The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03.03.03 Council Packet City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Mission Statement Through teamwork and cooperation, the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserve our proud past and foster a promising future. AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 3, 2003 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Action Taken 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVE AGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENDATIONS 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open/or Audience Comments) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (2/18/03 Regular) (2/15/03 Special) b) Approve Temporary 3.2 Beer License - Farmington Fastpitch League- Administration c) Adopt Resolution - Gambling Event Permit - Administration d) Capital Outlay - MIS e) Capital OutlayNPDES Phase II - Engineering f) Approve Bills g) School and Conference - Fire Department Approved Approved RI0-03 Information Received Approved Approved Information Received 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Adopt Resolution - 2003 Seal Coat Project - Engineering RII-03 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) City Hall Task Force Presentation - Administration b) January 2003 Financial Report - Finance c) Adopt Ordinance - Pawn Shop Amendment - Police Information Received Information Received Ord 003-486 '1. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Adopt Resolution - Akin Road Speed Limit - Engineering b) Adopt Resolution - Main Street Project Feasibility Report - Engineering R12-03 R13-03 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. ADJOURN City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Mission Statement Through teamwork and cooperation, the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserve our proud past and foster a promisingfuture. AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 3, 2003 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Action Taken 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVE AGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENDATIONS 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (2/18/03 Regular) (2/15/03 Special) b) Approve Temporary 3.2 Beer License - Farmington Fastpitch League- Administration c) Adopt Resolution - Gambling Event Permit - Administration d) Capital Outlay - MIS e) Capital Outlay NPDES Phase II - Engineering f) Approve Bills Pages 301-312 Page 313 Page 314-315 Page 316 Pages 317-318 Page 319 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Adopt Resolution - 2003 Seal Coat Project - Engineering Pages 320-323 9. AWARDOFCONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) City Hall Task Force Presentation - Administration b) January 2003 Financial Report - Finance c) Adopt Ordinance - Pawn Shop Amendment - Police Pages 324-363 Pages 364-365 Pages 366-386 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Adopt Resolution - Akin Road Speed Limit - Engineering b) Adopt Resolution - Main Street Project Feasibility Report - Engineering Pages 387-393 Pages 394-431 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. ADJOURN /C0 COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR February 18, 2002 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 7:00 p.m. a) Introduce Councilmember Bill Fitch Mr. Bill Fitch was introduced as the new Councilmember. His term is effective until December 31, 2004. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Ristow led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Audience: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg None Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Ed Shukle, City Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; JimAtkinson, Assistant City Planner; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Anthony Pena, Cheryl Retterath, Terry Verch, Anthony Verch, Matt Alexander, Eric and Sheri Speckan, Earl Teporten, Wade Enggren, Mike Heinzerling, Lynae Mach, John Fortney 4. APPROVE AGENDA Councilmember Fitch pulled item 7a) Council Minutes to abstain from voting. Supplemental items 7j) Approve Appointments Boards and Commissions and lOe) Consider Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment - Knutsen Property were added. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Introduce New Employee - Community Development Mr. Ron Fedder was introduced as the new Building Inspector. b) Introduce New Employee - Parks and Recreation Mr. Wade Enggren was introduced as the new Solid Waste Operator. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Anthony Pena, 18906 Embry Avenue, asked Attorney Jamnik where he cited the city charter where it allows the Mayor or a Councilmember to vote twice. He would like a 3G/ Council Minutes (Regular) February 18,2003 Page 2 written response from Mr. Jamnik. Mr. Jamnik replied the city does not have a charter. It is in MN statutes 412.02. Mr. David PritzlafI, 20255 Akin Road, stated a couple meetings back Councilmember Cordes stated she was coerced, and then restated her statement saying she was persuaded. He asked if the name she brought up to fill the vacant Council seat was her choice or if she was persuaded. Councilmember Cordes replied it was strictly her choice. Mr. Pritzlaffthen asked Mayor Ristow, what his position was in the last Council meeting, when Councilmember Soderberg was questioning Councilmember Cordes regarding a rift in the Council and Councilmember Cordes told Mayor Ristow to make the appointment. Mr. PritzlafI asked Mayor Ristow why Councilmember Cordes was telling him what to do. Mayor Ristow stated he didn't hear her, but thanked Mr. PritzlafI for pointing it out. 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes approving Council Minutes (2/3/03 Regular) (2/8/03 and 2/10/03 Special). Voting for: Ristow, Cordes, Fogarty, Soderberg. Abstain: Fitch. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: b) Approved Appointment Recommendation - Fire Department c) Adopted RESOLUTION R7-03 Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids - Solid Waste Vehicle - Parks and Recreation d) Received Information Capital Outlay - Administration e) Received Information Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation f) Received Information School and Conference - Fire Department g) Received Information School and Conference - Police Department h) Received Information Dakota County Transportation Policy Open House - Engineering i) Approved Bills j) Approved Appointments Boards and Commissions - Administration (Supplemental) APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Farmington Heritage Landmark Designation - Middle Creek Historic Cemetery - Administration The Heritage Preservation Commission has determined that the Middle Creek Historic Cemetery, located north of the Middle Creek Estates subdivision, meets the eligibility criteria for designation as a Farmington Heritage Landmark. The HPC has submitted documentation supporting the Heritage Landmark designation of the Middle Creek Historic Cemetery in a report prepared by Robert Vogel dated September 26, 2002. The Minnesota Historical Society has also commented favorably on the proposed landmark designation. MOTION by CorcJes, second by Fogarty to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION C,ARRIED. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Cordes adopting RESOLUTION R8-03 designating the Middle Creek Historic Cemetery as a Farmington Heritage c.3~ Council Minutes (Regular) February 18, 2003 Page 3 9. 10. Landmark, and noting the Middle Creek Historic Cemetery as a heritage landmark on the Official City Zoning Map. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Vacate Drainage and Utility Easement Glenview Commercial Addition - Community Development Staff received a request from Mr. Tim Giles for approval of the preliminary and final plat of the Glenview Commercial Addition. There is a watermain on the property with an easement over the top of it. In order for the plat to be approved, the easement needs to be vacated to re-establish an easement over the watermain. Staffwould like to continue the public hearing until the preliminary plat is also presented to Council. The intent is to handle the vacation and the preliminary plat process contemporaneously. This would be brought back to Council next month. AWARD OF CONTRACT PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) 2003 CDBG Fund Application - Community Development Every year the city receives Community Development Block Grant Funds. Last year the city received $54,126. It is estimated the city will receive approximately the same amount this year. There are a number of properties in Farmington, especially in the older part of the city that are in poor condition. In many cases it is a hardship for residents to repair their properties. Staff would like to use the CDBG money to fund a housing assistance program where people can submit applications to the city and possibly get money from the city to help them improve their properties. There are a couple properties where there are significant structural problems where the properties may need to be condemned. If the city can help the residents stay in their homes, by helping them improve their property, that would be preferred. r, Mayor Ristow asked if the County has something similar available and if that can be used also. Staff stated the County does also have a similar program. The County would be the first stop, but if more money is needed, the city would be able to help. Councilmember Cordes stated in the past CDBG funds have been used to fund part ofthe senior center coordinator salary and other pool activities. Would any other project be in jeopardy by using this money? Staff replied no, the city has moved away from that. Councilmember Fogarty asked if this would be done only for a year. Staff replied it is a trial program. Councilmember Fogarty wanted to make sure if the funding disappears in a year, it is not something that would come from the general fund next year. Staff is not recommending that. There is a fixed pool of money available, and when that is gone, that is all there is. Councilmember Cordes asked how the money would be made available. By identifying the homes or would there be a priority list? Staff stated there would be a prioritization process. Staff would start with the properties having the worst problems. Ifresidents do not want to work with this program, staffwill go down the list. Some of the worst properties may not have heating or plumbing, which 303 Council Minutes (Regular) February 18, 2003 Page 4 30r becomes a safety issue. It could become a liability issue for the city, if staff knew these problems existed and steps were not taken to resolve them. Councilmember Soderberg asked if there will be a cap on how much each applicant can receive. Staff stated that will be part of the prioritization issue. The money becomes available in July and in the meantime, staffwill be working out those details. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty adopting RESOLUTION R9-03 approving the city's application for Program Year 2003 Community Development Block Grant funding. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Schedule Workshop - Dakota County East-West Corridor Study- Engineering Dakota County has requested to meet jointly with staff from Farmington and Lakeville regarding the proposed recommendations for the East-West Corridor Study before the final public open house is held. Lakeville would also like to discuss the 2030 Blueprint. Council suggested March 10 at 5:00 p.m. Staffwill check with Lakeville and confirm the date with Council. c) McCarthy Agreement - City Attorney There is a proposed settlement for a claim arising out of 203rd Street and the necessity to upgrade the street in order to accommodate development to the west. The city has an easement for the road right-of-way dating back to the mid-70's. The easement runs through the homestead on the lot. There has been a claim with the title company and potentially the city. A settlement has been proposed where the city would contribute $55,000, the developer would contribute $55,000, and the title company would contribute $55,000 to the property owner to build a new house on another location on the lot. The cost would be split three ways for razing the existing building after construction of the new home and restoring the area consistent with the engineering layout proposed for the upgraded 203rd Street segment. The major terms of the settlement aside from the dollar amounts are that the property owner provide additional easements if necessary. The city would not assess for 203rd Street in that area, the developer is financing that and building it out consistent with the development to the west. The city would provide the utility hookups and locations suitable to serve the new residence as well as provide for future subdivision of the parcel. The property owner would provide an option to the city for the remainder which the city is anticipated to assign to the developer as part of consideration for their contribution of the $55,000. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg approving execution of the proposed settlement. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Adopt Ordinance - Signs and Billboards - Community Development Staffhas been reviewing the sign ordinance since December 2001. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval. Council and staff discussed some minor modifications to the ordinance. Staff will discuss the Council Minutes (Regular) February 18, 2003 Page 5 changes with the Planning Commission. An application has been received for two billboards to be placed on Pilot Knob Road just north ofHwy 50. The applicant is Frederickson Outdoor. The Planning Commission continued the permit application as they had questions regarding the impact of the Council adopting this ordinance. There is a provision in the new ordinance that would prohibit billboards on Pilot Knob Road north ofHwy 50. Staff recommended there was an aesthetic issue due to residential development in that area. Staff proposed limiting billboards to areas zoned I-I along Hwy 3 and Hwy 50. Therefore, the applications are still pending. The I-I area along Pilot Knob Road extends to the northern boundary of the existing industrial park. Billboards would be permitted as a conditional use under the current ordinance. Councilmember Soderberg felt in fairness to the applicant, as he applied under the old ordinance, the billboard should be allowed along Pilot Knob Road until that area is platted. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty adopting ORDINANCE 003-485 establishing standards for signs and billboards with modifications. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS This item was moved forward to accommodate the audience. c) Consider Resolution - Akin Road Speed Limit - Engineering The State has forwarded their results of the speed study along Akin Road. The first alternative is 50 mph from CSAH 50 to 195th Street and 45 mph from 195th Street to Pilot Knob Road. The second alternative would be 50 mph between CSAH 50 and Eaves Way and 45 mph between Eaves Way and Pilot Knob Road. For the second alternative to be recommended, the city would need to commit to not posting the 30 mph statutory speed in the "urban district" area. If the Council posts the urban district at 30mph, MnDOT will recommend the first alternative. Staff discussed with MnDOT why not set the speed limit at 45 mph to CSAH 50, as the distance from Eaves Way to CSAH 50 is less than half the roadway. MnDOT stated south ofHwy 50 the speed limit is 50 mph and they did not feel 45 mph was warranted. A resident has also discussed this with MnDOT. Mr. Ed Brown, with MnDOT, has committed to reviewing the situation again. Ifthere is a change in the recommendation, MnDOT would inform the Council. Councilmember Soderberg asked ifby agreeing to this, Council is giving away the right to designate an urban district forever. Attorney Jamnik replied no, future Councils could designate an urban district with consultation with MnDOT. Mr. David Pritzlaff, 20255 Akin Road, stated he spoke with Mr. Ed Brown. The area from Eaves Way to Hwy 50 is 9/10 mile. The main issue is a consistent and continuous speed. He asked MnDOT why go from 195th to Eaves Way at 45 mph and then speed up to 50 mph at the bottom of the hill where there is a school. Currently, traffic stops on Akin Road to let the school buses out. The entrance to the school is in the middle of the 9/10 mile. Mr. Pritzlaffwould like to use the urban district as an incentive to tell MnDOT we will not designate an urban district if you give us a lower speed limit. He would like 45 mph from Hwy 50 to 305 Council Minutes (Regular) February 18,2003 Page 6 Pilot Knob Road. Mr. Pritzlaff would like the Council to not accept MnDOT's alternatives and request 45 mph all along Akin Road. Council discussed Mr. Pritzlafl's request and staff will contact MnDOT with this proposal. This item will be brought back to Council at the next meeting. Staff asked if delaying the decision would bring any liability to the city. Attorney Jamnik stated there would be no additional liability. Setting the speed limit would be discretionary on the part of the Council after considering the findings and weighing and balancing all the options. All speed changes have to be approved by MnDOT. 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS e) Consider Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment - Knutsen Property - Community Development Council was asked to consider if they wanted to change the comprehensive guide plan designation and zoning for the Knutsen property located at the southwest comer ofHwy 50 and Denmark Avenue. The Planning Commission considered this item twice in November and December. The Planning Commission considered a staff initiated comprehensive guide plan amendment and rezoning. The developer has questioned how much of their property will be undevelopable. Mr. Alexander, of New Century, was concerned they were losing approximately 10 acres that could be developed. The line between floodplain and developable property which staff proposed was established by FEMA. Staff asked Council to consider whether this is the most appropriate time to make a final, binding decision on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and the proposed Zoning Map revision regarding the Knutsen property. Factors considered included the floodplain/flood fringe issue, environmental studiest market analysist and urgency. Staff held a meeting with the developer on February 13t where the developer indicated he had decided not to request or allow development to occur east of the 906.5 elevation line. Therefore, the 906.5 (floodplain boundary) will separate the developable and undevelopable portions ofthe Knutsen property. This line will also be used as a division on the Zoning Map with Spruce Street Commercial zoning west of the 906.5 elevation linet and Park/Open Space zoning east of that line. The environmental issues involve the Vermillion River, the shoreland ordinancet floodplain issuest wetland issues, stormwatert and the fact that this part of the river is a designated trout stream. These issues affect all of the properties in this area and staff recommended the environmental issues should be reviewed for all the properties at the same time. There are three different levels of environmental review. There is the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAS)t which is the lowest level. The next highest is the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and the highest is the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). The city has the right to order the level of environmental review. Staff would like to talk with the 36~ Council Minutes (Regular) February 18,2003 Page 7 property owners to see if they are interested in doing something together. The Environmental Quality Board establishes the rules for environmental review. One oftheir guidelines states the ability of traditional review, especially the EA W process, to deal with cumulative impacts is limited because review processes are designed to be project specific. When cumulative impacts from concurrent or future projects are likely to be significant, review can often be better accomplished through the AUAR process. The level of review has not been resolved with Mr. Alexander or Mr. Knutsen. The main distinctions between the EA W and the AUAR are the AUAR can be completed at an earlier stage in the process. As part ofthe AUAR a mitigation plan can be developed. Council had to decide if the environmental review question had been answered to their satisfaction. The city has retained the McComb Group to conduct a commercial Market Analysis of the area. They would focus on the impact of commercial development on the downtown area. The findings of the analysis should be available in March. Staff felt the results of this analysis is worth Council waiting to make a decision on the rezoning and comprehensive guide plan amendment. The benefit to the property owners is that at some point all of the owners will want to develop their properties. The environmental issues that exist now will exist then. They would pay a smaller amount of money now, and when Council decides the property is ready for development, they have everything they need. Councilmember Cordes asked if the zoning is granted, are there still steps the developer needs to follow? Staff replied there are, but there are things that would flow from the rezoning Council needs to be aware of. Councilmember Cordes stated rezoning only helps them move along. The developer still needs to go through the environmental process. Staff stated it is a balancing test, where Council needs to balance what may be good for a property owner, and what may be best for the city as a whole. Councilmember Cordes felt the developer is willing to work with the city and they seem to understand there are further steps that need to be taken. She did not see any problem with granting the rezoning and the comprehensive plan amendment. Councilmember Fogarty asked if the developer is being approached by businesses now? It seems staff would like to wait for the analysis, but we need more commercial development in Farmington. She didn't feel rezoning would cause any harm. Staff replied the question as to whether harm would result is why staff has suggested Council wait another month or so. Staff cannot guarantee no harm will result. The property owner would prefer to get this rezoned. It is not clear to staff as to why it needs to be rezoned now, given all the other steps they have to go through. Staff does not see any detriment to the owner to waiting a month or two. The reason for doing a market study is to try to figure out whether the Farmington market can support new businesses that would come to this area, but also support businesses we have now. Council has a right to approve the rezoning, but they also have the right to say the City has invested a great deal of time and money into improving the downtown. Some business owners are asking what happens if a larger business like theirs comes to the commercial area? The market analysis would provide that answer. 30) Council Minutes (Regular) February 18, 2003 Page 8 There is a range oftools available to Council to make sure what is put in the commercial area is complimentary to what the city already has. Council could delete or add to the list of permitted uses, take a permitted use and make it a conditional use, place size restrictions on the business, and Council could control timing issues. Mr. Matt Alexander, of New Century, stated they would like to move forward with a process that was started quite a while ago. The developer's engineers and the city engineers have met to determine the line between developable and non- developable areas, which was the first issue raised by the Planning Commission. The second issue was regarding the environmental impact question. There are three corridors when it comes to environmental impact on the river. Mr. Alexander felt stormwater would drain directly to the river. They have spent a lot of money to answer these questions. Councilmember Fogarty stated if Council does not approve the rezoning now, they are not holding the developer up from anyone who is interested. Mr. Alexander stated the majority of the property is verbally spoken for and they cannot proceed with the way it is currently zoned. Councilmember Soderberg did not see where the environmental issue has been answered. Mr. Alexander stated he received a letter from staff stating if they wish to proceed with the submission of an EA W, they can do so, and if a higher level of environmental review is needed, the developer would be notified. Mr. Alexander stated they would pay for that when it happens and they are willing to take the risk on just an EA W at this point. Councilmember Soderberg stated an EA W would be the first step, and an EIS would be the second step. Mr. Alexander stated the Environmental Quality Board states it is mandatory for an EA W for a third or fourth class city of 200,000 sq ft. minimum. For 500,000 sq ft. an EIS is mandatory. This area falls below the 500,000 sq ft so New Century will proceed with an EA W at their expense. Councilmember Soderberg asked if they proceed with an EA W, where does that leave the rest ofthe parcels? If the rest of the property owners agree to do an AUAR, is there considerable duplication, is there benefit to both to have an EA W done on this parcel and an AUAR on the balance? Staff stated the city would have to address ifit makes sense to have an AUAR in process for all the other parcels except this one. There is a chance the EQB would say why have this done two different ways instead of all at once. Councilmember Fitch stated according to staffs letter to the developer, it talks about the EA W and the AUAR, and it says this type of determination is typically made after the city receives a site plan or preliminary plat application, which is the next step after rezoning. Staff stated this doesn't necessarily have to be the order. Staff was being pressed for a decision as to what level of environmental review would be needed and at this point, staff doesn't have a lot of information in order to make that decision. Councilmember Fitch stated staff would not know that until it has been rezoned, make the comprehensive plan amendment, and the developer comes in with a site plan and some type of preliminary plat. Staff 30b Council Minutes (Regular) February 18, 2003 Page 9 stated it does not have to be rezoned to get that question answered. If the developer came in with a site plan, even before it is rezoned, that would enable staff to answer the environmental review question. Councilmember Fitch stated the question here tonight is not rezoning. That is not answering the city's questions regarding the environmental issues. Staff acknowledged rezoning does not resolve the question. Councilmember Fitch stated it doesn't resolve it, but does it inhibit it? Staff replied Council has to decide if they want to rezone it with questions unanswered. Councilmember Fitch stated regardless of approval, regarding the marketing plan, is the city looking at protecting our businesses? Are we going to say no, someone cannot build another store here? Staff stated that decision is up to Council. In a short period of time, Council will have that information and know what the potential ramifications are. The current zoning is more for a business park and very limited retail and commercial business. Councilmember Soderberg stated he does not want to see a relocation of the downtown to the detriment of what we have already invested in the downtown. It can expand out to this area, but he would like more information as to how it will impact the downtown. That is all staff is asking us to do is to wait for the market analysis. Councilmember Fitch stated at this point, the developer does not have anything on paper showing what types of businesses will be in the area. Councilmember Soderberg stated so a delay of four weeks will not impact it one way or the other. Councilmember Fitch replied that is your opinion. He would like to see the commercial development get going. Councilmember Fogarty felt the traffic that could be created coming to this area, would help the downtown. Council still has final say on anything that comes through. MOTION by Fitch, second by Cordes to amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan for the Knutsen property from Business Park to Commercial (western portion) and Environmentally Sensitive (eastern portion); and amend the Zoning Map for the Knutsen property from Business Park to Spruce Street Commercial (western portion) and Parks/Open space (eastern portion). Attorney Jamnik pointed out that Council is proceeding without a formal recommendation from the Planning Commission which is a departure from Council's normal practice. Under the statute, the timeframe by which the Planning Commission gets an uninterrupted chance to review it has passed, so it is jurisdictionally proper for the Council to act if you want to. Mayor Ristow stated there were two issues and it seems like those two issues were resolved. Attorney Jamnik replied the environmental review and the flood plain issues were resolved. There was some concern regarding the market study and whether or not the permitted uses under the commercial zone designation should be adjusted following the market plan. By proceeding now, you will make it more difficult should you choose later to try to restrict particular commercial uses from these zones. You will have to start another process and it may not affect the pending application similar to the billboard situation. Councilmember Soderberg felt Council needed more information, and does not think it will hurt to wait four more weeks. There will be some commercial and retail development there. There ~ Council Minutes (Regular) February 18, 2003 Page 10 is not an urgency to get it done now. Mayor Ristow stated there are still steps where that will be worked out. Voting for: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch, Fogarty. Voting against: Soderberg. MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Appoint Councilmembers to ALF, CEEF, and Empire/Farmington Planning Advisory Committee - Administration 1) ALF Ambulance Board appointment Primary and Alternate - MOTION by Fitch, second by Cordes to appoint Councilmember Fogarty as the alternate to the ALF Board. Voting for: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch, Soderberg. Abstain: Fogarty. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Ristow, second by Fitch to appoint Councilmember Cordes as the primary to the ALF Board. Voting for: Ristow, Fitch. Voting against: Fogarty, Soderberg. Abstain: Cordes. MOTION FAILED. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Cordes to appoint Councilmember Soderberg to the ALF Board, as he has been the alternate and he has accepted the position of Chair. Voting for: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch, Fogarty. Abstain: Soderberg. MOTION CARRIED. 2) Castle Rock, Empire, Eureka, Farmington (CEEF) Appointment - MOTION by Fogarty, second by Fitch to appoint Councilmember Cordes to the CEEF Committee. Voting for: Ristow, Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg. Abstain: Cordes. MOTION CARRIED. 3) Joint FarmingtonlEmpire Planning Board Appointments - MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fitch to appoint Councilmember Fogarty to the Empire/Farmington Planning Board. Voting for: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch, Soderberg. Abstain: Fogarty. MOTION CARRIED. 4) Housing and Redevelopment Authority - MOTION by Fitch, second by Cordes to appoint Councilmember Soderberg to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Voting for: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch, Fogarty. Abstain: Soderberg. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Cordes left the meeting at 9:55 p.m. b) Strategic Planning Retreat - Administration A leadership and strategic planning retreat was held in 2002 and at that time it was agreed these retreats be held annually. The retreat was tentatively set for April 5, at 8:00 a.m. at the Police Facility. 12. NEW BUSINESS 3/0 Council Minutes (Regular) February 18,2003 Page 11 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE a) Update - NPDES Phase II - Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan - Engineering The city is required to compile an application and permit which includes a storm water pollution prevention plan for the new NPDES Phase II rule. The due date for the application is March 10. A draft will be brought to Council in March. The MPCA gave the city an extra 60 days to complete the storm water pollution prevention plan. Councilmember Soderberg: Councilmember Soderberg stated regarding the issue of the Knutsen property, rather than having an item sent to the Council with contingencies placed on it, he would rather the Planning Commission resolve their work and make a clean recommendation rather than leaving it open ended. Councilmember Fogarty: She received e-mails regarding the fact that the city does not have a policy in place regarding vacated Council seats. She would like Council to consider putting one in place. She would like an ordinance that would allow for special elections. What this last appointment has cost the city, has far exceeded what a special election would have cost. This has happened once a decade where a seat has had to be appointed and the cost over many years is minimal compared to the uproar that happened in this city. She felt Council owes it to the residents. This is no longer a small town and there are many cities that would consider nothing else. Mayor Ristow asked Attorney Jamnik ifhe could obtain some information on Councilmember Fogarty's suggestion. Attorney J amnik stated he would work with staff on the ordinance and costs for a special election. Mayor Ristow: tournament. Wished the girls hockey team good luck in the state hockey 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to adjourn at 10:06 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, /?~ -L/". /;;/7 4./? c';7'~-vC;;?i.:.~~ <-4:.-&1 0 Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant 3/1 COUNCIL MINUTES BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS INTERVIEWS February 15, 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 7 :30 a.m. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Ristow, Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg Cordes 3. INTERVIEWS The City Council interviewed 20 applicants for seats on various Boards and Commissions. Recommendation for appointment was made and will be ratified at the February 18, 2003 Council meeting. 4. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 1:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, $n/~~ /?/7~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant d/o? . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 72 TO: M C '1 b C' Adm" ~t ayor, OunCl mem ers, Ity lllistrator FROM: Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Approve Temporary 3.2 Beer License - Farmington Fastpitch League DATE: March3, 2003 INTRODUCTION The Farmington Fastpitch League is requesting a Temporary 3.2 On-Sale Beer License. This action requires City Council approval. DISCUSSION The Farmington Fastpitch League is holding a Softball Tournament at Rambling River Fields from June 13,2003 to June 15,2003. The Police Chief and Parks and Recreation Director have, in accordance with City Code guidelines, approved the application. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the issuance of the license. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED Approve a Temporary 3.2 On-Sale Beer License for the Farmington Fastpitch League for June 13 - 15,2003. Respectfully submitted, "'" ~!l&d0L Lisa Shadick Administrative Services Director 3/3 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us 7c TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator ?: ~ FROM: Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant SUBJECT: Gambling Event Permit - Vermillion River Longbeards DATE: March 3, 2003 INTRODUCTION The Vermillion River Longbeards are requesting a Gambling Event Permit to conduct a raffle and silent auction to be held at the Eagle's Club. DISCUSSION Per State Statute 349.166 and pertinent City Code, a Gambling Permit must be issued by the City for this type of event. An application has been received, along with the appropriate fees. The City Attorney has reviewed the application and the attached resolution approving the request. BUDGET IMPACT Gambling fees are included in the revenue portion of the 2003 budget. ACTION REQUESTED Consider the attached Resolution granting a Gambling Event Permit to the Vermillion River Longbeards at the Eagle's Club, 200 3Td Street, on April 10, 2003. Respectfully submitted, _ ,~7 //... .....L./( J;'-. ).?7?i.-tfc'::.;~) Ct..,/<} (."_>c-,/c.,,,.~ /" ,:.".,/ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant 3/</ RESOLUTION NO. R -03 APPROVING A MINNESOT A LAWFUL GAMBLING EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION FOR VERMILLION RIVER LONGBEARDS Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 3rd day of March 2003 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, pursuant to M.S. 349.166, the State of Minnesota Gambling Board may not issue or renew a Gambling Event Permit unless the City Council adopts a Resolution approving said permit; and, WHEREAS, the Vermillion River Longbeards has submitted an application for a Gambling Event Permit to be conducted at the Eagle's Club, 200 3rd Street, for Council consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Farmington City Council that the Gambling Event Permit for the Vermillion River Longbeards to be conducted at the Eagle's Club, 200 3rd Street is hereby approved. This resolution adopted by recorded vote ofthe Farmington City Council in open session on the 3rd day of March 2003. Mayor Attested to the day of 2003. City Administrator SEAL c3~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us --7c! TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator?: [ FROM: Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director SUBJECT: Capital Outlay - Information Technology DATE: March 3, 2003 INTRODUCTION The 2003 Budget provides for the acquisition of new printers. DISCUSSION There are two printers being purchased. One is a replacement for a printer that has been problematic and costly to maintain. The second printer is being purchased in order to provide better printing capabilities when using graphics and to prolong the life of the printer currently in use in Administration. The new printers will provide greater functionality and efficiency to the end user. BUDGET IMPACT The amount budgeted for both printers is $4,261.00. The actual cost of $4286.21 is slightly above the budgeted amount. ACTION REQUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, I J Brenda Wendlandt, SPHR Human Resources Director <3/C 7e... City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington,MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651)463-2591 www.ci.farminlrton.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator ~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P .E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Capital Outlay - ASIST Software (Advanced Stormwater Information Systems) DATE: March 3, 2003 INTRODUCTION As the Council is aware, the City of Farmington as a small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4), is required to implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II requirements. Staff is recommending the purchase of the ASIST software to aid in the management and reporting of the City's storm sewer system as required under the NPDES Phase II mandate. As part of the SWPPP, the City will be required to annually inspect and report on components within our storm sewer system. DISCUSSION The ASIST software was designed specifically for municipalities to help manage their storm sewer system inspection and reporting responsibilities. The software is sold as a site license that allows the main database with the City's storm sewer information to be stored on a server. As many users as are needed can have a client version of the software installed on their desktop PC for the entry and accessing of information. The program has been researched and is being endorsed by the League of Minnesota Cities. (LMC) The LMC has coordinated a discounted group purchase of the AS 1ST software for $3,495, available to those communities that have participated in the NPDES Phase II Guide Plan. The regular cost of the AS 1ST software Suite is $5995. This price includes the software, support for I year, training for City staff, and an upgrade to the newest version of the ASIST software, which will be available in late March. As part of the group purchase, the LMC has coordinated with the manufacturer of the software to customize the suite with pertinent information relating to the NPDES Phase II requirement within the State of Minnesota. They have also provided the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency with similar software that will allow Cities utilizing ASIST to electronically file their NPDES Phase II report each year. 31? BUDGET IMPACT The cost of the ASIST Software suite is $3,495. Funds are available in the Storm Water Utility Fund to support this purchase. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the purchase of the ASIST Software Suite for the amount of $3,495. Respectfully Submitted, ~flt~ Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file ..3/6" City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farJ11ington.mn.us TO: Mayor & Councilmembers FROM: Ed Shukle, City Administrator SUBJECT: Supplemental Agenda DATE: March 3, 2003 It is requested that the March 3, 2003 agenda be amended as follows: CONSENT AGENDA ADD: 7 (g) School and Conference - Fire Department . Firefighters are planning attendance at the Minnesota State Fire and Rescue School in Alexandria and Rochester. Respectfully submitted, .)J Ed Shukle City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ?J t\ TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator FROM: Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief SUBJECT: School and Conference - Fire Department DATE: March 3,2003 INTRODUCTION The Fire Department is planning attendance at the Minnesota State Fire and Rescue School. DISCUSSION Bill Sauber will be attending the school in Alexandria. The school will be held March 15-16, 2003. Topics covered include Fire Department relations with townships, incident command, rapid intervention teams. Terry Verch, Bob Ellingsworth, and Tom Hemish will be attending the school in Rochester. The school will be held AprilS - 6, 2003. Topics covered include equipment technology, fire pump operations, and advanced pump operations. BUDGET IMPACT Approved in the 2003 Budget. ACTION REOUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, V // - /;~''-'" /) u'C:JG:. .:..cL/ c:_.-J Ken Kuchera Fire Chief 1)CL- City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: M C '1 b C' Ad" ):~ ayor, ounCI mem ers, lty mmlstrator FROM: Lee M. Mann, P .E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Consider Resolution - 2003 Seal Coat Project Public Hearing DATE: March 3, 2003 INTRODUCTION At the February 3, 2003 City Council meeting, the Council accepted the feasibility report and scheduled a public hearing for March 3, 2003, on the 2003 Seal Coat project. DISCUSSION The 2003 Seal Coat project is the tenth project in the City's seal coat program established by the City of Farmington in 1994. The seal coat program is implemented in a seven-year cycle. The streets indicated in Figure 1 and Attachment A are to be included in the seal coat program this year. The streets in East Farmington 5th and 6th Additions, Charleswood 2nd Addition, Nelsen Hills Farm 7th Addition and Euclid Street between Euclid Path and Upper 183rd Street West are to be seal coated for the first time this year. The streets in Dakota County Estates 6th through 8th Additions, Sunnyside Addition, Oak Street between 2nd Street and 4th Street, 3rd Street between Elm Street and Spruce Street and the municipal pool parking lot are scheduled to be seal coated this year. BUDGET IMPACT Several streets in the project area have already been assessed seal coating costs through their respective development contracts. The property owners benefiting from the improvements to the remaining streets would be assessed for the project costs pursuant to Minnesota Statute 429 and the City's Special Assessment Policy. The remainder ofthe costs would be funded through the Road and Bridge Fund. The total estimated project cost for the 2003 Seal Coat project is $91,050. The City's special assessment policy indicates a 50/50 cost sharing split between the City and the benefiting properties for seal coat improvements. The estimated assessment based on the estimated project costs and the City's special assessment policy is $65.04 per residential equivalent unit. 30<0 ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution ordering the 2003 Seal Coat project, approvmg the plans and specifications and authorizing the advertisement for bids. Respectfully submitted, ~ M 111~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file 3~1 RESOLUTION NO. R . -03 ORDERING PROJECT, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS PROJECT 03-02, 2003 SEAL COAT PROJECT Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 3rd day of March 2003 at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 3rd day of February 2003, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed 2003 Seal Coat Project; and, WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and two publications of the notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 3rd day of March, 2003, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, 1. Such improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report, and the improvement should be made as proposed and not in connection with any other improvement. 2. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the Council resolution adopted the 3rd day of February, 2003. 3. Plans and specifications prepared by Lee M. Mann, P.E., engineer for such improvement, are hereby approved and shall be filed with the City Clerk. 4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the Farmington Independent and the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the construction of such improvement under the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published no less than two weeks before the last day for submission of bids in the Farmington Independent and at least once in the Construction Bulletin. The advertisement shall specify the work to be done, shall state that the bids will be opened for consideration publicly at 2:00 p.m. on the 27th day of March, 2003 in the Council Chambers of the City Hall by two or more designated officers or agents of the municipality and tabulated in advance of the meeting at which they are to be considered by the Council, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the Clerk for 5% ofthe amount of each bid. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 3rd day of March 2003. Mayor Attested to the day of ,2003. City Administrator SEAL .3c:IO? Attachment A Streets 183rd Street West Elm Tree Circle Elkwood Avenue Lower 183 rd Street Upper 183rd Street West Echo Drive Edgewood Court 18Sth Street West Eldorado Way Embers Avenue Euclid Street 188th Street West Exclusive Path 189th Street West Excalibur Trail Evensong Avenue Everest Path Everhill Avenue Exchange Trail Executive Path Oak Street 3rd Street 12th Street 13th Street 14th Street Locust Street Larch Street Sunnyside Drive Sunnyside Circle Centennial Drive Centennial Court Centennial Circle Fairview Lane Fairview Circle Park Drive Heritage Way Lower Heritage Way 6th Street Location Embers Avenue to Echo Drive All Upper 183rd Street West to Emerald Trail Elkwood Avenue to Echo Drive Embers A venue to east phase line of Dakota Estates 7th Addition Edgewood Court to Emerald Trail All West phase line of Dakota Estates 8th Addition to Edgewood Court 18Sth Street West to Upper 183rd Street West North phase line of Dakota Estates 8th Addition to south phase line of Dakota Estates 8th Addition Euclid Path to Upper 183rd Street West Everest Path to west phase line of Nelsen Hills Farm 7th Addition 188th Street West to Everest Path Everest Path to west phase line of Nelsen Hills Farm 7th Addition 189th Street West to Everest Path North phase line of Charleswood 2nd Addition to south phase line of Charleswood 2nd Addition North phase line of Charles wood 2nd Addition to Evensong Avenue Everest path to west phase line of Charleswood 2nd Addition Everhill Avenue to south phase line of Charleswood 2nd Addition Everhill Avenue to south phase line of Charleswood 2nd Addition 2nd Street to 4th Street Elm Street to Spruce Street Walnut Street to Larch Street Walnut Street to Larch Street Walnut Street to Larch Street 11th Street to 14th Street 11 th Street to 14th Street Ash Street/C.R. 74 to Centennial Drive All All All All All All All All All Heritage Way to south phase line of Sunnyside Addition ~3 2003 SEAL COAT AREAS CSAH 50 PARKING LOTS & ALLEYS 1. 2003-SWIMMING POOL 2. 2004-RAM8L1NG RIVER - PINE & ELM ST 3. 2005-ALLEY SO. OF POST OFFICE 4. 2005-ALLEY SO. OF NEW L18RARY 5. 2005-ALLEY NO. OF VFW 6. 2006-RAM8L1NG RIVER - 8ALLFlELOS 7. 2006-ICE ARENA 8. 2006-FIRE STATION 9. 2007-ALLEY SO. OF ST. MICHAELS 10. 200B-SECOND STREET PARKING LOT 11. 200B-ALLEY NO. OF FGTN. LUTHERAN -"_.~..'_..,..,,~.,, ~ :b o Oli, ~:~. - . . ; ~ I FIGURE I ICITY OF FARMINGTONI 500 ....___4____....__ __...._.. _____-t o 1000 2000 3000 SCALE ~ "'- IOa--- City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Ed Shukle City Administrator SUBJECT: City Hall Task Force Report DATE: March 3,2003 INTRODUCTION The City Hall Task Force (CHTF) has been working since June 2002 on an analysis of City Hall and its future space needs. The CHTF reviewed the immediate, short-term and long-term needs of the City as it relates to city hall space requirements. DISCUSSION The CHTF has completed its report and will present it to the City Council this evening. Jim Gerster, Jr., Chair, CHTF, will be present to highlight the report and answer questions regarding the CHTF's analysis. BUDGET IMPACT For information only - no impact at this time. ACTION REQUESTED CHTF requests that the City Council review and consider the report and takes the report "under advisement" for subsequent action in the very near future. ...30?l./ CITY OF FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA CITY HALL TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MARCH 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Letter of Transmittal......................................................................................3 II. Introduction....................................................................................................4 III. Membership and Representation....................................................................5 IV. Task Force Meetings......................................................................................6 V. Review of Existing Facility and Space Needs ...............................................7 VI. Task Force Findings A. Space Needs.......................................................................................8 B. Site Options........................................................................................8 C. Methods of Financing ........................................................................12 VII. Summary A. Conc1usionslRecommendations....................................................... ..15 B. Acknowledgements........................................................................... .17 Vill. Appendix A. Program Summary ............................................................................ .18 B. CHTF Letter of Endorsement and Support........................................22 C. Meeting Minutes............................................................................... .24 2 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us March 3, 2003 Mayor and City Council City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Re: City Hall Task Force - Final Report Dear Mayor Ristow and Councilmembers: On behalf ofthe City of Farmington City Hall Task Force, I hereby transmit the final report on space needs requirements for Farmington City Hall. The report reviews the existing facility and projects current and future space needs as identified by the Task Force. The Task Force is planning to present the report at the regular City Council meeting of March 3, 2003. We ask that you review the report prior to that date. Representatives of the Task Force will be present at that meeting to answer questions, discuss comments and suggestions and to receive further direction from the City Council as you deem appropriate. The Task Force has spent many hours analyzing this subject. It has reached the conclusion that a new city hall would be in the best interests of all Farmington residents. As you read the report, we believe that you will reach the same conclusion. Thank you for the opportunity to serve on the Task Force. I have enjoyed meeting new people, learning about the services provided within the city hall building and understanding space need requirements of professionally competent city staff that provide the residents of Farmington critical municipal services at the lowest possible cost. We look forward to working with the City Council to further educate you on the importance of a new government center for the City of Farmington. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or any member of the City Hall Task Force. Sincerely, r.. ~ Jim ~ Chair City of Farmington City Hall Task Force Missioll Statemellt Through teamwork and cooperation. the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserve our proud past andfoster a promising future. INTRODUCTION In 1999, the City of Farmington directed that a citizen's task force be assembled to perform an independent study of City public facility needs. Public facilities, under study by the task force, included a central maintenance facility, law enforcement center, fire satellite station, outdoor athletic complex and city hall offices. Upon completion of the 1999 study, it was recommended that the immediate priorities were to construct new facilities for central maintenance and law enforcement. Subsequently, those projects were implemented and the City of Farmington now has two new "state ofthe art" facilities for central maintenance and police. In the fall of2001, City staff began holding discussions about the immediate, short-term and long-term needs of city hall. An assortment of future alternatives were discussed but the consistent theme running through these discussions was centralization v. decentralization of city hall facilities. Should City Hall be located in the downtown area at its present site? Should City Hall be located in the downtown area at a different site? Should City Hall be located elsewhere in the city? This subject matter was presented to the City Council in a workshop held February 20,2002. The City Council agreed with the information presented and directed the staff to assemble a task force to conduct a feasibility study regarding the space needs of a city hall facility. The feasibility study would include analyzing our various needs and would formulate recommendations that would be brought back to the City Council for further discussion and direction. We also discussed engaging the services of an architect to assist the task force in completing the feasibility study. At a subsequent regular City Council meeting, WOLD Architects and Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota, was authorized to work with the citizen's task force to assist in the feasibility study to develop plans, provide estimated costs, etc. The City Council did not predetermine the work of the task force. The only thing they requested from the task force is that the location of a city hall must remain in the downtown area. At the first meeting of the City Hall Task Force (CHTF), goals and objectives for the CHTF were identified: . Voice to Citizens . Preservation and/or Image . Preservation of City Functions . Long Range Plan Beyond 20 Years . Purpose of "City Hall" . Cost Appropriate . Appropriate Sites . Strengthen Downtown Neighborhood 4 MEMBERSHIP AND REPRESENTATION The City Hall Task Force (CHTF) was assembled with the idea that a cross section of community leaders, downtown businesses and citizens at large would be represented on the CHTF. In addition, City Management Team members also participated on the CHTF. The following is a list of voting and non-voting CHTF members: Jerry Ristow, Mayor, City of Farmington. Mayor Ristow has been the Mayor of the City of Farmington since 1997. Mayor Ristow serves as a representative from the City Council. Kevan Soderberg, Councilmember, City of Farmington. Councilmember Soderberg has been on the City Council since 1999. Mr. Soderberg serves as representative from the City Council. Jim Gerster, Jr., Downtown Business. Mr. Gerster is part owner in Gerster Jewelers located in downtown Farmington. Mr. Gerster serves as a representative from the Farmington business community and is Chair of the CHTF. Sarah Miller, Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Miller is employed at Anchor Bank, downtown Farmington. Ms. Miller serves as a representative from the Chamber of Commerce and is Vice- Chair of the CHTF. Ben Barker, Planning Commission. Mr. Barker serves as a representative from the City of Farmington Planning Commission. Cleota Epps, Interested Citizen. Ms. Epps represents the community at large. Darlene Grabowski, Interested Citizen. Ms. Grabowski represents the community at large. Jeff Krueger, Water Board. Mr. Krueger serves as representative from the City of Farmington Water Board. Wayne Lankford, Interested Citizen. Mr. Lankford represents the community at large. Randy Oswald, Park and Recreation Commission. Mr. Oswald serves as a representative from the City of Farmington Park and Recreation Commission. Tim Rice, Heritage Preservation Commission. Mr. Rice serves as representative from the City of Farmington Heritage Preservation Commission. Ron Thelen, Former Downtown Business Owner. Mr. Thelen formerly owned a downtown Farmington business and is now retired. Tuffy Westenberg, Former Downtown Business Owner. Mr. Westenberg formerly owned a downtown Farmington business and is now retired. 5 Michael Cox, WOLD Architects and Engineers. Mr. Cox is an architectural consultant to the CHTF. John McNamara, WOLD Architects and Engineers. Mr. McNamara is an architectural consultant to the CHTF. Brendan Stuckey, WOLD Architects and Engineers. Ed Shukle, City Administrator, City of Farmington. Robin Roland, Finance Director, City of Farmington. Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director, City of Farmington. Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer, City of Farmington. Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief, City of Farmington. Jim Bell, Director of Parks and Recreation, City of Farmington. Karen Finstuen, Former Administrative Services Director, City of Farmington. Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director, City of Farmington. Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director, City of Farmington. Cindy Muller, Executive Assistant, City of Farmington. TASK FORCE MEETINGS June 12, 2002: Organizational structure of committee determined Future growth of city presented Existing facility deficiencies/tour July 22, 2002: Deficiencies of building mechanical and electrical systems presented Present and future staff growth presented August 26,2002: Future personnel reviewed Space needs presented Parking needs presented Agreement on need by CHTF Site objectives discussed and finalized by CHTF Potential tours determined September 24,2002: Existing site analyzed 6 New sites analyzed October 9, 2002: Tour of Lakeville City Hall October 15,2002: Cost of options presented Financing methods presented November 19,2002: Advantages and disadvantages of options Compare benefits of each option Project recommendation - Site option and financing method December 3, 2002: Preliminary draft of final report reviewed Final report approved for presentation to City Council Continued involvement by CHTF in project REVIEW OF EXISTING FACILITY AND SPACE NEEDS The 1999 Public Facilities Task Force identified several issues regarding the existing city hall facility: . City Council Chambers lacks adequate space for public meetings i.e., congested presentation area, lack of seating space for public and staff, etc. . Insufficient storage for on-site records, supplies and materials . Inadequate ventilation, circulation and support areas for users . Lack of adequate conference/community rooms . Inadequate parking for customers, staff and city vehicles . Inadequate office and work space for city staff . Lack of adequate security control mechanisms due to physical structure limitations . Department areas lack separation and customer reception space The current CHTF agreed that the above issues are still applicable and has identified additional problems with the existing city hall facility: . Unable to display community projects in public lobby due to lack of space . Fragmentation of departments and staff from managers . Lack of secure space for sensitive files . Not enough space for expected growth . Office cubicle panel height does not provide sound barriers nor do they encourage teamwork . Copy room is too small . Noisy department reception areas . Electrical capacity inadequate The CHTF also identified problems associated with the current city hall site - limited expansion possibilities and confusing entry and parking configuration. 7 Based upon the above deficiencies, the CHTF determined a need for a city hall improvement project. It was the desire of the CHTF to further investigate options regarding an addition/expansion project or to consider a new building for city hall. Thus, the CHTF requested that the architect develop options that would address the above issues and concerns. TASK FORCE FINDINGS Soace Needs In order to adequately address the deficiencies listed above, the architect, in conjunction with the city's Management Team, presented information indicating the number of personnel currently operating within the existing city hall facility and projected staff increases for the year 2020. This line of thinking was based upon a population projection of 27,000 or 2020, whichever was to occur first. This was the same rationale that was used in the planning ofthe new Police Department facility located at 195th Street and Pilot Knob Road. It was determined that the city of Farmington's personnel would increase to 52 full-time employees from its present 33 that work in city hall. It was then suggested that in order to house the increased number of employees, the facility would have to be expanded to 26,450 square feet. Currently, the total square footage of city hall is 12,650. (See Appendix A, Program Summary dated August 20, 2002). Site Ootions As a result of this discussion, several alternatives were reviewed and considered by the CHTF but only three were identified for further study: Facility Option #1 - Addition to the existing city hall and site at 325 Oak Street Facility Option #2 - New building on the existing site at 325 Oak Street Facility Option #3 - New building at Third Street and Spruce Street (HRA property, formerly the location of the Dakota County Tribune) 8 Site Option Advantages I Disadvantages Option #1 - Addition to the Existing Building -I L en "C M --- ACQUIRED LAND Advantages: . Re-uses existing materials and resources. . Site allows good access from three different streets. . Promotes good neighbor relationships by minimizing expansive parking areas. Disadvantages: . Significant effort for potentially compromised functionality. . Further site and building expansion is constrained. . Existing building that would remain lacks a strong first impression/City Hall image. . Services and staff would be disrupted during construction. . Acquisition of additional sites includes an operating business. 9 Option #2 - Construct a New building on the Existing Site (i5 "0 M ~ ACQUIRED LOT Oak St. DEMO EXISTING CITY HALL ii5 .r: ~ Advantages: . New construction allows for a high degree of functionality. . Potential for a strong first impression/City Hall image. . Site allows good access from three different streets. . Adequate visitor and staff parking. Disadvantages: . Services and staff need to be relocated during construction. . This option is slightly more costly. . Acquisition of additional sites includes an operating business. 10 Option #3 - New Building at Third and Spruce Streets --~ Oak SI. EXISTING CITY HALL /i: '"0 tV ./ ..; -Q: ,it iJ u5 "0 00 NEW 2-STORY HALL ===mu -~---~7\ - . I i i Spruce SI. Advantages: . New construction allows for a high degree of functionality. . Location would strengthen the downtown core. . Adjacency to the senior center and public library is beneficial. . Has a user-friendly orientation. . Options for a strong first impression/City Hall image. . Service and staff would not be disrupted during construction. . Adjacency to the existing Municipal parking lot would be beneficial. . Slightly less cost than other options. Disadvantages: . Proximity to the railroad tracks. . Future expansion may be limited. . On-site parking is more limited than the other options. 11 COST SUMMARY Construction Costs Facility Facility Facility Option #1 Option #2 Option #3 Addition to Existing New Building, New Building, Existing Site Third & Spruce New Construction Area 13,850 SF 26,450 SF 26,450 SF Cost per sq.ft. $190/SF $160/SF $160/SF Subtotal New Construction $2,631,500 $4,232,000 $4,232,000 Renovation Area 12,650 $120/SF Subtotal Renovation $1,518,000 Total Construction Cost $4,149,500 $4,232,000 $4,232,000 Proiect Costs Architectural Fees $290,465 $296,240 $296,240 Arch Reimbursables $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Bid Set Printing $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Construction Contingency $414,950 $423,200 $423,200 Geotechnical $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Survey $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 Special Testing $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Furniture $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 Equipment $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Builders Risk Insurance $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Site Development $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Subtotal Project Cost $1,368,415 $1,382,440 $1,382,440 Total Project Cost $5,517,915 $5,614,440 $5,614,440 Project Cost Factor 1.32 1.32 1.32 Cost per square foot $208.62 $212.27 $212.27 12 Facility Facility Facility Option #1 Option #2 Option #3 Addition to New Building, New Building, Existing Existing Site Third & Spruce Assumed Miscellaneous Costs Land Acquisition Assumptions $300,000 $300,000 $250,000 Building Demolition Estimate $140,000 $290,000 $130,000 Temporary Occupancy Costs $216,000 $216,000 Moving Costs $40,000 $40,000 $20,000 Total Cost (Including above) $6,213,915 $6,460,440 $6,014,440 Adjusted cost per square foot $234.93 $244.25 $227.39 Program Option 1 Cost to add a 2,000 SF Additional Space: New Construction Area 2,000 2,000 2,000 Cost per SF $208.62 $212.26 $212.26 Subtotal Option Cost $417,240 $424,520 $424,520 Total Project Cost - $6,631,155 $6,884,960 $6,438,960 Program Option One Program Option 2 Cost to add a 3,000 SF Additional Space: New Construction Area 3,000 3,000 3,000 Cost per SF $208.62 $212.26 $212.26 Subtotal Option Cost $625,860 $636,780 $636,780 Total Project Cost - $6,839,775 $7,097,220 $6,651,220 Program Option Two 13 Facility Facility Facility Option #1 Option #2 Option #3 Addition to New Building, New Building, Existing Existing Site Third & Spruce Program Option 3 Cost to add a 6,000 SF Additional Space: New Construction Area 6,000 6,000 6,000 Cost per SF $208.62 $212.26 $212.26 Subtotal Option Cost $1,251,720 $1,273,560 $1,273,560 Total Project Cost - $7,465,635 $7,734,000 $7,288,000 Program Option Three Methods of Financim! Financing the construction of a new city hall facility would be achieved by the issuance of debt (municipal bonds). Municipal debt options are controlled by State Statute. For a facility of this type, the two available options are: I)Voter approved General Obligation Bonds or 2) Lease Revenue Bonds. Voter approved General Obligation (GO) Bonds require that an election be held and voters approve the issuance ofthe bonds to construct the project. At issuance, GO Bonds normally command lower interest rates than Lease Revenue Bonds due to the perceived amount of risk. However, the difference in rates is normally no more than .25%. Once issued, the debt is repaid by an annual tax levy based upon the market value of the properties in the community. The result is the shift of the tax burden to residential properties. Lease Revenue Bonds are issued by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). The HRA then "owns" the building and leases it to the City. The City must annually appropriate funds (tax levy) to pay the lease (debt service payment). This tax levy is based upon the tax capacity valuation and does not shift the burden to residential properties. Lease Revenue bond regulations require a debt service reserve be maintained by the authority. This reserve must be equal to the amount of the final year of debt service on the bonds. The reserve is normally held in an interest bearing account by a third party trustee. Minnesota Statutes Section 475.53 regulates the amount of debt a City can incur. Several types of debt are exempt from consideration under this statute, but both GO and Lease Revenue Bonds would be included in the City's debt limit. The limit is determined by computing 2% of the taxable market value of all property in the City. Currently, the City of Farmington's debt limit 14 (2003) is $17,197,488. The amount of outstanding debt subject to the limit is currently $6,763,371, leaving $10,434,117 in debt capacity for the issuance of bonds for a new city hall. The statutory debt limit changes each year as debt is retired and/or issued and as market value increases. Ample debt capacity currently exists to issue bonds in the amount necessary for the proposed facility. Over the past 10 years, Lease Revenue Bonds have become the most common tool for financing construction of essential city facilities. Information from Ehlers and Associates, Inc., reflects this trend on their listing of bonds issued for similar city projects: 81 issues of Lease Revenue Bonds to 29 issues of voter approved GO Bonds. SUMMARY As discussed in the Introduction to this report, the process for reviewing the needs for city facilities began in 1999 when a task force was authorized by the City Council to perform an independent study of the city's central maintenance, law enforcement, fire satellite station, outdoor athletic complex and city hall offices. As discussed the central maintenance facility and law enforcement facilities were directed to move forward and subsequent implementation was completed in early Fall, 2002. In late 2001, discussions began on the immediate, short-term and long-term needs of city hall. The City Council agreed that another task force be created to study this subject and to bring back recommendations in late 2002 or early 2003. The CHTF began meeting in the summer of2002 and held monthly meetings. A listing of those meetings and what was discussed was detailed earlier in this report. The CHTF also had a tour of Lakeville City Hall to gain a further understanding of what to consider in planning for a city hall facility. The basic format for the CHTF to follow was an "options based planning" effort aimed at agreeing on needs, knowing the facts, developing a consensus on an appropriate solution(s) and presenting that information to the City Council for deliberation and subsequent action. The CHTF concluded its meeting schedule in December, 2002 with this final report which contains the findings and recommendations of the CHTF. ConclusionslRecommendations The study and planning process addressed two basic options: 1) Remodeling and expanding existing City Hall and 2) Building a new facility at the existing site or at another downtown location. The CHTF concluded that there are too many deficiencies with the existing city hall facility to do nothing. They concluded that there is a definite need for a city hall project. They further concluded that based upon the continued growth of the city of Farmington, the projected increases in staff until the Year 2020 to address the increased level of services and the total 15 project cost of making such improvements, remodeling and expanding the existing City Hall is not the appropriate solution. Therefore, the CHTF focused its analysis on building a new facility either at the existing site or at another downtown location. As discussed earlier, Facility Option #2 and #3 detailed several advantages and disadvantages. Although Facility Option #2 had some great advantages, the need for additional property (acquisition and relocation of a major downtown business) to accomplish the ideal layout and design of the facility would be cost prohibitive. The CHTF was particularly intrigued by Facility Option #3. The City, through its HRA, currently owns the parcel ofland at the corner of Third Street and Spruce Street. This option does call for the purchase of some additional property to the west but not as costly as what is anticipated within Facility Option #2. Facility Option #3 allows city hall to be in more of a central location within the downtown area i.e., close distance to the public library, senior citizens center, etc. With such a relocation, the existing city hall becomes a possible business opportunity for office and/or retail space. It is also the least costly of all three options considered. In conclusion, the CHTF has determined that Facility Option #3 is the most appropriate option to pursue in the implementation of a new city hall facility project. Officially, the CHTF, at its meeting of November 19,2002, adopted the following as its recommendation to the City Council regarding the city hall facility project: MOTION by Oswald, second by Grabowski, to choose Facility Option #3 as it enables the City Hall to remain stable during construction and acts as an anchor for the downtown area, puts all government services together - the City Hall, Senior Center and library and allows for the redevelopment of the current City Hall. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. With regard to the financing options for a city hall project, the CHTF did review both Voter Approved General Obligation Bonds and Lease Revenue Bonds. The CHTF adopted the following as its recommendation regarding financing of a new City Hall: MOTION by Westenberg, second by Oswald, to recommend lease revenue bonds. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Letter of Endorsement and Support The CHTF believes that it is important that it formalize its endorsement and support for a new city hall project. Please refer to Appendix B for a letter signed by the members ofthe CHTF which reaffirms the above conclusions and recommendations. 16 Acknowlede:ments The CHTF thanks the City Council for allowing them to serve on this very important task force. They are also grateful to the Management Team and WOLD Architects and Engineers for all of its technical assistance and guidance through the study process. The CHTF is interested in continuing its involvement in future phases of the project. They wish to continue to meet periodically to allow for input and to be informed of the project's progress. By doing so, the CHTF hopes to assure continued community input and involvement. As a final note, the CHTF believes that a new city hall, in terms of architectural design, should include a history of Farmington. 17 APPENDIX A City of Farminqton Program Summary Administration City Administrator Administrative Services Manager Executive Assistant Secretary Receptionist (Shared Space) Public Communications Administrative Assistant Administration Staff Finance Finance Director . Utility Billing Clerk Accounts Payable Accountant Assistant Finance Director Payroll Finance Staff Human Resources Human Resources Human Resources Assistant MIS staff Human Resources Staff Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Director Recreation Supervisor Recreation Programmer Receptionist Multi-Purpose Room Natural Resources Staff Parks and Recreation Staff Community Development Planning and Zoning Community Development Building Inspection Services Support Staff Fire Marshal Community Development Staff Staff Enoineerino City Engineer Assistant City Engineer Civil Engineer Technician Administrative Assistant Interns Secretary Engineering Staff Total Staff Page 18 Wold Architects and Enqineers August 20, 2002 Present Staff Staff 2020 1 j 1 1 2 o o 6 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 o o 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 o o 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 1/2 1/2 o o 4 1 2 4 1 o 1 9 2 1 3 2 1 9 4 1 4 2 1 12 1 1 2 1 1 3 o 9 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 12 33 52 City of Farminqton Wold Architects and Enqineers Program Summary August 20, 2002 Present Existing Staff Program Staff Area 2020 2020 Administration City Administrator 1 210 SF" 1 250 SF" Administrative Services Manager 1 102 SF* 1 150 SF* Executive Assistant 1 55 SF 1 80 SF Secretary 1 55 SF 1 64 SF Receptionist (Shared Space) 2 112 SF 3 200 SF Public Communications .0 o SF 1 64 SF Administrative Assistant 0 o SF 1 64 SF File Storage 0 10 SF 0 180 SF Copy Room (Shared wi Finance & HR) 0 68 SF* 0 200 SF* Conference Room 0 o SF 0 350 SF* Subtotal Administration 6 .612 SF 9 1,602 SF Department Net to Gross Factor x 1.6 x 1.4 Total Gross Square Footage Administration 979 SF 2,243 SF Finance Finance Director 1 102 SF* 1 150 SF* Utility Billing Clerk 1 80 SF 1 64 SF Accounts Payable 1 80 SF 1 64 SF Accountant 1 80 SF 1 64 SF Assistant Finance Director 0 o SF 1 80 SF Payroll 0 o SF 1 64 SF File Storage 0 10 SF 0 180 SF Conference Room 0 o SF 0 350 SF* Subtotal Finance 4 352 SF 6 1016 SF Department Net to Gross Factor x 1.6 x 1.4 Total Gross Square Footage Finance 563 SF 1,422 SF Human Resources Human Resources 1 102 SF* 1 150 SF* Human Resources Assistant 0 o SF 1 80 SF MIS staff (2@ 80SF) 0 o SF 2 160 SF Computer Rooml Set-Up 0 40 SF 0 150 SF* Conference Room 0 o SF 0 350 SF* File Storage 0 o SF 0 180 SF Subtotal Human Resources 1 142 SF 4 1,070 SF Department Net to Gross Factor x 1.2 x 1.4 Toatl Gross Square Footage Human Resources 170 SF 1,498 SF Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Director 1 96 SF* 1 150 SF* Recreation Supervisor (2@ 100SF) Existing: 1@ 96SF 1 96 S F* 2 200 S F* Recreation Programmer (4@ 64SF) 1 1/2 o SF 4 256 SF Receptionist 1/2 o SF 1 64 SF Equipment Storage 0 o SF 0 150SF* Multi-Purpose Room 0 o SF 0 350 SF* Natural Resources Staff 0 o SF 1 64 SF Parks and Recreation Storage 0 350 SF* 0 350 SF* Subtotal Parks and Recreation 4 542 SF 9 1,584 SF Department Net to Gross Factor x 1.2 x 1.4 Total Gross Square Footage Parks and Recreation 650 SF 2,218 SF Page19 City of Farminqton Wold Architects and Enqineers Program Summary August 20, 2002 Present Existing Staff Program Staff Area 2020 2020 Community Development Planning and Zoning (2@ 120SF) Existing:(2@ 112SF) 2 224 SF 2 240 SF* Planning and Zoning (2@ 120SF) 0 o SF 2 240 SF Community Development 1 180 S F* 1 180 SF* Building Inspection Services (4.@ 64SF) Existing 3@ 60SF) 3 180 SF 4 256 SF Support Staff (2@ 80S F) Existing 2 share 125SF 2 125 SF 2 160 SF Fire Marshal 1 60 SF 1 64 SF Filel Work Space 0 30 SF 0 200 SF Conference Room 0 o SF 0 350 S F* Mud Rooml Changing Room 0 o SF 0 120 SF* Subtotal Community Development 9 799 SF 12 1,810 SF Department Net to Gross Factor x 1.2 x 1.4 Total Gross Square Footage Community Development 959 SF 2,534 SF EnQineerinQ City Engineer 1 180 SF* 1 180 S F* Assistant City Engineer 1 85 SF* 1 120 SF* Civil Engineer (2@ 120SF) Existing: 2@ 112SF 2 224 SF 2 240 SF* Technician (3@ 120SF) Existing: 1@ 49SF 1 49 SF 3 360 SF Administrative Assistant 1 49 SF 1 80 SF Interns 3 o SF 3 120 SF Secretary 0 o SF 1 64 SF Storage 0 130 SF 0 250 SF Filel Work Space 0 30 SF 0 200 SF Copyl Work Room (Shared wi PIR and P/Z) 0 125 SF 0 200 SF* Conference Room 0 o SF 0 350 SF* Subtotal Engineering. 9 872 SF 12 2,164 SF Department Net to Gross Factor x 1.4 x 1.4 Total Gross Square Footage Engineering 1,221 SF 3,030 SF Shared Spaces Conference Room "A" 0 306 SF* 0 350 SF* Confernece Room "B" 0 180 SF* 0 350 S F* Council Room 0 643 SF* 0 2,500 SF* Kitchenl Lunch Room 0 279 SF* 0 600 SF* Public Lobby 0 124 SF* 0 1,500 SF* Lactation/Quiet/Soft Conference Room 0 o SF 0 120SF* Public Restrooms (2@ 330SF) 0 211 SF* 0 660 SF* Staff Restrooms (2@ 120SF) 0 228 SF* 0 240 SF* Police Station 0 2,642 SF* 0 o SF Video Control Room 0 80 S F* 0 180 S F* Subtotal Shared Spaces 0 4,613 SF 0 6,500 SF Department Net to Gross Factor x 1.3 x 1.4 Total Gross Square Footage Shared Spaces 5,997 SF 9,100 SF . Building Subtotal 33 10,540 SF 52 22,044 SF Net to Gross Factor (Circulation and Mechanical) x 1.2 x 1.2 Total Gross Square Footage 12,648 SF 26,453 SF Page20 City of Farminqton Wold Architects and Enqineers Program Summary August 20, 2002 Present Existing Staff Program Staff Area 2020 2020 Option 1: Production Studio Sound Room 0 o SF 0 300 SF" Studio 0 o SF 0 500 SF" Subtotal Option 1 0 o SF 0 800 SF Department Net to Gross Factor 0 1.4 Total Gross Square Footage Option 1 o SF 1,120 SF Option 2: Future Space Future Space 0 o SF ? 2.000 SF* Subtotal Option 2 0 o SF ? 2,000 SF* Department Net to Gross Factor 0 1.4 Total Gross Square Footage Option 2 o SF 2,800 SF* Building Total Gross Square Footage Option1 Total Gross Square Footage Option 2 Total Gross Square Footage 33 12,648 SF o SF o SF 12,648 SF 52 26,453 SF 1,120 SF 2,800 SF 30,373 SF Page i2 1 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us March 3, 2003 Mayor and City Council City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Re: Letter of Endorsement and Support - City Hall Project Dear Mayor Ristow and Councilmembers: The City Hall Task Force (CHTF) wishes to convey to you its endorsement and support for a new City Hall. After many hours of meetings, review and examination of the issues surrounding this project, the CHTF has reached the conclusion that there is a need for a new City Hall. The CHTF agrees with the City Council that City Hall remain in Farmington's downtown area. Preserving a community's heritage by keeping its local government center in the heart of the community is of utmost importance. Based upon the continued growth of the city, it is very apparent that the number of staff needed to service this growth must increase. The current facility is not capable of providing for the many offices and people that will be required. Other deficiencies that are mentioned within our report demonstrate that our city needs a new municipal center. We firmly believe that we have identified the need for a new city hall facility. Moreover, we believe that we have identified a facility option that will meet the needs of our community for the next 20-25 years. We appreciate the opportunity to serve on the CHTF. Please review and consider our findings, conclusions and recommendations. We hope you will agree that this project is needed and will begin the process of implementation as soon as possible. Sincerely, Members ofthe City Hall Task Force City of Farmington, Minnesota Missioll Statemellt Through teamwork and cooperation. the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserve our proud past andfoster a promising future. ~P- /~f2.~ ~ ~ /l~h/ City Hall Task Force Minutes June 12, 2002 Mayor Ristow called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Mayor Ristow; Councilmember Soderberg; Tim Rice, Heritage Preservation Commission; Randy Oswald, Parks and Recreation Commission; Ben Barker, Planning Commission; Sarah Miller, Chamber of Commerce; Jim Gerster, Jr., Gersters Jewelry; Tuffy Westenberg, former downtown business owner; Ron Thelen, former downtown business owner; Cleota Epps, interested citizen; Darlene Grabowski, interested citizen; Wayne Lankford, interested citizen; Michael Cox, Wold Architects; John McNamara, Wold Architects; Ed Shukle, City Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief; Jim Bell, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, City Engineer; Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Manager; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Absent: Jeff Krueger, Water Board Sarah Miller was elected as Chair, and Jim Gerster as Vice-Chair. Ed Shukle discussed the mission ofthe Task Force, which is to review the immediate, short-term and long-term needs ofthe city hall facility. One parameter that everyone agreed on is that the city hall should remain in the downtown area. Wold Architects will be assisting the Task Force. Once the Task Force has completed its duties, a final report will be prepared for the City Council. Michael Cox discussed the objectives of the study, which include determining the amount of future staff, improvements to the current building, other sites, costs of options, criteria, create a vision for the future building, and other uses of the building. The Task Force will need to reach an agreement on options and therefore have a sense of ownership in the project. The Task Force will need to look for expansion for the long-term. A concern of the Heritage Preservation Commission is the aesthetics of a new building. It will be up to the city to determine how far the task force will go with this project. The task force will not be actually designing a building, but will do a diagram, decide how a building will fit on a particular site, and how the building will function. The task force decided on the following goals and objectives: 1. Preservation and/or image 2. Understanding of city functions 3. Long range plan beyond 20 years 4. Consider flood plain 5. Purpose of "City Hall" 6. Voice to the citizens 7. Cost appropriate 8. What are appropriate sites? 9. What option benefits city's downtown? Financing options and site options were discussed. Suggestions for site options included 3rd and Spruce Street, area towards old Tom Thumb on Hwy 50, old Post Office, current block of city hall location using open space by Gossips for parking. Future meeting dates are as follows: Monday, July 22 Monday,i\ugust26 Tuesday, September 24 Meetings will be held at 7 p.m. at City Hall. The Task Force toured City Hall and adjourned at approximately 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 7~~~;'/ Yr7,-~lt?v Cynthia Muller Executive i\ssistant City Hall Task Force Minutes July 22, 2002 1. Call to Order Chairperson Sarah Miller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Mayor Ristow, Councilmember Soderberg, Jim Gerster, Jr., Sarah Miller, Ben Barker, Darlene Grabowski, Jeff Krueger, Wayne Lankford, Tim Rice, Ron Thelen, Tuffy Westenberg, Michael Cox, John McNamara, Denise Steinberg, Ed Shukle, Robin Roland, Kevin Carroll, Lee Mann, Jim Bell, Karen Finstuen, Brenda Wendlandt, Cynthia Muller Absent: Cleota Epps, Randy Oswald, Dan Siebenaler 2. Appointment of Jim Gerster, Jr. as Chair and Sarah Miller as Vice-Chair MOTION by Westenberg, second by Thelen to appoint Jim Gerster, Jr. as Chair and Sarah Miller as Vice-Chair. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Approve Minutes MOTION by Barker, second by Grabowski approving the minutes ofthe June 12, 2002 meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Review of Goals and Objectives Michael Cox reviewed the goals and objectives established at the last meeting. 5. Further Discussion of Goals and Objectives There were no additions or deletions to the goals and objectives. 6. Existing City Hall Facility Tour Review - Michael Cox presented a list of deficiencies for the facility and the current site. The task force requested numbers be assigned to the deficiencies, such as current square footage and amount needed, future number of employees, and the amount of space available on the site. The task force needs to look at deficiencies and future growth; they go hand in hand. The task force should concentrate on the existing site for now. Mayor Ristow asked if the current site has enough square footage? Mr. Cox stated there is potential, however the city would have to acquire neighboring properties. The task force asked if there were any departments that would be better suited to be located outside of City Hall, such as the Police facility and Central Maintenance facility. Staff replied everyone that is currently located in City Hall needs to stay in City Hall. Mechanical and Electrical Analysis - John McNamara had reviewed the mechanical and electrical systems of the current City Hall. It was built in 1968, and has been remodeled since that time. The mechanical system has been modified minimally to handle the remodeling. The site is located downtown with limited parking, and is overcrowded for handling meetings. The parking lots have been patched and overlayed and are in need of replacing. The building is in compliance with the handicap accessibility code. The carpet needs replacing, but overall the building is in good shape. Life Safety Analysis - The current City Hall does need a better fire alarm system. The mechanical systems are the original systems and need to be replaced. Current building codes must meet air quality standards. The electrical system is ok for now. If the building is expanded, the electrical system would also need to be expanded. Options are to bring in a new system for the expansion or replace the system entirely. There is no sprinkling system. The building does contain a small generator. The light fixtures are not energy efficient, and should be replaced. The building is adequate for today. Staff Growth - There are currently 33 employees located in City Hall. By 2020 it is estimated this will increase to 52 employees. The breakdown is as follows: Administration - from 6 to 9 employees, adding a receptionist, public communications and an administrative assistant Finance - from 4 to 6 employees, adding an assistant finance director and payroll clerk Human Resources - from 1 to 4 employees, adding a human resources assistant and MIS staff Parks and Recreation - from 4 to 9 employees, adding a recreation supervisor, recreation programmer, receptionist, and natural resources staff Community Development - from 9 to 12 employees, adding support staff and a building inspector Engineering - from 9 to 12 employees, adding technicians and a secretary These numbers are from staffs best estimate for 20 years out. The estimated population in 2020 is 27,000. Staff looked at what staffing will be needed to serve this size population. At times, employees have requested equipment to enhance their work, rather than adding employees. When estimating these numbers, management considered service needs for turnaround time, and were very conservative with the staff numbers. 7. Other Business City Administrator Shukle asked if the task force would like to tour other City Hall facilities. Staff suggested Prior Lake, Cottage Grove, and White Bear Lake as these cities would also have an estimated population of 27,000. Some task force members agreed a tour would be helpful, and others would rather see plans and numbers on paper. Michael Cox stated the task force is charged with directing a process and informing Council. It would be helpful to tour one or two facilities. A layout with square footage of the facility prior to the tour would be helpful. Michael Cox will obtain a case history of facilities to be toured. 8. Next Meeting - At the next meeting the case history of other cities will be reviewed. Wold will supply the square footage of Farmington's existing City Hall for comparison. The September 24 meeting will be held at the Police facility. 9. Adjourn MOTION by Thelen, second by Westenberg to adjourn at 8:15 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted /" .. _. ..... //"? f~';.../)7 7G~--L~ cCynthia Muller Executive Assistant City Hall Task Force Minutes August 26, 2002 1. Call to Order Vice-Chair Jim Gerster, Jr. called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Councilmember Soderberg, Jim Gerster, Jr., Ben Barker, Cleota Epps, Jeff Krueger, Wayne Lankford, Randy Oswald, Tim Rice, Ron Thelen, Tuffy Westenberg, Michael Cox, John McNamara, Ed Shukle, Robin Roland, Kevin Carroll, Lee Mann, Dan Siebenaler, Jim Bell, Karen Finstuen, Brenda Wendlandt, Cynthia Muller Absent: Mayor Ristow, Sarah Miller, Darlene Grabowski 2. Approve Minutes MOTION by Thelen, second by Lankford approving the minutes of the July 22,2002 meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Review Goals and Objectives The Task Force agreed to remove Consider Flood Plain from the goals and objectives. It was suggested to keep City Hall in the downtown area and in it's current building, as it was felt there were not many options in the downtown area. 4. Review Meeting Summaries Michael Cox reviewed the meeting summaries, which serves as an outline of where the Task Force has been and topics for future meetings. 5. August Meeting Items Future personnel - There is currently personnel for 6 major departments occupying City Hall. The current staff is 33 and is projected at 52 employees for 2020 or a population of 27,000. Space needs - The Task Force reviewed current staff space and the amount of space needed for future staff, storage, conference rooms, and council room. Each department head explained how their additional space would be used. It was agreed to add space for a visitor's office to be used by staff from other facilities, or Council. In addition to shared spaces listed, it was discussed to add a community room to be used by residents and civic groups. This would increase amount of space and need a suburban site rather than a downtown site. Staffing would also have to be considered. The lobby could be made smaller to allow space for a community room, or some conference room space could be used. It was also brought up that the school district has auditoriums that could be used for meetings, rather than providing space in City Hall. Regarding the size of the Council room, it was suggested to arrange a conference room and the lobby to open up for extra council room space. More restroom space was suggested. The need for a production studio is being reviewed. The Task Force agreed with the architect's space numbers. 6. Site Planning Objectives Following are the site planning objectives: Strengthen downtown neighborhood Good neighbor relationship(s) Good access Orientation for user friendly usage Adequate visitor and staff parking Future need considerations First impressions Appropriate image Site large enough for City Hall Potential to create a highly functional City Hall Ease of acquisition Parking is based on the number of staff plus 1 stall for each 250 sf. of building area, which comes to 180-185 parking stalls. On-street parking would need to be considered for a downtown site. Suggestions for staff parking included the 2nd Street parking lot or a parking ramp. Acquiring neighboring lots was discussed, and whether Hwy 50 would be expanded to 4 lanes. Future routes such as 108th Street to Pilot Knob could alleviate some traffic on Hwy 50. Potential tours - September 17 and October 9 were suggested dates for touring other facilities, as these dates would be one week prior to the next meeting. Suggested locations included Apple Valley and Lakeville. Comments were as follows: Hard to compare Farmington with Apple Valley. Apple Valley would be shown because of the building's features. Some features could be used from each facility that is toured. It would be helpful to see plans of the building before the tour. The Farmington Police facility could be reviewed during the September 24 meeting, and tour Lakeville in October. Members would like to see a city hall that has been remodeled. 7. Establish Meeting Schedule September 24, 7:00 p.m., Farmington Police Facility October 9, tour Lakeville facility (tentative) October 15, 7:00 p.m., Farmington City Hall November 19, 7:00 p.m., Farmington City Hall 8. Adjourn MOTION by Epps, second by Thelen, to adjourn at 9:15 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, -;' c' ~,7 ,~" ." ,-' ".., {~.e,;i..., /Y7~k~-U CCynthia Muller Executive Assistant City Hall Task Force Minutes September 24, 2002 1. Call to Order Chair Jim Gerster, Jr. called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Jim Gerster, Jr., Councilmember Soderberg, Darlene Grabowski, Jeff Krueger, Wayne Lankford, Randy Oswald, Tim Rice, Ron Thelen, Michael Cox, Ed Shukle, Robin Roland, Kevin Carroll, Lee Mann, Dan Siebenaler, Jim Bell, Karen Finstuen, Cynthia Muller Absent: Mayor Ristow, Sarah Miller, Ben Barker, Cleota Epps, Tuffy Westenberg, John McNamara, Brenda Wendlandt 2. Approve Minutes MOTION by Oswald, second by Lankford approving the minutes of the August 26, 2002 meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. A question was raised regarding the Community Room and if included in City Hall, how it would affect the site location. The room would be used for overflow for larger meetings. It was suggested there is no need for a Community Room as there is available space at the library, schools, etc. Currently the Boy Scouts, AA, and MADD use city facilities for meetings. If included in the plans, the Community Room would have a separate outside entrance for other organizations. 3. Review Goals and Objectives Site planning objectives were discussed and how City Hall will function. If a single-level building is proposed, the necessary areas would be a public lobby, Administration, Finance, Human Resources, Parks and Recreation, Engineering, Community Development, Council Room, and shared spaces. If a multi-level building is proposed, it was suggested the main level include a public lobby, Administration, Finance, Human Resources, Parks and Recreation, Council Room and shared spaces. The upper level could include a public lobby, Engineering, Community Development, and shared spaces. 4. Review Possible Sites Wold Architects presented 5 options for site locations and designs. 1. Renovate existing building by adding 2 additions, which would add 13,000 sf, for a total of 26,450 sf. There would be enough room for 94 parking stalls. The goal for the number of parking spaces would be 110 stalls - 1 stall per employee (53) plus 57 visitor parking stalls. According to code, any additional parking is not required, however, there would be parking available on Oak Street and the 2nd Street parking lot for evening meetings. Acquiring Farmington Printing and the comer house should be considered for additional parking space. If a renovation is done, it would need to be decided whether to do it in sections, or temporarily move City Hall to the Police and Maintenance facilities during construction. 2. Demolish the current City Hall for parking and build a new 2-story building where Farmington Printing and a house are located. This would provide 137 parking stalls. 3. Demolish the current City Hall, build a new 2-story building in the current location, and acquire Farmington Printing and the house for additional parking. It was suggested the building be turned to face Oak Street with parking in the back. This would provide 123 parking stalls. 4. Build a new 2-story building at the comer of3rd and Spruce Street. This site would have curb appeal with the building being built out to the curb and parking in back. This would provide 91 parking stalls, but is very close to the 2n Street parking lot. The current City Hall would be sold for retail/commercial use. It was suggested to build a ramp next to the current location for additional parking as a selling incentive. 5. Demolish the current City Hall, and build a new 2-story City Hall and 2-story parking ramp in the current location. A parking ramp would provide 128 parking stalls at a cost of$12,OOO/stall vs. $3,000/stall in a parking lot. Farmington Printing and the house could be acquired for future building expansion or additional parking. If Farmington Printing were acquired, they could move to the current HRA site on 3rd Street next to Gossips. The cost to the city would be to relocate the homeowner. Building on the comer of 3rd and Spruce would cause less disruption for relocating employees. The site is close to the library and senior center and could be viewed as a public service area. The Task Force decided to keep options 1,3, and 4, use option 5 as an extra, and toss out option 2. If the current site is used the issue of the well would need to be addressed. It could become part of a parking ramp. 5. Costs New construction costs are $145 - $160/sf. Renovation costs may differ. The shell of the current building is worth 20% of the building. Project costs are 1.3 times construction costs. Project costs include design fees, contingency, soil testing, furniture, equipment, and bonding. The total project cost would be $4,985,000 - $5,500,000 plus land acquisition and building demolition. Costs for options: Ramp Studio Future space +$1,500,000 - $2,250,000 +$210,000 - $235,000 +$525,000 - $585,000 6. Input/Comments on Options The issue of soil conditions was raised. The soil in the downtown area would be more sandy than the soil at the Police and Maintenance facilities, which was clay. There is the possibility of an oil pollutant at the downtown site. There was a Phase 1 environmental site report conducted for the downtown area which indicates there does not appear to be any soil contamination. Additional testing is needed to determine if there is contaminated water further below the site. At the 3rd and Spruce Street site, additional parking could be located at the grain elevator site. There is also space for future parking behind the library. It was suggested to consider a park or plaza area for seniors. Current plaza areas at the senior housing facilities are not used because residents like to be in front of the building where people are and close to the building for safety. Another item to consider is to include motor vehicle registration in City Hall. 7. Lakeville City Hall Tour A tour of Lakeville City Hall has been scheduled for October 9, at 7:00 p.m. Members should meet there. The tour is optional. 8. Other Business Police Chief Siebenaler took interested members on a tour of the Police facility. 9. Next Meeting The next meeting will be Tuesday, October 15, 7:00 p.m. at the Maintenance facility. Future meetings: November 19, 7:00 p.m., at City Hall 10. Adjourn MOTION by Thelen, second by Lankford to adjourn at 8:45 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~~;:?"7/g;J Executive Assistant City Hall Task Force Minutes October 15,2002 1. Call to Order Chair Jim Gerster, Jr. called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Jim Gerster, Jr., Sarah Miller, Ben Barker, Darlene Grabowski, Jeff Krueger, Randy Oswald, Tuffy Westenberg, Michael Cox, Ed Shukle, Robin Roland, Jim Bell, Karen Finstuen, Brenda Wendlandt, Cynthia Muller Absent: Mayor Ristow, Councilmember Soderberg, Cleota Epps, Wayne Lankford, Tim Rice, Ron Thelen, John McNamara, Kevin Carroll, Lee Mann, Dan Siebenaler Also Present: Shelley Eldridge, Ehlers and Associates 2. Approve Minutes MOTION by Krueger, second by Grabowski approving the minutes of September 24, 2002. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Reviewed Goals and Objectives Task Force members asked how the public is being informed. An article appeared in the newspaper when the task force was first established. Members discussed whether and when to inform the public on the progress of the task force. The article could contain where the task force is in the process, goals and objectives, and a timeline. A news release could be placed in the newspaper, newsletter, and the website. The task force was still in agreement on the goals and objectives. 4. Site Options - Cost Summary #1 - Current City Hall addition. The City would have to acquire additional property (Farmington Printing and a house). #2 - Tear down the current City Hall, buy Farmington Printing and the house, and build a 2-story City Hall. Both of these sites would involve moving employees to a temporary location. #3 - Building a 2-story building at 3rd and Spruce Street with additional parking. The 2nd Street parking lot and the library parking lot could be used for overflow parking. The City would acquire Blaha's. Site Option 1 Site Option 2 Site Option 3 Construction Cost $4,149,500 $4,232,000 $4,232,000 Proj ect Cost $5,492,915 $5,589,440 $5,589,440 Total Cost $6,148,915 $6,280,440 $5,929,440 There have been preliminary discussions with surrounding property owners. A discussion followed whether or not to contact property owners again. A discussion regarding price could potentially lock the city into the property. An option with site no. 3 is that the city does not have to negotiate with Mr. Feely now. Once there is a recommendation from the task force to the Council, negotiations would start at that point. Administrator Shukle and Councilmember Soderberg have had a preliminary discussion with Fannington Printing. Shelley Eldridge, of Ehlers, presented financing options as follows: 1. Voter approved G.O. bond - an election is required. An advantage is the interest rates are lower than lease revenue bonds. A disadvantage is that it might not be approved in an election. 2. Lease revenue bonds - the HRA owns the building, the city owns the land. The HRA would lease the building to the city. An advantage is that an election is not required, and it is not subject to a levy limit. A disadvantage is it affects the debt limit. Financing of a new City Hall will not put a strain on taxpayers due to growth. The impact on residents, including other debts, would be considered in choosing a financing option. 5. Other Business Wold should bring a summary of all 3 sites to the November meeting. Administrator Shukle will talk with private property owners impacted by any of the three options. It should be stressed, in the report to the City Council that there is a need for a new facility. During the December meeting, the task force will review a draft of the final report to the City Council. The report will be presented to the City Council January 21, 2003. 6. Next Meeting - Tuesday, November 19,2002, 7 p.m., City Hall Future Meeting - Tuesday, December 3, 2002, 7 p.m., City Hall 7. Adjourn MOTION by Westenberg, second by Oswald to adjourn at 9:25 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, /l ~ ,_ /'0" L~-;/--~~ l----v?<--t:..e:.~ ~thia Muller Executive Assistant City Hall Task Force Minutes November 19, 2002 1. Call to Order Chair Jim Gerster, Jr. called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Jim Gerster, Jr., Sarah Miller, Darlene Grabowski, Wayne Lankford, Randy Oswald, Tim Rice, Tuffy Westenberg, Michael Cox, Ed Shukle, Robin Roland, Kevin Carroll, Lee Mann, Dan Siebenaler, Jim Bell, Lisa Shadick, Brenda Wendlandt, Cindy Muller Absent: Mayor Ristow, Councilmember Soderberg, Ben Barker, Cleota Epps, Jeff Krueger, Ron Thelen, John McNamara Also Present: Mike Heinzerling 2. Approve Minutes MOTION by Oswald, second by Miller, to approve the minutes of October 15, 2002. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Review Goals and Objectives The Task Force reviewed the goals and objectives and there were no changes. 4. Review Need for New Facility The Task Force will be submitting a letter to the Council in support of a new City Hall. It was agreed there should be one letter signed by all the Task Force members. The letter will indicate the following: There is a need for a new City Hall. The downtown area is a very viable need. The amount of staff will double in the future and the current facility is not capable of providing for that many offices and people. The current building is not sufficient in size to hold large public meetings. Site capabilities - does the current facility meet present and future needs? Include a bio ofthe Task Force members Discussions over the last several months will be compiled. Include minutes Include a list of items voted on. Staffwill compose the report for delivery to the members on November 27. This will give the members time to review it prior to the December 3 meeting. Jim Gerster, Jr. will present the report to the Council at the January 21,2003 Council Meeting. 5. Site Options Cost Summary/Site Option Preferred Site Option 1 This option would be to make the existing building functional and add a 2nd story. The current building is 12,000 sf. An additional 13,000 sf. would need to be added. There needs to be enough parking for staff plus 57 visitors, which would require a total of 110 parking stalls. This option provides for 94 stalls, and acquiring Farmington Printing and a house, and demolishing the parks garage. Cost is $6,100,000 including acquisition. Site Option 2 This option demolishes the current building and builds a new 2-story building on the same site. The area for the parking lot is not in character with the rest of the downtown. Number of parking stalls is the same as option 1. Cost is $6,400,000. Site Option 3 This location is at the comer of Spruce and 3Td Street. It is across from the Library and the Senior Center. Parking is in the back and makes use of the 2nd Street parking lot. The site provides space for 91 parking stalls. The Library parking lot is not included in this figure. The structure would be a 2-story building with room for expansion into parking areas. Cost is $5,900,000. It was noted that the sale of the current building was not included in the cost for option 3. Staff explained that the current building will still exist, and the money from the sale of the building would be a bonus. The city is not counting on the sale of the building to pay the bond, however when the building is sold, the money would be applied towards the bond. For site option 3, staffhas spoken with Blaha's regarding redevelopment of the site. He is willing to sell the property. The city will obtain an appraisal, and the purchase price upon completion. For site options 1 or 2, Farmington Printing prefers to stay in their current building as they own the property. MOTION by Oswald, second by Grabowski, to choose site option 3. It enables the City Hall to remain stable during construction, and acts as an anchor for the downtown area. It puts all government services together - the City Hall, Senior Center, and library. This option also allows for redevelopment of the current City Hall. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 6. Financing Options/Financing Option Preferred The state determines the amount of debt a city can occur. The current debt limit is $17,197,488. There is $10 million in debt capacity. The outstanding debt for the current two new facilities is $6.7 million. There are two types of bonds: 1. Voter Approved General Obligation Bonds An election is required for approval of this bond. The tax levy is based on the market value and not tax capacity, placing the burden on residential property. The interest rates are lower than lease revenue bonds. 2. Lease Revenue Bonds These are issued by the HRA and secured by a lease with the city. The city must annually appropriate funds to pay the lease. The tax levy is based on the tax capacity value, therefore residential properties do not bear more of the tax burden. A debt service reserve equal to last year's debt service payment is required. This bond is the most common tool for construction of city facilities. Upon Council approval of construction of a new City Hall, staff recommended the lease revenue bonds. The term of the bond is for 20 years. MOTION by Westenberg, second by Oswald to recommend lease revenue bonds. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 7. Remaining Work City staff will draft a report by November 27. Jim Gerster will present the report at the January 21 Council Meeting. A consensus was reached to have one letter prepared with all task force signatures. 8. Other Business The Task Force members asked if there would be an opportunity for them to provide input in future phases of the project. As far as the architectural design, all agreed it should include a history of Farmington. They also recommended continuous input from the community. It was suggested the Task Force meet periodically to allow for input and to be informed of progress. 9. Next Meeting Tuesday, December 3,2002, 7:00 p.m., City Hall 10. Adjourn MOTION by Westenberg, second by Rice to adjourn at 8:42 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~:?~ J/}/7ULl[{~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant City Hall Task Force Minutes December 3, 2002 1. Call to Order Chair Jim Gerster, Jr. called the meeting to order at 7:00p.m. Present: Jim Gerster, Jr., Sarah Miller, Mayor Ristow, Councilmember Soderberg, Cleota Epps, Darlene Grabowski, Jeff Krueger, Randy Oswald, Tuffy Westenberg, Brendan Steukie, Ed Shukle, Robin Roland, Kevin Carroll, Lee Mann, Dan Siebenaler, Lisa Shadick, Brenda Wendlandt, Cynthia Muller Absent: Ben Barker, Wayne Lankford, Tim Rice, Ron Thelen, Michael Cox, John McNamara, Jim Bell 2. Approve Minutes MOTION by Westenberg, second by Grabowski, to approve the minutes of November 19,2002. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Review of Draft Report, Comments and Suggestions to the Report It was suggested to do a presentation to the City Council showing the highlights of the report. The Task Force reviewed each section of the report and made the following comments: Introduction - The 1999 Task Force had a projected date for a new city hall. Members would like that date included in the introduction. Cost Summary - Under Option 3, Mayor Ristow would like a contingency amount shown for soil clean-up costs due to possible oil contamination. The area where the actual building would be constructed is already cleaned-up. The Task Force discussed the possibility of having to do soil clean-up under the parking area. Clean-up of possible asbestos in the Blaha building is included in the demolition cost. Prior to signing a Purchase Agreement, it would be agreed as to what clean-up needs to be done and who would pay for it. There was some concern about dust coming from the elevator and any maintenance problems that might cause. Some maintenance should be expected on any rooftop equipment. It was suggested the elevator might be able to do something to alleviate any dust from its operation. It was also requested to add a footnote under option 3 showing the appraisal value of the current City Hall building. This amount could be used for any soil corrections if necessary. Grant funds are also available for soil clean- up. Phase 1 environmental testing has been done on the site. Phase 2 testing, which would include soil testing, would cost $3-5,000. At one point it was discussed to include a license bureau in the new city hall. The Lakeville license bureau is 15 miles away, and to have one in Farmington would be too close according to state statute. The Task Force discussed options for expansion in 15-20 years. It was suggested to have 1 st right of refusal on the property located at the comer of 2nd and Oak Street owned by Feely Elevator, should it become available. Review of Existing Facility - Amend 2nd paragraph. . . above issues are still applicable. . Chair Gerster asked the Task Force several times if everyone agreed on the need for a new facility. Each time, all members agreed. Mayor Ristow stated his signature on the letter of endorsement would be contingent on a discussion with Finance Director Roland regarding exact costs and contingencies. Chair Gerster would like to meet with staff in January to review the presentation. 3. Adoption of Final Report Draft MOTION by Epps, second by Miller, to approve the Final Report with the above changes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Adjourn MOTION by Westenberg, second by Grabowski, to adjourn at 8:37 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~I .../7_ _. ./?~ C.,L.-C:cz.-- )? 7~..e<z~.-/ ynthia Muller Executive Assistant On Feb 20. 2002 the City Council directed staff to assemble a Task Force to conduct a feasibility study regarding space needs for a City Hall facility. Working with Wold Architects and Engineers, the Task Force should analyze various needs, locations. and costs which would be brought back to the City Council for further discussion and direction. The Council requested that the options studied remain in the downtown area. Members: Jeny Ristow Kevan Soderberg Jim Gerster, lr. Sarah Miller Ben Barker Cleota Epps Darlene Grabowski Jeff KlUeger Wayne Lankford Randy Oswald Tim Rice Ron Thelen TuftY Westenberg City of Farmington Management Team IDIII " Task Force Findings ~ 1.Renovate on 2. Build New on 3.Build New off Existing Site Existing Site Site . . lOb I CITY OF FARMINGTON SUMMARY OF REVENUES AS OF JANUARY 31, 2003 8.33 % Year Complete $ $ % $ % GENERAL FUND Property Taxes 3,188,070 - - 0.00 0.00 Licenses/Permits 1,033,700 174,201 174,201 16.85 98,012 8.42 Fines 82,500 - 0.00 - 0.00 Intergovernment Revenue 876,486 74,591 74,591 8.51 404 0.05 Charges for Service 329,779 6,694 6,694 2.03 8,922 2.78 Miscellaneous 330,500 228 228 0.07 40 0.01 Transfers 225 000 - 0.00 0.00 Total General Fund 6.066 035 255.714 255714 4.22 107 378 1.90 SPECIAL REVENUE HRA Operating Fund 27,000 - - 0.00 - 0.00 Police Forfeitures Fund 8,050 - - 0.00 - 0.00 Park Improvement Fund 152,500 - - 0.00 - 0.00 Recreation Operating Fund 186,700 2,579 2,579 1.38 2,853 1.36 ENTERPRISE FUNDS Ice Arena 243,300 16,694 16,694 6.86 13,912 6.40 Liquor Operations 2,410,500 170,213 170,213 7.06 151,205 6.30 Sewer 1,298,000 - - 0.00 - 0.00 Solid Waste 1,358,500 - - 0.00 3,558 0.28 Storm Water 270,000 - - 0.00 3,538 0.58 Water 1 790,000 53 634 53 634 3.00 128 198 7.28 Total Revenues 13810,585 498 834 498 834 3.61 410 642 2.92 ~c.; CITY OF FARMINGTON SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES AS OF JANUARY 31, 2003 8.33 % Year Com lete ..:~..:I!llllilll!!!I!!II.I..:ill!.i!:i:::!i!!ii!..!I!!,"!!!IIIII.I.:III~I:I!I:li.:,"!:..:.~::::i!!i!!!d:t8.u.n:mm:liliil=i::.r::r:::t::RQttt~:::(:::illll'I.I:UI....!:I.:ili::::.:~:~::~..l:!.:j:nil_i: GENERAL FUND $ $ $ % $ % Legislative 61,120 6,961 6,961 11.39 6,407 9.05 Administration 418,660 24,694 24,694 5.90 25,129 7.10 Human Resources 191 ,820 3,210 3,210 1.67 7,623 5.88 MIS 92,330 1,322 1,322 1.43 790 1.39 Elections 10,870 0.00 0.00 Communications 76,350 2,718 2,718 3.56 5,652 8.53 Finance 372,730 11,048 11,048 2.96 18,630 4.91 PlanninglZoning 155,360 5,454 5,454 3.51 9,385 6.71 Building Inspection 316,330 9,202 9,202 2.91 19,068 7.03 Community Development 87,350 3,254 3,254 3.72 5,851 6.77 Police Administration 456,300 19,470 19,470 4.27 21,319 5.47 Patrol Services 1,120,280 43,291 43,291 3.86 72,723 7.57 Investigation Services 171,980 7,238 7,238 4.21 6,930 4.60 School Liason Officer 80,830 4,444 4,444 5.50 6,378 9.51 Emergency Management 1 ,400 0.00 6 0.43 Fire 371,000 10,753 10,753 2.90 20,794 6.23 Rescue 47,690 1,007 1,007 2.11 466 1.24 Engineering 259,430 9,333 9,333 3.60 14,895 6.08 G.I.S. 12,820 1 ,400 1 ,400 10.92 0.00 Streets 419,200 12,413 12,413 2.96 18,836 5.12 Snow Removal 105,640 1,973 1,973 1.87 5,254 6.18 Signal Maint 95,600 346 346 0.36 4,629 5.41 Fleet Maint 0.00 8,279 7.01 Park Maint 244,162 13,096 13,096 5.36 15,584 7.57 Forestry 110,000 246 246 0.22 742 0.72 Building Maint 105,300 5,839 5,839 5.54 6,911 6.55 Recreation Programs 256,850 12,197 12,197 4.75 11,140 3.90 Outdoor Ice 27,640 654 654 2.37 1,979 7.65 Transfers Out 100 000 0.00 0.00 Total General Fund 5 769 042 211 563 211 563 3.67 315400 5.97 SPECIAL REVENUE HRA Operating 88,840 296 296 0.33 1,155 2.21 Police Forfeitures Fund 8,050 384 384 4.76 1,062 13.19 Park Improvement Fund 134,500 0.00 1,565 1.34 Senior Center 108,020 5,580 5,580 5.17 5,307 4.89 Swimming Pool 124,560 575 575 0.46 392 0.33 ENTERPRISE FUNDS Ice Arena 273,900 13,690 13,690 5.00 23,220 9.77 Liquor Operations 2,247,750 145,178 145,178 6.46 146,895 6.67 Sewer 1,263,767 77,075 77,075 6.10 99,635 8.44 Solid Waste 1,363,631 76,302 76,302 5.60 68,113 5.60 Storm Water 242,939 930 930 0.38 1,431 0.60 Water Utility 1 104 503 17 452 17452 1.58 168 756 11.18 Total Ex enditures 12,729,502 549,026 549,026 4.31 832,931 6.79 3C,5 --- --- -- - - ----------"------ /~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator ~ t FROM: Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police SUBJECT: Pawn Shop Ordinance DATE: March 3, 2003 INTRODUCTION Pawn Shops are a legitimate form of business that can provide a valuable service to a community. However, they have also been shown to be used for the illegal sale of stolen merchandise. It is desirable for a community to develop standards for Pawn Shops that promote a productive relationship with police departments locally and statewide. The Farmington Police Department staff, in cooperation with the City Attorney's Office has researched language for a proposed Pawn Shop Ordinance. DISCUSSION As Council is aware until recently there was a Pawn Shop business in the City of Farmington. However, during the time it was here, only State Law regulated the shop. The City had no local regulatory authority. We were very fortunate to develop a cooperative working relationship with the owner who supplied written documentation regarding transactions as well as video tape of all transactions. As a result of this cooperative effort, the police department was able to recover numerous pieces of stolen property both from local theft cases and those of other police departments. Since there is no current pawn business in Farmington at this time, staff is taking this opportunity to recommend the adoption of a local Pawn Shop Ordinance. The ordinance provides a formal structure to require the owners of pawn shops to provide specific documentation to police agencies, including written and video documentation, thumb print identification, as well as a requirement to participate in the Automated Pawn System. Thumbprint identification and participation in the Automated Pawn System are the two major new components to the Pawn Ordinance that did not exist, even informally, with the previous business. 3'~ Thumbprint identification has long been a standard of positive identification. If a customer does pawn stolen merchandise it can be irrefutably traced to a specific individual. The second component is a requirement to participate in the Automated Pawn System (APS). APS is a computer-based system to record all pawn transactions statewide. Using this system a police department can easily inquire about stolen property by description or by checking transactions by name of customer. This can be particularly valuable when a suspect has been identified but the location of property has not been determined. A service fee attached to each transaction covers fees for participation in the APS by the Pawn Shop. In addition police agencies using the system buy computer software and subscribe to the service. The proposed ordinance has been reviewed by the City Attorney and approved in its current form. BUDGET IMPACT There is no immediate budget impact. If adopted there will be a recommendation to purchase the Automated Pawn System computer software and a subscription to the service in the 2004 budget. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the proposed Ordinance Respectfully submitted, Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police 3(;/ ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTACOUNTY,M~SOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3 OF THE FARMINGTON CITY CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 26 CONCERNING PAWNBROKERS AND PRECIOUS METAL DEALERS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Title 3 of the Farmington City Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read: CHAPTER 26 PA WNBROKERSIPRECIOUS METAL DEALERS 3-26-1: PURPOSE. The City Council finds that the use of services provided by pawnbrokers and precious metal dealers potentially provides an opportunity for the commission of crimes and their concealment because such businesses have the ability to receive and transfer stolen property easily and quickly. The City Council also finds that consumer protection regulation is warranted in transactions involving pawnbrokers and precious metal dealers. The purpose of this Chapter is to prevent pawn and precious metal businesses from being used as facilities for the commission of crimes and to assure that such businesses comply with basic consumer protection standards, thereby protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City. To help the police department better regulate current and future pawn businesses, decrease and stabilize costs associated with the regulation of the pawn industry, and increase identification of criminal activities in the pawn industry through the timely collection and sharing of pawn transaction information, this Chapter also implements and establishes the required use of the Automated Pawn System (APS). 3-26-2: DEFINITIONS: The following words and terms when used in this Chapter shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: ACCEPTABLE IDENTIFICATION: Acceptable forms of identification are a current valid Minnesota driver's license, a current valid Minnesota identification card, or a current valid photo driver's license or identification card issued by another state or province of Canada. 102257.05 .3 C, <6 BILLABLE TRANSACTIONS: ISSUING AUTHORITY: ITEM CONTAINING PRECIOUS METAL: LICENSEE: MINOR: PAWNBROKER: PERSON: PRECIOUS METAL DEALER: 3~tJ Every reportable transaction conducted by a pawnbroker, except renewals, redemptions, or extensions of existing pawns on items previously reported and continuously in the licensee's possession is a billable transaction. The City of Farmington. An item in whole or in part of metal and containing more than one percent (1 %) by weight of silver, gold, or platinum. The person, corporation, partnership, or association to whom a license is issued under this Chapter, including any agents or employees of the person, corporation, partnership, or association. Any natural person under the age of eighteen (18) years. Any person who loans money on deposit or pledge of personal property or other valuable thing; who deals in the purchasing of personal property or other valuable thing on condition of selling that same back again at a stipulated price; or who loans money secured by chattel mortgage or on personal property, taking possession of the property or any part thereof so mortgaged. To the extent that a pawnbroker business includes buying personal property previously used, rented, or leased, the provisions of this Chapter shall be applicable. Pawnbroker does not include businesses or persons who engage in transactions in which a used or secondhand item is exchanged for a new item and the value of the new item exceeds the value of the secondhand item, or who buys and sells used goods or equipment of a specialized nature such as exercise or sporting equipment, or childrens' clothes. A bank, savings and loan association, or credit union shall not be deemed a pawnbroker for purposes of this Chapter. Anyone or more natural persons; a partnership, including a limited partnership; a corporation, including a foreign, domestic, or nonprofit corporation; a trust; a political subdivision of the state; or any other business organization. Means any person engaging in the business of buying secondhand items containing precious metal, including, but not limited to, jewelry, watches, eating utensils, candlesticks, and religious and decorative objects. Persons conducting the following transactions shall not be deemed to be precious metal dealers: (1) transactions at occasional "garage" or "yard" sales, or estate sales or farm auctions held at the decedent's residence, except that precious metal dealers must comply with the requirements of Minn. Stat. ~~ 325F.734 to 325F.742, for these transactions; 2 PRECIOUS METALS: REPORTABLE TRANSACTION: (2) transactions regulated by Minn. Stat. ~ 80A; (3) transactions regulated by the Federal Commodity Futures Commission Act; (4) transactions involving the purchase of precious metal grindings, filings, slag, sweeps, scraps, or dust from an industrial manufacturer, dental lab, dentist, or agent thereof; (5) transactions involving the purchase of photographic film, such as lithographic and X-ray film, or silver residue or flake recovered in lithographic and X-ray film processing; (6) transactions involving coins, bullion, or ingots; (7) transactions in which the secondhand item containing precious metal is exchanged for a new item containing precious metal and the value of the new item exceeds the value of the secondhand item, except that a person who is a precious metal dealer by engaging in a transaction which is not exempted by this Section must comply with the requirements of Minn. Stat. ~~ 325F.734 to 325F.742; (8) transactions between precious metal dealers if both dealers are licensed under Minn. Stat. ~ 325F.733, or if the seller's business is located outside of the state and the item is shipped from outside the state to a dealer licensed under Minn. Stat. ~ 325F. 733; (9) transactions in which the buyer of the secondhand item containing precious metal is engaged primarily in the business of buying and selling antiques, and the items are resold in an unaltered condition except for repair, and the items are resold at retail, and the buyer paid less than $2,500 for secondhand items containing precious metals purchased within any period of twelve (12) consecutive months. Means silver, gold, or platinum. Every transaction conducted by a pawnbroker in which merchandise is received through a pawn, purchase, consignment or trade, or in which a pawn is renewed, extended, or for which a unique transaction number or identifier is generated by their point-of-sale software, is reportable, except: (1) The bulk purchase or consignment of new or used merchandise from a merchant, manufacturer, or wholesaler having an established permanent place of business, and the retail sale of said 3 370 merchandise, provided the pawnbroker must maintain a record of such purchase or consignment which describes each item, and must mark each item in a manner which relates it to that transaction record. (2) Retail and wholesale sales of merchandise originally received by pawn or purchase, and for which all applicable hold and/or redemption periods have expired. 3-26-3: LICENSE REQUIRED: No person shall exercise, carry-on, or be engaged in the trade or business of pawnbroker or precious metal dealer within the City unless such person is currently licensed under this Chapter. 3-26-4: APPLICATION CONTENT: A. Contents. In addition to any information that may be required by the County pursuant to Minn. Stat. ~ 471.924, every application for a license under this Chapter shall be made on a form supplied by the City and shall contain the following information: 1. If the applicant is a natural person: a. the name, place, and date of birth, street resident address, and telephone number of the applicant; b. whether the applicant is a citizen of the United States or a resident alien; c. whether the applicant has ever used or has been known by a name other than the applicant's name, and if so, the name or names used and information concerning dates and places where used; d. the name of the business if it is to be conducted under a designation, name, or style other than the name of the applicant and a certified copy of the certificate as required by Minn. Stat. ~ 333.01; e. the street addresses at which the applicant has lived during the preceding five (5) years; f. the type, name, and location of every business or occupation in which the applicant has been engaged during the preceding five (5) years and the name(s) and address( es) of the applicant's employer(s) and partner(s), if any, for the preceding five (5) years; g. whether the applicant has ever been convicted of a felony, crime, or violation of any ordinance other than a traffic ordinance. If so, the applicant must furnish information as to the time, place, and offense of all such convictions; h. the physical description of the applicant; 4 37/ 1. applicant's current personal financial statement and true copies of the applicant's federal and state tax returns for the two (2) years prior to application; J. If the applicant does not manage the business, the name of the manager(s) or other person(s) in charge of the business and all information concerning each of them required in a. through h. of subdivision (1) of this Section 2. If the applicant is a partnership: a. the name( s) and address( es) of all general and limited partners and all information concerning each general partner required in subdivision 1 of this Section; b. the name(s) of managing partner(s) and the interest of each partner in the pawnbroker or precious metal business; c. a true copy of the partnership agreement shall be submitted with the application. If the partnership is required to file a certificate as to a trade name pursuant to Minn. Stat. ~ 333.01, a certified copy of such certificate shall be attached to the application; d. a true copy of the federal and state tax returns for partnership for the two (2) years prior to application e. if the applicant does not manage the business, the name of the manager(s) or other person(s) in charge of the business and all information concerning each of them required in a. through h. of subdivision 1. 3. If the applicant is a corporation or other organization: a. the name of the corporation or business form, and if incorporated, the state of incorporation; b. a true copy of the Certificate of Incorporation, Articles of Incorporation, or Association Agreement, and By-laws shall be attached to the application. If the applicant is a foreign corporation, a Certificate of Authority as required by Minn. Stat. ~ 303.06, shall be attached; c. the name of the manager(s), proprietor(s), or other agent(s) in charge of the business and all information concerning each manager, proprietor, or agent required in a. through h. of subdivision 1 of this Section; d. a list of all persons who control or own an interest in excess of five percent (5%) in such organization or business form or who are officers of the corporation or business form and all information concerning said persons required in subdivision 1 of this Section. 5 .3/~ 4. For all applicants: a. whether the applicant holds a current pawnbroker, precious metal dealer or secondhand goods dealer license from any other governmental unit; b. whether the applicant has previously been denied or had revoked or suspended, a pawnbroker, precious metal dealer, or secondhand dealer license from this or any other governmental unit; c. the names, street resident addresses, business addresses and telephone numbers of three (3) individuals who are of good moral character and who are not related to the applicant or not holding any ownership in the premises or business, who may be referred to as to the applicant's and or manager's character; d. the location of the business premises; e. the legal description of the premises to be licensed; f. the location at which the applicant's business records are maintained; g. if the applicant does not own the licensed premises, a true and complete copy of the executed lease; h. whether all real estate and personal property taxes that are due and payable for the premises to be licensed have been paid, and if not paid, the years and amounts that are unpaid; 1. whenever the application is for premises either planned or under construction or undergoing substantial alteration, the application shall be accompanied by a set of preliminary plans showing the design of the proposed premises to be licensed. If the plans or design are on file with the City BuildinglInspections Department, no plans need be submitted to the issuing authority; J. such other information as the City Council or issuing authority may require. B. ManagerlNew Manager. When a licensee places a manager in charge of a business, or if the named manager(s) in charge of a licensed business changes, the dealer must complete and submit the appropriate application within fourteen (14) days. The manager shall be subject to the investigation required by this Section, and to payment of the investigation fee required by this Chapter, which shall be paid in advance. The designation of a new manager shall not cause the license to become invalid before a decision is rendered, provided proper notice and application are made by the applicant. A proposed new manager shall be referred to as the interim manager. In the event an interim manager is rejected, the licensee shall designate another interim manager and make the required application within fifteen (15) days of the decision. Ifa proposed manager is rejected, the decision maybe 6 373 appealed to the City Council by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within ten (10) days after being notified of the rejection. 3-26-5: APPLICATION EXECUTION: All applications for a license under this Chapter shall be signed and sworn to under oath or affirmation by applicant. If the application is that of a natural person, it shall be signed and sworn to by such person; if that of a corporation, by an officer thereof; if that of a partnership, by one of the general partners; and if that of an unincorporated association, by the manager or managing officer thereof. Any falsification on a license application shall result in the denial of a license. 3-26-6: APPLICATION VERIFICATION: All applications shall be referred to the Police Department for verification and investigation of the facts set forth in the application. Within sixty (60) days after receipt of a complete application, the Police Department shall make a written report and recommendation to the City Council as to issuance or non-issuance of the license. The City Council may order and conduct such additional investigation as it deems necessary. If additional investigation is necessary, the applicant shall pay the City the cost of the additional investigation. The license shall not be issued until any additional investigation costs are paid. 3-26-7: APPLICATION CONSIDERATION: A. The City Council shall conduct a hearing on the license application within thirty (30) days following receipt of the Police Department's report and recommendation regarding the application. At least ten (10) days in advance of the City Council hearing on an application, the issuing authority shall cause notice of the hearing to be published in the official newspaper of the City, setting forth the day, time, and place of the hearing; the name of the applicant; the premises where the business is to be conducted; and the type of license which is sought. The hearing shall also be preceded by ten (10) days mailed notice to all owners of property located within five hundred (500) feet of the boundaries of the property where the business is to be conducted. At the hearing, opportunity shall be given to any person to be heard for or against the granting of the license. Additional hearings on the application may be held if the City Council deems additional hearings necessary. After the hearing or hearings on the application, the City Council may, in its discretion, grant or deny the application within thirty (30) days after the close of the hearing. B. If an application is granted for a location where a building is under construction or not ready for occupancy, the license shall not be delivered to the licensee until a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the licensed premises. 3-26-8: RENEWAL APPLICATION: A. All licenses issued under this Chapter shall be effective for one year from the date of approval by the City Council. An application for the renewal of an existing license shall be made prior to the expiration date of the license and shall be made in such form as the issuing authority requires. If, in the judgment of the City Council, good and sufficient cause is shown by the 7 37'1 applicant for the applicant's failure to submit a renewal application before the expiration of the existing license, the City Council may, if the other provisions of this Chapter are complied with, grant the renewal application. B. A license under this Chapter may not be renewed: 1. if the City Council determines that the licensee has failed to comply with the provisions of this Chapter in preceding license years; 2. if the licensee or, if the licensee does not manage the establishment, the manager of the licensed premises is not a resident of Minnesota on the date the renewal takes effect; 3. if in the case of a partnership, the managing partner or other person who manages the establishment is not a resident of Minnesota on the date the renewal takes effect; 4. if in the case of a corporation, or other organization, the manager, a proprietor, or agent in charge of the establishment is not a resident of Minnesota on the date the renewal takes effect; 5. the time for establishing residence in Minnesota may for good cause be extended by the City Council. 3-26-9: FEES. A. Investigation Fee: An applicant for any license under this Chapter shall pay the City in advance at the time an original application is submitted, a nonrefundable investigation fee at a rate set by City Council resolution to cover the costs involved in verifying the license application and to cover the expense of any investigation needed to assure compliance with this Chapter. B. License Fee: 1. The annual license fee shall be set by City Council resolution. The license fee shall be paid annually, to be determined from the date of issuance of the license. 2. The annual license fee shall be paid in full before the license is effective. C. Billable Transaction Fees: 1. Licensees shall pay a monthly transaction fee on all billable transactions. Such fee shall be due and payable within thirty (30) days. Failure to timely pay the billable transaction fee shall constitute a violation of this Chapter. 2. The billable transaction fee shall reflect the cost of processing transactions and other related regulatory expenses as determined and set by City Council resolution. Licensees shall be notified in writing thirty (30) days before any adjustment is implemented. 8 37.5 3-26-10: BOND REQUIRED. At the time of filing an application for a license, the applicant shall file a bond in the amount ofTen Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) with the City. The bond, with a duly licensed surety company as surety thereon, must be approved as to form by the City Attorney. The bond must be conditioned on the licensee observing all ordinances of the City and all laws relating to the business of pawnbroker or precious metal dealer, and the licensee accounting for and delivering to any person legally entitled thereto any articles which may have come into the possession of the licensee as pawnbroker or precious metal dealer, or in lieu thereof such licensee paying the person or persons the reasonable value thereof. The bond shall contain a provision that it may not be cancelled without thirty (30) days advance written notice to the licensing authority. 3-26-11: PERSONS AND LOCATIONS INELIGIBLE FOR A LICENSE. A. No license under this Chapter shall be issued to an applicant who is a natural person if such applicant, a partnership if such applicant has any general partner or managing partner, a corporation or other organization if such applicant has any manager, proprietor or agent in charge of the business to be licensed, if the applicant: 1. Is a minor at the time the application is filed; or 2. Has been convicted of any crime directly related to the occupation licensed as prescribed by Minn. Stat. ~ 364.03, Subd. 2, and has not shown competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness to perform the duties of a pawnbroker or precious metal dealer as prescribed by Minn. Stat. ~ 364.03, Subd. 3. B. The following locations shall be ineligible for a license under this Chapter: 1. No license shall be granted or renewed for operation on any property on which taxes, assessments, or other financial claims of the State, County, School District, or City are due delinquent, or unpaid. In the event a suit has been commenced under Minn. Stat. ~~ 278.01 to 278.03, questioning the amount or validity of taxes, the City Council may on application waive strict compliance with this provision; no waiver may be granted, however, for taxes or any portion thereof which remain unpaid for a period exceeding one year after becoming due. 2. No license shall be granted or renewed if the property on which the business is to be conducted is owned by a person who is ineligible for a license under any of the requirements in subparts A of this Section, except that a property owner who is a minor or who has been convicted of a crime, other than a crime involving theft, shall not make the premises ineligible under this subsection. 3-26-12: GENERAL LICENSE RESTRICTIONS. A. Records Required. At the time of any reportable transaction other than renewals, extensions or redemptions, every licensee must immediately record in English the following 9 37~ information by using ink or other indelible medium on forms or in a computerized record approved by the police department: 1. A complete and accurate description of each item including, but not limited to, any trademark, identification number, serial number, model number, brand name, or other identifying mark on such an item. 2. The purchase price, amount of money loaned upon, or pledged therefor. 3. The maturity date of the transaction and the amount due, including monthly and annual interest rates and all pawn fees and charges. 4. Date, time and place the item of property was received by the licensee, and the unique alpha and/or numeric transaction identifier that distinguishes it from all other transactions in the licensee's records. Transaction identifiers must be consecutively numbered. 5. Full name, current residence address, current residence telephone number, date of birth and accurate description of the person from whom the item of the property was received, including: sex, height, weight, race, color of eyes and color of hair. 6. The identification number and state of issue from any ofthe following forms of picture identification of the seller: a. Current valid Minnesota driver's license; b. Current valid Minnesota identification card; c. Current valid photo identification card issued by another state or a province of Canada. 7. The signature of the person identified in the transaction. 8. The licensee must also take a color photograph or color video recording of: a. Each customer involved in a billable transaction. b. Every item pawned or sold that does not have a unique serial or identification number permanently engraved or affixed. If a photograph is taken, it must be at least two (2) inches in length by two (2) inches in width and must be maintained in such a manner that the photograph can be readily matched and correlated with all other records of the transaction to which they relate. Such photographs must be available to the chief of police, or the chiefs designee, upon request. The major portion of the photograph must include,an identifiable front facial close-up of the person who 10 3;77 pawned or sold the item. Items photographed must be accurately depicted. The licensee must inform the person that he or she is being photographed by displaying a sign of sufficient size in a conspicuous place in the premises. If a video photograph is taken, the video camera must zoom in on the person pawning or selling the item so as to include an identifiable close-up of that person's face. Items photographed by video must be accurately depicted. Video photographs must be electronically referenced by time and date so they can be readily matched and correlated with all other records of the transaction to which they relate. The licensee must inform the person that he or she is being videotaped orally and by displaying a sign of sufficient size in a conspicuous place on the premises. The licensee must keep the exposed videotape for three (3) months, and furnish it to the police department upon request. 9. The licensee must take an identifiable thumb print of each customer involved in a billable transaction and must identify which thumb was printed. 10. Digitized photographs. Effective sixty (60) days from the date of notification by the police department licensees must fulfill the color photograph requirements in Subsection 3-26-I2(A)(8) by submitting them as digital images, in a format specified by the issuing authority, electronically cross- referenced to the reportable transaction they are associated with. Notwithstanding the digital images may be captured from required video recordings, this provision does not altar or amend the requirements in Subsection 3-26-12(A)(8). 11. Renewals, extensions and redemptions. For renewals, extensions and redemptions, the licensee shall provide the original transaction identifier, the date of the current transaction, and the type of transaction. B. Inspection of Records. The pawnbroker or precious metal dealer shall make available the information required in subpart A of this Section at all reasonable times for inspection by the Fannington Police Department or issuing authority. Data entries shall be retained for at least three (3) years from the date of transaction. Entries of required digital images shall be retained a minimum of one hundred twenty (120) days. C. Disposition of Articles. 1. When an article of pawned or pledged property is redeemed from a licensee, the records shall contain an account of such redemption with the date, interest charges accrued, and the total amount for which the article was redeemed. 2. When an article of purchased or forfeited property is sold or disposed of by a licensee and the licensee receives One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) or more in the payment thereof, the records shall contain an account of such sale with the date, the amount for which the article was sold, and the full name, current address, and telephone number of the person to whom sold. 11 3)~ D. Daily Reoorts to Police. 1. Licensees must submit every reportable transaction to the police department daily in the following manner: a. Licensees must provide to the police department all information required in Section 3-26-12(A) (1) through (6) and other required information, by transferring it from their computer to the Automated Pawn System via modem. All required records must be transmitted completely and accurately after the close of business each day in accordance with standards and procedures established by the issuing authority using procedures that address security concerns of the licensees and the issuing authority. The licensee must display a sign of sufficient size, in a conspicuous place in the premises, which informs all patrons that all transactions are reported to the police department daily. 2. Billable Transaction Fees. Licensees will be charged for each billable transaction reported to the police department. a. If a licensee is unable to successfully transfer the required reports by modem, the licensee must provide the police department printed copies of all reportable transactions along with the video tape( s) for that date, by noon the next business day; b. If the problem is determined to be in the licensee's system and is not corrected by the close of the first business day following the failure, the licensee must provide the required reports as detailed in Section 3-26-12(D)(2)( a), and must be charged a fifty dollar ($50.00) reporting failure penalty, daily, until the error is corrected; or c. If the problem is determined to be outside the licensee's system, the licensee must provide the required reports in Section 3-26- 12(D)(2)(a), and resubmit all such transaction via modem when the error is corrected. d. If a licensee is unable to capture, digitize or transmit the photographs required in Section 3-26-12(A)(9), the licensee must immediately take all required photographs with a still camera, cross-reference the photographs to the correct transaction, and make the pictures available to the Police Department upon request. e. Regardless of the cause or origin of the technical problems that prevented the licensee from uploading their reportable transactions, upon correction of the problem, the licensee shall upload every reportable transaction from every business day the problem had existed. 12 3)q f. Section 3-26-12(D)(2)(a) through (c) notwithstanding, the Police Department may, upon presentation of extenuating circumstances, delay the implementation of the daily reporting penalty. E. Receipt Required. Every licensee must provide a receipt to the party identified in every reportable transaction and must maintain a duplicate of that receipt for three (3) years. The receipt must include at least the following information: 1. The name, address and telephone number of the licensed business. 2. The date and time the item was received by the licensee. 3. Whether the item was pawned or sold, or the nature of the transaction. 4. An accurate description of each item received including, but not limited to, any trademark, identification number, serial number, model number, brand name, or other identifying mark on such an item. 5. The signature or unique identifier of the licensee or employee that conducted the transaction. 6. The amount advanced or paid. 7. The monthly and annual interest rates, including all pawn fees and charges. 8. The last regular day of business by which the item must be redeemed by the pledger without risk that the item will be sold, and the amount necessary to redeem the pawned item on that date. 9. The full name, current residence address, current residence telephone number, and date of birth of the pledger or seller. 10. The identification number and state of issue from an acceptable form of a photo identification. a. Current valid Minnesota driver's license; b. Current valid Minnesota identification card; c. Current valid photo driver's license or identification card issued by another state or a province of Canada. 11. Description of the pledger or seller including approximate sex, height, weight, race, color of eyes and color of hair. 12. The signature of the pledger or seller. 13 3"60 13. All printed statements as required by Minnesota Statute 325J.04, subdivision 2, or any other applicable statutes. F. Redemption Period. Any person pledging, pawning or depositing an item for security must have a minimum of one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of that transaction to redeem the item before it may be forfeited and sold. During the one hundred twenty (120) day holding period, items may not be removed from the licensed location except as provided in Section 3-26-l4(A). Licensees are prohibited from redeeming any item to anyone other than the person to whom the receipt was issued or, to any person identified in a written and notarized authorization to redeem the property identified in the receipt, or to a person identified in writing by the pledger at the time of the initial transaction and signed by the pledger, or with approval of the police license inspector. Written authorization for release of property to persons other than original pledger must be maintained along with original transaction record in accordance with Section 3-26-l2(A)(10). G. Holding Period. Any item purchased or accepted in trade by a licensee must not be sold or otherwise transferred for thirty (30) days from the date of the transaction. An individual may redeem an item seventy-two (72) hours after the item was received on deposit, excluding Sundays and legal holidays. H. Police Order to Hold Propertv. 1. Investigative Hold. Whenever a law enforcement official from any agency notifies a licensee not to sell an item, the item must not be sold or removed from the premises. The investigative hold shall be confirmed in writing by the originating agency within seventy-two (72) hours and will remain in effect for fifteen (15) days from the date of initial notification, or until the investigative order is canceled, or until an order to hold/confiscate is issued, pursuant to Section 3-26-l2(H)(2), whichever comes first. 2. Order to Hold. Whenever the chiefofpolice, or the chiefs designee, notifies a licensee not to sell an item, the item must not be sold or removed from the licensed premises until authorized to be released by the chief or the chiefs designee. The order to hold shall expire ninety (90) days from the date it is placed unless the chief of police or the chiefs designee determines the hold is still necessary and notifies the licensee in writing. 3. Order to Confiscate. If an item is identified as stolen or evidence in a criminal case, the chief or chiefs designee may: a. Physically confiscate and remove it from the shop, pursuant to a written order from the chief or the chiefs designee, or b. Place the item on hold or extend the hold as provided in Section 3- 26-l2(H)(2), and leave it in the shop. When an item is confiscated, the person doing so shall provide identification upon request of the licensee, and shall provide the licensee the name and phone 14 3col number of the confiscating agency and investigator, and the case number related to the confiscation. When an order to hold/confiscate is no longer necessary, the chief of police, or chiefs designee shall so notify the licensee. I. Label Required. Licensees must attach a label to every item at the time it is pawned, purchased or received in inventory from any reportable transaction. Permanently recorded on this label must be the number or name that identifies the transaction in the shop's records, the transaction date, the name of the item and the description or the model and serial number of the item as reported to the police department, whichever is applicable, and the date the item is out of pawn or can be sold, if applicable. Labels shall not be re-used. 1. License Display. A license issued under this Chapter must be posted in a conspicuous place in the premises for which it is used. The license issued is only effective for the compact and contiguous space specified in the approved license application. K. Responsibility of Licensee. A licensee under this Chapter shall be responsible for the conduct of the business being operated and shall maintain conditions of order. The conduct of agents or employees of a licensee, engaged in performance of duties for the licensee, shall be deemed the conduct of the licensee. L. Gambling. No licensee under this Chapter may keep, possess, or operate, or permit the keeping, possession, or operation on the licensed premises of dice, slot machines, roulette wheels, punchboards, blackjack tables, or pinball machines which return coins or slugs, chips, or tokens of any kind, which are redeemable in merchandise or cash. No gambling equipment authorized under Minn. Stat. Chapter 349, may be kept or operated and no raffies may be conducted on the licensed premises and/or adjoining rooms. The purchase oflottery tickets may take place on the licensed premises as authorized by the director of the lottery pursuant to Minn. Stat. Chapter 349A. M. Penalty for Prooerty Owner. It is unlawful for any person who owns or controls real property to knowingly permit it to be used for pawn brokering or dealing in precious metals without a license. N. Premises. All property deposited, left, pledged, pawned, or held for sale must be stored in an enclosed facility and may not be stored outside of the premises. The City may, however, permit the licensee to designate one (1) off premises locked and secured facility in which the licensee may store only cars, boats, and other motorized vehicles. The licensee shall permit immediate inspection of the facility at any time during business hours by the City. All provisions in this Section regarding record keeping and reporting shall apply to oversized items. All property shall be stored in compliance with zoning and/or fire regulations and in an orderly manner. The premises shall also be equipped with an operational security alann. o. Required Signage. All licensees shall by adequate signage and separate written notice inform persons seeking to pawn, pledge, sell, leave, or deposit articles of property with the licensee of the foregoing requirements. 15 3~ 1. For the purpose of this Subsection, "adequate signage" shall be deemed to mean at least one sign of not less than four (4) square feet in surface area, comprised oflettering of not less than three-quarters (3/4) of an inch in height, posted in a conspicuous place on the licensed premises and stating substantially the following: TO PAWN OR SELL PROPERTY: YOU MUST BE AT LEAST 18 YEARS OF AGE. YOU MUST BE THE TRUE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY MUST BE FREE OF ALL CLAIMS AND LIENS. YOU MUST PRESENT VALID PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. YOU MUST PROVIDE A THUMB PRINT FOR IDENTIFICATION. VIOLATION OF ANY OF THESE REQUIREMENTS IS A CRIME. 2. For the purpose of this Subsection, "separate written notice" shall be deemed to mean either the receipt, as required in Section 3-26-I2(E), or a printed fonn, incorporating a statement to the effect that the person pawning, pledging, selling, leaving, or depositing the article is at least eighteen (18) years of age; is the true owner of the article; and that the article is free of all claims and liens; which is acknowledged by way of signature of the person pawning, pledging, selling, leaving, or depositing the article. 3-26-13: RESTRICTED TRANSACTIONS A. Hours and Davs of Operation. No pawnbroker or precious metal dealer shall keep the pawnbroker or precious metal dealer business open for the transaction of business on any day of the week before 7:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. No pawnbroker or precious metal dealer shall be open for the transaction of business on Sundays. B. Minors. No person under the age of eighteen years may pawn or sell or attempt to pawn or sell goods with any licensee, nor may any licensee receive any goods from a person under the age of eighteen years. C. Incomoetent Persons. A pawnbroker or precious metal dealer shall not purchase or receive personal property on deposit or pledge from any incompetent person or intoxicated person. D. Prohibited Goods. No licensee under this Chapter shall accept any item of property which contains an altered or obliterated serial number or "Operation Identification" number or any item of property whose serial number has been removed. E. Security Interest. No licensee nor any agent or employee of a licensee shall purchase, accept, or receive any article of property knowing, or having reason to know, that the article of property is encumbered by a security interest. For the purpose of this Section, "security 16 3~3 interest" means an interest in property which secures payment or other performance of an obligation. F. True Owner. 1. No licensee nor any agent or employee of a licensee shall purchase, accept, or receive any article of property, from any person, knowing, or having reason to know, that said person is not the true and correct owner of the property. 2. No person may pawn, pledge, sell, leave, or deposit any article of property not their own; nor shall any person pawn, pledge, sell, leave, or deposit the property of another, whether with permission or without; nor shall any person pawn, pledge, sell, leave, or deposit any article of property in which another has a security interest; with any licensee. G. Prooer Identification. 1. No licensee nor any agent or employee of a licensee shall purchase, accept, or receive any article of property, from any person, unless the seller presents photo identification in the form of a valid driver's license, a valid State of Minnesota identification card, or current valid photo driver's license or identification card issued by the state or province of residency of the person from whom the item was received. 2. No person may pawn, pledge, sell, leave or deposit any article of property with any licensee without first having presented an acceptable form of identification. H. Pavment by Check. Payment of more than Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) by a licensee for any article deposited, left, purchased, pledged or pawned shall be made only by a check, draft, or other negotiable or non-negotiable instrument which is drawn against funds held by a financial institution. This policy must be posted in a conspicuous place in the premises. I. Restrictions on Sale. Pawnbrokers and precious metal dealers shall suspend for one (1) year, any business transaction with any person who has sold and/or forfeited on six (6) previous occasions articles for which the person received $25.00 or more per transaction within a single six (6) month period. J. False Identification. No person seeking to pawn, pledge, sell, consign, leave, or deposit any article of property with any licensee shall give a false or fictitious name; nor give a false date of birth; nor give a false or out of date address of residence or telephone number; nor present a false or altered identification, or the identification of another; to any licensee. K. General Restrictions for Pawnbrokers. No pawnbroker licensed under this Chapter shall: 1. Lend money on a pledge at a rate of interest above that allowed by law; 2. Knowingly possess stolen goods; 17 3W 3. Sell pledged goods before the time to redeem has expired; 4. Refuse to disclose to the City, after having sold pledged goods, the name of the purchaser or the price for which the item sold; or L. General Restrictions for Precious Metal Dealers. No precious metal dealer licensed under this Chapter shall knowingly possess stolen goods. 3-26-14: INSPECTIONS A. Premises. Any licensee shall, at all times during the term of the license, allow the police department to enter the premises, where the licensee is carrying on business, including all off-site storage facilities as authorized in Section 3-26-12 (N), during normal business hours, except in an emergency, for the purpose of inspecting such premises and inspecting the articles and records therein to locate goods suspected or alleged to have been stolen and to verify compliance with this Chapter or other applicable laws. No licensee shall conceal any article in his possession from the police department. B. Inspection by Police or Claimed Owner. All articles of property coming into the possession of any licensee shall be open to inspection and right of examination of any police officer or any person claiming to have been the owner thereof or claiming to have had an interest therein when such person is accompanied by a police officer. 3-26-15: RESTRICTIONS REGARDING LICENSE TRANSFER. Each license under this Chapter shall be issued to the applicant only and shall not be transferable to any other person. No licensee shall loan, sell, give, or assign a license to another person. 3-26-16: DENIAL, SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF LICENSE. A. The City Council may deny, suspend or revoke a license issued under this Chapter upon one or more of the following reasons: 1. the proposed use does not comply with the City's zoning ordinance; 2. the proposed use does not comply with any health, building, building maintenance or other applicable provisions of the City Code or state or federal law; 3. the applicant or licensee has failed to comply with one or more provisions of this Chapter; 4. fraud, misrepresentation or bribery in securing or renewing a license; 5. fraud, misrepresentation or false statements made in the application and investigation for, or in the course of, the applicant's business; 18 3~6 6. the applicant is not a citizen of the United States or resident alien, or upon whom it is impractical or impossible to conduct a background or financial investigation due to the unavailability of information; 7. violation within the preceding five (5) years, of any law relating to theft, damage or trespass to property, sale of a controlled substance, or operation of a business; 8. the owner of the premises licensed or to be licensed would not qualify for a license under the terms of this Chapter. B. A revocation or suspension by the City Council shall be preceded by written notice to the licensee and a public hearing. The written notice shall give at least ten (10) days' notice of the time and place of the hearing and shall state the nature of the charges against the pawnbroker. The notice may be served upon the pawnbroker personally or by United States mail addressed to the most recent address of the business in the license application. 3-26-17: PENALTY. Violation of any provision of this Chapter shall be a misdemeanor. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED this Farmington. day of , 2002, by the City Council of the City of CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Gerald Ristow, Mayor ATTEST: By: Ed Shukle, City Administrator Approved as to form the _ day of , 2003. By: City Attorney Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of 2003. 19 3~ I/a- City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator f~. FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Akin Road - Speed Study Results and Alternatives DATE: March 3, 2003 INTRODUCTION At the February 18, 2003 City Council meeting, the results of the State's speed studies on Akin Road were discussed. DISCUSSION A the February 18 meeting, the State's letter (attached) indicating that there are two alternatives for posting the speed limit on Akin Road was reviewed. The first alternative entails setting the speed limit at 50 mph from CSAH 50 to 195th Street and 45 mph from 195th Street to Pilot Knob Road. The second alternative would be to post the speed limit at 50 mph between CSAH 50 and Eaves Way and 45 mph between Eaves Way and Pilot Knob Road. However, for the second alternative to be recommended to the State Traffic Engineer, the City would need to commit to not posting the 30 mph statutory speed in the ''urban district" area. Otherwise, if the Council posts the urban district at 30 mph, MnDOT will recommend the first alternative, which would keep the speed limit at 50 mph between the urban district area and 195th Street. At the meeting, a resident questioned whether it would be possible to continue the 45 mph speed limit all the way south to CSAH 50. MnDOT was contacted regarding this issue and they agreed to take another look at the section of roadway between CSAH 50 and Eaves Way. MnDOT has since completed their review and their response is attached. At this time, they have determined that their recommended alternatives as presented in their January 22, 2003 letter will stay unchanged. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REOUESTED Consider adoption of the attached resolution asserting that the speed limits on Akin Road be posted as identified by the second alternative and agreeing that the City will not post the 30 mph statutory speed limit in the urban district area. 3~/ Respectfully Submitted, ~Yv1~ Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file David Pritzlaff ~ RESOLUTION NO. - 03 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO CHANGE SPEED LIMITS FOR AKIN ROAD BETWEEN 212tb STREET (CSAH SO) AND PILOT KNOB ROAD (CSAH 31) WITHIN THE CITY OF FARMINGTON Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 3rd day of March, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, the City of Farmington passed Resolution 38-01 requesting the Minnesota Department of Transportation to conduct an engineering and traffic investigation of Akin Road to determine the appropriate speed limit for that road between 212th Street (CSAH50) and Pilot Knob Road (CSAH 31) within the City; and WHEREAS, the Department of Transportation has completed that study and by letter dated January 22 to the City indicated two options would be acceptable to the Department upon certain conditions being met by the City; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the two alternatives and suggested conditions and has determined that, in the best interests of the residents of the City of Farmington, and in furtherance of the general health, safety and welfare, that the speed limits along the aforementioned segment of Akin should be adjusted following its recent reconstruction. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA, that the street herein discussed should have the following speed limits: 50 mph - between the intersection with 212th Street (CSAH 50) and the intersection with Eaves Way 45 mph - between the intersection with Eaves Way and the intersection with Pilot Knob Road (CSAH 31) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon posting the authorized speed limits the City Council of the City of Farmington shall not subsequently seek to unilaterally pursue posting a lower speed limit nor post a 30 mph statutory speed limit for those segments qualifying as an "urban district", nor seek any modification to the speed limits of that road segment prior to additional study and review by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 3rd day of March, 2003. CITY OF FARMINGTON Mayor Attested to the _ day of 2003. City Administrator SEAL 103746 3~ """NES01'of 1ft) ~OFTft""'<;; ./--: Minnesota Department of Transportation , .Y@ - -' ,.~~~> ~ ' <./ ;' " ~ ~ !t-;...~" "" ,~ ...r /" r "../ ' '. "" ,,'>' , ~ '. '/> ''''~.... Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road 82 Roseville, MN 55113 January 22, 2003 ',. Mayor Gerald Ristow City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024-1374 ',- "- "". Re: Speed Zoning - City of Farmington Akin Road Dear Mayor Ristow: An engineering and traffic investigation has been completed to determine reasonable and safe speed limits for Akin Road between 212th Street (CSAH 50) and Pilot Knob Road (CSAH 31). The investigation was requested by Farmington City Council Resolution No. 38-01. (As previously agreed, the resolution was interpreted as a request for two studies: one prior to, and one after reconstruction of Akin Road.) Based on investigation results, and as Ed Brown discussed with Lee Mann and Police Chief Siebenaler, the following speed limits are currently warranted for Akin Road: 50 mph - between the intersection with 212th Street (CSAH 50) and the intersection with 195th Street (CR 64) 45 mph - between the intersection with 195th Street (CR 64) and the intersection with Pilot Knob Road (CSAH 31) We understand that Akin Road speed limits have been an ongoing controversial issue for Farmington. We are also aware that some segments of Akin Road meet the "urban district" definition; and that the City Council could be under pressure to post those segments with the 30 mph urban district statutory speed limit. Considering these facts, we further evaluated Akin Road to determine whether or not lower speed limits than those identified by the investigation could be posted on Akin Road, without creating unreasonable or unsafe restrictions. An equal opportunity employer 390 Gerald Ristow January 22, 2003 Page 2 Based on the additional evaluation, it is our conclusion that a 45 mph speed limit can be posted between Eaves Way and Pilot Knob Road without significantly decreasing the safe operation of the Akin Road. (Some decrease in compliance with the posted speed limit is likely.) A speed limit of less than 45 mph would likely result in high violation rates, and could cause an increased number of crashes due to speed variation. We are therefore willing to recommend authorization of the following alternative speed limits, if they would be more acceptable to Farmington: 50 mph - between the intersection with 212th Street (CSAH 50) and the intersection with Eaves Way 45 mph - between the intersection with Eaves Way and the intersection with Pilot Knob Road (CSAH 31) It should be noted that the first alternative is the preferred alternative, based on the investigation results. The alternative proposal is offered as option that might be more acceptable to those favoring a speed limit reduction. Please inform us of the speed zoning option preferred by Farmington. If the alternative speed limits are preferred, we ask for the Council's assurance that: 1) The authorized speed limits will be posted; and 2) The city will not pursue posting a 30 mph statutory speed limit for those segments qualifying as "urban district". If Farmington intends to post statutory speed limit segment(s), there is no reason to recommend speed limits other than those best supported by the investigation-- results. Thank you for working with us, to address concerns regarding Akin Road speed limits. Please contact Ed Brown (651-634-2372) at this office if there are questions. Sincerely, ~6 David B. En9stror Division Traffic Engineer Cc: Lee Man, Director of Public Works Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager 39/ f(~~tlESI01'-f \ ~I ~ ~ l 'f? OF Tl'""S Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 r-. ~ I . '/ 1< III (//1 i 1../ "' ". ".".... "' ~:~ ..'?~0 :'9M 1/ ',,~ i / ,I February 20, 2003 " Mr. Lee Mann, P.E. City Engineer City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024-1374 ..,l.:.~..-. -/ '-..j Re: Speed Zoning Akin Road Dear Mr. Mann: As you are aware, a letter to Mayor Ristow from David Engstrom, dated January 22, 2003, listed two alternative speed limit proposals for Akin Road. The first (primary) alternative was: 50 mph - between the intersection with CSAH 50 and the intersection with CR64 45 mph - between the intersection with CR 64 and the intersection with CSAH 31 Based on traffic and engineering investigation data, the primary alternative is the best speed limit option for Akin Road. However, given that speed limits on Akin Road had been a controversial issue for Farmington, and that authorization of the above speed limits might result in City Council action resulting in several short speed zones, an alternate (secondary) proposal was also offered: 50 mph - between the intersection with CSAH 50 and the intersection with Eaves Way 45 mph - between the intersection with Eaves Way and the intersection with CSAH 31 This (secondary) option was the result of an effort to identify alternative speed limits that would provide additional speed limit reduction, while still offering a reasonable degree of compliance. An equal opportunity employer d 7> c;o;' Lee Mann February 20, 2003 Page 2 The 45 mph zone included in the secondary proposal was not extended all the way to CSAH 50 because it was estimated that violation rates south of Eaves Way would be unacceptably high. (This might also adversely affect compliance rates north of Eaves Way.) Recently, I was contacted by Dave Pritzlaff, an Akin Road resident, who asked us to revise our "secondary" proposal, by extending the proposed south terminus of the 45 mph speed limit to CSAH 50. In response, I agreed to review Akin Road again. before making a final decision. Yesterday, I conducted the additional review of Akin road. Based on the review, the speed zones listed in Mr. Engstrom's letter still appear to be the best alternatives. While we agree with Mr. Pritzlaffthat it is desirable to change speed limits at a major intersection; it is more important to have speed limit changes located at points where there are changes in road design or road envirionment (development density, access frequency, setbacks, etc.). Future development, or changes in traffic conditions, might warrant moving the speed limit change point to CSAH 50. At this time though, it is impossible to know when, or if, those changes will occur. We do ask that you continue to monitor Akin road, and that a new speed zoning investigation be requested if it is believed that changes might warrant revision of existing speed limits. Sincerely, U~ Ed Brown Traffic Studies Supervisor Cc: Karen Finstuen, Farmington 37>3 ~a.., City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: M C 01 b C' Ad . . 'ff. ayor, ounCl mem ers, Ity mmlstrator FROM: Lee M. Mann, P .E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Main Street Area Reconstruction Project - Public Hearing DATE: April 7, 2003 INTRODUCTION At the March 3, 2003 City Council meeting, the Council accepted the feasibility report and scheduled the public hearing for April 7, 2003 for the Main Street Area Reconstruction Project. DISCUSSION The proposed improvements to the Main Street Project area include: 1) the reconstruction of streets, 2) construction of new storm sewer and 3) the reconstruction and upgrading of trunk and lateral sanitary sewer, water main and storm sewer. The reconstruction of the street and utilities along Main Street also reqUIre street and utility improvements along 4th Street, 5th Street and Willow Street. Trunk storm sewer needs to be reconstructed along 4th Street from Main Street north to the river. Also, trunk sanitary sewer needs to be reconstructed along 5th Street from Elm Street to just north of the river to the MCES interceptor. It is necessary for these trunk improvements to be completed concurrently with or in advance of the reconstruction of Main Street. It is proposed that the improvements be bid as two (2) separate projects due to the size and timing aspects of the projects. Phase 1 would consist of the reconstruction of the streets and utilities alon~ all of 4th Street and 5th Street north ofthe railroad tracks and Willow Street between 4th Street and 5 Street. Phase 2 construction would consist of the reconstruction of Main Street between 3rd and 8th Streets, 4th Street between Main Street and the railroad tracks, 5th Street from Elm Street to the railroad tracks and 6th and 7th Streets 11 block north and south of Main Street. A neighborhood meeting was held on Thursday, March 27 at the Rambling River Center. Approximately 20 residents were in attendance. General project questions were answered and some discussion was held regarding the proposal to close off Main Street at Trunk Highway 3. The residents who spoke were in favor of the closure. Staff has received several comment cards and a petition from some of the residents requesting the closure of Main Street at Trunk Highway 3 (attached). 53c' BUDGET IMPACT The City's assessment policy indicates that the reconstructed street and lateral utilities (non-trunk sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water main) costs are assessed to benefiting properties at a rate of 35% of the improvement costs. Assessments to benefiting properties for new lateral street and utility costs are calculated at 100% of the improvement cost. Trunk sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water main are funded with City Trunk Funds. A benefit appraisal was performed for the Main Street Project area. The results of the appraisal indicated that the maximum benefit received by the properties in the project area for the proposed improvements would be $6000 per residential equivalent unit (REV). The land area of the commercial properties in the project area would be converted to REV's and the commercial properties would be assessed for their respective REV's. The estimated project costs would be allocated per the following table: Project Cost Allocations Improvement Cost to be assessed City Cost Cost per appraisal Phase 1 Street, Storm $1,273,900.00 $168,900.00 $1,105,000.00 Sewer & Misc. Sewer $568,100.00 $84,450.00 $483,650.00 Water Main $253,600.00 $84,450.00 $169,150.00 Total $2,095,600.00 $337,800.00 $1,757,800.00 Phase 2 Street & Storm $2,089,700.00 $242,500.00 $1,847,200.00 Sewer Sewer $603,800.00 $128,550.00 $475,250.00 Water Main $491,500.00 $118,500.00 $373,000.00 Miscellaneous $10,000.00 $3,500.00 $6,500.00 Total $3,195,000.00 $493,050.00 $2,701,950.00 Total Project $5,290,600.00 $830,850.00 $4,459,750.00 These project costs would be funded with an Improvement Bond issue in 2003. While the project would take place in two phases, there would be only one bond issue with a draw down of funds at the beginning of each phase of the project. The 15- year bonds would be repaid with existing trunk and 53' utility funds, special assessments from the benefiting properties and an annual tax levy to fund the City portion of the cost. The Main Street project differs from other recent 429 projects in that an annual tax levy to support the bonds would be necessary to fund the 65% of the project cost which could not be assessed under the City's assessment policy. In addition, the City's burden of cost is also increased by the "capped" assessment amount and the anticipation that several residents will request senior citizen assessment deferrals under State Statute and City ordinance. However, the annual levy requirement, when factored into the City's financial performa, does not increase the City's Debt Levy percentage of total levy to more than the Council goal of 25%. Current proposed legislation in both the Minnesota House and Senate may impact the City's ability to issue this debt. Staffwill address these legislative proposals at the Council meeting. ACTION REOUESTED Adopt the attached resolution ordering the Main Street Project, authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications for the project and setting the bid date for Phase I of the project. Respectfully Submitted, ~/11YJ1~ Lee M. Mann, P .E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file 53'1>' RESOLUTION NO. R -03 ORDERING PROJECT, AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS PROJECT 96-1, MAIN STREET AREA RECONSTRUCTION Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 7th day of April, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present: The following members were absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 3rd day of March 2003, fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed Main Street Reconstruction Project; and, WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 7th day of April 2003, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. Such improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report. 2. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the Council resolution adopted the 3rd day of March, 2003. The project will be accomplished in two phases. The contracts for the improvements will be let within two years of the adoption of this resolution ordering the improvements. 3. Erik G. Peters is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. 4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the Farmington Independent and the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the construction of such improvement under the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published no less than three weeks before the last day for submission of bids in the Farmington Independent and at least once in the Construction Bulletin. The advertisement shall specify the work to be done, shall state that the bids will be opened for consideration publicly at 10:00 p.m. on the 29th day of May, 2003 in the Council Chambers of the City Hall by two or more designated officers or agents of the municipality and tabulated in advance of the meeting at which they are to be considered by the Council, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the Clerk for 5% of the amount of each bid. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 7th day of April, 2003. Mayor Attested to the day of April, 2003. City Administrator SEAL 6..3'7