Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
12/04/2006 - City Council Regular (2)
iqL AGENDA EAGAN CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER BUILDING December 4, 2006 6:30 P.M. ).1 2. 2 P. 13 QP114 5 P. I-7 P. lP_> P-19 P. 22- P• 24 P. 11 9.25 P•29 p.30 F.31 P• 32- ?• 33 ZA F. 3" P. 517 P. 5cD P.514 p. 59 la• ?1 P 60 P. q1 1. 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. APPROVE CHECK REGISTERS D. APPROVE July 1, 2006 to July 1, 2007 General Insurance Renewal E. APPROVE 2007 General Legal Services Hourly Rates F. APPROVE 2007 License Renewals for Pet Shops and Kennels G. APPROVE 2007 License Renewal for a Pigeon License for Eric Drenckhahn, 2811 Pilot Knob Rd. H. ADOPTION of Resolution to Submit the 2007 Community Development Block Grant Application to the Dakota County Community Development Agency 1. APPROVE Extension for Recording the Final Plat of Red Pine Crossing J. APPROVE a Resolution in Support of Adding the Biothera Property to the Bio-Zone Application for Dakota and Goodhue Counties K. APPROVE Joint Powers Agreement with Inver Grove Heights for Contract 06-01 (TH 149 Upgrade - Street and Utility Improvements) L. ACCEPT Wetland Delineation, Waters Annex M. RECEIVE Feasibility Report and Schedule Public Hearing (January 2, 2007) for Project 944, (Killdeer Addition / Joyce Court - Street Overlay) N. RECEIVE Feasibility Report and Schedule Public Hearing (January 2, 2007) for Project 945, (Sheffield Addition - Street Overlay) 0. RECEIVE Feasibility Report and Schedule Public Hearing (January 2, 2007) for Project 947, (Fawn Ridge l:t and 2nd Additions - Street Overlay) P. APPROVE Easement Agreement for Parcel 10-30601-050-00, Project 778 (TH 149) Q. APPROVE Cost Participation Agreement with Dakota County (Yankee Doodle Rd - Corridor & Access Management Study) R. APPROVE Final Payment for Contract 05-03, Well #21 (Development & Pumping Equipment) S. APPROVE Renewal of Heart Healthy Living Program Agreement for Eagan Community Center T. APPROVE Lease with Burnsville Eagan Community Television U. APPROVE Resolution regarding Policies and Procedures Governing the Receipt and Review of Applications for Additional Cable Franchises V. APPROVE Resolution Stating Opposition to Legislative Proposals that Remove Cable Television System Build-Out Provisions From Chapter 238 of Minnesota State Law W. APPROVE Extension for recording the final plat of Oakview Center 2d Addition X. AUTHORIZE Preparation of Feasibility Report for Project 950 (Opperman Drive & TH 149-Intersection Reconfiguration V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PROPOSED BUDGET AND PROPERTY TAX LEVY FOR 2007 - TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING B. EASEMENT VACATION - Vacate Public Drainage and Utility Easement (Lot 1, Block 1, Centennial Ridge 2nd Addition - Lena Court) C. EASEMENT VACATION - Vacate Public Drainage and Utility Easement (Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Silicon Graphics 1St Addition) D. PROJECT 776, Final Assessment Hearing, Yankee Doodle Road (Street Improvements) E. PROJECT 877, Final Assessment Hearing, Lexington Avenue (TH 55 - Lone Oak Road) F. PROJECT 928, Final Assessment Hearing, Alexander Road / Meadowview Road (Street Improvements) VI. OLD BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS P, 1 fl2 A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT and VARIANCE - Sierra Metals, Inc. - Richard Skinn - A Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor storage of oversized steel and a recycling container and a Variance from the required setbacks located at 4890 Biscayne Avenue on Lot 1, Block 2, Halley's 15t Addition. P. ,I B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT and VARIANCE - Wensmann Homes - A Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor storage of a fuel tank and a Variance from the required setbacks located at 4870 Biscayne Avenue on Lot 3, Block 2, Halley's IS` Addition. P, C. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - City of Eagan - An Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 11, Subd. 11.70 in regards to signage constructed / erected without permit. VIII. LEGISLATIVE/INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UPDATE IX. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY A. Call to Order B. Adopt Agenda Imo,--? !4D C. Approve Minutes D. Old Business 141 - P) 5to 1. CEDAR GROVE REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT - Direction regarding the Core Area Redevelopment Agreement with Schafer Richardson. E. New Business F. Other Business '] G. Adjournment X. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA XI. VISITORS TO BE HEARD (for those persons not on agenda) XII. CLOSED SESSION XIII. 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. 411? City of Eagan In TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: DECEMBER 1, 2006 SUBJECT: AGENDA INFORMATION FOR DECEMBER 4, 2006 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ADOPT AGENDA After approval is given to the December 4, 2006 City Council agenda, the following items are in order for consideration. Agenda Information Memo December 4, 2006 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 November 21, 2006 regular City Council meeting and November 21, 2006 Special City Council meeting as presented or modified. ATTACHMENTS: • Mnutes of the November 21, 2006 regular City Council meeting are enclosed on pages through (p • Minutes of the November 21, 2006 Special City Council meeting are enclosed on pages 7 through 1. MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL Eagan, Minnesota November 21, 2006 A Listening Session was held prior to the regular City Council meeting on November 21, 2006 in the Eagan Room. David Domack, Dick's Sanitation, discussed a request for a temporary variance from the trash pick up schedule in order to accommodate a client that has requested single sort recycling service. After discussion with staff, Council directed that an ordinance amendment that would address such a request be drafted and presented for future review. It was also suggested that an informational meeting be held with other licensed haulers. Representatives of MICAH were present. Barbara Brooks, member of the Board for MICAH made a presentation recognizing the efforts of the City of Eagan in regard to affordable housing. A regular meeting of the Eagan City Council was held on November 21, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were Councilmembers Fields, Tilley, and Maguire. Councilmember Carlson served as Acting Mayor in the absence of Mayor Geagan. Also present were City Administrator Tom Hedges, Community Development Director Jon Hohenstein, Public Works Director Tom Colbert, City Planner Mike Ridley, City Attorney Bob Bauer, Assistant City Engineer John Gorder, and Administrative Secretary / Deputy Clerk Mira Pepper. AGENDA Tom announced that a closed session would be held after the regular meeting. Councilmember Fields moved, Councilmember Maguire seconded a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Aye:4 Nay:0 RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS Deputy Clerk Pepper administered the Oath of Office to newly hired Police Officers David Streefland and Mark Kritzeck. CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Tilley moved, Councilmember Maguire seconded a motion to approve the consent agenda as amended. Aye: 4 Nay: 0 A. Minutes. It was recommended to approve the minutes of the November 9, 2006 regular City Council meeting as presented. B. Personnel Items. 1. It was recommended to approve the promotion of Roger New from Police Sergeant to Lieutenant. 2. It was recommended to approve the promotion of Steve Bolluyt from Police Detective to Sergeant. 3. It was recommended to approve the retention of Blue Cross / Blue Shield as the City's health insurance provider for calendar year 2007. 4. It was recommended to approve the retention of Delta Dental as the City's dental insurance provider for calendar year 2007. 5. It was recommended to approve the retention of America's VEBA Solutions to perform the administration services for operation of the High Deductible/VEBA insurance plan and to administer the City's flexible spending plan for calendar year 2007. C. Check Re isg ters. It was recommended to ratify the check registers dated November 9, 2006 and November 16, 2006 as presented. D. Purchasing Cards. It was recommended to authorize the City Treasurer to complete application to US Bank for issuance of One Card VISA purchasing (credit) cards. E. Community Landfill Abatement Funds. It was recommended to approve the submission of the 2007 Funding Application from Dakota County to operate a Recycling Program for the cities of Eagan, Apple Valley and Burnsville. 3 Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 2 'RAFT F. Premise Permit. It was recommended to approve the Premise Permit renewals for Mendota Heights Athletic Association to conduct pull-tab operations at Valley Lounge, 3385 Sibley Memorial Highway and LaFonda de Los Lobos, 3665 Sibley Memorial Highway. G. Premise Permit. It was recommended to approve a Premise Permit for the Burnsville Hockey Club to conduct pull-tab operations at Timeout Restaurant and Sports Bar, 2864 Highway 55. H. Project 946. It was recommended to receive the Draft Feasibility Report for Project 946, Thomas Center Drive - Street Improvements / Thomas Lake Road Trail Improvements and schedule a public hearing to be held on December 19, 2006. 1. Project 948. It was recommended to receive the Draft Feasibility Report for Project 948, Westbury Addition (Street Improvements) and schedule a public hearing to be held on December 19, 2006. J. Project 949. It was recommended to receive the Draft Feasibility Report for Project 948, Westbury Addition (Street Improvements) and schedule a public hearing to be held on December 19, 2006. K. Project 778. It was recommended to approve an Easement Agreement for Project 778 (TH 149 Upgrade - Street Upgrade and Trail Improvements) with the owner of Parcel No. 10-22465-030-01 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. L. Park Dedication Fees. It was recommended to approve an amendment to the method of calculating Park Dedication for Commercial/Industrial developments, consistent with recent Legislation. M. Liquor License Renewals. It was recommended to approve the renewals of existing liquor licenses for 2007, subject to review of applications, payment of fees and Police Department reviews. PUBLIC HEARINGS PROJECT 877, LEXINGTON AVENUE, LONE OAK ROAD TO TH 55 ASSESSMENT PUBLIC HEARING . This item was rescheduled for December 4, 2006. PROJECT 942, DEERWOOD DRIVE (BLACKHAWK TO PILOT KNOB ROAD) STREET IMPROVEMENTS City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding street improvements for Deerwood Drive, Blackhawk Road to Pilot Knob Road. Assistant City Engineer Gorder gave a staff report. Acting Mayor Carlson opened the public hearing. Two area residents expressed concern over the volume and speed of traffic, and construction traffic on Deerwood Drive. There being no further public comment, Acting Mayor Carlson closed the public hearing and turned discussion back to the Council. Councilmembers discussed and agreed on the use of electronic speed signs and a 30 foot choker to slow traffic. Councilmember Fields moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to approve Project 942 (Deerwood Drive, Blackhawk Road to Pilot Knob Road - Street Improvements) and authorize the preparation of detailed plans and specifications. Aye: 4 Nay: 0 PROJECT 943, WESCOTT ROAD (PILOT KNOB ROAD TO DENMARK AVENUE) STREET IMPROVEMENTS City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding street improvements for Wescott Road, Pilot Knob Road to Denmark Avenue. Assistant City Engineer Gorder gave a staff report. Acting Mayor Carlson opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, she closed the public hearing and turned discussion back to the Council. Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes ®R /'? c November 21, 2006 Page 3 Councilmember Tilley moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to approve Project 943 (Wescott Road, Pilot Knob Road to Denmark Avenue - Street Improvements) and authorize the preparation of detailed plans and specifications. Aye: 4 Nay: 0 OLD BUSINESS RECEIVE AND APPROVE THE PATRICK EAGAN PARK MASTER PLAN City Administrator Hedges discussed this item regarding the Master Plan for Patrick Eagan Park. Parks and Recreation Director Johnson made a presentation regarding the plan. Council stated, and requested that it be recorded in the minutes, that they want Patrick Eagan Park to remain a natural park. Councilmember Fields moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to receive and approve the Patrick Eagan Park Master Plan. Aye: 4 Nay: 0 NEW BUSINESS PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (DEWITT ADDITION) - RICHARD DEWITT City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding a preliminary subdivision of 0.69 acres to create two single family lots for property located at 2804 Vilas Lane. City Planner Ridley gave a staff report. City Attorney Bauer discussed the obligation of Council to approve applications that meet all the criteria outlined in the City Code. Richard Dewitt, applicant, discussed the proposed subdivision. He also noted that a covenant for the development had expired. Three area property owners expressed their opposition to the proposed subdivision. Councilmember Maguire moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to approve a Preliminary Subdivision of 0.69 acres to create two single family lots for property located at 2804 Vilas Lane in the NW '/4 of Section 3, subject to the following conditions: Aye: 4 Nay: 0 The property shall be platted. This development shall be responsible for a cash park dedication. This development shall be responsible for a cash trails dedication. An individual lot tree preservation plan shall be submitted at the time of building permit application for Lot 2, Block 1. A cash dedication in lieu of on-site water quality ponding shall be required for this development. Grading for the house construction on Lot 2 shall be modified so as not to impact trees on the adjacent lot (2830 Vilas Lane). Architectural design and construction methods for the new home shall incorporate sound alteration standards sufficient to achieve an interior sound level of 45 dBA. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CITY OF EAGAN City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding proposed modifications to Chapter 11 regarding window signage. City Planner Ridley gave a staff report. Councilmember Tilley moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to approve modifications to Chapter 11 as it affects window signage (with 20% maximum window coverage) and direct the City Attorney to prepare and publish the amendment in the legal newspaper. Aye: 4 Nay: 0 5 Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 4 LEGISLATIVE / INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UPDATE There were no items to be discussed. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA Councilmember Maguire moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to reschedule the December 11, 2006 Council retreat to time to be determined. VISITORS TO BE HEARD Several residents of Inver Grove Heights requested that a barricade at White Pine Way be removed, at least temporarily until construction in the area resumes. Councilmembers indicated they had made a commitment to Eagan residents in that area to keep the barricade in place until 75 percent of the homes are owner occupied. They further stated they would reconsider the matter if the Eagan residents notified the Council that they were interested in having the barricade removed. Councilmember Maguire moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m. 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. (0e:5) MINUTES ®/Q SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 2006 4:00 P.M. EAGAN ROOM - EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER City Councilmembers present: Acting Mayor Carlson, Councilmembers Fields, Maguire, and Tilley. Mayor Geagan was absent due to being hospitalized for scheduled surgery. City staff present: City Administrator Hedges, Director of Administrative Services VanOverbeke, Director of Community Development Hohenstein, Director of Public Works Colbert, Director of Parks and Recreation Johnson, and Fire Chief Scott. 1. ROLL CALL AND AGENDA ADOPTION Acting Mayor Carlson called the meeting to order. Councilmember Tilley moved; Councilmember Maguire seconded a motion to adopt the agenda reversing the order of Agenda item III, Yankee Doodle Road Access Management Study - Options and Preferred Alternative Presentation, and Agenda item IV, Community Development Block Grant Allocation for 2007. Aye: 4; Nay: 0 II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD There were no visitors to be heard. III. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ALLOCATION FOR 2007 City Administrator Hedges introduced this item and provided background on the City's participation in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program with other cities through the Dakota County CDA. Director of Community Development Hohenstein explained the staff information noting that the CDBG application is due in mid-December for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2007. He reported a tightening of the reporting obligations for HUD regarding eligibility criteria and the potentially onerous requirements related to certain uses. Director Hohenstein noted that seniors have an assumed eligibility so dollars used for senior programming are not subject to the same onerous reporting requirements regarding proof of eligibility. He outlined the staff recommended uses of the available funding of $214,500 as contained in the background material including $35,000 for senior programming and three line items related to the Cedar Grove Redevelopment; $102,000 for property acquisition, $27,500 for relocation, and $50,000 for demolition. Director Hohenstein informed the City Council about the relative ease of later transferring dollars among budgeted accounts as minor amendments compared to the more difficult process of a major amendment if dollars are shifted to new activities. He also explained how certain of the requirements and cash flow mechanics related to low and moderate income eligibility would be addressed as redevelopment proceeds in Cedar Grove. 7 The City Council questioned and discussed budgeting the use of $35,000 to provide additional services/programming to seniors at the Eagan Community Center. Director of Parks and Recreation Johnson noted that the proposal is an expansion of senior programming beyond what is currently in place in an attempt to meet the needs of a specific senior demographic that is currently not able to take advantage of the Community Center and today's available programming. The expanded service to seniors is also an element of the recently completed 20/20 Vision. This budget allocation would help provide start up dollars e.g. marketing and subsidize required break even pricing for class offerings until the specific programs became successful or were discontinued because they did not become self sufficient. CDBG dollars cannot be used as replacement funding for existing programs. The City Council expressed concerns about subsidized start up programs that raise expectations and make subsequent elimination very problematic. The City Council reached a consensus to leave the CDBG budget proposal as presented by staff. The allocation to the senior programming is to be looked at as a pilot program, monitored and reported quarterly to the City Council, advertised with appropriate disclaimers noting the requirement of self sufficiency or it will be eliminated. Formal consideration of the CDBG budget is to be scheduled for action on the December 4, 2006 City Council Agenda. IV. YANKEE DOODLE ROAD ACCESS MANAGEMENT STUDY - OPTIONS AND PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE PRESENTATIONONS City Administrator Hedges introduced this item and presented background information regarding the purpose of the study, steps that have taken place to date, and future activities that will ultimately result in County and City capital improvement programming to implement the necessary improvements. Director of Public Works Colbert outlined four items that were specific drivers in undertaking the study including: 1) projected traffic volumes on County Road 28, 2) increased crash rates, 3) potential additional development along the corridor; and 4) the required coordination of the County and City CIP programming. Director Colbert introduced Kristi Sebastian, Dakota County Traffic Engineer and Frank Loetterle of SRF Consulting Group Inc. as participants in the study and noted that they would present additional information. He further explained the three key principles of safety, mobility and accessibility behind the study recommendations and how they must be balanced to arrive at mutually acceptable solutions. Ms. Sebastian provided additional background and stated that the study group is preparing for the 3rd public open house showing on December 7 at which time they will display the preferred alternatives for each of the three segments of the roadway. The segments are defined as: Denmark Avenue to Lexington Avenue (West Segment), Lexington Avenue to Mike Collins/Ivy Lane (Middle Segment) and Mike Collins/Ivy Lane to Dodd Road (East Segment). Mr. Loetterle explained the issues being experienced or likely to be experienced by the traveling public, options considered as potential solutions by the study team in each of the segments along with the advantages and disadvantages of each. He further explained the preferred alternate for each segment as arrived at by the project study team. 8 West Segment between Denmark Avenue and Lexington Avenue All alternatives include the following: • No access changes to intersection of Lexington Avenue and Yankee Doodle Road Widening of Yankee Doodle Road to 6-lanes throughout entire segment Signal phasing and intersection improvements at the intersection of Denmark Avenue and Yankee Doodle Road The study team preferred alternate is 2-W which includes the following: • At Yankee Place: o No left turns from Yankee Place to Yankee Doodle Road o Right turns in and out are allowed At Promenade Avenue: o New two-phase traffic signal to control left turns on eastbound Yankee Doodle Road o Eastbound traffic does not stop at intersection o Westbound traffic must stop to allow eastbound left turns o Left turns from Yankee Doodle Road onto Promenade allowed, but left turns from Promenade onto Yankee Doodle Road restricted • At O'Leary Lane: o Right turns in and out only allowed • At Denmark Avenue and Town Center Drive: o Left turns restricted from southbound Denmark to eastbound Town Center Drove Middle Segment between Lexington Avenue and Mike Collins/Ivv Lane All alternatives include the following: • No access changes at the intersection of Lexington Avenue and Yankee Doodle Road • Widening of Yankee Doodle Road to 6-lanes through the intersection of Lexington Avenue and Yankee Doodle Road • No access changes at Wescott Square The study team preferred alternate is 2-M which includes the following: • At Discovery/Golfview Drive: o No left turns from Discovery or Golfview to Yankee Doodle Road o No crossing Yankee Doodle Road between Discovery and Golfview o Right turns in and out are allowed • At Columbia/Wescott Woodlands: o New traffic signal o New roadway constructed to connect Discovery Drive and Columbia Drive o New driveway access to industrial site * This alternative assumes a public road connection between Discovery Road and Columbia Drive. No specific alignment has been selected. Additional engineering studies are required to determine the exact location. 9 East Segment between Mike Collins/Ivy Lane and Dodd Road All alternatives include the following: • The intersection of TH 149 (Dodd Road) and Yankee Doodle Road will remain as a full access signalized intersection for each alternative The study team preferred alternate is a modified 2-E which now includes the following: • At Mike Collins/Ivy Lane: o Right turns in and out from Ivy Lane and Mike Collins only are allowed • An extension of Borchert Lane from Mike Collins Drive to TH 149 • At Elrene Road: o New traffic signal to accommodate full turning movements • At existing Gopher Resources and Commons (LoNidy Addition) entrances: o Right turns in and out are allowed at north entrance o South entrance closed o Full access will be provided by a new road connecting south Gopher Commons (LoNidy Addition) to the new intersection at Elrene Road The City Council expressed concerns about traffic issues in the Promenade area where the private road accesses Denmark. Mr. Loetterle suggested that a site circulation study may be necessary to determine potential solutions, although intersection modifications and changes to the signal sequencing at Denmark and Yankee Doodle Road should help the current situation. Director Colbert noted future steps include the 3`d open house, discussion by the Dakota County Physical Development Committee, the City Council again on December 19, 2006 and the Dakota County Board next January. Any City comments should go to the Dakota County Physical Development Committee for their consideration. The desired outcome is for the City and County to agree on preferred alternatives for adoption and incorporation into future improvements. The City Council asked that future materials include larger graphics for only the preferred alternatives along with the key to define the map markings. It was explained that most public comments concern having less direct access to Yankee Doodle Road and a decrease in mobility on the roadway. The comments are all being considered in light of balancing the three parameters of safety, mobility, and accessibility. The assumptions used in the study project growth over a 20 year time horizon and incorporate the assumption that the ring road will be built. The Northwood Parkway Bridge over 35E is a key component of this planning and would also help the Denmark concerns discussed earlier. When Director Colbert asked if the City Council had any comments to forward to the County Board, the Council indicated an informal concurrence with the recommended alternatives (#2) for the Middle and East Segments and wanted to give more thought to the West Segment. Director Colbert explained that all exhibits are available on the Dakota County Website for public viewing. 10 V. DIFFLEY PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL City Administrator Hedges presented the background information and the request to add the item to the agenda for this meeting. He also noted the additional material that had been sent out on Monday providing additional information on consideration of this request by the APrC in the fall of 2005. The City Council discussed the changes in operation of the property and Art Park since the time of the original tunnel agreement and today. After additional discussion including comments from Tony Caponi and Cary Felbab, Chairman of the Caponi Art Park Learning Center Board of Directors, further review of the request was directed to the City Council's Public Works Committee to develop costs/alternatives and recommendations for the full City Council. The City Council acknowledged certain problems and challenges with current operations, but expressed an interest in maintaining the public purpose aspects of the tunnel and access to the total park. The City Council also requested an aerial view of the site to help define existing trails and access. VI. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. VII. ADJOURNMENT At 5:38 p.m.Councilmember Fields moved; Councilmember Maguire seconded a motion to adjourn. Aye: 4; Nay: 0 Agenda Information Memo December 4, 2006 Eagan City Council Meeting B. PERSONNEL ITEMS Item 1. Part-time Recreation Program Supervisor- ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve the hiring of Julie Anderson as a part-time recreation program supervisor effective January 1, 2007. Item 2. Part-time Clerical Tech III/Police- ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve the hiring of Elizabeth Bentson as a part-time Clerical Tech III in the Police Department. 12 Agenda Information Memo December 4, 2006 Eagan City Council Meeting C. RATIFY CHECK REGISTERS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To ratify the check registers dated November 23, 2006 and November 30, 2006 as presented. ATTACHMENTS: • Check registers dated November 23, 2006 and November 30, 2006 are enclosed without page number. 13 Agenda Information Memo December 4, 2006 D. APPROVE 7-1-06 TO 7-1-07 GENERAL INSURANCE RENEWAL ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve the general insurance renewal for the period 7-1-06 to 7-1-07. FACTS: > The City has received information for the general insurance coverages. The renewal proposed has been assembled through the efforts of Mark Julik and Ann Stanton of Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., the City's insurance representative. > General insurance coverages include buildings and contents, equipment, automobile, general liability and numerous smaller areas of risk exposure. > Official quotations were not solicited, but other markets have been reviewed through the years. The general conclusion is that there are no providers who can match the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) for both price and coverages. Consequently, we have only one quote from the LMCIT to present to the City Council for consideration. > The insurance renewal is being presented to Council five months into the renewal period due to LMCIT processing delays. Appropriate coverage was bound and has been maintained during the past five months. > The total premium is up 2.8% from the prior year as shown below. Changes in premiums from the prior year result from a combination of rate changes and experience factors. A detailed explanation of changes is not included in this packet, but is available upon request from the City Administrator's office. Increase Coverage 2005/2006 2006/2007 Amount Percent Property $ 119,149 $ 129,619 $ 10,470 8.8% Municipal Liability 196,083 196,687 604 0.3% Auto Liab & Damage 67,629 68,129 500 0.7% Mobile Property 10,945 9,912 (1,033) -9.4% Blanket Bond 2,422 2,192 (230) -9.5% Petrofund * 794 - (794) -100.0% Open Meeting Law 2,716 2,755 39 1.4% Boiler & Machinery 13,705 15,821 2,116 15.4% AD&D - Firefighters 2,187 2,272 85 0.04 Total premiums $ 415,630 $ 427,387 $ 11,757 2.8% *The premium for Petrofund Liability is now included within the General Liability premium by the LMCIT. The coverage, basically related to spills or leakage from City owned tanks, does not change with the revised pricing arrangement. ATTACHMENTS (0) 14 Agenda Information Memo December 4, 2006 Eagan City Council Meeting E. APPROVE 2007 GENERAL LEGAL SERVICES HOURLY RATES ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve the 2007 General Legal Services Hourly Rates. FACTS: • Each year as part of the budgeting process consultant rates are reviewed and incorporated into the operating budgets. • The 2007 General Legal Services Hourly Rates for work provided by the firm of Severson, Sheldon, Dougherty & Molenda, P.A. are proposed to increase by 3% from the 2006 rates. • Utilization of these consulting services is monitored by staff and invoices are reviewed monthly. ATTACHMENTS: • Enclosed on page is a copy of the letter from the firm requesting the change in rates and summarizing the various billing categories. 15 LARRY S. SEVERSON JAMES F. SHELDON MICHAEL G. DOUGHERTY* MICHAEL E. MOLENDAt LOREN M. SOLFEST *t SHARON K. HILLS ROBERT B. BAUER* TERRENCE A. MERRITT* SEVERSON, SHE LDON, DOUGHERTY & MOLENDA, P.A. A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW November 15, 2006 SUITE 600 7300 WEST 147TH STREET APPLE VALLEY, MINNESOTA 55124-7580 (952) 432-3136 TELEFAX NUMBER (952) 432-3780 www.seversonsheldon.com City of Eagan Attn.: Tom Pepper, Chief Financial Officer 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Re: Attorneys' Fees - 2007 Dear Tom: ANNETTE M. MARGARIT STEPHEN A. LING* GARY L. HUUSKO KRISTINE K. NOGOSEK CHRISTINE J. CASSELLIUSt MICHAEL D. KLEMMt* EMILY FOX WILLIAMS MATTHEW J. SCHAAP THOMAS R. DONELY JESSICA L. SANBORN RYAN J. BIES We are requesting the following fees with respect to the work provided to the City by our offices for the year 2007. Current Proposed Paralegal Rate $75.50 $ 77.75 General Legal Work $124.00 $127.75 Development Work $190.50 $196.25 Council & APC Meetings $393.00 $404.75 Please note that the rate charged to applicants under Deposit Agreements and Development Projects needs to be adopted by City ordinance and therefore should be included in any rate adjustments to the City's fees for the year 2007. Please again express to the City Council and staff our sincere appreciation for the opportunity to provide legal services to the City. If you have any questions, please give me a call. INDIVIDUAL ATTORNEYS ALSO LICENSED IN IOWA, WISCONSIN. SOUTH DAKOTA AND MISSOURI #QUALIFIED NEUTRAL UNDER RULE 114 OF THE MINNESOTA GENERAL RULES OF PRACTICE *MSBA BOARD CERTIFIED REAL PROPERTY SPECIALfST 1 /, cc: Tom Hedges, City Administrator Agenda Memo Regular City Council Meeting December 4, 2006 CONSENT AGENDA: F. 2007 License Renewals for Pet Shops and Kennels ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve 2007 kennel and pet shop license renewals subject to payment of fees and compliance with requirements of the application. FACTS: Pet Shop and Kennel Licenses run from January 1 to December 31 The following pet shop licenses are due for renewal in 2007: Wet World, 3390 Coachman Road Wal-Mart Store, 1360 Town Centre Drive Petsmart, Inc., 1297 Promenade Place The following kennel licenses are due for renewal in 2007: Four Paws Pet Resort, 4020 Old Sibley Memorial Highway Peanut's Place, 1248 Town Centre Drive Lesley Tscherne, 3812 Blackhawk Ridge Place Angel's Pet Sanctuary, 4940 Dodd Road ATTACHMENTS: None The applications are available for review in the Administration Department n Agenda Memo Regular City Council Meeting December 4, 2006 CONSENT AGENDA: G. 2007 Pigeon License Renewal for Eric Drenckhahn, 2811 Pilot Knob Road ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve 2007 License to Harbor Carrier / Homing / Racing Pigeons for Eric Drenckhahn, 2811 Pilot Knob Road. FACTS: • Pigeon Licenses run from January 1 through December 31 • The only such license is held by Eric Drenckhahn and is due for renewal • Mr. Drenckhahn was issued his original license October 17, 2006 • All requirements of the application have been met and staff recommends approval ATTACHMENTS: None The application is available for review in the Administration Department IFI, Agenda Information Memo December 4, 2006 Eagan City Council Meeting H. ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FY 2007 CITY OF EAGAN APPLICATION FOR CDBG FUNDING ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To adopt a resolution authorizing the City Administrator to submit the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program applications for 2007 to the Dakota County Community Development Agency. FACTS: • The CDBG fiscal year begins July 1. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides block grant funding for programs that conform to national objectives and eligible activities that meet CDBG Program regulations. • Eagan's FY 2007 available funding amount will be approximately $214,500. • At its workshop meeting of November 21, 2006, the City Council reviewed a range of options and gave direction to allocate $179,500 to property acquisition, relocation and demolition for blight removal activities and low and moderate income benefit in the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area, and $35,000 to senior services. • The Dakota County CDA administers the CDBG program and will review and forward the City's desired funding allocations to HUD for approval. ATTACHMENTS: • 2007 CDBG Allocation Budget on page 20 • Resolution on page ?- 0) m E_ O 'a 0 y O U) w+ O O a C. 010 a`m c 0 a O 'a a) m 'L C O ?o '7:m a O C o d •? a O •° -222 r> (n J J -j O O 0 O O LO O O O O N t co r EA 69 69 00 00 O 0 o Co o to 0 Cl r N r to LO N - C%4 ul, 61)- 61) 69 00 0 0 00 0 0 LO O a) r r. o 6 O N 0 r (fl 69 69 0) (0 C) O 'IT N V) O dr m N 69 O 0 U.) Lo U V7 cli T T N 0 0 tf) N O O U') oS M N 69 O O> 0 (0 O C) r N to N 69 IT O to O J C la C) W 9- O w U C 0 C. Q O d d o d a) O O` O O L co o ca C o E 0a)a)a) Gl 0 w 0 0 0 y U y a) 2 d W a) C C. a) E V) Z > C a) c o LL E w >EE (n f0 Cc C) Co O LL 2 C d C a) c c U) R 5 m O C .O CL ?. C E c (n > 0 U U) N N M N N 69 J _ 76 2 O O O N U, a) r0 E X 0 a CL 0) C C U- a) Q 2f) A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, MN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDING WHEREAS, the City of Eagan, MN of is a participating jurisdiction with the Dakota County CDBG Entitlement Program for Fiscal Year 2007 (ending June 30, 2008); and WHEREAS, the Dakota County CDA is a Subgrantee of Dakota County for the administration of the CDBG Program; and WHEREAS, the Dakota County CDA has requested FY07 CDBG applications to be submitted by December 15, 2006 based on a district formula allocation of funds approved in the 1984 Community Development Implementation Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Eagan, MN hereby approves the following: 1. The FY07 CDBG application is approved by the City Council, and the City Administrator is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Eagan. 2. The Dakota County CDA is designated as the administrative entity to carry out the CDBG program on behalf of the city, subject to future Subrecipient Agreements that may be required for specific CDBG-funded activities. This resolution was adopted by vote of the on the day of 2006. [Mayor or Board Chair] Attested this day of , [Title] 7_I Agenda Information Memo December 4, 2006, Eagan City Council Meeting 1. EXTENSION FOR RECORDING FINAL PLAT - REVESTORS COMPANIES (RED PINE CROSSING) ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve a 90-day extension of time to record the final plat for Red Pine Crossing, located south of Red Pine Lane and east of Hwy. 3 in the SE 1/4 of Section 36. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Councilmembers present FACTS: ? The City Council approved the final plat on October 17, 2006. The plat is required to be recorded within 60 days of approval. ? The applicant has submitted a request for a 90-day extension of the final plat approval. ? The current requested 90-day extension would allow until March 16, 2007 for the plat to be recorded. ? The applicant has indicated they expect to begin construction in Spring 2007 and will not be closing on their loan until then. The letter of credit required by the City prior to recording the plat will be available following the loan closing. ATTACHMENTS (1): Letter from Tim Anderson, Revestors Companies, page 23 22 November 13, 2006 Pam Dudziak City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Re: Red Pine Crossing - Final Subdivision Dear Pam, We understand the deadline for recording the final plat for the approved Red Pine Crossing subdivision is December 19, 2006. Since our Letter of Credit will be available following the loan closing and we don't plan to close the loan until we start construction in the spring, we are requesting a 90-day extension for the final plat to be recorded at Dakota County. Enclosed is a check for the $75.00 extension fee. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Tim Anderson Cc: Quinn Hutson, CNH Architects 2-5 Agenda Information Memo Eagan City Council Meeting December 4, 2006 Consent Agenda J. APPROVE A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF ADDING THE BIOTHERA PROPERTY TO THE BIO-ZONE APPLICATION FOR DAKOTA AND GOODHUE COUNTIES. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To Approve a Resolution in support of adding the Biothera property at 3388 Mike Collins Drive to the Bioscience Zone application from Dakota and Goodhue Counties. FACTS: ? At its meeting on September 26, 2006, the Eagan City Council approved a resolution supporting and identifying specific areas in the City of Eagan to be included in an application for a Bioscience Zone for properties in Dakota and Goodhue Counties. ? The application to establish a Bioscience Zone was prepared for submission to the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development via Dakota Future and the City of Rosemount, with the Dakota County CDA as zone administrator. Designated properties in Eagan are considered a sub-zone to this application. ? The Eagan portion of the application included the Ecolab property and surrounding or adjacent vacant or underutilized properties located within the Hwy 55/Lone Oak Road area. ? Biothera is a recognized and growing biotechnology company located in Eagan who's primary focus is developing immunotherapy drugs that work together with other pharmaceuticals to enhance the treatment of cancer and infectious diseases. ? The State Department of Employment and Economic Development suggested that Biothera's property located at 3388 Mike Collins Drive should be included in Eagan's property designation list. ? The application requires a resolution from the City of Eagan supporting the addition of the Biothera property. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution on page '15 Map of revised Eagan sub-zone properties on page L-_ 2U CITY OF EAGAN DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF ADDING THE BIOTHERA PROPERTY TO THE BIO-ZONE APPLICATION FOR DAKOTA AND GOODHUE COUNTIES WHEREAS The City of Eagan, at its meeting held on the 26`h day of September, 2006 approved specific areas in the City of Eagan to be included in an application for a Bioscience zone for properties in Dakota and Goodhue Counties and encouraged the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development to approve the Bioscience Zone Application being submitted through Dakota Future by the City of Rosemount as applicant with the Dakota County CDA as zone administrator. WHEREAS Biothera is a recognized and growing biotechnology company located in Eagan who's primary focus is developing immunotherapy drugs that work together with other pharmaceuticals to enhance the treatment of cancer and infectious diseases. WHEREAS Biothera's property located at 3388 Mike Collins Drive was not included in the original property designation list in the Bioscience Zone application for Dakota and Goodhue Counties. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Eagan supports the addition of property located at 3388 Mike Collins Drive (Biothera Property) to the Dakota-Goodhue County Bioscience Zone application previously submitted by the City of Rosemount and Dakota Future on behalf of participating communities. Motion made by: Seconded by: Those in favor: Those against: Dated: CITY OF EAGAN CITY COUNCIL By: Its Mayor Attest: Its Clerk 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 4th day of December, 2006. Maria Petersen, City Clerk 25 LLI 1 Ir -EaMMME ccl Q ` F CL I.? ter- m if -t o a U O CD w I „ ? 1 C / 111 C ?I F r (6 '?` rC +ll rr' ? L J r FT- ---j ULI -cq 0' T Y m (? 77- r! Q tom= J`- i I i j{{I"? L r -- ti IY\ "-( L r k 'i'. r s'?\ '' r \ -? any uo;BuIxa? _ ?- 1 IJ any uolBulxa? ff ((??// J I' N 03 C60 d Q 0 a L r- 0 m U c m N 0 w 0 0 IL d d Q 2 CL N C, co Qo d? N d V In O C o0 cc d W O w O. O IL O Ao Agenda Information Memo December 4, 2006 Eagan City Council Meeting K. PROJECT 778, TH 149 UPGRADE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH INVER GROVE HEIGHTS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve a Joint Powers Agreement for Project 778 (Trunk Highway 149 - Street Upgrade) with the City of Inver Grove Heights and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. FACTS: Project 778 provides for the upgrade of Trunk Highway (TH) 149, beginning at TH 55 and terminating in Inver Grove Heights at Albano Trail, south of Rich Valley Blvd. (Co. Rd. 71). The proposed project upgrades TH 149 to a 4-lane divided roadway, with an urban curb & gutter section north of Yankee Doodle Road and rural ditch section to the south, a new traffic signal at the intersection of Wescott Road, and a trail along the east side, north of Wescott Road. On April 5, 2005, the City Council closed the public hearing and approved Project 778. The final plans and specifications are currently being reviewed and approved by MnDOT staff. The acquisition of right-of-way and easements from 42 properties is proceeding in anticipation of construction in 2007. Cost participation for the construction of Project 778 will include three public agencies; MnDOT, Eagan and Inver Grove Heights. The City of Eagan is the project lead agency for execution of the construction contract and related payments to the contractor. Therefore, it is necessary for the City to enter a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Inver Grove Heights to receive payment from Inver Grove Height's for its share of the construction and easement acquisition costs. MnDOT has encumbered $2,161,800.00 for their contribution to the construction of Project 778. A portion of this sum, $494,150.00, has been designated to a segment of TH 149 within the limits of Inver Grove Heights. This agreement will allow Eagan, as the project lead agency, to manage this designated funding. An agreement between the City of Eagan, City of Inver Grove Heights and MnDOT for the construction and financing of Project 778 has been prepared which provides for the easement acquisition and contract management, including contractor payments, construction inspections and change orders. City staff have reviewed this agreement and found it to be similar to other cost participation and cooperative construction agreements and in order for favorable Council action. The Inver Grove Heights City Council approved the agreement at their regular Council meeting of Nov. 27, 2006. 2? Agenda Information Memo December 4, 2006 Eagan City Council Meeting L. WETLAND DELINEATION - WATERS ANNEX ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Receive and affirm the Wetland Delineation Report for the proposed Waters Annex development. FACTS: • Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) rules provide that the Local Government Unit (LGU) is responsible for wetland-related decisions. The rules allow decision authority to be placed with staff according to procedures established by the LGU. • On November 8, 2001, the City Council delegated the decision authority for exemption, wetland type, wetland boundary, and no-loss determinations to the Water Resources Coordinator while retaining approval authority for replacement and wetland banking plans. • Recent special interests and challenges to wetland-related decisions have resulted in administrative procedures whereby all authorized staff decisions are formally reviewed and affirmed by the City Council. • A delineation report acceptable to the City in 2000 was submitted as part of a previous proposal on this parcel (i.e., Silicon Graphics) that was cancelled. • At its April 17, 2006 meeting, the Advisory Parks Commission recommended approval of an updated wetlands delineation report, pending its acceptability to the water resources coordinator. • On May 16, City Council approved a preliminary planned development and preliminary subdivision subject to the condition that the developer shall submit an updated wetland delineation report to the City for formal acceptance prior to Final Subdivision and Final Planned Development approval. • On August 9, the City received a wetland delineation report from the developer (Alliant Engineering Proj. #040110). The Water Resources Coordinator has field verified and confirmed the delineation in favor of approval. The wetland is not proposed to be impacted by draining, filling or excavation. 2g Agenda Information Memo December 4, 2006 Eagan City Council Meeting M. PROJECT 944, KILLDEER ADDITION (JOYCE COURT) STREET IMPROVEMENTS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Receive the Draft Feasibility Report for Project 944, Killdeer Addition (Joyce Court - Street Improvements) and schedule a public hearing to be held on January 2, 2007. FACTS: • A structural mill and overlay of Killdeer Addition (Joyce Court), located in northeast Eagan is programmed for 2007.in the City of Eagan's 5-Year CIP (2007-2011). • On June 6, 2006 the City Council directed staff to prepare a feasibility report identifying the scope, cost, financing and schedule for this proposed improvement. • An informational neighborhood meeting will be held with the adjacent property owners prior to the formal public hearing to review and discuss the proposed improvements. • A draft of this Feasibility Report has been prepared and is being presented to the Council for their consideration of scheduling a public hearing for Tuesday, January 2, 2007. ATTACHMENTS: • Draft Feasibility Report, attached without page numbers. 2`l Agenda Information Memo December 4, 2006 Eagan City Council Meeting N. PROJECT 945, SHEFFIELD ADDITION (SUDBERRY LANE) STREET IMPROVEMENTS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Receive the Draft Feasibility Report for Project 945, Sheffield Addition (Sudberry Lane - Street Improvements) and schedule a public hearing to be held on January 2, 2007. FACTS: • A structural mill and overlay of Sheffield Addition (Sudberry Lane), located in southeast Eagan is programmed for 2007 in the City of Eagan's 5-Year CIP (2007- 2011). • On June 6, 2006 the City Council directed staff to prepare a feasibility report identifying the scope, cost, financing and schedule for this proposed improvement. • An informational neighborhood meeting will be held with the adjacent property owners prior to the formal public hearing to review and discuss the proposed improvements. • A draft of this Feasibility Report has been prepared and is being presented to the Council for their consideration of scheduling a public hearing for Tuesday, January 2, 2007. ATTACHMENTS: • Draft Feasibility Report, attached without page numbers. ?5) Agenda Information Memo December 4, 2006 Eagan City Council Meeting 0. PROJECT 947, FAWN RIDGE 1sT/ 2ND ADDITIONS STREET IMPROVEMENTS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Receive the Draft Feasibility Report for Project 947, (Fawn Ridge 1St/ 2nd Additions - Street Improvements) and schedule a public hearing to be held on January 2, 2007. FACTS: • A structural mill and overlay of Fawn Ridge 1st & 2nd Additions, including the streets of Fawn Ridge Trail, Whitetail Way, Reindeer Lane, Caribou Lane, and a portion of North Hay Lake Road, located in southeast Eagan is programmed for 2007 in the City of Eagan's 5-Year CIP (2007-2011). • On June 6, 2006 the City Council directed staff to prepare a feasibility report identifying the scope, cost, financing and schedule for this proposed improvement. • An informational neighborhood meeting will be held with the adjacent property owners prior to the formal public hearing to review and discuss the proposed improvements. • A draft of this Feasibility Report has been prepared and is being presented to the Council for their consideration of scheduling a public hearing for Tuesday, January 2, 2007. ATTACHMENTS: • Draft Feasibility Report, attached without page numbers. 31 Agenda Information Memo December 4, 2006 Eagan City Council Meeting P. PROJECT 778, TH 149 UPGRADE STREET UPGRADE & TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve an Easement Agreement for Project 778 (TH 149 Upgrade - Street Upgrade and Trail Improvements) with the owner of Parcel No. 10-30601-050- 00 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. FACTS: • The City of Eagan is the lead agency on the upgrade of Trunk Highway (TH) 149 to a four- lane divided highway between TH 55 and Albano Trail in Inver Grove Heights. The proposed project includes an urban curb & gutter section north of Yankee Doodle Road and rural ditch section to the south, a new traffic signal at the intersection of Wescott Road, and a trail along the east side, north of Wescott Road. • The upgrade of TH 149 requires the acquisition of numerous permanent and temporary easements from the adjacent properties. • Appraisals were obtained for all required easements. The estimated value of the ponding and utility easements for this property initially indicated a value of about $243,000. An offer was accordingly forwarded to the property owners. The property owners responded by providing additional detailed information regarding the full impacts of the proposed pond construction activity to their property. The impacts included the loss of numerous trees and buffering of their industrial facility from adjacent properties. • The property owners intended use of the impacted property is to provide buffering of their heavy industrial building and activities from the adjacent properties (office/warehouse and single-family residential). The proposed construction impacts requiring an easement would remove much of the existing and future screening per the plans. The owners have expressed a strong desire in maintaining and increasing this buffer of trees. • A review of the previous appraisal has indicated a likely increase in the resulting impact to the property due to the construction activity within the easements. The appraiser has suggested a revised offer of $262,200.00 as an appropriate alternative. The property owner has consented to this revised offer. • As a part of an easement agreement, the owners would be responsible to relocate 66 of the existing trees impacted by the pond construction and plant another 32 pine trees to supplement the buffer. The owners would fulfill all maintenance obligations for these relocated and newly planted trees. • An agreement between the City of Eagan and the owners of Parcel 10-30601-050-00, Outlot E, Gopher Eagan Industrial Park 2" d Addition, has been prepared providing for the acquisition cost for the necessary easements. • Engineering staff and the City Attorney's office have reviewed the agreement and found it to be in order for favorable Council action. ISSUES: • If the City Council would desire to discuss this item, it would be appropriate to direct any discussion to a Closed Session. 3Z Agenda Information Memo December 4, 2006 Eagan City Council Meeting Q. YANKEE DOODLE RD. CORRIDOR/ACCESS MANAGEMENT STUDY AGREEMENT ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve a Cost Participation Agreement with Dakota County for the Corridor and Access Management Traffic Study for Yankee Doodle Rd. (Denmark Ave. to TH 149) and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. FACTS: • As traffic and development continue to grow along the Yankee Doodle Rd (County Road 28) corridor between I-35E and TH 149, various segments and intersections are approaching their minimum Level of Service (LOS) capacities. Several existing intersections do not meet the County's Transportation Plan spacing guidelines. Also, as additional development occurs along this corridor, requested new access locations either conflict with the current guidelines or would compromise the long-term, mobility and/or safety of this heavily traveled corridor. A corridor and access management plan will be helpful in identifying where future accesses could be accommodated and what required infrastructure improvements are the most cost effective. • One of the higher priority capital improvements identified in both the City's and County's CIP involves addressing the vehicle crash rate at the Promenade intersection, and the easterly extension of the current 6-lane divided roadway from Promenade Ave. through Lexington Ave. for added capacity. Before these or other significant investments can be initiated, it is mutually beneficial for both agencies to perform a Corridor/Access Management Study of this 2-mile segment. • Dakota County will be the lead agency in this initiative. In response to a request for proposals and interviews of qualified consulting firms, SRF Consulting Firm Inc. has been selected to perform the study. • Similar to other cost sharing initiatives between the City and County, a Cost Participation Agreement has been prepared by the County for formal approval by the City. The estimated cost ($140,518) will be financed 55% by the County ($77,285) and 45% by the City ($63,233). The City's share will be financed through the Major Street Fund. The Public Works Department and City Attorney's office have reviewed this agreement and found it in order for favorable Council consideration. 33 Agenda Information Memo December 4, 2006 Eagan City Council Meeting R. CONTRACT 05-03, WELL NO.21 ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve the final payment for Contract 05-03 (Well No. 21 - Development & Pumping Equipment) in the amount of $22,572.04 to Mark J. Traut Wells, Inc., and accept the improvements for perpetual City maintenance subject to warranty provisions. FACTS: Contract 05-03 provided for the completion of new Well No. 21, including drilling, turbine pump, piping and appurtenances, mechanical and electrical systems. The well is now fully operational and contributing to the City's public water supply. These improvements have been completed, inspected by representatives of the Public Works Department, and found to be in order for favorable Council action of final payment and acceptance for perpetual maintenance subject to warranty provisions. Agenda Memo December 4, 2006 City Council Meeting S. APPROVE Renewal of Heart Healthy Living Program Agreement for Eagan Community Center ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve the renewal of a contract with Heart Healthy Living, P.A. for 2007 to provide cardiac rehabilitation maintenance program services at the Eagan Community Center and direct the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement document. FACTS: • Heart Healthy Living, P.A. (HHL) is an independent contract service that offers Phase III/ IV Cardiac Rehabilitation Maintenance Program services. • HHL wishes to continue their contract in 2006 for the use of the Eagan Community Center's exercise studio, walking track, exercise equipment, conference room and locker rooms Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 11:00 a.m. - 12:15 p.m. for HHL clients and staff. • HHL's agreement pays the City 20% of all revenue gained by client program participation fees, which is confirmed by monthly attendance sheets. • HHL will provide general liability insurance at $1,000,000 per occurrence and $1,000,000 per year as well and Professional Liability at $1,000 per occurrence and $1,000,000 per year. - • This has been a very positive and successful partnership that began in 2004 and continues to provide a positive benefit to the participants and ECC. ATTACHMENTS: None ??b Agenda Memo Regular City Council Meeting December 4, 2006 CONSENT AGENDA: T. Lease with Burnsville Eagan Community Television. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve lease renewal for Burnsville Eagan Community Television at its current location FACTS: • At a special joint meeting with Burnsville City Council on April 24, 2006, direction was given by both councils to negotiate a short term lease with the landlord at BECT's current location at 4155 Old Sibley Memorial Highway given the uncertainty created by draft federal legislation that could impact local franchise and so-called PEG fees for public/education/government programming on community television. • Direction was also given for discussion with other cities and financial analysis of other location options. These discussions are ongoing and it is expected a briefing will be made by mid-2007 on various options. • In the meantime, federal legislation passed in the House, but has not yet gained sufficient votes in the Senate to be brought to the floor. Leadership in both the US House and Senate will change in 2007. • The city attorneys of both Eagan and Burnsville participated in negotiating with the current landlord and several improvements in lease language were achieved including requiring the landlord to bear the costs of capital improvements, including the HVAC system which may need to be partially replaced as early as next year. • The new lease specifically limits and narrows what may be included in the Landlord's "Operating Costs" which are passed on to the tenant. The new lease also allows the City to "audit" those costs and obtain a refund for any amounts that should not have been charged to the City. • Finally, the term of the lease is for one year commencing January 1, 2007 and ending December 31, 2007 with the right to extend the lease for 1 additional year (provided notice is given 6 months in advance) • The costs are $13 per square foot base. rent plus $250 per month for exterior premises (antenna space). ATTACHMENTS: None. Anyone interested in reviewing the full 13 page lease may view a copy in the City Administrator's office. 3? Agenda Memo Regular City Council Meeting December 4, 2006 CONSENT AGENDA: U. Resolution regarding Policies and Procedures Governing the Receipt and Review of Applications for Additional Cable Franchises ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve resolution regarding policies and procedures governing the receipt and review of applications for additional Cable franchises. FACTS: • This action comes upon review and recommendation by the Burnsville Eagan Telecommunications Commission (BETC). • At its September meeting the Commission directed legal counsel to bring forward solutions in advance of the next state Legislative Session that position the City for increased broadband investment and these policies were reviewed and ratified at BETC's November 15 meeting. • The intent of these policies, which are now forwarded to the Burnsville and Eagan city councils with a recommendation for approval, is to streamline the process for applying for a competitive cable franchise. • The City of Eagan has placed a priority on the deployment of additional competitive broadband services in the community for residents and businesses. • The existing agreement with Comcast is a non-exclusive franchise that has always allowed for additional competitors should market conditions be right. • The Commission has never denied a cable franchise application. • A new development in the telecommunications industry is the provision video services by traditional telephone companies. Industry observers expect that in the upcoming months, telephone companies, like Qwest, may approach cities or the state requesting authority to provide video service. • In arguing against local franchising, the phone companies have been effective in creating a perception that cities are a "barrier to entry" for phone companies entering into the video business. • Despite the threats to local franchising authority at both the federal and state level, cities are interested in developing solutions to increase broadband investment and greater consumer choice. • These Policies were developed in cooperation with the City of Minneapolis and several of the larger cable commissions in the Twin Cities area. The purpose behind these policies is two-fold: first, to prepare the Member Cities for future cable franchise applications; and second, to help eliminate the perception that cities are a barrier to entry for phone companies entering into the video market. • If there are questions, staff and Commission legal counsel will be present during the consent agenda. ATTACHMENTS: ?} A copy of the resolution is on pages 59 to 95-of your packet. THE CITY OF EAGAN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE RECEIPT AND REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL CABLE FRANCHISES WHEREAS, commencing in 1966, the Federal Communications Commission and later Congress codified a dual federal-local regulatory process for the regulation of Cable Services that distinguished between matters of national and local concern; and WHEREAS, since 1905, local governments in Minnesota have had the authority to franchise companies seeking to use Public Rights-of-Way for private profit. In 1973, this authority over cable communications systems was specifically codified in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 238; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled that an Open Video System operated by a local exchange carrier (i.e., a telephone company) is a cable communications system for purposes of State law and is subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 238; and WHEREAS, the City of Eagan is a cable franchising authority for purposes of federal and state law; and WHEREAS, in Minnesota, and in the vast majority of states, Communications Facility Operators must obtain a Cable Service Franchise from the local franchising authorities they-wish to serve; and WHEREAS, under applicable law, cities, without limiting any other powers they may possess, franchise Cable Systems and Open Video Systems; and WHEREAS, the Public Rights-of-Way are the City's valuable and scarce public asset; and WHEREAS, cable and broadband deployment under local franchising has thrived. Nationwide, nearly 70% of all households subscribing to multichannel video programming services are being served by a Cable Operator, such as Comcast; and WHEREAS, under the existing regulatory scheme, which relies on local franchising and maintains local authority over Public Rights-of-Way, consumer protection and other important matters, the cable industry in Minnesota has invested in advanced networks with an approximate asset value of over $3 billion and serves approximately 1 million Subscribers; and WHEREAS, under local franchising, high-speed Internet and broadband services have flourished and there is over a 99% deployment rate throughout the cable footprint in Minnesota; and 3F WHEREAS, under local franchising, broadband services provided over Cable Systems have garnered a much larger share of the market than the broadband services provided by local exchange carriers; and WHEREAS, under local franchising, the State of Minnesota has benefited from the cable industry's investment of more than $500 million in broadband infrastructure and related equipment over the past five years; and WHEREAS, under local franchising, Comcast, through its predecessors in interest, has achieved 100% high-speed broadband deployment throughout its network in Minnesota; and WHEREAS, under local franchising, cities have required cable communications system operators to construct to their entire geographic boundaries subject to certain density requirements and cable subscribers have enjoyed uniform rates across each franchised area; and WHEREAS, Comcast, through its predecessors in interest, has invested over $400 million in recent network upgrades in Minnesota, has 11,100 network miles of plant in Minnesota, serves over 110 municipalities and provides service to over 50% of the 1.1 million homes its Cable System passes; and WHEREAS, local exchange carriers are beginning to offer Cable Service across the country; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to promote competition in the delivery of Cable Services and to encourage the deployment of state-of-the-art broadband networks; and WHEREAS, the City believes true and effective competition between Cable Service providers will increase the availability and quality of Cable Services, spur the development of new technologies, improve customer service, discipline rates and generally benefit consumers; and WHEREAS, the City desires to further streamline the application process for additional Cable Service Franchises and to eliminate perceived regulatory and economic barriers to entry, to the extent possible and consistent with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the City has formulated these new "Policies and Procedures Governing the Receipt and Review of Applications for Additional Cable Franchises" to satisfy its goals of (i) minimizing the burdens placed on applicants for additional Cable Service Franchises and (ii) expeditiously acting on additional Cable Service Franchise applications, so as to promote Cable Service competition and broadband deployment. 2 40 NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Eagan promulgates and adopts these Policies and Procedures Governing the Receipt and Review of Applications for Additional Cable Franchises. Section 1. Franchise Required. Subd. 1. In order to enable the City to treat Persons subject to Minn. Stat. § 238.03, 47 U.S.C. § 541(b)(1) and these Policies and Procedures Governing the Receipt and Review of Applications for Additional Cable Franchises that are providing similar video services similarly, as may be appropriate to comply with applicable law, and considering differences in circumstances; and to comply with requirements of federal law and/or State law which may require the City to separate their authority over Communications Facilities from their authority over providers of telecommunications services and information services, the City require individual authorizations for the provision of particular services and/or the construction of particular facilities in Public Rights-of-Way. Subd. 2. No Person shall construct, install, maintain, repair or operate a Communications Facility in the City, and no Person shall provide Cable Service or acquire ownership or control of a Communications Facility Operator in the City, without first obtaining a Franchise from the City and entering into an Agreement. The fact that a particular Communications Facility may be utilized for multiple purposes does not obviate the need to obtain a Franchise and enter into an Agreement. Subd. 3. A Franchise may be awarded only by an ordinance or other official action by the City. Subd. 4. No Franchise shall be exclusive. Subd. 5. A Person (A) who holds an authorization to occupy the City's Public Rights-of-Way for purposes other than the provision of Cable Service, or (B) who utilizes the Communications Facility of another Person shall not provide Cable Service to Subscribers within the City unless the City first grants such Person a Franchise and the City and such Person enter into an Agreement. Subd. 6. Nothing in these Policies and Procedures Governing the Receipt and Review of Applications for Additional Cable Franchises shall be construed to abrogate, derogate or limit any and all authority the City has to manage and control Public Rights-of-Way and to construct, purchase, maintain and operate a Communications Facility or to provide telecommunications services, Cable Services or other services, either for internal purposes or for sale to the public. Subd. 7. The revocation of a Franchise in and of itself will not affect the authority of a Communications Facility Operator to continue to occupy Public Rights-of- Way to provide services for which it holds other valid authorizations. 41 3 Subd. 8. The City shall develop and keep on file at its offices a model Additional Franchise Agreement ("Model Additional Franchise Agreement") which shall be made available to an applicant for an Additional Franchise free of charge. Section 2. Application for Additional Franchise. Subd. 1. A written application for an Additional Franchise may be filed with the City at any time. Applications may be unsolicited or filed in response to a notice of intent to franchise issued and published by the City. Any such applications shall be filed with the City. Subd. 2. To be acceptable for filing, a signed original of an Additional Franchise application shall be submitted together with three (3) complete copies. The application shall contain the information required by Section 3 and shall conform with any additional requirements contained in a notice of intent to franchise, if any. All applications for an Additional Franchise shall include the names, addresses and telephone numbers of Persons authorized to act on behalf of all applicants with respect to an Additional Franchise application. Subd. 3. Upon receipt of an application for an Additional Franchise, the City shall publish a notice of intent to . franchise in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 238.081, subd. 1. A notice of intent to franchise shall contain at least the information set forth in Minn. Stat. § 238.081, subd. 2 and such other information as the City may decide to include, in its sole discretion. The City's Communications Director is authorized to publish a notice of intent to franchise on behalf of the City and to determine what information is to be included in the notice of intent to franchise. Subd. 4. All applications accepted for filing shall be made available by the City for public inspection, except for any information marked as "confidential" that may be protected from disclosure consistent with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes, and applicable rules. An applicant shall be solely responsible for marking as "confidential" all information in its application that it believes is confidential, proprietary or trade secret and exempt from disclosure under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. The City and its council members, directors, employees and agents shall not be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of data that are not protected from disclosure under federal and State laws and regulations. In addition, the City and its council members, directors, employees and agents shall not be liable for any public disclosure of data that are not marked "confidential" or any data marked as "confidential" that is not actually exempt from public disclosure under applicable federal or State law. In the event of a request for public disclosure of data marked as "confidential," an applicant shall be responsible for proving to the City or its designee, in writing, that the data is not public and exempt from disclosure. Such written proof must cite the specific statutory section(s) and/or rule(s) prohibiting disclosure, and any applicable administrative and/or court decisions that classify the data as not public and exempt from disclosure. Subd. 5. An applicant shall respond to a notice of intent to franchise by filing an application within the time specified in the notice. Any applicant that has 424 already filed an application for an Additional Franchise need not refile the same materials with its response, but must update its application, if any information is no longer accurate or applicable, and amplify its application to include any additional or different materials required by the notice of intent to franchise, Minn. Stat. § 238.081, subd. 4, and these Policies and Procedures Governing the Receipt and Review of Applications for Additional Cable Franchises. The City, through its Communications Director or other responsible employee(s), may seek additional information from any applicant and establish deadlines for the submission of such information and may reject any application that does not contain required information. An applicant shall cooperate with the City and its employees and agents, and provide all requested information within the time specified by the City's Communications Director or other responsible employee(s), unless an extension is granted by the Communications Director or other responsible employee(s). Section 3. Contents of Additional Franchise Application. Subd. 1. An application for an Additional Franchise shall be signed by an authorized officer or principal of the applicant, shall be notarized and shall contain, at a minimum, the following information: (a) All information set forth in Minn. Stat. § 238.081, subd. 4; (b) A proposed Franchise Agreement; (c) Any other information contained in a notice of intent to franchise that may be reasonably necessary to demonstrate compliance with applicable laws and regulations and the requirements of these Policies and Procedures Governing the Receipt and Review of Applications for Additional Cable Franchises; and (d) Any additional information that the City or its responsible employee(s) may request of the applicant that is relevant to the City's consideration of the application. Subd. 2. To the extent permitted by law, the City may, in its sole discretion, waive in writing the provision of any of the information required by this Section 3. Section 4. Evaluation of Additional Franchise Applications. Subd. 1. After receiving a complete application for an Additional Franchise and any other data requested pursuant to Section 3 by the City (through its Communications Director or other responsible employee(s)) shall evaluate the application. The City, through its Communications Director and/or other responsible employee(s), reserves the right to reject a non-conforming Franchise application at any time. 5 43 Subd. 2. In evaluating an application for an Additional Franchise, the City and its employees and agents may consider all lawful factors, including (but not limited to) an applicant's financial, technical and legal qualifications. A complete Franchise application that includes an executed copy of the Model Additional Franchise Agreement prepared by the City, or a Franchise Agreement that is substantially similar to the City's Model Additional Franchise Agreement, as determined solely by the City, shall be given expedited treatment. In all other cases, the City shall complete its evaluation of an application for an Additional Franchise and the negotiation of a Franchise Agreement, if warranted, as soon as reasonably practicable. Except as expressly provided above, nothing in this paragraph shall be deemed to require the City to grant an Additional Franchise to a particular applicant. In addition, these Policies and Procedures Governing the Receipt and Review of Applications for Additional Cable Franchises are not intended and shall not be interpreted to grant any Additional Franchise applicant standing to challenge the denial of its application for an Additional Franchise or the issuance of an Additional Franchise to another applicant or to provide any existing Grantee with standing to challenge the award of an Additional Franchise to an applicant. Subd. 3. The City or its designee, in its sole discretion, may terminate a Franchise application if it determines that the applicant is not proceeding with due diligence on the application or cooperating with City staff, employees and agents in their review, or if there are any substantive amendments to an application after the application has been submitted to the City and prior to the award of a Franchise. Subd. 4. In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 238.081, subd. 8, an applicant shall, upon request of the City, reimburse the City for all reasonable and necessary costs, expenses and fees they actually incurred in processing and reviewing an application for an Additional Franchise, through and including the denial of an application or the granting of an Additional Franchise and the execution of an Agreement, within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice from the City. Any reimbursement amount shall not be considered a franchisee fee and shall not be offset against any franchise fees owed to the City under an Additional Franchise and/or Franchise Agreement. Section 5. Definitions. The following terms, phrases, words, and abbreviations shall have the meanings given herein, unless otherwise expressly stated. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future tense; words in the plural number include the singular number, and words in the singular number include the plural number; and the masculine gender includes the feminine gender. The words "shall" and "will" are mandatory, and "may" is permissive. Unless otherwise expressly stated, words not defined herein shall be given the meaning set forth in Title 47 of the United States Code, as amended, Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as amended, and Chapter 238 of Minnesota Statutes, as amended, and, if not defined therein, their common and ordinary meaning. The City shall hold a public hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 238.081, subdivision 6. 0 6 Subd. 1. Additional Franchise means a Cable Service Franchise granted to a Person other than the first franchised Cable Operator. Source: References to an "additional franchise" in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 238 (e.g., Minn. Stat. § 238.08, subd. 1(b)). Subd. 2. Affiliate means any Person who owns or controls, is owned or controlled by, or is under common ownership or control with an entity. Source: 47 U.S.C. § 522(2), Section 602(2) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended. Subd. 3. Agreement means the written agreement between the City and a Grantee, evidencing the City's authorization for a Grantee to provide Cable Service within the City utilizing Public Rights-of-Way. Source: Common contract principles. Subd. 4. Cable Operator means any Person or group of Persons (A) who provides Cable Service over a Cable System and directly or through one or more Affiliates owns a significant interest in such Cable System, or (B) who otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any arrangement, the management and operation of such a Cable System. Source: 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), Section 602(5) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended. Subd. 5. Cable Service means (A) the one-way transmission to Subscribers of video programming or other programming service; and (B) Subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for the selection or use of such video programming or other programming service. Cable Service includes, but is not limited to, all video programming and other programming services delivered by a Cable Operator, an Open Video System Operator and/or any broadband service provider or any local exchange carrier over a set of closed transmission paths and associated signal generation, reception and control equipment, in any analog or digital format and irrespective the technology utilized to transmit the video programming and. other programming services including, but not limited to, video programming and other programming services provided by Internet protocol or xDSL video, and video programming and other programming services delivered over an integrated Internet protocol platform or a very-high-data-rate digital subscriber line. Cable Service, as defined herein, does not include any service that is solely and exclusively classified as an information service or a telecommunications service under applicable laws and regulations binding on the City. Source: Adapted from 47 U.S.C. § 522(6), Section 602(6) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of'1984, as amended. u5 Subd. 6. Cable System or System means a facility consisting of a set of closed transmission paths and associated signal generation, reception, and control equipment that is designed to provide Cable Service which includes video programming and which is provided to multiple Subscribers within the City, but such term does not include (A) a facility that serves only to retransmit the television signals of one or more television broadcast stations; (B) a facility that serves Subscribers without using any Public Right-of-Way; (C) a facility of a common carrier which is subject, in whole or in part, to the provisions of Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (other than for purposes of 47 U.S.C. § 541(c)), except that such facility shall be considered a cable system to the extent such facility is used in the transmission of video programming directly to Subscribers, unless the extent of such use is solely to provide interactive on- demand services; (D) an open video system that complies with 47 U.S.C. § 573; or (E) any facilities of any electric utility used solely for operating its electric utility system. A reference to a Cable System refers to any part thereof, including, without limitation, converters, pedestals, equipment enclosures (such as equipment cabinets), amplifiers, power guards, status monitoring equipment, nodes, cables, fiber optics and other equipment necessary to operate the Cable System. The foregoing definition of "Cable System" shall not be deemed to circumscribe or limit the valid authority of the City to regulate, franchise or permit the activities of any other communications system or provider of communications services to the full extent permitted by law. The term Cable System, as defined herein, includes a cable communications system, as defined in Minn. Stat. § 238.02, subd. 3, and any system, irrespective of the technology utilized, that is used or designed to provide Cable Service to multiple Subscribers by a Cable Operator, a broadband service provider, and/or a local exchange carrier, in any analog or digital format, including, but not limited to, an integrated Internet protocol platform, an xDSL line and a very-high-data-rate digital subscriber line. Source: Adapted from 47 U.S.C. § 522(7), Section 602(7) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended, and Minn. Stat. § 238.02, subd. 3. Subd. 7. City means the City of Eagan, Minnesota, and its lawful designees, successors and assigns. Source: Adapted from local franchise definitions. Subd. 8. Communications Facility refers to a Cable System and/or an Open Video System. Source: Umbrella term that encompasses Cable Systems and Open Video Systems. Subd. 9. FCC means the Federal Communications Commission, its designee, or any successor thereto. 46 8 Source: Adapted from 47 U.S.C. §§ 151 and 154, Sections 1 and 4 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Subd. 10. Franchise means an initial non-exclusive authorization granted by the City in the form of an ordinance, Agreement, permit, license, privilege or other municipal permission to own, control, operate, maintain, construct, install, manage or repair a Communications Facility in the City's Public Rights-of-Way to provide Cable Service to Subscribers within the City. Any such authorization, in whatever form granted, shall not mean or include any other license, agreement or permit required for the privilege of transacting and carrying on a business within the City as required by the ordinances, laws, regulations and codes of the City, or for attaching devices to poles or other structures, whether owned by the City or a private entity, or for excavating or performing other work in or along Public Rights-of-Way. Source: Adapted from 47 U.S.C. § 522(9), Section 602(9) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended, and Minn. Stat. § 238.02, subd. 24. Subd. 11. Grantee means a Person that has been granted an initial Franchise or a renewal franchise by the City, and its lawful successors, transferees or assignees. Source: Adapted from local franchise definitions. Subd. 12. Operator, when used with reference to a system, refers to a Person (A) who provides Cable Service over a Cable System or an Open Video System and directly or through one or more Affiliates owns a significant interest in such facility; or (B) who otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any arrangement, the management and operation of such system. Source: Adapted from 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), Section 602(5) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended, and 47 C.F.R. § 1500(b). Subd. 13. OVS or Open Video System refers to a facility consisting of a set of closed transmission paths and associated signal generation, reception, and control equipment that is designed to provide Cable Service, which includes video programming in any analog or digital format including, but not limited to, Internet protocol video, and video programming and other programming services delivered over an integrated Internet protocol platform, an xDSL line or a very-high-data-rate digital subscriber line, which is provided to multiple Subscribers within a community, and which the FCC or its successor has certified as compliant with 47 U.S.C. § 573 and 47 C.F.R., Part 76, as amended from time to time. Source: Adapted from 47 C.F.R. § 76.1500(a). 47 9 Subd. 14. Person includes any individual, corporation, partnership, association, limited liability company, joint-stock company, trust or any other legal entity, but not the City. Source: Adapted from 47 U.S.C. § 153(32), Section 3(32) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended and Minn. Stat. § 238.02, subd. 30. Subd. 15. Public Rights-of-Way or Rights-of-Way means the surface, air space above the surface and the area below the surface of any public street, highway, lane, path, alley, sidewalk, avenue, boulevard, drive, court, concourse, bridge, tunnel, park, parkway, skyway, waterway, dock, bulkhead, wharf, pier, easement or similar property or waters within the City owned by or under control of the City, or dedicated for general public use by the City, including, but not limited to, any riparian right, which, consistent with the purposes for which it was created, obtained or dedicated, may be used for the purpose of installing, operating and maintaining a Communications Facility. No reference herein to a "Right-of-Way" shall be deemed to be a representation or guarantee by the City that its interest or other right to control or use such property is sufficient to permit its use for the purpose of installing, operating and maintaining a Communications Facility. Source: Adapted from local franchise definitions. Subd. 16. State means the State of Minnesota and its agencies, offices, bureaus, divisions, commissions and departments. Source: Adapted from Minn. Stat. § 238.02, subd. 32 and subd. 33. Subd. 17. Subscriber means the City, any government entity or any Person lawfully receiving any Cable Service provided by a Communications Facility Operator by means of or in connection with its Communications Facility, whether or not a fee is paid for such Cable Service. Source: Adapted from 47 C.F.R. § 76.5(ee) and local franchise definitions. Section 6. Repealer and Effective Date. Subd. 1. Any prior policies and procedures governing application, review and recommendations regarding grant of competitive cable franchises previously adopted by the City are hereby repealed in their entirety and are superseded and replaced by these Policies and Procedures Governing the Receipt and Review of Applications for Additional Cable Franchises. Subd. 2. These Policies and Procedures Governing the Receipt and Review of Applications for Additional Cable Franchises shall be effective immediately upon their adoption by the City. ,)? 10 Adopted and effective this day of , 2006. [INSERT CITY SIGNATURE BLOCK] Agenda Memo Regular City Council Meeting December 4, 2006 CONSENT AGENDA: V. Resolution Stating Opposition to Legislative Proposals that Remove Cable Television Build-Out Provisions from Chapter 238 of Minnesota State Law. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve resolution stating opposition to Legislative proposals that remove Cable Television Build-Out provisions from Chapter 238 of Minnesota State Law and forward copies-of this resolution to Eagan's state legislative delegation and the League of Minnesota Cities. FACTS: • This action comes upon review and recommendation by the Burnsville Eagan Telecommunications Commission (BETC). • The Commission at BETC's November 15 meeting approved and forwarded the attached resolution to the Burnsville and Eagan city councils to consider adoption prior to the next state Legislative session. • As the League of Minnesota Cities develops its policies for the 2007 legislative session, it is important to review the legislative landscape and the League's current position on cable system franchising. • During the past year the telecommunications industry has vigorously lobbied Congress and state legislatures across the nation in an attempt to eliminate local franchising. Part of the industry's goal with this legislation is to eliminate build-out requirements. • Minnesota law (Minn. Stat. § 238.081) currently prohibits additional franchises to be more favorable or less burdensome as it relates to the area served. The League of Minnesota Cities, the National League of Cities, and other major municipal organizations have opposed federal legislation that would allow new entrants to "cherry pick" their cable system areas. • The BETC believes it is sound public policy, wherever possible, to ensure all citizens throughout the City receive new services, understanding that densities and available capital can affect build out schedules. • The focus of the Telecommunications industry is now shifting to State Legislatures, where legislation will be introduced in Minnesota to eliminate build out requirements for video services, even to a telephone company's existing footprint. • While the Commission feels it is important to acknowledge market factors and to be flexible on the schedules for build-out by video providers, cities nonetheless have an interest in making sure, over time, that all its residents are served by new competitive video services, and at a minimum video services delivered by a telephone company cover at least its existing footprint within the city. • The action asks that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the League of Minnesota Cities and Eagan's state legislative delegation. Staff and Commission Legal Counsel will be present during the consent agenda should there be questions the Council wishes answered. ATTACHMENTS: A copy of the resolution is on pages 52 to 53 of your packet. 51 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EAGAN By STATING OPPOSITION TO LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS THAT REMOVE CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM BUILD-OUT PROVISIONS FROM CHAPTER 238 OF MINNESOTA STATE LAW. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Eagan, Minnesota ("City) is the official governing body elected to preserve, promote and protect the best welfare, safety and interest of the City and its citizens; and WHEREAS, the City is a franchising authority that is empowered to award non-exclusive franchises for cable communications systems pursuant to Chapter 238 of Minnesota Statutes; and WHEREAS, the City understands that considerable effort has been made in the State of Minnesota, and at a national level, to change and limit local government authority with respect to cable communications system build-out requirements, and management of local rights-of-way use, including the oversight, administration, and regulation of cable services and cable operators; and WHEREAS, the City believes that all its citizens and all areas of the City should have the same access to cable service and cable communications systems regardless of the economic condition of any of its citizens or the economic condition of any of the City's neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 238 establishes uniform guidelines for the franchising, oversight and administration of cable communications systems and services, including build-out requirements; and WHEREAS, the City disagrees with telecommunications industry claims that cable communications system overbuilders should be allowed to provide video services to only citizens and neighborhoods that they determine to be desirable; and WHEREAS, the National League of Cities and the League of Minnesota Cities have opposed national legislation that does not contain build-out provisions; and WHEREAS, the City strenuously objects to any legislative proposals or policy recommendations that may be made by policy committees, the Board of the League of Minnesota Cities or others which would seek to remove build-out provisions from Chapter 238 of Minnesota Statutes; and 1 52- WHERAS, the City supports interpreting existing provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 238 to not require a telephone company to provide cable service beyond its telecommunications footprint in the City. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the City Council of The City of Eagan, that: SECTION 1: 1.1 The City respectfully requests that the League of Minnesota Cities reconsider its support of proposed Minnesota legislation which would remove or limit the build- out provisions of Chapter 238; and 1.2 The City will support efforts directed against unwarranted legislative changes to ensure that all persons residing in the City will have unfettered access to all forms of information resources from as many sources and providers as possible; and 1.3 The City will support efforts to ensure that cable communications systems and cable operators occupying and utilizing valuable and scarce public rights-of-way and who benefit from the use of public rights-of-way have flexible build-out schedules and continue to provide reasonable right-of-way compensation in the form of franchise fees, public, educational, and governmental access funding, and other lawful support notwithstanding technological changes or advancements; and 1.4 The City's City Administrator or his designee will transmit this Resolution to the Executive Director's office of the League of Minnesota Cities, and such other persons as the City's City Administrator or his designee believes are in a position to further the goals and objectives outlined herein. SECTION 2: This Resolution becomes effective upon approval and adoption by the City Council of The City of Eagan. ADOPTED this day of , 2006, by the following vote. AYES : NOES: ABSENT: DISQUALIFIED: By: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 2 55 Agenda Information Memo December 4, 2006, Eagan City Council Meeting W. EXTENSION FOR RECORDING FINAL PLAT - EAGAN HOSPITALITY GROUP (OAKVIEW CENTER 2 D ADDITION) ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve a 90-day extension of time to record the final plat for Oakview Center 2' Addition, located south of Lone Oak Road and north of Hwy. 55 in the NW %4 of Section 12. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Councilmembers present FACTS: ? The City Council approved the final plat on April 4, 2006. The plat is required to be recorded within 60 days of approval. ? The plat approval has previously been extended twice for 90 days each time. The current approval expires November 30, 2006. ? Prior to the expiration date of November 30, 2006, the applicant submitted another request for a 90-day extension of the final plat approval. ? The current requested 90-day extension would allow until February 28, 2007 for the plat to be recorded. ? The applicant has indicated they expect to begin construction in Spring 2007 for an opening in Spring 2008. ATTACHMENTS (1): Letter from Rian Gamble, Eagan Hospitality Group, page 55 54 Eagan Hospitality Group, LLC November 28, 2006 Pam Dudziak Planner, City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 RE: Extension of Plat Approval for Eagan Comfort Suites Dear Pam: Please consider this request for an extension of our plat approval for 90 days. We are requesting this extension in order to complete the requirements for the final plat and execute the planned development agreement. Per our conversation, we anticipate that these items will be completed by the end of this year. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me. Sincerely, Rian Gamble Eagan Hospitality Group, LLC Badger Midwest Holdings, LLC Enclosure: Check for Plat Extension Fee ($75.00) P.O. Box 282 Waterloo, WI 53594 55 Agenda Information Memo December 4, 2006 Eagan City Council Meeting X. PROJECT 950, OPPERMAN DRIVE & TH 149 INTERSECTION RECONFIGURATION RECEIVE PETITION, AUTHORIZE FEASIBILITY REPORT ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To receive the petition and authorize the preparation of a feasibility report by Bonestroo & Associates for Project 950 (Opperman Drive & TH 149-Intersection Reconfiguration). FACTS: • On November 29, 2006 City staff received a petition from Thomson Legal and Regulatory, owner of properties adjacent to Opperman Drive and TH 149, requesting the reconfiguration of the Opperman Drive and TH 149 intersection. • As indicated in Thomson's petition, the requested improvements will require significant coordination with several agencies. Therefore, Thomson has requested the City act as the lead agency for the construction of the improvements. • Given the proximity of the petitioned improvements to the proposed TH 149 construction and the related economies of scale benefits, it would be advantageous to incorporate the improvements into the construction plans for Project 778 (TH 149 Reconstruction). • The schedule for Project 778 (TH 149 Reconstruction) will not be adversely impacted by inclusion of the petitioned improvements. • It would be appropriate for the City Council to authorize the preparation of a Feasibility Report to determine the scope, cost, schedule, and method of financing for the construction of these public improvements. ATTACHMENTS: • Petition, page5l through 58. ,56 Thomas J. Walrath Senior Director Facility Management Tel 651.687.7490 Fax 651.687.5718 November 29, 2006 Russ Matthys, P.E. City Engineer City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Re: T.H. 149 Reconstruction Project Proposed Improvements Dear Russ: THOMSON LEGAL & REGULATORY We have enjoyed the long standing relationship between Thomson and the City of Eagan and look forward to working together as the T.H. 149 Reconstruction project continues to move forward. We have had many communications throughout the development stages of the T.H. 149 project, and are pleased that the project is moving ahead. As we have discussed, there are improvements that Thomson would like to see implemented that, while not directly tied to the T.H. 149 Reconstruction Project, should be given due consideration by the City at this time. Our letter to the City, dated December 2, 2005, outlined roadway improvements that we would like to see implemented. The proposed improvements in said letter included the following: 1. Southbound dual right turns on T.H. 149 at Opperman Drive 2. An additional westbound through lane on Opperman Drive 3. A right-in / right-out driveway for the Thomson facility located south of Opperman Drive 4. A southbound right-exit-only off of T.H. 149 between Yankee Doodle Road and Opperman Drive The items listed above have not been incorporated into the T.H. 149 plans. Because these improvements will require significant coordination and permitting efforts with Dakota County, MnDOT and the Canadian Pacific Railroad (Progressive Rail), we believe that it would be in everyone's best interest if the City were to act as the lead agency for the construction of the improvements. Additionally, most of the improvements will impact the T.H. 149 Reconstruction project, and should be considered prior to that project being constructed. Please consider this a formal request, or petition, for the improvements outlined above. Thomson is in possession of all of the Right-of-Way and other land interests that abut the requested improvements. As such, no other parties should realize adverse impacts from the improvements. We understand for Public projects such as this, that indirect costs can be about Thomson Legal & Regulatory 610 Opperman Drive, Eagan, MN 55123, 651.687-7000 651.687.5718 www.tlrg.com `?? November 29, 2006 Page 2 of 2 30 percent of the construction costs for the project. In response to this request, Thomson anticipates the City Council's consideration of directing staff to prepare a feasibility report identifying the scope, cost, financing and schedule for the proposed improvements. It would appear advantageous, upon Council authorization, to prepare such a feasibility report and hold any associated public hearings on a timeline that would allow an approved project to be constructed with the T.H. 149 Reconstruction project. We look forward to our continued partnership on the T.H. 149 Reconstruction project and the implementation of the additional requested improvements. We would like to meet at your earliest convenience to discuss the extent of the improvements and the next steps in the process. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please call me at 651-687-7490. Zorn V om W th Senior Director Facility Management Thomson Legal & Regulatory c: Thomas Hedges, City Administrator Thomas Colbert, City of Eagan Jon Durand, TLR Agenda Information Memo December 4, 2006 Eagan City Council Meeting PUBLIC IIEARJNGS A. Proposed Budget and Property Tax Levy for 2007 - Truth-In-Taxation Hearing ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) To close the public hearing and set the 2007 General levy and General Fund budget considerations for the December 19, 2006 City Council meeting. 2) To close the public hearing and set the 2007 Cedarvale Special Services District levy and budget considerations for the December 19, 2006 City Council meeting. FACTS: • Generally, the State requires cities over 2,500 in population to hold a Truth-in- Taxation public hearing on their proposed budget and tax levy for next year. • Again this year, because the City's levy is lower than the inflation factor established by the State, Eagan is exempt from holding a Truth-in-Taxation hearing. The Council earlier indicated it wanted to proceed with the hearing nevertheless. • Parcel specific notices were mailed by the County to Eagan residents in mid- November. All Cedarvale SSD property owners also received a mailed notice of the proposed SSD levy and budget. • A notice of this hearing was published in the Dakota County Tribune on November 30 and in the Eagan ThisWeek newspaper on December 2. It invited property owners to attend this hearing and/or send written comments. • Hearings for both the general levy and the Cedarvale Special Services District (SSD) levy are to be conducted. • If the City Council wishes to conduct a continuation hearing, such a hearing would be held December 11. • The City's final levy and budget will be adopted at the December 19 regular City Council meeting. • The City Administrator will make a PowerPoint presentation. ATTACHMENTS: • Enclosed without page number is a 2007 General Fund Budget and Property Tax Levy handout that will be made available to all in attendance at the public hearing. • Enclosed on page (eQ is a notice sent to property owners in the Cedarvale SSD. • Enclosed on pages (o I through I is a memo summarizing recent discussions concerning public policy decisions regarding the amount of the 2007 levy. C?l City of Eaan NO To: CEDARVALE SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT MEMBERS From: JON HOHENSTEIN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Date: NOVEMBER 6, 2006 Subject: PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE-2007 SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT BUDGET This memo is to inform you of a public hearing on Monday, December 4, 2006 regarding the Proposed 2007 Budget for the Cedarvale Special Service District. The hearing will take place at 6:30 p.m. during the City Council Meeting in the City Council Chambers at 3830 Pilot Knob Road. The City is recommending a 2007 service charge of $3,000 be imposed as compared to the 2006 service charge of $3,000, and budgeted expenditures of $6,300 as compared to $9,439 in 2006. The proposed budget will continue to cover maintenance and insurance for the Cedarvale area sign, as well as additional mowing, fertilizing, and weed control of the public property. The budgeted expenditures are an estimate of the annual cost of operating and maintaining the improvements. Below is a summary of historical budgets and the 2007 budget for the Special Service District. 2004 2005 2006 2007 Actual Actual Budget Budget Fund Balance, Beginning of Year $11,076 $8,748 $6,180 $3,041 Revenues: Special Services District Taxes $2,088 $2,002 $3,000 $3,000 Interest on Investments $130 $157 $300 $300 Total Revenues $2,218 $2,159 $3,300 $3,300 Expenditures: Professional Services-Auditing $500 $500 $500 $500 Mowing $3,066 $3,461 $6,444 $3,500 Fertilizer and Weed Control $0 $0 $1,395 $1,400 Sign Maintenance $980 $766 $1,100 $900 Total Expenditures $4,546 $4,727 $9,439 $6,300 Projected Actual Expenditures $6,439 Excess of Revenue over Expenditures ($2,328) ($2,568) ($3,139) ($3,000) Fund Balance, End of Year $8,748 $6,180 $3,041 $41 All interested persons will have an opportunity to be heard at the hearing regarding this proposed service charge. The petition requirements of section 428A.08 of the Minnesota Statutes do not apply to the proposed service charge since this proposal is a subsequent and not the initial proposal for imposition of the service charge. For more information call Jon Hohenstein, Community Development Director at (651) 675-5653. (00 City of Eagan Memo To: City Administrator Hedges From: Director of Administrative Services VanOverbeke Date: November 29, 2006 Subject: Payable 2007 Property Tax Levy - Market Value Homestead Credit I am writing this memo to summarize recent discussions concerning the up coming public policy decision regarding the 2007 Property Tax Levy. Through the Truth in Taxation and final levy certification process the City Council has the option to maintain the proposed levy approved with the certification of the preliminary levy and budget on September 5, 2006 or to reduce the levy to some other dollar amount. By way of background, the first 2007 budget and levy draft reviewed by the City Council in August of 2006 included a total levy of $21,557,307 which was the same as the total levy for payable 2006 and designated $202,845 for non-current operations, that being future tax levy supported communications funding. The proposal also assumed that Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC) would be paid by the State. The preliminary levy certified in September totaled $22,304,562 and was arrived at by removing the $202,845 communications designation and adding the MVHC allocation of $950,100. It was further noted that the $950,100 would be designated for the City's capital obligation to the DCC, if the State actually pays the MVHC. This change amounted to approximately an annual $23 increase for the average house value in Eagan. The City's DCC capital obligation is estimated to be approximately $1.2 million and staff is reviewing the various funding options. The following observations were considered by the City Council in certifying the preliminarylevy-amount Factors in favor of adding the replacement levy: • The levy can be decreased at the time of final certification in December if more favorable information is presented increasing the likelihood of State payment. • Non payment of MVHC by the State would cause a budget shortfall in the operations for 2007 long after the budget was approved limiting options for the City to make the necessary corrections/adjustments. (,zo 1 • Regardless of State action a constant level of services could be maintained without spending from the City's fund balance account or making cuts to operations, if the City levied the MVHC. • In the event the City does not levy for the MVHC and the State implements levy limits for payable 2008, the City's levy limit base will be below the level necessary to maintain a constant level of services causing additional problems in future years. • A number of one time options for use of the money are available as place holders for the levy proceeds, if it is levied and the State pays the MVHC. • Due to having levied for the loss of MVHC for the previous two years Eagan's base is established and the projected 2007 amount could be levied back without the City officially being required to hold a truth in taxation hearing per State parameters. • The City's General Fund fund balance could be protected from supporting operations as a replacement for lost MVHC. Factors against adding the replacement levy: • If the State determines that cities are levying for the potential loss of MVHC, it will be an easier target for reduction as no budget cutting pain will be felt by the cities. However, the cities will have already elected to assume responsibility for the levy through the levy adoption process. Cities are subject to accusations that they are double taxing the property owners. Most cities attempt to overcome this potential criticism by designating the dollars to something that would eliminate/reduce an additional tax levy in the future, if the money is not needed to back fill for the loss of MVHC. In other words the additional levy dollars are not used for or directed towards an expansion of services or operations. • Cities may be accused of finding new uses for already established levy capacity rather than reducing the levy. In addition, in an informal survey Eagan learned that of the other 12 MLC cities, 9 planned to levy for the MVHC (8 full and 1 partial), 2 did not respond, and 1 did not plan to levy for the MVHC. In addition to certifying the preliminary levy at the higher dollar amount the City Council directed staff to continue to monitor additional information to help inform the final decision at the time of final levy certification. Although not particularly helpful in making the determination, the following factors are now also in play: • The election results have significantly changed the political landscape. (,rZ • The issue of rising property taxes came up frequently during the campaigns and levy limits and/or a property tax freeze were touted as potential solutions. • Greater Minnesota cities see increased Local Government Aid as a solution to rising property taxes and typically have targeted "suburban" MVHC as a way to fund LGA increases. The position of the Greater Minnesota Cities Coalition seems to have been strengthened through the elections. • The State is now projecting a rather large budget surplus and property tax reform is surfacing as a potential legislative issue. • MLC cities appear to be maintaining their intention of levying back for MVHC to ensure their revenue streams and to protect against low levy bases if levy limits are reinstituted. Staff followed up with Lakeville, the lone "no" respondent, and learned that the size of their levy increase without levying for MVHC was a major factor in the decision to not levy for it. The significant levy increase is related to growth and their desire to wean the City off the use of equipment certificate funding (credit card approach). They are cognizant of the potential budget problems with their decision and see an operating budget problem and a complication to equipment funding, if the State does not pay the MVHC. • Eagan staff to date has had no concerns expressed to them resulting from the truth in taxation notices regarding 2007 property taxes. Approximately three calls have been received and they relate to property valuation increases. • Staff has done a considerable amount of work trying to determine the relative positions of various cities resulting from the State's 2003 budget cuts and subsequent failure to fund MVHC. No meaningful conclusions can be drawn from that exercise. • Staff sees no practical way to ensure a "safe harbor" at the legislature for not levying for the MVHC. Past legislative actions have typically not rewarded City's for making decisions in keeping with State expectations. One could certainly speculate that the above mentioned factors increase both the likelihood that the MVHC will be paid and that levy limits will be reinstituted making the future levy limit base a key component in the decision. Although possibly subject to future criticism, the City clearly maintains the most options and the best financial position by certifying the final levy at the level of the previously certified preliminary levy and unless there are factors that I am not aware of that would be my recommendation. Please let me know, if you would like any other information or if you would like to discuss this memo. inistrative Services V3 Agenda Information Memo December 4, 2006 Eagan City Council Meeting B. LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CENTENNIAL RIDGE 2ND (LENA COURT) EASEMENT VACATION ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve the vacation of a portion of public drainage & utility easements within Lot 1, Block 1, Centennial Ridge 2d Addition and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. FACTS: • On October 30, 2006, City staff received a complete petition from James Lennon, property owner, requesting the vacation of a portion of an existing drainage and utility easement within Lot 1, Block 1 Centennial Ridge 2d Addition, at the southeast corner of the intersection of Diffley Road and Johnny Cake Ridge Road. • The drainage and utility easement was dedicated as part of the Centennial Ridge 2"d Addition plat for ponding and general utility purposes. • The purpose of the request is to allow the property owner to construct a monument sign within a small portion of the easement area, above the adjacent pond's high water level. • Notices for the public hearing were published in the legal newspaper and sent to all potentially affected and/or interested parties for comment prior to the scheduled public hearing. Notices were sent to all the potentially impacted private utility companies. No objections to the proposed vacation have been received as of the date of this report. • The request has been reviewed by the Engineering Division and found to be in order for favorable Council action. ATTACHMENTS: • Location Map, page (y 5 • Easement Vacation Exhibit, page 64 Lena Court City of Eaaal Proposed Easement Vacation 10-31-06 Engineering Department Location Map ( 5 T A Tr' A In I II/\1 IiA1 A \/ A, In vVVI v I 1 .: 1 n E- /"111J rlivrl yr r\ I 1 vv. \. ?l I Ali i l-L_ 1 1 \\Jr?V l -- NE CORNER OF LOT 1 20.00 PROPOSED EASEMENT N89'41'00"E TO BE VACATED Z-_= 0 N0I HWL 938.0 Z L Nµ'l 936.0 S89.41'00"W 11 20.00 I , WATERS EOCE 3/8/06 J 4 ?? V 1 (? ,J 11.60 ?^\ > SOO'19'00"E W 00 0 t- ? - O o- 04 O <' ` \ ? \ J J o W z W 20 10 0 20 Scale in Feet PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO VACATE A PORTION OF A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT All that part the of drainage and utility easement lying over, under and across Lot 1, Block 1, CENTENNIAL RIDGE 2ND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota as delineated and dedicated on said CENTENNIAL RIDGE 2ND ADDITION, described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 19 minutes 00 seconds East, along the east line of said Lot 1, a distance of 11.60 feet, to the piont of beginning; thence continuing South 00 degrees 19 minutes 00 seconds East, along said east line, a distance of 20.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 41 minutes 00 seconds West, a distance of 20.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 19 minutes 00 seconds West, a distance of 20.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 41 minutes 00 seconds East, a distance of 20.00 feet; to the point of beginning Agenda Information Memo December 4, 2006 Eagan City Council Meeting C. LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 1, SILICON GRAPHICS 1ST EASEMENT VACATION ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Close the public hearing and continue the public easement vacation for formal consideration with the Final Plat for the Waters Annex Addition. FACTS: • On October 20, 2006, City staff received a petition from Jean Crosby of CSM Equities requesting the vacation of existing drainage and utility easements within Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Silicon Graphics 15t Addition, at the southeast corner of the intersection of Lone Oak Parkway Road and Lone Oak Drive. • The drainage and utility easements were dedicated as part of the previous Silicon Graphics development for ponding and public utility purposes. • The petition was intended to coincide with the final subdivision approval process for CSM's Waters Annex development on this property. • On October 20, 2006, final subdivision submittal was made by CSM for Waters Annex. • On November 9, the City Council scheduled a public hearing to be held on December 4 to consider the petition to vacate a portion of these easements. • The proposed final subdivision approval for Waters Annex will be presented to the City Council at a future Council meeting. Adequate replacement drainage & utility easements will be dedicated as part of the Waters Annex final plat. • Notices for the public hearing were published in the legal newspaper and sent to all potentially affected and/or interested parties for comment prior to the scheduled public hearing. Notices were sent to all the potentially impacted private utility companies. No objections to the proposed vacation have been received as of the date of this report. • The request has been reviewed by the Engineering Division and found to be in order for favorable Council action. ATTACHMENTS: • Location Map, page 70 • Easement Vacation Exhibit, pages & G7 a`((` City of Eap Engineering Department Silicon Grapics 1st Add. Proposed Easement Vacation Location Map ti 0 04, 11-1-06 0 o r ,It W w 0 z N O O W U O O VI 1 (f`I1 1 1 r N zz W N N N W z Z zW w W V) 20 W a a Q K W w a O W ZO 0 vi a. E- 0 w0 a CSM EQUITIES, L.L.C. - Petition to Vacate - Waters Annex DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENTS TO BE VACATED 1. The following drainage and utility easements dedicated in the plat of LONE OAK, which plat was filed of record on May 24, 1985, as Document No. 688442, Office of County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota: All drainage and utility easements dedicated within those portions of Outlots H and L of the recorded plat of LONE OAK, embraced within Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, SILICON GRAPHICS FIRST ADDITION, and all drainage and utility easements dedicated within Outlot G of the recorded plat of LONE OAK. 2. The following drainage and utility easements dedicated in the plat of CRAY ADDITION, which plat was filed of record on January 15, 1988, as Document No. 823591, Office of County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota. All drainage and utility easements dedicated within Outlots B, C, and D, CRAY ADDITION. 3. The following drainage easements for ponding and drainage and utility easements dedicated in the plat of CRAY SECOND ADDITION, which plat was filed of record on October 24, 1989, as Document No. 909674, Office of County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota, All drainage easements for ponding and all drainage and utility easements dedicated within Outlots A, B and C, CRAY SECOND ADDITION. 4. The following drainage easements for ponding and drainage and utility easements dedicated in the plat of SILICON GRAPHICS FIRST ADDITION, which plat was filed of record on April 17, 2001, as Document No. 1765742, Office of County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota. All drainage easements for ponding and all drainage and utility easements dedicated within Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, SILICON GRAPHICS FIRST ADDITION. 70 Agenda Information Memo December 4, 2006 Eagan City Council Meeting D. PROJECT 776, YANKEE DOODLE ROAD FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve the final assessment roll for Project 776 (Yankee Doodle Road - Street and Utility Improvements) and authorize its certification to Dakota County for collection. FACTS: • Project 776 provided for the extension of Yankee Doodle Road (County Road 28) as a 4-lane divided roadway with raised median from Highway 149 to Inver Grove Heights (and subsequently to Highway 55), bituminous trail on both sides of the roadway, trunk and lateral water main, lateral sanitary sewer, and lateral storm sewer. • The Dakota County Transportation Department was the lead agency on the improvement of this County highway. In accordance with County policy, the City is obligated to participate in 45% of the cost of any County road extension, all new trail installations, lateral storm sewer, and right-of-way acquisition. Also in accordance with the policy, the City is obligated for 100% of sanitary sewer and water main construction. • The final assessment roll was presented to the City Council on November 9, 2006, with a public hearing being scheduled for December 4 to formally present the final costs associated with this public improvement to the affected benefiting properties. The final assessments are equal to the Fee Schedule rates contained in the feasibility report presented at the public hearing held on May 15, 2001. • All notices have been published in the legal newspaper and sent to all affected property owners informing them of this public hearing. In addition, an informational meeting was held November 30, to address all property owners' questions or concerns and provide any additional information of interest. Of the 9 parcels (Business Park) being assessed, two persons representing five (5) of the parcels attended the meeting and expressed objections to the proposed assessments. ATTACHMENTS: • Final Assessment Report, pages1 through 18 • Letters of Objection, pages 19 and 7i FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING DATES Number: Project 776 Assessment: December 4, 2006 Name: Yankee Doodle Road Extension Project Approval Date: May 15, 2001 Streets and Utility Improvements Final Feasibility Final Feasibility Rate Report Units Rate Report Units SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER ? Trunk ? Trunk H Lateral $45.70 $45.70 /F.F. CI -? Service ? Lateral Benefit WATER STREET Ef Trunk $2,010 $2,010 /Acre CI ? Gravel Base E1 Lateral $53.78 $53.78 / F.F Cl H Street Extension $137.60 $137.60 /F.F. Cl ? Service ? Multi Family Equiv. ? Lat. Benefit/trunk ? WAC ? C/I Equiv. ? Driveway OTHER STREET LIGHTS ? Service Pair ? Installation ? Energy Charge Contract Number of Interest Amount Number Parcels Terms Rate . Assessed* Financed* County 28-15 9 15 Years 5.50% $944,476 F.R. $383,064 F.R. $918,346.57 $1,270,394.83 (F.R. = Feasibility Report) ii City of Eaaall Remo To: Mayor and City Council From: John Gorder, Assistant City Engineer Date: November 14, 2006 Subject: Final Assessment Roll, Project 776 Yankee Doodle Road - Street & Utility Extension At the public hearing on May 15, 2001, the City Council ordered Project 776. In accordance with the feasibility report, the following improvements were constructed: extension of a 4-lane roadway with raised median from Highway 149 to Inver Grove Heights (and subsequently to Highway 55 within Inver Grove), bituminous trail on both sides of the roadway, trunk and lateral water main, lateral sanitary sewer, and lateral storm sewer. In the feasibility report, it was proposed to assess costs of street, sanitary sewer, water main and storm sewer improvements to benefiting properties in accordance with the City Special Assessment Policy. The improvements were completed under Dakota County Contract 28-15. The following information was used in the preparation of the assessment roll for Project 776. 1. PROJECT COST The construction cost for Project 776 includes the amount of $1,900,450.93 paid to the contractors for the construction of the improvements mentioned above. Other City costs including engineering, design, contract management, inspections, financing, legal, bonding, administration, and other totaling $347,755.91 and right-of-way/ easement costs totaling $2,297,079.95 were incurred resulting in an improvement and project cost of $4,545,286.79. Right-of-way and easement acquisition costs approximately $1,600,000 over the feasibility report estimate contributed to a majority of the cost overrun on the project. A summary of the costs is as follows: IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION COST OTHER COSTS IMPROVEMENT COST FEASIBILITY REPORT Street, Trail, and Storm Sewer $1,680,024.19 $307,416.22 $1,987,440.41 $1,780,000 Sanitary Sewer $107,885.65 $19,822.09 . $127,707.74 $122,400 Water Main $112,541.09 $20,517.60 $133,058.69 $100,300 R/W & Easement $2,297,079.95 ------ $2,297,079.95 $675,200 Acquisition Totals $4,197,530.88 $347,755.91 $4,545,286.79 $2,677,900 '13 H. ASSESSMENTS A. TRUNK IMPROVEMENTS Trunk water main improvements were installed under this project, therefore, trunk assessments are proposed to two properties (PID's 10-01200-010-77 and 10-01200-020-77) not previously assessed, at the City Fee Schedule rate of $2,010/ acre in effect at the date of the public hearing for the project (May 15, 2001). B. STREET/STORM SEWER/ LATERAL UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS AND ASSESSMENT RATES Street/ Storm Sewer Improvements - The street improvements consisted of the 4-lane urban roadway (with raised median, turn lanes, concrete curb & gutter, lateral storm sewer, and bituminous trail on both sides) extension of Yankee Doodle Road from Highway 149 to the Inver Grove Heights border. The cost of construction is $1,680,024.19. Other costs in the amount of $307,416.22 were also incurred, resulting in a total improvement cost of $1,987,440.41. The total assessable front footage for this improvement is 5,271 feet. The costs result in a calculated front foot commercial/ industrial street & storm sewer rate in excess of the 2001 Fee Schedule Rate of $137.60/ front foot. Therefore, the assessment is limited to the Fee Schedule rate for the nine benefiting properties. 2. Lateral Sanitary Sewer Improvements - The lateral sanitary sewer improvements consisted of the construction of the construction of an 8-inch main within Yankee Doodle Road and adjacent properties to provide sewer service to adjacent properties. The cost of construction is $107,885.65. Other costs in the amount of $19,822.09 were also incurred, resulting in a total improvement cost of $127,707.74. These costs result in a calculated front foot commercial/ industrial sanitary sewer lateral rate in excess of the 2001 Fee Schedule Rate of $45.70/ centerline foot ($22.85/ front foot). Therefore, the assessment is limited to the Fee Schedule rate for the two benefiting properties (PID's 10-01200-010-77 and 10-01200-020-77). The total assessable front footage for this improvement is 1,065 front feet. 3. Lateral Water Main Improvements - The lateral water main improvements consisted of the construction of the construction of 8-inch and 12-inch water mains within Yankee Doodle Road and adjacent properties to provide water main service to adjacent properties. The cost of construction is $112,541.09. Other costs in the amount of $20,517.60 were also incurred, resulting in a total improvement cost of $133,058.69. The costs result in a calculated front foot commercial/ industrial water main lateral rate in excess of the 2001 Fee Schedule Rate of $58.10/ centerline foot ($29.05/ front foot). Therefore, the assessment is limited to the Fee Schedule rate for the two benefiting properties (PID's 10-01200-010-77 and 10-01200-020-77). The total assessable front footage for this improvement is 1,9,40 front feet. C. ASSESSMENT TERMS The assessments are proposed for a term of 15 years. The interest rate is 5.50% per annum on the unpaid balance. 74 M. REVENUES (COST RESPONSIBILITY) IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT CITY COUNTY IMPROVEMENT COST REVENUE RESPONSIBILITY RESPONSIBILITY Street, Trail, and Storm $1,987,440.41 $725,289.60 $169,058.59* $1,093,092.22 Sewer Sanitary Sewer $127,707.74 $48,670.50 $79,037.24 Water Main $133,058.69 $144,386.47 ($11,327:78) R/W & Easement $2,297,079.95 -0- $1,035,166.78 Acquisition Total $4,545,286.79 $918,346.57 $1,270,394.83 CITY FUND AMOUNT Major Street Fund $1,191,357.59 Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund $79,037.24 John Gorde P.E. Reviewed Public Works Department 1?2 - I Dated c: Thomas A. Colbert, Director of Public Works Mike Dougherty, City Attorney Sue Sheridan, Accountant I Dated ?15 -0- -0- $1,261,913.17 $2,355,005.39 l--? -1.17& i fl ? C?p O eo° 4r 41 o. oe \\ \ \ 1, \ \\ S±HOIJH 3AO 10 213ANI ? v?nr?? I LL LL V u o co + , 1 o E +? ?I W ;? O N I p NO LL 1 W C11 r- z 1 co o a> 1 1 ' c 1 r`L ICI Y z?: ?1 i I 5 ?c N'^S FCP 1? I W ?l- ?d? m 1? 7 10 W Izf y Y O or S ? IQ ? ° y ?d- ? o a rN Q LLI a P? rN o I 7O I L L: ? ml IN ? ? Z ? ? n "1 I dj? I 6. d Q ?? t ?? Z ?I Li d o I dy I u. I Y? N S o-?. O N ? -N?µ t /? / O V 0? 24 VVV^ (D \ ; dZ a ? 1 . ? ?-. d \\ o c7 U) F- z w Z W rw L V o w CL w w F- U) F- U-C) Lo U v Q C) U') J O 6 3 Q N x EA W- Ua Z LCUC Z) > I z LL, z x w < w Qza U) I • ° 1 • I • 1 N O ° cc z F o 0 z 0 LB 0 o t C C a) N E X W co cu cn < N 10 (0 0 1- 0 1` O Z a) ca . >- o a 08 0 O O w N m 0: x m - W N'O E Z N d d A N O a g 42 " 41 LL R 0 « Z, C l6 } COD COD 0 N- o ° m 0 lq: 0 W O 0 CD J N M : lh CCD C' C 9 o f-' y 0 N W h co co N 0 N co m N Cri r ca y Q9. )C 4 4 C9 W. Vi Cfl luck 3 r F O O O 0 O 0) LL 0) 0) O D CD lea , c) n v cD o COO J H p) C9 C9 m?0 F O n A N co CD c?? C D 0) 0-0 y /a C 0 N O Z w m w Lo J K W 44 d N ca ` O) CD O O r O Z c c 0 N - Ca F- ? C11 CA i ! a E COD COD 00 Ov v Om OOD °c 00D O C C '6 +.+ 0 C N 0) E 01 U. LL O H O M co Cl) N co R M N O ch CC) O CD .4 cl co C7 C N co Cn co n DD W E ) 0) K CD n N CD CDD v U'> n CD n CDD m M N CO N rn O U CA a W 4Y fA H 69 Vi C9 fR 69 Vi R d R N 00)) C") 00) n 0) 0 m v a a_ o C; v M r 0) 0) 0) 0) n D) o 0) L C C O CC) 0) v N y J ESP C C m c ? v d CA R .LL.. C U. 0 Q CD C M M CD n N n N C7 0 C7 ,Q N 0) rn CD co N 0 0 0 n N- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t] 0 O O 0 O O O d o CO o O Cl) 0 0 N 0 N 0 0 CO 0 0 0 O Cl) C•) o 0 O M M M 1? O O O O O C7 O o O C K C C C U C U C U O T -d ca .6 N O al C CY. C a, C N a 0- C - 0 C _ ) C - 01 C - cn l.L c - . -. g w m U O U U m O U U m O U d L N L (D L y y N N O C9 O J O C? O U p LL E L U) L Cl) V) fV c+i v ui CD r c0 C) n CD a aD CA w N O CD OD v w O N v O w n N O H 0) co N n A v CD 0 e w N Lo J 0 N iD C+) C7 + Ch N CV + O O N N 00 CD O O U) < C9 M n n 71 Combined Assessment Roll Project Number 10P776 PID Addition Name House Nbr Street Name 10-01200-010-77 Section 12 10-01200-020-77 Section 12 10-15550-010-01 Burr Oak Business P 625 10-30600-141-01 Gopher Eagan Indus 10-30600-151-01 Gopher Eagan Indus 634 10-30600-161-01 Gopher Eagan Indus 10-30601-020-01 Gopher Eagan Indus 3380 10-30601-030-01 Gopher Eagan Indus 635 10-30604-010-01 Gopher Eagan Indus 580 Summary for 'SA_Nbr' = 10P776 (9 detail records) Sum Proposed Assessment $289,100.71 $257,313.06 Yankee Doodle $84,348.80 $33,436.80 Yankee Doodle $27,382.40 $36,876.80 Hwy 149 $59,305.60 Yankee Doodle $46,233.60 Yankee Doodle $84,348.80 $918,346.57 Pending Assessment $301,264.21 $271,278.06 $84,348.80 $33,436.80 $27,382.40 $36,876.80 $59,305.60 $46,233.60 $84,348.80 $944,475.07 Variance $12,163.50 $13,965.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $26,128.50 Friday, December 01, 2006 Page I of I LEONARD STREET AND DEINARD December 1, 2006 Mayor Pat Geagan City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122-1810 150 SOUTH FIFTH STREET SUITE 2300 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 612-335-1500 MAIN 612-335-1657 FAX TIMOTHY J. KEANE 612-335-7192 tim.keane@leonard.com Re: City of Eagan Project No. 776 -- Yankee Doodle Road Extension Notice of Objection to Special Assessment for Project #10P776 Our File No. 59955.00001 Dear Mayor Geagan: This letter is offered on behalf of our client Virginia F. Fox and the Virginia F. Fox Trust by and through her power of attorney, Jackie Hoeft. The purpose of this letter is to file a notice of objection in the matter of the above-referenced project to the special assessment of $257,313.06 proposed to be levied against the property identified as PID 10-01200-020-77. Sincerely, LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD Professional Association Timothy J.. cane TJKaf cc: Ms. Virginia F. Fox Ms. Jackie Hoeft Mr. Russ Matthys, P.E. (via fax 651-675-5694) Ms. Maria Petersen, City Clerk James R. Dorsey, Esq. LAW OFFICES IN MINNEAPOLIS • MANKATO • ST. CLOUD • WASHINGTON, D.C. A Professional Association 3610079.1 7 W W W. LEONARD. COM Agenda Information Memo December 4, 2006 Eagan City Council Meeting E. PROJECT 877, LEXINGTON AVENUE, LONE OAK ROAD TO TH 55 FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve the final assessment roll for Project 877 (Lexington Avenue, Lone Oak Road to Trunk Highway 55 - Street Reconstruction and Overlay) and authorize its certification to Dakota County for collection. FACTS: • Project 877 provided for street rehabilitation to the north one mile of Lexington Avenue (County State Aid Highway- 43). The northern 1/3rd of this section was reconstructed and realigned when I-35E was built in 1983 and needed a structural maintenance mill and overlay as part of the project. The middle segment was over 35 years old with significant distresses and did not meet County structural design standards. This segment required a full reconstruction with new concrete curb and gutter. The southern segment was fully reconstructed in 1993 with the upgrade of the Lone Oak Road intersection and needed only a surface mill and overlay. • The City was the lead agency on the improvement of this County highway. In accordance with County policy, the City is obligated to participate in 45% of the cost of any reconstruction (i.e. middle section) and all new trail installations. The City's policy for financing this obligation is to levy a special assessment against the adjacent properties benefiting from these street upgrade improvements. The trail improvement is not assessable and will be financed from the City's Major Street and Trail Fund. • The final assessment roll was presented to the City Council on October 17, 2006, with a public hearing being scheduled for November 21 to formally present the final costs associated with this public improvement to the affected benefiting properties. On November 9 the Council rescheduled the public hearing to December 4. The final assessments are approximately equal to the estimate contained in the Feasibility Report presented at the Public Hearing held on March 16, 2004. • All notices have been published in the legal newspaper and sent to all affected property owners informing them of this public hearing. In addition, an informational meeting was held November 30, to address all property owners' questions or concerns and provide any additional information of interest. Of the 25 parcels (R-1, Office/Warehouse & Industrial) being assessed, one person representing one property attended the meeting. No objections have been received to date. ATTACHMENTS: • Final Assessment Report, pages __ through qD FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING DATES Number: Project 877 Assessment: December 4, 2006 Name: Lexington Avenue (Lone Oak Rd to TH 55) Project Approval Date: March 16, 2004 Reconstruct/Mill & Overlay Final Feasibility Rate Report Units SANITARY SEWER ? Trunk ? Lateral ? Service ? Lat. Benefit/trunk STORM SEWER ? Trunk Final Feasibility Rate Report Units WATER ? Trunk ? Lateral ? Service ? Lat. Benefit/trunk ? WAC STREET ? Gravel Base 0 Surfacing/ Signs Single-Family Res Comm & Indust ? Multi Family Equiv. ? C/I Equiv. H Driveway Comm & Indust $2,915 $2,915 / Lot $139.85 $139.85 F.F. $131.74 $121.50 / S.Y. OTHER STREET LIGHTS ? Service Pair ? Installation ? Energy Charge Contract Number of Interest Amount City/County Number Parcels Terms Rate Assessed Financed 04-04 25 10 Years 5.50% $282,900 F.R. $722,600 F.R. $311,383.00 $579,173.34 (F.R. = Feasibility Report) 01 Adk,6 "T"F City of Eaaall memo To: Mayor and City Council From: Russ Matthys, City Engineer Date: November 15, 2006 Subject: Final Assessment Roll, Project 877 Lexington Avenue (Lone Oak Road to Trunk Highway 55) - Street Reconstruction & Overlay At the public hearing on March 16, 2004, the City Council ordered Project 877, and in accordance with the feasibility report, the following improvements were constructed: full pavement reconstruction, mill and overlay, replacement of traffic signage, trail construction, street lights, concrete driveway aprons and installation/replacement of curb and gutter for Lexington Avenue from Lone Oak Road to Trunk Highway 55, as needed. No sanitary sewer improvements were constructed. In the feasibility report,, it was proposed to assess 75% of the cost for the street reconstruction and signage improvements adjacent to low density/single-family residential lots, 100% of the cost adjacent to commercial/industrial properties, and not assess the cost for the street overlay to adjacent properties (100% cost responsibility of Dakota County), all in accordance with the City Special Assessment Policy. The improvements were completed under Contract 04-04. The following information was used in the preparation of the assessment roll for Project 877. 1. PROJECT COST The construction cost includes the amount of $646,486.26 paid to the contractor for the construction of the improvements. Other project costs including engineering, design, contract management, inspections, financing, legal, bonding, administration, and other totaling $244,070.08 were incurred resulting in an improvement and project cost of $890,556.34. 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. CONSTRUCTION OTHER COSTS IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY IMPROVEMENT COST COST REPORT Street Reconstruction $473,989.47 $178,946.80 $652,936.27 $681,485 Mill & Overlay 73,351.97 27,692.81 101,044.78 126,800 Curb & Gutter 50,431.90 19,039.72 69,471.62 121,000 Replace/repair Concrete Driveway Aprons 20,668.20 7,802.93 28,471.13 15,815 Utilities .6,757.65 2,551.24 9,308.89 23,400 Trail Construction 21,287.07 08,036.58 29,323.65 37,000 Totals $646,486.26 $244,070.08 $890,556.34 $1,005,500 II. ASSESSMENTS A. TRUNK ASSESSMENTS No trunk assessments for utilities were proposed in the feasibility report, therefore, none are proposed in this assessment roll. B. ASSESSABLE IMPROVEMENTS 1. STREET I PROVEMENTS The costs of the street improvements were computed using the following unit prices and quantities: ITEM UNIT QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED COST Mobilization LS 1 $17,096.46 $17,096.46 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 1,922.00 1,922.00 Remove Storm Sewer Pipe LIN FT 8 7.00 56.00 Remove Bituminous Pavement SQ YD 11,735 1.20 14,082.00 Remove Drainage Structure EACH 3 195.00 585.00 Sawing Concrete Pavement LIN FT 16 5.05 80.80 Sawing Bit Pavement (Full Depth) LIN FT 436 3.75 1,635.00 Salvage Wooden Fence LIN FT 15 18.50 277.50 Salvage Sign Type C EACH 20 20.80 416.00 Salvage Mail Box Support EACH 18 26.00 468.00 Salvage Mail Box EACH 21 5.20 109.20 Common Excavation (P) CU YD 4,433.64 10.00 44,336.39 Subgrade Excavation CU YD 8,422 7.00 58,954.00 Select Granular Borrow (CV) CU YD 8,422 7.75 65,270.50 Miscellaneous Equipment LS 1 2,487.50 2,487.50 Aggregate Base (CV) Class 5 CU YD 3,408.5 17.90 61,012.15 Type MV 3 Wear Course TON 1,013.06 40.50 41,028.93 Type MV 2 Non Wear Course TON 1,809.26 40.20 72,732.25 Type LV 2 Non Wear Course TON 1,574.73 34.35 54,091.98 Bit Material For Tack Coat GALLON 1,811.70 1.25 2,264.63 Adjust Gate Valve & Box EACH 7 210.00 1,470.00 Construct Drainage Structure 48-4020 LIN FT 9.97 245.00 2,442.65 Construct Drainage Structure 60-4020 LIN FT 7 310.00 2,170.00 Casting Assembly EACH 3 400.00 1,200.00 Adjust Casting - San MH EACH 9 425.00 3,825.00 Concrete Curb & Gutter - B618 LIN FT 3,148 9.10 28,646.80 Install Mail Box Support EACH 19.00 90.00 1,710.00 Mail Box EACH 21.00 20.80 436.80 Traffic Control LS 1 37,000.00 16,039.50 Sign Panels Type C SQ FT 118.50 25.00 2,962.50 Sign Panels Type D SQ FT 42.76 26.00 1,111.76 Install Sign Type C EACH 10.00 88.50 885.00 Relocate Sign EACH 1.00 182.00 182.00 Pvmnt Message (Left Arrow) Epoxy EACH 7.50 131.00 982.50 Pvmnt Message (Rr Crossing) Epoxy EACH 4.50 525.00 2,362.50 Pvmnt Message (Left Arrow) Preform EACH 2.00 312.00 624.00 Pvmnt Message (Rt Arrow) Preform EACH 1.32 312.00 411.84 4" Solid Line White-Paint LIN FT 6,037 0.31 1,871.47 4" Double Solid Line Yellow-Paint LIN FT 3,342 0.32 1,069.44 4" Solid Line White-Epoxy LIN FT 3,274 0.30 982.20 12" Solid Line White-Epoxy LIN FT 191 6.25 1,193.75 24" Solid Line White-Epoxy LIN FT 115 7.30 839.50 4" Broken Line White-Epoxy LIN FT 2,530 0.30 759.00 4" Solid Line Yellow-Epoxy LIN FT 7,448 0.30 2,234.40 24" Solid Line Yellow-Epoxy LIN FT 17 5.15 87.55 Seeding ACRE 0.50 203.00 101.50 Sodding Type Lawn SQ YD 3,453.5 2.20 7,597.70 Commercial Fertilizer 22-5-10 POUND 50 0.55 27.50 Removable Preform Plastic Marking LIN FT 128 0.75 96.00 SUBTOTAL $527,904.14 Other costs @ 37.75% $199,301.38 Street Improvement Cost $727,205.52 2. DRIVEWAY IMPROVEMENTS The costs of the driveway improvements were computed using the following unit prices and quantities: UNIT EXTENDED ITEM UNIT QTY PRICE COST Remove Driveway Concrete Pvmnt SY 198 $5.90 $1,168.20 6" Concrete Driveway Pavement SY 500 39.00 19,500.00 SUBTOTAL Other costs @ 37.75% $20,668.20 $7,802.93 Driveway Improvement Cost $28,471.13 C. IMPROVEMENT AND ASSESSMENT RATES The assessable properties within the project area include a mixture of low-density residential, commercial and industrial. The improvement costs and assessment rates for the various properties are computed as follows: 8 1. Thirteen residential equivalent properties within the project area are low-density residential with direct driveway access to the reconstructed segment of street. 456 feet of residential property is not assessable as the property does not take access to Lexington Avenue. The improvement rates for these low-density residential properties, based on a residential street equivalent (32/52), are computed as follows; however the assessment rates are capped at the appraisal rate of $2,915.00: Street Improvement Costs = $727,205.52 Total Low-Density Residential Frontage w/ direct access = 1,269/ 3,731 (Total F.F.) = 34.0% Total Improvement Cost (Low-Density) _ $727,205.52 x 34.0% x 32/52 = $152,208.94 TOTAL IMPROVEMENT ASSESSABLE COST UNITS IMPROVEMENT RATE $152,208.94 13 Lots $11,708.38/Lot IMPROVEMENT RATE $11,708.38/ Lot 2. Four commercial/industrial properties within the project area have direct driveway access to the reconstructed portion of Lexington Avenue. These parcels are proposed to be assessed based on their common property's front footage adjacent to Lexington Avenue. The improvement rates for these commercial/industrial properties are computed as follows; however the assessment rates are capped at the Fee Schedule (2004) rate of $139.85 per front foot: ASSESSABLE PORTION X 75% ASSESSMENT RATE $8,781.29/Lot Appraisal $2,915/Lot Street Improvement Costs = $727,205.52 Total Commercial/Industrial Frontage = 1,752/ 3,731 (Total F.F.) = 47.0% Total Improvement Cost (Commercial/Industrial) = $727,205.52 x 47.0% = $341,480.59 TOTAL IMPROVEMENT ASSESSABLE COST UNITS ASSESSMENT RATE $341,480.59 1,752 F.F. $194.91/ F.F. Fee Schedule $139.85/ F.F. 3. Four commercial/industrial businesses within the project area had standard concrete commercial/industrial driveway aprons constructed as part of the project. The relevant parcels are proposed to be assessed based on the actual cost of the driveway apron construction for each parcel. TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST ASSESSABLE UNITS ASSESSMENT RATE $28,471.13 216.11 S.Y. $131.74/ S.Y. D. ASSESSMENT TERMS The assessments are proposed for a term of 10 years. The interest rate is 5.50% per annum on the unpaid balance. M. CITY REVENUES/ RESPONSIBILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT CITY/COUNTY IMPROVEMENT COST REVENUE RESPONSIBILITY Street Reconstruction $652,936.27 $282,913.00 $370,023.27 Mill & Overlay 101,044.78 0.00 101,044.78 Curb & Gutter Replace/repair 69,471.62 0.00 69,471.62 Concrete Driveway Aprons 28,471.13 28,470.00 1.13 Utilities 9,308.89 0.00 9,308.89 Trail Construction 29,323.65 0.00 29,323.65 Total $890,556.34 $311,383.00 $579,173.34 FUND AMOUNT Major Street Fund $147,281.66 Storm Sewer Fund $9,308.89 Dakota Co Transportation $422,582.79 rt___ Russ Matthys, P.E. Reviewed: Fevtqwej Plic Works Department Finance E /2- 1- o(o Dated Dated c: Thomas A. Colbert, Director of Public Works Mike Dougherty, City Attorney Sue Sheridan, Accountant I C)p N W E S NO SCALE r / r '? J J ?,5775a040-00 2750 0.050,00 ` ` aa577 2750 7ta577 28 10-57750-070 X2824 \ \ 1 \1830 5x4775. ---.7754?6?2 2836 tip; 576A2 Sa3775a 842 BEA?IGE ST 4n5 150 2856 ?o \ 14?1n51,-13a 2862 2950 ? t X.? zfi w11c t,:?' e 2,9151 Lot ent$ Residential Assessor 39.851 F.F• Commlld. Assessment $ Concrete Entrants ssment • Replacement CO RD?26) LONE opn'- Street Rehabilitat p°rt pvenue e Lexington r F final Assessment R essment Map ect 877 Ass city prof C?itv of E???? RU?k SA, '? 2896 ?px,7752?ti5"2 Combined Assessment Roll Project Number 10P877 Proposed Pending PID Addition Name House Nbr Street Name Assessment Assessment Variance 10-00200-010-31 2725 Highway 55 $7,319.00 $16,038.00 $8,719.00 10-00300-010-77 Section 3 2977 Lexington Ave $2,915.00 $2,915.00 $0.00 10-00300-020-75 Section 3 2837 Lexington Ave $2,915.00 $2,915.00 $0.00 10-00300-020-76 Section 3 2875 Lexington Ave $2,915.00 $2,915.00 $0.00 10-00300-030-75 Section 3 2849 Lexington Ave $2,915.00 $2,915.00 $0.00 10-22501-152-00 Eagandale Center In 2950 Lexington Ave $77,949.00 $75,519.00 ($2,430.00) 10-22509-010-01 Eagandale Center In 2905 Lexington Ave $74,540.00 $74,540.00 $0.00 10-22509-020-01 Eagandale Center In 2935 Lexington Ave $38,179.00 $38,179.00 $0.00 10-47750-150-01 Mc Kee 2816 Lexington Ave $2,915.00 $2,915.00 $0.00 10-47750-150-02 Mc Kee 2830 Lexington Ave $2,915.00 $2,915.00 $0.00 10-47750-150-03 Mc Kee 2856 Lexington Ave $2,915.00 $2,915.00 $0.00 10-47750-160-02 Mc Kee 2836 Lexington Ave $2,915.00 $2,915.00 $0.00 10-47750-170-02 Mc Kee 2842 Lexington Ave $2,915.00 $2,915.00 $0.00 10-47751-120-02 Mc Kee 2nd 2882 Lexington Ave $2,915.00 $2,915.00 $0.00 10-47751-130-01 Mc Kee 2nd 2862 Lexington Ave $2,915.00 $2,915.00 $0.00 10-47752-110-01 Mc Kee 3rd 2888 Lexington Ave $2,915.00 $2,915.00 $0.00 10-47752-110-02 Mc Kee 3rd 2896 Lexington Ave $2,915.00 $2,915.00 $0.00 10-51700-010-01 Northern Power Prod 2859 Lexington Ave $56,779.00 $56,779.00 $0.00 10-57750-040-00 Plainview 2750 Lexington Ave $4,289.00 $12,636.00 $8,347.00 10-57750-050-00 Plainview 2750 Lexington Ave $5,387.00 $7,169.00 $1,782.00 10-57750-070-00 Plainview 2804 Lexington Ave $9,046.00 $8,019.00 ($1,027.00) Summary for'SA_Nbr' = 1OP877 (21 detail records) Sum $311,383.00 $326,774.00 $15,391.00 Wednesday, November 15, 2006 Page 1 of I Appendix B-2A Preliminary Assessement Roll Lexington Avenue-Lone Oak Road to TH 55 City Project No. 877 Revised 3-16-04 Commercial/Industrial Assessment Parcel Driveway Assessment Total Address P.I.N. Area (sq yds) Rate Assessment 2750 Lexington Avenue 10-57750-040-00 104 $121.50 $12,636 2750 Lexington Avenue 10-57750-050-00 59 $121.50 $7,169 2804 Lexington Avenue 10-57750-070-00 66 $121.50 $8,019 2990 Lexington Avenue 10-13600-010-01 60 $121.50 $7,290 2725 Hwy 55 10-00200-010-31 132 $121.50 $16,038 Final Assessement Roll Lexington Avenue-Lone Oak Road to TH 55 City Project No. 877 Updated 11-8-06 Commercial/Industrial Assessment Parcel Driveway Assessment Total Address P.I.N. Area (sq yds) Rate Assessment 2750 Lexington Avenue 10-57750-040-00 32.56 $131.74 $4,289 2750 Lexington Avenue 10-57750-050-00 40.89 $131.74 $5,387 2804 Lexington Avenue 10-57750-070-00 68.67 $131.74 $9,046 2990 Lexington Avenue 10-13600-010-01 0.00 $131.74 $0 2725 Hwy 55 10-00200-010-31 55.56 $131.74 $7,319 2950 Lexington Avenue 10-22501-152-00 18.44 $131.74 $2,430 1945.00 $28,470 G:\Russ Matthys\'04\Misc\Proj 877, Drwy Assess, 3-16-04 8? Combined Assessment Roll Project Number 10P877 Proposed Pending P1D Addition Name House Nbr Street Name Assessment Assessment Variance 10-00200-010-31 2725 Highway 55 $7,319.00 $16,038.00 $8,719.00 10-00300-010-77 Section 3 2977 Lexington Ave $2,915.00 $2,915.00 $0.00 10-00300-020-75 Section 3 2837 Lexington Ave $2,915.00 $2,915.00 $0.00 10-00300-020-76 Section 3 2875 Lexington Ave $2,915.00 $2,915.00 $0.00 10-00300-030-75 Section 3 2849 Lexington Ave $2,915.00 $2,915.00 $0.00 10-22501-152-00 Eagandale Center In 2950 Lexington Ave $77,949.00 $75,519.00 ($2,430.00) 10-22509-010-01 Eagandale Center In 2905 Lexington Ave $74,540.00 $74,540.00 $0.00 10-22509-020-01 Eagandale Center In 2935 Lexington Ave $38,179.00 $38,179.00 $0.00 10-47750-150-01 Mc Kee 2816 Lexington Ave $2,915.00 $2,915.00 $0.00 10-47750-150-02 Mc Kee 2830 Lexington Ave $2,915.00 $2,915.00 $0.00 10-47750-150-03 Mc Kee 2856 Lexington Ave $2,915.00 $2,915.00 $0.00 10-47750-160-02 Mc Kee 2836 Lexington Ave $2,915.00 $2,915.00 $0.00 10-47750-170-02 Mc Kee 2842 Lexington Ave $2,915.00 $2,915.00 $0.00 10-47751-120-02 Mc Kee 2nd 2882 Lexington Ave $2,915.00 $2,915.00 $0.00 10-47751-130-01 Mc Kee 2nd 2862 Lexington Ave $2,915.00 $2,915.00 $0.00 10-47752-110-01 Mc Kee 3rd 2888 Lexington Ave $2,915.00 $2,915.00 $0.00 10-47752-110-02 Mc Kee 3rd 2896 Lexington Ave $2,915.00 $2,915.00 $0.00 10-51700-010-01 Northern Power Prod 2859 Lexington Ave $56,779.00 $56,779.00 $0.00 10-57750-040-00 Plainview 2750 Lexington Ave $4,289.00 $12,636.00 $8,347.00 10-57750-050-00 Plainview 2750 Lexington Ave $5,387.00 $7,169.00 $1,782.00 10-57750-070-00 Plainview 2804 Lexington Ave $9,046.00 $8,019.00 ($1,027.00) Summary for 'SA_Nbr' = 10P877 (21 detail records) Sum $311,383.00 $326,774.00 $15,391.00 Friday, December 01, 2006 Page 1 of 1 Agenda Information Memo December 4, 2006 Eagan City Council Meeting F. PROJECT 928, MEADOWVIEW ROAD/ ALEXANDER ROAD STREET OVERLAY IMPROVEMENTS FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve the Final Assessment Roll for Project 928 (Meadowview Road/ Alexander Road - Street Improvements) and authorize its certification to Dakota County for collection. FACTS: • Project 928 provided for upgrade of Meadowview Road to current City standards and realignment/resurfacing of Alexander Road, located west of Highway 13 in northwest Eagan. The project also provided for the construction of concrete entrance aprons to commercial/ industrial properties along both streets. • The Final Assessment Roll was presented to the City Council on October 3, 2006, with a public hearing originally scheduled for November 9 to formally present the final costs associated with this public improvement to the affected benefiting properties. • As a result of questions raised prior to and at the November 2 informational meeting regarding the final assessment amounts and allocation methodology, the assessments were reviewed and the Final Assessment Roll revised. This required re-notification of all property owners and rescheduling of the public hearing to a new date of December 4, 2006. • The final assessment cost is approximately 37% more than the estimated benefit amounts that were presented at the original Public Hearing February 21, 2006, due to higher than anticipated construction and contract management costs. • All notices have been published in the legal papers and sent to all affected property owners informing them of this public hearing. No written objections have been received to date. An additional informational meeting was held on November 30 to address all property owners' questions or concerns and provide any additional information of interest. • Of the 10 parcels (all Commercial/ Industrial) being assessed, one property owner attended the meeting. City staff discussed the method of assessment with the property owner. ATTACHMENTS: • Final Assessment Report, pages" 2 through .10t. ql FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING DATES Number: Project 928 Assessment: December 4, 2006 Name: Meadowview Road Street Upgrade Project Approval Date: February 21, 2006 Alexander Road Mill & Overlay Final Feasibility Final Feasibility Rate Report Units Rate Report Units SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER ? Trunk ? Trunk ? Lateral ? Service ? Lateral Benefit WATER STREET ? Trunk ? Gravel Base ? Lateral 0 Surfacing/ Signs $23,342.75/ $81.84/ Meadowview D/W F_F $15.85 $21.12 /F.F. Alexander ? Service ? Multi Family Equiv. ? Lat. Benefit/trunk ? WAC ? C/I Equiv. 0 Concrete Driveway $69.35 $61.42 /S.Y. Replaced OTHER STREET LIGHTS ? Service Pair ? Installation ? Energy Charge Contract Number of Interest Amount City Number Parcels Terms Rate Assessed* Financed* 06-02 10 15 Years 5.50% $275,670 F.R. $88,050 F.R. $379,007.94 $72,500.94 (F.R. = Feasibility Report) q? AbhL- City of Eaall ma To: Mayor and City Council From: John Gorder, Assistant City Engineer Date: November 14, 2006 Subject: Final Assessment Roll, Project 928 Meadowview Road/ Alexander Road Street Improvements At the public hearing on February 21, 2006, the City Council ordered Project 928, and in accordance with the feasibility report, the following improvements were constructed: the upgrade of Meadowview Road to current City street standards with concrete curb & gutter, bituminous paving, the mill and overlay of Alexander Road, the re-alignment of a portion of Alexander Road, the installation of standard concrete driveway entrances on Meadowview and Alexander, and replacement of traffic and street signage for Meadowview and Alexander Roads. The proposed abandonment of a portion of sanitary sewer was later determined to be unnecessary and not feasible and, therefore, not performed. In the feasibility report, it was proposed to assess 100% of the street upgrade and signage improvements on Meadowview Road, up to the rate identified in the 2006 Fee Schedule, in accordance with the City Special Assessment Policy. However, due to the significant variances in individual lot frontage, and the recognizable similarity in benefits to each property based on their existing (or potential) driveway connections, the final assessment roll is based on "driveway equivalent" rather than Fee Schedule rates of actual frontage. It was also proposed to assess 100% of the overlay and signage improvements on Alexander Road, and 100% of the concrete entrance improvements on both Meadowview and Alexander Roads, in accordance with the City Special Assessment Policy. The improvements were completed under Contract 06-02. The following information was used in the preparation of the assessment roll for Project 928. 1. PROJECT COST he construction cost includes the amount of $338,510.92 paid to the contractors for the construction of the improvements. 'raffic and street signage was installed at a cost of $1,637.26. Other costs including engineering, design, contract management, inspections, financing, legal, bonding, administration, and other totaling $113,196.72 were incurred resulting in an improvement and project cost of $451,707.64. 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 CONSTRUCTION OTHER IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY COST COSTS COST REPORT Street Upgrade/Sign Replace (Meadowview) $192,248.16 $64,522.13 $256,770.29 $181,200 Street Resurfacing/Sign Sign Replace (Alexander) $25,288.65 $8,263.36 $33,552.01 $44,720 Alexander Rd. Curve Realign $42,244.78 $13,923.20 $56,167.98 $57,100 Concrete Entrance Aprons $67,232.06 $22,639.34 $89,871.40 $49,700 C & G Repair (Alexander) $11,497.27 $3,848.69 $15,345.96 $23,550 Sanitary Sewer Abandonment -- -- -- $7,400 Totals $338,510.92 $113,196.72 $451,707.64 $363,720 Q3 U. ASSESSMENTS A. TRUNK ASSESSMENTS No trunk improvements were installed under this project, therefore, trunk assessments are not proposed in this assessment roll. B. STREET IMPROVEMENTS - MEADOWVIEW ROAD/ ALEXANDER ROAD 1. Meadowview Road - The costs of the street upgrade and street signage improvements on the 36-foot wide commercial/industrial street was computed using the following unit prices and quantities: ITEM UNIT QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED COST Mobilization L.S. 1 $2,840 $2,840.00 Clearing Tree 7 $50.00 350.00 Grubbing Tree 7 $50.00 350.00 Remove Bituminous Driveway Pvmt. SY 803 $4.56 $3,661.68 Common Excavation CY 673 $5.85 $3,937.05 Granular Borrow (LV) CY 1030 $13.75 $14,162.50 Common Borrow (LV) CY 1690 $7.60 $12,844.00 Modular Block Retaining Wall SF 0 $22.60 0 Remove Concrete Culvert Pipes & FES LF 22 $15.75 $346.50 Remove Corrugated Metal Pipes & FES LF 265 $8.40 $2,226.00 Remove Concrete FES EA 2 $265.00 $530.00 Bulkhead Concrete Pipe EA 2 $788.00 $1,576.00 Salvage Hydrant EA 2 $945.00 $1,890.00 Connect to Existing Storm Manhole/Catch Basin EA 6 $840.00 $5,040.00 12" RC Pipe Sewer Design 3006, Cl. V LF 109 $45.15 $4,921.35 Construct Catch Basin w/cstg. (Std. Plate 232 EA 3 $2,162.00 $6,486.00 Construct Storm Manhole over Ex. Pipe (w/cstg.) EA 2 $2,318.00 $4,636.00 Class V Aggregate Base, 100% Crushed TN 2,385.65 $12.16 $29,009.50 B618 Concrete Curb & Gutter LF 1,714 8.46 $14,500.44 Type LVNW35030C Non-Wearing Course Mixture (3") TN 622.93 $41.25 $25,695.86 Type LVNW45030C Wearing Course Mixture (1 1/2") TN 392.64 $45.97 $18,049.66 Bituminous Material for Tack Coat GAL 250 $1.50 $375.00 Adjust Water Valve Box EA I $100.00 $100.00 Repair Gate Valve Top Section_w/Cover. (SP 100) EA 4 $143.00 $572.00 Gate Valve Nut Ext. LF 4 $158.00 $632.00 Repair Gate Valve Mid Section w/Cover (SP 100) EA 5 $200.00 $1,000.00 Hydrant (10' bury) EA 1 $2,730.00 $2,730.00 Hydrant EA 1 $2,310.00 $2,310.00 2 Q4 Adjust Frame & Ring Casting (MH - Complete Rings EA 4 $295.00 $1,180.00 Install Casting EA 7 $428.00 $2,996.00 Reconstruct Manhole LF 19.42 $252.00 $4,893.84 Seeding, Type MnDOT 270 AC 0.8 $3,150.00 $2,520.00 Mulch Material, Type I TN 1.6 $367.50 $588.00 Sodding, Highland Type Lawn - Salt Resistant. SY 969 5.57 $5,397.33 Select Topsoil Borrow (LV) CY 330.37 $22.05 $7,284.66 4" Double Solid Line Yellow - Epoxy LF 1107 $0.38 $420.66 Silt Fence, Machine-Sliced LF 1,521 $2.50 $3,802.50 Traffic Control LS 1 $1,575.00 $1,575.00 Replace Traffic Signs LS 1 $818.63 $818.63 SUBTOTAL $192,248.16 Other costs @32.8% $64,522.13 Meadowview Upgrade/ Street Signs 36' Street $256,770.29 2. Alexander Road - The costs of the street overlay and street signage improvements on the 44-foot wide commercial/ industrial street were computed using the following unit prices and quantities: ITEM UNIT UNIT PRICE EXTENDED COST Mobilization Repair Sprinkler System Mill Bituminous Pvmt. (11/4" depth) Type LVWE45030B Wearing Course Mixture Bituminous Material for Tack Coat Repair GV Top Sect. w/Cover (SP 100) Adjust Frame & Ring Casting (MH`='C plete Rings) Remove & Replace MH Casting/Rings (1642B) Adjust MH Casting - Riser Adjustment 4" Double Solid Line Yellow - Epoxy Traffic Control Pavement Message - Lt./Thru Replace Traffic Signs SUBTOTAL Other costs @ 32.8% Alexander Mill & Overlay/ Street LS 1 $2,000.00 EA 1 $60.00 SY 1,710 $1.25 TN 431.68 $39.95 GAL 400 $1,50 EA 1 $143.00 EA 1 $295.00 EA 1 $500.00 EA 0 $140.00 LF 1155 $0.38 LS 1 $1,050.00 EA 1 $183.75 LS 1 $818.63 44' Street 3 $2,000.00 $60.00 $2,137.50 $17,245.62 $600.00 $143.00 $295.00 $500.00 0 $438.90 $1,050.00 $183.75 $818.63 $25,288.65 $8,263.36 $33,552.01 q5 3. Commercial/Industrial Properties with Driveway Entrance - The assessments for driveway replacement were computed using the total costs to replace the driveways with improved concrete entrance. ITEM Remove Bituminous Pavement Type LVWE4503OBWear Course Driveway Patch Remove & Replace Casting (Manhole Common Excavation Aggregate Base. CL. 5 7" Concrete Driveway Entrance Apron Sodding, Type Lawn (Highland) Topsoil Borrow Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter SUBTOTAL Other costs @ 32.8% Concrete Entrance Aprons C. IMPROVEMENT AND ASSESSMENT RATES $67,232.06 $22,639.34 $89,871.40 1. Meadowview Road - Eight commercial/ industrial properties within the project area have direct driveway access to Meadowview. The upgrade improvement assessment rate for these properties is proposed based on the number of existing and potential driveway accesses to Meadowview Road. There are eleven existing and potential driveway accesses onto this street improvement. The assessment rate is calculated as follows: Total Meadowview Road Improvement Cost = $256,770.29 Assessment Rate = $256,770.29/ 11 Driveways = $23,242.75/ Driveway 2. Alexander Road - Six commercial/ industrial properties within the project area have direct driveway access to Alexander. These properties are proposed to be assessed based on their front footage adjacent to Alexander Road. The improvement and assessment rate for these properties is computed as follows: Mill & Overlay/ Sign Costs = $33,352.01 Total Frontage = 2,117 Front Feet Total Improvement Cost Rate = $33,552.01/ 2,117 = $15.85/ F.F. 3. Concrete Entrance Aprons - Eight driveways to commercial/ industrial properties were replaced with new concrete entrance aprons. The improvement and assessment rate per square yard for concrete entrance aprons were computed as follows: Concrete Entrance Apron Costs = $89,871.40/ 1,296 S.Y. = $69.35/ S.Y. D. ASSESSMENT TERMS The assessments are proposed for a term of 15 years. The interest rate is 5.50% per annum on the unpaid balance. 4 UNIT EXTENDED UNIT OTY PRICE COST SY 93 5 $4.56 $4,263.60 SY 527 $20.25 $10,671.75 EA 1 $500.00 $500.00 CY 25 $10.00 $250.00 TON 50 $20.00 $1,000.00 SY 1,296 $34.81 $45,113.76 SY 238 $7.15 $1,701.70 CY 20 $22.05 $441.00 LF 615 $5.35 $3,290.25 9(0 M. CITY REVENUES (RESPONSIBILITY) IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT COST ASSESSMENT REVENUE CITY RESPONSIBILITY Meadowview Rd. $256,770.29 $256,770.29 0 Alexander Rd. $33,352.38 $32,365.70 $987.00 Alexander Rd. Realignment $56,167.98 0 $56,167.98 Concrete Entrance Aprons $89,871.40 $89,871.40 0 Curb & Gutter Repair $15,345.96 0 $15,345.96 TOTALS $451,508.01 $379,007.39 $ 72,500.94 FUND Major Street Fund AMOUNT $72,500.94 1 ,l Johri Gorder, P.E. 4:; Reviewed j l7 Public Works Department iI-3o or' Dated Dated c: Thomas A. Colbert, Director of Public Works Mike Dougherty, City Attorney Sue Sheridan, Accountant I 5 n-f 1-1 ( l'2- -t. -0 ?-7 00 z?'a •L - e aw 3 / r E it r.+ I'D M N M 00 M N O C tF+ I'D V ?O N 00 O\ O O ? M M N •-- N 00 O V7 H ? N N V Vr Ile M N N .- N M d 69 4 69 69 69 b4 69 6R 69 69 6R d' O ? 69 N A d 69 6R 00 M M N M M Avg c N C. o O 0 C' C) N o 00 "It 00 M 00 00 vi .O U 00 00 M N C t r t? 69 N 64 d• 69 b 9 fs . . 69 M 6R C/1 Grp ?n N N N N N 00 00 00 00 o i 00 00 Vi N N t N 6R 69 69 6R 6R 69 -I: N O 00 O N M C\ 00 00 .K N - M N N - (? N M • [? M N w N 00 It 00 d N ,? N 00 I'D N ON N N - M ? A • 69 S bs 6R 69 V-i N O N r? 00 i N N 00 C14 ON ? Arn O Cs; N N o M 00 N N N N - cl? "T M d • M 00 O M M M 't M ' r c m M C/') 00 M M M in 'C3 6. Gll? C14 4ES 6&9 69 Ln 69 6 LN4 I&S N N It N N N N N It N 1:t CU y M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M y co 3 3 3 LID tc x x x x CO _ Cd C? _ R co al 0 0 E 0 N 0 O C * •--? en 0 •--? 0 .. O O tU N^ O a) o a) O O N O O O ?- O O c O O O O O O O O a) O O O 0> 0 0 C o o 0 0 3 0 Cd o a p a o I a) o 1 o o? o? o o? o o a?i o v/ O O 00 cn O^ C Z 00 N CZ 00 N CZ O O C/] O" ? N N O Z O M V, M r- N 00 N 00 O O 00 F-+ 00 1V O N o 00 N O P O 1,3 7 0 0 O O M O •--• M O •-••? M O c O ••-? -' M O O M O N N r -- H ¦ - M O 0 O M O U ca LYi?? uU O w d m .p cLi 7 V U -x qg O o N C• X. LLJ r+ ~ Co - O CO Z co C Co a) c 0 N O a G d d R 0 w 5 mu)C) V' Y C Co CO c0O N0 n o 0 Oro V w 0 z W 0 W r -? •) c N M c C) r F) Q C ') Olt to N Q W a) LO co V c o OD N cl ) N co co N • c) N 6% 69, fA 69 69 611, 69 69 69 N d O a! LL 00) 0) m cc n cD to y )Oj M a J w y 6B 69 C d 16 cc to F 0 r 0 co C rL K LL C °om`' ° co 0 , Z N cc .d. Le) to N 69 69 L N N C) cD 0) cd?;:% a o ? w o Z?xp? W C N C N F 69 69 64 !q E CDD cD OCD v C 0 OD v 0 OCD 3 C 0 C N d E w U. LL O C) M F) N O M N C') 0 C U) O co Cam) cO cl) C N co V 0 Oro OjJ 3 IA W E N d OD r 0) U) & v v c0 h N. to N. V CD C) C) r N (D CI O ` E 07`? y n 6A r Q V 6J di H (A 69 69 69 69 69 d V O c•) N v C) 0) N. C) C) 0) 0) 00) 0) 0) r r co o O 0) O m C) 41 .. 3 rnF ° cci d m to N. r- C oD M 0 aD U- O ? C) cD - N cD N N O) 0 N LL 0 0 0 r r r r 0 O 0 0 0 O N O O C) O O O O O ' o N O O O r ^ D) 0 O O 0 9 0 0 0 d 0 cD O o cO O CC) )D T 0 N 0 N 0 O O 0 cO O O cO O 0 cD O M 0 C) o O O o O o C) O C) o m 0 C) 0 d O C C C C C C C - V C - U C - U -6 to C C C 17, • U C - C a) C C a (D E 6 (D E (D E LL E - 7 W N C C, N 0 N 0 a 0 U m U U U L C L L > N N N ? I 0 l Z O N m .. ,. m O 0 0 LL ' F- .,-:1 N C1 1 41 1 T1 6 r W W N. eo Cf 0) W O to q w 0 M M 0 w r M 0 69 T co N r N. 0 a 0 0 0 to A CA J Q F M C) + N_ N + O O N ` O co OD 0 r r Cl) °) N.N. LEGEND STREET UPGRADE DWY ACCESS - MEADOWVIEW $ 23,342 / DWY ® STREET OVERLAY ASSESSMENT ALEXANDER - $ 15.85 F.F. X CONCRETE ENTRANCE APRON $ 69.35 /S.Y. STATE OF MINNESOTA 010-04 "I tiv P?~e 1 , POO?K / : . nRSH -7 ---- 010-26 (?OJ #3045/ // // / 030-04 J/v #3083 X JS / / X ? ?.j`MEADOW V IEW • OAD,?- - = y? i r O?FR/q SIT/ON ? ?X q _< .? xgNO 80, (New Alignment) FRS CO-? # rnli X N W E S NO SCALE G:Project and Contract Info\0928 Meadowview Alexande XI n O S / >ti c? c] Alexander Rd. / Meadowview Rd. City of Eaaai Assessment Map 10/26/06 Project 928 lc Engineering Department VACATED X ? • 5 #3103 ° 1 DvSTRtAj hI / # 1720 X 8S j #3105 A - #3107 U/y?TFD STA Old Alignment) TI \\ X88• ? ? .? Combined Assessment Roll Project Number 10P928 Proposed Pending PID Addition Name House Nbr Street Name Assessment Assessment Variance 10-00800-010-04 Section 8 3087 Sibley Memorial $29,466.36 $8,738.00 ($20,728.36) 10-00800-030-04 Section 8 3083 Sibley Memorial $23,342.75 $31,263.00 $7,920.25 10-00900-010-26 Section 9 3045 Hwy 13 $59,133.83 $52,668.00 ($6,465.83) 10-22480-010-01 Eagan-13 Industrial $65,747.43 $45,769.00 ($19,978.43) 10-22480-020-01 Eagan-13 Industrial $76,917.66 $36,828.00 ($40,089.66) 10-39900-010-02 RLJohnson 1st $32,167.59 $26,445.00 ($5,722.59) 10-48100-050-00 Meadow View 3105 Sibley Memorial $23,723.15 $12,783.00 ($10,940.15) 10-68050-010-01 Sibley Terminal Indu 1710 Alexander Rd $19,068.85 $12,330.00 ($6,738.85) 10-78500-010-01 Tyler Jay Addition 1725 Meadow View R $27,850.50 $25,741.00 ($2,109.50) 10-80220-010-01 United Stationers Ad 1720 Alexander Rd $21,595.46 $23,092.00 $1,496.54 Summary for 'SA_ Nbr' = 10P928 (10 detail records) Sum $379, 013.58 $275,657.00 ($103,356.58) Wednesday, November 29, 2006 Page 1 of I 101 Agenda Information Memo December 4, 2006, Eagan City Council Meeting A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE - RICHARD SKINN ACTIONS-TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve (OR direct findings of fact for denial) a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor storage, for property located at 4890 Biscayne Avenue; subject to the conditions in the APC minutes. To approve (OR direct findings of fact for denial) a Variance of a 40-foot rear yard and 94-foot side yard setback requirement, for outdoor storage on property located at 4890 Biscayne Avenue in the SE '/4 of Section 36, subject to the conditions in the APC minutes. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Quorum FACTS: ? The applicant's proposal includes outdoor storage of steel racks, which are 10 feet in height, a steel loading/unloading area and a cart for recycling scrap metal. ? Many studies, most recently in 2001, determined the area should remain Industrial. ? Outdoor storage is an approved use in the Industrial Zoning district. ? The variances appear to be directly related to the outdoor storage component of the proposal. ? This item was heard as a public hearing before the Advisory Planning Commission on November 28, 2006. The APC recommended approval of both the Conditional Use Permit and Variance. ISSUES: ? A neighbor at the public hearing stated concern with the noise associated with the outdoor operations, hours of operation and compatibility of use with adjacent property. ? Staff has determined that if the adjacent property to the south, which is the north half of the vacated ROW of 117th Street/Gun Club Road, is owned by the applicant, a condition of approval (condition number 8) should be added requiring the applicant to replat the existing lot and the vacated ROW into a single parcel. 60 DAY STATUS: December 16, 2006 ATTACHMENTS (2): Draft APC minutes on pages through <<_ __ Staff report on pages through I I (o . 'CL November 28, 2006 Page 2 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS New Business A. Sierra Metals Inc Applicant Name:Richard Skinn Location:4890 Biscayne Ave; Lot 1, Block 2, Halley's 1 st Addition Application:Conditional Use Permit A Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor storage of oversized steel and a recycling container. File Number: 36-CU-09-10-06 Planner Schield introduced this item and highlighted the information presented in the City Staff report dated November 21, 2006. She noted the background and history. Don Weber, owner of Sierra Metals, stated that without the variance, he would be unable to conduct business in the City of Eagan. Richard Skinn, owner of the property discussed space (33 feet) adjacent to Gun Club Road and asked if the property could be reverted to him. City Planner Ridley stated that Mr. Skinn would need to submit a petition to vacate the r-o-w with the Engineering Department. Chair Hansen opened the public hearing. Brent Koth, 545 Spruce Street, expressed concern over noise coming from the site early in the morning, and the size of the requested variance being excessive. He also stated that consideration should be given to community activities at the adjacent ball field. There being no further public comment, Chair Hansen closed the public hearing and turned the discussion back to the Commission. The property owner stated operations could be conducted after 8:00 a.m. Commissioner Chavez suggested that the wording "on the property" be added to condition 2 of the variance request. Commissioner Keeley questioned if overnight storage would occur in the loading area. The applicant stated that it can be arranged that no overnight storage will occur. Member Chavez moved, Member Heaney seconded a motion to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for outdoor storage which would include the use of steel racks, a loading/unloading area, and a cart for recycling scrap metal, on property located at 4890 Biscayne Avenue in the SE 1/4 of Section 36 subject to the following conditions: X03 November 28, 2006 Page 3 1. This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded at Dakota County within 60 days of approval by the City Council, and proof of recording submitted to the City. 2. A six-foot tall wooden privacy fence along the east and south perimeter of the property shall be installed no later than July 1, 2007. 3. The applicant shall provide a complete list (indicating quantities) of all items to be stored on site per the site plan dated October 18, 2006. 4. The outdoor storage of bumpers and related materials to the businesses must be located within the approved outdoor storage areas. 5. A trash enclosure must be constructed, per City Code requirements, no later than July 1, 2007. 6. All parking and storage areas shall be property maintained to prevent deterioration. 7. Outdoor operations shall be limited to between the hours of 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. A vote was taken. Motion carried: 5-0. Zoberi and Feller opposed. Member Chavez moved, Member Heaney seconded a motion to recommend approval of a 40-foot rear yard and 94-foot side yard setback Variance to allow outdoor storage which would include the use of steel racks, a loading/unloading area, and a cart for recycling scrap metal, on property located at 4890 Biscayne Avenue in the SE '/4 of Section 36 subject to the following conditions as amended: 1. If within one year after approval, the variance shall not have been completed or utilized, it shall become null and void unless a petition for extension has been grantedby the council. Such extension shall be requested in writing at least 30 days before expiration and shall state facts showing a good faith attempt to complete or utilize the use permitted in the variance. 2. The height of the outdoor storage shall be screened via landscaping or the privacy fence on the property. A vote was taken. Motion carried: 5-0. Zoberi and Feller opposed. Ion{ PLANNING REPORT CITY OF EAGAN REPORT DATE: November 21, 2006 CASE: 36-CU-09-10-06 APPLICANT: Richard Skinn HEARING DATE: November 28, 2006 PROPERTY OWNER: Richard Skinn APPLICATION DATE: October 18, 2006 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit/Variance PREPARED BY: Sarah Schield LOCATION: 4890 Biscayne Avenue COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: IND, Industrial ZONING: I-1, Limited Industrial SUMMARY OF REQUEST Richard Skinn is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for outdoor storage of steel racks, a loading/unloading area, and a cart for recycling scrap metal, and a Variance from the required setbacks, on property located at 4890 Biscayne Avenue in the SE 1/4 of Section 36. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW Conditional Use Permit: City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.50, Subdivisions 4C and 4D provide the following Subdivision 4C states that the Planning Commission shall recommend a conditional use permit and the Council shall issue such conditional use permits only if it finds that such use at the proposed location: 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City. 2. Will be harmonious with the general and applicable specific objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and City Code provisions. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area, nor substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. ins Planning Report - Richard Skinn November 28, 2006 Page 2 4. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools. 5. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be. hazardous or detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. 6. Will have vehicular ingress and egress to the property which does not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic on surrounding public streets. 7. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of mad or importance. Subdivision 4D, Conditions, states that in reviewing applications of conditional use permits, the Planning Commission and the Council may attach whatever reasonable conditions they deem necessary to mitigate anticipated adverse impacts associated with these uses, to protect the value of other property within the district, and to achieve the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. In all cases in which conditional uses are granted, the Council shall require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as proof that the conditions stipulated in connection therewith are being and will be complied with. In addition to the requirements for a conditional use permit listed above, City Code Section 11.70, Subdivision 22, C, 2, lists performance standards for outdoor storage as follows: a. Outdoor storage items shall be placed within an enclosure as necessary to achieve appropriate security and containment or for public safety reasons when determined necessary by the city. In general business (GB) and community shopping center (CSC) zoning districts, the enclosure shall be attached to the principal building and be constructed of materials which are aesthetically compatible with the principal building. In limited industrial (I-1) and general industrial (1-2) zoning districts, the enclosure may be detached from the principal building. b. The storage area shall be located in the side or rear yards and shall not encroach into any required front building setback area or other required setbacks. c. The outdoor storage area shall be screened from view from the public right-of- way and from any adjacent property which is designated for residential uses in the comprehensive guide plan. d. The storage area shall not interfere with any pedestrian or vehicular movement. e. The storage area shall not take up required parking spaces or landscaping areas. I D70 Planning Report - Richard Skinn November 28, 2006 Page 3 f. The storage area shall be surfaced with concrete or an approved equivalent to control dust and erosion. The surface shall be properly maintained to prevent deterioration. Variance: City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.50, 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. 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 area of southeast Eagan has been studied several times by the City, most recently in 2001. At that time, the City Council determined that the industrial properties located on the east side of Biscayne Avenue should remain zoned and guided for industrial use. Additionally, the City Council determined that a change from industrial to Retail Commercial (RC) Guide Plan Designation and Neighborhood Business (NB) zoning designation was appropriate for the area located west of Biscayne Avenue, east of Highway 3, south of Red Pine Lane and north of Gun Club Road. Ion Planning Report - Richard Skinn November 28, 2006 Page 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS There are currently four businesses, Sierra Metals Inc., Perfecting Plastics, Kingcutting Inc., and Scrublin Tool Company located within the approximate 9,100 square foot building. There is an approximate five-foot tall chain link fence along the east boundary of the site. According to the applicant, the type and amount of metal to be stored outdoors is dependent upon how busy Sierra Metals Inc. is at the time. The applicant has stated that deliveries occur on a weekly basis and to help reduce noise levels, there would be no work started before 7 a.m. or potentially 8 a.m. if noise is an issue. It should be noted that Perfecting Plastics has had an issue with the outdoor storage of bumpers. The applicant stated that all of the bumpers had been removed from outside. However, bumpers were viewed outside of the building when City staff performed site visits to the property. The bumpers must be kept inside the building or in an area approved for outdoor storage. A dumpster was also in plain view located adjacent to the south side of the building. The City Code requires all trash containers stored outside must be stored within an enclosure with an impermeable floor surface, constructed of materials to match the exterior of the principal structure, with gates or doors having at least 90 percent opacity, and of sufficient size to enclose all trash and recyclable containers, not less than six feet and not more than ten feet in height. The dumpster must be brought into conformity with the City Code. Access to the site is provided from Biscayne Avenue from the west. There is also a bituminous entrance on the south side of the property that led to 117h Street East. The entire ROW on 117th Street was vacated with the Manley subdivision in 2004 which is adjacent to the south of this property. The north %2 of the ROW was vacated, but not re-platted. The parking lot and drive aisle areas are surfaced with bituminous asphalt. SURROUNDING USES The following existing uses, zoning, and comprehensive guide plan designations surround the subject nronertv: Existing Use Zoning Land Use Designation North Industrial/Manufacturing I-1 IND South Single Family R-1 (Residential LD (Low Density) Residential Homes Single Family) West Industrial NB (Neighborhood RC (Retail Business) Commercial) East Red Pine Elementary PF (Public Facility) QP (Quasi Public/ School Institutional) Planning Report - Richard Skinn November 28, 2006 Page 5 EVALUATION OF REQUEST Compatibility with Surrounding Area - The proposed outdoor storage is not inconsistent with this specific area along Biscayne although the general area has experienced change over the last decade including the construction of Red Pine Elementary School, a number of single family subdivisions and, most recently, the approval of the Red Pine Crossing retail project just east of Highway 3. Outdoor storage is not uncommon in Eagan's industrial areas and it is important to note, as referenced earlier in this report, that the City made a conscious decision in 2001 to allow the properties along the east side of Biscayne to remain zoned and guided for industrial use. Site Plan - The proposed outdoor storage areas are primarily located east of the building. The applicant proposes a raw steel storage area and a scrap trailer abutting the rear of the building. The site plan identifies an area for steel storage racking, approximately 13 feet in height, along the eastern 10-foot drainage and utility easement. These locations are not visible from the public along Biscayne Avenue because they are located behind the building. The site plan also identifies a steel loading and unloading area in the southeast corner of the site. This location would take up approximately three current parking stalls. The subject property exceeds the required amount of parking stalls and therefore the removal of three parking stalls would not be detrimental to the site or surrounding area. However, the proposed location of the loading/unloading area would clearly be visible from Biscayne Avenue when vehicles are not parked and blocking the view. The area is potentially visible from the properties to the south but there are a few scattered evergreens located near the bituminous edge of the pavement. Also, when the single family development was constructed to the south, a row of evergreen trees were planted to assist with screening from the industrial buildings. Outdoor Storage - The ordinance standards for outside storage are outlined below. Outdoor storage items shall be placed within an enclosure as necessary to achieve appropriate security and containment or for public safety reasons when determined necessary by the city. In general business (GB) and community shopping center (CSC) zoning districts, the enclosure shall be attached to the principal building and be constructed of materials which are aesthetically compatible with the principal building. In limited industrial (I-1) and general industrial (1-2) zoning districts, the enclosure may be detached from the principal building. The east side storage area is somewhat screened by existing vegetation on the east side, and the building on the other, and is not very visible from the street. The north side storage areas are visible from the adjacent properties as there is no screening provided between the industrial properties in this area. The south side storage area is partially visible from both Biscayne Avenue and the residential properties to the south. The eastern perimeter includes a five-foot tall chain link fence. 151 Planning Report - Richard Skinn November 28, 2006 Pane 6 2. The storage area shall be located in the side or rear yards and shall not encroach into any required front building setback area or other required setbacks. The storage areas are located adjacent to the rear of the building and also approximately 10 feet from the side and rear property lines. These locations do not meet the side yard and rear yard setback requirements of 20 feet. Further, the ordinance requires the outdoor storage setback to be 100 feet when adjacent to properties guided residential and 50 feet when adjacent to properties guided Public Facilities, thus the requested Variances for outdoor storage setbacks. 3. The outdoor storage area shall be screened from view from the public right-of-way and from any adjacent property which is designated for residential uses in the comprehensive guide plan. The adjacent property to the north is zoned and guided for limited industrial use. The north storage area has no screening, however, screening is not required from adjacent parcels that are zoned I-1. The adjacent property to the west is guided RC and is generally screened from the outdoor use by the building. The adjacent property to the east is guided QP and is presently screened from the outdoor storage only by evergreen trees located off the subject site. The adjacent property to the south is guided LD and is also somewhat screened from the outdoor storage and loading/unloading area by evergreen trees. There are evergreen trees located on the subject property and on the adjacent property to the south; however, staff suggests added screening below in the Landscaping paragraph. 4. The storage area shall not interfere with any pedestrian or vehicular movement. The area of the site, east of the building, is used primarily for storage and vehicular movement. There is limited pedestrian activity in this area. The site plan identifies parking stalls located behind the building and an approximate 12-foot drive aisle. 5. The storage area shall not take up required parking spaces or landscaping areas. The proposed storage area is already clear of vegetation, and relatively flat, and has been previously surfaced with asphalt. No landscaping or other vegetation is proposed to be removed to accommodate the proposed storage area. Three parking stalls are proposed to be removed to serve as the loading/unloading area, but the minimum parking requirement for this use is still exceeded. 6. The storage area shall be surfaced with concrete or an approved equivalent to control dust and erosion. The surface shall be properly maintained to prevent deterioration. The storage area is surfaced with asphalt and the asphalt will remain. 10 Planning Report - Richard Skinn November 28, 2006 Pane 7 Setbacks - The City Code requires a 20-foot side and rear yard outdoor storage setback. Additionally, the City Code requires the outdoor storage setback to be 100 feet when adjacent to properties guided residential and 50 feet when adjacent to properties guided Public Facilities. The proposed outdoor storage setback is 10 feet along the rear property line and 6 feet from the side yard setback to the south. With the change in the adjacent land use over the past years, the additional setbacks have negatively impacted the existing industrial use. Because of the shape of the existing lot, strict enforcement of the setbacks would not allow the owner to have outdoor storage at the property, which is allowed via a Conditional Use. Thus, a setback Variance of 40 feet from the rear yard setback and 94 feet from the side yard setback is requested for the outdoor storage. Landscaping - The. applicant does not propose any landscaping. The proposed storage areas are presently screened from the school property to the east and the single family to the south mostly by evergreen trees that are located off the subject site. If any of these trees were to be damaged or removed in the future, there would be little, if any, screening of the outdoor storage to the properties to the east and to the south. Staff suggests the APC and City Council consider the addition of at least a six-foot tall wooden privacy fence along the east and south perimeter of the property that would assist with both security and screening. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION Richard Skinn is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for outdoor storage which would include the use of steel racks, a loading/unloading area, and a cart for recycling scrap metal, on property located at 4890 Biscayne Avenue in the SE '/4 of Section 36. The proposed outdoor storage appears generally compatible with the I-1 zoning and surrounding properties. The proposal, however, falls short of satisfying all of the performance standards in the City Code. The primary shortfalls are with regard to setbacks and screening. The requested Variances for outdoor storage setbacks are due to the land use changes in the area, which occurred after the use was established at this property. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED To recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for outdoor storage which would include the use of steel racks, a loading/unloading area, and a cart for recycling scrap metal, on property located at 4890 Biscayne Avenue in the SE'/4 of Section 36. 1. This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded at Dakota County within 60 days of approval by the City Council, and proof of recording submitted to the City. 2. A six-foot tall wooden privacy fence along the east and south perimeter of the property shall be installed no later than July 1, 2007. Planning Report - Richard Skinn November 28, 2006 Page 8 3. The applicant shall provide a complete list (indicating quantities) of all items to be stored on site per the site plan dated October 18, 2006. 4. The outdoor storage of bumpers and related materials to the businesses must be located within the approved outdoor storage areas. 5. A trash enclosure must be constructed, per City Code requirements, no later than July 1, 2007. 6. All parking and storage areas shall be property maintained to prevent deterioration. 7. Outdoor operations shall be limited to between the hours of 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. To recommend approval of a 40-foot rear yard and 94-foot side yard setback Variance to allow outdoor storage which would include the use of steel racks, a loading/unloading area, and a cart for recycling scrap metal, on property located at 4890 Biscayne Avenue in the SE '/4 of Section 36. If approved, the following conditions should apply: If within one year after approval, the variance shall not have been completed or utilized, it shall become null and void unless a petition for extension has been granted by the council. Such extension shall be requested in writing at least 30 days before expiration and shall state facts showing a good faith attempt to complete or utilize the use permitted in the variance. 2. The height of the outdoor storage shall be screened via landscaping or the privacy fence. 1 ?-2, Eagan Boundary Location Ma N Right-of-way Parcel Area Park Area Building Footprint e o ? v ? ? ? r8 4 9 P 4 'ra ? m q Q e A ? ® ® ? ? -v 44b .9. ® ? tSa ® ® ? a ma• .p ?.f ? ? 9 ? 7 B g ? ® ? R ® ? ? 1 o m ` a wa?bp ? to O p ¦ t ° ?`? ? tP ¦ ® ® '? ? 41# r. Q, a ? a ?t v. a 9®q e/ S ?`7a r ° Q 8bl5 O ?B GP d in D r; ' aqa`?°? f F rte. -. ? A O e rs ? ? a$ P ti v Ie q ? g e ®? o ® ?? 4 Subject Sit e 4 CD o O O O o U O . 100 0 1 00 2000 t Development/Developer. Sierra Metals Application: Conditional Use Permit Case No.: 36-CU-09-10-06 q Q n f ?i M qt Map Prepared using ERSI ArcView 3.1. Parcel base map data provided by Dakota County Office of GIS and is current as of April2005. NLY N W E y o LUaall y THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE O The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this information and are S Community Development Department not responsible for errors or omissions. Current Zoning and Comprehensive Guide Plan Land Use Map L1, B2, Halley's 1st Addition CUP and Variance 36-CU-09-10-06 M Z i rt rr - 1 ap on ng ?' Location Current Zoning: NB NB 1 1-1 Limited Industrial A P A fD0 0 000 1200 Feet Comprehensive Guide Plan Land Use Map 4?P LD D Location RC IN P 7 i gnation: Current Land Use Des D IND Industrial P L 17 600 0 000 1200 Feet Parcel bese map information providedby Dakota County Land Survey Department Decmba 2005. N Zoning Information maintained byClty Stag City of Ea?Il W ?) THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this information. S co W u° O , N N ti i\i O Z v W W W <T ? O N W ? ¢ 3 > a g z Z Z° o o =C ? ? rv^ ? 2 $ om .. N ti O 2 i v J tt -.. •? 2 .l ti 2 t7 v i N O; ?i N u ?jj ry ;3i Q LL. W Q frJ 3 _ ' 2a O " J 3Y 3! /7) NfnO 00 EZT 3.LT. ZO.OON Q ?0 1 w^ Z r l 'y A INamw WWI. Dv Oz w •d •Z-' q Q & h 6ufnM i5 -' S IM)T W I ar m 51 veg 9/JTNtlrd `- 3Nn ?IrD_ _ a 9 ? X } or 1 I +? CU C m a p ?j p d n si 1 a O Y" y r? ? ° s c? 4 V •q M ? a« 0 ly „ L C` x L,j 0 E` F L ? D ?? a cur: r ' v O 4 & :k. P ' 4 d s ?28 O I C or I n I m BI ? c m u c WI ?I? N s.' I ? BI ? ?1 FI ? ? ¢ or 41 `? ? v V ? ? • n O 00'EZT N•LT, OOS ? = c -.- -. -.- - - ?fTTT'rLtiT2ti- - 1 O C •o?q 3?] tl3M35 AtlYIINYS .B ?r?. ?, Q J C awl)tl3t ?'.l( a - _ - _ _ •BB _ 3. BI.BI.Ode _ _ - SITE. PLAN .115 Richard W. Skinn 9330 Elliot Ave. S. Bloomington, MN 55420 October 27, 2006 Sarah Schield City of Eagan Planner 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 To the City of Eagan Council, I would like to work with you to obtain an outdoor storage permit for my industrial building at 4890 Biscayne Ave. Eagan, MN. Sierra Metals, a longtime business in Eagan, has requested the use of steel racks and a cart for recycling scrap metal. Sierra Metals will keep their inventory down to a minimum. Perfecting Plastics has removed all bumpers outside his business. I hope you find this acceptable. Thank you for .your consideration in this manner. Richard W. Skinn iii Agenda Information Memo December 4, 2006, Eagan City Council Meeting B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE - WENSMANN HOMES INC. ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve (OR direct findings of fact for denial) a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor storage, for property located at 4870 Biscayne Avenue; subject to the conditions in the APC minutes. To approve (OR direct findings of fact for denial) a Variance of a 40-foot rear yard, 20-foot north side yard and 10-foot south side yard setback, for outdoor storage on property located at 4870 Biscayne Avenue in the SE V4 of Section 36, subject to the conditions in the APC minutes. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Quorum FACTS: ? The applicant's proposal includes outdoor storage of an above ground fuel storage tank and necessary safety devices, in addition to construction equipment and construction materials. ? Many studies, most recently in 2001, determined the area should remain Industrial. ? Outdoor storage is an approved use in the Industrial Zoning district. ? The variances appear to be directly related to the outdoor storage component of the proposal. ? This item was heard as a public hearing before the Advisory Planning Commission on November 28, 2006. The APC recommended approval of both the Conditional Use Permit and Variance. ISSUES: ? A neighbor at the public hearing recommended uniformity of the fence which is to be placed on the east property line. ? The APC determined that due to the nature of the business/storage, the applicant could submit a worse-case estimate of items to be stored. 60 DAY STATUS: December 16, 2006 ATTACHMENTS (2): Draft APC minutes on ages ? l 8 through Staff report on pages through 1 . 1? November 28, 2006 Page 4 B. Wensmann Homes Applicant Name:Wensmann Homes Location:4870 Biscayne Road; Lot 3, Block 2, Halleys 1st Addition Application:Conditional Use Permit A Conditional Use Permit to allow outside storage of a fuel tank. File Number:36-CU-10-10-06 Planner Schield introduced this item and highlighted the information presented in the City Staff report dated November 21, 2006. She noted the background and history. Terry Wensmann, applicant, stated that condition #3 which requires a list of items to be stored would be difficult, as the items would change daily. He stated that he could provide a list of the types of materials to be stored. Chair Hansen opened the public hearing. Brent Koth suggested that the fencing be the same type as other fencing in the area to create uniformity. There being no further public comment, Chair Hansen closed the public hearing and turned the discussion back to the Commission. Chavez asked what value the inventory of items stored would be. Ridley responded that the City typically requests a worse case scenario in order to understand the maximum capacity of a given site. Member Keeley moved, Member Zoberi seconded a motion to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for outdoor storage of an above ground fuel storage tank and necessary safety devices, in addition to construction equipment and construction materials, on property located at 4870 Biscayne Avenue in the SE 1/4 of Section 36 subject to the following conditions: 1. This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded at Dakota County within 60 days of approval by the City Council, and proof of recording submitted to the City. 2. A revised site plan indicating the storage area for the above ground fuel storage details as required by the Fire Marshal shall be submitted. 3. The applicant shall provide a complete list (indicating quantities) of all items to be stored on site per the site plan dated October 31, 2006. 4. A six-foot tall wooden privacy fence along the east perimeter of the property shall be installed no later than July 1, 2007. n November 28,.2006 Page 5 5. A trash enclosure must be constructed, per City Code requirements, no later than July 1, 2007. 6. All parking and storage areas shall be property maintained to prevent deterioration. A vote was taken. All voted in favor. Motion carried: 7-0. Chair Hansen clarified the APC expectation was that the applicant would provide an estimate as suggested earlier by Mr. Wensmann. Member Keeley moved, Member Chavez seconded a motion to recommend approval of a 40-foot rear yard, 20-foot north side yard and 10-foot south side yard setback Variance to allow outdoor storage of an above ground fuel storage tank and necessary safety devices, in addition to construction equipment and construction materials, on property located at 4870 Biscayne Avenue in the SE 1/4 of Section 36 subject to the following conditions: 1. If within one year after approval, the variance shall not have been completed or utilized, it shall become null and void unless a petition for extension has been granted by the council. Such extension shall be requested in writing at least 30 days before expiration and shall state facts showing a good faith attempt to complete or utilize the use permitted in the variance. 2. The height of the outdoor storage shall be screened via landscaping or a privacy fence on the property. A vote was taken. All voted in favor. Motion carried: 7-0. liq PLANNING REPORT CITY OF EAGAN REPORT DATE: November 21, 2006 APPLICANT: Wensmann Homes Inc. PROPERTY OWNER: Wensmann Homes Inc. REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit/Variance CASE: 36-CU-10-10-06 HEARING DATE: November 28, 2006 APPLICATION DATE: October 18, 2006 PREPARED BY: Sarah Schield LOCATION: 4870 Biscayne Avenue COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: IND, Industrial ZONING: I-1, Limited Industrial SUMMARY OF REQUEST Wensmann Homes Inc., is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for outdoor storage of an above ground fuel storage tank and necessary safety devices, in addition to construction equipment and construction materials, and a Variance from the required setbacks, on property located at 4870 Biscayne Avenue in the SE '/4 of Section 36. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW Conditional Use Permit: City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.50, Subdivisions 4C and 4D provide the following. Subdivision 4C states that the Planning Commission shall recommend a conditional use permit and the Council shall issue such conditional use permits only if it finds that such use at the proposed location: 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City. 2. Will be harmonious with the general and applicable specific objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and City Code provisions. 12D Planning Report - Wensmann Homes Inc. November 28, 2006 Page 2 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area, nor substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 4. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools. 5. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be hazardous or detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. 6. Will have vehicular ingress and egress to the property which does not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic on surrounding public streets. 7. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Subdivision 4D, Conditions, states that in reviewing applications of conditional use permits, the Planning Commission and the Council may attach whatever reasonable conditions they deem necessary to mitigate anticipated adverse impacts associated with these uses, to protect the value of other property within the district, and to achieve the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. In all cases in which conditional uses are granted, the Council shall require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as proof that the conditions stipulated in connection therewith are being and will be complied with. In addition to the requirements for a conditional use permit listed above, City Code Section 11.70, Subdivision 22, C, 2, lists performance standards for outdoor storage as follows: a. Outdoor storage items shall be placed within an enclosure as necessary to achieve appropriate security and containment or for public safety reasons when determined necessary by the city. In general business (GB) and community shopping center (CSC) zoning districts, the enclosure shall be attached to the principal building and be constructed of materials which are aesthetically compatible with the principal building. In limited industrial (I-1) and general industrial (1-2) zoning districts, the enclosure may be detached from the principal building. b. The storage area shall be located in the side or rear yards and shall not encroach into any required front building setback area or other required setbacks. 1-2-1 Planning Report - Wensmann Homes Inc. November 28, 2006 Page 3 c. The outdoor storage area shall be screened from view from the public right-of- way and from any adjacent property which is designated for residential uses in the comprehensive guide plan. d. The storage area shall not interfere with any pedestrian or vehicular movement. e. The storage area shall not take up required parking spaces or landscaping areas. f. The storage area shall be surfaced with concrete or an approved equivalent to control dust and erosion. The surface shall be properly maintained to prevent deterioration. Variance: City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.50, 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. 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. 122- Planning Report - Wensmann Homes Inc. November 28, 2006 Page 4 BACKGROUND/HISTORY This area of southeast Eagan has been studied several times by the City, most recently in 2001. At that time, the City Council determined that the industrial properties located on the east side of Biscayne Avenue should remain zoned and guided for industrial use. Additionally, the City Council determined that a change from industrial to Retail Commercial (RC) Guide Plan Designation and Neighborhood Business (NB) zoning designation was appropriate for the area located west of Biscayne Avenue, east of Highway 3, south of Red Pine Lane and north of Gun Club Road. Wensmann Homes Inc. has been in the home construction business for over 30 years. The family business is located in the City of Eagan. The Wensmann Homes Inc. storage building, located at the subject site, was constructed in 1989 on 0.88 acres. The building is divided into a north and south bay. The North Bay is utilized to service and store miscellaneous equipment needed for residential homebuilding operations. The South Bay is utilized for custom printing and cutting and sizing of labels that are used in the businesses operations. EXISTING CONDITIONS The site contains an existing building approximately 8,500 square feet in size. Access to the site is provided from Biscayne Avenue from the west where two loading docks are located. There is an eight-foot privacy fence which extends from the northern of the two loading docks to the north property line and a five-foot chain link fence is located on the eastern perimeter of the property. The parking lot and drive aisle areas are surfaced with bituminous asphalt, except for a small area designated for miscellaneous storage on the north side of the building. This area has a gravel surface.. The perimeter of the site is finished with concrete curb and gutter. There are currently several different types of trailers being stored outside on the property. The type and amount of equipment and materials vary dependent upon the season. In addition to these items, there are two above ground fuel storage tanks that are utilized to fuel the equipment. The existing outside storage of trailers and above ground fuel storage tanks are in violation of City ordinances, and upon being notified of such, the applicant submitted this application for the required Conditional Use Permit to bring the use into compliance. A dumpster was also in plain view located along the east property line. The site plan identifies the location of a dumpster on the north side of the property and two dumpsters located adjacent to the rear of the building. The City Code requires all trash containers stored outside must be stored within an enclosure with an impermeable floor surface, constructed of materials to match the exterior of the principal structure, with gates or doors having at least 90 percent opacity, and of sufficient size to enclose all trash and recyclable containers, not less than six feet and not more than ten feet in height. The dumpster must be brought into conformity with the City Code. I Planning Report - Wensmann Homes Inc. November 28, 2006 Page 5 SURROUNDING USES The following existing uses, zoning, and comprehensive guide plan designations surround the subject property: Existing Use Zoning Land Use Designation North IndustriaUManufacturing 1-1 IND South Service Garage I-1 IND West Industrial NB (Neighborhood Business) RC (Retail Commercial) East Red Pine Elementary School PF (Public Facility) QP (Quasi Public/ Institutional) EVALUATION OF REQUEST Compatibility with Surrounding Area - The proposed outdoor storage is not inconsistent with this specific area along Biscayne although the general area has experienced change over the last decade including the construction of Red Pine Elementary School, a number of single family subdivisions and, most recently, the approval of the Red Pine Crossing retail project just east of Highway 3. Outdoor storage is not uncommon in Eagan's industrial areas and it is important to note, as referenced earlier in this report, that the City made a conscious decision in 2001 to allow the properties along the east side of Biscayne to remain zoned and guided for industrial use. Site Plan - The proposed outdoor storage areas are located north, east and south of the building. The applicant proposes 4 parking spaces for equipment in the northeast corner of the property. The new location of the above ground fuel storage is also proposed for this area located adjacent to the parking stalls to the east. The exact location of the fuel storage tank location is being worked out between the applicant and the Fire Marshal. Outdoor Storage - The ordinance standards for outside storage are outlined below. 1. Outdoor storage items shall be placed within an enclosure as necessary to achieve appropriate security and containment or for public safety reasons when determined necessary by the city. In general business (GB) and community shopping center (CSC) zoning districts, the enclosure shall be attached to the principal building and be constructed of materials which are aesthetically compatible with the principal building. In limited industrial (I-1) and general industrial (1-2) zoning districts, the enclosure may be detached from the principal building. The east side storage area is somewhat screened and enclosed by an existing five-foot tall chain link fence and vegetation on one side, and the building on the other, and is not very visible from the street. The north and south side storage areas are 12-4 Planning Report - Wensmann Homes Inc. November 28, 2006 Page 6 visible from the adjacent properties as there is no screening provided between the industrial properties in this area. 2. The storage area shall be located in the side or rear yards and shall not encroach into any required front building setback area or other required setbacks. There are multiple storage areas proposed for the site. The proposed north storage area abuts the property line. The proposed east/southeast storage area and lowboy trailer parking areas are approximately 10 feet from the property lines. These locations do not meet the side yard and rear yard setback requirements of 20 feet. Further, the ordinance requires the outdoor storage setback to be 50 feet when adjacent to properties guided Public Facilities, thus the requested Variance for outdoor storage setbacks. 3. The outdoor storage area shall be screened from view from the public right-of-way and from any adjacent property which is designated for residential uses in the comprehensive guide plan. The adjacent properties to the north and south are zoned and guided for limited industrial use. The north and south storage areas have no screening, however, screening is not required from adjacent parcels that are zoned I-1. The adjacent property to the west is guided RC and is generally screened from the outdoor use by the building. The adjacent property to the east is guided QP and is presently screened from the outdoor storage only by evergreen trees located off the subject site; however, staff suggests added screening below in the Landscaping paragraph. 4. The storage area shall not interfere with any pedestrian or vehicular movement. The area of the site north and east of the building is used only for storage and vehicular movement. There is no pedestrian activity in this area. The site plan identifies parking stalls located behind the building and a 20-foot wide drive aisle will be maintained through the storage area. 5. The storage area shall not take up required parking spaces or landscaping areas. The proposed storage area is surfaced with asphalt except for the storage area to the north of the building which is surfaced with gravel. No landscaping or other vegetation is proposed to be removed to accommodate the proposed storage area, and required parking areas are located elsewhere on the site. 6. The storage area shall be surfaced with concrete or an approved equivalent to control dust and erosion. The surface shall be properly maintained to prevent deterioration. The majority of the storage area is already surfaced with asphalt and the asphalt will remain. Planning Report - Wensmann Homes Inc. November 28, 2006 Page 7 Setbacks - The City Code requires a 20-foot side and rear yard outdoor storage setback. Additionally, the City Code requires the outdoor storage setback to be 50 feet when adjacent to properties guided Public Facilities. The proposed outdoor storage setback is 0 feet along the north side yard, 10 feet from the rear yard, and 10 feet along the south side yard. With the change in the adjacent land use over the past years, the additional setbacks have negatively impacted the existing industrial use. Because of the shape of the existing lot, strict enforcement of the setbacks would not allow the owner to have outdoor storage at the property, which is allowed via a Conditional Use. Thus, a setback Variance of 40 feet from the rear yard setback and 20 feet from the north side yard and 10 feet from the south side yard setback is requested for the outdoor storage. Landscaping - The applicant does not propose any landscaping. The proposed storage areas are presently screened from the school property to the east only by evergreen trees located off the subject site. If these trees were to be damaged or removed in the future, there would be little, if any, screening of the outdoor storage to the property to the east. Staff suggests the APC and City Council consider the addition of at least a six-foot tall wooden privacy fence along the east perimeter of the property that would assist with both security and screening. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION Wensmann Homes Inc., is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for outdoor storage of an above ground fuel storage tank and necessary safety devices, in addition to construction equipment and construction materials, on property located at 4870 Biscayne Avenue in the SE 1/4 of Section 36. The proposed outdoor storage appears generally compatible with the I-1 zoning and surrounding properties. The proposal, however, falls short of satisfying all of the performance standards in the City Code. The primary shortfalls are with regard to setbacks and screening. A revised site plan identifying the preferred design of the above ground fuel storage per the Fire Marshal's requirements should be submitted. The requested Variances for outdoor storage setbacks are due to the land use changes in the area, which occurred after the use was established at this property. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED To recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for outdoor storage of an above ground fuel storage tank and necessary safety devices, in addition to construction equipment and construction materials, on property located at 4870 Biscayne Avenue in the SE 1/4 of Section 36. If approved, the following conditions should apply: 1. This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded at Dakota County within 60 days of approval by the City Council, and proof of recording submitted to the City. ?240 Planning Report - Wensmann Homes Inc. November 28, 2006 Page 8 2. A revised site plan indicating the storage area for the above ground fuel storage details as required by the Fire Marshal shall be submitted. 3. The applicant shall provide a complete list (indicating quantities) of all items to be stored on site per the site plan dated October 31, 2006. 4. A six-foot tall wooden privacy fence along the east perimeter of the property shall be installed no later than July 1, 2007. 5. A trash enclosure must be constructed, per City Code requirements, no later than July 1, 2007. 6. All parking and storage areas shall be property maintained to prevent deterioration. To recommend approval of a 40-foot rear yard, 20-foot north side yard and 10-foot south side yard setback Variance to allow outdoor storage of an above ground fuel storage tank and necessary safety devices, in addition to construction equipment and construction materials, on property located at 4870 Biscayne Avenue in the SE '/4 of Section 36. If approved, the following conditions should apply: 1. If within one year after approval, the variance shall not have been completed or utilized, it shall become null and void unless a petition for extension has been granted by the council. Such extension shall be requested in writing at least 30 days before expiration and shall state facts showing a good faith attempt to complete or utilize the use permitted in the variance. 2. The height of the outdoor storage shall be screened via landscaping or a privacy fence. 127 Eagan Boundary Location Map IJ Right-of-way Parcel Area Park Area Building Footprint be ®e 0 5$?4 Q$ m P a q i IF, .® 1 O 1 a d fi ?. f A ® r d ? r ? ? r ? m• ' ?®A + ? ? r O 3a -. aaa4t f: ? Bt a ? O ® • , 0i ! P ® 0 . . otT? / ®rf8P s 0 4 `? F 9 g• g aP s ? ® ,? t ® • ma r 8 s 4 Subject Site ? O ®, ? . of J Nor am ® ®? a 0 9 63 00 0 000 2000 t Development/Developer. Wensmann Homes Application: Conditional Use Permit Case No.: 36-CU-10-10-06 Cit f E Map Prepared using ERSI Areview 3.1. Parcel base map data provided • by Dakota County Office of GIS and is current as of April 2005. N W+ E y o aQal THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this Information and are S Community Development Department not responsible for errors or omissions. Current Zoning and Comprehensive Guide Plan Land Use Map L3, B2, Halley's 1st Addition CUP and Variance 36-CU-10-10-06 Zoning Map Location 00 F Current Zonin g: NB NB I 17 R1 1-1 Limited Industrial P A A 6D0 0 600 1200 Feet Comprehensive Guide Plan L d U Ma LD El an se p Location P RC 1 D P d U Desi natio C t L g urren an se n: D IND Ind t i l us r a P 600 0 600 1200 Feet All& City of Eayn Parcel base map information prnfoby Dakota County rvey Department Decmbar 20D5. ?? Zoning g information maintained d b yCityCity Staff THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY N W E S The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this information. E- w z Q z Z ? y m(? V) c?' WNp••• ? x NW ?? 66 V ' m Z J _w ?OOHOS A, ]ViNIN3?3 QOOM3NId m 'i 77ML am wmn G. Q zj- ° r 3?Ytl p N W >< o m a' OW K Z) W ZO --j C) I O W N co 2: 1 b 3? r? ?QU Z .. . c) v) cn 6[ W W Gil zjtmo J g` Z ?y? W NJ 2( p I U W O 0 W ..i f a r J 0+2 - n Z AIN 0 1. Gnr O's T o al ice?3 m ? ? _< uC ?? I I m I ply ? ?` v a a .. .... ......... 3nN3AV - ]N)\VOSI9 W x I I I Z ? ? Z;X 4 a° 01 1 ` use z ?z - W H?? -Vi SITE PLAN MEMO Date: October 24, 2006 To: City of Eagan - Planning Department Re: Supplemental Narrative CUP Application Lot 3, Block 2 Halley's 1" Addition Dakota County, MN From: Terry Wensmann 1. The primary function/use of the north bay is to service and storage of misc equipment needed for residential homebuilding operations. The construction equipment includes: bobcat, backhoe, small dozer, dumptruck, semi w/trailer, approximately 8 one-ton pickup trucks, several trailers, cement forms and insulating blankets. However, all equipment is never in the yard at the same time. More often than not they are in use at our housing developments even in the winter. Service maintenance to equipment is completed in the shop area of the north bay. Construction materials stored may include rebar, wire mesh, block piers, misc cement blocks, wood forms, shingles and temporary mailboxes used in our housing developments. Quantities vary for the materials. Generally they are stored only until they can be used on a construction site. In addition to the listed materials, there are two above ground fuel storage tanks also used on the site. 2. The primary function/use of the south bay is custom printing and cutting/sizing of labels used in business operations. Printing equipment and materials are stored on a racking system within the warehouse. Limited delivery services are used for receiving and shipping goods using the front dock. As part of this permit request, the current location of the above ground fuel storage tanks will be moved to a location in the center of the yard, with appropriate protection from spills and traffic installed. The current location has no spill protection and is placed too close to the south property line. Until a recent inspection by the City of Eagan fire marshal, the owner was not aware that the uses existing were inconsistent with the zoning. The property has been used and operated in the same manner for over 10 years. Property owner is not aware of any previous notices. 131 Agenda Information Memo December 4, 2006 Eagan City Council Meeting C. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - CITY OF EAGAN ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve an Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 11, Section 11.70, Subd. 28, to establish the requirement for a footing inspection for all new pylon signs and an obligation of double sign permit fees for permanent signage installed without a Sign Permit and direct the City Attorney to publish the amendment in the legal newspaper. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Council Members Present FACTS: > On November 9, 2006, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment relative to a footing inspection requirement for pylon signage and a double permit fee for signage installed without first receiving a Sign Permit. > For public health and safety reasons, staff believes it would be appropriate to perform a footing inspection with the installation of all new pylon signs (signs over 7' tall). > In consultation with other metro cities, it was discovered that most cities do require this type of inspection as part of the sign permitting process. > Similar to work done without a Building Permit, staff believes it would be appropriate to require a double Sign Permit fee in those instances. > This fee is warranted to discourage the installation of permanent signage with out first allowing for staff review, approval and permit issuance. > The APC held a Public Hearing on November 28, 2006 and they are recommending approval of this amendment to Chapter 11. ATTACHMENTS: (2) Draft APC Minutes on page 133 . Draft Ordinance Amendment on pages IM 1 through . 132 November 28, 2006 Page 6 C. Chapter 11.70 Subd. 28 Applicant Name:City of Eagan Location:3830 Pilot Knob Road; Application:Ordinance Amendment An Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 11, Sect. 11.70 in regard to signage constructed / erected without a permit. File Number:01-OR-08-11-06 Al City Planner Ridley discussed a proposed ordinance amendment, directed by the City Council, regarding signage constructed without a permit. Member Chavez suggested revised wording in paragraph three and the last sentence of the draft ordinance amendment. Chair Hansen opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Hansen closed the public hearing and turned the discussion back to the Commission. Member Chavez moved, Member Keeley seconded a motion to recommend approval of a An Ordinance Amendment to Chapter.11, Sect. 11.70 in regard to signage constructed / erected without a permit. A vote was taken. All voted in favor. Motion tarried: 7-0. VI. VISITORS TOOSE HEARD (FOR THOSE NOT ON AGENDA) There were no visitors to be heard for items not on the agenda. VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. ADJOURNMENT Member Chavez moved, Member Keeley seconded a motion to adjourn the Advisory Planning Commission meeting at 7:20 p.m. A vote was taken. All voted in favor. Motion carried7 -0. Respectfully Submitted by: 153 4110P City of Eaaafl Memo To: Chair Hansen and Advisory Planning Commission Members From: Mike Ridley, City Planner Date: November 20, 2006 Subject: Ordinance Amendment - Sign Permits At their regular meeting on November 9, 2006, the City Council directed staff to prepare and amendment and have the Advisory Planning Commission (APC) hold a Public Hearing and make a recommendation. For public health and safety reasons, staff believes it would be appropriate to perform a footing inspection with the installation of all new pylon signs (signs over 7' tall). In consultation with other metro cities, it was discovered that most cities do require this type of inspection as part of the sign permitting process. Additionally, permanent signs are installed without the benefit of a Sign Permit a few times a year. Similar to work done without a Building Permit, staff believes it would be appropriate to charge a double Sign Permit fee in those instances. City staff believes the double fee is warranted to discourage the installation of permanent signage with out first allowing staffs review, approval and permit issuance. Draft ordinance language is attached for your review. Action To Be Considered To recommend approval of an Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 11 to establish the requirement for a footing inspection for all new pylon signs and the obligation of double sign permit fees for permanent signage installed without the benefit of a Sign Permit Please call me at 651-675-5650 if you have any questions. J a? ORDINANCE NO. 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA, AMENDING EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER ELEVEN ENTITLED "LAND USE REGULATIONS (ZONING)" BY AMENDING SECTION 11.70, SUBD. 28 REGARDING PLACEMENT, ERECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF SIGNS; AND BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 and 11.99. The City Council of the City of Eagan does ordain: Section 1. Eagan City Code Chapter Eleven is heretw rtnended by changing Section 11.70, Subd. 28 (1) to read as follows: I. Sign permits and fees. 1. Sign permits. No signs, except those specified in this subdivision, above, shall be erected or maintained anywhere in the City without first obtaining a sign permit. 2. Application, permit and rJ es. A formal application together with accompanying documents prescribed by the City shall be submitted to the City to obtain a sign permit. Permit fees are as adopted by resolution of the City Council and shall accompany the permit application. If any sign -is placed: erected, or installed without first obtaining a sign permit, then the permit feeshall be the amount equal to two (2) times the permit fee. 3. Re l is a cf applications. The in-speetions community development department shall consider approvale of all sign perinit applications, except that applications for approval of permits for advertising, signs, pylon signs and any sign requiring .a variance shall be, submitted to the Council for final approval. Freestanding signs exceeding seven (7) feet in height shall require a footing and foundation inspection by the protective inspections division and all tlbuilding code requirements shall be met. 4. Return of the: fees. In the event said application shall be denied, the City shall return the applicant's permit fee, less a reasonable amount determined by the Council which shall be retained as an administrative cost. Section 2. Eagan City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including 'Penalty for Violation"' and Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption and publication according to law. ATTEST: CITY OF EAGAN City Council 1 1??5 Pf i. \? It oo a??d I?z &S AGENDA CITY OF EAGAN REGULAR MEETING OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER DECEMBER 4, 2006 A. CALL TO ORDER B. ADOPT AGENDA C. APPROVE MINUTES D. OLD BUSINESS 1. CEDAR GROVE REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT - Direction Regarding Status of Core Area Development Agreement with Schafer Richardson E. NEW BUSINESS F. OTHER BUSINESS G. ADJOURNMENT i31 Agenda Information Memo Eagan Economic Development Authority Meeting December 4, 2006 NOTICE OF CONCURRENT ACTIONS 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 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 November 9, 2006 EDA meeting as presented or modified. ATTACIEWENTS: • Minutes of the November 9, 2006 EDA meeting on pages _? 3 ?1 . MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE EAGAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Eagan, Minnesota November 9, 2006 A meeting of the Eagan Economic Development Authority was held on Thursday, November 9, 2006 at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were President Geagan, Commissioner Fields, Commissioner Tilley, Commissioner Carlson and Commissioner Maguire. Also present were Executive Director Hedges, Community Development Director Hohenstein, City Planner Ridley, Director of Public Works Colbert, and City Attorney Dougherty. ADOPT AGENDA Commissioner Tilley moved, Commissioner Fields seconded a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 APPROVE MINUTES Commissioner Tilley moved, Commissioner Fields seconded a motion to adopt a resolution approving the minutes of the September 5, 2006 meeting as presented. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 OLD BUSINESS CEDAR GROVE REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT UPDATE REGARDING STATUS OF CORE AREA REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH SCHAFER RICHARDSON Community Development Director Hohenstein provided an update on the status of the TIF Development Agreement between the City and Cedar Grove Development Corp for the redevelopment of the core area of the Cedar Grove Redevelopment District. Commissioner Carlson moved, Commissioner Fields seconded a motion to receive an update on the status of the TIF Development Agreement between the City and Cedar Grove Development Corporation for the redevelopment of the core area of the Cedar Grove Redevelopment District, and directed further review by the Finance Committee. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 159 NEW BUSINESS NORTHEAST EAGAN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT COLLATERAL ASSIGNMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND MG EAGAN, LLC TO LASALLE BANK Community Development Director Hohenstein discussed the proposed collateral assignment of the development agreement between the City and MG Eagan, LLC to LaSalle Bank. Commissioner Carlson moved, Commissioner Tilley seconded a motion to adopt a resolution to consent to the collateral assignment of the Development Agreement between the City and MG Eagan, LLC to M&I Marshall & Ilsey Bank and to authorize the EDA President and Executive Director to execute the appropriate documents. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Tilley moved, Commissioner Fields seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Date Thomas Hedges, Executive Director i?o Agenda Memo Eagan Economic Development Authority Meeting December 4, 2006 1. CEDAR GROVE REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT - DIRECTION REGARDING STATUS OF CORE AREA REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH SCHAFER RICHARDSON ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To provide staff and the City Attorney with direction regarding the TIF Development Agreement between the City and Cedar Grove Development Corp to: • Approve the Termination of Development Agreement. Or • Find Cedar Grove Development Corp to be in default of the development agreement and authorize a notice of default to be sent to the developer. Or • To provide such other direction as may be appropriate. FACTS (New Information in Bold): • The City has taken steps to bring about the redevelopment of the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area, including public improvements, environmental reviews, comprehensive plan and zoning modifications and the execution of development agreements that are resulting in the construction of new private development consistent with the City's plans for the area. • Under the TIF Development Agreement between the City and Cedar Grove Development Corp., which was approved by the EDA and City Council at its meeting of January 17, 2006 and amended on May 16, 2006, the developer and the City set out dates for several actions that will lead up to the commencement of the redevelopment of the core area. They include dates for the submission of a Phase I Site Plan, submission of a development application, submission of written affirmation of an intent to proceed with the development and a deadline for the purchase of the Cedarvale Mall by the developer from the City. • As the Developer's staff proceeded with preparation of the Phase I Site Plan and approached the deadlines in the May 16 amendment, they identified issues that they wanted to address prior to proceeding with the submittals. Those issues relate generally to the results of an updated market study, additional input from prospective commercial tenants about the layout of the commercial segments of the property and project cost analyses. 141 • The Developer requested and the City approved a Second Amendment of the Development Agreement on July 18, 2006 that extended the deadline for submission of the Phase I Site Plan to October 23, 2006. • In the meantime, the City proceeded with the acquisition of the Cedarvale Mall and the tenant relocation activities and continues to negotiate for the acquisition of other properties in the Redevelopment Area. • A Phase I Site Plan has not been received. • At its meeting of November 9, 2006, the EDA received the attached letter and memo regarding the status of the development agreement and referred the matter to the City Council Finance Committee for review and recommendation. The Finance Committee is recommending that the development agreement be terminated. The City Attorney has prepared an agreement to terminate the development agreement and has submitted it to the developer for consideration. • If the agreement has been executed by the developer in advance of Monday's EDA meeting, it will be in order for action by the EDA and City Council. If the agreement has not been executed by the developer, the EDA and City Council may consider declaring the developer in default and authorize a notice of default to the developer. The developer has 30 days to cure the default. • If the agreement is terminated, staff would propose to request direction for next steps to proceed with the redevelopment of the area at a future EDA meeting. ATTACHMENTS: • Termination Agreement on pages w 3r j `t 0 • Finance Committee meeting notes on pages • Developer's letter on pages l_ through l 50 • Staff memo on pages 1,51 through 15 4 • Area map on page 155 • Approved site plan on page 14z TERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS TERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made this _ day of , 2006, by and between EAGAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "EDA"); CITY OF EAGAN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"); and CEDAR GROVE DEVELOPMENT CORP., a Minnesota corporation (the "Master Developer"). The EDA, City and Master Developer are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Parties." WHEREAS, the Parties entered into a Development Agreement dated January 17, 2006; a Supplement to the Development Agreement dated January 17, 2006; a First Amendment to the Development Agreement dated May 16, 2006; and a Second Amendment to the Development Agreement dated July 18, 2006 (collectively the "Development Agreement") relating to Tax Increment Financing District No. 1; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to terminate the Development Agreement and release each other from any further obligations under the Development Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and obligations of the EDA, the City and the Master Developer, the Parties hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. TERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. The Parties hereby agree that the Development Agreement is hereby terminated in all respects and each party is hereby relieved of any further rights or obligations under the Development Agreement. 143 EAGAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a Minnesota municipal corporation By Pat Geagan Its: President By Thomas L. Hedges Its: Executive Director CITY OF EAGAN, a Minnesota municipal corporation By Pat Geagan Its: Mayor By Maria Petersen Its: City Clerk CEDAR GROVE DEVELOPMENT CORP., a Minnesota corporation By Its 2 144 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 2006 by Pat Geagan and Maria Petersen, the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Eagan, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 2006 by Pat Geagan and Thomas L. Hedges, the President and Executive Director of the Eagan Economic Development Authority, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ 2006 by , the Development Corp., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public 3 day of , of Cedar Grove i u5 THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: SEVERSON, SHELDON, DOUGHERTY & MOLENDA, P.A. 7300 West 147th Street, Suite 600 Apple Valley, MN 55124 (952) 432-3136 (RBB: 206-23508) 14(0 Meeting Notes Finance Committee Meeting November 14, 2006 Attendance: Mayor Geagan, Councilmember Carlson, City Administrator Hedges, Assistant City Attorney Bauer, Fiscal Consultant Inman, and Director of Administrative Services VanOverbeke. Director of Community Development Hohenstein participated via speaker telephone. 1. Agenda Adoption The agenda was adopted as presented. II. Cedar Grove Redevelopment District I Discuss Options for the Development of the Core Area of the Cedar Grove Redevelopment District In response to a question from Councilmember Carlson regarding the accuracy of the financial information presented by Schaffer-Richardson (S-R), City Administrator Hedges responded that the projections as presented were the basis for the suggestion from S-R that the City needs to commit more money to the project either through assuming more costs or by further writing down the land costs for S-R. City Administrator Hedges provided additional background and explained numerous changes in the potential development from the time S-R was selected as the master developer. Those changes include market conditions for housing and the resulting implications for the housing/commercial mix, City ownership of more than half of the property combined with continuing acquisition efforts, successful relocation of numerous businesses, potential opportunities for more senior housing, and improvements in other market sectors. He further explained the difficulty for the City and consultants to determine if more money/developer incentives are necessary or appropriate without more detailed concept plans that would be feasible, acceptable, and market supportable. This additional information has not been provided by S-R. The Finance Committee expressed agreement that it may be necessary for the City to consider potential modifications to the original redevelopment vision as reflected in the early S-R concept plans, but emphasized that the overall redevelopment vision should not change with each market fluctuation, regardless of who the development partner may be. The Finance Committee reiterated the City's commitment to continue this redevelopment opportunity either with S-R or with a new development partner. In the event S-R is no longer the master developer they would be welcome to continue participation in the project as a developer of components matching their strengths. i In response to a question from Mayor Geagan, City Administrator Hedges noted that Burnsville's Heart of the City Project has also experienced some challenges in responding to the market and that the Cub Foods and ancillary retail development has helped jump start certain components of Heart of the City development. Financial Consultant Inman also noted that the questions and relationship between S-R and Eagan are not unique to this redevelopment project. In general, it seems to be the rule rather than the exception that the first master developer does not see the project through to completion. Assistant City Attorney Bauer was directed to contact the S-R attorney to discuss a potential termination of the development agreement per the letter from Brad Schafer dated November 2, 2006. The Finance Committee stressed that future communications and negotiations should emphatically emphasize that the City is committed to continuing the project and is moving ahead with the redevelopment. Mr. Inman was directed to informally talk to others regarding potential interest in becoming the master developer on this project and in getting their response to what type of overall project they see as market feasible. The Finance Committee stressed the importance of continuing to move the redevelopment along and to engage other potential developers as soon as possible and practical. The Finance Committee discussed the need to continue aggressively pursuing the acquisition of property in light of the new eminent domain legislation and the resulting deadlines grandfathered into this project. The Finance Committee directed that this item be brought before the full City Council for consideration on December 4, 2006. III. Discuss Funding Alternatives for Environmental Clean Up Required as a Result of the Site Assessment Project City Administrator Hedges briefly noted potential sites in the Cedar Grove Redevelopment District that might require environmental clean up and that the City has been pursuing all available avenues for cost sharing. More site specific information will become available as actual development proceeds. Mr. Inman also noted potential revenue sources related to TIF to assist with clean up costs. IV. Homestead Market Value Credit City Administrator Hedges updated the Finance Committee on staff progress in surveying other communities regarding final 2007 property tax levies and whether or not cities will include full or partial MVHC levies. He also noted that the item is on the upcoming agenda for the Operating Committee of the Municipal Legislative Commission. Staff will be providing additional information to the City Council as part of the Truth in Taxation Hearing and the budget and Levy approval process. V. Adjournment 14b Schafer lilt Richardson November 2, 2006 Mayor and City Council: Thank you for the opportunity to work on the Cedar Grove project over the past several years. We.have enjoyed working with you, your staff, and the City's consultants to make the redevelopment of the Cedarvale Mall and the surrounding 70 acre area an asset to the City of Eagan and the region. The site plan which you saw and. approved as part of the development agreement turned out not to be supportable in the current market. Specifically, • Market conditions for for-sale housing have worsened substantially. As you know, condominiums and townhomes were a large part of earlier site plans. • The amount of freestanding commercial space - which is more feasible than residential space in the current market - needs to be increased. However, it is limited by traffic constraints and the City's design guidelines for the area. In an effort to make the project more market supportable, we made several changes to the proforma: • We replaced some condo units with rental units, • We replaced condo units with senior housing units, and • We increased the amount of commercial square footage. We do not feel that the project as it is currently structured is feasible. Over the past few months, we have spent considerable time testing different mixes of land uses to attempt to create a redevelopment plan which is market supportable and successful. Some of these changes are: We increased the land price for townhome lots, We increased the land price for commercial land, and We increased the market values for the townhome units and commercial land, which increases the amount of TIF available. After all these changes, the project proforma still has a considerable financial shortfall, and it puts too much risk on us as the developer. The project currently has a gap of over $2 million, and the gap for Phase I - the most critical phase for financing and marketing the project - has a much larger gap still. ® Real Estate Development 500 Banks Building 615 First Avenue NE 11 Construction ® Investment 10 Leasing & Management Fax 612.359.5858 www.sr-re.com Minneapolis, AKIN 55413 Phone 612.371.3000 149 Mayor and City Council November 2, 2006 Page 2 We believe that additional financial assistance from the City is required to make the project work. We ask that you consider: • Carrying the land acquisition costs or providing a loan to us for this, • Waiving park and trail fees, • Paying for relocation expenses, • Paying for off-site traffic improvement costs, or • Other ways to reduce project costs and/or carrying costs. We are not set that any of these is necessarily the answer, but additional assistance is needed to make the project feasible for us. We hope to make the Cedar Grove project work, but we are prepared to work with you to part company amicably in the event it does not. We believe the project could be a great one, but it may not be the right project at this time. Sincerely, Brad Schafer President '-Z;7?- 150 A I City of Eap Memo TO: MAYOR GEAGAN AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 2006 SUBJECT: CEDAR GROVE CORE AREA DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT UPDATE AND REQUEST FOR DIRECTION The purpose of this memo is to outline the status of the Cedar Grove Core Area Development Agreement between the City and the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Corporation, the Schafer Richardson partnership that was formed to act as the master developer for the core area of the Cedar Grove Redevelopment District. Overview This matter is before the City Council and EDA at this time for several reasons: • The developer has not submitted Phase I Plans by the October 23, 2006 deadline prescribed in the amended development agreement and it is necessary for the City to determine how to proceed in light of that circumstance. • Market conditions have shifted since the development agreement and preliminary concept plan were approved in January, 2006, which has diminished the market supportability of the approved mix and density of uses. In particular, the market for new suburban condominiums, which made up a substantial segment of the preliminary concept plan, has flattened. • Despite the fact that City staff and the developer have worked to refine the assumptions projected for the redevelopment, the financial proforma for the project retains a financing gap of $2 million to $3 million. The analysis presumes that the core area project will be self-financing through TIF, with the exception of the City's obligation to use resources from elsewhere to cover costs such as environmental remediation, affordable housing and prior transportation improvements. • The refinement of some assumptions reduce the gap, but they are offset by the inability to assure the number and timing of construction of the condominium units. Since the number and density of this housing type represented a substantial amount of the new tax base in the revenue 151 assumptions, it will be necessary to consider alternatives to fill the gap. These may be in the form of additional public capital investment and/or the consideration of some land use alternatives not previously included in the plans for the area. Vision and Implementation The City has made a substantial commitment to the redevelopment of the area in the form of public improvements, environmental reviews, comprehensive planning and zoning amendments, transit planning and other activities. The City has also acquired well over half of the properties to be redeveloped in the core area. In addition, private development investment has occurred consistent with the redevelopment vision in the Keystone and Nicols Ridge developments and the McDonalds restaurant reconstruction. Further, a number of businesses relocated within the area anticipating the mixed use development pattern. The staff and the City's redevelopment consultant believe that the redevelopment of the area can occur within the general concepts defined for the area, namely a mixture. of commercial and residential land uses, uniform and cohesive design elements, pedestrian focus, transit orientation, public greenspace and structured parking, where necessary to support necessary development densities. In order for the project to be market supportable, however, it appears necessary to consider land use alternatives outlined below to complement or supplement these new urban elements. While a further alternative would be to consider a more dramatic shift to a different mix of uses or redevelopment focus, that does not appear warranted because of the development that has occurred to date, the practical limits of the current traffic improvements and the proximity of the future Cedar Avenue BRT that will support and benefit from higher density residential development. Market Conditions One of the key assumptions of the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Project was that the uses and mixture of uses would need to be market supportable. For the project to be successful in the future, the vision for the area will need to be clear enough to assure its quality, but flexible enough to incorporate those specific uses that have the greatest opportunity to succeed. The approved development concept includes 974 housing units, including 553 condominium units. New condominium development has flattened in the region and, while markets are cyclical and are expected to recover over the term of a major redevelopment such as this, aggressive development of condominiums in the early phases of the project is not market supportable at this time. V32-. While the flattening of the residential market crosses housing types, it is not as pronounced in the townhome and row home markets, such that a mixed use project for the area should be feasible, but its specific characteristics may need to change in the short run. A complete a shift toward lower density development results.in decreased overall property value and, by extension, reduces the TIF available to underwrite project costs. This situation gave rise to discussions of land use alternatives. Land Use Alternatives To complement and retain the City's redevelopment general vision for the area, staff and the developer discussed whether market segments that are stronger at the present time, including retail, office, senior housing of various types and rental housing, could be integrated further into the mix of uses at Cedar Grove. The developer has prepared revised proformas for several scenarios under which a portion of the higher density residential development would be replaced by a greater square footage of retail and office development and some of the higher density housing would shift to senior and rental products. One of the scenarios discussed is the addition of a certain amount of traditional, free standing retail development in the Gateway area of the development. In this scenario, the mixed use development previously shown at the gateway would shift to the west and the residential development in the western part of the district would contract to accommodate the change. This approach is similar to developments in Maple Grove and Blaine that have a combination of a more traditional suburban development pattern that functions as an anchor for the new urban portions of the project, while generating additional tax base to support the remainder of the project. To the extent that they were analyzed, a financing gap of some scale remained for the core area project in each of the scenarios. Concept Plan and Phase I Site Plan The developer has indicated that it is not possible to proceed with implementation of the approved preliminary concept plan. In addition, he has indicated that he is not prepared to pay for the preparation of a graphic representation of an alternative concept plan, until the City agrees to offset the gap in the financial proforma. The challenge is that the City's level of financial support for a project in the area has always been predicated on the proposed development conforming sufficiently to the City's development expectations and the design guidelines. This can only be determined through an analysis of a concept plan and the more refined plans and graphics contemplated in the Phase Site Plans. The Council will need to determine whether it wishes to proceed with direction to identify 153 funds to close the gap, in the absence of those plans, or to provide other direction with respect to the redevelopment of the Cedar Grove Area. EDA/Council Direction Alternatives for direction are outlined in the cover memo for this business item. Understanding that market support does not currently exist for a development concept that relies heavily on condominium development, it is clear that it is necessary to identify an alternative concept plan to form the basis of the redevelopment activity and move forward with implementation of the next phases of the project. The issue is how best to accomplish that, whether in partnership with Schafer Richardson or by pursing other development partners for the project. Regardless of the direction chosen, the following factors are important to note. • The City now owns more than half of the property within the'redevelopment district. • The . Council has given general direction to continue to acquire the remainder of the properties in the core area. • A substantial number of businesses associated with those properties have been successfully relocated and others are in the process of pursuing relocation options. • While the downturn in the condominium market presents a challenge, the emergence of market demand in a number of other sectors offers options for alternative approaches to the redevelopment of the area. If the Council determines to move forward with Schafer Richardson, it will be necessary to provide specific relative to challenge described in the Concept Plan and Phase I Site Plan discussion above. If the Council considers an alternative to part company with Schafer Richardson, it will be necessary to pursue another development partner or partners in the immediate future. Co unity Development Director Cc: Gene VanOverbeke, Director of Administrative Services 15U EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY The property is the property described and outlined as Cedar Grove Properties Development Area on the attached map, and located in the City of Eagan, Section 19, Township 27, Range 23. /G&4? 1 ?5-5 EXHIBIT B Development Concept and Schedule Future Hotel Heritage carriage 5-Story Transit Condominiums: Town Homes; Housing Station 't 2-Stow 3-Story r 5-StmyM ti we Park Housing Commercal ViilageFtats 3-Story Pisa! Jensen's Transit Station Commercal Ice Rink Supper Club & f / t ! 5-Story Mbwd Use :... Housing over + 3f ••:«t ?" Commercial Bowrurg ?_=-- 5=iytaiusc Horsing over co mnerew Cedar Grove Concept Plan Fa?nMinnesota NavemberWOS ,and illsan!r!c Neirdea6af Canbge 26S unite oevslovrrient Nei a MAW Sne,e„ry Ran 7m un9e units Haaninglt-SUry. 1G5 4M mutngiM4ed Use tl ammecial weA m.edUie Deedopmere Eut-MalnS*eer' Smnmarl Tnns*Cm East Mtred Use TOW 2SSO5 Sq i[ sqk i5,0@fga i z6 SC aker I{ e MpB- ...- a n • •?+ Tod _ 974 tanks i?, SC(32fer- s Cedar Grove Concept Plan - Phasing Scn to ra mMi nesota DAIM ,Stardm and ti n.bC. Novemb--2095 B-I OU-9? 15(a Agenda Information Memo Eagan Economic Development Authority Meeting December 4, 2006 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. 15? 41 City of Eaali 2007 General Fund Budget and Property Tax Levy Truth-in-Taxation public hearing December 4, 2006 Eagan Municipal Center Introduction Each year, as part of the budget preparation process, most Minnesota cities are required by law to hold a public hearing to receive comments on the types and levels of services proposed for the coming year and the anticipated costs of those services. These public hearings are referred to as Truth-in- Taxation (TnT) hearings. Specifically, the proposed budget and proposed property tax levy, and their percentage increases from the current year levels, are to be discussed at the TnT hearing. The public hearing portion of the budget process is important as it offers residents and local business owners the opportunity to provide feedback on the types of City services they expect and are willing to support. Even before TnT hearings were required by the State, Eagan's City Council had established a tradition of communicating its budget priorities to residents and providing a forum for public comment. We expect and welcome public comment as a constructive part of the budget process. Public input, together with the City Council's experience and City staffs expertise, help form the spending and cost management priorities for the City. Eagan Exempt from TnT This Year Under State law, a city is exempt from the requirement to hold a Truth-in- Taxation public hearing if its levy increase is within the inflationary threshold established by the State. For the payable 2007 levy, the State's inflationary allowance, referred to as the implicit price deflator, is 6.42%. Eagan's levy increase is 3.47%. For the second year in a row, because the levy increase is lower than the implicit price deflator, Eagan is exempted from the TnT hearing requirement this year. Nevertheless, the City Council has elected to hold a hearing, not only to receive public comment, but also to offer educational information to Eagan residents and business owners on the various services provided by the City and how they are financed. Background In Minnesota, property taxes provide a significant portion of the total funding for K-12 schools and City and County services. The purpose of tonight's hearing is to discuss only the portion of taxes that support City services, which is about one-quarter of a homeowner's total property taxes. The City Council does not control the amounts levied for K-12 schools or County services. Nor does the City establish the market value of a property, another factor affecting the change in total taxes; it is the responsibility of the Dakota County Assessor's office to establish each property's market value. Annual increases to residential property values for taxability purposes were restricted under State law for several years, but the resulting "limited market values" are now being phased out. The result of the phase-out-for those properties where actual value exceeds taxable value-is that taxable (i.e., limited) property values will be increasing at a faster pace than actual market values until the taxable value catches up to the actual value. The phase-out will be complete for taxes payable in 2009. For payable 2007, like last year, the increase in taxable market value was limited to the greater of (a) 15% over last year, or (b) 25% of the difference between the taxable value and actual value as determined by the County Assessor. We believe many homeowners are again seeing property value increases approaching 15% on this year's Proposed Property Tax statements. Quite often over the years, the State Legislature has imposed levy limits on cities. The payable 2007 levy will mark the third year in a row that the State has not imposed limits. Calculating City Portion of Taxes Although not broken down for the reader, the City of Eagan tax figure in the TnT Proposed Property Tax Statements has three components: 1) the amount based on tax capacity, 2) the amount based on market value, resulting from the Community Center referendum approved by voters in 2000; and 3) the market value homestead credit, which is applied to the tax-capacity portion of the property tax on a prorated basis. (The market value homestead credit does not apply to commercial/industrial property.) Tax Capacity-based Portion The graphics on pages 8 through 10 help illustrate how the amount based on tax capacity is calculated. Each property's tax capacity (a function of market value and property type) is multiplied by the City's tax capacity rate, which is derived from the dollar levy approved by the Council. The City portion of taxes on a residential property with a market value of $278,021 (City average for 2006) is calculated as follows: First ... Tax capacity of $278,021 home = $278,021 x 1 % = $2,780 Then ... Tax capacity-based taxes = $2,780 x.25239 (tax cap. rate) = $701.70 Market Value-based Portion In 2000, Eagan voters approved a bond referendum to fund development and construction of the Community Center in the Central Park area. The 20-year serial bonds were sold in 2001. Each year, the amount of the debt service payments is levied as part of the property tax. The market value tax rate for 2007 is .0001574. Calculation of the 2007 market value-based tax on the home is as follows: Market value-based taxes = $278,021 x .0001574 (MV rate) = $43.76. 2 Market Value Homestead Credit The TnT Proposed Property Tax Statement combines the tax capacity- based portion with the market value-based portion. For residential properties only, this total is then reduced by a homestead credit calculated according a formula set by the State (see page 8). In the example of the $278,021 home, the market value credit applied to the City portion of property taxes for a homestead in ISD 196 is $39.32. Only the bottom line total tax, or $706.14 in this example, would appear on the TnT statement. The three components are summarized here: Tax capacity-based tax $ 701.70 Market value-based tax 43.76 Market value homestead credit (39.32) Total City tax $ 706.14 2007 Property Tax Levy Because of the several billion dollar deficit it faced in 2003, the State Legislature enacted significant aid reductions to cities for 2004. Those reductions were subsequently extended into 2005 and 2006. Eagan lost its entire Local Government Aid (LGA) and Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC) allotments from the State-more than $1 million each year. While the MVHC is scheduled to be restored to cities in 2007 under current law, there is significant skepticism among many local governments about the State keeping its promise, based on recent history. Like most other cities who have suffered serious MVHC cuts, Eagan has prepared its 2007 budget under the assumption that such aid will not be restored, and therefore, has again proposed to levy additional taxes to replace the State aid. If, however, the State does reinstate MVHC payments, the City Council plans to use the funds to pay down a $1.2 million obligation for capital equipment costs related to the startup of the Dakota Communications Center (DCC), which is discussed later in the 2007 General Fund Budget section of this narrative. Operating Levy General Fund Major Street Fund Equipment Revolving Fund General Facilities Renewal/Replacement MVHC Total Operating Levy Market Value- Levy - Community Center bonds Total Levy Actual 2006 $ 18,225,400 1,188,392 862,324 127,629 1.153.562 21,557,307 1.202.093 $ 22,759,400 Proposed 2007 $ 19,067,200 1,247,812 905,440 134,010 950.100 22,304,562 1.198.523 $ 23,503,085 The total levy is up 3.3% from last year. 3 The net operating levy of $22,304,562 will be reduced by the MVHC estimate of $950,100 at the County, leaving a tax levy of $21,354,462 to be spread on the tax capacity of local property. 2007 GENERAL FUND BUDGET Expenditures Eagan's proposed 2007 General Fund budget is $25,449,300, an increase of $1,431,800, or 6.0%, from 2006. A significant portion of the increase is a result of "extraordinary" items that do not reflect a change in service levels. Examples of extraordinary items include energy costs over and above normal inflation and accounting changes in Recreation programming that "gross up" both revenues and expenditures in 2007. If the impact of the extraordinary items is eliminated, the resulting "apples-to-apples" comparison reflects a General Fund budget increase of only 4.4%. More than two-thirds of the overall increase is due to higher costs for existing personnel. Wage increases under union contracts, similar increases for non-union staff, annual salary steps, higher health insurance costs, and higher mandated State pension costs all contribute to the increase. The 2007 budget reflects a significant swing between personnel and non- personnel costs. With the newly-established Dakota Communications Center (DCC), a joint-powers partnership for emergency vehicle dispatching involving Dakota County and all cities therein, the City's existing emergency dispatcher personnel costs are replaced in 2007 by a dollar contribution to the DCC. The 2006 personnel costs of $828,800 are removed; in turn, a contribution for DCC operating costs of $853,600 is included in the 2007 operating budget. Apart from the reduction in dispatchers, the net increase in full-time- equivalent (FTE) positions is 1.55. A full-time clerical technician is proposed in the Recreation division as part of a department restructuring. A half-time recreation program supervisor is also proposed in association with the City's acceptance of the Eagan Art House Board's request to make Art House class offerings a part of the City's general recreation programming. (Art House revenues will offset most of the additional costs to the City.) Minor hour changes in two other positions-assistant to the City administrator and accountant essentially offset one another and account for the final .05 FTE increase. Excluding again the DCC contribution mentioned above, non-personnel costs such as parts/supplies, contracted services, and small capital equipment purchases are up in total by $452,300 over the prior year. 4 Revenues The 2007 budget is balanced. As with expenditures, total revenues are estimated to increase 6.0%. Property taxes allocated to the General Fund are up 4.6%. Expecting the State will once again withhold the entire MVHC in 2007, the City Council preliminarily elected to levy taxes for this reduction, as it did in 2005 and 2006. The funding of Eagan's General Fund operations remains heavily reliant on the property tax; 75% of total estimated revenues are from property taxes. With virtually no reliance on State aid to finance General Fund operations, Eagan will be less prone than most other cities to feel the effects of future State budget crises. User fees comprise the balance of General Fund revenues. The acquisition of the Art House programming noted earlier will add about $95,000 to the revenue budget. A comprehensive review of all other Recreation program revenues was conducted in 2006 by staff; as a result, new fees were recommended by the Advisory Parks Board and adopted by the City Council. The new recreation fee structure provides an additional $130,000 in projected revenues for 2007. No other significant fee increases are incorporated in the 2007 revenue estimates. 5 FREQUENTLYASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs) When it comes to answering FAQs, sometimes pictures say it better than words. The charts and tables on the following pages serve to answer the questions we are commonly asked: What share of my tax bill goes to the City? Page 7 - Pie chart illustrating where your property tax dollars go How is the City share of my tax bill calculated? Page 8 - Summary of three components of tax calculation Page 9 - Graphic of tax capacity-based tax calculation Page 10 - Determining tax capacity of a property Page 11- Determining the City's tax capacity rate How are my City tax dollars being spent? Page 12 - Pie chart reflecting allocation of 2007 property tax for a $278,021 house What other revenue sources are used to pay for the proposed budget? Page 13 - Pie chart of total revenues by source Page 14 - Comparative summary of revenues for 2004 and 2005 actual, and 2006 and 2007 (as proposed) budget. What amount of spending is proposed for 2007, and how does it compare to prior years? Page 15 - Pie chart and table of major expenditure categories Page 16 - Comparative summary of expenditures for 2004 and 2005 actual, and 2006 and 2007 (as proposed) budget. How do my City taxes compare with those of other Metro-area suburbs? Page 17 - Bar chart comparing Eagan with 17 other area cities 6 Where will your 2007 property tax dollars go? Calculation is for residential property located in ISD 196. County 25% Schools -- Other 13%. Schools - Voter- Approved 32% Other 41 7 Calculating the City Portion of Property Taxes There are three basic components to the City tax figure shown in your Proposed Property Tax Statement: 1) Tax capacity-based taxes This is the more complicated part of the calculation. See graphics on pages 9-11. 2) Market value-based taxes In a 2000 referendum election, voters authorized the City to issue bonds to develop the Central Park area and construct a Community Center there. Bonds in the amount of $13,970,000 were issued in 2001. Bond payments are made from a tax levy that is based on a property's market value, calculated like this: MV of property X MV tax rate MV-based taxes 3) Market Value Credit applied to City portion (pertains to residential properties only) Beginning with the payable 2002 property taxes, the State Legislature instituted a market value credit for homestead property taxpayers. The credit reduces the property taxes. It is calculated as 0.4% of the market value of a homestead up to a maximum credit of $304 for a home valued at $76,000. For homestead values over $76,000, the credit phases out, on a straight-line basis, to zero for a home valued at $414,000. The total credit for each homestead is applied on a pro-rata basis to City, County, School District and other components of the property taxes. 8 Tax Capacity Portion of Property Taxes Property value Dakota Cty Assessor Total taxes to be generated by levy Influencing factors: General Fd expenditures Debt service Allocation to capital proj. State aids Other non-tax revenues x Class rate % State Legislature NNW Total tax capacity available to generate taxes Influencing factors: Development/growth Tax class rate changes Fiscal disparities TIF X City tax capacity rate for all properties 9 Determining Your Property's Tax Capacity Property value X Class rate % Property Class Rates 2006 2007 Residential (both homestead and non-homestead) First $500,000 in value 1.00% 1.00% Over $500,000 1.25% 1.25% Commercial/Industrial First $150,000 in value 1.50% 1.50% Over $150,000 2.00% 2.00% Example 1: Residential homestead valued at $278,021: 2007 tax capacity = $278,021 x 1.00% = $2,780 Example 2: Residential homestead valued at $600,000: $500,000 x 1.00% _ $5,000 $100,000 x 1.25% = 1.250 2007 tax capacity = $6,250 10 Determining the City's Tax Capacity Rate Total taxes to be generated by • levy 2006 2007 Property tax levy Operating Debt service Subtotal $ 21,557 307 $ 22,304,562 0 0 21,557 307 22,304,562 Less: Fiscal Disparities Distribution Net local levy (1,656,452) (1,761,247) $ 19,900,855 $ 20,543,315 Total tax capacity available to generate taxes % change 3.5% 3.5% 6.3% 3.2% 2006 2007 % change Total tax capacity $ 85,160,030 $ 93,122,055 9.3% Less: Fiscal Disparities Contribution (10,064,239) (10,735,570) 6.7% Tax increment (570,892) (991,687) 73.7% Net local tax capacity $ 74,524,899 $ 81,394,798 9.2% 2006 tax capacity rate = 19,900,855 /74,524,899 = .26704 2007 tax capacity rate = 20,543,315 / 81,394,798 = .25239 11 How are my City tax dollars allocated? $706 in taxes on a $278,021 (avg) Eagan home Capital Equip MV $27 Homestead Credit Comm Ctr Contingency $27 Gen Facil. R/R Debt <$1 $4 $44 Major Street Genl Govt $37 Bldgs $14 Parks/Rec $95 Genl Govt $131 Public Works $73 Public Safety $254 12 2007 General Fund Revenues $ 25,449,300 Other 2.9% Recreation Charges Charges for intergov't 3.7% Revenue Services 4.5% 2.2% Program Revenues 5.7% Licenses & Permits 42% Transfers 1.8% 13 2007 BUDGET GENERAL FUND COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF REVENUES 2004 2005 2006 2007 Actual Actual Budget Proposed General Property Taxes $ 16,214,910 $ 17,292,300 $ 18,225,400 $ 19,067,200 Licenses 250,736 248,507 261,600 260,900 Permits 1,010,638 1,057,785 972,200 818,600 Intergovernmental Rev 662,375 591,389 595,500 568,900 Charges for Services 1,187,572 1,310,369 1,019,200 1,157,000 Recreation Charges 581,092 509,100 616,300 935,200 Fines & Forfeits 271,447 287,149 268,300 282,100 Other Revenues 268,989 381,869 350,200 459,500 Program Revenues 1,100,221 1,309,569 1,314,200 1,447,100 Transfers 369,920 402,392 394,600 452,800 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 21,917,900 $ 23,390,429 $ 24,017,500 $ 25,449,300 14 2007 General Fund Allocation of Expenditures Building Maint 2.5% Parks & Rec 16.7% Contingency 0.1% General Govt 23.1% Public Works 12.9% 15 2007 Comparative Summary of Expenditures General Fund Budget 2004 20057 1 2006 2007 Budget Actual Actual Budget Proposed GENERAL GOVERNMENT 01 Mayor & Council $ 108,380 $ 112,577 $ 121,900 $ 127,500 02 Administration 705,281 532,276 502,100 485,200 03 Information Technologies 907,676 1,135,655 1,060,000 1,141,400 04 City Clerk 304,334 225,887 294,900 229,000 05 Finance 767,946 821,927 900,400 955,200 06 Legal 387,499 478,504 400,700 458,000 07 Comm Dev-Planning/ED 675,316 820,341 813,900 880,100 08 Comm Dev-Inspections 852,828 925,919 999,300 906,300 09 Communications 369,985 401,639 394,500 452,800 10 Human Resources With Admin 231,800 240,500 241,900 Gen Govt Total 5,079,245 5,686,525 5,728,200 5,877,400 PUBLIC SAFETY 11 Police Administration 477,100 Investigations 1,453,100 Patrol 5,739,600 Support Services 2,162,800 Total Police .7,735,803 8,778,306 9,334,500 9,832,600 12 Fire Administration 961,800 Operations 173,800 Inspections/prevent 228,600 Support 177,500 Total Fire 1,025,743 1,100,821 1,218,500 1,541,700 Public Safety Total 8,761,546 9,879,127 10,553,000 11,374,300 PUBLIC WORKS 21 Public Works/Engineering 1,108,634 1,206,353 1,315,900 1,138,900 22 Streets 1,352,192 1,412,796 1,454,000 1,617,400 24 Central Svces. Maint. 440,601 441,541 485,900 531,800 Public Works Total 2,901,427 3,060,690 3,255,800 3,288,100 PARKS & RECREATION Parks & Recreation 30 Recreation 2,053,900 31 Parks 1,737,200 Total Parks and Rec. 3,053,375 3,246,188 3,429,000 3,791,100 32 Tree Conservation 321,180 386,240 408,400 464,100 Parks & Rec Total 3,374,555 3,632,428 3,837,400 4,255,200 GENL GOVT BLDG MAINT 33 Building Maintenance 583,442 647,788 616,200 639,400 Total Expenditures- General Fund $ 20,700,215 22,906,558 23,990,600 25,434,400 41 Contingency--undesignated - 26,900 14,900 Transfer Out 1,575,000 - - Total Expenditures + Contingency $24.481.558 S 24.017.500 $ 25.449.300 16 E t 629 b ?. 1 69f w 7©6 784 -If 796 809 810 860 880 904 910 921 979 f 1,021 1,04 1,130 1 I 1,171 1,329 17