Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.21.02 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 October 21, 2002 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Action Taken 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVE AGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENDATIONS a) Proclaim Earl Wetzel Day b) Introduce New Employee - Maintenance c) Introduce New Employee - Police Proclaimed Introduced Introduced 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open/or Audience Comments) a) Mr. Dan Johnson b) Mr. David Pritzlaff Information Received Information Received 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (10/7/02 Regular) b) Set Special Meeting - Accept Results of Election - Administration c) Set Public Hearing - Various Licenses and Permits - Administration d) School and Conference - Parks and Recreation e) Approve Agreement Amendment - NRG Yard Waste Facility - Parks and Recreation t) Approve Bills Approved November 6. 2002 November 4, 2002 Information Received Approved Approved 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Approve Wine License Requests - Administration b) Adopt Resolution - 2002 Seal Coat Assessment - Engineering Approved R94-02 '. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Customer Service Response Report - Administration b) Quarterly Building Permit Report - Community Development Acknowledged Acknowledged c) September 2002 Financial Report - Finance d) Adopt Resolution - Middle Creek 5th Addition Development Contract - Engineering e) Adopt Ordinance - Erosion Control- Community Development f) Adopt Ordinance - Amending Demolition Permit Requirements - Community Development g) Charter Communications - Administration h) New 2003 Policy Adoption Process and Proposed 2003 Cities Policies - Administration 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. NEWBUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE a) Labor/Management Committee Report - Administration 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 promising future. AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 21, 2002 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVE AGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENDATIONS a) Proclaim Earl Wetzel Day b) Introduce New Employee - Maintenance c) Introduce New Employee - Police 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) a) Mr. Dan Johnson b) Mr. David Pritzlaff 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (10/7/02 Regular) b) Set Special Meeting - Accept Results of Election - Administration c) Set Public Hearing - Various Licenses and Permits - Administration d) School and Conference - Parks and Recreation e) Approve Agreement Amendment - NRG Yard Waste Facility - Parks and Recreation f) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Approve Wine License Requests - Administration b) Adopt Resolution - 2002 Seal Coat Assessment - Engineering I. AWARDOFCONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Customer Service Response Report - Administration b) Quarterly Building Permit Report - Community Development Action Taken Page 1604 Pages 1605-1606 Pages 1607-1610 Pages 1611-1613 Pages 1614-1623 Paue 1624 Pages 1625-1626 Page 1627 Pages 1628-1631 Pa1{e 1632 Pages 1633-1634 Pages 1635-1638 Pages 1639-1640 Pages 1641-1642 c) September 2002 Financial Report - Finance d) Adopt Resolution - Middle Creek 5th Addition Development Contract - Engineering e) Adopt Ordinance - Erosion Control- Community Development t) Adopt Ordinance - Amending Demolition Permit Requirements - Community Development g) Charter Communications - Administration h) New 2003 Policy Adoption Process and Proposed 2003 Cities Policies - Administration 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE a) Labor/Management Committee Report - Administration 14. ADJOURN 5a.... EARL WETZEL DAY November 2, 2002 WHEREAS: Earl Wetzel has dedicated 20 years as a coach for Farmington football; and, WHEREAS: He has gained the respect of staff and students. NOW, THEREFORE, I, GERALD RISTOW, Mayor of the City of Farmington, do hereby proclaim November 2, 2002 to be EARL WETZEL DAY in the City of Farmington Gerald Ristow, Mayor 1C70Y 5e... 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: Oath of Office Andrew Bellows DATE: October 21,2002 INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION Farmington's new police officer, Andrew Bellows will be introduced to the City Council. The City Administrator will administer his oath of office. ACTION REQUESTED Information only. Respectfully submitted, ~/--\;1)~. .. ' ///. ~ Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police f /~s FARMINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT Oath of Office I, Andrew Bellows, do solemnly swear, That I will support and defend the Constitution of The United States of America and the State of Minnesota against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. That I take this obligation freely, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. That I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter, so help me God. Officer Signature Witness Andrew Bellows Ed Shukle, City Administrator Date October 2 L 2002 October 2 L 2002 Chief of Police Daniel M, Siebenaler ..~a; 0'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: Citizen Comments - Mr. Dan Johnson DATE: October 21, 2002 INTRODUCTION At the October 7,2002 City Council meeting, Mr. Dan Johnson forwarded comments regarding the City's weed ordinance. DISCUSSION At the meeting, Mr. Johnson indicated his dissatisfaction regarding the height of the grass in his next door neighbors yard. He also indicated that he had talked to the City of Rosemount and said that they were in the process of revising their ordinance to change the allowable height of grasses from 8- inches down to 6-inches. Staff contacted Rosemount's Code Enforcement Officer and he is in the process of preparing revision to their ordinance that would modify the allowable height of grasses to be reduced to 6-inches. The Rosemount City Council has not yet reviewed and approved these ordinance changes. Apple Valley staff indicated that they enforce an 8-inch grass height for commercial properties and 10- inch for residential. Lakeville enforces a 12- inch grass height. Potential ramifications of making the City's weed ordinance more restrictive include the probable necessity for significantly increased enforcement and the possible effect the shorter requirements could have in the dry seasons. The Council also may wish to consider the level of community interest in an ordinance revision of this nature. BUDGETIMPACf None ACfION REQUESTED For information only. /4(1~ Respectfully Submitted, ~Yh~ Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Mr. Dan Johnson /~a6' ~ 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 <. (. FROM: Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police SUBJECT: Health issues related to cats. DATE: October 21,2002 INTRODUCTION During it's discussion of a possible cat ordinance the issue of human health problems related to cats was raised. Since the Council had little or no information on this issue staffwas asked to conduct research and return it to Council. DISCUSSION In conducting research staff talked to a number of public and private organizations including the Dakota County Health Department, the Minnesota Department of Health and several local veterinarians. Cats can carry a variety of diseases. The most infectious of those diseases are Feline Leukemia and Feline Infectious Peritonitis. Neither of these diseases can be transmitted to humans however they are highly infectious to other cats. Feline Leukemia in particular is described as "AIDS for cats." It is passed from cat to cat by direct contact with blood, saliva or semen. The most notable disease that passes from cats to humans is Rabies. This disease is transmitted by a bite, transferring saliva from the cat to the human. According to the Minnesota Department of Health there have been 2 documented cases of cat to human rabies in the State of Minnesota in 2002. There were also 2 cases in 2001 and 8 such cases in 2000. Another disease passed from cat to human is Catch Scratch Fever. This disease most commonly affects veterinarians. As the name implies, the illness is transmitted to humans by an actual scratch from the claws of a cat. /f&J09 Toxoplasmosis is a disease that affects unborn children. Pregnant women who come into close contact with cat feces that has been dried for over 48 hours may contract this disease. Particles of the feces must become air-born and inhaled by the woman. An example of this would be coming into contact with the feces while working up soil in a garden or sandbox. As with any feces, cat feces may cause both Salmonella and Ecoli. As with other incidents of these diseases the feces must ingested. While not a disease, the other possible transmission from cat to human is a parasitic infection. The eggs of a parasite worm are found in cat feces. In order for those eggs to be transferred to a human it would require direct ingestion (eating) of the feces. With the exception of Rabies, The State Department of Health does not maintain records of cat to human transmission of these diseases and no other sources were available to determine the extent of these illnesses. Staff contacted Mr. Johnson regarding the nature of his son's medical reaction to cats. The child suffers from a severe allergic reaction to cats. He suffers a reaction that involves severe swelling of his face and throat which in turn restricts his breathing. While the allergy can be partially controlled by shots they are not 100% effective. ACTION REQUESTED Information only. Respectfully submitted, - ,.-~" I: - Cc: Dan Johnson 5225 Upper 183rd St. jC:,/O t,6 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilm. emj>ers and City Administrator ~(, FROM: Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police SUBJECT: Response to Citizen's Comments Akin Road Speed and Patrol Activity DATE: October 21, 2002 INTRODUCTION During the citizen's comments portion of the October 7 City Council meeting two complaints were brought forward. The first was a complaint about the speed of Akin Road. The second was a question about the lack of patrol activity on the road. DISCUSSION During the weeks immediately prior to this question Akin Road was under a speed study. During any speed study the goal is to get an accurate measure of traffic speeds. It can be argued that those speeds may be affected by a significant amount of enforcement activity, thereby invalidating any study results. It is the practice of the Farmington Police Department to conduct only minimal speed enforcement during any such analysis. The results of the study show that the speeds on Akin Road vary dependent on the specific location. This information will be used to determine the level of enforcement in each of those areas. As for the actual presence of patrol cars on Akin Road, it should be noted that Akin Road is one of only three north-south corridors used by officers in regular patrol of the City and one of only two main arteries. As a result Akin Road is patrolled more frequently than most streets or roadways in the City. This level of patrol activity will continue as officers continue to monitor speed issues on the Road. It will also be the subject of saturation enforcement in the future. The complainant suggested the possibility of "parking in his driveway and hiding behind his row of evergreen trees." As an enforcement tactic the use of such enforcement from a concealed position is legal but viewed as less than ethical, many times viewed as trickery used solely as a revenue generating technique. It educates only those vehicles actually stopped. As a result it should be avoided whenever possible. /C7// Speed enforcement from a visible position accomplishes a number of goals simultaneously: . It acts as an enforcement method against ticketable speeders. . The visibility of a squad car serves as an educational tool for drivers to increase awareness of the speed limit. Particularly for those driving just over the limit. . It acts as a deterrent against future speeding for all drivers using the road. In addition to traffic enforcement the Police Department also uses a radar display board as an educational tool. This device reminds drivers of the actual speed limit and reminds them directly if they have inadvertently slipped above the posted limit. This device will be used on Akin Road. ACTION REQUESTED Information only. Respectfully submitted, ( ^ ~v~ Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police Cc: David Pritzlaff 20255 Akin Road /c;,/~ c,6 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 C:;, \ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Citizen Comments - Akin Road Issues DATE: October 21, 2002 INTRODUCTION At the October 7,2002 City Council meeting, Mr. David Pritzlaffforwarded several comments regarding Akin Road. DISCUSSION Mr. Pritzlaff questioned the striping of the bypass lanes on Akin Road. Bypass lanes can be striped either as a dashed line or as a solid line. The bypass lanes as striped on Akin Road have an opening at the entrance of the bypass lane with the solid line intending to keep the traffic in the bypass lane until the exit point. A dashed line would allow the vehicle to enter and exit the bypass lane at any location. Turn lanes also use solid lines to keep the traffic in the turn lane so vehicles are not crossing into and out of the turn lane at inappropriate locations. A turn lane should not be confused with a bypass lane since turn lanes are marked with turn arrows. Mr. Pritzlaff also questioned the idea that drivers will tend to drive the comfortable speed of the road, regardless of the posted speed limit. In our discussions with MnDOT, MnDOT has indicated that their data shows this to be the case. When there is enforcement on a roadway, the vehicles will tend to slow down. However, very shortly after the traffic officer leaves the location, vehicle speeds go back to what the drivers feel is comfortable. The Police Chief has indicated that enforcement along Akin Road will continue as staffing and scheduling allow. BUDGET IMPACT None ACTION REQUESTED For information only. Respectfully Submitted, ~)rl m~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Mr. David Pritzlaff /co/3 7a- COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR October 7, 2002 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Ristow led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Audience: Ristow, Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan Verch Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; 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, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Manager; Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Earl Teporten, Jim Allen, Larry Johnson, Casey Wollschlager, David Pritzlaff, Mike Burville, Dan Johnson, Mike Heinzerling, Joni Jenning, Robert Sayer, Christy Fogarty, Matt Alexander, Bob Knutson, Cheryl Retterath 4. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Proclaim Minnesota Manufacturer's Week October 21-25, 2002 MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg proclaiming October 21-25,2002 as Minnesota Manufacturer's Week. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. David Pritzlaff, 20255 Akin Road, stated some residents on Akin Road did not received notice of the neighborhood meeting to discuss the Akin Road speed study. He thanked City Engineer Mann for calling the residents to inform them of the meeting. Mr. Pritzlaff stated it is important for Council members to attend neighborhood meetings and thanked Councilmember Soderberg for attending. During the neighborhood meeting, speed, safety, and lack of patrol on Akin Road were discussed. Mr. Pritzlaffwould like to see Akin Road have a reputation of an area where speeding tickets will be issued. He is concerned that the turn lanes and passing lanes are marked the same. He thought a passing lane should be marked by a broken white line. Due to unsafe conditions, he received permission from the Post Office to move his mailbox to his side of the road. The mailman has to stop in the traffic lane to distribute mail. As the speeding issue has been brought to Council, Mr. Pritzlaffwondered ifthe speed was not reduced, ifthe city I~/'I Council Minutes (Regular) October 7, 2002 Page 2 could be held liable for any accidents. He offered his driveway as a place for police cars to hide to watch for speeding. Mr. Pritzlaffthen commented on a recent article in the newspaper, regarding two council members being critical of City Administrator Shukle. An evaluation was done, and Mr. Shukle has done a good job. To come back now and say Mr. Shukle doesn't have this and that, some people need to look in the mirror. Mr. Pritzlaff stated he watched the last couple Council Meetings, where citizens have been asking for things that are going to better the city. Right now, he felt the city is in disarray. He felt all projects need to be stopped until the citizens have someone that will listen. Councilmember Soderberg received a letter from Mr. Leon Orr which he requested be entered into the record. a) Mr. Dan Johnson Mr. Dan Johnson, 5225 Upper 183rd Street, received a response to his comments at the previous Council Meeting regarding stray cats. He wanted to know if an ordinance would be adopted. Mayor Ristow suggested a workshop for Council to discuss an ordinance. Mr. Johnson felt the choices were already listed in the Council memo and did not see the need for a workshop. He wanted something done immediately to remove the cats from his yard. Council member Strachan stated typically at this time Council would decide if a workshop is needed or decide on a resolution to the problem. The Council needs to look at the cost if cats are euthanised. Mr. Johnson's son is allergic to cats, the neighborhood children cannot play in their sandboxes, and Mr. Johnson had to tear up part of his front lawn. They have tried talking with their neighbors, but they will not listen. Mr. Johnson then discussed the ordinance regarding grass height. He feels 12 inches is too high. He feels residents should have moral and civic standards. It is an eyesore to everyone in the neighborhood. He would like to see the ordinance revised. Staffwill research ordinances with other cities and respond at the next meeting. Mr. Johnson asked ifhis son comes in contact with a cat and has to go to the emergency room, who pays for it? City Attorney Jamnik replied it is not the city's responsibility, it does not matter that the situation has been brought to Council's attention. Staff stated while the ordinance does not authorize the city to impound cats at this time, Mr. Johnson can live trap the cats and pay the impound fee himself. The cats are trespassing and Mr. Johnson can do what he has to, to protect his property. Councilmember Cordes asked what the process is for catching stray dogs? Staff replied there are two ways, if the dog is confined in a garage, animal control will pick it up. Ifthe city receives a complaint of a dog running at large, animal control will patrol the area and pick it up. Councilmember Soderberg stated Council determines policy, and the policy has to be for the entire city and a process needs to be followed. Council should also /0/5 Council Minutes (Regular) October 7, 2002 Page 3 consider the health aspects. He is concerned with the cost and would agree to a workshop. Councilmember Soderberg stated the problems are coming from one specific residence and asked ifthere are any other violations? Staff replied they can take a close look at the house, but all the issues are within the ordinance. Staff will research options and respond. Mr. David Pritzlaff, 20255 Akin Road, asked if there is a leash law for dogs, and if so, can it be applied to cats? Mayor Ristow replied the city does have a leash law for dogs, but it does not apply to cats. b) James and Victoria Munro Staff sent a response regarding traffic issues on Embers Avenue. 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Strachan, second by Cordes to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (9/16/02 Regular) b) Approved Appointment Recommendation - Police - Administration c) Adopted RESOLUTION R87-02 Appointing Election Judges, General Election- Administration d) Adopted RESOLUTION R88-02 Acknowledged Retirement - Administration e) Adopted RESOLUTION R89-02 Acknowledged Retirement - Parks and Recreation - Administration f) Received Information Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation g) Set October 21, 2002 Public Hearing Beer and Wine Licenses - Administration h) Received Information School and Conference - Fire Department i) Approved Appointment Recommendation - Housing and Redevelopment Authority - Administration j) Approved Appointment Recommendation - Heritage Preservation Commission - Administration k) Adopted RESOLUTION R90-02 Rescheduling 2002 Sealcoat Project Assessment Hearing - Engineering 1) Approved Akin Road Project Reimbursement - Engineering m) Approved Change Order - 195th Street Extension Project - Engineering n) Approved Development Contract Change Farmington Acres - Engineering 0) Approved Landscaping Easement Agreement Outlot D Tamarack Ridge - Engineering p) Approved Appointment Recommendation - Community Development - Administration q) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Adopt Resolution - Middle Creek East Easement Vacation - Community Development As part ofthe platting process for Middle Creek East and Middle Creek 5th Addition, an existing roadway easement needs to be vacated along the proposed alignment of 203rd Street. The roadway easement was acquired in 1971 to serve as an access to the former 4-acre Wilson farmstead. The easement vacation will )~/, Council Minutes (Regular) October 7, 2002 Page 4 allow the platting ofthe alignment of203rd Street. The portion of the easement adjacent to McCarthy and Bresacher is not being vacated because at this location, 203rd Street is aligned within the existing easement. The easement being vacated includes the remainder of the easement to the west consisting of approximately 860 feet. Mr. David Pritzlaff, 20255 Akin Road, stated when the sewer project was done on the surrounding roads, there is an area by a park with a pole barn and house. A sewer trunk line ran up to the pole barn. Mr. Pritzlaff asked if that will connect to Akin Road? If so, there should be an assessment rebate. Staff replied Pine Knoll will flow into the Middle Creek development, eliminating a lift station. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to close the Public Hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan adopting RESOLUTION R91-02 vacating a roadway easement in the Middle Creek East and Middle Creek 5th Addition. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Adopt Resolution Middle Creek East Development Contract - Engineering The conditions of approval for the development contract are: 1. The Developer enter into this agreement. 2. The Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 3. The Developer record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 6 months after City Council approval of the final plat. The issue regarding the McCarthy property and the roadway for 203rd Street has been resolved. Part of the contingency with this agreement is that 203rd Street is built. The development contract includes a proposal between the developer and the city. The title company has agreed to the outline of the settlement and will be presented to Council at a future meeting. Stuart Title, the developer, and the city will contribute $55,000 each to reimburse the McCarthy's for some additional right of way and some encroachment into the homestead, plus the responsibility of demolishing the existing structure. A new house will be built onsite with the proceeds from the settlement in the summer of2003. The existing home would be demolished in June/July of2003. This development agreement will take care ofthe relationship between the city and the developer. Preserited to the Council at a future meeting will be the settlement between the McCarthy's and the title company. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg, adopting RESOLUTION R92-02 approving the execution of the Middle Creek East Development Contract and authorize its signing contingent upon the above conditions and approval by the Engineering Division. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. /ft,/7 Council Minutes (Regular) October 7, 2002 Page 5 b) Adopt Resolution - Middle Creek 7th Addition Development Contract - Engineering The conditions of approval of the development contract are: 1. The Developer enter into this Agreement. 2. The Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The Developer record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 6 months after City Council approval of the final plat. 3. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes adopting RESOLUTION R93-02 approving the execution of the Middle Creek th Addition Development Contract and authorize its signing contingent upon the above conditions and approval by the Engineering Division. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Adopt Ordinance - Temporarily Prohibiting Development in the "Opportunity Grant Study Area" - Community Development The purpose of the grant was to obtain additional funding from the Met Council to prepare a Master Plan for the area south of Highway 50, west of Denmark Avenue, and north of 220th Street. The issue was whether to implement some interim development controls on the area until the master plan could be completed. The process was to be started in September and would take 12 months. One of the most important elements of the plan would be transportation. It is not the intention of the city to move the downtown. Staffwants a Master Plan to preserve what we have and to enhance it. In order to prepare the Master Plan, staff proposed a 12-month moratorium on development in the subject area. The HRA, Planning Commission, and staff have unanimously recommended a moratorium. The City Attorney indicated this is an appropriate use ofthe city's authority. The Met Council indicated it is an appropriate way to proceed. This is objective advice as to what would be best for the city. Councilmember Cordes asked if the moratorium was included in the grant application. Staff replied it was not. She then asked when the grant was applied for, if it was staffs intention to place a moratorium on the area. Staff replied they are responding to comments received before applying for the grant. Once discussion began on this property, that generated more interest in the property. If that level of interest had been expressed prior to applying for the grant, the intention to request a moratorium would have been included in the grant application. Councilmember Cordes stated most of the area is under a so-called moratorium because of MUSA. She felt a Master Plan could be developed without a moratorium. Mayor Ristow asked what happens to the concepts that have been proposed if the moratorium is approved. Staff replied the Master Plan would expedite development. Without a Master Plan, a lot of staff time would be used to study issues for one development. The entire area needs to be reviewed and the developers will be included in devising the Master Plan. A discussion followed as to when the Spruce Street connection would be built and payment methods of constructing the road. I(O/<ir Council Minutes (Regular) October 7, 2002 Page 6 Mr. Mike Burville, representing the Chamber of Commerce and Chair of the Community Development Committee, thanked Council for waiting 3 weeks to make a decision on the moratorium. He has heard from 10-15% of the Chamber members, ofthose more were opposed to a moratorium than in favor of a moratorium. He does not feel that this development will enhance the downtown. The Master Plan cannot protect downtown businesses from competition. There already is a corridor to downtown. If Council does approve a moratorium, the Chamber requested it be for 12 months. Councilmember Soderberg asked if Mr. Burville thought it would be easier to ask for 12 months and then later request an additional 3 months, or request 18 months now? Mr. Burville replied if after 12 months, an additional amount of time was requested, it would have to be justified. Councilmember Soderberg stated it would be easier to lift the moratorium earlier, than to ask for an extension. Mayor Ristow asked if the Master Plan could work without a moratorium. Staff replied not as well. Staffs recommendation is to find a way to accomplish the goals in the comprehensive guide plan. The completion ofthe Master Plan will not work as well with development taking place. Mr. Bob Knutson, owner of the property at the comer of Denmark Avenue and Hwy 50, stated that over the last 5 years they have informed staff of their interest in developing their land. The Knutson family has been approached by businesses to sell a piece of land, but waited for a developer who would purchase the entire property. They have gone through the comp plan and paid $170,000 in assessments for sewer and water. New Century Development is willing to work with the city. If a moratorium is approved, Mr. Knutson would like their land excluded from the moratorium. He stated they gave the city MUSA for the development on the northeast side and did not charge any interest. Now it is time for a compromise. Mr. Matt Alexander, New Century Development, stated the moratorium is a direct reflection of the city's feeling toward the area. It is not the intention of the Knutson family to issue a plan for a building. A plan would encompass the entire area and open corridors for other entrances in the future. A moratorium for the Knutson property is not necessary; they are willing to work with the city. Council member Soderberg stated to exclude a portion of the area might jeopardize the grant money. He then asked if a moratorium would adversely affect their plans if they were included in the Master Plan process. Mr. Alexander replied a shorter moratorium would not adversely affect them if they were included in the planning process. He has heard an RFP will be sent out for someone to do the master plan and feels the city has committed to do the plan with outside people. Mr. Alexander stated they do not want to use the grant money for their area. They will put a plan together on their own. Councilmember Soderberg asked how that would then fit into the Master Plan. Mr. Alexander stated design standards are approved by the Council. Councilmember Strachan asked if there was a mechanism for having that portion of land tracked parallel to the Master Plan process so they can be reflective of /&1.9 Council Minutes (Regular) October 7, 2002 Page 7 each other. City Attorney Jamnik stated that would mean the individual land parcels would drive the other aspect of the track, because the current use of the property is based on existing controls. The Master Plan is prospective in nature. The immediate land use application will take precedence over the Master Plan. Staff would need to study the impact ofthat on the grant application. Staff convinced the Met Council on the benefit of doing a Master Plan on the entire area. If a portion of the area is excluded from the Master Plan, the Met Council could have some concerns if the city is fulfilling the purposes of the grant. Regarding the special assessments, they were for the water and sewer lines that run along Denmark Avenue. They were deferred special assessments. They are not MUSA assessments. The water and sewer assessments have been deferred for 20 years and include interest. These water and sewer services service the fire station and areas to the east and west. Part of the property was acquired by the county from the Knutson's when the water and sewer lines were installed. Mr. Knutson stated the assessment was paid in 1999, which was the end of the deferment. Mr. Don Peterson, owner of a portion of the property, stated when he purchased his property, the northern portion was zoned for industrial park. Two years later the trunk sewer came through to the industrial park and he was assessed for 80 acres. He stated his assessment was not green acres deferred. Staffwill check the records regarding these assessments. Mr. Mike Heinzerling, 4889 182nd Street, Chamber of Commerce President, stated there were several questions regarding 12 months versus 18 months. Time is the most important thing. If 12 months, this would bring us into a good time of year to talk with developers. If 18 months, that would bring us into spring of 2004, which would be a bad time for developers. During the winter, developers are working on next year's projects. Getting the Master Plan done in 10-12 months would save the city money. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan, amending the previous motion from an 18-month moratorium to a 12-month moratorium, and directing staff to expedite the Master Plan as soon as possible. Voting for: Soderberg, Strachan. Against: Ristow, Cordes. MOTION FAILED. MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg, adopting ORDINANCE 002-480 approving a 12-month moratorium excluding the Knutson property. APIF,eMOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS /c'c:?CJ Council Minutes (Regular) October 7, 2002 Page 8 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE a) Traffic Signal 3rd and Elm Street - Engineering (verbal) Regarding a left turn signal at 3rd and Elm Street, staffhas contacted the county and staff will respond at the next Council Meeting. b) Traffic Study Walnut and 6th Street - Engineering (verbal) The study has been scheduled and staff will respond at the next Council Meeting. Councilmember Soderberg: Regarding the concept of teamwork, it has been the overriding principal in the city. It has come to his attention that some of the employees feel they are not part of a team. If they are not part of a team, that goal of providing teamwork is lost. He proposed Council recommend the formation of a labor/management board where employees can select representatives to work out issues with management so they feel like they have a voice. It would improve morale andwork towards the idea of teamwork and cooperation. This would be an ongoing board that would relate to policy issues that affect employees. City Administrator Shukle stated labor/management committees are very common. There have been suggestions in the past to form a committee. The subject will be brought up again for discussion with the union. Knowing Council supports it would enforce the fact management wishes to form a committee. Mayor Ristow would like to see more documentation of what the committee entails before he would support it. Human Resources Manager Wendlandt stated the city has had labor/management committees previously. There has been an ongoing insurance committee and a labor/management committee on recognition programs. The Bureau of Mediation Services provides training for how to set up committees and how they work. They are for issues that are not negotiated in the contract. She offered to bring Council more information at the next meeting. Councilmember Soderberg had lunch with the union's business agent who communicated this information to him. One issue is the employees do not feel like they are able to appoint their own representative to the committees. Councilmember Cordes stated she would support the concept, but finds it ironic that a newspaper article last week stated employee morale was at an all time high from city sources. Obviously we do have some issues that need to be addressed. Mayor Ristow stated he has been talking about this for five months and has been told we have a happy staff. We might have a happy staff, but we also have employees that are the backbone of the city that need to be respected the same as a staff person. Councilmember Soderberg stated that is true. Mayor Ristow, addressing Councilmember Soderberg, stated now you can see the light. The paper can criticize other people, but we are a team. What happens when the team breaks apart? It takes an agent to bring it to your attention. Councilmember Soderberg raised a second issue concerning the upcoming election. Mayor Ristow stated the TV camera is not for politics. Councilmember Soderberg stated he is trying to diffuse a political "hot potato." Mayor Ristow stated that is fine as long as it is not benefiting just you, but for the benefit of all the candidates. Councilmember Soderberg stated it would actually benefit the Mayor because there has been some criticism. Mayor Ristow stated he could take the criticism. Councilmember Soderberg stated the criticism is not good for the city, or the Council. Mayor Ristow stated you did not have any problem when you related information to the paper about me. Councilmember Soderberg stated his suggestions have to do with the potential for a vacant Council seat and the appointment. Weare beyond the point where a special I~I Council Minutes (Regular) October 7, 2002 Page 9 election could be held. Staff did some research on the appointment processes in the past. There is no clear indication on how it has been done. He suggested Council ask the City Attorney to research if the appointment process could involve the election process this time. Councilmember Cordes stated so you're willing to spend more taxpayer dollars? An election process costs money. Councilmember Soderberg stated if Council indicates it would take the third highest vote-getter in this election process to fill the appointment, that person would be part ofthis election process. There would be nothing political about who would appoint who, or cost any more money. Councilmember Cordes felt Council needs to see the results of the election before a decision is made on the process of how to appoint someone. Mayor Ristow stated the boards have been appointed and there have been ties, and the Mayor has made the final decision. Councilmember Soderberg realized that, but thought it would take some of the political pressure off. The voters would have an opportunity when they vote knowing if that were the case. For some it might be a perceived notion that the third highest vote-getter would get the appointment, that is not the case. Councilmember Cordes stated Rosemount has been having the same discussion. They realized when the new Council takes office in January, the new Council can rescind what is decided. She would prefer to wait to see how the election goes. City Engineer Mann: Regarding the Akin Road meeting last week, there was a computer glitch that resulted in some ofthe residents not being invited to the meeting. Staff called the residents inviting them to the meeting. Minutes of the meeting will be sent to all those that should have been invited, and their comments will also be sent to MnDOT. Mayor Ristow asked if Council received notice of the meeting? Mr. Mann thought copies were normally routed to Council, but in the future he will make sure they are. Mayor Ristow stated he normally does not attend neighborhood meetings, unless it is something urgent. He did not appreciate getting criticized during this meeting for not coming to the neighborhood meeting. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to adjourn at 9:46 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ,~!/'d~l?7~~ VCynthia Muller Executive Assistant /C,o?~ Statement by Leon OIT 19161 Echo Lane Farmington, MN Citizens comment period, Monday, October 7, 2002 In all of Farmington's history we have had only 4 City Administrators. I served on the Council with the first two and I had occasions to deal with the 3rd, John Erar. I have also had the occasion to know our current Administrator, Ed Shulke. Of these four Administrators it is easy to say that Mr. Shulke is the best Administrator this city has ever had. He shows an interest, he listens and he responds. He is easy for citizens to work with. He is honest and straightforward. He has a great management style. We don't need an "Iron fisted Administrator". Taxpayers have a huge investment in the employees and department heads ofthis city. Mr. Shukle's management style appears to me to let those department heads use their creativity, skills and experience to do the best job for the citizens. I believe a good Administrator should be there to support, guide and give general supervision to those department heads and bring their combined efforts into a central focus for the overall city's good. The "iron fist" shuts down human desire and inhibits their creativity. In the past few years before Mr. Shukle, we saw the "iron fist" used with the citizenry of this city. Let's not move back in that direction. The city Mission Statement starts out by reading: "THROUGH TEAMWORK AND COOPERA nON. . . . . ..". Why doesn't the Mayor and full Council work together with the Administrator in this spirit? Just imagine for a moment how well we citizens could be served with a man of Mr. Shulke's qualifications and integrity in the Administrator's position here for the next ten years. Thank You /~..3 /6 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 ~[ FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Set Special Meeting - Accept Results of Election DATE: October 21, 2002 INTRODUCTION . Results of the race for Council Members at the General Election must be accepted by the Canvassing Board within 7. days of the election. DISCUSSION Council has typically convened as the Canvassing Board on the day following the election at 4:30 p.m. ACTION REQUIRED Set a special meeting for November 6, 2002, 4:30 p.m. to accept the results of the November 5, 2002 General Election. ;::~~ Karen Finstuen Administrative Services Director /Ce,.;( Y 7e.. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (65 I) 463~7111 Fax (65 I) 463~2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: ~c Mayort Councilmemberst City Administrator . FROM: Karen Finstuent Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Set Public Hearing - Various Licenses and Permits DATE: October 21t 2002 INTRODUCTION A public hearing is required for the ,renewal of various licenses and permits for the year 2003. DISCUSSION Each year the following licenses expire December 31 t and are required by ordinancet to be reviewed at a public hearing prior to renewal: On-Sale Liquor Licenses Sunday Liquor Licenses Club Licenses On-Sale Wine Licenses Therapeutic Massage Licenses ACTION REOUIRED Set a public hearing for 7:00 p.m., November 4t 2002, to review license renewal applications. Respectfully submittedt ~if~ Karen Finstuen Administrative Services Director /~s PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF FARMINGTON PURPOSE: Reviewing renewal of On-Sale Liquor, Sunday Liquor, Club, On-Sale Wine and Therapeutic Massage License Applications for the year 2003. WHEN: Monday, November 4, 2002 at 7:00 p,m.; or as soon thereafter as the parties may be heard. All persons desiring to be heard, in person or in writing, will be heard at this time. WHERE: City Council Meeting, City Hall Council Chambers, 325 Oak Street, Farmington, Minnesota. QUESTIONS: Call Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Director (651) 463- 1802. DATED: This 21 st day of October, 2002, /S/: Ed Shukle City Administrator /~c:/~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us 7d TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator f\ FROM: James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT: School and Conference - Parks and Recreation Department DATE: October 21, 2002 INTRODUCTION Attendance at the Minnesota Recreation and Parks Conference held November 12- 15, . 2002 in Prior Lake is being planned. DISCUSSION This conference is an annual training session for Parks and Recreation Directors and staff. Sessions are scheduled for management, recreation programming and natural resource activities. BUDGET IMPACT The 2002 budget includes funding for this conference. ACTION REQUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, -ic-~~ James Bell Parks and Recreation Director /~7 7e City of Farmington 325 Oak Street. Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: M C '1m be dC' dmini' {\. ayor, OunCl em rs an lty A strator FROM: James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT: Amended Addendum to Agreement - NRG Yard Waste Facility DATE: October 21,2002 INTRODUCTION & DISCUSSION The City of Farmington has a joint powers agreement with the cities of Lakeville, Apple Valley, Rosemount and NRG Processing Solutions, L.L.C. for the NRG Yard Waste Facility on Pilot Knob. The agreement terminates December 31, 2003 and the last year is reserved for site tear down and clean up. The cities and NRG would like to amend the contract so that after January 1,2003 NRG will still be allowed to accept materials at the Pilot Knob Road site and transfer them to another site for processing. BUDGET IMPACT The agreement requires no financial commitment from the cities. ACTION REOUESTED Approve the amended addendum on the existing contract. Respectfully submitted, ~c-~ James Bell Parks & Recreation Director /~1f OCT-11-2002 11:12 CITY OF LAKEVILLE 6129854409 P.01/04 OITY OF LAKEVILLE 20195 HOLYOKE A VENUE LAKEVILLE, MN 55044 ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT (85SJ 985-4409 (PHONE) (95S) 985--4409 (FAX) =-= ~ Seat.to: grlJ t/~~ C.1yL+tl#~ 7.o-'7S"Y':kIs- cw ~""" I~, 11J$"~.,r/-, tkI- ~,a.s-,u>3 I'A~~~~, r;~..-tf-+I 6S-/- ~.?- /61/ Office: Fax Number: From: ..'Jf. . :filA lJel/tf~f} /19- tl-B~ ~(1A./'/ ~~~ ~ II t {' ~4~cf- f (Including cover sheet) Date: Subject: # of Pages: Additiolllll COJDJ1J.etJ.ts: Is W ~ .d f?c"f$'~ w.r!-/, ,/-/1 t!Jf y:~ ~fP/ 'k L ~". ~/~ . 4r<!"~-"-.c/: T ~ t?>, 11c."'j 7f.s ~ M:2/ kKeu,-;k ~1kl",/~.4.. ~~. . r;-7#5" qq-.0 OCT-11-2002 11:12 CITY OF LRKEVILLE 6129854409 P.02/04 AMENDED ADDENDUM TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE Cl'UI1IS OF LAKEVILLE, APPLE VALLEY, ROSEMOUNT, AND FARMINGTON AND NRG PROCESSING SOLUTIONS~ LL.C. FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF YARDWASTE FACIUTY TIllS AMENDED ADDENDUM is made and entered into by and between the Cities of Lakeville, Apple Valley, Rosemount, and Farmington (hereinafter "Client'"), and NRG Processing Solutions. L.L.C, (hereinafter ""Vendor"). IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS CONTAINED HEREIN, CLIENT AND VENDOR AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Prior Aqeements. The Client and SKB Environmental, Inc. (hereinafter "SKB") entered into a Contract dated May 27, 1998 as amended by an Addendum dated January 1, 2000. The Client, Vendor and SKB entered into an Assignment Agreement dated November 8, 2000 whereby SKB assigned its interest" rights and obligations under the Contract to Vendor. The Client and Vendor executed an Amended Addendum to Cont.Tact dated November 7, 2001, These agreements shall remain in full force and effect, except as specifically amended by this Addendum. 2. Amendment. The paragraph to the November 7,2001 Addendum identif1ed below is amended to read as follows: 3.9 Closure ofFacilitv. During the period of January 1,2003 through December 31. 2003. materials may be accepted by Vendor for transfer off site, but such materials may not be processed on-site, with the exception of grinding of brush for reduction purposes. During the same period, Vendor may proc:ess on-site material received prior to January 1, 2003 and shall sell or otherwise distribute :fmished product, and complete site clean-up. 102671 1 /(M9 OCT-11-2002 11:12 CITY OF LAKEVILLE 6129854409 P.03/04 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Addendum on the date indicated below: CITY OF APPLE VALLEY CITY OF FARMINGTON By: By: Mary Hamann-RoJa.nd, Mayor Gerald G. Ristow, Mayor By: By: Mary Mueller, Clerk Ed Shuk1e, Administrator CITY OF LAKEVD...LE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT By: By: Robert D. Johnson, Mayor Cathy Busho, Mayor By: By: Charlene Friedges, Clerk Linda Jentink, Clerk NRG PROCESSING SOLUTIONS, INC. By. ~iJt1n 7Gary . e, Vice President STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2002, by MARY HAMANN-ROLAND and MARY MUELLER. r~tively the Mayor and Clerk of the CITY OF APPLE V ALLEY. a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public 102671 2 /~30 OCT-11-2002 11:12 CITY OF LAKEVILLE 6129854409 P.04/04 . .......,~ STATE OF MINNESOTA } )ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of . 2002, by GERALD G. RISTOW and ED SHUKLE, respectively the Mayor and Administrator of the CITY OF FARMINGTON, a Minnesota municipal corporation., on behalf of said corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City CounciL Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )85. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2002, by ROBERT D. JOHNSON and CHARLENE FRlEDGES. respectively the Mayor and Clerk of the CITY OF LAKEVILLE, a Minnesota municipal corporation. on behalf of said corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public STATEOFMINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of . 2002, by CATHY BUSHO and LINDA JENTINK, respectively the Mayor and Clerk of the CITY OF ROSEMOUNT. a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) \J~ )ss. COUNTY OF ~ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of o C;lo but , 2002, by GARY WHlTE. the Vice President ofNRG PROCESSING SOLUTIONS, L.L.C., a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of said company. NOtaly~~CP~ 102671 . ........- - .....--~.;v....._..._-~-~. I 'CHERYL A.JOHNSONI .NOTARY PU9UC - MINNESOTA WASHINelON COUNlY ~ ~.: EllDnI JI!I.:!I! ~ f!IlIOI_. ..)1..1M__..~. ----- ....-- -------- /~31 TOTAL P.04 3 '1)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 '1 b C' Ad . . ~ <. ayor, OunCI mem ers, Ity mIllistrator FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: Public Hearing-Wine License Requests DATE: October 21,2002 INTRODUCTION . Pursuant to City Ordinance 3-12-6-2, a public hearing must be held to issue an On-Sale Wine License. DISCUSSION Two new businesses The Ugly Mug, Inc. located in the Schwiness Building at 18450 Pilot Knob Road and Ted's Pizza, Inc., 18500 Pilot Knob Road, have submitted first time applications for On-Sale Wine licenses. The required attachments, fees and insurance information have been submitted with the application. The Police Department has performed the background check, reviewed the forms and approved the application. Public Notice establishing the public hearing date and time was published on October 10, 2002. The Ugly Mug and Ted's Pizza, Inc., have also submitted a first time application for a 3;2 Malt Liquor on-sale license that authorizes them to sell Intoxicating Malt Liquors at on- sale without an additional license. The appropriate forms, fee and insurance information have been submitted with the application. The Police Department has reviewed the information, conducted the background check and approved the issuance of a license. BUDGET IMPACT The annual fee for a Wine license for the 2002 license is $250.00 for each business. The fee for on-sale beer is $175.00 for each establishment. /&,33 ACTION REOUESTED Approve an On-Sale Wine License and On-Sale Intoxicating Malt Liquor for The Ugly Mug, 18450 Pilot Knob Road and an On-Sale Wine License and On-Sale Intoxicating Malt Liquor License for Ted's Pizza, 18500 Pilot Knob Road, to be effective until December 31, 2002. Respectfully submitted, ~8~ Karen Finstuen Administrative Services Manager /~3 t./ ?5b 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~\ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: 2002 Seal Coat Project Assessment Hearing DATE: October 21,2002 INTRODUCTION The City Council scheduled the 2002 Seal Coat project assessment hearing at the October 7, 2002 City Council meeting. DISCUSSION The 2002 Seal Coat project has been completed. Properties in East Farmington 3rd Addition and East Fannington 4th Addition were seal coated for the first time this year. The streets of Hillview Addition, Terra Addition, Dakota County Estates 2nd through 5th Additions, Henderson Addition, 4th Street between Maple Street and County Road 74, 5th Street between Walnut Street and County Road 74, 6th Street between Walnut Street and County Road 74, 7th Street between Walnut Street and County Road 74, Maple Street between 4th Street and 6th Street, Hickory Street between 4th Street and 5th Street, Beech Street between 6th Street and T.H. 3, Locust Street between 5th Street and 6th Street, Hickory Street between 7th Street and T.H. 3, alley by Fannington Lutheran Church located between 5th Street and 6th Street, and the 2nd Street parking lot were seal coated this year. All affected property owners have been notified as to the date and time of this public hearing and that final assessments may be adopted at the public hearing pursuant to M.S. 429. BUDGET IMPACf The total project cost for the 2002 Seal Coat project is $72,602.47. At the April 1, 2002 Council meeting, Council directed staff to prepare the assessment roll allocating 50% of the project costs to the benefiting properties. Accordingly, staff has calculated the proposed assessment amount for the 2002 Seal Coat project to be $52.55 per buildable lot. The total amount to be assessed to benefiting properties is $35,732.78. Several streets in the project area have already been assessed for seal coating costs through their respective development contracts. The City's portion of the project cost is $35,732.78 and will be furided through the Road and Bridge fund. 1~.35 ACfION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution adopting the assessment roll for the 2002 Seal Coat project. Respectfully Submitted, ~/Yl~ Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file /~3' RESOLUTION NO. R -02 ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PROJECT 02-01 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a special meeting of the City Council and the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 21 st day of October, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given by the Council, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessments for the following improvement: Proiect No. 02-01 Descriotion Street Seal Coat - Oil and Aggregates Location Property abutting streets within East Farmington 3rd Addition and East Farmington 4th Addition, Hillview Addition, Terra Addition, Dakota County Estates 2nd through 5th Additions, Henderson Addition, 4th Street between Maple Street and County Road 74, 5th Street between Walnut Street and County Road 74, 6th Street between Walnut Street and County Road 74, 7th Street between Walnut Street and County Road 74, Maple Street between 4th Street and 6th Street, Hickory Street between 4th Street and 5th Street, Beech Street between 6th Street and T.H. 3, Locust Street between 5th Street and 6th Street, Hickory Street between 7th Street and T.H. 3, alley by Farmington Lutheran Church located between 5th Street and 6th Street, and the 2nd Street parking lot. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA: 1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, is hereby adopted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in one installment to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 2003 and shall bear interest at the rate of 6.5% per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution until December 31, 2002. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest /~37 '-1 ~. shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and s/he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 21 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. 4. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County. Such assessments shall be collected and paid in the same manner as the other municipal taxes. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 21 st day of October, 2002. Mayor Attested to the day of October, 2002. City Administrator SEAL / ~ 3'1r City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us /Dcv TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator (r. FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Customer Service Response Report DATE: October 21, 2002 INTRODUCTION In an effort to meet and understand our citizen's needs and concerns, the City has adopted a customer service satisfaction program. This program is designed to ascertain and measure the level of customer satisfaction during service-related interactions. All citizen contacts with the City are documented in terms of complaint type, referring department, priority of service request and service outcomes. Responses are typically anonymous ensuring that citizens with negative experiences are just as likely to respond as those with positive service experiences. Accordingly, iUs the City's intent to use this information as a customer service tool to improve and promote the importance of excellence in customer service. DISCUSSION The table below reflects summary statistics generated by Customer Action Request forms over the months of April, May and June, 2002. Summary response percentages are generated through the analysis of monthly reports and include response data from all operating City departments. # of Service # of Surveys Prompt Personally Courteous Month Re uests Returned Res onse Satisfied & Hel ful I April I May I June I Summary 34 35 25 94 33 10 13 56 94% 89% 92% 92% 83% 80% 83% 82% 94% 100% 100% 98% The percentages above reflect the number of actual surveys that indicated a response in any given category. Consequently calculations are based on the actual numbers of responses received which may differ from the number of surveys received as some respondents did not indicate answers to specific survey questions. /~39 On average, eighty three percent (83%) of citizen requests for service are handled and addressed within a 1-3 day period. Typically, from that point it requires approximately 90 days or more to receive, process, compile and analyze the survey response data into monthly reports. In terms of how "promptly the City reacted to citizen requests," the degree of "how personally satisfied citizens were with service outcomes," and was City staff "courteous and helpful" in responding to citizen requests, response data suggests a very high level of customer satisfaction in all three categories. In terms of core customer service skills, City staff have achieved an impressive 98% rating in "courteous and helpful service" and 92% in "prompt service" regardless of how personally satisfied a resident was with service outcomes. This underscores the City's commitment to treat each resident contact as a highly valued customer service relations opportunity. In terms of how personally satisfied a resident is with a specific service outcome, staff responses are, in most cases, controlled by state statutes, City ordinances, available staff resources and/or service priorities. In some cases, responses are a function of a third party who must respond to a given situation. Overall, a summary rating of 82% over the three month period for how personally satisfied a resident was with a City service response is a very respectable response ratio given the wide range of resident concerns. In review of survey comments, residents commented both negatively and positively on a variety of concerns such as sod damage, unkempt yards, complaint of broken sidewalks, potholes, illegal dumping near ponds, blowing construction debris and requests to trim or remove boulevard trees along with staff s prompt and helpful responses. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED Acknowledge the Customer Service Satisfaction reports from April through June, 2002. Staff will continue to present customer service satisfaction data to Council as it becomes available. Monthly report data with department breakdowns are available for Council review upon request. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Karen Finstuen Administrative Services Manager /ttJ 10 lOb City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator<2".(.. Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator FROM: SUBJECT: Third Quarter 2002 Building Report DATE: October 21,2002 INTRODUCTION The following is a report summarizing the new construction permits issued during the third quarter of 2002 and year to date. DISCUSSION During the third quarter of the 2002 building construction season (July 1, 2002 to September 30, 2002) the City issued new residential building permits for 70 single-family homes and 57 owner-occupied townhouse units for a total of 127 new housing units. No new commercial, industrial or institutional building permits were approved during the third quarter. Through the third quarter of this year the City has issued 215 single-family permits and 197 owner- occupied housing units for a total of 412 new housing permits. Two new commercial building permits have been issued through the third quarter of the year. None of the housing permits issued during 2002 have included any new rental housing units. The average building valuation of the single-family homes through the third quarter of 2002 was $160,186, up from $152,336 through the same period last year. The average building valuation of the townhome units through the third quarter of 2002 was $115,603, up from $109,260 during the same period in 2001. (Note that the valuation averages do not represent the overall sale or market value of the home; since it does not include the value of the lot or any amenities added to the home that are not part of the building code formula). ACTION REQUIRED No action is required, for City Council information only. ~R. esg c tful ,{ /;,;. , Lee Smick, AI Planning Coordinator /4> tI/ o :!:: E .... CD a.. CD t: .- "C - .- ~ CO ~ "i: CD t:= CO ~ a CD -~ ()- =0 .A:::. :::l CIl 00 c: ~g Q) :::l z;; Ul .5 -'0 .:g Q) _ :::l Ul Ul :::l Ul '0- c:.l!l i 'E Q) ... zcf ]!-o ~ Q) Q) :::l E lZ E-;;; O;t::: () E ~ ... Q) Q) zOo ]i 'E Q) ~~ Q) c: O::::::l (ij 15 I- (ij 'E c: Q) .- 0:: Ul :::l ~ 0 Q):I: Z >. == UJ E,,=, CIl c: L1.::::l Eg :::l __ ::2: Ul :::l ~ 0 Q):I: Z Q) E o ~ C:.l!l ~ .- o c: I-::::l ~ Q) Z 00.....0..... ('\100,...(") ~1O",,<o<o <O~,.....,.....~ 00000 O~NN~ .l!l '2 ::::l x .9/ 00000 :::l o ~ Q) z .l!l '2 ::::l L1. en ~ Q) z ~:gNCO~ 00.....,.....,.....,('1') CD 1:: CIl :::l a (ij 15 .l:l I- a co Cii-g"E:5m .....N(W)v..... ~ '" ~ iu Q) >- 00000 0...............('1) IOIO~""~ ""<OCOION 00000 00000 00000 IOIO~""~ ""<OCOION (ij 15 ... I- <5 ,..... (;j-g"E=~ .....C\I(t)v..... ,..... '" '" ~ O.....OOT- 00000 .....OOOT"'" N.....N('l')~ ,.....<o,.....coN 00000 ooo~~ ONON"" N"'N~;::!: ,.....,.....,.....ION (ij 15 ... I- <5 <0 1ii-g"E=~ .....C\lMV..... ~ '" ~ 0.....00..... oo__o'C""" 00000 1010"""'(') ""<O,.....~~ OOO~~ oo:!:!re 00000 IOIOO(,)~ ""<0 co <0 N (ij ... ~ <5 '" 1ii-g"E=~ .....C\I('l')....,...... '" '" '" ~ 00000 .....OO.....N .....OOOT"'"" OONON 00000 N""<oCOO ,....::O):!~ o~~o~ IO<O""CO(,) .....('\1...,.0> ONOON ,.....<ONO,..... CO,.....(')~~ (ij 15 ... I- <5 0 7;)-g"E:58 .....C\lM.....N o o o N NOON"" .....C\I<or---<o .....ONvCO .....,...,........v ~OOO~ 00000 Q)vv.....~ ,....LOQ)""'N 00000 .....CONCOJ::: CO"""""""N (ij 15 ... I- <5 ~ 1ij-g"E:58 ,....C\I('l')"""N o o N 000 000 ONO (')N""" ~,.....N ~~~ 000 000 N<O,..... 10<010 000 ~""O CO <0,..... ... <5 Ui-g'E;; .....NM"Ilt N o o N o o N N ~ o o ,..... '" ~ o 10 N /Ct, </~ /OC/ CITY OF FARMINGTON SUMMARY OF REVENUES AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 75.00 % Year Complete $ $ % $ % GENERAL FUND Property Taxes 2,600,079 - 1,188,515 45.71 910,717 50.75 Licenses/Permits 809,175 104,651 1,041,329 128.69 715,609 75.71 Fines 75,000 7,524 48,973 65.30 64,965 86.62 I ntergovernment Revenue 784,517 505 404,067 51.51 604,135 53.40 Charges for Service 272,500 24,395 259,365 95.18 113,201 46.57 Miscellaneous 330,500 25,150 226,078 68.40 174,367 75.65 Transfers 344,500 28,708 258,375 75.00 281,250 74.11 Total General Fund 5,216,271 190,933 3,426,702 65.69 2,864,244 59.68 SPECIAL REVENUE HRA Operating Fund 17,000 1,000 11 ,240 66.12 3,233 2.01 Police Forfeitures Fund 9,050 - 3,755 41.49 13,023 142.17 Recreation Operating Fund 213,350 122,960 195,340 91.56 141,680 44.44 Park Improvement Fund 117,000 5,687 127,734 109.17 88,193 49.83 ENTERPRISE FUNDS Ice Arena 229,900 4,148 127,444 55.43 105,110 48.91 Liquor Operations 2,810,500 194,074 1,776,871 63.22 1,749,981 74.26 Sewer 1,224,675 271,527 1,074,167 87.71 1,032,209 91.98 Solid Waste 1,216,600 305,113 949,722 78.06 886,606 77.43 Storm Water 320,300 55,384 538,038 167.98 175,718 57.61 Water 1,572,000 282,083 1 ,222,193 77.75 1,065,980 75.07 Total Revenues 9,806,796 1,183,451 9,453,206 96.39 8,125,977 86.84 lcO ~3 CITY OF FARMINGTON SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES AS OF SEPTEMBER 30,2002 75.00 % Year Complete :':'I:I:I':'i':::::::::::':i:i.i~!,,:j:~j:ljlili:':~:':':i:!:I::::j,I,ji:i:i:I'i"~,::::::::~,:::,,:,i':,:I''i.li ::~:~:8.UDG.er}: I':::::: ::::~:..,:::.::':::'.;,:::':':':':::.lr.1 i~i:lllllilll:l!jiiii::i:i:iillr.l: GENERAL FUND $ $ $ % $ % Legislative 90,439 16,004 56,604 62.59 48,763 Administration 325,077 58,091 281,363 86.55 234,279 Personnel 129,725 23,859 95,185 73.37 84,523 MIS 55,833 6,146 40,632 72.77 42,410 Elections 22,657 4,333 7,212 31.83 3,523 Communications 67,877 7,332 43,805 64.54 44,460 Finance 364,160 34,485 293,092 80.48 256,806 Planning/Zoning 139,785 13,573 115,718 82.78 98,333 Building Inspection 262,781 38,885 251,795 95.82 168,279 Community Development 86,474 9,186 '60,368 69.81 60,305 Police Administration 371,591 40,301 283,983 76.42 223,589 Patrol Services 960,870 115,992 738,019 76.81 647,078 Investigation Services 150,728 19,333 84,942 56.35 58,781 School Liason OffiCE 67,059 8,690 58,888 87.82 43,823 Emergency Management 1,400 28 146 10.43 14,597 Fire 333,888 36,845 213,180 63.85 155,456 Rescue 37,547 6,600 21,484 57.22 30,429 Engineering 233,788 30,539 215,095 92.00 177,592 G.I.S. 10,423 21 661 6.34 3,497 Streets 367,823 34,224 281,025 76.40 228,682 Snow Removal 84,994 318 38,035 44.75 61,062 Signal Maint 85,600 10,487 67,440 78.79 49,333 Fleet Maint 118,031 15,299 98,404 83.37 57,266 Park Maint 197,792 31,631 236,582 119.61 237,584 Forestry 102,904 1,940 23,973 23.30 25,224 Building Maint 105,517 18,044 86,700 82.17 84,173 Recreation Programs 285,633 20,498 188,531 66.00 90,891 Outdoor Ice 25,875 923 7,655 29.58 9,926 Transfers Out 130,000 119,754 119,754 92.12 83,030 59.07 81.76 64.89 98.70 52.00 77.10 75.16 75.89 74.71 67.81 71.94 65.92 72.25 71.60 128.04 50.54 73.77 74.16 25.86 71.88 69.42 57.23 78.58 100.86 37.72 81.29 60.17 49.86 75.00 Total General Fund 5,216,271 723,361 4,010,271 76.88 3,323,694 70.82 SPECIAL REVENUE HRA Operating 46,852 3,174 37,302 79.62 40,021 54.74 Police Forfeitures Fund 9,813 287 8,350 85.09 10,786 129.10 Senior Center 110,543 12,968 81,233 73.49 63,889 Swimming Pool 132,846 6,328 115,130 86.66 89,993 36.45 Park Improvement Fund 70,000 8,250 92,335 131.91 128,610 183.73 ENTERPRISE FUNDS Ice Arena 269,081 16,215 171,825 63.86 153,177 72.72 Liquor Operations 2,620,197 206,303 1,763,753 67.31 1,649,704 73.26 Sewer 898,610 74,716 758,173 84.37 654,583 66.36 Solid Waste 1,231,370 104,225 951,283 77.25 894,710 74.85 Storm Water 175,030 17,819 139,628 79.77 124,589 87.64 Water Utility 470,539 44,947 486,593 103.41 500,854 104.92 Total Expenditures 10,955,766 1,187,519 8,615,876 78.64 7,435,346 72.86 Ie:, '/</ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us IOd TO: ~.\ Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator FROM: Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Consider Resolution - Middle Creek 5th Addition Development Contract DATE: October 21, 2002 INTRODUCTION The Development Contract for Middle Creek 5th Addition is forwarded herewith for Council's consideration. DISCUSSION The final plat for Middle Creek 5th Addition was approved by the Planning Commission on September 9, 2002 and by the City Council on September 16,2002. The contract has been drafted in accordance with the approvals and conditions placed on the approvals of the Preliminary and Final Plat and has been reviewed by the City Attorney. Following are conditions of approval for the development contract: 1. the Developer enter into this Agreement; and 2. the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; and 3. the Developer record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 6 months after City Council approval of the final plat. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REOUESTED Adopt the attached resolution approving the execution of the Middle Creek 5th Addition Development Contract and authorize its signing contingent upon the above conditions and approval by the Engineering Division. Respectfully Submitted, ~h1~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file .I~ 4/5' RESOLUTION NO. R - 02 APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT MIDDLE CREEK 5TH ADDITION 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 in City Hall of said City on the 2151 day of October, 2002 at 7:00 P.M. Members present: Members absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. R67-00, the City Council approved the Preliminary Plat of Middle Creek; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. R83-02, the City Council approved the Final Plat of Middle Creek 5th Addition subject to the following conditions: 1. A sidewalk is required on one side of the 28-foot wide cul-de-sac road to meet City standards. 2. Minor engineering issues need to be addressed and approval of construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering Division needs to be granted. 3. Execution of a Development Contract between the Developer and the City of Farmington and submission of security, payment of all fees and cost and submission of all other documents required under the Development Contract. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Development Contract for the aforementioned subdivision, a copy of which is on file in the Clerk's office is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: a) the Developer enter into this Agreement; and b) the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; and c) the Developer record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 6 months after City Council approval of the final plat. The Mayor and Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to sign such contract. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 2151 day of October, 2002. Mayor Attested to this _ day of ,2002. SEAL City Administrator /~Y& DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AGREEMENT dated this 21st day of October, 2002, by, between, and among the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation (CITY) and Arcon Development, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, and Country Joe, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (DEVELOPER). 1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for Middle Creek 5th Addition (also referred to in this Development Contract [CONTRACT or AGREEMENT] as the PLAT). The land is situated in the City of Farmington, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, and is legally described on the attached Exhibit "A": 2. Conditions of Approval. The City hereby approves the plat on the conditions that: a) the Developer enter into this Agreement; and b) the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; and c) the Developer record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 6 months after City Council approval of the final plat. 3. Development Plans and Ril!ht to Proceed. The Developer shall develop the plat in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Agreement. The plans may be prepared by the Developer, subject to City approval, after entering into this Agreement but before commencement of any work in the plat. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, subject to paragraphs 6 and 31G, the plans shall control. The required plans are: Plan A - Final Plat Plan B - Soil Erosion Control and Grading Plans Plan C - Landscape Plan Plan D - Zoning/Development Map Plan E - Wetlands Mitigation as required by the City Plan F - Final Street and Utility Plans and Specifications The Developer shall use its best efforts to assure timely application to the utility companies for the following utilities: underground natural gas, electrical, cable television, and telephone. Within the plat or land to be platted, the Developer may not construct sewer lines, water lines, streets, utilities public or private improvements or any building until all of the following conditions have been satisfied: a) This agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, b) The necessary security has been received by the City, c) The plat has been recorded with the Dakota County Recorder's Office, and d) The City Clerk has issued a letter stating that all conditions have been satisfied and that the Developer may proceed. 1 Ie, C/ ? 4. Sales Office ReQuirements. At any location within the plat where lots and/or homes are sold which are part of this subdivision, the Developer agrees to install a sales board on which a copy of the approved plat, final utility plan and a zoning map or planned unit development plan are displayed, showing the relationship between this subdivision and the adjoining neighborhood. The zoning and land use classification of all land and network of major streets within 350 feet of the plat shall be included. 5. Zoninl!lDevelopment Map. The Developer shall provide an 8 1/2" x 14" scaled map of the plat and land within 350' of the plat containing the following information: a. platted property; b. existing and future roads; c. future phases; d. existing and proposed land uses; and e. future ponds. 6. Reauired Public Improvements and C.S.A.H. 31/Pilot Knob Road Assessments. The Developer shall install and pay for the following: a. Sanitary Sewer Lateral System b. Water System (trunk and lateral) c. Storm Sewer d. Streets e. Concrete Curb and Gutter f. Street Signs g. Street Lights h. Sidewalks and Trails i. Erosion Control, Site Grading and Ponding j. Traffic Control Devices k. Setting of Lot & Block Monuments 1. Surveying and Staking m. Landscaping, Screening, Blvd. Trees The improvements shall be installed in accordance with Plans A through F, and in accordance with City standards, engineering guidelines, ordinances and plans and specifications which have been prepared by a competent registered professional engineer furnished to the City and approved by the City Engineer. Work done not in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, without prior authorization of the City Engineer, shall be considered a violation of this agreement and a Default of the Contract. The Developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the Metropolitan Council and other agencies before proceeding with construction. The Developer shall instruct its engineer to provide adequate field inspection personnel to assure an acceptable level of quality control to the extent that the Developer's engineer will be able to certify that the construction work meets the approved City standards as a condition of City acceptance. In addition, the City may, at the City's discretion and at the Developer's expense, have one or more City inspector(s) and a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or part time basis. The Developer or his engineer shall schedule a pre-construction meeting at a mutually agreeable time at the City Council chambers with all parties concerned, including the City staff, to review the program for the construction work. Within sixty (60) days after the completion of the improvements and before the security is released, the Developer shall supply the City with a complete set of "As Built" plans as specified in the City's Engineering Guidelines. If the Developer does not provide such information, the City will produce the as-built drawings. All costs associated with producing the as-built drawings will be the responsibility of the Developer. Before the security for the completion of the utilities is released, iron monuments must be installed in accordance with M.S. ~505.02. The Developer's surveyor shall submit a written notice to the City certifying that the monuments have been installed. C.S.A.H 311Pilot Knob Road Assessments The parent parcels of Middle Creek 5th Addition have been assessed for improvements to C.S.AH. 31/Pilot Knob Road. The total levied assessment amount for the parcels is: Property Desc. Outlot A, 3rd Addition, Outlot B, 3rd Addition, Outlot D, 3rd Addition, Outlot J, Midd]e Creek East Parcel Nos. ] 4-48702-0 10-00 ] 4-48702-020-00 ] 4-48702-040-00 Tota] amount levied: (Principa] & Interest through ]2/31/02) $23,9]4.70 $29,704.86 $]2,364.06 $]0.Q38.] 9 $76,021.81 2 J6,. cfi A portion of the levied assessment plus interest becomes due with the final platting of Middle Creek 5th Addition. The amount due with Middle Creek 5th Addition will be calculated proportionally based on the area of Middle Creek 5th Addition being developed in relation to the entire area of the property. The remaining balance of the levied assessment shall remain levied against the unplatted portion of the parent parcel. The Developer may elect to pay the assessment in cash at the time of final plat approval or have it prorated and reassessed to the lots and blocks of Middle Creek 5th Addition. If assessed, the assessments shall be spread over a lO-year period with 6.5% interest on the unpaid balance from the time of the initial adoption of the assessment to the parent parcel. The reassessments shall be deemed adopted on the date this Contract is signed by the City. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessments, including but not limited to, hearing requirements and any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to M.S.A 429.081. 7. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required public, by September 30, 2004, in accordance with the requirements set forth in the City's Engineering Guidelines. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases. An extension of the security shall be considered an extension of this contract and the extension of the contract will coincide with the date of the extension of the security. 8. Ownership of Improvements. Upon the completion of the work and construction required to be done by this Agreement, and written acceptance by the City Engineer, the improvements lying within public easements shall become City property, except for cable TV, electrical, gas, and telephone, without further notice or action. 9. Warranty. The Developer warrants all improvements required to be constructed by it pursuant to this Contract against poor material and faulty workmanship. The warranty period for streets is one year. The warranty period for underground utilities is two years. The warranty period for the streets shall commence after the final wear course has been completed and the streets have been accepted by City Council resolution. The warranty period on underground utilities shall commence following their completion and acceptance by the City Engineer in writing. It is the responsibility of the Developer to complete the required testing of the underground utilities and request, in writing, City acceptance of the utilities. Failure of the Developer to complete the required testing or request acceptance of the utilities in a timely manner shall not in any way constitute cause for the warranty period to be modified from the stipulations set forth above. All trees shall be warranted to be alive, of good quality, and disease free for twelve (12) months after the security for the trees is released. Any replacements shall be warranted for twelve (12) months from the time of planting. The Developer shall post maintenance bonds or other surety acceptable to the City to secure the warranties. The City shall retain ten percent (10%) of the security posted by the Developer until the bonds or other acceptable surety are furnished to the City or until the warranty period has been completed, whichever first occurs. The retainage may be used to pay for warranty work. The City's Engineering Guidelines identify the procedures for final acceptance of streets and utilities. 10. Gradinl! Plan. The plat shall be graded and drainage provided by the Developer in accordance with Plan B. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, the Developer may start rough grading the lots within the stockpile and easement areas in conformance with Plan B before the plat is filed if all fees have been paid and the City has been furnished the required security. Additional rough grading may be allowed upon obtaining written authorization from the City Engineer. If the developer needs to change grading affecting drainage after homeowners are on site, he must notify all property owners/residents of this work prior to its initiation. This notification cannot take place until the City Engineer has approved the proposed grading changes. 11. Erosion Control and Fees. After the site is rough graded, but before any utility construction is commenced or building permits are issued, the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if it is determined that the methods implemented are insufficient to properly control erosion. All areas disturbed by the excavation and back-filling operations shall be re- seeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule, or supplementary instructions received from the 3 I~C/c; City, or in an emergency determined at the sole discretion of the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion immediately, without notice to the Developer. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and the City's rights or obligations hereunder. If the Developer does not reimburse the City for any costs of the City incurred for such work within thirty (30) days, the City may draw down the letter of credit to pay such costs. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in full compliance with the erosion control requirements. The Developer is responsible for Erosion Control inspection fees at the current rates. The Developer is also responsible for a Water Quality Management Fee of $ 811.00 based upon the number of acres in the plat. This fee is due and payable at the time of execution of this agreement. 12. Landscapin2. The Developer shall landscape the plat in accordance with Plan C. The landscaping shall be accomplished in accordance with a time schedule approved by the City. A The Developer shall be solely responsible for the installation of all project landscaping including but not limited to the boulevard trees. The responsibility for the installation of boulevard trees will not be transferred to builders, homeowners, etc. B. All graded areas, including finish grade on lots, will require a minimum of 4" of black dirt. The responsibility for the installation of black dirt shall not be transferred to homeowners. C. Retaining walls with I) a height that exceeds four feet or 2) a combination of tiers that exceed four feet or 3) a three foot wall with a back slope greater than 4 to I shall be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by a structural or geotechnical engineer licensed by the State of Minnesota. Following construction, a certification signed by the design engineer shall be filed with the City Engineer evidencing that the retaining will was constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. All retaining walls that are part of the development plans, or special conditions referred to in this Contract that are required to be constructed, shall be constructed and certified before any building permit is issued for a lot on which a retaining wall is required to be built. All landscaping features, including those constructed within public rights of way, remain the property and responsibility of the developer and subsequent property owners, subject to the City's or other governmental unit's rights to access and maintain their rights of way. 13. Phased Development. The plat shall be developed in one (1) phase in accordance with Plans A-F. No earth moving shall be done in any subsequent phase until the necessary security has been furnished to the City. No construction of public improvements or other development shall be done in any subsequent phase until a final plat for the phase has been filed in the County Recorder's office and the necessary security has been furnished to the City. The City may refuse to approve fmal plats of subsequent phases until public improvements for all prior phases have been satisfactorily completed. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, this Development Contract constitutes approval to develop the plat. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until development agreements for such phases are approved by the City. 14. Effect of Subdivision Approval. For two (2) years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the current urban service area, or removing any part thereof which has not been final platted, or official controls, shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications or platting required or permitted by the approved preliminary plat unless required by State or Federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by State law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan (including removing unplatted property from the urban service area), official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement and may require submission of a new plat. 15. Surface Water Mana2ement Fee. The Developer shall pay an area storm water management charge of $ 70,730.00 in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a 10 year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081. Storm sewer charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. 4 /~(J " 16. Wetland Conservation and Miti!!:ation. The Developer shall comply with the 1991 Wetlands Conservation Act, as amended, and the Wetlands Mitigation Plan. The Developer shall pay all costs associated with wetlands conservation and the Wetlands Mitigation Plan. 17. Water Main Trunk Area Char!!:e. The Developer shall pay a water main trunk area charge of$ 25,269.00 for the plat in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081. Water area charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. A credit of $ 19,911.00 will be given to the Developer for Water Main Trunk oversizing within the plat. The net result is that the Water Main Trunk Area Charge to be paid with this plat is $ 5,348.00. 18. Water Treatment Plant Fee. The Developer shall pay a water treatment plant fee of$ 17,655.00 for the plat in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081. Water treatment plant fees for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. 19. Sanitary Sewer Trunk Area Char!!:e. The Developer shall pay a sanitary sewer trunk area charge of $ 22,578.00 for the plat in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081. Sanitary Trunk Sewer charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. 20. Park Dedication. The Developer shall pay a park dedication fee of $ 67,600.00 in satisfaction of the City's park dedication requirements for the plat. The park dedication fee shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081. The park dedication fees for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. 21. Sealcoatin!!:. In lieu of assessing sealcoating three years from completion of the road construction, the Developer agrees to pay a fee of$ 2,046.00 for initial sealcoating of streets in the subdivision. This fee shall be deposited in the City Road and Bridge Fund upon execution of this Agreement. 22. GIS Fees. The Developer is responsible for a Government Information System fee of $ 1,155.00 based upon the number oflots within the subdivision. 23. Easements. The Developer shall furnish the City at the time of execution of this Agreement with the easements designated on the plat. 24. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors, a license to enter the plat to perform all necessary work and/or inspections deemed appropriate by the City during the installation of public 5 /c;5/ improvements by the City. The license shall expire after the public improvements installed pursuant to the Development Contract have been installed and accepted by the City. 25. Clean UP. The Developer shall weekly, or more often if required by the City Engineer, clear from the public streets and property any soil, earth or debris resulting from construction work by the Developer or its agents or assigns. All debris, including brush, vegetation, trees and demolition materials, shall be disposed of off site. Burning of trees and structures shall be prohibited, except for fire training only. The City has a contract for street cleaning services. The City will have the right to clean the streets as outlined in current City policy. The Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for street cleaning costs. 26. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Agreement, payment of real estate taxes including interest and penalties, payment of special assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements in the plat and construction of all public improvements in the plat, the Developer shall furnish the City with a cash escrow, irrevocable letter of credit, or alternative security acceptable to the City Administrator, from a bank (security) for $ 631,946.00. The bank and form of the security shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator. The security shall be automatically renewing. The term of the security may be extended from time to time if the extension is furnished to the City Administrator at least forty- five (45) days prior to the stated expiration date of the security. If the required public improvements are not completed, or terms of the Agreement are not satisfied, at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of a letter of credit, the City may draw down the letter of credit. The City may draw down the security, without prior notice, for any violation of this Agreement or Default of the Contract. The amount of the security was calculated as follows: Grading/Erosion Control Sanitary Sewer Water Main Storm Sewer Street Construction $N/A $ 88,233.00 $ 116,338.00 $ 77,490.00 $ 235,632.00 Monuments St. Lights/Signs Blvd. Trees Blvd. Sodding Wetland Mitigation $ 8,250.00 $ 22,875.00 $ 13,125.00 $ 9,250.00 $N/A Two Years Principal and Interest on Assessments $ 54,816.00 This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. *The Grading/Erosion Control is secured by a separate letter of credit. 27. Responsibilitv for Costs. A. The Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the development of the plat, including but not limited to, Soil and Water Conservation District charges, legal, planning, administrative, construction costs, engineering, easements, inspection and utility testing expenses incurred in connection with approval, acceptance and development of the plat, the preparation of this Agreement, and all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and inspecting the construction for the development of the plat. B. The Developer, except for City's willful misconduct, shaU hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages or expenses which the City may payor incur in consequence of such claims, including attorney's fees. C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including engineering and attorney's fees. In the event that the City receives claims from labor, materialmen, or others that have performed work required by this Contract, that the sums due them have not been paid, and the laborers, materialmen, or others are seeking payment from the City, the Developer hereby authorizes the City to commence an Intetpleader action pursuant to Rule 22, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to draw upon the letters of credit in an amount up to 125% of the claim(s) and deposit the funds in compliance with the Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and dismiss the City from any further proceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine attorneys' fees pursuant to this Contract. 6 /~5'~ D. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all plat development work until the bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum. If the bills are not paid within sixty (60) days, the City has the right to draw from the Developers security to pay the bills. 29. Trash Enclosures. The Developer is responsible to require each builder to provide on site trash enclosures to contain all construction debris, thereby preventing it from being blown off site, except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 30. Portable Toilets. The Developer is responsible to require each builder to provide an on site portable toilet, except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 31. Wetland Buffer and Natural Area Sie:ns. The Developer is responsible for installing Wetland Buffer signs around all wetlands and wetland buffers, and City Natural Areas signs around all ponding areas, in accordance with the City's Engineering Guidelines and City detail plate GEN-13. Conservation Area signs will be installed as directed by the City Engineer. Wetland Buffer line limits; and Wetland Buffer, Natural Area, and Conservation Area sign locations must be indicated on individual lot surveys prior to the issuance of a building permit for that lot. 32. Existine: Tree Preservation. The Developer will walk the site with the City Forester and identify all significant trees, which will be removed by on site grading. A dialogue between the Developer and City Forester regarding alternative grading options will take place before any disputed tree is removed. All trees, stumps, brush and other debris removed during clearing and grubbing operations shall be disposed of off site. 33. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer, except in an emergency as determined by the City or as otherwise provided for in this agreement, is first given written notice of the work in default, not less than 72 hours in advance. This Agreement is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. 34. Miscellaneous. A. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors or assigns, as the case may be. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any part of it. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement. B. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties. C. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. D. Building permits shall not be issued prior to completion of site grading, utility installation, curb and gutter, installation of erosion control devices, installation of permanent street signs and wetland buffer and natural area signs, paving with a bituminous surface, retaining walls, site seeding, mulching, disk anchoring and submittal of a surveyor's certificate denoting all appropriate monuments have been installed. Only construction of noncombustible materials shall be allowed until the water system is operational. If permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of public improvements, the Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in completion of public improvements and damage to public improvements caused by the City, Developer, its contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, employees, agents or third parties. Normal procedure requires that streets needed for access to approved uses shall be paved with a bituminous surface before building permits may be issued. However, the City Engineer is authorized to waive this requirement when weather related circumstances prevent completion of street projects before the end of the construction season. The Developer is responsible for maintaining said streets in a condition that will assure the access of emergency vehicles at all times when such a waiver is granted. 7 /~6' 3 E. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or release. F. The Developer represents to the City, to the best of its knowledge, that the plat is not of "metropolitan significance" and that an environmental impact statement is not required. However, if the City or another governmental entity or agency determines that such a review is needed, the Developer shall prepare it in compliance with legal requirements so issued from said agency. The Developer shall reimburse the City for all expenses, including staff time and attorney fees that the City incurs in assisting in the preparation of the review. G. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The Developer represents to the City that the plat complies with all City, County, Metropolitan, State and Federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances and environmental regulations. If the City determines that the plat does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow any construction or development work in the plat until the Developer does comply. Upon the City's demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance. H. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. The Developer covenants with the City, its successors and assigns, that the Developer is well seized in fee title of the property being final platted and/or has obtained Consents to this Contract, in the form attached hereto, from all parties who have an interest in the property; that there are no unrecorded interests in the property being final platted; and that the Developer will indemnify and hold the City harmless for any breach of the of the foregoing covenants. After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Agreement, at the Developer's request the City will execute and deliver a release to the Developer. I. Developer shall take out and maintain until six months after the City has accepted the public improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of the Developer's work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury or death shall not be less than $500,000.00 for one person and $1,000,000.00 for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall not be less than $200,000.00 for each occurrence. The City shall be named as an additional named insured on said policy, the insurance certificate shall provide that the City must be given 10 days advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance and the Developer shall file a copy of the insurance coverage with the City prior to the City signing the plat. J. The Developer shall obtain a Wetlands Compliance Certificate from the City. K. Upon breach of the terms of this Agreement, the City may, without notice to the Developer, draw down the Developer's cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit as provided in paragraph 26 of this Agreement. The City may draw down this security in the amount of $500.00 per day that the Developer is in violation. The City, in its sole discretion, shall determine whether the Developer is in violation of the Agreement. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 30 hereof, this determination may be made without notice to the Developer. It is stipulated that the violation of any term will result in damages to the City in an amount, which will be impractical and extremely difficult to ascertain. It is agreed that the per day sum stipulated is a reasonable amount to compensate the City for its damages. L. The Developer will be required to conduct all major activities to construct Plans A-F during the following hours of operation: Monday - Friday Saturday Sunday and Holidays 7:00 AM. until 7:00 P.M. 8:00 AM. until 5:00 P.M. Not Allowed This does not apply to activities that are required on a 24-hour basis such as dewatering, etc. Any deviations from the above hours are subject to approval of the City Engineer. Violations of the working hours will result in a $500 fine per occurrence in accordance with paragraph K of this section. 8 /(;,5"'1 M. The Developer is responsible to require each builder within the development to provide a Class 5 aggregate entrance for every house that is to be constructed in the development. This entrance is required to be installed upon initial construction of the home. See City Standard Plate ERO-09 for construction requirements. N. The Developer shall be responsible for the control of weeds in excess of twelve inches (12") on vacant lots or boulevards within their development as per City Code 6-7-2. Failure to control weeds will be considered a Developer's Default as outlined in Paragraph 30 of this Agreement and the Developer will reimburse the City as defined in said Paragraph 30. O. Third parties have no recourse against the City under this contract. 33. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified or registered mail at the following addresses: Attn: Larry Frank Arcon Development, Inc 7625 Metro Boulevard Suite 140 Edina, MN 55439 (952) 835-4981 Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either and delivered to the City Administrator, or mailed to the City by certified mail or registered mail in care of the City Administrator at the following address: Edward Shukle, City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 9 1Ct,5~ CITY OF FARMINGTON By: By: DEVELOPER: Areon Development, Inc. By: Country Joe, Inc. By: Drafted by: City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 55024 (651) 463-7111 SIGNATURE PAGE Gerald Ristow, Mayor Edward Shukle, City Administrator Its: Its: 10 /C:,5C, STATE OF MINNESOTA) (ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 by Gerald Ristow, Mayor, and by Edward Shukle, City Administrator, of the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by the City CounciL Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) (ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,20 by , the of Arcon Development, Inc., a corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,20 by , the of Country Joe, Inc., a corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public 11 /c;,S7 EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description: Outlots B, C, D & E, MIDDLE CREEK 3RD ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. Outlot J, MIDDLE CREEK EAST, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. 12 /C$q I{)e City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: d to c.." Mayor, Council Members. tv { City Administrator ~ .\ FROM: Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending 11-4-5 (J) and 11-4-5 (K) of the Farmington Zoning Code - Erosion Control and Turf Establishment. DATE: October 21, 2002 INTRODUCTION The City of Farmington proposes to amend Section 11-4-5 (J) and 11-4-5 (K) of the Farmington City Code: - Erosion Control and Turf Establishment. The proposed amendment would eliminate outdated language and require installation of sod within 45 days after the as-built is approved. DISCUSSION The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the Erosion Control and Turf Establishment ordinance on October 8, 2002. Section 11-4-5 (J) and 11-4-5 (K) of the City Code contains language that is inconsistent with current City procedures. The City no longer requires that sod be in place before a final certificate of occupancy (e.O.) is approved. The Builder's Association objected to the requirement that sod be installed before a final e.O., due to time constraints between the survey of the lot and approval of the as-built. Additionally, the City no longer issues temporary certificates of occupancy for issues concerning the sod installation. The temporary C.O. was difficult for staff to track due to the large volume of requests and was omitted from the procedures. A temporary c.o. is only granted for issues related to the building of the home. Finally, the requirement to complete sod installation on or before July 1 st was omitted from the procedures due to time constraints by the surveyors to meet this deadline. The requirement for builders/homeowners to install sod 45 days after the as-built is approved is an addition to the turf establishment requirements. The tracking of this requirement will be less difficult because the date of the as-built approval is known. Therefore, a revision to Section 11- 4-5 (J) and the omission of Section 11-4-5 (K) is proposed. / (;,69 ACTION REQUESTED Approve the proposed amendments to Sections 11-4-5 (1) and 11-4-5 (K) of the Farmington City Code, making revisions to turf establishment requirements, and forward the recommendation to the City Council. Respectfully Submitted, ~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator J~C:o 11-4-5: EROSION CONTROL AND TURF ESTABLISHMENT: (A) Developers and builders are required to follow the erosion and sediment control program. The program outlines minimum steps that will be required on building sites where bare soil is exposed. Due to the diversity of building situations encountered, each site will be individually evaluated and where additional measures or variances are needed they will be specified at the discretion ofthe City Engineering Division. (B) All grading plans and building site surveys will be reviewed for effectiveness of erosion control measures in the context of the site topography and drainage. If plans or surveys do not specify erosion control, these measures will be described on the plans or surveys by the City's Engineering Division based on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's "Best Management Practices". Plans and surveys with erosion control specified are then returned with the permits. (C) Silt fence is required to control erosion on all sites. The builder is responsible for properly installing erosion control immediately after backfill of the foundation. Ifthe required erosion control is not installed within twenty four (24) hours after backfill of the foundation, the builder will be issued a stop work order until erosion control measures meet City requirements. An approved certificate of survey along with the permit card shall be posted on the job site. The builder is responsible to maintain the silt fence during the construction process. The City Inspector or Engineer will retain the right to require additional silt fence at any time to ensure that erosion does not occur. Silt fence/hay bales will not be required when the ground is frozen as determined by the City. (D) Temporary rock entrances are required on every construction site and are required after backfilling of foundation. If the rock entrance is not installed immediately after backfilling, a stop work order will be issued until the rock driveway is installed. Rock driveways will also be required during the winter months after backfilling the foundation. (E) Streets should be cleaned and swept whenever tracking of sediments occurs and before sites are left idle for weekends and holidays. If streets are not clean, the City will arrange for a private contractor to clean streets and will bill the charges accordingly. (F) Interior lots shall be sodded from the roadside edge or the unpaved right of way to the back comers of the furthermost building. (G) Comer lots with two (2) sides of the lot adjacent to the street; in the front yard, sod shall be installed from the roadside edge or the unpaved right of way in the front of the building to the back comers of the furthermost building. Sod shall also be installed on the street side yard within the boulevard commencing at the rear comer of the building to the rear lot line. (H) All areas that required silt fences during construction and along any portions of the lot that adjoin drainage easements shall be sodded. Any remaining disturbed areas not /~ c;./ mentioned above may be seeded. Silt fences must be maintained throughout the construction period until new vegetation is established. (I) Turf slopes in excess of three to one (3: 1) are prohibited. (J) The required sod ffil:lst be iB place before a fiBal certifioate of OCC1:lp8ftcy will be issued. If the sod is aot iB plaee and occupancy is requested by the bl:lilder, a temporary oertifieate of oeeupaney may be issued. The builderlhomeowner is required to install sod within sixty (aO) forty-five (45) days after the temporary certifieate of oee1:lp8ftcy as-built is isstieEl approved. It is the responsibility of the owner to estaelish t1:H"f in the afea where sod is not required. A final certifieate of ocel:lpancy will ee issl:led oBly after the tarfhas been established. The remaining areas of a lot tliat are aot required to have t1:H"f established prior to issuance of the final oertifioate of oceupafloy should be established with mrfwithin sixty (aO) days after the issl:laflee onhe final eertifioate of oooliflaFley. (K) In periods of adverse weather eonditioBs between approximately October 1 a and f..pril 30, a temporary certifieate of oeeupancy may be issued, bat tJie iBstallatioB of sod must be oom.pleted OB or before Ally 1. ~ (K) The City shall collect a surety for the as-built certificate of survey and turf establishment before any building permit is issued. The surety is returned when the as-built certificate of survey, sod and seed requirements have been approved. If these requirements are not met, the surety will be used to either complete the grading of the lot consistent with the grading plan and/or complete the installation of the sod and seed. (Ord. 098-420, 12-21-1998) /tP~ /o-P City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, City Council, City Administrator~ ~, FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance Amending Sections 4-6-1, 4-6-2 and 4-6-3 of the Farmington Zoning Code - Demolition Permits DATE: October 21,2002 INTRODUCTION On May 6, 2002, the City Council added a new Chapter [Chapter 6] to Title 4 of the City Code, to clarify procedures and requirements regarding the issuance of demolition permits. Since that time, staff members have determined that some "fine-tuning" of the demolition ordinance might make it more accurate, useful and understandable. DISCUSSION The City's Fire Marshal has indicated that the Uniform Fire Code includes provisions and requirements regarding certain aspects of demolition projects, particularly with regard to asbestos removal and fire safety measures that should be taken during certain types of demolitions. Accordingly, we are proposing that Section 4-6-1 of the City Code be amended to include a general reference to the fact that Uniform Fire Code provisions might be applicable to some demolition projects. After being alerted to that possibility, demolition permit applicants can obtain further information from the Fire Marshal. The current version of Section 4-6-2 of the City Code includes an indication that the City's demolition permit ordinance does not apply to "...a private shed, garage or freestanding accessory building." This City Code exception to the permit requirements is less precise than the permit exceptions that are listed in the Minnesota State Building Code [MSBC]. For example, the MSBC exception for accessory buildings applies only to one story structures under 120 square feet. Demolition permit applicants must comply with both the City Code and the MSBC, and confusion results when the two codes are inconsistent with one another. Staff is therefore proposing that Section 4-6-2 be revised to simply indicate that no permit will be required for "structures specifically exempt from permit by the Minnesota State Building Code." Staff will arrange to have copies of the relevant MSBC provisions available for distribution to interested parties, to help them determine if they qualify for any of the permit exceptions that are listed in the MSBC. /~~3 Most of the recent questions regarding demolition permits have focused on environmental issues and "access control" procedures. We are proposing that Part C(4) of Section 4-6-3 of the City Code be revised to include references to the MPCA and the Minnesota Department of Health. Some permit applicants, especially residents who are not professional demolition contractors, are not aware that the MPCA and the MDH have provisions that regulate some aspects of certain types of demolitions. Our hope is that including specific references to these state agencies will prompt permit applicants to contact the agencies in question to obtain the information that they need regarding asbestos and other environmental issues related to demolitions. We are also proposing that Part C(8) of Section 4-6-3 be revised to indicate that the City's Building Official will be responsible for making decisions regarding fencing and related site control matters. In the near future, separate written guidelines will be developed to help clarify the City's expectations in this regard. Those guidelines will be based on factors such as the height of the structure in question, its proximity to streets and sidewalks, the anticipated length of the demolition process, and the level of risk to the general public. The proposed revisions referred to above were discussed with the Planning Commission at its meeting on September 9, 2002, at which time the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council adopt the suggested revisions. ACTION REOUESTED Adopt the proposed Ordinance revising Sections 4-6-1, 4-6-2 and 4-6-3 of the Farmington Zoning C e regarding demolition permits. L.t,</ 1997 UNIFORM FIRE CODE 8701 8704.15 ARTICLE 87 - FIR~TY DUR~ONSTRUCTION, ALTERATION R DEMOLITION OF lA BUILDING SECTION 8701 - SCOPE Buildings undergoing construction, alteration demolition shal be in accordance with Article 87. SECTION 8702 - PERMITS For permits to conduct asbestos-removal operations regulated by Section 8707, see Section 105, Permit a.4, SECTION 8703 - APPROVALS Approval of the safet i s required for buildings being constructed, altered r demolishe ay be required by the chief in addition to other approvals required for specific operations or pro- cesses associated with such construction, altetation or demolition, EXCEPTION: Buildings designated as Group R, Division 3 or Group U do not require approval of safety precautions. SECTION 8704 - FIRESAFETY DURING CONSTRUCTION 8704.1 General. Buildings under construction shall be in ac- cordance with Section 8704, 8704.2 Access Roads. Fire department access roads shall be es- tablished and maintained in accordance with Section 902. EXCEPTION: When approved, temporary access roads of a width, vertical clearance and surface which provide access for fire de- partment apparatus are allowed to be used until permanent roads are in- stalled. 8704.3 Water Supply. Water mains and hydrants shall be in- stalled and operational in accordance with Section 903. EXCEPTION: When approved, a temporary water supply for fire protection is allowed to be used until permanent fire-protection sys- tems are installed, 8704.4 Fire Protection. ~ 8704.4.1 General. During the construction of a building and un- g til the permanent fire-extinguishing system has been installed and B is in service, fire protection shall be provided in accordance with ~ Section 8704. 8704.4.2 Fire extinguishers. Fire extinguishers shall be pro- vided for buildings under construction when required by the chief. The number and type of extinguishers shall be as required by the chief, and the type of extinguisher shall be suitable for the type of fire associated with the hazards present. ~ 8704.4.3 Standpipes. B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B 8704.4.3.1 Where required. Every building four stories or more in height shall be provided with not less than one standpipe for use during construction. Such standpipes shall be installed when the progress of construction is not more than 35 feet (10 668 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department access. Such standpipe shall be provided with fire department hose connections at accessible locations adjacent to usable stairs and the standpipe outlets shall be located adjacent to such usable stairs. Such standpipe systems shall be extended as construction progresses to within one floor of the highest point of construction having secured decking or flooring. On each floor there shall be provided a 21/z-inch (63.5 mm) ~ valve outlet for fire department use. Where construction height re- g quires installation of a Class III standpipe, fire pumps and water- B main connections shall be provided to serve the standpipe. 8704.4.3.2 Temporary standpipes. Temporary standpipes are allowed to be provided in place of permanent systems if they are designed to furnish 500 gallons (1893 L) of water per minute at 50 pounds per square inch (345 kPa) pressure with a standpipe size of not less than 4 inches (101.6 mm). All outlets shall not be less than 2112 inches (63.5 mm). Pumping equipment sufficient to provide this pressure and volume shall be available at all times when a Class III standpipe system is tequired. 8704.4.3.3 Detailed requirements. Standpipe systems for buildings under construction shall be installed as required for per- ~ lOanent standpipe systems. B 8704.5 Combustible Debris. Combustible debris shall not be accumulated within buildings. Combustible debris, rubbish and waste material shall be removed from buildings as often as practi- cal. Combustible debris, waste material and trash shall not be burned on the site unless approved. 8704.6 Motor Equipment. Internal-combustion-powered con- struction equipment shall be used in accordance with the follow- mg: 1. Equipment shall be located so that exhausts do not discharge against combustible material, 2. When possible, exhausts shall be piped to the outside of the building, 3. Equipment shall not be refueled while in operation, and 4, Fuel for equipment shall be stored in an approved area out- side of the building, 8704.7 Heating Devices. Temporary heating devices shall be of an approved type, located away from combustible materials, and attended and maintained by competent personnel. 8704.8 Smoking. Smoking shall be prohibited, except in those areas approved. When required by the chief, a suitable number and type of NO SMOKING signs shall be posted. 8704.9 Cutting and Welding. Cutting and welding operations shall be in accordance with Article 49. 8704.10 Flame-producing Equipment. The use of torches or flame-producing devices for the sweating of pipe joints shall be in accordance with Article 49. 8704.11 Flammable Liquids. The storage, use and handling of flammable liquids shall be in accordance with Article 79, Ventila- tion shall be provided for operations utilizing the application of materials containing flammable solvents. 8704.12 Open-flame Devices. Open-flame devices and other sources of ignition shall not be located in areas where flammable materials are being used. 8704.13 Asphalt and Tar Kettles. Asphalt and tar kettles shall be located and operated in accordance with Section 1105. 8704.14 Temporary Electrical Wiring. Temporary electrical wiring shall be in accordance with Section 8503. 8704.15 Building Access. When required by the chief, access to buildings for the purpose of fire fighting shall be provided. Con- 1-251 /~~5' 8704.15 8707.4 struction material shall not block access to buildings, hydrants or fire appliances. 8704.16 Emergency Telephone. When required by the chief, telephone facilities shall be provided at the construction site for the purpose of emergency notification of the fire department. The street address of the construction site shall be posted adjacent to the telephone together with the fire department telephone number. 8704.17 Fire-protection Plan. When required by the chief, a fire-protection plan shall be established. SECTION 8705 - ALTERATIONS OF BUILDINGS 8705.1 General. Alterations of buildings shall be in accordance with the Building Code, applicable provisions of Section 8704, and Section 8705, 8705.2 Fire-protection Systems. When the building is pro- tected by fire-protection systems, such systems shall be main- tained operational at all times during alteration. When alteration requires modification of a portion of a fire- protection system, the remainder of the system shall be kept in service. When it is necessary to shut down the entire system, a fire watch shall be kept on site until the system is returned to service. 8705.3 Means of Egress. Required means of egress components shall be maintained in accordance with Article 12. EXCEYfION: Approved temporary means of egress system or facilities, 1997 UNIFORM FIRE CODE 8706.4 Cutting and Welding. Demolition operations involving cutting and welding shall be in accordance with Article 49. 8706.5 Burning of Combustible Waste. Combustible waste material, trash and rubbish shall not be burned at the demolition site, unless approved. Accumulations of such material shall be te- moved from the site as often as necessary to minimize the hazards therefrom. 8706.6 Fire Watch. When required by the chief for building de- molition which is hazardous in nature, qualified personnel shall be provided to serve as an on-site fire watch. The sole duty of fire- watch personnel shall be to watch for the occurrence of fire. ~ECTION 870~STOS~~ 8707.1 General. Operations involving removal of asbestos or asbestos-containing materials from buildings shall be in accord- ance with Section 8707. EXCEYfION: Section 8707 does not apply to the removal of asbestos from: 1. Pumps, valves, gaskets and similar equipment. 2, Pipes, ducts, girders or beams which have a length less than 21 linear feet (6400 mm). 3. Wall or ceiling panels which have an area of less than 10 square feet (0,93 m2) or a dimension of less than 10 linear feet (3048 mm), 4, Floor tiles when the duration of work can be completed in less than four hours, 5, Group R, Division 3 Occupancies, 8705.4 Fire-resistive Assemblies and Construction. Fire- 8707.2 Notification. The chief shall be notified 24 hours prior to resistive assemblies and construction shall be maintained in ac- the commencement and closure of asbestos-removal operations. cordance with Section llll. The permit applicant shall notify the building official when as- . ~ bestos abatement involves the removal of materials which were * SECTION 8706 _ FIRESAFETY DU~ DEMOLlTI~ used as a feat~re ~f the buil~in~'s fire ,res~st~nce. , . 8706.1 General. Demolition of buildings shall be in accordance 8707.3 PlastiC Film. Plas~Ic fIlm WhIC? IS mstalled on ?Ulldmg with Section 8706 and, where applicable, Sections 8704 and 8705, elen:ents shal~ b~ flame resistant ~s reqUl~ed for combustIble dec- oratIve materIal m accordance WIth SectIOn 1103.3,3. 8706.2 Automatic Sprinkler System. When a building to be demolished contains a sprinkler system, such system shall not be rendered inoperative without approval of the chief. 8706.3 Fire Hose. Suitable fire hose, as required by the chief, shall be maintained at the demolition site. Such hose shall be con- nected to an approved source of water and shall not impede fire department use of hydrants. 1-252 I~~f;; 8707.4 Signs. Approved signs shall be posted at the entrance, exit and exit-access door, decontamination areas and waste-dispo- sal areas for asbestos-removal operations. The signs shall state that asbestos is being removed from the area, that asbestos is a sus- pected carcinogen and that proper respiratory protection is re- quired. Signs shall have a reflective surface and lettering shall be a minimum of 2 inches (51 mm) high. I I \ I I I --::--~r --~---- UJ o o u - lS- Z is ::! ::l [IJ ~ 0:: o 1:'.: z ::> I'- C7l . C7l 1'<:-:::: I I en 1:: :2 a: w 0. .C'4'-d'~-5~ \ClE~~i:Q, o u -'" 0 0-< '" '0 .... b/J c:l i:l ~ ..s ,5 .:a A). .e.-=: :E n .0 0.. ~ '3 J5 :; ,5 ",.0 ..c .. 0..15' ,5 '" '0 ~ - 'O"'~~E .'" -g 0 "'.0' :-a u S ~.tl U tn V') ""C ~:E -0"' '" ~ V') ~ Q) VJ'- ~ .2'; i3 E "5..'0 ~ v ~- -c v ~~ ..~~ ~ sh .~ v; ~ 2: "0 .~ '" '" E3 :; .::;; .. ~ ~ ::1_ ..c c:::ru Io.olv ~g~ .2 cn-vu Ec;5"55 8b/J"~'" t:; '0 C ... C.J.S B 8 0 ~'Ou b/J :;:l2-o"'C:: ~.5Vi~:S, ::: 0 g 08 '3 :E ~t:lU .ou. .'..:::......... ..,.... "0 c:: :; ..c '. '" -g ~ '" 0 _4=i o '" E-:S ~] '0''0 I) ~> .~ 8,....:., 0..1'1 ~l) - 8 .S ~ V1 'OVJO-< :;:l"''''''; "'....0-< .0"'....... >-.i'O b"'- ~ ~ ~ ~ 13 a ~ ~ .. ~ ] ~~ ~ uo~1.O rd .J:l ""C l-oo '0 ~ ~ ~ -0 - U 0 J:.l t''':~ "0 u E -8"0 c 'E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c:: VJ.., g :;:l o ~1).g ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ o '" C"l ,,.., - .... VJ '" VJ '0 '" '" b/J '" Vi .... '" ;;; '" -:S '0 C '" C o 'in .;; .., ] .; E u '0.. ---- ~ . .s "0 E3 >-. .... '" .... o 0.. ' 8~ '" '" t-< 5 U . 0\ VJ '0 l:l '" '~ .., 0.. t:>1) .5 ~ '3 .0 ~ ~ 's .... '" ~ t:>1) 8 ,5 o ~ ~ .9. ~~ e:; "'..c . K- ~ .... ~..s ....'0 o '" ~ ,~ ::I Ner . ..,. 1.0 .... Y .: Ii ~ ... 0..0 ::I 8 0_ .... 0 o '" .....b/J ~.9 rd ~u ~ .~ .... 0 o ... .;::: . 0.. ~ ;3 ~..c l::l ~ '" VJ .s'O -oC:: '" '" t:o.. o ::I o..U g-Cs'.., :;;;:J 8 t:>O 0.. S .S ::IN cor- Elo...."'" ",00-< ~ '0 ';;;' DC::'" -o"'..c c:: .. U 'o-l~ = ~ c:l'- 0"'" . "ti)V) ~ ';; ;a . i5 <'3 I' . " i' '\. t . ~ t.- to o ..- z o i= u w en a J3 ~.~ ~-~:; o b/J g-.o 0 0"'0 .... >-'0 O"iivi '" ,13 -0 o t:l '" - 10 OJ ~..., U o ;e t3 ~:g "0 U '" c ~ ~ ,~ VJ - 0 -08-0 g, e-.~ 'ib/J~ ~ U '" :E U '- Elo '" ~5-:S -0' ~ .., [;'-0 ~ ; ; . '1:: 0.. '" .0::1-0 ~ ~ e . ~ 0 ~;J' p..."",or- ,....; g 13 ~ ,.-\ 'ii) .~ 0:> '_ -0 0-< ~ "'....... -0-0 lil~ C; s U .., ';::: l< U G( ~ .., .., ~ t:>O~ ,9 .0 .., S -:S. .E 0 0....... .., e~ "'.!:I 0..::1 '" er VJ .., .. .... -0 .., .., P--~ ~,a l< ~ .., .., fl VJ'- .- E ~ '" .,go.. '0 rd' ~'a - '" . ;3-5s S,~ . ~l.' . "'.:::':' r,... ..j.... ,,:.}:i:" ....' '':''.''I'''.-:.:-~'t';-''. .."':........~:~:. . ~..... . .. . _ _', ~..;--.,..:..:..-:~.;.......:.......~1r.......~'.,_,:...;.,...:...:.. ,- ....\ ,::i.;1 .... '" ~ ,,., .... '" ~ D - I , ..c=er bO ~..... 'v'~~~ ..c--;I ,S'~ S e..sC; S..... :::: 0\ 0 .. 0-< 0.. - ~B~ ..........'" ~~O~ t>.S.c > '0.::1 o ..e g, g~.5 - ... '" '-' 0 ~ 0 v -6b/J 1 B ~ -_..c II? 0 U -.0.... --; v ::l 3:-5~ t:>o E t:>o ,S 0.5 .S~ 't:: ~"Eg, p:;~g- VJ VJ . ..r; ~ ~-8 8 ~'3 o o .d b/J E E e 0\ N ro ::::.. '" c:: .:~ t:; '" 0.. -0 l:l '" VJ ~ C '" . D..c U t:>o ..:2 VJ ",'-'" ~, ~ '" ,,.., - V'l .or- ~C o '" ::2] .u "'" ,5 0\ __c.__L_~_ - >-. '" g ~~ ~.S~ -<::' ..,15 ~So -0 -0 ;>, o ., c ;:.0 :: :B B ~, t;~-g VJ ~ U ~ ? VJ ~ >-.:.a E:;~ .~ 0 ~ ::l ~ CI ,....... ir "'.~ d' ;: .g .~ .g . .~ ~ e.~ t:: 't: 0.. "0 ~ 0 ....tJ ...c..c ::I v ;; ~ .-. ..c"'OVJ -S-",:a o ;,.S ~ .tl !;be;; 0 .. cooVJ o ...... .......~ "D 000' > g 0.. 8': ~ ~ .., "':a ~.ga""o IJ.l '" 1585 ~7..'''~. .2':'.9 .0 ~ ~.~.o '" '" u..c ~t; - 0 ~.~ '" ... -0 .., ",..c .... - t:>I)-o g~ 'Q...~ ::1....1,....; ..::;.~N nO\-o '" ro .., :BcS '" X -0 C '" '" 0- t:;::;: 0 &~~ ~~.g ~-o:; ~ ~.~ '"" ~ ~D ~ '" $g ... '" " , VJ 8 1.0 '" '" o ,_ "0-0 ",.-.-.' .-......" .'.'~."-'..- .. i3 ii ..c 0 U - !bJS ~5 ",Vi '" .... -:S 0 .., i5 5 8 ~ 8.., g "0 ::l ..c 0.0 VJ >-. '2 ~; ~ ~ t1 ~ v :> ~ .~ 0 :~ -ogVl -g-g '" '" J2-S C; '" ~ So .. '" VJ > EE o '" 'jj........ !!! 8 p... 8 r-: ~ oci t::.. .. .-,' '. ~... :;:-;'7"-:'''-=-,'r.~...... ::':, ':"::,:~:::::::::::::~H~:~/fW;t:~i;~:~:::{/~~:'~)Lf~:r:j:;;~A~;:i:{:~:J:~::_~:~::;;;: -- ., .. ~ "', -0 l:l '" t:>1l '" 'C .., 0.. '" 0.. t:>Q ,g .5 '" p... . . ., ~.......-.~,-..~....."..-...,...,". .. ....._..-..~--"........... I~~/ ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4 OF THE CITY CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER [CHAPTER 6] CONCERNING DEMOLITION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Title 4 of the Farmington City Code is amended by adding a new Chapter [Chapter 6], which shall read as follows: SECTION: . 4-6-1 : 4-6-2: 4-6-3: 4-6-4: 4-6-5: 4-6-6: 4-6-7: 4-6-8: 4-6-9: 4-6-10: 4-6-1 : 4-6-2: Permit Required Permit Exceptions Permit Application Requirements Signage Requirements Supervision by Building Official; Stop Work Orders Required Procedures Prevention of Nuisances Financial Security Fee Demolition of Certain Historic Structures PERMIT REQUIRED: Pursuant to the State Building Code, as adopted and enforced by the City, no person shall commence or proceed to wreck, demolish or tear down any building or structure within the city, except as hereinafter provided, without first having obtained a permit from the city's Building Official. Further, no person shall remove or salvage any building fixture(s) from the building or structure to be demolished until the permit required by this chapter has been obtained. Permit applicants and their agents must comply with Uniform Fire Code reauirements regarding demolition and asbestos removal. PERMIT EXCEPTIONS: No permit shall be required for the wrecking, demolishing or tearing down of a fJrivate &flea, gaTage aT freestanaiBg aeeessary B\:lilaiBg those structures specifically exempt from permit by Minnesota State Building Code (except with respect to those located on properties identified in Section 4-6-10). Further, and except as provided elsewhere herein, this chapter shall not apply in cases where partial demolition is necessary in connection with a minor remodeling or altering of an existing building. Iro"'i5 4-6-3: 4-6-4: 4-6-5: PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: The demolition permit application shall be signed by the owner of the property. If the applicant is a person other than the owner of the property, the application shall also be signed by the property owner. In addition to any requirements that may be specified in the State Building Code for demolition permits, the application shall include the following information: (A) Names, addresses and telephone numbers of the property owner, the applicant (if different than the property owner), and the demolition contractor. (B) Street address and legal description ofthe property on which the building or structure in question is located. (C) A separate, written Demolition Plan that includes: 1. The proposed starting and ending dates of the demolition process. 2. The proposed hours of operation of the demolition process. 3. Evidence that the demolition contractor is licensed, bonded and insured. Any applicable policies of insurance shall not contain any "XC" (explosion, collapse) exclusions. 4. Information about the steps that the applicant has taken to identify and dispose of actual or potential contaminants located within the building or structure or on the property in question (including information about contacts initiated with the MPCA and/or the Minnesota Department of Healtht 5. A proposed traffic control plan (if the proposed demolition will affect the use of a street, sidewalk or other public right-of-way). 6. Information about the proposed dump site(s) for the demolition debris and the proposed route(s) for transporting demolished material(s) away from the demolition site. 7. Proposed utility disconnection procedure(s). 8. Proposed access control procedures (fencing, security, etc.). The City's Building Official will determine the tvoe and height of fencing reauired (if any) and/or evaluate the proposed security measures. 9. A dust control plan. SIGNAGE REQUIRED: Before any demolition work is commenced, and throughout the progress of same until the completion thereof, the permit applicant shall place and maintain in a conspicuous place on the premises a sign not less than three (3) feet by three (3) square, on which shall be posted a statement as to who is conducting the demolition, giving the name and telephone number of the person who is performing the work. SUPERVISION BY BUILDING OFFICIAL; STOP WORK ORDERS: All wrecking, demolishing or tearing down of buildings or structures within the city shall be subject to the supervision of the Building Official and to such reasonable /t,c, '7 4-6-6: 4-6-7: 4-6-8: 4-6-9: 4-6-10: restrictions as the Building Official may impose to avoid all preventable hazards to life, property or health. The Building Official may stop the demolition of any building or structure whenever, in the Building Official's judgment, the same is being done in a reckless, careless, unsafe or improper manner, or in violation of any provision(s) of the City Code and/or state law, and may order all persons engaged in the demolition process to stop and desist therefrom until such time as the Building Official determines that the work will be resumed in a manner that is safe and consistent with the requirements of the City Code and/or state law. REQUIRED PROCEDURES: The wrecking, demolishing or tearing down of any building or structure shall be complete and shall include the removal of all foundations, footings and floor slabs. All fixtures and personal property located within the demolished building or structure shall be removed from the site. The person doing the demolition shall remove all steps, stoops, private sidewalks, accessory buildings and hard-surfaced driveways unless such removal is specifically exempted by the Building Official. The excavation remaining after the removal of all demolition debris shall be filled to the level of the surrounding grade with clean, properly compacted granular-type fill material. A topping of soil of a sufficient depth and quality so as to enable groundcover to grow shall be provided. Suitable groundcover shall be provided within sixty (60) days after the completion of the demolition. PREVENTION OF NUISANCES: Each person engaged in the wrecking, demolition or tearing down of any building or structure within the city shall conduct said work in such a manner as not to create a nuisance to persons on public streets or on neighboring property. Materials removed from the structure shall not be permitted to fall into streets, alleys, or adjacent property or otherwise create a nuisance. FINANCIAL SECURITY: The applicant shall, prior to the release of the demolition permit, file with the city a surety bond (or other security acceptable to the city) in an amount determined by the Building Official. The surety bond shall indemnify and hold the city harmless from all damages, judgments, losses, claims, suits or liabilities of any kind arising out of the demolition of the building in question. The surety bond shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to the release of the demolition permit. The surety bond shall not be cancelled except upon ten (10) days' written notice to the city. FEE: The demolition permit application fee shall be as established by the City Council in its annual fee resolution, and shall be paid in full prior to the release of the demolition permit. DEMOLITION OF CERTAIN HISTORIC PROPERTIES: For any property included within one of the following categories, no permit for the wrecking, demolition or tearing down of such property shall be released by the City until the City Council has granted final approval of a redevelopment plan I~ '/0 that is conditioned upon the wrecking, demolition or tearing down of such property: (A) Properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places. (B) Properties designated by the City Council as heritage landmarks. (C) Properties determined by the Farmington Heritage Preservation Commission to be eligible for designation as heritage landmarks. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage. ADOPTED this Farmington. day of , 2002, by the City Council of the City of CITY OF FARMINGTON BY: Gerald G. Ristow, Mayor ATTEST: /0// 10. :j Charter COMM UN ICATIONS' A WIRED WORLD COMPANYTM October 4, 2002 Mr. Ed Shukle City Administrator Farnlington City Hall 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Mr. Ed Shukle, We would like to inform you of an exciting change to the channel lineup in Farmington. Channel 14 will now be known as the Charter Channel. The Charter Channel will offer information to our customers on how to use our products and the benefits affiliated with the products. We feel that keeping our customers informed is a priority and this is the reason we are making this change. On occasions we will put special events happening with Charter such as a free preview, notice of programming changes, and new offers. If you have any questions regarding this change please feel free to contact me at 1-800-581-0081. Sincerely, ~~ P. C~ mge am Marketing Manager Southern Minnesota Group CC: Ellen Martin, Operations Manager 1255 East Circle Drive NE . Rochester, Minnesota' 55906-3962 www.charter.com . 800,581,0081 · fax: 507,289,1958 /~ 7d? 101; tMC League of MinneBota Citie. Citiu promoting =oonence 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103,2044 Phone: (651) 281,1200. (800) 925,1122 Fax: (651) 281,1299. TDD (651) 281,1290 www.lrnnc.org October 11, 2002 TO: Managers and Clerks FROM: James F. Miller, Executive Director RE: New 2003 Policy Adoption Process and Proposed 2003 Cities Policies - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - At the League's annual June 2002 conference in Rochester, the membership adopted a constitutional amendment that places responsibility for adoption of legislative policy with the Board, rather than with those cities attending the Policy Adoption Conference. The board is now committed to developing a policy adoption process that will enhance member involvement. An important feature to this change is the input of the full LMC membership. To ensure maximum member input, we are asking you and your city council to: 1. Please read the enclosed policies and submit any comments to Andrea Hedtke by fax at (651) 215-4116, by email at ahedtke@lmnc.org or by phone at (651) 281-1258. Andrea will submit the comments to the Board and the Board will take final action on the policies at its November meeting. The Proposed 2003 City Policies may also be found on our web site at www.1mnc.org. Please have your comments in no later than November 15, 2002. A list of the LMC Board of Directors has been included in your mailing. 2. Also enclosed is a Voting Ballot for each city to check their top five priority issues found within these proposedpolicies. Please return the ballot to Lynn Peterson by mail or fax at (651) 215-4115. As part of the new policy adoption process, the Policy Adoption Conference and the Legislative Conference are being combined into a new major legislative conference "event". This new conference will be held January 15,2003 at the Sheraton Four Points in S1. Paul. Further information on the conference will follow. Additionally, I would like to bring your attention to three upcoming dates for the Newly Elected Officials & Leadership Conference for Experienced Officials conferences which will be held January 24 and 25 at Ruttger's Sugar Lake Lodge in Grand Rapids; January 31 and February 1 at the Midwest Wireless Civic Center in Mankato and February 28 and March 1 at the Doubletree Park Place Hotel in St. Louis Park. enclosures AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Ie;, 73 VOTING BALLOT Please check (,f) the top five (5) priority issues for your city. Return no later than November 15 by mail to Lynn Peterson, LMC, 145 University Ave. W., St. Paul, MN 55103 or fax to (651) 215-4115 City Name: I lving Fiscal Futures _FF-l. State-Local Fiscal Relations _FF-2. LGA Data Issues _FF-3. LGA and Market-Value Homestead Credit Cuts _FF-4. Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases _FF-5. Levy Limits _FF-6, Reverse Referendum _FF-7, City Revenue Diversification _FF-8. Taxation of Municipal Bond Interest _FF-9. City Fiscal Year _FF-lO. Payments for Services to Tax-Exempt Property _FF-ll. Truth-in- Taxation Process _FF-12. State Administrative Deductions from State Aid _FF-13. Reporting Requirements _FF-14, Federal Budget Cutbacks _FF-15. Price of Government _FF-16.hnpactFees _FF-17. Delayed Assessments for Roads _FF-18, Taxation of Electronic Commerce _FF-19. Limited Market Value _FF-20. State Charges for Administrative Service _FF-2I. Equity in Library Funding Improving Local Economies _LE-1. Growth Management and Annexation -<-2. Electric Service Extension .-3, Statutory Approval Timelines _LEA. Public Infrastructure Utilities _LE-5. Development Fee Disputes _LE-6. Housing _LE-7. State and/or County Licensed Residential Facilities _LE-8. Inclusionary Housing LE-9. Community Land Trusts _LE-IO. Municipal Telecommunications Authority _LE-ll. Right-of-Way Management _LE-12. Cable Franchising Authority _LE-13. Wireless Tower and Antenna Siting _LE-14. Financing Community Reinvestment _LE-15. Tax Increment Financing (TIP) _LE-16. Timeframe for TIP District Establishment Legal Challenges _LE-17. TIP District Deficits _LE-18. Business Subsidies _LE-19. Business Development Programs _LE-20. Land Recycling Programs _LE-21. Property Tax Abatement Authority _LE-22. OSA Response Timelines _LE-23. OSA Time Limitations _LE-24, Economic Development Authorities _LE-25. Workforce Readiness _LE-26. Adequate Funding for Transportation -27. State Aid for Urban Road Systems _.oJ-28. Turnbacks of County and State Roads _LE-29. Road Funding for Cities Under 5,000 _LE-30. Railroad-Related Projects Improving Service Delivery _SD-l. Redesigning and Reinventing Government _SD-2. Unfunded Mandates _SD-3. City Costs for Enforcing State and Local Laws _SD-4. Design-Build _SD-5. Providing Information to Citizens _SD-6. Construction Codes _SD-7. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards _SD-8. Fees for Service _SD-9. State Assistance for Library Funding _SD-IO. Civil Liability of Local Governments _SD-l1. Private Property Rights and Takings _SD-12, Election Issues _SD-13. Local Election Authority _SD-14, Environmental Protection _SD-15. Creating a Minnesota GIS Program _SD-16. State Appropriation for Government Training Service _SD-17. Public Safety Spectrum Needs _SD-18. Legalization of Fireworks _SD-19. 911 Funding _SD-20. Racial Profiling _SD-21. 0,08 DWI _SD-22. CriMNet _SD-23. Red Light Cameras _SD-24, Misdemeanor Fines _SD-25. State Regulation of Massage Therapists _SD-26. On-Sale Liquor or Wine Licenses to Performing Theaters and Cultural Centers _SD-27. Youth Access to Alcohol and Tobacco _SD-28, Smoking Ban Ordinances SD-29, Park and Library Land Tax Break _SD-30, Medicare Reimbursement for Ambulance Service _SD-31. Open Meeting Law Exception: Emergency Preparedness Human Resources and Data Practices Human Resources _HR-I. Preservation of Local Decision-Making Authority on Employment Related Issues _HR-2. Veterans Preference _HR-3. Compensation Limits _HR-4. Public Employees Labor Relations Act (PELRA) _HR-5. Re-employment Benefits _HR-6, Essential Employees _HR-7. Pensions Benefits _HR-8, Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) Coordinated Plan Funding Deficiency _HR-9. State Paid Police and Fire Medical Insurance _HR-lO. Breathalyzers _HR -11, Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation _HR-12, Health Care Insurance Programs HR-13. Electronic Timekeeping Data Practices _DP-I. State Model Policies and Training Federal Employment Law _FED-I. FLSNOvertime Compensation _FED-2, MedicarelMedicaid Premium Disbursements _Electric Restructuring /G7Y League of Minnesota Cities Board of Directors June 2002 - June 2003 PRESIDENT Michael McCauley, City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 (763) 569-3309 (City Hall) (763) 569-3494 (City Hall Fax) (763) 595-0814 (H) mmccaulev@ci.brooklvn-center.mn.us FIRST VICE PRESIDENT Mark V oxland, Mayor City of Moorhead 3906 4 St S Moorhead, MN 56560 (218) 236-5295 (H) (218) 236-0864 (B) (218) 299-5306 (City Hall Fax) VoxM@ao1.com SECOND VICE PRESIDENT Judy Johnson, Counci1member City of Plymouth 4600 Jewel Lane Plymouth MN 55446 (763) 557-6755 (H) (612) 384-4636 (Cell) (763) 509-5007 (City Hall) (763) 509-5060 (City Hall Fax) judyinplym@attbLcom DIRECTORS Chris Coleman, Counci1member City of St. Paul Room 310 B, City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 (651) 266-8620 (B) (651) 224-4150 (H) (651) 335-4150 (cell phone) (651) 266-8574 (City Hall Fax) chris.coleman@ci.stpaul.mn.us bbenson@cLstpaul.mn.us Brenda Johnson, Counci1member City of Chatfield 322 Winona Street SE Chatfield, MN 55923 (507) 867-3810 (City Hall) (507) 867-9093 (City Hall Fax) (507) 867-4650 (H) brenda, iohnson@attl!:lobal.net Marvin Johnson, Mayor City of Independence 6325 County Road 6 Independence, MN 55359-9508 (763) 479-2274 (H) (763) 479-0527 (City Hall) (763) 479-2274 (Home Fax-call first) (763) 479-0528 (City Hall Fax) (612) 840-3433 (Cell phone) Don Levens, City Administrator City of Cokato P.O. Box 1030 255 Broadway A venue Cokato, MN 55321 (612) 546-8112 (H) (320) 286-5505 (W) (320) 286-5876 (City Hall Fax) corvers@vahoo.com DeWayne Mareck, Counci1member City of St. Cloud 1422 Poppy Road St. Cloud, MN 56303-0627 (320) 251-3152 (H) (320) 251-3374 (Home Fax) dfmarecl<(Ci)charter.net H. Dan Ness, Mayor City of Alexandria 4110 Minnesota Street, Ste. B Alexandria, MN 56308 (320) 763-7145 (B) (320) 763-5634 (H) (320) 759-2245 (Work Fax) nesshd @rea-alo.com (Work) arsiness@rea-alo.com (Home) Givonna Reed, Asst. City Administrator City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 (763) 717-4008 (City Hall) (763) 784-3462 (City Hall Fax) lrivonnareed@ci.mounds-view.mn.us Bonnie Rietz, Mayor City of Austin 500 NE 4th Avenue Austin, MN 55912 (507) 433-1597 (H) (507) 437-9965 (B) (507) 434-7197 (Fax) brietz@austin-mn.com . Sandra Colvin Roy, Counci1member City of Minneapolis 350 S. 5th Street, Rm 307 Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 673-2212 (City Hall) (612) 673-3940 (City Hall Fax) (612) 722-2274 (H) Sandra.colvin,roy@ci,minneapolis.mn.us Mark Sather, City Manager City of White Bear Lake 4701 Hwy. 61 N. White Bear Lake, MN 55110 (651) 429-8516 (City Hall) (651) 429-8500 (City Hall Fax) (651) 426-5217 (H) msather@whitebearlake.org Vince Schaefer, Counci1member City of Rockville P.O. Box 93 Rockville, MN 56369 (320) 251-5836 (City HaIl) (320) 240-9620 (City Hall Fax) (320) 253-1499 (H) (320) 290-4929 (Cell) vschaefer@c1oudnet.com (Home) Terry Schneider, Councilmember City of Minnetonka 15333 Boulder Creek Drive Minnetonka, MN 55345 (952) 934-9529 (H) (952) 545-0505 (B) (952) 545-1510 (Work Fax) terrvschn@qwest.net EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS Past President Les Heitke, Mayor City of Willmar 333 S.W. 6th Street P.O. Box 755 Willmar, MN 56201 (320) 235-8726 (H) (320) 214-5183 (City Hall) (320) 235-4917 (City Hall Fax) lheitke@ci.willmar.mn.us NLC President Karen Anderson, Mayor City of Minnetonka 14600 Minnetonka Blvd. Minnetonka, MN 55345 (952) 938-2808 (H) (952) 939-8389 (B) (952) 939-8244 (City Hall Fax) kanderson@ci.minnetonkamn.us AMM President Craig Waldron, City Administrator City of Oakdale 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. SE PriorLake,MN 55372-1787 (651) 730-2705 (City Hall) (651) 730-2818 (City Hall Fax) craig@cLoakdale.mn.us /~)5 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES Proposed 2003 City Policies For legislative and administrative action LMC League of Minnesota Cities 145 University Avenue West St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 (651) 281-1200 or (800) 925-1122 Fax (651) 281-1299 TDD (651) 281-1290 www.lmnc.org MINNESOTA CITIES League of Minnesota Cities Cities promoting excenence Building Quality Communities /(p /~ 1~77 LMC League of Minmll10ta On"" Citi"" promotmg exceUencs Copyright @ 2002 League of Minnesota Cities. All rights reserved. League of Minnesota Cities 145 University Avenue West · St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 (651) 2~1-1200 · (800) 925-1122 · Fax: (651) 281-1299 TDD: (651) 281-1290 · www.lmnc.org CONTENTS :League Staff ......................................................... .......,..... ................................................. iv :Legislative Policy Committee Members................................. ....................................,........ v Policy Development Process............. ..................................................................... ........ ..... vii General Policy Statement............... ................................................ ....................... .............. viii Statement of Intent .................................................................. ............................... ............. viii Building Quality Communities Guideline..:................................................. ix 2003 CITY POLICIES Improving Fiscal Futures ......................... ...... ........ ...... .......... ............................ 1 FF-l. FF-2. FF-3. FF-4. FF-5. FF-6. FF-7. FF-8. FF-9. FF-lO. FF-ll. FF-12. FF-13. FF-14. FF-15. FF-16. FF-17. FF-18. FF-19. FF-20. FF-21. State-Local Fiscal Relations ....................................... ......................................... 1 LGA Data Issues .................................................. .......................... ...................... 1 LGA and Market-Value Homestead Credit Cuts ................................................. 1 Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases ......................................................... 2 :Levy Limits ............................................................ ...................................... ........ 2 Reverse Referendum............................................. ................................................ 3 City Revenue Diversification...................... ............................. ......... .......... ......... 3 Taxation of Municipal Bond Interest ................................................................... 3 City Fiscal Year ..... .................... ... ........... .... .......... ..... ............ ... ....... .... ..... .... ...... 3 Payments for Services to Tax-Exempt Property .................................................. 4 Truth-in- Taxation Process ................................................................................... 4 State Administrative Deductions from State Aid ................................................ 4 Reporting Requirements ...................................................................................... 4 Federal Budget Cutbacks ................................. .................................................... 5 Price of Government ................................................................................... ......... 5 Impact Fees .......................................................................................................... 5 Delayed Assessments for Roads .......................................................................... 5 Taxation of Electronic Commerce ....................................................................... 6 Limited Market Value ............................................................... ........................... 6 State Charges for Administrative Service ............................................................ 6 Equity in Library Funding ............................................... .................................... 7 Improving Local Economies ................................................ ......................... 7 LE-l. LE-2. LE-3. LE-4. LE-S. LE-6. LE-7. LE-8. LE-9. LE-lO. Growth Management and Annexation ................................................................. 7 Electric Service Extension...... ................................. ............,........................ ........ 8 Statutory Approval Timelines................................................................. .............. 8 Public Infrastructure Utilities ............ .................................................................. 9 Development Fee Disputes .......................................... ................................ .... .... 9 Housing ....................................................................................... ......................... 9 State and/or County Licensed Residential Facilities ............................................ 11 Inclusionary Housing ................................................ ..................... .................. .... 11 Community Und Trusts ............................. ....... .................................................. 12 Municipal Telecommunications Authority .......................................................... 12 i Ie, 7'0 LE-ll. LE-12. LE-13. LE-14. LE-15. LE-16. LE-17 . LE-18. LE-19 LE-20. LE- 21. LE-22. LE-23. LE-24. LE-25. LE-26. LE-27. LE-28. LE-29. LE-30. Right-of-Way Management ................................................................................. 13 Cable Franchising Authority .. ...... ............................................................. ........... 13 Wireless Tower and Antenna Siting .................................................................... 14 Financing Community Reinvestment .................................................................. 14 Tax Increment Financing (TIF') .... ........................................................................ 15 Timeframe for TIF' District Establishment Legal Challenges .............................. 15 TIF' District Deficits ........................... ................... ........................ ....................... 16 Business Subsidies ........... ............................ ........................................................ 16 Business Development Programs ...... ............................... ................................... 16 I..and Recycling Programs..................................................................................... 16 Property Tax Abatement Authority ..................................................................... 17 OSA Response Timelines ........................... .......................................................... 17 OSA Time Limitations .............................................................. ........................... 18 Economic Development Authorities .................................................................... 18 Workforce Readiness....................................................................................... ..... 18 Adequate Funding for Transportation .................................................................. 19 State Aid for Urban Road Systems ....................................................................... 19 Tumbacks of County and State Roads.................................................................. 20 Road Funding for Cities Under 5,000................................................................... 20 Railroad-Related Projects .................................................................................... 20 Improving Service Delivery ...........................................................................21 SD-l. SD-2. SD-3. SD-4. SD-5. SD-6. SD-7. SD-8. SD-9. SD-lO. SD-11. SD-12. SD-13. SD-14. SD-15. SD-16. SD-17. SD-18. SD-19. SD-20. SD-21. SD-22. SD-23. SD-24. SD-25. /~77 Redesigning and Reinventing Government ......................................................... 21 Unfunded Mandates ............................................,................................................ 21 City Costs for Enforcing State and Local Laws ................................................... 22 Design-Build......................................... ..................................................... ........... 22 Providing Information to Citizens....................... ............ .................. ..... .............. 23 Construction Codes. ............ ...... ............... ......... ....... ................... ........... ..... ....... ... 23 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards .................................... 24 Fees for Service ....................... .......... .................................................................. 24 State Assistance for Library Funding .................................................................. 25 Civil Liability of Local Governments ...................................................................25 Private Property Rights and Takings .................................................................... 26 Election Issues .............................................................................................. ....... 26 Local Election Authority ................................................................ ...................... 27 Environmental Protection .................................................................................... 27 Creating a Minnesota GIS Program ..................................................................... 28 State Appropriation for Government Training Service ....................................... 29 Public Safety Spectrum Needs.......................... ..... ......................................... ...... 29 Legalization of Fireworks.......................................................................... ........... 29 911 Funding .. ..... ............................................... .................... ........ ...................... 30 Racial Profiling... ....................................................... .... ................ ........ ...... ......... 30 0.08 DWI ................................................................... ................ .......................... 31 CriMNet................ ......................... ............................... .... .................................... 31 Red Light Cameras ........................ .~.................................................................... 32 Misdemeanor Fines ....... ...... .... ._0.. ;'.'.:......... ........... ....................... ................... ... .., 32 State Regulation of Massage Therapists ..................................... .......................... 32 11 SD-26. On-Sale Liquor and Wine Licenses to Performing Theaters and Cultural Centers........................................................................ ............................ 33 SD-27 . Youth Access to Alcohol and Tobacco ................................................................ 33 SD-28. Smoking Ban Ordinances .................................................................................... 33 SD-29. Park and Library Land Tax Break ........................................................................ 34 SD-30. Medicare Reimbursement for Ambulance Service .............................................. 34 SD-31. Open Meeting Law Exception: Emergency Preparedness .................................. 34 Human Resources & Data Practices............................................................. 34 Human Resources HR-l. Preservation of Local Decision-Making Authority on Employment Related Issues....... ................................................................................................ 35 Veterans' Preference............................................................. ................................ 35 Compensation Limits........................................................................................ .... 35 Public Employees Labor Relations Act (PELRA)................................................ 36 Re-employment Benefits...................................................... ................................ 36 Essential Employees................................................................................. ............ 36 Pension Benefits .................................................................................................. 36 Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) Coordinated Plan Funding Deficiency...................................................... ......................................... 36 State Paid Police and Fire Medical Insurance ..................................................... 37 Breathalyzers ... ..................................................................................................... 37 Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation........................................................ .... .............. 37 Health Care Insurance PrograIlls .......................................................................... 37 Electronic Timekeeping ....................................................................................... 38 HR-2. HR-3. HR-4. HR-5. HR-6. HR-7. HR-8. HR-9. HR-lO. HR-ll. HR-12. HR-13. Data Practices DP-l. State Model Policies and Training........................................................................ 38 Federal Employment Law FED-I. FLSA/Overtime Compensation ... ..................................................... .................... 38 FED-2 MedicareIMedicaid Premium Disbursements....................................................... 38 Electric Restructuring Adequate Supply and Demand ........................................................................................... 40 Consumer Protection .......................................................................................................... 40 Environmental Concerns .................................................................. .................................. 40 Fair Market Competition ....................................................................................... ............. 40 Local Authority ................................................................................................... ................ 40 Stranded Recovery Cost ..................................................................................................... 41 Property Tax ....................................................................................................................... 41 Hi /~<?O LEAGUE STAFF WORKING WITH STATE AND FEDERAL IsSUES Jim Miller, Executive Director Gary Carlson, Director of Intergovernmental Relations Aid to cities, electric utility restructuring, general revenue sources for cities, pensions, personnel, property tax system, tax increment financing Remi Stone, Senior Intergovernmental Relations Representative Civil liability , construction codes, electric utility restructuring, environment, general government, insurance, labor relations, land use/annexation, personnel, public finance Anne Finn, Intergovernmental Relations Representative Crime, emergency management, public safety, transportation and transit Kevin FrazeU, Director of Member Services Electric utility restructuring, government innovation and cooperation Andrea Hedtke, Intergovernmental Relations Representative Business subsidies, civil liability and criminal justice, economic development and redevelopment, general government, lawful gambling, liquor, local/tribal relations, tax increment financing Ann Higgins, Intergovernmental Relations Representative Cable franchising, elections and ethics, emergency management, housing, information policy, telecommunications, utility service districts Jennifer O'Rourke, Intergovernmental Relations Liaison Aid to cities, general government, general revenue sources for cities, legislative listserv and bill tracker manager, personnel IV !(pt:61 Legislative Policy Committee Members Improving Fiscal Futures Tom Lawell, Chair, City Administrator, Apple Valley Margaret Amundson, Committee Chair, S1. Paul Bill Barnhart, Intergovernmental Relations, Minneapolis Scott Benson, Councilmember, Minneapolis Michael Boedigheimer, Councilmember, Marshall Laura Brod, Councilmember, New Prague Tom Burt, City Administrator, Rosemount Dave Callister, City Administrator, Osseo Jane Chambers, Assistant City Manager, Brooklyn Center Don Donahue, City Manager, New Hope John Erar, City Administrator, Andover Jerry Faust, Councilmember, S1. Anthony Brian Fritsinger, City Administrator, Cloquet Matt Fulton, City Manager, New Brighton Mike Funk, City Administrator, Olivia Richard Fursman, City Manager, Maplewood Greg Gappa, Director of Public Service, Orono Rick Getschow, City Administrator, Lauderdale Chuck Groth, Councilmember, Fairmont Marshall Hallock, Finance Director, Red Wing Peggy Hanson, Councilmember, Lanesboro Pat Harris, Councilmember, S1. Paul Terri Heaton, Senior Vice President, Springsted Joe Huss, City Finance Manager, Bloomington Dave Hutton, Vice President, WSB & Associates, Inc. Janet Jeremiah, PlanninglZoning Supervisor, S1. Louis Park Marvin Johnson, Mayor, Independence Kim Kamper, Acting City Administrator, Oak Park Heights Elizabeth Kautz, Mayor, Burnsville Kay Kuhlmann, City Council Administrator, Red Wing Barrett Lane, Councilmember, Minneapolis Jan LeSuer, Councilmember, Golden Valley Dean Lotter, City Administrator, Janesville Joe Lynch, City Administrator, Arden Hills William Mars, Mayor, Shakopee Tom Mathisen, Engineer, Crystal Paul McLaughlin, Councilmember, International Falls Steve Mielke, City Manager, Hopkins David Minke, City Administrator, Princeton Gary Neumann, Assistant Administrator, Rochester Steve Okins, Finance Director, Willmar Steve O'Malley, Deputy City Manager, Burnsville Roger Peterson, Legislative Affairs Director, Assoc. of Metropolitan Municipalities Michael Rietz, City Administrator, Kasson Clinton Rogers, City Administrator, Janesville Mark Sather, City Manager, White Bear Lake Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator, Cottage Grove Mark Sievert, City Administrator, Fergus Falls James Smith, Councilmember, Independence Gerald Sorenson, Administrative Services Director, Moorhead Robert Therres, Support Service Manager, Blaine Blair Tremere, Councilmember, Golden Valley David Urbia, City Administrator, Blue Earth Don Vellenga, Councilmember, Ada Dan Vogt, City Administrator, Brainerd Jim Willis, City Administrator, Inver Grove Heights Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator, Monticello Improving Local Economies Brenda Johnson, Chair, Councilmember, Chatfield Ronda Allis, City Administrator, Winnebago Sue Anderson, Councilmember, Fairmont Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer, Maple Grove David Beaudet, Mayor, Oak Park Heights Laura Blair, Information Technical Director, Red Wing Jerry Bohnsack, City Administrator, New Prague Jim Brimeyer, Councilmember, St. Louis Park Wayne Buse, Technical Systems Designer, White. Bear Lake Cathy Busho, Mayor, Rosemount Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director, Farmington Catherine Conlow, Public Service Manager, Blaine Tim Cruikshank, City Manager, Anoka Michael Eastling, Public Works Director, Richfield Steve Elkins, Councilmember, Bloomington Mark Erickson, City Administrator, Lakefield Sharon Feess, Councilmember, Brooklyn Park Richard Fursman, City Manager, Maplewood Tom Goodwin, Councilmember, Apple Valley Mary Gover, Councilmember, St. Peter Susan Hall, Assistant City Manager, S1. Anthony Tom Harmening, Community Development Director, S1. Louis Park Andrea Hart Kajer, Intergovernmental Relations Director, Minneapolis Blaine Hill, City Clerk, Breckenridge Jon Hohenstein, City Administrator, Mahtomedi Desta Hunt, Councilmember, Fergus Falls Dave Hutton, Vice President, WSB & Associates, Inc Curtis Jacobsen, City Administrator, !santi Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor, S1. Louis Park Marvin Johnson, Mayor, Independence Ron Johnson, City Administrator, Zumbrota Natalie Johnson Lee, Councilmember, Minneapolis Phil Kern, City Administrator, Delano Patrick Klaers, City Administrator, Elk River Tom Kough, Councilmember, Roseville Robert Lilligren, Councilmember, Minneapolis Marcia Marcoux, Councilmember, Rochester v J&qeri Kim Moore-Sykes, City Administrator, Centerville Bruce Nawrocki, Councilmember, Columbia Heights Charlie Nelson, Mayor, Montrose Robert Olson, Councilmember, Brainerd Samantha Orduno, City Manager, Richfield Bruce Peterson, Director Planning and Development Services, Willmar Roger Peterson, Legislative Affairs Director, Assoc. of Metropolitan Municipalities Gene Ranieri, Executive Director, Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Daria Rosevold, Councilmember, Princeton Joe Rudberg, Administrator, Becker Stephen Sarvi, City Administrator, Victoria Vice Schaefer, Mayor, Rockville Terry Schneider, Councilmember, Minnetonka Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator, Cottage Grove Jim Smith, Councilmember, Fairmont Terry Spaeth, Administrative Assistant, Rochester Steve Stahmer, Assistant City Manager, Hopkins Blair Tremere, Councilmember, Golden Valley Craig Waldron, City Administrator, Oakdale Mark Winson, Chief Administrative Officer, Duluth Liz Workman,. Councilmember, Burnsville Heather Worthington, City Administrator, Falcon Heights JohnYoung, Jr., Councilmember, Hawley Improving Service Delivery Mark Kamowski, Chair, City Administrator, Lindstrom Laurie Ahrens, Assistant City Manager, Plymouth Jeannie Bowers-Stead, Councilmember, Greenwood Craig Dawson, City Administrator, Shorewood Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant to City Manager, Richfield John Ehret, Fire Chief, West S1. Paul Mary Hammn-Roland, Mayor, Apple Valley Tom Hansen, Deputy Manager, Burnsville Lori Hansen, Councilmember, South S1. Paul Joel Hanson, City Administrator, Little Canada Dave Hutton, Vice President, WSB & Associates, Inc. /(O~3 Janet Jeremiah, Planning Zoning Supervisor, S1. Louis Park Steven Jones, City Manager, Montevideo Linda Koblick, Councilmember, Minnetonka John Kysylyczyn, Vice Chair, Mayor, Roseville Karen Lowery Wagner, Intergovernmental Relations, Minneapolis Joe Lynch, City Administrator, Arden Hills Mary McComber, Councilmember, Oak Park Heights Pete Meintsma, Mayor, Crystal Kathleen Miller, City Administrator, Mounds View Yale Norwisk, Mayor, Mahtomedi Desyl Peterson, City Attorney, Minnetonka Gene Ranieri, Executive Director, Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Jeff Thompson, Mayor, Paynesville Kent Torve, Mayor, Loretto Dean Zimmermann, Councilmember, Minneapolis Human Resources & Data Practices Laurie Elliott, Chair, Human Resource Manager, Shoreview Geralyn Barone, Assistant City Manager, Minnetonka Holly Duffy, Deputy Clerk, Eagan Terry Haltiner, Labor Relations Manager, S1. Paul Natalie Johnson Lee, Councilmember, Minneapolis Kay Kuhlmann, Council Administrator, Red Wing Karen Lowery Wagner, Government Relations Representative, Minneapolis Kay McAloney, Human Resources Director, Anoka Diana Murack, City Administrator, Carver David Osberg, City Administrator, Hastings Givona Reed, Assistant to Administrator, Mounds View Carol Rogers, Human Resource Generalist, Minneapolis Jerry Splinter, City Manager, Coon Rapids Dan Tesch, Administrative Director, Lino Lakes Jeanna Troha, Assistant to City Manager, New Brighton Jody Vogl-Eilertson, Assistant to City Manager, West S1. Paul vi League of Minnesota Cities Policy Development Process At the League's annual June 2002 meeting in Rochester, the membership adopted a constitutional amendment that places responsibility for adoption of legislative policy with the Board. The amendment took effect immediately upon adoption. Hence, the LMC policy adoption process is changing. An important feature to this change is the input of the full LMC membership. April/May The League solicits members for ideas and problems. A survey at the Annual Conference allows members to formally suggest topics. June The League President accepts applications for committees and appoints policy committee members. The policy committees are: Improving Fiscal Futures Improving Local Economies Improving Service Delivery Human Resources and Data Practices July Committees meet to discuss various policy issues. Committees can also form task forces to more thoroughly study specific issues. Task forces can include non-city members with a knowledge of the focus issue. August through September Committees and task forces meet to discuss issues and problems, accept testimony and develop policy statements. Mid-January The LMC Board is moving ahead with the proposal that the Policy Adoption Conference Conference and the Legislative Conference (normally held in late February or early March) be combined into a new major legislative "event" held in early to mid-January. Key events for the day would include: . unveiling the League's State of the Cities report, which will deal with census data on demographic and diversity trends, city fiscal concerns, transportation, housing and land development patterns. The "unveiling" would include holding a press conference; . inviting the new Governor and/or key legislative leaders to address the group; . reviewing key LMC legislative priorities with the members; . including in that review a discussion about federal issues that have been raised through the NLC process at the Congress of Cities in December, or which are anticipated for the Congressional-City Conference in March; and . sending our delegates off to the Capitol to advance LMC's agenda with their senators and representatives Vll /~9;t.f General Policy Statement The League of Minnesota Cities serves as a forum for cities to define common problems and develop policies and proposals to solve those problems. The League of Minnesota Cities represents 818 of Minnesota's 853 cities as well as 11 urban towns and 28 special districts. All sizes of communities are represented among the League's members (the largest nonmember city has a population of 173) and all regions of the state are represented. The policies that follow are directed at specific city issues. Two principles guide the development of all League policies: 1. There is a need for a governmental system that allows flexibility and authority for cities to meet the challenges of governing and providing citizens with services while at the same time protecting cities from unfunded or underlunded mandates, liability or other financial risk, and restrictions on local control; and, 2. The financial and technical requirements for governing and providing services necessitate a continuing and strengthened partnership with federal, state, and local governments. This partnership, particularly in the areas of finance, development, housing, environment and transportation, is critical for the successful operation of Minnesota's cities and the well-being of residents. Statement of Intent There are many issues affecting the effectiveness of city government to improve community life, improve the fiscal future and service delivery of city government, and improve the local economy. What follows are statements of the issues facing cities and the League of Minnesota Cities' proposed responses to these issues. These statements of issues and proposed responses form the policy of the League of Minnesota Cities. Additional and alternative responses to those issues may be proposed after the Policy Adoption Conference, and the members of the League authorize its Board of Directors to consider and support additional or alternative responses, if necessary, to resolve the issues identified in this policy statement. viii 1c:'<6"5 GUIDELINE FOR BUILDING QUALITY COMMUNITIES To the greatest extent possible, legislation affecting communities at the state and federal level should enhance, not diminish, the ability of citizens, businesses, and local governments to work together in partnership to make every community "livable." ISSUE: Cities in Minnesota are at various stages in meeting the goal of being "livable, healthy communities. " RESPONSE: The defmition of a "livable, healthy community" below will be used to evaluate proposed legislation to determine whether or not it advances the goal of enabling all Minnesota cities to become livable, healthy communities. It should also be used by cities to evaluate their progress toward the goal of becoming livable, healthy communities. A LIVABLE, HEALTHY COMMUNITY IS: WHERE PEOPLE OF ALL AGES . share a core of common values including valuing diversity, respect for each other, and good citizenship . feel: * safe * a sense of belonging * welcome . engage in life-long learning activities that: * promote responsible citizenship * enhance the enjoyment of life * prepare them for changing job markets . participate in the decision-making process with community leaders . celebrate community . want to make their home . have access to: * good paying jobs * adequate and affordable housing * choice of efficient transportation systems including transit, pedestrians, and bicycles * gathering places * desired information IX I~~~ * choice of cultural and recreational activities * affordable goods and services, including health care . are involved in the nurturing of youth . care about their homes, community, and the environment . get to know each other . have the benefit of strong family support and nurturing adults ~RELOCALGOVERNMENT . is responsive to the needs of its citizens . is actively supported by enthusiastic volunteers . is open and user friendly . encourages and implements cooperation and collaboration . provides and maintains an adequate physical infrastructure and promotes social infrastructure to meet local needs . educates citizens of all ages on local, regional, and state issues and government processes . informs and communicates with citizens to foster participation in public policy decision-making . participates in youth development x /~Y:7 ... 2003 CITY POLICIES ~ /c;,~ 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 . 37 38 .- 39 40 41 IMPROVING FISCAL FUTURES 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 "1 FF-l. State-Local Fiscal Relations (GC) Since the 1970s, services provided by Minnesota cities have been largely funded through a combination of property taxes, state aids, and state property tax relief programs. This system of municipal finance has evolved to ensure that municipal services can be funded without excessive local tax burdens, In 2001, the Legislature enacted significant changes to the property tax system. With those changes, the state increased its funding participation for schools while city operations received less funding. On average, cities are now more reliant on property taxes to fund their operations, although some cities are now more reliant on state aid. The changes to the state aid distribution were necessary to more evenly distribute tax relief across the state. With the budget crisis that now confronts the state, further review by the Legislature and possible changes to the municipal finance system appear likely. This could ultimately translate into further reductions in state aid to cities and, therefore, a further increased reliance on property taxes to fund city operations. Any changes to the state-local fiscal system should meet the following goals: . Reduce tax burden disparities among communities and between cities and adjacent townships. . Compensate cities and their taxpayers for overburden and tax exempt property. . Compensate for state-imposed mandates. . Provide sufficient funding to address these principles. . Respect the decision-making authority of local officials. FF-2. LGA Data Issues (GC) Issue: The release of 2000 Census data has highlighted a problem with one of the variables used in the local government aid (LGA) distribution formula. The pre-1940 housing percentage statistic used as one proxy measure of each city's need is derived from sample data collected in the "long-form" survey. For individual cities, this statistic appears to significantly fluctuate and may not accurately estimate the actual age of housing. Response: The Legislature should identify a replacement source for data to measure the amount of housing. The formula should continue to use the 1990 Census data until a more accurate replacement data set can be identified. FF-3. LGA and Market-Value Homestead Credit Cuts (GC) , _J 44 Issue: City reliance on state aids and funding for property tax relief programs means that 45 the state's budget deficit could become a local budget problem if funding for these programs is 1 / e:, 9'0 1 reduced. These programs did not share in the gains in the state budget over the past decade and, 2 therefore, should not be cut. 3 4 To balance the state budget last year, the Legislature eliminated more than $200 million 5 in funding for the tax increment financing (TIP) district grant program and repealed the LGA 6 reform account. The elimination of the TIP grant program will ensure that TIP district deficits 7 caused by the 2001 tax reforms will translate into higher municipal property taxes in affected 8 cities. 9 10 Cuts in LGA and the market value homestead credit could impact the distributions 11 scheduled for July, October, and December 2003. Cities have established their 2003 budgets 12 based on the amount ofLGA certified by the state in August 2002. Once the property tax levy is 13 fmalized in December, cities will have no ability to offset these cuts with property tax increases 14 until the 2004 fiscal year. 15 16 Response: The League opposes cuts in LGA and the market-value homestead credit 17 reimbursement. Cuts in these programs will result in cuts in city services and long-term 18 property tax increases. If the state needs to balance its budget, it should increase state 19 sources of revenue or cut other state expenditures and not increase local property taxes by 20 cutting city aids. 21 22 FF -4. Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases (GC) 23 24 Issue: In 1992, when the state was experiencing a budget shortfall, the Legislature 25 repealed the sales tax exemption for local government purchases. Local governments now pay 26 state sales tax on purchases like road maintenance supplies and equipment, wastewater treatment 27 facilities, and some public safety equipment. This tax currently costs local property taxpayers 28 and ratepayers more than $100 million annually. In addition, proposals to extend the sales tax to 29 services would have the effect of increasing local government costs and property taxes. Because 30 no additional state aids were added to offset the additional cost, this repeal has effectively 31 increased local property taxes to finance state operations. 32 33 Response: The state should reinstate the sales tax exemption for all local 34 government purchases. The exemption must not be coupled with cuts in LGA. 35 36 FF-5. Levy Limits (GC) 37 38 Issue: As a part of the 2001 omnibus tax bill, the Legislature enacted levy limits for 39 cities over 2,500 population for two years. Although the levy limit formula provides some 40 growth for local budgets, levy limits replace local accountability with a state judgment about the 41 appropriate level of local taxation and ultimately local services. Additionally, levy limits can 42 have a negative effect on a city's bond rating due to the restriction on revenue flexibility. 43 44 This past year, the levy limit formula produced extremely tight levy limits due largely to 45 the inflation growth measure that estimated the inflation growth in government costs to be less 46 approximately 0.76 percent. This measure of inflation does not mirror the inflation pressures 2 .;, ." /~9/ most cities are experiencing on items such as property/casualty insurance coverage, employee 2 health care coverage, additional security costs, and lower returns on invested funds. 3 4 Two of the stated goals of advocates of the 200 1 tax bill were to make the property tax 5 more of a local tax and to increase local accountability for the property tax. However, levy limits 6 clearly violate these goals by involving the state in local budget decisions. 7 8 Response: City councils are elected to make decisions about local budgets and 9 meeting community needs. It is inappropriate for the Legislature to undermine local 10 decision-making and accountability through the continued imposition of levy limits. Levy 11 limits should expire. 12 13 FF-6. Reverse Referendum (GC) 14 15 Issue: Proposals to impose a reverse referendum requirement on municipal property tax 16 increases would diminish the ability of local elected officials to respond to the needs of their 17 communities. In addition, the reverse referendum proposals that have been recently offered 18 would disrupt the local budget process by potentially requiring a public referendum in late 19 January, nearly one month into the city's fiscal year. 20 21 Response: The League supports the principle of representative democracy and opposes reverse referendum requirements. 24 FF -7. City Revenue Diversification (GC) 25 26 Issue: Under current state law, the property tax is the only generally accessible form of 27 local tax revenue for cities. Recent retrenchment in state aid programs will likely increase city 28 reliance on property taxes in the future. Allowing cities to diversify their revenue stream would 29 prevent rapid rises in property taxes. 30 31 Response: Cities should be able to diversify their sources of revenues. 32 33 FF-8. Taxation of Municipal Bond Interest (GC) .34 35 Issue: The state law that grants a tax exemption for municipal bond interest lowers 36 borrowing costs for cities and reduces property tax levies. 37 . . 38 Response: The state should maintain the tax exemption for municipal bond interest 39 income. .-- 40 41 FF-9. City Fiscal Year (GC) 42 Issue: The fiscal year for cities and counties currently corresponds to the property tax cycle. 3 /~ 9'07 1 Response: The state should maintain current law and not change the city fiscal year 2 to coincide with the state fiscal year. 3 4 FF-IO. Payments for Services to Tax-Exempt Property (GC) 5 6 Issue: Taxable property in many cities is being acquired by nonprofit and government 7 entities. Converting the property to tax-exempt status can lead to serious tax base erosion without 8 any corresponding reduction in the service needs created by the property. 9 10 Response: Cities should have the authority to collect payments from statutorily 11 exempt property owners to cover costs of service as cities have with special assessments. 12 13 FF-ll. Truth-in-Taxation Process (GC) 14 15 Issue: Cities must set a preliminary levy by Sept. 15, which, by law, becomes the 16 maximum that cities can levy the following year. In recent years, cities have not received 17 complete tax base and aid information in a timely manner. As a result, cities often either set a 18 preliminary levy that is artificially high or they are unable to budget for unforeseen needs that 19 arise after Sept. 15. 20 21 Response: The League supports changes to the Troth-in- Taxation process to provide 22 more meaningful information to citizens, including the exemptions enacted in 2001 for 23 cities that propose levy increases less than the implicit price deflators. However, this 24 calculation should account for the impact of state aid cuts on proposed levies. Cities should 25 have the authority to increase the final levy from the preliminary levy to meet unforeseen 26 and uncontrollable needs. 27 28 FF-12. State Administrative Deductions from State Aid (GC) 29 30 Issue: State administrative costs are deducted from the LGA appropriation. This reduces 31 the property tax relief provided by LGA and creates hidden appropriations for state agencies. 32 33 Response: All appropriations from LGA resources that fund state operations 34 should be repealed. 35 36 FF -13. Reporting Requirements (GC) 37 38 Issue: Budget and financial reporting requirements imposed on cities by the state often 39 result in duplication and additional costs. 40 41 Response: Requirements for reporting and advertising financial and budget 42 information should be carefully weighed to balance the validity of the state's need for 43 additional information with the costs and burdens of compiling and submitting this 44 information. In addition, all state agencies should be aware of the information already 45 required by others to avoid duplication of reporting requirem~nts. 4 . l !(P9'3 FF-14. Federal Budget Cutbacks (GC) 2 .3_.. Issue: Congressional budget actions or devolution of program responsibilities may place 4 fiscal burdens on the state and on local governments. 5 6 Response: The state should not reduce aids or increase fees to local governments as 7 a means for dealing with cutbacks in federal revenues. The state should take responsibility 8 for reductions in federal revenues, rather than placing the burden on,cities and on their 9 property taxpayers. 10 11 FF-15. Price of Government (GC) 12 13 Issue: The price of government legislation enacted in 1994 was intended to measure the 14 overall effect of state and local taxation over a long period of time. The targets measure 15 government revenues as a percent of personal income. Unfortunately, the targets have been 16 misinterpreted and used unfairly to criticize city tax and budget decisions. 17 18 Response: The price of government statutes, as they apply to local governments, 19 should be repealed. If the price of government law is to continue to be applied to local 20 governments, price of government calculations should be based on the sum of levy and 21 state aid, not just levy, and based on long-term trends, not single-year events. L3 FF -16. Impact Fees (RS) 24 25 Issue: New development and the resulting growth create an increased demand for public 26 infrastructure and other public facilities. Severe constraints on local fiscal resources and dramatic 27 forecasts for population growth have prompted cities to critically reconsider ways to pay for the 28 inevitable costs associated with new development. Traditional financing methods tend to 29 subsidize new development at the expense of the existing community, discourage sound land-use 30 planning, place inefficient pressures on public facilities, and allow under-utilization of existing 31 infrastructure. Consequently, local communities are exploring methods to ensure new 32 development pays its fair share of the true costs of growth. Given the existing authorization to 33 impose fees on new development for water, sanitary and storm sewer, and park purposes, it is 34 reasonable to extend the concept to additional public infrastructure and facilities improvement 35 also necessitated by new development. 36 37 Response: The Legislature should authorize cities to impose impact fees so new 38 development pays its fair share of the off-site, as well as the on-site, costs of public 39 infrastructure and other public facilities needed to adequately serve new development. 40 41 FF -17. Delayed Assessments for Roads (RS) 42 Issue: Current law allows a city to recoup the costs for water, storm sewer or sanitary sewer improvements by levying additional assessments on the property benefiting from the 45 improvement, but not previously assessed. This authority for delayed assessment has not been 5 /(;:, ~</ 1 extended to other infrastructure, such as road improvements, even though properties are 2 benefiting from the improvements. 3 4 Response: Cities should be allowed to delay assessments against property located 5 outside the city for road improvements benefiting property abutting the improvement but 6 not previously assessed for the improvement. For example, if a city makes improvements to 7 a road that benefits city residents and township residents, the city should be able to recover 8 costs through future assessments to the township property when the property is brought 9 into the city. Once the township property is brought into the city, the city would then be 10 able to assess that property for road improvements previously done but not assessed at the 11 time of the improvements. 12 13 FF-18. Taxation of Electronic Commerce (GC) 14 15 Issue: Sales over the Internet and through other electronic means are projected to 16 increase exponentially over the next several years. Electronic transactions pose significant tax 17 policy challenges because of the difficulty of assigning a location to electronic sales and because 18 many Internet goods are not tangible property. 19 20 Response: Federal tax policy should not place main street businesses at a 21 competitive disadvantage to electronic retailers, must not jeopardize repayment of bonds 22 backed by state and local sales tax revenues, and should ensure stability in state and local 23 revenues. To address the challenges created by the growth of ecommerce, the League 24 supports the multi-state etTort to develop a streamlined sales tax system. 25 26 FF -19. Limited Market Value (GC) 27 28 Issue: The 200 1 Legislature enacted a phase-out of the state's limited market value 29 (LMV) system. Under the LMV system, homeowners and cabin owners who experience rapid 30 escalation in their property's value, effectively have a temporary exemption of taxes on a portion 31 of that growth. This exemption has grown rapidly over the past several years and now shifts 32 substantial property tax burdens to other types of property. On the other hand, a rapid phase-out 33 of the program could dramatically shift tax burdens back to homes and cabins. 34 35 Response: The Legislature should closely monitor the etTects of the phase-out of 36 LMV to avoid excessive tax burden increases for currently benefiting properties. If the 37 phase-out schedule results in excessive tax increases, the Legislature should increase 38 funding for the targeting program or delay the scheduled phase-out, which will butTer the 39 tax burden increases. 40 41 FF-20. State Charges for Administrative Services (GC) 42 43 Issue: Currently, some state agencies have wide discretion in setting the fees for special 44 services they provide to local governments. For example, the Dept. of Revenue recently 45 increased the fee for administering local sales taxes by 80 percent in the middle of a budget year ,..; 6 /~95 with less than six weeks notice. The increase had no apparent relationship to the cost of 2 providing the service. 3 4 Response: State agencies should be required to demonstrate the need for increases in 5 service fees, and should give adequate notice of increases to allow local governments to 6 budget for the increases. State agencies should set administrative service fees as close as 7 possible to the marginal cost of providing the service. Local government should be given 8 the option to self-administer or contract with the private sector for the service if the state 9 cannot provide the service at a reasonable cost. 10 11 FF 21. Equity in Library Funding (GC) 12 13 Issue: Many community libraries in Minnesota are city owned. Although located in an 14 individual community, city libraries serve a much wider area. 15 16 Response: The League supports equity in availability of quality library services to 17 city and township residents. Accordingly, the League supports equity in local property tax 18 levies for libraries. In some Minnesota counties, there are wide disparities between city and 19 rural tax burdens for library services. There should be more equity in the property tax. 20 "I IMPROVING LOCAL ECONOMIES 23 LE-1. Growth Management and Annexation (RS) 24 25 Issue: Unplanned and uncontrolled urban growth has a negative environmental, fiscal, 26 and governmental impact on cities, counties, and state governments because it increases the cost 27 of providing government services and results in the loss of natural resourc~ areas and prime 28 agricultural land. 29 30 Response: The League believes the existing framework for guiding growth and 31 development primarily through local plans and controls adopted by local governments 32 should form the basis ofa statewide planning policy, and that the state should not adopt a 33 mandatory comprehensive statewide planning process. Rather, the state should: 34 35 . Provide additional imancial and technical assistance to local governments for 36 cooperative planning and growth management issues, particularly where new 37 comprehensive plans have been mandated by the Legislature. 38 . Clearly establish the public purposes served by existing statewide controls such as shore 39 land zoning and wetlands conservation; clarify, simplify, and streamline these controls; - 40 eliminate duplication in their administration; and fully defend and hold harmless any 41 local government sued for a "taking" as a result of executing state land use policies. A 2 . Give cities broader authority to extend their zoning, subdivision, and other land-use controls up to two miles outside the city's boundaries, regardless of the existence of 44 county or township controls, to ensure conformance with city facilities and services. 7 /~9'~ 1 · Clearly derme and differentiate between urban and rural development and restrict 2 urban growth outside city boundaries. 3 · Facilitate the annexation of urban land to cities by amending state statutes that regulate 4 annexation to make it easier for cities to annex developed or developing land within 5 unincorporated areas. 6 · Oppose legislation that would reinstate the election requirement in contested 7 annexations. 8 · Encourage ideas consistent with the long-term goal of allowing urban development only 9 in urban areas. Density incentives such as sprawl reduction aid programs are more 10 straightforward methods of rewarding and encouraging compact urban development 11 than using LGA or HACA for another new purpose. 12 13 LE-2. Electric Service Extension (AH) 14 15 Issue: Minnesota law currently protects the right of municipally-owned utilities to 16 extend electric services to annexed areas. Electric cooperatives have announced their intention to 17 seek legislation that would eliminate the right of municipally-owned utilities to extend electric 18 services to annexed areas. Eliminating municipal authority to extend services would interfere 19 with cities' natural growth and with the ability of municipally-owned utilities to serve the entire 20 community. 21 22 Response: The League opposes any statutory change that would impede or 23 eliminate the ability of municipally-owned utilities to extend electric services to any portion 24 of their respective cities, including annexed areas. 25 26 LE-3. Statutory Approval Timelines (RS) 27 28 Issue: Since 1995, cities have been required to act on written requests relating 29 to zoning, septic systems, the expansion of Metropolitan Urban Service Areas (MUSA) and other 30 land-use applications in accordance to a statutory time period generally referred to as the 60-day 31 rule. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. ~ 15.99, state and local government agencies must approve or deny 32 a permit within a statutory time frame, and failure by the agency to issue a specific denial of the 33 application with contemporaneous written fmdings of fact shall be deemed an approval. Recent 34 court decisions have made it clear the law needs to be clarified, making it more efficient and to 35 assist cities in providing accurate and timely responses to applicants. 36 37 Response: The Legislature should repeal or amend Minn. Stat. ~ 15.99. If repeal is 38 unlikely, amendments should: 39 40 . Allow government agencies to provide final written findings of fact at the next official 41 meeting of the governing body. 42 · Allow an automatic 60-day extension of the time limit if th~'agency votes down a 43 resolution granting the request, but does not vote on a resolution denying the request. 8 It:, '77. . Make clear the 60-day time limit begins at the point when a formal complete written 2 application is received on forms provided by the city with appropriate additional 3 supporting documents and including the payment of fees if necessary. 4 . Increase the initial time limit to 90 days for municipalities with less than 5,000 5 population. 6 7 LE-4. Public Infrastructure Utilities (RS) 8 9 Issue: Current infrastructure funding options available to cities are inadequate. Existing 10 special assessment law, Chapter 429, does not meet cities' fmancing needs because of the benefit 11 requirement. The law requires a minimum of 20 percent of such a project to be specially assessed 12 against affected properties. In practice, however, proof of increased property value to this degree 13 of benefit can rarely be proven from regular repair or replacement of existing infrastructure such 14 as streets or sidewalks. Alternatives to the Chapter 429 methods for fmancing infrastructure 15 improvements are nearly nonexistent. 16 17 The Legislature has given cities the authority to operate utilities for waterworks, sanitary 18 sewers, and storm sewers. The storm sewer authority, established in 1983, set the precedent for a 19 workable process of charging a use fee on a utility bill for a city service infrastructure that is of 20 value to all those in a city. Similar to the storm sewer authority, a transportation or sidewalk "1 utility would use technical, well-founded measurements and would equitably distribute the costs of local infrastructure services. .l3 24 Response: The Legislature should authorize cities to create, as a local option, 25 additional utilities such as a transportation or sidewalk utility. Such authority would 26 acknowledge: the effects of repeated levy limits and the general funding shift from the state 27 to local governments for building and maintaining necessary infrastructure; the benefits to 28 all taxpayers of a properly maintained public infrastructure; and, the limitations of 29 existing special assessment authority. 30 31 LE-5. Development Fee Disputes (RS) 32 33 Issue: State law is clear that fees collected under Minn. Stat. ~ 462 are eligible for 34 judicial review in the event a dispute over the fee arises. The law is not clear what notice 35 requirements to the municipality are necessary relative to the timing for an aggrieved person to 36 seek review. 37 . . 38 Response: The Legislature should amend Minn. Stat. ~ 462.361 to establish a 60-day 39 time limitation in which an aggrieved person may bring an action against the municipality. 40 41 LE-6. Housing (AH) 42 Issue: The roles of federal and state government are critical to assist cities in responding 4 to the critical lack of both rental and single-family housing for those priced out of the market. 45 The federal government has largely removed itself from providing direct funding and subsidies 46 for housing production. 9 It;:, n 1 By restricting cities' ability to raise revenues necessary to fmance infrastructure and 2 services required for new affordable housing, state fiscal policies--such as levy limits, restraints 3 on local impact fees, and the current property tax class-rate structure--discourage cities from 4 making land readily available for development of affordable housing. 5 6 In the last biennium, state government largely depended on one-time housing 7 appropriation increases, including directing federal welfare reform and increased federal tax- 8 exempt bond funding to increase construction of low-income rental and entry-level owner- 9 occupied housing; enacted substantial apartment property tax relief; increased funding for 10 homeless prevention and services; and threatened to impose restrictions on local land use 11 authority in order to create conditions in which cities would make more affordable housing 12 available. 13 14 Response: The League recommends the following actions to aid cities in addressing 15 housing needs: 16 17 · Use every means, including memorializing resolutions, public forums, citizen action 18 committees, and press coverage, to alert members of the Minnesota congressional 19 delegation to the critical housing problems facing communities throughout the state. 20 · Enact new state and federal initiatives to increase housing production, including tax- 21 exempt bonding, tax credits, and increased flexibility for cities to use housing block 22 grants. 23 · Raise the level of permanent funding for affordable housing production by increasing 24 the base budget of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. 25 · Exempt or reduce the state sales tax on development of affordable new or rehabilitates 26 housing. 27 · Grant an exemption from the state mortgage and registry deed tax to public agencies 28 and developers who agree to produce affordable housing. 29 · Create a state affordable housing tax credit and an historic preservation tax credit to 30 preserve and rehabilitate housing. 31 . Continue funding to preserve federally subsidized housing threatened by mortgage 32 prepayments or conversion to market-rate rental property. 33 · Make permanent the policy of not deducting from the MFIP monthly grant either the 34 public housing or Section 8 support payments to individuals or families. 35 · Coordinate and share financial resources among numerous agencies that assist 36 homeless individuals and families to develop continuum of care plans and increase the 37 supply of permanent supportive and assisted housing, including single room occupancy 38 (SRO) units. 39 · Authorize cities to amend their comprehensive plans with a simple majority in order to 40 increase development of life-cycle and affordable housing to meet local needs. 41 42 43 44 45 10 / ~ ~9' LE -7. State and/or County Licensed Residential Facilities (group homes) 2 (AH) 3 4 Issue: As the need for more residential-based care facilities increases, sufficient funding 5 is also needed to ensure residents living in group homes and licensed facilities have appropriate 6 care and supervision. In view of cities' responsibilities to accommodate group homes and 7 residential-based facilities, it is important state and county government work with local officials 8 to address residential care and public safety issues. Cities have reasonable concerns for special 9 care necessary for group home residents, particularly in case of public safety emergencies. Since 10 operators of certain residential facilities aIid services are not required to notify cities when they 11 intend to purchase-housing for group homes, cities do not have opportunity to raise concerns and 12 requirements regarding the special care and public safety measures these residences may expect. 13 14 Response: The Legislature should provide sufficient funding for such residential- 15 based services. The Legislature should also require agencies and licensed providers that 16 manage and operate group homes to notify cities in a timely manner when they request to 17 operate such facilities or to renew their license, and allow cities to require them to identify 18 and take appropriate measures to respond to the special care residents need in case of 19 emergencies. 20 21 Legislation should also require establishment of non-concentration standards for state or county-issued requests for proposals (RFPs) and direction to avoid clustering residential facilities. Licensing authorities must also be responsible for.removing any 24 residents incapable of living in such an environment, particularly if they become a danger 25 to themselves or others. 26 27 LE-8. Inclusionary Housing (AH) 28 29 Issue: Housing advocates and developers have pointed to local zoning and land-use 30 regulations as a source of increased housing construction costs. But steeply rising land prices, 31 building materials, and labor costs, as well as the imbalance in the supply and demand for 32 affordable housing, account for a far greater proportion of the problem. Cities have responded to 33 these challenges by adopting development agreements that achieve cost savings and include 34 affordable units in return for regulatory relief. 35 36 Response: The Legislature should: 37 38 . Strengthen cities' authority to carry out policies that offer developers a range of 39 incentives in return for including a designated number of affordable units in their 40 projects. 41 . Identify strategies to ensure long-term affordability of rental and owner-occupied 42 housing produced as a result of such policies and practices. A 3 . Focus attention on and support local assessment of housing needs and direct state resources toward development of both affordable rental units and fmancing to increase 45 access to entry-level owner-occupied housing. 11 /700 1 · Oppose measures that would mandate that cities provide sufficient regulatory relief to 2 ensure that a specific percentage of units in new housing developments are affordable at 3 particular income pricing without direct subsidy or cross-subsidies or that cities must 4 adopt accessory dwelling unit ordinances. 5 · Refrain from restricting, eliminating, or proscribing local authority to adopt and carry 6 out land use plans, activities, and regulations. 7 8 LE-9. Community Land Trusts (AH) 9 10 Issue: The steeply increasing price of land available for housing development 11 is a growing concern throughout the state. Action is needed to create more permanently 12 affordable owner-occupied housing by maximizing the cost-effectiveness of taxpayer 13 investments. MHFA had one-time authority to assist cities to fund the establishment of 14 community land trusts for affordable housing. 15 16 Response: The 2002 Legislature should support a land trust capacity-building 17 program and provide capital start-up funds so that community land trusts can offer gap 18 financing, interest-rate write-downs, predevelopment financing, and fmancial underwriting 19 costs. 20 21 LE-IO. Municipal Telecommunications Authority (AH) 22 23 Issue: Cities must have the authority and the tools to put in place the necessary 24 infrastructure, educational resources, applications, and skill-sets to become connected 25 communities. Several court decisions demonstrate that provisions of the 1996 federal 26 Telecommunications Act requiring removal of barriers to entry for "any entity" apply directly to 27 cities' interest in gaining clear authority to create municipal telecommunications utilities in order 28 to provide advanced services at the local level. 29 30 Response: The Legislature and state agencies must act to make it possible for cities 31 to provide affordable access to advanced telecommunications and information services by: 32 33 · Allowing a city to become a telecommunications and information service provider upon 34 approval of the. city council and to extend services beyond city cooperate boundaries 35 upon authorization of the Municipal Public Utilities Commission. 36 · DefIning a strategic leadership role for cities by eliminating barriers to municipal entry. 37 · Supporting efforts by cities to bring advanced services to local residents and businesses, 38 and to encourage collaboration among communities and institutions to expand 39 education, health care, and economic opportunities at the local and regional level. 40 · Allowing cities and municipal utilities to join with other entities, such as cooperative 41 associations, investor-owned utilities, or other municipal utilities or power agencies, to 42 provide telecommunications and information service. 43 44 45 12 17CJ/ LE-ll. Right-of-Way Management (AH) 2 3 Issue: Cities have fundamental responsibility for managing the safe and convenient use 4 of public rights-of-way, and hold local rights-of-way in trust for the public as an increasingly ,5 scarce and valuable asset. As demand increases for use of rights-of-way for tower sites as well as 6 for underground and overhead wireless facilities, cities must continue to exercise their authority 7 to allocate and coordinate that resource among competing uses. Local management 8 responsibilities vary and are site specific, underscoring the necessity for maintaining local 9 authority. 10 11 Response: State and federal policymakers and regulators must: 12 13 . Uphold local authority to manage and protect public rights-of-way, including 14 reasonable zoning and subdivision regulation and the exercise of local police powers. 15 . Recognize that cities have a paramount role in developing, locating, siting, and 16 enforcing utility construction and safety standards. 17 . Support local authority to require full recovery of actual costs of managing use of 18 public rights-of-way. 19 . Maintain city authority to franchise gas, electric, and cable services and to collect 20 franchise fees and alternative revenue streams. . Maintain the courts as the primary forum for resolving disputes over the exercise of such authority. 23 . Maintain existing city authority to review and approve or deny plans for installation of 24 additional wires or cables on in-place utility poles. In the alternative, cities should have 25 broader authority to require the undergrounding of new and/or existing services at the 26 cost of the utility or telecommunications entity. 27 28 LE-12. Cable Franchising Authority (AH) 29 30 Issue: Franchising authority allows cities to require cable operators to meet unique local 31 needs and interests, including adequate customer service standards; public, educational, and 32 governmental local origination programming; educational and governmental programming; and 33 institutional networks for voice, video, and data transmission. This franchising process, in its 34 current form, works well. As technologies converge and access to new services expands, 35 however, cities face new challenges such as how to franchise competitive cable overbuilders like 36 competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) providing video services and open video systems. 37 Cities' authority to charge and collect franchise fees for cable modem services is also currently 38 being challenged at the federal level and has resulted in a significant loss of revenue to cities. 39 40 Response: Cities must retain authority to exercise and enforce franchises for 41 provision of video programming services, regardless of the provider. While challenges to 42 existing regulatory regimes arise in an era of convergence, cities need discretion and flexibility to work with competitive providers so that the intent of the 1996 federal -A Telecommunications Act can be achieved, including the ability to require PEG support, 45 institutional networks, customer service standards, and franchise fees or similar 13 ) 7a::? 1 compensation. State and federal governments should enact laws to recognize converging 2 technologies and preserve and strengthen local authority to advance community interest. 3 Federal jurisdiction should be directed solely to matters that are clearly of federal interest, 4 while retaining city authority over local and intrastate matters. Local cable regulations are 5 essential to prevent misuse of a near-monopoly positions; to protect consumer interests; 6 and to encourage and enable use of local cable systems for public, educational, and 7 government purposes and local origination programming. Such policies must uphold city 8 authority to manage and be compensated for the use of valuable and limited public rights- 9 of-way and to address the community's needs and for which such access is being provided. 10 11 LE-13. Wireless Tower and Antenna Siting (AH) 12 13 Issue: As demand for wireless communication service increases, wireless service 14 providers seek to site towers, antennas, and other facilities in cities. Cities must continue to have 15 authority to manage and coordinate the siting of these facilities in the public's interest. Local 16 management needs vary and are site specific, underscoring the necessity for maintaining local 17 authority. This authority is typically exercised through zoning and other police power regulation. 18 19 While state law regarding local rights-of-way management (M.S. 237.162.163) does not 20 apply, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 preserves state and local authority over zoning and 21 land-use decisions for personal wireless service facilities, but limits that authority. Specifically, 22 cities may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services, 23 may not regulate in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of 24 wireless services, must act on applications within a reasonable period of time, and must make 25 any denial of an application in writing supported by substantial evidence in a written record. 26 27 Response: Cities must be permitted to consider public health, safety, and welfare 28 concerns, including aesthetic and property value issues, in responding to requests to site 29 new wireless facilities. The Legislature should maintain laws that recognize and uphold city 30 authority to manage wireless facilities siting issues through local zoning and other police 31 power regulations and provider agreements, which may include fair compensation. The 32 Legislature should further clarify that wireless providers are not exempt from zoning and 33 other police power regulations where the provider proposes to use public rights-of-way to 34 site wireless facilities. 35 36 LE-14. Financing Community Reinvestment (ABH) 37 38 Issue: The 2001 property tax reform package is having a dramatic impact on how the 39 state of Minnesota's community reinvestment needs are addressed. These impacts bring into 40 question the future viability of tax increment fmancing (TIP) as the primary tool to fund 41 community reinvestment efforts. Activities that cities have historically been able to undertake, 42 but will likely be less able to achieve in the future given the likely diminished effectiveness of 43 TIP include: long-term tax base stabilization and growth, job creation, development of low-to- 44 moderate income and workforce housing, remediation of pollution, elimination of blight, 45 recycling and redevelopment of the infrastructure, and redevelopment of communities. 14 /703 Response: To ensure Minnesota is able to continue to effectively compete with other 2 states, the Legislature has a responsibility to partner with cities, state agencies, and other 3 community reinvestment organizations to develop a statewide community reinvestment 4 strategy, and to identify and implement additional tools to fund community reinvestment 5 efforts. The state should partner with cities in community reinvestment activities. State 6 acknowledgment of the need for community reinvestment and economic development is 7 essential to the state's prosperity, and legislation is needed to generate resources sufficient 8 to address these critical needs at the local level. 9 10 LE-15. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) (ABH) 11 12 Issue: Until the state identifies and implements additional development tools, TIP 13 remains the most viable tool available to fund community reinvestment efforts despite the 14 significant impacts of the 2001 property tax reform package. Cities and development authorities 15 will be required to devote considerable efforts in order to understand and address the impacts of 16 the 2001 property tax reform package on existing TIP districts and potential future projects. 17 18 Response: So as to not further complicate this process, the Legislature should not 19 enact future TIF law restrictions during the 2003 legislative session. In order to allow TIF 20 to maintain the effectiveness that remains in the wake of the 2001 property tax reform 21 package, the Legislature should consider: "'''' . Authorizing any tax increment districts approved after April 1, 1990, to pool 24 increments in the same manner as districts certified prior to April 1, 1990, for 25 affordable housing and pollution remediation. 26 . Expanding the use of TIF to assist in the development of technological infrastructure, 27 transit-oriented development, the restoration of designated historic stru~tures, for non- 28 retail commercial projects, and in non-wetland areas where unstable/non-buildable 29 soils exist. 30 . Modifying various provisions in order to better facilitate redevelopment activities. 31 . Authorizing TIF districts to share in the state property tax. 32 . Modifying the housing district income qualification level requirements to allow the 33 levels to vary according to those specific to individual communities. 34 35 LE-16. Timeframe for TIF District Establishment Legal Challenges (ABH) 36 37 Issue: Recent Minnesota court decisions might expose TIP district establishment . 38 determinations to legal challenges for an unlimited period of time. 39 40 Response: The Legislature should enact a practical timeframe consistent with that 41 provided in the law governing special assessments limiting the period during which such 42 legal challenges may be brought. This timeframe could include provisions requiring A 3 increased public notice and hearings. 15 //01 1 LE-17. TIF District Deficits (ABH) 2 3 Issue: The 2001 Legislature committed significant state resources on an ongoing basis to 4 the TIF grant program in order to address the impacts of property tax reform on existing TIF 5 districts. The 2002 Legislature repealed the entire TIF grant program and eliminated all funding 6 in order to help address the state budget deficit. A significant number of existing TIF districts 7 may experience future deficits due to property tax reform. 8 9 Response: The Legislature should reinstate the TIF grant program with funding 10 adequate to allow deficits caused by property tax reform to be addressed. The Legislature 11 should also authorize municipalities to elect to extend the durations of TIF districts, at 12 their discretion, as another mechanism to address TIF district deficits. 13 14 LE-18. Business Subsidies (ABH) 15 16 Issue: Business subsidy grantors are still getting accustomed to the relatively new 17 Business Subsidies Act. The 1999 Business Subsidies Act was clarified and modified during the 18 2000 legislative session. In order for development agencies to effectively implement the 19 amended law, the law should be allowed to operate without further substantive legislative 20 change. 21 22 Response: Without thorough study, the Legislature should not make any 23 substantive changes to the 1999 Business Subsidies Act during the 2003 legislative session. 24 25 LE-19. Business Development Programs (ABH) 26 27 Issue: The Minnesota Investment Fund is not adequately funded. Additionally, the 2002 28 Legislature's $12 million appropriation for the new Greater Minnesota Business Development 29 Public Infrastructure Grant Program was line-item vetoed by the governor. In light of recent 30 legislative action, local governments increasingly may need to rely on these types of state 31 programs in order to enable them to effectively compete nationally and internationally for 32 business development. 33 34 Response: The Legislature should fund the Greater Minnesota Business 35 Development Public Infrastructure Grant Program. Additionally, more state resources 36 should continue to be contributed to the Minnesota Investment Fund. 37 38 LE-20. Land Recycling Programs (ABH) 39 40 Issue: Communities across Minnesota are faced with expensive barriers to reusing 41 property. These roadblocks include deteriorating, obsolete, and vacant structures as well as 42 varying levels of contamination. Such barriers pose significant problems for cities seeking to 43 reuse existing infrastructure, maintain and improve the property tax base, provide jobs and 44 housing opportunities, and preserve historic structures. While land recycling activities have 45 always been particularly costly as they usually encompass multi-phase projects of extensive 46 duration where site assemblage, demolition, relocation or pollution cleanup' must occur before 16 / /05 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 . . 39 40 41 42 43 ,(. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 private-sector interest can be generated, the 2001 property tax reform package significantly diminished the ability of cities to undertake these efforts by dramatically reducing revenues generated by TIP. Exacerbating this situation, the redevelopment account administered by the Dept. of Trade and Economic Development and the Metropolitan Council programs supporting land recycling continue to be under funded. Response: In recognition of the unique needs of land recycling projects, the state should restore and increase funding for the redevelopment account administered by the Dept. of Trade and Economic Development and the redevelopment programs administered by the Metropolitan Council. Additionally, as part of a comprehensive approach to land recycling needs, the Legislature should consider state income tax credits and other tax incentives for local historic preservation efforts. The Legislature should also enact authority similar to the "This Old House" law that would provide a tax deferral on improvements to commercial buildings located in designated rehabilitation or historic preservation districts. Finally, the Legislature should continue its support and increase funding levels for state and regional programs to assist in contamination cleanup and brownfields remediation efforts. LE-21. Property Tax Abatement Authority (ABH) ,.,,., Issue: In an effort to increase the number of development tools available, the 1997 Legislature authorized local units of government to grant property tax abatements. Although TIP continues to be the primary financing mechanism for local development projects, tax abatements provide a good addition to a needed list of economic development tools. In order to provide maximum benefits, tax abatements should be less restrictive in terms of funding caps and financing terms. Property tax abatements should not be considered a replacement for tax increment fmancing. Response: TIF is still the primary, viable development tool available for cities. Abatement authority should continue to be available, but not offered as a rationale to eliminate TIF. Additionally, the Legislature should develop a state fund to facilitate state participation in abatement projects. Finally, the funding caps should be increased or eliminated. LE-22. OSA Response Timelines (ABH) Issue: The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) is responsible for TIP oversight. As part of its review of TIP districts, the OSA identifies alleged violations of the TIP laws and issue noncompliance notices to TIP authorities. After responding to these noncompliance notices within the required 6O-day period, authorities often do not receive timely responses on the matter from the OSA. Government agencies typically have response time deadlines. Additionally, TIP authorities are often unclear about the final disposition of the matter upon receipt of a final noncompliance notice. 46 Response: In the event that the OSA determines to issue a fmal non-compliance notice to a TIF authority, the Legislature should require the OSA to issue the notice within 17 / 7CJ(;, 1 60 days of receiving the authority's response. Any final noncompliance notice should 2 contain the OSA's final position on the matter, the date upon which they forwarded the 3 matter to the county attorney, and the next steps that are required to be taken according to 4 state law. Upon expiration of the 60-day period, the authority should be deemed to be in 5 compliance with the TIF laws if no rmal noncompliance notice is received. 6 7 LE-23. OSA Time Limitations (ABH) 8 9 Issue: The Office of the State Auditor (OS A) has the authority to issue noncompliance 10 notices for every existing TlF district in the state for alleged violations of the TlF laws. This 11 authority extends retroactively to the inception of the district. Accordingly, TlF authorities can 12 receive noncompliance notices for alleged violations that occurred 20 or more years ago. Often, 13 staff and record-keeping procedures have changed, and TlF authorities fmd it exceedingly 14 difficult to reconstruct the past in order to identify and remedy these situations. Similarly, the 15 OSA claims the authority, based on the state's records retention schedule, to audit TlF districts 16 for up to 10 years after decertification, which requires cities to expend staff resources to maintain 17 files and a working knowledge of old districts for an unreasonable period of time. 18 19 Response: A reasonable timeframe within which alleged violations are identified 20 should be established. The LegislatUre should reasonably restrict the OSA's ability to issue 21 noncompliance notices to the six-year period prior to the notice's issuance date. The 22 Legislature should also require the OSA to conduct any audits on decertified districts 23 within one year of decertification. 24 25 LE-24. Economic Development Authorities (ABH) 26 27 Issue: The 2000 Legislature authorized counties outside the metropolitan area to 28 establish county economic development authorities (EDAs). The new law lacks specificity on 29 certain process and limitations issues. County EDA activity in areas surrounding cities will 30 directly impact the adjacent city in terms of service provision and taxes. 31 32 Response: The Legislature should establish reasonable limits on county EDA 33 activities in unincorporated areas, including requiring city approval for proposed county 34 EDA activities within two miles of a city. The Legislature should revisit the county EDA 35 legislation and add specificity to other process and limitations issues such as the local 36 recommendation committee. 37 38 LE-25. Workforce Readiness (ABH) 39 40 Issue: State and federal welfare reform efforts have focused on the importance of the 41 welfare-to-work transition, and have recognized the challenge of ensuring individuals are 42 qualified to work. Cities have an interest in the availability of qualified workers as part of their 43 economic development efforts, and can serve as a catalyst with other public entities and the 44 private sector to address workforce readiness issues. 45 18 170'/ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ~ 5 46 Response: The Legislature should continue to fully fund the job skills partnership and pathways programs administered by the Dept of Trade and Economic Development The Legislature should provide additional funding to local workforce councils for the purpose of upgrading the skills and productivity of the workforce. LE-26. Adequate Funding for Transportation (AF) Issue: Current funding for roads and transit systems across all government levels in the state is not adequate. If funding remains inadequate, Minnesota's transportation system will not meet the capacity needs necessary to sustain population growth and promote economic development. The League acknowledges that all Minnesota communities benefit from a sound and adequately funded transportation system that offers diverse modes of travel. Response: More resources must be dedicated to the state's transportation system. The League supports constitutionally dedicating a portion of the sales tax on motor vehicles (also referred to as the MVST) or other new revenue sources to a transportation fund, which would fund both highway and transit projects. The League also supports an increase in the gas tax that would be dedicated under the existing highway user trust fund formula. Replacement funding for vehicle registration taxes (known as tab fees) must be constitutionally dedicated to the highway user trust fund. ,..,.. If adequate funding does not come from the state, cities should have funding options such as special taxing authority made available to them to raise the necessary dollars to adequately fund roads and transit. The League also supports special funding for cities burdened by excessive cost participation responsibilities imposed by improvement projects on the state's principal arterial system, and for transportation components of economic development and redevelopment projects of regional significance. Cities under 5,000 should be eligible for this funding. All nontransportation programs should be funded from sources other than the highway user distribution fund or other funds dedicated to transportation. LE-27. State Aid for Urban Road Systems (AF) Issue: Current rules governing municipal state aid expenditures are restricting the efficient use of these funds, and do not adequately acknowledge the constraints of road systems in urban city environments. Response: Rules affecting the municipal state aid system need to be changed to acknowledge the technical and practical restrictions on construction and reconstruction of urban road systems. New municipal state aid design standards should not apply to reconstruction of existing state aid streets originally constructed under different standards. Future changes to state aid rules should ensure the involvement of elected officials and engineering professionals in the decision-making process. 19 1 70<6' 1 LE-28. Turnbacks of County and State Roads (AF) 2 3 Issue: As road funding becomes increasingly inadequate, more roads are being "turned 4 back" to cities from counties and the state. 5 6 Response: Turnbacks should not occur without direct funding or transfer of a 7 funding source. A process of negotiation and mediation should govern the timing, funding, 8 and condition of turned-back roads. City taxpayers should receive the same treatment as 9 township taxpayers. The requirement for a public hearing, standards about the conditions 10 of turnbacks, and temporary maintenance funding should also apply to county turnbacks 11 to cities. At a minimum, roads that are proposed to be turned back to a city government 12 should be brought up to the standards of the receiving government or that city should be 13 compensated with a direct payment. Direct funding should be provided for smaller cities 14 that are not provided with turnback financing through -the municipal state aid system. 15 16 LE-29. Road Funding for Cities Under 5,000 (AF) 17 18 Issue: Cities under 5,000 population do not receive any nonproperty tax funds for their 19 collector and arterial streets. 20 21 Response: Cities under 5,000 population that are not eligible for Municipal State 22 Aid (MSA) should be able to use county municipal accounts and the 5 percent account of 23 the highway user distribution fund. 24 25 Uses of county municipal accounts should be statutorily modified so counties can 26 dedicate these funds for local arterials and collector streets within cities under 5,000 27 population. In addition, the 5 percent set-aside account in the highway user distribution 28 fund should be used to meet this funding gap. 29 30 LE-30. Railroad-Related Projects (AF) 31 32 Issue: Cities are being presented with far-reaching and long-term effects when railroad 33 expansion and related projects enter their communities. Along with the concerns related to 34 safety, environmental effects, and noise impacts on the communities, several issues have greater 35 reaching effects. They are: 36 37 · The cost-share ratio related to roadway crossing improvements will be borne by the public 38 sector to a substantial degree, some estimates are 80 percent public to 20 percent private 39 funding. 40 · The financial burden faced by the public sector to deal with mitigation improvements, a cost 41 that the Surface Transportation Board (STB) is not requiring the private sector to pay. 42 . The issues associated with the length of trains moving through communities. 43 . Liability associated with whistle-blowing ordinances. 44 . Pre-emption of local authority to regulate railroad activities. 20 /7o~ Response: The private sector must be required to pay a greater share of the improvements that benefit their industry. The public sector should not be expected to 3 underwrite the costs of improvements sought by the private sector. The state and federal 4 government must participate in adequately funding the mitigation of the negative impact of 5 railroads on local government and its citizens. The federal government must exercise 6 greater over-sight of the 8TH to ensure fair and equitable solutions are reached when 7 dealing with cities in Minnesota. 8 9 IMPROVING SERVICE DELIVERY 10 11 SD-l. Redesigning and Reinventing Government (GC) 12 13 Issue: Every level of government is re-evaluating, reprioritizing, redesigning, and 14 renewing its organizational structure and programs in response to fmancial realities and citizens' 15 needs and problems. Reforms, however, must be more than change for the sake of change or a 16 reshuffling of existing programs to appease the electorate. To be meaningful, reorganization and 17 reassignments of governmental entities and services should save money where feasible, deliver 18 improved services, serve essential needs, and be equitably structured. Cities have and will 19 continue to pursue the use of cooperative agreements, the re-evaluation of city programs and 20 services, and changes to organizational structures. 21 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 ,.37 38 39 40 41 Response: The federal, state, and county governments should: . Ensure that in redesigning, reinventing or reassigning government services and programs that the appropriate level of service to citizens is evaluated and citizen demands and expectations are adequately addressed. . Promote local efforts through incentives, rather than mandates. . Communicate and establish a process of negotiation before shifting responsibility for delivering services from one level of government to another or seeking to reduce service duplication. . Transfer authority for use of revenues dedicated to such programs, or provide appropriate and adequate alternatives. . Identify and repeal programs or discontinue services that are no longer necessary or which can readily and fairly be provided by the private sector. . Employ existing government entities in redesign efforts rather than create new agencies or units. SD-2. Unfunded Mandates (GC) ",-, Issue: The cost of federal and state mandated programs substitute the judgment of Congress, the president, the Legislature, and the governor for local budget priorities. These mandates force cities to reduce funding for other basic services or to increase taxes and service charges. The passage by the Legislature of reporting requirements for new state mandates, and 21 /7/0 1 the passage by Congress of legislation restraining new federal mandates, should help address the 2 problem, but other steps are necessary. 3 4 Response: 5 6 . Existing unfunded mandates should be reviewed and modified or repealed where 7 possible. 8 . No additional statewide mandates should be enacted, unless full funding for the 9 mandate is provided by the level of government imposing it or a permanent stable 10 revenue source is established. 11 · Cities should not be forced to comply with unfunded mandates. 12 . Cities should be given the greatest flexibility possible in implementing mandates to 13 ensure their cost is minimized. 14 15 SD-3. City Costs for Enforcing State and Local Laws (AF) 16 17 Issue: Cities experience substantial costs enforcing state and local laws, particularly 18 those related to traffic, controlled substances, and incarceration of prisoners. The current method 19 in our criminal justice system of recovering costs for law enforcement and prosecution through 20 fines is insufficient to meet the costs incurred by local governments. 21 22 Response: The Legislature should review this issue and adopt measures that 23 provide for complete reimbursement of the costs incurred by local governments in 24 enforcing state and local laws. Solutions that should be considered include the following: 25 26 . Increasing fine amounts. 27 . Removing or modifying county and state surcharges that conflict with cost recovery 28 principles. 29 · Requiring the defendant to pay the full costs of enforcement and prosecution as part of 30 any sentence. 31 32 SD-4. Design-build (AF) 33 34 Issue: The standard bid procedure cities are required to use in selecting contractors for 35 municipal buildings can be quite costly. Private sector development uses a process known as 36 "design-build" in which various fIrms submit project proposals that include both a design and the 37 construction costs for that design. The selection is then based on the total package. By granting 38 specific statutory authority to use the design-build alternative to the Metropolitan Sports 39 Facilities Commission and state agencies, including the Dept. of Revenue, the Legislature has 40 recognized the financial savings it can provide. In documented instances, cities have saved 41 taxpayers up to 10 percent of the total project cost by using the design-build alternative. 42 43 The design-build process also permits improved project management and oversight. 44 However, absent statutory authorization to use this alternative, cities are vulnerable to lawsuits 45 from unsuccessful bidders. In addition, the design-build process for playground equipment can 46 encourage greater creativity while maintaining cost controls. Special regislation was enacted for 22 /)/1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 46 47 1 the city of Chanhassen in 1995 to experiment using this process for purchasing playground equipment. I - Response: The Legislature should authorize an extension of the design-build procedure to cities as a less expensive alternative to the standard bid procedure. SD-5. Providing Information to Citizens (ABH) Issue: To keep the public updated and informed, state law requires local units of government to publish various notification documents in newspapers, and often dictates which newspapers receive cities' publication business. The number and variety of documents required to be published and the costs of publication are burdensome. Technological advancements have expanded the ways government can provide information to citizens. In many cases, these new technologies are more efficient and cost effective. Response: Cities should be authorized to take advantage of new technologies to increase the dissemination of information to citizens and potentially lower the associated costs. Specifically, the Legislature should authorize local units of government to designate an appropriate daily/weekly publication; elect alternative means of communication such as city newsletters, cable television, and the Internet; and expand the use of summaries where information is technical or lengthy. Additionally, the Legislature should eliminate outdated or unnecessary publication requirements. SD-6. Construction Codes (RS) Issue: Each year the Legislature addresses construction codes issues that have some impact on local governments. In addition, the Construction Codes Advisory Council and Builders' Association of Minnesota have indicated they may be recommending legislation to require statewide enforcement of the building code. While all cities must enforce certain codes--such as the accessibility code, the electrical code and the bleacher safety code--the state's building code remains a local option for cities outside the metropolitan area. Many greater Minnesota cities have adopted the state building code and all cities within the seven-county metropolitan area are required to adhere to the state building code. Response: A building code provides many benefits, including uniformity of construction standards in the building industry, consistency in code interpretation and enforcement, and life-safety guidance. A statewide-enforced building code may have benefits, but requiring it would result in an unfunded mandate. The enforcement of a building code can be cost prohibitive for many cities due to the expenses and overhead related to staffing vs. the limited building activity occurring in some communities. The League supports adoption of a state building code so long as there is not mandatory enforcement at the local level. The adoption of an enforced state building code 23 / '? /01 1 should remain a local option for municipalities outside the seven-county metropolitan area, 2 unless the state fully funds the costs of enforcement and inspection services necessary to 3 enforce a statewide building code. 4 5 In the event the Legislature requires an enforced statewide building code, local 6 governments must have the option to hire or select a building official of their choice and set 7 the appropriate level of service, even if the state fully funds code enforcement activities. 8 9 To the extent the insurance industry is concerned about insuring structures not 10 built to code, the industry should drive code compliance by issuing policies or setting rates 11 based on whether the structure meets various code requirements. 12 13 SD-7. National Fire Protection Association (NFP A) Standards (AF) 14 15 Issue: The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is an international association 16 of individuals and trade and professional organizations that deals with fire and life safety. The 17 NFP A has adopted two new standards: NFP A 1710, Organization and Deployment of Fire 18 Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public 19 by Career Fire Departments, and NFP A 1720, Organization and Deployment of Fire 20 Suppression, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Volunteer 21 Fire Departments. NFPA standards 1710 and 1720 define minimum response times, minimum 22 fire company staffing levels, initial full alarm response levels, and extra alarm response levels. 23 Although NFPA codes and standards are voluntary, they are usually adopted by local 24 jurisdictions. NFP A standards 1710 and 1720 preempt local authority and place a one-size-fits- 25 all mandate on all cities and towns. 26 27 Response: Levels of service delivery for fire and emergency medical services (EMS) . 28 have always been determined by local jurisdictions. The NFP A has clearly gone outside its 29 authority in proposing these national minimum response, manning, and statimg standards. 30 If adopted and issued, these proposed NFP A standards would force local governments to 31 shift dollars from fire prevention programs to fire suppression activities, potentially 32 increasing the risk of fire and the danger to local firefighters. 33 34 The League opposes any attempt by the NFP A to impose standards for statimg or 35 minimum manning levels of fire, specialized, or emergency medical services vehicles 36 controlled by units of local government. The League also opposes any attempt by the NFP A 37 to adopt a standard dictating or affecting the response time of any fire, specialized or 38 emergency medical services vehicle. 39 40 SD-8. Fees for Service (RS) 41 42 Issue: The Legislature and interest groups often seek to mandate specific fee limitations 43 for various city services. Examples of such mandates include building permit fee legislation and 44 coin-operated amusement machine license fee legislation, both designed to rigorously control 45 local fee setting authority. Additionally, starting in 2003, all city development fees and related 46 expenditures will be reported to the state. 47 24 /7/3 Other groups, like the Citizens Jury and the media, are discussing the value of fees for 2 providing services. The Citizens Jury gave limited acknowledgment of the value fees may have 3 in providing core city services. The media often urges the public and policymakers to monitor 4 city use of fees. 5 6 Response: While the state has a role in providing a general statewide funding 7 policy, the state should not interfere in the decision-making functions performed by cities 8 when setting city budgets to provide city services. General services--such as permitting, 9 inspections, or enforcement--are best funded out of a city's general fund. 10 11 The League supports the Legislature endorsing city authority to charge fees that are 12 reasonably related to the cost of providing the service, permit or license, and 13 acknowledging there are other associated costs inherent in the provision of those services, 14 permits or licenses. However, cities oppose any move to legislate specific methods to pay for 15 city services or place caps on city fees. 16 17 SD-9. State Assistance for Library Funding (JO) 18 19 Issue: Many community libraries in Minnesota are city owned. Although located in an 20 individual community, city libraries serve a much wider area. Local libraries need to be 21 improved in order to provide access to both written and electronic media to enhance the educational capacity of both adults and children. 24 Response: The League supports a state matching grant program to provide dollars 25 to assist communities to work in partnership to build and improve libraries. 26 27 SD-IO. Civil Liability of Local Governments (RS) 28 29 Issue: One of the barriers to the delivery of governmental services and programs is the 30 exposure of local governments and their officials to civil damage claims. The state has acted to 31 protect itself and its local governments by enacting exceptions and limitations to liability suits, 32 and authorizing self-insurance and other mechanisms to deal with claims allowed by law. 33 34 Response: The League supports: 35 36 . Creating an exception to municipal tort indemnification law, Minn. Stat. ~466.07, where 37 an employee is defended and indemnified for claims under a contract of insurance _ . 38 carried by the employee. 39 . Extending the protection of the state and municipal tort claims act to quasi- 40 governmental entities when performing public services such as firefighting. 41 . The League supports existing constitutional safeguards for protecting public and 42 private property interests without any statutory expansion of property rights. . Clarifying and maintaining the applicability of municipal immunity in various areas including, but not limited to, park and recreational immunity, including the extension 45 to entities providing a public service that have not traditionally been included within 25 J 7/<( 1 the immunity (e.g. state trails over municipal utility easements) and vicarious official 2 immunity. 3 4 SD-ll. Private Property Rights and Takings (RS) 5 6 Issue: The Legislature has been introducing an increasing number of bills designed to 7 diminish or control local governments' ability to exercise traditional planning and zoning 8 authority and eminent domain powers. Legislation to control cities' abilities to perform 9 regulatory acts--such as road rights-of-way condemnation, shooting range zoning, and 10 amortization--received strong support from legislators. In addition, bills have been introduced to 11 codify the property rights section of Minnesota's Constitution. 12 13 The federal swamp buster/sod buster programs, the Army Corps of Engineers' dredge 14 and fill programs, and the state's Wetlands Conservation Act and Community Based Planning 15 Act appear to be the nexus for much of the property rights and takings legislation. 16 17 The League supports local governments' ability to balance the rights of private 18 landowners with the interest of the public. However, the League is concerned various legislative 19 initiatives will adversely impact cities in three ways. First, such legislative initiatives undermine 20 the fundamental authority of cities to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. 21 Second, if the Legislature acts to codify part of the Minnesota Constitution, an argument may be 22 made that the Legislature intended to create new causes of action against cities. This would 23 encourage more lawsuits and expose cities to the expense of defending those cases. Third, by 24 changing the state's eminent domain law, including "quick take" provisions, municipal 25 condemnation will become more costly and take longer to conclude. 26 27 Response: The League encourages the state and federal governments to improve 28 their regulatory programs by eliminating property rights issues that were caused by the 29 adoption of such laws as the Wetlands Conservation Act or the swamp buster/sod buster 30 programs. The League opposes legislation that diminishes the ability of cities to act in the 31 best interests of the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, that increases the cost of 32 doing business for the public good, or that creates the possibility of additional lawsuits 33 against cities. 34 35 SD-12. Election Issues (AH) 36 37 Issue: At a time when state policy-makers are considering election reforms, it is 38 important to address the role of cities in administering state election law and conducting absentee 39 balloting and voting activities. 40 41 Response: In view of the importance of improving the efficiency and responsiveness 42 of local election administration, the League recommends the Legislature: 43 44 . Support enhancements to the state Voter and Election Management System (VEMS) to 45 give cities direct view access to VEMS. 46 · Allow eligible voters who are not affiliated with political parties to serve as election 47 judges. 26 / '? /5' 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ,. 40 41 42 ~ 44 45 ... . Require major political parties to provide a list of eligible voters to serve as election judges to counties by May 1 and for counties to provide lists to cities by May 15. . Authorize cities to enact an ordinance no more than 90 days prior to the opening of filings to require write-in candidates for city elective offices to tile a written request with the tiling officer no later than the day before the election in the same manner as candidates for state and federal offices are now required by M.S. 204B.09, Subd. 3, in order for votes cast to be tabulated and reported in the official canvass. . Allow precinct polling places to be located within 3,500 feet outside of precinct boundaries. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 SD-13. Local Election Authority (AH) Issue: City authority to schedule city elections and establish terms of office for local elected officials strengthens regard for the role of local self-government, particularly when voters approve those matters in home rule charter cities. Additionally, statutory cities currently lack authority to create or abolish wards. Response: The Legislature should oppose further limits on either the number or the length of terms city elected officials may serve as provided in current state law, particularly when those terms have been established by voters in home rule charter cities. State policy on uniform elections should continue to recognize and uphold local authority to schedule city elections in November of either even- or odd-numbered years. The Legislature should support provisions to give statutory cities general authority to create and abolish wards. SD-14. Environmental Protection (RS) Issue: Cities demonstrate strong stewardship for the protection and preservation of the environment. Minnesota municipalities have historically been the leading funding source for environmental protection and improvements. Municipal efforts include environmental protection through wastewater treatment, wetland restorations, stormwater treatment, public utility emission reductions, brownfield cleanup, safe drinking water programs, as well as others. However, at some point the diminishing or nonexistent environmental benefit received from additional efforts is fiscally irresponsible. Often, the programs are improperly designed to meet their stated goals. Additionally, the absence of funding by the state and federal governments has removed an essential restraining feature in program design and implementation. Agencies are less accountable to the governments that mandate environmental programs when they do not have to find the money to implement the programs. Specific problems faced by cities include: . New programs or standards are continually adopted without regard to the existence, attainability or cost of existing programs and standards. . Regulatory bodies fail to consistently use good science and the most current and accurate data when establishing water quality standards. 27 /7/(;, 1 · Regulatory bodies impose new permit requirements without going through rulemakiIlg. 2 Instead, the agencies rely on internal documents, program strategies, and "best professional 3 judgment of staff' when setting permit criteria. 4 · Regulatory bodies approve permits and programs that compete with traditional municipal 5 services and encourage urban sprawl. This behavior puts at risk the public investments and 6 growth management efforts cities have made when planning for future development. 7 · Permit fees and other cost transfer elements of federal and state programs do not provide an 8 incentive for environmental agency efficiency, policy prioritization or risk assessment. 9 · Third party environmental advocacy groups create significant hardships on cities by 10 threatening litigation even when hard science may not support the groups' positions. 11 12 Response: 13 14 · Alternative wastewater treatment and cooperative service systems should be prohibited 15 from operating in areas that can reasonably and effectively be served by existing 16 municipal systems unless: 17 -- The municipal system is proven to be substantially less cost-effective and 18 substantially less beneficial to the environment; and 19 .. The operation of these systems will not create a stranded public investment in the 20 existing system. 21 · Sufficient state and federal financial assistance should be provided to assist local 22 governments when complying with state and federal infrastructure requirements, 23 particularly with regard to wastewater, stormwater, and drinking water facilities. 24 · The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) should streamline its permitting and 25 reissuing processes to allow for effluent standards and permit requirements to be 26 known earlier, thereby giving communities more time to defend against contested case 27 hearings. 28 · The Legislature should require the MPCA to make its determination regarding the 29 reissuance of a permit within a reasonable set time period and require the MPCA to 30 reissue the permit within a reasonable set time frame. 31 · Legislation should be passed that requires state agencies to establish permit 32 requirements only when the criteria they are using is developed through the rule- 33 making process. 34 · The League should join with other like-minded organizations to contest through 35 judicial means various regulatory activities of state agencies and advocacy groups. 36 37 SD-15. Creating a Minnesota GIS (AH) 38 39 Issue: Local governments are finding geographic information systems (GIS) an essential 40 tool for comprehensive land use, real estate, environmental, and other land management 41 information. In many counties, maintenance of official land records has not been automated, 42 creating a barrier to GIS development. In addition, the start-up costs of GIS implementation can 43 be prohibitive. 44 28 /7/7 Response: The Legislature should encourage local government implementation of .k GIS through grants and/or the dedication of a revenue source such as real estate 3 transaction fees. In addition, cities should be involved in the development of county land 4 records modernization plans. 5 6 SD-16. State Appropriation for Government Training Service (CG) 7 8 Issue: In 1977, Government Training Service (GTS) was created in order to provide a 9 coordinated response to the training needs of state and local governments. GTS was charged with 10 coordinating the needs of the state, cities, counties, townships, and school districts, with the 11 delivery capability of the state's institutions of higher learning and other continuing education 12 service providers. 13 14 State fmancial support of GTS is important. Many cities and other local governments find 15 it difficult to adequately fund city official and staff training. GTS provides a cost-effective 16 mechanism for taking advantage of the efficiencies of cooperation. 17 18 Response: The League supports the state general fund appropriation for 19 Government Training Service. 20 21 SD-17. Public Safety Spectrum Needs (AH) Issue: Cities are concerned about the trend of increased concentration of ownership of 24 wireless spectrum licenses, particularly for cell phones, radio, TV, and satellite broadcasting. 25 Cities' concerns arise from the implications of the availability of additional spectrum necessary 26 for interoperability and access to the technology required to respond to disasters, terrorism, and 27 other emergencies. 28 29 Response: The federal government must take immediate action to provide 30 broadcast channels needed to allow local public safety agencies to respond to accidents, 31 disasters, and criminal activity that cross jurisdictional boundaries. Federal and state 32 officials should encourage regional public safety communications planning and address the 33 shortage of broadcast channels to meet future public safety needs. 34 35 Cities should receive fair and immediate compensation for transfers associated with 36 state or federal regulations for cities to change frequencies and/or channels in order to 37 operate public safety and emergency communications. 38 . . 39 The federal government should also take immediate steps to ensure that emergency 40 warning systems are linked to make sure that all areas are protected in the event of 41 national, statewide or regional emergencies. 42 43 SD-18. Legalization of Fireworks (AF) .,.... Issue: The 2002 Legislature passed a bill (Chapter 350) that allows for the sale and use 46 of non-aerial, non-explosive consumer fireworks including sparklers, party poppers, snakes, and 47 other novelty items, relaxing the ban on consumer fireworks in place in Minnesota since 1941. 29 17/~ 1 Nevertheless, fIreworks products can cause serious injuries and fIre loss. The legal sale of 2 consumer fIreworks undermines fIre prevention efforts. The sale and use of consumer fIreworks 3 increases local public safety enforcement, emergency response, and fIfe-suppression costs. 4 5 Response: The League opposes legislation that would further relax the ban on the 6 sale and use of consumer fireworks. The League supports a repeal of the 2002 law that 7 relaxes the ban on the sale and use of consumer fireworks. 8 9 SD-19. 911 Funding (AH) 10 11 Issue: Routine maintenance and improvements to 911 services increasingly force cities 12 and other local units of government to use local revenues as state funding fails to keep up with 13 the need for adequate training dollars and the system upgrades needed to comply with FCC 14 requirements for cell phone automated location identifIcation technology. 15 16 In 2002, the Legislature capped the 911 surcharge at 33 cents. While increasing the 17 amount allocated to the Dept. of Administration, 911 centers did not receive an increase 2003 or 18 2004. The current surcharge does not adequately meet the cost of operating the current local 19 public safety answering points (PSAPs), and does not address future funding needed to meet the 20 cost of installing new technology. In addition, the Legislature removed the authority of the 21 commissioner of the Dept. of Administration to set the amount of the surcharge, thereby creating 22 serious concerns about how to meet the requirements of advances in technology and ensure the 23 future dependability of a statewide 911 system. 24 25 Response: The League supports an increase in the 911 surcharge for upgrades and 26 modifications to local 911 systems, maintenance and operational support, and dispatcher 27 training. The Legislature should also restore the commissioner of the Dept. of 28 Administration's authority to establish the surcharge amount. 29 30 SD-20. Racial Profiling (AF) 31 32 Issue: The League recognizes that where racial profiling exists it must be eliminated. The 33 League supports action by the state of Minnesota to fund and implement effective and 34 meaningful responses to racial profiling that will effectuate fair treatment of all people. 35 36 Response: The League supports a meaningful and effective response to the concerns 37 of residents that police traffic stops reflect an objective demonstration of probable cause to 38 believe that a law has been violated. AU members of the community must have confidence 39 that each member of the community is being treated fairly and respectfully, and that the 40 race or ethnicity of the driver is not used as a factor in deciding to stop a motor vehicle. 41 The League supports training programs to support these goals and recommends that the 42 state of Minnesota develop, fund, and present such training programs to all law 43 enforcement agencies in the state. 44 45 The League opposes the mandatory collection of traffic stop data as being 46 counterproductive and ineffective in adequately responding to those members of our 47 communities who do not feel a part of the community by virtue of their concerns about 30 17/~ 2 3 4 . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 .. 41 42 43 4 5 46 47 racial profiling. In an effort to ascertain the scope and degree of the problem, the League would support objective, well formulated statistical sampling by third parties under the auspices of a state-funded study that would develop documentation of traffic stops and an analysis of those stops, coupled with an effective means of enforcing sanctions against documented instances of inappropriate treatment of citizens. Additionally, the League supports state funding for video cameras in police cars. SD-21. 0.08 DWI (AF) Issue: The state of Minnesota is considering a statutory amendment to reduce the blood alcohol level from 0.10 to 0.08. Analyses anticipating the fiscal impact of the 0.08 threshold on cities have been inconclusive. Under current driving while impaired (DWl) law, the arresting authority is responsible for prosecution of suspected DWl offenders. A reduced threshold may result in more DWl arrests by city law enforcement officers and, thus, increased prosecution costs for cities. Response: The League is committed to building quality communities and to increased public safety. By adopting and implementing the 0.08 percent BAC level threshold, the state will secure existing federal highway funds that will assist in the maintenance and upgrade of a safe transportation system. 1"1" Prior to adopting this initiative, the Legislature should carefully study the costs associated with a reduced DWI threshold. The state of Minnesota should provide the necessary funding to compensate local units of government for related cost increases. SD-22. CriMNet (AF) Issue: Public safety is compromised by the lack of centralized, complete, and accurate criminal history data about individuals, incidents, and cases. And, without an integrated criminal justice information system, Minnesota cannot always hold serious criminals accountable for their crimes. CriMNet, Minnesota's effort to integrate the 1,100 criminal justice information systems operated by agencies at all levels, will improve access to relevant criminal history data for public safety and criminal justice authorities. More than 500 cities operate police departments. These departments vary dramatically in fiscal capacity, staffing resources, and technical expertise. Further, each municipal law enforcement agency has unique operating procedures, strengths, and needs based on the community it serves. The League knows CriMNet will have a significant impact on municipal police business practices and could mean increased staffing needs, training, and equipment purchases. The League also recognizes that every agency must participate fully in CriMNet to make the system effective. Response: The League supports efforts by the state of Minnesota to integrate criminal justice information systems. The League also supports cooperation between legislators, law enforcement and corrections agents, court officials, prosecutors, community groups, and businesses that build public support for CriMNet. 31 17 0iCJ 1 If CriMNet is to be implemented statewide, the Legislature must consider the 2 different capacities of municipalities to participate. The League requests that the 3 Legislature fund CriMNet planning and implementation at the local level. 4 5 SD-23. Red Light Cameras (AF) 6 7 Issue: Drivers who run red lights can cause serious traffic accidents and contribute to 8 gridlock. In spite of the severity of this problem, cities cannot afford continuous monitoring of 9 intersections by peace officers. The technology exists to enforce traffic signal laws with 10 photographic evidence. When installed at traffic signals, motion imaging recording systems 11 (MIRS) have been shown to reduce red light running. 12 13 Response: Local law enforcement agencies should have the authority to use the 14 MIRS technology to allow a vehicle, not its occupants, to be identified when the vehicle has 15 violated a traffic signal law. Local law enforcement officers should have the authority to 16 issue citations for violations of traffic signals by mail, where the violation is detected with 17 photographic evidence. 18 19 SD-24. Misdemeanor Fines (RS) 20 21 Issue: There is an inconsistency in the amount a city can charge for misdemeanor 22 violations under Minn. Stat. ~~ 412.231 and 609.02, subd 3. Minn. Stat. ~ 609.02, subd. 3, 23 establishes maximum fines at $1,000. Minn. Stat. ~ 412.231 establishes maximum fines at $700. 24 Although the Legislature has established that the provision in Minn. Stat. ~ 602 supercedes the 25 fine in ~ 412, the inconsistency has resulted in confusion in applying the laws. 26 27 Response: The Legislature should amend Minn. Stat. ~ 412 to mirror the amount of 28 the rme established in Minn. Stat. ~ 602. 29 30 SD-25. State Regulation of Massage Therapists (ABH) 31 32 Issue: The state does not currently regulate massage therapy, an emerging and rapidly 33 growing profession. In order to control prostitution and to provide for health and sanitation 34 standards, several cities have entered the traditional state domain of health-care licensure by 35 enacting ordinances that require all massage therapists to obtain a local professional license. 36 These ordinances allow local law enforcement officers to differentiate between legitimate 37 massage therapists, who have a city license, and prostitution businesses fronting as massage 38 therapy establishments. 39 40 The lack of statewide regulation of massage therapists has hampered law enforcement 41 techniques, and has caused problems for cities attempting to regulate an entire health-care 42 profession without any statewide standards. Currently, 25 states regulate massage therapists on a 43 statewide level. Statewide regulation of massage therapists would provide a clear set of 44 educational standards that massage therapists must meet, and would provide local law 45 enforcement agencies with an easy tool to distinguish between prostitution and lei"itimate 46 massage therapy. Statewide regulation would not disturb traditional powers over land use and 47 business licensure. 32 J7,;{! Response: The League supports the statewide regulation of massage therapists in ,t. order to aid. local law enforcement efforts to control prostitution and other criminal 3 activity. 4 5 SD-26. On-Sale Liquor or Wine Licenses to Performing Theaters and 6 Cultural Centers (ABH) 7 .- 8 Issue: Performing theaters and cultural centers are not one of the qualifying entities to 9 which municipalities may issue on-sale liquor or wine licenses. Several theaters have received 10 special legislation that allows their municipalities to issue on-sale liquor or wine licenses to 11 them. This practice interferes with the ability of municipalities to control the placement and 12 operating manner of these entities. 13 14 Response: The Legislature should authorize municipalities to issue on-sale liquor or 15 wine licenses to performing theaters and cultural centers subject to restrictions imposed by 16 the municipality. 17 18 SD-27. Youth Access to Alcohol & Tobacco (ABH) 19 20 Issue: The minimum age to purchase alcohol in Minnesota is 21. The minimum age to 21 purchase tobacco in Minnesota is 18. The minimum age to sell alcohol and tobacco products in Minnesota is 18. Cities have an interest in preventing their youth from obtaining these products. To this end, many cities operate compliance check programs in an effort to discern the current 24 level of youth access and to reduce youth access. 25 26 Response: The League opposes any proposal that could result in increased risks of 27 youth access to alcohol and tobacco products and expanded off-sale venues for the sale of 28 such products. The League supports the sale- of alcohol and tobacco products only in 29 controlled environments. The League supports statutory changes that assist in reducing 30 youth access to alcohol and tobacco products. The League supports mandatory alcohol 31 compliance checks with state funding initiatives to support locally-determined compliance 32 efforts. 33 34 SD-28. Smoking Ban Ordinances (ABH) 35 36 Issue: Cities are being confronted with the issue of local smoking ban ordinances. Three 37 Minnesota cities and one county have adopted ordinances that ban smoking in restaurants and/or 38 bars. Other cities have failed to adopt ordinances. A number of cities have passed resolutions 39 deferring action on the smoking ban issue until the state Legislature addresses the issue. 40 However, there is no clear consensus among Minnesota cities supporting a statewide ban. "41 42 Response: If the Legislature addresses the smoking ban issue with a uniform 43 statewide law, it should preserve the ability of local units of government to enact more restrictive ordinances at the local level. 33 ) 7aO? 1 SD-29. Park and Library Land Tax Break (JO) 2 3 Issue: As the price for land increases, it is becoming more difficult for cities and other 4 local units of government to compete with developers to save and secure land and easements that 5 are deemed appropriate for park, library, trail, and green spaces. 6 7 Response: The state should amend the tax laws to provide tax incentives for 8 property owners who seUland and easements to local units of government when the land is 9 to be used for park, library, trail or green space purposes. 10 11 SD-30. Medicare Reimbursement for Ambulance Service (AF) 12 13 Issue: The Federal Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 made two significant changes 14 to ambulance billing. First, the act mandated that all ambulance services accept Medicare 15 assignments as payment in full; that is, ambulance services can no longer bill the Medicare 16 patient for any unpaid balance beyond the Medicare payment. Second, the act mandated a new 17 uniform fee schedule that was implemented in April 2002. The new fee schedule significantly 18 reduced reimbursement levels for many small and rural ambulance services. The BBA mandates 19 will have profound impacts on the ability of some Minnesota ambulance service providers to 20 fund their operations. 21 22 Response: The League supports federal legislation that would: 23 24 · Require Medicare to set ambulance payment rates at the ''national average cost" of 25 providing service. 26 · Require adequate reimbursement for ambulance providers, especially rural providers, 27 that not only serve a higher percentage of Medicare patients but also incur higher per- 28 trip costs due to fewer transports and longer travel distances. 29 · Establish a ''prudent layperson" standard for the payment of emergency ambulance 30 claims, such that if a reasonable person believed an emergency medical problem existed 31 when the ambulance was requested, then Medicare would pay the claim. 32 . Make it easier for providers to file claims with Medicare by eliminating a processing 33 system that often leads to legitimate reimbursement claims being rejected. 34 35 SD-31. Open Meeting Law Exception: Emergency Preparedness (RS) 36 37 Issue: The purpose of the Minnesota open meeting law is to provide transparency to the 38 operation and decision-making of government. While the law is of great value in providing open 39 government to the public, it has limited the ability for decision-makers to meet jointly to discuss 40 and advise staff on highly sensitive public safety vulnerabilities. 41 42 Response: The Legislature must make a limited exception to the open meeting law, 43 Minnesota Statute, Section 13D.05, to allow elected officials to convene a closed meeting 44 when emergency preparedness for public services, infrastructure, and facilities are 45 discussed. 46 34 /7013 HUMAN RESOURCES & DATA PRACTICES 2 3 Human Resources I 4 5 Issue: Many state laws increase the cost of providing city services to residents by 6 requiring city. governments to provide certain levels of compensation or benefits to public 7 employees, by specifying certain working conditions, or by limiting city governments' ability to 8 effectively manage their personnel resources. For instance, existing state laws limit 9 governments' ability to effectively address incompetence or misconduct of city employees 10 specifying certain procedures to be followed or standards of conduct. Several laws are potentially 11 contradictory and force local governments to choose which one to follow. 12 13 Response: The state must refrain from passing laws that regulate the public sector 14 workplace, and must repeal or modify problematic existing laws and regulations to 15 encourage full local accountability. 16 17 The League proposes the following initiatives and reforms: 18 19 HR-!. Preservation of Local Decision-making Authority on Employment 20 Related Issues z2 . The League supports local decision-making authority and opposes legislation intended to 23 interfere in local decisions. 24 25 HR-2. Veterans' Preference 26 27 . Minnesota's veterans' preference protections were created at the turn of the 19th Century. 28 These protections were designed to assist veteran employees at a time when Minnesota's and 29 the federal government's labor and personnel laws were in their infancy. The Legislature 30 must conduct a study of Minnesota's veterans' preference law to determine its effectiveness 31 and efficiency in light of today' s employment laws, statutes, and regulations. It is likely that 32 the Legislature will fmd parts of the law need modernization. 33 34 HR-3. Compensation Limits 35 . - 36 . The Legislature must acknowledge that all state and local governments, not just school 37 districts, must be competitive in recruiting and retaining upper level management employees. ." 38 In addition, there is no correlation between the compensation of citizen volunteers and career 39 public sector professionals. Additionally, a state-imposed salary cap on local government 40 employees undermines marketability of a community during competitive national recruiting efforts and undermines local authority. Therefore, the state must repeal or modify laws limiting the compensation of a person employed by a statutory or home rule charter city to 43 the governor's salary. Local elected officials should determine compensation for their 44 appointed officials. 35 ) 7~'1 1 HR-4. Public Employees Labor Relations Act (PELRA) 2 3 · The state must modify the defInition of public employee under PELRA by removing the 4 existing 14-hour/67 -day requirement and replace it with a definition in which employees 5 must work more than an annual average of 6 20 hours per week. 7 · Temporary or seasonal employees must be excluded from the PELRA defInition of public 8 employee in Minn. Stat. ~ 179A. 9 10 HR-S. Re-employment Benefits 11 12 · Public sector temporary or seasonal employees must not be eligible for re-employment 13 benefIts. 14 15 HR-6. Essential Employees 16 17 · Cities must balance the health, welfare, and safety of the public with the costs to taxpayers. 18 Therefore, the Legislature must carefully examine requests from interest groups seeking 19 essential employee status under Minn. Stat. ~ 179A (PELRA). The League opposes 20 legislation that mandates arbitration that increases costs and removes local decision-making 21 authority. 22 23 HR-7. Pension Benefits 24 25 · The League opposes special legislation for individual employee pension benefIt increases, 26 unless they are initiated and approved by the city council of the impacted city. 27 · The League opposes the expansion of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) 28 corrections plan to include dispatchers. 29 30 · HR-8. Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) Coordinated Plan 31 Funding Deficiency 32 33 · PERA identifIed a signifIcant long-term funding defIciency in its coordinated plan in 2000 34 that was the result of changing demographic patterns. The 2001 Legislature adopted 35 employer and employee contribution rate increases and plan modifIcations to address the 36 defIciency. Recent analysis has indicated that some of the costly demographic trends that led 37 to the defIciency may be slowing or reversing. 38 · The state must carefully analyze future actuarial reports and experience studies to determine 39 if the 2001 contribution rate increases and plan modifIcations are suffIcient to cover the 40 plan's defIciency. The state must assist local governments in covering any defIciency that 41 still may exist. The PERA eligibility guidelines must be modifIed to take into account unique 42 part-time and student employment situations in cities, particularly in recreational operations. 43 The plan should be modifIed to use pro-rated service credit, which would make PERA 36 17~5 consistent with the other major Minnesota pension plans. The state must also allow for city 2 managers to opt-in to PERA provided there is no employer buy-back obligation. 3 4 HR-9. State Paid Police and Fire Medical Insurance , 5 6 . The state must fully fund programs that pay for health insurance for police and fIre 7 employees required under Minn. Stat. ~ 299 A.465, as amended in 1997, for police and fIre 8 employees hurt or killed in the line of duty. 9 10 . The Legislature must clarify whether Minn. Stat. ~ 299A.465 applies to injuries incurred 11 prior to June 1, 1997 (the effective date of the law). 12 13 . The Legislature must clarify the amount of an employer's contribution under Minn. Stat. ~ 14 299A.465 and whether it changes over time. 15 16 . The Legislature must identify a single public entity as the authority for making the disability 17 determination for purposes of the benefits assigned under Minn. Stat. ~ 299A.465, establish 18 the minimum criteria used to determine ability to work, and set a percentage threshold of 19 disability for eligibility into this program. 20 HR-lO. Breathalyzers ~~ 23 . Minn. Stat. ~ 181.950-.957 should be amended to permit the use ofbreathalyzers as an 24 acceptable technology for determining alcohol use. Currently, breathalyzer use is permitted 25 under federal commercial drivers' laws. .26 27 HR-l!. Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation 28 29 . Under Minn. Stat. ~ 181.953, subd. 1O(b), an employer cannot terminate an employee for a 30 positive controlled substance test without first providing the employee a chance for 31 rehabilitation and treatment. Recently, some cities have been advised that this law applies to 32 "probationary" employees as well as permanent employees. Therefore, the League supports a 33 legislative change to clarify that the state law on drug and alcohol rehabilitation and 34 treatment does not apply to probationary employees. 35 ..36 HR-l2. Health Care Insurance Programs 37 . ,38 . The League supports voluntary participation in programs designed to provide for post- 39 retirement health insurance benefIts or in health insurance plans structured to pool all public 40 employees. 43 44 37 J7d~ 1 HR-t3. Electronic Timekeeping 2 3 · The League supports amending Minn. Stat. ~ 412.271 to reflect modem technologies and 4 timekeeping practices. Changes must include an option for cities to employ paperless time 5 recording systems. 6 7 Data Practices 8 9 DP.1. State Model Policies and Training 10 11 · The Dept. of Administration is required to provide model policies and training assistance to 12 cities in complying with the Government Data Practices Act (GDPA). The Legislature must 13 fully fund the costs of ongoing GPDA compliance training and education and directly 14 involve local officials in the development and implementation of training activities. 15 16 The League supports the following polices regarding federal employment law: 17 18 FED-t. FLSAlOvertime Compensation 19 20 · The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was designed for private employers. The definitions 21 of "exempt" and "non-exempt" are difficult to administer in the public sector and do not 22 reflect public sector operations. The regulations must be clarified to better allow public sector 23 employers to appropriately classify employees as "exempt" vs. "non-exempt." 24 25 FED-2. MedicarelMedicaid Premium Disbursements 26 27 . Minnesota continues to be a net loser in federal Medicare and Medicaid premium 28 disbursements. Congress must recognize this disparity and provide Minnesota with a more 29 balanced and representative share of the costs of providing health care under Medicaid and 30 Medicare. 31 32 Electric Restructuring 33 Cities have a strong interest in the public policy debate about electric restructuring or 34 deregulation. Minnesota already enjoys some of the lowest average electric rates in the nation. 35 The case has yet to be made that deregulation will result in either lower rates or improved service 36 for consumers. 37 38 Issue: For many decades, electric service to Minnesota citizens has been delivered 39 through a combination of investor-owned utilities (lOUs), municipal utilities, and rural electric 40 cooperatives. This system has served Minnesota well, delivering reliable, universal service at 41 rates among the lowest in the country. 42 . . '/" 38 /7.;? ., 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 "2 ~4 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 . - 39 40 41 42 43 LlLl In recent years, many have begun to promote "deregulation" or "restructuring" of the industry, meaning that electric service would no longer be a franchised monopoly. A number of states, primarily those with high electric rates, have taken steps to move toward such restructuring. In most of these cases, transmission and distribution remain regulated with retail competition allowed for generation source. Advocates of restructuring argue that such competition will lead to lower rates. However, estimates by the federal Energy Information Agency are that while the upper Midwest, including Minnesota, will experience slightly lower rates in the short-term, longer-term rates may actually be higher under restructuring. Concerns have also been expressed as to whether residential customers, and those in rural and other harder-to-serve areas will actually experience decreased reliability and increased rates. Local elected officials have the primary responsibility to citizens to make certain restructuring that allows retail competition is as beneficial to the citizens as it is to the industry. Beneficial to the citizen means that all Minnesotans experience the same reliable, high-quality, universal, and low-cost service they experience under the current system of electric power delivery. City residents have a strong interest in the outcome of this important public policy debate. Cities are substantial consumers of electric power. Many cities have a significant portion of their property tax base in electric industry property, while others collect franchise fees and/or sales taxes on electric purchases within their boundaries. Citizens in 126 Minnesota communities currently receive economical electric service from municipal utilities, which make payments-in- lieu of taxes to help support city services. Significant increases in the cost of electric power for city operations or losses of these traditional sources of revenue will result in property tax: mcreases. Response: The federal government should not mandate restructuring; the decision should be left to the states. The Legislature should continue to follow a slow, deliberative approach, taking time to consider how alternative models for delivering electric power will affect the state's traditional benefits of reliable, universal, high-quality and low-cost service. The public policy discussion should be focused on actual benefits to citizens, rather than on ideological arguments, stakeholder interests, and over-reliance on simplistic objectives like "consumer choice." Those advocating a change should bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that restructuring and deregulation will, at a minimum, maintain Minnesota's high-quality, low-cost, and reliable service. Only when that burden of proof has been met should restructuring occur. The following public policy goals should be incorporated into any legislation restructuring the electric industry: ..6 47 48 39 J 7;;(9; 1 Adequate Supply and Demand 2 3 The state's current generation and transmission capacity is inadequate to meet 4 projected future needs. No new significant capacity has been built since the 1980s (Sherco 5 3). In the past, regulatory and other governmental policies served as a disincentive to meet 6 customer demand. The Minnesota Energy Security and Reliability Act enacted by the 2001 7 Legislature took significant steps to reduce these disincentives. The experience of other 8 states would strongly suggest that deregulation prior to the development and maintenance 9 of adequate reserve capacity can lead to price spikes and compromise service reliability. 10 The state should continue to review and amend these policies as necessary to encourage 11 further development and maintenance of adequate capacity and reliability. 12 13 Consumer Protection 14 15 Consumer interests must continue to be protected, especially for the most 16 vulnerable populations. Reliable service must be universally available and programs such 17 as cold-weather shut-off rules should be continued either as requirements for all market 18 participants or as separate state programs. 19 20 Environmental Concerns 21 22 The environment must be adequately protected, with conservation and renewable 23 energy efforts maintained. The federal government must review the appropriateness of 24 current environmental regulations and their effect in a deregulated market; for example, 25 exemptions from the Clean Air Act for some generation facilities. 26 27 Fair Market Competition 28 29 To ensure fair market competition, the federal and state governments must have the 30 authority to review mergers to prevent abuse of market power. 31 32 Cities must remain viable competitors in the electric market. Municipal utilities 33 must be granted exemptions from rules like the open meeting law and data practices 34 requirements where they hamper the ability to effectively compete with private companies. 35 To ensure adequate service to every citizen, cities, and other local governments must 36 maintain their ability to issue tax-exempt bonds for construction of electric infrastructure, 37 and be given explicit authority to aggregate or municipalize provision of electricity. 38 39 Local Authority 40 41 Cities must maintain their traditional authority over land use, zoning, rights-of-way 42 management, and cost recovery, as well as the ability to franchise providers and to receive 43 payments-in-lieu of taxes from municipal utilities. Cities' authority to negotiate siting fees 44 and agreements for proposed generating facilities should be enhanced. 45 46 To avoid unnecessary demand for the limited space in public rights-of-way, open 47 access to transmission and distribution facilities should be maintained through regulation. 40 -. . J/~9 2 3 4 5 6 '. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 · .-38 39 .,.40 41 42 As the electric market is opened to interstate competition, the federal government must preserve the application of Minnesota's state and local sales taxes to the sale of electricity, regardless of the place of origin. Stranded Cost Recovery Issue: Regulated utilities have traditionally made operating decisions based on needs of consumers within their service territories. Many decisions, therefore, have been based more on need than on economics. In the transition from a regulated to a restructured competitive environment, electric generators' investments in fixed assets and other obligations mayor may not remain as economically viable. Estimates of these "stranded costs" vary greatly, with some indicating no stranded costs or possibly even negative stranded costs resulting from increased prices after deregulation in Minnesota. Response: If regulatory actions have contributed to investment by existing regulated utilities that are not economically viable in a competitive market, and if restructuring occurs, the League supports transition mechanisms that will allow utilities to collect revenues for those particular stranded costs. However, these charges must be carefully monitored to ensure that only eligible and verifiable costs are covered and that over- collections do not occur. Taxpayers and ratepayers should not be expected to cover the cost of investments that were made for business reasons, apart from the requirement to serve under the regulated system. If negative stranded costs for the regulated utility as a whole can be established, and are solely the result of transition to a restructured environment, these regulated utilities should be required to contribute some limited percentage of established amounts to offset tax breaks given to these utilities as a result of restructuring. Property Tax Issue: Part of the discussion regarding possible deregulation of the electric power industry has centered on electric utility taxation. Proponents of restructuring assert that if effective free market competition is to replace governmental regulation, state tax policy must be changed. The main focus of the investor owned utilities (IODs) so far has been removal of the attached machinery or personal property tax. Utilities subject to the tax argue it places them at a competitive disadvantage to non-Minnesota companies, rural electric cooperatives (co-ops), and municipals. However, accurate comparisons of tax burden are difficult, as other states use completely different taxing systems. Municipals make substantial payments-in-lieu of taxes. Additionally, co-ops and municipals do pay direct taxes on some of their property and indirectly when they purchase wholesale power from sources that are taxed, such as IODs. 45 46 47 Utility personal property can be a significant portion of the local tax base in all cities. Most obviously affected are cities that have power plants; however, transmission and distribution equipment account for over half of the personal property taxes paid by the IOUs and exist in nearly every city. Replacing the revenue that would be lost to cities, counties, school districts, and other local taxing jurisdictions is a stated goal of the IODs; however, the mechanics and funding sources of such a replacement revenue would be difficult to develop and administer and 41 /730 1 could be subject to reductions or elimination over time. Furthermore, replacement revenues or 2 aids may not fully address the problems created by a large tax base reduction. 3 4 Response: Cities oppose proposals for exempting the IOUs from the personal 5 property tax, apart from the decision to restructure the electric industry in Minnesota. 6 7 If and when restructuring occurs, a truly independent review of the overall tax 8 burden should be conducted to determine whether Minnesota utilities are at a competitive 9 disadvantage. If an overall tax disadvantage is identified, the state should correct it. Under 10 no circumstances should local units of government or their citizens be required to shoulder 11 the burden of tax relief for IOUs. 12 13 .' ." .. .' , 42 173/ 13~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us TO: (-1, Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator ( , FROM: Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director SUBJECT: Labor Management Committees DATE: October 21, 2002 INTRODUCTION This memorandum provides information related to the formation of a labor/management committee. DISCUSSION The purpose of labor/management committees are to improve communications between the parties and to promote positive labor relations by actively identifying and resolving problems, and fostering an environment of open communications. The following information was provided by the Bureau of Mediation Services which is the governing body for labor relations in Minnesota. A labor/management committee is beneficial as often the committee knows about potential issues before they become problems. It provides a forum for employees to offer suggestions for resolution to problems and may expedite the response to and resolution of an issue. Effective committees also help build trust, create better working relationships with unions and open the lines of communications. However, labor/management committees are not a cure-all as it will not resolve all problems and the committee must be careful to guard against unrealistic expectations and of becoming "just another meeting." Additionally, it is important to realize that labor/management committees have specific do's and don'ts according to the Bureau of Mediation Services. The committee is not the place to discuss specific grievances, changing the contract, or for discussing economic issues. It is strictly a tool for communications and resolving issues before they become problems. The Bureau of Mediation, upon voluntary request from both the City and the Union, will provide exploratory and training sessions regarding labor/management committees. There is no 17..3e>? commitment on either party and either may withdraw from the process at any time during the exploratory and training process. These sessions explain the history, purpose of labor/management committees and discuss structuring, decision making authority, and the benefits and risks. The training sessions include developing and implementing the committee. It is important to note that the City has had successful labor/management committees in the past. The topics discussed included health insurance, pay equity, and employee recognition. ACTION REQUIRED For information only. Respectfully submitted, , ,/"\ / ;1 , . ~/ . . /' .--. ,'(\ . I , /1' / "A rfi/ {lL \"0' (./"I.'_~":/;'-"",-/'I/<".,./_, ../ .' .-. _c- Brenda Wendlandt, SPHR Human Resources Director /733