HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.07.25 Work Session Packet
AGENDA
Council Work Session
Meeting
5:00 PM - Monday, July 7, 2025
Farmington City Hall, Conf Room 170
Page
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVE AGENDA
3. DISCUSSION ITEMS
Please note that start times for each item are approximate and subject to
change.
3.1. Discuss and Seek Council Input on the Repeal of Chapter 1306
Subpart. 3 (New Building), an Optional Chapter of the MN Building Code
(5-5:45 pm)
Staff is seeking input on the repeal of Chapter 1306 Subpart. 3 (New
Building), an optional chapter of the MN Building Code.
Agenda Item: Discuss and Seek Council Input on the Repeal of Chapter
1306 Subpart. 3 (New Building), an Optional Chapter of the MN Building
Code (5-5: - Pdf
3 - 87
3.2. Discussion on an Ordinance Establishing Cannabis and Hemp Business
Regulations and Amending the 2025 Fee Schedule for Retail
Registration
(5:45-6:15 pm)
Discussion on the draft ordinance, with direction to Staff of any
necessary changes, as well as direction to bring the ordinance forward
to the July 21, 2025 Regular City Council Meeting for passage.
Agenda Item: Discussion on an Ordinance Establishing Cannabis and
Hemp Business Regulations and Amending the 2025 Fee Schedule for
Retail Registration - Pdf
88 - 102
3.3. Discussion on Franchise Fees
(6:15-6:45 pm)
Item for discussion purposes only. No action required at this time.
Agenda Item: Discussion on Franchise Fees (6:15-6:45 pm) - Pdf
103
4. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE UPDATE
5. CITY ADMINISTRATOR UPDATE
Page 1 of 103
6. ADJOURN
Page 2 of 103
COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator
From: Josh Lawrenz, Building Official
Department: Community Development
Subject: Discuss and Seek Council Input on the Repeal of Chapter 1306 Subpart. 3 (New
Building), an Optional Chapter of the MN Building Code
(5-5:45 pm)
Meeting: Council Work Session - Jul 07 2025
INTRODUCTION:
Life, safety, and property conservation are top priorities for the City. This is accomplished through
the careful and consistent application of codes and regulations, and with the dedication of
personnel trained and ready to preserve life and property. Over time, the City has either adopted or
repealed the inclusion of Chapter 1306 in the Farmington City Code – which is an optional chapter
that may be adopted by a municipality in addition to the State Building Code, focused on more
comprehensive fire suppression provisions.
There are advantages to adopting Chapter 1306 but, over time, there have also been valid reasons
and hardships that make a strong case to repeal the optional Chapter. Today the Building Official,
with the support of the Fire Chief, is proposing revisiting the need for Chapter 1306 and is seeking
Council input regarding repealing Chapter 1306.
DISCUSSION:
Dating back to 2003 – the Fire Marshal and Building Official at that time recommended the adoption
of the optional Chapter 1306 as part of the Building Code, to increase safety “while not becoming
overly burdensome to property owners.”
Prior to 1999, Chapter 1306 had been included but was repealed primarily because due to costs
being too great for current building owners. Additionally, meeting minutes indicated opposition due
to the requirements to sprinkle existing buildings. Chapter 1306 was re-adopted in 2003 and
included again in 2008 when the City adopted a new state building code. At that time, City Staff
recommended adopting Chapter 1306, electing to recommend Subpart. 3 which allowed for a
narrower range of situations requiring fire suppressions systems.
At the time Chapter 1306, Subpart. 3, was re-adopted in 2008, the same overall advantages of
1306 that were identified in 2003 remained relevant:
Reduces property losses caused by fire.
Defers or delays the need for a full-time Fire Department, as the City continually grows.
Reduces the potential for loss of life or injury to building occupants and Fire Department
Page 3 of 103
personnel.
Reduces fire insurance premiums for the building owner.
Reduces the overall cost of fire protection.
While these advantages remain valid today – Staff is seeking the Council’s input on repealing
Chapter 1306. Recently, the requirements associated with Chapter 1306 have prevented projects
from moving forward due to the additional costs required, due to the application of Chapter 1306 on
existing buildings, specifically existing buildings undergoing a change of occupancy classification.
In addition, Chapter 1306 eliminates the ability of the Building Official to consider and apply the
current provisions of Chapter 9 in the Minnesota Building Code & The International Fire Code.
Chapter 9 titled, “Fire Protection & Life Safety Systems” is tasked with identifying the minimum
requirements for active fire protection equipment, which includes:
1. Alerting building occupants and fire personnel of a fire emergency
2. Mass notification
3. Gas detection
4. Controlling smoke & extinguishing the fire
MN Building Code - Chapter 9 requirements are based on occupancy classification (Occupant
loads) and the height and area of the building because these are the factors that most affect fire-
fighting capabilities and relative hazards of a specific building type.
What this means is that with the adoption of Chapter 1306 – the Building Official must require the
installation of a sprinkler system in new buildings, additions to existing buildings or buildings in
which the occupancy classification has changed and meets the reduced thresholds identified in
1306.0030 Requirements. While sprinkler systems are the most efficient means to reduce the
spread of fire, save lives, and preserve buildings, Chapter 1306 creates a cost burden for existing
building owners, these cost burdens significantly limit and impact the business owner’s ability to
rent/lease a space to new prospective tenants.
code building and provisions alternative it recognizes Chapter repeal to opting By 1306,
standards/codes currently in place that provide the following: (1) Alerting building occupants and
Fire Personnel of a fire emergency (2) Mass notification (3) Gas detection (4) Controlling smoke &
extinguishing the fire.
In addition, the City of Farmington has several other systems and operational changes being
implemented and underway, that collectively enhance safety and provide for lifesaving and property
preservation. These include:
Substantial steps towards a full-time Fire Department.
Comprehensive and combined plan reviews by the Building Official, Building Inspector(s),
Fire Chief and Fire Marshall.
Implementation of a Certificate of Occupancy process for all tenant changes regardless if a
Building permit is required/issued.
Annual Commercial Fire Inspections.
In summary, both the Building Official and the Fire Chief agree that the current MN Building Code,
the International Fire Code, in conjunction with professional oversight/review by the Building and
Fire Departments. provides for life, safety, and property conservation for all of Farmington’s
Page 4 of 103
businesses and residents.
Based on these factors, Staff is seeking input to repeal Chapter 1306.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff is seeking input on the repeal of Chapter 1306 Subpart. 3 (New Building), an optional chapter
of the MN Building Code.
ATTACHMENTS:
1306 History 06-03 to 05-08
Page 5 of 103
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
JUNE 2, 2003
8:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
A Proud Past - A Promising Future
Committed to Providing High Quality,
Timely and Responsive Service to All
Of Our Customers
1. Presentation of Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code
2. Discussion Regarding Chapter 1306
3. Possible Next Steps
Adopt Chapter 1306 with Staff Recommended Options
Adopt Chapter 1306 with More Stringent Options
Conduct Further Research
Do Not Adopt Chapter 1306
4. Adjourn
Page 6 of 103
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
FROM:
Mayor, Council Members,
City Administrator <.<.
John Powers, Fire Marshal
Ken Lewis, Building Official
fV
TO:
SUBJECT:Discussion Regarding Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code
DATE:June 2, 2003
INTRODUCTION
The City Council adopted the Minnesota State Building Code on April 21, 2003. Optional
Chapter 1306 was NOT included and therefore is not currently part of the Farmington City Code.
The City Council directed Staff to schedule a special work session to further discuss Chapter
1306.
DISCUSSION
The Building Code, which is applicable statewide, is updated periodically with advances in
materials, techniques, research, and knowledge. A new Minnesota State Building Code
International Building Code with State amendments) became effective March 31, 2003. Once
adopted by the State, individual municipalities are required to adopt the Code. The City of
Farmington adopted the Code on Apri121, 2003.
The Minnesota State Building Code also offers several optional chapters that may be adopted by
individual municipalities, including Chapter 1306, which requires certain fire suppression
systems for specific building types. The City of Farmington discussed the adoption of 1306, but
did not include the Chapter with the adoption of the Building Code on April 21, 2003.
Some advantages of adopting 1306 are as follows:
Reduces property losses caused by fire.
Defers or delays the need for a full time Fire Department as the City continually grows.
Reduces the potential for loss of life or injury to building occupants and Fire Department
personnel.
Reduces fire insurance premiums for the building owner.
Reduces the overall cost of fire protection.
Page 7 of 103
Background
Prior to 1999, the Farmington City Code included Chapter 1306. The City Council reviewed
Chapter 1306 in 1999 and chose to repeal the chapter. According to minutes of the meeting, the
main opposition was due to the requirement to sprinkle existing buildings. It was determined that
the extra cost of this requirement would be too great for current building owners.
Changes have been made to Chapter 1306 in conjunction with the recent adoption of the
International Building Code. The current version of 1306 provides options for municipalities to
determine what level of fire protection is appropriate. As described below, the City now has the
option of requiring fire suppression systems for a narrower range of situations than before.
Another option described below allows the City to determine the threshold that would regulate
what type and size of group occupancy buildings would require a fire suppression system.
According to Chapter 1306.0020, Subpart 1, if Chapter 1306 is adopted, one of the following
subparts must also be adopted:
Subpart 2 requires fire suppression systems for new buildings and existing buildings that fall
into certain building categories as outlined in the attached Chapter 1306.0030. City Staff is
NOT recommending this option.
Subpart 3 requires fire suppression systems for new buildings, additions to eXlstmg
buildings, and buildings in which the occupancy classification has changed. The
requirements in Subpart 3 would only apply to commercial buildings as outlined in the
attached Chapter 1306.0030. City Staff is recommending this option.
Another option provided in the Chapter is in Section 1306.0030 (E). According to this Section, if
Chapter 1306 is adopted, a municipality must also choose one of the following options to
determine fire suppression requirements for certain occupancy groups:
1. Group R-1 and R-2 occupancies with 8,500 or more gross square feet of floor area or
dwelling units or guestrooms on three or more floors; and attached R-3 occupancies and
attached townhouses built to the International Residential Code with 8,500 or more gross
square feet of floor area. All floors, basements, and garages are included in this floor area
threshold. City Staff is NOT recommending this option.
2. Attached R-3 occupancies and attached townhouses built to the International Residential
Code with more than 16 dwelling units or more than three stories in height. City Staff is
recommending this option.
Staff is recommending the minimum requirements allowed in this chapter to increase safety
while not becoming overly burdensome to property owners. The sprinkler system requirements
of this chapter would become part of the adopted Building Code and would be applicable
throughout the City.
Page 8 of 103
ACTION REQUESTED
Consider adoption of Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code.
Ken Lewis
Building Official
Attachment:
1. Chapter 1306
2. Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR)
3. Chapter 1306 Municipal Survey
4. U.S. Fire Loss History
5. Sprinkler Success Stories in Minnesota
6. Fire Sprinkler Facts
Page 9 of 103
Chapter 1306
1306.0010 GENERAL.
This chapter authorizes optional provisions for the installation of on-premises fire
suppression systems that may be adopted by a municipality in addition to the State
Building Code. If the municipality adopts them, the sprinkler system requirements of
this chapter become part of the State Building Code and are applicable throughout
the municipality. This chapter, if adopted, must be adopted without amendment.
1306.0020 MUNICIPAL OPTION.
Subpart 1. Requirement. The sprinkler system requirements of this chapter, if
adopted, must be adopted with the selection of either subpart 2 or 3, without
amendment.
Subp. 2. Existing and ne'.v gYildings. Automatic sprinkler systems for new buildings,
buildings increased in total floor area (including the existing building), or buildings in
which the occupancy classification has changed, must be installed and maintJined in
operational condition 'Nithin the structure. The requirements of this subpart apply to
structures that fall 'Nithin the occupancy classifications estJblished in part 1306.0030,
items A to E.
Exceptions:
1. The floor Jrca of minor additions that do not increase the occupJnt load does
not have to be figured into the square footage for occupancy classifications
established in part 1306.0030, items A to E.
2. The existing portion of R 2 apartment occupancies, attached R 3 occupancies,
and attached townhomes is not required to be sprinklered under this chapter.
Subp. 3. New buildings. Automatic sprinkler systems for new buildings, additions to
existing buildings, or buildings in which the occupancy classification has changed must
be installed and maintained in operational condition within the structure. The
requirements of this subpart apply to structures that fall within the occupancy
classifications established in part 1306.0030, items A to E.
Exception: The floor area of minor additions that do not increase the occupant
load does not have to be figured into the square footage for occupancy
classifications established in part 1306.0030, items A to E.
1306.0030 REQUIREMENTS.
For purposes of this chapter, area separation, fire barriers, or fire walls do not
establish separate buildings. Gross square footage (gsf) means the floor area as
defined in the International Building Code. The floor area requirements established in
items A to E are based on the gross square footage of the entire building and establish
Page 10 of 103
thresholds for these requirements. The following occupancy groups must comply with
sprinkler requirements of this chapter, unless specified otherwise:
A. Group A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4 occupancies;
B. Group B, F, M, and S occupancies with 2,000 or more gross square feet of floor area
or with three or more stories in height;
C. Group E occupancies with 2,000 or more gross square feet of floor area or with two
or more stories in height;
D. Group E day care occupancies with an occupant load of 30 or more;
E. Optional occupancy group-municipality may choose option 1 or option 2.
1. Group R 1 and R 2 occupancies vvith 8,500 or more gross square feet of floor
area or dwelling units or guestrooms on three or more floors; and attached R 3
occupancies and :ittached townhouses built to the International Residential Code
with 8,500 or more gross square feet of floor area. All floors, basements, and
garages :ire included in this floor area threshold.
2. Attached R-3 occupancies and attached townhouses built to the International
Residential Code with more than 16 dwelling units or more than three stories in
height.
1306.0040 STANDARD.
Automatic sprinkler systems must comply with the applicable standard referenced in
the State Building Code. If a public water supply is not available, the building official
and fire chief shall approve the use of an alternate on-site source of water if the
alternate source provides protection that is comparable to that provided by a public
water supply. If an adequate alternate water supply sufficient for hose stream
requirements is provided or available, the building official and fire chief may permit
the water supply requirements for the hose stream demands to be modified.
1306.0050 SUBSTITUTE CONSTRUCTION.
The installation of an automatic sprinkler system, as required by this chapter, would
still allow the substitution of one-hour fire-resistive construction as permitted by the
International Building Code, Table 601, footnote d.
1306.0060 EXEMPTION.
The building official, with the concurrence of the fire official, may waive the
requirements of this chapter if the application of water has been demonstrated to
constitute a serious life, fire, or environmental hazard, or if the building does not
Page 11 of 103
have an adequate water supply and the building is surrounded by public ways or yards
more than 60 feet wide on all sides.
1306.0070 REPORTING.
A municipality must submit a copy of the ordinance adopting this chapter to the
Department of Administration, Building Codes and Standards Division, within 15 days
of its adoption.
Page 12 of 103
Minnesota Department of Administration
Building Codes and Standards Division
ST ATEMENT OF NEED AND REASONABLENESS
Proposed Amendment to Rules Governing Special Fire Protection Systems (optional),
Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1306
INTRODUCTION
Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1306 is intended to provide local jurisdictions with the ability
to adopt more comprehensive fire sprinkler protection provisions for structures within their
jurisdictions, to provide for the life safety of the constituents, and the fire safety of the property
they are entrusted to protect. Fire sprinklers offer a cost effective alternative to fire protection
than the traditional fire suppression method; which is extremely costly, both in terms of capital
and operating needs and has had a very poor record of effectiveness for saving lives and
property. Communities that adopt chapter 1306 have a greater ability to utilize limited taxpayer
dollars more efficiently by using volunteer fire departments and a reduced number of fire stations
and equipment.
The Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Administration proposes to adopt a
new version of Chapter 1306 into the Minnesota State Building Code. Chapter 1306 was first
adopted April 25, 1983, as Optional Appendix "E" but has been revised from time to time. This
chapter was last modified in 1998 when it was adopted as part of the Minnesota State Building
Code. The proposed rules amend the requirements of the 2000 International Building Code,
which will be adopted by reference as part of the Minnesota State Building Code. The Agency
published its Request for Comments in the State Register on July 1 0, 2000, soliciting opinions
and information from the public on the rules regarding Chapter 1306.
The Building Codes and Standards Division facilitated a 1306 Advisory Committee that
included members from the construction industry, multi- housing interests, fire service, building
owners, architects and engineers, fire sprinkler industry, code officials, and the public. All
members of the committee contributed to the content of the proposed rules and consensus was
reached on all items.
ALTERNATIVE FORMAT
Upon request, this Statement of Need and Reasonableness can be made available in an
alternative format, such as large print, Braille, or cassette tape. To make a request, contact
Colleen D. Chirhart, Rules Coordinator at the Department of Administration, Building Codes
and Standards Division, 408 Metro Square Building, 121 _7th Place East, St. Paul, Minnesota,
55101-2181, (651) 296-4329, FAX (651) 297-1973 and email at colleen.d.chirhart@state.mn.us.
TTY users may call the Department at 1-800-627-3529.
1
Page 13 of 103
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
Minnesota Statutes, section l6B.59 provides that "the State Building Code governs the
construction, reconstruction, alteration, and repair of buildings and other structures to which the
code is applicable. The commissioner shall administer and amend a state code of building
construction which will provide basic and uniform performance standards, establish reasonable
safeguards for health safety, welfare, comfort, and security of the residents of this state and
provide for the use of modern methods, devices, materials, and techniques which will in part tend
to lower construction costs. The construction of buildings should be permitted at the least
possible cost consistent with recognized standards of health and safety."
Minnesota Statutes, section l6B.6l, subdivision 1 provides that "subject to sections
l6B.59 to l6B.75, the commissioner shall by rule establish a code of standards for the
construction, reconstruction, alteration, and repair of buildings, governing matters of structural
materials, design and construction, fire protection, health, sanitation, and safety, including design
and construction standards regarding heat loss control, illumination, and climate control. The
code must also include duties and responsibilities for code administration, including procedures
for administrative action, penalties, and suspension and revocation of certification. The code
must conform insofar as practicable to model building codes generally accepted and in use
throughout the United States, including a code for building conservation. In the preparation of
the code, consideration must be given to the existing statewide specialty codes presently in use in
the state. Model codes with necessary modifications and statewide specialty codes may be
adopted by reference. The code must be based on the application scientific principles, approved
tests, and professional judgment. To the extent possible, the code must be adopted in terms of
desired results instead of the means of achieving those results, avoiding wherever possible the
incorporation of specifications of particular methods or materials. To that end the code must
encourage the use of new methods and new materials. Except as otherwise provided in sections
l6B.59 to 16B.75, the commissioner shall administer and enforce the provisions of those
sections.
Minnesota Statutes, section l6B.64, subdivision 6, states that "[t]he commissioner shall
approve any proposed amendments deemed by the commissioner to be reasonable in conformity
with the policy and purpose of the code and justified under the particular circumstances
involved. Upon adoption, a copy of each amendment must be distributed to the governing bodies
of all affected municipalities.
REGULATORY ANALYSIS
Minnesota Statutes, section 14.131, sets out six factors for a regulatory analysis that must be
included in the SONAR. Paragraphs (1) through (6) below quote these factors and then give the
agency's response.
1) a description of the classes of persons who probably will be affected by the proposed
rule, including classes that will bear the costs of the proposed rule and classes that
will benefit from the proposed rule"
2
Page 14 of 103
Those who will be affected by the rules include: municipal building officials and
inspectors who must become familiar with and enforce applicable new provisions;
various types of building contractors, including commercial and residential, who perform
both new cons truction and remodeling; architects and engineers who must become
familiar with and incorporate applicable new provisions into their design of new and
remodeled buildings and structures; building material suppliers who must become
familiar with and incorporate applicable new provisions into the manufacture and
assembly of their product; building owners who may bear any new costs associated with
applicable new provisions, either for new construction or remodeling; all those of the
general public who live, work, shop,and conduct business in buildings or other structures
will benefit from new safety standards.
Those who will bear the costs of the rules include: building owners who ultimately must
pay for any costs associated with new provisions; material suppliers and building
contractors may bear at minimum, short term costs associated with some new provisions.
There will be some minimal cost increase due to the adoption of some of the proposed
Minnesota Rule amendments. These cost increases will be identified under other sections
that follow.
Those who will benefit from the rules include: municipal building officials and inspectors
and members of the fire service who prefer a more current standard so that known
inadequacies and inconsistencies in the current state rules can be corrected to provide for
more uniform and consistent application and enforcement; architects and engineers who
prefer to provide a higher level of safety and fire protection in the buildings they design;
all those of the general public who live, work, shop, and conduct business in buildings or
other structures will benefit from current new safety standards; fire suppression personnel
because the hazards are almost completely eliminated in structures with built-in fire
protection as evidenced by historical performance of built- in protection; the insurance
industry and subsequent policy holders because premiums will be reduced; and .
community taxpayers who bear the cost for fire protection services.
2) the probable costs to the agency and to any other agency of the implementation and
enforcement of the proposed rule and any anticipated effect on state revenues"
There are no anticipated additional costs to this agency or any other agency in the
implementation and enforcement of these rules. In addition, there is no anticipated effect
on state revenues. However, certain smaller buildings constructed for the state may now
be included in groups requiring sprinklers; though many buildings, because of their
remote location, would be exempted from these rules. The cost of implementing these
rules are minor compared to the costs associated with structure destroyed by fire.
Automatic fire suppression systems have proven, over a number of decades to be over
98% effective in controlling the hazards of fire.
3) a determination of whether there are less costly methods or less intrusive methods for
achieving the purpose of the proposed rule"
3
Page 15 of 103
There are no less costly or less intrusive methods for achieving the purpose of this
proposed rule.
4) a description of any alternative methods for achieving the purpose of the proposed rule
that were seriously considered by the agency and the reasons why they were
rejected in favor of the proposed rule"
Based on significant life safety improvements, local building officials can choose to
accept alternate options within the code to reduce other code requirements with the
installation of fire sprinklers. Fire sprinklers afford the highest level of active fire
protection available and, therefore, no alterna tives exist.
5) the probable costs of complying with the proposed rule"
According to figures obtained from the Building Codes and Standards Division, the cost
of installing fire sprinklers in commercial buildings is approximately $2.24 per square
foot. These figures are compiled annually and represent national cost averages for various
building occupancies and construction types. To help offset these added costs of building
construction, most insurance companies offer discounts on fire insurance to building
owners and users whose facilities are protected by automatic fire sprinklers. The number
of building code requirements will be reduced, especially with regard to sprinkler
protection requirements.
6) an assessment of any differences between the proposed rule and existing federal
regulations and a specific analysis of the need for and reasonableness of each
difference"
There are no federal regulations that require automatic fire sprinklers in certain buildings
or occupancies, however, the Hotel ani Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-
391) mandates that federal employees traveling must stay in public accommodations that
comply with NFP A 13 or 13R with respect to hardwired single station smoke detectors in
each room and automatic sprinkler systems with a head in each room. Properties lower
than three stories are exempt from the sprinkler requirement.
Generally, the overall implications of this rule would mostly likely serve to increase the
supply of designers and installers, thereby reduc ing costs. Continued and expanded technology
will utilize more efficient more efficient components and existing water supplied, which in turn,
should also help to reduce overall costs. Entire developments in communities that have installed
fire sprinklers can and have chosen to reduce lot width size, increased hydrant sp'acing, and
decreased road width, thereby reduced the need for traditional fire suppression equipment that
relied on distance separation, water for suppression, and room in the street for fire fighting
equipment.
PERFORMANCE-BASED RULES
4
Page 16 of 103
Minnesota Statutes, section 16B.61 authorizes the Department to, by rule, establish a
code of standards for construction. This statute also mandates, that to the extent possible, the
code must be adopted in terms of desired results instead of the means of achieving those results,
avoiding wherever possible the incorporation of specifications of particular methods or materials.
The international Building Code establishes minimum regulations for building systems using
prescriptive and performance-related provisions. It is founded on broad-based principles that
make possible the use of new materials and new building designs. The Department chose to
adopt the international Building Code because it incorporates performance-related provisions
and will comply with the statutory requirement to adopt, to the extent possible, performance-
based standards.
ADDITIONAL NOTICE
Our Notice Plan also includes giving notice[s] required by statute. We will mail the
Notice of Intent to Adopt to everyone who has registered to be on the Department's rulemaking
mailing list under Minnesota Statutes, section 14.14, subdivision 1a. We will mail a copy of the
rules to any person specifically requesting a copy of them. The Department's rules mailing list
includes anyone who is interested and has requested to receive a copy of the Department's draft
rules and numerous trade associations, including:
a. Housing associations
b. Health care facility associations
c. Building Owners ani Managers Association
d. Contractors' associations
e. Farmers Home Association
f Mechanical associations
g. Electrical associations
h. Association of Minnesota Counties
1. Minnesota Association of Townships
J. League of Minnesota Cities
k. Builders associations
1. Fire associations
m AlA Minnesota
n Plumbing associations
o. Minnesota Pipe Trades Association
p. Engineers' associations
q. Minnesota Utility Contractors Association
r. State. Fire Marshal Division
s. Minnesota Board of Electricity
We will mail the Notice of Intent to Adopt Rules to other interested parties. We will mail
a copy of the rules to any person who specifically requests them. Those parties include:
a. All municipal code officials and others involved in code administration. This list
is taken from the Division's database and includes all municipal building officials
responsible for administration of the state building code and officials from other
5
Page 17 of 103
cities, towns, and counties who need to be aware of these proposed rules as they
apply to public buildings within their jurisdiction.
b. Members of the Construction Codes Advisory Council
c. Metropolitan Council
We will publish the proposed rules, Statement of Need and Reasonableness, and Notice
of Intent to Adopt Proposed Rules on the Department of Administration's Building Codes and
Standards Division Web site.
We will also give notice to the Legislature per Minnesota Statutes, section 14.116. We will also
publish the notice and the proposed rules in the State Register, as required by state law.
LIST OF WITNESSES
If these rules go to a public hearing, the Department anticipates having the following
witnesses testify in support of the need for and reasonableness of the rules:
1. Department of Administration, Building Codes and Standards Division staff.
2. Building Codes and Standards Division's Assistant Attorney General
3. Fire Service staff, if necessary
RULE-B Y-RULE ANALYSIS
1306.0010 General. This language is being carried over from the previous code language. This
section establishes this rule chapter as an optional section of the state building code. This section
is numbered 1306.0100, subpart 1 in the current code.
1306.0020 Municipal option. This section is a modification of the language currently located in
1306.0100. subpart 2. This new proposal divides the section into two categories, with the
requirement that one of the two options must be adopted if the rule chapter is adopted. Subpart 1
of this proposal contains the same language as the current language in 1306.0100, subpart 2.
Subpart 2 of this proposal is similar to the current language except that it allows a municipality
to adopt this special fire suppression rule for new buildings only.
Numerous municipal fire and building officials requested the development of this section
because they believe that special fire suppression provisions should only be applied to new
buildings and not existing buildings.
Several municipalities have voted to not adopt this rule chapter because application to existing
buildings can become political when it affects retrofitting existing buildings. Many
municipalities would adopt 1306 if it only applied to new buildings.
1306.0030 Requirements. This section is similar to the current language in 1306.0100, subpart
3. The language has been revised to coordinate the occupancy classifications with those in the
International Building Code. Additional changes relate to changes in the gross square footage
size requiring the building the be sprinklered under this rule. 2,000 gross square foot buildings
6
Page 18 of 103
can be attacked by firefighters from the outside. Larger buildings require interior fire lines and
require fire fighters to enter the building. 2,000 square foot buildings can be exited by
occupancy in a timely manner in the event of a fire emergency. Likewise, firefighers have an
ability to extinguish the fire utilizing pre-existing openings, such as doors and windows to direct
their fire fighting hand lines from the exterior, significantly reducing the hazards posed to them.
Larger buildings require more time for occupants to escape the building and require firefighters
to lay and extend hand lines into potentially lethal environments. An additional category of
attached R-3 and attached townhouse occupancies was added based on input from the fire
service, building official community and city representatives. Attached R-3 or townhouses are
being built in unlimited area and unprecedented quantities. These buildings function as one
building because fire migrates from roof to roof and from exterior components into interior
living spaces and interior roof spaces with other voids, unless buildings are separated. These
buildings look like apartment buildings and fire does not recognize interior property lines.
Several national and local builders already incorporate fire sprinklers into their townhomes and
several communities, because of interpretive differences and local zoning requirements, require
sprinklers in R-3 attached occupancies over 8,500 square feet. An additional exception was
added to exc lude existing apartment occupancies, existing attached R-3 occupancies, and
existing attached townhomes from retroactive application of these sprinkler rules. This language
clarifies an existing practice and is consistent with requirements for condominiums of the same
SIze.
1306.0040 Standard. The language in this section is similar to the current language in 1306,
however, the last sentence in this proposal was added to address the need for an adequate
alternate water supply that is acceptable for hose stream requirements. This was added to allow
the local officials to accept alternate water supplies.
1306.0050 Substitute construction. The language in this section was modified from current
language to update the reference in the International Building Code, the model building code
being adopted into the State Building Code.
1306.0060 Exemption. This language is entirely new to this rule chapter. The language was
added to provide exception to these provisions when: 1) application of water to building contents
would create a hazard, or 2) a building does not have adequate water supply. Under certain
circumstances, adding water to the contents of a building may actually cause more damage. This
section allows alternate methods when water reacts with tre contents of a building causing more
hazards. For certain buildings located 60 feet from other buildings but far from an adequate
water supply, the cost of an adequate water supply would be greater than the cost of the entire
sprinkler system for the building.
1306.0070 Reporting. This language is entirely new to this rule chapter. This language
establishes a database of information for the Division to track the number of municipalities that
actually adopt this rule chapter and which version of the chapter they chose to adopt. The
Division is responsible for plan review and inspections of public buildings and state licensed
facilities throughout the state. For plan review and inspection purposes, it is necessary for the
Division to know which provisions in the State Building Code apply in each municipality to
7
Page 19 of 103
properly carry out its duties relative to those tasks. Some property does not have an adequate
water supply.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the proposed rules are both needed and reasonabb.
September 10, 2002 s/ David Fisher
Commissioner
8
Page 20 of 103
Optional 1306 Survey (Revised 4-14-2003)
The following cities are planning to adopt 1306 with Subpart 2. Existin2 and New Buildin2s
and Option 1 for Group R-1 and R-2 occupancies with 8,500 or more gross square feet of floor
area or dwelling units or guestroom s on three or more floors and attached townhouses built to
the IRC with 8,500 or more square feet of floor area. All floors, basements and garages are
included in this floor area threshold
Blaine
Spring Lake Park
Mound
Stillwater
Coon Rapids
Shakopee
Bloomington
New Brighton
Golden Valley
The following cities are planning to adopt 1306 with Subpart 3. New Buildin2s and Option 2
for attached R-3 occupancies and attached townhouses built to the IRC with more than 16
dwelling units or more than three stories in height.
Plymouth
Rochester
Hopkins
The following cities are planning to adopt 1306 with Subpart 3. New Buildin2s and Option 1
St. Louis Park
St. Paul
Maple Grove adopted this on April 7, 2003
The following cities will not be adopting 1306:
Ramsey
Page 21 of 103
FIRE LOSS HISTORY
Sprinklered vs. Non-Sprinklered Buildings
1987 - 1996
Occupancy Tvpe: Ave. Loss - w/o Ave. Loss - A/S % Reduction
Public Assembly - Total $20,600 $ 6,100 70
Eating & Drinking $16,100 $ 5,400 66
Educational (through lih grade) $14,300 $ 4,600 68
J
Health Care Facilities - Total $ 4,300 $ 1,600 63
Hospitals $ 4,900 $ 1,600 67
Nursing Homes $ 3,700 $ 1,600 57
Residential Properties:
Apartments $ 8,100 $ 4,300 41
High-Rise Apartments $ 3,100 $ 1,800 42
Hotels & Motels $12,400 $ 5,800 54
High-Rise Hotels $11,500 $ 4,400 62
Dormitories $ 7,400 $ 4,800 35
Stores and Offices - Total $23,300 $13,300 43
Department Stores $37,500 $15,200 60
Office Buildings $22,200 . $11 ,300 49
High-Rise Office Buildings $28,400 $12,800 55
Manufacturing Facilities $44,400 $17,700 60
Data from NFP A Report: Us. Experience With Sprinklers - October, 1998
Page 22 of 103
Sprinkler Success Stories Page 1 of8
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
STATE FIRE MARSHAL
Sprinkler Success Stories
Items for inclusion on this page may be submitted to Robert.Dahm(cj)state.mn.us.
I. Blaine II. Brooklvn Park II. Bumsville I
I. Chanhassen II. Duluth II. La Crescent I
I. Little Canada II. Maolewood II. Minnetonka I
I.Mt.Iron II. Moundsview II. Northtield I
I. Rochester II. St. Louis Park II. St. Paul I
I. Spring Lake Park II. Stillwater II. Waconia I
Blaine, MN
December, 2002
Sprinklers in the trash room of the Cloverleaf Apartments extinguished two different fires during the second
week of December. The fires, which originated in a dumpster inside the trash room were extinguished by a
single fire sprinkler head on both occasions. The dumpster room and the adjacent hallway sustained a small
amount of smoke and water damage, but had the room not been sprinklered either one of the fires could
have resulted in loss of life and, or loss of the entire building, No residents were displaced as a result of the
fires. The causes of which remain under investigation.
S,!bmitted by Harlan Lundstrom, SSM Fire
November 19,2000
A laundry room fire a the Blaine Super 8 was extinguished by the fire sprinkler system. The alarm connected to the
sprinkler water flow sounded, but only on the second floor, resulting in that floors occupants evacuating the building.
The first floor alarm did not sound due to a malfunctioned, and firefighters found occupants still in their rooms on that '
level. Since the fire had been extinguished by the sprinkler system, first floor occupants were sheltered in their rooms
until the smoke could be cleared.
Reported in the December 15. 2000 edition ofABC Newspapers
Brooklyn Park, MN
May 25, 2001
The fire department responded to a water flow alarm at Northview Junior High School. The call was
http://www.dps.state.mn.us/fmarshaVfireprot/SprinkS tories.html 5/28/03
Page 23 of 103
Sprinkler Success Stories Page 2 of8
upgraded to a working fire based on information from school staff. First arriving units found a heavy smoke
condition in the industrial arts area. The fire was contained by the activation of one sprinkler head and
extinguished by firefighters. Linseed rags were established as the cause of the fire. Damage was estimated
at $4,500 with no injuries.
Submitted by JOtl Nisja. Deputy Slale Fire Marshal - Supervisor
May 21, 2001
The fire department responded to a water flow alarm at the Champlin Park High School. The alarm was
upgraded when the first arriving officer found a fire in a small room in the industrial arts area that contained
the acetylene gas storage and distribution equipment. Students and staff had evacuated the building. The
fire was contained by one sprinkler head and extinguished by firefighters. Damage is estimated at $8,000
with no injuries.
Submitted by JOtl Nisja. Deputy Slale Fire Marshal- Supervisor
May 17,2001
Brooklyn Park Fire responded to a water flow alarm at a Subway Restaurant.. The fIrst arriving offIcer found a heavy
smoke condition and upgraded the call to a working fIre. On investigation a small fIre was found in the offIce area at
the rear of the building. One sprinkler head had activated and contained the fIre which was quickly extinguished by
fIrefIghters. The cause of the fIre was determined to be smoking materials that had been discarded into a trash
container. Damaged was estimated at $20,000 with no injuries.
Submilled by JOtl Nisja. Deputy Stale Fire Marshal- Supervisor
Burnsville, l\1N
December 30, 2000
A sprinkler head protecting the apartment kitchen of an elderly woman quickly stopped a stove top fIre. This fast
suppression was especially timely because it occurred in one of five apartments in the assisted care living facility that
housed memory loss patients. This apartment wing section was separated from the rest of the building a a corridor door,
but unknown to building or fIre resources; all apartment doors had been removed to better observe the residents. The
fire occurred when a portable radio ignited that was placed on a stove burner that was unintentionally turned on. Thick
black smoke made its was to the corridor and adjacent apartment units, then the sprinkler activation stopped the fire. A
facility staff member suffered smoke inhalation in the attempt of removing residents, but when fIrefIghters entered the
area it was reasonable clear. The water flow was shut down limiting the water damage to the apartment carpet and a
small section of the corridor floor. The stove and sink area received minor fIre damage. Doors have been re-installed
and alarm and evacuation procedures evaluated and changed. The effective coverage of the sidewall sprinkler was
especially noted.
Submitted by Tom Hannum, Burnsvilla Fire Inspector
Chanhassen, l\1N
December, 2000
Chanhassen fIrefighters responded to a water flow alarm in an offIce/warehouse/light manufacturing facility. The fIrst
engine company on scene reported the fIre out. Upon investigation it was discovered that two ESFR sprinkler heads
were activated, limiting the are of fire to an area approximately 10' x 10'. The fIre was determined to be caused by a
small tank ofliquid was igniting and spreading to cardboard boxes. (This is the same facility reported in the November
http://www.dps.state.mn.us/fmarshal/fireprot/S prinkS tories.html 5/28/03
Page 24 of 103
Sprinkler Success Stories Page 3 of8
25 incident below.)
November 25, 2000
Chanhassen fIrefIghters responded to a waterflow alarm in 110,000 square foot offIce/warehouse/light manufacturing
facility protected by an ESFR sprinkler system. The system extinguished the fIre in a small amount of cardboard,
limited the fIre area to an area approximately 6' x 6'. The business makes candles.
Both illcidellts were reported by tlte Cltanltassell Fire Departmelltto tlte MN Cltapter of Natiollal Fire Sprillkler Associatioll
Duluth, MN
June 4, 1999
A couch fIre on the fIfth floor of a 14 story residential high-rise was controlled by a single sprinkler head. Responding
f~e companies removed the remains of the couch, ventilated smoke from the apartment and cleaned up water.
Submitted by: JOltll Strollgilltarm. Fire Marshal. Dulutlt Fire Department. Fire Prevelltion Bureau
La Crescent, MN
August 20,2001
Fire damaged a portion of a company that makes wooden building trusses, but was controlled before it could do major
damage. Flames and smoke could be seen in a shed on the business' west side when fIrefIghters arrived, but a sprinkler
system and the fIre department's new foam truck quickly extinguished the fIre. According to the La Crescent Fire
Marshal, "It wasn't very much damage considering what it could have been. It's basically a lumber yard and it's not
uncommon to lose a lot in a situation like that. Any business that doesn't know whether to put in a sprinkler system
should look at this."
From Fire Protection Contractor, November 200 I, reprillted from tlte La Crosse Tribune.
Little Canada, MN
July 8, 1999
AT 0500 hours, the Little Canada Fire Department responded to Water-N-Woods Sporting Goods. Upon arrival the
department observed that the automatic fire sprinkler system had extinguished a fIre in the store. Further investigation
revealed that the store had been burglarized and several fIrearms had been stolen. It a appeared that the fIre had been
set to to cover up the burglary and theft. The resulting fIre was extinguished by six. sprinkler heads, which also
prevented the fire from spreading beyond the immediate area of origin.
The store was closed for a couple days to conduct further investigation, inventory and complete clean up.
Submitted by Jim Morelall (Asst. Fire Cltief) and Dualle Wi//iams (Fire M~rshal). Little Callada Fire Department
Maplewood, MN
http://www.dps.state.mn.us/finarshal/fireprot/S prinkS tories.html 5/28/03
Page 25 of 103
Sprinkler Success Stories Page 4 of8
Date Unknown
An fire was set inside a clothing rack in the women's department of the Maplewood Mall Sears Store. There was heavy
smoke in the entire area. The overhead fire protection sprinkler stopped the fire from spreading to other clothing racks.
The fire department crew used less than 50 gallons of water to extinguish spot fires on some of the clothing. Damage
was contained to the rack of clothing and some bum to the carpet below where ignited clothing had dropped.
Submitted by: Butch Garvais Fire Marshal. City of Maplewood
Minnetonka, MN
July 6, 1999
An automatic fire sprinkler system had recently been installed in a multi-tenant office/warehouse building on
Opportunity Court in Minnetonka. Prior to leaving for the weekend, the sprinkler contractor filled the system with
water and added 200 1bs. of air pressure (this is common industry practice to check for leaks over an extended period of
time). The main sprinkler control valve was then shut off as the system was not yet connected to a central station
monitoring alarm.
On Tuesday, July 6 Minnetonka Fire Inspector Phil Minnell arrived at the building to witness the [mal acceptance test
for this newly installed system. Once there, he and the sprinkler contractor found two sprinkler heads leaking. Upon
closed examination, and in speaking with the tenant, it was discovered that a fire had occurred over the weekend in a
piece of machinery that had ignited an adjacent workbench and plastic garbage can. The fire had been extinguished by
the two sprinklers discharging the water that was in the pipes for the acceptance test. Damage was minimal and even
the water damage was insignificant. Inspector Minnell advised that the damage was so minimal that it was difficult to
discover that there had been a fire.
Submitted by: Phil Minnell. Minnetonlca Fire Inspector
Mt. Iron, MN
December 5, 2000
Mountain Iron and Virginia firefighters were called to L & M Supply in Mountain Iron to handle what turned
out to be a small fire. The fire was reported about 7:50 AM in some ceiling panels above a lighting display.
The fire set off the store's sprinkler system, keeping the damage to a small area.
Printed in the January, 2001 issue of the Northland Firewire
Mounds View, MN
Date Unknown
A Mounds View food supplier to schools and restaurants suffered a fire when welding sparks from new construction
ignited hi-rock storage pallets containing foam cups and paper napkins. Sprinkler heads activated and, with the held of
an employee who also serves as a volunteer firefighter, the fire was contained and damage was limited to wet products
on the pallets.
Information from Fire Snrinlder New. National Fire Sprinkler Association - Minnesota Chapter. Spring.
http://www.dps.state.mn.us/fmarshal/fireprot/SprinkS tories.html 5/28/03
Page 26 of 103
Sprinkler Success Stories Page 5 of8
Northfield, MN
January 23, 2002
The Northfield Fire Department responded to a fire in the China Buffet, an establishment located in the River Park
Mall. The fire, incendiary in cause, was contained to the dining room by the building's fire sprinkler system. The
system extinguished the main body of the initial fire, which he fire department was able to fully extinguish using
minimal water from hose lines.
A January 26 article in the Northfield News quotes Northfield Fire Chief Gerry Franek as stating "Because of the quick
response of the sprinkler system the damage was kept to a minimum.
Bob Barton, Property Manager for the Mall, states in response to the article, "I can only heartily agree. Due to the fire
sprinkler system there was no structural damage to the building and only minor water damage the neighboring tenants.
jf/fomlatiof/jorm Bob Bartof/. Property Maf/ager - River Park Mall as reported 10 the State Fire Marshal Divisiof/
Rochester, MN
December 15, 2001
An early morning fire in a 150 bed nursing facility was extinguished by a single sprinkler head. The fire was restricted
to on small corner of a kitchen. Rochester Fire responded to the incident.
It appears someone set a plastic cup rack on top of a large commercial toaster. Incoming staff turned on the toaster and
left for other duties. The heated toaster melted the cup rack generating enough smoke and heat to blacken the corner
and ceiling overhead, which activated the sprinkler. There were no witnesses to the event. The building is operating
normally.
jf/formatiof/from Deputy State Fire Marshal Jerry White.
St. Louis Park, MN
June 11, 1999
At 0127 hrs, the St. Louis Park Fire Department responded to a fire a Byerly's (grocery store) at 3777 Park Center
Boulevard. Upon arrival fire companies found light smoke near the store entry. The fire, located in a serving area for
ice cream, had been completely extinguished by a single sprinkler. The cause was determined to be a decorative electric
light which ignited nearby combustibles. Damage was contained to the immediate area of origin.
June 17, 1999
At 0216 hrs., the St. Louis Park Fire Department responded to a fire at Japs-Olsen Printing located at 7500 Excelsior
Boulevard. First arriving fire companies found fire in the warehouse storage racks which had been knocked down by
the sprinkler system and employees using hand lines. The department completed extinguishment, performed overhaul
operations, and ventilated the structure using roof vents.
The fire had activated two in rack sprinkler heads which stopped the upward spread of the fire. Fire damage
was confined to the paper products stored in the rack. Paper products stored directly on the floor sustained
http://www.dps.state.mn.us/frnarshaVfireprot/S prinkS tories.html 5/28/03
Page 27 of 103
Sprinkler Success Stories Page 6 ofg
water damage. The exact cause of the fire was not determined however, careless smoking is suspected.
Sllbmilled by: St. LOllis Park Fire Department
St. Paul, MN
Dates Unknown
Fire originating in a comer in bales of cotton padding used to make mattresses. The fIre sprinkler_ system
controlled the fIre until the fIre department arrived.
A sprinkler head located in the basement of a two story wood frame four plex extinguished a fIre of unknown
ongm.
Fire was extinguished by one sprinkler head in a three story, 25 unit independent living structure. The fIre was
confmed to a recliner and throw blankets. The fIre started in the recliner after a burning candle melted its holder
and fell into the chair.
Linseed oil rags ignited a one story building housing several businesses. Three sprinkler heads extinguished the
fire.
One sprinkler head extinguished a fIre in a furnace area.
Damaged was limited to smoke throughout the building when a sprinkler system extinguished a fIre in the
furnace duct area of a vacant building.
Three sprinkler heads activated when a car engine started on fIre in a St. Paul parking ramp. The fire
department arrived to fInd the vehicle heavily involved with fIre in the engine compartment and spreading to the
passenger compartment. The sprinkler heads contained the fire so the building and nearby cars were not
damaged.
ltifiJrmalionjrom Fire Sorinkler News Natiollal Fire Sprinkler Association. Minnesota Chapter. Spring and Summer, 1999
September, 2000
A fire in the trash chute of a senior citizen high-rise apartment building was completely extinguished
by one sprinkler head. No evacuation was needed and no other fire damage occurred.
A fire at 3M inside a large dryer that dries sandpaper was completely extinguished by the sprinkler
system. The fire appears to have started from an overheated bearing that ignited a sandpaper roll.
Submitted by Steve Zaccard, St. Paul Fire Marshal
October, 1999
A fire occurred in a case of book matches located in the basement storage room of restaurant. The fIre spread to
one additional cardboard box before being extinguished by the sprinkler system. Estimated damage was
500.00.
In another incident, the gear, bearing and chain area of a roller assembly at a tar paper company caught fIre and
was extinguished by fire sprinklers. Damage was estimated at $5,000.00.
Reported to the NanD/lal Fire Sprinkler Association by Steve Zaccard. St. Paul Fire Deportment
Spring Lake Park, MN
Date Unknown
A cardboard box left on a stove top by the overnight cleaning crew ignited when ovens and deep fryers were
http://www.dps.state.mn.us/fmarshal/fireprot/SprinkS tories.html 5/28/03
Page 28 of 103
Sprinkler Success Stories Page 7 of8
heated for the business day. A sprinkler head just above the stove extinguished the fire. Damage was limited to
water on the floor. The exhaust system had cleared the smoke.
A resident was heating oil in an eight-plex building, and left the stove unattended. From another room they
smelled something burning and found the pan on fire. The fire was put out with a fire extinguisher but flared
again. Because of thick smoke the family had to leave the building and after failing to fmd neighbors home had
to run to a local Super America to call 911. The fire department arrived to find that one fire sprinkler head over
the stove had extinguished the fire. The fire department set up fans to clear the smoke and shut off the sprinkler
system. Damage was limited to $5000 in the $400,000 structure. No other families had to leave there home.
Submilled by: Harlall LUlldstrom. Fire Protectioll Bureau Chief
Police investigating a reported car alarm at Northern Imports determined that the alarm was really coming from
Monte's Sports Bar. Smoke was showing from the roof when the Spring Lake Fire Department arrived at 3:15
am. The first due engine laid 2 hose lines and entered through the back door of the building. Finding no fire in
the kitchen area, they entered the bar. There they found one activated sprinkler head with water flowing and a
smoldering fire behind the bar which had been controlled and nearly extinguished by the single activated head.
Damage was estimated at $50,000.00, but the save was $450.000. Investigators determined that the fire was
caused by improper disposal of smoking material which smoldered in a garbage can until it ignited in the middle
of the night.
Submitted by Kathi Osmollsoll, Fire alld Life Safety Educator, Sprillg Lake Park - Blaille - MOlmdsview Fire Departmellt
Stillwater, MN
After discovering a fire out of control in their kitchen, residents of a Stillwater townhouse evacuated and called 911 at
2:20 am, March 28, 2002. Stillwater Fire responded and requested mutual aid from Bayport Fire.
Upon arrival of the first engine at 2:28 am, water from just one residential sprinkler head extinguished the fire. If not
for the fire sprinkler system, the fire would have grown and spread rapidly before firefighter's arrival. Firefighters and
residents in all of the attached townhouses would have been endangered more, and damage from fire, smoke and water
would have been substantially worse. Feasibly, all of the attached townhouses could have been damaged or destroyed
by fire and smoke.
Because of the sprinkler system, total damage from fire, smoke and water is estimated at $4,000, and residents were not
displaced from any dwelling unit in the building, including the one that burned. The quick response of the sprinkler
proved again the value of such systems.
Submilled by Kim Kallestad. Chief-Stillwater Fire Departmellt
Waconia, MN
December 18, 2000
The Waconia Fire Department was dispatched to an apartment fire in a 30 unit complex of wood frame construction.
While in route the department was advised that the sprinkler system had been activated and the fire appeared to be out.
The fire occurred in a second floor two bedroom unit, while the occupant was heating cooking oil to deep fry food. The
occupant stepped away from the kitchen for approximately five minutes, returning when he heard a noise to fmd the oil
on fire and cupboard doors burning. The smoke detector and sprinkler system activated simultaneously; the later
existinguishing the fire. Fire and heat damaged the stove, cupboards and refrigerator. Smoke damage was kept to a
minimum and did not extend beyond the apartmen~ of origin.
http://www.dps.state.mn.us/fmarshal/fireprot/SprinkS tories.html 5/28/03
Page 29 of 103
The Fire Officials Guide to Fire Sprinkler Facts
Fire Marshal's Association of Minnesota
What Is A Fire Sprinkler System?
A fire sprinkler system is a set of water pipes connected to your normal water
supply on one end and heat activated nozzles on the other. The nozzles are
strategically placed in each room of the house to spray water at a fire, keeping
it in check until the fire department arrives.
The system also has some on-off valves, an activation sensing devise and an
alarm buzzer. Everything except the alarm will work with or without electrical
power, even if the phones and smoke detectors don't work.
How Much Will It Cost?
The installation of fire sprinklers in new residential construction is estimated to
make up around 1 % of the total building cost, similar to the cost of the carpet.
Because each home is unique onto itself, it's impossible to give a blanket
estimate. It's safe to say that the cost of fire sprinklers will be between $1 and
2 per square foot for new construction.
Benefit Analysis
Pro
Fire sprinkler technology has been around for over a hundred years proving
effective over 95% of the time.
Fire sprinklers protect your family and property 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,
12 months a year.
Saves property from being damaged by fire.
Saves lives of family and fire fighters.
Saves money on your homeowners insurance premiums.
Cost less than the carpeting.
Saves personal items that can never be replaced like photographs, family
heirlooms and pets.
Page 30 of 103
The installation of fire sprinklers will be an advantage when selling the house.
Fire sprinklers provide a safer environment for your family.
Con
Fire Sprinkler placement could interfere with light fixture or other interior
decor locations.
Installing fire sprinklers will cost money (usually $1.00 - $2.00 per square foot
in new construction).
Fire sprinkler installation will create an additional inspection and test to be
performed at .the time of installation.
There's a slight chance of a fire sprinkler leaking or accidentally going off (the
same chance as with your regular home plumbing system).
Even with a fire sprinkler system installed you need to continue proper
maintenance of smoke detectors together with practical home escape plan.
A fire sprinkler system will require some maintenance, about the same as your
normal plumbing, and regular testing.
Automatic sprinkler systems have enjoyed an enviable record of protecting life
and property for over 100 years. Yet, there are still common misunderstandings
about their operation and effectiveness:
Myth: "Water damage from a sprinkler system will be more extensive than fire
damage. "
Fact: Water damage from a home fire sprinkler system will be much less severe
than the damage caused by water from fire-fighting hose lines or smoke and
fire damage if the fire goes unattended. Quick response sprinklers release 8-14
gallons of water per minute compared to 100-250 gallons per minute released
by a fire hose. Besides, wet stuff always holds more value than ashes.
Myth: "When a fire occurs, every fire sprinkler head goes off."
Page 31 of 103
Fact: Fire sprinkler heads go off one at a time. They are individually activated
by the heat of a fire. Residential fires are usually controlled with a single fire
sprinkler head. Ninety percent of all fires are controlled with one or two heads.
Water damage is usually confined to the room where the fire started.
Sometimes rooms on floors below can also get some water damage.
Myth: "A smoke detector provides enough protection."
Fact: Smoke detectors save lives by providing a warning system but do nothing
to extinguish a growing fire or protect those physically unable to escape on
their own, such as the elderly and small children. Too often, battery operated
smoke detectors fail to function because the batteries are dead or have been
removed. A smoke detector does nothing to protect your property from fire
unless you take the proper action when you hear the alarm. Even then you
couldn't put the right amount of water in the right place as quickly as a fire
sprinkler system.
Myth: "Sprinklers are designed to protect property, but are not effective for
life safety."
Fact: You are twenty times more likely to die in a fire than from carbon
monoxide alone. Statistics show fire sprinklers provide a high level of safety.
There has never been a multiple loss of life in a fully sprinkled building.
Property losses are 85% less in residences with fire sprinklers compared to
those without. The combination of automatic sprinklers and early warning
systems in all buildings could reduce overall injuries, loss of life and property
damage by at least 85%.
Why Should I Have A Fire Sprinkler System?
The art of fire fighting is putting the right amount of water, in the right place
at the right time. When this happens, the fire goes out with the least amount
of damage. That's exactly what a fire sprinkler system is designed to do.
By placing heat activated water nozzles (sprinkler heads) strategically in each
room of the house, fire fighting water will likely be in the right place at the
right time. Fire sprinklers are widely recognized as the single most effective
method for fighting the spread of fires in their early stages, before they can
cause severe injury to people and damage property.
If this system is so great, you ask, why doesn't everyone already have one
installed? Frankly, we just don't know. Experience has taught the business
world that fire sprinklers are important. Just take a took next time you go to
the bank or another valuable building. All those little devices evenly placed
every 14 feet or so on the ceiling are fire sprinkler heads.
Page 32 of 103
Most people who die from fire, die in their homes, while they sleep. Young
children and mature adults are the most likely victims. That's why nearly half
of all U. S. hotels and motels already have sprinkler systems installed. In fact
the federal government won't even let their employees sleep in a non-sprinkled
hotel or motel. It's not good for business if employees die while traveling.
How Can I Decide What's Right For Me?
Consider all the facts:
What do you have to protect? Is it worth the added expense? You wouldn't
sprinkle a barn full of hay. How about a barn full of vintage Corvettes? Does
anyone sleep in or near the barn?
How close is your house to the street and neighbors? Would a fire be
discovered quickly? Do fire fighters have easy access around your house?
How close is the local fire department? How capable are they? Don't count on
the fire department to save lives. By the time the fire is reported and they
arrive it's usually too late for anyone still inside.
Do you have public water supply including a nearby fire hydrant? Without
water your fire department will be lucky to save anything in or near the
building where the fire starts.
Page 33 of 103
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
FIRE CODE
MINUTES
June 2, 2003
Mayor Ristow called the meeting to order at 8:35 p.m.
Audience:
Mayor Ristow, Councilmembers Cordes, Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg
Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Ed Shukle, City Administrator; Kevin Carroll,
Community Development Director; Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief; John Powers, Fire
Marshal; Ken Lewis, Building Official; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant; Pat
Sheehan, Chief State Fire Inspector
Michelle Leonard
Present:
MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to approve the agenda. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
Council adopted the state building code in April 2003. At that time, Chapter 1306 was not
included. Prior to 1999 the city code contained Chapter 1306. In 1999 Council repealed that
chapter. The opposition was sprinkling of existing buildings and the burden it placed on the
owners of those buildings. Now there have been changes in Chapter 1306 which provide more
flexibility for cities to adopt it.
Mr. Pat Sheehan, State Chief Fire Inspector, gave an overview of sprinkler systems, Chapter
1306, and options staff recommended. Sprinkler systems are the oldest automatic fire
suppression system. There has been an increase in technology during recent years. In Minnesota
the 1306 provision goes back to the early 1980's. 1306 was a way to address fire protection
concerns in rapidly developing outer ring suburbs and redeveloping inner suburbs. The intent
was to reduce the thresholds of the building code that required sprinkler systems. The desire was
to have sprinklers installed in newly constructed buildings and those undergoing major change in
occupancy and renovation. One of the arguments of the past was that there was not enough
flexibility for local communities. Over the last 4 or 5 years the 1306 committee has worked very
hard to come up with options various communities can use to suit their needs. In sprinkled
buildings there has never been a loss of firefighter life. Sprinkler systems have traditionally been
for protecting buildings. The positive side is that in sprinkled buildings it reduces loss of life to
almost nothing. Residential sprinklers are designed to save lives. 1306 has been redeveloped
with all these things in mind. We need to do all we can to encourage sprinkler systems. The
code gives us certain thresholds that we can require, but we want to make it feasible for facilities
to want to install sprinklers, to get payback on their investment through insurance reductions.
Farmington's current ISO rating is 5/9 (5-city, 9-rural). Mr. Sheehan stated 5 is a good rating for
cities to have. Sprinkler systems in buildings can significantly improve that over the years. The
ISO rating is based on the fire departments ability to fight fire and that affects the homeowner
insurance rates along with the business rates.
Mayor Ristow stated looking at the options survey, most all the cities, other than Mound which is
smaller than Farmington, are triple the population, and are not adopting 1306. Why aren't
similar cities adopting this? Is the survey not up to date? Fire Marshal Powers replied the
survey is compiled by the Fire Marshal's Association of Minnesota. The most recent edition is
Page 34 of 103
Council Workshop Fire Code Minutes
June 2, 2003
Page 2
from mid-February. Mr. Sheehan stated it is hard to get people to respond to surveys. Fire
Marshal Powers replied Apple Valley has adopted 1306, and Rosemount has a variation of it.
Mr. Sheehan stated there is a new provision in 1306 that requires that any city that adopts this
within two weeks notifies the state.
Mayor Ristow stated he was involved when the city adopted the Uniform Building Code and
dropped 1306. We are a city that is business friendly and some ofthe change of occupancies has
to be clarified more. There were certain businesses moving out because the code recommended
ifthere was a slight change, they had to revise the whole building. It caused a hardship in the
businesses and quite a stir in the community. He is for sprinklers, but when safety becomes
involved it is in everyone's best interest, but the hardships have to be looked at.
Councilmember Cordes stated she believes there was a change of occupancy in one of the units
at Town's Edge and because of that change they would have been required to sprinkle the whole
building. That would have been a tremendous hardship. Fire Marshal Powers stated that was in
1999 and had to do with the daycare and their expansion.
Mayor Ristow stated from what he read in the information, it should not be a hardship and if the
water supply was not available, the city would look at that. It was not a bad thing, but it was
quite a burden. Some people were thinking to just vacate and let the city go back to a ghost town
like it was at one time because of the cost. There were other buildings the city was looking at
and owners said they were unable to do this. They would have to leave and go somewhere else.
We lost some of the businesses to the neighboring townships. Ifwe are not consistent, they can
go across the line and build the same thing with the same operation and not comply. That is not
right either. It gives people an option, if they don't like what we are doing here, they will go
somewhere else. Mr. Sheehan stated the building code is a state building code. It is applicable
throughout the entire state. In the early 1980's, there was a statute that allowed counties outside
of the metro area to have referendums to decide if they wanted to have enforcement of the
building code. That was a situation of the legislature overriding the rule. There is nothing we
can do to prevent that.
Mr. Sheehan stated one benefit of sprinklers is that sometimes sprinklers will allow you not to do
certain construction features. If you sprinkle the building you do not have to make a box out of a
certain area with fire walls just to confine the fire. The biggest thing for a fire department is
chasing a fire through a building that has additions. Over the long run sprinklers can be a cost
savings. Mayor Ristow stated he read the information provided and it is good analogy. He is
100% for sprinklers. He read where one sprinkler can put out a fire before the fire department
gets there. Before we were talking about existing buildings and no one had a problem going into
it, if you knew you were going to add on. Installing sprinklers in existing buildings is more
costly than constructing new. Mr. Sheehan stated it is also a protection for existing tenants.
They are there with the assumption that to some degree their neighbors are not going to cause
them any problem. If a tenant moves in with a more hazardous process, now tenant A is at risk,
because if tenant B has a fire and there is no sprinkler or separation, tenant A will be out of
business if tenant B has a fire. Unfortunately laws are made not to protect us against ourselves,
but to protect us against the unsafe acts of others. Mayor Ristow wanted to reiterate that he is
not trying to talk down the sprinkling, because he thinks they are great, but it is the existing
buildings and homes. The existing code says to put a double fire core sheet rock wall between
them. In the information he was reading, it is only a wall and the fire pops out in the attic and
Page 35 of 103
Council Workshop Fire Code Minutes
June 2, 2003
Page 3
the roof, which are not sprinkled anyway, and that is where the majority of the fires are and can
drop down. Putting up the extra cost of the double fire core sheet rock really is not any good
either. Mr. Sheehan stated the fire separations will stop a fire, but they will not do anything to
put it out. Sprinklers will not only detect the fire, but they will also control the fire, if not put it
out completely. The built-in fire separation units work to a point. Building Official Lewis stated
fire walls are there to buy time to allow people to vacate.
Mayor Ristow asked under this code, if adopted, it says a 16-unit townhouse would require
sprinklers because it is over a certain amount of square footage. Would you still require a fire
wall between the two if all are joined together? Building Official Lewis replied you still would
have a fire wall, but you would need a one-hour separation instead of a two-hour separation.
There is still separation there, but not as much. The cost for that will go down which they can
put into the sprinkler system and the cost evens out. Councilmember Cordes asked if 16 units
means 16 continuous units attached, or 4 units here and there. Fire Marshal Powers replied the
units are back to back, under one roof. Councilmember Cordes asked about subpart 3 where it
says additions to existing buildings, would it be just the addition that would be required to be
sprinkled or the whole building? Fire Marshal Powers replied ifthere is occupant load added to
the building, the entire building would have to be sprinkled. Mr. Sheehan stated if the operation
now imposes a greater hazard sprinklers would be required. Mayor Ristow asked about City
Center where Edina Realty joined next to New Moon. That was an addition. Would that require
sprinklers for the whole building? Fire Marshal Powers replied that would have required the
whole building, however he chose to put in a two-hour concrete block wall. Edina Realty is
actually it's own building. Under 1306 that would go away. They could not put the wall there
and call it two separate buildings. Mayor Ristow stated last time it caused so much hardship, we
could not get people to expand, and you could not get people to upgrade old buildings because of
undue hardship. Councilmember Cordes asked about the Rochon dairy building, ifthey were to
add on, would they have to sprinkle the whole building or just the addition, or does it depend on
what they use the addition for? If it was just for storage, probably not? Fire Marshal Powers
stated 1306 is triggered by the occupant load. If Gossips put an addition on the back for
restrooms, it would not increase the occupant load and would not require sprinklers. If they put a
banquet hall at the back of the building, then they are doing a major addition. Mr. Sheehan
stated the building code already requires that if the addition affects exiting, you have to upgrade
the old part to ensure you have a safe exit. You do not want to increase the danger level in the
existing portion because of the new addition.
Mayor Ristow stated it is not necessarily the addition, but if refurbishing the inside changes the
occupancy it triggers sprinklers. For example, the daycare at Town's Edge, where he is a tenant
in the building, it was rough on business while the sprinkling system was being installed in the
existing building. Fire Marshal Powers stated that was because the daycare expanded within the
existing building. Under the current building code, it required the building to be sprinkled by the
daycare. At that time the owner decided he would make a business decision to keep the daycare
there and install sprinklers or lose the daycare. Mayor Ristow added or shut down the whole
building like it was at one time. Fire Marshal Powers stated or the daycare could not have
expanded in that particular building. Fire Chief Kuchera stated the sprinkler system has been a
tremendous benefit. Mayor Ristow stated he is not criticizing, he is looking at the cost and
overall balance between businesses that did this. If we don't, you end up with a dead building
sitting there only at the discretion of the landlord, and you have no tenants which is not good.
Trying to be business friendly with existing businesses, you could name the ones that left
Page 36 of 103
Council Workshop Fire Code Minutes
June 2, 2003
Page 4
because of the sprinkling. That was our intent not to bring undue hardship to the people that
were coming in wanting to fill the buildings. Fire Chief Kuchera stated we are talking about a
countertop business, which used hazardous materials. That is what triggered the need for
sprinklers. Mayor Ristow replied he is doing the same thing across our borders and bigger. Are
we business friendly, or aren't we? It is a good layout, but in a 2,000 sq. ft. house, ifit is a new
house, he could understand it. There are 3-story houses here. Fire Marshal Powers stated we are
talking about 3 stories with 16 units. Mayor Ristow replied no, it mentioned 2,000 sq. ft. or
above. Councilmember Fogarty read from Chapter 1306 where it states "Group E occupancies
with 2,000 or more gross square feet of floor area or with two or more stories in height." Fire
Marshal Powers stated that is not residential, that is apartments and townhomes. Building
Official Lewis stated there are not currently any 16-unit townhomes. Townhomes with 12 units
are the largest being built.
Councilmember Fogarty stated she understands that for the reconstructs to get to the requirement
of a threshold to require sprinkling systems, you are doing a major reconstruction. The cost is
going to be more but not a significant amount for the majority of people we are discussing.
There might be a small majority of small businesses that might get caught. Fire Marshal Powers
stated when doing a major project, by installing a sprinkling system, they would be able to trade
off some of the separation and other costs, such as alarm systems that might not be needed. Mr.
Sheehan stated it can reduce the level of interior finish for fire rating, and drop in category.
Councilmember Fogarty stated the sprinkler systems have advanced. Usually with advancement
the. cost comes down. Mr. Sheehan stated the typical cost is $2.25/sq. ft. There are different
standards of sprinkler systems. One is for commercial and there is a residential called 13R,
which is for apartment buildings. The BE is for residential. Residential systems are designed
for not more than 2 heads to go off in a room.
Mayor Ristow stated the new part he does not have a problem with. But everyone has got to
understand what goes in the old. The water main may not be big enough, you have to increase
the water line to a 12-inch line, you have to have a box for the valves, a special building with
heat in it, and a telephone line. It costs a lot of money. For the businesses we have that are not
real huge, a smaller business, like a daycare, if you don't have a building owner that is agreeable
to do it you are limited to places where you can be. There were a lot of businesses that left here
and went to Rosemount, and Lakeville. There are people in this community that wouldn't open a
business here. There are no affordable lease spaces in the city because of some of the
requirements you have to have. Fire Marshal Powers stated Rosemount does have Chapter 1306,
so he did not know if that was a factor. When Mr. Adelman. . . Mayor Ristow interjected saying
we are not going back to Mr. Adelman, that is over with and done. You are not going to change
that. Mayor Ristow stated he is looking to the future. If we want to be a business friendly
Council and city like we are, we have to look and understand what we are implementing and
what kind of hardships it will cause. The last time 1306 caused a lot of hardship. There was a
lot of chaos and a lot of differences in the city for expanding buildings, existing buildings or new
buildings. We have to be very clear and we need to know what we are adopting.
Councilmember Soderberg stated he has two concerns. One is what existing buildings will be
impacted? He is all for putting them in new construction. What buildings do we have in town
now that would be required if they did some sort of remodeling? He also asked about the
definition of occupancy change and what type of occupancy change triggers this? Fire Marshal
Powers stated a good example is there is a church that will be vacant. It is an A occupancy. If
Page 37 of 103
Council Workshop Fire Code Minutes
June 2, 2003
Page 5
changed to another use such as a daycare which is E, it would require sprinklers with or without
1306. It may not matter depending on the size of the daycare. Mayor Ristow asked if the state
regulates whether it needs to be sprinkled in certain instances, like a daycare? Fire Marshal
Powers stated it is in the building code. Councilmember Soderberg asked if we adopt this
chapter for the city, that situation is going to happen whether we adopt this or not. For example,
the Exchange Bank building, would that renovation require sprinklers? The Antique Store?
Duebers? Fire Marshal Powers replied all those buildings are typically sales or mercantile
occupancy and will be replaced by those types ofthings. Mayor Ristow stated last time the
Exchange Bank building was brought up it was because there was a fire hydrant within 50 feet
and that was why that building did not have to be sprinkled. Fire Chief Kuchera did not recall
that. Fire Marshal Powers stated the Exchange Bank building is unique in a lot of ways. The
upstairs would have to be sprinkled regardless of 1306 because it is above the level of discharge.
Mayor Ristow stated the last person said no, because the fire hydrant is in close proximity and
the B-2 downtown business district had less requirements than outer areas. Mr. Sheehan stated it
might have been in respect to stand pipes in the stairways, which impact the fire departments
ability to get into the building to connect the hoses. If the hydrant is close to the building and
you can get in with a couple lengths of hose, that will be fine. If the hydrant was not there and
the fire department has to string a lot of hose to get inside, the stand pipes are right there to
connect to to go on up. The fire code is applicable throughout the state. In some communities, it
is enforced by local authorities. Where it is not enforced locally, ifthe state fire marshal is called
in, we will enforce the code and if sprinklers are required, we will enforce it. Mayor Ristow
stated he hoped the property owner of the Exchange Bank building is aware of that, if they have
to go back and run the sprinkler lines for existing businesses. Fire Marshal Powers stated the
owner is aware they have to sprinkle the part that is above the level of exit discharge.
Councilmember Fitch stated county by county can adopt this. If someone were to build a like
building in Castle Rock, would they have to follow this code? Mr. Sheehan stated counties
outside of the metro area were allowed to vote no enforcement by referendum. Councilmember
Fitch stated if Dakota County is in the metro area, this has been forced on them. Mr. Sheehan
believed this was correct, but he would have to check. Councilmember Fitch stated if we build
something in Empire or Castle Rock, they technically are supposed to be meeting that code. Is
that a fair statement? Mr. Sheehan stated if Farmington is the fire official for that area, they
should enforce the same as Farmington. Councilmember Fitch wanted to make sure they are
supposed to be following the rules. Mayor Ristow stated surrounding areas do not have water,
they have wells. Councilmember Fitch stated he is trying to get a feel for the landscape, because
if we as a city provide the fire protection for them, we should have some kind of pull in ensuring
they meet those codes or our charge to them would reflect that. Mr. Sheehan stated rural
contracts do not always address the code issues. They are paying for basic fire protection,
regardless of what they have. Mr. Sheehan stated there is no oversight by the state as far as rural
contracts. Mayor Ristow stated if we are going to do something it should be consistent around
the area. Mr. Sheehan stated the legislature saw to it that people have that choice.
Mayor Ristow asked Building Official Lewis if it would be his duty to say he would not approve
occupancy if the code is not met? Building Official Lewis replied yes, within his jurisdiction.
Mayor Ristow asked why would the townships allow occupancy if the code is not met? Mr.
Sheehan stated it depends on the enforcement. Mayor Ristow stated if there is a plan in place
and it is consistent throughout, then you do not have a problem enforcing it. Councilmember
Page 38 of 103
Council Workshop Fire Code Minutes
June 2, 2003
Page 6
Cordes stated it also comes down to interpretation. Mr. Sheehan stated you cannot be an active
building official without being certified. On the fire inspection side, there is no state oversight.
Mayor Ristow asked regarding the industrial park, if any of those buildings are sprinkled? Fire
Marshal Powers and Chief Kuchera stated all are sprinkled. Mr. Sheehan stated sprinklers are a
selling point, especially if a business has a hazardous product. Councilmember Fogarty asked if
1306 would have made the Market Place require sprinklers? Fire Marshal Powers replied yes. If
he would have sprinkled up front, he could have saved some money. Mayor Ristow stated it is
the balance of the cost of the building, and how much you are paying to lease it versus a bigger
city. Fire Marshal Powers stated Mr. Einess asked his tenants if they would be willing to pay
more rent for a sprinkled building. They called the insurance company and the difference
between rent and insurance savings would have been a wash. Some of the businesses chose to
serve alcohol, and that triggered the need for sprinklers.
Mr. Sheehan stated in the future, the fire service will be focusing on how drinking and fires do
not mix. If a business wants to serve alcohol, sprinklers will be a good thing. Mayor Ristow
stated we cannot compare it with a city of 17,000. Big businesses are not going to come here.
We have to look out for affordable businesses that can come here. They will leave to get a more
affordable lease.
Councilmember Fitch asked how many buildings will this affect? Fire Marshal Powers stated a
lot of the buildings are sprinkled. It would depend on if they put on additions. If a building is
landlocked and cannot put on an addition, it would not be affected. Councilmember Fitch stated
if a new business comes in, and does not have the occupancy of the previous owner, there would
not be a need to require it. Councilmember Soderberg stated if a building changed to an E use,
that is an occupancy change. The square footage mayor may not trigger it. Fire Marshal Powers
stated if a building changed to a B (business) occupancy, that would be less ofa hazard than A
alcohol) occupancy. In that case it would be a hardship to dig up the street for a less hazardous
occupancy.
Fire Chief Kuchera asked what buildings that we currently have will have to put in sprinklers?
Councilmember Soderberg stated only if there is a change that triggers it. Councilmember
Cordes stated a few years ago it was a pretty aggressive move. Mr. Sheehan stated there are
options in Chapter 1306 that cities can choose.
Councilmember Cordes noted staff put together options they would like to see adopted. After
listening to this, she is more comfortable with this. Her major concern was current buildings.
Mayor Ristow asked if there are two or three businesses that want to come in that will be a plus
for the city and their budget is short, then what? Councilmember Cordes stated that is a business
decision they have to make. Mr. Sheehan stated it is reasonable to have a plan. It is not
unreasonable to approach a particular business with a phased-in plan. Mayor Ristow stated he is
100% for sprinklers. They are an improvement for safety. It is a hardship that we have to look
at. Newly established businesses know what they are getting into. Ifwe have empty buildings,
we will have the pressure of the community. Councilmember Soderberg stated without 1306 we
cannot require sprinklers in new buildings. Fire Marshal Powers stated it takes the threshold
from 8500 - 12,000 sq. ft. depending on the occupancy code, down to 2000 sq. ft. unless it is a
daycare.
Page 39 of 103
Council Workshop Fire Code Minutes
June 2, 2003
Page 7
Fire Chief Kuchera left the meeting at 9:46 p.m.)
Councilmember Soderberg stated he is comfortable with adopting 1306. His concerns were the
burden that would be placed on existing buildings. Councilmember Fogarty stated she is also
comfortable with it. She has a greater concern with new buildings and she cannot see an excuse
not to put them in in new buildings. Councilmember Soderberg stated if we do have an existing
structure where it becomes a burden, we can find some way of working with them.
Mayor Ristow stated he had a few other questions. On the Statement of Need and
Reasonableness, number 2 states "certain smaller buildings constructed for the state may now be
included in groups requiring sprinklers." Does that mean state or county buildings that were
previously owned? Fire Marshal Powers stated this might apply to some buildings on the north
shore, where there is no water supply. Mr. Sheehan stated this shows why the state thinks the
rules are reasonable and needed. Mayor Ristow asked are they only saying state, county, city?
What about City Hall, if someone wanted to come in and it was not sprinkled and wanted a
similar use, could that trigger it? Mayor Ristow then asked regarding R3 attached occupancies
over 8500 sq. ft. The existing ones would not? He wanted Mr. Sheehan to clarify that. Fire
Marshal Powers stated the R3 will be for buildings built from now on. There is a provision
under the B option for 16 units instead of 8500 sq. ft. threshold because there are buildings that
do meet that. Mayor Ristow asked ifhe bought the building on the comer, is it a change of
ownership or occupancy ifhe changed it from what it is? Fire Marshal Powers stated it is still
the same footprint and it is still being used for an R3. Mayor Ristow stated so it would not be
required to be sprinkled. Mayor Ristow stated he will call Mr. Sheehan to answer some
questions. He wanted to make sure in his mind before he approves it, that it will not be a
hardship on smaller businesses.
This will be brought back to the July 7,2003 Council Meeting to allow time for Council to
review the issue and answer any questions.
MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to adjourn at 9:57 p.m. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
Respectfully submitted,
7' ...zK!{-d" /r7~~J
Cynthia Muller
Executive Assistant
Page 40 of 103
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
OJ
TO:Mayor, Council Members,
City Administrator ~ . Co.,
v
FROM:John Powers, Fire Marshal
Ken Lewis, Building Official
SUBJECT:Discussion Regarding Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code
DATE:July 7, 2003
INTRODUCTION
The City Council adopted the Minnesota State Building Code on April 21, 2003. Optional
Chapter 1306 was NOT included and therefore is not currently part of the Farmington City Code.
The City Council conducted a special work session on June 2, 2003 to further discuss Chapter
1306. Since the work session, staff contacted the Chamber of Commerce to solicit opinions from
the business community regarding Chapter 1306. As of the writing of this report, the Chamber
has not received any comments from its members.
DISCUSSION
The Building Code, which is applicable statewide, is updated periodically with advances in
materials, techniques, research, and knowledge. A new Minnesota State Building Code
International Building Code with State amendments) became effective March 31, 2003. Once
adopted by the State, individual municipalities are required to adopt the Code. The City of
Farmington adopted the Code on April 21, 2003.
The Minnesota State Building Code also offers several optional chapters that may be adopted by
individual municipalities, including Chapter 1306, which requires certain fire suppression
systems for specific building types. The City of Farmington discussed the adoption of 1306, but
did not include the Chapter with the adoption of the Building Code on April 21, 2003.
Some advantages of adopting 1306 are as follows:
Reduces property losses caused by fire.
Defers or delays the need for a full time Fire Department as the City continually grows.
Reduces the potential for loss of life or injury to building occupants and Fire Department
personnel.
Reduces fire insurance premiums for the building owner.
Reduces the overall cost of fire protection.
Page 41 of 103
Background
Prior to 1999, the Farmington City Code included Chapter 1306. The City Council reviewed
Chapter 1306 in 1999 and chose to repeal the chapter. According to minutes of the meeting, the
main opposition was due to the requirement to sprinkle existing buildings. It was determined that
the extra cost of this requirement would be too great for current building owners.
Changes have been made to Chapter 1306 in conjunction with the recent adoption of the
International Building Code. The current version of 1306 provides options for municipalities to
determine what level of fire protection is appropriate. As described below, the City now has the
option of requiring fire suppression systems for a narrower range of situations than before.
Another option described below allows the City to determine the threshold that would regulate
what type and size of group occupancy buildings would require a fire suppression system.
According to Chapter 1306.0020, Subpart 1, if Chapter 1306 is adopted, one of the following
subparts must also be adopted:
Subpart 2 requires fire suppression systems for new buildings and existing buildings that fall
into certain building categories as outlined in the attached Chapter 1306.0030. City Staff is
NOT recommending this option.
Subpart 3 requires fire suppression systems for new buildings, additions to existing
buildings, and buildings in which the occupancy classification has changed. The
requirements in Subpart 3 would only apply to commercial buildings as outlined in the
attached Chapter 1306.0030. City Staffis recommending this option.
Another option provided in the Chapter is in Section 1306.0030 (E). According to this Section, if
Chapter 1306 is adopted, a municipality must also choose one of the following options to
determine fire suppression requirements for certain occupancy groups:
1. Group R-I and R-2 occupancies with 8,500 or more gross square feet of floor area or
dwelling units or guestrooms on three or more floors; and attached R-3 occupancies and
attached townhouses built to the International Residential Code with 8,500 or more gross
square feet of floor area. All floors, basements, and garages are included in this floor area
threshold. City Staff is NOT recommending this option.
2. Attached R-3 occupancies and attached townhouses built to the International Residential
Code with more than 16 dwelling units or more than three stories in height. City Staff is
recommending this option.
Staff is recommending the minimum requirements allowed in this chapter to increase safety
while not becoming overly burdensome to property owners. The sprinkler system requirements
of this chapter would become part of the adopted Building Code and would be applicable
throughout the City.
Page 42 of 103
ACTION REQUESTED
Consider adoption of Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code with the recommended
options.
K/~
Ken Lewis
Building Official
Attachment:
1. Chapter 1306
2. Ordinance adopting Chapter 1306
Page 43 of 103
Chapter 1306
1306.0010 GENERAL.
This chapter authorizes optional provisions for the installation of on-premises fire
suppression systems that may be adopted by a municipality in addition to the State
Building Code. If the municipality adopts them, the sprinkler system requirements of
this chapter become part of the State Building Code and are applicable throughout
the municipality. This chapter, if adopted, must be adopted without amendment.
1306.0020 MUNICIPAL OPTION.
Subpart 1. Requirement. The sprinkler system requirements of this chapter, if
adopted, must be adopted with the selection of either subpart 2 or 3, without
amendment.
Subp. 2. Existing and new buildings. Automatic sprinkler systems for new buildings,
buildings increased in total floor area (including the existing building), or buildings in
which the occupancy classification has changed, must be installed and maintained in
operational condition within the structure. The requirements of this subpart apply to
structures that fall 'Nithin the occupancy classifications established in part 1306.0030,
items A to E.
Excepti9ns:
1. The floor area of minor additions that do not increase the occupant load does
not have to be figured into the square footage for occupancy classifications
established in part 1306.0030, items A to E.
2. The existing portion of R 2 apartment occupancies, attached R 3 occupancies,
and attached town homes is not required to be sprinl<lered under this chapter.
Subp. 3. New buHdings. Automatic sprinkler systems for new buildings, additions to
existing buildings, or buildings in which the occupancy classification has changed must
be installed and maintained in operational condition within the structure. The
requirements of this subpart apply to structures that fall within the occupancy
classifications established in part 1306.0030, items A to E.
Exception: The floor area of minor additions that do not increase the occupant
load does not have to be figured into the square footage for occupancy
classifications established in part 1306.0030, items A to E.
1306.0030 REQUIREMENTS.
For purposes of this chapter, area separation, fire barriers, or fire walls do not
establish separate buildings. Gross square footage (gsf) means the floor area as
defined in the International Building Code. The floor area requirements established in
items A to E are based on the gross square footage of the entire building and establish
Page 44 of 103
thresholds for these requirements. The following occupancy groups must comply with
sprinkler requirements of this chapter, unless specified otherwise:
A. Group A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4 occupancies;
B. Group B, F, M, and S occupancies with 2,000 or more gross square feet of floor area
or with three or more stories in height;
C. Group E occupancies with 2,000 or more gross square feet of floor area or with two
or more stories in height;
D. Group E day care occupancies with an occupant load of 30 or more;
E. Optional occupancy group-municipality may choose option 1 or option 2.
1. Group R 1 and R 2 occupancies with 8,500 or more gross square feet of floor
area or d't.'elling units or guestrooms on three or more floors; and attached R 3
occupancies and attached tovmhouses built to the International Residential Code
with 8,500 or more gross square feet of floor area. All floors, basements, and
garages are included in this floor area threshold.
2. Attached R-3 occupancies and attached townhouses built to the International
Residential Code with more than 16 dwelling units or more than three stories in
height.
1306.0040 STANDARD.
Automatic sprinkler systems must comply with the applicable standard referenced in
the State Building Code. If a public water supply is not available, the building official
and fire chief shall approve the use of an alternate on-site source of water if the
alternate source provides protection that is comparable to that provided by a public
water supply. If an adequate alternate water supply sufficient for hose stream
requirements is provided or available, the building official and fire chief may permit
the water supply requirements for the hose stream demands to be modified.
1306.0050 SUBSTITUTE CONSTRUCTION.
The installation of an automatic sprinkler system, as required by this chapter, would
still allow the substitution of one-hour fire-resistive construction as permitted by the
International Building Code, Table 601, footnote d.
1306.0060 EXEMPTION.
The building official, with the concurrence of the fire official, may waive the
requirements of this chapter if the application of water has been demonstrated to
constitute a serious life, fire, or environmental hazard, or if the building does not
Page 45 of 103
have an adequate water supply and the building is surrounded by public ways or yards
more than 60 feet wide on all sides.
1306.0070 REPORTING.
A municipality must submit a copy of the ordinance adopting this chapter to the
Department of Administration, Building Codes and Standards Division, within 15 days
of its adoption.
Page 46 of 103
CITY OF FARMINGTON
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING OPTIONAL CHAPTER
1306 OF THE STATE BUILDING CODE.
THE CITY COUNCrr. OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Title 4, Chapter 1 ofthe Farmington City Code is amended to add the following:
4-1-2 Adoption of Optional Provisions. The Minnesota State Building Code, established
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 16B. 59 to 16B. 75 allows the Municipality to adopt
by reference and enforce certain optional chapters of the most current edition of the
Minnesota State Building Code. The following optional provision identified in the
most current edition ofthe State Building Code is hereby adopted and incorporated as
part of the building code for the City of Farmington.
A) Chapter 1306, Special Fire Protection Systems.
Including the following options:
1. Subp. 3. - New buildings.
2. 1306.0030 (E)2
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication
according to law.
ADOPTED this _day of 2003, by the City Council ofthe City of Farmington.
CITY OF FARMINGTON
By:
Gerald Ristow, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Ed Shukle, City Administrator
SEAL
By:
City Attomey
Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of 2003.
Page 47 of 103
COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR
July 7, 2003
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 7:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Ristow led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
3.ROLL CALL
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Also Present:
Ristow, Cordes, Fogarty, Soderberg
Fitch
Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Dan Siebenaler, Interim City
Administrator/Police Chief; Robin Roland, Finance Director;
Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Randy Distad,
Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public
Works/City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services
Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Cynthia
Muller, Executive Assistant
Randy Pedersen, David Pritzlaff, Jeff Krueger, Paul Hardt, Randy
Oswald
Audience:
4. APPROVE AGENDA
Councilmember Cordes pulled the June 23, 2003 Special Minutes to abstain from voting.
Councilmember Soderberg pulled the June 16, 2003 Regular Minutes to make a
clarification.
MOTION by Fogarty, second by Cordes to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS
a) Acknowledge Retirement - Marilyn Speiker
Marilyn Speiker retired from the position of Custodian effective August 17,2003.
She was acknowledged for 27 years of service.
b) Distinguished Budget Presentation Award
The city has received the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for the last
SIX years.
6. CITIZEN COMMENTS
a) Mr. Paul Hardt
Mr. Paul Hardt, 1117 Bristol Lane, stated one of the best leadership mottos he
ever heard was "Praise in public, reprimand in private." He has been volunteering
for 40 years for various community projects. He wanted to compliment the staff
Page 48 of 103
Council Minutes (Regular)
July 7,2003
Page 2
and in particular Community Development Director Kevin Carroll. As a member
ofthe Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Mr. Hardt has seen first hand
Community Development Director Carroll's professionalism and creativity. His
presentations are clear, balanced, and help the HRA to do their job fairly and
efficiently. He also complimented City Attorney Joel Jamnik, and Attorney
Andrea Poehler for offering sound advice and clear thinking. Mr. Hardt stated it
is a pleasure serving on the HRA with support like this.
Mr. Dave Pritzlaff, 20255 Akin Road, asked Mayor Ristow and Councilmember Cordes
to respond back to him in writing by the July 21,2003 Council Meeting ifthere are any
additional people on their agenda and who the next person will be they will terminate and
if there is such a list. His next question was for Councilmember Fitch stating knowing he
would be on the Council for approximately 20 months, why would he agree to be
appointed and to be part of ruining someone's professional and personal life? Mr.
Pritzlaff stated it does not seem to him that someone should come in and be able to take
in facts within such a short amount oftime and be able to ruin someone's life. According
to Mr. Pritzlaff, Councilmember Fitch has stated previously he did not want politics and
does not like it. Mr. Pritzlaff does not feel it was appropriate for Councilmember Fitch to
step in just to be part of getting rid of someone. He would like Councilmember Fitch to
also respond in writing before the July 21,2003 Council Meeting.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Soderberg wanted to make a clarification on the June 16,2003 Council
Minutes on page 4, the minutes should read "Our fire department receives a training
beyond the scope of ALF Ambulance's ability."
Councilmember Fogarty thanked Executive Assistant Muller for completing the July 3,
2003 Special Council Minutes over the holiday weekend.
MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to approve the Consent Agenda as follows:
a) Approved Council Minutes (6/16/03 Regular) (7/3/03 Special)
b) Received Information Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes - Parks and
Recreation
c) Approved School and Conference - Parks and Recreation
d) Approved School and Conference - Parks and Recreation
e) Approved Park Name for Tamarack Ridge -Parks and Recreation
f) Received Information Capital Outlay - Fire Department
g) Approved Deduct Change Order - Main Street Project - Engineering
h) Approved DNR License - Main Street Project - Engineering
i) Approved Bills
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to approve June 23, 2003 Special Council
Minutes. Voting for: Ristow, Fogarty, Soderberg. Abstain: Cordes. MOTION
CARRIED.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 49 of 103
Council Minutes (Regular)
July 7, 2003
Page 3
9. AWARD OF CONTRACT
10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a) Approve Dahlco Vending Agreement - Parks and Recreation
Staff requested Council approve a Vending Agreement with Dahlco Music and
Vending. Proposals were received from Coke, Pepsi, and Dahlco. Dahlco could
provide the best proposal and can sell both Coke and Pepsi products. There is a
clause in the agreement where if Dahlco misses a payment it is an automatic out
for the city. There is also a clause for Dahlco to provide state of the art vending
and an item regarding service ofthe machines. MOTION by Cordes, second by
Soderberg to approve the following:
The five-year exclusive beverage vending agreement with Dahlco.
Approve the purchase and installation of a new scoreboard at the ice arena and
pay these costs from the proceeds received from Dahlco.
Approve the remaining proceeds, after the scoreboard has been paid off, be
directed to the Park Improvement Fund.
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
b) Approve Parks and Recreation Facilities Task Force Consultant - Parks and
Recreation
Staff requested Council approve hiring Ingraham and Associates to work with the
Recreational Facilities Task Force to develop a written report in regards to
recreational facilities in the city. Several firms were reviewed and Ingraham and
Associates provided the best proposal. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Cordes
to approve the hiring of Ingraham and Associates to work with the Recreational
Facilities Task Force. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
c) Adopt Resolution - Preliminary and Final Plat Lot 1, Industrial Park 2nd
Addition - Community Development
The parcel is 9.37 acres and is the only remaining HRA-owned parcel in the
Industrial Park. There is a pipeline easement running through the lot at an angle.
This has made the lot difficult to sell. Staff recommended dividing the parcel into
three lots, using the pipeline easement as the border for the lots, as has been done
previously. At an April 30, 2003 joint Council/Planning Commission/HRA
meeting, staff received consent to have the property surveyed. The Planning
Commission has recommended approval ofthe plat. There is a future road that
would run north and south along the eastern boundary oflot 3. For now access to
this lot would be from 208th Street. Lot sizes are 2.5 to 3 acres. There has been
significant amount of interest in lots of this size.
Councilmember Cordes stated she is not opposed to the splitting of the parcel.
She asked if it would make sense to keep the options open if someone were to
look for a bigger area to start development at one end as opposed to the middle?
Page 50 of 103
Council Minutes (Regular)
July 7, 2003
Page 4
She asked if the daycare could be located in lot 3, and keep lots 1 and 2 open if
someone were looking for a bigger area? Staff replied Ms. Karrmann liked the
access off208th Street. Staffhad discussed lot 1 with Ms. Karrmann, but it is a
more regular shaped lot which would be more suitable for a more conventional
industrial type business. Therefore, staff recommended lot 2 for the daycare. It is
an irregular shaped lot, but would be suitable for daycare use. It is anticipated lot
3 would be sold to someone who does not mind being off 208th Street and is not
concerned about not having access to the east. Staff feels lots 1 and 2 will be sold
first, and lot 3 would be sold later.
Councilmember Cordes stated with the splitting ofthese lots, will the lots be open
to the public, and would those proposals be considered? Staff replied yes, they
are looking at some now. A purchase agreement has been brought in for lot 1,
which technically does not exist until Council approval. There has been ongoing
contact with Ms. Karrmann for lot 2. The HRA has entered into an agreement to
work with them exclusively with the possible acquisition of lot 2. This was a 60
day agreement. If a deal is not reached within that time the HRA would have the
option of extending it or negotiating with other parties. Councilmember Cordes
asked ifthat would constitute a formal agreement for a lot that does not exist?
Staff stated it is an agreement to talk with them exclusively about that area. The
conceptual plan has existed for a couple months. Staff has been talking with Ms.
Karrmann about the area shown as lot 2 and also talking with other parties about
the area shown as lot 1. All these discussions are tentative and hinge on Council
action. Nothing has been finalized with anyone.
If Council approves the plat, the plat will be signed, taken to the county for filing
and at some point, the HRA will have the legal authority to talk with parties about
buying these lots. Attorney Jamnik stated the HRA can move forward contingent
on the filing. Mayor Ristow asked if someone wanted to buy all three lots, is that
an option? Are we looking to have different types of businesses? Attorney
Jamnik stated at least until the HRA agreement with Ms. Karrmann expired, the
HRA would not have the authority to offer all three lots. Ifthat deal fell through,
the HRA would own all three lots and can market them individually or
collectively. If the plat is approved, and the HRA starts entertaining offers for
individual lots, the HRA will deal with that however they want. The HRA was of
the opinion that offers have not been received for the entire area and the best
chance for selling all the lots would be to do the lot split.
Councilmember Soderberg stated the HRA entered into an exclusive agreement in
the anticipation that a lot split would not be problematic. They also entered into
an exclusive agreement with Vinge Tile and Stone in the anticipation of a
development agreement with the two lots along Hwy 50. This is an agreement
between the HRA and the proposed developers to deal with them on an exclusive
basis so they do not put a lot oftime and effort into a project that could be bought
out from under them at the last minute.
Page 51 of 103
Council Minutes (Regular)
July 7, 2003
Page 5
Mayor Ristow asked if 208th Street will be a collector if connected and would
there be a problem with the intersection to the north and the entrances? City
Engineer Mann replied the Traffic Engineer has looked at the lots and the location
ofthe future north-south route that would connect with 208th Street. The issue has
been resolved in his mind, as staff will be moving that road as far to the east as
possible. He does not have any issues with the layout of the lots. Mayor Ristow
asked if the 600 ft. setback from the intersection would be required? City
Engineer Mann replied the physical proximity of the creek and other issues make
the 600 ft setback difficult if not impossible. The Traffic Engineer felt it was
adequate based on the circumstances.
Councilmember Soderberg stated at the Planning Commission it was discussed
that any access from 208th Street would be temporary and any purchaser would be
made aware of that in advance. Once the north-south road is attached, their
entrance would come from the east.
Councilmember Fogarty asked if the HRA was prepared to approve a variance on
the 100 ft front until the north-south road is created? Staff replied typically 150 ft
is required, and the HRA did grant a variance for 100 ft.
MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty adopting RESOLUTION R43-03
approving the preliminary and final plat for the replat of Lot 2 Block 1 ofthe
Farmington Industrial Park Phase II addition. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
d) Proposed Resolution in Support of Metropolitan Council Livable
Communities Act Demonstration Account - Community Development
Staff received a $40,000 opportunity grant from the Met Council to be used for
development of the Spruce Street Corridor. On July 16,2003 there will be ajoint
City Council/Planning Commission/Spruce Street Corridor Area Task Force
meeting to discuss a preliminary draft of a master plan for development ofthe
area. Spruce Street will be extended from the T intersection at Denmark, across
the river, to a future connection with Pilot Knob Road. The developers are asking
when Spruce Street will be extended, etc. Staff has reviewed the Met Council's
Demonstration Grant Program. One of the purposes for the opportunity grant is to
help cities develop Master Plans that can then be developed in the future. Staff
has compiled a grant application and obtained cost estimates. A grant has been
requested in the amount of$1,597,000. The grant was submitted the end of June
and is currently being reviewed. A resolution is required to show there is Council
approval for the grant application. The final decision whether or not the grant
will be issued will be made December 10,2003. The money will be used for the
cost of extending Spruce Street to the river, building a bridge over the river, and
then extending Spruce Street into the heart of the development area to connect to
a north-south road which would connect with Hwy 50 to the north.
The Met Council has received 36 applications totaling $48 million and there is $8
million available to award. The average request is $1.3 million per application.
Page 52 of 103
Council Minutes (Regular)
July 7, 2003
Page 6
Last year the Met Council awarded 12 development grants in the total amount of
8.2 million.
Staffhas discussed this grant with some ofthe property owners, particularly the
Knutsen's and their developer, New Century.
Councilmember Cordes asked if consideration was given to communities who had
not received grant money in the past few years? Staff replied that is not an
official criteria, but it is possibly an informal criteria. An advantage the city has
is that the Met Council and the legislature have decided that a certain percentage
ofthe money would go to developing communities.
Councilmember Fogarty asked if when estimating the cost of the bridge and this
project, is this the concept staffwas working with? Staff replied the figures
reflect a standard bridge, but there was a separate section for enhancements. The
design work will be done later, but staffhopes it will not be a standard bridge.
Councilmember Fogarty asked with the opportunity grant for the master plan, was
that a matching grant? Staff replied yes, but this grant is not a matching grant.
Councilmember Fogarty stated it is a very well-written grant.
Councilmember Soderberg asked if we receive the grant, are we bound to do the
project? He was looking at the total cost ofthe project and trying to balance that
with other projects. Staff stated the total infrastructure cost for this project is well
over $6 million. Staff envisioned that expense being spread out over a period of
time. The first phase would be to extend Spruce Street to the north-south road
and get the bridge built. There might not be more infrastructure needed at that
time. Ifthe grant is awarded, the city is not obligated to do anything, the city can
turn down the grant. The grant could possibly be held for 9 months to 1 year.
MOTION by Fogarty, second by Soderberg adopting RESOLUTION R44-03
authorizing application for a Development Grant through the Livable
Communities Demonstration Program. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
e) Quarterly Building Report - Community Development
In the second quarter of2003 the city issued building permits for 72 single-family
homes and 50 townhouse units for a total of 121 new housing units. The average
building valuation of the single-family homes was $192,206, and for townhomes
was $150,620. The population as of June 30, 2003 is 17,477.
t) Ordinance Amending Title 5, Chapter 5 Regarding the Sale, Possession, and
Use of Consumer Fireworks and Resolution Amending Fee Schedule _
Community Development
This ordinance is to become compliant with the State Law regarding the amount
of permit fee allowed and the enforcement ofthe sale and use of fireworks. For
establishments with mixed sales the fee will be $100, for establishments that sell
fireworks only the fee will be $350. Councilmember Soderberg requested that in
Page 53 of 103
Council Minutes (Regular)
July 7,2003
Page 7
the future, the language that is being changed should be shown on the ordinance.
MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to adopt ORDINANCE 003-491
amending Title 5, Chapter 5 of the City Code regarding the sale, possession, and
use of consumer fireworks. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by
Soderberg, second by Fogarty adopting RESOLUTION R45-03 amending the
2003 Fee Schedule. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
g) Adopt Ordinance - Fire Code - Community Development
1306 authorizes optional provisions for sprinkling occupancies that normally
would not be sprinkled. During the workshop it was discussed to provide
sprinklers in new construction as well as buildings that may be going through a
change in use. If an owner were to buy a business that is operating as the same
business, the use is not changed, so sprinklers would not be required. If the owner
were to close a business and establish a new type of business, that may require it
to be sprinkled. Councilmember Fogarty was in favor of adding this to the code
due to all the new commercial construction that will be coming.
Mayor Ristow noted the Chamber had not received any comments from it's
members. Staff talked with Mr. Mike Burville, Chair of the Chamber's
Community Development Committee. He was given copies of all the material the
Council received at the last meeting. The Chamber sent a fax to it's members
letting them know this was being considered and asking for questions or
comments. No one commented in favor or against the revision. Mayor Ristow
stated he talked to a Chamber member today, and they were unaware of it. He
agreed with subpart 3, but does not agree with the occupancy change. Ifsomeone
sells a building, and a new person comes in, it may restrict them from being able
to put something in the building if it does not meet code. Fire Marshal Powers
stated depending on the size and type of occupancy. Most buildings in the
downtown do not have the square footage to require sprinklers even with an
occupancy change. Councilmember Cordes asked if someone were to buy a
building to put in a bar/restaurant would sprinklers be required? Staff replied
bar/restaurants are unusual, it may not need sprinkling. Mayor Ristow stated it
may not, but it may, was the problem before. It was too restrictive last time and
people could not afford it. Fire Marshal Powers stated they are looking at a 2,000
sq. ft. minimum and most downtown buildings are less than that. Dueber's would
be large enough if they were to change to a bar/restaurant. Mayor Ristow stated
previously people could not afford the rent because it was so high to pay for the
sprinklers. Fire Marshal Powers replied that is why we did not go with the
retroactive option. We did not want to be restrictive or impose a hardship on
existing business owners. Mayor Ristow asked if the change of occupancy
provision needed to be in the ordinance? Attorney Jamnik replied there is no
option to remove it. The revisions take care of some of the building permits
issued to existing buildings and make it only applicable to new buildings, but they
did put the occupancy changes into a classification the same as a new building or
addition to an existing building. There is a better appeal process in the new rules
at the Department of Administration and Fire Marshal's office. One of the issues
Page 54 of 103
Council Minutes (Regular)
July 7,2003
Page 8
is there is now an awareness of the application of those rules and a better
understanding of what the impacts are. If a new tenant presents a reduced
occupancy rating, they will not be required to have a sprinkler. There has not
been much criticism of new buildings. It is the surprise they get when they fill a
vacancy, have a tenant and remodeling concept in mind that is estimated at X
dollars, and because ofthe higher occupancy, you have to have it sprinkled. The
approach might be to have better education.
Fire Marshal Powers stated staff is not in the business to create a hardship, we are
trying to provide safety for the businesses and the firefighters. Weare not
looking at trying to force businesses to not come to Farmington. Weare trying to
encourage them to come here and create an atmosphere where they will be here
for a long time. Mayor Ristow stated we are trying to be business friendly. Fire
Marshal Powers stated 1306 applied the right way is business friendly.
Councilmember Soderberg asked when talking about change of occupancy, we
are talking strictly about a change of classification of occupancy, not a change of
tenant A vacates and tenant B moves in. A change of occupancy in the fire code
means an office turns into a daycare. Those are the types of things that mayor
may not trigger the sprinklers. Attorney J amnik stated the Council can reserve
their right at a later date to repeal the section as it did previously.
Councilmember Soderberg stated when we run across those situations where it is
a hardship, staffwill work with the owners by perhaps phasing it in to make it
feasible.
MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes adopting ORDINANCE 003-492
adopting Chapter 1306 ofthe Minnesota State Building Code with the
recommended options. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
h) Adopt Ordinance - Zoning Code Text Amendment - Camping; Garage/Yard
Sales; Setbacks Along Minor Arterials; and Zoning Officer Designation -
Community Development
In May 2002 the zoning code was revised and it has been discovered a few things
were inadvertently omitted. Staff would now like to put those items back in the
code.
The first one has to do with recreational camping. Previously the code read, "No
person shall be allowed to camp overnight in a recreational vehicle for three
consecutive nights without first obtaining a permit from the Zoning
Administrator. Such vehicles will not be permitted to connect to the City sanitary
sewer or water system." The amended language reads, "No person shall be
allowed to camp overnight in a recreational vehicle without first obtaining a
permit from the Zoning Officer. A permit shall be allowed for no more than three
consecutive nights of overnight camping within a residential or agricultural
district only. Such vehicles will not be permitted to connect to the City sanitary
Page 55 of 103
Council Minutes (Regular)
July 7,2003
Page 9
sewer; but may connect to City water." In the past a warning has been issued and
the visitor advised as to how they can get a permit. Permits are available at the
Police Department. This allows the officers to know that someone will be parked
on the street that is not normally there, so a ticket will not be issued.
The second issue was garage/yard sales. The text remains the same which reads,
Unless otherwise regulated, garage and yard sales within residential districts
shall be limited to no more than 3 garage or yard sales per year, lasting no more
than 3 consecutive days."
The next issue was regarding minimum front yard setbacks adjacent to minor
arterial streets. The text remains the same and requires that there be a minimum
front yard setback adjacent to minor arterial streets such as CSAH 50, Pilot Knob
Road, 195th Street, and TH 3 except in the downtown area of the City in Section
31.
The last issue was regarding the Zoning Officer designation in the code. The
code previously indicated the Planning Coordinator be the Zoning Officer. That
title has been changed to City Planner. Section 1-7-3 (k) will be deleted from the
code. This section indicated the City Administrator shall act as the Zoning
Officer.
MOTION by Fogarty, second by Cordes to adopt ORDINANCE 003-493
amending Section 10-6-25, Camping; adopt ORDINANCE 003-494 amending
Section 10-6-26, Garage/Yard Sales; adopt ORDINANCE 003-495 amending
Section 10-4-1 (1), Minimum Front Yard Setback Adjacent to Minor Arterial
Streets; adopt ORDINANCE 003-496 amending Section 10-3-1, Zoning Officer
and delete Section 1-7-3 (k). APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
i) Council Discussion on Hiring Process for New City Administrator
Mayor Ristow suggested this be discussed at the July 16, 2003 workshop.
Councilmember Soderberg stated past practice has been that a search firm has
been hired. There may have been some dissatisfaction with the last search firm,
but he did not think it would be proper for the Human Resources Director to be
screening applications for her own boss. He felt it would be in the city's interest,
although it involves expense, to proceed as in the past. Councilmember Cordes
stated there are search firms you can hire, and create your own process. Mayor
Ristow suggested we could have staff get a list of firms. Councilmember Fogarty
felt they should not wait a week to discuss this. She agreed, that having the
Human Resources Director screen applications is not a great idea. A search firm
would be able to help Council widen the range of applicants. Council instructed
staff to obtain a list of search firms prior to the July 16 workshop. Interim City
Administrator Siebenaler cautioned that using a search firm would take about six
months. He stated if Council elected to use the in-house HR resources, and if
Council set the criteria for minimum qualifications, the Human Resources
Director would be able to go through the list and provide Council with a list of
Page 56 of 103
Council Minutes (Regular)
July 7, 2003
Page 10
qualified applicants. In recognizing the concerns raised, it would be the Council's
decision to take those qualified applicants and narrow it down to a list of finalists.
In that scenario, the Human Resources Director would not be selecting a
candidate only providing Council with a list by your established criteria. If
Council does want to go with a search firm, staff will provide Council with a list
of those types of firms and recommendations. Councilmember Fogarty stated if
Council establishes the criteria, she would be comfortable with having the Human
Resources Director do that, but she is concerned Council may not be able to agree
on the criteria. Councilmember Cordes stated the criteria would be established
before the ads were published. Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated the
qualifications are not the subjective opinion of Council. They would be an
objective group of criteria such as education, training, experience, extra curricular
involvement, etc, as opposed to management style and more subjective criteria.
Mayor Ristow stated in the past the search firm interviewed each Councilmember
to obtain the criteria. Staff will provide whatever information Council would like.
Councilmember Soderberg asked if the minimum criteria was available that was
used previously. Human Resources Director Wendlandt stated the previous
profiles are available which contains a list of minimum qualifications and job
duties. She expected Council would want to review that whether a search firm is
used or not. She is willing to assist Councilor provide a list of search firms.
Councilmember Fogarty asked if a search firm would be able to find applicants
that Human Resources might not be able to. Staff stated they would do things
similar to a search firm, such as contacting ICMA, which has publications and
lists, a direct mailing could be done to cities in the region, staff could place an ad
in different publications and newspapers. Staff would not have the capability of
knowing someone who is looking that would be a good fit for Farmington. A
search firm would have that capability. One of the advantages a search firm
would have would be a list of candidates from out-of-state. If that is important,
then staff would suggest using a search firm. If that broad of a search is not that
essential, then the process could be done in-house. Councilmember Soderberg
felt the larger the pool the greater the chances of getting an excellent candidate.
He would like to think about this, and have staff prepare a list of search firms that
could be used as well as have the profile available to Council that was used last
time. He recognized the interest in finding a replacement as soon as possible. His
initial feeling is that he would prefer a search firm. Staff will provide a list of
search firms and a copy of the profile prior to the July 16 workshop. This will be
discussed at the July 16 workshop. It is important to find a firm that will
specialize in municipal government.
11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
12. NEW BUSINESS
13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE
Page 57 of 103
Council Minutes (Regular)
July 7,2003
Page 11
Councilmember Soderberg: He noted in the Star Tribune there are designs for the state
quarter. There are two entries from Farmington. Both are very good. He wished them
the best ofluck in the state's search.
Councilmember Fogarty: She wanted to make a clarification regarding the Special
Council Meeting of July 3. The City Attorney did not tell any member ofthe Council to
not speak to another Councilmember. The audience was given the impression that the
City Attorney had told Councilmember Fitch not to give her any information. City
Attorney Jamnik did not do that. Some people left the meeting wondering whether or not
there was complete support for Police Chief Siebenaler. Councilmember Fogarty
completely supports him serving in the Interim position. She could not have picked
anyone better.
14. ADJOURN
MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to adjourn at 8:50 p.m. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
Respectfully submitted,
L~,.~cL, 7Y7~
7
Cynthia Muller
Executive Assistant
Page 58 of 103
CITY OF FARMINGTON
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 003-492
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING OPTIONAL CHAPTER
1306 OF THE STATE BUILDING CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Title 4, Chapter I of the Farmington City Code is amended to add the following:
4-1-2 Adoption of Optional Provisions. The Minnesota State Building Code, established
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 16B. 59 to 16B. 75 allows the Municipality to adopt
by reference and enforce certain optional chapters of the most current edition of the
Minnesota State Building Code. The following optional provision identified in the
most current edition of the State Building Code is hereby adopted and incorporated as
part of the building code for the City of Farmington.
A) Chapter 1306. Special Fire Protection SYstems.
Including the following options:
1. Subp. 3. - New buildings.
2. 1306.0030 (E)2
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication
according to law.
ADOPTED this 7th day of July, 2003, by the City Council of the City of Farmington.
CITY OF FARMINGTON
ATTEST:
By: .pc..
J a~
Gerald Ristow, Mayor
Jg
Dan Siebenaler, Interim City Administrator
SEAL
cA ~Approved as to form the --=- day of ::tt...-) 2003../..-~_ ..,_ .
B~~.~...< >01-.:-1.
i/ City Attorney ~/
Published in the Farmington Independent the /7+aay o:::y-:;f! , 2003.
Page 59 of 103
The Farmington Independent
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Chad Richardson, being duly sworn, on oath says that he is an authorized
agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper, known as The
Farmington Independent, and has full knowledge of the facts which are
stated below:
A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting
qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statutes
331A.02, 331A.9:z..~] d other ap ic Ie laws, as ~ de,
B) The printed.1.;.\:
o
which is attached, was cut from the columns 0 said newspaper, and was
printed and published once each week for successive
we S' as first published on Thursday, the-------\.--- ------------ day of
2003 and was thereafter printed and published on every
o and including Thursday, the___________________________ day of
2003; and printed below is a copy of the
lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby
acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition
and publication of the notice:
j-_...,. ..174-
BY'C-(~
Sub"'riM~~worn to before me
O'-
thi' \I~
Of~~~~
Notary ublic
day
AFFIDAVIT
DAWN M SMITH
NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA
My Commission Expires Jan. 31,2005
CITY OF FAItMlNGTON
DAKOTA COUNTY, ,
MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 003-492
AN ORDINANCE ADOYfING OPTIONAL CHAP-
TER 1306 OF THE STATE BUILDING CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMING-
TON ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Title 4. Chapter 1 of the Farmington City
Code.is amended to add the following:
4-1-2 Adoption of Optional Provisions. The Minnesota
State Building Code, established pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes 16B. 59 to 16B. 75 allows the Municipality to
adopt by reference and enforce certain optional cha~~ of
the most current edition of the Mmnesota State Butldmg
Code. The following optional provision identified iq the
most current edition of the State Building Code is hereby
adopted and incorporated as part of the building code for
the City of Farmington.
A) Chapter 1306. Special Fiie ProteCtion Systems.
Including the following options:
1. Subp. 3. - New buildings.
1. 1306.0030 (E)2
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shal1be
effective. upon. its passage and publication according to
law.
ADOPTED this 7th day of July, 2003, by the City Council
of the City of Farmington.
CITY OF FARMINGTON
IS/: Gerald Ristow, Mayor
ATTEST:
15/: Dan - Siebenaler, Interim City Administrator
311 AVW 'SNDISSV ~O S3AIlV~N3S3~d31:I .VNOS
3d S,~ODVD~~OW 3H~ '~ODVD~~OW 3H~ All
l.TnTl..1IATUnU'\I VOJ u'\.J1 f CT rT"UA~"\-l ("'fUTTT "fTr
t)~
Page 60 of 103
Page 61 of 103
Page 62 of 103
Page 63 of 103
Page 64 of 103
Page 65 of 103
Page 66 of 103
Page 67 of 103
Page 68 of 103
Page 69 of 103
Page 70 of 103
Page 71 of 103
Page 72 of 103
Page 73 of 103
7Q...
COUNCIL MINUTES
PRE-MEETING
May 5, 2008
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Soderberg at 6:30 p.m.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Also Present:
Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson
None
Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Peter Herlofsky, City Administrator;
Robin Roland, Finance Director; Randy Distad, Parks and
Recreation Director; Kevin Schorzman, City Engineer; Lisa
Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt,
Human Resources Director; Ken Lewis, Building Official; Cynthia
Muller, Executive Assistant
2. APPRO VE A GENDA
MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by McKnight to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
3. CITIZEN COMMENTS
4. COUNCIL REVIEW OF AGENDA
Councilmember Fogarty had a concern with the ordinance amendment for park
regulations. She asked if a specific park could be designated for practicing golf or
designate a specific place in the City. City Administrator Herlofsky noted the issue is
people getting hit with golfballs. Parks and Recreation Director Distad noted there are
two golf courses less than a mile from the City. Staff has received calls that golf balls
have come close to hitting kids in backyards. The ordinance would be enforced on a
complaint basis.
Councilmember McKnight commented on summer hours stating he will support them as
long as there is flexibility for those with issues or those who do not want to do longer
days. Human Resources Director Wendlandt stated a survey was sent out with 46
responses and 7 had issues with summer hours. Most had issues with the 5:30 time and a
couple had issues with the 7:30 start time. Those have been addressed.
Councilmember Wilson noted the normal hours at City Hall are 8:00 - 4:30. Ifhe
worked at City Hall he may want to work 8 hour days and take time off on Fridays. If
City Hall closes at noon on Fridays, that is not an option. Human Resources Director
Wendlandt noted there are a couple employees who work night meetings and earn
enough hours to cover that afternoon. Councilmember Wilson noted we are a City of
21,000. Even though we may not have the building permit traffic, the average resident
Page 74 of 103
Council Minutes (Pre-Meeting)
May 5, 2008
Page 2
would expect us to be here. If someone would want to take a half day off, they would
plan for that with their vacation time. He was not supportive of summer hours.
Councilmember Wilson commented on the ordinance amendment for park regulations.
There have been various complaints where residents feel codes are not enforced properly.
If golf balls go into someone's backyard, what can we do? Is there any enforcement
attached to the ordinance? Is there a penalty? City Administrator Herlofsky stated if
children are playing in the backyard and golf balls are coming close by, a parent would
be concerned. If they see the person, they would call the police department, and they will
come out and tell the person to leave. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated he has
received six calls this spring. Residents do not feel safe in the parks with golf balls. City
Administrator Herlofsky stated if done properly, it will eliminate hassles. If the police
are called and there is no ordinance, what can the police do? With the ordinance, it can
be a misdemeanor.
Regarding the ordinance amendment for park regulations, Councilmember Pritzlaff asked
how many times people will be warned? Can it be posted on the website? Ifthere is a
problem, we need to stop it. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated it can be posted
to the website and signs could be placed in the parks. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if a
fine could be generated. City Attorney Jamnik stated it could be structured that way, but
it is easier to integrate it into an ordinance. There could be an administrative fine. It was
decided to pull this item from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
Councilmember Pritzlaff asked about the card reader quote and the audio visual contract
for the new City Hall. He asked why we are doing all these extra items and not the
contractor and how much time are we spending getting all these bids. Human Resources
Director Wendlandt explained as far as the card reader system, this is enhancing the
system we currently have in other buildings and extending it to City Hall. Doing it
ourselves is more cost effective. City Administrator Herlofsky stated if it is part of the
project, the architect gets a percentage. It is easier for us to manage. Human Resources
Director Wendlandt noted the contractor made sure the doors are ready for the card
readers.
Councilmember Pritzlaff stated as far as summer hours, he would like to know what
surrounding communities do. He was not in favor of summer hours. If there are one or
two people who cannot do summer hours, it would not be safe for them to work alone if
they have to work five days.
Mayor Soderberg pulled the adoption of the building code chapter 1306 from the Consent
Agenda for discussion.
5. STAFF COMMENTS
City Attorney Jamnik noted there should be a change in the action requested for the
Schmitz litigation. The recommendation should read an amount not to exceed $72,500.
The City has asked LMCIT to review the allocation between LMCIT and the City. They
Page 75 of 103
Council Minutes (Pre-Meeting)
May 5, 2008
Page 3
have agreed to the review and there is a tentative agreement for are-apportionment.
There may also be further revisions, but the amount will not be $72,500.
City Administrator Herlofsky noted the Yellow Ribbon event has been changed to
May 28, 2008.
The new City Hall will be turned over to the City on July 14, 2008, with some punch list
items. Between July 14 and August 1, we will be installing card readers and furniture.
City Hall will close August 1, and the new City Hall will open August 4, 2008.
At the last EDA meeting, it was mentioned to have a discussion regarding the old City
Hall at the July workshop. City Administrator Herlofsky suggested switching it to the
August workshop to hold it in the new City Hall.
City Administrator Herlofsky provided Council with evaluation forms for his
performance review. Council will complete the forms and return them to City Attorney
Jamnik by the May 19 Council meeting. City Attorney Jamnik will provide a summary at
the June 2 Council meeting.
There was an article in a newspaper regarding the liquor store having a deficit in 2006.
City Administrator Herlofsky noted there were 44 other cities in the state who had similar
Issues.
6. ADJOURN
MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adjourn at 6:52 p.m. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
Respectfully submitted,
P7~
Cynthia Muller
Executive Assistant
Page 76 of 103
COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR
May 5, 2008
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Soderberg at 7:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Soderberg led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
3.ROLL CALL
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Also Present:
Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson
None
Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Peter Herlofsky, City Administrator;
Robin Roland, Finance Director; Randy Distad, Parks and
Recreation Director; Kevin Schorzman, City Engineer; Lisa
Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt,
Human Resources Director; Ken Lewis, Building Official; Cynthia
Muller, Executive Assistant
4. APPRO VE A GENDA
Councilmember Wilson pulled item 7e) Summer Hours for separate vote and discussion.
Councilmember Pritzlaff pulled item 7b) Amend Park Regulations Ordinance for
discussion. City Administrator Herlofsky added item 7k) Approve Temporary On-Sale
Liquor License. Mayor Soderberg pulled item 7h) Re-Adopt Building Code Chapter
1306 for discussion and separate vote, and 7a) Council Minutes to abstain.
MOTION by Wilson, second by McKnight to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS
a) Proclaim Historic Preservation Month - Administration
MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson to proclaim May 2008 as National
Historic Preservation Month. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
b) Heritage Preservation Award - Administration
Mr. John Franceschelli, member of the Heritage Preservation Commission,
presented the Heritage Preservation Award to Progress Land Company for the
property located at 18556 Pilot Knob Road, known as Prairie Centre. Mr. John
Steinbrook, Manager of the Prairie Centre property received the award. He noted
Mr. Warren Israelson, owner of Progress Land Company, preserved that property
from the beginning of the development. Mr. Franceschelli noted the HPC also
has a display in the library noting the past 14 Heritage Preservation Award
WInners.
6. CITIZEN COMMENTS
7. CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION by McKnight, second by Fogarty to approve the Consent Agenda as follows:
Page 77 of 103
Council Minutes (Regular)
May 5, 2008
Page 2
c) Received Information Card Reader Quote - Human Resources
d) Acknowledged Retirement Municipal Services - Human Resources
f) Approved Settlement Schmitz Litigation - Finance
g) Approved Audio Visual Contract - Administration
i) Approved Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation
j) Approved Bills
k) Approved Temporary On-Sale Liquor License - Administration
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
a) Approve Council Minutes (4/21/08 Regular) -Administration
MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Fogarty to approve Council Minutes (4/21/08
Regular). Voting for: Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson. Abstain:
Soderberg. MOTION CARRIED.
b) Amend Ordinance - Parks Regulations - Parks and Recreation
Councilmember Pritzlaff suggested having an administrative fine, rather than
giving out a certain number of warnings.
Councilmember Wilson asked if the administrative fine could be added later.
City Attorney Jamnik replied yes, it could also be brought in for other
misdemeanor type violations listed in the code that would provide an alternate
means of enforcement, or this one could be singled out for an administrative fine.
Councilmember Wilson asked about the water restrictions fine. City Attorney
Jamnik stated they are not in the code, but are listed on a fee schedule established
by the Water Board.
Councilmember Fogarty felt there would be other ordinances a fine could be
attached to rather than this one. If Council wants to consider this one, then
dozens of ordinances should be reviewed. The current version gives the Police
the authority to stop people. Now, it is not against the law. City Attorney Jamnik
noted items a-f in the code are also violations. This would be item g.
Councilmember McKnight did not support the ordinance.
Councilmember Pritzlaff stated the Water Board does not give warnings, they
give a citation when they see it. City Attorney Jamnik stated the Police
Department does set an enforcement protocol such as winter towing with a
uniform methodology of warnings for a specified period of time. He suggested
the Parks and Recreation Commission and Police Department figure out an
enforcement strategy.
Mayor Soderberg asked if it becomes an administrative fine, does that give the
Police the same authority, or would it not be a Police issue. City Attorney Jamnik
replied it depends on how it is structured. If Council allows an administrative
fine, the Police would have the discretion to issue either an administrative citation
or a criminal citation. If the draft was changed to de-criminalize it, so that only an
administrative fine could be issued, that could be done. Mayor Soderberg noted
these items are brought to government bodies because people do not respect the
rights of others. If someone is in the park driving golf balls into neighboring
Page 78 of 103
Council Minutes (Regular)
May 5, 2008
Page 3
yards, it generates complaints, and the only way to respond is to pass a law to
prohibit it. The person who is chipping or putting, does not do any harm. It is the
person out there driving golf balls to see how much distance he can get and hooks
it into someone's window. Staffhas made a recommendation to make it a part of
the ordinance which would make it a misdemeanor, enforceable by the Police
Department. He would prefer to leave it like that.
MOTION by Pritzlaffto send the ordinance back to staff to add an administrative
fine. Motion failed for lack of second.
MOTION by Fogarty, second by Soderberg to approve the ordinance as is.
Voting for: Fogarty, Soderberg. Voting against: McKnight, Wilson, Pritzlaff.
MOTION FAILED.
e) Approve Summer Hours -Human Resources
Council member Wilson stated he would not support summer hours. If staff wants
to exercise their opportunity to use vacation time, that would be the appropriate
course of action.
Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he has been asked by residents why there are
summer hours. In the past, Council was told this was for people who wanted to
come in early to pick up building permits, etc. With the current building permit
issue, this will not help contractors, etc. It will not be helping the residents. He
had concerns with employees with daycare issues, etc. He felt there was some
force for people to say yes to doing this rather than looking at the issues. If it is
made flexible, do we have someone working by themselves and being put in
jeopardy.
Councilmember Fogarty asked about the Maintenance Facility. The office hours
are 8:00 - 12:00. She did not have a problem with summer hours, as long as
management is being flexible and accommodating people who need it.
Councilmember McKnight stated he would support it as long as management is
being flexible with staff.
MOTION by McKnight, second by Fogarty to approve summer hours. Voting
for: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight. Voting against: Pritzlaff, Wilson.
MOTION CARRIED.
h) Re-Adopt Building Code Chapter 1306 - Building Inspections
Mayor Soderberg noted this item was approved on July 7, 2003. It was repealed
soon after by the Council because it became burdensome to the property owners.
The change made addressed R-3 occupancies. The issue that became burdensome
was commercial buildings that wanted to expand and it required the entire
building to be sprinkled.
Councilmember Fogarty understood that this is not an optional state law and we
have to adopt it.
Page 79 of 103
Council Minutes (Regular)
May 5, 2008
Page 4
Ken Lewis, Building Official, stated it is an optional chapter. Mayor Soderberg
stated he would not oppose sprinkling in new construction, but with remodeling it
is burdensome. Building Official Lewis stated you are only required to sprinkle a
building with an occupancy change if it is more restrictive such as a daycare or
assembly as more people are involved in the building.
Councilmember Wilson asked if a particular situation has come up where Council
needs to address this now. Staff replied no, when the code was adopted on July
10,2007, Chapter 1306 needs to be re-adopted as soon as possible, otherwise it
goes away. Staff had six months to have it re-adopted. City Attorney Jamnik
stated the State changed the building code rules and their references. The City
could take the position that we are grandfathered in and do not need to make the
changes, but the State took the position that because they changed the rules, we
have to re-adopt even if we do not want to change the substantive provisions. We
have to re-adopt their new rules rather than operating by an automatic enactment.
The new state code says you have two options on sprinklers; old and new, or new
only. The City previously adopted new only. This draft is new only. We are not
changing the rules for the City.
MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adopt ORDINANCE 008-581
amending Sections 4-1-1 and 4-1-2 ofthe Farmington City Code to adopt recent
revisions and future amendments to the Minnesota State Building Code. APIF,
MOTION CARRIED.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. AWARD OF CONTRACT
10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a) 2008 Budget Adjustments - Finance
Given the current situation with building permits, revenues in the 2008 budget
need to be reduced by $250,000 and also expenses. Staff recommended four
areas to save $250,000.
Not filling the 2008 budgeted position shared by Human Resources and Fire.
Salary and benefits total $53,456.
Not filling the vacant Assistant City Engineer position. Salary and benefits total
90,828.
Reducing the Building Inspections staff by one person. Salary and benefits total
67,300.
Shifting 33% ofthe Community Development salary and benefits to the EDA
special revenue fund at a cost of $48,000. This amount was set aside for a
consultant for the EDA which will not be needed.
Staff and Council will be discussing carrying these reductions over into the 2009
budget. A formal resolution revising the 2008 budget will be brought to the
May 19,2008 Council meeting.
Page 80 of 103
Council Minutes (Regular)
May 5, 2008
Page 5
Mayor Soderberg asked if the reduction in building inspections will result in a
layoff. City Administrator Herlofsky replied yes and no. There is currently an
individual looking to retire, but would prefer to have the status of layoff in case he
needs to be called back, but basically the individual is retiring.
Councilmember Pritzlaffasked about shifting 33% of the Community
Development salary and asked if the consultant was going to be for Community
Development or the EDA. He felt the 33% was being taken from Community
Development and put on the EDA side. Finance Director Roland replied in the
EDA 2008 budget there is money set aside for consulting fees that will not be
used at the level budgeted. City Administrator Herlofsky noted part of the
reasoning is besides the consultant amount, with the staff being provided for the
EDA, it would seem to be an appropriate cost and expense for the EDA.
Councilmember Pritzlaff asked about not filling the Human Resources and Fire
position and if there was a way that current staff can help. City Administrator
Herlofsky stated we have a low amount of staff and the reception desk helps out
when there is time. When Council approved the position last year, it was on the
basis that there would be enough permit revenue to cover it. We are now looking
at $250,000 in revenue for building permits, rather than the $500,000 budgeted.
As some of these positions are not filled, now is the time to do it.
Councilmember Wilson asked with 33% of the Community Development salary
coming from the EDA, would that have the effect of the EDA having a staff
person? City Administrator Herlofsky stated the EDA would be sharing the cost
for the two employees. The EDA is allowed to have an employee according to
the by-laws.
Councilmember McKnight had a concern with not filling the Assistant City
Engineer position, but was comfortable with the level of engineering we have
with City employees. He was comfortable with all four recommendations and
appreciated starting early on this for next year.
Councilmember Fogarty also appreciated doing this now rather than at the end of
the year. As a Councilmember she was comfortable with the EDA paying 33% of
the positions. On the flip side, she is concerned about the budget for the EDA,
and wants the budget addressed at the next meeting because of this.
11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a) Approve Flagstaff Project Change Order - Engineering
This is the second change order for the Flagstaff Avenue project.
The first item on the change order was added to place a valve at the end of a water
line for testing and hydrant flushing. The second item was drain tile installed at
the north end of the project because there was a spring encountered in the
roadway and they needed a way to discharge the water into the ditch. Items three
and four deal with signage changes made and some striping. Items five and six
were added to compensate the contractor for additional work they are doing on
the project now to meet a deadline to get utilities to the school in the timeframe
the school needs them. Item seven will be compensation when they move north
Page 81 of 103
Council Minutes (Regular)
May 5, 2008
Page 6
of the school, there is a gas line running down the west side of Flagstaff Avenue
that feeds the school and the gas line will have to be supported as they stub out
from the main line going up the road. Item eight is a price reduction for aggregate
on the north end of the project underneath the pavement. The total change order
amount is $81,714.28. It is within the project budget.
Mayor Soderberg noted many of the change orders are driven by the school
district's requirement to get access from the south to the school. City Engineer
Schorzman stated the school district agrees with the changes.
Councilmember Wilson asked how the reduction on item eight was identified.
Staff replied based on an analysis of the rock. Councilmember Wilson asked if
the less than proposed rock would have any impact on the life span of the road.
City Engineer Schorzman replied staff does not believe it will. The issue with the
rock was that it contained a few more small particles, but it is crushed limestone
and those help glue the road together. Staff does not think it will have an impact
on the life cycle of the road, however the specifications were clear on the
gradation wanted and we did not get that. Therefore, we exercised that part of the
contract to get the price reduction.
Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if there was a target date for access to the south
side of the high school. Staff felt by doing what they have done, they accelerated
the arrival at the south entrance by 4-6 weeks. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if
the gas line on the west side of Flagstaff was added afterwards or was it always
there to serve the current properties. Staff replied the gas line being supported is a
new line that was installed for a larger capacity to serve the school district. It was
installed last fall so the school could have heat over the winter. Councilmember
Pritzlaff asked if it was known that it was going to be needed when the project
went out for bid. City Engineer Schorzman replied the City did not make the
contractor aware of that nor did we know for sure when it was going to go in.
This may not have been an issue had they gotten further along in the project
before the cold weather.
MOTION by Wilson, second by Fogarty to approve change order 2 in the amount
of$81,714.28. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
b) City Hall Budget Update - Administration
Staff provided Council with an updated budget for the City Hall project. The
building will be turned over to the City around July 14, 2008. The building will
be open the first week in August.
Councilmember Pritzlaff noted at the last EDA meeting it was mentioned to
discuss the current City Hall at the July Council workshop. City Administrator
Herlofsky proposed to change it to the August workshop so it could be held in the
new City Hall. Councilmember Pritzlaff was concerned with moving it out that
far. He would prefer to have it at the June or July workshop. Councilmember
Fogarty felt there would be more room in the new building. The majority of
Council was fine with either date and it will be brought back at a later time.
Page 82 of 103
Council Minutes (Regular)
May 5, 2008
Page 7
c) Amend Ordinance - Boulevard Trees - Planning
This item was discussed at the February 4, 2008 Council meeting. On June 4,
2007, Council approved a policy for boulevard trees. The policy was to no longer
place trees in the boulevard, but on the private property. Since February 4,2008,
staff has discussed this issue with the utility companies and they are in favor of
staff s proposal. There will continue to be a front yard drainage and utility
easement at 10ft. Lot frontage trees will be planted at 8 ft. back from the front
property line. Utilities will be placed at 6 ft. from the property, under the
sidewalk, and into the boulevard. Nothing will go beyond the 8 ft. on a new lot.
So trees will be allowed within the utility easement as that remains at 10ft.
Boulevard trees will continue to be planted by developers and/or the City on
boulevard tree routes. The Natural Resources division will inspect and trim
boulevard trees, including existing trees. If the tree dies, they will remove it. The
City will replace boulevard trees on boulevard tree routes. The owner of any lot
of record existing on the adoption date of this ordinance may at their own risk
replace a dead boulevard tree with a new tree to be planted on the boulevard,
provided the new location is not within lOft. of the water or sewer line or 2 ft.
from underground utilities. The owner will be responsible for trimming lot
frontage trees. No trees will be allowed within the 5 ft. side easements.
As long as there is a Natural Resources staff, there is no need for a Reforestation
Advisory Commission. Staff will bring this back at a later time to repeal that
ordinance.
City Engineer Schorzman stated the gas company will locate more towards the
street. The phone, electric, and cable will use a joint trench which will be 5-6 ft.
into the easement. This should improve the accuracy and consistency of
locations.
MOTION by Wilson, second by Pritzlaffto amend ORDINANCE 008-582,
sections 10-2-1, 1O-6-10(F), 1O-6-10(G), and 8-1-5(A) concerning replacement
trees, lot frontage trees and boulevard trees and direct staff concerning the
continuation or deletion of the Reforestation Advisory Commission. APIF,
MOTION CARRIED.
12. NEW BUSINESS
a) Amend Ordinance - Drainage and Utility Easements - Planning
This ordinance amendment would pertain to new lots with drainage problems and
reduce the opportunity for anyone to put anything in the drainage and utility
easements unless it is sod or a fence. The easement would be lOft. in the front
and the rear, and 5 ft. on each side of the property line. No structures, landscape
material, impervious surfaces are allowed in the easements except for sod and
fences. MOTION by McKnight, second by Fogarty to amend ORDINANCE
008-583 amending Section 10-2-1 concerning definitions, and Section s 11-4-4
A) & (D) concerning drainage and utility easements. Voting for: Soderberg,
Fogarty, McKnight, Wilson. Voting against: Pritzlaff. MOTION CARRIED.
13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE
Page 83 of 103
Council Minutes (Regular)
May 5, 2008
Page 8
Councilmember Wilson:
of Prayer event.
Thanked Mark and Justine Jacobson for the National Day
Saturday he participated in the pond clean-up at the Earth and Arbor Day celebration.
There were 450 people participating in the park and pond clean-up. He thanked Parks
and Recreation staff for their work at the arena during the event.
Councilmember Pritzlaff: He and Parks staff, along with 5th and 6th graders planted
trees for Arbor Day.
Mayor Soderberg: He displayed a plaque received from the Humphrey
Institute for staffs work on Pollution Prevention Day and congratulated staff on this
award.
Rambling River Days is fast approaching. There are a lot of events added and all will be
button events. Alexis Johnson, a 5th grader, drew the winning design for the buttons.
14. ADJOURN
MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adjourn at 8:18 p.m. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
Respectfully submitted,
4-n_zY~ M~
c7
Cynthia Muller
Executive Assistant
Page 84 of 103
CITY OF FARMINGTON
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 008-581
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING RECENT REVISIONS AND FUTURE
AMENDMENTS TO THE MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 4-1-1 of the Farmington City Code is amended as follows added
text is underlined, deleted text is in strikeout):
4-1-1: ADOPTION OF BUILDING CODE:
The Minnesota state building code, as adopted by the commissioner of administration
pursuant to MSA chapters 16B.59 to 16B.75, including all amendments, rules and
regulations established, adopted and published from time to time by the State of
Minnesota commissioner of administration, through the building codes and standards
division is hereby adopted by reference with the exception of the optional chapters that
are not specifically adopted by Section 4-1-2 of this Code. The Minnesota state building
code is hereby incorporated in this chapter as if fully set out herein.
SECTION 2. Section 4-1-2 of the Farmington City Code is amended as follows:
4-1-2: ADOPTION OF OPTIONAL PROVISIONS:
The Minnesota state building code, established pursuant to Minnesota statutes 16B.59 to
16B.75 allows the municipality to adopt by reference and enforce certain optional
chapters of the most current edition of the Minnesota state building code. The following
optional provision identified in the most current edition of the state building code is
hereby adopted and incorporated as part ofthe building code for the city of Farmington.
A) Chapter 1306, Special Fire Protection Systems. New Buildings (Minn. Rule
1306.0020. Subp. 3).
Including the following options:
1. Subp. 3. Ne\\' buildings.
2. 1306.0030 (E)2
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon
its passage and publication according to law.
ADOPTED this 5th day of May 2008, by the City Council of the City of Farmington.
Page 85 of 103
Attest:
SEAL
Approved as to form the /:tfj day of 2007.
fA
Published in the Farmington Independent the /-5 day of J-v7 ~2008.
Page 86 of 103
Farmington Independent
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
SS.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )CITY OF FARMINGTON
DAKOTA CoUNTY, MIN-
NESOTA
SUMMARY OF ORDI-
NANCE NO. 008-581
Chad Hjellming being duly sworn, on oath says that he is an authorized
agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper, known as The
Farmington Independent, and has full knowledge of the facts which are
stated below:
A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting
qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statutes
311A.02, 331A.07..4lnd other applicable la.w~ as ~~ 1B) The printed ".:rU ffi rY'(LYli Nl>1-\ c... . e..l.
Q)u.L \dm~
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this
oL-. 2008. "
By:_-~IlM4._--
0 +-t)
day
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING REcENT REVI-
SIONS AND FUTURE AMENDMENTS TO THE
MINNESOTA STATE BUll..DING CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARM.
INGTON ORDAINS: !
SECTION 1. Section 4-1.1 of the Fw:mington.City
Code is amended as follows added text is underlmed,
deleted text is in strikeout):
4.1-1: ADOPTION OF BUll..DING CODE:
The Minnesota state building code, as adopted by the
conunissioner of admini~tration pursuant'to MSA
chapters 16B.59 to 16B.75,'inc1uding all amend-
ments, rules and regulations established, adopted
and published from time to l1~e. by . the State of
Minnesota commissioner of administration, througb
the building codes and standards divisi~ is hereby
adopted by reference with the excepl10n of the
optional chapters that are not specifically adopted by
Section 4-1-2 of this Code. The M~neSOla .tate
building code is herehy\ncorporated m this,chapter
as if fully set out herein.
SECTION 2. Section 4-1-2 of the Farmington City
Code is amended as follows:
4'i-2: ADOPTION OF OPTIONAL PROVISIONS:
The Minnesota state building code, estabhsited pur-
suant to Minnesota statutes 16B.59 to 16B.75 allows
the municipality to adopt by reference and enf~
certain optional chapters of the most cntrent edi~on
of the Minnesota state building code. The followmg
optional provision ,identified in the most current edi-
tion of the state building code is hereby adopted and
incOrP"rated as part of the building code for the CIty
of Farmington.
A) Chapter 1306, Special Fire Protection Systems.
New Buildings (Minn. Rule 1306.0020, Subp. 3).
which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was
printed and published once each week for one ._successive
weeks; its was frrst published on Thursday, the \<D-tt) day of
f'n0J.\ ' 2008 and was thereafter printed and published on every
Thursday, to and including Thursday, the day of
2008; and printed below is a copy of the lower
case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged
as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication
of the notice:
abedefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
DAWN M. SMITH IAFFIDAVITNOTARYPUBLIC. MINNESOTA
My Commission Expires Jan. 31,2010
FEES: Order#
First Insertion: 61 t B /D'O
File#
Including the following options:
I. Subp. 3. - New buildings.
2. 1306.0030 (E)2
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordiIiance
shall be effective immediately upon Its pas~ge and
publication according to law.
A~PTED this 5th day of May 2008, by the City
Council of the City of Farmington.
CITY OF FARMINGTON
ISI: Kevan A. Soderberg, Mayor
Attest: .
ISI: Peter 1. Herlofsky, City Administrator
5/15
inches, @$~1.3S/in=.f2D .J.'2__..
Additional Insertions:
inches, @$ ~_/in=___.__._
Affidavit fee $----- ....
Total $.~.15_...
Page 87 of 103
COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator
From: Shirley Buecksler, City Clerk
Department: Administration
Subject: Discussion on an Ordinance Establishing Cannabis and Hemp Business
Regulations and Amending the 2025 Fee Schedule for Retail Registration
(5:45-6:15 pm)
Meeting: Council Work Session - Jul 07 2025
INTRODUCTION:
For City Council discussion is Ordinance 2025-004 Amending Title 3 by adding Chapter 27 and
deleting Chapter 20, and amending Title 8, Chapter 12, of the Farmington City Code.
DISCUSSION:
Following the legislation of adult-use cannabis, an ordinance amendment is necessary for cannabis
and hemp retail registration and regulations. City Code, Title 10 Zoning was previously amended in
relation to cannabis businesses by the passage of Ordinance 2024-13.
Retail Registration Required
Minnesota Statutes, Section 342.22, specifies that the following hemp or cannabis businesses,
licensed by the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM), are required to register with the City. The
OCM defines these business types as:
Cannabis Retailers can:
o Operate up to five retail locations; however, no person, cooperative, or business may
hold a license to own or operate more than one cannabis retail business in one city
and three retail businesses in one county.
o Sell immature cannabis plants and seedlings, adult-use cannabis flower, adult-use
cannabis products, lower-potency hemp edibles, hemp-derived consumer products,
and other products authorized by law to adults over 21 years of age and registered
medical patients.
Microbusinesses can:
o Operate a single location.
o Allow on-site consumption on a portion of its premises where customers can consume
edible cannabis products and lower-potency hemp edibles.
o Grow up to 5,000 square feet of plant canopy indoors or up to one-half acre of mature
flowering plants indoors.
o Transport between facilities under the same license holder.
o Sell immature cannabis plants and seedlings, adult-use cannabis flower, adult-use
cannabis products, lower-potency hemp edibles, hemp-derived consumer products,
and other products authorized by law to other cannabis businesses and customers.
Page 88 of 103
Mezzobusinesses can:
o Operate up to three retail locations.
o Grow up to 15,000 square feet of plant canopy indoors or up to one acre of mature
flowering plants outdoors.
o Transport between facilties under the same license holder.
o Sell immature cannabis plants and seedlings, adult-use cannabis flower, adult-use
cannabis products, lower-potency hemp edibles, hemp-derived consumer products,
and other products authorized by law to other cannabis businesses and customers.
Medical Cannabis Combination Businesses can:
o Operate one retail location per congressional district and must offer medical cannabis
at each location.
o Grow up to 60,000 square feet of medical cannabis plant canopy, and up to an
additional 30,000 square feet of cannabis plant canopy for distribution into the adult-
use market based on prior year medical sales assessed annually.
o Transport between facilities under the same license holder.
o Sell medical cannabis flower and medical cannabinoid products to persons registered
on the medical registry, their caregivers, parents, guardians or spouse; immature
cannabis plants and seedlings, adult-use cannabis flower, adult-use cannabis
products, lower-potency hemp edibles, hemp-derived consumer products, and other
products authorized by law to other cannabis businesses and customers.
Lower-Potency Hemp Edible Retailers can:
o Sell lower-potency hemp edibles (including beverages) and offer on-site consumption
of lower-potency hemp edibles on a portion of its premises.
o Sell lower-potency hemp edibles to adults 21 years of age or older.
Registration Restrictions
All registered cannabis and hemp retail businesses must comply with State Building Code,
Farmington City Code Title 3, Business Regulations, and Title 10, Zoning.
Registered businesses will operate so that no odors, whether the smell of cannabis or other
odors related to the operation of the business, can be detected by a person with a normal
sense of small at the exterior of the business property line.
Registered businesses cannot occupy a residential dwelling unit.
Registration Applications
Will be processed on a first-come, first-served basis, based on the City receiving a complete
application and payment of fees.
The cap on registrations is one registration for every 12,500 residents within the legal limits
of Farmington.
The applicant must provide a copy of the State license or written notice of approval from the
OCM, along with liability insurance naming the City of Farmington as additional insured.
Verification that the applicant is current on all applicable property taxes and assessments at
the location where the retail establishment is located.
Fees
No registration shall be issued until the appropriate fees are paid in full.
The initial registration is valid for two years from date of issuance. At the time of initial
registration, both the initial registration fee and the first renewal fee are due and payable.
o For the first renewal of the registration, no additional fee shall be required.
o Beginning with the second renewal, and each subsequent renewal thereafter, the
renewal registration fee shall be paid at the time of renewal.
Page 89 of 103
All fees are non-refundable and shall not be prorated.
Compliance Checks
Compliance checks will be performed by the Farmington Police Department and include:
An initial compliance check prior to business opening; and
A minimum of one compliance check per calendar year.
Hours and Days of Sale
Retail sale of cannabis, cannabis flower, cannabis products, lower-potency hemp edibles, or
hemp-derived consumer products is limited to between the hours of 8 am and 10 pm
Monday through Saturday, and 10 am and 9 pm on Sunday.
The sale of lower potency hemp edibles which are beverages is permitted at a location that
is currently holding an On- or Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License during the business hours
outlined in the intoxicating liquor ordinance and shall be served in a manner similar to
alcoholic beverages.
Temporary Cannabis Events
A Cannabis Event Organizer, licensed by the OCM, may apply for a Temporary Cannabis Event
Permit, which must include, but is not limited to:
Approval from the property owner for the location where the event is to be held.
Maximum number of anticipated attendees and proposed capacity of the event space.
Liability insurance naming the City of Farmington as additional insured.
Copy of a valid Cannabis Event Organizer License or written approval from the OCM.
Compliance with State Fire and Building Codes, if applicable, and a security plan.
No cannabis odors perceptible to a person with a normal sense of smell at the property line
of the temporary cannabis event location.
On-site consumption of cannabinoid products is prohibited.
Local Government as a Cannabis Retailer
The City of Farmington may establish, own, and operate one municipal cannabis retail business,
which shall not be included in any limitation of the number of registered cannabis retail businesses,
and shall be subject to the same requirements and procedures applicable to other registrations.
Use in Public Spaces or Places of Public Accommodation
No person shall use cannabis flower, cannabis products, lower potency hemp edibles, or hemp-
derived consumer products in a public space or a place of public accommodation unless the
premises is an establishment or an event licensed to permit on-site consumption of cannabis
products.
Cannabis Retail Business Fees and Penalties
The draft ordinance includes registration fees and penalties. The City may impose an initial
registration fee of $500 and a renewal retail registration fee of $1,000 - or up to one half the amount
of the applicable fee under Minnesota Statutes, Section 342.11, whichever is less.
The draft ordinance also includes a deletion of Title 3, Chapter 20 Drug-Related Devices, which is
no longer applicable. This is based on direction from the Police Chief.
The City Attorney has reviewed the draft ordinance and found it to be acceptable.
Page 90 of 103
ACTION REQUESTED:
Discussion on the draft ordinance, with direction to Staff of any necessary changes, as well as
direction to bring the ordinance forward to the July 21, 2025 Regular City Council Meeting for
passage.
ATTACHMENTS:
2025-004 Cannabis and Hemp Retail, Fee Schedule
Page 91 of 103
CITY OF FARMINGTON
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE 2025-004
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3 BUSINESS REGULATIONS BY
ADDING CHAPTER 27: CANNABIS AND HEMP RETAIL REGISTRATION;
DELETING CHAPTER 20: DRUG-RELATED DEVICES;
AND AMENDING TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, FEES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE
The City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, hereby ordains:
SECTION 1. Chapter 3-27 Cannabis and Hemp Retail Registration is hereby added to the
Farmington City Code as follows:
CHAPTER 27: CANNABIS AND HEMP RETAIL REGISTRATION
3-27-1: PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
3-27-2: DEFINITIONS
3-27-3: RETAIL REGISTRATION REQUIRED
3-27-4: REGISTRATION RESTRICTIONS
3-27-5: REGISTRATION APPLICATION
3-27-6: FEES
3-27-7: REGISTRATION PERIOD
3-27-8: COMPLIANCE CHECKS
3-27-9: TEMPORARY CANNABIS EVENTS
3-27-10: VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES
3-27-11: DENIAL, REVOCATION, OR SUSPENSION
3-27-12: ENFORCEMENT
3-27-13: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
3-27-14: LOCAL GOVERNMENT AS A CANNABIS RETAILER
3-27-15: USE IN PUBLIC SPACES OR PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
3-27-16: SIGNAGE
3-27-1: PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
A. The purpose of this chapter is to implement the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 342, authorizing the City Council to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare of Farmington residents by regulating cannabis and lower-potency hemp
edible businesses within the legal boundaries of the city.
B. The City Council finds and concludes that the provisions are appropriate, lawful
regulations for the City of Farmington, and that they are in the public interest and
for the public good.
C. The City Council is authorized by:
1. Minnesota Statutes, Section 342.13(c) to adopt reasonable restrictions of the
Page 92 of 103
Ordinance 2025-004
Page 2 of 11
time, place, and manner of the operation of a cannabis business, provided
that such restrictions to not prohibit the establishment or operation of
cannabis businesses.
2. Minnesota Statutes, Section 342.22, to adopt local registration and
enforcement requirements of State-licensed cannabis retail businesses and
lower-potency hemp edible retail businesses.
3. Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.221, Subdivision 32, to provide for the
promotion of health, safety, order, convenience, and general welfare.
D. If any section, clause, provision, or portion of this chapter is deemed
unconstitutional or invalid by a court of law, the findings shall not invalidate or
affect the enforceability of any other provision of this chapter.
3-27-2: DEFINITIONS
A. The definitions set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 342.01, are hereby adopted
and incorporated into this chapter.
B. “Public space” or “place of public accommodation” is defined as, but not limited
to:
1. Arenas, auditoriums, bowling alleys, bingo halls, commercial
establishments including licensed retail tobacco establishments, pool halls,
public conveyances, restaurants, and establishments licensed to sell
alcoholic beverages under Minnesota Statutes, Section 340A, and their
patios and decks.
2. Publicly owned property and outdoor and indoor areas of a public recreation
center or public park, trail, street or sidewalk including, but not limited to,
a public playground, swimming pool or other recreational area, and
gymnasiums. This specifically includes, but is not limited to, the Rambling
River Center, Schmitz-Maki Arena and City park properties.
3. Hospitals, nursing homes, offices and other commercial establishments,
retail stores, and common areas of rental apartment buildings.
4. Public transportation including buses, enclosed bus and transit stops, taxis,
vans, limousines, buses, and other for-hire vehicles used to transport the
public during hours of operation.
5. Educational institutions including all facilities, whether owned, rented, or
leased, and all vehicles that a school owns, leases, rents, contracts for, or
controls.
6. Public school: as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section 120A.20, any
schools supported in whole or in part by State funds are public schools.
7. Charter school: any school licensed by the Minnesota Department of
Education as a charter school.
8. Nonpublic schools: any nonpublic school, person, or other institution that is
accredited by an accrediting agency is required to meet the reporting
requirements under Minnesota Statutes, Section 120A.24, or recognized by
the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Education.
9. Public spaces as defined by Zoning Code 10-2-1.
Page 93 of 103
Ordinance 2025-004
Page 3 of 11
3-27-3: RETAIL REGISTRATION REQUIRED
A. Minnesota Statutes, Section 342.22, specifies that the following hemp or cannabis
businesses are required to register with the City:
1. Cannabis Retailers
2. Microbusinesses
3. Mezzobusinesses
4. Medical Cannabis Combination Businesses
5. Lower-Potency Hemp Edible Retailers
B. The issuance of a registration shall be considered a privilege and not an absolute
right of the applicant and shall not entitle the holder to an automatic renewal of the
registration.
3-27-4: REGISTRATION RESTRICTIONS
A. All registered hemp and cannabis retail businesses must comply with State Building
Code and all applications sections of Farmington City Code Title 10 Zoning.
B. Registered businesses will operate so that no odors, whether the smell of cannabis
or other odors related to the operation of the business, can be detected by a person
with a normal sense of smell at the exterior of the business property line.
C. No hemp or cannabis retail business shall occupy a residential dwelling unit.
D. No individual or entity may operate a hemp or cannabis retail business without:
1. Registering with the City of Farmington.
2. Having a current, active, and valid license issued by the Office of Cannabis
Management.
E. All registered premises shall be open to inspections by the City or other authorized
City officials during regular business hours to check compliance with State law and
City Code.
F. Every retail registration holder is responsible for conduct on the registered
premises, and any sale of cannabis, hemp, or products containing cannabis or hemp,
by an employee is the act of the registration holder for the purposes of all provisions
of this chapter.
G. No registration may be transferred to another person or location.
1. A State-licensed cannabis retail business already registered with the City
but is seeking to move to a new location shall be required to submit a new
registration application. Such application shall be treated as a renewal of the
registration.
3-27-5: REGISTRATION APPLICATION
A. The City shall issue a retail registration to a State-licensed retail business that
adheres to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 342.22
B. Applications for the renewal of an existing registration shall be made at least 60
days prior to the date of the expiration of the registration.
C. All new and renewal registrations will be administratively considered and issued
by the City Clerk or designee. Registration applications will be processed on a first-
come first-served basis, based on the City receiving a complete application and
payment of fees.
D. Cap on Registrations: The City shall limit the number of cannabis retail businesses
Page 94 of 103
Ordinance 2025-004
Page 4 of 11
to one (1) registration for every 12,500 residents within the legal limits of
Farmington.
E. Basis for Denial: The City shall deny a registration or renewal for any cannabis
retailer or lower potency hemp retailer if any of the following conditions are true:
1. The applicant has not submitted a complete registration.
2. The applicant does not comply with the requirements of this chapter.
3. The applicant does not comply with applicable zoning and land use
regulations.
4. If applicable, the maximum number of registrations, pursuant to Section 3 -
27-5(D) have been issued by the City.
5. The applicant does not have a valid license from the Office of Cannabis
Management.
6. The applicant is not current on all property taxes and assessments at the
location where the retail establishment is located.
F. Registration is not transferable to another person, entity, or location. A State-
licensed cannabis retail business shall be required to submit a new application for
registration if it seeks to move to a new location still within the legal boundaries of
Farmington.
G. An application for a new or renewal retail registration shall be made on a form
provided by the City. The form shall include, but is not limited to:
1. Full name of the property owner and applicant.
2. Address, email address, and telephone number of the applicant.
3. Exact location of the place in which the applicant proposes to carry on the
business which a retail registration is sought and the full name of and
approval from the property owner.
4. If applicable, the dates and locations the applicant has previously been
engaged in the business of selling or manufacturing cannabis products in
Dakota County.
5. Certification that the applicant complies with the requirements of
Farmington City Code established pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
342.13.
6. The applicant must provide:
a. A copy of a valid State license or written notice of Office of
Cannabis Management approval;
b. Verification that the applicant is current on all applicable property
taxes and assessments at the location where the retail
establishment is located; and
c. A copy of the documentation showing compliance with State Fire
and Building Codes, if applicable to the business.
H. Payment of registration or renewal fees, as established in the City’s Fee Schedule,
shall be made at time of application.
I. Liability Insurance.
1. No retail registration may be issued, maintained, or renewed unless the
applicant demonstrates proof of financial responsibility with regard to
liability imposed by Minnesota Statutes, Section 342.81.
2. At a minimum, the applicant must show one of the following:
Page 95 of 103
Ordinance 2025-004
Page 5 of 11
a. A certificate that there is in effect for the license period an
insurance policy or pool providing at least the following:
1. $250,000 of coverage because of bodily injury to any one
person in any one occurrence;
2. $500,000 of coverage because of bodily injury to two or
more persons in any one occurrence;
3. $50,000 of coverage because of injury to or destruction of
property of others in any once occurrence;
4. $250,000 of coverage for loss of means of support of any one
person in any one occurrence;
5. $500,000 of coverage for loss of means of support of two or
more persons in any one occurrence;
6. $250,000 of coverage for other pecuniary loss of any one
person in any one occurrence;
7. $500,000 of coverage for other pecuniary loss of two or more
persons in any once occurrence; and
8. An annual aggregate policy limit for general liability of not
less than $1,000,000 per policy year may be included in the
policy provisions.
9. The City of Farmington must be named as additional insured.
b. A bond of a surety company with minimum coverages as provided
in subdivision H(2) of this section.
c. This subdivision does not prohibit an insurer from providing the
coverage required by this section in combination with other
insurance coverage.
3-27-6: FEES
A. No registration shall be issued under this chapter until the appropriate fees are paid
in full.
B. Fees for all registrations and temporary cannabis events shall be established from
time to time by ordinance of the City Council and set forth in the Fee Schedule.
C. At the time of initial registration, both the initial registration fee and the renewal
fee shall be due and payable.
D. All fees are non-refundable and shall not be prorated.
E. For the first renewal of the registration, no additional fee shall be required.
Beginning with the second renewal, and each subsequent renewal thereafter, the
renewal registration fee shall be paid at the time of renewal.
3-27-7: REGISTRATION PERIOD
A. The initial registration is valid for two (2) years from the date of issuance.
B. Renewals:
1. Begin on the third (3rd) year;
2. Are based on the date of the original registration;
3. Are done at the same time as the Office of Cannabis Management renews
the retail license; and
4. Are issued for a period of one (1) year.
Page 96 of 103
Ordinance 2025-004
Page 6 of 11
C. Temporary licenses expire according to their terms.
3-27-8: COMPLIANCE CHECKS
A. Initial Cannabis Retailer or Lower-Potency Hemp Retailer registration shall not be
issued unless, prior to opening for operations following approval of an application
for initial registration, the Applicant has passed a preliminary compliance check
conducted by the City to ensure compliance with this chapter and any other
regulations established pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 342.13.
B. The City shall complete, at minimum, one (1) compliance check for each registered
business per calendar year to assess if the business meets age verification
requirements, as specified in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 342.22, Subdivision
4(b), and 342.24. Compliance checks may involve, but are not limited to, engaging
underage individuals at least 17 years old, with prior written consent from a parent
or guardian, to enter the registered premises to attempt to purchase hemp or
cannabis related products. These purchases will be made under the direct
supervision of a Law Enforcement Officer.
1. If underage individuals are used for compliance checks, they shall not be
guilting of unlawful possession of hemp or cannabis related products when
such items are obtained as part of a compliance check.
2. No underage individual used in compliance checks shall attempt to use false
identification misrepresenting their age.
3. All minors lawfully engaged in a compliance check shall answer all
questions about their age if asked by the licensee or their employee and shall
produce any identification for which the minor is asked.
4. Any failures under this section must be reported to the Office of Cannabis
Management.
3-27-9: TEMPORARY CANNABIS EVENTS
A. Prior to holding a temporary cannabis event, any cannabis event organizer with a
license from the Office of Cannabis Management must obtain a Temporary
Cannabis Event Permit from the City Clerk.
B. The application for a temporary cannabis event shall be made on a form provided
by the City. Along with the required information detailed in Minnesota Statutes,
Section 342.39, Subdivision 2, the form shall include the following information,
but is not limited to:
1. Full name of the property owner and applicant.
2. Address, email address, and telephone number of the applicant.
3. Exact location and address of the property where the event will be held and
the full name of and approval from the property owner.
4. Dates and hours of the event.
5. Maximum number of anticipated attendees.
6. Proof of commercial general liability insurance covering all injuries and
damage caused by or as a result of the event in the sum of $1,000,000 per
occurrence for bodily injury or death or property damage naming the City
of Farmington as additional insured.
7. Certification that the applicant complies with the requirements of
Page 97 of 103
Ordinance 2025-004
Page 7 of 11
Farmington City Code, established pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
342.13.
8. The applicant must provide:
a. A copy of a valid State Cannabis Event Organizer License or
written notice of Office of Cannabis Management license
approval;
b. Verification that the applicant is current on all applicable property
taxes and assessments at the location where the retail
establishment is located; and
c. A copy of the documentation showing compliance with State Fire
and Building Codes, if applicable to the business.
9. Proposed capacity of event space.
10. Security plan.
C. Applications for temporary cannabis events will be administratively considered and
issued by the City Clerk or designee.
D. Odors: No cannabis odors shall be perceptible to a person with a normal sense of
smell at the property line of the temporary cannabis event location.
E. On-site consumption of cannabinoid products is prohibited.
F. All Temporary Cannabis Events must follow requirements of Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 342, as it may be amended from time to time, and all requirements of the
Cannabis Event Organizer License issued by the Office of Cannabis Management.
3-27-10: VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES
A. The City Administrator or designee is responsible for the administration and
enforcement of this chapter. Any violation of the provisions of this chapter, or
failure to comply with any of its requirements, or a violation of cannabis business
requirements in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 342, constitutes a misdemeanor and is
punishable as defined by law. Violations of this chapter can occur, regardless of
whether or not a registration is required for a regulated activity. Nothing in this
chapter shall prohibit the City from enforcing any other applicable remedy
including, but not limited to, injunctive relief.
B. Non-Registrants: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 342.22, Subdivision 5(e),
the City may impose a civil penalty of up to $2,000 per violation for any sale of
cannabis, cannabis products, or lower-potency hemp edibles without possessing a
valid registration.
C. Registrants: A business registered under this chapter that fails to operate in
compliance with the requirements of this chapter or of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
342, shall be subject to a fine of not more than $2,000 and may have its registration
suspended for not more than thirty (30) days.
D. Temporary Cannabis Events: A cannabis event organizer that violates the
requirements of this chapter or of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 342, shall be subject
to a fine of not more than $2,000 per violation.
3-27-11: DENIAL, REVOCATION, OR SUSPENSION
A. If a registration is mistakenly issued or renewed to any person or entity, for any
reason, including but not limited to the submission of false or misleading
Page 98 of 103
Ordinance 2025-004
Page 8 of 11
information by the registration holder or applicant, the registration will be
suspended upon the discovery of ineligibility for registration under this chapter or
State of other local law, or other regulation. Any suspension will comply with the
requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 342.22, Subdivision 5.
B. Suspension of Registration
1. The City may suspend a registration if the registration holder violates this
chapter or poses an immediate threat to the health or safety of the public.
The City shall immediately notify the business and the Office of Cannabis
Management, in writing, the grounds for the suspension and that any sale to
a customer or patient while the suspension is in effect is cause for a civil
penalty.
2. The business may not make sales to customers if their registration is
suspended.
3. Length of Suspension.
a. The suspension of a retail registration may be up to thirty (30)
calendar days, unless the Office of Cannabis Management
suspends the license for a longer period.
b. The City shall reinstate a registration if the Office of Cannabis
Management determines that the violation(s) have been resolved.
C. The City may refuse a renewal registration and/or certification of a license renewal
if the license is associated with an individual or business who no longer holds a
valid license, has failed to pay the local registration or renewal fee, or has been
found in noncompliance with this chapter.
3-27-12: ENFORCEMENT
A. The City Council may impose a fine or suspend a registration under this chapter on
a finding that the registered business has failed to comply with an applicable statute,
regulation, or ordinance, including a violation of this chapter.
B. Prior to imposing a fine or suspending any registration under this chapter, the City
shall provide the registered business with written notice of the alleged violations and
inform the registered business of its right to a hearing on the alleged violation.
C. Notice shall be delivered in person or by regular mail to the address of the registered
business and shall inform the registered business of its right to a hearing. The notice
will indicate that a written response must be submitted within ten (10) days of receipt
of the notice, or the right to a hearing will be waived.
D. Provided a timely request for a hearing is submitted by the registered business, the
City Council will hold a hearing before taking final action to fine or suspend a
registration. The City Council shall give due regard to the frequency and seriousness
of the violations, the ease with which such violations could have been cured or
avoided and good faith efforts to comply and shall issue a decision to fine or suspend
the registration only upon written findings.
E. If a timely request for a hearing is not received, the matter shall be submitted to the
City Council for imposition of the fine or suspension.
F. If in the discretion of the Farmington Police Chief, or their designee, a registered
business poses an imminent threat to the health or safety of the public, the City may
immediately suspend the registration and provide notice of the right to hold a
Page 99 of 103
Ordinance 2025-004
Page 9 of 11
subsequent hearing as described in (B) above.
G. The City may reinstate a registration if it determines that the violations have been
resolved. The City shall reinstate the registration if the Office of Cannabis
Management determines the violations have been resolved.
H. All enforcement actions under this chapter will be reported to the Office of Cannabis
Management.
3-27-13: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
A. Hours and Days of Sale.
1. Except for lower potency hemp edibles which are beverages, which sale
hours are set in 3-27-13(C) of this ordinance, retail sale of cannabis,
cannabis flower, cannabis products, lower potency hemp edibles, or hemp-
derived consumer products is limited to between the hours of 8 am and 10
pm Monday through Saturday, and 10 am and 9 pm on Sunday.
2. No retail sale of cannabis, cannabis flower, cannabis products, lower
potency hemp edibles, or hemp-derived consumer products may be made:
a. Before 8 am or after 10 pm Monday through Saturday.
b. Before 10 am or after 9 pm on Sunday.
c. Or otherwise as prohibited by law.
B. Display of License and Registration. All licenses and registrations must be posted
and displayed on the premises and in plain view of the general public.
C. Lower Potency Hemp Edible Retailers
1. Storage of Product. Lower potency hemp edibles shall be stored behind a
counter or in a locked case.
2. The sale of lower potency hemp edibles which are beverages is permitted
at a location that is currently holding an On- or Off-Sale Intoxicating
Liquor License during the business hours outlined in the intoxicating liquor
ordinance and shall be served in a manner similar to alcoholic beverages.
3-27-14: LOCAL GOVERNMENT AS A CANNABIS RETAILER
A. The City of Farmington may establish, own, and operate one municipal cannabis
retail business subject to the restrictions in this chapter.
B. The municipal cannabis retail store shall not be included in any limitation of the
number of registered cannabis retail businesses under 3-27-5(E).
C. The City of Farmington shall be subject to the same requirements and procedures
applicable to other registrations.
3-27-15: USE IN PUBLIC SPACES OR PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
No person shall use cannabis flower, cannabis products, lower-potency hemp edibles,
or hemp-derived consumer products in a public space or a place of public
accommodation unless the premises is an establishment, or an event licensed to permit
on-site consumption of cannabis products.
3-27-16: SIGNAGE
Signage for cannabis businesses is subject to Section 10-6-3 of the Farmington City
Code.
Page 100 of 103
Ordinance 2025-004
Page 10 of 11
SECTION 2. FEE SCHEDULE. Cannabis Retailer Fees are hereby added to the 2025 Fee
Schedule as follows:
CANNABIS RETAIL BUSINESS FEES
Registration renewals occur when the Office of Cannabis Management renews the license.
The City may impose an initial retail registration fee of $500 and a renewal retail registration fee of $1,000 or up
to one half the amount of the applicable fee under Minnesota Statutes, Section 342.11, whichever is less.
Initial Renewal
Cannabis Microbusiness $0 $1,000
Cannabis Mezzobusiness $500 $1,000
Cannabis Retailer $500 $1,000
Medical Cannabis Combination Business $500 $1,000
Lower Potency Hemp Edible Retailer $125 $125
Temporary Cannabis Event $375
CANNABIS RETAIL BUSINESS PENALTIES
Non-Registrant $2,000 per violation
Registrant
$2,000 and suspension
of registration up to 30
days
Temporary Cannabis Events $2,000 per violation
SECTION 3. Title 3, Chapter 20 (Drug-Related Devices) of the Farmington City Code is hereby
deleted in its entirety.
SECTION 4. SUMMARY PUBLICATION.
CITY OF FARMINGTON
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
SUMMARY PUBLICATION
ORDINANCE 2025-004
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3 OF THE FARMINGTON
CITY CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 27 ESTABLISHING
CANNABIS AND HEMP RETAIL REGISTRATION
During their July 21, 2025 meeting, the City Council of the City of
Farmington adopted Ordinance 2025-004. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Section 412.191, in the case of a lengthy ordinance, a summary may be
Page 101 of 103
Ordinance 2025-004
Page 11 of 11
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 summary
is approved by the City Council and shall be published in lieu of publishing
the entire ordinance.
EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage
and publication according to law. Passed by the City Council of the City
of Farmington, Minnesota, this 21st day of July 2025.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and
publication according to law.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, this 21st day of July 2025.
ATTEST:
____________________________ ______________________________
Joshua Hoyt, Mayor Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk
Page 102 of 103
COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator
From: David Chanski, Asst City Admin/HR Director
Department: Administration
Subject: Discussion on Franchise Fees
(6:15-6:45 pm)
Meeting: Council Work Session - Jul 07 2025
INTRODUCTION:
Staff desires to discuss and receive further direction from the City Council on pursuing franchise
fees as a funding mechanism for public safety projects.
DISCUSSION:
During the Strategic Planning Session that was held on April 16, Staff and the City Council briefly
discussed the possibility of implementing gas and electric utility franchise fees as a mechanism for
funding public safety projects such as the implementation of full-time Firefighters, Fire Station 1
remodel and expansion, and Police Department remodel and expansion.
Staff would like to further discuss this option with the Council and get direction whether to pursuit it
more fully. During this discussion, Staff will present the basic methodology behind franchise fees,
how neighboring communities have implemented them, what kind of revenue could be expected
through the implementation of gas and electric utility franchise fees, and next steps.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Item for discussion purposes only. No action required at this time.
Page 103 of 103