Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.04.91 Council Packet AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR FEBRUARY 4, 1991 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVE AGENDA 3. APPROVE MINUTES a. January 22, 1991 Regular b. January 23, 1991 Special c. January 28, 1991 Special 4. CITIZENS COMMENTS 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Set Public Hearing - Therapeutic Massage License 6. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Consulting Planner's Contract 7. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS a. Accept Donation to Senior Center b. Order Feasibility Report - 1991 Street Improvement Project c. Relating to Disposition of City Property d. Consider Bids - Fire Department Mini-Pumper 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Council Workshop b. Personnel Policy Amendments c. Review City Assessment Policy d. Project 90-1 - Farmington Industrial Park Storm Sewer Trunk e. Project 87-7 - Dakota County Fairground Utility Improvements 9. NEW BUSINESS a. City Insurance Policy b. Celebrate Minnesota Project - East Side of Railroad Tracks c. Solid Waste Grant - Retrofit Existing Garbage Truck for Weight Based System d. Solid Waste - Authorize Plans and Specifications for 300 Gallon Container e. Solid Waste - Authorize Plans and Specifications for Automated Refuse Truck f. 1991 5 Year MSA Plan 10. MISCELLANEOUS a. Council Meeting Taping Policy b. City Wide Survey c. Resource Recovery Facility Siting d. Incinerator Fees 11. CONSENT AGENDA a. Capital Outlay Request - Fire Department b. Capital Outlay Request - Public Works Department c. Speed Limit Sign in Alley Between 3rd and 4th and Spruce and Walnut Streets d. In-House Workshop e. Policy - Charging of Administration Fees f. Garage Rental - Parks and Recreation Department g. School/Conference Request - Police Department h. School/Conference Request - Police Department i. School/Conference Request - Public Works Department j . School/Conference Request - Fire Department k. Adopt Ordinance Relating to Membership in Human Rights Commission 1. Approve Payment of the Bills 12. ADJOURN • AGENDA REQUEST FORM 7 ITEM NO. Q NAME: Jim Bell ! n� DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation (7) DATE: January 24, 1991 MEETING DATE: February 4, 1991 ��Lr- -- CATEGORY: Ordinances and Resolutions SUBJECT: Donation to Senior Center EXPLANATION: REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration Wayne Henneke Finance Jim Bell Parks and Recreation A / SIGNATURE k RESOLUTION NO. R8-91 ACCEPTING DONATION OF CASH FROM THE EMPLOYEES OF THE FARMINGTON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Civic Center of said City on the 4th day of February, 1991 at 7:00 P.M. The following members were present: Kuchera, Mayer, Orr, Derington, Galler. The following members were absent: None. Member Kuchera introduced and Member Mayer seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, the employees of the air traffic control center jave offered to donate $740.25 in cash to the Farmington Area Senior Center to be used to help finance ongoing programs; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to accept said donation. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said donation is hereby accepted. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 4th day of February, 1991. NO.re.f Mayo ham �^ Attested to this day ofd_ , 1991. SEAL � 1 Clerk insit or , AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. /C, (-/L). 4:tr2- 7 NAME: Larry Thompson 0A.I.,--)-- ---.79 q_E) - DEPARTMENT: Administration V ,1 (j DATE: January 21, 1991 f_7 1 ���1 MEETING DATE: February 4, 1991 CATEGORY: Ordinances and Resolutions n /) , .��7 SUBJECT: Relating to Disposition of City Property � % %w^s`� EXPLANATION: Amend ordinance to address "junked out" property. �_ REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: Memo/Ordinance - Larry Thompson REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration Department Heads V'71/4./"IT -1764>--- ---� ,cf� SIGNAT ' MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: DISPOSITION OF CITY PROPERTY DATE: JANUARY 30, 1991 The Fire Department took their lawnmower to Dandy Sports for repair. The lawn- mower could not be repaired and Dandy Sports stated they will pay the City a certain amount of money for the lawnmower as scrap. In researching the City's ordinance governing Disposition of City Property, Title 8, Chapter 9, Section 8-9-6, it was determined the lawnmower could not be sold as scrap at this time. The ordinance states that all City property that is to be disposed of must go through the auction process. Any property not sold at auction may be disposed of by the City Clerk in any manner deemed appropriate. There is City property that needs to be disposed of that is not salable, such as the lawnmower mentioned above. It is recommended to amend Title 8, Chapter 9, Section 8-9-6 as stated on the attached proposed ordinance. Oeara (14/".4 Wayne Henneke Finance Director cc: Larry Thompson Department Heads file MEMO TO: KEN KUCHERA SUBJECT: DISPOSITION OF LAWN MOWER DATE: JANUARY 28, 1991 Per your request, I had Wayne research the disposition of the Fire Department lawn mower. I have attached a copy of his findings for your review. As you will noted, even though the lawn mower is not suitable for auction, the City Code re— quires that it be placed on the auction first and if there are no buyers, then it may be disposed of. Wayne is planning to recommend a revision to the City Code to allow the City to dispose of such property without the auction. In the mean time, I would recommend you make arrangements with Mr. Wier to store the lawn mower at his shop or contact Jim Bell to store it at the old Marschall garage. Larry Thompson City Administrator cc: Wayne Henneke Jim Bell file Memo to: Larry Thompson, City Administrator Date. January 16. 1991 Re Disposition of City Property - Lawn Mower As per your request, the City Ordinance governing the • disposal of city property has been reviewed. Chapter 9 Section 8-9-6 states an auction must be held and anything not sold at the auction must be disposed of by the City Clerk in "any manner deemed appropriate" . The ordinance does not address property that is not suitable for an auction. I have researched the Minnesota Statutes governing the disposition of equipment and cannot find where the State governs the disposition but I know they do. Dave Grannis is in court today; I will contact him tomorrow for his determination if it is possible to dispose of property outside of the auction process . If possible, a revision to the ordinance is needed to allow the City Clerk to dispose of such property. Fiscal control can still be applied by requiring a form to be filled out by the department listing the property to be disposed of and why it is not suitable for sale at an auction. The City Clerk would then authorize the disposal by a signing the form. A copy of the form would then be given to Finance to update fixed asset records. Wayne E. Henneke Finance Director c.c. file AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. NAME: Larry Thompson DEPARTMENT: Administration L� 04- DATE: January 25, 1991 v 1 MEETING DATE: February 4, 1991 CATEGORY: Unfinished Business SUBJECT: Council Workshop EXPLANATION: Per Council directive REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: Memo - Larry Thompson REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration Department Heads i ‘74"' SIGNf�� ! . MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: COUNCIL WORKSHOP DATE: JANUARY 29, 1991 Per Council directive, staff contacted GTS to set up a workshop. If approved, a contract will be presented at the next meeting for consideration. The following is a summary of the workshop. 1. Dates - Friday, March 1, 1991 from 5:30 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. - Saturday, March 2, 1991 from 8:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. 2. Dinner will be served Friday evening. Breakfast and lunch on Saturday. There will be approximately 8 hours of actual workshop time. 3. A member will conduct a phone interview with each participant before the meeting to discuss concerns/ideas. 4. It was recommended that participation be limited to Councilmembers, City Administrator, and Chairs of the Planning Commission and HRA. 5. After discussing the matter with staff and councilmembers from other cities, it is recommended that staff not submit goals and objectives before the workshop. The rationale is that the Council should set its goals and objectives independently and not react to staff proposals. 6. Cost - $1,500.00. /777716* -- Larry Thompson City Administrator cc: Department Heads file AGENDA REQUEST FORM TEM NO. �J�� NAME: Larry Thompson DEPARTMENT: Administration4-./ PC Or....si}}%-) DATE: January"A5, 1991 Q " . D1/4)/Ir; MEETING DATE: Janis^ Z,1'4 1991 CATEGORY: Unfinished Business k , SUBJECT: Council Workshop EXPLANATION: Per Council directive REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: Memo - Larry Thompson REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration Department Heads r.,* 7 r jrijNi° * ),/r/.1,' \i\p1)- \4,- , -30/})rj \4 0 `" Do 10 � 1� � 0 06 ' . ‘-• 77 4)0 SIGMA fP MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP DATE: JANUARY 16, 1991 Per Council directive, staff has reviewed the possibility of a Council/staff workshop. I have attached two letters regarding the use of a facilitation for the meeting. As you will note, the cost is between $1,000 and $1,800. Most area cities contacted stated that they have annual workshops using a variety of formats. The School Board also has an annual retreat. All find them extremely beneficial. The Council could fund the workshop from various Schools and Conferences line items. The City Council also discussed joint meetings with Boards and Commissions and, possibly, the School Board. Based on conversations with consultants, it is felt that the Council should first conduct a workshop on its own with the idea of expanding it to Boards and Commissions chairpersons or all members at a future workshop. While there appears to be a great deal of uncertainty regarding the 1991 budget due to the State's financial problems, I feel that a workshop would be beneficial. City officials I have spoken with indicated they spent a great deal of time focusing on the State budget shortfall. 7791761----"-"--- Larry Thompson City Administrator cc: file Department Heads November 23, 1989 4097 KENTUCKY AVE.N. p1929 CRYSTAL,MINNESOTA 55427 13 -z ' ' (612)347-9907 (612)535-3304 FRANK QUISENBERRY Mr. Larry Thompson DIRECTOR City of Farmington City Hall Farmington, MN. 55024 Dear Larry: Does your City Council have new members as a result of the recent election? In our work with local government, we have been asked to develop a program that will improve the communications climate between the Council and staff. The attached description gives information on the content of the program. The program is designed to be customized to each city, by conducting a needs assessment on the front end that will be used to determine the particular issues that will be addressed during the session. Our approach to this program is as follows: 1. One day will be spent conducting needs assessment interviews of 30 minutes each with Department Heads and Council Members . 2 . Conduct the workshop with Council Members and Department Heads . Specific action plans would be established for improvements . 3 . To hold a follow up meeting two months after the session to review the action plans . The cost for the program is $1800, including the needs assessment and the post session follow up. Travel expenses outside the 7 county metropolitan would be billed separately. The program is designed for groups as large as 25 . Please call if you have any questions, or wish to discuss the program in greater detail. Sincerely, Frank Quisenberry Director IFNI" Government"training Service III koll- Suite 401 480 Cedar Street Salm Paul,Minnesota 55101 812/222-7409 December 7, 2990 Mr. Greg Withers City Manger, City of Excelsior 339 3rd Street • • Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Greg: In response to our phone conversation I am enclosing some information about a goal setting and team building process. Please keep in mind that this process can be adjusted to meet the particular needs and/or constraints of your city. It is my understanding that you are approaching this effort from a positive position—being proactive about setting goals rather than reacting to disagreements or controversy from the past. This can be a great opportunity for a new council to start out aligned to the same mission and goals. If, as we discussed, we did not do individual interviews, but rather had the consultant meet with you and the Mayor and appropriate others (probably two times) , the coat of the day long session would be $1000. This would cover all time associated with: o Meeting or meetings ( rut'. '<< 6 "4"1A44"47/;;11.1451"44414'= o Design and Preparation �' o One day facilitation o A short summary report The report is important in that it provides a documented version of the prioritized goals as well as the action steps that were proposed. It can serve as a check list to help you monitor progress as the year goes on. In addition to the fee, the City would be charged for mileage at $.26/mile and any handouts that mould need duplication. The City would also be responsible for facility arrangements and costs associated with the day long retreat. We have several consultants that we work with. Prices vary depending on the consultant and the needs and expectations of the client. I am confident that we can provide a facilitator who can meet both your budget and your needs. M Assocratron of Minnesota Caun(es Mmnsaota Aaaociation Minnesota Community College* Lamm of Minnesota Cities l- of COn+miaajon9 State of Minnesota Misnescta ASIIodiation University of Minnesota Qf bw Mhipe 01 ,_.;I4. 9I_ ..._-..10 . 15 AM * GOVERNMENT TRAINING P03 Page 2 Greg Withers After you have had the opportwity to review this information, please call as with any questions or comments. I look forward to talking with you again in the near future. Sincerely, Nary Sabatke Prograz Planner Organizational Services XS/at OS:6 MEMO TO: DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE SUBJECT: RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY SITING DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 1991 This memo serves as follow up to recent discussion of the Development Committee relating to the Resource Recovery Facility siting. I have attached the subsequent information sent to the Council for its review. While no official action was taken by the Council, there were several comments made which I will attempt to summarize. Deep concerns were expressed about the Rosemount site. Councilmember Derington stated that there was no doubt in his mind that the facility belonged in Farmington. In essence, the Council appears to be leaning towards a Farmington location. Council- member Orr further questioned why the Flagstaff/TH 50 site was not rated higher. My response, which was later confirmed by Bob Williamson, was because of potential opposition from Christian Life Church and zoning considerations. After having digested the discussion, I feel the City should begin actively pursuing a site, which will require the following action. Determine Feasible Sites I would like to obtain clear direction from the Council to contact property owners as to their interest in selling property to the City. I would like the Council to identify specific search areas. While the County incinerator site does not have to be dropped at this time, I do not believe it has to be actively pursued because an agreement can more than likely be worked out with the County at any time. Zoning If the facility is to be located in Farmington, the Zoning ordinance will need to be amended to allow Resource Recovery as a conditional/permitted use. I have included information relating to the previous attempt to amend the Zoning ordinance. In summary, I am going to ask Council to identify potential locations for siting the Council to identify potential locations for siting the facility and seek direction to actively pursue acquisition. Also, I will request the Council initiate the amendment to the Zoning ordinance. Larry Thompson City Administrator cc: Robert Williamson file AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. 10 (Li NAME: Larry Thompson DEPARTMENT: Administration DATE: January 25, 1991 MEETING DATE: February 4, 1991 CATEGORY: Miscellaneous SUBJECT: Resource Recovery Facility Siting EXPLANATION: REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Development Committee Bob Williamson Solid Waste z.471-1SIGNAq; ; ' f MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY SITING DATE: JANUARY 29, 1991 Last summer the City accepted a report from the Resource Recovery Facility Site Selection Committee, and identified the U of M site as the City's first choice and the vicinity of Essex and TH 50 as the second. (See attached information.) Staff has met with Rosemount City officials to discuss the procedure for obtaining proper zoning permits. While Rosemount has not officially responded, it was noted that the proper land use permits could be obtained, there would be conditions placed on it. Presently, Rosemount is negotiating with the U of M to obtain sufficient property to establish a resource recovery park. Dakota County is also in the process of obtaining a 240± acre parcel for its incinerator. It appears that the best option right now would be the Dakota County incinerator site. Some drawbacks to the Rosemount site should be noted: 1. The haul distance to the U of M site will be a much greater distance. 2. From an identification standpoint, it may appear awkward to have the Farmington Resource Recovery Facility located in Rosemount. 3. Rosemount is considering a surcharge fee for Resource Recovery Centers, which may take some of the financial control out of the City's hands. Staff will continue to pursue the Rosemount site as well as the Essex/TH 50 site. The Council will soon be faced with a choice as to which site should be selected. This memo serves to update the Council on the status of the site selection and to confirm if the present course of action of actively pursuing the U of M site and passively pursuing Essex and TH 50 should continue, or if staff should begin more actively pursuing the Essex and TH 50 site. HCMG ` �or� Larry Thompson City Administrator • cc: Development Committee file MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: RESOURCE RECOVERY CENTER SITING DATE: JUNE 13, 1990 The Citizen's Review Panel of the proposed Farmington Resource Recovery Center recommended to the Mayor and Council that: 1. the Report be accepted; 2. an acceptable site be developed by directive or by establishing a committee; and 3. City staff be directed to proceed with a grant application through the Minnesota Office of Waste Management. Pursuant to Number 2, above, the Mayor and Council created the Resource Recovery Site Selection Committee, appointed five members, directed that the Committee recommend one site, only focus on site issues, and complete its charge within 60 days. The Committee held nine meetings. (See attached.) The members conducted site reviews using existing printed sources, on-site explorations, personal and phone interviews, and an on-site review of the St. Cloud Recomp facility. They were conscientious and diligent. Initially, the Committee members assembled a list of thirteen possible sites: a. MWCC - Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant, b. County solid waste, c. University of Minnesota, d. Dakota County Fairgrounds, e. Industrial Park, f. 220th Street and Essex Avenue, g. Independent Black Dirt, h. Flagstaff and Highway 50, i. Essex Avenue and Highway 50, j . County Maintenance Shop, k. 202nd Street and Flagstaff Avenue, 1. 190th Street and Highway 3, and m. Dakota County Yardwaste site. Each of these sites was rated against nine site rating criteria: 1. distance from existing homes, 2. hydrogeological, 3. site in Farmington, 4. land use compatibility, 5. cost, 6. distance from generation, 7. acceptance of site by community, 8. future roads and development, and 9. transportation access. As a result of the rating process, the site list was reduced to four: 1. MWCC - Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant, 2. Dakota County Solid Waste (incinerator) , 3. University of Minnesota Research Center (Rosemount/Empire) , 4. Essex Avenue and Highway 50. The Committee's final choice was the University of Minnesota Research Center, to be construed as possible sites along the 160th Street corridor within the Research Center. The Committee also recommended that, if the above site is unacceptable, the site in the vicinity of Essex Avenue and Highway 50 be recommended. The Committee requested me to present to you their findings as embodied in the minutes of their meetings. It has been my pleasure and priviledge to work with the members of this Comittee. Through their efforts, the citizens of Farmington have been well served. (-Rplag.A.t LULU(It/WWII") Robert Williamson Solid Waste Coordinator cc: Site Selection Committee file RFW RFW/mh MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: RESOURCE RECOVERY CENTER SITE SELECTION DATE: JUNE 1, 1989 Attached is a Resource Recovery Site Selection map with specific possible site locations indicated. However, this map should be used as an indicator of potential areas suitable for location of resource recovery center site, rather than an endorsement/rejection of a particular site. The basis of the map is as follows. Seven possible sites were chosen: (the Dakota County Yard Waste site in Lakeville, which rated lowest of the seven, was not included on the map) . 1. Dakota County Maintenance Shop in Farmington 2. MWCC/Empire Waste Treatment Plant - Empire Township 3. Farmington Industrial Park 4. Henderson Farm 5. Flagstaff Avenue and Highway 50 6. Essex and Highway 50 These sites were rated by evaluating each against nine site criteria. These criteria are listed below in order from most important to least important. 1. Distance from existing residential development 2. Land use compatibility 3. Compatibility with future development 4. Hydrogeological 5. Transport access 6. Distance from source generators 7. Within City limits 8. Cost of land 9. Adequate size. With the exception of the Henderson Farm, which rated fair, the remaining sites rated good to excellent. The map which embodies this rating information reveals that the best area for site selection within the City limits is located west of CSAH 31 along the State Highway 50 axis. 1---4111g2k- W.MA-4. 14.41. Robert Williamson Solid Waste Coordinator 1. THRESHOLD FACTORS: Rather than eliminating a particular site altogether, sites with thresholds currently percieved to be prohibitive; i.e. zoned residential, should be given a 1 (poor) rating. The premise here being that if the site otherwise rates highly, we mjv want to consider the costs of removing the prohibitive factor. 2. OBJECTIVE FACTORS: General rating: (1) poor, (2) fair, (3) good, (4) excellent. Specific rating: 1. Distance from existing residential development: (miles) , 1/2 - 3/4 (1) , 3/4 - 1 (2) , 1 - 1} (3) , 1i plus (4) . 2. Either (1) currently incompatible, or (4) currently compatible 1 1 3. Rating, 1074. 4. Highest rating should be given to soils that are either clay or sand/gravel and a water table where mean level is 8 feet below assumed final grade for building and pad. Rating, 1 - 4. 5. Accessable to a 9 ton capacity road. Rating, 1 - 4. Notable qualifications: Because of political considerations associated with utilization of the MWCC/Empire site, the approximately } mile of Biscayne Ave that connects the 4WCC service road to CSAH 66 would have to be paved. Because of technical considerations, the 4 plus mile access road to the County Yard Waste site will have to be reconstructed. In both of these cases it is possible that joint-funding can be obtained. However, on the basis of current commi,ttments, the approximately $100,000 required for each project should rate each a (1) . 6. Rating:'3i + (1) , 3 - 3} (2) , 2} - 3 (3) , 2 - 2} (4) 7. - =' cr- ' - 8. Rating: $1000/acre, 20 + (1) , 15 - 20 (2) , 10 - 15 (3) , less than 10 (4) . 9. Rating: Acres, less than 4.5 (1) , 4.5 - 4.8 (2) , 4.8 - 5.0 (3) , 5.0 - 6.0 (4) . • • rn N N 0 • • • • N. x cu co cn ,* "It it. `4•, d' .• + 1« •* w w w '.0 CO 0' 4J Lel OD Qs "t + '' `t 't -i- •* ri w ? N 13 N ON • 0 0 a, in 61 , W e '0 1•+ C c0 —• �► al W + + * i? V x • M ti o N, 144 c CO M ,i4., 1.1 00 , v Cz•• 0 ".... O ,.j. fit44. En F ' a1 [N .9 't� — N O N _ N cn 44 • M •ri 0. C•1E • • "4" `E rV i M ,. 4 + d. ca rtrt a1 �•COI : . N N • , • V 74 M re CV •74 7 ' a1 U .p '-Jto �1 • C M M N� N �j, N L�c�� a+ 0 : • • • • • • • • M C 1.1 •i OD Of C • w 4' * '�' M e4' `d• U r•- `n o r • • • • C •• • • I:1 H E 0 L Ps CO 00 E 0 0 a 0 as .� -4 ,i 0 wb N W 1•+ • d ,i al OO t.1 $.+ a1 C r1 E.4 w aA E ri 4+ 0 0 4-t C coa71i 0 O ,i 0 •-I L m a1 r-1G: 0 1.+ V >4 O U 0 1•i CO N a1 U U u ,i 7 0 O a1 u w UR OO,i a,+ w bO 0• cJ C a1 mo0 Cw 0 U 0 ri co 0 ao u 0 uE•+ i., w ,i ,i 0.s 1.+ C N L )4 " C r+ m ,i 0 .O E u •o ay ao 0 ao ar an ,i k 0 0 ,i >1 sa T+ 0 0 •0 G a1 N U 3 x E Ct 0 ...• wUt no MINUTES COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR JUNE 18, 1990 1. Mayor Kuchera called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Kuchera, McKnight, Sprute. Members Absent: Mayer, Galler. Also Present: Administrator Thompson, Attorney Grannis. 2. MOTION by McKnight, second by Sprute to approve the agenda with the following changes: a. Remove item 9b - Water Shut Off Policy. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. MOTION by McKnight, second by Sprute to approve the minutes of the May 30, 1990 special meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. MOTION by Sprute, second by Kuchera to approve the minutes of the June 4, 1990 regular meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. MOTION by McKnight, second by Kuchera to set a public hearing for July 2, 1990 at 7:15 P.M. to consider rezoning the outlot in the northwest corner of the Fair Hills Subdivision from R-3 High Density Residential to R-1 Low Density Residential. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. ,> 6. The Council next considered the report by the Resource Recovery Site Selection Committee. Chairperson Jeff Thelen presented a summary of the report, noting that the Committee's first choice was the U of M property in Empire Township/Rosemount along the 160th Street corridor. Mr. Thelen added the site was not tied to the Dakota County incinerator site. A number of questions followed regarding methodology, sites not selected, zoning issues, and selection criteria. Mr. Thelen stated that the Committee had hoped to select a site within Farmington, but because the entire Committee felt the Resource Recovery facility had to have a good chance of being accepted by the public and Zoning Board, none of the Farmington sites were acceptable. For example, the MWCC treatment plant site would have been a good choice, except that the MWCC was planning a major expansion and odor problems persisted at the plant. It was the consensus that the Council wait until all Councilmembers were present before fully discussing the report. MOTION by McKnight, second by Kuchera to accept the Resource Recovery Site Selection Committee report and place the matter on the July 2, 1990 agenda so that all Councilmembers can participate in the discussion. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 7. City Engineer Kaldunski presented the plans and specifications for Project 89-3 - (1st and Walnut Streets Improvement). Mr. Kaldunski presented an overview of the pro- ject, noting that a new sanitary sewer line would be required on the north side of Walnut Street because of conflict with the sewer, 4' sidewalk would be installed on the property line except for the east side of 1st Street where it would be 8 feet from the property line, sanitary sewer would be replaced on 1st Street, the 4" water line would be replaced, galvanized water services replaced with copper, and the grades would be dropped slightly to improve drainage. A lengthy discussion followed re- garding the possibility of changing the sidewalk on the east side of 1st Street from 4' to 3}' wide. It was the consensus that it would be bid at 4' and possibly changed once the project is staked. MOTION by Ruchera, second by Sprute to adopt RESOLUTION NO. R36-90 approving the plans and specifications for Project 89-3 and Cm. Mayer: Will it be 100% assessed? Eng. Kaldunski: Yes. Larry Oldenburg: The assessments will be too high? MOTION by Sprute, second by Galler to close the hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 10. Councilmember Sprute stated that the people seemed to be in favor of the project but were objecting to the costs. Councilmember Sprute stated that the projects were not picked "out of the blue" but were based on traffic flow around Elm and Division Streets. The Council has been in improving various areas and should continue with sidewalks. Public Works Director Kaldunski stated that perhaps the City crew could help out with preparation and restoration. Councilmember Mayer stated that the 100% assessment policy was for newly improved subdivisions and not existing neighborhoods and would support less than 100% assessment. MOTION by Sprute, second by Kuchera to adopt RESOLUTION NO. R41-90 ordering Project 90-6 - Sidewalk Improvement - and ordering the preparation of plans and specifications. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. --->11. The Council next considered the Resource Recovery Site Selection Committee report. Chairperson Thelen reviewed the criteria used to screen the sites. A lengthy dis- cussion followed regarding the recommended sites, noting that the Empire Wastewater Treatment site, which made it to the final four, was really a non option because of local opposition. Administrator Thompson recommended the Council select the University property site, direct staff to apply for the grant and provide options for other sites. MOTION by Mayer, second by Galler to select the U of M site as first choice and the TH 50 and Essex Avenue site as second choice. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 12. MOTION by Mayer, second by Galler to direct staff to prepare a grant application for the Waste Management Board for a Resource Recovery Facility. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Sprute clarified that he voted yes only if the solid waste would be separated from Public Works. 13. The Council next considered a petition for stop signs and "Slow Children" signs in Dakota County Estates. The petition was tabled pending a report from the Police Department. 14. The Council next considered a recommendation by the Administrator to lift the moratorium on building permits in Terra 2nd Addition. A lengthy discussion followed regarding the principal of allowing a developer to not comply with the developer's agreement (street lights) and possible remedies available to the City. MOTION by Galler, second by McKnight to lift the building permit moratorium in Terra 2nd Addition. VOTING FOR: Kuchera, Galler, McKnight. VOTING AGAINST: Sprute, Mayer. MOTION CARRIED. 15. The Council received an update from Administrator Thompson on the Fairgrounds Utility Extension dated June 27, 1990. 16. City Engineer Kaldunski presented the proposed plans and specifications for the improvements to Dakota County Estates, reviewing streets, utilities and grading requirements. MOTION by Kuchera, second by Galler to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 842-90 approving the plans and specifications and authorizing the advertisement for bids for Dakota County Estates 6th Addition. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 17. MOTION by McKnight, second by Kuchera to award the 1990 Sidewalk Maintenance project bid to Sunrise Cement Company for $16,500 per the City Engineer's memo dated June 28, 1990. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . WON r i ���` i / I � 24 19 20 I - 22 3 19 , Q 0 e . • i I 30 t /,,,.R-fl S E O U N ' „ 2 � _ �a2� Aim29 , r/i28 I 27 � - . /' 3C I "29 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA SITE : 31 32 33 34 I 35I am I 32 re i 1 ' i i l _ % COar� w 6 5 4 I 2 A f '.a :7..1 5 VERMILLION SITE 7z I Is\\� V E © 8 9 12 I 10 II I 8 i/ EMPIRE SITE , I I ss Born 1\ _ 18 17 : 16 I 15 14 13 18 I 17 • � � = EMP:I R E 1 ►�,,: o i t i L i 6> i 19\ • 20 2J22J2 \ 24GI 20 S / © m I EMPIRE T'. 31 S '. / 28 271 : 26IIII CITY JJ I 2 WOW .�� I i I r Ill ; _2 33 3 4 ; 3' +' 36 32 • KEY ---7--.:—/-7-71---1 so,...=1,,,,, 1) "'i"°"*"." = """'a"'° SOURCE: DAKOTA COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT gu: - CM II 10411101, N J".n,u s •--• mureemuris Oaou.nmm 0 sw►r.uwAa Mai a.aa ' SCALE: 0.8•=1 MILE FIGURE 1 DAKOTA COUNTY HIGHWAY MAP ..... :,...c..,.. ,,.., , ql Coates -, .1?...........-' i 1 1 k ; • ,o • g E G vol Filiii1 .• • G.----r-r-• -'1 I.."...•• • • • RMIGATE (Jt °21 BOUM DAI ' 913 T.'t ...9;9. 9°4 im 191k174 1916 • •S ra tr•-•-117?......4' ) 1 ,Q) •• 91?1"7.' .\.. • :.. . .. , .... ,..,' a kb ,. 0 .C7 ' ....... \ -4 •.• .. A\I / ssel 1 •00° **''' 111;\'',1 ) • S : • : •,, 0'; rp, •••• 15 7) "A 0 F. z:5 —711!. 1, 1.6 '` ,,........ ........06"- .. -....o, • // G;cojj II*'711 'cr - ce 4 .4„ki 1 Y % 1 /4. 4Vb Q 0 ,,, 913. 1707) i.:3 "1171011.7 0; 11)\ .........,.. ci,,),/ST-4410070„,.-E). -..;906 7 IICIIII: "MEM MI' . , rr ,zv ,„ ' 01 M 1 likm f. A ihiiiiii.ON SITE \r-- I -p G ' 0 ( .. 0 le ........ ;t, r#.2. -----...,.„3 i k‘o,,,,, - I- — ' • z"- , G ,T,10,fi 0 0 I . ib 0 •. 100774 ' Q1721.:LII •906 .„, 0‘11 — ' ,0- • kl") \' _. .?•, . , BM • .1 1 e I i . 1,0 q. . . . ills . • .. . o , • ._izt, •-----'''''......„. i., , .. 870 -/0,S) W (4 A • ii ' ---t- - (= 1) ..._ . A k) SOURCE: USGS 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) N . COATES, MN QUADRANGLE SCALE 1:24 000 1 o I pou i 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 1000 1000 7000 FEET t•-• •-• •-• 1 1 .1 0 1 MLOMETRE „ 1 CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET FIGURE 2b • VERMILUON SITE LOCATION MAP 8 AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. NAME: Larry Thompson DEPARTMENT: Administrator DATE: January 28, 1991 MEETING DATE: February 4, 1991 CATEGORY: Consent Agenda SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance Relating to Membership on Human Rights Commission EXPLANATION: Per Council directive REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: Ordinance/Memo - Larry Thompson REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration Karen Finstuen Administration i 7aoa------- SIG4ATURE MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: MEMBERSHIP ON HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION DATE: JANUARY 30, 1991 Per Council directive, I have attached a proposed ordinance relating to the membership of the Human Rights Commission which would change the Parks and Recreation Commission member to an at large member. If adopted, the Council should consider appointing Wayne Martz to fill the vacant seat. Larry Thompson City Administrator cc: file PROPOSED CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 0t1 ORDINANCE An Ordinance Relating to the Membership of the Human Rights Commission THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I: Title 2, Chapter 7, Section 6 of the Farmington City Code shall be amended by adding (underlined) and deleting (stmetek) as follows: 2-7-6: Human Rights Commission: (A) 2. (b) Designated Seats. Individual seats shall be designated (1) City Council, (2) Planning Commission, (3) Perks sad-Reeresttee3-Adv+sexy-Gemmtss+es Community At Large, (4) Minority and/or Low Income, (5) Community at Large. SECTION II: After adoption, signing and attestation this ordiance shall be published one time in the official newspaper of the City and shall be in effect on and after the day following such publication.