The URL can be used to link to this page

06/21/2005 - City Council Regularr-< +d+i , AGENDA EAGAN CITY COUNCIL -REGULAR MEETING EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER BUILDING June 21, 2005 6:30 P.M. I. ROLL CALL & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ADOPT AGENDA (At approximately 8: 00 p.m. the Council will take a short recess) III. RECOGNITIONS & PRESENTATIONS IV. CONSENT AGENDA ~A. APPROVE MINUTES B. PERSONNEL ITEMS ~~~. C. CHECK REGISTERS / D. APPROVE Tree Maintenance Contractor Licenses for A+ Tree Service and Prime Cut Tree Service /~ E. APPROVE Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo for the Eagan Foundation ~OF. APPROVE Final Planned Development and Final Subdivision - Homestead Village -Manley Land Development - A Final Planned Development of 7.30 acres to create nine (9) twin homes and a Final Subdivision of 7.30 acres to create 18 lots and one outlot in the SE '/< of Section 36 ~G. DIRECT Preparation of an Ordinance Amendment regarding bond requirements for wetland appeals 01~ H. APPROVE a no-loss decision, or no negative impact, to a wetland area at 897 Hyland Court I. APPROVE amendment to the April 19, 2005 Ciry Council minutes Pa~J. APPROVE Change Order No. 3 for Contract 04-07 (Lexington Ridge -Street Improvements) V. PUBLIC HEARINGS ~~ A. PROJECT 813, Final Assessment Hearing, Central Parkway (Streetscaping) VI. OLD BUSINESS ~3? A. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT -City Eagan -Consider approval of ordinance amendments to Eagan City Code, Chapter 10.10 regarding dangerous weapons and articles and Eagan City Code, Chapter 10.13 regarding trapping regulations. d B. PARTICIPATION IN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 196 FIBER PROJECT C. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT -City of Eagan - An Amendment to Chapter 11, Section 11.70, Subdivision 28, P 1 placement, erection and maintenance of signs relative to temporary and window signage. S~D. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT -Paster Enterprises, LLC - A Comprehensive Guide Plan b Amendment of approximately 24 acres from Special Area-Office/Service to Special Area-Commercial Retail Ir located in the SE '/4 of Section 9. VII. NEW BUSINESS ~~g A. PRELIMINARY SU$DIVISION -Tan Me Industrial - A Preliminary Subdivision of 2.6 acres parcel into two (2) lots for existing building and future development located at Lot 2, Block 1, Tan Me Industrial Park in the SE '/ of Section / 9. ,S B. ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT -Finch Place -Dan Markes IX. LEGISLATIVE/INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UPDATE X. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA a. Comments by City Council, City Administrator, and Deparhnent Heads ~DXI. NEW RUNWAY/AIRPORT UPDATE Q~ ~ XII. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY O The Council acting as the Board of Commissioners of the Economic Development Authority ("EDA') may discuss and act on the agenda items for the EDA in conjunction with its actions as a Council. A. CALL TO ORDER $. ADOPT AGENDA ~~C. APPROVE MINUTES D. OLD BUSINESS 8 ~ 1. CONSIDER REQUEST for Review of Relocation Benefits and for an Adnunistrative Appeal Hearing for Instant Testing Company and Allied Test Drilling, formerly located at 3996 Cedar Grove Parkway E. NEW BUSINESS F. OTHER BUSINESS G. ADJOURNMENT XIII. VISITORS TO BE HEARD (for those persons not on agenda) XIV. CLOSED SESSION XV. ADJOURNMENT The City of Eagan is committed to the policy that all persons have equal access to its programs, services, activities, facilities and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, or status with regard to public assistance. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities will be provided upon advance notice of at least 96 hours. If a notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City of Eagan will attempt to provide such aid. City of Eagan Nano To: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCILMEMBERS From: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES Date: JUNE 17, 2005 Subject: AGENDA INFORMATION FOR JUNE 21, 2005 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ADOPT AGENDA After approval is given to the June 21, 2005 City Council agenda, the following items are in order for consideration. Agenda Information Memo June 21, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA The following items referred to as consent items require one (1) motion by the City Council. If the City Council wishes to discuss any of the items in further detail, those items should be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed under Old or New Business unless the discussion required is brief. A. APPROVE MINUTES ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve the minutes of the June 7, 2005 regular City Council meeting, the May 31, 2005 special City Council meeting and the May 24, 2005 special City Council retreat as presented or modified. ATTACHMENTS: • Minutes of the June 7, 2005 regular City Council meeting are enclosed on pages through • Minutes of the May 31, 2005 special City Council meeting are enclosed on pages through ~. • Minutes of the May 24, 2005 special City Council retreat are enclosed on pages through ~~. MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ~~ EAGAN CITY COUNCIL Eagan, Minnesota June 7, 2005 A Listening Session was held June 7, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. prior to the regular City Council meeting. Rebecca Guthrie, massage therapist teacher, requested the Council consider allowing massage therapist to conduct business out of their homes. Council directed staff to place the item on a future workshop agenda. Terry Timmons discussed property on the corner of Highway 3 and Diffley Road. He expressed concern that he and his neighbors had not been notified about an easement vacation and landscape permit granted on the property. He requested that the City require the developer to install a double decked row of pine trees to block the backside view of a business and trash enclosure on the business property or on the adjacent pond area. Council directed staff to review the matter and provide follow-up information to Mr. Timmons and Council. Paul Bakken 697, Oxford Road, stated he was representing his neighborhood in regard to traffic concerns in the area. A regular meeting of the Eagan City Council was held on June 7, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were Mayor Geagan, Councilmembers Fields, Tilley, Carlson and Maguire. Also present were City Administrator Tom Hedges, Community Development Duector Jon Hohenstein, City Planner Mike Ridley, Public Works Director Tom Colbert, City Attorney Mike Daugherty and Administrative Secretary /Deputy Clerk Mira Pepper. AGENDA It was noted that item B of New Business relating to a conditional use permit for First Industrial would be continued to the July Ss' City Council meeting. Councilmember Tilley moved, Councihnember Maguire seconded a motion to approve the agenda as modified. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS RETIREMENT OF KEN SOUTHORN Ken Southorn was recognized for his service to the City of Eagan as an employee in the City's Police Department from 1996-2005, and for his 22 years as a member of the Eagan Volunteer Fire Department from 1972-1994, which includes 6 years as Eagan's Fire Chief from 1986 - 1992. 2005 APPRENTICE FIREFIGHTER RECOGNITION AND INTRODUCTION TO COUNCIL Fire Chief Bob Kriha introduced the 2005 Apprentice Firefighters. 2004 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding the 2004 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. A presentation was made by Matt Mayer of Kem, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd. Discussion was held between Council, Mr. Mayer and staff. Councihnember Tilley moved, Councihnember Maguire seconded a motion to receive and accept the 2004 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 CONSENT AGENDA Consent items G, M, N and Q were pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion. A. Minutes. It was recommended to approve the minutes of the May 17, 2005 regular City Council meeting and the May 10, 2005 special City Council workshop as presented. B. Personnel Items. 1. It was recommended to approve the hiring of Jennifer Hildebrandt as a Clerical Tech III in the Community Development Department. 3 Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes June 7, 2005 Page 2 DRgFT 2. It was recommended to approve the hiring of Lindsey Mathwig and Brandon Barnes as Engineering Interns. 3. It was recommended to approve the hiring of Catherine Ayres, Nathan Cermak, Alec Graham, Kelly Therkelsen and David Tripp as seasonal utilities maintenance workers. 4. It was recommended to approve the hiring of Travis Hibbard, Samuel Tripp and Josh Tripp as seasonal streets maintenance workers. 5. It was recommended to approve the hiring of Christopher Hoffrnan, Tyler VonDeLinde, Brian Hopkins, Jason Ehller, Michael Hipkis, Scott Hoium, David Guenther, Cassy Lenz, Breanna Borash, Brian Polkowski, David Streefland, Elyse Chell, Jacob Nicklay, Jessye Stock, Tricia Nutter, Jacob Loesch, Robert Rausch, Ryan Neumann, Tammy Sullivan, Kathryn Love, Luke Selby, Johanna Grosse, Kevin Stevensen, Andrew Koppang, Frank Locer, Richard LeMay, Robert Downs, Andrew Lee, Allen Wachter, Joseph Redfield and Geoff Cleveland as seasonal parks maintenance workers. 6. It was recommended to accept the resignation of Amanda Lukkes, 9-1-1 Dispatcher. C. Check Registers. It was recommended to ratify the check registers dated May l9, 2005, May 26, 2005, and June 2, 2005 as presented. D. Appointment. It was recommended to appoint the City Administrator to the Cedar Corridor Transportation Infrastructure Group. E. ExemQ Permit. It was recommended to approve an application for Exempt Permit for Experimental Aircraft Association Chapter 25 to hold a raffle on October 9, 2005 at the Eagan Community Center. F. Lawful Gambling License Renewal. It was recommended to adopt a Resolution Approving Lawful Gambling License renewal for Eagan Hockey Association to conduct apull-tab operation at the Cherokee Sirloin Room. G. (Pulled for Discussion) Donation. Councihnember Maguire recognized Cub Scout Pack 104 for their donation of $150 for the purchase of a tree. Councihnember Carlson moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to approve a resolution accepting a $150 donation from Eagan Cub Scout Pack 104 for purchase of a tree installed at Lexington Diffley Athletic Fields as part of the 2005 Arbor Day program. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 H. 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan. It was recommended to approve the 5-year Capital Improvement Plan for 2006-2010 and authorize the initiation of the public improvement process for the 2006 programmed improvements. I. Winter Trail Maintenance Program It was recommended to approve the Winter Trail Maintenance Program for 2005-2006. J. Easement Vacation. It was recommended to receive the petition to vacate public drainage and utility easements and schedule a public hearing to be held on July 5, 2005. K. Project 922. It was recommended to receive the draft feasibility report for Project 922 (Lone Oak Drive / Lone Oak Parkway (Waters Area -Sidewalk Improvements) and schedule a public hearing to be held on July 5, 2005. L. Contract 04-04. It was recommended to approve Change Order No. 2 to Contract 04-04 (Lexington Avenue, Lone Oak Road to TH 55 -Street and Trail Improvements) and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. M. (Pulled for Discussion). Change Order #2 to Contract #OS-O5. Cascade Bay Pool Repairs. Parks and Recreation Office Supervisor Mesko discussed the special hours of operation for Cascade Bay due to repairs to the pool. Councilmember Carlson moved, Councihnember Tilley seconded a motion to approve Change Order #2 to Contract #OS-O5, Cascade Bay Pool Repairs in the amount of $53,384. N. (Pulled for Discussion). Request for Proposals for the Water Ouality Management Plan Update. City Administrator Hedges reviewed the discussion held by the Public Works Comrnittee meeting prior to the regular City Counci] meeting. Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes June 7, 2005 Page 3 CRAFT Councihnember Fields moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to authorize staff to advertise for Request for Proposals for the Water Quality Management Plan Update subject to the addition of review by the Public Works Committee under Compliance Considerations. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 O. Final Subdivision. It was recommended to approve a Final Subdivision, Sweet Place, to create eight lots on approximately 5.75 acres located at 4725 S. Robert Trail in the NE'/o of Section 36. P, Final Financin Pg ackage= Eagan Community Center. It was recommended to approve the fmal fmancing package for the Eagan Community Center and related improvements and authorize fund transfers. Q. (Pulled for Discussion) Baseline Noise Study. Assistant to the City Administrator Dianne Miller provided an update on the proposed baseline noise study. Councihnember Carlson moved, Councihnember Tilley seconded a motion to approve a contract with Wyle Laboratories to conduct a baseline noise study in advance of the opening of Runway 17/35 subject to City Attorney satisfaction. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 R. Final Plat. It was recommended to approve a Final Plat (McDonald's Addition) to create one lot on approximately 1.24 acres upon property located at 1995 Silver Bell Road in the SW '/< of Section 17. S. Picnic Shelter. It was recommended to authorize staff to proceed with the installation of a 24' picnic shelter at Wescott Commons as part of the 2005 Parks CIP. T. 2005-2006 Massage Therapy Establishment License Renewals. It was recommended to approve license renewals for existing massage therapy establishments subject to submittal of all application material, payment of fees, and review by staff. U. 2005-2006 Amusement Device License Renewals. It was recommended to approve license renewals for existing Amusement Device Licenses subject to submittal of all application material, payment of fees, and review by staff. Councihnember Carlson moved, Councihnember Fields seconded a motion to approve the balance of the Consent Agenda. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 NEW BUSINESS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -SUE AND JOHN KORTH City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding a request for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the maximum 25% impervious surface requirement by 7%for an in-ground pool for property located at 3848 Big Timber Trail. City Planner Ridley gave a staff report. Councihnember Carlson moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the maximum 25% impervious surface requirement by 7% to allow for an in-ground pool for property located at 3848 Big Timber Trail, subject to the following conditions: Aye: 5 Nay: 0 1. This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded at Dakota County within 60 days of approval by the City Council. 2. The impervious surface can not exceed 32%. 3. The applicant shall install and maintain a drain the system, in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer, to direct the drainage to the nearby drainage pond. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -FIRST INDUSTRIAL This item was continued during approval of the agenda to the July 5, 2005 Council meeting. RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT UNIT -GREAT RIVER ENERGY City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding a transmission line upgrade by Great River Energy and Dakota Electric Association and consideration of the City becoming the responsible government unit. City Planner Ridley gave a staff report. Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes June 7, 2005 ~~. Page 4 /y Dale Aukee, representing Great River Energy and Craig Knudson of Dakota Electric discussed the transmission line upgrade with the Council. Councilmember Carlson moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to approve Eagan as the Responsible Government Unit for an upgrade to transmission lines in Central Eagan subject to the applicant reimbursing the City for all expenses associated with the application, including staff time, attorneys' fees and charges for any outside consultants. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA CHANGE TO JULY 12 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE City Administrator Hedges discussed the July 12 special council meeting stating that one of the main topics to be considered is the fmdings of the North East Eagan Study Committee, however, the City's consultant, Rusty Fifield will be unable to attend the meeting on that day. Councihnember Fields moved, Councihnember Tilley seconded a motion to change the July 12 Special City Council workshop date to July 7, 2005 for the NE Eagan Task Force presentation. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 EAGAN CHARTER COMMISSION REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF LEGAL SERVICES INVOICE City Administrator Hedges discussed a $200 invoice received by the City for legal services incurred by the Eagan Charter Commission resulting from the legal action, Thomas King, Petitioner vs. Eagan Charter Commission, Respondent. Discussion was also held regarding the Charter Commission's request for the $1,500 advance for 2005, which has not been processed due to lack of resolution of an issue surrounding the $958.16 spent for production and distribution of the charter question election material. Betty Fedde and Rob Kane, representing the Charter Commission were present. Councilmember Maguire moved, Councihnember Tilley seconded a motion to release $1500 to the Charter Commission via invoicing as necessary. Aye: Maguire, Tilley Nay: Geagan, Fields, Carlson Motion failed. Mayor Geagan moved, Councihnember Fields seconded a motion to deny payment of the $200 invoice to pay for legal services incurred by the Charter Commission resulting from legal action. Aye: Geagan, Fields, Carlson Nay: Tilley, Maguire Mayor Geagan moved, Councihnember Tilley seconded a motion to set aside $541.84 for the Charter Commission to be paid out through invoicing. Aye: 4 Nay: 1 (Fields opposed) Councilmember Carlson moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to accept and recognize the opinion of special Counsel Jack Clinton in regazd to the expense for a brochure from the Charter Commission entitled "Eagan Charter Local Self-Government". Aye: Geagan, Carlson, Fields Nay: Maguire, Tilley REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT UPDATE Community Development Director Hohenstein provided an update regarding the City's redevelopment districts. NEW RUNWAY /AIRPORT UPDATE Assistant to the City Administrator Dianne Miller provided a written update on the new runway !airport issues. Councilmember Tilley moved, Councihnember Maguire seconded a motion to recess the regular Council meeting and convene a closed session at 8:05 p.m. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 The regular meeting was reconvened at 8:10 p.m. V Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes June 7, 2005 Page 5 ORAFr Motion was made by Maguire, seconded by Tilley to require the petitioner to post $500 with the City pending the petition appeal regarding the Steeplechase Wetland Replacement Plan. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 VISITORS TO BE HEARD There were no visitors who wished to be heard. Councilmember Tilley moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to adjourn the regular City Council meeting at 8:15 p.m Aye: 5 Nay: 0 Date Administrative Secretary /Deputy City Clerk If you need these minutes in an alternative form such as large print, Braille, audio tape, etc., please contact the City of Eagan, 3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, MN 55122, (651) 675-5000, (TDD phone: (651) 454-8535). The City of Eagan is committed to the policy that all persons have equal access to its programs, services, activities, facilities and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status or status with regard to public assistance. MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 31, 2005 5:30 P.M. EAGAN ROOM - EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER Councihnembers present: Mayor Geagan, Councilmembers Carlson, Fields, Maguire and Tilley. City staff members present: City Administrator Hedges, Assistant to the City Administrator Miller, Director of Administrative Services VanOverbeke, Parks and Recreation Administrative Coordinator Mesko, Superintendent of Parks Olson, Communications Director Garrison, Water Resources Coordinator Macbeth, Community Development Director Hohenstein. I. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Fields moved; Councilmember Maguire seconded a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Aye: 3 Nay: 0 (Councilmember Carlson and Tilley not yet present) II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD There were no visitors to be heard. III. WESCOTT SQUARE PICNIC/PROGRAM SHELTER FUNDING OPTIONS City Administrator Hedges introduced the item noting that on Apri126, 2005, in a joint meeting with APrC, the City Council reviewed the 2005 Pazks CIP Projects. At that time, a decision regarding the inclusion of a sun shelter for Wescott Commons Park was postponed pending staff discussion with the Wescott Common Owners Association regarding a financial contribution towazds the project. Hedges noted that the Wescott Squaze Owners Association has offered to contribute up to 20 percent of the cost of the project (up to a maximum of $6,000). Councilmember Carlson arrived at 5:35 p.m. Superintendent of Parks Olson and Parks and Recreation Administrative Coordinator Mesko provided an overview of the various options associated with the shelter, including the use of CDBG funds. Upon City Council discussion, the City Council directed staff to proceed with a 24 foot picnic shelter at Wescott Commons Park, which is to be added to the June 7, 2005 City Council agenda for formal consideration. 8 IV. SCHOOL DISTRICT 196 FIBER PROJECT City Administrator Hedges introduced the item noting that at the February 1, 2005 City Council meeting, conceptual approval was given to a joint powers agreement for development of a fiber project between the cities of Eagan, Apple Valley, Burnsville, Dakota County and Independent School District 196. Hedges also noted that ISD 196 is undertaking the project to develop a high speed fiber optic network with connections to all of its schools in order to improve its communications capacity and capability. The district is financing the project through the recently approved bond issue. Director of Administrative Services VanOverbeke and Communications Director Garrison reviewed the various options and cost impacts associated with the fiber project. Councihnember Tilley arrived at 6:10 p.m. The City Council discussed fiber use and connectivity issues. VanOverbeke noted that at a minimum, it is staff's recommendation that the City connect City Hall to the Western Service Center in Apple Valley to hook into a major state hub to relay and receive important data to the state, including the Bweau of Criminal Apprehension. The City Council further discussed the current market for fiber connectivity. The City Council voiced many questions to be responded to prior to bringing this item back for formal consideration at a regular City Council meeting. Questions included: costs to administer the program, timeline for payback, business plan options, ability to wholesale the service, and the role that this project would play with regard to futwe technology (e.g. WiMax). The City Council directed that staff share responses to these questions with representatives from the advisory commissions in order to receive further feedback on the options available to the City. The Council also directed that staff focus primarily on options 3 and 4, with option 3 providing a fiber loop to connect Fire Stations 3 and 4 to City Hall and connect City Hall to the Western Service Center, and option 4 would provide the City with an additional 12 strands of fiber and separate conduit controls. Option 4, as noted by Communications Director Garrison, would prepare the City for futwe fiber needs that would be completely City owned and controlled. The Council also requested that when the item is brought back to the Council, that staff include maps showing the location of the proposed fiber loops. V. CENTRAL PARK PLAYGROUND DISCUSSION City Administrator Hedges introduced the item noting that on April 26; 2005, in a joint meeting with the APrC, the City Council reviewed the 2005 Parks CIP projects. At that time, City Administrator Hedges noted that staff was directed to bring back additional information to the Council regarding the potential location, costs, and description of a playground to be placed within Central Park. Superintendent of Parks Olson provided an overview of the various options for the placement of a playground at Central Park. The City Council discussed the site options and whether a playground was an appropriate land use at Central Park. Mazgo Danner, Eagan resident and member of the 4~h of July Site Committee, offered her input with regards to the playground structure. Ms. Danner noted that the Committee preferred site No. 2 as it would be less obtrusive to 4`h of July festival functions. 9 Terry Davis, Chair of the APrC, offered feedback from the APrC perspective. Upon discussing the various site options, there was City Council consensus that staff should stake the various site options on the Central Pazk grounds in order that the City Council can visit the sites. The Council also directed that staffprepaze a memo summarizing the various sites that were considered by staff and APrC. City Administrator Hedges note that this item would be brought back to the Council for further consideration. . VI. LOCAL ORDINANCE IN LIEU OF MN WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT City Administrator Hedges introduced the item noting that in January and February of 2005, the APrC and the Natural Resources Subcommittee considered the possible development of a Wetland Protection and Management Plan, which would result in a local ordinance. Hedges added that this approach would enable the City to manage wetlands consistent with, but in lieu of, Wetland Conservation Act rules. On Apri126, 2005, in a joint meeting with the APrC, the City Council reviewed the preliminary recommendation of the APrC and directed staff to draft a request for proposal to develop a comprehensive Wetland Protection and Management Plan. Parks and Recreation Administrative Coordinator Mesko and Water Resource Coordinator Macbeth provided an overview of the possible Wetland Protection Management Plan. Macbeth provided an overview of the draft request for proposal as well as the advantages and disadvantages of a local program in lieu of the Wetland Conservation Act requirements. The City Council discussed the plan as well as other storm water management issues such as alum dosing and the current state of JP-47. There was City Council consensus to direct further consideration of the Wetland Protection and Management Plan to a meeting of the Public Works Committee on Tuesday, June 7 at 4:00 p.m. The Council also directed staff, following the Public Works Committee meeting, to proceed with the request for proposals. VII.2006 GENERAL FUND BUDGET UPDATE City Administrator Hedges introduced the item noting that in early May, staff began the 2006 budget process. Hedges added that budget proposals are due on June 17, 2005 and will be reviewed in meetings in late June and early July. Consistent with past practice and as a starting point, Hedges noted that Directors have been instructed to target an inflationary 3 percent increase or less in each division or department. The City Council discussed the upcoming 2006 budget and the possibility of considering a zero percent budget. There was discussion regarding contracts and fixed costs within the City. The City Council inquired as to how the Organizational Study will affect the 2006 budget. City Administrator Hedges noted that further budget updates would be forthcoming. /D VIII. REVIEW 2005-2006 CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PROGRAM City Administrator Hedges introduced the item noting that in keeping with the Council's direction from their 2005 goals retreat, an update on the Council's goals and work directives have been provided for the Council's review. Councilmember Fields noted that she would like to discuss the City's current standards with regard to front yard fencing at the upcoming Public Works Committee meeting. IX. OTHER BUSINESS Councilmember Carlson inquired about the yield sign at the intersection of Crestridge Drive and Denmark Avenue. City Administrator Hedges noted that he would forward the issue to Public Works Director Colbert for a response as to whether stop signs are merited at that location. X. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Maguire moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:10 p.m. // MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL RETREAT MAY 24, 2005 5:30 P.M. MOONSHINE PARK RETREAT CENTER I. AGENDA ADOPTION By consensus of the City Council, the agenda for the retreat included: 1.) Discussion regarding 2005-2006 City Council goals; 2.) Advisory Commission roles and responsibilities; and, 3.) Other Business. II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD There were no visitors to be heard. III. TOUR OF CEDAR GROVE REDEVELOPMENT AREA The City Council began their retreat with a tour of the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area. The Council participated in the tour of Cedar Grove from 5:30 p.m. to 6:40 p.m. IV. CONTINUED DISCUSSION REGARDING 2005-2006 CITY COUNCIL GOALS Upon returning from the tour of the Cedar Grove area, the City Council discussed an upcoming meeting with Tom Weaver and Peter Bell of the Metropolitan Council. Mayor Geagan and Councihnember Fields agreed to attend the meeting with City Administrator Hedges. City Administrator Hedges distributed correspondence that arrived at City Hall to each of the City Councilmembers from Lund, Jensen, Sullivan and Peterson regarding the position of the Carriage Hills Coalition. Council Goals. The City Council discussed the progress being made on the 2005-2006 City V. CLOSED SESSION At 7:10 p.m. the City Council contacted Attorney George Hoff via telephone to discuss the on-going litigation of Ray Rahn/Wensmann Homes v. the City of Eagan. Mr. Hoff stated that pursuant to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, the City of Eagan has the right under attorney/client privileges to discuss Ray Rahn/Wensmann Homes v. the City of Eagan in closed session. /~ Councilmember Maguire moved; Councihnember Fields seconded a motion to enter into Closed Session. Aye: 5, Nay: 0 The City Council concluded the Closed Session at 8:00 p.m. VI. ADVISORY COMMISSION/ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The City Council discussed the role of the Economic Development Commission (EDC) and feedback received from EDC members during the advisory commission applicant interviews. The City Council recommended that Mayor Geagan meet with EDC member Wayne Gilbert in order to share Council feedback regarding the role of the EDC. VII.OTHER BUSINESS City Administrator Hedges provided an update on the Ciry's Organizational Study. Hedges noted that the study is a working document being used as a guide by the City's Senior Management Team. Hedges provided a summary of the recommendations made within the Organizational Study. There was City Council consensus to proceed with the recommendations outlined by Virchow Krause with regard to the Parks and Recreation Department. City Administrator Hedges distributed a letter from attorney Steven Baker regarding police authority to park in front of Eagan businesses for the purpose of running radar. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The retreat adjourned at 8:50 p.m. /3 Agenda Information Memo June 21, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting B. PERSONNEL ITEMS Item 1. Seasonal Parks Maintenance Workers-- ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve the hiring of Matthew Steele and Andrew Paul as seasonal parks maintenance workers. Item 2. Seasonal Landscape Crew Worker-- ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve hiring of Lindsey Taylor as a seasonal landscape crew worker. Item 3. Seasonal Utilities Maintenance Workers-- ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve hiring of Michael Graves and Mark Gadient as seasonal utilities maintenance workers. Item 4. Part-time Seasonal Recreation Assistants (Emcee & Special Events)-- ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve hiring of Mary Schlender and James Snodgrass aspart-time seasonal recreation assistants (emcee & special events). Item 5. Part-time Seasonal Program Assistant (Tennis Program)-- ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve hiring of Mandy Wineberg as a part-time seasonal program assistant (tennis program). Item 6. Part-time Seasonal Tennis Instructors-- ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve the hiring of Michelle Collette, Chris Donahue, Peter Fredricksen, Sarah Hartmann, Derek Hoffman, Samantha Freund, Kevin Hu and Iosif Sorokin as part-time seasonal tennis instructors. /~ Agenda Information Memo June 21, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting C. RATIFY CHECK REGISTERS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To ratify the check registers dated June 9, 2005 and June 16, 2005 as presented. FACTS: • At the June 7 meeting the City Council directed that Eagan Charter Commission expenses will be reimbursed by the City on an invoice basis upon approval by the City Council. • Enclosed on page ~_ is a copy of an email from Betty Fedde, Eagan Charter Commission Secretary, requesting reimbursement for a Charter Commission expense. • Through the normal course of business a check has been produced, but will not be released without Council approval. That approval will be considered through action on the check register (dated 6-16-OS for the subject invoice). If the City Council would like to deny payment, the claim should be removed before the check register is approved. ATTACHMENTS: • Check registers dated June 9, 2005 and June I6, 2005 are enclosed without page number. • E-mail from Betty Fedde (referenced above). /s" Page 1 of 1 Gene VanOverbeke From: Betty Fedde [beftyf@ironwoodelectronics.com] Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 8:45 AM To: Gene VanOverbeke Cc: 'Jon Fedde' Subject: Request for check June 10, 2005 From: Eagan Charter Commission Betsy Fedde, Sec. 1662 Norwood Drive Eagan, MN 55122 To: Gene VanOverbeke City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Amount: $42.16 Payee: Betty Fedde 1662 Norwood Drive Eagan, MN 55122 Re: Web site and domain name for 1 year through Go Daddy.com. I have copies of receipt available. Please process and have available as soon as possible. !will present the receipt when i pick up the check. This expenditure per Minnesota statute 410 is a reasonable and necessary charter commission expense and has been approved for payment by the Eagan Charter Commssion. Betty Fedde Secretary Eagan Charter Commission 6/16/2005 /~ Agenda Review Memo Regular City Council Meeting June 21, 2005 CONSENT AGENDA D. Tree Maintenance Contractor Licenses - A+ Tree Service and Prime Cut Tree Service ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve Tree Maintenance Contractor Licenses for A+ Tree Service, 3446 Queen Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN and Prime Cut Tree Service, 87 Acker Street, St. Paul, MN FACTS: All requirements of the tree maintenance contractor license applications have been met by both applicants. Staff deems the licenses in order for approval. ATTACHMENTS: • None /~ Agenda Review Memo Regular City Council Meeting June 21, 2005 CONSENT AGENDA E. Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo for the Eagan Foundation ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Adopt resolution approving application to conduct excluded bingo for the Eagan Foundation, Inc. on July 2-4, 2005 at Central Park in Eagan. FACTS: • The Eagan Foundation, Inc. has applied to conduct excluded bingo with the Minnesota Gambling Control Board (MGCB) at Central Park during the July 4th celebration. • Approval of the application by the MGCB requires local government approval. • All requirements of the application have been met. • The Police Department has reviewed the application and sees no reason to deny. ATTACHMENTS: • A copy of the Eagan Foundation's application is attached without page number. • A copy of the proposed resolution is attached as page ~. /8 RESOLUTION CITY OF EAGAN GAMBLING CONTROL BOARD EXCLUDED BINGO PERMIT FOR THE EAGAN FOUNDATION WHEREAS, the Eagan Foundation has applied for a Gambling Control Board Excluded Bingo Permit for July 2-4, 2005 at Central Park in Eagan. WHEREAS, the Eagan Police Department has reviewed the application and has not identified any reason to deny; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, hereby approves the Eagan Foundation application for a Excluded Bingo Permit for July 2-4, 2005 at Central Park. Motion by: Seconded by: CITY OF EAGAN CITY COUNCIL By: It's Mayor Those in Favor: ALL MEMBERS VOTEDIN FAVOR Those Against: NONE Attest: Date: June 15, 2005 CERTIFICATION It's Clerk I, Maria Petersen, Clerk of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, in a regular meeting thereof assembled this 21st day of June, 2005. Maria Petersen, Clerk /9 Agenda Information Memo June 21, 2005 Eagan City Council F. FINAL SUBDIVISION (HOMESTEAD VILLAGE) & FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - MANLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve a Final Planned Development for 9 twin homes (18 units) upon 7.3 acres located at 500 Gun Club Road in the SE'/4 of Section 36. To approve a Final Subdivision (Homestead Village) to create 18 lots and one outlot for atwin- home development upon 7.3 acres located at 500 Gun Club Road in the SE'/4 of Section 36. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Councilmembers present FACTS: - The Preliminary Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision were approved January 18, 2005. - All documents and Agreements are anticipated to be signed and in order for execution at the regular meeting of the City Council. ATTACHMENTS (1): Final Plat, page ao 1 6 ; {°E ~ (9 Ci.. 2I ~~ %•aq 4S Fi a fie i ~ S~C~ ~ y s ~ ~ R ;e }~j{413 ~ 3 ~ zn6 s rya g ~~ ia~^ 9! as`SF^'_ €~ ~ ~ see €$ j ~ ~~§9 i ES ~ ~§Yljf ~ I: . e Pt ~ i e d gE=•_~ a >'fi ~ $a~ 6$ ;. $ 3,~ ~ ~ ~ n./ ~A~~ ~~ 4 ea€j8R 9g ~~ i f!s;iBFF ]} i; c' j s' >f F+~-t1 ° p [ 3}5^SR _t i ~. € ~ fii§el R~ I ~ ~ Q ~ ° ~ S§ W fa~ _ ~- P g ~a l ~. F 5;;.."''~e s e$°s fe ; € Y;%:j$ 89 :a I ~ li ,~ $ L1-1 b °e e, i• e j2 ~ _ €§ $BsyS €tb 5 ~E i i N fled E$- ~ 3y ~£ s i§?~s. ~ 5~ ~ e8R b ~ I ., '('{{=I al at Y S~E 15~g~ ~ § a fag §i~`y 3pg[ i j R p ~ ~! a:` 5~3 s ~ ~';8 i~ ~ gy {#~.fil i ~gE~ tl ~ A ~ l >E $ Q g~a ;{,;~:~~ r j:f ~E ~M =`~ s~fs%! b~ i l ~ ~~ 3 t I g~ iy:f g ~ ~+ da E~d;$Ef= ~ a ~~e an ~ k~ a#: `#3se~ `G~ ~a ~ i9~ ~ 2: 3 g~ ~ b `? ~ W _ ~ I._a I I a I l a ~a~ I-: h-I I ii ~ I I =-~= I I-ci,~h_ I ..viii..... I `~ I w.c, ~_'-.y.^.. =c i> .n...i - clr-li~~ I s OO•IhY ~~~~•~,,• ~•~•.,•.,~;~. aez,eaoos a I s i°tO-.oaH I OOYIZ M.YZA6O0N~~ A 3f1N311V 3NAWJSIB A a I W__ _ ~ ~~- ~ ~ ~_00_°S__ __00_°_°_~ r_____ ____________°_________~ 8 T T-------;~ 1 1 I i or a ~ u ~ lunun ° ~nrs`o'~ ~ x Toi ~ I a i i^ '~ er1 J - I I n .- b 8 , I I I I I I r\ ~ l` ~~ \~ R` ^ I , 1 nl ~ n ~ I I~` ^ ~ ice/ °p>'nb \`. F S I°, a l B I I$ A i ~m° by n 8~ r` ~. r \M \\\,¢~, I ~± 4 •..w Jw o~~---- ----- I `----- ---- t~~~ ~G~'~ nl ^• / 20 Q ,& I ~\ eai~'+E' ooa aoa , ro~ rs ° .'+",A `?~ n .i W ~ ~~\ `, ~, a °.1,; sa~~ -%l -- lZ!(1O.7 SNWLLa .. ~~%-~ ~1 D.+% d °v lU ~ ~ ,/ 4j° ~.iF 411KY~lE_- ^ ~ .Cat 0020 `(C/§ \i> HO.9YN^111!`N l 'r ., ~ /~~l .Tri~~ I ~,~~ ~ }~ ~Y6 i mY i 9i. r l 1 1 ' I I CI L _~~ 4- ~,\` \~4 ~ nS1 •.^~~O T1~ 5 I I+I A I la n _ 1 4477 <J ny y~ $9, I - I I~ 1 O ,) h- ~ ;'`;111 ~~ a+i\°,N ol~Li n s m I Is Ol ~ I I ~^ s °N., I O E -- .. C> pJ•b \kR a .a I 1~ i F~~~ t~Ply I ~' ~ T_______ __,o __J L_____ _n-___~ .p_2•IC•••^911 . ________~ 3 'J' F ' _ se N ^ •1.~WiN _ ___ _____ /,~~ I . I I I I I I a __- - ~s~ i ~~ IY I _- -11 11? ~ .~. 1 Itl R j p/ ~ I I^ rr I I_ ! I c Y '• Pe ~ 1 1: I I: 1 % ~ f ~ q, ~t:~~' 1 1~ I I' ~ 1 w I \ • 60'n OOIX 00'04 j #~e iW r ~ Y OO'SSB (SY3Y1) M.ECALOON (IYICCI 'ON 17i1O) 3.Zf.8O.0ON ~ 8 r-- - --r---- ~ ., ~ I I ~ ~ I a a~% i+ a ~~ u <_ _j~ Q .~ b ~ j1. x yE~ .: ~ls.a.p n. corsox. ~ _ !_ _ __J ~Fg ~ `S3 a (j@ ~~.~~ R'FF9 ah2 a1~91R1'M WJJ)WN.! ,y'Cl i ---• - i - -- I n~ rr $ <~ T- , f~~~ ~ $3 ~as~ ~~~ iN =^ I• i ~` . I ~• ` I . ?w l a6„~ d '<& Yi~ Y a~~t b ~ ~~ ,~ ~ ~~ o1_J C~a a N8C ~p~~1Y'p 5€h% a ai Agenda Information Memo June 21, 2005, Eagan City Council Meeting G. DIRECT PREPARATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING BOND REQUIItEMENTS FOR WETLAND APPEALS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To direct the preparation of an Ordinance Amendment regarding a financial security requirement for wetland appeals. FACTS: - In accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act, the City of Eagan regularly reviews wetland replacement plans associated with development or construction projects. Rules associated with the Act permit certain parties to file appeals of local government decisions to the Board of Water and Soil Resources in that regard. - The rules also permit the City to require the posting of a financial security not to exceed $500 by the party(ies) appealing the decision. If the Board determines that the appeal should proceed, the deposit is to be returned to the appellant. If the Board determines that the appeal lacks merit, is trivial or brought solely for the purposes of delay, the deposit is retained by the City. - The City has previously set the $500 amount for this purpose in the adoption of its fee schedule. The City Attorney is recommending that reference to this amount and purpose be incorporated in the City Code. - Some City Council members have indicated an interest in felting this step at this time. The City's standard procedure is to place such items on a regulaz agenda for formal direction to prepare an ordinance. ATTACffiVIENTS: City Attorney's memo on page __SZ~ as SEVERSON, SHELDON, DOUGHERTY & MOLENDA, P.A. TO: Tom Hedges, City Administrator FROM: Michael G. Dougherty, City Attorney DATE: June 16, 2005 RE: Wetland Conservation Act -Security Upon Appeal As I discussed with the City Council at the last Council meeting, Chapter 8420 of the Minnesota Rules implements the Wetland Conservation Act. Pursuant to Rule 8420.0250, subpart 1, the decision of the City to approve or reject replacement plans, exemptions, wetland boundaries, etc. becomes final if not appealed to the Board of Water and Soil Resources within 30 days after the date upon which the decision is mailed to those required to receive notice of the decision. An appeal may be made by the landowner, those required to receive notice or by 100 residents of the county in which a majority of the wetland is located. Rule 8420.0250 allows the City of Eagan, upon the receipt of a petition for appeal, to require the petitioner to post a letter of credit, cashier's check or cash in an amount not to exceed $500.00 per appeal. The amount posted must be returned to the petitioner unless there is a finding by the Board under Rule 8420.0250, subpart 3 that the appeal lacks merit, is trivial or brought solely for the purposes of delay. It is our office's recommendation that the. City Council adopt an ordinance requiring the payment of $500.00 upon the receipt by the City of a petition. In its 2005 Fee Schedule, the Council adopted the $500.00 to be paid upon receipt of a petition; however, there is no provision in the Code specifically addressing the nature or the terms and conditions of the security. The adoption of a Code provision will provide consistency in the processing of appeals. MGD/j It a3 Agenda Information Memo June 21, 2005 City Council Meeting H. APPROVE A NO-LOSS DECISION, OR NO NEGATIVE IMPACT, TO A WETLAND AREA AT 897 HYLAND COURT ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve a no-loss decision to a wetland area at 897 Hyland Court. FACTS: • Timothy and Monica Nelson of 897 Hyland Court are proposing a landscape redesign in a very small shallow wetland area in their back yard that abuts Wescott Road on the south. • The project has been reviewed by Water Resources Coordinator Macbeth and determined that the project will result in no negative impact to the wetland area. • The drainage easement from neighboring lands has been left intact. • Pursuant to the state rules, once the City Council makes a decision on this wetland, a public notice of the decision will be required per the state rules. • The project includes the planting of 13 trees, various native MN flowers and grasses, shrubs and bushes in this very small shallow wetland area. ATTACHMENTS: None a s~ Agenda Review Memo Regular City Council Meeting June 21, 2005 CONSENT AGENDA I. Amendment to April 19, 2005 City Council minutes ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve amendment to the April 19, 2005 City Council minutes on page three as follows: Councilmember Maguire moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to approve the Wetland Replacement Plan with TEP recommendation dated March 7, 2005. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 FACTS: At the April 19, 2005 City Council meeting, Council discussed the wetland replacement plan for the proposed Steeplechase development. A motion was made to approve the plan with TEP recommendation dated March 7, 2005. The minutes inadvertently reflected the date as February 15, 2005. ATTACHMENTS: • A copy of the amended minutes (page 3) is attached as page number C 0'1~' _ Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes April 19, 2005 Page 3 Councilmember Maguire moved, Councihnember Tilley seconded a motion to approve the Final Assessment Roll for Project 800R (Cedar Grove Access Modifications) and authorize its certification to Dakota County for Collection and authorize a deferment of collection subject to execution of the required deferment agreement. Parcel K (PID 10-44450-090-01) was excluded from the assessment roll. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 OLD BUSINESS CONFIRM EAW ADEQUACY, WETLAND REPLACEMENT, REZONING, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (STEEPLECHASE) -TOLL BROTHERS City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding an EAW, wetland replacement plan, rezoning, preliminary subdivision and preliminary planned development for property located at 4889 Pilot Knob Road. City Planner Ridley gave a staff report. Public Works Director Colbert discussed the proposed roadway network system. Eric Macbeth, Water Resources Coordinator, discussed the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) review of the wetland replacement plan. Joey Zorn, Toll Brothers, discussed the revised plans for the proposed townhouse units. Councihnembers and Mr. Zorn discussed the proposed townhome front setbacks as portions of some cars parked in driveways may encroach into the public right of way. Fifteen residents of the area spoke expressing concerns in regard to the extension of Wellington Way to Pilot Knob Road; possible emergency access via a bike path; traffic related concerns; lack of notification of original buyers of property on Wellington Way that a future connection to Pilot Knob Road was planned; the EAW and the wetland replacement plan; high water mark; tree loss; the conservation easement and legal protection should damage occur to the pond (LP7.2). An attorney representing the neighborhood discussed his opinion in regard the inadequacy of the wetland replacement plan. Four residents spoke in favor of the connection of Wellington Way to Pilot Knob Road. Staff responded to questions raised by the residents. The City Attorney addressed liability concerns in regard to pond LP7.2. Councihnembers discussed the issues raised by the residents which included a detailed discussion of the proposed Wellington Way extension. The recommendation of the Dakota County Plat Comnussion was also discussed. The Council determined that the Wellington Way connection was necessary to respond to Dakota County and the larger area. Councilmember Fields discussed the need for traffic calming and limiting construction traffic. Councilmember Tilley moved, Councilmember Maguire seconded a motion to confirm the adequacy of the Steeplechase EAW. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 `~ Councilmember Maguire moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to approve the Wetland Replacement ~-^ !/ Plan with TEP recommendation dated March 7, 2005. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 '\ Councilmember Tilley moved, Councilmember Carlson seconded a motion to approve a Rezoning of 37 acres located at 4889 Pilot Knob Road from A, Agriculture to PD, Planned Development . Aye: 5 Nay: 0 Councilmember Tilley moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to approve a Preliminary Subdivision (Steeplechase of Eagan) to create 561ots and a Variance to the cul-de-sac length (650' and 800') for property located at 4889 Pilot Knob Road, subject to the following conditions: Aye: 5 Nay: 0 1. The developer shall comply with these standards conditions of plat approval as adopted by Council on February 2, 1993: A1, B1,2,3,4, C1,2,3 D1, and E1 2. The property shall be platted. 3. The site shall be graded to maintain slopes of 3:1 or gentler on graded slopes. 4. All retaining walls shall be located on private property, outside of public right-of--way, and maintained privately by property owners. 5. The developer shall be responsible for installing and maintaining erosion control measures in accordance with City engineering standards. V Agenda Memo June 21, 2005 J. CONTRACT 04-07, LEXINGTON RIDGE COURT STREET IMPROVEMENTS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve Change Order #3, Contract 04-07 (Lexington Ridge Court -Street Improvements) and authorize the Mayor and Deputy City Clerk to execute all related documents. FACTS: ~ Contract 04-07 provides for the public street improvements within the LexingtonlDiffley Athletic Facilities to serve the Lexington Ridge development (City Project No. 906). • Change Order No. 3 provides for the further extension of the overall contract completion date. The change order revises the final completion date from June 15, 2005 to August 1, 2005. • This change order will allow the further completion of the concrete and other heavy construction activities for the private improvements within the Lexington Ridge subdivision .prior to the placement of the final wear course for the street improvement within Lexington/Diffley Paxk. • This change order does not change original contract amount. • This change order has been reviewed by the Engineering and Parks Departments and found to be in order for favorable Council consideration. a~ Agenda Information Memo June 21, 2005 PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PROJECT 813, CENTRAL PARKWAY - STREETSCAPING FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve the Final Assessment Roll for Project 813 (Central Parkway - Streetscaping Improvements) and authorize its certification to Dakota County for collection. FACTS: • Project 813 provided for the installation of streetscaping elements, including boulevard and median landscaping, street and pedestrian way lighting, entrance and linear monumentation, etc., along Central Parkway as outlined and discussed in the feasibility report. • The final assessment roll was presented to the City Council on May 17, 2005, with a public hearing being scheduled for June 21 to formally present the final costs associated with this public improvement to the affected benefiting properties. The final assessments are approximately 37% less than the estimate contained in the Feasibility Report presented at the Public Hearing held on May 7, 2002. • Of the 5 parcels proposed to be assessed under this project, one is owned by the City and will be financed by the Community Center Enterprise Fund ($268,204). Two others have waived their rights to the special assessment hearing and objection process as part of their development agreement for the Eagan Preserve (Argosy University and Duke Realty - $331,824). The last 2 parcels owned by Lockheed Martin have had their proportionate assessment obligation limited to $155,677 by an appraisal. They have submitted an objection to this proposed assessment. The City's Major Street Fund will finance all remaining costs ($444,350). • All notices have been published in the legal newspaper and sent to all affected property owners informing them of their proposed final assessment and this public hearing. ATTACHMENTS: • Final Assessment Report, pa es ~ / throu h ~. • Letter of Objection, pages & ~. a~ FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING PROJECT HEARING DATES NUMBER - Project 813 ASSESSMENT - June 21.2005 NAME - Central Parkway IMPROVEMENT- Ma~7, 2002 Streetscape Improvements IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED AND/OR ASSESSED F.R.=Feasiblity Report FINAL F.R. RATE RATE UNITS SANITARY STORM SEWER SEWER ^ Trunk ^ Trunk ^ Lateral ^ Service ^ Lat. BenefiUtrunk WATER STREET ^ Trunk ^ Gravel Base ^ Lateral H Central Parkway Streetscape ^ Service PF & CI O CI-Appraisal ^ Lat. Benefit/trunk ^ WAC ^ C/I Equiv. ^ TraiUSidewalk OTHER STREET LIGHTS Completion ^ Installation O EnerQV Charge FINAL F.R. RATE RATE U1VIT5 L_F. $207.91 $175.72 /F.F. .07 /Sq Ft CONTRACT NO.OF INTEREST AMOUNT CITY NO. PARCELS TERMS RATE ASSESSED FINANCED $779,320 F.R. $226,680 F.R. 02-17 4 15 Years 4.50% $487,500.93 $712,554.49 COMMENTS: a9 MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: GERALD R. WOBSCHALL, FINANCIAL CONSULTANT DATE: May 24, 2005 SUBJECT: FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL, PROJECT 813 STREETS AND UTILITIES The City Council at the conclusion of the public hearings on May 7, 2002 ordered Project 813. According to the feasibility report, the streetscape improvement was to be constructed and assessed. In the feasibility report, it was proposed to assess the streetscape improvement using a linear method of assessment. The construction of the improvement was accomplished under Contract 02-17, which has been completed. The assessment hearing is scheduled for June 21, 2005. The following information was used in the preparation of the assessment roll. I. PROJECT COST The construction cost includes the amount of $905,331.51 paid to the contractors for the construction of the following detailed improvements. Other costs which consist of engineering, design, contract management, inspections, financing, legal, bonding, administration, and other totaling $294,326.71 and easement costs totaling $397.20 were incurred resulting in an improvement and project cost of $1,200,055.42. The detail of these other costs is provided on Schedule I. These other costs are allocated to the improvements constructed in order to determine the cost of each improvement and the assessment rate. IMPROVEMENT streetscape Improvement Costs Total CONSTRUCTION COST $905,331.51 $905,331.51 OTHER COSTS & EASEMENTS $294,723.91 $294,723.91 IMPROVEMENT COST $1,200,055.42 $1,200,055.42 II. ASSESSMENTS A. TRUNK ASSESSMENTS No trunk utility improvements were proposed in the feasibility study, therefore, no trunk utility assessments are proposed in this assessment roll. 2 3U B. UTILITY LATERAL AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS 1. Streetscape Improvement The streetscape improvements to Central Parkway were extended from Yankee Doodle Road to Pilot Knob Road . The construction cost was $905,331.51. Other costs in the amount of $294,326.71 and easement costs in the amount of $397.20 were allocated to the construction costs resulting in an improvement and assessable cost of $1,200,055.42. The resulting cost of $1,200,055.42 is assessable to the benefited parcels. The feasibility report called for this improvement to be assessed using a linear method to the abutting property. IMPROVEMENT COST ASSESSABLE UNITS ASSESSMENT RATE $1,200,055.42 5,772 F.F. $207.91/F.F. The assessment for the Duke Realty and Argosy University properties will be allocated to the respective properties based on existing agreements. The Lockheed Martin assessment is based upon an independent appraisers report estimates that the property is benefited in the amount of $.07 per squaze foot. This assessment rate is used to determine the proposed assessment for the Lockheed Martin properties. The Community Center property is proposed to be pay for its proportionate share of costs based upon its frontage abutting the improvement. C. ASSESSMENT TERMS The assessments are proposed for a term of 15 years. The interest rate is 4.50% per annum on the unpaid balance. III. CITY REVENUES (RESPONSIBILITY) IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT CITY IMPROVEMENT COST REVENUE (RESPONSIBILITY) Streetscape Costs $1,200,055.42 $487,500.93 $(712,554.49) TOTAL $1,200,055.42 $487,500.93 $(712,554.49) 3 3/ The following City Funds will provide noted financing of the City Responsibilities for the Projects 813. FUND AMOUNT Major Street Fund $444,350.09 Community Center Utility 268,203.90 Enterprise TOTAL $712,554.49 Gerald R. W Reviewed Reviewed jG~---- ~ .~ ~ Public Works Department Finance to - i 4 -off ~ ` (~ -t~,J Dated Dated cc: Thomas A. Colbert, Director of Public Works Mike Daugherty, City Attorney Sue Sheridan, Accountant I 4 3a 0 Ln n w J d U 7 ~P Pd (6 N .~ Q ~' Z Q w: W ''= ~ ~ ~- ti W o J o ~} 69 '_ O U C (6 C 4:- L ~--+ U '~-: .~ ~- a~ •~ rn ~: ~ t` ~ N O ~ UU C4£ '02i 'A10) 'a?~ 80N~1 lO~id ~~~~`~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ s 2 ~ ~ s,. ~ _ ,..... ~ ~ ~ ~ i >~ f ~~ ~o N 0 U .D ~~ w J 0 O O W W Y Z Q i ~x W Z ~ M W `- ~ ~ ~ ~ Q U Q~ Y ~ ~ ~ QJ U LC I- Z ~ W 3 U ti H Z W f H y W N y a i ch m a s Y i d a i d U ('~ ~ ~o m N C•'a ~ e ~ c ~ -~ ~ c a '~ ~ W Combined Assessment Roll SA_NBR 1OP813 PID ADDITION NAME 10-22471-010-01 EAGAN PRESERVE 10-22471-010-02 EAGAN PRESERVE 10-79951-010-01 UNISYS PARK 2ND ADD 10-79951-028-01 UNISYS PARK 2ND ADD Summary for 'SA_NBR' = 10P813 (4 detail records) Sum Tuesday, June 14, 2005 Estimated Streetscape Total Assessment Variance $232,277.05 $232,277.05 $196,315.00 ($35,962.05) $99,547.31 $99,547.31 $84,135.00 ($15,412.31) $152,779.83 $152,779.83 $498,870.00 $346,090.17 $2,896.74 $2,896.74 $0.00 ($2,896.74) $487,500.93 $487,500.93 $779,320.00 $291,819.07 Page 1 of 1 3y Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems c~ Sensors P.O. Box 64525 MS U2D17 St. Paul, MN 5516-~-0525 Telephone 651.456.3466 Facsimile 651.456.2073 E-mail kevin.c.darrenkamp@Lnco.com DDom~.. T LOCII~I EED MA Kevin C. Darrenkamp 1~CE1 V ~~ General Counsel JUN 1 6 2005 MS2 Tactical Systems June 16, 2005 City Clerk , City of Egan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122-1897 VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY RT/1!l RE: Project 813 -Central Parkway Project -Streetscaping and Lighting Improvements Lockheed Martin Corporation, by and through its Maritime Systems and Sensors' Tactical Systems business unit ("Lockheed Martin"), is the owner of certain property located at 3333 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, Minnesota 55121 (also known as Lot 1, Block 1, Unisys Park 2"d Addition). Lockheed Martin objects to the proposed assessment against its property for Streetscaping and lighting improvements (Project No. 813), in the amount of $155,676.57, as set forth in Russ Mathys' June 6, 2005 letter to Louis Hardwerk of Lockheed Martin for the following reasons: 1. In accordance with paragraph 11 of the Easement Acquisition and Exchange Agreement ("Agreement") entered into between the parties on December 27, 2001, "[Lockheed Martin] will not be assessed any other costs related to the Project or to the Community Center/Central Park Project." For your convenience, a copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. a. The fact that the Agreement defines "Project" as Project 7901 is irrelevant inasmuch as Project 813 is simply a continuation of Project 790 and, in any event, would be considered related to the Community Center/Central Park Project. b. The elements of Project 813 were merely removed from Project 790 and assigned a new project number as evidenced by the deletion of Figures 4 (Proposed Landscaped Typical Section) and 4a (Heavily-Landscaped Median Option) from the December 2000 Feasibility Study and Report for Central Parkway City Project No. 790R. See, Exhibits 2 (December 2000 Feasibility Study) and 3 (February 2002 Amended Feasibility Study). c. The Introduction to the. Design and Feasibility Study and Report for Central Parkway Streetscape and Lighting City Project No. 813 states, in part, that the "report has been prepared to provide the City of Eagan information to consider streetscaping improvements for Central Parkway (Project 790R) ...." (emphasis added). ' Any reference to Project 790 also includes its amendment as reflected Amended Feasibility Study and Report for Central Parkway City Project No. 790R. ~~ City Clerk, City of Eagan June 16, 2005 Page 2 d. City of Eagan officials have verbally represented to Lockheed Martin representatives on several occasions that Project 813 is a continuation of Project 790. 2. Upon information and belief, the City of Eagan concurred with Lockheed Martin's previous objection it filed on May 3, 2002. See, Exhibit 4. ~ 3. Although Lockheed Martin has not yet had an appraisal made of the benefit (i.e., increase in property value), if any, which its property has experienced from the Central Parkway Project, if the City approves the assessment against our property, we will have an appraisal made. In addition to the other reasons for our objection as set forth above, at this time Lockheed Martin also believes that an assessment of $155,676.57 against its property will substantially exceed the value added to its property by virtue of the Central Parkway Project. ' In accordance with my June 15, 2005 telephone discussion with Mr. Thomas Hedges, Eagan City Administrator, I respectfully request the opportunity to address the City Council at its June 21, 2005 Special Assessment Hearing prior to rendering any decision I in relation to Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin Coy J By Kevin C. Darrenkamp Its: General Counsel, Tactical Systems ends cc: Tamika Nordstrom Jane Marrone Tom Hedges (via personal delivery) 36 Agenda Information Memo June 21, 2005 Regular City Council Meeting OLD BUSINESS A. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO EAGAN CITY CODE 10.10 REGARDING DANGEROUS WEAPONS AND ARTICLES AND EAGAN CITY CODE 10.13 REGARDING TRAPPING REGULATIONS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve (or not approve) ordinance amendments to Eagan City Code 10.10 regarding dangerous weapons and articles and Eagan City Code 10.13 regarding trapping regulations. Facts: • At the March 8, 2005 Special City Council meeting, the police department presented information on the increased number of coyote sightings in the City of Eagan, including a number of attacks on domestic pets. • At the meeting, the police department requested and received City Council approval to work with the City Attorney's office to draft ordinance amendments which would allow the City to: 1) contract for wildlife trapping services performed under the direction and control of the Chief of Police, and 2) allow persons operating under such direction and control to discharge firearms while performing such services. • Since the March 8`h meeting, the Police Department has continued to monitor the situation, while increasing their educational efforts in the community to prevent conflicts between urban wildlife and residents. • Because there has been no appreciable change in the status of this situation since the March 8`h meeting, the Police Department does not recommend that active control measures be implemented at this time. The ordinance amendments, if approved, will provide viable options if necessary to control the number of coyotes within the city. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Amendments to City Code 10.10 and 10.13 are attached on pages ~~ through ~. 3~ DRAFT S. 09.OS ORDINANCE NO. 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA, AMENDING EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER TEN ENTITLED "PUBLIC PROTECTION, CRIMES AND OFFENSES" BY AMENDING SECTION 10.10 REGARDING DANGEROUS WEAPONS AND ARTICLES AND SECTION 10.13 REGARDING TRAPPING REGULATIONS; AND BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 10.99. The City Council of the City of Eagan does ordain: Section 1. Eagan City Code Chapter Ten, Section 10.10, Subd. 4, is hereby amended by adding clause G to read as follows: G. Any person duly appointed and desi agn ted by the Police Chief and issued a special permit or an~law enforcement personnel while in the course of and for the purposes of wildlife management and control at the direction of the Police Chief. For purposes of this clause, the team "wildlife" shall mean wild animals or animals living in a natural, undomesticated condition, including, but not limited to: coyote, skunk, raccoon, possum, bear or fox. Section 2. Eagan City Code Chapter Ten, Section 10.13, Subd. 3, is hereby amended by adding clause E to read as follows: E. Anv person duly appointed and designated by the Police Chief and issued a special permit or any law enforcement personnel while in the course of and for the pumoses of wildlife management and control at the direction of the Police Chief. For pumoses of this clause, the term "wildlife" shall mean wild animals or animals living in a natural, undomesticated condition, including, but not limited to: coyote, skunk, raccoon, possum, bear or fox. Section 3. Eagan City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including 'Penalty for Violation"' and Section 10.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim. Section 4. Effective Date. 'This ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption and publication according to law. 3 8' DRAFT S. 09.05 ATTEST: By: Maria Petersen Its: City Clerk Date Ordinance Adopted: Date Ordinance Published in the Legal Newspaper: a9 CITY OF EAGAN City Council By: Pat Geagan Its: Mayor Agenda Information Memo June 21, 2005, Eagan City Council Meeting B. PARTICIPATION IN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 196 FIBER PROJECT ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve a resolution authorizing participation in the Independent School District 196 fiber project. FACTS: - At the February 1, 2005 City Council meeting conceptual approval was given to a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) for development of a Fiber Project between the Cities of Eagan, Apple Valley, Burnsville, Dakota County, the State of Minnesota, Independent School District 192, Independent School District I94, and Independent School District 196. Approval of the agreement was subject to City Attorney and City Administrator satisfaction which was worked out and the agreement was executed. - The agreement provided that the City of Eagan was committed to the project to the extent necessary to have City interests included in the bidding process as alternatives. Prior to ISD School Board approval of the construction contract, scheduled for June 27, 2005, Eagan and all other entities in the Joint Powers Agreement must make a final determination as to whether or not they desire to participate in the project. ISD 196 will commence construction of their interests in the fiber project with or without other entity alternatives as included in the JPA. - ISD 196 is undertaking the project to develop a fiber optic network with connections to all of its schools in order to improve its communications capacity and capability. The District is financing the project through the recently approved bond referendum. - Bids on the project including 35 alternates were received and opened by ISD196 on May 18. The District, its consultant, and other JPA entities have been analyzing the bids with responses from other entities due by June 2I (a.m. June 22 for Eagan) for inclusion in the Board information for their June 27 meeting. - Eagan is currently connected into the State system through the Comcast institutional network which has limitations including the amount of data that can be sent at any one time. For critical data transmission it is important to have a back-up or redundant option, if a primary transmission route were to suffer a ~{D break. With the project provided for in this Joint Powers Agreement high speed fiber controlled by the City would become the primary connection and the Comcast connection would provide the redundant back-up route for the City. - Availability of the City controlled fiber may also provide some backbone infrastructure for any future wireless connectivity in the Community. - The following alternatives have been considered with the City Council directing at the May 31 meeting that alternatives 1 and 2 be eliminated as stand alone choices and be incorporated with Alternatives 3 & 4, and that more information be gathered on Alternatives 3 and 4: 1. The City of Eagan desires to have a fiber connection to the Western Service Center in Apple Valley which is a major State hub for fiber connectivity. This component is estimated to cost approximately $80,600 through this project with no opportunity for any cost recovery. 2. At an estimated cost of approximately $120,800 Eagan can install a 12-strand fiber loop through Eagan from roughly 120' Street to near Pinewood Elementary up to Wescott Road, over to City Hall and south to the Western Service Center in Apple Valley. This level of participation provides for expansion of future City uses and for cost recovery through subleasing. At the time of the original JPA Eagan's estimated cost was approximately $225,000 to participate in this option. 3. Connections to fire stations 3 & 4 can be added to Alternative 2 at costs of $29,500 and $18,600 respectively. The total Alternative 3 cost is therefore estimated to be $168,900. 4. In addition to Alternative 3 additional conduit can be laid in the trench under complete City ownership at an incremental cost of $171,100 for a total Alternative 4 cost of $340,000. Note: The various alternatives and costs are summarized in the attached table. - The City would be obligated to pay the full cost of the connections to the fire stations -under both Alternatives 3 and 4 and the actual empty conduit cost under Alternative 4, all other costs are prorated. - This partnership and participation in the project provides the City access to the fiber at a cost significantly less than would be incurred on any solo installation. The loop (Alternative 3 minus the fire station connections) is currently estimated to cost Eagan approximately $1.56 per foot in construction costs. Alternative 4 also minus the fire station connections is estimated to cost approximately $4.35 per foot in construction costs. In today's environment independent installation ~~ would typically be in the $10 to $16 per foot range including permitting and other overhead costs. Costs to independently install fiber at such later time as the City needs additional capacity would likely be even more. An expert handling the bidding process for District 196 says he has "never seen better prices." - While Eagan currently needs only two of the 12 strands of fiber it would purchase in the full loop, it already anticipates needing two more strands within the next two years. Establishing this critical infrastructure including the12-strand loop and the empty conduit is in the, City's long-term interests and experts tell us the fiber will likely never be as cheap to install as when the trenches are already open. - Further, this construction provides the City with opportunities to partner with others and/or to sell access to the use of those strands and conduit as well as to provide for the future City operational requirements. - Although the City expected the School District to agree to anon-compete clause so they would not be in competition for the same revenue generation options, the District has subsequently determined that it would not be in their best interest to do so even though they have no current plans to try to generate revenue form the fiber loop and the system is not designed for such District use. - Staff is recommending that the cost of the City's participation be financed through the use of retained Cable TV franchise fees. ATTACHMENTS (4): - Enclosed on page _~ is a copy of a map of the northern section of the fiber project showing the route through Eagan and the route from Eagan to the Western Service Center in Apple Valley. The other segments on the map do not pertain to Eagan's interests. Also enclosed without page number is the same map in colored format. - Enclosed on page ~ is a copy of a table summarizing the various alternatives and related costs. - Enclosed on pages ~~ through ~~ is a copy of a memo from Director of Communications Garrison reviewing industry expert and provider comments on this potential project, specifically as it relates to the incremental investment for Alternative 4. - Enclosed on pages ~ through ~O is a copy of the resolution authorizing participation in the Independent School District 196 fiber project at the Alternative 41eve1. The resolution will be revised, if the City Council chooses Alternative 3. ~f~ -~ _ ~ ~ - s ~ , ~; ` ', -~ ~- ~-' ~' Woodland Elementary. ~' SILVERBELL-RDA^~-~' _ ~_WES;LO~RCZ_ _ -_ . - c i _ _ ' ~ -~ _ , ._ - ~- ;! ~~ ~; Glacier-Hills Elementary y ~ - ~ ~ i ' ,~ ~ r-" , i - '- ~ ~~ _-iBlackHawk Mfddle,School ~ , ~ 2 ~-- ' ~ / -~ ._. ~' /y ~ .-DEERWOOD ORI --_-_ ~ 'L.~ ~~. ~ i _ _ ~ %_ S,~ Deenvood Elementary - -= ~~ \~ ~_`~ + r -_ ~ - _. -_ ~ _ _ -- .Fagan.Senior,HighSchool ` ~~ ~ _ ..~ i r ~ ~ -~' ~ %•- I ~ `~ - ~ Dakota `Hills Middle School ;~ DIFFLEY RD J _ -DIFFLEY -.-_____ _ _` -_ ,_ ~' ~ ~ Northview Elementary_ _ _ ~ i ' ~ ~ ~~ _ m ~Thoma Las ke Elem!entary~ - ~ J ' ~ I l'' F---~-- ~' r-?- __, - - - - - t ,,, ~ - _`.~~ ` --I ~-'~ Pinewood' \ -' r` -~ ', _Oak Ridge Elementary ~/--. ~ _ Elementary ~~ ~ ~y' ..~ ~ - iry-- ~_ ~ ---~ o~~ ice---- ~ -. '- ~~~,~.a ~--r ,. -- _~.~._ --~; ~ ~ _~ .- .. _C IL FF RD - - .~ -. _ -_. _ ~ ~~' ~ _ LLIfF RD _~ _-... ~~ ~ ' i - ~ r i- - -~ - ,' _ ~ ;~ -~ Red Pme ,_~ '' ~~ ~. l ~ ~ %~~ R ~ 1- - .~ x .. L ~ ---~ ~ ~~~ EAGAN ~ ' , EAGAN ~ - J - ,. __ _ - ~ _ I ~- j~/ ~~ APPLE VALLEY J l ROSEMOUNT /~// s -'. _ ' ~ _, School of !, , - --~ ~~ ~ . Environmental Studies I /" ~ '~;` _. a -., _-_._ - . - - i _ _. ~ -_ __- _ i _ i ~~ - -`-~~i Falcon Rltlge ~ 1 j -~ ! '~~ - _ _ ~ ~- ~ `Middle School /, - _ / i _ - - ~ ~ _.. ~ . _~ - ~ i ~ _ i ~~ ~~ - ~ - i' -. _ _- ~, _ ~~eka,e nRC~ _ - . • i /~ .. _ _ L -, , ~ i i if` I Greenleaf ,,' I J~ ~f_ __ -~ -- Elementary School - ~ ~ \ __ ~ , r , ~ _ -_ ~1t6iwT51 - - Apple Valley ... ~ .~ -- -~,~~ - ~_n -_ Ea i w sN e ih l - H Schoo g ., Rosemount Elements r ~-'- '- ' High School`~HighlandElementary_,, _ ; -- _ _ ry ~, I i id - - ~- --'- ~~ .; T~ ~,,ScotfHighiandMiddle§choiol _,;.~.-L_ ! j ~ J ' -i M dleSchool ^y . - t ~ ~1 ~ i _ ~_ 451n7S ~,. ~_ T- it - ~ ~ ~- `1- ~ , ~' Diamond Path - , a j-L- -- -\Z~ I _.. ; ~ v ~"'~ ~ , -Elementary School ~:~ -- - % . _ _- i _ i - - - _ ~ - -- -. 1 - kzuasew'~~ i._ ~ - ~; ~ l; _' - ~ ' `: i __ _ 1 - ~~- ~ . - - - --- - --- -- -- --=J - - Western Service i - - ~ - - Center - - -_ - - , I - ~ i - Miles 0 0.5 1 City of Ea~aIl Legend ~ ISD 196 Fiber R ut ISD 196 Fiber Route o e r ISD School ~~ Municipal Boundary 3~. Map Date: June 15, 2005 Cost Summary Defined As: Fiber Component Estimated Cost Alternative 1 City Hall to Wes#ern Service Center $ 80,600 Alternative 2 12 Strands in 11.5 Mile Eagan Loop (Total Loop Plus Western Service Center Connection) $ 120,800 Alternative 3 Fire Station 3 Connection 29,500 Alternative 3 Fire Station 4 Connection 18,600 Total: Alternative 2 Plus Alternative 3 (Two Fire Stations) ~ 12 Strands in 11.5 Mile Eagan Loop Fire Station 3 Connection Fire Station 4 Connection $ 168,900 Alternative 4 Same as Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 plus additional empty conduit in the trench. $ 340,000 Incremental Cost of Adding Conduit $ 171,100 `1~ y City of Ea~au demo To: ADMININSTRATOR HEDGES, CITY COUNCIL From: COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR GARRISON Date: 6/17/05 Subject: INDUSTRY EXPERT AND PROVIDER COMMENTS At the May 31 work session, the City Council asked that additional comments be gathered from industry experts and potential providers that might utilize the extra conduit Eagan seeks to install along the 11.5 mile route through Eagan. Further the Council asked if members of the Tech Task Force or the Telecommunications Commission could be contacted for comment. Thomson West Chief Technology Officer Rick King is supportive of the request and plans to be in attendance at the June 21 City Council meeting as will Telecommunications Commission Member Jody Mikasen. - Among the experts contacted were an electrical engineer with more than 30 years telecommunications experience, including 15 years of design build experience with fiber projects, the general manager of local fiber communications firm strongly interested in this market opportunity, the marketing director for anout- of-state firm with nationwide experience in state-of--the-art fiber installs and connectivity issues, and aggregated responses from responders to the Eagan Request For Information regarding wireless communications. - Without exception, all of the experts contacted believe installing additional conduit represents a significant opportunity for cost recovery. - While the expert's estimates varied, all concluded that Eagan could, at the very least, recover its installation costs for the additional conduit with some believing the City could recover at least two times its investment via lease arrangements that could provide an ongoing revenue stream to the City. - If the City later decided to sell the conduit and not lease it, the experts consulted concluded the value of the conduit will only increase over time because the cost to install new would be significantly greater. - The City wishes to make cleaz that it does not contemplate operating any network, but is merely providing the infrastructure through which Eagan can make sure future state of the art telecommunications services aze provided by the private _ sector. It's interest, confirmed by industry experts, is not to compete with the private sector, but rather to partner with the private sector to facilitate competitive high speed services to be extended to Eagan residents sooner than would otherwise be the case. -:3- - If the City Council approves the additional conduit requested, the new Technology Working Group would be asked to develop a complete business plan to determine the most efficient and productive means to lease the extra conduit space and begin cost recovery as soon as possible. - As summarized by two of the experts, "You will never get a spare duct at a more reasonable price... [This fiber ring] will be attractive to providers." "The situation presents the City of Eagan with a unique and excellent opportunity to create future value." tf6 CITY OF EAGAN RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION APPROVING PARTICIPATION IN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 196 FIBER PROJECT WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59 allows two or more governmental units to enter into an agreement to cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting parties or any similar powers, and one of the participating government units may exercise its powers on behalf of the other governmental units; and WHEREAS, School District 196 plans to develop a fiber optic infrastructure with connections to all of its schools in order to improve its communications capacity and capability; and WHEREAS, the City of Eagan also wishes to develop a fiber optic infrastructure to improve City communications capacity and capability, and to provide some backbone infrastructure for future community fiber needs including potential wireless connectivity; and WHEREAS, the City of Eagan and other parties see mutual benefit in jointly cooperating on the establishment of the fiber optic infrastructure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eagan that the City hereby requests that Independent School District 196 include in its contract acceptance the following for the City of Eagan: 1. Alternate #2 (12 Strands of Fiber in the approximately 11.5 mile route), 2. Alternate #4 (Connection to the Eagan City Hall), 3. Alternate #5 (Connection to Eagan Fire Station #4), 4. Alternate #6 (Connection to Eagan Fire Station #3), 5. Alternate #27 (12 Strands for Western Service Center), 6. Informational Bid #3, 7. Informational Bid #4, 8. Cost of Empty Conduit over the approximately 11.5 mile route, and 9. Prorated Construction Costs of the 12 Strands and Empty Conduit Installation and; ~~ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Eagan cost estimate is $340,000 to be paid to Independent School District 196 per the terms of the Joint Powers Agreement; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City of Eagan staff is hereby directed to work with Independent School District 196 employees and consultants to facilitate completion of the necessary contract documents and completion of the fiber project installation. CITY OF EAGAN CITY COUNCIL sy: Its Mayor Attest: Its Clerk Motion made by: Seconded by: Those in favor: Those against: Dated: CERTIFICATION I, Maria Petersen, Clerk of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, in a regular meeting thereof assembled this 21St day of June, 2005. Maria Petersen, Clerk 4S Agenda Information Memo June 21, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting C. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT -CITY OF EAGAN ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve an Ordinance Amendment to modify Chapter 11, Section 11.70, Subd 28 Placement, Erection and Maintenance of Signs by modifying regulations for temporary signage and adding regulations regarding window signage aid direct the City Attorney to prepare and publish the amendment in the legal newspaper. FACTS: - While reviewing commercial exterior material photos from various communities in 2004. The City Council was concerned with the disparity of this type of signage from business to business and property to property. The City Council's direction was to even the playing field in regard to this type of signage. - The City Council directed staff to work with the APC in regazd to temporary signage and window signage. The APC reviewed temporary and window signage standards from a number of metro cities and draft language at work shop meetings in January and March and also held a public meeting to take input from Eagan business owners/interested parties in February. Ultimately, the APC held the official Public Hearing on April 26, 2005 where additional modifications were suggested and the item was then continued to the May 26, 2005 APC meeting where the amendment was recommended for approval. - The draft amendment proposes to reduce the amount of time temporary signage can utilized by coming more in line with the Sign Ordinance entry of Temporary Signs for Special Business Sales. - Window signage, which is presently unregulated, is proposed to become subject to specific regulations. RESULTS: - Temporary Signage is proposed to be allowed 10 out of every 60 days, subject to flat sign permit fee of $25, and the permit application shall define the 60 day period and the days, not to exceed 10, during which the temporary sign will be displayed. - Window Signage is proposed to be prohibited in the area between 4-6' above the floor elevation, counted towards the maximum allowed building signage per y9 building facade/tenant space and only allowed on those sides of a building with building mounted signage, no more than 25% of windows/doors shall be occupied with signage, and window signage will be subject to a sign permit and fees. Up to 2 SF of signage depicting hours of operation and/or Open/Closed is proposed to be exempt from permitting and fees. - The APC held a Public Hearing and recommended approval of the amendment at their regular meeting of May 24, 2005. ISSUES: - Several business owners have expressed concern with the proposed changes and while the APC responded to a number of the concerns raised, the commission unanimously supports the changes, as amended. - Ruthe Batulis, spoke on behalf of the members of the NDCCC and suggested no change to the temporary signage regulations and that there be no fee associated the sign permits for temporary or window signage. ATTACHMENTS: (2) Apri126 and Draft May 24 APC Minutes on page ~/ through ~~~. Draft Ordinance Amendment language on page ,,,~~through ~"'C~. So City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission April 26, 2005 Page 8 D. Ordinance Amendment Applicant Name: City of Eagan Location: 3830 Pilot Knob Road; Application: Ordinance Amendment An Amendment to Chapter 11, Sect. 11.70, Subd. 28, Placement, erection and maintenance of signs relative to temporary and window signage. File Number: 01-OR-01-04-05 City Planner Ridley introduced this item and highlighted the information presented in the memorandum dated April 22, 2005. He also explained the background and history. Chair Heyl opened the public hearing. Ruthe Batulis, NDC Chambers of Commerce Present stated the board is requesting that the sign permit fee provisions be dropped. Jim Coen, Shell Station 1650 Diffley Road stated they were not allowed to have a message board, however Super America is allowed a message board at no cost, leading to an unfair advantage. He stated a repetitive fee would be a hardship on their business. David Perrier, business owner questioned the purpose of this regulation. Chair Heyl request City Planner Ridley restate the background and history. Tom Butler, McDonalds Restaurants agreed that the fees should be waved. He requested that other signage including real estate signage be reviewed to insure a level playing field. Tom Coen, Shell Station 1650 Diffley Road stated disagreement with code enforcement letters sent regarding the signage. He stated opposition to the proposed fees. There being no further public comment, Chair Heyl closed the public hearing and turned the discussion back to the Commission. City Planner Ridley discussed normal business signage such as hours of operation and grand opening signage. Member Gladhill stated garage sale and political signs have separate regulations. He stated the fees are to offset the cost of managing signage throughout the city. He stated he does not recall the fee applying to the normal allowed 25 percent window signage. City Planner Ridley explained that window signage would be treated similarly to wall signage and subject to the normal per square foot sign fee. S/ City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission April 26, 2005 Page 9 Member Leeder stated grand opening signage should be addressed separately. Member Matthees stated her concerns with Grand Opening signage in that very often Grand Openings will be held at existing stores whenever a store in that chain opens anywhere in the state or country. Member Bendt moved, Member Chavez seconded a motion to table an Amendment to Chapter 11, Sect. 11.70, Subd. 28, Placement, erection and maintenance of signs relative to temporary and window signage until the May Advisory Planning Commission meeting. All voted in favor. Motion carried 7-0. sa City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 2 IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Ordinance Amendment Applicant Name: City of Eagan Location: 3830 Pilot Knob Road; Application: Ordinance Amendment An Amendment to Chapter 11, Sect. 11.70, Subd. 28, Placement, erection and maintenance of signs relative to temporary and window signage. File Number: 01-OR-01-04-05 City Planner Ridley introduced this item and highlighted the information presented in the Memorandum dated May 20, 2005 with Subject: Temporary Window Signage. Chair Heyl asked if any of the public would like to speak on this item.. Jim Baster Jr., Owner of The Italian Pie Shoppe and Winery objected to the proposal and stated rights are being taken from the business owners. - Jim Baster Sr. of the Italian Pie Shoppe and Winery objected to the proposal and stated that billboards, even the antiabortion ones, should be regulated if general business signage is. He stated the fees would be a burden to business owners. A representative of 3-in-1 Tailors objected to the proposal in addition to other regulations that are costly to the business owners. Elaine Rashaw, E & M Liquor. objected to the. proposal. She asked if permits would have to be renewed every time signage is changed; She asked if the proposed requirements are similar to those of other communities. City Planner Ridley stated the Advisory Planning Commission reviewed standards from a number ofinetro communities and the proposal is consistent. He explained that if a window signage permit is issued for a portion of a window, changing the message within that portion would not constitute a new permit or fee. He stated billboards are regulated in regard to size and number, not content. Chair Heyl stated she understood the concerns raised and clarified the public safety issue that is addressed with the proposed window signage amendment. She also emphasized that the proposed amendment does not prohibit temporary or window signage. Ms. Heyl further explained that the City goes to great lengths to insure high quality commercial building finishes are utilized only to have excessive temporary and window signage detract from the overall site/building appearance. Member Bendt moved, Member Matthees seconded a motion to recommend approval of an Amendment to Chapter 11, Sect. 11.70, Subd. 28, Placement, erection and maintenance of signs relative to temporary and window signage. All voted in favor. Motion carried 6-0. 53 Temporary Signag_e Temporary signs for special business sales. Any commercial use may have up to three (3) signs that do not in total exceed twenty-five (25) square feet for 10 days within a 60-day period for the purpose of promoting a special sales event. The Sign Permit application shall specify the 60-day period and the days, not to exceed 10, during which the temporary sign will be displayed. Note: Temporary signage is currently exempt from permit and permit, fee provisions. The draft amendment results in temporary signage being subject to perm, ittirg.,a flat $25 fee. Window Signa~e Window signage. No sign displayed on any window shhll, occupy more; than twenty-five (25) percent of windows and/or doors on any side of a building. The area of window/door signs shall be counted toward the 20% (10% in R&D and BP Zoning Districts) maximum allowable signage per building facade/tenant space and is subject.,to a one-time ,permit fee. Window%door signs shall be allowed only on the building facade that has building mounted signage: ~ All business signs, including window/door signs, require a Sign Permit: T~ promote public health and safety, window signage is prohibited in the area between four (4) and six (6) feet as measured vertically from the finished interior floor elevation so has to preserve the ~Iine of sight into and out of the building. signage not exceeding two (2) square feet that depicts ~Qpen/Closed and/or hours of operation shall be exempt from permitting and fees Note: Window signage is ,currently exempt from permrt and permit fee provisions. The draft amendment results in window signage being subject fo permitting and fees. .k Agenda Information Memo June 21, 2005 Eagan City Council D. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT - PASTER ENTERPRISES, INC. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To continue this request to the November 15, 2005 City Council meeting for consideration of a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Special Area -Office/Service, to Special Area -Retail Commercial, upon approximately 24 acres located north of Yankee Doodle Road and west of Central Parkway in the SE 1/4 of Section 9. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: At least four votes FACTS: - This item was continued from the May 17, 2005 City Council meeting. - The applicant has submitted a letter updating the Council on their progress with regard to the Gangl property, coordinating development with the Duke property, and the preparation of Preliminary Subdivision and Preliminary Planned Development application submittals. Paster Enterprises needs additional time to prepare the detailed plans and architectural guidelines necessary for the Preliminary Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision submittals and to recruit specific retailers for this development. - Paster anticipates submitting the other corresponding applications in August or September. Once submitted, the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment (on the Gangl property), the Preliminary Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision applications must go to the Advisory Planning Commission and then to the City Council, a process that takes 6-8 weeks. - Continuing this request to the November 1 S, 2005 City Council meeting date should afford time for Paster to prepare the additional submittals and for those applications to get through the public hearing process with the City's Advisory Planning Commission. 60-DAY STATUS: Deadline has been extended to July 14, 2005. The applicant has requested a further extension with this current request for a continuance. ATTACHMENTS (1): !// ,~ Correspondence from Paster Enterprises dated June 13, 2005, pages ~bthrough SS June 13, 2005 Ms. Pamela Dudziak City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55112-1897 RE: Perron Property Eagan, MN Dear Ms. Dudziak, In preparation for the June 21, 2005, City Council meeting, we would like to provide an update on our proposed Retail development & the continuance that was granted relating to our Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan Amendment. When we appeared before the City Council on May 17, 2005, the Council had asked us to incorporate the 3.3 acre Duke parcel & the Gangl House at 1555 Yankee Doodle Road (the properties to the west & east of the Perron Property on Yankee Doodle Road). Additionally, the City Council had asked that we incorporate the information from the City of Eagan retail Survey to help determine the types of retailers within the project & be able to share with the Council specific retail uses that would anchor the proposed development. At this time, we would like to request that the application for Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan Amendment we submitted be continued until such future time as we appear before the City Council to discuss the application for the Preliminary Planned Development. We expect to submit the application for the Preliminary Planned Development in August or September 2005 which would result in an appearance before the City Council in October or November 2005. As it relates to both the Duke Property & Gangl property, we plan to incorporate these parcels into the overall development. We are currently negotiating a purchase agreement with Mr. & Mrs. Gangl for 1555 Yankee Doodle Road. The Duke parcel is currently under option by another developer who plans to build a 2 story medical professional office building and restaurant. We do not have direct control over the development of this parcel. However, we have met with both the developer & their architect & both parties will work together to develop the parcels in concert. While their timing may be sooner than ours, we both feel there are many benefits to working together. It would also be both of our intentions to have cross access between the parcels and utilize compatible building materials. We understand that the developer has met with City staff and is in the process of compiling information to submit for city approvals. 56 Regarding potential retail anchor tenants and how the City survey will help us identify potential users, we will know more when the City survey results are in at the end of June. As it relates to other potential anchor tenants, we have begun marketing the property & have had many meetings with potential retailers. There appears to be strong interest in the site. We will have a better indication of who the strong candidates are in the next 90 - 120 days. However, we would like to point out that most retailers we are working with also have a lengthy process for approving new retail locations. Usually, these include approval by an internal real estate committee which meets monthly or less frequently, an internal detailed study of the site & sales projections, and a site tour by the head of real estate and other decision makers. Generally, these site tours which kick off the entire internal approval process take months to schedule given work loads of a national retailer covering several states and in some instances the entire country. We are working diligently on this development, but can be delayed due to working through several retailers timelines that are longer than ours. We look forward to appearing before the City Council on June 21, 2005, and continuing to work with you on the successful development of this project. Sincerely, Paster Enterprises, LLC. Howard Paster CC: E. Paster K. Henk S~ Agenda Information Memo June 21, 2005 Eagan City Council VII. NEW BUSINESS A. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (TAN ME INDUSTRIAL PARK FIRST ADDITION) - APPRO DEVELOPMENT ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve (OR to direct preparation of findings for denial) a Preliminary Subdivision to create two lots on 2.6 acres, and a Variance to create a lot without public street frontage, located at 3275 Sun, legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Tan Me Industrial Park in the SE '/a of Section 8, subject to the conditions listed in the APC minutes. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of quorum. 120-DAY STATUS: The deadline is August 27, 2005 FACTS: - The property was platted in 1996 and a 20,000 sq. ft. building was constructed on the westerly portion of the site. The easterly portion of the property was reserved for future expansion. - The proposed subdivision would create two separate lots for the existing building and the vacant portion of the property. Lot 1 is proposed to be 1.4 acres in area and contains the existing 20,000 sq. ft. building. Lot 2 is proposed to be 1.2 acres in area and is vacant. - No new development is proposed at this time. - A building permit will be required to develop Lot 2. Grading, utilities, tree preservation and landscape plans and issues will be required at that time. Water quality requirements for this property were previously satisfied. - The Advisory Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 24, 2005, and did recommend approval, subject to the conditions in the APC minutes. ATTACHMENTS (2): May 24, 2005, Draft APC Minutes, ages through Staff Report, pages through Sys City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 7 C. Tan Me Industrial Park First Addition Applicant Name: Appro Development Location: 3275 Sun Drive; Lot 2, Block 1, Tan Me Industrial Park Application: Preliminary Subdivision Preliminary subdivision of 2.6 acre parcel into two lots for existing building and future development. File Number: 08-PS-02-04-05 Planner Dudziak introduced this item and highlighted the information presented in the City Staff report dated May 13, 2005: She noted the background and. history. Chair Heyt opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Heyl closed. thepubiic hearing and turned the discussion back to the Commission. Jim Connelly, Appro, requested that staff clarify water quality obligations prior to the City Council meeting. Chair Heyl confirmed with Staff that tree preservation will be dealt with during the building permit application. Member Bendt moved, Member Chavez seconded a motion to recommend approval of a Preliminary Subdivision to create two lots on 2.6 acres,-located at 3275 Sun Drive in the SW'/ of Section 1 subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall. comply with these standard conditions of plat approval as adopted by Council on February 2, 1993: A1, B1, C1 and E1 2. The property shall be platted. 3. The developer shall provide evidence of private ingress/egress easement for Lot 2, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, prior to final subdivision approval. 4. A cash dedication in lieu of on-site water quality ponding shall be required for this development. The dedication is payable at the time of final subdivision, prior to release of the final plat for recording. 5. A Tree Inventory, Preservation and Mitigation Plan shall be required at the time of building permit application for Lot 2. All voted in favor. Motion carried 6-0. S9 City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 8 VI.OTHER ITEMS VII. VISITORS TO BE HEARD (FOR THOSE NOT ON AGENDA) There were no visitors to be heard for items not on the agenda. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS City Planner Ridley stated a Joint Meeting with the City Council will be held on Wednesday June 15, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. IX. ADJOURNMENT Member Chavez moved, and Member Hansen seconded a=motion to adjourn the Advisory Planning Commission meeting at 7:35 p.m All voted in favor. Motion carried 6-0. - Respectfully Submitted by: Steven Chavez APC Secretary Camille Yungerberg Recording Secretary 6d PLANNING REPORT CITY OF EAGAN REPORT DATE: May 13, 2005 APPLICANT: Appro Development PROPERTY OWNER: Gerald Woods 2005 REQUEST: Preliminary Subdivision LOCATION: 3275 Sun Drive CASE: 08-PS-02-04-OS HEARING DATE: May 24, 2005 APPLICATION DATE: April 29, PREPARED BY: Pamela Dudziak COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: IND, Limited Industrial ZONING: I-1, Limited Industrial SUMMARY OF REQUEST Appro Development is requesting approval of a Preliminary Subdivision to create two lots on 2.58 acres, located at 3275 Sun Drive, legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Tan Me Industrial Park, in the SE'/4 of Section 8. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW Subdivision: City Code Section 13.20 Subd. 6 states that "In the case of platting, the Planning Commission and the Council shall be guided by criteria, including the following, in approving, denying or establishing conditions related thereto: A. That the proposed subdivision does comply with applicable City Code provisions and the Comprehensive Guide Plan. B. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision complies with applicable plans of Dakota County, State of Minnesota, or the Metropolitan Council. C. That the physical characteristics of the site including, but not limited to, topography, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, water storage and retention are such that the site is suitable for the type of development or use contemplated. .5/ Planning Report -Tan Me First Addition 2 May 24, 2005 Page D. That the site physically is suitable for the proposed density of development. E. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvement is not likely to cause environmental damage. F. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause health problems. G. That the design of the subdivision or the improvements will not conflict with easements of record or with easements established by judgment of court. H. That completion of the proposed development of the subdivision can be completed in a timely manner so as not to cause an economic burden upon the City for maintenance, repayment of bonds, or similar burden. I. That the subdivision has been properly planned for possible solar energy system use within the subdivision or as it relates to adjacent property. (Refer to City Handbook on Solar Access). J. That the design of public improvements for the subdivision is compatible and consistent with the platting or approved preliminary plat on adjacent lands. K. That the subdivision is in compliance with those standards set forth in that certain document entitled "City of Eagan Water Quality Management Plan for the Gun Club Lake Watershed Management Organization" which document is properly approved and filed with the office of the City Clerk hereinafter referred to as the "Water Quality Management Plan". Said document and all of the notations, references and other information contained therein shall have the same force and effect as if fully set down herein and is hereby made a part of this Chapter by reference and incorporated herein as fully as if set forth herein at length. It shall be the responsibility of the City Clerk to maintain the Water Quality Management Plan and make the same available to the public." Variance: City Code Chapter 11, Section1.50, Subdivision 3, B., 3, states that the Council may approve, approve with conditions or deny a request for a variance. In considering all requests for a variance, City Council shall consider the following factors: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property have no control. 6~ Planning Report -Tan Me First Addition May 24, 2005 b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Code would deprive the applicant property use commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the provisions of this Code. c. That special conditions or circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. d. That granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. e. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Code or to property in the same zone. BACKGROUND/HISTORY This site was platted in 1995. A 20,000 sq. ft. building was constructed on the western portion of the property. The eastern portion of the site was reserved for future expansion. It has been determined that "the excess land on the lot is no longer needed for this as an expansion of the existing building is not planned." The applicant is proposing to subdivide the site into two lots to create separate parcels for the existing building and the vacant portion of the property. No new development is proposed at this time. The applicant has submitted conceptual development plans for the vacant parcel. EXISTING CONDITIONS The property is guided IND, Limited Industrial and is currently zoned I-1, Limited Industrial. Office, light manufacturing, processing or fabrication, and warehousing are among the permitted uses in the I-1 zoning district. The building is located on the western portion of the property. The vacant eastern portion of the property contains a wooded area. A tree inventory submitted by the applicant shows primarily cottonwood and spruce trees on the proposed lot. Access to the site is provided from Terminal Drive via a private street, Sun Drive, which serves a few other parcels. The proposal includes a request for a Variance to create a lot without public street frontage. SURROUNDING USES The following existing uses, zoning, and comprehensive guide plan designations surround the subject property: 6-~ Planning Report -Tan Me First Addition 4 May 24, 2005 Page Existing Use Zoning Land Use Desi nation North Manufacturing I-1, Limited IND, Limited and Warehousing Industrial Industrial South Service Garage I-l, Limited IND, Limited Industrial Industrial East Warehouse I-1, Limited IND, Limited Industrial Industrial West Vacant -City PF, Public Facility QP, Quasi-Public shooting range EVALUATION OF REQUEST Compatibility with Surrounding_Area -There is no development associated with the proposal at this time, and no changes proposed to the Comprehensive Guide Plan or Zoning of the property. The subdivision of the land would separate the vacant portion of the site from the portion containing the existing building. Airport Noise Considerations -City of Eagan considered airport noise as a factor in its Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan. The Metropolitan Council has adopted an Aviation Chapter of its Metropolitan Development Plan that anticipates the impacts from the continued operation of the airport at its current location. The noise policy contours in Eagan place the subject property outside of the Noise Policy Zones. Lots and Density -Lot 1 is proposed to be 1.4 acres in area and contains the existing 20,000 sq. ft. building. Lot 2 is proposed to be 1.2 acres in area and is vacant. The concept plan for future development shows a 15, 363 sq. ft. building and associate parking on proposed Lot 2. Landscaping -Future development of Lot 3 will need a Landscape Plan as part of the building permit application. Gradin Topography -The site has been graded with previous development and generally slopes to the north. Storm Drainage - An existing storm sewer system within Sun Drive along the north edge of the site is available for connection and extension by the development to accommodate storm water runoff. Utilities -Existing sanitary sewer and water main are available for connection along the north edge of the site within Sun Drive. Streets/ Access/ Circulation -Direct public street access is not available to this development. Access is proposed for the new lot onto Sun Drive, similar to the current access for the existing building on Lot 1. Sun Drive is a private street serving 6~ Planning Report -Tan Me First Addition May 24, 2005 surrounding industrial properties, including the existing building on Lot 1. The developer should provide evidence of private ingress/ egress easement for Lot 2, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, prior to final subdivision approval. Because the site does not directly abut a public street, a Variance is necessary to create a lot without public street frontage. The lack of public street frontage for the subject site is an existing condition that is unique to the property. Easements/ Permits/ Right-of--Way -Adequate public right-of--way along Lone Oak Road was dedicated with the existing plat of the property, and will be maintained with this subdivision. Wetlands/Water Quality -This proposed 2.6-acre subdivision is located in the City's C- watershed, which drains toward Gravel Pit Lake in Fort Snelling State Park. Similar to other developments, regardless of size, this development will generate additional stormwater runoff within the City. Because this development is relatively small, however,. on-site treatment of stormwater for water quality purposes is not reasonable and practical. Nevertheless, in accordance with the policies the City has had in place since 1990, the development is responsible for a cash dedication equal to the cost of the land and pond volume needed to reduce phosphorus export to undeveloped conditions. The dedication is payable at the time of final subdivision, prior to release of the final plat for recording. There are no jurisdictional wetlands associated with this site. Tree Preservation - A Tree Inventory, Preservation and Mitigation Plan, based on the conceptual development plan, was submitted with this application for Preliminary Subdivision. A revised plan based on the actual development plan will be required at the time of building permit application for Lot 2. Parks and Recreation -Park and trail dedication fees were paid in 1995 with the building permit for the existing building. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION Appro Development is requesting approval of a Preliminary Subdivision to create two lots on 2.6 acres, and a Variance to create a lot without public street frontage at 3275 Sun Drive, legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Tan Me Industrial Park, in the SE %4 of Section 8. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the site into two lots to create separate parcels for the developed and vacant portions of the property. No new development is proposed at this time. A building permit will be required for future development of Lot 2. A Landscape Plan and current Tree Inventory, Preservation and Mitigation Plan will be required at that time. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED 6s Planning Report -Tan Me First Addition May 24, 2005 Page To recommend approval of a Preliminary Subdivision to create two lots on 2.58 acres, located at 3275 Sun Drive in the SE'/4 of Section 8. If approved, the following conditions should apply. The developer shall comply with these standards conditions of plat~approval as adopted by Council on February 2, 1993: A1, B1, C1 and El 2. The property shall be platted. 3. The developer shall provide evidence of private ingress/egress easement for Lot 2, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, prior to final subdivision approval. 4. A cash dedication in lieu of on-site water quality ponding shall be required for this development. The dedication is payable at the time of final subdivision, prior to release of the final plat for recording. A Tree Inventory, Preservation and Mitigation Plan shall be required at the time of building permit application for Lot 2. ~6 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL A. Financial Obligations This development shall accept its additional financial obligations as defined in the staff's report in accordance with the final plat dimensions and the rates in effect at the time of final plat approval. B. Easements and Rights-of-Way This development shall dedicate 10-foot drainage and utility easements centered over all lot lines and, in addition, where necessary to accommodate existing or proposed utilities for drainage ways within the plat. The development shall dedicate easements of sufficient width and location as determined necessary by engineering standards. 2. This development shall dedicate, provide, or financially guarantee the acquisition costs of drainage, ponding, and utility easements in addition to public street rights-of--way as required by the alignment, depth, and storage capacity of all required public utilities and streets located beyond the boundaries of this plat as necessary to service or accommodate this development. 3. This development shall dedicate all public right-of--way and temporary slope easements for ultimate development of adjacent roadways as required by the appropriate jurisdictional agency. 4. This development shall dedicate adequate drainage and ponding easements to incorporate the required high water elevation plus three (3) feet as necessitated by storm water storage requirements. C. Plans and Specifications 1. All public and private streets, drainage systems, and utilities necessary to provide service to this development shall be designed and certified by a registered professional engineer in accordance with City adopted codes, engineering standards, guidelines, and policies prior to application for final plat approval. 2. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion, and sediment control plan must be prepared in accordance with current City standards prior to final plat approval. 3. This development shall ensure that all dead-end public streets shall have a cul-de-sac constructed in accordance with City engineering standards. 6~ 4. A separate detailed landscape plan shall be submitted overlaid on the proposed grading and utility plan. The financial guarantee for such plan shall be included in the Development Contract and shall not be released until one year after the date of City certified compliance. D. Public Improvements If any improvements are to be installed under a City contract, the appropriate project must be approved by Council action prior to final plat approval. E. Permits 1. This development shall be responsible for the acquisition of all regulatory agency permits required by the affected agency prior to final plat approval. F. Parks and Trails Dedications This development shall fulfill its park and trail dedication requirements as recommended by the Advisory Parks Commission and approved by Council action. G. Water Quality Dedication 1. This development shall be responsible for provided a cash dedication, ponding, or a combination thereof in accordance with the criteria identified in the City's Water Quality Management Plan, as recommended by the Advisory Parks Commission and approved by Council action. H. Other All subdivision, zoning, and other ordinances affecting this development shall be adhered to, unless specifically granted a Variance by Council action. Advisory Planning Commission Approved: August 25, 1987 City Council September 15, 1987 Revised: July 10,1990 Revised: February 2, 1993 G:Engineering/Forms/Standard Conditions of Plat Approval 6~ FINANCIAL OBLIGATION-Tan Me Industrial Park First Addition Preliminary Subdivision There are pay-off balances of special assessments totaling $2,710 on the parcels proposed for platting. The pay- offbalance will be allocated to the lots created by the plat. At this time, there are no pending assessments on the parcel proposed for platting. This estimated financial obligation is subject to change based upon the areas, dimensions and land uses contained in the final plat. Based upon the study of the financial obligations collected in the past and the uses proposed for the property, the following charges are proposed. The charges are computed using the City's existing fee schedule and for the connection and availability of the City's utility system. The charges will be computed using the rates in effect at time of connection or subdivision. IMPROVEMENT USE RATE QUANTITY AMOUNT 69 Eagan Boundary Location M a ~ Right-of-way Parcel Area Park Area Building Footprint -,_.____ ®~ ~ w ~ ~ r. 6 p 4Y ~ ~ Y ® of ( f ' ® ~ ~ v ^+ ~ ~ ,-., + `l' ~a .. ~ S' + A -__ ~, O ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ . d ~~®~~ ®~ .,, J~-~ o / ~ ~ '~,~ '~ i _ ~~ °~ / ,,~„ ® ~~ ~' ~ ~, `~ ~ Subject Site ®® ~ ~ ~ - _ e~. ~,. -~ , ~ ~ ® ~ L% 3 ~ ~ ~.~ . , •~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~. .W . ~ ,~~ ° : ~==9 : ~ ~ ~.-~ ~ ~; r 9 ® f / a. unwrt ~ b' o~ ~ e s ~~ ~ ~ ~ ® ® ~ ~ -, ~ i , ~/ n ~ ~ t L~ p b J6 Z C ~ ~,.. p ~ . ~ ~ ~~, ~ ~ . t. i ~ ~~ \ ~o~ ~ ®g ~' ® ®3 ~ m ~ ~ ®® ~® _.~ ~ p, --~-L-_ -_ _~6; -- - WMTYiiO.[YIIO:2 KRE90ool ~~ 3~ L, / / .% ///J' ......~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ I _ ,z k ~ J+~ ~ `\ ~ ~ C l ~ ~ cy v N t , ~ ~ ~ ~~ _ / f c E ~ ~~~ ~ 1000 0 1000 20D0 Feet Development/Developer: Tan Me Industrial Park First Addn. Application: Preliminary Subdivision Case No.: 08-PS-02-04-05 Cit f E Map Prepared u p ERSI ArcVie Parc bas map data provided by Dakota C my Cdfice of S a en s of April 2005. N y o a~a~ THIS MAP IS EFERENCE USE ONL Y W~E The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this information and are S Community eevdopment Dep^rtment not responslEle for errors or omissions. Current Zoning and Comprehensive Guide Plan Land Use Map Tan Me Industrial Park First Addn. Preliminary Subdivision Case No. 08-PS-02-04-05 Zoning Map - " .. T I-t Current Zoning: PF -~ R -1 '-' Limited Industrial R-; Lalcation 0 ~~ R-~ R-1 o o coo zoo r..~ ~ r ~ -1 Q d PD PD R-4 oouwrr .o.o no. ~i ~ 1-1 PD PD Comprehensive Guide Plan Land Use Map P _v IND ~ ND ' V~ ND QP MD IND LD MD ~~ ®® ~D® ® ®~ d U D i t L ti C °P urren se gna an es on: LD Location MD ND IND : IND ro LD ' Limited Industrial a~ IND ~ C mm B ND oo o coo tzoo s••e S ~ OIS HD couwrr .o.o .o.m r. IND ~ t R L w... ooo.~..o.. 1 ~ --~~~ ~ _ .K. ~,w~ _.. ar~~ ~,w~~as . ~~~a au~ROAo 3ass;~° ` T9ti __\/^` ~~ _ _~- __ .~ ~~~ ~ . ',,a °~ ~~ i `~ .o.. , ~.. '1 G >~ ~.-. as = ~ ~;~ ~ `~•:;<`, ~ ~ s~'Ai ~'4 ~ A. ~ ~ ~ ~ .~~ ~ 1 A ~~a °*o ~~ ~~ a' it '~ `~ ~~~ ~~~' ~ -~'f~ ~* ti 1 ~ ~ ~ ~~ '9 F~ ~ /.. ~ i ~~ I ., ~ ~.. , ,,, b i b. 1 ~` ~ ``icy f 1 V 1 ~~~ O 1 !v 11 a ~; ~'s. 1 '.w. '° / tr ~~~ H~v00 a.[ ~ _-_`'°1 ~ ' 'v3et+4 rid' <~: ',11 1 ~"` per` Cy,~~~ 9 @n,~ 1 n •, i ~~ ~ z 4~'a 4 'a 1 ~ RS Foes ~. I', ~ ` ' g''~r F `~ °+ ''•, togs e, ~ '~ ~1 ~ 1, ~ VA~~ ~`'~ 64bb44 a0°p J~~~~yp~ ~ ®q a'C bb ~' tcgs, `4'~L,o. r m ,t~~ aq, .. p~~ ELF. ~zObG'w i % *~ ~~ .~ Fo°ro 9P ~ rq + ~p®~ ~ b .~~ SNOIlIONO~ JNIISIX~ 44 YNY4 q!N44!4N; ~ uwKw~t.auu _yi - N ~ ~ ~ y g ti i $gpg 4Si ~ ~ 9~ ~g~~444 ~ 3 p ~~S~~i~~R~i~n~F K C5iP ~ S~w~ 1c0 sT p, \~~~._4ye as i~.~,~ ( ~;4, :~_:= . f ~;. ~ J~~~. as ~ ~ ~.~• t6 $' ~ ~.3 - ~' a. / z> $ °1l~'~c. '~. s .g 'S ~ ~ h`~ ~~ y l t ,,,q /~ 3.F8~T 'V ~ ~ f ~~ ~ "1 F , t~i ~ -a• i~ ar I~` 'i ~ n ~`'` ".~ -~ ,.tit., '` Fa e N N R R..2~ t r~ ~~/ ~ ~. .-. @ -C _% "i w /~ I ~~ o m 8;;~ fie' n ~ ~_ •: P ~ `e// ~ ~N~ a ~ ~' 7~ ~ ~// "F~„J ~n /~~ q uR ~ 4 `Ja / ~ / d civ A uo / / / ./ }O ~.. ~ ' ~ ~ s• /% / x~ ~~ ~ /" ~~ ~~ m ~ < ~.yv n -o .°7t m i a~ gig ~„ ~` l~ ~ ~ m ~s ; € cg '! ~~~~II cusp ~~ a ~~yy ~ ~ :N iE [F ~ "pp g F n p~~ Q CD ? ~ z ~€ a~i !- $ ~ 1, %a9~I~I~~~ ega~ a~ ~ 6Rg~ ~ ¢~4 ~~ i o N e~ ;g$ aR - III $R~ 2 ~'»~r E9 ~~~~ k~~ 8F F ~ ~ a c.r~ p z > @- _~a g~ x ~ e ~f~nR~ ~~ a~~'a ~ 7 ~~a ~o€ c9 a g a ~ -oA ~s 1 n : a~~ ~~ ~ AS~ R ~~ 1 ~ X ~Q ~~ ~ / 1 a ~ Y 1 e • 3 0 R . v ~~ ~ ~s ( ~ b e ~e ~~ ~ ~.~-.c. Nt a S J d ~ p d St pb, i ..EE ~' ~A d ` ~g~ ~ i `~}~,3 ~ ~ s ~ g ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~d ~~ ~ ~s:; ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~g sge ,y ~ ~.~ ~ ~:~ =~ ~~ ~I ~ ~~~ ~ xgRR ~ g$g gg$ ~EF d ~ pp~~~ $2 E ~ ~ g~~ ~ ~~g g a gee ~ ~~6~.. ~°~$~~ S s ~~ ~~ ~y~~~ y g $ sE~L ~ ~' ~~~ i33 iiiii .2R2R2 ii13i .°F3:~ gg8 ~~ ~ j / /~ zn / $ / / ~ O `t .Z ~qF / / // 0 is a I ~ ,: / Q to /~ /a'~/a a Y j, / / n4 ~~~~ ~. ~~ J o r ~- ~ ~ a ~ ~. I .,, °% 1 ~ / l> _ , -f' C.~ ~ // ~ ~' s Y' :C / ~ ~ ~ loo s ~'~~~ s,, ~~/ / 4, ~~~ =; . to l~ lV~~ ~ ~/ ¢!8 ~y~+~ `y I3 ~- ..~ ~'I ~ a" 11 \ . ¢ o ems ,' /i /' LI a ~ .C'~~ ~p , ~~ ~O~O'k ~ /~ (''y J' ~ / '~ z ~ '~° ~,~, ~\,o ~y~bb 62, d~ \..:' ~ ~ S/~ \\ ~~ a ~~ tiH/n ~~ k-~, ~ ~7 / d ~t~J \ ad \ S ~`~b J~~ '~ ~ E~ ~~~~ xs~~ G ~C 3 ~C[: C ~a„' ~ "„~ nl ' c3~ `qii ~S~W GdG~ ..~ E~E~ ,~ x ~ I U Y a < a ~ ~ 0 O a F w ~~z ~°a~ W ~ ~ ~"a Z W In Q J d Q F ~ a~ wo U Q Z J O U ,kJ~ ~ .. % 'S ~i_~, ~ E~A ~~i gds g g rv 9 o .. ~. N ~ ~~ ~~ O i di/ = ~~ W ~ d ; a O~ ~ ~ Y JJ S a N(n t m ° ~ ~ U N Q ~ ` ~ W ' w ~ '~ ! ~~ z ~ W 4~ / Z s/ , p~. .' d ~£~ ~ SEE t_j ~ di ~J G- C r C r ~ .. k ~ i /+~ 1 ~-a CONCEPT SITE PLAN Agenda Information Memo June 21, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting B. APPROVE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT -DAN MARKES ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve an encroachment within a conservation easement area for 4802 Red Pine Court (Lot 16, Block 1, Finch Place) in the NE'/a of Section 36. FACTS: - Finch Place was platted in 2001. The development site contains a pond. The rear yard of the subject property abuts the pond. - At the time of the Finch Place development, there was concern about certain lots abutting the pond because the lots were not very deep and the homes built on those lots would have little back yard area. The concern was that future homeowners would encroach into the buffer area with their yard and outdoor activities or structures, over time damaging the natural setting and the quality of the wetland. - At the time, this concern was addressed with the establishment of the conservation easement to encompass the 30-foot buffer area around the- pond. The conservation easement prohibits the removal of vegetation, topographic alterations, the establishment of pathways and the erection of structures within the easement area. - It is within this easement that the current homeowner wishes to encroach to establish a usable yard area and "clean up" the weeds that have established in the disturbed area since initial construction. - The construction phase of the development included some grading within the 30- foot buffer around the pond, and the developer was supposed to restore the area with native wetland vegetation. The restoration has not occurred on the subject site. - Mr. Markes wishes to extend his yard area into the easement to "clean up" the disturbed area that has not been restored, and to create a useable and maintainable back yard area. - This request is being presented to the APrC at the June 20th APrC meeting. City staff will update the Council as to the APrC's comments and recommendation. - If the Council approves of this request, the City Attorney will prepare an Encroachment Agreement specifying the allowable use and area of encroachment into the conservation easement. ATTACHMENTS: Letter from Daniel Markes dated June 14, 2005, pages ~ through ~[ ~s Dan Markes 4802 Red Pine Court Eagan, MN 55123-3500 Eric MacBeth. Water Resources Coordinator Pam Dudziak, Planner The City Of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 June 14, 2005. Dear Eric and Pam, Re: Reconsideration of Easement Area at 4802 Red Pine Court (Lot 16) Thank-you for taking the time to meet with me regarding the conservation easement in place at my home at 4802 Red Pine Court (Lot 16). As discussed, the easesment agreement between the city and the developer seeks to ensure "preserving and protecting the natural character of the easement area" and offers protection for the water and water's edge for the preservation of the native vegetation and of course to provide a haven for the water fowl, turtles and other wildlife on or near the pond. I believe the intention of the easement agreement can be maintained while addressing the issue of easement size and the issues of erosion and weeds (not native vegetation or trees). The easement on Lot 16 extends up a steep slope that is not filled with native vegetation and trees but rather with unkept thistles and weeds. Under the current agreement, this patch of overgrown weeds, that looks terrible and I would contend is not intended in the agreement to represent the native vegetation, does nothing to secure the soil so that the non-easement portion of the yard does not erode away as is happening currently. And under the current agreement where this area is identified as part of the conservation easement, these weeds cannot be removed. See the pictures attached. Compare these pictures to the neighbor's yard where as the pictures show, the neighbor's terraced yard creates a useable, functional living space combined with a conservation area that meets the intention of the easement agreement. This yard and, the reduced easement area from the pond into the land area enable the homeowner to have a yard that is not simply an eyesore of overgrown weeds but rather a beautiful landscaped yard representative of the area and expectations of the neighbors. I am requesting that the Conservation Easement size be reconsidered. I am requesting that the easement be adjusted to align with the pond side of the fire pit as depicted in the photos. I believe this will serve three purposes. First it will keep in force the intention of ~/~ RGCEIYCD JUN 1 4 2005 the conservation easement protecting the natural vegetation, habitat for the animals, and ensure in perpetuity the restrictions under the agreement. Secondly, it will provide the homeowner with the ability to limit or eliminate the erosion that is currently occurring, and it will eliminate the weeds through appropriate landscaping to reduce the slope and through the planting of vegetation and trees. Thirdly, it will enable the current or future homeowner to present in the neighborhood a backyard consistent with all of the other yards that can be maintained and is pleasing to the neighbors. Please also advise what responsibilities the developer would have under the agreement. I look forward to hearing from you regarding this request. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I can be reached during the day at 651-644-4900 or by cell phone at 651-402-5236. Best Regards, Dan Markes ~? ~I8' ~~ Agenda Information Memo June 21, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting XI. NEW RUNWAY/AIRPORT UPDATE ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED: This item is for informational purposes only. No formal action is required. FACTS: Open Houses ~ The most recent open house was held on Thursday, June 16 at Glacier Hills Elementary School. Approximately 1,191 households received invitations to the open house, and approximately 50 residents were in attendance. - The engineer from Wyle Labs who conducted the baseline noise measurements was in attendance at the Glacier Hills Open House, as was a producer from WCCO TV, who will be airing a story in July about the City's new runway communication efforts and baseline noise study. Baseline Noise RFP Clint Morrow, Engineer for Wyle Laboratories, completed the baseline noise monitoring. Mr. Morrow installed the ten monitors on Monday, June 13, and removed them on Tuesday, June 21. In addition to the ten temporary monitors, Mr. Morrow also monitored the noise levels at a few of the existing MAC Remote Monitoring Towers. Wyle Labs is now conducting their analysis and will be prepared to present their findings to the City Council at the July 19, 2005 regular City Council meeting. - Bill Albee of Wyle Labs has agreed to be a presenter at the 2005 N.O.I.S.E. Conference in Eagan to present the outcome of Eagan's baseline noise study and to communicate the proactive nature of such a study. 8~ AGENDA CITY OF EAGAN REGULAR MEETING OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER JUNE 21, 2005 A. CALL TO ORDER B. ADOPT AGENDA C. APPROVE NIINUTES D. OLD BUSINESS 1. CONSIDER REQUEST for Review of Relocation Benefits and for an Administrative Appeal Heazing for Instant Testing Company and Allied Test Drilling, formerly located at 3996 Cedar Grove Pazkway E. NEW BUSINESS F. OTHER BUSINESS G. ADJOURNMENT 8/ Agenda Information Memo Eagan Economic Development Authority Meeting June 21, 2005 A. CALL TO ORDER ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To convene a meeting of the Economic Development Authority to run concurrent with the City Council meeting. B. ADOPT AGENDA ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To adopt the agenda as presented or modified. C. APPROVE MINUTES ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve the minutes of the May 3, 2005 EDA meeting as presented or modified. ATTACHMENTS: • Minutes of the May 3, 2005 EDA meeting on pages 0~ ~a MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE EAGAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Eagan, Minnesota May 3, 2005 A meeting of the Eagan Economic Development Authority was held on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were President Geagan and Commissioners Fields, Cazlson, Maguire and Tilley. Also present were Executive Director Tom Hedges, City Planner Mike Ridley, Director of Public V/orks Tom Colbert, Community Development Director Jon Hohenstein, City Attorney Mike Dougherty, Administrative Secretary /Deputy Clerk Mira Pepper. ADOPT AGENDA Commissioner Fields moved, Commissioner Tilley seconded a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 APPROVE MINUTES Commissioner Fields moved, Commissioner Tilley seconded a motion to adopt a resolution approving the minutes of the March 15, 2005 EDA meeting as presented. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 OLD BUSINESS RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR THE JOHN BUNKERS PROPERTY AT 3989 CEDARVALE BOULEVARD Community Development Director Hohenstein discussed the proposed purchase agreement for the former Baskin Robins property at 3989 Cedarvale Boulevard. Councihnember Fields moved, Councihnember Tilley seconded a motion to adopt a Resolution to Approve a Purchase Agreement for the Former Baskin Robins Property (John Bunkers), 3989 Cedarvale Boulevard. Aye: 5 Nay:O ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Tilley moved, Commissioner Carlson seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 Date Executive Director If you need these minutes in an alternative form such as large print, Braille, audio tape, etc, please contact the City of Eagan, 3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, MN 55122, (612) 681-4600 (TDD phone: (612) 454- 8535. The City of Eagan is committed to the policy that all persons have equal access to its programs, services, activities, facilities and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status or status with regard to public assistance. g3 Agenda Memo Eagan Economic Development Authority Meeting June 21, 2005 1. CONSIDER REQUEST for Review of Relocation Benefits and for an Administrative Avueal Hearing for Instant Testing Company and Allied Test Drilling, formerly located at 3996 Cedar Grove Parkway ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To deny a request for review of relocation benefits and also deny Petitioners' request for administrative appeal hearing as untimely for failure to file the same within 90 days after receipt of the written notification concerning the amount of relocation benefits. FACTS: - Gordon and Alice Kopacek previously owned property located at 3996 and 4000 Cedar Grove Pazkway. At Mr. Kopacek's request, the EDA entered into negotiations for the acquisition of the property in 2003, ultimately closing on that property in December of that year. - Under the Purchase Agreement, the EDA acquired the property for a total acquisition price of $346,000.00, of which $41,000.00 was allocated for relocation benefits for Instant Testing Company and Allied Test Drilling, two companies that had occupied the property. - Subsequently, the two companies retained an attorney, who filed a district court action for additional relocation assistance, instead of pursuing the City's administrative relocation appeal process. The district court found for the City and the EDA and denied the claim. By pursuing the district court action, the companies permitted the 90 day period for appeal through the City's Relocation Appeal Policy. - The companies' attorney has since requested a review of their request for additional relocation assistance through the City's Relocation Appeal process. Staff has consulted with the City Attorney's office and has determined that the appeal was not received within 90 days after receipt of written notification of the Council decision concerning relocation benefits. As such, it has not been filed in a timely manner and the City's Relocation Appeal Policy does not apply. - If the EDA wishes to discuss this matter in detail, it should adjourn to executive session as this is pending litigation. ATTACHMENTS: - Background memo on pages ~" (~ - Kopacek Attorney's letter on pages ~~ - EDA and Council Findings of Fact on pages D - District Court Findings and Order on pages - g~ MEMORANDUM TO: Pat Geagan, Mayor City Councilmembers CC: Thomas L. Hedges, City Administrator FROM: Jon Hohenstein, Community Development Director DATE: June 16, 2005 RE: Request by Instant Testing Company and Allied Test Drilling for Review of Relocation Benefits and Request for Administrative Appeal Hearing Before A Hearing Officer BACKGROUND Gordon and Alice Kopacek (the "Kapaceks") were the former owners of property located at 3996 and 4000 Cedar Grove Parkway. In April, 2003, Mr. Kopacek contacted the City to request that it consider acquisition of his property. Following negotiations, the EDA adopted a resolution in June, 2003, approving the purchase of the Eagan property and the closing occurred on December 5, 2003. The Purchase Agreement provided for a total acquisition price of $346,000.00 of which $41,000.00 was allocated for relocation benefits for the two businesses (Instant Testing Company and Allied Test Drilling (the "Petitioners")) and the Agreement states that it was "full satisfaction of any and all claims for benefits which may be available..." Subsequent to the closing, the Petitioners retained the law firm of Schnitker & Associates, P.A. The law firm alleged that the relocation consultant, and the EDA, failed to provide adequate relocation benefits and asserted that they were entitled to relocation benefits exceeding $90,000.00. The City Attorney and the relocation consultant reviewed the claims and subsequently prepared Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Decision denying the claims which were adopted by the EDA at its February 1, 2005, meeting. On February 2, 2005, the City Attorney's office provided the Petitioners with a copy of the EDA's Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Decisions denying the claim for relocation benefits. The Petitioners were also provided a copy of the City's Appeal Policy concerning decisions affecting relocation claims. The Appeal Policy, which was previously adopted in December, 2004, provides that any person aggrieved by a decision must pursue an administrative appeal within 90 days after receiving the decision. Rather than pursue an administrative appeal, the Petitioners filed a district court action and requested that the Dakota County District Court hear their claims and award the claimed additional relocation benefits. On behalf of the EDA, the City Attorneys' office opposed the claim and pursued a motion to dismiss alleging that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the claim and that the Petitioners lacked standing as they were not occupants of the property at the time Rs Pat Geagan, Mayor City Councihnembers June 16, 2005 Page 2 that the EDA acquired the property. The EDA also asserted that the Petitioners had failed to exhaust their adrninistrative remedies by pursuing the administrative appeal. With knowledge that the 90-day clock fvr an administrative appeal was nearing the end, the Petitioners also requested that the district court toll the 90-day period until the Court had issued its order. The District Court, through the Honorable Kathryn D. Messerich, granted the City's motions and concluded that: (a) the Petitioners have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies; (b) the court lacked jurisdiction to extend the 90-day limitation period set forth in the Relocation Appeal Policy; (c) there was no equitable basis to extend .the 90-day limitation period; (d) there was no evidence to support the assertion that they were tenants and thereby lacked standing to bring any claim for relocation benefits; and (e) the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the Petitioners' claims. A copy of Judge Messerich's Order is attached. The court concluded that the Petitioners had 90-days within which to commence an appeal and that the 90-day deadline was May 2, 2005. The Petitioners have now filed a request to the City though correspondence dated June 8, 2005, 37 days following the 90-day deadline. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED To deny a request for review of relocation benefits and also deny Petitioners' request for administrative appeal hearing as untimely for failure to file the same within 90 days after receipt of the written notification concerning the amount of relocation benefits. 2 LAW OFFICE OF SCHNITKER & ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 2300 CENTRAL AVENUE N.E. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 5541 B KIRK A. SCHNITKER JON W. MORPHEW ATTORNEYS June 8, 2005 City of Eagan Attn: Community Development Director 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 ... , _--..._7 ICI .I l ' r i _C~5 ~; i - -- TELEPHONE: (612) 789-5151 FACSIMILE: (612) 788-1011 Re: Instant Testing Company and Allied Test Drilling Request for Review Dear Sir or Madam: This letter is in regard to the above-referenced matter. Pursuant to the Relocation Appeal Policy adopted by the Eagan Economic Development Authority ("EDA"), with this letter we request a review of the denial of our clients' eligibility for relocation benefits. While this Request for Review is more than 90 days after the EDA denied our clients' eligibility for relocation benefits, our office did not receive confirmation of the fact that the EDA had adopted the City of Eagan's Relocation Appeal Policy until Apri126, 2005. Morphew Affidavit, ¶4. Therefore, as the EDA and the City of Eagan are two legally distinct entities and our clients' claims are against the EDA, and not the City of Eagan, our clients have 90 days from the date they received confirmation of the EDA's policy to submit their Request for Review, which makes this Request timely. Additionally, in his letter dated April 29, 2005 (a copy of which is enclosed), Mr. Robert Bauer stated that if the district court dismissed our clients' relocation claims we would still have the opportunity to pursue an administrative appeal hearing. While our clients accepted the risk of pursuing their claims in district court, in good faith they also relied upon Mr. Bauer's representations that, at a minimum, they would have the opportunity to present an argument to the appointed hearing officer that the 90-day appeal period is an absolute jurisdictional requirement. Therefore, it would be manifestly unjust to punish our clients for their good faith reliance upon Mr. Bauer's representations. As is required by the EDA's appeal policy, its denial of our clients' eligibility for relocation benefits is incorrect for the following reasons: I. The City's Denial of Eligibility 8~ A. Definition of Displaced Person/Move Prior to the Initiation of Negotiations In the City's denial of eligibility, Mr. Wilson based his decision upon the definition of displaced person in the federal Uniform Relocation Act ("URA"). (p.2) Mr. Wilson noted that, based upon the URA definition of displaced person, a person that moves prior to the initiation of negotiations is not eligible for relocation benefits. (p.3) The fundaniental flaw with Mr. Wilson's erroneous legal conclusion is that the definition of displaced person in the URA was not applicable in the State of Minnesota at the time our clients moved. Pickering v. The City of Plymouth, 2004 WL 728147 (Minn. App. 2004). Minnesota did not adopt the URA definition of displaced person until July 1, 2003. Id. In a recent amendment to the MURA, the Minnesota legislature adopted the URA's definition of displaced person.... This legislative amendment supersedes and limits the holding of James Bros., but the amendment was not in effect at the time the Pickerings became eligible for relocation benefits. James Bros. rejected a construction of the MURA that would mirror the federal act and specifically concluded that the definition of "displaced person" was broader than its federal counterpart. Id. Specifically, the Court of Appeals rejected the City of Plymouth's argument in the Pickering case that the Pickerings were not eligible displaced persons because they had voluntarily sold their home to the City of Plymouth. Id. The reason the Court of Appeals rejected the City of Plymouth's argument was because the voluntary sale provisions, which are also contained in the "persons not displaced" subpart of the definition of "displaced person" in the federal URA, had not yet been adopted in Minnesota when the Pickerings were displaced. Id. The same rationale applies in this case as well. The URA definition of displaced person had not yet been adopted in Minnesota when our clients moved and none of the exclusions (such as moving prior to the initiation of negotiations) had yet been adopted. Even if the URA definition of displaced person did apply in this matter, this exclusion would still not apply. A person that moves prior to the initiation of negotiations is eligible for relocation if that "person was displaced as a direct result of the program or project ...." 49 C.F.R. 24.2 (emphasis added). The facts clearly demonstrate in this matter that the only reason our clients moved was because of a direct result of the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Project ("Project"). For anyone to assert otherwise would be totally ludicrous as our clients would never have contemplated a move had it not been for the Project. B. Voluntary Sale Exclusion Is Not Applicable As previously noted, the voluntary sale exclusion was not applicable at the time our clients moved because the URA definition of displaced person had not yet been adopted in Minnesota. Additionally, the requirements of 49 C.F.R. 24.1p1(a) have not been 8 ~' adopted in Minnesota., as they are located in the acquisition portion of the URA. The only parts of the URA that have been adopted in Minnesota are those parts related to "relocation assistance, services, payments and benefits ...." Minn. Stat. § 117.52 (2003); See also, In Re the Application for Relocation Benefits of James Brothers Furniture, 642 N.W.2d 91, 96 n.5 (Minn. App. 2002). 2. Exclusion Only Applies to Property Owners In addition to incorrectly concluding that the exclusions in the URA definition of displaced person apply in this matter, Mr. Wilson also incorrectly concluded, "Allied Test Drilling Company and Instant Testing Company are not entitled to relocation benefits because the acquisition of the Kopacek parcel was a voluntary transaction not subject to federal acquisition requirements." (p.8) Even if the voluntary sale exclusion did apply, it only applies to the owner of the property. 49 C.F.R. 24.2. Our clients were not owners of the property on which they were located. Our clients were tenants and the property on which they were located was owned Gordon and Alice Kopacek. If the URA definition of displaced person did apply, it explicitly addresses these types of situations. In such cases of a voluntary sale on behalf of the owner, "any resulting displacement of a tenant is subject to the regulations of this part ...." 49 C.F.R. 24.2. The reason for this is that it would be unfair to punish tenants by not providing them with relocation benefits, if the owner of their building chose to voluntarily sell the property on which they were located. 3. This Was Not a Voluntary Sale As previously noted the voluntary sale exclusion does not apply to our clients. However, if it did, this was not a voluntary sale as it did not meet all the necessary requirements for a voluntary sale: No specific site or property needs to be acquired. Where an agency wishes to purchase more than one site within a geographic area on this basis, all owners are to be treated similarly The Kopaceks' property was located within the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area and needed to be acquired to allow redevelopment within the Project area. Additionally, if the City provided relocation benefits to any other property owners that sold on voluntary basis, they must also provide benefits to our clients so that they are treated similarly to all other owners. ^ The property to be acquired is not part of an intended, planned or designated project area where all or substantially all of the property area is to be acquired within specific time limits. Based upon the record, all properties in the Project area needed to be acquired within two to ten years. ~9 ^ The agency will not acquire the property in the event negotiations fail to result in an amicable agreement, and the owner is so informed in writing. From the very beginning of the Project our clients were informed the property in which they were located needed to acquired for the Project. It is impossible to believe the City would not have acquired the property through eminent domain if negotiations had failed and allowed a substandard property to remain the in the middle of the redevelopment area. However, this is irrelevant as the City never informed our clients in writing that their property would not be acquired if negotiations failed. II. Eligibility for Relocation Benefits under the Minnesota Uniform Relocation Act. Had Delta Development, and not the City, ultimately acquired the Kopaceks' property, our clients would have been eligible for relocation benefits based upon the Wren case. However, the City did acquire the property on which our clients were located and they moved as a result of that acquisition. A. Failure to Provide the General Information Notice The URA mandates that a displacing agency provide certain information and notices to the person scheduled to be displaced so as to inform them of their rights under the URA. 49 C.F.R. 24.203(a). The first notice a displacing agency must provide to a person scheduled to be displaced by a particular project is called the General Information Notice. rd The General Information Notice should be provided "[a]s soon as feasible" and, at a minimum, provide the displaced person the following information: ^ Informs the person that may be displaced by the project and the relocation payments for which they may be eligible. ^ It must also explain how the displaced person obtains those relocation payments. ^ It must inform the person of the relocation advisory services they will be provided, including assistance in filing a claim and assisting the person to relocate. ^ It must inform the person that they will not be required to move without at least ninety days notice. ^ It must also describe the appeal procedure of the displacing agency's decisions as to eligibility and benefit amount. 49 C.F.R. 24.203(a}. ~~ The General Information Notice is not a notice of eligibility and does not necessarily mean the person schedule to be displaced will become eligible for relocation benefits. It is merely designed to inform the person that may be displaced by the project, how they become eligible for relocation benefits and if they become eligible how they make their claim for relocation benefits. As noted above the General Information Notice should be sent out to persons as soon as is feasible. Whether the person scheduled to be displaced will ultimately be eligible for relocation benefits or not they must be provided with this notice. The duty of an acquiring authority to provide the General Information Notice is triggered automatically when it knows that a person may be displaced by the project. This would appear to be especially true when in a project such as this where the City identifies a property that is in a redevelopment project area. An acquiring authority does not have the discretion to determine that it will send out General Information Notices only when it knows it will have to acquire property, it must do so if it is foreseeable at all that it might have to acquire property so that the persons scheduled to be displaced are informed of their rights from the very beginning of the project. The City should have provided our clients with a General Information Notice when it identified Delta Development as the developer it would be working with to redevelop the Project area. Had the City provided our clients with this information they would have known exactly what they would have had to do to be eligible for relocation benefits. However, the City did not provide our clients with this information presumably because it did not want to alert our clients to the steps they needed to take to ensure their eligibility for relocation benefits. B. Tlie Housing and Redevelopment of Auf/zority for the City of Richfield v. Kenneth Wren In Wren the Court of Appeals concluded that even though the Richfield HRA did not actually acquire Mr. Wren's property, the "significant involvement" by the HRA in the acquisition of Mr. Wren's home meant that he was eligible to receive relocation benefits under the Minnesota Uniform Relocation Act ("MURA"). In the Matter of the Kenneth Wien, Residential Relocation Claim, 685 N.W.2d 721, 725 (Minn. App. 2004). The Court of Appeals cited specific facts that demonstrated this significant involvement. These facts included initiating and providing financing for the project, communicating regularly with property owners in the redevelopment area and soliciting and contracting with the developer to acquire property in the redevelopment area. Id. at 725. The City took these exact same steps in this Project when it was going to use Delta Development to acquire the Kopaceks' property. Based upon the significant involvement by the City in this Project, our clients would have been eligible based upon Wren had Delta Development acquired the Kopaceks' property. %~ C. Our Clients are Eligible for Relocation Benefits under the MURA As previously noted, Mr. Wilson's decision in this regard is erroneous as it was based upon the definition of displaced person in the URA, which had not yet been adopted at the time our clients moved from their old location. The MURA requires in cases without federal financial participation that "ji]n all acquisitions undertaken by any acquiring authority ...the acquiring authority, as a cost of acquisition, shall provide all relocation assistance, services, payments and benefits required by the" URA. Minn. Stat. § 117.52, Subd. 1 (2003) (emphasis added}. At that time, the MURA defined displaced person as "any person who moves from real property, or moves personal property from real property, as a result of acquisition undertaken by an acquiring authority ...." Minn. Stat. § 117.50, Subd. 3 (2003). Person is defined to include "any individual, partnership, corporation, or association." Minn. Stat. §117.50, Subd. 2 (2003). Acquisition is defined to include "acquisition by negotiation." Minn. Stat. § 117.50, Subd. 4 (2003). Finally, the MURA defines acquiring authority as "the state and every public and private body and agency thereof which has the power of eminent domain ...." Minn. Stat. § 117.50, Subd. S (2003). As the Court of Appeals noted in James Brothers Furniture, the definition of displaced person in the MU'RA was broader than the definition in the URA as it did not require the displaced person to have moved as a direct result of a program or project. In Re the Application for Relocation Benefits of James Brothers Furniture, 642 N.W.2d 91, 99 (Minn. App. 2002). Therefore, under the MURA at that time, anytime a person simply moved from real property as a result of the acquisition of that property by an acquiring authority, like the City, the acquiring authority owed an affirmative duty to provide relocation benefits to the displaced person. This is exactly what happened in this case. Had Delta Development actually consummated the negotiations with the Kopaceks, our clients would have been eligible for relocation benefits under Wien. However, the City acquired the Kopaceks' property and the only reason our clients moved was because of the acquisition of the property on which they were located. Therefore, despite the assertions of Mr. Wilson, our clients are eligible for relocation benefits under Minnesota Statute § 117.52 and the Pickering case. Clearly the City believed our clients were eligible for relocation benefits as it specifically indicated in the purchase agreement for the Kopaceks' property that our clients were eligible for at least $41,000.00 in relocation benefits following their move. III. Conclusion If, after reviewing this information, the EDA still determines that our clients are not eligible for relocation benefits, we request an administrative appeal hearing before a hearing officer pursuant to the EDA's appeal policy. In the meantime, if you have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience. 9~ Sincerely, Jon W. Morphew Attorney Enclosure JWM/ cc: Gordon Kopacek 93 LARRY S.SEVERSON MICHAEL G. DOUGHERTY# MICHAEL E. MOLENDA' LOREN M.SOLFEST*$ SHARON K. HILLS ROBERT B. BAUER• CHRISTOPHER A. GROVE TERRENCE A. MERRITT$ SEVEIZSON, SHELDON, I~OUGI~EItTY ~ ~®LENDA, ~.L~. A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 600 7300 WEST 147TH STREET APPLE VALLEY, MINNESOTA 55124-7580 (9S2) 432-3136 ANNETTE M. MARGARTT STEPHEN A. LING GARY L. HWSKO KRISTINE K. NOGOSEK CHRISTINE J. CASSELLIUS$ MICHAEL D. KLEMM$ EMILY FOX WILLIAMS MATTHEW J. SCHAAP CHRISTOPHER J. SIMONES OF COUNSEL JAMES F. SHELDON TELEFAX NUMBER (952) 432-3780 April 29, 2005 www.seversonsheldon.com E-MAIL: bauerruC3seversonsheldon.com Jon W. Morphew, Esq. Law Office of Schnitlcer & Associates, P.A. VIA FACSIMILE & U.S. MAIL 2300 Central Avenue NE (612) 788-1011 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55418 RE: Instant Testing Company, et. al. v. Community Security Bank, et. al. Our File No. 206-23492 Dear Mr. Morphew: I have received your facsimile correspondence of today's date. We do not, under any circumstances, agree with your position. You were provided a copy of the City's decision and were sent a copy of the Relocation Appeal Policy. You thereafter acknowledged that the policy existed and requested a different hearing officer. Your clients then proceeded to "forum shop" and file a motion with Dakota County district court. Simply stated, your clients may not "hedge their bets" and instead your clients must pick their forum. If your clients wish to pursue an administrative appeal, they must perfect the appeal and dismiss the district court action. Please be advised that if the district court dismisses your clients' relocation claim and your clients have not perfected its administrative appeal, we will request that the hearing officer dismiss any untimely appeal as the hearing officer would lack subject matter jurisdiction and your clients would lack standing to pursue any claim. Very truly yours, Robert B. Bauer RBB/kmw cc: Jon Hohenstein, Community Development Director INDIVIDUAL ATTORNEYS ALSO LICENS D 1N IOWA AND WISCONSIN rQUALIFIF_D NEUTRAL UNDER RULE L 14 OF THE MINNESOTA GENERAL RULES OF PRACTICE *MSBA BOARD CERTIFIED REAL PROPERTY SPECIALIST ~'~xCS-e..~'~/ v'/c~c~OJ STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA Instant Testing Company, a Minnesota Corporation and Allied Test Drilling, a Minnesota Corporation, Claimants, v. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL CITY OF EAGAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AFFIDAVIT OF JON W. MORPHEW Eagan Economic Development Authority, a Minnesota body politic and corporate, Respondent. Jon W. Morphew, being first duly sworn upon oath, deposes and states as follows: 1. That I am the attorney for Petitioners Instant Testing Company and Allied Test Drilling in the above-entitled matter. 2. That on or about February 6, 2005, our office received a copy of the "Relocation Assistance -Procedure for Appeals" ("Appeal Policy") from Mr. Robert Bauer, the Attorney for the Eagan Economic Development Authority ("EDA"). That according to the Appeal Policy it only applied to "the City of Eagan (hereinafter "City") regarding appeals from a determination by the City's relocation consultant concerning relocation assistance." (Exh. A) 3. That nowhere in the Appeal Policy does it indicate that it applies to relocation claims made by persons displaced by the EDA or to the claims made by displaced persons to the EDA for relocation assistance. 4. That our office did not receive confirmation that the EDA had adopted the same Appeal Policy adopted by the City of Eagan until April 26, 2005. (Exh. B) FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYETH NOT Date: ~ 08 d _ ffiant, Jon W. Mo ~s Subscribed and sworn to before me on this gj day of , 2005 V No Public ~~ ~.+ JULIE M. WAGNER ~ Notary Public ;~;!,;; Minnesota My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2007 ~~~~ 02tO~P~p,~ 12)EI~OCATION ASSIST ~1VCE PROCEDURE FOR APPEALS I. APPEALS POLICY. The following is the policy of the City of Eagan (hereinafter "City") regarding appeals from a determination by the City's relocation consultant concerning relocation assistance. A. .Request for Review. Any person aggrieved by a decision by the City's relocation consultant may file written appeal with the City in any case where the person believes that the. City has failed to properly determine or consider the person's eligibility for relocation assistance. i. Notice. A Request for~Review should be sent to: City of Eagan Attn: Community Development Director 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 The Request for Review shall include a written summary of the reasons the person believes they are aggrieved by the relocation consultant's determination of the person's claim. The City will consider a written appeal regardless of the form. R. ~'ime for Submission. A Request for Review must be submitted no more than 90 days after the person, received the written notification of the relocation consultant's determination of said person's claim. II. REVIEW artD HEAxnvGS. The City Administrator may attempt to resolve the grievance on the bazis of any new data which may be presented by the aggrieved party. Any case that cannot be resolved should be forwarded to a hearing officer. The hearing officer shall be the City Attorney for the City of Inver Grove Heights and in the event of a conflict, or such other hearing officer as may be determined by the City Administrator. A. .Duties of Hearing Officer. It shall be the duty of the hearing officer to: (1) advise all parties as to the location and time which a hearing shall be held; {2) conduct the hearing only when proper notice has been given; and (3) see to it that any hearing is conducted in a fair and impartial manner. EXHIBIT 's Page 2/RELOCATION ASSISTANCE -PROCEDURE FOR APPEALS ~. Record of Hearings. The hearing officer shall use audio magnetic recording devices to keep a record of the hearings. If the hearing officer determines that the use of a court reporter is more appropriate, the cost of the court reporter shall be paid by the City. If the hearing officer determines that the use of an audio magnetic recording devise is more appropriate in a hearing, any party to that hearing may provide a court reporter at that parry's expense. I>[><. ~+ VIDENCE IN THE CONTESTED CASE. The hearing officer may admit and give effect to evidence which possesses probative value commonly accepted by a reasonable prudent person in the conduct of affairs. All evidence, including records and documents, shall be made a~ part of the hearing record. of the case. No factual information or evidence shall be considered in the determination of the case unless it is part of the record. Evidence maybe received in the form of copies or excerpts of documents, or by incorporation by reference. IV. CROSS ~+ xAMYNATION OF ~dITNESSES/IZEPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL. Every party shall have the right of cross examination of witnesses who testify, and shall have the right to submit rebuttal evidence. Every party shall also have the right to be represented by legal counsel or other representative in connection with the appeal, but solely at the person's own expense. V. d)ECISIONS/®RI>ERS. Every decision or order rendered by a hearing officer shall be in writing, shall be based on the record and shall include findings of fact and conclusions on all material issues. A copy of the decision and order shall be served upon each party or the party's representative by first class mail. The hearing officer shall also transmit to the City the entire record of the proceedings. The report or order of the hearing officer constitutes the final decision in the case and the hearing officer shall issue findings of fact, conclusions and an order with within 90 days after the hearing record closes. V)l. .J(UbICIAL REVIEW. Any person aggrieved by a final decision of the hearing officer is entitled to judicial review under the provisions of MINN. STAT. § § 14.63 -14.68. ~~ ~~ o ~~J o~~u~ ~o s NQNUTES OF A MEETING OF THE EAGAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Eagan, Minnesota December 13, 2004 A meeting of the Eagan Economic Development Authority was held on Monday, December 13, 2004 at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were President Geagan and Commissioners Fields, Tilley, Carlson and Maguire. Also present were Executive Director Tom Hedges, City Planner Mike Ridley, Director of Public Works Tom Colbert, Community Development Director Jon Hohenstein, City Attorney Mike Dougherty, Administrative Secretary /Deputy .Clerk Mina McGarvey. ADOPT AGENDA Commissioner Fields moved, Commissioner Carlson seconded a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Aye: 5 Nay. 0 APPROVE MINUTES Commissioner Fields moved, Commissioner Tilley seconded a motion to adopt a resolution approving the minutes of the November 16, 2004 EDA meeting as presented. Aye: 5 Nay. 0 NEW BUSINESS RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A RELOCATION ASSISTANCE POLICY FOR APPEALS FOR PROPERTIES ACQUIRED BY THE CITY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES Community Development Director Hohenstein reviewed the proposed resolution regarding a Relocation Assistance Policy for appeal for properties acquired by the City for public use or public purposes. Commissioner Tilley moved, Commissioner Carlson seconded a motion to approve a Resolution to Establish a Relocation Assistance Policy for Appeals for Properties Acquired by the City for Public Use and Public Purposes. Aye: 5 Nay. 0 AUTHORIZATION OF ACQUISITION OF JOOS ELECTRIC PROPERTY, 3980 CEDAR GROVE PARKWAY, AND SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING TO AUTHORIZE EA~IIlVENT DOMAIN PROCESS (1F NECESSARY) ON JANUARY 18, 2005 Community Development Director Hohenstein discussed the acquisition of Joos Electric property Iocated at 3980 Cedar Grove Parkway. Commissioner Carlson moved, Commissioner Fields seconded a motion to authorize acquisition of Joos Electric property located at 3980 Cedar Grove Parkway and schedule a public hearing to authorize eminent domain process (if necessary) on February 15, 2005. Aye: 5 Nay. 0 ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Maguire moved, Commissioner Tilley seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Aye: 5 Nay. 0 Date Executive Director EXHIBIT a a 3 If you need these minutes in an alternative form such as large print, Braille, audio tape, etc, please contact the City of Eagan, 3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, MN 55122, (612) 681-4600 (TDD phone: (612) 454- 8535. The City of Eagan is committed to the policy that all persons have equal access to its programs, services, activities, facilities and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status or status with regard to public assistance. /~ LARRY s. S1rvl;RSOx MICHAEL G. DOUGHERTY~ MICHAF.t. E. MOLENDA$ LOREN M.SOLFEST'$ SHAROx K. HllrLS ROBERT B. BAUER• CHRISTOPHER A GROVE TERRENC~ A. MERRITT$ February 2, 2005 SE«RSON, SxELDON, DOUGHER'I'Y & ~OLENDA, P.A. A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION A7TORN$YS AT LAVE' SUITE 600 7300 WEST 1k7TH STRHET' APPLE VALLEY, MINNESOTA 55124-75$0 (952) 432-3136 TELEFAX NUMBER 1952) 432-37$0 www,seversonsheldoa.com 1:-MAIL: bauetrC~4scvcrsonsheldon.com ANNETT'E M. MARGARIT STEPHEN A. LING GARY L. HULiSKO KRISTINE K. NOGOSEIC C1iRISTINE 3. CASSELLIUS$ MICHAEL. D. KLEMM# EMn.Y FOX WII.I.IAMS ' WIATTHEW I. SCHAAP CHRJSTOPHEIt J. SIMOxES _ OF COUNSEL JAMES F. SHfiLDOx Jon W. IVlorphew, Esq. ' Law Office of Schnitlcer R~ Associates, P_A. 2300 Central Avenue NE Minneapolis, Minnesota 55418 RE: Alleged Relocation Claims of Allied Testing & Interim Testing Our File No. 206-20268 Dear Mr. Morphew: Enclosed please find the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Decision denying the relocation claims. The Eagan Economic Development Authority. and the City approved the findings at its February 1, 2005, meeting. Also enclosed is a copy of the City's relocation appeal policy. Very truly yours, Robert B. Bauer RBB/kmw Enclosures cc: Jon Hohenstein, Community Development Director Dan Wilson iNDiVIDU.AL A"iTORNEYS ALSO LlC£NSED IN [OU'A AND W[SCONSih #Qt1ALIFIED NEUTRAL UNDER R ULE 1 I4 OF TtIE MINNESOTA GENERAL RLR.ES OF PRACTICE • ~ 'MSBA BOARD CERTIFIED REAL PRQPERTY SPECIALIST /D/ In Re: Relocatian Benefits Claims of Allied Test Drilling Company and Instant Testing Company vs. Eagan Economic Development Authority FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION I, Dan Wilson, am the owner of Wilson Development Services, and the designated Relocation Consultant for tGe City of Eagan, Minnesota (the "City") and Eagan Economic Development Authority ("EDA"). As the Relocation Consultant, I review and prepaze all claims for relocation benefits that are submitted to the City or EDA for their review and approval. I have reviewed the following pertinent documents in connection with the relocation benefits claims of Allied Test Drilling Company and Instant Testing Company (collectively the "Companies"}: ~ Document submitted by the Companies in support of their relocation benefits claims; EDA's files regarding acquisition of the property located at 3996 and 4040 Cedar Grove Parkway, Eagan, Minnesota. (the "Kopacek Parcel"); and • State and federal statutes and regulations regarding relocation benefits. FINI?INGS 1. Minn. Stat. ~ 117.52 requires EDA to provide relocation benefits required by federal relocation statutes and regulations to displaced persons in acquisitions /~~ undertaken by EDA fox which the displaced persons aze not entitled to federal benefits due to a lack of federal funding. 2. The Minnesota Uniform Relocation Act does not define the term "undertaken." See Minn. Star. § 117.50. 3. The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently held that a reasonable, common-sense interpretation of the term "undertaken" as it is used in Minn. Stat. § 117.52 is "to take upon one's self," "commit one's self," or "begin." Se Xn Re Wren Residential Relocation Claim, 2004 Minn. App. Lexis 1031 (Minn. Ct. App. September 7, 2004), review granted by, motion granted by, Xn Re Wren Residential Relocation Claim, 2004 N,inn. Lexis 753, 8 No. 49 Minn. Lawyer 6 (Minn. 2004). 4. Minn. 5tat. § 117.50, subd. 3, states "'displaced person' means any person who, notwithstanding the lack of federal financial participation, meets the definition of a displaced person under United States Code, title 42, sections 4601 to 4655, and regulations adopted under those sections." 5. Title 49, Pazt 24 of the Federal .Regulations governs Unifoxm Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for Federal And Federally Assisted Programs. 6. The definition of "displaced person" in 49 C.F.R. 24.2 states that a person who moves before the initiation of negotiations does not qualify as a displaced person unless the Agency determines that the person was displaced. as a direct result of the program or project. 7. 49 C.F.R. 24.2 states "[t]he term Agency means the Federal agency, State, State agency, or person that acquires real property or displaces a person." 2 /0.3 8. 49 C.F.R. 24.101(a) states the federal acquisition requirements do not apply to "voluntary transactions that meet all of the following conditions: {i} No specif c site or property needs to be acquired, although the Agency may limit its search for alternative sites to a general geographic area. Where an Agency wishes to purchase more than one site within a geographic area on this basis, all owners are to be treated similarly. (ii) The property to be acquired is nvt part of an intended, planned, or designated project area where all or substantially all of the property within the area is to be acquired within specific time limits. (iii} The Agency will not acquire the property in the event negotiations fail to result in an amicable agreernient, and the owner is so informed in writing. {iv} The Agency will inform the owner of what it believes to be the fair market value of the property." 9. The Kopacek parcel did not need to be acquired. 10. The Kapacek parcel is not part of an intended, planned, or designated project area where all or substantially all of the property within the area is to be acquired within specific time limits. 11. The EDA did not intend to acquire the property in the event negotiations failed to result in an amicable agreement, and the EDA informed Mr. and Mrs. Kopacek of that fact in writing in the Purchase Agreement drafted by the EDA, which said that the EDA had the right to cancel the Purchase Agreement if the EDA decided nat to acquire the property because of environmental conditians. 12. The EI?A informed Mr. and Mrs. Kopacek of what the EDA believed to be the fair market value of the property in the course~vf the negotiations. 13. The Companies' relocation claims include alleged relocation costs dating back to August 1997, with azt explanation that "TTF District Establishment Took a Lung Time." /D 5` 14. On or about March 11, 2003, Jamie Verbrugge, Assistant City Administrator, informed me that Gordon Kopacek asked the City to make an offer to purchase the Kopacek Parcel. 15. On or about March 19, 2003, the Companies sent a memo to their customers stating "we will be moving to our new office and laboratory building on March 21, 2003. Our new address is: 7125 West 126' Street, Suite 500, Savage, MN 55378." 16. On or about April 9, 2003, I met with Gordon Kopacek and he informed me that he and Delta Development {the proposed redeveloper for a portion of the Cedar Grove area) discussed a sale price for the Kopacek Parcel over the prior two to three years and during the course of their negotiations Delta Development made a verbal offer of $275,000.00, which Gordon Kopacek rejected. 17. A11 of my negotiations with Mr. Kopacek were based upon the voluntary nature of the transaction. I told Mr. Kopacek that it was a voluntary acquisition with no threat of condemnation, and on many occasions Mr. Kopacek threatened to discontinue negotiations, thus demonstrating his understanding that it was a voluntary transaction. 18. On or about May 2, 2003, I met with Gordon Kopacek and we arrived at terms for consideration by the City, including payment of $305,000.00 for Iand and building acquisition and $40,000.00 for business relocation as an actual cost claim or payment in lieu claim. Mr. Kopacek discussed the fact that the purpose of denoting part of the payment as "relocation" funds was potentially to make those dollars tax exempt. 4 /~ ~' 19. On June 13, 2003, I met with Mr. Kopacek and he informed me that he started building his new facility in Savage years previously based on negotiations with a developer named Parranto. Mr. Kopacek alleged that Parranto told him he would have to vacate the Kopacek Parcel by November 2001 so Mr. Kopacek started building his new facility to accon~unodate that schedule. 20. On or about June 17, 2003, EDA adopted a resolution approving a Purchase Agreement for the Kopacek Parcel. 21. Gordon Kopacek, Alice Kopacek, and Eagan Economic Development Authority (the "EDA"} signed a Purchase Agreement for the Kopacek Parcel dated June I9, 2003 (the "Purchase Agreement"). 22. No construction activity had begun for any phase for the redevelopment project as of the date the parties signed the Purchase Agreement. 23. The Purchase Agreement does not include any provision that the sale is made in lieu of eminent domain, nor did the EDA adopt any resolution authorizing eminent domain. 24. Neither the City nor EDA has any obligation in any Development Agreement related to the Cedar Grove area to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire property. 25. Section 4 of the Purchase Agreement provides that the Purchase Agreement is subject to Sellers providing marketable title to the property. 26. Section 8 of the Purchase Agreement provides that the Purchase Agreement is contingent upon EDA being satisfied, in its sale discretion, with the results of environmental tests including, without limitation, a Phase I Environmental Study. 5 /06 with the known dumping of TCE on the Kopacek Parcel and the existence of a dissolved chlorinated hydro-carbon plume in the xegion. 32. On or about November 7, 2003, Community Development Director .Ton Hohenstein wrote to Gordan Kopacek enclosing copies of the Phase I and Phase II Environxnentai Assessment Reports and stating that the City desired to resolve any remaining issues and proceed to closing. 33. Closing on the sale of the Kopacek Parcel from Gordon and Alice Kopacek to EDA occurred on or about December 5, 2003. 34. No construction activity had begun for any phase for the redevelopment project as of the date of closing. 35. At closing on or about December 5, 2003, the parties executed an Escrow Agreement for deposit of $5,000.00 with Dakota County Abstract and Title to be applied to the actual cyst of any environmental remediation on the Property. 36. On or about February 4, 2004, American Engineering Testing, Inc., issued an addendum to the October 27, 2003, Phase 13 Environmental Site Assessment Report to present results from subsurface sampling below the floor slabs inside the buildings. This work was necessa~t y because Mr. Kopacek denied access to the buildings in September 2003, despite the language in the Purchase Agreement requiring him to provide access. The Addendum Report recommends subsurface sampling and analysis within the grease pit area after the officellaboratory building is demolished. /o ~ 27. Section 5 of the Purchase Agreement provides that EDA may enter upon the pc~operty for the purpose of making soil tests and/or any other tests contemplated by its proposed use of the property. 28. The EDA engaged American Engineering Testing to undertake appropriate environmental tests. 29. On or about July 30, 20(}3, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report was prepared by American Engineering Testing, Inc. The report states that the Kopacek Parcel identifies recognized environmental conditions including evidence of farmer underground storage tanks, a septic system, stains an building floors, possible waste traps and sumps, listing by Dakota County of the Former Instant Testing Company as a former hazardous waste generator, and listing by Dakota County of the Property as a dump site in connection with known dumping of liquid TCE on a gravel driveway. 30. Based on the Phase I report, the EDA authorized a Phase II environmental study. 3I. On or about October 27, 2003, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report was prepared by American Engineering Testing, Inc. The report recommends further sampling in areas where diesel range organics were detected, which may be more practical when the former office/laboratory building is demolished due to limited current access; subsurface sampling inside buildings an the Kopacek Parcel to which Mr. Kopacek denied access for Phase II assessment; and consideration for obtaining a "no association determination" letter from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regarding the TCE and diesel range organics and soil contamination detected on the Kopacek Parcel, in connection /o ~ CONCLUSIONS I. The Eagan Economic Development Authority's purchase of the Kopacek parcel was a voluntary transaction exempt from state and federal acquisition requirements pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 117.52 and 49 C.F.R. 24.1~1(a). 2. Allied Test Drilling Company and Instant Testing Company are not entitled to relocation benefits because the acquisition of the Kopacek parcel was a voluntary transaction not subject to federal acquisition requirements. 3. Neither the City of Eagan nor Eagan Economic Development Authority undertook the acquisition of the Kopacek Parcel within the meaning of the Minnesota Uniform Relocation Act. 4. Allied Test Drilling Company and Instant Testing Company are not entitled to relocation benefits because neither the City of Eagan nor Eagan Economic Development Authority undertook the acquisition of the Kopacek Parcel. 5. Allied Test Drilling Company and Instant Testing Company do not qualify as displaced persons under state and federal relocation benefits law because the Companies relocated before the initiation of negotiations for acquisition of the Kopacek Parcel. 6. Allzed Test Drilling Company and Instant Testing Company are not entitled to relocation benefits because they do not qualify as displaced persons under state and federal relocation statutes and regulations. 8 /D 9 DECISION The relocation hene~t claims of Allied Test Drilling Company and Instant Testing Company are denied. Dated: (~ ~ d " 0~ 1 Dan iison, Relocation Consultant 9 //D STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA Instant Testing Company and Allied Test ---Drilting.T a M-innesota Eor-porat~on~, -- ---- Fite No. C7-05-7088 FINDINGS OF FACT, Petitioners, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW v. AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT Community Security Bank, a Minnesota Corporation, Eagan Economic Development Authority, a Minnesota public body politic and corporate, Barbara Alice Kopacek, Gordon Joseph Kopacek, John Doe and Mary Roe, Respondents. JUt~I 0 3 2DQ5 BY mutt The above-entitled matter came before the Honorable Kathryn D. Messerich, Judge of District Court, on April 26, 2005, at Dakota County Government Center, Hastings, Minnesota. Jon W. Morphew, Esq., appeared on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents, Barbara and Gordon Kopacek. Robert B. Bauer, Esq., appeared on behalf of the respondent Eagan Economic Development Authority. Based upon the proceedings, the Court makes the fallowing: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent Gordon Kopacek is the owner of commercial property located at 3996 and 4000 Cedar Grove Parkway, Eagan, Minnesota {hereafter "Eagan property'}. 2. Petitioners Instant Testing Company and Allied Test Drilling. are companies owned by the Gordon Kopacek and were tenants on the Eagan property. DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDfC1AL DISTRICT AND Jt1DGMElVT ~ ~ n+~ccrac~mmr +rwra arwsrna~, C~x,rtaambtisa~ . /// 3. In the spr(ng of 2002, the Mr. Kopacek began construction of a new building in Savage, Minnesota based on an expectation that Delta Development was interested in purchasing the Eagan property. _,._..__ ---~- TFie proposed -sale ~to-Delta fetl ap~rtirsiofa~c~i o~~0II3- . _ _ . 5. On or about March 11, 2003, Mr. Kopacek contacted the City of Eagan about a possible acquisition of the Eagan property. 6. On March 19, 2003, the petitioners sent a memo to their customers stating "we wiH be moving to our need offices and laboratory building on March 21, 2003. Our new address is 7125 West 126"' Street, Suite 500, Savage, MN 5537$.° 7. On April 9, 2003, Mr. Kopacek met with Dan Wilson, the acquisition consultant for the Eagan Economic Development Agency {hereafter "EDA") to talk about a potential sale of the Eagan property. 8. On .tune 17, 2003, the EDA adapted a resolution approving the purchase of the Eagan property. Closing occurred on December 5, 2003. 9. There is no evidence that the EDA or the City of Eagan approached Mr, Kopacek or initiated any of the negotiations for acquisition.. The record does not indicate that there was any intent to acquire the Eagan property by eminent domain. 10. The purchase agreement between EDA and the Kopaceks provides for relocation benefits of $41,000 and that this amount was in "fuU satisfaction of any and all claims for benefits, which may be available to Sellers pursuant to Minn. Stat. §'(17.52 and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970". 11. After the closing, the petitioners sought additions{ sums as relocation z //~ benefits. 12. The City and EDA issued a decision on February 1, 2005, which determined that petitioners were not entitled to any relocation benefits pursuant to Minn: ~__~.`_ --Y- - Stat:~§ '4'i7~2 and-49-~.f.R: 2-4.'t0~1~a~~Bauer Affd.-Ex. A~--~-- 13. The City and the EDA adopted a "Relocation Appea! Poficy° which was provided to the petitioners. The policy provided the petitioners had 90 days within which to commence an appeal. The 90.day appeal deadline was May 2, 2005. (Bauer Aff d. Ex. C). 14. Counsel for the petitioners received a copy of the appea( policy on February 4, 2005. (Bauer AfPd. Ex. A). Petitioners objected to the designation of the City Attorney for the City of Inver Grove Heights as the hearing officer on February, 22, 2005. (Bauer Afi'd., Ex. D) 15. The appeal policy provides for judicial review of the final decision of the hearing officer under the provisions of Minn. Slat. §§14.63-14.68. 16. Post-hearing the petitioners sought to have the 90-day appeal period tolled until the court issued it's Order. 17. There is na evidence or pleadings before the court to indicate that the petitioners or Mr. Kapacek, on behalf of the petitioners, rejected EDA's initial relocation benefit offer of $41,000 prior to the closing. The purchase agreement demonstrates that the parties reached an agreement as to the appropriate amount of relocation benefits and that petitioners did not reject those amounts as contemplated by Minn. Stat. § 117.232, subd. 2 until after the closing. 3 //3 .. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Petitioners failed. to exhaust their administrative remedies under the Relocation Assistance -Procedure for Appeals policy adopted by bath file City of Eagan - - aid Eagan-Ecot~ornic F3evefuprrrent-Aathrni -. - . _ 2. The court sacks jurisdiction to extend the 90-day limitation period set forth in the Relocation Appeal Policy. 3. There is no equitable basis on which to extend the 90-day limitation period set forth in the Relocation Appeal Policy. 4. There is no evidence to support the assertion that petitioners were tenants or owners within the meaning of Minn. Slat. § 117.025, subd. 3 at the time the EDA began negotiations. ~5. This Court Packs subject matter jurisdiction to hear petitioners' claims. Irwin v. Goodno, 686 N.W.2d 878, 880 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). 6. Petitioners sack standing to bring a claim for relocation benefits under Minn. Slat. § ~ 17.232. ORDER 1. That this matter is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. 2. All other motions not herein granted are hereby DENIED. Dated: June o~ , 2005 BY THE COURT: ~ Kathryn . Messerich Judge of District Court ~~ . ~~ F~g~~(~NTpPT~SC~ttRr R a . 4 ~ ~ ts~- 1I Agenda Information Memo Eagan Economic Development Authority Meeting June 21, 2005 F. OTHER BUSINESS There is no other business to come before the EDA at this time. G. ADJOURNMENT ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To adjourn the Economic Development Authority meeting. // S Map Date: June 15, 2005 J ~ ... ' ~,. t i Minnesota Lawful Gambling Page 1 of 2 LG240B Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo (No fee) 11/04 Excluded bingo may be conducted by an organization that conducts 4 orfewer bingo occasions in a calendar year, or in connection with a county fair, the state fair, or a civic celebration if it is conducted on 12 or fewer consecutive days in a calendar year. If your organization has been licensed or exempted in the current calendar year, you are not eligible to apply for excluded bingo. Organization Information Organization legal Warne Previous license or permit number, if any ~'~.k ~= 4 a In f~cx-~ ndc~~ ~r i Sn Cpr ~odc- /ur1Yt1! Street ~~ ~ ~C Zl l I RZ City FQ are State f~'1`V Zip code SSIZI County I~xka~. Type of nonprofit organization (check one): Fraternal ~ Religious (~ Veterans Other nonprofit organization Type of proof of nonprofit - attach a copy (see instructions) Nonprofit Articles of Incorporation or Certificate of Good Standing -Minnesota Secretary of State's Office (~ Internal Revenue Service AfFliate of parent nonprofit organization (charter) Excluded Bingo Activity Information Has your organization held a bingo event in the current year? No~ Yes If yes, list the dates that bingo was conducted The bingo event will be one of four or fewer bingo events held this year. Date(s) of bingo event(s) ~ Z' ~~ Z~~^ -OR- The bingo event will be conducted (up to 12 consecutive days) in connection with a: County Fair ------ Date(s) of bingo event State Fair ------- Date(s) of bingo event Civic Celebration -Date(s) of bingo event A civic celebration is defined as an event conducted in Minnesota that is sponsored by a local unit of government having jurisdiction over the a nt. ~' ~ O~ ~li ~a V 1 ~O ~ ~~P~t eu ((u.l~ta` n ` ~ Name of person in charge of the bingo event ~/ Daytime phone (o S (~' ~~ S-SS / ~J ~arb ~1(.c rIt e~j ~!~ Gt 1'1 ~ ~ (oS-7'Y5 Bingo equipment (hard cards, bingo paper, and bingo ball selection device) must be purchased from a distributor licensed by the Gambling Control Board. To find a licensed distributor, go to www.gcb.state.mn.usaWd click on List of Licensed Distributors. Or call 651-639-4000. Premises Where Excluded Bingo Will Be Conducted Name of premises e n -fr~.l 1 al r-lC.. ~ a a r'1 Street address fG' / l~G~~~ ~ I ~~ ~IGY v ~~ City or township Zip code ounty i ' a a~ ~ti 'SI 2~ I ~i~ '3~ Page 2 of 2 LG240B Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo tt/o4 Organization name ~~ ~Q 4 C~ Yl I Uu n d a'l~i~r.- ~ h C D r~,CJ2 ~~ Chief Executive Officer's Signature The informatipn nrovided in this appli atisl~ is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. ~ ,~ ~ Signature ~,1~ / Daytime phone number ~03~'"'~J T~7g3~ --.~~-i~ _ Name (please print) li'Gt ~. ~ •^~~ u /Yt ~P. ~ Date ~ ! ~~! US Local Unit of Government Acknowledgment and Approval If the gambling premises is within city limits, the city must sign this application. On behalf of the city, I hereby approve this application for excluded bingo activity at the premises located within the city's jurisdiction. Print name of city Signature of city personnel receiving application Title Date // If the gambling premises is located in a township, both the county and township must sign this application. For the township: On behalf of the township, I acknowledge that the organization is applying for excluded bingo activity within the township limits. Print name of township A township has no statutory authority to approve or Signature of township official acknowledging application deny an application (Minnesota Statute 349.213, subd.2). Title Date / / For the county: On behalf of the county, I hereby approve this application for excluded bingo activity at the premises located within the county's Print name of county jurisdiction. (Signature of county personnel receiving application) Title Date /! Mail application and attachment(s) Send the completed application and a copy of your proof of nonprofit status (see instructions) at least 30 days prior to the activity date to: Gambling Control Board Suite 300 South 1711 W. County Rd. B Roseville, MN 55113 This form will be made available in aRemative format (i.e. large print, Braille) upon request. The information requested on this form (and any attachments) will be used by the Gambling Control Board (Board) to determine your qualifications to be involved in lawful gambling activities in Minnesota. You have the right to refuse to supply the information requested; however, if you refuse to supply this information, the Board may not be able to determine your qualifications and, as a consequence, may refuse to issue you an authorization. If you supply the information requested, the Board will be able to process your application. Your name and your organization's name and address will be public information when received by the Board. All the other information that you provide will be private data about you until the Board issues your authorization. When the Board issues your authorization, all of the information that you have provided to the Board in the process of applying for your authorization will become public. If the Board does not issue you an authorization, all the information you have provided in the process of applying for an authorization remains private, with the exception of your name and your organization's name and address which will remain public. Private data about you are available onlyto the following: Board members, staff of the Board whose work assignment requires that they have access to the information; the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; the Minnesota Attorney General; the Minnesota Commissioners of Administration, Finance, and Revenue; the Minnesota Legislative Auditor, national and international gambling regulatory agencies; anyone pursuant to court order, other individuals and agences that are specifiglly authorized by state or federal law to have access to the information; individuals and agencies for which law or legal order authorizes a new use or sharing of information after this Notice was given; and anyone with your consent. 1,. ~.. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING EAGAN, MINNESOTA JUNE 20, 2005 CITY ATTORNEY CITY ADMINISTRATOR Item 1. Central Park Playground DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS Item 1. Contract 04-05, Change Order #1, Well #20 DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Item 1. Redevelopment District Update ~~~ City of Baran Mcmo TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: JUNE 20, 2005 SUBJECT: ADMIhIISTRATIVERGENDA /JUNE 21, 2005 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY ATTORNEY There will an Executive Session to discuss two matters of pending litigation; Carriage Hills and Cascade Bay. CITY ADMINISTRATOR Item 1. Central Park Playground - As the Council will recall, the issue of a playground at Central Park was discussed at the Apri126, 2005 joint meeting of the Council and APrC, at which time the 2005 Parks CIP projects were bring considered. It was the direction of the Council for staff to provide additional information regarding the potential playground location, cost, and features. At the May 31, 2005 City Council workshop, the City Council reviewed Central Park photos, a site location map, and a site summary to assist in further discussing the placement of a playground at Central Park. Per the direction of the Council at the May 31 workshop, on Friday, June 3, staff placed markers at the various sites that were suggested for the playground at Central Park. Also per Council direction, a memo was provided in the June 3 Additional Information Memo summarizing the various sites considered by the APrC for the playground. For the Council's information, enclosed on pages ~ through ~ are the findings of the Community Facilities Task Force, a summary of the citizens' survey regarding priorities for outdoor site components at Central Park, and the special edition of Experience Eagan that was distributed in advance of the bond referendum. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. To provide direction to staff on whether to proceed with the installation of a playground at Central Park; and, 2. If a playground at Central Park is desired, direct staff as to the site that the playground should be constructed. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS Item 1. Contract 04-05, Change Order #1, Well #20 (Pumping Equipment) -Due to delays in equipment manufacturing and delivery beyond the control of the contractor, the completion date for `~ this contract should be extended from June 1 to August 1, 2005. There are no costs associated with this modification to the original contract. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve Change Order #1 to Contract 04-OS (Well #20, Pumping Equipment) and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Item 1. Redevelopment District Update -Staff is providing regular updates to the City Council regarding the City's redevelopment districts as a part of each administrative agenda. In addition to the information enclosed on page ~, staff will be available to provide comments or respond to questions relative to the redevelopment ojects at Tuesday's meeting. /s/ Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator n~ _~ FINAL REPORT EAGAN COMMUNITY FACILITIES TASK FORCE MARCH 31, 2000 19 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CLYDE THURSTON, COMMUNITY FACILITIES TASK FORCE CHA1R DATE: MARCH 30, 2000 SUBJECT: FINAL REPORT OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES TASK FORCE On behalf of the members of this task force, it is my pleasure to present you with this final report of our process and recommendations. This task force was originally formed and functioned as the Community Facilities Land Acquisition Task Force. We were charged with exploring those issues related to land requirements for a Central Park and Community Center. You have subsequently acted on Task Force recommendations to acquire land in the northwest quadrant of Yankee Doodle Road and Pilot Knob Road. We applaud your vision in acquiring sufficient land, not only for current needs, but to meet the future needs of our community. You then brought the Task Force back together with a new charter as the Community Facilities Task Force. The primary focus of this report will be to address the direction you provided to this Task Force at the January 18, 2000 City Council Meeting. The following report reflects the process undertaken by our Task Force and our final recommendations for park development and construction of a community center. In summary, let me thank you for the confidence that you have placed in this Task Force to cant' out its mission. I can assure you that we have taken our challenge most seriously. I would be remiss in not recognizing the excellent support and cooperation of the City staff and the sincere passion of the Task Force members. When we first met as a Task Force, we were twenty-five individuals, each with our own unique objectives. Over the past seven months, I believe that we have listened and learned from each other and gained a much greater understanding and appreciation for the needs of all members of our community. I am very pleased that our final report reflects consensus recommendations for meeting the current and future needs of our citizens. Sincerely, ~~ Clyde .Thurston l~~ TABLE OF CONTENTS REPORT I. PURPOSE II. CHARGE TO THE TASK FORCE III. TASK FORCE PROCESS N. RECOMI~~NDATIONS PARK IIvIPROVEMENTS & COMMUNITY CENTER COMPONENTS PHASING REVENUE STREAM PUBLIC/PRNATE PARTNERSHIPS REFERENDUM EXHIBITS EXHIBIT lA RECOMMENDED PARK Il~IPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT 1B RECOMMENDED COMMUNITY CENTER COMPONENTS EXHIBIT 1 C COST SUMMARY EXHIBTT 2 PHASING -POTENTIAL FUTURE COMPONENTS EXHIBIT 3 REVENUE STREAM ANALYSIS EXHIBIT 4 POTENTIAL PUBLIC/PRNATE PARTNERSHIPS EXHIBIT 5 SAMPLE REFERENDUM BALLOT EXHIBIT 6 TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP LIST EXHIBIT 7 CHRONOLOGY OF TASK FORCE PROCESS EXHIBIT 8 COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY EXHIBIT 9 COMMUNITY FEEDBACK FORM EXHIBIT l OA SUMMARY OF RESPONSES -PARK EXHIBIT l OB SUMMARY OF RESPONSES -COMMUNITY CENTER EXHIBIT I 1 ESTIMATED TAX IIvIPACTS ~~) ~. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to transmit the final recommendations of the Eagan Community Facilities Task Force regarding future development of the parcel of land acquired for a central pazk and community center facility. Details of those recommendations aze provided (Exhibit lA-Exhibit 5). A listing of Task Fvrce Members is included as Exhibit 6. A summarized chronology of Task Force activities and City Council actions is contained in Exhibit 7. II. CHARGE TO THE TASK FORCE The Eagan City Council provided the following direction to this Task Force at the January 18, 2000 Eagan City Council Meeting: 1) Take input and further define space requirements, financial commitments and design elements for the community center to be brought back for Council and public review. 2) Ezplore phasing options. 3) Provide information on the financing components as it relates to the operating costs of a completed facility. 4) Ezplore publicJprivate partnerships that would be beneficial to the success of this project. ~ Recommend an election date for a referendum to provide funding for the project. III. TASK FORCE PROCESS On August 24, 1999, the Eagan City Council established a Community Facilities Land Acquisition Task Force. The purpose was to determine if a parcel of land situated northwest of the intersection of Yankee Doodle Road and Pilot Knob Road was suitable for development of a city park and community center. The Task Force was further charged with determining how much land would be required to accommodate the needs of the community. The Task Force was comprised of twenty-five representatives of various community groups and organizations as well as citizens-at-large. They approached their task by first identifying the types of programs that would be conducted out at the site. They further defined those programs by defining the frequency and duration of the program/event, the size of the tazget audience, the ---appr~x~at~-sire-and~e-off space~~quir.~u~~n~,e,~~~r-gquiPa~ent-s-elect-r~rit-3~water iaa etc. to support the program, and other important requirements. The Task Force met through October 25, 1999 and provided final recommendations at a Special Meeting of the City Council on November 1, .1999 In summary, the Task Force findings were: 1) The site is appropriate for a community park and community center 2) Minimum current needs are 34-45 acres 3) Purchase as much property as possible for future needs 4) This is probably the last potential site in Eagan 5) There are many potential uses beyond those currently identified 6) There are opportunities for public/private partnerships with corporate neighbors 7) The Task Force has not had time to refine community center design The City Council accepted the Task Force recommendations and directed staff to pursue public/private partnerships, begin negotiations to acquire the property and explore funding options. The Council further asked that the Task Force reconvene with additional membership to more specifically address the issue of a community center and report back to the Council on January 4, 2000. The Task Force reconvened on December 14, 1999, took a bus tour of several metro area community centers on December 18, 1999, and met again on December 21, 2000. They developed a list of potential components to include in the community center and developed a vision statement that states, "To provide a public gathering place where programs and activities bring people of all ages together to build and foster pride, relationships, fitness and wellness in our community" The Task Force provided preliminary feedback to the Council on January 4th and again at a Public Hearing on January 18, 2000. The Task Force requested additional time to continue their task. The Council continued the role of the Task Force and provided additional direction to the Task Force as identified earlier in this report. (See Charge to the Task Force} The Task Force placed significant emphasis on the development of a communications strategy (Exhibit 8) to gather additional community input and maintain effective two-way communication. The task force designed and administered a questionnaire (Exhibit 9) that was delivered to all households and members of the Eagan business community. Through March 29, 2000, we have received 776 responses. The feedback was overwhelmingly positive and strongly validated the initial efforts of the task force. Press releases were generated at significant milestones in the process. We enjoyed excellent press coverage in the Pioneer Press, the Eagan Sun Current, and Eagan Thisweek newspapers. There was a Public Hearing at the January 18, 2000 City Council - Meetin~as~ell as ~nn_~~ty f~r~~ht,~~c_,Trt at a ter Ci Council Meetings ld3 Additionally, the Task Force conducted a Public Forum on March 21, 2000 to provide information to the community and seek additional feedback. This Forum was videotaped and has been played back frequently on cable television. Over these past seven months, the Task Force has used the collective feedback to gain an understanding of the programs, activities, and facilities that citizens of Eagan are seeking. That feedback has helped us to formulate a vision of a Central Park and Community Center that will serve all members of our community, from pre-schoolers to senior citizens. It will provide our community with a gathering place where citizens of all ages and all interests can participate in a rich diversity of programs and activities. It will bring our residents back together for the 4th of July and other celebrations, it will provide positive outlets for our youth, it will provide a gathering place for our rapidly growing senior population, it will serve the growing interest in health and fitness, and it will provide space for individuals, community organizations, and local businesses to hold meetings, training classes, banquets, wedding receptions, birthday parties, and other special events. It will truly serve all the citizens of Eagan. IV. RECOMII~NDATIONS Take input and further define space requirements, financial commitments and design elements for the community center to be brought back for Council review and public review Significant efforts have been made to collect and analyze additional input from the community. The task force designed and administered a questionnaire that was delivered to all households and members of the Eagan Chamber of Commerce. Through March 29, 2000, we have received 776 responses. The feedback was overwhelmingly positive and strongly validated the initial efforts of the task force. Additionally, we conducted a Public Forum on March 21, 2000 to provide information to the community and seek additional feedback. Collective feedback from all sources was used by the task force to arrive at our final recommendations for pazk improvements and community center components. Our final recommendation reflects a community center of approximately 82,007 square feet and a total referendum cost of $15,355,000. Details on those improvements and components and associated costs aze reflected in Exhibit 1 A, 1 B, 1 C. Ezplore phasing options. The task force discussed the concept of developing this facility in phases. After consideration of all potential park improvements and community center components, we reached consensus on those elements to be included in the initial construction phase. We _ ar~nc~tmakin ~ ecific recommendations reearding_a second or subsequent phases. We _ ~a~ aze identifying those elements that we believe should be revisited in the future to deternune if public interest and support have expanded. We do recommend that decisions on the initial community center design and siting take into consideration the potential addition of these elements. Estimated square footage requirements and current cost projections for those potential expansions are reflected in Exhibit 2. Provide information on the financing components as it relates to the operating costs of a completed facility. We have'identified the various types of uses for each component, the potential types of revenue streams from those uses, and a subjective evaluation (high, medium, low) with regard to the revenue potential for each component. That information is reflected in Exhibit 3. Ezplore public/private partnerships that would be beneficial to the success of this project. We have explored a wide range of potential public/private partnerships. Preliminary discussions have taken place with corporate neighbors with regazd to cross-easements for parking, as well as easements for a fireworks launch area and potential band shell seating. The Eagan Rotary has pledged $140,000 for the construction of the band shell. Discussions are underway with the Eagan Convention and Visitors Bureau for the rental of office space and with the Eagan Athletic Association for the rental of office and storage space. These and other partnerships are outlined in Exhibit 4. Recommend an election date for a referendum to provide funding for the project. The consensus of the task force is that a special election should be conducted as soon as possible and practical. Taking into account the required notification period for the county auditor, timeframes for providing absentee ballots, the potential conflict with Memorial Day weekend, and the need to effectively communicate this information to our residents, it appears that the eazliest logical date may be Tuesday, June 6, 2000. Your city staff was requested to reseazch bond cost so this could be included in our report. Further, they were asked to reseazch and prepaze proposed language for a referendum ballot. This is reflected in Exhibit 5. °Z~ Exhibit lA RECOMMENDED PARK IMPROVEMENTS COMPONENT ESTIMATED COST Picnic Shelters (1 large and 3 small) $175,000 Band Shell $140,000 Playground Equipment ~ $50,000 Sand Volleyball Courts (2) $10,000 Restrooms $150,000 WalkingBiking Trails Included in Site Prep 4~' of July Celebration Area Included in Site Prep Plaza and Fountains} Included in Site Prep Festival Grounds Included in Site Prep Formal Gardens Included in Site Prep Ice Skating Included in Site Prey TOTAL COSTS $525,000 ~a~ Ezhibit 1B RECOMMENDED COMMUNITY CENTER COMPONENTS SOUARE FOOTAGE COST Teen Center 2,000 Senior Center 2,000 Meeting Rooms 4,000 Kitchen 240 Indoor Play Area 4,600 Gymnasiums (4)/Walking Track 17,300 Arts and Crafts Room 1,000 Computer Room 800 Music Room 700 Health and Fitness Area 5,600 Locker Rooms (includes showers & restrooms) 5,000 Banquet Facility 8,400 Eagan Historical Society 800 Child Care Center 1,400 Eagan Athletic Association-Storage Lease 2,400 Eagan Athletic Association-Office Lease 400 ECVB/Chamber of Commerce-Office Lease 2,000 Offices/Administration Areas 4,600 Concessions 1,800 Net Total 66,340 $ 8,955,000 Building Support Space (hallways, storage, restrooms, mechanical, etc.) 15,667 2,115,000 Total 82,007 $11,070,000 tai Exhibit 1C COST SUMARY COMPONENT COST INFRASTRUCTURE $1,825,000 Public Street Access (Ring Road) Pedestrian Underpass Landscaping-Median and Boulevard Street and Trailway Lighting Right of Way Easements Sanitary Sewer Water Main and Service Storm Drainage SITE DEVELOPMENT 1,180,000 Parking and Access Drive Clearing/Grading Pond Modifications Trails/Hard Surface Building Utilities Turf/Landscaping-Park and Grounds Primary ElectricaULights Entrance Signage Exterior Plaza PARK DEVELOPMENT 525,000 (See Exhibit 1A) COMMUNITY CENTER CONSTRUCTION 11,070,000 (See Exhibit 1B) PROTECT CONTINGENCY FUND 500,000 NET COST OF PROJECT 15,100,000 BOND ISSUANCE FEES/DISCOUNTS 255.000 TOTAL FOR BOND REFERENDUM $15,355,000 ~aq Exhibit 2 PHASING POTENTIAL FUTURE COMPONENTS The following components were identified by task force members, corporate neighbors, or by other members of the community via the questionnaires that were distributed to all households. After analysis and deliberation by the task force, it was decided that these components would not be recommended for inclusion in the initial build-out of the Central Park and Community Center. It is recommended that they be revisited at a future date as stronger indications of interest and support evolve from the community. Because some of these components require significant square footage or would benefit from adjacency/co-location with other components, it is also recommended that they be considered in the design and siting of the initial construction. We don't want to "build ourselves into a corner" that would preclude us from adding these in the most appropriate location and configuration at a future date. CONIlVIUNITY CENTER NET SIZE NET COST* Climbing Wall N/A $ 100,000 Racquetball Courts (2) 1,600 216,000 Athletic Dome 80,000 2,800,000 Theatre/Auditorium 400 seats 3,500,000 Indoor Aquatic Park 10,000 2,100,000 CONIlVIUNITY CENTER NET SIZE NET COST* Tennis Courts (2) Skateboard Park N/A $ 30,000 N/A 35,000 *Cost is based upon construction costs of $135 per square foot. These estimates do not include the standard 25% multiplier for hallways, storage and other related support space. 130 Exhibit 3 COMPONENT REVENUE SOURCE TYPES OF USE POTENTIAL BANQUET ROOM RENTAL *BANQUETS HIGH FACILITY EVENT PLANNING FEES *AWARDS DINNERS ADMISSION TO EVENTS *LARGE MEETINGS PER PLATE CHARGE *DANCES CORKAGE CHARGE *WEDDING AUDIOVISUAL RENTAL RECEPTIONS . COOKING CLASSES (KITCHEN) *OTHER SPECIAL EVENTS CHILD CARE DAILY FEES *PREtiSCHOOL HIGH HOURLY FEES PROGRAMS PROGRAM FEES *AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS *DROP-IN CHILD CARE CONCESSIONS LEASE ARRANGEMENTS *LEASES HIGH FOOD/BEVERAGE SALES *SALES EQUIPMENT RENTALS *RENTALS MERCHANDISE SALES *FEES VENDING MACHINES VENDOR BOOTH FEES SUPPLIER INCENTIVES PAY PHONES ATM GYMNASIUMS GYM RENTAL *BASKETBALL HIGH EQUIPMENT RENTAL *VOLLEYBALL EVENT ADMISSION FEES *BADMINTON CLINIC FEES *GYMNASTMS LEAGUE FEES *KARATE ADVERTISING SIGNAGE *WRESTLING *EXPOSITIONS *SHOWS/FESTIVALS *DANCES *FLEA MARKETS HEALTH ~ FAMILY MEMBERSHIPS *AEROBICS CLASS HIGH FITNESS AREA INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIPS *FITNESS EQUIPMENT CORPORATE MEMBERSHIPS *HEALTH SCREENINGS DAILY USER FEES *ATHLETiC TRAINING PROGRAM FEES *PHYSICAL REHAB LOCKER RENTAL *WEIGHT-LOSS TOWEL FEES *COtJNSELING l~ MEETING ROOM RENTAL "BUSINESS MEETINGS NIGH ' ROOMS AUDIOVISUAL RENTAL "SCOUTS, ETC. FOOD SERVICE "TRAINING "BIRTHDAY PARTIES "RECEPTIONS OFFICE SPACE LONG-TERM LEASE *EAA HIGH *ECVB/NDCC STORAGE LONG-TERM LEASE *EAA HIGH SPACE ARTS ~ ROOM RENTAL "PAINTING CLASSES MEDIUM CRAFTS ROOM PROGRAM FEES *SCUlPTING CLASSES SUPPLY SALES "POTTERY CLASSES KILN FEES *ART CAMPS "OTHER PROGRAMS BAND SHELL EVENT SPONSORS "CONCERTS MEDIUM ADMISSION FEES "THEATER RENTAL FEE PERFORMANCE CONCESSIONS "SPEAKERS *MEETINGS "CHURCH SERVICE COMPUTER ROOM RENTAL ROOM COMPUTER RENTAL INTERNET ACCESS FEES COURSE FEES "COMPUTER CLASSES "TUTORIALS "COMPUTER CAMPS "INTERNET ACCESS "TAX PREPARATION "RESUME PREP. * E-MAIL MEDIUM INDOOR ADMISSION FEE "PLAY MEDIUM PLAYGROUND RENTAL "BIRTHDAY PARTIES "CHILD CARE MUSIC ROOM ROOM RENTAL "LESSONS MEDIUM PROGRAM FEES "PRACTICE MUSIC LESSON FEES PICNIC RENTAL FEE SHELTERS SPECIAL EVENT FEES "PICNICS "PROGRAMS *ART EXHIBITS "FLEA MARKETS *MEETINGS "RAIN SHELTER MEDIUM ~ 3~. . HISTORICAL COMPUTER RENTAL *HISTORICAL LOW SOCIETY ROOM GENEOLOGY CLASSES RESEARCH "GENEOLOGY RESEARCH FESTIVAL MAJOR EVENT FEES *EXPOSITIONS LOW GROUNDS ADMISSION FEES *FLEA MARKETS *EXHIBITS SENIOR SPECIAL EVENT FEES *MEALS LOW CENTER EVENT SPONSORS *DANCES *MOVIES *CARDS *SOCIALIZING TEEN CENTER SPECIAL EVENT FEES *DANCES LOW EVENT SPONSORS *MOVIE NIGHT *INTERNET CAFE *GUEST SPEAKERS *GROUP MEETINGS *STUDY GROUPS LOCKER LOCKER RENTALS *SUPPORT N/A ROOMS TOWEL FEES HEALTH/FITNESS (SHOWERS AND *SUPPORT RESTROOMS) GYMNASIUMS 1~3 Ezhibit 4 Public Private Partnerships Partnerships, Sponsorships and Collaborations The Central Park and the proposed Community Center provides several opportunities for inclusion of private business and community organizations in the project. Several "partnerships" have previously been identified and discussed as part of this project. The Task Force believes that there aze other opportunities, requiring additional investigation as the project moves ahead that aze possible and probable. Partnerships; sponsorships and collaborations akeady in the making include: • Shared parking with the three corporate neighbors for lazge community events, thus reducing the need to construct large pazking azeas that would be used only occasionally. • A community bandshell of which one-half the cost up to $140,000 would come from the Eagan Rotary Club. • EAA office/Storage space would be at "market rate", thus insuring a revenue stream to help support on going operations. • Eagan Convention and Visitor Bureau office space, also at market rate, again providing a revenue stream to the operations, while providing a service to the business community. • Informal, bandshell seating on the corporate neighbors' property, provided by an easement. • Fireworks launching area, again by easement • Extension of trails and trail connections with corporate entities and near by parks, again by easement. • Eagan Athletic Associations enhancements to the gym space. Identified as potential partnerships, given the opportunity to further explore or found timely with advancement of the project, might also result in additional partnerships and sponsorships. • Health, Wellness and Fitness azeas might be supported either with capital, operations support or in programmed use. Private Clubs may have an interest in operations and Health Organizations /Hospitals in establishing a presence in the facility (mazket rate rental) and in prescribing therapy and use of fitness azeas. • Concessions operations via a private vendor. Other components also Iend them selves to collaborating with others. • "Naming" or sponsorships of various rooms or components or areas within the building or Central Pazk. Example: The XYZ Corp Room. • Grant opportunities for teen and senior programs. The Minnesota Legislature is considering an extension of the Youth Initiatives Program, which might be a source o ing or tore program w ing a ancements. I~ Ezhibit 5 OFFICIAL BALLOT SPECIAL ELECTION CITY OF EAGAN DATE The City of Eagan is asking voter approval to issue and sell its general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $ to finance the construction of a Community Activities Center and street, utility, trail and site improvements to the Central Area Property (Development District No. 3). The amount of taxes that would be raised in the first year of the property tax levy for the bonds is estimated to be approximately $ .The maximum increase in property tax levy is estimated to be % of the market value of the taxable property in the City. Instruction to voters: Voters desiring to vote in favor of the following question shall put an (X) in the square before the word "YES°'. Voters desiring to vote against the question shall put an (X) in the square before the word "NO". BY VOTING "YES" ON THIS BALLOT QUESTION, YOU ARE VOTING FOR A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE. [ ]YES Should the City of Eagan be authorized to issue and sell its general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $ to finance the construction of a [ ] NO Community Activities Center and street, utility, trail and site improvements to the Central Area Property (Development District No.~ 3). M 1:607414.U1 l35'- Exhibit 6 COMMUNITY FACILITIES/LAND ACQUISITION TASK FORCE NAME REPRESENTING Ann Carlon ECVB & 25th Anniv. Committee Barbara Johnson ArrC/ Candice Kasper Resident Carla Heyl Advisory Planning Commission Cathy Clark Economic Development Commission Clyde Thurston Boy Scouts Cyndee Fields EAA Dan Kafinke Eagan History Committee Dan Klekner EAA Dorothy Peterson Resident George Watson Brauer & Associates, Ltd. Gunnar Isberg Eagan Art House-Dakota Center for the Arts Helen Kennedy Historical Society Jan Stapleton NDCC/Eagan Chamber Jeff McCormick Eastview Athletic Association Jerry Marko Eagan Lions Jim Haberkorn EAA Joe Bari Advisory Parks Commission John Willenburg July 4th -Knights of Columbus Judy Hansen Girl Scouts Judy Stewart Eagan Lioness Kay Brown-Gustafson Arts & Humanities Council Kevin Larson Duke Realty Larry Lundberg Espress Fest/Maggie's Cafe Lee Markel) Advisory Parks Commission/resident Margo Danner Eagan Resident Martin Des Lauriers Eagan History Committee Maya Babu Teens/Youth Initiative Mike Ferber _Eagan Foundation Mike McGinn Eagan Resident Patricia Thomas Eagan Floral Patsy Schroeder Yankee Doodle Festival Paul H. Teske Eagan Resident Pete Malamen Eagan Resident Raleigh Seelig Fire Dept. & 25th Anniv. Committee Ray Wade Eagan History Committee Robert Kane Advisory Parks Commission Shirley Lawrence Eagan Resident/ Eagan Seniors Sue Hegarty ECVB & 25th Anniv. Committee Susan Mandel ~ Eagan Resident Tim Staley YMCA Tom Hedges Tom Wilson City of Eagan Administration an Hi h S hool Ea Steve Burdorff g g c Eagan Resident /IMP Ezhibit 7 Task Force Chronolo!?~ August 1999 July 4 Committee meeting - Group asking for City to find more visible, pem~aneat site for celebration. -Administrator Hedges indicated that there could be possibility of acquiring a portion of Joe Miller Property in Central Eagan. City Council requests that Land Acquisition Task Force be created -To determine amount of land to be considered for community purposes. - Task Force to include at least: - 2 residents - July 4~' Celebration Representatives - Community Organizations' Representatives - Commission Representatives - Historical Society Representatives - Other Community Festival Representatives - Athletic Organizations' Representatives Reviewed previous Central Park Planning Studies -199b Promenade Development September 1999 First Meetings of Land Acquisition Task Force -Review Site Features of 80 acre pazcel, current owner information, Task Force Process & Charge by Council. -Created list of possible features/uses for the site October 1999 Administrator and Director of Pazks met with Unisys and Northwest representatives regarding shared use of parking. Consultant presented possible layout for Task Force "identified uses" at site. November 1999 Task Force recommends acquisition of no less than 34 acres (with preference toward 45 or more) at Special City Council Meeting. City Council accepts Task Force recommendation and directs staff to pursue public private partnerships, continue negotiations to acquire 45 acres of the property and explore possible funding options. December 1999 The Task force is reconvened with additional members invited and is directed to investigate the issues related to uses and construction of a Community Center on the site. Task Force began creating Community Center components list. Task Force members toured existing community centers, senior i3~ Task Force created mission statement for Community Center: To provide a public gathering place where programs and activities bring people of all ages together to build and foster pride, relationships, f mess and wellness in our community. January 2000 City staff compiled cost projections for site planning, construction of features and Community Center identified features for presentation to City Council and Task Force. City Council asked that the Task Force again be brought together, as the Community Facilities Task Force, to continue refinement of a community center concept and to make recommendation regarding a bond referendum to finance the project. In addition, the Council asked for projection of operational costs with the expectation that this facility will "as nearly as possible, break even." Task Force selected Clyde Thurston as chair. February 2000 Communications strategies to gather more community input were identified. Feedback mechanism identified, designed, reviewed and approved by Task Force and Council and delivered to all residents for return by March 1. Public/Private Partnerships identified and explored. Explored possible revenue sources and user fees. March 2000 Residentlbusiness feedback compiled and discussed. Additional site and activity center features discussed. Discussion regarding revenue generating potential of features/components. Square footage requirements assessed for identified features desired by Task Force and Community feedback. Cost per square foot, assigned to identified features. Community Forum set. Community Forum Held. ~ 3£~ Reviewed and selected pazk (outdoor) components to be recommended. Reviewed and selected community activity center (indoor) components to be recommended. Calculated costs for preliminary design. Compiled and reviewed projected tax impacts at several relevant levels. Made adjustments to preliminary design features. Discussed recommendation for referendum amount and timing. Prepazed Final Report fo Recommendations Apri12000 Presented Final Report to City Council 139 Council Goal #2 Ezhibit 8 Leisure & Recreational Opportunities Objectives & Needs To expand the City's communication activities and vehicles to bring further attention to increased leisure and recreational opportunities for all residents, especially youth, as the City creates additional recre- ational space, facilities and plans. 1. Citizens need to be aware of available leisure and recreational opportunities. 2. The City needs to continue to promote the maximization of leisure and recreational opportunities available to the public, especially to youth. 3. The City needs to garner community support through interactive processes to continue to create leisure and recreational opportunities for the public, especially youth and promote new facilities and opportunities. Community Central Park/Community Center Communication Goal: To involve the community in an open, two-way dialogue and develop materials and forums which assist in garnering further public input. Develop information sources for the public to achieve an increased understanding of the proposed project. Strategies: Implement opportunities and vehicles for public comment (Facility components feedback) regazding Community Central Park/Community Center. February 2000 Feedback Cards -mail back Provide information regazding task force process, current status and options under consideration for a Community Center/ Central Park. Publicize, and where possible create links and opportunities for public comment and encourage community usage. Cable Information & feedback Pages/ programming Website information pages/Link to a-mail comment area Guest column/press release Signage promoting feedback Connmunication Goal: To develop further information sources which provide frequent updates regarding feedback received, plan developments/changes and ongoing opportunities for dialogue and comment with the task force, staff and City Council. Strategies: Provide information regarding task force process, current status and (Facility components updates) options under consideration for a Community Center/ Central Park. March 2000 -call for referendum Cable Information Pages/ programming Website information Recorded Information phoneline Guest columns/press releases Experience Eagan Newsletter (March) NDC Chamber News (Monthly) i ~~ - Communication Goal: To promote date of bond referendum, voting registration and polling locations. Encourage all Eagan voters to do so. To provide informational vehicles to outline bond issue, Community Center costs, features, amenities and process following a successful or -failed referendum. Strategies: Provide information regarding the bond referendum process, date (Bond Referendum information) and polling locations. Provide common question & answer piece. Call for referendum -referendum Develop expected costs per household information. Experience Eagan Newsletter (Special or June) Cable Information Pages Community Journal segment/ Cable programming Website information Recorded Information phoneline Guest columns/press releases NDC Chamber News (Monthly). Eagan Business News (?) ~ l~l Exhibit l0A Community Facility Task Force Meeting March 31, 2000 Community Responses 668 resident responses received as of March 29, 2000. 108 business responses received as of March 29, 2000 Outdoor Site Components #1 ranked: Walking/biking paths Launch/viewing area for July 4"' Fireworks Bandshell Picnic Shelter/Pavilion Playground Festival Grounds #2 ranked: Walking/biking paths Launch/viewing area for July 4`~ fireworks Festival Grounds Picnic shelter/pavilion Bandshell #3 ranked: Bandshell Fireworks Walking/biking paths Playground Picnic shelter/pavilion Festival Grounds #4 ranked: Picnic shelter/pavilion Bandshell . Walking/biking paths Formal gardens Plaza/fountain Playground #5 ranked: Walking/biking paths Picnic shelter/pavilion Formal gardens Fireworks Other features checked: 1. Plaza Fountain 2. Launching July 4`" Fireworks 3. Playground 4. Picnic Shelter/pavilion 5. Formal Gardens 6. Sliding/Tubing Hill 7. Lawn Games Area 8. Outdoor Ice Rink 9. Bandshell 10. Walking/Biking Paths 11. Festival Grounds 12.Outdoor tennis courts 13. Putting Green 14. Information Kiosk 15. Skateboard Park 16. Garden Plots 17. Sports Fields ^ Soccer ^ Baseball ^ Softball ^ Football ^ Volleyball ^ Hockey Other interests identified (iri no particular order): ^ Picnic tables ^ Grills ^ Badminton ^ Dog park ^ Wildlife preserve ~ ^ Non-paved hiking path • Sand volleyball ^ Restrooms ^ Underground parking ^ Kiddie wading pool ^ Athletic Dome ^ Mountain bike trails ^ Concessions ^ Frisbee golf ^ City Christmas tree ^ Driving range /~ Exhibit lOB Community Activity Center Features(functions: #1 ranked: Teen center Senior Center Walking track Indoor playground Meeting rooms Basketball/volleyball courts Banquet facilities #2 ranked: Teen center Walking track Meeting rooms Senior Center Health & fitness equip area Aerobic exercise area Basketball/volleyball courts #3 ranked: Walking track Meeting rooms Senior Center Teen Center Health & Fitness equipment Basketball/volleyball courts #4 ranked: Teen Center Walking track Meeting room Arts & Crafts Rooms Aerobic exercise area Senior Center Bas ketbal I/vol leybal I #5 ranked: Teen center Walking track Senior Center Health & fitness equipment Music Room Gathering space Meeting Rooms Indoor Play Aerobic exercise Arts & Crafts Other features checked: 1. Arts & Crafts Room 2. Informal Gathering Space 3. Aerobic/Exercise Area 4. Locker Rooms 5. Walking Track 6. Meeting Rooms 7. Kitchen 8. Health/Fitness Equip.Ai•ea 9. Historical Society 10. Informational Kiosk 11. Climbing Wall 12. Basketball/Volleyball Courts 13. Banquet Facilites 14. Senior Center 15. Music Room 16. Indoor Playground ] 7. Teen Center 18. Computer Room 19. Preschool/childcare area 20. Racquetball Courts 21. Video Conferencing Area Other areas identified: (in no particular order) ^ Multipurpose gym ^ Indoor golf ^ Indoor tennis ^ Music storage ^ Concessions ^ Ballroom dancing ^ Theater ^ Ping Pong ^ Library ^ Indoor pool X43 Exhibit 11 CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA $15,355,000 General Obligation Recreational Facilities Bonds, Series 2000 Estimated Taz Impact -Based on Market Value 20 Year Bonds Avg. Annual D/S: $1,402,420 1999/2000 Estimated Market Value: $3,842,261,700 Tag Rate Increase (b): 0.03650% Estimated Market Value (a) Annual Monthly $100,000 ........................ $ .. 36 ...... 3 125,000 ............................46...... 4 144,000 ............................53...... 4 200,000 ............................73...... 6 500,000 ...........................182......15 1,000,000 ...........................365......30 Your Estimated Market Value z .0003650 = Your Impact (a) The estimated market value is the assessor's value and not necessarily the price the property would bring if sold. (b) The calculation of the taz rate per $1,000 of estimated market value is determined by dividing the annual debt service requirement by the City's 1999/2000 estimated market value. Note: Changes in interest rates, timing or size of the bond issue may cause significant alterations of this information. ~ ~~~ ~tle ~(lanf ZJour ~i ~ea~ac~/ ~~to~~ ,~ By x~,~ti~ The City of Eagan has purchased property in the central area of Eagan near the intersection of Yankee Doodle and Pilot Knob Roads. is property is intended to be developed as a community central park. The City Council has created a task force of residents, representatives from community organizations, and businesses to assist in the planning and development process for this property; however, the task force and the Council would also like to bring as much community input into this development process as possible. They have, therefore, asked for community feedback to be gathered regarding the needs and vision for this property including passive and active recreational features, site facilities, and a community activity center. Please fill out the following form ranking your top 1- 5 choices in each category (1 being your highest priority). You may also mark (X) any other features which you would utilize or which you believe are priorities for this facility. Please include any additional features and comments you wish to have considered. Outdoor Site Components: Bandshell Community Gardening Plots Festival Grounds Formal or Display Gardens Informational Kiosks Launch/Viewing Area for (July 4th) Large Aerial Fireworks Displays Lawn Games Area (croquet, bocce ball, etc.) Outdoor Ice Skating Rink cnic Shelter/Pavilion Playground Plaza/Fountain Putting Green Skateboard Ramps/Area Sliding/Tubing Hill Sports Fields--specify type(s) Tennis Courts (outdoor) Walking/Biking Paths Other: 7xan~, ~fou for your ~ssisfanee ~ ~eea~ae~~ Community Activity Center Features/Functions: AerobiclExerciseRrea Art/Craft Rooms Banquet Facilities Preferred seating capabilities BasketbalWolleyball Courts Climbing Wall Computer Room Historical Society Health and Fitness Equipment Area Informational Kiosks Informal Gathering/Lounge Space(s) Indoor Play Equipment Locker Rooms Meeting/Multi Purpose Rooms Music Room PreschooUChild Care Area Racquetball Courts Senior Center Teaching Kitchen Teen Center Video Conferencing Center Walking/Running Track Other: If there are items, facilities, or functions which you do not see on this list, please list them as "other" or make any comments below which you wish to have considered: y,;,~. Cluesfions? Ca~d~t 68t-t~6ot city of Hagen Fax, Tlro~i-o f f or ?flail Bac~ ~FaX dot-68f-1~6t2 ~` ?~~ease ~furn ~~ ?ylarc~i f~ Community Facility Task Force Meeting March 21, 2000 Community Responses 617 resident responses received as of March 17, 2000. i 07 business responses received as of March 17, 2000 Outdoor Site Components #1 ranked: Walking/biking paths Launch/viewing area for)uly 4`~ Fireworks Bandshell Picnic Shelter/Pavilion Playground Festival Grounds #Z ranked: Walking/biking paths Launch/viewing area for)uly 4`" fireworks Festival Grounds Picnic shelter/pavilion Bandshell #3 ranked: ~ Bandshell Fireworks Walking/biking paths Playground Picnic shelter/pavilion Festival Grounds Other features checked: 1. Plaza Fountain 2. Launching July 4`" Fireworks 3. Playground 4. Picnic Shelter/pavilion 5. Formal Gardens 6. Sliding/Tubing Hill 7. Lawn Games Area 8. Outdoor Ice Rink 9. Bandshell 10. Walking/Biking Paths 11. Festival Grounds 12.Outdoor tennis courts 13. Putting Green 14. Information Kiosk 15. Skateboard Park 16. Garden Plots 17. Sports Fields ^ Soccer ^ Baseball ^ Softball ^ Football ^ Volleyball ^ Hockey Other interests identified (in no particular order): #4 ranked: Picnic shelter/pavilion Picnic tables ^ Gritls Bandshell Badminton Walking/biking paths Dog park Formal gardens Wildlife preserve Plaza/fountain Non-paved hiking path Playground Sand volleyball ^ Restrooms #5 ranked: Walking/biking paths Underground parking Picnic shelter/pavilion Kiddie wading pool Format gardens ~ Athletic Dome ^ Mountain bike trails ^ Concessions Plaza fountain ~ Miniature golf ^ Frisbee golf • City Christmas tree Driving range i /~ ~L~ J~V~~IUI ~ - - - - - rience Of EdglxfZ on a c~t~er The community is being ked to vote June 6 to aecide whether $15.355 million in bonds should be sold to finance the development of a central park, festival site and community activities center. If the bond referendum passes, residential and business property owners would pay a percentage of their property's market value to construct the project. For example, the owner of a home or business valued at $144,000 would pay about $4 per month. The owner of a property valued at $1 million would pay approx- Look inside for further details and a schedule of informational meetings. The Ciry leas taken a number of steps that could change the face of central Eagan -the possible development of an Eagan Central Park and a Community Activities Center to serve the people of Eagan. Based on a recommendation of a communiryTask Force, the Ciry recently purchased a 60-acre parcel of property in central Eagan, east of Pilot Knob Road and north of Yankee Doodle Road (picrured below). In order for development to occur on this site, a successful bond referendum would need to be passed by the people of Eagan. The City Council has determined to put before Eagan voters on June G the question ofwhether the site should be developed with the following amenities: • A central park with walking trails, a bandshell, picnic shelters, a garden and plaza. • An area for celebrations, such as the Fourth of July, arts and crafts festivals and other seasonal community events. /47 • A community center with designated space for teens and seniors, meeting rooms, a banquet facility, amulti-purpose gymnasium and offices, some ofwhich may be leased to civic organizations. Amore detailed description of the proposal, information about the referendum, what it means to you and a schedule of informational meetings are outlined in the following pages. Community Central Park Vote June 6 What's included in the proposal? The Eagan Ciry Council has asked that this proposal be put before the community to decide whether a central park and community activities center are things which are needed and will be supported by Eagan citizens. A community activities center has long been identified as a need in Eagan's "Park Systems Master Plan," a community visioning guide since 1983. This type of facility has continued to be shown as a community need in each subsequent update to that plan. Based on a variety of requests from organizations, groups and individuals in the community as well as long term visioning processes, the Eagan City Council created a Task Force to study the issues and identify the needs for this type of development. The Task Force, comprised of representatives ofa broadvariery of communirygroupsand independent residents, studied the issues and needs surrounding a central park and community activities center. The Task Force identified community needs and determined potential site and community center components based on a number of factors. Some of those factors included community input from a feedback mechanism and from requests for facilities by user groups. The Task Force also considered existing resources and facilities, usage patterns and capacities of those facilities, demographic information and growth prof ections. The Task Force developed; and the Council approved, the following proposal for the property: Outdoor Amenities • A bandshell for performances such as band concern summer theater and dance recitals. This component woul be constructed in part through a donation from Eagan's Rotary Club, with a fund match from this bond referendum. • A designated community festival area for arts an crafts fairs, the July Fourth events, Express Fest and othe community celebrations in all seasons. The site would provide the launch, viewing and parking (through reciprocal _ agreements with neighboring businesses) requirements for a~ large aerial fireworks display. • A community plaza, decorative garden and benches General site improvements including internal roads, parking, signage, storm drainage and utilities. IndoorAmenitie~ The proposal calls for a CommuniryActivities Centf of approximately 80,000 square feet which would include: • A Senior Center designed for a wide variety c recreational, social and instructional activities for Eagan`s Large and growing senior population. • Walking/biking trails throughout the site with connections to Eagan's extensive trail system. One larger and three smaller picnic shelters designed to provide cover in inclement weather, with tables and grills. • A Teen Center, also planned for a broad range of recreational, social and instructional activities and uses fc Eagan youth. • Community meeting rooms designed for use 1 both larger and smaller business groups, neighborhood associations, birthday parties, etc. • A 5,800 square foot banquet room to accoi. ~cT weddings, recognition events, business meetings, etc., wi a catering kitchen and related facilities. ~4~ If Approved: _\ • A multi- purpose gymnasium to provide both structured and independent opportunities for basketball, volleyball and other traditional gymnasium activities. The space would also serve a variety of community functions, such as dances, craft shows and exhibits. • An indoor walking/ running track, an area for fitness equipment, aerobics, health and wellness programs. ` An indoor playground designed for preschool through ementary age youth. • Office, archival and reference space for use by the Eagan Historical Society and its interaction with the community. • An arts and crafts room designed for easy clean-up and appropriate for a broad variety of activities and age ranges. • A music room for instrumental and choral lessons, practices and other activities. • A computer room to be utilized both independently and for instructional opportunities. • A short-term child care faciliry for use while visiting the community center and for preschool age programs • Support facilities ,uch as administrative rooms, storage space, etc. An architect and a park consultant would be hired to provide a design for the park and the community activities center. Construction would begin late this summer (2000) on general site improvements, including internal roads and utilities for the site. Development of outdoor park fearures would begin following the approval of site plans. Some outdoor amenities could be operational as early as 2001. Construction on the communiryactivities centerwould begin following approval of architectural plans. Although there are a number ofvariables to be considered, the faciliry could be constructed and operational as early as 2002. If Defeated: No bonds will be sold and no property tax increase will be incurred related to this bond issue. Identified plan elements will not be authorized for construction. Minor site clean-up and maintenance will likely be performed by City staff. Without on-site parking and other site improvements, the site would provide only limited access or usage for the public. How much would I pay? If the referendum is approved, each residential and business property would see an increase to its property tax. The increase is based on the estimated market value of each Eagan property over the next 20 dears. To determine the amount for your specific property, multiplyyour estimated market value by .0003650. Some examples: Estimated Market Value Monthly Annually $ 100,000 .......... $ 3 $ 36 $ 125,000 .......... $ 4 $ 46 $ 144,000 .......... $ 4 $ 53 $ 200,000 .......... $ b $ 73 $ 500,000 .......... $15 $182 $1,000,000 ..........$30 $365 (a) The estimated market value is the assessor's value and not necessarily the price the property would bring if sold. (b) The calculation of the tax rate per $1,000 of es ima e value is determined by dividing the annual debt service requirement by the Citys 1999/2000 estimated market value. Note; Changes in interest rates or timing of the bond issue may cause alterations of this information. Vote June 6 You Might Ask? How was this site chosen? This site has been a preferred site for the development of a "Central Park" since as many as 20 years ago. The availability of the land and/or the City's ability to purchase property, however, had not coincided until recently. When development of this type did not occur in conjunction with the Promenade or the Skyline Display's "Discover Park" concept, the desire for a cornmuniry central park again became a community focus. After learning that this site might become available last July, the City Council was approached by members of local organizations requesting that an attempt be made to acquire the property for community purposes. The Council created a Task Force comprised of residents and representatives ofnumerous community organizations to determine how much property would be needed. After researching community needs and considering the features of the available property, the Task Force recommended that the City Council pursue property acquisition. The Ciry Council authorized negotiations for the purchase of 60 acres in November. How were the components determined? The Task Force compiled community input, demographic information and community growth projections. They identified existing facilities within the community and the usage patterns for those facilities. Using a variety of criteria including revenue potential, community interest and estimated development costs, the Task Force narrowed the list of components and presented their proposal to the Ciry Council. That recommendation was adopted by the Ciry Council and is now being presented to the community for its consideration. How was the amount determined? Park and activities center estimates were based upon construction costs of existing park developments and similarly designed components found in community centers in other metro municipalities. These costs, together with bond amount. Does the City anticipate another tax increase ir~ order to fund the operation of the facility? The Task Force and the Ciry worked to design a proposal which will contain a mix of revenue generating and revenue neutral components. The City expects that the revenue generating components and user fees will sustain the non- revenuegenerating functions, These expectations are based upon the results of similar existing municipal facilities. Is the tax amount that I pay likely to increase over the life of the bond? No, in fact the property owner's share of the.bondpay-offis likely to decrease as Eagan continues to develop. As new homes and business properties are added, they will share in retiring the cost of this project. Why not use existing City funding instead of a bond referendum? The Ciry has worked to keep its tax rate low and therefore does not have available reserves for this type of development. A successful bond referendum is the only available funding source for the development of this proposal. Does the site provide space for future expansic Yes, if the referendum is passed and the current proposal developed, it would not fully occupy the entire 60 acres. This space could be utilized in a variety of ways including future expansion if the community desires. What if I can't get to my polling place June 6? You may vote by absentee ballot, either by mail or in person, prior to that date. Absentee voting closes at 5:00 p.m. on June 5. Ifyou choose to vote absentee, you must fill out an application for a ballot. Look at the information box on the back page for more detailed directions and specific times for voting absentee in person. If voting by mail, your ballot must be received at the Eagan Municipal Center by June 6, 2000 in order to be valid. Who is eligible to vote? You must be a registered voter, at least 18 years of age, on June 6, and ~. a resident of Eagan. You may register ~ ' ' ro vote at •'•~ ~' your polling _ _ s June 6. ~~ Thas concept drawing is one possibility of how the components mightfit on the 60-acre property. Locations ofspecific amenities could be modified if the proposal is approved by voters. i t Northwest Airlines ~~~ Property \ Community Activities Center: Arts & crafts room Historical Society Banquetfacilities Meeting rooms Child care Music room Computer room Office space Concessions Playground (indoor) Gymnasium Senior Center Health & fitness Teen Center If the bond referendum is successful, a final site , ,:~;~ plan would be adopted by ~ ' ` ~ E: the City Council and ~' '; ` ~. plans would be commissioned for each of - ~' ~ a~~" Pa~Cin~ .r the park structures _ ! aka,, ~ ~estty ~ including the community \ 1~~ _~ ~~ ~~' , - - \~ activities center. ~ `, ,,. J F .\ f -r-_ :,7`" Unisys ~%`,: Property ,%; f.:. .t.; ~~~~• ` - `~~~~` ,; Bandshell 4~, ~' is r, c, ~ t` hillside seating for .~ ~ ~ ~.' "::.: aa~ anoroximately 2000 & biking ~ ~' :'~ ~k ~ ~ ~'' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' J ~- ~ ' ~~ : ~r ~ ._ .~` . ~% ~,~ ~ .. K; "Picnic 3 ~ ~ Shelters ~. ~.> (scattered) ;. =~~ ~- ~ oc steed"Martin Propeity~ About the Ballot The Community Park and Activities Center Bond Referendum is the only question that will appear on the ballot at the June 6, 2000 election. The question is: Shall the City of Eagan be authorized to issue and sell its general obli tion bonds in an amount not to exceed $15.355,00 to finance the construction of a Community Activities Center and street, utility, trail and site improvements to the Central Area Property (Development District No. 3)? Polling locations will be open for voting on June 6, 2000 from 7:00 a.m. unti18:00 p.m. Look on the back page for polling aeons. (Development District No. 3 indicates the legal location discription of the 60-acre property. Proceeds from this bond referendum may only be utilized within this district.) ~Sl Informational Meetings: Tuesday, May 9, at 6:30 p.m. at the Eagan Fire Administration Building, 3795 Pilot Knob Road. -and- Thursday, May 11, at 6:30 p.m. at the central park site. Follow the signs from Pilot Knob Rd. or Yankee Doodle Rd. Information & Message Line; Call 651-681-4397 to leave a message, provide comments or to ask questions. Staff will return all calls. Website; Enter www, citvofeaaan.com for information and to provide e-mail questions or comments. Special Programs: Watch Eagan Government Cable Channel 16 for programs and updates, City of Ea~a~ bcmo TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, CObIlVIUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: JUNE 20, 2005 SUBJECT: REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ACTIVITY UPDATE The following update reflects activity in the City's redevelopment districts. Cedar Grove Redevelopment District • Schafer Richardson Ryland Development Agreement -The staff, consultants, City Attorney and developers continue to make progress on the agreement. A revised goal is to present the agreement for review by the Finance Committee and City Council in July. • Affordable Housing - In follow up to the Council direction, staff and the CDA have been meeting with the developers to identify target numbers for the affordable housing components of the project. The proposed approach is to require a combination of affordable owner occupied, work-force rental townhomes and mixed income rental flats. The current focus is on the number of each and an appropriate percentage of overall units. • Acquisition and Relocation Plans -Acquisition and relocation are addressed in the draft development agreement. In addition, discussions are continuing with several property owners regarding City acquisitions from willing sellers within the area. A number of property owners are actively pursuing alternative sites. • Communications Activities -Staff is completing the third issue of the Cedar Grove Gateway, the monthly newsletter update. Website updates also continue. • Nicols Ridge -Construction continues on the model homes for the project. Staff is discussing acquisition possibilities for the Yarbrough property, which will be part of Phase 3. • Financing Plans -Staff and the consultants will provide additional information to the Council Finance Committee for the long term financing of the overall project. Northeast Eagan Redevelopment District • Grand Oaks Development -Grading and construction work are underway on the first phase of Grand Oak Five. Staff and the consultants continue to work with TMI Coatings about their relocation to the Terminal Drive property. • McGough Office Project -Staff and McGough continue to clarify details regarding the size range of the project and its effect on tax increment revenue. We hope to move forward with final negotiations soon. • Retail Development Potential -The developer indicates that purchase agreements are in place for a portion of the property south of Hwy 55 and the developer has been asked to prepare and submit a formal application to permit further review of,the project. Southeast Eagan Masterplan • In follow up to the Council direction, Manley Brothers and Revestors have begun to meet separately and with staff to review concept plans for uses and traffic circulation in the area around Red Pine Lane and Biscayne Avenue. Staff proposes to meet with the Council Finance Committee in the near future to provide an update and define next steps. ~~ e i '# ~, City of Eagan Memo TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMII~TISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: JUNE 20, 2005 SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION /JUNE 21, 2005 CITY COUNCIL MEETING There is no additional support information for the June 21 regular City Council agenda items. /s/ Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator