Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.g. Engineering and Public Infrastructure Installation 4ROSEMOUNTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Date: March 18, 2014 AGENDA ITEM: Engineering and Public Infrastructure AGENDA SECTION: Installation Nem I tai 1 55 PREPARED BY: Dwight Johnson, City Administrator AGENDA NO Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director I4 Minutes 2/11/2014 Council APPROV€D ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, BY: Work Session and from Council Special Worksession 11-19-13; Revised Subdivision Agreement ,jp,J RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Approve a Resolution Modifying the Adopted Improvement Policy for Public Infrastructure Installation. ISSUE At the November 19, 2013 City Council worksession, the Council discussed engineering and installation of public improvements for private development. There were several options reviewed: public engineering and private installation;public engineering and public installation; and private engineering and private installation. After discussion about the pros and cons of each option, the Council determined that they wanted to be flexible to assist developers but did not want to compromise the quality of the City's public infrastructure. Staff was directed to provide a draft policy that would be similar to the Woodbury policy for engineering and infrastructure. On February 11, 2014 the City Council discussed a draft policy which was fashioned after the City of Woodbury policy for infrastructure design and installation. The policy allows the City Administrator to permit a developer's contract to install the public infrastructure for a subdivision if certain conditions are met. The policy continues the practice of having the City design the infrastructure. And should the developers contractor install the infrastructure, the City or their representative would conduct inspections of the work,with the inspections fees paid by the developer. HISTORY On July 2, 1996, the City Council approved a resolution adopting a public infrastructure installation policy relating to engineering and installation of public improvements. The policy clarified that"it is in the best interest of the City that all new streets and utilities added to the public system shall be designed and inspected by engineers employed by the City." There were five reasons for adopting the policy: 1. To ensure consistency and compatibility with the City's existing utility system. 2. To ensure consistency and compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan,including the Storm Water Management Plan, the Sanitary Sewer Plan, the Potable Water System Plan, the Transportation Plan and its Wetland Management Plan. 3. To ensure maximum control by the City of system components that will ultimately be operated, maintained and reconstructed by the City. 4. To ensure quality construction acceptable to the City Standards. 5. To ensure that the City's tax dollars are not spent in educating numerous design personnel about City ordinances, standards and procedures. On May 12, 2010, the City Council discussed a request by Warren Israelson to allow him to engineer and install infrastructure in the community,which would be inconsistent with the adopted public infrastructure policy. After discussion with the Council,it was determined that the City would not vary from the policy but would have staff work with Mr. Israelson to determine correct cost estimates and sureties. DISCUSSION The City Council has requested a modification to the existing policy regarding installation and design of public improvements. The policy modification permits the developer's contractor to install public infrastructure but maintains design of the infrastructure with the City. Additionally, the City will conduct inspections of the construction work for any public infrastructure privately installed. The policy recommends criteria for determining that the private contractor is found suitable and is permitted to install the public infrastructure. The City Administrator will make the determination so there is no additional review process to permit the change. The City Attorney has modified the subdivision agreement to reflect the changes in the infrastructure installation process.This change does not mean all developers must install their own infrastructure. The decision will be up to the developer. With private installation, there will be no ability to assess the infrastructure project, and the developer will need to pay the cost of construction at installation. This change was prompted by Council members' desire to be flexible to the needs of developers working in the community. The goal is to reduce the time necessary to process subdivisions and ensuing infrastructure installation. The change does reflect a divergence from the existing policy where the City has designed and installed, through the public bidding process, all public infrastructure since 1996. RECOMMENDATION Motion to approve the attached resolution which modifies the existing public improvements policy to permit developer's contractors install public infrastructure under certain conditions as determined by the City Administrator. 2 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2014 - A RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE ADOPTED IMPROVEMENT POLICY FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLATION WHEREAS, it is the City's responsibility to provide and ensure the public health, safety and welfare through the City's infrastructure including the sanitary sewer system,potable water system, storm water drainage system,transportation systems and related appurtenances.These facilities are owned, operated, maintained and ultimately reconstructed by the City which has enormous amounts of money invested in these systems. Because of these financial ojligations, it is important for the City to clarify the City's policy towards constructing new public improvements in developments;and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City Council of the City of Rosemount that it is in the best interest of the City that all new streets and utilities added to the public system shall be designed and inspected by engineers employed by the City,hereinafter referred to as the"City Engineer" for the following reasons: 1. To ensure consistency and compatibility with the City's existing utility system. 2. To ensure consistency and compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan,including the Storm Water Management Plan, the Sanitary Sewer Plan, the Potable Water System Plan, the Transportation Plan and its Wetland Management Plan. 3. To ensure maximum control by the City of system components that will ultimately be operated,maintained and reconstructed by the City. 4. To ensure quality construction acceptable to City Standards. 5. To ensure that the City's tax dollars are not spent in educating numerous design personnel about City ordinances, standards and procedures. WHEREAS, the design, construction and construction administration of public infrastructure necessary to serve new residential developments shall be completed as follows: Design. All public infrastructure improvements shall be designed by the City, either by City staff or its consultant(s),under the direct supervision of the City Engineer. Construction. Public infrastructure may be constructed by the City through public bid and construction practices. However, at the City Administrator's sole discretion, developer(s) may be allowed to contract privately for the construction of public infrastructure improvements necessary to serve their development. Upon request, the City Administrator will evaluate a project's eligibility for private construction based on criteria that include but are not limited to: 1. Financial wherewithal of the developer to adequately secure the project and of the institution providing the security on the developer's behalf. RESOLUTION 2014- 2. Type of security provided (i.e.,letter of credit, cash escrow, third party agreement, etc.). 3. Developer's and/or contractor's prior experience and proven ability to successfully complete a similar project in Rosemount and/or other community including reference checks if necessary. 4. Ability to provide 2-year warranty bond. 5. Necessity of incorporating other benefitted properties into public improvement plans. 6. Evaluation of the overall development plan. 7. Size and phasing of the proposed development. 8. Other City-related issues. All terms and conditions under which the City would allow private construction will be memorialized in a Developers Agreement. Approval for developer-constructed infrastructure improvements for one development addition will not automatically grant the developer the right to complete future additions on that basis. Each addition will be evaluated independently based on satisfactory completion of the work, compliance with the Developers Agreement and criteria set forth within this policy. The City reserves the right to require all public improvements to be constructed publicly. If public trunk utilities are constructed privately, the area charge credit will not exceed the area charges for the Preliminary Plat or Planned Unit Development. Construction Administration. Construction administration for all public infrastructure improvements,including those constructed under private contract, shall be performed by City staff and/or consultant(s) under the direct supervision of the City Engineer. Construction administration includes but is not limited to inspection, documentation, pay requests, as-builts, surveying, field staking, testing and monitoring. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Rosemount adopts the "IMPROVEMENT POLICY FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLATION". ADOPTED this 18th day of March, 2014, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. William H. Droste,Mayor ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk 2 ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION PROCEEDINGS FEBRUARY 11, 2014 CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a work session of the Rosemount City Council was held on Tuesday, February 11, 2014 at 6:45 p.m. in the Conference Room at City Hall,2875 145th Street West, Rosemount. Mayor Droste called the meeting to order with Council Members DeBettignies, Shoe-Corrigan, Weisensel and Demuth attending. Staff present included City Administrator Johnson, City Clerk Domeier,Assistant City Administrator Foster, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Brotzler, Community Development Director Lindquist, Chief of Police Werner and Public Works Utilities Crew Lead Howe. DISCUSSION 2.A. 2014 Proposed Public Works Equipment Purchases Director of Public Works/City Engineer Brotzler provided a summary of the staff report. Council Member Weisensel questioned why the RTV was not included within the matrix. Mr. Brotzler explained that during the development and Council adoption of the Fleet Evaluation Matrix, the RTV or mowers were not included in the matrix. Discussion was also held on the different brands of RTVs and pricing. Mr. Brotzler also provided that the proposed equipment purchases are available on the state bid except for the used wood chipper. Council Member Demuth suggested purchasing a new wood chipper instead. She questioned if a new chipper could be purchased instead of a new RTV. Mr. Brotzler stated that there would be maintenance costs to keeping the RTV. Council Member Weisensel was concerned about the annual replacement of the painting equipment. Mayor Droste shared concerns about the number of hours the chipper is used a day. Mr. Brotzler explained that time was included in the IRR. He also shared some research he found online related to the amount of hours used on equipment. Council Member Shoe-Corrigan questioned how many hours of use for the capital equipment and how many hours of usage by the department. Discussion was held on the resale and trade in values of the equipment. Council Member Weisensel questioned the replacement cost of the vactor truck. Mr. Brotzler explained the different systems available in a vactor truck. Discussion was held about the amount of time the City would use the vactor truck. Mr. Howe talked about the preventative maintenance the department does with the vactor truck. Mr. Brotzler stated that he did approach Farmington about the sharing of equipment and Farmington had no interest. It was also noted that it is presumed that there would be a cost to share equipment with/from another community that would likely be similar to equipment rental costs. Additionally, for most city equipment agencies are utilizing the same equipment during the same time that makes sharing maintenance equipment challenging. Mr. Brotzler talked more about the matrix and its development. Council Member Weisensel stated there should be a correlation between hours and maintenance. Council Member Weisensel wanted to push the tractor to a longer life. He also wanted more information on the paint equipment. After discussion, the City Council preferred to keep the RTV one more year. It was noted that if the tractor was not replaced it would need new tired for use on the Flint Hills fields. ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION PROCEEDINGS FEBRUARY 11, 2014 Mr. Howe provided additional information about the maintenance issues and requirements at the City's lift stations. The City Council supported the purchase of a vactor truck, dump truck and chipper. 2.C. Animal Control Update Chief of Police Werner provided a summary of the staff report. Council Member Shoe-Corrigan questioned if police are following-up with the customers. She suggested that staff do so because the City Council is receiving the complaints. The City Council thanked Mr. Werner for his work on the animal control changes. He was directed to get feedback from residents that have had their dogs returned. 2.B. Engineering and Public Infrastructure Installation Community Development Director Lindquist provided a summary of the staff report. She explained that staff will need to work with the City Attorney to modify the standard development agreement and to determine the proper form for financial securities. She also provided information on the process of how a development project would work under the policy. Mayor thought this proposal was still not marketing well. Discussion was held about other city projects and performance issues. Ms. Lindquist provided information on Woodbury process to date. Mayor Droste provided information the process in Inver Grove Heights. Council Member Weisensel understood staff's concerns about the making sure the developer's engineering would meet the bar and proving they can meet the performance requirements. Director of Public Works/City Engineer Brotzler talked about the current challenges when reviewing plans from developers. Council Member Weisensel noted it would be hard to set that engineering criteria. Council Member Shoe-Corrigan agreed and stated that we need to ensure there is a quality end product. Council Member Demuth stated that the City would get paid to review the design. Mr. Brotzler explained that in a review capacity the City would have control but that the control comes with a potential for an adversary process. Discussion was held about the relationship with developers. Mr. Brotzler talked about the relationships that staff has with the developers. Council Member Shoe-Corrigan was concerned that the policy was being changed because of one person's perception. The City Council directed staff to move forward with the policy after consulting with the City Attorney on the language changes. 2.D. Council Salaries Mayor Droste requested feedback from the City Council. Discussion was held about different options for pay moving forward. The City Council decided on$7,000 for Council and$9,200.00 for Mayor. ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION PROCEEDINGS FEBRUARY 11, 2014 UPDATES 3.A Update on Commissioner Recruitment Process City Clerk Domeier provided an update on the number of applications received. The City Council favored having 15 minute interviews with a dinner break. Ms. Domeier handed out the application and will post the schedule and questions in Dropbox. 3.B. Update on Labor Negotiations City Administrator Johnson and Assistant City Administrator Foster provided an update on the labor negotiations. After sharing the changes to the Teamsters Union contract, the City Council had concerns about the amount of comp time the employees could accrue even though other bargaining units could earn the same amount. They were concerned with the amount of time the employees could be gone from work and as a result the loss to the overall service levels in the department. Discussion ensued and a majority of the City Council did not support the proposed comp time language. Therefore, staff will return to the negotiation table with the Teamsters Union. 3.C. Updates from City Council and Staff Community Development Director Lindquist provided an update on the Star Communities training. She also provided an update on the County's Maxfield Study related to the housing. The County will provide an update to Rosemount. Director of Public Works/City Engineer provided an update on maintenance operations including City-wide snow removal and pothole repairs scheduled for Shannon Parkway. City Administrator Johnson questioned if the City Council would support donating to the Leprechaun Days fireworks since the SKB Trust was closed. The City Council supported the donation. Mr.Johnson also stated that the Parks Commission suggested naming the UMore site softball fields Akron Fields. The City Council did not support Akron Fields name. ADJOUNRMENT There being no further business to come before the City Council and upon a motion by Droste, second by DeBettignies, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 11:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Amy Domeier, City Clerk ROSEMOUN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION PROCEEDINGS NOVEMBER 19, 2013 CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a special work session of the Rosemount City Council was held on Tuesday,November 19 at 8:31 p.m. in the Conference Room at City Hall,2875 145`''Street West,Rosemount. Mayor Droste called the meeting to order with Council Members DeBettignies, Shoe-Corrigan, Weisensel and Demuth attending. Staff present included City Administrator Johnson,City Clerk Domeier, City Attorney LeFevere, Finance Director May, Director of Parks and Recreation Schultz, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Brotzler,Police Chief Werner, Fire Chief Schroeder and Community Development Director Lindquist. DISCUSSION 2.A. Budget City Administrator Johnson provided a summary of the staff report. Discussion was held regarding the home value calculation. Mayor Droste raised concerns about the cost of health insurance compared to other MVTA cities. Mr.Johnson explained that family insurance premium costs would be considered as part of the union negotiations. He also provided information on possible wellness options for employees. Discussion was held on wellness options. Discussion was also held on the projected revenues for permits and licensing. Finance Director May stated the Public Hearing would be held on December 3. 2.B. Engineering and Public Infrastructure Installation City Administrator Johnson provided a summary of the staff report.He also provided his interpretation of a meeting that Mayor Droste had with a sales representative for Lennar.The representative claimed that the City caused delays in selling homes. Mr.Johnson stated that staff documented the approvals process with the developer and third party issues as provided in the packet. Mr.Johnson explained that the conversation with the sales representative lead to the question of whether the City should engineer projects or allow for private installation. Mr.Johnson also noted that staff has found a way to speed up the development process approximately two weeks. In the future, all bid openings that occur on Fridays will be added to the next Council meeting agenda for consideration. Council Member DeBettignies stated he was happy to see the process change as two weeks is valuable to developers. Mayor Droste provided information on the engineering and installation processes in Inver Grove Heights. He stated that in Inver Grove Heights the lowest bidder gets the project. City Attorney LeFevere noted that they use the lowest responsible bidder. Mayor Droste also provided information on the conversation with the sales representative from Lennar Homes. Community Development Director Lindquist explained that the delays in the process were due to utility work based upon a third party. Director of Public Works/City Engineer Brotzler added that the two month delay for Lennar's project may have been longer if city staff was not involved in the process as the project lead. City staff lead the resolution of property issues between Lennar and Arcon that was necessary to advance the project. Council Member Shoe-Corrigan stated she wanted to maintain the quality of work within the City. She stated she could support a hybrid method if it's feasible to offer on projects. Council Member ROSEMOUN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION PROCEEDINGS NOVEMBER 19, 2013 Weisensel stated the City could have a design manual. Mr.Brotzler noted that the reality is that even with a design manual for private developer engineers to follow,you still often do not receive plans that meet city standards. This was noted as an issue that led the City of Woodbury to bring the design of development projects back into the city. He stated that the Woodbury model has the city design the project but allows for the developer to hire their own contractors with city permission. Ms Lindquist stated that we should not assume the only reason developers and builders are not coming here is because of the current practice. She explained that developers are given a timeline when they meet with staff before a project is given full approval. Council Member Shoe-Corrigan understood that it was good to have options for developers but questioned what is reasonable and what staff thinks needs to be done to main the city's quality in design. Ms Lindquist stated that the city does have standards in place for installing infrastructure. Mayor Droste expressed frustration over the city requesting asbuilt surveys before a certificate of occupancy in issued. Ms. Lindquist explained the process for having the asbuilt in place before sod is installed to prevent any drainage issues. Further discussion was held on the background for establishing the policy. Mr.Brotzler stated that once the sod is installed it is hard to fix the grading and drainage issue. Often times,homeowners expect the city to fix those drainage issues which has consumed a lot of staff time. Council Member Shoe-Corrigan stated that without the policy it would be very easy for the residents to blame the city. City Administrator Johnson suggested that the policy be discussed at a different time separate from the current issue. Mr. LeFevere stated he has worked in cities that have used both practices for design and installation work. He noted that there will still be contention with projects if the developers install because the city will deal only with the developer and not the contractors. The city will need protection which requires developers to submit a performance bond. He provided experiences he has held in working in other cities. He also provided information on using special assessments. Council Members Shoe-Corrigan,Demuth and DeBettignies supported creating some accommodations if the circumstances at a project allow for it. Council Member Weisensel stated that staff should let developers know the options for moving forward. He wanted the information provided upfront. Mr. Brotzler explained that the first conversation with developers on a project includes creating a schedule. He added that the city staff is proactive and has great relationships with the developers. Discussion was held about getting the message out to the public about how infrastructure is built and the process. Mr.Brotzler stated that staff could provide and expand on a sample timeline that could be included on the website. Staff was directed to start exploring communication ideas and develop some hybrid options for moving forward. 2.C. Goal Setting Dates The City Council decided to hold its Goal Setting the evening of January 24 and morning of January 25. Department Directors are invited to the Friday evening session. Directors should prepare one page of goals. ROSEMOUN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION PROCEEDINGS NOVEMBER 19, 2013 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the City Council and upon a motion by Droste, second by Demuth,the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:13 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Amy Domeier,City Clerk SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT-Developer Installation =DOM Addition AGREEMENT dated this day of , 20 ,by and between the CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, a Minnesota municipal corporation, (the "City"), and DEVELOPER NAME, a , (the "Developer"). 1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve the subdivision of land and a plat of land to be known as a Addition,which land is legally described on Attachment One, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof (hereinafter referred to as the "subject property"). 2. Conditions of Plat Approval. The City has approved the subdivision and the plat on the following conditions: a. Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer concerning design and installation of public infrastructure and including grading, erosion control, streets and utilities. b. Execution of a Subdivision or Development Agreement to secure the public and private improvements. c. Payment of all applicable fees including G.I.S., Park Dedication and other fees identified in the current fee schedule. d. Incorporation of any easements necessary to accommodate drainage,ponding, trails, underpasses, conservation areas, streets and utilities. 3. Phased Development. The City may refuse to approve final plats of subsequent additions of the plat if the Developer has breached this Agreement and the breach has not been remedied. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until Subdivision Agreements for such phases are approved by the City. 4. Effect of Subdivision Approval. For two (2) years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the current urban service area, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications of the approved plat unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law, the City may require compliance with any XXXXXXX Addition Month/Year Page 1 of 11 440235v2 RS215-3 amendments to the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan, official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement. 5. Development Plans. The subject property shall be developed in accordance with the following plans, original copies of which are on file with the City Engineer. The plans may be prepared, subject to City approval, after entering this Agreement, but before commencement of any work on the Subject Property. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Agreement, the written terms shall control. The plans are: Plan A -Plat Plan B - Soil Erosion Control Plan and Schedule Plan C -Drainage and Storm Water Runoff Plan Plan D -Plans and Specifications for Public Improvements Plan E - Grading Plan and House Pad Elevations Plan F - Street Lights Plan G-Landscape Improvements All Improvements, including Developer Improvements and City Installed Public Infrastructure Improvements that lie within the public right-of-way or easements and are improvements listed in Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.021 (hereinafter Public Improvements) will be designed by the City Engineer at Developer's expense. The City Engineer will prepare plans and specifications for Public Improvements and will perform all construction administration for the Public Improvements, all at Developer expense. Construction administration includes but is not limited to inspection, documentation, pay requests, as-builts, surveying, field staking, testing and monitoring. 6. Installation by Developer. The Developer shall install or cause to be installed and pay for the following, hereinafter referred to as the "Developer Improvements": A. Setting of lot and block monuments B. Surveying and staking of work required to be performed by the Developer C. Gas, electric, telephone, and cable lines D. Site grading E. Landscaping F. Streetlights G. Other items as necessary to complete the development as stipulated herein or in other agreements ments H. I. 7. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required improvements enumerated in Paragraph 6 that will serve the subject property by , 20 . The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be XXXXXXX Addition Month/Year Page 2 of 11 440235v2 RS215-3 conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. 8. City Installed Public Infrastructure. The following improvements, hereinafter referred to as "City Installed Public Infrastructure Improvements" (known as City Project XXX), shall be designed, inspected, surveyed and administered by the City, and installed in the Subject Property at Developer expense by a Contractor selected by the City through the public bidding process: A. XXX B. XXX C. XXX D. XXX E. XXX Attachment One shows the area within which the City Installed Public Infrastructure Improvements will be constructed. Contracts for City Installed Public Infrastructure Improvements shall provide for construction in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by the City or its consultants. The City will not enter into such contracts until all conditions of plat and subdivision approval have been met, the plat is recorded, and the City has received the bonds and security required by this agreement. The City will obtain any necessary permits from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Department of Health and all other agencies before proceeding with construction of City Installed Public Infrastructure Improvements. 9. Deposit for Cost of City Installed Public Infrastructure Improvements. For the purpose of financing the construction, installation and maintenance of the City Installed Public Infrastructure Improvements, the Developer shall promptly make payments to the City of sums deemed necessary by the City to make timely payments to its contractor as follows: a. As construction of the City Installed Public Infrastructure Improvements proceeds, the City will give written notice specifying an amount due from the Developer to cover one or more periodic payments to the City's contractor. Payments shall be due no later than ten (10) days after receipt of notice by the Developer. b. No interest will be paid or credited to the Developer on funds held by the City in the deposit. Following final payment for City Installed Public Infrastructure Improvements the City will return any unused funds in the deposit to the Developer. c. Upon execution of this Agreement, the Developer will provide a letter of credit from a local bank in form satisfactory to the City in the amount of XXXX Dollars ($ ) [calculated by multiplying the estimated construction costs ($ ) by 110% (1.1)], conditioned on the prompt and faithful performance by the Developer of its obligations under this paragraph 9. This letter of credit may be combined with any other letter of credit given to secure performance under this Agreement,provided the form thereof is approved by the City. d. In the event the City does not recover its costs for completing the City Installed Public Infrastructure Improvements under the provisions of this paragraph, as an additional remedy, the City may, at its option, assess the Subject Property in the manner provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and the Developer hereby consents to the levy of such special assessments without notice or hearing and waives its rights to appeal such assessments pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.081, provided the amount levied, together with the funds XXXXXXX Addition Month/Year Page 3 of 11 440235v2 RS215-3 deposited with the City under this paragraph, does not exceed the expenses actually incurred by the City in the completion of the City Installed Public Infrastructure Improvements. 10. Security for Developer Improvements. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Agreement, payment of the costs of all Developer Improvements, and construction of all Developer Improvements (as noted in Paragraph 6), the Developer shall furnish the City with a cash deposit or irrevocable letter of credit from a local bank ("security") in the amount of X00 Dollars ($ ), which is 110% of the estimated cost of the Developer Improvements. The amount of the security was calculated as follows: Cost 110% Grading&Erosion Control $ $ Pond Restoration and Erosion Control Removal $ $ Survey Monumentation $ $ Landscaping $ $ Street Lighting (# lights) $ $ Buffer Monumentation (# signs) $ $ Total $ $ Refer to Exhibit A and Exhibit B for an explanation of each item. The bank and form of the letter of credit or other security shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator. The letter of credit shall be automatically renewable until the City releases the developer from responsibility. The letter of credit shall secure compliance with the terms of this Agreement and all obligations of the Developer under it. The City may draw down on the letter of credit without notice if the obligations of the Developer have not been completed as required by this Agreement. In the event of a default under this Subdivision Agreement by the Developer, the City shall furnish the Developer with written notice by certified mail of Developers default(s) under the terms of this Subdivision Agreement. If the Developer does not remove said default(s) within two (2) weeks of receiving notice, the City may draw on the letter of credit. With City approval, the letter of credit may be reduced from time to time as financial obligations are paid and Developer Improvements completed to the City's requirements. 11. Grading Plan/Site Grading. Site grading shall be completed by the Developer at its cost and approved by the City Engineer. The completion of grading activities will need to be coordinated by the City in conjunction with the installation of utilities. Developer shall furnish the City Engineer satisfactory proof of payment for the site grading work and shall submit a certificate of survey of the development to the City as the site grading is completed by phase, with street and lot grades. If the installation of utilities by the City is occurring simultaneously with the grading, the utility contractor shall have preference over the grading activities. No substantial grading activities can be completed over installed utilities unless otherwise protected. All improvements to the lots and the final grading shall comply with the grading plan as submitted and shall be the responsibility of the Developer. 12. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a license to enter the Subject Property to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City during the installation of City Installed Public Infrastructure Improvements. XXXXXXX Addition Month/Year Page 4 of 11 440235v2 RS215-3 13. Erosion Control. Prior to site grading, and before any utility construction is commenced or building permits are issued, the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented, inspected and approved by the City. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded within 72 hours after the completion of the work in that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion control plan, seed shall be rye grass or other fast-growing seed suitable to the existing soil to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be mulched and disc-anchored as necessary for seed retention. All basement and/or foundation excavation spoil piles shall be kept completely off City right-of-way and shall be completely surrounded with an approved erosion control silt fence. Approved erosion control fencing shall be installed around the perimeter of each lot or at City-approved locations at the time of building permit issuance and remain in place until the lot is seeded or sodded. A 20-foot opening will be allowed on each lot for construction deliveries. The parties recognize that time is critical in controlling erosion. If development does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule, or supplementary instructions received from the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion. This right also applies to the required erosion control for basement and/or foundation excavation spoil piles. The City will attempt to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's or City's rights or obligations hereunder. If the Developer does not reimburse the City for any cost the City incurred for such work within thirty (30) days, the City may draw down the letter of credit to pay any costs. No development will be allowed, and no building permits will be issued unless the Subject Property is in full compliance with the erosion control requirements. 14. Planting and Seeding. Landscaping shall be in accordance with Landscape Plans approved by the City Planner. 15. Clean up. The Developer shall clean streets of dirt and debris that has resulted from construction work by the Developer, its agents or assignees. The City will inspect the site on a weekly basis and determine whether it is necessary to take additional measures to clean dirt and debris from the streets. After 24 hours verbal notice to the Developer, the City will complete or contract to complete the clean-up at the Developer's expense in accordance with the procedures specified in Paragraph 13. The Developer shall inspect and, if necessary, clean all catch basins, sumps, and ponding areas of erosion/siltation and restore to the original condition at the end of home construction within this development. All silt fence and other erosion control should be removed following the establishment of turf. These items are to be secured through the letter of credit as is noted in Exhibit A. 16. Ownership of Improvements. Upon completion and City acceptance of the work and construction required by this Agreement, the Public Improvements lying within public rights-of-way and easements shall become City property without further notice or action unless the improvements are specifically identified herein as private infrastructure. 17. Warranty. The Developer warrants all work required to be performed by it against poor material and faulty workmanship for a period of two (2) years after its completion and acceptance by the City or such longer period as is specified in plans and specifications prepared by the City Engineer for Developer Improvements that are Public Improvements. All trees, grass and sod shall be warranted to be alive, of good quality and disease free for twenty-four (24) months after planting. Vegetation surrounding ponds and/or wetlands shall be warranted to be alive, of good quality and weed free for thirty-six (36) months after planting. XXXXXXX Addition Month/Year Page 5 of 11 440235v2 RS215-3 18. Responsibility for Costs. A. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the development of the Subject Property including, but not limited to, Soil and Water Conservation District charges, legal, planning, engineering and inspection expenses incurred in connection with approval and acceptance of the subdivision and the plat, the preparation of this Agreement and any amendments hereto, and all costs and expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and inspecting the development of the Subject Property. B. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat or subdivision approval and development of the Subject Property. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages or expenses that the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims,including attorney's fees. C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the preparation and enforcement of this Agreement, including engineering and attorney's fees. The estimated City fees of $ shall be deposited with the City at the time this Agreement is signed, and represent the following estimates: $ Engineering Review Fees (estimate) $ Engineering Design and Construction Admin Fees (estimate) $ Attorney Fees (estimate) $ 5% City Fees (estimate) $ Street Light Energy Cost $ GIS Fees Seal Coating If the actual City fees exceed this estimate, the Developer shall pay the additional costs to the City within ten (10) days of the request. If actual City fees are lower than this estimate, any surplus funds will be returned to the developer when the project fund is reconciled and closed. D. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this Agreement within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt development work and construction including, but not limited to, the issuance of building permits for lots that the Developer may or may not have sold, until the bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of nine percent (9%) per year. E. The Developer shall pay all energy costs for street lights installed within the Subject Property for 24-months at a cost of$12/month/light. After that, the City will assume the energy costs. F. The Developer will pay the cost of sealcoating the streets within the development at a cost of $1.70/SY. The sealcoating will be completed within two (2) years following wear course placement. G. The Developer will pay the cost of fog sealing the trails within the development at a cost of $0.20/SF. The fog sealing will be completed within two (2) years following trail installation. XXXXXXX Addition Month/Year Page 6 of 11 440235v2 RS215-3 19. The Developer agrees to pay fees, charges and assessments set forth in this Section prior to, or at the time of execution of any plat by the City: A. Storm Sewer Trunk Area Charges in the amount of$ B. Sanitary Sewer Trunk Area Charges in the amount of$ C. Watermain Trunk Area Charges in the amount of$ Or other amounts for such fees as in effect at the time of plat approval. 20. The Developer understands that builders will be required to pay for the Subject Property fees, charges and assessments in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. The rates for each of these items will be set according to the current rate structure at the time the building permit is received. The fees, charges, and assessments in effect as of the date of this agreement are: A. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Availability Charges per SAC unit (current rate is $2,365). B. Storm Sewer Connection Charges per single family unit and per multiple family unit (single family currently at$770;multi-family currently at$290 per housing unit). C. Sanitary Sewer Availability Charges per SAC unit (currently at$1,200/SAC unit). D. Water Availability Charges per SAC unit (currently at $2,175/SAC unit for single family residential and multi-family residential). E. Park dedication fees (currently$3,400 per single-family unit). May he moved to section 19. 21. Building Permits. No occupancy permits shall be issued until: A. The site grading is completed and approved by the City. B. All public utilities are tested, approved by the City Engineer, and in service. C. All curbing is installed and backfilled. D. The first lift of bituminous is in place and approved by the City. E. All building permit fees are paid in full. F. No early building permits will be issued. The Developer, in executing this Agreement, assumes all liability and costs for damage or delays incurred by the City in the construction of Public Improvements caused by the Developer, its employees, contractors, subcontractors,material men or agents. No occupancy permits shall be issued until the public streets and utilities referred to in paragraph 6 and 8 are in and approved by the City, unless otherwise authorized in writing by the City Engineer. 22. Record Drawings. At project completion, Developer shall submit record drawings of all public and private infrastructure improvements in accordance with the City's Engineering Guidelines. No securities will be fully released until all record drawings have been submitted and accepted by the City Engineer. 23. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given notice of the work in default, not less than 48 hours in advance. This Agreement is a license for XXXXXXX Addition Month/Year Page 7 of 11 440235v2 RS215-3 the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, levy the cost in whole or in part as a special assessment against the Subject Property. Developer waives its rights to notice of hearing and hearing on such assessments and its right to appeal such assessments pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.081. 24. Miscellaneous. A. The Developer represents to the City that the development of the Subject Property, the subdivision and the plat comply with all city, county, metropolitan, state and federal laws and regulations including, but not limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances and environmental regulations. If the City determines that the subdivision, or the plat, or the development of the Subject Property does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow construction or development work on the Subject Property until the Developer does comply. Upon the City's demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance. B. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement. C. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits,including lots sold to third parties. D. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause,paragraph or phase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. E. If building permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of Public Improvements, the Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in completion of Public Improvements and damage to Public Improvements caused by the City, the Developer, its contractors, subcontractors,material men,employees, agents or third parties. F. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or release. G. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the subject property. The Developer shall take such steps, including execution of amendments to this Agreement, as are necessary to effect the recording hereof. After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Agreement, at the Developer's request, the City will execute and deliver to the Developer a release. H. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to the City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so exciting may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right,power or remedy. I. The Developer may not assign this Agreement without the written permission of the City Council. XXXXXXX Addition Month/Year Page 8 of 11 440235v2 RS215-3 25. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by registered mail at the following address: Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Administrator, or mailed to the City by registered mail in care of the City Administrator at the following address: City Administrator Rosemount City Hall 2875 145th Street West Rosemount,Minnesota 55068 XXXXXXX Addition Month/Year Page 9 of 11 440235v2 RS215-3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT BY: William H. Droste,Mayor BY: Amy Domeier, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA SS COUNTY OF DAKOTA The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20_, by William H. Droste, Mayor, and Amy Domeier, City Clerk, of the City of Rosemount, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public DEVELOPER NAME BY: Its BY: Its STATE OF MINNESOTA SS COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20 by , its , and , its of , a , on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public Drafted By: City of Rosemount 2875 145th Street West Rosemount,MN 55068 XXXXXXX Addition Month/Year Page 10 of 11 440235v2 RS215-3 EXHIBIT A The following clarifies the various portions of the letter of credit for Developer Improvements that are outlined in the Subdivision Agreement: Grading & Erosion Control —A restoration and erosion control bond to ensure re-vegetation and erosion control ($3,500/acre). Note: The minimum bond amount is set at$25,000. Pond Restoration/Erosion Control Removal — A security to allow for cleaning of sedimentation ponds prior to City acceptance, and removal of any installed erosion control measures such as silt fence and wood fiber blanket following development of 75 percent of adjoining lots (estimated lump sum). Survey Monumentation — An amount equal to 110% of the cost to monument all lots within the development. Landscaping — An amount equal to 110% of the cost to complete the minimum required landscaping. If additional landscaping is planned, a bond for that cost is not required. Retaining Walls—An amount equal to 110% of the cost to complete the retaining wall construction. Street Lighting — An amount equal to 110% of the cost to complete the minimum required lighting. If additional lighting is planned, a bond for that cost is not required ($4,000 per light has been used to calculate this cost). Buffer Monumentation — An amount equal to 110% of the cost to manufacture and install the necessary buffer monumentation signs around all ponds and wetlands ($50 per sign has been used to calculate this cost). Park Equipment—An amount equal to 110% of the cost of improvements agreed upon to be completed in the park areas. Wetland Monitoring — An amount equal to 110% of the cost to hire a wetland specialist to monitor the mitigation areas for 5 years to ensure their proper creation. This wetland specialist will be hired by the City. Wetland Restoration/Mitigation — An amount equal to 110% of the cost to develop new wetlands should the mitigation not be effective ($20,000 per acre of mitigation). XXXXXXX Addition Month/Year Page 11 of 11 440235v2 RS215-3