Packet - Faribault

City Council Joint Committee
City Hall - Council Chambers - 6 p.m.
1. 1. Agenda
Documents:
1. 2016-06-07 JOINT AGENDA.PDF
2. 2. MnDOT/Trunk Highway Projects
Documents:
2. MNDOT-TRUNK HIGHWAY PROJECTS.PDF
3. 3. Illicit Discharge Connection Discussion
Documents:
3. ILLICIT DISCHARGE CONNECTION DISCUSSION.PDF
4. 4. Franchise Fee History Review
Documents:
4. FRANCHISE FEE HISTORY REVIEW.PDF
5. 5. Sale Of City Parcel Request
Documents:
5. SALE OF CITY PARCEL REQUEST.PDF
6. 6. Extension Of Off-Sale Liquor Store Hours Request
Documents:
6. EXTENSION OF OFF-SALE LIQUOR STORE HOURS REQUEST.PDF
Please contact the City Administrator's Office if you need special accommodations while attending
this meeting
1.
City Council Joint Committee
Tuesday, June 07, 2016 at 6:00 pm
City Hall – Council Chambers
AGENDA
1.
Call to Order
2.
MnDOT/Trunk Highway Project Discussion
3.
Illicit Discharge Connection Discussion
4.
Franchise Fee History Review
5.
Sale of City Parcel Request
6.
Extension of Off-Sale Liquor Store Hours Request
7.
Adjourn
Please contact the City Administrator’s Office if you need special accommodations while attending this meeting
2.
Council Committee Memorandum
TO:
Joint Council Committee
THROUGH:
FROM:
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
Brian Anderson, City Administrator
Tim Murray, City Engineer
June 7, 2016
MnDOT/Trunk Highway Projects
- T.H. 60 Improvements (2019)
- T.H. 298/T.H. 299 Turnback Proposal
- T.H. 60 Frontage Road Releases
T.H. 60 Improvements (2019)
The City and MnDOT have a cooperative construction project
scheduled in 2019 for T.H. 60 (4th Street NW), generally consisting of a
complete reconstruction from Central Avenue to the Canadian Pacific
Railway, and a bituminous mill and overlay from the railroad to Hulett
Avenue. In accordance with the Letter of Intent executed last year, the
City will serve as the lead agency for the project, and is required to follow
the MnDOT Highway Project and Development Process (HPDP), MnDOT
Road Design Manual, MnDOT Technical Memoranda, and other MnDOT
standards as applicable.
There are some technical components of the work that City staff are
not qualified to design, such as the traffic signals. Also, the procedural
requirements for delivering this project to comply with MnDOT standards
are extensive, leading me to believe that using a consultant familiar with
those procedures will be more effective and efficient. Lastly, while not an
absolute requirement, MnDOT would prefer that the plans are prepared
using MicroStation software, which the City does not use (we use
AutoCAD®).
It is proposed that the City issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ)
for consultant services for this project. This is different than a Request for
Proposals (RFP), in that a specific scope of services would not be defined
up front, but rather a consultant viewed to be the most qualified to deliver
the project would be selected. After that, separate work orders would be
negotiated for specific portions of the project, with compensation identified.
This type of approach has been used in the past for bridge and airport
project consultant services.
Page 1 of 4
If the Council is agreeable to this approach, an RFQ would be brought
back to the City Council for approval and would then be sent to targeted
firms (3 or 4 firms). In accordance with MnDOT policy, the consultant
selected is required to be on MnDOT’s prequalified consultant list, identified
for the various types of work they would perform (if interested in seeing
the list, a copy of the 47-page document is available in Engineering). It
should be noted, that the City Engineering Department will still be doing
some of the preliminary work (such as topographic surveying) as well as
some of the design work (for example, the replacement of the municipal
sanitary sewer and watermain).
T.H. 298/T.H. 299 Turnback Proposal
Based upon the most recent meeting with MnDOT staff regarding the
proposed turnbacks of T.H. 298 and T.H. 299 (6th Avenue SE/NE), we will
not be able to get T.H. 298 added to our Municipal State Aid (MSA) system
as a trunk highway turnback. We would get T.H. 299 (6th Avenue NE) from
T.H. 60 to Ravine Street on our MSA system as trunk highway turnback
mileage. At this point, the City needs to determine if we want to accept
both of the roadways (per MnDOT, it is both or neither) as turnbacks. As
previously negotiated, MnDOT would make a one-time payment of $450k
- $500k to the City.
As discussed in previous meetings, the benefit for the City of
accepting these turnbacks is that it gives the City the authority for the use
and condition of these streets. The negative is primarily financial, in that
the City will have the perpetual responsibility for the cost of maintaining
and improving these roadways, which now lies with the State. While we
can specially assess for future improvements, to include State facility
properties based upon level of benefit (even though they don’t have direct
frontage on the roadways), the State is not obligated to pay those special
assessments, as given by Statute 435.19, Subd. 2:
Page 2 of 4
If the City is willing to accept the turnbacks, then MnDOT’s next step
will be to schedule a meeting with the State Academies (and possibly
Correctional Facility) management to determine their position on those
portions of the trunk highways contained within the campuses being
released from the trunk highway system. As such, those facilities would
then assume maintenance and improvement responsibilities for those
segments. Per MnDOT staff, the way things would be processed are that
the entire highway would be turned back to the City, and then the City
would release/vacate those portions which are inside the campuses. We
would want to have an agreement in place with the State facilities of their
acceptance of the vacations prior to accepting the turnbacks.
T.H. 60 Frontage Road Releases
Trunk Highway 60 was originally constructed in approximately 1954
on its current alignment between T.H. 21 (Lyndale Avenue) and the
Canadian Pacific Railroad. The project included the construction of two
frontage roads. One is on the south side, between T.H. 21 and Lincoln
Avenue, serving the commercial properties located there. The other is on
the north side, between Lincoln Avenue and Irving Avenue (identified
locally as 5th Street NW), serving numerous residential properties. As part
of the Cooperative Construction Agreement (No. C-1196) for the
improvements of the frontage (service) roads, the City agreed to take on
complete and perpetual maintenance responsibility, including the storm
sewers.
As the City is already responsible for the maintenance of these
frontage roads, it is recommended that we have MnDOT release those
portions of the T.H. 60 right-of-way in which they are located. That will
place the control for the management of those corridors with the City, and
will eliminate any confusion over the responsibility for their condition. This
would be similar to how the Grant Street frontage roads along T.H. 60 to
the west were handled back when those were originally constructed with
improvements to T.H. 60 west of T.H. 21 (those portions of the T.H. 60
right-of-way were released to the City following the construction of the
frontage roads).
In reviewing this matter with MnDOT staff, they have instructed that
the City Council should approve a resolution requesting/supporting the
release of these frontage (service) roads to the City. They would then
prepare the necessary documents to describe and transfer those portions
of the T.H. 60 right-of-way to the City.
Page 3 of 4
Attachments:
T.H. 60 – 2019 Improvements Location Map
Letter of Intent for T.H. 60 – 2019 Improvements
T.H. 298/T.H. 299 Location Map
T.H. 60 Frontage Roads Location Map
Page 4 of 4
3.
Council Committee Memorandum
TO:
Joint Council Committee
FROM:
THROUGH:
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
Brian J. Anderson, City Administrator
Travis Block, Public Works Director
June 7, 2016
Illicit Discharge Connection Discussion
Background:
Current City Code contains language that prohibits illicit connections to the
storm sewer system. This code section is intended to prevent storm water
pollution and assists with MPCA Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)
permit compliance. The code section is as follows:
Sec. 28-242. - Illicit connection prohibition.
(a) The construction, use, maintenance or continued existence of illicit
connections to the storm drain system is prohibited.
(b) This prohibition expressly includes, without limitation, illicit connections
made in the past, regardless of whether the connection was permissible under
law or practices applicable or prevailing at the time of connection.
(c) A person is also considered to be in violation of this article if he or she
connects a line conveying sewage to the storm drain system or allows such a
connection to continue. This type of connection must be disconnected and
redirected, as necessary, to an approved onsite wastewater management
system or the sanitary sewer system upon approval by the city.
(d) If a drain or conveyance on a property has not been documented in any
plans or maps or equivalent documentation filed with the city, which may be
connected to the storm drain system, the city may require the owner or
occupant of the property to locate the drain or conveyance to make certain that
it is not an illicit connection to the storm drain system. The city shall provide the
owner or occupant with a written notice requiring that the locating be completed
within a reasonable time period. The owner or occupant shall perform the
locating and shall provide the city with documentation that the drain or
conveyance is not an illicit connection.
Discussion:
At a recent meeting Council a situation was presented where a residence at 611
Carlton Ave. currently has an illicit connection to the storm sewer.
The
connection originates in the garage floor drain, which is believed to be installed
at the time of construction in 1974, and connects to the storm sewer system.
This connection has been identified by staff as the result of televising
infrastructure associated with some surface flooding.
Under the current code section 28-242 this connection must be disconnected
from the storm sewer system, or redirected to the sanitary sewer system. This
typically would require excavation at the sewer main, cutting and permanently
capping the connection and/or rerouting the connection to the sanitary system.
In this situation the property owner is proposing to allow the connection to be
filled with concrete as an alternative to disconnecting from the main.
Some excerpts of code language pertaining to disconnecting are:
2015 Uniform Plumbing Code
Chapter 7 Sanitary Drainage - 722.1 Building (House) Sewer.
An abandoned building (house) sewer, or part thereof, shall be plugged or capped in an
approved manner within 5 feet (1524 mm) of the property line.
MnDOT 2016 Standard Specifications for Construction
2103.3 – C.1
Locate, expose, cut off, and plug all sewer and water service connections at the sewer and
water mains. Plug all sewers leading from the building using watertight plugs at no
additional cost to the Department.
2104.3 – C.3
Use concrete or masonry plugs to plug pipes draining into abandoned basements, manholes,
or similar structures.
2506.3 – A.3
When abandoning a pipe that enters a structure that will not be abandoned, detach the pipe
from the structure wall and permanently plug the wall opening and the upgrade end of the
abandoned pipe with concrete or masonry.
Minnesota Administrative Rules
Plumbing Board – Chapter 4714
418.7 Garage and Parking Area Floor Drains. Floor area drains in open parking areas,
including open areas of parking ramps, shall discharge to the storm sewer or to a place
of disposal satisfactory to the sewer authority. Floor drains in parking areas that are
enclosed, and floor drains in areas open or enclosed that are used for maintenance or
as vehicle wash bays, shall discharge to the sanitary sewer if a municipal sewer is
available. An oil and flammable liquid interceptor shall be provided if required by
section 1017.
Exception: Floor drains in private garages serving one- and two-family dwellings
may discharge to daylight if approved by the administrative authority.
In the above referenced code sections the only acceptable application of
concrete is in an abandoned basement, manhole or similar structure. The
situation presented to Council does not meet any of these conditions.
It is important that illicit connections are terminated in a way that
complies with the stormwater permit. To ensure this staff has contacted
the MPCA for guidance regarding termination methods and permit
compliance. The MPCA does not have a standard approved termination
method. MPCA staff stated that the proposed termination with concrete
would be acceptable as being disconnected from the storm sewer system.
An amended code section option to allow for the use of concrete as an
approved illicit connection termination method could read:
(c) A person is also considered to be in violation of this article if he or she
connects a line conveying sewage to the storm drain system or allows such a
connection to continue. This type of connection must be terminated by an
approved method, or redirected as necessary, to an approved onsite wastewater
management system or the sanitary sewer system upon approval by the city.
Recommendation:
Given the unique situation, staff would recommend the following option:
 Modify the current language of code section 28-242 to allow the
connection to be terminated by an approved method.
Further options the Council could consider include:
 Excavate the site to cut and cap the connection at the main, or redirect to
the sanitary system. The costs associated could be assessed to the
property by utilizing the current petition and waiver process in place.
 Excavation and termination of the illicit connection be performed and the
costs shared between the property owner and the City.
Attachment:
Pictures
4.
Council Committee Memorandum
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
Joint Council Committee
Brian J. Anderson, City Administrator
Karla McCall, Finance Director
June 7, 2016
Franchise Fee History
Background:
A member of the City Council has requested a report on the history of
franchise fees to document the amount collected and how the revenue is being
utilized by the City. This information will be beneficial to all members of the
council, and may provide a better understanding of the existing stream of
revenue.
Discussion:
Any questions regarding the report may be discussed by the Council.
Recommendation:
The Council may wish to read through the attached report and documentation
regarding the historical collections and use of franchise fees over the past ten
years.
1|Page
MAY 25, 2016
FRANCHISE FEES
HISTORY SINCE 2005
PRESENTED BY: KARLA MCCALL
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
PURPOSE The purpose for this report is to provide historical informa on regarding the crea on of franchise fees; collec on of franchise fees; and uses of this revenue source over the past ten years. This informa on is being provided for the City Council and Administrator to understand the discussions and intent behind the crea on and use of franchise fees in the City of Faribault. TIMELINE OF FRANCHISE FEES NEWSPAPER ARTICLE – MARCH 2005 An ar cle was wri en by Administrator, Tim Madigan, and printed in the local newspaper to inform the public of two main goals for city budge ng. “One goal is to ensure the city service levels keep up with the community’s steady growth pa ern, in par cular in areas of public safety and public works.” “The other goal that the community has ar culated is the need for investment in the community’s transporta on system, whether that be city, county, or state‐owned streets, roads, or highways.” The ar cle provides three compelling reasons to consider franchise fees: 


The franchise fees allow the city to address long‐term needs. The fees allow tax‐exempt property to pay a share of the costs; currently, more than one‐third of Faribault’s property tax base is tax exempt. They make the city less dependent onf property taxes. Mr. Madigan described the difference between a fee and a tax as, “the difference is in who pays.” The City Council set aside a four‐month period to study the op on of crea ng franchise fees as a revenue source to provide funding for community goals. A copy of the ar cle is included as Exhibit A. PUBLIC HEARING – JUNE 2005 The City held a public hearing on June 14, 2005 to present a proposal for the collec on and use of franchise fees on gas and electric u li es. It was noted during the hearing that the increased funding gained from these franchise fees would help address the immediate needs of transporta on, new facili es, street projects, and city services. The minutes from that hearing reveal a discussion regarding the basis for the calcula on of the fees; whether by percentage of energy consumed, or a flat meter fee. A copy of the minutes for this hearing are included as Exhibit B. ORDINANCES ESTABLISHING FRANCHISE FEES The City Council completed the first reading of Ordinances 2005‐20 and 2005‐21 establishing franchise fees for electric and natural gas u li es on October 25, 2005. The Council proposed a monthly, flat fee per meter, which was preferred over a percentage based fee. A presenta on provided the an cipated use of the fees would be split equally and placed into each of the following funds: 1) Transporta on Projects; 2) Street Projects; 3) City Facili es; and 4) General Fund. A copy of the minutes are included as Exhibit C. 5/25/2016 franchise fees 1
FINAL ORDINANCE READING – NOVEMBER 8 The City Council voted unanimously to approve Ordinances 2005‐20 and 2005‐21 Establishing Franchise Fees on Electric and Gas U li es a er the second reading on November 8, 2005. No one from the public wished to be heard on this item. The fees were to go into effect on January 1, 2006 and the Council agreed to review the ordinances no later than January 1, 2011 to determine whether to con nue, terminate or modify the fees. The total revenue generated from these fees was es mated to be approximately $546,000. A copy of pages 4 and 5 from the November 8, 2015 minutes is included as Exhibit D. Copies of the Ordinances are included as Exhibit E. REVENUE PRODUCED BY FRANCHISE FEES REVENUE HISTORY – ELECTRIC & GAS Customers using electric and natural gas service within the City of Faribault are charged a franchise fee which is iden fied separately on their u lity bill (an example of a bill is included as Exhibit F). These charges are collected and submi ed quarterly to the City. The following chart provides the amounts received from franchise fees collected from electric and gas u li es over the past ten years. The revenue has remained rela vely level over the past five years with an average of $691,174. Electric & Gas
700,000
680,000
660,000
640,000
620,000
600,000
580,000
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
FRANCHISE FEE USAGE – ELECTRIC & GAS The franchise fees generated by electric and gas u li es has been split among several funds throughout the past ten years. The original distribu on in 2006 was set at 25% general fund, 25% public works building bond, and 50% street improvement fund. The following year the street improvement por on was reduced to 25% and the trunk highway (TH) 60 project received the other 25%. In 2009 and 2010 the general fund por on was increased up to 50% with the TH 60 Project reduced to zero. This split remained in place un l 2015 when it was determined that the public works building bonds no longer required the full 25% and the percentage was reduced to 10%, with the remaining 15% being placed into the public facili es fund for future upkeep of city facili es. The chart below provides data for the uses of franchise fees over the past ten years. 5/25/2016 franchise fees 2
Electric & Natural Gas Franchise Fees Percentage Split
60%
50%
50%
45%
Street Imp Fund
40%
30%
General Fund
Public Works
Bond
TH 60 Project
30%
25%
Public Facilities
Fund
20%
15%
10%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
FRANCHISE FEES – CABLE TELEVISION The City charges a franchise fee for cable television which generates approximately $250,000 annually. This revenue is placed en rely into the general fund and is used to support annual contribu ons to FCTV and other civic organiza ons. The chart below shows the revenue generated by cable television franchise fees over the past ten years. Cable Television
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
‐
2006
5/25/2016 2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
franchise fees 2013
2014
2015
3
FRANCHISE FEE USAGE ‐ CABLE TELEVISION The City has collected franchise fees from cable television companies as far back as 1971, using a percentage rate of 2% of gross receipts to calculate the fees. Of the $250,000 generated by the fees, over 50% is obligated to contribu ons to civic organiza ons which is paid from the general fund. The chart below provides the 2016 budgeted contribu on amounts designated for civic organiza ons. Organiza on Amount FCTV $55,200 Senior Center $41,200 Paradise Center $13,000 Community Fes vals $ 6,000 Alexander Faribault House $ 9,500 Airfest/Balloon Rally $ 5,000 Total $129,900 FRANCHISE FEES – WATER & SEWER The City charges its own water and sewer u li es a franchise fee based on 4% of the u lity charges collected from customers. Hours of research of mee ng minutes and reports did not find any specific direc on by Council to add this charge to the water and sewer u li es. The fee is not passed through to the customer but is paid with an internal transfer between funds. Unlike the flat fee approach to the electric and gas u lity accounts, the water and sewer u lity customers contribute 4% of charges in franchise fees. It is not customary for a city to charge its own u lity funds a franchise fee, but previous administra on put this fee in place as a way to create addi onal revenue to offset general fund expenditures to balance the budget. The water and sewer funds transfer approximately $280,000 annually and the chart below provides a history of the past 10 years. Water & Sewer
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
‐
2006
5/25/2016 2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
franchise fees 2013
2014
2015
4
FRANCHISE FEE USE – WATER & SEWER The water and sewer franchise fee revenue is split in the same percentages as the electric and gas fees. The amount is currently distributed 50% to the general fund, 25% to the street improvement fund, 15% to the facility improvement fund, and 10% to the public works building bond debt service fund. BENEFITS OF FRANCHISE FEES TOTAL REVENUES The City collects franchise fees from three separate sources; 1) electric and natural gas services, 2) cable television services, and 3) water and sewer services. The total collec on of franchise fees by category for the past ten years is shown in the chart below. The City collects approximately $1,220,000 annually. These funds are paid by all u lity customers throughout the City of Faribault and are used to address long‐term needs, reduce property tax levies, and include par cipa on from tax‐exempt proper es. The City has been collec ng electric and gas franchise fees since 2006; cable television franchise fees for over forty years; and water and sewer fees for the past ten years. Franchise Fee History
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
309,506 242,896 249,973 175,320 191,340 204,414 215,193 673,594 682,905 677,663 667,952 236,305 300,000 312,920 316,052 283,857 283,858 217,139 221,316 239,211 250,909 251,082 693,599 688,056 690,779 692,014 691,420 223,980 800,000
173,966 600,000
400,000
622,616 200,000
‐
2006
2007
2008
Electric & Gas
2009
2010
2011
Cable Television
2012
2013
2014
2015
Water & Sewer
5/25/2016 franchise fees 5
ADDITIONAL REVENUE SOURCE Franchise fees have benefi ed the City in several areas over the past ten years as noted below: General Fund
•Over the past ten years more than $6,195,000 was generated from franchise fees, an average of $619,500 each year ($2,860,000 from electric and gas; $2,139,000 from cable television; and $1,196,000 from water and sewer).
•This is comparable to an increase in the property tax rate of 8.85% ($70,000 per 1%).
•Frachise fees were used to fund contributions to civic organizations and a portion of public safety expenditures.
Street Improvement Projects
•Over the past ten years the street improvement fund has received over $2,595,000 to assist with the public share of street improvement project costs.
•Water and sewer contributed over $745,000, and electric and gas fees produced over $1,850,000.
•Franchise fees reduced the need to levy an additional 3.71% in property taxes.
Debt Service Payments
•Over the past ten years the Public Works Bond received approximately $2,285,000 in revenue from franchise fees (electric and gas generated $1,625,000, and water and sewer contributed close to $660,000).
•Franchise fees reduced the need to levy property taxes for these projects by an additional 3.26%.
Public Facility Projects
•In 2015 the amount needed from franchise fees for the Public Works Building debt service payment was reduced to 10%, leaving the remaining 15% available for the Public Facility Improvement Fund.
•The electric and gas fees generated approximately $104,000 and the water and sewer contributed approximately $42,000 for a total of $146,000.
•This amount is comparable to an increase in property taxes of approximately 0.21%
SUMMARY BENEFICIAL REVENUE SOURCE Using franchise fees has provided the City with a constant, steady source of funding that has been used for long‐term planning and reduced the dependency on property taxes. Franchise fees have generated the equivalent of a 16.03% increase in the local property tax rate and generated approximately $12,000,000 in revenue over the past ten years. The addi on of electric and gas franchise fees in 2006 has added significant revenue for the purposes designated by the City Council. The franchise fee revenue has been dedicated to the following categories: 1) to help offset the increase in property taxes, 2) to provide for long‐term needs, and 3) to include tax‐exempt property in a share of the costs of public improvement projects. Franchise fees have been used for purposes that were approved by the City Council and have been a steady and valuable source of revenue for the City of Faribault. 5/25/2016 franchise fees 6
3-(C):aj
·~·'
..
·._.· ·: •..
,.·-.
•
•.
.·:
i > •;.
•
1· .. .
I
~·. ~.:
<. . . '.:.·:·: ·~ :·:'>· • ·:~a
·:;t.:'\::=. ·t~):'.\. ~' ·t
. i:.:~~i.'.·>.· ~:~.;,i.~,~~;:~:: .: -:t:~:~ .:-~;' .;w ·~·~}~~~~~f.:;•j,t:.·:·.:•>-~;~:-~:,.;:...,/
'
.. ' : "
.
.LWO ma1n,··goa s In min· -.=.w i·
• ·..... · '· :· !.
,,~.,<·.:_> ;;\,:....
:::··:
.
.:11if)~2c·1:vv>~·unuo·e
,1ng:
=·
.there. is also a · third of FaQ.p_aajt;s .·property..tax:. ::$5fl:6~oop.:peijtear f& ~9.i#::::.\~ and fees~~],ei:iod,.·~~:\ W,eB :sit~ ~t~far;L1i;~u,l1=~.:-.
.~:s~~~o~:a:~. bas:~~e~~~~;';~i.~:)~~~·.":i.: :·.uz~~~;1~~~~£f~f~~¥i;~~i0:~;f.~~~\~!:.~; ri~¥i~=~~~;~._,. A
·~S1~~¥ht~i1;,~:;.~.
..
pro~s-~,.~g._p~?i:ill'. pr~W?9.~/0.f ..
th~-~C9D.w.11Wlcy·: ~ .cif;tl!ese~~ ·
a~hlev:,e t_he~e . ~epep.dent ~n.P:OPertYtaxes:·'.· ':~
~four-month penqd t~- ~~::~'.'. ~o· ~en:Jf.~ ,~~~b.~;}ij. ~~?J..'t!o~.~~~~~.1:'0~.~~~·;;;;_~1-:~:~~I·~'.~/; ·'·~ .
· .goals. ·One of
The other mg9.~ at·¢.e:Kniglil!l 'it•1ssu~. to .get fee~ack: an<Tii\il.P¢.,/.in:fOI:!n~~i:J::Oih~;~~§e p~g)l.9;;,~:~;;: .,.Jf&'Af.ciilig_an .T:J.-.<J,'tJ'. a~n;cn·
=~:~=~~~;r~~%t~t;:
:~~~~~e~~~~:· :;:~:;:t1Y~:s:;:;;;'.~~~e.:~~~~~~'.~~;~~~:; ,;~~~~~~~~t~2~;;~rr&r£fI~f.B.~~~{~;f~?·;:;y,.~
::
Tim. .....City Council}s
Heyer, a5ked me ','What iS.~e'¥:
Madigan·: . ~.~n~.i~e~g is.:_ f~cebe~en..~:r~::nd~:ax1:: :
gro~· P.atte~ -~ p~cwa,r' 1;U :
.t
'. . th: use . of~~ '. ~Y-resp.on,se'Y3;S .!f!~:~~c~.~ .".
. : ~feesongas m who pays. ·A '!Cey question·•
areas ofpublic ·s ;Uetyandpublic...
·'Yoi:ki. ''~; ..'·~· '.:,~ ~ ~;)~:'.: ~- "'?:~·~·'.".:, ·and· e~~c .iitjlities. Francµise when rbokiiig'~t.fyiidillg .c~'!i~"'.:
}'o~· do ~~o'.~)i?iiffeiig ·f~r" fees are -q.sed by .a n~ber of .nity :g~ills: iS: .'1Ji??Y:«'i~.Y~u: qi~~ :·
both '."·: '.',o#rati:ons'.'., '.~ '.··.~:g:· .municipalities. throughout ·the ' tribute the. cost ·of'.'tliese ,ioals?,; ..
:P~#·~~~Vs_iil,W~~s?:~c!l ~pita( Sta.~~ to provide ~o~ diverse re~- we,_ ~~yr.,'t¥· p~~& ¥~"~::
"· ·· ·.. ~ ~portl!J?.t S(lutce·.o:f .r,evenue
Fanbaul~ qty ~pmicil ~..~t- · ·
hi:discusSing the use of fran.~ :fot city ·seivices~ ·.but' th~re· aif .
ly holdiiig'a.~liimuirity: diScus- chise fees :in Faribault; the foci.ls other way§ ~-provide:fuµding .fot
sion On the Ouilding·ofnewp.oiice " has been funding for'J:rans:.. coximi.Uoiiy goali~· .. .;::. ;, :.:::\ ...:,: '. ..
~d publi~ w~fucilitie5:>/
po$~oil n~ and gro~g· ser-,,.
1he Ci!Y,: G9llI!ciJ)~·foo~g.:af . ·The 'otp.~r: g9:al that the c~_.. ·vice nee~.
'. . , · · . . . a va?ecy-.of.meth9~ ,of.applyµig ..
mimitfhas'fu:tiCu!af~~·fs-):11¢ neM · . :There are ~ee compelliD.g. fianchisetees~:irom,ffe.; ·and.elec-..
for Jµyfkti:iieni:' iii:'the)omiiitnri-"' · reasons to.consfderfianchise.fees:. tricutilit:les, wlii.ch:maybeafee·of'.
ty' s.-;~an~P.~$.~\(iij: '. sy~t~'ip.;
The franchise fees :allow. tlie between 1 tO '4 .perceJ:!,t ~i". a flat .:
·
.. \ .. . . .. . . ., ~fy-,
·-...-·c'o:imty.;
.
. .,.. ..of
. city to.address long-term needs: . meter. fee. ..One ' fo'c:tls· ·ofohe
. "\
state~own~d::stre~~:..~03:~·,_: 9r
. • .T he·fees all9w tax-exempt.! process is the·.U:Se ofa 2-jiei:a:nt .
highways.- · :· .:
. -, :.:~. :• ·- property to· pay' a share of the ·fee .on utilitj billsj.vhich woul~ .
It·is. great to have goals, but costs; currently,. niore than one-· · genei:ate for; ·the ·.city about '
Exhibit A
~nsare:.the city s~~ levels keep ...
u~ with tJie ~~trs:~ea~y :
•
.·.' ·~-:;< · - ~. .<? ';t'~~·~'..:~~:~~>~'. ·::i~~~~~·.i: :,~:.;!.~ :.,:.':~:.>. : : \~:~:,;::··~.~:?,::~~:~.:.: ·,·-.·;.:?*~-· :~i.;'.~ ·: ;: ~·' ;:\c;<>-··-::·S::?:.~>.-. ·;~t::~.j,~~.·4:. · -, ,. .'. :;
·· . . ··, · :.
'In the past rewyea:ra;ib.ere-has
I
fac,i~1ti.es:;.:,.:r;P.a~ ...l.sAyb.y ;· ~e.- : enu~ sources for cities.
on
·">' ...
wliet\ler·tlJit)Je:
.•.
~
•
.
·:'-· : . .._ ·· ...·:' ·.: .. : . .... !
........... ,
7
Exhibit B
Faribault City Council Minutes
Regular Council Meeting of June 14, 2005
1. Call to Order/Roll Call
Mayor Chuck Ackman called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm in the Council
Chambers. Members present included Council members Albers, Duchene, King, Miller,
Rice, Underdahl, Mayor Ackman. Staff present included City Administrator Tim Madigan,
Assistant to the City Administrator Michelle Mahowald, City Planner Kim Johnson, Zoning
Administrator Greg Kruschke, City Engineer Tom Drake, Buckham Center Director Paul
Peanasky, City Attorney Scott Riggs, and Administrative Assistant Lorri Smith.
2.
a. Waive rule six to add items 3K and 3L to the agenda
Motion by Council member Duchene, seconded by Council member King, carried
unanimously, to waive rule six and add items 3K and 3L to the agenda.
b. Approve minutes of May 24, 2005 Regular Council meeting
Motion by Council member Duchene, seconded by Council members Miller, carried
unanimously, to approve the minutes from May 24, 2005 Council meeting as presented.
3. Routine Business
Motion by Council member Miller, seconded by Council member King, carried
unanimously, to approve items 3A - 3L.
A. Approve list of bills in the amount of$ 1,578,537.72
B. Approve temporary 3.2 Malt Liquor On Sale License for Elk's Lodge-Heritage Days Central
Park
C. Approve Resolution 2005-11 O Authorize Grant Application to MN Historical Society (4/7)
D. Approve 2005-2006 Contract Settlement with Local 70 bargaining unit
E. Approve 2005-2006 Contract Settlement with Teamsters 320 bargaining unit
F. Approve 2005 Agreement for Yard Waste Composting with Rice County
G. Approve proposal for Washington Floor replacement
H. Approve Resolution 2005-117 Accept Drainage/Utility Easement-2534 2nd Ave N (4/7)
I. Approve Resolution 2005-118 Order Project - Water/Sanitary Sewer improvements for
James and Carrie Meehan and Joseph and Ramona Reichert (4/7)
J. Approve the purchase of 31 West Division St from the HRA
K. Approve Application for Exempt Gambling Permit for Fblt Archery Club -April 22, 2006
L. Approve Resolution 2005-126 Approve Gambling Premises Permit for Faribault Hockey
Association at The Depot Bar and Grill (4/7)
4. Public Hearings
A. Public Facilities Plan for Police and Public Works Departments
Mayor Chuck Ackman presented the Facilities Task Force recommendations for new
Police and Public Works facilities. The Facilities Task Force stated that the Police and
Public Works facilities are in need of new facilities. The Police Department is currently
housed in the Rice County Law Enforcement Center. The facility is owned by Rice
County and the two departments (Police and Sheriff) have outgrown the space.
8
The Public Works Department is mainly centered at the Street Garage on First
Avenue, but also includes multiple satellite facilities. The Street Garage is 50 years old
and has major structural problems, along with the site being too small for the department.
The Task Force is in agreement that both departments need to be relocated to new
facilities to meet their current needs and have room for future expansion as the city
grows. The Task Force has identified four possible sites for a Public Works Facility and
did not make a recommendation for one particular site.
The Task Force feels the best site for the Police Department would be the current
land the Street Garage is located on, after the building has been demolished and the site
cleaned up. This would give the Police Department a continued central location in the
community. The site is large enough for the future construction of a Fire Station.
City Administrator Tim Madigan reviewed the financing for the project. The cost of
the new facilities is estimated to be from $11 to $14 million, depending on final building
and land costs. A down payment of $3 million has been reserved, with the balance to be
paid for by issuing 20-year bonds. Property tax increases will average from $100 to $150
for a residential property.
This issue will be discussed at the July 19, 2005 Joint Committee meeting.
No one from the public wished to be heard on this item.
Motion by Council member Rice, seconded by Council member Miller, carried
unanimously, to receive and file the report, and to start the selection process for the
architect, to begin the process for the bond sale, and to authorize execution of a land
purchase option for the Industrial Avenue site.
8. Franchise Fees for Gas and Electric Utilities
Michelle Mahowald, Assistant to the City Administrator, presented a proposal for the
collection and use of franchise fees on gas and electric utilities. A franchise fee is a
form of acquiring funds for the city that can be placed on electric and gas utilities that
use the public right of way. This fee can be applied either as a percentage of utility
revenues or as a flat meter charge. State law authorizes franchise fees. Utilizing the
increased funding gained from these franchise fees would help address the immediate
needs of transportation, new facilities, street projects, and city services.
Franchise fees can address long-term capital needs for the City. They allow taxexempt property owners to pay a share, and they provide funding support for essential
city projects and services. They provide protection for loss of other revenue sources.
The City will need to send an authorization letter to providers of utilities of their
intention to implement a franchise fee starting in 2006. State law requires a 60-day
notice before adoption of the resolution.
Comments from the public included:
Jim Warren, 916 SW 7th Ave - asked why cities closer in proximity to Faribault were not
used as examples of cities that currently have franchise fees. Madigan stated that many
of the cities closer to Faribault own their own utility companies and they are able to
transfer the costs in a similar way.
Dave Pearson, representing Xcel Energy - complimented city on the public information
that has been provided to the community, estimated that 13 cities have utility franchise
fees, and about 13 others are currently considering it, Xcel suggested a flat meter fee.
Faribault City Council minutes
page 2 of 10
June 14, 2005
9
Doug Hughes, representing Steele Waseca - service area is north side of Faribault,
many small accounts, but some are large, not sure if prefer flat meter charge or percent
charge.
Kymn Anderson, representing the Chamber of Commerce - Chamber has not taken a
position on the utility franchise fees, percentage fee would have a more adverse affect
on businesses, creates an unfair competitive advantage, asked what the additional
revenue would be used for, asked why there is a need to supplement the general fund,
questioned the timing of this in relation to the School referendum, asked what the timing
expectations are for this to start. Mayor Ackman clarified that this issue will be next
discussed at the July 191h Joint Committee study session.
Mike Meillier, 842 SW 6th Ave - asked if the Council looked at the cost of utilities in the
surrounding communities. Madigan referenced a handout included in the Council packet.
Jeffe Anesi, Director of Real Estate for Aldi's - stated they prefer the flat meter charge.
Council member King stated the reduction in local government aid from the State has
prompted this discussion on collecting franchise fees from utilities to make up the
difference. She stated she felt this is the fairest way to do that. She questioned if the
City might be able to collect from fees from the Williams Pipe Line. Madigan stated the
City could have a franchise with them, but not with the type of franchise fee being
proposed.
In regards to a percent charge, Ackman stated the City would need to have some
protection in place in case of inflation of utility charges. Council member Underdahl
suggested a graduated flat meter fee rate would better serve the community because of
the need to attract potential businesses to Faribault. Council member Miller stated he
agreed with the flat meter rate. Council member King asked if a cap could be placed on
the percentage fee. She stated the City Council needs time to take a better look at the
Council member Rice stated the Council would need more
numbers involved.
information before making a decision on the type of fee to charge. Council member
Albers stated he felt a 2 percent fee would be the simplest to implement, but feels there
should be a way for reviewing this percentage charge annually.
Council member Duchene stated her concern with this new franchise fee being
charged to residents, in addition to the proposed increase in taxes.
Mayor Ackman stated the Council is in agreement for authorizing a utility franchise
fee but will need to figure out the best way to charge it. City Attorney Scott Riggs
addressed the Council and stated the Council will need to decide on how to charge the
fee, then send a letter to the utility companies involved giving them a 60-day notice that
the City intends to begin charging a utility franchise fee.
No action was taken by the City Council on this item. It will be discussed at the July
19, 2005 Joint Committee meeting.
C. Ordinance 2005-09 Authorize Sale of Real Property Owned by City to
Marzario, first reading (4/7)
Kim Johnson, City Planner, presented Ordinance 2005-09, authorizing the sale of real
property owned by the city to Frank Marzario, representing Marzario Design and
Development. This is a 12-foot strip of land, which is an unused portion of a public
Faribault City Council minutes
page 3 of 10
June 14, 2005
10
Exhibit C
FARIBAULT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 25, 2005
1. Call to Order/Roll Call
Mayor Chuck Ackman called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers.
Members present included Council Members Albers, Duchene, King, Miller, Rice,
Underdahl and Mayor Ackman. Staff present included City Administrator Tim Madigan,
Assistant to the City Administrator Michelle Mahowald, Finance Director Terry Berg, and
Administrative Assistant Lorri Smith.
2. A. Waive rule six of the Council, delete the minutes of October 18, 2005, and
add items 6E, 6F, 6G, and 6H to the agenda
Motion by Council Member Duchene, seconded by Council Member Miller, carried
unanimously, to waive rule six of the Council, delete approval of minutes of October 18,
2005, and add items 6E, 6F, 6G, and 6H to the agenda.
B. Approve minutes of October 11, 2005 Regular Council meeting
Motion by Council Member Duchene, seconded by Council Member Miller, carried
unanimously, to approve the minutes from October 11, 2005 Regular Council meeting.
3. Routine Business
Motion by Council Member Albers, seconded by Council Member Duchene, carried
unanimously, to approve items 3A through 31.
A
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Approve list of bills
Approve Resolution 2005-250 Accept Donation to the Fire Department from Wal -Mart
Approve Resolution 2005-254 Authorize Grant Application to SE MN Area Agency on Aging
Approve Resolution 2005-256 Execute MnDOT Maintenance Agreement No. 88221
Approve Resolution 2005-257 Accept Donation of LIDAR unit from MN Dept. of Public Safety
Approve 2005-2006 Labor Agreement with Local 665
Authorize Contract Execution and Budget for Lower-Level Remodeling Project
Approve Faribault Ice Arena Agreement
I.
Approve Hangar Rental Agreement with Zach Peterson
4. Public Hearings
A. Resolution 2005-255 Reciting a Proposal for a Non-Profit Educational
Institution Project, Give Preliminary Approval to Project, Authorize
Preparation of Necessary Documents (Shattuck-St. Mary's School) (4/7)
Terry Berg, Finance Director, presented Resolution 2005-255, reciting a proposal for a
non-profit educational institution project, to give preliminary approval to a project and
authorize preparation of necessary documents for Shattuck/St. Mary's School. ShattuckSt. Mary's School is planning an expansion of its existing athletic facilities with the
construction of a soccer dome to be located adjacent to the hockey facilities. The project
is estimated to cost $2,748,000, of which $2,050,000 is being requested as conduit
financing. The project is expected to be completed April 1, 2006. The City has been
11
requested to be a conduit for the financing so the permanent financing of $2,050,000 is
tax-exempt or bank qualified. The debt will be solely the obligation of Shattuck-St.
Mary's School.
Council Member Rice asked if these are dollars that anyone can access. Berg stated
these dollars are solely for educational entities.
No one from the public wished to be heard on this item.
Motion by Council Member Rice, seconded by Council Member Albers, carried
unanimously, to approve Resolution 2005-255 Reciting a Proposal for a Non-Profit
Educational Institution Project, Give Preliminary Approval to Project, Authorize
Preparation of Necessary Documents (Shattuck-St. Mary's School).
8. Ordinance 2005-20 Franchise Fee on Electric Utilities, first reading (4/7)
Michelle Mahowald, Assistant to the City Administrator, presented Ordinance 2005-20,
establishing franchise fees on public utilities providing electric utilities with the City of
Faribault, commencing January 1, 2006. The franchise fee shall be in addition to any
other fees, payments or amounts owed to the City by the companies, including right-ofway fees.
The franchise fee will be a monthly per meter fee and shall be annually increased by
an amount equal to the previous year's increase in the Consumer Price Index. The
Council will review this ordinance no later than January 1, 2011, to determine whether to
continue, terminate or modify the fee.
Mahowald noted that Xcel Energy is requesting that they be exempted from the rightof-way fees now being charged since they feel the franchise fee would be a redundant
charge. Council Member Underdahl questioned if the City could legally exempt one
company from paying the right-of-way fees. Administrator Madigan stated the City
Attorney has recommended no exemptions from the right-of-way fees.
Comments from the public included:
Dave Pearson, representing Xcel Energy - they have concerns about the franchise fees,
the right-of-way fees are redundant, only one other city in Minnesota charges both fees,
gas and electric are considered essential services, they cannot exempt certain rate
classes. Xcel typically does not use the CPI to adjust franchise fees. Xcel asked the
Council to consider reviewing the fees annually.
Jennifer Thuelin Smith, Sr. Attorney representing Xcel Energy - the intent of the franchise
fees is the same intent of the right-of-way fees.
Fran Minnick, 218 Mott Ave NE - not in favor of these fees, this is not a fee-it is another
tax on residents, customers of Xcel will be the ones paying these fees, businesses will
pass the fees on to their customers.
Richard Olson, 113 9th Avenue SE - opposes this fee, this is another tax on the citizens,
city needs to state what the money will be used for, questioned how will this benefit the
citizens, taxes are too high, this should be voted on by the taxpayers. Council Member
Rice clarified the presentation clearly stated how the money collected through the fees
would be used. Council Member Albers stated the citizens expect Council members to
make decisions such as this for them and this is the best way to fund these projects.
Glen Worms, representing McQuay - opposed to this tax, this is just an additional cost to
citizens.
Faribault City Council minutes
page 2 of 6
October 25, 2005
12
Council Member King commented that tax-exempt entities would also be paying these
fees. Council Members were in agreement that since this is a new fee, it would be best if
the Council reviewed the fee rates in one year. Mayor Ackman stated he is not in favor of
exempting city buildings from the fee.
Motion by Council Member Rice, seconded by Council Member Miller, carried
unanimously, to approve Ordinance 2005-20 Establishing Franchise Fees on Electric
Utilities, and to set the second reading for November 8, 2005; and to reduce the total
franchise fee to be collected by the average amount Xcel pays in right-of-way fees; and
to not exempt city buildings from the fee only street lights, and sewer and water services.
Roll call vote: Aye-Albers, Duchene, King, Miller, Rice, Underdahl, Mayor Ackman. NoNone.
B. Ordinance 2005-21 Franchise Fee on Gas Utilities, first reading (4/7)
Michelle Mahowald, Assistant to the City Administrator, presented Ordinance 2005-21,
establishing franchise fees on public utilities providing gas utilities with the City of
Faribault, commencing January 1, 2006. The franchise fee shall be in addition to any
other fees, payments or amounts owed to the City by the companies, including right-ofway fees.
The franchise fee will be a monthly per meter fee and shall be annually increased by
an amount equal to the previous year's increase in the Consumer Price Index. The
Council will review this ordinance no later than January 1, 2011, to determine whether to
continue, terminate or modify the fee.
Motion by Council Member Rice, seconded by Council Member Miller, carried
unanimously, to approve Ordinance 2005-21 Establishing Franchise Fees on Gas
Utilities, and to set the second reading for November 8, 2005; and to reduce the total
franchise fee to be collected by the average amount Xcel pays in right-of-way fees; and
to not exempt city buildings from the fee, only street lights, and sewer and water
services. Roll call vote: Aye-Albers, Duchene, King, Miller, Rice, Underdahl, Mayor
Ackman. No-None.
5. Requests to be Heard
A. Citizen Comment Period
6. Items for Discussion
A. Resolution 2005-258 Providing for the Sale of $2,705,000 General
Obligation Temporary Improvement Bonds (4/7)
Terry Berg presented Resolution 2005-258, providing for the sale of $2,705,000 in
general obligation temporary improvement bonds to finance street construction and
reconstruction projects. The proceeds will finance construction for eleven projects from
2004 and 2005. The projects include: Northern Sewer Interceptor, Grant Street North,
Jandro's Second Addition, Bethel Avenue/Cardinal, Windsor Park #27, Eastside
Reconstruct, Prairie Ridge 6ht Addition, Hiersche Road, Twin Lakes Estates Second
Addition, Woodhaven Addition, and 14th Street & 2nd Street NW.
Faribault City Council minutes
page 3 of 6
October 25, 2005
13
Exhibit D
November 8,2005 Council Meeting
Comments from the public included:
Jack Fugalli, applicant - present to answer the Council's questions.
Council Member Albers questioned if the adjoining lot is also non-conforming.
Kruschke stated there is an adjoining lot that is non-conforming. Mayor Ackman stated he
has no problems granting this variance. Council Member Duchene stated this would
improve the area.
Motion by Council Member Duchene, seconded by Council Member King, carried
unanimously, to approve Resolution 2005-269 Granting a Side Yard Setback Variance
and a Building Separation Variance for 818 Edgar Place.
5. Requests to be Heard
A. Citizen Comment Period
6. Items for Discussion
A. Ordinance 2005-20 Franchise Fee on Electric Utilities, second reading
(4/7)
Michelle Mahowald, Assistant to the City Administrator, presented Ordinance 2005-20,
establishing franchise fees on public utilities providing electric utilities in the City of
Faribault, commencing January 1, 2006. The franchise fee shall be in addition to any
other fees, payments or amounts owed to the City by the companies, including right-ofway fees.
The franchise fee will be a monthly per meter fee. The City Council may annually
adjust the fees in Exhibit "A". Language related to an increased fee to be adjusted by the
Consumer Price Index and the exception for certain city properties has been removed
from the ordinance.
Administrator Madigan summarized Xcel Energy's position that they will not be
exempted from paying right-of-way fees, and they feel the City cannot pass this ordinance
without their agreement of it. Council Member Duchene stated she feels that franchise
fees are not the same thing as right-of-way fees. $2,500, the estimated amount of right-ofway fees paid by Xcel this past year, will be deducted from the franchise fee in 2006.
No one from the public wished to be heard on this item .
Motion by Council Member Duchene, seconded by Council Member Albers, carried
unanimously, to approve Ordinance 2005-20 Establishing Franchise Fees on Electric
Utilities on second reading, and to approve the summary publication of it. Roll call vote:
Aye-Albers, Duchene, King, Miller, Mayor Ackman. No-None.
B. Ordinance 2005-21 Franchise Fee on Gas Utilities, second reading (4/7)
Michelle Mahowald presented Ordinance 2005-21, establishing franchise fees on
public utilities providing gas utilities in the City of Faribault, commencing January 1, 2006.
The franchise fee shall be in addition to any other fees, payments or amounts owed to the
City by the companies, including right-of-way fees.
Faribault City Council minutes
page 4 of 6
November 8, 2005
14
The franchise fee will be a monthly per meter fee. The City Council may annually
adjust the fees in Exhibit "A". Language related to an increased fee to be adjusted by the
Consumer Price Index has been removed from the ordinance. No change was made to
the exception for City facilities. The Council will review this ordinance no later than
January 1, 2011, to determine whether to continue, terminate or modify the fee.
No one from the public wished to be heard on this item.
Motion by Council Member Albers, seconded by Council Member King, carried
unanimously, to approve Ordinance 2005-21 Establishing Franchise Fees on Gas Utilities
on second reading, and to approve the summary publication of it. Roll call vote: AyeAlbers, Duchene, King, Miller, Mayor Ackman. No-None.
C. Resolution 2005-251 Property Tax Abatement Business Assistance for
Faribault Crossroads Development LLC
Tim Madigan presented a request from Faribault Crossroads Development LLC, for
business assistance funding through the City's Tax Abatement program, to assist with the
construction of a medical office facility at the intersection of Minnesota Highway 21. The
City Council held a public hearing on this request on October 18, 2005. It was noted by
Administrator Madigan that the applicant has provided a written request to the Mayor and
City Council that action on this application be deferred in order to provide the applicant
additional time to reevaluate the various merits of the request.
Comments from the public included:
Erv Fahrenholtz, 1608 Windsor Pl - asked if excavation has begun, permit is issued,
project will proceed whether they receive this assistance or not, citizens should not have
to provide assistance to this project.
Council Member King suggested this item be forwarded to the Joint Committee of the
City Council for further discussion.
Motion by Council Member Duchene, seconded by Council Member Albers, carried
unanimously, to defer action on this request and to refer it back to the Joint Committee for
further discussion.
D. Approve agreement with 1&5 Engineering for TH60 West Commercial
Area Improvements
Tom Drake, City Engineer, presented an agreement with I & S Engineering for design
services related to the extension of a four-lane section of TH60 to serve new commercial
development west of 1-35. Commercial development will not happen without the extension
of the four-lane section of TH60 and creation of a new signalized intersection. Because
the improvements are development driven, MnDOT will not pay a share of the costs. The
cost of these services is estimated to be $123,800.00.
Council Member Duchene expressed concerns that bids should have been taken for
this project. Upon a question from Council Member King, Drake stated the design services
will include a traffic study and design of the highway to four lanes.
Faribault City Council minutes
page 5 of 6
November 8, 2005
15
Exhibit E
16
17
18
19
20
21
ACCOUNT NUMBER
SERVICE ADDRESS
Exhibit F
(}, Xcel Energy·
STATEMENT NUMBER STATEMENT DATE
11/02/2015
m
SERVICE ADDRESS:
NEXT READ DATE:
12/04/15
ELECTRICITY SERVICE DETAILS
PREMISES NUMBER:
INVOICE NUMBER:
... •.
·.
'"
....... ... ·. ·.. •,.. · :..
~
- ·.. ·=·'1:•a:m1JJl'' .. '"'g'
~DESCRIPTION
Total Energy
·~
~
•.....
·.
I
I
I
CURRENT READING
32772 Actua I
ELECTRICITY CHARGES
Use Facebook and Twitter to let us
know24/7.
.·.
. ........... : .....
.·.~
:
..... ··.··.:
4
•
~
.
•
.
,.,.,.;.
Read Dates: 10/01/15 -11/01/15 (31 Days)
USAGE
I
32431 Actual
341 kWh
I
I
I PREVIOUS READING
USAGE UNITS
Basic Service Chg
Energy Charge Winter
Energy Charge Winter
Fuel Cost Charge
Affordability Chrg
Resource Adjustment
Interim Rate Adj
Subtotal
City Fees
Transit Improvement Tax
State Tax
Total
SERVICE ADDRESS:
NEXT READ DATE:
.
RATE: Residential Service
DESCRIPTION
Have a question?
,,
'"""·~•
11 kWh
330 kWh
341 kWh
RATE
CHARGE
$8.00
$0.88
$24.40
$8.88
$0.71
$1.79
$2.12
$0.080400
$0.073930
$0.026041
$46.78
$1.35
$0.25
$3.30
0.50%
6.875%
$51.68
12/04/15
NATURAL GAS SERVICE DETAILS
PREMISES NUMBER:
INVOICE NUMBER:
. ~ ~ ....;.. .
METER READING INFORMATION
DESGHWftillll
Total Energy
.:
... ,, .
;--'•.
"
.
.;.
.. .. . .· ... ,.· ..... -~'. .... .. .
I CURRENT READING
I
5235 Actual
.;.
':"'·'· ,•
.
., ..... ··
Read Dates: 10/01/15-11/01/15 (31 Days)
I
USAGE
I
5200 Actual
I
35 ccf
I PREVIOUS READING
Call Before You Clear aSeptic or Sewer Line
If your sewer or septic line is clogged, call us anytime at 1-800-895-2999 before anyone
attempts to clear it. A natural gas pipe could have been inadvertently installed through your
sewer or septic line. Equipment to clear it can puncture the gas pipe and cause a dangerous
release of gas. Call us-we'll check your sewer or septic line at no charge to be sure it's
safe to clear.
22
..
fl XcelEnergy•
ACCOUNT NUMBER
SERVICE ADDRESS
STATEMENT NUMBER STATEMENT DATE
11/02/2015
II
NATURAL GAS ADJUSTMENTS
DESCRIPTION
Heat Content Adjustment
NATURAL GAS CHARGES
DESCRIPTION
Basic Service Chg
Distribution Chg
Cost Of Gas
Gas Affordability
Resource Adjustment
VALUE UNITS
CONVERSION
35 ccf
x1.064500
VALUE UNITS
37 therms
RATE: Residential Firm Service
USAGE UNITS
37 therms
37 therms
37 therms
RATE
CHARGE
$0.185913
$0.335946
$0.004000
$9.00
$6.88
$12.43
$0.15
$2.12
Subtotal
Consume Less Energy
and Wash More Dishes
~
Washing dishes by hand several times
a day can be more expensive than
operating an energy-efficient dishwasher.
You can consume less energy with an
energy-efficient dishwasher when used
properly and when operating with
full loads.
City Fees
Transit Improvement Tax
State Tax
Total
$30.58
$1.62
$0.15
$2.13
0.50%
6.875%
$34.48
INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR BILL
For an average residential customer, 56% of your bill refers to power plant costs, 8%
to high voltage line costs and 36% to the cost of local wires that are connected to
your home.
Give the gift of warmth, comfort and light.
Xcel Energy gift certificates are available in any amount, from $20 to $500. They're perfect
for parents, grandparents, children living away from home, neighbors or anyone with an
Xcel Energy bill who could use a bit of comfort. It's convenient, thoughtful and sure to
warm their hearts.
To send a gift certificate, visit xcelenergy.com and search for "Gift Certificates",
complete the application and mail it with a check to the address provided. You may
also call 1-800-895-4999 and we'll mail you an application.
23
5.
Council Committee Memorandum
TO:
Joint Council Committee
THROUGH:
FROM:
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
Brian J. Anderson, City Administrator
Deanna Kuennen, Com & Econ Dev Director
June 7, 2016
Sale of City Parcel Request
Background:
The City has received a request from Steve Tousignant and Kenneth
Sevcik of S & K Group – (adjacent) land owners/developers regarding
acquiring city-owned parcel 18.06.3.00.006 located on Willow Street
(see attached map). They are interested in expanding their current
business operations at 1308 Willow Street, using the city-owned land
for heated and un-heated indoor storage. The city-owned land is:




4.5 acres, acquired by the City in 1987 by “Government or
Exempt Party Sale”
Vacant, but zoned C-2 (Per city staff, the property was used
many years ago for planting of trees which were transplanted
into city parks, and then later for snow storage. The property
has not been used for city purposes for many years.)
Estimated Market Value of $29,500
The non-rectangular shaped city parcel is adjacent to the xxx
trail (city owned), the Middle School, and 3 privately owned
properties.
Discussion:
Staff is seeking City Council direction regarding disposal of this parcel.
Per a January 2016 memorandum prepared by Scott Riggs, City
Attorney, the City Council has a number of options regarding the sale
of city-owned land. To summarize – if the city determines that cityowned land can be disposed of:
1. The City or EDA could directly negotiate the sale with a potential
buyer.
2. The City or EDA could pursue a competitive bidding process for
the sale.
3. The City or EDA could utilize a request for proposal process
outlined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.345
It is important to also point out that while the City itself can sell
property, it has less authority and control over the future use of the
property as compare to the EDA.


The City could sell directly to the Buyer – which per City Charter
Section 12.04 would require the transfer to take place via
ordinance. The City would only be able to control the end-use of
the property through zoning regulations and city codes.
The City could deed the property to the EDA per Minnesota
Statutes, Section 471.64. The EDA could then enter into a
development contract for the property, outlining terms and
conditions required for the sale including a right of reverter
which would return the land to the city if development does not
occur per agreed upon terms. Preferred method.
Recommendation:
This particular property does not appear to have a city purpose and
could be turned back over to private ownership, putting the parcel
back on the tax rolls. Should the Council be interested in this option,
staff recommends turning the parcel over to the EDA to sell by
communicating the potential sale of this city-owned land to the
adjacent property owners (and/or city-wide) and seek proposals for
the development before entering into a purchase agreement with an
interested party. Pending direction from City Council – staff will
proceed with the appropriate steps to dispose of the property.
Attachments:
 Map – City-Owned Land (18.06.3.00.006)
 Beacon Report – 18.06.3.00.006
 Proposed Site Plan
City Owned Land
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey.
This map is a compilation data affecting the area shown;
and is for reference purposes only. In using the map, you
assume responsibility for the correctness all information
extracted from this map.
Willow St
1161
1166
1163
1160
1167
1172
560
1174
1175
1179
1132
1136
12TH ST SW
1211
1285
1213
1328
1325
1272
1268
1273
1228
1255
1264
1248
1333
1401
1250
VI
EW
1254
1229
TR
1232
1233
1237
1300
1232
1274
1282
1245
S & K Group
1308
1288
1255
1240
1244
1362
City Owned
1252
1416
1243
L
1249
1224
1229
1236
1260
1408
1277
1228
1220
1225
1244
G
LY
N
AL
D
1322
1317
CUYLLE BAY
1316
1281
1276
1252
1216
1221
1280
19
"
)
1226
1212
1238
1251
W
AY
1217
1309
1224
1208
1289
1284
1308
1175
H
545
1288
1301
1151
1154
1204
1292
701
1114
1232
1293 561 555 551
1209
1208
1137
1155
IC
609
1296
1155
1133
R
1201
CUYLLE CT
June, 2016
Ferguson Plumbing
1318
1409
1359
1371
1305
1417
1325
Kitzman
701
1352
709
Middle School
1440
WILLOW ST
Straight River Trail
717
1360
1448
45
"
)
1516
1435
0
175
350 Feet
±
1623
City Owned
102
90
108
1635
Straight
River
95 Trail
1645
99
103
N:\ArcGIS10\Map Documents\ComDev\2016\City_Owned_Straight_River_Trail.mxd; 6/1/2016 3:32:29 PM
704
Beacon - Rice County, MN
Page 1 of 2
Rice County, MN
Summary
Parcel ID
Property Address
Sec/Twp/Rng
Brief
Tax Description
Area
Use Code
Tax Authority
Group
18.06.3.00.006
N/A
06/109/020
PART S150FT N896.5FT E2 NE4 SW4 WH LIES S & E
OF SELY LI R/W RR & ALSO S142.41FT N1038.91FT
E2 NE4 SW4 EX LEASE
(Note: Not to be used on legal documents)
4.50 Acres
5E-Exempt Properties
FARIBO-SD656-HSP-HRA-EDA
Owners
Primary Owner
Faribault City
208 1st Ave NW
Faribault MN 55021
Alternate Taxpayer
Fee Owner
Land
Lot Area 4.50 Acres; 196,020 SF
Sales
Date
Seller
Buyer
9/19/1987
Recording
NUTC
Type
D335 P457+
GOVERNMENT OR EXEMPT PARTY SALE
Deed
Multi
Parcel
Amount
$0.00
+
Valuation
EMV Improvement
EMV Land
EMV Machine
Payable 2017
Values
Payable 2016
Values
Payable 2015
Values
Payable 2014
Values
Payable 2013
Values
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$29,500
$29,500
$29,500
$29,500
$29,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$29,500
$29,500
$29,500
$29,500
$29,500
Green Acres Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Homestead Exclusion
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2016 Payable
2015 Payable
2014 Payable
2013 Payable
EMV (Estimated Market
Value) Total
Taxation
https://beaconbeta.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?AppID=74&LayerID=590&PageT... 5/31/2016
Beacon - Rice County, MN
Page 2 of 2
2016 Payable
2015 Payable
2014 Payable
2013 Payable
$0
$0
$0
$0
Taxable Market Value
+
Net Tax Amount
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
+
Special Assessments
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
=
Total Taxes Due
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
+
Penalty
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
+
Interest
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
+
Fees
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-
Amount Paid
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
=
Outstanding Balance
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Photos
TriMin LandShark
Click here to search for Parcel in TriMin LandShark
Tax Statements
 Retrieving data from server - Please wait...
No data available for the following modules: Condominiums, Mobile Home on Leased Land, Cell Towers, Cooperative, Divided
Interest, Leased Land, Apartments, Billboards, Agricultural Land, Residential Dwellings, Commercial Buildings, Agricultural Buildings,
Yard Extras, Permits, Tax Payment, Taxes Paid, Unpaid Taxes, Sketches.
Information is believed reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Developed by
The Schneider Corporation
https://beaconbeta.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?AppID=74&LayerID=590&PageT... 5/31/2016
6.
Council Committee Memorandum
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
Joint Council Committee
Brian J. Anderson, City Administrator
Carole Dillerud, Deputy City Clerk
June 7, 2016
Off-sale Liquor Store Hours Extension Request
Background:
Faribault City Code, Chapter 4, Sec. 4-27 (i) (2). Hours of Operation of Business
allows off-sale intoxicating liquor license holders to operate from 8:00 a.m. – 8:00
p.m. on Monday through Thursday, and 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday.
MN State Statute 340A.504, Subd. 4 (2) allows hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. –
10:00 p.m. on Monday through Saturday.
Discussion:
Staff has received a request from an Off-sale liquor license holder to extend their
hours of operation beyond those presently allowed by City Code, but which may be
allowed per State Statute. An amendment to the Faribault City Code would be
required to address this request.
Council may also wish to discuss the holiday hours of operation permitted by Statute
340A.504, Subd. 4 (3), (4) and (5) in relation to City Code Sec. 4-27 (i) (4), and (7).
Recommendation:
The Council consider amending City Code Off-sale, Section 4-27 (i) (2), to permit offsale intoxicating liquor license holders to operate from 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. on
Monday through Saturday, and Section 4-27 (i) to follow MN State Statute Subd. 4,
(1 through 7).
Attachments:
City Code Chapter 4, Section 27
MN State Statute 340A.504