The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05.02.05 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 2, 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 6. ADJOURN PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT ~ '";ouncil workshops are conducted as an informal work session, all discussions shall be considered fact-finding, hypothetical and unofficial critical thinking exercises, which do not reflect an official public position. Council work session outcomes should not be construed by the attending public and/or reporting media as the articulation of a formal City policy position. Only official Council action normally taken at a regularly scheduled Council meeting should be considered as aformal expression of the City's position on any given matter. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us May 2, 2005 Representative Pat Garofalo 429 State Office Building 100 Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55155 Dear Representative Garofalo: The Heritage Preservation Commission of the City of Farmington would like to encourage you to support the Minnesota Historic Structure and Community Re-Investment Tax Credit Bills that have been introduced in the Minnesota legislature (Senate File 1659/House File 1731). This legislation will provide significant tax incentives for the rehabilitation of homes, businesses and other historic structures throughout Minnesota. Senate File 1659 and House File 1731 will enable a state income tax credit equal to 25% of the qualified costs of rehabilitation on certified historic residential and commercial properties. The Farmington Heritage Preservation Commission supports the need to preserve its physical heritage, to promote economic development of its historic properties and to encourage the rehabilitation ofunderutilized historic buildings. The Commission believes that Senate File 1659 and House File 1731 significantly advance these objectives while creating a positive impact on the Farmington Community. On behalf ofthe Farmington Heritage Preservation Commission, thank you for your anticipated support in this matter. Sincerely, ~~d 4/?adul~ Lisa A. Shadick Administrative Services Director Cc: HPC Members Farmington City Council Members Missioll Statemellt Through teamwork and cooperation, the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserve our proud past andfoster a promising future. Minnesota Historic Structure & Community Re-Investment Tax Credit Strengthening & Preserving Minnesota's Main Streets & Historic Places A coalition of cities, historical groups, and property developers is actively promot- ing proposed legislation that would allow a credit on state income taxes equal to 25 percent of the qualified cost of a historic rehabilitation of residential or in- come-producing properties. The proposed legislation, similar to provisions in over 20 other states, would encourage private investment in historic properties in both urban and rural Minnesota, generating jobs and stimulating economic devel- opment within existing communities. How Does It Work? . Allows credit on state income taxes equal to 25% of the qualified cost of a historic rehabili- tation. . Parallels federal historic preservation 20% tax credit, creating more development opportu- nities in Minnesota. . Useful for both commercial and residential property, developers and homeowners. Fed- eral credit is for income producing properties only. Economic and Social Benefits . Creates jobs and economic activity far beyond level of tax credit. . Leverages more federal resources for the state. . Replenishes the tax base through new sales and payroll taxes and an increased tax base. . Complements the JOBZ program by providing a business stimulus in the historic areas of large and small towns across the state. Creates affordable housing by =:> helping first-time and moderate income buyers through mortgage credit provision. Lender uses tax credit and lets owner buy down rate or reduce mortgage. =:> encouraging low-income rental housing when partnered with the federal low income housing tax credit. Encourages private investment in derelict or under- used buildings in historic core neighborhoods and puts neglected properties on the tax rolls at a higher value, stimulating more economic in- vestment in surrounding areas, especially on main streets and in historic commercial corri- dors'. . More labor intensive than new construction, rehab construction strengthens the local employment base. . . Speeds redevelopment of long vacant buildings, returning them to income-producing and taxable status. Limits sprawl, supports open space preservation & promotes environmental conservation efforts by concentrating on already developed areas. Supports community identity efforts to capitalize on history and heritage as a tourism draw. In the state of Missouri, the cost of the credit was recouped in additional payroll taxes alone. ~ ..------ ., .... '- ~~j~....,.. . II . .~~......-" I :.' '. 'J _..-~ I I , I .J j.'.-' .,.. 'J' ~~ ~... t ' .J. .J",';~'. '.' ;~. ........ ......'..:., 'j' ~..J ~ ~,~ ...' . . - r- :'I _- -::~"',..;;:'.f ~ r;:;; 'I. .I'-.'....~.. .;. ~. =-lii ~,...- '.:-' r;'i0.:~!fr,:.~. I I .,., - fli,~l0;1"";;.~'7'J-... -.', 11 ,!.. ..., ~.n~.~h:";,::~I. ;IJ-~----- ff~:j2~J;;;;~j I', d-'=-:*:IIt.---,::":----- ._" .' ..'~_ .1''', .' . I' I' ' 'i' r ~ ,'"/ . . .' ! , f, . [,. ..' i .IL:.:d~rJJ 1 -; I; ~"'7Ct""W..._ '.' ,. .. p L t t . -". .. ~-- _'~ .....; :,' ~ I. '. .,' '; .... '.l.t ')01:.1. . 1 . . Hotel Kaddutz Artists Lofts, Fergus Falls Vacantfor years Rehabbed in 2003for $2.3 million National Guard Armory, Duluth Waitingfor rehab since the 1970s, . underutilized for over thirty years What is Eligible? The tax credit would be available for a property that is any of the following: . Listed on the National Register of Historic Places. (Minnesota has over 1,500 properties currendy listed.) . Certified as a contributing element of a National Register Historic District. Certified as historic by local heritage preservation commission or Certified Local Government. Proposed Legislation The proposed legislation, based on a highly successful Missouri law passed in 1997, provides an income tax credit for expenditures for historic structure rehabilitation. A taxpayer who incurs costs for the rehabilitation of an eligible property may take a credit against the tax imposed in an amount equal to 25 percent of the total costs of rehabilitation. The costs of => rehabilitation must exceed 50 percent of the total basis in the property at the time the rehabilitation activity begins, and the rehabilitation must meet standards consistent with the standards of the Secretary of the Interior for re- habilitation as determined by the State Historic Preserva- tion Office of the Minnesota Historical Society. Bills have been introduced in the 2005-2006 Legislature (Senate File 1659 and House File 1731). Chief authors are Representative Morrie Lanning (R) in the House and Senator Larry Pogemiller (DFL) in the Senate. QUICK FACTS ON TAX CREDIT USE => In Missouri, annual economic impact of rehab ta..x credit - $1.016 billion - due to economic activity related to historic preservation. In Florida, $2 returned for every $1 invested and a 10-fold return for the Main Street program. In Virginia, over $316 million in rehabilitation. 24 other states, including Wisconsin, Iowa and North Dakota, have similar state tax credits. => => Why Should We Act Now? In the past 30 years, we have lost scores of historic buildings to dete- rioration and neglect because rehabilitation costs did not make them attractive to development. Many of them are in older residential neighborhoods, small-town main streets, and urban commercial cores. Reinvesting in these areas and spurring development will have a significant impact on their future health and vitality. Buc/anan Hotel, Little Falls Vacant many years Rehabbed at $2 Million in 1994 Although the federal preservation tax credit provides incentives for rehabilitation, most projects cannot be accomplished using federal credits alone As a result, wit.~out a stat~ L:tedit, :Mlllnesota receives lower fdieral tax credit per-capita than other states. Now is the time to augment the federal his- toric tax credit with a state credit that will encourage this redevelopment to occur before it is too late. Supporting Organizations City of Duluth City of Minneapolis City of Saint Paul Duluth Affordable Housing Coalition Duluth LISC Duluth Preservation Alliance Historic Saint Paul Minnesota Historical Society MN State Historic Preservation Office Minnesota Solutions National Trost for Historic Preservation Preservation Alliance of Minnesota Twin Cities LISC White Bear Lake Area Historical Society Preservation Alliance of Minnesota' Will Stark, Advocacy Committee Chairman 516 Landmark Center' 75 W. Fifth St. . St, Paul, MN 55102' Phone: 651,293.9047 www,mnpreservation,org' director@mnpreservation,org Fact Sources: State Historic Preservation Office of the Minnesota Historical Society Donovan Rypkema, The Economics of Histonc Preservation, 1994 Taylor & Weber, Historic Preservation Ta.\': Credit Study, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, 2004 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 2, 2005 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Action Taken 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVEAGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENDATIONS a) Acknowledge Retirement - Police Department b) Proclaim Heritage Preservation Month - Administration c) Proclaim Senior Week - Parks and Recreation d) Council Card for Benno Klotz Acknowledged Proclaimed Proclaimed Received 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) a) Response to Charleswood Residents - Community Development Information Received 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (4/18/05 Regular) b) Adopt Resolution - Accept Donation - Parks and Recreation c) Adopt Resolution - Accept Donation - Parks and Recreation d) Approve CLG Grant - Heritage Landmark Designations - Administration e) Authorization to Dispose of City Property - Police Department f) Appointment Recommendation - Human Resources g) Appointment Recommendation - Human Resources h) Capital Outlay - Human Resources/IT i) Adopt Resolution - Farmington Business Park Development Contract - Engineering j) Approve Assessment Agreement - Southeast Trunk Utility Project- Engineering k) Approve Street Lighting Contract - Ash Street Project - Engineering I) Approve Easement Acquisition - Ash Street Project - Engineering m) School and Conference - Police Department n) Approve Employment Agreement - Administration 0) Approve Bills Approved R44-05 R45-05 Approved Authorized Approved Approved Information Received R46-05 Approved Approved Approved Information Received Tabled 6/6/05 Approved 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Community Center Feasibility Study Final Report - Parks and Recreation b) Approve Joint Resolution - Canton Court Annexation - Community Development 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Request for Feasibility Study - ISD 192 - Engineering 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Adopt Resolution - Accepting Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertisement for Bids for Fire Station Project - Wold Architects 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. ADJOURN Accepted Move Forward R47-05 R48-05 R49-05 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Mission Statement Through teamwork and cooperation, the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserve our proud past and foster a promising future. AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 2, 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) Acknowledge Retirement - Police Department b) Proclaim Heritage Preservation Month - Administration c) Proclaim Senior Week - Parks and Recreation 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) a) Response to Charleswood Residents - Community Development 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (4/18/05 Regular) b) Adopt Resolution - Accept Donation - Parks and Recreation c) Adopt Resolution - Accept Donation - Parks and Recreation d) Approve CLG Grant - Heritage Landmark Designations - Administration e) Authorization to Dispose of City Property - Police Department f) Appointment Recommendation - Human Resources g) Appointment Recommendation - Human Resources h) Capital Outlay - Human Resources/IT i) Adopt Resolution - Farmington Business Park Development Contract - Engineering j) Approve Assessment Agreement - Southeast Trunk Utility Project - Engineering k) Approve Street Lighting Contract - Ash Street Project - Engineering I) Approve Easement Acquisition - Ash Street Project - Engineering m) School and Conference - Police Department n) Approve Employment Agreement - Administration 0) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS Action Taken Page 1 Pages 2-3 Page 4 Page 5 Pages 6-21 Pages 22-24 Pages 25-26 Pages 27-33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Pages 38-57 Pages 58-63 Pages 64-69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Community Center Feasibility Study Final Report - Parks and Recreation b) Approve Joint Resolution - Canton Court Annexation - Community Development 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Request for Feasibility Study - ISD 192 - Engineering 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Adopt Resolution - Accepting Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertisement for Bids for Fire Station Project - Wold Architects 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. ADJOURN Pages 74-82 Pages 83-94 Pages 95-99 Pages 100-101 Sa.... 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: Acknowledge Retirement Detective Sergeant Jerome Wacker DATE: May 2,2005 INTRODUCTION It is with mixed emotion that the Farmington Police Department announces the retirement of Detective Sergeant Jerome Wacker. DISCUSSION Detective Sergeant Jerry Wacker has been a member of the Farmington Police Department for over twenty-five years. He has served in the capacity of Patrol Officer, Investigator and Detective Sergeant. During his years of service the City has seen tremendous growth. Sergeant Wacker has met the challenges presented by that growth with Pride and Professionalism. His contributions to the Department and to the City as a whole are too numerous to mention here but it is important to note that he gave his all in the fulfillment of the Farmington Police Department Motto, Service in the Interest of Peace and Justice. And though he will be sorely missed, we wish him well in his retirement. ACTION REQUESTED Acknowledge the retirement of Farmington Police Detective Sergeant Jerome Wacker effective May 30,2005. Respectfully submitted, Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police 5b City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrato~ FROM: Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Proclaim May, 2005 Historic Preservation Month DATE: May 2, 2005 INTRODUCTION "Restore America: Communities at a Crossroads" is the theme for Preservation Month 2005. DISCUSSION Historic Preservation is an effective tool for managing growth, revitalizing neighborhoods, fostering local pride and maintaining community character while enhancing livability. It also provides an excellent opportunity for people to learn more about ways to preserve our heritage for future generations. National Preservation Month 2005 is being co-sponsored by the Farmington Heritage Preservation Commission. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached Proclamation designating the month of May 2005, as Historic Preservation Month. Respectfully submitted, ?f):~ c:I~qcd<:!-~ Lisa Shadick Administrative Services Director Historic Preservation Month 2005 WHEREAS, historic preservation is an effective tool for managing growth, revitalizing neighborhoods, fostering local pride and maintaining community character while enhancing livability; and, WHEREAS, historic preservation is relevant for communities everywhere, both urban and rural, and for people of all ages, all walks of life and all ethnic backgrounds; and, WHEREAS, it is important to celebrate the role of history in our lives and the contributions made by dedicated individuals in helping to preserve the tangible aspects of the heritage that has shaped us as a people; and, WHEREAS, "Restore America: Communities at a Crossroads" is the theme for National Historic Preservation Month 2005, cosponsored by the City of Farmington and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. NO~ THEREFORE, we, the City Council of the City of Farmington, do proclaim May 2005 as Historic Preservation Month and call upon the people of Farmington to join their fellow citizens across the United States in recognizing and participating in this special observance. Mayor Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, s(!., National Senior Center Week Proclamation The National Institute of Senior Centers (NISC) a dynamic group representing the senior center field, serving several million older Americans each year through community-based senior centers nationwide, proposes a special week be established to recognize senior centers. These senior centers serve as effective agents for the provision of services and opportunities for older Americans. Promoting the growth, development, and expansion of senior centers by developing senior center leadership; focusing on quality of life issues for seniors through activities and services in senior centers; and by enhancing the senior center image through these projects are among the many purposes of senior center. National Senior Center Week is set for May 8 - l4, 2005, and this year's theme is "Senior Centers on the Move: Meet Us There!" NOW, THEREFORE, I , Mayor of the City of Farmington, do hereby proclaim May 8 -14, 2005 as National Senior Center Week in the City of Farmington, and I urge all citizens to celebrate National Senior Center Week, and support efforts of our senior center, the Rambling River Center, to engage adults ages 50 years and over in the Farmington Community. Dated this 2nd Day of May in the year 2005 Mayor 'a.. 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 and City Administrator r FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Response to Citizen Comments - Garage Sale Signs DATE: May 2, 2005 DISCUSSION Two residents of the Charleswood Addition attended the City Council meeting on April 18 to advise the Council that a neighborhood garage sale would be conducted in the Charleswood area between April 21 and April 24. The residents brought samples of signs that they had prepared to promote the garage sale. Some of the signs were approximately three feet high and two feet wide, or six square feet in size. The residents wanted the Council to approve the signs. Sectionl0-6-3(B)(I)(p) ofthe City Code addresses garage sale signs. It provides as follows: (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. Some ofthe signs that had been prepared for the Charleswood neighborhood garage sale were three times the maximum size permitted under the City Code. The City Council did not indicate at its meeting on April 18 that it would be inclined to approve garage sale signs that did not comply with the City Code. City staff members are prepared to research or investigate the possibility of revising the garage sale sign provision( s) of the City Code if or when the City Council directs staff to do so. ACTION REQUESTED cc: Mr. David Hoffineister and Ms. Monique Beal 7a... COUNCIL MINUTES PRE-MEETING , April 18, 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 Andrea Poehler, City Attorney; David Urbia, City Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Lee Smick, City Planner; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant 2. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by Wilson, second by Fogarty to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. CITIZEN COMMENTS 4. COUNCIL REVIEW OF AGENDA Councilmember McKnight pulled item 7g) March 2005 Financial Report to receive comments from staff. Mayor Soderberg pulled item 71) approve Easement Acquisition - Ash Street Project. He asked if the City is still within budget and staff replied we are. There are 3 or 4 easement acquisitions left to receive out of 40. He will ask Council to reconsider minutes already approved from March 24 to read it costs $3 million to pave Flagstaff from 195th Street to the border, and the March 21 minutes under Roundtable, the policy committee should read PSAP. City Administrator Urbia added supplemental items 7p) Resolution Calling for Public Hearing on Issuance of Bonds and Capital Improvement Plan, and 7q) 2005 Leadership Retreat Executive Summary Additions. Community Development Director Carroll provided Council with background information on future building permits. . ~... ,', Council Minutes (Pre-Meeting) April 18, 2005 Page 2 5. STAFF COMMENTS Staff reviewed the Centex plat as there are concerns with the solid waste pick up. In order to pick up the garbage on both sides of the roads between the townhomes the garbage trucks would have had to back up twice. Staff proposed having the garbage cans placed on the right side ofthe street, which would call for one back up movement. There are three turn-around areas where the trucks could use guest parking to turn around. There was a concern as to what would happen if there were cars parked there. After receiving concerns about trucks backing up, staff developed an alternative to install concrete pads along the main street. Garbage cans would be taken to these pads on garbage days and the trucks would pick them up from there. This will eliminate all ofthe backing movements except for one, where they could back in to a guest parking area to turn around. The developer would place a sign in the guest parking stating no parking on trash day. Council suggested installing sidewalks to pads that are a long distance away to prevent walking in the street. Staffhas informed the developer that townhome buyers need to be informed of this issue. Councilmember Pritzlaff had concerns with safety, setting precedent and being unfair to owners to have all garbage on one side. The homeowners association could hire someone to take the cans to the pads. 6. ADJOURN MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adjourn at 6:50 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ?~~ ;m~ 0' Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR April 18, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Soderberg at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Soderberg led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Audience: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson None Andrea Poehler, 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 Kris Akin, Sarah Miller, Dreamcatchers 4-H Club, Erik Starkman, Nancy Anderson, Michael and Laura Pierce, Kari Brown, David Hoffmeister, Monique Beal, Beverly Preece 4. APPROVE AGENDA Councilmember McKnight pulled 7 g) March 2005 Financial Report for staff comments. City Administrator Urbia added 7p) Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing on Issuance of Bonds and Capital Improvement Plan and 7q) 2005 Leadership Retreat Executive Summary Additions. Police Chief Siebenaler added an addendum to item 5c) Swearing-In Police Officer. Mayor Soderberg added item llc) Reconsider March 21 and March 24,2005 Minutes. The reconsideration was to correct some typographical errors. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Adopt Resolution - Accept Donation Dakota Dreamcatcher's 4H Club - Parks and Recreation The 4H Club did a fundraising project for the Rambling River Center to raise money for 150 chairs. Their goal was to raise $9,000 prior to March 27,2005. They raised $13,118.25 which purchased 150 chairs, 6 computers and 1 printer for the Rambling River Center. The remaining money, $1,003.16 will go to the Rambling River Center. Rambling River Center Coordinator Missie Kohlbeck presented the club with a plaque in appreciation of the club's efforts. Mayor Soderberg noted there are 12 families represented in this club with a total of 18 Council Minutes (Regular) April 18, 2005 Page 2 members ranging in age from 5-16 years old. This is an amazing accomplishment and he thanked the club for demonstrating how all of us can make life better for everyone else with just a little effort.' The club received thank you's from the entire Council. There will be a chair dedication on May 9,2005 from 3:30 - 5:30 at the Rambling River Center. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Pritzlaff adopting RESOLUTION R36-05 Accepting Donation Dakota Dreamcatcher's 4H-Club. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) ALF Ambulance 2004 Annual Report - ALF Ambulance Mr. Tom Kelly, ALF Ambulance presented the 2004 Annual Report. ALF was created 19 years ago. They cover Apple Valley, Lakeville, Farmington and three townships. Farmington is staffed 10 hours/day, 7 days/week. c) Swearing-In Police Officer - Administration Mr. Travis Sundvall was sworn-in as a new Police Officer. City Administrator Urbia administered the Oath of Office. Police Chief Siebenaler stated Travis Apple is a Cub Scout and entered the pinewood derby competition. The Police Chief saw his entry on the internet. He built an imitation of a Farmington Police car. The police department was flattered by what Travis has done. In appreciation Police Chief Siebenaler presented Travis with a shoulder patch and a pin. d) Proclaim Earth Day - Parks and Recreation MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson to proclaim April 22, 2005 as Earth Day. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Proclaim Arbor Day - Parks and Recreation MOTION by McKnight, second by Fogarty to proclaim April 29, 2005 as Arbor Day. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. David Hoffmeister, 19605 Everest Path, stated the Charleswood Addition will be holding their second annual garage sale on Thursday - Saturday. They have 44 homes participating in the garage sale. Residents made some permanent signs to advertise the sale and showed them to Council. They had two sizes of signs. Ms. Monique Beal, spoke with staff about the sign ordinance. Their original size was 4 ft. tall and they reduced the sign to 3 ft. They wanted a nice-looking sign. They had 10 signs to locate throughout the City. Ms. Beal suggested the City issue permits for events like this. It brings a lot of traffic into Farmington. They wanted the Council to approve the signs or advise of any changes. Mayor Soderberg stated this would need to be placed on an agenda for discussion. Ms. Beal stated the sale is this weekend. They wanted to use these signs for this sale. They Council Minutes (Regular) April 18,2005 Page 3 collected money from people in the association to pay for the signs. Council could not take any action as this was not an agenda item. Councilmember Wilson noted the garage sale sign regulation is in the code stating garage sale signs on private property not to exceed 2 sq. ft. in size and to be removed the same day. a) Response to Mr. John Ristow - Engineering Staff sent Mr. Ristow a response to comments made by his attorney at the last meeting. b) Response to Mr. Bill Fitch - Finance Staff sent Mr. Fitch a response to his comments at the last meeting. 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (4/4/05 Regular) (4/6/05 Special) b) Received Information Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes - Parks and Recreation c) Approved Temporary 3.2 On-Sale Beer License - Administration d) Approved School and Conference - Administration e) Received Information Customer Service Response Report - Administration f) Approved School and Conference - Fire Department h) Approved Appointment Recommendation Solid Waste - Human Resources i) Received Information City Hall Summer Hours - Human Resources j) Adopted RESOLUTION R37-05 Accepting Donation - Parks and Recreation k) Adopted RESOLUTION R38-05 Accepting Donation - Parks and Recreation I) Approved Easement Acquisition - Ash Street Project - Engineering m) Approved T -Mobile Antenna Lease - Engineering n) Received Information First Quarter Building Permit Report - Community Development 0) Approved Bills p) Adopted RESOLUTION R39-05 Calling for Public Hearing on Issuance of Bonds and Capital Improvement Plan - Finance q) Received Information 2005 Leadership-Planning-Team Building Retreat Executive Summary Additions - Administration APIF, MOTION CARRIED. g) March 2005 Financial Report - Finance The general fund budget is dominated by tax dollars which the City has yet to receive. Year-to-date the City has taken in roughly 4% of the general fund budget as compared to 8% last year when fines, building permit revenues and intergovernmental revenues were higher percentages than they are currently. Tax dollars are received in July and December. The City counts on cash flow from other pooled cash sources to pay bills over time until the tax dollars are received. It has been a slow first quarter for building permits. There are a number of plats Council Minutes (Regular) April 18, 2005 Page 4 and development contracts on-line. Expenditures are at 22.4% for the first quarter vs. 22.3% last year. The city can be on task for expenditures, but if revenues do not come in as planned, that is where a shortfall could occur. Finance Director Roland explained why some departments are above the 25%. Some ofthis is due to up front costs and training seminars. Transfers are on course at 25%. Transfers are made to supplement revenues in other funds. Some positions that were scheduled to be hired at the beginning of the year have not been hired. Council has not made some capital outlay purchases. Staffis very conscious of the money they are spending and are holding off on anything that is not necessary. Staff did a very significant shift in the 2005 budget when they shifted the revenue to taxes. In 2004 staff budgeted interest revenue at $320,000. That has been reduced by $100,000. That shifts percentages significantly. Staffwill not count on building permit revenues to carry the City through the year. They will count on tax revenue. Other revenues are performing at a reasonably expected level. MOTION by McKnight, second by Fogarty to approve the March 2005 Financial Report. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Consider Resolution - Order Feasibility Report 195th Street Extension to Hwy 3 - Engineering Newland Communities has submitted a petition for the City to initiate a feasibility study for the extension of 195th Street to TH3. Staffhas met with the county to discuss capital improvement projects. Staff stated they would like to see this project move forward, however the county indicated they do not have the funding to program this for 2006. They did acknowledge there is an agreement between the City and the county that they would participate in this project ifit were to be extended to TH3. If the county did not have the funding an agreement would be prepared to allow them to participate after the fact. The estimated cost for the feasibility report is $25,000 - $30,000. Without the feasibility report completed, and knowing the numbers and environmental and design impacts, it is difficult to plan the Seed-Genstar property. Mayor Soderberg asked ifthe legal issues have been resolved. He did not want to spend money that would be tied up because of legal issues. Ms. Krista Fleming, Newland Communities, stated the legal issues are progressing very well, however they have not been finalized but they are optimistic. They need to keep moving forward. The developer has also sent a letter to staff requesting discussions on potential annexations for the next EFP AC meeting. They want to know how to go Council Minutes (Regular) April 18, 2005 Page 5 about it and the process used. The developer has the consent of the land owner to move forward. They plan to start development in 2006. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Pritzlaffto adopt RESOLUTION R40-05 ordering a feasibility report for the Extension of 195th Street to Highway 3. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Adopt Resolution - Charleswood Crossing Final Plat - Community Development The area is located west of Pilot Knob Road and south of 195th Street. The plat consists of 43 single-family lots and 108 multi-family units on 62.98 acres. In November 2004 the Council approved a PUD to allow the developer to construct 56 ft.-wide single family homes. There will be a front yard setback of25 ft. and side yard setbacks of7.5 ft. The townhomes will consist of 12 buildings with 8- 10 units per building. The developer proposes one access from the development on 195th Street and two accesses onto Pilot Knob Road. There is a cul-de-sac with a 45 ft. radius, it needs to be shown as a 50 ft. radius. Regarding the waste disposal, residents on one side of the street would have to set their garbage across the street so the garbage trucks would have to make just one back-up movement. Council was concerned with this, so staff proposed installing pads in certain areas along the main street where residents would bring their garbage cans to on garbage day. In one location, the garbage truck would have to back up into a guest parking area to turn around. Contingencies include: 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 and submission of security, payment of all fees and costs and submission of all other documents required under the Development Contract. Councilmember Pritzlaff suggested placing a pad along Escalade Way with a sidewalk leading to it. This would eliminate the truck backing up into the guest parking. Councilmember Fogarty noted there are no sidewalks along the private streets. Residents will have to take the cans into the street and walk in the street to the pads. She felt it will be a terrible nuisance in the winter. Mayor Soderberg agreed it becomes a long walk and they need to consider public safety. He does not like the idea of trucks backing up and this does prevent that. It will be included in the Development Contract that the developer inform the homeowners association of the garbage situation. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second Council Minutes (Regular) April 18, 2005 Page 6 by McKnight to adopt RESOLUTION R41-05 approving and authorizing signing of the final plat for Charleswood Crossing with the above contingencies and contingent on placing a pad on Escalade Way to eliminate the trucks backing up. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Council discussed extending the private street out to the main street. Staff cannot require the developer to extend the private street, but they could encourage him to do so. The no parking sign in the guest parking would go away ifthe truck does not need to back up. c) Adopt Resolution and Ordinance Amending Comprehensive Plan and Rezoning - K&K Auto Ranch - Community Development This is located on the comer of Ash Street and 8th Street. Mr. Janssen will be required to move the vehicles parked along Ash Street. At times his accesses on Ash Street and 8th Street will be closed. In 2004 Mr. Janssen combined three lots. Two of the lots are B-1 and shown as business in the comp plan. The lot to the north is R-2 and has a low-medium density designation. In order to move the cars to the north lot, it needs to be rezoned and the comp plan needs to be amended. In 2003 Mr. Janssen requested to have the zoning changed, but it was denied because of the drainage problem with the neighbors behind his business. Mr. Janssen proposes to pay for the construction of installing the storm sewer along 8th Street in front of his business and into the middle of the lots. Ifthis is approved, a CUP will be required under B-1 for auto sales. This would be discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. The City can draft a Waiver of Right to Object to Assessment for the storm water improvement. Mr. Janssen will have to agree to be assessed for the cost ofthe storm water project. Attorney Poehler stated this would be appropriate to do with the CUP. The storm sewer cost is included in the Ash Street project and Mr. Janssen is aware of the cost. The neighbors were concerned that any improvement of the north lot would block drainage from their lots. The storm sewer design along 8th Street would allow Mr. Janssen to also run a line into the lots to alleviate drainage from the neighbors' lots. Councilmember Fogarty asked ifthe garage is still on the lot and is the driveway non-compliant. Staff will be addressing this with the CUP. Community Development Director Carroll was uncertain as to Mr. Janssen's plans as far as the garage. A garage is an accessory structure and he may be inclined to leave it at this time. Mayor Soderberg did not have a problem with the garage. Staff asked if Council wanted to direct staff to discuss with Mr. Janssen the potential removal of the garage and that Council's collective preference would be that it be removed when he does other improvements to the property. Council agreed with this and staffwill obtain more information from Mr. Janssen as to his plans for the garage. Staff noted paving the north lot will not happen quickly. Mayor Soderberg stated with the lot not being paved it becomes a non-compliant circumstance. He did not want it left as a gravel parking lot from which cars are sold for 15 years and the storm sewer does not get built for 15 years. Staff assured Council this will not happen. Council Minutes (Regular) April 18, 2005 Page 7 MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson to adopt RESOLUTION R42-05 approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the northern portion of 1024 8th Street from low/medium residential to business and adopt ORDINANCE 005- 528 approving a rezoning for the northern portion of 1024 8th Street from R-2 to B-1. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Wetland Buffer Issue - Engineering On January 19, 2005 Council held a workshop to discuss an issue with wetland buffers on various properties. Previously, wetland buffers were allowed on private properties. The lots were platted with drainage and utility easements, but as the county does not allow buffer easements to be placed on plats there was no indication that there were buffers on those lots. Residents have expressed concern with having significant areas of the back yards containing buffers. Since then, the City has changed the ordinance to require that buffers be included in outlots and not on private property. The solution from the workshop was a compromise. On most lots there is a 10-ft. rear-yard drainage and utility easement. Some of these easements were up to 40 ft. deep to encompass the buffers. The proposal was to reduce the width of the buffers on all of the properties to 10 ft. which would equal the typical drainage and utility easement at the back of the lot. Staff surveyed the affected residents as to whether they would like to have the buffer reduced to 10 ft. or whether they would prefer to keep the buffer as is. 44 surveys were sent and 36 have been returned. Four owners were in favor of keeping the buffer as is and 32 owners were in favor of reducing the buffer to 10ft. lfthe Council approves reducing the buffer to 10ft. the Council needs to decide whether the City would vacate the portions ofthe existing drainage and utility easements that were originally platted to encompass the buffers larger than the 10 ft easement. If the easements are vacated staff recommended receiving a conservation easement over the 10ft buffer so there would be documentation for the future that there are buffers on the property. Future buyers would have the opportunity to review the title work that would indicate the conservation easements. The second issue would be for Council to decide if this should be applied across the board or for those residents preferring the wider buffer would the City allow them to keep the easement, or would the City vacate the easement to be 10ft wide and allow the property owner to do what they wish beyond that. If the easements are vacated it would involve staff time and a surveyor would need to write up the legal descriptions. Councilmember Wilson asked how the City manages the wetland buffers now. City Engineer Mann replied staff needs to ensure the buffers are not encroached into. Owners are not allowed to mow the buffer. Staffhas done bums, reseeding, and replanting. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked about who the surveys were sent to. The surveys were sent to Charleswood and Middle Creek. For those that want to leave the buffer as is, if the property was sold, would Council have to deal with it at that time, or would it be better to vacate all ofthe easements. Staff did not Council Minutes (Regular) April 18, 2005 Page 8 know if those property owners would want to do that. Councilmember Pritzlaff would prefer to see the easements across the board. Staff felt there is an advantage to that as far as enforcement. Mayor Soderberg asked about the process for the City to do a blanket vacation. Attorney Poehler replied she was not sure if the City would want to do a blanket vacation. She suggested dividing the City up into parcels and then work with the residents in the areas to obtain a conservation easement and then do a vacation once the City has the conservation easement for that area. Councilmember Wilson felt this was a reasonable idea, however he was uncomfortable asking a homeowner to vacate a portion of their property which they believed was useable. Mayor Soderberg explained they are vacating the 30- 40 ft. buffer so residents will be allowed to use more of their property and in exchange, obtain a conservation easement so the City still maintains some protection for the wetland. Councilmember Wilson was not comfortable with changing the use of the land for the owner. He wanted the owner to have the additional 1 0 ft. as mowable area. Mr. Michael Pierce, 5137 203rd Street W, noted staff did not say three surveys requested all oftheir property back, and regarding the four who said they wanted the buffer to stay the same, there were also some that swayed the other way. Mayor Soderberg asked about the depth of his lot. Mr. Pierce stated it is 110 ft. The Mayor then asked about the depth of the wetland buffer. Mr. Pierce stated 25 ft. He has 20 ft. as a useable back yard with the buffer in place, however, their deck is 13 ft., so he has 7 ft. for a backyard. With the change in the buffer he would have an additional 15 ft. of use able space in his backyard. Councilmember Wilson understood the markers for the buffer were placed after the homeowner purchased the property. To vacate the buffers is a reasonable idea, but he would prefer to allow the owners to use their entire lot. In other words, going beyond vacating the buffer. Mr. Pierce stated if the conservation easement is obtained from homeowners, now that their lot has been graded to the stakes, they need to replace the area with prairie grass, but there is a chance the City will burn off lOft. along the backyards on occasion? That would concern the homeowners. Mr. Pierce noted the City suggested they would take a strip of homes and ask them to sign off on the conservation easement and then vacate the property. Some owners will still have the question as to what the City will do with that 10ft. Mayor Soderberg noted as it is today that land is still a wetland buffer. The land is unuseable and would be managed by the City to protect the wetland. That is the idea behind the wetland buffer - to protect the wetland. Council is trying to reach a comp:r:.omise to protect the wetland and to allow the owners more useable space. He understood it is frustrating but grading back to the stakes is a violation ofthe ordinance. Mr. Pierce noted all ofthe homes in their area were graded back to the stakes. When he signs off on the conservation easement, the question will still be does the City have the opportunity to do what Council Minutes (Regular) April 18, 2005 Page 9 they want with the materials he puts in the buffer. City Engineer Mann stated it has not been decided who will restore the buffer. It might make more sense for the City to do it to have consistency with the vegetation. Mayor Soderberg asked ifthe owners have any recourse against the builders for grading to the back of the property. Staff replied the time and cost involved would not be worthwhile vs. the cost to plant native materials. Councilmember McKnight felt vacating down to the 10ft. is the best solution. The agencies have given some by allowing just 10ft because the City is so dedicated to preserving wetlands. Mayor Soderberg noted the Attorney has suggested working with each home owner to sign off on the conservation easement before vacating the easements and Mayor Soderberg agreed that is what should be done. b) Flagstaff Avenue Traffic Study - Engineering At the April 6, 2005 special meeting Council directed staff to initiate a traffic study on Flagstaff Avenue due to the proposed high school. The cost is $4,700. This does not include any further meetings and the end result would be a report from the traffic engineer. Iftraffic counts are needed, City staff will do that portion. Staff received information earlier tonight from the school district that they are planning on doing their own traffic study. If Council has a modification to their direction to staff, staff would need to know that. Mayor Soderberg noted the school is going to do their own traffic study and yet two of them said duplication of efforts was a waste of taxpayer dollars. City Administrator Urbia stated he attended the school's planning meeting. There were other issues discussed at that meeting that concerned staff as to how the school is proceeding. The school will consider this at their board meeting on April 25, 2005. Staff suggested arranging a meeting with the school. The school is also talking about doing their own feasibility study. This is not how things are normally done. There are things that will lead to duplication. There are a lot of technical issues in the feasibility study where the City Engineer would be needed. Mayor Soderberg asked ifit was unclear at the joint meeting that even if the school went ahead on their own with the feasibility study, it would still have to be reviewed by the City Engineer and they would have to pay for that. Council felt it was very clear. The school asked if there is an ordinance requiring the City Engineer do the work. In the end, the Council makes the decision. Attorney Poehler stated there is not an ordinance specifying that. It is part ofthe City's process in reviewing a development of any sort, that the City has the ability to require the work be done to support the City's review. The City has the ability to ensure it coincides with the City's specifications when it comes to public improvements. By statute, the City Engineer is required to do the feasibility report or another entity at the direction of the Council. Council suggested giving the school a copy of the statute. City Administrator Urbia felt there is a lack of understanding by the school. Mayor Soderberg recalled it was stated several times during that meeting. Attorney Poehler got the impression the school does Council Minutes (Regular) April 18, 2005 Page 10 not believe the City has the authority to make those requirements. City Administrator Urbia suggested a meeting with two Councilmembers, two board members and City and school staff. Attorney Poehler will obtain a copy of the statute. The school will consider the traffic study and the feasibility study at their board meeting on April 25, 2005. Councilmember Wilson recalled the school board requested the traffic study and they seemed agreeable to have the City do this. He recommended staff not proceed with doing the traffic study from the City's end. It is ridiculous to spend $4700 oftaxpayer money twice. Councilmember McKnight suggested waiting a week until the school took some action and Council had a chance to meet with them. City Engineer Mann believed the City has the authority to ensure that any connection made to the City system is done to City standards. Any connection to the sewer, water, street system is done to City standards. There are different ways for the City to ensure that. One way with developers is when a subdivision is built the developer is allowed to build all ofthe infrastructure. It is reviewed and inspected and ensured to be built to City standards by the City Engineer. As far as a traffic study, ifthe school does a traffic study and the City does not do their own, in order for the school district's traffic study to be validated it will have to be reviewed and somewhat more strongly analyzed by the City's traffic engineer to ensure it is objective and meets the City's standards. Any work the school does, opens the possibility to duplication of efforts on the City's infrastructure. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if the school does a traffic study would the cost of the City to review it be less or would it incur the same cost reviewing the school's. Staff replied that is hard to project, we do not know who they would hire, what form it would be in, and what the parameters would be relative to the parameters the City has looked at. Councilmember Pritzlaff confirmed the school is under the understanding they would pay for the traffic study and the feasibility study. Councilmember Fogarty replied not the traffic study as that was ordered by Council. Staff noted it has been the City's policy that development pays for itself. The school would have to pay for the City's time to review the school's traffic study. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted at the last Council meeting, Council said the survey crew would be out there for just a couple days and it would not be a problem. That was with the understanding the feasibility study would be ordered on Wednesday. He had a problem with that now as they do not know what will happen out there. Councilmember Pritzlaff suggested pulling the survey crew. Mayor Soderberg asked if the school has made any formal request to determine what they need to develop. City Engineer Mann stated it has been discussed, but nothing has been in writing. The Mayor stated the City is trying to facilitate the school's timeline and issues keep coming up. He agreed with Councilmembers Fogarty and Wilson to pull this entirely, pull the survey crew and when the school makes a formal proper request for the feasibility study then we can move forward and if it screws up their timeline, it is their problem. The timeline is not Council's issue it is their issue. Council Minutes (Regular) April 18, 2005 Page 11 Councilmember Fogarty stated it may save the City $5,000 but as a taxpayer it is not a wise way to spend taxpayer dollars to duplicate this information. It is the taxpayer's money the school is spending. City Administrator Urbia stated the school could not take formal action at their planning meeting, but they would at their board meeting. As far as the feasibility study, the option the school recommended is to proceed with its own site and infrastructure study as it pertains only to the school project. The City could continue their work with their engineer to acquire information over and above the school project. Once the district's work is completed it would be part of the application for the Conditional Use Permit. To have one firm do the school project and another look at the oversizing, the information may not match up. Staff would need further information to understand the scope of the school's project. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated the school left the joint meeting with the understanding that the City would do the traffic study. He asked if Council felt it would be appropriate, without notice to the school, to say the City will not do the traffic study because of this information. Mayor Soderberg felt the City could send the school a letter. Councilmember McKnight stated Council could direct staff not to do anything until either after a meeting this week or until the school takes official action next week. He would like to meet with the school to know their reasoning. Councilmember Pritzlaff then asked about allowing the survey crew to continue working. City Administrator Urbia stated the school said they would not duplicate the survey work being done. Mayor Soderberg stated that work needs to be done as part of the feasibility study. Councilmember Fogarty suggested waiting until the next meeting, and if the school goes ahead with the traffic study, then withdraw the direction to staff at the next meeting. MOTION by McKnight, second by Fogarty to direct staffto set up a meeting with the school board and/or school staff to discuss the potential issue of the school district doing their own traffic study and staff can make a decision ifthis can start based on that meeting and potential action of the school board next week. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Reconsider March 21 and March 24, 2005 Minutes - Council In the March 21, 2005 minutes, under Roundtable the policy committee should read PSAP. The March 24, 2005 minutes should read, staff estimated it would cost $3 million to pave Flagstaff from 195th Street to the border. MOTION by Wilson, second by Pritzlaff to reconsider the March 21, 2005 and March 24, 2005 minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to approve the March 21,2005 and March 24,2005 minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) April 18, 2005 Page 12 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Adopt Resolution - Debt Management Policy - Finance This resolution was to adopt a formal debt management policy as recommended by Moody's. An established debt policy sets forth the parameters for issuing debt and for managing that debt portfolio. This ensures the government maintains a sound debt position and its credit quality is protected. The resolution outlines the steps the City currently takes. MOTION by Wilson, second by Pritzlaff adopting RESOLUTION R43-05 establishing a debt management policy. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Notice of Summons and Complaint Angus Property - Finance This is a notification to Council that the City has received a notice of summons and complaint for the Alyn Angus property. The City is pursuing all appropriate avenues to respond to this notice including a consultation with Dakota County Environmental Management Department. 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember McKnight: He attended the Home and Garden Show and was impressed by the number of local businesses and the number of people attending. Councilmember Wilson: He also attended the Home and Garden Show and was very impressed with everything. He congratulated the Farmington Independent for their Chamber of Commerce award. As we enter into spring and summer and children are riding bikes, he encouraged drivers to slow down when driving through neighborhoods. Councilmember Pritzlaff: He attended the Chamber awards luncheon and congratulated the Farmington Independent for their award. He also attended the House Transportation Finance Committee meeting with City Administrator Urbia. On Saturday he attended the Boy Scout Troup 119 steak fry. He attended Congressman John Kline's Town Hall meeting in Lakeville and brought back information for Council. City Administrator Urbia: Coffee with the Council will be held Thursday. Councilmembers McKnight and Fogarty are scheduled to attend. As a follow-up to the House Transportation Finance Committee meeting he e-mailed information to the residents that attended the Council Workshop. The legislature spoke in favor ofthe bill with the 8-year phasing-in. Apple Valley will be implementing the permits for transit station parking on June 18,2005. Parks and Recreation Director Distad: The Arbor Day Celebration will be Friday, April 29 at Meadowview Park at 10:00 a.m. The Earth and Arbor Day celebration will be Saturday, April 30 at Rambling River Park from 12:00 - 2:00 p.m. Park and Rec is finishing the feasibility study for the community center and it will be presented to Council on May 2, 2005. Council Minutes (Regular) April 18, 2005 Page 13 City Engineer Mann: Pond Clean-up Day is April 30, 2005. Mayor Soderberg: He attended an Eagle Scout Court of Honor for Troop 118 for Thomas Engrave. Only 4% of those that enter scouting make it to Eagle Scout. 4.78% of Troop 118 since they started have made Eagle Scout and in the last 20 years 7% of all their scouts have made Eagle Scout. He attended the Dakota County Historical Society's presentation on Farmington during the Civil War. He also attended the Town Hall meeting with Congressman Kline. On May 9,2005 there will be a chair dedication at the Rambling River Center. Council recessed at 10:08 p.m. and reconvened in Executive Session at 10:15 p.m. 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION - City Administrator Review Follow-up 15. ADJOURN Respectfully submitted, ~P7~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us I/' TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator ~ FROM: Patti Norman, Recreation SupervisorRD SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Accepting Donations for the 2005 Spring Skating Competition DATE: May 2,2005 Introduction Donations were received for the 2005 Spring Skate Competition from the businesses shown in Exhibit A. DISCUSSION The 3rd Annual Spring Skate Competition was held on Saturday, April 2, 2005 at the Farmington Arena. The businesses identified in Exhibit A donated money or product to assist in making the skating competition a unique, fun and affordable event for all participants. The money donated was used to off set program costs. Products were given to all participants, judges and volunteers. Staff will communicate the City's appreciation on behalf of the Council to the businesses for their generous donations. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution accepting the donations for the 3rd Annual Spring Skating Competition from businesses identified in Exhibit A. Respectfully Submitted, C3~ Patti Norman Recreation Supervisor RESOLUTION No. ACCEPT DONATIONS FOR THE 3RD ANNUAL SPRING SKATE COMPETITION FROM BUSINESSES IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT A 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 2nd day of May, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, the businesses identified in Exhibit A have donated money and product to offset costs associated with the 3rd Annual Spring Skate Competition; and, WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to accept such donations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Farmington hereby accepts with gratitude the generous donations of money and products from businesses identified in Exhibit A. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 2nd day of May, 2005. Mayor Attested to the 2nd day of May, 2005 City Administrator SEAL EXHIBIT A 2005 Sprint! Skatint! Competition Donations Company Name Item CG Video Service.., ... ...... ...... ...... ...... .., .. .... .., .... .. ..Monetary Donation $55,30 Jump 'n Style Skateware..,...,....,.....".......,..,.....,..,... Monetary Donation $10 1.20 Northwest Designs, .. ..' .. , , .. .., .., .. , , .. ... .., , .. .., ... .., ..' ... ,Monetary Donation $139,20 Sports Star Photography,..........,..,........"..,...."..,.... ..Monetary Donation $202,99 Scruples Hair Products......................................... ....Hair Products ($500 value) Anchor Bank - Farmington..,........,..,..,...........,........ ,Pens Northfield Hospital... .., ..' .., ... .. , ... .., .., ... .. , .., , .. .., .. , , . .. Pens & bandaids ConAgra Store Brands", ,., ,.,.", " ,."" """ .,. ." '" ." ". ".Granola bars Ryt- W ay Industries, Inc.., .. . .. .. .. . .. .. , .. . .. .. .. .. , .. .. .. .. , .. .., Microwave popcorn Pellicci Hardware.., .. , .. , , .. ..' .. , , .. ..' ... .. , , . , .., ... .., .., , .. ... Pens City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 55024 (651) 463-7111. (651) 463-2359 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 76 TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Administrator ~ Missie Kohlbeck ~ Senior Center Coordinator FROM: SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Accepting Donation for the Arbor Day Program - Parks and Recreation Department DATE: May 2, 2005 INTRODUCTION A donation for the Arbor Day Program has been received from Dakota Electric Association. DISCUSSION Dakota Electric Association has generously donated l50 seedlings and one bare-root tree in support of the Arbor Day Program. The bare-root tree was planted in Meadowview Park. The seedlings were given to Fourth Grade students at Meadowview School who participated in the program. Staff will communicate the City's appreciation on behalf of the Council to Dakota Electric Association for their support of the Arbor Day Program. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the attached resolution accepting the donation from Dakota Electric Association. Respectfully Submitted, \-t\l~ ~lQ0ct Missie Kohlbeck Senior Center Coordinator RESOLUTION No. ACCEPTING DONATION OF SEEDLINGS AND A SMALL BARE ROOT TREE FROM DAKOTA ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION 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 2ND day of May, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, Dakota Electric Association has donated one small bare root tree and 150 seedlings towards the Arbor Day Program. WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to accept such donations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Farmington hereby accepts the generous donation one small bare root tree and 150 seedlings, given by Dakota Electric Association in support of the Arbor Day Program. lIDs resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 2nd day of May 2005. Mayor Attested to the _ day of May 2005. City Administrator SEAL 7d 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: Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Certified Local Government Grant - Farmington Heritage Landmark Designations DATE: May 2, 2005 INTRODUCTION The Heritage Preservation Commission respectfully requests Council's approval of a Certified Local Government Grant to begin a local designation project to designate Farmington Heritage Landmarks. DISCUSSION In January, a grant application was submitted to the Minnesota Historical Society by Robert Vogel, the City's Preservation Planning Consultant, to obtain a Certified Local Government Grant on behalf of the City of Farmington and the Heritage Preservation Commission. The grant is for a local designation project to prepare a minimum of five Farmington Heritage Landmark nomination studies between July 1, 2005 and July 31,2006. These studies, which the City uses as a registration document in lieu of a registration form, provide all of the information necessary to document locally significant historic properties for rezoning as heritage landmarks under the City Code. One nomination will be prepared for each property. Information in the nomination study identifies and locates the subject property, explains how it meets one or more of the Heritage Landmark criteria, and makes the case for historic significance and integrity. Once a property has been rezoned for heritage preservation by the City Council, the nomination study is also adopted as the official registration document. Attached is a copy of the approved grant application that was submitted to the state to begin the local designation project. . " ... BUDGET IMPACT This type of grant is a "matching" grant. The City of Farmington has been approved for $4000.00 in federal funds, to be matched by $4,000.00 in City funds and "in-kind" City staff services including $1,000.00 cash match to be appropriated as part of the 2006 Budget. ACTION REQUESTED The Heritage Preservation Commission is requesting Council to approve the Certified Local Government Grant to begin the local designation project designating Farmington Heritage Landmarks. Respectfully submitted, 4~<--/f. ~~ Lisa Shadick Administrative Services Director Cc: HPC Members Robert Vogel Appendix I Minnesota Historical Society Certified Local Government Grant Application Date Received, MHS Number: ,pplicant I 1. Applicant: City of Farmington Name of City Mailing Address 325 Oak Street City/State/Zip Farmington, MN 55024 1994 CLG Certification Date: 3. Fiscal Officer: Signature '~vi(j( MrD/a Name K06,"(\ Ko/O--rvl 3~5 QCL/( i~-fyee.L Print Name Street Address 1/5/- L/ft3- /8'()/ 4 Telephone Number . Project Director: __1isCc Sfctrl,'ck 3~(5 Ol1l~ Sfree-f Name CL,tJ6 (111 III b~ City/State/Zip b~/- C;t,3, ?L7( Telephone Number Street Address lir-m In~ . f1tL 55(W! City/State/Zip I I b'5J~3- J g()a Telephone Number Proiect Information I 6. Brief Project Description: 7. Budget Summary $4,000 Grant Funds $4,000 Preparation of five (5) Farmington Heritage Landmark nomination studies (local designation forms) for houses previously determined eligible for local registration Applicant Match .JJ 8000 Total Project Budget I 8. Project Duration June 1 2005 - July 31 2006 Proiect Area I 9. Project Area (please check) ] A, Comprehensive Planning o B. Pre-Development: Historic Structure Report 0 Re-use Study 0 o C. Survey o D. Evaluation ~ E. Local Desgination Forms o F. National Register Nomination Forms o G. Public Education (please specify): 10. Detailed Project Description (use additional sheets as needed) Applications must include ALL INFORMATION REQUESTED for the project area checked above as outlined in Part 111- pages 2-5 of the Certified Loea/Government Grants Manual. Include a discussion of how this project reflects the goals and strategies outlined in the 2000 statewide preservation plan. The City of Farmington is seeking FY 2005 CLG grant funds to finance a "Local Designation Forms" project. The city will match up to $4,000 in federal funds with a minimum of $4,000 in city funds and in-kind services. At least $1,000 in cash match will be appropriated as part of the 2006 general fund budget; there is also the possibility of cash donations from outside sources that would increase the cash match. The project would begin sometime after June 1 2005 and all project products would be delivered on or before July 31 2006, The project would use federal funds to compensate the city's staff preservation planning consultant for the extra work required to prepare five Farmington Heritage Landmark nomination studies. These studies, which the city uses as a registration document in lieu of a registration form, provide all of the information necessary to document locally significant historic properties for rezoning as heritage landmarks under City Code, One nomination study will be prepared for each property. The subject historic properties have already been identified by survey and evaluated within local historic contexts, and the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) has determined them eligible for registration as Farmington Heritage Landmarks, The information in each nomination study will identify and locate the subject property, explains how it meets one or more of the Heritage Landmark criteria, and make the case for historic significance and integrity. (The nomination study also assists in preserving historic properties by documenting their significant features and recommending appropriate treatment measures,) One a property has been rezoned for heritage preservation by the City Council, the nomination study is adopted as the official registration document. (see Attachment) \11. Project Products ~ -ovide a concise description of the products that will result from the project. The p,roject.will produce five (5) final draft Farmington Heritage landmark nomination studies and a project director's report, The form is a narrative modeled on the information fields of the National Register of Historic Places registration form. Each nomination study document will meet the Secretary of the Interior's standards for registration. 112. Community Support. Provide a concise statement summarizing demonstrated community support for this project. Cash match is one measure of community support. The City of Farmington has an active preservation program centered around Heritage Landmark zoning for locally significant buildings and sites. Since 1996, the city has provided the HPC with professional staff and supported a broad range of historic preservation activities as part of its annual operating budget. The city has used ClG grant funds for a wide variety of projects, including local designation forms. As shown in the detailed project budget, the Local Designation Forms project will use at least $1,000 in appropriated city funds for cash match; at least $2600 in in-kind staff services (primarily the preservation planning consultant) and $400 in volunteer labor will also be dedicated to this project. \13. Project Impact Provide a concise statement describing the expected effect of the project on the community's awareness and understand- ing of local government in addressing local preservation issues. Describe any plans for promoting the project. Historic preservation surveys have been completed in most of the city's older neighborhoods and an inventory of approximately two dozen locally significant properties has been developed, Six privately owned properties have already received landmark designation; a number of nominations are currently under review by the HPC. This project will significantly increase the number of historic properties nominated for designation as Farmington Heritage Landmarks by producing five completed landmark studies that will be "ready to go" to public hearings before the City Council. This project will also help focus attention on the outstanding heritage values of the Oak Street residential neighborhood, which is recognized as a significant community development resource in the city's most recent comprehensive plan, \14. Project Personnel List principal project personnel and their qualifications. Administrative Services Manager Lisa Shadick will be the Project Director; she is the principal staff Iiais~n with the Farmington HPC and has prior experience managing CLG and other grant- assisted projects. Preservation Planning Consultant Robert C. Vogel, a city contractor, will be responsible for preparing the landmark studies. Vogei meets the Secretary of the Interior's professional qualifications standards in History and Architecturai History, The city's Planning Department will provide technical support for the project in the form of maps and GIS used to illustrate the landmark studies. Volunteers from the HPC will also assist in some project tasks under the direct supervision of city staff, 5 ....D~,tait~derS)}~'9:t';,~:y:.~'Q~~l;;~~{~".I Applicant Match Budget Item Grant Cash In-Kind Donated Total Project Director 0 0 800 0 800 20 hrs @ $40/hr Consultant (Vogel) 4000 1000 1000 0 6000 120 hrs @ $50/hr Staff Support (GIS) 0 0 800 0 800 20 hrs @ $40/hr (avg ) Volunteers (HPC) 0 0 0 400 400 40 hrs @ $10/hr A. B. C. D. E. 4000 1000 2600 400 8000 TOTAL Column A must not exceed the total of Columns B + C + D 10. Detailed Project Description (continued from second page of the application form) The City of Farmington has been conducting systematic historic preservation surveys since the mid-1990's and has compiled an inventory of more than fifty historic buildings and sites within the city limits. The following historic properties have already been evaluated as significant by the HPC and will be the focus of the Local Designation Form project: . House, 421 Oak Street, Stick style (1880) . House, 509 Oak Street, Vernacular suburban cottage (1910) . House, 520 Oak Street. Queen Anne style (1875) . House. 521 Oak Street, Italianate style (1880) . House. 320 Walnut Street. Vernacular suburban cottage (1885) All of these properties are located in the Oak Street neighborhood, the city's oldest residential district, which developed between circa 1870 and 1930. As part of the project, the Heritage Preservation Commission will hold a series of informal meetings with the owners of the properties being nominated. Because the city regards heritage landmark designation as a partnership between the local government and the property owner, the landmark designation process emphasizes participation of the owners and other interested parties to develop consensus on the need to rezone properties for preservation. (While the City Code does not require owner consent for landmark designation, it has been city policy not to designate residential properties against the wishes of the owners. As a matter of policy, properties for which the HPC has issued Findings of Significance are afforded protection against the adverse,effects of development projects.) The project will also include training and education for city officials (including newly elected council members, newly hired city staff, and recently ,Clppointed citizen advisory commission members) so that they are familiar with the landmark 9esignation process. ~t is anticipated that each of the properties selected for designation will be nominated at some point during the duration of the project; however, the city cannot guarantee in advance that all properties will be officially designated by the 31 July 2006 deadline for project completion. All project work will adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's standards for registration and applicable Minnesota SHPO guidelines, 7e. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor and Councilm~ers City Administrator ~ FROM: Daniel M. Siebenaler, Police Chief SUBJECT: Authorization to dispose of City property DATE: May 2, 200S INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION Over the Course of a year the Farmington Police Department accumulates bicycles that are lost or stolen and ultimately go unclaimed by their owner. Occasionally it becomes necessary to dispose of excess property. State law requires that such property be liquidated through public auction and be sold to the highest bidder. Earlier this year the City Council authorized the sale of other excess and obsolete property at auction. Unfortunately bicycles were not accepted at that auction venue. On May 14th the Rambling River Center will sponsor Peddler In The Park. Staff is proposing that excess bicycles be sold at Silent Auction during that event. BUDGET IMPACT As a general rule proceeds from the auction of city owned property go to the General Fund. Staff is suggesting however that proceeds from the Silent Bicycle Auction during Peddler In The Park be directed toward the purchase of the final pieces of fitness equipment at Rambling River Center. ACTION REQUESTED Authorize the sale of up to 20 bicycles at Silent Auction during Peddler In The Park on May 14th 2005 and direct the proceeds from that auction to fitness equipment at Rambling River Center. Respectfully submitted, Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farminf!ton.mn.us 7.f' TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Administrator ~ FROM: Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director SUBJECT: Appointment Recommendation - Community Development DATE: May 2, 2005 INTRODUCTION The recruitment and selection process for the appointment of a full-time Assistant Planner in the Community Development Department has been completed. DISCUSSION After a thorough review of all applicants for the Assistant City Planner position by the Community Development Department and Human Resources Office, a contingent offer of employment has been made to Mr. Anthony (Tony) Wippler, subject to ratification by the City Council. Mr. Wippler has a Master's degree in urban and regional planning and is currently employed with the City of Waseca as their City Planner. Mr. Wippler's experience meets or exceeds the minimum qualifications for the position. BUDGET IMPACT Funding for this position is authorized in the 200S budget. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the appointment of Mr. Anthony (Tony) Wippler to the position of Assistant Planner in the Community Development Department, effective on or about May 16, 2005 Respectfully Submitted, .'1 -vi / ,"'i /.y/ " 4 /',~c / &~ />/!;;./ ~/~~;',1/y/" ,.I,e /:.0' v"",/ c"i/~rt'i-~C" ,",' , < Brenda Wendlandt, SPHR Human Resources Director cc: Personnel file City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ciJarmington.mn.us ~ TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Administrator ~ FROM: Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director SUBJECT: Appointment Recommendation - Police Department DATE: May 2, 200S INTRODUCTION The recruitment and selection process for the appointment of a full-time Police Officer to fill a new position authorized in the 2005 Budget in the Police Department, has been completed. DISCUSSION The City has completed the recruitment, testing, and interview process for a Police Officer. After a thorough review by the Police Department and the Human Resources Office, an offer of employment has been made to Mr. Matthew Hendrickson, subject to ratification by the City Council. Mr. Hendrickson has a Bachelor of Science degree in law enforcement and is currently a Police Officer for the City of Lonsdale, MN where he has been employed in both part and full-time capacities since December of 2003. He comes highly recommended and meets the qualifications for the position. BUDGET IMPACT Funding for this position is authorized in the 2005 budget. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the appointment of Mr. Matthew Hendrickson in the Police Department, effective May 17, 200S. Respectfully Submitted, /"1 / '1 '. -xf' I i ,,'[1, \-;fL-C/<-t~VV AdJ;;./it Brenda Wendlandt, SPHR Human Resources Director cc: Personnel file City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ciJarminJrton.mn.us 7A TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~ FROM: Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director SUBJECT: Capital Outlay DATE: May 2, 200S INTRODUCTION The 2005 Budget provides for the acquisition of new computers. DISCUSSION There are 19 computers being purchased. They will replace older, less functional computers including those with obsolete operating software such as Windows 95 and 98 which are no longer supported by Microsoft. The new computers will provide greater functionality to the end user. Of the 19, one computer is being purchased through the City for A.L.F. Ambulance Service. They will be reimbursing the City for this cost. BUDGET IMPACT Funding for the computers in the amount of $27,687.00 is provided for in the 200S Budget. The cost for the equipment being purchased is $22,996.55. ACTION REQUESTED For information only. Respectfully Submitted, /"1 " ,ju/~l:..~C1;4L{{/J~/~ / (- 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, Councilmembers, City Administrator ~ Tim Gross, P.E., Assistant CitYEngineer~ FROM: SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Farmington Business Park Development Contract DATE: May 2, 2005 INTRODUCTION The Development Contract for Farmington Business Park is forwarded herewith for Council's consideration. DISCUSSION The final plat for Farmington Business Park was approved by the Planning Commission on December 14, 2004 and by the City Council on March 7, 2005. The contract has been drafted in accordance with the conditions placed on the approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat and has been reviewed by the City Attorney. Following are conditions of approval for the development contract: 1. the Developer enter into this Agreement; and 2. the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms ofthis Agreement; and 3. the Developer record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 6 months after City Council approval ofthe final plat. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution approving the execution of the Farmington Business Park Development Contract and authorize its signing contingent upon the above conditions and final approval by the Engineering Division. Respectfully Submitted, .~ Tim Gross, P .E. Assistant City Engineer cc: file RESOLUTION NO. R -05 APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FARMINGTON BUSINESS PARK 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 2nd 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. R27-05, the City Council approved the Preliminary Plat of Farmington Business Park; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 27-05, the City Council approved the Final Plat of Farmington Business Park subject to the following conditions: 1. Trails shall be provided as required by the Parks and Recreation Director as described in the attached memo from Randy Distad. 2. A Final Landscape Plan needs to be submitted and approved. 3. Fire Hydrants shall be installed in accordance with Minnesota State Fire Code Appendix "C." 4. The applicant shall comply with all engineering comments provided by the City Engineer. 5. A Development Contract between the Developer and the City of Farmington shall be executed and security, fees, and costs shall be paid. Submission of all other documents required under the Development Contract shall be required. 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 2nd day of May, 2005. Mayor Attested to this _ day of May, 2005. SEAL City Administrator DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AGREEMENT dated this 2nd day of May, 2005, by, between, and among the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation (CITY) and Castle Rock Development Corporation, a Minnesota corporation (DEVELOPER). 1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for Farmington Business Park (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 Rig: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 - Zoning/Development Map Plan E - Wetlands Mitigation as required by the City Plan F - Final Street and Utility Plans and Specifications The Developer shall use its best efforts to assure timely application to the utility companies for the following utilities: underground natural gas, electrical, cable television, and telephone. Within the plat or land to be platted, the Developer may not construct sewer lines, water lines, streets, utilities public or private improvements or any building until all of the following conditions have been satisfied: a) This agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, b) The necessary security has been received by the City, c) The plat has been recorded with the Dakota County Recorder's Office, and d) The City Clerk has issued a letter stating that all conditions have been satisfied and that the Developer may proceed. 1 4. Sales Office Requirements. At any location within the plat where lots and/or homes are sold which are part of this subdivision, the Developer agrees to install a sales board on which a copy of the approved plat, fmal utility plan and a zoning map or planned unit development plan are displayed, showing the relationship between this subdivision and the adjoining neighborhood. The zoning and land use classification of all land and network of major streets within 350 feet of the plat shall be included. 5. Zonin2lDevelopment Map. The Developer shall provide an 8 1/2" x 14" scaled map of the plat and land within 350' of the plat containing the following information: a. platted property; b. existing and future roads; c. future phases; d. existing and proposed land uses; and e. future ponds. 6. Required Public Improvements. 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. The Developer shall also be responsible for street and utility construction costs for a portion of Canton Circle abutting the plat. The City shall, as a condition of any future development approvals for the parcels abutting this section of Canton Circle, seek payment of an amount not greater than $ 69,566 to reimburse the Developer for costs for improving this section of street. The City shall not be responsible for any reimbursement to the Developer if for any reason City fails or is unable to impose this charge against the abutting properties. 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, 2005, in accordance with the requirements set forth in the City's Engineering Guidelines. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time 2 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 and B 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 fmal acceptance of streets and utilities. 10. Gradinl! Plan. The plat shall be graded and drainage provided by the Developer in accordance with Plan B. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, the Developer may start rough grading the lots within the stockpile and easement areas in conformance with Plan B before the plat is filed if all fees have been paid, a MPCA Construction Storm Water Permit has been issued, and the City has been furnished the required security. Additional rough grading may be allowed upon obtaining written authorization from the City Engineer. If the developer needs to change grading affecting drainage after homeowners are on site, he must notifY all property owners/r(!sidents of this work prior to its initiation. This notification cannot take place until the City Engineer has approved the proposed grading changes. A MPCA Construction Storm Water Permit must be obtained before any grading can commence on the site. 11. Erosion Control and Fees. After the site is rough graded, but before any utility construction is commenced or building permits are issued, the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if it is determined that the methods implemented are insufficient to properly control erosion. All areas disturbed by the excavation and back-filling operations shall be re- seeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule, or supplementary instructions received from the City, or in an emergency determined at the sole discretion of the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion immediately, without notice to the Developer. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and the City's rights or obligations hereunder. If the Developer does not reimburse the City for any costs of the City incurred for such work within thirty (30) days, the City may draw down the letter of credit to pay such costs. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in full compliance with the erosion control requirements. 3 The Developer is responsible for Erosion Control inspection fees at the current rates. The Developer is also responsible for a Water Quality Management Fee of $ 4,185 based upon the number of acres in the plat. This fee is due and payable at the time of execution of this agreement. 12. Landscapine:. The Developer shall landscape the plat in accordance with Plan C. The landscaping shall be accomplished in accordance with a time schedule approved by the City. A. The Developer shall be solely responsible for the installation of all project landscaping including but not limited to the boulevard trees. The responsibility for the installation of boulevard trees will not be transferred to builders, homeowners, etc. B. All graded areas, including finish grade on lots, will require a minimum of 6" of black dirt/topsoil. The responsibility for the installation of black dirt/topsoil shall not be transferred to homeowners. C. Retaining walls with 1) a height that exceeds four feet or 2) a combination of tiers that exceed four feet or 3) a three foot wall with a back slope greater than 4 to 1 shall be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by a structural or geotechnical engineer licensed by the State of Minnesota. Following construction, a certification signed by the design engineer shall be filed with the City Engineer evidencing that the retaining will was constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. All retaining walls that are part of the development plans, or special conditions referred to in this Contract that are required to be constructed, shall be constructed and certified before any building permit is issued for a lot on which a retaining wall is required to be built. All landscaping features, including those constructed within public rights of way, remain the property and responsibility of the developer and subsequent property owners, subject to the City's or other governmental unit's rights to access and maintain their rights of way. 13. Phased Development. The plat shall be developed in one (1) phase in accordance with Plans A-F. No earth moving shall be done in any subsequent phase until the necessary security has been furnished to the City. No construction of public improvements or other development shall be done in any subsequent phase until a fmal plat for the phase has been filed in the County Recorder's office and the necessary security has been furnished to the City. The City may refuse to approve final plats of subsequent phases until public improvements for all prior phases have been satisfactorily completed. Subject to the 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 Manae:ement Fee. The Developer shall pay an area storm water management charge of$ 335,566 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. A credit of $ 222,039 will be given to the Developer for land acquired for regional ponding within the plat. A credit of $ 16,539 will be given to the Developer for land acquired as easement for trunk storm sewer within the plat. The net result is that the Surface Water Management Fee to be paid with this plat is $ 96,988. 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. 4 17. Water Main Trunk Area Chare:e. The Developer shall pay a water main trunk area charge of $ 64,939 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 asswned 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$16,713 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 $ 48,226. 18. Water Treatment Plant Fee. The Developer shall pay a water treatment plant fee of $ 0 for the plat in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The Water Treatment Plant Fee for each lot will be paid at the time that the building permit is issued for that lot and is based on the SAC units of the structure being constructed. 19. Sanitary Sewer Trunk Area Chare:e. The Developer shall pay a sanitary sewer trunk area charge of$ 50,439 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 asswned or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081. Sanitary Trunk Sewer charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. A credit of $ 3,536 will be given to the Developer for Sanitary Sewer Trunk oversizing within the plat. The net result is that the Sanitary Sewer Trunk Area Charge to be paid with this plat is $ 46,957. 20. Park Dedication. The Developer shall be required to dedicate 1.35 acres ofland for park purposes. The Developer shall pay the City $ 76,557 as cash in lieu of land in satisfaction of the City's park dedication requirements for the plat. The park dedication fee shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at five percent (5%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be asswned 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 $22,456 that will be used to pay either for development of the park located in the development, or if no land is taken for park purposes, in the park closest to the development. The City shall allow the Developer to either pay the entire park development fee at the time of fmal plat filing or to pay the park development fee on a per unit basis at the time that the building permit is issued for each unit to be constructed in the development, provided that all park development fees shall be paid within five (5) years of approval of the fmal plat. A credit of $ 5,599 will be given to the Developer for park and trail improvements within the plat. The net result is that the Park Development Fee to be paid with this plat is $16,857. 22. Sealcoatine:. In lieu of assessing sealcoating three years from completion of the road construction, the Developer agrees to pay a fee of $ 1,735 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 $ 2,295 based upon the nwnber 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 5 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 fIfe training only. The City has a contract for street cleaning services. The City will have the right to clean the streets as outlined in current City policy. The Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for street cleaning costs. 27. Securitv. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Agreement, payment of real estate taxes including interest and penalties, payment of special assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements in the plat and construction of all public improvements in the plat, the Developer shall furnish the City with a cash escrow, irrevocable letter of credit, or alternative security acceptable to the City Administrator, from a bank (security) for $ 743,481. 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 Storm Sewer Street Construction $ 49,557 $186,336 $ 114,619 $ 80,711 $ 123,520 Monuments St. Lights/Signs Blvd. Trees Blvd. Sodding Wetland Mitigation $ 2,000 $ 25,325 $ 22,750 $ 2,022 $N/A Two Years Principal and Interest on Assessments $ 136,641 This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. Upon receipt of proof satisfactory by the Developer's Engineer to the City Engineer that work has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, and terms of this Agreement, and that all fmancial obligations to the City, subcontractors, or other persons have been satisfied, the City Engineer may approve reductions in the security provided by the Developer under this paragraph from time to time by ninety percent (90%) of the financial obligations that have been satisfied. Ten percent (10%) of the amounts certified by the Developer's engineer shall be retained as security until all improvements have been completed, all fmancial obligations to the City satisfied, the required "as built" plans have been received by the City, a warranty security is provided, and the public improvements are accepted by the City Council. 28. Responsibility for Costs. A. The Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the development of the plat, including but not limited to, Soil and Water Conservation District charges, legal, planning, administrative, construction costs, 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, materiahnen, or others that have performed work 6 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 Shlns. The Developer is responsible for installing Wetland Buffer signs around all wetlands and wetland buffers, and City Natural Areas signs around all ponding areas, in accordance with the City's Engineering Guidelines and City detail plate GEN-13. Conservation Area signs will be installed as directed by the City Engineer. Wetland Buffer line limits; and Wetland Buffer, Natural Area, and Conservation Area sign locations must be indicated on individual lot surveys prior to the issuance of a building permit for that lot. 32. Existine: Tree Preservation. The Developer will walk the site with the City Forester and identify all significant trees, which will be removed by on site grading. A dialogue between the Developer and City Forester regarding alternative grading options will take place before any disputed tree is removed. All trees, stumps, brush and other debris removed during clearing and grubbing operations shall be disposed of off site. 33. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer, except in an emergency as determined by the City or as otherwise provided for in this agreement, is first given written notice of the work in default, not less than 72 hours in advance. This Agreement is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. 34. Miscellaneous. A. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors or assigns, as the case may be. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any part of it. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement. B. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties. C. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. D. Building permits shall not be issued prior to completion of site grading, submittal of as-built grading plan, public and private utility installation, curb and gutter, installation of erosion control devices, installation of permanent street signs and wetland buffer and natural area signs, paving with a bituminous surface, retaining walls if any, site seeding, mulching, disk anchoring and submittal of a surveyor's certificate denoting all appropriate monuments have been installed. Only construction of noncombustible materials shall be allowed until the water system is operational. If permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of public improvements, the Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in completion of public improvements and damage to public improvements caused by the City, Developer, its contractors, 7 subcontractors, materialmen, employees, agents or third parties. Normal procedure requires that streets needed for access to approved uses shall be paved with a bituminous surface before building permits may be issued. However, the City Engineer is authorized to waive this requirement when weather related circumstances prevent completion of street projects before the end of the construction season. The Developer is responsible for maintaining said streets in a condition that will assure the access of emergency vehicles at all times when such a waiver is granted. E. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or release. F. The Developer represents to the City, to the best of its knowledge, that the plat is not of "metropolitan significance" and that an environmental impact statement is not required. However, if the City or another governmental entity or agency determines that such a review is needed, the Developer shall prepare it in compliance with legal requirements so issued from said agency. The Developer shall reimburse the City for all expenses, including staff time and attorney fees that the City incurs in assisting in the preparation of the review. G. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The Developer represents to the City that the plat complies with all City, County, Metropolitan, State and Federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances and environmental regulations. If the City determines that the plat does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow any construction or development work in the plat until the Developer does comply. Upon the City's demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance. H. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. The Developer covenants with the City, its successors and assigns, that the Developer is well seized in fee title of the property being fInal 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. 8 L. The Developer will be required to conduct all major activities to construct Plans A-F during the following hours of operation: Monday - Friday Saturday Sunday and Holidays 7:00 A.M. until 7:00 P.M. 8:00 A.M. until 5:00 P.M. Not Allowed This does not apply to activities that are required on a 24-hour basis such as dewatering, etc. Any deviations from the above hours are subject to approval of the City Engineer. Violations of the working hours will result in a $500 fme per occurrence in accordance with paragraph K of this section. M. The Developer is responsible to require each builder within the development to provide a Class 5 aggregate entrance for every house that is to be constructed in the development. This entrance is required to be installed upon initial construction of the home. See City Standard Plate ERO-09 for construction requirements. N. The Developer shall be responsible for the control of weeds in excess of twelve inches (12") on vacant lots or boulevards within their development as per City Code 6-7-2. Failure to control weeds will be considered a Developer's Default as outlined in Paragraph 30 of this Agreement and the Developer will reimburse the City as defmed in said Paragraph 30. 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: Colin Garvey Castle Rock Development Corporation 22098 Canton Court Farmington, MN 55024 612-685-0047 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: Castle Rock Development Corporation By: Its: Colin J. Garvey President 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 Castle Rock Development Corporation, a corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public 11 EXHIBIT" A" That part of the east 400.00 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 113, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota lying south of the north 858.01 feet thereof, except that part to Castle Rock Township for road purposes. And, That part of the west 453.75 feet of the east 853.75 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 113, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying south of the north 825.00 feet. And, The N 1/2 ofthe NW 1/4 of the Section 5, Township 113, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota. Except, The west 692.33 feet of said N 1/2 of the NW 1/4. Also Except, A 30.00 foot wide strip of land lying on either side of a line described as commencing at the Northeast comer of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 45 minutes 26 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the north line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 400.01 feet to the point of beginning of said line to be described; thence South 00 degrees 11 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 858.03 feet and said line there terminating. Also Except, A 55.00 foot wide strip ofland lying on either side of a line described as commencing at the Northeast comer of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 45 minutes 26 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the north line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 400.01 feet; thence South 00 degrees 11 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 858.03 feet to the point of beginning of said line to be described; thence South 00 degrees 11 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 100.00 feet and said line there terminating. Also Except, The north 363.00 feet of the N 1/2 of the NW 1/4, lying west of the following described line: Commencing at a Dakota County monument at the Northwest comer of Section 5, thence; thence East along the North line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 5 a distance of 1483.82 feet; thence continuing East along said North line a distance of 240 feet to the beginning of the line to be described; thence South perpendicular to said North line of the Northwest Quarter a distance of363.00 feet and said line there terminating. Also Except, That part ofthe east 400.00 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 113, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota lying south of the north 858.01 feet thereof, except that part to Castle Rock Township for road purposes. Also Except, That part of the west 453.75 feet of the east 853.75 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 113, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying south of the north 825.00 feet. Also Except, All that part of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 113, Range 19, described as follows: Commencing at a Dakota County monument at the Northwest comer of Section 5, thence East along the North line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 5 a distance of 1483.82 feet; thence continuing East along said North line a distance of 240 feet; thence South perpendicular to said North line of the Northwest Quarter a distance of363.00 feet to the point of beginning of the tract to be described; thence West parallel with the North line of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 380 feet, said point being 363 feet South of the North line; thence South at right angles, a distance of363 feet; thence East parallel with said North line, 380 feet; thence North to the point of beginning, Dakota County, Minnesota. Also Except, The north 308.01 feet of the east 400.00 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 113, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota. Subject to State Trunk Highway No. 50 right-of-way over the north 33.00 feet thereof, except the west 30.00 feet of the above described property. Also Except, The south 275.00 feet of the north 583.01 feet of the east 400.00 feet ofthe Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 113, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota, except the west 30.00 feet of the above 12 described property. Also Except. The south 275.00 feet of the north 858.01 feet of the east 400.00 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 113, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota, except the west 30.00 feet of the above described property. 13 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us LETTER OF EXEMPTION DAKOTA COUNTY PROPERTY RECORDS 1590 HIGHWAY 55 HASTINGS MN 55033-2392 To Whom It May Concern: Please find enclosed, deed(s) on the parcel(s) listed below. We are requesting the parcels be classified as Exempt Properties. PARCEL ID# LEGAL DESCRIPTION USE (wetland, storm water facility, park or well site) Please sign letter below and return to me at the address above verifying the exemption status. Thank you. Sincerely, Tracy Geise Accounting Technician/Special Assessments Enclosure(s) Signature Date 14 EXHIBIT "e" IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT No. Date: TO: City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Sir or Madam: We hereby issue, for the account of of Credit in the amount of $ undersigned bank. . and in your favor, our Irrevocable Letter , available to you by your draft drawn on sight on the The draft must: a) Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit No. , dated (Name of Bank) "; b) Be signed by the Mayor or City Administrator of the City of Farmington. c) Be presented for payment at (Address of Bank) , 20_, of This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms from the date indicated above unless, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date, the Bank delivers written notice to the Farmington City Administrator that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel, this Letter of Credit. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows: Farmington City Administrator, 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024, and is actually received by the City Administrator at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date. This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified, amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement, whether or not referred to herein. This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than one draw may be made under this Letter of Credit. This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 400. We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly honored upon presentation. [NAME OF BANK] By: [name] Its: [identify official 15 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ~' TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator ~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Approve Assessment Agreement - Southeast Trunk Utility Project DATE: May 2, 2005 INTRODUCTION Several properties came into the City and connected to sewer and water as part of the Southeast Trunk Utility Project. The request was made by property owners as to whether the City would front the cost for hookup to the building and assess the costs over time. It was determined that this option could be made available to residential property owners. DISCUSSION One of the property owners has signed an assessment agreement that allows the City to assess the costs of the hookup against the property (see attached). BUDGET IMPACT The amount to be assessed is $6,680.00. The City has the funds in the sewer and water accounts to finance this cost up front and assess the costs over 10 years to the property. ACTION REQUESTED Approve by motion the attached assessment agreement for connection costs for the subject property. Respectfully Submitted, ~Yh~ Lee M. Mann, P .E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT (parcel 70050005026) THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") made this day of , 2005, by and between the CITY OF FARMINGTON, a Minnesota municipal cOlporation ("City") with offices at 325 Oak Street, Farmington, Minnesota 55024, and KEVIN T. SCHEMIONEK and BENITA L. SCHEMIONEK, whose address is 3400 220th Street West, Farmington, Minnesota 55024 ("Owners"). Recitals: A. The Owners own the real property located in Dakota County legally described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incolporated herein ("Subject Property"), also referred to as Tax PMce170050005026;and B. The Subject Property shall be assessed costs, fees and charges associated with the SanitMY sewer and water service connection to the Subject Property. The service connections of sanitary sewer and water benefit the Subject Property; and C. The actual costs, fees and charges to be assessed against the Subject Property ("Assessments") are set forth on Exhibit "B". NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS SET FORTH HEREIN, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Subject Property is hereby assessed by the City for the Assessments. The total Assessments are: $ $6,680.00. The foregoing amount shall be assessed against the Subject Property over a ten (10) year period accruing interest at the rate of five percent (5%) per annum. The Assessments shall not exceed the amounts set forth on Exhibit "B". 2. The Assessments shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The Owners, by signing this Agreement, acknowledge that all procedural and 102399 1 substantive objections to the Assessment are hereby waived unconditionally, such waiver includes any rights of Owners, their successors or assigns. to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the Subject Property. The Owners further waive any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to M.S.A. S 429.081. CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Kevan Soderberg, Mayor By: David M. Urbia, City Administrator 4-?9=-~~ (oWner) /!J :r jf Jl!Ij'JJ!ldJ bL;u- ~ ' (Owner) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2005, by Kevan Soderberg and David M. Urbia, the Mayor and City Administrator of the City of Farmirigton, a Minnesota municipal corporation pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public 102399 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss.. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) _ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Z,+t. day of ,2005, by Kevin T. Schemionek and Benita L. Schemionek. . LEE MICHAEL MANN NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA My COmmlllelon ExpIres Jen. 81.l!lO8 ~YUuU~ Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Campbell Knutson Professional Association Suite 317 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 5512l Telephone: (651) 452-5000 AMP/cjh 102399 3 EXHIBIT" A" to ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT Legal Description of the Subject Property: That part ofthe North Half ofthe Northwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 113, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as commencing at a Dakota County Monument at the northwest comer of said Section 5; thence easterly, along the north line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 5, a distance of 461.49 feet to the point of beginning of the tract to be described; thence continuing easterly, along said north line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 5, a distance of l20.00 feet; thence southerly, perpendicular to said north line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of363.00 feet; thence westerly, parallel with said north line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 120.00 feet; thence northerly, perpendicular to said north line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 363.00 feet to the point of beginning. 102399 4 102399 EXHIBIT "B" to ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT fS622 .~ :?(.~ .:~. . ;~: 1;'-3/ 20 O!LSg' J< . F~24 \ VJ \ . ::s;'; '~.1; ~ 71;--t LdUT . 0';: ~ /iA~'F""'" mJ1. .1)5014 \ G Sauber Plu~bi~~ wB: Heating Co. f rz.. .,I, PLUMBING AND tiEATING ~ b ) f a 100 Third Street l ~ \",.. 310 l Phone 651-463-7434 ..~. .;!:: ;.~1' "~? : . ~i AUTHORIZATION s '"i.;'r , " ...~~. ':.;;:~f '~~f I';: .:i":,t ;~ "":~: A Service Charge equal to 1 y,lliI per month added to accounts over 30 days. (1 B'lb Annual Percentage Ratel $,50 Minimum Charge, Total '. i:~ :~J~f 7k City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us FROM: Mayor, Councihnembers, City Administrator ~ Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer TO: SUBJECT: Approve Street Lighting Contract - Ash Street Project DATE: May 2, 2005 INTRODUCTION Two proposals have been received for the installation and maintenance for five decorative street lights for the Ash Street project (attached). DISCUSSION On past reconstruction projects, the City has contracted with Xcel Energy for the installation and on- going maintenance of decorative street lighting. Another company, Signature Lighting, has recently gone into business providing this service. Attached is a summary ofthe proposals received. The comparison shows that over the 25-year period guaranteed by Xcel, Xcel's cost is lower. Energy cost increases, if any, would be the same with either provider. BUDGET IMPACT The total cost for the lighting over the 25-year time frame as proposed by Xcel Energy is $39,210.00. The installation portion of that cost falls within the Ash Street project budget. The energy and maintenance costs are included in the City's yearly budget. ACTION REQUESTED Approve by motion contracting with Xcel Energy for providing the decorative street lighting on the Ash Street project. Respectfully submitted, ~m~ Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file " \l '!;: ~ s: .f l;; c ~ (;) ~ ~ ... ~ \l ~ ~ <:) . f'& ~ 0 0 0 00 0 ~ ..- 0 'or"" <0 <0 N I"- m I"- ~- L() 0 N ..- 'lit fh fh ..,. ~ 0 <0 ~ 0 00 CJ5 ..- ('t) <0 fh fh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..- 'or"" m ('t) N ci 00 0; ...J ('t) fh C") W fh ..,. U x ~ 0 It) ~ It) N ..,. ('t) ('t) fh - 0) - ~ It) ~ - .... ~ en .c .e co 0 .c - .... 0) iU (/) c: - co >- <( 0 .c - E ~ 0) It) 0 c: (/) >. N I- 0 (ij .... .... .... .... ~ (/) 0) 0) 0) .E 0 a. a. a. .c a. 0) >; 0) 0) 0)0 - 0 0 0 :,:jQ: (/) c: ~ c: c: 0 co 0) co co 0)- 0 c: c: c: c: > 0 c: 0) 0) 2 2 +J ~It) - ~coo 0 c: 0) c: c: ~ 'm c: 'm 'm oEo ..!!! o N (ij E "0 E ~ E O)Et::: ::J - 13 - .c O::JN (/) ::J ::JO) ::J It)en;;;: c: LL ,E LL= LL (l Xcel Energy'. OUTDOOR LIGHTING 825 Rice Street st. Paul, MN 55117 April 27, 2005 City of Farmington Attention: Lee Mann 19650 Municipal Drive Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Mr. Lee Mann: Xcel Energy Outdoor Lighting is pleased to have an opportunity to submit a proposal for the City of Farmington's Ash Street project. Our goal is to provide you with the necessary information to assist you in your decision making process. We are confident we can provide you with a comprehensive package that will meet all your needs. Please find below styles of product and the estimated project costs. This proposal includes all underground facilities installed using the plowing or boring method for conduit and wire and the installation of each of the following material: City of Farminoton Ash Street proiect: The bid for this Designer Plus (Group 5) project is $30,900.00. Five - 100 Watt HPS Acorn fixtures Five - 15' Columbus Aluminum poles Five - Screw in anchor bases Five - Photo Cells and bulbs 410' of plowing Also included in this bid is full maintenance of the streetlight system for 25 years. Maintenance of the system covers the fixture, pole, and all underground facilities. While on the Designer Plus (Group 5) rate the City of Farmington will pay $5.54 per streetlight. The $5.54 covers the energy and full maintenance described in the above sentence. If the City of Farmington chooses to ~uild the system, Xcel Energy would consider the system as being customer owned. Under a customer owned rate, the City of Farmington would be charged a flat energy charge of $2.04 and a maintenance charge of $1.60 per streetlight. The maintenance fee of $1.60 only covers replacing the bulb, photocell, cleaning of the lens and interior of lumininare. The customer owned rate does not cover underground faults, cable replacements, pole knockdowns and or fixture replacements. All those items would be the City of Farmington's responsibility to repair. The fee $1.60 will soon be adjusted to accurately reflect the cost to maintain a fixture on the customer owned rate. tl Xcel Energy'" OUTDOOR LIGHTING 825 Rice Street st. Paul, MN 55117 Xcel Energy Outdoor Lighting is very excited to partner with the City of Farmington for all your lighting needs. If you have any questions regarding the proposal, please feel free to contact me at office number 651-229-2400 or cell phone number 612-790-3758. Sincerely, Edward Bieging Business Support Analyst 18430 Krypton St NW Anoka, MN 55303 Office-763-753-8157 Fax -763-753-7581 April 23, 2005 City of Fannington Attention: Mr. Lee Mann 325 Oak Street Fannington, :MN 55024 Re: Decorative Streetlights - Ash Street, City of Fannington Dear Mr. Mann, Signature Lighting Inc. is pleased to have an opportunity to submit this revised proposal for the installation of a decorative streetlight system along Ash Street in the City of Fannington as indicated on the sketch supplied to us by Bonestroo and Associates. Our goal is to provide you with the necessary information to assist you in your decision making process. We are confident we can provide you with a comprehensive package that will meet all your needs. I have priced the installation based on our conversation regarding future maintenance of these five lights. The first price below is based on utilizing Xcel Energy's Customer Owned, Fixture Only Maintenance. 1bis means Xcel will fully maintain the fixtures and we do not have to install a meter or additional conduit. The second price utilizes Signature Lighting, Inc. full maintenance package which includes maintenance on the fixture, pole and underground. With this offering we will need to install a metered service panel and additional conduit running the full length of the project. The following is the list of material and labor to install a non-metered system: . 5 -100 Watt HPS Acorn fixtures by King . 5 - decorative aluminum "Columbus" style poles . 5 - screw in anchor bases . Installation of 1 1f2" PE Conduit and copper wire . Installation of 2 U-Guards to existing over head utility poles . Installation of 2 disconnect boxes . Tennination at lights and feed point . Traffic control and barricading for project. Lump Sum Price does not include: . Any soft or hard surface restoration. Total Installation Price: $23,641.49 including state sales tax The following is the list of material and labor to install a metered system: . 5 -tOO Watt HPS Acorn fixtures by King . 5 - decorative aluminum "Columbus" style poles . 5 - screw in anchor bases . Installation of 1 1/2" PE Conduit and copper wire . Installation of 1 U-Guard to an existing over head utility pole . Installation of 1 metered disconnect box . Tennination at lights and feed point . Traffic control and barricading for project. Lump Sum Price does not include: . Any soft or hard surface restoration, ~~'n< 1 Total Installation Price: $24,761.80 including state sales tax Signature Lighting, Inc. full maintenance cost is $8.60 per light per month. Xcel Energy fixture only rate is $3.95 per light per pole. In my opinion, utilizing the Xcel Energy Fixture Only maintenance plan is in the cities best interest. The city is able to install the system at a competitive cost and still have the most problematic portion of the system, the fixture, fully maintained and Signature Lighting, Inc. will assist the city with any pole or underground problems that may occur in the future. I hope this information is useful and gives you a good cost comparison to choose from. If you have additional questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. I can be reached at either 763-753-8157 or (612) 910-4382. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal, I truly appreciate it. Sincerely, John Olson Principle Representative Signature Lighting, Inc. 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 AdministratorW FROM: Tim Gross, P.E., Assistant City Enginee~ SUBJECT: Approve Easement Acquisition - Ash Street Utility & Street Reconstruction project DATE: May 2,2005 INTRODUCTION Staff has completed easement acquisition negotiations with two additional property owners 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 easement acquisitions for these two properties is $6,800.00. 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. Respectfully Submitted, ?~ Tim Gross, P.E. Assistant City Engineer cc: file 7/11; 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 0/ FROM: Daniel M. Siebenaler, Police Chief SUBJECT: School and Conference Request DATE: May 2, 2005 INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION The Farmington Police Department will be sending four members to participate in interview training. The specific training covers the Reid Interview. Several officers, including Detectives currently have the training and find it a valuable tool. In preparation for current and future retirements and transition planning it is in the best interest of the police department to maintain a skill level in this interview technique. Training will be held June 21-23 in Coon Rapids, Mn. BUDGET IMPACT The cost of training is $395.00 per officer for three days of training. The total for four members is $1,580 and is included in the 2005 budget for the Investigations Division. ACTION REQUESTED Approved in 2005 budget. Information only. Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police 711 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT made this 2nd day of May, 2005, by and between the CITY OF FARMINGTON, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Employer"), and David Urbia ("Employee"). The parties agree as follows: 1. POSITION. Employer previously contracted Employee as its City Administrator with an employment start date of January 26, 2004. Employee agrees to serve as City Administrator in accordance with state statutes and City ordinances and to perform such other legally permissible and proper duties and functions as the City Council shall from time to time assign. 2. PENSION PLAN. Employer shall contribute to PERA as required by State law for Employee, as authorized by State law, an alternate pension plan if selected by Employee in an equivalent amount based on the PERA employer contribution amount 3. SALARY. Employer shall pay Employee a salary of$90,780 per year effective January 1, 2005. Employee shall be given a performance review at the first council meeting in September 2005 and annually thereafter. Any subsequent adjustment to any compensation or benefits under this Agreement shall be made only upon express action of the City Council. 4. SENIORITY. For purposes of employment benefits such as sick leave, vacation leave, and the like, Employee will be credited with having completed five years of employment with the City upon his first day of employment. 5. SICK LEAVE. Effective upon Employee's first day of employment, Employee shall be credited with twenty days of accrued sick leave. In addition, Employee shall accrue and use sick leave in accordance with the City's then current personnel policies. Employee shall be subject to any maximum accrual (currently 1040 hours) and payment upon separation limits (currently, one-fourth of accrued leave after 5 years and one-half of accrued leave after 10 years) established in the City's personnel policies. 6. VACATIONS. Effective upon Employee's first day of employment, Employee shall be credited with ten days of accrued vacation leave. In addition, Employee 1 shall accrue vacation leave beginning with fifteen days annually and thereafter in any greater amounts in accordance with the City's personnel policies. Employee will be subject to the annual maximums as established in the City's personnel policies. 7. HOLIDAYS. Employer shall provide Employee the same holidays as enjoyed by other non-union employees. 8. GENERAL INSURANCE. Employer shall provide Employee the same group hospital, medical, dental, life and disability insurance benefits as provided to all other non-union employees. The Employee shall be responsible for insurance coverage costs pending any waiting period or eligibility limitation for enrollment in the City plan. 9. DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS. Employer shall budget and pay the professional dues and subscriptions for Employee which are necessary for Employee's continued participation in national, regional, state and local associations (ICMA, MCMA) necessary and desirable for Employee's continued professional participation, growth and advancement. 10. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT. Employer shall budget and pay the travel and subsistence expenses of Employee for professional and official travel, meetings and occasions adequate to continue the professional development of Employee and to adequately pursue necessary official and other committees thereof which Employee serves as a member. Employee shall seek prior Council approval for any professional development activity that necessitates out of state travel or registration and/or expenses in excess of$500. Employee shall use good judgment in his outside activities so he will not neglect his primary duties to the Employer. 11. CIVIC CLUB MEMBERSHIP. Employer recognizes the desirability of representation in and before civic and other organizations. Employee is authorized to become a member of such civic clubs or organizations as approved by the Council at Employer's expense. 2 12. AUTOMOBILE. Employee shall be paid a monthly allowance of $300 effective April 1, 2005 for use of his personal automobile for Employer business, and shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations regarding automobile allowances. 13. GENERAL EXPENSES. Employer shall reimburse Employee miscellaneous job related expenses which it is anticipated Employee will incur from time to time when provided appropriate documentation. 14. HOURS OF WORK. It is understood that the position of City Administrator requires attendance at evening meetings and occasionally at weekend meetings. It is understood by Employee that additional compensation and compensatory time shall not be allowed for such additional expenditures oftime. It is further understood that Employee may absent himself from the office to a reasonable extent in consideration of extraordinary time expenditures for evening and weekend meetings at other than normal working hours. 15. TERMINATION BENEFITS. In the event that Employee is terminated by the Employer during such time that Employee is willing and able to perform the duties of City Administrator, then in that event, Employer agrees to pay Employee at the time of receipt of his last pay check a lump sum cash payment equal to six (6) months aggregate salary and to continue to provide and pay the employer contribution for the benefits set forth in paragraph 8 for a period of twelve (12) months following termination. Any payment of accrued vacation and sick leave shall be limited to that amount payable to other City employees as provided in the City's personnel policies. However, in the event Employee is terminated because of his conviction for an illegal act of employee, then Employer shall have no obligation to pay the termination benefits. If Employer at any time during the employment term reduces the salary or other financial benefits of Employee in a greater percentage than across-the-board reduction for all non-union employees, or if Employee resigns following a formal suggestion by Employer that he resign, then Employee may, at his option, be deemed to be "terminated" on the effective date of Employee's resignation and the Employee shall also be entitled to receive the termination benefits set forth above. 3 If Employee voluntarily resigns his position with Employer, Employee agrees to give the Employer thirty (30) days advance notice. If Employee voluntarily resigns his position with Employer, there shall be no termination pay due to Employee other than payment for accrued vacation and sick leave consistent with the City's personnel policies. 16. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of Employer to terminate the services of Employee at any time, for any reason, subject only to the provisions of this Agreement and statutory requirements. Furthermore, nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of Employee to resign at any time from his position with Employer, subject only to the provisions ofthis Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Employer has caused this Agreement to be signed and executed on its behalf by its Mayor and City Attorney, and Employee has signed this Agreement, in duplicate, the day and year first written above. EMPLOYER: CITY OF FARMINGTON EMPLOYEE: BY: Kevan A. Soderberg Its Mayor David M. Urbia Joel J. Jamnik Its City Attorney 4 /Oa... City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator~ Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director TO: RE: Community Center Feasibility Study Final Report DATE: May 2, 2005 BACKGROUND The City Council at its August 2, 2004 meeting approved the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission's (PRAC) request to complete a Community Center Feasibility Study (CCFS) and ; hired the consulting firm of Ballard * King and Associates (BKA) to assist the City in completing a CCFS. The PRAC then identified various organizations and community residents that should serve on a Community Center Steering Committee (Steering Committee). The PRAC felt that fifteen members from the community should serve on the Steering Committee. At the September 7, 2004 City Council meeting, Councilmember Christy Fogarty was appointed to the Steering Committee. Attached in Exhibit A is a list of Steering Committee members. The first Steering Committee meeting was held on September 2l, 2004. At this meeting Randy Oswald was elected as chair ofthe Steering Committee. Jeff King from BKA was also present at the meeting and the primary focus of the meeting was to set the course of what needed to be accomplished in order for a CCFS to be completed. This included completing a community survey and conducting a market and demographic study. On October 19,2004, the Steering Committee began reviewing questions that should be included in a community survey and also discussed the boundaries of the secondary service area or those areas outside the corporate limits of Farmington who could potentially be customers of a community center in Farmington so that a market and demographic study could include the secondary service area. On November 9, 2004, a final approved community survey was sent to the printer. Approximately two weeks later the survey was mailed out to randomly selected community members. In early January 2005, notification was received that the results ofthe community survey had been tabulated and along with the market and demographic study, the tabulated results were ready to be presented to the community at a public open house. On February 2,2005, two public open houses were held to present the results of the community survey and the market and demographic studies within the primary and secondary service areas. Ron Vine from ETC/Leisure Vision, a firm that BKA subcontracted the community survey work to, presented the results ofthe community survey. Jeff King from BKA presented the results of the market and demographic study. From the information obtained through the community survey and the market and demographic study Jeff King began to put together the program spaces for a community center. On March 1,2005, the Steering Committee met to review the draft program space and provided further feedback on the document. On March 15,2005, the Steering Committee finalized the draft program spaces and provided direction to BKA to put together a proforma on the operational expenses and revenues for a community center based on the program spaces that the Steering Committee agreed upon. On April 13, a joint meeting ofthe Steering Committee and PRAC was held. At the meeting, Jeff King presented the proforma information to the group. Both the Steering Committee and PRAC approved of the information and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to accept the CCFS and to move forward on taking the next steps forward to build a community center. DISCUSSION Included with this memo is the CCFS Final Report. It contains all of the information that was compiled as part of the CCFS and includes the following: Stakeholder Meeting Summary, Community Survey, Market and Demographic Study, Program Space Report, Proforma and an Executive Summary. JeffK.ing from BKA will be attending the May 2nd City Council meeting to make a presentation on the CCFS Final Report. The CCFS involved a lot oftime and effort on the part of the Steering Committee members. Initially it was projected that the CCFS would be completed in about four months but in actuality took almost eight months. The CCFS Final Report reflects a community center that the Steering Committee and the PRAC feel would be an asset to the City of Farmington. While there is considerable information contained in the CCFS Final Report, information about construction costs for the potential community center was not part ofthe CCFS. Both the Steering Committee and PRAC are recommending that the City Council approve moving forward with further studying a community center and are asking that the City Council approve the hiring of a firm with architectural services to accomplish the following: 1. To develop a more detailed construction budget and preliminary design and site plan addressing the program spaces in a community center that have been identified in the CCFS Final Report. 2. Explore potential sites and then prioritize these sites. 3. Explore and facilitate potential partnership with different entities and make a recommendation concerning any possible partnerships. Should the City Council desire to move forward with hiring an architect to complete the next steps in determining whether a community center is built or not, the Parks and Recreation Director would recommend using Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates (BRAA) to complete this work since not only are they under contract with the City to provide engineering services but also because they have had previous experience working through the CCFS process with other communities and have been involved in the construction of many community centers. The hiring ofBRAA would expedite this process ifthe City Council is interested in meeting the August 1, 200S date for making a decision regarding any type of community center referendum. BRAA would be able to provide a more accurate construction cost for the size of the community center that has been proposed by the Steering Committee and PRAC. Staff is prepared to meet with representatives from BRAA to discuss the scope of service that the City desires and a proposed cost for these services. If the City Council is interested in hiring BRAA for their architectural services, staff would be prepared to bring back a proposal from BRAA to the City Council for consideration at its May 16th meeting. Staff would also identify at the May 16th meeting the funding source to hire BRAA for these services. Hiring BRAA would not bind the City to any future professional services for the plans and specifications for constructing a community center. Should the City Council authorize a referendum for a community center and should the referendum pass, it would be staffs recommendation that the City solicit Request for Proposals from qualified architectural firms and then select an architectural firm based on the proposals submitted. The architectural firm selected would then work with the City to prepare the construction documents, oversee the bidding and supervise the construction of a new community center. The City's financial consultant Ehlers and Associates created a preliminary tax impact report based on an early construction cost estimate that BKA provided. Exhibit B contains both 15 year and 20 year bond payback schedules and the resulting annual tax increase for various values of commercial and residential properties based on a $21 million construction cost. Please keep in mind that the $21 million does not include any land costs. The idea was to use land that would be given to the City at no cost through the park dedication process to build a community center on. ACTION REQUESTED By motion accept the Community Center Feasibility Study Final Report. By a separate motion approve the request to move forward with the community center study by directing staffto work with BRAA to submit a proposal to the City Council's consideration at the May 16, 200S meeting for architectural services related to develop a more detailed construction budget and preliminary design and site plan addressing the program spaces in a community center that have been identified in the CCFS Final Report, identifying an acceptable site or number of acceptable sites for a community center within the City of Farmington and facilitate the exploration of a partnership with other entities. ~~ectfully Subm. itted, /~l1tt Randy DIstad Parks and Recreation Director cc: Community Center Steering Committee Members Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Members - tn :J Q. .r:. ~ Cl) .c E Cl) :::ii Cl) Cl) - :!:: E E o o I:n C 'C Cl) Cl) . ) -"' "C := - U) ~ :!:: :s ,- tn ca Cl) LL ... Cl) - C Cl) o ~ :!:: C := E E o o <( .. .d .r:. >< W tn tn ~ "C ~ - 'm E w Cl) c o .r:. Il. 'i o Cl) c o .r:. Il. .llI:: ... o 3: Cl) c o .r:. Il. Cl) E o ::I: E o (.) ...: ctl ~ C ~ ~ c ;Q ~ .~ ('I) ('I) ('I) LO I LO <0 CO I N ..... <0 ..... <0 ('I) N I ('I) o I'- I N LO 0') ..... 0') ('I) 0 o CO ..". <0 I I o 0 <0 <0 ..". ..". I I ..... ..... LO LO <0 <0 Q) c ...: Q) t ctl L:. ~ '<t CO .... Q) .0 Q) ~ Q) ::::l ..". ..". CN N Q)O O+-' <(> LO LO III LO LO Q) g>z ~ Z S ~~.5~u5 CccC'O ~ .9 :00- .9 ~ W c> 0:: c> 0') ('I) .S: .s:..... ""'EoEN I'-....N....<O O')mNm('l) .....LL LOLL LO tn tn ~ "C ~ c o ;:; ca ,~ c ca e>> o Cl) E ca z .... ~~ .... .- mo:: +-' c> m .S: c..cQ5 l8E+-' E m ~ 00::0 .... Q) c> C :0 ~ Q) ...., .... Q) .0 Q) S .92 "C m ..r:::. o +-' Q) C III C m ~ III () +-' m m N o ..... N I LO CO ..". I ..... LO <0 CO I'- <0 ('I) I ('I) <0 ..". I ..... LO <0 I'- ..". LO ~ o LO ~ LO ZI'-Z ~ ~;1; co>. ..". Q) .9Nm C>X> C 0 E m Q) .... 0 0. m Q, LLa..<( .... Q) '0 'S; e a.. ~ ~ >- m CI E o ~ CIl c ,Q 'S o CIl (ij c ,Q ro (.) o @ :E ctl ~ o 1:: ctl E N CO <0 ('I) I o I'- ..". I ..... LO <0 N CO <0 ('I) I o I'- ..". I ..... LO <0 ('I) ..... N CO I ('I) <0 ..". I ..... LO <0 Q) e> J!! ...". ..".=N NmO O....LO LOI-LO Q)LOSZ ~z.o~ Ci5~m ~ . () C ~.: C X 0 OOWc, ~c,<Oc .- c..". E ::c .- 0') E CO .... ..............m om LL ('I)LL C C 0 +-' 0 'in m -g ~ ~.!a ~ m ~ ~ E N..'lI:: .- E :z:; ro ~ -6 0 <3 a.. 0:: <(0 '0 '0 o I- Q) :z:; III 'C ~ ..r:::. m CI o "C m ~ III ::::l C E N ..... ..'lI:: C o Q C 'E .... m ~ III C :8 -a ..". o o LO I ('I) <0 ..". I ..... LO <0 I'- o N N I ('I) <0 ..". I ..... LO <0 III .5 c> .2l ::c m ::::l m a.. +-' Q) C .~ '0 o 0. ~ ~ .E III LO I'- co co I I'- <0 co I N ..... <0 I'- LO o co I o <0 ..". I ..... LO <0 ..... C en 0 +-' '0 c> .... C ('I) . E o .... N m ('I)LL ..r:::. +-' ::::l o +-' >- T5a55~a S-'Oo.+-' Oc>cmc> CQ)Q,C o .- 0. III .- >-EQ)~E :!:::ro'OQ)m OLL..EZLL >- 1:: m c> o LL >- +-' III 'C ..r:::. o "'" ..". ..". ..". ..". ..". N N N N N N o 0...:0...:0 0 0 Q)L01::LO LO LO.....LO LO >LO::::lLOClLOClLOOLO+-,LO <(z8zczczcZQ)Z c~_~.9~~~~~~~ .9 C 'ffi c ~ c C c CD . en !a 090 Q)> 0 Q)> 0 E 5..92 5 \U +-' III +-' ~ +-' ~ 0. ~ W C> Q) c>W ~,w c>W...." ~' co .5 S .S: <0 .S: N .S: ..". .cE- ~ 'S:E ~E('I)E~E~E~............. com.....mO')mO')mO')mom .....LLO')LL.....LL.....LL.....LLNLL III 1:: <( ~>- ro Q) - m 1tj> C m '0 l80c E"ffig OClO E o (.) .... c Q) '0 C gi Q) '0 ,5; C o g .5; E .... ctl @ ~ CIl 3: Q) c <0 o <0 <0 I o <0 ..". I ..... LO <0 ..... N ('I) I'- I ('I) <0 ..". I ..... LO <0 ..". N o LO LO Z ~ C C 0 o :z:; :z:; m ~ .~ .~ .~ Q) 0 2: m ;;~Q)e> <(<(enO 'E m C o Q) ....J ..92 Q) ..r:::. () ~ - Q) c .... Q) c .... .~ c e ~ .... Q) L:. (.) CIl ~ :0 LO co <0 ..". I ..". co ..". I N LO 0') o ..". N co ('I) <0 ..". ..... LO <0 .... Q) ..r:::. () III u:: as E o ~ ctl E - o ~ '0 Q) .... :;::; Q) .... CIl ..:.:: o o .... .0 o ..... ..... ..". I N ..". "'" I ..... LO <0 co <0 LO ('I) I ('I) <0 ..". I ..... LO <0 ..'lI:: C ~ LL C ..r:::. o ...., - Q) c .... Q) c .... Q) ~ o ~ ~ o .... CIl CIl 0') 0') LO N I o <0 ..". I ..... LO <0 +-' C Q) '0 ::::l Ci5 .... ..92 ~ C ~ 0:: E o ~ Q) ~ ctl Q) ~ '0 (ij 3: CIl o ~ c ctl 0::: E o (.) o o ~ ~ E '0 o o 3: E o ~ o ~ Q) ~ .0 o ~ :::iE o ('I) co <0 I co co <0 I ..... LO <0 LO o ..... co I o <0 ..". I ..... LO <0 0') ('I) co ('I) I ('I) <0 ..". I ..... LO <0 0') ..... o I'- I ('I) <0 "r ..... LO <0 Q) e> m +-' m C Q) N :z:; <3 '0 ~ III o >- '0 C m 0:: '0 o o S Q) Q) ..r:::. () ~ Q) m .~ ...., - en :J c. .- ~ en ... CI) .c E CI) :! CI) CI) ;:: E E o o C) C '1: CI) CI) . J -'" "C ~ - tn ~ :: - :c .- en ca CI) u. ... .! c CI) o ~ :: c ~ E E o o (;)'V Q)N $g (j)L() Q)Z -=-::2: en .c c: ..... 0 ~g ...... c: 'V 'E CIO ..... ...... co L()U" c: .!!! g Co .!!! ..... (,) .!Q 0 c: CJ) ~~ <C .. ,g .- ~ >< W E o (,) c: ~ Q) .c ..... ~ ~ ~ ;;::: o "E o en ::l e en E ::l N e ~ E eN 0..... Q~ ,!; 5 Eo, ~ ,!; ~ ~ 0- en@} .... .... Q) to :::: e !9 0 ~€ 'V CIO 'V 'V I ('I) L() 0> I N L() 0> ('I) ('I) (0 0> I ('I) (0 'V I ...... L() (0 en ::l e E e o C e 'E .... ~ ~ "C to en :0 .... o o N ('I) I o (0 'V I ...... L() (0 ...... L() CIO ...... I ('I) (0 'V I ...... L() (0 'V 'V N N (;)0 0 Q)L() L() $L() L() z.....z .....::2:Q)::2: en ~~ =5005 ~c,~c, ......c:coc: o '-E 0 '-E O.....L()..... ...... CON CO (OU"('I)U,, o c: o 0 f5 C, en .~ c: E .9 ro C> U" .~ '0 '+-0 E 'C ..... ..... >- co .!Q ::: U"O () c: C> o ~ CJ) 0 0._ 0 E iIi ..... o 0 .c 0 c: I- '0 0 Q):E~"'" '-E 0 2 CO X 10 5 ~wa..1Il '0 co ..... CJ) o >- '0 c: CO 0:: E'l hA)~+ G Farmington, MN $21,000,000 G.O. Community Center Bonds August 1, 2005 20 Year Term Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 464,270,00 464,270,00 464,270,00 464,270,00 464,270,00 464,270,00 1,164,270,00 1,628,540.00 452,720,00 452,720,00 452,720,00 1,177,720,00 1,630,440,00 440,395,00 440,395,00 440,395,00 1 ,190,395,00 1,630,790,00 427,082,50 427,082,50 427,082,50 1,202,082,50 1,629,165.00 412,551,25 412,551,25 412,551,25 1,217,551,25 1,630,102,50 397,055,00 397,055,00 397,055,00 1,232,055,00 1 ,629,110,00 380,355,00 380,355,00 380,355,00 1,250,355,00 1,630,710,00 362,302,50 362,302,50 362,302,50 1,267,302,50 1,629,605,00 343,071,25 343,071,25 343,071,25 1,288,071,25 1,631,142,50 322,517,50 322,517,50 322,517,50 1,307,517,50 1,630,035,00 300,601,25 300,601,25 300,601,25 1,325,601,25 1 ,626,202,50 277,538,75 277 ,538, 75 277,538,75 1,352,538,75 1,630,077,50 253,082,50 253,082,50 253,082,50 1,373,082,50 1,626,165,00 227,322,50 227,322,50 227,322,50 1,402,322.50 1,629,645,00 200,003,75 200,003,75 200,003,75 1,430,003,75 1,630,007,50 171,098,75 171,098,75 171,098,75 1,456,098,75 1,627,197,50 140,580,00 140,580,00 140,580,00 1,490,580,00 1,631,160,00 108,180,00 108,180,00 108,180,00 1,518,180,00 1,626,360,00 73,987,50 73,987,50 73,987,50 1,553,987,50 1,627,975,00 38,097,50 38,097,50 38,097,50 1,593,097,50 1,631,195.00 $12,049,895,00 $33,049,895,00 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 08/01/2011 02/01/2012 08/01/2012 02/01/2013 08/01/2013 02/01/2014 08/01/2014 02/01/2015 08/01/2015 02/01/2016 08/01/2016 02/01/2017 08/01/2017 02/01/2018 08/01/2018 02/01/2019 08/01/2019 02/01/2020 08/01/2020 02/01/2021 08/01/2021 02/01/2022 08/01/2022 02/01/2023 08/01/2023 02/01/2024 08/01/2024 02/01/2025 08/01/2025 02/01/2026 Total 700,000,00 3,300% 725,000,00 3.400% 750,000,00 3,550% 775,000,00 3,750% 805,000,00 3,850% 835,000,00 4,000% 870,000,00 4,150% 905,000,00 4,250% 945,000,00 4,350% 985,000,00 4.450% 1,025,000,00 4,500% 1,075,000,00 4,550% 1,120,000,00 4,600% 1,175,000,00 4,650% 1,230,000,00 4,700% 1,285,000,00 4.750% 1,350,000,00 4,800% 1,410,000,00 4,850% 1,480,000,00 4.850% 1,555,000,00 4,900% $21,000,000,00 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars,....,.."....".,..,..,....,..,....,....,....,..,....,....,.."........,....,.."....,..,....,....,....,."....,....,..,..,."........,..,..,."..,....,....,.... Average Life..,....,....,..,.,.,.....,....,..,...."."...."..,....,..,.....,....,..,....,.,..,....,..,....,......."...,....,.."..,..,..,....,....,..."....,..,..,....,........,.." Average Coupon,...".,......,......."....,..,....,....,....,..,....,....,.."...".."....,..,....".......,....,.."..,.....,.."....,....".".."....,..,....,.."....,....,.., $260,465,00 12,403 Years 4,6263010% Net Interest Cost (NIC)."....,....,.... .,..,..,....,..."...',..,....,....,...."......,....,..,....,.."....,........,.... .,....,..,....,.... .,...,..,....,....,..,..,..,..,..., True Interest Cost (TIC)"..,..,.,.....,....,..".,.,....,..,....,....,.....,."......,.,.......".,..,..,....,....,."....,......,..,..,.".,......,..,..,..,."....,.,..,..,.... Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes,.".,."..,...,...."....,."....,....,..,..."....,..,....,....".,.........,....,..,.....,....,..,......,."....,..,....,...."."..., All Inclusive Cost (AIC). ....,.... .,.".,."..,....,...".,."."....,....,..,..,."...,....,..,....,..,. .,."....,..."... .,.,....,..,....,..,. .,...,..,....,....,.."....,..,..', 4,6263010% 4,5965027% 4,5965027% 4,5965027% IRS Form 8038 Net I nterest Cost..,..,."...,....,..,..,.....,....,....,.".,.,.....,....,..,....".,....,....,....,..,...."....,..,......,.,."....,....,.."...,....,..,....,...."....,..,....... Weighted Average Maturity. .,..,....,..,...."."...'....,....,...."."....,..,..... ...,..,. ..."....,....,..,....,....,....,...."... .,..,.."....,..,. .,.,..,..,..,....,.., SerOS$21MCom CIT20Yr I SINGLE PURPOSE I 41261200S I 9:S2AM 4,6263010% 12,403 Years Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Leaders in Public Finance Page 1 City of Farmington, MN Analysis of Tax Impact for Potential Borrowing Option One Bond Issue Size Type of Debt Est. Market Value Rates (debt only) Net Market Value (Preliminary Pay 2002) Annual Levy Increase Increase in Tax Rate $21,000,000 G.O. Bonds - 20 Year Term 1,280,971,175.00 1,628,540.00 0.127133% Taxable Estimated Increase in Taxes Type of Property Market Value for Debt Service Only 125,000 $159 150,000 $191 Residential 175,000 $222 Homestead 200,000 $254 225,000 $286 250,000 $318 300,000 $381 500,000 $636 Commerciall 750,000 $953 Industrial 1,000,000 $1,271 1,500,000 $1,907 2,000,000 $2,543 Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. 4/26/2005 Farmington, MN $21,000,000 G.O. Community Center Bonds August 1, 2005 15 Year Term Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 442,287,50 442,287,50 442,287.50 442,287,50 442,287,50 442,287,50 1,502,287.50 1,944,575,00 424,797,50 424,797,50 424,797,50 1,514,797,50 1,939,595,00 406,267,50 406,267,50 406,267,50 1,536,267,50 1,942,535,00 386,210,00 386,210,00 386,210,00 1,556,210.00 1,942,420,00 364,272,50 364,272,50 364,272,50 1,579,272,50 1,943,545,00 340,883,75 340,883,75 340,883,75 1,600,883.75 1,941,767,50 315,683,75 315,683.75 315,683,75 1,625,683,75 1,941,367,50 288,501,25 288,501,25 288,501,25 1,653,501,25 1,942,002,50 259,495,00 259,495,00 259,495,00 1,684,495,00 1,943,990,00 228,501,25 228,501,25 228,501,25 1,713,501,25 1,942,002,50 195,460,00 195,460,00 195,460,00 1,745,460,00 1,940,920,00 160,585,00 160,585,00 160,585,00 1,780,585,00 1,941,170,00 123,730,00 123,730,00 123,730,00 1,818,730,00 1,942,460,00 84,745,00 84,745,00 84,745,00 1,854,745,00 1,939,490,00 43,592,50 43,592.50 43,592,50 1,898,592,50 1,942,185.00 $8,572,312,50 $29,572,312,50 08/01/2005 02101/2006 08/01/2006 02101/2007 08/01/2007 02101/2008 08/01/2008 02101/2009 08/01/2009 02101/2010 08/01/2010 02101/2011 08/01/2011 02101/2012 08/01/2012 02101/2013 08/01/2013 02101/2014 08/01/2014 02101/2015 08/01/2015 02101/2016 08/01/2016 02101/2017 08/01/2017 02101/2018 08/01/2018 02101/2019 08/01/2019 02101/2020 08101/2020 02101/2021 Total 1,060,000,00 3,300% 1,090,000,00 3,400% 1,130,000,00 3,550% 1,170,000,00 3,750% 1,215,000,00 3,850% 1,260,000,00 4,000% 1,310,000,00 4,150% 1.365,000,00 4,250% 1,425,000,00 4,350% 1,485,000,00 4,450% 1,550,000,00 4,500% 1,620,000,00 4,550% 1,695,000,00 4,600% 1,770,000,00 4,650% 1,855,000,00 4,700% $21,000,000,00 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars" """,."".""" """,.,. ""'" "'" "'" """."". ""'" """"",."" '" '" "".,.""" "," "" "",., ",., ""'" """."., ,,"" "". ,."" ""'" Average Life.",.""""""".,."."""""""""""""""""".".",."""""""".".""""",."".,.""""""", """,."""""""""""""""""",."", Average Coupon, '" '" """,.,.,.""" ",', "",.".,., "'" ""'" ""."." ""'" "'" """"'" """ """ "",., "'" "" "",.,..'" ""'" "'" "" """" ,,"" ,.", "'" $194,340.00 9.254 Years 4,4109872% Net Interest Cost (NIC)..,.....,.,.......,.......................,....,......,....,....,......,..,..,..,..,....,....".,.................,..,..,....,......"........,............... True Interest Cost (TiC),....,..,..,.,.......,..,..".,.......,......,....,.,....,....,....,......".,........,....,..,....,............,..,....,....,....,....,......,....,........ Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes....,..,..,.. ,..,....,......,....,.,....,....,....,.......,.,......,......,..,..,.,..,........,..".,.........,....,......,....,....,..,..., All Inclusive Cost (AI C).. ....,.........'..'00..'. 00 00, 00'..'.'..,......,....,.,..,......,....,......"...,....,......,..'..'.'.00........'....,..,.........,......,..,......,...." ,. 4,4109872% 4,3879685% 4,3879685% 4,3879685% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest COst.".."" "'" "".,."" ,,"'" "",. """ "'" "'" ""'" "'" ""'" "'" """."". "'" """",., '" '" "",. "'" ".", ""'" "'" "'" ""'" "'" """ '" Weighted Average Maturity"".,., "',' ", "",.'",.", ,,',',' "'" ""'" "'" "'" """",.",.." ""'" """..", ,',,' "'" """..", ""'" "'" "',' ""'" """,."" Ser05 $21M Com Ctr 15Yr I SINGLE PURPOSE I 4/2612005 I 9:52 AM 4,4109872% 9.254 Years Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Leaders in Public Finance Page 1 City of Farmington, MN Analysis of Tax Impact for Potential Borrowing Option Two Bond Issue Size Type of Debt Est. Market Value Rates (debt only) Net Market Value (Preliminary Pay 2002) Annual Levy Increase Increase in Tax Rate $21,000,000 G.O. Bonds - 15 Year Term 1,280,971,175.00 1,944,575.00 0.151805% Taxable Estimated Increase in Taxes Type of Property Market Value for Debt Service Only 125,000 $190 150,000 $228 Residential 175,000 $266 Homestead 200,000 $304 225,000 $342 250,000 $380 300,000 $455 500,000 $759 Commercial! 750,000 $1,139 Industrial 1,000,000 $1,518 1,500,000 $2,277 2,000,000 $3,036 Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc, 4/26/2005 Farmington Community Center Feasibility Study Final Report City of Farmington May 2, 2005 Farmington Community Center Feasibility Study Final Report Table of Contents Section Name Pag:e Number Section I. Executive Summary....................... ........ ....................1 Section II. Market Analysis..... ........... ......... ......... ............... .... ..5 Section III. Community Survey................ ...... ......... ... .......... .....13 Section IV. Recreation Activities Participation and Trends.................45 Section V. Public Input Summary............................................ ..62 Section VI. Alternative Service Providers. ............................ ...... ..63 Section VII. Market Share.. ........... ....... ............... .............. .... ..66 Section VIII. Program Assessment......................... .......... ..........71 Section IX. Operations Analysis. ............. ...... ........... ............ ... ..77 Section X. Market Orientation.. ............ ........... .......... ......... .......98 Section XI. Appendix................ ...................... ........... ...........102 Farmington Communitv Recreation Center Section I - Executive Summarv The City of Farmington contracted with Ballard*King and Associates to conduct a feasibility study for a proposed community center in Farmington. The study included a demographic profile analysis of Farmington, community survey, stakeholder meeting with special interest groups and organizations, public open house, inventory of alternative recreation service providers in the area, program space development, preliminary project cost estimates and an operations analysis. From this study, the City of Farmington has the necessary information to make a well-informed decision regarding the feasibility of constructing a new community center in the future. Demographic Profile The City of Farmington has seen a rapid pace in its growth over the past few years. The 2000 census showed a population of 12,365. In April 2005, the population of Farmington was estimated at 19,458, which represents an increase in population of just over 57% from the 2000 census. Most of the growth is occurring in the northern portion of Farmington. The age group distribution of Farmington indicates a heavy concentration of families and the overall median age is significantly lower than the national level. Although the City of Farmington can be classified as a young community, with the median age being almost 6 years lower than the national level, the age groups that will experience the most growth over the next five years is the 45-54, 55-64 and 65-74 age categories. Median household income is $74,608 for the City of Farmington, significantly higher than the national level of$48,124. Age and household income are two determining factors that drive participation in Parks and Recreation services. The demographic profile suggests that there are very favorable market conditions to support a community center. Community Attitude & Interest Survey ETC Leisure Vision, Olathe, KS, conducted a statistically yalid survey. A mail/phone survey was administered with a goal of collecting at least 300 completed surveys. Farmington responded in a big way with 594 completed surveys returned. The 594 completed surveys provide a 95% level of confidence with a +/-4% margin of error. Survey respondents indicated that 84% of household use of Farmington parks, significantly higher than'the national benchmark of 72%. 45% of the survey respondents indicated their households are currently using indoor recreation facilities. However, only 32% of the households using recreation facilities feel the existing facilities meet their needs. Household use of a new community center that had an indoor pool is very high with 71 % of the survey respondents indicating their household would use the facility at least a few times per month. The survey results also indicated there is a strong community need and support for developing more natural areas and paved trails. It should be noted that many of the stakeholder interviewed also identified a need for more sports fields (soccer, baseball, softball and football). Overall, 37% of the survey respondents feel the development of a community center is either a very high priority or high priority compared to other issues facing the City of Farmington. 1 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Program The program statement was developed by consolidating data gathered from the market analysis, community survey, stakeholder meetings, analysis of existing recreation service providers and input from the citizen steering committee. The community survey indicated that the components respondents would most likely use if they were included in a new community center are an indoor swimming pool, indoor walking/jogging track, weight and cardiovascular exercise area, indoor playground, aerobic/dance space, indoor golf driving area and multipurpose gymnasium space. These spaces and activities can all be accommodated with the Component Base Facility Sq. Ft. proposed program listed Aquatic Area 14,000 below. Gymnasium 12,000 Indoor Turf Area 5,000 Track 6,000 Weight/Cardio 7,500 Aerobic/Dance 1,500 Auxiliary Fitness Area 750 Multipurpose Room 3,500 Youth Fitness 1,500 Birthday Party Rooms 1,000 Senior Lounge 1,000 Support Spaces 16,000 Babysitting Area Lobby Office space Storage Rock Climbing Net Building Circulation (18%) Total Building Average Cost/SF Construction Cost 69,750 12,500 82,300 $200 $16,460,000 Note: This is a preliminary Soft Cost 30% facility program and cost Estimated Project Cost $21,398,000 estimate only. The Steering Committee and the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission have reviewed this information and are recommending to the City Council that these program spaces be approved as part of a new community center. Final approval is pending from the City Council. It is important to note that the square footage, circulation percentage and project costs need to be validated by an architectural firm. 2 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Operations Analvsis An operation analysis was conducted to examine community center costs and revenues. The operating proforma developed represents a conservative approach to estimating expenses and revenues and was completed based on the best information available and a basic understanding of the project. Fees and charges utilized for this study were developed from survey results and market value and are subject to review, change, and approval by the City of Farmington. The results of the operations analysis clearly indicate that the proposed community center will not recover 100% of its operating costs through revenue and consequently will require tax support to operate on a break-even basis. It should be pointed out that a cost recovery rate of 82% is significant for a community the size of Farmington and this recovery rate falls in the mid-point for an urban setting. Most community centers in urban areas recovery 75% to 90% of their operating expenses through fees and charges. Expenditure - Revenue Comparison Recovery % $1,774,072 $1,461,527 ($312,545) 82% Expenditures Revenue Difference Conclusion The initial phase of this study was to determine the interest, need and feasibility of developing a community center in Farmington. The consulting team completed a community wide survey, detailed market assessment and cost analysis to determine the overall feasibility of building a community center. The market conditions for the development and operation of a community center in Farmington are very favorable. In addition, the community wide survey conducted indicated significant support and community interest for a new recreational facility in Farmington. The development of a new community center creates an opportunity to streamline and consolidate other parks and recreation services. Specifically, building a new community center with a senior component eliminates the need for maintaining the Rambling River Center by not only replacing the current senior center space, but also making significant improvements to the size, quality, and scope of facility, programs and services. The outdoor pool could also be phased out since the new community center will have an indoor swimming component available year around. Survey results indicated that over 50% of respondents were in favor of closing the existing outdoor pool if a new community center was built. The consultants recognize the emotional attachment some residents have for these facilities but to maximize financial efficiency, it makes sense to 3 Ballard*K.ing and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center consolidate operations of the Rambling River Center and outdoor pool into the proposed community center. The tax subsidy required to operate the outdoor pool and senior center could be directed to the new facility. The development of a new community center also creates an opportunity to expand access to other city service. Current operating hours for City Hall is restricted to Monday- Friday from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm. For many residents wishing to access City Services, taking time off from work to travel downtown to City Hall is problematic. The proposed community center will be open seven days per week and operate over 100 hours per week. The proposed facility provides an opportunity to de-centralize some city services to improve access and make access to services more user-friendly. Without question, a new community center will enhance the quality of life in Farmington while addressing the issue of a lack of ample leisure opportunities. The proposed community center fills the service gaps for leisure and recreation needs in the community for teenagers, families and seniors. A new center will become a source of tremendous community pride and will bring the community together. Having a sense of community is very important, especially when considering the rapid growth Farmington is experiencing. The community center will also help establish and recognize the City of Farmington as a contributor to the economic health of the community by providing jobs, through the purchase of local goods and services and by generating tourism trade from people visiting the community. The consulting team acknowledges that they are not qualified to develop a detailed community center construction cost estimate. Instead, a preliminary cost estimate of $200.00 per square foot was used in the proforma in order to provide an early estimate on community center construction costs. The consulting team recommends that the City of Farmington moves forward with the planning process for building a community center by retaining a professional architect to develop a detailed project cost estimate and conceptual design based on the program developed during the feasibility study. The professional services should also include evaluating potential sites and exploring potential partnerships with other entities. 4 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Communitv Recreation Center Section II - Market Analvsis To determine the feasibility and needs assessment of an indoor community center in Farmington MN., a market analysis that looks at the demographic realities of the area, assesses the community needs, and reviews the existing recreation facilities has been undertaken. The following is a summary of the basic demographic characteristics of the area in and around Farmington, a comparison with basic sports participation standards produced by the National Sporting Goods Association and an analysis of the alternative service providers in the service area. Service Area: The goal of this project is to serve, first and foremost, the citizens of the Farmington, but it is also recognized that most community centers serve a larger geographical area. In an effort to define an accurate service area for the proposed facility, the primary service area is defined by the corporate limits of Farmington. A primary service area is usually defined by the distance people will travel on a regular basis (a minimum of once per week) to utilize a recreation facility. Use by people outside of the primary service area will be less frequent than the primary service area and will be driven by special facilities (indoor play structure, leisure pool), special events (tournaments, swim meets), special programs (swim lessons, fitness, etc), or visitors to the area. A service area can vary in size with the type of components that are included in a facility. A community center with a leisure pool or ice arena and other active play elements will generally have a larger primary service area than a more traditionally oriented facility. The secondary service area represents a geographical area that is generally south and east of Farmington and includes the cities/township of Northfield, Eureka, Coates, Hampton and Randolph. Although this appears to be a large secondary service area there are very few service providers in the secondary market and people in rural areas have a tendency to travel greater distances for accessing services and shopping. A 15 to 20 minute service area is not uncommon for community centers in a more rural environment and the basic configuration of the primary service area supports this driving distance. Service Area Population: The population ofthe service area is as follows: 2000 Census 2004 Estimate 2009 Project. Primary Service Area 12,365 14,837 17,130 Secondary Service Area 55,382 61,994 69,611 Source - U.S. Census Bureau and ESRI 5 Ballard*K.ing and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Farmington Secondary Service Area Map S.., g. tlurn5' ,lie ('\ o \. 162nd 5t '\Q50t"S\~;' A I~, V:,"ey Rosp'l\ouf" Vr;; 'Tlilhon r",\".,... f :r 185m 51 W " o e ~ :< :t t '" ~ LaktVllh 210.h 51 ~ County Hwy 70 Jrr11~ .... Cl: J:l o ~ ~ 0: @ G\ '-.:., SCOTT- Airlakc ,5(J:: (52' H ,,,,In .l 1,56. Elko '" .lo, ~ .." b g CO.ltYl;....l~~ , Hwy 8 Count)' H'Wy 86 DAKOT A COU(i County Hwy 86 I 3 I Minnesota Secondary Service Area I~ 01, n Rill <19 ."9' {19' Stanton IrfiClld GOODHUE RICE "'0 ttlt-It 5th 51 E Cnu_nty Hwy 28 -~ 3 ' "-' 5& I r~ 2004 E5~t. GDi' Counly HW:t 1 DuroddS Smi 6 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Population Distribution by age: Utilizing census information for the primary service area, the following comparisons are possible. Table A- Primary Service Area Age Distribution Ages Population % of Total N at. Population Difference --- -- - --- -5 l,424 ll.5% 6.9% +4.6% 5-l7 2,784 22.5% 19.0% +3.5% l8-24 80l 6.4% 9.6% -3.2% 25-44 5,934 41.5% 30.2% + l1.3% 45-54 l,005 8.l% l3.4% -5.3% 55-64 525 4.2% 8.6% -4.4% 65-74 29l 2.4% 6.5% -4.l% 75+ 402 3.3% 5.9% -2.6% Population - 2000 census estimates in the different age groups in the service area. % of Total- Percentage of the service area population in the age group. National Population - Percentage of the national population in the age group. Difference - Percentage difference between the service area population and the national population. The demographic makeup of the service area when compared to the characteristics of the national population indicates that there are more individuals in the 5-l7, 5-l7 and 25-44 age groups and less in the l8-24, 45-54, 55-64 and 75+ age categories. These statistics indicate the presence of a considerable number of families in the service area. Distribution 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% I 5.0% 0,0% o Primary Service Area . National Population -5 5yrs- 18-2425-4445-5455-6465.74 75+ 17 7 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Population Distribution by age: Utilizing census information for the secondary service area, the following comparisons are possible. Table Al - Secondary Service Area Age Distribution Ages Population % of Total N at. Population Difference m _ ___ ---- - _ _i__ - . -5 4,788 8.7% 6.9% +1.8% 5-l7 ll,8ll 21.4% 19.0% +2.4% 18-24 7,968 l4.4% 9.6% -4.8% 25-44 l8,583 33.6% 30.2% +3.4% 45-54 5,943 lO.7% l3.4% -2.7% 55-64 2,956 5.3% 8.6% -3.3% 65-74 1,611 2.9% 6.5% -3.6% 75+ l,724 3.1% 5.9% -2.8% Population - 2000 census estimates in the different age groups in the service area. % of Total- Percentage of the service area population in the age group. National Population - Percentage of the national population in the age group. Difference - Percentage difference between the service area population and the national population. The demographic makeup of the secondary service area is similar in the distribution pattern as the primary service area. The secondary service area, when compared to the characteristics of the national population indicates that there are more individuals in the - 5, 5-l7, 25-44 age groups and less in the l8-24, 45-54,55-64,65-74 and 75+ age groups. Chart-Al- Primar 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% I 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% l 0,0% o Primary Service Area . National Population -5 5yrs- 18-2425-4445-5455-6465-74 75+ 17 8 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Population Distribution Comparison by Age: Utilizing census information from the service area, the following comparisons are possible. Farmington Primary Service Area - from U.S. Census information and ESRI Table B- Primary Service Area Population Estimate Ag~ __~OOJt~op'ulation ..19J!4 POp'ulati<~!L _2009.f.2p'ulatiQ!L -5 1,424 1,683 1,954 5-17 2,784 3,457 4,007 18-24 801 1,224 1,468 25-44 5,934 5,507 5,615 45-54 1,005 1,514 2,297 55-64 525 728 956 65-74 75+ 291 402 377 351 458 370 % ChangL +37.2% +43.9% +83.2% -5.3% + 128.5% +82.1 % +57.3% -7.9% Table B looks at the growth or decline in age group numbers in the primary service area from the 2000 census until the year 2009. It is projected that the numbers of individuals across most of the spectrum show strong increases that reflects the growth in Farmington. It must be remembered that the population of the United States as a whole is aging and it is not unusual to find negative growth numbers in the younger age groups and net gains nearing 30% in the 45 plus age grouping. Chart B - Primar Po ulation Growth Estimate 6,000 5,000 I 4,000 3,000 I 2,000 1,000 0 -5 5yrs-17 18-24 25-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ 02000 .2004 02009 Ballard *King and Associates 9 Farmington Community Recreation Center Farmington Secondary Service Area - from U.S. Census information and ESRI Table Bl - Secondary Service Area Population Estimates Ag~ ~OOO Pop.ulation _--1.004 PORulatio,!! _ ~!lg9 PORulation -5 4,788 5,504 6,200 5-17 11,811 12,908 14,393 18-24 7,968 9,508 10,505 25-44 18,583 19,027 19,145 45-54 5,943 7,527 9,957 55-64 2,956 3,841 5,112 65-74 1,611 1,851 2,288 75+ 1,724 1,824 2,012 % Chang!L +29.4% +21.8% +31.8% +3.0% +67.5% + 72.9% +42.0% + 16.7% Table B 1 looks at the growth or decline in age group numbers in the secondary service area from the 2000 census until the year 2009. As with the primary service area, it is projected that the numbers of individuals across most of the spectrum show significant Increases. Chart Bl - Primar Po ulation Growth Estimate 20,000 15,000 10,000 -5 5yrs-17 18-24 25-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ 02000 .2004 02009 Ballard *King and Associates 10 Farmington Community Recreation Center Next, the median age and household income levels are compared with the national number. Both of these factors are primary determiners of participation in recreation activities (see Table E below). The lower the median age, the higher the participation rates are for most activities. The level of participation also increases as the income level goes up. Farmington is in a very favorable market based on income and age criteria. Median Age: 2000 Census 2004 Estimate 2009 Proiect. Primary Service Area 30.0 30.6 30.4 Secondary Service Area 29.5 29.8 30.1 Nationally 35.3 36.0 37.0 Chart- C - Median A e 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 o o Primary . Secondary o Nationally 2000 2004 2009 11 Ballard *King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Median Household Income: 2000 Census 2004 Estimate 2009 Proiect. Primary Service Area $61,956 $74,608 $89,275 Secondary Service Area $61,963 $73,642 $89,581 Nationally $42,164 $48,124 $56,510 Chart D - Household Median Income 100,000 80,000 60,000 o Primary . Secondary o Nationally 40,000 20,000 1 o 2000 2004 2009 Note: The Median Household Income is significantly higher than the national level. However, the median household income level must be balanced against the cost of living for the area to determine discretionary income potential for recreation purposes. When factoring the cost of living, which the Twin Cities is rated 278 in the United States according to The Places Rated Almanac,1 the median household income is still high and is sufficient to support recreational activities. There are 354 cities rated in this publication. 1 "Places rate Almanac," David Savageau; IDG Books Worldwide; Published 2000. 12 Ballard * King and Associates Farmington Communitv Recreation Center Section III - Community Survey Overview of the Methodology The City of Farmington conducted a Community Attitude and Interest Citizen Survey during November and December 2004 to help determine the feasibility of constructing a new indoor community center to serve citizen needs, as well as other improvements to the parks and recreation system. The survey was administered by a combination of mail and phone. Leisure Vision worked extensively with City of Farmington officials as well as members of the Ballard*King and Associates project team in the development of the survey questionnaire. This work allowed the survey to be tailored to issues of strategic importance to effectively plan the future system. The goal was to obtain at least 300 completed surveys. This goal was far exceeded, with 594 surveys having been completed. A total of 1523 surveys were mailed, providing a return rate of 39%. The results of the random sample of 594 households have a 95% level of confidence with a precision of at least +/-4.0%. The following pages summarize major survey findings. 13 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Current Use ofIndoor Facilities Respondents were asked if they or other members of their household are currently using any indoor recreation, sports, fitness, ice-skating, meeting space or aquatic facilities. The following summarizes key findings: · Forty-five percent (45%) of respondent households are currently using recreation, sports, fitness, ice-skating, meeting space or aquatic facilities, and the other 55% of respondent households are not currently using facilities. Q3. Respondent Households that Are Currently Using INDOOR Recreation, Sports, Fitness, Ice-Skating, Meeting Space or Aquatic Facilities by percentage of respondents Yes 45% No 55% Source: Leisure Vision/ETC lnslitute (January 2005) 14 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Indoor Facilities Respondent Households Currently Use Respondent households that are currently using indoor recreation, sports, fitness, ice- skating, meeting space or aquatic facilities were asked to indicate all of the ones they currently use. The following summarizes key findings: · Recreation programs in schools (51 %) is the indoor facility currently being used by the highest percentage of respondent households. There are four other facilities that over 25% of respondent households are currently using, including: churches (41 %), facilitie~; in other communities (37%), private fitness clubs (35%), and the Farmington Ice Arena (26%). Q3. Respondent Households that Are Currently Using INDOOR Recreation, Sports, Fitness, Ice-Skating, Meeting Space or Aquatic Facilities by percentage of respondents Q3a. INDOOR Recreation. Sports. Fitness. Ice-SkatinQ, MeetinQ Space and AQuatic Facilities That Respondents Currentlv Use (multiple choices could be made) Facilities in other comnunities Pri\6te fitness clubs Recreation programs in schools Farrrington Ice Arena Rambling RiI.er Center 0% 10"10 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2(05) 15 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center How Well Indoor Facilities Meet the Needs of Respondent Households From a list of three options, respondent households that are currently using indoor recreation, sports, fitness, ice-skating, meeting space or aquatic facilities were asked to indicate how well the facilities they are currently using meets their needs. The following summarizes key findings: · Sixty-five percent (65%) of respondent households indicated that the indoor facilities they are currently using meet some of their needs. In addition, 32% indicated that indoor facilities meet all of their needs, and 2% indicated the facilities do not meet their needs. The remaining 1 % did not provide a response. Q3. Respondent Households that Are Currently Using INDOOR Recreation, Sports, Fitness, Ice-Skating, Meeting Space or Aquatic Facilities by percentage of respondents Q3b. How Well Recreation. Sports. Fitness and tQuatic Facilities lllleet the Needs of Respondent Households No 55% rv1eet some needs 65% rv1eet all needs 32% 2% Doesn't meet needs Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2005) 16 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Importance of Programming Spaces Serving Various Groups of Residents From a list of seven different groups of residents, respondents were asked to indicate how important it is for programming spaces at a new community center to serve each group. The following summarizes key findings: · Three of the seven groups of residents had over 50% of respondents indicate that it's very important for new programming spaces to serve them. These three groups include: families (65%), teenagers (64%), and grade school age children (53%). It should also be noted that all seven groups of residents had over 70% of respondents indicate that it is either very important or somewhat important for new programming spaces to serve them. Q4. Importance of Community Center Programming Spaces Serving Various Groups of People by percentage of respondents Families Teenagers Adults (ages 25-64) Senior adults (ages 65+) Grade school age children Young adults (ages 18-24) A'eschool age children 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% I!!IIVery Important DSomewhat Important !!IINot Important DDon't Know I Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2005) 17 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Frequency of Use of Potential Features for a New Community Center From a list of 21 potential features that could be incorporated into the design of a new community center, respondents were asked to indicate how often they and members of their household would use each one. The following summarizes key findings: (Note: The graph below does not show the percentage of respondents who indicated "less than once/month" or "seldom or never".) . Sixty-six percent (66%) of respondent households indicated they would use an indoor swimming/aquatics center at least once a month. There are three other features that over 50% of respondent households would use at least once a month, including: an indoor running/walking track (65%), weight room/cardiovascular equipment area (62%), and aerobics/fitness/dance space (52%). It should also be noted that an indoor running/walking track (24%) is the facility that the highest percentage of respondent households indicated they would use several times per week. Q5. How Often Respondents Would Use Various Features That Could Be Included in a New Community Center by percentage of respondents (graph does not show "less than once/month" or "seldom or never" responses 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% I~Several times per week OFew times per month OAt least once/month I Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2005) 18 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Features Respondent Households Would Be Most Likely to Use From the list of 21 potential features that could be incorporated into the design of a new community center, respondents were asked to select the three that they and members of their household would be most likely to use if included in a new community center. The following summarizes key findings: · An indoor swimming/aquatics center (41%) had the highest percentage of respondents select it as one of the three features they would be most likely to use in a new community center. There are two other features that over one-third of respondents selected as one of the three they would be most likely to use, including: an indoor running/walking track (37%) and a weight room/cardiovascular equipment area (34%). It should also be noted that an indoor swimming/aquatics center had the highest percentage of respondents select it as their first choice as the feature they would be most likely to use in a new community center. Q6. Features Respondents Would Be Most Likely to Use if Included in a New Community Center by percentage of respondents (three choices could be made) Indoor swimming/aquatics cent 41 % I ndoor running/walking trac Weight room/cardiovascular equipment ar I ndoor play ground area for childre 21 % Aerobics/f itness/dance spac 17;% Indoor golf driving rang 15%: Multipurpose courts for basketball, volleyball, 13% : Ice rink for ice hocke 11 % : Indoor turf fiel 10% Preschool program spac 8% Indoor skateboard par 8% Batting cages 8p;o Racquetball/handball/wally ball court 7cro Ice rink for figure skatin 7% Arts & crafts room 70Jc; Multipurpose space for classes, meetings, e 6%: Space for senior adult 6% Space for teens 5% i Rock climbing wall 4% i Indoor stage/performing art 2% : Space for gymnastic 2% i Other 1 % : 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% I ~ rvbst Likely ~2nd rvbst Likely D3rd rvbst Likely I Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2005) 19 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Frequency of Use of Potential Aquatic Features for a New Community Center From a list of 11 potential aquatic features that could be incorporated into the design of a new community center, respondents were asked to indicate how often they and members of their household would use each one. The following summarizes key findings: (Note: The graph below does not show the percentage of respondents who indicated "less than once/month" or "seldom or never ".) . Sixty-one percent (61 %) of respondent households indicated they would use a warm water family oriented swim center at least once a month. There are three other aquatic features that over 50% of respondent households would use at least once a month, including: lazy river that allows you to float on a raft (59%), hot tub area (54%), and a wave pool (51 %). It should also be noted that a warm water family oriented swim center (13%) is the aquatic facility that the highest percentage of respondent households indicated they would use several times per week. Q7. How Often Respondents Would Use Various AQuatic Features That Could Be Included in a New Community Center by percentage of respondents (graph does not show "a few times per month" or "seldom or never" response Wave pool A warm water family oriented swim center Lazy river that allolNS you to float on a raft Hot tub area Area for swim lessons An area with deep water Dry sauna and steam room Lanes for swimming Warm water area f or therapeutic purposes Diving boards/Diving well 25-yard competition pool 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% I ~Sev eral times per week D Few times per month DAt least once/month I Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2005) 20 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Aquatic Features Respondent Households Would Be Most Likely to Use From the list of 11 potential aquatic features that could be incorporated into the design of a new community center, respondents were asked to select the three that they and members of their household would be most likely to use if included in a new community center. The following summarizes key findings: · A warm water family oriented swim center (57%) had the highest percentage of respondents select it as one of the three aquatic features they would be most likely to use in a new community center. There are three other aquatic features that over 25% of respondents selected as one of the three they would be most likely to use, including: a lazy river that allows you to float on a raft (42%), a hot tub area (31 %), and an area for swim lessons (29%). It should also be noted that a warm water family oriented swim center had the highest percentage of respondents select it as their first choice as the aquatic feature they would be most likely to use in a new community center. Q8. Aquatic Features Respondents Would Be Most Likely to Use if Included in a New Community Center by percentage of respondents (three choices could be made) Wave pool A warm water family oriented swim center Lazy river that allows you to float on a raf t Hot tub area Area f or swim lessons Warm water area for therapeutic purposes Lanes for swimming Dry sauna and steam room Div ing boards/Div ing \Nell An area with deep water 25-yard competition pool Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Il!!IIrv'ost Likely to Use 1!!112nd rv'ost Likely D3rd rv'ost Likely Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2005) 21 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Purposes for Use of an Indoor Aquatic Facility From a list of five options, respondents were asked to indicate the two purposes for which they and members of their household would use an indoor aquatic facility in a community center. The following summarizes key findings: . Two of the five purposes had over 50% of respondents select them as one of the two purposes for which they would use an indoor aquatic facility in a community center. These two purposes include: year round recreation or leisure activities (69%) and exercise (57%). Q9. Purposes For Which Respondent Households Would Use an Indoor Aquatic Facility in a Community Center by percentage of respondents (two choices could be made) Year-round recreation or leisure activ ities Exercise Instructional classes Therapeutic purposes Competition No response 0% 20% 40% Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2005) Ballard*King and Associates 69% q7% 60% 80% 22 --. - -- -- ------~--~~-- Farmington Community Recreation Center Frequency of Visits to a Community Center with Most Preferred Features Respondents were asked how often they and members of their household would visit a new community center if it had the recreation and aquatic features they most prefer. The following summarizes key findings: . Seventy-one percent (71%) of respondents indicated they would visit a new community center with the features they most prefer at least a few times per month. This group includes 26% who would visit the center several times per week, 22% who would visit once per week, and 23% who would visit the center a few times a month. It should also be noted that only 7% of respondents indicated they would never visit the new community center. Q10. How Often Respondent Households Would Visit a New Community Center if it Had the Recreation and Aquatic Features Most Preferred by percentage of respondents Once per week 22% Several times/week 26% No response Never 1 % 7% I Monthly 9% Less than once/month 12% Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2005) 23 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Paying Pay Per Visit for an Adult to Use a New Community Center Respondents were asked to indicate the maximum amount they would be willing to pay per visit for an adult to use a new community center if it had the recreation and aquatic features they prefer most. The following summarizes key findings: . Sixty-three percent (63%) of respondents indicated they would pay at least $4 per visit for an adult to use a new community center. This group includes 50% who would pay $4-$5 per visit, 11 % who would pay $6-$7 per visit, and 2% who would pay $8 or more per visit. Thirty-two percent (32%) of respondents would pay $3 or less per visit, and the remaining 5% did not provide a response. Q11A. Amount Respondents Would Pay Per Visit for an Adult to Use a New Community Center with the Features They Most Prefer by percentage of respondents $4-$5 per visit 50% $6-$7 per visit 11% $8+ per vis it 2% No response 5% $3 or less per visit 32% Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2005) 24 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Paving Pay Per Visit for a Child to Use a New Community Center Respondents were asked to indicate the maximum amount they would be willing to pay per visit for a child to use a new community center if it had the recreation and aquatic features they prefer most. The following summarizes key findings: . Fifty percent (50%) of respondents indicated they would pay at least $3 per visit for a child to use a new community center. This group includes 37% who would pay $3 per visit, 10% who would pay $4 per visit, and 3% who would pay $5 or more per visit. Forty-one percent (41 %) of respondents would pay $2 or less per visit, and the remaining 9% did not provide a response. Q11 B. Amount Respondents Would Pay Per Visit for a Child to Use a New Community Center with the Features They Most Prefer by percentage of respondents $3 per visit 37% $4 per visit 10% $5+ per visit 3% No response 9% $2 or less per visit 41% Source: Leisure Vision/ETC' Institute (January 2005) 25 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Paying an Annual Membership for an Adult to Use a New Community Center Respondents were asked to indicate the maximum amount they would be willing to pay for an annual membership for an adult to use a new community center if it had the recreation and aquatic features they prefer most. The following summarizes key findings: · Thirty percent (30%) of respondents indicated they would pay at least $250 for an annual membership for an adult to use a new community center. This group includes 25% who would pay $250 - $399 per year, 4% who would pay $400 - $549 per year, and 1% who would pay $550 or more per year. Sixty-three percent (63%) of respondents would pay less than $250 per year, and the remaining 7% did not provide a response. Q11 C. Amount Respondents Would Pay for an Annual Membership for an Adult to Use a New Community Center with the Features They Most Prefer by percentage of respondents $250 - $399 per year 25% Less than $250 per yr 63% $400 - $549 per year 4% $550+ per year 1% No response 7% Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2005) 26 Ballard *King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Paying an Annual Membership for a Child to Use a New Community Center Respondents were asked to indicate the maximum amount they would be willing to pay for an annual membership for a child to use a new community center if it had the recreation and aquatic features they prefer most. The following summarizes key findings: . Thirty-seven percent (37%) of respondents indicated they would pay at least $100 for an annual membership for a child to use a new community center. This group includes 28% who would pay $100 - $149 per year, 7% who would pay $150- $199 per year, and 2% who would pay $200 or more per year. Fifty-two percent (52%) of respondents would pay less than $100 per year, and the remaining 11 % did not provide a response. Q11 D. Amount Respondents Would Pay for an Annual Membership for a Child to Use a New Community Center with the Features They Most Prefer by percentage of respondents $100 - $149 per year 28% I Less than $100 per yr 52% $150 - $199 per year 7% $200+ per year 2% No response 11 % Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2005) 27 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Paying an Annual Membership for a Family to Use a New Community Center Respondents were asked to indicate the maximum amount they would be willing to pay for an annual membership for a family to use a new community center if it had the recreation and aquatic features they prefer most. The following summarizes key findings: . Forty--seven percent (47%) of respondents indicated they would pay at least $300 for an annual membership for a family to use a new community center. This group includes 31 % who would pay $300 - $499 per year, 13% who would pay $500 - $699 per year, and 3% who would pay $700 or more per year. Forty-one percent (41 %) of respondents would pay less than $300 per year, and the remaining 12% did not provide a response. Q11 E. Amount Respondents Would Pay for an Annual Membership for a Familv to Use a New Community Center with the Features They Most Prefer by percentage of respondents $300 - $499 per year 31% $500 - $699 per year 13% $700+ per year 3% No response 12% Less than $300 per yr 41% Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2005) 28 Ballard*King and Associates ~ --- -~ -- - - ------- --- Farmington Community Recreation Center Costs for Operating a New Community Center From a list of four statements, respondents were asked to select the one that best describes how the cost for operating a new community center should be paid for. The following summarizes key findings: . Forty-one percent (41 %) of respondents indicated that user fees should pay the majority of the cost to operate a new community center. In addition, 22% indicated that user fees should pay 100% of the costs, 20% indicated that taxes should pay the majority of the costs, and 3% indicated that taxes should pay 100% of the costs. Twelve percent (12%) of respondents indicated "don't know", and 2% did not provide a response. Q12. Statement Best Representing How the Costs for Operating a New Community Center Should be Paid for by percentage of respondents Majority user fees 41% Majority taxes 20% 100% taxes 3% No response 2% Don't know 12% I 100% user fees 22% Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2005) 29 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Distance Respondents Would Travel to Use New Community Center From a list of four options, respondents were asked to indicate the maximum distance they would be willing to travel to use a new community center with the recreation and aquatic features they most prefer. The following summarizes key findings: . Sixty-eight percent (68%) of respondents indicated they would be willing to travel at least 4 miles to use a new community center. This includes 45% who would travel 4-5 miles, and 23% who would travel more than 5 miles. In addition, 17% of respondents would travel 2-3 miles, and 5% would travel less than 2 miles. It should also be noted that 90% of respondents are willing to travel some distance to use a new community center with the features they most prefer. Q13. Maximum Distance Respondents Would Travel to Use a New Community Center with the Features Most Preferred by percentage of respondents 4 - 5 miles 45% More than 5 miles 23% No response 2% 8% None, would not use com m unity center 2 - 3 miles 17% Less than 2 miles 5% Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2005) 30 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Paving Additional Property Taxes to Fund New Community Center From a list of seven options, respondents were asked to indicate the maximum amount they would be willing to pay per month in additional property taxes to fund the construction of a new community center with the features they most prefer. The following summarizes key findings: . Seventy percent (70%) of respondents indicated they would pay some amount of additional property taxes to fund the construction of a new community center with the features they most prefer. Q14. Maximum Amount Respondents Would Pay Per Month in Additional Property Taxes to Fund the Construction of a New Community Center by percentage of res pondents $9-$11 per rronth 16% $12-$14 per rronth 9% $15-$17 per rronth 7% $3 or less per rronth 10% $18 or rrore per rronth 6% $6-$8 per rronth 11% $3-$5 per rronth 11% No response 3% No property tax fund in 27% Source: Leisure Vision/ETe Institute (January 2005) 31 Ballard *King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Importance of Potential Partnerships From a list of five potential partnerships, respondents were asked to rate the importance of the City of Farmington exploring each of the partnerships in the construction and operation of a new community center. The following summarizes key findings: Three of the five partnerships had at least 25% of respondents indicate that it's very important for the City of Farmington to explore a partnership with them in the construction and operation of a new community center. These three partnerships include: public education (27%), non-profit (26%), and government (25%). It should also be noted that three of the five partnerships had at least 50% of respondents indicate that it's either very important or somewhat important for the City of Farmington to explore a partnership with them, including: non-profit (61 %), public education (59%), and government (50%). . Q15. Importance of Potential Partnerships for the City of Farmington to Explore in the Construction and Operation of a New Community Center by percentage of respondents (excluding "don't know" responses) Non-Profit ~ ~ ~ 12% I I 5 Public Education Government Post-Secondary Education For-Profit 35% 32% 25% 34% 42% 35% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Il!!!!IIvery Important DSomewhat Important DNeutral I!!!!IINot Important I Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2005) Ballard*King and Associates 32 Farmington Community Recreation Center Priority to Place on a New Community Center Compared to Other Issues Respondents were asked what priority the community should place on a new community center compared to other issues in the City of Farmington. The following summarizes key findings: · Thirty-seven percent (37%) of respondents indicated their community should place either a very high (12%) or high (25%) priority on a new community center compared to other issues in the City of Farmington. In addition, 36% indicated that a new community center should be a medium priority, and 22% indicated it should be a low priority. Four percent (4%) indicated "don't know", and 1 % did not provide a response. Q16. Priority City of Farmington Should Place on a New Community and Recreation Center Compared to Other Issues by percentage of respondents High priority 25% Medium priori 36% Very high priority 12% No response 1% Don't know 4% Low priority 22% Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2005) 33 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Need for Various Outdoor Parks and Recreation Facilities From a list of 19 outdoor parks and recreation facilities, respondents were asked to indicate which ones they and members of their household have a need for. The following summarizes key findings: . Seven of the 19 outdoor parks and recreation facilities had over 50% of respondent households indicate they have a need for the facility. The facilities that the highest percentage of respondent households indicated they have a need for include: paved walking and biking trails (83%), natural areas/nature trails (70%), small neighborhood parks (67%), natural areas/wildlife habitats (55%), picnic shelters/areas (53%), playground equipment (53%), large community parks (51 %). Q17. Percentaae of Respondent Households that Have a Need for Various Outdoor Parks and Recreation Facilities by percentage of respondents (multiple choices could be made) Paved walking and biking trails Natural areas/nature trails Small neighborhood parks Natural areas/wildlife habitats Picnic shelters/areas Playground equipment Large community parks Outdoor swimming pools Outdoor ice-hockey lice-skating Fishing areas Outdoor basketball/multi-use courts Youth baseball fields Off leash dog parks Outdoor tennis courts Outdoor theater/concert area Soccer fields Adult baseball and softball fields Youth softball fields Skateboard area ; . ~.. . . '. ~ ~ ~ --===i ~ ~ ~ ~ -.-J ~ 55% 530/0 53% 51%: 48% : i39% i :39% ! 37% : , , 33% : 27% : 27% : 26% i 26% i 25% : 25% : 20% : 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2005) 34 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Need For Outdoor Parks and Recreation Facilities in Farmington From the list of 19 outdoor parks and recreation facilities, respondents were asked to indicate which ones they and members of their household have a need for. The graph below summarizes key findings on the previous page by the number of households having a need for various parks and recreation facilities in the City of Farmington, based on 4,192 households in the City. Q17. Number of Respondent Households that Have a Need for Various Outdoor Parks and Recreation Facilities by number of households based on 4,192 households in Farmington Paved walking and biking trails Natural areas/nature trails Small neighborhood parks Natural areas/wildlif e habitats Picnic shelters/areas Play ground equipment Large community parks Outdoor swimming pools Outdoor ice-hockey lice-skating Fishing areas Outdoor basketball/multi-use courts Youth baseball fields Off leash dog parks Outdoor tennis courts Outdoor theater/concert area Soccer fields Adult baseball and softball fields Youth softball fields Skateboard area 3,466 Source: Leisure Vision/ETC' Institute (January 2005) o 2,293 2,230 2,213 2,154 1,995 1,65.1 1,63p 1,559: 1,371 i 1,123 1 1,115 i 1,098 i 1,073 i 1,065 i 1,048 i 834 i 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Ballard *King and Associates 35 Farmington Community Recreation Center How Well Outdoor Parks and Recreation Facilities Meet Needs From the list of 19 outdoor parks and recreation facilities, respondent households that have a need for facilities were asked to indicate how well each facility meets the needs of their household. The following summarizes key findings: · Eight of the 19 outdoor parks and recreation facilities had over 20% of respondents indicate that the facility 100% meets the needs of their household. The facilities that had the highest percentage of respondents indicate that the facility 100% meets the needs of their household includes: outdoor tennis courts (31 %), small neighborhood parks (29%), youth softball fields (25%), paved walking and biking trails (23%), adult baseball and softball fields (23%), playground equipment (22%), youth baseball fields (21 %), and soccer fields (20%). It should also be noted that all 19 outdoor facilities had less than one-third of respondents indicate that the facility 100% meets the needs of their household. Q17. How Well Outdoor Parks and Recreation Facilities Meet the Needs of Respondent Households by percentage of respondents that have a need for facilities Small neighborhood parks Playground equipment Paved walking and biking trails Outdoor tennis courts Youth baseball fields Youth softball fields Soccer fields Large community parks Picnic shelters/areas Outdoor ice-hockey lice-skating Adult baseball and softball fields Outdoor basketball/multi-use courts Natural areas/nature trails Outdoor sV\limming pools Skateboard area Natural areas/V\lildlif e habitats Off leash dog parks Fishing areas Outdoor theater/concert area 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% !!!Il100% Meets Needs QJ25% Meets Needs GJ75% Meets Needs D50% Meets Needs !!!IlO% Meets Needs Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2005) 36 Ballard *King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Households in Farmington with 50% or Less of their Facility Needs Being Met From the list of 19 outdoor parks and recreation facilities, respondents were asked to indicate how well each facility meets the needs of their household. The graph below shows the number of households in the City of Farmington whose needs for the facilities are only being 50% met or less, based on 4,192 households in the City. Q17. Households in Farmington Whose Needs for Facilities Are Only Being 500/0 Met or Less by number of households based on 4,192 households in Farmington Natural areas/nature trails Natural areas/lNildlif e habitats Paved walking and biking trails Outdoor slNimming pools Fishing areas Picnic shelters/areas Large community parks Small neighborhood parks Outdoor theater/concert area Outdoor ice-hockey /ice-skating Outdoor basketball/multi-use courts Play ground equipment Off leash dog parks Youth baseball fields Adult baseball and softball fields Soccer fields Skateboard area Youth softball fields Outdoor tennis courts 1,~87 1,39~ 1,362: 1,275 1,202 1,055 1,009 993 : 966 : 936 : 924 : o 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000 1!!!l0% rv1eets Needs 025% rv1eets Needs 050% rv1eets Needs Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2005) Ballard*King and Associates 37 Farmington Community Recreation Center Outdoor Parks & Recreation Facilities to Invest More Money on in the Future From the list of 19 outdoor parks and recreation facilities, respondents were asked to select the four that they would most like to see the City of Farmington invest more money on in the future. The following summarizes key findings: . Paved walking and biking trails (43%) had the highest percentage of respondents select it as one of the four outdoor facilities they would most like to see the City of Farmington invest more money on in the future. There are three other facilities that at least 25% of respondents selected as one of the four they would most like to see money invested in, including: natural areas/nature trails (32%), small neighborhood parks (26%), and natural areas/wildlife habitats (25%). It should also be noted that paved walking and biking trails had the highest percentage of respondents select it as their first choice as the facility they would most like to see more money invested on in the future. Q18. Facilities That Respondents Would Like to See the City of Farmington Invest More Money on in the Future by percentage of respondents (four choices could be made) Paved walking and biking trails Natural areas/nature trails Small neighborhood parks Natural areas/lNildlif e habitats Large community parks Outdoor slNimming pools Playground equipment Fishing areas Picnic shelters/areas Off leash dog parks Outdoor ice-hockey /ice-skating Outdoor theater/concert area Youth baseball fields Soccer fields Adult baseball and softball fields Skateboard area Outdoor basketball/multi-use courts Youth softball fields Outdoor tennis courts Other 0% 10% Il!!!IIrv'ost Important 1!!!112nd rv'ost Important 43% 20% 30% 40% 50% D3rd rv'ost Important 1!;;!14th rv'ost Important I Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (.January 2005) Ballard*King and Associates 38 ~-----~--------- ~-~-~~-~----- Farmington Community Recreation Center Visitation of Farmington Parks Respondents were asked if they or any member of their household have visited any City of Farmington parks during the past year. The following summarizes key findings: . Eighty-four percent (84%) of respondent households have visited City of Farmington parks during the past year. Fifteen percent (15%) of respondent households have not visited City of Farmington parks in the past year, and 1 % did not provide a response. Q19. Have Respondent Households Visited City of Farmington Parks in the Past Year by percentage of respondents No response 1% Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2005) 39 Ballard*King and Associates ~ ---- ---~. --~----_.._----~~-- - - Farmington Community Recreation Center Support for Closing Outdoor Pool if New Pool is Developed Respondents were asked to indicate their level of support for the City of Farmington closing the current outdoor pool if a new pool is developed as part of a new community center. The following summarizes key findings: . Sixty-nine percent (69%) of respondents indicated being either very supportive (51 %) or somewhat supportive (18%) of the City of Farmington closing the current outdoor pool if a new one is developed. In addition, 13% of respondents indicated being not supportive, 17% indicated "not sure", and 1 % did not provide a response. Q20. Support for the City of Farmington Closing the Outdoor Pool if a New Pool is Developed as Part of a New Community Center by percentage of respondents Very supportive 51% \ Somewhat supportive 18% No response 1% Not supportive 13% Notsure 17% Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2005) 40 Ballard*King and Associates ~- ---.--------.-.- Farmington Community Recreation Center Importance of Having Community Center and Outdoor Athletic Facilities on the Same Site Respondents were asked to indicate how important it is for them to have a community center and outdoor athletic facilities on the same site. The following summarizes key findings: . Thirty-nine percent (39%) of respondents indicated that it is either very important (14%) or somewhat important (25%) for a community center and outdoor athletic field to be on the same site. In addition, 26% of respondents feel that it is not important, 31 % are neutral, 3% indicated "don't know", and 1 % did not provide a response. 001. Importance of Having a Community Center and Outdoor Athletic Facilities on the Same Site by percentage of respondents Somewhat important 25% Neutral 31% No response 1% Don't know 3% Not important 26% Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2005) 41 Ballard*King and Associates ---- - --~-- ------~- ~ Farmington Community Recreation Center Demographics Q1. Demographics: Number of People in Household by percentage of respondents Two 27% One 8% Four 30% Source: Leisure VisioniETC Institute (Janu31Y 2005) Q2. Demographics: Ages of People in Household by percentage of household occupants 15-19 years 6% 20-24 years 3% 10-14 years 9% \ 5-9 years 12% Under 5 years 13% 25-34 years 21% 65+ years 4% 55-64 years 4% 35-44 years 20% Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (JanuaJY 2005) 42 Ballard *King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center 022. Demographics: Rent or Own Residence by percentage of respondents Own 97% Rent 2% No response 1% Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2005) 023. Demographics: Ages of Respondents by percentage of res pondents 35-44 years 34% 25-34 years 35% I Under 25 3% 65+ years 9% 45-54 years 12% Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2005) 43 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center 024. Demographics: Respondent Gender by percentage of respondents Male 43% Female 57% Source: leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2005) 025. Demographics: Annual Household Income by percentage of respondents $40,000 - $59,999 16% $60,000 - $79,999 25% $20,000 - $39,999 9% Under $20,000 3% $100,000 and over 19% Source: leisure Vision/ETC Institute (January 2005) 44 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Section IV - Recreation Activities Participation Each year the National Sporting Goods Association (NSGA) conducts an in depth study and survey of how Americans spend their leisure time. This information and data provides the data necessary to overlay rate of participation onto the Farmington service area to determine market potential. In addition a study that was commissioned by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) in 2002 was also utilized to determine possible participation levels in a variety of cultural arts activities. Comparison With National Statistics: Utilizing information from the National Sporting Goods Association and comparing them with the demographics from the primary service area, the following participation projections can be made (statistics were compared based on age, household income, regional population, and national population). Service Area '~.'.. '~~V. ij_ii'c'}( Aerobic 18.8% 14.6% 11.2% 10.9% 13.8% Basketball 11.5% 15.0% 9.7% 10.9% 11. 7% Billiards 21.3% 11.8% 12.4% 11.9% 14.3% Exercise Walking 37.8% 35.1% 31.0% 31.0% 33.7% Exercise w/Equip. 23.3% 27.3% 20.3% 19.0% 22.4% Racquetball 1.6% 1.2% 1.2% 1.0% 1.2% Running/j ogging 16.6% 12.5% 8.6% 9.0% 11.6% Ice Hockey .7% 1.3% 0.3% .7% 0.7% Swimming 18.6% 25.8% 16.2% 18.4% 19.7% Tennis 6.3% 6.4% 3.4% 3.7% 4.9% Weight Lifting 17.8% 14.0% 9.1% 10.1% 12.7% In-Line Skating 5.7% 7.0% 7.1% 6.2% 6.5% Martial Arts 2.1% 2.3% 0.9% 1.9% 1.8% Figure Skating 1.2% 2.4% 2.9% 2.0% 2.1% In-Line Hockey 0.4% 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% Volleyball 5.6% 5.6% 5.8% 4.1% 5.2% Workout at Clubs 19.1% 16.6% 10.7% 11.5% 14.4% Baseball 3.6% 7.9% 4.3% 5.7% 5.3% Soccer 2.7% 7.0% 4.0% 4.3% 4.5% Softball 6.3% 6.2% 5.0% 4.6% 5.5% Fishing 14.1% 12.3% 16.8% 13.0% 14.1% 45 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Communitv Recreation Center Income: Participation based on the 2004 estimated median household income in the service area. Participation based on median age of the service area. Participation based on regional statistics (West, North Central, U.S.). Participation based on national statistics. Average of the other four columns. Age (median): Region: National: Average: Anticipated Participation Numbers by Activity. Utilizing the average percentage from Table E above plus the 2004 population estimates, the following market potential projections are possible. T bl F P rf. f Eft a e - a ICIpa Ion SImae Activity Average 2004 2004 2004 Market Primary Secondary Potential Aerobics 13.8% 2,047 8,555 10,602 Basketball 11. 7% 1,735 7,253 8,988 Billiards 14.3% 2,121 8,965 11,086 Exer. Walk 33.7% 5,000 20,891 25,891 Exer. wlEquip 22.4% 3,323 13,886 17,209 Racquetball 1.2% 178 743 921 Run/jog 11.6% 1,721 7,191 9,833 Hockey .7% 103 433 536 Swimming 19.7% 2,922 12,212 15,134 Tennis 4.9% 727 3,037 3,764 Weigh Lifting 12.7% 1,884 7,873 9,757 In-Line Skate 6.5% 964 4,029 4,993 Martial Arts 1.8% 267 1,115 1,382 Fig. Skating 2.1% 311 1,301 1,612 In-Line Hockey .4% 59 247 306 Volleyball 5.2% 771 3,223 3,994 Workout Club 14.4% 2,136 8,927 11,063 Baseball 5.3% 786 3,285 4,071 Soccer 4.5% 667 2,789 3,456 Softball 5.5% 816 3,409 4,225 Fishing 14.1% 2,092 8,741 10,833 Note: The estimated participation numbers indicated above are for recreation activities and do not translate into expected attendance figures for the proposed Farmington community center since many participants will utilize other facilities for recreation activities, including a persons home. 46 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Anticipated Swimming Participation by Age: A swimming component has been identified as one of the desired components through the stakeholder meeting process. Using the census numbers by age group and 2003 NSGA participation figures by age, the following participation figures are possible. Table G- Age Distribution for Swimming Age % of Age % of Total 2004 2004 2004 Group Group Swimmers Participation Participation Participation Primary Secondary Total 7-11 51.5% 17.0% 497 2,076 2,573 12-17 42.6% 15.7% 458 1,917 2,375 18-24 25.6% 12.6% 368 1,539 1,907 25-34 25.0% 15.4% 450 1,881 2,331 35-44 23.5% 16.9% 494 2,064 2,558 45-54 17.4% 11. 7% 342 1,429 1,771 55-64 13.7% 5.3% 155 647 802 65-74 11.6% 2.8% 82 342 424 +75 10.4% 2.6% 76 317 393 Total 2,922 12,212 15,134 % of Age - Percent of this age group that participates in swimming % of Total- Percent ofthe total population that participates in swimming Note: It is important to realize that the number of swimmers listed above includes all forms of swimming at any location, including a lake, river, backyard pool or other similar facility. 47 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Participation Correlation: The primary orientation of most community centers is swimming and other aquatic activities that will enhance use of the facility. The following table illustrates the participation correlation when multiple components and activities are located in the same facility or location. The synergy created by combining activities or components together has a tendency to increase attendance and traffic flow through a facility. The location of the community center (proximity to other park amenities) and program space within the facility is critical for maximizing participation. With this in mind, and utilizing information provided by the National Sporting Goods Association's 2003 survey, the following correlation between people who participate in swimming and other recreation activities is possible. Aerobics 18.9% 35.5% Exercise with Equipment 30.4% 33.1% Bicycle Riding 34.5% 45.5% Basketball 26.3% 49.7% Exercise Walking 45.2% 30.1% Hiking 24.9% 45.1% Running/Jogging 21.5% 47.4% Tennis 11.0% 54.9% Volleyball 11.9% 57.0% Weight Lifting 19.8% 38.7% Percent of Swimmers - The percentage of swimmers who would participate in the given activity. Percent of Activity Participants - The percentage ofthe listed activity participants who would also participate in swimming. These correlation statistics indicate the strong relationship between those people who participate in aquatics and other activities. These statistics also indicate the importance of having a community center located in a park to increase usage in other areas of the park. 48 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Summary of Sports Participation: The following chart summarizes participation in various sports and leisure activities utilizing information from the 2003 National Sporting Goods Association. Table I - Activity Rankin!! Sport Rank Farmington % Age Group Total National Participation2 Participants Exercise Walking 1 33.7% 25-34 79.5 Exercise w/equip 3 22.4% 25-34 48.6 Swimming 4 19.7% 7-11 47.0 Fishing 6 14.1% 35-44 38.2 Billiards 8 14.3% 18-24 30.5 Aerobics 9 13.8% 25-34 28.0 Basketball 10 11.7% 12-17 27.9 Weight Lifting 11 12.7% 18-24 25.9 Running/jogging 15 11.6% 18-24 22.9 Inline Skating 18 6.5% 7-11 18.8 Baseball 19 5.3% 7-11 13.7 Softball 21 5.5% 12-17 11.8 Soccer 23 4.5% 7-11 11.1 Volleyball 24 5.2% 12-17 10.4 Tennis 25 4.9% 12-17 9.6 Figure Skating 35 2.1% 7-11 5.1 Martial Arts 37 1.8% 12-17 4.8 Ice Hockey 44 .4% 7-11 1.8 Rank - Popularity of sport based on national survey. % Participation - Percent of population that would participate in this sport based on the average percentage in Table C above. Total Participation - The total participation for the activity based on a national survey. 2 Participation percentage developed in table D on page 41. 49 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Comparison of State Statistics with National Statistics: Utilizing information from the National Sporting Goods Association, the following charts illustrate the participation numbers in selected sports in Minnesota. Minnesota participation numbers in swimming - As reported by the National Sporting Goods Association in 2003. T bl J MO P a e - Innesota artlclDatlon Sport Minnesota Age Largest Mean Age Participation Group Number Male/Female (In thousands) Aerobics 501 25-34 25-34 36/36 Basketball 439 12-17 12-17 23/20 Baseball 306 7-11 7-11 22/23 Billiards 674 18-24 25-34 32/31 Exer. w/Equip. 893 25-34 35-44 37/39 Exer. Walking 1,495 25-34 35-44 43/42 Fishing 999 35-44 35-44 34/34 Running/Jog 371 25-34 25-34 30/27 Soccer 276 7-11 7-11 16/1 7 Softball 277 12-17 12-17 28/21 Swimming 712 7-11 12-17 33/31 Tennis 253 12-17 25-34 28/30 Volleyball 264 12-17 12-17 26/23 Weight Lifting 509 18-24 25-34 31/34 In-Line Skating 506 12-17 7-11 19/19 Workout at Club 462 25-34 25-34 37/38 Participation - The number of people (in thousands) in Minnesota who participated more than once in the activity in 2003 and are at least seven years of age. Age Group - The age in which the sport is most popular. The age groups with the highest percentage of the age span participants in the activity. Example: the highest percent of an age group that participates in swimming is 7-11. This is a national statistic. Largest Number - The age group with the highest number of participants. Example: The greatest number of swimmers is in the 35-44 age group. Note: This statistic is driven more by the sheer number of people in the age group than by the popularity of the sport in the age span. This is a national statistic. 50 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Communitv Recreation Center Minnesota sport percentage of participation compared with the population percentage of the United States - Minnesota's population represents 1.8% of the population ofthe United States (based on 2003 statistics). Table K - Minnesota Participation Percenta2e Sport Participation Percentages In-Line Skating 3.2 Fishing 3.0 Tennis 2.6 Soccer 2.5 Volleyball 2.5 Softball 2.3 Billiards 2.2 Baseball 2.1 Weight Lifting 2.0 Exer. Walking 1.9 Exer. w/Equip. 1.8 Aerobics 1.8 Basketball 1.6 Running/Jogging 1.6 Workout at Club 1.6 Swimming 1.5 Note: Sports participation percentages refer to the total percent of the national population that participates in a sport that comes from the State of Minnesota. It is significant that several activities exceed the percentage of the national population. 51 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Communitv Recreation Center Sports and Leisure Market Potential: The Sports and Leisure Market Potential (MPI) measures the relative likelihood of adults in Farmington to exhibit consumer behavior or purchasing patterns compared to the U.S. average. The table below illustrates the Market Potential Index (MPI) for Farmington. An MPI of 100 represents the U.S. average. Table L - Market Potential Index Activity MPI . Running/jogging 127 Weight Lifting 115 Exercise w/equipment 113 Aerobics 111 Exercise walking 110 Swimming 105 Ice Skating 103 Basketball 102 Volleyball 90 Source: ESRI In addition to the Market Potential Index, ESRI evaluates recreation expenditures in the form of a Spending Potential Index (SPI). The SPI is household based and represents the amount spent for a product or service relative to a national average of 100. The SPI for fees for recreational lessons in Farmington is 119, or $145.24 per year. The SPI for recreation lessons is significantly higher than the national average. The SPI for fees to participate in sports is also higher than he national average scoring 124. 52 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Aquatic Activity and Facility Trends: Without doubt, the hottest trend in aquatics is the leisure pool concept. This idea of incorporating slides, current channels, fountains, zero depth entry and other water features into a pool's design has proved to be extremely popular for the recreational user. The age of the conventional pool in most recreational settings has been greatly diminished. Leisure pools appeal to the younger children (who are the largest segment of the population that swim) and to families. These types of facilities are able to attract and draw larger crowds and people tend to come from a further distance and stay longer to utilize such pools. This all translates into the potential to sell more admissions and increase revenues. It is estimated conservatively that a leisure pool can generate up to 25% to 30% more revenue than a comparable conventional pool and the cost of operation, while being higher, may be offset through increased revenues. Of note is the fact that patrons seem willing to pay a higher user fee for a leisure pool than a conventional aquatic facility. Despite the recent emphasis on recreational swimming and therapy, the more traditional aspects of aquatics (including swim teams, instruction and aqua fitness) remain as the foundation for many aquatic centers. The life safety issues associated with teaching children how to swim are critical concerns in most communities and competitive swim team programs through United States Swimming, high schools, and other community based organizations continue to be important. Aqua fitness, from aqua exercise to lap swimming, has enjoyed strong growth during the last ten years with the realization of the benefits of water-based exercise. Another trend that is growing more popular in the aquatics field is the development of a raised temperature therapy pool for rehabilitation programs. This has usually been done in association with local health care organizations or physical therapy clinics. The health care organization either provides capital dollars for the construction of the pool or agrees to purchase so many hours of pool time on an annual basis. This form of partnership has proven to be appealing to both the medical side and the organization that operates the facility. The health care industry sector receives the benefit of a larger aquatic center plus other amenities that are available for their use without the capital cost of building the structure. In addition, they are able to develop a much stronger community presence away from a traditional medical setting. The facility operators have a stronger marketing position through an association with the health care industry and a user group that will provide a solid and consistent revenue stream for the center. This is enhanced by the fact that most therapy uses occur during the slower mid-morning or afternoon use times in the pool and the center. The leisure pool concept of delivering aquatics services continues to grow in acceptance with the idea of providing for a variety of aquatics activities and programs in an open design setting. The placing of traditional instructional/competitive pools with shallow depth/interactive leisure pools and warm water therapy pools in the same enclosure has been well received in many markets. This idea has proven to be financially successful by centralizing pool operations for recreation services providers and through increased generation of revenues from patrons willing to pay for an aquatic experience that is new and exciting. Outdoor aquatic centers have been instrumental in developing a true family 53 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center appeal for community-based facilities. The keys to success for this type of center revolve around the concept of intergenerational use in a quality facility that has an exciting and vibrant feel in an outdoor atmosphere. Nationally, swimming is fourth only to walking and camping in popularity of sports and leisure activities, meaning that there is a significant market for aquatic activities. Almost 20% of the population in this region of the country participates in aquatic activities. The largest age group for participation in aquatic activities is in the younger age groups, with nearly 51 % of all kids 7-11 participating in swimming. More than 33% of all swimmers are under the age of 18 years, and nearly half are under the age of 25. In addition, swimming interest in older adult categories is increasing as Baby Boomers are moving through the demographic age distribution. Individuals that swim do so on a regular basis with an average of 37 days per year. This indicates thatthere is not only a large segment of the population that participates in aquatic activities, but they participate on a relatively consistent basis. Ice Activity and Facility Trends: The ice rink market nationally enjoyed substantial growth in the 1990's. In the early 1990's, USA Hockey experienced a 76% increase in registered teams and the United States Figure Skating Association (USFSA) reported a 49% increase in membership from 1990 to 1995. However, growth in hockey has leveled off since 1997, only seeing a marginal increase and in 2000 actually saw a small decrease in USA Hockey membership. This slow down in the growth rate coincides with the phenomenal growth of in line hockey. USA Hockey In-Line Executive Director estimates that over 500,000 people participate in In-Line Hockey leagues. The Director sees In- Line Hockey becoming an Olympic sport in the near future. However, it must be kept in mind that despite this huge increase, in-line hockey still does not rank in the top 50 activities. By comparison, ice hockey ranks 44th in popularity of sports with 1.8 million participants nationwide, while figure skating ranks 35st with 5.1 million participants. As a result of conversations with the local hockey association there are indications that the demand for ice time in Farmington has remained strong and consistent over the past few years. This seems to be consistent to what is occurring on a National level with youth hockey. Youth hockey is the cornerstone of the Farmington ice rink by virtue of renting or leasing the largest block of ice time. To serve the ice market, communities all around the country have been building ice rinks in record numbers. Minnesota is no exception. Ice rinks are one of the few public recreation facilities that have the ability to cover operating expenses with revenue and the majority of rinks are meeting this expectation or at least coming close. However, very few public rinks are able to recover any capital cost through generated revenues. It must be recognized that despite the popularity of ice related activities, there is still a finite market for ice and there is always a danger of over building and over saturation. This situation was witnessed during the 1970's in the Midwest, when a large number of rinks (especially private) closed in metropolitan areas when supply out-weighted the demand for ice time. The relatively high cost of programs and equipment as well as the 54 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center length of the season, time commitment, and travel requirements impact hockey participation, especially for youth. As a point of reference, listed below are a number of registered youth hockey players in Minnesota through USA Hockey. It is clear that the small growth of USA Hockey registration is driven by the emergence of females playing hockey. USA Hockey Registration Trend in Minnesota Year Males Females Total 2002/2003 36,538 8,330 44,868 2001/2002 35,457 7.790 43,247 2000/2001 35,821 7,352 43,173 1999/2000 36,169 6,951 43,120 1998/1999 36,484 6,517 43,001 USA Hockey National Registration Trend Year Males Females Total 2002/2003 356,237 45,971 402,208 2001/2002 357,764 42,242 400,006 2000/2001 356,426 39,693 396,119 1999/2000 353,909 37,028 390,937 1998/1999 344,310 34,156 378,466 Source: USA Hockey 55 Ballard*K.ing and Associates Farmin~on Community Recreation Center Recreation Activity and Facility Trends: Due to the increasing recreational demands there has been a shortage in most communities of the following spaces. Gymnasiums Pools (especially leisure pools) Ice arenas W eight/cardiovascular equipment areas Indoor running/walking tracks Meeting/multipurpose (general program) area Senior's adult area Pre-school and youth area Teen use area As a result, many communities have attempted to include these amenities in public community centers. Weight/cardiovascular space is in high demand and provides a facility with the potential to generate significant revenues (along with the leisure pool). Gyms, due to their flexibility and versatility are needed for both youth and adult activities. Ice arenas, although expensive to build and operate, have the potential to generate positive cash flow. The success of most public community centers is dependent on meeting the recreational needs of a variety of individuals. The fastest growing segment of society is the senior population and meeting the needs of this group is especially important now and will only grow more so in the coming years. Indoor walking tracks, exercise areas, pools and classroom spaces are important to this age group. Marketing to the younger more active senior is paramount, as this age group has the free time available to participate in leisure activities, the desire to remain fit, and more importantly the disposable income to pay for such services. Youth programming has always been a cornerstone for recreation services and will continue to be so with an increased emphasis on teen needs and providing a deterrent to juvenile crime. With a continuing increase in single parent households and two working parent families, the needs of school age children for before and after school activities continues to grow as does the need for preschool programming. Youth Fitness has emerged as a growing concern on a national level as the U.S. Surgeon's General singled out child obesity as a near epidemic in the United States. The obesity rate in youth is approaching 40%. Of this population, 80% will carry obesity into adulthood. Health care cost for treating obesity related decease is approaching that of the tobacco industry. The U.S. Surgeon's General lists the lack of physical activity and sedentary lifestyle as two of the contributing factors for the increasing obesity rate. To combat this trend, some communities are incorporating a youth fitness component within the recreation center designed. 56 Ballard*K.ing and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center The ever-increasing demand for programming has put a real squeeze on the number of indoor recreation facilities that are available. Recreation has historically utilized school facilities during non-school hours for its programs and services. Farmington Parks and Recreation has enjoyed a long history of sharing space with the Farmington School District. However, the limits of using school facilities (unable to have consistent use), the growth in school sports, and the expansion of Community Education Evening School curriculum has limited the programming opportunities for the Parks and Recreation Department. The lack of daytime program space and conflict with scheduling school facilities in the evening has pushed communities to build separate recreation centers or partner with schools to enlarge facilities. Even with these new centers, use of school buildings has continued to be strong and has allowed for the growth in programs and services in an effort to keep pace with demand. As more and more communities attempt to develop public community centers the issues of competition with other providers in the market area have inevitably been raised. The loudest objections have come from the private health club market and their industry voice, The International Health, Racquet and Sports Club Association (llIRSA). The private sector has vigorously contended that public facilities unfairly compete with them in the market and has spent considerable resources attempting to derail public projects. However, the reality is that in most markets where public community centers have been built, the private sector has not been adversely affected. In fact, in many cases the membership in private clubs has continued to grow. This is due in large part to the fact that public and private providers serve markedly different markets. One of the other issues of competition comes from the non-profit sector (primarily YMCA's but also JCC's, and others), where the market is much closer to that of the public providers. While not as vociferous as the private providers, the non-profits often express concerns over public community centers. What has resulted from this is a strong growth in the number of partnerships occurring between the public and non-profit sectors in an attempt to bring the best recreation amenities to a community. With diminishing or capped tax revenues, recreation departments have become much more revenue driven during the last ten years. The need for programs and services to recover at least their direct cost of operation is now more critical than ever, especially when tax proceeds are unable to keep pace with the basic operating cost increases (utilities, etc.). As important as the programs and services are, the focus is now much more on how to market and promote activities and recreation amenities to ensure a positive revenue stream. This has forced parks and recreation professionals to take a more entrepreneurial attitude in their recreation and indoor facility planning and operations. There is a movement across the country that is embracing a user pay philosophy for recreation programs and facilities. This movement clashes with the foundation of public recreation and threatens the integrity of providing recreation activities as a service provided by local government, regardless of a person's ability to pay. 57 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center As a comparison, below are listed some of the most popular traditional sports and the percentage of growth or decline that each has experienced nationally over the last ten years (1994-2003). Table M - Activity Trend Sport/Activity 1994 Participation 2003 Participation Percent Change Aerobics 24.9 29.0 +16.4% Exercise Walking 70.8 79.5 +12.2% Running/Jogging 20.6 22.9 +11.1% Exercise w/Equip. 43.8 48.6 + 1 0.9% Martial Arts 4.5 4.8 +6.6% Hockey 1.9 1.8 -5.2% Billiards 34.0 30.5 -10.2% Basketball 28.2 27.9 -16.4% Swimming 60.3 47.0 -22.0% Fishing 45.7 38.2 -26.6% Figure Skating 7.8 5.1 -34.6% Volleyball 17.4 10.4 -40.2% 1994 Participation - The number of participants per year in the activity (in millions) in the u.s. 2003 Participation - The number of participants per year in the activity (in millions) in the U.S. Percent Change - The percent change in the level of participation from 1994 to 2003. 58 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Non-Sport Participation Statistics: It is recognized that most community centers are more than just sports oriented facilities. Participation in a wide variety of passive activities and cultural pursuits is common and essential to a well-rounded center. While there is not an abundance of information available for participation in these types of activities as compared to sport activities, there are statistics that can be utilized to help determine the market for cultural arts activities and events. Beginning in 1992 and at selected intervals thereafter, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has sponsored The Survey of Public Participation in the Arts to determine the extent to which Americans participate in the arts. Information extracted from the 2002 survey, the most recent survey available, indicates the following. It should be noted that the NEA survey was conducted in twelve selected cities across the country and lacks the scientific significance of the NSGA survey. Personal Participation in the Arts Individuals who had personally performed or created works in cultural arts activities in 2002 (at least once). Jazz 1.3% 2.7 Classical Music 1.8% 3.7 Opera 0.7% 1.4 Musical Play 2.4% 4.9 Choir 4.8% 9.8 Play 1.4% 2.9 Ballet 0.3% 0.6 Other Dance 4.2% 8.6 DrawinglPainting 8.6% 17.6 Writing 7.0% 14.4 Photography 11.5% 23.5 Pottery 6.9% 14.1 Weavinglsewing 16.0% 32.7 Percent of Adults - The percentage of adults (18 years and older) in the U.S. who participated in the activity at least once during 2002. Number of Adults - The number of adults (in millions) in the U.S. who participated in the activity at least once during 2002. 59 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center These statistics indicate a strong number of individuals who participate in certain cultural arts activities. The different activity classifications are very broad and include a variety of specific events. Participation in Art Classes or Lessons Individuals who participated in art classes and lessons in 2002 (at least once). Table 0 - Art Classes Activity Music Percent of Individuals 1.4% Art 1.7% Acting 0.5% Ballet 0.1% Other Dance 0.7% Creative Writing 1.0% Art Appreciation 1.0% Music Appreciation 0.6% Percent of Individuals - The percentage of individuals (of any age) in the U.S. who took lessons in the activity at least once during 1997. This table indicates the percentage of people who took lessons in a variety of activities during 2002 and where lessons were taken. While the statistics in both Table N and 0 indicate strong interest for participation in cultural arts activities, a direct comparison between these numbers and the sports activities listed previously is difficult. The sports statistics are based on individuals who participated more than once in the activity while the cultural figures include one time participation numbers. 60 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center In an attempt to develop a more direct comparison between the rates of participation in various leisure activities, the NEA survey ranked the following activities. Table P - Rate of Participation in Leisure Activities in 2002 Activity Percentage Went to Movies 60.0% Exercised 55.1% Gardening 47.3% Arts Activity 39.0% Home Improvements 42.4% Theme Park 41.7% Attended Sports Event 35.0% Played Sports 30.3% Camped/HikedlCanoed 30.9% In relationship to sports participation and other leisure activities, participation in cultural arts is very high. One element not included in this table that does impact leisure activities is watching television. The Survey of Public Participation in the Arts conducted in 2002 reports that adults spend an average of 2.9 hours per day watching television. Chart E 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% <= ,c - ...... I- ,c. <= l---- l- I- - ~ - :--- l- I- - I- - I-- r- - L l- I- - I- - - r- - rl - I 0 Percentage I Q) (I) Q) (I) ~ Q) 't (I) 't E c...S!:! Q) E ~ 0 o <oE> 'EQ)Q..c.. ~ :::c-o co~ en ~ :!: C>~ w "'C"'C Q)~c.. c.. Q) '^ E:: W co< U 61 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Communitv Recreation Center Section V - Public Input Summary Stakeholder Meetings: During the fall of 2004 stakeholder meetings were conducted with a large number of special interest groups (recreation, social service, etc.). Over 20 of these stakeholders meetings were conducted with the following summarizing the findings. . Most special interest group participants indicated that their indoor recreation needs were not being met by the existing providers in the area. . Potential user groups were asked if they were willing to pay for the use of a new community center facility. The majority of the representatives have an expectation that users fees would have to be assessed and that a portion of the operating cost should be covered with tax dollars. . Specific recreation amenities that were mentioned as being desired in a community center included: Gymnasium Weight and cardio area Dance/fitness area Community/multi-purpose rooms with kitchen facilities Pool (both competitive and leisure) Another ice skating rink Youth/teen area Child care (drop-in) Multipurpose meeting room with banquet capabilitieslkitchen Adjacency to outdoor park amenities . There was strong support from the respondents for having a new community facility in Farmington. . The Farmington School District does its best to accommodate the indoor facility needs in the community but the demand for space has eclipsed the inventory of space available. . There was strong support from the respondents for having more outdoor field space. Specifically more trails and soccer, baseball and softball fields. It should be remembered that the results of the special interest groups must be taken in context with the fact that these groups have a vested interest in a community center. Their responses should be evaluated with this in mind. 62 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Section VI - Alternative Service Providers Service Area Competition: There are only a small number of indoor recreation service providers in the Farmington area that are currently providing indoor recreation and sports activities. It is likely that the existing private providers may have a concern over the possibility that a new Farmington recreation facility would adversely impact their market and they may very well oppose the project as a result. However, private fitness and sports centers typically serve very different clientele and usually do not compete head to head for the same users. It is conservatively estimated that well over 50% of the users of a public facility will have never been to a private facility and would have no interest in joining such a center. After analyzing the other indoor recreation providers, there is a large and generally untapped market for a community center in Farmington. Alternative Recreation Service Providers: Below is a list and brief observation of the alternate recreation service providers (facilities) that are in the general market area. Olympia - Relatively small exercise facility with limited equipment offering. No aerobic/dance studio, locker rooms or babysitting area. The club is located on the second floor and does not meet ADA access standards. The club is structured as a self service center that members access with a code. No staff members supervising facility or providing customer service. Olympia will feel the impact of a community recreation center with a drop in membership. Lifetime Fitness - A regional chain of clubs that offers full service fitness centers focused on the adult market. Lifetime Fitness has an extensive offering of cardiovascular equipment, free weights, weight machines, swimming pool, aerobic rooms, fitness classes, gymnasium and supplemental services (tanning, message' therapy, personal trainers and babysitting) to enhance customer service. Generally speaking, Lifetime Fitness is on the upper end of the pricing structure for fitness centers. There are members of Lifetime Fitness from Farmington but they should not be considered a direct competitor. The impact on Lifetime Fitness membership from a community center in Farmington will be minuscule. Northwest Athletic Club - Another regional chain with numerous health clubs throughout the greater Twin Cities area. Northwest Athletic Clubs, like Lifetime Fitness, offers cardiovascular equipment, free weights, weight machines, swimming pool, aerobic rooms, gymnasium and supplemental services (tanning, message therapy, personal trainers and babysitting) to enhance customer service. Northwest Athletic Club is also on the high end of the pricing spectrum for fitness centers. There are members of Northwest Athletic Club from Farmington but they should not be considered a direct competitor. The impact on Northwest Athletic Club membership from a community center in Farmington will be minuscule. 63 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Lakeville Arts Center - A performing arts center offering a venue for community theatre and community art classes. The facility has a 300-seat theatre that has retractable seating to provide flexibility for other activities and events. The facility also has wet classroom space, kitchen facility and dressing room space. This facility, by virtue of providing for cultural and performing arts opportunities and programming is meeting some of the performing and arts needs in Farmington. Curves for Women - A national chain that has a number of operations in the Farmington secondary service area. Curves for Women generally operate in small store front or strip mall locations. Their fitness centers are focused on circuit training that combines cardiovascular exercise with weight machines. Curves for Women prides itself on being able to complete a fitness circuit in about 30 minutes. Impact in membership for Curves will not be adversely affected by a community center in Farmington. Dance Center - Store front dance center located in a strip mall in Farmington. The Dance Center provides a wide variety of dance programs. The Dance Center will not be negatively impacted by a community center. In fact, there are partnering opportunities that could enhance participation at the Dance Center while providing entry level exposure to dance in a community center. Lakeville Ice Arena - The City of Lakeville has a two sheet ice complex near Lakeville High School. The ice arena primarily serve the hockey needs for the Lakeville Youth Hockey Association and Lakeville High School. There is talk about a private developer building a four-sheet ice complex in Lakeville. A four sheet ice complex will fragment the existing ice market for the ice rinks in the general area. Egan Community Center - A full service community recreation center that has an indoor leisure pool, gymnasium, indoor play structure, multipurpose meeting room space with catering kitchen, babysitting services, aerobic room, cardiovascular equipment area, weight equipment area and track. Egan is the nearest community to Farmington with a full service community center. Cascade Bay- A large outdoor aquatic park in Egan. Cascade Bay has been successful for the City of Egan attracting visitors from a large section of the metro area. As a result, Cascade Bay has been a financially successful for the City of Egan. There are many people from Farmington that travel to Egan for admission to Cascade Bay. This is a representative listing of alternative recreation facilities in the area and is not meant to be a total accounting of all service providers. There maybe other facilities located outside of the greater service area that have an impact on the Farmington market as well. 64 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Conclusion: Weekly participation in active recreation activities from full-time residents within the primary service area can be expected to be somewhere in the range of 15% to 20% of the population which equals approximately 2,200 to 3,000 individuals, (based on 2004 population estimates for the primary service area). This is a sufficient population base to rely on for the operation of a full-scale community center. It is anticipated that well over 40% of the residents of the Farmington primary service area would visit a center at least once during the course of a year. The success of similar facilities in other areas of the state indicates that these types of recreation centers have been cost effective in meeting local recreation needs. One key to the operational success of the center will depend on its ability to draw a significant percentage of visitors from the secondary service area. It also must be kept in mind, that due to the fact that there is some competition for other facilities in the area and other forms of recreation and entertainment, the rate of participation at the center may vary. Population growth in the service area is proj ected by ESRI to increase by approximately 15% over the next five years, which will contribute additional participation numbers. Household income and median age are two of the prime determiners in recreation activity participation and the Farmington primary service area has a very favorable market condition for the development of a community center. Ballard*King and Associates 65 Farmington Community Recreation Center Section VII - Market Share Analyzing the demographic information, NSGA participation levels and market potential, review of existing Farmington Parks and Recreation facilities and program, alternative service providers and stakeholder allows for the following assessment of market share for designated activities. The market share projections take into account the alternative service providers. Market Share: Participation in various activities from residents within the primary service area is listed below for many of the activities that take place in an indoor recreation center. The tables below identify the frequency of user and helps in determining a realistic market share for the proposed community center in Farmington. Rate 6.8% 199 55.2% 1,613 38.0% 1,110 100% 2,922 Farmington Market Share 119 1,129 832 2,080 Farmington Market Share: Percent of swimmers by category Number of swimmers by category . Percent of market penetration based on alternative service providers in the primary service area Estimated numbers of participants for Farmington Participation Rate: Swimmers Market Share: Table R - Prima Service Area Exercise with E ui ment Market Share Participation Exer. w/ Market Farmington Rate Equipment Share % Market Share Frequent-110 + visits/year Occasional-25-109 visits/year Infrequent - 6-24 visits/year Total 27.1% 901 40% 360 50.9% 1,691 50% 846 22.0% 731 75% 548 100% 3,323 1,754 Farmington Market Share: Percent of exercise with equipment participants by category Number of exercise w/equipment participants by category Percent of market penetration based on alternative service providers in the primary service area Estimated numbers of participants for Farmington Participation Rate: Exercise w/equip. Market Share: 66 Ballard*King and Associates Farmin~on Community Recreation Center Table S - Prima Service Area Exercise Walkin Market Share Participation Exercise Market Frequent-ll0 + visits/year Occasional-25-109 visits/year Infrequent - 6-24 visits/year Total Participation Rate: Exercise Walkers Market Share: Farmington Market Share: Rate Walking Share % 33.9% 1,695 20% 41.0% 2,050 20% 25.1% 1,255 35% 100% 5,000 Farmington Market Share 339 410 439 1,188 Percent of exercise walkers by category Number of exercise walking participants by category Percent of market penetration based on alternative service providers in the primary service area Estimated numbers of participants for Farmington Table T - Primary Service Area Aerobic Market Share Participation Aerobics Rate Frequent-110 + visits/year Occasional-25-109 visits/year Infrequent - 6-24 visits/year Total Market Farmington Share % Market Share 27.3% 50.9% 21.8% 100% 559 1,042 446 2,047 25% 30% 40% 140 313 178 631 Participation Rate: Aerobics Market Share: Farmington Market Share: Percent of aerobic participants by category Number of aerobic participants by category Percent of market penetration based on alternative service providers in the primary service area Estimated numbers of participants for Farmington Ballard * King and Associates 67 Farmington Communitv Recreation Center Table U - Prima Service Area Wei ht Liftin Market Share Participation Weight Market Rate Lifting Share % Frequent-110 + visits/year Occasional-25-109 visits/year Infrequent - 6-24 visits/year Total Participation Rate: Weight Lifting Market Share: Farmington Market Share: Farmington Market Share 33.4% 48.4% 18.2% 100% 629 912 343 1,884 30% 30% 45% 188 274 154 616 Percent of weight lifters by category Number of weight lifting participants by category Percent of market penetration based on alternative service providers in the primary service area Estimated numbers of participants for Farmington 25.0% 48.7% 26.3% 100% in Market Share Running Market Farmington Jogging Share % Market Share 430 20% 86 838 25% 210 453 35% 159 1,721 455 Table V - Prima Service Area Runnin Jo Participation Rate Frequent-110 + visits/year Occasional-25-109 visits/year Infrequent - 6-24 visits/year Total Participation Rate: Running/jogging Market Share: Farmington Share: Percent of running/jogging participants by category Number of running/jogging participants by category Percent of market penetration based on alternative service providers in the primary service area Estimated numbers of participants for Farmington Ballard*King and Associates 68 Farmington Community Recreation Center Table W - Primary Service Area Basketball Players Market Share Participation Basketball Market Frequent-110 + visits/year Occasional-25-109 visits/year Infrequent - 6-24 visits/year Total Rate Share % 23.7% 411 40% 53.3% 925 40% 23.0% 399 65% 100% 1,735 Farmington Market Share 164 370 259 793 Participation Rate: Basketball Market Share: Farmington Market Share: Percent of basketball players by category Number of basketball players by category Percent of market penetration based on alternative service providers in the primary service area Estimated numbers of participants for Farmington Table X - Prima Service Area Volle ball PIa ers Market Share Participation Volleyball Market Frequent-ll0 + visits/year Occasional-25-109 visits/year Infrequent - 6-24 visits/year Total Participation Rate: . Volleyball Market Share: Farmington Market Share: Rate Share % 30.2% 233 60% 48.6% 375 60% 21.2% 163 40% 100% 771 Farmington Market Share 140 225 65 430 Percent of volleyball players by category Number of volleyball player by category Percent of market penetration based on alternative service providers in the primary service area Estimated numbers of participants for Farmington. Ballard*King and Associates 69 Farmington Community Recreation Center Summary Table of Market Share by Activity Table Y - Market Share Summary Activity Farmington Market Share Swimming 2.080 Exercise with Equipment 1,754 Exercise Walking 1.188 Aerobics 631 Weight Lifting 616 Running/Jogging 455 Basketball 793 Volleyball 430 70 Ballard*King and Associates Farmin~on Community Recreation Center Section VIII - Pro2ram Assessment The following section details specific recommendations for the proposed Farmington Community Center. Remarks are grouped by area of interest and components. When combining the results of the demographic analysis, survey results, stakeholder/focus group information and alternative service providers, the following preliminary program has been developed. Community Center Aquatics: Without doubt, the hottest trend in aquatics is the leisure pool concept. This idea of incorporating slides, current channels, fountains, zero depth entry and other water features into a pool's design has proved to be extremely popular for the recreational user. Leisure pools appeal to the younger children (who are the largest segment of the population that swim) and to families. Creating a theme for the indoor leisure pool is important for enhancing the swimming experience and creating a unique marketing opportunity. For example, the City of Eagan has done an outstanding job of packaging and marketing Cascade Bay. These types of facilities are able to attract and draw larger crowds and people tend to come from a further distance and stay longer to utilize such pools. This all translates into the potential to sell more admissions and increase revenues. It is estimated conservatively that a leisure pool can generate up to 25% to 30% more revenue than a comparable conventional pool and the cost of operation, while being higher, may be offset through increased revenues. Of note is the fact that patrons seem willing to pay a higher user fee for a leisure pool than a conventional aquatic facility. The Farmington High School is meeting most of the competitive swimming needs of the community at this time. The competitive aquatic needs in the community, while being relatively small, requires sufficient space to accommodate eight, 25-yard lanes with enough deck space to allow for staging during swim meets. Elevated seating for 300-400 spectators is also needed for hosting swim meets for spectators. Ideally, the competitive pool area should be separate from the leisure pool to allow for swim meets and practices to take place simultaneously with leisure pool activities and programs. Most competitive swimming pools require a significant subsidy to offset operating cost. The limited use and fee elasticity competitive swimmers are willing to pay are obstacles in recovering a greater percentage of operating cost through revenues. The survey results indicated very little support for competitive swimming. Factoring in the survey results, availability of the Farmington High School pool and economic factors, the consulting team does not recommend including a competitive pool in the initial phase of the proposed community center. The competitive pool could be added at a later date when the market conditions merit another competitive pool in the community. 71 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Gymnasium: One of the most frequently heard comments during the stakeholder meetings was the need for gymnasium space. Farmington High School reported that the demand and request for gym space by local sport associations exceeds what the High Schools can accommodate. As a result, a double gymnasium space with a separate auxiliary gym space that can be used for a multitude of activities is recommended. The auxiliary gym space should be a separate enclosed space with a playing surface to accommodate a variety of programs including indoor soccer, in-line hockey, baseball batting cages, basketball and volleyball. This space can also be used as trade show/convention space. Fitness: Indoor fitness ranked as one of the top activities people indicated they were most likely to participate in from the survey. The fitness needs of the community are underserved by the existing service providers in Farmington. Statistically, exercise walking, exercise with equipment and aerobic exercise all rank in the top eleven activities/sports most popular in the U.S, according to the National Sporting Goods Association statistics. Exercise and fitness is one of the components that will drive membership, daily admission and participation. As a result, the fitness component has become the cornerstone for many community centers by virtue of generating revenue and participation. In addition, fitness activities appeal to a wide range of ages to help combat obesity along with improving the quality of one's life. Obesity is becoming an epidemic in the United States, especially for youth. Youth fitness is one component that can help address this issue locally and will differentiate the proposed community center from other facilities. However, fitness also is the one component that will create the greatest opposition from the private sector and YMCA. The private sector will claim unfair competition but the reality is that the private sector caters to a different market niche than a public community center and the private sector wants to eliminate competition. The private sector realizes the importance of the fitness market and tries to promote themselves as public service providers. The fee structure programming and operating practices employed by the private sector is significantly different than a public community center. As a result, there is enough market and difference in the operating philosophy and practices for the private sector and public facility to operate in the same service area. The fitness component of the proposed community center must focus on youth fitness, sports specific training and medical based programs, health initiatives and heart disease prevention to ease some of the concerns that the private sector will have. An area within the fitness component that can accommodate health screenings and testing along with message therapy and treatment area will supplement the fitness programs and use. The fitness component of the proposed community center will generate the most revenue per square foot within the facility and consequently should not be undersized or underemphasized. Ice SkatingIHockey: The ice skating needs of the community, while being significant, do not appear to be large enough to support the operation of a second sheet of ice. The Farmington Youth Hockey Association indicated that they need another 27 hours of ice time on a weekly basis. Farmington High School indicated that their needs for high school hockey are being met. The unmet ice time demand is not large enough to justify 72 Ballard * King and Associates Farmington Communitv Recreation Center adding a second ice slab at this point. From an economic perspective, 27 hours of ice rentals per week is not enough use to cover a significant portion of operating costs. As with the competitive swimming, a second sheet of ice can be added when the population and market conditions exist to financially support another rink. Indoor Walking/Jogging Track: Walking is rated as the top activities according to the NSGA and represents 5000 people in the primary service area. Consequently, a track around the perimeter of the gymnasium and through other program spaces in the facility will meet the needs of several diverse groups of users. The multi-lane track allows runners, joggers and walkers to all use the track simultaneously. Multi-Purpose Room/Classroom Area: A sufficient amount of square footage is needed for meetings and multi-purpose space. Input from the stakeholder meetings identified the need for these spaces. Historically, meeting room space does not generate enough revenue to be a self-supporting component. However, these spaces are valuable as support spaces and the multi-use flexibility enables the facility to meet a wide variety of program needs. The classrooms are needed to meet a wide range for programs that have a multi-generational appeal and help meet the non-sport needs of the community. Indoor Playground/Birthday Party Room/Game RoomIRock Climbing Area: A major focus on the programming of the building centers around youth. These spaces are designed to attract young people to the proposed community center and provide the spaces that differentiate the Farmington facility from other service providers. The indoor themed playground introduces a relatively new concept for indoor recreation by providing a themed playground with a "tree house/play house" feel. The Farmington facility, by virtue of the facility components and attractions, will generate a tremendous interest for birthday parties. To meet this anticipated market for birthday parties two specially designed rooms to accommodate birthday parties are needed. The game room provides an area for young people and teenagers to gather to enjoy games and socializing in a controlled area. The rock climbing area provides a unique challenge that exercises both the mind and body. In addition to the aquatic area, the features of this component will provide the "wow" factor that will attract young people to the proposed community center. The proposed Farmington Community Center should have a "family" orientation and meet the broad based leisure and health needs of the community. Multi-use, flexibility of space and versatility of operation are important and the facility should not be seen as just a sports center. The focus of the center's diverse market segments and activities should be a function of time rather that space. Intergenerational use must be emphasized and the center needs to truly have something for everyone. The ability to deal with the delicate balance between programming and drop-in needs will determine how accessible the facility will be perceived. Programs (leagues and classes) clash with drop-in users and can become very disruptive to drop-in users and care must be given to manage the balance between drop-in activities and programming needs. 73 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Pro2:ram Recommendations Based on the recommendations in the previous section, and the goal of making the facility as self-sustaining as possible, the following is the proposed program for the facility. The focus of the project is on meeting the recreational and sport needs of the Farmington area. Aquatic Area - A space that is approximately 14,000 sq ft. The indoor leisure pool includes a zero depth entry, current channel, vortex pool, SCS interactive play structure, water slide, bubble bench and assorted sprays and fountains. The aquatic area is supported by a hot tub and separate teaching/therapy pool that can accommodate lap swimmers and swim lessons. The aquatic area should be designed around a specific theme. Gymnasium - A space that is approximately 12,000 sq. ft. and divisible into two gym areas (each with a 50' by 84" basketball court) by a drop curtain. The main gymnasium space should be set up for a variety of activities including youth and adult basketball and youth/adult volleyball and convention/trade show space. Portable seating should be included (tip and roll type bleachers). Indoor Turf Area - A space of approximately 5,000 sq. ft. that has a multi-purpose surface to accommodate a variety of programs including indoor soccer, indoor golf and baseball batting cages. The indoor turf area should be self-contained to control balls from leaving the area. Running/Jogging Track - A ten-foot wide track that surrounds the perimeter of the gym area that can be used for walking or jogging. The track is approximately 6,000 sq. ft. Weight/Cardiovascular Area - An area of at least 7,000 sq. ft. that includes free weights, selectorized machines and cardiovascular equipment for youth fitness, sport specific training and rehab/exercise. Multi-Purpose Room - A space of about 3,500 sq. ft. that can be divided into smaller rooms for multiple program functions. This space would be used for community rentals as well. A small catering kitchen for food service with direct access to the meeting room is desirable. Also a small sink for cleanup and storage cabinet for program supplies is required. Birthday Party Rooms - Two rooms of approximately 500 SF each that is immediately adjacent to the leisure swimming pool and indoor play area. These rooms will be used to host birthday parties and serve as a messy arts class room. Senior Lounge - A room of approximately 1000 SF dedicated to senior programs, activities, meetings and social gatherings. This space should be flexible to meet the various needs of the seniors and be designed to replace some of the existing space at the Senior Center located downtown. 74 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Aerobic/Dance Area - An area approximately 1,500 SF that features a mirrored wall, dance bars mounted on the wall, free-floating impact floor, sound system, storage area and storage cubbies. This space would be used for aerobics, dance, pilates, and martial arts programs. A smaller auxiliary fitness room of approximately 750 SF is recommended to accommodate spinning classes, yoga and smaller classes not requiring the size of the main aerobic room. This room should also have a free-floating wood floor and adjustable lighting to adjust/modify the environment for yoga and relaxation classes. Indoor Playground/Club House - A themed area designed for children 1-10 featuring a fun land with creative and interactive play equipment including a complex matrix of tubes, spiral slides, climbing apparatus, interactive music, hollow logs, and multi-level play structure designed around a tree house theme. This space, approximately 2,500 square feet, should recreate a giant tree house feel. Rock Climbing Area - An area of approximately 750 SF for rock climbing activity. This space can be designed into the lobby or circulation space of the building and does not require dedicated space. Babysitting Area: This space requires about 1,000 SF with a separate quite room and activity room that includes an area for the children to play games and toys. The babysitting area should be adjacent to outdoor space and have direct access to the indoor playground. Ideally the babysitting area is located near the lobby of the building with good visibility from the front desk or administrative area. Game Room - An area of about 750 SF that creates a game room with pool table, air hockey, ping-pong, foosball and limited video games. This space has multigenerational appeal as seniors may use equipment during the day and youth/families use the equipment in the evening. Support Spaces - There must be sufficient space and resources allocated for the following: Lobby/lounge space Front desk area Resource area Restrooms/Locker Rooms Concession and vending Office space Storage Mechanical systems 75 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Preliminary Program Summary. Based on the program assessment the following program summary is possible for the proposed Farmington Community Center. Component Base Facility Sq. Ft. Aquatic Area 14,000 Gymnasium 12,000 Indoor Turf Area 5,000 Track 6,000 WeightJCardio 7,500 Aerobic/Dance 1,500 Auxiliary Fitness Area 750 Multipurpose Room 3,500 Youth Fitness 1,500 Indoor Play Ground 2,500 Birthday Party Rooms 1,000 Babysitting Area 1,000 Senior Lounge 1,000 Rock Climbing 750 Game Room 750 Support Spaces 10,000 Net Building 68,750 Circulation (18%) 12,375 Total Building 81 , 125 Proj ect .Cost Estimates Total Building Construction Cost $200.00/SF $16,225,000 $ 4,867,500 Soft Cost (A&E Fees, FF&E, 30% of construction Contingency, Development Fees) Total Estimated Project Cost $21,092,500 Note: This is a preliminary facility program only and is pending approval of the steering committee and City of Farmington. The square footage, circulation percentage and estimated project costs need to be validated by an architectural firm. 76 Ballard*King and Associates Farmin~on Community Recreation Center Section IX - Operations Analysis The operations analysis represents a conservative approach to estimating expenses and revenues and was completed based on the best information available and a basic understanding of the project. Fees and charges utilized for this study were based on market driven rates charged by other recreation facilities in the area and are subject to review, change, and approval by the City of Farmington. There is no guarantee that the expense and revenue projections outlined in the operations analysis will be met as there are many variables that affect such estimates that either cannot be accurately measured or are subject to change during the actual budgetary process. The revenue and expense projections are based on a 2005 bench mark and do provide an allowance for future operating costs and fees beyond 2006. Expenditures Expenditures have been formulated on the costs of operating a stand alone facility (without partnerships) including line items that were designated by the consultant. The figures are based on the size of the center, the specific components of the facility, the hours of operation and local models that have similar components. All expenses were calculated to the high side and the actual cost may be less based on the final design, operational philosophy, and programming considerations adopted by staff. Base Facility - A community center with a community meeting room, gymnasium, auxiliary turf gym, aerobics/dance room, weight/cardiovascular area, youth fitness area, track, leisure pool with water slide, spray features and lap lanes, senior lounge, concessions, babysitting area, birthday party rooms and administrative offices. Approximately 82,300 square feet. Operation Cost Model: Cate20rv Base Facility Personnel Full-time3 $ 423,400 Part-time4 $ 695,085 Total $1,118,485 3 Detail breakdown by position is listed on page 71. 4 Detail summary by position is listed on page 72. 77 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Communitv Recreation Center Operation Cost Model cont. Cates:wrv Base Facility Contractual Utilities5 $283,937 (gas & elect) Water/sewer $ 24,000 Communications $ 7,500 Contract services6 $ 15,000 Custodian Contract 7 $ 97,350 Training/Conference $ 7,500 Rental equipment $ 2,500 Advertising $ 20,000 Bank charges8 $ 6,500 Printing $ 5,000 Postage $ 2,000 Trash Removal $ 2,600 Insurance9 $ 26,000 Others $ 1,500 Total $501,387 5 Rate factored at $3.50 per square foot 6 Contract services include pool systems, HV AC, exercise equipment, elevator, fIre alarm system, tech support, music, offIce equipment and copy machine. 7 Based on $1.20/sf of building 8 Bank charges for processing electronic fund transfer and credit card processing fees. 9 Estimated insurance cost for property and liability coverage. Actual cost may vary based on loss history and risk factors of the City of Farrnington. 78 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Operation Cost Model cont. Cates!Orv Base Facility Commodities Office Supplies $ 12,500 Pro-Shop $ 3,500 Janitorial supplies $ 8,500 Food Service $ 45,000 Chemicals $ 25,000 Rec. program supplies $ 20,000 First aid supplies $ 1,200 Uniforms $ 6,000 Maintlrepair materials $ 15,000 Subscriptions/Pub. $ 1,000 Misc. $ 1,500 Total $139,200 Cate2:orv Base Facility Capital Replacement fund 1 0 $15,000 Total $15,000 Grand Total $1,774,072 10 Capital needs will be minimal during the fIrst year of operation since most equipment and operating systems will be under warranty. It is strongly recommended that a sinking fund be established with a goal to build adequate reserves that meet future capital needs. American Public Works recommends planning for 2%-4% of construction cost for capital and maintenance needs. Since maintenance costs have been factored into this pro-forma, a target for building the sinking fund to a level of $50,000 is desirable. 79 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Staffing levels: The staffing plan developed by the consultant reflects the following. Positions Full-Time Facility Director Base Facility $ 60,000 Recreation Specialist -Aquatics $ 52,000 Customer Service Rep. $ 30,000 Maintenance Worker (2) $ 80,000 Building Coordinator (2) $ 70,000 Salaries $292,000 Benefits (45% of salaries) $131,400 Total Full-Time Personnel $423,400 FTE (full-time equiva1ent)1l 11 Note: Pay rates were estimated based on the regional market area wage scale. The positions listed are necessary to ensure adequate staffing and provide for a full-time staff member presence during all open hours of the facility. Maintenance and custodial staffing numbers are for personnel associated with the upkeep and operation of the community center. The wage scales for both the full-time and part-time staff positions reflect mid- range salaries to estimated entry level wages for 2007. 11 This is the staffing level that is recommended to open the proposed facility. Adding full-time positions may be necessary based on market demands, scheduling, volume of business and sustaining quality service. 80 Ballard * King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Positions Part- Time12 Front desk ($8.50/hr) Lifeguard (40 weeks)13 ($9.00/hr) Lifeguard (12 weeks) ($9.00/hr) Head guard (40 weeks) ($ 12.25/hr) Head guard (12 weeks) ($ 12.25/hr) Fitness attendant ($8.00/hr) Concession (40 weeks) ($7.00/hr) Concession (12 weeks) ($7.00/hr) Baby-sitter ($7. 5 O/hr) Birthday Party Host ($7. 5 O/hr) Office Aid ($9.00/hr) Building attendant! custodian ($ 1 0.50/hr) Program Instructors 14 Aquatics Fitness General Sports Hours/Wk Base Facility 272 hrs/wk $120,224 399 hrs/wk $143,640 492 hrs/wk $ 53,136 36 hrs/wk $ 17,640 58 hrs/wk $ 8,526 53 hrs/wk $ 22,048 84 hrs/wk $ 23,520 159 hrs/wk $ 13,356 100 hrs/wk $ 39,000 22 hrs/wk $ 8,580 21 hrs/wk $ 9,828 35 hrs/wk $ 19,110 Salaries $ 52,650 $ 48,960 $ 24,192 $ 41,280 $645,690 Total Part-Time Salaries $ 49,395 $695,085 Benefits (7.65% of part-time wages) 12 Detail schedule by position can be found beginning on page 80. 13 It may be necessary to covert some part-time salaries towards full-time positions to assure adequate lifeguard coverage during early morning (Mon-Fri.) shifts. 14 Program instructors are paid at several different pay rates and some are also paid per class or in other ways. A detailed breakdown of instructors by position can be found beginning on page 83. 81 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Revenues The following revenue projections were formulated from information derived from the community survey, the specifics of the project and the demographics of the service area as well as comparing them to national statistics, other similar facilities and the competition for recreation services in the area. Actual figures will vary based on the size and make up of the components selected during final design, market stratification, philosophy of operation, fees and charges policy, and priority of use. All revenues were calculated conservatively as a result. Revenue Projection Model: Positions Base Facility Fees15 Daily Admissions $ 231,300 Annual Passes $ 533,575 Rentals $ 94,320 Total $ 859,195 Programs 16 Fitness $ 95,616 Aquatics $ 93,630 General $ 75,616 Sports $ 61,840 Total $ 326,702 15 Detail breakdown on fees can be found on page 86. 16 Detailed breakdown on programs can be found on page 87. 82 Ballard*King and Associates Revenue Projection Model cont. Positions Base Facility Other Pro-shop $ 6,000 Lock-ins $ 3,750 Concession $165,000 Vending $ 12,500 Game Room $ 5,000 Baby sitting $ 16,380 Friday Night Live $ 24,500 Advertising $ 5,000 Birthday Parties $ 37,500 Total $275,630 Revenue Grand Total $1,461,527 Farmington Community Recreation Center Ballard*King and Associates 83 Farmington Communitv Recreation Center Expenditure - Revenue Comparison Expenditures Revenue Difference Recovery % 82% This operational proforma was completed based on the best information available and a basic understanding of the project. However, there is no guarantee that the expense and revenue projections outlined above will be met as there are many variables that affect such estimates that either can not be accurately measured or are not consistent in their influence on the budgetary process. Ballard*K.ing and Associates strongly recommends that the operations proforma be updated and revised when the project moves forward into the construction phase. Future years: Expenditures - Revenue Comparison: Operation expenditures are expected to increase by approximately 3% a year through the first 3 to 5 years of operation. Revenue growth is expected to increase by 5% to 10% a year through the first three years and then level off with only a slight growth (3% or less) the next two years. Expenses for the first year of operation should be slightly lower than projected with the facility being under warranty and new. Revenue growth in the first three years is attributed to increased market penetration and in the remaining years to continued population growth. In most community centers the first three years show tremendous growth from increasing the market share of patrons who use such facilities, but at the end of this time period revenue growth begins to flatten out. Additional revenue growth is then spurred through increases in the population within the market area, a specific marketing plan to develop alternative markets, the addition of new amenities or by increasing user fees. The estimated five-year expense and revenue comparison for all three options are illustrated in the tables below. Five-Year Revenue-Expense Comparison Years Expense Revenue Difference Cost Recovery Base $1,774,072 $1,461,527 ($312,545) 82% Year 2 $1,821,114 $1,534,603 ($286,511 ) 84% Year 3 $1,875,747 $1,603,660 ($272,087) 85% Year 4 $1,932,019 $1,667,806 ($264,213) 86% Year 5 $1,989,980 $1,726,180 ($263,800) 86% 84 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Benchmark Comparison with Other Facilities - The table below is a comparison of revenue and expenses summary from some of the metro area, city operated recreation centers for illustrative purposes only. Direct comparison is difficult because of the different accounting methods, philosophy of operation, population, facility components and market conditions. Facility Comparison Facility Operating Operating Difference Recovery% Cost Revenue Inver Groves Heights $3,591,500 $2,036,200 ($1,555,300) 57% Maplewood $1,838,860 $1,774,800 ($64,060) 96% Shoreview $1,905,022 $1,758,500 ($146,522) 92% Egan $1,146,100 $849,910 ($296,190) 74% Farmington $1,774,073 $1,461,527 ($312,545) 82% Hours of Operation: The projected hours of operation of the community center are as follows: Monday - Friday Saturday Sunday 5:30am to 9:30pm. 6:00am to 9:00pm. Noon to 8:00pm. Hours per week: 103. Hours usually vary some with the season (longer hours in the winter, shorter during the summer), by programming needs, use patterns and special events. 85 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Fees and Attendance Projected Fee Schedule: The fee schedule has been formulated from information gathered during the market analysis review and community survey results. Revenue projections were calculated from the fee model below. The monthly rate listed is the cost of an annual pass broken down into twelve equal payments and does not include any handling fees. It should be noted that monthly bank draft convenience for customers would encourage more annual pass sales. However, there are bank fees and a substantial amount of staff time spent managing the bank draft membership base and consideration should be given to pass on some form of a handling fee for bank draft customers. Category Daily Annual Monthly Adult $ 6.00 $ 375 $ 31.25 Adult Discount $ 5.00 $ 300 $ 25.00 Youth $ 4.00 $ 220 $ 18.33 Youth Discount $ 3.00 $ 175 $ 14.58 Senior $ 4.50 $ 315 $ 26.25 Senior Discount $ 3.50 $ 250 $ 20.83 Senior Plus NA $ 560 $ 46.66 Senior Plus Discount NA $ 450 $ 37.50 Family NA $ 720 $ 60.00 Family Discount NA $ 575 $ 47.91 Single Family NA $ 600 $ 50.00 Single Family Discount NA $ 475 $ 39.58 The fee schedule above was developed as the criteria for estimating revenues. Actual fees are subject to review and approval by The City of Farmington. 86 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Admission Rate Comparison: The above rates were determined, in part, based on the competition in the area (public and private). The rates paid for other recreational activities in the area and the current recreation fee schedule were also considered when establishing these rates. For comparison, the rates for some of the other service providers in the area are listed below. Rate Comparison Table Facility Adult Pass Family Pass Adult Daily Youth Daily ReslNon ResIN on ResIN on ReslNon Olympic Fitness Center NA NA NA Chaska Comm. Center $275/340 $440/550 $5/6 $3/4 Egan Comm. Center $305/480 $440/685 $4/6 $3/6 Inver Grove Heights CC $296/445 $524/741 $6/9 $4/6 Eden Prairie Comm Center $225/305 $390/525 $4/6 $3/5 Maple Grove Comm Center $200/330 $300/500 $4/7 $3/4 Maplewood Comm Center $350/450 $500/600 $7/9 $5/7 Shoreview Comm. Center $290/385 $495/650 $6/7.50 $5/6.50 Dakota Sports & Fitness $515/516 $1,068/1 ,068 NA NA Ripped Gym $380/380 $620/620 $7/7 $4.50/4.50 Gold's Gym $527/527 NA NA NA Lifetime Fitness $575/575 NA NA NA Northwest Athletic Club $948/948 $1,548/1548 NA NA Curves for Women $360/360 NA NA NA Farmington $300/375 $575/720 $5/6 $3/4 87 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Attendance projections: The following attendance projections are based on the participation estimates worksheet from page 19 below. The admission numbers are affected by the rates being charged, the facilities available for use, and the competition within the service area. The figures are also based on the performance of other similar facilities in the area. These are averages only and the yearly figures are based on 360 days of operation. Yearly Daid admissions Facility Bud2et Daily (155 daily admission) 55,800 Annuals (1,150 sold annually) 119,600 Total Yearly 175,400 Total Daily 487 Admissions for pass holders were figured based on 104 visits per year for the Recreation Center. Family admissions were counted as only one admission. Note: Attendance for other events, programs, and spectator functions is difficult to predict but a best guess estimate is approximately 2.5 times the number of paid admissions. Recreation centers are traditionally the busiest from November to March and Mid-June to Mid-August and are slow from April to early June and again from mid- August to the end of October. Weekdays between the hours of 5pm and 8pm are the busiest times of the week, and weekends are also very busy during the winter months. In contrast, mid-morning and early afternoons on weekdays are usually slow as well as weekends during the summer months (especially Sundays). 88 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Part-Time Staff Hours Worksheet Time Hours Staff Davs Total HourslWk Front Desk Mon-Fri 5:30am - 9:30pm 16 2 5 160 4:00pm - 8pm 4 2 5 40 Saturday 6am - 9pm 15 2 1 30 Noon- 7pm 7 2 1 14 Sunday Noon - 9pm 9 2 1 18 Noon - 5pm 5 2 1 10 Total 272 hours Lifeguards (40wks) Mon - Fri 6:00am - 3pm 9 2 5 90 4pm - 9pm 5 7 5 175 Saturday /" 8am -Noon 4 2 1 8 Sat/Sun Noon - 9pm 9 7 2 126 Total 399 hours Ballard * King and Associates 89 Farmington Community Recreation Center Lifeguards (12 wks) Mon - Fri 6am - Noon 6 2 5 60 Noon - 6pm 6 7 5 210 6pm - 9pm 3 6 5 90 Saturdav 9am -Noon 3 2 1 6 Sat/Sun Noon- 9pm 9 7 2 126 Total 492 hours Head Lifeguard (40 wks) Mon - Fri 5pm -9pm 4 1 5 20 Sat/Sun Noon -9pm 9 1 2 18 Total 36 hours Head Lifeguard (12 wks) Mon - Fri 1 pm -9pm 8 1 5 40 Sat/Sun Noon -9pm 9 1 2 18 Total 58 hours Babysitter Mon - Fri 8am-1pm 5 2 5 50 4pm - 8pm 4 2 5 40 Saturday 8am-1pm 5 2 1 10 Total 100 hours 90 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Birthday Party Host Sat - Sun Noon-4pm 4 2 2 16 Friday 6pm-9pm 3 2 1 6 Total 22 hours Building Attendant Mon-Fri 4pm-9pm 5 1 5 25 Sat/Sun 1pm-6pm 5 1 2 10 Total 35 hours Fitness Attendant Mon - Fri 8am-1pm 5 1 5 25 4pm - 8pm 4 1 5 20 Saturdav Noon - 9pm 9 1 1 9 Sunday Noon - 6pm 6 1 1 6 Total 60 hours Concessions (40 weeks) Mon-Fri 3pm-8pm 5 2 5 50 Saturday 8am-9pm 11 2 1 22 Sunday Noon-6pm 6 2 1 12 Total 84 hours 91 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Concessions (12 weeks) Mon-Fri 11am-4pm 5 3 5 75 4pm-9pm 5 2 5 50 Saturday Noon -4pm 4 3 1 12 4pm - 9pm 5 2 1 10 Sunday Noon-6pm 6 2 1 12 Total 159 hours Office Aid Mon-Fri 5pm -8pm 3 1 5 15 Saturday 8am-2pm 6 1 1 6 Total 21 hours 92 Ballard * King and Associates Farmington Communitv Recreation Center Program Staff Cost Aquatic Instructors Type Classes Sessions Rate Cost Swim Instructors 600 6 $lO.OO/hr 36,000 Private Lessons 150 Annual $15.00/lesson 2,250 Water Fitness 48 12 $25.00/hr 14,400 Total $52,650 Fitness Instructors Type Classes Sessions Rate Cost Aerobics 12/wk 48 wks $25.00 14,400 Weight Classes 4/wk 48 wks $25.00 4,800 Pilates 4/wk 48 wks $30.00 5,760 Yoga 4/wk 48 wks $30.00 8,640 Thi Chi 4/wk 48 wks $30.00 5,760 Power Flex 4/wk 48 wks $25.00 4,800 Youth Fitness 4/wk 48 wks $25.00 4,800 Total $48,960 Sports Type Games Weeks Rate Cost Adult Basketball 8 36 wks $60.00 17,280 Youth Basketball 8 36 wks $50.00 14,400 Adult Volleyball 4 36 wks $20.00 2,880 Youth Volleyball 4 36 wks $20.00 2,880 Total $41,280 93 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center General Type Hrs/wk Weeks Rate Cost Youth in Motion 4 48 $ 12.00/hr 2.304 Dance/Tumbling 4 48 $ 12.00/hr 2,304 Martial Arts 4 48 $ 12.00/hr 2,304 Tiny Tot Adventure 24 48 $ 12.00/hr 13,824 Arts/Crafts 6 48 $ 12.00/hr 3,456 Total 24,192 94 Ballard*K.ing and Associates Pro{!ram Fees and Revenue Worksheet Daily Admissions Category Adult Adult NR Youth Youth NR Senior Senior NR Number 20 30 35 45 10 15 Total Daily (per day average) 155 Annual Recreation Center Category Number Adult 50 Adult Discount 175 Yomh 20 Youth Discount 90 Senior 20 Senior Discount 65 Senior Family 25 Senior Family Discount 75 Family 100 Family Discount 450 Single Family 25 Single Family non-resident 55 Total Annuals 1,150 Fee $ 6.00 $ 5.00 $ 4.00 $ 3.00 $ 4.50 $ 3.50 Farmington Communitv Recreation Center Daily Revenue $120.00 $150.00 $140.00 $135.00 $ 45.00 $ 52.50 $642.50 x 360 days = $231,300 Fee $375.00 $300.00 $220.00 $175.00 $315.00 $250.00 $560.00 $450.00 $720.00 $575.00 $600.00 $475.00 Revenue $ 18,750 $ 52,500 $ 4,400 $ 15,750 $ 6,300 $ 16,250 $ 14,000 $ 33,750 $ 72,000 $258,750 $ 15,000 $ 26,125 $ 533,575 Ballard*K.ing and Associates 95 Farmington Community Recreation Center Rentals Category Number Fee Revenue Leisure Pool 20 $ 350 $ 7,000 Meeting Room 104 $ 30 $ 3,120 Event Receptions 36 $ 850 $30,600 Post Prom Lock-ins 2 $1,500 $ 3,000 Gymnasium 52 $ 50 $ 2,600 Turf Rental 600 $ 75 $45,000 Graduation Parties 2 $1,500 $ 3,000 Total $94,320 Fitness Category Number Fee Session Revenue Aerobics 72 $40.00 12 $34,560 Youth Fitness 24 $32.00 12 $ 9,216 Pilates 24 $40.00 12 $11,520 Yoga 20 $40.00 12 $ 9,600 Tai-Chi 24 $40.00 12 $11 ,520 Power Flex 20 $40.00 12 $ 9,600 Weight Lifting 20 $40.00 12 $ 9,600 Total $95,616 Aquatics Category Number Fee Sessions Revenue Swim Lesson 150 $40.00 8 $48,000 Private Lessons 150 $20.00 Annual $ 3,000 Water Fitness 72 $45.00 12 $38,880 Lifeguard Training 10 $125.00 3 $ 3,750 Total $93,630 General Category Number Fee Session Revenue Tiny Tots/Pre School 30 $ 75.00 12 $27,000 Dance/Tumbling 40 $ 28.00 12 $14,440 Martial Arts 24 $ 32.00 12 $ 9,216 Arts and Crafts 40 $ 28.00 12 $13 ,440 Youth in Motion 30 $ 32.00 12 $11,520 Total $75,616 96 Ballard *K.ing and Associates Farmington Communitv Recreation Center Sports Category Adult BB Youth BB Adult VB Youth VB Lacrosse Dodge Ball Number 16 16 8 8 8 36 Fee $400.00 $350.00 $275.00 $250.00 $275.00 $ 40.00 Session 3 3 3 3 3 6 Revenue $19,200 $16,800 $ 6,600 $ 4,000 $ 6,600 $ 8,640 Total $61,840 Birthday Parties Number 300 Fee $125 Revenue $37,500 Total $37,500 Babysitting Category Number Fee Days Revenue Members 20 $2.00 312 $12,480 Non-Members 5 $2.50 312 $ 3,900 Total $16,380 Friday Night Live!7 Number Fee Weeks Revenue 175 $5.00 28 $24,500 Total $24,500 17 Special teen programming on Friday evenings that requires a separate admission. 97 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Section X - Market Orientation Based on the market information and typical swimming needs within a community, there are specific market areas that need to be addressed with a new aquatic component as part of a community center. These include: Aquatics Leisure/recreation aquatic activities - This includes a variety of activities found at leisure pools with zero depth entry, warm water, play apparatuses, slides, sun deck areas, spas and other similar amenities. These are often combined with other non- aquatic areas such as concessions, lounge areas, and group activities (birthday party) spaces. The emphasis is on drop-in activities and free play. This market needs to be a primary area of emphasis as it provides the opportunity to generate significant revenues and uses for the center. A major portion of the pool area should be available at most times for drop-in use. Instructional programming - The primary emphasis is on teaching swimming and life saving skills to many different age groups. These activities have traditionally taken place in more conventional pool configurations but should not be confined to just these spaces. Reasonably warm water, shallow depth (3 to 4 feet deep), and an open expanse of water are necessary for instructional activities. Easy pool access, a viewing area for parents and deck space for instructors is also crucial. Fitness programming - These types of activities continue to grow in popularity among a large segment of the population. From aqua exercise classes and water walking, to lap swimming times, these programs take place in more traditional settings that have lap lanes and large open expanses of water available at a 3 ~ to 4-foot depth. Therapy programming - Therapeutic programming aimed at injury and medical reconditioning has developed into a very strong market, especially among seniors. True therapeutic programming requires a raised temperature pool (usually upper 80's to low 90's) to be effective. Partnering with a local hospital or health care organization is essential for ensuring strong, medically based programs that will generate a solid revenue stream for the center. The leisure pool area of the facility can often work for this function as well. Competitive Swimming - Swim team competition and training for youth, adults and seniors requires a traditional 6 to 8 lane pool (possibly with a 1 meter diving board) at a length of 25 yards. Ideally, the pool depth should be no less than 4 foot deep and a cool water temperature in the high 70's to low 80's. Spectator seating and deck space for staging meets is necessary. This market is usually relatively small in number but very vocal on the demands for competitive pool space and time. Pool time should be sold to local teams and programs by the hour and lane. 98 Ballard * King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Special events/rentals - There is a significant market for special events including kid's birthday parties, corporate events, swim meets, community organization functions and general rentals to outside groups. The development of this market will aid significantly in the generation of additional revenues and these events/rentals can often be planned after or before regular hours or during slow use times. It is important that special events or rentals not adversely affect daily operations or overall center use. Specific market segments include: 1. Families - Within this market, an orientation towards family activities is essential. The ability to have family members of different ages participate in a variety of activities together or individually is a challenge. Leisure pool components have been the most effective in accomplishing this objective and in drawing families with small children to aquatic facilities. 2. Pre-school children - The needs of pre-school age children need to be met with very shallow or zero depth water which is warm and have play apparatuses designed for their use. Interactive programming involving parents and toddlers can also be conducted in more traditional aquatic areas. It is significant that this market usually is active during the mid-morning time frame, providing an important clientele to the pool during an otherwise slow period of the day. 3. School age children - A major focus of this project should be to meet the needs of this age group from recreational swimming to instructional and competitive aquatics. The leisure components such as slides, fountains, lazy rivers, vortex and zero depth will help to bring these individuals to the pool on a regular basis for drop-in recreation swimming. The conventional pool provides the opportunity and space necessary for instructional and competitive aquatics. The proximity of the pool to a number of schools should help with meeting the needs of this age group. 4. Teens - Another aspect of this project should be meeting the needs of the teenage population. Serving the needs of this age group will require leisure amenities that will keep their interest (slides and 1 meter diving board) as well as the designation of certain "teen" times of use. 5. Seniors - As the population of the United States continues to age, meeting the needs of an older senior population will be essential. As has been noted, a more active and physically oriented senior is now demanding services to ensure their continued health. Aqua exercise, lap swimming, therapeutic conditioning and even learn to swim classes have proven to be popular with this age group. Again, the fact that this market segment will usually utilize the pool during the slower use times of early morning also is appealing. 99 Ballard*K.ing and Associates Farmington Communitv Recreation Center 6. Special needs population - This is a secondary market, but with the A.D.A. requirements and probable existence of shallow warm water and other components, the amenities are present to develop programs for this population segment. Association with hospitals and other therapeutic and social agencies will be necessary to reach this market. 7. Special interest groups - This is a market that needs to be explored to determine the use potential from a variety of groups. These could include school functions, day care centers, social service organizations and swim teams. While the needs of these groups can be great, their demand on an aquatic center can often be incompatible with the overall mission ofthe facility. Care must be taken to ensure that special interest groups are not allowed to dictate use patterns for the center. With the proper utilization of the aquatic area, it is possible to meet most of the varied market orientations as outlined above. However, it is critical that a balance is struck between the different market segments and no one group or area should dominate the facility. Community Center Benchmarks: Based on market research conducted by Ballard*King and Associates at community centers across the United States, the following represents the basic benchmarks. . The majority of community centers that are being built today are between 65,000 and 75,000 square feet. Most centers include three primary components A) A pool area usually with competitive and leisure amenities, B) Multipurpose gymnasium space, and C) Weight/cardiovascular equipment area. In addition, most centers also have group exercise rooms, drop-in childcare, and classroom and/or community spaces. . For most centers to have an opportunity to cover operating expenses with revenues, they must have a service population of at least 50,000 and an aggressive fee structure that reflect market driven conditions and fees. . Most centers that are between 65,000 and 75,000 square feet have an annual operating budget of between $1,750,000 and $2,500,000 annually. Nearly 65% of the operating costs are from personnel services, followed by approximately 20% for contractual services, 13% for commodities, and 2% for capital replacement. . For centers that serve a more urban population and have a market driven fee structure, they should be able to recover 70% to 100% of operating expenses. For centers in more rural areas the recovery rate is generally 50% to 75%. Facilities that can consistently cover all of their operating expenses with revenues are rare. The first true benchmark year of operation does not occur until the third or forth full year of operation. Ballard*King and Associates 100 Farmington Communitv Recreation Center . The majority of centers of the size noted above (and in an urban environment) have an average daily paid attendance of 800 to as much as 1,000 per day. These centers will also typically sell between 800 and 1,500 annual passes (depending on the fee structure and marketing program). . It is common for most centers to have a three-tiered fee structure that offers daily, extended visit (usually punch cards) passes, and annual passes. In urban areas it is common to have resident and non-resident fees. Non-resident rates can run anywhere from 25% to 50% higher than the resident rate. Daily rates for residents average between $3.00 and $6.00 for adults, $3.00 and $4.00 for youth and the same for seniors. Annual rates for residents average between $200 and $300 for adults, and $100 and $200 for youth and seniors. Family annual passes tend to be heavily discounted and run between $350 and $800. . Most centers are open an average of 100 hours a week, with weekday hours being 6:00am to 1 0:00pm, Saturdays 8:00am to 8:00pm and Sundays from noon to 8:00pm. Often hours are shorter during the summer months. Note: These statistics vary by regions of the country. 101 Ballard*K.ing and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Section XI - Appendix In September of 2004, representatives from Ballard*King and Associates conducted a workshop and project kickoff. During the workshop portion of the trip, key stakeholders were identified and stakeholder meetings were held over a two day period. A total of twenty-one different stakeholders were identified and the summary comments and notes from these stakeholder meetings are listed below. Facilities: Ice Arena opened in 1975 Ice equipment is 30 years old DX system with some leaks in the floor Seasonal rink - operating Sept-March City Hall was built in 1968 HV AC systems in bad shape Exploring possibility of relocating Senior Center is 70 years old Poor condition and inefficient layout No parking Some fitness space but no equipment Outdoor Pool Built in the 60' s Bather capacity of 400 Bathhouse is outdated No concession area City contracts out maint. and cleaning of buildings Facilities has 2 FT employees and 2/3 part-time at the ice arena Needs: Indoor aquatics Adjacency to outdoor sports fields Renovated outdoor pool Walking/jogging track Concession area that serves both indoor and outdoor Do not need another ice rink Gymnasium Handball/racquetball courts Senior center wing Meeting rooms/class rooms Community is divided north and South Seniors that Dwight sees feel that most people are against a new center. Farmington needs more industry/commercial base 102 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Park Maintenance: Responsible for maintaining 370 acres plus 1,500 acres of natural area Planning to add a couple of Parks in the future 6/7 community parks - balance is neighborhood parks Trail system includes 27 miles of paved trails Parks is responsible for snow removal on trails, sidewalks and paths Youth baseball is using neighborhood park fields Ball field complex (2 softball and 1 youth baseball field) Dragging 50-60 fields per week in the summer 3 FT and 6 seasonal staff Maintains flower beds Maintains 2 outdoor hockey rinks and 2 pleasure sheets of ice Help maintains school district fields in the summer Needs: Lack of outdoor space for programs New swimming pool so people don't have to travel to Eagan Weight room More soccer fields Feels the town is ready for a community center Lots of young families moving into the north part of Farmington Likes the concept of adjacency of outdoor fields to a community center Willing to have taxes pay for capital but operations should be an enterprise account Solid Waste: Operates 5 one-man trucks Solid waste is an enterprise fund Needs: Community center is a good idea Community rooms for weddings/family reunions Banquet facilities Indoor pool Weight room Inline skating rink Skateboard park Peels taxes should be used to construct the center but operations should be an enterprise fund Soccer Association: Serving 1,400 players (combined spring and fall) About 1,200 players in the spring Program is growing significantly. (60 players in 1995) 103 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center High School fields generally meet the needs ofthe club Looking for a cooperative development of fields with the City Ideally club would like to have 10 fields 90% of players are from Farmington Currently paying $4.00 per player to use the School District fields Burnsville is charging $70-$100 per player for league fees Club pays for meeting room space at the schools ($10.00/mtg) Currently renting space for storage Currently rents restroom facilities ($300/month for 6 units) Club pays for field markings (staff wages plus $4.00/hour for equipment) Club is projected to grow to 2,500 by 2010 Currently fees:$65/season for rec. league $175 Spring season (competitive) $115 Fall season (competitive) Needs: Indoor turf area Racquetball courts Water fitness area Walking/jogging track Climbing wall Fitness component Indoor play structure Community meeting rooms Room for expansion Feel a combination of taxes and user fees should be used to operate the center Club is seeking business opportunities withy the soccer association Recreation Staff: Tennis and gymnastics are going strong Pre-school programs are booming Dakota County Arts Council and Lakeville Arts center are offering arts and craft classes Walking program offered Youth basketball has 500 players ( 4-6 grade) Adult programs are limited by gym availability T -ball has 270 players - limited by available fields Adult summer leagues are full Adult soccer leagues are offered in other communities Senior Thi-Chi, walking and computer classes are popular. Needs: Indoor play structure Fitness room for aerobics and dance Weight/CV area Community space for receptions/banquets Pro-shop area Computer lab 104 Ballard * King and Associates Farmington Communitv Recreation Center Dedicated senior space Teen center with a game room Baby-sitting area Indoor pool-leisure concept Water walking Zero depth Teaching pool Hot tub No competitive lanes Gymnasium Concession area Youth fitness area ] library area Coffee house Arts and craft studio Intramural sports are lacking through the schools. Teens need an opportunity to participate Facility should have multigenerational appeal Feel a combination oftaxes and user fees should be used to pay operating expenses Seniors: Facility recently remodeled Trying to develop a craft room Card games/board game interest has been stable over the past few years Trips are the most popular program 55 Alive classes are held every month Serving 8-15 lunches per day at the center and another 40-45 through meals on wheels Meals on wheels numbers are in a downward trend Change of name (from senior center) has helped boost participation Community education programs (retirement/financing/safety) have been popular Computer lap has five stations Red Hat group has 40 members Membership fee for seniors is $5.00. Currently have about 320 members. Needs: Banquet room with seating for 250 Kitchen facility Warm water pool Exercise room -weight and CV Outdoor spaces/pavilions adjacent to the community center Walking track Dedicated space for offices Access to transportation is important to seniors 105 Ballard * King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Access or lbcation to senior housing has helped participation at the senior center (Spruce Place, Red Oaks and St. Michaels) Combination of taxes and fees for operations Parks Recreation Advisory Committee: Needs: Banquet room with kitchen Multi-use space will attract tournaments Dedicated space for teens Dedicated space for seniors Aquatic center with warm water therapy pool Outdoor water park Gymnasium Fitness center Develop outdoor spaces next to the community center Operations should be break even with taxes used for constructions Farmington Youth Athletic Association: FY AA is the sister organization to the youth sports associations. Each individual youth sports associations governs their own sport/organization FY AA has a common web site/ code of conduct for all the sport organizations FY AA has no financial ties to any sports club/organization Meetings held at the school. FY AA is charges $4.00 per meeting Needs: Web cafe Youth fitness center Dedicated senior center Indoor track Large 4-court gymnasium Leisure pool with warm water Competitive 50-meter pool Fitness component Aerobic/dance rooms Adjacency to outdoor fields Concessions Meeting room/classrooms Banquet facility for 450-600 people Intramural sport opportunities are lacking User fees should cover operational cost Implement resident/non-resident rate structure Tax issue to cover capital costs Partnership with the School District is desirable 106 Ballard*King and Associates Farmington Community Recreation Center Facility must have multigenerational appeal Youth Baseball: Needs: Track for walking/jogging Indoor leisure pool Weight/fitness component Indoor batting cages Banquet room with a kitchen (seating for 600) 4-6 ball fields to host tournaments Ice skating rink School charges 44.00/use for meetings Operations cost should be covered with a combination of taxes and user fees Taxes should be used to construct the center Last school referendum failed - school District may not be the best partner based on history City of Farmington maintains the ball fields better than the School District Business Community: Location will be an issue Would like to see a new facility located downtown Downtown location will help foster the sense of a "downtown" Access to outdoor facilities Community Center should accommodate seniors and teens Community Center will bring north and south together Needs: Community meetings rooms - don't duplicate what is at City Hall Gymnasium Classrooms No fitness component User fees and taxes should cover operations Facility needs to be financed like the police station Feels a referendum will fail Government should not compete with the business community Swim Club: Boys and Girls season is split Would like to see the School District and City combine efforts to build a 50-meter pool with a separate diving well School District has a 25-yard indoor pool Needs: 8 lane-25 yard pool competitive pool Seating for 200-250 people 107 Ballard * King and Associates Fannington Community Recreation Center Indoor walking/jogging track Fitness component Aerobic/dance room Gymnasium Operation should be self-sustaining Show people what they will get for their tax dollars and they will support a referendum Youth Hockey: Currently have 320 members including two girls team Expect girl's team to double in the 05/06 season During the High School season the Youth hockey Association only gets 7 hours per week Estimate club could use another 20 hours per week (Mon-Fri) and 20 hours per week for weekends No ability to host a tournament 80% of respondents to a hockey survey indicated that members would pay more for access to more ice Hockey club operates the concession stand Concession space and electrical restrictions is a problem Current fees: Mini Mites $165 Mites $275 Squirts $550 Pee Wees $675 Bantams $800 Lakeville traveling teams charge $1,400 for each player plus an ice time charge Hastings fees are similar to Fannington Needs: Second sheet of ice At least 4 locker rooms Innver Grove Heights model Meeting room/banquet center with a kitchen (seating for 600) Gymnasium Fitness component Aerobic/dance room User fees should cover facility operating costs The Youth Hockey Association has paid for the existing ice rink 3 or 4 times over through the years. Feels the City needs to sell 27 hours per week to break even. Youth Softball: Program (in-house) continues to grow. 177 girls in 2004, up from 102 in 2003 Five traveling teams Program cost $210 for traveling team and $50 for in house program Softball uses Fannington Elementary School (Mon-Thur.) 108 Ballard*King and Associates Fannington Community Recreation Center Offer a T-Ball program for softball Traveling teams use one of the school gyms on Mon. and Thur. Evening. Club is charged $24/session School District charges $4.00/head for field use. Basketball: Offer program for 5-8 graders (boys and girls) Have 10-12 teams each season Currently have 150 participants Fee is $200/player School is charging an energy consumption fee Program pays $60/hour for gym time on Saturdays and Sundays Travel team is not growing fast because the cost ($200/player) is high City programs provide house program Lack of intramural program is a problem -lots of kids left out with no options to continue playing Needs: Softbal1/Basketball combined Meeting room with banquet facilities Four softbal1/baseball fields Gym space Racquetball courts Adjacency to outdoor spaces Swimming pool- recreational Fitness/wellness component Soccer fields Should explore the possibility of partnering with the fair grounds Combination of tax support and user fees should be use to pay for the operations costs. CEEF: Volunteer group that assists with planning community events Host candidate forums Seek sponsorship and fundraising for special events Community Education monopolizes the gym and field schedule. Arts take a back seat to sports Needs: Meeting room space Banquet center large enough to host wedding receptions Racquetball courts Concession area Equipment storage Larger City Hall/Council Chambers No need for a pool unless the City partners with the School District Gymnasium space 109 Ballard*King and Associates Fannington Community Recreation Center Local performing arts area with a stage Adjacency to outdoor spaces Track for walkers/joggers Fitness component but questions the impact to other businesses Extend the trail system Soccer fields Baseball fields Park pavilions Would like a downtown location Operations should be paid for with a combination of taxes and user fees Chamber of Commerce: 100 members in the chamber Chamber also serves as the CVB Needs: Another ice skating rink Competitive swim pool Family aquatic center Meeting room space/banquet center/conference rooms Destination attraction Fitness would be nice but not sure if it is needed. Private business should provide fitness components/opportunities Gymnasium space Day care center Users should pay all operating costs. Taxes scare businesses Any partnerships will be perceived positively from the public Quality of life issue and bringing people into Fannington is important Fannington needs something to jump start the business community - population has grown 22% over the past 3 years but businesses have only grown .5 over the same period. School District: 5,500 Students including 200 new students for the 04/05 school years School population is projected to grow to 8,000 students by 2012 Looking into the possibility of replacing the high school and converting the current high school to a middle school A new Elementary School is schedules to open in 2007 School District is receptive to partnering with the City. Elected bodies indicated support of a partnership during a joint meeting (City and School District) Possibility to expand the size of a school to enhance activities and draw more people No need for two competitive pools Existing pool could be converted to a recreation pool 110 Ballard*King and Associates Fannington Community Recreation Center Existing pool has seating for 200-250. Feels a new pool should have 400-500 seats Possibility of including a community theatre component School District purchased a 110 acres near the Lakeville border Shortage of ball fields/soccer fields and gym space City Recreation Dept. is the largest non-school user of gym space Weight room has minimal equipment. One treadmill and free weights. Primarily used by sports teams Castle Theatre groups uses the auditorium Community Education: 14 different funding sources Generates $2.21 of service for each dollar funded Looking for more satellite locations for programs Pre-schoollearninglAdultclasses/enrichment programs are the most popular No team sports offered Youth development programs Offer year round school age care program (latch key) Existing pool only recovers direct cost- not recovery operations cost of heat/utility and chemicals. Wrestling Club: Pre K_6th grade program with 80 participants Middle Schools offer a wrestling program Club practices at the Middle School wrestling room - minimal fee Host 2 tournaments each year at the High School that draw 300-400 spectators Pay $600 on Saturday and $900 on Sunday for use ofthe High School Fees to wrestle range from $60-$80 per person Program has been growing since 2000 Season for wrestling may change and will have an impact on numbers Feel the current program can handle 80-100 participants Needs: Could use more gym space (2) Outdoor fields (10) with adequate parking Concession area Bathrooms/picnic shelter Teen area Babysitting Playground like The Blast in Eagan Fitness area Meeting rooms for club functions Operations should be covered by a combination of taxes and fees 111 Ballard * King and Associates Fannington Community Recreation Center Northside neighborhood will travel outside ofFannington for programs not offered. These people will stay in Fannington if programs are offered. Eureka Township: 1600 residents with a 1 on 40 acre zoning requirement Town id divided between three school districts, Lakeville, Fannington and Northfie1d Need: Wann water pool for teaching lessons Meeting room space that can accommodate banquets (seating for 400) School access is a problem Space for youth and adult sports Teen center Babysitting services Turf arena/MAC for flexible programming Large gymnasium space (3-4 courts) Seating for 1000 in gymnasium Fitness area Leisure pool with a lazy river Adj acency to outdoor fields Feels user fees and taxes should be used to cover operations (70% user and 30% taxes). Supports a resident/non-resident fee policy Visual Arts: Conducted a survey. Arts needs a home base in Fannington DV AC membership is about 40 No permanent office space Some interest in a small theatre No place within the School District to hold an art show. Children's Castle Theatre hosts 1-3 performances annually Community choir disbanded a few years ago Annual art show at the senior center (during Dew Days) Needs: Meeting rooms with A V equipment Classrooms with A V equipment Display space in the lobby Storage for Arts Council Gallery space Black Box theatre with specialized lighting Banquet center with a kitchen facility Messy arts room with kiln and storage Music room for band/choir Large lobby with natural light 112 Ballard *King and Associates Fannington Community Recreation Center Public computer lab/area Fitness component Aerobic/dance studio Indoor/outdoor water park Gymnasium with 4 courts Walking/jogging track Adjacency to outdoor fields and trails Outdoor needs: Rest rooms Pavilions Trail linkage Nature preserve area Fannington does not like taxes Joint powers partnership agreement with area towns should be pursued Operations should be covered with user fees (60-75%) and taxes (25-40%) 113 Ballard *King and Associates City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us lOb TO: Mayor, Council Members and City Administrator ~ FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Approve Joint Resolution (City of Fannington and Castle Rock Township) Regarding Canton Court in Fannington Business Park DATE: May 2, 2005 INTRODUCTION The City of Fannington and Castle Rock Township have reached an agreement regarding the handling of certain jurisdictional issues related to Canton Court. Canton Court is a township road that is currently bordered by three township parcels and four city parcels. DISCUSSION Canton Court is a cul-de-sac located on the south side of Highway 50, a short distance east of State Highway 3. When Canton Court was built a number of years ago, it was surrounded on all sides by parcels located within Castle Rock Township. In 2004, the City Council approved an annexation request that had been submitted by Mr. Colin Garvey. That annexation, and the subsequent platting of the property in question (as the "Fannington Business Park"), resulted in Canton Court being adjacent to four city parcels and three township parcels. The plat for the Farmington Business Park envisioned the creation of a new internal street (Canton Circle) that would connect to Canton Court in order to provide access to Highway 50. That fact led to discussions with Castle Rock Township representatives about the type of consent, if any, that would have to be obtained before the developer could connect Canton Circle to Canton Court. Those discussions were initiated around the time of the formation of "Farmington-Castle Rock Discussion Group," which has been meeting at roughly monthly intervals since October or November of 2004. At several such meetings, the participants talked about whether it would be appropriate for Canton Court to become a City street, given the fact that after the completion of the Fannington Business Park, the majority of the traffic on Canton Court would be going to and from properties located in the City. The township members of the Farmington-Castle Rock Discussion Group ultimately agreed that the actual ownership of the Canton Court could be transferred to the City and that the property in question could be annexed by the City, under certain conditions. Those conditions were set forth in a letter that was sent to Castle Rock Township by City staff (see attached). After receiving the letter, the Town Board of Castle Rock approved the attached Quit Claim Deed and the attached Joint Resolution. ACTION REQUESTED 1. Motion to accept Quit Claim Deed regarding Canton Court, transferring ownership thereof from Castle Rock Township to the City of Farmington. 2. Motion to approve Joint Resolution between Castle Rock Township and the City of Fannington regarding the annexation of Canton Court. ;' 2 r L= eJ = n I I I I I I E ~~ ~IIII , ~v i \ ~ ~- ~ -- !~ ~= S - [ill -- ] ~ . ~ L-.- ~ - t] . .. . J::n I-- '---- WI - JJ----' - l-( CD ~ ~V - / JL.-<~ E~ /::; IffB?; " · ~ DL- : : .t~ - 3 ~~ ~ -I l ~f - - - I - f T I 225th Street ~ Subject Properties r----n--! City Boundary I I .._-------~ 300 , N A o 300 600 Feet , ~ a:::: <( Q. U> U> W Z >- ffi 6 :J u OJ Z ~ C> Z ~ 0:: <( u.. 6= !~ .f. "" ~. .' 1lI~ ~~ I 8: i~ ., ~ I ~! ~ ~ 1 II ~ ~~ ~~ 0 9 I a / I . - 1 II Z . l< q __ _ _..J H ~+ oo';'tK .~. ~13 ~ ~ ~~ .~ ~ ;; 5" ~ --1- --, i 0 ~'... " ..K.t1.CO $ ..~-.: 'l- s= ~ ~~ I ~i ~ I;;~ ~I ~ 9i IIg " '" n I l. I ;~ i~ B '\t '. II :-11 iC'lolG ii~ G ~ ~II~ ~II -, 1 i U II ;0 I I II ~ I ~':l III I .. L______-.J L_______lJ" ~r. I~ ! Cf ::. -':1; =~ !,: ~ ! I 'j \' i - ',r' =o!! ~ . : \ I ~ I ~ ~~ I ~' " ~ ~ gJ'" II/rr-- I ~ , I 'I I '_,_14 1.1 : I '. I H-- ' !~ I i II~ H-1i - r, ; " lL ;9;, ; :3:; q ~ I~: -~= I~. II I~; '. '0> I Z'" \~ : l Z 8 ! Ii-I ~ I ~ I : \ ! -4--- ~~ I Ii': i~ !\\rr-----i ~~ 1 i\1 : I \Ul _'~ i , M .tt,tl.OO S 00'5:95: 1 '~.S , 'i"'"$~~l I ";~:1;\ ~I %~"i=- ~l -..., O~ 4 " .0 i I ~~ O~L_______...Jt[-: ~ lo'gas: ~ CD ~ ::> o "'."" ;r;1,6 No .tt,tQ.OlJ N .. I- o F a ~ ~ H 11 ~. ~ I i V11 BI ~I ~I ~I I M .91.11.00 r< gs"$Lio' I I CM"3I\Y3"\'t'GGoIdICI)tWO""H]l,VU i I l I '" I I '" 6, ~' I I I I ~&'L~ _ _ _ -' ]: ,91.U..OO S -. ~l. WHo; M .9\.U.OO N ..rm I tL --------' M .9l.,U..OO N vn..i M ,.91,U.OO N .,/I....:ikL.., t/l...]IU. JI> lNllJS1]-r, " I, '" l " I ~ I ~ I _J u. l " ~11 . I I U !51~ L- _ _ --.J ~! ~ l:I:'SL6 3 .?~.to.OO S I , .t\ MM 3H1 JI/J Ell N3H1JD j .LD.ttt"ZU1Dl3HlJl/J]M1J.SW']-"- ~~ 'I;; % <I'az I I I I ! I" 6 ~ l " I I I ~ ! .. iii~ ~~ 00 -'" Z OIJ --_, ~ s g ~ I = ~ ~ ...'i City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us April 12, 2005 Maralee Rother Castle Rock Township Clerk 2537 240th Street West Fannington MN 55024 RE: Canton Court Dear Maralee, During the last meeting of the "Fannington-Castle Rock Discussion Group" on March 21, we discussed the proposed Joint Resolution and the proposed Quitclaim Deed that I had delivered to you a month or two prior to the meeting. As you know, both of the documents in question are related to Canton Court, and to the proposed commercial development (Mr. Colin Garvey's) that will need to use Canton Court to access Highway 50. You have indicated that the Town Board might be willing to approve the Joint Resolution and the Quitclaim Deed if the City was willing to provide some written assurances regarding certain issues related to Canton Court. Those issues are as follows: 1. In exchange for the Town Board's approval of the Joint Resolution and the Quitclaim Deed, the City would agree that the owners of the privately-owned parcels located adjacent to and on the east side of Canton Court (that is, those that are still in Castle Rock Township) would each be allowed to permanently retain their existing driveway accesses onto Canton Court. 2. The City would further agree that any adjacent Township parcel that does not currently have an improved access onto Canton Court would be allowed to create one at any time in the future. The City has no interest in depriving any property owner of reasonable access to the nearest public street. 3. The City would further agree that if Canton Court is widened, re-paved or otherwise improved in any way at any time in the future, no adjacent property that is still in Castle Rock Township at that time will be assessed or charged for any portion of the cost of those improvements, nor will Castle Rock Township be expected or required to contribute toward that cost. However, the City reserves the right to allocate ("on paper") the cost of any such improvements among any and all parcels that benefit from the improvements, and then later require that a particular parcel's pro-rata share of that cost be paid if or when the owner of that parcel files a Petition for Annexation. In short, nothing would have to be paid while the parcel was in Castle Rock Township, but something might have to be paid if the parcel later becomes part of the City of Fannington. 4. Finally, the City would agree to be solely responsible for any costs related to the maintenance and upkeep of Canton Court (snow plowing, patching, etc.), even if certain parcels located adjacent to Canton Court continue to remain within Castle Rock Township. That is, the City will not insist or require that such costs be pro- rated, divided between, or shared by the City and the Township. You have indicated that you will provide copies of this letter to the members of the Town Board at tonight's meeting. If you have any questions regarding the representations set forth above, please give me a call. Thanks. Sincerely, Kevin Carroll Community Development Director 651-463-1860 (w) 651-775-5962 (c) [Reserved for Recording Data] QUIT CLAIM DEED STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $1.65 Dated: FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Castle Rock Township, a Minnesota political subdivision, Grantor, hereby conveys and quitclaims to the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation, Grantee, real property in Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Thirty (30) feet on either side of a line described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of the NE ~ of the NW ~ of Section 5, Township 113, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota; thence west along the north line thereof 400.01 feet to the point of the beginning of the line to be described; thence South 00 degrees 11 minutes 16 seconds East 858.03 feet and thence terminating; subject to the roadway easement over the north 33 feet thereof; TOGETHER WITH Fifty-five (55) feet on either side of a line described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of the NE ~ of the NW ~ of Section 5, Township 113, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota; thence west along the north line thereof 400.01 feet; thence South 00 degrees 11 minutes 16 seconds East 858.03 feet (the point of beginning), thence South 00 degrees 11 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 100 feet and thence terminating. together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto. 115632 The Grantor certifies that the Grantor does not know of any wells on the described real property. CASTL~E >>CK TOWNSHIP BY: __ B-~ / Its: Chai son BY: ~aLu- ~ Its: Town Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA) The foregoing instrument was a knowledged before me this ;<j'f4 day of ~ 200 S-, by and -yu.~ ~ , respecti ely the Chairperson and Clerk of Castle Rock Township, a Minnesota political subdivision, on its behalf and pursuant to the authority granted by its Town Board. :t: fl1,cL-z ~ Notary Public e LEE MICHAEL MANN NOTAFiY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA ;. My Oornml88lon ExpIreS Jan. 31, 2008 Tax Statements for the real property described in this instrument should be sent to: City of Fannington 325 Oak Street Fannington, Minnesota 55024 THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Attorneys at Law 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 651-452-5000 JJJ/cjh 2 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK CITY OF FARMINGTON IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK AND THE CITY OF FARMINGTON, DESIGNATING AN UNINCORPORATED AREA AS IN NEED OF ORDERLY ANNEXATION AND CONFERRING JURISDICTION OVER SAID AREA TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT OFFICE, PURSUANT TO M.S. ~414.0325 JOINT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Canton Court is currently a Town road located in the Township, and serves properties located both in the Township and the City, and; WHEREAS, continued urban development in the area will result in additional trip generation from the properties located in the City, and; WHEREAS, the City and Township have agreed that it is in the best interests of both political subdivisions and their residents that ownership and responsibility for Canton Court should be transferred from the Township to the City and that the political boundaries of the City and Township should be adjusted to reflect the transfer of the road, and; WHEREAS, the Township has by deed transferred Canton Court to the City; NOW, THEREFORE, the Township of Castle Rock 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 9414.0325, Subdivision 1, as shown on the attached Exhibit B and legally described on Exhibit A, and have determined that the area of the property involved in this annexation is approximately 1.5 acres and the population of the area is currently zero. 2. That the purpose ofthe annexation of the property involved in this annexation is to transfer jurisdiction over Canton Court from Castle Rock Township to the City of Fannington in order to facilitate the development of properties served by Canton Court to urban densities and to provide urban services, including road maintenance and snow removal for Canton Court by the City. 3. That in order to accomplish this purpose, all of Canton Court should be immediately annexed to and made part ofthe City of Fannington. 4. Upon approval by the respective governing bodies ofthe City and the Township, this joint resolution and agr~ement shall confer jurisdiction upon the Director ofthe 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 Township agree that upon annexation all planning, official controls, and governmental services for the annexed area shall become the responsibility ofthe City, and that the provisions of Minn. Stat. SS414.035 and 414.036 authorizing differential taxation and municipal reimbursement for the annexed property will not be applied in this proceeding. 6. 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. 7. 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 ofthe 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. S414.035, or reimbursement under M.S. S414.036 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 A~.d this /2..- day of " 2005. Approved and Adopted this _ day of , 2005. TOWN~CASTLEROCK BY:~RJ~ Its Town Board Chair AND ?r( tVtA.-iLc ~ CITY OF FARMINGTON BY: Its Mayor AND Its Town Board Clerk Its City Administrator 115605 EXHIBIT A Legal description of property subject to immediate annexation: 30 feet on either side of a line described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of the NE Y4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 5, Township 113, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota; thence west along the north line thereof 400.01 feet to the point ofthe beginning ofthe line to be described; thence South 00 degrees 11 minutes 16 seconds East 858.03 feet and thence terminating; subject to the roadway easement over the north 33 feet thereof; TOGETHER WITH 55 feet on either side of a line described as follows; Commencing at the northeast corner of the NE Y4 of the NW Y4 of Section 5, Township 113, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota; thence west along the north line thereof 400.01 feet; thence South 00 degrees 11 minutes 16 seconds East 858.03 feet (the point of beginning), thence South 00 degress 11 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 100 feet and thence terminating. 115605 I --3 DJJJj Castle Rock Farmington 200 , o Exhibit "B" Subject Property - '- ::s o U c o C <ll U () C I1l .9 2!. g' <D 'E AI .... 0 <ll 0 LL ;:r> 200 400 Feet ... ..... City Boundary L N //CL City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator ~ Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer TO: SUBJECT: Request for Feasibility Study - ISD 192 DATE: May 2, 2005 INTRODUCTION ISD 192 has submitted a request for the City of Fannington to commence with a feasibility report for street and utility improvements to serve the new high school location on Flagstaff Avenue (see attached). DISCUSSION The City has received a request from the School District for the City to commence with the feasibility report including Flagstaff Avenue northerly to the Lakeville border. The School District has indicated that it reserves any financial commitment for the improvements north of 195th Street at this time. The School District will be conducting a traffic study for Flagstaff Avenue; as such it is understood that the City will not perform a separate study. City staff will provide input to the District's traffic engineer during the process and provide review and comment for Council's consideration of the final study. BUDGET IMPACT The feasibility report will identify the budget impacts for the proposed improvements. City staff will be meeting with School District staff to finalize the scope of the feasibility report and subsequently, an estimated cost to complete the report will be forwarded to the Council. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution ordering a feasibility report for the proposed Flagstaff Avenue Street and Utility Improvements. ~es~tfully Submitted, ~fJ1~ Lee M. Mann, P .E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file RESOLUTION NO. R - 05 ORDERING FEASIBILITY REPORT for FLAGSTAFF AVENUE STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS 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 2nd day of May, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution. WHEREAS, Independent School District 192 (ISD 192) proposes to construct a new high school on property located adjacent to Flagstaff Avenue, north ofCSAH 50, known as the "Christensen" property; and, WHEREAS, ISD 192 has requested that the City perform a feasibility report to identify the estimated costs for the proposed street and utility infrastructure associated with the high school project; and, WHEREAS, an alignment study for the proposed 208th Street would be included in the feasibility report; and, WHEREAS, it is proposed to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost ofthe improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer for study and that he is instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in conjunction with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Fannington City Council in open session on the 2nd day of May, 2005. Mayor Attested to the day of ,2005. City Administrator SEAL Farmington Independent School District 192 Excellence, Integrity, Innovation DOUGLAS BONAR DIRECTOR BUILDINGS & GROUNDS OFFICE 421 WALNUT STREET, P.O. BOX 329 FARMINGTON, MN 55024-1389 PHONE: (651) 463-5062 FAX: (651) 463-5041 dbonar@farmington.ki2.mn.us April 27th, 2005 Lee Mann City of Farmington 325 Oak St. Farmington, MN 55024 Re: Petition for a Feasibility Study of Flagstaff Avenue Pursuant to the Board action of April 25th, 2005, I request the City of Farmington engage in a Feasibility Study on Flagstaff A venue north of State Highway # 50 to the city limits of Lake\ille. Included within the study would be the necessary analysis of a proposed 20gth Street corridor, as noted from a joint resolution between the City of Lakeville and Dakota County in 2003. In the spirit of cooperation and coordination, ISD # 192 willlYovide supplemental engineering services from McGhie & Betts Inc. to assist in the facilitation and expedition of the study. Consequently, the City of Farmington may provide support to our proposed traffic study of Flagstaff Avenue. The provided enclosure should be construed as a supporting document to this petition which outlines any intended development per MN Statue Section 429, the provision for an independent traffic study commissioned by ISD# 192 and a reservation of [mancial commitment to infrastructure improvement north of 195th Street on/along Flagstaff A venue. V2---I glas L. Bonar ctor of Buildings & Grounds Cc: ISD # 192 School Board Dr. Bradley Meeks - Superintendent David Urbia - City Administrator File EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Present Situation: The City of Farmington has requested the School District request a feasibility study for infrastructure development in and around Flagstaff Avenue. Synopsis: The City of Farmington requested that the School District submit a request for a feasibility study to its April 18, 2005 City Council Meeting. The School District complied with that request. Within that request was a stipulation by the School District that the feasibility study only include the components that were described in the District's recent bond referendum which was part of the District's review and comment document that was sent to the Minnesota Department of Education on October 29,2004. The City Council rejected the School District's request for a feasibility study, due to the fact that the City wished to broaden the scope of the study to include the potential to oversize sewer and water lines as well as paving Flagstaff from 195th Street to the Lakeville border. These components were not included in the District's review and comment plan of October 2004 nor were they detailed during the bond referendum campaign. The School District has also requested the possibility of a traffic study be conducted along Flagstaff A venue. The School District feels it is important to have baseline data regarding the traffic in order for either the City or the School District to make a determination as to the level of road improvements necessary to insure safety and road maintenance. At a City/School Management joint meeting the City highly recommended that the School District resubmit its request for a feasibility study to be completed by the City's engineering firm, Bonestroo. The City has indicated they are simply seeking information regarding the area in and around Flagstaff Avenue. Administrative Recommendation: The administration recommends that the School District comply with the City's request to have Bonestroo Engineering, the City's engineering firm, conduct the feasibility study along Flagstaff Avenue from County Highway 50 to the Lakeville border, some 3.2 miles of road. Furthermore, submittal of said feasibility study does not imply that the school district will pay for any road improvements north of I 95th Street or oversized water and sewer lines that would be necessary for development many years down the road. This should not be construed that the School District would not discuss these issues with the City of Farmington, but the intention at this time is that the School District would not pay for those level of improvements. The School District will pursue this feasibility study and development as per Minnesota Statute Section 429. Furthermore, it is recommended that the School District conduct its own traffic study along Flagstaff Avenue to determine the present level of traffic and what future impact the high school on Flagstaff Avenue will have to traffic flow. I"" a.. 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 Advertisement for Construction bids - Fire Station DATE: May 2, 2005 INTRODUCTION Construction of a second fire station is included in the City's 2005 - 2009 Capital Improvement Plan for 2005. On October 18, 2004 the City Council approved hiring Wold Architects to proceed with the planning and design of the second fire station at the corner of 197th Street and Pilot Knob Road (CSAH 31). DISCUSSION The City Council received an update from John McNamara of Wold Architects at the January 18, 2005 Council meeting. In his presentation, Mr. McNamara outlined the design submittal for the second fire station and discussed the timeline the project would continue on - completion of design at the end of April and construction bids to be taken after that. Mr. McNamara will be present at the Council meeting to go over the final design and cost estimates for the construction of the second fire station. ACTION REQUIRED Adopt the attached resolution accepting the final design and authorizing advertisement for construction bids. ~~-? Finance Director RESOLUTION NO. R - 05 ACCEPTING THE DESIGN AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION BIDS - FIRE STATION NUMBER 2 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 2nd day of May, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, the 2005 - 2009 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) of the City of Farmington includes construction of a second Fire Station to commence in 2005 and, WHEREAS, the City Council has been presented with the design and preliminary cost estimates of the construction of such a facility and, WHEREAS, the City Council believes it is in the best interest of the City to proceed with construction of the facility as designed. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. The City Council accepts the design plans for construction of the second Fire Station as presented by Wold Architects at this meeting. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the Fannington Independent and the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the construction of such facility under the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published at least once in the Fannington Independent and in the Construction Bulletin no less than three weeks before the last day for submission of bids. The advertisement shall specify the work to be done, shall state that the bids will be opened for consideration publicly at 2:00 pm on the 31st day of May, 2005 in the Council Chambers of the City Hall by two or more designated officers or agents of the municipality and tabulated in advance of the meeting at which they are to be considered by the Council, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the Clerk for 5% of the amount of each bid. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 2nd day of May, 2005. Mayor Attested to the day of May, 2005. City Administrator SEAL Values Statement Excellence and Quality in the Delivery of Services We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional and cost-effective manner. Fiscal Responsibility We believe that fiscal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds is essential for citizen confidence in government. Ethics and Integrity We believe that ethics and integrity are the foundation blocks of public trust and confidence and that all meaningful relationships are built on these values. Open and Honest Communication We believe that open and honest communication is essential for an informed and involved citizenry and to foster a positive working environment for employees. Cooperation and Teamwork We believe that the public is best served when departments and employees work cooperatively as a team rather than at cross purposes. Visionary Leadership and Planning We believe that the very essence ofleadership is to be visionary and to plan for the future. Positive Relations with the Community We believe that positive relations with the community and public we serve leads to positive, involved, and active citizens. Professionalism We believe that continuous improvement is the mark of professionalism and are committed to applying this principle to the services we offer and the development of our employees.