The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05.16.05 Council Packet City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Mission Statement Through teamwork and cooperation, the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserve our proud past and foster a promisingfuture. AGENDA PRE-CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 16, 2005 6:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVE AGENDA 3. CITIZEN COMMENTS COUNCIL REVIEW OF AGENDA 5. STAFF COMMENTS a) Schedule Budget Goals Workshop 6. ADJOURN PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT Council workshops are conducted as an informal work session, all discussions shall be considered fact-finding, hypothetical and unofficial critical thinking exercises, which do not reflect an official public position. Council work session outcomes should not be constrned by the attending public and/or reporting media as the articulation of a formal City policy position. Only official Council action normally taken at a regularly scheduled Council meeting should be considered as a formal expression of the City's position on any given matter. So- City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator FROM: Robin Roland, Finance Director SUBJECT: Schedule Budget Workshop DATE: May 16, 2005 INTRODUCTION In order to begin the 2006 Budget process, a workshop with the City Council to identify budget goals and strategies should take place in early June. DISCUSSION Each year we begin preparing the following year's budget by getting input from the City Council. The goal setting workshop in March was an excellent starting spot as it identified a set of priorities and time lines for the goals. A budget goals workshop will marry those priorities with the financial boundaries for 2006 which Council and staff hope to achieve. Staff proposes either Wednesday June 1st or Wednesday June 8th at 6 PM for the workshop. A timeline for the budget process is attached with this memo. ACTION REQUIRED Set the date and time of the 2006 Budget goals workshop. Respectfully submitted, ...w Robin Roland Finance Director 2006 CITY BUDGET DEVELOPMENT CALENDAR DATE ACTIVITY 20-Ma -05 Capital outla re uest forms distributed 3-Jun-05 3-Jun-05 6-Jun-05 16-Jun-05 17-Jun-05 6-Jul-05 6-Jul-05 to 11-Jul-05 11-Jul-05 to 15-Jul-05 15-Jul-05 15-Au -05 6-Sep-05 October 5-Dec-05 19-Dec-05 ersonnel cost bud etin info distributed subcommittee meets to review capital outla re uests Distribute Ma 2005 YTD data and Line Item bud et forms Re uests for 2006 new staffin due to Human Resources Line Item bud et forms and personnel costin to Finance Finance department compiles expenditure and revenue data and prepares budget review documents Management Team budget review meetings June 2005 (6 months re orts distributed Draft Bud et document and draft CIP distributed to Council City Council approves preliminary budget, adopts preliminary levy and selects public hearin dates Cit Council workshop(s Truth in Taxation hearin Cit Council ado ts 2006 Tax Le City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Mission Statement Through teamwork and cooperation, the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserve our proud past and foster a promising future. AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 16, 2005 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVE AGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENDATIONS a) Retiree Recognition - Police Department b) Introduce New Employee - Community Development c) Introduce New Employee - Solid Waste d) Boy Scout Presentation - Administration e) Heritage Preservation Award - Administration 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (5/2/05 Regular) b) Approve 2005 Park Improvements - Parks and Recreation c) Adopt Resolution - Accept Donation - Parks and Recreation d) Approve Solid Waste Exemptions - Parks and Recreation e) Adopt Resolution - Traffic Safety Grant - Police Department f) Approve Pictometry Software - Human Resources/IT g) Adopt Resolution - Authorize Sale of Bonds - Finance h) April 2005 Financial Report - Finance i) Approve Capital Outlay Adjustments - Finance j) Flagstaff Feasibility Report Update - Engineering k) Adopt Resolution - Approve Charleswood Crossing Development Contract - Engineering 1) Adopt Resolution - Approve Parkview Ponds Development Contract - Engineering m) Approve Lease Amendment - Verizon Wireless - Engineering n) Ash Street Project - Easement Acquisition - Engineering 0) Parkview Ponds Trunk Sewer - Engineering Action Taken Recognized Introduced Tabled 6/6/05 Information Received Presented Approved Approved R50-05 Approved R51-05 Approved R52-05; R53-05 Information Received Approved Information Received R54-05 R55-05 Approved Approved Approved p) Approve Joint Resolutions with Empire Township (Regan, Frandrup, American Legion Properties) - Community Development q) City Administrator Evaluation Summary Report - City Attorney r) Approve City Facilities Master Planning Services - Administration (Supplemental) s) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Approve Issuance of Capital Improvement Bonds - Fire Station - Finance 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT a) Award Fiber Optic Contract - Human Resources/IT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Adopt Resolution - 800 MHz and Joint Dispatch Policy - Administration b) Consider Proposal for Community Center - Parks and Recreation c) Review and Approve Draft AUAR Giles-Murphy Property - Community Development d) Adopt Resolution - Approve Bristol Square 5th Addition Preliminary and Final Plat - Community Development e) Adopt Resolution and Ordinance - Middle Creek East 3rd Addition Amendment to the Planned Unit Development, Rezone, and Preliminary and Final Plat Review - Community Development f) Adopt Resolution - Tamarack Ridge 4th Addition Final Plat - Community Development g) Adopt Ordinance - Include Definition for Bus and Truck Terminal and Include as a Conditional Use in the Industrial Park Zoning District- Community Development h) Adopt Ordinance - Text Amendment Regarding Signs for Non-Residential Uses in the A-I District - Community Development i) MUSA Review Committee Recommendation - Community Development j) Adopt Resolution and Ordinance - Executive Estates Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone - Community Development 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION - City Administrator Review Follow-up 15. ADJOURN R56-05; R57-05; R58-05 Information Received Approved Approved R59-05 Approved R60-05; R61-05 Approved R62-05 R63-05 R64-05; R65-05 Ord 005-529 R66-05 Ord 005-530 Ord 005-531 R67-05 R68-05; Ord 005-532 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Mission Statement Through teamwork and cooperation, the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserve our proud past and foster a promisingfuture. AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 16, 2005 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVE AGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENDATIONS a) Retiree Recognition - Police Department b) Introduce New Employee - Community Development c) Introduce New Employee - Solid Waste d) Boy Scout Presentation - Administration e) Heritage Preservation Award - Administration 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (5/2/05 Regular) b) Approve 2005 Park Improvements - Parks and Recreation c) Adopt Resolution - Accept Donation - Parks and Recreation d) Approve Solid Waste Exemptions - Parks and Recreation e) Adopt Resolution - Traffic Safety Grant - Police Department f) Approve Pictometry Software - Human Resources/IT g) Adopt Resolution - Authorize Sale of Bonds - Finance h) April 2005 Financial Report - Finance i) Approve Capital Outlay Adjustments - Finance j) Flagstaff Feasibility Report Update - Engineering k) Adopt Resolution - Approve Charleswood Crossing Development Contract - Engineering 1) Adopt Resolution - Approve Parkview Ponds Development Contract - Engineering m) Approve Lease Amendment - Verizon Wireless - Engineering n) Ash Street Project - Easement Acquisition - Engineering 0) Parkview Ponds Trunk Sewer - Engineering 1 Action Taken Pages 1-14 Pages 15-16 Pages 17-18 Pages 19-21 Pages 22-23 Pages 24-61 Pages 62-77 Pages 78-79 Pages 80-81 Pages 82-83 Pages 84-103 Pages 104-124 Pages 125-130 Page 131 Pages 132-134 p) Approve Joint Resolutions with Empire Township (Regan, Frandrup, American Legion Properties) - Community Development q) City Administrator Evaluation Summary Report - City Attorney r) Approve City Facilities Master Planning Services - Administration (Supplemental) s) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Approve Issuance of Capital Improvement Bonds - Fire Station - Finance 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT a) Award Fiber Optic Contract - Human Resources/IT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Adopt Resolution - 800 MHz and Joint Dispatch Policy - Administration b) Consider Proposal for Community Center - Parks and Recreation c) Review and Approve Draft AUAR Giles-Murphy Property - Community Development d) Adopt Resolution - Approve Bristol Square 5th Addition Preliminary and Final Plat - Community Development e) Adopt Resolution and Ordinance - Middle Creek East 3rd Addition Amendment to the Planned Unit Development, Rezone, and Preliminary and Final Plat Review - Community Development f) Adopt Resolution - Tamarack Ridge 4th Addition Final Plat - Community Development g) Adopt Ordinance - Include Definition for Bus and Truck Terminal and Include as a Conditional Use in the Industrial Park Zoning District - Community Development h) Adopt Ordinance - Text Amendment Regarding Signs for Non-Residential Uses in the A-I District - Community Development i) MUSA Review Committee Recommendation - Community Development j) Adopt Resolution and Ordinance - Executive Estates Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone - Community Development 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION - City Administrator Review Follow-up 15. ADJOURN Pages 135-155 Pages 156-157 Page 158 Pages 159-181 Pages 182-183 Pages 184-207 Pages 208-209 Pages 210-213 Pages 214-229 Pages 230-251 Pages 252-271 Pages 272-278 Pages 279-289 Pages 290-294 Pages 295-302 /" City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: David Urbia City Administrator SUBJECT: Supplemental Agenda DATE: May 16, 2005 It is requested the May 16, 2005 agenda be amended as follows: CONSENT AGENDA 7r) Approve City Facilities Master Planning Services - Administration Attached is a proposal from Wold Architects to review the City Facilities. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS lOa) Adopt Resolution - 800 MHz and Joint Dispatch Policy - Administration Attached is additional information. 7~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: David Urbia, City Administrator SUBJECT: City Facilities Master Planning Services DATE: May 16,2005 INTRODUCTION From the 2005 Leadership - Planning - Team Building Retreat in March, the fifth highest priority strategic goal was to improve the city's facilities. An action step arising out of this goal was to update the facilities plan by September 1, 2005. DISCUSSION The attached proposal would allow the city to achieve this action step/goal. In the current Five Year Capital Improvement Plan, the City Hall is slated to be constructed in 2007 and the expansion of the Central Maintenance Facility is to occur in 2008. In addition, the Community Center study is being requested to continue. The City also has existing facilities that already have or will have required maintenance and improvements. To successfully build through this ambitious facilities plan update, staff needs this additional information to provide alternatives to council. All of these projects are in some way interrelated. An example, if a Community Center is built with senior citizen space, what is the feasibility of the existing building to sell to a private business, what maintenance and capital improvement costs/issues are necessary in the future? With construction of a City Hall and the demolition of the Blaha building, how and where do we address the future equipment storage needs new being met by this building? Should Park and Recreation office space be planned for in a new city hall if a decision is made that this department would office in a Community Center. The Ice Arena also has many large maintenance cost issues that will be researched as part of this facility study so a costlbenefit decision can be made to either continue to invest in the current facility or look to partnerships towards another facility. By having these issues researched and explored and with guidance from WOLD, recommendations for facility improvements in the CIF process can be addressed in a comprehensive manner. BUDGET IMPACT As stated in the letter from WOLD, the costs can be apportioned amongst various funds (i.e. liquor store, park improvement fund, utility enterprise funds) based upon the amount of service the study provides for those related facilities. ACTION REQUESTED Recommend to approve the City Facilities Master Planning proposal by WOLD Architects and Engineers. Respectfully submitted, Davi . rbia City Administrator U~/ll/Uo !!:~u rAA ~VVJ. May 11, 2005 Dave Urbia., City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 55024 Re: City Facilities Master Planning Commission No. 9999 Dear Dave: Thank you for giving us lhis opportunity to continue our long-standing relationship with the City ofFannington by providing Master Planning services for your city facilities. Based on our disoussions, we 1.mderstand you would like the following scope of services: 1. Evaluate existingfucilitics to determine facility needs and space usage: . Ice Arena building · Rambling River Center Outdoor Pool buildings · 1st Street Maintenance 2. Detenninc storage space needs for now and into ~'future. 3. Create options and e:valuate available city resources and sites. 4. Determine coeLe: fOt" options. 5. Prioritize options. We would leverage our previous study efforts related to the existing city hall to identify costs related to upgrading the building to meet current codes. We understand long term the Blaha property will be demolished and we would include this long-term plan in our evaluation. We would also include your planning effortS related to a future Conununity Center to provide an overall Facilities Master Plan. We propose to provide the above master planning services for a fixed fee of$15,000 plus actUal reimbUTsablc:s. We understand YOUT schedule would be to present the final MastL-r Plan by September of2005. We will coordinate our efforts to meet your completion milestone. Thank you again for this opportunity and please call with any questions. Sincerely, WOLD ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS John McNamara, AIA Associate cc: Michael Cox Jamie Latta )O~ o .. h i~ ~* ~~ i.Es .I:~~ .<;6"" ":;0 hi 'C:E ~l!' ~~r ",Ill I!! 5 !~ 8 . Ell", ~~~ I3Gl~ 1Il~ h ~i Ii E 8 l- I- ~ I- ~ " ~ ~ ::l ;! 8 8 .. 8 '" ;! ",- ~ ci ci ~ ci " .. . e ::: ::: ::: " 0 III II ~ ... .. ..- ~ .. .. .. ~ , 0 0 gj . "5 ~ ~ " g! ~ ~ "' ~ "' ~ ~ '" ~ ::l it.. H ~ ~ g " :::) III ~ ~ ",- : Ii III ;~ ill ~ .,; <i " ; ~ '" .. . e .~ .. ~ .. ~ . ~! Q e .. ~~ ~ ~ i ~~ i i!; ~ ~ ~ ~ "' ~ ... "' ~ ~ . ~ ~ . m '0 ;:: € . . 1;; H g ~ ~ III 0 ~ "; .. "; ~ .,; .,; ~ .... a ~ a " ! u , , ~ ! . 0 0 ~ . III III B I u ~ ~ ~ . i ~ ~ . .. ~ 0 '" 0 '" ~ I " e- , 0 ~ "' ~ "' , '" 0 . III 0 III ~ l ~ I ~ ill ~ ~ ~ ~ .:: ..,' ~ e .,; .. ~ .; 3 e ~ . ~ ~ 1 t .. 0 ~ ~ ;; ~ ~ ~ . . ~ . "5 '" ~ . .. ~ ~ 5 '" "' .. ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ a; ~ ~ <0 g: ~ i a a . ~ ~ ..; .; 0 ~ ~ " ~ 0 . ~ I z z E . .. . III :; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ III 1 '" l ~ ;; <0 .. ~ ~ a ~ I ~ S .3 ~ .; '" ~ ~ ~ .. ~ 0 8 g . . jj o! ... '" " e~ 0 "' ~ ::: ~ '" S! 1l ~ i!; ~~ ~ ;}. '$ " ~ ~ ;; . . . " <i .... . . ~ !% ;;; !:I: :0, ~~ ~ I ~ B . '" . '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "' III ~ III l! 0 ~ .. 0 ~ " ~ ~ a >: . .,; .. a '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . t "[ i - 0 0 .. 0 ~ .. 0 .. ~ III ~ ~ ! ~ ~ III .. '" ~ I '" 0 .. 0 N . ::- ~ '" ~ g ~ . ] l . .3 .. .. ..; i 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0- r - 0- <0 ... ~ III jj 11 e E 0 0 ~ ~ ~- "' 0 '" i ~ .g . . .., . .. ~ . .. ~ " ! ~ ! . .:: ~ :i ~ ~ . ~ .. .. .. I ~ :s .. II . 0 . . - II ~ u ~ Z ~ ~ ~ i ... ~ ~ .. z .3 ~ ~ ~ "' N .3 '" i " ~ ~ III 0 :;j N ~ ~ u ~ " :j i i ~ i ~ 5 j ] .. <i ile i .. ! i . Q Q ~ .. " '-- .. . ~ ~ i .. .. ~ i i ~ ;: .3 .3 8 i = ~ ~ g !l " i H I .~ Q Q I ~ ~ t --- ~ . ~ :!; ~ ~ "' ~ . ~ 1 1 '" " ~ .. E .. ~ '" .. ~ ~ ~ ::: III '" 0 ~ ... '" .. .. .. .. ::l '" .. III " III .. ",- '" ~ ",- . ill " ::! .. .. " :- ~ .. . .. Ill- . ~ "' :!; ~ "' ~ . '" > .. .. .. .. ;; ~ ;\ .., ;; i s > '" '" '" 'i. > . .. ::i ~ :\ . ~ i ~ ;0 ::( i . .. . c c .. .:l ..-=- ~ ~ 0 ~ j!f ~ ~~~ ,. 11 0 . g '< ! '" tl~ l ~ ~ : !. ~ f ~ io ~ II(:::'~ ~ ~ ~~ II ~~~ eo ~ E ~ '" "" ,. .. ~ ~ ~ Q: B ~ c ;~ i ~j$ " ~ u ;j<~ f! ;: ~ 1 ~~ ~ B .. > z Z.~ :l: '" ~~ ; 0 ~ ~~@, u a + ~ ~ 0." ~ .. ~ 0 ~i c ~ 5 . "' f! ;~i ~ .. 0 ~ !i." " III ~ ~ ~~ ~~w c: ~ ~ 0 . ~~~ I ~ . 0 #. ~ = ~ !l .. I 0 0 c ~.~ ~ ~ 0 ! . ~ ~ l Q Cl. . ~~ ! .e ~ " 1 '" '! ~ f u ~ 'l il i!: I c . .. "- III Z .. .. 1:1 ~ " o ~ ~ ! I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I '!l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ i i I ~ -Sc/ I started my Eagle Scout Project some time in August after my dad came home from a H.P.C. meeting and told me that he had a great idea for a project. We searched for the site and finally found it in late August. I was asked by the H.P.C. in could possible create a report of what I was to do so on the November 4th meeting I presented my project ideas. So one week later I contacted the city about removing some downed trees along the path. There gladly did that and so it was on! I couldn't organize my materials and my help fast enough to do it before the frost came in December. So I waited over winter working on it a little here and a little there. I sent a letter out to Dakota Fence co. which donated the fencing material; and a letter to T.E.S.A. a special education program that has a wood shop to see if they would build me a bench. The director at T.E.S.A. later called me back to say that they would not be able to build me a bench just because it was to big a project for the kids. So that bummed me out, but so I just needed to press on. I completed my project on the 23rd of April. I had 18 volunteers including parents, kids and my self. What we did was we installed a split rail fence at the beginning of the trail up to the cemetery so it would define the trail head from the road. Then we installed some woodchips at the entrance to make it again more inviting. The next step was to clear out some brush that was on the side or the trail. We moved the cut up trees and pushed them to the side were they will decay and provide nutrients for the surrounding trees. I had my helpers rake the entire trail of the leaves so it is defined easier to see. Well there was fork in the trail and it is a common misconception to go right so I had the helpers line the comer with some fallen down trees and like how it looked so we ended up lining the entire trail. At the cemetery I added another split rail fence. I also added a trail marker with information of who is buried at the cemetery. Every one worked for about 3 hours on the day ofthe project and my Grandma and my aunt came and served us lunch. So there is my wild and crazy Eagle Scout Project Tom Gindorff Sam Dahlke Jake Dahlke Trevor Dahlke Steven Dahlke Dean Wedul Jeff Pierick Brian Pierick Adam Wrucke Mark Wrucke Nick Schultz Nick Schultz Jim Harper Alex Sam Clark Rudy Samuelson Edgar Samuelson And I /CL COUNCIL MINUTES PRE-MEETING May 2, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Soderberg at 6:30 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson None Joel J amnik, City Attorney; David Urbia, City Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant 2. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by Wilson, second by Pritzlaffto approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. CITIZEN COMMENTS 4. COUNCIL REVIEW OF AGENDA Councilmember Wilson pulled item 7k) Approve Street Lighting Contract. He would like to see what the light looks like. City Engineer Mann replied it would be similar to those on Main Street. He also pulled item 71) Approve Easement Acquisition - Ash Street Project. He asked how many easements are left to obtain. Staff noted there are three left. Regarding the new fire station Councilmember Wilson asked if the fire trucks will be leaving and entering from 197th Street. Staff replied this is correct. Councilmember Wilson asked if there was protocol regarding vehicles not sounding the siren at certain times of the day. Police Chief Siebenaler replied the area along Municipal Drive is generally considered a no siren area. When vehicles reach 197th Street, sirens can be sounded. This is not a written rule. There may be some opportunity to reduce the use of a siren in the area but residents should not count on it. Mayor Soderberg noted fire trucks will depart southbound to 197th Street, but will return through the driveway on Municipal Drive. Councilmember Pritzlaffpulled item 7h) Capital Outlay - Human Resources/IT. He was happy to see it came in $4600 less than budget. He also pulled item 7n) Approve Employment Agreement and wanted to table this item to the next meeting. Councilmember McKnight asked about item 7i) Farmington Business Park Development Contract. He wanted to know if the developer could begin work once the contract is signed. Staff replied they need to pay the fees, submit a letter of credit and make sure they have approved plans. City Engineer Mann noted in the contract under Surface Water Management Fee there is a credit for the purchase of the pond built last year for Council Minutes (Pre-Meeting) May 2, 2005 Page 2 the Southeast Trunk Utility and Pond project. Staff proposed a change to the credit of $31,500, which is still below the total fee. The credit will now be $253,539 with a net result ofthe fee to be $65,488. 5. STAFF COMMENTS Administrative Services Director Shadick prepared a letter to Representative Garofalo asking him to support a tax credit bill for historic rehabilitation as directed by the Heritage Preservation Commission. City Administrator Urbia suggested sending this letter to Senator Pariseau also. Councilmember Wilson suggested asking Representative Garofalo to be a co-author on this bill. Council will contact him. City Administrator Urbia stated a joint meeting with the Council and School Board is scheduled for May 4 at 5:30 p.m. There is also a breakfast meeting May 6 at 7:30 a.m. Staff is proposing another meeting for May 6 in the afternoon to discuss land site issues. Dr. Meeks, Superintendent, proposed instead of the 5:30 joint meeting, that a smaller group meet at 5:00 on May 4 with their sub-committee on properties. He also proposed to cancel the breakfast and meet on May 6 in the afternoon. Community Development Director Carroll noted staffwas going to bring a guest to the meeting on May 6 and was concerned with the short notice to meet on May 4. Councilmember Wilson liked the fact that smaller groups were meeting and was willing to cancel the May 4 meeting, but did not want to slow down the dialogue. He would like to have some meetings with the entire Council and School Board. Staff noted the May 4 meeting was being postponed and would be rescheduled. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated it was mentioned about not televising the joint meetings and he was concerned with that. Residents are staying informed by watching these meetings and that would keep the residents out ofthe loop. Councilmember Fogarty replied members were concerned it was hampering the communication and turning it into a formal meeting, which is not what they wanted. Council agreed the next joint meeting would be televised and televising further meetings would be discussed at that time. Staffwill arrange a meeting with the school. Councilmembers will be attending a lunch meeting with Governor Pawlenty on May 10, 2005. There will be a meeting on joint dispatch Thursday, May 5 from 9:00 a.m. - 12:00. City Administrator Urbia will set up a meeting with Lakeville and Farmington City Administrators and Mayors regarding the joint dispatch policy. Mayor Soderberg wanted to wait to take testimony tonight regarding the Community Center feasibility study, but wanted to wait until the next meeting to make any further decisions. 6. ADJOURN MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adjourn at 6:58 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted,. ~~..~?Y?~ ~thia Muller Executive Assistant COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR May 2, 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; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Dawn Johnson, Randy Oswald, Bev Preece, Jeff Ibinger, Kelley Stack, Jamie Thompson, Kristie Todd, Paula Higgins, Benno Klotz, Bill Fitch, Mike Higgins, Jordan Dibb, Michelle Wood, Tami Zakosh, Jeff Krueger, Robin Hanson, Bill Patterson 4. APPROVE AGENDA Councilmember McKnight pulled item 7i) Adopt Resolution Farmington Business Park Development Contract for discussion. Councilmember Pritzlaff pulled item 7n) Approve Employment Agreement. MOTION by Wilson, second by Pritzlaffto approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Acknowledge Retirement - Police Department Detective Sergeant Jerry Wacker has announced his retirement. Police Chief Siebenaler stated no one in the City has offered greater service to the City in many ways. His retirement is a great loss to the City. Council expressed their thanks for his service. b) Proclaim Heritage Preservation Month - Administration MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson to proclaim May 2005 as Historic Preservation Month. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Proclaim Senior Center Week - Parks and Recreation Council proclaimed May 8-14, 2005 as National Senior Center Week. Council Minutes (Regular) May 2, 2005 Page 2 d) Card for Benno Klotz Council presented a card and certificate to Benno Klotz, Solid Waste Supervisor. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS Ms. Bev Preece, Spruce Place, stated the Heritage Preservation Commission will sponsor a walking tour of downtown Farmington as part of the community's observation of National Historic Preservation Month. The walk is planned for May 24, 2005 from 6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. beginning at City Hall and ending at the Exchange Bank Building. The entire community is invited to participate. She also invited everyone to the Rambling River Center Open House May 9,2005, from 3:30 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. Mr. Bill Fitch, 5816 Upper 183rd Street, wanted to clarify some things as the newspaper article stated people were wondering how he obtained his numbers. Regarding the 2004 budget difference, he obtained those numbers from the $657,000 that was requested at the February 22 meeting plus the transfers Council had approved before which was in the area of $300,000 which was approved in a budget workshop in June 2004. Adding those together, it comes close to $950,000. Ifhe is off on those numbers, he looked forward to exactly how those numbers came out. The second item in question was regarding the City's general fund reserve. At $1.1 million that fund is not fully funded according to the 35% - 40% we should have against the budget in that fund. Ifhe is wrong, he would like to have someone point it out. Last, the newspaper made an assumption he was criticizing City staff. He was criticizing the process and the government's inability to be able to do a better job forecasting the future and the future dollars of the years that we are currently in. His big concern was there are a lot of proj ects this year Council will be asked to spend money on. Ifwe cannot get closer on our financial estimates, it is also at the state level and other levels of government, there seems to be a lot of discrepancies with dollars towards the end ofthe year. We have to figure out how to do a better job forecasting. Going into 2005 he raised some concerns with where we are going based on what happened in 2004. That took up a good part of a budget increase in order to do some very fine things in 2005. He is still concerned half of those things will not be able to come through due to budgetary concerns late in the third quarter. He wanted the government to be able to react in a timely manner. If Council has any direction that his numbers are way off, he would be glad to hear it. Otherwise it would be acceptable for staffto reply in a month and thanked staff for their quick response last time. Ms. Michelle Leonard, 727 Tamarack Trail, also with the Farmington Independent spoke regarding item 7n) Approve Employment Agreement. She read a letter for the Council inquiring whether a written summary of City Administrator Urbia's performance review has been completed and if so when it will be provided to the public. The open meeting does permit governing bodies to close meetings for labor negotiations and for performance reviews. The law also requires a detailed summary of the negotiations be provided in writing at the next public meeting. City Administrator Urbia's review was held on April 4, 2005 and continued to April 18, 2005. As such, she would like to see this summary as soon as possible. City Attorney Jamnik will follow-up. Council Minutes (Regular) May 2, 2005 Page 3 a) Response to Charleswood Residents - Community Development Councilmember Wilson noted staff commented at the last meeting regarding revisiting the sign code for garage sales. He would like more discussion on this issue so residents are clear there is a 2 sq. ft. limit for garage sale signs and they need to be placed on private property. He asked if Council wanted staff to look at options or leave as is. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted on Sunday on Pilot Knob between 203rd Street and I 82nd Street there were numerous signs. If something is done with garage sale signs, something would have to be done with open house signs. There were just as many of them. He wondered if the open house signs would be included with garage sale signs. He also wanted to look at whether it takes staff members to pull signs. Rather than pulling them down, he suggested locating the owner and giving them a citation. Councilmember McKnight received a call from a resident that has had garage sales for many years. Ifwe are going to have the ordinance we need to enforce it, but if it takes up too much staff time, why have the ordinance. He did not have a problem with staff looking at the garage sale sign issue, but if we are not going to have enforcement it does not make sense to have the ordinance. Councilmember Fogarty realized gara~e sales are temporary and as far as open houses there are numerous signs on 190t and Pilot Knob. She did not want to discourage people from moving here. Mayor Soderberg stated he favored a more liberal approach to signs, including the A- frame signs. We do need to look at some adjustments. Community Development Director Carroll stated there will be a Planning Commission meeting on May 10 where A-frame signs will be discussed. They can expand the discussion to talk about other types of signs. Garage sale signs are not prohibited if they are a certain size and located in the right place. There are provisions in the sign code that allow real estate signs and open house signs. He also noted the sign situation on Pilot Knob Road on Sunday. There were also signs for a business outside of Farmington. Today the signs were gone. He suspected the signs would be set out on Friday night and picked up on Sunday night for weekend advertising. Staff has discussed contacting companies like that and informing them those signs are not authorized under the sign code. This would save having to write citations and pick up signs. Staff is not available to look at every sign all the time. It is also not appropriate to disregard sign violations when we see them. It does make the city look cluttered. Most signs are gone by Monday morning. It is the other signs that are problematic. Mayor Soderberg stated Council will wait for comments from the Planning Commission. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if staff will pull signs as they see them. Community Development Director Carroll replied staff is currently doing this around other duties. The plan is to try to address the more serious violators. Councilmember Pritzlaff felt there was a fairness issue as some people could have signs offthe main roads and their signs would not be pulled. Staff agreed and ultimately they will have to have some direction from Council. Councilmember Wilson suggested putting something in the newsletter. The current issue has gone to print, but will be placed in the next issue. Council Minutes (Regular) May 2, 2005 Page 4 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by McKnight, second by Fogarty to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (4/18/05 Regular) b) Adopted RESOLUTION R44-05 Accepting Donation - Parks and Recreation c) Adopted RESOLUTION R45-05 Accepting Donation - Parks and Recreation d) Approved CLG Grant - Heritage Landmark Designations - Administration e) Authorized Disposal of City Property - Police Department f) Approved Appointment Recommendation - Human Resources g) Approved Appointment Recommendation - Human Resources h) Received Information Capital Outlay - Human Resources/IT j) Approved Assessment Agreement - Southeast Trunk Utility Project - Engineering k) Approved Street Lighting Contract - Ash Street Project - Engineering 1) Approved Easement Acquisition - Ash Street Project - Engineering m) Received Information School and Conference - Police Department 0) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. i) Adopt Resolution - Farmington Business Park Development Contract - Engineering Staffhas had further discussions with the developer and proposed to amend the surface water management fee credit to $253,539 which would result in a net surface water management fee to be paid with the plat of$65,488. Mayor Soderberg noted the developer is willing to pay cash in lieu of land in satisfaction ofland and the Park and Recreation Commission has approved this. MOTION by Wilson, second by Pritzlaffto approve the Farmington Business Park Development Contract with the amendments. APIF, MOTION, CARRIED. n) Approve Employment Agreement - Administration Councilmember Pritzlaffwanted to table this until May 16, 2005. Councilmember Fogarty suggested tabling this until June 6, 2005. Mayor Soderberg noted this item had been discussed in Executive Session. He was in favoring of approving the agreement rather than tabling it. Councilmember McKnight supported tabling the item. Councilmember Wilson preferred to act on it now. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Fogarty to table this item to June 6, 2005. Voting for: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff. Voting against: Wilson. MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT Council Minutes (Regular) May 2, 2005 Page 5 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Community Center Feasibility Study Final Report - Parks and Recreation On August 2, 2004 the Council approved a request by the Parks and Recreation Commission to do a Community Center Feasibility Study. The Commission determined the representation for the Steering Committee. Parks and Recreation Director Distad recognized the members of the Steering Committee and the Parks and Recreation Commission. He then outlined the process the committee used. Mr. Jeff King, of Ballard King, presented the outcome of the feasibility report. There were 594 surveys returned. The goal was 300. The report showed the market conditions are very favorable for a Community Center. This would provide an opportunity to streamline some City services and expand other services. Mr. King recommended the City proceed with the next steps which include retaining an architect to obtain a detailed cost estimate of the project, develop a conceptual design, evaluate potential sites and explore partnership opportunities. Councilmember Fogarty thanked the Steering Committee and staff for their time and hard work. Councilmember McKnight had some questions regarding financing. As far as the survey he asked how much people would be comfortable paying in terms of a single and family resident compared to the amount used in projecting numbers. Mr. King stated there were two factors that influenced an increase in the operations proforma. There was a reference in the survey to 2004. We are not operating a facility in 2004 or 2005, it will be in the future. The numbers were raised in consideration of the fact that it would be open in the future. He used the same reasoning for the one-time membership fee. The numbers used in projecting cost of construction and support are based on another project they have been working on. The average construction cost is $200/sq. ft. Councilmember McKnight noted there was a slide showing the operational support and how that reduced over the first five years. He asked if that number would continue to drop. Mr. King noted there are a lot of factors. Typically these types of facilities will continue to increase in revenues on the low side the first four years and on the up side at seven years, then they flatten out unless there is an increase in fees or population. The prospects look good for that trend to continue beyond five years. Councilmember Wilson appreciated it takes into consideration all interest groups. On the programming side, he likes how this looks. His concerns are on the financing side. He asked if the operational exposure includes consolidation of some facilities such as the Rambling River Center and the pool. Staff replied they were exploring the possibility of closing the outdoor pool and they would also have to look at the Rambling River Center if these services were provided in the Community Center. Currently the City subsidizes these facilities by $213,000. The proforma shows $120,000 to subsidize the Community Center. Councilmember Wilson noted the negative is related to the building itself. The voters approved a bond referendum that does have a tax impact. He felt Council has to look at the tax impact. The survey showed 70% of residents would favor Council Minutes (Regular) May 2, 2005 Page 6 some level of tax increase. Councilmember Wilson agreed there is the possibility of forming partnerships. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked about the 500 surveys that were returned. He noted Mr. King stated this was a very good turnout. With a population of 18,000 - 19,000 he would like more assurance from the residents. Mr. King replied to do a 300 person sample gives a confidence level of95%, same with 600 people or 900 people. The only thing that changes with more surveys is the margin of error starts to reduce. Councilmember Wilson asked if the data would still be reliable if there was a referendum on the ballot in November 2006. Mr. King replied the shelf1ife ofthe survey is 18 months, which would be within that timeframe. Staff might want to revisit the operation piece at that time to reflect something that would open in 2008. Mayor Soderberg agreed this is a very detailed report and thanked the participants for their time. He envisioned a referendum with a general election, rather than an off year. This gives more time to work on some of the next steps. He wanted as many people as possible to cast their vote on this issue. Mr. King commented it would be great to give the voters a complete package. The numbers in the report are construction and operating costs only. It does not include land. Mayor Soderberg asked if it was the consensus of the Council to look at a general election. Council agreed if it got to that point. Ms. Robin Hanson, 18880 Elgin Avenue, stated she was tom with Council's discussion of a 2006 referendum. There was a huge concern with slowing the momentum. This would be another 18 months to 2 years that families do not benefit from. She felt there were opportunities happening now and the City needs to be able to respond quickly as opposed to reactively. She strongly encouraged Council to take the next step and keep the possibility that a 2005 referendum might make sense. There may be opportunities with the school now or other private vendors. The fairgrounds are also reviewing their needs and there is new development coming in. She asked Council to do due diligence so that if an opportunity arises they are ready to go. She felt they could lose momentum and may lose opportunities if we look at 2006. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked ifholding the referendum to the same year the school has their referendum, there would be two referendums on the ballot. Does that create a chance that one may fail? Mayor Soderberg understood his concern, but off-year elections have a very low turnout. Staffwill provide further detailed analysis as to how this impacts the budget at the next meeting. Staff asked Council to accept the final report of the feasibility study and provide direction as far as the next steps such as retaining Bonestroo for architectural services related to developing a more detailed construction budget and Council Minutes (Regular) May 2, 2005 Page 7 preliminary design and site plan. Part of that presentation would include looking at where this would fit in the debt profile and how it would layer with the other debt that the school district has as a market rate debt as opposed to a tax capacity rate debt. The City's proposed referendum would eventually be on market value as opposed to how normal property taxes are evaluated. Market rate puts the emphasis more on residential households than commercial and industrial properties. Staff can provide proforma information as to where this would fit. Ms. Michelle Wood, 19694 Emerson Court, stated she served on the Steering Committee and wanted to encourage the Council to move forward rather than setting this back. The community wants something. To wait until 2006, the community might wonder what is going on or forget about it. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by McKnight to accept the Community Center Feasibility Study Final Report. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to direct staff to move forward with the study by working with Bonestroo to submit a proposal at the May 16, 2005 meeting. Councilmember McKnight stated he was uncertain with approving things when they do not know how much it will cost and will find out later how to pay for it. However he needs this information to make a decision. He liked bringing in architects now to firm up the cost. He asked if they can look at costs for this year and next year. His second priority would be starting the work on partnerships. Staffwill bring the costs to hire Bonestroo to the May 16, 2005 meeting for Council approval. Bonestroo has experience in doing community centers, analysis and looking at sites. Through the process staff would like to identify a couple sites that would work based on criteria that needs to be set. Staff envisions forming a smaller committee to work through the next steps. A recommendation about forming this committee would also be brought to Council on May 16, 2005. The time line for potential partnerships, sites, costs, etc. was August 1. Staff would like to discuss this with Council at the next meeting. Mayor Soderberg was concerned with the August 1 deadline to establish a partnership. Councilmember Fogarty felt people would step up or step down quickly on this issue. Councilmember Wilson asked if there was a deadline to file information with Dakota County if there were to be a 2005 referendum. Attorney J amnik stated there was a 49 day notification period for the ballot. This would be a special election. Any date can be set. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Approve Joint Resolution - Canton Court Annexation - Community Development When working on the plat for the Farmington Business Park it became apparent that Canton Court which is the access for some of the businesses along Canton Court is in Castle Rock Township. When the property was annexed it became clear that a number of city properties would be using this township road to obtain access to Hwy 50. An internal road will be constructed in the Farmington Business Park that would connect to Canton Court. Staff discussed the issue of the road being in the township with Castle Rock and discussed Canton Court Council Minutes (Regular) May 2, 2005 Page 8 becoming a City street rather than a township street. One option would be for Canton Court to remain in the township. An agreement would be needed regarding maintaining Canton Court. Because ofthe number of properties and the percentage ofthe area surrounding Canton Court that is in the City, staff and the township agreed it should become a City property. One way is to deed the land under the road to the City. Even if the City owns the property, it does not make it part of the City unless the property is annexed. Staff prepared a joint resolution which Castle Rock has approved consenting to the property becoming part of the City. The City made some agreements in exchange. One was that the City would continue to maintain Canton Court for the benefit of the businesses that abut the road. In addition, staff agreed that three township properties on the east side of Canton Court would be able to maintain their current driveway access onto Canton Court and that during whatever period of time they would not be charged or assessed for any of the costs of maintaining Canton Court or improving it, if required. Staff agreed that if the properties were ever interested in becoming part of the City and petitioned for annexation the City reserved the right to require a payment be made by those properties to represent their share of any costs the City may have incurred in the meantime for improving Canton Court for resurfacing or expansion. MOTION by McKnight, second by Fogarty accepting the Quit Claim Deed regarding Canton Court, transferring ownership thereof from Castle Rock Township to the City of Farmington. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to approve the Joint RESOLUTION R47-0S between Castle Rock Township and the City of Farmington regarding the annexation of Canton Court. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Request for Feasibility Study - ISD 192 - Engineering The school submitted a request to move forward with the feasibility report for the infrastructure associated with the new high school site on Flagstaff. The school will be conducting the traffic study with assistance from the City. The issue regarding paving Flagstaffbetween 195th Street and the border is still open for discussion. Staffwill be meeting with the school and engineering consultants to discuss the feasibility report and define the scope of what the school is looking for. Staffwill bring the cost ofthe report to the next meeting. The estimated timeframe for completion should be 3-6 months. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if the school can do anything with the site until this is completed. City Engineer Mann replied there are several steps that need to be completed as far as the site development is concerned. One thing that needs to be determined is what will be the timing ofthe school site construction versus infrastructure construction. Staff does not know yet how this fits with other issues such as the comp plan and rezomng. Councilmember McKnight appreciated the school and staff working this out. MOTION by McKnight, second by Wilson to adopt RESOLUTION R48-0S approving the request for the feasibility study from ISD 192. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Pritzlaffto rescind the earlier Council Minutes (Regular) May 2, 2005 Page 9 authorized traffic study for Flagstaff Avenue. Staffwill continue to work with the school district on their traffic study. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Adopt Resolution - Accepting Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertisement for Bids for Fire Station Project - Wold Architects Mr. John McNamara, Wold Architects, presented the final documents for the new fire station. The next step is to receive bids. The site is at the intersection of 197th Street and Pilot Knob Road. The building would be 9800 sq. ft. The entry would be from Municipal Drive and the exit onto 197th Street. The station would contain three apparatus bays, an administrative area, a training facility, a small kitchen, work room, tool room and a fire hose tower. There would be a mezzanine over the training and kitchen areas for storage, as well as mechanical rooms. The original plan suggested a simplified sleeping area for ALF Ambulance. Further discussions indicated the need for a more private area. This will be placed in the bid documents as an add alternate. The exterior will be similar to the police and maintenance facilities. The projected construction budget is $1,755,000 for construction. Soft costs are projected at $421,200, for a total project cost of$2,176,540 which was set at the pre-design stage. This includes a contingency of $25,000 and an overall project contingency of $93,000. The bid opening will be May 31,2005. Construction will start in June with completion in late December early January and occupancy in mid-January. Staffwill review the CIP document at the May 16, 2005 meeting to meet the statutory requirements for bonding. The bonds can be issued 30 days after the public hearing. MOTION by Wilson, second by Pritzlaff adopting RESOLUTION R49-0S accepting the final design and authorizing advertisement for construction bids. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Fogarty: Thanked the residents who participated in the pond clean- up day. She attended an EFP AC meeting where they had 19 agenda items. She will provide Council with an update. Regarding the meeting with the school on Friday, she suggested to Chair McKnight that the school add one more board member. Councilmember McKnight: He had asked for Council's input to give staff direction on continued support of Rambling River Days. Staff will be meeting with representatives from the celebration tomorrow. Councilmember Wilson stated he is also volunteering for the celebration and felt it is a good community celebration to have. Councilmember McKnight hoped for the continued level of support from staff as they have in the past. If there is some additional support needed, he suggested staff discuss this with the Rambling River Days representatives. Police Chief Siebenaler stated the Police Department is a large portion ofthe City's contribution for personnel services for Rambling River Days. It is not a specific line item, but he did include $7500 in the budget for Dew Days. He felt they will have to return to previous year's level of service Council Minutes (Regular) May 2, 2005 Page 10 to guarantee safety. While other departments may not have it as a specific line item, public works and solid waste have it built in to their budget. If there are significant increases in the requested activities, staff may have to ask Council for additional consideration or limitation. A street dance will cost $750 for police officers. In addition officers would work in tactical groups to ensure peace and quiet in the later evening. In addition there are the bed races and the dew run. All require services. Last year there were three officers in the daytime, and 8 officers in the evening plus a couple driving sober cabs. Officers were sent home too early last year. The parade is a significant investment as there is an officer at each major intersection. Mayor Soderberg would like to see a line item set aside for the City celebration. Police Chief Siebenaler stated 10% of his overtime budget is spent in two days for the celebration. Councilmember Fogarty felt if more dollars need to be set aside in the future, it is a great celebration and the City gets back ten-fold what we put into it. Councilmember Pritzlaff: Thanked the volunteers for the pond clean-up. He attended the Arbor Day celebration on Saturday. On May 8, 2005 at 8:00 a.m. the owners of Bugaloo's will be on TV. He was on a ride-along with two patrol officers and they were very professional and it was an eye-opening experience. He will be touring the Ash Street project tomorrow. City Administrator Urbia: The May 4 meeting with the school at 5:30 has been postponed. A smaller group will meet on Friday, and he will confirm a time. There is a 5:00 p.m. meeting on May 4 for the school's sub-committee on land. Councilmembers Fogarty and McKnight will also attend. Thursday at 9:00 a.m. there will be a performance partnership meeting for joint dispatch. He will also set up a meeting with Lakeville on this topic. The Friday breakfast meeting with the school has been cancelled. Parks and Recreation Director Distad: 375 volunteers registered for the pond clean-up day and they pulled 3.69 tons of garbage out of the ponds and parks. He thanked staff members, Kellee Omlid, Lena Larson, Missie Kohlbeck and J en Collova for arranging this event. He also thanked the Councilmembers for attending. City Engineer Mann: Pond clean-up day is part ofthe City's NPDES storm water pollution prevent plan BMP's. In addition to the aesthetic benefits, through those activities we are meeting the requirements for the MPCA and NPDES permit. He hoped to increase the numbers each year. Mayor Soderberg: He also commented on the great turn-out for pond clean-up day. It shows dedication and effort by the residents to make Farmington a beautiful place. On Friday he assisted fourth graders plant trees at Meadowview Park for Arbor Day. He also judged the fourth grade posters. He received an e-mail from Representative Garofalo regarding an amendment offered in the house taxes committee on transportation. This bill prohibits permits from any park and ride facility in the state. It passed the committee unanimously and Representative Garofalo expects this to become law. This is good for the short-term, however, there is still the problem of parking Council Minutes (Regular) May 2, 2005 Page 11 capacity and routes need to be added. The City has taken an active interest in being part of the solution for this situation. May 9,2005 there will be a dedication ofthe new chairs at the Rambling River Center. May 11, 2005 will be the State of the City address. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adjourn at 9:20 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~.~ /77u/~ v Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant 76 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: FROM: Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT: Approve 2005 Park Improvements DATE: May 16,2005 INTRODUCTION Park master plans for Vermillion Grove, Silver Springs, Middle Creek and Hill Dee Parks were approved by the City Council earlier this year that identified park improvements to be made in these parks. DISCUSSION Attached is Exhibit A, which identifies the park improvements that staff and the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission ary recommending to be completed in 2005 in these four parks. Collectively, these four parks represent about 20% of the total number of parks in the City. The remaining balance in the fund that you see in Exhibit A does not reflect additional park dedication money yet to be received from the following developments: Parkview Ponds, Middle Creek East Third Addition and Charleswood Crossing. It also does not include money that will come from outstanding assessments in other developments where the park dedication money was spread out over a 10 year collection period. These assessments are typically received by the City after property taxes are collected by Dakota County twice a year and then are forwarded to the municipalities in Dakota County. Staff will make sure that the improvements made in these four parks in 2005 will not collectively exceed the amount identified in Exhibit A. Since almost all ofthe identified improvements are considered capital outlay, the City Council will still have another opportunity to review them as quotes are received by staff and then brought to the City Council as informational items. BUDGET IMPACT The budget impact is shown in Exhibit A. This is a not to exceed amount. There is a balance remaining in the Park Improvement Fund that will be further increased as new developments occur. ACTION REQUESTED By motion approve the improvements identified in Exhibit A for Middle Creek, Vermillion Grove, Silver Springs and Hill Dee Parks. '~K"~ ctfu.llynJ1l)bmitte .~. g. i' . . ~ Randy Distad, Park and Recreation Director cc: Park and Recreation Advisory Commission tn - c (1) E CI) > o I- :1. E ~ I- CO c.. an Q Q N <C I-: :3 - ~ >< W " CIl - CIl Q. E o o - o z Iii' E CIl ::: - c CIl E CIl > e Q, .E .lI: ... ca a.. " CIl - CIl Q. E o o CIl .c o - III - C CIl E ~ Q, .E III - III o o " CIl III '> & c ca CIl ii:'ta ... E ,S; III III caw :E- .lI: III ... 0 caO a.. c _ ca III ,l!!ii:,S 'Q. C ca ca CIl E C:E:zl caCllW 9t~- " ... III It) Q, 0 .EO ... Jg Q) ..t:: CI) .to) i:: to) '0.. c:' CI)' .... .2 c: ~ ~ 13 .~ 0 ~2C1)r:;:: to) Cii ~ CI)' 8 c: tll c: to) 0 Q...Ql ..c: ~ CI)' CI) ~ .- OJ Q) S: ,lg .S: ~ 1: ..... ~ ~ Q) c: .- !:l. E: Q) E ..:; Q..E:,2.ll:l 'S .9- Q) .S: c: 0"::J:t:::: .Q) Q)O"CI)S"O "t:l Q) '" '"' c:::....cti''E~ ::J ..!!! ..g> tll eQ..Q)OJ ~~..c: ~ tllO..QC5 Q.~2s: ~ ~ ~.~ ~ C\l cti' ": tll.... 0 CI) ~J,1Eal I.t) .......:::: .::. N~~~ '"' Q) tll ..8E:Q.. C\l (") C\l 0)' 0) ~ C\l ~ ("). C\l .... ~ o o o o' o .... ~ CIl E ca Z .lI: ... ca a.. III Cl C .;: Q, en ... CIl ~ en "0 t:: ::J Q) e ~ Ol- ~ . etl CI) - t:: Cl...~ c: CI) o Q) - ::. t:: '- Q)- ,... ~ Ci) Q... CIl' ::..,-';;Ol Q) ~ .t:: t:: .S 'E o .... etl EQ)Q. o:t:: o Q) o..t:: . CI) ~ -' ~a5 SE Q) .9- to) ::J ::J 0- "0 Q) ~ .... c: ~ ~ 0.9- ,a::J't:: .... 0" ::J ~Q).... .::c,."t:l oi '10 5'S: s:e~ 'E ~ Q) _' tll ...... CI) ... 0..!!!Q)~ ..Q Q..:5: tll &~ ~ 5 'a ~ Q.. Cii ::J tll ...: ~ 13Q)~~ .S: ~ 5 .S: c:......Q"O ~J,.ll:l3l o "t:l Ql CI) 2 c: ~ .... tll c: CI) 1.0 0 c: I 0 8C\l..c: ..... .... :"::::: 0 .~ ~c: ~5 E: tll c ~ .~ ~ CIl ... >C) "E "O"O~ t:: t:: Q) etl::J:s - e 0 a5 ~.Q a5 E ~ .S 'E .9- Cl.. ~ ~ ::J "0 etl ... 0-t::~Q) Q) ::J Q) 3:: -ge~..Q ::JetlCll- 0:::: Q)"O >;;.~Qit:: ~_ >;;. etl etl .... to) Ol Q.~5:s "O>;;.to)..t:: o.8ll:::~ "'Q)(O:::: etl--:-m ~~t::~ U? g ~ "-I 8 .9- ::J 0- Q) "t:l Q) ~.9~ (I)=::: "'0 Q) ~ ~ a -;;; OJ Q.. - c: :€~'a S: CI) Q) t:: ~ 5l 5~S (.) "............. ~~C1i' :S.geOJ ~..925:S CI)..QCI)C: ~~~-a 5 8. ~ 8 .2 t::' ===-o:::s ,2c:8 ..... ::J ..Q .ll:lg..Q -::J"t:l ~ CI) c: CI) . tll .Sol ~ ~ t:::o=t::: .Sol OJ Q) Q.. ~ o (") co 1.0' 1.0 .... ~ o 00 0) co' .... C\l ~ o o o o' 1.0 .... ~ ~Ol . Q) ~ .S g.Qi ::oo~Cti .....~Q)cts....... CI) to) - Cl...8 .::c. t:: ~ . Q) to) 0 to) CI) .... etl to) t:: t:::::: .Q "0 0 .~..... ..t:: t:: to) CI) 0 ~etl ..... ~-~~Cti~ "Ot::=t::;::..t::etl Q5~0l~C5;~ to:: 0;;: . Q... t:: 'E :::: .9- "0 Q5 :;:: etl ~::J5-t::o g- 0 .S ~ .Q ~. :::.. ~ "0' Cl.. (if Q)etl::>.\t::~Q) :t::Q.~::J>;;.~ Q) Cl..0-- ~gf"O~o) to) - t:: ~.S ._.Q ::J ....,- 5~e~"5, '- to) etl Cl..:::: Cl..._ ... "0 _' ~ .Q ~ 5 .Q - Cl.. (5 e .Q etl Q) ~ oi.ll:l ,c: ~ is ..... Q) S: 5l CI)' 't::~ ::J 0 .... c: oiQ) c:..Q 'auf Q) Q) ~ 5l ~ Q) Q) .... .S: "t:: (6 ~ "-...... c:: ~ .9 0 Q..Q)O =:::"":5 ,lg'Q .... ..... 0- .2~ "'" .,!!2' ~ "e ~ ~..!!! ~Q.. tll Q.. o 1.0 o 0)' "'" ~ o (") 0) 1.0' C\l .... ~ o o o o' 1.0 ~ CIl CIl c i: ~ (") C\l' "'" ~ o .... (") ("). o (") ~ o 0 o 0 o 0 ~. ~. .... "'" ~ ~ .lI: CIl e! o en CIl ..J :c ~ :2 0 :E I- C\l 00 C\l co' "'" (") ~ C\l 1.0 0) 0)' ~ ~ .. e! .g CIl "10 c CIl ::s u u.. C .lI: ca laiii a.. 10 "'" .... " ~ N~ N ~ .,. "'" .... It) .... Q fli "'" .,. \. CIl ,,~ C CIl ::s u u.. C .lI: ca laiii a.. 10 LO Q (0 Q LO ..... o t/) co .. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us 76 TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City A~strator~ Missie KoWbeck, Senior Coordinato;~ ~ Patti Norman, Recreation Superviso~ FROM: SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Accepting Donation from Home and Garden Show to the Rambling River Center DATE: May 16, 2005 INTRODUCTION. A donation has been received from the Farmington Home and Garden Show. DISCUSSION The Farmington Home and Garden Show wishes to make a donation of$l,OOO.OO to the Rambling River Center. Staff will communicate the City's appreciation on behalf of the City Council to the Farmington Home and Garden Show for their generous donation. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution accepting the donation of$l,OOO.OO to the Rambling River Center from the Farmington Home and Garden Show. Respectfully Submitted, ~~~\~ Missie Kohlbeck, Senior Coordinator atti Norman, Recreation Supervisor cc: Farmington Home and. Garden Show RESOLUTION No. ACCEPTING DONATION OF $1,000.00 TO THE RAMBLING RIVER CENTER FROM THE FARMINGTON HOME AND GARDEN SHOW Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 16th day of May, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, the Farmington Home and Garden Show has donated $1,000.00 to the Rambling River Center; and, WHEREAS, it is required by State Statute and in the best interest of the City to accept such donation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Farmington hereby accepts with gratitude the generous donation of$I,OOO.OO to the Rambling River Center from the Farmington Home and Garden Show. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 16th day of May 2005. Mayor Attested to the _ day of May 2005. City Administrator SEAL 7e1 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us FROM: Mayor, Councihnembers and City Administrator~ Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director TO: SUBJECT: Approving Solid Waste Exemptions DATE: May 16, 2005 INTRODUCTION City ordinance allows property owners to request from the City Council an exemption from City garbage service. DISCUSSION Letters were mailed to 36 customers who had previously been exempted from City garbage service. Attached in Exhibit A are the requests that have been made by these property owners who are asking the City Council to have their property exempted from City garbage service. City Ordinance states in Title 7, Chapter 1, Section 2, Article A the following: "the City Council may exempt, for extenuating or unusual circumstances, a residential household or business from the requirement of having a solid waste collection service if the , household or business ensures that an environmentally sound alternative is used" After reviewing these requests, staff feels that there needs to be clear criteria identified that property owners should meet in order for an exemption to be given. Staff would recommend that the exemptions in Exhibit A be approved by the City Council for this year with the understanding that more criteria for exemption from City garbage service would be developed by staff members and then brought back to the City Council at a later date for discussion and approval. BUDGET IMPACT: While not significant, exempting these 24 customers will affect the revenue generated. The exact amount of revenue lost is hard to gauge because of not knowing the size of the container that these customers may have ordered as the cost for garbage service is dependent on the size of the container. ACTION REQUESTED To approve by motion the exemptions identified in Exhibit A. 1Z41YJJ:11; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director cc: Benno Klotz, Solid Waste Supervisor Robin Roland, Finance Director Lena Larson, Public Works Administrative Assistant Deb Richter, Accounting Clerk f'i h-t b"l+ A GARBAGE AFFIDAVITS 2005 ACCOUNT # NAME ADDRESS AFFIDAVIT DATE LETTER MAILED OUTCOME 118051802000704 DENNIS ALLEN 18020 180TH CT 6/112004 4/1112005 AFFIDAVIT DATED: 4/22105 EMPLOYED BY OSI 460251878500601 SCOTT DORING 18785 EUCLID PATH 514/2004 411112005 AFFIDAVIT DATED: 4/25105 EMPLOYED BY WASTE MGMT 142251887200001 TIMOTHY DUPEY 18872 EASTON AVE 511112004 4/1112005 AFFIDAVIT DATED: 4114105 EMPLOYED BY BFt 462601991400101 MIKE FRITZEN 19914 EVENSONG AVE 4/2812004 4/1112005 AFFIDAVIT DATED: 04119/2005 EMPLOYED BY WASTE MGMT 380100070100701 DANIEL HALVORSON 701 MAIN ST 412612004 4/1112005 AFFIDAVIT DATED: 4121105 LACK OF TRASH 430102080900901 DON HANSEN 20809 AKIN RD 413012004 4/1112005 AFFIDAVIT DATED: 4125105 TO FATHER'S HOME 332150120100002 CAROLE HLAVAY 1201 ASPEN CT 5/7/2004 4111/2005 AFFIDAVIT DATED: 5109105 TO OWN BUSINESS 118320552000301 LARRY JURGENSEN 5520 U 183RD ST NONE / NEVER SET UP 4111/2005 AFFIDAVIT DATED: 4114105 WASTE TO JOB 154101862200402 DON KIPPLEY 18622 EMBERS AVE 2004 NOT RETURNED 4/1112005 AFFIDAVIT DATED: 4/22105 EMPLOYED BY GA CO 333050130000903 DAVID LEMAY 1300 BIRCH ST 41812004 4/1112005 AFFIDAVIT DATED: 4125105 EMPLOYED BY BFI 386150095600501 ROBERT MANDERFIELD 958 PINE ST 4/26/2004 412512005 AFFIDAVIT DATED: 5-04-05 TO OWN BUSINESS 444242075000001 BERNARD MURPHY 20750 EASTER AVE 412212004 411112005 AFFIDAVIT DATED: 5110105 TO A & 0 RECYCLING & RECOVERY 475040667000201 BERNARD MURPHY 6670 lAKEVlLLE BLVD 412212004 411112005 AFFIDAVIT DATED: 4122105 LACK OF TRASH 310900060000802 KRISTIN NELSON 600 9TH ST 412112004 4111/2005 AFFIDAVIT DATED: 4128105 NO NEED 334052051300003 ANTHU NGYEN 20513 CAMDEN PATH 2/12/2004 411112005 AFFIDAVIT DATED: 4/22105 VACANT 118210596000301 DENNIS NORDLING 5960 L 182ND ST 412012004 4/1112005 AFFIDAVIT DATED: 4/18105 EMPLOYED BY GA CO 119100487300301 JASON OEHRLEIN 4873 191 ST ST 412312004 411112005 AFFIDAVIT DATED: 4115105 EMPLOYED BY WASTE MGMT 154101857700902 CRAIG ONKEN 18577 EMBERS AVE 111212004 411112005 LETTER WITHOUT AFFIDAVIT ILLNESS 475040689000601 ROGER PEDERSEN 6890 LAKEVlLLE BLVD 9/7/2004 4111/2005 AFFIDAVIT DATED: 4125105 TO FAMILY BUSINESS 370150051600202 JERRY RISTOW 516 L HERITAGE WAY 5/4/2004 4/1112005 AFFIDAVIT DATED: 4/13105 LACK OF TRASHlTO BUSINESS 310900091300001 JOHN RISTOW 913 9TH ST 4126/2004 4/1112005 AFFIDAVIT DATED: 4116105 WASTE TO JOB 310400090000002 DANIEL ROSCHEN 900 4TH ST 5/1212004 411112005 AFFIDAVIT DATED: 4/20105 WASTE TO JOB 419000539500401 AL & ARDIS SCHAFFER 5395 190TH ST 412112004 411112005 AFFIDAVIT DATED: 4/20105 EMPLOYED BY WASTE MGMT 310200062200902 AUDRA SCHMITZ 622 2ND ST 51612004 4111/2005 AFFIDAVIT DATED: 5126105 TO PARENrS HOUSE 154101822800201 TIM SCHULTZ 18228 EMBERS AVE NONE / CLOSED 09-30-95 4/11/2005 AFFIDAVIT DATED: 4/15105 EMPLOYED BY WASTE MGMT 442102009000203 PAUL WAGNER 20090 DUNBAR AVE 4/2112004 4/1112005 AFFIDAVIT DATED: 4114105 EMPLOYED BY BFI .i . le... City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor and Councilmembers ~ City Administrator ~ FROM: Daniel M. Siebenaler, Police Chief SUBJECT: Resolution authorizing participation in the Dakota County Traffic Safety Group DATE: May 16, 2005 INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION The Farmington Police Department has a history of participation with larger organized groups to. conduct traffic enforcement. In the past those groups have consisted of one or two other local agencIes. At this point the Farmington Police Department is requesting to enter into a countywide traffic safety group. This larger group will allow larger scale enforcement efforts. For example rather than concentrating on a part of Pilot Knob Road in Farmington an effort may involve the entire length of Pilot Knob Road in a single effort involving a larger number of officers. Another advantage of this arrangement is the possibility of grant funds from the Minnesota Office of Traffic Safety that could offset much of the cost. A grant application from a large group that demonstrates a wide area enforcement effort may be viewed more favorably than individual agency applications. BUDGET IMPACT The Farmington Police Department plans several traffic saturation efforts each year. Funding f9r these efforts is included in the 2005 budget. Participation in the Traffic Safety Group has the potential to provide grant funding to offset some of these expenditures. ACTION REQUESTED Approve proposed resolution authorizing participation in the Dakota county Traffic Safety Group. Respectfully submitted, Daniel M. Siebenaler City of Farmington Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. R 05 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FARMINGTON TO ENTER INTO A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE DAKOTA COUNTY TRAFFIC SAFETY GROUP Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 16th day of May, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Members introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, the City of Farmington desires to participate in the Dakota County Traffic Safety Committee. WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota requires a resolution of the City Council to participate. WHEREAS, the City has entered into previous grants to provide increased traffic enforcement and educational activities with successful results. WHEREAS, the City will partner with 12 other government entities in Dakota County to increase traffic safety. WHEREAS, the City Councilmembers of the City of Farmington have duly considered this matter and believe that it is in the best interests of the City to enter into a grant agreement with the Office of Traffic Safety to provide enhanced traffic enforcement. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the proper City officers be and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement and any amendments, and thereby assume for and on behalf of the City all of the contractual obligations contained therein. Adopted by vote of the City Council of the City of Farmington this 16th day of May, 2005. Kevan Soderberg, Mayor Attested to the _ day of 2005. David Urbia, City Clerk SEAL City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn..us If TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Administrator r FROM: Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director SUBJECT: Approve Joint Powers Cost Share Agreement for Pictometry Software DATE: May 16, 2005 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the memorandum is to provide information regarding the attached joint powers cost share agreement for the purchase and licensing of Pictometry software. DISCUSSION Dakota County, along with various Dakota County Cities, has reviewed and analyzed the benefits of purchasing Pictometry's licensed images, geodata, software and documentation and has implemented a joint powers cost share agreement for the purchase and licensing of this software. The total cost of this project is $82,888 the first year (starting in 2005) and $72,888 the second year with the county paying $49,046 and $44,046 each year respectively. The cities share the costs based on the number of parcels in each city as a percentage of the total number of parcels in all cities. Pictometry is a patented information system that provides "visual intelligence" by combining aerial imaging with computer programming. The end user will literally be able to see everywhere and measure and plan anything from their workstation. This program allows the users to have easy access to actual imagery of every square foot of their area from as many as twelve different views in full color, high resolution, and digital format. The City's IT staff will be trained through the County in order to provide on site support to the end user. The anticipated users of this system are community development, public safety, public works, and parks and recreation staff members. BUDGET IMPACT The City's cost for this software in 2005 is $1,831.34 and the funding is provided for in the 2005 budget. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the joint powers cost share agreement for Pictometry International Corporation general license terms and conditions. Respectfully Submitted, / 1 /'~. /' .r-1 - h .. /.../, /,. y!;lt1;L(tL-;~A ~,ltl#' .. " Brenda Wendlandt, SPHR Human Resources Director cc: file City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ~ TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator FROM: Robin Roland, Finance Director SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Authorizing Bond Sale DATE: May 16, 2005 INTRODUCTION Funding is necessary for the construction of the Ash Street Project which Council authorized in . November 2003. Funding is also necessary for the acquisition of equipment as called for in the Adopted 2005 Budget. DISCUSSION & BUDGET IMPACT As identified in the funding plan submitted to and approved by council, the Ash Street project will be financed by a $2,635,000 General Obligation Improvement Bond. The bonds will be repaid by special assessments against benefiting properties and an annual tax levy. The balance of funding for the $6.7 million project costs will come from Dakota County and the Sewer, Storm Water Trunk and Water funds. As identified in the 2005 Adopted Budget, funding is necessary for the acquisition of equipment. The budget identified $575,000 in Certificates of hldebtedness and staff recommends an additional $125,000 to fund the up front cost of the fiber optic cabling (ifbids are approved on the later agenda item). Copies of the preliminary Bond Sale Report are attached to this memo. The Ash Street Bonds would have a fifteen year repayment period; the Certificates, a five year repayment period. ACTION REQUIRED 1) Adopt the attached resolution calling for the sale of $2,635,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 2005B, on June 20, 2005 2) Adopt the attached resolution calling for the sale of $730,000 G.O. Equipment Certificates, Series 2005D, on June 20, 2005. Respectfully submitted, Af!;tt~ Finance Director Resolution No. -05. Resolution Providing for the Sale of $2,635,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 2005B Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Fannington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 16th day of May, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member _ introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, the City Council ofthe City of Fannington, Minnesota, has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue the City's $2,635,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 2005B (the "Bonds"), to finance certain improvement projects in the City; and; WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers & Associates, Inc., in Roseville, Minnesota ("Ehlers"), as its independent financial advisor for the Bonds and is therefore authorized to solicit proposals in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ofFannington, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Authorization: Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes Ehlers to solicit proposals for the sale of the Bonds. 2. Meeting: Proposal Opening. The City Council shall meet at City Hall on June 20,2005, for the purpose of considering sealed proposals for and awarding the sale of the Bonds. 3. Official Statement. In connection with said sale, the officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Bonds and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion. This resolution adopted by recorded vote ofthe Fannington City Council in open session on the 16th of May, 2005. Mayor City Administrator Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Resolution No. -05 Resolution Providing for the Sale of $730,000 G.O. Equipment Certificates, Series 2005D Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 16th day of May, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member _ introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue the City's $730,000 G.O. Equipment Certificates, Series 2005D (the "Bonds"), to finance certain capital equipment needs within in the City; and; WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers & Associates, Inc., in Roseville, Minnesota ("Ehlers"), as its independent financial advisor for the Bonds and is therefore authorized to solicit proposals in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Farmington, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Authorization: Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes Ehlers to solicit proposals for the sale of the Bonds. 2. Meeting: Proposal Opening. The City Council shall meet at City Hall on June 20,2005, for the purpose of considering sealed proposals for and awarding the sale of the Bonds. 3. Official Statement. In connection with said sale, the officers or employees ofthe City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Bonds and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 16th of May, 2005. Mayor City Administrator Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. City of Farmington, Minnesota Pre-Sale Report May 16, 2005 Proposed Issue: $2,635,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 2005B Purpose: The bonds will finance the City's 2005 Ash Street Improvement Project. Term/Call Feature: 15 year bonds, callable in 2015 for maturities 2016 and after. (9 years) Funding Sources: Special assessments and property tax levy. Discussion Issues: Deferred special assessments anticipated in the amount of $1,298,950. The estimated levy has been increased to accommodate. Schedule: Pre-Sale Review: Distribute Official Statement: May 16,2005 Week of June 6, 2005 Week of June 13,2005 June 20, 2005 Week ofJuly 11,2004 Rating Agency Interview Bond Sale: Estimated Closing Date: Attachments: Proposed Debt Service and Levy Schedule Bond Buyer Index Resolution authorizing Ehlers to proceed with bond sale Ehlers Contacts: Financial Advisors: Bond Analysts: Sid Inman (651)697-8507 Shelly Eldridge (651)697-8504 Diana Lockard (651) 697-8534 Debbie Holmes (651) 697-8536 Connie Kuck (651) 697-8527 Bond Sale Coordinator: The Official Statement for this financing will be mailed to the Council Members at their home address for review prior to the sale date. e EHLERS &. ASSOCIATES INC z :E c:" 1> 0 III - 'e- el c: Q. 'E 'lii .. I!! III Cl) ll.. .c '0 II> <( ~ '" '" (3 '" N m~~1.t) C'\IOO~ r---.~C'.! C\I "'CD '" '" III ::I e Gl > Gl II: .. e Gl E II> II> Gl II> II> <( ;#.~ CD'" eN'" .C 0 ai a.NCD 'iU ::I CT W c ~ o "'C~;#. ij .cO ~ 'E E J!! ..ECIl <( 0 CIl"'E 'E 8. :!!:tl '" 5 :ll :tl ~ m +:;<(:t ~ >- ~-g<( ~St::E.2.>S ~~bi~~~~ 01.0(0'11""" coccm o Lt)CO 'II""" 1.O~~m,n C"') 'II""" co C"') comT""f'-., C\I-~NcD '" '" '" N II> .~ III Ul Ii '0 e o III d ci '0 III II> o a. e Q. '" "0 C o al '0 IF) W <..J II: ::J c 0 5 IF) E~ --' <(e~~ :0520 a.<..J1-1- OOCDOll)'II""" NOCOl.l)Mm <00"""<>>""'"...... ~Lrir-:~~C'i ("') CO') It) 0 M CD r-- cD cD "0 C ~ ~"C g g'g ~ <..JLl.. ~ -c: 1: j~ ::I .Sl 2 ~ .EUi c "i6 '" N <..J s~~1l~ "~ ~ ~"e- ~ IF) CIl",<..Ja.<(~ -c.!!!..sS CJ)=> 5o~~.5-1 ~~ ~8.g~ OOCllCllOO I-<..JOOII:I- Ll)ONVCX)("')CO(l')"'ltv("),.....comv ;;; , (O'l"""mCOMCONco....,.,.....OCOM<q-'OIt CX)'II"""('I)NI.Oll)l.OvNCO(t)<O......CC..- N "3;- ~-"8;- gf sf ~~ i ~ ~ ~ '4 ~~ ~ ~ N r:::. '" T""T""'l"""'l"""'l"""NNNNN("')("')(")(")(") 0 M 0 ~ it; NCD(Q'l""".mvO)oomM"!tCO...... g , NCO"'ltNC>>MCOT'"O(l')It)Nc>>oa ,.....mN......C"')vM(I')..-.....__I.ON,......O ~ m- cD m- ~ 1"-- v~o) a)~"': ('\1- ci N ai ~ or; III cococor--coCO..........CO............C\I--......C\1 '" --' NC\lC\lNN <Xl. .. '" vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv <Xl e '" ~~~;!:~:!:~~~:!:!:~;!:t;! '" '0 Gl "!. .... ~ E~CO Lrilli.nLrilt'i..nI.O-tri ll'iuilliLciLl'iLlilli ~ =g~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ '" .2! N_ III III .... 11>'" Q ~ --------------- 0> (O<r-CO..-CO__(O'l"""(O'II""".....N.....N..... III , or--.(")OCDMmCOC\lmLONCOll)'II""" 0; ::I covC'"')C\Iom,.....COLl)(I')C\I'11"""(J)CO..... ~ e ,..: an <"i '11"""- m- cD oq-A C\I~ 0 tti (0- -.:i .-- ai ,..: .,; ~ !:e.eeeeeeee~~~~e2.e2. <Xl ..... I- ~ --------------- 0> CD.....CD.....CO.....CO.....CO.....~Nr___Nr___ E or___MOCDMmCONmLt)NCOLt)..... ~ CO~MNOm~COIJ')MN.....mcor___ 0> ~ II> ,..: Lt)- M ~ m~ cD ~ N- 0- aJ- co- "'Ii ~ en"': .,; : eeeeeeeee~~:!..~e2.e2. <Xl II> r-- ~ ;;(j);;(j);;(j);;(j);;(j)G'SG'SG' 0 -;; NCOLt).....CO~.....~vO~vOr___M 0> OOO~COvMNOmCDCOLt)vN..... ~ I!! N-m-"': Lt)- t:'i ~ ai"': v- N- 0- as (J)~ ~N <Ii ~ e2.~~~~~~~~~~---- '" .5 N OJ NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN 0> 00000000 CD CD CD co aJ aJ co aJOO coco '" 1J')1J')1J')1J')Lt)Lt)LOLOIJ')Lt)Lt)Lt)Lt)Lt)Lt) r-- U Iii Lt)- Lt)- Lt)- Lt)~ ~~ ~ Iii Lt)- Lt)- Ll'i Lt)~ Ll'iLl'i M .5 e2.e2.e2.eee2.eeeeeeeee '" It '" ..........CDLt)vvvvOLt)(J)Lt).....r___~ ;;; _'#. !;;:~~~g;C;~~::::re:;~~~~ ... 0118 N"':"':"': ~ cDm-"': a) ~ ai"'li"'li a) rD- <Ii COLt)Lt)Lt)Lt)(J)Lt)Lt)Lt)IJ')LOCOLt)Lt)Lt) ..... Q.... NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN <Xl + M MLt)IJ')Lt)MMLOOOOOMMaJaJ co , ~.....Lt)ONNr___cooo.....~~mm CD m~ C"l v_ C\!. ~ CD_ m~ co~ 'V~ ('I")~ .....~ 0_ ....._ ....._ M_ <Xl. ..; mLt)Lt)Lt)mMco'Vr___mCONN~(J) ;;; vvvvt")Lt)~'V~t")vLt)vvv ZQ. NNNNNNNNNNNNC\lNN CD M <0 CD .. <Xl co ... ... II> .-: .-: CLI!! .. Gl e- '" u.. .5 (J)MLt)l.t)LOMt")LOOOOOMMaJCO ... .. CO~.....l.t)ONNr___COOO.....v~Q)Q) '" II> vm('l")vN<O CDm co v M..... 0..........(1') '" I!! ,...:.. 0 &ti 0" ai~.. r___- m-.....- N- N N~ ~ 'i ~ Lt)~~~~mcocor___COlJ')lJ')v(l')N..... .5 ~ '#.'?f''?f''?f''#.'?f''?f''?f''?f''?f''#.'#.'#.'#.'#. Lt)OLt)Lt)OLt)OOOLt)Lt)OLt)OLt) v(J)~CDO.....MvLt)Lt)t.O~~coco II: ("')(")("')("')...,:...,:...,:...,:...,:...,:...,:...,:...,:...,:...,: 000000000000000 0 000000000000000 0 OJ 000000000000000 0 l,()-l,()- 0 ~ ~ Lt)~&ti 0 0 0- Lt)- 0- 0 Lt)~ Lt)~ or; d ";:; (I')(I')"It'Vvco<or___cocom..........N(I') '" .5 .......................................................NNNN CD e N oj 'I: ~ Q. .~ .. Lt)(J)~comO.....N('I")vLt)COr___COQ)O..... ~ e ooooO..................................................NN oil Gl~ 00000000000000000 l!! E .. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CIl ~Q mNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN :2 Q. W ~ 1> cor___comO.....N(I')vLt)CO~CDmO 1! Gl .. oooO..................................................N = III 000000000000000 .. 8>- NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN 0- l!:! a. ~:;; Lt)COr___COQ)O.....N(I')vIl)CO~COm 00000.................................................. ~~ 000000000000000 NNNNNNNNNNNNC\lNC\I City of Farmington, MN $2,635,000 G.O. Bonds, Dated August 1,2005 Issue Summary 15 Years Sources & Uses Dated 08/01/20051 Delivered 08/01/2005 SOURCES OF FUNDS Par Amount of Bonds....................................................................................................."..,....................... ,.""............. ..... County.......,.,.,..,..,...,.."....,......................................................................................"............. .................................. ........., Trunk..................................................................................................................................... ........................"................... $2,635,000.00 1 ,911 ,505.00 2,186,686.00 TOTAL SOU RCES............................................................................................................................................................. $6,733,191.00 USES OF FUNDS Total Underwriter's Discount (1,200%)..,.........................................................".................................,.,........................ ..,. Costs of Issuance..........................................................................................................,.................... .............,.................. Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CI F) Fund..........................................................,.........................,............................ ......., Deposit to Project Construction Fund..............................................................................................................",............. .." Rounding Amount.."."..............................................................................................,.."........................ ..,.......................... 31,620,00 35,000.00 57,486.25 6,604,950.00 4,134.75 TOTAL USES..................................................................................................................................................................... $6,733,191.00 Ser05 $6,0604K Proj Cost I Issue Summary I 5/11/2005 I 4:22 PM Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Leaders in Public Finance Page 1 City of Farmington, MN $2,635,000 G.O. Bonds, Dated August 1,2005 Issue Summary 15 Years Debt Service Schedule Part 1 of 2 Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 08/01/2005 02/01/2006 57,486.25 57,486.25 57,486.25 08/01/2006 57,486,25 57,486.25 02/01/2007 135,000,00 3.450% 57,486.25 192,486.25 249,972,50 08/01/2007 55,157.50 55,157.50 02/01/2008 135,000,00 3.600% 55,157.50 190,157.50 245,315,00 08/01/2008 52,727.50 52,727.50 02/01/2009 140,000.00 3.750% 52,727.50 192,727.50 245,455.00 08/01/2009 50,102.50 50,102,50 02/01/2010 145,000.00 3.850% 50,102.50 195,102,50 245,205.00 08/01/2010 47,311.25 47,311.25 02/01/2011 145,000.00 4.000% 47,311.25 192,311.25 239,622.50 08/01/2011 44,411.25 44,411.25 02/01/2012 165,000,00 4.150% 44,411.25 209,411.25 253,822.50 08/01/2012 40,987,50 40,987.50 02/01/2013 165,000.00 4.300% 40,987.50 205,987.50 246,975.00 08/01/2013 37,440.00 37,440,00 02/01/2014 170,000.00 4.400% 37,440.00 207,440.00 244,880.00 08/01/2014 33,700.00 33,700.00 02/01/2015 180,000,00 4,500% 33,700,00 213,700.00 247,400.00 08/01/2015 29,650.00 29,650,00 02/0112016 180,000.00 4.550% 29,650.00 209,650.00 239,300.00 08/01/2016 25,555.00 25,555.00 02/01/2017 195,000.00 4.650% 25,555.00 220,555,00 246,110.00 08/01/2017 21,021.25 21,021.25 02/01/2018 210,000,00 4.700% 21,021.25 231,021.25 252,042.50 08/01/2018 16,086.25 16,086.25 02/01/2019 210,000.00 4.750% 16,086.25 226,086.25 242,172.50 08/01/2019 11,098.75 11,098.75 02/01/2020 225,000.00 4,800% 11,098.75 236,098.75 247,197,50 08/01/2020 5,698,75 5,698.75 02/01/2021 235,000.00 4.850% 5,698.75 240,698.75 246,397,50 Total $2,635,000,00 $1,114,353,75 $3,749,353.75 Ser05 $6,0604K PlOj Cost I Issue Summary I 5/1112005 I 4:22 PM Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Leaders in Public Finance Page 2 City of Farmington, MN $2,635,000 G.O. Bonds, Dated August 1,2005 Issue Summary 15 Years Debt Service Schedule Part 2 of 2 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars...............................................................................................................,.,............ ..................",.............. $24,442,50 Average Life........ .....................................................,." ,...."",..."..." ,.,.......................................,.........................."""".,...... 9.276 Years Average Coupon.............................................. ...................................................................".. ..........................,...,............... 4,5590825% Net Interest Cost (N IC).....................................................,.....................,................................................. ....................,... ,.... 4.6884474% True Interest Cost (TiC)...................................................................................................,......................... ....,.", .................. 4,7021236% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes................................................................................,..............................."",...... ............. 4,5354954% All Inclusive Cost (AI C). ................................................................................................................................., .",............ ...... 4,8899436% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost...................................................,..,...,......",........,......................................",............. ................""" ,......... 4.5590825% Weighted Average Maturity........................................,....,..................,.................................". ,..........................""", ..... ....... 9,276 Years Ser05 $6,0604K proj Cost I Issue Summary I 5/11/2005 I 4:22 PM Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Leaders in Public Finance Page 3 City of Farmington, MN $2,635,000 G.O. Bonds, Dated August 1,2005 Issue Summary 15 Years Net Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Net New D/S 02/0112006 57,486.25 57,486.25 (57,486.25) 02101/2007 135,000.00 3.450% 114,972.50 249,972.50 249,972.50 02101/2008 135,000.00 3.600% 110,315,00 245,315.00 245,315.00 02/01/2009 140,000.00 3.750% 105,455.00 245,455,00 245,455.00 02101/2010 145,000.00 3.850% 100,205.00 245,205.00 245,205.00 02101/2011 145,000.00 4.000% 94,622,50 239,622.50 239,622.50 02101/2012 165,000.00 4.150% 88,822,50 253,822.50 253,822.50 02/01/2013 165,000.00 4.300% 81,975.00 246,975.00 246,975.00 02101/2014 170,000.00 4.400% 74,880,00 244,880.00 244,880.00 02/01/2015 180,000.00 4.500% 67,400.00 247,400.00 247,400.00 02101/2016 180,000.00 4.550% 59,300,00 239,300.00 239,300.00 02/01/2017 195,000.00 4.650% 51,110.00 246,110,00 246,110,00 02/01/2018 210,000.00 4,700% 42,042.50 252,042.50 252,042,50 02/01/2019 210,000,00 4.750% 32,172.50 242,172.50 242,172,50 02/01/2020 225,000.00 4.800% 22,197,50 247,197.50 247,197.50 02101/2021 235,000.00 4.850% 11,397,50 246,397.50 246,397.50 Total $2,635,000.00 $1,114,353.75 $3,749,353,75 (57,486.25) $3,691,867,50 Ser05 $6,0604K Proj Cost I Issue Summary I 5/11/2005 I 4:22 PM Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Leaders in Public Finance Page 4 GS a <:: - a <:: o en ~ ca ~ Q C") '0' e: o en It) C'l '- >< CIl '0 .s '0 e: o en CIl ::3 e: ~ CIl It 1.0 o o N >- ~ ~ J: Cl ~ o '- J: - CO') o o N '- Q) .0 o - o o ~ ca ~ Q C'l '0' e: o en Q ~ >< CIl '0 .s ... ~ ::3 en '0 e: o en *'#. ~oo cqC0 ~-.i It) : o : o : N : ai X : >. Q) : III " x :EE~ 'O-gE Ul 0 '- < c::l ~ Q) ::J ::Jc::l C" Q) C > 0 &c::l ~ o o <0 .n ~ o o .... .n ~ o <<:> '<t ~ o o '<l; .... ~ o N .n ~ o o .n ~ o o ~ .... -:; -< -:; -z -0 -:; -< -0 ~ o o "! '<t City of Farmington, Minnesota Pre-Sale Report May 16, 2005 Proposed Issue: $730,000 G.O. Equipment Certificates, Series 2005D Purpose: The bonds will finance the City's 2005 Capital Equipment needs. Term/Call Feature: 5 year bonds, non-callable Funding Sources: Property tax levy. Schedule: Pre-Sale Review: May 16,2005 Distribute Official Statement: Week of June 6, 2005 Week ofJune 13,2005 June 20, 2005 Week of July 11,2004 Rating Agency Interview Bond Sale: Estimated Closing Date: Attachments: Proposed Debt Service and Levy Schedule Resolution authorizing Ehlers to proceed with bond sale Ehlers Contacts: Financial Advisors: Bond Analysts: Sid Inman (651)697-8507 Shelly Eldridge (651)697-8504 Diana Lockard (651) 697-8534 Debbie Holmes (651) 697-8536 Connie Kuck (651) 697-8527 Bond Sale Coordinator: The Official Statement for this financing will be mailed to the Council Members at their home address for review prior to the sale date, 8 EHLERS " ASSOCIATES INe z :i c o - C) c E I.. ca LL .... o ~ o .... C CD E .s. ~ CO w ! 'is. I'll (J It) CI CI N c It) CI CI N III CD .;: CD tn iii CD .... I'll CJ Ii: :e CD (J .... C CD E ,s. ~ CO W iij .... 'is. I'll (J o ci " CD III o Q. e Il. o o o ci ('I) I'-- IIJ "'C C o a:l '0 - C :::J o E <( .... l\l c.. ->0 S > o CD I-..J o o o ci ('I) I'-- tOOLOOtOO ('1)1.01.001.00 I'--N <0 0 ('I) 0 Nririci ci ..- ..- 0 ('I) I'-- I'-- ';fl. oIS8 Il..n + 'SolS Zll. .... III Q.CD I'll .. (J~ .E C/) LU o 0::: ::::> o C/) ...J ~ o I- "'C C _ :::J ';fl. u."'C g ~5 C"! Ou. ~ "'-"c: "E ~:B :::J Q):::J o -.... ~ E1ii i:5 -ga IIJ NO ......lS"ffit5c 2c:!:::Q):::J .~ l\l c."Q' 0 C/) c:::Jl\l....ELU Q)1IJ0c..<(C/) "'C~ 0 0 0)::::> c:......==c: ::::> O,-.-.-...J IIJIIJIIJ"'C<( (ij_OOCI-' o~g.g.50 1-'0000:::1-' .... c CD CD E'1a ~c Il. .... CJ .. CD I'll = CD 8> ~:; CD CD ..J> <OLO('I)VO NtOvtON 'vl'--I'--NI'-- cicicici~ 1'--1'--1'--1'--1'-- ~~~~~ <OLO('I)VO NtO'<ttON 'vl'--I'--NI'-- cicicici~ 1'--1'--1'--1'--1'-- .,.... .,.... .,.... .,.... .,.... 0('1)('1)1.00 ..-1.0"-1'--0 '('I)<O<O..-v NNN-NcD <0<0<0<0<0 .,.... .,.... .,.... .,.... .,.... iO 1.0 <0 ri ..- - .... III CD .. ~ c 1.00('1)('1)1.00 1.0..-1.0..-1'--0 <O('I)<O<O..-v ri~N~NcD ..-NN..-..- CD .... I'll a::: '*''*''*''*''*' 1.001.01.00 v<Ol'--tOO MMMMoq: iij Q. '(j C ';: Il. 00000 00000 00000 ll'icill'icici ('I)vvLO<O .,.... .,.... .,.... .,.... .,.... 1.0 <Ol'--tOCl) 0..- 00000..-..- 0000000 ~~~~~~~ .,.... .,.... .,.... .,.... .,.... .,.... .,.... ....... """'- ......... ......... ........ ........ ........ <ONNNNNN <Ol'--tOCl)O 0000..- 00000 NNNNN 1.0 <0 I'--tOCl) 00000 00000 NNNNN 1.0 o o ~ ..- ..- in to 1.0 Cl) cD 1.0 to to 1.0 Cl) <0 1.0 to o 1.0 ..- cD ..- to 1.0 o to en Cl) o o o ci ('I) I'-- o C iii Q) 15 '0 o IIJ IIJ <( olS l!? Q) :E LU >0 .0 "'C ~ I'll C. ~ c.. Farmington, MN $730,000 G.O. G,O. Equipment Certificates, Series 20050 August 1, 2005 Sources & Uses Dated 08/01/2005 I Delivered 08/01/2005 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds......................................".......................................................................................................,.. ......... ..... Total Sources.......................................................................................................................................................................... Uses Of Funds T atal Underwriter's Discount (0.375%).........".................................................................................... ........"...",..".,..... .......... Costs of Issuance.........................................,...................................................................................................."".. ,.,..."......... Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fund................... ...... ....,..,.. ................................. ..,...,..................... ...........................,... Deposit to Project Construction Fund........................,................................................................,...,...,.,..., ,.............................. Rounding Amount....."....,......................................,..,..........................................................................,..."............... ................ $730,000,00 $730,000.00 2,737,50 13,250.00 13,655.00 700,000,00 357.50 Total Uses..............................................................................................................................................................................., $730,000.00 Ser05GOEquipCert I SINGLE PURPOSE 15/11120051 4:53PM Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Leaders in Public Finance Page 1 Farmington, MN $730,000 G.O. G.O. Equipment Certificates, Series 20050 August 1, 2005 Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 13,655.00 13,655,00 13,655.00 13,655.00 13,655.00 13,655,00 148,655.00 162,310.00 11,326.25 11,326.25 11,326.25 151,326.25 162,652.50 8,806.25 8,806.25 8,806,25 153,806.25 162,612.50 6,087.50 6,087.50 6,087.50 156,087,50 162,175,00 3,200.00 3,200.00 3,200.00 163,200.00 166,400.00 $99,805.00 $829,805.00 08/01/2005 02/01/2006 08/01/2006 02/01/2007 08/01/2007 02/01/2008 08/01/2008 02/01/2009 08/01/2009 02/01/2010 08/01/2010 02/01/2011 135,000.00 3.450% 140,000.00 3.600% 145,000,00 3.750% 150,000.00 3.850% 160,000.00 4.000% $730,000.00 Total Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars....................,.. .........................................",.........................................."......... ................. ... ........................ Average Life...................................................,.................................................................................................. ........"".."....... Average Coupon........................,..................,..................................................................................................,..... ,.,.....,......... $2,615.00 3.582 Years 3.8166348% Net Interest Cost (NIC)...,.................................,.........................................................................................,....,....................... True Interest Cost (TIC)..................................................................................................................................,................ ........ Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes.....................................,....................................................."............................... .............. All Inclusive Cost (AIC).................",.,......,..................................,...,...,.......,.............,.................................................. .........." 3.9213193% 3.9268791 % 3.8125907% 4.4883347% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost........................................,.,..,................................................,...................................................... ..",....,....... Weighted Average Maturity.............................."..,......................................................................................."..,.".."...,..,........ 3.8166348% 3.582 Years Ser05GO Equip Cert I SINGLE PURPOSE 15/11/2005 I 4:53PM Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Leaders in Public Finance Page 2 Farmington, MN $730,000 G. O. G. O. Equipment Certificates, Series 20050 August 1, 2005 Net Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Net New D/S 02/01/2006 13,655.00 13,655.00 (13,655.00) 02/01/2007 135,000.00 3.450% 27,310.00 162,310,00 162,310.00 02/01/2008 140,000.00 3.600% 22,652.50 162,652.50 162,652.50 02/01/2009 145,000.00 3.750% 17,612.50 162,612,50 162,612,50 02/01/2010 150,000.00 3.850% 12,175.00 162,175.00 162,175,00 02/01/2011 160,000.00 4.000% 6,400.00 166,400.00 166,400.00 Total $730,000.00 $99,805.00 $829,805.00 (13,655.00) $816,150.00 Ser 05 GO Equip Cert I SiNGLE PURPOSE I 5111/2005 I 4:53 PM Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Leaders in Public Finance Page 3 Farmington, MN $730,000 G.O. G,O. Equipment Certificates, Series 20050 August 1, 2005 Detail Costs Of Issuance Dated 08/01/2005 I Delivered 08/01/2005 COSTS OF ISSUANCE DETAIL Financial Advisor",..,.,......,.,......".."...................,.....,............................................ ............................... ..... ,...................., ..."......, Bond Counsel.........,....,..,.......",......."..",.......,..,....,.....,..,.,....,..""...,.................................,........................."...... ..................,... Rating Agency Fee.. .......................... ................. ..................................... ,.,.""""",................", ,.,..................,.,." ....... ...... ...",." Miscellaneous......................................................................................,.,..",.."".."................."",.................,.. ..",..............,....,.. Paying Agent.................,....................................................,..,.....,....,..,...,...............................,......................."".... ...........,.., ..... County Auditor Certificate........................................................................................,.......................,....,......................"..,....... ... $8,229.00 $2,500.00 $650.00 $955.00 $750,00 $166.00 TOT AL........................................................................................................................................................................................ $13,250.00 Ser05GO Equip Cert I SINGLE PURPOSE 15/11/2005 I 4:53PM Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Leaders in Public Finance Page 4 )~ CITY OF FARMINGTON SUMMARY OF REVENUES APRIL 30, 2005 33.00 % Year Complete . . ..... . . . ........ . ..... . . . / ://H>/??n?:::::~~()M///}n:H? . . . .. : Hneu.o.$J$,'t/ : (:Wt:tijI;NT: ??unlt $ $ $ I:: ::I:~i1i: :1:1:':I:~U':':':.li 11:~~:.m:' % $ % ~iTeMS~~ ... GENERAL FUND Property Taxes 4,750,293 11,383 11,383 0.24 0.00 Licenses 28,655 4,194 14,794 51.63 11,361 51.52 Permits 1,096,250 80,618 149,544 13.64 330,066 35,28 Fines 78,100 7,911 11,282 14.45 16,522 20.91 Intergovernment Revenue 310,000 14,779 80,982 26.12 71,772 22.36 Charges for Service 386,000 20,850 52,339 13.56 52,125 10,74 Investment Interest 225,000 18,750 75,000 33.33 80,000 25.00 Miscellaneous 10,000 7,303 13,378 133.78 46,600 131.27 Transfers 236 000 19 667 78.667 33,33 103 333 33.33 Total General Fund 7120298 185 455 487.369 6.84 711779 11.76 SPECIAL REVENUE HRA Operating Fund 20,500 200,322 202,800 989.27 299,452 95.01 Police Forfeitures Fund 8,050 4,088 4,594 57.07 4,975 61.80 ,=,ark Improvement Fund 292,000 98,679 126,284 43.25 61,666 40.65 Recreation Operating Fund 301,500 55,224 62,982 20.89 56,963 21,28 Ice Arena 247,500 20,392 109,391 44,20 - 0.00 ENTERPRISE FUNDS Ice Arena - - 0.00 111,447 39.13 Liquor Operations 3,715,746 283,084 921,809 24.81 819,036 26.36 Sewer 1,333,000 59,213 370,132 27.77 361,447 26.52 Solid Waste 1,557,000 88,206 476,610 30.61 457,027 30.54 Storm Water 235,000 14,674 99,075 42,16 85,591 32.97 Water 1 695 000 114933 381 246 22.49 388910 24.50 Total Revenues 16525,594 1 124270 3 242,292 19.62 3.358.293 22.55 CITY OF FARMINGTON SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES APRIL 30, 2005 33.00 % Year Com lete i::nU::::di~~:::::::::ui:i:::i:i::i:i:::: ?$VP$~1t ::~i;~i::::::HYne<. :':r=~~~mli illi.::.:~:i : 'I:II'~~:I~' GENERAL FUND $ $ $ % $ % Legislative 67,162 5,763 28,649 42.66 18,682 Administration 455,528 33,274 140,854 30.92 130,687 Elections 10,875 - - 0,00 - Communications 70,882 4,162 20,331 28,68 17,463 Human Resources 195,206 12,039 58,836 30,14 58,726 Information Technology 107,783 7,932 24,219 22.47 15,862 Finance 413,638 40,092 148,815 35.98 135,605 Planning 174,080 11,476 48,762 28.01 57,063 Building Inspection 406,738 27,710 117,983 29.01 120,478 Community Development 158,997 7,181 28,288 17.79 27,820 Police Administration 603,905 42,465 206,404 34.18 205,249 Patrol Services 1,518,203 123,375 474,953 31.28 413,151 Investigation Services 277,602 19,612 81,742 29.45 78,765 Emergency Management 5,200 17 1,092 21.00 51 Fire 425,849 25,632 84,289 19.79 84,069 Rescue 43,110 596 9,876 22.91 13,607 Engineering 284,465 28,332 95,350 33.52 90,652 G.I.S, 9,798 19 78 0,80 4,213 Streets 472,632 32,188 120,387 25.47 119,586 Snow Removal 102,935 7,986 72,214 70.15 49,560 Signal Maint 105,600 5,085 25,146 23.81 24,866 Natural Resources 56,285 2,012 12,687 22.54 - Park Maint 407,186 28,040 101,482 24.92 90,740 Forestry 0 - - 0,00 21,436 Building Maint 157,995 9,249 36,995 23.42 27,572 Recreation Programs 375,644 25,410 99,973 26.61 97,134 Outdoor Ice 0 - 0.00 3,201 Transfers Out 213.000 - 53250 25.00 43250 Total General Fund 7120298 499 647 2,092,655 29,39 1 949 488 SPECIAL REVENUE HRA Operating Police Forfeitures Fund Park Improvement Fund Senior Center Swimming Pool Ice Arena 42,100 8,050 528,000 148,444 142,533 247,159 3,307 1,832 40,550 10,596 3,402 27 352 8,084 2,180 78,960 41,824 6,730 116052 19.20 27.08 14.95 28,17 4.72 46.95 265,075 3,889 64,739 45,346 9,018 o ENTERPRISE FUNDS Ice Arena Liquor Operations Sewer Solid Waste Storm Water Water Utility 270,930 117,495 130,625 24,028 72 835 o 907,040 382,650 442,023 86,994 193 986 0.00 25.47 25.42 24.54 21.70 17."01 99,763 804,423 325,158 383,751 79,323 180 427 o 3,561,633 1,505,497 1,801,506 400,884 1 140,558 16,646,662 1,202,599 4,359,178 26.19 4,210,400 Total Expenditures 29.07 30.34 0,00 24.93 32.14 28,91 34.67 33.54 34.41 29.80 39.22 35.79 30.46 3.19 21.41 34.86 33,62 45.14 28.56 50,64 25.37 0.00 34,77 20.82 22,52 31.55 83.14 25,00 32.21 91,66 34,56 29.48 35.80 6.72 0.00 38.00 26,02 9.07 25.37 20,95 7.33 23.23 // # City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator FROM: Robin Roland, Finance Director SUBJECT: Approve Capital Outlay Adjustments DATE: May 16, 2005 INTRODUCTION Several departments have requested shifts in budgeted capital outlays to address pressing operational needs. DISCUSSION Fire deTJartment The Fire Department has identified significant repairs which are required by the Luveme Class A Pumper which was purchased in 1993. The control valves have failed repeatedly and need to be replaced and the Class A and B foam system needs to be upgraded. The replacement of the 13 valves with heavy duty valves with electric actuators will cost $40,000 and the foam system an additional $5,000. In the 2005 adopted budget, funding was approved for $25,000 for floor coating in the bays of the current fire station and $20,000 for a handheld thermal imager. The imager has been purchased using other donated funds and staff is proposing delay to the floor coating process in order to free up the $45,000 for the necessary repairs. Building Maintenance The Capital Acquisition Plan for 2005 includes $27,500 to repair the roof at the 1st Street Maintenance building. The roof has been patched and is not leaking at this time. Furthermore, due to the facilities study being proposed, staff has delayed the expenditure of these funds for roof replacement. However, other maintenance must be done to keep the building safe and secure. One of the overhead doors and two of the unit heaters require replacing. The building has water service and must be heated in the winter to keep the pipes from freezing. The overhead door is a safety and security issue and needs to be addressed. Replacement of these three items would cost $5,045. Arena Previous Council agenda items for the Arena this year have identified significant savings on several items which were identified for purchase. For example, power cleaning equipment was purchased that came in $8,520 under the budgeted amount. Other items in the Arena budget have been delayed until a full facilities study can be done (reconstruction of entrances). At this time, budgeted but unexpended funds total $59,000. Staff is proposing to spend the $7,500 which is budgeted for soundproofing material replacement and $20,057 to replace all the entrance doors to the arena which are thirty years old and rusting through. Both of these items are aesthetically displeasing at this time and the doors are a security issue. The staff understands the desire to hold off on any upgrades to the building at this time but feels the expenditure of funds on these two items is imperative to maintaining the status quo at the Arena, providing a safe, functional and aesthetically pleasing environment. BUDGET IMPACT The items above which were approved in the 2005 Capital Acquisition Fund budget do not affect General Fund expenditures. The proposed changes to the budget addressed by this memo total a decrease of $53,898. ACTION REQUIRED Approve the capital outlay budget adjustments as follows: I) Replace purchase of floor coating and handheld imager with repairs to Luveme Pumper. ($25,000) ($20,000) $45,000 2) Replace purchase of new roof with one new over head door and two unit heaters at the 18t Street maintenance building. ($27,500) $5,045 3) Replace all remaining capital outlay at the arena with soundproofing material replacement and replacement of all entrance doors to the arena. ($59,000) $7,500 $20,057 Respectfully submitted, .4i~~ Robin Roland Finance Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7, ;j TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator f Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer FROM: SUBJECT: Flagstaff Avenue Feasibility Report Update DATE: May 16, 2005 INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION At the May 2, 2005 City Council meeting, the City Council authorized the preparation of the feasibility report for the Flagstaff Avenue Street and Utility Improvements associated with the new high school project. At the meeting, it was indicated that a cost and time frame for the report would be forwarded to the City Council for information (see attached memorandum). The proposed time frame to complete the report would allow the report to be brought forward to the Council and School District in August, 2005. BUDGET IMPACT The cost to prepare the feasibility report for the Flagstaff Street and Utility Improvements including the 208th Street alignment study is estimated to not exceed $49,500. The preliminary survey, which is substantially complete and is a separate cost from the feasibility report, is estimated to not exceed $37,000. The soil boring work is estimated to not exceed $19,500. ACTION REQUESTED For Council's information. Respectfully Submitted, ~YYl~ Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file a Bonestroo -=- Rosene ~ Anderfik & l\Jl Assodates Engineers & Architects .Memo Project Name: Flagstaff Avenue Utility and Street Improvements Client: City of Farmington, Minnesota File No: 141-04-224 To: Lee Mann Date: 5/11/2005 From: Paul Hornby Re: Feasibility Report Budget and Schedule Remarks: As requested, we have prepared a budget and schedule for the proposed improvements to Flagstaff Avenue. The improvements are proposed to provide access, water supply, and sanitary sewer service to facilitate the construction of a new School for Farmington, Independent School District 192. The School District is proposing to construct a High School on approximately 120 acres west of Flagstaff Avenue and north of CSAH 50. The proposed public improvements associated with serving the proposed school site consist of approximately 17,000 feet of street improvements to Flagstaff Avenue, extension of sanitary sewer approximately 6,600 feet, and extension of watermain approximately 15,500 feet. We anticipate the Feasibility Report can be completed by July 30, 2005, and the budget to prepare the Report is not anticipated to exceed $49,500. The basis of the prepared budget includes review of the capacity needs to serve the chool site with sanitary sewer and water main utilities, in accordance with the City Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer and Water Supply Plans, improvements to Flagstaff Avenue North to support the anticipated traffic volumes generated by the School site, review of the alignment of the proposed 208th Street from Pilot Knob Road to Cedar Avenue, as identified in the Dakota County East West Corridor Study. The Report will review the proposed 208th Street alignment and the effect on the School site and identify the preferred intersection location with Flagstaff Avenue. The Report will review water resource management with regard to the proposed public improvements associated with the street and utility improvements. The prepared budget includes two potential meetings with the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) to consider interceptor extension in Flagstaff Avenue, and two meetings with the School District to discuss the Report preparation status and to determine School site needs. We anticipate that the meetings will require the participation of two Engineers at each meeting. The Report will identify assessable costs, trunk utility over sizing costs, cost allocation methods, and exhibits identifying the proposed improvements. The preliminary survey of the project is substantially complete and the costs for the preliminary survey and mapping of the data are not included in the budget for the Feasibility Report. The preliminary survey and mapping costs are anticipated to be under $37,000. The soil boring work for the project is estimated to cost $19,500, and these costs are not included in the budget for the Feasibility Report. Please do not hesitate to contact me, at 651/967-4625, with any questions or comments you may have regarding the nroposed budget and schedule for this project. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. www.bonestroo.com o St. Paul Office: 2335 West Highway 36 St. Paul, MN 55113 Phone: 651-636-4600 Fax: 651-636-1311 o Milwaukee Office: 1516 West Mequon Road Mequon, WI 53092 Phone: 262-241-4466 Fax: 262-241-4901 o Rochester Office: 112 ih Street NE Rochester, MN 55906 Phone: 507-282-2100 Fax: 507-282-3100 o Willmar Office: 205 5th Street SW Willmar, MN 56201 Phone: 320-214-9557 Fax: 320-214-9458 o St. Cloud Office: 3721 23'd Street S St. Cloud, MN 56301 Phone: 320-251-4553 Fax: 320-251-6252 o Grayslake Office: 888 East Belvidere Road Grayslake, IL 60030 Phone: 847-548-6774 Fax:847~8-6979 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7/ TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator t FROM: Tim Gross, P.E., Assistant City Engineer ~ SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Charleswood Crossing Development Contract DATE: May 16, 2005 INTRODUCTION The Development Contract for Charleswood Crossing IS forwarded herewith for Council's consideration. DISCUSSION The final plat for Charleswood Crossing was approved by the Planning Commission on April 12, 2005 and by the City Council on April 18, 2005. The contract has been drafted in accordance with the conditions placed on the approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat and has been reviewed by the City Attorney. Following are conditions of approval for the development contract: I. the Developer enter into this Agreement; and 2. the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; and 3. the Developer record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 6 months after City Council approval of the final plat. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution approving the execution of the Charleswood Crossing Development Contract and authorize its signing contingent upon the above conditions and final approval by the Engineering Division. Respectfully Submitted, I~~~~ Tim Gross, P .E. Assistant City Engineer cc: file RESOLUTION NO. R_-05 APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT CHARLESWOOD CROSSING Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers in City Hall of said City on the 16th day of May, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. Members present: Members absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. Rl06-04, the City Council approved the Preliminary Plat of Charleswood Crossing; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 41-05, the City Council approved the Final Plat of Charleswood Crossing subject to the following conditions: 1. All engineering issues shall be addressed and approval of construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering Division shall be required. 2. All requirements from the Parks and Recreation Department and Solid Waste Division shall be met. 3. Comments from the Dakota County Plat Commission shall be met. 4. Execution of a Development Contract between the Developer and the City of Farmington and submission of security, payment of all fees and costs and submission of all other documents required under the Development Contract. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Development Contract for the aforementioned subdivision, a copy of which is on file in the Clerk's office is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: a) the Developer enter into this Agreement; and b) the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; and c) the Developer record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 6 months after City Council approval of the final plat. The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to sign such contract. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 16th day of May, 2005. Mayor Attested to this _ day of May, 2005. SEAL City Administrator DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AGREEMENT dated this 16th day of May, 2005, by, between, and among the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation (CITY) and Astra Genstar Partnership, L.L.P., a Minnesota limited liability partnership (DEVELOPER). 1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for Charleswood Crossing (also referred to in this Development Contract [CONTRACT or AGREEMENT] as the PLAT). The land is situated in the City of Farmington, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, and is legally described on the attached Exhibit "A": 2. Conditions of Approval. The City hereby approves the plat on the conditions that: a) the Developer enter into this Agreement; and b) the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; and c) the Developer record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 6 months after City Council approval of the fmal plat. 3. Development Plans and Riebt to Proceed. The Developer shall develop the plat in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Agreement. The plans may be prepared by the Developer, subject to City approval, after entering into this Agreement but before commencement of any work in the plat. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, subject to paragraphs 6 and 31 G, the plans shall control. The required plans are: Plan A - Final Plat Plan B - Soil Erosion Control and Grading Plans Plan C - Landscape Plan Plan D - ZoninglDevelopment Map Plan E - Wetlands Mitigation as required by the City Plan F - Final Street and Utility Plans and Specifications The Developer shall use its best efforts to assure timely application to the utility companies for the following utilities: underground natural gas, electrical, cable television, and telephone. Within the plat or land to be platted, the Developer may not construct sewer lines, water lines, streets, utilities public or private improvements or any building until all of the following conditions have been satisfied: a) This agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, b) The necessary security has been received by the City, c) The plat has been recorded with the Dakota County Recorder's Office, and d) The City Clerk has issued a letter stating that all conditions have been satisfied and that the Developer may proceed. 4. Sales Office Requirements. At any location within the plat where lots and/or homes are sold which are part of this subdivision, the Developer agrees to install a sales board on which a copy of the approved plat, fmal utility plan and a zoning map or planned unit development plan are displayed, showing the relationship between this subdivision and the 1 adjoining neighborhood. The zoning and land use classification of all land and network of major streets within 350 feet of the plat shall be included. 5. Zoninl!lDevelopment Map. The Developer shall provide an 8 1/2" x 14" scaled map of the plat and land within 350' of the plat containing the following information: a. platted property; b. existing and future roads; c. future phases; d. existing and proposed land uses; and e. future ponds. 6. Required Public Improvements. The Developer shall install and pay for the following: a. Sanitary Sewer Lateral System b. Water System (trunk and lateral) c. Storm Sewer d. Streets e. Concrete Curb and Gutter f. Street Signs g. Street Lights h. Sidewalks and Trails i. Erosion Control, Site Grading and Ponding j. Traffic Control Devices k. Setting of Lot & Block Monuments 1. Surveying and Staking m. Landscaping, Screening, Blvd. Trees The improvements shall be installed in accordance with Plans A through F, and in accordance with all laws, City Standards, Engineering Guidelines, Ordinances and plans and specifications which have been prepared by a competent registered professional engineer furnished to the City and approved by the City Engineer. Work done not in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, without prior authorization of the City Engineer, shall be considered a violation of this agreement and a Default of the Contract. The Developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the Metropolitan Council and other agencies before proceeding with construction. The Developer shall instruct its engineer to provide adequate field inspection personnel to assure an acceptable level of quality control to the extent that the Developer's engineer will be able to certifY that the construction work meets the approved City standards as a condition of City acceptance. In addition, the City may, at the City's discretion and at the Developer's expense, have one or more City inspector(s) and a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or part time basis. The Developer or his engineer shall schedule a pre-construction meeting at a mutually agreeable time at the City Council chambers with all parties concerned, including the City staff, to review the program for the construction work. Within sixty (60) days after the completion of the improvements and before the security is released, the Developer shall supply the City with a complete set of "As Built" plans as specified in the City's Engineering Guidelines. If the Developer does not provide such information, the City will produce the as-built drawings. All costs associated with producing the as-built drawings will be the responsibility of the Developer. All bike trails and sidewalks to be constructed as part of the development must be completed before building permits will be issued. Before the security for the completion of the utilities is released, iron monuments must be installed in accordance with M.S. ~505.02. The Developer's surveyor shall submit a written notice to the City certifYing that the monuments have been installed. 7. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required public utilities, by November 30, 2006, in accordance with the requirements set forth in the City's Engineering Guidelines. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases. An extension of the security shall be considered an extension of this contract and the extension of the contract will coincide with the date of the extension of the security. 8. Ownership of Improvements. Upon the completion of the work and construction required to be done by this Agreement, and written acceptance by the City Engineer, the improvements lying within public easements shall become City property, except for cable TV, electrical, gas, and telephone, without further notice or action. 2 Outlots A, G, H, I, and J shall be deeded to the City following the completion and approval of improvements as required under Plans A - F. 10% of the total security amount shall be held until the required outlots are deeded to the City and the required As-built plans are submitted and approved. A Letter of Exemption, attached to this contract as Exhibit "B", shall be submitted to the County for each outlot at the time that the deed for the outlot is filed with the County. 9. Warranty. The Developer and the Developers Engineer represent and warrant to the City that the design for the project meets all laws, City Standards, Engineering Guidelines and Ordinances. The Developer warrants all improvements required to be constructed by it pursuant to this Contract against poor material and faulty workmanship. The warranty period for streets is one year. The warranty period for underground utilities is two years. The warranty period for the streets shall commence after the fmal wear course has been completed and the streets have been accepted by City Council resolution. The warranty period on underground utilities shall commence following their completion and acceptance by the City Engineer in writing. It is the responsibility of the Developer to complete the required testing of the underground utilities and request, in writing, City acceptance of the utilities. Failure of the Developer to complete the required testing or request acceptance of the utilities in a timely manner shall not in any way constitute cause for the warranty period to be modified from the stipulations set forth above. All trees shall be warranted to be alive, of good quality, and disease free for twelve (12) months after the security for the trees is released. Any replacements shall be warranted for twelve (12) months from the time of planting. The Developer shall post maintenance bonds or other surety acceptable to the City to secure the warranties. The City shall retain ten percent (10%) of the security posted by the Developer until the bonds or other acceptable surety are furnished to the City or until the warranty period has been completed, whichever first occurs. The retainage may be used to pay for warranty work. The City's Engineering Guidelines identify the procedures for final acceptance of streets and utilities. 10. Gradinl! Plan. The plat shall be graded and drainage provided by the Developer in accordance with Plan B. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, the Developer may start rough grading the lots within the stockpile and easement areas in conformance with Plan B before the plat is filed if all fees have been paid, a MPCA Construction Storm Water Permit has been issued, and the City has been furnished the required security. Additional rough grading may be allowed upon obtaining written authorization from the City Engineer. If the developer needs to change grading affecting drainage after homeowners are on site, he must notifY all property owners/residents of this work prior to its initiation. This notification cannot take place until the City Engineer has approved the proposed grading changes. A MPCA Construction Storm Water Permit must be obtained before any grading can commence on the site. 11. Erosion Control and Fees. After the site is rough graded, but before any utility construction is commenced or building permits are issued, the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if it is determined that the methods implemented are insufficient to properly control erosion. All areas disturbed by the excavation and back-filling operations shall be re- seeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule, or supplementary instructions received from the City, or in an emergency determined at the sole discretion of the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion immediately, without notice to the Developer. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and the City's rights or obligations hereunder. If the Developer does not reimburse the City for any costs of the City incurred for such work within thirty (30) days, the City may draw down the letter of credit to pay such costs. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in full compliance with the erosion control requirements. The Developer is responsible for Erosion Control inspection fees at the current rates. The Developer is also responsible for a Water Quality Management Fee of $ 2,624 based upon the number of acres in the plat. This fee is due and payable at the time of execution of this agreement. 12. Landscapinl!. The Developer shall landscape the plat in accordance with Plan C. The landscaping shall be accomplished in accordance with a time schedule approved by the City. A. The Developer shall be solely responsible for the installation of all project landscaping including but not limited to the boulevard trees. The responsibility for the installation of boulevard trees will not be transferred to builders, homeowners, etc. 3 B. All graded areas, including finish grade on lots, will require a minimum of 6" of black dirt/topsoil. The responsibility for the installation of black dirt/topsoil shall not be transferred to homeowners. C. Retaining walls with 1) a height that exceeds four feet or 2) a combination of tiers that exceed four feet or 3) a three foot wall with a back slope greater than 4 to 1 shall be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by a structural or geotechnical engineer licensed by the State of Minnesota. Following construction, a certification signed by the design engineer shall be filed with the City Engineer evidencing that the retaining will was constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. All retaining walls that are part of the development plans, or special conditions referred to in this Contract that are required to be constructed, shall be constructed and certified before any building permit is issued for a lot on which a retaining wall is required to be built. All landscaping features, including those constructed within public rights of way, remain the property and responsibility of the developer and subsequent property owners, subject to the City's or other governmental unit's rights to access and maintain their rights of way. 13. Phased Development. The plat shall be developed in one (1) phase in accordance with Plans A-F. No earth moving shall be done in any subsequent phase until the necessary security has been furnished to the City. No construction of public improvements or other development shall be done in any subsequent phase until a fmal plat for the phase has been filed in the County Recorder's office and the necessary security has been furnished to the City. The City may refuse to approve fmal plats of subsequent phases until public improvements for all prior phases have been satisfactorily completed. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, this Development Contract constitutes approval to develop the plat. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until development agreements for such phases are approved by the City. 14. Effect of Subdivision Approval. For two (2) years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the current urban service area, or removing any part thereof which has not been fmal platted, or official controls, shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications or platting required or permitted by the approved preliminary plat unless required by State or Federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by State law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan (including removing unplatted property from the urban service area), official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement and may require submission of a new plat. 15. Surface Water Manal!ement Fee. The Developer shall pay an area storm water management charge of$ 244,258 in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. This fee is due and payable at the time of execution of this agreement. Storm sewer charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. A credit of $ 29,300 will be given to the Developer for jacking of future storm sewer within the plat. The net result is that the Suiface Water Management Fee to be paid with this plat is $ 214,958. 16. Wetland Conservation and Mitil!ation. The Developer shall comply with the 1991 Wetlands Conservation Act, as amended, and the Wetlands Mitigation Plan. The Developer shall pay all costs associated with wetlands conservation and the Wetlands Mitigation Plan. 17. Water Main Trunk Area Charl!e. The Developer shall pay a water main trunk. area charge of $ 68,237 for the plat in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. This fee is due and payable at the time of execution of this agreement. Water area charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. A credit of $ 48,733 will be given to the Developer for raw watermain installation within the plat. The net result is that the Water Main Trunk Area Charge to be paid with this plat is $19,503. 18. Water Treatment Plant Fee. The Developer shall pay a water treatment plant fee of $ 90,600 for the plat in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. This fee is due and payable at the time of execution of this agreement. Water treatment plant fees for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. 19. Sanitary Sewer Trunk Area Charl!e. The Developer shall pay a sanitary sewer trunk. area charge of$ 65,437 for the plat in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. This fee is due and payable at the time of execution of this 4 agreement. Sanitary Trunk Sewer charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. 20. Park Dedication. The Developer shall be required to dedicate 2.74 acres ofland for park purposes, of which 2.21 acres have been platted as part of Outlot I. The Developer shall pay the City $ 32,414 as cash in lieu ofland in satisfaction of the City's park dedication requirements for the plat. This fee is considered due at the time of execution of this contract. The park dedication fees for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. 21. Park Development Fee. The Developer shall pay a Park Development Fee of $ 45,620 that will be used to pay either for development of the park located in the development, or if no land is taken for park purposes, in the park closest to the development. The City shall allow the Developer to either pay the entire park development fee at the time of fInal plat fIling or to pay the park development fee on a per unit basis at the time that the building permit is issued for each unit to be constructed in the development, provided that all park development fees shall be paid within fIve (5) years of approval of the fmal plat. A credit of $ 20,678 will be given to the Developer for park, parking lot and trail improvements within the plat. The net result is that the Park Development Fee to be paid with this plat is $ 24,942. At afuture date the City shall credit the Developer costs associated with grading and culvert extensions for trail construction along CSAH 31/Pilot Knob Roadfrom the south end of the development to 20flh Street. 22. Sealcoatinl!. In lieu of assessing sealcoating three years from completion of the road construction, the Developer agrees to pay a fee of $ 4,580 for initial sealcoating of streets in the subdivision. This fee shall be deposited in the City Road and Bridge Fund upon execution of this Agreement. 23. GIS Fees. The Developer is responsible for a Government Information System fee of$ 7,550 based upon the number of lots within the subdivision. This fee shall be due and payable upon execution of this Agreement 24. Easements. The Developer shall furnish the City at the time of execution of this Agreement with the easements designated on the plat. 25. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors, a license to enter the plat to perform all necessary work and/or inspections deemed appropriate by the City during the installation of public improvements by the City. The license shall expire after the public improvements installed pursuant to the Development Contract have been installed and accepted by the City. 26. Clean UP. The Developer shall weekly, or more often if required by the City Engineer, clear from the public streets and property any soil, earth or debris resulting from construction work by the Developer or its agents or assigns. All debris, including brush, vegetation, trees and demolition materials, shall be disposed of off site. Burning of trees and structures shall be prohibited, except for fIre training only. The City has a contract for street cleaning services. The City will have the right to clean the streets as outlined in current City policy. The Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for street cleaning costs. 27. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Agreement, payment of real estate taxes including interest and penalties, payment of special assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements in the plat and construction of all public improvements in the plat, the Developer shall furnish the City with a cash escrow, irrevocable letter of credit, or alternative security acceptable to the City Administrator, from a bank (security) for $ 2,096,921. The bank and form of the security shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator. Letters of Credit shall be in the format and wording exactly as shown on the attached Letter of Credit form (Attachment "C"). The security shall be automatically renewing. The term of the security may be extended from time to time if the extension is furnished to the City Administrator at least forty-fIve (45) days prior to the stated expiration date of the security. If the required public improvements are not completed, or terms of the Agreement are not satisfIed, at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of a letter of credit, the City may draw down the letter of credit. The City may draw down the security, without prior notice, for any violation of this Agreement or Default of the Contract. The amount of the security was calculated as follows: Grading/Erosion Control Sanitary Sewer Water Main $N/A $ 328,329 $ 364,450 Monuments St. Lights/Signs Blvd. Trees $ 37,750 $ 82,220 $ 78,558 5 Storm Sewer Street Construction $ 384,483 $ 788,933 Blvd. Sodding Wetland Mitigation $ 32,198 $N/A All fees will be due and paid by the developer upon execution of this contract. This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. Upon receipt of proof satisfactory by the Developer's Engineer to the City Engineer that work has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, and tenns of this Agreement, and that all [mancial obligations to the City, subcontractors, or other persons have been satisfied, the City Engineer may approve reductions in the security provided by the Developer under this paragraph from time to time by ninety percent (90%) of the [mancial obligations that have been satisfied. Ten percent (10%) of the amounts certified by the Developer's engineer shall be retained as security until all improvements have been completed, all [mancial obligations to the City satisfied, the required "as built" plans have been received by the City, a warranty security is provided, and the public improvements are accepted by the City Council. 28. Responsibilitv for Costs. A. The Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the development of the plat, including but not limited to, Soil and Water Conservation District charges, legal, planning, administrative, construction costs, engineering, easements, inspection and utility testing expenses incurred in connection with approval, acceptance and development of the plat, the preparation of this Agreement, and all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and inspecting the construction for the development of the plat. B. The Developer, except for City's willful misconduct, shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages or expenses which the City may payor incur in consequence of such claims, including attorney's fees. C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including engineering and attorney's fees. In the event that the City receives claims from labor, materialmen, or others that have performed work required by this Contract, that the sums due them have not been paid, and the laborers, materialmen, or others are seeking payment from the City, the Developer hereby authorizes the City to commence an Interpleader action pursuant to Rule 22, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to draw upon the letters of credit in an amount up to 125% of the claim(s) and deposit the funds in compliance with the Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and dismiss the City from any further proceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine attorneys' fees pursuant to this Contract. D. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all plat development work until the bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of five percent (5%) per annum. If the bills are not paid within sixty (60) days, the City has the right to draw from the Developers security to pay the bills. 29. Trash Enclosures. The Developer is responsible to require each builder to provide on site trash enclosures to contain all construction debris, thereby preventing it from being blown off site, except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 30. Portable Toilets. The Developer is responsible to require each builder to provide an on site portable toilet, except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 31. Wetland Buffer' and Natural Area Si2ns. The Developer is responsible for installing Wetland Buffer signs around all wetlands and wetland buffers, and City Natural Areas signs around all ponding areas, in accordance with the City's Engineering Guidelines and City detail plate GEN-13. Conservation Area signs will be installed as directed by the City Engineer. Wetland Buffer line limits; and Wetland Buffer, Natural Area, and Conservation Area sign locations must be indicated on individual lot surveys prior to the issuance of a building permit for that lot. 6 32. Existing Tree Preservation. The Developer will walk the site with the City Forester and identify all significant trees, which will be removed by on site grading. A dialogue between the Developer and City Forester regarding alternative grading options will take place before any disputed tree is removed. All trees, stumps, brush and other debris removed during clearing and grubbing operations shall be disposed of off site. 33. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer, except in an emergency as determined by the City or as otherwise provided for in this agreement, is first given written notice of the work in default, not less than 72 hours in advance. This Agreement is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for pennission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. 34. Miscellaneous. A. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors or assigns, as the case may be. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any part of it. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement. B. Breach of the tenus of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building pennits, including lots sold to third parties. C. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. D. Building pennits shall not be issued prior to completion of site grading, submittal of as-built grading plan, public and private utility installation, curb and gutter, installation of erosion control devices, installation of permanent street signs and wetland buffer and natural area signs, paving with a bituminous surface, retaining walls if any, site seeding, mulching, disk anchoring and submittal of a surveyor's certificate denoting all appropriate monuments have been installed. Only construction of noncombustible materials shall be allowed until the water system is operational. If pennits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of public improvements, the Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in completion of public improvements and damage to public improvements caused by the City, Developer, its contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, employees, agents or third parties. Normal procedure requires that streets needed for access to approved uses shall be paved with a bituminous surface before building pennits may be issued. However, the City Engineer is authorized to waive this requirement when weather related circumstances prevent completion of street projects before the end of the construction season. The Developer is responsible for maintaining said streets in a condition that will assure the access of emergency vehicles at all times when such a waiver is granted. Building pennits may be issued prior to the completion of the curb and gutter, bituminous paving, small utility installation, and sidewalkslbiketrails within the development for Lot 19, Block 1 and for Lot 18, Block 2 for the purposes of constructing model homes. The Developers engineer shall verify the foundation grades and submit verification of compliance with the approved grading plans in writing to the City prior to commencement of building construction. Public utilities adjacent to these lots and services to these lots shall be installed and tested prior to the issuance of these pennits. No certificate of occupancy will be issued for these lots until the completion of improvements as outlined in this agreement. All work shall cease on these lots during the installation of curb and gutter and bituminous paving. High early concrete shall be used for all concrete work fronting these lots. No construction or deliveries may occur for the lots under construction for 1 week following concrete curb and gutter and sidewalk installation to allow for adequate curing. The developer shall adhere to the scheduling described in the letter attached as Exhibit "D". The Developer assumes all liability to cure any issues that arise from the issuance of building pennits before street construction is completed. E. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the 7 parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or release. F. The Developer represents to the City, to the best of its knowledge, that the plat is not of "metropolitan significance" and that an environmental impact statement is not required. However, if the City or another governmental entity or agency determines that such a review is needed, the Developer shall prepare it in compliance with legal requirements so issued from said agency. The Developer shall reimburse the City for all expenses, including staff time and attorney fees that the City incurs in assisting in the preparation of the review. G. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The Developer represents to the City that the plat complies with all City, County, Metropolitan, State and Federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances and environmental regulations. If the City determines that the plat does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow any construction or development work in the plat until the Developer does comply. Upon the City's demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance. H. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. The Developer covenants with the City, its successors and assigns, that the Developer is well seized in fee title of the property being fmal platted and/or has obtained Consents to this Contract, in the form attached hereto, from all parties who have an interest in the property; that there are no unrecorded interests in the property being final platted; and that the Developer will indemnify and hold the City harmless for any breach of the of the foregoing covenants. After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Agreement, at the Developer's request the City will execute and deliver a release to the Developer. I. Developer shall take out and maintain until six months after the City has accepted the public improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of the Developer's work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury or death shall not be less than $500,000.00 for one person and $1,000,000.00 for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall not be less than $200,000.00 for each occurrence. The City shall be named as an additional named insured on said policy, the insurance certificate shall provide that the City must be given 10 days advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance and the Developer shall file a copy of the insurance coverage with the City prior to the City signing the plat. J. The Developer shall obtain a Wetlands Compliance Certificate from the City. K. Upon breach of the terms of this Agreement, the City may, without notice to the Developer, draw down the Developer's cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit as provided in paragraph 26 of this Agreement. The City may draw down this security in the amount of $500.00 per day that the Developer is in violation. The City, in its sole discretion, shall determine whether the Developer is in violation of the Agreement. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 30 hereof, this determination may be made without notice to the Developer. It is stipulated that the violation of any term will result in damages to the City in an amount, which will be impractical and extremely difficult to ascertain. It is agreed that the per day sum stipulated is a reasonable amount to compensate the City for its damages. L. The Developer will be required to conduct all major activities to construct Plans A-F during the following hours of operation: Monday - Friday Saturday Sunday and Holidays 7:00 A.M. until 7:00 P.M. 8:00 A.M. until 5:00 P.M. Not Allowed 8 This does not apply to activities that are required on a 24-hour basis such as dewatering, etc. Any deviations from the above hours are subject to approval of the City Engineer. Violations of the working hours will result in a $500 fme per occurrence in accordance with paragraph K of this section. M. The Developer is responsible to require each builder within the development to provide a Class 5 aggregate entrance for every house that is to be constructed in the development. This entrance is required to be installed upon initial construction of the home. See City Standard Plate ERO-09 for construction requirements. N. The Developer shall be responsible for the control of weeds in excess of twelve inches (12") on vacant lots or boulevards within their development as per City Code 6-7-2. Failure to control weeds will be considered a Developer's Default as outlined in Paragraph 30 of this Agreement and the Developer will reimburse the City as defmed in said Paragraph 33. (ss) Third parties have no recourse against the City under this contract. 35. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified or registered mail at the following addresses: Chad Onsgard Centex Homes 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite 300 Minnetonka, MN 55343 952-988-8202 Fax 952-936-7839 Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either and delivered to the City Administrator, or mailed to the City by certified mail or registered mail in care of the City Administrator at the following address: David M. Urbia, City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 9 SIGNATURE PAGE CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Kevan A. Soderberg, Mayor By: David M. Urbia, City Administrator DEVELOPER: Astra Genstar Partnership, L.L.P. By: Its: Drafted by: City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 55024 (651) 463-7111 10 STATE OF MINNESOTA) (ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 by Kevan A. Soderberg, Mayor, and by David M. Urbia, City Administrator, of the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by the City Council. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) (ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,20 by , the of Astra Genstar Partnership, L.L.P., a Minnesota limited liability partnership under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public 11 EXHffiIT "A" That part of Outlot B, CHARLESWOOD, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southeast comer of the Southeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 114, Range 20, said Dakota County; thence South 00 degrees 16 minutes 27 seconds West, assumed bearing along the west line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 25, said Township 114, Range 20, a distance of 269.23 feet to a north line of CHARLES WOOD 5TH ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, said Dakota County; thence North 89 degrees 43 minutes 33 seconds West, along said north line of CHARLESWOOD 5TH ADDITION, a distance of78.73 feet; thence South 56 degrees 37 minutes 00 seconds West, a distance of 189.47 feet; thence South 04 degrees 13 minutes 14 seconds West, along said north line of CHARLESWOOD 5TH ADDITION, a distance of 289.58 feet; thence North 59 degrees 53 minutes 32 seconds West, along said north line of CHARLESWOOD 5TH ADDITION, a distance of 624.39 feet; thence South 69 degrees 55 minutes 41 seconds West, along said north line of CHARLESWOOD 5TH ADDITION, a distance of 83.41 feet; thence South 27 degrees 36 minutes 13 seconds West, along said north line of CHARLESWOOD 5TH ADDITION, a distance of 61.20 feet; thence northwesterly, along said north line of CHARLESWOOD 5TH ADDITION, along a non-tangential curve, concave to the southwest, having a radius of 835.00 feet, a central angle of 02 degrees 29 minutes 02 seconds, and an arc length of36.20 feet, the chord of said curve bears North 63 degrees 38 minutes 18 seconds West; thence North 64 degrees 52 minutes 49 seconds West, along said north line of CHARLESWOOD 5TH ADDITION, a distance of 40.84 feet to the easterly line of CHARLESWOOD 4TH ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, said Dakota County; thence North 16 degrees 23 minutes 25 seconds East, along said easterly line of CHARLESWOOD 4TH ADDITION, a distance of 149.95 feet; thence North 71 degrees 20 minutes 35 seconds West, along said easterly line of CHARLESWOOD 4TH ADDITION a distance of 17.73 feet to the easterly line of CHARLESWOOD 3RD ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof said Dakota County; thence North 03 degrees 54 minutes 44 seconds East, along said easterly line of CHARLESWOOD 3RD ADDITION, distance of 93.83 feet; thence North 44 degrees 13 minutes 16 seconds East, along said easterly line of CHARLES WOOD 3RD ADDITION, distance of25.54 feet; thence North 19 degrees 51 minutes 54 seconds East, along said easterly line of CHARLES WOOD 3RD ADDITION, distance of 184.09 feet; thence North 44 degrees 29 minutes 00 seconds West, along said easterly line of CHARLESWOOD 3RD ADDITION, distance of 213.09 feet; thence North 30 degrees 47 minutes 12 seconds West, along said easterly line of CHARLESWOOD 3RD ADDITION, a distance of319.48 feet; thence North 22 degrees 37 minutes 56 seconds East, along said easterly line of CHARLESWOOD 3RD ADDITION, a distance of 54.06 feet; thence North 89 degrees 37 minutes 31 seconds East, along said easterly line of CHARLESWOOD 3RD ADDITION, a distance of 131.26 feet; thence North 12 degrees 51 minutes 57 seconds East, along said easterly line of CHARLESWOOD 3RD ADDITION, a distance of 107.87 feet; thence North 84 degrees 04 minutes 40 seconds East, along said easterly line of CHARLESWOOD 3RD ADDITION, a distance of 295.65 feet; thence North 18 degrees 19 minutes 29 seconds East, along said easterly line of CHARLESWOOD 3RD ADDITION, a distance of 292.19 feet; thence North 71 degrees 40 minutes 31 seconds West, along said easterly line, a distance of 180.58 feet; thence North 78 degrees 11 minutes 42 seconds West, along said easterly line, a distance of 222.92 feet; thence North 00 degrees 11 minutes 31 seconds West, along said easterly line, a distance of 200.72 feet; thence North 50 degrees 10 minutes 49 seconds East, along said easterly line, a distance of 106.88 feet; thence northeasterly along said easterly line, along a tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a radius of 79.00 feet and a central angle of 20 degrees 45 minutes 50 seconds, having an arc distance of 28.63 feet; thence North 29 degrees 24 minutes 59 seconds East, along said easterly line and tangent to said curve, a distance of 50.00 feet; thence northerly along said easterly line, along a tangential curve, concave to the west, having a radius of 104.00 feet and a central angle of28 degrees 15 minutes 38 seconds, having an arc distance of 51.30 feet; thence northerly along said easterly line, along a tangential reverse curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 96.00 feet, a central angle of 28 degrees 15 minutes 38 seconds, and an arc distance of 47.35 feet; thence North 29 degrees 24 minutes 59 seconds East, tangent to said curve, a distance of 202.10 feet; thence northerly along said easterly line, along a tangential curve, concave to the west, having a radius of 104.00 feet and a central angle of 24 degrees 46 minutes 18 seconds, having an arc distance of 44.96 feet; thence North 04 degrees 38 minutes 41 seconds East, tangent to said curve, along said easterly line, a distance of 146.12 feet; thence northerly, along said easterly line, along a tangential curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 246.00 feet and a central angle of 14 degrees 49 minutes 11 seconds, having an arc distance of 63.63 feet; thence North 19 degrees 27 minutes 52 seconds East, along said easterly line and tangent to said curve, a distance of 208.37 feet; thence northerly, along said easterly line, along a tangential curve, concave to the west, having a radius of 254.00 feet and a central angle of 10 degrees 45 minutes 41 seconds, having an arc distance of 47.71 feet; thence North 08 degrees 42 minutes 11 seconds East, along said easterly line and tangent to said curve, a distance of 83.53 feet; thence northerly, along said easterly line and along a tangential curve, concave to the west, having a radius of 254.00 feet and a central angle of 20 degrees 54 minutes 31 seconds, having an arc distance of 92.69 feet; thence North 12 degrees 12 minutes 21 seconds West, along said easterly line and tangent to said curve, a distance of23.07 feet; thence northwesterly, along said easterly line, along a tangential 12 curve, concave to the southwest, having a radius of 79.00 feet and a central angle of 49 degrees 45 minutes 42 seconds, having an arc distance of 68.61 feet; thence North 61 degrees 58 minutes 02 seconds West, along said easterly line and tangent to said curve, a distance of 223.71 feet; thence northwesterly, along said easterly line, along a tangential curve, concave to the northeast, having a radius of 46.00 feet and a central angle of 61 degrees 35 minutes 57 seconds, having an arc distance of 49.45 feet; thence North 00 degrees 22 minutes 05 seconds West, along said easterly line and tangent to said curve, a distance of 18.56 feet to the north line of said Outlot B; thence North 89 degrees 37 minutes 55 seconds East, along said north line of Outlot B, a distance of 367.35 feet; thence South 00 degrees 22 minutes 05 seconds East, a distance of 118.98 feet; thence southeasterly, along a tangential curve, concave to the northeast, having a radius of 220.00 feet and a central angle of 45 degrees '10 minutes 10 seconds, having an arc distance of 173.44 feet; thence South 45 degrees 32 minutes 15 seconds East, tangent to said curve, a distance of 392.28 feet; thence easterly, along a tangential curve, concave to the north, having a radius of 199.44 feet and a central angle of 44 degrees 41 minutes 16 seconds, having an arc distance of 155.55 feet; thence North 00 degrees 13 minutes 31 seconds West, a distance of 609.56 feet to the north line of said Outlot B; thence North 89 degrees 37 minutes 55 seconds East, along said north line, a distance of 15.00 feet to the northeast corner of said Outlot B; thence South 00 degrees 13 minutes 31 seconds East, along the easterly line of said Outlot B, a distance of 694.60 feet; thence South 89 degrees 46 minutes 29 seconds West, along said easterly line Outlot B, a distance of 40.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 13 minutes 31 seconds East, along along said easterly line Outlot B, a distance of 5.28 feet; thence southerly, along said easterly line Outlot B, along a tangential curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 2,964.79 feet, a central angle of 00 degrees 53 minutes 40 seconds, and an arc length of 46.28 feet, thence North 88 degrees 52 minutes 49 seconds East, along said easterly line Outlot B, not tangent to said curve, a distance of 40.00 feet; thence southerly, along said easterly line Outlot B, along a non-tangential curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 2,924.79 feet, a central angle of 07 degrees 11 minutes 14 seconds and an arc length of 366.88 feet, the chord of said curve bears South 04 degrees 42 minutes 48 seconds East; thence South 00 degrees 18 minutes 38 seconds East, not tangent to said curve and along said easterly line Outlot B, a distance of 1435.87 feet to the point of beginning. Together with: That part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 25, Township 114, Range 20 West, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying northerly of the South 140 acres of said Northwest Quarter, and lying westerly ofa line 75.00 feet westerly of and parallel with "Line I" and lying southerly of "Line 2". Said "Line I" and "Line 2" are described as follows: Line 1: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Northwest Quarter; thence a bearing of North 89 degrees 33 minutes 05 seconds East, along the south line of said Northwest Quarter, 150.01 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 0 degrees 16 minutes 27 seconds East 139.67 feet; thence northerly 792.52 feet along a tangential curve concave to the east having a radius of7639.44 feet and a central angle of 5 degrees 56 minutes 38 seconds; thence North 6 degrees 13 minutes 05 seconds East, tangent to said curve, 413.88 feet; thence northerly 792.52 feet along a tangential curve concave to the west having a radius of 7639.44 feet and a central angle of5 degrees 56 minutes 38 seconds; thence North 0 degrees 16 minutes 27 seconds East, tangent to last described curve, 533.48 feet and said line there terminating. Line 2: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter; thence a bearing of South 0 degrees 16 minutes 27 seconds West, along the west line of said Northwest Quarter, 329.01 feet to a found judicial landmark as called for in Certificate of Title No. 108101 on file in Registrar of Title office in Dakota County, Minnesota, and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 88 degrees 29 minutes 37 seconds East, 250.00 feet toward a found judicial landmark as called for in said Certificate of Title No. 108101, and said line there terminating. Together with: That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 24, and that part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 25, all in Township 114 North, Range 20 West, Dakota County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 24; thence southerly on the west line of said Southwest Quarter and on the west line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 25, a distance of 2937.5 feet to a found judicial land mark as called for in Certificate of Title No. 108101 on file in the Registrar of Titles office in Dakota County, Minnesota, and the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence on an assumed bearing of South 88 degrees 29 minutes 37 seconds East on a line parallel with the north line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 25, 329.2 feet south thereof, 200.46 feet; thence North 0 degrees 16 minutes 27 seconds East, 180.94 feet; thence North 89 degrees 43 minutes 33 13 seconds West, 5.00 feet; thence North 0 degrees 16 minutes 27 seconds East, 50.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 43 minutes 33 seconds East, 5.00 feet; thence North 0 degrees 16 minutes 27 seconds East, 193.02 feet; thence northerly 332.27 feet along a tangential curve concave to the west having a radius of 1834.86 feet and a central angle of 10 degrees 22 minutes 32 seconds; thence North 10 degrees 06 minutes 05 seconds West, tangent to said curve, 896.77 feet to the south line of the North 1303.89 feet of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 24; thence North 89 degrees 48 minutes 07 seconds West, 7.67 feet along the south line of said North 1303.89 feet, to the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 24; thence southerly along the west line of said Section 24 and along the west line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 25 a distance of 1632.19 feet to the point of beginning. 14 EXHIBIT "B" City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us LETTER OF EXEMPTION DAKOTA COUNTY PROPERTY RECORDS 1590 HIGHWAY 55 HASTINGS MN 55033-2392 To Whom It May Concern: Please find enclosed, deed(s) on the parcel(s) listed below. We are requesting the parcels be classified as Exempt Properties. PARCEL 10# LEGAL DESCRIPTION USE (wetland, storm water facility, park or well site) Please sign letter below and return to me at the address above verifying the exemption status. Thank you. Sincerely, Tracy Geise Accounting Technician/Special Assessments Enclosure(s) Signature Date 15 EXHIBIT "C" IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT No. Date: TO: City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Sir or Madam: We hereby issue, for the account of of Credit in the amount of $ undersigned bank. . and in your favor, our Irrevocable Letter , available to you by your draft drawn on sight on the The draft must: a) Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit No. , dated (Name of Bank) "; b) Be signed by the Mayor or City Administrator of the City of Farmington. c) Be presented for payment at (Address of Bank) , 20_, of This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms from the date indicated above unless, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date, the Bank delivers written notice to the Farmington City Administrator that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel, this Letter of Credit. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows: Farmington City Administrator, 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024, and is actually received by the City Administrator at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date. This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified, amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement, whether or not referred to herein. This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than one draw may be made under this Letter of Credit. This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 400. We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly honored upon presentation. [NAME OF BANK] By: [name] Its: [identify official 16 EXHIBIT "D" CENTEX HOMES , Minnesota DMston 12701 Whit.wate,Drjve Suite 300 Mlnnelonka, MN 55343 Mev 4. zoos '-- Mann Cly d F8fII1iVon 325 08k SlNet F8I1nillglofl, MN l56024 oe. '-- Mann: ThIs ...... II 8 form8I ...... 10 IWt .. modIII beront .. utIIiIlIMl and ..... ere campIMI in Ihe Ch8rfee.1aod eru.ing neighborhood. which II conmy 1o)'lOUf nonNII PftlCIIdLnI docu1w1Ied in )'IOUf l18nd8rd~connct. Phone: 952-936-7833 Fa.: 952-936.7839 We hIM line dIfeNnt produ<<* in .. nelltlborhood: LeglIcy. c.riIIge n F..-dom. We.... like 10 stIrt . c.riIIge model on lot 11 d block 2 and . Freedom model on lot 19 d block 1 .. IOOI'l .. we can get city appnMI. GeIing an eMy MIrt on 8 model II very bellelclllllo Ulfor ~..--. We htMt our producI phy8IcBIIy IMIIIIble 10 Illok at IOOIW for our bu)w't. which incf..... .... be"l8Ildously. Thent wi be .... time needed 10 hIM 8 .... nIIer on.... And..........,...,. -- c:IoelngII. ow plan would be 10 campIeIe .. .... WIIIIr and IDm maIn8 from our ..... CCIl.l8CIon 8l the exIIting .....Iine down bJ Iw p8rit up 10 197" 10 .. i....MCtlon d Eac*fct W"f and '*' ncdIlo MH-27. The weier line wauld be inataIIed and COf'iIllIdId 10 .. exIIting Hlbs.,... Plat Knob Ro8d in both ... 10 oompIMIlwllXlp. We would then inIl'aIIthe neceM8I'I_ and WIIf8r ..w. 10 our bulIdingl and then .. cMch b8sN bit ere neer our~. Then we would inItaI our rock b88e from .. enlrance at Plot Knob Road down 197" ....... weal 10 lot 1. n -.0 down ~ W"f 10 the NorI'lIo lot 18 and include both finger streets on each Iide d .. model buIding. See Iw 8II8ched plan for deC8iIa. Before we would start ..model we would IMIIhe I8W8I' n WIIIIr \hat is inItIIIIed and wi hIM two hydrants that wi be OI*etio"8I. HYO t# 7 811d HYO t# 4. We.... not need 10 hook up" WIIIIr and I8W8f' I8lVlcelIo our buId/ngI unlI .. I08dI ere bI8ck. ThiI plan wauld IIIow UlIo get . jLmp-start on our model.. IOOI'l .. .... rock beIe in down and utIiIIeI ere teII8d and ... we can plan on paving .. whole... lit once. Being \hat we ere .. owner. del.slapel and buIder on Ilia... and we pnMda...... and ere held r8IpOnIIJItt for whet h8ppene on IliI lie we feel bit IhII is a ,..,.,... nJqUlIIl AgaIn. we ere not 8Iking for . oertlfIcaIe d occupanc'f we ere jUIt 8Iking 10 MIrt our modelI before .... roeda .. black. FurIlermole. we do un_....td hit .. curb and aepheIt inl"'''M 118 priorily for UI 8nd we do not hIM . problem .. *'PPing con8lructIon for . few dap 10 inAIII .... ..... ..... the model bulIdings. The lICheduIing .... can be worMd out. PI8aIe ..... .. req&.-t at )'IOUf .... CCIlMnl8naa. Q18d 0negBrd PIqed Man8ger CenIex Homea 17 7L City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator ~ FROM: Tim Gross, P.E., Assistant City Engineer ~ SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Parkview Ponds Development Contract DATE: May 16, 2005 INTRODUCTION The Development Contract for Parkview Ponds is forwarded herewith for Council's consideration. DISCUSSION The final plat for Parkview Ponds was approved by the Planning Commission on March 8, 2005 and by the City Council on March 21,2005. The contract has been drafted in accordance with the conditions placed on the approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat and has been reviewed by the City Attorney. Following are conditions of approval for the development contract: 1. the Developer enter into this Agreement; and 2. the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms ofthis Agreement; and 3. the Developer record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 6 months after City Council approval ofthe final plat. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution approving the execution of the Parkview Ponds Development Contract and authorize its signing contingent upon the above conditions and final approval by the Engineering Division. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ Tim Gross, P.E. Assistant City Engineer cc: file RESOLUTION NO. R_-05 APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT PARKVIEW PONDS Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers in City Hall of said City on the 16th day of May, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. Members present: Members absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. R96-04, the City Council approved the Preliminary Plat of Parkview Ponds; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 31-05, the City Council approved the Final Plat of Parkview Ponds subject to the following conditions: 1. Any engineering issues shall be addressed and approval of construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering Division shall be granted. 2. Any Parks & Recreation issues shall be addressed. 3. Execution of a Development Contract between the Developer and the City of Farmington and submission of security, payment of all fees and costs and submission of all other documents required under the Development Contract. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Development Contract for the aforementioned subdivision, a copy of which is on file in the Clerk's office is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: a) the Developer enter into this Agreement; and b) the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; and c) the Developer record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 6 months after City Council approval of the final plat. The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to sign such contract. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 16th day of May, 2005. Mayor Attested to this _ day of May, 2005. SEAL City Administrator DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AGREEMENT dated this 16th day of May, 2005, by, between, and among the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation (CITY) and Manley Land Development Inc., a Minnesota corporation (DEVELOPER). 1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for Parkview Ponds (also referred to in this Development Contract [CONTRACT or AGREEMENT] as the PLAT). The land is situated in the City of Farmington, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, and is legally described on the attached Exhibit "A": 2. Conditions of Approval. The City hereby approves the plat on the conditions that: a) the Developer enter into this Agreement; and b) the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; and c) the Developer record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 6 months after City Council approval of the fmal plat. 3. Development Plans and Rie:ht to Proceed. The Developer shall develop the plat in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Agreement. The plans may be prepared by the Developer, subject to City approval, after entering into this Agreement but before commencement of any work in the plat. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, subject to paragraphs 6 and 31 G, the plans shall control. The required plans are: Plan A - Final Plat Plan B - Soil Erosion Control and Grading Plans Plan C - Landscape Plan Plan D - ZoninglDevelopment Map Plan E - Wetlands Mitigation as required by the City Plan F - Final Street and Utility Plans and Specifications The Developer shall use its best efforts to assure timely application to the utility companies for the following utilities: underground natural gas, electrical, cable television, and telephone. Within the plat or land to be platted, the Developer may not construct sewer lines, water lines, streets, utilities public or private improvements or any building until all of the following conditions have been satisfied: a) This agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, b) The necessary security has been received by the City, c) The plat has been recorded with the Dakota County Recorder's Office, and d) The City Clerk has issued a letter stating that all conditions have been satisfied and that the Developer may proceed. 1 4. Sales Office Requirements. At any location within the plat where lots and/or homes are sold which are part of this subdivision, the Developer agrees to install a sales board on which a copy of the approved plat, fmal utility plan and a zoning map or planned unit development plan are displayed, showing the relationship between this subdivision and the adjoining neighborhood. The zoning and land use classification of all land and network of major streets within 350 feet of the plat shall be included. 5. Zoninl!lDevelopment Map. The Developer shall provide an 8 1/2" x 14" scaled map of the plat and land within 350' of the plat containing the following information: a. platted property; b. existing and future roads; c. future phases; d. existing and proposed land uses; and e. future ponds. 6. Required Public Improvements and 195th Street East Proiect Assessments. The Developer shall install and pay for the following: a. Sanitary Sewer Lateral System b. Water System (trunk and lateral) c. Storm Sewer d. Streets e. Concrete Curb and Gutter f. Street Signs g. Street Lights h. Sidewalks and Trails i. Erosion Control, Site Grading and Ponding j. Traffic Control Devices k. Setting of Lot & Block Monuments 1. Surveying and Staking m. Landscaping, Screening, Blvd. Trees The improvements shall be installed in accordance with Plans A through F, and in accordance with all laws, City Standards, Engineering Guidelines, Ordinances and plans and specifications which have been prepared by a competent registered professional engineer furnished to the City and approved by the City Engineer. Work done not in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, without prior authorization of the City Engineer, shall be considered a violation of this agreement and a Default of the Contract. The Developer shall obtain all necessary pennits from the Metropolitan Council and other agencies before proceeding with construction. The Developer shall instruct its engineer to provide adequate field inspection personnel to assure an acceptable level of quality control to the extent that the Developer's engineer will be able to certify that the construction work meets the approved City standards as a condition of City acceptance. In addition, the City may, at the City's discretion and at the Developer's expense, have one or more City inspector(s) and a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or part time basis. The Developer or his engineer shall schedule a pre-construction meeting at a mutually agreeable time at the City Council chambers with all parties concerned, including the City staff, to review the program for the construction work. Within sixty (60) days after the completion of the improvements and before the security is released, the Developer shall supply the City with a complete set of "As Built" plans as specified in the City's Engineering Guidelines. If the Developer does not provide such information, the City will produce the as-built drawings. All costs associated with producing the as-built drawings will be the responsibility of the Developer. All bike trails and sidewalks to be constructed as part of the development must be completed before building pennits will be issued. Before the security for the completion of the utilities is released, iron monuments must be installed in accordance with M.S. ~505.02. The Developer's surveyor shall submit a written notice to the City certifying that the monuments have been installed. 195th Street East Proiect Assessments The parent parcels of Parkview Ponds have been assessed for improvements to 195th Street East Project. The total levied assessment amount for the parcels is: Parcel Nos. 14-02400-011-94 Total amount levied: $13,447.78 2 14-02400-013-80 $76.344.24 $89,792.02 (As of 12/31/05) A portion of the levied assessment plus interest becomes due with the fmal platting of Parkview Ponds. The amount due with Parkview Ponds will be calculated proportionally based on the area of Parkview Ponds being developed in relation to the entire area of the property. The remaining balance of the levied assessment shall remain levied against the unplatted portion of the parent parcel. The Developer may elect to pay the assessment in cash at the time of fmal plat approval or have it prorated and reassessed to the lots and blocks of Parkview Ponds. If assessed, the assessments shall be spread over a 10-year period with 6.5% interest on the unpaid balance from the time of the initial adoption of the assessment to the parent parcel. The reassessments shall be deemed adopted on the date this Contract is signed by the City. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessments, including but not limited to, hearing requirements and any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to M.S.A. 429.081. 7. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required public utilities, by November 30,2006, in accordance with the requirements set forth in the City's Engineering Guidelines. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases. An extension of the security shall be considered an extension of this contract and the extension of the contract will coincide with the date of the extension of the security. 8. Ownership of Improvements. Upon the completion of the work and construction required to be done by this Agreement, and written acceptance by the City Engineer, the improvements lying within public easements shall become City property, except for cable TV, electrical, gas, and telephone, without further notice or action. Outlots A through J shall be deeded to the City following the completion and approval of improvements as required under Plans A - F. 10% of the total security amount shall be held until the required outlots are deeded to the City and the required As-built plans are submitted and approved. A Letter of Exemption, attached to this contract as Exhibit "BOO, shall be submitted to the County for each outlot at the time that the deed for the outlot is filed with the County. 9. Warranty. The Developer and the Developers Engineer represent and warrant to the City that the design for the project meets all laws, City Standards, Engineering Guidelines and Ordinances. The Developer warrants all improvements required to be constructed by it pursuant to this Contract against poor material and faulty workmanship. The warranty period for streets is one year. The warranty period for underground utilities is two years. The warranty period for the streets shall commence after the fmal wear course has been completed and the streets have been accepted by City Council resolution. The warranty period on underground utilities shall commence following their completion and acceptance by the City Engineer in writing. It is the responsibility of the Developer to complete the required testing of the underground utilities and request, in writing, City acceptance of the utilities. Failure of the Developer to complete the required testing or request acceptance of the utilities in a timely manner shall not in any way constitute cause for the warranty period to be modified from the stipulations set forth above. All trees shall be warranted to be alive, of good quality, and disease free for twelve (12) months after the security for the trees is released. Any replacements shall be warranted for twelve (12) months from the time of planting. The Developer shall post maintenance bonds or other surety acceptable to the City to secure the warranties. The City shall retain ten percent (10%) of the security posted by the Developer until the bonds or other acceptable surety are furnished to the City or until the warranty period has been completed, whichever frrst occurs. The retainage may be used to pay for warranty work. The City's Engineering Guidelines identifY the procedures for final acceptance of streets and utilities. 10. Gradin!! Plan. The plat shall be graded and drainage provided by the Developer in accordance with Plan B. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, the Developer may start rough grading the lots within the stockpile and easement areas in conformance with Plan B before the plat is filed if all fees have been paid, a MPCA Construction Storm Water Permit has been issued, and the City has been furnished the required security. Additional rough grading may be allowed upon obtaining written authorization from the City Engineer. If the developer needs to change grading affecting drainage after homeowners are on site, he must notifY all property owners/residents of this work prior to its initiation. This notification cannot take place until the City Engineer has 3 approved the proposed grading changes. A MPCA Construction Storm Water Permit must be obtained before any grading can commence on the site. 11. Erosion Control and Fees. After the site is rough graded, but before any utility construction is commenced or building permits are issued, the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if it is determined that the methods implemented are insufficient to properly control erosion. All areas disturbed by the excavation and back-filling operations shall be re- seeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule, or supplementary instructions received from the City, or in an emergency determined at the sole discretion of the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion immediately, without notice to the Developer. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and the City's rights or obligations hereunder. If the Developer does not reimburse the City for any costs of the City incurred for such work within thirty (30) days, the City may draw down the letter of credit to pay such costs. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in full compliance with the erosion control requirements. The Developer is responsible for Erosion Control inspection fees at the current rates. The Developer is also responsible for a Water Quality Management Fee of $ 6,276 based upon the number of acres in the plat. This fee is due and payable at the time of execution of this agreement. 12. Landscapine:. The Developer shall landscape the plat in accordance with Plan C. The landscaping shall be accomplished in accordance with a time schedule approved by the City. A. The Developer shall be solely responsible for the installation of all project landscaping including but not limited to the boulevard trees. The responsibility for the installation of boulevard trees will not be transferred to builders, homeowners, etc. B. All graded areas, including fmish grade on lots, will require a minimum of 6" of black dirt/topsoil. The responsibility for the installation of black dirt/topsoil shall not be transferred to homeowners. C. Retaining walls with 1) a height that exceeds four feet or 2) a combination of tiers that exceed four feet or 3) a three foot wall with a back slope greater than 4 to 1 shall be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by a structural or geotechnical engineer licensed by the State of Minnesota. Following construction, a certification signed by the design engineer shall be filed with the City Engineer evidencing that the retaining will was constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. All retaining walls that are part of the development plans, or special conditions referred to in this Contract that are required to be constructed, shall be constructed and certified before any building permit is issued for a lot on which a retaining wall is required to be built. All landscaping features, including those constructed within public rights of way, remain the property and responsibility of the developer and subsequent property owners, subject to the City's or other governmental unit's rights to access and maintain their rights of way. 13. Phased Development. The plat shall be developed in one (1) phase in accordance with Plans A-F. No earth moving shall be done in any subsequent phase until the necessary security has been furnished to the City. No construction of public improvements or other development shall be done in any subsequent phase until a fmal plat for the phase has been filed in the County Recorder's office and the necessary security has been furnished to the City. The City may refuse to approve fmal plats of subsequent phases until public improvements for all prior phases have been satisfactorily completed. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, this Development Contract constitutes approval to develop the plat. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until development agreements for such phases are approved by the City. 14. Effect of Subdivision Approval. For two (2) years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the current urban service area, or removing any part thereof which has not been final platted, or official controls, shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications or platting required or permitted by the approved preliminary plat unless required by State or Federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by State law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan (including removing unplatted property from the urban service area), official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement and may require submission of a new plat. 4 15. Surface Water Manae:ement Fee. The Developer shall pay an area storm water management charge of$ 487,236 in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a 10 year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at five percent (5%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081. Storm sewer charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. 16. Wetland Conservation and Mitie:ation. The Developer shall comply with the 1991 Wetlands Conservation Act, as amended, and the Wetlands Mitigation Plan. The Developer shall pay all costs associated with wetlands conservation and the Wetlands Mitigation Plan. 17. Water Main Trunk Area Chare:e. The Developer shall pay a water main trunk area charge of$182,839 for the plat in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at five percent (5%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081. Water area charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. A credit of$ 41,070 will be given to the Developer for Water Main Trunk oversizing within the plat. The net result is that the Water Main Trunk Area Charge to be paid with this plat is $141,769. 18. Water Treatment Plant Fee. The Developer shall pay a water treatment plant fee of$ 88,800 for the plat in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at five percent (5%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081. Water treatment plant fees for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. 19. Sanitarv Sewer Trunk Area Chare:e. The Developer shall pay a sanitary sewer trunk area charge of $ 156,480 for the plat in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at five percent (5%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081. Sanitary Trunk Sewer charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. 20. Park Dedication. The Developer shall be required to dedicate 5.34 acres of land for park purposes, of which 4.32 acres have been platted as Outlot D. The Developer shall pay the City $ 68,043 as cash in lieu of land for the additional 1.02 acres needed to satisfy the City's park dedication requirements for the plat. The park dedication fee shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at five percent (5%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081. The park dedication fees for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. 21. Park Development Fee. The Developer shall pay a Park Development Fee of$ 88,784 that will be used to pay either for development of the park located in the development, or if no land is taken for park purposes, in the park closest to the 5 development. The City shall allow the Developer to either pay the entire park development fee at the time of ftnal plat ftling or to pay the park development fee on a per unit basis at the time that the building permit is issued for each unit to be constructed in the development, provided that all park development fees shall be paid within ftve (5) years of approval of the fmal plat. A credit of $ 18,734 will be given to the Developer for park and trail improvements within the plat. A credit of $ 31,392 will be given to the Developer for parking lot improvements within the plat. The net result is that the Park Development Fee to be paid with this plat is $ 38,658. 22. Sealcoatine:. In lieu of assessing sealcoating three years from completion of the road construction, the Developer agrees to pay a fee of $ 14,034 for initial sealcoating of streets in the subdivision. This fee shall be deposited in the City Road and Bridge Fund upon execution of this Agreement. 23. GIS Fees. The Developer is responsible for a Government Information System fee of$ 7,400 based upon the number of lots within the subdivision. This fee shall be due and payable upon execution of this Agreement 24. Easements. The Developer shall furnish the City at the time of execution of this Agreement with the easements designated on the plat. 25. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors, a license to enter the plat to perform all necessary work and/or inspections deemed appropriate by the City during the installation of public improvements by the City. The license shall expire after the public improvements installed pursuant to the Development Contract have been installed and accepted by the City. 26. Clean UP. The Developer shall weekly, or more often if required by the City Engineer, clear from the public streets and property any soil, earth or debris resulting from construction work by the Developer or its agents or assigns. All debris, including brush, vegetation, trees and demolition materials, shall be disposed of off site. Burning of trees and structures shall be prohibited, except for ftre training only. The City has a contract for street cleaning services. The City will have the right to clean the streets as outlined in current City policy. The Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for street cleaning costs. 27. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Agreement, payment of real estate taxes including interest and penalties, payment of special assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements in the plat and construction of all public improvements in the plat, the Developer shall furnish the City with a cash escrow, irrevocable letter of credit, or alternative security acceptable to the City Administrator, from a bank (security) for $ 3,534,967. The bank and form of the security shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator. Letters of Credit shall be in the format and wording exactly as shown on the attached Letter of Credit form (Attachment "C"). The security shall be automatically renewing. The term of the security may be extended from time to time if the extension is furnished to the City Administrator at least forty-ftve (45) days prior to the stated expiration date of the security. If the required public improvements are not completed, or terms of the Agreement are not satisfted, at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of a letter of credit, the City may draw down the letter of credit. The City may draw down the security, without prior notice, for any violation of this Agreement or Default of the Contract. The amount of the security was calculated as follows: GradinglErosion Control Sanitary Sewer Water Main Storm Sewer Street Construction $N/A $ 888,563 $ 613,994 $ 471,625 $ 1,003,370 Monuments St. Lights/Signs Blvd. Trees Blvd. Sodding Wetland Mitigation $ 37,000 $ 108,860 $ 123,387 $ 33,459 $N/A Two Years Principal and Interest on Assessments $ 254,709 This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. Upon receipt of proof satisfactory by the Developer's Engineer to the City Engineer that work has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and speciftcations, and terms of this Agreement, and that all fmancial obligations to the City, subcontractors, or other persons have been satisfted, the City Engineer may approve reductions in the security provided by the Developer under this paragraph from time to time by ninety percent (90%) of the ftnancial obligations that have been satisfted. Ten percent (10%) of the amounts certifted by the Developer's engineer shall be retained as security until all 6 improvements have been completed, all fmancial obligations to the City satisfied, the required "as built" plans have been received by the City, a warranty security is provided, and the public improvements are accepted by the City Council. 28. Responsibilitv for Costs. A. The Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the development of the plat, including but not limited to, Soil and Water Conservation District charges, legal, planning, administrative, construction costs, engineering, easements, inspection and utility testing expenses incurred in connection with approval, acceptance and development of the plat, the preparation of this Agreement, and all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and inspecting the construction for the development of the plat. B. The Developer, except for City's willful misconduct, shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages or expenses which the City may payor incur in consequence of such claims, including attorney's fees. C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including engineering and attorney's fees. In the event that the City receives claims from labor, materialmen, or others that have performed work required by this Contract, that the sums due them have not been paid, and the laborers, materialmen, or others are seeking payment from the City, the Developer hereby authorizes the City to commence an Interpleader action pursuant to Rule 22, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to draw upon the letters of credit in an amount up to 125% of the claim( s) and deposit the funds in compliance with the Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and dismiss the City from any further proceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine attorneys' fees pursuant to this Contract. D. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all plat development work until the bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of five percent (5%) per annum. If the bills are not paid within sixty (60) days, the City has the right to draw from the Developers security to pay the bills. 29. Trash Enclosures. The Developer is responsible to require each builder to provide on site trash enclosures to contain all construction debris, thereby preventing it from being blown off site, except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 30. Portable Toilets. The Developer is responsible to require each builder to provide an on site portable toilet, except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 31. Wetland Buffer and Natural Area Si2ns. The Developer is responsible for installing Wetland Buffer signs around all wetlands and wetland buffers, and City Natural Areas signs around all ponding areas, in accordance with the City's Engineering Guidelines and City detail plate GEN-13. Conservation Area signs will be installed as directed by the City Engineer. Wetland Buffer line limits; and Wetland Buffer, Natural Area, and Conservation Area sign locations must be indicated on individual lot surveys prior to the issuance of a building permit for that lot. 32. Existin2 Tree Preservation. The Developer will walk the site with the City Forester and identify all significant trees, which will be removed by on site grading. A dialogue between the Developer and City Forester regarding alternative grading options will take place before any disputed tree is removed. All trees, stumps, brush and other debris removed during clearing and grubbing operations shall be disposed of off site. 33. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer, except in an emergency as determined by the City or as otherwise provided for in this agreement, is first given written notice of the work in default, not less than 72 hours in advance. This Agreement is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. 7 34. Miscellaneous. A. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors or assigns, as the case may be. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any part of it. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement. B. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties. C. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. D. Building permits shall not be issued prior to completion of site grading, submittal of as-built grading plan, public and private utility installation, curb and gutter, installation of erosion control devices, installation of permanent street signs and wetland buffer and natural area signs, paving with a bituminous surface, retaining walls if any, site seeding, mulching, disk anchoring and submittal of a surveyor's certificate denoting all appropriate monuments have been installed. Only construction of noncombustible materials shall be allowed until the water system is operational. If permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of public improvements, the Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in completion of public improvements and damage to public improvements caused by the City, Developer, its contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, employees, agents or third parties. Normal procedure requires that streets needed for access to approved uses shall be paved with a bituminous surface before building permits may be issued. However, the City Engineer is authorized to waive this requirement when weather related circumstances prevent completion of street projects before the end of the construction season. The Developer is responsible for maintaining said streets in a condition that will assure the access of emergency vehicles at all times when such a waiver is granted. Building permits may be issued prior to the completion of public improvements for Lots 1-6, of Block 1 for the purposes of constructing model homes. The Developers engineer shall verify the foundation grades and submit verification of compliance with the approved grading plans in writing to the City prior to commencement of building construction. No certificate of occupancy will be issued for these lots until the completion of improvements as outlined in this agreement. All work shall cease on these lots during the installation of curb and gutter, sidewalk and bituminous paving. High early concrete shall be used for all concrete work fronting these lots. No construction or deliveries may occur for the lots under construction for 1 week following concrete curb and gutter and sidewalk installation to allow for adequate curing. The watermain and fire hydrant stubbed to provide fire protection for these models per Exhibit "E" shall be tested per the City of Farmington's Engineering Guidelines before permits shall be issued. The developer shall adhere to the letter and map attached as Exhibits "D" and "E" respectively. The Developer assumes all liability to cure any issues that arise from the issuance of building permits before street construction is completed. E. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or release. F. The Developer represents to the City, to the best of its knowledge, that the plat is not of "metropolitan significance" and that an environmental impact statement is not required. However, if the City or another govemmental entity or agency determines that such a review is needed, the Developer shall prepare it in compliance with legal requirements so issued from said agency. The Developer shall reimburse the City for all expenses, including staff time and attorney fees that the City incurs in assisting in the preparation of the review. G. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The Developer represents to the City that the plat complies with all City, County, Metropolitan, State and Federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances and environmental regulations. If the City determines that the plat does not comply, the City may, at its option, 8 refuse to allow any construction or development work in the plat until the Developer does comply. Upon the City's demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance. H. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. The Developer covenants with the City, its successors and assigns, that the Developer is well seized in fee title of the property being fmal platted and/or has obtained Consents to this Contract, in the form attached hereto, from all parties who have an interest in the property; that there are no unrecorded interests in the property being fmal platted; and that the Developer will indemnify and hold the City harmless for any breach of the of the foregoing covenants. After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Agreement, at the Developer's request the City will execute and deliver a release to the Developer. I. Developer shall take out and maintain until six months after the City has accepted the public improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of the Developer's work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury or death shall not be less than $500,000.00 for one person and $1,000,000.00 for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall not be less than $200,000.00 for each occurrence. The City shall be named as an additional named insured on said policy, the insurance certificate shall provide that the City must be given 10 days advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance and the Developer shall file a copy of the insurance coverage with the City prior to the City signing the plat. J. The Developer shall obtain a Wetlands Compliance Certificate from the City. K. Upon breach of the terms of this Agreement, the City may, without notice to the Developer, draw down the Developer's cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit as provided in paragraph 26 of this Agreement. The City may draw down this security in the amount of $500.00 per day that the Developer is in violation. The City, in its sole discretion, shall determine whether the Developer is in violation of the Agreement. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 30 hereof, this determination may be made without notice to the Developer. It is stipulated that the violation of any term will result in damages to the City in an amount, which will be impractical and extremely difficult to ascertain. It is agreed that the per day sum stipulated is a reasonable amount to compensate the City for its damages. L. The Developer will be required to conduct all major activities to construct Plans A-F during the following hours of operation: Monday - Friday Saturday Sunday and Holidays 7:00 A.M. until 7:00 P.M. 8:00 A.M. until 5:00 P.M. Not Allowed This does not apply to activities that are required on a 24-hour basis such as dewatering, etc. Any deviations from the above hours are subject to approval of the City Engineer. Violations of the working hours will result in a $500 fine per occurrence in accordance with paragraph K of this section. M. The Developer is responsible to require each builder within the development to provide a Class 5 aggregate entrance for every house that is to be constructed in the development. This entrance is required to be installed upon initial construction of the home. See City Standard Plate ERO-09 for construction requirements. N. The Developer shall be responsible for the control of weeds in excess of twelve inches (12") on vacant lots or boulevards within their development as per City Code 6-7-2. Failure to control weeds will be considered a Developer's Default as outlined in Paragraph 30 of this Agreement and the Developer will reimburse the City as defmed in said Paragraph 33. O. Third parties have no recourse against the City under this contract. 35. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified or registered mail at the following addresses: Kurt Manley Manley Land Development 2113 Cliff Drive Eagan, MN 55122 9 Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either and delivered to the City Administrator, or mailed to the City by certified mail or registered mail in care of the City Administrator at the following address: David M. Urbia, City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 10 SIGNATURE PAGE CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Kevan A. Soderberg, Mayor By: David M. Urbia, City Administrator DEVELOPER: Manley Land Development Inc. By: Its: Drafted by: City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 55024 (651) 463-7111 11 STATE OF MINNESOTA) (ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 by Kevan A. Soderberg, Mayor, and by David M. Urbia, City Administrator, of the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by the City Council. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) (ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,20 by , the of Manley Land Development Inc., a corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public 12 EXHIBIT "A" That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 114, Range 20, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying easterly of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the south line of said Southeast Quarter distant 1467.46 feet east of the southwest comer of said Southeast Quarter; thence bearing North, assumed bearing on a line parallel with the west line of said Southeast Quarter, a distance of 1025.00 feet; thence North 51 degrees 11 minutes 18 seconds West, a distance of 760.04 feet to a point 875.00 feet east of the west line of said Southeast Quarter; thence North, parallel with said west line of the Southeast Quarter, a distance of 1135.00 feet to the north line of said Southeast Quarter and there terminating; EXCEPTING THEREFROM, The south 33.00 feet thereof. 13 EXHIBIT "B" City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us LETTER OF EXEMPTION DAKOTA COUNTY PROPERTY RECORDS 1590 HIGHWAY 55 HASTINGS MN 55033-2392 To Whom It May Concern: Please find enclosed, deed(s) on the parcel(s) listed below. We are requesting the parcels be classified as Exempt Properties. PARCEL ID# LEGAL DESCRIPTION USE (wetland, storm water facility, park or well site) Please sign letter below and return to me at the address above verifying the exemption status. Thank you. Sincerely, Tracy Geise Accounting Technician/Special Assessments Enclosure( s) Signature Date 14 EXHIBIT "e" IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT No. Date: TO: City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Sir or Madam: We hereby issue, for the account of of Credit in the amount of $ undersigned bank. . and in your favor, our Irrevocable Letter , available to you by your draft drawn on sight on the The draft must: a) Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit No. , dated (Name of Bank) "; b) Be signed by the Mayor or City Administrator of the City of Farmington. c) Be presented for payment at (Address of Bank) , 20_, of This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms from the date indicated above unless, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date, the Bank delivers written notice to the Farmington City Administrator that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel, this Letter of Credit. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows: Farmington City Administrator, 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024, and is actually received by the City Administrator at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date. This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified, amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement, whether or not referred to herein. This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than one draw may be made under this Letter of Credit. This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 400. We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly honored upon presentation. [NAME OF BANK] By: [name] Its: [identify official 15 EXHIBIT "D" May 11, 2005 Tim Gross City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN. 55024 Dear Tim, My purpose in writing is to address the opportunity of obtaining six building permits in our Parkview Ponds project prior to the completion of the development. We have committed six builders to purchase all of the lots; Mittelstaedt Brothers, McDevitt Homes, College City Homes, Ryan Real Estate, Keyland Homes, and Manley Brothers Construction. Please see attached list of model lots. It is our desire to provide each builder the opportunity to start marketing by building a model home and advertising to future homeowners. Manley Land Development shall assume all liability for commencing model home construction before development improvements are complete. Below are the conditions by which we would propose approval. 1. Remaining Improvements: Manley Land Development proposes Class 5 gravel as a street base along the model home construction area. This will allow emergency vehicles a safe access to that area of model home construction. We are planning on running all utilities just shy of the last model and then coming in and installing all of the utilities (sewer, water, storm sewer, and services to the models) at once so that the road is torn up only once. The Class 5 driving surface will be replaced one time or as it is disturbed. Some of the model home construction activity will be suspended during all utility, curb, gutter, and pavement installation (there are no sidewalks or bike trails along the model home lots). High early concrete will be used for the curb and gutter. A sufficient cure time will be allowed. 2. Foundation Grades: pioneer Engineering will verify the model home foundation grades. A foundation as-built will be provided for each model home lot. This information will be provided to the City of Farmington before framing will commence. 3. Access: Model home construction access will occur at the current NW entrance to the property. Development access will occur at a new access point at the NE corner of our property. We also intend to share the NE access point with Giles for their construction needs. The city owned gravel road to the west of the development will be completely barricaded off so that builders do not park in this area or try to access the site via this road. 4. Parking: Manley Land Development will require homebuilders and all of their construction workers to park along 195th Street. No parking will be allowed in the development. 16 5. Trash Enclosures: Each builder will be required and be responsible to provide on site trash enclosures to contain all construction debris. 6. Driveways: Each builder within the development will be required and responsible to provide a Class 5 aggregate entrance for every house. 7. Portable Toilets: Each builder will be required and responsible to provide an on site portable toilet, except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 8. Site maintenance: Builders agree to take all necessary steps to prevent site erosion on the lots purchased and accept responsibility for site maintenance and storm water run-off. Builders agree to install silt fence protection during construction on or around the lots as needed. 9. Fire suppression: This will be provided via a local hydrant to be provided by the developer. Please see attached location map. Thank you Tim for considering this request. We hope that all concerns have been addressed and met with a solution acceptable to the City of Farmington. It is our hope that we can proceed immediately. Thank you in advance, Daniel P. Lincoln VP, Sales Phone: 651.209.7733 Mobile: 651.755.8726 dlincoln(ii}manlevbrothers.com M~LEY Land Development, Inc. 17 ',:g Ilf. fl 'I , Ilf L~ ~LLL..J EXHIBIT "E" r- ~. f t ; I I'} r ",J> jI> -"'-" rJ~l~~::"~J - ! 'Ef ' II ,;"" " I I ',\,:, - L"'=--Ll~-, '=--'-' ~ ,. I ~5m-sTR ' ---" ,'---" I ---" .:....~~----~~-- i ~-~:~~-~.=.- = -. -- ';jj;}>> 1.~..I~j~.I~ ,.. <:~;>: ~'\ /1, --!-:' ~ -- .....~.-+~-----~ ---,.....-.-- '- .- ::=-~, I/-;=-~--==--="=": UI \ "~I) r ' I' I \, i :: ;I! 1111 II. ilil . il ~ ... .....~ , , , , , i " I I I 1 , I . I I , I I , , I I , , II II !II '.\ \\ . I 1- M 18 7n-, City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator ~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Approve Lease Amendment - Verizon Wireless DATE: May 16,2005 INTRODUCTION/ DISCUSSION The City has a lease agreement with Qwest Wireless for antennas on the Daisy Knoll Water Tower. Verizon Wireless has acquired Qwest's interests and needs to install additional antennas on the tower to serve their system. The assistant City Attorney has reviewed the amendment and recommends approval. The Water Board has expressed agreement with the amendment in concept and will review and approve the amendment at the May Water Board meeting. BUDGET IMPACT The lease amount will be $21,000 per year. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the attached Amendment No.1 and Memorandum of Amendment No. 1 to the lease agreement with Verizon Wireless. Respectfully Submitted, ~Yh~ Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file 7" City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us SUBJECT: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator ~ Tim Gross, P.E., Assistant City Enginee~ Approve Easement Acquisition - Ash Street Utility & Street Reconstruction project TO: FROM: DATE: May 16, 2005 INTRODUCTION Staff has completed easement acquisition negotiations with one additional property owner since the last easement acquisition authorized by Council for the Ash Street Utility & Street Reconstruction project. DISCUSSION Permanent utility easements and temporary construction easements are needed for the installation of City utilities adjacent to the Ash Street Reconstruction project area. These easement agreements have been reviewed and deemed acceptable by the City Attorney. BUDGET IMPACT The total amount negotiated for the temporary and permanent easement acquisition for this property is $4,000.00. The individual property settlement information is available for review at Council's request. ACTION REQUESTED Approve by motion the acquisition of the above referenced easements for the Ash Street Utility & Street Reconstruction project. R~ Tim Gross, P .E. Assistant City Engineer cc: file /0 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator ~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Parkview Ponds Trunk Sewer DATE: May 16, 2005 INTRODUCTION A trunk sanitary sewer extension is needed in order to service the Parkview Ponds Development by gravity sewer instead of a lift station. DISCUSSION An alignment for the trunk sanitary sewer that would serve the Parkview Ponds project and ultimately the Mystic Meadows project (Giles/Murphy property) has been identified (see attached map - Met Council interceptor is highlighted in green and the proposed trunk sewer is highlighted in yellow). This alignment would traverse from the interceptor through an area of Empire Township, through the Giles/Murphy property to the Parkview Ponds Development. Staff has spoken with Met Council staff and they have indicated that it is permissible to install this sewer extension to serve Parkview Ponds. The Giles/Murphy property would not be able to be served off this trunk line until such time that the environmental review on the project is complete. Empire Township has indicated agreement with the installation of this sewer line. The circumstances related to this sewer extension are the same as for the sewer extension that was installed in the mid 90's for the Prairie Creek Development. A connection was made to the interceptor in the Township, traversed through Township property and crossed property in Farmington that was not yet ready to develop in order to serve the developing property. At this time, the developer ofthe Giles/Murphy property (Tim Giles) is prepared and willing to install this trunk sewer line. Commencing with the installation of the trunk sewer line at this time will minimize or eliminate the need for Parkview Ponds to install and operate a temporary lift station. The developer has obtained the necessary easements from the property owner in the Township. The plans for the interceptor will be reviewed and approved by City staff and Met Council prior to installation. The developer also agrees to City inspection of the construction of the sewer line. The necessary right-of-way and/or easements will be dedicated to the City before the City accepts the sewer line and puts it into operation. BUDGET IMPACT The trunk portion of the cost of the project will be ultimately credited to the developer of the Giles/Murphy property against the Sanitary Sewer Trunk Area Charge in the associated development contracts for the Mystic Meadows Development. The trunk portion of the cost will be less than the overall area charge. The developer of the Giles/Murphy property would bear the lateral costs of the sewer. ACTION REQUESTED Approve by motion the installation of the trunk sanitary sewer by the developer of the Giles/Murphy property for the Parkview Ponds development. Respectfully Submitted, XyY1~ Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file ~,d' '-":"10 I I "'.. "'''~ : w ~ \ ./'. ""~ ~f~ "*'f_ t.. To!,." .. ... N ~.,~~-. ..-.-1,F ~ , ,~>~/~ 1--- . ~~~ "0 ------ .--,:,.':'j0~7 ~ ~~~~..::.--- Vl8 /1,t:fY ~Vl ~-1:r il ! :1{;1---- l f.r )> Ul , ~ ~~ ! 'I~ ~ ~; /: ;(1) /-"7-.,...,--~--:-:-::~,\71 ~ !~II;~rjlil._~~~ I ~::'~.i.'~..;::'~~~ ;~'...~~ ... "- ~ ,I I II n, n I ^ , A f\ t\ Inn ^ I -~'\:L-11~~ ,_,\I, Q_'L"~_'~_Y~Y- --' : 'L-~--(-"l ?t- il~ '.~~~ ~~ , - I--~~~ I 11' 11, I I ~ =_ ==~: ' \ I : I ~ : iI' lll~W : 11:= \ I : Ii LJ, 1:-- \ L---D o~ U un' ,I~ '. L \ ~ /r~ J' ~ ~ ~ I I :' , 1:-- i~-~::, D ~~'.j L u AJ u <2' J~: I 1:-- /(,,:.',':,'>:,._. or,' ~~':-~ '. S8 ~ ~ "l-Tl , i :~ j'" ,;.;:;;:,.;,::~.;.:~) ., =<! -< 8 I II-- <: r;ts~t/ r AA '~,= I~ ,}r'~ ," , I i~ ' '~'''\ \ i .LJ-~. ' .. I ":', ~,' ~ ,,' " , , " '0-'--"00/, J "" : _ __ ' " ~ ~ - ;l~ ]Ti-- DWG: F: \Projects\20050152\Londplon \Prelim \dwg\5015LUTLEXHIBIT.dwg USER: bonderson DATE: Feb 15, 2005 9:42am XREFS: 22X34 base WAP 16078ASE ---- ,---- -- - - I --- ' o ~~ J~ ~-~ i;~ ~U ~-- ~J'~ ~U ..~ "'.... (~ ..... "'0 00 ,. r "'N -0 Zo .., '" '" -< '" o ,. :~Z- " N o 0, .. o o ,T ~' .;\ [:1 f' ,j \' r1 ~ t, i:\ lJ ~ 1:/ ) [\i I.. U I:i f,-J'l:--~- <""""~7 '<lJiiu} u AJ o u uUO IAJ(J) )>Ol'l (J)UO rrl I'lAJ:s: N-1C -<AJ U I -< CITY OF FARMINGTON EMPIRE TOWNSHIP '----. f---- I \1 l-- --"- 1 f---.-- f----- L..-- J I---- UU u)>::::o oAJO z7':U 0<0 (J)rrl(J) :2:8 t--- I- \.- \-- J----- f---- "0 '" o "0 "'0 ,.", z'" =<0 ,.~ "'N -< . I I I I I I I / l(i;;j ~~ "''' -------J rTl ~ u :;u rTl .^ -%:~ ," ?iF>> I~r ,/~i -~~-;~~)~ 11 -}" __~ P~W~td ;~JlJJJJ..:- ", '~! r' $1bJ./l., ~ --IT --IT --i;;rfln} ij~ ~~ I I I~IT~ dF IF IJJINITbN g \ \ u \ il~n ~~ .~-d~\ --- It ~ , , " .. " : 1 I I , --I , 0 : : ~ \:\ Z "\''- .---------------------.--____;-0 ... - , --=-- ~ :-:-:~ : --:-:-::::--:~: - ::-:- :.+- --:---71 1 ~ ~ D~ 1lI~ : rl-- ~.: ~- r -r-"': =~~~.=.=.:.: = =~..:._-.: ~-~ ~~.: = , 'I : I' , , 1 ;: I . I I '1' ~ i i " \ '\ , \ \ , , \ , , , , ", "",, , , , , o rrl <I] rrlc 1-1 Oc UAJ :s:1'l rrl z -1 , , , , , , , , "0 '" o "0 o Vl '" Vlo '" "'''' :;;,. OZ "'=< ~?;j ",-< ,.", ~~ '" '" ',', /', " ,,- . '" .r./ J . . " , ". / " " v.' , " " /'.,.' /~ .~ ,..... ,,/* /~,/ './ ,.,r' / - ~ - o ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ II i '\ ~ d' ..- r-::=r\- fir ~~ : 1 : \' \ ;Ii. ~ !'l :>: '" ~ I i1: 1 //~. !~~ -L... /' t",~ ,.,) /;,.'" ,"; ~ ",.-:~~. . . a. _" '0. I ~ ./\'" Vl M ~ '" ,. -< '" "0 1$ '" ~~~ zoo (;)~~ ~~o "';::- (I)(')~ !:~(") ~~~ o~tii M~g ~"'O N-<Z -' "'-0-0 C;o;o -<00 C"O"O ;000 "'",Vl ~88 ;;i"'"O r-C" 0",;0 -0"0" ~I::;; ",-<", ~"tl:: II;QIJ 00 ,.."Oz cr;g~ O~lI ell..... ~I+~ tri~c '-"z c=< z'" =< '" ""0"0 C;o;o -<00 C"O"O "'00 "'Vl'" ~88 ;;i;::"O r-C" 0",;0 -0"0;>; ",IS ",-<", ~""O~ lI:::OlJ fj-OO ~g~ >~II n 111+ "',..CD ~;;OJ N" o ,.;0 0'" RlVl '" I.o~ o o'i! "'"0 "'''' "00 fg~ -<'" 00 ~b "'-< ;;,. "Or ",0 ,.0 ZZ =i:;:1 ,.- ;otD -<C ~g ~" ~~ ~~ .." '" ,.,. 0;0 ;0", G)" 6 "'"0 "';0 "00 fg~ -<'" 00 ~d "'-< ;;,. "Or- :iI~ C" ZtD ;>;'" '" '" "0 Z'" ~~ ;0;0 -<S VlO ",,,, ~8 II ~ ",'" g~ o r-z 8'" VltD -< - I '3^ y JJnS~YlJ '/to ~~--~ I- I I I I I I 'l C -1 C ::::0 I'l co (Jl -1 I (J) -1 ::::0 I'l I'l -l , ,\, i . \ , . \\ \ \ 'I', \ .. . \ ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \"' \ \ \ , \ \ , \ , \ , \ \ , \ '. \ \ \ \ .... /.... ~ ~~ /' -' I-- "0 '" o -0 o Vl '" "'0 '" ;0", S,. OZ "'=< 5i~ ",-< ,.", ~~ "'''' ~ 6!~ -<z -<- 0-4 ",-< o i!=~ "'> -0 av^" oON~ 31 Ylld ~J>" .... """ ~ ~ +-, MC :E;E ~og l>L . C) R ~ 0'> o s ~ri '6'6'Ju\~li ~ e ~ I~"""'" '-- f-- \ HIGHW~~ 3 C:J: <3! ~;o '" " ~ C Z ;E N o S :>: ~ I hereby certify that this pion was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I om 0 duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the lows of the State of Minnesota. 0\ TRUNK SANITARY SEWER SERVICE EXHIBIT ~Vl O:I: ....,1"1 1"1 ~-4 o '< ~_o '-,. " ~~ ~:~~:~L~ MURPHY PROPERTY GILES PROPERTIES, INC. FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA ""'\. DATE Brandon S. Anderson OLSSON ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS. PLANNERS. SCIENTISTS. SURVEYORS 7800 lIDT 1lmI snwn. 5UTt 11'0 . ~ WMeiOI'A ~ . (1M) ...1-04n. FAll (iIC2) t41-0044 ~. 00l.0IIll00_ ICNfSAS o....on" ollllSSOlA oNE!lRA.SlQ, _.-.h19_ Signed: DESCRIPTION 2005 ~Reg. No 43332 REVISIONS City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7~ FROM: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator ~ Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director TO: SUBJECT: Joint Resolutions with Empire Township --Regan Bus Garage Property (7.05 acres) --Frandrup Property (2.95 acres) --American Legion Property (4.75 acres) DATE: May 16, 2005 INTRODUCTION Empire Township has agreed to enter into Joint Resolutions with the City of Farmington regarding the annexation of three parcels of property. DISCUSSION Please see the attached letter to Ms. Kathleen Krippner, Clerk/Treasurer of Empire Township, which provides relevant background information regarding this matter. I have attached a regional map that indicates where the three properties are located in relation to one another. I have also attached copies of the Joint Resolutions that are referred to in the aforementioned letter to Ms. Krippner. The Resolutions were considered by the Empire Town Board at its meeting on May 10, 2005. On May 11, 2005, Ms. Krippner informed me that the Board approved the Resolutions, subject to review and approval by the Township's planning consultant, who was not present at the May 10 meeting. Copies of the Resolutions were faxed to him on May 11 or May 12. Although I have not yet received "final word" from him, I consider it more likely than not that he will approve the Resolutions and indicate to the Board Chair and the Township Clerk that they may sign the Resolutions. When we receive the signed originals from the Township, we will arrange to get them signed by the Mayor and the City Administrator and then submit the Resolutions to the Office of Boundary Adjustments. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the three separate Joint Resolutions between the City of Farmington and Empire Township regarding the annexation of the Regan, American Legion and Frandrup properties. 2 ~ c;:r Qo 1.J [0 q I :) r;:]p Q ::jDDO Din' I 01 " '-1P I. I _n_n. City Boundary c::=J City of Farmington Property [:==J Empire Township Property " , ~~ . " '-- " , - , , cPO ~ DO_ ~Jl b9 ----- ~ :J 0 L.:-.S- ~~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~()Q . 71; ) 0 0 1] D r- r-Q.. "" ~] I."'.." ~ 0 0 I-- --=-- \...-! 0 - ~ aubl s..> I 0 0 g_.._.._.._.._~.CL.f._..-;-_~o ~ } J--. "", f i i i i i i i lww~ E G'1] ~ ~ " '" :: 209TH STREET ,/ [;J [7~~~ 0 CJ ~~ ~ n n ~ b V \ W)2//)/#4W~ ." ",' t/'/A /h ~ 2 -..-;:;. """B'0/ ~~~z~~, ~ Vh ?d0~ ~ 0 ,~ /A/ '/..;0 1\ _____ ~,i\~W~~ ~~ oc ~V~'/.;/7"/ W~ ~:~~~ .-~ ~ ." ",,', " "<; I ~.:::- ~~ ~ , , , : :.:: ,;. ,",~;;, - ., r----:::: r-- 213TH STREET CJDID 0 [j [;J cJ = w;= Dill ~ r++= trl~ ~ ~ 500 250 o 500 Feet t ,0' City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us Ms. Kathleen Krippner, Clerk/Treasurer Empire Township 3385 19ih Street W. Farmington MN 55024 RE: Proposed Joint Resolutions --Regan Bus Garage Property (7.05 acres) --Frandrup Property (2.95 acres) --American Legion Property (4.75 acres) Dear Ms. Krippner, I am writing to provide some additional background information regarding the proposed Joint Resolutions that I delivered to the Empire Town Hall earlier today. The Joint Resolutions involve three parcels of property that have been discussed at a number of past meetings of the Empire/Farmington Planning Advisory Committee [EF-PAC], including the meeting that was held on April 28, 2005. All three parcels involve some challenging "in-fill" development issues. A local development company, Hometown Inc., has entered into an agreement to acquire the American Legion and Frandrup parcels. Over a period of several months, Hometown prepared and submitted to the City a series of concept plans for the joint development of both parcels. Although the initial concept plans were not acceptable to City staff for a variety of reasons, I believe that the latest concept plan has been refined to a point where it has a good chance of being approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Accordingly, that concept plan and the possible annexation ofthe Frandrup and American Legion parcels were discussed at the April 28 EF-PAC meeting. The three Empire Township members of the EF-PAC did not seem to have any major concerns, so I asked the City Attorney to prepare a proposed Joint Resolution for the Town Board's consideration. The legal descriptions that appear in the Joint Resolutions were obtained from a letter dated March 9, 2005 (attached) from First American Title Insurance Company. With regard to the Regan property, I believe that the Town Board is aware of Mr. Regan's interest in moving the Marschall Line school buses to the [former] Duo Plastics property near the Farmington Industrial Park. It seems to be generally agreed that moving the buses from their current location will significantly improve the current traffic situation on Highway 3, and enable ISD 192 to provide better bus service to the District's students. However, I think that Mr. Regan wants to defer the relocation ofthe bus operation until he is sure that he can obtain the sewer and water service(s) that he will need to redevelop the existing bus garage property. The Empire Township members ofthe EF-PAC did not express any opposition to Mr. Regan's annexation request at the April 28 EF-PAC meeting, so I've arranged to have a Joint Resolution drafted for the Town Board's consideration at tonight's meeting. I have provided you with two original copies and five photocopies of each ofthe three Joint Resolutions referred to above. Ifthe Town Board approves some or all of the Joint Resolutions tonight, we would appreciate your cooperation in seeing that each ofthe originals gets signed by the Chair and the Clerk ofthe Town Board. You can call me at 651-463-1860 when the originals are "ready to go," and I will then come to the Empire Town Hall to pick them up from you. After they have been approved by the City Council and signed by the Mayor and City Administrator, I will return one original copy of each Joint Resolution to you for your files. Please call me at City Hall (651-463-1860) or on my cell phone (651-775-5962) if you have any questions. Thanks! ver~l yours, ,/: ~ / ~ Kevin Carroll Community Development Director TOWN OF EMPIRE CITY OF FARMINGTON IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF EMPIRE AND THE CITY OF FARMINGTON, DESIGNATING AN UNINCORPORATED AREA AS IN NEED OF ORDERLY ANNEXATION AND CONFERRING JURISDICTION OVER SAID AREA TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT OFFICE, PURSUANT TO M.S. ~414.0325 JOINT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, POR MKR Real Estate, LLC is the sole owner of platted property currently located in Empire Township with an address at 21054 Chippendale A venue, and legally described as stated in Attachment A; and WHEREAS, the property is adjacent to land located within the City limits, is located along and to the east of Trunk Highway 3 in the northeasterly area of the City, is approximately 7.05 acres in size, and has no households or population but is improved with various buildings serving as storage and service facilities for commercial vehicles (buses); and WHEREAS, POR MKR Real Estate POR MKR Real Estate has petitioned the City for annexation of its property for the purpose of receiving city services; and; WHEREAS, the City of Farmington can provide the requested urban services to the property. NOW, THEREFORE, the Township of Empire and the City of Farmington jointly agree to the following: 1. The Township and City hereby establish an Orderly Annexation Area ("OM") as authorized by Minnesota Statute S414.0325, Subdivision 1, for the property described above and as shown on the attached Exhibit B and legally described on Exhibit A 2. That the purpose of the annexation of the property involved in this annexation is to transfer jurisdiction over the property in order to provide urban services including but not limited to sewer, water, refuse collection, police and fire protection from the City of Farmington. 3. That in order to accomplish this purpose, the property owned by POR MKR Real Estate, LLC described herein should be immediately annexed to and made part of the City of Farmington. 4. Upon approval by the respective governing bodies of the City and the Township, this joint resolution and agreement shall confer jurisdiction upon the Director of the Office of Strategic and Long-range Planning (or his or her successor designee responsible for administering Minnesota Statutes Chapter 414) so as to immediately annex the lands described in the attached Exhibit A in accordance with the terms of this joint resolution and agreement without need for any subsequent resolution(s) of the parties. 5. The City and the Township mutually state that no alteration by the director to the OAA boundaries, as illustrated on Exhibit B and described in Exhibit A, is appropriate or permitted. 6. The City and Township agree that upon annexation all planning, official controls, and governmental services for the annexed area shall become the responsibility of the City, and that the provisions of Minn. Stat. ~g414.035 and 414.036 authorizing differential taxation and municipal reimbursement for the annexed property will not be applied in this proceeding. 7. The City and the Township mutually state that the annexation of the property will not result in any change of electrical service and will not require joint planning since upon final approval of this joint resolution and issuance of the annexation order by the Director the property will immediately be fully subject to the official controls and other ordinances of the City of Farmington, including all land use controls. Further, that differential taxation under M.S. g414.035, or reimbursement under M.S. g414.036 is not required. 8. Having designated the area illustrated on Exhibit B and described in Exhibit A as in need of orderly annexation, and having provided for all of the conditions of its annexation within this document, the parties to this agreement agree that no consideration by the director is necessary. The director may review and comment but shall within thirty (30) days order the annexation in accordance with the terms of this Resolution. Approved and Adopted this _ day of , 2005. Approved and Adopted this _ day of , 2005. TOWN OF EMPIRE CITY OF FARMINGTON BY: BY: Its Town Board Chair Kevin A. Soderberg Its Mayor AND AND David M. Urbia , Its City Administrator Its Town Board Clerk EXHIBIT A Legal description of property subject to immediate annexation: Lot One (1), Block One (1), Empire Liberty Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota PIN 12-23900-010-01 EXHIBIT B Map of property subject to immediate annexation showing existing corporate boundaries in the northeast area of the City. OJ to- - OJ - :r: >< w € AVMHE>IH >INmn -- z ..... Q) Q) LL o CO N o ~ G) D. ~ ~ e "'C G) a. c:: D. D. ::J 0 :c S ~ ~ & & ~ ! DE] TOWN OF EMPIRE CITY OF FARMINGTON IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF EMPIRE AND THE CITY OF FARMINGTON, DESIGNATING AN UNINCORPORATED AREA AS IN NEED OF ORDERLY ANNEXATION AND CONFERRING JURISDICTION OVER SAID AREA TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT OFFICE, PURSUANT TO M.S. ~414.0325 JOINT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, American Legion Post 189 is the sole owner of unplatted property currently located in Empire Township, and legally described as stated in Attachment A, and; WHEREAS, the property abuts land within the City limits, is located east of Trunk Highway 3, has access to 209th Street in the northeasterly area of the City, is approximately 4.75 acres in size, and has no households, population or improved structures; and WHEREAS, American Legion Post 189 has petitioned the City for annexation of its property for the purpose of developing the property for residential use; and WHEREAS, the City of Farmington can provide the requested urban services to the property. NOW, THEREFORE, the Township of Empire and the City of Farmington jointly agree to the following: 1. The Township and City hereby establish an Orderly Annexation Area ("OAA") as authorized by Minnesota Statute g414.0325, Subdivision 1, for the property described above and as shown on the attached Exhibit B and legally described on Exhibit A. 2. That the purpose of the annexation of the property involved in this annexation is to transfer jurisdiction over the property in order to provide urban 118265 services including but not limited to sewer, water, refuse collection, police and fire protection from the City of Farmington. 3. That in order to accomplish this purpose, the property owned by American Legion Post 189 described herein should be immediately annexed to and made part of the City of Farmington. 4. Upon approval by the respective governing bodies of the City and the Township, this joint resolution and agreement shall confer jurisdiction upon the Director of the Office of Strategic and Long-range Planning (or his or her successor designee responsible for administering Minnesota Statutes Chapter 414) so as to immediately annex the lands described in the attached Exhibit A in accordance with the terms of this joint resolution and agreement without need for any subsequent resolution( s) of the parties. 5. The City and the Township mutually state that no alteration by the director to the OAA boundaries, as illustrated on Exhibit B and described in Exhibit A, is appropriate or permitted. 6. The City and Township agree that upon annexation all planning, official controls, and governmental services for the annexed area shall become the responsibility of the City, and that the provisions of Minn. Stat. 99414.035 and 414.036 authorizing differential taxation and municipal reimbursement for the annexed property will not be applied in this proceeding. 7. The City and the Township mutually state that the annexation of the property will not result in any change of electrical service and will not require joint planning since upon final approval of this joint resolution and issuance of the annexation order by the Director the property will immediately be fully subject to the official controls and other ordinances of the City of Farmington, including all land use controls. Further, that differential taxation under M.S. 9414.035, or reimbursement under M.S. 9414.036 is not required. 8. Having designated the area illustrated on Exhibit B and described in Exhibit A as in need of orderly annexation, and having provided for all of the conditions of its annexation within this document, the parties to this agreement agree that no consideration by the director is necessary. The director may review and comment but shall within thirty (30) days order the annexation in accordance with the terms of this Resolution. 2 Approved and Adopted this _ day of , 2005. TOWN OF EMPIRE BY: Its Town Board Chair AND Its Town Board Clerk Approved and Adopted this _ day of ,2005. CITY OF FARMINGTON BY: Kevin A. Soderberg Its Mayor AND David M. Urbia Its City Administrator 3 EXHIBIT A Legal description of property subject to immediate annexation: Commencing at the Southwest comer of Section 29, Township 114, Range 19, West of the Fifth Principal Meridian; thence North along and parallel with Section line 665 feet; thence East and parallel with Section line 1828.3 feet; thence South and parallel with Section line 554 feet to the Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul Right of Way; thence Westerly along said right of way to the intersection of the Section line along the South side of said Section 29; thence West and parallel with Section line to the place of beginning and containing 27.50 acres, more or less, all in the South Half (S 'l2) of the Southwest Quarter (SW 'i4) of Section 29, Township 114, Range 19 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, according to the Government Survey thereof, EXCEPTING THEREFROM the East 699.6 feet of the North 190 feet of the West 1828.3 feet thereof; and also excepting therefrom the East 310 feet of the West 1062.7 feet of the North 190 feet thereof; and also excepting the East 80.0 feet of the North 190.0 feet of the West 739.2 feet of the South 665.0 feet of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter (S Y:z of SW ~) of Section 29, Township 114, Range 19, according to the Government Survey thereof, also excepting the East 96.2 feet of the West 449.2 feet of the North 190 feet thereof; ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM the West 353 feet of the North 155 feet of the South 665 feet thereof; ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM the West 605 feet of the South 216 feet of the Southwest Quarter (SW~) all in Section 29, Township 114, Range 19, according to the Government Survey thereof, ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM the East 80.0 feet of the North 190.0 feet of the West 529.2 feet of the South 665.0 feet of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter (S 'l2 of SW 'i4 ), AND ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM the East 60.0 feet of the North 190.0 feet of the West 589.2 feet of the South 665.0 feet of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter (S 'l2 ofSW 'i4), Section 29, Township 114, Range 19, according to the Government. Survey thereof, ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM the East 699.6 feet of the West 1828.3 feet of the South 475 feet of that part of the S 'l2 of the SW 'i4lying Northerly of the right of way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad in Section 29, Township 114 North, Range 19 West, Dakota County, Minnesota, 4 ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM part of the Southwest Quarter (SW Y-t)of Section 29, Township 114 North, Range 19 West, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the West line of the said Southwest Quarter with the North line of the South 356 feet of said Southwest Quarter; thence North along the West line of the said Southwest Quarter 154 feet; thence East, parallel with the South line of the said Southwest Quarter 353 feet; thence South, parallel with the West line of the said Southwest Quarter 35 feet; thence East, parallel with the South line of the said Southwest Quarter 27 feet; thence South, parallel with the West line of the said Southwest Quarter 119 feet, more or less, to the North line of the South 356 feet of said Southwest Quarter; thence West, along said North line of the South 356 feet, a distance of380 feet to the point of beginning, ALSO EXCEPTING the West 380 feet of the North 140 feet of the South 356 feet of the Southwest Quarter (SW Y-t) of Section 29, Township 114, Range 19, ALL IN the County of Dakota, State of Minnesota. (PIN 12-02900-010-58) EXHIBIT B Map of property subject to immediate annexation showing existing corporate boundaries in the Northeast area of the City. 5 Z---O-- Q) Q) LL o LO N D ~ 0 a::: w m CJ a.. 0 wR a::: a.. z 0 (9 w ~u 0 0 -.J 0 EJ CJ 0 0 D ~D ~ Q) a. ~ ~ e III Q. "0 Q) a. c: a. :c ::J 0 S a: <II c: Z. Z. ~ U u t=. ! IDD i i i TOWN OF EMPIRE CITY OF FARMINGTON IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF EMPIRE AND THE CITY OF FARMINGTON, DESIGNATING AN UNINCORPORATED AREA AS IN NEED OF ORDERLY ANNEXATION AND CONFERRING JURISDICTION OVER SAID AREA TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT OFFICE, PURSUANT TO M.S. ~414.0325 JOINT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Steven H. Frandrup and Susan L. Frandrup (the "Frandrups") are the sole owners of unplatted property currently located in Empire Township legally described as stated in Attachment A; and WHEREAS, the property abuts land within the City limits, is located east of Trunk Highway 3 and south of209th Street in the northeasterly area of the City, is approximately 2.95 acres in size, and has no households, population or improved residential structures; and WHEREAS, the Frandrups have petitioned the City for annexation of their property for the purpose of developing the property for additional residential uses and receiving city services; and WHEREAS, the City of Farmington can provide the requested urban services to the property. NOW, THEREFORE, the Township of Empire and the City of Farmington jointly agree to the following: 1. The Township and City hereby establish an Orderly Annexation Area ("OM") as authorized by Minnesota Statute ~414.0325, Subdivision 1, for the property described above and as shown on the attached Exhibit B and legally described on Exhibit A. 2. That the purpose of the annexation of the property involved in this annexation is to transfer jurisdiction over the property in order to provide urban 118266 services including but not limited to sewer, water, refuse collection, police and fire protection from the City of Farmington. 3. That in order to accomplish this purpose, the property owned by the Frandrups described herein should be immediately annexed to and made part of the City of Farmington. 4. Upon approval by the respective governing bodies of the City and the Township, this joint resolution and agreement shall confer jurisdiction upon the Director of the Office of Strategic and Long-range Planning (or his or her successor designee responsible for administering Minnesota Statutes Chapter 414) so as to immediately annex the lands described in the attached Exhibit A in accordance with the terms ofthis joint resolution and agreement without need for any subsequent resolution(s) of the parties. 5. The City and the Township mutually state that no alteration by the director to the OAA boundaries, as illustrated on Exhibit B and described in Exhibit A, is appropriate or permitted. 6. The City and Township agree that upon annexation all planning, official controls, and governmental services for the annexed area shall become the responsibility of the City, and that the provisions of Minn. Stat. ~~414.035 and 414.036 authorizing differential taxation and municipal reimbursement for the annexed property will not be applied in this proceeding. 7. The City and the Township mutually state that the annexation of the property will not result in any change of electrical service and will not require joint planning since upon final approval of this joint resolution and issuance of the annexation order by the Director the property will immediately be fully subject to the official controls and other ordinances of the City of Farmington, including all land use controls. Further, that differential taxation under M.S. ~414.035, or reimbursement under M.S. ~414.036 is not required. 8. Having designated the area illustrated on Exhibit B and described in Exhibit A as in need of orderly annexation, and having provided for all of the conditions of its annexation within this document, the parties to this agreement agree that no consideration by the director is necessary. The director may review and comment but shall within thirty (30) days order the annexation in accordance with the terms of this Resolution. 2 Approved and Adopted this _ day of , 2005. TOWN OF EMPIRE BY: Its Town Board Chair AND Its Town Board Clerk Approved and Adopted this _ day of , 2005. CITY OF FARMINGTON BY: Kevin A. Soderberg Its Mayor AND David M. Urbia Its City Administrator 3 EXHIBIT A Legal description of property subject to immediate annexation: That part of the South Half ofthe Southwest Quarter of Section 29, Township 114, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing, for the purposes of reaching the point of beginning, at the intersection of the south line of said South Half of the Southwest Quarter and the east line of the west 605 feet of said South Half of the Southwest Quarter, said point hereinafter referred to as point A; thence north along said east line 216 feet to the north line of the south 216 feet of said South Half of the Southwest Quarter; thence west along said north line 225 feet to the east line of the west 380 feet of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter; thence north along said east line 259.01 feet to the south line of the north 190 feet of the south 665 feet of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter; thence east along said south line 502.65 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence south to the intersection with the south line of said South Half of the Southwest Quarter at a point 278.04 feet east of point A; thence east along said south line to the west line of the east 699.6 feet of the west 1,828.3 feet of said South Half of the Southwest Quarter; thence north along said west line to the intersection with Line A, described below; thence west, along Line A to the east line of the west 1,062.7 feet of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter; thence south along said east line to its intersection with the south line of the north 190 feet of the south 665 feet of said South Half of the Southwest Quarter; thence west along said south line to the point of beginning. Line A: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Section 29, Township 114, Range 19; thence north along and parallel with the Section line 665 feet; thence east and parallel with the Section line 1,828.3 feet and there terminating. (PIN 12-02900-020-58) EXHIBIT B Map of property subject to immediate annexation showing existing corporate "boundaries in the Northeast area of the City. 4 Z---O-- ..... Q) Q) LL o LO N D 0 m c=J . wR J - :I: >< UU w 8 ~ CD a. ~ ~ e III CD ~ -g a. :2 :::s e f/) ~ ll.. c & & ~ I DO City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.c:i.farmington.mn.us ~ To: City Council JoelJamnik From: Subject: Administrator Evaluation Summary Report Date: May 16, 2005 Pursuant to the state's open meeting law (in particular, Minnesota Statutes 13D.05, Subd. 3) the , City Council conducted a closed meeting for approximately one and one-half hours as part of its April 4th Regular Council Meeting to evaluate the performance of City Administrator Dave Urbia. The review was continued to the City Council's next meeting to provide for additional discussion and the consideration of possible changes to the Administrator's employment contract. The law requires that at its next open meeting, the public body shall summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation. The following is submitted for council review and approval as a summary of the evaluation conducted on April 4th and April 18th. The review of Mr. Urbia was conducted pursuant to the terms of his employment agreement with the City. Under that agreement, a review is to be conducted after six months of employment and annually thereafter. The Council conducts the review using a performance evaluation survey that each Councilmember fills out anonymously. An additional form was prepared for this year's evaluation. At the meeting the Council expressed a desire to revise the form and/or process for future reviews and asked Mr. Urbia to explore and present options for change at a future time. As part of its review, areas of commendation and improvement are to be identified and the Administrator and Council respectively discuss their expectations and requirements. The Council evaluations indicated that Mr. Urbia was fully meeting expectations of the Council in the areas of Fiscal/Business Management and Long-Range Planning, and was exceeding expectations with regard to Interagency Relations. Commendations were noted for responsiveness to citizens, involvement with the community, and relations with other units of government such as the school and county governments. Council evaluations in the areas of Organizational Management, Program Development, Relationship with Council, Relationship with Public/Public Relations were slightly below the "meeting expectations" rating, while the ProfessionallPersonal Development rating was rated by four of five members as below expectations. Discussion of these areas focused on past improvements regarding administrator/council communications, and continuing accomplishments with community involvement and interagency or intergovernmental relations. The discussion regarding ProfessionallPersonal Development and Organizational Management focused on various efforts or initiatives to improve the relationships and teamwork with and among the management team were discussed, and Mr. Urbia was asked by Council to finalize and report to the Council as soon as scheduling allows on the program undertaken over the past year with the assistance of personnel consultant Mr. Harry Brull, including obtaining input/reactions on the efforts by Management Team members. Additionally, Mr. Urbia was asked to complete a self-evaluation similar to the evaluations prepared by councilmembers, and to prepare a goals and work program for Council review. These items were to be reviewed by the Council and Administrator in another Administrator evaluation executive session at the April 18th Council meeting. The session concluded with statements of support and encouragement from the Council for Mr. Urbia. At the April 18th Council meeting, the Council continued its evaluation of the Administrator. The Council reviewed the Administrator's self-evaluation and proposed modifications to the Administrator contract. The Council considered modifications to the terms and conditions of his employment and directed the City Attorney to prepare revisions to the employment contract for consideration and adoption at a future council meeting. The Council discussed recent developments relating to the City Administrator's working relationships with Department Heads and the continued need to improve those relationships. The Council also discussed changes to the Administrator review process. '6~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.c:i.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator FROM: Robin Roland, Finance Director SUBJECT: Approve Issuance of Capital Improvement Bonds (Fire Station) DATE: May 16, 2005 INTRODUCTION In order to satisfy statutory requirements for issuance of Capital Improvement Bonds, funding , construction of the second Fire Station, a public hearing must be held to discuss the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and approve the sale of the bonds. Council set the public hearing for May 16, 2005 at their April 18th meeting. DISCUSSION In the 2003 legislative session a change was made to allow bonding authority by Cities to plan for and finance the "acquisition and betterment of public lands, buildings, and other improvements for the purpose of a city hall, public safety facility, and public works facility." This authority mirrors the authority the Counties have had in the past. The law requires that a Capital Improvement Plan be prepared which must cover at least the five- year period beginning with the date ofthe Plan's adoption. The Plan must set forth: (1) the estimated schedule, timing and details of specific capital improvements; (2) estimated cost of the capital improvements identified; (3) the need for the improvements; and (4) the sources of revenues needed to pay for the improvements. Although the Capital Improvement statute authorizes the City to issue general obligation bonds to fund any of the improvements identified in the Plan (subject to reverse referendum), it is important to note that it is not a requirement of the Plan that every item be funded by Capital Improvement Bonds or eventually be funded at all. The planning of the improvements is most important to the spirit of this authorization. The City published notice of intent to issue the Bonds and the date and time of a hearing for public comment. The issuance of the Bonds is subject to reverse referendum; i.e., if a petition requesting a vote on the issuance is signed by voters equal to 5% of the votes cast in the City in the last general election and filed with the County Auditor within 30 days after the public hearing, a vote must be held. If no petition is filed, the City may proceed with the issuance of bonds. The bond sale is proposed for June 20, 2005. Although the City adopted the 2005 - 2009 Capital Improvement Plan on December 20, 2004, the plan (CIP) is presented in a different format and is attached to this memo for discussion at the public hearing. BUDGET IMPACT Payment of principal and interest on the bonds will be through an annual tax levy beginning in 2006. A preliminary debt schedule is included in the packet. ACTION REQUIRED Adopt the attached resolution giving preliminary approval for the issuance of the City's General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds in an amount not to exceed $2,280,000 and adopting the City's Capital Improvement Plan of 2005 - 2009. (Bonds must be approved by at least three fifths of the members.) ;:~~ Robin Roland Finance Director RESOLUTION NO. -05 RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE CITY'S GENERAL OBLIGATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BONDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,280,000 AND ADOPTING THE CITY OF FARMINGTON MINNESOTA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN OF 2005 THROUGH 2009 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 16th day of May, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member _ introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota (the "City") proposes to issue its general obligation capital improvement plan bonds (the "Bonds") and adopt the City of Farmington, Minnesota Capital Improvement Plan of 2005 through 2009 (the "Plan"); and WHEREAS, the City has caused notice of the public hearing on the intention to issue the Bonds and on the proposed adoption of the Plan to be published pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.521; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the intention to issue the Bonds and on the proposed Plan has been held on this date, following published notice of the hearing as required by law; and WHEREAS, in approving the Plan, the City Council considered for each project and for the overall Plan: 1. The condition of the City's existing infrastructure, including the projected need for repair and replacement; 2. The likely demand for the improvement; 3. The estimated cost of the improvement; 4. The available public resources; 5. the level of overlapping debt in the City; 6. The relative benefits and costs of alternative uses of the funds; 7. Operating costs of the proposed improvements; and 8. Alternatives for providing services more efficiently through shared facilities with other local government units, and NOW, THEREFOR, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, that the City hereby gives preliminary approval for the issuance of up to $2,280,000 aggregate principal amount of the Bonds. The Plan is hereby adopted, the same being before the City Council and made a part of these proceedings by reference. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 16th of May, 2005. Mayor City Administrator 2005 through 2009 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan for the City of Farmington, Minnesota May 16, 2005 Prepared by: Ehlers & Associates, Inc. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, MN 55113 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION.................................. ............. ...... ............ ..... 3 II. PURPOSE............................................................................................ 4 III. THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING PROCESS.............. 5 IV. PROJECT SUMMARy....................................................................... 6 V. FINANCING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ................... 9 PROJECT COSTS........................................................... APPENDIX A PROPOSED CIP BOND ISSUES .................................. APPENDIX B PRE-SALE SCHEDULE ................................................ APPENDIX C RESOLUTIONS/NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ..... APPENDIX D Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Page 2 City of Farmington Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan 2005 through 2009 I. INTRODUCTION In 2003, the Minnesota State Legislature adopted a statute that generally exempts city bonds issued under a capital improvement program from the referendum requirements usually required for city halls, public works, and public safety facilities. Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Page 3 II. PURPOSE A capital improvement is a major expenditure of city funds for the acquisition or betterment to public lands, buildings, or other improvements used as a city hall, public safety, or public works facility, which has a useful life of 5 years or more. For the purposes of Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.521, capital improvements do not include light rail transit or related activities, parks, libraries, road/bridges, administrative buildings other than city hall or land for those facilities. However, this plan includes certain additional capital improvements beyond the scope of that statute. A Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a document designed to anticipate Capital Improvement expenditures and schedule them over a five-year period so that they may be purchased in the most efficient and cost effective method possible. A CIP allows the matching of expenditures with anticipated income. As potential expenditures are reviewed, the city considers the benefits, costs, alternatives and impact on operating expenditures. The City of Farmington, Minnesota (the "City") believes the capital improvement process is an important element of responsible fiscal management. Major capital expenditures can be anticipated and coordinated so as to minimize potentially adverse financial impacts caused by the timing and magnitude of capital outlays. This coordination of capital expenditures is important to the City in achieving its goals of adequate physical assets and sound fiscal management. In these financially difficult times good planning is essential for the wise use of limited financial resources. The Capital Improvement Plan is designed to be updated on an annual basis. In this manner, it becomes an ongoing fiscal planning tool that continually anticipated future capital expenditures and funding sources. Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Page 4 III. THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING PROCESS The capital improvement planning process is as follows; the City Council authorizes the preparation of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The City staff is instructed to assemble the capital expenditures to be undertaken within the next five years. The City Council then reviews the expenditures according to their priority, fiscal impact, and available funding. From this information, a preliminary capital improvement plan is prepared. A public hearing is held to solicit input from citizens and other governmental units. Changes are made based on that input, and a final project list is established. The City Council then prepares a plan based on the available funding sources. If general obligation bonding is necessary, the City works with its financial advisor to prepare a bond sale and repayment schedule. Over the life of the CIP, once the funding, including proceeds from the bond sales becomes available, the individual capital expenditures can be made. In subsequent years, the process is repeated as expenditures are completed as new needs arise. Capital improvement planning looks five years into the future. For a city to use its authority to finance expenditures under Section 475.521, it must meet the requirements provided therein. Specifically, the city council must approve the sale of capital improvement bonds by a 3/5ths majority of its membership. In addition, it must hold a public hearing for public input. Notice of such hearing must be published in the official newspaper of the city at least 14, but not more than 28 days prior to the date of the public hearing. The city council approves the CIP following the public hearing. Although a referendum is not required, a reverse referendum is allowable. If a petition bearing the signatures of at least 5 percent of the votes cast in the last general election requesting a vote on the issuance of bonds is received by the municipal clerk within 30 days after the public hearing, a referendum vote on the issuance of the bonds shall be called (if a vote is taken and the referendum passes, the taxes would be levied on market value rather than tax capacity). Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Page 5 IV. PROJECT SUMMARY The expenditures to be undertaken with this Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) are limited to those listed below. All other foreseeable capital expenditures within the City government will come through other means. The following expenditures have been submitted for inclusion in this CIP: 2005 Expenditures . Fire Station #2 . Road Reconstruction & Signals . Pavement management projects . Storm water dredging projects . Sewer meter replacement $2,176,540 9,801,191 460,000 100,000 110,000 2006 Expenditures . Road Reconstruction . Pavement Management projects . Well & pump house 10,922,983 463,000 700,000 2007 Expenditures . New City Hall . Road Reconstruction & Signals . Pavement Management projects . Storm water projects 7,630,000 9,005,923 466,000 1,500,000 2008 Expenditures . Road Reconstruction . Pavement Management projects . Well & pump house . Expansion of Central Maintenance Bldg. 6,970,000 469,000 700,000 3,800,000 2009 Expenditures . Road Reconstruction . Pavement Management projects . Water reservoir 3,150,900 472,000 2,000,000 Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Page 6 The statute has established certain criteria that must be met. Under these criteria, the City has considered the following eight points: 1. Condition of the City's infrastructure and need for the project 2. Demand for the improvement 3. Cost of the improvement 4. Availability of public resources 5. Level of overlapping debt 6. Costlbenefits of alternative uses of funds 7. Operating costs of the proposed improvements 8. Options for shared facilities with other cities or local governments The CIP is composed ofprojects that will construct water, sewer and storm water facilities in the City, provide safer roads, and allow the City's public safety, public works and municipal offices more space. The City has analyzed the eight points required per statute for each project on an individual basis and as a whole. Their findings are as follows: PUBLIC SAFETY PROJECTS Conditions of City Infrastructure and Need for the Projects Due to City growth and resulting increase in demand for services, additional space is needed for a second fire station. The additional space is needed to accommodate fire fighting staff, equipment and materials in the northern half of the City. Demand for Projects Due to increased public demand for services, an additional building is required to serve the fire department's needs. Estimated Cost of the Projects See Project Summary for details of all project costs. Availability of Public Resources Fire Station #2 is being funded by bond proceeds. Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Page 7 Level of Overlapping Debt 3.5083 62.0132 .4886 Total G.O. Debt 83,795,000 199,574,784 163,620,000 City's share Taxing district 2004/2005 net tax capacity 336,958,645 19,062,735 2,419,523,278 % in City Dakota County ISD 192 Met Council 2,939,751 123,762,637 799.421 127.501.809 Relative Costs and Benefits of Alternative Uses of the Funds Demand for a second fire station is significant in order to reduce response times for fire and rescue calls. The growth of residential population in the northern and central corridor of the City has fueled this demand. Appropriate facilities in that area do not currently exist. Operating Costs of the Proposed Improvements Public safety operational expenditures will increase as demand for services continues to increase in the community. As the second Fire Station is an additional building, Fire Department costs for operations and building maintenance are expected to increase by 100% from 2005 to 2006. Options for Shared Facilities with Other Cities or Local Government In addition to Farmington Fire Department staff and equipment, Fire Station #2 will house ALF ambulance staff and equipment. PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS Conditions of City Infrastructure and Need for the Projects Sewer/Storm W ater/W ater Improvements Increased demand due to residential/commercial growth will require additional infrastructure be constructed to serve the citizens of Farmington. These improvements will include new sewer meters, storm water facilities and wells and reservoirs to meet increased capacity needs for collection, storage and distribution to serve the growing population. Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Page 8 Road Reconstruction The City's Engineering department completed a pavement management study in 2003 which outlined major road reconstruction and infrastructure replacements which are required. Demand for Projects Sewer/Storm W ater/W ater Improvements Rapid population growth combined with increased commercial demand requires expansion of the City's capacity for sewerage, storm water treatment and retention and water production, storage and distribution. The City's comprehensive Sewer, Storm Water and Water plans outline the necessary growth in this infrastructure. Road Reconstruction Major road reconstruction projects are identified in each of the five years of the CIP. The demand for each of these projects is the degradation of the pavement and the inability for normal operational procedures to maintain the roads for drivability and safety. Estimated Cost of the Projects See Project Summary for details of all project costs. Availability of Public Resources Enterprise funds, capital project funds and improvement bonds will fund all public works projects. Level of Overlapping Debt 3.5083 62.0132 .4886 Total G.O. Debt 83,795,000 199,574,784 163,620,000 City's share Taxing district 2004/2005 net tax capacity 336,958,645 19,062,735 2,419,523,278 % in City Dakota County ISD 192 Met Council 2,939,751 123,762,637 799.421 127.501.809 Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Page 9 Relative Costs and Benefits of Alternative Uses of the Funds Sewer/Storm W ater/W ater Improvements The increased capacity and environmental benefits resulting from the infrastructure improvements far outweigh the costs of the projects. Additionally, increased efficiencies will offset increased costs. Road Reconstruction The benefits of improvement in drivability and structural integrity of the roadways far outweigh project costs. Operating Costs of the Proposed Improvements Sewer/Storm W ater/W ater Improvements Operation and maintenance costs of the increased capacity of these facilities will be borne by the users of the utilities. Road Reconstruction Operational and maintenance costs on the reconstructed roadways will decrease significantly over the next five years. Options for Shared Facilities with Other Cities or Local Government Public works projects will benefit residents of the City. v. FINANCING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN The total amount of requested expenditures under the Capital Improvement Plan is $60,897,537. If these expenditures are to be funded, that amount of money is anticipated to be generated through the tax levy and the sale of $47,279,440 in bonds over the five-year period. In the financing of the Capital Improvement Plan, two statutory limitations apply. Under Chapter 475, with few exceptions, cities cannot incur debt in excess of 2% of the assessor's taxable market value for the city. In the City the TMV is $1,291,198,400. Therefore, the total amount of outstanding debt cannot exceed $25,823,968. As of 12/31/04 the City had $7,208,058 subject to the legal debt limit. Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Page 10 Another limitation on bonding under the Capital Improvement Plan Statute (475.521) is that without referendum, the total amount that can be used for principal and interest in anyone year for CIP debt cannot exceed 0.05367% of the TMV for the city. In the County of Dakota, Minnesota (the "County"), that amount is $692,286 ($1,291,198,400 x .0005367). The principal and interest payments are estimated to start at $179,113 in calendar year 2007 and total 3,579,230 by 2026. Under the Capital Improvement Plan, the City will secure $2,280,000 in general obligation bonds in the year 2005 to finance Fire Station #2. The general obligation bond issue will be repaid over a twenty-year period. The par amount of each issue is based on the amounts listed in Appendix A plus estimated issuance costs. The proposed general obligation capital improvement bonds (including issuance costs) are shown in Appendix B. Continuation of the Capital Improvement Plan This Capital Improvement Plan should be reviewed annually by the City Council using the process outlined in this Plan. It should review proposed expenditures, make priority decisions, and seek funding for those expenditures it deems necessary for the City. If deemed appropriate, the Council should prepare an update to this Plan. The future road work described in this Plan might constitute "reconstruction" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.58, Subdivision 3a, which would allow the issuance of bonds without an election even if there are not planned special assessments for that work. However, this Capital Improvement Plan would not meet the requirements for a five-year "street reconstruction plan." If the City later plans to issue reconstruction bonds, the City would need to prepare a separate reconstruction plan, or an amendment to this Plan that specifically describes the streets to be reconstructed. Ehlers & Associates, Inc.e Page 11 APPENDIX A PROJECT COSTS (Capital Expenditures to be funded with Bond Proceeds) The 2005 capital expenditure of $2,176,540 for the new Fire Station #2 Building is to be funded with bond proceeds. This building will be constructed to include office space for fire administration, training space for firefighters and rescue personnel and six drive-through bays for fire trucks and fire fighting equipment storage. These expenditures are necessitated by an increased demand for services due to population growth and increased awareness of need by the public. Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Page 12 APPENDIX B PROPOSED CIP BOND ISSUES Farmington, MN $2,280,000 G.O. G.O. Capital Improvement Plan Bonds, Series 2005C August 1,2005 Fire Hall Project - 20 Year Term Net Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Net New D/S 02/01/2006 52,056.25 52,056.25 (52,056.25) 02/01/2007 75,000.00 3.450% 104,112,50 179,112,50 179,112.50 02/01/2008 80,000.00 3.600% 101,525.00 181,525.00 181,525.00 02/01/2009 80,000.00 3.750% 98,645.00 178,645.00 178,645.00 02/01/2010 85,000.00 3.850% 95,645.00 180,645.00 180,645.00 02/01/2011 85,000.00 4.000% 92,372.50 177,372,50 177,372.50 02/01/2012 90,000.00 4,150% 88,972.50 178,972.50 178,972.50 02/01/2013 95,000.00 4.300% 85,237.50 180,237.50 180,237.50 02/01/2014 100,000.00 4.400% 81,152.50 181,152.50 181,152.50 02/01/2015 100,000.00 4.500% 76,752.50 176,752.50 176,752.50 02/01/2016 105,000.00 4.550% 72,252,50 177,252,50 177,252.50 02/01/2017 110,000.00 4.650% 67,475.00 177,475.00 177,475.00 02/01/2018 115,000.00 4.700% 62,360.00 177,360.00 177,360.00 02/01/2019 120,000.00 4.750% 56,955.00 176,955.00 176,955.00 02/01/2020 130,000.00 4.800% 51,255.00 181,255,00 181,255.00 02/01/2021 135,000.00 4.850% 45,015,00 180,015,00 180,015.00 02/01/2022 140,000.00 4,900% 38,467.50 178,467.50 178,467.50 02/01/2023 150,000.00 4.900% 31 ,607.50 181,607.50 181,607.50 02/01/2024 155,000.00 4.950% 24,257.50 179,257.50 179,257.50 02/01/2025 160,000.00 5.000% 16,585.00 176,585,00 176,585.00 02/01/2026 170,000.00 5,050% 8,585.00 178,585.00 178,585.00 Total $2,280,000.00 $1,351,286.25 $3,631,286.25 (52,056.25) $3,579,230.00 Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Page 12 APPENDIX C Pre-Sale Schedule dated May 16, 2005 5- Year City Capital Improvement Plan Bond Issuance City of Farmington, Minnesota The City Council must take the following actions before Bonds can be issued: . City Council directs preparation of a 5- Y ear Capital Improvement Plan. . City Council conducts a Public Hearing on issuance of Bonds and Capital Improvement Plan. . City Council approves Bonds and Capital Improvement Plan by at least a 3/5ths vote of the council membership. The table below lists the steps in the issuing process: 04/18/05 City Council adopts Resolution calling for Public Hearing on issuance of Bonds and on Capital Improvement Plan. 04/24/05 Close date to get Notice of Public Hearing on issuance of Bonds and on Capital Improvement Plan to official newspaper for publication. 04/28/05 Publish Notice of Public Hearing on issuance of Bonds and on Capital Improvement Plan (publication no more than 28 days and no less than 14 days prior to hearing date). 05/16/05 @ 7:00 City Council holds Public Hearing on Bonds and on Capital Improvement Plan and adopts Resolution giving preliminary approval for their issuance and approving Capital Improvement Plan by at least a 3/5ths vote of the council membership. 05/16/05 City Council provides for sale of Bonds. 06/15/05 Reverse referendum period ends (within 30 days of the public hearing). 06/20/05 City Council accepts offer for Bonds and adopts Resolution-Approving sale of Bonds. Week of7/l1/05 Tentative closing/receipt of funds. Net Debt Limit Annual Levy Limit per City Value Assessor's Taxable Market Value 1,289,894,600 Assessor's Taxable Market Value 1,289,894,600 Multiply by 2% 0.02 Multiply by .05367% 0.0005367 Statutory Debt Limit 25,797,892 Statutory Levy Limit 692,286 Less: Debt Paid Solely from Taxes (6,010,921 ) Less: Debt Issued under CIP (179,113) Unused Debt Limit 19,786,971 Unused Levy Limit 513,173 Annual Levy Limit per County Value Assessor's Taxable Market Value 0 Multiply by .05367% 0.0005367 Statutory Levy Limit 0 Less: City Debt Issued under CIP 0 Unused Levy Limit 0 Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Page 14 Et.t\113 II D RESOLUTION NO. R39-05 CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS FOR THE FIRE STATION PROJECT Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City of the 18th day of April, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson None Member Fogarty introduced and Member Wilson seconded the following resolution. WHEREAS, the City Council approved the 2005-2009 Capital Improvement Plan on December 20, 2004 which outlined capital improvements planned for the City during that time and, WHEREAS, the Fire Station project was identified for construction during 2005 as part of that CIP and, WHEREAS, State Statute 475.521 allows bonding for projects identified in a Capital Improvement Plan without an election, if certain procedures are followed and, WHEREAS, the City of Farmington proposes to bond for such a project (Fire Station). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. A hearing shall be held in the Council Chambers in City Hall on the 16th day of May, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. on the Capital Improvement Plan and Bonds to be issued for the Fire Station project. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed hearing to be published once in the official newspaper no less than 14 days and no more than 28 days before the hearing date. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City ouncil in open session on the 18th day of April, 2005. Attested to this /QT!vday of April, 2005. Mayor X ~ '4/! City Adri11nistrator SEAL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF FARMINGTON PURPOSE: To consider issuance of Capital Improvement Bonds for the Fire Station Project. WHEN: Monday, May 16,2005 at 7:00 p.m.; or as soon thereafter as the parties may be heard. All persons desiring to be heard, in person or in writing, will be heard at this time. WHERE: City Council Meeting, City Hall Council Chambers, 325 Oak Street, Farmington, Minnesota. QUESTIONS: Call David Urbia, City Administrator (651) 463-1801. DATED: This 25th day of April, 2005. /S/: David Urbia City Administrator Publish April 28, 2005 City of Farmington, Minnesota Pre-Sale Report May 16, 2005 Proposed Issue: $2,280,000 G.O. Capital Improvement Plan Bonds, Series 2005C Purpose: The bonds will finance the City's Fire Hall according to the 2005 Capital Improvement Plan. Term/Call Feature: 20 year bonds, callable in 2017 for maturities 2018 and after. (11 years) Funding Sources: Property tax levy. Discussion Issues: Bonds have a 30 day reverse referendum waiting period after the public hearing before the bonds can be sold. Schedule: Pre-Sale Review: May 16,2005 Estimated Closing Date: Week ofJune 6, 2005 Week of June 13,2005 June 20, 2005 Week ofJuly 11,2004 Distribute Official Statement: Rating Agency Interview Bond Sale: Attachments: Proposed Debt Service and Levy Schedule Resolution authorizing Ehlers to proceed with bond sale Ehlers Contacts: Financial Advisors: Bond Sale Coordinator: Sid Inman (651)697-8507 Shelly Eldridge (651)697-8504 Diana Lockard (651) 697-8534 Debbie Holmes (651) 697-8536 Connie Kuck (651) 697-8527 Bond Analysts: The Official Statement for this financing will be mailed to the Council Members at their home address for review prior to the sale date. e EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INe ~ G) ~..J o o o c:i CO C\!. "I o o o c:i CO "I_ N _tfe. olIg 0-"; + OOCOOvo COOlOvvO C')001000 "':c-.ic-.i<oc-.ic:i "1"110..... CO ~ "I c-.i c-.i o II) o o N III .!!! lii Ul rA "Cl c o a:l .. c G) S ~ Cl. .5 ~ 's.. III o o ci "Cl G) III o Cl. e 0- -s:5 ZO- .. III Cl.G) III .. oS .E (/) w t.) ex: ::l o (/) ..J g f- "Cl c: ::l '* LL.-o g ~s C'! t.)LJ.. ~ i.~ c ~ '0 5 .l!! 2 ~ .E;Cij 15 -g g Nt.) .e~~o"E ,Sc::!:Q)::J 't: as Q. '0' 0 (f) ~:>~c:Ew Q)~ <t.(/) -g;;::.s.e~::) =>O=5j:;j:s...J 1ii~&.&.5~ ~8~~&~ III "0 C o CO - o "E :> o E <t. m c.. c G) G) S" Z >>Ill :E IllC 0- C .. .. .s u u .. G) G) III en "e = G) c 8> .~ 0- iii III :l: ~:a u.. l!! .... G) G) 0 ii: ..J> ~ II) 0 (3 0 N ~~~~~~moo~~~~~~~~Ovv ~O~~vNv~~~vNo~~m~N~~ 'OCOIOCONmNNIO~C')NCOC')OC')CONvlO ~c:i"':m<6"':mc:i~<6<6<6~c:im"':c:i~~"': comcococococomcococococomcocomcococo ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~moo~m~M~~~~OvV ~O~~vNV~m~vNo~~m~N~~ 'o~~mNmNN~~MN~MOM~Nv~ ~c:i"':m<6"':mc:i~<6<6<6~c:im"':c:i~~"': comcococococomcococococomcocomcococo ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C')IOIO 10 C')C') COC')C') C')IOO 10 10 10 CO CO CO 1010 ~Nvv""''''''C')IOIOIO'''''COIOIO~COOIOCOCO ~lOcocoC')mN~""'NVC')mNOVCONIOIO m~~ci~~o~~~~~~~o~~m~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ co 10 o c-.i e .. III l!! S .E COC') 10 10 IOC') C')CO C')C')C') 100 1010 lOCO CO CO 10 10 IO~Nvv""''''''C')IOIOIO'''''COIOIO~COOIOCOCO O~lOcocoC')mN~""'NVC')mNOVCONIOIO N.~~~N~~~~N~N~~~~~~~~ 1000mmmCOCOCO..........COCOlOlOvC')C')N~ ~~ S ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~ 100101001000010100100100010010 vCO.....COO~C')vlOlOco..........cocommmoo MMMM~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ iii Cl. U c 'i: 0- 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 ~c:ic:i~~c:i~c:ic:i~c:i~c:ic:i~c:ic:i~c:ic:i .....cocococommOOO~~NC')C')vIOIOCO..... '1""""""""""""""'''''' "C""'" '1"""""""-""'''''''''''' IOco.....comO~NC')VlOco.....comO~NC')vIOCO ooooO.......................................................NNNNNNN 0000000000000000000000 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---------------------- CONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN co.....comO~NC')VlOco.....comO~NC')vlO oooo...................................................NNNNNN 00000000000000000000 "1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1 IOco.....comO~NC')VlOco.....comO~NC')V gggggoooooooooo~~~~~ "1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1 10 o o ~ ~ ~ LO "I m ~ ~ 10 ..... ri "I m ~ as 10 ..... ri o C') "I m ..... 10 ri co 10 o c-.i 10 co co N_ ~ 10 ~ o o o c:i CO "I c-.i o .E <Ii Q) iii 'u o III III <t. ell ~ Q) :E w >> .0 "0 l!! <II 0- l!! c.. Farmington, MN $2,280,000 G.O. G.O. Capital Improvement Plan Bonds, Series 2005C August 1, 2005 Fire Hall Project - 20 Year Term Sources & Uses Dated 08/01/2005 I Delivered 08/01/2005 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds...,.........,...................,.............................................,......................,.... ,.,...,.......................................... Total Sources...................................................................................................................................................................... Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (1.200%)......................,...,.....,...............,...................."......................................................... Costs of Issuance.................."............................................,....................,.,............................,......... ,................... ..............., Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CI F) Fund........,.................................................................................................................., Deposit to Project Construction Fund........,...............,................,....,.........................................................,..................... ..... Rounding Amount........................."..........................."....."..,................................".............................,....,........... ......... ...... Total Uses............................................................................................................................................................................ Ser05GOCIP$2,2MFire I SINGLE PURPOSE 15/11/2005 I 4:52PM $2,280,000.00 $2,280,000.00 27,360.00 22,000.00 52,056.25 2,176,540.00 2,043.75 $2,280,000.00 Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Leaders in Public Finance Page 1 Farmington, MN $2,280,000 G.O. G.O. Capital Improvement Plan Bonds, Series 2005C August 1, 2005 Fire HaJJ Project - 20 Year Term Debt Service Schedule Part 1 012 Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 08/01/2005 02/01/2006 52,056.25 52,056.25 52,056.25 08/01/2006 52,056.25 52,056.25 02/01/2007 75,000.00 3.450% 52,056.25 127,056.25 179,112.50 08/01/2007 50,762.50 50,762.50 02/01/2008 80,000.00 3.600% 50,762.50 130,762.50 181,525.00 08/01/2008 49,322.50 49,322.50 02/01/2009 80,000.00 3.750% 49,322.50 129,322.50 178,645.00 08/01/2009 47,822.50 47,822.50 02/01/2010 85,000.00 3.850% 47,822.50 132,822.50 180,645.00 08/01/2010 46,186.25 46,186.25 02/01/2011 85,000.00 4.000% 46,186.25 131,186.25 177 ,372.50 08/01/2011 44,486.25 44,486.25 02/01/2012 90,000.00 4.150% 44,486.25 134,486.25 178,972.50 08/01/2012 42,618.75 42,618.75 02/01/2013 95,000.00 4.300% 42,618.75 137,618.75 180,237.50 08/01/2013 40,576.25 40,576.25 02/01/2014 100,000.00 4.400% 40,576.25 140,576.25 181,152.50 08/01/2014 38,376.25 38,376.25 02/01/2015 100,000.00 4.500% 38,376.25 138,376.25 176,752.50 08/01/2015 36,126.25 36,126.25 02/01/2016 105,000.00 4.550% 36,126.25 141,126.25 177,252.50 08/01/2016 33,737.50 33,737.50 02/01/2017 110,000.00 4.650% 33,737.50 143,737.50 177,475.00 08/01/2017 31,180.00 31,180.00 02/01/2018 115,000.00 4.700% 31,180.00 146,180.00 177 ,360.00 08/01/2018 28,477.50 28,477.50 02/01/2019 120,000.00 4.750% 28,477.50 148,477.50 176,955.00 08/01/2019 25,627.50 25,627.50 02/01/2020 130,000.00 4.800% 25,627.50 155,627.50 181,255.00 08/01/2020 22,507.50 22,507.50 02/01/2021 135,000.00 4.850% 22,507.50 157,507.50 180,015.00 08/01/2021 19,233.75 19,233.75 02/01/2022 140,000.00 4.900% 19,233.75 159,233.75 178,467.50 08/01/2022 15,803.75 15,803.75 02/01/2023 150,000.00 4.900% 15,803.75 165,803.75 181,607.50 08/01/2023 12,128.75 12,128.75 02/01/2024 155,000.00 4.950% 12,128.75 167,128.75 179,257.50 08/01/2024 8,292.50 8,292.50 02/01/2025 160,000.00 5.000% 8,292.50 168,292.50 176,585.00 08/01/2025 4,292.50 4,292.50 02/0112026 170,000.00 5.050% 4,292.50 174,292.50 178,585.00 Total $2,280,000.00 $1,351,286.25 $3,631,286.25 Ser05GOCIP$2.2MFire I SINGLE PURPOSE 15/11/2005 I 4:52PM Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Leaders in Public Finance Page 2 Farmington, MN $2,280,000 G.O. G.O. Capital Improvement Plan Bonds, Series 2005C August 1, 2005 Fire Hall Project - 20 Year Term Debt Service Schedule Part 2 of 2 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars.,.........................,..........",..."..............................,.,............................,...,..."....... ..............,....................... Average Life...,....... ..........................,...."....................................."..,................................,......................... ........................... Average Coupon............................................................,..............,...........................,..,................. ........................................ Net Interest Cost (NIC).............................................................................,........................................,.... ..............................., True Interest Cost (TIC).......................................,.....,....................,...................................................................................... Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes....................................................,..............................,........................,............................ All Inclusive Cost (AIC).................,........,...................,......,....,...,...............................,...................................................... ..... IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost.........,.,.....................................,..,........................................................,...,...".....,.......................... ...........,. Weighted Average Maturity.............,..............,....,............................,................................"........................,.......................... Ser05GOCIP$2.2MFire I SINGLE PURPOSE 15/11/2005 I 4:52PM $28,350.00 12.434 Years 4.7664418% 4.8629497% 4.8719450% 4.7364333% 4.9626591 % 4.7664418% 12.434 Years Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Leaders in Public Finance Page 3 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ciJarmington.mn.us 9a. TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Adrninistraror~ Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director FROM: SUBJECT: Award of Contract - Fiber Optic Network DATE: May 16, 2005 INTRODUCTION On April 4, 2005, the Council authorized staffto advertise for bids for fiber optic cabling. DISCUSSION The City advertised for bids for the construction of a fiber optic network to connect City facilities using fiber optic cable. The sealed bids were officially opened at 2:15 p.m. on May 5, 2005 and are as follows: Bidder Base Bid Alternate One Alternate Two Parsons Electric $135,900.00 $20,475.00 $ 75,200.00 Castrejon, Inc. $159,479.40 $30,069.81 $ 53,240.75 MP Nexlevel, LLC $172,805.33 $34,536.60 $ 80,595.00 MasTec Twin Cities $199,298.41 $31,291.41 $103,683.10 Collisys, Inc. $260,857.00 $33,175.00 $ 90,715.00 Geldner Construction $359,110.00 $33,280.00 $111,695.00 After a thorough review by our LOGIS consultants, it is recommended that Parsons Electric be awarded the project. Parsons was the lowest bid for the required links and for the Elm Street liquor store alternate link, and was the second lowest bid for the Pilot Knob liquor store alternate link. Furthermore, LOGIS is quite familiar with Parsons and its subcontractor Underground Piercing, and are confident in both Parsons and Underground Piercing's ability to deliver a satisfactory job for the City. BUDGET IMPACT Funding for the fiber optic cabling project is included in the proposed Equipment Certificates to be sold on June 20, 2005. Alternates one and two will be funded by the Liquor fund, as those alternatives connect liquor facilities. ACTION REQUESTED Award the contract for the construction of the fiber optic network to Parsons Electric at a base bid of $135,900.00. Respectfully Submitted, , ! 15./1 . /;') Ii .....{,4 ~.I' I ( ,'..-, ..' .,,, , l//<-;&~~lf1/:iut;uZ.... ! Brenda Wendlandt, SPHR Human Resources Director cc: file lOa.., Ci~, of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 4(.3-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 W1 vw.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor and Councilmembl:rs FROM: David Urbia, City Administrator SUBJECT: Participation in a County-Wide 800 MHz Public Safety Radio Subsystem and County-Wide Joint D: spatch Center DATE: May 16, 2005 INTRODUCTION There are two issues under discussion. lhe first is 800 MHz. This is federally and state mandated, with the county receiving ove:' $6 million in grant funding to implement this public safety communications subsystem. The ~:econd is Joint Dispatch. The county-wide initiative known as HiPP (High Impact Performanl ~e Partnerships) identified six areas to explore collaboration efforts to provide more efficient and effective services to the taxpayer. One of the six identified areas was exploring consol.dation from six PSAP (Public Safety Answering Points) down to as far as one PSAP. The discus!:ion and recommendation tonight is for the City of Farmington to provide a resolution of support to enter into 800 MHz Joint Dispatch with one PSAP. DISCUSSION Attached are the following documents thlt BJ Battig of Dakota County will review: 1) Resolutions concerning p:rrticipation in a County-Wide 800 MHz Public Safety Radio Subsystem and COlmty-Wide Joint Dispatch Center; 2) Overview of Expenses for 800 MHz Dispatch for the City of Farmington, City of Lakeville, and Dakota Co mty, including comparisons of all communities; 3) Executive Summary ofG)Vernance for County-Wide Joint Dispatch; and 4) Memorandum regarding th.e Dakota County MHz Radio Improvement Plan as it relates to the City of Farmington's Public Works 800 Mhz license (callsign WNCD816). The City of Lakeville currently provides us dispatch services at a cost of$177,000 per year. Their City Council met in workshop on May 11 th and potentially will vote on the issue at their May 16th meeting. The deadline for the: ssue is June 1 S\ due to the sunset ofthe Metropolitan Radio Board. The 800 MHz conversion (mandate) will happen. The dispatch issue is driven by the 800 MHz technology issues, so singl~ dispatch sees costs savings due to technology infrastructure costs. Lakeville's response will impact our decision. I will know prior to the council meeting indications of which direction they are heading. An alternative would be for Lakeville, Farmington and one other community to have a second dispatch center in the county, but that would come with significant capital cost issues as well. If Lakeville is going with the single joint dispatch with the other entities in the county, then I would recommend we do so as well. If Lakeville is exploring a separate path, then we would need to consider options with them and with the other entities going with the county-wide option. It is important to note that both communities are concerned about service level and will strive for more service and not just cost savings and to not strive for mediocrity. Involvement in the governance model (which is much like the model used for ALF) is key, by taking the lead at every level- governing, executive, and operations. There are service level and technology concerns with this change, but again, with involvement we can take the lead to address these concerns. The cost sharing option recommended by the HiPP Joint Dispatch committee makes the county-wide dispatch option a wash for us compared to what we pay Lakeville now. It was pointed out by the City of Lakeville that with an expansion or new police facility in their community, their overhead costs would rise as well. Either option, Farmington would pay additional overhead for building expenses related to dispatching. . BUDGET IMPACT These projected cost sharing arrangements would take effect in the 2007 budget process at earliest. ACTION REQUESTED Recommend approval of both resolutions (assumption based upon approval by the City of Lakeville) regarding participation in a County-Wide 800 MHz Public Safety Radio Subsystem and County-Wide Joint Dispatch Center. Provide direction to Dakota County concerning the City of Farmington Public Works license (callsign WNCD816). Respectfully submitted, -(a~r.r? t/4~ David M. Urbia City Administrator a.-J HiPP Joint Dispatch Project 800 MHz & Joint Dispatch Status Report & Request for Action City of Farmington May 12, 2005 Dakota County 800 MHz or Not? HiPP Joint Dispatch or Not? An Overview of the Cost Elements ~ ~ [ U.7-$11M~ 1 (sutt.,..",) .. BuId-outPalclbrCGunl1 Jotnt~OMP8AP $1.211 ~ c=) ConMOIion .. .......... by County _.800_ Colt per MdllioMi PSAP ConnIcIIan....IoS~. S15,...c.,.. ~ $425K - Sf.125M perPSAP ~ -""" c=) [ Y_l~"~"JM ] vs.[ ......... ] y_to:$6.7M ~ c=) t $1.716M(OM Joinl:P8APl.,.. ) $42!K - $1. 126M pet PSAP ~ c=) [ _11lO ] ~u.."":S1(l().1()1JPwRtdlO ....- PWY..r.PIiI4l;1Ye..ll~ May 11,2006 HJPPJoJnta.pri;IlPToJKt , PSC Alliance Inc., 2005 April 26, 2005 The Goal: Interoperability & Reliability II- . The Key to Cost Sharing Finding the Sweet Spot of Success I The secret to success ... is to unlock the right formula and agree to it in the time required to obtain and use grant f",d;"'.~ ~r~ _111 -___ I . ..trust, common goats and shared vision will/ead to success! Projected Countywide Impact County-wide - "Continue as is" PSAP operations . $ 5.73M in year one = $ 33,17 over 5 years - Joint dispatch . $ 4.58M in year one . $ 25,29M over 5 years - Prospective savings . $ 1,42M in year one . $ 7,B9M over 5 years MIIy11,2006 HlPPJo/ntlllilpKltP1oJ<<t _.._____..w..-___,....",._.....-__.___ .....-...-..- 1 HiPP Joint Dispatch Project Cost-Sharing County builds joint dispatch facility & rents it to the JPA entity County subsidizes dispatch @ $750K each year for at least the first 5 years {with adjustments for CPt} Balance of operating expenses and ali capital expenses for dispatch equipment paid for by member jurisdictions based on % of usage Usage defined as total number of 911 calis + total number of CAD events Board has authority to refine formula per by-laws Look for ways to integrate processes with other publiC safety processes to increase efficiency MtyI1,2005 HJPPJo/IlIOIrpat;hPto}Kt Financial Impacts: Joint Dispatch and 800 MHz Farmington - "Continue as is" PSAP operations with 800 MHz (assumes status quo wIlakevfffe) . $ 203K in year one = $ 1.09M over 5 years (gfOH opetIIting s:o:petiaN) . $ 665K - $ 1.37M in year one (g1'OM bMlc CfIpMl expenM$ only) - Joint dispatch & BOO MHz $ 194K in year one (operating expenses only) . $ 66K in year one (bale capillll expetlHI only) . $ 1.02M over 5 years (oponIting & buic o;apitaJ~) - Projected savings - Joint Dispatch & 800 MHz $ 9K in year one (operon; uperIHS only) $ 579K- $1.28Minyearone(buicl:apiWlupll~onJy) $ 588K- $1.29M in year one (operaling&buIcCflpltal) .w.y11,2006 HlPPJoIntD/ap8t;hProjecI Joint Powers Agreement - Proposed Structure I ...'u ...."....... I l_L=~~_=_~n_.L__?~.__J___n______________________________________ May II, 2005 H1PPJoln'~PmjM:t PSC Alliance Inc., 2005 April 26, 2005 Financial Impacts: Joint Dispatch Farmington - "Continue as is" PSAP -opemllornaexpem.. lINUnWlgttaUquoMlhLakeYilIe . $ 196K in year one . $ 1,OBM over 5 years - Joint dispatch - operations expenses . $ 1B5K in year one . $ 1,02M over 5 years - Projected savings - operating expenses-Joint Dispatch Only $ 11Kinyearone $ 60K over 5 years Mayl1,2005 HlPPJoIntDMpat:hP/oJKt Joint Dispatch Governance . Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) . Weighted voting at Board of Directors (elected officials) related to funding % . Non-weighted voting at Executive Committee (chief administrative officers) . Non-weighted voting at Operations Committee (one seat from each fire & police agency in JPA member entities; one seat for County EMS Coordinator) . Five year initial membership commitment "'-y11,2005 HiPf>Joint~PfcjKI Benefits of Joint Dispatch With 800 MHz Significant avoided capital cost for every current PSAP community Significant recurring operating cost savings on a county-wide basis Enhanced communications interoperability Improved command, control and deployment coordination of publiC safety resources Provides a template for other public safety shared service initiatives Service levels equal to or better than currently offered Greater process discipline, metrics. and performance management Gate'IYay to "best in class" service delivery platfonn Increased opporhmities for development and advancement of staff Greater dispatch center staff depth and deployment flexibility Shared governance. operational guidance. and policy development Builds on a strong foundation of countywide cooperation in place today Mayl1,2005 HlPPJomt~ProjKt 2 HiPP Joint Dispatch Project April 26, 2005 Timeline . Dakota County 800 MHz Radio Plan to Metro Radio Board - June 3rd 800 MHz Radio System ready 03/2007 . Joint Dispatch ready OS/2007 . Migration to 800 MHz & Joint Dispatch to be completed in 2007 . Dates for 800 MHz & Joint Dispatch are targets subject to final plans lllay11,200:5 HlPPJo/nt~t;hProjtK;I PSC Alliance Inc., 2005 3 ATTACHMENT #1 1'?c ALLIANCE 4921 Fifth Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55409 Voice: 612 720-5843 Fax: 612 825-8972 Toll Free: 888384-9171 info@pscalliance.com www.pscalliance.com May 05, 2005 Mr. Brandt Richardson County Administrator Dakota County Government Center 1590 Highway 55 Hastings, MN 55337 Re: Joint Dispatch Dear Brandt: I have had the privilege of providing consulting services to Dakota County from time-to-time since 1997. I have also provided certain services directly to some of the individual communities within the county during a comparable window of time. Our professional efforts have all focused on the issue of public safety service delivery and communications technology during that period. During each prior engagement the issue of dispatch consolidation has consistently surfaced at one time or another in every venue. It is my observation that at no time since 1997 has the interest, commitment, and enthusiasm of all of the local government stake holders to consider actual methods of implementing joint dispatch been higher than it is right now. I also suggest that the opportunity to actually implement joint dispatch has never been better than it is now. Recommendations At an April meeting of the HiPP policy group, I committed to offer some specific recommendations concerning joint dispatch for consideration by the members. We recommend that: 1. Dakota County and its partnering communities establish a single, jointly operated public safety dispatch center to serve all of the citizens of the County. 2. The single joint PSAP be governed and operated as a Joint Powers Agency pursuant to the principles and governance considerations as established in the documented record of meetings of the HiPP Joint Dispatch study group. Mr. Brandt Richardson May 05, 2005 3. Appropriate provisions for redundancy be incorporated into the design and that back-up strategies be planned and executed in the event of outage at the single joint PSAP. 4. Every community within Dakota County participate in the single joint dispatch facility and that all public safety agencies migrate their DNo-way radio communications to the 800 MHz radio backbone. 5. A single set of appropriate central electronics dispatch center infrastructure be acquired and built to service the needs of the County and the individual jurisdictions through the joint dispatch center. Benefits Benefits of implementing these recommendations include: 1. Significant avoided capital cost for every community operating a PSAP today. 2. Significant recurring operating cost savings realized Countywide by leveraging and aggregating dispatch center staff to serve the entire user community across the county. 3. Enhanced communications interoperability. 4. Improved command, control, and deployment coordination of public safety personnel equipment and staff during both routine and crisis situations. The joint dispatch model provides a template which can be applied to other public safety, shared service initiatives within the County. 5. Service levels which are equal to or better than that possible today. 6. Greater process discipline through a shared governance and operational structure. 7. The opportunity to collect meaningful performance metrics leading to best-in-c1ass management of the service delivery process. 8. Increased opportunities for continued professional development and advancement of specialized dispatch center staff serving a countywide community base. 9. Greater dispatch center staff depth & deployment flexibility Page 2 Mr. Brandt Richardson May OS, 2005 10. Improved opportunities to leverage industry Best Practices in the delivery of public safety communications services. The achievements of the HiPP Joint Dispatch planning process are significant and the work process has been fascinating. It has been our observation that every stake holder has approached the challenges of the joint dispatch study with a highly focused emphasis on what is best for the whole Dakota County community while also recognizing that the whole community is made up of unique individuals and cities each with a set of common needs. We think this represents a textbook case of developing best-in-class public policy. This joint dispatch process holds great potential and we encourage resolutions of support from every affected political body. Sincerely yours, PSC Alliance Inc. J. J. Nelson Jeff Nelson Page 3 PSC Alliance Inc. 4921 Fifth Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55419-5644 e-mail: ieff.nelson@pscalliance.com MEMORANDUM Telephone (612) 720-5843 FAX (612) 825-8972 To: David Urbia - Farmington City Manager cc: BJ. Battig - Dakota County - Homeland Security Manager From: Jeff Nelson Re: Dakota County 800 MHz Radio Improvement Plan Date: May 11, 2005 At the meeting to discuss 800 MHz and joint public safety dispatch earlier today I mentioned the topic of "turn back" channels. As we discussed, Dakota County must file a technical plan with the Metropolitan Radio Board (MRB) to establish a Countywide 800 MHz radio system. One of the required plan elements is a statement of intended disposition of "turn back" channels. John Powers sits on the County's Radio Design Work Group and is also acquainted with this issue. "Turn Back" is a term which describes radio frequencies relinquished or freed up. "Turn back" occurs when an FCC licensee migrates their radio operations onto specified radio frequencies per the State of Minnesota 'NPSPAC'l Radio Plan. Minnesota's NPSPAC plan is on file with, and has been officially adopted by the FCC. Stated differently, both the FCC's rulemaking process and the NPSPAC Radio Plan have common goalS of making the most efficient possible use of available radio frequencies. A shared, trunked 800 MHz system (like the one being proposed in Dakota County) makes significantly more efficient use of radio spectrum than a single agency's system does. For some years the City of Farmington has held a license (callsign WNCD816) to operate a single repeated radio channel in the 800 MHz spectrum. This system is used today to support your publiC works department. Besides Farmington, only one other community now operates an 800 MHz voice radio system in Dakota County. All other local government voice radio communications within the County are conducted on lower frequencies. Ultimately it would be good publiC policy for Farmington's public works department to join the Dakota County 800 MHz radio system to free up the channel now licensed to the City. Further complicating the turn back discussion is an FCC ruling that re-shuffles the 800 MHz radio spectrum assignments to eliminate a long standing interference problem that Nextel systems have been causing to certain local government radio systems. This channel shuffle is called "rebanding", and the FCC adopted its phased implementation order to implement "rebanding" in February 2005. The FCC's "Nextel rebanding" order does NOT require reconfiguration of Farmington's 800 MHz radio operations, but does affect certain other metro area 800 MHz licensees, including the metro radio system. We suggest that Dakota County's radio plan include a provision which states that the Farmington 800 MHz channel will be available for "turn back" at such time as the Dakota County 800 MHz subsystem is ready for use. I realize that there is quite a bit of technical content associated with this issue and my primary purpose in writing is to acquaint you with the concepts of "tum back", the FCC's "Nextel rebanding" order, and a required element of Dakota County's radio plan filing. NPSPAC is National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee Telecommunications Consulting 1:) ...~ ...1i m~ >dI: ;-: , '" a;N'"' '5' -G/ ::S ~'tI:!!: fjO~ ~%8 c .~~ ~ ... c: 'g.! ~ .....1Il.ll 2;;1;;Q\ J: o:lS ~~ R aNO ....' lSffilg ~%~ :z:~ u<:> e~ oct ::5 " ;1. ;1. ;1. .. '" ?? ~ ;1. ;1. ;1. ::l .. '" '" '" .. :::: ~ ~ '" '" '" .. ... '" 01 N ci '" ci III .. ci :l GO .. ~ ,.; .; ... ',' '" ci '" '" '<i .. .. .. .. .. GO .. .. .; .. ... ..;;; .. :; .. .. .. i;X;,;;' .. ~ g: .. .. .. .. of. of. of. of. of. of. II II II ili ... ~ 0 ... an 0 an ::;. ~ .. ~ ,. Vl 0 0 0 0 0 >- . ~ on ci .,; on ci on .., , . , " .. ... ! u ~ .,' ~ 0 .!! I: U B ;yjn .. 3;0 8. ~ .. 3:~ .. .. ;1. .. of. of. of. ~ of. e: ;:: .. ... .. .. '0 II e ~ !1l' "" 0 ... 0 c 01 U III "' 0 0 CD "" 0 "" 'O' j III " ~J! on ci on .; ci .; " .. B .. ..' " .. .; ~ ... l! ... ; 0 il:~ .. .. "' .. ... .. .' 0 ... s ~ u c '" ii .. . X? ~ ~ of. of. of. of. of. a 0 :ii m " B E 0 "" "" 0 "" I: ~ ~ 0 CD 0 0 0 " I: .. .. on ci .; .; ci .; e; c " '(' . 2' 0 ... " "" 0 :; an ... , . ~ ~ ... i~ of. of. of. of. of. of. .. . IX :;!; 0 ... '" 0 '" '" :5 . 0 ... ... 0 ... '" .. .. I M ci ..; ..; ci ..; '" .!!~? .,; lif'>; :1;:1: ... I: ..' 0 ~ .. ,.... ~ :! .. of. of. of. ~ of. ~ 'O '.. oS '" ~ '> 'S CD 0 CD 0 2! .v.. .. .Ii ... 0 ... '" 0 '" " '" ~ ..; " .. ~ ci en ci en .. .. ~ ~ s; .. ., ~ I: .. , Ql E e~ of. of. of. of. of. of. a. Ql I;;,' 0 '" 'ii ~g tl ... 0 "" an 0 an c "" 0 '" '" 0 '" '" r:..(HV,i;;,;Yiyi ~ .. .. " ,..; ci .,; on ci on " 'S; >:1: " ,5 ... B .. .. F . i:: :g 'E: '" 0 of. of. of. ~ of. ~ Ql C tl N 0 CD 0 .., s; i an 0 0 ... 0 ... '" 1/1 / .. " on ci .; M ci M ~ Ql :I: ... :5 " B ~!ii~'i c Ix,x i.. I: B ~ of. of. of. of. of. of. ;J; ,g '" '6 c an 0 '" ... 0 ... " '0 ~ ~ "" 0 CD 0 0 0 '" .. ;,;'; .; ci .; .; ci .; ~ ,5 .. ... .. "" W..?: 0 (, an t;,/ ... !ii!!,........, ... c of. of. of. of. of. of. '" <II :ii '" '0 .. 0 0 0 an 0 an '" ~:,r~~.~t;!. I: '" ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 '" .2 .. ~ ~ ~ ~ '" (. .. ci ci '" ~ ki' ... I: " 0 u "" Ql .I!~ of. of. of. of. of. of. ~ an < :5 0 ~ I, o c tl '" 0 ... '" 0 '" 1:' '" ~ .... 0 "" CD 0 CD " .. 0 " .; ci .,; on ci on '" :;, 0 "v 0" " Ii! ...... '" ... c. ... 0 <II ~ 'l:! 5 c Ql ~ of. of. of. g ~ oS 0 " 0 .... .... c W ,.f' i 0 '" '" " ~ i ci ~ ~ ~ .5 Ii ,. l5 ... z .. ~ 0 I: t\~.;. ,.1~;.; " :! .. of. of. of. of. ~ 8 ~ '" of. of. B 's 0 0 "" "" 0 "" '" E E ... 0 0 N 0 N ~ {a .'. ~ ~ ~ ci ~ ~ ci ~ '" .. co ... . >- >. "S- .!! !Ii of. of. of. of. '" .." of. of. 'ii of. of. of. 0 > ~ ... 0 0 '" 0 '" ~ 0 '" ... 0 .. .9! N 0 '" an 0 an Ii 0 '" '" c:i ;;, ~ ci ~ ::j ci ::j ci M ~ 2: " CD 0 ~ '" ... .. i:- f c: ;1. II ~;1. :; ;1. <II"" ! I: ~ ~ :l~ ;g u .. ~ I: C .. ~ i ~ 1: .. a~ I: .. ~ c .!l 0 ~ II 0 II .. E lllu E ~ ~ 1: E~ ... 1: is. '5 E .. .BE ~ .. U 010> .. E .. .. ill - .. u ol! .= .~ ... iii I: U 0 .. .. ..... "' :. iii 8- " i ~ >001 0 ~ . Q .. .... J!! CO U 01 l!~ ~ .. 'E ~ c 'E Gi ... uti ~ tl ~'i .. 8.'" ~ .. "'0 .. .... .. '" ... .. 08 '8 fA -'U 0 .c: u.c: .c: u .. ~'S ~ III ~ CIIl 3l III o~ :E C III . U ~ U .. ~ III ~ III <II l!! 0 0 a a I: u '5 .. 0 .c:" 'i: ~ .. 1Il~ III ~ ~! .c III 0 ti .... I: I: 0 C U ~ So '" ~ :l: I j g '" ~ ~ ~ i!: '11 ~ ~ ~ '" € i g ... ~ '" ~ ~ J i ~ ~ ~ Overview of Expenses for 800 MHz Dispatch Expense Breakdown By Scenario City of Farmington Expense Items Joint Dispatch - 1 PSAP Independent PSAP Comments city Share Of Expenses Local City Expenses Operating Expenses - 800 MHz 8< PSAP(s) Indudes 16% overhead for utilities, rent, fadlity PSAP Annual Operating Expenses (Year 1 shown) $185,294 $195,858 security and maintenance; both amounts were adjusted 5% from 2004 actuals, Fire/EMS Alerting Operating Expenses $1,450 Locally Determined This is beyond the PSAP operating expenses noted above I TO administer Ulunt{Suosystem s relationsmp wltn 800 MHz Subsystem Administration Fees (Concept) $630 $1,050 external partners; $9{radio per yr in joint dispatch & $IS{radio per yr for independent (70 Radios- IO.~n'n' 800 MHz Regional System User Fees $6,370 $6,370 $91{radio per year (70 Radios for Farmington) Operating Expenses - Sub-totals $193,745 $203,278 Year 1 operating costs (joint dispatch vs. local independent PSAP). Also _ Note 7. 800 MHz Subsystem Users' Fees See Note 4 Below See Note 4 Below See Note 4 Below Transition Funding TBD TBD Placeholder for additional start-up{transition expenses, e.g., training, overtime, severance, etc. Capital Expenses - 800 MHz Subsystem 800 MHz Subsystem Build-out $9.7 M - $11 M Paid for by Dakota County 800 MHz Local In-BUilding Enhancements $450,000 TBD, Local $$$ Placeholder Subsidized by County Not Subsidized by County 800 MHz Radio Plan Development Paid by County TBD, Local $$$ 800 MHz Capital Replacement/Expansion Fund TBD TBD No grant funding should be assumed at replacement Capital Expenses - 800 MHz PSAP Equipment 800 MHz CEB Equipment (console controller) $18,856 $t50,OOO Hardware expense per PSAP 800 MHz Radio Controls @ Workstations $43,996 $225,000 Hardware expense per PSAP City share of joint dispatch hardware capital is Supports 14 positions Supports 3 Positions 4.83% of total; city cost for capital in independent dispatch mode is at least $375K. Fire/EMS Alerting Network Equipment $22,965 TBD, Local $$$ Capital Expenses - Sub-total $85,817 $375,000 Cost for hardware capital in independent dispatch mode is at least $375K per PSAP. 800 MHz Subsystem Connection Fees Inducted in $290,310 $15 per capita (Population = 19,354) Joint Dispatch Costs 800 MHz CEB Connection Transport Expense Inducted $50K to $750K Fiber connections or microwave Dispatch Center Construction/Expansion Paid by County TBD, Local $$$ Notes: 1, Non-Dispatch Functions: Local jurisdictions will choose and fund what, if any, non-dispatch functions to preserve in those PSAP communities that elect to participate in joint "k""trh 2, CAD{Mobile{Records Management Software Fees: Local portions of these software license fees are not known or included in the joint dispatch budget. Final determination of these expenses will occur in the implementation planning phase for joint dispatch. 3. 800 MHz Subscriber Radios: Costs for subscriber radios will remain the resonsibility of the respective user agencies. The Dakota County BOO MHz subsystem's methodology for procuring, dispensing, programming, maintaining, and repairing subscriber radios has yet to be finalized, At the present time the purchase price for each radio is presumed to be $2,800 for portable radios, 4. 800 MHz Subsystem Users' Fee: Includes site maintenance, local tower leases, utilities for radio sites, etc, This fee TBD. 5, The above capital expenses reflect 800 MHz implementation and do not include CAD, logging equipment, 911 telephone, furniture, PSAP construction, etc. 6, PSC recommends that the PSAP(s} fund a PSAP equipment replacement fund in the future, 7. The cost of independent dispatch for Farmington is dependent upon remaining with Lakeville at the same spl~ of capital & operating expense. If Lakeville chooses to participate in .oint dispatch and Farmington does not, Farmington will either have to initiate its own dispatch operation or find another PSAP to service its needs. PSC Alliance Inc., Copyright 2005 FILE Name: Cost Breakdowns - By Entity - 051005.x1s - TAB Name: Farmington Costs Overview PAGE: 1 - 5/11/05 Governance for Countywide Joint Dispatch Executive Summary Prepared on behalf of the HiPP Joint Dispatch Policy Committee By: PSC Alliance Inc. May 11, 2005 m""""m_,_~~~~I!'y',~~!:!~,~~~X,:'",,~~Y~~'.:!~!.1_~~,9.f.,~f~~!:l~_~~~,~9.,i,~_!,l2i~e~~,~9.perati9.EI__m"m_____, PurDose The purpose of this document is to document the elements of governance that are being recommended by the participants of the HiPP Joint Dispatch Policy Committee. These elements are intended to serve as the foundation for a joint powers agreement that participating cities and the County will finalize for final approval. The timeline to advance the question of participation in the countywide 800 MHz public safety radio system and joint dispatch requires each jurisdiction to indicate its intentions before the end of May 2005. As a result, the County Board and city councils are being asked to consider resolutions declaring their intentions at this time with review and approval of the requisite joint powers agreement for joint dispatch and cooperative agreements for participation in the 800 MHz radio system to follow in the weeks ahead. This document serves as Attachment 4a to the request for County Board/City Council action in these matters. Governance Model The Policy Committee recommends governance of countywide joint dispatch and 800 MHz radio system management and administration by a joint powers agreement. The joint powers agreement presumes the creation of a new service entity that is owned and controlled by all jurisdictions subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement. While the joint powers entity would be authorized to hire, manage, train, develop, and terminate its employees, the JPA will not require or include a separate personnel system. Successful ventures have relied upon the personnel administration capabilities of a member jurisdiction for such services and this model would be no different. The agreement would include language directing the joint powers entity to contract with one member entity for various operational support functions, such as personnel services (as noted above), legal services, accounting, procurement, and payroll administration. The purpose of this language is to maximize the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the joint dispatch operation by leveraging the existing resources of a participating jurisdiction. The agreement will provide a means for the entity to exercise ownership and/or lessee rights, for PSAP/dispatch equipment and the 800 MHz radio system infrastructure, while protecting the County's ultimate responsibility and associated interests as the owner of the countywide 800 MHz radio subsystem that provides the local connectivity to and use of the Metro 800 MHz Radio System. In addition, the agreement will enable a formal process to allow for the transition of resources and equipment, if any, to the new entity. The HiPP Joint Dispatch Policy Committee reviewed examples of joint dispatch operations and their associated agreements and by-laws to help craft a joint powers agreement (JPA) that meets the needs and requirements of the prospective participant jurisdictions within Dakota County. PSC Alliance Inc., Copyright, 2005 2 5/12/05 ,~_~~y.I.,I.Y,~_.?~~,~A'3:X:,,,,,~~y.c:r..!:1.~_~~C:,9.f.~~~~~~!9.,C:,~9.,i,~_t.Dise~~~,~,,9.per~t.!l::l,~, Elements of Joint Governance The following elements have been reviewed, considered, and agreed to at the HiPP Joint Dispatch Policy Committee level: Accountability, Authority, and Responsibility- Three distinct governance functions have been identified within the context of accountability, authority and responsibility. These are, and will be addressed structurally by: . Board of Directors - Ultimate financial, legal, and fiduciary controls, including overriding policy leadership regarding levels of service . Executive Committee - Acts as the executive review function, on behalf of the elected officials on the Board of Directors, for financial, legal, and fiduciary controls, including policy recommendations regarding levels of service . Operations Committee - Operational input, feedback, and procedural leadership regarding levels of service . Emergency Communications management - Day to day management of the dispatch entity and the 800 MHz radio subsystem These three functional areas within the construct of governance form the basis of an agreement to be deployed for joint dispatch governance. Control - The governance agreement will address the levels and limits to control. Shared control and decision-making among participants and the need to have meaningful, timely influence on service delivery standards and protocols are the driving parameters for agreement on governance among participants. The HiPP Joint Dispatch Policy Committee recommends levels of membership, control and influence for each functional area of governance as noted above. These levels of membership, control, and influence are described in Attachments 4b and 4c. Finance - The HiPP Joint Dispatch Policy Committee acknowledges the importance of service improvement, added value, cost-effectiveness, and accountability for aggregate spending for public safety communications in the county. In addition, the committee also confirmed the key role that costs, budget control, and cost sharing play in the governance process and crafted a cost sharing process and formula that is practical, relevant, pragmatic, and perceived as fair and equitable. The JPA will also support the principle that the cost sharing process/ formula must also be reliable over time, capable of transcending any short-term fluctuations or unusual conditions. The cost sharing formula recommended by the HiPP Joint Dispatch Policy Committee is based upon a flat $750,000 subSidy by the County with the balance of operating expenses shared across the member cities and the County based upon the percentage of system use as measured by a combined event factor of 911 calls and computer-aided dispatch (CAD) events for each jurisdiction. The County's share of the system use/event-based factor will be based upon the 911 calls and CAD events processed on behalf of the County Sheriff's Department. An overview of this cost-sharing formula with projected cost shares for year 1 is enclosed in this packet as Attachment 2. Credits and/or direct revenue will also be attributed to member jurisdictions for services rendered to the joint powers entity (e.g., the County will build and maintain the joint dispatch / PSAP facility with rent and operating expenses payable to the County by the joint powers entity). The members of the Policy Committee concur that a governance agreement must address the formulae for cost sharing that accounts for the varying types of costs and credits. ...__M____........ ............................................ ........................................_.......... ... ................................................. ..................._......................-..... ..............................................................-.....--........... . .............--.......................... ". PSC Alliance Inc., Copyright, 2005 3 5/12/05 ,,,,~,~f.\:!ny'_~,,,?Y,~,~~~Y:,_~~y'~,~r.:!~,~~~,,,l:'-f.,~9?~~~,i,9.,~~~i~!P'i,~p"~,!~,~,gp"~~~!ig~""""_",, Timing - It is assumed that the "anchor jurisdictions" or participants would agree to and approve the joint powers agreement as soon as practical to allow for meaningful implementation planning. Further, it is assumed here that while all participants would begin using the new joint dispatch service and the 800 MHz subsystem at approximately the same time, there would be some staggering of agencies for actual cutover. A complete transition within a 6-month window is anticipated, provided detailed cutover planning occurred. To protect the interests of all participants, the committee recommends that all initiating parties (the anchor jurisdictions) must agree to an initial period of membership of no less than five (5) years. Expandability- The Committee also recommends that the JPA accommodate expansion in the future and, thus, the governance agreement will provide such a process. The Policy Committee also recommends that jurisdictions that join the joint powers entity at a later date will be responsible for an appropriate one-time contribution to offset the original capital investment, the in-process capital replenishment funding, and the equity already earned by managing the development and start-up of the joint dispatch operation. Ease - The Policy Committee has chosen this governance model, in part, because it will be easy to use, cost-sensitive, and non-bureaucratic. Problem Resolution and Commendation Procedures -The JPA will provide a defined method of identifying, surfacing, discussing, and resolving problems between a participant(s) and the joint dispatch entity, as well as between and/or among participating jurisdictions. It also must provide for an agreed upon vehicle for processing complaints and commendations from the public and field personnel, whether they be made to elected officials, jurisdictional management, public safety agencies, or the dispatching entity. Conclusion and Recommendation The Policy Committee has reviewed various factors associated with levels of service, cost efficiencies, and a desire for best practices. The Committee was also provided detailed requirements and other relevant input from the HiPP Joint Dispatch Technical Committee made up of public safety representatives from fire, EMS and law enforcement agencies across the County. The Technical Committee with assistance from the consultants, PSC Alliance Inc., provided feedback and input in the following areas: o Weighted attributes for a quality joint dispatch PSAP o Back up for dispatch operations and system redundancy o Fire and medical dispatch issues, challenges and opportunities o Tasks that are deemed non-dispatch in nature that would not transition to a joint dispatch operation In addition, both the Policy and Technical Committees received feedback, guidance, and input in from the consultants, PSC Alliance Inc. on various subjects, including relevant questions regarding the experiences that other joint dispatch/ PSAP operations have had with various subjects, such as, but not limited to: o Overall governance and cost sharing practices o Managing personnel concerns and performance through transition and change o Periodic review of the cost-sharing formula for relevance o Critical success factors PSC Alliance Inc., Copyright, 2005 4 5/12/05 'm"m,~~~~,ny.~m?U M MARY: GOY.~Er.:!~,r.:!~~",,~,f.. a Cou~~,i,9.e Jc:li~,~mp'ispat~~m9.p~ration The Policy Committee concludes that emergency communications can be effectively and reliably delivered by purposefully pursuing the joint powers agreement option including specific safeguards and processes. It acknowledges that other opportunities for synergy and resource sharing may well exist within the pubic safety arena and that the joint powers governance structure and process will enable synergy and broader cooperation as appropriate and desired. Finally, the HiPP Joint Dispatch Policy Committee recommends a single joint dispatch operation governed by a joint powers agreement based upon the elements and parameters identified in this executive summary and requests the conceptual approval of a JPA based upon the same elements and parameters by each respective city council and the County Board. This conceptual approval is desired no later than May 27,2005 to allow the County and participating communities to file and obtain approval for its 800 MHz Radio Subsystem Plan from the Metro Radio Board at the Metro Radio Board's last regular meeting on June 3rd. This request to move ahead directly also protects the County, future joint dispatch participants, and their respective interests relative to the use of state and federal funding that has been awarded to the County for this work to be done. The first component of grant funding expires if not used by November, 2005. PSC Alliance Inc., Copyright, 2005 5 5/12/05 ~ :J ....... (.) 2 ...... C/) "0 Q) C/,) o Q.. e Q.. I ....... s::: Q) E Q) ~ 0) ~ ~ ~ & ....... s::: '- -S5 . . ..Q ~ ....... s::: Q) E -5 Jg ....... ~ II) l! ~ CD ::: ~ CD l! ::: 0 CD ~ :0 ~ .e &! 0 J!! 0 :0 CI) 0 &! Cl\5 CIO Cl\5 .e g ~ i3 ! ~ 0) ~ g CD ! 5 !!2 '0 c: :J o () ~ C3 Ol .5; g f/) 1:) ... Q) o :1:: t) .~ CD ~ ... J::: is ~ ....0 ~ "Cl .~ ~ it: o 0 In "g 13 Q) [;[ "E co o m ~ c: :J o () -------------- r I I I I I I I I I I . Q)0l '€:s Q)g CD::i11:) CD'C5Q) == - .- ~J::: E Q).!;!l E~~ OCSC!: (,) II> 0 ::.<: ~:;::J::: .- !!!~ ..-s ~.!!1 ", Co) '~ r::: CD"tj;g >C <:( .~ w...."tj .S! .l@ J:::::s ~-, 1IlQ)' C Q) 0- -~ :;:l ... I'll o U 1;) 'c 8 G) ::I ", .= E r::: c E.9 ~ 0 e ._ (J Q) :; >- OQ. u u G) C .... >< G) 0 w f' 4~ G) III EJ::: W~ 15E Ll3e IJ.. CD Ee ::...", G):iS 0 Q) 't:' !'Ci)IJ..a:l:t:1Q) .- ",.! 0l2~ E~g::;~e 8 a3""io~ O~'l:::Co)~ -II>.... III III e II> ~ C ",lI>o.Q o ::'l CI) "" l::: .!::: .- "'''''Ujr:::Q)!.l2 - r::: ::i1- ~~oi:t Co) G) r:::.5; Ill~"" C.Oo-J-, o ~:s "" a3.~ ~IJ.. I I I I I I I 1.._______ ------------i I I I I I "" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.0 I C I C I C\J :t I .~ : g.. I Co) I I cS I ~ I Q) I 0 I r::: I .!!! I ~ I I Co) : ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.0 I ~ I "" I "" I i?s I ____J ------- -------- 'iil! .!:!~ .E~ UG) (!~ -.. .s .!g a: 1J..i!: N'O ::t~ ::i1Q) c<: COl e..~ ~ .c .alll;;::- IISC'tij ~~Ci5 .- lIS "" Q ~ Q) it &.5; <Co::::!. rn 0.. - C G) ~l!~ f; .2 E .. - E .e ~ 0 C & U wO.Q ~ :s ~ rn .... Q)~ '€g ~& .... III Q)- Q,r::: .!~ gQ) e ~.e _c:: III II> ~ :t ""..!!! '- III C ~ G) ~! ! 'E o E rn 0 ::s.8 W :s -rn ~ u:: ~CI) Q)~ '€::... m1:'"i::' l::: ::'lO Q)Ol6 Q, Co) ,5; Q)""'E! 01:8 '::~Co) 't::: -Ill mg. "'1:) "" '- EVJ e,~ u.'2 l!!::I ~~ EO al(.) ::!:<( 00.. 07 J:c:; '0 ~z E VJ o,~ L1:=2 l!! ::I al E .oE EO ~~ 00.. 07 J:c:; '0 ~Z Table A Summary of Governance Structure Accountability, Authority, and Responsibility Membership Control Meetings Functional Level of Governance The Mayor (or a City Councilperson The Board of Directors will vote on The Board of Directors will meet at acting as the mayor's designee) financial, legal, and fiduciary matters least two times each year, yet as from each CXlmmunity of at least using a weighted vote method equal to often as required to perform its 10,000 residents with its own local the weight of that jurlsdictlon's funding legal, financial, and fiduciary law enforcement agency in Dakota percentage for the ament year. The responsibilities as defined in the Board of Directors County, and the County Board Board may vote on other matters, JPA. Chairperson (or another County including the employment of the pet'SOn Board member acting as the chair's responSible for the day-to-day designee) management of the CXluntywlde 800 MHz radio system and joint dispatch operation, using a one member I one vote method. The chief administrative officer of The Executive Committee will reviewand The Executive Committee will meet each member jurisdiction; City recommend financial, legal, and at least quarterly, yet as olten as Administrators I Managers and the fiduciary actions, as well as public policy necessary to perform its duties and County Administrator. affecting the level of service, to the responsibilities as defined In the Board of Directors. The Executive JPA. Committee will assist the Board of Directors in the reauibnent and Executive Committee recommendation of the pet'SOn to be employed to lead and direct the day-to- day management of the CXluntywide 800 MHz radio system and joint dispatch operation, and willvote on all matters using a one member lone vote method. The Operations Committee will be The Operation Committee and both The Operations Committee will meet CXlmprised of a designated subcommittees that exist within the at least 6 times each year, yet often respresentative from each law Operations Committee will be chaired by enough to perform its duties and enforcement and fire servlce agency the Emergency Communications responsibilities as defined in the from the member jurisdictions, a Executive Director. Each regular JPA. representative from the CountyJolnt member will review matters of EMS Council, and the Executive operational policies and procedures and Director of Emergency when possible, will decide issues by Communications, also known as the CXlnsensus. When voting Is used, the chief operating official of the joint CXlmmittee will use a one member lone powers entity. Public safety agencies vote method. Ad-hoc, non-voting Operations Committee of smaller CXlmmunities served by members may participate in diswssion Includes Fire/EMS and Law Enforcement the system may participate as ad- and bring matters of Interest to the Subcommittees hoc, non voting members in CXlmmittee & its subcommittees for CXlmmittee and subcommittee review and disposition, but may not business. There will be law participate in the process of voting. In enforcement and fire/EMS the event of a vote that is tied, the chair subcommittees for discipline-specific retains the ability to break the tie. The business as needed. Operations Committee may seek redress and relief from problems that are not being handled to their satisfaction by requesting review of the matter by the Executive Committee. The Executive Director of The Executive Director of Emergency The Executive Director and hiS/her Emergency Communications, also Communications will be responsible for team will meet and CXlmmunlcate known as the chief operating official the day-to-day management of the with the user agencies on a frequen of the joint powers entity, will be CXluntywlde 800 MHz radio system and basis to promote a solid working appointed by the Board of Directors. joint dispatch operation Including its relationship. The Executive Director Emergency Communications Management performance and pet'SOnnel will act as chair of the Operations management, as well as its relationship Committee and its subcommittees with the user agencies. and will meet and participate with the Executive Committee and Board of Directors as needed. PSC Alliance Inc., 2005 RLE Name: Governance Matrix 050905.x1s - TAB Name: 5heet1 PAGE: 1 - 5/9/05 OvelView of Expenses for 800 MHz Dispatch Expense Breakdown By Scenario - System View Dakota County 800 MHz Joint Dispatch Expense Items Joint Dispatch - 1 PSAP IndependentPSAPs Comments :1PA and/or County Expense Local Expenses Operating Expenses - 800 MHz & PSAP(s) l,e"'" PSAP Annual Operating Expenses (Year 1 shown) $4,582,530 $6,009,097 Includes 16% overhead for util~ies, rent, facility security and maintenance. Fire/EMS Alerting Operating Expenses $30,000 Locally Determined This is beyond the PSAP operating expenses noted above To administer County Subsystem's relationship with 800 MHz Subsystem Administration Fees (CDncept) $17,181 $28,635 external partners; $9/radio per yr in joint dispatch & $15/radio per yr for independent 800 MHz Regional System User Fees $173,719 $173,719 $91/radio per year Operating Expenses - Sub-totals $4,803,430 $6,211,451 This is an aggregate cost (1 PS/lJ'/6 PSAPs) 800 MHz Subsystem Users' Fees See Note 4 Below See Note 4 Below See Note 4 Below Transition Funding TBD TBD Placeholder for additional start-up/transition expenses, e.g., training, overtime, severance, etc. Capital Expenses - 800 MHz Subsystem 800 MHz Subsystem Build-out $9.7 M - $11 M Paid for by Dakota County 800 MHz Local In-8uilding Enhancements $450,000 TBD, Local $$$ Placeholder SUbsidized by County Not Subsidized by County 800 MHz Radio Plan Development Paid by County TBD, Local $$$ 800 MHz Capital Replacement/Expansion Fund TBD TBD No grant funding should be assumed at replacement Capital Expenses - 800 MHz PSAP Equipment 800 MHz CEB Equipment (console controller) $390,000 $150,000 Hardware expense per PSAP 800 MHz Radio Controls @ Workstations $910,000 $225,000 Hardware expense per PSAP Supports 3 Positions City share of joint dispatch hardware capital is their Supports 14 positions % of total expense; dty cost for capital in (Example) independent dispatch mode is at least $37SK. Fire/EMS Alerting Network Equipment $475,000 TBD, Local $$$ Capital Expenses - Sub-total $1,775,000 $375,000 Cost for hardware capital in independent dispalX:h mode Is at least $375K per PSAP. 800 MHz Subsystem Connection Fees Included in $15 per Capita Examples: $375K for 201< popuJaIiOn, $675K for 4SIC Joint Dispatch Costs population 800 MHz CEB Connection Transport Expense Included $5DK tD $75DIC Fiber connections or microwave Dispatch Center Construction/Expansion Paid by County TBD, Loc:al $$$ Notes: 1. Non-Dispatch Functions: Local jurisdictions will choose and fund what, if any, non-<lispatch functions to preserve in those PSAP communities that elect to participate In joint dispatch. 2. CAD/Mobile/Records Management Software Fees: Locai portions of these software license fees are not known or included in the joint dispatch budget. Final determination of these expenses will occur in the implementation pianning phase for joint dispatch. 3. 800 MHz Subscriber Radios: Costs for subscriber radios will remain the resonsibHity of the respective user agencies. The Dakota County 800 MHz subsystem's methodology for procuring, dispensing, programming, maintaining, and repairing subscriber radios has yet to be finalized. At the present time the purchase price for each radio is presumed to be $2,800 for portable radios. 4.800 MHz Subsystem Users' Fee: Includes s~e maintenance, local tower ieases, utilities for radio sites, etc. This fee TBD. 5. The above capital expenses reflect 800 MHz implementation and do not include CAD, logging equipment, 911 telephone, furniture, PSAP construction, etc. 6. PSC recommends that the PSAP(s) fund a PSAP equipment replacement fund in the future. PSC AlliiJnce Inc., Copyright 200S FILE Name: Cost Breakdowns - By Entity - 051oo5.x1s - TAB Name: System Costs Overview PAGE: 1 - 5/11/0S Overview of Expenses for 800 MHz Dispatch Expense Breakdown By Scenario City of Lakeville Expense Items Joint Dispatch - 1 PSAP Independent PSAP Comments City Share Of Expenses Local city Expenses " Operating Expenses - 800 MHz s.. PSAP(s) Indudes 16% overhead for utilities, rent, facility PSAP Annual Operating Expenses (Year 1 shown) $440,165 $586,854 security and maintenance; both amounts were adiusted 5% from 2004 actuals. Fire/EMS Alerting Operating Expenses $2,882 Locally Determined This is beyond the PSAP operating expenses noted above To administer County Subsystem's relationship with 800 MHz Subsystem Administration Fees (Concept) $1,728 $2,880 external partners; $9/radio per yr in joint dispatch & $15/radio per yr for independent (192 Radios-LV) 800 MHz Regional System User Fees $17,472 $17,472 $91/radio per year (192 Radios for Lakeville) Sub-totals $462,247 $607,206 Year 1 operating costs (joint dispatch vs. local independent PSAP1. Also see Note 7. 800 MHz Subsystem Users' Fees See Note 4 Below See Note 4 Below See Note 4 Below Transition Funding TBD TBD Placeholder for additional start-up/transition expenses, e.g., training, overtime, severance, etc. Capital Expenses - 800 MHz Subsystem 800 MHz Subsystem Build-out $9.7 M - $11 M Paid for by Dakota County 800 MHz Local In-Building Enhancements $450,000 TBD, Local $$$ Placeholder Subsidized by County Not Subsidized by County 800 MHz Radio Plan Development Paid by County TBD, Local $$$ 800 MHz Capital Replacement/Expansion Fund TBD TBD No grant funding should be assumed at Capital Expenses - 800 MHz PSAP Equipment 800 MHz CEB Equipment (console controller) $37,461 $150,000 Hardware expense per PSAP 800 MHz Radio Controls @ Workstations $87,408 $225,000 Hardware expense per PSAP City share of joint dispatch hardware capital is Supports 14 positions Supports 3 Positions 9,61% of total; city cost for capital in independent dispatch mode is at least $37SK. Fire/EMS Alerting Network Equipment $45,625 TBD, Local $$$ Sub-total $170,494 $375,000 Cost for hardware capital in independent dispatch mode is at least $375K per PSAP. 800 MHz Subsystem Connection Fees Included in $750,000 $15 per capita (Population = 50,000) Joint Dispatch Costs 800 MHz CEB Connection Transport Expense Included $5DK to $75DK Fiber connections or microwave Dispatch Center Construction/Expansion Paid by County TBD, Local $$$ Notes: 1. Non-Dispatch Functions: Local jurisdictions will choose and fund what, if any, non-dispatch functions to preserve in those PSAP communities that elect to participate in joint dispatch , 2. CAD/Mobile/Records Management Software Fees: Local portions of these software license fees are not known or included in the joint dispatch budget, Final determination of these expenses will occur in the implementation planning phase for joint dispatch. 3, 800 MHz Subsaiber Radios: Costs for subscriber radios will remain the resonsibility of the respective user agencies, The Dakota County 800 MHz subsystem's methodology for procuring, dispensing, programming, maintaining, and repairing subscriber radios has yet to be finalized, At the present time the purchase price for each radio is presumed to be $2,800 for portable radios. 4, 800 MHz Subsystem Users' Fee: Indudes site maintenance, local tower leases, utilities for radio sites, etc, This fee TBD, 5, The above capital expenses reflect 800 MHz implementation and do not indude CAD, logging equipment, 911 telephone, fumiture, PSAP construction, etc. 6, PSC recommends that the PSAP(s) fund a PSAP equipment replacement fund in the future. , I ne CO'l: or Inoepenoem OISpa{Ul IIng{On I I LilKevllle . 11 I , w participate in joint dispatch and Lakeville does not, Lakeville would have to totally fund its dispatch operation ($803,064) or find another non-PSAP city to partner with & share PSC Alliance Inc., Copyright 2005 FILE Name: Cost Breakdowns - By Entity - OS09OS.x1s - TAB Name: Lilkeville Costs OveNiew PAGE: 1 - 5/10/05 RESOLUTION NO. R -05 APPROVING PARTICIPATION IN A COUNTYWIDE JOINT DISPATCH CENTER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 16th day of May 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, the High Performance Partnership (HiPP) effort ofthe County and the cities has identified joint dispatch as one activity to study; and WHEREAS, a HiPP Joint Dispatch Policy Committee co-chaired by Elizabeth Kautz, Mayor of Bumsville, and Steve Mielke, Lakeville City Manager, has been studying joint dispatch for the past four months; and WHEREAS, Dakota County and its cities are currently cooperating in the design of a Dakota County 800 MHz public safety radio communications subsystem; and WHEREAS, an important design consideration is the number and location of Public Safety Answering Points (dispatch centers); and WHEREAS, currently there are six dispatch centers in Dakota County serving a total population of390,000; and WHEREAS, one dispatch center can provide more efficient, effective, and economic dispatch services for the county population (see Attachment 1 - letter dated May 5, 2005 from Jeff Nelson, PSC Alliance, to Brandt Richardson, County Administrator); and WHEREAS, the Legislative Auditor's Report on PSAPs and 911 Service Delivery encourages PSAP consolidation; and WHEREAS, Dakota County has agreed to provide the capital cost of one Joint Dispatch Center to serve all public safety agencies in the county; and WHEREAS, the HiPP Joint Dispatch Policy Committee recommends that the County and its cities participate in a Joint Dispatch Center; and WHEREAS, Dakota County and participating cities will share the annual operating costs of one joint dispatch center (see Attachment 2 - Cost Model); and WHEREAS, the City of Farmington will save significant funds by participating in a Joint Dispatch Center versus providing its own dispatch services (see Attachment 3 - Cityl County Specific Costs of Dispatch Services); and WHEREAS, the management and operation of the Joint Dispatch Center will be governed by a Joint Powers Agreement that will give all participants a strong voice in the operations and management of the Center (see Attachment 4 - Governance Summary and Organizational Structure). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Farmington hereby agrees to participate in a countywide Joint Dispatch Center to be governed by a Joint Powers Agreement; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Administrator is directed to bring the Joint Powers Agreement to the City Council for approval, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Administrator inform the County of its decision to participate in the Joint Dispatch Center. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 16th day of May 2005. Mayor day of 2005. Attested to the City Administrator SEAL RESOLUTION NO. R_-05 APPROVING PARTICIPATION IN A COUNTYWIDE 800 MHZ PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO SUBSYSTEM Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting ofthe City Council ofthe City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 16th day of May 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. 473.904 required that metropolitan counties prepare a communications system planning document on current and potential participation in the regional 800 MHz public safety radio communications system; and WHEREAS, the County and its cities currently operate independent VHF public safety radio systems not capable of interoperable communications; and WHEREAS, Dakota County in cooperation with the cities in the County studied this issue and issued reports in 1997 and 2000 concluding that the current independent VHF public safety radio systems were meeting the current needs of the agencies and that the County did not intend to participate in the regional 800 MHz system at that time; and WHEREAS, the terrorist events of September 11, 2001 have shown the necessity for an interoperable public safety radio system; and WHEREAS, the County and its cities again studied participation in the regional 800 MHz public safety radio system and in a report issued in 2004 unanimously recommended that the county participate in the regional 800 MHz public safety radio system; and WHEREAS, in 2004 the Dakota County Board of Commissioners authorized the County to join the Metropolitan Regional 800 MHz public safety radio system; and WHEREAS, significant federal grant funds have been made available through the U S Department of Homeland Security to implement interoperable radio communications systems; and WHEREAS, Dakota County has received approximately $6 million in grant funds to construct a countywide 800 MHz public safety radio subsystem; and WHEREAS, Dakota County has retained a consulting firm to design the countywide integrated 800 MHz subsystem to serve all areas of the County; and WHEREAS, the design of the countywide subsystem is being overseen by technical and policy committees made up of county and city participants; and WHEREAS, participation in the Countywide 800 MHz public safety radio subsystem will provide the City of Farmington with full interoperable communications with all public safety agencies in the County as well as with all participants in the regional system; and WHEREAS, in order to meet federal grant deadlines, the final design of the Countywide subsystem must be completed and submitted to the Metropolitan Radio Board (or its successor) in June, 2005; and WHEREAS, to complete the design ofthe subsystem, it is necessary to determine the cities that will participate in the Countywide 800 MHz subsystem; and WHEREAS, the County and participating cities will need to enter into a cooperative agreement that will define the rights and obligations of the County and the City of Farmington with respect to the cooperative and coordinated implementation, operation, and maintenance of the countywide subsystem. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Farmington hereby agrees to participate in a Countywide Integrated 800 MHz Public Safety Radio System; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the cooperative agreement be brought to the City Council for approval; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Administrator communicate the city's intention to the County. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 16th day of May 2005. Mayor Attested to the day of 2005. City Administrator SEAL 106 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, CounciIm'embers and City Administrator ~ FROM: Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT: Consider Proposal for Community Center Study DATE: May 16, 2005 . INTRODUCTION The Community Center Feasibility Study Final Report (Final Report) was accepted at the May 2, 2005 City Council meeting. At the meeting staff was directed to solicit a proposal from Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates (BRAA) to complete the next steps in the Community Center Study (the Study) by identifying potential locations, exploring potential partnerships and develop a concept/site plan for a community center based on the identified program spaces in the feasibility study. DISCUSSION The Parks and Recreation Director and City Administrator met with representatives from BRAA on Wednesday, May 4, 2005 to discuss the scope of services that they would provide for the completion of the next steps in the Study. Attached is Exhibit A, which is the proposal that BRAA has submitted. The proposal from BRAA seems to satisfy the scope of services that are envisioned as part of the next steps in the Study. The proposal identifies a Community Center Study Committee (the Committee). Staff discussed the details about the makeup of the Committee with BRAA and there seemed to be general agreement that a smaller committee would work well for the tasks to be completed. The following were identified and are being proposed for inclusion on the Committee ifthe City Council accepts the proposal: two City Council members, two Park and Recreation Advisory Commission members, two Rambling River Center Advisory Board members and two Farmington School District representatives (one school board member and one staff member). There would also be a variety of different City staff members who would also be involved at various times during the Study. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission reviewed the proposal at its May 11, 2005 meeting and is unanimously recommending to the City Council to hire BRAA and move forward with the Study. BUDGET IMPACT BRAA has proposed that the cost of completing the next steps in the Study will be $26,600.00. Staff would propose that the funding of the Study would come from the Park Improvement Fund. This funding source has been used previously for the Recreational Facility Needs Study and the Community Center Feasibility Study. ACTION REQUESTED There are two actions being requested of the City Council: Approve the hiring ofBRAA to complete the next steps in the Community Center Study. Appoint two City Council members to the Committee (if the first action requested is approved). ~M1YW Randy D&. Parks and Recreation Director cc: Park and Recreation Advisory Commission members ~ Bonestroo Rosene -=- AnderIik & 1]1 Associates Engineers & Architects 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 Office: 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311 f'iLhl~-rt A www.bonestroo.com May 11,2005 Randy Distad, Director City of Farmington Parks and Recreation Department 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Randy: The City of Farmington has shown its commitment to providing leisure and recreation opportunities for its growing population by recently completing a study that examined the feasibility of constructing a community center. The market analysis, completed by Ballard*King, included a demographic profile analysis of Farmington, community survey, program spaces, cost estimate, and operational analysis. The conclusion was that market conditions and resident attitudes regarding a new community center in Farmington are "very favorable." . Work Plan As the City moves forward in its evaluation of a new community center, we are pleased to provide additional information to aid in the decision-making process. The following work plan outlines the steps we will take to review and refine the feasibility study, develop a concept plan, and estimate costs. Project Workshops We will attend and facilitate four workshops with the Community Center Committee. The goals of these meetings and our work are to evaluate potential partnering relationships for the City, complete preliminary site evaluations of several sites, develop a preliminary concept plan, and refine the construction cost estimates prepared by Ballard*King. Four workshop meetings are anticipated. The first will take place in late May and will reconvene approximately every three to four weeks. The committee will be determined by the City and will likely include council members, park commissioners, staff, and other members of the community. Partnering Relationships The City has discussed several partnering relationships to develop the maximum benefit for the City and its community center. We will explore potential partnerships with several entities, including the School District, Dakota County Fairgrounds, Allina Clinics, Dakota County Library System, and private health clubs that are currently considering a sports medicine clinic in neighboring Lakeville. We have included Jeff King from Ballard*King on our team to facilitate these discussions and research. Based on our past experience with Mr. King, we realize the value and efficiency he brings to these discussions. Mr. King will attend one workshop to lead the discussion with the committee. He will also make contact with the appropriate entities to gauge potential interest and benefit. The findings will be summarized and presented to the group. · St. Paul. St. Cloud, Rochester, MN · Milwaukee, WI · Chicago, Il AffIrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned City of Farmington Farmington Community Center May 11, 2005 Page 2 Any valid partnership opportunities will be taken into consideration during both the site evaluation and concept plan development processes. It is highly probable that firm commitments from partnerships will be difficult to obtain at this level of planning and design. As a result, partnership opportunities may be reflected in the concept plan and cost estimate as an alternate component that mayor may not be ultimately developed. Site Evaluations Several potential sites have been identified for the community center. To identify the best site, we will work with the committee to evaluate and compare these sites. In the workshops, we will present, review, and discuss criteria to be used for the evaluations, including any relevant findings from the partnering relationship exploration process described above. An excellent tool for this exercise is the site evaluation matrix that we have developed. A sample is attached with this submittal. Once the criteria are established, an importance factor is assigned based on the community's unique requirements. After potential sites are identified in the workshops, our staff will research pertinent data such as topography, soil conditions, utilities, zoning, adjacent land use, circulation, traffic considerations, and other factors as necessary. With this information in hand, all sites are numerically rated by our design team from a design and technical viewpoint. These ratings are combined and averaged with separate ratings from the committee's perspective to provide one consolidated numerical and rating of the sites. The numerical ratings are used by the committee and our staff to develop a recommended site. Our proposal provides for a detailed evaluation of four sites. Concept Plan A concept plan will be developed based on the program established in the report by Ballard*King and discussions with the committee. Although very preliminary, this concept plan will be suitable for presentation purposes to help illustrate the vision for the community center. We will include the services of Barker Rinker Seacat Architects (BRS) to assist in developing the concept plan as well as cost estimates. Combining our knowledge with the vast knowledge and level of experience that BRS has in community centers across the country will help us develop the most dynamic and effective concept plan efficiently and provide an added level of review. Bonestroo will develop the concept plan based on input and feedback from the committee gained during the workshop. Two preliminary options will be developed by our staff based on the approved program. The program will be validated with the committee after exploring potential partnerships and will include the findings of the Ballard*King Report and survey, potential partnership program needs, and site-specific opportunities from the recommended site. These options will be reviewed with both the committee and BRS to establish the best combination of features of each design to ultimately provide one final concept plan. Cost Estimate Ballard*King provided a report-level cost estimate suitable for the first stage of this overall effort. Our work will include evaluating the program and refining the original cost estimate. We will use our local cost estimating knowledge with the extensive community center cost database ofBRS to refine the cost estimate. Combined with our knowledge oflocal conditions, an accurate estimate will result in a budget with which the City could confidently proceed forward to a potential referendum ballot. . St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester, MN · Milwaukee, WI · Chicago, IL Afffrmatlve ActIon/Equal OpportunIty Employer and Employee Owned City of Farmington Farmington Community Center May 11, 2005 Page 3 Optional Service As an optional service, the City may wish to consider asking Ballard*King to revisit the operating analysis and program spaces based on the results of the workshops. This would allow any partnering or site-specific opportunities that may alter the original program assumptions from the Ballard*King report to be reflected in the pro forma. . Project Team Jim Maland, P.E. will be the project manager for this work. The leader of Bonestroo's sports and recreation group, Jim will oversee the project team and their efforts. He will be responsible for facilitating the project workshops with the committee. Jim's 25+ years of experience includes recent similar work for the City of Shakopee and their efforts to work through a referendum on a Community Center Expansion project. Site evaluation work will be led by Jeff McDowell, R.L.A., who is head of our landscape architecture group. Ana Nelson and Dave Sanocki, P.E. will assist Jeff in this work. Ana is a landscape designer who has worked in Farmington recently. Dave will lend his knowledge of the area for utilities, roads, construction, and other local conditions. This work will likely be coordinated with Tim Gross, Assistant Engineer. Mark Forbes, A.I.A. is a senior architect with our firm. He will prepare the concept plan along with assistance from Barker Rinker Seacat Architects (BRS). We are currently partnering with BRS in Shakopee on their community center project. We plan to use their extensive knowledge in Community Centers across the country to assist in developing the concept plan and cost estimate refinement. We have also included Jeff King from Ballard*King in this work plan. The committee is familiar with Mr. King from his recent work preparing the Community Center Feasibility Study Final Report. His knowledge of partnerships will be put to use for this next step. Ballard*King Ballard*K.ing has nearly 30 years of facility management and planning experience in the public, non- profit and private sector. The firm uses their vast practical experience to assist with the many challenges of planning, constructing, opening and operating a recreation facility. Bonestroo's recent project experience with Ballard*King includes comprehensive aquatics master planning for Waukesha, Wisconsin; community center planning for Waseca, Minnesota; and community center expansion planning for Shakopee, Minnesota. Ballard*King is sensitive to the impact and opportunity a community center brings. Ballard*King's role is to represent Farmington's best interests and bring practical, proven experience to your project. Ballard*King provides cost analysis, feasibility studies, operation scheduling, maintenance cost estimates, revenue projections, staffing levels, budgeting, marketing plans and third-party design review. Barker Rinker Seacat Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture is a national leader in building community; they specialize in designing inspired places to learn, work and play. Because approximately 90% of their clients are public, BRS understands that citizens have an important role in the facilities that are ultimately built for them. BRS's process brings the public into each project. The result is that a sense of civic pride and ownership is evident in the facilities that result. Their experience includes community, recreation and senior centers . St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester, MN · Milwaukee, WI · Chicago, Il AffirmatIve ActIon/Equal OpportunIty Employer and Employee Owned City of Farmington Farmington Community Center May lJ, 2005 Page 4 throughout the country. Bonestroo's recent work with BRS includes the Northglenn community center expansion in Northglenn, Colorado and the Shakopee community center expansion project. . Compensation We will complete the work on an hourly basis in accordance with our City Contract. The estimated fee for this work is shown below: Workshop meetings and preparation.... ............. ......... ........ .................... ..... ...... ......... $8,000 Four meetings x $2,000 Partnership investigations ... ............. ........ ...... ......... ... ....... ... .......... ........... ..... ......... ... $4,000 Bonestroo: $3,000 Ballard*King: $1,000 Site Evaluations ..... ...... ........ ........... ........ ...... ... ........ ..... ...... ......... ........ ................. ..... $6,600 Research: 4 sites x $1,400 Final Plan: $1,000 Concept Plan .......... ..... ... ...... ...... ........ ........ ...... ........ ......... ..... ...... ........ ...... ..... ..... ...... $5,500 Bonestroo: $3,000 BRS review: $2,500 Cost Estimate ....... .............. ...... ................. ......... ..... ......... ...... ........ ............ ............... $2,500 Bonestroo: $500 BRS: $2,000 T otal estimated fee ..... ..... .............. ..... ................. .............. .............. ....................... $26,600 . Summary The information generated from this proposed scope of work will prove valuable as you move forward in your consideration ofa new community center. Please contact me directly at (651) 604-4759 if you have any questions about the information presented here. We look forward to continuing to work with you as this exciting project for the City of Fanning ton develops! Sincerely, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. James R. Maland, P.E. Associate Principal . St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester, MN · Milwaukee, WI · Chicago, Il Affirmative ActIon/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned ~. FINAL SITE EVALUATION MATRIX Noname Recreation Center Anywhere, MN Date Selection Criteria Importance ~neA ~ne .IS Factor I Raw I Weighted I Raw Weighted (1 - 5) 1. Existing Features Topography 1 4 4 5 5 Soil Conditions 5 3 15 3 15 High Water Table 3 2 6 3 9 Utilities Sanitary Sewer 5 2 10 5 25 Water 3 4 12 4 12 Storm Drainage 1 3 3 4 4 Gas 3 4 12 4 12 Electric 1 4 4 4 4 Telephone 1 4 4 4 4 Vegetation 1 4 4 3 3 Constructibility 5 4 20 2 10 Hazards 3 3 9 3 9 Orientation 5 4 20 2 10 Zoning 3 5 15 5 15 Adjacent Land Use 3 5 15 3 9 Size & Shape 4 5 20 2 8 Visibility 4 4 16 4 16 2. Program Fit/Character Project Objectives 5 5 25 2 10 Location 5 5 25 4 20 Neighborhood Context 2 5 10 4 8 Size/Shape 2 5 10 3 6 Public Exposure 4 4 16 3 12 Development Restrictions 3 4 12 2 6 Expansion Potential 5 5 25 3 15 AppearanceNiew 5 4 20 3 15 Land Costs 3 5 15 5 15 Maintenance 5 4 20 5 25 3. Circulation Pedestrian Access 3 4 12 5 15 Bicycle Access 3 5 15 5 15 Vehicle Access 3 5 15 4 12 Parking Potential 5 5 25 4 20 TOTALS 434 364 Importance Factor Range is from 1 to 5 with 5 being most important. Raw Score Range is from 1 to 5 with 5 being the best. Weighted Score is determined by multiplying the Importance Factor with the Raw Score. James R. Maland, P.E. ChIef RecreatIonal FacilIties Engineer o Education University of Minnesota Bachelor of Civil Engineering - 1979 o Professional Organizations Consulting Engineers Council! Minnesota Ice Skating Institute of America Minnesota Ice Arena Managers Association Wisconsin Ice Arena Managers Association o Current Registration Jim is registered in 1 7 states, including Minnesota. Mr. Maland has more than 25 years of engineering experience, concentrating on park planning, aquatic centers, ice arenas and building site development. o Recreational Project Experience Jim has participated in studies, project design and construction of aquatic facilities in more than 30 communities, ranging from community pools to multi- million dollar aquatic centers. Jim is also a specialist in ice sheet design, including refrigeration and piping systems. His ice arena experience includes projects in more than 50 communities across the country. ~ Shakopee, MN, Communlt;y Center Expansion - Jim helped the City work through a referendum for this project. ~ Northbrook, IL, Northbrook Park District Sports Center - Jim was the project manager for this S8 million sports complex total renovation. The project included two ice sheets, an aquatic facility, and multipurpose and meeting rooms. ~ Niles, IL, Iceland Sports Complex - Jim was the project manager and aquatics site engineer for this new shallow water playground with water play features and renovated lap/competitive pool. New pool mechanical and chemical feed systems were installed to meet code requirements. Bathhouse modifications complied with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations. Design features include heating to obtain optimum water temperature, wind protection features, zero-depth entry, decking expansion and repair, sand playground! volleyball courts on pool grounds, a waterslide and a concession stand. ~ Newark, NJ, WIlliam G. Mennen Sports Arena - Jim was the project manager overseeing the design for this third-sheet addition. Support areas for the other two ice sheets were also renovated. An energy evaluation of the whole complex was done to find ways to significantly reduce energy costs. ~ Mitchell, SO, Family Aquatic Center - Jim served as project manager during conceptual planning and as principal-in-charge overseeing the design and construction phases of this S3.5 million family aquatic center. The new facility is replacing a 50-meter pool in a historic park. Construction is expected to begin in spring 2005 and the facility will open in spring 2006. ~ Austin, MN, Packer Arena--- Jim was the principal in charge responsible for directing the team that designed an energy-efficient geothermal ice system for this stand-alone practice facility. ~ Woodbury, MN, Bielenberg Sports Center- Jim was the project manager for this multi-purpose facility. The ice system was an industrial quality, regulation sized sand floor. The refrigeration system was designed to serve a future second ice sheet with minimal revisions. A second ice sheet was added. ~ BlaIne, MN, Schwan's Super RInk - Jim served as the Project Manager for the construction of this S8.5 million, four-sheet ice arena. The facility is designed for year-round use of all four Olympic size ice sheets. All rinks are refrigerated by a single industrial quality refrigeration system, which includes both electric and natural gas powered compressors to reduce utility billings. ~ Apple Valley, MN, Family Aquatic Center - Jim helped the project manager evaluate this 25-year-old outdoor pool. Recommended and subsequently constructed modifications include new skimmers and inlets, new re-circulation piping, and revised deck and sunbathing area layout with grass play area. ~ =troo -=- AnderIik & 'Q Associates EngIneers & Architects Mark C. Forbes, A.LA. Architect o Education University of Minnesota - Bachelor of Architecture, 1980 o Current Registration Minnesota o Professional Organizations American Institute of Architects o Current Certification Construction Document Technologist - Construction Specification Institute Mr. Forbesjoined Bonestroo in 2004 with 24 years of architectural experience and 14 years of CADD experience. His primary responsibilities are project design, building code review and research, specification writing, contract document preparation and construction administration. o Project Experience City HaJJ, Albertville, MN - Currently moving into the design development phase, Mark is the architect and project manager for the community's new City Hall. The 17,000 sq. ft. facility will house city offices, council chambers, multifunctional community space and kitchen, and host additional conference and activity spaces. The 52.4 million project is slated for completion in 2006. Public Facilities Near '-94 - Currently underway, Mark is the architect for this project that will create a new shelter design for four higher volume bus stops near Interstate 94 that can ultimately be transferred to high volume locations throughout the transit system. The new shelter design is focusing on modular flexibility to accommodate varied site conditions while maximizing passenger capacity, comfort, and aesthetics and minimizing maintenance. Horeb Springs Park Aquatic Center, Waukesha, WI - Mark is the project architect for this 53.2 million outdoor swimming pool facility with a 4,900 s.f. bathhouse building. Exterior walls are decorative rock face concrete block with burnished and glazed concrete block accents. The roof assembly is comprised of tongue and groove structural wood deck over a glue-laminated wood beam system and finished with a standing seam metal roof. The project is currently under construction and will be substantially completed by July 4, 2005. Mitchell Aquatic Center, Mitchell, SO - Mark is serving as the project architect for this 54.3 million outdoor swimming pool facility with a 4,800 s.f. bathhouse building. Exterior bearing walls are decorative rockface concrete block with burnished and glazed concrete block accents. The roof structure is comprised of pre-manufactured wood scissor trusses with 1 x 6 tongue and groove wood ceilings throughout. The roofing type is a standing seam metal roof system. The project is currently in the contract document stage and is scheduled for a construction start-up in spring 2005 with substantial completion by Memorial Day 2006. o Previous Project Experience Mark completed the following projects while employed with other firms. . C'Ystal, MN, Crystal Community Center - Project Architect, Specifications Writer. * . Robblnsdale, MN, RObblnsdale City HaJJ Remodel - Designer, Project Architect. * . Chaska, MN, Chaska Ice Arena Addition - This project include an additional sheet of ice and a concessions area. * . Chaska, MN, Chaska Community Center, St. Francis Center Addition - Project Architect. * . Chaska, MN, Chaska Community Center, Theater/Arts Addition - Project Architect. * . Chaska, MN, Chaska Maintenance Building-Addition to the Chaska Maintenance Building. * *While employed by others .0 =troo -=- AnderIIk & 1\]1 AssocIates EngIIIHn" Architects Jeffrey ..J McDo8ll, R./A. Landscape Architecture Team Leader o EducatIon University of Minnesota Master of Landscape Architecture - 1999 St. Johns University Bachelor of Science, Mathematics - 1991 o Current RegIstratIon Minnesota Mr. McDowell leads the firm's landscape architecture team. Jeff is responsible for client contact, agency coordination and acts as the liaison between community groups and local government. He also coordinates the work of multiple design disciplines. o Community Buildings Jeff has performed the site work for numerous community buildings for Bonestroo civil clients. A few examples are listed below. For each of the following projects Jeff prepared grading plans, and coordinated stormwater facilities and site utility design. ~ CaNer, MN Fire Station ~ Orono, MN Fire Station ~ Navarre, MN Fire Station ~ Cambridge, MN City Hall ~ Maplewood, MN, Maplewood Mall Transit Center o Site Design ~ Hamel Uons CommunIty BuildIng, MedIna, MN - Jeff worked on the parking lot design, grading, drainage and sidewalks for a new park building sponsored by the local lion's organization. ~ MInneapolis, MN, Walker Ubrary redevelopment study - The City of Minneapolis looked into redeveloping the Walker library into a Iibrary\residential building. As the lead designer, Jeff analyzed the zoning requirements, reviewed all applicable codes, and wrote the report. As the project manager, Jeff coordinated the structural analysis and worked with City staff. ~ Zumbrota, MN, Zumbrota HIghlands resIdentIal development - Jeff prepared a master plan for this golf course\residential development. As project manager and lead designer Jeff worked with the housing developer and the golf club to find a solution that benefited both parties. ~ SIlver Bay, MN, SIlver Bay Golf Club resIdential development - Jeff was the project manager for this golf course\residential development master planning project. Jeff coordinated all wetland studies, forest inventories, trout stream analysis, infrastructure planning, and prepared the master plan for the site. .. CIty of Chaska, MN - Jeff developed a grading plan for a 'OOO-acre development that included residential and urban development, while protecting high-quality natural resources. As project manager, Jeff was responsible for coordinating natural resources specialists in their efforts to protect upland habitat, Iimnologists as they protected lake water quality and hydrologists as they controlled water quantity. .. Two Rivers, WI WashIngton Park - This five acre park on the shores of the East Twin River included a playground, picnic shelter, parking lot, and trails. Jeff was responsible for grading, drainage, and construction documents for the parking lot, building surrounds, and trails. ~ CambrIdge, MN MInnesota Extended Treatment Options - Jeff was responsible for coordinating the site design issues including parking lot layout, street reconstruction, erosion control, and landscaping on the campus of this State of Minnesota health care facility ~ Woodbury, MN, Hudson Road Improvements - Jeff was responsible for coordinating the grading in such a way that it protected the valuable trees in the area. Where road design did not allow for trees to be saved, Jeff worked with the roadway engineers to replace the vegetated buffer with trees and shrubs. j(Jj =troo -=- AnderIIt & U AssociaIes EngIMers" Archlledo Ana L. Nelson landscape Designer o Education University of Minnesota Master of landscape Architecture - 2000 ITESM-North Sonora Campus Bachelor in Architecture-- 1996 o Professional Organizations State of Sonora Architects Association o Current Registration Registered Architect in Mexico Ana Nelson is an urban designer on Bonestroo's landscape architecture and site development team within the firm's Building Services Group. She is a licensed architect in Mexico and holds an advanced degree in landscape architecture. This joint architecture/landscape architecture background makes her especially adept at integrating both building and site issues in developing urban design projects and master plans. Her professional work has focused on urban design and campus planning, and she has developed exceptional graphic skills that facilitate clear presentation of complex plans and ideas. o Master Planning/Urban Design/Site Development ~ Maplewood, MN City Hall Master Plan - Ana designed the entry plaza for the existing City Hall to help drainage issues and provide a focus point for the building. She also integrated rainwater features with an educational emphasis for residents. Other features include: Seating areas, informational kiosk and signage, color concrete patterns, landscaped areas, and drop-off zone. ~ Maple Grove, MN, Public Works Campus Master Plan - Ana worked on the site master plan helped identify ways to accommodate the Public Works expansion on the City's existing 18+ acre site, and evaluated the need for acquiring adjacent property. Specific challenges included separating general public and city vehicle circulation and accommodating the water treatment plant's expansion on the public works site. ~ Minneapolis, MN, Conceptual Redevelopment Alternatives for the Tyler Street Site - Working with the Minneapolis Community Development Agency, Ana prepared alternatives for two redevelopment options for constructing 20,000- 40,000 sq. ft. buildings on the 9.6 acre, 1-2 zoned site (Medium Industrial). ~ Maple Grove, MN Lakevlew Drfve extension Project - As part of the Bridges of Arbor Lakes residential development by OPUS Corporation, Ana designed the aesthetics for a 600-foot long retaining wall to be the welcoming centerpiece of the development. The wall was designed with the effect of an arched bridge with ornamental railing, decorative lighting, tree grates, and a walkway with an overlook to the main street commercial district. ~ Plymouth, MN. Plymouth Ice Arena -Schematic design, construction documents for the expansion of the Ice Arena Facility. The design included a new circulation study for the proposed drop-off access, planting areas, and new designed parking lot for the facility. ~ Frfdley,MN United Defense Courtyard Design - An underutilized confined area is now enjoyed by many employees as a gathering/relaxing space. Ana developed concepts that include a rainwater garden to solve drainage issues from existing buildings, a new walkway to connect existing sidewalks and building entrances, picnic area for employees, seating points, and landscaped areas. ~ St. Paul, MN, Wilder Family proJect- Site design for a 25-unit multifamily rental townhome project, including a 5,000 square foot Commons Building and outdoor play areas on a 3.5 acre site. Design included parking, circulation, sidewalks, ornamental fencing, entry columns, play areas, and plantings. J[Jj =roo -=- AnderIIk & 1\11 Associates EngIneers & Architects IOe City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us FROM: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator ~ Lee Smick, AICP City Planner ~ TO: SUBJECT: Plan - Reviewl Approve Responses to Comments and Final AUAR and Mitigation Farmington Giles/Murphy Area AUAR DATE: May 16, 2005 INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION The City of Farmington and Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates have recently completed the Responses to Comments for the Farmington Giles/Murphy AUAR. Additionally, the Final AUAR [Alternative Urban Areawide Review] and Mitigation Plan for the Farmington Giles/Murphy property is being presented to the City Council for its review and approval. Responses to Comments The following agencies submitted comments to the City concernmg the Farmington Giles/Murphy AUAR (see attached): Metropolitan Council Minnesota Department of Transportation Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District Dakota County Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Staff requests that the City Council suggest any revisions to the comments, accept the comments and/or revisions, and direct staff to mail the responses to comments to the agencies for their 10-day review. Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan The order for an environmental review of the Farmington Giles/Murphy Area was approved by the City Council on December 6, 2004. The property encompasses approximately 350 acres south of the proposed alignment extension of 195th Street, east of the Parkview Ponds development, and north ofthe Riverside Estates development. A draft of the AUAR and Mitigation Plan was approved by the City Council on March 21, 2005 and the 30-day comment period for agencies to review the plan commenced on April 27, 2005. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Reviewl Approve the Responses to Comments and direct staff to mail the responses to the agencies for their 10-day review. 2. Review Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan for the Farmington Spruce Street Area. 3. Ask questions (if any) and/or seek clarifications (if needed). 4. Adopt motion recommending that the City Council approve the Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan, either (a) as is, or (b) with any additions, deletions or revisions suggested by the City Council. Lee Smick, AICP City Planner 2 RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING FINAL AUAR AND MITIGATION PLAN FARMINGTON GILES/MURPHY AREA Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 16th day of May, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, the Farmington GileslMurphy Area AUAR boundaries are depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A, and; WHEREAS, the City anticipates future development to evolve over the next 10 years in the Farmington GileslMurphy Area, consisting of single-family and multi-family residential, a park, and natural area uses; and WHEREAS, because of the scale of future development and the sensitive environmental resources in the Farmington GileslMurphy Area, the City determined that it was most appropriate to plan for the area under the provisions of the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) process as described in Section 4410.3610 of the EQB Rules, and; WHEREAS, the City approved an order for an environmental reVIew of the Farmington GileslMurphy Area on December 6, 2004; WHEREAS, the City approved a draft of the AUAR and Mitigation Plan of the Farmington GileslMurphy Area on March 21,2005; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Farmington City Council hereby approves the Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan of the Farmington GileslMurphy Area consistent with the intents and purposes of the Rules of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board under the provisions for Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). The following conditions shall govern this review: I. The specific boundaries of the Farmington GileslMurphy Area for review under the AUAR are depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 16th day of May, 2005. Mayor Attested to the _ day of May, 2005. City Administrator Giles/Murphy Property Location Exhibit A / J J /'pmf:f ~~~ -A\ ~~I~~~~ ,'</x~ ~i---\Y "-lJ..fJ (ill <<<:/\t ~ I U/0 (). t--., /' \~~~\\\\\~ \~1 '0<::- ~t ~~ / f::-q =-lL III 1\.0 \ H' 1111" h1'Y::0~<S <v'f rmm~ 1~~ l 40~ \ \jlK 7~ M $J \ ~ '<Irrm /' ~q) \\ '-- 1 !:Ibm :it ~~~ 2 y~))O' ~ l ~~\~\ t:\V \"0....'1... ( I---' "-IJ. :sri 1= ( ~ ~ ~Il~:r-) (tj~ ~ ~I~ ~ ~~R y % I~ ~ -~ 11Y7-d.~ \ '1 ITTT\?J ~ n\ \ (1~'0~ J'- ..J ~ \ ) I;:: ~n \: ~~ ~f--~\ II II II II f- 0 t= c<) ~ I I- ,J1D L I.---J III /- \ t Lf- -1" - ~ R~'a ~ A rJt' rye IIII11 IIA ~ '-TfllllTTTl - I II /// ':3mnmm LL. \~ !-ll-l rr / / /'Y;':' I~~$ ~ r 1f ~ t^: IIIIII1111 II ')~ R I I ~~~I~~I ~t _ / ( II I~I ~;s~~~~ CSAH 50 ~ trnnl m!rffi BIDJ nnE ~ L ~ 6~ II~ ~II ffiNJ ~8HtJ Ifj ffi!B ~ . ~t.~ ~m~ttlffi~ffiIEJ ~ fl V 11~I.fr ~~~[1ffiiJ~ffiBJ~~~~ ~ ;? l erg ~~~~mlIJ~~UUD rvv .~C L~~ Illi~ liB - r:::::-- -- OJ' If--h L N A City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us lOci TO: U Mayor, Council Members, ~.{f(,~ City Administrator ~ ,- FROM: Lee Smick, AICP City Planner SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Bristol Square 5th Addition Preliminary & Final Plat DATE: May 16, 2005 INTRODUCTION Jim Allen, SAS Development, LLC proposes to plat 53 multi-family townhome units in the Bristol Square 5th Addition (Exhibit A). The Bristol Square Preliminary Plat was approved in 1998; however, the developer is proposing revised unit counts in the proposed buildings and he has also proposed an additional unit from the 52 that were proposed in the preliminary plat. Since there are revisions to the 5th Addition concerning unit counts in buildings and one additional unit from the 1998 approved preliminary plat, the developer is required to submit a revised preliminary plat along with the final plat. DISCUSSION The Bristol Square 5th Addition is located to the north of CR 72 (213th Street) and east of Willow Trail in the Bristol Square development. This is the final phase of the Bristol Square Townhome development. The developer proposes 53 multi-family units on 4.46 acres yielding a gross density of 11.8 units per acre. The proposed plat shows lot widths for individual units between 26 and 35 feet. In the 1998 plat, the lot widths were proposed at 30 feet. Because of the revisions to lot widths on the proposed plat, the number of units within a building changed in most cases. Exhibit B shows the approved 1998 plat. The pink portion of Exhibit B shows the proposed 5th Addition submitted in 2005. Next to each building is a circled number calling out the total units proposed in the 2005 5th Addition plat. The 2005 plat proposes an additional unit totaling to 53 from the approved 1998 plat totaling 52. Transportation The access for the 5th Addition will be to the east from Prairie View Trail to CR 72 or to the south from Arbor Lane and Willow Trail to 213th Street. Prairie View Trail, Arbor Lane, and a portion of Willow Trail will be constructed in the 5th Addition to complete the roadway system in the Bristol Square development. All roadways are private and will be constructed at 24 feet in width. Parks & Trails Randy Distad, Parks & Recreation Director has submitted a letter concerning the trails that the developer is required to install (Exhibit C). Trails are shown on the attached plan through the green space in Block 2 and on the northerly property line in the 5th Addition. On April 27, 2005, the Parks & Recreation Commission approved the green space in Block 2 and the proposed trails as shown. Planning Commission Meeting - May 10. 2005 The Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary and final plat on May 10,2005. A resident from the Bristol Square 2nd Addition presented her concerns to the Commission about the need for the developer to complete the installation of trails and landscaping required in the approval of the 2nd Addition plat. Additionally, the Commission was concerned about the remaining punch list items from Bristol Square 1 st and 2nd consisting of the installation of sod, trees, and trails. Staff explained that letters of credit for these items remain with the City and if the developer does not complete the items, the City may pull the letters of credit and perform the required installations. Additionally, the Planning Commission reviewed the building elevations proposed in the Bristol Square 5th Addition plat. The Commissioners commented that the builder should provide a higher degree of architectural features on the front and rear elevations of the buildings (Exhibits D & E), similar to what Allen Homes built with stone accents on the front and triangular windows on the rear of their buildings in the 1 st through 3rd Additions of Bristol Square. Staff has included the elevations for City Council review and comment. Engineering Engineering has recommended approval of the Bristol Square 5th Addition Preliminary and Final Plat subject to any engineering comments or requirements. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt a resolution approving the Bristol Square 5th Addition Preliminary and Final Plat contingent to the following: 1. All engineering issues shall be addressed and approval of construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering Division shall be required. 2. Execution of a Development Contract between the Developer and the City of Farmington and submission of security, payment of all fees and costs and submission of all other documents required under the Development Contract. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Lee Smick, AICP City Planner cc: Jim Allen, SAS Development Inc. RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT AND AUTHORIZING SIGNING OF FINAL PLAT BRISTOL SQUARE 5TH ADDITION Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 16th day of May, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, the preliminary and final plat of Bristol Square 5th Addition is now before the Council for review and approval; and WHEREAS, a public hearing of the Planning Commission was held for the preliminary plat on May 10, 2005 after notice of the same was published in the official newspaper of the City and proper notice sent to surrounding property owners; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the preliminary and final plat; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has rendered an opinion that the proposed plat can be feasibly served by municipal service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above final plat be approved and that the requisite signatures are authorized and directed to be affixed to the final plat with the following stipulations: 1. All engineering issues shall be addressed and approval of construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering Division shall be required. 2. Execution of a Development Contract between the Developer and the City of Farmington and submission of security, payment of all fees and costs and submission of all other documents required under the Development Contract. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 16th day of May, 2005. Kevan Soderberg, Mayor Attested to the _ day of May, 2005. David Urbia, City Administrator Bristol Square 5th Addition Property Location N A E?~ DIIITI Qi <1> '- Ci5 ..c N ..- J702 Ttrn 13:66 FAX 651 463 161~ CITY OF FARMINGTON APPLICATION FOR fLAT REVIEW 1lI.002 DATE Ma.rch 21st;---2005 E'f-.AT NAME . Bristo~ Square 5th .Addi tion LOCAI10ti Bristol Square AREA BOUNDED BY .213ttl $t:reet and Cambod!.~L Ave.. TOlAL,GROSS AREA 4.46 ZONING DISIRICT(S} , . . NAMES' & ADDRESSES: OF, A1.1.. OWNtRS SAS DevelopJI}~nt_ LLC. ' cIa, Sharon Allen, 12433 Princetarl Avenue, Savage,. MN 55378 . PHONE: 952~894-1890 NA.t1:t .& ADDR;~S OF LAND' SURVEYOR/ENGINEER Engineer- :Bohlen SUFv~YJng --&_Ei1,l]inee~inq .' W'pHOt'lE ,952-895-9212 4735 W. 123rdSt. Suite 200 Si;:ivage MN" 55.378 ' NAMES & AD~RESSES OF ALL Jl.D~OI~INC: J;1RCYPEf1:n OWNERS AVAILABLE FROM: .t' ON: PLAT RE~IEW OPTION: PRELIMINARY & fINAL TOGElHER: PRE l?UT ADHINXSTRATIVE FEE: )( IN SEQUENCE: PRE PUT $t1~TY:: t HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 1 AM (WE ARE) THE FEE Ow"'}.-EF.(S) OF 'THE A,BOVE LA..'iD, T3"AT THE . ~' ' , PERSON PREPARING 'tHE PL.!\T HAS RECEIVED A COpy OF 'IIl'LE 11, CHAPTERS 1 iRRti 5! EWU'!LED' "SUBDIVISIONS" AND TITLE 10, Cll1U''IERS 1 TIIRU 12 'EN'!J:TLED '.'?-,ONI:NG" OF THE FARMINGTON CXTY CODE ,,\lID WILL PREPARE THE PUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH TIiE PROVISIONS ,i ...... CONTAInED THEREIN~ Cqnstruction plans due: 3/21/05 ", / Marqh.14th, ~oo5 DATE . , ADVISORY MEETING; J I 1 . SKETCH PLAN .; ..<;' 2. STAFF AND DEVELOPER CONSENSUS :~" Wf:~~.r~i"@"lli. U \~) :. I' i !! ,__:1 " i' ! ~ i r~. .'- - Il-,':)- ,ll~1 MAR 2 I axJj r-' L' . .. ; '.l ~, l . " i! : j H ; i); -i L'.::/ ! , 3aJUI ?^,cl 0-' Occo..~+ / "'\ ~ '\ .. ), y'y " \-,. ,- ;- / . =~/\'v: 'yJ J c.~~: ~"~'V':_~ i-- - -L- __ _ __ ~~_ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ ~ ____ !OCII'Il 3.lSi.50.00N ~ ~ 2 ---- I'-.. '-....( 7 ~ ~ e --, .. ,)- I "......'... --, I ,J{~~~ C.fJ.("F.} ... ---:J c::J..j, 'rJ I I- r_' "(.(,,..... r-- ~}-i I 1-. --1 " "- y / y " y " 7' / '>V// / 'y / Y // / /" v / / <: '- / / / / " / / /~\ A " y )' / " " " / ). , / ~ I, . fit J I ~i. , f ~~l-i -+' __ 5!~1 {III ('f'f !! :0' !I i 'I h h I 'I/. I! m !r' ~d I I~I~I , . . ~ ~. I !I g ~~~ ill!! { I'~ I' lDI 1; . ~i!s m I IWi h u - ~I ~ :> .ii ; i~lll~~ I .. / I ~ ~ , ~ "- "'-.01 "'- ;s " "- is f--..... , I '7 IN 'V \ r f- l- I- 'r- I I I- L__ I r / / / L " ,g 'is ~~1i i2 .0.. u:c~ g" " C> " ~.~~ UJ"e _u.a. ~ "l: lD Ii ~ ~ , ~ ; ~ ~ ~ I ~ Ie.. I i ~ ~~ J ~ ~!! ~ ~I 111<1 ~ B ~ . a dl~ I . ~ . ~ I ~ . u. f ~I pn . -. ~ ( 3 ~ -~ (j I o....j J~i o....j j:::~ ,q~~ -E ~ .I;; l>:l ~ -I II, lEt Ii ~ .~ Q) c c '5 ~ ill-W.- -gell (IJ IDe> c: ~ .~ o 1: I c7l " . I~il i.1 @"l N ..... [XH/8rt A LL o N f- w W I (f) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~o ~~ 0"' ~z z~ ~~ ~~ :g15~ ~~~ ffi a:ue! ~ :i~ '" N " lJ) g itllJ) " " lJ)~ 1-'" Z~ :>0. 00 Ww lJ)lJ) 00 0.0. ~O 0. if ~ ::; ~ .. wI- "Z ",w z:' -w ~~ I I I I I '" ~ I- W lJ) " z 9 => '" ~ 9 ~ ~ ~0J:~ ~ ~15~~g~ g: (f.l~...Jo~::5 w ffiu~~j!:Q. m 5E~::l~~ ~ c>~~I-t;O tI) ~~~~~~ t 0(1-09>- w il!li!!i!h;! I! jOio~1il Cf.) ~g~~c(~ ~ Nc(lI..cnti2i M o ~I ~ w is CJ :! W :> ~ i : "" .I .'J) _z_. i I ! . . if ! Ii f' J ~ I I , \ ---\ .______t':'-.. "., -:(~ I: : i 11 J.: . ,~I ,-iT. Iii I I ! i ~M iN 'r-- :g :0 u u ~ I~ ~ < $! ...,!H .s ;e &., w ;g_~j;; i -'~ f -~ lit' ~~ I~ f~'= !i txfll8rr 4 c: c; j ,g z 'C .. g < ~ i Q) c: u ~ 0 w I z ~ .~.!! 0 '" u:s~c; ji; ~ i e ClUJ c::: ~ " ~~1j ~ '" ~ ~ <J) 0: (l)a:J..co.. w ~ ~LL~ 'i J: ~ "- "t: 0 z ED '" 2 iv/I ~__ G / 'ON O~ 'OJ ~/!" , - - - -'-----.j, - - - ~ ' ----------------- r~/ G ---.----.--.. -,~ "' " ,~ /~::!) /8/8 I~J I >- j I ~ ! I '" ; I ff I ! ,; If I Q? , Ii I I I I I I < $ - -~~@-.eG}-- -~@ - ~-_ ~ ~ ~ o (]) u .,....... -----W '-.; $ I/~ /"v. 1./" ,~,/ ", "...~"/"l' " aJ)~:f:/)X: , '..z, .( a ~ ~ ~ U; ~ e ~ g ~ ~L~ n~1 f ~ ! Ii ~ Ii I S ~ II i I 1111 i ~ 1- ~ < a '4 ,- .., ~~ ~~ e I o cq ~ I . . ~ h.."-? ., e> c: 'C: Q) Gl c: c: "g> Q) W W ij ",-m- ale> c: ~ .~ I ~ N >' I- se III 0 " " I- 5 2 " ,01 0 z z .. 0 w 0 " J .. ::> ~ z " < ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ .. g ...J Z Z Z <J) < ~ ~ <3 g i!i z u ~ z ffi " <D VI iil " z "', w '" <( ~ ~ 0 :> o;~ !O I- ~ VI .. 0 z ~o{~ Ieo 0 a: " .. .. ~ .. -z u t:~ w g w " w ~~ 00 co ';i ::J ::J " ~ 5~~ '" " " a: "-, i"G ~" ~ jj~ ~~~ 1< "- w ~! "'" w 8~ w.. " w ~ w . 0; VI 0;"- ...~~ z.o ~~ " " ~ ~ ~e ~~ :i!I :!f!~ ~'i' o;w w i ~ VI is ~ 03 ill => VI j~ <D1eo "l"" "" os ::> i5 z z 0 :> ::i G " ~.. <( 0 w 0 j!'> ::!u. ::lo~ il! 0 w " ~ I;; ::J ..W -' z !i! :: ::> ~S z " in 0 "'!li =to~ ;!!li ' ~o " J: ::J <D Z 8 ~8 ",'" ~~ Z ::J >- '"" z " ~ i Vl~g Vl~f5 w" z VI '" 0 z " z 0 :;; f!' <D"- 0 0 .. ~ ~ ffi ~ , " in x " 0 =>0 ~~~ ~5~ <Do ~~ ::> f!' ~ '" in a: 0 ~ o VI '" ~~ ::; VI '> ffi CD '" ""\ i 8 ~ ~ ~ ~~N ~gtS ~ " 0 .. !i ...." 0 ~ :::! ';i ,; 0 Ii' 0 Ii' ,,- zw o~. ~ Oi! ::Iz u 01 :::! ,{; ~ ~ 0 .. I;; ~i~ o .. ~~~;5 <0 < .. '" J: " ! VI z 1? 1? 1? ~EVI "VI ~~ 8 0 8 .. .. .. 1.\ VI " ",,,0 G:; -, O;z ",;:; ~ ~~~ ~w~ 5~;! ~~ z:::! ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ ..J~~ iii, w b1!! <5 ~ ~ Z ~:::!:::!<D ~~ ...J-..ci CD b "!JJ "OJ 'bJ 'UJ ". .. i!i w i5 :::In:::: -,,,,< Bj -'0- ~ 0 o 0 "r :~! :~m r+~ lit OJ 11* '" m ",II ~I!; 111 C\I ...- tlll(fjt1 A LL o C\I ...- ~ i j " '" J .; ~ Iii Iii ~ z I ~ ~ ~ I- W W I CJ) ~ . ~~ z o ~ ~ ~ I ~ & i ~ Ii ! a IIj ~~ J~ " . hi .pi ~'l - !: :::~ =~= d ~: ~I ~ ~ ~o ~~~ ~w ,N z --3 :lg- O~ ~~ >~ ~N ~; ~r:<u :s~~ ~~~ u,,; .. ~;r~ g~~ ~=.~ I ~I o ~ o g "' o ~ ~ ~:.1 ~l ~. ~:, '"' ....~ ~ ,",0'0 '~N -' q;r.j ~ ~~~ ~, '-::: ~, ~ ~ ~;: ~SS i5g~ , N ..,.~ .:. "':",u:l", ~gg3 ~~~ ~ " 0 ~, g;: ~oo ~l..... ~~~ -. I _ ",-;:- ~~3~ w, ~~~ >, ~~~ -0 ~~~ TIJl:LI.sll~I1ij!.iH1J- 0 gl 0 z ~ 8 '0 '~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ I u ~..; . ~ " , G o j ~--------- ~ ~ .~ 3 .1\;,60.00 '" .-------.----- ----- ---------_.-----------,------------ ~61Il'"'1I.1.lC.JlS.lJt/'l'I.Oi]Hl ' JO HI)N:)-IJ..<<I Jo'l111S.J]Io<l I I I I I L l\J 133~lS "- d HIN331~IHl z I '" '" I d u N .: I ~ - I z ,- , !~ I ". ~. o. I .. ~, 0 a~ z :!~ I ..q- " z I , I I L 133~lS HUl3^1 2L 'ON a~ 'D:I 29'8"!; ~ \j"- ~ ~ ~ 8 0 0'>11'< ~ ; 0 M z , ~ ~ t ~ 'i~u ~; -~ j . 5 i , ~ - - -:;-- ..: Vl I ... M i\i 100 ~ ~ I I I I I I I ~ ~"' 'Q'" ~ ~ "ir:;Bi OtJ~~~ <..> tlg~'f {.:) ;t:~ON' @5 ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ rs [3 r;~~'" "' '" ~~t:Ie; ~~~:S;:! :-1 ?5 "':3'f ~ ~~~B C~~c...~ ;:) ~ '" 1i ~; .. ~ ~.,; ~H l >;>.~ ~ ',' iH ;.. : :!i ~ j~.~ ~ ~,f~ a. IiI w ~ ;:: w W I "' ~~"" U ~~ ..,J ~'" '" ..,J I;l'" ~ ..,~V~ o ~~~"' ~...~~ 'Q~~~ C"j~t.1 r. i ~ i I !II Ii': ~ ~ Ii; II;i ~ ~ d, 1/:1' Vl ~ II: ; ~ ! ~ '[':11,111, cr j! i,l: i I i i I z '-'. Vi" IJ,J'! O~ ill ; I tho bl<<)! z !H ~iS: 0 ~!~i J:IN1 <= gi -~ -< u ;il! ~! i~ G: <= ~, :5 ~:\i" ~Ia;)i u lu;. y. .:;'1. l ~; ;l"& ~ ~t2~ !iU u ~ ~ '" ~ ~ ;:j ;:S~~ ~ ~"lS~i:? ~~~::l~ ~G~~"" [3 O~d5S?~ ~ ~() "'~~ ~ 'l::~~~", ti35 ~~ao ~~t;j~~ "l~~"'~ ~U",a..:.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d/-l/BIT13 h ~ ,., ~ S1 ~ .. \I) ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~!~ ~l t'~ .~ " .~ )--.~ ~~ ..... ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ Cl '" .., ~ ~ .~- ~ ~ ~ ~ I U .~ .~ L \, ~ ''S\ "- ""-~ .J GXH/~lTv City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Farmington Planning Commission FROM: Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director RE: Comments on Bristol Square 5th Addition Preliminary and Final Plat DATE: May 5,2005 BACKGROUND A preliminary and final plat have been submitted for Bristol Square Fifth Addition. DISCUSSION The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) held a special meeting on April 27, 2005 to allow the developer to address the PRAC about the park and trail locations in Bristol Square Fifth Addition. During the discussion, the developer and PRAC members agreed on the following points: 1. The developer shall construct all trails in the locations identified in Exhibit A. 2. The park should be dedicated as private green space and should be dedicated in the location identified in Exhibit A. 3. The PRAC and developer agreed that the developer would not be required to construct any amenities on the green space but was required to plant at least 12 trees around the periphery of the green space so as to provide shade for people who used the private green space. 4. The private green space shall be owned and maintained by the homeowner's association that is created for this development. In addition, there still appears to be some trail construction that has not been completed that was identified in previous Bristol Square Additions. City staff and the developer will need to work through these details and reach a resolution on how and when these additional trails will get constructed. ACTION REQUESTED The PRAC is recommending to the Planning Commission that it approve the preliminary and final plat for Bristol Square with the requirement that the trails and private park be constructed in the locations shown in Exhibit A. ~l1YSul)~ ~ f>(~.Pi /J~ Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director cc: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Members __u I .>1- --=<t-:II-~.~~~,~lA - ,''- o",-."~ ' I ,~". 4:." ~ ," ! , '" ~ ,.:;:,,~ 1'. " . .." <~ ..,,'" ," ~.! J "'~ '" c-<'-' + ," < 0 ~~JSc!~-:' 4 !B! af ~ . r:>=, III 1_ ""'_ 0" -" C f;:>!/ ' I~' I ""'-- ! · ~ or" ~ .' "" 0 ~ _~" , ' 0 ., I- !! -,____Z. ... .. 0' · .; .,!; L-1JJLJJ~ 'OJ ~. r,- ~ ~r------It:-/-_...,-,~: -=-~ ,_ . --- ! I , _ " ,u: ~: r rf'~ . - ' ' , , 8. 'r' ~ ~ . - . . . , / " I .. ~ - ~"7)" ' . , " ." I f' · . . , ' I ! ' e ~~ 1~"Jn-Fil~l r==wl ;-;~~~;j ~ 1 &i' ~ Ll ' II Jf"1i ,,-m~ ,-' ~:cbJj ~ !- q ~rc-c;tjjj I. . -'Co. j 1-' - ,--1t-1"i: -, /( I I' ~," I.n IH- '1- 0--.'4'" , , I ,. IT''- -.- _+-r... "', ~' . _ ' j. . of- 7-1.=17 ~~"'" f-,-1 .,,' ~ Ie. . ~' I JIM! -1--1" I ' y)!,~~~ !!' ~~ ~,: " I ~~~ 0 I" =" "~1~~,~~~Uj ~i Ii 0 -= I I~tr r F-, ':Q?I ,1\ ,'HI! ~ ,;r.;f ~J~~!~~'__L _~N n v~ ~m=~~UUf~, I ~" _ /.jll Ii: ,_ J-- L h-J I ICI--- un~ ! I I j J ;IJ = ~e, f1I . ~~ - - ,;(;.;:~nrR' · ,-,:::::".!~pj · :j:" . " , 'Ii ~ ~j!' t:iC .;.. ;.:; _ ,- , ,-,,~ I I" ~ -I~';j F I :ell U , :1 %l1,,~1 t IU ,~,..ll ",V ~!!! ! 1 1', . I ~ ,L.J (l _ tJJ ~d- I ~''''3S ,.""" ~ j~..=f~~~~-' -fr+1+l - ~ B j ~ ~ I ~ r,~~..1' lfri'tNI U-J [J _II -ll#--f1J~~ 11::- '-is ~ ~p /; f L~'" "'l: 'ii!, i:J ' . . ". y -:cc L":'i:>- i ~ . II. . Ii; If'IL.!o _ T"T1~ T · · "I = [1L 'l'\cJ~ !' II' I (if. <J ;'4t.~" ~ - I ~ in- I .~ ,,,I ~u b-1,h'l.,-i _ .,~. _ -~ '- Uln d ~,~.w I: I ' tl' ~-~J;f"'"- 0 Ij . - =, I~ I' i ..~~ II . ,llJi.l-.L1!. I . ", ,^ ]J [' ~1 rr i.! I ~, rr/f ~; I. ' ,", :#,,(4 - ~;liILj ~~L I J ~ ff'~, ,,'/hj~" 'e- I"., f. I --=-r--L.' ,t'J\.~ ~\ - j.! ./P ,\. ,~. ~~ "~ r ,'1. ~ .',.~ ~.~ / 7, ,",)<:' <"";':'.-' 7-:,/' i I;:' ~ff I \.,/ '~ ~_1 '~~~ /~"\' // '/ "X')" ",\ ",\< ~'< ". + , I _ \' " .7^'- ". ' X/ · >'" , " ,60 no .: 0 ,,/ / ('<,. ", ~ - ' / \ <x, /X' ,,~ .~ ,.j , I \.' ( Y ,,,, /"' 'X ' ,. " -:? ' I rc' . .""" ~.<<" ,,'0 "if ),-,y , · A' - ,0 / . ';' ~ " :i\" ~~ / ~ ~ .d ,,;>'-.., ~~' / :> /<~::.?;;~ :.{Y\' I .... -' '" ,:5 ~ ..,/,<~()J'~ ' ,',/ /;.>~ ,Y "- ~.._, ". ~ ~/Y ,'> " '\, ' v' / / ' :./ ~ . .< \J> Yo' o" 'x/" ", .. / / ? I ,'" :#~ x0-",,,,,,.;. ' ....::/ /){/~~/ ';>> '~f~, ~/:;;>:' , 4' ,,/ .! ffi.( -'("t<. (Y )Y .?.... ;~ o'I/oA ,<' ()J~ ~;/~ '-<JJ\0'-~ ~ ) @i'{/^,,>,j>*~'~ <~/ II "'", " \);:. <>", y~ ~/ " ,," <,. " , ' ./,~"... ", ' y,' // '" " (D '.' . '\\. ' ,~ <<. /" '" . / . e, 0 ..\ ' <" <;). ~ W" , "" ,i1i<( / o'" , C _ 0 , ' " '" ;", "" 'c.:C, '" "" ' ~/" - ~ ~ ~ ~ ... . (;;:f,. / y:X~ili<,'3< ~r,,, ..;/ ~~~. / _, <l>~ ,..~. ' r ~ WI" ..oJ,-" 'S ,\'. ~ / c / /,"" \' -So'" " / I ^ ,/ ,< .' K~,i~' '<. ';:;/;;"/'f/;j:'0> \\_ /./ //~. /'. ~:,)':.,.' ~~~X'j > , ~ ' " ",,' .y / ~d / .. '-./.=. .....~"''v'v - /' 0<'/ , _ / -, ).x....;./'. / / , __ ' /'. A / J -<// - ~ <::1 ~ ~ )I. w I I I I Q - ~ ", :r:: ~ SSro~ z ~~ g E-< (II -:::: ....:!~ 3 0Cf.l- E-< - ro SS '<;/- E-< Ia o::~o r( (II T"""I....:! ..... :I: E-< ~ ~ o E-< Q Q o ~ ~ :r:: .~ ;:;l SSm {::. o Z t:l:: -~ '3 r... "'-....:! 0 ~ E-< co ::: - ~ .... ~....:! 00'() ~ t:l:: Cf.l.... ~E-< . 0- ~ ga;!E-< ~ (J) 0::<-0 ~ ;:::;zr::Il;:::::....:! - :J ;:::;z Z Sl - Q "- ~~~ garr, 3 2S~ 0 "'-....:! '- E-<co S ....:!~ Ia 0Cf.l~ ""7:: ~ E-< ~oc( Cf.l - o::~E-< 8 I co;:::::3 E-t ~ ~ II >:: Ii:! co .....4~ Q Ii:! ~ ~ - ~f() ~ :j ~ E;:~ 0 <r: g E-<CO ~ U - r... "'- ~ (f) :: z....:!O' '3 oOCf.lOo E::E-< ~~~E-< :; ~"""T"""IO C'C ~COT"""l~- ;:;g ::J ;:::;z Z Sl Q ~ ~rt) ~ E;:~ '3 E-<CO ~ "'- - ....:!O' - 0Cf.lt'- ~ E-< ga'<;/-E-< to- o::l'-o ~ CO;:::::...:l C'C - i- I ~l 1 II 11I1 I I \\ \ II 'i I \ I I 1\ II II t ! \1 1\\ \ I / II I IIIl1 ~ \ I \ III1 III I I 1\1 I 11[1 \1\11 I II II ~ II" II! mIll I---'f-- - "l' o I -- ~ i'l'Fi" ~ - - ~ . ~ .J.: -n II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II -IJ ~~ ~~ Ii:!<r: ~u (f) E)II/~rf [) ~ Zo 01 I--l ~ ~i1 >~ ~CX) .....4~ ~~ dol ,---' ~ ~L; \1114 \ NN.v f~ -n \I II II II \I II \I II ~r \I Z - II 0 II 0 I II ~ - II ~ .,....-I II ~ II II :> - \I ~ CO II .-:l ~ II ~ .,....-I II II ~ ~ II ~ ~ \I ~ ~ II .-:l U II lf2 II \I II II II II -u 0 I ..... '0 I ..... ~l; o :z; -rn Srz:l rnO ~Si :Z;""" s: >--n II II II \I II II II II II II II II II II II II II \I II \I II II II 11 \I \I II II II II NQ: [X1I16/T D Zo 01 ~ - ~.,....-I ~ II :>~ ~co ~~ ~.,....-I ~ .. ~~ 0~ ~U O::::r.n. ~ III I I1I1 I II o "l. 0 1-2....-J ~ I- ~ ....... ."i .G o \I) W N :r: (f) Z ll.-~ -' I-ffi ll.- :c~a ~O(f)~ Wo::: ~>81- 8<(00 ~2'--'~ ~ ~ a:: _ u. . ":: o }. W ::J- :r: v-, - (f)--.NZ 0 - -0 I z _ ll.- :J :;: II I-ffi >::: , ll.- W co <0 ~a ....-J ~ O(/)~ W'- g;nl- I- W <(go z-' ~'"-' 0 <( ...c. 0::::0 LL(f) Q..- ~ o 0 .... W :r: (/)....:.- i z LL~ ~ -' ,- I-ffi ::s <( LL ~~a --.i) t710(/)---> \.r\ :::;0:::....,.... t-J ~ >1)1- _ ~<(Oo :::; 0-, , 2'- <0 '0 I -- ::J.,f ,--' I --[l mill II II I II - II 111\19' II II II II r [Iii II II I ..- j . - . - .... I . ,. II - CI) ~ 0 I z E2 ~ ~ CI) I I ::ci c.. I UJ II ' I <l; ~ I I 0 I I UJ I .... ~ I -z .. ~ 1 II t:z. 0 0 P:: file! 1IIIIr 0 t:l ii: z 0 ... U.ll CI) 0 CQ i--- - I ",,-,'c.."". - L ;.::~:, . . ,:.,.:.,. -" '. - 1 itll r i-=- [[Im L-l '0 I -- ~XHif3lr l? I I I I I I I I II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II -u o ZI 0- - .- I- II <:: ::: >co w"---... ....-J .- W o::::W <(-' w<( o:::~ ~L co '" ~ . ~ "'z .' < -u '", I . ~ -- J~ .... -u co \<- ~I -11 II :: II 0 II Z I II O- I1 .-- II l- II II <(:: ~ II > CO II W '-...... II ---1 .-- II W II W II l- II :::r: ---1 II C) <( II 0 II 0::: (f) ~ II -u eJ7 ~d .'7"".~J -L 5;&\ f~.r' ..... I' t'- ..JUi ~..;- :; i.o.J:5e. "'010 :EI.+I..... 0-='" In. ~~g :=OiM -nf5~ri 11;:::5 - II~g a II~"'Z I II 0- ': I- II I <(:: I > co I W'-...... I ---1.-- I W I I- W I LL---1 I W <( I ---1 0 I (f) I I -u EXfl-I8/!~ fOe.. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us FROM: City Council, Council Members, l~V City Administrator ~ Lee Smick, AICP City Planner TO: SUBJECT: Middle Creek East 3rd Addition Amendment to the Planned Unit Development, Rezone, and Preliminary & Final Plat Review DATE: May 16, 2005 INTRODUCTION D R Horton has submitted applications for an Amendment to the Planned Unit Development, Rezone, and Preliminary & Final Plat review for the property located south of 203rd Street and east of Eastview Avenue. The proposal for the property consists of 26 single-family lots on 10.69 acres (Exhibit A). The Planning Commission reviewed the PUD Amendment, Rezone, and Preliminary & Final Plat on May 10, 2005 and recommended approval of all these items. DISCUSSION The Middle Creek Planned Unit Development (PUD) was approved by the City Council on February 7, 2000. The PUD proposed the eastern section of Middle Creek for 4-unit multi- family buildings designating the PUD in this area for Medium Density Residential (Exhibit B). The Middle Creek East Preliminary Plat was approved by the City Council on July 15, 2002 (Exhibit C). Proposed Amendment to the Middle Creek East PUD The Developer proposes to construct 26 single-family lots on a minimum of 10,000 square-foot lots within the location where Medium Density Residential was originally approved by the City Council on February 7, 2000. The portion currently being proposed for single-family units was originally proposed for fifteen 4-unit buildings totaling 60 units. However, because of the overabundance of multi-family units in this area, the developer chose to revise the PUD to allow single-family units similar to the Pine Knoll neighborhood adjacent to the Middle Creek East 3rd Addition. The overall gross density for the proposal is 2.43 unitslacre and the net density excluding the outlots and right-of-way is 2.91 units/acre. The setbacks for the single-family homes are proposed at 20 feet in the front and 6 feet on the side and rear yards. Corner lots are proposed with a 20-foot setback from the street. The minimum lot width is 80 feet and the minimum building pad is 60' x 60'. Zoning The underlying zoning in this location is currently R-3, allowing for Medium Density Residential with a allowable net density of 8.5 units/acre. The developer requests to rezone the property east of Eastview Avenue and south of 206th Street as R-l (Low Density Residential) to comply with the amendment to the Planned Unit Development. Middle Creek East 3rd Addition Preliminary & Final Plat As shown on the plat, the developer proposes twenty-six (26) single-family residential lots on 10.69 acres with a gross density of 2.43 units/acre. The net density excluding the outlots and right-of-way is 2.91 units/acre. The lots range from 10,388 square feet to 31,960 square feet in size (Exhibit D). The average lot size is approximately 14,962 square feet. Multi-family townhomes are proposed to the west of Middle Creek East 3rd Addition. An existing single-family development (Pine Knoll) exists to the north (Exhibit), and a lO-acre protected wetland to the east. Transportation The developer proposes to extend 206th Street to the east through the single-family development and loop the street (East Oaks Drive) to connect with Eastview Avenue on the south end of the plat. East Oaks Drive will be constructed at 28 feet in width within a 60-foot right-of-way. Per the City's Engineering Plate (STR-05A), a sidewalk is required one side of the street. The developer proposes to locate this required sidewalk on the east side of East Oaks Drive. Access from the Middle Creek East 3rd Addition development will be to the north on Eastview Avenue (existing 38-foot wide street within a 70-foot right-of-way) or to the west on 206th Street (existing 32-foot wide street within a 60-foot right-of-way) or west onto Cypress Drive (proposed 22-foot wide private street to be constructed in the Middle Creek East 2nd Addition). A dead end street at the southern end of Eastview Avenue will be allowed with the City's standard "Through Street" sign installed at the end of the street (Exhibit F). The dead end will be allowed because East Oaks Avenue forms a looped street at the southern edge of this plat providing looped traffic for both the Fire Department and the Solid Waste Department. Sanitary Sewer During the PUD portion of planning the Middle Creek subdivision, the City discussed the possibility that the developer of Middle Creek prepare plans to assist in removing the existing lift station on Eaves Way through a gravity sanitary sewer line installed through Middle Creek 3rd Addition and the rear lots of two existing homes in the Pine Knoll subdivision (Exhibit G). The layout for the pipe through the existing rear lots is proposed in order to allow for adequate cover for the line without encroaching/filling the protected wetland east of Middle Creek East 3Td Addition. City staff is currently working on easement acquisition for these two properties in Pine Knoll and the layout ofthe sanitary sewer line to the lift station. Parks and Trails Randy Distad, Parks & Recreation Director has submitted a memo concerning the park and trail requirement for Middle Creek East 3Td Addition (Exhibit H). The Parks & Recreation Commission (PRAC) reviewed the plat on April 13, 2005 and approved the trail locations. A trail is proposed along the east side of the plat adjacent to the proposed rear lot lines in Block 1. The Engineering Division has requested that the trail be located directly along the rear lot lines in order to form a boundary between the residential lots and the wetland buffer because of encroachment issues with homeowners in the past. Therefore, the developer should relocate the trail in the wetland to directly behind the rear lot lines in Block 1. However, since there is an existing grove of large trees directly behind Lot 14 Block 1 (Exhibit I), the developer will locate the trail further to the east to keep the existing trees and then bring the trail back to the rear lot line behind Lot 13. PRAC is recommending that no land be dedicated for a park and instead the City will take cash in lieu of land since Meadow Creek Park abuts this plat. Wetland The wetland east of Middle Creek East 3Td Addition is a protected wetland and no encroachment of any structure is allowed. Trails are allowed within the 75-foot wide wetland buffer. Additionally, wetland buffer signs will be installed by the developer every 300 feet along the east side of the trail. Engineering Engineering has recommended approval of the Middle Creek East 3Td Addition Preliminary and Final Plat contingent to any engineering comments. ACTION REQUESTED 1. Adopt a resolution amending the Middle Creek PUD/Schematic Plan from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential area. 2. Adopt an ordinance rezoning the Middle Creek 3Td Addition property from R-3 (Medium Density Residential) to R -I (Low Density Residential). 3. Adopt a resolution approving the Middle Creek East 3Td Addition Preliminary and Final Plat contingent on all engineering issues being addressed including the approval of construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities required by the Engineering Division. 4. Execution of a Development Contract between the Developer and the City of Farmington and submission of security, payment of all fees and costs and submission of all other documents required under the Development Contract. ~~ Lee Smick, AICP City Planner cc: D R Horton, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING THE MIDDLE CREEK PUD/SCHEMATIC PLAN Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 16th day of May, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, a public hearing of the Planning Commission was held on the 10th day of May, 2005 after notice of the same was published in the official newspaper of the City and proper notice sent to surrounding property owners, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD/Schematic Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential for the Middle Creek East 3rd Addition, and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the PUD/Schematic Plan Amendment, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above 2020 Comprehensive Plan be amended with the following stipulations: 1. The Middle Creek East 3rd Addition is amended from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential. 2. Subject to Metropolitan Council approval of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 16th day of May, 2005. Kevan Soderberg, Mayor Attested to the _ day of May, 2005. David Urbia, City Administrator CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. An Ordinance Rezoning the Middle Creek East 3rd Addition property from R-3 PUD to R-l PUD. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City Council approved a petition to rezone the Middle Creek East 3rd Addition property legally described in Exhibit A on the 16th day of May, 2005 from R-3 PUD and R-l PUD;and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a public hearing held on May, 10, 2005, recommended approval of the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Farmington hereby amends the City Zoning Ordinance rezoning the Middle Creek East 3rd Addition from R-3 PUD and R-l PUD. Enacted and ordained on the _ day of May, 2005. SEAL CITY OF FARMINGTON MAYOR ATTEST: CITY ADMINISTRATOR Approved as to form the _ day of , 2005. CITY ATTORNEY Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of ,2005. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Outlot B, Middle Creek East RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT AND AUTHORIZING SIGNING OF FINAL PLAT MIDDLE CREEK EAST 3RD ADDITION Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 16th day of May, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, the preliminary and final plat of Middle Creek East 3rd Addition is now before the Council for review and approval; and WHEREAS, a public hearing of the Planning Commission was held for the preliminary plat on May 10, 2005 after notice of the same was published in the official newspaper of the City and proper notice sent to surrounding property owners; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the preliminary and final plat; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has rendered an opinion that the proposed plat can be fe3;sibly served by municipal service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above final plat be approved and that the requisite signatures are authorized and directed to be affixed to the final plat with the following stipulations: 1. All engineering issues shall be addressed and approval of construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering Division shall be required. 2. Execution of a Development Contract between the Developer and the City of Farmington and submission of security, payment of all fees and costs and submission of all other documents required under the Development Contract. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 16th day of May, 2005. Kevan Soderberg, Mayor Attested to the _ day of May, 2005. David Urbia, City Administrator Middle Creek East 3rd Addition Property Location 208th St N A "j / APPLICATION FOR PUD - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT /lMe-IV(}IYlelV'""'- Date: Fee: Name /vI'I)Oi..c c!/teii'K C/l:>T .3;10 AtJiJI"nCN Location Ell.>"! Ilr e/lJTfI/EW Av,ffll/Wc A/I/O SpI.I'771 ~r :2#~'TlI Jr/!ccr Zoning District (s) j'/?/I/'&t>C..tJ #-/ t.P~ f)CN~ rry ~C"510j{/V'/111 '- Names & Addresses of All Owners: O./? H P /!.'f"l/ /II"f'''' e 2-V Z (., fl KC.,lIlV!.JO 6- e- C{'we.r; 51,{ rn3- 100 tAKetnut: I /'J1N S"so..fi.f Principal Contact ;?~~ ;.nu~~~AC44 Telephone qs z.~ &}.! S- ? 82.. 7 Names & Addresses of Property Owners within 350 Feet Available from on Project Data Land Use Total Acres Single Family Multi Family Retail Office Institutional Parks Wetland II). (, if Densitv Units/Acre 'J..43 Residential Parkinq No Off Street Single Family Multi Family Retail Office Institutional PHAS ING AI - Jf/p,,,e PETITION FOR REZONING I, the undersigned, am the fee O\\11er of and hereby request that the following described land: {)ttrLor S. fYI~tJ{)i,E ~tteeK eAs,; Ac~,,7KO)lVc- '/lJ 'THe l!eti7/YJelJ lJiA'T 771eItE(JI~ IJI1KIJ'r/l ~uIllTY, /ul!I,f/llesorA I ~ be rezoned from: to: (( -.g /A EO itilV1 Jj eN~' iTY Ife.s, tJ e NrlA L- IP-I uW /)efl/5rry /?e5IIJEAI'nAL I understand that a public hearing is required, as well as a published notice of hearing, for ,,,'hich I hereby attach payment of the fee in the amount of S _~(!C' "t' , which I Understand further will be refunded if no meeting is scheduled. ?'IL~~ Signature JpS-/O.r Dak / The Planning Commission recommended on the to (approve) (deny) the petition. day of ,19_ City Planner Action of the City Council: 1. On the day of , 19_ declined to set a Public Hearing. 2. At a. Public Hearing held the (approved) (denied) the petition. day of ,19_, Date City Administrator In accordance with Title 10, Chapters 2 and 12 of the City Code. cc: Planning Commission, Council, Attorney, Engineer, Water Board: PARAe APPLICATION FOR PLAT REVIEW DATE jlfRIL t/ I 2ot:?S' PLAT NAME MII)f)i.e ct'<cteK lEAS r 3/:0 Al)LJlnON LOCATION EA...s'r Pr c/'/$-T~ieW Av'e,vJ.(~ A/V IJ si"u'rtl PI"" .2..vi, ;11 S",I!J;'Cr AREA BOUNDED BY pplll1l .' PINe K/lh'fJ..L' 5,JW'/1I:/HIIJIILE t:.ilii&-J( I'AIlK..'. f'.!e.sr,' cASTV;6w cNtlt:'- TOTAL GROSS AREA /1:1.69 Al,l?es ZONING DISTRICT(S) 1'1!.f/!'t.'IJClJ / 1'-, Utr'" lJiiN..;/tY' .Re.snJ&'-/lIT/IIL NAMES & ADDRESSES OF ALL OWNERS ~;/?O lfpR'rp~ INC. 20$6& Ke/VI1~/iJ~e Cr . f#I'Te 100 t.1l/Uivli.i.-6. /f;t# Ss-o '-14 " We, l-/I "V.,j) / PHONE: NAME & ADDRESS OF LAND SURVEYOR/ENGINEER /';/!/lIt:e~ CiV~1Nee.eI;.J&- 2"'''Z-2- eilrrr:Aft-lS'C {kille, ~itNl)v'Tf.I Hel6-ilis. I~AJ ,5s'/7-0 PHONE fL.51-tr/-111'i NAMES & ADDRESSES OF ALL ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS AVAILABLE FROM: ei1~,It;rul ON: PLAT REVIEW OPTION: PRELIMINARY & FINAL TOGETHER: PRE PLAT ADMINISTRATIVE FEE: x IN SEQUENCE: PRE PLAT SURETY: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM (WE ARE) THE FEE OWNER(S) OF THE ABOVE LA.1.'ID, THAT THE PERSON PREPARING THE PLAT HAS RECEIVED A COPY OF TITLE 11, CHAPTERS 1 THRU 5, ENTITLED "SUBDIVISIONS" AND TITLE 10, CHAPTERS 1 THRU 12 ENTITLED "ZONING" OF THE FARMINGTON CITY CODE AND WILL PREPARE THE PLAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN. ~ U~,{ S GNATUR OF OWNER J/2.f> /O~~ D,.<TE / ADVISORY MEETING: 1. SKETCH PLAN 2. STAFF AND DEVELOPER CONSENSUS __;!~l______ --, 1 I 1 1 1 1 \-- l" ~S m~ o en In z 0 r - 0 0 <( 0 ~ 0::: ;o!'l to ,,., &l~ r if) <( W ~ W W 0::: U W --.J 0 0 - 2 tlltT- 1Ut,~~ I ~i " . ~~ J _0 i~/\ i~ ~i".+~-.~ <:I D:;l \ ~~~~ LIJ ',..0 :;~~ ..'; k.~.g <1~ 1"'lI.o l\ ~... -, I -, 1 r. V 'I /1 -, _J . I " c:: ., " 6111/811 /i l:: !",,,, ,.,'" ~rii z I I I \ L \ I I I I I I I I I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ V ,<' -~~ ,.)> ,..)) ) ;:8,... ~~~ iJ~ <I LIJ =J " "'- ~'J -> <( '.' LIJ Ld LrJ > 1-- en <C Ld -..; () () :~ ~I"'" to!.... ,.)> L.) c> () 0::: u \.)> \~/ '-' , , , ""1''''/ -., "'- i ~ i!i 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~- ~:: o () c-J <( , en t ::> I ~~ : ~i Ol-' ::>0 1 oili : ~.... _ _LJ ~~ -1- -I ~~ I ~~ a'~ If) I ~ : ! ~- en <( Ld ~ .rl w ~ 'il :; ~ p::1 ~ ~I ~! .1 _I P-.l ;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ffi i; 5i~ffi~ i5i5' ~i~~i~ ~i~ ~z 2i!il!l ~ ~ <oWZ!iG::G s~~ ~!ii"'~!!! ::11&1= Sg&....iGe !m~ i~I-~~:1 ~y<> ~Ill~~~~z :~~ ~~~::;n <~: ffi~e~~S~ ~~~ ~1!!2ilili:lIi.. i~~ b~/i~~~ wag ia-ci~ii~ ~Lt f-P i:;.~ 1~;: r;!l ~!iJl "j 0 - Q, 's:~.!5 jt~~5 1I'I:,;g] i~"=~ .a.!S!.i,S r-----~~~ : : _ul ~ I ""'/. I "./~, : w i .~:' L ~! ~ 1-------~.-1 o I ' i : "t.' I' I tol, I .....4 L \. .:t';: 'oS': ___. _...:.l- _____~ -- ..---::::: ,.0(" , c..-'\<<'"\..-\:.. \ .......'~, ..... .-r 'fi)'0 \ \~~1'LS \ ___-- ;--- \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ... ~, ..~ -:l! ~i5B ~i ",g "'.... z o F " ill ~~ 0- N ~ ;E 3 5l Vf~V.:l ^Hd~nVf )( &.l Q ~ W &.l :r CII <( l- .a ~q~ o::::::JZ <o..:Z u.. - U~ >-- :ct-Z Cl..<(a 0:::21- ~wG ~IZ u- C/)~ 0::: < u.. 6111;13/1 13 jCII~ ~~~ q>=~ =!Ol= Q,.~~ uuo F=oF= <z< aF=::I ::rill!!:! u~o lIJ&.lcn ":N"; i:;i!1 - ! ,,(,;"'i.i~., o P~i~;"'lil!l HHJi=- !!;I ~ :~~7~~~~li~1 o I g.J r 0 6 A "I , . t . · III f - I'r * ,~ J; :1 [\ J i I j- 1 .J 'I I I I I "" Q) \: : 111 p ~ III\J , II J ! 6 i . .., )! #~;T. ~ :s a -= < u o .... s . -A! ::z: -jZ ~-"" -;i; ~Iii;i S22~! ~~~if C:C:C:::1: &22$1= cJ ii - ! ~ :: .. Q ~ ~I ::l ~ii ~!~ Q 31~t ~!~ ~ ~3: ~~: ~ ~~~ ~ sa _a iH ~..~- 1=". ~~c~~ iHb; !!S!! H~n c:t:c::: a2=~= .. , , -~ i e~ .u . ... ~ c:~::c: 2~ Sl~ t: - '" .. .wu .. =:C:'" ~ 0 ii !i;;~;.t:: a~:I:Ult Sl2 :j ~ ~ ~ ~ i z :5 a. Q =i \ b ~ ~ ~~< ~\.l.:. \. -...... \!, \ ~ '0 . ~\t ~~j . ~~~;I -~~ \!::~ ~ <{ I- 1-(/)0 (/)z <{<{z W---1 O-z [Sr2 W 0::: .. o:::<{Z OZO W21- ---1-(9 0---1Z w- 00:::2 20-0::: <{ LL ~ ~~~ ~ :W'I g~~ ;; ~~II~! O!i' ::~ a~~ ~N 12 5J!?8 ~! ~ 8: g ,~ D ..:~ u~~ ~ . ~g! &/I ;., ~I~ r ~~ ~~~ t <= :tli~ i! Do;; ~~ ~ 8 g; gll/!3/j e l~_..". ," I , , , , ~- ...t;~ tlW" ~H; .. "'~.. ic..' ~ >~!! V1 I! I~~ ::( I!I!I!(! ~ U~n I- ~~t:t:t:t: ~ .~22Jit~ ! :u; f ~I ~ ... .., 1Il1:l~~~ ~ ....65~~~ z ~EF~~~ :s CLC:' ?:':>- i t:; >-5>-li:li:~~1l: Gja::oG:<-<-<a:,< ~~~~~~~iil~~ ~;~i~~~~i~ UD.'" . . . ".soid ..: Nn "lit an co,.... _ , I I .- -- ~ I , , , I " I I I I , I I I e ~ i i 2 ~ ~ n. ..: - ::IE ~ i F ..: g .... III ..: w 1:) w '" u ~ c c :i u z olJ- ..... Uz Zw -::IE ~~ ....~ lSw xc ~~ cu '" f I ~ i ~ 8 '" . ~ I 8 I; IX . l ; II t I . . . s. l , : , f" . Iii ... mla1 ... en Ii Ii r it! I, !i' ,.1 III Iii III ill ill ~X!ll~rr [) .r! .~I ~I ~I ~! ~I !I p...l z 0 I- - 0 0 <{ 0 0::: i:J 1'0 '" <J < .. l- I ; ~ u - "" if) l- ff} D b b w '" 0 0 <{ ~ ~~~~ w (f) en<,...... co>-tri~ -< <D< ci~ ... ~ I I If. ~ e::: ~~~~ UJ > If. W w:t<< ",<> ~ <a:_N ~ W ~~gg D t-N 0::: 00-'-' III ~ ~"'CDm U ~" <~ O~ If. W t-~ ~ 11)" (/l;e ! -.J < 0 tu 0 If. ~ - "'5 2 If. If. ~ N~ If. If. ~ ~i If. If. ~ ~ t')~ N" >2 ~ \,t\ l'Zl z~ g~ ~~< o~~ o~o <gjl'Zl O~~ ~l'Zl~ ~o=s l'Zl ~ ~ <~z ~"'""'o ~~~ ~dCj gj~~ u~=s :s6~ o~~ 80 ~~ Cj II i , '0 ~~"l~'1lC1l ~ ~ ~ 0 ~~= <l:l <l:l <l:l. 6 6 eo< ~~ '" ~ "'~ ~ ~ <~!;i!;i!;i!;i ,.ffi ~.ffi~", ! ~ ~ :J::C~~~~ ~'" ","",. Z Z ,.,.000 I ~><p..~><~ffi~ ~o~o~<<,.,.,.~ VJ a=:" ~VJ!v.leu!ue""'''"'oooo ~ jl~lj~JIJ~!I~j~~I~!! _N f"'l . V"'i \0 t"'- 00 0\2=~~~ II gllll3/1 ~ I ~ uu zz QQ "'''' OO~ llifli< ~~~ 000 ~~~ . ~~~ ~ 000 Q o < o "'< ~I iii ~. ..~ ffi; eh ~. g " ~ ~ ~ g ..J ...:t-Jt'f'i 666 o II II ~~ .. ~I ~~ is I~!I ~1lI - Z -: 3 i 115 iia ~ I-~- ell !.-, W ~ li~ u ~~i "to ~d ,. ii . ~~~ ~!~ o ~i ~'" ti~ t! ~il ~ ~ I!ii IU 8 ~ . . . ~ ~ I ! ~::::s- ..~~ ~.:'" ~ ~l~ ) : J I ~ l ~ z 3 I ! is . . /: iflJ 0 ! >- tD It)] ~ fIll i::i .r J II: Itf. l:i1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ;5 w ~l ~nH ~~ Pll!~ ~ ~~~ ~Hl~ ~~ ~~~~M~ .~ ~~~~i .o"'2i;~~~ I~:w~i' ;n~ o iq!~v ~PP~p~n~h~8p~h~ z nn~~ HiH~ni~~;n~li~Un ~ ! ~'H i ~ ~ ' ~ ~ : ; ~; . ; I" .. ~. ~~r' '( ; j : -i'l ty' i i ~ H ; U (Ii l :~ I dl[~~ i l i I I " I ~ "I: /! ~b .)! ~ j:!N Jill' '"I:... u~.I~ i'~ ~~i~~!j:!h ni~~i~~~ NOTES: 1. Design shall conform to these requirements except as otherwise approved by the city engineer. 2. Sign shall be reflectorized as per MNDOT 3352.2A2b. standard No. 2 3. Sign shall be constructed of aluminum per MNDOT 3352.2A 1, black on white with 4" letters. r:i'f : ; .~ :.li to! .<:1 ~~ NOTE: BARRICADE AS PER FARMINGTON STANDARD DETAIL PLATE STR-24 ~ ~ I I I i I I I I I I I I I I ! I 8' -0" ,2'-0" 4'-0" - o c I E L[) FUTURE THROUGH STREET. RE CONNEcno MAY RESULT IN INCREASED TRAFFIC. - CD c I E N Nominal 8"x8' -0" Aluminum I' 48" CD I"") FUTURE THROUGH STREET. UTURE CONNECTIO MAY RESULT IN INCREASED TRAFFIC. Ex!lll3/t r 1/2"x4-1/2" Galvanized Bolts with Cut Washers (Carriage, Hex. or Sq.) 1 " x. Ground 8' steel channel posts with standard weight of 3 Ibs/ft STANDARD DETAILS FUTURE THROUGH STREET SIGN Lost Revision: Jan 2004 City Plate No. ( FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA J STR-24A H:\STANDARDS\STANDARD PLATES\STR-29.DWG r-/ " /0 / / ~(OX: 11 t1JIO~O(r..- _0.- _0___0 ~ ..Z"../ .' / 0 t::; 1 n I 1v'1 ( /1" / o I / (J) W > 4: W ~--~ l" /' o \( I 1 \ -.J - - - ) ~ crYll.1!NCi!N!BU l.AND1'I.AHJII!IlS LAJlDSW:VEI'OlS ~AIl.OIITIIOS Mendola Heights Office 201 BSIb A__N.W. Cooa bJIiC. MN SS433 (163)713-JUO Fu:7I3-1113 ~~';):::s~~':::7 H_ am. dol)' Ucznsed ProfessicJMI EnJin= WJdcrlhclaWJ oflhc s~orMinnc:s:OU ......... 2422 EmerpriR Drive MendOUl HeiJhls.MN 55120 (6S1)6&1-1!l14 Fax:6&1-9481 Kellb A. wiDentImJ RCJ.No. ~ D.k~ ex!!; t7/r ;I City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us TO: Lee Smick, City Planner FROM: Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director RE: Comments on Middle Creek East 3rd Addition Preliminary and Final Plat DATE: April 20, 2005 BACKGROUND The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) reviewed the Middle Creek East 3rd Addition Preliminary and Final Plat (the Plat) at its April 13, 2005 meeting. DISCUSSION The PRAC reviewed the Plat for trail and park locations. The PRAC is recommending to the Planning Commission that the Plat be approved with the trail locations that are identified since they meet.the location of trails that were identified during the Middle Creek Park Master Planning process. The PRAC is recommending that no land be dedicated for a park and instead the City should take cash in lieu of land since Middle Creek Park abuts this development.. RECOMMENDATION: The PRAC recommends to the Planning Commission that the Preliminary and Final Plat fQr Middle Creek East Third Addition be approved with the trail locations that have been identified %YjEU) R~YD~d Parks and Recreation Director cc: Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Members n\ ~ ::\ f \ L\\ II \ I \ .'\ I 1-, I i-- !i:! ! I tG~\: / " " ..J :--:: -.- .- l- I ! .. .. - -" ~ j :p . ~ ;t .I ! .~ .. I. Ii I ~ :1 I I ~ !ll r ; 1.1 t I 'I ' . :;!flj I! 15 ~ J I " r 1 I 8 ~J : i ,... I I ~~! : Cl EXill(3)rI' ~~ ':eg ~2 ..~ ~~ U~ ~. 15 Cl ~ i I_ il-I::1 t I : l i j i ;! : fr"!illiiit : I ~ J 1 I : :~. f : i j I ~ I i I iip j i J .. t: il," J i. ! I~ II i · 11.1 1 . ; = i, J I !t Hi << i .t I . . J I I. · J::l , ! ti!l i !! :dd!! i J i' . 1 iJ:I. ,!' 1 1= I ' L 1 U III iJ j ! ;l I If' 1~' i:< 11 !: In 1 : i ~J; ii i i~ Si Ii lit I ! n fh, /i ! i! !I '1 m f! i '" Cl ~ ..J z~~ oa~ t;1IIU: o~i :r::S c::!~ ol~ . ~ R I ~ ) I ~ . ! : ji I Jlf: Fr !11 ei. f:~ ;t III IE . . . . II .. t.. N \rt "" ! :a~ "~!m i ~ I'!; .= ~ i ~I ~ ~I ~ ~l:; ~ll -, !' -- . 0... ! U ~j ! I I ; IOF City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us FROM: l;PC/' Mayor, Council Members, I City Administrator .~ Lee Smick, AICP City Planner Tamarack Ridge 4th Addition Final Plat TO: SUBJECT: DATE: May 16, 2005 INTRODUCTION Jim Ostenson, Farmington Severson L.P., proposes to develop 4.2 acres of commercially zoned property east of Trunk Highway 3, south of County Road 66, and north of 209th Street within the Tamarack Ridge development (Exhibit A). The Tamarack Ridge 4th Addition Final Plat is the last phase of the development that included 73 single-family lots and 134 multifamily townhome units. The 4.2 acres is zoned B-1 and allows uses within the Highway Business District (Exhibit B). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Tamarack Ridge 4th Addition Final Plat on May 10, 2005. DISCUSSION The City Council approved the Tamarack Ridge Preliminary Plat on May 15, 2000 (Exhibit C) after approval of an R-3 Planned Unit Development on February 7, 2000. The developer proposes to plat two lots and outlot the remaining lot for the development of a bank on Lot 1 Block 1 and a retail center on Lot 2 Block 1 with the outlot proposed for future development (Exhibit D). Lot 1 Block 1 consists of 1..57 acres and is located at the southeast intersection of CSAH 66 and TH 3. There is no access onto these two arterial roadways. Access to this lot will be provided by Cascade Drive from the north and a private street to the south intersecting with 209th Street. >'....c-:, Lot 2 Block 1 consists of 2.6 acres and is located at the northeast intersection of 209th Street and TH 3. Access for this lot will be directly onto 209th Street. Outlot A consists of 0.9 acres and is proposed for future commercial development. A storm water pond exists adjacent to Outlot A to the east and the facility will provide a drainage area for the two platted lots. Transportation Because of Dakota County and MnDOT's access requirements, no direct access onto CSAH 66 or TH 3 from the platted lots is allowed. Access to the lots will be from the existing Cascade Drive and a proposed 22-foot wide private road that will be located along the east side ofthe plat that will intersect with 209th Street to the south (Exhibit E). Jim Deanovic, developer of Farmington Family Townhomes has agreed to allow Mr. Eggum to remove the northerly portion of Catalina Way that currently intersects with Cascade Drive and construct Catalina Way to continue westerly and intersect with the private street (Exhibit D). This proposal eliminates the two northerly road entrances (existing Catalina Way and the proposed private street) being within 15 feet of one another which would have caused traffic movement problems. Additionally with the reconstruction of Catalina Way to the west, the area was proposed to be opened in order to connect to the existing sewer line in the area. The utility easements will remain in place for the portion of Catalina Way that will be eliminated. Parks and Trails Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director has submitted a trail plan for the Tamarack Ridge 4th Addition Final Plat. As shown on the plan (Exhibit D), a trail is required to be extended from Catalina Way to the west to intersect with TH 3. Additionally, a sidewalk is required to be extended from its existing location along Cascade Drive to the west to intersect with the private roadway along the easterly property line of the plat. All other park requirements have been met through cash-in-lieu payments. Tamarack Ridge Retail Center The applicants propose to construct a 25,750 square-foot building and provide twelve retail spaces in the development. The building is proposed at 350 feet long by 135 feet wide. The lot coverage for the building is 22.4% meeting the lot coverage of a maximum of 35%. The setbacks for the building meet City requirements. Parking requirements include 1 parking space per 200 s.t: of retail space. The total number of parking spaces required is 129. The total number of parking spaces proposed by the applicant is 134 with 6 handicap spaces, meeting the City's parking requirements.. The store fronts will mostly face TH 3 with approximately four retail spaces facing south to southwesterly. The building will be constructed with concrete blocks. The building heights range from 16 feet to 24 feet for the parapet portions of the retail space (Exhibit F). The floor plan consists of twelve tenant units ranging in size from 1,800 square feet to 2,700 square feet (Exhibit G). The store entrances will face the parking lot. Loading areas for the retail spaces will be at the rear of the retail center. The loading area is proposed at 13 feet in width and runs parallel to the rear of the building and the proposed private street. Separation of the loading area and the private street will be through a valley curb that runs the length of the building. Roundbank The applicants propose to construct a 6,800 square-foot first floor and basement for the building. Future plans include a 1,800 square foot expansion of the building. The plan also calls for 4 drive-thru lanes on the northeast side of the building.. The lot coverage for the building is 10.8% meeting the lot coverage of a maximum of 35%. The setback for the building meet City requirements along TH 3 however, the Planning Commission approved a 20-foot variance to the minimum 50-foot setback along CSAH 66, which is considered a minor arterial roadway. Parking requirements include 1 parking space per 250 S.L of office space and 1 parking space per 2000 s.f. for warehouse space. The total number of parking spaces required is 31. The total number of parking spaces proposed by the applicant is 50 with 2 handicap spaces, exceeding the minimum parking requirements. The revised concept shows a peaked roof (Exhibit H), typical of the single-family homes in the area. The building will be constructed with a stone finish in beige and brown earth tones. A circular wall will be located in the northwest comer of the building. The floor plan shows eight office spaces (Exhibit I). The main entrance faces west and a secondary entrance faces southeast. Engineering Comments The Engineering Division has submitted comments for the Developer to address. A 30- foot wide utility easement is shown along the east property line for the location of a sanitary sewer line. An existing easement from Cascade Drive to the west is for utilities that currently exist in the easement. Engineering has recommended approval of the Tamarack Ridge 4th Addition Final Plat subject to any engineering comments or requirements. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt a resolution for the Tamarack Ridge 4th Addition Final Plat contingent to the following: 1. All engineering issues shall be addressed and approval of construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering Division shall be required. 2. Execution of a Development Contract between the Developer and the City of Farmington and submission of security, payment of all fees and costs and submission of all other documents required under the Development Contract. Respectfully Submitted, (Jr;f/~ Lee Smick, AICP City Planner cc: Jim Ostenson, Farmington Severson, L.P. RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING FINAL PLAT AND AUTHORIZING SIGNING OF FINAL PLAT TAMARACK RIDGE 4TH ADDITION Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 16th day of May, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member _ introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, the final plat of Tamarack Ridge 4th Addition is now before the Council for review and approval; and WHEREAS, a public hearing of the Planning Commission was held for the preliminary plat on April 25, 2000 after notice of the same was published in the official newspaper of the City and proper notice sent to surrounding property owners; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the preliminary plat on May 15,2000; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat on May 10, 2005; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the fmal plat; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has rendered an opinion that the proposed plat can be feasibly served by municipal service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above final plat be approved and that the requisite signatures are authorized and directed to be affixed to the final plat with the following stipulations: 1. All engineering issues shall be addressed and approval of construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering Division shall be required. 2. Execution of a Development Contract between the Developer and the City of Farmington and submission of security, payment of all fees and costs and submission of all other documents required under the Development Contract. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 16th day of May, 2005. Kevan Soderberg, Mayor Attested to the _ day of May, 2005. David Urbia, City Administrator Tamarack Ridge 4th Addition Property Location N A MRR.30.2005 1:32PM DArE NO. 057 P.2 fi::? ~ rc:~1 ~ - c- ~..., '~ D IS <.g; IS U \\i . . .:1\.\ '-" ~:._.: I 11 : ; Ii , ' , ':1 I' IAPR I 9 2005 1111 1 j , 'i J APPLICA:i:ION FOR PUT-lEVI' PLAT NAME 7f!!''t?t'4Ll /8' ~ '-. LOCAIION rJ.' ht ~j q ~ /> f? z,d~'Y'h J"f, A3I.A BommED BY f'~);tlJe TO't.U GROSS .AllA ftlll l,S- C1C1't"J ZONING PISTRICI(S) 13 /'1 NAMES & ADDRESSES or ALL O""NERS ~'m M/!I1I61? ./ii/11); .1m JtWqJ41" 1- i~ '!dJ Cr~~Iv/'. L/V. #..3Jb.:f3Jt>bl1)/'" . '1'1 Vl)h . PRONE: tJS 2 ~,,~ /-1 ftJ] NAME & ADDIl.ESS OF LAND SL7.VEYOR/ENGlllEi:P. ~'i2\PJ\~ 'i ..\A~ '^ ~ .Q.f'tl/1 ~/~Z.2. W-41'}';.R ~. ) ~~a ~, f..ll3~srf6~ /I ii. -l9(i! NAMES & ADDIl.ESSES or ALL .'oDJOIllING PROPERTY O"lI~ : 'VA!LllL~ nOli' : I: ON: F1/1/Al- ~ =?oo PLAT REVIEW OPTION: FatLL~INARY & FIN~~ !OGE!~ER: PRE PLAT ADMI~ISTP~~rlVE F~~: IN SEQUE)1CE: PRE PL-\.'I Su~r[: I HERE::6Y CE;&.TIFY TH-o\'I I A.'i ('WE AR:E) mE FEE OWER(S) OF nu: .uon !.A.'iD, 'IH..o\.'I THE PERSON PREPARING THE PL.~! HAS REc~rV!D A COpy OF TITLE 11, C~~TEas 1 'IHRU 5. El"nI!LED "SUEDIVISIONS" .:\).1) TInE 10, CRAFTERS 1 IBRU 12 E~IIn.:ED II ZONI~G" OF TRE FARMI~GTON CITY CODE .\ND ~I:l P~!?_~ THE PL~'I L~ ACCOp~&~CE WITS TEE PROVISIONS CON!AI~ED 'IHERZIN. ADVISORY MEEIING: L. SKE!CH P1All' 2. S!AiF.AND DEVELOPER CONSENSUS 6:flIBIr 4 z o I- o o <( J: I- ~ W c..? o n::: y: o <( n::: <( 2 <( I- is III 'I ~ " ~ ~ ~ z ;; ~ 1 i' ~ P ,~ Ht i ~ ~ i5 5 i ~ ~ i 1 ! h 3 " . ; i ; i i ~ i " ~ ; , ii t ~p i~ i i; u :5 G.Ji-S - Hi J I!.! i ai ~ :d i2 -: oS i :K I.: "0 i it ~ ~ H 1 <1 i i ! :i :i ~ a~ !.g Go i~ ~~ .. i~ i~ '5 ~.s; :!i u !~ t Ifi :S !' ii !1 ~f ~! ~5 ~, it ~.! o . ~... d; it: ~~~ ~~. , .. ~ ~ ~ . .. oi 11 I~ B 1& ~ ii 8 _2 /: !! bit ~ f~ I .c~ :: :~ 5 ] ~ i [ ! 5 I ! t 5 [ ~ I I~ i .. ~ ~ I' !!1 ii ~~ ! . o~ t, ;; I: l~ j;~ !t i.z ~.! , 2 ' ~ ~ l /: ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ .. i ~ e ~ ! . I I ~ I if:' . . n ! .!! ..5 :1 . . :i ~ . !l h ~1 .is ,.s ~l ]i ~ ; ~ .. ~ .~ 1 ffi H ~ H~ ;'5 51 ~ -" /: <! ~ f! ~ ti ~ ~; . ~ .'! : ....Si a ~ ~ ; . ~ ~~H~ ~ 1i t; i ! u ;~f .~ . I ;S... & i~H: ii~~;, 5 ,I ~ r I' 5:i- i51", 4 ~;:i l'o jlJ:6 . l.i5" ,- S 1 ~ 5.i~U !i'~! { ; '0 ~~ ld~ njl~ ~!::i !;i~! ~ii~i l..!1: ..~U~ l5_i~ i~~.1 ~ ~ i~ :; ~ i , ~ ~i. ~. [ fl' H -" ... ~I 515 ; l' ~ i2 i ~ j ~ ~ J . ~ /: i 5 ! !l E~, ~ 8 ~ !I' ~ J f Ii ~ l= l- ~ . 11 "I H ,,1 H . I Ii .- 5~ II H I' ;1 12 ii . l :~ i! H I H '"1!5 F ~~ ~J - ~ -;~~ ~~rl- , \B '~ ~ '::;:J 0'> . :;B ':~\ ~ , .~ .C'.i __ -;..~ ,._-~.-I i ~ 2 j i "~ ~i ~~ Z2 o ~ ~I z "E '~I ~ Ei31 ~l !I P-.1 I I ! . f 6 . . ! t j 1 i i 1 5 X i I i , ~ .. ~ .10 "'~. il! .~& z o I- o o <( J: I- o;:;:f- w (!) o 0::: ~ U <( 0::: <( L <( I- ~lIll3fT4 " ~I ~ 't ~~ .~ I !I ~ z J! 0 5~ i ~ ~ -~ g "" !IS ~! M ~e 2 ~~ ~! g ~~m ~ ~. ~! ;~ ~~~ ~ ~;:i i ~ ~8 ~1;;15 ~ 3U' .! /;u s:~ ~iE iE:S -.1 :] ~ "0 "ZZ .iSg ~ I"~ ~~tH ~ lD~Z p.,1 ~O O-iS 0 ~~~ 0 /! ~3u ~ I 2::> tg!i?t <l 0 ~~~ I W." ".. (.a.H]Iwv<<lft:;ISCQ1D1SlI'....."DYft ......__II'V..U.l~y!OWg) f~. ./... 1>.., ...;;: ~ f\ ~! ":!!. '!'!'~"'l I~ '. r! ! b~ , ~~ I t-t.1 d! I , ! i i ! ~ j i " ~! j 1 ~ ! i i i ! i i , j j S1w. Ulii:'"""""~ 1 " :, =1 t/ / , UN3l'V'l<<)" NOlIl.LSY:Ill:l ~____ .Inl"'Il'J 'Q Y~~ll'Wo) 0ClIIlXl BVVno a: ---> ~ :'-- T----u , ' l ~ ! "':". i.,:.. : ~ I ">:z. i >O~, !:~ ~___u_.:.""--= j =""a ''-' I -Ul ~~!/ I I~' : :'01, :.~ I ':", l.t. I reg I 'j.' t "~:"'t'\ ~ ~ ~ L : ~\~ T I; : t= ______L_~I~V~ J ..~ t"ONJ.....IIlIG>>l,!JlIIWllll.'l'Ls I I I ________..J lS3/,\ 1. ~-)'-ll {'"' K"Ogz - ..H_..L.--' H1.6DZ M.91.6S-69S .......... ,...' ",I I -_.:.., I ,!il I I I I I I ~ I I , ' I I ~ : : ~ii ' ' ~ ~: : . /,: : I \ I I ~ ' I ' , 1 , ' :'.)~ : : N : 8 .. I ':i : . \ ~ I I ~ I I I I I ~ : c> : ~ : : ~ : / : ! : : .( : ,y : g I I i! I ' ~ '" : <C: ~ a-------~----------"-J" ; M..Dt.Bt.69S .<.. i . ....., .......... II tlrK..!.__ ~:!j 0 ___::., ~'C!::....r---------- vi :: ,5- ...:,- -----..., ~_ Iii .~ I CD ~ ' : :.<.. 0 ~: ~: I' .J ~: . ~. I ": : !- _ IS: :: -J- :) ~:~ : J '\l: " .<.. 0' d: ' <:11 1 i: : ,<' : II : I i' -"i':.f.i-V I" \ ...;."i:r:-----.-' --.-------------------- --..) II ----- - - -",--"'- ' ' ~o- ___ ___...~9;.L\.'" "'---r::-::-:-'" _ ...____ ";I:'\;\l.jj 3..tl.~S-6SN ~~.19~ . t;.;<; ..' .,ro\.',.i\',"$J3t,) ~~ 'C:~~ ,\_"\,.,\(~ \-.v ,"'" \l...li'or.r.. o..J", 0:'" ,.,. \ ~ '3:'" ~...:.o ,.....,.. ,v., \ '''\ \ \l C;..,,\.j(.'j \ ~,).\ - '; ;.....,1'1\\ \'" I" ~ F c c .. -!, ,_1 SS.9!1 < t- o F ::;) o ------ --- ----- ---------- "!' !!l ~ z l I I rl'} I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r---.J I I I I I I I I I I I L_ ~~ ~- ,-, )- ~'d =C :C ;E ;~ ld ~... -,; -;=. C -.... C:l '...... ::;~ ::; La :5 Q- iL LJ~ ..- ,~_s. Ld !-- <C !-- (/l ., I I I z o I- o o <( I l- I ..q- ~ W W ~ 0 (f) <( 0 w - 0:: 0::: <( ~ 0 <( 0::: <( 2 <( I- / / ,/ / / . ~~~ ~; ~~~ 2cig ~.:g n~~ <!illi 1$t~1 :~~ 95~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~e ejf/18fT A I I I -------------------~ 1C"""U 1"'-'\lIr" LJI""n"-7 ...L."';.J/W\ ...L..J.JI::!...L."; I I..L.OuL --- <: bf F~ ::>~ O' .- / / .. "....".... . r'\'" ."'I..,,;I\~~.r~,'$ ~~ Vl~ f\ \ '..\ ~~c \ \ 1 \~ 1 ;- ,\li~;;O~ '..\~~J I ' \ \-- ('\ \ >..J ~3 .,,\.. .. .1--'. ~.......\~ I...: \ \.1 -....l \ .., \ ..\ \ .., ~...~ ~:~)\':.J \ I \ , I' "l ~ () o ....J lD I:. [ ~E :: --- _-----------l I I i ! i ---~ i ! I ! i ! I , ! I , i ! I i , I I , i i , I i i I --~ i i i , I 1 .rl .~I ~I ~! ~I !I p..,g I" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I r---J I I I I I I I I I I I L___., I I I ~? J:_ ..-, .. Ld ,,- "> <( ~( ~:: ~~ ~Ij -- <( _I- ~~ ~; La "_ n -) LJ_ fL g.= ~ -- - t5 Ld "-' ~- <( ~- (() O\lflSrT 15 10-5-12 10-5-13 2. Conditional: Offices. Public utility 3. Accessory: Accessory structqres. Home occupations. Solar energy systems. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002; amd. Ord. 002-483, 12-2-2002) t 10-5-13: B-1 HIGHWAY BUSINESS DiSTRICT: ~ (A) Purpose: The B-1 highway business district is intended to provide pockets of convenience type uses along major thoroughfares that are both pedestrian accessible from adjoining neighborhoods and automobile accessible for short trips and through traffic. August 2003 City of Farmington 1 0-5-13 10-5-13 (B) Bulk And Density Standards: 1. Minimum Standards: Lot area 10,000 square feet Lot width 75 feet Front yard setback 30 feet Side yard setback 1 0 feet Rear yard setback 1 0 feet Minimum side and rear yard abutting any residential district Off street parking and access drives 1 0 feet Public and semipublic buildings 35 feet Recreational, entertainment, commercial and industrial uses 50 feet Height (maximum) 35 feet Maximum lot coverage of all structures 25 percent All standards are minimum requirements unless noted. (C) Uses: 1. Permitted: Animal clinics. Clinics. Clubs. Coffee shops. Commercial recreational uses. Convenience store, without gas. August 2003 City of Farmington 1 0-5-13 10-5-13 Health clubs. Hotels. Motels. Offices. Personal and professional services. Personal health and beauty services. Recreation equipment sales/service/repair. Restaurants, class I, traditional. Retail facilities. Sexually oriented businesses - accessory. 2. Conditional: Auction houses. Auto repair, minor. Auto sales. Car washes. Child daycare center, commercial. Convenience store, with gas. Dental laboratories. Grocery stores. Group daycare centers, commercial. Hospitals. Nursing homes. Outdoor sales. August 2003 City of Farmington 1 0-5-13 1 0-5-14 Public buildings. Public utility buildings. Restaurants, class II, fast food, convenience. Restaurants, class III, with liquor service. Restaurants, class iV, nonintoxicating. Solar energy systems. Supply yards. Theaters. Wholesale businesses. 3. Accessory: Parking lots. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002) 10-5-14: B-2 DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT: (A) Purpos: The B-2 downtown business district identifies a variety of general commercial and higher density residential uses for the downto area in order to expand and strengthen the downtown as the prim y commercial district for the city, create a pedestrian friendly d wntown, and promote the city as a cultural center. Objectives f this district are to preserve historical buildings, require high design tandards, and provide a diverse mix of community oriented com ercial and cultural activities that are pedestrian oriented and ac essible to area residents. (B) Bulk And Density tandards: 5,000 square feet Lot area Lot width 50 feet Front yard setback o feet August 2003 City of Farmington EtIl/f5/rc ~I ':'S3::. 3"':.:3...,;, ';'~~CE:":';':'; l~t I~ !S3M 3nN3ill' l"OO8Yir.l i.Lt'L "1J'IIIOi."t't w ~ C Cl t. ~ 0:: " ~ ~ z ffi Q U 'l! ~ <( 0:: ~ <( ~ :::; ffi <( ~ ill l- ii: ~~ ,. m "," " :56 ~ ti;1 mli1 if ! e 18 '" -'" ... < '" ,6 .... ,~ ~ n g '" . I 'mOl IN-I - I -" , ~ : i- : ~i!' :~ii; ~i OIi 11i: ~~ : :di ~w_ _1_": :_1',1, "'~ -1- -~, ~. '" l!~i <I!! I ',li I la ~~ !i~i ~ : fI~j ! ~1 ~ . :~ ; I I I , , ~ , '" " " ,- '" '" ~ I I ___ .___...J "' , r-____. ____-, I _ .I t : ::;;: I ~ !' ~! ! ~ . ~ ~ a :::;z: ~ ~ " " i~ ~ ::I I I " . ' . '" ,- .., \ , ,.. ':'S3:.~ r.::z,...';' ';'.:. ';' ':':.";': .ISJ..S nN3t\v 'If -r~;"~~=:4-:;"~-::;"'--~~~\---- //j 1 :: ~~'" / : : '1 I 6 i I ,,: , : a ~_ ~ , , I : i; !~ i~ " ~ : iii i I i II 1'1 I i I I I ~ III :11 I, I ' I I ' Iii l ! III i ~ ~ l!i S S · · ~ e ; ~ ~~H~d~ ~ ~ ~ .. cJ ci ~ ~ ~ ~ - ! ~ ! I I j I III .ill B; HI g .. U)i ::! i "': i ~ ~d ,; ~ - < .,r:2 -: R ~. ~ ~ I M lI! M i! i! ~; ~; ~ ~ !! nu --:"~~~-- ib----r=---7-.J ~ ''=~~'''.IM1~='_~~:?''": ,: t !' a ~ I ... , ~ ' I ('3/\1' 71I'llN3ddlH:l) [ -ON AI'M~H lINnlIl. lll'!S 0.. ("3,-,,:, Z1,:,:::a=et-':) r '0:: .'. Y.':Ji'';:H )C':,.....J; ~ 3.::';'...S . ~ ., ~ OJ i I- Z w :::; Il. o --' ~ w o CJl w :::; <( ..., >- <( --' Il. >- 0:: <( z ~ ~ w ~g: 8 . d i s f:j l!5 .. i!' l!l N , i I I; :l if !I ~, i' ! .. I~i t~j i" Iii fl~ ili = I . . -II ~ ,I, a. lEe I lit. II" *~l~* ":,.il... *~* .;,. .JJ} 1 1 ,:l!;;!",;;!!,;,,!~.l! _==:=-::==,-_-_=4-=----= ~ -----=---.-=-----=-----:-- \\J~ ~ ~ N ~ :0/0>5 ~..~.i _.M:I_~". SDl6l.aOllVAm 'W~ - ..-_'::::;.:'~:::-:<< -----<< --:-.-~;;;;~-------------- ~.~~~~-- ..------ - r--'-nn'--'--'-- n' jr-;------' ,,- ,:;;:;--""=-,,.,-__ __ __"F'\~-';-f"-<Y--i!n'n-!-g- yTSh ~'- ,.. ;' r-it=~~-.- __ .... ~.~--'-~ --, ~.J.L._ )! - - --------------- . . . I /flf'l'1;l(j/~ I / ;d.QcJd I i , I I ! , , I i ~o; , ~.f (( ~ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ . \ ~ ' \ \ , \ \ \ ___--'3 , \ ,--,-------'---------~ - - - - ----- .----- .-- \ ""'. - - - - -.-----. / ..~,,--"'c.>.-.-....- . -' ~-' ". j~.~ ~~::';':J ~?~! 111\ ~~ ~ ~~~~g~~ ~---'I!I-" v ~~~~~=:.a " " " " Ii ~' " " _-----J.l__ .11 - " ",:: I' ': " .9.9 IIYs.3 -------------------- ---.....--.. e;x./I/81! [) ~ I , I , I , I , I , I , I~ i~ ,~ tJ!~ 1<" , ~ , I cXl!181! ~ 910.0.9 l.Zt ,eQ.OOS ~~~fr~Vi~! 153M tR"tl. !:og:tl_ _'L _ _ ,,!"~l_ _ _ 3nN3AV :V1ViNVO .rr.~~:: ~ '/~ .., ~___J__ J..lI.Cl-IOS , Ol~ -------~--~~------------------- .........._....~.Itol~~~~~ . stDHS Ii JO t .l.J)15 33$ _--'If 3Nn Hj!'t'P'l--------- ti ~ ~ W5g lL.~~ b:iw b:g~ ~~E~ . ~~~~ ::> iii ~ ::>ha og~~ og~~ NOT)&"ot.W ,- ,- , , , , I I ",JM . /I II I , I , / , I , , I ,,' I ,/ ' " I I I I I I I \ I I \ "'- LLI.!O:l.'. ;,' .;>~'" rt>.~ -'1+ ~ ~ f w 0 0 a::: ~ 4: f- () W <{ (/') z a::: <{ ~ <{ I- o ..;: uJ I- ..;: l- V) >- I- Z \ 5 y----- rr------ -.-a-re;-~"" - -----o:;;:.=----~- ~ IE ~J.tGflJS'tJ _ t:€-- I: pIC)~ ~041:) i . , I , I I ' e I ' g I < :'1 . 'I- !, ~i : 0 I !O~ ,~ : _ I::> I ,0 I I ' 15 : : L____________________________________~ ~ ,,~ ~ QN ....r ~~ .. '" ZI"ttZ 1'"&0,( "".6t..lQ.OON (.3AV 31'v'ON3ddIHO) r 'ON ^VMH~IH >lNnw. 3lViS 99'Sze ""-Zt .so.ooN " z ~ . ~~ ~ ~ '" ~ '", ~~ e ffi~ ; ~~ ! ~- Q .z <ii l;Il ....w .~ w i!i~1 :=> , ~~~6 ~~ . , ~ ~i= ~~ !; .\0'. I %UVlUl l!! ~ "'5E?2 2i .,...... ~h~ o III '" c.~ ~!~ I ;1lI!~ ~5 ~ .~~t;:~ :=>0 I :~ 0iJ; , c~5'l' . ", . ~~~~~~'" ~w_ _L": j!r~o-'~ z'" l!; i~c~ir:J ~Q w!l-r -... ~oi<;~ ~i ~ , ;~~;~ tSc~~~lI( ~~ I ,. . ia'~;:;~5~ -. ~z I :;.~~l<'~ "'c> '" :S~li:5~~ ":w I ~~;~~ 5~ <; c~~~~~; "'::E .'...., z~ z Ow I ~:~~~ ~m l!! g 2:rc:looICD Ul I ~ 111 CDe ..: ~g~!.i :i2;:t~~~ w I cE'~ C(G:: ~ 0 ~:ncits~~ .--? ~ ~ ,H III !:! :c ec 0: '" '" ~ ~ ill ~ I!; ~ ~ s 5 I i! C! .... .... ~ ..... l- V) ~ I- W W I!: V) F en 0 N I" .., .., i\! ~ .. .. ~ f ! i ~ ~ ~; II .rl~ ~ .. - :.1 ';.!!7 ei- .it: fi ~ ~i- t.:::' Ell eli t; .. ... 15 , - I !! .t ! . It . -I !.. : 9 c: ~ .... . ....* ~ J -II ] · III I ili I i~J ~ " z is P7, jll g~; 0 t3f1/8/r d j- ~~ ;! 1;11 6 ! i ~ ..., ifil:SI" ,s1 .... fj ~ iw 'IE ~ ; n!1 ~ rii Z .... =~ [ .... ~. ~ C I!!!:z ~ -l I n L ! .dj ;!fii g ~i~ g 'it :E ~w ~ !~ ! LY .... ~ 11;1 ... UU . ht im :9 !a~ r i ICl N I ::il i! w I-i; :>- CI) CC .. ~'.~ 51!; ili ~ ~ .,. d. E 0 1 t ~ ~. ~ tal: i ~ ~ ~ IllI. !)I e1ir ti ~~.a i ~ ~ M: nii ! i "~~ ~ ~ g 8 .! _Iii g: ;> 0: 300 IllI. iIi z z 0 0 z ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ UJ UJ ~ ~ :I: UJ 5 ~ 0 g :z t') V ] I 1 ill It ~j'.s I' !Ji g l i ~~ I J ~ ~ - . ,If s!; f 1- . I it:).i ~.~ A ~i i , ~Jj ~)f h1 "..' !II i!1i ~IS. I ~! ~:i: ~ fi";' .. ~liJ ~ ~Iii I !I; . i!1 ~ ;I~. liM fi"!; II ;liJ _II. I i~1 ~ . ~II ~ ::f ~ i~~ ~ ~ I!il"~ ~ II ~Ii i ~ g ~ II =~ figz ~I!Y UU I~ ~gci ~ t:,i I~ ~~ II !:i II ...~ II fil5 enD.. l!i ..~ 28'; I~ ~..:J" D...u. S ~ r:.~ !I t ...~ II i\! ..~ I! ;.1<' ~ IlJ 8 IS .. 8!~~ ::: i d ~ ~ a~~r ~. hl~ ~ ~ ~ aZ n!!l:;'5 ~:c 00 I!l!:g Il!\.... .... eN . .... II:( ~ e/III13/T if .H J,lI lr ,.,Ji I ,~ I II! '.:;@ 0 II Iii 1 )1 !<..~.I i I) ~ ~ ~ :;i!1$o'~ nl , II ,;e':.:" I~ .~,~ lit ;~'f!!J!l hi III I i~1 I r;-X II /13/r i!11 ~ ~ CJ - ..1 I z Ilf g -il ...! Crt') # I. ! I~ I Cl ~ ..!z ,... ::10 ."il~ S 1Imj: ,... ~ I~.I !l iClEI: . ~ .Ii; 0 8~ N p:: z I i ..II ~ LIl\...! c:a:: _II OW ili: ~ ill. :z 0 :z ~ 0 :z ~ !i 0 w ~ ~ :z 0 t; w ~ ~ ~'? t; w > ~~ !3 w ~'; irl o~ ~l? I- m m~ ~" g~ 1-'- a: . ~~ 1-'- a: . C\I 012 :z~ ('I) v .H -~ If &Ji jJi!l j j III I i!1 ~ fjf(/b1r. ~,1i t jf jJ: ~jf i!11 ~ r= I r II =.1 ~ . II; ;11_ g Wil ..! ~ P=I g S ,... '=2: I~ ~ ~ ill. N hi @&: ~ 15., .J t; ~ 9 . 0 1M ,... .1.= ~ z C ~ 5r w I ~ b!.. _III II I ~ i ("'1IiIo :!: .~II) " " tr-Ef.rt;wm " :::~: II II It II 11"Tr'Zl~ II II II 11 Ii i! :~: II) II II 11 II II II :r-rr 1~f1"~ II II II II II { LII z ::s C- o:: o ~!> z- ~~ IJ B .0 ..... City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /OJ ,tfV TO: Mayor, Council Members, \ City Administrator ~ FROM: Lee Smick, AICP City Planner SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinances - Include Definition for Bus and Truck Terminal and Include as Conditional Use in the Industrial Park Zoning District DATE: May 16, 2005 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND The City of Farmington is proposing to add Bus and Truck Terminal uses as a conditional use in the IP (Industrial Park) zoning district. The City has recently been approached by developers who are interested in constructing these types of uses, therefore, prompting the City to propose the text amendments in the definition and use section of the code. The permitted and conditional uses for the Industrial Park Zoning District are attached in Exhibit A. Staff is working on finalizing plans with potential buyers of these proposed uses and if the properties are purchased, the Planning Commission will eventually review a site plan per City Code requirements. The proposed buses and trucks would utilize the Eaton Avenue and frontage road entrances into the Industrial Park until such time as 20gth Street is extended to intersect with Pilot Knob Road. The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the definition of Bus and Truck Terminal and the Bus and Truck Terminal uses as a conditional use in the IP zoning district at their meeting on May 10, 2005. DISCUSSION The following Code amendments are proposed: 10-2-1 - Zoning Definitions Bus Terminal: Any structure or land devoted principally to the servicing. fueling. repair. storage. or leasing of passenger buses. Truck Terminal -- Any structure or land devoted principally to the receipt. transfer. short-term storage. and dispatching of goods transported by truck. 10-5-21 (c) 2 - IP Zoning District - Conditional Uses Bus Terminal Truck Terminal ACTION REQUESTED The following actions should be handled separately: 1. Adopt an ordinance revising Section 10-2-1 to allow bus and truck terminal definitions under Zoning Definitions. 2. Adopt an ordinance revising Section 10-5-21 (c) 2 to include Bus and Truck Terminals within the IF Zoning District. Respectfully Submitted, &r/~ Lee Smick, AICP City Planner CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING IN SECTION 10-2-1 AND SECTION 10-5-21 (c) 2 TO DEFINE BUS AND TRUCK TERMINAL AND ALLOW AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE IP (INDUSTRIAL PARK) ZONING DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 10-2-1 ofthe Farmington City Code is amended as follows by adding a definition for the following uses: Bus Terminal: Any structure or land devoted principally to the servicing. fueling. repair. storage. or leasing of passenger buses. Truck Terminal: Any structure or land devoted principally to the receipt. transfer. short- term storage. and dispatching of goods transported by truck. SECTION 2. Section 10-5-21 (c) 2 ofthe Farmington City Code is amended as follows by adding the following uses in the IP Zoning District under Conditional Uses: IP Zoning District - Conditional Uses Bus Terminal Truck Terminal SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication according to law. ADOPTED this _day of Farmington. , 2005, by the City Council of the City of CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Kevan Soderberg, Mayor ATTEST: By: David Urbia, City Administrator SEAL By: City Attorney Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of ,2005. Potential Bus and Truck Terminal Locations 2081h 51 "0 ro o 0:: .c o c ~ :Q a::: CSAH 50 N A 0111 B;( A 10-5-21: IP INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT: (A)Purpose: The IP industrial park district allows for existing industrial uses within the city and promotes high quality architectural, landscaping and site plan development standards for new industrial development in order to increase the city's tax base and provide employment opportunities. (B)Bulk And Density Standards: 1. Minimum Standards: Lot area 40,000 square feet 150 feet 50 feet 25 feet 25 feet Lot width Front yard setback Side yard setback Rear yard setback Minimum side and rear yard abutting any residential district Off street parking and access drives 10 feet Public and semipublic buildings 35 feet Recreational, entertainment, commercial 50 feet and industrial uses Height (maximum) 45 feet Maximum lot coverage of all structures 35 percent All standards are minimum requirements unless noted. (C)Uses: 1. Permitted: Light manufacturing facilities. Office showroom. Office warehouse. Research facilities. Warehousing facilities. 2. Conditional: Child daycare facilities, commercial. Manufacturing facilities. Public utility buildings. 3. Accessory: Parking lots. 4. Interim: Mineral extraction. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002; amd. Ord. 003-498, 9-15- 2003 ) City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /0,4 FROM: Mayor, Council Mem~~tI\c..../ City Administrator ~ ~ Lee Smick, AICP City Planner TO: SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance - Text Amendment Regarding Signs for Nonresidential Uses in the A-I Zoning District DATE: May 16, 2005 INTRODUCTION The City Code currently does not allow signage within the A-I Zoning District except for signs of the type referred to in Section 10-6-3 (B) 1 (signs permitted in all districts; see Exhibit A). Signs such as on-premise directional signs, off-premise directional signs, real estate signs, development project signs, banners, election signs, and public information signs are the only types of sign allowed in the A-I district. Christian Life Church has approached the City recently to request a new sign for their facility at 6300 212th Street West (Exhibit B). Staff has therefore prepared a proposed sign ordinance regarding the size and height of signs for nonresidential uses in the A-I Zoning District. The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the Text Amendment for Signs for Nonresidential Uses in the A-I Zoning District at their meeting on May 10, 2005. DISCUSSION The following are the permitted and conditional uses in the A-I Zoning District: (C) Uses: 1. Permitted: Agriculture. Daycare facilities, in home. Dwellings, single-family. Greenhouses and nurseries. commercial. Public parks and playgrounds. Recreational vehicle storage facilities. Seasonal produce stands. Specialized animal raising facilities. Truck gardening. 2. Conditional: Accessory apartment. Agricultural services. Cemeteries. Churches. Commercial and recreational uses. Equipment maintenance and storage facilities. Feedlots. Golf courses. Kennels. Mineral extraction. Public and parochial schools. Public buildings and facilities. Public utility buildings. Stables and riding academies. Towers. 3. Accessory: Accessory structures. Home occupations. Solar energy systems. 4. Interim: Soil pulverizing operation. (Ord. 002-469,2-19-2002; amd. Ord. 002-474, 5-6-2002) The underlined uses (above) are considered the nonresidential uses in the A-I Zoning District and would be required to comply with the proposed sign ordinance. Christian Life Church submitted drawings of their proposed sign (Exhibit B). (The question of LED signs will be discussed at a future Planning Commission meeting). The Planning Commission reviewed the sign under a discussion item at the April 12, 2005 meeting. The Commissioners felt that since monument signs will become more frequent in the Spruce Street Commercial, Business/Commercial Flex, Industrial Park, and Mixed Use Districts to the east of the church site, the church should consider a monument sign rather than the proposed pylon sign. Additionally, the Planning Commission agreed with staff that the height of the sign should be similar to the height of signs for other churches in the City. The Code currently allows a 10-foot height for nonresidential signs in the R- 1 District and individual commercial stores in the aforementioned business zones will be allowed a 10-foot tall sign as well. Because ofthis trend towards the 10-foot tall sign, the Commissioners felt that this would be appropriate for nonresidential uses in the A-I Zoning District. Additionally, staff has reviewed the sign ordinances for the Spruce Street Commercial, Business/Commercial Flex, Industrial Park, and Mixed Use Districts and determined that all of the signs for individual commerciallbusiness pads are allowed a lO-foot tall and 100 square foot sign area. Since the A-I Zoning District may develop in the future as commercial or industrial, staff feels that the 100 square foot sign area would be appropriate. Therefore, staff proposes the following sign ordinance by adding an A-I Zoning District to the sign ordinance and defining the sign height and area for nonresidential uses in the A-I Zoning District: 10-6-3 6. A-I Zonine: District (a) Permitted Nonresidential Uses: For permitted nonresidential uses. one freestanding monument sign is allowed per street frontage if an access drive is present. Each sign shall not exceed one-hundred (100) square feet in sign area and ten feet (10') in height. Signs shall be located at least ten feet (10') from property lines and in no case shall be -permitted within the thirty foot (30') triangle of vi sibil it v at street intersections. Wall signs shall not exceed twelve percent (12%) of the building facade or three hundred (300) square feet. whichever is less. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt an ordinance revising Section 10-6-3 of the Sign Code to allow signs for Permitted Nonresidential Uses in the A-I zoning district. (fr~ Lee Smick, AICP City Planner cc: Christian Life Church CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10-6-3 (SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS) REGARDING SIGNS ALLOWED FOR NON- RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE A-I ZONING DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 10-6-3 (B) of the Farmington City Code is amended as follows (new text is underlined, deleted text is stfI:lek): 6. A-I Zoning District: (a) Permitted Nonresidential Uses: For permitted nonresidential uses. one freestanding monument sign is allowed per street frontage if an access drive is present. Each sign shall not exceed one-hundred (100) square feet in sign area and ten feet (10') in height. Signs shall be located at least ten feet (10') from property lines and in no case shall be permitted within the thirtv foot (30') triangle of visibility at street intersections. Wall signs shall not exceed twelve percent (12%) of the building facade or three hundred (300) square feet. whichever is less. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication according to law. ADOPTED this _day of Farmington. , 2005, by the City Council of the City of CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Kevan Soderberg, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL By: By: David Urbia, City Administrator City Attorney , 2005. Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of ~X!lI13ll A 1 0-6-3 1 0-6-3 (8) Signs Permitted: Upon the adoption of this section, it shall be unlawful and a violation of this section for any person to erect, construct, paint, alter, relocate, reconstruct, display, or maintain or cause to be erected, constructed, displayed or maintained within the city of Farmington any sign without first having obtained a permit from the zoning officer. * 1. Signs Permitted In All Zoning Districts: (a) On Premises Directional Signs: Where one-way access and egress drives are incorporated in a site plan, a sign indicating traffic direction no more than two (2) square feet may be placed at a dr~veway within five feet (5') of the street right of way. A directional sign indicating the entrance to a two-way driveway may be required where the zoning officer deems it is necessary to safely direct the traveling public. (b) Off Premises Directional Signs: For the purpose of providing off premises direction to a residential project described in this subsection, or to a new venture less than twelve (12) months following the issuance of an occupancy permit, or to a public, religious or nonprofit institution, or to a use which, in the determination of the planning commission, incurs substantial hardship from lack of reasonable identification as a result of its location, a conditional use permit shall be required. Such sign shall not exceed twenty five (25) square feet per face and such sign shall conform to the yard requirements of the zoning district in which it is located. If said sign is lighted, it shall be illuminated only during those hours when business is in operation or when the model homes or other developments are open for conducting business. (c) Real Estate Signs: Temporary signage for the purpose of selling, renting or leasing individual lots, parcels, homes or buildings may be erected provided: (1) One sign may be placed per street frontage and located within fifteen feet (15') of the right of way line on the property to be sold or leased. (2) The size of such sign shall be a maximum of six (6) square feet for residentially zoned property and a maximum of thirty two (32) square feet for all other properties. (3) The sign shall be removed upon sale, rental, or lease of the property. August 2003 City of Farmington 1 0-6-3 1 0-6-3 (d) Development Project Sign: Temporary signage for the purpose of selling or promoting a development project or used as construction signs shall comply with the following conditions: (1) For development projects of thirty (30) acres or less, one sign each at a maximum of thirty two (32) square feet of sign area and not exceeding ten feet (10') in height may be erected on the project site. (2) For development projects over thirty (30) acres, two (2) signs each at a maximum of thirty two (32) square feet of sign area and not exceeding ten feet (10') in height may be erected. (3) Signs shall be permitted only after a sign permit has been approved. (4) Signs shall be located at least ten feet (10') from the nearest property line on the property to be sold or leased and in no case shall be permitted within the thirty foot (30') triangle of visibility at public or private street intersections or driveway intersections. (5) Signs shall be located at least fifty feet (50') from any existing or occupied dwelling unit. (6) Signs shall be removed when the residential development is sold out or the multiple dwelling project is sold or rented. (e) Banners: Banners shall comply with the following conditions: (1) Sign Permit Required: A sign permit is required for the banner and shall be valid for thirty (30) consecutive days. No more than three (3) banners may be allowed on a property. (2) Minimum Setbacks: Banners shall be set back at least ten feet (10') from all property lines and in no case shall be permitted within the thirty foot (30') triangle of visibility at public or private street intersections or driveway intersections. (3) Banners; Public Safety: Banners shall not be erected or maintained in such a manner as may endanger the public safety, interfere with or obstruct pedestrian or vehicular travel, or create a traffic safety problem. August 2003 City of Farmington 1 0-6-3 1 0-6-3 (4) Banners On Streetlights: The city may place banners on streetlights to display distinctive colors, patterns, or symbols, used as a symbol of the city. (f) Election Signs: Election signs shall be permitted on private property in any zoning district with the expressed consent of the owner or occupant of such property. The following conditions apply: (1) Such signs may not be posted more than sixty (60) days prior to the election and must be removed by those responsible for the erection of the sign or the property owner within seven (7) days following the election. (2) Such signs must be no larger than thirty two (32) square feet of sign area and shall not exceed six feet (6') in height above grade. (3) Such signs shall not be. more than three feet (3') in height within the thirty foot (30') triangle of visibility at public or private street intersections or driveway intersections. (4) Any sign found by the city to be in violation of this section may be, without notice, summarily dismantled, removed or otherwise rendered in compliance with this section by the city. (5) Signs shall not be placed upon public right of way or property, except for parks and other public areas approved by the city council. (6) Installation shall comply with the fair campaign practices act. (g) Window: Permanent signs printed or otherwise displayed from the inside surface on an individual window shall not exceed two (2) square feet or twenty five percent (25%) of the total window area, whichever is greater. (h) Public Information Signs: Public information signs shall be allowed by conditional use permit in all districts. Sign area shall be limited to one hundred fifty (150) square feet, and shall comply with setback requirements in each district, and may be illuminated subject to timing and information controls stipulated as a condition to the conditional use permit. August 2003 City of Farmington 1 0-6-3 1 0-6-3 (i) On Premises Signs: For the purpose of identifying or advertising a business, person, activity, goods, products or services located on the premises where the sign is installed and maintained, signs shall be regulated as set forth in this subsection (8)1. (j) No Trespassing: No trespassing signs and no dumping signs shall not exceed two (2) square feet in area per side and not to exceed four (4) in number per lot in R districts.. In the A district such signs shall not be located less than three hundred feet (300') apart. (k) Awning Signs: Signs consisting of one line of letters not exceeding nine inches (9") in height may be painted or placed upon the hanging border only of an awning. An identification emblem, insignia, initial or other similar design, not exceeding eight (8) square feet in area may be painted or placed elsewhere on an awning. (I) Painted Wall Signs: Painted wall signs shall be permitted only on structurally sound and homogeneous surfaces. A conditional use permit shall be required. (m) Municipal Entrance Sign: A sign may be placed at the city boundary along a roadway identifying the city name. Such sign shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet and ten feet (10') in height. (n) Open House Signs: Open house signs shall not exceed four (4) square feet, six feet (6') in height and the display of signs is limited to the same day of the open house. Said signs may be placed in the city right of way but not exceed three feet (3') in height within the thirty foot (30') triangle of visibility at public or private street intersections or driveway intersections. (0) Temporary Holiday Signs: Temporary holiday signs and displays relating to noncommercial messages associated with national, state or local holidays or festivals. (p) Garage Sale Signs: Garage/rummage sale signs on private property not to exceed two (2) square feet in size and to be removed on the same day the sale ends. (q) Integral Signs: Integral signs displaying only the name, address of the building or date of construction not to exceed two (2) square feet. (r) Flags: Flags or insignia of any government. August 2003 City of Farmington 1 0-6-3 1 0-6-3 (s) Traffic/Street Signs: Traffic/street signs approved by the director of public works. 2. Residential Zoning Districts: (a) Home Occupations: For home occupations: one nonilluminated wall sign not exceeding two (2) square feet in size. (b) Single-Family Subdivisions And Multi-Family Complexes: For single-family subdivisions and multi-family complexes, one monument sign per street frontage, not to exceed fifty (50) square feet in sign area and five feet (5') in height. Signs shall be located at least ten feet (10') from property lines and in no case shall be permitted within the thirty foot (30') triangle of visibility at street intersections. (c) Permitted Nonresidential Uses: For permitted nonresidential uses, one freestanding monument sign not to exceed fifty (50) square feet in sign area and ten feet (10') in height.. Signs shall be located at least ten feet (10') from property lines and in no case shall be permitted within the thirty foot (30') triangle of visibility at street intersections. Wall signs shall not exceed twelve percent (12%) of the building facade or three hundred (300) square feet, whichever is less. (d) Illuminated Signs: Except for temporary signs, illuminated signs shall be allowed in residential zoning districts for non- residential uses. Such signs shall be illuminated only by steady, stationary, shielded light sources directed solely at the sign, or internal to it, without causing glare for motorists, pedestrians or neighboring premises as outlined in section 10-6-8 of this chapter regarding exterior lighting. (e) Athletic Complex Scoreboards: Freestanding signs shall be permitted on public school property as follows: Scoreboards may be located only at the varsity and junior varsity playing fields at the northeast intersection of Akin Road and CSAH 50 and on the parcel at 800 Denmark Avenue. One scoreboard may be erected for each competitive playing field and is restricted to a maximum of six feet six inches (6'6") in height by twenty seven feet (27') in length. The maximum height of the scoreboard at installation is twenty feet (20'). The scoreboards at the varsity and junior varsity baseball fields may display nonilluminated advertisement panels located on the bottom perimeter of the front of the scoreboard and shall not exceed two feet (2') in height or twenty seven feet (27') in width.. A second August 2003 City of Farmington 6KIIIBIT 13 specs ~ Node/It $31. 3 Double-Sid~ '..~~dliIIii5iIiIiI!~.;E ............. "'-.t. ~")i:~{h~~:-".-;, :~ ';i."~;..~:I.l~-;l;~t 7'" C.i~""l","'i(rfi".; Pi!!f J..c;.~~ (4 {If''fSJ i}i"f;'t:~'i:'~." f'~ .';t.:....r:,1:z/'/1. f.:yr n"":h".:.:~."fl_f'o\j lr-:r-,"" .f~F~'I~ ('i J.r:.'i"l~) L.I.r~';;{,;;"F~ 16 t;~:n:;~;"'. ':'0"'" ~i('.;;t~..JLl~r~ j:;"'i!-' !.hl.! /3 ~~;t.I;;:>.! . l);~-;d.:;.V;; J (I :.~:r!!i~;(,J:i...~l14.... ti1.;h',:':.:~rS: :J'~t .~i~'ll:t {2 i~t~cr.!_~J v~~. j 0 :~(,~','-h::'_~)f.J ..\3.' ft'~'f!~'(~~.;-,',~ s {t(i' i'li:!'~; f,~ !..-h,-;-) t-;~'".1t"h~'.f.'''';., ..!..~}.T...,rio~'1<;i )''''r:>li":':o/7~'''''r.1p LEI> fledrj(:.af Recruirem.:nts; .! 1'Ji/"" :i =1 C."I;;'>: ""'?l");; ID Elt!.tt.rif!ifl R't!>iflliremtmb:'~ i 2(i1/./ 15 ..w.>( ".' :,::~ (. !2-(l:.~;;t:'f"Fif.."it!~:,~i ~~r'i:n!:t:~ IN'i ~'~:'i)~";'-r.::'!'~ ..1', ...."1 I~' t"'tv.,~",:' Jibed Matrix: JJ .:r; ~O m.:'!~".~x /' 12() ~,~::~..:,'q ~'''9i~e W'ejahfi. ~(f:::! ~,.~.!.' '~'~~J T Tdn:Smi;;s.ictm N.ro,:''''''':. H(;.ft.n'itlSi'; [:'.~:i~' .1~:.:i~1o~ ".~,.t..;! 3(:..... ;:(I'.f :',jyr~t ,4,",:";:.a.. ~~:";,!~. '~'11)..~."~;jf'" bPi~&..I;l~r,""':J';;t.j ~~L..' ';;.;,t:,~j"'C'~ .b 1:}~,.ff!,f 4;r A:[;....",i,+:.u'.tl5!;f/I;...... r'o',',r:.ft;: ':-i,)I;.::tt'~!(t'~~{I .. tit. ;':;'~n''')''.f~~'') .:;f ::';(;!;H'~1"~~ji..fr;" (, ("~t'~'Vl ;:'!:1((" i;.'P'~~~'j' :;I\? '.-.rl{~pt G.r~lfi'~:("~ (gf'aphlc,; ....fJbjev!:t to ch.llflgl!' p.u a;l!'Dt) h". '.'d "..",~""",...'v'._........~....." "..~"... ,.~,..~" v'U.'...""'._,,_,,, ,","~'" '... ." "....,.^,."''''',.'".....,.."~._.....,,..,..~ _"~"..",,".~,,..., .,,,.~ ,'_",'" "" ,,,,....._,,,.., ~'""'""_".'.'.'^'",,, ",._."'__"""."'.,,"'"'........ ',_" "._',,,,..~,,' .,"""....~~..."',."",,.. , nw."'.' ,,,.,~.,...-......,,~. ......~'''"...~~.'.~..".,.,,".- .-......'..~,,~.~.. ~"....." ..............."=-,....~..~..'.--....."."''<.. l: C, ..' ~ :' '."IJ :::::::=: '" "',t . . r., " C:l ~, {:Q ! 10'-1" M:'-lr.:S. LJ ':'-'::':i;,,;:JII:"'"Vtl:i:t.: :a:;:~, 1.;:11. t(~ t(.,;: :rt(~lt~II1:~ V.f ..:h::l; rta:a! ;,t:...:z~:: ~.:: th: 1?1Ii~'1;." ~~1,~' f L~ Ifts!..tIk...j ~t .:.:-Sh~ Christian Life Church Farmington, MN CcrP"f: C....D5Id D:li~"j. CE!b:.J. I), .:I~....irl;" t...:.l.: :::01iI~iJ", :1i;J~H',.:,,~'~d B'i: t~",te: 10/' City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: MUSA Review Committee Recommendation DATE: May 16, 2005 INTRODUCTION The MUSA Review Committee and the Planning Commission have recommended that the City Council review and approve a proposed MUSA extension for the properties identified as F, G, 3 and 4 on the attached MUSA Phasing Map. DISCUSSION Land cannot be developed within the City of Farmington unless it lies within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area [MUSA]. Municipal sewer services cannot be extended to any area that is outside of the MUSA. Subject to subsequent approval by the Metropolitan Council, the Farmington City Council decides which parcels of land in Farmington will or will not be included within Farmington's portion of the Met Council's Metropolitan Urban Service Area. To assist the City Council in making such decisions, initial research and screening has (in Farmington) traditionally been conducted by a Council-appointed MUSA Review Committee. The MUSA Review Committee met a number of times during 2003 and 2004 and ultimately recommended that the City Council approve and adopt a specified MUSA phasing plan, which was subsequently incorporated into a "MUSA Allocation" map (attached) that the City Council approved on November 15,2004. At that time, MUSA was not recommended for a number of properties located on the east side of Farmington, primarily due to uncertainty regarding how many acres of residential development in that area could be handled by the City's sewer system. During the first few months of 2005, City staff members reviewed and investigated the sewer capacity issue referred to above. That analysis resulted in a determination that the City's sewer system could handle approximately 210 acres of residential development in the area in question. The MUSA Review Committee was then reconvened, so that the results of the staff's analysis could be discussed and so that the Committee could determine whether it wished to make any new MUSA recommendations. The Committee met to address these topics on April 20, 2005. After considerable discussion, including comments by and questions from the property owners and developers who were in attendance, the consensus of the MUSA Review Committee was that the Committee should recommend MUSA for the Devney property (F and 3 on the attached map) and the Winkler property (G and 4 on the attached map). MUSA extensions for #3 and #4 (which are currently in Empire Township) would be contingent upon annexation into the City of Farmington. The total acreage involved (F, G, 3 and 4) is approximately 140 acres. The Committee also expressed a strong interest in devoting additional City staff time to the options that might exist (or that can be developed) for increasing sewer capacity on the east side of Farmington, so that other property owners in that area would not have to defer development until the Metropolitan Council's proposed sewer interceptor line is constructed sometime between 2010 and 2030. On May 10, 2005, the Planning Commission discussed the MUSA Review Committee's recommendation and then unanimously voted to support the Committee's recommendation. ACTION REQUESTED 1. Motion to accept and approve the joint recommendation of the MUSA Review Committee and the Planning Commission that the Devney and Winkler properties (F and G on the attached MUSA phasing map, comprising approximately 60 acres each) be immediately included within Farmington's Metropolitan Urban Service Area [MUSA], and that certain adjacent portions of the Devney and Winkler properties (#3 and #4 on the attached MUSA phasing map, comprising approximately 10 acres each) be immediately included within Farmington's Metropolitan Urban Service Area [MUS A ] upon annexation. 2. Motion to adopt the related Resolution (attached), subject to approval by the Metropo . Council. 2 RESOLUTION NO. R_- 05 APPROVING THE ADDITION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY MANLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. TO FARMINGTON'S METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 16th day of May, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, the City of Farmington's MUSA Review Committee [hereinafter "the Committee"] has been meeting periodically since December of 2003 to develop recommendations regarding which undeveloped parcels within the City should be added to the City's portion of the Metropolitan Council's Metropolitan Urban Service Area [MUSA]; and WHEREAS, at a meeting that was held on April 20, 2005, the members of the Committee recommended that certain parcels of land (a total of approximately 140 aces) owned by Mike Devney ("Devney") and Bart Winkler ("Winkler") be immediately included within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area; and WHEREAS, the parcels in question are identified as Properties F and 3 (the Devney parcels) and G and 4 (the Winkler parcels) on the attached MUSA Phasing Map; and WHEREAS, Devney and Winkler, or parties acting on their behalf, have each submitted preliminary concept plans that have, in general, been favorably reviewed by City staff; and WHEREAS, at a meeting that was held on May 10,2005, the members of the Planning Commission unanimously adopted a motion recommending that the City Council accept and approve the MUSA Review Committee's recommendation that Properties F and G be immediately included within Farmington's Metropolitan Urban Service Area [MUSA], and that Properties 3 and 4 be immediately included within Farmington's Metropolitan Urban Service Area [MUSA] upon annexation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby accepts and approves the MUSA Review Committee's recommendation that Properties F and G (comprising approximately 60 acres each) be immediately included within Farmington's Metropolitan Urban Service Area [MUS A ], and that Properties 3 and 4 (comprising approximately 10 acres each) be immediately included within Farmington's Metropolitan Urban Service Area [MUSA] upon annexation, all subject to approval by the Metropolitan Council. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 16th day of May, 2005. Mayor Attested to the day of May, 2005. City Administrator SEAL MUSA Allocation Adopted on November 15, 2004 II I ~I ~!t ::I. ~Q,v :;2~ ~ L ~_ c: W~ELL ~ J m,,~. L.... ".,,;,~. ~ rT ~<!(i~" \\ ",~!,.tit..'..-.'...i .:g ,'I ....,..~> - ~ITN~N ~. L ~__ ?1 R2 ~1$UES1Rsr ~ " R " 'HD',"UJTRsr/ / - 8 \ . .,,'j. - ~.. I~~~ T L H'RZIUD ~Il l ,y, Q2 ;. MJRPKl' I ~ ,.,.".. ..."... LI...IMJRPKl'--'HP :1: ~ MJRPKl' -- - p - I~,l~ I r-' U""'" ';,,~ I 1--\' ~. -l H I.i --Ll- ..r>.., <:umpston B C A 'EIDSON AllEN - ,.... I-- ~- l..]-'--"- -' - I-- c::I Existing MUSA c::I MUSA Approved in 2004 ~ MUSA Approved Contingent upon Annexation c::I MUSA Allocated in 2006 .. MUSA Allocated in 2009 .. MUSA Allocated in 2012 ..... MUSA Allocated upon Removal from Ag Preserve - ..... School Use Oniy I!!I MUSA Aiiocated upon Plat Approval ~ Not Recommended for MUSA at th is time. ~ MUSA Approved (Orderly Annexation Area) c::I Ag Preserve until 2012 - MUSA not Rec. at this time ~ Ag Preserve until 2013 - MUSA not Rec. at his time ft!II!III N Iiiiiii.I Ag Preserve - No current expiration date w~ E - - Future 195th Street Extension T I- p '---- = 10 FSON - ::J C! \ \ L r- ~ I .-!. m L...-- 11 EMPEY r-" r--, =J .....,., J Detailed View of #14 Tollefson I ~ -- Future 208th Street Extension o s 0.5 Miles 0.5 10 Garvey 14 1v1oc k 7 Errpey f 11111 .. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: INTRODUCTION City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /0' 'J 1<.f7 L Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator W Lee Smick, AICP City Planner Adopt Resolution and Ordinance - Executive Estates Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone May 16, 2005 Ms. Judith Empey, owner and Mr. Colin Garvey, developer have jointly submitted applications for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone for the property located east of TH 3 and north of 225th Street. The preliminary plat, which currently is being reviewed by the Planning Commission, proposes 98 single-family lots on 47.43 acres (Exhibit A). DISCUSSION Annexation The City Council approved the annexation ordinance for the Empey property at its meeting on September 7, 2004. The property was approved by the Municipal Boundary Adjustment Office on November 10,2004 (004-517). Metropolitan Urban Service Area On August 16, 2004, the City Council approved MUSA for the Empey property contingent upon annexation into the City. Since the property has been annexed, the property has MUSA. Comprehensive Plan The property does not currently have a Comprehensive Plan land use designation. Based on the proposed land use by the developer and adjacent land use to the south of the property, the Low Density Residential designation would be appropriate for the Empey property. Therefore, the developer requests to amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan from Non-Designated to Low Density Residential. Zoning The property is currently zoned A-I as per the following City Code requirement: 10-4-3: ANNEXATION AND DESIGNATION OF LAND: (A) Land areas which may be added to the city by annexation, merger or other means shall be classified A-1 agriculture until such time that the city council may rezone the added territory to more appropriate classifications. (Ord. 002-469, 2- 19-2002) The developer requests to rezone the Empey property from A-I to R-l (Low Density Residential) to comply with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposal. Planning Commission Meeting - Mav 10. 2005 The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Executive Estates property from Non-Designated to Low Density Residential and the Rezoning from A-I to R-l. ACTION REQUESTED 1. Adopt a resolution amending the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment designating the Executive Estates property from Non-Designated to Low Density Residential subject to Metropolitan Council approval of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. 2. Adopt an ordinance approving the rezoning of the Executive Estates property from A-I (Agriculture) to R-l (Low Density Residential). Respectfully submitted, Lee Smick, AICP City Planner cc: Colin Garvey Castle Rock Township RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING THE 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXECUTIVE ESTATES PROPERTY Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 16th day of May, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: introduced and Member _ seconded the following: Member WHEREAS, a public hearing of the Planning Commission was held on the lOth day of May, 2005 after notice of the same was published in the official newspaper of the City and proper notice sent to surrounding property owners, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Non-Designated to Low Density Residential for the Executive Estates property, and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above 2020 Comprehensive Plan be amended with the following stipulations: I. The Executive Estates property is amended from Non- Designated to Low Density Residential. 2. Subject to Metropolitan Council approval of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 16th day of May, 2005. Kevan Soderberg, Mayor Attested to the _ day of May, 2005. David Urbia, City Administrator Executive Estates Property Location N A TH 50 t ::l o U c o C ro U o '-1 ill ~ ~ "'J ..... (\ ~ ~. ~, ..... \" t!J :A, \' ':> ~ ~ "\'l- x .'J ~ ." F. .,.J J: ~ ~ " ~ " '- .~ \ ' ,U ..."\J ..... (', "'-... ..........,/Z _. .----- ,_..- .::.'l I "'---"-.- '__"_._n._ i , I U"> i j I ~ I .' I I '-!J ~ , ~ i ~ U i ~ ! ~ ~~ -< ii 8~ !\ I ~~ ~ - I ~" t. ! .::- /.\ ..1. /-. '-~.~. 'T~ i ~ \~~:-~~}.l:l --;-.; ~""~ ~ . ~ -'- --; ~\' If [l ,liT ~--I----In-U<<~in(_ r ~ T..--/v / - I I IJ=~9L'l~0: ! ~ -'" //. I 0.1 I' I L9.ZZZ:" : / I ~ I ~ l~ I .. I I Ln:lC ~ I / I I M .9L,11oOO N .~ - c :; -.' · I - -a- I In.- h.. I ' u..:J".. ~ ~~i I I ) "'..:.~, ". ~ ~~E .1 J L&J ~ /':1.. rl · · t~ i ;1 ~ =-F . I ~ I 1Il::J .",..J ,,: ; I / -.,:~ ). I ! ' / r \ " : J:;;: \ I / ~~,~- r; '. I "I i No. .9L.L~:~ ~ - I ilK ]! 1I1--i /~-~ ~, --': ,'~ IIW ~1F-----11[==~. ____d~.\ 3 J J I III ~ 8J "I I ~ t '-' tIlY-'~U-!O':lJ5 I ...;:; x J/) ,l~ MH 3Hl JD I _ I I ____ ~ I ~ 1.1J toiL oIlS * JlJ lNl1 J.SilIo $. I I I / ~~ S No. .0~.L0.00 N ;' :i I,~I. ~\;l\ a.CLC .~ li:l ~----:n ~ ! '~ ::f \ 1::_1 '-\ ~ p=----- ;1, Lv 6L9 _ I Illl' M .vZ,vo.OO N I' ~ ---- it;; j I I ,I T- ~------ i w r- I I III ~itI-~_i- 2; ;: ( l'-r 3S~nOJ .;IlO~ A3ll\fA NI\flNnO.;l J ('3\V l1YON3cWIIO) t 'ON "J,MM ll.....l.S \l:...:lI...'......:. M ,9L,Ll.00 N L8.L901 'UI-i'IIol-1~ID"'I'" KllJtll.HllJlNI'lU't3, rJ?NlI*"t...o cr ;;: OJ (j) l-o ~ ~ Z 0- m 10 ~ ::! III ID t. I' I -'- , .----...1 w ~~ ~?i -0> OJ III 10.~vv Ii. .tZ,to.oo N I- ~ ~ (j) 00.~9\ .LC,Lo.OO N II' ~'. "i':::- '~\ ...... c::;, :I: I- '" gj ,I I Jtt .'. fica c '~I.l-1':135 ,/IMltHiIJ]W110ll i . .ON .AMH >lNnCll 3l\flS !3XIf/13/T A ~ g w I I f > 0 n u Ii! ~ n . ! i ! I ~ r . : I . ~ Cl z :i '" 0< /z .... ~ .~ i ~i ~ I~ ~ ~i II .! ~ ~c i g~ 3>1 : ~~~ g II~~ i~ = 6 I'; !;l '~~ ~ 1:1 ~ U ~ ; il;~ ~f Z ":Ci iq i ~5g ~h ~ m _ iN I'i .. 0: W ", 0_ 2 10 CFJ....- ~ I I I I Z <.J (.;) (.;) (,,) 15 0= 0. i< " ~ 0 x 0: w OJ ", 0 ::! ~ 2 :;; w OJ ..",,, ~~~~ ~~~iJi ~S5~ t=:F=t=:t:i ::):;)::)01 _N""",Il'lCOI"'- I I I I I I I (,,)U(,JO(,Juu ~ .. 0:>- iil~ 5 ~ ~ 0= .. Z ~ f3:;; u 0:::1 ~ ~ ~ <",,, %%% < .. < ......... 0.0.0. ~~~ .. .. .. H~ 0:0:0: 000 000 zzz <.. < "''''''' zzz ~~~ Ufl '" ~ Q. '" ~ o (.) ~~~ ,,,~ hi ~~! .... ~~! ~ i >- i ~ ! z~ s:l~ Ii 1Il Ii ~~ Ii JUJ ~ fj G ! z I UJ ~ }I' I IJ! I i~ I I .J ij1 P tt't I I ~B iu "II i Ll i i ~,: i il;;;~: I I I , i iii CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. An Ordinance Rezoning the Executive Estates property from A-l to R-1. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City Council approved a petition to rezone the Executive Estates property legally described in Exhibit A on the 16th day of May, 2005 from A-I to R-l; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a public hearing held on May, 10, 2005, recommended approval of the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Farmington hereby amends the City Zoning Ordinance rezoning the Executive Estates from A-I to R-l. Enacted and ordained on the _ day of May, 2005. SEAL CITY OF FARMINGTON MAYOR ATTEST: CITY ADMINISTRATOR Approved as to form the _ day of ,2005. CITY ATTORNEY Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of ,2005. Legal Description Exhibit A ".~'Ii/ / )). \,\,\ ': I i ~I '~ 1: ~ I :' . / : r / j j } j ~l <1' ~'~'>'~:/</)1 '-->,,/ / j j j j j ! ",",'r ",/,',/;/..'.".,,,.,./' _ ".-"..",.- I j f, ' ,,' . .' / ~f / :' :' ! i ~'( ::' ",''''r "',:!.,,'/ '1 \ i i :, l, !1Y1\ \ ! ~-'\ \ I I" ~ ( ~ \,,~:I ',-_?:~'S~i 1\ '~~<W~ i : n. ~ \, Ul!. -,: ;!f~ '" -,-- --,,- ,i Vi i I' '~\~~,~:;,,' --- "'''i ~~ Ii ~. ~ < CD ~ ~lf~~ '1---1 I I I Ii l ~Vi~~~~\F-'\ \ \ /;' / ." ~~. ~ll:?c:~gg\\ \, '\,/ j)//,/ : M l;H.Q } \ 'I.. \... :' / ,/ (' / / .: ".. L TLr \\, \'" " (' ,,./ /</><':>::::::>~?' >';,~:, /,1//// ) ; / " \ \ / j " / / .<~/ / ,/"-.// ;'K.,! ,'~l / / / ,\' / /"'i \ \ \ / / //' ,//:.///'/ ,V' // 1/ (' (:<:"~ :' : f ,l, I I I ,/ ,./"'_ '\, ~ \ \.,' ( ! ",_' /" ,/ ,f"" ;,/ I /~.(. : ~ l J .,,',. ,/ ,/ i/" ,i j l' - .-'", I,' ,. , I I I j I .. " , ' I' { , 11111'" ./ I" "./ I.. .,.' ,. "i r I J f J I ,I / I/'~'/ ,/ / ! l \ II \ \ ~/':///' "^ I bl J ~ f !. ,~ i ( r f ;,/ / ,II/ //~! ! \J,ril/// :).{z\ \ \5 \ /,.:;r' ...__-........ ~r, [1.. \~ j : .,l / I I 1 / / I t-f~'lt ~\ \ 1~{/////_..;H,...) ~ \ ;~:~x.. .; / ,\! j, \,~~) ) ;. ( < {' (' , ( (' ('~y~:::-- II \ il!!f[(/f ...--~--~" \.:::~-\-...." ~ ~...//~~ / H .( ...' / / ~/ \ \ \ \ \ \ '.....:it : \ dfill::!. I- #/ // ,/ ~t\ \ ~ rr, / J/ / // \ \ \ \ \ cnZ"l.J l ~ \ '\J:nl:J!l' CL/~. ,........._............ ,,// \:' \ I '\ / / / / /~. \ \ \ j.&JUJ '"'), :;;: l 111\:ll;!f liJ '\." I/~" 1~_ ,/ . ../ '~ " " / X / / \' \;!;i!' I : ~ . :'''1':'': l.J,' 6....6U!..~'03S:",~ ----, / / / / / : 1 I ...~ I ~ I I:D:L:'f I /X / .,;IO...t>/~ MN...3kL.:fO~ i'r\\ ~ IF / / / / / J: \ ~O~ f:= J l1!r:lTI(, ~ w ...;.~ 't/~ A\S'3H1.:Jo;tf4n lS~ ~l \ ~-__, l ;' ,I / I l \ W:"t ~l 1 l ;;;iuj~,~!\ / / ;' / It / / / / \ \ \ ~;::-~ ! ~ : ~fo4i\\~\\\\ /' ,f' .../.../ q. 1\ r~\ / / ~(' 1 \ ,~~ ..~/ ~! 1$\,1:\:\ // l\ .O%:LOoOO/~ ~l\ ,ll r/ / ",/ J I lD::w21 ~) ';-,JJtl!!' \ /IZ'~I~/ / HI .g.l~ / ~ . ~ .0-1..&,1 , ~il"1 '1>. "'.Joo'l."X' " ,o..Pll'~. ,/ ' ' 'w ,,~..';~,:.,.-/ " . ..~~ /~/ \ /"'>>:.......<<;;;~~;/ .......\..../ I f )\/ '\ I (' ( !"l \ \ \ \ \ <"''''--,~,'' ," / """l j \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \"'''' '...________~-"', /l' / I \ \ \ \ \ 111 \ \ \.. "''''-'-'~' ,/ / I '1,\ ~ \ \ 'l \ ~ t ~ "..~... ''---_ ____// "",/.r"''''..''~ ",/ ~\ "\\1\\11~ '\~ I I \\1~1\J.il \\" \, _il ) .. i' 1 I : ~ i :"J \ ""l. I \ ~ \ \ \~,,\ \ \ \ l' \ :~" \'" \~\ \ \ 1 \ \ \1 \ \ \ \" ./ ""',_"" ' \ l: l I 1 ( \ 1 \ ..., '-------;.~ . J 1 I t \ J, l 11 I\," "t:., i::'l,,:,:":",r' ): ill 'i' \ I -1, " ,//----- ~.-------~-------~ i J r i i"\,: 1 \ )\ / -;-", "...,__ it. J r ! ! r 1 / l; / 0& " '---'-'-- \ \ \ 11111 f~:<~:=~;:=~~~ \ \ \ ~\ \ \ \ \ \ \. \. \ \, ~~~ '"'''''' \.\:,\\\:,\\\\\ \ '\ \, \\,\\\\\\\~\\ ~ \ \ ", \ \ \ '....,------ ' \ \, \,\\\\\\\ \ \ -- \ --~ \"'\ \ \ ~~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \.---~--~-- t--1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\ \ \'~"'" ~, I \\ \, \.........:, \'-> <,."..,\ "., I \', ~ \, \ ... ... \ \\;->" ...~..\', \... '~-i\ ) \"\\\\'~':~~::~~~'~~:::<:<\\ \ - ~/~\jl \ \ \ ).\ \, \ ~ \ \ \ \ \ l,;::./ , ~ ~ ' \. \ \ '\ 0\ \ \ \ \ \ ,,' B " .. "', ~ ," , 1 ~"\ ....\ \ \ \ "~ \ \ \ \ ~\ \ ~\ 1\ 5\ '''''\, \...... \ \ ~>:)) ,: '\;.,i " ,\0. ','" \ \ ) //]/,<<// /, / \ ~ \ \" \,;'\ ~ ~ ~ ~/~/ /^)/ ,<../.../ // II' '\ "\ /' LL<JL<a>~//~ // " I, \ ,i \, / --- /~ ~ \. i___ ~ ,.:{tg~-oo-.<.-:\ M ,tZ.tOoOO N w VJ Z ,.0 fC 0... w U X lil N~ O:A .,;~... NO coO> CO (/) '\ .;-----,----~\, ....../... \\\\ lJ.J .... Coco !O" ~...; o CO ~" (/) OO'99L r ,Lr,WoOO N , "_~__''''! La.J '~ ;..... 65'1 ~fi -0> 00 (/) ~ 0, y ~ . ! L./ (:> 6U:1-r~U-S "03S .../~ IAN 3H.L .:10 lNn .J..S3M ~ .ON .^MH >tNm:ll 31 ViS .. ~ ~ r I~ I- (j) I I- 10 N N go .,.....'0:1 ~ ... :5~"t! " 'O~ 8.~ ,!! '" .....r.....z .- 0 '" .! ~:S~ ~ " - .., gtj"5'O ~ ,..:~ 0 ~~~~ Ul ~i~~ :5 ~~~1ti 1! :S~Il~ 0 ~lD~:5 .: " -;;lia "il goz~ .5 ~.!S] " ow .. rg'5c . ,eO...L.. 'E ~l~E 0 z .~B8 .. ;; :~(;i= '0 ~~!~ I;; ~1~6 "[; 3'O~~ .5 ....:2;; ] .:51_ I....~ 0 ..1:.00.1:. l ~~ii~ UJ!;t~Z .., i;~J g '0 b~~~ 1l i5~~ ,!! ~o~c '" '" ~i~i ~ - -" n ij~~~ -" :; fiiieb .:l ~~za :5 :liIli '0 OZ_ ~ 1l j!ji .! _ z g OOi 4) '" DCic;...s:S '" ci ~.!;:o ~ "' en ~8:i~l . ~a~~.g. 0 '" " ...:5OJ ;; ~1'Olo '0 ~~i~~ 1l :; 8btt~: 0 lj:s:a5 0 .,; ~..... illJ 0 '" '" ~g15'O~ . ~~6~.!! ~ .. -0 :5 :5~i-;;~ "o\IJ!~~ .: ~~~~~ ~ g ~ ~1Il c:Z 0 o~:50o " i&b~5 ; ~..., ~a..= ~ '€ '" ~1~O+1 0 ~!&'b! ~ z" ~ .; 0 ~~ 0 ~~li~g 8 '" '06 II: ....:~d e- of tj '04S:5i~ il. ~1 --i!-"- " Q. .!l- J ~; hi g i g:s -Ii '" c: o~ c ~~~~8 0 .2 ~ ~z ~ ~chj$~ .... o. .... L .n :5:5 .n __Vl- G! :>- c 7ii=:D,;: 1I ~ 00 lD3i:....'CCI) .5 Ulw .2 3::.1:.0"11) 0 ~t 1: dU~ . Ul ':a Ul ; - 'li '0:2 ~ € 0 0 ....~=~.c 0 -" ~ 0 "il .0 .!o~b~ z .!:5 g :Ei~a~ G! a 0:> 0 ;; 0:>0 .nUl . o............u 'li .. ;;;~,oi! 0 gJ~ .. . . ~ ;; _CD! -" .r1D....t h !-s is ~""I ~ a z z ~;8~! 0 15) :5 :s ~i5d=g = '0 o~ '0 o~t:Jo~ ~ Ii> -cD ~ +,:5~\\1'l') ~ 1:: .!~ JoJ~. Ul 15 g 0 g.~81ll " 0_ .5 g F " 0:>" es ~ ... ~~ " N.!........ ~ z .. ~cool~ F '0 0 "'" " 0.. 0 :5:5 . ,cC!+':s:fi '" I .c: ~ ~ 0 :; ~ ~~ '" ~~.i!:>c . 0 z_o~~ w ;;J. Ul !l; Ul "- 0 "' ~ 0> ~ 0 u o. 0 ~ G) .C!;!i! 0 F 15 F~ z F F~:l1l3 ~ < < ~ I C/) 0::: o >- ~ zO::: o=> C/)(/) CD o OC/) <(0:: -'w W z <:> z w !J B ill !lj ;1~ .~. i~a ~~~ ~~'l; 5_ e i~- h! :51 !h, f ~~ -iJj ~H ~"6~ hi "j. "!~! ~.l ~ ~~~~ ~Ia 0000 ~'d.:t. 5- 5" F ~ ~ ~ Qi Q) 0 ioU >>u ,,~ Z 0&52 -'" _. (J C C C 0= 0 0 ~8u~ II) a:l.~ :oJ em E In.....O I... 0""'" C U<Nu.. i I ; ! ~ ii ~i ~~ o~ N:s .. ~ . ! e ~ I i " ~ , ! ~ ~ B I 'j' ~ -t ~ o ~ S ~ ~ ~ fA ~ c;:g 8 .b ~ J. .b..!. J. Values Statement Excellence and Quality in the Delivery of Services We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional and cost-effective manner. Fiscal Responsibility We believe that fiscal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds is essential for citizen confidence in government. Ethics and Integrity We believe that ethics and integrity are the foundation blocks of public trust and confidence and that all meaningful relationships are built on these values. Open and Honest Communication We believe that open and honest communication is essential for an informed and involved citizenry and to foster a positive working environment for employees. Cooperation and Teamwork We believe that the public is best served when departments and employees work cooperatively as a team rather than at cross purposes. Visionary Leadership and Planning We believe that the very essence of leadership is to be visionary and to plan for the future. Positive Relations with the Community We believe that positive relations with the community and public we serve leads to positive, involved, and active citizens. Professionalism We believe that continuous improvement is the mark of professionalism and are committed to applying this principle to the services we offer and the development of our employees.