Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.02.03 Council Packet City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Mission Statement Through teamwork and cooperation, the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserve our proud past and foster a promising future. AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 2, 2003 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Action Taken 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVE AGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENDATIONS 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open/or Audience Comments) a) Mr. Tim LaBeau Receiv#d Information 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (8/18/03 Regular) (8/19/03 Special) b) School and Conference - Fire Department c) Set Public Hearing - Ash Street Project - Engineering d) Approve Change Order Facilities Project - Engineering e) Adopt Resolution - Spruce Street AUAR - Community Development t) Approve Bills A(Jproved Approved R59.03 Approved R60.03 Approved 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Adopt Resolution - Vacate TH3 Right-of-Way Glenview Commercial Addition - Community Development b) Consider Proposed Acquisition/Redevelopment of Blaha Property - Community Development R61.03 R62.03 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Adopt Resolution - Approving the Issuance and Sale of $6,200,000 Revenue Notes, Series 2003 (St. Francis Health Services of Morris, Inc. Project) and Authorizing the Execution of Documents Relating Thereto - Finance b) Approve Spruce Street Master Plan - Community Development c) Approve Proposed MUSA Committee Structure - Community Development d) Appoint Council Liaison - Water System Vulnerability Assessment- Engineering R63.03 Approved Approved Tabled to 9/15103 e) Discuss Pre-Council Meeting Work Sessions - Administration 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Adopt Resolution - 2004 Preliminary Tax Levy and Budget - Finance 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. ADJOURN Tabled to 9/15/03 R64-03 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Mission Statement Through teamwork and cooperation, the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserve our proud past and foster a promising future. AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 2, 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 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open/or Audience Comments) a) Mr. Tim LaBeau 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (8/18/03 Regular) (8/19/03 Special) b) School and Conference - Fire Department c) Set Public Hearing - Ash Street Project - Engineering d) Approve Change Order Facilities Project - Engineering e) Adopt Resolution - Spruce Street AUAR - Community Development f) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Adopt Resolution - Vacate TH3 Right-of-Way Glenview Commercial Addition - Community Development b) Consider Proposed AcquisitionIRedevelopment of Blaha Property - Community Development 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Adopt Resolution - Approving the Issuance and Sale of $6,200,000 Revenue Notes, Series 2003 (St. Francis Health Services of Morris, Inc. Project) and Authorizing the Execution of Documents Relating Thereto - Finance b) Approve Spruce Street Master Plan - Community Development c) Approve Proposed MUSA Committee Structure - Community Development d) Appoint Council Liaison - Water System Vulnerability Assessment- Engineering Action Taken Pages 1-16 Page 17 Pages 18-19 Pages 20-21 Pages 22-25 Page 26 Pages 27-31 Pages 32-34 Pages 35-49 Pages 50-52 Pages 53-54 Page 55 e) Discuss Pre-Council Meeting Work Sessions - Administration Page 56 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Adopt Resolution - 2004 Preliminary Tax Levy and Budget - Finance Pages 57-60 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. ADJOURN 7 a.... COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR August 18, 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, Soderberg Fogarty Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Dan Siebenaler, Interim City Administrator/Police Chief; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Jim Atkinson, Assistant City Planner; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Peter Mogren, Jeff Krueger, Jeff Jones 4. APPROVE AGENDA Councilmember Fitch pulled item 7h) Capital Outlay - Public Works for discussion. Councilmember Fogarty had requested item lOt) Discuss Pre-Council Meetings be moved to the September 2, 2003 Council meeting. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Introduce New Solid Waste Operator Mr. Jeff Jones was introduced as the new Solid Waste Operator. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS a) Mr. Jeff Krueger Councilmember Cordes read a written response to Mr. Krueger's comments at the August 4, 2003 Council Meeting as follows: "You have asked many questions of me in the past few months and I have always tried to answer them in a reasonable and timely fashion. However, at this time I am informing you that I will no longer answer any of your questions relating to our former City Administrator, e-mails or put up with any personal attacks from you. You as an individual do have the right to ask questions and I as an individual do have the right to answer these questions or not answer these questions. I am also asking you to no longer contact me at work. I do have an Council Minutes (Regular) August 18, 2003 Page 2 obligation to my employer and your phone calls are interruptions during my work hours. If you want to stand here every other Monday night for your 5 minutes of fame, that is your right. But I would certainly hope that in the future your questions and statements are of a relevant nature and you refrain from making personal attacks on individuals." Councilmember Fitch also read a written response to Mr. Krueger's comments at the August 4, 2003 Council meeting as follows: "Mr. Krueger, if you don't want to hear the answer please don't ask the question. I hope if you don't like the answer as you did when you called my place of business in June that you don't tell me to go to you know where. Because of your rude behavior on the phone, I no longer accept any calls from citizens in the city of Farmington at my place of work. Now to get to your question about secrecy of e-mails or the particular e-mail in question regarding Mr. Roberts. To put everything in perspective I was requesting an item to be put on an agenda approximately a month in the future because I knew I was going to be gone for the next meeting. An item going on the agenda would be public information when placed on the agenda and would have indicated the requestor to be me at that time. After I wrote a request to Mr. Shukle and copied the other members of the Council, I didn't want to be accused of keeping anyone in the dark. Mr. Shukle took it upon himself to request the City Attorney review my request. Mr. Shukle called and said the Attorney would get back to us by Friday. The response I received from the Attorney via Mr. Shukle was contained in another e-mail which I am sure you have reviewed. If not, please request a copy and I'll get one for you. At that point I decided to withdraw my request because of the process involved. We had more important work to accomplish I felt. My personal opinion was this was an attempt by a Councilmember to use this for political reasons. The 4 days lost while the City Attorney reviewed the item, certainly would have allowed Mr. Roberts more than ample time to mount a response. As a Councilmember I feel I should be reasonably assured that a competent Attorney and/or City Administrator would certainly advise my colleagues or myself if we were in danger of violating open meeting laws. Did I feel then or today that e- mail needed to be disseminated at the particular point that it was? The answer is no. The second, was I afraid of it going public? The answer is no. I was requesting it to be put on a public agenda. Therefore, I wasn't afraid of the item to be going public. My beliefthen and now is that this has been much ado about nothing. The information contained in e-mails has always been there for the asking as any public document. That does not mean I would feel compelled to divulge information in an e-mail without someone requesting it. The information that you requested about scripted meetings, I don't know how you conduct your business as a member of the Water Board, if you script meetings or if you have pre-plans, I don't know if that is why you are so skeptical about the City Council maybe doing the same. All I can tell you is in all my time on the Council I have never been involved in a scripted meeting. And lastly your question about the motion and the voting, I guess all I would say is apparently most of us up here had Council Minutes (Regular) August 18, 2003 Page 3 a pretty good idea of what was going on because we have two other Councilmembers that you did not question on this that also voted on that same measure. Your second request that you put in regarding an e-mail I wrote to city staff regarding Hardi-plank. Yes, I did write that about their lack of information on Hardi-plank. All the information that was passed out on the evening of the final vote was readily available on the Hardi website and prior to the April 30 meeting according to Mark, one of the Customer Service Agents at Hardi-plank. The Material Data Sheets, architectural standards, national evaluation report, the MSDS, (the Material Safety Data Sheets), were available as well as letters of acceptance from Pennsylvania State Architecture, from FEMA, and also HUD. Those were all available from the Hardi site which I went onto. Secondly, surrounding communities of Apple Valley, Burnsville, and Lakeville had all passed and approved Hardi-plank as part of their city code. They had already been through the same discussions we had. Did anyone check? No. I don't know exactly what information Mr. White was referring to that was not available, but I was able to get all this information for free without any more than 45 minutes spent looking and calling before writing the e-mail back in May. It was not my intent at that point to argue with Mr. White as the issue had come to a conclusion and felt no need to try to embarrass staff any further. However, now that you have made this issue resurface for whatever your motivation, I will say yes, I do expect staff to research information before presenting it to us or making decisions. Ifwe as taxpayers pay them $70 - 80 - 90K a year, I do expect a minimal effort to locate information. After my initial discussion with the Acting City Administrator I believe we certainly have very similar expectations of staff for presenting information to Council. If I can get information, why can't staff? It is your prerogative to have whatever expectation of staff you would like. Before making accusations of poor leadership and incompetence, you should probably take a minute to do some research instead of accepting what you read and hear as gospel. Again, in my opinion, because you have very little fact, you make wild accusations and personal attacks to cover for your lack of knowledge on a subject. Your accusation that I am not in full control of my emotions or incompetent or am shooting from the hip could not be further from the truth. I took the time to contact the surrounding cities, to go on the Hardi-plank website, and call the Hardi company again before I wrote the memo. If this is your definition of incompetence and out of control and shooting from the hip I would certainly be interested in your definition of incompetence at some point. When I write a memo as I did it is because I have taken the time to look up the facts. So will I give an apology as you requested, absolutely not. If I make a mistake will I own up to it? Definitely. In fact I am here tonight to apologize about telling you not to contact my home e-mail. I think that has been corrected as of today. Under City Council it was still myoid e-mail, under the e-mail list it was my new one. Finally your accusatory comment about not getting a response on your citizen comment from the August 4 meeting, again if you would care to check the facts you did not request a written response and as protocol a response will be provided to you at the next meeting." Council Minutes (Regular) August 18, 2003 Page 4 7. f) g) i) j) k) CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (8/4/03 Regular) b) Received Information Church of the Advent Reuse Study Final Report- Administration Adopted RESOLUTION R55-03 Approved Gambling Premises Permit Eagle's Club - Administration Adopted RESOLUTION R56-03 Accepting Donation - Parks and Recreation Adopted RESOLUTION R57-03 Safe and Sober Grant 2003 - Police Department Approved School and Conference - Fire Department Received Information Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation Received Information 2003 Pond Restoration Project - Engineering Approved Trunk Hwy 3 Ditch Grading Contract - Engineering Approved Certificate of Plat Correction - Vermillion Grove - Community Development 1) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) d) e) h) Capital Outlay - Public Works The 2003 Budget provides for the acquisition of a water truck. Councilmember Fitch recalled Council had recently approved a new tanker truck for the Fire Department for the same purpose. He was curious as to what they are doing with that tanker when the new one arrives. Finance Director Roland replied the Fleet Supervisor has examined the existing tanker truck from the Fire Department and determined the capacity of that tank and the pump that is attached to it is not useable. The piece of equipment would not fulfill the need ofthe Public Works department. Mayor Ristow stated the tanker will also be used by Parks and Recreation. Councilmember Soderberg noted staff saved $12,900. MOTION by Fitch, second by Soderberg to approve the purchase of the water truck and a truck with a crane. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Approve On-Sale Liquor License La Margarita Restaurant - Administration An application has been received for an On-Sale Liquor License and an On-Sale Sunday Liquor License for Choice One Minnesota, Inc. dba La Margarita Restaurant located at 953 8th Street. The required fees and insurance have been received. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to close the Public Hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Cordes, second by Fitch to approve an On-Sale Liquor License and an On-Sale Sunday Liquor License for Choice One Minnesota, Inc. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT Council Minutes (Regular) August 18, 2003 Page 5 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) July 2003 Financial Report - Finance On revenues the first half tax settlement has been received. Licenses and permits have exceeded 85% of the annual budgeted amount. Staffhas changed the budget line item dollar amount for intergovernmental revenue because of the state's reduction of LGA, staff removed the LGA portion. The amount reflects the city has received 50% of the intergovernmental that is expected in 2003 due to the change in state statute. The city is on track to meet budgeted revenues with the exception of LGA. Expenditures are slightly elevated due to additional personnel costs which were incurred during July and are reflected in the report. Expenditures are on track to meet budget. b) Distribute Draft 2004 Budget Document - Finance The Preliminary 2004 Budget was distributed to Council. There are significant constraints due to changes in state statute. More detail will be provided at the September 2, 2003 Council meeting where Council will be asked to adopt the preliminary budget and preliminary tax levy. Council cannot levy more than adopted at the preliminary stage. Council can levy less after the budget is examined. A Budget Workshop will be held October 1, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. c) Approve Proposal Janitorial Services - Parks and Recreation A proposal was presented for cleaning of City Hall, Maintenance Facility, Rambling River Center and Fire Station. Residential, Office and Commercial, a cleaning service, has issued the low bid in the amount of $42,000. The Police Station will continue with their current cleaning services. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to approve the proposal with ROC to clean City Hall, Central Maintenance Facility, Rambling River Center and the Fire Station. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Set Public Hearing - Blaha Property Redevelopment Plan - Community Development The HRA and Council have discussed acquiring the Blaha property at the comer of Spruce and 2nd Street. Discussions have been held with Mr. Blaha, and he has informed staff that the tenant plans to vacate the property the end of September. The HRA requested staff set a public hearing to address the possible acquisition ofthe two Blaha parcels. There have been a couple ideas for the site but a final decision has not been made. The statute makes reference to preparing a redevelopment plan. If Council would like to hold a public hearing, a redevelopment plan would be prepared for the September 2, 2003 Council meeting. The statute also has a provision for the early acquisition of property. In that case, a redevelopment plan is not needed for a public hearing. The purpose of the public hearing would be to discuss the concept of acquiring the property. It would not obligate Council to make a decision at that time. It would not obligate the HRA or staff or Council to have a specific redevelopment project in mind. It would be a discussion of whether there is enough belief on Council's part that this Council Minutes (Regular) August 18, 2003 Page 6 site has redevelopment potential to authorize staff to proceed with further discussions with Mr. Blaha about possibly acquiring the property. Mayor Ristow asked who would be notified. Staff replied it would be noticed in the paper. Residents could comment whether they think acquiring the property is a good or a bad idea, and Council would have that input to make a decision. MOTION by Fitch, second by Soderberg to set the public hearing on the proposed acquisition/redevelopment of the Blaha property for 7 :00 p.m. on September 2, 2003. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Ristow asked what the discussion was at the Planning Commission meeting. Community Development Director Carroll stated at some point if Council wants to redevelop that site, there are a couple things that would need to be done in addition to having a redevelopment plan. Staff would have to get a statement ofthe method proposed for financing the project and a written opinion of the planning agency. The Planning Commission would have to take a position on the redevelopment of the property. The Planning Commission was in favor of acquiring the property by the city or the HRA. Councilmember Soderberg stated the HRA had two ideas. One was the potential for City Hall to be built on that site. The other was that there has been interest in the entire ~ block rather than just the east half. It would be a more desirable parcel for development of the entire area. Should Council choose not to put City Hall there, the entire ~ block would be much easier to sell. e) Adopt Ordinance - Wetland Buffer - Community Development The current code allows residential lots to be platted within wetland buffers. This situation makes most of the backyard unusable, as nothing can be done with a wetland buffer. This has become a problem as builders grade the entire lot. Staff proposed to amend the ordinance to not allow residential lots be platted within wetland buffers. The wetland buffer would be on the outside of the property. The 10ft setback would still be within the lot. This allows for more usable land within the lot. Two developers have responded to the proposal and are in agreement with it. This ordinance will not apply to currently approved preliminary plats. If the buffer area is disturbed during grading, the developer would be responsible for any repairs. Before any grading can begin, developers are required to put up silt fencing which should protect the wetland. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes adopting ORDINANCE 003-497 approving an ordinance regarding wetland buffers. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. t) Discuss Pre-Council Meetings - Administration This item was tabled to the September 2, 2003 Council meeting. Council Minutes (Regular) August 18, 2003 Page 7 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Executive Search Firm Request for Proposals - Human Resources Proposals were received from 7 search firms and were distributed to Council prior to the Council meeting. Councilmember Cordes stated she found it hard to understand the cost associated with them. She will call the firms to have them explain their costs. Staff stated some firms take a percentage of annual salary and some have set costs for different items. Mayor Ristow noted some firms were from outstate. Mercer is the only outstate firm that stated they would pay themselves to come for an interview. Councilmember Soderberg noted Mercer was the only firm to have a reasonable fee structure at $12,500 plus out-of-pocket which comes to $19,000 which is about the same as the others. Councilmember Cordes was concerned with the amount of travel they would have to do. Mercer is located in Atlanta, Georgia. Councilmember Fitch stated even though he would like to see a large candidate pool, if we go outside the 3-state area, there would be a learning curve for Minnesota laws. If Council stayed with Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa they would have a contiguous type of candidate structure. Mayor Ristow mentioned they could consider North and South Dakota. Councilmember Fitch noted they are smaller cities and the base of candidates could be smaller. Council agreed to go with the 5-state area. Prior to the meeting, Councilmember Fogarty had indicated she was interested in going with a company with a local office. Otherwise, she had no specific company in mind. Councilmember Cordes suggested taking the four companies from Minnesota and set a date for interviews. If they want to expand after that, then look at the outstate companies. Councilmember Soderberg stated he would like to see Council draw from a larger pool. He understood the concern about going outstate, but the larger the pool the better the candidates. He is concerned about getting a candidate that will succeed. If Council decides to stay within 3-5 states that is fine, but he would like to see as broad a search as they can get. Staff suggested ~ hour interviews depending on how many questions Council has. Council instructed staff to bring in the four local firms on Wednesday, September 6,2003, beginning at 6:00 p.m. for ~ hour each. The firms are Personnel Decisions International, Sathe Executive Search Firm, Springsted & Associates, and Thompson & Associates. The entire Council will interview each company separately. The meeting will be open to the public. b) Ash Street Joint Powers Agreement - City Attorney City Attorney Jamnik presented the Ash Street Joint Powers Agreement with Castle Rock Township. The City Attorney and staff recommended approval. City Attorney Jamnik answered some questions Council had regarding the agreement. Councilmember Soderberg had a concern regarding unserved properties where the agreement says Farmington and Castle Rock agree not to annex properties unserved for sanitary sewer and water service by Farmington in the orderly annexation area absent a petiton by 100% of affected property owners, for those properties not addressed in Article 8.0 A or B. The properties not addressed would include the properties on the east and west sides ofHwy 3. He asked if this was expanding beyond those properties. He understood it to mean Council Minutes (Regular) August 18, 2003 Page 8 that the city has agreed not to annex anything east of the highway. Attorney J amnik stated some of the areas east of the highway would not be in the orderly annexation area. Councilmember Soderberg asked if there was another property outside ofthe annexation area that wanted to annex into the city, what would happen. Attorney Jamnik stated it would tie our hands. We could not do it without a petition from the property owner. Mayor Ristow stated it would fall under the 60-acre rule. Attorney Jamnik stated this would be for properties that did not want the service, but wanted to come in. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated if the city annexes a number of properties and completely surrounds a single property that is unserved, under existing annexation rules the city would be allowed to annex that property that is 100% surrounded by the city. Under this agreement the city would only be allowed to annex that property if the owners unanimously agreed to the annexation. Councilmember Soderberg stated that seems to be an addition beyond what was agreed to at the last joint meeting with the Town Board. Staff and the City Attorney were comfortable with this clause as at some point all properties in this area will need sewer and water service, and therefore annexation. MOTION by Cordes, second by Fitch approving the proposed Joint Powers Agreement and authorizing the Mayor and Administrator to sign the agreement. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Adopt Resolution - 2004-2008 Dakota County CIP - Engineering Following are the projects the city would like in the County's 2004-2008 CIP: CR 74, Ash Street, RR Tracks to TH 3 - 2005 CR 64 (195th Street), from Autumn Glen to TH 3 - 2005/2006 CSAH 31, CSAH 50 to CSAH 74 - 2005? CSAH 50, Division Street to TH 3 - 2005 (preliminary engineering) Projects for future CIP's would be 20Sth Street and 195th Street, Flagstaff to Cedar. Traffic signals along Pilot Knob Road should be included as warranted. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fitch adopting RESOLUTION R58-03 requesting inclusion of construction projects in the Dakota County 2004-2008 CIP. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Fitch: He thanked City Attorney Jamnik for his response from the last meeting. He then asked what the status is on the Karrmann daycare project. Staff replied the HRA has entered into a contract for private development with her similar to other developers. It has a date for submitting construction plans, has a tentative closing date, they have submitted preliminary plans which are being reviewed and should be completed in the next couple days, a preliminary site plan, grading plan, and a floor plan have been received. Construction plans should arrive within the next 1-2 weeks. Staff stated a lot was created to the west of the daycare lot and there have been several inquiries about that lot. Champion Coatings is one of the parties. Council Minutes (Regular) August 18, 2003 Page 9 Police Chief Siebenaler: Stated there are advantages and disadvantages to having a long association with the city. He has watched over the past 20 plus years as Councils and Town Boards have worked toward the agreement that was reached tonight (referring to the Ash Street project). He has had contact with residents in both the township and the city who urged completion of this agreement. He congratulated Council on completion of that agreement and in anticipation he congratulated Castle Rock township on completion of the agreement. On behalf ofthe residents, thank you for completion and congratulations. Mayor Ristow: Thanked those who participated in the Ramble and Amble. It was a good turnout. He thanked staff for organizing a city team. 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Collective Bargaining Negotiations Council adjourned into Executive Session at 8:30 p.m. 15. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to adjourn at 8:55 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, 1 . C" -dd C.,~~~ ~ Muller Executive Assistant Council/City Hall Task Force Workshop Minutes August 19, 2003 Mayor Ristow called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present for Council: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg Present for Task Force: Jim Gerster, Sarah Miller, Randy Oswald Also Present: Dan Siebenaler, Interim City AdministratorlPolice Chief; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, City Engineer; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant MOTION by Cordes, second by Fogarty to approve the agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. The purpose of the meeting is to reach an agreement on whether or not a new City Hall is needed and whether it is needed at this time. Mayor Ristow stated in the near future a City Hall is needed. The city is growing and the employees are cramped for space. The Task Force did select a site (3rd and Spruce Street), but Mayor Ristow is not in favor of that site. He felt we needed more room to expand and to be in an area with buildings that would fit with City Hall, such as the library. Mayor Ristow stated once the population reaches 25,000 the county would be looking for a new library. Councilmember Fitch stated he does not dispute that at some point we will need a new City Hall. Ifhe had to vote on it today, it would not get a lot of support from him until after the city gets through the budget situation. The budget will be tight and we will levy to the limit. There are other projects through the county that are on the CIP. He would not favor a City Hall today, but would agree a City Hall is needed in the near future. Councilmember Cordes agreed a City Hall is needed in the future. If the process is started within the next year, it will still be 2-3 years before we are in the building. Financially she thinks we can do it, but we will not know for another month or so until the budget is reviewed. The only problem she has is the site. She agrees with Mayor Ristow that we need a site with room to expand. She would like to see City Hall stay downtown. An option would be to stay at the current location and expand. She cannot say yes or no tonight without more details and a different site. Councilmember Soderberg stated the need is now. We need to do something sooner rather than later. Ifwe wait a year or two we will have to find space to put people outside of this building. That would not be good service for the residents. Waiting will not make it any cheaper. The site identified by the Task Force, while it might have difficulties, they can be overcome. Council/City Hall Task Force Minutes August 19,2003 Page 2 Councilmember Fogarty stated now is the time to do it. To do it in a year or two would be reactive. She is flexible on the site, and feels this is absolutely the time to do it. Chair Gerster stated at the June 4, meeting there was a discussion of a priority list. He asked where City Hall fell on that list and if it is still number one on the list. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated at the workshop, staff was directed to continue processing the City Hall Task Force information, and the Fire Chief was instructed to work with the architect as to whether the Fire Station would fit next to the Maintenance Facility. The City Hall Task Force is still on track and the need was recognized for a Satellite Fire Station. Mayor Ristow stated he has talked with some ofthe task force members, and they told him it was up to Council as to whether a City Hall would fit in the budget. In the meantime, the satellite station was brought up by the Fire Chief. When the Police and Maintenance Facilities were built the study showed the population was not there for an immediate need for a satellite station. Chair Gerster then stated at the very first Task Force meeting it was imperative that we keep City Hall downtown. At the time the Council vote was 5-0. He asked if it was still 5-0 to keep City Hall downtown. Mayor Ristow replied if we talk about the expansion west of Denmark, we somewhat agreed that would be a connection to downtown. Councilmember Soderberg stated that is the goal. He does not want the downtown to be relocated out to Hwy 50 and Denmark. This is downtown and he wants this to remain downtown. That should just be an expansion of this downtown. Moving City Hall out there becomes a relocation of downtown. City Hall tends to be the foundation and the anchor. Chair Gerster stated if you are looking to put it out there, you are putting the cart before the horse, because we do not know what will happen out there. If we are looking to put City Hall out there, we are not showing confidence in downtown. Mayor Ristow stated it was a concept, and it would allow more room for expansion. It is still a part of downtown. Chair Gerster then went back to the three options the task force had. The first option is 3rd and Spruce Street, the second was the current location, third was the Spruce Street corridor which could take 5-7 years. We need a City Hall in the near future. The town is growing and we have the financial means now. There is a great window of opportunity with the bond rating. He would suggest to scrap number I and to move forward with option two. The near future factor can be accomplished in this location, rather than the Spruce Street corridor. There is always the opportunity to buy across 4th Street. As a member ofthe community, Chair Gerster stated we need to have a new City Hall and keep it downtown. Later, the current financing will not work. He felt with option 2 we have a viable entity. The 2nd Street parking is still available. The number one priority is City Hall. The window of opportunity is now. Mr. Michael Cox, Wold Architects, stated the study focused on the population in 2020, which projected a staff of 52. The present staff of 33 would not double. The square footage was based on that. The city will grow beyond 20 years. The option of additional square footage was considered which would allow for extra space. The estimated square footage is 26,000 sq. ft. It is possible to plan for any additions. Lakeville considered for Council/City Hall Task Force Minutes August 19,2003 Page 3 every 1,000 in population it equaled 1 sq. ft. So at 26,000 sq. ft. it would relate to 26,000 people. A building of 30,000 sq. ft. should cover it. Mayor Ristow asked if land to the east had been considered. Mr. Cox stated the first option contemplated a vertical addition. There would be enough parking for day to day operations. It would require acquiring Farmington Printing and the house next to it. Mayor Ristow suggested going to the east and leaving Farmington Printing alone. He suggested closing 4th Street by the alley and acquiring the building. Option two would involve demolishing the current building and would require employees to occupy another building during construction. Construction would take approximately one year. Mr. Cox stated the current building could be structured for a new City Hall, but we would need to create elevators, etc. There would be a lot of work and cost. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated if Council considered acquiring Farmington Printing and the house, the building does not have to be on this exact pad. There are three locations in the area that would accommodate it. Councilmember Cordes clarified that this option would include remaining in this building, acquire adjacent buildings, build City Hall and demolish the current building. Mayor Ristow felt the front of City Hall needs to be facing Oak Street. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated the building site could be moved to the west, where the old Fire Hall actually sat. Chair Gerster stated because of traffic it would be nice to not see all parking. Mr. Cox stated it had been suggested to have the building surround a parking ramp. Finance Director Roland spoke requiring the cost of relocating Farmington Printing and acquiring the property. Ifwe buy an empty building we are not subject to relocation costs. Ifwe buy an existing business the city is subject to relocation costs. The market value on the properties to the north of this building are significantly different than the market value of the Blaha property. This is where the additional cost would come in. The market value ofthe building across 4th Street is similar to the market value of Farmington Printing. They are within $10,000 of each other. Mayor Ristow stated there is a lot more space across 4th Street. Finance Director Roland stated Council is less apt to acquire the properties surrounding 3rd and Spruce Street than the properties to the north of the current location. Mr. Cox stated a parking ramp would cost $15,000/parking space. Mr. Randy Oswald, City Hall Task Force member, stated regarding 3rd and Spruce, once the city hits 25,000 that is when a new library system would come. At that time, that would make more access for growth by expanding to the library site. The biggest concern seems to be what happens in the future if we need to expand. There is a site in the Spruce Street corridor that would be beneficial to parks and recreation and to the city and would allow for growth. The site on 3rd and Spruce has possibilities. If it is a concern with the elevator, harvest time only happens in the fall for 3-6 weeks. Mayor Ristow stated you go by there any day, there are chemicals and it smells. It is an elevator. It is not a healthy site for City Hall to be. Mr. Oswald stated there is the possibility of expansion where the library is. Mayor Ristow stated if Spruce Street will be a main corridor you cannot close it off. Mr. Oswald replied so you build over it. You Council/City Hall Task Force Minutes August 19,2003 Page 4 have to think outside the box. Mayor Ristow replied he would not disagree, but felt we need a better site. He stated that site is not suitable for a City Hall. Mr. Oswald stated with the one option for the current location you have a sea of parking. He thought the idea was to keep a quaint downtown. Something that was unique. If you want to keep downtown unique, those things have to be considered. Mayor Ristow replied we are in the 2000's today, not back in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. People want one-stop shopping and they want availability and if they don't have it, they will continue to go north. Mr. Oswald stated he is using the feedback that he has heard. Residents want to keep the downtown. That is why we developed the buildings on Third Street with the look they have. We have to think outside the box. What if construction takes longer than a year? Chair Gerster stated even if the parking faces Elm Street, landscaping can be used to make it look nice. Ms. Sarah Miller, City Hall Task Force member, stated she moved here 31 years ago and she is hearing the same thing today that she heard 31 years ago. She does not like the word downtown. As Farmington expands, doesn't the downtown area have to expand or are we going to have an oasis here that is going to dry up because it sits here by itself. Chair Gerster stated the task force talked about areas for expansion, going down Third Street. Mayor Ristow stated that went away in the Comp Plan because ofthe railroad tracks and the school on First Street. The third option was to use Spruce Street to expand. Chair Gerster agreed that we do not want to be an oasis. By wanting City Hall downtown it shows confidence. It does take some foresight and some chances. He could envision 2-3 city blocks for expansion. It will take acquisition of buildings and it will not happen overnight. It will take time. What we have, everyone else is copying. We need to show confidence and commitment to the downtown. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated it sounds as though there is a consensus that a City Hall is needed in the very near future and it sounds as though we are focusing in the historic downtown area. He asked if Council would like staff to check into what the actual costs of acquisitions are ofthe areas that have been identified. Mayor Ristow wanted to go back to see how many Councilmembers were in favor of 3rd and Spruce Street. Councilmember Soderberg stated he is. Councilmember Fogarty stated she would support it, but she is more specific about the project, rather than the site. Councilmember Cordes did not support 3rd and Spruce or the Spruce Street Corridor. She would like to see it remain on the current site, but a different building. Councilmember Fitch stated his personal opinion is the current location, but he could live with 3rd and Spruce Street, it is not a no. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler asked if Council would like staff to explore cost options of both sites. Research can be done on property valuations and get some estimates on acquisition and relocation costs. A thorough examination would be done of all properties in the immediate area of existing City Hall. Councilmember Fitch noted we have space on 3rd and Spruce at that point to help people move into after a building is put up. Council/City Hall Task Force Minutes August 19,2003 Page 5 Finance Director Roland stated some costs of acquisition of surrounding properties has been done. When the previous numbers were put together, staff tried to give Council an idea if the cost of the properties were equal. The reason was to not influence the real estate market. If the estimate was done, Council would have a clearer picture of what the costs actually are. The taxable market value ofthe Blaha property is significantly less than the taxable market value of Farmington Printing. Mayor Ristow also wanted to look across 4th Street, so as not to displace Farmington Printing. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated to give the greatest number of options, staffwill obtain prices on all of the potentials. A consensus was reached to stay downtown and not move City Hall to the Spruce Street corridor. Councilmember Soderberg stated it is important we stay in the historic downtown and make this a foundation on which to expand. Spruce Street will expand with commercial, but we need to say Farmington is sound and viable. We have a good downtown and we want to stay here. He is not against putting a City Hall up in the current location. Site I (3rd and Spruce Street) is the one chosen by the task force, as it was the most cost effective and had the least disruption to services. If Council wants to build in the current location, he supports that too. We need to build City Hall now, not wait 3-7 years. Mayor Ristow stated the bottom line is at the end of the day we have to be ready to do something. He does not want staff to go through all this work and then go back to square one. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler agreed Council needs to be prepared to make that decision. The next step would be a rough design cost per square foot. Financing options would be presented as well. There should be at least two meetings over the next few months to get to that point. Mayor Ristow asked if financing would be lease revenue bonds or a referendum. Finance Director Roland stated there was a change with the last legislative session. Staff originally recommended lease revenue bonds, now another alternative has become available. Cities are now allowed to do City Halls, Fire Stations, and public facilities without a voter referendum but using G.O. bonds. The trade off is lease revenue bonds are based on taxable value and are equally spread over residential and commercial! industrial. G.O. bonds would be based on market value and put a heavier burden on residential properties. Councilmember Fitch stated there was an uproar about a possible expenditure by the city of $50,000 - $75,000. We are talking a hundred times that amount for this particular project. Without substantial public input, he would be hard pressed not to say let it go to the voters. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated it is difficult to make a decision about whether and how to buy without having all the information ahead of time. Staff will provide the information for Council to make a decision. Mr. Oswald stated regarding the air quality, he asked if an air quality study could be done. Councilmember Fogarty suggested checking with the school district. Mr. Oswald stated he would like to have all the facts. Chair Gerster stated they have checked with the library and the school and they had no problems with the air quality. Staff will advise a date for the next meeting when the research is completed. Council/City Hall Task Force Minutes August 19,2003 Page 6 PrOgreSS Reoort - Satellite Fire Station Mr. Cox has done a diagram of a proposed footprint on the north municipal campus. A satellite station does fit on the comer of Pilot Knob Road and 197th Street. Vehicles would enter Pilot Knob from 197th Street and return to the back of the building. The site would not be large enough for a City Hall. The soil might have some soil conditions that need to be reviewed. The size ofthe building would be 7,000 - 10,000 sq. ft. The building would have 2 doors and be 2 vehicles deep. It would be half the size of the current Fire Station. The approximate cost would be $120 - $150/sq. ft. for construction costs. Councilmember Cordes stated what we are looking at is that we know when we do build a Satellite Fire Station that there is room on the north campus. Weare not building a Satellite Fire Station tomorrow. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler agreed. Mayor Ristow stated this is just as critical as City Hall because we have the population with 950 more acres coming. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated the public needs of a growing city will never go away. We need to keep the options open. Councilmember Soderberg asked by putting the station there and with the asphalt, will the pond be adequate? Mr. Cox stated the pond was sized anticipating expansion. MOTION by Fitch, second by Soderberg to adjourn at 8:13 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~~fr?~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant City of Farmington 325 . Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7b TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and Interim City Administrato~ FROM: Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief SUBJECT: School and Conference - Fire Department DATE: September 2, 2003 INTRODUCTION The Fire Department is planning attendance at the Minnesota State Fire Chief s Annual Conference. DISCUSSION Three members of the Fire Department will be attending the conference. Topics covered include Emergency Management, Chief s Issues, and Professional Development. The conference will be held in Duluth, October 15 - 19,2003. BUDGET IMPACT Approved in the 2003 budget. ACTION REQUESTED Approve attendance at the Minnesota State Fire Chief s Annual Conference. Respectfully submitted, b~L Fire Chief 7c City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farminJrton.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, Interim City Administrator~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Schedule Public Hearing - Ash Street DATE: September 2,2003 INTRODUCTION The Joint Powers Agreement with Castle Rock Township for the Ash Street Project has been executed by all parties and the resolution requesting that the project be included in Dakota County's CIP for 2005 has been forwarded to the County. DISCUSSION At this time, in order for the project to continue forward under the M.S. 429 process, a resolution needs to be adopted formally accepting the feasibility report and scheduling a public hearing. BUDGET IMPACT The estimated costs of the project and related funding mechanisms are proposed as presented at previous meetings. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution accepting the feasibility report and scheduling the public hearing for the Ash Street Project for November 17,2003. Respectfully Submitted, ~Yi1 M~ Lee M. Mann, P .E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file RESOLUTION NO. R - 03 ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT 93-1, ASH STREET IMPROVEMENTS Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 2nd day of September at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, a joint powers agreement between Castle Rock Township and the City of Farmington was executed on August 20, 2003, which provides for the construction of street, utility, storm sewer, and ponding improvements for the Ash Street project area; and, WHERAS, pursuant to the joint powers agreement between Castle Rock Township and the City of Farmington, the City of Farmington will process all notices and procedures specified in M.S. 429; and WHEREAS, a report has been made by Farmington's and Castle Rock Township's Consulting Engineers with reference to the following improvement: Proi. No. 93-1 Description Ash Street Area Improvements Location Ash Street and areas adjacent from 1st Street to Trunk Highway 3, Trunk Highway 3 from Ash Street/Trunk Highway 50 southerly; Trunk Highway 50 from Trunk Highway 3 easterly to East Farmington and properties adjacent to Trunk Highway 50 south of Trunk Highway 50 and east of Trunk Highway 3. ; and, WHEREAS, this report was received by the City Council on September 2nd, 2003; and, WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost effective, and feasible. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota that, 1. Such improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report and should best be made as proposed. 2. Council accepts said report. 3. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 17th day of November, 2003, in the Council Chambers at City Hall at 7:00 p.m. and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvements as required by law. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 2nd day of September, 2003. Mayor day of ,2003. Attested to the City Administrator SEAL 7c! City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farminJrton.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, Interim City Administrator ~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Approve Change Order - City Facilities Project DATE: September 2, 2003 INTRODUCTION Forwarded herewith for Council's review and consideration is change order #10 for the City's facilities project. It is anticipated that this is the final change order for the project. DISCUSSION The attached memo from WOLD Architects outlines the recommended expenditures for change order #10. The majority of the costs of the change order are related to additional grading and retaining wall work for the roadway to Well # 5. The Water Board is responsible for the cost directly associated with the well house road. There is also a credit included related to the superintendent time for the construction of the well house road. BUDGET IMPACT The total cost for change order #10 is $18,346. The costs for the change order are within the project's contingency fund balance. ACTION REQUESTED Approve by motion, change order #10 for the City Facilities project in the amount of $18,346. Respectfully Submitted, ~ Mrn~ Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file M E M 0 RAN DUM W~LD TO: Lee Mann ST. PAUL, MN ELGIN, IL TROY, MI DENVER, CO [g@[gDwmr~i __ 2 6. jl~j MINNESOTA OFFICE I 305 ST. PETER STREET ;.. ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 651.227.7773 FAX 651.223.5646 WWW.WOLDAE.COM MAIL@WOLDAE.COM FROM: John MCNamara~ DATE: August 25, 2003 COMM. NO: 00086 SUBJECT: Farmington North Municipal Campus - Phase I The following are recommended contract changes for the North Municipal Campus. The approved costs have been reviewed and represent a fair value for the work performed. Item Misc. Cost #48 and #56 Misc. Cost #73 Misc. Cost #78 Misc. Cost #81 Description The existing retaining wall adjacent to the pump house road was extended based on field discussions. There was an additional 30 feet added and the wall was increased in height. Additional receivers were needed at each overhead door at the CMF for the added remote openers. Additional removals were required for the pump house road. This was based on as- built finish grades for the adjacent development that differed from the contract documents. The contractor has offered a credit for superintendent time related to the pump house road work. Total Change Order # 10 Approved Cost $12,280 $ 1,806 $ 8,000 <$ 3,740> $18,346 Upon approval by City Council, we will issue a Final Change Order (Change Order #10) for the project. If you have any questions, please call. cc: Robin Roland, City of Farmington Jeff Wellman, Rochon Corporation Michael Cox, Wold CK/C '_ Farminglon/00086/i1ug03 WOLD ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS /e.. 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 Administrator ~ FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Approve Resolution --- Spruce Street AUAR DATE: September 2,2003 DISCUSSION At its meeting on April 7, 2003, the City Council authorized and directed City staff to initiate an AUAR [Alternative Urban Area-wide Review] for the Spruce Street Corridor Area. Members of the City's engineering firm currently have work in progress on the AUAR, and a timetable has been prepared for its completion. The work on the AUAR, to date, has been based upon the land uses identified in the 'working draft" of the Spruce Street Corridor Area Master Plan. The final AUAR document (the one that is sent to the reviewing agencies) must include a copy of a formal City Council resolution ordering that the environmental review in question be completed. Attached hereto is a resolution in the format required by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board [EQB]. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the attached Resolution entitled Order for Environmental Review for Spruce Street Area. " RESOLUTION NO. ORDER FOR ENVIROMENT AL REVIEW FOR "SPRUCE STREET AREA" Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 2nd day of September, 2003 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member _ introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, there is a primarily agricultural 450-acre area located west of downtown Farmington that the Land Use Map in the City's adopted 2020 Comprehensive Plan indicates will eventually be the site of commercial, business, and residential uses; and WHEREAS, the area in question [hereinafter "Spruce Street Area"] is generally depicted on the attached Exhibit A, entitled "Spruce Street Master Plan - Preferred Land Use Plan;" and WHEREAS, the City anticipates that the Spruce Street Master Plan will be adopted by the City Council at its meeting on September 2,2003, and that the initial phase of the development of the Spruce Street Area is therefore imminent; and WHEREAS; the City wishes to comply in good faith with the requirements of the Rules of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB); and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the scale and intensity of anticipated development in the Spruce Street Area has the potential for significant environmental impacts, and; WHEREAS, because of the scale of future development and the sensitive environmental resources in the Spruce Street Area, the City has determined that it is most appropriate to plan for the area under the provisions of the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) process as described in Section 4410.3610 of the EQB Rules, and; WHEREAS, the City has an adopted comprehensive plan meeting the criteria of the EQB Rules allowing the City to proceed with the AUAR; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Farmington City Council hereby orders the environmental review of the area known as the Spruce Street Area consistent with the intents and purposes of the Rules of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board under the provisions for Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). The following conditions shall govern this review: 1. The specific boundaries of the Spruce Street Area for review under this order are depicted on the attached Exhibit A. 2. The City Council orders that the scenario to be considered in this review shall include (a) the nature, location, and intensity of development depicted or described in the adopted Spruce Street Master Plan and (b) the land uses depicted or described in the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan, as amended to conform to the aforesaid Master Plan. This resolution adopted by recorded vote ofthe Farmington City Council in open session on the 2nd day of September, 2003. Mayor Attested to the _ day of September, 2003. Interim City Administrator r, / F0..~_, i ~ ,,,,- "'- " ' "- ~ "",- '\; X'\. ~ ~ ." ~, ~ O^V ~JeWUaa " ,,'0 ." I' P1= ~'\..~"., .,,~ '""'~ , 1-' ~,~"y ," '~ ~ h ~~~ ""~ ~ t i ~~~ 0, "~~I'\ i '. ;~~,~ '~~ll ~ ~~~,,- ~ ~ .,.,' """ I ,~~.. . '\.."'- """ [,",,",,' ~" \. -=-1 ~ ~ . \'t'\ ~~~~ '1~1 . ~~~ ~ ~ ./ ,,",,-'~ ., ~ ~'\..'\:; ~," ~ ~~tV~~ ~ I- ~...,", .,,~ ~ "\J\.' ~~ ~ ~ \~~'1-.~"'. ~\~ ~~~~ \\ ~'; \~ ~~~~~~ J l'..' " ." ,\. II.~ ...,_ --~ ,",,~ !! D' ~~~. :II~ . ~~~~ I,~ '. ~I! . "",- '\.. "" " . \ ~ ~I~ ~"'''''i\\i \' \ .. \. ._ : ~""'-."m\ 1 __ _ ~ :"\:"",-" ~,\ ~. '.. - ! '. "~'''~l.. ~ ~ _ .. - -t-t~~,,~ .' . I l;- ...~~~ ~; I ( ~~,,~, I \ i ~ 0-..."'-' ~ ~ I' I:'~ ~\ : I ~ """,-" ~ / I. N 11' ."".~ / I II \~~li ~",,~'t popUO)X" eeo>! "Ou~ '"lid ~ ~ I ~~ ~ I J ... - Uillu --r--J !----1 - _ r-- -, IT1J r-- ~~ ~ I I p==f ~_ - I-- "'~ r;=:: - '~I "1,11- ~ =i] -ji lY , ~r \ --I 11 v ~ J - ! It" I - +-r ~ ~ > co '--. '" I I ---, .l!l 'E ra:::iO,.... >-~>'<'OQ) co <l: "" ::2 .~ ~>-UQla:: 'Og-gSrJ8 --0,00= U.Ulc_== <l: a:: .- Ql E ::2 <l: E ~ Q; W~~a.> ~DD<< )( '" Ql Ql u::: '" a:: E &~ E >-~ co Oro.~Q)Q)~ Ql~'{3~Cl"'<l: ~~Q;QlE:Jiti QlECl:::l'O~ "'0 C ._ Q) ~ ~ c: "en E ~ ~ .~ 10 ro ~~8I::2::2Za. j[]ID~[][]1 a: Gl c: c( en o :) ::::) Clc(" .5 'Wi c E Gl ns la .:: .I u.. U) Gl '0 Gl .. >- U = ... :s .. .- .. = () :- LL. co ~ 8 ~ 8J 2 o I~ '" '" 13 Ql e a; 0 Q) LL g .. C i UBI ~~~t co u Jg r-- I 15Q..., City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ciJarmington.mn.us FROM: Mayor, Council Members, j<tv Interim City Administrator ~ Jim Atkinson Assistant City Planner TO: SUBJECT: Easement Vacation - Glenview Commercial Addition DATE: September 2, 2003 INTRODUCTION As part of the recording process for the Glenview Commercial Addition, an easement associated with a previous alignment of Trunk Highway 3 must be vacated. The easement was released by the State to the City in conjunction with the rerouting of 9th Street to the east. DISCUSSION As shown on the attached map, a portion of the easement released by the State is located on the Glenview Commercial Addition property. In order for the Glenview plat to be recorded, the portion of the easement located on the Glenview property must be vacated. This portion of the easement no longer serves any purpose since 9th Street was rerouted. ACTION REQUIRED Adopt the attached resolution vacating the portion of the easement identified on the attached map in the proposed Glenview Commercial Addition. Respectfully submitted, q~ at:=- Jim Atkinson Assistant City Planner RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION VACATING AN EASEMENT Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 2nd day of September, 2003, at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has released a portion of Trunk Highway 3 to the City that was previously utilized for the alignment of 9th Street; and WHEREAS, the City of Farmington now controls the easement; and WHEREAS, the easement is partially located on property designated as the Glenview Commercial Addition; and WHEREAS, since 9th Street was realigned to the east, the easement is no longer needed on the Glenview Commercial property; and ' WHEREAS, in order for the Glenview Commercial Addition to be recorded, the portion of the easement located on the Glenview Commercial property must be vacated; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minn. Stat. S 412.851, the Farmington City Council has conducted a hearing preceded by published and posted notice to consider the easement vacation requested by the Developer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Farmington: 1. The portion of the easement identified on the attached map is hereby vacated. 2. The City Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the County Auditor and County Recorder in and for Dakota County, Minnesota. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 2nd day of September, 2003. Attested to the _ day of (SEAL) 2003. CITY OF FARMINGTON Mayor City Administrator "..~ ('PJ Minnesota Department of Transportation Transportation Building 395 John Ireland Boulevard Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899 (651) 282-2533 Maint. Area Metro Release No. 1235 Control Section No. 1921 R61620G-R 1 W NOTICE OF RELEASE OF TRUNK HIGHWAY To: Lee Mann Director of Public Works / City Engineer 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 You are hereby notified that a portion of Trunk Highway,No. 3 has'been definitely designated and located by Order No. 17928 and that the portion of trunk highway not included within the right of way of said definite location is hereby released to the City of Farmington as follows: Beginning in the City of Farmington at a point on the easterly side of the state highway right of way of Trunk Highway No, 3, said point is located approximately 400 feet south and approximately 30 feet east of the northwest corner of Section 32, Township 114 North, Range 19 West; thence southerly along the centerline of a frontage road for approximately 980 feet to its intersection with the westerly extension of the south line of 2131h Street West and there terminating. This release to be effective as of Auaust 1. 2002, Daled 7M'l /0;< EI::&.~ Commissioner of Transportation (This notice is being sent to the County Auditor and to all affected governing bodies within the county in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 161.16 and 161.24 and acts amendatory thereto). If you have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact the Office of Land Management, telephone (651) 282-2533. An equal opportunity employer . STATE OF MINNEaoTA CO\JNVY.'OF1FVWSEV The undersigned, being duly appointed agent"of'the Commissioner of Transportation for the purpoee of certifying copies of orders, records o.r.~i1e.~,I~ued or maintained by the Commissioner, hei'8W c:~rtlfjes that this is a true and correct copy ,~~ ,t~8 o.rder,.:recbfd 9r file of the State of Minnesota, Oepartment .f Tnlhsporta\ion. Dated this 'd-r-v-. dayoLJ.... Crt ploD L ~/ ;J:~~7' ~ Willow Street Pine Street ortio of ease t be v cated Main Street l I " l " l l " " " l \ \ \ C") ~ ro ~ .r::. 0> I ~ c ~ s.... I- ~ .. Easement released by the StatE Glenview Commercial Addition fib 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 Administrator ~ FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consider Proposed Acquisition/Redevelopment of Blaha Property DATE: September 2, 2003 INTRODUCTION At its meeting on August 18,2003, the City Council authorized the scheduling of a public hearing on September 2, 2003 regarding the possible acquisition and redevelopment of the Blaha property (located at the intersection of Spruce Street and Second Street). DISCUSSION The location of the Blaha property is shown on the attached map. The two Blaha parcels are adjacent to four vacant parcels that have been owned by the Farmington HRA for several years. The owners of the Blaha property have indicated a willingness to sell their two parcels to the HRA. They have advised City staff that their current tenant will be vacating the building by September 30, 2003. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments have been completed, and they have disclosed no significant environmental contamination. Members of the HRA have consistently indicated, over a period of several months, their interest in having the HRA acquire the Blaha parcels in order to facilitate the redevelopment of the entire "half block" along Spruce Street between 2nd Street and 3rd Street. However, the HRA cannot acquire the Blaha parcels without "the approval of the governing body," and the governing body cannot grant such approval unless or until a public hearing has been conducted on the proposed acquisition. Accordingly, the City Council should conduct the scheduled public hearing on Tuesday night in order to have the benefit of whatever public input may be offered. After the public hearing has been closed, the City Council should decide whether or not it will allow the HRA to proceed with the acquisition of the Blaha parcels. The City Council may do so ifit finds, by resolution, that the proposed acquisition "is necessary to carry out public improvements in the area" or that the acquisition will "contribute to the elimination of blight or deterioration within the area" or that the acquisition "is necessary to relieve hardship." Given the age and condition of the building located on the Blaha property, and the general appearance of the outdoor storage area located behind it, City staff members believe that the demolition of the building and the elimination of the related outdoor storage would "eliminate blight or deterioration." The acquisition of the Blaha parcels would also "relieve [a] hardship," in the sense that the proximity and appearance of the building and the outdoor storage have adversely affected the marketability (and/or value) of the adjoining HRA-owned parcels. The City and the HRA do not need to have a specific redevelopment plan prepared or approved in order to acquire the Blaha parcels. As the Council is aware, several potential uses of the property have been recently discussed, each of which has its own merits and drawbacks. It will take some time to determine which use of the property is the most advantageous to the City. If the HRA is required to wait until that determination is made, the Blaha parcels may no longer be available. The current "window of opportunity" to acquire the parcels from a willing seller at a reasonable price will not remain open indefinitely. Decisive action will expand the City's redevelopment options. Indecision will limit or reduce the City's options. If the City Council authorizes the HRA to acquire the Blaha parcels, the parcels can be held by the HRA until the City Council determines the preferred use of the entire ~ block in question, at which time a specific redevelopment plan can be prepared by the HRA and presented to the City Council. The City Council would need to conduct a public hearing on the proposed redevelopment plan prior to its approval or adoption. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the Farmington HRA and City staff to proceed with the proposed acquisition of the two Blaha-owned parcels identified on the attached map. (A draft resolution is being prepared by the City Attorney and will be available for review at Tuesday night's meeting. ) 2 - ; J--, "S I\---l :E I ~~'" ~-J - () I~-- L ~ l ~'\ 0.. ~~ II r- r-.... CJ) ~ l IJT~ .fii [ ']' ~~ ~ ~ ',( U .......' -.pi i),1I _ -;c';'... .; _'. L v ,_j. 0 _... ~\t.'~~'} ~ "". -- ~...... ~ If' "rFr~_ .... ...~ lJJ L ,- 2?:- .~ 0 +oJ I r OJ (f) -0 rI s... -C ,-- I- L -0 - C ..-- ro Q) == 0 - :::J - s... a. - CJ) '-- >- -o!-I = 's... Q) a. "' ~S? ~ rI c <{ 0:: I c o +oJ 0) c E s... ro LL I \: \ '\ ~ ~ ~. a == 0- ::. 0- UI co UI co '<t <0 '<t . 10 Iti ~ to ~ II &: C'i ai r-: ~ ~.. 0- UI 10 r- ai <0 r- 10-' I ~~ ~ ~ I >- Q) ai~ D' f:. ~.;.~~;\ .. " .' cB.:..../~~i~;:~ III . =--- 1------,.., -' .--.-. -.., L. =- lS ~~ --=- h o ~'r-~ 0' rl-,-r-b ~IJ L s l--I .. 0 'ii l:! .. L0- lL UI c; >0 C ::> ~ 0 u .. 75 .. ---..r .. 0 I ;,; u :; " --- 0 UI , I.j ~.~ ',"; - ',.-;'1 - ---, l I ~ .". J r- -. l- I- .;c" lr I ! 2?:- 'E m - I . :;:: "S :E / J . ." .; .. . .. II ~ ", "l . . j ~., ~ ~ Qr':\ -f ~:I" \ '. 1 *.' ,~ '- ==u ....-... .. . r =:J ~ ~ - m ... .c ~ :-1:1 "" CJ I- ;-= ~ -=- '---- I~ VG \. -= ~--- ! .. COb RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING THE EARLY ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 469.028 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 2nd day of September, 2003 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, there is a parcel of land located within the City that is available for purchase, commonly referred to as the Blaha property (shown on the accompanying attachment), and: WHEREAS, the Farmington Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has identified and determined that the area in which the parcel of land is located is an area proposed for redevelopment; and WHEREAS, the HRA proposes to acquire the parcel using funds it has at its disposal without financial contribution from the City; and WHEREAS, state law (M.S. 469.028, Subd. 5) authorizes the HRA, with the approval of the City Council, to acquire individual tracts of real property prior to the preparation and approval of a redevelopment plan; and WHEREAS, the statute requires that the governing body shall hold a public hearing on the proposed acquisition activities after published notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality at least once not less than ten days nor more than 30 days prior to the date ofthe hearing; and WHEREAS, the required hearing has been conducted pursuant to law; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, as required by the statute, that: I) the proposed acquisition will contribute to the elimination of blight or deterioration within the area and, 2) there are no persons displaced by the proposed acquisition; and WHEREAS, the governing body, in approving early acquisition, will not assume any responsibility for any loss that may arise as a result of the acquisition of land and related activities, including any costs of demolition, removal, and relocation, in the event that the property so acquired is not used for urban renewal purposes because the urban renewal plan is not approved, or is amended to omit the acquired property or is abandoned for any reason. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Farmington City Council hereby approves the early acquisition of the identified parcel of land by the Farmington HRA pursuant to the conditions specified herein. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 2nd day of September, 2003. Mayor Attested to the _ day of September, 2003. Interim City Administrator JOCL City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council Members, Interim City Administrator ~ FROM: Robin Roland, Finance Director SUBJECT: Resolution approving the issuance and sale of $6,200,000 Revenue Notes, Series 2003 (St. Francis Health Services of Morris, Inc. Project) and authorizing the execution of documents relating thereto DATE: September 2, 2003 INTRODUCTION On June 2, 2003, the City Council held a public hearing and gave preliminary approval to a project under Minnesota Statutes section 469.152 through 469.165 which was proposed by St. Francis Health Services of Morris, Inc. The transaction is now ready for its final steps. DISCUSSION St. Francis Health Services of Morris, Inc., a non-profit corporation, approached the City to request that the City act as issuer of revenue obligations under Minnesota State Statutes Section 469.152 and Chapter 462C. These obligations (bonds) are called "conduit" debt; the City acts as the conduit for the funding but has no obligation of repayment of any kind. St. Francis Health Services is purchasing the site of the closed Trinity hospital, the Trinity skilled nursing facility and the 55 unit Trinity Terrace independent living facility from US Bank. As a non profit corporation, they are able to issue tax-exempt debt by using a City as the conduit if the City agrees. The tax-exempt nature of the funding makes it an appealing investment, thereby increasing the possibility of successful placement with private investors. Subsequent to the approval they received at the June 2, 2003 meeting, St. Francis arranged the financing of $6,200,000 in bonds. ACTION REQUIRED Adopt the resolution attached approving the issuance and sale of $6,200,000 Revenue Notes, Series 2003 (St. Francis Health Services of Morris, Inc. Project) and authorizing the execution of documents relating thereto. Respectfully submitted, ~ Finance Director Council Member introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $6,200,000 REVENUE NOTES, SERIES 2003 (ST. FRANCIS HEALTH SERVICES OF MORRIS, INC. PROJECT) AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO BE IT RESOLVED, by the governing body (the "Council") of the City of Farmington, Dakota County, Minnesota (the "Issuer"), as follows: Section 1. Definitions. The terms used herein, unless the context hereof requires otherwise, have the following meanings, and any other terms defined in the Loan Agreement (hereinafter defined) have the same meanings when used herein as assigned to them in the Loan Agreement unless the context or use thereof indicates another or differing meaning or intent: a. Act: collectively, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C and Sections 469.152 through 469.165, as amended. b. Assignment: the Assignment of Mortgage, from the Issuer to the Lender pursuant to which the Issuer assigns its interest in the Series B Mortgage. c. Bond Account: the account established pursuant to Section 10 of this Resolution. d. Borrower: St. Francis Health Services of Morris, Inc. being (as represented to the Issuer), a Minnesota nonprofit corporation and organization described in Section 501(c)(3) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, the corporate offices of which are located at 801 Nevada Avenue, Suite 100 in Farmington, Minnesota. e. Bond Counsel: the law firm of Fryberger, Buchanan, Smith & Frederick, P.A. or any other firm of nationally-recognized bond counsel. f. Code: the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. g. Council: the governing body of the Issuer. h. County: Dakota County, Minnesota. 1. Documents: the Assignment, the Loan Agreement, the Mortgages, the Pledge Agreement and other documents required for the issuance of the Notes. J. DEED: the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development. k. Health Care Proiect: financing the cost of the acquisition of the existing 65-bed Trinity Nursing Home facility and the vacant 48-bed Trinity Hospital facility both located at 3410 213th Street West, in the Issuer and paying costs associated with the financing. 1. Housing Proiect: financing the cost ofthe acquisition ofthe existing 55-unit Trinity Terrace independent living facility located at 3330 213th Street West, in the Issuer, Minnesota for low and moderate income elderly persons and paying costs associated with the financing. m. Issuer: City of Farmington, Dakota County, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State. n. Issuer Documents: collectively, the Assignment, the Loan Agreement and the Pledge Agreement. o. Lender: Liberty State Bank, a Minnesota state banking corporation with an office located in St. Paul, Minnesota. p. Loan Agreement: the Loan Agreement to be entered into between the Issuer and the Borrower, pursuant to which the Borrower agrees to repay the loan made thereunder in specified amounts and at specified times sufficient to pay in full when due the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Notes. q. Mortgage: collectively, the Series A Mortgage, the Series B Mortgage and the PCS Mortgage. r. Notes: collectively, the Series A Note and the Series B Note. s. PCS Mortgage: the combination Mortgage, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement from Prairie to the Lender, pursuant to which Prairie will secure Borrower's obligations with respect to the Notes under the Loan Agreement, by granting to the Lender a first mortgage interest in the property described therein. t. Pledge Agreement: the Pledge Agreement to be entered into among the Issuer, the Borrower and the Lender, pursuant to which the Issuer pledges and grants a security interest in all of its rights, title, and interest in the Loan Agreement (except for the Unassigned Issuer's Rights) to the Lender. u. Prairie: Prairie Community Services, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation. v. Proiect: collectively, the Health Care Project and the Housing Project. 2 w. x. y. z. bb. Section 2. Section 3. Registrar: bond registrar and transfer agent for the Notes. Series A Mortgage: the combination Mortgage, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement from the Borrower to the Lender, pursuant to which the Borrower will secure its obligations with respect to the Series A Note under the Loan Agreement, including the payment of amounts due under the Loan Agreement, by granting to the Lender a first mortgage interest in the property described therein. Series A Note: the Issuer's $2,350,000 Health Care Facilities Revenue Note, Series 2003A (St. Francis Health Services of Morris, Inc. Project) Series B Mortgage: the combination Mortgage, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement from the Borrower to the Issuer and assigned by the Issuer to the Lender pursuant to the Assignment, pursuant to which the Borrower will secure its obligations with respect to the Series B Note under the Loan Agreement, including the payment of amounts due under the Loan Agreement, by granting to the Lender a first mortgage interest in the property described therein. aa. Series B Note: the Issuer's $3,850,000 Multifamily Housing Development Revenue Note, Series 2003B (St. Francis Health Services of Morris, Inc. Project). State: the State of Minnesota. Legal Authorization. The Issuer is a municipal corporation and political subdivision duly organized under the laws of the State and is authorized under the Act to initiate therevenue producing project herein referred to, and to issue and sell the Notes for the purpose, in the manner and upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Act and in this Resolution; provided, however, that the Issuer has relied without independent investigation on written representations and opinions ofthe Borrower, its consultants and Bond Counsel that the Project qualifies as a "project" within the meaning of the Act. Recitals. a. Under the Act, the Issuer is authorized and empowered to issue revenue obligations to finance or refinance all or any part of the costs of a project consisting of the acquisition and betterment of, health care facilities or facilities of organizations described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Code and to finance the acquisition of multifamily housing developments. b. An initial resolution was adopted by the Council on May 5, 2003 scheduling public hearings on the proposed issuance of revenue obligations, in one or more series, in 3 Section 4. an amount not to exceed $6,500,000 to finance the Project all with respect to the Borrower. c. The Issuer has, after due notice and publication thereof, on June 2, 2003 held a public hearing on the Project and the financing thereof, and persons in attendance wishing to speak on the Project and financing thereof were given an opportunity to do so at the hearing. d. A resolution was adopted by the Council on June 2, 2003 which gave preliminary approval to the issuance of revenue obligations and the proposal to undertake and finance the Project, approved a Housing Program for the Housing Project and referred the proposal regarding the issuance of revenue obligations in order to finance the cost of the Health Care Project on behalf of the Borrower to DEED. The findings of the Council contained in said resolution are hereby ratified and confirmed as though stated in full herein. e. The Issuer has received approval of the Health Care Project from the Commissioner of DEED as required by Section 469.154 of the Act. f. Drafts of the following documents have been submitted to this Council and are on file in the office of the City Administrator: 1. the Loan Agreement; 11. the Pledge Agreement; 111. the Series A Mortgage; IV. the Series B Mortgage; v. the PCS Mortgage; VI. the Assignment; and V11. the forms of the Notes. Findings. The Council has heretofore determined, and does hereby determine, as follows: a. the Issuer is authorized by the Act to enter into a Loan Agreement for the public purposes expressed in the Act; 4 b. c. Section 5. Section 6. the Issuer has made the necessary arrangements with the Borrower for the establishment within the Issuer of the Project consisting of certain property which will be of the character and accomplish the purposes provided by the Act, and the Issuer has by this Resolution authorized the Project and execution and delivery of the Notes and the Issuer Documents, which documents specify the terms and conditions for financing the Project; the financing provided under the Notes is intended to, and will in the judgment of the Council, promote the public welfare by (i) assisting in providing adequate health care services and housing opportunities for low and moderate income persons, and (ii) preventing, so far as possible, the emergence of blighted and marginal lands and areas of chronic unemployment; d. the amount estimated to be necessary to finance the Project Costs will require the issuance of the Notes in the principal amount of $6,200,000 as hereinafter provided; e. it is desirable, feasible and consistent with the objects and purposes of the Act to issue the Notes, for the purpose of financing the Project; and f. the Notes and the interest accruing thereon do not constitute an indebtedness of the Issuer within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation of indebtedness and do not constitute or give rise to a pecuniary liability or a charge against the general credit or taxing powers of the Issuer and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing powers of the Issuer, are pledged for the payment of the Notes or interest thereon. Authorization and Ratification of the Proiect. The Issuer has heretofore and does hereby authorize the Borrower, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Loan Agreement to provide for the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project by such means as shall be available to the Borrower and in the manner determined by the Borrower, and without advertisement for bids as may be required for the construction and acquisition of municipal facilities; and the Issuer hereby ratifies, affirms, and approves all actions heretofore taken by the Borrower consistent with and in anticipation of such authority. The Notes. a. In order to provide for the financing of the Project, the Issuer hereby determines, based on representations of the Borrower, that the offer of the Lender to purchase the Notes in an original principal amount of not to exceed $6,200,000, at an initial interest rate of not to exceed 4.25% per annum, subject to adjustment as provided in the Notes, and upon the terms and conditions hereafter specified and specified in the 5 Section 7. Notes is reasonable and is hereby accepted. The Issuer will loan the proceeds of the Notes to the Borrower in order to finance the Project. b. The Loan Repayments to be made by the Borrower under the Loan Agreement are fixed to produce revenue sufficient to provide for the prompt payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Notes when due, and the Loan Agreement also provides that the Borrower is required to pay all expenses of the operation and maintenance of the Project, including, but without limitation, adequate insurance thereon and insurance against all liability for injury to persons or property arising from the operation thereof, and all lawfully imposed taxes and special assessments levied upon or with respect to the Project and payable during the term of the Loan Agreement. c. The Notes shall be in substantially the form submitted to the Council, with such appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as are permitted or required by this Resolution, and in accordance with the further provisions hereof as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by Bond Counsel and the Borrower prior to the execution thereof; and shall mature in the years and amounts, be subject to redemption, and bear interest at the rate as therein specified, subject to adjustment as therein specified. d. The Notes shall be executed on behalf of the Issuer by the signatures of its Mayor and City Administrator. The seal of the Issuer may be omitted as allowed by law. In case any officer whose signature shall appear on the Notes shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Notes, such signature shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until delivery. In the event of the absence or disability of the Mayor or the City Administrator such officers of the Issuer as may act in their behalf, shall without further act or authorization of the Council execute and deliver the Notes. e. After the adoption of this Resolution, but prior to the issuance and delivery of the Notes to the Lender, the original aggregate principal amount of the Notes, the maturity date of the Notes, the principal amount of the Notes due on each payment date, the interest rate of the Notes prior the first Adjustment Date (as defined in the Notes), the date of the documents referenced in this Resolution and the Notes, and the terms of redemption of the Notes may be established or modified with the approval of the Mayor and the City Administrator; provided that the aggregate principal amount of the Notes and the interest rate of the Notes may not be increased from the amounts set forth in this Resolution. Disposition of Note Proceeds. Upon delivery ofthe Note, the Lender shall advance funds for payment of Project Costs upon compliance with the provisions of the Loan Agreement. 6 Section 8. d. e. Approval and Execution of Documents. a. The Issuer Documents and the Notes are hereby made a part of this Resolution as though fully set forth herein and are hereby approved in substantially the forms on file with the Council. The Mayor and the City Administrator are authorized and directed to execute, acknowledge, and deliver the Issuer Documents and the Notes on behalf of the Issuer with such changes, insertions, and omissions therein as the Issuer's attorney may hereafter deem appropriate, such execution by the Mayor and City Administrator to be conclusive evidence of approval of such documents in accordance with the terms hereof. b. The Mayor and the City Administrator are authorized and directed to execute and deliver all other documents which may be required under the terms of the Issuer Documents or the Notes or by Bond Counsel, and to take such other action as may be required or deemed appropriate for the performance of the duties imposed thereby to carry out the purposes thereof. c, The Mayor, City Administrator and other officers of the Issuer are authorized to furnish certified copies of this Resolution and all proceedings and records of the Issuer relating to the Notes, and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the facts relating to the Issuer respecting the Notes, as such facts appear from the books and records in the officers' custody and control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified copies, certificates, and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute representations of the Issuer as to the truth of all statements contained therein. If for any reason the Mayor, City Administrator, or any other officers, employees, or agents of the Issuer authorized to execute certificates, instruments, or other written documents on behalf of the Issuer shall for any reason cease to be an officer, employee, or agent of the Issuer after the execution by such person of any certificate, instrument, or other written document, such fact shall not affect the validity or enforceability of such certificate, instrument, or other written document. Iffor any reason the Mayor, City Administrator, or any other officers, employees, or agents of the Issuer authorized to execute certificates, instruments, or other written documents on behalf of the Issuer shall be unavailable to execute such certificates, instruments, or other written documents for any reason, such certificates, instruments, or other written documents may be executed by a deputy or assistant to such officer, or by such other officer of the Issuer as in the opinion of the Issuer's attorney is authorized to sign such document and do all things and execute all instruments and documents required to be done or executed by such officers, with full force and effect, which executions or acts shall be valid and binding on the Issuer. 7 Section 9. f. Copies of all of the documents necessary to the transactions herein described shall be delivered, filed, and recorded as provided herein and in the Loan Agreement. Registration. a. Registered Form. The Notes shall be issued only in fully registered form. Each Note shall be numbered R-I in a denomination equal to the principal amount thereof. b. Registration, Transfer and Exchange. The Issuer appoints the City Administrator as Registrar. The effect of registration and the rights and duties of the Issuer with respect thereto are as follows: 1. Register. The Registrar must keep a bond register for the Notes in which the Registrar provides for the registration of ownership of the Notes and the registration of transfers and exchanges of the Notes. 11. Transfer of Notes. Subject to the provisions of clause x of this subsection, upon surrender for transfer of the Notes duly endorsed by the registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney duly authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar will authenticate and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee, one new note in an aggregate principal amount equal to the then outstanding principal amount of the Note so surrendered and oflike maturity, as requested by the transferor. The Registrar may, however, close the books for registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each interest payment date and until such interest payment date. 111. Issuance of New Note. Subject to the provisions of clause x of this subsection, the Issuer shall, at the request and expense of the Lender, issue new notes in aggregate outstanding principal amount equal to that of the Note surrendered, and oflike tenor except as to number, principal amount, and the amount of the monthly installments payable thereunder, and registered in the name of the Lender or such transferee as may be designated by the Lender. IV. Exchange of Note. When a Note is surrendered by the registered owner for exchange the Registrar will authenticate and deliver one new note in an aggregate principal amount equal to the then outstanding principal amount of the Note so surrendered and of like maturity, as requested in writing by the registered owner or the owner's attorney. 8 v. Cancellation. A Note surrendered upon any transfer or exchange will be promptly canceled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the Issuer. VI. Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When a Note is presented to the Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the Note until the Registrar is satisfied that the endorsement on the Note or separate instrument of transfer is valid and genuine and that the requested transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar will incur no liability for the refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or unauthorized. Vll. Persons Deemed Owners. The Issuer and the Registrar may treat the person in whose name a Note is registered in the bond register as the absolute owner ofthe Note, whether the Note is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal of and interest on the Note and for all other purposes, and payment so made to a registered owner or upon the owner's order will be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability upon the Note to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. Vlll. Taxes, Fees and Charges. For a transfer or exchange of a Note, the Registrar may impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to the transfer or exchange. IX. Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Note. If a Note becomes mutilated or is destroyed, stolen or lost, the Registrar will deliver a new Note of like amount, number, maturity date, redemption privilege and tenor in exchange and in substitution for and upon cancellation of the mutilated Note or in lieu of or in substitution for any Note destroyed, stolen or lost, upon the payment of the reasonable expenses and charges of the Registrar and Issuer in connection therewith; and, in the case of a Note destroyed, stolen or lost, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to the Registrar that the Note was destroyed, stolen or lost, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar and Issuer of an appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance and amount satisfactory to it and as provided by law, in which both the Issuer and the Registrar must be named as obligees. A Note so surrendered to the Registrar will be canceled by the Registrar. If the mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost Note has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms it is not necessary to issue a new Note prior to payment. x. Limitation on Transfers. The Notes have been issued without registration under state or other securities laws, pursuant to an exemption for such 9 issuance; and accordingly the Notes may not be assigned or transferred in whole or part, nor may a participation interest in the Notes be given pursuant to any participation agreement, except in accordance with an applicable exemption from such registration requirements. In no event may any participation interest in the Notes be in an initial principal amount ofless than $100,000. Section 10. Accounts. There is hereby established at the Lender a bond account into which all payments of the principal of and interest on the Notes shall be deposited and immediately credited against the unpaid principal balance of the Notes and interest accrued thereon. Section II. General Covenants. a. Payment of Principal and Interest. The principal of and interest on the Notes are payable solely from and secured by revenues and proceeds derived from the Notes and the Documents, or credited to the Bond Account under Section 10, which revenues and proceeds are hereby specifically pledged to the payment thereof in the manner and to the extent specified herein and in the Notes and the Documents; and nothing in the Notes or in this Resolution shall be considered as assigning, pledging or otherwise encumbering any other funds or assets of the Issuer. b. Agreements Binding. All agreements, covenants, and obligations of the Issuer contained in this Resolution and in the above-referenced documents shall be deemed to be the agreements, covenants, and obligations of the Issuer to the full extent authorized or permitted by law, and all such agreements, covenants, and obligations shall be binding on the Issuer and enforceable in accordance with their terms. No agreement, covenant, or obligation contained in this Resolution or in the above-referenced documents shall be deemed to be an agreement, covenant, or obligation of any member of the Council, or of any officer, employee, or agent of the Issuer in that person's individual capacity. Neither the members of the Council, nor any officer executing the Notes, shall be liable personally on the Notes or be subject to any personal liability or accountability by reason of the issuance of the Notes. c. Rights Conferred. Nothing in this Resolution or in the above-referenced documents is intended or shall be construed to confer upon any person (other than as provided in the Notes, the Loan Agreement, the Pledge Agreement, and the other agreements, instruments, and documents hereby approved) any right, remedy, or claim, legal or equitable, under and by reason of this Resolution or any provision of this Resolution. d. Nature of Security. 1. The Notes will be special limited obligations of the Issuer. 10 11. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Notes or the Documents or any other document referred to herein to the contrary, under the provisions ofthe Act the Notes may not be payable from or be a charge upon any funds of the Issuer other than the Bond Account and the revenues and proceeds pledged to the payment thereof, nor shall the Issuer be subject to any liability thereon, nor shall the Notes otherwise contribute or give rise to a pecuniary liability of the Issuer or any of the Issuer's officers, employees and agents. Accordingly, the Notes shall not be payable from or charged upon any funds other than the revenues pledged to the payment thereof, nor shall the Issuer be subject to any liability thereon. lll. No holder of the Notes shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the Issuer to pay the Notes or the interest thereon, or to enforce payment thereof against any property of the Issuer other than the revenues pledged under the Pledge Agreement; and the Notes shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any funds, assets or property of the Issuer, other than revenues under the Loan Agreement and sums held in the Bond Account; and the Notes shall not constitute a debt of the Issuer within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation of indebtedness. The Notes will not constitute an indebtedness, a pecuniary liability, a moral or general obligation or a loan of the credit of the Issuer or a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, against the Issuer's property, general credit or taxing powers. Section 12. Offering and Disclosure Materials. The Issuer has not participated in the preparation of or reviewed any offering or disclosure materials with respect to the offer and sale of the Notes and the Issuer makes no representations or warranties regarding the necessity, sufficiency, accuracy, fairness, completeness or adequacy of any disclosure with respect to such offer and sale. Section 13. Bank Oualified. In order to qualify the Notes as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" within the meaning of Section 265(b )(3) of the Code, the Issuer hereby makes the following factual statements and representations: a. based entirely upon representations of the Borrower and Bond Counsel, the Notes, when issued, will be qualified 501(c)(3) bonds under Section 145 of the Code; b. the Issuer hereby designates the Notes as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for purposes of Section 265(b )(3) of the Code; c. the reasonably anticipated amount of tax-exempt obligations (other than obligations described in clause (ii) of Section 265(b)(3)(C) of the Code) which have been or will ] 1 be issued by the Issuer (and all entities whose obligations will be aggregated with those of the Issuer) during the calendar year in which the Notes are issued are not expected to exceed $10,000,000; and d. not more than $10,000,000 of obligations issued by the Issuer during the calendar year in which the Notes are issued have been designated for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code. Section 14. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution shall be held or deemed to be or shall, in fact, be inoperative or unenforceable as applied in any particular case in any jurisdiction or jurisdictions or in all jurisdictions or- in all cases because it conflicts with any provisions of any constitution or statute or rule or public policy, or for any other reason, such circumstances shall not have the effect of rendering the provision in question inoperative or unenforceable in any other case or circumstance or of rendering any other provision or provisions herein contained invalid, inoperative, or unenforceable to any extent whatever. The invalidity of anyone or more phrases, sentences, clauses or paragraphs in this Resolution contained shall not affect the remaining portions of this Resolution or any part thereof. Section 15. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force from and after its approval. Adopted: September 2, 2003. Mayor ATTEST: City Administrator 12 The motion of the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by Council Member and, upon vote being taken, the following voted in favor thereof: the following voted against the same: the following were absent: whereupon, said Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, and approved and signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Administrator. M: \docsll 50901000000IROL\FM8685, WPD JOb 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 Administrator r FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Approve Spruce Street Corridor Area Master Plan DATE: September 2,2003 INTRODUCTION The Spruce Street Corridor Area Task Force, the City consultants (Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc.) and City staff members have completed their work on the Spruce Street Corridor Area Master Plan. The Master Plan is now ready for the City Council's final review and adoption. DISCUSSION In the late summer of 2002, the City was notified that it had been awarded a $40,000 grant from the Metropolitan Council for the creation of a Master Plan for the future development of a portion of Farmington that has become known as the Spruce Street Corridor Area. The area in question is located south of CSAH 50, west of Denmark Avenue, north of 220th Street and east of a future extension (from CSAH 50 to 220th Street) of Pilot Knob Road. Initial organizational work for the Master Plan process was conducted during the fall and early winter of 2002. A group of consultants was assembled to assist the City with the Master Plan (Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., planning and land use consultant; McComb Group, Ltd., marketing consultant; and Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, transportation and engineering consultant). A Task Force composed of residents, business owners, City and ISD 192 staff members, property owners and other interested parties was formed, in order to ensure public participation and input. A timetable (attached) was adopted for the Master Plan process. The schedule included Task Force meetings, joint City Council/Planning Commission meetings, an "open house," a public hearing before the Planning Commission, and numerous other opportunities for interested parties to participate in the process. This Memo will be accompanied by a copy of the final draft of the Spruce Street Corridor Area Master Plan, along with separate copies of the final draft of the related Retail and Residential Market Analysis (and Appendices) prepared by McComb Group, Inc. The Master Plan was reviewed and discussed by the Planning Commission at its last meeting on August 12,2003, at which time the Commission unanimously recommended that the Master Plan be approved and adopted by the City Council. Loren Gordon of Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. will be present at Tuesday night's City Council meeting to help address questions, if any, regarding the work that has been done on the Master Plan during the past seven months. If the City Council elects to approve the Master Plan on Tuesday night, City staff should be able to complete the three remaining tasks on the attached schedule in a timely fashion, and the City's engineering firm should also be able to remain on schedule with regard to its work on the AUAR (Alternative Urban Area-wide Review) for the Spruce Street Corridor Area. Properties located within the Spruce Street Corridor Area that currently have MUSA could potentially be ready for commercial development activity (i.e., grading, "groundbreaking," etc.) in the early spring of 2004 if the adoption of the Master Plan, the approval of required Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code revisions, and the adoption of the AUAR can be properly coordinated and completed. The likelihood of being able to do so will be enhanced by the continued cooperation of the affected property owners and other interested parties. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve and adopt the Spruce Street Corridor Area Master Plan. / Kevi 011 Community Development Director 2 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL OPPORTUNITY GRANT MASTER PLAN TIMETABLE TASK # TASK DESCRIPTION DATE(S) 0 Approve Contract with Hoisington Koegler Group February 3 1 Initial Meeting With Property Owners and Task Force Week of February 17 or Kick-Off Meeting February 24 2 Assemble Base Information Complete by March 10 3 Document Existing Conditions/Tour Site Complete by March 10 4 Initiate Market Analysis Complete by March 10 5 Conduct 2na Meeting With Property Owners March 27 (City Hall) 6 Conduct Workshop # 1 April 9 (Maint. Facility) 7A Conduct On-Site Planning Charrette - Information Session April 23 (City Hall) - 11 :00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. (Day 1 of 3) 7B Conduct On-Site Planning Charrette 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. April 25 (City Hall) (Day 2 of3) 8 Conduct Workshop #2 - 9:00 a.m. - Noon (Day 3 of3) April 26 (Maint. Fac.) 9 Review Concepts With City Council/Planning May 5, 8:00 p.m. Commission (City Hall) 10 Develop the Preferred Alternative as the Master Plan May 7 to June 24 11 Assess the Financial Feasibility of the Master Plan May 7 to June 24 12 City CouncillPlanning Commission Review of Master Plan July 16, 2003 13 Conduct Workshop #3 - Neighborhood Review July 31,2003 14 Deliver Final Report August 8, 2003 15 Public Hearing (at Planning Commission) on proposed August 12, 2003 Master Plan 16 City Council Review/Adoption of Master Plan* August 18,2003* 17 Public Hearing (at Planning Commission) on proposed September 9,2003 Comprehensive Guide Plan amendments and Zoning CodelMap revisions 18 City Council Review/Adoption of proposed September 15, 2003 Comprehensive Guide Plan amendments and Zoning CodelMap revisions 19 City Council lifts Moratorium October 6, 2003 *(Postponed to September 2, 2003) /O~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, COWlcilmembers and Interim City Administrator ~ FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Approve Proposed MUSA Committee Structure DATE: September 2, 2003 DISCUSSION At its meeting on June 16, 2003, the City Council authorized City staff to begin taking steps to reconvene a Farmington MUSA Review Committee. At a joint City Council/City staff workshop on July 28,2003, the City Council agreed that the Planning Commission should discuss the composition of the committee, talk about the criteria used in the last MUSA review process, and discuss a timetable and process for the upcoming review. At its meeting on August 12, 2003, the Planning Commission discussed the composition of the MUSA Review Committee. When the City went through the last MUSA review process in 2000- 2001, the MUSA Review Committee consisted of the Mayor, the Planning Commission Chair, the Parks and Recreation Commission Chair, the Community Development Director, and a school board member from ISD 192. When the Planning Commission discussed this topic on August 12,2003, the Commission indicated its belief that the 2003-2004 MUSA review process will probably be more complicated and more critical than the 2000-2001 MUSA process, due to factors such as ever- increasing development pressures and their impact( s) on local and regional transportation systems, City services, park and recreation facilities, and the Farmington-area school system. The Planning Commission believes that an expansion of the membership roster for the MUSA Review Committee would better enable the Committee to handle its important and time-consuming duties. The Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the composition of the MUSA Review Committee was as follows: Ci A ointed Officials Parks & Recreation Pro osed Re resentatives City Council members (2) City StaffMernbers (2) OR City Staff Member (1) and Ci Consultant (1) ISD 192 Board Mernber (1) ISD 192 Staff Member (1) Plannin Commission members (2) Parks & Recreation Commission member (1) City Parks & Recreation staff member (1) "Constituent Grou " City Elected Officials City Staff and/or Consultants ISD 192 ISD 192 Board of Directors ISD 192 Superintendent Plannin Commission Parks & Recreation Commission Interim City Administrator One of the incidental advantages of the recommended Committee composition is the built-in "redundancy" - that is, the fact that there would be two representatives from each constituent group instead of just one. If one member of a constituent group missed a Committee meeting, that group's interests could still be represented by the other member of that group. The recommended Committee structure also has a better "mix" of City and ISD 192 elected officials, appointed officials, and City and ISD 192 staff members. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the MUSA Review Committee structure that was recommended by the Planning Commissi n at its meeti 0 August 12, 2003. 2 /od City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farminlrton.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, Interim City Administrator ~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P .E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Appoint Council Liaison - Water System Vulnerability Assessment DATE: September 2, 2003 INTRODUCTION The V.S Environmental Protection Agency requires the City of Farmington to perform a Vulnerability Assessment of the water system. This assessment is required to be completed by June of 2004. DISCUSSION The Water Board is ready to commence with the Vulnerability Assessment. The Water Board feels that it would be desirable to have a City Council liaison for the project. The liaison would offer input from a Council perspective and report back to the Council regarding the project process, status and outcomes. The Water Board will have a project kick-off workshop on September 22, at 5:00 p.m. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REOUESTED Appoint a Council member to be the liaison to the Vulnerability Assessment Project. Respectfully Submitted, ~/Vl~ Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file /0 e.. City of Farmington 325 Oak Sueet, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us FROM: Mayor and Councilmembers Daniel M. Siebenaler, _~/ Interim City Administrator~ TO: SUBJECT: Discussion of workshops preceding City Council meetings DATE: September 2, 2003 INTRODUCTION At the August 4th, 2003 City Council meeting the subject of conducting workshops immediately prior to regular City Council meetings was raised. Council agreed to take the idea under advisement and place it on the agenda for August 18, 2003 for further discussion. Any workshop held by the City Council would be a public meeting and notice would be published in compliance with Minnesota State law. DISCUSSION During it's discussion of this issue Council is encouraged to consider both the benefits and pitfalls of such workshops. In addition Council should consider and define guidelines for the conduct of the workshop, that is, "What topics will be open for Council discussion? What rules or policies will Council abide by? And, What are the desired outcomes of the workshops? ACTION REQUESTED Discuss the concept of City Council Workshops prior to regular City Council meetings and provide staff direction. aniel M. Siebenaler Interim City Administrator / O? q..., City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us FROM: Mayor, City Council, Interim City Administrator ~ Robin Roland, Finance Director TO: SUBJECT: Approval of Preliminary 2004 Tax Levy DATE: September 2, 2003 INTRODUCTION State statute requires a preliminary tax levy to be certified to the County by September 15, 2003. Once the proposed tax levy is adopted, the City Council may lower the levy, but cannot increase it. DISCUSSION AND BUDGET IMPACT The City Council was presented a copy of the Preliminary 2004 Budget on August 18, 2003. The preliminary tax levy is part of that proposed budget. The Tax Levy proposed as part of the budget is $4,651,306 and includes $1,106,844 for debt service and $55,000 for the Fire levy. The State Department of Revenue has notified the City that our Levy Limit for pay 2004 is $4,651,306. The proposed tax levy therefore, is at the City's statutory levy limit. As part of the State's budget balancing, Local Government Aid (LGA) was reduced to the City of Farmington in 2003 and eliminated for 2004. This resulted in a loss of $593,986 in revenue for 2004. Due to strict levy limits implemented as part of the same budget balancing action, the City is not able to levy back for anything more than 60% of the lost aid. There were no factors in the levy formula for growth in households or inflation. So, effectively, the City's General Fund budget for 2004 will run on the same amount of revenue as it collected in 2002 - with two years of growth in between - and no ability to increase tax collections to pay for that growth. As mentioned before, the preliminary levy is the maximum levy which Council could adopt for 2004. The final levy, which will be adopted in December, may be less than the preliminary but it may not be more. A Council budget workshop is scheduled for October 1, 2003 to discuss the proposed 2004 budget in detail. The final levy and budget will be discussed at the Truth in Taxation hearing. ACTION REOUIRED Adopt the attached resolution, certifying the 2004 Preliminary Tax Levy to Dakota County and establishing December 1, 2003 at 7:00 P.M. as the City of Farmington's Truth in Taxation hearing for Tax Levy collectible 2004. ;ZA~~ / Robin ROlan~ Finance Director RESOLUTION NO. R -03 APPROVING PROPOSED 2003 TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2004 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota was held in the Civic Center of said City on the 2nd day of September 2003 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes currently in force require certification of the proposed tax levy to the Dakota County Auditor on or before September 15,2003; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, is in receipt of the proposed 2004 revenue and expenditure budget; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Farmington, That the following sums of money be levied in 2003, collectible in 2004, upon the taxable property in said City of Farmington for the following purposes: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a Truth in Taxation public hearing will be held on Monday, December 1, 2003 at 7 :00 P.M. This resolution adopted by recorded vote ofthe Farmington City Council in open session on the 2nd day of September 2003. Mayor Attested to the _ day of 2003. Interim City Administrator 2004 BUDGET Summary of Debt Service Levy to be Attached and Become part of Resolution Number -03 Fund Title Levv Amount Improvement Bonds of 1992B Improvement Bonds of 1993A Improvement Bonds of 1994A Wastewater Treatment Bonds 1995 Public Project Revenue Bonds 2001A Certificates of Indebtedness 1999 Certificates of Indebtedness 2000 $ 55,496 94,178 78,322 60,000 456,844 100,000 260.000 Total $1,106,844