Loading...
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