The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01.20.04 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 promising fUture. AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 20, 2004 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) Commendation - Kevin Carroll Acknowledged ~. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open/or Audience Comments) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (1/5/04 Regular) b) Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes - Parks and Recreation c) Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Bids - Parks and Recreation d) Annual Report - Boards and Commissions - Administration e) Acknowledge Resignation HRA - Administration f) Approve Appointments to Boards and Commissions - Administration g) Capital Outlay - Human Resources h) Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation i) School and Conference - Fire Department j) School and Conference - Finance/Community Development k) Approve Bills Approved Information Received R5-04 Information Received Acknowledged Approved Information Received Information Received Information Received Information Received Approved 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARDOFCONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Third Quarter Customer Service Response Report - Administration b) Fourth Quarter Building Report - Community Development c) Approve Tamarack Park Master Plan - Parks and Recreation d) Proposed Satellite Fire Station - Approve Site Soil Investigation - Fire Department Information Received Information Received Approved Approved e) 2004 Sealcoat Project - Project Delivery Option - Engineering f) Review/Approve Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan for Seed/Genstar Property- Community Development g) Review/Approve Draft AUAR for Spruce Street Area - Community Development h) Approve 2004 CDBG Application - Community Development (Supplemental) 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. ADJOURN Information Received R6-04 Approved R7-04 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Mission Statement Through teamwork and cooperation, the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserve our proud past and foster a promisingfuture. AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 20, 2004 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. APPROVE AGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENDATIONS 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (1/5/04 Regular) b) Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes - Parks and Recreation c) Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Bids - Parks and Recreation d) Annual Report - Boards and Commissions - Administration e) Acknowledge Resignation HRA - Administration f) Approve Appointments to Boards and Commissions - Administration g) Capital Outlay - Human Resources h) Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation i) School and Conference - Fire Department j) School and Conference - Finance/Community Development k) Approve Bills Pages 1-16 Pages 17-18 Pages 19-20 Pages 21-22 Pa~es 23-24 Pages 25-26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARDOFCONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Third Quarter Customer Service Response Report - Administration b) Fourth Quarter Building Report - Community Development c) Approve Tamarack Park Master Plan - Parks and Recreation d) Proposed Satellite Fire Station - Approve Site Soil Investigation - Fire Department Pages 32-33 Pages 34-36 Pages 37-40 Page 41 e) 2004 Sealcoat Project - Project Delivery Option - Engineering f) Review/Approve Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan for Seed/Genstar Property- Community Development g) Review/Approve Draft AUAR for Spruce Street Area - Community Development h) Approve 2004 CDBG Application - Community Development (Supplemental) 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. NEWBUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. ADJOURN City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farJDington.mJ;1.us TO: Mayor & Councilmembers Daniel M. Siebenaler, Interim City Administrato~ SUBJECT: Supplemental Agenda FROM: DATE: January 20, 2004 It is'requested that the January 20, 2004 agenda be amended as follows: ANNOUNCEMffiNTS~OMMENDATIONS Sa) Mr. Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director Commendation for obtaining Met Council Grant for Spruce Street Corridor. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 10h) Approve 2004 CDBG Application - Community Development Approve application for allocation of 2004 CDBG funds. q;~~ Daniel M. Siebenaler Interim City AdmiIiistrator /OA City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: J).l{j Mayor, Councilmembers and Interim City Administrator / { FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: 2004 Community Development Block Grant Application DATE: January 20, 2004 INTRODUCTION The City has the right to apply for approximately $64,000 in Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] funds for CDBG Program Year 2004 [July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005]. To secure the grant money that is available, the City must prepare and submit an application that specifies eligible activities or projects to which the City intends to apply the available funding. The completed application must be submitted to the Dakota County Community Development Agency [CDA]. DISCUSSION For the last several years, the City has received [federal] Community Development Block Grant funds, which have been administered and distributed by the Dakota County Community Development Agency [CDA]. The next CDBG "program year" will run from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005. The exact amount of money that will be available is presently unknown, but it will probably be about $64,000 (or about $9,000 more than last year). In order to obtain the available CDBG funds, the City must complete and submit an application, as it has done in past years. The application must identify the project(s) for which the CDBG funds will be used, and the specific project activities to which the funds will be applied. CDBG funds can only be used for "eligible" projects or activities that satisfy certain "National Objectives." Typically, such objectives include redeveloping slums or blighted areas, creating or improving housing that benefits individuals who fall within "low to moderate income" guidelines, or creating jobs that pay wages that fall within certain ranges. At the Farmington HRA meeting that was held on January 12th, the HRA Board discussed projects or activities that could potentially be included in the 2004 CDBG application. At that time, the HRA members indicated a desire to allocate the upcoming program year's CDBG funds as follows: 1. Up to $5,000 for costs related to the redevelopment of a vacant parcel of property located at the southeast corner of Main Street and Fourth Street. The property in question is a tax- forfeiture parcel that is currently under the control of the State of Minnesota and/or Dakota County. The City and the HRA have received numerous time-consuming inquiries regarding the parcel, but prospective purchasers/redevelopers generally lose interest in the property when they learn that the MPCA has identified it as an actual or potential contamination site. A gas station was once located on the property, and there is also evidence of an unrelated plume of contaminated groundwater under the property. The $5,000 could be applied to (a) engineering or consulting fees related to clarifying the nature, extent and source of any contamination, (b) engineering or consulting fees related to the development, approval and implementation of a clean-up plan, and (c) the actual costs of cleaning up or remediating the site. 2. Up to $20,000 for costs related to the general improvement of commercial properties located in an area bounded by Third Street, Oak Street, Second Street and Elm Street. Such costs could potentially include (but would not be limited to) the following: . Demolition of the rear portion ofthe Riste building, to remedy Code violations and/or to provide better delivery access to the rear doors of the Larson and Exchange Bank buildings, and reconstruction of the rear (north) wall of that building. . Demolition of the entire Riste building, which would result in a new developable site in downtown Farmington. . Improvements to the rear portions of the commercial buildings that face Third Street (between Oak Street and Elm Street), which could (subject to Dakota County CDA approval) potentially include paving of parking areas, rear fa9ade repairs, etc. 3. $40,000 for the Dakota County CDA's housing rehabilitation program, which would be used exclusively for the benefit of Farmington homeowners (in the form of grants or low- interest loans for specified home improvements). I have attached a proposed Resolution that has been prepared in the format required by the Dakota County CDA. If the Resolution is approved by the Council, an application that is consistent with the terms of the Resolution will be completed, attached to the Resolution and submitted to the Dakota County CDA. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve/adopt the attached Resolution approving the City's application for Program Year 2004 0 . ity Devel m t Block Grant funding. CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 DAKOTA COUNTY COMMtlNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Farmington as follows: 1. That the Community Development Director is authorized to submit an application to Dakota County for a Community Development Block Grant in Fiscal Year 2004. 2. That the Mayor and the Community Development Director are hereby authorized to execute a Fiscal year 2004 CDBG Application that is consistent with the direction provided by the City Council at its meeting on January 20, 2004. 3. That the Dakota County CDA be designated as the administrative entity to carry out the program on behalf of the City. Adopted by the City Council of Farmington this 20th day of January, 2004. Ayes: Nayes: Jerry Ristow, Mayor ATTEST: 7~ COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR January 5, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Ristow led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Audience: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg None Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Dan Siebenaler, Interim City Administrator/Police Chief; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; 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 Randy Oswald, Kelly Helleson, Susan Edmonson, Jack Wierke, Greg Eppich, Jeff Krueger, Robert Nelson, Tim Burke, Mike Heinzerling, Bruce Conner, Michelle Meschke, Scott Kamarainen, Michelle Schmidt, Kelsey Johnson, Crystal Bjerke 4. APPROVE AGENDA Item 7i) Appointments to Boards and Commissions was tabled to the January 20, 2004 Council Meeting. Councilmember Cordes pulled Item 7a) Council Minutes (113/04 Special) to abstain from voting. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. s. ANNOUNCEMENTS 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) MOTION by Fogarty, second by Soderberg to approve Council Minutes (113/04 Special). Voting for: Ristow, Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg. Abstain: Cordes. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fitch to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (12/15/03 Regular) (12/15/03 Special) Council Minutes (Regular) January 5, 2004 Page 2 b) c) d) e) Approved LMCIT Excess Liability Coverage - Finance Approved Appointment Recommendation - Human Resources Approved Temporary On-Sale Liquor License - Administration Adopted RESOLUTION RI-04 Approved Gambling Event Permit- Administration t) Approved Placement of Signs in Right-of-Way - Engineering g) Approved Amendment 2004 Fee Schedule Ordinance - Administration h) Received Information Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation i) Tabled to 1/20/04 Appointments to Boards and Commissions - Administration j) Approved Bills k) Approved Appointment Recommendation - Fire Department APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Approve Therapeutic Massage License - Administration Ms. Kelly Helleson has submitted an application for a Therapeutic Massage license to join Rite Touch Salon and Tan at 923 S 8th Street. MOTION by Cordes, second by Fitch to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Soderberg approving the Therapeutic Massage license for Kelly Helleson at 923 S 8tli Street. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Vacate Roadway Easement Glenview Commercial Addition - Community Development There is an existing roadway easement that needs to be vacated before the county can record the plat. The 50-foot wide roadway easement is located in the southeastern portion of the plat. During the design the roadway was shifted 25 feet to the west to allow more of a buffer for a residential property. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Fitch adopting RESOLUTION R2-04 approving the vacation of the existing 50-foot wide roadway easement on the Glenview Commercial Addition Plat to allow the recording of the plat by Dakota County. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Annual Organizational Matten - Administration 10a(1) Designate Councilmember Cordes as Acting Mayor from January 5,2004 through December 31, 2004 10a(2) Designate the Farmington Independent as the official publication from January 5,2004 through December 31,2004. 10a(3) Appoint the firm of Campbell Knutson, Joel Jamnik as City Attorney from January 5,2004 through December 31,2004. Council Minutes (Regular) January 5, 2004 Page 3 lOa(4) Appoint the firm ofBonestroo, Rosene and Anderlik as the city's Consulting Engineer for the year of 2004. Councilmember Fitch asked if approving the rate schedule for 2004 would bind the city from using anyone else in 2004 for engineering services. Attorney Jamnik replied no, the contract provides for a level of services, but if Council found there was a conflict or another reason to get a separate engineering firm, there is authorization for the Council to do that. It works the same way with the City Attorney's contract. Councilmember Fitch stated in reviewing some of the rates, he wondered if it would be in the city's interest to start looking at employing some of these people on a direct basis rather than consulting the services. He would like to look at that in the future. City Attorney Jamnik replied all of the contracts have the authority for the Council to make a change. Councilmember Fitch stated it is not that he is unhappy with Bonestroo, he would like to have the situation reviewed. 10a(5) Designate Anchor Bank of Farmington, League of Minnesota Cities 4M Fund, RBC Dain Rauscher, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Wells Fargo Investments and Salomon Smith Barney as the Official Depositories from January 5,2004 through December 31, 2004. 10a(6) Approve the Council By-Laws as presented. 10a(7) Designate all sworn personnel in the Farmington Police Department as process servers for the calendar year 2004. lOa(8) Approve a $1,000,000 Faithful Performance Bond for the City Clerk. The State is now recommending higher limits on bonding for cities the size of Farmington. lOa(9) Ordinance 003-504 Establishing Fees and Charges for licenses and permits for 2004 was adopted December 15, 2003. lOa(10) Appointments to Boards and Commissions - Candidates were interviewed January 3, 2004. 1 Oa(ll) Appoint Councilmember Soderberg as the -primary and Councilmember Fogarty as the alternate representative to the ALF Ambulance Board. lOa(12) Appoint Councilmember Cordes as the City's representative to the CEEF Committee. lOa(13) Acknowledge the designation of Fogarty Councilmember, Kevin Carroll, staff member and Todd Larson, Planning Commission member on the Farmington/Empire Planning Advisory Committee. 10a(14) Appoint Daniel M. Siebenaler as the Responsible Authority for data practices. This is required to be done on an annual basis. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler's appointment would be effective until the new City Administrator starts. City Administrator David Urbia will need to be appointed Council Minutes (Regular) January 5, 2004 Page 4 when he begins employment. The law requires a specific person be named as the Responsible Authority, and not the position. MOTION by Fitch, second by Soderberg approving the appointments as noted above. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) November 2003 Financial Report - Finance The budget numbers for the revenues and expenditures reflect the adoption of the revised budget Council passed at their December 15,2003 meeting. c) Order Feasibility Report - Spruce Street Extension Project - Engineering The city has received a $955,000 grant from the Met Council to constnlct the extension of Spruce Street west of Denmark, up to and including the bridge across the Vennillion River. In order for the project to move forward, a feasibility report needs to be done. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Soderberg adopting RESOLUTION RJ-04 ordering a feasibility report for the Spruce Street Extension Project. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Approve Meadowview Park Master Plan - Parks and Recreation At the December 15, 2003 Council Meeting, staffwas directed to explore an option of aligning a trail connecting with a trail to the north of the wetland and south to Langford Lane. The consultant compiled a concept plan and provided estimates for this option. There is an extension from the boardwalk with a paved trail that follows the contours of the private street. This was done to meet ADA requirements. The boardwalk could not be run immediately to the cul-de-sac due to not being able to meet the required slope from the cul-de-sac. Along Langford Lane there would be either a striped bike lane or signs noting a bike route. Langford Lane is currently a private street and there are no sidewalks. The estimate shows the boardwalk length will be shorter in this location. The cost for the boardwalk is $10,000 less. However, because of the need for extending a paved trail from the boardwalk to the cul-de-sac, there is additional cost for the paved trail. When the two costs are compared it is $3,000 less than the cost of the boardwalk going through the middle of the wetland. According to the county surveyor's office when trail easements are done, they are not allowed to be shown on plats. In addition, the surveyor's office indicated a trail location can be shown as a separate outlot on a plat, but it cannot be shown as a trail. In order to identify future trails on plats, staff can identify narrow pieces of land as an outlot that could be used for trails. City Attorney Jamnik stated on the plat the easement would be identified as a drainage and utility easement. There would then be a separate trail easement over that same area and recorded at the same time as a final plat. It would be difficult for a property owner to find that. There have been suggestions that the legislature should change the platting statute to allow those types of plat notations which would better apprise property owners of trails. One of the benefits of having a Trail Master Plan is that it can be provided to show the placement of trails. The development agreements are being revised to have the trails constnlcted along with the first lift of streets and sidewalks, so property owners can see the actual trail. Staff can work with the developer to show the trails on their advertising board. The wetland and pond area was platted as an Council Minutes (Regular) January 5, 2004 Page 5 outlot which extended to where the lots met the wetland buffer. As it was platted as an outlot, the city owns it and it was up to the city to decide where the trail should go. Mayor Ristow stated wetland would be different than an easement between houses. Wetland is dedicated as an outlot for water. City Attorney Jamnik stated it is deeded in fee so the city can use it for whatever purpose it would like. Regarding the trail alignment showing a connection to Langford Lane, staff contacted a representative for the townhome association and the association has not met to discuss this situation. Councilmember Fogarty asked about the area from the island to the future boardwalk and the trail going south, if that is intended to be built now. Staffreplied the trails have been identified in the Trail Master Plan. The future paved trail to the east would be the responsibility of the developer to construct and pay for it at the time development occurs. Councilmember Fogarty stated when the additional fees were added for pavement, it was just for the area around the cul-de-sac. It does not take into account that in order to utilize it, we would have to wait for the development to come in. Staff replied the city can require the developer to pay for it, but staff would have to talk with the developer to see ifhe would put it in before the development occurred. That area is not part of the Meadowview Park Master Plan. The estimates do not include this trail. Mayor Ristow asked if Genstar owned the property all the way to 200th Street. Staff replied that is correct. Genstar owns the land all the way to Middle Creek and north to 195th Street. Mayor Ristow then asked why the developer would not be required to pay for this boardwalk. Staff replied the wetland is already city land. As it has already been platted, the city cannot require the developer to pay for it. That requirement would be done at the time of preliminary plat according to the ordinance. Mayor Ristow stated at the time it was platted is when all the requirements should have been identified. Staff replied including the cost of trail construction was not part of the old ordinance. The ordinance has been recently revised to include that plus the trail construction as part of the development process. Mayor Ristow asked if there were dedication fees or just the land. Staff believed there was a combination of cash and land. Councilmember Fitch stated the trail connection to the south will be going into the area known as the "big blue blob." Because of some things that will have to be done in that area will there have to be an elevated boardwalk through there? Staff spoke with Mr. John Smyth ofBonestroo, and he stated there are places along that area that are elevated and have been identified as floodplain and not wetland. For example along the tree lines. The tricky part will be closer to Middle Creek because it is a protected area by the DNR. A boardwalk will have to be run across the creek connecting to the trail system on the south side of Middle Creek. Councilmember Fitch stated there may be some excavation needed and asked if that would significantly change the elevated line. Staff replied as far as the excavation needed to create the flooding area, there would be ways to locate the trail and not have it be a problem with the excavation areas. It is not necessary to create wetlands when excavating out, storage area is needed where the water could pond. Councilmember Fitch asked if we are going to ensure the trail will be above that. Staff replied the desire is to keep the trail up as Council Minutes (Regular) January 5, 2004 Page 6 high as possible. It is sometimes difficult to keep it above the 100 year level. Councilmember Fitch stated he does not see a lot of development that will be able to occur in that area and asked if the trail would be at a cost to the city. Staff replied yes because there would be no homes in that area due to the floodplain. During the process of identifying a Master Plan for Meadowview Park the initial plan showed a trailing coming off the existing trail and going along the western side of the wetland through a wetland buffer area in combination with a boardwalk extending south to 200th Street. Some of the neighbors objected to the location of the trail, so the Parks and Rec Commission explored an option which removed the trail along the buffer on the west side and moved it out into the wetland and created a boardwalk through the wetland connecting to the island, through the island and to the existing trail in the park. The third option was connecting the boardwalk across the wetland in combination with a paved trail connecting to Langford Lane, which is a private street. The fourth option would be to take the board walk out through the wetland make the trail loop through the island and have the trail connect on the north side of the wetland to the future trail on Pilot Knob. Mr. Robert Nelson, Vice President of the Charleswood Townhome Association, stated the board members have discussed the different options except for option 4, as they were not aware of this option. The townhome owners do not want to see a boardwalk connected to Langford Lane or an easement given on Langford Lane. It is a private street. There are liability and other concerns. The buffer zone between the townhomes is very limited and a lot of that would be taken away. The trail along the back of the townhomes is not conducive to the original plan when it was submitted to the city. The signs were posted well in advance that it was DNR protected wetland and changing it now would be incorrect to the townhome owners. They do not object to option 1 or the looping of option 4, but there is great concern regarding connecting to Langford Lane. It is a private street and they want to keep it that way. Councilmember Fogarty asked if they do not want boardwalks crossing the wetland at all or just into Langford Lane. Mr. Nelson replied personally he does not want it crossing the wetland because of the DNR statute. The tOwnhome owners do not want it against the back of their property. It would literally cross the back of their windows. Mr. Broce Conner, 19901 Langford Lane, stated he owns the townhome at the north part of Langford Lane. He is not opposed to a bike path. He commended the volunteers, staff and everyone who has worked on the bike trail system throughout Farmington. When they moved in 13 years ago into Akin Park Estates, they were told by a Councilmember that the trail system was on the drawing board. It has materialized and it is fantastic. It is a multi-million dollar, many miled-trail and he thanked the city for doing it and having the foresight to put it in. He does not object to having a trail near his house. The third proposal is using the street itself and asked Interim City Administrator Siebenaler what his opinion would be with 28 homes, short driveways, a minimum of 2 cars each, if a bike trail were put down that street. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated a specific zone would have to be striped and marked as a bike trail and designate no parking on that side of the street. Mr. Conner stated the length ofthe Council Minutes (Regular) January 5, 2004 Page 7 driveways is approximately 30 feet and with 2 cars it is very dangerous. There is no way a bike trail could be put in there. It is dangerous walking to get the mail when people are backing out and arriving home. It is not a situation the townhome association or the city would want to get into. The association was not aware of option 4, but Mr. Conner felt it was a very good option. However, the trail system was set up for going to 200th Street on the boardwalk. They are not opposed to that. He thanked the city for all they have done on the trail system. They use it frequently and enjoy it very much. Going on Langford Lane is not a question of not wanting the path, it is a question of safety. Mayor Ristow stated this is not a rebuttal to Mr. Conner, but there are other areas such as 193rd Street that were identified as a sidewalk and it turned into a trail. The area is similar with a lot of driveways. Councilmember Soderberg stated the cost difference is $3,000. He would guess the amount of staff time spent on this has eaten up that amount if not more. There is no consideration for an easement across a private property which would bring the cost higher, and there is opposition from the townhome association. That leaves an eminent domain action which he is not interested in. The 200th Street connection is important to him and to the system. The boardwalk seems to be a reasonable compromise. He appreciated and understood the objections of running a trail along the backyards. He felt it would be nice to go out his back door and access it, but he does not live there. The boardwalk would be a nice amenity. He would support the original proposal that the Park and Rec Commission put forward. Mayor Ristow stated first of all it was wetland. He spoke with the DNR and Mr. Brian Watson, Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation. They recommended the other option instead of going through the middle of the wetland. Councilmember Fogarty stated the recommendation was to go westerly of the wetland. Mayor Ristow stated the recommendation was to use the shortest route across the wetland. Councilmember Fogarty stated the shortest route would take it along the western part of the wetland with a short boardwalk to reach 200th Street. Mayor Ristow stated no one wants it in their backyard so where do you put it? Councilmember Soderberg stated that is why through the middle is a reasonable compromise. It would be cheaper to run the trail along the western edge which would satisfy Mr. Watson, by keeping it out of the wetland, and a number of Charleswood residents who do not want it in the wetland. However, it does impact the residents along the western side. Through the middle is a reasonable compromise since what is being proposed is an elevated boardwalk which will have the least amount of impact on the wetland. Councilmember Cordes felt a southerly access to this area would be in the best interest of the community. In exploring all options as much as we can, and we have been criticized for taking so long to make a decision, but it is part of the process, the Langford Lane area is less of an impact on the wetland, however because it is a private street, she is not in favor of eminent domain, and objections from the association, she does not think it is a feasible option. She felt we do Council Minutes (Regular) January 5, 2004 Page 8 need a southerly access. Option 4, connecting to Pilot Knob, defeats the purpose of a southerly access. Councilmember Fitch stated originally he was opposed to the idea for several reasons and still does not have a great comfort level. The connection to the south will require us to go through wetland to make a southerly connection all at the cost of city taxpayers, not at the cost of a development. Even though all of our future trails will be paid by the developers and the land is developed, he did not see a feasible way to make a connection to the south. If we are doing it just to bring it to 200th Street, he did not see the real purpose. We could bring it to Pilot Knob and eventually south, rather than go through another wetland with another boardwalk system. He realized there is higher ground, but accessing it and excavating it, he did not know how financially feasible that would be. When Council voted for Pilot Knob in 1997, there were safety issues with trails. A lot of that has gone away over time. He did not have a problem with option 4. He would not have a problem with the boardwalk ifhe knew what the plan was to make that connection further south. Mayor Ristow stated to the north the county has started the trail along CSAH 31. The trail ends at 195th. The trail would have gone to Hwy 50 if they had continued. Councilmember Fitch stated he wants all citizens to have as much access to the green spaces as possible. We do not have enough green space in Farmington for the number of residents we have. The access to what we currently have is precious. Mayor Ristow stated he agreed with Councilmember Fitch. It is not a matter of compromising for either side. And he has advocated not to be in the wetlands. He would like to see option 4. The options are: Option 1 is a paved trail constructed along the western perimeter of the wetland combined with a boardwalk connecting to 200th Street. This was the original option and it was opposed by the residents. Option 2 would be to place a boardwalk across the wetland from the island connecting to an existing trail on 200th Street. This boardwalk would be 250 ft. away from the back of the property lines. Option 3 would be a boardwalk across the wetland in combination with a paved trail connection to Langford Lane. Option 4 would take the future trail on the north side of the wetland and connect it to the future trail along Pilot Knot without any kind of boardwalk. Mayor Ristow asked if the second option is preferred, would there be more buffering or landscaping along the homes. Staff replied there will be plants in the wetland that will grow up along the boardwalk and should provide some screening of the boardwalk. If residents are fearful of people looking into their homes, perhaps staff could work with the residents to construct some sort of Council Minutes (Regular) January 5, 2004 Page 9 visual barrier with trees or large shrubs in the back of their yards that would screen the view from the boardwalk. Staff also wants people to be able to look into the park for any inappropriate activity. Councilmember Soderberg stated option 4 requires us to wait longer than we already have for a park. There is no park and residents want it sooner rather than later. Option 2 provides for the city to move ahead with that along with putting in a park and allowing access to it. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to approve option 2 which is the option the Park and Rec Commission forwarded to Council with unanimous approval. Councilmember Fitch stated the park is to the north of where the paved trail currently is. The construction of the park itself would not be halted by not providing a southerly access. Councilmember Soderberg stated it does not stop construction of the park but it does prevent access from anywhere other than the northerly access point along Evensong Avenue. Staff stated there is also a trail coming from 195th to the park. There would be no access from the south unless people drove through the streets or along Pilot Knob and park along the street. In the future, staff will be looking at acquiring additional parkland for parking. Mayor Ristow asked if once the park goes in will there be more access off Pilot Knob to go directly into the park. Staff replied when the development is platted there would probably be a connection along 19ih Street. Councilmember Cordes stated regarding the trail along Pilot Knob, she understood it would not be constructed until the road is widened by the County. Staff replied they understood when Pilot Knob goes to 4-lanes, that is when the trail would be put in along Pilot Knob. It is not currently on the county's 5-year CIP, nor does it have the Pilot Knob expansion. Voting for: Cordes, Fogarty, Soderberg. Against: Ristow, Fitch. MOTION CARRIED. b) Approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Trail Master Plan - Parks and Recreation Staff was requesting Council update the Comprehensive Plan by amending the Trail Master Plan. As far as the planning process, the Park and Rec Commission provided input and review of the planning document. There was a public hearing held on November 12, 2003 by the Planning Commission at which time public comment was received. There were no citizen comments provided. The final step is to have the plan reviewed by the Council. There are 12 guiding vision statements. 1. Construct trails that are flexible in meeting a variety of user group needs and abilities. 2. Provide for alternative modes of transportation. 3. Create a safe trail system that provides safe connections and crossings to parks, schools, neighborhoods, commercial/industrial areas, and provide education programs about bike safety to trail users. 4. Promote the construction of trails along natural greenways in the community. 5. Provide connections to neighboring communities' trails. 6. Provide trail access in older areas of the community where it does not exist. Council Minutes (Regular) January 5, 2004 Page 10 7. Create trail construction and an ongoing maintenance funding mechanism to ensure the trail system is a long term investment. 8. Provide trails of alternative surface types when traditional surfacing is not feasible. 9. Create trail connections and not trail dead ends. 10. Develop specifications for trail design standards. II. The city should plan for and create a limited number of alternative use trails. 12. Provide signage that informs and directs users to destinations and provides proper warning to potential hazardous conditions. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Cordes adopting RESOLUTION R4-04 approving the Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update Amendment regarding walkinglbiking trails. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) City Hall Site Selection - Administration Staff requested Council make a decision on a site for City Hall. Based on that selection, there will be other decisions to be made such as the life expectancy or the service length of a City Hall building. As with the other municipal buildings identify a target year or target population. It would not be out of the question to say we want a new City Hall to serve a population of 40,000 people or the year 2030. Based on that information, in cooperation with an architect, we can design a City Hall based on projected needs. It would also be beneficial to identify a target date - when does Council want a new City Hall to be occupied. This will allow staff to establish timelines and project priority goals. It is important to understand that by naming a site and giving direction as to the life expectancy of a building, Council is not authorizing the project. Council is authorizing the acquisition of more information. Council would be expending some financial resources such as contracting with a consulting firm specializing in acquisition and relocation of existing businesses if necessary. Staff asked Council to authorize staff to begin work with an architect, to submit requests for proposals and begin a design process. Once the building is designed, a cost can be established. Only then can financial decisions be made whether or not to build it. Councilmember Cordes asked if it would be premature to do all this if it was decided to have a City Hall issue on a referendum. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler replied personally, you do not ask a question you cannot afford to hear no as an answer. If a problem exists and requires an answer from Council, you are bound by your job descriptions to act in the best interest of the city. The voters have put you in your positions to make those very difficult decisions in their interest. From the position of an Interim City Administrator, a referendum on any municipal construction would put this process back at least another year. We would look at a referendum with the General Election in November 2004, which would begin the process we are in now one year from now. In fact, it would be further, because we would not have a dollar amount estimate. In order for us to get to the dollar amount it would put us out 2 years. It is not premature. A site needs to be identified so staff can provide Council with the financial information they need to make a final decision or to refer it to a referendum. Council Minutes (Regular) January 5, 2004 Page 11 Finance Director Roland stated since the financing was initially discussed in February 2003, the state legislature has allowed cities to construct needed public facilities utilizing G.O. bonds that were normally under referendum prior to 2003. At the time staff suggested lease revenue bonds because the cost would be spread evenly across commercial, industrial and residential properties. We now have the option without the referendum requirement at this time. Financing could be done with lease revenue bonds, the bonds with a referendum or the bonds without a referendum. Mayor Ristow stated even if you did a referendum you would have to identify the bonding source. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated you would have to identify a dollar amount. Authorize the construction of a City Hall within a specific dollar amount. Finance Director Roland stated whether the bonds are adopted with or without a referendum, they would be market value bonds, meaning the heaviest burden would be shifted to the residential properties and not to the commercial/industrial properties. Lease revenue bonds are done on a tax capacity value which spreads the burden equally across commercial, industrial and residential properties. Market value referenda would shift the tax burden more to residential properties than the lease revenue bonds. Mayor Ristow stated he has heard comments that when the budget was done, staff stated the coming years could be difficult. He asked what adding this would do to the budget? Finance Director Roland stated at this point, because debt service levies are outside of levy limits, it would have no impact on our budget. We would be required to levy for the debt service consistent with the way we levy for all other debt service and those debt service levies are outside of levy limits. Consequently, they would not be affected by the same items for the 2005 budget. What we are most concerned with the 2005 budget is the general levy which would have a limit on it as to the amount of money we would be able to levy for general services such as police, fire, park and rec, streets and snow plowing as well as general administrative functions. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated what Council does tonight will not trigger a $7 million expense. Long before we get to that point, which could be a year away, the legislature will make its intentions clear for 2005. Councilmember Soderberg stated we are basically identifying a location. We have a rough idea of what it will cost. Based on how things change with the state legislature or other things, we can set a path but if things do not work out we can always discontinue it. Staff is looking for direction on this path. Are we going to move toward a new City Hall facility, and if we get to a point where we need a voter referendum, we need to go to the voters with enough information which is going to take some time. We cannot get to that point until we make a decision tonight. Mayor Ristow stated once you start the path you need to be fully prepared. How much money will this cost to have staff research this? If we acquire additional land, how far are we going to go? Ifwe pick a site that is fine, and then go into more discussion from there, but staff is asking for more than that. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated picking a site is a starting point, after that staff would ask for additional direction and authorization to move forward. If Council chooses not to do that, if Council wants to wait and see, then staffwill sit and wait until Council tells us to move. Council Minutes (Regular) January 5, 2004 Page 12 Councilmember Fitch asked if we select a certain site would it affect certain negotiations that are going on with the price of a particular property that we have an option on at this time, or is that price firm as long as we exercise the option. Community Development Director Kevin Carroll replied the benefit of the Option Agreement is that we have locked in a price. We have the option of buying it at that price, but we are not obligated to. Mayor Ristow asked if we are losing any money if we do not fulfill the agreement. Staff replied we had to put some money down in order to exercise the Option Agreement, so if we choose not to exercise the option the money we paid to get the option will be lost. This is HRA money. The HRA has several ideas in mind for the site, and they are determined to pursue whatever alternative is determined to be in the city's best interest. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated there are two sites. The first is the current City Hall site at the comer of 4th and Oak. The other site is the site recommended by the Task Force at the intersection of 3rd and Spruce. Mayor Ristow stated he has made his comments before. There is the heritage and the 130 years of City Hall at the present location. There are adequate site, noise, and dust differences. He stated this at the Task Force meetings all along. He would like to see City Hall stay at the current site. He heard more comments from the Library that there were a lot of furnace and duct systems that have to be halted due to the dust and noise when the train goes through. If during a Council Meeting there was a loud train whistle the meeting could be stopped. There are numerous meetings with staff and developers, etc. As far as the timeline frame, the financial people recommended a 50 year site and 3rd and Spruce was a 20 year site. Finance Director Roland stated the bonds would be 25 or 30 year bonds and that is how far the building would go out. Mayor Ristow stated he was referring to the life expectancy of the building. We need the space so that we are not dead at 20 years. Councilmember Fogarty stated the current site is too expensive. It is a great deal more money to stay here. This might be the original site, but it is not the original building. As far as taking the building out 50 years, she would rather build at 3rd and Spruce and expand vertically. To keep it here, some options were $1 million. If we are going to spend $1 million she would rather see that go toward a parking ramp at 3ro and Spruce with a 3-story City Hall, than to use it to buyout businesses and move them. Mayor Ristow stated the $1 million was the higher option. Councilmember Soderberg stated there was a wide range in cost between the two sites. They went from $200,000 to $1 million to put the facility here. While 3rd and Spruce may have some obstacles, he did not believe that any of them cannot be overcome. He felt 3rd and Spruce is an excellent site. There would be minimal disruption to city services during construction. It was the site the Task Force recommended, and felt they came to some excellent conclusions. Councilmember Cordes stated she would like to see City Hall stay on the current site. She did not know if the city would have to acquire all businesses at this point. The current building could be demolished and expand vertically. When Council Minutes (Regular) January 5, 2004 Page 13 the maintenance facility and police facility were built we were told that area was big enough for a City Hall, Maintenance Facility, Police Facility, satellite Fire Station, and a water treatment building. Now we are down to two of them. She assumed that would be our city campus. That was a hard pill to swallow. Ifshe does not have to move City Hall from the current location, she does not want to. Mayor Ristow stated when we upgraded from the Community Library that was in this building, and when the Fire Station and then the Police moved out, our next step was to expand and we would have as much room there as we currently have. If you look at it conservatively for the constituents that we represent sometimes you have to add onto your home instead of building a new home. Councilmember Fitch stated his initial reaction was that he did not like 3rd and Spruce. The reason is that is the beginning of the Spruce Street Corridor, and felt it would be better to have commercial start the Spruce Street Corridor than a City Hall. However, we have a lot of limitations on expanding on the current site. Even though this site would be preferable, from a logistics standpoint, not just the city has the problem, but all of downtown in that we are landlocked. Unless we pick something outside of downtown, we are going to be landlocked. At this point, if we are going to build a building for a life expectancy of 50 years, we are only fooling ourselves. He did not think we could look at a building for more than 30-35 years. It would be nice to be able to plan a building to go vertical, but no one wants to go vertical anymore. He stated 3rd and Spruce would be better served with commercial, but also understood the landlocked problem we have no matter where we build the building. If the library comes up for sale, perhaps the HRA would buy that and hold onto it for redevelopment for a future City Hall after 30 years. Ifwe don't think now about that site and where we will go and how we will get there, in 30 years we will have done a disservice to the taxpayers. This is not a cheap undertaking. He stated he could live with the 3rd and Spruce site and go along with the recommendation of the Task Force. He stated they did a good job. We looked at a lot of options and unfortunately it comes down to dollars and cents and he could not see spending $1 million. At this time, even though it was not his favorite site, he could live with 3rd and Spruce. Mayor Ristow stated if we expanded across to the library, what would we do with the Spruce Street Corridor. Councilmember Fitch stated in the future, other things may happen and other properties could come into the city that could change that. Maybe split off Administration from Engineering, and Engineering goes into another building, just like we did with the Maintenance and Police facilities. No matter where we put City Hall, we have a landlock problem. Unless the city decides they will acquire more property for expansion no matter what we do, we will not be able to envision what that will be beyond 30 years. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated in subsequent discussions Council may want to consider a strategic plan for the acquisition of additional property, either surrounding this site or 3rd and Spruce and formulate a strategic plan for the long-term acquisition of property for 20-30 years out. Mayor Ristow stated he understood what he was saying, but disagreed with the way he said it. You are taking out commercial and retail business where here you are just taking out housing to the east. Commercial land is more expensive right now than housing. Council Minutes (Regular) January 5, 2004 Page 14 MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to approve the 3rd and Spruce Street site as the preferred site for the City Hall. Mayor Ristow stated he will not support it, but he will support whatever site is chosen down the road to continue on with it. Councilmember Soderberg stated this is the end of a long road that a lot of people were involved in. The Task Force did a lot of work on it and he appreciated their efforts. Voting for: Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg. Against: Ristow, Cordes. MOTION CARRIED. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler asked for further direction. Councilmember Soderberg stated to look out 50 years or a population of 40- 50,000 is very reasonable. Mayor Ristow stated we have to be open-minded and do what we think is right. We can do what the architects and other professionals recommend. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler requested Council authorization for request for proposals for architectural services so we can begin a design phase of City Hall. Once that is in place, staff can provide design cost estimates and the amount of land necessary for that design. The current building is 35 years old. When it was initially constructed it was serving a population of 3,600. It has served well for a lot of departments for 35 years. Based on the current information we can make a reasonable population estimate for 30 years from now. 50 years from now is pushing the limits of anyone's ability of projection. He recommended obtaining an estimate for 30 years and designing a building to serve that population. Councilmember Fogarty stated staff would recommend continuing with the Task Force's recommendations. Staff replied that is correct. Council agreed. d) Approve City Administrator Contract - Human Resources The city has reached an agreement with Mr. David Urbia on an employment agreement. It has been reviewed by the City Attorney and Mr. Urbia. Staff is recommending the employment agreement for Mr. Urbia be a~roved. City Attorney Jamnik stated the agreement will be dated the 6th or 7 of January 2004, the employment start date will be January 26,2004, and the salary start date in the agreement will be changed to January 26, 2004. An option has been discussed regarding the insurance provision. The city recommends the employee shall be responsible for continuation of insurance coverage. That was not Mr. Urbia's request, but it is consistent with city policy. The waiting period for insurance is the 1 st of the month after 30 days of employment. If Mr. Urbia starts the end of January, his benefits would start March 1,2004. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to approve the employment agreement with Mr. David Urbia. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Adopt Ordinance - Amending Winter Parking Restrictions - Police Due to some changes in state law, some businesses are allowed to remain open later at night, which has come into conflict with our 2 a.m. - 5 a.m. parking restrictions. Staff is requesting to amend the parking restrictions to 2:30 a.m. - 5 :30 a.m. Mayor Ristow stated there are some bars that chose to stay open until 2:00 a.m. and asked if any employees were issued tickets. Staff stated there were tickets issued and they have been dismissed, pending this action. Councilmember Council Minutes (Regular) January 5, 2004 Page 15 Fogarty asked if ~ hour was an adequate amount of time to leave. Staffreplied the recommendation is to be out by 2:15 a.m. The management of the bars have indicated that would be enough time. MOTION by Cordes, second by Fogarty to adopt ORDINANCE 004-505 amending the seasonal parking ordinance. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Fogarty: It was brought to her attention that the Middle School, in November, had a dance that raised $2,000 and that money was given to the local food shelf. During December the Elementary and Middle Schools collected 3,000 items of canned food for the food shelf. She spoke to the food shelf and there is a huge increase in use. There are 350 families that utilized the food shelf this year. Councilmember Soderberg: He received a letter from the Fire Department regarding the Annual Meeting, and asked if other Councilmembers were attending. Mayor Ristow stated in the past all of Council has attended and sat at separate tables. He received notice from the LMC regarding a Leadership Conference for Experienced Officials. Councilmember Fogarty stated she would also like to attend. Staffwill register Councilmembers Fogarty and Soderberg for the conference. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to adjourn at 9:21 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ./ :? ..... -,:/0'-" {'. .~ --.):7 7Ld~c./ ~.~/C.,-a~ 6;:nthia Muller Executive Assistant 7b DRAFT Farmington Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes from the Regular Meeting on December 10, 2003 Member's Present: Randy Oswald, Dawn Johnson (arrived at 6:10 p.m.), Paula Higgins and Debby Ruth Member's Absent: Mike Buringa Other's Present: Parks and Recreation Director, Randy Distad I. Call To Order Chair Oswald called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers. Quorum was present. II. Approval of Agenda. Motion by Higgins and seconded by Ruth to approve the Agenda as written. APIF III. Approval of Minutes. Motion by Ruth and seconded by Higgins to approve the November 12, 2003 meeting minutes as written. APIF IV. Presentations (None) V. Old Business A. Update on Meadowview Park Master Plan Director Distad notified Commission members that the Meadowview Park Master Plan was presented at the November 17,2003 City Council meeting and received a lot of discussion. It was tabled to the December 1, 2003 City Council meeting. It was then tabled at the December 1,2003 City Council meeting to the December 15th City Council meeting due to not all City Council members not being at the meeting due to illness. B. 2004 Goals The Commission members reviewed the goals and action plan for 2004 that were identified during the Commission's retreat in November. The four goals identified were: 1. Identify locations for future City park and open space. 2. Develop an orientation packet for new Park and Recreation Advisory Commission members. 3. Work on a recommendation to the City Council regarding the construction of new recreational facilities based on the Recreational Facilities Task Force's recommendations. 4. Continue to foster a good working relationship with the City Council. Higgins moved and Johnson seconded to approve the Commission's 2004 goals. Voting in favor: Higgins, Johnson and Oswald. Abstaining from the vote: Ruth. Motion passes. VI. New Business A. Depot Way Arts Park Distad provided information about current issues that are faced in the Depot Way Arts Park concerning vandalism. Distad also requested that the Commission provide him with some direction on how future new art sculptures should be added to the park. By Commission consensus it was agreed that Distad should continue to work with the Dakota Valley Arts Council in regards to the selection and adding of art pieces to the park and that any future pieces that are recommended to added, should be brought before the Commission for approval. B. Skate Park Review Distad provided information to Commission members in regards to this past years skate park season. There were several issues identified including vandalism, supervision and cleanliness of the facility. Some suggestions for improvements included: new location, paid supervisor and enclosing the facility with fencing. The Commission determined that the skate park should continue to stay in its present location until after the recreational facility task force's final report is given to the City Council because the skate park will be addressed in the final report. C. 2004 Playground Equipment Purchase for Tamarack Park and Silver Springs Park Commission members provided some direction about the type of playground equipment that should be specified for Tamarack and Silver Springs Parks. Commission members would like to see at a minimum the following pieces of playground equipment be included when a Request for Quotes is sent to vendors for Silver Springs Park: climbing apparatus and a tree house theme. Commission members did not seem to have a preference for any specific pieces of playground equipment in Tamarack Park. D. Discussion on the Timeline for Park Master Planning, Park Development and Park Re-Development Distad reviewed an early draft of a schedule that he has started putting together that concerns the planning and improving of City parks. He asked if Commission members felt that the schedule should be further identified. Commission members seemed to like the schedule and directed Distad to continue developing the schedule and to bring it back at a future meeting for further review. E. Dakota County Regional Park Discussion Distad informed Commission members of a potential Dakota County regional park being developed in Empire Township just east of the regional wastewater treatment plant and north of County Road 66. Distad stated that the County Board will be taking up this matter at their next Board meeting and will be voting on whether or not the County Parks Department should move forward with master planning the area and entering into negotiations for the purchase of the property. He also stated that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is interested in this property as a Wildlife Management Area and an Aquatic Management Area. Commission members were urged to contact County Commissioner Joe Harris and inform him of their support for the regional park in this location. VII. Additions to the Agenda (None) VIII. Staff Report (None) IX. December Meeting Agenda Topics The following items were identified for the January 2004 meeting agenda: . Discussion of the election of the 2004 Commission Chair . Review draft park master planning and park development schedule . Update on Meadowview Park Master Plan . Update on Dakota County Regional Park . Update on Farmington Youth Hockey Agreement . Update on Trail Master Plan . Rambling River Park Discussion X. Joint Meeting with Recreational Facility Task Force The Commission met jointly with the Recreational Facilities Task Force and discussed the format for the final recreational facility report to the City Council. XI. Adjournment Motion by Ruth and seconded by Higgins to adjourn the meeting. APIF'. Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully Submitted Randy Distad, CPRP Parks and Recreation Director and Recording Secretary 7(j City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and Interim City Administrat~ FROM: Randy Distad, Parks & Recreation Director SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Approving the Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertisement for Bids for a Truck Chassis with Automated Refuse Collection Body DATE: January 20,2004 INTRODUCTION Council approval for the specifications and advertisement for bids for the 2004 budgeted truck chassis with automated refuse collection body is needed. DISCUSSION Staff has prepared specifications for the purchase of a truck chassis with automated refuse collection body. BUDGET IMPACT The 2004 budget includes $197,025 for the truck chassis and automated refuse collection body. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution approving the specifications and authorizing the advertisement for bids. Respectfully submitted, -12~6 j)~ Randy DIstad Parks & Recreation Director cc: file Benno Klotz RESOLUTION NO. R -04 APPROVE SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS SOLID WASTE -TRUCK CHASSIS with FULLY AUTOMATED REFUSE COLLECTION BODY 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 20th day of January, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present: The following members were absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution. WHEREAS, specifications have been prepared for a Truck Chassis with Fully Automated Refuse Collection Body; and, WHEREAS, such plans and specifications are now before the Council for its consideration; and, WHEREAS, funding for the truck with Fully Automated Refuse Collection Body has been approved in the 2004 Capital Outlay Budget. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. Said specifications are hereby approved. 2. The Parks and Recreation Director is authorized to insert in the Farmington Independent and Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for such equipment and that bids shall be received by the City until 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 12, 2004 at which time they shall be publicly opened and read aloud. They will then be considered by the City Council. No bid shall be considered unless accompanied by a bid bond, certified check or cash deposit equal to at least five percent (5%) ofthe amount of the bid. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 20th day of January, 2004. Mayor Attested to the _ day of ,2004. SEAL Interim City Administrator 7J City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, Interim City Adrninistra~ FROM: Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Annual Report - Boards and Commissions DATE: January 20,2004 INTRODUCTION Section IX of Council By-laws calls for the submittal of a report stating the number of meetings and the attendance records for various Board and Commission members. DISCUSSION The 2003 attendance record for all seats on City Boards and Commissions is as follows: HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Beverly Preece Present 5 out of 6 meetings John Fortney Present 4 out of6 meetings Patrick Garofalo Present 4 out of 6 meetings Jonathan Robertson Present 5 out of6 meetings George Flynn Present 4 out of 6 meetings (Resigned November, 2003) Tim Rice Present 3 out of6 meetings (Resigned June, 2003) Jackie Dooley Present January meeting only (Did not reapply) Susan Strachan Present January meeting only (Did not reapply) HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Kevan Soderberg Present 12 out of 13 meetings Yvonne Flaherty Present 12 out of 13 meetings Todd Arey Present 13 out of 13 meetings Nick Roberts Present 6 out of 13 meetings Paul Hardt Present 12 out of 13 meetings PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION Dawn Johnson Present 9 out of 11 meetings Randy Oswald Present 11 out of 11 meetings Mike Buringa Present 8 out of 11 meetings Paula Higgins Present 9 out of 11 meetings Debra Ruth Present 9 out of 11 meetings PLANNING COMMISSION Chaz Johnson Present 12 out of 15 meetings Dirk Rotty Present 13 out of 15 meetings Ben Barker Present 13 out of 15 meetings Todd Larson Present 15 out of 15 meetings Bob Heman Present 11 out of 15 meetings WATER BOARD Robert Shirley Jeff Krueger Tom Jensen Present 11 out of 12 meetings Present 12 out of 12 meetings Present 12 out of 12 meetings RAMBLING RIVER CENTER ADVISORY BOARD Charlie Weber Present 11 out of 12 meetings Chris Common Present 10 out of 12 meetings Gil Anderson Present 7 out of 12 meetings Lucky Lyle Present 3 out of 12 meetings Sarah Miller Present 11 out of 12 meetings Beverly Preece Present 7 out of 12 meetings ACTION REQUESTED This report requires no action, it is for information only. Respectfully submitted, ~ ffxIJCr~ Lisa Shadick Administrative Services Director Cc: Board and Commission members City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, Interim City Administrato~ FROM: Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Accept Resignation Housing and Redevelopment Authority DATE: January 20,2004 INTRODUCTION Nicholas Roberts has resigned hi~ position on the HRA effective January 7,2004 because of scheduling conflicts. The term of this appointment is through January 31,2006. A copy of Mr. Roberts' resignation is attached. DISCUSSION Council interviewed candidates for various boards and commissions on Saturday, January 3, 2004 and determined that Ms. Tamara Witt was qualified to serve on the HRA. ACTION REOUIRED Accept the resignation of Nicholas Roberts from the HRA and appoint Ms. Tamara Witt to complete the remainder of his term. Respectfully submitted, J6#t ;:t~dt Lisa Shadick Administrative Services Director 7e January 7, 2004~ Mr. Kevin Carroll City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington~ MN 55024 Dear Mr. Carroll: It comes with great regret, that I must send you this letter, informing you of my resignation from The Farmington Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). Due to the many demands, which my business has placed on me, I need to focus all of my efforts on ensuring that we come through the current economic down turn. Please understand that resigning from the HRA is not necessarily what I want to do, but I have to think of what is best for my family, my business and the City of Farmington. Should you have questions or wish to discuss this matter in greater detail please feel free to contact me. Again I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience that this may have caused. Sincerely yours, Nicholas J. Roberts City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.c:i.farmington.mn.us ~ TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, Interim City Adm,jniStral~ FROM: Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director SUBJECT: Capital Outlay DATE: January 20,2004 INTRODUCTION The 2004 Budget provides for the acquisition of new computers. DISCUSSION There are 11 computers being purchased. They will replace computers with obsolete operating software such as Windows 95 which is no longer supported by Microsoft. The new computers will provide greater functionality to the end user. BUDGET IMPACT The funding for the computers is provided for in the 2004 Budget. ACTION REOUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, p/} . /J ~ /! /1 /I ~... vJd,tf~~~{. I - .I Brenda Wendlandt, SPHR Human Resources Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7~ TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and Interim City Adrrllni~ FROM: Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT: Turf Maintenance Equipment Capital Outlay DATE: January 20,2004 , INTRODUCTION The City's approved 2004 Capital Outlay Budget identified funding for turf maintenance equipment including a seeder, field painter and a core aerator. DISCUSSION The turf maintenance equipment to be purchased will allow Parks Maintenance staff to improve the quality of turf in our parks and ballfields. It will also provide the equipment to meet the turf management needs of the City's growing park system. BUDGET IMPACT The 2004 Capital Budget included the funds to cover the cost of purchasing a seeder, field painter and a core aerator. ACTION REQUESTED This item is for informational purposes only. ~~tfully Submitted, ~/~~ Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director cc: Don Hayes 7-F City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, Interim City AdmilIistra*, FROM: Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Appointments to Boards and Commissions DATE: January 20,2004 INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION The City Council, at a special meeting held January 3,2004, interviewed and proposed the following appointments to Boards and Commissions: Seat Applicable Term New Appointment Heritage Preservation 1) 2) 3) 2/1/04-1/31/07 Edgar Samuelson 2/1/04-1/31/07 Timothy Burke 2/1/02-1/31/05 Vacant Parks & Recreation 1) 2) 3) 2/1/04-1/31/07 Robin Hanson 2/1/04-1/31/07 Dawn Johnson 2/1/04-1/31/06 Randy Oswald Planning Commission 1) 2) 3) 2/1/04-1/31/06 Ben Barker 2/1/04-1/31/06 Todd Larson 2/1/04-1/31/06 Sherry Richter \ Rambling River Center Advisory Board 1) 2/1/04-1/31/07 Betty Steege 2) 3) 2/1/04-1/31/07 Edgar Samuelson 2/1/03-1/31/06 Vacant Water Board 1) 2/1/04-1/31/07 Robert Shirley Housing and Redevelopment Authority 1) 2/1/04-1/31/09 Paul Hardt 2) 2/1/04-1/31/06 Tamara Witt Upon approval of the City Council the applicants will be notified by letter and will receive an Oath of Office and Certificate of Appointment. ACTION REOUIRED Council by-laws state that commission appointments shall be made at the second regular meeting of the year. However, given that the interviews have already taken place, the action requested is to approve the appointments to the various Boards and Commissions for the above stated terms. Respectfully submitted, ~d.~~ Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director 7,' City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and Interim City Admini~ FROM: Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief SUBJECT: School and Conference - Fire Department DATE: January 20,2004 INTRODUCTION The Fire Department is planning attendance at the Emergency Medical Services Conference. DISCUSSION Mr. Terry Verch will be attending the 24th Annual Arrowhead EMS Conference in Duluth. BUDGET IMPACT Approved in the 2004 budget. ACTION REQUESTED Approve attendance at the Emergency Medical Services Conference. Respectfully submitted, ke.-VJw.,,- Ken Kuchera Fire Chief cc: Todd Kindseth, Rescue Captain City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7' J TO: Mayor, Council members, Interim City Administrat FROM: Robin Roland, Finance Director SUBJECT: School & Conference - Finance/Community Development Department DATE: January 20,2004 INTRODUCTION Staff is planning on attending the Ehlers 2004 Public Finance Seminar to be held February 5 - 6, 2004 at the Earle Brown Heritage Center in Brooklyn Center. DISCUSSION This conference focuses primarily on financing issues; TIF, bonding, and economic development tools. Staff anticipates attending sessions on topics which directly affect current and future projects in the City of Farmington. BUDGET IMPACT The adopted 2004 budget includes funding for this conference in both the Finance and Community Development departments. ACTION REQUIRED For information only. Respectfully submitted, ~#~ . Robin ~oland Finance Director 100-- City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council Members, Interim City Administrat9# FROM: Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Customer Service Response Report DATE: January 20,2004 INTRODUCTION In an effort to meet and understand our citizen's needs and concerns, the City has adopted a customer service satisfaction program. This program is designed to ascertain and measure the level of customer satisfaction during service-related interactions. All citizen contacts with the City are documented in terms of complaint type, referring department, priority of service request and service outcomes. Responses are typically anonymous ensuring that citizens with negative experiences are just as likely to respond as those with positive service experiences. Accordingly, it is the City's intent to use this information as a customer service tool to improve and promote the importance of excellence in customer service. DISCUSSION The table below reflects summary statistics generated by Customer Action Request forms over the months of July, August and September 2003. Summary response percentages are generated through the analysis of monthly reports and include response data from all operating City departments. # of Service # of Surveys Prompt Personally Courteous Month Re uests Returned Response Satisfied & Helpful I July I August I September I Summary 43 28 36 107 19 12 16 47 94% 81% 81% 86% 89% 80% 68% 79% 94% 90% 100% 95% The percentages above reflect the number of actual surveys that indicated a response in any given category. Consequently calculations are based on the actual numbers of responses received which may differ from the number of surveys received as some respondents did not indicate answers to specific survey questions. On average, ninety-five percent (95%) of citizen requests for service are handled and addressed within a 1-3 day period. Typically, from that point it requires approximately 90 days or more to receive, process, compile and analyze the survey response data into monthly reports. In terms of how "promptly the City reacted to citizen requests," the degree of "how personally satisfied citizens were with service outcomes," and was City staff "courteous and helpful" in responding to citizen requests, response data suggests a very high level of customer satisfaction in all three categories. In terms of core customer service skills, City staff have achieved an impressive 95% rating in "courteous and helpful service" and 86% in "prompt service" regardless of how personally satisfied a resident was with service outcomes. This underscores the City's commitment to treat each resident contact as a highly valued customer service relation's opportunity. In terms of how personally satisfied a resident is with a specific service outcome, staff responses are, in most cases, controlled by state statutes, City ordinances, available staff resources and/or service priorities. In some cases, responses are a function of a third party who must respond to a given situation. Overall, a summary rating of 79% over the three month period for how personally satisfied a resident was with a City service response is a very respectable response ratio given the wide range of resident concerns. In review of survey comments, residents commented both negatively and positively on a variety of concerns such as tree trimming, playground equipment repairs, weeds and tall grass, trail cleanup, illegal dumping, junk vehicles, water problems and street repaIrs. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED Acknowledge the Customer Service Satisfaction reports from July through September 2003. Staff will continue to present customer service satisfaction data to Council as it becomes available. Monthly report data with department breakdowns are available for Council review upon request. Respectfully submitted, ~/t? ~a~<-- Lisa Shadick Administrative Services Director IOi; City of Farmington 325 Oak Street. Farmin!rton. MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council Members, Interim City Administra# FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Fourth Quarter 2003 and Year-End New Construction Report and Population Estimate DATE: January 20, 200.~ "I INTRODUCTION The following report summarizes the new construction permits issued during the fourth quarter of 2003, the year-end building permit totals, and the year-end population estimate. DISCUSSION Fourth Quarter Building Permit Information: During the fourth quarter of the 2003 building construction season (October 1st through December 31 st), the City issued 49 new single-family detached housing permits and 50 new multi-family permits, for a total of 99 new 4th-quarter housing permits. Construction valuation for the single-family and multi-family homes totaled $9,868,200 and $6,074,736, respectively. The average building valuation of the single-family homes during the fourth quarter of 2003 was $201,392, up from $196,747 during the third quarter. The average building valuation of the townhome units during the fourth quarter of 2003 was $121,495, down from $207,223 during the third quarter. (Note that the valuation averages do not represent the average sale price or average market value of the homes in question, since they do not include the value of the lot or any amenities added to the home that are not part of the building code formula). Year-End Building Permit Information: The year-end figures reflected 292 new single-family units and 247 new multi-family units for a total of 539 new building permits issued. The 539 new residential permits resulted in a total new residential building valuation of $93,415,560. Of that year-end total, the valuation for new single-family home construction was $56,422,024, for an average valuation of $193,226 per single-family unit. The valuation for new townhouse construction was $36,993,536, for an average valuation of $149,771 per townhouse unit. As noted above, these valuation averages do not represent the average sale price or average market value of the homes in question, since they do not include the value of the lot or any amenities added to the home that are not part of the building code formula Year-End Population Estimate: At the beginning of2003, City staff decided that each quarterly building permit report should also include an updated population estimate for the City of Farmington. After discussing several methods of calculating population, a decision was made to base our population estimates on Certificates of Occupancy rather than upon building permits. Building permit activity is not a "real time" reflection of actual population, given the "lag time" between the issuance of the permit and the actual occupancy of the dwelling unit (i.e., the time required to construct, market and sell the home). Accordingly, staff started with the City population as of April I, 2000 (as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau) and then determined the number of Certificates of Occupancy [C.O.s] issued by the City since that date. The number of C.O.s was multiplied by 2.95, which was (according to the 2000 Census) the average number of occupants per Farmington dwelling unit. The resulting calculations are as follows: 12,365 + 885 13,250 + 1478 14,728 + 1888 16,616 + 336 16,952 + 525 17,477 + 434 17,911 + 371 18,282 Estimated Population as of 4/1/00, per 2000 Census = 300 Certificates of Occupancy issued for the period 4/1/00 to 12/31/00 X 2.95 Estimated Population as of 1/1/01 = 501 Certificates of Occupancy issued for 2001 X 2.95 Estimated Population as of 1/1/02 = 640 Certificates of Occupancy issued for 2002 X 2.95 Estimated Population as of 1/1/03 = 114 Certificates of Occupancy issued for the period 1/1/03 to 3/31/03 X 2.95 Estimated Population as of March 31, 2003 = 178 Certificates of Occupancy issued for the period from 4/1/03 to 6/30/03 X 2.95 Estimated Population as of June 30, 2003 = 147 Certificates of Occupancy issued for the period from 7/1/03 to 9/30/03 X 2.95 Estimated Population as of September 30, 2003 = 126 Certificates of Occupancy issued for the period from 10/1/03 to 12/11/03 X 2.95 Estimated Population as of December 31, 2003 ACTION REOillRED This item is informati a in nature. No action is required. tted,\ I . ~ en !::: ~ 0:: w 00 C!) Z I I ...J al >- ...J 0:: w I- 0:: <( ::::> o .... Ql 0:6 =0 .s:;:::. ::J ro 00 51 0...... 0 0 ...... 0...... 0 0 ...... 00 0 00 ...... 0 0...... N 0 00 0 0 0 N...... ...... V :=:0:: Ql ::J Z~ t/) .E .. - '0 .... .!!l Ql J:; ~ gj.!!l " 'Ot/) 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 ...... 0 ...... ...... 0 0 0 ...... 0 0 N ON 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 c:_ I 'i 'E '" Ql .... z,f "u '. i... .... hi / .... ~'O ~ Ql .... Ql ::J E l2 E- O ...... ...... ...... M ......0 0 0 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 Nv 0 N 00 N 0 0 0 0 0 o~ UE := .... Ql Ql zOo Cii . ~ Ql . :2J!l LO LO ...... V LO N...... N M co LO 0) M V co 0 ...... N co I'-CO M N 1'-0 N 0 ...... 0) 0) 0) t/).- v co LO ~ M V .~ ...... co v M ...... 0 N vCO ...... I'- NI'- co co NM M Ql c: V co co LO I'-CO I'- co V co 0) 0) 0::::::> N N ...... M ...... ...... v ...... ...... ...... ......v ...... ...... ...... ...... LO ...... ...... ...... LO Cii '.' '0 I- SOl c: c: Ql.- . N ON O::t/) 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 ::J M M := 0 QlI Z ..... Xi;, , .. - '5J!l .. ~ .- __ c: :=Ql::::> "0 0 0 V CO 0 ~ CO CO u:; CO V V r::~ N CO I'- 0 I'- M OV 01'- QlE>. 0 00 00 0 0 . 0 0 LO CO LOV ZO= ...... ...... ...... LO I'- CO V ...... ...... LO CO N LO CO LO 0) N .. CO LO CO N .s:::.E u. ...... c: ro :=u. 0 I- J!l .. rc- 'c ::::> X .. Ql a. 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 NV 0 0 0 00 0 N 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 ::J 0 .......... ~..... I.. z J!l 'c ::::> u. LO LO (0 VLO N 0) N u:; V LO LO 0 M ~.., I'- CO N 0 I'- (0 CO N CO I'- (0 V 0 0 LO I'- ~ LO O)N LOV I'- 0 I'- N 0) ...... vO) en V CO N I'- I'- I'- N V CO CO CO N CO I'- M ...... N V V I'- N CO I'- CO N ...... LO N := Ql Z .. . '.' Cii 19' 19 19 19 19 19 ~ . '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .... I- .... I- .... I- .... I- .... I- .... I- .... I- 5 - - - 5 5 - ro I'- 0 CO 0 0) 0 0 0 N 0 M ::J 1ii '0 'E .cO) 1ii '0 '0 .c 0) I.... 1ii '0 'E .s:::.0) 1ii '0 'E :6 0 1ii '0 'E :6 1ii '0 'E .cO 1ii '0 'E .cO 0 c: -0) c: ~ ~ 0) c: -0) c: 0 c: 0 c: _0 c: _0 ...... N M v...... ...... N ...... ..- N M V"- ..- N M V N ..- N M V N ..- N M vN ..- N M vN I'- CO I 0) 0 0 N M 0) 0) 0) 0 0 0 0) 0) 0) 0 0 0 0 ..- ..- ..- N N N N Co.! ...... ~ I.. /0 <:!.- City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers and Interim City A1Jmjnistrat# Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director TO: RE: Tamarack Park Master Plan Approval DATE: January 20, 2004 INTRODUCTION A master plan has been developed for Tamarack Park utilizing public input. DISCUSSION Since Tamarack Park seemed to be a typical neighborhood park with few if any park planning issues, staff developed a park master plan without the use of a consultant. In August 2003, staff gathered input from residents around Tamarack Park. Attached is Exhibit A, which identifies the current issues, current strengths and park development possibilities based on public input. Staffthen used this information to develop an initial park master plan, which is shown in Exhibit B. In October 2003, staff mailed the draft master plan back to the residents who provided initial input for the park master plan, asking them for further feedback. There was no additional feedback on the park master plan given by the residents to staff. BUDGET IMPACT Initially in June of 2003, staff solicited a quote from Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. (HKGI) to develop a park master plan anticipating that there could be some cost savings due to HKGI being hired to develop a master plan for Meadowview Park. The quote for developing a park master plan was $3,150.00 plus incidental expenses. It was determined that in this situation, the cost to use a consultant to develop the park master plan was not warranted and so the City saved the above amount of money by having staff work with the residents to develop the Tamarack Park Master Plan. Estimated costs for the park improvements identified on the park master plan are shown in Exhibit C. Funding for these improvements will come from the Park Improvement Fund budget. It is projected that development of Tamarack Park will occur sometime in 2004. ACTION REQUESTED By motion approve the Tamarack Park Master Plan as shown in Exhibit B. ~ectfull~d, Rand;~stad, Parks and Recreation Director r-..}(. h',b:+ A TAMARACK PARK MASTER PLAN ANALYSIS Current Issues I. Large dirt pile along the east side of the park that needs to be removed. 2. Trees need to be planted along the 203 St. boulevard. 3. No shade provided in the park as there are no trees planted and no structures built. 4. Surface of the park is uneven and rough. 5. Little or no turf established, lots of weeds growing. 6. Trail built on only two sides of the park. 7. Street parking is on the opposite side of the park. Current Stren2ths I. Good street frontage resulting in good visibility. 2. Part of the trail circles around the storm water detention pond. 3. Size of park is appropriate for a neighborhood park. 4. Park is relatively flat 5. Shape of park provides good opportunity for park development Park Development Possibilities Based on Public Input . Playground Equipment for 5-12 year olds with wood fiber fall material . Small picnic shelter with picnic tables . Park benches . Grills . Park Signs . Prairie areas . Shade trees . Full-court basketball court . Soccer field . Ballfield fX~,b:+ 2> k Master Plan Tamarack Par ~ - Bench . Shelter . Grill (!) Light Pole _Sign ~~ ~ Tree ~ ~ o Bike Rack Receptacle . Garbage '1 P Posed Tral - ro Soccer Field ,/ ,/ ,/ / / W+E / / I / / / I I ~--- -- 20 40 Feet 20 0 , 1"""- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 209th Street Tamarack Park Master Plan Estimated Costs Exhibit C Item Unit Unit Cost ! Quantity Total Cost I- PL, Jound, safety surfacing, installation each 35,000.00 I one $35,000.00 Ballfield with backstop each 10,000.00 one $10,000.00 Basketball Court (50 ftx 80 ft) sq ft 3.00 sq ft. 4,000 sq ft $12,000.00 basketball goals and poles each 1,250.00 two $2,500.00 soccer goals each 1,500.00 two $3,000.00 Picnic Shelter each 25,000.00 one $25,000.00 8 ft Bituminous Trail linear feet 22.00/ft 780 $17,160.00 Turf acre i 3,000.00 1.2 $3,600.00 Garbage Receptacle each I 750.00 two $1,500.00 Bike Rack (8 bikes) I each 500.00 one $500.00 Grill each 300.00 one $300.00 light poles each 1,500.00 two $3,000.00 Large Decidous Trees each 150.00 50 $7,500.00 Coniferous Trees each 150.00 25 $3,750.00 Ornamental Trees each 300.00 12 $3,600.00 Park Signs each 2,500.00 two $5,000.00 Benches each 500.00 six $3,000.00 Picnic Tables each 800.00 th ree $2,400.00 Parking (7 stalls) each 10,000.00 one $10,000.00 TOTAL $148,810.00 1/13/04 lOci City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, Interim City AcJmIDjstra~ FROM: Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Satellite Fire Station DATE: January 20,2004 INTRODUCTION The site located at the corner of 197th Street and Municipal Drive has been identified as a potential site for the future Satellite Fire Station. Based on an initial review by WOLD architects, the building footprint provided by our department would fit on this site. DISCUSSION As part of the on-going effort to further determine the suitability of this site for a fire station, it is recommended that soil testing be performed to identify the nature of the existing soils. This area was approved as a borrow area during the construction of the Maintenance Facility and the Police Building, so the soil parameters for this site are not fully known. BUDGET IMPACT The estimated amount to perform the soil testing is $3000.00. This cost would be funded through the Fire Capital Projects Fund. ACTION REQUESTED Approve by motion the expenditure to perform soil testing for the site at the corner of 197th Street and Municipal Drive. Respectfully Submitted, /~- K ~~-~ ~ Ken Kuchera Fire Chief cc: file JOe City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, Interim City AdmIDistra# Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer FROM: SUBJECT: 2004 Seal Coat Project - Project Delivery Option DATE: January 20, 2004 INTRODUCTION Staff is currently putting together the feasibility report for the 2004 Seal Coat Project. A project delivery option has been identified that could provide a materials upgrade and a cost savings over our normal procedure. DISCUSSION Several cities in Dakota County have entered into a Joint Powers Agreement to accomplish their seal coating, traffic markings and other items. The JP A is administered by Burnsville with Apple Valley, Eagan, Lakeville, Rosemount, Savage, Prior Lake, and Shakopee participating. The seal coating prices obtained through this JP A are less than what Farmington has experienced in the past. In addition, all of the seal coating over all the streets in these communities incorporates the more expensive seal coat rock that Farmington uses only in cul-de-sacs. Council may recall that a more expensive rock is used in Farmington only in cul-de-sacs in order to minimize the tracking due to more turning movements that occur in the cul-de-sacs. Staff has contacted Burnsville and they have indicated that it would be possible for Farmington to participate in the joint project this year. The result of Farmington's participation in the project potentially would be an overall increase of the quality of the seal coat project (better seal coat aggregate throughout instead of just in cul-de-sacs) at a lower cost. BUDGET IMPACT Specific budgetary impact to the 2004 Seal Coat Project would be provided with the project feasibility report when presented to Council in February. ACTION REQUESTED For information and Council discussion. Staff recommends pursuing this project delivery option. If Council directs staff to pursue this option, the details will be provided with the feasibility report. Respectfully Submitted, ~m~ Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file 10( 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, W Interim City Administrato~ Lee Smick, AICP City Planner FROM: SUBJECT: Review/Approve Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan for Seed/Genstar Property DATE: January 20,2004 INTRODUCTION The Final AUAR [Alternative Urban Areawide Review] and Mitigation Plan for the Seed/Genstar property is being presented to the City Council for its review and approval. DISCUSSION The order for an environmental review of the Seed/Genstar Orderly Annexation Area was approved by the City Council on July 15, 2002 (see attached). The property encompasses approximately 1006 acres west of Highway 3 and east of the current boundaries of the City of Farmington. The property, which is owned by the Seed Family Trust, is the subject of an orderly annexation agreement between Farmington and Empire Township that was approved by the State of Minnesota's Municipal Board in May of 1999. A draft of the AUAR and Mitigation Plan was approved by the City Council on September 15, 2003 and the 30-day comment period for agencies to review the plan commenced on that date. The SeedlGenstar AUAR Responses to Comments were accepted by the City Council on December 15, 2003. The Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan recently underwent a 10-day period to allow agencies to comment on the City of Farmington's Responses to Comments. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was the only agency to comment on the responses. Sherri Buss of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates has addressed the comment by the DNR. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Review Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan for the Seed/Genstar Property. 2. Ask questions (if any) and/or seek clarifications (if needed). 3. Adopt motion recommending that the City Council approve the Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan, either (a) as is, or (b) with any additions, deletions or revisions suggested by the City Council. cc: Steve Juetten Sherri Buss Empire Town Board RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING FINAL AUAR AND MITIGATION PLAN SEED/GENST AR ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 20th day of January, 2004 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member _ introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, the current land uses in the Orderly Annexation Area depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A are predominately agricultural, and; WHEREAS, the City anticipates future development to evolve over the next 15 years in the Seed/Genstar Orderly Annexation Area, as reflected in the 2020 Land Use Map in the City's adopted 2020 Comprehensive Plan for the area, consisting of residential and commercial uses; and WHEREAS; because of the scale of future development and the sensitive environmental resources in the Seed/Genstar Orderly Annexation Area, the City determined that it was most appropriate to plan for the area under the provisions of the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) process as described in Section 4410.3610 of the EQB Rules, and; WHEREAS, the City approved an order for an environmental review of the Seed/Genstar Orderly Annexation Area on July 15,2002; WHEREAS, the City approved a draft of the AUAR and Mitigation Plan of the Seed/Genstar Orderly Annexation Area on September 15,2003; WHEREAS, the City approved the Seed/Genstar Orderly Annexation Area AUAR Responses to Comments on December 15, 2003; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Farmington City Council hereby approves the Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan of the Seed/Genstar Orderly Annexation Area consistent with the intents and purposes of the Rules of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board under the provisions for Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). The following conditions shall govern this review: 1. The specific boundaries of the Seed/Genstar Orderly Annexation Area for review under the AUAR are depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. The City Council ordered that the area considered in the review of the AUAR was the proposed future land use as adopted in the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan, with the anticipated nature, location, and intensity of development as illustrated and tabulated on the attached map. (2020 Comprehensive Land Use Plan attached hereto as Exhibit B). This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 20th day of January, 2004. Mayor Attested to the _ day of January, 2004. Interim City Administrator EXHIBIT A Newland Communities AUAR Study Area Il!IIIIlll ill b n ~ ~ c L:ru c c n_~ U - ,--- ;;:/<~;:f~~ {fi'fj};. ~}i/ / // ///~'l'/ A ~:if%:{~. ~;:/~~i:fr~3:. :Jj ?~ ~g;k'~~J:}g~::~{;f ~ ~: ;;:;:i~?k;~{~::f;;?f~ ---.J / / ')?:/ ///'/ / 'i./~//.%.%"/ ~ /'//'; ~:/~~2~:;}~ /?::::::}:gf;;~ . i-..ij:/';\'l-'l; //- / //:%~~~:~.-:'//~ ;.;;f~",yf:i': ~::~/'::::;/:~.?3 ~ia AUAR Study Area~ :a ('0 I Jl ........ ,:x;:~'~~. . '///:. z''X/;;/;//;:///~ ~ .... ///// //. // // /.%"/// //~/ia/;'//~ " ////./: //~/ / / /~,% 0~/// /// 15 ;/ ;;:~ /:~. ~ ;><~~0~~/ ~ / %?~//,~~ /.%"/ ::.%0,'f:~' '" " v ~i~&ff:kB'~ ?tft~ i ~ c-j ~%?~/, /~%Ij;;'/:%-.,?i 1M ~~f.%"/:;0~~ >/?/';, I~ /.%";:/-,;.0./.%"/;, v/;."\\ >- ISf I m I rh I -~~ i ~ ~ \1 i ~ ~ if '.. ~ 0 ~ ' ~~ ~ ~ f- '---"- L J~ 1~ ~ O~~~ c. S. A. H. 5 0 In T i IIimillliHllffiI P4'mT""Tm? .J " IIIWJlnlIlfJll2ll11 ) ~ B lileI\JlmI'l~ >.F~ = 61l11i1111l111 ,,..,J e Biiilfilliil~m11 V c II~I I ~ Irr-1 ~ L - ~ c'~~r I I ~ u l-~ I--- [;: :0-- i I I .-J ~ i..-- Legend j~~ ~ # It:- n m "} II~rf STATE:~~ ~'L~r ~ -..J /\ / City Boundary I~ '----J City Parcel Map ~ AUAR Study Area 2500 , o Scale 2500 ......~, ~ ..:~ .,L",f N w.' saoo Feet 0.5 I o 0.5 1 Miles ~- , s Source: o.kota County l.and & ~lIY Oepwtmenl 5J02 er..td by 1M City ~ FMftinglon P1.nnino Oiviaion. 71f12 //O?~ EXHIBIT B City of Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Newland Communities AUAR Study Area ~ <:::> ~ 15 ~ Legend 2020 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Commercial Industrial Low Density Low Medium ~ Medium Density NA Park/OS _. Urban Reserve Restricted Development ffl'll! Public/Semi-public High Density Env Sen Under ".;.. Business Park N W*E ~'l~-,:.!ti, //d) RESOLUTION NO. R60-02 ORDER FOR ENVIROMENTAL REVIEW FOR SEED/GENSTAR ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 15th day of July, 2002 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Ristow, Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan, Verch None Member Soderberg introduced and Member Verch seconded the following: WHEREAS, the current land uses in the Orderly Annexation Area depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A are predominately agricultural, and; WHEREAS, the City anticipates future development to evolve over the next 15 years in the SeedlGenstar Orderly Annexation Area, as reflected in the 2020 Land Use Map in the City's adopted 2020 Comprehensive Plan for the area, consisting of residential and commercial uses; and WHEREAS; the City wishes to comply in good faith with the requirements of the Rules of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB); and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the scale and intensity of anticipated development in the SeedlGenstar Orderly Annexation Area has the potential for significant environmental impacts, and; WHEREAS, because of the scale of future development and the sensitive environmental resources in the SeedlGenstar Orderly Annexation Area, the City has determined that it is most appropriate to plan for the area under the provisions of the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) process as described in Section 4410.3610 of the EQB Rules, and; WHEREAS, the City has an adopted comprehensive plan meeting the criteria of the EQB Rules allowing the City to proceed with the AUAR; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Farmington City Council hereby orders the environmental review of the area known as the SeedlGenstar Orderly Annexation Area consistent with the intents and purposes of the Rules of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board under the provisions for Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). The following conditions shall govern this review: 1. The specific boundaries of the SeedlGenstar Orderly Annexation Area for review under this order are depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A. Seed/Genstar Orderly Annexation Area. 2. The City Council orders that the scenario to be considered in this review is the proposed future land use as adopted in the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan, with the anticipated nature, location, and intensity of development as illustrated and tabulated on the attached map. 2020 Comprehensive Plan attached hereto as Exhibit B. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 15th day of July, 2002. J::J.~-~W~ ~~~, -t~ Attested to the 12- day of July, 2002. SEAL EXHIBIT A Newland Communities AUAR Study Area I - :%"/..;;.% "/:%";:0 ~~~j t//ffi//'~/-/;~; ~. ~g~1~~~ PJ ~/, :%"'f::&~ i3f2f:; ~;: :%".:;: /~~ ~/:%"'-;:://..0 ;,;/ ;';f.% /f: 0~ff2~ia ~/ 0::~/:/ %!;2~;;" i?ic ~!0 ~:~f:;;;i~.% ~:J AUAR Study Area~ ;;j'"' I J< , :;?d:&;ff~~~ ~J!i}~f;: ~ 15 ;;f~~~'W: ::{:::d::i~ ~ ~ / ~!,;0'~:%"-0:(~0>> <.> .~V~~0 ~ili~ I ~ 1i;~~ ~j~ ~ U .~i.%)-;' .;';/>\ I ~ I m d~~1 I ~ . -~ o ()~ _ c- .); ~.... ~ ~ " ro ~ 1- ~ 1/ilmiHl ~I Ir-- ~ 0 ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ - ~e j{ _ I) ? ~ ~ -.I r I.-- 'LaJJ. p, I ~ ~ ~ ~~ \l-k;-W c. S. A. H. 5 0 Ln -i ffiiiillffiHiHllffiI P4'i'TlMIT\;:> ..lJJ11 ~u ~ L ,~~~ ~1llII!IJ Mffi1ila~ ~ 'V' r ""QI. 61111ilHilllillll -tc L(j J1il WJ m W L ~ ~ b n 00JJj L5= ~ c L~ c n ~ i------- - r~ .....11 I tll ~ r- ~ C:l~--T' I , I aD I I I T I I b I~ ~I.-- - r-t:- n ~ Legend =rk~ ~ h (D II- STATE HWY 50 II- rl\- ~ El!1!!!IlID .r -- ~ "'II II' . ,. ....of. ('v'; City Boundary City Parcel Map ~ AUAR Study Area 2500 , Scale o 2500 5000 Feet "'~ ,,'Jd N w*. 0.5 I o 0.5 1 Miles ~ "" s Source; Dakota County land & Survey Oepartmenl 5102 er..led by tho City ~ Farmington A.-.ning Oiviaion. 7102 //O?~ EXHIBIT B City of Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Newland Communities AUAR Study Area ~ <=> ~ 15 ~ Legend 2020 Comprehensive land Use Plan Commercial Industrial low Density low Medium !!!1M Medium Density NA Park/OS Urban Reserve Restricted Development . Public/Semi-public High Density Env Sen Under ;".~ Business Park N W*E ~i;.'iJ!.,!t~;. I/d) /03' City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-1111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: . L ~c:./ Mayor, Council Members, l~ Interim City Administrat<(' r FROM: Lee Smick, AICP City Planner SUBJECT: Review/Approve Draft AUAR for Spruce Street Area DATE: January 20, 2004 INTRODUCTION A draft of the AUAR [Alternative Urban Areawide Review] for the Spruce Street Area was delivered to City Hall on Tuesday, January 6, 2004, and is now ready for review and comment by the City Council. The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the document on January 13, 2004 and recommended that it be forwarded to the City Council for its review. DISCUSSION Sherri Buss of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates has coordinated the consulting work that was required for the preparation of the Draft AUAR. Ms. Buss has prepared comments concerning the Draft AUAR, and she will present those comments to the City Council on January 20,2004. Ifthe City Council approves the Draft AUAR, authorizes its distribution, and authorizes the publication of the required notice in the EQB [Environmental Quality Board] Monitor, reviewing agencies and other interested parties will then have 30 days to comment on the Draft AUAR. If all goes as planned, the AUAR could be finalized and adopted by the City Council in early spring. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Review Draft of AUAR [Alternative Urban Areawide Review]. 2. Ask questions (if any) and/or seek clarifications (if needed). 3. Approve the Draft AUAR, either (a) as is, or (b) with any additions, deletions or revisions suggested by the City Council and authorize the publication of the required notice in the EQB [Environmental Quality Board] Monitor, and its distribution to reviewing agencies and other interested parties. Respestfully Submitted, f ... .' ?t!l! v cc: Bob & Stan Knutsen Randy Pedersen, New Century Jim Allen, Allen Homes Don Peterson Bill Adelman Dakota County Sherri Buss