interest of 3.21 %. MOTION by McKnight, second by Pritzlaff adopting RESOLUTION R82-0Sawarding the sale ofthe $730,000 G.O. Equipment Certificates of2005D to Wells Fargo. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 12. NEWBUSINESS b) Adopt Resolution and Ordinance - Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning Christiansen Property - Community Development Community Development Director Carroll stated the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 14,2005. The goal was to make certain the public understood what the comprehensive plan is and what it does. City Planner Lee Smick was working for the City at the time the Comp Plan was amended in 1998 and the process ended in 2000. City Planner Smick stated there have been a number of people attending the Planning Commission and Council meetings. She asked everyone for the next Comp Plan visioning session to please come out. In 1998 there were 60 people and 30 were citizens. This will be done again in 2006- 2007. School District 192 has requested to amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan from urban reserve to public/semi-public for a 11 O-acre property located west of Flagstaff Avenue and south of CR64. Secondly, consider amending the text of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan to address any internal inconsistencies that would be created by the approval ofthe Comp Plan amendment and/or by the construction of a high school on the property in question and to consider a request by ISD 192 to rezone the property (the Christiansen property) from A-I to R-l. The Comp Plan has a number of components. It is a guide to the physical development of the City. It goes between 8-10 years for review. It discusses land use, transportation, infrastructure and where located, housing, preservation, etc. It is also a statement of policy. Utilize the Comp Plan has a guide. It is an ever moving document. Staff tries to make sense of it as new comprehensive amendments come into the City. There is a lot of opportunity to continue with this 2020 Comp Plan, bringing in new citizenry to talk about the next comprehensive plan. We do have this one on the table and it is working very well. She wanted to show Council how it is working by understanding the urban reserve area on the west side and the development on the east side. There were 1,060 acres that we needed to provide MUSA for in the upcoming years to 2020. Staffhad to make the decision to put it on the west side or on the east side where Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 5 there is infrastructure and a road that is readily usable. There were willing land developers on the east side. Staff made a promise that there would be no development on the west side until 2020. Mr. Mark Beltz, a former school district employee, did a lot of the projections in 1998. They worked hard to determine where the school district would need to go. City Planner Smick was on all three task force committees throughout the years. Mr. Beltz was on the Comprehensive Plan Task Force at that time. The reason the comp plan is working is everything is happening on the east side. The west side is still considered urban reserve. Infrastructure was not prepared there and was not slated to go there. Infrastructure is slated to go in the east side. They needed 1,060 acres and made a decision they would be on the east side of the City, not on the west side. The first issue is for the land use. The school district is proposing going from urban reserve to public/semi-public. They are proposing rezoning the area from A-I to R-1 to allow for a school. Any school in an R-1 zoning district has to go through a CUP process. This is a land use issue because the comp plan talks about staging. MUSA has not been granted to the Christiansen site yet. There have been some misstatements in some meetings. MUSA does not exist on the Christiansen property at this point. The possibility of granting MUSA was discussed in October 2004, but they need to go through some steps before they get MUSA. It is the Comp Plan amendment, the rezone, the text amendment to the comp plan all needs to be approved by the Council, then it goes to the Met Council and they have to approve it as well. That is when the possibility of MUSA is achieved. Councilmember Wilson asked to what extent did the City involve the school district and he asked City Planner Smick to comment on the containment, or lack thereof, of identified properties for school buildings and how that might be shown on the comp plan. City Planner Smick stated Mr. Mark Beltz was a school district employee in 1998 and did a lot of calculations for the school and the proposed number of students. He was at all ofthe meetings and visioning sessions and City Planner Smick was then selected to be on his task force in 1999 for the school district. Regarding the task force meetings, the task force as far as the school district, never allowed the City to point out any sites. The reason is you do not want to tip your hand to future fanners. The school has gone through 34 sites and they had some difficulty there. However, there are some developers that are interested in helping the school district right now. As far as the task force, they never talked about location. When the Comp Plan was done in 1998 they did not talk about location as far as schools, because in 1999 the school task force came after that. Typically you do not see school districts on comp plans. Councilmember Wilson recalled the comp plan did identify the current acres allocated for institutional buildings to be around 300 and then projected by 2020 to be 440-450 acres. Generally identifying a high school on one and two elementary schools depending on size. City Planner Smick stated in July 1999 they gave the Met Council the Comp Plan. At that time they were looking at only 143 public/semi-public acres. Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 6 Councilmember Pritzlaff asked back in 1998 how many people lived on Flagstaff or knew of the promises that were made to people out there. He wanted to know how many people are affected by the promises given. Staff did not know the number. They talked to a lot of property owners that had large acres of land and some that had only five acres. They did not want to see development out there in 1998. They told staff they did not want to see it and asked staffto promise there would be no development until 2020 and they would support the Comp Plan for growth to the east. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated a school is development. Whether it be houses or whatever, development is development. To take away promises given and to see how the comp plan is working would be by force. City Planner Smick stated they asked property owners in 2002 and they still wanted to see it as agriculture until 2020. Dr. Brad Meeks, ISD 192 Superintendent, asked City Planner Smick some questions about the MUSA map and asked her to explain the shading on the map. City Planner Smick explained the dark red is not recommended for MUSA at this time, the pink is ag preserve, property N is in ag preserve until 2012, not recommended for MUSA at this time, property P2 is in ag preserve not recommended for MUSA at this time, PI is MUSA allocated upon removal from ag preserve - school use only. Dr. Meeks stated even though these are not recommended for MUS A, the property owners did put in an application for MUSA. City Planner Smick replied they are gearing themselves up for development, but it is up to Council on whether they can develop. Dr. Meeks reviewed some of the timelines. Starting in October 2004 through this meeting were a series of recommendations and actions taken on the Christiansen property, the bond referendum, EQB, etc. that were indications to the school district that the project was okay to proceed. One ofthe things Community Development Director Carroll recommended were some suggested sites the school district could consider in addition to the Christiansen site at this point in time. The school did a breakdown on what switching sites would do. He showed the costs ofthe land, new school and site, road and utilities (Flagstaff to 195th) with a total of $86,960,509. If they were to switch sites they risk losing the Christiansen site which would be $3.9 million. One replacement site was Seed- Genstar which to replace 110 acres would be a minimum of $1 OO,OOO/acre. That is $11 million. Construction inflation to delay the project for one year was 5%. Architectural re-design for a new site would be $500,000. They did back out the cost for Flagstaff and added road and utilities for 1 95th Street to TH3 which is $4.5 million. That could be negotiable between the school and another developer, but at one of the meetings there was discussion about Diamond Path being developed. Architectural fees already invested in the Christiansen site is $500,000. The total from the district's perspective is this is an $18 million decision to switch sites at this point. It was also mentioned at the Planning Commission meeting concern about economic development if the high school were to be on the Christiansen site. It will force people to go to Lakeville, Apple Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 7 Valley, etc. He presented a map showing the distance from the proposed site to various areas. He stated the high school site is closer to Fannington businesses, past, current and future. He asked what is the toughest decision a superintendent has to make. It is to call a snow day. It is because he has to become an amateur meteorologist, he has to know that every student in the district will be happy about the decision, parents not so much. It is a difficult decision, because when it is made, it affects every child and parent in the district. In practical terms, it affects the whole community. Once those wheels are set in motion, you cannot have a redo. You cannot call off snow days. This is how the school district feels about the high school project. It is one the district has been working on since November 2002 and culminated in a successful referendum in February 2005. This success was due to hundreds of people giving their time for a variety oftasks and ultimately 3800 people showing up at the polls to cast their vote. He appreciated the efforts the City has contributed thus far in land discussions and ideas, but to stop the project now for an indiscernible period oftime to explore sites that mayor may not be suitable for a high school at this juncture is like trying to take back a snow day. Community Development Director Carroll recommended two alternate sites for consideration. One ofthem he has talked about and economically would make it very difficult for the school to come out even and perhaps the developer may have some issues with that as well. One of the things the school is quite certain is development would not be able to begin this fall and probably not until next spring and they would miss their window to get the school on line by 2008. For the other site suggested, he understood the developer does not even own the land and there are more questions with that than answers and there are also issues with TH3. They have talked about safety on Flagstaff and feels there is at least as much safety concern along TH3 with both sites. At a state meeting last week, it was indicated there were no major improvements or widening ofTH3 through 2030. Traffic generated by a 2,000 student high school and the growth generated by Genstar and other residential developments along TH3 are at least as significant for safety as Flagstaff. They are also concerned that if they do look at sites and they do not meet the school's needs and criteria, what happens then. The clock is already ticking. He wanted to address the comments, facts and inferences to the referendum vote in February that it was not reflective ofthe populous due to the voter turnout. He was not sure why that was necessary. He hoped it was not meant to diminish the accomplishments of that day of the hundreds of people that put their efforts and hearts in the project and the thousands that did exercise their right to vote and it eventually resulted in 62% of the voters that day supporting the referendum. He also wanted to point out the Council vote on recommending MUSA for the Christiansen property. He understood there were more steps to go. From the district's perspective, they felt they accomplished the two main criteria they had to achieve for the property to move ahead. One that it was restricted to use as a school and it had to be removed from ag preserve through the EQB which they accomplished. Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 8 Dr. Meeks was concerned about the lack of credence to the Planning Commission discussion and respecting the authority vested in the school board and the decisions they have to make. What he also heard at the Planning Commission meeting was people that were encouraging the school district and the City that this issue be resolved quickly and get the high school constructed in a timely manner. He took those comments to heart. This project is a wonderful opportunity for our entities to collaborate and is a tremendous reflection of the level of support for education by school district residents. We should be proud of this. This issue that ignited the misunderstandings between the Council and the School Board was the extension of Flagstaff Avenue north of 195th Street and who would pay for those improvements. As the Superintendent of Schools and reflecting the thoughts of School Board members he informed the Council that the school district will assume the financial responsibility for paving Flagstaff from Hwy 50 to the Lakeville border. The school intends to use their bond referendum monies and other resources within their budget, for example capital outlay, to ensure this happens. This will impact the projects reflected in the bond referendum, but Dr. Meeks and the Board feel they can still achieve their goals. It is not their intent to go out to voters for more bonds funds. The community and residents of ISD 192 have been extremely generous and the school will not be abusing this generosity. This bond was to cover the school's building needs for eight years and that will still be their goal. He realized some still have philosophical issues with the comp plan amendment, but he encouraged them to view the plan as a living document as they have done on numerous occasions. It should be modified to reflect the rapid changes of the community. The existing comp plan was based on the premise of municipal population growth of27,000 people by 2020. However, by 2004 the population reached 18,000 people, well ahead of it's projected 2005 population of just over 16,000 people. It is not hard to envision with the new residential development already projected for completion in the coming few years that the City will reach the projected 2020 population threshold well in advance of that date. He encouraged the Council to modify the comp plan for the better good of the community and the students in the school district. To modify it for a reality that is approaching far more rapidly than the current text now envisions. Council is not considering a commercial development or housing subdivision. Council is considering a public school developed by your local school board, approved and funded by your community's taxpayers to serve your children now and into decades to come. He cannot knowingly create a situation of overcrowding and unnecessary short term expenditures to bring in temporary classrooms for staff and almost 7,000 students in the fall of 2008. It is not the type of environment we should provide and it is not one the residents will tolerate, nor should they. Dr. Meeks stated if Council can accept the school's offer and provide the needed approvals the school district does have three requests of the City. 1. If Council finds they can contribute MSA street or road and bridge funds toward the Flagstaff Avenue project, the school would be receptive to the use Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 9 ofthose funds. The school realizes the City has other worthy street projects, but would hope that even a small contribution can be made on an annual basis. If not MSA funds, perhaps the amount of money now budgeted for maintenance on Flagstaff Avenue could be used. Perhaps this would be an item Council could further consider once the final traffic study report is finalized and the actual average daily traffic volumes are known. As the school has already demonstrated, they are not without creative ideas that may be implemented towards this end. Every dollar of the district's money that Council is able to free up through the contribution of monies through the mechanisms available to the City allows the district to reinvest those dollars for the benefits of the children of this community. That being said, whatever Council decides on the use ofMSA funds or other resources available, the school will still stick with their commitment to finish the road and complete the necessary infrastructure. 2. The school district asks the City's assistance in requesting that county highway 64 between 195th Street and 200th Street on Flagstaff Avenue be placed on the county's CIP as soon as possible. 3. The school district would ask the Council to work with them for an affirmative action with the Met Council on the Comp Plan amendment as well as affirmative action on all other governmental approvals the school will need from the City in the coming future. Including, without limitation, preliminary and final plat approvals as well as the granting of a conditional use permit. Our students are too valuable to all of us not to proceed with this project in the timeline needed to complete the project in 2008 and honor the voter's requests from the February 15, 2005 bond referendum. The school district is confident that the Christiansen site can support their needs and will provide a facility the community will take pride in for decades. Weare a fortunate community to be growing and have a commitment to invest in education. He encouraged the Council to save the taxpayers $18 million and ensure that the students have adequate space to learn in 2008. The design team has been working on the high school project since shortly after the referendum passed. The plans are coming together and the design team and staff are becoming more excited about the site and building. This is but one piece of our comprehensive facilities plan. However, each building and programmatic change are linked together. One portion of the plan that does not stay on track affects all. The school appreciates the difficulties some have had with this site, but asked Council to look beyond those difficulties to what we can together achieve. Dr. Meeks asked for Council's unanimous support in approving both the requested amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and to their petition to rezone the Christiansen property. Councilmember McKnight asked Dr. Meeks what estimate he was using to pave Flagstaff from 195th to Lakeville. Dr. Meeks replied it is the estimate the City provided, around $3.5 or $3.6 million. It is just the road. In the school's discussions there was no need to talk about sewer and water, it was just the road. Mayor Soderberg stated the feasibility study will provide those costs better. The Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 10 engineering estimate was a best guess. Dr. Meeks noted the only hard number they have right now is the purchase price for the Christiansen property. DLR and Mortenson are putting bid packages together as they move out and try to get some hard numbers. Mr. Leon Orr, 19161 Echo Lane, stated he served eight years as the Chair of the Parks Commission, and 12 years on the City Council. He wanted to deal with some of the actions that have been taken by the school district thus far and what is being asked of the Council. Whatever Council does on this issue, it should not be done because of inappropriate actions already taken by the school district. Council's actions should be taken because of your responsibilities to the citizens of Farmington to develop and implement long-range comprehensive land use plans for our City. Yes, you should massage the plan as time moves forward, but please do not abandon it and that is what Council is being asked to do this evening. Mr. Orr stated when he says inappropriate actions by the school district, he chose this word "inappropriate" because it is the softest descriptive word he could come up with to describe the school's actions thus far. Here are some inappropriate actions: Closing on the purchase of property with $3.8 million of public money before they knew they could use the site for a new high school because of all the issues that remain to be resolved with the City and the Met Council. This was inappropriate. Using public bond money to purchase that site, which now cannot be used for a high school even if it is returned is inappropriate. If Council does not approve it and the school cannot use that money for the high school, they should have known that when they bought the property and that was not appropriate. Having their architect continue to draw a lot of site specific, expensive schematic plans for the Flagstaff site before all ofthe issues outstanding were resolved was inappropriate. Mr. Orr stated he did not believe any of Council in their own private lives or private businesses would do any of those actions on the purchase of property. You might make a purchase agreement, but you would have contingencies that would protect you. You certainly would not keep on spending money until you had those problems resolved. Even if Council approves this plan this evening, Mr. Orr did not believe it will pass the Met Council and school officials cannot tell you it would either. This simply amplifies the fact that their costly actions to date have been inappropriate. He believes these inappropriate actions by school officials were taken as a strategy to put Council's backs to the wall and it was their belief that Council would have to approve this site because they had already spent such a large amount of public money. For Council to approve this change because of their inappropriate actions would indeed be inappropriate. The longer school officials continue to travel down this dead end road, they and not Council, jeopardize having a high school ready for the students at the right time in 2008. It seems to him that school officials have ignored the biggest pool of available Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 11 knowledge of pertinent issues such as roads, transportation, plans, storm water, sanitary sewer, water, soils conditions, zoning, land use plans in existence, etc. This vast pool of knowledge is the professional staff of this City. They work daily with the county, state and Met Council on all of these issues. When you do not follow the procedures, be it an individual, public body, a corporation, small business you get yourself in a comer and bad things happen. There was a farmer in St. Croix County Wisconsin. Farmers way back were accustomed to doing things their way without approvals being necessary. This farmer was going to retire and owned a cabin on Cedar Lake. He was going to retire from farming and wanted to build his retirement house on the lake. The cabin was a non-conforming cabin. He tore it down and started building his house for his retirement without the proper coordination. He was cited for it by the building officials, but kept building. He got his basement in, got it all done and it went all the way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. He has to remove the house from the site, demolish the basement and now that the original cabin was non-conforming he cannot even build a building the size of the original cabin. He is left with a lake lot he can only camp on because he did not follow the procedures even after he was made aware of them. Mr. Orr asked Council to do the right thing for the citizens of Farmington. School officials have failed the citizens of the district. Please do not feel compelled to do the same. Mr. Mark Beltz, 22488 Chippendale Avenue, stated he was Business Manager of the school district from 1989-1997 and then did some consulting work with the district from 1997-1999. He consults with school districts across Minnesota. He found it easier to consult with school districts other than those in your community so you do not have to always see people that you have to deal with in the work life. He spoke regarding his experiences when he was working on the comp plan after it's draft and near finalization through the school's growth planning task force. He wanted to talk about the challenges that he and the school district had then and every school district has to deal with today with this acquisition of land issue that is so difficult. Mr. Beltz stated he and City Planner Smick worked very closely together and had a good relationship with her, and former Community Development Director Dave Olson, former Assistant City Planner Mike Schultz, and Finance Director Roland. He was not here to talk politics or people. The comp plans in 1999 were required by the state and sent to the school by the townships, the City of Farmington, the City of Lakeville, Dakota County all came in the mail with a cover letter to review them. As a school district it was imperative for them to work as closely with the City as they could or the townships, in order to acquire land for growth. If you visualize the comp plan and the developers that are buying land by the time the developers have the land it is too late for the school district to buy it at a reasonable price for the taxpayers. It is too late to plan at that point. You will always be planning as a reactive move rather than a proactive move. When the school got into the growth mode in the early 1990's it became very evident they had to work together as closely as possible to draft plans without identifying specific properties, but general areas Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 12 possibly for development. When they looked at this plan, they were not even discussing the high school other than from the perspective ofthe school district that from a land acquisition point, the school would be looking at something that did not need to be as close to the buildable developments as the elementary schools. The reason is transportation is very expensive. The school has to pay for the transportation of elementary schools and most ofthe middle school students. A lot of high school students drive. From a planning standpoint you would put the schools as close to the kids as possible at the elementary grades because they can walk. So when the Seed-Genstar property was up for development, the school got ahead of the curve as much as they could and always talked about an elementary school on that site. They never really got into the high school discussion as far as site, simply saying generally a high school site does not need to be located as close to the families because everybody drives and you need more acreage. We are talking about 120-160 acres for a high school versus 30-40 and 20 for some communities for an elementary site. The planning of buying these sites is challenging. The only way for a school district to do it effectively is to work as close as possible with either the City or the townships to get ahead of the curve. That is what they did as best they could back then. They never got into sites on a high school. They tried to identify elementary as much as possible because that is where you needed to get ahead of the houses because those are the kids you have to bus. There are traffic concerns also. You cannot expect a child to walk across a busy street. Do not visualize a house as being three blocks away ifthey have to cross Pilot Knob or Akin Road or 19Sth Street. It is very expensive to bus children. That is why the planning took place the way it did. The comp plans have always been a living document. It is just like a financial budget only we are dealing with houses and infrastructure. He has never seen a comp plan that ever lists a school site, unless the school has already acquired it. If you lived in a perfect world you would be buying the land before the developers. Buy 100 acres, put in a 40 acre elementary school, sell the 60 acres to all the developers and make $20,000/acre just like they do and do it with the City. The schools are the last domino on this whole process, from approving a comp plan down to Planning Commission changes, down to a meeting like tonight. The school district has to deal with the cards that are dealt and they get the last ones. They are the ones that have to go to the voters to approve this and that is not easy. They are the ones that get blamed when the taxpayer's statements come out with all the property taxes for school districts. The school made every effort they could back then and hoped that is carried forward. The Seed-Genstar property was always for an elementary school and the high school was in the outskirts or in the township. The challenging part is the planning. The process is faulted. Before a community approves building permits, perhaps school buildings should be approved. When you are a school district and revenue has not been increasing to the level it needs to be and you have to go for excess levy referendums in addition to building referendums they are not easy. If you are already burning the taxpayers good will, eventually they say enough is enough. The townships around this community vote no on referendums because they are voting against growth. Weigh the difficulties in the shoes ofthe school district. Think about Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 13 this from the school's perspective. The school's have almost no ability to buy land and plan for new schools other than to work with the City. It is the only system you have. Ag preserve is the only trump card the school district has because developers cannot get property out ofag preserve but the school districts can. They got it out for Meadowview. You are seven years ahead of a developer with the ag preserve card. He would like to know if the City of Lakeville had to amend their comp plan for their new high school. Staff noted they did. Ms. Cheryl Retterath, 19232 Evenston Drive, stated it occurred to her by approving the school district's plan, Council is following the comp plan, just in fast forward. The east side is developing first. Now there is a little bit of a south portion the community has requested again evolving and moving a little faster than anticipated. By going with it, Council is still following the plan. How many times would Council ask the community to vote? We did vote. We did approve it. The City looks at the City business of it, but she felt it is important to look at the community as a whole and the impacts of the community as a whole and what they have already asked for. Mr. John Kapustka, 19482 Evening Star Way, thanked the district planners for what looks like a great proposal for the new high school. The buildings, the fields, the stadium looks like something all of us as taxpayers can be proud of. It is beautiful. There is no argument for the need. The only question is where to put it. It has nothing to do with not wanting a new high school. Despite the impression that people might get from the way it keeps getting portrayed. He took exception with two of the districts points because they keep taking basic facts and then manipulate them to suit their aims. First, the February referendum was not a referendum or a mandate for that site. Only 14% of eligible voters voted yes and that was the whole realignment question, mainly to keep kids from being subjected to overcrowding. Second, regarding overcrowding that threat keeps coming up as a reason we cannot take the time to get a better site. Like the district wants to avoid it at all costs. They do not talk about the fact that at the EQB meeting in March, they testified that they would be willing to wait a year for that site to be changed from ag preserve if they had to, which was the point of that hearing. They were willing to force overcrowding to keep their Flagstaff Avenue site. So they gave up the moral high ground on overcrowding right then and there. What we have with the Flagstaff site is pieces of a puzzle that do not fit together. There is not a place for the 208th Street extension and yet the district keeps pushing this site as if the problem will go away. The idea that the high school site out there will provide and enhance agricultural studies the role of agriculture in Farmington is silly. Development pressure surrounding the land owners since that site was announced is well known. He said the district should take the same determination they have to stay with a badly flawed site and redirect it to work out a deal with the City for a better site. His choice continues to be Seed-Genstar. Finally, he urged denial of the comp plan amendment by the Council and say to the district that if the vote does not go your way and you sue or encourage someone else to sue you will be wasting taxpayer dollars that could Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 14 have been spent on the schools and you will prove to everyone watching that this is not so much about the kids, it is about ego. Ms. Julianne Almquist, 18574 Explorer Court, stated she is a resident, a taxpayer, a voter and most importantly a parent of two young children in the school district. She stated her recent experience in making policy is setting bedtime in her own house and her comprehensive plan includes the USRDA of sugar for her children and how many hours represent quality family time. Her children just finished kindergarten and second grade. Her second grader was in a class of 28 children. She was shocked at the size of the class, but there is little choice when the kids keep coming and there aren't the facilities to accommodate them. You may wonder why she is so concerned with the potential delay of completing the new high school considering her children are so young and will not be attending the school until several years after completion. The bond for which she voted included several things, including upgrading and changing facilities to meet the growing demand for space in which to educate our children. When one of those pieces is not completed on time there is a domino effect. Specifically if the high school is not ready to accommodate students they will stay in the existing high school building. This in turn delays the renovation of the existing high school to accommodate our junior high students. Her oldest daughter will be in the first class to start at one ofthe two new junior highs. Without that building there will be only one junior high. Three years from now with hundreds and hundreds of housing starts imminent with the families with children who will need an education in addition to the children already in residence, her class of 493 will explode into almost 600 by the time she is in junior high. Junior high is a difficult enough transition for children even in a perfect world. Overcrowd your classrooms and the house model of education is simply defeated. Teachers cannot possibly get to know their students individually and your marginal students become even more marginalized. With this background she came to Council begging for approval ofthe amendment to the comprehensive plan. When she voted yes to the bond, she knew it included enough money to build on the Christiansen property. She knew the high school would be built on Flagstaff even ifthe bond wording itself was not site specific. She heard nothing of the City's concerns of the Christiansen site before the referendum. If these concerns are a deal breaker she most certainly should have heard of them in much stronger language well before the vote, regardless ofthe City's desire not to argue with other government agencies in public. In public is exactly where these issues belong. It is Council's duty to inform the public in a timely manner. If she had incomplete information on the Christiansen site before the vote, it was the City's responsibility to put all the information before the voters. Now that the referendum has been approved it is too late for misgivings and we must move forward. We the voters approved the bond knowing where the high school would be built, also knowing that the children would keep coming. Quality schools contribute to a quality community and vice versa. Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 15 Ms. Cheryl Haan, 19395 Flagstaff Avenue, stated she did not think there was anyone here that doubts that a new school does need to be built. Her question was they are talking about putting a school on the Seed-Genstar property if this does not pass. Anyone that drives on TH3 now knows how bad the traffic is. Now you will add all that additional traffic on TH3 when it was stated earlier that TH3 is not meant to be upgraded for another 30 years. Her concern is the traffic out there. Flagstaff is not a good road now, but ifit is upgraded at least most of the traffic on that road is only going to the school. You are not throwing in all the other people driving to work at the same time. Another point is on the MUSA planning, all the letters show the people that applied for MUSA. If you look up and down the corridor you have 6-8 people applying for MUSA. If they wanted to farm until 2020 why are they applying for MUSA now? Mr. Todd Larson, 819 ih Street, member ofthe Planning Commission, stated Dr. Meeks put up a map with the distances to the shopping areas from the Christiansen site. When he mentioned this at the Planning Commission meeting, he was not talking about people leaving just from the school and going to Lakeville shopping. For people on the north side oftown, it will be much easier for people to drive to the Crossroads in Lakeville and drive home on the north side of town. The $18 million for another site, the district has a site they already own that the high school would work on. There is some opposition in the township, but there is opposition now also. He felt the comp plan does show where the schools need to go and if the school would have done their homework and studied the comp plan like a business before they come into Farmington they could have purchased a site that was more desirable and the farmers would have been more willing to work with them a few years ago. He would like to use the school to help get commercial and retail business into the City to help pay for the school. He does not want to chase businesses out of the City and have the taxpayers have the whole burden of the whole high school. The Angus property is the first property the school district bought for the high school. He was on the MUSA Committee and they broke up the committee until the school district picked a site for the high school. When the school bought the Angus property, the MUSA Committee came back to the table and talked about MUSA and the Christiansen site was dropped on them. It is disturbing him that no one is talking about the Angus site. Everyone is talking about the Seed-Genstar property. He feels the Angus property would work better. We as the taxpayers and the school district own two pieces of property the high school would work on so it cannot be that hard. When he voted, he did not vote on the site, he voted on the dollars. When they voted on the referendum he was pretty sure the engineering and the planning that was needed for the school to go on the Christiansen site was not complete. Ifthe vote was based on the Christiansen site, they did not know in November ifthe high school would work on that site. It is hard for him to link the dollars the referendum represented to the Christiansen site. He felt someone needs to look into the whole process where the taxpayers ended up buying a site where no one was sure everything would work, all the issues were not settled, and how that closed without contingencies. Whether it was the school boards Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 16 representation or the school board itself, but someone should look into it. He does not think the school district did their due diligence when they purchased that property. If you are going to spend $3.8 million someone has to do their due diligence. Regarding the integrity ofthe comp plan, he has been on the Planning Commission for ten years and has worked on the comp plan. The comp plan is liquid and will move around. Mainly they change the comp plan from R-l to R-3 and R-2 to Bl. This is a major change and would destroy the hard work they had done on the comp plan. The comp plan is something that businesses look at that come into Farmington and they put their trust in the City saying they will develop when and where they say they will. As far as the Spruce Street development, how many times was the comp plan brought up with the developers that want to develop in phase one of the Spruce Street corridor. It was brought up all the time. It was about roof tops and traffic before commercial businesses would come in there. The marketers talked about the comp plan endless times and where the growth would be. They want growth going right by the Spruce Street corridor and want traffic going right by there so people will stop. That is why he supports the Angus property. He feels the Christiansen site will chase traffic away from the commitment they already gave the developers for the Spruce Street corridor. He was approached by a high school teacher who wanted to remain anonymous speaking for some high school teachers. They do not want to speak publicly because they are in fear oflosing their jobs. They believe that putting the high school out on the west edge oftown would disconnect them from the community and they want to feel a part ofthe community. They are already calling it Lakeville East High School. The majority do not want it out there. Mr. Jim Wolfe, 5913 188th Street W, stated many things have been so eloquently said on behalf ofthe school district that he is not going to get in the way ofthose comments. He has one request, not on behalf ofthe school district, or anyone, just him. It is time to eliminate the fear mongering. He has heard things along the lines regarding City services such as certain projects will be delayed or cancelled indefinitely, or the City will be required to stop all other projects including hiring more police officers or outfitting the new fire station, but yet the need for the new high school is undisputed. He feels the Council would not disagree, they feel the new high school is necessary, as do the representatives of the school district. He does not think the site would dictate the elimination of those services. On everyone's front, we have to quit the fear mongering and let's try to stick with facts and what is real and data we have before us. As it relates to the 62% statistic, he would invite the debate on that topic. For the record, based upon his information, the three newest City Councilmembers were all voted in by approximately 12%-13% ofthe entire representation of the City of Farmington. Councilmember Wilson clarified he was appointed. Mr. Jeff Carpenter, legal counsel for the school district, wanted to comment on a couple of issues raised. First, he cannot get into the details of how the districts negotiations or handling oftheir purchase process went because that is privileged information to the district. He did point out that the purchase agreement has been Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 17 furnished to the City Council, it is available for review and is a public document. It speaks for itself in terms of the complexity of the process and the contingencies set forth. Second, he wanted to clarify a statement by Mr. Beltz, it would be nice for school districts to be very proactive in going out and acquiring not just land for a school, but enough land to go back and sell to the developers. Mr. Carpenter stated this exceeds the school district's legal authorization. Unlike some other public bodies, school districts have very narrowly defined levels of authority. In fact, as it relates to real property acquisition the authority essentially limits them to acquire what the statute refers to as school houses. It has been more liberally interpreted to extend to recreational fields and other amenities that support the school site. Another clarification, Mr. Kapustka commented about the EQB process and some of the statements that were made at that level. The school did have discussions with the EQB regarding the one year time period. The interpretation is a little misconstrued. It is a complicated process. The school district purposely structured within the agreement a mechanism to enable them to delay the acquisition if they did not get EQB approval for close to the one-year time period it would take for the development restriction to bum off. It was a difficult issue to negotiate with the Christiansen's and they were not very comfortable with that. The presentation made to the EQB was despite the fact that was structured in there, the school also built into the process the continued agricultural use of the property for the 2005 growing season. The reality being the school would not be able to develop the property until after the 2005 growing season. They were trying to explain to the EQB, that while the school understood they had the ability to say no and the consequence of that would be a potential one year delay to the project, the school had structured the one-year delay into the project as it stood right now, and ifthey were able to give the school the go ahead they would have the assurance they could work from going forward. Whereas, if they were delayed a year the school had the uncertainty that went with that with respect to all the other development approvals that they needed. It was an effort to explain to the EQB that their one-year time period was a non-factor for the school because they would continue as an agricultural use for that time period. Mr. Bill Fischer, 18858 Easton Avenue, e-mailed the Council in January when Councilmember Pritzlaffwanted to get a poll on the new site location. There have been some insinuations by some people using the terms inappropriate, due diligence, and ego referring to the school board and Dr. Meeks. He has known Dr. Meeks and Mrs. Meeks since they moved here and knows their kids. He has been involved with Dr. Meeks with varsity sports at the high school and sports outside of the high school. He is a man of integrity. He is a man of character. People have come up here tonight, impugned his integrity, and impugned his character. There has also been a lot of emotion. For people to come up here and impugn the integrity of the school board and Dr. Meeks is inappropriate. He would encourage the Council to vote unanimously for the high school site. We are a representative republic in this country. The public has spoken. You represent us. It is your decision to follow the will of the people and he encouraged Council to follow the will of the people. Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 18 Mr. Pat Regan, Hastings, is the owner of Marschall Bus Lines and has recently asked to have their Empire township property annexed into the City so it can be developed. He has purchased the Duo Plastics facility in the industrial park in anticipation of their future bus business in Farmington. That facility is twice as big as they need today, but they bought it looking towards tomorrow. He is also a part owner of the Airlake Industrial Park in Lakeville where he has developed over 500 acres of industrial property in the last 10 years and he is a part owner and Vice-Chairmain of Premier Bank. They are thrilled to be business owners and to employ as many people as they do in Farmington. They love this town and this area. They have made a big commitment in the industrial park. They have signed two purchase agreements and closed on one. They have signed another one with the Devney's, which has been approved by the Planning Commission. There are a lot of good things going on for them, and for this community. The bank has about 1/3 as many deposits in the Farmington branch as they have invested in loans to developers in this community. They have loaned three times as much money, many, many millions of dollars, deposits that they have garnered in: some of their other 18 offices they have dedicated to the growth in this community. They have been able to do this, because this Council has been growth oriented and because of the schools and the businesses and the feelings you get when you come to Farmington. People like to live in Farmington. All of this growth and all of these risks we have taken and all ofthese risks we have underwritten, they are risks. They are based on a good feeling people have here when they think about where to expand their businesses, where to have their kids educated, where to plant their roots. None of these school sites are going to be clean. None of these business decisions any of us make are perfectly clean and without risk and without contingencies. It does not happen. Everyone sticks their neck out a little bit ifthere is going to be any progress. Every homeowner who takes out a mortgage sticks their neck out. Everything is not perfect, they take risks. He took a big risk in the Farmington industrial park. That was the timing. It had a lot to do with the passage of the bond referendum. He has personally signed guarantees for lots of money because of what he saw as progression with the sky-rocketing growth at the school. There are a lot of kids coming on board. And somehow it will work out for them in their businesses. He believes that the school has moved forward on good faith and with the understanding they would have approval for this project. He feels this project needs to be approved and to move along. The longer you wait, the longer you will delay the positive outcomes that the whole town will have. The highest risk is that the school and Council would be perceived by outsiders as being unable to get along and that is a risk none of us wants to take. It is time to say yes and keep the progress in Farmington moving forward. Ms. Julie Endersbe, 5322 189th Street W, in terms of due diligence, we all remember the editorials in the newspaper when the school board took so long to make a decision. That was very public that this was not a rushed decision. Secondly, she was on the facilities task force from February through the fall with Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 19 three City staff and during that time was when the school board was very public about buying property. They met every other week and the City staffwas very involved with that. It has been reported in the paper that the school was trying to keep information from the City and she had a very different experience. It was refreshing to see that effort because they had not had that before with past administration. She felt they were forgetting this is a new step forward they want to continue with. Third, when talking about good faith, she voted for some of the Council who campaigned on a platform that they wanted to work with the school board, that they wanted to move forward with the school, with the district, that we wanted to have open communication. She does not understand where this is coming from. It does not make sense when the residents have voted for this to move forward and it is stopping here. It is flashbacks of past Council, not current. Good faith to her is, we know where we are at right now, let's move forward. What do we have to do with the City, the City Council, and the school board to make this a good thing? That is what the residents are looking for. Ms. Kris Akin, 22390 Beaumont Avenue, local business owner, local volunteer for tIle school and the City. She likes working with both the City and the school. One thing she has not heard tonight is Castle Rock township is in one of the proposed sites. Castle Rock township last year hosted two public meetings with residents to talk about the possible situation where the school district would buy the Angus property. There were over 200 people at two meetings and they all expressed their opinions and there was very good conversation held in the township hall. Then the Castle Rock Town Board met with the school board to talk about the possibility of the school building coming to Castle Rock. The proposal on the Angus property will involve Castle Rock's Comp Plan. It may involve annexation, it will involve other developers, why add other people to this mess? Why can't everyone work this out together? Let's not go up TH3 and Castle Rock where many residents have already said no and there is a comp plan out there and annexation issues. The school district has reached out to the City with their offer to help pay for Flagstaff Avenue, so reach back, grab their hand, and work this out. Mr. Bill Tonianado, 18586 Elgin Avenue, read at the Planning Commission a mission statement for the City. It is "Through teamwork and cooperation the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserves our proud past and fosters a promising future." He hoped the Council would use this to make a decision. Mayor Soderberg took statements from the Council based on seniority, which means he spoke first. This is a land use decision. Because of that it can be philosophical or financial. If it is a financial decision, he wanted to make sure the taxpayers of Farmington, which is a portion of the taxpayers of the school district, are treated fairly and equal, which means they do not end up paying a disproportionate share of the cost of any improvements. It is a philosophical decision. Because of this it is neither right nor wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. There have been diverse opinions expressed tonight. While they Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 20 may disagree about them, he hoped they would respect them. He has seen this from this Council. However, this decision takes four of five votes to agree. His question to the Council is, is this decision tonight for each of you a philosophical decision based on how we are going to develop? In other words, is it your philosophy that the comprehensive plan and the urban reserve corridor be retained? Or, is there some wiggle room in that development philosophy. Can you see the school district going out there and still maintain some of the integrity ofthe comprehensive plan? Can you see the high school going out there? City Planner Smick stated the comprehensive plan we have now is working. In 1998 we planned deliberately to develop on the east and the interior to infill and it is working, but how long into the future before that is built out? In 10 years when Seed-Genstar is 900+ acres? We have some aggressive plans from developers to finish the infill. They are looking at 2-3 years to finish that out. But 10 years from now, where does that leave development in Farmington? It leaves it south and west, unless we annex more property. The MUSA map shows a good deal of it is in ag preserve. If they apply to remove it from ag preserve, it does not come out for eight years, so development is stopped there. Ten years from now if the school is out there, can we control development out there? Development requests are going to be severe. There is no doubt in his mind. There have already been pressures on some ofthe landowners to sell at some exorbitant prices. He has been personally contacted by two developers asking for some guidance on whether the City will allow this and whether or not they should make offers. He is certain if this is approved, it would escalate. For him it is two-pronged. It is philosophical and financial. If there is going to be a disproportionate impact on the citizens of Farmington financially, he will not approve it. The offer made by the school tonight goes a long way toward wiping out that financial concern. For him there is wiggle room in the development philosophy. He would support the school district going out there ifthere is no financial impact and they can work on ways to maintain some of the integrity ofthe comprehensive plan, at least for the immediate future. The offer made tonight goes a long way toward alleviating some of the financial concerns he has. There are some financial things they do not know about yet. If it is purely philosophical and your belief is that the school should not go out there, and there should be no development in that urban reserve area, then we should not even consider it for the foreseeable future. There are at least two members on the Council that feel that way. There will be a vote and the comprehensive plan would be denied and that would close the door on the Christiansen site, at least for this Council. It is difficult to revisit it once we close it. Ifthere is wiggle room in your philosophy, but you still have some reservations, it would be prudent to table the issue until we get those reservations worked out, rather than closing the door permanently. He has expressed that as long as the financial concerns can be worked out, he would support it. But he wants to make sure they work on maintaining some ofthe integrity of the comp plan the way it is, at least for the foreseeable future, the next 5-10 years. His personal opinion is that he is leaning towards favoring it, but for tonight's action he wants to get a few more things ironed out. He would be interested in tabling the issue tonight and not voting on it. He does not want to close the door, but he Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 21 has a few questions he wants answered. While the offer by the school tonight was very generous, there were a few requests made of Council. He felt there are a few things they could iron out. Councilmember Fogarty stated discussing financial or philosophical is a tough issue for her. It is both. She will not let this affect the residents of Farmington's tax impact to increase even more for this high school. So the financial issue was huge what the school district offered tonight. She is terribly disappointed it was offered tonight. Terribly disappointed. It makes her very hesitant to even want to say she would consider that site still because there is a huge trust issue. No one on the school board or from the school district can tell her that they did not know six days ago when the Planning Commission meeting was happening that they could afford that road. They knew it then. To come up here tonight and do it she finds terribly offensive, a little disrespectful ofthe Council. There is a small amount of wiggle room in her philosophy. It makes it a more complicated issue for her. This is tough and if she is forced to vote tonight, she will still vote against it because she does not have what she needs to ensure that. She does not like that what she laid out on February 28, 2005 as a minimum requirement for her to get support on this issue has now become a bargaining chip of sorts, in that we will give you what you laid out as a minimum requirement, but you need to do three things for us. That bothers her. MSA funds are offthe table. They are intended for other areas. There is no wiggle room for her on that. Even if we give those MSA funds, where those monies were intended we will now have to levy back to the taxpayers. Therefore, the residents of the City of Farmington, and not the district in its entirety would be covering those costs. She has a few issues with some ofthe things that have been said. She hears a lot of people say the public has spoken. The public spoke that they wanted a new high school. And Mr. Carpenter, I take you to task a little bit in telling me what I voted for. She understands he needs to explain to the district their liability and what their concerns can be, but she voted for the high school. She knows we need the new high school. She knows what she voted for that day and that was for a new high school, not for this site. Her u~derstanding is legally as far as some ofthe things the school district has said there is no precedent on this and she hoped they do not have to set any kind of precedent on this. She still has huge reservations in considering that. She does not like people saying that there was a promise made from Council. There is a process for a reason. Every single one of you that got up and talked you have the right to do that because of this process. Ifwe immediately say when we allocate MUSA to a property that they automatically get the comprehensive changes and zoning changes they want, that eliminates the need for a public hearing. It is already done. She does not think anyone wants Council to eliminate the process. A lot of people think that because the majority of the people who spoke at the Planning Commission and spoke tonight represents the majority of this community. And because there were more people who spoke out publicly in favor of this, that means the majority of the people support this. The e-mails and phone calls she has received and the comments she has heard combined with the comments at the Planning Commission and here tonight, this is Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 22 a split community on this issue. That is the saddest part for her. She has seen examples where family members and neighbors do not want to talk about it. They are that divided. It is not a done deal as far as one side winning over another. She hates that it has been pitted this way at all. This is a tough issue and a big piece of it possibly fell into place tonight, but if forced to vote tonight, she will vote against it. Councilmember McKnight stated the first thing he needed to do was apologize for how they got here today. Not for what opinion he has on the school or the site issue, the residents expect more out of their elected officials on both sides. He apologized on behalf of himself and will take his share of the responsibility. He does not ever want to be here again and he knows the rest of Council doesn't. He will take his share of that responsibility and work to move forward. He has made his support ofthis site clear since February and he has shared with people at different meetings and will share it again so everyone knows where he is coming from. He listened to City Planner Smick speak and he could see her passion for the comprehensive plan and he has heard Community Development Director Carroll and others speak. This has nothing to do with the work they have done. He understands comp plans and the sweat and tears put into it. This is nothing against staff members, current or former. There are five areas of why he came to the conclusion of supporting this site and he talked about them in February. The first is that this is primarily a school responsibility. This school site selection, most of the work falls on the school district in his opinion. Does this mean the City does not have a role? Of course, it doesn't. The City works in areas the school doesn't. Issues like roads and infrastructure. The City works on that every day. But the issue primarily falls on the school. The second area, last year when they saw the three sites, he was not on the Council and will not speak for them. But this was the best site in his opinion of the three. It has the most to offer us as a community. The third area is the comprehensive plan. This is a major change of the comprehensive plan, no one will debate that. To him personally, there are just a few types ofprojects he would even consider making this type of change for to the comprehensive plan. This new Farmington High School is one of them. It is so unique, it is a type of institution in our community that is many times the face of our community and therefore, to him deserves consideration for the change. Changing this plan will have a financial impact on the City, our budget and our capital improvement plan and he understands that. But making the decisions that come with changing the plan that is why the people elected the five of us up here is to make these decisions. The new high school warrants looking at this. The fourth area, this site gives us the opportunity to create the western Farmington community. If you can only imagine what this part of the community can be with this new high school out there. He thinks it would be something special. He has an advantage over the other Councilmembers because he is the appointee to the Executive Committee for the high school and he has seen how this facility and the site is coming along. When you get the chance to look at the plans for the new school with Tiger Plaza and Tiger Stadium in that location overlooking the Hwy 50 area, it will be the jewel of Farmington if we can just Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 23 work together on this issue. As a Councilmember, he needs to look at this decision in many different years. This year, when we make the decision, in 2008 when it is proposed to open, but more importantly in 2015 and 2020 to see the opportunities that this site provides for all of us. He felt this is one of the most important tasks as Councilmembers is to look farther into the community. He had to address an issue that Mr. Todd Larson brought up. They both attended Farmington High School and the Lakeville East comment bothers him. He does not see that out ofthe high school community. If that is a concern, that issue needs to be addressed by the school board. His last area, is that it is the vote of the people. In February when this was discussed in the joint meeting with the Planning Commission, one ofthe final factors that pushed him over the edge to support this was that the people had an opportunity to vote. He has listened to two areas recently related to the vote that people have brought to our attention. Before anyone says anything to him about the referendum he tells them they better be one ofthe people that voted. He does not want to hear much after that if they did not vote. That is very important to him. We could go back night and day, the high school site was not on the ballot. But the school district made it clear to him in the information they mailed to his house in the citizens guide to the bond referendum that the Flagstaff site was it. He knew where they planned to build the high school and he used that to choose his vote. The second issue is those making an issue out of voter turn out. Whose responsibility is it to get out and vote? It is the people's. If you did not vote, he's sorry, that is your fault. The people spoke, the people voted. He is a little offended as a voter, he got out and voted that his vote doesn't count as much because somebody out there did not get out and vote. He is also a little offended as an elected official. How many votes did it take to put me up here? Actually it took one more than Councilmember Pritzlaff. If two people voted, potentially it took one vote. The people controlled this project on February 15, 2005. It was our responsibility to get out and vote. His next point is the message the City has sent over the last year with votes and approvals and support sent. He thinks the City has sent the message in the votes they have taken that they have moved this site along with the votes they have taken whether they supported it or not. If we voted right now, his point of view would lose, because other Councilmembers have made their points clear. He will pledge tonight he will not lose the lesson they have learned as a Councilmember and as a City Council. They will never be in this situation again with working with our other local governments. We will do better for you. He will pledge to take the lead tonight starting tomorrow morning ifhe has to, to make the working relationship better between this Council and the school district. The staffs can do better for the people. He has heard they need to do a better job in representing you and he will pledge to do that. He has learned a lot about the political part of being on the City Council with this issue. We all have different opinions on the Council and we all have a right to have them. He does not like to see his fellow Councilmembers ridiculed for their votes. They were elected by the same people who elected him and they have a right to make up their own minds. Ifhe is asked to vote, tonight, he would support this. He realized there will be financial implications to the City. He is willing to work with them. He Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 24 truly appreciated the district's offer tonight to finish Flagstaff from 195th to the border. He did not debate residents when they discussed their opposing view with him. He listened to them because they have their right to have an opposing view. He just shared his thoughts with them. When it comes down to it, he has to make up his mind and vote on this. With the information he has shared tonight and because ofthe great opportunity that this new high school offers us, he would vote to support the comprehensive plan amendment as proposed. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated on January 18, 2005 he made an opinion and asked other Councilmembers to take a stand on opposing this referendum or supporting it due to the site. He put his neck out on the line in asking for that so early in his term. He does not have a problem with that. He does not regret doing that. He also made a statement that he would come back to the Council on February 7,2005 knowing ifhe would or would not support the referendum. During that time, he had several conversations with City staff, the Mayor, Dr. Meeks and some of his staff. He came back and said there is no doubt in his mind that they need this school, but not on this site. There is a need for this school and there is a need for this City to grow. This has to happen consecutively and doing one in a place that goes against the comp plan goes against some things that our staff and previous Councils have told other people does not make sense. He showed a copy ofthe ballot. Nothing on here says site. $11.8 million for school projects. That is what he voted on. He voted yes for this referendum, money wise only, not the site. Election results - we have 16,475 eligible voters that could have voted for this. Out ofthat a total of3,802 did vote. Out of that 2,360 people voted yes, 1,441 people voted no. He heard that 62% ofthe voters voted for this. Technically that is wrong. 14% of the people that voted yes, voted for this referendum. The 62% is out of2,360 people. To put it in perspective, the 2,360 people, he got more votes than that to be here. Some of what he is about to say is personal opinion, some is opinion he has gotten from residents that put him here. Why did the school district close on this property before all issues were taken care of? Ifhe were buying a house, he would make a purchase agreement contingent on everything he could think of. He would not sign and close on that deal until he knew what he had and what he was buying. A purchase agreement with contingencies should have been the way the district moved forward. Was it the district or their attorney that made the decision to move forward and close on the property? There was a Council meeting after the referendum passed, it was a joint meeting between the Council, Planning Commission and the school district. The issue at that meeting was taking this land out of ag preserve by the use of eminent domain. As a citizen, as a taxpayer, and the taxpayers that have talked to him recently, they were told when they voted for the referendum that we have a willing seller. We will not have to use eminent domain. In his opinion, the school district knew we had to take it out of ag preserve by eminent domain. He said he did not support that. Eminent domain is used as force. Whether you force it from a property owner or whether you force a state agency to go beyond what they normally would do. He did not approve that. At the same time, two of the Planning Commissioners also approved that, not to take it out of ag preserve by Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 25 eminent domain. He also stated he did not support the comp plan back then. That was not an action they were dealing with, but was his opinion at that point in time that he made clear way back then. Issues now with sewer connections for people from the site to the south still are problematic. There are City ordinances and state regulations that say when a utility is available to you, you have to hook up within 24 months. There comes some problems on what available means to us and would we require everybody from the site south to Hwy 50 to hook up to a sewer line that is available to them. We have not approved MUSA for anybody on that road except for the Christiansen's if a school goes there. There are questions as to whether Council can even approve MUSA on a case-by-case basis if someone were forced to hook-up. There is another problem whether a resident's sewer system fails and wants to hook to it to save money. Ifwe say no, it would be no for everyone and they may be forced to put in a new system at their cost. Residents will incur a cost that would not happen until 2020. Why did the district go to a potential new site owner by itself when an agreement was made to go collectively with the City? Trying to shut the door on a potential new site was their motive in his opinion. Using the Seed-Genstar property would possibly give Farmington the leverage with the state to improve Hwy 3 by putting that much more traffic on Hwy 3. This would allow traffic to come to the city for the commercial area we are trying to build here with a district that is trying to grow. Why did not all the taxpayers receive two letters addressed to ISD 192 supporter? If the referendum is only for a few taxpayers who received these, are we all part ofthis referendum? Do we all have to pay it, or do we go back to the 2,360 people? Are those the amount of people that received these letters from the district? Are those the people who will pay for the referendum by themselves, not the other 76% that did not vote for it? The public has been betrayed by that. The 2020 Comp Plan gave promises to residents and to amend it would take away promises given by previous Councils, by this Council, previous and current staff. n would be no different than taking property by eminent domain. Would the City incur any legal cost from taking these promises away? There is the potential a resident may sue the district if the school doesn't go on this site. He has some question whether a resident would sue the City because we took away a promise and went around and away from the 2020 Comp Plan. Promises were given to people for a reason. Total acres not including right-of-way and the 208th Street corridor is 110 acres. Taking away some ofthe right-of-way where they cannot build does that leave a full 110 acres? The City also made an agreement with the school district to leave the 208th Street corridor open. There is no road there now, it is lines on a piece of paper. Unless something has changed within the last two weeks, the last plan he saw shows five fields on the 208th Street corridor. Will the district come back to the City and ask us to also realign our road after the fields are built? He does not want to put the City in that position. Regarding the bond amount for Flagstaff versus other sites for $18 million, some costs may be guessed at or inflated. $3.8 million would be debt services. We would not lose any ofthat money, and if we did the school district would be responsible for the loss of the money from the taxpayers. He believes in trying to look for a new site with the potential of paying more for land and less for infrastructure and working Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 26 with the City on what we can do to help out with fields would be a promising future. Regarding MSA funds, he cannot see any of the money we have for MSA going to that proj ect. We have other proj ects in the City we want to work on. For the betterment ofthe community and the betterment of the taxpayers, that is who he is looking out for. Regarding financial obligations from the district taxpayers that city taxpayers will benefit from, the whole district will pay for the improvements to Flagstaff, but some district people will very seldom, if at all, use that road. The residents on that road would benefit far more than a district member. Therefore, it should not be an even assessment to the district taxpayers. Last, reservations on delaying this tonight would make every timeline that we have now far worse. It has been mentioned that he believes the district has gone down a dead end road and went past several intersections that showed problems which puts us in this position tonight to bail them out. When the issue of ag preserve and eminent domain occurred, the EQB board is made up of 16 people. Nine people in favor or not in favor is how things get done. At the time of this issue, nine commissioners showed up and it was a 5-4 vote. A public hearing was waived. Had a public hearing taken place, it would have been a year delay for the school to begin working. In his opinion to delay the school from 2008-2009, the issue was played out on the students. Residents were told a 2008 start was critical. Ifthat process would have taken place, he suspects the school would not have opened until 2009. That puts questions to him of what is the true timeline. He is in favor of education. He is in favor of a new high school. He is also in favor of building the City with a new high school. During the time he has been on the Council there has been mistrust and very hard times that the school district is working out with the Council. He said it during his campaign, and when he took his seat. But there seems to be a lot of obstacles and a lot of times the citizens and the taxpayers do not see some ofthe working relationships. To delay taking action in voting on this tonight would be a serious mistake as that will put us at a worse case scenario. One week, one month, or two months from now we will hear again how much this project will cost. He would like to vote tonight. Councilmember Wilson stated when he campaigned, being a new resident, he knew he had to knock on as many doors as possible. He probably indicated one ofthe key things he wanted to focus on was commercial/industrial development, greater parks development and working with the school board. That has proved to be much more challenging than he could ever imagine. All the school board is trying to do is to do the best they can for the voters and residents they are accountable for which is all of Farmington and the townships and a portion of Lakeville and do what you think is best based on obvious need. In February, he was very concerned about the referendum. 51% of him went into the vote, knowing he wanted to support it for all the right reasons. The district is growing quicker than the most recent projections might be showing. We are looking at 8,000 students by next year or after. The 49% of him went in there, not just walking in to the poll deciding what to do. This was after a lot of deliberation. He was concerned about the Christiansen site and still has reservations. His concerns are more financial than the site. Dr. Meeks' comment regarding Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 27 Flagstaff, it is the wise and prudent thing to do. He thanked everyone who sent him e-mails. He also had a 50-50 split. There are a lot of people not represented in this room that are very worried about this issue. They have very real concerns about the impact. Mr. Orr is not trying to create fear in all of you who supported it. You have very valid reasons to support it. He is looking at it from back when he was on the Council and when it was a much smaller City. Councilmember Wilson stated he has to deliberate on that. For every answer he gets, he has five more questions. Between the Council and the school board, we wanted to establish some discussions about the site issue, paving Flagstaff, and infrastructure issues so we formed small groups to discuss the issues. The goals were laudable. With the open meeting law, one of the problems is trying to get everyone together to talk about the issues. If the five Councilmembers and six board members had been able to sit down and talk, you have to call a public meeting and maybe have it televised, it creates more challenges. The small group meetings seemed to be ok, but then we had some disconnect. The school may have felt that the City was trying to unduly pressure the school board for making a site change. How have we gotten to this point now? Why are all these issues surfacing now? Why is this just coming up now? These issues have not just come up now. He has been frustrated with the information going from staffto the school district communicating concerns. It has not been in a way to subvert the school district's plans, it has been a matter oflet's talk about this because we have concerns. That area is not remotely close to where development will occur. We want to make you aware of infrastructure costs, we want to make you aware ofthe very real need of Flagstaff. He commended Dr. Meeks for having the courage to come here after discussing this with the board. That has been very bewildering to him that the school district may not have been receptive to that up until recently. While that will be needed, there is also a down side, because the promises made to the individuals on Flagstaff did not include a paved road because that will lead to faster traffic and changing a road from a country road to a city road. For the best interest of all taxpayers we cannot travel down the road like this again. He did not know how many residents are aware of the fact the City did not have a representative on the site selection committee. Some staff served on the facilities task force. He can guarantee that had someone from the City been on that site selection committee, and ifthere had been recommendations that the school did not agree with, he can guarantee we would probably be all on the same page today and waiting to pass a yes vote. How often is the City Council placed in the exciting opportunity to advance one of the most important projects that a City will ever take on? We are helping to build new infrastructure to educate our children. He has to separate his own personal thoughts of if he looks at this with some concern is he doing something against the kids? No way. He hoped a resident out there never characterizes anyone on the Council as being against kids. Everyone on this Council voted to support the referendum. It is needed that much. The financial piece is the real significant piece. Dr. Meeks made a gracious and substantial offer to the Council tonight. Residents need to understand the reason we have financial concerns is not to create fear and suggest that no, things will not be built. It is the fact we are required to have long-range Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 28 plans for capital budgeting and capital planning. The Ash Street project and the Main Street project are part ofthat. Our desire to have a new City Hall so everyone can better enjoy watching your government work is something all of Council would like to see moved up. The MSA dollars are a creative mechanism, but we very much have those funds earmarked for various projects within the CIP. The bigger point on the financial part, in order for him to feel 100% comfortable with this, the school district is larger than the City of Farmington. He will not subject the taxpayers to more taxation for a project than the City of Lakeville and the townships. We are all within the boundary ofISD 192. While Farmington is a very significant portion ofthat, it is not the only portion. On the land issue, it is not his preferred site, but it is probably not the worst site. It will be challenging to control development. There are boundaries and ag preserve expiration dates that are beyond 2010. He would like to table this issue. All the residents want to see is our two governments working together. The fact that this is as contentious as it is, is a clear demonstration that we are not quite there yet. He does not believe waiting a month to get the feasibility study information back would be a problem. It relates to the cost issue, which is integral to the development out there. If this Council had not advanced the EQB measure we could be looking at a one year delay. Waiting a year is not acceptable, but waiting a month is reasonable. We are coming closer to the issues and he will pledge to the school that he will figure out a way to get this done and establish the communication. It is not enough to communicate to provide information. It was stated last week that a binding agreement had been reached with respect to the infrastructure. The only binding agreement that may have occurred was City Engineer Mann giving a good faith estimate to Mr. Bonar on costs for the infrastructure. Ifhe felt a contract was being entered into he might have suggested it would be better for the school district to get a feasibility study to get exact costs. One of the very core things as a Councilmember that he has to do is to be a wise guardian of taxpayer dollars. Waiting until the feasibility study comes back, knowing that there will be information that will help understand the cost of the infrastructure, puts him into the category of being a wise decision maker. He would prefer to table the issue to make sure we are all in agreement on the financial components. Mayor Soderberg stated this is a very serious issue. Everyone agrees there is a need for a school. Looking at the comments made tonight, if a vote is taken tonight, it will fail and that closes the door. That would not be a good deal. We have four members of the Council that will either approve it or there is wiggle room or it is financial. Four members have said there are possibilities yet with the Flagstaff site. He recommended the Council table this. City Attorney J amnik suggested they table to the second meeting in July. That would give staffthe opportunity to have some ofthe feasibility report, if not final, close enough to bring back and a memorandum of understanding with the school district regarding the financing on that site and infrastructure. There is not enough time to get the information together for the next meeting. The statute requires a 60-day action, but if we set the table to the next date in order to facilitate that, we can get an extension. We will send a letter indicating that is our time frame and that we will Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 29 take action the second meeting in July. That is within the statutory timeframe. We could extend for 120 days total from May 20,2005. Councilmember McKnight asked for specifics from the Councilmembers who want to table the issue, what they are looking for. Councilmember Wilson talked about the financial part with the feasibility study. Mayor Soderberg stated the City Attorney mentioned a memorandum of understanding and Councilmember Fogarty said there is an issue of trust. He felt a memorandum of understanding would deal with that issue. City Attorney Jamnik stated Dr. Meeks' comments added three items for the memorandum of understanding. If Council has additional ones, such as Councilmember Pritzlaffwith the sewer issue, bring them to staffs attention, and the school district and Mr. Carpenter. He will identify all issues in the memorandum. Mayor Soderberg confirmed the meeting for June 24, 2005 is still on. This will give the City an opportunity to talk with the school and get these flushed out and get the memorandum of understanding done. He also committed to working with the school to get this resolved. Councilmember McKnight stated his reason for asking was to get the issues out on the table. This started already with the March 30 checklist that staff developed and he felt they were going down the same road. He wanted everything out there so we are not too surprised on June 24 or in two weeks about what we have to put on the table and come to a resolution and so the public can know also what the other issues are. If the issues are out there, he would support tabling it to the second meeting in July. He did not want it to die tonight. MOTION by Wilson, second by McKnight to table the various request items associated with item 12b be tabled to July 18, 2005. Voting for: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Wilson. Voting against: Pritzlaff. MOTION CARRIED. Council recessed at 10:27 p.m. and reconvened at 10:30 p.m. a) Adopt Ordinance - Industrial Park Rezone - Community Development The property is to the west ofthe existing industrial park, CR50 is on the south and Pilot Knob is on the west. The owners of the properties have expressed an interest in having the parcels along Pilot Knob rezoned from industrial park to B- 2 (commercial). Staff supports this and the Planning Commission recommended approval. Councilmember Fogarty asked about the type of businesses for the commercial lots. Will they take away from the Vermillion Crossing or will it be a different kind of business? Staff replied there may be some similar businesses. At the full intersection with 208th and Pilot Knob, you are likely to see a gas station or fast food. The portions farther to the south will have a right-in, right-out access so there may be some businesses such as retail or office. There is commercial development occurring in several areas in town and as the community grows there will be enough population base to support it. Weare creating industrial development in other areas that would not occur if it were not for this rezoning. Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 30 This new development concept involves a number of private roads that would be built at the property owner's expense. By reducing the roadway and creatively addressing some ofthe storm water handling issues we have a way to get some industrial development and on the property north of208th Street. We are giving up some industrial property but we are gaining the immediate development of the remaining industrial property and we are creating some commercial development opportunities. Councilmember Fogarty asked if the rest of the Devney property would be open to development. Mr. Devney stated he intends to help the City with commercial and industrial property. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked about the timeline on when some ofthe businesses would be ready. Staff replied the businesses in the commercial area are a little further out. The development for the property in the center, the trucking company, could happen yet this year. When that occurs and private roads are constructed that will lend itself to development of the remaining property. Councilmember McKnight asked how far north the townhomes are. He was looking for a buffer between them. Mayor Soderberg stated there is a significant wetland area between them. Mayor Soderberg asked if the layout ofthe roads was close to what is anticipated. Staff replied with 208th Street it is exactly what is anticipated. The location of the private roads is conceptual, but is similar. The most important road is the backage road to separate the commercial and industrial. The private roads would primarily be used by the businesses. Staff met with Mr. Regan and his development team. They were concerned about the extension of208th Street and the cost implications. It was discussed to use MSA funds to help facilitate the road construction. An arrangement has been made with Mr. Regan. This would be brought forward at a future meeting. Staff wanted to know if Council had any concerns before proceeding further. Staff showed the current cost estimate for the segment of208th Street starting from the existing westerly terminus east of Pilot Knob and goes all the way over to Pilot Knob. The proposal that is being brought forward is that the City would use $200,000 ofthe MSA account as this is designated as a state aid roadway. It is a larger collector in the City than developments would build on their own. $200,000 is approximately 28% of the project cost. If the project were to come in less, we would still stay with the 28% so it would be less than $200,000. $200,000 would be the cap. The developer participation would be the balance of the project cost minus the City's 28% or $200,000. The Devney's are contributing three acres of right-of-way that is needed for the 208th Street right-of- way. On a $4.5 million valuation for the project the City would receive $60,000 a year in tax revenue which would pay off the City's contribution in four years. The City would bond for this project. As the developer's engineer has already done a lot of work on the engineering for this roadway, the developer's engineer Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 31 would do the plans and specs and it would be bid as a state aid project. The cost would be assessed over 10 years with assessment on the undeveloped outlot to be deferred as per policy. The City would cover the trunk utility up sizing as per policy. Finance Director Roland noted the 20Sth Street extension to Pilot Knob is currently in the City's CIP for 2006. This is not a change other than how we will pay for it. MSA funds are designated for 20Sth and that could be anywhere from the Lakeville border to TH3. It brings significant taxable property into the City in a very short timeframe. The donation of the right-of-way is also a significant issue. The developer and the City are grateful for this. The developer wanted some assurances to go hand in hand with Council's approval of the commercial portion. Mayor Soderberg noted this furthers commercial and industrial development. The use ofMSA funds on an MSA designated road is a good investment to get this type of development done. Councilmember McKnight asked for more information on MSA funds, what the intended uses were, were they specific 20Sth Street areas, etc. so he can make a decision. City Engineer Mann replied the City's state aid system has been designated over many years. The idea of state aid funding comes from the gas tax. It is allocated to cities that are greater than 5,000 or in the program. Depending on how many miles of streets you have in the City you are allowed to designate a percentage of those miles as state aid routes. Those routes have to begin and end at either county or state roads or other city state aid roads. There are several roadways in the City that are designated as state aid routes. Then the state does a calculation on the need of those roadways. The City receives a portion every year ofthe need of those roadways. That has been approximately $500,000. Part of that the City takes in as maintenance dollars. All of the projects in the CIP that are state aid routes have been looked at as potential users of state aid funds. Right now, the main projects that have been identified are 20Sth Street. Flagstaffhas not because it is in the urban reserve area. 195th is not designated as a City or a county state aid road. The City can use state aid dollars on county state aid routes. Councilmember Wilson asked on the CIP, what is the taxpayer cost? Finance Director Roland replied this is the current project estimate with lateral utilities. It is with the size piping that is required for the development. The estimate in the CIP is a worst case scenario. If the City had to pay for everything, we know the utilities going into this area have the potential for upsizing. As such, the project costs in the CIP include the up sizing with contributions from trunk funds. Councilmember Fogarty noted $200,000 is a little on the high side, but this is something that needs to happen. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson to adopt ORDINANCE 005-535 rezoning the Devney property from industrial park to highway business, and Council Minutes (Regular) June 20, 2005 Page 32 ORDINANCE 005-536 rezoning the Airlake Development property from industrial park to highway business. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE a) County-Wide High Performance Partnerships - Administration There will be a celebration ofthe joint dispatch efforts on June 30 at Dakota Lodge beginning at 4:00 p.m. Mayor Soderberg and Councilmember McKnight will attend. Councilmember Fogarty: Encouraged everyone to get out for Rambling River Days. Councilmember McKnight: Congratulated the new Miss Farmington Hope Olson and the new Little Miss Farmington Madison Rae Volk. Councilmember Wilson: Rambling River Days will be a neat event. Mr. John Kapustka will be hosting a bike ride, Tour de Farmington. There are over 100 riders signed up. Mr. Kapustka has put a lot oftime in this and it is a good way to see the trail system. There is a long course and a short course. Councilmember Pritzlaff: Also congratulated the new Miss Farmington. He and Councilmember McKnight helped out with selling tickets and it was fun. Mayor Soderberg: Thanked staff for their hard work on the high school issue. There is a lot of hard work left. He has a great amount of respect for everyone and appreciates all staffhas done. On Saturday he will be awaiting the results for the Kiss the Pig contest. He encouraged everyone to get involved in Rambling River Days and make it a great success. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adjourn at 11 :08 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, /r7~ ynthia Muller Executive Assistant /b DRAFT Farmington Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes from the Regular Meeting on June 8, 2005 Members Present: Randy Oswald, Dawn Johnson, Karen Neal, Robin Hanson and Paula Higgins Member's Absent: none Other's Present: Dick Allendorf, Pederson Ventures, Bob Wiegert, Pederson Ventures Engineer, and Parks and Recreation Director, Randy Distad I. Call To Order Chair Oswald called the meeting to order at 6:44 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers. Quorum was present. II. Approval of Agenda. Motion by Neal and seconded by Johnson to approve the agenda with following amendments: under old business to add 5A an update on the Hometown Addition Preliminary Plat and under new business adding 6C for a discussion on Farmington Youth Travel Baseball's request. APIF III. Approval of Minutes. Motion by Neal and seconded by Higgins to approve the May 2005 meeting minutes. Voting in favor were Neal, Oswald and Higgins. Abstaining from the vote were Hanson and Johnson. Motion carried. IV. Presentations Dick Allendorf and Bob Wiegert from Pederson Ventures provided the following information to Commission members about the Vermillion River Crossing development: Project has been worked on for almost 2 years. The development is about 61 gross acres and of this amount 28 acres cannot be developed because of gas easements, floodplain and protected wetlands. Stated that the land is owned by the Knutsen family but is being developed by Pederson Ventures. Developer will be building a regional pond system that the City would have had to build at a cost of $250,000 but that the developer will be paying this cost and not the City. They are making a request of the Commission to consider giving park dedication credit to the developer for the property to the east of the development where the gas easement and wetland are located because in the Spruce Street Area Master Plan it was identified as park and open space. The developer will be giving 22 acres to the City as part of the development and would like to get park dedication credit for it. Hansen asked about who would pay for the fields to be constructed. The developer said that the City would pay for the fields. Distad stated that he didn't think that the fields would work on this site as staff have learned from Northern Natural Gas that there are restrictions about what can be done in gas easements and anchoring goals or constructing permanent backstops would not be allowed by the gas company. Bob Wiegert stated that he has been able to work with the gas company to allow a trail to be constructed within the outer edge of the gas easement and would run parallel with the gas easement. He also acknowledged that permanent fields are not a possibility because of the restrictions in the gas easements. Oswald also stated that he thought that parking would also be an issue should practice fields be located on the easement. Moved by Hanson and seconded by Neal to table the decision until the July 2005 Commission meeting on whether or not to give more park dedication credit to the Vermillion River Crossing development. APIF. Motion carried. V. Old Business A. Update on Hometown Addition Preliminary Plat Oswald shared with Commission members that the City Council has asked that the Hometown Addition Preliminary Plat be revised to show a looped street through the development rather than two cul-de-sacs and the developer will be revising the preliminary plat. This will affect the trail alignment and Commission members by consensus agreed that the trail should be looped along this new additional street rather than in the location currently identified on the preliminary plat. VI. New Business A. City Council Joint Meeting Debriefing The following comments were shared about the joint meeting between the City Council and PRAC that occurred prior to this meeting: · Neal thought that it was a good idea to meet again in the future with the City Council in light of two members not being able to attend. · Hanson was concerned about that if the City Council, Planning Commission and PRAC are not on the same page with the park, trail and sidewalk locations it will put a strain on getting future projects through the process in a timely manner. · Oswald thought it was good idea to have this meeting be an annual meeting with a certain month of the year being set as the time for a regularly scheduled annual meeting with the City Council. · Neal suggested that perhaps a meeting should also occur between the Planning Commission and PRAC. B. Vermillion Grove Park Playground Equipment Commission members reviewed the individual play structures that had been sent in the packet and agreed that they would like to have Director Distad solicit proposals from playground vendors that could tie in the different play structures into one common themed play area. The theme for the play equipment should be so that it blends with the natural environment. Distad stated that he would have the proposals back in time for a review at the July meeting. C. Farmington Youth Traveling Baseball Information Oswald stated that youth baseball asked him to bring information to the Commission about a future complex at Rambling River Park when and if it is redeveloped. Oswald also shared with Commission members some of the improvements that youth baseball would like completed on City ballfields. Distad stated that staffhas discussed, these two items with youth baseball and didn't understand why it was brought to the Commission. Commission members suggested that Distad make contact with youth baseball and discuss this information with them and that in the future if they wanted to come and make a formal presentation to the Commission, they could do so. VII. Additions to the Agenda None VIII. Staff Report Director Distad updated Commission members on the status of several plats being approved by the City Council. IX. July 2005 Meeting Agenda Topics The following topics were identified for the July meeting agenda: 1. Review and select playground equipment for Vermillion Grove Park 2. Vermillion River Crossing Park Dedication resolution 3. Report on meeting with City of Lakeville Park and Recreation Advisory Commission x. Adjournment Neal moved and Higgins seconded to adjourn the meeting. APlF Meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Randy Distad, CPRP Parks and Recreation Director and Recording Secretary , City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.c:i.farmington.mn.us 7G TO: Mayor, CounCilmembers, City Administrator ~ FROM: Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Approve Appointment Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: July 5,2005 INTRODUCTION A vacancy exists on the Heritage Preservation Commission. The term for this appointment is from February 1,2005 through January 31,2008. DISCUSSION Attached is the application received for the vacant HPC seat from Ms. Danielle Stuckle. At the June 20,2005 City Council meeting, Council had agreed to interview her at the July 5,2005 Pre-City Council meeting. Upon completion of Ms. Stuckle's interview, if Council agrees to make the appointment it will be ratified by approving this item on the consent agenda. ACTION REQUIRED Approve the appointment of Ms. Danielle Stuckle to the Heritage Preservation Commission to complete the term from 2/1/05 through 1/31/08. Respectfully submitted, ~;;A~ Lisa Shadick Administrative Services Director CITY OF FAR.\ll:\GTO:\ Page I of 1 CITY OF FAR'n~GTO:\" APPLICA TIO:" FOR BOARD OR CO'[\lISSIO~ APPOI:\'T\1E~T :\am~ C>..D\~\\i '\\-W~~tl Date of Application '5 - d~ - C)~ AddressJ (8f:) ~ f'C.\. ~ ~ ~ ~, \Os'ffiJY~me Phone .. L,~\ - '-I~ ~ '6)r:y) :!LT...... Emg!;?ted . , . \ by ~\cW ~~) ~V)-tn~-, \In\o..ty-> Board or Commission vou wish to sern on \-\.11 ~\T~ 1>~<"'l:ir\rO...VI0^ C0~~V~\-<'\,I'{) Qualifications (co\'er pertinent educational background. employment positions and other experience on committees, boards. commissions. church and civic organizations. etc. You may attach any supporting information.) ~ :\-CS h ~d lY\ References (list any references you wish that would be familiar with your qualifications for this position). ~~~;~--~~=\~-\'~~~~~:~~~l~~~~ \)1: . 10m -:I:.S:n I~~ b~~) - ~. ~~ :JO' - "/'l'i-d) ~~ ) Signatur~\\\. ~\}.('~ DateS- - http: wv;v;.ci.farmington.mn.us. Commission B&Capp.hnn 5.19'2005 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farminsrton.mn.us 7d TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Administrato~ FROM: Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director SUBJECT: Appointment Recommendation - Human Resources DATE: July 5, 2005 INTRODUCITON The recruitment and selection process for the appointment of a full-time HR/Payroll Technician, to fill a vacant position in the HR/IT Department, has been completed. DISCUSSION After a thorough review of all applicants for the HR/Payroll Technician by the Human Resources Office and with assistance from the Police Department, a contingent offer of employment has been made to Ms. Georgia Larson, subject to ratification by the City Council. Ms. Larson has been employed with the City since June of 2003 and has previous experience in human resources, payroll and administrative support. Ms. Larson meets or exceeds the minimum qualifications for the position. BUDGET IMPACT Funding for this position is authorized in the 2005 budget. RECOMMENDATION Approve the appointment of Ms. Georgia Larson in the Department of Human Resources/Infonnation Technology, effective on or about August 1,2005. Respectfully Submitted, :' /'Jjl , '/::t~Mdt I Brenda Wendlandt, SPHR Human Resources Director cc: file 7e. 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 iJtIr-- City Administrator jY ~ FROM: Daniel M. Siebenaler, Police Chief SUBJECT: School and Conference DATE: July 5, 2005 INTRODUCTION .,. As a new Sergeant takes the lead in the Investigation's Division it becomes increasingly important to provide training crucial to the needs of that Division. Staff is recommending this Investigations Management Class for Sergeant Lee Hollatz. DISCUSSION Sergeant Lee Hollatz has requested authorization to attend a 3-day class titled Management of a Criminal Investigation Unit. The course is sponsored by the Macomb Police Training Academy in Frasier, Michigan and will be held September 13-15,2005. No similar course is available locally. BUDGET IMPACT This course has not been specifically identified in the 2005 budget. Since the authorized budget of the Investigation's Division will be dedicated to technical training offered locally for both the Sergeant and newly appointed Detective the cost of this course will be funded by the Police Forfeiture fund. ACTION REQUESTED Authorize the registration and associated expenses for Sergeant Lee Hollatz to attend the 3- day Management of Criminal Investigation Units as outlined. aniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police Manaf!ement of Criminal Investif!ation Units R.A. Doran & Associates Police Training Consultants September 13 - 15th, 2005 Macomb Police Training Academy Fraser, Michigan By: Detective Lee Hollatz Information on the ManaJ!ement of Criminal InvestiJ!ation Unit Course Management of Criminal Investigation Units 3 days I raining incorporates investigative case management skills and knowledge that have been developed in recent years. Participants will learn how to improve efficiency in managing the criminal investigations process and improve the effectiveness of the total investigative effort. Topics include · Management of Criminal Investigations · Effective Uses of Solvability Factors · Case Control Practices and Techniques · Investigative Information Systems · The Patrol Officer As Investigator · Managing Continuing Investigations · Measuring Investigative Productivity · Cold Case Management · Improving Investigative Productivity · Technology Applications · Implementing Improved Investigative Management Systems Management of Criminal Investigation Units Three Day Training Program Purpose of This Course Studies of the criminal investigations process how most law enforcement agencies are in need of a more systematic approach to investigations and improved case information for management decision-making. This systematic approach is needed in the assignment, continuation, suspension or closing of investigative cases. In addition, there is a need for new or improved methods of monitoring and improving investigative productivity. This course incorporates investigative case management skills and knowledge that have been developed in recent years. Participants will learn how to improve efficiency in managing the criminal investigations process and improve the effectiveness of the total investigative effort. I Should Attend This Course ........pervisors and management level personnel responsible for case assignment and management. Administrative staff responsible for the planning or development of improved case management techniques, or the planning and development of a productivity improvement program. Training Objectives Managing Criminal Investigations: Identify and discuss traditional investigative case management techniques and the need to test different approaches as a means of improving and measuring investigative performance. Addresses the role of the criminal investigator in Community-Oriented Policing. Control Practices and Techniques: Examines the concepts of strategic management and tactical decision-making as applied to investigative case management. Includes the identification, and proper use of "solvability factors." The Patrol Officer as Investigator: Examines the five roles of patrol officers in criminal investigations and how investigative effectiveness has been improved by redefining or expanding the role of the patrol officer. Managing Investigative Productivity: Identify and define improved methods for measuring the productivity and performance of individual investigators as well as the entire investigations unit. Improving Investigative Productivity: uss the uses of solvability factors, case screening and case review as methods of identifying the need for, and the methods Iproving investigative productivity. .. Implementing Improved Investigative Management Systems: Through the use of a case study, participants will apply the various concepts and strategies to a practical problem as a means of identifying problems and discussing implementation issues that may arise in their own departments. Estimated training expenses for Management of Investigation Unit Course. Course Car Air Fare Lodging Meals Total $400 $ 96+gas $327+ $300+tax $...8.Q:t $1203+ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us 7F TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: David Urbia, City Administrator SUBJECT: Schools and Conferences - Administration DATE: July 5, 2005 INTRODUCTION As a member of the International City County Management Association (lCMA), I have attended in the past this organization's various conference and training opportunities. I believe this conference is an excellent opportunity to obtain continued training and development within the profession of local government management. DISCUSSION I am in the application process for the ICMA Voluntary Credentialing Program. As a part of this program, I have created a professional development plan for the coming year. These professional development activities must meet or exceed forty hours. There are sessions at this conference that will meet some of the requirements identified in my plan. BUDGET IMPACT Registration fee $565. ICMA University Workshop $125. Total $690. Past and current budgeting for the City Administrator includes $2,750 to attend ICMA, MCMA, and LMC schools and conferences. This year, I propose to attend or have already attended the following: MCMA Mid-Winter Professional Development Seminar (Alexandria, MN), MCMA Annual Conference (Brainerd, MN), ICMA Best Practices Seminar (Austin, TX), and the ICMA Annual Conference (Minneapolis, MN). These four excellent training and networking opportunities will be within this budgeted amount. ACTION REQUESTED Approve school and conference request to attend the 2005 ICMA Annual Conference to be held in Minneapolis, Minnesota September 24-28, 2005 for the City Administrator. Respectfully submitted, 73 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 Administrator ~/ FROM: Tim Gross, P.E., Assistant City Engineer ~ SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Mystic Meadows 1st Addition Development Contract DATE: July 5,2005 INTRODUCTION The Development Contract for Mystic Meadows 1st Addition is forwarded herewith for Council's consideration. DISCUSSION The final plat for Mystic Meadows 1 st Addition was approved by the Planning Commission on May 24, 2005 and by the City Council on June 6, 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 of this 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 Mystic Meadows 1st 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_-OS APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT MYSTIC MEADOWS 1ST 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 5th day ofJuly, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. Members present: Members absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. R76-0S, the City Council approved the Preliminary and Final Plat of Mystic Meadows 1st Addition subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Council approves the Giles/Murphy Final AUAR - Responses to Comments and Final Mitigation Plan on June 6, 2005 as the document was presented at the May 16, 200S City Council meeting. 2. 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: 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 Sth day of July, 200S. Mayor Attested to this _ day of July, 2005. SEAL City Administrator DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AGREEMENT dated this 5th day of July, 2005, by, between, and among the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation (CITY) and Giles Properties, Inc., a Minnesota corporation partnership (DEVELOPER). 1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for MYSTIC MEADOWS 1ST 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 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 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 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. Zoninl!lDevelopment Map. The Developer shall provide an 8 112" 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 19Sth Street Extension 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 Monwnents 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 approved by the City Engineer. Work done not in accordance with the approved 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. Before the security for the completion of the utilities is released, iron monwnents 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 monwnents have been installed. 195th Street Extension Assessments The parent parcels of MYSTIC MEADOWS 1ST ADDITION have been assessed for improvements to 195th Street Extension. The total levied assessment amount for the parcels is: 2 Parcel Nos. 14-01900-020-50 14-01900-011-50 Total amount levied: $ 450,000 The Developer may elect to pay the assessment in cash at the time of final plat approval or have it prorated and reassessed to the lots and blocks of MYSTIC MEADOWS 1ST ADDITION. If assessed, the assessments shall be spread over a lO-year period with 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. Outlots A through I, and the easement containing the trunk sanitary sewer extending from the eastern boundary of the development to the MCES Interceptor shall be deeded to the City following the completion and approval of improvements as required under Plans A - F. 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. 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 (lO%) 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 frrst occurs. The retainage may be used to pay for warranty work. The City's Engineering Guidelines identitY the procedures for final 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 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. 3 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$10,502 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 final plats of subsequent phases until public improvements for all prior phases have been satisfactorily completed. Subject to the tenns 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 final platted, or official controls, shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications or platting required or permitted by the approved preliminary plat unless required by State or Federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to 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$ 800,795 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 4 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. 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 $ 86,406 will be given to the Developer for regional stormwater ponding within the plat. The net result is that the Suiface Water Management Fee to be paid with this plat is $ 714,389. 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 $ 314,959 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 $ 152,004 will be given to the Developer for Water Main Trunk oversizing within the plat. A credit of $ 36,664 will be given to the Developer for excess credit for sanitary sewer oversizing within the plat. The net result is that the Water Main Trunk Area Charge to be paid with this plat is $126,291. 18. Water Treatment Plant Fee. The Developer shall pay a water treatment plant fee of$ 169,800 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 treatment plant fees for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the DevelQpment Contracts for those phases are entered into. 19. Sanitarv Sewer Trunk Area Char2e. The Developer shall pay a sanitary sewer trunk area charge of $ 244,895 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. A credit of $ 281,559 will be given to the Developer for sanitary sewer oversizing within the plat and the construction of sanitary sewer trunk facilities to the MCES Interceptor. The net result is that the Sanitary Sewer Trunk Area Charge will be a credit to the developer in the amount of$ 36,664. 20. Park Dedication. The Developer shall be required to dedicate 9.1032 acres of land for park purposes. The Developer shall pay the City $ 773,772 as cash in lieu of land in satisfaction of 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. 5 21. Park Development Fee. The Developer shall pay a Park Development Fee of$151,414 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 MYSTIC MEADOWS 1ST ADDITION shall be credited/coded to is the regional park to be constructed in a future phase of Mystic Meadows. 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. 22. Sealcoatine:. In lieu of assessing sealcoating three years from completion of the road construction, the Developer agrees to pay a fee of $ 23,459 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 Government Information System fee of$ 14,150 based upon the 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. 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 $ 5,965,931. 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: GradingJErosion Control Sanitary Sewer Water Main Storm Sewer Street Construction $N/A $ 934,382 $ 1,271,161 $ 932,721 $ 1,925,139 Monuments St. Lights/Signs Blvd. Trees Blvd. Sodding Wetland Mitigation $ 70,750 $ 200,750 $ 206,250 $ 46,500 $N/A Two Years Principal and Interest on Assessments $ 378,278 The Grading/Erosion Control surety has been posted under a separate letter of credit. This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. 6 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. 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 7 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. Building permits may be issued prior to the completion of public improvements for Lots 1-6, Block 5, and Lots 22-27, Block 6 for the purposes of constructing model homes. Permits shall not be issued until paved access is provided to the boundary of the Development to at least one of the accesses as defmed under Item 3 in the letter attached as Exhibit "D". The Developers engineer shall verify the foundation grades and submit verifIcation of compliance with the approved grading plans in writing to the City prior to connnencement 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 watermain and rrre hydrant stubbed to provide fIre protection for these models per Exhibit "E" shall be tested per the City of Farmington's Engineering Guidelines before permits shall be issued. The developer shall adhere to the letter and map attached as Exhibits "D" and "E" 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 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 8 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 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. 9 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: ATTN: John Anderson Giles Properties, Inc. P.O. Box 51 Elko, MN 55020 Phone: (952) 461-3982 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: Giles Properties, Inc. By: Its: 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 of Giles Properties, Inc., a corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public 12 EXHIBIT "A" The southwest quarter of section 19, Township 114 North, Range 19 West, 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 EXHIBIT "D" ..... GPI IJJJ IIlJmll lTI .11J.[[ll.. 1m I. r GII.. Properti.., Inc. I .... I .. u... !IllJ;l1llfl "Cetnmitment ID ~" June 14,2(10:) Tim GroIlS City of FumiQMt\lll :l2~ Uak: StIlMt FlU'minJ!f:nn~ MN ~~(l24 Re: Model 8..Udi."g Permi. - M~ Me&dowI. Fin! Addition De. Mr. OmIS: Th;lJI Jetter i. in 1'eH-- to model ~Uuin~ pennitR tnr Mymic M.~h"",.. "'ir.l AililiLiun prior i.&,) .:utl\pletion C)fth~ cb.welopmcmt. W., hM"., wnuuiu.:d II bui...... to p~ the "'tl~Jo t.m.1y 60111_ t~.we. TC oon.......1ion. .Roll~i~la {~.'\lltM:tion. N,yeu.t Real Hate. ThnmllCm Honle3, Pall' W.II@;IWlI"Horn.... Hroubtuna Bll1kll\ml, Yorwa~ <::W!b.Ht1 Home Build.,.., I.'l..n." Homdll. MW JolmBun Coo~i,","- Motto CI..-ie HouWfi IWd L8ke B~ .fum;': WCl wo~d .Iika to providlS 8II&ili builder with . lot 11) tItlu'l .. t.w*:~ hort\l!l .... .. $OWl aa ~;o.;jhlll:l. Tbe1ocatfon of the mode' nom... i. ~-n .~ l-6. 8tnck: ~ ..1d lnt~ 22-1,7, aloe.k ill. Gila!l Propertiellllbal.l...wna aU liability tor &;C"'"'nutt...~itlg owdol h~'14nc oonJlt1'Wli~Jn hefhre dl!lvli:tlurnlll~:nt ,mpro"DnMln~ _~ &.::Wupletotl, _.lUt Ptopll'filll i. _ ti)Uuw.; 1. ~.nlemeuta: m th.. ..... 0'- modal hmn_ on u.:"rilO ii_tn. IS l.!}B~", ~ pwll-.., will bill providllld. HI_lop will _ provided. up to ,~ My~k M~'li ~velupmenl trom ~Bl'kviIIW Pond.. Thi. wi! I .lIow ~n~r~etw.y vehj~11ClI!o .. W41 ~I& U.l lb. lU4ilM of mud.1 Qmrb:lJ. Well tiC plltut1il)" ou (lltQtdlt~tl"M tft~ utilil~ tllilnMtrwUulIl w.xmw uafC.lt,~h th..~. ttli ~....tll alj; po",,;hlll! Utd dunl'!" this time m1.1d.i nmtllS tXlnMtrucbon wjl. MWII'l to atop. Aft<< uuHttefll --= thrn..~ the uea we wilJ rapJ1lQ1l' IW)' cl.. 5 th!f.t. ~. to be 1'C~ twernre h)adrtop_ ". rout.i,.n ~fiIdes: A fnundtdion _-huilt will b.I!I prnvi....lf.:1r...,.. mt)~ki n.1Q1e IQt. Tn.;8 ;nhl...wuion wiU bII provided to tbt! C.'Y of rarmin,I..I!1 hefe:..; .......l6tl!t will eIO.nnmencl~. J, i\n:\~:s~: M_' h~Jrtk!l COlliitruet11JQ ~l!IlttI wiJlt..-sur in u.~ .tnh..~ lifltll:;. EiU.,.. at the N W ljlt1ln..~ W tW:i property iiurn ~ ~.s'h SlnltItllllt.)Uih WI UiMmf.lf1d Path Md flIW,l intJ,1 the I.leveJof'mIllJri. nn 19&11. &&.:.l. Tb43 ~It~ optinn ~j1d hCl...~ OOUlli'l 00'1' tna WMt lbrc1Up'h Pllrk"eew Pund. on 1')811- Sireet ud the tbjnJ, option would be to (lOMd from u. vQld .h~u8h ParkYiew Vc,md. un E.mbsrlf A"'enue wb..icb bll"nlt inlU l!.l9'!' S~l in P,O.M.01c:H . P-Iko, MN S50''?O . Phone: 1.l#~2.4bl-,\~.2.. iO.ll: iv51;4bj-:W~6 16 .A GPI I I I j l U I lUIJ JL GIIII Propertl.., Inc. ,rCmmni".,., to EmlIIMce" Mydle Meadow. "'ind Addition.. A.;.oo~ J~f.~nJ.t ~m which "tr=t. ~ bt_tuppat in fluieview Pond.. 4. ~: Oil. pf()plInilill!i ,,-ill t'dIJ"ltlt '-',mehuUde.I'IJ Qd all a.-their I:4m.tnwt;...., Wl.lfll.tn'll. u., peri: in the ... af OeYrie Path where the model h~ ....l~. S. Trull ~lUlW'eli: a.ch builder will be m:fuitel:llQld be ~ib.l. t(t provid. on lilt.: ,,.i1 .:nclu-.t'O!I "' ~*t.in .Ji Clillnllltuctian debris. 6. DrivcWI.YIi: Eacb bui'der within die de'lllldl,lfWl"ilI)l. wd' .. ~"~rQj .\Iud ~....i'hlc k, pro~ide .. ~lUII S ~~~ en.......C~ lQ their n.......' d.wiq ti... .:..~..IltnM:n.,n pn.~I!i, 7. Portable Toileu: r-.h. auilder w,u bt ~u.tII.'ld _d Mlpu,.ible tD pruvide an an .i.. purt,lble toilet! ellc. .. ~,c .f"""uvoJ by the (.~ity tinJineer. 8. Si1e m.q~....": RuUcLcn,!I!P"ClC 10 iake .u ~flIIU.Y .. to fWCv~t l';il~> an.uon em the Iota p~ IWd ~pt h'lllpOU.&bility fur .... W,.,i't"'lltNll'.l;.' and .luna YnIU:r run-off. Bu..kMlI~ ~ to inatalt ~.. ..... Pf()lIIiIi.lUUll durinf!l tilt.' WI ...l.......-:Liou PU,)Ca1l un nr .-n.utk6 lite lUlIIlUI n:quirod by ..he City of F~d. 9. Fi... Su!)pt"thlllliun: lhi. wiU be pro"idaJ, 'Ilia . local hydrant 10 be prtnt,ded by the~. 1 hope tbi. .. -.n ~.,.C' 1liI1.ulrnn tOr tnCl ()ity Qf Fwnnin~~m ..u~ . ih.'.IIk )'0'" tor thi. oppotiunlly I.u ..Uowour buildenllU g..t...U'~t UIIO_~' h...~n... If ~u M"1ll' any qumJl4jon. ~J mlt 1l19~2-4ti J -l9X2. Sm.-cly. ~,v.. rl,J~~-~ ,- John AndenInn! fial. Prl.l!*rtiooll. h~{:. . .....................~.....,.....~~.......~.IJ. P.O.8o:l 51 · ~'kn., MN ~~(~10 · PII_.~Ilt'l; (~:"'Z)4fl,l.39f4'2 . Fax; 1952i ..M.3~~Cl 17 . , i'" ~:e 11 ~J ~ i ~~ J~ 15 .. ~i i~ ~... I~ ;.'!i -;: ~ ..- ~~~ PROJECT NO: 2005-0152 ORA 'MIl BV: BSA DATE: 06 14/05 ! j j :.; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ...j;;.'''"'~" e! ,,! 0:' .8- ..~ ~~ EXHIBIT "E" I i, I L AWSnC .&ADO" ..,- JUl. mall GPl ....~........ .... 7 . . . " . D M I . . . . 7 . . . . . 17 r___ 1Q.~ .at IIIlIIIL .. r --:-' M WODEL HOME EXHIBIT EXHIBIT ey.{LSSON ASSOCIATES _.......-_.- --a.:.:I'--==..~.- 1 18 7~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator~t---- FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: 208th Street Extension to Pilot Knob Road (Industrial Park) DATE: July 5,2005 INTRODUCTION City staff would like the City Council's consent to eliminate a pending Pilot Knob Road assessment against land that a property owner will be donating to the City. The land in question is needed for the right-of-way for a planned extension of 208th Street from its current westerly terminus in the Industrial Park to Pilot Knob Road. DISCUSSION The portion of 208th Street that lies within the Industrial Park currently "dead-ends" at the eastern and western borders of Phase II of the Industrial Park. Mr. John Devney is the owner of the 40-acre parcel of property that lies between Pilot Knob Road and the west end of 208th Street in the Industrial Park. Approximately 3.03 acres of Mr. Devney's land will be needed for the right-of-way for the planned extension of 208th Street to Pilot Knob Road. Mr. Devney has agreed to donate the land in question to the City, but he has requested that a pro-rated portion of the pending Pilot Knob Road assessment against his property be waived in exchange for his land donation. The current amount of the assessment against Mr. Devney's 39.64-acre parcel is $121,292.09 (principal of $86,440.85 plus interest of $34,851.24), which is equivalent to $3,059.84 per acre. The amount of the requested waiver is therefore approximately $9,271.32 ($3,059.84/acre x 3.03 acres). ACTION REQUESTED Motion to waive a pro-rated portion (approximately $9,271.32) of the pending Pilot Knob Road assessment against certain property owned by Mr. John Devney in exchange for his donation of the land required for the right-of-way for the planned extension of 208th Street to Pilot Knob Roadj ,,/ & ResD~';. fully Sub . ted, .' f!f ./~ , .' 'v Carroll ~ ~mni~.mity Development Director 1/ (- ~b1 .~ \j Dl/ . ( ~ ~ lD o ~ b .;J c: ~bM '~i ~. 'it.>-,l.. At: ~ ,fP. ,;~ ~ ~ \)V 1," .~ 20STH STREET ~0~ , ( c==J Proposed Commercial Zoning c==J Existing Industrial Zoning ------. Potential Future Extensions Planned Future Extension II ~ .. .. . II /I.tt'J. . II ,... .. II II II .. II II CSAH 50 550 N + I Feet map created on May 2(1,12'm05 lOa.- City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator ~ FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Preview of Conversion from Housing and Redevelopment Authority to Economic Development Authority DATE: July 5, 2005 INTRODUCTION Todd Arey, the Chair of the Farmington Housing and Redevelopment Authority [HRA], will make a short presentation on July 5 regarding the work that the HRA has been doing on a possible "conversion" of the HRA to an Economic Development Authority [EDA]. DISCUSSION During 2004, the members of the Farmington HRA began discussing the possibility of changing the format of the HRA so that it could more closely reflect the type of work that the City needs and wants to be doing in the area of economic development. As those discussions progressed through 2004 and into 2005, the HRA began to focus on the merits of converting the HRA into an Economic Development Authority [EDA]. I have attached a Memo from the City Attorney dated January 7,2005, which provides background information on the origins and histories of HRAs and EDAs, along with a "Comparison Table" that highlights the similarities and differences between HRAs and EDAs. At its latest meeting on June 27, 2005, the HRA reviewed initial drafts of the documents that would be needed to effectuate the transition from the current HRA format to an EDA format. City staff and the City Attorney were asked at that time to amend and clarify the documents in various respects. It is anticipated that the HRA will review revised versions of the documents in question at its next meeting on July 11. At that meeting, it is possible that the HRA may adopt a formal recommendation that the City Council schedule a public hearing on the possible conversion of the HRA to an EDA. That recommendation (if made) may be on the agenda for the July 18 City Council meeting. Notice of any such public hearing would presumably have to be published at least 30 days in advance of the hearing, which means that the hearing would probably not be conducted until late August or early September. The main operational difference between the HRA and the EDA would probably be in the area of membership or composition. The HRA is currently composed of one City Council member and four other residents of Farmington. Most of the HRA's recent discussions have envisioned a seven-member EDA, consisting of two City Council members and five other residents. This type of structure would provide an opportunity for more effective City Council-EDA interaction, and would also provide an opportunity for more community involvement and participation (through the creation of an additional "non- Councilmember" seat on the EDA). HRA Chair Todd Arey will be in attendance at Monday night's meeting to help answer any questions that the Council may have about the work that the HRA has done on this issue to date. ACTION REQUESTED Provide comments or direction, if desired. ~ ".' ev n Carroll Community Development Director '- CAMPBELL KNUTSON ~ Thomas J. Campbell Roger N. Knutson Thomas M. Scott Elliott B. Knetsch Joel J. Jamnik Andrea McDowell Poehler Matthew K. Brokl* *Also licensed in Wisconsin Professional Association Attorneys at Law (651) 452-5000 Fax (651) 452-5550 ... John F. Kelly Soren M. Mattick Marguerite M. McCarron Gina M. Brandt Brendan J. Flaherty Author's Direct Dial: (651) 234-6219 E-mail Address:jjalllllik@ck-law.colll January 7, 2005 To: Farmington HRA Board From: Joel Jamnik Subject: HRAs and EDAs-Background The origins and histories ofHRAs and EDAs may provide some insight to the HRA in evaluating its composition and role within the City of Farmington. Most HRAs trace their origins back to the United States Housing Act of 1937, a New Deal program representing the first federal program committed to assist cities with building low rent housing and redeveloping blighted areas. That Act, as well as the Housing Act of 1949 and successive enactments, provided federal funds to local governments with the stated goal of providing "a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family. " HRAs were created as entities connected to, yet separate from, city hall to compete for funds, undertake housing and redevelopment initiatives" and in some cases to manage the projects following their construction in order to ensure their continued affordability and upkeep. While housing for the post-war baby boom may have been the initial focus, urban redevelopment under the Great Society's programs administered by the newly created U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) caused an evolutionary change in the local organizations. More emphasis began to be placed on broader redevelopment initiatives, complementing housing activities with retail, office, and other job creating land uses. The growth ofHUD's Section 8, and other, housing programs was matched by a growth in local HRAs, to the point that today there are approximately 230 HRAs in Minnesota. As new governmental programs or tools were enacted to spur housing and redevelopment, or industrial or economic development, oftentimes HRAs were selected (or took the initiative to become) the lead unit of government to effectuate the program, or use the particular tool provided by the legislature. At the same time, some cifies, including a few in Minnesota, that had previously been authorized by federal and state legislatures to assist or promote the creation of harbor, warehousing and transportation facilities, or to otherwise enhance or grow their port activities, started (with legislative approval) to use the port authorities' powers for commercial and industrial activities beyond the waterfront. The successes of the Duluth, St. Paul and Minneapolis Port Authorities to foster not only redevelopment but economic Suite 317 · Eagandale Office Center · 1380 Corporate Center Curve. Eagan, MN 55121 development throughout the city was noticed by other city officials who sought to copy the larger cities by the creation oftheir own port authorities, even if they were located miles away from any real "port." Eventually, the number (and irony or incongruity) of landlocked cities petitioning the legislature for special legislation to form port authorities in the mid to late 1980s became enough of an issue for legislators that a new entity was allowed to be formed-the Economic Development Authority. As envisioned by the proponents of the legislation, the EDAs focus would not be on housing, or on removal of blight, but like port authorities would work on a broad range of economic development initiatives. But unlike port authorities, which were established in some cities as quite autonomous entities, the EDA would be closely linked to the elected city council. Further, because the legislature debated the EDA legislation concurrent with the discussion of several highly publicized problem projects or issues such as the growth of the number and size of tax increment districts, certain tools available to port authorities were withheld from EDAs. For the most part, however, the passage ofthe EDA legislationstopped the growth of Port Authorities (now at about 25 and holding), and started a process of re-examination or reflection in many cities regarding how to best make use of these new and existing powers and structures. It is important to note that the state's economic development laws provide enough flexibility to allow each city to determine its optimum organizational structure and to change that structure over time to meet changing circumstances. Suite 317 · Eagandale Office Center · 1380 Corporate Center Curve · Eagan, MN 55121 Comparison Table - BRAs and EDAs Housinl! and Redevelopment Authorities Economic Development Authorities ~ PURPOSE: An HRA is responsible for determining blighted land areas, and fro preventing the spread of blight, including substandard building structures. A blighted area is one with buildings and areas that are detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. The HRA may then provide for improvements or redevelopment ofthese areas through a redevelopment plan. An HRAs main area of operation is housing program development. HRAs are primarily concerned with family rahabilitiation, housing redevelopment, public housing redevelopment, public housing and rent assistance. GOVERNING BODY: Approval for any project through the approval of a redevelopment plan must be granted by the appropriate City Councilor county board. Activities are controlled by a board of commissioners. An HRA is independent of the local government. Approval of the redevelopment plan for the proposed project is needed, however, by the governmental unit in order to proceed. ACTIVITIES: 1. May establish a redevelopment project (Minn. Stat. ~ 469.002) for the elimination and prevention of blighted areas. 2. Carry out projects designed to improve blighted areas. 3. Acquire real or personal property for activities related to projects. 4. May provide for the administration of a commercial building loan program to preserve small sized buildings in its district. 5. May sell real or personal property for project related purposes. 6. May sell its lands and properties to private or public parties. Sale is dependent on these parties' Zresponsibilities to continue with the redevelopment plan specified by the HRA. 7. May act as federal government agent in carrying out provisions ofthe Municipal Housing and Redevelopment Act. 8. May exercise the powers granted to redevelopment agencies under Chanter 474. 9. Provide relocation payments and assistance in accordance with federal guidelines. PURPOSE: The overall purpose of an EDA is to promote economic development within a district. EDAs may exercise their own powers which are similar to port authority powers, powers of a HRA, and the powers of cities in connection with development districts and municipal industrial development districts ("\ \ GOVERNING BODY: An EDA is created through an enabling resolution written and approved by the City Council/County Commissioners. EDAs have a board consisting of3, 5, or 7 commissioners appointed by the Mayor with the approval ofthe City Council/County Commissioners. The board may also consist entirely of City Council members or County Commissioners. The City Council/County Commissioners may control activities of the EDA by limiting its powers under the enabling resolution and through the annual approval ofthe EDA budget~ ACTIVITIES: EDAs are granted powers within their own district, outside their development district, and, by cross-reference, the powers of HRAs, development districts in connection with the city, and agencies in connection with Municipal Industrial Development. Activities within district: 1. Acquire property of creation of development district that is tax exempt. 2. Sell or lease land either by private or public means. 3. Carry out EDA law to develop and improve land within the district. The EDA may make any necessary arrangements to make land suitable for development. Powers outside district: 1. Exercise eminent domain. 2. Enter into contracts for the purpose of economic development. 3. Purchase all materials needed to carry out development. 4. Engage in research to determine factors or specified development projects. 5. Act as limited partner in contracts with additional parties. ( . \., // e",~;:,/ Cross reference powers: 1. Exercise Industrial Development powers for HRA and EDA powers for industrial development activities. lOb City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator (fC/r FROM: Lee Smick, AICP City Planner SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Vermillion River Crossings Revised Preliminary Plat & Final Plat DATE: July 5, 2005 INTRODUCTION Pederson Ventures, on behalf of the Knutsen family, submitted a revised preliminary plat (Exhibit A) along with a proposed final plat (Exhibit B) to the City on June 9, 2005 and June 23,2005 for Vermillion River Crossings located at the southwest intersection of CSAH 50 and Denmark Avenue. The property is zoned Spruce Street Commercial (SSC) and Park/Open Space (POS). The property consists of 61.86 acres, of which approximately 40 acres is developable. DISCUSSION Planning Commission Meeting - June 28. 2005 The developer submitted a revised preliminary plat and proposed final plat for the June 28th Planning Commission meeting. The original Vermillion River Crossings Preliminary Plat was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on September 28, 2004 and approved by the City Council on November 1,2004 (Exhibit C). The developer recently determined that additional "upland" acreage could be developed on the north side of the storm water ponding facility on the east side of the property without inhibiting the function of the storm water design, and therefore, the developer chose to include an additional developable lot fronting CSAH 50 (Lot I Block 4) (Exhibit A). Per the City Attorney, the developer was required to revise the "approved" preliminary plat (Exhibit C) without requiring the need for a public hearing. At the June 28th meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the revised preliminary plat for Vermillion River Crossings along with the final plat with the following contingencies: 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. Revised Preliminary Plat The revised preliminary plat shows the addition of Lot 7 Block 2 along the south side of CSAH 50. The lot totals 1.19 acres. The other revision to the preliminary plat includes the reduction of Outlot A (storm water pond/infiltration basin) from 21.48 acres to 20.85 acres. Proposed Final Plat Additionally, the developer has chosen to shift some of the property lines on the final plat to provide custom lot sizes for prospective businesses. The lot size revisions include the following: Approved Preliminary Plat (Exhibit A) Proposed Final Plat (Exhibit B) Lot 3 Block 1 = 1.49 acres Lot 1 Block 2 = 1.14 acres Lot 4 Block 2 = 2.34 acres Lot 5 Block 2 = 4.06 acres Lot 1 Block 4 = 1.06 acres Lot 1 Block 1 = 1.04 acres Lot 1 Block 2 = 1.25 acres Lot 1 Block 3 = 2.30 acres Lot 2 Block 3 = 1.37 acres Lot 1 Block 4 = 1.06 acres Outlot G provides an outlot for the road construction of the north/south road consisting of 1.63 acres and Outlot J encompasses the north/south road and the proposed Spruce Street right-of-way consisting of 4.98 acres. Site Plan Exhibit D shows an overall site plan that was submitted to the City on August 27, 2004. The site plan was included in this packet for reference only. As shown on the site plan, the location of some of the uses has changed, however the concept and configuration of the buildings remain mostly the same. Landscape Plan As shown on the previously submitted landscape plan (Exhibit E), revisions will need to be made to comply with the proposed final plat. The developer needs to submit an updated landscape plan for final plat approval, consistent with the City Code's requirements in Section 10-6-10: (B) Landscape Plan Requirements: Plans for required landscaping in the B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, SSC, IP, BP and I-I districts and for multi-family dwellings shall be submitted to the planner for approval before any permits are issued. The plan, shall be based on accurate final site plans and consist of a planting plan and exterior lighting plan. A registered landscape architect, registered architect, certified arborist, horticulturist or landscape designer shall prepare the plan. The Developer will also have to submit detailed design plans for the 4 site amenity areas required per the Spruce Street Design Standards. The Developer intends to submit a landscape plan on Friday, July 1, 2005 for staff review. Park & Recreation Advisory Commission Comments Randy Distad, Parks & Recreation Director, has submitted comments from the Park & Recreation Advisory Commission concerning trail requirements for the plat. The comments are discussed in Exhibit F and require the need to increase the width of the bike trail along CSAH 50 from 8 feet to 10 feet and include a trail location near the gas pipeline easement on the final plat. Engineering Comments The Engineering Division has recommended approval of the Revised Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for Vermillion River Crossings contingent upon the satisfaction of any engineering requirements. Lot Calculations The attached table, Exhibit G, shows the lot acreages for the proposed final plat. Outlots and right-of- way calculations are also included. Pedersen Ventures' Presentation at the Julv 5.2005 City Council Meeting The Developer, Pedersen Ventures, will present additional information to the City Council on July 5, 2005 including the following: I. Architectural renderings of the buildings along the north/south roadway. 2. Discussion about the grading and storm water plan in order meet the Special Waters requirements of the MPCA (Exhibit H). 3. Landscape plan including the 4 amenity areas. 4. Scheduling of the construction project. ISSUES TO BE REVIEWED AT THE SITE PLAN REVIEW STAGE As stated in Section 10-6-23 of the Farmington Zoning Code, a formal site plan review and approval is required at the Planning Commission upon the proposed "construction of new structures" on "vacant undeveloped land." Therefore, each lot within the proposed Vermillion River Crossings Final Plat needs to be reviewed through the formal site plan process by the Planning Commission after the final plat is approved but prior to construction. The plat is considered a "Major Project" and will be reviewed during the formal site plan process under Section 10-6-23 (E) of the Farmington Zoning Code. Additionally, the developer will be required to comply with Section 10-6-21 of the Farmington Zoning Code concerning the Design Standards for the Spruce Street Commercial zoning district. As required in the code, a number of issues need to be reviewed including but not limited to the following items: I) Parking space needs 2) Handicap parking space needs 3) Landscaping 4) Refuse/loading areas 5) Lighting 6) Sidewalks/Trails 7) Grading 8) Building elevations - Floor plans 9) Fire protection plan 10) Site amenities 11) Signage plan 12) Variances to City Standards 13) Conditional Use Permits Along with the above items, the following items need to be discussed in detail at the site plan review stage: 1. Conditional Uses - The following proposed uses are conditionally allowed in the Spruce Street Commercial zoning district and therefore would require a conditional use permit reviewed by the Planning Commission: . Convenience Store . Hotel . Fast Food Restaurant The conditional use permits may be applied for at the same time as the review of the site plan. 2. Parking Spaces - With the reduction of square footage in Lots 1 and 2 Block 3, the parking space requirements may become more difficult to meet. The parking space requirements will be reviewed at the site plan stage and if the spaces are deficient in number, the Developer will need to apply for a variance or utilize other means of meeting the parking requirements such as the construction of a parking facility on site. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt a resolution approving the Revised Preliminary Plat and Proposed Final Plat for Vermillion River Crossings contingent upon the following: I. 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. ~:sp.;.. :t(U~ sUbmi~... ed" It..~~, /~ - . - p;- ~t u ~_, Lee Smick, AICP City Planner cc: Pederson Ventures Robert Knutsen Stanley Knutsen RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING REVISED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT AND AUTHORIZING SIGNING OF FINAL PLAT 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 of said City on the 5th day of July, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member _ introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, the revised preliminary and fmal plat of Vermillion River Crossings is now before the Council for review and approval; and WHEREAS, a public hearing of the Planning Commission was held for the preliminary plat on September 28, 2004 after notice of the same was published in the official newspaper of the City and proper notice sent to surrounding property owners; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a revised preliminary plat on June 28, 2005; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the revised preliminary and final plat on July 5, 2005; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has rendered an opinion that the proposed plat can be feasibly served by municipal service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above final plat be approved and that the requisite signatures are authorized and directed to be affixed to the final plat with the following stipulations: 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. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 5th day of July, 2005. Mayor Attested to the _ day of July, 2005. City Administrator re-:'::: -.-- --:r::;..~"::"''''- rlfin f1 n. i ~'1 \,-;,-"1' C:;-' '=' C-.I ~ c::J I!!ill @ l!!!!J ~. m j ~ ,$ H I~ ~---~r;--------------T-----------------------r----------= I " , '" ,,, 3nWAV" I '~):;.1t- _________-1 E w ,,'.:I J )I~V'f'IlN3G ~; ~ ~ J Z/'?6 'C~,~'~:~:lt.'0"4 ;'LL ~ i 2= I ______.J -----..-, I , I I , , , , , , I I , I , (f) C) Z (f) (f) o 0:::: U 0:::: W > Ct: z o --.J --.J 2 0:::: w > t J ft'"ut Nt..t't u...QtrI , , , I , I ~1 Vl' i...:..Il ~: , m~. ~.. I- W W a::: I- (f) I I' 1-' N: ~I ~~ : , , !: " " J: Ii N .,., .! ~ ~ .! ; .~ 0 "' ! Ll'l !;; ! Os !! n .. L ii! f i I N ,I -, 0; , .. Z, L_ ~ , i i ~. r-' . <l:: i ~I I' . l:l: - I :E: I (l ""' ..... ~ .... ~ ill" i ..: I- o -' I- ::> o N ., !j I:=' "' n!~.1 -I .... on" ....1 lOllnO ... ... 1- r,~' b. .l ~~ , 9] .J ""' <0 tTLr;z:~ A'l.KSt600S z o ;:: Cl. w U x w L_________ ~ ,jU I --'5": ~ j ;;~i' t; .'~~I...-i- . ~!!:I!i~ii .../'\: ~ ~! ~ i..ON It! il: Uj ~~~~ z~I'; ... . \' v!\' ~~ ~'I ~:;: i:e. I!. f:' ~ " €; ~:! niBil ::i5I;1iiD~~I=:1 ~~~~~~~;!!~ NC'IIINNNNNg:d: l'lilHH.' .' miEE~&mCIllUCl .:rJri...rtd":ll:i'D !~!!!!!a8~a co I- o F is nilnn E~!5!~:~ . . . . I . Ie I Jjiiiiiii o~~~~~;:~ ...J__-'-'-'-'!~ ill ~ <0 ~ ~ ...: i & ! 1i ~ _1 1 :!- - i 0 :: ~ ~ e ~ ! 2 :a t : :r - . '" ,g. 5 l] i ~ ~ = -' 'O:!i; -g "6 -.: j Ii -i g, u c: f 'ij ~ ~ i F"O "0 co ~ 0"'0 ?: . 't, ~ I; ! l ~ In ~ z l1i o l5 ~ ii: , ~ ~ '" .. ~ . . N ~ ~ ~ i~ ~Il I ~~ . ~1 0 -;r,5J!51 : ~ It) ..!! ~ ;;; t m ~ t~ . z ~ ~ ..... "6 ii: ~ I 'Ii It ~ 8- 1 o __..___________________________J N o. :: ....- ...N -'" ",::> o ro n ~ '0 5' !l ~ 8 0 i ~ $! ,,; 9 t ~ ~ g '0 ! i ~ I .fi ~ In :C ~ o ~ -i co '" '" ... .... '" i' '0 .., ~ ~ o , i' - 0: ~ Do .s ~ L/,V/ Cf) ~ <: I--.j Cf) Cf) a ct: u ffi ~ ---J ct: <: a I--.j -J -J I--.j ~ ffi ~ I Xl t ~ II II i I d i; t ~ i If d j I!' ( ~I.!X X i J ! I~ I I J II I ! ii h j Ih ~ I i ,1 !t Ii IJ II III III Ii II Ii!;! Iii 6~ I ~h ull t ~n .i i 1 J .f J .&- u -II l J f I J j f f it << I r i! J ~ I J I i., ! II II .... .1 ~t al 11 J~I SiU ~zf I Uf~ --..---..- -- f I il ~ ! J a ., a 1 I J iJI i i 1 il ~ 1 ~h I- .. 1 ..j J .. .I J aJ I ~ lill t i" . ] ~ tit I . II ~ .. 11 a t J ! f-l I It J! 11 II i J J} J Ij i! iJ U ~! ~ l( 11 1 ~ , h iu4 h f I ., It! I J laJ '1,1 .. U i .= f t II I, .I II ; U !J n J I t hi; I Ih Ii 11ft >1 j 1;.1. J J 1 if ~1..~ I ~i .I 111~ "J 11.t f ~ ~ Ii !i il ! I III ahJ I III ld~ Uti! ~ 'pUt I I I U.J J~1J I} II il! l~ I I. nU IJ If ~ U.!JI! I Ii U if .... Ii J I d 8 E'XflIB>r B ...,-~.----'-' ~-~._.~,.,_.._.._~-""'" .--, , W") ! C) ; ~ i , C'? I ,r- :, i :l~.J /~ ~ ..~_::J -_._---~. ~ ~ i}i C\l. ~ ...., ..... ~ i}i ~ .\.. 'f .... H:all h · n~i ~ w ~ S -..,l!l ~ tn ~ ~ ~i ~ c.n C!) <:: I--.; c.n c.n C) ct CJ .... lJ:l ::': CI) i!: ~ ~ ~ l- e::. ~ :::. e::. I.Lf.~.~,. ... 'f'.? .'.'.'.-'n.b.ii-v '\ "!o g ~ :;~ ODNL-tt t~: 'M HJ :i. 6 ~;: :---- j: It:: C\J ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ lu ~ 3 0) ~ 1 ~ ~ I 5 :........ ..: L..SI.fItIR..."..., ,:\ ~~ ~ : I'"!C...~-:.~~~_-~~_-;:~-:. ~: ~ : : a~ : ........, ~ g ~ ~ - - - !!~_ - I 5 : :J:: ~ :J::i r - - - 7uiiS - - I I .... G m~: .... C\J : ~ I- C:l Q Q' ~ I- G 81 1 3 -J .... ....~ II e::. C:l _: I !Xl "" ""i i__ ~_..~'!!_~_ : .....l____u__<<.:"!__u_ i 16''''' HJ1&1 ~~ ~ I ~ ~ ~;! 1-' tI) tI)~ I~ Ir----Tg.-~--~ IQ..... i:!! ~ ::::.:::::!!: ~ - )...1 l,e t- t.l rei , :t: ~ ~~ I" 3 C:l": I ;: is is~: ..... iil _ ~ I ~ tJ t.): f:::: ':: - v.=:: - - ~ II ~ i: : i5 j" IQJ I ~ i ~ : ~ 1l:::J : 'C{ : t- I C!i I I e::. Q:' I~ 1>- I t; ~i5 I ~ ~: ~ .., -.J ,Ii 1 18 " i5 I ,_ I I~'~ : I ~ !.:~ I "< . 't : I c:. ': I I I I \._ _~'!I' ;:..K:..K~"'!. __I I , , I I ~ I--.; ct <:: C) I--.; -J -J I--.; ~ ffi ~ 9 l071no ,- - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '~ :~ :3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ':-1 . I.' ~~ {" ~:I ;a S~ _ _ _ _ _ SZ'IlICI 1f.99.9E.OOS lit'''' ...IS...... C) ~ [b u -~ en _ _ _ ~_U.IS~",._ .'UEf .i...K.DON ~ If OI.~.~oH l" I ~ ~ ~ ! l! ~I ':'-:l1~ 1'~~ 10 l\' t:I t; l!i 'so iii . lil..: Ii! II'S is is ",U ft". /....",'wd .VV " . ". iu l~ I! l' __..._?J ~ C) C\j Q: -------~~------- , , , ....' '-', 't~~, "', ..\..~....I \ ~ .\\ I ,~, : I I , I I I I I " ': I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,,'u. /Utr1S t.J l- e::. ~ :::. o lO C'r) l.) Lu en -"':'"! - - - - - - - - - ; ~ ~ l ii - - - I, - - - - - - - - ft~ .1'''JlJVJ~.!M11JOI Iii; G!1I113rr 13 \ ~ t::J V; C\i :s C\J I- t::J il5 ,.-::.j~H ~ ~ ~ ~ w h ~~-~ ~ --;,::;- Tf -,I;-fLf -:oNd~'~;:.'f:o..1H9ItJ-amtJ-),;NnoJ -;'10>lmJ - - - - -~ ~- ........'..3, I 2 ~ 11' il Ul ~ I I 5: ~ Iii 1!\I8 l" ; ~I I~ - -H.eI- -!'iI1i ;; ~, ~ I "'.:. '" i 0 .. i! .......UDH .~..!!:!' L3~;;~:~:/'~_>::"?"__ _ L~ ~ i _ ......:'=E_ !,,"~~'~ ~'se .13.':~f':<<JIS - - - - - - - -to>-ar...."".1- - - - -- -- --- - - - - - - - -- !iI i i !'It: ..,~ lolS.".1H1S I- ~ . .., " . ~ I itt:";;:f ~. w!R~ ',""-,:, ;.r ;;~I~lI' \t! ~ I ~, ,,~..,.:--. - _ 41...&:6 li ~?5 ~ ~..'&..\--_~ ~ Q ~ ,<. ~.f .",,~, - .!!.-~~ ffi ~ ~r':,~'t"i> "'" " ~,~~~ '- -.~~ ~_, . ~V1'~~'''1:~' " .~~, ~ ~ ~;:...:_~ . OJ ,..~~ ........"'\:..... B0689p . .~! oq; -;.....".~ It.t/f/.~.~ _ ft:i ,.~ ':-t ..,."*,,,,~~, ON .... ,.J ~.(l ...:"-\ -- t- ,0 '-....,"" r; 1\ ;;; / ~~ "'- -- ~--:.~ "' ~8L-.. 3: ~\;. .'Iii" ;:a./07F;" _ / \~:.,.. ", '':::'''::--::- _ ;a I.qt/f1..... - ~':.; .l <1-\ " ',,-, ;'a ;.t1D.4., i <'r.,,,,, .-"1 "N3Jtn~oo " ''''" t.t I. J..: ~'~~~~.~_ -!l.~ ~.'r.., 6'~d ", "~flf I.u I ""'Sl' HJ/IDS I .i.o/.3Ir.3's~~' ':v ~: ~: ~ ~~~ ~~ fJ) I ~I ~ , :1'"'1 ~ E: ''1i;-~1!&....~.___ ~ :It;g. ~: ~ ~ ;: I -.J 1~.8tll" .........:J: .....,~~__ ;:: I ~E,!'.' ;..::::- -... ~, .....E I H! " ~ ~;:!;{"-- ~2:J. ", f '~;]\I ( ~,~_. ;....,-. C::J C'? "'"nl i ~~l ~ l ~~_J ~-'I ~ -=--::S "" ~ '" (j) lD' :z l--I (j) (j) o 0: U 0: W > l--I 0: I I 1 I 1 1 I / I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 ~I ;/ 4- o fl II ~ I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I / \ I \ \ \ \ \ :z o l--I ~ ~ H L 0: W > +-> co r--I 0... :::>-- C- co C .rl E .rl r--I OJ C- o... 1l~ .W l' w~ -. I- I , i , f : 1 1 , 1=1 lfll ~I I 1 1 1 1-1 Wi Wi 0:, ~I , , I I II 1-1 CUi ...... 1 ~I I I I I 01 lfl' I I I , I 01 21 , I I , >-1 <( I 3:1 [61 HI I, I , 1 I 01 ~ IS I. I' I; . I~ I~ ~ ,~ <( ," I- I lfll I I .. I ~ >- :~~: ~ ,IN :::> Ii: 01 fO. ul i I : r II : 1 : I 'I : I II , - w l ~1f1 ~- ~..; . ~ i. ,I', 99'S;6i-t:l , '''S'OJCl-' 00.Ol.9 . .. J.II...tllIIII '2"OQE "IO.~"OlIl i _ i II"OK II.D,tO.GIN . ~ Ii . i ,; , ,- 1,* J !J !3 ~ !" 2 0(1'1 gO'lL i I M C\l a M ...... .... C\l ...... .a.a._ ~~ :z: "'" ,.~ ~ 'I ~ ~ i 3nN3^V~ . i .,'UE M E~,.a.'OH La'" .:.t ... ... 1Ii.1I .'at .... I )j~VrlN30 Mlgz.I2.'OH 9,"'86 z ~ N ~:: ; <( f- a -' f- ::J a 101100 ID 3~ lD El'lgaf M.~.liE.OOS z a ..... ..... a. UJ u x UJ s Ex /-116 II (! J{fywetJ & I)bV I, 2/)1J 4 -> i" !H c ~ ; ; I-&~ . ;!~; 1~~$~=i~i~ :"~ml..B.4:i'D. iT~ 1!..,li.. ;:~.~I~.i::~~ / ... III all! .:.. :;:~ f;! :::.... UJ~~! .....'0.... it::i-=; lit 01.6Z."oH lD E::::- ~~~~~~ ~~~~;~~:.. ;;;~;~:~~~ NC\lNNRlN~"'P'lO ~~x~~~n::~~ ;...........~~.... .ID IDlDmlD ClDua ::::Iri'ui;;:;~ .9.9.9.9~saaai ::::.... ~~~~tbtb ~S"N::~. ni..;..:~:::;~~ :..:..:..:. .:..:. ~ ~ :~~titl1i1i:: lD ~;;HHH b ~~::~ari.r,.:.r r::! -,.3.3.3.3~~B ~ III ~ L ~ .. L +' .. L +' OJ .. ::J .. '" z ~ +' .. 0 .. <= .. OJ _ L ~~S ~ g ~ ! ~ :;: +' <= C> .. - ~ II: o +' ~ ~ i x .. :5 ~ Z ~ ~ i i g.~~~ l;: ~ lIS u .: ~ C') i .!t~lf ~~t:.s a ~ m ~ c.J:-- .0( ..... 0 0 w .. lD ..... ; VI '" ~ VI ~ U II: ~ :: ~ ~ b:H S ..;00 -J c.c !: -J ....~ i t~ E~ I > ~.:~-;-r I ~ ~:~:ra .!2 ~~~-I 0. ~m~~~ ~ I ~ ~ I .s ~ Ul I : ~ L Gl I 0. '" N Q. " " - ru ....0 ....CD ~, o Gl lD~ u. +' ~ Q. ? .5 Ii' ~ s f y o .. ". - E Z ::J VI ... " <> <= <> .. N -' N ,..: <= N OJ +' '" '" .. .\I ::J co ::J :i -4 L oo .!!; Gl '" ;.:. m <D ~ " I .. '" L N .. ... 0. I .. - lr ~ .:: u L .. Ii! e o u j VI co oS <: o N i- ----------- ~+ i ; I 1 t I i li-I\\' : Ugi i I I~- l~ i ~ I ,i - i ~ , , Ii I II g. -- ~--I -~..., "''''''Hl~' ~-~"'=IIlI".&'~ .~ ~-:;d:~~~~~~Nr.; .,.~:-==':'':ri..~~~~ I . SiiOiSiAiii HW'f;)lJ1.Llf,t:l I :110ft> I - - - ~ I~n-- ~ R = r-- ~ 0, @- ~ [!!!!j~\ <C _ ~~+-CC~_ ......i.OS3NNII"'II "A3""'^ on........ .J.33')j..l..S H.L9v1- "M. Sl-69 A'MnJ.N3:J M3N - ,~- ~ SS>NISSC:>~::> - ~3^1~ N~~~W~3^ _~~. "- I ~~ I I I .... <C o 0.: ..... Cl~ ~8 2t;:; 0..... LJ 1:: ~ Z G:':; Z ~~ o !:a 0.: N ?5Bi EX /JIBIIP -------~~ ~~Q; I ~ ..11 r I! 3\30, <( o -' ~ - - , ""0 "-I -j \ \', r. ... \. \.. \\ .....\\\ \,\ '," '.,\ \ ,. \ ~; ~!~ ii:: :.:. III l- II -' B ~ ( I j ! ,. i> / / i I ! : , II I: : ..1 i ~i ~IJ .- o -' ~, Ii , i i, " 'I ,I i III i ~: ; -~-~-=I I J...l~3d~d J..1Nno:) 'V" 10':>1'\7'0 m_ I __ ,h \ E~_ I .. I ; i I ~ -I ;. \ :--~l--f" - 'H'I, - I ..' ,,/, .it I '- - I~-t' :1 I ;I , '~b~a"~ -~-' 1: ~! .. !il~~IlLI -, ~i! 1/ ..' .... ... . oil, ~I tmI1.t1llAl l6U-9.UM91XVJ Y!QS)NHt'I 'lrWI 'IS. Olll ~. JJWS JOV)llV om N~IS3la 7f1 :>NllI:;I3INI::JN3 l.NnO~V~Vd VJ.OS3INN1VV 'A3"""^ 3'ddv J..33~.J.S H.1.9vl. "N\ 5;1..69 ^~n.LN3:::> M3N ~ YlOSlN_ OI~Ifl.Wl avo'll NosonH QS06 A~3s~nN ~3m A3llVA SNI3H :~ "'" '::::> ~ r- ~--- ~ ~ 'I! n_j w___n_nnT_u n'tj-------__ t' ~ 1,1 [Un:_ _m ,- u----l----i.ili,1 _ . -',-____ <r:" II I ., - -- I ' ' !'----------:-'--'--~ II" '-- ,- -::::l-- Iii - : ""<. I,' , 11 .. I I 'I II ' II: !i: II' I, III II! II II: I[ i II, II: ill II i ill II, II: II I I! II i I III ~ II: ~ :f , .. i l~ " "- OF 1 r i I ~~ u ;-"Iol . .. :14: J l ;u .. ~ ::I ~ ~ l' t) ~I 5 ~Il -J ~f- 31 J.l;,j3dO;,jd .llNno:J 1110)ll1C ~r....I'DS.;;c;~J I'!"-",l\ 'd3^1'd NOllIW'd3^ N\""'lcI ~AO#"l ~ @ft/srr e- 5 /1 .J )! 8/1 I : ( , i I \ : <m_ ! \ <->'->a".I' -j ~0: r~.I' City of Farmington 325. Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us all/g/t r TO: Farmington Planning Commission Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Directo~ Comments on Vermillion River Crossing Final Plat FROM: RE: DATE: June 23, 2005 BACKGROUND Staffhas reviewed the Vermillion River Crossing Final Plat (Final Plat). DISCUSSION Based on previous recommendations made by the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC), it appears that there are two items that need to be either revised or shown on the Final Plat and are as follows: . The trail along CSAH 50 should be shown as a 10 foot wide bituminous trail, which is in keeping with current policy and past practice of constructing 10 foot wide bituminous trails along Dakota County highways. · The trail that was previously identified to be constructed east of the commercial development's buildings and along the storm pond is not shown on the Final Plat. This trail alignment was previously identified on the Existing and Proposed Park, Trails and Open Space Plan Map but has not been shown on the Final Plat. It should be shown also on the Final Plat as a 10 foot wide bituminous trail. This trail should connect from the trail along CSAH 50, to the future trail to be constructed on the north side of Spruce Street when it is extended to the development. The developer has indicated to the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission at its June 8, 2005 meeting, that Northern Natural Gas has agreed to allow a trail to be constructed in the gas easement and that it could be constructed parallel with the easement. I have attached Exhibit A that is an email that the developer's engineer provided to me and received from Northern Natural Gas Company about Northern Natural Gas Company's approval of the trail going in the gas. As stated in the letter, an Encroachment Agreement needs to be completed first before the trail can be constructed. If the developer were to also show the location of the trail in the gas easement on the Final Plat that would satisfy this requirement as the PRAC seemed amenable to this location for the trail. The Final Plat does correctly identify the location, size and shape of a town square. RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends to the Planning Commission that the Final Plat for Vermillion River Crossing be approved with the following conditions being satisfied: 1. The 8 foot wide bituminous trail currently being shown along the south side of CSAH 50 should be changed to a 10 foot wide bituminous trail. 2. A 10 foot wide bituminous trail be shown in the gas easement that connects from the bituminous trail along the south side ofCSAH 50 to the future trail to be constructed on the north side of Spruce Street when it is extended. 3. The developer provides a copy of the Encroachment Agreement to the City for the trail to be constructed in the gas easement. ~)J$J Randy DIstad Parks and Recreation Director cc: Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Members Jun-15-05 01:32P Paramount Engineering llJ 00 cd 0.. ~ 4- .~ - '-$. ~ ill E e - en .r: <( ^ e o (J ci tJ ^ ~:::: ... - - 0 @)~ Q) l/) 'in '? ~ = s:: <( ~e~C) CIl .... It) c: C l/) ,. ,- c :E"'" III m ctl 'P"' III N @lit) e ::l >.oU CI) ::l 0 ... V aN w =Q) v ....::,~ c= Me::: cE>.c 1'0 0 1'0 0 N~oc::= ::lU)..c::= C1):E >; E a)'<( ell Qi ._ ,'"0 > ~a:~.. ~cj::lUJ r-. 1-0:: ~ C) U E _..~ o .. c: .c ~ 0 CD ::l .....t-CI.lCl.l CIl ..:; '0 CIl Cl ijl CIl :6 c o l/) C ::l "- ..:; ClI 0.. CIl :: "C c: l'O C 0> :::: ij) Ul lB 0> :; C o Q) OJ c: ctl oJ:: tJ 0> '"0 ell ... 01 o c ,!a ~ CD ,f; III l'O Cl c: .2 II> 1'0 en ;S :6 .~ ~ .0 en -CD ..c '"0 c: ('G C ~ Q) 0. en c o '';:; III "- 0> 0.. o -c a; <: ... ::l o B~ "co> CD E ~Q) g~ w E~ -~ 5,10 .;;;z .9:2 :e;-c. ';:: .9 00> :6c :::J'E ctl 0 ~.Q oJ::a:l ,go 3:~ c.... o Ql f!?== Ql,~ Q.W, ~ 4i' -w --.b OC/) 111-0 Wc EN l'OCO c:_ CIl111 ~~ ~~ Q)(O "0..- >-1Il c'; ell CD ::: Ql III ... ~:g CIl ro =0> .....c: 0= >-l'O o.E 0>- ~~ CI) . E6 := .-. III III E "- we. III 0 m tJ _0> Q.c . .~ 1Il~ :EO -C1> 5:6 ----ai co\/") C1)CDI"o- EE"7 CIlcal"o- ~cco 0lQ)1%f Ill,c N .....-\/") c: "0 0) Q)c_ Ectlro -5.!E6 ltl.-= U) e::-ro tJ 0> ,. c: oJ:: Q) Q)iiiE c:Eo tlI,c- 0-= "C.~ >< 0- III -c- iQlC wg~ CtJ::l E.g:e E o l,J 49 I E e ~ :E::E @Q. >-~ :3 .. 010 (:; rl ~ .:!::Ln > iiSg C2 E N c: ........., 0 o = ENCI)= e>-t::E t;;ltIt::Cl.I :E::E~> <C ~~ ~ ri. 10 ,0:: . '0 Cl.I ~;E]ii E" ~.P"O QC..~ ,-.1110:1 LLUlI-U2 ,c - .~ ..... ctl ~ ~ ,5 "5 C 'i 01 t:: 'iij 13 ... u ~ ni :5 o UI C Q) E Ql U) l'O Q) Ql .5 Qj c- '0.. Ql :; .5 Q) .S Q) CI. '0.. 0> :6 "- o c ,Q (ij (J .2 .co Q) ::l -0- .- () ;?; ctl -0> ~= -e 00 .... ... 0- -~ co... e~ COlli :>,i) ~'8 >..5 1ijE ,!.! Q) 0..- .2-~ :5(11 .0 "C a)'~ E rl ~..2 .~ CD :5.0 1ii:2 a> ::l c: (1)0= ~~& 1/')_.- ..'n; c. ..E!.!::~ o~3 zt-.2 651 771 0544 P.c \ \ \ ..... -0 ~ .... o ~ ..... 0 c: d ~ _ eel:) 5 ~ ltI 0 - '0. r:IJ ;:) ~ 0.- ~ 0 '!:: ~ _ > 0 Q) ':;;: 1".: ~ 0 .... 'C: - c: "'0 "'0 0. -ci r€\ -g ~ "'0 U '..;:::; = c: = .-:: c ..-.. ~ eo .J:).- ~ c: t013 E is.... '.;:I e~ s~ 5 0. eO l:l. - "'0 >, e ~-o u:: -=.- tJ c: ;:) cQ!)lJ~:dc C ',E ~ c: -;;: >. UcJ)4'3c;j.:!~ .s.~ E 6"!!: ; S ~ eb-lf= .:= ~Q)c:::,-_f- 8..c::; d~ c::: Il.i >. '0 8 o.~ .~ ltI >." c:.... e E.o;;:(tlOu "0 ~ u 0 >,..c: e;;....'Oc:~ eo cJ) \.0 0 d .... _00-"''- cn-"",-oOC -QUQ)-- ~ .~ -0 "'0 >- u *' ltI "'0 C !:: c 0..* 4 :.: _ (.) 0\,) d 0..* * t: 0 cn d eo...9: :: ~ c:l (.).::: III .. *':"o-B""'o~* * c'::: _ 0 U .>". * * tt1::::lVc .oil' .. >.ottl(.)"'-* * ~".E c :a <3 ~ * * U(f)O ,-* * ... ,- 0 0' ttl C * : !3~ut)~c: * .- ~ '" .... 2 0... * \.o.n~o(QltI* * ..? ::::l - ..c: 7, 'ro iI' .-;:) .l:l.lJ C* . c:;... c * * :1:1 4:) -=- 5 ~ .~ * : >, ';;: 5 f= '€ ~: .. ~ ~'s...a 0.0* :; g. ;;...'i] 19 z. .,g : .I:;ClU.....c.....* * o.cr.....COulll* *U ,Q);;..,ultl4o * cJ) ~-5 C ;;. 0 * * tt1_\.o<OCC:* * ,""I ..... c"O U 0" 'It '-I 0 '- c:.J:) >. * : ;o.~ ~ ~ tI ~:; * ~ 0..,::: _ cd . * * .a .~- ~ ,- .tI .,.,* *:0 ()<<,c.J:)., *;.c uEoc:* * -;:)....'00* * 8 ~.9 ~ ()"'O: : Q.I -g -0 .... :is .~ * *?:u u..c: (tl-* * _....Nl-'oe* * _0.5'C:: r...i e u., :; 7, OJ] OAl.~.o: * '0.5:; ~ c: oil' * ....ltI"'u...* * r>:>o u-o-* * t:; u l5 e ~ ;;'-.+ : ~.r.-~<O~: * o::l-a-:;Cll-* * ....u~ 0"'0* * 0.0 ,- '-:.0 C" * U ",.9- 0 t: ltI.. * J:: u t) cJ) ,- ." .. * - ~ u U.J:) >. * * .~ ..... ... '5.. I..':l 1::: * * \.o"Oc~<O* * i.: 0 <D U u \:1.* * cd...... "'0_ c:....* * E- eta u v~ .. , CI:I ~. --:l..c:* * Q)'C:; 'E ~.,.... "5 * .. .cJ) B .- '0 ~ - * '* .E cd ll) Q) .... =': :~E-5"Oo:l:l* 'r, o o r.~ ~ .;~ o &xjj/o JT G" Vermillion River Crossings Lot Areas Lot Sq. Feet Acreage Outlot A 135,450 3.11 Outlot B 52,480 1.20 OutlotC 652,967 14.99 Outlot D 98,342 2.26 Outlot E 49,335 1.13 Outlot F 106,435 2.44 Outlot G 70,893 1.63 Outlot H 949,323 21.79 Outlot I 56,894 1.31 Outlot J 216.897 4.98 Outlot Totals: 2,389,016 54.84 Lot 1, Block 1 45,163 1.04 Lot 1, Block 2 54,467 1.25 Lot 1, Block 3 100,237 2.30 Lot 2, Block 3 59,800 1.37 Lot 1. Block 4 45.999 1.06 Standard Lot Totals: 305,666 7.02 Dedicated RIW 116.750 2.68 Totals: 2,811,432 64.54 D ~@~D\Yl~I~ ~ I ~ 2 3 200j :;~ --'/..- J 0-23-(j~ .", -ON-~ / .lH3!l3Ul.1ll3BOl! ~ ~-C2-~O ,gi$l "''''''''''' tKOi.tl(lS9) l6Si'9JJ.{l.S9}XV,J 1Y'Dl~DIid~:a~~Yfl~~~~rk31hQllV~~=~ - V1Q53NNIW 'l'lVd',lS. DOl lllClS. EmS lClOlV om V.LOS3NNIW "A3"V^ inddV a:1IillIlnlfC:nrA8fnt1'1ol31101liY........WIillmLVH.l..l.&.UIi;lJ.8lJll~ AlIJl&VlII NS>IS30 " ::>NI~33NI::>N3 AVM A::J~3N3 ~E9t>'~ NOLLYJUl183J w-c~_ lNnO~V~Vd JJl 'S~NISSOlfJ iBAllf NOlllIl^llf3A .", - v~~...--- S~NISSO~:::> ~ ~3^1~_,,~~~~':'w~3^ ~ ~ ;] d ~~Hn~ !nHq~ innili IIulnl ~ ' w ~ ~ !3.11181T H , I ' ( ( g . I f \ ( ~ , , " ! "--...-- ------- -, , i ) ....!-'-il'j" , o' ill: : , I~~' " /' ) i1rTi\ , /' jilt!:', ___-1' <----_____n~j t~~,:::-=:,::-=-::-:: :::::=:::::;;~ - Tl'"=--'~=:~~~~~~m~~_.;~~~~\ ~ -v~~-'~ : ~ : -- ",,, '-t, "" ",~:;..~ / /;:/ r- I , I '- om>,:: ---, _,___,:. <:~;\ ~ ,',: '-Ii I ", '" ""-""--"(::::::::::::::::~::-:~:~~"'>,,,,'~I,I, I ,I: u::: _:__u- _ _ :---' -', +----,,:\:,~,'~,----,\--"-,~:o.- i ,//' \j"""~:::L ! I - I \ -.}!' , - ',' \.' r , I" ~ 1! --- ~ n - ' --------__,-.J ,.,,~- il ,......----....-----,- .,/ '~" " ...---...------ " " // ....-------.,''-''-.,.'' \ \ '\\>\ l\ ll\\~\ \__\ ,i r I : : I I ' I ~ --~-..",....,"".., """~"" .! .( I,-~- " " .--', "," "" lOG City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator ~ FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Text Amendment to Section 10-5-14 (C)(2) to allow Public and Parochial Schools in the B-2 District DATE: July 5, 2005 INTRODUCTION At the May 24, 2005 and June 14, 2005 Planning Commission meetings, the Commissioners discussed ISD 192' s interest in constructing classrooms and conducting Special Education classes in the former Wide Open Throttle building located on 3rd Street across from Kwik Trip and the Eagles Club. DISCUSSION ISD 192 needs to find space for certain Special Education classes that apparently cannot be accommodated in existing School District buildings. ISD 192's initial plan was to rent space in a building located in the Farmington Industrial Park. When this fact was brought to the attention of City staff (through a third party), staff members indicated that public school uses were neither permitted nor conditional uses in the Industrial Park. City staff suggested potential alternative sites that would presumably be more acceptable to the Planning Commission and City Council. One such site was the former Wide Open Throttle space in the building located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Elm Street and 3rd Street. ISD 192 staff members inspected the former Wide Open Throttle location on May 18,2005. The owner ofthe building, Joe Heinen, indicated in a subsequent e-mail (Exhibit A) that he could accommodate the School District's plans in the building in question. This building is located in the B-2 (Downtown Business) district (Exhibit B). The B-2 district currently does not allow public and parochial school uses. Staff is proposing a text amendment to the B-2 district to allow public and parochial schools as a conditional use. Currently, there is a legal non-conforming school use in the B-2 district. District 917 has provided a classroom adjacent to the Dakota County Library for a number of years. Staff believes that the proposed text amendment would allow the students attending classes in the former Wide Open Throttle building to be in close proximity to businesses in the downtown district, thereby potentially utilizing "real world" experiences for programs in the classroom. Parking for school staff would need to be reviewed; however, that issue would be addressed during the Conditional Use Permit process. The students would be dropped off and picked up at the classroom by buses. No student parking would be required. The Planning Commission discussed this matter at its meeting on June 14, 2005, at which time it unanimously recommended that the Council approve the proposed text amendment. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve a text amendment for Section 10-5-14 (C)(2) to allow Public and Parochial Schools in the B-2 District as a conditional use. Kevin Carroll Community Development Director cc: Independent School District #192 Former Wide Open Throttle Location Map N A Main Street lJb ~ D 0 ~ D D - Q) Q) L.. - CJ) "0 L.. ('I) D JL 0 - Elm Street - Page 1 of 1 (;;1 !I/~!I A Lee Smick Subject: FW: ISO 192 in [former] Wide Open Throttle space From: Joe Heinen [mailto:heinen@ghjm.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 1:11 PM To: Kevin Carroll Subject: Kevin: From my point of view, the meeting today with Doug and Carla went very well. They've now been through the site and we've discussed in some detail the plans and specs I've prepared relative to the architectural work they've already completed. I think both sides recognize that the layout is ideal for their use (I can accommodate the plans they've already prepared) and the proximity to downtown is a strong plus relative to the industrial park. They are going to get back to me tomorrow regarding their level of interest with the expectation that this can be set up as a discussion item during Tuesday's planning meeting. Separately, I have contacted Ken to initiate the 4th & Main process. Thanks for passing that background information along. Joe 5/20/2005 &llIIsrr B-1 10-5-14: B-2 DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT: (A)Purpose: The B-2 downtown business district identifies a variety of general commercial and higher density residential uses for the downtown area in order to expand and. strengthen the downtown as the primary commercial district for the city, create a pedestrian friendly downtown, and promote the city as a cultural center. Objectives of this district are to preserve historical buildings, require high design standards, and provide a diverse mix of community oriented commercial and cultural activities that are pedestrian oriented and accessible to area residents. (B)Bulk And Density Standards: 1. Minimum Standards: Lot area 5,000 square feet Lot width 50 feet Front yard setback 0 feet Side yard setback 0 feet Rear yard setback 0 feet Height (maximum) 45 feet Maximum lot coverage of all structures 100 percent All standards are minimum requirements unless noted. (C)Uses: 1. Permitted: Animal clinics. Clinics. Clubs. Coffee shops. Commercial recreational uses. Commercial services. Neighborhood services. Nonprofit recreational, cultural and entertainment uses. gy!llg;-r~-Z- Offices. Personal and professional services. Personal health and beauty services. Public buildings. Recreation equipment sales/service/repair. Restaurants, class I, traditional. Retail facilities. \ Sexually oriented businesses - accessory. 2. Conditional: Auto repair, major. Auto repair, minor. Bed and breakfast. Child daycare center, commercial. Churches. Convenience store, with gas. Dental laboratories. Funeral homes. Grocery stores. Hotels. Motels. Mixed use building. Multiple-family dwellings. Outdoor sales. t:Yfll13rt $-3 Public utility buildings. Restaurants, class II, fast food, convenience. Restaurants, class III, with liquor service. Restaurants, class IV, nonintoxicating. Solar energy systems. Theaters. 3. Accessory: Parking lots. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002; amd. Ord. 002-483, 12-2-2002; Ord. 003-484, 1-21-2003; Ord 004-513, 8-2-2004) CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10-5-14 (C)(2) TO ALLOW PUBLIC AND P AROCIDAL SCHOOLS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE B-2 (DOWNTOWN BUSINESS) ZONING DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 10-5-14 (C) of the Farmington City Code is amended as follows by adding the following uses in the B-2 Zoning District: 2. Conditional Uses Public and parochial schools SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication according to law. ADOPTED this _day of ,2005, by the City Council of the City of Farmington. CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Kevan Soderberg, Mayor ATTEST: By: David Urbia, City Administrator SEAL By: City Attorney Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of ,2005. lOci City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator ! (,1) (.;- fVV I FROM: Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance - Text Amendment to Section 10-2-1 defining special event signs and Section 10-6-3 (B)(1) ofthe City Code to allow special event signs DATE: July 5,2005 INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION Currently, the City's Sign Ordinance does not address special event signs, such as the ones seen throughout the City during Rambling River Days. Staff is proposing to revise the Sign Ordinance to allow special event signs that announced community wide events, such as the aforementioned Rambling River Days. The signage would be limited to those community wide events that are conducted or sponsored by the City of Farmington, or another governmental entity, or a charitable or a not-for-profit organization. Staff is proposing the following amendments to the City Code: 10-2-1 - Zoning Definition Special Event Sign - A sign. temporary in nature and not permanently attached to the ground. announcing a special communitywide event or activity conducted by. stJonsored by. or on behalf of the City of Farmington. or another governmental entity. or a charitable or a not-for-profit organization. 10-6-3 (B) 1: (u) Special Event Sign: Special event banners shall comply with Section 10-6-3 (B) (1 )( e). Other special event signs reQuire a permit of the type referred to in Section 10-6-3 (B)(1)( e)(1). shall not exceed four (4) square feet in area. shall be permitted in all zoning districts within thirty (30) days prior to the event. and shall not be located within the thirty foot (30" ) triangle of visibility at public or private street intersections or driveway intersections. The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval ofthe above-mentioned text amendments defining special event signs as well as allowing them in all zoning districts at their meeting on June 28, 2005. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached ordinance revising Section 10-2-1 ofthe Zoning Ordinance and Section 10-6-3 of the Sign Code as shown above. Respectfully Submitted, " ~ LJ~~ Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 10-2-1 (ZONING DEFINITIONS) DEFINING SPECIAL EVENT SIGNS AND 10-6-3 (B)(I) (SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS) ALLOWING SPECIAL EVENT SIGNS FOR SPECIAL COMMUNITYWlDE EVENTS OR ACTIVITIES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Sections 10-2-1 and 10-6-3 (B)(I) of the Farmington City Code is amended as follows (new text is underlined, deleted text is stFHek): 10-2-1- Zoning Definition Special Event Sign - A sign. temporary in nature and not 1Jermanently attached to the ground. announcing a special communitywide event or activity conducted by. sponsored by. or on behalf of the City of Farmington. or another governmental entity. or a charitable or a not-for-profit organization. 10-6-3 (B) 1: (u) Special Event Sign: Special event banners shall comply with Section 10-6-3 (B)(1)(e). Other special event signs require a permit of the type referred to in Section 10-6-3 (B)(1)( e)(1 ). shall not exceed four (4) square feet in area. shall be permitted in all zoning districts within thirty (30) days prior to the event. and shall not be located within the thirty foot (30') triangle of visibility at public or private street intersections or driveway intersections. Enacted and ordained on the _ day of July, 2005. SEAL CITY OF FARMINGTON MAYOR ATTEST: CITY ADMINISTRATOR Approved as to form the _ day of , 2005. Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of CITY ATTORNEY ,2005. JOe City of Farmington 325 Qak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator 14\>0 FROM: Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance - Text Amendment to Section 10-6-3 (B)(l)(p) of the City Code to increase the size of garage sale signs DATE: July 5,2005 INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION Garage sale signs are allowed by City Code. However, there are specific limitations regarding the size and placement of these types of signs. At this time, the Sign Code allows garage sale signs on private property provided that they do not exceed two (2) square feet in size and are removed on the same day the sale ends. Amending the sign code as it pertains to garage sale signs was originally discussed with the Planning Commission on May 10, 2005 to determine whether the Commissioners felt the current regulations for these signs were adequate. The Planning Commission felt that two (2) square feet was too small and indicated they would be in favor of increasing the maximum size to three (3) square feet. Staff is suggesting that the maximum sign size for garage sale signs be increased to four (4) square feet. This would be similar to that which is allowed for a open house sign or special event sign. The text amendment is proposed as follows: 10-6-3 (B) 1: (p) Garage Sale Signs: Garage/rummage sale signs on private property not to exceed hve (2) four (4) square feet in size and to be removed on the same day the sale ends. The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the above-mentioned text amendment increasing the maximum size for a garage sale sign from two square feet to four square feet at their meeting on June 28, 2005. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached ordinance revising Section 10-6-3 of the Sign Code as shown above. Respectfully Submitted, ~ L0~~ Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10-6-3 (B)(1)(p) (SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS) INCREASING THE SIZE OF GARAGE SALE SIGNS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 10-6-3 (B)(l)(p) of the Farmington City Code is amended as follows (new text is underlined, deleted text is stRlek): 10-6-3 (B) 1: (P) Garage Sale Signs: Garage/rummage sale signs on private property not to exceed !we ~ four (4) square feet in size and to be removed on the same day the sale ends. Enacted and ordained on the _ day of July, 2005. SEAL CITY OF FARMINGTON MAYOR ATTEST: CITY ADMINISTRATOR Approved as to form the _ day of , 2005. CITY ATTORNEY Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of ,2005. /tJ-F City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us (/,fC- ~. TO: Mayor, Council Members City Administrator FROM: Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance - Text Amendment to Section 10-6-3 (B)(1 )(t) ofthe City Code to allow A-frame signs on private property DATE: July 5,2005 INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION The City Council on March 21,2005 adopted Ordinance No. 005-527 allowing the placement of A- frame signs on sidewalks in front of existing businesses within the B, SSC, Mixed-Use, and Business/Commercial Flex zoning districts. A number of questions later arose regarding other A- frame signs located away from a business location, especially along public roads. Staff brought this issue back to the Planning Commission for further discussion at their May 10th meeting. The Commission at the aforementioned meeting instructed staffto revise the newly created code to allow for off-premise A-frame signs. The code amendment that staff is proposing is as follows: 10-6-3 (B) 1: (t) A-Frame Signs: (a) Sign Size And Placement: An established local businesses (including a church) shall be allowed to display on the sidewalk adjacent to tReiF its business or on other private property with the owner's permission within the B, SSC, Mixed-Use, and Business/Commercial Flex zoning districts, a portable two (2) sided sign, up to two feet (2') wide and three feet (3') high, during its regular business hours. Churches shall be allowed to display such signs on days during which services are conducted. Such signs shall be plaeed iR front of the business they promete and shall not restrict pedestrian traffic flow. (b) Permit Required: It shall be unlawful for any business to display a portable sign without first having obtained a permit from the City. Application for a permit shall be made in writing to the Zoning Officer, and applicants shall state the location of the proposed portable sign and such other facts as may be required and applicable to the granting of such permit. The permit shall be valid for a period of up to one year and is not transferable to another business without authorization of the Zoning Officer. The City may approve the permit with additional terms and conditions, including but not limited to conditions regarding location, duration, and design. (c) Fees and Insurance: The fees required for this permit shall be paid at the office of the City Clerk before the granting of the permit. The amount of the fee shall be as provided from time to time by resolution of the Council. The City Clerk or authorized City staff shall issue a receipt for the fee and issue the permit to the applicant. No fee shall be prorated for a portion of a year, and no fee paid shall be refunded unless the permit is denied. The applicant is required to take out and maintain public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise directly or indirectly out of the use and/or placement of the portable sign. Limits for bodily injury and death shall not be less than five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) for one person and one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall not be less than two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) for each occurrence; or a combination single policy of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) or more. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the policy, and the applicant shall file with the City a certificate evidencing coverage prior to the City issuing a permit. (d) Revocation Of Permit: Any permit issued by the City may be suspended or revoked by the Zoning Officer for any of the following causes: (1) Conducting such permitted activity in such a manner as to constitute a breach of the peace or menace to the health, safety or welfare of the public, or a disturbance of the peace or comfort of residents of the City, or upon the recommendation of the appropriate City official. (2) Expiration or cancellation ofthe required insurance coverage. (3) Actions unauthorized or beyond the scope of the permit granted. (4) Violation of any regulation or provision of this Code applicable to the activity for which the permit has been granted, or any regulation or law of the State so applicable. (5) Failure to continuously comply with all conditions required as precedent to the approval of the permit. (e) Hearing: Any person aggrieved by the action of any City official in denying, suspending or revoking a permit shall have the right to a hearing before the Planning Commission on any such action, provided a written request therefore is filed with the Clerk within ten (10) days after receipt of the notice of such denial, suspension or revocation. The Planning Commission may grant such permit or confirm any suspension or revocation or reinstate any such permit. The action taken by the Planning Commission after a hearing shall be final. The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the amendment shown above to allow businesses and churches (only on days during which services are conducted) to display A- frame signs off-premise in the B, SSC, Mixed-Use, and Business/Commercial Flex zoning district at its meeting on June 28,2005. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached ordinance revising Section 1O-6-3(B)(1)(t) of the Sign Code as described above. Respectfully Submitted, '-r~ L0.~- Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10-6-3 (B)(1)(t) (SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS) ALLOWING A-FRAME SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 10-6-3 (B)(1)(t) of the Farmington City Code is amended as follows (new text is underlined, deleted text is stRlGk): 10-6-3 (B) 1: (t) A-Frame Signs: (a) Sign Size And Placement: An established local businesses (including a church) shall be allowed to display on the sidewalk adjacent to tfteH: its business or on other private property with the owner's permission within the B, SSC, Mixed-Use, and Business/Commercial Flex zoning districts, a portable two (2) sided sign, up to two feet (2') wide and three feet (3') high, during its regular business hours. Churches shall be allowed to displav such signs on davs during which services are conducted. Such signs shall be plaeed in front of the basiness they promote and shall not restrict pedestrian traffic flow. (b) Permit Required: It shall be unlawful for any business to display a portable sign without first having obtained a permit from the City. Application for a permit shall be made in writing to the Zoning Officer, and applicants shall state the location of the proposed portable sign and such other facts as may be required and applicable to the granting of such permit. The permit shall be valid for a period of up to one year and is not transferable to another business without authorization of the Zoning Officer. The City may approve the permit with additional terms and conditions, including but not limited to conditions regarding location, duration, and design. (c) Fees and Insurance: The fees required for this permit shall be paid at the office of the City Clerk before the granting of the permit. The amount of the fee shall be as provided from time to time by resolution of the Council. The City Clerk or authorized City staff shall issue a receipt for the fee and issue the permit to the applicant. No fee shall be prorated for a portion of a year, and no fee paid shall be refunded unless the permit is denied. The applicant is required to take out and maintain public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise directly or indirectly out of the use and/or placement of the portable sign. Limits for bodily injury and death shall not be less than five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) for one person and one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall not be less than two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) for each occurrence; or a combination single policy of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) or more. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the policy, and the applicant shall file with the City a certificate evidencing coverage prior to the City issuing a permit. (d) Revocation Of Permit: Any permit issued by the City may be suspended or revoked by the Zoning Officer for any of the following causes: (1) Conducting such permitted activity in such a manner as to constitute a breach of the peace or menace to the health, safety or welfare of the public, or a disturbance of the peace or comfort of residents of the City, or upon the recommendation of the appropriate City official. (2) Expiration or cancellation of the required insurance coverage. (3) Actions unauthorized or beyond the scope of the permit granted. (4) Violation of any regulation or provision of this Code applicable to the activity for which the permit has been granted, or any regulation or law of the State so applicable. (5) Failure to continuously comply with all conditions required as precedent to the approval of the permit. (e) Hearing: Any person aggrieved by the action of any City official in denying, suspending or revoking a permit shall have the right to a hearing before the Planning Commission on any such action, provided a written request therefore is filed with the Clerk within ten (10) days after receipt of the notice of such denial, suspension or revocation. The Planning Commission may grant such permit or confirm any suspension or revocation or reinstate any such permit. The action taken by the Planning Commission after a hearing shall be final. Enacted and ordained on the _ day of July, 2005. SEAL CITY OF FARMINGTON MAYOR ATTEST: CITY ADMINISTRATOR Approved as to form the _ day of ,2005. CITY ATTORNEY Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of ,2005. - c Q) E c.. o Q) > Q) Cl CO T5 "- Q) E E o () ~ CO 'C - 00 :::::l -a c -a Q) 00 CO Q) "- (.) c Q) - o E e a.. ~ Q) - CO :::::l E +::0 Cf) o I- ....... =1=1:: CO o " - c Q) E c.. o Q) > Q) -a Q) 0:: -a c CO II -0 ~ ... ::J C.l C.l o Ul Cll .r:. Cl e: 'c 2 ~ ro .~ Q) E E o (.) LO o C ::J , ro Ul '0 ~o. Q) e c,o. o Cl ... e: a. .- e:-O ._ e: .r:..2 e- Cll Q) Q) ~ Ul- Q)OO ....r:. ~- CllO::> -0 OON LOLO 00 , I - Cl ::J ::J '<c i I -0 e: Cll -(5 eo:: ...- Cll= (.) e ... Cll (.) e ... Cll (.) e: o o Ul .~ e: ::J o (.) .9~ Ul ~ e: Cl o e ~o. -g .!: Q).r:. E C.l E Cii 8 5l ~ ~ ~~ :::coo LOCO 00 CL~ ~:!E ee ... ... Cll Cll (.)(.) c Q) -Ul E Cll a. e: ~ .Q (j).Q e: Q) <Cg;!::J~J!1 ro cQ)ai::Jo.. C.l Q)o>~c ~ ~~&o~ e> .Q.a ro <C a. CllQ)Q)::J...OO ..Jro~1t-~wQ) C5C.lOQ)Q)Ul> ~~~~Cl.~~ Q)Cll::J.r:.-Q)C.l Z E "5 :: ai > 'E (j)OOh.L...EE<Co Cl"'- Q)O:: e: CllO~~CO:::cO Q)c.o.-.o- C.l b Q) '00 ffi <C ai W <CEUl.r:. ....Q) ~ a. 0 C.l u.. 5 .~ ~.Q0..Q)i=(.)~ Q)Q)~:!E. Q) Q) >:;::; Cl~~.r:. Z ~ 'g .!: ~ ro ~ -0 Q) .- -0 ~ e: a. e: 0:: a: e: .- E Cll ::J u.. 0 ..J:::::-O/lu..:::cCiJ Cll Q)~::J(.) ~E~,-= cO) Q)tn+:::;orno-Cii Ul::Je:o..CllcQ) Ul-oQ)X~O... <C~:s!w<C(.)(.) ~ ~~ ~~ ~I~ t5 <C ml :::::l 00 00 c o +::0 ~ o c.. 00 c co "- I- 00 ~ (5 Q) ~ - 00 00 Q) "- -a -a <( o I- C\Ij =1=1::2 00 co e: 8j II ci. o .r:. Ul ~ ... o . ~ (.) . _ 0 >. .~ z-g e:.r:.- ::J _ Ul 8 '3: ~ 0=:0 ....., co .- e: u.. Ul Q) Ul Cll .r:.'- ~ -..= ::t: >. -0 Cll -Q)- ~E~ _... Cll 00- -u.. -0 Cl- e: e: 0 Q) .- e:Q)t 0.0 Cll :pee.. Q)OUl o..ECll ECll>. 08:; C.lQ)' t...- 000 0.0..-0 Q) X e: o::ww LOLO LOCO LO 00000 I I I I I ~~~5~ ':!EO,O ...... , ...... i LO 9 :; 7 ...... e: e: Cll :!E e: e: e: e: e: e: Cll Cll Cll :!E:!E:!E e ... Cll (.) C e: Cll :!E co :0 ... ::) O/l c.. Q) C.l e: o (.) e: o '00 e: Cll a. x W Cl e: :0 ::J C3 oS Ul Q) ::J Ul !!2 Q) BIDS :;::;::JOO ~.~ Cll OUlCl g. -0 .!: o::e:CiiE ::.:::~-g8 o..I-CllQ) ,+-c(j)cc~ o 0 ~ ","'C 1ii~ro!::::~ ~Q)o~o<c .r:.Q)r-- :::c Ul-o:::c- I- :::c~'oo<c~ g I- 0 -0 en .~ NO ~ ~ ~ ffi (.) .~ .....,.::J N=_Oa.. :::c 00 '0 g .~ u.. oj b.2 c 5 ~ ~ 6 N 15 e: Q)E (.) -0 a. >. N...O _::Jo.Cll ::",1-~a,gJgc7.l~ "'Occo==C:~s...O') ::J ~ 0 <C e: Q) .- oo.9(.)Q)<!= 32:::c C")~E.E'E ~"2 :::c 0 C5 Q) Q) 0 2 I-ou..oen (.)1- ...... ~ ~~ ~ c :Iai ns Cll -Q) c.o ~ I- o 3: 'C' ns (I) > N - E I- (I) I- ~ o .c en <( C- O CD > (I) C o I- ~f "II /Icv ...: Q) :t:: Q) u; ~ Q) z II e: o ~ c Q) Ul ~ 0.. c '0 0.. ... Q) ~ o 0..-0 - Q) "C ~ Q5 Q) (.) 0.. ]icE o.Q)8 ECON 800a i :g Cl~ ClCO .!.. .~ Q) .~ a CllOtO' :!E Cl Cll Cl e: , e: ::J e: Cll NOaO' Cll :0 ... ::) Q) .~ C>>.~ g .~ € Q5€~.o ::)€::)g;!:J ~ W o en Ul e: Cll a: e: o ~ <C -0 e: ... Cll Cll Ul ~ ~ N Cl r-- co 0 o ~ UlO Ul I e:~ Q)CO CllLOUl~g C::OtQ)N e:~08Q) 0_ a. ::J.r:. :;::;oQ)en:: C.le:O:: 0 <CoUl2- ~'E~~~ = E c,~ ~ .~eeQ)~ u..o..o..(.)o..a e: Cll c:: ~~~~e i I c ::::J E ~ :j55 "C -Ill o.~ (I) 01i)Cl C) CU C)CI) Co::: .s ~ CU.... .... f/) C CI) CU c ::E 0 CJ: O~ ~ CI) oal ~-; ~= .a CU ::::J ::::Jc.. .s CI) ...."c SI- (J"c .... o .- I-~ ~ t (9 JI 21 .lll (/) (/) a o ...J E .~ (I) co I:: en .- en"E (I) 0 U 0 e U 0..0 Q5; Oll:: "0 = ::J (I) .c E c.o~ Oco 00 NO I::N .- "0 1iiI::"O (I) (I) (I) ::J E- O-E(I) ~oo.. = U E .- (I) 0 :s:a:::o co 8L!)L!)g>g>g> N 0 0 .- .- .- OlO~OOO I:: (I) 0..0l0l0l .~ Cl <( <5 <5 <5 (/) ~ .2 Ol "O~Qi~~ ~ .2 .c .2 .2 III (/)~Q;~~:e (ij..c::"O..c::..c::::l :e(/)~(/)(/) ::l ... (I) I:: t:: III Cl.. 1ii (I) ::J 0- (I) a::: (I) .!: en ~ t s:@ o ~W _0 W I:: Q; -*l ~ g 0.. (I) .2 ~ ~ 5- Iii'c ~ (I) en (I) ::J (I) a::: en a::: Ez I:: ~ .2 E I:: >. 0 "0 :0 0 .- (I) t5 "0<( ::J 0 I:: C:<( Cl.."EE ~1::~o~.2 I::~01::58 ~E~.20_ :;::O-CO(l)1:: .- '+- I:: ::J (I) o .s 0 .- I:: E COe! (I)"E:;:: (I) 00l-01::0.. ?;l~~88.E 2~~~~€ "0 (I) ..c:: .SQ :0 ::J 0.. "0 I:: "0 (I) :t:: .E .c ::J en (I) (3 :e III 1ii .,... f/) CI) :e .0 CU LL. f/) -~ :t:= (J CI) "c I- ~ o ... c. E - o I- ~t (9 JI jl >. III ~ (I) L!)"O ~5 Ol CO I:: ~ .,... III 0lL!) i:O a..~ e ro "O.l::co..c:: Q)C)CT'""- (I) .!: J!l iO a uQ5Cl..I:::;::-c e(l)Cij 0 U(I) Cl..EI::I::~"O .9 ~ u:: .2 is 55 "0 0 "0 .SQ ~ x ~-a~~.lll(l) .C :i<: 'C Cl (/) ~ ~"O(I)~.9~1:: ::J _::J'" III III ::: ~ ::: .g ~ ~ .- I:: .- Cl.. .- I:: U ._ U >. U ._ 1::~I::"OI::'6 5.lll525ffi 0(/)0(/)0"0 1ii .,... ;JIll Q5 "'- III I-- L!) o 6- (I) (/) L!) o I Ol ::J ~ .,... I III :is ... ::l "0 .lll en is I:: III a: en (I) ~ .(3 III Li.. (I) co "0 0.. ::l '2 o .iij .(3 (I) Cl o C) o Z o ~ en en (I) U e Cl.. ... (I) c (I) o ~ 'c ::J E E o o (I) Q5 0.. E o o ~ .,... ~ ~ f/) CI) :,;:; :,;:; C ~il ::::J ~ ~J~ ....... o~ "c .... 3: II .a cu o (J "C C cu C o :,;:; cu CJ C ::::J E E o (J CI) > o ... c. E o I- ~f (9 JI <Ii III "0 I:: (I) Ol III <Ii (I) > ~ :;:: :~ Cl.. Cl.. :E .(3 I:: ::J o U I:: o I:: (I) (I) en ~ "S en ~ ... (I) ..c:: "0 0.. en . ::J1ll<( e1ii9; C)~(I) Co en .~ E "OIllCO .~ (I)~E >. OUI:: :c ~cot:; c U lFi: o COiSe! ~ IF-I--(I) CO is .!: ~ ~ ~ .....~~~ o .!: N III ~g>~I(/) ~ E:oa::E,g(l) I::I::Cl..o.cE o (1).- 0 ::J III :ECl..I<XlCl..en 0l0l0l0l0l I:: I:: I:: I:: I:: .0 .0 .0 '0 '0 Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol I:: I:: I:: I:: I:: 00000 Ol I:: .0 Ol I:: o E E E E E III III III III III (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) 1--1--1--1--1-- EEEEE Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol :E:E:E:E:E E III (I) I-- E Ol :E en C? a ~ ~ NI:: .8 mill J!l .,... (I) Cl.: '0 S!2E' ~ "OW - I::~o..~ III en .- .~ >."E~e ~1ll1::Cl.. OO~>. I:: CO 0- (l)enl--I:: (I) 0.. ::J ~:c:]18 (I) en ~ III CO~::J"O enoW~ Oll-- ..c:: III .!: ..c:: ~ Cl Ci):!::~"ErJJ ~:S:(I)(I)Et) ..:::: en (I) (I) ... Ol:!::! (1)'0' J!lI::E>'" 5,'$E'OCl.. (I) (I) 0 1: a a::::EO:;;:;:: (I) (I)..c:: (l)e! ::J ::J .SQ en 0 ,S,S:OIll-&j 1::1::.lll~= 88~~8 en en ~ Ol e Cl.. I:: ~ (I) I:: t:: III Cl.. 2~~~~ € o ~ - Q) 0') c:: CO ~ () o - 0') c:: +:::; 0. CO -c <( -- ... Q) .0 E :J C C o ~ (ii ~ <+= Q) = ... .E ~ ~ (ii ~ Q) ~ CD ~ .Q ~ Ul "'0 C o .0 c.. (3 >- :!: () Q) ~ l- '+- o >- :!: c o :.;::; "iii "5 0" U co e Q) E 0. '5 0" Q) .c CO - C/) CO '(3 c:: CO c:: LL 0') c:: :J c:: - o Q) Ul :J Q) = "'0 Q) ~ .Q -g Cii co .c Ul U 'E 1: Q) ~ ~ E C -Q) Q) co > >-a::: a. e,g- E o.oC 8 .~ 2" ~ 0. ~a5~ ,g cEe Ul ~Q)o. -c <+= f6l E 0 UloC=~:S: "'O",coCO_cn EUl::E'5-...!!1Cii .o-g:Ecog-o '00 Q)() 0" .oOQ)U- ~g>oco:5:'!::~ =It "13 Q) 0) 0) "'0 "'0 C U C C :J :J coc:.;::;:.;::;<l::lD ~.E ~ g. g.v co Q)Ul"'O"'OOO C)C:::..!!l<l::<l::~~ e Q) E Q) U co a. ~ +:::; c:: o () Q) ~ I- ~ :J en c:: W o I- E Q) -= C::o) Q) "~ E<+= o.Ul o iil Q) CD > > Q) Ul O~ Q):c e ~o.. Q):2E .~ ~ ~ o co :J o:!: -c-Ul C::E:E <3::ts; Z' ~; =~"'O CO "- co :Jts.?:- OQ)o. BE ~ Ci"iii 0') c 32 I 0 :J Q) 0 Q) "~ ~ s....o-S :J ~"iii en...- c:: 0. g WJ:l-5 0.8~ 1-:1::0) co .- €(ii~ s (5:5 2;;0 :J- C) ASl e en~Q) _ "'OE >- Q) "'0 ~ ~ a5 '-' a. E Q) 0 co ~ - c I- Ul co ~a. Q) "~ ~ 0') - .- coE~ c:: U Q) CO Q).c 00:::: U ~ .0::::; COo. O 2" E c 0 I-Q)U E"'O N g- ~ =ltQig, ,.. iD e ,... "'0 0. OQ)Q) C)~~ ci. o .c Ul .::t: ... o ~ c o ~ t:: o 0. Ul C ~ co Q) co "'0 0. :J cD o o C\I .~ Q) U C Q) E E 8 .8 ts Q) . 'e- lfl o.:J >-.~ J2c CD 8 ~c; Co .~ Q)Cii >-Q) ... Ul Q).::t: o.u Ul ~ .::t: U g ci :c c c::+::i 28 ... - o co - Q) c Ul co~ a.~ _ c c ouoco I- "~.::t: a5 eo- "^ c.. ~ "~ ,.~ _ co =It Q)"'O E ~ ~ Q) co Ci5 .S .~ O.ce:l C)~8& ~ :J - () :J I.... - en CO I.... '+- c:: 0') c:: ~ en ~ () Q) ~ I- Q) > 2 0. E <Ii Q) ~ "13 ~ "'0 c co Ul "'0 Qi <+= en '0 Q) c ;eo :g '(3 2 CO(ii LLc o -CU c:: Q) <(2 en.2 Q) ... :.;::::;J2 c:: ~ :Jg t:: co 0.8 o.Ul 0. co O~ CO E 5~ +:::;'0 CO Q) Q)"'O I....-c () co Q)o. O::~ en 13 - Q) Z'Ul (3.8 ~ Q) Q) ~g- I-Qi -ciD C::"'O CO.c 0.;;: X ~ w~ O:E I-~ """~ =It co c roE o 0 C)8 - en CO (L Q) ~ l- '+- o ~ ,g Q).o ~:J 0.0. en Q) 0= E <( -c c:: <( .8 c Q) 0. o "'0 C co Q)"'O 0')2 199 "C -g Q) 8 IUl Q) co ~~ I-S o Q)I- ~ g> Q)32 enCii ~:s: (LCii U o "g I-(ii :f L{)c =It~ -.8 CO c o ~ C)8 Q) - CO 'C 0. 2 0. 0. <( Q) I.... Q) ~ $ -c c:: <( c:: Q) ~ $ Q) C3 ~ e Q) E Q) U co a. ~ ... co Q) >- Q) ~ = - o t:: co 0. en .92 g> ~ g>'g Q) _0) -s- o E 0. co E c c:: E 0 "Q .co ~~ ()u COQ) Q)c co. I-"Q 0 0 " ~>- 3:5 Q)= Q) t; 0. :J ZCQ)~:; o_Q)C Q) U co c co N -c R~ ~ =Q):J = +:::;-eQ)~.l9 ::)~Co'iij~ o co ~ (ii ";;; I- Ul 0 .~ CD :2 Ul"'O 2: c.o.o~CQ) UQ)COUl =ltli~~~ -O...uQ) co...<l::coC OJ:lUSa.o C)u::C3~~ ene () Q) +:::;E Q)g. ~Qi - > ~~ <(2:- en ~ ->- Q) :!: "~ ()~ Q) ~ ~.E 1-a5 Q)O) () .~ c:: Q) co.o ~"!!1 c:: co w~ o 'c I-~ 0. I'-~ =It{l _c CO~ o Q) C)~ en Q) Q) >- o c.. E w I.... o LL - c:: Q) E c:: 2 "S; Q) c:: g W Ul co ..... Q) "'0 ....... :J C o "~ ,m >]l e co > E 8~ Q).8 -C~ >Ul o~ +:::; Q) ~ U "OO:J ~ .~ O:E ~Q) (LC 0- 8 o.~ <(Q) E~ Q),m ~'5 -C .- N C .- E 'c- > E co ~ o 0 ~ 0 I.... () 0 :.;::; (Lc Q)U c::: 5 OQ)E -- 1-Q)~a5.o o):JE..:! eX) ~ 0 t:: () =It co:r: co Q) _::EQ;g.~ coo.!.Eo.Q O~EQ)o. ,.n co :J "!:: E '-' -l en u.. W 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 ofleadership 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.