Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.12.25 Parks and Rec Packet Meeting Location: Farmington City Hall 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 PARKS AND RECREATION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, February 12, 2025 7:00 PM Page 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVE AGENDA 3. APPROVE MINUTES 3.1. January 8, 2025 Meeting Minutes Agenda Item: January 8, 2025 Meeting Minutes - Pdf 3 - 6 4. PRESENTATIONS 4.1. Introduction of New Parks and Recreation Commission Member Agenda Item: Introduction of New Parks and Recreation Commission Member - Pdf 7 4.2. Public Comments Agenda Item: Public Comments - Pdf 8 5. BUSINESS ITEMS 5.1. Chair and Vice-Chair Elections Agenda Item: Chair and Vice-Chair Elections - Pdf 9 5.2. Mystic Meadows Park Location Agenda Item: Mystic Meadows Park Location - Pdf 10 - 22 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS 6.1. Open Meeting Law Review Agenda Item: Open Meeting Law Review - Pdf 23 - 41 6.2. Parks and Recreation Commission Bylaws Review Agenda Item: Parks and Recreation Commission Bylaws Review - Pdf 42 - 48 6.3. Playground Equipment for Westview Acres Park Agenda Item: Playground Equipment for Westview Acres Park - Pdf 49 - 52 6.4. 2025 Work Plan Progress 53 - 56 Page 1 of 59 Agenda Item: 2025 Work Plan Progress - Pdf 7. COMMISSION ROUNDTABLE 7.1. Round Table Format Agenda Item: Round Table Format - Pdf 57 8. STAFF REPORT/UPDATES 8.1. Informational Updates Agenda Item: Informational Updates - Pdf 58 9. MEETING AGENDA TOPICS 9.1. Possible Items for March 12, 2025 Meeting Agenda Agenda Item: Possible Items for March 12, 2025 Meeting Agenda - Pdf 59 10. ADJOURN Page 2 of 59 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA MEMO To: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Kellee Omlid, Parks & Recreation Director Department: Parks & Recreation Subject: January 8, 2025 Meeting Minutes Meeting: Parks and Recreation Commission - Feb 12 2025 INTRODUCTION: Attached are the draft minutes from the parks and recreation commission’s January 8, 2025 meeting. Commission members are asked to review the minutes and provide any corrections or additions that are needed at the meeting. ATTACHMENTS: January 8, 2025 PRC Draft Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 59 Farmington Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes from the January 8, 2025 Regular Meeting Members Present: Katharine Caron, Cody Fishman, David McMillen, Katie Putt, and Megan Merricks Members Absent: Other’s Present: Parks and Recreation Director Kellee Omlid and Doug Pewowaruk I. Call Meeting to Order Chair Fishman called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Quorum was present. II. Approval of January 8, 2025 Meeting Agenda Moved by McMillen and seconded by Caron to approve the meeting agenda. All persons in favor (APIF). Motion carried. III. Approval of December 11, 2024 Regular Meeting Minutes Moved by Merricks 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 Cody Fishman Director Omlid and commission members thanked Cody for his service to the parks and recreation commission, community, and city. He started on the commission in August 2023 as he finished an existing term. Cody is passionate about and an advocate for lights in parks and more access and promotion of the Vermillion River and trout stream. Cody will be missed, but we know we will see him using the parks and trails. V. Business Items A. 2025 Work Plan Director Omlid reviewed the draft 2025 Work Plan. The only change from the December 2024 meeting was Goal #9 from Develop a Tobacco-Free Parks Policy to Develop a Smoke-Free Parks Ordinance. Moved by Caron and seconded by Putt to approve the 2025 work plan. APIF. Motion carried. B. Spring Food Truck Event with City of Empire Parks and Recreation Commission The City of Empire Parks and Recreation Commission is proposing Friday, May 16, 2025 for the fourth annual spring food truck event. Commission discussed the event and asked if the new Kwik Trip in Empire would be interested in doing something for the event and if they could get matching t-shirts. Moved by Putt and seconded by Merricks to approve Friday, May 16, 2025 for the food spring truck event with the City of Empire Parks and Recreation Commission. APIF. Motion carried. C. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Outdoor Recreation Grant Program Page 4 of 59 Director Omlid provided an overview of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Outdoor Recreation grant program. The program and requirements are the same this year as last year when the city submitted a grant application for the skatepark and support facilities. Staff’s recommendation is to apply again for the MN DNR Outdoor Recreation Grant with the major recreation facility being the skatepark to be constructed at Feely Fields within Rambling River Park. Commission discussed if the skatepark was still their priority and how it compares to the splash pad identified in the Rambling River Park master plan. Consensus was the skatepark was still their priority. Moved by McMillen and seconded by Merricks to recommend to city council to authorize the city’s grant application for the MN DNR Outdoor Recreation for a skatepark and support facilities with matching funds of $350,000. APIF. Motion carried. VI. Discussion Items A. Chair and Vice-Chair Elections During February Meeting The commission discussed the chair and vice-chair positions as the election will take place during the February meeting. In addition to running the meeting, the chair meets with Director Omlid a week prior to the meeting to set the agenda. McMillen and Putt are interested in the chair and/or vice-chair. Caron and Merricks are interested in the vice-chair. VII. Commission Roundtable McMillen: Didn’t have anything to share. Putt: Didn’t have anything to share. Caron: The City of Eagan Parks and Recreation Department developed a cool video with drone footage and interviews from community members explaining the “why” regarding larger projects and funding. They also constructed a linear park at Lexington-Diffley Park; this is an obstacle / ninja course. Merricks: Didn’t have anything to share. Fishman: Didn’t have anything to share. VIII. Staff Report/Updates Director Omlid provided information on the following: A. Rambling River Center Renovations Progress continues on demolition of items and spaces at the Rambling River Center. This includes ceiling tiles, flooring, casework, doors and wall bases, walls, ceiling grid, floor tiles, lights, electrical, jail cells, HVAC, ductwork, and cut and cap plumbing between jail cells for demolition. B. The Sons of the American Legion Omelet Breakfast The Sons of the American Legion are holding an omelet breakfast on Sunday from 8 am – noon at the Farmington VFW. For $16, you get made to order omelet, cheesy hashbrowns, toast, juice, and coffee. Proceeds to benefit the Rambling River Center. C. Outdoor Rinks and Warming Houses Outdoor rinks and warming houses opened Monday. Weather and ice conditions permitting, the warming houses will be open through Monday, February 17. D. Work Session on Wayfinding Plan with Economic Development Authority (EDA) Page 5 of 59 A work session presenting the wayfinding plan will be held on Tuesday, February 18. This work session will be with the parks and recreation commission and Economic Development Authority (EDA). Staff is planning to apply for a T-Mobile Hometown Grant to kickstart the project of purchase and installation of signs in downtown Farmington IX. Meeting Agenda Topics The following items were tentatively identified by the commission for its February 12, 2025 meeting agenda: 1. X. Adjournment Moved by McMillen and seconded by Merricks to adjourn the meeting. APIF. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:49 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kellee Omlid Parks & Recreation Director and Recording Secretary Page 6 of 59 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA MEMO To: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Kellee Omlid, Parks & Recreation Director Department: Parks & Recreation Subject: Introduction of New Parks and Recreation Commission Member Meeting: Parks and Recreation Commission - Feb 12 2025 INTRODUCTION: Annually, the city solicits applications from residents for appointments to boards and commissions. City approves and makes review thorough a and applicants the interviews council after appointments. City council at its January 21, 2025 meeting approved Doug Pewowaruk as the newest commission member. This will be a three-year term ending on January 31, 2028. Introductions of Doug and existing commission members are in order for the first part of the meeting. Please note this is shown under presentations, but will occur immediately after the meeting is called to order. The meeting agenda does not allow to add the introduction of Doug immediately after the call meeting to order. Page 7 of 59 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA MEMO To: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Kellee Omlid, Parks & Recreation Director Department: Parks & Recreation Subject: Public Comments Meeting: Parks and Recreation Commission - Feb 12 2025 INTRODUCTION: This agenda item allows the public to speak to commission members about any item that is not on the agenda. When speaking to the commission it must be in a respectful and non-threatening manner. Anyone wishing to provide public comments must provide their name and address for the record. Public comments shall not exceed five minutes. The commission will not respond to the comments and a formal written response will be sent prior to the next commission meeting to the person who made the public comments. Under no circumstances will any formal action be taken on the public comments that are provided to the commission. Page 8 of 59 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA MEMO To: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Kellee Omlid, Parks & Recreation Director Department: Parks & Recreation Subject: Chair and Vice-Chair Elections Meeting: Parks and Recreation Commission - Feb 12 2025 INTRODUCTION: According to the commission’s bylaws and city ordinance, the commission is to elect a chair and vice-chair from its members. The election occurs in February due to the possible appointment and seating of new members at this meeting. The chair and vice-chair may serve no more than two consecutive years in the same position except under extenuating circumstances. and meetings commission monthly the over for responsible is position chair The presiding collaborating with city staff to create the meeting agenda. The vice-chair position is responsible for assuming the chair duties in the absence of the chair. Vice-chair McMillen will ask for nominations for the chair position. After the chair is elected, this member then asks for nominations for the vice-chair position. The person elected as the commission chair will run the remainder of the meeting. Page 9 of 59 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA MEMO To: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Kellee Omlid, Parks & Recreation Director Department: Parks & Recreation Subject: Mystic Meadows Park Location Meeting: Parks and Recreation Commission - Feb 12 2025 INTRODUCTION: A public input process was undertaken in May 2006 for developing master plans for Daisy Knoll Park, Dakota County Estates Park, and the Mystic Meadows Second Addition Park (Mystic Meadows Park). The process included both staff members and resident’s input being solicited through a series of three public meetings and surveys. The attached park master plan was unanimously approved by the parks and recreation commission at their August 9, 2006 meeting and forwarded to city council for approval. City council also unanimously approved the attached master plan at their September 18, 2006 meeting. The Mystic Meadows Park was to be built in the Mystic Meadows Second Addition, which is directly south of the Mystic Meadows First Addition. This park was to be a larger community park. Although there was a concept plan for the Second Addition, which included the park it was never built as market conditions changed. The park, which was envisioned as a state-of-the-art ball field facility, was to be built in two phases with the land for phase 1 obtained through park dedication. The park was to be constructed in the Murphy (northeast corner) and Harris’s (northwest corner) properties, to obtain enough land for a larger community park. See included map. In early December 2024, Lennar submitted a concept plan for the Harris property to the city. After a few conversations with representatives from Lennar regarding the park and trails, Lennar submitted three new concept plans for city staff to review and provide feedback on the park location. Two of the concept plans show the park in the northwest corner of the Harris property adjacent to the Murphy property. The third concept plan shows the park in the northeast corner of the Harris property; this is Lennar’s preference. City staff from multiple departments (Administration, Engineering, Planning) discussed the concept plans and specifically the location of the park and the recommendation is to keep the park in the northwest corner of the Harris property as approved in 2006. This allows the city to have a larger community park by obtaining land through park dedication from the adjacent Murphy property when it develops. There are several reasons why the city prefers and recommends the park in the northwest corner including: •The park will be centrally located when both the Harris and Murphy properties develop. This park will serve both developments as well as Mystic Meadows First Addition and the greater Farmington community. Page 10 of 59 •There is no access to the park in the northeast concept. This isn’t aligned with Ordinance 2024-08 11-4-9: Public Park, Trails, and Open Space Dedication (Ordinance). The Ordinance is included in the packet. o(B) Land to be dedicated 2 ii. 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 expenditure on the part of the City to make them usable. o(B) Land to be dedicated 2 iv. All land dedicated for parks shall have at least one hundred feet (150’) of street frontage on at least one side. •The park in the northeast concept has two gas lines running through it, which can’t be built on. According to the Ordinance (B) Land to be dedicated 2 iii. 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 (20%) grade or for required sidewalks or walkways within road rights of way. The concept of the park in the northeast corner would require 14.7 acres of land dedicated for a park. The concept shows 27.4 acres available. The city isn’t interested in purchasing any land outside the required dedication. Staff’s recommendation is to approve the concept with the park in the northwest corner and forward to the planning commission for approval. Staff are willing to work with Lennar on accepting a combination of land and cash in lieu of land to meet the dedication requirements. Since the master plan for Mystic Meadows Park is nearly 20 years old, a new master plan for the park would be recommended. Representatives from Lennar will be at the meeting to discuss the park concepts and answer any questions the commission has. The commission should review the information, ask any questions they have, and recommend approval of the park location. ATTACHMENTS: Mystic Meadows Master Plan Mystic Meadows Location Map Concept_Park NE Concept_Park NW 1 Concept_Park NW 2 2024-08 Amending Title 11 Ch 4 Public Park Trails and Open Space Dedication Page 11 of 59 Farmington, Minnesota Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. Mystic Meadows Park Fu t u r e D i a m o n d P a t h R d . Fu t u r e n e i g h b o r h o o d t h r o u g h s t r e e t Fu t u r e n e i g h b o r h o o d s t r e e t Future homes Ponding Future Homes Existing wetland Existing woods PICNIC SHELTER PARK SIZE: PHASE 1: 21 ACRES PHASE 2: 21 ACRES TOTAL: 42 ACRES FUTURE POSSIBILITIES: • PARK ENVISIONED AS A STATE OF THE ART BALL FIELD FACILITY INCLUDING LIGHTS, IRRIGATION, CONCESSION BUILDING, FENCED 300’ FIELDS. PHASE 1 • 4 FENCED AND LIGHTED BALL FIELDS WITH 300’ FROM HOME PLATE TO OUTFIELD • TWO LARGE COMMUNITY PICNIC SHELTERS FOR RENT • CONCESSION BUILDING INCLUDING SPACE FOR RESTROOMS • PRACTICE AREA • TRAILS • PRAIRIE RESTORATION LOCATIONS • PARK ROAD • 260 (APPROX.) PARKING SPACES IN TWO LOTS AND PARALLEL PARKING ALONG PARK ROAD • 1,200 SQ. FT. EQUIPMENT STORAGE BUILDING PHASE 2 • 4 FENCED AND LIGHTED BALL FIELDS WITH 300’ FROM HOME PLATE TO OUTFIELD • ONE LARGE COMMUNITY PICNIC SHELTER FOR RENT • CONCESSION BUILDING INCLUDING SPACE FOR RESTROOMS • TRAILS • PRAIRIE RESTORATION LOCATIONS • PARK ROAD • 200 (APPROX.) PARKING SPACES IN ONE LOT AND PARALLEL PARKING ALONG PARK ROAD • PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT FOR 2-5 AND 5-12 YEAR OLD AGE GROUPS • FULL BASKETBALL COURT KEY PARKING - 100 SPACES PARK ENTRY WITH SIGNAGE AND LANDSCAPING SOFTBALL FIELD WITH LIGHTS & 300’ FENCED OUTFIELD, TYP. CONCESSION AND RESTROOMS PRACTICE AREA PICNIC SHELTER PARKING- 60 SPACES EQUIPMENT STORAGE PRAIRIE PLANTING SOUTH OF PARK ROAD PARK ROAD WITH PARALLEL PARKING ON NORTH SIDE OF ROAD PARK ENTRY WITH PARK SIGN AND LANDSCAPING NATIVE PLANT- ING ALONG WETLAND EDGE PARKING - 150 SPOTS 1.5 ACRE NEIGHBOR- HOOD PARK AREA WITH PICNIC SHELTER, 2-12 PLAYGROUND AND FULL COURT BASKETBALL SIDEWALK OR TRAIL ON ALL STREETS FRONTING THE PARK TRAIL CONNECTION TO NEIGHBORHOOD AND CITY WIDE TRAIL SYSTEM TRAIL ENTRY PARK SIGNS Master Plan September 18 , 2006 PROPOSED SHADE TREES PRAIRIE TURF BALL FIELD LIGHT TRAIL PARK BOUNDARY TRAILS LIGHT LIGHT EXISTING TRAIL Pa g e 1 2 o f 5 9 Page 13 of 59 VERMILLION RIVER PRINCIPAL CONNECTOR (100' BUFFER) TROUT TRIBUTARY WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND F L O O D P L A I N RA I L R O A D RA I L R O A D RAILROAD CROSSING DI A M O N D P A T H DE E R B R O O K E P A T H DE L L W O O D A V E 205TH STREET PONDPOND POND POND POND POND POND RA I L R O A D V E R M I L L I O N R I V E R P R I N C I P A L C O N N E C T O R ( 1 0 0 ' B U F F E R ) T R O U T T R I B U T A R Y V E R M I L L I O N R I V E R P R I N C I P A L C O N N E C T O R ( 1 0 0 ' B U F F E R ) T R O U T T R I B U T A R Y POND POND GAS L I N E GAS L I N E GAS L I N E GAS L I N E PARK 27.4 ACRES (UPLAND, EXCL. WETLAND AND FLOODPLAIN) c 1OFHARRIS PROPERTY FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA LENNAR1-21-2025 JLT JLT Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763 Jennifer L. Thompson 1CONCEPT PLAN 3b SITE DATA: GROSS AREA (HARRIS PROPERTIES): ±153 ACRES WETLAND AREA: ±20 ACRES FLOODPLAIN AREA: ±3 ACRES NET DEVELOPABLE AREA: ±130 ACRES 2040 GUIDE PLAN: AG PROPOSED LAND USE: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL: 1-3.5 UNITS/ACRE CURRENT ZONING (HARRIS RECENTLY ANNEXED): A-1 PROPOSED ZONING: R-1 PUD? ALLOWABLE UNITS: 130-455 UNITS (130 DEVELOPABLE ACRES) WETLAND AREA (AS PER NWI, NOT DELINEATED) FLOODPLAIN (AS PER FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAPS) VERMILLION RIVER OR TRIBUTARIES VRWJPO JURISDICTION OVER THESE CORRIDORS TRIBUTARIES LOCATED ON THE PROJECT SITE ARE ALL CLASSIFIED AS PRINCIPAL CONNECTORS AND TROUT TRIBUTARIES REQUIRING 100' BUFFER WITH NO AVERAGING ALLOWED. SHORELAND OVERLAY 300' FROM MIDDLE CREEK AND NORTH CREEK TRIBUTARIES PROPOSED REGIONAL TRAIL (AS PER COMP PLAN) CONCEPT BASED ON AVAILABLE DATA NO ENGINEERING NO SURVEYING WETLANDS HAVE NOT BEEN DELINEATED CONCEPT SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE PROPOSED LOTS: 253 55' LOTS: 150 65' LOTS: 98 75' LOTS (SHORELAND): 5 NET DENSITY: ±1.9 UNITS/ACRE PROPOSED STANDARDS: LOT WIDTH: 55', 65', 75' (SHORELAND LOTS) AREA: 7,100 SF, 8,400 SF FRONT SETBACK: 20' SIDE SETBACK: 6' REAR SETBACK: 6' PUBLIC PARK DEDICATION: .058X253 LOTS = 14.674 ACRES PARK DEDICATION IN NORTHEAST CORNER (EXCLUDES WETLAND AND FLOODPLAIN): 27.4 ACRES ROW LENGTH: MINOR COLLECTOR: 4,100 LF 60' ROW: 7,600 LF Pa g e 1 4 o f 5 9 VERMILLION RIVER PRINCIPAL CONNECTOR (100' BUFFER) TROUT TRIBUTARY WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND F L O O D P L A I N RA I L R O A D RA I L R O A D RAILROAD CROSSING DI A M O N D P A T H DE E R B R O O K E P A T H DE L L W O O D A V E 205TH STREET POND POND POND POND POND POND POND RA I L R O A D V E R M I L L I O N R I V E R P R I N C I P A L C O N N E C T O R ( 1 0 0 ' B U F F E R ) T R O U T T R I B U T A R Y V E R M I L L I O N R I V E R P R I N C I P A L C O N N E C T O R ( 1 0 0 ' B U F F E R ) T R O U T T R I B U T A R Y POND POND GAS L I N E GAS L I N E GAS L I N E GAS L I N E PARK (UPLAND) 15.5 ACRES c 1OFHARRIS PROPERTY FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA LENNAR1-16-2025 JLT JLT Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763 Jennifer L. Thompson 1CONCEPT PLAN 2b SITE DATA: GROSS AREA (HARRIS PROPERTIES): ±153 ACRES WETLAND AREA: ±20 ACRES FLOODPLAIN AREA: ±3 ACRES NET DEVELOPABLE AREA: ±130 ACRES 2040 GUIDE PLAN: AG PROPOSED LAND USE: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL: 1-3.5 UNITS/ACRE CURRENT ZONING (HARRIS RECENTLY ANNEXED): A-1 PROPOSED ZONING: R-1 PUD WETLAND AREA (AS PER NWI, NOT DELINEATED) FLOODPLAIN (AS PER FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAPS) VERMILLION RIVER OR TRIBUTARIES VRWJPO JURISDICTION OVER THESE CORRIDORS TRIBUTARIES LOCATED ON THE PROJECT SITE ARE ALL CLASSIFIED AS PRINCIPAL CONNECTORS AND TROUT TRIBUTARIES REQUIRING 100' BUFFER WITH NO AVERAGING ALLOWED. SHORELAND OVERLAY 300' FROM MIDDLE CREEK AND NORTH CREEK TRIBUTARIES PROPOSED CITY TRAIL (AS PER COMP PLAN) PROPOSED REGIONAL TRAIL (AS PER COMP PLAN) CONCEPT BASED ON AVAILABLE DATA NO ENGINEERING NO SURVEYING WETLANDS HAVE NOT BEEN DELINEATED CONCEPT SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE PROPOSED LOTS: 268 55' LOTS: 152 65' LOTS: 111 75' LOTS (SHORELAND): 5 NET DENSITY: ±2.0 UNITS/ACRE PROPOSED STANDARDS: LOT WIDTH: 55', 65', 75' (SHORELAND LOTS) AREA: 7,100 SF, 8,400 SF FRONT SETBACK: 20' SIDE SETBACK: 6' REAR SETBACK: 6' PUBLIC PARK DEDICATION: .058X268 LOTS = 15.544 ACRES PARK DEDICATION IN NORTHWEST CORNER (EXCLUDES WETLAND): 15.5 ACRES ROW LENGTH: MINOR COLLECTOR: 4,300 LF 60' ROW: 8,700 LF Pa g e 1 5 o f 5 9 VERMILLION RIVER PRINCIPAL CONNECTOR (100' BUFFER) TROUT TRIBUTARY WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND F L O O D P L A I N RA I L R O A D RA I L R O A D RAILROAD CROSSING RAILROAD CROSSING DI A M O N D P A T H DE E R B R O O K E P A T H DE L L W O O D A V E 205TH STREET POND POND POND POND POND POND POND RA I L R O A D V E R M I L L I O N R I V E R P R I N C I P A L C O N N E C T O R ( 1 0 0 ' B U F F E R ) T R O U T T R I B U T A R Y V E R M I L L I O N R I V E R P R I N C I P A L C O N N E C T O R ( 1 0 0 ' B U F F E R ) T R O U T T R I B U T A R Y POND POND GAS L I N E GAS L I N E GAS L I N E GAS L I N E PARK (UPLAND) 15.5 ACRES c 1OFHARRIS PROPERTY FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA LENNAR1-16-2025 JLT JLT Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2023 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763 Jennifer L. Thompson 1CONCEPT PLAN 2 SITE DATA: GROSS AREA (HARRIS PROPERTIES): ±153 ACRES WETLAND AREA: ±20 ACRES FLOODPLAIN AREA: ±3 ACRES NET DEVELOPABLE AREA: ±130 ACRES 2040 GUIDE PLAN: AG PROPOSED LAND USE: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL: 1-3.5 UNITS/ACRE CURRENT ZONING (HARRIS RECENTLY ANNEXED): A-1 PROPOSED ZONING: R-1 PUD WETLAND AREA (AS PER NWI, NOT DELINEATED) FLOODPLAIN (AS PER FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAPS) VERMILLION RIVER OR TRIBUTARIES VRWJPO JURISDICTION OVER THESE CORRIDORS TRIBUTARIES LOCATED ON THE PROJECT SITE ARE ALL CLASSIFIED AS PRINCIPAL CONNECTORS AND TROUT TRIBUTARIES REQUIRING 100' BUFFER WITH NO AVERAGING ALLOWED. SHORELAND OVERLAY 300' FROM MIDDLE CREEK AND NORTH CREEK TRIBUTARIES PROPOSED CITY TRAIL (AS PER COMP PLAN) PROPOSED REGIONAL TRAIL (AS PER COMP PLAN) CONCEPT BASED ON AVAILABLE DATA NO ENGINEERING NO SURVEYING WETLANDS HAVE NOT BEEN DELINEATED CONCEPT SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE PROPOSED LOTS: 266 55' LOTS: 148 65' LOTS: 106 75' LOTS (SHORELAND): 12 NET DENSITY: ±2.0 UNITS/ACRE PROPOSED STANDARDS: LOT WIDTH: 55', 65', 75' (SHORELAND LOTS) AREA: 7,100 SF, 8,400 SF FRONT SETBACK: 20' SIDE SETBACK: 6' REAR SETBACK: 6' PUBLIC PARK DEDICATION: .058X266 LOTS = 15.428 ACRES PARK DEDICATION IN NORTHWEST CORNER (EXCLUDES WETLAND): 15.5 ACRES ROW LENGTH: MINOR COLLECTOR: 6,100 LF 60' ROW: 8,500 LF Pa g e 1 6 o f 5 9 Page 17 of 59 Page 18 of 59 Page 19 of 59 Page 20 of 59 Ordinance 2024-08 Page 5 of6 or waiver of platting, and shall apply to any plat, rep lat, subdivision, waiver of platting, or development which receives final approval. (H)Improvements to Dedicated Land:1.As part of the subdivision approval, the developer shall be responsible for makingcertain improvements to dedicated park land, including, but not limited to, finishgrading, ground cover, construction of trails, and clearly identifying park and trailboundaries with City-approved markers.2.Park Tree Requirements: The developer is subject to Section l 0-6-11, Woodland andTree Preservation. The developer shall preserve all existing trees to the greatest extentpossible 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, as defined in Section 10-6-11 Woodland and Tree Preservation, are lost during the grading process on the landthat is to be dedicated for parks, trails, or open space, the developer shall be requiredto replace each significant tree lost with two (2) new trees that are at least two inches(2") in caliper.3.Trail Construction: When the City's trail master plan identifies a trail or trails to beconstructed in the land to be subdivided, the developer shall be required to pay forthe construction of the trail improvements. The construction specifications of trailsshall be determined by the City Engineer and Parks and Recreation Director.Whenever possible, trails shall connect with existing trails and/or sidewalks. TheCity's Planning Division, Parks and Recreation Department, and EngineeringDepartment shall determine when it is feasible for trails to be constructed to encircleponding or wetland areas.4.Utilities: The developer shall bring utilities a reasonable distance inside the propertyline of the future park, as determined by the City Engineer, and shall cap them off atno cost to the City. Utilities shall include gas, storm sewer, water, electricity, andsanitary sewer. The location where such utilities are to be brought into the future parkshall be determined by the City Engineer and Parks and Recreation Director.SECTION 2. SUMMARY PUBLICATION. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 412.191, in the case of a lengthy ordinance, a summary may be published. While a copy of the entire ordinance is available for inspection and without cost by any person at the office of the City Clerk, the following summary is approved by the City Council and shall be published in lieu of publishing the entire ordinance. This ordinance includes the following relating to Title 11, Chapter 4, Public Park, Trails, and Open Space Dedication: •Restructured for clarity and modification of the order of regulations.•A new provision was added to clarify when the amount to be dedicated is more than the amount of land to be subdivided.•A new provision was added requiring a survey of the property prior to dedication.•The dedication formula for Park Land, Trails, and Open Space was revised and a method of addressing mixed use development was included.•The park development fee was removed.Page 21 of 59 Page 22 of 59 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA MEMO To: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Kellee Omlid, Parks & Recreation Director Department: Parks & Recreation Subject: Open Meeting Law Review Meeting: Parks and Recreation Commission - Feb 12 2025 INTRODUCTION: Minnesota State Statute has a law that pertains to open meetings for elected and appointed officials including city councils and all boards and commissions. It is important to understand the open meeting law and how it affects the work you do as a parks and recreation commission member for the City of Farmington. The open meeting law requires 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. City staff is responsible for making sure meeting dates, times, and locations are made public in a timely manner. As a parks and recreation commission member, each of you are responsible for and to remember the following in regards to the open meeting law: •Avoid gathering in a quorum (3+ members) outside of the regular meeting. If a quorum is present at a social gathering, please do not discuss, decide, or receive information on city business. •There are few exceptions to the open meeting law. The exceptions usually pertain to city council on a limited number of topics (i.e. labor negotiations) that permit them to hold a closed meeting. •Serial discussions between less than a quorum could violate the open meeting law under certain circumstances. Avoid phone calls, email, text and social media to discuss city business to avoid having a serial meeting. Have these discussions during regular meetings. •Any person who intentionally violates the open meeting law is subject to a civil penalty up to $300 for a single occurrence. The public body may not pay the penalty. Included in the packet is information about the open meeting law that was put together by the League of Minnesota Cities. Commission members are asked to read the open meeting law information prior to the meeting, come prepared to discuss, and ask any questions you have. No formal action is required as this is for informational purposes only. Page 23 of 59 ATTACHMENTS: Open Meeting Law Page 24 of 59 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 12 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 fall on the preceding Friday, or earlier. 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. See LMC MemberLearn course, Open Meeting Law. II. Open meeting law See LMC information memo, Meetings of City Councils. 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 with respect to that person regardless of the method of receipt. 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.” Page 25 of 59 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 13 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. 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. Page 26 of 59 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 14 G. Open meeting law exceptions Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 3. Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 1 (d). See Closing a Meeting from DPO. See LMC MemberLearn course, How to Close a Meeting, for more information There are seven exceptions to the open meeting law that authorize the closure of meetings to the public. Under these exceptions some meetings may be closed, and some meetings must be closed. Before a meeting is closed under any of the exceptions, the council must state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed. DPO 14-005. DPO 13-012. DPO 14-014. 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 open meeting law does not define the phrase “on the record,” but the commissioner has advised that the phrase should be interpreted to mean a verbal statement in open session. Free Press v. County of Blue Earth, 677 N.W.2d 471 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). 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. Free Press v. County of Blue Earth, 677 N.W.2d 471 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004) (holding that a 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 a 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.05, subd. 1 (d). All closed meetings, except those closed as permitted by 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.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, the notice requirements for a special meeting apply. 1. Meetings that may be closed The public body may choose to close certain meetings. The following types of meetings may be closed: Page 27 of 59 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 15 a. Labor negotiations under PELRA Minn. Stat. § 13D.03. DPO 13-012. A meeting to consider strategies for labor negotiations, including negotiation strategies or development or discussion of labor-negotiation proposals, may be closed. However, the actual negotiations must be done at an open meeting if a quorum of the council is present. Minn. Stat. § 13D.03. Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 3. The following procedure must be used to close a meeting under this exception: See Closing a Meeting from DPO. DPO 05-027. DPO 00-037. • The council must decide to close the meeting by a majority vote at a public meeting and must announce the time and place of the closed meeting. • Before closing the meeting, the council must state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed. • A written record of all people present at the closed meeting must be available to the public after the closed meeting. • The meeting must be recorded. • The recording must be kept for two years after the contract is signed. • The recording becomes public after all labor agreements are signed by the city council for the current budget period. Minn. Stat. § 13D.03, subd. 3. If an action claiming that other public business was transacted at the closed meeting is brought during the time the tape is not public, the court will review the recording privately. If the court finds no violation of the open meeting law the action will be dismissed and the recording will be preserved in court records until it becomes available to the public. If the court determines there may have been a violation, the entire recording may be introduced at the trial. However, the court may issue appropriate protective orders requested by either party. b. Performance evaluations Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3(a). A public body may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject to its authority. Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3(a). Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 3. The following procedure must be used to close a meeting under this exception: 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). • The public body must identify the individual to be evaluated prior to closing the meeting. • The meeting must be open at the request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting; so some advance notice to the individual is needed to allow the individual to make a decision. Page 28 of 59 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 16 DPO 14-007, DPO 15-002, and DPO 16-002 (discussing what type of summary is sufficient). • Before closing the meeting, the council must state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed. • The meeting must be electronically recorded, and the recording must be preserved for at least three years after the meeting. • At the next open meeting, the public body must summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation. The council should be careful not to release private or confidential data in its summary. c. 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). DPO 16-003. DPO 17-003. Meetings between the governing body and its attorney to discuss active, threatened, or pending litigation may be closed when the balancing of the purposes served by the attorney-client privilege against those served by the open meeting law dictates the need for absolute confidentiality. The need for absolute confidentiality should relate to litigation strategy, and will usually arise only after a substantive decision on the underlying matter has been made. Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 435 N.W.2d 64 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). Minneapolis Star & Tribune v. Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Minneapolis, 251 N.W.2d 620 (Minn. 1976). 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 action that may give rise to future litigation. Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 3. The following procedure must be used to close a meeting under this exception: See Free Press v. County of Blue Earth, 677 N.W.2d 471 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004) (holding that a general statement that a meeting was being closed under the attorney-client privilege to discuss “pending litigation” did not satisfy the requirement of describing the subject to be discussed). • Before closing the meeting, the council must state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed. • The council should also describe how a balancing of the purposes of the attorney-client privilege against the purposes of the open meeting law demonstrates the need for absolute confidentiality. • The council must actually communicate with its attorney at the meeting. d. Purchase or sale of property A public body may close a meeting to: Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3(c). • Determine the asking price for real or personal property to be sold by the public body. Page 29 of 59 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 17 Vik v. Wild Rice Watershed Dist., No. A09-1841 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010) (unpublished opinion). • Review confidential or 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). The following procedure must be used to close a meeting under this exception: DPO 14-014. DPO 08-001 (advising that a public body cannot authorize the release of a tape of a closed meeting under this exception until all property discussed at the meeting has been purchased or sold or the public body has abandoned the purchase or sale). • Before closing the meeting, the council must state on the record the specific grounds for closing the meeting, describe the subject to be discussed, and identify the particular property that is the subject of the meeting. See Closing a Meeting from DPO. • The meeting must be recorded and the property must be identified on the recording. The recording must be preserved for eight years, and must be made available to the public after all property discussed at the meeting has been purchased or sold or after the public body has abandoned the purchase or sale. • A list of council 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 property must be approved at an open meeting, and the purchase or sale price is public data. e. Security reports Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3(d). A meeting may be closed to receive security briefings and reports, to discuss issues related to security systems, emergency response procedures, and 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. Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3(d). The following procedure must be used to close a meeting under this exception: • Before closing the meeting, the council must state on the record the specific grounds for closing the meeting and describe the subject to be discussed. • When describing the subject to be discussed, the council must refer to the facilities, systems, procedures, services or infrastructure to be considered during the closed meeting. • The closed meeting must be recorded, and the recording must be preserved for at least four years. Page 30 of 59 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 18 2. Meetings that must be closed There are some meetings that the open meeting law requires to be closed. The following meetings must be closed: a. Misconduct allegations Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 2(b). Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 2(4). DPO 03-020. A public body must close a meeting for preliminary consideration of allegations or charges against an individual subject to the public body’s authority. 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 tape 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. Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 3. Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 1. The following procedure must be used to close a meeting under this exception: Note: There is a special provision dealing with allegations of law enforcement personnel misconduct; see Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 2(a) and section II.G.2.b.- Certain not- public data. • Before closing the meeting, the council must state on the record the specific grounds for closing the meeting and describe the subject to be discussed. • The meeting must be open at the request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting. Thus, the individual should be given advance notice of the existence and nature of the charges against him or her, so that the individual can make a decision. • The meeting must be electronically recorded, and the recording must be preserved for at least three years after the meeting. • If the public body decides that discipline of any nature may be warranted regarding the specific charges, further meetings must be open. Page 31 of 59 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 19 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). While the law permits the council to announce that it is closing a meeting to consider charges against an individual, it is still the best practice not to refer to that individual by name. The council should state only that it is closing the meeting to give preliminary consideration to allegations against someone subject to its authority. However, if someone requests the name of the employee who is the subject of the closed meeting, the name will probably have to be furnished since the existence and status of any complaints against an employee are public data. b. Certain not-public data 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 the following not-public data is discussed: Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 2(a). Minn. Stat. § 13.32. Minn. Stat. § 13.3805, subd. 1. Minn. Stat. § 13.384. Minn. Stat. § 13.46, subds. 2, 7. Minn. Stat. §§ 144.291- 144.298. • Data that would identify alleged victims or reporters of criminal sexual conduct, domestic abuse, or maltreatment of minors or vulnerable adults. • Internal affairs data relating to allegations of law enforcement personnel misconduct or active law enforcement investigative data. • Educational data, health data, medical data, welfare data or mental health data that are not-public data. • Certain medical records. Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 3. Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd.1. The following procedure must be used to close a meeting under this exception: • The council must state on the record the specific grounds for closing the meeting and describe the subject to be discussed. • The meeting must be electronically recorded, and the recording must be preserved for at least three years after the meeting. H. Common issues 1. Data practices Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subds. 1(a), 2(a). See section II.G.2.b.-Certain not-public data. Generally, meetings may not be closed to discuss data that is not public under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA). However, the public body must close any part of a meeting at which certain types of not-public data are discussed. Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 2(a). Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subd. 11. If not-public data is discussed at an open meeting when the meeting is required to be closed, it is a violation of the open meeting law. Discussions of some types of not-public data may also be a violation of the MGDPA. Page 32 of 59 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 20 However, not-public data may generally be discussed at an open meeting without liability or penalty if both of the following criteria are met: Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 1(b). • The disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the public body’s authority. • The disclosure is necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body. Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 1(c). Data that is discussed at an open meeting retains its original classification under the MGDPA. However, a record of the meeting is public, regardless of the form. It is suggested that not-public data that is discussed at an open meeting not be specifically detailed in the minutes. 2. 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. 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. 3. 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. Page 33 of 59 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 21 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. 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.” Page 34 of 59 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 22 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. Page 35 of 59 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 23 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. 6. 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. 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. 7. Telephone, email, and social media Moberg v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983). It is possible that communication through telephone calls, email, or other technology could violate the open meeting law. Page 36 of 59 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 24 DPO 17-005 (advising communication through a letter violated 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. 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. Page 37 of 59 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 25 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 X 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-H-5 - 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. 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. Page 38 of 59 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 26 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 Outlook, 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 city’s adopted records retention schedule. 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. The Data Practices Office (DPO) handles these requests. 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. Page 39 of 59 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 27 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. 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. 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. Page 40 of 59 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 28 Jacobsen v. Nagel, 255 Minn. 300, 96 N.W.2d 569 (1959). 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. 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. Page 41 of 59 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA MEMO To: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Kellee Omlid, Parks & Recreation Director Department: Parks & Recreation Subject: Parks and Recreation Commission Bylaws Review Meeting: Parks and Recreation Commission - Feb 12 2025 INTRODUCTION: One of commission’s goals for the 2020 Work Plan was to “Create Commission Bylaws”. These bylaws were intended to identify rules so the commission operates consistently, there are clear expectations The manner. orderly an in function commission the and members, for can commission developed bylaws over several months in 2020, which included reviewing sample bylaws from other parks and recreation commissions and boards and deciding what to include in its bylaws. Commission created draft bylaws that it approved at its May 13, 2020 meeting and forwarded them to city council for approval. City council approved the parks and recreation commission bylaws at its June 1, 2020 meeting. Included in the packet is the city council approved parks and recreation commission’s bylaws. The bylaws are reviewed annually in February due to the possible appointment and seating of new members at this meeting. Commission members are asked to read the bylaws prior to the meeting, come prepared to discuss, and ask any questions you have. No formal action is required as this is for informational purposes only. ATTACHMENTS: 2020 City Council Approved PRC Bylaws Signed Version Page 42 of 59 CI T Y OF FA R M I N G T O N J? BY L A W S OF TH E PA R K S AN D RE C R E A T I O N CO M M I S S I O N OF TH E CI T Y OF F AR M I N G T O N , MI N N E S O T A SC O P E Th e F ar m i n g t o n Pa r k s an d Re c r e a t i o n Ad v i s o r y Co m m i s s i o n ' s mi s s i o n is to ad v i s e an d ma k e re c o m m e n d a t i o n s to th e Fa r m i n g t o n Ci t y Co u n c i l co n c e r n i n g th e co m p r e h e n s i v e pl a n n i n g of th e Ci t y pa r k s , tr a i l s , op e n sp a c e , re c r e a t i o n fa c i l i t i e s an d re c r e a t i o n pr o g r a m s . AR T I C L E I: CO M M I S S I O N RU L E S Se c t i o n 1: Pu r p o s e Th e "F a r m i n g t o n Pa r k s an d Re c r e a t i o n Co m m i s s i o n " he r e i n a f t e r re f e r r e d to as th e Co m m i s s i o n , sh a l l be co m p o s e d of ?v e (5 ) re g u l a r me m b e r s . Th e du t i e s of th e sa i d Co m m i s s i o n sh a l l be to ad v i s e an d re c o m m e n d to th e Ci t y Co u n c i l on al l ma t t e r s to th e es t a b l i s h m e n t , ma i n t e n a n c e , an d op e r a t i o n of th e ci t y pa r k s , re c r e a t i o n pr o g r a m s an d tr a i l sy s t e m fo r th e Ci t y of Fa r m i n g t o n an d to ca r r y ou t ot h e r du t i e s as ma y be as s i g n e d by th e Ci t y Co u n c i l . Se c t i o n 2: Ap p o i n t m e n t : Te n u r e Th e re g u l a r me m b e r s of su c h Co m m i s s i o n sh a l l be ap p o i n t e d by th e Fa r m i n g t o n Ci t y Co u n c i l . Te r m s sh a l l be st a g g e r e d so th a t th e r e sh a l l be co n t i n u i t y on th e co m m i s s i o n . Me m b e r s sh a l l be ap p o i n t e d fo r th r e e (3 ) ye a r te r m s ea c h be g i n n i n g on Fe b r u a r y 1, pr o v i d i n g fo r a ro t a t i o n of tw o (2 ) me m b e r s on e ye a r , on e me m b e r th e ne x t ye a r an d tw o (2 ) me m b e r s th e fo l l o w i n g ye a r , et se q . Al l me m b e r s mu s t be ci t i z e n s of th e Un i t e d St a t e s an d re s i d e n t s of th e of at ra t e of th e ca l e n d a r ye a r . Pr i o r to as s u m i n g th e du t i e s to wh i c h ?r s t ap p o i n t e d , ea c h me m b e r sh a l l ta k e an oa t h of of ? c e . Page 43 of 59 Se c t i o n 3: Re s i g n a t i o n s , Re m o v a l s an d Va c a n c i e s Th e fo l l o w i n g sh a l l be us e d to go v e r n an y re s i g n a t i o n s , re m o v a l s , or va c a n c i e s ex p e r i e n c e d by th e Co m m i s s i o n . a. If a me m b e r of th e Co m m i s s i o n wi s h e s to re s i g n , no t i c e mu s t be te n d e r e d to th e to th e Pa r k s an d Re c r e a t i o n Di r e c t o r an d Co m m i s s i o n Ch a i r . In th e ca s e of th e re s i g n a t i o n of th e Co m m i s s i o n Ch a i r , no t i c e mu s t be te n d e r e d di r e c t l y to th e Pa r k s an d Re c r e a t i o n Di r e c t o r . b. Re m o v a l of a Co m m i s s i o n Me m b e r fr o m of ? c e ma y ta k e pl a c e wi t h a (4 / 5 ) vo t e of th e co u n c i l . (3 . Va c a n c i e s re s u l t i n g fr o m th e re s i g n a t i o n or re m o v a l of a si t t i n g Co m m i s s i o n me m b e r sh a l l be ?l l e d by th e Co u n c i l fo r th e le n g t h of th e un e x p i r e d te r m . Se c t i o n 4: Co m m i s s i o n Ab s e n c e s In or d e r to ma i n t a i n ma x i m u m pa r t i c i p a t i o n of al l ap p o i n t e d Co m m i s s i o n me m b e r s at al l re g u l a r l y sc h e d u l e d me e t i n g s , th e fo l l o w i n g at t e n d a n c e gu i d e an d Co m m i s s i o n e r re p l a c e m e n t po l i c y fo r “e x c u s e d ” or “u n e x c u s e d ” sh o u l d be im p l e m e n t e d : a. Wh e n ap p o i n t e d , ea c h Co m m i s s i o n e r sh o u l d st a t e th e i r wi l l i n g n e s s an d in t e n t i o n to at t e n d ea c h me e t i n g of th e Co m m i s s i o n . b. In th e ev e n t of un p l a n n e d pe r s o n a l ma t t e r s , bu s i n e s s tr i p s , fa m i l y va c a t i o n tr i p s , ch a n g e d jo b re q u i r e m e n t s , si c k n e s s , or ot h e r ph y s i c a l di s a b i l i t i e s th a t pr o h i b i t th e co m m i s s i o n e r fr o m at t e n d i n g th e sc h e d u l e d me e t i n g ; th e Co m m i s s i o n , pr o f e s s i o n a l st a f f of th e Ci t y , or th e Co m m i s s i o n Ch a i r p e r s o n sh o u l d be no t i ? e d as ea r l y as po s s i b l e pr i o r to th e st a r t ho u r of th e i r in a b i l i t y to at t e n d th e sc h e d u l e d me e t i n g . Th e Co m m i s s i o n me m b e r up o n th i s no t i ? c a t i o n wi l l re c e i v e an “e x c u s e d ab s e n c e ” fo r th e in v o l v e d sc h e d u l e d me e t i n g . 0. If an y Co m m i s s i o n me m b e r is ab s e n t , wh e t h e r ex c u s e d or no t , fr o m ov e r 30 % of Co m m i s s i o n me e t i n g s , wh e t h e r co n s e c u t i v e or no t , du r i n g an y on e - y e a r pe r i o d , th e co m m i s s i o n e r wi l l be re c o m m e n d e d fo r di s m i s s a l un l e s s ex t e n u a t i n g ci r c u m s t a n c e s ex i s t . d. Th e re c o m m e n d a t i o n fo r di s m i s s a l as re q u i r e d wi l l be in i t i a t e d by Co m m i s s i o n me m b e r s an d fo r w a r d e d t h r o u g h ci t y st a f f to th e Ci t y Co u n c i l fo r of ? c i a l ac t i o n . Se c t i o n 5: Or g a n i z a t i o n Sa i d Co m m i s s i o n is au t h o r i z e d to es t a b l i s h it s ow n co n s t i t u t i o n an d by l a w s as ma y be de e m e d pr o p e r , no t in c o n s i s t e n t wi t h th e or d i n a n c e s of th e Ci t y an d la w s of th e st a t e ; an d sh a l l pr o v i d e fo r re g u l a r an d sp e c i a l me e t i n g s ne c e s s a r y to ca r r y on it s ow n bu s i n e s s , se p a r a t e an d ap a r t fr o m th e Ci t y of F ar m i n g t o n , ex c e p t as he r e i n pr o v i d e d . Page 44 of 59 Se c t i o n 6: Li m i t a t i o n s Th e Co m m i s s i o n sh a l l no t be au t h o r i z e d to in c u r on be h a l f of th e Ci t y of Fa r m i n g t o n , an y ex p e n s e in c i d e n t to th e op e r a t i o n of sa i d pa r k s an d re c r e a t i o n pr o g r a m s , un l e s s ex p r e s s l y au t h o r i z e d to do so by th e Ci t y Co u n c i l . Th e Co m m i s s i o n sh a l l no t kn o w i n g l y co n d u c t bu s i n e s s th a t ha s be e n as s i g n e d by or d i n a n c e to an y ot h e r go v e r n i n g or ad v i s o r y bo d y of th e Ci t y of Fa r m i n g t o n . AR T I C L E II : ME E T I N G S Se c t i o n 1: Re g u l a r Me e t i n g s Re g u l a r me e t i n g s sh a l l be he l d on th e se c o n d We d n e s d a y of ea c h mo n t h , at th e ho u r of 7: 0 0 p m un l e s s ot h e r w i s e st a t e d in th e me e t i n g ag e n d a . Re g u l a r me e t i n g s wh i c h fa l l on an ob s e r v e d ci t y ho l i d a y wi l l be mo v e d wi t h i n th e sa m e mo n t h an d th e ne w da t e wi l l be co m m u n i c a t e d in ad v a n c e of th e me e t i n g da t e Se c t i o n 2: No t i c e of Me e t i n g s No t i c e of al l re g u l a r Co m m i s s i o n me e t i n g s sh a l l be de l i v e r e d vi a e— m a i l to ea c h me m b e r of th e Co m m i s s i o n at le a s t se v e n t y - t w o ho u r s pr i o r to ea c h me e t i n g No t i c e of al l me e t i n g s sh a l l be li s t e d wi t h i n th e ci t y ca l e n d a r an d de l i v e r e d to th e ne w s me d i a in co m p l i a n c e wi t h al l st a t e an d lo c a l la w s . Se c t i o n 3: Sp e c i a l Me e t i n g s Sp e c i a l me e t i n g s ma y be ca l l e d at an y t i m e by th e Pa r k s an d Re c r e a t i o n Di r e c t o r fo r th e pu r p o s e of ad d i t i o n a l bu s i n e s s or me e t i n g wi t h ot h e r go v e r n i n g bo d i e s . Se c t i o n 4: Pl a c e of me e t i n g Re g u l a r me e t i n g s wi l l be he l d in th e Fa r m i n g t o n Ci t y Ha l l . A no t i c e wi l l be po s t e d if a qu o r u m of th e Co m m i s s i o n me m b e r s is ex p e c t e d at a ci t y ev e n t . Se c t i o n 5: Qu o r u m At t e n d a n c e of at le a s t th r e e (3 ) of th e cu r r e n t l y ap p o i n t e d me m b e r s of th e Co m m i s s i o n Se c t i o n 6: Ru l e s of Or d e r Ge n e r a l pa r l i a m e n t a r y ru l e s , as gi v e n in Ro b e r t ‘ s Ru l e s of Or d e r , as mo d i ? e d by th e ru l e s an d re g u l a t i o n s of th e Co m m i s s i o n sh a l l be ob s e r v e d in co n d u c t i n g me e t i n g s of th e Co m m i s s i o n . Page 45 of 59 Se c t i o n 7: Or d e r of Bu s i n e s s Th e fo l l o w i n g sh a l l be th e Or d e r of Bu s i n e s s of th e Co m m i s s i o n , bu t th e ru l e s of or d e r ma y be su s p e n d e d an d an y ma t t e r s co n s i d e r e d or po s t p o n e d by th e ac t i o n of th e Co m m i s s i o n : Ca l l to Or d e r Ap p r o v e Me e t i n g Ag e n d a Ap p r o v e Me e t i n g Mi n u t e s fr o m pr i o r se s s i o n Pr e s e n t a t i o n s / Pu b l i c Co m m e n t s Bu s i n e s s It e m s Di s c u s s i o n It e m s Co m m i s s i o n Ro u n d t a b l e St a f f Re p o r t / U p d a t e s Re v i e w Cu r r e n t Ye a r Wo r k Pl a n Me e t i n g Ag e n d a To p i c s Ad j o u r n m e n t H“ © P ° > ‘ . ° ‘ S " P P ’ P : ‘ HO ' Se c t i o n 8: Pu b l i c ac c e s s an d pu b l i c a t i o n of Co m m i s s i o n Pr o c e e d i n g s An y me m b e r of th e pu b l i c ma y at t e n d or ad d r e s s th e Co m m i s s i o n du r i n g me e t i n g s re g a r d i n g re l e v a n t bu s i n e s s ma t t e r s . Ea c h pa r t i c i p a n t wi l l be as k e d to li m i t th e i r pr e s e n t a t i o n ti m e to le s s th a n 5 mi n u t e s . Al l me e t i n g mi n u t e s of Co m m i s s i o n pr o c e e d i n g s sh a l l be do c u m e n t e d an d po s t e d on l i n e an d ke p t el e c t r o n i c a l l y in th e of ? c e of th e ci t y cl e r k fo r in s p e c t i o n by an y pe r s o n du r i n g no r m a l bu s i n e s s ho u r s . Se c t i o n 9: Pr o c e e d i n g s Al l de c i s i o n s an d re s o l u t i o n s of th e Co m m i s s i o n sh a l l be in i t i a t e d by a mo t i o n or co n s e n s u s . Se c t i o n 10 : Vo t i n g An af ? r m a t i v e vo t e of a ma j o r i t y of th o s e pr e s e n t sh a l l be ne c e s s a r y to pa s s an y mo t i o n in v o l v i n g th e ad o p t i o n or am e n d i n g of pl a n s , po l i c y st a t e m e n t s , or re c o m m e n d a t i o n s to th e Co u n c i l . Vo t i n g sh a l l be by vo i c e vo t e an d sh a l l no t be re c o r d e d as in d i v i d u a l ay e s or na y s un l e s s vo t e to so ex c e p t an y so to vo t e . An ab s t e n t i o n ma y on l y be ma d e in th e ca s e of a co n ? i c t of in t e r e s t ; it is ot h e r w i s e th e du t y of al l Co m m i s s i o n e r s pr e s e n t to pa r t i c i p a t e in th e vo t e . Page 46 of 59 AR T I C L E II I : OF F I C E R S Se c t i o n 1: Ap p o i n t m e n t of Of f i c e r s : Te n u r e Th e Co m m i s s i o n sh a l l el e c t fr o m it s me m b e r s a Ch a i r an d a Vi c e — C h a i r fr o m am o n g it s me m b e r s h i p , an d ea c h of ? c e r sh a l l ho l d of ? c e fo r on e ye a r or un t i l re p l a c e d by a si m p l e ma j o r i t y vo t e of th e Co m m i s s i o n . Of ? c e r s ma y se r v e no mo r e th a n tw o co n s e c u t i v e ye a r s in th e sa m e po s i t i o n ex c e p t un d e r ex t e n u a t i n g ci r c u m s t a n c e s . Se c t i o n 2: Du t i e s of Ch a i r of th e Co m m i s s i o n Th e Ch a i r of th e Co m m i s s i o n sh a l l pr e s i d e at th e me e t i n g s of th e Co m m i s s i o n , an d sh a l l pe r f o r m th e ot h e r du t i e s or d i n a r i l y pe r f o r m e d by th a t of ? c e r . Se c t i o n 3: Du t i e s of th e Vi c e - C h a i r of th e Co m m i s s i o n Th e Vi c e - C h a i r of th e Co m m i s s i o n , in th e ab s e n c e of th e Ch a i r , sh a l l pe r f o r m al l du t i e s of th e Ch a i r of th e Co m m i s s i o n . Se c t i o n 4: Du t i e s of th e Pa r k s an d Re c r e a t i o n Di r e c t o r Th e Pa r k s an d Re c r e a t i o n Di r e c t o r sh a l l no t be a me m b e r of th e Co m m i s s i o n bu t wi l l se r v e as th e li a i s o n be t w e e n th e Co m m i s s i o n an d Ci t y Co u n c i l . Th e Di r e c t o r sh a l l at t e n d al l me e t i n g s an d wi l l be re s p o n s i b l e fo r me e t i n g wi t h th e Ch a i r of th e Co m m i s s i o n to de ? n e an d pr e p a r e th e ag e n d a fo r re g u l a r an d sp e c i a l me e t i n g s . If th e Pa r k s an d Re c r e a t i o n Di r e c t o r ca n n o t at t e n d a me e t i n g fo r an y re a s o n , th e y sh a l l de s i g n a t e an o t h e r ci t y st a f f me m b e r to at t e n d . AR T I C L E IV : CO M M I T T E E S OF TH E CO M M I S S I O N Se c t i o n 1: Ap p o i n t m e n t of Sp e c i a l Su b ~ C o m m i t t e e s Sp e c i a l Su b — C o m m i t t e e s sh a l l be ap p o i n t e d by th e Ch a i r fo r co n s i d e r a t i o n an d st u d y of an y ma t t e r no t co v e r e d by th e Co m m i s s i o n du r i n g re g u l a r or sp e c i a l me e t i n g s . Th e sp e c i a l co m m i t t e e sh a l l re p o r t th e i r ?n d i n g s to th e Co m m i s s i o n . AR T I C L E V: AM E N D M E N T S Th e by l a w s ma y be am e n d e d at an y re g u l a r me e t i n g of th e co m m i s s i o n by a ma j o r i t y vo t e of th e me m b e r s pr e s e n t , pr o v i d e d pr e v i o u s no t i c e of th e na t u r e of an y pr o p o s e d am e n d m e n t sh a l l ha v e be e n gi v e n at le a s t on e re g u l a r me e t i n g be f o r e th e ac t i o n th e r e o n sh a l l be ta k e n . Th e by l a w s sh a l l be au t o m a t i c a l l y am e n d e d by an y fu t u r e or d i n a n c e s pa s s e d by th e Ci t y Co u n c i l de a l i n g wi t h ma t t e r s re l a t i n g to or ap p l i c a b l e to th e Pa r k s an d Re c r e a t i o n Co m m i s s i o n . / Page 47 of 59 PA R K S AN D RE C R E A T I O N CO M M I S S I O N AP P R O V A L DA T E : MA Y 13 , 20 2 0 CI T Y CO U N C I L AP P R O V A L DA T E : 44 % /' 9’ ? 6‘ 3 0 SI G N A T U R E : MA Y O R : 2% DA T E : £2 4 1 4 ; /; ; ; o a o C, Page 48 of 59 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA MEMO To: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Kellee Omlid, Parks & Recreation Director Department: Parks & Recreation Subject: Playground Equipment for Westview Acres Park Meeting: Parks and Recreation Commission - Feb 12 2025 INTRODUCTION: The playground equipment (5–12-year-old children) and swings at Westview Acres Park were installed in 2000 making them 24 years old. The playground equipment and swings need to be replaced. At its June 12, 2024 meeting, the commission approved the draft five-year (2025-2029) Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the Park Improvement Fund and recommended city council approve with the final 2025 budget. This CIP included $50,000 for the replacement of the playground equipment (5-12 years) and swings at Westview Acres Park in 2025. As part of the final 2025 budget approval by city council at their meeting on December 2, 2024, the 2025-2029 CIP was accepted. Thus, it is time to start the process to replace the playground equipment and swings. At the October 9, 2024 meeting, a commission member inquired about adding equipment geared for middle school students when replacing the 5–12-year-old playground equipment at Westview Acres Park. Students at Boeckman Middle School (BMS) regularly ask teachers if they can go play at the park. Commission member Caron had a brief conversation with the principal of BMS to see if there would be any interest in working together to gear the park more towards a secondary level and he thought that would be great. Commission, at its December 11, 2024, meeting, discussed replacing the structure with similar equipment or gearing (e.g., such as a ninja course) to middle school students. There is an opportunity for movement outside of class for students from BMS. Commission asked if a ninja course would leave a gap in playground equipment in the park for 5–8-year-olds, is this the right location based on small size, and most of the parks and playground equipment cater to elementary school aged children. Director Omlid was to follow-up with playground equipment vendors to see what the options are, size, and cost to bring to a future commission meeting. Included in the packet is one example of a fitness challenge playground. The price for this equipment including installation is approximately $35,415. Also included in the packet is a picture of the Westview Acres Park playground equipment. Likely the tree would need to be removed and the playground container expanded for the fitness challenge playground to fit. In speaking with the vendor, he didn’t think there would be a gap in playground equipment for 5-8-year-olds as they could play on it too. In addition, he said they can make this type of equipment fit almost anywhere as they can arrange in many shapes and sizes. Page 49 of 59 Commission members should discuss and decide which type of playground equipment they prefer for Westview Acres Park so proposals can be requested from companies. Commission should also discuss whether they want to include others (e.g., such as BMS students, neighbors, and residents) in the final selection of new playground equipment. Historically, the commission picked the playground from several options and made a recommendation to city council to authorize purchase and installation of the play equipment. One of the commission’s work plan goals for 2025 is to “Participate in Community Outreach and Engagement.”. Thus, this might be an opportunity to engage the community. ATTACHMENTS: Fitness Challenge Equipment Westview Acres Playground Equipment Page 50 of 59 Pa g e 5 1 o f 5 9 Page 52 of 59 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA MEMO To: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Kellee Omlid, Parks & Recreation Director Department: Parks & Recreation Subject: 2025 Work Plan Progress Meeting: Parks and Recreation Commission - Feb 12 2025 INTRODUCTION: The commission’s updated 2025 work plan is included in the meeting packet. Shown in bold red are work plan items completed either at or since the last commission meeting held on January 8, 2025. Items that are in bold black have been completed. Commission members should be prepared to review the work plan to identify any other additional items that have been completed and then discuss other work plan items it would like to work on at future meetings. ATTACHMENTS: 2025 Parks and Recreation Commission Work Plan February Update Page 53 of 59 FARMINGTON PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Draft 2025 WORK PLAN Goal #1: Provide the City Council a recommended 2026-2030 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 2026 to 2030. 2. By August 1, the Commission will finalize the five-year capital improvement projects for the years 2026-2030 and make a recommendation to the City Council for approval. 3. By December 31, the improvement projects recommended for funding from 2026-2030 will be included in the City Council’s approved 2026 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 replacing the playground equipment and swings (5-12 years) at Westview Acres Park. Objectives: 1. By February 1, the Commission will have discussed and decided on preferences for playground equipment style, play features, etc. 2. By April 1, the Commission will have reviewed playground equipment proposal(s) and made a recommendation to the City Council on the purchase and construction of new playground equipment. 3. By May 1, City Council will have approved the purchase and construction of new playground equipment. 4. By October 31, installation of the new playground equipment at Westview Acres Park will have been completed and a ribbon cutting ceremony will have occurred. Page 54 of 59 Goal #5: Identify Bike Pedestrian Plan Priorities to Accomplish in 2025. 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 2025-2026. 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 identifying and making improvements at Depot Way Arts Park. Objectives: 1. By March 1, the Commission will have decided if art remains a focus of the park and have set a date for the open house. 2. By May 1, an open house seeking ideas for improvement will have been held. 3. By July 1, the Commission will have given input on potential improvements. 4. By August 1, cost estimates and potential funding sources will be identified and shared. 5. By November 1, improvements that can be completed by staff and/or volunteers will be finished. 6. By July 1, 2026 all other improvements will have been completed and a ribbon cutting ceremony will have occurred. Goal #7: Host food truck event in the spring with the City of Empire Parks and Recreation Commission. Objectives: 1. By February 1, the date and location for the spring food truck event will be approved. Status: Completed. Friday, May 16 from 5-8 pm at Stelzel Ballfields in Empire was approved by commission at their January 8 meeting. 2. By May 15, Commission members will have decided who will help at what times with the spring food truck event. 3. By May 31, the spring food truck event will have happened. Goal #8: Participate in Community Outreach and Engagement. Objectives: 1. By April 1, the commission will have discussed community outreach and engagement, what the Commission wants to know / learn, and where and how to reach and engage. 2. By May 1, community outreach and engagement opportunities and details will have been finalized. 3. By December 1, community outreach and engagement will have occurred. Goal #9: Develop a Smoke-Free Parks Ordinance. Objectives: Page 55 of 59 1. By March 1, the Commission will have reviewed the draft smoke-free parks ordinance and made recommendations for edits. 2. By April 1, feedback on the draft ordinance will have been received from Dakota County Public Health and Tobacco-Free Alliance. 3. By April 15, further discuss and revise the ordinance, if needed, based on feedback from Dakota County Public Health and Tobacco-Free Alliance, and forward to City Council for approval. 4. By May 1, the ordinance will have been presented to City Council for approval. Goal #10: 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 2024 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. Goal #11: Tour City of Rosemount Parks and Recreation Facilities and Amenities to learn more and see options for desired improvements. Objectives: 1. By March 1, the Commission will have identified a preferred and backup date for the tour and draft list of facilities and amenities to tour and see respectively. 2. By May 1, a date and final list of facilities and amenities to tour will be approved by the Commission. 3. By October 1, a tour of City of Rosemount Parks and Recreation Facilities and Amenities will have occurred. Page 56 of 59 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA MEMO To: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Kellee Omlid, Parks & Recreation Director Department: Parks & Recreation Subject: Round Table Format Meeting: Parks and Recreation Commission - Feb 12 2025 INTRODUCTION: The round table agenda item allows commission members to share information or ask staff about items not on the agenda. No formal decisions are made during this agenda item. Page 57 of 59 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA MEMO To: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Kellee Omlid, Parks & Recreation Director Department: Parks & Recreation Subject: Informational Updates Meeting: Parks and Recreation Commission - Feb 12 2025 INTRODUCTION: This agenda item is an opportunity for staff to provide informational updates to commission members. These items are informational only and no formal decision can be made during this agenda item. Staff will provide an update during the meeting about the following: 1.Rambling River Center Renovations 2.Work Session on Wayfinding Plan with Economic Development Authority (EDA) 3.Dakota County 2050 Vision Plan Presentation with City Council 4.Well No. 1 and Well No. 2 Abandonment Page 58 of 59 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA MEMO To: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Kellee Omlid, Parks & Recreation Director Department: Parks & Recreation Subject: Possible Items for March 12, 2025 Meeting Agenda Meeting: Parks and Recreation Commission - Feb 12 2025 INTRODUCTION: The following are possible topics staff has identified for commission to consider for its March 12, 2025 meeting agenda: •2024 Parks and Recreation Department Annual Report •Parks and Recreation Commission Photo •Depot Way Arts Park •Bike Pedestrian Plan Priorities •Parks and Facilities Tour with City Council and Rambling River Center Advisory Board •2025 Work Plan Progress Commission members should come prepared to identify other possible topics for the March 12, 2025 meeting agenda. Page 59 of 59