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