HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.20.05 Council Minutes
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 l2a) 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 staff's 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%. Staffwill 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 of3.9389%.
This is a l5-year bond. MOTION by Wilson, second by Pritzlaff adopting
RESOLUTION RSO-05 awarding the sale of the $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 R81-05
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
R82-05 awarding the sale ofthe $730,000 G.O. Equipment Certificates of2005D
to Wells Fargo. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
12. NEW BUSINESS
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 110-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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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-l to allow for a school. Any school in an R-l 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 of the 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 farmers. 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 ofland 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 (Flagstaffto 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 195th Street to TH3 which is
$4.5 million. That could be negotiable between the school and another developer,
but at one ofthe 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 ifthe 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 Farmington 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 3S00 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 of time 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 of them 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 200S. 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 of the 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 oflSD 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 ofthat date. He encouraged the Council to modify the
comp plan for the better good ofthe 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
of those 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 20ath 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 200S. 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 ofthe
Parks Commission, and 12 years on the City Council. He wanted to deal with
some ofthe 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 beliefthat 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 ofthis 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 corner 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 of the 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 of the 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 ofthe 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
if they have to cross Pilot Knob or Akin Road or 195th 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 of the 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 of ag 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 ofthat
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 ofthe 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 of the 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 ofthe City's
concerns ofthe Christiansen site before the referendum. Ifthese concerns are a
deal breaker she most certainly should have heard ofthem in much stronger
language well before the vote, regardless of the 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. Ifthey wanted
to farm until 2020 why are they applying for MUSA now?
Mr. Todd Larson, 819 7th 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 of town, 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 ifthe 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. If the vote was based on the Christiansen site, they did not know in
November if the 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 B 1. This is a maj or 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 ofthe Spruce Street corridor. It was brought up all the time.
It was about rooftops 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 of losing their jobs. They believe that putting the high
school out on the west edge of town would disconnect them from the community
and they want to feel a part of the community. They are already calling it
Lakeville East High School. The majority do not want it out there.
Mr. Jim Wolfe, 5913 l88th Street W, stated many things have been so eloquently
said on behalf of the school district that he is not going to get in the way of those
comments. He has one request, not on behalf of the 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 burn 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 ofthat 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 if they 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 ofthe 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 oftheir 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 of these 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 ofthese school sites are going to be
clean. None ofthese 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 1 89th 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 the 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 ofthe
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 ofthe 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 ofthat 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 ofthe taxpayers ofthe 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
of the 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. Ifthey apply to remove it from ag preserve, it does not come
out for eight years, so development is stopped there. Ten years from now ifthe
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 of the 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 ofthe 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. If there 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 of the 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 off the 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 understanding is legally as far as some of the 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 ofthis 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 oftheir 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 ofthe 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 ofthe three. It has the most to offer us as
a community. The third area is the comprehensive plan. This is a major change
ofthe comprehensive plan, no one will debate that. To him personally, there are
just a few types of projects 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 200S
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 of the 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 of the 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. Ifwe 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. If he 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 of that 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
of this 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.
It 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 of the right-of-way where they cannot
build does that leave a full 11 0 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 of that 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 ofthe money we have for MSA
going to that project. We have other projects in the City we want to work on. For
the betterment ofthe community and the betterment ofthe 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 ofthis
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 of the 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
of the 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. Thiswas 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 ofthe 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 of the
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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 oflSD 192. While Farmington is
a very significant portion of that, 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 ofthe 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 Jamnik
suggested they table to the second meeting in July. That would give staff the
opportunity to have some of the feasibility report, ifnot 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 of the 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 of the 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 ofthe
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 of the
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 of the 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.
Staffmet 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 of the 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. Ifthe 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 offthe 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 208th 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 208th and that could be anywhere from
the Lakeville border to TH3. It brings significant taxable property into the City in
a very short time frame. 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 ofthe 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 208th 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 of the need ofthose 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
208th 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 up sizing. As such, the project
costs in the CIP include the upsizing 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 of the 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 of time 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~
~thia Muller
Executive Assistant