HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.08.23 Parks and Rec Packet
Meeng Locaon:
Farmington C ity H all
430 T hird Street
Farmington, M N 55024
PA R K S A ND R E C R E AT I O N R E G U L A R M E E T I N G A G E N DA
February 8, 2023
7:00 PM
1.C all M eeng to O rder
2.A pprove M eeng A genda
3.A pprove M eeng M inutes
(a)A pprove J anuary 11, 2023 M eeng Minutes
4.P resentaons
(a)P ublic C omments
(b)I ntroducon of New Parks and Recreaon Commission M ember
5.B usiness I tems
(a)Chair and V ice-C hair Elecons
(b)Park D edicaon S tudy
(c)Rambling River Park M aster P lan P roposal D ra/
6.D iscussion I tems
(a)Review O pen Meeng L aw
(b)Review Parks and Recreaon Commission Bylaw s
(c)Review 2023 Work P lan P rogress
7.C ommission Roundtable
(a)Round Table Format
8.S taff Report/Updates
(a)I nformaonal Updates
9.M eeng A genda Topics
(a)Pos s ible I tems for M arch 8, 2023 M eeng A genda
10.A djournment
"The F armington Parks and Recreaon A dvisory C ommission's mission is to advise and make
recommendaons to the F armington C ity C ouncil concerning the comprehensive planning of the C ity
parks, trails, open space, recreaon facilies and recreaon programs."
TO :Farmington Parks and Recreaon Commission M embers
F R O M :Kellee O mlid, Parks and Recreaon D irector
S U B J EC T:A pprove J anuary 11, 2023 M eeng Minutes
DATE:February 8, 2023
B A C KG R O U N D
A&ached are the dra( minutes from the parks and recreaon commis s ion’s January 11, 2023 meeng.
Commission members are as ked to review the minutes and provide any correcons or addions that are
needed at the meeng.
AT TAC HMENT S :
Type Des cription
Backup Material Draft January 11, 2023 Meeting Minutes
Farmington Parks and Recreation Commission
Minutes from the January 11, 2023 Regular Meeting
Members Present: Katharine Caron, Ashley Crabtree, Elizabeth Koss, Katie Putt, and David McMillen
Members Absent:
Other’s Present: Parks and Recreation Director Kellee Omlid
I. Call Meeting to Order
Chair Caron called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Quorum was present.
II. Approval of January 11, 2023 Meeting Agenda
Moved by Putt and seconded by Koss to approve the meeting agenda. All persons in favor (APIF).
Motion carried.
III. Approval of December 14, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes
Moved by McMillen and seconded by Putt to approve the meeting minutes with no revisions. APIF.
Motion carried.
IV. Presentations
A. Public Comments
There were no public comments shared at the meeting.
B. Recognition of Outgoing Commission Member Elizabeth Koss
Director Omlid and commission members thanked Betsy for her service to the parks and
recreation commission, community, and city. She started on the commission in February 2019
as she finished an existing term and then was reappointed to a three-year term ending in
January 2023. She will be missed as she brought a unique perspective and background in adults
and youth with disabilities. Betsy said she will still be around, will follow what is going on, and
might show up to a meeting to participate in public comments.
V. Business Items
A. Approve 2023 Work Plan
Chair Caron reviewed the goals and objectives of the draft 2023 work plan.
Moved by Putt and seconded by Crabtree to approve the 2023 work plan. APIF. Motion carried.
VI. Discussion Items
A. Chair and Vice-Chair Elections During February Meeting
The commission discussed the chair and vice-chair positions for the next year as the election
will take place at the February meeting. Chair Caron said she wouldn’t mind continue being
the chair as still learning. Putt said she is willing to be the chair or vice-chair. Crabtree has
another commitment, so not interested in the chair position but willing to be vice-chair.
McMillen is willing to be the chair or vice-chair. Chair Caron is going to think about it more
until the February meeting. In addition to running the meeting, Director Omlid said the
chair and director get together in-person or via zoom a week prior to the meeting to set the
agenda. Crabtree mentioned she received phone calls from city council when she was the
chair. Chair Caron said she hasn’t received any calls.
Megan Merricks will join the commission in February as the new member.
B. Parks and Facilities Tour with Rambling River Center Advisory Board and City Council
The commission discussed and agreed the parks and facilities tour with the Rambling River
Center Advisory Board and city council is a good thing to do. The Dakota County fair this
year is August 7 – 13. Commission members identified Wednesdays, August 16, 23, and 30
at 6 p.m. as potential tour dates. Director Omlid will follow-up with the Rambling River
Center Advisory Board and city council to see which date works best.
VII. Commission Roundtable
Koss: Didn’t have anything to share.
Crabtree: Mentioned there was a post on Facebook about a young girl swearing at other kids when ice
skating at Farmington Elementary School. Asked if the Schmitz-Maki Arena sold punch cards for open
skating as went to the National Skating Month special event and her son said he wanted to go every
Sunday. Director Omlid said punch cards for open skate is $45 for 10 admissions.
Caron: Didn’t have anything to share.
Putt: Didn’t have anything to share.
McMillen: Didn’t have anything to share.
VIII. Staff Report/Updates
Director Omlid provided information on the following:
A. Safe Routes to School Planning Assistance for Great Oaks Academy
Great Oaks Academy is applying for a safe routes to school planning assistance grant. A letter of
support from Mayor Hoyt was included in the application, which was submitted today. As
written in the letter “A 2016 Downtown Redevelopment Plan showed within the study area, a
lack of trails within the downtown area, although most streets are served by sidewalks on both
sides of the street. Downtown Core Redevelopment initiatives included improving the
pedestrian environment, adding bike trail facilities to the river and regional trail connections,
completing a downtown trail network, and improving Highway 50 crossings for pedestrians and
bicyclists. These initiatives haven’t been completed yet. This area’s need for pedestrian and
bicycle improvements was identified in recent City of Farmington plans including the 2016
Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the 2019 Bike and Ped Plan. Community engagement in
those planning processes specifically identified concerns with crossing both the rail line and
Highway 50 by pedestrians and bicyclists.” If Great Oaks Academy is awarded a grant, hopefully
the aforementioned improvements can be addressed.
B. Outdoor Rinks and Warming Houses
The warming houses opened Monday, December 26. They were closed last week for two days
due to snow fall. The warming houses are at Rambling River Park and Distad Park. Staff floods a
pleasure rink at Farmington Elementary School. The goal is to keep the rinks and warming
houses open through President’s Day.
C. Demolition of Bathhouse at Evergreen Knoll Park
The bathhouse at Evergreen Knoll Park was demolished on December 12 and 13. Director Omlid
showed pictures of the demolition and the park today with the bathhouse gone.
D. Rambling River Park Master Plan
Staff met with HKGi to discuss them drafting a proposal for master planning services for
Rambling River Park. Staff also met with Dakota County to gauge their interest in looking at the
trails through the park as part of the master planning process. The County is interested in
looking at design improvements, evaluating the trail alignment, and how it connects to the
North Creek and South Creek Greenway regional trail. The County is putting up to $400,000
toward restroom facilities if the location becomes a trailhead. Long-term maintenance is then a
50/50 (city/county) split. Staff anticipates receiving the proposal from HKGi soon.
E. Pavement Condition Ratings for Trail Pavement Segments
The city hired Goodpoint Technology to evaluate the entire paved trail network along with the
streets. The pavement condition ratings are a 0 to 100 scale with 0 being poor and 100 being
new. All 52 miles of trails will be evaluated this spring with the data returned to the city by July
15, 2023. The ratings will be used to help determine priorities for trail maintenance,
replacements, reclamations, and long-term costs. The trails will be re-rated every two years and
new trails will be added to the base map annually.
It was asked if Empire Township replaces their trails as they are in better condition than
Farmington’s. Commission and staff don’t recall commission members from Empire Township
talking about trail improvements. Willows and tree roots are damaging the trails in Farmington.
City council is meeting Tuesday at 7 p.m. and will recognize and thank Minnwest Bank for their
$16,000 donation to the Rambling River Center for the passenger van. Commission asked if the
Expo was being held this year. The Expo is Saturday, January 28 from 9 a.m. – noon at
Farmington High School.
IX. Meeting Agenda Topics
The following items were tentatively identified by the commission for its February 8, 2023 meeting
agenda:
1.
X. Adjournment
Moved by Koss and seconded by Putt to adjourn the meeting. APIF. Motion carried. The meeting was
adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kellee Omlid
Parks & Recreation Director and Recording Secretary
TO :Farmington Parks and Recreaon Commission M embers
F R O M :Kellee O mlid, Parks and Recreaon D irector
S U B J EC T:P ublic C omments
DATE:February 8, 2023
B A C KG R O U N D
This agenda item allows the public to s peak to commission members about any item that is not on the
agenda. W hen s peaking to the commission it mus t be in a res pec'ul and non-threatening manner.
A nyone w is hing to provide public comments mus t provide their name and addres s for the record. P ublic
comments shall not exceed five minutes.
The commission will not respond to the comments and a formal w ri.en res pons e will be s ent prior to the
next commission meeng to the person who made the public comments . U nder no circums tances w ill
any formal acon be taken on the public comments that are provided to the commis s ion.
TO :Farmington Parks and Recreaon Commission M embers
F R O M :Kellee O mlid, Parks and Recreaon D irector
S U B J EC T:I ntroducon of New Parks and Recreaon Commission M ember
DATE:February 8, 2023
B A C KG R O U N D
A nnually, the city s olicits applicaons from residents for appointments to boards and commissions. City
council interview s the applicants and a*er a thorough review makes and approves appointments.
City council at its J anuary 17, 2023 meeng approved Megan Merricks as the new est commission
member. This w ill be a three-year term ending on January 31, 2026. I ntroducons of Megan and exis ng
commis s ion members are in order for the firs t part of the meeng.
P lease note this is shown under presentaons , but will occur immediately a*er the meeng is called to
order. The meeng agenda does not allow to add the introducon of Megan immediately a*er the call
meeng to order.
TO :Farmington Parks and Recreaon Commission M embers
F R O M :Kellee O mlid, Parks and Recreaon D irector
S U B J EC T:Chair and V ice-C hair Elecons
DATE:February 8, 2023
B A C KG R O U N D
A ccording to the commission’s bylaws and city ordinance, the commis s ion is to elect a chair and vice-chair
from its members. The elecon occurs in February due to the possible appointment and s eang of new
members at this meeng. The chair and vice-chair may serve no more than two consecuve years in the
s ame posion except under extenuang circumstances.
The chair posion is res pons ible for pres iding over the monthly commission meengs and collaborang
w ith city staff to create the meeng agenda. The vice-chair posion is res pons ible for assuming the chair
dues in the abs ence of the chair.
Current commis s ion chair Caron will as k for nominaons for the chair posion. A /er the chair is elected,
this member then asks for nominaons for the vice-chair pos ion.
The person elected as the commis s ion chair w ill run the remainder of the meeng.
TO :Farmington Parks and Recreaon Commission M embers
F R O M :Kellee O mlid, Parks and Recreaon D irector
S U B J EC T:Park D edicaon S tudy
DATE:February 8, 2023
B A C KG R O U N D
Minnes ota S tatutes 462.358 allows cies to regulate the subdivis ion of land through ordinance. This
ordinance may require a subdivis ion applicant to dedicate a reasonable poron of land w ithin the
development to the public to address infrastructure needs created by the development. Cies may
require dedicaon of land to the public for numerous uses including parks , recreaonal facilies,
playgrounds , trails, s idewalks, and open s pace. I n lieu of land dedicaon for parks, recreaonal facilies
and playgrounds, trails , or open space, cies may require a developer to pay “cash fees” commonly
referred to as “park dedicaon fees” or “cas h in lieu”. The bo0om line is cies can require developers to
dedicate land for a park, pay cash in lieu of dedicaon, or provide a combinaon of land and cash.
The C ity of Farmington (city) has an ordinance that pertains to dedicang land for parks, trails , and open
s pace and is included in the packet. The current Park D edicaon O rdinance (O rdinance) was last
amended in its enrety in 2003. S everal text amendments were made to the O rdinance in 2005 and
2007. S taff observed over the pas t year w hen pla6ng of developments there has been confus ion w ith
certain as pects and language within the O rdinance. I n addion, recently park dedicaon has been a
contenous is s ue for developers and this has made its w ay to the M innesota S tate Legislature.
Minnes ota Recreaon and Parks A s s ociaon (M R PA ), w hich the city is a member of, has a legis lave
commi0ee and hires a lobbyist to monitor and track state legislaon impacng the parks and recreaon
indus try. M R PA is again monitoring park dedicaon legislaon during the 2023 s ession. W ith all this to
cons ider, staff reached out to H ois ington Koegler G roup, I nc. (H KG i) for a proposal to do a park
dedicaon study.
H KG i’s proposal includes es tablishing the es s enal nexus for the city ’s park dedicaon fees , updang the
city ’s fee s chedule, and idenfy any needed changes to the city ’s O rdinance. W hen a city requires land to
be dedicated w ithin a specific s ubdivision, it must determine that: “The city reas onably needs to acquire
the specific poron of land for reasons permi0ed by s tate s tatue (i.e. parks ) as a res ult of approval of the
s ubdivision (this is somemes referred to as a nexus requirement). Refer to page 10 of the L M C
document for an example of the nexus requirement. P leas e see the a0ached propos al for addional
details on the propos ed park dedicaon study. H KG i has completed s everal park dedicaon studies for
metro communies including most recently Elk River, New Brighton, and S t. F rancis.
A ls o included in the packet is informaon about subdivis ion regulaons including dedicaon
requirements and park dedicaon fees that w as put together by the L eague of Minnes ota C ies (L M C).
Commission members s hould review the city ’s park dedicaon ordinance, H KG i’s propos al, and
s ubdivision regulaons put together by the L M C. A Cer dis cus s ion on the topic, the acon reques ted of
the commission is to approve the park dedicaon s tudy and recommend city council approve a contract
w ith H KG i to complete a park dedicaon s tudy for the city.
AT TAC HMENT S :
Type Des cription
Backup Material City of Farmington Park Dedication Ordinance
Backup Material Subdivision Regulations LMC Information
Backup Material HKGi Proposal
11-4-9: PUBLIC PARK, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE DEDICATION:
(A) Purpose: This section is adopted for the purpose of providing for the recreation, health, safety and welfare of the public
through the orderly development of recreation areas and the conservation of natural resources and scenic beauty in the city of
Farmington. The city council finds that the dedication requirements of this section are necessary to meet the minimum needs for
parks, trails, wetlands and open space resulting from development of the uses subject to this section. (Ord. 003-490, 6-16-2003)
(B) Land Dedication Required For Parks, Trails And Open Space: Minnesota Statutes Annotated section 462.358, subdivision 2b
provides that municipal subdivision regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to
the public or preserved for conservation purposes or for public use as parks, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space, and that
the municipality may alternatively accept an equivalent amount in cash.
In every plat, replat or subdivision of land allowing development for residential, commercial, industrial or other uses or any
combination thereof, or where a waiver of platting is granted (but excluding simple lot line adjustments which do not create additional
lots), or when required by subsection (C) of this section, a reasonable portion of such land shall be set aside and dedicated by the
owner or developer to the general public for parks, trails or public open space, or an equivalent amount in cash shall be paid to the
city. For purposes of this section, the term "developer" includes all owners, developers or subdividers who have an interest in or
control over the land to be subdivided. It is hereby found and declared that, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Annotated section
462.358, subdivision 2b, it is reasonable to require dedication of an amount of land equal in value to that percentage of the
undeveloped land set forth in subsection (C) of this section. It is also found that the primary users of neighborhood parks live in close
proximity to the park. Said land shall be suitable for public use as parks, trails, and open space or for one of those purposes, as shall
be determined in the sole discretion of the city, and the city shall not be required to accept land which will not be usable for parks,
trails or open space or which would require extensive expenditures on the part of the city to make them usable. The city will not give
park dedication credit for floodplains, wetlands, stormwater ponding areas, land encumbered by gas pipeline or other utility
easements, slopes of more than twenty percent (20%) grade or for required sidewalks or walkways within road rights of way. All land
dedicated for parks, trails, and/or open space shall be designed to incorporate natural features as much as possible such as rivers,
streams, wildlife habitats, woodlands, and ponding areas. This dedication shall be in addition to the land dedicated for streets, alleys,
storm water ponds or other public purposes. (Ord. 007-571, 2-20-2007)
(C) Dedication Formula For Park Land, Trails And Open Space: The amount of land required to be dedicated by a developer for
park, trail or open space shall be based upon the net area (gross area minus wetland and floodplain) of the land to be subdivided
which could be developed for residential, commercial, industrial or other nonresidential purposes, shall be determined at the time of
preliminary plat approval, and shall be calculated as follows:
1. Residential Development:
Dwelling Units/Acre Land To Be Dedicated For
Parks, Trails And Open Space
0 - 2.5 11 percent
2.6 - 5.0 12 percent
5.1 - 7.5 13 percent
7.6 - 10.0 14 percent
10.1 - 12.5 15 percent
12.6 - 16.0 16 percent
For each additional 2.5 units over 16/acre, add 0.25 percent.
If a lot which was a platted lot before the effective date hereof is split into two (2) lots, the land to be dedicated shall be five percent
(5%) of the original lot.
2. Industrial Development: In industrial developments, five percent (5%) of the net area (gross area minus wetland and
floodplain) included in the land to be subdivided shall be dedicated for parks, trails and open space.
3. Commercial Development: The park, trail and open space dedication requirement of the land to be subdivided for a
commercial, light industrial and/or nonresidential subdivision or development shall be five percent (5%) of the net area (gross area
minus wetland and floodplain) included in the land to be subdivided.
4. Mobile Home Park Development: The park, trail and open space dedication requirement for a mobile home park shall be
based on the same requirements as subsection (C)1 of this section and shall be determined prior to the developer receiving
approval of the site plan for such development. (Ord. 005-544, 9-19-2005)
(D) Conformance With Comprehensive Plan: Land dedicated under this section shall reasonably conform to the city's
comprehensive plan. The planning commission and park and recreation advisory commission shall recommend to the city council to
adopt as part of the comprehensive plan the location of land for future parks, trails and open spaces in the city. If the comprehensive
plan for the parcel of land to be subdivided calls for public property in excess of that required by subsection (C) of this section, the
planning commission and city council shall, before approval or disapproval of the preliminary plat, consider the comprehensive plan
and determine whether to take the necessary steps to acquire, by purchase or condemnation, all or part of the additional public
property as called for by the comprehensive plan. If the city's trail master plan shows a trail within a development, it must be
dedicated by the owner.
(E) Cash In Lieu Of Land: The city shall have the option to require cash contributions in lieu of accepting dedication of land or, if
the city council determines that land is needed in the development, but in a lesser amount than the required proportionate share, the
council may require payment of cash in lieu of land dedication based on a pro rata share of the land dedication that otherwise would
be required. Contributions of cash in lieu of land shall be placed in a special reserve park fund which shall be held and used by the
city to acquire land for, or to improve, parks, playgrounds, trails or public open space.
(F) Timing: The requirements of this section for dedication of land or for contribution of cash in lieu of land shall apply at the time
of final plat approval, replat, minor subdivision, or waiver of platting, and shall apply to any plat, replat, subdivision, waiver of platting,
or development which receives final approval after the effective date hereof.
(G) When Cash Shall Be Required: The city shall require a cash payment in lieu of park, trail and open space dedication
whenever the proposed dedication of land for public use is not suitable for the intended use, is too small for practical maintenance, or
whenever cash payment would be more beneficial to the development of the overall park system than dedication of the land within
the property to be developed.
(H) Determination Of Cash Payment: If the city elects to accept a cash payment in lieu of land for park, trails or open space
dedication for a residential, industrial, commercial, or other nonresidential development, the developer shall pay to the city the
appraised fair market value of the land (at the time of final plat approval) that would otherwise be dedicated for park, trail and open
space under section 1310:1303. The total amount of cash payment in lieu of land owed to the city shall be determined by taking the
total number of acres owed multiplied by the per acre appraised fair market value of the total development. If the development
already benefits in some way from previous improvements such as streets, utilities or other improvements at the time of the final plat,
these improvements will be included in determining the appraised fair market value of the land. The appraised fair market value of
the land shall be determined by a qualified licensed appraiser and shall meet the uniform standards of professional appraisal
practice. The appraiser shall be mutually selected by the city and the developer. The appraisal fee shall be paid by the developer.
(Ord. 003-490, 6-16-2003)
(I) Combination Of Land And Cash Dedication: If the city accepts land for park, trails or open space dedication in less than the
amount required by subsection (C) of this section, the developer shall pay to the city the appraised fair market value of the remaining
land required to be dedicated. The appraised value of the remaining land required to be dedicated shall be determined by the
method specified in subsection (H) of this section. (Ord. 007-571, 2-20-2007)
(J) More Dedication: If the city requires park, trails or open space dedication in excess of the amount of land required by
subsection (C) of this section, the city shall pay to the developer the fair market value of the land in excess of the percentage of land
required to be dedicated. The fair market value of the excess land shall be determined by the method specified in subsection (H) of
this section.
(K) Dedication Process: Prior to the dedication of the required property, the developer shall provide the city with evidence of title
in a form acceptable to the city attorney or a title insurance policy insuring the city's interest in the property. In any dedication of
required land, the developer must have good and marketable title to the land, free and clear of any mortgages, liens, encumbrances
or assessments, except easements or minor imperfections of title acceptable to the city.
(L) Modification Of Requirements: The dedication requirements based on the development's proportional share of the city park
system are presumptively appropriate. A developer may request a deviation from the presumptive requirements based upon the
anticipated impact of that particular subdivision. The request must be made to the city council as part of an application for final plat
approval. The city council, after consideration of the request, may modify or reduce the requirements of this section.
(M) Trail Construction: When the city's trail master plan identifies a trail or trails to be constructed in the land to be subdivided, the
developer shall be required to pay for the construction of the trail improvements. The construction specifications of trails shall be
determined by the city engineer and parks and recreation director. Whenever possible, trails shall connect with existing trails and/or
sidewalks. The city's planning division, parks and recreation department and engineering department shall determine when it is
feasible for trails to be constructed to encircle ponding or wetland areas.
(N) Review By Parks And Recreation Director: The city's planning division shall transmit a copy of all development plans involving
land to be dedicated for parks, trails and open space to the parks and recreation director who shall report back to the planning
division on the appropriateness of any proposed park, trail and open space dedication. (Ord. 003-490, 6-16-2003)
(O) Credit For Private Park And Open Space: No credit to the requirements of subsection (C) of this section will be given for
private open spaces for park, recreation or trail purposes. (Ord. 007-571, 2-20-2007)
(P) Park Tree Requirements: The subdivider or developer shall preserve all existing trees to the greatest extent possible during
the grading process on the land that is to be dedicated for a park, trail or open space. In cases where a significant tree or trees are
lost during the grading process on the land that is to be dedicated for parks, trails or open space, the developer shall be required to
replace each significant tree lost with two (2) new trees that are at least two inches (2") in caliper.
(Q) Park Development Required Or Alternative Fee: Where land is required to be dedicated for parks, trails or open space the
developer shall improve the park land with minimum improvements specified or agreed to by the city, or an equivalent park
development fee shall be paid by the developer to assist in funding the development of a park which will serve the new subdivision.
The minimum improvements or park development fee will be based on an average cost of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) per
acre to develop a park. If the city determines to require a fee in lieu of the minimum improvements, the developer will be charged
fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) of the costs to develop each acre of park and the city will pay the remaining costs to develop
the park. The park development fee will be adjusted annually for inflation based on the "National Engineering News Record
Construction Cost Index" starting January 1, 2004. The park development fee shall be deposited in a special reserve park fund and
shall only be used for the development of the park, trails and open space dedicated in the land to be subdivided. In cases where
cash in lieu of land is taken, the park development fee shall be deposited in the special park reserve fund and shall be used in the
development or improvement of other public parks, trails or open space that are located in the closest proximity to the development.
The city shall allow the developer to either pay the entire park development fee at the time of final plat filing or to pay the park
development fee on a per unit basis at the time that a building permit is issued for each unit to be constructed in the development,
provided that all park development fees shall be paid within five (5) years of approval of the final plat.
(R) Initial Development Of Land Dedicated For Parks And Trails: The parks and recreation advisory commission shall determine
the schedule for developing land dedicated for new parks and trails.
(S) Infrastructure: The developer shall bring utilities a reasonable distance inside the property line of the future park, as
determined by the city engineer, and shall cap them off at no cost to the city. Utilities shall include gas, storm sewer, water, electricity
and sanitary sewer. The location where such utilities are to be brought into the future park shall be determined by the city engineer
and parks and recreation director.
(T) Park And Trail Access: All land dedicated for parks shall have at least one hundred fifty feet (150') of street frontage on at
least one side. All trails shall have at least a twenty foot (20') wide access where the trail connects to a street or sidewalk. (Ord. 003-
490, 6-16-2003)
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 12/12/2022
Comprehensive Planning, Land Use and City-Owned Land Chapter 13 | Page 6
Minn. Stat. § 15.99.
Manco of Fairmont v. Town
Bd. of Rock Dell Township,
583 N.W.2d 293 (Minn. Ct.
App. 1998). Hans Hagen
Homes, Inc. v. City of
Minnetrista, 728 N.W.2d 536
(Minn. 2007).
The 60-Day Rule is a state law that requires cities to approve or deny a
written request relating to zoning within 60 days, or it is deemed approved.
The underlying purpose of the rule is to keep governmental agencies from
taking too long in deciding land use issues. Minnesota courts have
generally demanded strict compliance with the rule.
5. Planning commissions
Establishing A Planning
Commission, LMC Model
Ordinance.
Minn. Stat. § 462.355, subd.
1.
Minn. Stat. § 462.355, subd.
2.
Cities may provide for a planning commission by adopting an ordinance
establishing the commission, its features, powers and duties. Once created,
the planning commission can play an important role in city land use
regulation. The planning commission is vested by state statute with the
duty of preparing and maintaining the city comprehensive plan. However,
the city council may also propose the comprehensive municipal plan and
amendments to the plan by a resolution submitted to the planning
commission. When this occurs, the council may not adopt the
recommended language until it has received a report from the planning
commission or 60 days have elapsed.
See LMC information memo,
Planning Commission Guide.
State statutes prescribe several other mandatory duties for the city
planning commission. City ordinance should be drafted to include these
duties. In addition, state statute permits some optional duties to be
assigned to the planning commission in the council’s discretion. City
ordinance should make it clear which of these optional duties are assigned
to the planning commission. Since state statute contains optional duties,
general ordinance language stating that commission duties “shall be as
established by state statute” may cause confusion over duties and should
be avoided. The powers and duties of the planning commission are
discussed more extensively in the LMC governing and managing memo
Planning Commission Guide.
B. Subdivision regulations
1. The purpose of subdivision regulations
Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd.
1(a), 2(a).
See LMC information memo,
Subdivision Guide for Cities.
Cities may regulate the subdivision of land through a subdivision
ordinance. Developers who seek to subdivide larger tracts of land into
smaller parcels for development and/or sale must follow the city’s
subdivision regulations. These regulations specify the standards of the city
related to size, location, grading, and improvement of:
Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd.
2(a). • Lots.
• Structures.
• Public areas, trails, walkways, and parks.
• Streets and street lighting.
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 12/12/2022
Comprehensive Planning, Land Use and City-Owned Land Chapter 13 | Page 7
• Installations necessary for water, sewer, electricity, gas, and other
utilities.
Subdivision regulations allow cities to ensure that a new development or
redevelopment meets the standards necessary for a safe, functional, and
enjoyable community. Importantly, subdivision regulations can help the
city preserve and protect vital natural resources.
If a city does not adopt subdivision regulations, the city’s authority to
control the development of the community is limited. Without city
subdivision regulations, developers do not have any constraint on the
subdivision of land and the location of streets and utilities in their
developments. In these situations, developers may be tempted to maximize
their potential profits at the expense of quality. For example, they may
create too many small lots for sale, develop cheaper streets that are too
narrow and unsafe, or build homes on inappropriate soils where flooding
or erosion may occur.
When there are problems with a completed development, there is a
potential that the city will need to step in and correct issues that affect the
health, safety, and welfare of residents. When a city must repair or replace
streets, infrastructure, and utility lines, the costs are often passed along to
homeowners through special assessments, potentially creating financial
hardship for the homeowners in the subdivision.
Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd.
10.
Minn. Stat. § 473.121, subd.
2. Minn. Stat. § 473.865.
Minn. Stat. § 473.859, subd.
4.
State law does not require cities outside the metropolitan area to adopt
subdivision regulations. Metropolitan cities must adopt subdivision
regulations under and in conformance with the Metropolitan Land
Planning Act.
2. Procedure for adopting and amending
subdivision regulations
Minn. Stat. §§ 462.351-.365.
Minn. Stat. § 462.352, subd.
14. Minn. Stat. § 462.358,
subd. 1(a).
Subdivision regulations can only be imposed by a local ordinance adopted
in accordance with the Municipal Planning Act. Unlike with zoning
regulations, cities are not required to hold a public hearing or provide
published or mailed notice prior to adopting or amending their subdivision
regulations.
Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd.
2b.
An ordinance may be adopted and amended by a simple majority vote of
the council. Cities should follow their regular publication requirements. If
the subdivision regulations require dedication of buildable land for streets,
sewers, parks, utilities, recreational facilities, playgrounds, trails, wetlands,
or open space, the city must first have in place either:
(1) a capital improvement budget and a parks and open space plan; or (2)
a parks and open space plan as a component of its comprehensive plan.
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 12/12/2022
Comprehensive Planning, Land Use and City-Owned Land Chapter 13 | Page 8
See LMC information memo,
Newspaper Publication..
See Handbook, Meetings,
Motions, Resolutions and
Ordinances.
In statutory cities, ordinances and ordinance amendments must be
published once in the city’s official newspaper. A statutory city may also
choose to publish a summary of lengthy ordinances, provided that certain
legal requirements are met.
3. Administering a subdivision ordinance
a. Process for review
Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd.
3b.
Minn. Stat. § 505.03, subd. 1.
The city subdivision ordinance must establish the process for review of
applications. Generally, subdivision application approval is a two-part
process. First, the landowner applies for preliminary plat approval, and
subsequently, for final plat approval. Cities may opt to consolidate these
two reviews and/or provide for administrative review of plats that
delineate existing parcels and minor subdivisions. However, the two-step
process is the most widely used process. Each approval process has its
own mandatory timeline for approval.
b. 120 Days: Timelines for preliminary plat approval
Semler Const., Inc. v. City of
Hanover, 667 N.W.2d 457
(Minn. Ct. App., 2003).
Jordan Real Estate Services,
Inc. v. City of Gaylord, No.
A08-0294, (Minn. Ct. App.
April 14, 2009) (unpublished
decision).
LMC information memo,
Taking the Mystery Out of
Findings of Fact.
The preliminary plat approval stage establishes the nature, design, and
scope of a development project. It sets the conditions or guidelines, in
large part, under which final plat approval can be obtained. After a plat is
preliminarily approved, changes should generally be limited to meeting
requirements imposed as a condition of approval and to meeting legal
requirements under city ordinance and state or federal law. As a result, the
“preliminary” title can be misleading—this is the most important phase of
the approval process.
Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd.
3b.
Calm Waters, LLC v.
Kanabec County Bd. of
Com'rs, 756 N.W.2d 716
(Minn. 2008) (applies 60-
Day Rule tolling only to
county review of
subdivisions).
A subdivision application must receive preliminary approval or
disapproval within 120 days of its delivery, unless the applicant agrees to
an extension. If no action is taken, the application will be deemed
approved after this time period. (Note that this 120-day period differs from
the usual 60-Day Rule. The 60 Day Rule in Minn. Stat § 15.99 by its terms
does not apply to city subdivision regulations). The city should document
all extensions in writing. If the city does not act on an application within
120 days, the applicant may demand a certificate of approval from the city.
Following receipt of the certificate, the applicant may request final
approval by the city as discussed below.
Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd.
3b. LMC information memo,
Zoning Guide for Cities,
Section V-C-2-b on
conducting a public hearing
The city must hold a public hearing on all subdivision applications prior to
preliminary approval, following publication of a notice at least 10 days
before the hearing.
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 12/12/2022
Comprehensive Planning, Land Use and City-Owned Land Chapter 13 | Page 9
c. 60 Days: Timelines for final plat approval
Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd.
3b.
Semler Const., Inc. v. City of
Hanover, 667 N.W.2d 457
(Minn. Ct. App., 2003).
Jordan Real Estate Services,
Inc. v. City of Gaylord, No.
A08-0294, (Minn. Ct. App.
April 14, 2009) (unpublished
decision).
After preliminary plat approval, state statute allows the applicant to seek
final approval. The final plat application must demonstrate conformance
with the conditions and requirements of preliminary approval and
conformance with city regulations and state and federal law. Unlike
preliminary plat approval, there is no required public hearing on the final
plat.
Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd.
3b.
Once an applicant has requested final approval, the city must approve or
disapprove of the application in 60 days. If the municipality fails to act
within 60 days, the final plat application is automatically deemed
approved.
4. Dedication requirements and park dedication
fees
Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd.
2(b). Collis v. City of
Bloomington , 310 Minn. 5,
246 N.W.2d 19 (Minn.
1976). Middlemist v. City of
Plymouth, 387 N.W.2d 190
(Minn. Ct. App, 1986).
Kottschade v. City of
Rochester, 537 N.W.2d 301
(Minn. Ct. App., 1995).
A subdivision ordinance may require a subdivision applicant to dedicate a
reasonable portion of land within the development to the public to address
infrastructure needs created by the development. Cities may require
dedication of land to the public for numerous uses, including:
• Streets, roads, and alleys.
• Water, sewer, and similar facilities.
• Gas, electric, and similar facilities.
• Storm water drainage and hold areas or ponds.
• Parks, recreational facilities, and playgrounds.
• Trails and sidewalks.
• Wetlands and wetland preservation.
• Open space.
When the city requires land to be dedicated within a specific subdivision,
it must determine that:
Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd.
2b (e). Minn. Stat. § 462.358,
subd. 2c. Collis v. City of
Bloomington, 310 Minn. 5,
246 N.W.2d 19 (Minn.
1976). Middlemist v. City of
Plymouth, 387 N.W.2d 190
(Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
Kottschade v. City of
Rochester, 537 N.W.2d 301
(Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
• The city reasonably needs to acquire the specific portion of land for
reasons permitted by state statute (e.g., streets, parks, utilities) as a
result of approval of the subdivision (this is sometimes referred to as a
nexus requirement).
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 12/12/2022
Comprehensive Planning, Land Use and City-Owned Land Chapter 13 | Page 10
Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd.
2c. Collis v. City of
Bloomington, 310 Minn. 5,
246 N.W.2d 19 (Minn.
1976). Middlemist v. City of
Plymouth, 387 N.W.2d 190
(Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
Kottschade v. City of
Rochester, 537 N.W.2d 301
(Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
• The need created by the subdivision is roughly proportional to the
city’s dedication requirement. For example, in a five-house
subdivision, it may be reasonable to require dedication of park land for
a small, local swing set park. It may not be reasonable to require the
same small subdivision to dedicate multiple acres for a community
park serving hundreds of city residents.
Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd.
2b(d). • The need for the dedicated land has not already been offset or obviated
by other actions of the developer in setting aside for public use other
open space, recreational, or common areas, or other facilities within
the development.
Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd.
2b(c).
See LMC information memo,
Subdivision Guide for Cities.
In lieu of land dedication for parks, recreational facilities, playgrounds,
trails, wetlands, or open space, cities may require a developer to pay “cash
fees” commonly referred to as “park dedication fees” or “trail fees”
(cumulatively referred to as park dedication fees in the rest of this memo).
Park dedication fees excuse a developer from a local land dedication for
park and recreational purposes, but still allow the city to purchase and
acquire new, off-site facilities to serve needs created by the subdivision.
When a city establishes and imposes a park dedication fee, in lieu of land
dedications, it must still comply with all the requirements discussed above
for land dedications related to procedure, nexus, and proportionality.
Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd.
2b(c).
See LMC information memo,
Subdivision Guide for Cities.
State statute requires cities to follow a specific formula for setting park
dedication fees. Cities may wish to retain the services of a land appraiser,
or some other professional, to help them determine the appropriate rate for
their park dedication fees.
5. Required public improvements and development
agreements
a. Required public improvements
Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd.
2a.
See LMC information memo,
Subdivision Guide for Cities.
The city subdivision ordinance may condition approval of an application
upon the construction and installation of needed public improvements for
the subdivision such as:
• Drainage facilities.
• Streets.
• Electric, gas, sewer, water, and similar utilities.
The city may require that the developer install the improvements to the
city’s specifications as detailed in the subdivision ordinance.
HKGi
800 Washington Ave N, Suite 103
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
www.hkgi.com
Creating Places that Enrich People’s Lives
February 2, 2023
Ms. Kellee Omlid
City of Farmington
430 Third Street
Farmington, MN 55024
Re: Proposal for Park Dedication Study
Dear Kellee,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide an updated proposal to assist the City of Farmington in
updating its park dedication regulations. Based on our recent conversations it is our understanding
that the purpose of the study will be to establish the essential nexus for the City’s park dedication
fees, to update the City’s fee schedule, and identify any needed change to the City’s ordinances. The
following outlines our revised proposed tasks for the study:
1. Project Kick Off – $850 - The project will begin by gathering and formatting the needed
data for the park dedication analysis. This includes GIS data such as County assessor
valuation information, existing land use, and comprehensive plan designation. It also
includes information from Staff about current practices and precedent data previously
gathered, including development park dedication analysis, current fee schedule, park
dedication rates from surrounding communities, and the existing city code. We will also
work with HKGi park planners to gather future improvements and costs from the park
planning already underway.
2. Preliminary Nexus and Valuation Analysis – $1,700 - Data gathered in task 1 will be used
to develop a draft nexus for the application of park dedication regulations. Comprehensive
plan designations and valuation from GIS will be analyzed to determine an appropriate
sample for the park dedication fee structure. A preliminary review of the existing park
dedication regulations will also be conducted to identify potential areas for update.
3. Staff Meeting 1 – $850 - The preliminary findings from Task 2 will be presented and
discussed with Staff. It is anticipated that the preliminary analysis will require refinement,
particularly related to appropriate assumptions and valuation sample. Staff and the
consultant team will also frame the first City Council Work Session.
4. Joint Work Session 1 – $1,000 - An introduction to park dedication and the preliminary
study findings will be presented at a Joint City Council/Parks & Recreation
Commission/Planning Commission Work Session.
City of Farmington – Park Dedication Study – February 2023
2
5. Prepare draft Park Dedication Study Findings and Recommendations – $1,500 - Based
on Staff feedback, the consultant team will prepare a technical memorandum summarizing
the findings from the study and the recommendations for changes to the City’s regulations
and fee schedule.
6. Staff Meeting 2 – $850 - The draft findings and recommendations will be reviewed and
revised. Staff and the consulting team will finalize the process for the review and adoption
of the study and recommendations.
7. Joint Work Session 2 – $1,000 - The findings from the study and recommended
amendments will be presented at a Joint City Council/Parks & Recreation
Commission/Planning Commission Work Session.
8. Finalize Update for Adoption – $ 2,250 - Based on input from Staff and the City Council,
HKGi will prepare the final materials. HKGi will present the study and recommended
ordinance amendment to the Planning Commission. HKGi will present to the City Council
for consideration. This will include a technical memorandum and any amendments to the
fee schedule and regulations.
It is estimated that the park dedication study will take up to four months to complete once
authorization is given. The timing will likely be influenced by the meeting availability for the City
Council work sessions and meetings. The following is a preliminary schedule that may change as the
work scope is finalized.
Task Preliminary Schedule
Estimated
Hours
Task 1 – Project Kick-Off
February to March
6
Task 2 – Preliminary Nexus and Valuation Analysis 15
Task 3 – Staff Meeting 1 6
Task 4 – Joint Work Session 1 April 3, 2023 7
Task 4 – Prepare draft Study and Recommendations April 12
Task 5 – Staff Meeting 2 6
Task 6 – Joint Work Session2 May 1, 2023 7
Task 7 – Finalize Update for Adoption May to June
(due to meeting schedule)
10
The level of effort for a park dedication study can vary widely depending on the availability of park
improvement information, the ease of finding an appropriate sample for estimated market values,
and the amount of change desired. Based on the scope above, it is estimated that this study will cost
$10,000 to complete, inclusive of expenses such as mileage. It should be noted that the park
planning that HKGi has been completing with the City will improve the efficiency of estimating park
improvements and costs and has been factored into the proposed project budget.
City of Farmington – Park Dedication Study – February 2023
3
The primary staff assigned to this project will be Rita Trapp and Beth Richmond. Rita Trapp is an
Associate who has 20 years of experience in community and park planning, while Beth Richmond has
been a community planner with HKGi for four years. Both Rita and Beth have experience in helping
cities with comprehensive planning, development review, zoning ordinance updates, and park
dedication analysis.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a proposal to assist the City with a park dedication study.
Please feel free to contact Rita or Paul with any questions. We are happy to work with you to revise the
proposal as needed to meet the City’s needs. Thank you for the opportunity and we look forward to
hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Rita Trapp, AICP Paul E. Paige, RLA
Associate President
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO :Farmington Parks and Recreaon Commission M embers
F R O M :Kellee O mlid, Parks and Recreaon D irector
S U B J EC T:Rambling River Park M aster P lan P roposal D ra
DATE:February 8, 2023
B A C KG R O U N D
City council and the parks and recreaon commis s ion held a joint work ses s ion on November 30, 2022.
The purpos e of the w ork s ession was for H KG i to present the key findings of the parks s ystem analys is
and revis ed J im Bell Park and P res erve mas ter plan. The presentaon also included an overview and
descripon of the A s s et M anagement Tool. S taff ’s recommendaon bas ed on H KG i’s findings w as to
focus on improvements at Rambling River Park and the trails through the park. At the joint w ork s ession,
commis s ion reached a consens us that Rambling River Park s hould be the first priority along w ith the
trails . The direcon from the w ork s ession was to develop a new master plan for Rambling River Park
from the S chmitz -Maki A rena entrance to Riverview Elementary S chool and meet w ith D akota C ounty
(county) regarding Rambling River Park trails and J im Bell Park and P res erve. The current master plan for
Rambling River Park was approved by city council in June 2009.
City s taff met w ith county staff in D ecember to discuss developing a new master plan for Rambling River
Park and the trails in Rambling River Park. The county is interes ted in collaborang w ith the city on
design improvements , evaluang the trail alignment, and how the trail through Rambling River Park
connects to the North Creek and S outh Creek G reenway regional trail. The county is also interes ted in
exploring Rambling River Park becoming a trailhead. The county has been partnering with other cies on
trailhead features including providing up to $400,000 for res troom facilies.
Following the meeng w ith the county, city staff met with H KG i to discuss developing a design s ervices
proposal to develop an updated mas ter plan for Rambling River Park. A=ached is H KG i’s Rambling River
Park M aster P lan P roposal D ra . S taff forwarded the dra propos al to county s taff for review and
comment. A s of today, comments from the county haven’t been received.
Commission is being as ked to review the dra proposal, as k any ques ons you have, and provide input
on the propos al dra . Bas ed on feedback from staff, the county, and parks and recreaon commis s ion,
H KG i w ill update the master plan proposal. S taff is als o requesng commission recommend city council
approve updang the mas ter plan for Rambling River Park.
AT TAC HMENT S :
Type Des cription
Backup Material Rambling River Park Master Plan Proposal Draft
City of Farmington – Rambling River Park Master Plan Proposal DRAFT
1
Creating Places that Enrich People’s Lives
January 13, 2023
Kellee Omlid
Parks and Recreation Director
City of Farmington
430 Third St.
Farmington, MN 55024
RE: Rambling River Park Master Plan Proposal DRAFT
Dear Kellee,
HKGi is pleased to submit the following design services proposal to develop an updated
Master Plan for Rambling River Park. This proposal outlines a process that incorporates Dakota
County input on regional greenway trails, as well as the input of park stakeholder user groups.
It is envisioned that the process would begin in February, and the Master Plan will be
completed by end of summer/early fall of 2023.
We propose to accomplish the process with the following work plan:
DRAFT Work Plan
1] Project Kick Off and Organization (February)
o Kick off meeting with city staff
Review project scope and schedule
Discuss draft public engagement plan
Tour park and develop photo and map inventory
Discuss issues and opportunities
o Review relevant plans and other background documents
Dakota County North Creek and South Creek Greenway Master Plans
Farmington 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Farmington Bike Ped Plan
Veterans Memorial planning
School District planning
City of Farmington – Rambling River Park Master Plan Proposal DRAFT
2
o Review Public Engagement Plan with city staff as outlined in this work plan.
Confirm the identified types and desired number of engagement events and
methods as part of finalizing the Public Engagement Plan.
o Develop base maps and analysis maps
Incorporate City and County GIS data
Analyze the following datasets as available: park features, trails,
roadways, parcels and ROW, adjacent land uses, land cover and
vegetation, waterways, bridges and other infrastructure, topography
and floodplain
Consider the following: park access points, trail access points, adjacent
uses, planned improvements, operations and maintenance issues
2] Stakeholder Engagement (March-April)
o Project Team meeting: City staff and consultants will meet to review and
confirm the Public Engagement Plan and analysis maps
o Hold Stakeholder meetings (7 total):
Dakota County: discuss options for North Creek and South Creek
regional trail alignments and trailhead features (including restrooms),
review budget and timeline for park improvements
Review conceptual design solutions for correcting the low
clearance issue at the bridge in the park.
Veterans group: discuss previous plans and ideas for a new park
shelter and restroom, including potential locations, budget, and
timeline
School District: discuss options for pickleball courts and other
recreational facilities, park access, signage, and potential shared
parking
Baseball and softball organizations – identify field utilization based on
input and schedule history data
Other Athletic organizations or other stakeholder group meetings, as
needed (up to 2 additional meetings)
Potential to shift some stakeholder meetings to Phase 4, if desired.
3] Develop Park Concept Plans (April-July)
o Project Team meeting: Review input from Stakeholder meetings and
brainstorm ideas for park concept plans
o Develop up to 3 concept plans for Rambling River Park. Incorporate and
consider: regional trail alignments, local trail access, trailhead facilities and
amenities, general landscape and vegetation areas, shoreline enhancements,
parking, shared uses, structures and shelters, athletic fields and facilities, play
equipment, etc.
City of Farmington – Rambling River Park Master Plan Proposal DRAFT
3
o Present concepts to Park Commission: Review stakeholder input and draft
concepts with Park Commission. Solicit input from Park Commission on
direction for public engagement.
o Online Survey: Develop survey in collaboration with city staff to ask city
residents about draft concept(s) and potential improvements to Rambling
River Park
Facilitate survey on Survey Monkey or Social Pinpoint
Summarize survey results and findings
o Open House: Host an open house meeting at Rambling River Park in the
spring to solicit input from the general public and stakeholders regarding draft
concept(s) and potential recommended park improvements
o Present summary of engagement findings to Park Commission
4] Develop Master Plan and Implementation Plan (July-August)
o Project Team Meeting: review input from Park Commission and public input
to determine if further stakeholder engagement is needed. Develop direction
for preferred concept.
o Develop Preferred Concept Plan
Meet with Dakota County to gain input on the preferred plan
o Develop Draft Master Plan document
Process overview
Summary of concepts
Summary of Engagement and Input
Preferred Concept
Implementation and Phasing Plan
Cost Estimate organized according to the Phasing Plan
Priority Projects aligned with funding and grant potential
o Present Draft Master Plan to City Council
o Develop Final Master Plan document
o OPTIONAL TASK: Develop 3D digital renderings of the preferred concept
master plan to provide stakeholders, elected officials, and future grant
applications with enhanced illustrative graphics of the master plan ideas.
Incorporate the renderings into the master plan document.
PROFESSIONAL FEES
The following is a summary of staff hours and costs related to the tasks in the work plan:
Task Cost
Project Kick Off and Organization $6,700
Stakeholder Engagement $7,600
City of Farmington – Rambling River Park Master Plan Proposal DRAFT
4
Develop Park Concept Plans $18,300
Develop Master Plan and Implementation Plan $15,500
Reimbursable Expenses $800
Base Project $48,900
OPTIONAL TASK: Develop 3D Renderings $7,700
Total Project with Optional Task $56,600
We look forward to the opportunity of helping Farmington with this important community
project. Please call or email Gabrielle if you have any additional questions or need additional
information. She can be reached at gabrielle@hkgi.com or 608-852-3370.
Sincerely,
Paul Paige, PLA Gabrielle Grinde, PLA
President Principal
HKGi HKGi
City of Farmington – Rambling River Park Master Plan Proposal DRAFT 5
Project Experience and Examples
City of Farmington – Rambling River Park Master Plan Proposal DRAFT 6
City of Farmington – Rambling River Park Master Plan Proposal DRAFT 7
City of Farmington – Rambling River Park Master Plan Proposal DRAFT 8
City of Farmington – Rambling River Park Master Plan Proposal DRAFT 9
3D Visualization
City of Farmington – Rambling River Park Master Plan Proposal DRAFT 10
Pickleball Court Design
City of Farmington – Rambling River Park Master Plan Proposal DRAFT 11
Hutchinson Park Planning
TO :Farmington Parks and Recreaon Commission M embers
F R O M :Kellee O mlid, Parks and Recreaon D irector
S U B J EC T:Review O pen Meeng L aw
DATE:February 8, 2023
B A C KG R O U N D
Minnes ota S tate S tatute has a law that pertains to open meengs for elected and appointed officials
including city councils and all boards and commissions. I t is important to unders tand the open meeng
law and how it affects the w ork you do as a parks and recreaon commission member for the City of
Farmington.
The open meeng law requires meengs of public bodies must generally be open to the public. I t s erves
three vital purpos es:
P rohibits acons from being taken at a s ecret meeng w here the interested public cannot be fully
informed of the decisions of public bodies or detect improper influences.
Ens ures the public’s right to be informed.
G ives the public an opportunity to present its view s .
City s taff is res pons ible for making s ure meeng dates, mes, and locaons are made public in a mely
manner. A s a parks and recreaon commis s ion member, each of you are res pons ible for and to
remember the follow ing in regards to the open meeng law :
Avoid gathering in a quorum (3+ members ) outs ide of the regular meeng. I f a quorum is present
at a s ocial gathering, please do not dis cus s , decide, or receive informaon on city busines s .
There are few excepons to the open meeng law. The excepons us ually pertain to city council on
a limited number of topics (i.e. labor negoaons ) that permit them to hold a closed meeng.
S erial discussions betw een less than a quorum could violate the open meeng law under certain
circums tances . Avoid phone calls, emails, texts, and social media to discuss city bus iness to avoid
having a s erial meeng. H ave thes e discussions during regular meengs.
A ny person who intenonally violates the open meeng law is s ubject to a civil penalty up to $300
for a s ingle occurrence. The public body may not pay the penalty.
I ncluded in the packet is informaon about the open meeng law that was put together by the League of
Minnes ota C ies . C ommis s ion members are asked to read the open meeng law informaon prior to the
meeng, come prepared to discuss, and as k any ques ons you have.
No formal acon is required as this is for informaonal purpos es only.
AT TAC HMENT S :
Type Des cription
Backup Material Open Meeting Law Information
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 8/30/2022
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 12
Minn. Stat. § 645.44, subd.
5. If a holiday falls on a Saturday, the preceding Friday is considered to be a
holiday. If a holiday falls on a Sunday, the next Monday is considered to be
a holiday.
Minn. Stat. § 645.15. See
Section I-B-2 for more
information about notice
for special meetings.
State law does not prohibit meetings on weekends. However, state law
regulating how time is computed for the purpose of giving any required
notice provides that if the last day of the notice falls on either a Saturday or
a Sunday, that day cannot be counted. For example, if notice for a special
meeting to be held on a Saturday or Sunday is required, the third day of that
notice would need to be provided on the preceding Friday.
Minn. Stat. § 204C.03.
Minn. Stat. § 202A.19.
Minnesota election law provides that meetings are prohibited between
6 p.m. and 8 p.m. on any election day, including a local general or special
election.
Therefore, if a school district is holding a special election on a particular
day, no other unit of government totally or partially within the school
district may hold a meeting between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. Meetings are also
prohibited after 6 p.m. on the day of a major political precinct caucus.
II. Open meeting law
See LMC information
memo, Meetings of City
Councils, for more
information about the open
meeting law.
A. Purpose
Minn. Stat. § 13D.01. St.
Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v.
Dist. 742 Community
Schools, 332 N.W.2d 1
(Minn. 1983).
The open meeting law requires that meetings of public bodies must
generally be open to the public. It serves three vital purposes:
• Prohibits actions from being taken at a secret meeting where the
interested public cannot be fully informed of the decisions of public
bodies or detect improper influences.
• Ensures the public’s right to be informed.
• Gives the public an opportunity to present its views.
B. Public notice
See section I-Types of
council meetings and notice
requirements. Minn. Stat. §
13D.04, subd. 7.
Public notice generally must be provided for meetings of a public body
subject to the open meeting law. The notice requirements depend on the
type of meeting. However, if a person receives actual notice of a meeting at
least 24 hours before the meeting, all notice requirements under the open
meeting law are satisfied regardless of the method of receipt.
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 8/30/2022
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 13
C. Location
Quast v. Knutson, 276
Minn. 340, 150 N.W.2d
199 (1967). (Holding that a
school board violated the
open meeting law when it
held a meeting in a room
located 20 miles outside the
school district). DPO 18-
003.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that, to meet the statutory
requirement that meetings of public bodies shall be open to the public, “it is
essential that such meetings be held in a public place located within the
territorial confines of the [public body] involved.”
D. Printed materials
Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd.
6. DPO 08-015. DPO 17-
006. DPO 13-015 (noting
that the open meeting law
“is silent with respect to
agendas; it neither requires
them nor prohibits them”).
DPO 18-003. DPO 18-011.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd.
6.
At least one copy of the printed materials relating to agenda items that are
provided to the council at or before a meeting must also be made available
for public inspection in the meeting room while the governing body
considers the subject matter. This requirement does not apply to materials
classified by law as other than public or to materials relating to the agenda
items of a closed meeting.
E. Groups governed by the open meeting law
Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd.
1.
Under the Minnesota open meeting law, all city council meetings and
executive sessions must be open to the public with only a few exceptions.
Minn. Stat. § 465.719,
subd. 9.
The open meeting law also requires meetings of a public body or of any
committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission of a public
body to be open to the public. For example, the governing bodies of local
public pension plans, housing and redevelopment authorities, economic
development authorities, and city-created corporations are subject to the
open meeting law.
Southern Minnesota
Municipal Power Agency v.
Boyne, 578 N.W.2d 362
(Minn. 1998).
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held, however, that the governing body
of a municipal electric power agency is not subject to the open meeting law
because the Legislature has granted these agencies authority to conduct
their affairs as private corporations.
F. Gatherings governed by the open meeting law
Moberg v. Indep. Sch. Dist.
No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510
(Minn. 1983). St. Cloud
Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist.
742 Community Schools,
332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn.
1983).
The open meeting law does not define the term “meeting.” The Minnesota
Supreme Court, however, has ruled that meetings are gatherings of a
quorum or more members of the governing body—or a quorum of a
committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission thereof—at
which members discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues
relating to the official business of that governing body.
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 8/30/2022
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 14
Minn. Stat. § 412.191,
subd. 1.
Minn. Stat. § 645.08(5).
For most public bodies, including statutory cities, a majority of its qualified
members constitutes a quorum. Charter cities may provide that a different
number of members of the council constitutes a quorum.
See Section II-G-4 for more
information about serial
meetings.
The open meeting law does not generally apply in situations where less
than a quorum of the council is involved. However, serial meetings, in
groups of less than a quorum, that are held to avoid the requirements of the
open meeting law may be found to violate the law, depending on the
specific facts.
G. Open meeting law exceptions
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd.
1(d).
The open meeting law is designed to favor public access. Therefore, the
few exceptions that exist are carefully limited to avoid abuse. All closed
meetings (except those closed under the attorney-client privilege) must be
electronically recorded at the expense of the public body. Unless otherwise
provided by law, the recordings must be preserved for at least three years
after the date of the meeting.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd.
3. Before closing a meeting under any of the following exceptions, a city
council must make a statement on the record that includes the specific
grounds that permit the meeting to be closed and describes the subject to be
discussed.
DPO 14-005. DPO 13-012.
DPO 06-020. DPO 14-005.
See The Free Press v.
County of Blue Earth, 677
N.W.2d 471 (Minn. Ct.
App. 2004)
The commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Administration has
advised that a member of the public body (and not its attorney) must make
the statement on the record. The commissioner has also advised that citing
the specific statutory authority that permits the closed meeting is the
simplest way to satisfy the requirement for stating the specific grounds
permitting the meeting to be closed.
(holding that the county’s
statement that it was
closing a meeting under the
attorney-client privilege to
discuss “pending litigation”
did not satisfy the
requirement of describing
the subject to be discussed
at the closed meeting).
Both the commissioner and the Minnesota Court of Appeals have
concluded that something more specific than a general statement is needed
to satisfy the requirement of providing a description of the subject to be
discussed.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.04, subd.
5. The same notice requirements that apply to open meetings also apply to
closed meetings. For example, if a closed meeting takes place at a regular
meeting, the notice requirements for a regular meeting apply. Likewise, if a
closed meeting takes place as a special meeting or as an emergency
meeting, the notice requirements for a special meeting or an emergency
meeting would apply.
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 8/30/2022
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 15
1. Labor negotiations
Minn. Stat. § 13D.03, subd.
1 (b).
DPO 13-012.
Minn. Stat. §§ 179A.01-.25.
The city council may, by majority vote in a public meeting, decide to hold a
closed meeting to consider its strategy for labor negotiations, including
negotiation strategies or developments or discussion of labor-negotiation
proposals conducted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes sections 179A.01 to
179A.25. The council must announce the time and place of the closed
meeting at the public meeting.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.03,
subds. 1(d), 2.
See Closing a Meeting from
DPO.
DPO 05-027.
DPO 00-037.
After the closed meeting, a written record of all members of the city council
and all other people present must be available to the public. The council
must record the proceedings at city expense and preserve the recording for
two years after signing the contract. The tape-recording must be available
to the public after all labor contracts are signed for the current budget
period.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.03, subd.
3. If someone claims the council conducted public business other than labor
negotiations at the closed meeting, a court must privately review the
recording of the meeting.
If the court finds the law was not violated, the action must be dismissed,
and the recording sealed and preserved. If the court determines a violation
of the open meeting law may exist, the recording may be introduced at trial
in its entirety, subject to any protective orders requested by either party and
deemed appropriate by the court.
2. Not public data under the Minnesota Government
Data Practices Act
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd.
2. The general rule is that meetings cannot be closed to discuss data that are
not public under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. A meeting
must be closed, however, if certain not public data is discussed.
Any portion of a meeting must be closed if expressly required by law or if
any of the following types of not public data are discussed:
Minn. Stat. §§ 144.291-
.298.
• Data that would identify victims or reporters of criminal sexual conduct,
domestic abuse, or maltreatment of minors or vulnerable adults.
• Active investigative data created by a law-enforcement agency, or
internal-affairs data relating to allegations of law-enforcement
personnel misconduct.
• Educational, health, medical, welfare, or mental-health data that are not
public data.
• Certain medical records.
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 8/30/2022
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 16
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd.
1(d). A closed meeting held to discuss any of the not public data listed above
must be electronically recorded, and the recording must be preserved for at
least three years after the meeting.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd.
1 (b), (c).
DPO 09-012.
Other not public data may be discussed at an open meeting without liability
or penalty if the disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the public
body’s authority, and it is reasonably necessary to conduct the business or
agenda item before the public body. The public body, however, should
make reasonable efforts to protect the data from disclosure. Data discussed
at an open meeting retains its original classification; however, a record of
the meeting shall be public.
3. Misconduct allegations or charges
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05,
subds. 1(d), 2(b). DPO 03-
020. (Advising that when a
meeting is closed under this
exception, Minn. Stat. §
13.43, subd. 2 requires the
government entity to
identify the individual who
is being discussed).
A public body must close one or more meetings for “preliminary
consideration” of allegations or charges of misconduct against an individual
subject to its authority. This type of meeting must be open at the request of
the individual who is the subject of the meeting.
If the public body concludes discipline of any nature may be warranted,
further meetings or hearings relating to the specific charges or allegations
that are held after that conclusion is reached must be open. This type of
meeting must be electronically recorded, and the recording must be
preserved for at least three years after the meeting.
DPO 14-004. The commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Administration has
advised that a city could not close a meeting under this exception to
consider allegations of misconduct against a job applicant who had been
extended a conditional offer of employment. The job applicant was not a
city employee.
The commissioner reasoned that the city council had no authority to
discipline the job applicant or to direct his actions in any way; therefore, he
was not “an individual subject to its authority.”
DPO 10-001.
Minn. Stat. § 13.43. The commissioner has also advised that a recording of a closed meeting for
preliminary consideration of misconduct allegations is private personnel
data under Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 4, and is accessible to the subject of
the data but not to the public. The commissioner noted that at some point in
time, some or all of the data on the recording may become public under
Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 2.
For example, if the employee is disciplined and there is a final disposition,
certain personnel data becomes public.
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 8/30/2022
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 17
4. Performance evaluations
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05,
subds. 1(d), 3(a). See DPO
14-007, DPO 15-002, and
DPO 16-002 (discussing
what type of summary
satisfies the open meeting
law).
A public body may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an
individual who is subject to its authority. The public body must identify the
individual to be evaluated before closing the meeting.
DPO 05-013 (advising that
a government entity could
close a meeting under this
exception to discuss its
contract with an
independent contractor
when that contractor is an
individual human being).
At its next open meeting, the public body must summarize its conclusions
regarding the evaluation. This type of meeting must be open at the request
of the individual who is the subject of the meeting. If this type of meeting is
closed, it must be electronically recorded, and the recording must be
preserved for at least three years after the meeting.
5. Attorney-client privilege
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd.
3 (b).
Brainerd Daily Dispatch,
LLC v. Dehen, 693 N.W.2d
435 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005).
Prior Lake American v.
Mader, 642 N.W.2d 729
(Minn. 2002). Northwest
Publications, Inc. v. City of
St. Paul, 435 N.W.2d 64
(Minn. Ct. App. 1989).
A meeting may be closed if permitted by the attorney-client privilege.
Meetings between a government body and its attorney to discuss active or
threatened litigation may only be closed, under the attorney-client privilege,
when a balancing of the purposes served by the attorney-client privilege
against those served by the open meeting law dictates the need for absolute
confidentiality.
Minneapolis Star &
Tribune v. Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in
and for the City of
Minneapolis, 251 N.W.2d
620 (Minn. 1976).
DPO 14-005. DPO 14-017.
DPO 16-003. DPO 17-003.
The need for absolute confidentiality should relate to litigation strategy and
will usually arise only after the city has made a substantive decision on the
underlying matter. This privilege may not be abused to suppress public
observations of the decision-making process and does not include situations
where the council will be receiving general legal opinions and advice on the
strengths and weaknesses of a proposed underlying action that may give
rise to future litigation.
6. Purchase or sale of real or personal property
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd.
3 (c). A public body may close a meeting to:
Minn. Stat. § 13.44, subd.
3.
• Determine the asking price for real or personal property to be sold by
the public body.
• Review confidential or protected nonpublic appraisal data.
• Develop or consider offers or counteroffers for the purchase or sale of
real or personal property.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd.
3 (c). Before holding a closed meeting under this exception, the public body must
identify on the record the particular real or personal property that is the
subject of the closed meeting.
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 8/30/2022
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 18
See Closing a Meeting from
DPO.
Vik v. Wild Rice Watershed
Dist., No. A09-1841 (Minn.
Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2010)
(unpublished decision)
(holding that this exception
authorizes closing a
meeting to discuss the
development or
consideration of a property
transaction and is not
limited to the discussion of
specific terms of advanced
negotiations). DPO 08-001.
DPO 14-014.
The closed meeting must be recorded. The recording must be preserved for
eight years and must be made available to the public only after all real or
personal property discussed at the meeting has been purchased or sold, or
after the public body has abandoned the purchase or sale. The real or
personal property that is being discussed must be identified on the
recording. A list of members and all other persons present at the closed
meeting must be made available to the public after the closed meeting. The
actual purchase or sale of the real or personal property must be approved at
an open meeting, and the purchase or sale price is public data.
7. Security reports
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd.
3 (d). Meetings may be closed to receive security briefings and reports, to discuss
issues related to security systems, to discuss emergency-response
procedures, and to discuss security deficiencies in or recommendations
regarding public services, infrastructure, and facilities, if disclosure of the
information would pose a danger to public safety or compromise security
procedures or responses. Financial issues related to security matters must be
discussed and all related financial decisions must be made at an open
meeting.
See Closing a Meeting from
DPO.
Before closing a meeting under this exception, the public body must, when
describing the subject to be discussed, refer to the facilities, systems,
procedures, services or infrastructures to be considered during the closed
meeting. The closed meeting must be recorded, and the recording must be
preserved for at least four years.
H. Common issues
1. Interviews
Channel 10, Inc. v. Indep.
Sch. Dist. No. 709, 215
N.W.2d 814 (Minn. 1974).
The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that a school board must interview
prospective employees for administrative positions in open sessions. The
court reasoned that the absence of a statutory exception indicated that the
Legislature intended such sessions to be open.
As a result, a city council should conduct any interviews of prospective
officers and employees at an open meeting if a quorum or more of the
council will be present.
Mankato Free Press v. City
of North Mankato, 563
N.W.2d 291 (Minn. Ct.
App. 1997).
The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a situation where individual
council members conducted separate, serial interviews of candidates for a
city position in one-on-one closed interviews.
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 8/30/2022
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 19
The district court found that no “meeting” of the council had occurred
because there was never a quorum of the council present during the
interviews.
However, the court of appeals sent the case back to the district court for a
determination of whether the council members had conducted the interview
process in a serial fashion to avoid the requirements of the open meeting
law.
Mankato Free Press v. City
of North Mankato, No. C9-
98-677 (Minn. Ct. App.
Dec. 15, 1998)
(unpublished decision).
On remand, the district court found that the individual interviews were not
done to avoid the requirements of the open meeting law. This decision was
also appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s
decision. Cities that want to use this type of interview process should first
consult their city attorney.
2. Informational meetings and committees
St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc.
v. Dist. 742 Community
Schools, 332 N.W.2d 1
(Minn. 1983).
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that informational seminars about
school-board business, which the entire board attends, must be noticed and
open to the public. As a result, it appears that any scheduled gatherings of a
quorum or more of a city council must be properly noticed and open to the
public, regardless of whether the council takes or contemplates taking
action at that gathering. This includes meetings and work sessions where
members receive information that may influence later decisions.
Many city councils create committees to make recommendations regarding
a specific issue. Commonly, such a committee will be responsible for
researching the issue and submitting a recommendation to the council for
its approval.
DPO 08-007.
DPO 13-015.
These committees are usually advisory, and the council is still responsible
for making the final decision. This type of committee may be subject to the
open meeting law. Some factors that may be relevant in deciding whether a
committee is subject to the open meeting law include: how the committee
was created and who its members are; whether the committee is performing
an ongoing function, or instead, is performing a one-time function; and
what duties and powers have been granted to the committee.
DPO 05-014. For example, the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of
Administration has advised that “standing” committees of a city hospital
board that were responsible for management liaison, collection of
information, and formulation of issues and recommendations for the board
were subject to the open meeting law. The advisory opinion noted that the
standing committees were performing tasks that relate to the ongoing
operation of the hospital district and were not performing a one-time or “ad
hoc” function.
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 8/30/2022
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 20
DPO 07-025. In contrast, the commissioner has advised that a city’s Free Speech
Working Group, consisting of citizens and city officials appointed by the
city to meet to develop and review strategies for addressing free-speech
concerns relating to a political convention, was not subject to the open
meeting law. The advisory opinion noted that the group did not have
decision-making authority.
A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Aug. 28,
1996).
Sovereign v. Dunn, 498
N.W.2d 62 (Minn. Ct. App.
1993).
DPO 07-025.
It is common for city councils to appoint individual council members to act
as liaisons between the council and particular council committees or other
government entities. The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a
situation where the mayor and one other member of a city council attended
a series of mediation sessions regarding an annexation dispute that were not
open to the public.
The Court of Appeals held that the open meeting law did not apply to these
meetings concluding “that a gathering of public officials is not a
‘committee, subcommittee, board, department or commission’ subject to
the open meeting law unless the group is capable of exercising decision-
making powers of the governing body.”
The Court of Appeals also noted that the capacity to act on behalf of the
governing body is presumed where members of the group comprise a
quorum of the body and could also arise where there has been a delegation
of power from the governing body to the group.
If a city is unsure whether a meeting of a committee, board, or other city
entity is subject to the open meeting law, it should consult its city attorney
or consider seeking an advisory opinion from the commissioner of the
Minnesota Department of Administration.
Thuma v. Kroschel, 506
N.W.2d 14 (Minn. Ct. App.
1993).
DPO 16-005.
Notice for a special meeting of the city council may be needed if a quorum
of the council will be present at a committee meeting and will be
participating in the discussion. For example, when a quorum of a city
council attended a meeting of the city’s planning commission, the
Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that there was a violation of the open
meeting law not because the council members simply attended the meeting
but because the council members conducted public business in conjunction
with that meeting.
A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Aug. 28,
1996). Based on this decision, the attorney general has advised that mere
attendance by council members at a meeting of a council committee held in
compliance with the open meeting law would not constitute a special city
council meeting requiring separate notice. The attorney general cautioned,
however, that the additional council members should not participate in
committee discussions or deliberations absent a separate special-meeting
notice of a city council meeting.
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 8/30/2022
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 21
3. Social gatherings
St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc.
v. Dist. 742 Community
Schools, 332 N.W.2d 1
(Minn. 1983). Moberg v.
Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 281,
336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn.
1983). Hubbard
Broadcasting, Inc. v. City
of Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757
(Minn. 1982).
Social gatherings of city council members will not be considered a meeting
subject to the requirements of the open meeting law if there is not a quorum
present, or, if a quorum is present, if the quorum does not discuss, decide,
or receive information on official city business. The Minnesota Supreme
Court has ruled that a conversation between two city council members over
lunch about a land-use application did not violate the open meeting law
because a quorum of the council was not present.
4. Serial meetings
Moberg v. Indep. Sch. Dist.
No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510
(Minn. 1983). DPO 10-011.
DPO 06-017.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has noted that meetings of less than a
quorum of a public body held serially to avoid a public meeting or to
fashion agreement on an issue of public business may violate the open
meeting law.
Mankato Free Press v. City
of North Mankato, 563
N.W.2d 291 (Minn. Ct.
App. 1997).
The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a situation where individual
council members conducted separate, serial interviews of candidates for a
city position in one-on-one closed interviews. The district court found that
no “meeting” of the council had occurred because there was never a
quorum of the council present during the interviews.
However, the court of appeals sent the case back to the district court for a
determination of whether the council members had conducted the interview
process in a serial fashion to avoid the requirements of the open meeting
law.
Mankato Free Press v. City
of North Mankato, No. C9-
98-677 (Minn. Ct. App.
Dec. 15, 1998)
(unpublished decision).
On remand, the district court found that the individual interviews were not
done to avoid the requirements of the open meeting law. This decision was
also appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s
decision. Cities that want to use this type of interview process with job
applicants should first consult their city attorney.
5. Training sessions
Compare St. Cloud
Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist.
742 Community Schools,
332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983)
and A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Feb. 5,
1975). DPO 16-006.
It is not clear whether the participation of a quorum or more of the
members of a city council in a training program would be defined as a
meeting under the open meeting law. The determining factor would likely
be whether the program includes a discussion of general training
information or a discussion of specific matters relating to an individual city.
A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Feb. 5,
1975). DPO 16-006. The attorney general has advised that a city council’s participation in a non-
public training program devoted to developing skills was not a meeting
subject to the open meeting law.
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 8/30/2022
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 22
The commissioner of the Department of Administration has likewise
advised that a school board’s participation in a non-public team-building
session to “improve trust, relationships, communications, and collaborative
problem solving among Board members,” was not a meeting subject to the
open meeting law if the members are not “gathering to discuss, decide, or
receive information as a group relating to ‘the official business’ of the
governing body.”
However, the opinion also advised that if there were to be any discussion of
specific official business by the attending members, either outside or during
training sessions, it could be a violation of the open meeting law.
6. Telephone, email, and social media
Moberg v. Indep. Sch. Dist.
No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510
(Minn. 1983). DPO 17-005
(advising communication
through a letter violated the
open meeting law).
It is possible that communication through telephone calls, email, or other
technology could violate the open meeting law. The Minnesota Supreme
Court has indicated that communication through letters and telephone calls
could violate the open meeting law under certain circumstances. Best
practice to share information with the entire council is to send it to city staff
and have them distribute it. If a council member needs to email the entire
council, they should use blind carbon copy (BCC) to add recipients to avoid
accidental use of reply all which may constitute the initiation of a
discussion among a quorum of the public body.
DPO 09-020. DPO 14-015.
The commissioner of the Department of Administration has advised that
back-and-forth email communications among a quorum of a public body
that was subject to the open meeting law in which the members commented
on and provided direction about official business violated the open meeting
law.
However, the commissioner also advised that “one-way communication
between the chair and members of a public body is permissible, such as
when the chair or staff sends meeting materials via email to all board
members, as long as no discussion or decision-making ensues.”
O’Keefe v. Carter, No.
A12-0811 (Minn. Ct. App.
Dec. 31, 2012)
(unpublished decision).
In contrast, an unpublished decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals
concluded that email communications are not subject to the open meeting
law because they are written communications and are not a “meeting” for
purposes of the open meeting law.
The decision also noted that even if email communications are subject to
the open meeting law, the substance of the emails in question did not
contain the type of discussion that would be required for a prohibited
“meeting” to have occurred. The court of appeals noted that the substance
of the email messages was not important and controversial; instead, the
email communications discussed a relatively straightforward operational
matter.
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 8/30/2022
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 23
The decision also noted that the town board members did not appear to
make any decisions in their email communications.
Because this decision is unpublished, it is not binding precedent on other
courts. In addition, the outcome of this decision might have been different
if the email communications had related to something other than
operational matters, for example, if the board members were attempting to
build agreement on a particular issue that was going to be presented to the
town board at a future meeting.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.065. The open meeting law was amended in 2014 to provide that “the use of
social media by members of a public body does not violate the open
meeting law as long as the social media use is limited to exchanges with all
members of the general public.” Email is not considered a type of social
media under the new law.
The open meeting law does not define the term “social media,” but this
term is generally understood to mean forms of electronic communication,
including websites for social networking like Facebook, LinkedIn,
Instagram, and Twitter through which users create online communities to
share information, ideas, and other content.
It is important to remember that the use of social media by council
members could still be used to support other claims such as claims of
defamation or of conflict of interest in decision-making. As a result, council
members should make sure that any comments they make on social media
are factually correct and should not comment on issues that will come
before the council in the future for a quasi-judicial hearing and decision,
such as the consideration of whether to grant an application for a
conditional use permit.
See II-G-4 - Serial
meetings. It is also important to remember that serial discussions between less than a
quorum of the council could violate the open meeting law under certain
circumstances.
As a result, city councils and other public bodies should take a conservative
approach and should not use telephone calls, email, or other technology to
communicate back and forth with other members of the public body if both
of the following circumstances exist:
• A quorum of the council or public body will be contacted regarding the
same matter.
• Official business is being discussed.
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 8/30/2022
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 24
Minn. Stat. § 13.02, subd.
7. Another thing council members should be careful about is which email
account they use to receive emails relating to city business because such
emails likely would be considered government data that is subject to a
public-records request under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act
(MGDPA).
The best option would be for each council member to have an individual
email account that the city provides, and city staff manage. However, this is
not always possible for cities due to budget, size, or logistics.
If council members don’t have a city email account, there are some things
to think about before using a personal email account for city business.
First, preferably only the council member should have access to the
personal email account. Using a shared account with other family members
could lead to incorrect information being communicated from the account,
or incoming information being inadvertently deleted. Also, since city
emails are government data, city officials may have to separate personal
emails from city emails when responding to a public-records request under
the MGDPA.
Second, if the account a city council member wants to use for city business
is tied to a private employer, that private employer may have a policy that
restricts this kind of use.
Even if a private employer allows this type of use, it is important to be
aware that in the event of a public-records request under the MGDPA or a
discovery request in litigation, the private employer may be compelled to
have a search done of a council member’s email communications on the
private employer’s equipment or to restore files from a backup or archive.
See Handbook, Records
Management, for more
information about records
management.
What may work best is to use a free, third-party email service, such as
Gmail or Hotmail, for your city account and to avoid using that email
account for any personal email or for anything that may constitute an
official record of city business since such records must be retained in
accordance with the state records-retention requirements.
I. Advisory opinions
1. Department of Administration
Minn. Stat. § 13.072, subd.
1 (b). See Minnesota
Department of
Administration, Data
Practices for an index of
advisory opinions.
The commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Administration has
authority to issue non-binding advisory opinions on certain issues related to
the open meeting law. A $200 fee is required. The Data Practices Office
(DPO) handles these requests.
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 8/30/2022
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 25
See Requesting an Open
Meeting Law Advisory
Opinion.
A public body, subject to the open meeting law, can request an advisory
opinion. A person who disagrees with the way members of a governing
body perform their duties under the open meeting law can also request an
advisory opinion.
2. Attorney General
Minn. Stat. § 8.07.
See index of Attorney
General Advisory Opinions
from 1993 to present.
The Minnesota Attorney General is authorized to issue written advisory
opinions to city attorneys on “questions of public importance.” The
Attorney General has issued several advisory opinions on the open meeting
law.
J. Penalties
Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd.
1.
Claude v. Collins, 518
N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 1994).
Any person who intentionally violates the open meeting law is subject to
personal liability in the form of a civil penalty of up to $300 for a single
occurrence. The public body may not pay the penalty. A court may consider
a council member’s time and experience in office to determine the amount
of the civil penalty.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd.
2.
O’Keefe v. Carter, No.
A12-0811 (Minn. Ct. App.
Dec. 31, 2012)
(unpublished decision).
An action to enforce this penalty may be brought by any person in any
court of competent jurisdiction where the administrative office of the
governing body is located.
In an unpublished decision, the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that
this broad grant of jurisdiction authorized a member of a town board to
bring an action against his own town board for alleged violations of the
open meeting law. This same decision also concluded that a two-year
statute of limitations applies to lawsuits under the open meeting law.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd.
4. See LMC information
memo, LMCIT Liability
Coverage Guide, for
information about insurance
coverage for lawsuits under
the open meeting law.
The court may also award reasonable costs, disbursements, and attorney
fees of up to $13,000 to any party in an action alleging a violation of the
open meeting law. The court may award costs and attorney fees to a
defendant only if the action is found to be frivolous and without merit.
A public body may pay any costs, disbursements, or attorney fees incurred
by or awarded against any of its members.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd.
4. If a party prevails in a lawsuit under the open meeting law, an award of
reasonable attorney fees is mandatory if the court determines that the public
body was the subject of a prior written advisory opinion from the
commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Administration, and the
court finds that the opinion is directly related to the lawsuit and that the
public body did not act in conformity with the opinion. A court is required
to give deference to the advisory opinion.
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 8/30/2022
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 26
Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd.
4 (d). Coalwell v. Murray,
No. C6-95-2436 (Minn. Ct.
App. Aug 6, 1996)
(unpublished decision).
Elseth v. Hille, No A12-
1496 (Minn. Ct. App. May
13, 2013) (unpublished
decision).
No monetary penalties or attorney fees may be awarded against a member
of a public body unless the court finds that there was intent to violate the
open meeting law.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd.
3 (a). Brown v. Cannon
Falls Twp., 723 N.W.2d 31
(Minn. Ct. App. 2006).
If a person is found to have intentionally violated the open meeting law in
three or more separate actions involving the same governing body, that
person must forfeit any further right to serve on the governing body or in
any other capacity with the public body for a period of time equal to the
term of office the person was serving.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd.
3 (b).
Minn. Const. art. VIII, § 5.
Jacobsen v. Nagel, 255
Minn. 300, 96 N.W.2d 569
(1959).
If a court finds a separate, third violation that is unrelated to the previous
violations, it must declare the position vacant and notify the appointing
authority or clerk of the governing body. As soon as practicable, the
appointing authority or governing body shall fill the position as in the case
of any other vacancy. Under the Minnesota Constitution, the Legislature
may provide for the removal of public officials for malfeasance or
nonfeasance. To constitute malfeasance or nonfeasance, a public official’s
conduct must affect the performance of official duties and must relate to
something of a substantial nature directly affecting the rights and interests
of the public.
Jacobsen v. Nagel , 255
Minn. 300, 96 N.W.2d 569
(1959). Claude v. Collins,
518 N.W.2d 836 (Minn.
1994).
“Malfeasance” refers to evil conduct or an illegal deed. “Nonfeasance” is
described as neglect or refusal, without sufficient excuse, to perform what
is a public officer’s legal duty to perform. More likely than not, a violation
of the open meeting law would be in the nature of nonfeasance. Although
good faith does not nullify a violation, good faith is relevant in determining
whether a violation amounts to nonfeasance.
Sullivan v. Credit River
Twp., 299 Minn. 170, 217
N.W.2d 502 (1974).
Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc.
v. City of Afton, 323
N.W.2d 757 (Minn. 1982).
In re D & A Truck Line,
Inc., 524 N.W.2d 1 (Minn.
Ct. App. 1994).
The open meeting law does not address whether actions taken at a meeting
that does not comply with its requirements would be valid.
Sullivan v. Credit River
Township, 217 N.W.2d 502
(Minn. 1974). Lac Qui
Parle-Yellow Bank
Watershed Dist. v.
Wollschlager, No. C6-96-
1023 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov.
12, 1996) (unpublished
decision). DPO 11-004.
Minnesota courts have generally refused to invalidate actions taken at an
improperly closed meeting because this is not a remedy the open meeting
law provides.
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 8/30/2022
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 27
Quast v. Knutson, 276
Minn. 340, 150 N.W.2d
199 (1967).
But the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that an attempted school district
consolidation was fatally defective when the initiating resolution was
adopted at a meeting that was not open to the public.
III. Meeting procedures
A. Citizen involvement
Any person may observe council meetings. In fact, the council should
encourage citizen attendance to help raise awareness of the city’s problems
and help create support for programs suggested by the council.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd.
6. Citizens must be able to hear the discussion at a meeting and must be able
to determine who votes for or against a motion.
DPO 08-015. DPO 17-006. One copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda items of the
meeting that have been distributed or made available to all members of the
council must be made available to the audience unless doing so would
violate the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
Minn. Stat. § 412.191,
subd. 2.
Although anyone can attend council meetings, citizens cannot speak or
otherwise participate in any discussions unless the mayor or the presiding
officer recognizes them for this purpose. The decision to recognize speakers
is usually up to the mayor or presiding officer, but the council can overrule
this decision. The council can, through a motion, decide to hear one or
more speakers from the audience.
Participation in council meetings can be intimidating for the average
citizen. Councils should make sure citizens are invited to participate when
appropriate and listened to with courtesy. Individual council members
should not argue with citizens. Citizens attend council meetings to give
information for the council to consider. Discussions or debates between
individual council members and citizens during council meetings is
inappropriate and may reflect badly on the decision-making process.
B. Recording and broadcasting of meetings
A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Dec. 4,
1972). The public may make an audio or videotape of an open meeting if doing so
does not have a significantly adverse impact on the order of the meeting.
The city council may not prohibit dissemination or broadcast of the tape.
Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subd.
1. Minn. Stat. § 13.02,
subd. 7.
Cities may also choose to record council meetings. The recording is a
government record that must be kept in compliance with the city’s records-
retention policy. It must also be made available to the public if it contains
public data.
TO :Farmington Parks and Recreaon Commission M embers
F R O M :Kellee O mlid, Parks and Recreaon D irector
S U B J EC T:Review Parks and Recreaon Commission Bylaw s
DATE:February 8, 2023
B A C KG R O U N D
O ne of commission’s goals for the 2020 Work P lan w as to “C reate Commission Bylaw s ”. Thes e bylaws
w ere intended to idenfy rules s o the commission operates consistently, there are clear expectaons for
members, and the commis s ion can funcon in an orderly manner. The commission developed bylaws
over several months in 2020, w hich included reviewing s ample bylaws from other parks and recreaon
commis s ions and boards and deciding w hat to include in its bylaw s . C ommis s ion created dra. bylaw s
that it approved at its May 13, 2020 meeng and forwarded them to city council for approval. C ity
council approved the parks and recreaon commission bylaws at its June 1, 2020 meeng.
I ncluded in the packet is the city council approved parks and recreaon commission’s bylaws. S ince the
commis s ion has new members and the commission has n’t reviewed the bylaws recently, going forw ard
they w ill be reviewed annually in February. C ommis s ion members are asked to read the bylaw s prior to
the meeng, come prepared to dis cus s , and ask any quesons you have.
No formal acon is required as this is for informaonal purpos es only.
AT TAC HMENT S :
Type Des cription
Backup Material Parks and Recreation Commission Bylaws
TO :Farmington Parks and Recreaon Commission M embers
F R O M :Kellee O mlid, Parks and Recreaon D irector
S U B J EC T:Review 2023 Work P lan P rogress
DATE:February 8, 2023
B A C KG R O U N D
The commission’s updated 2023 work plan is included in the meeng packet. S how n in bold red are work
plan items completed either at or since the las t commis s ion meeng held on January 11, 2023. I tems that
are in bold black have been completed.
Commission members s hould be prepared to review the work plan to idenfy any other addional items
that have been completed and then discuss other work plan items it w ould like to work on at future
meengs.
AT TAC HMENT S :
Type Des cription
Backup Material 2023 Work Plan
FARMINGTON PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
2023 WORK PLAN
Goal #1: Provide to the City Council a recommended 2024-2028 capital improvement plan for
the park improvement fund.
Objectives:
1. By April 1, the Commission will have discussed and identified a preliminary list of five-year
capital improvement projects for the park improvement fund that will include a list of parks,
costs, and schedule to be completed in the years 2024 to 2028.
2. By June 1, the Commission will finalize the five-year capital improvement projects for the years
2024-2028 and make a recommendation to the City Council for approval.
3. By December 31, the improvement projects recommended for funding from 2024-2028 will be
included in the City Council’s approved 2024 final budget.
Goal #2: Participate in a parks and facilities tour with the Rambling River Center Advisory
Board and City Council.
Objectives:
1. By March 1, the Commission, Advisory Board and City Council will have identified a date to
have a tour.
2. By May 1, a draft list of parks and facilities to tour will be reviewed by the Commission.
3. By June 1, a final list of parks and facilities to tour will be approved by the Commission.
4. By October 1, a parks and facilities tour will have occurred.
Goal #3: Participate in a work session with City Council.
Objectives:
1. By February 1, a date to have a work session with City Council will be identified.
2. By May 1, a list of work session topic(s) will be approved by the Commission.
3. By October 1, a work session with City Council will have occurred.
Goal #4: Participate in the process of making improvements at Flagstaff Meadows Park.
Objectives:
1. By January 1, the Commission will have reviewed and approved from the proposals submitted
a vendor to purchase and install the playground equipment and will make a recommendation to
City Council to approve the vendor selected.
Status: Completed. At their December 14, 2022 meeting, commission selected and
recommended a vendor to purchase and install the playground equipment.
2. By February 1, City Council will have approved the purchase and installation of the new
playground equipment.
Status: Completed. City council approved the purchase and installation at their
December 19, 2022 meeting,
3. By February 1, the Commission will have reviewed and approved the shade structure designs
and colors and will make a recommendation to City Council to approve the purchase.
4. By March 1, City Council will have approved the purchase and installation of the new shade
structure.
5. By August 1, installation of the new playground equipment and shade structure will have been
completed.
6. By October 31, a ribbon cutting will have been completed for the new park.
Goal #5: Identify Bike Pedestrian Plan Priorities to Accomplish in 2023.
Objectives:
1. By March 31, the Commission will have reviewed the priorities identified in the Bike
Pedestrian Plan.
2. By May 15, the Commission will have developed and approved a list of priorities to work on
and complete in 2023.
3. By December 31, Commission members will have worked with staff to accomplish the Bike
Pedestrian Plan priorities it identified to complete.
Goal #6: Participate in the process of making improvements at Rambling River Park.
Objectives:
1. By February 1, the Commission will have provided input on the scope of services for
completing a new master plan for Rambling River Park. City council will have approved a
consultant to develop the new master plan.
2. By March 1, the Commission will have given input on potential improvements (i.e. playground
equipment, tennis courts / pickleball courts, skate park, etc.) to be included in the master plan.
3. By June 15, a preliminary draft master plan for the park with cost estimates will be reviewed by
the Commission and feedback given to the consultant on any revisions to be made to the master
plan.
4. By August 1, a final master plan with cost estimates will have been reviewed by the
Commission and a recommendation for approval and funding forwarded to the City Council.
5. By September 1, City Council will have approved a master plan for the park.
Goal #7: Host food truck events in the spring and fall with Empire Township’s Parks and
Recreation Commission.
Objectives:
1. By January 1, the date and location for the spring food truck event will be approved.
Status: Completed. Friday, May 19 from 5 to 8 p.m. in Empire Township at Stelzel Ballfields
was approved for the spring food truck event at the joint meeting on October 10, 2022.
2. By April 1, the date and location of the fall food truck event will be approved. Commission will
also have decided who will contact the food trucks to see if they are interested in participating.
3. By May 15, Commission members will have decided who will help at what times with the spring
food truck event.
4. By May 31, the spring food truck event will have happened.
5. By September 1, Commission members will have decided who will help at what times with the
fall food truck event.
6. By September 30, the fall food truck event will have happened.
7. By October 31, the commissions will have jointly discussed and evaluated the spring and fall
food truck events.
Goal #8: Continue to build and strengthen relationships with Empire Township’s Park and
Recreation Commission (ETPRC).
Objectives:
1. By July 1, a date for the joint meeting with ETPRC will be set.
2. By August 1, discuss and formulate a list of discussion topics for a joint meeting agenda with
ETPRC.
3. By September 1, approve a list of discussion topics for a joint meeting agenda with ETPRC.
4. By December 1, a meeting will have been held with ETPRC.
Goal #9: Receive periodic presentations from each of the parks and recreation department’s
professional staff members about programs, parks, facilities and trails and a presentation from
the Finance Director on the budget and a presentation from the Planning Manager on new
housing and business developments.
Objectives:
1. By April 15, Commission members will have received a presentation from the Finance Director
on the city’s budget and funding sources.
2. By May 15, the Commission will have received a presentation by professional staff members of
the Department’s 2022 Annual Report.
3. By June 15, Commission members will have received a presentation from staff on the results of
the Schmitz-Maki Arena’s winter ice season.
4. By July 15, Commission members will have received a presentation from the Planning
Manager on current and future developments.
5. By September 15, Commission members will have received a presentation from staff on the first
half operations of the Rambling River Center.
6. By October 15, Commission members will have received a presentation from staff on the results
of the summer programs offered.
7. By December 15, Commission members will have received a presentation from staff about the
spring turf season and summer ice season.
8. By December 15, the Commission will have received a presentation from staff about
maintenance and improvements to parks and trails.
TO :Farmington Parks and Recreaon Commission M embers
F R O M :Kellee O mlid, Parks and Recreaon D irector
S U B J EC T:Round Table Format
DATE:February 8, 2023
B A C KG R O U N D
The round table agenda item allows commission members to s hare informaon or ask s taff about items
not on the agenda. No formal decisions are made during this agenda item.
TO :Farmington Parks and Recreaon Commission M embers
F R O M :Kellee O mlid, Parks and Recreaon D irector
S U B J EC T:I nformaonal Updates
DATE:February 8, 2023
B A C KG R O U N D
This agenda item is an opportunity for s taff to provide informaonal updates to commis s ion members.
These items are informaonal only and no formal decis ion can be made during this agenda item.
S taff w ill provide an update during the meeng about the follow ing:
1. O utdoor Rinks and Warming H ous es
2. North Creek G reenway Trail P roject
3. Farmington C urrents S pring Edion
4. 30% D es ign for Trails on P ilot Knob Road
5. Youth S ports P lus at S chmitz -Maki A rena
TO :Farmington Parks and Recreaon Commission M embers
F R O M :Kellee O mlid, Parks and Recreaon D irector
S U B J EC T:Pos s ible I tems for M arch 8, 2023 M eeng A genda
DATE:February 8, 2023
B A C KG R O U N D
The following are possible topics s taff has idenfied for commission to consider for its March 8, 2023
meeng agenda:
2022 Parks and Recreaon D epartment A nnual Report
Parks and Recreaon C ommis s ion P hoto
Bike Pedes trian P lan P riories
2023 Work P lan Review
Park and Facilies Tour with Rambling River C enter A dvis ory Board and City Council
Rambling River Park M aster P lan
Park D edicaon S tudy
Recommend P urchase of S hade S tructure for F lags taff Meadows Park
Commission members s hould come prepared to idenfy other pos s ible topics for the M arch 8, 2023
meeng agenda.