05/14/2002 - City Council SpecialAGENDA ~ ~`~~~~`"~
SPECIAL CITY COUI~?CIL MEETING
TUESDAY
MAY 14, 2002
5:30 P.M.
CITY OF EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER
COMMUNITY ROOM
I. ROLL CALL AND AGENDA ADOPTION
II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD
III. REDEVELOPMENT ITEMS
^ Highway 55 TIF / McGough Final Redevelopment Agreement
^ Highway 55 TIF /Interstate Partners
^ Cedar Grove TIF /Ryan Final Redevelopment Agreement .c.,
^ Cedar Grove TIF /Review of New Proposals
IV. DISCUSS REGULATIONS FOR FREQUENCY OF GARAGE
SALES
V. CASCADE BAY STROLLER POLICY
VI. DISCUSSION RE: SURVEY FOR OPEN SPACE
VII. REVIEW LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION HEARING
PROCEDURES AND CIVIL PENALTIES
VIII. CONSIDERATION OF PART III (2003-2007) UTILITIES AND
STREETS CIP
IX. CONSIDERATION OF STREETSCAPE SUBCOMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION
X. OTHER BUSINESS
XI. ADOURNMENT
- city of eagan
MEMO
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: MAY 10, 2002
SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING /TUESDAY, MAY 14
A Special City Council meeting is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 the Community
Room of the Municipal Center Building. Please note that following the Communications Director
interviews, there was a discussion by the City Council as to a favored time for starting Special City
Council meetings and there was a consensus that the time be changed from 5:00 to 5:30 p.m.
REDEVELOPMENT ITEMS
Highway 55 TIF /McGough Final Redevelopment Agreement - In February 2002, the City
established TIF District No. 2-4, a redevelopment district, in the Highway 55 corridor between I-
35E and Highway 149. McGough Development Company has significant interest in the Blue
Gentian Circle portion of the redevelopment area. To date, McGough has purchased nine (9) of the
fifteen (15) properties and continues to present offers to remaining property owners. City staff and
redevelopment consultant Ehlers & Associates have been working with McGough to draft a
redevelopment agreement for the area.
At the time the TIF district was established, the City Council directed staff to notify the remaining
property owners whenever this area was being discussed in a City meeting. Those owners have
been notified.
Greg Miller and Mark Fabel of McGough will be at the workshop to share with the Council
McGough's vision for the area.
DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM:
No action is requested of the City Council. This item is informational only.
Highway 55 TIF /Interstate Partners - Interstate Partners has approached the City regarding its
interest in redeveloping the northwest quadrant of the Highway 55/149 intersection. Greg Miller of
Interstate Partners will be on hand to share with the Council what Interstate is proposing for the
area. No action is required. This item is informational only.
Mr. Miller would also like an opportunity to address the Council regarding escrowed funds related
to TIF District No. 2-3. On that issue, Interstate (formerly WISPARK) had deposited $10,000 in
escrow for legal and other costs related to the Imre condemnation. After negotiating agreement
with the Imres, Interstate incurred a number of costs that were unanticipated. The City notified
Interstate of reimbursements in the amount of $7,948.41. To date, the City has not collected from
escrow. Mr. Miller is asking that the City abso b its costs related to the condemnation based on the
issues outlined in his letter, attached on page ~. Staff cannot agree to release the escrow
without City Council action.
DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM:
Give staff direction regarding Interstate's request related to the Imre condemnation.
Cedar Grove TIF/Ryan Final Redevelopment Agreement - In November 2001, the City entered
into a preliminary redevelopment agreement with Ryan Companies fora 175,000 square foot
office-showroom project and a 16,000 build-to-suit office in the North District of the Cedar Grove
Redevelopment Area. Ryan is ready to proceed with a first phase development of the office-
showroom project. Kent Carlson and Danny Queenan will be on hand to share Ryan's plans with
the City Council.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
Give staff and Ryan feedback regarding its plans.
Cedar Grove TIF/Review of New Proposals -Staff and consultants have been actively soliciting
the development community for new proposals in the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area. The
primary focus of the most recent solicitations has been on the Gateway East area at Silver Bell
Road and soon-to-be-renamed Cedar Grove Pazkway. Based on recent Council direction, senior
housing proposals were sought for the Langhoven Addition area. At the time this memo was being
prepared, three proposals had been received. A proposal for the opposite corner, currently occupied
by Twin City Poultry, has also been received. Finally, discussions have continued with TOLD
regazding the Central District azound Cedarvale Mall. TOLD has revised its proposal to fit within
the constraints of the AUAR traffic analysis and current market conditions.
Jim Prosser of Ehlers & Associates and Assistant City Administrator Verbrugge will provide an
overview of each of the proposals. Ehlers has had an opportunity to review the financial feasibility
of each proposal and will share that information. There are some market considerations that will be
discussed as well.
DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM:
Give staff and consultants direction regarding which proposals to pursue for the Cedaz Grove
Redevelopment Area.
DISCUSS REGULATIONS FOR FREQUENCY OF GARAGE SALES
Originating with citizen comments and Council direction at a "Listening Session" last month, Planning
staff has gathered and reviewed garage sale related regulations from several metro azea communities.
A matrix summarizing the different communities is enclosed on page ~_. Staff has taken the
liberty of preparing a draft ordinance amendment, which is enclosed on page ~ for the Council's
review. Additionally, due to a recent story in the local ThisWeek newspaper, staff has received a
number of phone calls regarding placement of garage sale signage. Therefore, staff has also enclosed
sample language regarding this type of temporary signage on page ~.
DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM:
Review and comment on the information contained in this packet and provide staff with further
direction.
CASCADE BAY STROLLER POLICY
At the April 9, 2002 City Council work session, direction was given by Council to research how many
strollers could be stored if a designated space was made available under the slides at Cascade Bay.
Staff was also directed to develop a sample stroller policy to be reviewed at the May 14th Council
work session.
Enclosed on pages ~~ through ~ is a memorandum from Aaron Hunter, Cascade Bay Facility
Manager, to Director of Parks and Recreation Ken Vraa explaining alternative options to the current
stroller Policy at Cascade Bay.
DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM:
To provide direction to staff regarding any modification to the Cascade Bay Stroller Policy.
DISCUSSION RE: SURVEY FOR OPEN SPACE
At a recent Listening Session, direction was given by the City Council to research the budget allocation
for surveys with the understanding that the City Council may consider funding a special survey on open
space. This item was scheduled for the May 14 Special City Council Workshop.
Enclosed on pages ~ through ~ is a copy of a memo from the City Administrator that
provides information including the budget allocation for acommunity-wide survey, estimated
expenditure for a survey and synopses of surveys from Dakota County related to open space.
DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM:
To provide direction to staff regarding a survey for open space.
REVIEW LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION HEARING PROCEDURES AND CIVIL
PENALTIES
In processing the liquor license violations for the Crowne Plaza Hotel through the civil penalty
provisions and in preparing for the hearing for the liquor license suspension, staff became concerned
about certain language in the City Code. There was some uncertainty in the interpretation of the
relationship between hearings and penalties, the role of the administrative hearing officer and how
penalties are determined.
3
Staff also conducted research with other communities and determined that the administrative penalties
in the Code were quite low and probably should be increased to more accurately reflect the
implications of the liquor license violations.
At the March 4, 2002 City Council Meeting the City Attorney's Office was authorized to prepare an
ordinance amendment to Chapter 5 to clarify the hearing process and to change the civil penalties for
violations in the sale of alcoholic beverages.
At the Apri12, 2002 City Council Meeting after approving the civil penalty and suspension for the
Crowne Plaza Hotel, a motion was made and seconded directing staff to notify all holders of liquor
licenses of the policy of the City and to review the liquor license issue at a future Council workshop
with a subsequent friendly amendment directing staff to provide a copy of the related ordinance to
license holders at the time of liquor license renewals.
In addition to the draft as presented staff is suggesting a slight Code modification to clearly place
annual consumption and display licenses on a April 1 through March 31 year to be consistent with the
State's consumption2and display licensing year.
Enclosed on pages 3g through ~ is a draft ordinance amendment incorporating the suggested
changes.
A great deal of additional background material regarding penalties and compliance checks is on file. If
any member of the City Council would like to have more information provided for the meeting, please
contact the office of the City Administrator.
DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM:
To provide staff direction regarding a final draft of an ordinance amendment to Chapter 5 to clarify the
hearing process and to change civil penalties for violations in the sale of alcoholic beverages and to
provide direction regarding consumption and display licenses.
CONSIDERATION OF PART III PUBLIC WORKS 5-YR CIP (2003-2007)
A draft copy of the proposed 5-year CIP for 2003 - 2007 was previously distributed on May 3. There is
no additional information to be added at this time. It is anticipated that a final CIP will be presented to
the Council for formal adoption at the June 4 Council Meeting.
DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM:
Review, Comment and provide modifications, if any, on the Draft 5-year CIP -Part III (2003-2007,
Streets & Utilities).
CONSIDERATION OF STREETSCAPE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
At the April 9 Special Council Workshop, the Council Directed Council members Fields and Carlson
to review the Street light design standards proposed under Streetscaping Project 813 for Central
Parkway with the parking lot and trailway lights proposed for Central Park and the Community Center.
4
The Council directed that their recommendation be brought back to the Council for their full
consideration. This special subcommittee met on April 16. Their recommendations are referenced in
the meeting notes included on page ~.
DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM:
To provide direction regarding the streetscape subcommittee recommendation that proposes certain
lighting standards under Project 813 for Central Parkway.
OTHER BUSINESS
/s/ Thomas L. Hedges
City Administrator
Interstate Partners LLC
Gregory S. Miller, CCIM, CPM
Principal
651-406-8051
Fax• 651-406-8628
Apri15, 2001
Jamie Verbnigge
Assistant City Administrator
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Rd
Eagan, MN 55122
Re: Imre/WISPARB-Request for Reimbursement
Dear Jamie:
I recently received the attached request from Bob Bauer to reimburse the city for approximately $7,948.41
of costs the city incurred while pursing the condemnation of the Imre parcels oa our behalf.
As you know, we were eventually able to negotiate a direct purchase from the Imre's, although at a much
higher price then the appraised value that the ary had determined Ia addition, we paid the city the
appraised value for their five lots. We also received higher special assessments for these parcels than we
had expected due to cost increases for the Blue Water/Blue Gentian project that were incurred for a
number of reasons that were outside of our control There were also assessment costs that were added to
our parcels that were not even a pan of the feasibility reports for these projects.
Had we been aware of these increases in the assessmenu, we probably would have not only negotiated
different acquisition prices with the Imre's but also with the city to reflect these higher assessments.
As a result of all of the above, our costs of consolidating these parcels were significantly higher then we
projected We continue to be excited about our development and believe we have created a tremendous
amount of value for the city through the process of consolidating all of the various interests in this
quadrant and developing high quality buildings.
In consideration of all of the above, we would, however, request that the city agree to absorb their costs
of $7,948.41. We hope you will approve our request.
You ~ onsideration o this matter is greatly appreciated
/.
sine, ~, - ,
;~
Greg ry S. , OCIlv1, CPM
President
/kjr
cc: Robert Bauer
Russ Matthys
860 Blue Gentian Road • Suite 175 Eagan MN 55121
N
O
O
N
C!]
O
O
U
C
(a
'~
ca
I~
V
''~^
vJ
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ I~ ~~~~ O ~ ~ O ~ p ~~, .
~
w ! I}~ z
I;
I i Z~ I Z ~
~ I~ '. Z
- Z
I '
i '
I ~ i .
I ~
~
a~. ~
~
c~r _ -
I
~ ~_
i .
r
,
~ i ; i I ~
L
O I
y ~
, to
to ! j
to
'
I
~ I ~ I ~ I ~ !. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, I
tn' !~ N N
I i ~'~ O. I O, O'
~
O
~ ~ ~ mo;
I } iZ' IZ~ Zi
! I !
~I ~ I ~ I I i ~
N
I
M ~~~ ~ Z ~' IZ Z~ Z~ I
QO ~ :
i I
~ ~
~ ~ lf~
i ! % ~ ~ i i i I
I
C
G - l
i i I i I ~ '' I
~ ! I l
'
l i I i I I
i I
C ~~ i I l
tn
O t9 i i i i
O I ~ ~ ~
m ~ I i I j
A'
I
I
~
i i
O'
i
.
_
t9 N
~ ~
M
C`') y
N
'
O
'lA ~ '
} Z Z' Z
d ti' i
I
Q ' i I
--- - -- -
i
N
I~
' N
.
f6
'3 I
~
' ~ ~
I ~,
m ~
'
'~ ~
~ I ~
I° ~
irn , ~
'~
! i ' a~
',3
IL' I C I I
~ ~ to
~
. ~ ~
` y ~
~ ~ i ~ V
I ' to !
I O , , I
~
~ C
~ ~
~ C~
II
~ O
I
~ I
' ~ '
i
~
I ~
~.
~~'
I ;
iw', I ,~
~y
' ~ N
' _
c I (9 '~i I ~ ~
~O
~tn
Imo, ,
~~
~
~
I"
~ I
f
~
I
'
N
I
~
tll ~
~~>
I IQ II i~
, iv im, ~ L9
i
I
- 3 ~ °' Io ~
~'
-
"
ice'
!~'
a'
~!
H
~ '
~!
~
I ~; ~,
I
~ ~ I ~,
~~ !~' ~~ ~j jai I~~ ~.a~ ~ c
i 3. ~ , N . '
O f0i
to 0
i-' I tD
U ~ I V I
C
~ I
,
!~ ;
I
~' ~~
' ICI i O
O'
N O
i ~'
I N I ~
! p_I L
! t i ~
i
V 7'
t3. i
~
I ', C ~ '~ ! 7 D1' !, O ~ ! ~ I, I'0
,
I~ O ~' a ~ I~ I ~
I~ ~
! ~ ,
~~ I"~' '~ ~ !L
! N i,O
~: O,
~
~ L
I
~i
O
O
1 01
i V
O
i V
I
I y_
~ .~ i ty ~
L' .~
~
L I
~t2, ~
C~ I i
C ~
C
, C
Z
I ~ ~ I O! •~ ~•C •C, O
II C I C pl O! O' i O i
~
~, ~I
E I
E ~ VI '•N_' •N i~N• ~ .
I
QI
, I
~ ~C > >' I>
I ~~
i ~
~ i~ y a a, a ~
~ I
a
,
x,
x
~
to N fn ~
,~
I
i I O
' ~~ ~~~ ii' '_', iil ~
'
I I~
a _
GARAGE SALES
Chapter 11
Subd. ? Garage Sales. Garage sales are allowed in all residential zoning districts with
the following restrictions:
A. There shall be not more than two (2) sales events in each calendar year per
dwelling unit.
B. Sale events are limited to any consecutive three (3) day period.
C. Garage sale signs must comply with the sign ordinance.
D. Items for sale shall not be purchased for resale or received on consignment
for resale.
8
The Brooklyn Pazk City Code Chapter 150.06 Temporary Signs states as follows:
(B) All zoning districts. The following sections concern temporary
campaign signs, temporary construction signs, temporary real estate signs
and temporary residential garage and/or rummage sale signs in all zoning
districts, and the signs are regulated according to the requirements set forth
below:
(4) Temporary residential garage and/or rummage sale signs.
(a) Sign area must not exceed four square feet.
(b) Signs must be erected for no longer than four days and must be
removed by the owner immediately following this time. Signs
which remain in place for more than four days are deemed
litter. The beginning and end date of sale, and address of the
sale must be prominently displayed on every sign erected.
(c) Minimum setbacks: There is no setback requirement; however,
these signs must not be erected in the public right-of--way, on
public property, or in the public street intersection 30 foot clear-
view triangle. Signs may be erected on private properties
other than the property where the sale is conducted.
(d) Maximum height of signs: No temporary residential garage
and/or rummage sale sign may exceed six feet above grade.
4
~r~~
' city of eagan
MEMO
TO: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION
FROM: AARON HUNTER, CASCADE BAY FACILITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: ALTERNATIVES TO THE CASCADE BAY STROLLER POLICY
DATE: MAY 8, 2002
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memo is to explain alternative options to the current stroller policy at
Cascade Bay. Cascade Bay's current stroller policy states that strollers aze not allowed inside the
facility for safety reasons. Staff has been asked by the City Council to explore areas to store
strollers inside the gates of Cascade Bay, after looking at several options staff has come up with a
couple of suggestions that aze explained below.
OPTION # 1
There is one area inside the gates of Cascade Bay that is large enough to hold upwards of 20-30
strollers, this azea is located under the Typhoon and Hurricane slides. Although this azea has the
ability of holding a lazge number of strollers, there aze several drawbacks to this location.
Typhoon and Hurricane aze located at the back end of the pazk, which means guests would have
to push their strollers across the park to reach the stroller corral. Rocks layers the ground in the
area that is being suggesting for the corral which would obviously make it difficult to push the
strollers through, as well as potentially being a hazardous surface to walk on. Another issue
arises due to the location under the slides; there is the possibility of the strollers getting wet from
splash-over from the slides unless they (strollers) aze placed correctly.
If this is chosen to be the corral azea for strollers, recommendations on procedures for use would
be as follows. Staff would not be available to check strollers in and out and therefore would
need to have a system to help guests identify their own stroller, as well as help staff identify the
owner of a stroller if an issue arises. Each guest would put their name on a tag as they enter the
gate and attach the tag to the handle of their stroller. Guests would then be able to drop off their
towels and personal items at a chair, and push the stroller to the corral.
10
Tags would have a reminder printed on them advising to remove all valuables from the stroller
before bringing it to the corral; and that Cascade Bay would not be responsible for lost or missing
items from their stroller. If staff notices that guests are taking advantage of the stroller policy by
leaving their strollers by their chairs, staff would be at liberty to page the owner and then move
the stroller to the designated azea. If there are repeated abuses, staff would refuse the privilege of
bringing strollers into Cascade Bay during future visits.
OPTION #2
Outside the front gate is the second viable option to have a stroller corral. Staff would
recommend that an azea be blocked off by the bike rack area just to the South of the entrance.
This area is all concrete which would allow for easy access and it could hold 25 to 50 strollers.
This location is still outside the front gate but it would allow guests to push their children from
their cars to the front gate, buy their tickets and then put the stroller into the corral before
entering the facility.
SUMMATION
These are the two azeas that staff found as viable spaces to have a stroller corral at Cascade Bay.
Both areas have positives and negatives to them, but we hope that one of the options will appeal
to the guests of Cascade Bay and help resolve this issue.
. t ~ ~,,,'y.c~
' City of Eagan
MEMO
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: MAY 6, 2002
SUBJECT: MAY 14 COUNCIL WKSP: RESEARCH ON SURVEYS/OPEN SPACE
In preparation for the May 14 Special City Council workshop, and in particular the agenda item,
"Discussion Re: Survey for Open Space," information has been compiled for the Council's review,
including the budget allocation for acommunity-wide survey, estimated expenditure for a survey, and
synopses of surveys from Dakota County related to open space.
Community-wide survey
Since it has been the practice of the City to conduct aCity-wide survey every four or five years, the City
budgeted $20,000 in the 2002 budget for aCity-wide survey. The last survey of this kind was conducted in
1996. If it is the desire of the Council to administer the City-wide survey in 2002, staff direction would be
needed.
Estimated expense for aCity-wide survey
The $20,000 that is budgeted for aCity-wide survey is an approximated cost for a survey of that
magnitude. Last year, the City was in contact with Decision Resources, a commonly used company that
administers surveys for local governments, to inquire about a survey that would gauge the opinions of
Eagan residents pertaining specifically to a golf course. At that time, the cost for the survey, which would
have had a limited number of single-issue questions, was approximated to be $4,500-$6,500. As you could
expect, the cost for aCity-wide survey asking questions on a multitude of issues, would be significantly
higher. The City of Lakeville recently conducted aCity-wide survey through Decision Resources, and the
cost was $19,400. l.~„;~..SL.,~ Z~IC ~~,s..i Cx.c,,,..~.
Dakota County voter-opinion surveys
Over the past two years, two County-wide surveys have been conducted to gauge the opinions of Dakota
County residents pertaining to farmland and natural area preservation. In 2000, Dakota County retained
American Viewpoint, Inc. to administer the survey. Attached for your review is the 2000 survey, which
includes the percentage of responses to each question.
In 2001, the County-wide voter opinion survey that was conducted was not paid for by Dakota County.
Rather, the survey was paid for and administered by a private group, Trust for Public Land. I have attached
a synopsis of the 2001 survey that was supplied to Dakota County by Trust for Public Land; however, since
Trust for Public Land is a private entity, they selected not to provide Dakota County with the questions that
were used in the survey.
If you have any questions on the above or attached information, please feel free to contact me.
City Administrat
~a
h`n'i. 1. 20C2 2;24ri~". DAkC~A COUNTY PrYS DC4' ADN':IN
N0. 8389 P, 4
AMEluc~vv~wPOIlVT
aner,can Viswpoirn, Irtc.
300 North Lee Svest • Suite 400
Alexandria, YrOinie 22314
(703) 8843325
(T03) 684.9295 -FAX
t ~884~1410
www,amview.COm
DAEOTA COUNTY, ]~BSOTA S'ITRYEY
The Farn>Iand ~ Nahical Area!, Agject
Febraary 7, 2000
F7uiding)6r this project rwcts Cppro~td by the Mrtrncsota Itgitlattcric, 1999 Minnesota Laws, G7t. 231,
ScG 16, Subd. 8(c) as recon~rnended by the Legislative Commistivrt on Muausota Resources1Fotn the
Mi;viesata F.RViro-urent and Natural Resources Trutt F~rnd
Hello, my name is , aad I'm with AMERICAN VIEWpOIlVT, as indepeadmt market
research firm located in Alexandria, Virginia. We are doing a survey on issues is this part of
Minnesota, and I would like to have your opinions.
A.
B.
Are you or is any one in your household a reporter or an appointed or elected official?
Yes {T1F:RI~DNATE~
No (CONTLNLTEy
Are you registered to vote in Dakota County u this address?
Yes (GO TO Q. 1)
No (GO TO Q. C~
C.
Is these anyone in ywr household who is registered m vvtc in Dakota County?
(1F YES ASK: MAY I PLEASE SPEAK TO THA? PERSON
Yes (REPEAT ~1't'RODUCTION)
No (TSAN% AMID T~A1'~
13
- ~~::~~, 1, c~uc ~:C'~r~ llARU:F: ~UUN!~Y YriYS llEV AUM1N
'N0, 5389 P, 6
•d.A~ERIGiN !/7E'N'POINT,INC
Dakota County Farntaed and Natural Artas Project Srir--ry
January, 2000
Q. 1 - And thinking about local elections would you say that you.. .
3396 Always vote
4196 Vote is most elections
1496 Vote is about half of electionu
1396 Vote in less than half
0 % Don't Know
096 Refused
3
(Cootu4ue)
(Coalinve)
(Continue)
(Coatbu-e)
(T~sannk do Termimte)
(Thank dt Terewnte)
Q. 2 - Which ONE of the following do yvu feel is the most iwport$nt problem facing Dakota County
at the present time?
ROTATE 1 TItDtU 8
3 % Maintaining The Quality Of Local Government Services
1596 Holding Down ?axes
S 96 Cutting Government Spending
2696 Improving Education
696 Fighting Crimc And Drugs
10 % Traffic And Transportation Problems
23 % Controlling Growth And Development
9 % Purchasing And Protecting Natural Areas And Farmland
396 Othez (SPECYFY)
2 % Don't Know /Refused
Q. 3 - Generally speaking, do you feel that Dakota Couary is growing and developing o0o fast, tov
slowly. or at about the right pace?
3S % Strongly -Too Fast
I3 96 Not Strongly -Too Fast
' Not Strongly -Too Slowly
~ strongly -Too Slowly
S 196 Right Pace
2 ~ Don't Know
09G Refused
48°.ls 'TOTAL TOO FAST
* TOTAL TOO SLOWLY
Page -2-
i~
N:., 1. 2JJ? 2.2~P~`. DAKGT~. COUNTY PHYS DEV ADN~IN
N0. 53$9 P.
.lMERI'C,AN VIEWPOINT, INC
bakota Cortnty Farmland and Natwal Aseas .A~oject Swti-ey
January, ZD00
Q. 4 - Generally apeakiag do you fioel that Dakota County should or should not have as ongoing
program designed to purchase and protect natural areas sad farmlands.
6996 Strongly -Should
1896 Not Strongly -Should
496 Not Strongly -Should Not
696 Strongly -Should Not
296 Depends (VoluQtee~ed)
396 Doa't Know
* Refused
5796 TOTAI. S$OUi.D
9~ TOTAL SHOULD NOT
Q. S - Would you vote for or against as annual property tax inczaase that would cost 59.65 Per
S100,000 of home value and would raise about S2 million per year fur the purpose of
purchasing and protcctittg natural areas and farmland in ywr county?
3a ~ Definitely For
3296 Probably For
1196 Probably Against
1896 Definitely Against
4"Xo Don't Know
196 Refused
Q. 6 - If there were a bond referendum do allow your vounty m borrow S20 million over 20 years for
the purpose of purchasing wad protecting natural areas sod farmland wad would cost 57.35 per
5100,OOO of home value, would you vote for or against it?
3oz Dafuiuly For
3196 Probably For
1496 ~ Probably Against
2096 Definitely Against
696 Don't Know
096 Refused
6696 TOTAL FOR
29°.10 TOTAY, AGAINST
6296 TOTAL FOR
3496 TOTAL AGAINST
Page -3-
15
m:~.:, ., ~ou~ c: ~~:;~:r llAK;A C4Giv~~Y PHYS DEti ADMIN
N0. 5389 P,
A11g.RICAN V,i'$R'POINT, INC
Dakota Co~nry Fasmia»d acRd Natrsral Arcos Project Survey
fanuary, 2000
Q. 7 - How much more do you thick you would be willing m pay la sdditiomal taxes per year is order
w protect natural areas cad farmlands in Darota County?
ASB AS AN OPEN-Eim
~'~
~w
>,
i ~"
22 % Nothing
1296 St To s5
1496 S6 To S 10
~~ sl i ro sls
lz~ sl6 To s2o
696 s21 To s25
2 ~ sz6 To s3o
296 S31 To S35
1396 Over S35
1Z% Don't Know /Refused
Q. 8 - In ~e4etai, how concerned arc you that over-development and urban sprawl Mill briun~ the same
traffic, congestion and growth groblems that other nearby areas are experiencing'! Would you
say tbtai you are.. .
3896 very Concerncd
x096 Somewhat Concerned
1796 Not Too Concxrned
596 Not At All Concerned
" Depends (Volwnteered)
0 % Don't Kbow
096 Refused
Page -4-
1lv
r~:, i.C~~~ ~:1~YN DAK~GA CGU~TY PHY~ DEV ADMiN
h'D.5389 F,
AMERICAN VIEWPOINT', ING
Dakota County F~nJand a~cd NQtural Areas Project Survey
1au~rcary, 2000
When it comes to FUNDING pcograms to purchase and protect natural aces and farmlands in your
area, should UNTT OF GOV'ERNIVIENT play a major role, a minor rote, or no cola at x112
ROTATE
Q. 9 - State Government
4296 ~ Major Role
4S 96 Minor Role
10 % No Role
19b Depends
396 Don't Knov+
096 Refused
is
Q. 10 -County Gover~oment
6496 Majvr Role
28 % Minor Rote
6 ~ No Rvle
i % Depends
2 ~ Don't Know
'~ Refused
Q. 11 -City do Township Goverounent
55 % Major Rote
35 % Minor Role
896 No Role
' Depends
296 DOn't Know
# RefUSed
.:
Q. 12 -[Hal[ Sample] Soil And Water Coaseivation Districts
5596 Major Rote
29 % Minor Role
996 No Role
~ 96 Depends
796 Doa't KtLOw
096 Refused
Page -S-
~~
ma:. .. ~u~C C:lS:~M llA.h~.A ~,;U„hiY Yr;Y~ DEV AD.M~Iv N0. 5369 F, i0
3:
~IMERICAN ViE~PdINZ', INC
Dakota Coaary Farmland aged Natural Areas Pr»ject Surety
January,1000
Q. 12b-Watershed Districu '
42% Major Role
3796 Minor Role
6 % No Rote
1 ~ Depends
1S ~ Don't Know
096 Refused ~ .
When it comes ro MANAGING programs to protect nat~ual areas sad farmlands in your area, that is
deciding which lands are to be protectod and mauitaining t>aese lands, do you feel that UNIT OF
GOYERNMEIVI' should play a major role. a minor role, or ~ role st all?
' ROTATE '
'~ ~, Q. 13 -State Government
3496 Major Role
S3 96 Minor Role
• 1196 No Role
: ~~~
• 2 % Don't Know
0 ~ Refused
Q. 14 -County Government
~• GS % Major Role
26 ~ Minor Role
796 No ~iolc
196 Depends '
196 Don't Know
096 Refused
' Q. 15 fiiry AAd Tow-rubip Government .
5596 Major Rolc
35 9G Minor Role
896 No Role
1 % Depends
296 Don't Know
096 Refused
' Page -6-
l~
.,... ,, ;,uvc. c,. c. u: :a un:;v:n vvuirtt IIIiJ LCV riUlrlilY
~vu, ~sdy r, i
AIMERIC~l1V YIEWPOIN'f, INC
Dakota Coanty Farmland and Nat~ral.~lrtas Project Survey
Jaiucary, 2004
Q. 16 {~ati SampieJ Soil And Water Conservation Districts.
S3 % Major Rote
~: 3396 Minor Role
996 No Role
0 % Depends
696 Don't Know
096 Refused
Q.16b- Watershed Districts
4396 Major Role
. 4096 Minor Role
696 No Role
196 DeQeads
1196 Don't Know
096 Re~ttsed
Q. 17 - As you may know, the State provides some funding to local goveraments for parks and trails_
Some people say that natural areas and farms are also very impottaat and the state should also
provide fuading to help local communities purchase iad protect aatural areas and farmland.
Do you agree or disagree with mat?
3996 Strongly Agree
3796 Somewhat Agree 77~Xo TOTAL AGREE
10 % Somewhat Disagree
11 % Strongly Disagree ZO'r6 TOTAL DfSAGREK
2 % Depends (Voiuate~d)
296 Don't Know
0 % Refused
.~
Page -7-
~9
~~~~.. i, ~~~~_ ~ C~~~,: llA:~.~~lr. ~v;tiTY PriY~ DEV ADN~IN NG, 5389 P, 12
.AMERICAN YIER'POINT, INC
Dakota County Forneland and Natural Araas Project Survey
January, 2000
Q. 18 - Crneralty speakinY, how important do you feel that farming and agricultwce are to the economy
of Dakota County? Would you say.. .
39~ Very Important
4896 Somewhat lmportaat
1196 Not Too Important
196 Not At All Important
1 ~ Don't Know
0 % Refused
Q. 19 - How important do you fed it is for state and local goveratntat to have programs designed
to protect farms from development and urban sprawl? Would you say.. .
4896 Very Important
38~ Somewhat Important
9 ~ Not Too Important
496 Not At AlI Important
* Don't Know
0 % Refused
Q. 20 - As you may lQeow, the movement of residential and commercial development into rural areas
results in higher and higher property taxes and special assessments related to utt~iry and road
expansions in the surrounding areas. This, in turn, makes it irrcreasin,gly difficult fvr farmers
to stay in business and creates pressure for them to sdl their property to developers which
leads to more tttban sprawl. In response to this, the state and some Local governments piovide
property tit relief to fartnecs and other landowners as long as Wey meet certain conditions -
maialy that they don't develop the land. Do you approve or disapprove of these types of
property tax programs designed to control developmem and slow down urban sprawl?
5496 Strongly Approve
26 % Soauwhat Approve
896 Somewhat Disapprove
896 Strongly Disapprove
196 Depends
396 Don't I~1tow
096 Refused
i0xv TOTAL APPROVE
17q'i TOTAL. DbSAPPROVE
Page -8-
as
N:~1, i. CU~c L:lt°'~ llAt~~'_.. l,'~~NiY Fi:YS DEv ADNih'
N0. 5389 P. 13
AMERICAN I~EWP(JINT, DVG
Dakota County Fasntland and Natural,lr~as Project Spy
.7anaary, 2000
Q. 2I - As you tray know, Coaserntion casensents, that is the purchase of development righu, is
another way to beep farms from being lost to developmeat. Genetally speakinS, do you booty
a ;rear deal, a fair autount, not much or almost aoffiinS about conservation easements?
3 96 A Great Deal
2496 A Fair Amouat
4096 Not Much
3296 Almost Nothing
196 Don't ~Cnow
046 Refused
Now, I would like to tell you some tbinYs about conservation easements and have you tell me if each
would make you more or less likely to support a program oo protect firms from development by
buying conservation easeraeats.
ALWAYS ASS Q. 2Z FYRST
Q. 22 The land itself stays in private ownership for farminS or use as a natural area, but it cart never
be developed with houses or commtrcisl buildings.
4196 Much More Likely To Support
34 ~ A Little More Likely To Support
996 A Little Less Likely To Support
1096 Much Less Likely To Support
29b No Difference (Volunteered)
496 Don't Know
0 % Refused
?S°Xv TOTAL MORE I.1~"LY
1996 TOTAL LESS LiHELY
ROTATE
Q. 23 - Auchasing development righu costs less than outright purchase.
2496 Mucb~ More Likely To Support
28 ~ A Lisle More Likely To Support
149b A Little Less Likely To Suppot
1696 Much Less Likely To Support
296 No Difference (Yoluaiteered)
1696 Don't Know
096 Refused
Page •9-
5296 'TOTAL MORE IiSELY
3496 TOTAL LESS I,~I,Y
a~
AMERICAN YIEWiPOINT', ,1NC
Dakota County Farmland and Natural Areas Pfroject Survry
January, 2000
Q- Z4 -The land stays on the tax rolls although sonu landownus may pay lower taxes
!~..-.. :. ",:~ ~ t~:~r: DA::.,:A ~,u,i~:'Y PE'~ L`EV ADNih'
3596 Mach More Likely 7v Support
3796 A Little More Likely To Support
1196 A Little Las Li7cely To Support
796 Much Less Likely To Support
3 96 No Difference (Volunteered)
796 Don't Kaow
096 Refused
Na.53as P. ;~
'TZ96 TOTAL MORE I.>~LY
la J6 TOTAL LESS LI~RLY
Q. 25 -Ewen though the [Ball Ssm-plea fanners /landowrurs uii the conservation easem,eat to the
county, the land is usually not open tv the publlc.
y
1996 Much More Likely To Support
2496 A Little More Lilccly To Support
2796 A Little Less Likely To Support
2396 Much Less Likely To Support
396 No Difference (Volarnteered)
596 Don't Know
096 Refused
4Z°Io TOTAL MORE LIIfLLY
30'do TOTAL LESS L1~ELY
Q.25b- Even though the [Half Sample] fan-tcrs scll the consrnation easement tv the county, the land
is usually not open to the public.
l8 ~ Mucb More Likely To Support
24°6 A Little More Likely To Support
23 9G A Little Less Likely To Support
2896 .Much Less Likely ?o Support
296 No Difference (Volua~teered)
b ~ Don't Know
096 Rcfused
Page -10-
42% TOTAL MORE LISELY
Sl ~ TOTAL LESS ~ LISET,Y
as
i~`:~'.. i. 3:~~? 2 2~':r`. DFn~':A COCNiY FnYS DEV P.DM?N
N0, 5389 F, i
AMERICAN VIEWPOINT, ING
Dakota County Farnelaad and Natural Areas Project Sxrrey
January, 2000
Q.25c- Evea though the [Bali Sample) la~edowna's sell the coascrvaiion easement to the county, the
Iand i9 usually not open rA the public.
20 % Much More Likely To Support
23 % A Little More Lil`eIy To Support
31 % . A Littlc Less Lilcciy To Support
1896 Much Less Likely To Support
4°X No Difference (Volwateere~
S 96 Don't Know
0 % Refused
13°,~ TOTAL MORE LII~LY
4x96 TOTAL LESS LIKELY
Q. 26 - Development rights would only be purchased from willing sellers.
42 %
~ 3S %
9%
8%
196
S%
0 4b
Much More Likely Ta Support
A Little More LIkely To Support
A Little Las Likely To Sugpart
Much Less Likely To Support
No Difference (Volunteered)
Don't Ksww
Refused
7796 TOTAL MORE IDLY
17~ TOTAL LESS LZgQ.Y
Now, I would .tike to tell you some things that you might Ieara about programs to purchase and proud
natural areas and farmland and have you tell me if each would make you more or less likely to support
a program such as this in your county, or if it wouldn't make a diffcrtnce. The first one is.. .
ROTATE
Q. Z7 - Souu studies show that new residential development actually costs more in services such as
new roads, sowers, police and fire proration and new schools, than iR pays is property tortes.
l{eepi~a; lead in open space can help reduce the demand for tax supported services associated
with new developcaeszt.
38% Much More Lilcdy To Support
2996 A LiW~ More Likely To Support
1396 A Little Less Likely To Support
1096 Much Less Likely To Support
S 96 No Difference (Volunteered)
S % - Don't Know
0 % Refused
Page -I I-
f796 TOTAL MORE LZi~.Y
22~Xo TOTAL LSSS LII~F.LY
a3
Mr.:. 1, ~~~~~ 2:27rI~` D?.".L"n COUNTY PHYS DEy ADMIN
NQ. 5389 P, iE
,~Rrc~ty v~wronvr, Svc
Dakota County FarntlaNd and Natural ~lrtas Project Survcy
January, .2000
Q. 28 -Protecting natural areas and farmland Mill help to maintaia scenic laadscapes and the rural
character of Dakota County.
6196 Much Moro Likely To Support
25 % A LiNe More Likely To SuppoR
3 % A Littlc Less Likely To Support
496 Much Leas Likely To Support
S 96 No Differcztce (Volwoteercd)
1 % Don't Know
0 % Refused
3696 TOTAL MORE I.~ELY
996 TOTAL LESS ~FS.Y
Q. 29 • Between 1995 and 2013 it is projected that Dakota County viii lose Duet 27000 acres of
t'ttrtnland and open space to development.
4396 Much More Likely To Support
2196 A Little More Likely To Support
12% A Little Less Likely To Support
1596 Much Less Likely To Support
S % No Difference (Volunteered)
4 % Don't Know
096 Refused
6496 TOTAL MORB LISEI,Y
Y7~ TOTAL LESS LIKELY
Q. 30 -There will be an aaaual public audit of how the funds are spear.
6096 Much Mote Likely To Support
2596 A Liulc More Likely To Support 36°k TOTAL MORE LISEI.Y
596 A Little Liss Likely To Support
396 Mucb Less Likely To Support 796 TOTAL LESS LtKTI.Y
7% No Difference (Volunteered)
196 Don't Know
096 Refused
Pale •12-
a~
AMLRXGlN YIEI~'O~tNT, ING
Dakota Coknty Fanaland and Natural.~lraas Project Sarvry
larutary, aooo
Q. 31 -Funds raised locally could be a-atched by funds from the state and federal government.
~`.-.?, 1. 2002 2.27PIJ. DA~:~" ~ CDUN7'r PHYS DEu ADMIN
6096 Much More Likely To Support
2496 A Little More Likely Tv Support
696 A Little Less Likely To Support
69G Much Less Lt~cely To Support
496 No Diffccence (Volimteet~
196 Don't Know
09o Refused
1V0.5389 P. 17
5496 TOTAL MORE L>ISLI.Y
1Z9fe TOTAL LESS I.111~.LY
Q. 32 -Landowners will be paid for any development rights thry sell based oa fair market value based
oa an independent appraisal.
39 % Much More Likely To Support
3S 96 A Little More Lilcdy To Support
10% A Little Less L'lccly To Support
696 Much Less Likely To Support
696 No Difference (volunteer
496 Don't ICttow
0% Refused
74°X. TOTAL MORE LZSTLY
1f'Xr TOTAL LESS L11gII~Y
Now, I would like to read you some things that could be funded by a program to purchase and protect
natural azcas wad fazmisads az~d have you tell me if you appmve or disapprove of each. Would you
approve or disapprove of using some of the funds to.. .
ROTATE
Q. 33 - Protxi ~avildlife habitat and native plants.
72 % Strongly Approve
2196 Somewhat Approve
496 Somewhat Disapprove
296 Strongly Disapprove
• Depends (Volunteered)
Don't Know
0 % Refused
Page -13-
9396 TOTAL APPROVE
f96 TOTAL DISAP'PRO'~S
as
.. m~ :. 1. Cul!C % ~ c 1 uN llP.KUI'F: GCUNiY PHY~ DEV ADN~IN
NC, 5369 P. 18
AMERICAN YIEyP~'O,INT, lNG
Dakota Coxnty Farmland and Natural Areas Project Survey
lanreary, 2000
Q. 34 -Protect land that will be used for Hoare education for children
7096 StrvttYly Approve
2596 Somewhat Approve 9596 TOTAL APPROVE
396 Somewhat Disapprove
296 Strongly Disapprove S96 TOTAL DI.SAPP6LOVE
096 Depaads (Voluutated)
" Don't Know
OA Refused
Q. 35 - l?rotec
8796
996
a 196
' 2~
096
x
s
t dnaking water sources
Strongly Approve
Somewhaz Approve 9696 TOTAL APPROVE
Somewhat Disapprov
Strongly Disapprove 396 TOTAL DLSAPPROVE
Depends (Yoluateeredy
Don't Know
Refused
Q. 36 - Protect land for activities such as hikiag and birdwatching
58 % Strongly Approve
319b Somewhat Approve x996 TOTAL APPROVE
S 96 Somewhat Disapprove
S 96 Strongly Disapprove lOR6 TOTAL DISAPPROVE
196 Depends (Volunteered}
1 °6 Don't Know
0 °.b Refused
Q. 37 - Protecx land that eau improve water quality
7896 Strongly Approve
1896 Somewhat Approve ~ ~ 9696 TOTAL APPROVE
296 Somewhat Disapprove
296 Strongly Disapprove ~ 496 TOTAL DISAPPROVE
096 Dcpeads (vohmteered)
Don't Know
096 Refused
Page •14
a~
MAY, ?. 2~~['~2 2:2?PN! DF.X01A CCJNiY PHYS DEV ADMiN
N0. 53$9 P, 19
AMERICAN lr1EWPOlNT, INC
Dakota County Farmland and Na~ral Arear Project Survey
January, 2000 '
Q. 38 - Protect land thu w~71 provide better access o0 our rivers, lakes and srrcams for Fishing and
other recreational activities.
5796
3396
S 96
49fi
196
196
0%
Strongly Approve
Somewhat Approve
Somewhat Disapprove
Strongly Disapprove
Depends Nd
Don't Know
Refried
9096 TOTAL APPROVE
996 TOTAL DfSA,P'P'ROVE
Q. 39 -Protect important farmland from urban development
SS 9G Strongly Approve
~ 31 % Sotnewbat Approve
? 96 Sonuwbat Disapprove
696 Strongly Disapprove
196 Depends (Yol~mteee'e~
296 Don't Know
* Refused
Q. 40 - Protact land that will help Control flooding
6196 Strongly Approve
3296 Somewhat Approve
496 Somewhat Disapprove
396 Strongly Disapprove
0 ~ Depends (VoluIIte~d)
196 Don't Know
096 Refused
Page -IS-
abWo TOTAL APPROVE
1296 TOTAL DISAPPROVE
9396 TOTAL APPROVE
7°,~o TOTAL DISAPPROVE
a~
N:A:. 1. Ll~',:C ~ C~:1'~ llr".:~`...?: G~~;~1: PHYS DES' AD~,~IN
N0. 5389 P. c2
A1~fERICAN I~i3rPOlNT, INC
Dakota County Fas-nland and Natural yeas Project Su~ry
January, 2000
Q. 41 -Protect lead for passive recreation such as picnicking, hiking and birdwatching, but not for
a,Ctive recreational uses such as ballfields and playgrounds.
S2%
2896
1196
896
1%
1%
096
Strongly Approve
Somewhat Approve
Somewhat Disapprove
Strongly Disapprovc
Depends (Voluntea~cd)
Don't Know
Refused
Q. 42 -Protect land used for hunting.
3096
~ 28 %
16%
23 %
1%
296
Strongly Approve
Somewhat Approve
Somewhat Disapprove
Strongly Disapprove
Depends (Vofuurteered)
Don't IGaoa
lteftued
ao96 ToTAi. ApPROVIE
19% TOTAL DLSAPPROVE
5896 TOTAL APPROVE
3996 TOTAL DI3AP'PROVE
Now, I would Pike to rcad you some things that others have said about this proposal and have you tell
me if you agree of disagree with each one. Would you agtoe or disagree that.. .
ROTATE
Q. 43 -With land prices rising dramatically and the amount of natural areas dwindling, we must act
now to protect these last remaining natural ueas os flay wtU be lost to dcvelopraent.
58 % Strongly Agrece
2596 Somewhat Agree 8:i°,~e TOTAL AGREE
796 Somewhat Disagree
996 Strongly Disagree 1i96 TOTAL DISAGREIr
096 BotblNeither (Vol~mteeredh .
1 % Don't Know
096 Refused
Page -16-
aS
hnY. 1. 2~~< 2.28PM DAKO:'A COUNTY PiiYS DEV ADMIN
N0, 5389 P, 21
.~IIBRICAIV V,X~WPODVT, XNG
Dakota County Farmland and Nartural.4~tns ,Project Survry
.~anscary, aooo
Q. 43b-With land prices rising dramatically and the amount of natural areas dwiadliag, we must act
now to protect these last remaining natural areas ~br our chlldrtn mad for jfaurc grneratiores.
7096 Strongly Agree
2096 Somewhat Agree
896 Somewhat Disagree
396 .Strongly Disagree
0 ~ Both/Neither (Voiwterred)
196 Don't Know
096 Refused
E9~- TOTAL AGREE
1096 TOTAL DISAGREE
Q. 44 -Protecting naa,rat arras and farmlaad plays a very important role in preserving the gaaliry of
life in Dakota County and •stoppiag t~rlaye sprawl.
1
6096
ZB~.
896
496
196
096
Strongly Agra
Somewhat Agree
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Both/Ncither (Volunteered)
Don't Know
Refused
0'796 TOTAL AGREE
1296 TOTAL DISAGREE
Q.44b- Protecting natural areas and t5rmisnd plays a very important role in preserving the gaaliry of
li#e in Dakota County.
SS 96
3196
996
596
196
1~
096
Strongly ,Agree
Somewhat Agree
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Duagrce
Both/Neither (Volunteered)
Dot-'t Know
Refused
a6°Xe TOTAL AGREE
14~o TOTAlt, DISAGREE
Page -17-
d9
iv v, ;jJO~ r. LL
AMERIt:AN YIEA~'OINT, I1VC
Dakota Coaaty Farmland and Natrcral Arun Project Suety
.laeKary, 2000
Q.44c- Protecting natural areas and farmlannd plays a very important rolc in preserving the quality of
life is Dakota County and stopping urban sprawl.
6496 Strongly Agra
25 % Somewhat Agree
7% Somervbaz Disagree
496 Strongly Disagree
096 Bot~/Neither (Voluntea^ed)
196 Don't Know
096 Refused
a9% TOTAL AGREE
1196 TOTAL DISAGREE
Q. 45 - T'de preservation of Dakota County's rntai lifestyle and agricultural eco~oomy is dependent on
slowing urban sprawl and protecting natural areas and farmland.
~ 5296
3296
1096
596
196
296
0%
Strongly Agri
Somewhat Agree
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Both/Neither (Voi~teered)
Don't ICriow
Refused
S4°,~o TOTAL AGREE
1496 TOTAL DISAGREE
Q. 4b - We would be better off spending our money on more important issues such as snore schools
and better roads and worry about buying natural areas and farmlands Inter.
1996 Strongly Agra
23 % Somewhat Agree
25 °6 Somewhat Disagree
2896 Stroh;ly Disagree
296 I3offi/Neither (Voiawtea-a3)
3 % Don't Know
096 Refused
Page -18-
4z% TOTAL AGREE
S3°•fo TOTAL DISAGREE
3~
w.x:, ;, cap! !:l~~:~: llaxL.A t,U~~N:Y YKY~ ll~V AllN,!N
N0, 5389 P. 2?
AIMERIC.~N YIEWPOdNT,1NC
Dakota Corcnty Farnsland and Nadiral Areas Project Sur++ty
January, 2000
Q. 47 - 51.50 dollars a month is a very small price to pay to purchase and protax farmlands and
natural areas is Dakota County.
5696 Strongly Ague
2$96 Svmeahat ASree x496 TOTAL AGREE
696 Somewhat Disagra
696 Strongly Disagroe 1Z% TOTAL DISAGRET
196 $oth/Neither (Vol~tacea)
396 Don't Know
096 Refused
Now that you have had a little time m think about this issue.. .
~ Q. 48 -Would you vote foi oz a8aiast as annual property tax inaeasc that would cost 59.65 Per
S100,000 of borne value atd would raise about S2 million per year for the purpose of
purchasing and protecting natural areas and farmland In your county?
4196 Defuutcly For
3296 Probably For ?3% ?OTAL FOR
796 Probably Against
1696 De~aitely Agauast 2't'b TOTAL AGAIIYST
496 Don't Know
1 °,b Refused
Q. ~t9 - If there were a bond raEereadum to allow your county to borrow SZO au~lion over 20 years for
the purpose of purchasing and protectizlS natural areas and farmland in your county and would
cost 57.35 per 5100,000 of home value would, you vote for or a8ainst it?
33 °~
33 °~
1196
1896
496
196
Definitely For
Probably For
Probably Against
Defituteiy A,galast
Don't Kao
Refused
f6% TO~1'AL FOR
2996 TOTAL AGAII~IST
Page •19-
3)
:~.::.. 1. c~~.:c C ccr~M, uAn~'iA ~Oi;t~TY PHY~ DEv ADMiN
N0, 5389 P, 24
AMERICAN >/IEWPOIlVT, ING
Dakota County Farmland ahd Natriral Areas Project Survey
tax,rary, X000
Q. SO - lostead of S20 milliva, if d~erc were a bond referendum to allow your oouQty m borrow s10
million over 20 years for the purpose of purchasing and protectiaa natural areas and farmland
in your county and would cost 53.69 per 5100,000 of bona value per year. would you vote for
or against it?
4696 Defiaitdy For
2896 Probably For
796 Probably Against
1496 Definitely Against
496 Doti t Know
* Refused
7496 TO'Y'AL FOR
2296 TOTA,~, AGAIIVST
And now I have just a flew questions for statistical purposes only .. .
Q. 51 - Dn you think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, Rcfotm Party, an Independent, or
something else?
2596 Rapublicazi
2596 Democrat
396 Reform Party
3696 IndeQendeat
9 ~ Other
196 Don't Know
Z 9G Refused
Page -20-
3~
~~~ ~ ~~ 3~:" UAP:~:A CGUhi't' FHYS DEB ADMIPy
.~. ~.. , .. C~ ~ _ _ ., ,r.
NC. 5389 P, 2~~
AMERICAN i~EWP01?VT, INC
Dakota Couiety Farrriand aad Nat~eral Astas Froj~ct Survry
January, 2000
Q- S2 - 'Wb~at is your a8e?
A
696 1 x-24
796 25-29
1096 30-34
1396 35-39
1596 44-44
1296 459
1096 sass
10`~ SS-59
796 6464
596 659
296 TO-'l4
396 7~ Aad Aver
296 Refused
- Q. 53 - Do you own your home or do you rent?
8895 Own
1096 Rene
396 Don't Know l Refused
Q. 54 - Do you have aay children undtr 18 living at home?
4595 Yes
5496 No
0 ~ Don't Know
196 Rrfused
Page -21-
33
ir.n , i, L~~_ L Cyiiri yr.t',Jih ..U~iVl : h.J D~V AuN1N
N0, ~~69 P. 26
AMERICAN i'IL l~'POIN7', ING
Dakota County Farmland and Natrcral Areas Project Sacrvry
Ja~euary, 2004
Q. 55 -About what percentage of your family's itx;ome relies on farming and the a8ric~iltural industry
7'996 None
996 196 to ZS 46
396 2696 To 5096
196 5176 m 7596
17r Over 7576
596 Don't Knox
296 Refused
Q. S6 -Which of the following income groups includes your Dotal hvusehoid inovme is 1999 before
taxes? .
296 under slo,ooo
176 slo,ooo - s1a,999
196 515,000 - 519,999
296 520,000 - 524,999
396 525.000 -529,999
791 130,000 - 539,999
1092 540,000 -549,999
2896 550,000 - 574,999
1896 57$,000.599,999
1796 5100,000 Aad Over
129b Don't Know /Refused
Q. 57 -SEX OF RESPONDENT:
4846 Male
5296 Female
Page -22-
a4
MP.Y. 1,LOG2 2:29PM DAKOTA COUNTY PhYS DEV ADMIN
N0. 5389 P. 27
AM~'RICAIY YIFN'POXNT, ING
Dakota CoKnty Farndand and ,Na~unal.l reas Project S~rnry
Ja-ruary, 2000
Q. 58 -Are you employed outside the home are you a hvmamaker, or are you retired'?
4096 Male -Employed
'` Male - Hoaremakrr
696 Mate • Retired
s Male - Noc Employed
3696 Female -Employed
1096 Female -Homemaker
5 9L Feznate - Retirod
" ~ Female - Nvt Employed
296 Don't Kaow
196 Refused
IF EMPLOYED ASK?
Q. 59 - Do you work in Dakota County or do you commnu outside of the county to work?
4696 Work Iti Dakota Couaty
S3 ~ Commute
196 Refused
Township
Page -Z3-
35
N~'r. 1. 2CG3 %, ~4PM DAi{GT~. C~~~~NiY PHYS DEV ADIv!IN N0, 5389 P, 2
Dakota County Voter Opinion Survey
The Trust for Public Land
March I9, 2002
Preliminary Key Points Summary
Currently, a majority of likely voters surveyed would support a S?0 million bond measure
to protect natural areas and farmland. Many of the purposes for which bond funds would
be used are very appealing to Dakota County voters, particularly purchasing lands that
will be used to protect dunking water sources, improve water quality, protect wildlife
habitat, arsd help control flooding. Adding components to the measure that increase
accountability, particularly an annual public audit, could also improve the measure's
chances for success. With swell-run educational campaign that emphasucs those issues
Dakota County voters cart most about, the natural azea and farmland bond measure could
be successful.
Voter Intentions
• When informed of the positive benefits of the measure, as well as some negative
arguments against the measure, 63 percent would support a S20 million bend over
ten years to finance the purchase of land for the protection of water and air
quality, wildlife habitat, parks, and farmland, with 32 percent opposed.
Concern for Growth and Development
A large percentage {41 percent) feel Dakota County is growing and developing
too fast, with better that one of every three respondents feeling strongly about this
issue {32 percent). 75 percent are concerned that over development will bring the
same trafhc congestion and growth problems that other nearby areas arc
experiencing, indicating that controlling growth and development is an important
issue to Dakota County voters.
• When asked about the most important concerns facing Dakota County today, 26
percent of voters surveyed felt that growth issues, including controlling growth
and development, protecting natural areas and farmland, and traffic and .
transportation problems were the most important issues. Concern for growth
issues in Dakota County is greater than other typical top tier local concerns, such
as holding down taxes (19 percent).
plc
I~". `. i . C'~ ~ :. L L 4 u: ii A "..: F. ,. ~J 1;, . ` P n'~ S I! ~ ~' F. Uhi ! Iy
Stroag Support for Uses otFunds
N~.S~~y F. ~ ~_
Dakota Cournty voters strongly approve or approve of many of the ways that funds
to purchase amd protect open space and natural areas could be used if the proposal
should pass. Those receiving the highest level of support include:
- protect drinking water sources (9I percent);
- protect land that can improve water quality (89 percent);
- protect wildlife habitat (85 percent);
- protect land that will help control flooding (83 percent);
- protect laud that will be used for nature education for children (84
percent);
- protect land along the Mississippi, Minnesota, and Cannon Rivers (83
percent); and
- protect forest lands to improve air quality (81 percent).
Possible Ctiaage: to Increase Support
• Proposals for an aruiuaI public audit of how funds are spent and using the
County's Farmland and Natural Areas Pmtcction Plan to guide decision-making
were influential among Dakota County voters. By considerable margins (67 to 15
percent and 64 to 17 percent, respectively), voters were more likely to support the
bond measure if these components to increase accountability were added.
• Voter were also more likely to support the natural areas and farmland protection
bond measure if they knew that funds raised locally would be matched with funds
from state, federal, and metropolitan sources (68 to 18 percent).
s~
DRAFT - 5.6.2002
ORDINANCE NO. 2ND SERIFS
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA, AMENDING EAGAN CITY
CODE CHAPTER FIVE ENTITLED "BEER, WINE AND LIQUOR LICENSING AND
REGULATION" BY AMENDING SECTION 5.02, SUBDIVISION 4(G) and (I~ REGARDING
LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION PENALTIES AND HEARING; AND BY ADOPTING BY
REFERENCE EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 5.99.
The City Council of the City of Eagan does ordain:
Section 1. Eagan City Code Chapter 5 is hereby amended by changing Section 5.02, Subd
4(G) and (I-~, to read as follows:
FIG. Penalty. Upon a finding that the licensee has sold alcoholic beverages to another
retail licensee for the purpose of resale; purchased alcoholic beverages from another
retail licensee for the purposes of resale; conducted or permitted the conduct of
gambling on the licensed premises in violation of the law; failed to remove or dispose
of alcoholic beverages when ordered by the comer to do so under Minnesota
Statutes; or failed to comply with auy other applicable state statute or rule, or Code
provision herein relating to alcoholic beverages, ,
a civil penalty of
$~9A 500 00 for the first violation, X88 1000. for the second violation within
a 24month period, and ~3A:8A$1.500.00 and a seven f n,~d y suspension of license
for a third violation within a 24month period shall be imposed upon the licensee who
shall pay the civil penalty within 30 days of the date of a entice from the City.
Notwithstanding the forego~g civil P ti s, a
civil penalty of $2.000.00 and 30 days suspension of the license, unless a greater civil
38
DRAFT - 5.6.2002
penaltysuspension or revocation is otherwise deternvned by City Council shall be
dosed upon a licensee upon the fourth or more violation within a 36-month period.
The forego_mg penalties shall not restrict the City Councd from ordering the revocation
of the license, suspension of the license for u~ to 60 days, a civil penalty! up to
$2.000.00, or impo~ny combination thereof
If the licen9ee fails to pay the civil penalty within 30 days of notice, the licensee's
license shall be suspended until the civil penalty, plus any surcharge or interest for late
payment, is paid in full.
~ Hearing No suspension or revocation of a license or civd penalty under this Section
&~ shall take effect until the licensee has been given an opportunity for a
Dearing under the iota Administrative Procedure Act. If the licensee files a
request for hearing with the City Clerk within frve{3~ ten 10 business days of the
date of the notice of the license action or civil penalty, the City Clerk shall schedule a
hearing before a hearing officer duly appourted by the City Administrator. ]:n the event
that the licensee fails to timely request a Dearing or fails to appear at a scheduled
hearing, the licensee shall be deemed to have waived his/her right to a Dearing and shall
be subject to the license action or civil penalties imposed hereunder.
If the licensee timely requests a hearing, the herrin¢ shall be held before
officer within 14 days of the date the licensee files a request for hearing with the City
Clerk. Upon conclusion of the hearing._t~~e aring officer shall issue written findings
of fact and conclusions as to whether a violation has occurred and the penalty inipQsed
as authorized herein. If the hearing icrvolves a fourth or more violation by the licensee.
the hearing officer shall preserrt his/her written findings of fact and conclusions to the
City Counc~7 for its consideration of additional nenahies, including revocation of the
license.
Sectio .Eagan City Code Chapter 1 ernitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable
to the Entire City Code IrHCluding Penalty for Violation'" and Section 5.99, entitled "Violation a
Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption and publication
according to law.
ATTEST:
By: Mira McCrarvey
Its: Deputy Clerk
CITY OF EAGAN
City Council
By: Patricia E. Awada
Its: Mayor
39
DRAFT - 5.6.2002
Date Ordinance Adopted:
Date Ordinance Published in the Legal Newspaper:
~D
CITY COUNCIL JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING
COMMUNITY CENTER AND STREETSCAPING
TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002
Meeting Notes
At 5 pm, Council Members Cindy Fields (representing the Streetscape Cmte) and Peggy Carlson
(representing the Community Center Cmte) met to review and discuss the design standards for the
various lighting fixtures and structures for both projects. Public Works Director Colbert, Parks
Director Vraa, Pazk Supt. Olson, SRF Consultant Larson and Architect Fazber were also in
attendance.
Copies of the various catalogues were previously distributed to the Council Members the Friday
before and color reproductions of the preliminarily approved light fixtures for the streetscaping
design were distributed at the meeting along with a display board showing 3 typical cross sections
with a variety of acceptable light fixtures and poles.
After discussing the benefits and disadvantages of having similar fixtures in both the
streetscaping plan and the Community Center site, it was agreed by all that:
1. There should be distinct differences in the type of luminaries (high pressure sodium in
the street and metal halide in the Park) to differentiate between the transportation and
recreational purposes of each. It was noted that Metal Halide provides a better color
adjacent to the Park building while HPS has lower maintenance and is better suited for
street lighting.
2. The Central Pazkway street light fixtures should be a double fixture "upward" acorn on a
single forest-green "Jefferson" pole located in the median, and a single "downward"
acorn fixture on a shorter "shepherd hook" pole along the pedestrian trail. Poles to be
fluted o the bottom portion only.
3. Within Central Park, the pedestrian trail lighting should be a downward "Luminous
Ring" fixture on a "nautical" pole arm (from the Universal Catalogue) and the
Community Center parking lot lights will be on taller poles with a "hat box" design all
similar to what was previously shown by Damon Farber.
4. The Beau D' Rue streetscaping will have a single "upward" acorn fixture at the curb line
with no trail and a double fixture on a single pole in the boulevard between the curb and
trail (SRF typical section "A").
Both committee members agreed that it was probably not appropriate to review the detailed plans
for the type and spacing of shrubs, fencing, etc. and that the plans should be brought back on a
consent agenda (tentatively scheduled for mid June). However, the plans will be done in
sufficient detail by mid May for review if any Council members wanted to look at them again.
Colbert explained about the X-cel street lighting program where X-cel designs, installs, owns,
maintains and operates the street lighting system and that to date there are no other vendors that
offer the desired 25 year maintenance program. He will review the bidding requirements with the
City Attorney's office for this option.
Vraa and Farber asked Carlson for clarification on the drive access for the community center,
discussed earlier in week. Carlson said the direction was not to re-design, but to be able to
provide a larger, portable planter to be able to block the roadway in front of the building, if
necessary, once the construction was completed.
The meeting adjourned at approx. 5:55 pm
G:ENG/tadproj/813
41