Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.01.03 Council Packet City of Fannington 325 Oak Street Fannington, 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 December 1, 2003 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVEAGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENDATIONS a) Mr. Charlie Weber - Rambling River Center - Parks and Recreation 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (11/17/03 Regular) (11/12/03 and 11/13/03 Special) b) Park and Recreation Commission Minutes - Parks and Recreation c) Approve Park Name - Parks and Recreation d) Approve Traffic Control - Various Locations - Engineering e) Approve Amendment ALF Joint Powers Agreement - Human Resources f) Adopt Resolution - Supporting DARTS Section 5310 Grant - Parks and Recreation g) Adopt Resolution - Authorizing Grant Application North American Wetland Conservation Act - Engineering h) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Truth in Taxation Hearing - Finance 9. AWARDOFCONTRACT iO. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Trail Master Plan - Parks and Recreation b) Approve MAAG Joint Powers Agreement - Police Action Taken Page 1 Pages 2.29 Pages 30-31 Pages 32.33 Pages 34-38 Pages 39-57 Pages 58-59 Pages 60.62 Page 63 Page 64 Pages 65-67 Pages 68.77 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Approve Meadowview Park Master Plan - Parks and Recreation b) Discuss Pre-Council Meeting Work Sessions - Administration 12. NEWBUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. ADJOURN City ofFannington 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 December 1, 2003 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVE AGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENDATIONS a) Mr. Charlie Weber - Rambling River Center - Parks and Recreation 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (11/17/03 Regular) (11/12/03 and 11/13/03 Special) b) Park and Recreation Commission Minutes - Parks and Recreation c) Approve Park Name - Parks and Recreation d) Approve Traffic Control - Various Locations - Engineering e) Approve Amendment ALF Joint Powers Agreement - Human Resources f) Adopt Resolution - Supporting DARTS Section 5310 Grant - Parks and Recreation g) Adopt Resolution - Authorizing Grant Application North American Wetland Conservation Act - Engineering h) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Truth in Taxation Hearing - Finance 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Trail Master Plan - Parks and Recreation b) Approve MAAG Joint Powers Agreement - Police Action Taken Acknowledged Approved Information Received Approved Approved Approved R88-03 R89-03 Approved Information Received Tabled Dec 15, 2003 Approved 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Approve Meadowview Park Master Plan - Parks and Recreation b) Discuss Pre-Council Meeting Work Sessions - Administration 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. ADJOURN City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463.7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.falJ11i1lgton.m~.us TO: Mayor & Councilmembers FROM: Daniel M. Siebenaler, Interim City Administrator SUBJECT: Supplemental Agenda DATE: December 1, 2003 It is requested that the December 1, 2003 agenda be amended as follows: CONSENT AGENDA 7 h) Approve Bills Attached is an addition to the list of bills. Respectfully submitted, Daniel M. Siebenaler Interim City Administrator ( R55CKSUM LOG23000VO Vendor AFFINITY PLUS FEDERAL CREDIT U COUNCIL MEETING ON DECEMBER 1, 2003 Business Unit EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND BARBAROSSA & SONS INC FARMINGTON EMPLOYEE CLUB ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST -457 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES MINNESOTAAFSCME COUNCIL #14 MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTE MN NCPERS LIFE INSURANCE MOODY COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT AS UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA MAIN STREET EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND EMPLOYEE EXPENSE FUND BUILDING INSPECTIONS CITY OF FAkwllNGTON Council Check Summary Object CREDIT UNION PAYABLE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS EMPLOYEE CLUB ICMA PAYABLE LELS DUES PAYABLE AFSCME UNION DUES PAYABLE CHILD SUPPORT PAYABLE PERA LIFE INS PAYABLE CHILD SUPPORT PAYABLE PERA PAYABLE PERA TRAINING & SUBSISTANCE Report Totals APPROVALS: RISTOW CORDES FITCH 11/",....1.00313:58:58 Page - Amount 2,275.26 2,275.26 449,532.30 449,532.30 47.00 47.00 5,122.42 5,122.42 240.50 240.50 497.40 497.40 926.13 926.13 123.00 123.00 175.00 175.00 8,127.73 9,898.77 18,026.50 690.00 690.00 477,655.51 FOGARTY SODERBERG 5a.., 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 Administra~ Missie Kohlbeck, Senior Center Coordinator 11\'\ Patti Norman, Recreation Supervisor 1"/ FROM: SUBJECT: Commendation - Rambling River Center Remodeling Project DATE: December 1, 2003 INTRODUCTION The Rambling River Center Advisory Board and staff would like to recognize Charlie Weber (Charlie) for his work on the Rambling River Center remodeling project. DISCUSSION Charlie has spent countless hours working on this remodeling project. He drew the plans, met with building inspectors, purchased the supplies and performed the labor. The Rambling River Center looks remarkably better and functions more efficiently with the new office space and reception area. We are grateful to Charlie! Without him this project would still be on the drawing board. ACTION REOUESTED Present an award of appreciation that recognizes Charlie for the time and work commitment that he gave to the Rambling River Center's Remodeling Project. Respectfully Submitted, ~"-tb1l1;QC ~ Missie Kohlbeck Senior Center Coordinator C ~----- "... ......',---..: -,j~\ ~ --. .J~~ (; ~ Patti Norman Recreation Supervisor - 7a.., COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR November 17, 2003 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 AdministratorlPolice 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; Jim Atkinson, Assistant City Planner; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Tom Jansen, Randy Oswald, Julie Simonson, Cy Hennek, Jim Schmitz, Jeanne and Dave Stanek, Chester and Darlene Grabowski, Roger Cook, Troy Raddatz, Tim Burke, Michelle Schmidt, Michelle and Shawn Meschke, Tim and Susan Edmonson, J acquie Conklin, Shane Haugen, Robin Hanson, Paul Paige 4. APPROVE AGENDA To accommodate the audience item lla) was moved ahead following the consent agenda, and item 8c) was moved to the beginning of the public hearings. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Randy Oswald, 19282 Evenston Drive, as Chair of the Park Facilities Task Force he wanted to invite everyone to the Open House on November 18, from 5:00 - 8:00 p.m. at the Farmington Middle School East. Attendees will be able to view the findings of the Task Force. There will also be formal presentations. Council Minutes (Regular) November 17, 2003 Page 2 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Fogarty, second by Soderberg to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (11/3/03 Regular) b) Approved Various License and Permit Renewals - Administration c) Approved Temporary On-Sale Liquor License - Administration d) Accepted Resignation Heritage Preservation Commission - Administration e) Received Information Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation f) Received Information Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes - Parks and Recreation g) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Tanker Truck Specifications - Fire Department The Fire Department has revisited the specifications for the new tanker truck. A number of changes have been made. The basics of the truck have remained the same. It has a vacuum tank, 3,000 gallon capacity, there are some changes to engine and transmission and some of the trim. One of the most significant changes is that the Fire Department will be considering demonstrator or floor models. The committee has done a substantial amount of work on the specifications and are confident that additional bids will be forthcoming and they will be under budget. In the event this returns over budget, they will make additional changes. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS c) Approve Therapeutic Massage License - Administration Ms. Jacqueline Conklin has submitted an application for a Therapeutic Massage License. The business will be located at 308 Oak Street. MOTION by Cordest second by Fitch to close the Public Hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by FogartYt second by Cordes approving a Therapeutic Massage License for Jacqueline Conklint 308 Oak Street. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. a) Adopt Resolution - Ash Street Project Hearing - Engineering The project consists of the street construction from STH 3 westerly to the railroad tracks, trunk storm sewer that will convey the drainage from Ash Street across STH 3 south of Ash Street/STH 50 to the proposed ponding areat trunk sanitary sewer extended from 11 th Street and STH 50 westerly to the Dakota County Fairgroundst and upgrade to the existing trunk water main in Ash Street. A neighborhood meeting was held on November 6t 2003. The most discussed issue was the proposed area wide assessment and the benefit that conveys. The total project cost is $6,605,000. According to the city's assessment policy and the agreement with the countYt 70% of the street reconstruct cost would be paid by the county. Of the remaining costs the city would fund 65% and 35% would be assessed on an area wide basis. The county has agreed to pay for 25% of the storm sewer, 35% of the lateral storm sewer would be assessed on an area wide basis with the city funding the remaining storm sewer costs which include the Council Minutes (Regular) November 17, 2003 Page 3 lateral system, the trunk system and the ponding improvements east ofTH3. Water main lateral and sanitary sewer costs would be assessed to those properties that hook up to those services capped by the amount identified in the appraisal for 2005. The city would fund the remainder of the non-assessed lateral costs, water main costs, and trunk sanitary sewer costs. The benefit appraisal indicated the maximum benefit to levy would be $800/residential equivalent unit. The land area of the commercial properties would be converted to residential equivalent units and the commercial properties will be assessed for that amount. The proposed estimated area wide assessment per residential equivalent unit is $550. The appraisal identified the benefit for sewer and water service to be combined for $7,650 for the properties along Ash Street and $9,750 for those properties in Highland Circle. Mayor Ristow asked City Engineer Mann explain the situation when the ~ mile assessment was established by Council in 1997 for CSAH 31 and Akin Road. City Engineer Mann stated the first project done with the area wide assessment policy was the Pilot Knob Road project. Properties within ~ mile of the road were assessed. The Akin Road project and the 195th Street project were also assessed in this way. At that time, it was discussed that Ash Street would be handled in this manner and in the future Flagstaff Avenue. Councilmember Fitch asked why the difference for Highland Circle, if it was because of tearing up the road to install the sewer. City Engineer Mann replied the appraiser felt the value to the homes was greater, because those properties have a higher value to begin with. Councilmember Soderberg noted the County has agreed to pay 25% of the storm sewer cost for Ash Street and that portion of the storm sewer is $2.2 million, with the County's portion being $210,000 that is 10%. City Engineer Mann stated the 25% the County is paying for is just the portion in Ash Street, not the pond area or everything beyond Ash Street, not the trunk portion, just the Ash Street system. Mayor Ristow asked about MnDOT and if they will be paying a portion. Staff has contacted MnDOT and their portion will be factored in. Their portion would be in the STH3 area, not the Ash Street area. It would not have an effect on the assessment, as the STH3 improvements are not included in the assessment amount, just the Ash Street storm sewer is. The pipes going across STH 3 are trunk storm sewer pipes and that is what the trunk funds are for. If the state is willing to pay for part of that, then they will decide how much they can participate in based on their cost sharing policy. The only part that is assessed is the lateral part in Ash Street. Mayor Ristow asked if they contribute to the pond in the east, as there will have to be a certain size for the pond to hold the water. Staff replied that has been figured into the size of the pond. The pond has been designed to hold all the drainage in the area. Whether the state participates or not, will not affect the assessment. Council Minutes (Regular) November 17,2003 Page 4 Councilmember Fogarty had asked staff for some numbers. Finance Director Roland stated the bonds for the project would not be issued until 2005 when we actually do the project. Possibly the earliest we would have the assessment hearing would be at the end of2005, possibly early 2006. Over that 24 months, if residents in the $550 area were to put aside $22.91 a month they would have the $550 at the time of the project. The same thing was suggested during the Pilot Knob meetings, and a lot of people put the money aside and had the money when the project was done. If, however, in 2005 the city ends up assessing $550 in the area wide assessment, which would be the upper number, over a 10 year period at 6% interest it would cost residents $74/year on their taxes. Those residents on Ash Street or Highland Circle who have the additional lateral costs of sewer and water at $7,650 for the Ash Street Residents, at 6% for 10 years would be $1,030/year and the Highland Circle residents would be $1,310/year for 10 years on their taxes. The 6% rate is a guess, the city usually assesses at 1.5% greater interest rate than the interest rate on the bonds that are issued. Mayor Ristow asked if it was not done on an area wide assessment and done ad valorum, if that would increase the bond. Finance Director Roland replied it would increase the bond and the amount oftax dollars that would be required over the entire city would increase as well because the full $1,900,000 that is in assessments and deferred assessments would have to be covered by additional tax levies rather than by the assessments. The bonds would still be $6.6 million, the city would have to cover $2.5 million in tax levies instead oftax levies and assessments. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated one additional cost associated with doing this as a general tax levy is a large portion of the property in Farmington is tax exempt. What happens with the area wide assessments all properties in the area are assessed, including those that are tax exempt. With a tax levy it would increase the cost of each parcel by about 40%. Mayor Ristow asked how the assessment was divided. City Engineer Mann stated the northerly limit of the Ash Street assessment boundary is the alley just south of Walnut Street, which is halfway between Ash Street and Elm Street. When the Elm Street project happens, then the boundary line to the north will incorporate the people who will be assessed for Elm Street. The boundary goes all the way to the southern boundary of Farmington. Mayor Ristow asked if this is approved, does it lock in the houses for proposed assessments if they sell between now and the assessment hearing. City Engineer Mann replied after tonight, ifthe project is ordered, it becomes a pending assessment. Any title search that is done will include that information. Mr. Tom Jensen, 701 5th Street, stated he understood how the city did the ~ mile area, but he wanted to know how Ash Street benefits him that he should have to pay the assessment. Mayor Ristow stated when the city was looking at the new alignment for CSAH 31, everyone uses the roads throughout the city. These are trunk arterial roads and everyone would contribute. The policy was set to assess within a ~ mile of the road. An appraisal was obtained for every property in the area and what it would benefit them. The policy was set during the Pilot Knob Council Minutes (Regular) November 17,2003 Page 5 project and was done the same for 195th Street and Akin Road. Mr. Jensen stated in other words, just that street going in is going to benefit my property $550. He still did not understand how that benefits him. He uses TH3 and the other streets, but how does that make it better for him to put the street in, the street is already there. He has to pay for part of the storm sewer also. The storm water does not run that way. The plan shows they stop at Beech Street and he lives on 5th and Locust. All the water on Beech Street goes north and so does his. Storm water is not affecting his property. He asked how does the street and storm water benefit his property. City Engineer Mann replied the storm sewer is part of the street reconstruction. The addition of curb and gutter and catch basins will alleviate the flooding along Ash Street and that is part of the whole package of the Ash Street project. The appraiser has stated that the street project itself conveys that benefit. Whether storm water goes from one property or not directly to Ash Street, this is an area wide assessment and that storm sewer is part of the street improvement. Mayor Ristow stated 65% of that comes out of the city fees for the area wide trunk and 35% comes from the homeowner. City Engineer Mann stated regarding the street and storm sewer part of the Ash Street reconstruction the part that the county is not paying for, the remainder ofthe cost is split 35% to the residents and 65% to the city. Councilmember Fitch stated when the policy was established in 1997 it was a sustainable policy based on other communities that used area wide assessments for major trunk type transportation routes. Weare looking at how other cities have paid for major trunk roads. Mr. Jensen stated it is still supposed to benefit my property. How does it benefit my property? Councilmember Fogarty stated Ash Street is one of the roads you would use frequently and Ash Street will function better. Mr. Jensen stated he does not need to use Ash Street. Councilmember Fogarty replied the majority of the people living in this assessable area do. Mr. Jensen replied no, they don't. That is your own opinion. You call it a corridor from Hwy 3 to the railroad tracks. Where does it go? That is a corridor street? Councilmember Fogarty stated ask the people that live on Ash Street if they don't feel it is a corridor. People use that as an access to get across town. Mr. Jensen stated you cannot get on it during fair time, so he could understand their feelings. Mayor Ristow stated the fire truck and ambulance use it. That is one of the main roads, that and Elm Street. Mr. Jensen stated they already have a street there. I still feel it does not benefit my property. You have not convinced me that it does and I have to pay for storm sewer that is five blocks away. Councilmember Fogarty stated when talking about the assessment for Elm Street, he uses Elm Street, but will not be assessed. It is a give and take. Mr. Jensen felt it should come from the general fund. Mr. Jensen stated he is on 5th and Locust and asked if they are going to call Spruce Street a corridor street. Mayor Ristow replied from 3rd Street to the west. Mr. Jensen asked ifhe would have to pay for that one when it becomes a corridor across Denmark. Mayor Ristow stated we are not doing anything to reconstruct Council Minutes (Regular) November 17, 2003 Page 6 that street. City Engineer Mann stated when the Pilot Knob Road project was done and identified all the roads that would be done in this fashion, we did not identify Spruce Street between Denmark and TH3 as one of those streets. When Spruce Street goes to the west to the new development, the development will help pay for the westerly extension of Spruce Street. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated when the policy was established, Council had a great concern that no one be double assessed. These corridors were identified and a ~ mile in each direction. This came into play in the area of Akin Road at the north end. A small portion could have been assessed either direction. It was assessed only in one. According to Council's past practice and policy no one would be assessed twice for any of these road improvements. The only other one identified at this time is the Elm Street corridor. The cut off line is not exactly a ~ mile as in other cases. It is halfway between Elm Street and Ash Street so that would be the cutoff point for the other project that is left. Mayor Ristow stated Mr. Jensen talks about not benefiting his property but he can challenge it. City Attorney J amnik stated this is an improvement hearing. The actual assessments are likely to occur 2 ~ years out. At that time an individual parcel by parcel analysis can be requested and an assessment can be reviewed. Councilmember Soderberg stated he looks at it as a general transportation improvement. The street is in need of repair. Any time you improve transportation access into and out of an area, the area benefits. Mr. Jensen stated he does not think it does. As far as he was concerned they are being taxed three times already. He is paying the $550, he is paying the 34% of the whole city and he is paying County taxes. Ms. Harriet Groth, 512 Ash Street, asked if the $7,650 is the total amount she will be assessed or ifthere will be additional cost. She lives in the township. City Engineer Mann replied she will be assessed $7,650 for sewer and water hookup and approximately $250 for the storm sewer portion as well. This was outlined in the letter from the township sent to township residents. Mr. Shane Haugen, 1021 6th Street, stated it is a busy road already. What will be done to eliminate the truck traffic? They do not stop at the stop sign now. Mayor Ristow stated once the project is done, there will be studies by the traffic engineer especially at 6th Street. It is hard to limit trucks. Mr. Haugen asked if there was a law against the jake-brakes. It has been non-stop for two years. He has called the police numerous times for people that do not stop at the stop sign. Mayor Ristow stated the Police Chief is looking into it. There are certain state regulations as to what you can do. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated it will be brought back before the end of the year. Councilmember Fogarty stated she drives down Ash Street everyday and knows that speed and the stop sign are an issue. Improving the road may increase traffic levels. But you do not want to stop the progression of replacing your infrastructure. It is an enforcement issue. We continue to work on that. It has to be two separate issues. We cannot let the road fall apart because people drive on it improperly. Mr. Haugen then asked what he Council Minutes (Regular) November 17, 2003 Page 7 will lose offhis yard. Mayor Ristow stated the right of way is 33 feet from the center ofthe road. Mr. Haugen then asked ifhe will have a walking path or sidewalk, because he does not want to shovel 175 feet of sidewalk. City Engineer Mann stated there is a trail proposed, and as far as what will happen with each individual property, when the plans are authorized, preliminary plans will be completed. Another neighborhood meeting will be held for those residents who are adjacent to the construction. If there is a trail built along the County roadway, the city staff will take care of the County road trails. It depends on how much space there is and how it can all fit together. Mayor Ristow stated at one time there was a path and he thought with the short distance of right-of-way there would not be a path as it would not connect to another trail. City Engineer Mann stated at this time it is still in the plan. Through the design process, they will have to see how that will work. Mr. Haugen stated he has a hard time going along with something when he cannot get an answer as to what they will be doing by his house. He could not obtain an answer at the open house. He understood the road and the sewer, he wanted to know what they will be doing on his side of the road. Will there be curb and gutter and they will be done? Mayor Ristow replied the pipe that runs under his property will not be there any longer. On the comer, the water ponding should not happen. City Engineer Mann stated there is a trail proposed on the north side of the roadway. Depending on the right-of-way and how it all fits together will determine whether it is a sidewalk or a trail. They try to keep hydrants on the right-of-way, not on personal property. Councilmember Cordes asked when we say 33 feet from the center of the road, within that 33 feet is where the sidewalk and everything goes. City Engineer Mann replied there are areas along Ash Street that have more than 33 feet on either side. Those are on the two ends. We have to work within the right-of.way we have or acquire more right-of-way or it will not fit. That will be worked out as the plans are put together. Mr. Haugen stated 33 feet will put it not far from his house or garage. Mayor Ristow stated some of the intersections will have a middle turn lane. City Engineer Mann stated the plan is to have a three-lane section all the way through with a middle left turn lane. Mr. Haugen asked if that can be done in 66 feet. City Engineer Mann replied possibly. Mr. Haugen stated that is what he wants to know. If it will come on his property or not and does he have a choice whether it does. City Engineer Mann stated if we decide we need to take more right-of-way that will have to come back to Council and the residents would be informed. The city would acquire it on behalf ofthe County. Councilmember Fitch stated he would assume once preliminary designs are in, there would be more public meetings where the public has input like on Pilot Knob. They showed how the road would fit in between houses already on Pilot Knob. This is not the end of everything. This is the beginning of the process. Those detail issues will come and the public will be invited to come in and comment on the design. City Engineer Mann stated before it goes out to bid, the plans would come back to Council, there would be a report of the final design and Council Minutes (Regular) November 17,2003 Page 8 the Council would approve that. Mr. Haugen stated he does not want to lose a bunch of his yard. That is why he bought the property, because of the big yard. Mr. Chester Grabowski, 608 Ash Street, stated his main topic was speed control and what kind of traffic devices will be on the road. He felt the city should work with the County to make sure something happens as far as traffic control devices. He has seen semi's lock their brakes and go through the stop sign at 6th Street, ~ hour before the school busses come. He has seen no jake-braking signs on the interstate. If we can have them on interstate highways, it would seem they could be on a true residential street. Another concern was he noticed they combined the sewer and water assessment. They already have water, so how does it break down? City Engineer Mann replied along Ash Street the amount of sewer only is $4,200. He would not pay for water. Mr. Roger Cook, 716 5th Street, asked Council to clarify the appeal period. City Attorney J amnik stated the night of the assessment hearing, residents who want to preserve their right to appeal the assessment amount would file an objection at the assessment hearing and file within 30 days of that date with the Dakota County District Court. Then a lawsuit would be started for the challenge of that assessment amount. It is an objection that has to be made at the time of the assessment hearing. This would be held after the project is completed, in approximately two years. Ms. Darlene Grabowski, 608 Ash Street, asked if they are actually talking about making three lanes down Ash Street. City Engineer Mann replied that is correct. Ms. Grabowski stated I cannot tell you how horrific the traffic is. She replaced her windows to reduce noise. By adding three lanes, it will encourage people to go faster. Big deal if it is two lanes and they have to wait to make a left hand turn. She would really like this taken into consideration. Adding the extra lane will increase traffic tremendously and the noise. She cannot believe the city does not have a sign for jake-braking. What does it take? Joe Harris at the County would probably do it faster than the city would. Councilmember Fogarty stated we have the Police Chief looking into that. There are lawsuits pending from the company who makes the brakes because of those signs. While you have seen them, they are not necessarily a good thing to have up. People are taking task because it is a name brand and cities and counties are being sued over that. It is a misconcept that the city can just throw up signs and enforce it. We have to have a noise ordinance and we are looking into it. Ms. Grabowski stated it is encouraging to know that as a Councilmember you are looking into this matter and that you are trying to adjust it and avoid an expense for the city. Then that means that enforcement needs to be increased. She pays for that enforcement and she expects it on her block and it is very minimal. She has beautiful trees on her front yard that serve many purposes. One of them is it reduces noise. If you make this a three-lane, this road will be at my front door. Mayor Ristow stated it is only 33 feet. Ms. Grabowski stated she is real close to 6th Street and that right- hand turn lane will be right there. It will have huge implications on our lives Council Minutes (Regular) November 17,2003 Page 9 because ofthe increase in traffic. Make the road smaller. Discourage people from driving down the road. Let them go a different direction. Do what you can when you take this into consideration. Mayor Ristow stated overall the road width will not be any wider than what it is. The pipes will take more room and the shoulder. Ms. Grabowski stated if she loses those trees there goes more value on her house. Not only does she lose the trees, but now she has a road in front of her front door. She stated the Council needs to reassure her that she will benefit from this, that the value of everyone's house on Ash Street will go up. Mayor Ristow stated after the plans and specs are approved tonight then the plans can be reviewed and see what will be there. Ms. Grabowski stated it is not that she is not in favor of improvements. She has a failing septic tank in her backyard. She is waiting for this project to go through so she does not have the expense of replacing the tank and then the city tells her she can hook up to sewer. She also has water in her front yard and some of it has been measured with fecal. Is there a need for this? Yes. Does it need to make our lives worse by increasing traffic? No. There are ways to discourage people from driving fast. Everyday she drives down Ash Street she does not drive over 30 mph. People pass her between 6th and 3rd. Councilmember Fogarty agreed. She has the same thing happen to her. Mayor Ristow stated similar complaints were received from Akin Road. Since the new alignment and turn lanes, there have not been a lot of complaints. Ms. Grabowski hoped she would have the opportunity to talk about the improvements, because she thinks sidewalks are a waste of money. It is not enjoyable to walk down Ash Street at any time of the day. Mayor Ristow stated he recalled Ms. Grabowski was on the committee when this was discussed a few years ago. This is a concept. The plans will be reviewed. At one time the project was taken out of the County's CIP. The city had to fight to get it put back on the CIP. Ms. Grabowski stated she understood this project has been going on for 20 years. She needs reassurance from the Council that when it comes time to implement the project, that Council will try to improve the quality of her life in Farmington. She lives on a bad road, don't make it worse. Mayor Ristow stated that is the thought of everyone. We will do it in the best interest of the community. Councilmember Soderberg stated speed control has been mentioned a couple of times. We have always heard in discussions of speed issues on other streets that it can be affected in two ways - engineering and enforcement. We have asked the Police department to step up enforcement in other areas of the city. They have done that and had some degree of success while an officer is present. The other aspect is engineering. He will be looking at it and was sure the Engineering department will take into consideration the engineering of the road to try and address some of those concerns. This will be an excellent opportunity to try and incorporate some of the engineering designs. Regarding the braking issue, we have spent a considerable amount of time on the issue. Because of state laws, it would cost the city a considerable amount to put up a sign. It is not the cost of stamping out a sign and putting it up. It is everything that goes with it. It would require a dedicated officer for verification, establishing criteria, and enforcement. Council Minutes (Regular) November 17, 2003 Page 10 Ms. Grabowski's comment regarding making her life better would be his intent to see if the city can make that happen. Mr. Lloyd Wagner, 1104 Sunnyside Drive, asked if they would be getting rid of the lift station when the street goes through. Mayor Ristow stated that will be removed. Councilmember Cordes stated if this project is ordered, open houses will be held with the city, County, and residents. City Engineer Mann stated his initial intent would be to have a neighborhood meeting to receive input, bring those comments to Council and have them incorporated into the plans. There would be another follow-up meeting with the residents. After Council approves the plans, they are put out to bid. After bids are received and the project is about ready to start, there would be another neighborhood meeting and another open house to invite the whole area wide group so people would understand how to get around the detours. There will be at least three more meetings with the residents. If more are needed, we will do that. Mr. Tom Jensen, 701 5th Street, asked if Dakota County has mentioned they would turn this street over to the city like Akin Road. Council has not heard anything. MOTION by Cordes, second by Fitch to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Cordes adopting RESOLUTION R83-03 ordering the Ash Street Improvement Project and authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications for the project. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Adopt Resolution - Certification of Delinquent Municipal Services - Finance This hearing was held for certification of delinquent municipal service bills. Residents with overdue or delinquent bills, being 90 days overdue, were mailed a letter indicating they had until November 26 at the close of business to pay their overdue portion oftheir water, sewer, garbage and storm water bill or it would be certified to the 2004 property taxes. At the time of the mailing and the advertisement there were 514 accounts that were delinquent in payment amounting to $198,420.70. Since that day the city has collected a number of accounts. As oftoday there are 386 accounts outstanding totaling $161,308. This is a one-year assessment. Residents have until December 1 to pay their delinquent bill before it is certified. The city is closed November 27 and 28 so anything postmarked before December 1 will be accepted. Councilmember Fitch asked what the impact is on the budget. Finance Director Roland replied once these are certified we book the revenue to our enterprise funds. The revenue is acknowledged at the time it is billed. When we certify the delinquent bills to the tax rolls it winds up as a receivable on the books and has no budget impact, because we have already accounted for the revenue. When we Council Minutes (Regular) November 17, 2003 Page 11 collect the special assessments, they are receipted against the receivable and there is a negligible effect on our revenues. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Soderberg adopting RESOLUTION R84-03 certifying the delinquent accounts as special assessments to the 2004 taxes of the appropriate properties and adding the date of December 1, 2003 to the resolution. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Engagement Letter 2003 Audit - Finance This was presented to Council for the reason of identifying the significant cost that will be incurred by the city for 2004 for the conversion of the city's financial reports to GASB 34. Normally the audit costs go up 3%-5% a year. The city is proposing Kern, DeWenter, Viere do the audit for a seventh year. The cost of the audit itself is approximately $18,200. This is a 5% increase over the 2002 fee and that is due to a new fraud accounting standard they do extra work on. The unusual part is they are proposing an additional fee for the implementation of GASB 34 for a cost of between $7500 and $10,000. GASB 34 is the Government Accounting Standards Board. They are attempting to make government financial accounting records look like corporate accounting financial records. If the city wants to maintain their bond rating and good financial standing we have to follow GASB 34 at an additional cost. This has been budgeted in the 2004 budget. Technically this could be considered an unfunded mandate by a government accounting standards board so that cities conform to any other corporation. The implementation fee is a one time fee. It does not include any percentage increase for future years for maintaining records, etc. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg authorizing engagement of Kern, DeWenter, Viere Ltd. For the December 31,2003 audit. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) October 2003 Financial Report - Finance General fund revenues as of October 31,2003 are at 72% of annual revenues. General fund expenses are a little over the 83.33% year complete. c) Adopt Resolution - Authorize Bond Sale - Refunding Bonds - Finance Staff requested Council authorize a bond sale for December 15,2003. Bonds to be sold are refunding bonds. The city has the opportunity to refinance four bond issues at a lower interest rate for savings of$175,000 over the next 6 to 11 years. One resolution is calling for the sale of$2.2 million G.O. Refunding bonds, which would refund the improvement bonds of 1994, the tax increment bonds of 1995, and the G.O. tax increment refunding bonds of 1995. The second resolution calls for the sale oftaxable G.O. refunding bonds in the amount of $605,000. This would refund the taxable G.O. tax increment bonds of 1993. MOTION by Council Minutes (Regular) November 17,2003 Page 12 Soderberg, second by Fogarty adopting RESOLUTION R85-03 calling for the sale of$2,205,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 2003B on December 15, 2003. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Cordes adopting RESOLUTION R86-03 calling for the sale of $605,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 2003C on December 15, 2003. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Accept Bus Donation - St. Francis Healthcare Services - Parks and Recreation St. Francis Health Services has donated a bus to the city used by the Trinity Health Care Campus. It has a replacement value of $70,000. The bus will be used for field trips, recreation programs, swim bus, and in conjunction with the Darts bus. Council appreciated this generous donation. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty adopting RESOLUTION R87-03 accepting the donation of a 16-passenger bus from St. Francis Health Services of Morris. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Adopt Resolution and Ordinance - Consider Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1000, 1012, 1020 8th Street and Consider Zoning Map Amendment 1020 8th Street - Community Development Three adjacent property owners have requested comprehensive plan amendments and rezoning. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is from low- medium density designation to a business designation. The proposed rezoning is from R-2 to BI. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 9, 2003 and unanimously recommended denial of the request. The reasons were they were not clear what the use of the property would be and drainage was a concern. The applicants modified their request and provided more details. The use would be an expansion ofK&K Auto Ranch for the parking of additional cars. They provided a screening plan to screen the business from adjacent residents. They requested a rezoning only on the southern most property. The Planning Commission still felt the details were not sufficient enough and recommended denial for both requests. They still wanted to amend the Comprehensive Plan for the northern two properties. Staff did not recommend this. Mr. Cy Hennek, 1011 7th Street, lives in the house directly behind the lot. The business wants to put in a 4 foot retaining wall and slope the lot to the east, but they do not know where they can drain it to. The owner needs to meet with the engineers regarding Ash Street as to where the sewer will run. Mr. Hennek stated the plan does not seem that bad, but he is concerned with the drainage. It is not the greatest situation to have a business in your backyard. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to deny the requested Comprehensive Plan amendments and Zoning amendments for the properties located at 1020 8th Street, 1012 8th Street, and 1000 8th Street. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) November 17, 2003 Page 13 Councilmember Soderberg asked if the owner has been informed that it can be done, we just need to see a specific project. The owner has contacted the City Planner to set up a meeting to see what is needed. Mayor Ristow stated there are a lot of neighbors in that area that are concerned about a business expanding in a residential area. He did not want to give anyone the impression that this would be supported. Councilmember Soderberg asked if the Ash Street project would be able to take care of the drainage problem, especially at Hickory Street. City Engineer Mann replied staff will be looking at that as part of the design of Ash Street. The constraint will be the ponding area to the east ofTH3. There is a limitation as to how much land can be used to build the pond. Depending on how much additional drainage this adds to the system will determine whether or not the pond will be able to handle it. 1) Adopt Ordinance - Keeping of Animals Within the City - Community Development Staff is proposing changes to include a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres and to lower the minimum distance between animal enclosures and neighboring homes to 100 feet rather than 500 feet. Minor changes include a definition of house pets versus farm animals and chickens have been added to the regulations. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes adopting ORDINANCE 003-503 amending section 6-4-2 of the City Code regarding the keeping of farming animals within the City. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. g) Approve Meadowview Park Master Plan - Parks and Recreation Staff presented a Park Master Plan for Meadowview Park in the Charleswood development. A public input process was initiated to receive ideas and opinions on the park plan. Mr. Paul Paige of Hoisington Koegler was hired to assist with development of the plan. There were a number of issues that came up. All but one have been resolved. The main issue remaining is the boardwalk. Mr. Paige outlined the process. 195th Street is on the north, 200th Street on the south, Pilot Knob Road to the east and Charleswood development to the west. There is currently a paved trail that winds along behind the homes and connects to Evensong Avenue into an open field area. It stubs out to a wooded island area in the middle of a wetland. The proposed plan includes a playground, a pavilion, basketball court, and open play field with a backstop. The plan shows the trail connecting to a trail along 200th Street. A suspended or possibly floating boardwalk is proposed across the wetland connecting to a trail. There are small and broader loops proposed for the trails. On the east side, there is no public frontage to the park. That is a bad design. Parking needs to be provided for cars on a neighborhood scale to get to the park without going on long trail circuits to get there. A meeting was held with the owner of Newland Communities. They are open to the idea of connecting in this direction and are aware of the Pilot Knob Road trail improvements. They want to be connected to the park. Council Minutes (Regular) November 17, 2003 Page 14 Currently, the access for the Charleswood development to the park is through an opening between two houses. Everything on the plan with the exception of the boardwalk, was an outcome of the public process. A workshop was held that was minimally attended. A lot of negative feedback has been received regarding the proximity of the boardwalk to the homes along Evensong Avenue. At the Park and Recreation Commission meeting, the boardwalk was moved out into the wetland, eliminating the piece behind the homes, using the island as an extension point to the tip and using the boardwalk to cross the wetland. From a park planning perspective, the connection to 200th Street is really important. It will connect more people in the future to this resource and to the trail at 195th Street and beyond. Trails are about connectivity it is not about limiting access it is about promoting access. A petition was received from 58 residents saying they support the petition against installation of a trail and/or boardwalk from the previously promised playground and open field to a point on 200th Street to the south through a protected wetland area for all or some of the reasons noted above. Ms. Robin Hanson, 18880 Elgin Avenue, thought the wetland is an important community access and thought it should be accessible to all, young and old. The addition of the trails, both the boardwalk and paved trail and the observation deck will provide the opportunity for all Farmington residents to enjoy this area yet direct and control the public access. The addition of the observation deck will provide for additional learning opportunities. She applauded both the Charleswood residents for raising their concerns and the Parks and Recreation staff and advisory commission working with them to sort through the issues involved, listening, exploring alternatives and revising the plan. The revised plan, moving the sidewalk from the residents backyards and utilizing a boardwalk and observation deck seemed like an excellent way to respond to concerns raised and yet leverage this community asset for all Farmington residents. Providing access with a boardwalk is similar to the public access provided near Minnehaha Falls and along Minnehaha Creek in Minneapolis. In their case the boardwalk was installed by volunteers of AmeriCorp which is similar to the proposed Minnesota Corp solution here. The path and observation deck are similar to public access Inver Grove Heights has recently provided to one of their natural areas near the intersection of Concord Boulevard and 80th Street. She felt both of these are very aesthetically pleasing and make it available and accessible to the public at large. She encouraged Council to approve the proposed Meadowview Park plan including the boardwalk. Ms. Michelle Meschke, 19984 Evensong Avenue, she is an avid supporter of the park except for one thing. She is vehemently opposed to the boardwalk. She is not an opponent of people seeing this wetland. On the contrary she wants people to have access to the wetland, but thinks it can be done much less intrusively than what is planned. By having an observation deck, you will allow all Farmington residents to view the wetland and the nature it contains with less intrusion. By Council Minutes (Regular) November 17, 2003 Page 15 adding the boardwalk it is redundant to an existing trail and it is extremely costly. A lot of her neighbors feel the same way. They were not at the meeting, because they think the city has already made up it's mind, that they will do what they want to do. She does not believe that. Any reasonable person listening to the compelling reasons she has would not want to put the boardwalk in the wetland. She had three compelling reasons, 1) it disturbs the wetland and the wildlife it contains; 2) it's not fiscally responsible to put the boardwalk in because it is way too costly, it is redundant, and the Charleswood residents overwhelming do not want this; 3) over the last 3 weeks they went to as many houses as they could, not just along the wetlands, but to the inner streets of Charleswood who have no property interest and asked them their opinions. They were given two choices - would you prefer a boardwalk through this wetland or would you prefer the money to be reallocated to additional park equipment and facilities. 94% said they would prefer additional park equipment and facilities because the boardwalk is costly, it is redundant and they didn't want it. This park has been labeled as a community park. She wants all Farmington residents to be able to enjoy this. When she looked at the cost estimate, she noticed 1 pavilion, 3 picnic tables, and 1 grill have been allocated for a community park, but we will have an $80,000 boardwalk that will disturb the wetlands, is redundant to a trail that is already there, and is something the residents don't want. As far as disruption to the wetlands and the wildlife it sustains, it makes sense that if you are bringing in huge vehicles and putting in anchors in the wetland how can there be no disruption to the wetland. Any common sense person will know there is going to be some impact. They went to the DNR and asked them do you recommend boardwalks and trails in wetlands. They said no, we try to avoid them at all cost if possible. She asked will it have an impact on hydrology. They said yes it will. She asked will it have an impact on the wildlife. They said yes it will, in fact they were told the boardwalk will not allow large mammals to cross the boardwalk. One morning there were 8 deer running across the boardwalk. If the boardwalk goes in the deer cannot do that. That means less wildlife they will see. It will have an impact on wildlife, especially large wildlife. Their migration patterns will change. It will have an impact on the wetland. Assistant City Engineer Tim Gross stated in an e-mail that placing a boardwalk in the wetland was not consistent with how the city has dealt with wetland management. He also recommended that if residents were opposed to the boardwalk and there was another alternative, which there is as there is already a trail which does the same thing, granted it is not as easy and convenient for some of the residents, but he recommended that ifthe majority of the residents were against it and there was an alternative plan, it should not be built. It was an e-mail that he e-mailed to Park and Recreation Director Distad on September 29, 2003. Mayor Ristow stated they do not have that in their packets. Ms. Meschke continued saying she wanted all people to be able to observe the wetland and the nature it contains. At the Park and Recreation Commission meeting, a member brought up the idea of an observation deck. This would allow the whole community to come in to view the wetland, have learning opportunities, see the nature it provides, and have minimal disruption to the wetland. You do not have the large trucks coming in to build the Council Minutes (Regular) November 17,2003 Page 16 boardwalk, you don't have the maintenance of the boardwalk, and are not affecting wildlife patterns. Ms. Meschke believed building the boardwalk was not a fiscally responsible thing to do. There is $200,000 allocated towards the park, and 40% will be spent on one boardwalk. This is redundant, people do not want it, and it will disturb the wetland and wildlife. Some people want it because it gives them ease and convenience. If ease and convenience takes precedence over preservation of the wildlife and the wetlands, shame on us. If ease and convenience takes precedence over fiscal responsibility, shame on us. And if ease and convenience for a few people takes precedence over the voices of the many who have said they don't want the boardwalk, they prefer it to go into additional park equipment and facilities, shame on us. We have the opportunity to make this a great park and not have to come back in two years and ask taxpayers for additional park equipment. We have the money now. She strongly urged Council to hold off on approving the Meadowview Park plan. Councilmember Cordes noted Ms. Meschke said the boardwalk is redundant and asked Ms. Meschke to explain what she meant. Ms. Meschke responded she agreed it was nice to have as many points of access as possible, the majority of the people will be coming off of Pilot Knob Road. One of the biggest supporter of their position lives along 200th Street. She stated over half the people along 200th Street said they did not want the boardwalk. They would prefer to go around or come through the development. By redundant she meant why do you need two trails that end up at the same place? Ms. Michelle Schmidt, 19969 Evensong Avenue, stated a few residents walked around the Charleswood development surveying residents along Export Trail, Executive Path, Excelsior Lane, Everest Path, Evensong Court, Evensong Avenue, 200th Street, four of which are not adjacent to the wetlands. They went along Evensong Avenue up to the northern end. They showed residents the plan and asked them their opinion given this information which contained the plan for the park, what will be in the park, here is what the trail system will do, information from a DNR hydrologist stating this could be a detriment to the wetlands, and a budget for the boardwalk of $77,000. $106,000 of our $200,000 budget is going into trails and boardwalks, over half. 94% of the people that replied did not want this. They want it to go back into the park. One pavilion, 3 picnic tables, and one grill are budgeted for the park. Residents also asked where is our hockey rink, our skating rink and warming house. There is no place to walk your kids to for skating. There is a lot of frustration in the city. A lot of residents are not feeling heard. We are giving you the information. 94% ofthe people asked did not want this. They stopped at 129 homes, 84 responded. She stated we do not need the boardwalk. It will affect the wetlands and nature and we do not want it. Ms. Schmidt had also e-mailed the survey results to Council. Ms. Sue Edmondson, 19961 Langford Lane, stated she is for this plan, it is a great plan. She stated Parks and Recreation took everyone into account and access for everyone. She felt the boardwalk is needed for the whole community. Otherwise Council Minutes (Regular) November 17,2003 Page 17 you are alienating a whole section of the community. She would have to go up to 200th Street and down Pilot Knob to access the park. She does not want to see any children on Pilot Knob accessing the trail. Pilot Knob is a very busy road. She would rather have the community have the access. This is a future trail connection, so it is not redundant. It needs to be there for other houses that will be built. It is a great education tool for children to be able to access the wetland. She did not receive the poll, or anyone in the townhomes. She felt the survey was biased, because all those people are against it. No matter how you poll people, if you are one way or the other, you will taint it. The boardwalk needs to go in. Park and Recreation has a good plan for everyone. Mr. Paul Paige, Hoisington Koegler, stated he was conservative in the initial estimate of the cost. Park and Recreation Director Distad has done some research with the Minnesota Conservation Corp, eliminating the labor, which was 2/3 of the cost. A more realistic cost today is $42/linear foot, which equals $27,090. The difference between the previous estimate and this cost would be used for playground equipment. Mr. Tim Burke, 20087 Heathrow Way, stated he lives in the very last townhouse at the south end of Charles wood. He spoke with a few of his neighbors about the access to the park. They feel it is vital they have the opportunity to get to the park from an access that is a little closer to where they live. The survey never came south of the single-family homes. He was not surveyed, or anyone on Heathrow. None ofthe townhomes were surveyed. Most probably would not know what to answer as they are new residents. To ask a question like this is ludicrous. He has worked in politics and has done poll work. If you see the question they asked, they give you a choice. Do you want the boardwalk or do you want additional park equipment? That is an unrealistic choice. When Ms. Meschke spoke about the information they provided, in the polling business that is called a push question. You give the information you want to get the answer that you want. He was surprised they did not get 100% against the boardwalk in the polling they did. From his end of the Charleswood development, it is an access issue. That is not an unreasonable thing to consider about the park. He felt the Parks and Recreation staff, the consultant, and the Parks and Recreation Commission considered it, and they all thought it was important enough to leave it in the plan despite the fact that the overwhelming response they got was that the people did not want it. He commended the people who are against the boardwalk for their persistent in their fight and also their flexibility in the arguments they used against the trail. When they started this, for them the trail was an issue of safety and crime prevention. They thought having the trail behind their homes would increase crime. Then the Parks and Police Departments looked at other similar trails in the area and concluded that was not a legitimate concern. The next concern from the people who oppose the boardwalk was that it was environmentally unsound. At the Parks and Recreation Commission in September we heard things similar to tonight about what they thought might be done. The consultant said that is not the case. The animals are very adaptive. Council Minutes (Regular) November 17, 2003 Page 18 The intrusion of the boardwalk which would be over the wetlands and not tearing up the wetlands would be minimal and the only animals that would be affected would be large animals that could not cross the boardwalk. Have you ever tried to keep a deer from someplace it wanted to be? It is almost impossible. Now they have turned to this economic argument as their last gasp to keep the boardwalk from being built. They have exaggerated the numbers and used the highest numbers to put the worst case scenario in front of you in terms of the cost of the boardwalk. Now we find the cost may be 1/3 of that in terms of installing the boardwalk which provides access to a large number of people in the community. The access that is being proposed in the Master Plan to connect to 200th Street is vital. It will be at least a couple of years before any other access is done. An access onto Pilot Knob is second class at best in terms of youngsters using it. He will keep his children off that arterial and keep them on 200th where it is a neighborhood street. He asked Council to pay attention to the recommendations of it's own staff, the consultant, and the Parks and Recreation Commission which has spent a lot of time and heard all of these arguments and consider what they put before you has taken all this into consideration. He asked Council to approve the Master Plan. Mr. Randy Oswald, stated he is the Chair on the Parks and Recreation Commission, but he was speaking as a resident who not too many years ago heard about an athletic complex that wanted to be built. He saw the vision of what the city will be needed to keep up with the growth. He has learned a lot in the last five years, how things take place and why. Most of the neighborhood parks are a playground and ballfield. They are activity parks. The city is lacking in certain amenities. We have an opportunity to take a neighborhood park and turn this into a small city park. To the north is the ponding area, to the south is the wetland area with the trails. These are not activity parts of the park. He sees these as relaxation areas. With benches people will watch the birds in the pond. The Parks and Recreation Commission took a long time in making a decision. They heard arguments one month and tabled it, because it was too big of an issue to jump into. During that time each member of the Parks and Recreation Commission was at the wetland to look at what is going on and what is proposed. Habits will be changing because of development. Development forces the wildlife to adapt or move. Will a trail through the area affect that? At first with the construction it will. As things settle down and have a natural trail, it will return. It depends on what happens with development to the east. At the second meeting, an observation deck was proposed which is fantastic. It creates an educational opportunity. On the peninsula are the biggest and most beautiful oak trees he has seen. That needs to be shared with the entire community. The Parks and Recreation Commission tried to work with the residents, but also saw the natural flow of the park. It is one of those tools that help connect the north and the south. He likes the trail plan as it is. It received a 5-0 vote from the Parks and Recreation Commission to send it to Council for approval. Council Minutes (Regular) November 17, 2003 Page 19 Mayor Ristow stated they have a petition with 58 residents against it. He asked how many were at the public hearing that support the plan the way it is. Mr. Oswald replied about 1/3 were in favor of it. He had to look at it as what is best for the community. They worked with the residents to move the trail from behind the homes. The Parks and Recreation Commission took the residents' concerns into account. Councilmember Cordes asked Parks and Recreation Director Distad, besides the trail connection at Everest Path and Evensong Way do we hold any other easements to that area along Evensong. Parks and Recreation Director Distad replied at one time they tried to put in a trail along there, but it was not part of the plat. We do not have any easements along Evensong. Councilmember Cordes then asked regarding the Newland development to the east, are we still allotted more park dedication in that area. Staff replied yes. There is a Letter of Credit for $145,000 that remains for this park as part of the park dedication. The additional land to the east and north, when the final addition comes in for Charleswood there will be additional park dedication required. The ordinance states the developer needs to pay for half the cost of the park. That is in addition to cash in lieu. Not only do we get the cash in lieu, but we get half the cost to develop the park for the requirement in the next addition. If they are required to dedicate 4 acres of park, based on the 4 acres at $30,000/acre we will get $60,000 to help develop the park for those 4 acres. If we take the 4 acres in cash in lieu we still get the $60,000 plus the cash in lieu. Councilmember Cordes stated we are looking at possibly over $200,000 for additional development of the park. Staff replied it depends on the density of the next development. That is what drives the amount ofland we get. Mayor Ristow asked if that was additional park? Staff replied we can either take additional land to make the park bigger or we can take a combination of cash and land. Councilmember Cordes then stated it was mentioned to use a group for labor costs. Staff replied it is the Minnesota Conservation Corps. They used to work with the DNR in installing boardwalks, trail work, and park improvements. They are looking at creating educational opportunities for young adults to train and teach them about the natural environment and wetlands. They are willing to provide labor in exchange for educational opportunities. They have put in countless feet of boardwalks and bridges for the DNR and state parks. They could do it at a third ofthe cost. They are very interested in the project. The city would provide staff to do some training with them. Councilmember Cordes then asked about the south trail connection to 200th Street. If the boardwalk and the small part of asphalt does not go in, would we still put a trail in at that point. Staff showed Council the current trail plan that is in the Comprehensive Plan. The plan shows a trail that continues from 200th Street south to the Middle Creek greenway. That connects to the northwest side of the city and over to TH3. The revised plan shows an extensive trail system that looks to a 20 year plan. It is a comprehensive trail system that does not dead end. Council Minutes (Regular) November 17,2003 Page 20 Councilmember Soderberg stated when they looked at Charleswood as a development, was the trail identified at that time? Parks and Recreation Director Distad replied on the preliminary plat there was a trail that loops around the island and a trail through the area as an easement. Trails to the south were to be identified as part of the park planning process. That is why the trail was not shown to connect to 200th Street. Councilmember Soderberg stated when the developer made the contribution for the park, the contribution was from the development on the west side of the wetland. When the east side develops, the trail that goes from the ball field along the northeast side of the wetland would be paid for and developed by that development. Staff replied because it is identified on the trail plan as coming the developer will need to pay for the cost to construct it. Councilmember Soderberg then asked if there was any information regarding property values and whether or not a trail near their backyards has an impact on property values. Staff stated there was a study done in Seattle that looked at the value of property and found the values were higher for those that abutted the trail or were in close proximity to the trail. Councilmember Soderberg stated the Comprehensive Plan identifies the trail as something that will continue along the west side of the wetland. It seems the homeowners did not have information that that would happen. The developers talked about the trail system and made a significant contribution to the park. Did the city somehow drop the ball in not letting the residents know or was this not established yet. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated he does not have the history as to what they were told in 1997 -1999. In the future, staff will make the developers aware of what trails need to go in as part of the development. Ms. Michelle Meschke stated residents were very concerned about that issue. Residents at differing times were so concerned, they did ask questions. They asked what is this area? They were told it is state protected and cannot be touched. To her that means nothing will be built back there. There has been some correspondence from Assistant City Engineer Gross that says it was taken out of context, that built meant there would be no houses or structures back there. Ms. Meschke proposed that build means to create it means to erect, and there will be a boardwalk built and erected in this wetland. Citizens were told nothing would be built back there. Her husband asked for a map and was told there wasn't one. The residents did not get the information they needed. Had some residents known that this trail would be back there they would not have purchased their lot. When this is mentioned to developers, they cringe because they are not going to get the money for those lots they otherwise would. Residents were told there would be a park, but nothing in the wetlands. They were told that by the builder. She felt it was a miscommunication between citizens and the city. She felt they were being punished for the growing pains of the city. Councilmember Soderberg stated in the past there have been things that the developer did not fully inform property owners about. He asked how the city can make sure owners are fully informed. Mayor Ristow stated they have asked this Council Minutes (Regular) November 17, 2003 Page 21 information be available at the model homes. Parks and Recreation Director Distad showed another plan from 1997 showing a trail from 195th that lines up with the Middle Creek trail. In 1999 it was placed in the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Soderberg stated he understood the frustration of the homeowners. The original thought was to avoid the wetland and place a trail along the west side, which would place a trail in the backyards. Moving the trail out addresses some of that concern. He applauded both those that researched and argued both for and against it. Two of the arguments are very compelling. One is the disturbance of the wetland. He felt that is minimal. The other argument is fiscal responsibility. To see the initial spreadsheet that identified in excess of 50% for trails and boardwalks did seem excessive. If that can be reduced by 60% on the boardwalk, it makes it very reasonable and it does provide access to the homes along 200th Street. If there were additional funds available is there room for more equipment? Staff replied the park can be expanded with the next development. The existing playground equipment can be put in and expand that in the future. The shelter has not been purchased. There is a budgeted amount of $200,000. Councilmember Soderberg asked given the development to the west, if the boardwalk did not go through, is there room for additional equipment on the existing space? Mr. Paige replied there is room for a 40% - 50% increase. Councilmember Fogarty thanked Ms. Meschke and Ms. Schmidt for investing time and energy in the community. They had three reasons why the boardwalk should not go in. Disturbing the wetland - along the north shore they try to avoid the wetlands when possible. There are a lot of boardwalks there that completes the trail. What is called redundancy is absolutely intentional by design. She hears that the trails do not go anywhere. You need many accesses. As far as fiscal responsibility, with some luck we can greatly reduce that and get more playground equipment. Third, it was mentioned the residents don't want it. 94% of those surveyed said no. Before Mr. Burke mentioned it, she noticed the survey was weighted, you created a push-pull. She did not think it was intentional. To her that is invalid, if residents could see what the city was trying to complete with the trail system, they might have a different opinion. She has spent time with Parks and Recreation in looking at the trails and they are absolutely vital. The residents are looking at it at a micro level. She is looking at a complete system throughout the entire city. She respects the information collected and residents coming to Council. She does not like the idea that Council does not listen to residents. She intends to support this, not because she is not listening to the residents, but because it is the right thing to do for the city overall. It is not that she is not listening, she just disagrees. Mayor Ristow stated at this time he disagrees, but felt they were lacking some information. When he makes a judgment he likes to have all the information. He was partially disturbed that there is information he did not have. This is the first time he has seen this plan. After all the comments, the information needs to be reviewed. Staffwill provide the additional information. If the issue is not pressing, he would like to table the decision. Councilmember Cordes stated she is Council Minutes (Regular) November 17, 2003 Page 22 willing to hold off on making a decision until everyone is comfortable. The only thing she has not reviewed is the e-mail from Assistant City Engineer Gross. Mayor Ristow stated there are two e-mails he did not receive. Councilmember Soderberg stated it would not hurt to table it to the next meeting. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to table the decision on the Meadowview Park Master Plan to the December 1, 2003 Council Meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS b) City Administrator Search Final Selection Mr. Harry Brull, Personnel Decisions International, stated the task was to make a determination to move the City Administrator Selection process to the next step which would be to take the six semi-finalists they have interacted with, take the information from Council and other staff and determine who should be the finalists. He provided a numbered list of candidates to facilitate any discussion. In looking at the 5 individual Councilmembers and other individuals who have seen the candidates, there are clearly two of the six who each group and most individuals, almost unanimously, feel strongly about. Mr. Brull recommended taking these two candidates as finalists. Council needed to decide if they wanted a third candidate. There are some differences between the groups for a third candidate and quite a gap between the second and third choices. Councilmember Fogarty stated she also came to the same conclusion and did not see a third candidate rising to the same level as the other two. Mr. Brull stated as they pursue these two candidates and the comfort levels lessen, Council still has the option of looking at others in this group. Council agreed to select David Urbia and Jenelle Teppen as finalists. Councilmember Soderberg believed Council could reach a 5-0 vote based on the information they have now. Other Councilmembers agreed. 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Fogarty: Thanked the Farmington High School football team for an entertaining game at the dome. Councilmember Soderberg: Went to the awards banquet for the Economic Summit. Community Development Director Carroll was able to get the application in for e- commerce readiness and the city was recognized for that. Councilmember Cordes: Reminded everyone of the Parks and Recreation Facility Open House at the Farmington Middle School East. Council Minutes (Regular) November 17, 2003 Page 23 Councilmember Fitch: Thanked the Councilmembers for working through the interview process as a team. The results showed everyone is on the same page. He thanked Councilmember Fogarty for checking references. Staffs indication of the candidates indicates the city is going in a pointed direction together. The process has worked well. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler: On Thursday the Chamber of Commerce will be holding it's second Breakfast with the Council. Councilmembers Fitch and Fogarty will be attending. The topic will be the Spruce Street extension. City Engineer Mann: phase 1 tomorrow. Weather permitting, they should be paving on Main Street Mayor Ristow: Regarding Ash Street, he knows the police have had the speed radar out there and there sheriff has been patrolling the street. He asked if there was more enforcement the city could do. He has noticed high speeds and cars running the stop sign. The vision of the stop sign is restricted coming from the east at 6th Street and Ash in the summer. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler will request officers to spend some time in that area. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to adjourn at 10:50 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, fJrZ~Q~ ?r?~-J Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant COUNCIL WORKSHOP City Administrator Interviews November 12, 2003 Mayor Ristow called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Present: Absent: Also Present: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg None Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Harry Brull, Personnel Decisions International (Mr. Jamnik and Mr. Brull departed at 7:00 p.m.) Council held a Y2 hour orientation meeting with Mr. Brull. Interviews began at 6:00 p.m. Candidates interviewed were Jenelle Teppen, Stephen Gunty, and Brian Wagner. The other three candidates will be interviewed on November 13,2003. The meeting adjourned following the interviews. Respectfully submitted, ~;'~,--'Ck:cL. ';-7'7 <-.:_e~--<-..- 0"'~'>' Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant COUNCIL WORKSHOP City Administrator Interviews November 13, 2003 Mayor Ristow called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Present: Absent: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg None Interviews began at 6:00 p.m. Candidates interviewed were Luayn Murphy, Oliver Merriam, and David Urbia. The other three candidates were interviewed on November 12,2003. The meeting adjourned following the interviews. Respectfully submitted, /"1 .1' _ 4/f ~.~,-d.- )?-7 c..e-e--f::cZ--J & . Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant 7.6 DRAFT Farmington Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes from the Regular Meeting on November 12, 2003 Members Present: Randy Oswald, Dawn Johnson (arrived at 6:15 p.m.), Mike Buringa, Paula Higgins and Debby Ruth Other's Present: Parks and Recreation Director, Randy Distad; Farmington Youth Hockey Association President-Elect Tom Hockert; and Jennifer CoIl ova, Natural Resource Specialist I. Call To Order Chair Oswald called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. at the Rambling River Center. Quorum was present. II. Approval of Agenda. Motion by Buringa and seconded by Higgins to approve the Agenda with it being amended to move under New Business item C. Planning Commission's Public Hearing to the bottom of the agenda right before adjournment in order to conduct all business before moving the meeting to attend the Trail Master Plan Public Hearing at the Planning Commission meeting. APIF (Johnson absent during vote) III. Approval of Minutes. Motion by Ruth and seconded by Higgins to approve the October 8, 2003 meeting minutes with an amendment being made under Meadowview Park Master Plan discussion for an additional comment that Randy Oswald made as follows: that future development would have bigger impact on wildlife than the boardwalk would. APIF (Johnson absent during vote) IV. Presentations A. Introduction of Jennifer Collova Ms. CoIl ova introduced herself and provided some background information including that she has worked previously in the private sector. She stated that she will be responsible for storm water pond management and the City's Forestry programs. B. Request from Farmington Youth Hockey Association (FYHA) Tom Hockert, FYHA President-elect for 2004 presented information about a request for the City to pay back money to FYHA for the extension of sewer and water to the warming house at the outdoor ice rinks by the middle schools that FYHA had paid for. FYHA would like to propose that rather than the City paying off this amount in a lump sum that the FYHA would like to be able to use the arena's concession stand for 15 years at no cost at which time the amount would be considered paid back. Director Distad suggested that the City and FYHA have representatives come together in a meeting and discuss details for an agreement that not only would include this request but also would address such things as storage ofFHY A's equipment in the outdoor warming house by the middle schools, exclusive use of the outdoor rinks at certain times and snow removal on the outdoor rinks. By consensus, Commission members agreed that an agreement should be drafted between the City and FYHA and brought back to them at a later date for review. V. Old Business A. Update on Recreational Facility Task Force Higgins and Oswald gave Commission members an update on the upcoming community open house that will be occurring on Tuesday, November 18th from 5:00-8:00 p.m. at the Farmington Middle School East Cafetorium. They also commented that there would be a presentation at 6:00 p.m. and at 7:00 p.m. at the open house that would provide information on how the task force came up with its recommendations. They indicated that there were a number of flyers and other publicity tactics used to inform the community about this open house. B. Update on Meadowview Park Master Plan Director Distad provided an update on the park master plan for Meadowview Park. He informed Commission members that the recommended master plan will be going before the City Council on Monday, November 17th for its consideration and approval. Chair Oswald indicated that he will be attending the City Council meeting in the event that there are questions that are raised about the process that the Commission followed. VI. New Business A. Selection of MUSA Committee Member Chair Oswald asked if any Commission members would be interested in serving on this Committee. Johnson thought that someone whose seat was up for reappointment next year would be a good choice. Motion by Ruth and seconded by Johnson to nominate Oswald for the MUSA Review Committee. APIF. B. Naming the Park in the Giles Addition Development After some discussion, Silver Springs Park surfaced as a possible name for the park. Motion by Higgins and seconded by Ruth to recommend to the City Council to name the park area in the Giles Addition as Silver Springs Park. APIF. D. Review City Aerial Map to Determine Future Park and Open Space Locations Due to time constraints, very little discussion ensued about the future park and open space locations. Most of the discussion was centered on making sure that current undeveloped wooded areas be included with parks. It was decided that the discussion would resume at its November 19th retreat. VII. Additions to the Agenda There were no additions to the agenda. VIII. Staff Report There was no staff report given. IX. December Agenda Items The following items were suggested to be included on the December meeting agenda: . Update on Depot Way Arts Park . Skate Park review . Meadowview Park Master Plan update . Update on Recreational Facilities Community Open House . PRAC retreat review . Tamarack Park playground . Discussion on time line for development of parks C. Attend the Planning Commission's Public Hearing on the Trail Master Plan Commissioners meeting moved to the Council Chambers where they attended the Trail Master Plan Public Hearing. Both Buringa and Chair Oswald spoke in support of the trail plan saying that it was a good thing to have in place for the City's future. X. Adjournment Moved by Ruth and seconded by Johnson to adjourn the meeting. Meeting was officially adjourned at 8:23 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Randy Distad, CPRP Parks and Recreation Director and Recording Secretary City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us /e, TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and Interim City AdmIDjstraW~ FROM: Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT: Approving Silver Springs Park as the Name for the Park in the Giles Addition Development DATE: December 1, 2003 INTRODUCTION The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission (Commission) is responsible for recommending to the City Council names for City parks. DISCUSSION As shown on the attached map (Exhibit A) the park area in the Giles Addition Development is less than a half acre in size. The Commission discussed names for this park at their November 12, 2003 meeting. By unanimous vote, they are recommending to the City Council that the park be named Silver Springs Park. ACTION REQUESTED Accept the recommendation from the Commission and approve Silver Springs Park as the name for the park in the Giles Addition Development. ~~S!J~ Randy Distad . Parks and Recreation Director f:y.h: kit A i,' Farmington Existing Parks, Trails & Open Space Map Figure PM~1 October 1999 C LfLJ c , - - - -la ~ 11Iii. Dakota Co Estates Park '" _ Hill Dee \ ~~€:lHl!l!!B I tt ,~ E:J! ffliffi_H!IIIl!!IB ^ ~ Future Park~" mm I~= / \ ~ ~ \ \ I ~ Ifr~~~~::::~' ~ \ I Daisy Knoll ~ 1WB' La~lia:" \ P i ,I II ;;:~ - 7 I~~u I!llIllIJ " ,/ I J--Irl~~ 1'1- L~ ~ ~~ \ I I ~ .. " I \ ,.---, .-, Farmmgton , ~ \' I Preserve i :>- i[J/\ \ \ am Emlm ~ ci~~ellan~Area~.~, ~ ~~ " Pine Knoll Park L ~L..II .111 ....... ' v I~~ " ./ ~YI ~r----Jl~ '....... \ I ILJIi\. ~ ~ " I, ~ _-'- 'Ll II~D 192 ~acilit~ ./1 _ :/' I ~1J __ ~ D ( I 1-' I City Wetland AreaL ~ -- rm.~., .. -- 1::::\ -::;;.4 E3~~ Inlall !lIB 5;J~tr Spr;f\1S ~I\rk /' :Jj L ~ ~ n L- i 15' ~ , \ fth __""liii.o _ _100 \\ [ I , , , , , LLl nh I / -- - rrs=r II JL_I 100..... n r-r= ~al11bling River East ~ ..J .J -' U l.J .-, I Rambling River West~ I' I _ --) IISD 192 Facilities m '? ~ ", ~- I 1; "l I Westview Park ~ .... IIt::=lEElI 1= II IS~ 192 Facil~~ Ei II rl ~~ ~ Prairie Waterway I ~ ",...---.....------"" - "..- '-i::i---~ IEEiW '- m II ~ t='~ n ~J~ - alllU HCity Swimmin9 Pool I ~ II I Legend N Existing Bituminous I \ I Future Bituminous Biketrail / \ I Future Aggregate N Concrete Sidewalk . I \ I Future Concrete Sidewalk ("v~ City Boundary I City Parcel Map .. Park & Open Space N W.E s 0.5 I Scale o 0.5 1 Miles NOTE: THIS MAP IS FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR EXACT MEASUREMENTS. REPRESENTATION OF PARKS AND TRAILS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. 33 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7d TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, Interim City Administratof~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Approve Traffic Control - Various Locations DATE: December l, 2003 INTRODUCTION Pursuant to a resident request for traffic control, the City's traffic engineer has analyzed several intersections in the northeast comer of Dakota County Estates (see attached memo). DISCUSSION The intersections reviewed are Echo Drive and Upper l82nd Street, Echo Drive and Echo Terrace, l80th Street and Elgin Avenue and Echo Terrace and Elgin Avenue. Based upon field observations and evaluations of the four intersections (outlined in the attached memo), the following types of traffic control is recommended: . Stop signs on Upper l82nd Street at the intersection with Echo Drive. This intersection control may need to be reviewed when development extends Upper l82nd Street to the east. . Stop sign on Echo Terrace at the intersection with Echo Drive. . Stop signs on Elgin Avenue at the intersection with l80th Street. This control wi11likely be adequate when development extends Elgin A venue to the north. . Yield sign on Elgin Avenue at the intersection with Echo Terrace. BUDGET IMPACT The cost of signs is covered in the City's budget. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the installation of the traffic control on Upper l82nd Street, Echo Terrace and Elgin Avenue as recommended above. Respectfully Submitted, ~ Yvt-m~ Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Lee Mann, City Engineer Bryant J. Ficek 13l :;-- Sheldon 1. Johnson~ Traffic Control Review of 4 Intersections Project No. 141-03-000 .0 - 1\11 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: . Date: November 17, 2003 Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo, P.E.' Marvin L. Sorvala, P.E.. Glenn R. Cook, P.E.' Robert G. Schunicht, P.E. . Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. Senior Consultants: Robert W. Rosene, P.E.' Joseph C. AnderUk, P.E.' Richard E. Turner, P.E. . Susan M. Eberlin, C.P.A. Associate Principsls: Keith A. Gordon, P .E. . Robert R. Pfefferle, P .E. . Richard W. Foster, P.E. . David O. Loskota, P.E. . Mark A. Hanson, P.E. . Michael T. Raulmann, P.E. . Ted K. Field, P.E.' Kenneth P. Anderson, P.E.. Mark R. Rolfs, P.E.' David A. Bonestroo, M.B.A.' Sidney P. Williamson, P.E., L.S.' Agnes M. Ring, M.BA' Allan Rick Schmidt, P.E.' Thomas W. Peterson, P.E.' James R. Maland, P.E.' Miles B. Jensen, P.E.' L. Phillip Gravel III, P.E.' Daniel J. Edgerton, P.E.' Ismael Martinez, P.E. . Thomas A. Syfko, P.E.. Sheldon J. Johnson. Dale A. Grove, P.E. . Thomas A. Roushar, P.E. . Robert J. Devery, P.E. Offices: St. Paul, SI. Cloud, Rochester and Willmar, MN . Milwaukee, WI. Chicago, IL Website: www.bonestroo.com Pursuant to your request, the traffic control at four intersections were evaluated. The four intersections, all located in Dakota Estates just east of Pilot Knob Road, are Echo Drive with Upper 182nd Street, Echo Drive with Echo Terrace, Echo Terrace with Elgin Avenue, and 180th Street with Elgin Avenue. A field review was accomplished on Thursday, November 13,2003 and forms the basis of our analysis. Each intersection is examined separately below. Echo Drive and Upper 182nd Street A north-south roadway, Echo Drive provides access on the eastern edge of the Dakota Estates. Upper 182nd Street provides east-west travel through this development with a signalized connection at Pilot Knob Road. Driveways connect to the roads on the north, south, and west legs. The east leg is provided for a connection to future development and does not have any existing driveways. Both roadways likely experience higher traffic volumes than surrounding streets since they provide access across this development. This intersection is currently uncontrolled. Sidewalks are not provided at this intersection. A wooden fence on the southwest quadrant limits sight distance for northbound vehicles looking west and eastbound vehicles looking south. Other approaches have sufficient sight distance for a lower speed, residential area. Without development of the east leg, Upper 182nd Street essentially 'T's into Echo Drive with virtually all traffic turning left or right. Because of this situation, through traffic on Echo Drive should have priority and stop signs should be placed on Upper 18200 Street. Having traffic on Upper 182nd Street stop would help mitigate the sight distance limitation caused by the wooden 2335 West Highway 36. St. Paul, MN 55113.651-636-4600. Fax: 651-636-1311 fence. In addition, traffic on Upper 182nd Street should already be slowing to turn, so the new stop signs would not cause a significant increase in delay. However, when development extends Upper 182nd Street to the east, traffic patterns will also shift. At that time, this intersection should be re-examined to determine if two-way stop control on Upper 18200 Street provides the best control for the intersection. Echo Drive with Echo Terrace This intersection is located one block north of the Echo Drive and Upper 182nd Street intersection. As mentioned, Echo Drive provides north-south access through this residential development. Echo Terrace is a short east-west roadway from Echo Drive two blocks to Ellice Lane. A private driveway connects to Echo Drive opposite of Echo Terrace. This intersection is currently uncontrolled. No sidewalks are provided in this area. In the southeast quadrant, a house, fence, and parked vehicles on the driveway all contribute to limited sight distance for northbound vehicles looking west and eastbound vehicles looking south. Sight distance is adequate for the other directions. By providing more access and likely carrying more traffic, Echo Drive is a higher priority roadway than Echo Terrace. Therefore, a stop sign should be placed on Echo Terrace. This would prevent unnecessary stopping for vehicles on Echo Drive as well as mitigate the limited sight distance identified above. In addition, this matches traffic operation from the private driveway directly opposite of Echo Terrace, which is already required to stop. 180th Street with Elgin Avenue 180th Street is the east-west extension of Echo Drive that provides access to Pilot Knob Road. Elgin Avenue is a short north-south roadway stretching one block from 180th Street to Echo Terrace. The north leg of Elgin A venue is a future connection to additional development. This intersection is currently uncontrolled. Sidewalks are not provided in this area. 180th Street curves into Echo Drive to the east of this intersection. Elgin A venue also has a curve in the road to the south of this intersection. Despite the curves, sight distance is generally sufficient. An evergreen tree in the southwest quadrant can create a blind spot for northbound vehicles looking west and eastbound vehicles looking south. As the tree continues to grow, this situation will get worse. Similar to the intersection of Upper 18200 Street at Echo Drive, Elgin Avenue acts as a 'T' intersection. Due to this and the fact that Echo Drive is a higher priority street (greater access and likely higher traffic volumes), stop signs should be placed on Elgin Avenue. However, unlike the previous intersection, the future connection on Elgin A venue to the north will not significantly change the situation. Elgin Avenue will still have limited access to the south and 180th Street will remain a primary route to Pilot Knob Road. 2335 West Highway 36. St. Paul, MN 55113.651-636-4600. Fax: 651-636-1311 Elgin A venue and Echo Terrace This intersection is located one block south of the Elgin A venue/180th Street intersection and one block west of the Echo Terrace/Echo Drive intersection. Elgin Avenue currently extends only one block from Echo Terrace to 180th Street, although a future connection to the north would extend the route. Echo Terrace provides east-west access from Echo Drive two blocks to Ellice Lane. A private driveway connects to Echo Terrace directly opposite of Elgin Avenue. This intersection is currently uncontrolled. Sidewalks are not provided in this area. Sight distance is generally sufficient at this intersection. The lone exception is southbound vehicles looking west, which can be limited due to the angle of Elgin Avenue as it 'T's into Echo Terrace. Since Elgin A venue creates the 'T' and traffic must turn at this intersection, Echo Terrace has priority. However, both roadways, due to their short length and limited access, likely only have traffic from people living off each street. Therefore, a yield sign on Elgin Avenue is sufficient for this intersection and more appropriate for the lower volumes. A yield sign will give right-of- way to Echo Terrace while requiring traffic on Elgin A venue to stop only when vehicles on Echo Terrace are present. Recommendations Based upon the field observations and evaluations of the four intersections in the Dakota Estates development, we recommend the following types of traffic control: . Stop signs on Upper 182nd Street at the intersection with Echo Drive. This intersection control may need to be reviewed when development extends Upper 182nd Street to the east. . Stop sign on Echo Terrace at the intersection with Echo Drive. . Stop signs on Elgin Avenue at the intersection with 180th Street. This control will likely be adequate when development extends Elgin A venue to the north. · Yield sign on Elgin A venue at the intersection with Echo Terrace. As with any type of traffic control change, extra signs should be posted to ensure motorists are sufficiently warned and aware of the change. 2335 West Highway 36. St. Paul, MN 55113.651-636-4600. Fax: 651-636-1311 PARAMEDIC L~ ALF Ambulance 7e 7100 West 147th Street Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 Office: (952) 953-2660 Fax: (952) 953-2672 TO: Mayor and Council, City of Apple Valley Mayor and Council, City of Farmington Mayor and Council, City of Lakeville City Administrator Tom Lawell ^'// Interim City Administrator Dan Siebenaler City Administrator Robert Erickson Tom Kelley, Administrator ""\ \ , ALF Ambulance ~ VIA: FROM: DATE: November 11,2003 SUBJECT: Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement - Request for Council Approval The Joint Powers Agreement created by the cities of Apple Valley, Lakeville and Farmington operates ALF Ambulance. On November 10, 2003 the ALF Ambulance Board approved amendments to the language of the Joint Powers Agreement. Per Section 7, "Amending the Joint Powers Agreement," the amended draft document must then be sent to the member cities for formal ratification. Upon unanimous passage by the three member cities, the Joint Powers Agreement shall be considered amended. The language amendments were necessary to simplify how Board and Executive Management Committee officers rotate, to clarify the responsibility of Human Resources in addressing internal personnel matters and to define the performance evaluation responsibilities of the Executive Management Committee. Refer to the enclosed copies of the Joint Powers Agreement, which include a "red-lined" version and "clean" version as reviewed by Attorney Roger Knutson. <;hanges are in the following Sections: Section 4. Board Section 5. Management Committee Section 6. Management Committee Chair Section 11. Personnel After formal City Council approval, originals of the Signature Page will be distributed to the City Clerks for official signatures. Apple Valley $ $ Farmington Lakeville AMENDED JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE AMBULANCE SERVICE day of ,~2 , by and AGREEMENT made this among the cities of APPLE VALLEY, LAKEVILLE, and FARMINGTON (hereinafter collectively referred to as "A.L.F. Ambulance", "A.L.F.", or "the Cities"). 1. AUTHORITY. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ~~ 471.476 and 471.59. 2. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide advanced life support ambulance service for the Cities. 3. DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of the A.L.F. Ambulance Joint Powers Agreement ("JP A"), the terms defined in this section shall have the meanings ascribed to them: 7257.I 7 (RL) RNK:r 10/09/2003 A. Agreement shall mean the A.L.F. Ambulance Joint Powers Agreement entered into by the cities of Apple Valley, Lakeville, and Farmington on September 20, 1993, as amended. B. Alternate Member shall mean either a council member or staff member appointed by a member city to represent that city on the Board when the primary member is not available. C. Board shall mean the A.L.F. Ambulance Board. D. The Cities shall mean Apple Valley, Lakeville, and Farmington. E. Population shall mean the populations of the member cities established by the most current of the following: (1) the most recent Federal Census; (2) a special census conducted under contract with the United States Bureau of Census; (3) a population estimate made by the Metropolitan Council; or (4) a population estimate which has unanimous approval of all A.L.F. Board members. F. Primary Member shall mean the council member appointed by a member city to represent that city regularly on the A.L.F. Ambulance Board. 1 G. Public Resources shall mean lands, buildings, equipment, and services under the control of a member city. 4. BOARD. The Board shall consist of three (3) primary voting members and three (3) alternate voting members: One member of the council of each city shall serve as a primary member to the Board. Only members of the city councils shall be eligible to serve on the Board as a primary member. Each member city may appoint one alternate to represent their city when the primary member is unable to attend a Board meeting. Alternate members may be either a Council member or staff member from the member city. Member cities shall maintain their own responsibility for the appointments of primary and alternate members to the Board. The city appointing a primary or alternate Board member may remove the member at any time with or without cause, except that any primary member who shall miss three (3) consecutive Board meetings may no longer serve as a member of the Board, which shall cause the appointing city to appoint a new primary member. The Board shall have the following officers: Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary. On JlHle 1 in 2002 On January 151 of each year, the Board shall rotate officers in the order of the Chair to Secretary, Secretary to Vice Chair, Vice Chair to Chair. On January 1, 2003, officers shall rotate and thereafter the rotation shall occur on January 1st of each year. This officer rotation shall occur unless otherwise voted upon by a majority of the primary Board members. A primary Board member may decline to accept a particular officer's seat, at which time the Board shall hold elections for all of the officers' seats. A majority of Board members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. At least two primary Board members must be in attendance at any Board meeting. In no case, will two or more alternate Board members meet for the purpose of transacting Board business. If the appointed alternate is a staff member, the member city making the appointment may limit the matters on which the alternate member may vote by filing a written 7257.17 (RL) RNK:r 10/0912003 2 notice of the limitations with the Board. The limitations may be withdrawn or amended by filing an amended notice with the Board. Vacancies for unexpired terms of office shall be filled by the appointing authority. The Board shall carry out the purposes of this Agreement and operate the ambulance service ("the program"). The Board shall act by majority vote. 5. MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE. The Management Committee shall consist of two staff members from each member city: the City Administrator and Police Chief from Apple Valley, the City Administrator and Human Resource Director from Farmington and the City Administrator and Finance Director from Lakeville. The Management Committee shall meet monthly or more often as determined by the Committee. The Committee shall be responsible for administration of the ambulance service.:., carrying out the performance evaluation process for the Ambulance Administrator The three City Administrators will Carry out the performance evaluation process for the Ambulance Administrator. The Committee will provide written comments to the Ambulance Administrator evaluating the --im€l-Director of Operations, review claims for payment consistent with the Board's adopted budget, recommend to the Board hiring, and discharging,....aad disciplinin~ employees, and direct the work of the Management Committee Chair, subject only to the direction of the Board. 6. MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE CHAIR. The city administrators from the three member cities shall serve as Management Committee Chair on a three year rotating term in the f{)llowing order: City of Farmington, City of Lakeville, City of i\pple Valley. The City Administrator next in line to be the Management Committee Chair shall be the Vice Management Committee Chair. The Vice Management Committee Chair shall act in the absence of the Management Committee Chair. The Vice Chair shall serve a three (3) year term. The Administrator of the ambulance service shall report to the Management Committee Chair and shall 7257.17 (RL) RNK:rI0/0912003 3 follow the Chair's direction subject only to the direction from the Management Committee and the Board. 7. AMENDING THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT. The Board may recommend to the Cities amendments to the Joint Powers Agreement. Amendments to the JP A shall be introduced at regular Board meetings by appointed Board members only. City staff members serving as alternate Board members may not introduce or vote on JP A amendments. Amendments to the JP A shall be introduced at a regular Board meeting for discussion only and may not be voted upon until the next regular Board meeting. At the second reading of a JP A amendment, the Board shall act by majority vote to approve or deny any and all amendments to the JP A. Upon passage of a vote to amend the JP A by the Board, shall be cause to send an amended draft document to the member cities for formal ratification. All member cities of the A.L.F. Ambulance must formally ratify the amended JP A as presented to constitute passage. Upon unanimous passage by all member cities and duly authorized signatures affixed, the JP A shall be considered amended. By unanimous vote, the Cities may also amend the JP A without the recommendation of the Board. 8. AMBULANCE SERVICE. The ambulance service shall consist of a life support transportation service meeting or exceeding the minimum requirements of an advanced life support service as set forth by Minn. Stat. ~ 144.804, et seq. The service shall include the operation of at least one ambulance unit operating on a 24-hour, 365 day per year basis. The Primary Service Territory of the service, as defined by Minn. Stat. ~ 144.801, shall consist of the municipal boundaries of the Cities and parts of the following townships: Empire - Sections I through 36 (excluding the City of Coates) all in Township 114 North, Range 19 West, Dakota County, Minnesota; Eureka - Sections 1 through 36 all in Township 113 North, Range 20 West, Dakota County, Minnesota; Castle Rock - Sections 2 through 11, Sections 14 through 23, and Sections 26 7257.17 (RL) RNK:rlOf09/2003 4 through 35, all in Township 113 North, Range 19 West, Dakota County, Minnesota. The ambulance service shall further consist of support services necessary for proper operation. Support services shall include, but not be limited to, emergency dispatch, billing, record keeping, housing, and finance. 9. FINANCE. A. The Cities shall make financial contributions to operate the program. Contributions shall be payable to the Board in quarterly installments on or before the first day of January, April, July, and October, or as otherwise approved by the Board. Contributions of that part of the operating budget not met by grants, fees, and/or donations shall be based on a ratio of each city's population to the total populations of the three cities. On or before July 1 of each year, the annual operating budget for the following calendar year as recommended by the Board shall be submitted to each member City Council for approval or disapproval. No action within seventy-five (75) days shall constitute approval. The budget shall set forth projected expenditures, service fees, city contributions, and other revenues necessary to operate the ambulance. Additional contributions, either real or in-kind, may be accepted. B. The budget may provide for a refund equal to or less than the net financial contributions provided by the Cities in prior years. The respective member city's refund shall be based on the pro rata share of the respective member city's net financial contribution since A.L.F.'s inception compared to the total net financial contributions of all the Cities since A.L.F. 's inception. C. The budget may provide for the cash reimbursement of public resources. D. The Board may not spend money in excess of the total approved budget. The Board may, if necessary, request additional contributions from member cities. 7257.17 (RL) RNK:rlO/0912003 5 E. The Board may not borrow money without the advance written approval of all member cities. When approved by all the member cities, a certificate of indebtedness may be issued by the Board on behalf of the collective members to this Agreement or, in the alternative, a member city may issue such certificate with all approving members being liable for the debt so incurred pursuant to Paragraph 12 of this Agreement. F. The City of Lakeville shall act as fiscal agent for the Board and shall maintain a separate fund for the purpose of operating the program. The City of Lakeville is authorized to pay claims approved by the Administrator of the Ambulance Service or the Management Committee Chair prior to review and approval by the Board. G. The Board shall purchase equipment and supplies for the program through procedures which are most beneficial to the program. Contracts let and purchases made under this Agreement shall conform to statutory requirements applicable to the Cities. H. At the end of each calendar year, the Board shall cause an audit to be performed of funds expended and revenues received during the previous year. A copy of the audit shall be made available to the Cities by July 1 of each year. The audit shall be in a form such that it can be readily compared to the annual operating budget. 10. CONTRIBUTIONS OF FACILITIES BY CITIES. A. Each city shall, after receiving the recommendations of the Board, determine which of its Public Resources will be available to the Board. B Each city shall maintain public liability insurance coverage on the Public Resources made available for the program. C. Public Resources will be promptly returned to the city that provided the Public Resources upon that city's withdrawal from the Agreement. 7257.17 (RL) RNK:rl0/09/2003 6 11. PERSONNEL. The Board shall establish standards and qualifications for its personnel. The Board shall have the authority to hire, and discharge all employees, and to hire, discharge, and discipline the Administrator of the Ambulance Service and all non union employees, and establish the terms of employment for-them all employees. A.L.F. Ambulance personnel shall be deemed employees of A.L.F., not of the member cities. 12. NONDISCRIMINATION. A. A.L.F. Ambulance service shall be available for use without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, and without regard to sex, age, disability, public assistance status, or sexual orientation, except as may be necessary as a bona fide requirement of a specific servIce. B. No applicant for employment or employee hired pursuant to this Agreement shall be discriminated against with respect to that person's hire, tenure, compensation, terms, upgrading, conditions, facilities, or privileges of employment by reason of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, age, sex, disability, public assistance status, or sexual orientation, except as may be based upon bona fide occupational qualifications. 13. INSURANCE. The Board shall take out and keep In full force the following mInImUm Insurance coverage: Amount $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Statutory Coverage Comprehensive General Liability Medical Malpractice Worker's Compensation 14. DEBT AND TORT LIABILITY. A. Debt. The Cities shall be responsible for all debts, expenses, and liabilities, excluding debts, expenses, and liabilities incurred as a result of tort liability, incurred in the 7257.17 (RL) RNK:r 10/09/2003 7 operation of the program prior to their withdrawal from this Agreement in accordance with the following formula: Individual City's Total Required Contribution (excluding Public Resources) Total Required Contribution of all Member Cities (excluding Public Resources) Percentage of Liability Contribution calculations shall be made as of the dates the debt or liability is incurred. B. Tort Liability. To the extent there is no insurance coverage, the Cities shall be liable for all debts, expenses, and liabilities incurred as a result of tort liability in accordance with the formula set forth in paragraph 14(A) ofthis Agreement. 15. DURATION. A. Any city may withdraw from this Agreement on December 31 of any year. Written notice of termination must be given to the other cities at least six (6) months prior thereto. B. In the event of written notification to withdraw, the remaining cities shall meet to consider modifying the Agreement to continue without the withdrawing city or to terminate. In the event of termination, all surplus funds shall be distributed to the Cities in proportion to the amount contributed over the lifetime of the Agreement. Property obtained under this Agreement shall be distributed to the Cities in the same manner. If the remaining cities continue this Agreement, the withdrawing city shall not be given any distribution, except its own Public Resources, until the other cities agree to terminate. C. Each individual city agrees to maintain in force comprehensive general liability insurance equal to or greater than the maximum liability for tort claims under Minn. Stat. ~ 466.04. If any city is notified that its insurance is cancelled, it will immediately notify the other cities in writing. If any city is unable to obtain or keep in force at least the minimum coverage 7257.17 (RL) RNK:r 10/0912003 8 required by this paragraph, any city may withdraw from this Agreement after giving the other member cities at least thirty (30) days written notice of its intent to withdraw. 16. PRIOR AGREEMENTS SUPERSEDED. This Agreement supersedes and repeals all prior agreements among the Cities related to ambulance service. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Cities hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective du1y authorized officers. Dated: CITY OF APPLE VALLEY BY: Its Mayor AND Its Clerk Dated: CITY OF LAKEVlLLE BY: Its Mayor AND Its Clerk Dated CITY OF FARMINGTON BY: Its Mayor AND Its Administrator/Clerk 7257.17 (RL) RNK:r 1 0/09/2003 9 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7-P FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers, Intenn City Mministrat~ Missie Kohlbeck, Senior Center Coordinator /Q\J Patti Norman, Recreation Program Supervisor ~ TO: SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Supporting DARTS application for a Section 5310 Grant for a Replacement Vehicle - Recreation- Rambling River Ctr. DATE: December 1, 2003 INTRODUCTION The DARTS organization is applying for Federal grant money to replace the existing bus in Farmington. DISCUSSION The existing DARTS bus was purchased with Section 5310 grant money and has been housed in Farmington since 1998. To date, the bus has logged in excess of 180,000 miles and needs to be replaced. In support of the excellent service provided by the DARTS organization to residents of Farmington, the Rambling River Center staffwill continue to maintain the current relationship with the DARTS organization. This relationship includes; DARTS access to a garage stall in which to park the vehicle, the availability of the bus for programs through the Rambling River Center on Fridays, and the DARTS organization willingness to provide free training to volunteer drivers. Furthermore, the Rambling River Center will be listed as a "coordinating agency" in the DARTS Section 5310 grant application ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution supporting the City as a "coordinating agency" for the DARTS grant application and continue the current relationship with the DARTS organization regarding the vehicle. ,-- . Respe~tfullY Submitted, r \ I L1Y\~~'gelX/ Missie Kohlbeck Senior Center Coordinator /,;' Patti Norman Recreation Supervisor RESOLUTION No. AGREEING CONTINUE THE RELATIONSHIP WITH DARTS AND SUPPORT THEIR GRANT APPLICATION AS A "COORIDNATING AGENCY" 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 1 st day of December, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, the Rambling River Center is listed as a "coordinating agency" in the DARTS application for a replacement vehicle in the Farmington Community WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to continue this relationship. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Farmington hereby agrees to support the DARTS application as a "coordinating agency". This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 1st day of December 2003. Mayor Attested to the 01 day of December 2003. City Administrator SEAL City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2~91 www.ci.farminJrton.mn.us ~ J FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers, Interim City Admimstrator! Jennifer N. Collova, Natural Resource Specialist ~ TO: SUBJECT: North American Wetlands Conservation Act Small Grants Application DATE: December I, 2003 INTRODUCTION A grant application was sent to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act Small Grants Fund on November 25, 2003 to fund wetland and pond shoreline restoration in the City of Farmington. The deadline for this grant submittal was November 28,2003. DISCUSSION The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) promotes long-term conservation of wetland ecosystems and the waterfowl and other migratory birds, fish and wildlife that depend upon such habitat. Wetland rehabilitation has already been scheduled and funds budgeted for ponds included in this grant application. Funds received from this grant would go to alleviate costs the City is already planning to incur. BUDGET IMPACT The City of Farmington has requested $29,210 from the NAWCF and in return will match funds for the restoration projects. The matching project costs have been budgeted through the Storm Water Utility Fund. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution to apply for funding through the NA WCA. N7l~ Jennifer N. Collova Natural Resource Specialist cc: file RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR WETLAND RESTORATION THROUGH THE NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION FUND 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 1 st day of December 2003 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS the City of Farmington is a grant applicant in the 2004 North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, and is therefore eligible to make application for funds under the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund; and WHEREAS the City has identified a proposed project within the City that meets the Conservation Fund's purpose/s and criteria; and WHEREAS the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration; and WHEREAS The City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract agreements; and WHEREAS the City Council of Farmington, Minnesota agrees to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the development grant application submitted on November 25,2003; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Public Works Director is hereby authorized to apply to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for this funding on behalf of the City of Farmington and to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 1 st day of December 2003. Mayor Attested to the _ day of 2003. Interim City Administrator SEAL ~Ct- City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us FROM: Mayor, Council Members, Interim City Admmistra+ Robin Roland, Finance Director TO: SUBJECT: Truth in Taxation Hearing DATE: December 1, 2003 INTRODUCTION The City Council adopted a proposed Tax Levy and budget for 2004 with Resolution R64 -03 at the Council meeting on September 2, 2003 and established the Truth in Taxation Hearing to take place at the City Council meeting of December 1,2003. DISCUSSION & BUDGET IMPACT The Truth in Taxation Hearing is held pursuant to State Statute to receive input from residents and other concerned citizens on the proposed budget and tax levy. The hearing will include a presentation by staff of the highlights of the City's proposed 2004 Revenue and Expenditure Budget and the 2004 Proposed Tax levy. Residents have received property specific notices outlining the proposed effect of the 2004 tax levy on their individual property taxes compared to the taxes levied against their property in 2003. The hearing will give residents the opportunity to share their comments and concerns about the proposed 2004 levy and budget. ACTION REOUIRED Receive input on the Proposed 2004 Budget and Tax Levy. Close the public hearing after taking all testim~>ny. Adoption of the Final Budget and Levy will take place at the December 15, 2003 City Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Robin R~l~ - C7 Finance Director lOa- City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and Interim City Administrator tJ;Yl:5 FROM: Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director RE: Adopt Resolution - Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Regarding WalkingIBiking Trails DATE: December 1, 2003 INTRODUCTION The City of Farmington has an existing walking and biking trail plan in Chapter 9 of its 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update. Although the trail plan identifies bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Chapter 9 such as trails and sidewalks, it does not go into enough detail about how to implement a comprehensive trail plan. DISCUSSION The proposed Trail Master Plan has new information that identifies guiding vision statements and key strategies for implementation. The Trail Master Plan also lays out a conceptual plan on a map for the location of future trails. Updating the Trail Master Plan will benefit the City in the following manners: . Identifies the location of future trails and thus requires the developer to pay for trail construction at the time that development occurs, which is a requirement under the recently amended Park, Trails and Open Space Dedication Ordinance (Ordinance). . Specifies locations of trail connectivity from existing development to future development within the boundary of the City. . Takes advantage of existing greenways with an abundance of natural area to create an opportunity to view wildlife and open space while on the trail system. . Identifies strategies for the implementation of the Trail Master Plan. . Will work towards building a safe and usable comprehensive trail system. The Trail Master Plan document and an amended trail map have been included with this memo. The Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update's Transportation Plan (Chapter 9) should be amended so that the section titled Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities is removed in its entirety and the Parks and Recreation Plan (Chapter 11) should be amended to include a new section titled Trail Master Plan. BUDGET IMPACT If the City's Comprehensive Plan is not amended to include the new Trail Master Plan, then a . significant impact on the City's budget could occur. Since the City now has an Ordinance in (,5 place that requires developers to pay for trail construction when they are identified in the Trail Master Plan, it would be unwise not to amend the Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update to include the new Trail Master Plan. Failure to amend it would mean that the City would have to pay for the costs to construct trails identified in future developments. ACTION REQUESTED By resolution approve the Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update Amendment regarding walkinglbiking trails. Respectfully s~ ~ Parks and Recreation Director (p~ RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CONCERNING TRAIL MASTER PLAN Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting ofthe City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 1 st day of December, 2003 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to amend the Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update to include a Trail Master Plan component; and, WHEREAS, Chapter 9 Transportation Plan of the City's current Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update contains language addressing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities and a request is being made to delete this language in its entirety from the Transportation Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Trail Master Plan is better suited in the Comprehensive Plan under Chapter 11 Parks and Recreation Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Farmington hereby amends the Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update by deleting in its entirety the Bicycling and Pedestrian Facilities section from Chapter 9 Transportation Plan and adding a Trail Master Plan section to Chapter 11 Park and Recreation Plan. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 1 st day of December 2003. Mayor Attested to the _ day of December 2003. Interim City Administrator SEAL ~7 Farmington.. ..City of Trails Trail Master Plan 12/01/03 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Trail Master Plan document involved input from many individuals and they should be recognized for their time and effort spent on creating a vision for a future comprehensive trail plan for the City of Farmington. The following individuals are recognized for their role in the review and final approval of the Trail Master Plan. City Council Mayor Gerald Ristow Council Members Lacelle Cordes Christy Fogarty Kevin Soderberg Bill Fitch Plannin2 Commission Chair Dirk Rotty Commission Members Todd Larson Ben Barker Chaz Johnson Bob Heman Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Chair Randy Oswald Commission Members Dawn Johnson Debra Ruth Mike Buringa Paula Higgins City Staff Administration Dan Siebenaler, Interim City Administrator Community Development Kevin Carroll, Director Lee Smick, City Planner J ames Atkinson, Assistant City Planner Engineer/Public Works Lee Mann, City Engineer/Public Works Director Tim Gross, Assistant City Engineer Dave Sanocki, Engineer Parks and Recreation Randy Distad, Director 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pag:e Introduction .................................................................................... 4 Planning Process .............................................................................. 5 Guiding Vision Statements .................... ............ ......... ......... ................ 6 Trail Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 Design Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Trail Safety and Security . .......... .............. ......................... ...... ... .......... 20 Trail Maintenance . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . ... 22 Trail Amenities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Appendix . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. 26 Trail Master Plan Map City of Farmington's Standard Trail Detail Plates 3 INTRODUCTION In June 2003, the Farmington City Council adopted a new Parks, Open Space and Trails Dedication Ordinance. The ordinance defined new requirements including that a developer must pay for the construction of all trails in a development if they are identified in the Trail Master Plan. Staff reviewed the City's existing trail plan and determined that it needed to be amended. The mission then, was as follows: "Amend the existing trail plan in order for it to reflect a more comprehensive trail system within the City's boundary that will showcase natural areas and open space while providing future connections between emerging developing areas and previously developed areas. " With this mission identified, a draft Trail Master Plan evolved over a three-month period. The City has seen many new developments occur in the past five years, which has resulted in roughly 1,200 acres of newly developed land. As a result of the new development, the City's residential population has grown from 12,365 residents identified during the 2000 census to an estimated population of just under 18,000 residents at the time that this trail master plan document is being written. It is anticipated that the estimated population of Farmington will exceed 18,000 residents by the end of2003. According to the City's Comprehensive Plan, by 2020 the City is projected to grow to a population of27,090. As a result of this rapid growth in residential population and loss of land to development, it is imperative that a Trail Master Plan be developed in order for a trail system to be implemented as development occurs and thus reduce or eliminate the chance for gaps to occur in the trail system. It is best to plan now for a future trail system before the City misses its opportunity to acquire the land needed to do so. The City's current trail system contains more than 30 miles of paved trails. A significant number of these paved trails have been constructed within the last five years. In order for a connected trail system to occur, it is important that the trail master plan emphasizes future links that connect existing trails to new trails. Providing connections from existing trails to new trails will promote a system that allows users to travel between older developed areas of the community and new emerging development. It will identify connections to be made well into the future as development occurs. Trails are beneficial to a community. Trails can serve as an alternative method of transportation to more traditional methods such as roads and streets that serve vehicular traffic. Encouraging and providing opportunities to people in the community to walk or bike to work, school, play and retail centers can improve the air quality in the community by reducing vehicle emissions due to less vehicular traffic. Trails provide opportunity for community members to improve and increase health and fitness through walking, in-line skating and biking. Trails can also improve the livability of a community because they attract many different types of users such as children, teens, adults, older adults, people with disabilities and families. Trails provide space for socialization and a safe place to recreate. Trails have a positive economic impact on communities. A well-planned and comprehensive trail system that provides links and connections to Farmington's amenities will be inviting to visitors from outside the community to come and use the trails and provide a boost to the local economy. 4 PLANNING PROCESS The planning process involved staff members from the Parks and Recreation, Community Development and Engineering Departments initially reviewing, revising and drafting the Farmington Trail Master Plan map. In addition to the City staff members being involved, the City's Park and Recreation Advisory Commission (Commission) members also reviewed the trail map and the Trail Master Plan document. Over the course of two Commission meetings, a trail plan evolved for the City of Farmington. In order for the Trail Master Plan document to be fully approved for implementation, two steps needed to occur. A public hearing was held on November 12, 2003 at a Farmington Planning Commission meeting as part ofthe legal requirement to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan to include the new Trail Master Plan document. In addition to a public hearing requirement for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, it was also important to ensure that the Trail Master Plan document reflected public input. The second and final step in the review and approval process involved the City Council. After the Farmington Planning Commission's Public Hearing provided an opportunity for additional public input, the City Council reviewed the Trail Master Plan document at its December 1, 2003 meeting and had an opportunity to consider the public input from the Public Hearing as well as provide their own input. The following timeline identifies the process that was followed in order for the Trail Master Plan to be implemented. Timeline for Trail Master Plan Approval Date Event July 2003 Initial staff meeting to review and gather input for completion of Trail Master Plan map Early-August 2003 Staff review of initial Draft Trail Master Plan map Mid-August 2003 Staff review of revised Draft of Trail Master Plan map Late-August 2003 Staff final review of third Draft of Trail Master Plan map September 2003 Park and Recreation Advisory Commission initial review of draft Trail Master Plan October 2003 Park and Recreation Advisory Commission second review of draft Trail Master Plan November 12, 2003 Public Hearing at Planning Commission meeting December 1, 2003 City Council approves and amends the City's Comprehensive Plan to include the Trail Master Plan 5 GUIDING VISION STATEMENTS The City of Farmington's Trail Master Plan has been created as the guiding document to create a trail system featuring the City's natural areas including its creeks, rivers, wetlands and woods. The Trail Master Plan will provide an important alternative mode of transportation that will connect the community's residents and visitors to its parks, natural areas, schools, neighborhoods and to neighboring communities' trails. It should be accessible to all users, regardless oftheir ability, to enjoy. A well-planned and interconnected trail system will become a source of community pride. It will become a cornerstone for making Farmington a desirable place to live, work and play. It will help Farmington become a "City of Trails". The City's trail system needs a vision that ensures that future trails will be built forming a comprehensive and interconnected system that residents and visitors will use. The following Guiding Vision Statements along with identified strategies should be implemented by the City of Farmington, in order for a usable and comprehensive trail system to be created. 1. Construct trails that are flexible in meeting a variety of user group's needs, desires and abilities. The Trail Master Plan should take into consideration that there will be a multitude of users of the trails that will have varying degrees of needs, wants and skills. The City needs to recognize that there will be a variety of users including some that may be very physically fit or some that may be physically challenged. The Trail Master Plan should encourage all users to feel that they can successfully navigate the trail system. Proper trail amenities are also important when trying to meet the needs of users. Stratef!ies: . All trails should be constructed to comply with the American's with Disabilities Act guidelines of a not to exceed 5% slope. . The City must also recognize that there may be times that it cannot comply with the slope requirement and therefore the Trails Master Plan should provide alternative routes that allow individuals who are physically challenged to still traverse the trail system if they so desire. . The City should create various lengths of looped trails that accommodate users who have varying levels of skills, health and modes of transportation. . Provide support facilities such as a restroom, benches, bike rack, drinking water source, parking and rest areas along the trail system. 2. Provide for alternative modes of transportation. Trails can provide an opportunity for people to get to their work site, schools, parks, recreational facilities, and shopping using an alternative mode of transportation i.e. biking, walking, rollerblading, running, etc. Alternative modes of transportation should be promoted in order to reduce emissions from vehicle traffic and thus creating a cleaner environment. Alternative forms of commuting through efficient and safe trail connections should be promoted by the City. 6 Strategies: . Construct trails that lead to commercial and industrial areas from residential areas. . Work with the Farmington School District to construct trails that connect from neighborhoods and parks to school building sites when possible. . Create and promote incentives for people to use trails and bikeways as an alternative mode of transportation. 3. Create a safe trail system that provides safe connections and crossings to parks, schools, neighborhoods and commercial and industrial areas and provide education programs about bike safety to trail users. Future commercial, industrial and residential development projects should be well thought out in order to minimize the number of trails that cross streets. Providing educational programs on bike safety will help to reduce accidents and injuries from occurring on trails. Strategies: . When possible, trails should utilize either natural greenways and/or man made greenways that minimize the number of street crossings. . Trails that cross streets should do so by being brought to a controlled intersection such as at a four-way stop or at signal lights. Bringing trails to a controlled intersection, such as a four-way stop shown to the right, creates a place where traffic is controlled and trail users may cross in a safe manner. . When financially feasible and if a vehicular bridge is being constructed over a waterway, increase the span so that a trail can be constructed under the bridge and adjacent to the waterway. Here a trail running under the CSAH 50 bridge provides a good example of how users can safely cross under a major roadway. 7 . In situations that do not warrant a bridge, then an alternative form of safe crossing might include constructing a culvert under a roadway when it is constructed to serve as a tunnel for bike and pedestrian use. The City must determine if this is financially feasible on a project-by-project basis. . At intersections where trails cross, provide adequate and visible trail crossing signs for motorists to see. . Continue to provide through the City's Police Department, Parks and Recreation Department and other agencies in the community an annual bike safety day or camp for youth that educates them on such safety issues as: the importance of wearing a helmet, using proper hand signals, identifying trail rules and providing a free bike safety inspection. 4. Promote the construction of trails along natural greenways in the community. The City of Farmington is blessed with four significant waterways: North Creek, Middle Creek, Vermillion River and South Creek. These are important community amenities and should not be overlooked when planning the trail system. These waterways provide a wonderful opportunity to create trails that provide viewing of natural areas and wildlife within the City and also are generally uninterrupted by vehicle traffic. Stratef!ies: . Be cognizant of the environmentally sensitive areas and limit the encroachment of the trails on the waterways by constructing the trails on the outer edges of the greenway. . Good environmental planning should be the main priority when designing the trails along these greenways. . Trails constructed in greenways should be built at a minimum of 10 feet in width with a preferred width of 12 feet or wider due to anticipated heavy use. . Construct a limited number of narrow aggregate hiking paths from paved trails to the interiors of the greenway so that users have a limited number of access connections into natural areas of the greenway. When constructed properly the Middle Creek Greenway Trail should provide great views of the natural area, wildlife and open space contained within the green way. 8 5. Provide connections to neighboring communities' trails. The surrounding communities of Lake vi lIe, Rosemount and Empire Township as well as Dakota County have current trail systems that should be linked to Farmington's trails in order to create a regional trail network. Strategies: . The City should have on-going meetings and conversations with Dakota County, the cities of Lakeville and Rosemount and the townships of Empire, Castle Rock and Eureka in order to make sure that future trails align in the best possible manner between these communities. . The above mentioned communities should consider establishing a bike committee comprised of members from each of the communities that can be involved in the future planning of a regional trail system that connects to the County's, City's and Township's parks, open space, natural areas and facilities. . The City should look for ways to work with these communities for future connections to designated state trails. 6. Provide trail access in older areas of the community where it does not exist. Connector trails are important in providing links from older parts of the community to the City's new or existing trails. When lanes are striped on streets, it is important to remember that they are designated only for bicycles and should not be used by pedestrians. Strategies: . In older neighborhoods that lack trails or access to trails and when space is possible, off-street trails should be constructed in boulevards when infrastructure replacement projects occur. . If there is not space to construct off-street trails in the boulevard or it is financially not feasible, an eight (8) foot bike lane should be striped on the shoulder of at least one side of the street with a preference for striping eight (8) foot bike lanes on both sides of the street if there is adequate space to do so, in order to provide a connection to the City's off-street trail system. . Signs designating certain streets as a bike route should be installed when striping a bike lane or lanes is not possible either due to neighborhood opposition or the street not being wide enough to accommodate at least an eight (8) foot wide bike lane on one side of the road. The Dakota Estates Subdivision is an example of where trails currently do not exist and so a striped bike lane or bike route sign should be considered so that residents in this area of the community can become connected to the City's trail system. '&: .-~.:> - .- , ;~ .~ ':-~ ~ '?:'r~~:; 9 7. Create trail construction and on-going maintenance funding mechanisms to ensure that the trail system is a long-term investment. Funding new trail construction has been identified in the Park, Open Space and Trail Dedication Ordinance as being required by a developer to construct if the trail or trails in the development is shown on the Trail Master Plan. Once new trails are constructed, on-going maintenance needs to be completed in order to ensure that the life expectancy of trails (15-20 years) is being met. Strategies: . The City of Farmington should continually research alternative methods of financing the construction and maintenance of trails. . Research and pursue possible grant programs for funding trail construction. . Create, when possible, financial partnerships with other agencies to assist with funding trail construction. . Create a pavement management plan for the maintenance and future reconstruction of trails. . Encourage and foster volunteers through the City's Adopt-A-Park and Adopt-A- Trail Programs that currently exist in order to keep litter picked up along trails. . Create a maintenance program that ensures that trails are crack filled, seal coated and overlayed at appropriate and specified intervals. 8. Provide trails with alternative surface types when traditional surfacing is not feasible. In areas where paved trails will not work or are not permitted such as in environmentally sensitive areas, the City should use alternative types of surfacing materials such as aggregate, wood fiber or boardwalk to construct a trail. Strategies: . Make sure that trails using alternative surfacing materials are placed properly in order to ensure that it is an acceptable surface for accessibility. . When boardwalks are constructed, only plastic or galvanized systems should be used due to the excessive amount of moisture that the boardwalk will be exposed to. . Boardwalks should have railings constructed so as to keep people from falling from them. . Construct boardwalks through wetlands when it is feasible in order to provide interpretive and educational opportunities for the community. -, This picture demonstrates how a boardwalk can be built to provide access to environmentally sensitive area regardkssofape~on~ability. Boardwalks constructed should have railings attached to improve safety for users. 10 9. Create trail connections and not trail dead-ends. Trails are meant to carry users from one destination to another. If trails do not lead to desirable destinations, they will not be used. Strateeies: . Look for opportunities to connect existing dead-end trails back into the trail system when new development occurs. . If it not possible to connect a dead-end trail back into the trail system, then it should be connected to a sidewalk or street that is identified on the Trail Master Plan as a bike route. . If dead-end trails are not able to be tied back into the trail system, small loops should be created at the end of the trail ifit is possible so that users have a place to adequately turn around and return on the same trail. . Require developers to follow the Trail Master Plan map so that trail dead-ends do not occur . . Conduct an annual review of the Trail Master Plan document to ensure that it is being properly followed and make revisions to it if needed. 10. Develop specifications for trail design standards. Trails should be built that not only reflect local design standards, but also reflect standards ofthe Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN DOT), the American Association of State Highway Transportation Organization (AASHTO) and American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) design guidelines. Strateeies: . Design trails that reflect local, state and federal standards that result in trails being constructed in a quality manner with a life expectancy of 15 to 20 years. . The City should continue to research and watch for new trends related to trail design . Review the City's design standards on an annual basis and update as needed. . Connector trails should be constructed at a width of at least 8 feet. . Park trails, greenway trails and other corridor trails that are anticipated to have heavy use, at least a 10 foot wide trail should be constructed with preference given to a 12 foot wide trail or wider being constructed. . Provide in the construction design the opportunity to expand the trail width in the future if heavy use dictates it. . Brush, trees and tall grass should be cleared at least six feet back from both sides of the trail. 11. The City should plan for and create a limited number of alternative use trails. While a majority oftrail users will use park trails and bikeways, there nonetheless is a group of people who will use alternative types of trails if they are built. The City should establish a limited number of alternative use trails. Strateeies: . City staff should research costs associated with the purchase or lease of cross-country skiing grooming equipment. 11 . Cross country ski trails should be either groomed on top of existing unplowed paved trails or along greenways. . The City should develop a snow plowing map that identifies what trails will be plowed and what trails will be unplowed and groomed for cross-country skiing. . The City should not develop mountain biking trails but instead should rely on county and regional park agencies to provide them. . The City should not develop horseback riding trails but instead should rely on county and regional park agencies to provide them. . The City should work with local snowmobiling clubs in identifying future routing changes of snowmobile trails through the City when rural sections become urban sections of the community. 12. Provide sign age that informs and directs users to destinations and provides proper warning to potential hazardous conditions. Proper signage is important for users to have access to so that they can become familiar with and understand the City's trail system. Stratef!ies: . Install kiosks or information boards with rules, information and trail maps at trail head and rest area locations to provide helpful and useful information to users. . Lettering on signs should be large enough to read and in a prevalent color. . Warning signs should be placed to warn users where potential hazardous conditions exist on or adjacent to trails, bikeways, highways and streets. . In locations where there is a narrow park entrance with a trail that leads from a street or sidewalk and runs between homes, a sign with the park name should be installed along the edge of the trail and be visible from the street indicating that the trail is a public entrance point to the park. (IJ * Rambling Rambling- River River Park Park While not as large as park signs trail signs inform users of their current location, directs them towards other important locations, and/or provides warning of potential hazardous conditions. 12 TRAIL TYPES Trails are classified according to their location in relation to vehicular traffic. There are four types of trails: park trail, connector trail, bikeways, alternative use trail and greenway. 1. Park Trail. These are typically multi-purpose trails located within natural areas, open space and parks. Park trails emphasize a strong relationship with the natural environment within a park setting. The City should place a priority whenever possible on the construction of a park trail due to its desirability of being located away from streets and roads and being located within parks, open space and natural resource areas. The main benefits of park trails are as follows: . creates a connectedness to the natural environment . creates a safer trail system since user's travel through areas like parks, open space and natural areas that are rarely interrupted by traffic . useful for bringing the entire park, open space, and natural areas together under one comprehensive system . effective tool in identifying property boundaries for residential, commercial areas and industrial parks from parks, open space and natural areas Park trails should be developed under the following strategies: . clearly define the routing of park trails through the creation of a comprehensive trail plan . it is imperative that land acquisition occur at an early stage either through fee simple or easement so that the City controls the land . create an assortment of funding mechanisms that provide money for the construction of park trails in new developments as well as new trails in existing subdivisions where there are none . construct at a minimum width of 10 feet . develop specifications for design standards that identify how the park trails should be built that not only reflect local standards, but also reflects standards of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN DOT), the American Association of State Highway Transportation Organization (ASSHTO) and American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) design guidelines 2. Connector Trail. Connector trails can be defined as trails that provide safe travel for users traveling to and from parks and the community. Connector trails are commonly constructed as a separated trail along the side of streets and roads. They are commonly built within road and street right of ways, boulevards, utility easements or along artificial drainage ways. The main benefits of a connector trail are: . uses existing space that sometimes is underutilized . can provide connections from neighborhoods to the trail system in locations where park trails or greenways are not able to . keeps trail users off of streets and roadways Connector trails should be developed under the following strategies: . construct connector trails as part of a street and utility infrastructure project in areas where no current trail exists 13 . identify future connector trails on the Trail Master Plan map in order to establish trail right of ways and easements at an early stage of development Shown in the photo to the left is a trail easement between two residential homes that was created during the early stages of development, resulting in a trail connection being made from Meadowview Elementary School to a collector trail that runs along the boulevard in front of these homes. . connector trails should be constructed at a width of at least 8 feet A connector trail is constructed either in the boulevard or right of way and is commonly separated from the street. 3. Bikeways. Bikeways are defined as paved segments of roadways that serve to safely separate bicyclists from vehicular traffic. There are two types of bikeways and they are commonly referred to as either a bike lane or bike route. Bike routes are designated streets or roadways that have either paved shoulders or portions of the roadway that separates vehicle traffic from users. A bike lane is a designated portion of a street or roadway that has a painted line that creates separation of bikers and vehicular traffic. The striped lane is for the exclusive use by non-vehicular traffic, primarily bicycle use. The main benefits to creating bikeways are as follows: . bikeways can play an important role in encouraging commuters to bicycle to work . can be created at a relatively cheap cost resulting in a the trail network for bicyclists to be expanded . provides connections from neighborhoods to off-street trails for bicyclists Bikeways should be developed under the following strategies: . clearly identify on the Trail Master Plan map locations of bikeways . establish design standards that define how bikeways are to be built using local, MN DOT and AASHTO standards 14 . should be considered along collector, minor arterial and when these are not possible, major arterial roads . develop bikeways when new roads are constructed or upgrades are made . install proper signage that connects users to either off-street trails or other bikeways 4. Alternative Use Trails. Trails that provide uses for cross country skiing, snowmobiling, horseback riding and mountain biking are considered alternative uses for trails. Like park trails, alternative use trails have strong ties to the environment albeit a different one. A description of the different types of alternative uses is provided below. Mountain Biking: Mountain biking is an emerging trail use and appeals to a wide age-range of participants. Since it is such an new and emerging sport, users have a wide range of skill level. Mountain biking utilizes the challenges that the natural environment presents while at the same time degrades it. The City should not provide this type of trail to its residents. The county and regional park systems should be the primary provider of this type of trail. Cross Country Skiing: Cross country ski trails can be either groomed on unplowed paved surface trails or in locations separate from paved trails. There are two different styles for cross country skiing: diagonal (also called traditional) and skate-ski. A diagonal cross country ski trail requires a groomer, which is a special piece of equipment that is pulled across the snow and lays down tracks for cross country skiing. A skate-ski trail, which is an alternative method of cross-country skiing, requires a wider packed and groomed surface where the skis do not ride in tracks. Cross country ski trails should be designed with a series of longer loops rather than be a continuous linear trail. Horseback Riding: Created for horses, these types of trails utilize a grass, wood chip or natural soil for its surfacing material. A strategy is to use the same trail for horseback riding in the summer as the trail that is used for cross country skiing in the winter. The City should not provide this type of trail unless it has developed a cross country ski trail system that can be used for skiing in the winter and horseback riding the remainder of the year. Snowmobiling: The City currently has an adopted ordinance that specifies where snowmobiles may be driven (Title 6, Chapter 8, Section 3). As the City continues to grow, snowmobile trails that currently exist within the rural areas ofthe City will no longer be available for use because they will become part of the urban area of the City through annexation. The City needs to address how annexation will impact current snowmobile trails and if there are ways to mitigate the loss of snowmobile trails. The City should examine whether or not it wants to amend its current snowmobile ordinance to allow snowmobiles in trail corridors so long as the use of the snowmobiles in the trail corridors does not infringe on other users such as cross country skiers and pedestrians. Should the City decide to amend the current Ordinance it should make sure that it provides trail corridors for snowmobiles to travel from the City to regional snowmobile trails and these corridors should be designated and separated from other trails. This may require a trail corridor of 50 feet wide or more to accommodate snowmobile use. Alternative use trails should be developed using the following strategies: . assess the need for alternative use trails before any are constructed . determine if the need can be better met through county, regional or state park agencies 15 . alternative trail design should follow the same standards created by county, regional park and state resource agencies . if needed, provide space for trail corridors that are at least 50 feet wide to accommodate separated trails for different user groups . develop alternative trails so that they do not negatively impact the natural environment 5. Greenway. A greenway can be defined as a linear corridor that provides uninterrupted travel for alternative forms of transportation (typically non-motorized forms) that should provide connectivity between parks, open spaces, natural areas, schools and neighborhoods. Greenways should be looked at as a vital component of a comprehensive trail system. Greenways main benefits are as follows: . A reduction in the number of trails crossing roads and streets due to their uninterrupted movement of users through parks, open space and natural areas . An opportunity for preservation of natural and environmentally sensitive areas . Control over what natural and open space areas that users are able to travel through and access . Increased value for adjacent and abutting properties There are two types of greenways that are recognized, natural and man-made. The following table identifies some of the different physical characteristics that may be found in the two types of greenways. Natural Man-Made creek vacated railroad bed and/or right ofwav stream residential subdivision nver electrical overhead power line easement or right of way wooded area pipeline easement wetland engineered drainagewavs The City of Farmington is fortunate to currently have four natural greenways within the City boundaries. The Trail Master Plan map identifies the locations of the four greenways. The four greenways are as follows: North Creek: North Creek Greenway will provide an important connection from the north edge of Farmington to the Vermillion River Greenway. A significant portion of this greenway will become part of the City with the Seed/Genstar Development and the Riverbend Development projects. Because of the width of this greenway and its connectivity not only to the Vermillion River Greenway but also to the City of Lakeville trail system, trails have been identified to be constructed on both sides of the greenway. Since this greenway extends into the City of Lakeville and beyond that to the City of Apple Valley it is anticipated that the North Creek Greenway will become a heavily used greenway not only by the City of Farmington residents, but also by residents from Lakeville, Apple Valley, and residents from the area surrounding the City of Farmington. The trails should be built at a minimum width of 10 feet with a preferred width of 12 feet in anticipation of it becoming a heavily 16 used trail. Since North Creek flows into the Vermillion River, which is a designated trout stream by he Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), care must be taken in the planning and design of the trails so as to cause no net impact on the creek from storm water run off due to its connection to the Vermillion River. An effective strategy is to ensure that the trail remains as much as possible at least 100 feet from the creek bed in order for runoff from the trail to be filtered and slowed by vegetation before it reaches North Creek. Since the creek may flood from time to time, it will also be beneficial to keep the trail itself on the outer edge of the flood plain as much as possible while still allowing the natural features of North Creek to be viewed and enjoyed. The City should look for ways to acquire land for parks along the North Creek Greenway in order to improve the connectivity of its parks and open space system. Vermillion River The Vermillion River Greenway contains a corridor that is rich in wildlife habitat and wildlife resources. Designated as a trout stream by the DNR and identified as a wildlife corridor, the Vermillion River has immense value to the City's greenway system. All creeks located in and adjacent to the City are tributaries to the Vermillion River. The benefit of this is that the Vermillion River then becomes the greenway that ties the remaining greenways together as part of an interconnected and comprehensive system consisting of parks, open spaces, natural areas and trails. The Vermillion River Greenway also extends beyond the borders of Farmington which also provides the opportunity for the City's trails to connect to other communities trails to the east and west. The Vermillion River Greenway will also provide a viable connection from new emerging growth areas to older parts of the community. A portion of the trail system has already been constructed through the Rambling River Park area and the Vermillion River Greenway trail corridor should be expanded from the existing the trails built in Rambling River Park. Existing trails have been constructed at 8 feet in width and any future construction of new trails or reconstruction of existing trails through the Vermillion River Greenway should be constructed at a minimum width of 10 feet with a preferred width of 12 feet in anticipation of it becoming a heavily used trail. The City should work with adjacent land owners to either acquire land through fee acquisition, park dedication, gifting or easement. :;e<'.~ With an established paved trail along a portion of the Vermillion River Greenway the City has created an initial trail corridor that can and should be expanded in the future. Middle Creek Running through the central part of the community, the Middle Creek Greenway will serve as a 17 major connector from the parks, schools and neighborhoods on the east side of the City to the parks, schools and neighborhoods on the west and northwest side of the community. Currently there has been some development that has occurred along a portion ofthe Middle Creek Greenway, which has created a missed opportunity to construct trails on both sides of the greenway much like the North Creek Greenway. However, the City should look for ways to work with the property owners adjacent to the north side ofthe greenway to construct a trail sometime in the future. The Middle Creek Greenway provides an excellent opportunity to provide a trail connection to the Farmington Industrial Park which borders the greenway on the south from Akin Road to Pilot Knob Road. The trails through the Middle Creek Greenway should be constructed at a minimum width of 10 feet with a preferred width of 12 feet in anticipation of it becoming a heavily used trail. The City should look for ways to acquire land for parks along the Middle Creek Greenway in order to improve the connectivity of its parks and open space system. South Creek Like the North Creek Greenway, the South Creek Greenway presents an opportunity for future connections to the City of Lakeville's trail system. The South Creek Greenway is located south of CSAH 50 and its creek empties into and connects with the Vermillion River Greenway. Because of the width of this greenway and its connectivity not only to the Vermillion River Greenway but also to the City of Lakeville trail system, trails should be constructed on both sides of the greenway. The trails should be built at a minimum width of 10 feet with a preferred width of 12 feet in anticipation of it becoming a heavily used trail. Since South Creek flows into the Vermillion River, which is a designated trout stream by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), care must be taken in the planning and design of the trails so as to cause no negative impact on the creek from storm water run off due to its connection to the Vermillion River. An effective strategy is to ensure that the trail remains as much as possible at least 100 feet from the creek bed in order for runoff from the trail to be filtered and slowed by vegetation before it reaches South Creek. Since the creek may flood from time to time, it will also be beneficial to keep the trail itself on the outer edge ofthe flood plain as much as possible while still allowing the natural features of South Creek to be viewed and enjoyed. The City should look for ways to acquire land for parks along the South Creek Greenway in order to improve the connectivity of its parks and open space system. Greenway trail corridors should be developed using the following strategies: . whenever possible incorporate natural areas into the trail corridor at a width of at least 50 feet with preference given to a corridor width of up to 200 feet . utilize man-made corridors when natural area corridors are not feasible or possible . locate man-made corridors within drainage ways . improve man-made corridors to include native trees, native grasses, wildflowers and shrubs to create a vegetative buffer along the corridor creating a distinct property edge to the corridor . develop man-made corridors that are least 50 feet in width to allow proper space for vegetative buffers to be planted and to thrive . trails should be constructed at a minimum width of 10 feet with an optimum width of 12 feet or wider if funding allows 18 DESIGN STANDARDS The City has developed specific design standards as they relate to the construction of paved trails, pedestrian ramps and crosswalk identification. The City's design standards shall be the accepted design format unless there are other Federal or State requirements that would supersede the City's design standards, i.e. American's with Disabilities Act. The City's trail design standards are included as part of its Engineering Guidelines and Standard Plates Document. The following is a summary ofthe City's basic requirements for trail construction: . initially remove six inches of subsoil . install six (6) inches of Class 5 aggregate 100% crushed limestone compacted base . first lift of bituminous will consist of a 1.5 inch 2331 bituminous base . final lift shall consist of 1 inch of 2341 bituminous wear course . when constructing collector trails (trails in the boulevard or right of way) the City allows the base lift to be placed first and then the wear course is only placed after home construction is completed in order to minimize the amount of heavy equipment driving on the finished wear course. . an alternative construction method that the City has allowed in the past in park trail locations, has been to lay one lift of 2.5 inches of 2341 bituminous wear course, after the base has been properly placed and compacted The Appendix contains illustrations ofthe City's Standard Detail Plates for designs of elements related to trails. 19 TRAIL SAFETY AND SECURITY Once constructed, it is important that trails are maintained to a high standard in order for the trail system to be successful. Trails that are improperly maintained can create potential hazards for users. The safety of trails users should not be compromised. The City needs to create a funding mechanism that provides money for the future maintenance of trails to ensure that they remain safe and don't deteriorate prematurely. Another critical component of trail maintenance is establishing a regular inspection schedule of the trail system by City staff. Regular inspections should catch maintenance issues that then can be corrected in a timely manner. Regular inspections also provide the opportunity to keep litter picked up, which in turn provides the appearance that the community cares about rather than neglects its trail system. Monitoring of the trails by staff will help to deter vandalism, as the person who is monitoring the trail should catch vandalism in the early stages before it becomes significant. If vandalism is not caught early and either removed or repaired, it could lead to even more vandalism occurring creating a potential hazardous condition along the trail. Littering and vandalism should be recorded in a log book in order to track and identify trouble spots along the trail system. Once these trouble spots are identified, the Police Department should be notified for their support in providing additional surveillance of the trouble spots by either its Community Service Officer or a bike patrol. The following are items that the City needs to consider when developing a safety plan for its trail system: Rules: In order to create order rather than chaos on the trail system rules need to be identified and users need to be informed ofthem. Rules should be posted at trailhead and rest area locations. Rules that are appropriate for the City of Farmington's trail system should include the following: . Only non-motorized vehicles are allowed on trails. . Pets must be kept on a leash and dog waste must be picked up and properly disposed. . Users should stay to the right except to pass. . When entering onto a trail allow existing users to pass before entering onto the trail. . When trails intersect, use traffic laws to determine who has the right of way to pass through the intersection first. . Please keep yours and other's litter picked up. . Bicycle riders should yield to pedestrian traffic. . Provide a warning sign that can be heard prior to passing someone on the trail. . Follow all traffic laws when riding bicycles on streets. . When using the trail, wait to rest or socialize with other users until you have come to a rest areas or shelter. Ifthere is not a rest area or shelter nearby, move off of the trail beyond the shoulders to rest or socialize with others. . Users should be off of trails before dark unless the trail is lit and then users should be off of the trail from 11:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. Education: As much as possible, users ofthe trail system should be educated about safety while 20 using a trail. While it should not be a requirement to receive safety education prior to using a trail, the City nonetheless should do its part in ensuring that trail users understand how to remain safe when on trails. The following strategies are suggested ways to increase trail safety: . Provide an annual bike safety camp day or program to youth in the community that teaches them about such things as proper protective equipment, trail rules, rules of the road, use of hand signals and a bike safety inspection. . In the spring of each year, provide a press release that identifies safety topics related to trail use and reminds the community about the trail rules. . Work with other agencies and organizations in order to make bike helmets available to youths in the community at either a reduced cost or for free. . Provide safety signage along the trail system and in various locations that reminds users of such things as what side of the trail to ride on, correct manner in which to pass someone and which user groups have the right of way over other user groups. Enforcement: While the City is not always able to provide police staff to patrol the trail system on a daily basis, occasional patrolling could potentially be done by either the Community Service Officer or through a bike patrol. Perhaps however, the most effective and visible enforcement will occur by users of the trail system. The following are strategies that the City may want to consider when providing enforcement on the trail system: . Create good visibility to abutting property owners who can provide 24 hour observation of trails by removing some or all of the tall brush or branches in order to provide views to the trail. . Create a volunteer trail patrol unit that strictly patrols trails and reports criminal or suspicious activity to the City's Police Department. Visibility ofthe patrol unit is the key to deterring criminal activity. . Keep law enforcement agencies informed of trouble spots on the trails in the event that they have an opportunity to increase patrol of the area around the trouble spot. . Make sure that people are reminded to lock vehicles when parking their vehicle at a trail head parking lot. . Explore costs and options related to emergency call boxes being place in key locations. . When trouble spots are identified, consider lighting the trouble spots to deter criminal activity. . When opportunities exist and it is financial feasible, trails should be lit but only in situations that it does not significantly impact of affect property owners adjacent to the trail. 21 TRAIL MAINTENANCE Maintenance plays a critical part in the survival of a trail system. Without an ongoing maintenance program, the pavement will break down and will become unsafe for use. A preventive maintenance program will provide the following benefits: . effective way to promote the trail system during the budget process . can deter vandalism, litter and encroachment . create positive public relations between the City and abutting property owners . encourages the community to take pride in their trails system and thus helping to make enforcement easier to manage . keep the surface of the trail in a usable and safe condition . extend the life of the trail system Maintenance of trails can mean many different things other than just maintaining and managing the trail surface. The following are common issues that should be addressed and strategies that should be implemented for long-term maintenance ofthe trail system: Issue trees weeds roots cracks aggregate breaking away from pavement pothole litter or debris dog waste dumping lawn clippings and leaves graffiti drainage issue broken glass loose sand or gravel Maintenance Strate Prune back limbs to at least six feet off of edge of trail. Continually inspect trails for hazardous trees and when identified remove hazardous limbs or the tree itself if needed. Mow or apply pesticide in areas that are not environmentally sensitive and on! on lants that are harmful to the ublic Removal of tree or shrub should occur or it may eventually cause heavin of the trail Cracks should be cleaned and then filled with a ro riate material. Sealcoat with slurry, or if too much aggregate has been lost, and the trail is old, do an overla on the existin trail. Clean out pothole and remove any additional trail surface that has failed or has been undercut by the washout. Replace with class 5 a e ate and atch with hot as halt. Remove and dispose of properly. Document location for historical reference. Inform public to get involved by volunteering to clean up trails through the Adopt-A-Park and Adopt-A-Trail Programs. Provide garbage containers along the trail for litter and trash to be dis osed ofb trail users. Install signage that requests owner to scoop up and dispose of the waste. Provide stations that have baggies and a container for dis osin of waste. Provide signage that identifies that dumping is illegal. Remove as quickly as possible the dumped material so that it prevents further du in b other residents. Take photo to document graffiti and retain for future reference. Clean u and remove affiti as uickl as ossible. Check drain structures nearby to ensure that they are not plugged. Remove water from the trail if possible. Work with Engineering to correct draina e issue. Sweep up glass as quickly as possible and dispose of properly. Document location for historical oses. If a significant amount is present, it should be swe t from the trail. 22 The following timeline should be followed for correcting maintenance issues related to the trail surface: . crackfilling should occur every 5-7 years . sealcoating should occur every 6-8 years . if the base of a trail is still stable, but the surface has deteriorated, then an overlay should occur at 13-15 years Finally, a maintenance and management plan should be created that identifies the trail by location, the year it was constructed, the cost of construction, the years that preventative surface maintenance has been performed (crackfilling, sealcoating and overlaying), the costs associated with preventative surface maintenance, the projected year of reconstruction and the projected cost of reconstruction. 23 jrRi\lJ, Al\:1ENITiE~ Trail amenities are yet another piece of the comprehensive trail system puzzle. Supporting facilities such as restrooms, shelters and parking areas are important amenities that when provided assist in making the trail system more attractive and successful. Trail amenities identified below are necessary to promote use of the system. Proper care of these amenities means that they will need to be continually maintained and replaced over time. Parking Areas: Adequate vehicle parking space is critical to the trail system's success. While it is the intent of the trail system to provide an opportunity for residents to gain quick and easy access to a comprehensive trail system, there will be some residents and visitors to the community who wish to drive to a trailhead and park their vehicle. The City should provide parking at designated trail head locations so as to encourage and enable users to drive to and access trails. The City should focus on providing off-street parking areas such as within parks to gain access to a trail and limit the amount of on-street parking. Currently Rambling River Park is one such trailhead location where an off-street parking area is provided. In the development of new parks, parking areas should be constructed in larger parks that have adequate space to accommodate vehicle parking. Bike Racks: Bike racks are important for bicyclists who use trails. It provides a place where bikes can be secured for short periods of time that allow the bicyclists an opportunity to use the restroom, stop and rest on a bench or eat a lunch under the gazebo. The size and number of bike racks will depend on the number of bicyclists using the trails. The City should monitor the need for additional bike racks. Bike racks should be installed close to other amenities such as a restroom, kiosk, playground or ballfield. Bike racks should be securely fastened into a concrete pad that abuts the trail. Color and design are dependent on the location of installation. Bike racks should be inspected and maintained on an as needed basis. This picture ill ustra tes one example of a bike rack design. Refuse Containers: In order to encourage users to properly dispose of their litter, refuse containers need to be provided at rest areas, shelters, trail heads and strategic locations along the trail. Containers should be dumped on a regular basis in order to ensure that litter does not overflow and cause pollution. Refuse containers should be aesthetically pleasing and fit with the natural environment. Refuse containers should have lids that keeps litter inside and animals out. Containers should be secured so that they cannot be tipped over or removed from the premises. 24 Benches: Benches serve as an inexpensive but good resting stop for users or they can provide an opportunity to enjoy a splendid view of nature. Benches should be installed along the trail edge but far enough off ofthe trail so as not to interfere with the activity that is occurring on the trail. Bench legs need to be securely fastened to a concrete base that does not allow them to be either tipped over or removed from the premises. The concrete base should be poured so that it is contiguous with the trail so as to provide access to all users of the trail. As much as possible benches should have an aesthetically pleasing color and fit with the natural environment. When purchasing benches, serious consideration should be given to purchase recycled plastic benches due to low maintenance and long life. Benches need to be regularly inspected and maintained in order for them to be of any use. Planks should be replaced as soon as possible when they are broken. Gazebo: Small gazebos or shelters should be provided in pre-determined locations along the trail and primarily along park trails. Preference should be given for constructing an all-metal gazebo due to metal having a longer life span than wood. Size should be the main factor considered when purchasing a gazebo for trails. A gazebo should serve as a facility whose main purpose is to provide a place where users can get out of the sun or rain or stop and eat a meal. Gazebos should be constructed off ofthe trail with a small trail leading from the shelter back to the main trail so that it is accessible to all. Two or three picnic tables should be provided for seating and eating. Picnic tables should be made from recycled plastic material similar to what the benches are made from. Kiosk: Kiosks are decorative structures that are used to provide important information to trail users. The information provided at a kiosk may include: trail rules, a map of the existing City trail system and general safety tips and information related to trails. Kiosks should be constructed out of durable and low maintenance materials. Build a secure case that the informational material may be posted in so that it does not blow away and more importantly so that control can be maintained about what information is posted in the kiosk case. Kiosks should be located at trailhead locations and should be located close to the parking area. Restrooms: Restrooms should be provided at trailhead locations. Restrooms may either be a facility with plumbing or may be a portable toilet. Restrooms with plumbing will need to be cleaned on a daily basis. Restrooms should not be solely constructed for trail users but rather should be constructed in trailhead locations that have other facilities as well such as a playground or ballfield. The reason for this is so that they are built in areas where there is additional traffic for other reasons besides the trail. Increased traffic should deter vandalism in restrooms. The City should contract the portable toilet service from an outside contractor. If using portable toilets, they should be secured properly so that they cannot be tipped over. The trails should lead to the restrooms in order to make them accessible. The restroom facilities whether they contain indoor plumbing or are portable should be accessible to all users. 25 APPENDIX 26 City of Farmington Existing and Proposed Trails N A Modified on November 6, 2003 0.5 I o 0.5 Miles I Square off points on sidewalk pedestrian romp minimum of 4" ., (j) Face of Curb 5'-0" A~ Max. slope 10: 1 Top of Curb Round 011 sloped intersections 5'_0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 15' _0" SECTION 8-8 8" 5' _0" Design Street Grode Max 50: 1 Concrete Sidewalk Max. 20: 1 liAOX "2:4 8618 curb SECTION A- A& gutter 4" fine filter aggregate (MNDOT 3149) or Closs 5 aggregate 100% crushed limestone quarry or recycled equal (MNDOT 3138). STANDARD DETAILS SIDEWALK CURB RAMP-DETAIL Lost Revision: F eb 2002 City Plate No. ( FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA ) STR-17 H:\STANDARDS\STANDARD PLATES\STR-17.DWG Square off points on sidewalk pedestrian romp minimum of 4" CD '::",-:'.~~:;.~':: ~::::.:; ,": :~ .f'::,,_ ~::.: ::~.>::'~: ~B......~ 5'-0" . .5' -0" Vanes PLAN A----1 Face of Curb Max. slope 10: 1 Top of Curb 5'-0" Round all sloped intersections Varies 5'-0" *Trail width varies as directed by engineer SECTION B-B Design Street Grade Max. 20: 1 SECTION B618 curb & gutter A-A 8" 5'-0" r Bituminous Max 50: 1 II Pathway 4" fine filter aggregate (MNDOT 3149) or class 5 aggregate 100% crushed limestone quarry or recycled equal (MNDOT 3138). STANDARD DETAILS BIKE PATH CURB RAMP-DETAIL Last Revision: Feb 2002 City Plate No. ( FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA J STR-18 H:\STANDARDS\STANDARD PLATES\STR-18.DWG <t Roadway See curb romp detail plate (City Plate STR-17 & STR-18) Concrete curb and gutter Varies ~ STOP s;9n -.- 10.5' PLAN No Scale NOTE: Dimensions depend on type of pathway or sidewalk. STANDARD DETAILS SIDEWALK/BIKE PATH CURB RAMP GENERAL LOCATION -I( Last Revision: Feb 2002 City Plate No. ( FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA ) STR-19 H:\STANDARDS\STANDARD PLATES\STR-19.DWG <l Roadway A See curb romp detail plate (City Plate STR-17 & STR-18) A Concrete curb and gutter Varies - l- -I( 0.5' ~ STOP s;gn PLAN No Scale I~ ~~ ..flJ- I I 5' I 8' I 5' I 5' I 8' I 5' I 36' Section A-A PROFILE NO SCALE STANDARD DETAILS DOUBLE SIDEWALK/BIKE PATH CURB RAMP GENERAL LOCATION Lost Revision: Feb 2002 City Plote No. ( FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA ) STR-20 H:\STANDARDS\STANDARD PLATES\STR-2D.DWG BIKE PATH TYPICAL SECTION to drain I( -r-t- i" * (Varies) 1" 2341 bituminous wear course 1.5" 2331 bituminous base course 6" Class 5 aggregate 1 00% crushed limestone guarry or recycled equal (MNDOT 3138). NOTE: The final wear coarse lift should be placed upon 90-95% completion of all home construction. * Trail width varies as directed by engineer i" 5' SECTION I( .r- SIDEWALK TYPICAL *4" Concrete (3A32) 4" fine filtered aggregate (MNDOT 3149) or Class 5 aggregate 100% crushed limestone quarry or recycled equal (MNDOT 3138) *NOTE: 6" thick sidewalk is required through driveway areas. STANDARD DETAILS TYPICAL BIKE PATH AND SIDEWALK SECTIONS Lost Revision: Feb 2002 City Plate No. r FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA ) STR-21 H:\STANDARDS\STANDARD PLATES\STR-21.DWG Curb-- Gutter- ilmmmh= ................................. .................................. ................................. u................................ _ :';;:;"''''''';~''','' See C;ly plole STR-17 & STR-18 :::::i::i::::i::::C U r bi::::i::i:::::: }m::rR'o'~'p)!.?I . ........ ........ .................................. solid white 3' x 5' blocks for sidewalk and 3' x 8' blocks for bike path crossing. <t Street Gutter Curb "'- po ~mmmmmmlf- ................................. :::~::::::::!;:~::c~.~ ~::~::~::~::~~ :mtfRo.~.p{:lm:: See ....... ....... .................................. ................................. .................................. ................................. .................................. ................................. City plate STR-17 & STR-18 NOTE: 1. Crosswalk lines sholl be solid white. 2. All pavement markings sholl be per Standard Specifications Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD) of Minnesota STANDARD DETAILS CROSSWALK LAYOUT Lost Revision: May 2000 City Plate No. ( FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA J STR-22 H:\STANDARDS\STANDARD PLATES\STR-22.DWG lOb City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463.7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us FROM: Mayor and councilmernberJ Daniel M. Siebenaler, Interim City Administrator TO: SUBJECT: Mutual Aid Assistance Group Joint Powers Agreement DATE: December 1, 2003 INTRODUCTION Two of the four existing law enforcement tactical teams in Dakota County are in the process of merging. The Dakota County Sheriffs SWAT Team and the Dakota County MAAG Team will merge operations in an effort to provide a broader base of response to Tactical Emergencies in a large portion of the County. DISCUSSION The City of Farmington has participated in a mutual aid tactical team since 1976. The original team was made up of members from all of the police departments in Dakota County. Since that time the need for such teams has grown and three agencies have formed independent tactical teams. One of those teams was the Dakota County Sheriffs Office. In the interest of providing a more efficient response to an ever-increasing demand for tactical response the Dakota County MAAG Team and the Sheriffs SWAT Team will merge operations. The result will be a larger force of tactical officers participating on the same team and participating in the same training. The benefit of the merger will be the ability to limit the need for the full team to respond to all of the requests. In many instances it is unnecessary for a full team to respond to a tactical call. In those instances, such as hazardous warrant service, each of the two squads, currently in existence, will assume response duties in specific geographic areas of the County. However, if the need arises for a larger response, such as a barricaded suspect or hostage situation, the full team, comprised of both squads will have the ability to respond, prepared and trained in an identical fashion. The proposed Joint Powers Agreement (JP A) does two things. First, it updates the existing JP A to comply with changes in State Law and Court Rulings. Second it merges the operations of the two tactical teams and provides for an organizational structure. Changes can been seen in the Strike and Underline portions of the document. The format follows other recently approved JP A documents. BUDGET IMPACT There is no change in the funding mechanism associated with approval of this Joint Powers Agreement. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the Mutual Aid Assistance Group 2003 Joint Powers Agreement as presented. Respectfully submitted, Daniel M. Siebenaler Interim City Administrator DAKOTA COUNTY MUTUAL AID ASSISTANCE GROUP 2003 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT The parties to this Agreement are units of government responsible for critical incident response in their respective jurisdictions. This Agreement is made pursuant to the authority conferred upon the parties by Minn. Stat. S 471.59. NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned governmental units, in the joint and mutual exercise of their powers, agree as follows: 1. N arne. The parties hereby establish the Dakota County Mutual Aid Assistance Group (MAAG). 2. General Purpose. The purpose of this Joint Powers Agreement is to establish an organization to coordinate efforts to develop and provide joint response to critical incidents or high risk entries where there is a risk of criminal violence, occurring within the parties' jurisdictions. 3. Parties. The parties to this Agreement shall consist of the following units of government that have signed this agreement: City of Apple Valley City of Farmington City of Hastings City of Inver Grove Heights City of Lakeville City of Mendota Heights City of North field City of Rosemount City of South St. Paul City of West St. Paul County of Dakota 4. Governance. 4.1. Governin!! Board. The governing board of the MAAG shall consist of the following: one member and one alternate member appointed by the police chief of each party that is a city; and one member and one alternate member appointed by the Dakota County Sheriff. Appointees shall be full-time supervisory peace officers of the appointing party. Resolutions or other documentation of the appointments shall be filed with the Dakota County Sheriff. Members of the governing board shall not be deemed to be employees and shall not be compensated by the governing board. K/K03-163 1 JP A FOR DAKOTA COUNTY MUTUAL AID ASSISTANCE GROUP 4.2. Terms. Appointees shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing party and may be removed only by the appointing party. 4.3. Officers. In January of each year the governing board shall elect from its members a chair, vice chair and secretary/treasurer. The chair shall preside at all meetings of the governing board and shall perform other duties as determined by the governing board, including the authority to sign contracts authorized by the governing board. The vice chair shall preside during the absence of the chair. The secretary/treasurer shall assist the chair in overseeing the governing board's budget and finances. 4.4. Meetin2s. The governing board shall have regular quarterly meetings. Special meetings may be held on reasonable notice by the chair or vice chair. The presence of a simple majority of the members shall constitute a quorum. 4.5. Votin2. Each party to this agreement shall have one vote at any meeting of the governing board. Proxy votes are not permitted. The governing board shall function by a majority vote of board members or alternate members present, provided that a quorum is present. 5. Duties of the Governin2 Board. 5.1. The governing board will formulate a program to carry out its purpose. 5.2. The governing board will coordinate information between the parties and the MAAG. 5.3. The governing board shall appoint and supervise the Team Commander of the MAAG. The governing board may appoint and supervise Assistant Team Commanders of the MAAG. Appointments require the concurrence of the chief law enforcement officer of the Team Commander's or Assistant Team Commander's employer. Appointment as Team Commander or Assistant Team Commander pursuant to this agreement shall not obligate any party to pay to its employees so appointed either supervisory or other premIUm pay. 6. Powers of the Governin2 Board. 6.1. The governing board may enter into any contract necessary or proper for the exercise of its powers or the fulfillment to its duties and enforce such contracts to the extent available in equity or at law, except that the governing board shall not enter into any contract the term of which exceeds one year. No payment on any invoice shall be authorized unless approved by at least two of the three officers elected pursuant to paragraph 4.3. The chair shall report to the governing board any such payments at its next meeting. 6.2. The governing board may contract with any party to provide budgeting and accounting services necessary or convenient for the governing board. Such services shall include K/K03-163 2 JPA FOR DAKOTA COUNTY MUTUAL AID ASSISTANCE GROUP but not be limited to: management of all funds, payment for contracted services and other purchases, and relevant bookkeeping and record keeping. 6.3. The governing board may disburse funds in a manner which is consistent with this Agreement and with the method provided by law for the disbursement of funds by the party under contract to provide budgeting and accounting services. 6.4. The governing board may apply for and accept gifts, grants or loans of money or other property (excluding real property) or assistance from the United States government, the State of Minnesota, or any person, association, or agency for any of its purposes; enter into any agreement in connection therewith; and hold, use and dispose of such money or other property and assistance in accordance with the terms of the gift, grant or loan relating thereto. 6.5. The governing board must obtain and maintain liability insurance in amounts not less than the statutory liability limits established under Minn. Stat. Ch. 466 and may obtain other insurance it deems necessary to insure the parties. the governing board, its members and employees of the parties for actions arising out of this Agreement. With respect to employees of parties who have responded to a request for assistance pursuant to paragraph 10.2.1. they will be deemed to be taking actions arising out of this Agreement from the time thev receive a request for assistance pursuant to this Agreement and commence traveling to the location where assistance is to be provided until the Team Commander or Assistant Team Commander has made the decision pursuant to paragraph 10.2.1 to recall the team. 6.6. All powers granted herein shall be exercised by the governing board in a fiscally responsible manner and in accordance with the requirements oflaw. The purchasing and contracting requirements of Dakota County shall apply to the governing board. 6.7. The governing board may cooperate with other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to accomplish the purpose for which it is organized. 7. Bud2et and Finance. 7.1. Bud2et. By March 31 of each year the governing board shall prepare and adopt a budget for the following calendar year and may amend the same from time to time. 7.2. Expenses. The parties intend to fund the MAAG through annual contribution paid by each party. The governing board shall establish the contribution by March 31 of the year prior to the year when the contribution is payable. The parties agree to pay the contribution as determined by the governing board on or before January 31 of the year following the determination, provided that the city councilor county board has included funds for this purpose in its adopted budget. K/K03-163 3 JPA FOR DAKOTA COUNTY MUTUAL AID ASSISTANCE GROUP 7.3. Accountabilitv. All funds shall be accounted for according to generally accepted accounting principles. A report on all receipts and disbursements shall be forwarded to the parties quarterly and on an annual basis. 8. Team Leaders. 8.1. The Team Commander and Assistant Team Commanders shall appoint licensed peace officers to serve as MAAG team leaders, subject to approval of the governing board. Appointment as team leader pursuant to this agreement shall not obligate any party to pay to its employees so appointed either supervisory or other premium pay. 8.2. Team leaders assigned to the MAAG at all times will remain employees of the leaders' own jurisdictions and will not be employees of the governing board. 8.3. Team leaders shall be the liaison between the team members and the Team Commander or Assistant Team Commander when a MAAG team has been deployed pursuant to this agreement. 9. Team members. 9.1. The chief law enforcement officer of each party shall assign licensed peace officers to serve as MAAG team members, subject to approval of the Team Commander. Appointment as a team member pursuant to this agreement shall not obligate any party to pay its employees so appointed any premium pay. 9.2. Except as pro'/ided in paragraph 10.2.6, tIeam members assigned to the MAAG at all times will remain employees of the members' own jurisdictions and will not be employees of the governing board. 10. Operations. 10.1. Trainin2. The Team Commander shall be responsible for arranging monthly and annual training events for team leaders and team members, consistent with direction from the governing board. The Team Commander shall also be responsible for maintaining records of the training received by team leaders and members as well as records of all other activities undertaken by the Team Commander, Assistant Team Commanders, team leaders and team members pursuant to this agreement. 10.2. Deplovment. 10.2.1. Requests for Assistance. Whenever a party, in its sole discretion, determines that conditions within its jurisdiction cannot be adequately addressed by that jurisdiction's personnel and resources because of a critical incident or need for high risk entry, the party may request, in accordance with policies and procedures of the governing board, that the MAAG deploy a MAAG team to assist the party's jurisdiction. Upon a request for assistance, a MAAG team may K/K03-163 4 JP A FOR DAKOTA COUNTY MUTUAL AID ASSISTANCE GROUP K/K03-163 be dispatched to the requesting party, in accordance with policies and procedures of the governing board. Failure to provide assistance in response to a request made pursuant to this agreement will not result in any MAAG liability. The Team Commander or Assistant Team Commander shall notify the chair or vice chair anytime that assistance is provided pursuant to this agreement. The Team Commander or an Assistant Team Commander may at any time and in his/her sole judgment recall the team. The decision to recall a team provided pursuant to this agreement will not result in liability to the MAAG, any party, or to the Team Commander or Assistant Team Commander who recalled the team. 10.2.2. Direction and Control. Personnel and equipment provided pursuant to this agreement shall remain under the direction and control of the party providing the same and also to the tactical control of the licensed peace officer in command of the scene of the jurisdiction to which assistance is being provided. 10.2.3. Compensation. When the MAAG provides services to a requesting party, the personnel of the MAAG shall be compensated by their respective employers just as if they were performing the duties within and for the jurisdiction of their employer. No charges will be levied by the MAAG or by the parties for specialized response operations provided to a requesting party pursuant to this agreement unless that assistance continues for a period exceeding 48 continuous hours. If assistance provided pursuant to this agreement continues for more than 48 continuous hours, and the assistance is not provided in connection with a criminal investigation, any party whose officers provided assistance for MAAG shall submit itemized bills for the actual cost of any assistance provided, including salaries, overtime, materials and supplies, to the MAAG and the MAAG shall submit the invoices to the requesting party. The requesting party shall reimburse the MAAG for that amount, and the MAAG shall forward the reimbursement to the responding party. If the MAAG provides services to an entity which is not a party to this agreement and which does not have its own critical incident response team, the responding parties shall submit itemized bills for the actual cost of any assistance provided, including salaries, overtime, materials and supplies, to the MAAG, and the MAAG shall bill such entity for the actual cost of such assistance. 10.2.4. Workers' Compensation. Each party to this agreement shall be responsible for injuries to or death of its own employees in connection with services provided pursuant to this agreement. Each party shall maintain workers' compensation coverage or self-insurance coverage, covering its own personnel while they are providing assistance as a member of the MAAG. Each party to this agreement waives the right to sue any other party for any workers' compensation benefits paid to its own employee or their dependents, even if the injuries were caused wholly or partially by the negligence of any other party or its officers, employees or agents. 5 JPA FOR DAKOTA COUNTY MUTUAL AID ASSISTANCE GROUP 10.2.5. Dama2e to Equipment. Each party shall be responsible for damage to or loss of its own equipment occurring during deployment of the MAAG. Each party waives the right to sue any other party for any damages to or loss of its equipment, even if the damages or losses were caused wholly or partially by the negligence of any other party or its officers, employees or agents. 10.2.6. Liabilitv. For purposes of the Minnesota Mooicipal Tort Liabiity .^..ct (M:ioo. Stat. Ch. 466), persons assigned to M.^.u.^..G are deemed to be 0l'llployces of the party that requested assistance from the M.\...^..G. The party that hs requested assistance shall def<:lnd, indenmify and hold bannless all other parties against any claims brought or actions filed against the other parties or any of their offieers, employees or vohmteers f-or injury to, death of, or damage to the proflerty of any third person or persons, arising from the deplo)'fllent of the M:\AG. Under no eirelilllstances, however, shall a member be required to pay OR bel:1alf of itself and other parties to this agreement aflY amol:lftts in excess of the limits of liability established in Mioo. Stat. Ch. 466 applicable to anyone party. The limits of liability for some or all of the parties may ROt be added together to determiRe the maximum am9unt of liability for aflY one party.Indemnification. The MAAG will defend and indemnify the units of government that are parties to this Agreement for any claims arising out of actions taken by the governing board. its members. team leaders or team members pursuant to this Agreement. This Agreement to defend and indemnify does not constitute a waiver by any party of the limitations on liability provided by Minn. Stat. Ch. 466. 11. Term. The term of this agreement shall be effective only among the parties who have signed this agreement. Dakota County shall notify the members in writing of the effective date of this agreement. 12. Withdrawal and Termination. 12.1 Withdrawal. Any party may withdraw from this agreement upon 6 months' written notice to the other parties. Withdrawal by any party shall not terminate this agreement with respect to any parties who have not withdrawn. Withdrawal shall not discharge any liability incurred by any party prior to withdrawal. Such liability shall continue until discharged by law or agreement. 12.2 Termination. This agreement shall terminate upon the occurrence of anyone of the following events: (a) when necessitated by operation of law or as a result of a decision by a court of competent jurisdiction; or (b) when a majority of remaining parties agrees to terminate the agreement upon a date certain. 12.3 Effect of Termination. Termination shall not discharge any liability incurred by the MAAG or by the parties during the term of this agreement. Upon termination and after payment of all outstanding obligations, property or surplus money held by the MAAG shall then be distributed to the parties in proportion to their contributions. K/K03-163 6 JP A FOR DAKOTA COUNTY MUTUAL AID ASSISTANCE GROUP 13. Miscellaneous. 13.1 Amendments. This agreement may be amended only in writing and upon the consent of each of the parties' governing body. 13.2 Records. accounts and reports. The books and records of the MAAG Committee shall be subject to the provisions of Minn. Stat. Ch. 13. 13.3 Counterparts. This agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. Counterparts shall be filed with the Dakota County Emergefley Preparedness CoordinatorSheriff. K/K03-163 7 JP A FOR DAKOTA COUNTY MUTUAL AID ASSISTANCE GROUP IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the dates indicated below. Approved as to form: COUNTY OF DAKOTA Assistant County Attorney/Date Donald Gudmundson Dakota County Sheriff Date of Signature K/K03-163 8 JPA FOR DAKOTA COUNTY MUTUAL AID ASSISTANCE GROUP //a., 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 Administratort}P FROM: Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director RE: Meadowview Park Master Plan Approval DATE: December 1, 2003 INTRODUCTION The City Council previously reviewed the Meadowview Park Master Plan at its November 17, 2003 meeting and tabled a decision until its December 1, 2003 meeting. DISCUSSION The City Council had requested that information be provided concerning an email that Tim Gross, Assistant City Engineer had previously sent to the Parks and Recreation Director. I have attached the email from Mr. Gross (Exhibit A) along with the letters from neighbors that Mr Gross references. I have also included an email that Jennifer Collova, the City's Natural Resource Specialist provided as to her opinion on the impact that the boardwalk would have on the wetland (Exhibit B) that had previously been shared with the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission and with residents who opposed the boardwalk. The City Council had also requested that some additional research be conducted regarding the impact that trails have on property values and the resale of homes. I used two methods to find information concerning the impact that trails have on property adjacent to or near trails. The first method used was information that I have gathered from various trail workshops that I have attended over the years. I have the handouts from these workshops that I would be willing to share with anyone who wishes to see them. The second method that I used was the Internet. I searched the phrase "trail studies" and found reference to many studies that were done on trails. The following is a brief summary of the information that I found: . Burke-Gilman Trail Study- Seattle, Washington A survey of real estate agents with experience along the Burke-Gilman Trail said that homes within two blocks of the trail are easier to sell than other homes and carry a higher price by about 6.2 %. 42% of the agents said that property is easier to sell closer to the trail, 30% said sales are more difficult and 27% saying that they saw no effect on the sale of property. A survey of homeowners found that 75% of owners who had bought property after the trail opened felt that the home would be easier to sell and 48 % of them expected a higher price for their home. Only 4% felt that their home would sell for less money because of the trail. Of owners who bought their home before the trail opened, 33% expected sales to be easier, 48% thought that it would have no effect or couldn't predict the effect that the trail would have on the sale of their property and 8% felt that their property would sell for less. The study also found that crime and other problems along the trail were minimal. The study found that a majority of trail users were local citizens. Of those surveyed, no one responded that they thought that the trail should be closed after it was built. (Source: The Effect of the Burke-Gilman Trail Upon Property Value of Adjacent and Nearby Properties and Upon the Property Crime Rate in the Vicinity of the Trail, Seattle Engineering Department, 1986.) . Illinois Prairie Path Study - Glen Ellyn and Wheaton, Illinois An informal survey of 40 experienced real estate professionals found that all agents agreed that the 40 mile Prairie Path Trail made properties easier to sell and often created a price premium. Agents also said that they often advertise the closeness of the property to the trail when selling such properties. (Source: Old Plank Trail-Community Impacts, Openlands Project, Chicago, 1985) . Santa Ana River Corridor Study, California The trail increased the total value of property along the trail between $139 million and $201 million. It was shown that the trail had a positive impact on property values within one-eighth of a mile from the trail. (Source: Santa Ana River Corridor Master Plan) . Mountain Bay Trail Study, Brown County, Wisconsin Showed that lots adjacent to trails sold faster and for an average 9% more than similar property not located next to trails. (Source: Recreation Trails, Crime and Property Values: Mountain-Bay Trail and the Proposed Fox River Trail, Brown County Planning Commission, Green Bay, WI, July 6, 1998) . Shepherd's Vineyard Housing Development in Apex, North Carolina The developer realizing the selling power of trails, added $5,000.00 to the price of 40 homes adjacent to the trail. Those homes were the first to sell. . Conservation Fund and Colorado State Parks Study Found that urban trails are regarded as an amenity that helps attract buyers and the sale of property. 57% of nearby residents felt that the trail would make it easier to sell. 29% of nearby residents surveyed believed that the existence of the trail would increase the selling price of their home and 43% said it would have neither a decrease or increase in the selling price of their home. In a survey of real estate agents: 73% believed that a home adjacent to a trail would be easier to sell, 82% used a trail as a selling point and 100% believed that trails are an amenity to the community around it. . Boulder, Colorado Study In a study of property values in Boulder, Colorado, it was noted that housing prices decline an average of $4.20 for each foot of distance from a trail up to a distance of 3,200tfeet. In one neighborhood, this figure was $10.20 for each foot of distance. . University of North Carolina Study Found that most residents who live next to a trail feel satisfied with the trail and reported that problems are minimal. . Omaha, Nebraska Study 85% of all surveyed households said that a member of their household used the local trail daily or weekly. 81 % felt that the trail nearby their residence would have no net effect on the ease of sale of their homes. About 66% of nearby residents surveyed felt that the trail would increase the selling price oftheir home. 63.8% indicated that the trail positively influenced the decision to purchase their home. 4% of respondents who lived along the trail reported theft infrequently and most of these incidents were relatively minor. 4.7% of respondents who lived along the trail reported that property damage occurred infrequently and most of the incidents were relatively minor. 75% of residents living along a trail perceived that there is a positive relationship between the trails and the neighborhood quality of life. (Source: Omaha Recreational Trails: Their Effect on Property Values and Public Safety, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 2001) . Economic Benefit Studies There are countless studies that have been done that identify economic benefits for communities that have trails. Studies done in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Texas, Ohio, Minnesota and Delaware have documented the positive economic benefit that trails have brought to communities through spending by trail visitors. As you can see by the results of the studies that I found, trails can have a positive impact on adjacent property. If there are any trail studies that have been done that reflect a negative impact on adjacent property, I was not able to find any. ACTION REOUESTED By motion approve the Meadowview Park master plan as shown in Exhibit C. Respectfully Submitted, /k~4 fJ4;;{) Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director Message Page 1 of2 Randy Distad g>th-lb~+ It From: Tim Gross Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 8:22 AM To: Randy Distad Subject: RE: Letters from Meadowview Park neighbors in opposition to the boardwalk Thanks. That is what I was wondering. Tim Gross, P.E Assistant City Engineer City of Farmington 651-463-1607 -----Original Message----- From: Randy Distad Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 8:06 PM To: Tim Gross Subject: RE: Letters from Meadowview Park neighbors in opposition to the boardwalk Tim, Thank you for your response. I will share it with the Park and Rec Commission members. In response to your concern about plowing in the winter, we would not plow the boardwalk as it would not be built to carry the weight of a vehicle. Rather we would allow it to be used for cross country skiing if snow were to remain on it over the winter. It is likely that the snow would melt off of the boardwalk and would melt bqck into the wetland and thus would have no net effect on the amount of water entering into the wetland during snow melt. Rlllldy l)ist:ul, CPRI' I'lll'ks lllltl RCC....lllioll 1)i...,ctOI' City or F~'nllingt()n phollC: (65IH63-185\ rox: ((;51)463-2591 A p"l'ks 'llld ,'cCl'clltioll dil'cclol' who likcs 10 wOl'k "I IllllY 'lI1d plllY III wOI'I,! -----Original Message----- From: Tim Gross Sent: Monday, September 29,20034:25 PM To: Randy Distad Cc: Jennifer Collova Subject: RE: Letters from Meadowview Park neighbors in opposition to the boardwalk Randy, I read the letters and I think that the residents are perhaps taking comments made by City staff out of context. I had a number of conversations over the past year with different residents in the area. I did say that there would be no further development in the wetland to the north of 200th/east of Charleswood and in the wetland/flood plain south of 200th Street. The topic of future trails or boardwalks was never discussed. The conversations were always based around additional housing, (ie. development.) Reference was made in the letters regarding the wetland buffer that was platted as part of the lots on the south side of 200th Street. The comment was that the City was telling them that they could 10/3/2003 Message Page 2of2 not build structures or maintain the wetland buffer area that was part of their lots, but that the City was going to put a boardwalk across the actual wetland. This does seem to conflict with the policy that the city has taken in the past to protecting our natural resources. Our own ordinances restrict the construction of structures within these areas - even if a specific exception is made for trails and boardwalks. The perception of the residents is do as I say, not as I do. If we were proposing the construction of a boardwalk across a wetland as part of the original development, I think the matter would be less contentious. However, if the majority, or even a large percentage, of the residents in the area are opposed to the boardwalk - especially if an alternate connection can be created along Pilot Knob a 1/4 mile to the east, I think we should not build the boardwalk. This would be more consistent with the policy the City has taken in regards to managing wetlands and wetland buffers, and would ultimately be in the best interest of the wetland. I am also a little concerned about how this boardwalk will be maintained, particularly in the winter months (Le. plowing) in an environmentally sensitive area. Tim Gross, P.E Assistant City Engineer City of Farmington 651-463-1607 September 3, 2003 Mr. Randy Distad Farmington Parks and Recreation Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Re: Proposed Trail/Boardwalk System in the Charleswood Addition - Meadowview Park Dear Mr. Distad: This letter is being written on behalf of all of the Charleswood Development ("Charleswood") residents who have signed the petition which can be found at the end of this letter. As you are aware, plans are currently underway to create Meadowview Park ("the Park") in Charleswood. Residents from the Development have been invited to several Open Houses to discuss what items they would like to have in the Park. After the first Open House, a Draft Park Plan ("the Plan") was developed and sent to all Charleswood residents. Since then, a revised version has been created and distributed to a few residents (See attached Exhibit A). This Plan contained various items such as a pavilion, benches, playground equipment, and a basketball court (as well as other items) - all of which are greatly needed in Charleswood. The Plan also calls for the addition of more trails - including trails in and around the wetland area, and a boardwalk in the wetland behind homes of residents. While additional trails are needed, trails through the wetlands areas should not be considered, as there are suitable alternatives which are beneficial to all concerned. The solution ("Our Solution") that we propose is to place the trail along Pilot Knob Road instead of putting it through the wetlands. This would allow for the northern trails leading from 195th Street to be successfully connected to the trails that already exist on 200th Street, with minimal disturbance to the wetlands, existing wildlife, and Charleswood residents. (See attached Exhibit B). The following concerns have been compiled from group discussions between the residents whom have signed the attached petition regarding the trails in and around the wetland areas. A. Surprise Our main concern regarding the implementation of a trail system in and around the wetlands area is that our entire neighborhood was uninformed and misled as to the potential for the construction of trails in our backyards and adjacent protected areas. Residents were told by Farmington City Employees that no building or construction could or would ever take place in the wetland area - and likewise, residents could not build, construct or plant anything in the wetland easements of their properties. This information weighed heavily into the decision of these residents to pay premiums for quiet secluded lots. Had some residents known about a potential trail ANYWHERE behind their houses or in the Wetlands area, they may have chosen not to purchase these lots. Mr. Randy Distad September 3, 2003 Page 2 For some new homeowners, this is the second surprise since moving into the neighborhood. A handful of residents were not aware of the fact that a large portion of our rear yards would be encumbered by a wetland buffer easement. Others residing on 200lh Street have been disappointed that a "small pedestrian path" has been increased in size to six (6) feet wide after having previously being told otherwise. In another case, a family who recently purchased a home on Evensong Avenue, specifically to get away from a trail in their back yard in another Farmington development, is now being told that they may get one in this back yard too. Had they known about the potential trail, the family probably would have not purchased the home - as they thought they were buying a private and quiet lot. The existing trail system adjacent to Charleswood 2nd Addition which connects to 195th Street was represented to the home builders and home buyers prior to the buyers' selection of building lots and the subsequent construction of their homes. These new homebuyers were given the chance to base the purchase of their new lot on all of the public appurtenances that would affect their property value. Likewise, if Our Solution is implemented, the trail along Pilot Knob Road will be noted in public records that will be accessible to those future homebuyers who are concerned about adjacent improvements that affect the value of their property. B. Safety and Access The proposed trail and boardwalk are set at an elevation that allows pedestrians to see directly and have access into the lower level of the adjacent lots. The existing trail system connecting to 1951h Street and the proposed trail connecting to Pilot Knob Road are at an elevation far below the lower level of the adjacent houses and do not represent as much of a threat to privacy and/or security. With the proposed boardwalk going through the wetlands, residents are also concerned about children drowning - as the water depth in the wetlands in the spring and early summer is high. In addition, a trail through a secluded wetlands area would definitely be inviting for people with ill-will toward others - such as those committing assault, battery, rape, and false imprisonment. Our Solution would place the trail more out in the open and would be much less likely to have these types of occurrences - as the trail would be along a busy road. Residents in Charleswood along the wetlands areas have already seen vandalism and break- ins - without a trail being directly behind or near their houses. An unlit trail directly and/or indirectly behind the houses of residents would allow greater access into and out of Charleswood for additional crime sprees and vandalism. Mr. Randy Distad September 3, 2003 Page 3 C. Noise and other Pollution The proposed trail in and around the wetlands would obviously bring a 100% increase in pedestrian traffic, creating noise for the residents who purchased their lots not only for the seclusion - but also for the peace and quiet. An addition of a trail, especially a boardwalk (rattling across wood planking), would be a nuisance to these residents - as any type of traffic, whether it be walking, skateboarding, biking, motorized bikes, etc. would create noise. Noise pollution such as this would chase away existing wildlife while annoying nearby residents. In addition to the noise a trail/boardwalk would bring, allowing people access to the wetlands via trails will mean that a much higher increase of garbage and pollution will end up in the wetlands areas - destroying the natural habitat and injuring existing wildlife. Residents - who again, paid a premium for the peace and quiet of their lots, would be left picking up the garbage of trail- goers. These residents are already cleaning up bagfuls of garbage in the wetlands areas behind their houses - and there isn't even trail access. D. Destruction of Habitat Residents purchased lots directly on the wetland to not only enjoy the privacy and quiet - but also to enjoy Mother Nature and wildlife. There are very few nights where residents do not see any wildlife - which range from Ducks, Geese, Egrets, Pheasants, Fox, and Deer. Creating paths, boardwalks, and any other structures in the wetland will not only destroy this natural area - but it will devoid the wetland from virtually any and all wildlife. The currently proposed pathway places the trail through a group of trees where pheasants are known to nest. In addition, residents enjoy the "direct access" that the current wildlife has to our backyards. The proposed boardwalk would create an unwanted, artificial barrier - preventing wildlife from using the entire wetland and surrounding areas. Destruction of natural wetlands and nesting areas and preventing wildlife from utilizing the natural areas would be a tragic loss for the city of Farmington. As also stated above, any pedestrian traffic in the wetlands area will mean an increase in the garbage found in the wetlands - which will destroy the habitat and harm existing wildlife. What we fail to understand is why the City of Farmington would want to disrupt and destroy what little existing habitat there is for wildlife. With all of the residential and commercial construction currently taking place in Farmington - and the expansion that is planned in the future - which will further destroy existing habitat, why not preserve and NOT disrupt the wetlands areas in developments such as Charleswood? Mr. Randy Distad September 3, 2003 Page 4 E. Wetland Island Residents are also concerned, and rightly so, about the foul play that will (and already has been occurring without trail access) occur in the wetland island (lithe Island") area that is proposed to have its shrubs and small trees removed for the installation of trails. This Island area will be void of any security lighting. This Island is not close to any residential street and its interior is screened visually and acoustically by a perimeter of trees. This Island is a breeding ground for those with various criminal intentions and permitting direct access to it would be a serious safety hazard. Any lighting placed on the Island would cause further invasion to the natural area and wildlife. It will also detract from the natural setting that residents expected when purchasing their lots. Residents along the wetland area have already experienced "flashlighters" at night - people in the wetland island area flashing flashlights into the windows of houses along the wetlands. Our Solution As noted above, we are not opposed to additional pedestrian trails in Charleswood in general - and agree that a connection from 1951h Street to 200th Street does make sense for purposes of pedestrian travel in the master plan. Our Solution is to connect the northerly trails adjacent to Charleswood 2nd Addition to 200th Street via Pilot Knob Road. By doing this, the City of Farmington will successfully make the trail connection without affecting (and surprising) existing homeowners (there currently are no homeowners in this area). Our Solution consists of adding trails adjacent to future lots, along existing public roadways and connecting to the existing trails already installed along 200th Street. Research into Dakota County's Park and Recreation Plans, as well as the City of Farmington's Comprehensive Plan, reveals that Our Solution better meets the five (5) goals set by Dakota County in the Parks and Open Space Policy Plan than the current City Park & Rec Plan. 1. Assess Public Expectations for Parks and Open Space Opportunities Our Solution respects the needs of current residents and affected homeowners while still allowing functional access to Farmington trails. The Plan goes too far by putting in too many trails - and does not respect current residents, affected homeowners, or Mother Nature. 2. Acquire and Develop a Premier System of Parks and Trails Our Solution (creating a trail along Pilot Knob Road) allows for easier completion of the planned trail corridor on the west and east sides of Pilot Knob Road (see page 120 of comprehensive Park and Recreations plan). Mr. Randy Distad September 3, 2003 Page 5 3. Provide a Safe and Well-Maintained Park System Our Solution is safer as it does not place the trail fully in secluded areas, keeps the trail out of the wetlands areas (which are filled with water) and preserves Mother Nature by keeping garbage out of the wetlands areas - which are difficult to maintain. 4. Preserve and Restore Natural Resources within the Parks Our Solution is not at all invasive to existing protected wetlands and wildlife. The Plan would destroy this natural habitat, chase off and/or kill existing wildlife, bring noise and pollution to the surrounding community - which would result in a tragic 1055 for the City of Farmington. 5. Provide Outdoor Education and Recreation for Park Visitors Our Solution would result in monies saved (by deleting the proposed trails, boardwalk and related construction in and through the wetland area) - monies which could be reallocated to the park area - for additional equipment, pavilions, or for further recreation and education in Meadowview Park (See Attached Exhibit C). As you can see, Our Solution is a win-win for everyone involved, as it provides needed trail access for all Farmington residents, preserves the existing designated wetland areas, and allows property owners adjacent to the wetland to enjoy the privacy and quiet that they paid for. Please provide a copy of this letter and petition to all members of the Parks Commission in advance of the September 10, 2003, meeting to be held at 6:00 p.m. at Farmington City Hall. We thank you for your cooperation and consideration. Sincerely, Charleswood Development Residents September 12, 2003 Mr. Randy Distad Farmington Parks and Recreation Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Re: Follow-Up to Parks Advisory Commission Meeting of September 10, 2003 Proposed Trail/Boardwalk System in the Charleswood Addition - Meadowview Park Dear Mr. Distad: This letter is being written as a follow-up to the Parks Advisory Commission meeting of Wednesday, September 10, 2003, during which there was a "lengthy" discussion concerning Meadowview Park - and specifically the construction of a boardwalk through the wetland areas. First of all, Charleswood Development residents in attendance at the meeting would like to express their appreciation for the opportunity to be heard. We hope that the City of Farmington is equally appreciative of its residents and the pride that they have in their property and the Community of Farmington. We would like to reiterate that our number one goal in opposing the construction of a boardwalk through the etland area is preservation of the wetland and the wildlife that it sustains. To that end, we have contacted the minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Isaac Walton League to obtain any information that they may have on preservation and the effects of building any structure - which specifically includes a boardwalk in a small wetland - on the wetland itself and the wildlife it sustains. Any information that we obtain will be provided to you for distribution to the Commission Members. That being said, Charleswood residents in attendance at the meeting thought it was extremely arrogant of the Consultant (Paul) to simplify this as a "Not In My Backyard" ("NIMBY") issue because at least 10-20 of the sixty (60) signatures on the Petition procured prior to the meeting were from "non-NIMBY" homeowners. These "non-NIMBY" homeowners signed the petition because they do not want a trail through the wetlands - they want the wetlands to be preserved. These "non-NIMBY" residents also signed the Petition because they would much rather see the cost to build the boardwalk re-allocated to additional park equipment and/or facilities - which would allow more Farmington residents (not just Charleswood residents) to utilize and enjoy the park at the same time. Contrary to the Consulatnt's statement, NIMBY is a valid argument in this particular situation because the City of Farminaton created the NIMBY controversy by making representations/statements/promises to Charleswood residents that nothing would ever be "built" in our backyards. We believe it comes down to a credibility issue. If the residents of Farmington cannot rely on or believe the representations/statements/promises made by City Representatives, where does that leave us? We do understand that the City of Farmington has experienced "growing pains" - but Farmington residents should NOT be the ones who pay for the City's mistakes. We truly believe that if the City wants to do the right ing in this situation and it wants to revive and/or maintain its credibility with its residents, the City needs to ompromise. nt1r. Randy Distad September 12, 2003 Page 2 The observation deck suggestion by a member of the Parks Commission (Mike) was a great idea - and we commend the Commission member. Charleswood residents are completely amenable to this solution - as it will allow ALL Farmington residents to observe the wetlands area and the wildlife it sustains with minimal intrusion/disruption. In sum, Charleswood residents want the entire Farminaton Community to enjoy Meadowview Park and the adjacent wetland area - but a boardwalk throuah the wetlands is not the answer. Please distribute a copy of this letter to the members of the Park Commission. We thank you once again for your cooperation and consideration. Sincerely, harleswood Development Residents Message , bx-tub;+ {3 Page 1 of 1 Randy Distad From: Jennifer Collova Sent: Tuesday, September 30,20038:41 AM To: Randy Distad Cc: Tim Gross Subject: RE: Letters from Meadowview Park neighbors in opposition to the boardwalk Hi Randy- I just wanted you to know my ideas on the above boardwalk, based solely from an environmental perspective. I do not believe that the boardwalk would adversely impact the wetland. The amount of disturbance should be minor (and only over a short period of time) and I believe that the wetland will bounce back in all aspects (vegetation, hydrology, and soils). I do not think a boardwalk will fragment the wetland, since the hydrology will remain the same and animals will be able to go either under, over, or around the boardwalk. And since we would be using wood planks for the walking surface, a natural look would not distract from the surroundings. This is alii have right now. Jen 11/24/2003 195TH'STREET WEST~ ( COUNTY ROAD 64 ) TRAIL I- - PONDING MASTER PLAN CONCEPT MEADOWVIEW PARK Master Plan Review November 3, 2003 Farmington, Minnesota ~ ~ '~,- J: 1-, ctr- tol ~ ~----I wi >, w NOTE: THIS MAP IS CONCEPTUAL ONLY AND REPRESENTS ONLY APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF PROPERTIES AND FACILITIES. KEY exisling paved trail ----- proposed paved Irail proposed boardwalk approx. park property FUTURE DEVELOPMENT I:] - CJ f~l ~j o prairie planlings ~~h-i b~-f G open space mowed lurf wetland new tree existing trees [3 bench FUTURE DEVELOPMENT P [3 picnic lable park expansion to ensure street frontage. layout.' I G- grill [!] inlerprelive sign ~ park sign a bird house - exact localion dependenl on species/habilal (possible volunleer project) I o , 250ft I 500ft N ORT~ \ \ \---- \ \ \ \ \ \ , \ Y r- \ I I f.-- .. ~ i= 0 i- -l :III I Z ~- 0 III :II I 0 r Jo ., n I I 0 I C I Z r~ :;l I :II 0 Jo i ., w I' .: FUTURE ' DEVELOPMENT 1 -~--"7---t-- / I -< / I .' I I ,~ .( '.JJ.. II