HomeMy WebLinkAbout03.25.98 Work Session Packet
;.
I.
II.
11 III.
(~ IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP
MUNICIPAL CONTROL OF INFRASTRUCTURE
City of Farmington
City Council Chambers
March 25, 1998 at 6:30 p.m.
Call to Order
Approve Council Workshop Agenda
Review of Municipal Control Policy
Discuss and Review Conflict of Interest Issues
Discuss Development Community Issues and Concerns
Council Discussion and Review
Conclusion - Policy Direction
VIII. Adjourn
}<, -r't n s-bu'YI
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Municipal Control ofInfrastructure-
Builders Association Proposal
Conflict of Interest Legal Opinion
DATE: March 25, 1998
INTRODUCTION
The Builders Association of the Twin Cities (BA TC) has submitted a proposal regarding a
potential fourth option to be incorporated in the proposed Municipal Control of Public
Infrastructure policy now before Council.
Questions have been raised by Mayor Ristow regarding any potential conflicts of interest by Lee
Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer relative to his status as a Bonestroo, Rosene &
Anderlik (BRA) employee and his involvement in this policy.
In addition, others questions have emerged relative to whether an elected official having a
business relationship with a private developer whom would ultimately be affected by this policy
should participate in the municipal control policy. This type of situation also warrants legal
review in terms of a potential conflict of interest for the elected official with regard to
participating and voting on the policy's possible adoption.
DISCUSSION
Executive Summary
The City Council is considering the adoption of a new policy that allows the City to gain control
over the design of public infrastructure that is constructed within private developments. This
policy, as expressed, is driven by the fact that the City's long-term interests, specifically those of
City taxpayers, need to be considered first, and ultimately safeguarded by ensuring that the
design and construction of infrastructure is properly managed and reviewed.
Council has already held one workshop to review issues relative to a suggested need for a new
approach to private development, and staff met with BA TC representatives on February 17th and
March 6th to consider issues and address questions raised by BA TC on the City's proposed
policy. In response, BATC has submitted a proposal regarding a fourth, and [their] preferred
option under the City's proposed' new policy.
Citlj of Farmint)ton 325 Oak Street · Farmington, MN 55024 · (612) 463.7111 · Fax (612) 463.2591
Mayor and Council Members
Municipal Control of Infrastructure Workshop
Page 2 of 4
In analyzing the BA TC proposal, it was important to identify the key purpose and objectives of
the City's proposed policy in attempting to assess whether the BA TC proposal meets the stated
concerns and objectives of the City.
Key City Policy Purpose and Objectives
.:. Policy Purpose: To minimize the long-term economic risks and costs to City taxpayers
associated with infrastructure maintenance costs due to deficient designs, inadequate
facilities and premature repair and/or replacement of public improvements installed in private
developments.
. Policy Objective. To establish the City as the primary client being served by an engineering
firm as it relates to the proper design of public infrastructure within private developments.
. Policy Objective. To minimize the amount of time spent educating private engineering firms
regarding City design and construction standards and debating City requirements with
developers and their private engineers.
. Policy Objective. To ensure maximum control by the City of system components that will
ultimately be owned and operated by the City in perpetuity.
. Policy Objective. To ensure timely construction and completion of City facilities once
approved by the City.
. Policy Objective. To ensure that record plans are properly prepared and filed.
In terms of these standards, how does the BA TC proposal measure up to these stated policy
objectives? With due respect to BA TC and the developers they represent, the following points
summarize staffs findings.
1. The BA TC proposal is a continuation of the current "status quo" development process by
allowing the developer to retain his/her own private engineer to design public infrastructure.
2. Under the BA TC option, the City would still be conducting third party reviews on
engineering plans prepared by private engineering firms for Developers as their primary
client. This is essentially no different under current development processes.
3. The BATC proposal would still require the City to educate Developer's engineers on a
variety of City ordinances, standards and procedures. This could range from a minimum of
five to ten different engineering firms every construction season.
4. City staff would not have the ability to influence the initial design, hence "build in quality",
of the public infrastructure, and would essentially require the City to depend on review and
inspection to ensure compliance with City standards. Again, the City would have to depend
on "reviewing and inspecting" quality in to the project as opposed to "designing" quality in at
beginning stages of project development.
5. As private engineering firms would continue to work for private developers, liability issues
on problem designs would have to be addressed through the developer. In the long term, the
City would have little recourse over deficient or defective infrastructure designs.
Mayor and Council Members
Municipal Control of Infrastructure Workshop
Page 3 of4
Points of Agreement/Compromise to Date
1) Developer would be offered the choice of selecting their own contractor, subject to
experience-related criteria, to construct improvements, with the City in the position of
approving contractor payments.
2) The Developer will be offered the choice of selecting one of three engineering firms on City
retainer to prepare the design of the improvements. If no choice is expressed by the
Developer, firms will be awarded work on a rotating basis by the City Engineer.
3) Developers will be treated as partners in evaluating the performance of the engineering firms
on City retainer.
Potential Conflict of Interest Issues - Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Questions raised by the Mayor regarding potential conflicts of interest by Mr. Mann have been
discussed with the City Attorney. Several key points relative to a potential conflict of interest are
addressed by the attached legal opinion from Joel Jamnik, City Attorney. They include the
following:
1) The involvement by the City Engineer in Municipal Control policy development. According
to the City Attorney, there is no improper, unlawful or illegal conflict of interest. Mr. Mann's
participation is appropriate as it relates to recommending better methods for conducting City
business in the engineering area. In these terms, any person may have a potential conflict as it
relates to their respective position with the City. It should be emphasized that the decision to
move this policy forward was made by the entire management team, and approved by the
City Administrator. Mr. Mann's involvement in policy development is crucial to its long-term
success as both an expert in the field and a City department head.
2) The initial selection of three firms to be retained by the City. In terms of avoiding any
perception of a conflict of interest, Lee Mann will be excluded from this process entirely.
The process of selection would be made by the remaining members of the City's Senior
Project Team consisting of the Director of Community Development, Finance Director, and
City Administrator. In addition, a City Engineer from a neighboring community would be
selected to participate in the process to advise our group in identifying three qualified firms.
3) The awarding of design work to City retained engineering firms. To address any concerns in
this area, the City would offer the Developer first choice in selecting one of the three firms
retained by the City. If no choice is expressed by the Developer, the City Engineer would
award the work on a rotating basis or by lot as suggested by the City Attorney.
4) The City Engineer overseeing the performance of retained engineering firms. In terms of any
perceived unfairness by the City Engineer over performance related issues with the retained
engineering firms, any problems would be documented and submitted to the Senior Project
Team for review and action. Should a firm not meet City performance standards, a
recommendation by the City Administrator would be forwarded to the City Council to
terminate services with the affected firm. This would allow the City Council to make the
final decision subject to documented findings on record with the City.
Mayor and Council Members
Municipal Control of Infrastructure Workshop
Page 4 of 4
Potential Conflict of Interest Issues - Elected Official
During this same discussion, other questions were raised regarding whether an elected official's
financial arrangement with a developer who would be affected by the policy should participate in
policy discussions and/or vote on the policy's adoption.
As the situation currently exists, the elected official in question has a business arrangement with
a private developer to sell property for development-related purposes. As it is unknown, and
unnecessary to know the full details of this arrangement, it is more important to note the fact that
a business relationship does exist between a potentially affected developer under this policy and
an elected official.
The City Attorney has indicated that a potential conflict of interest would exist when an elected
official actively owns property and would, in all likelihood, personally benefit from proposed
development activity. With respect to the elected official's formal involvement in a policy that
would ultimately affect the developer in which the elected official has a personal interest in, it is
likely that a potential conflict of interest exists. However, as indicated by the City Attorney, the
decision remains with the elected official subject, of course, to outside public scrutiny and/or a
court of law.
ACTION REQUESTED
Council discussion regarding the proposed adoption of the Municipal Control of Public
Infrastructure policy. The outcome of this Council Workshop will determine whether the policy
should be forwarded to the April 6, 1998 Council Meeting for adoption.
i!Respectfut~tted'
I F. Erar
ity Administrator
Cc: Builders Association of the Twin Cities
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
Attorneys at Law
To:
John Erar, City Administrator
From:
Joel Jamnik, City Attorney
Subject:
Conflicts of Interest and
Municipal Control of
Infrastructure Policy
Date:
March 25, 1998
INTRODUCTION
You have asked me to address certain questions regarding any potential
conflicts of interest by Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
relative to his status as a Bonestroo, Rosene & Anderlik (BRA) employee and his
invol vement in the above-referenced policy. In addition, other questions have
been raised regarding possible conflicts of interest for Council members
regarding this issue.
DISCUSSION
Potential Conflict of Interest Issues - Director of Public Works/City Engineer
You asked me to review possible conflicts issues with regard to the city
engineer's involvement in 1) policy development; 2)selection of qualified
engineering firms for design; 3) the selection of a design engineer for a
particular project, and 4) reviewing the performance of the design firms.
Conflict of Interest issues are some of the most difficult to address. Part of
the difficulty is due to ambiguous or poorly drafted laws, and part of the
difficulty is certainly due to the infinite permutations of particular fact
situations present in our public and private lives. But there is a third
dimension as well, and that is that while laws and rules can establish
standards of conduct, every individual has their own personal code of ethics by
which they judge their own and others conduct. Frequently, an action can
strike someone as totally inappropriate or improper and yet be totally legal.
Conversely, the law commonly prohibits conduct which some or many view as
perfectly acceptable. These aspects of the conflict of interest issue are
addressed in more detail in the League of Minnesota Cities information memo on
the subject.
This memo will confine itself to a legal analysis of the conflict of interest
rules applicable to the involvement of city staff, consultants, and elected
officials in reviewing and perhaps modifying city policies and practices
regarding the design and construction of public infrastructure in new
developments.
A potential conflict of interest exists anytime an individual's personal
interest is involved in an official action. The state's statutory and common
law rules attempt to establish standards of conduct in situations where the
John Erar, City Administrator
March 25, 1998
Page 2 of 4
public official's personal interest is so particular and distinct from the
public interest that the public official can not be expected to represent the
public interest fairly in the public matter.
In non-contract situations, such as zoning decisions and special assessment
matters, there are no statutory rules, only common-law or case-law decisions.
The general rule adopted by Minnesota courts is that any official who has a
personal financial interest in an official action that may conflict with the
public interest generally is disqualified form participating in the action.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has adopted a five-part test to determine if there
is a disqualifying interest in these situations: the nature of the decision;
the nature of the financial interest; the number of interested officials; the
need, if any, for the interested officials to make the decision, and; other
means available, if any, such as an opportunity for review of the decision,
that serve to insure that the officials will not act arbitrarily to further
their selfish interests. If there is a disqualifying interest, the affected
official should not participate in the deliberations or actions, however, there
is no clear penalty or punishment and courts have struggled to find an
effective remedy for improper involvement.
In contract situations, state law specifies that "no member of a statutory city
council may be directly or indirectly interested in any contract that the
council makes." (M.S. 412.311) Another statute, M.S. 471.87, establishes a
different standard, forbidding any "public official who is authorized to take
part in any manner in the making of a sale, lease, or contract to voluntarily
have a personal financial interest in the transaction or to personally benefit
financially from it." In both cases, the individual alleged to have violated
these laws may be prosecuted for a gross misdemeanor.
The application of the common law and the statutes to Mayors and Council
members is clear. Chapter 412 by its definition does not apply to other than
elected city officials.
The Chapter 471 conflict provision applies to "public officials," a term which
certainly includes elected officials but which unfortunately for our purposes
is not defined by the statute. Several city charters have addressed this
ambiguity by specifically and clearly extending the prohibition to any city
official or employee. Similarly, some charter provisions prohibit any employee
or official from entering into any contract with the city, not just those which
the official is authorized to take part in making.
The Attorney General has recently begun dealing with this question by analyzing
the "authorized to take part in any manner in making" phrase in the law. In
one opinion, the Attorney General referenced a California case where
preliminary negotiations, compromises, reasoning, planning, drawing of plans,
etc. were the focus of the alleged conflict, so the law may extend beyond the
council, but how far is uncertain.
These form the basic legal rules for evaluating our conflict of interest
questions involving the City engineer's involvement in 1) policy development;
2) selection of qualified engineering firms for design; 3) the selection of a
design engineer for a particular project, and; 4) reviewing the performance of
the design firms.
1) Policy development. Assuming the engineer is covered by the conflict of
interest laws, and this assumption can not be cavalierly assumed, the policy
development issue is best analyzed using the non-contract, five-factor test
John Erar, City Administrator
March 25, 1998
Page 3 of 4
established by the Supreme Court, which again is the nature of the decision;
the nature of the financial interest; the number of interested officials; the
need, if any, for the interested officials to make the decision, and; other
means available, if any, such as an opportunity for review of the decision,
that serve to insure that the officials will not act arbitrarily to further
their selfish interests. It is my conclusion that the City Engineer does not
have a disqualifying interest in discussing policy development issues,
fashioning alternatives or developing procedures for implementing the option
selected by the City Council. The nature of the issue makes an engineering
background essential to adequately researching and analyzing the possible
alternatives, there is no financial interest in performing the analysis of the
options, no "decision" needs to be made by the engineer, and the management
team, administrator and council are all involved in reviewing the options and
the council ultimately will select and fashion the option which they determine
is best for the city.
2) Selection of qualified engineering firms for design. While selection as an
eligible or qualified firm mayor may not immediately involve a contract, it is
a necessary precursor to providing engineering services. In this area, there
could be a clear financial benefit to the Bonestroo firm if they are selected
as one of the eligible design firms. Consequently, the Engineer should have
limited involvement, if any, in the selection process, beyond assisting the
management or project team in the preparation of the request for proposals.
3) The awarding of design work to City retained engineering firms. This
selection process again involves determining direct financial benefits and the
City Engineer should not be involved in assigning or selecting firms if the
Bonestroo firm is selected as one of the qualified design firms. Selection by
lots or on a rotating basis are two alternatives to explore, as is allowing the
developer to choose which design firm they want to use.
4) Evaluating the performance of retained engineering firms. This is probably
the most problematic of the four particular issues in that the City Engineer
will be in the best position to review and analyze the performance of the firms
and the quality of their projects in relation to other firms and projects
within the city. If a non-contract analysis is used, one of the ways to shield
the process from a conflicts allegation is to provide a review of the review
process. Similar to special assessment cases where the district courts are
available to review allegations of conflicts, there should be a process
established where any problems would be documented and submitted to the Senior
Project Team or an outside review panel for possible recommendations to the
City Council. This particular aspect of the options, including the currently
used option of developer selected design firms and contractors, needs
refinement.
Throughout the analysis of the Engineer's involvement in this issue, one factor
has overriding weight: the City Council will make the final decision. That
factor helps to heal any possible conflicts claims levied against the engineer.
With regard to the possible conflicts of City Council members, that strength
becomes a decided weakness.
Potential Conflict of Interest Issues - Elected Official
As stated previously, as the ultimate decision-makers within the community,
Council members are clearly the focus for the state's conflict of interest
laws. An elected official who owns developable property or who is a developer
John Erar, City Administrator
March 25, 1998
Page 4 of 4
has a potential conflict of interest. Unlike the city engineer whose
involvement with the policy development is purely preliminary, the council will
deliberate and decide which option will be adopted by the City. The fi ve-
factor test is the same, but the result is likely different.
The nature of the decision is final and significant, the nature of the
financial interest may also be significant given individual circumstances; the
number of interested officials may be relevant if only one or two Council
members have unique personal financial interests; the need, if any, for the
interested officials to make the decision may be similarly affected if only one
or two Council members are affected, and the decision is not readily subject to
further review by other means that serve to insure that the officials will not
act arbitrarily to further their own interests.
In several cases, Council members with remote, speculative business connections
were found not to be disqualified. In the development setting, if a Council
member owned an interest in the family farm, his or her possible involvement in
an eventual development may be so remote as to not constitute a conflict.
CONCLUSION
However, if the Council member is an active developer, or personally benefits
from development activity, or is an officer or shareholder of an engineering
firm, he or she probably has such a direct and substantial financial
involvement in the decisions pending before the Council that he or she should
not participate in the council deliberations or actions on the infrastructure
policy.
The initial decision of whether a potential conflict of interest exists in
terms of disqualifying the elected official remains with the elected official,
reviewable, of course, by a court of law.
Respectfully submitted,
QoJ~
Joel Jamnik ~td~
City Attorney
CITY OF FARMINGTON
MUNICIPAL CONTROL OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE MEETING
CITY POLICY SUMMARY SHEET
February 17, 1998
1. WHY IS THE CITY CONSIDERING THIS POLICY?
The City of Farmington has been developing very rapidly over the last several years. Over this
period of time, the City Council and staff has become very concerned over the quality of the
infrastructure constructed within private developments. Specifically, how should the City attempt
to reconcile the fact that the long-term financial interests of the City will be significantly impacted
by sub-standard design and construction of the public infrastructure.
This policy is driven by the fact that the City's long-term interests, specifically those of City
taxpayers, need to be considered first and safeguarded by ensuring that the design and construction
of infrastructure is properly managed.
2. WHAT CHANGES IN THIS POLICY WILL AFFECT ME, THE DEVELOPER, THE
MOST?
The key element of this policy emphasizes that quality cannot be "reviewed in" nor "inspected in"
after construction of the infrastructure takes place. The City must have the opportunity to influence
this quality concern at the design origination stage of the infrastructure. The singular effect of this
policy on developers will be to place the responsibility and accountability for properly designed
and constructed infrastructure on the City.
As the eventual owner and caretaker of these improvements, it is only logical and prudent that the
City interests be considered at the primary stages of project development.
Currently, City staff spends an enormous amount of time reviewing the construction plans after the
fact. With the City becoming involved at the initial project stages, a significant amount of time can
be saved through the elimination of time-consuming meetings to review developer designed
construction plans.
In terms of the new Policy, the City becomes the primary client for the engineering firms
completing the design work and the direct client for contractors constructing the improvements
(under Options 1 and 2).
3. WILL DEVELOPER INTERESTS BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY UNDER THIS
POLICY?
No. In fact, developer interests regarding time frames, quality control, cost and ensuring that time
lines will be met will be specifically emphasized and strictly enforced under this policy. The City
will take what ever steps nece.ssary to ensure timely completion of the design of supporting
infrastructure by engineering firms awarded the project and contractors constructing the
improvements.
4. HOW WILL THE CITY AWARD PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN PROJECTS
WITHIN PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS?
The award process under this policy will be based on an RFP process administered by the City. The
RFP process will be open to any engineering firm with the capability and capacity to meet City
needs in the areas of quality, responsiveness and competence. A minimum of three to four
engineering firms will be retained by the City and awarded design work on a rotating basis. No one
firm will have the capacity to monopolize the process of infrastructure design.
The City Engineering Division will retain the specific right of inspecting the public improvements.
This will not change under the new policy.
5. WILL THIS CHANGE SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT MY DEVELOPMENT COSTS?
NO. If developers are currently designing and constructing public infrastructure to City specified
standards, then there should be no cost difference in these areas. Developer margins should remain
unaffected, and should consequently improve due to a reduction in the amount of City engineering
review time currently needed for developer designed construction plans.
In addition, if Option 1 or 2 is chosen, all contractors must publicly bid on the work ensuring that
the lowest possible costs are obtained while maintaining high standards of construction quality.
6. HOW SUCCESSFUL HAS THIS NEW PROCESS BEEN IN OTHER METROPOLITAN
AREA CITIES?
City staff has contacted other cities who are using this type of the process, and have received
extremely positive comments. The cities of Rosemount, Apple Valley, Woodbury, Maple Grove
and Cottage Grove are very satisfied. Process issues are immediately responded to by the Cities to
ensure timely resolution of any developer concerns.
Developers within these communities continue to develop at a very fast pace, with very few, if any,
negative comments or complaints on the public record. One such letter from Arcon Development,
signed by representatives from Orrin Thompson Homes, Inc., Rottlund Homes, Inc., Pulte
Homes, Inc. and Arcon Development, Inc., indicates a high level of satisfaction with this
process. The following is an excerpt from that letter:
"The City [Woodbury] presently allows developers meeting certain criteria to construct
utilities using our own contractors. This is done using the City's engineers for design,
staking and inspection, thereby addressing the City's need for accountability and quality
control. We have enjoyed this provision as it has saved us time at very crucial periods
of the year. It has also allowed us to use our own contractors rather than being stuck
with low bidder." (Dated: March 11, 1997)
It should be noted that the City of Farmington's policy provides three options, with one option
allowing the developer to construct the improvements. The City would be receptive to this same
option along similar lines.
March 18, 1998
MAR 2 0 1998
Mayor Jerry Ristow
Members of the City Council
Mr. John Erar, City Administrator
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024-1358
Dear Mayor Ristow, Members of the Council, and Mr. Erar,
The Builders Association of the Twin Cities is a professional trade association representing
more than 1,200 member firms involved in all phases of the home-building and remodeling
industries and is dedicated to providing a diverse selection of quality and affordable
housing to the Twin Cities area.
To meet the goal of providing quality workmanship at all levels of design and construction,
The Builders Association of the Twin Cities (BA TC) works throughout the metropolitan
region to bring the highest possible industry standards for residential development and
building to each community. The city of Farmington is a critical part of the region's
opportunity for managed growth into the next century.
Attached is a specific proposal for conducting residential and building development in
Farmington. We believe our proposal provides for implementation of uncompromised
community standards and solid business practices that will benefit the city for years to
come. We believe that the free market's long term interest is best supported by meeting
community based standards and expectations.
This proposal will:
· Increase the quality of the constructed project by using a check-and-balance system that
results from a private/public partnership,
· Provide a clear, step-by-step review process that benefits the City and is funded by the
the developers,
· Provide a funding mechanism for adequate staff (or consultant) to review submitted plans
that would cover all costs expended by the City,
· Keep complete control of the project's design and construction within the hands of the
City,
· Reduce financial risk to the City by placing it on the Developer,
· Provide the City with maximum bonding capacity for other public need,
· Reduce the City's liability during and after construction.
2960 Centre Pointe Drive
Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1122
1ft
PcIrade of
"Olnes~
1948.1998
Celebrating the 50th ~ear
of the Parade of HomesS'''!
612/697-1954
Fax 6 I 2/697-7599
Parade Fax 6 I 2/697-7575
We appreciate the city of Farmington's professional approach to setting design and
installation standards that will benefit the city now and into the future. The development
community regards this quality control as a critical part of the private/public partnership that
will insure the shared goal for quality workmanship in Farmington.
We look forward to discussing our proposal with you at the workshop on Wednesday,
March 25, 1998.
Sincerely,
GoL~
~J
Gary Laurent, Public Policy Chairperson
Public Policy Chairperson
Karen Christofferson,
Director of Public Policy
Member of BA TC/Farmington Task Force attached
cc:
Farmington city staff
Members of the BA TC Public Policy Committee
PROPOSAL FOR PREFERRED OPTION
Presented by the BA TClFarmington Task Force
March 25, 1998
This proposal asks for developer design of infrastructure as a fourth and preferred option
for residential development based on builder and developer experience in the city of
Farmington.
1. Quality control of design, installation and maintenance of infrastructure must begin with
the people providing the development service to the city:
· That provider is the developer
· The developer takes full financial risk and liability for the infrastructure from
design to final installation
· The city reviews plans and inspects installation based on the city's design
standards thus gaining full control over quality
· The public infrastructure, at no cost to the city, is turned over to the city (the
developer is also paying for the city review and inspection process)
· The city receives privately paid infrastructure leaving public bonding authority
available to the city for current and future city wide projects.
2. The city benefits from the "Checks-and-Balances" the developers engineer brings to the
city's engineering review and inspection process. The added engineering expertise of
the private engineer brings continuity, experience and expertise the city can only
benefit from.
3. The developers engineer is already doing this work beginning with the concept plan,
followed by the preliminary plan, the final plan for development, and the related
grading plan for installation. It is not cost effective to add another design layer to work
already completed. It is prudent for the city to review design plans throughout the three
design stages to insure compliance with the city's design and installation standards.
The most important function of the engineer during a project is the continuity from
beginning to end.
4. This fourth option is the preferred option for residential development in Farmington
except:
· When city staff determined that the developer or the developers engineer has not
performed up to the expectations of senior city management. If the City staff
recommendation for another option is not acceptable to the developer, the Mayor
and Council will resolve the dispute after review and the city's senior
management team makes recommendations.
· When the developer requests to have the project publicly designed and
constructed to extenuating circumstances.
5. The city will control infrastructure development through:
· Development and enforcement of their design standards;
· Comprehensive review program from concept to final design;
· Approval of payments to contractors;
· Through clear and well written developer agreements, and
· Through the cities ability to ultimately reject a project that does not meet
Farmington's standards.
To meet these strict control guidelines, the developer must have the fullest opportunity to
use all of the design tools possible to be efficient and cost-effective in service to the city and
future consumers and Farmington residents.
.
.
.
l:'I)
l:'I)
~
CJ
Q
I.
~
~
-=
~
lU
..s
o
...
c
o
'';:
::s
'0
en
C
.~
I
C
.~
CIS
lU
-0
'S;
e
Q.
-
-
.~
~
en
en
lU
e
Q.
~CO
C
'C
~
~Q.
CIS
o
.5
...
lU
C
lU
>.
...
'0
lU
..c
...
-0
~
en
...
lU
Q.
o
"i)
>
lU
-0
~
...
~
...
's
J:l
::s
en .
lU..c
~~
-~ e
~ co
8. ~en
o C
... 0
Q.Oh
... C
::S._
~ E
o CIS
t::~
CIS CIS
Q.lU
CIS ...
::s
en ...
<cE
co
.5
...
lU
lU
;:?;
...
e-
o
c
o
U
...
lU
8-
"i)
>
lU
~
...
u
---.
co
as
c ~ !!
0- C
::1'-
:l 0 III
c_::I
u=en
='_ c:
= 8. 8
00=
(.) - OJ)
::: = 'iij
u CIS u
._ "S. "0
> - ~
l!:! Q. ~e
t::: 8 ::I
CIS c: tj
ci58S:
i
c.....
o c
:::,S
u,:l..,
.- u
> >
~'iij
c
"'utt:
g,~ ~
.9 a Cf}
~S..s
u 0 .-
QU ~
]
---.
5 13
.- . ~ =
U) - =
.~'O 0
e$U
88~
coi 5
J...>.
o~
~,o!:;
~~E
99'(;
-t::>
~8.~
euo.
~l:i:<
i
-
::I
C 0
0="0
en._ ~
-= 8.1::
59-8
=as
8- OJ)
Q.c:"
::: ?->'::I ~
.u (ij S c;
~.~ ; ~
l:::'- U':
CIS 13 ::I -
ii3 Q...~ ~
i
:l
'5 -
.r:>S
G5 Q."B ~
... C 5 t
8.~'ti E
.2 'S "0 f:
~:E gf'E
e.- ~
QQ.~f:
,
!
'0
';':9
'~8
8~
~s
... 1;-
~~
~E
0-
- ~
t:: 0
o ...
Q.8;
~<
i
9
~.~
CIS
c:-
o e
:l en
C:~:l
u ~ =
~._ u
8==
o.g
::: -=::s
'~'8, [
es"B
~atS
-_ u
tI) Q."o
i
--+
-a
=
I:: OJ):l
:l.~ 5
.- ::I e
S en u
.r:>-!:l
G5 = .
U ::I
...S[
g.g"B
13"0=
i)c;31::
Q_ U
Q."o
c::::::I
~
fS
0=1
~
8
B
&
~
tJ
'e'
~
i
fS
@
I
{5
~
...
o
gi,
'2 en
8~
8'S c
.5 ~.5l
gf=tj
~8~
"0"0=
a a 8
s~"O
0.....;
gtl)u
= c"3
8u"B~
~..c:: .-
~en";:J (.) .~
....... Q')-
u:::u:o
go = .5 'iij
_ ~- c
u 'r' - 8.
i)uSen
Q as e
i
--+
~
.' "::~:::.{
. ;:1
~)
;>-~
BUll.DERS ASSOCIATION™
OF THE TWIN CITIES
BATC/Farmington Task Force
Jim Allen - Taylor Development
Tom Bisch - Heritage Development
Mike Gair - MFRA
Tim Giles - TC Construction
Peter Gualtieri - Genstar Land Compnay
Ron Hardy - Sienna Corporation
Mike Heinzerling - Edina Realty - Farmington
Warren Israelson - Progress Land Company
Dwight Jelle - Westwood Professional Services
Steve Juetten - Genstar Land Company
Mike McAllister -
Peter Molinaro - Pioneer Engineering
J ames Osberg - James R. Hill, Inc.
Rick Packer - Arcon Development
Richard Palmiter - Rottlund Homes
Stephan Ryan - Lyman Development
Rick Sathre - Sathre Bergquist
Jim Stanton - Shamrock Development
Jim Sturm - James R. Hill, Inc.
Paul Thomas - Pioneer Engineering
Fritz Van Nest - Builders Development
Larry Wenzel - Wenzel Plumbing and Heating
Dan Westergren, - Westergren & Assoc.
Rick Wright - Progress Land Company
2960 Centre Poince Drive
Roseville, Minnesota 55113- 1122
It
~g~
"...",.
Celebrating the 50th year
of the Parade of HomesSl>t!
612/697-1954
Fax 612/697-7599
Parade Fax 612/697-7575