Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3. Public CommentMay 06 2003 3:23PM VOLZ LAW FIRM, LTD. 9524355000 P.2 ir/4 r VO LAW FIRIVI, LTD. The Honorable William H. Droste, Mayor Rosemount City Hall 2875 — 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 Ms. Kim Shoe - Corrigan, Council Member Rosemount City Hall 2875 — 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 Telephone: (952) 898 -1293 May 6, 2003 Fax: (952) 892 -5000 Ms. Mary Riley, Council Member Rosemount City Hall 2875 — 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 Mr. Mark DeBettignies, Council Member Rosemount City Hall 2875 — 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 Mr. Kevin Strayton, Council Member Mr. Andrew J. Brotzler, P.E. Rosemount City Hall City Engineer 2875 — 145th Street West Rosemount City Hall Rosemount, MN 55068 2875 — 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 RE: East Side Watermain Phase 2, City Project 343, WSB Project 140240 Dear Honorable Mayor, Council Members, and Mr. Brotzler: I represent Contractor's Edge, Inc. Thank you for allowing my client to set forth its position regarding the bid for the East Side Watermain, Phase 2, project. This project was bid on March 14 Contractor's Edge, Inc. provided the lowest, responsive bid. Three Rivers Construction, Inc. provided the lowest cost bid but its bid was non- responsive because it failed to acknowledge an addendum, an irregularity that cannot be waived by the City. At the April 17 City Council meeting, Andy Brotzler, the City Engineer, recommended that the City award the project to Contractor's Edge, Inc. After much discussion, the Council moved to table its decision until the meeting today because of the threat of a lawsuit from Three Rivers Construction, Inc. It is my understanding the City is now leaning towards rejecting all bids to avoid a lawsuit. For the reasons set forth below, we urge that you reevaluate this decision and move forward to award the project to Contractor's Edge, Inc. as recommended by Andy Brotzler, the City Engineer, Kevin Kawlewski, the Project Manager, and as suggested by Charles LeFevere, the City Attorney. As discussed below, an award to Contractor's Edge is the most legally acceptable position the City could take. Suite 100 17315 Liberty Beach Court Lakeville, MN 55044 May 06 2003 3:23PM VOLZ LAW FIRM, LTD. 9524355000 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Mr. Andy Brotzler, P.E., City Engineer May 6, 2003 Page 2 The City has two options — reject all bids or award the project to Contractor's Edge, Inca Today is the last day the City can award the project.' While the City now appears to believe the most defensible position is to reject all bids, this position is clearly less defensible than awarding the contract to Contractor's Edge, Inc. More importantly, the cost for the project will likely` increase significantly if it is re -bid at a later date. Because the City of Rosemount has not experienced a bid protest like this before, I have taken the opportunity to expand on the law regarding public bidding laws as I have been personally involved in numerous bid protests, including the only Minnesota case directly on point, Duininck Bros., Inc. v. State of Minnesota No. C3 -97 -972, 1997 WL 729233 (Minn. App. Nov. 25, 1997). In that case, I represented Duininck, the contractor who failed to acknowledge an addendum in a public bid with the State of Minnesota. We lost. I. THE CITY NOW LACKS DISCRETION TO REJECT ALL BIDS. If the City now decides to reject all bids, its conduct will be considered arbitrary and capricious and a court may enjoin the City from rejecting all bids. A local government has some discretion when deciding who the lowest responsible bidder on a project is. Otter Tail Power Co. v. Village of Elbow Lake 234 Minn. 419, 424, 49 N.W.2d 197, 241 (1951). However, administrative acts, such as awarding contracts or rejecting bids under a competitive bidding procedure, can be enjoined if done illegally, arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably. See, e.g,, Bud Johnson Construction Co. Inc v Metropolitan Transit Commission 272 N.W.2d 331, 33 (Minn. 1978). In fact, "the courts are obliged to scrupulously guard the competitive bidding process" against abuses such as fraud and collusion. Lovering- Johnson, Inc. v City of Prior Lake, 558 N.W.2d 499, 503 (Minn. App. 1997). Further, only the mere creation of an opportunity for fraud or collusion is needed to render a violation of the public bidding laws. Id.; see also Griswold v. County of Ramsey 242 Minn. 529, 65 N.W.2d 647 (1954) ( "A fundamental purpose of competitive bidding is to deprive or limit the discretion of contract making officials in the areas which are susceptible to such abuses as fraud, favoritism, improvidence, and extravagance. "). "It is imperative that public bidding procedures be conducted in a carefully controlled and wholly open manner." United Technology Communications Company v Washington County Board 624 F.Supp. 185, 188 (D. Minn. 1985) (stating "[ejven the slightest deviations from prescribed form are viewed with a most jaundiced eye "). Here, if the City now decides to reject all bids, it is opening up the process to potential abuses such as fraud and favoritism. For example, any public owner could reject all bids if it did not like the low bidder. A public owner could keep rejecting all bids until the bidder it liked or wanted to be awarded the project was low. This is precisely the "opportunity for fraud or collusion" the courts frown upon. p .3 , According to the bid specifications, the "[a]ward date will be no later than May 6, 2003." Contract Prov. 01302. May 06 2003 3:23PM VOLZ LAW FIRM, LTD. 9524355000 P.4 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Mr. Andy Brotzler, P.E., City Engineer May 6, 2003 Page 3 More importantly, the City here has no legitimate reason to reject all bids. First, the City wants to complete the project this year. Second, Contractor's Edge, Inc.'s price is lower than the engineer's estimate and the prices will likely increase if the project is re -bid. Third, the threat of a lawsuit from a disappointed bidder is not a justifiable reason to reject all of the bids. Finally, the City has all along acted as if it was going to award the project. The City has sent correspondence to my client discussing the award of the contract (see letters attached). The City's engineer recommended that the project be awarded. The City's attorney stated the most defensible position would be to reject Three Rivers' bid which ultimately would result in an award to Contractor's Edge_ Thus, if the City now rejects all bids, a court could easily rule that the City's conduct is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the public bidding laws. II. THE CITY LACKS THE AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT THREE RIVERS' BID BECAUSE IT IS NONRESPONSIVE. The City must reject Three Rivers' bid. As discussed in the City Attorney's legal opinion, the City's least defensible position is to waive the irregularity and award the project to Three Rivers. The legal theory behind this position exists because the failure to acknowledge the addendum allows Three Rivers to withdraw its bid based on its mistake which taints the whole bidding process. Public bidding laws require, "as necessary corollaries, that the public officials ... should adopt definite plans and specifications .. . to permit free and open bidding by all interested parties ... " Coller v. City of St. Paul 223 Minn. 376, 384 -85, 26 N.W.2d 835, 840 (1947), reh g denied (May 2, 1947). Further, the "bids shall constitute a definite offer .. _ which can be accepted without further negotiations ...." Id. If there is a substantial variance between the bid and the plans and specifications for the public project, "it is the plain duty of the public authority to reject the bid." Id. (citing City of Bemidji v. Ervin 204 Minn. 90, 282 N.W. 683; 43 Am. Jur. Public Works and Contracts, § 40). Whether the variance is substantial depends on whether it gives a bidder an "advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders." Coller supra, at 385, 26 N.W.2d at 840 (citations omitted). After bids are opened, "no material change may be made in any bid." Colter. supra, at 387, 26 N.W.2d 841; see also Griswold, supra, at 536, 65 N.W.2d at 652 ("no material change may be made in any bid after the bids have been received and opened because to permit such change would be to open the door to fraud and collusion "). Consequently, a public owner may not modify a bid to conform to the original specifications for the public project because such a modification amounts to "negotiation of the contract in disregard of the requirements of competitive bidding." Coller, supra. May 06 2003 3:23PM VOLZ LAW FIRM, LTD. 9524355000 P.5 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Mr. Andy Brotzler, P.E., City Engineer May 6, 2003 Page 4 Accordingly, a public owner cannot allow a bidder to now agree to terms of an addendum when the bidder's official bid documents failed to accept the addendum. For example, In Carl Bolander & Sons Co v City of Minneapolis 451 N.W.2d 204, 206 (Minn. 1990), reh denied (March 12, 1990), the low bidder, McCrossan, failed to comply with a provision of the bid specifications requiring the bidders to include 5 percent women -owned subcontractors ( "WBEs "). Although McCrossan stated in its bid documents that it would pursue the WBE goals, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that McCrossan's bid was materially nonresponsive and the public owner had a "plain duty" to reject its bid. Id. at 206, 208. In its reasoning, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated: [The] failure to list a WBE gave McCrossan a bargaining advantage with WBE subcontractors after it had submitted the low bid. Because McCrossan could wait to enter into subcontracts until after it knew the acceptable dollar figure, McCrossan had a negotiating advantage over the other bidders, who relied upon estimates to complete their bid proposals prior to the bid opening. Id. at 208 (footnote omitted). The disappointed bidder in Bolander argued that "McCrossan placed itself in a position where it could repent its bid if, upon bid opening, McCrossan had discovered it had bid too low in comparison to the other bidders and would lose money on the job." Id. at 207. Further, it argued "McCrossan's bid omission permits it to avoid the consequences of its mistakes." Id. The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed and held that allowing such conduct would "impair the competitive bidding process. Id. at 208. Like in Bolander, Three Rivers can be allowed to "avoid the consequences of its mistake." By failing to acknowledge the addendum, Three Rivers could have withdrawn its bid without any detriment. It clearly had an advantage over the other bidders in that if the bids are thrown out, it essentially will get "two bites at the apple." This unfairness can be easily illustrated. Suppose there are four people playing a simple card game. Player one lays down a card, followed by players two, three, and four. Player one then immediately claims she made an honest mistake and did not mean to lay down the card she placed, but meant to lay down a different card, after she had seen what the other players laid. Player one removes the mistaken card, the game is replayed, and now lays down a different card winning the hand. Such conduct would not be tolerated, even if player one had "made an honest mistake" and - inadvertently laid down a card she did not mean to lay down. Player one had an advantage over the other card players because she now knows what the other players have laid. This conduct obviously creates the opportunity for fraud — even if no fraud exists. Under Minnesota law, it is the mere opportunity for fraud, and not fraud itself, that impairs the public bidding process. May 06 2003 3:24PM VOLZ LRW FIRM, LTD. 9524355000 P .6 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Mr. Andy Brotzler, P.E., City Engineer May 6, 2003 Page 5 III. PRICES WILL LIKELY INCREASE IF THE PROJECT IS RE -LET AT A LATER DATE. When the City let the contract for the Eastside Watermain project, contractors were hungry for work to start out the construction season. Now, more and more bids have been let and projects have been awarded which will likely lower the number of bidders bidding on projects in the next few months. Furthermore, labor prices increased on May 1 St for all union contractors and contractors performing work on prevailing wage projects. In addition, material prices will increase if this project is re -bid. National Waterworks, the ductile iron pipe supplier, states its prices have increased approximately 25 percent, which represents $1 15,000.00 for this project (see letter attached), Also, there are costs that will be incurred by the City associated with re- bidding the project. With the proposed decrease of local government aid by Governor Pawlenty, the City will surely be monitoring its budget closely. While I am not sure if decreases in LGA will directly affect this project as it is funded with City Water Core Funds, in these times of budget woes, any savings for public dollars is necessary. Obviously, it is in the best interest of the City to award the project today to avoid increases in the cost of the project. IV. REJECTING ALL BIDS WILL NOT NECESSARILY AVOID A LAWSUIT The City, just like anyone would, seeks to avoid a lawsuit. If the City rejects all bids, Contractor's Edge, could just as well seek injunctive relief. While a court does not have the power to force the City to award the project to Contractor's Edge, it can enjoin the City from rejecting all bids, which would have the same effect if it believes the public competitive bidding laws have been violated. Contractor's Edge also has additional potential claims of breach of implied contract and promissory estoppel. Contractors Edge, like the City, is not in the business of litigation. It does not seek to engage in a lawsuit with the City of Rosemount. However, sometimes what is "right" should prevail. Here, the "right" thing to do is to award the project to a responsible bidder who followed all of the rules and provided the City with a highly competitive bid. Accordingly, we urge the City to vote to award the project to Contractor's Edge and allow it to begin work immediately. May 06 2003 3:24PM VOLZ LAW FIRM, LTD. The Honorable Mayor and City Council Mr. Andy Brotzler, P.E., City Engineer May 6, 2003 Page 6 . 9524355000 P.7 Thank you for your time and your cooperation with regard to this important matter. Very truly yours, VOLZ LAW FIRM, LTD. Une Everson Volz JEV:jev Enclosures cc: Mr. Charles L. Lefevere, Esq. (via facsimile) Mr. Kevin B. Kawlewski, P.E., WSB & Associates (via facsimile) Mr. John Brindley, Contractor's Edge, Inc. May 06 2003 3:24PM VOLZ LAW FIRM, LTD. 05/06/2003 TUE 10:54 FAI 15072783650 Contractors Edge, Inc. MaY. 1. 1003 2 :07PM National waterworks, Inc. National waterworks 15801 WEST 78TH STREET EDEN PRAIRIE, MN. $5344 FAX COVER S H E E T GATE: May 1, 2003 nmm , . 3:11 PM Tor: John Grindley Contractors Edge FROM: Rick Memele National Waterworks Number of pages including cover sheet 1 9524355000 2002/004 No .50b) N 1/1 PHONE: FAX: PHONE: 952 - 974 -8113 FAX; 952 -937 -8065 Subiect Rosemount, MN— Eastsido Watermain John, This is in response to your question concerning prtoe increases if this project should re -bid. Due to raw material 6 energy cost increases, the DIP manufacturers raised paces approximately 25% on April le. This would result in an approximate increase of $116,000. for the DIP on this project Conwrning addendum no. 1 and fhe charges to the valves In the pressure reducing station, the net Increase was approximately $200.00. Please feel free to call if you have questions_ Thanks, Rick .8 May 06 2003 3:24PM VOLZ LAW FIRM, LTD. 9524355000 05/06/2003 TUE 11:57 FAX 15072783650 Contractors Edge, Inc, WSB & Asaociaraa. Inc. March 24, 2003 Contractors Edge, Inc, 16511 - 563 Avenue Good' I'hunder, MN 56037 P.9 I�002 /003 Re: Eastside Watermain Phase 11 and Appurtenant Work City of Rosemount Project No. 345 WSB Project No. 1402 -00 •.p -.np4♦ Fi c' Dear Prospective Bidder: Bids were received for the above- referenced project at 10:00 a.m., Friday, March 14, 2003, Ft; *t• and were opened and read aloud. A total of 18 bids were received. The bids were checked for mathematical accuracy and tabulated Please find enclosed the bid tabulation —0: indicating the apparent low bidder as Three Rivers Construction, Inc, in the amount of 4­1 $935,792.50. i Due to an irregularity in the bid proposal submitted by the low bidder, the bids arc currently being reviewed by the City Attorney. Award of the contract will be determined by the City Council based on his recommendation. We are returning all bids bonds that were submitted with the exception of the three love bidders. These will be returned following award and execution of the contract. We appreciate your interest in working within the City of Rosemount and look forward to the possibility of working with your company in the future. Please feel free to contact Tae 1° with any questions regarding this matter at (763) 287 -7193. Sincerely, WSB & Assuciated, Inc. 1L Kevin B, Kawlewski, P.E. 415b Olson Project Manager Mt 164al A) hway F; Enclosure Suite 300.1 ", <. MinnicapoIts . , ec:: Andy BrotzIer, City of Rosemount ' 'Minneinta Charlie L.eFevere, Kennedy & Grsvcn y . •.. s b • ; •• 7535a1'•48t?0 •' ` M ..J,r- r ;'; 763 :5411J 1 Minneapolis 5t. Cloud • Equal OpportunRy EmployeiW1Qa I�rMrsltlw� May 06 2003 3:24PM VOLZ LRW FIRM, LTD. 9524355000 05/06/2003 TUE 11:57 FAI 15072783650 Contractors Edge, Inc, CY•ro q:l � aN.tociulcr, Ix. March 27, 2003 vop 4 .. . w9 :1� ale: •. i. -: a• fl W4l�b ", NW +n^ ..�..* sue• .1 . w }: 4 TI. .11 r.•1 4150 Olson- Mi�Rlori.� Highway �q�s:• Suite 3L)O Minncepalp_ . �• "' "MinnBtota" • ' • F.1 763�541��4Wa ; •.. 76 3' 54.1" 1 06:f aX Mr. John Brindlcy Contractor's Edge, Lie 16511 563 Avenue Good Thunder, MN 5 603 7 Re: Eastside Watermain Phase II and Appurtenant Work Rosemount, Minnesota City Project No. 345 WSB Project No. 1402 -00 Dear Mr. Brindley; 90 03 /003 At this time, the City of Rosemount is requesting that Contractor's Edge, Inc_ submit information in full accordance with Articles 12 and 1.3 of. the Tnstruction to Bidders in the specifications for the above listed project. This information is being requested by the City ,for conaiduation of the contract award by the City Council for the above referenced' project. At this time, the anticipated date o award of the protect is yet to be — det — ar — m - iRc d. We appreciate your cooperation with this matter, if you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (763)2$7 -7193. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, L 1L- P Kevin B Kawlewski, P.E. Sr. Project Manager Attachment cc: Andy Bruzler, City Engineer Charlie LeFevere, City Attorney kk• Minneap Si, Clou • P.- CEIKegr.est,doe p Equal Opportunity Employer p.10 S' b. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jamie Verbrugge, City Administrator DATE: May 5, 2003 RE: Additional Information — May 6, 2003 City Council Meeting The following correspondences related to Old Business Item b — Chippendale improvement — are attached: • Petition opposing widening Chippendale Avenue north of 149 • Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Carlson, with 1985 development agreement • Faxed letter from Mr. Tom Connolly, owner of Burger King • Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Du Four, owners /operators of Total Care Cleaners • Letter from Mr. Mohabir, owner of Rosemount Liquors, Inc. City Administrator Attachments We, the undersigned, petition the Rosemount City Council to split the Chippendale Project into TWO Projects. Project A: The upgrading of CtyRoad 42 /Chippendale intersection which we support Project B: The widening of Chippendale Avenue from Upper 149th to 145th which we do not support W E PETITION THE ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL TO DISAPPROVE PROTECT B NAME ADDRESS o i�a ST - av`� i � / . A . M& . 1 01 P- 2 O K Mk( EL4 rs —1�2 We, the undersigned, petition the Rosemount City Council to split the Chippendale Project into TWO Projects. Project A: The upgrading of Cty Road 42/Chippendale intersection which we support Project B: The widening of Chippendale Avenue from Upper 149th to 145th which we do not support. WE PETITION THE ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL TO DISAPPROVE PROJECT B. NAME ADDRESS 1 6, fe-ti I A YJ r-r Ln 2 P e- I 'q" Kl i 6 1 c lql - Col"1 /a 3 0 wl r \5 C7'dLJIz6 4 1 q 6 7 '? V 8 t( t� s i - 7 — -- D'e 4- \ 2t 22 ��Ol 12 S3)S J 5 4 13 2 C -- I t( t� s i - 7 — -- D'e 4- \ 2t 22 ��Ol We, the undersigned, petition the Rosemount City Council to split the Chippendale Project into TWO Projects. Project A: The upgrading of Cty Road 42 /Chippendale intersection which we support Project B: The widening of Chippendale Avenue from Upper 149th to 145th which we do not support WE PETITION THE ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL TO DISAPPROVE PROJECT B NAME ADDRESS 1 - U . 6 ���� SE � % /odd tg �S7 1 /f S) � , -�-- -� i �-1G �y�\ G+� \ / t Jam . AJ A�' �blo� ?, 4 a-u t 4 t' 4 -�n C 4- i� We, the undersigned, petition the Rosemount City Council to split the Chippendale Project into TWO Projects. Project A: The upgrading of Cty Road 42 /Chippendale intersection which we support Project B: The widening of Chippendale Avenue from Upper 149th to 145th which we do not support. WE PETITION THE ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL TO DISAPPROVE PROJECT B NAME ADDRESS 13 L.Gt ! �f�z 1115 5 f I t-j o-ftNT \ ono th 1 14 r 1Q 35 99 l`i`{ 54 .W 05elM mo sad , ry , v A A -Ilk y?,.v - Wg�-7 vv,42 -ev�q Mr O?QsC "vu�' �t rdu!l�l Lam- ✓� v r A vu U ,D D VQ� u �A �q - _?_J ! 1 a Im ftw?y e� dos S 7VW "'�,6 °� �`��� 11au��t7 rah S ��t` OI 0 11 I T - " •? M 1 5 1� � � � ✓� Goa 6 IN 0 -!-rvf uA-j ,c , ->a v 'S Z d 2lddV Q Z 'II ICI �1.I I� Z I LI Lid �� I i n ou op a q ►q gjSfii o1 gl6ti .iaddn woa3 anuaAV alupuaddiga 3o 2uluapjem aq1, :g jaafo.zd • n a qa�q uopaaualui ajnpuaddig3 /Zb puog SID Io 2uipu.12dn aqs, :V jaafoad •spafo.ld O olui laafoad ajvpuaddig3 aqj plds of jiauno3 Sj!D junowasog aq) voppad'pau2is.�apun aqj `aM ZZ LY1 F�/ ssaua We, the undersigned, petition the Rosemount City Council to split the Chippendale Project into TWO Projects. Project A: The upgrading of Cty Road 42 /Chippendale intersection which we support Project B: The widening of Chippendale Avenue from Upper 149th to 145th which we do not support. WE PETITION THE ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL TO DISAPPROVE PROJECT B NAME ADDRESS e" ft-r"2yL) t T L: X11. I 4"I'lln"i > 1A) 21 22 20 We, the undersigned, petition the Rosemount City Council to split the Chippendale Project into TWO Projects. Project A: The upgrading of Cty Road 42 /Chippendale intersection which we support Project B: The widening of Chippendale Avenue from Upper 149th to 145th which we do not support WE PETITION THE ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL TO DISAPPROVE PROJECT B NAME ADDRESS 19 20 21 2 2 We, the undersigned, petition the Rosemount City Council to split the Chippendale Project into TWO Projects. Project A: The upgrading of Cty Road 42 /Chippendale intersection which we support Project B: Th '(wi.dening of Chippendale Avenue from Upper 149th to 145th which we do not support. 7 WE PETITION THE ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL TO DISAPPROVE PROJECT B NAME ADDRESS q Q'-\\ � L,r -- 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 We, the undersigned, petition the Rosemount City Council to split the Chippendale Project into TWO Projects. Project A: The upgrading of Cty Road 42 /Chippendale intersection which we support Project B: The widening of Chippendale Avenue from Upper 149th to 145th which we do not support WE PETITION THE ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL TO DISAPPROVE PROJECT B. ADDRESS GS u en A'7 Ot 2 "�. 1S_1cla CO- rj'n Cyr o Mp 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 We, the undersigned, petition the Rosemount City Council to split the Chippendale Project into TWO Projects. Project A: The upgrading of Cty Road 42 /Chippendale intersection which we support Project B: The widening of Chippendale Avenue from Upper 149th to 145th which we do not support. WE PETITION THE ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL TO DISAPPROVE PROJ B l Li _7 T� 3 c� /s3y S- J 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 , 20 21 22 We, the undersigned, petition the Rosemount City Council to split the Chippendale Project into TWO Projects. Project A: The upgrading of Cty Road 42 /Chippendale intersection which we support Project B: The widening of Chippendale Avenue from Upper 149th to 145th which we do not support. WE PETITION THE ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL TO DISAPPROVE PROJECT B NAM ADDRESS of G✓C/iIOUN� E u -Ile''?` 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 8 We, the undersigned, petition the Rosemount City Council to split the Chippendale Project into TWO Projects. Project A: The upgrading of Cty Road 42 /Chippendale intersection which we support Project B: The widening of Chippendale Avenue from Upper 149th to 145th which we do not support WE PETITION THE ROSEMO NT CUEY COUNCIL TO DISAPPROVE PROJECT B NAM ADDRESS 1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 5 ,rF',�;�/�f �� �`�f • �":� A_lxdis'�i� /_ _ �C 6 �4�C� �/T< We, the undersigned, petition the Rosemount City Council to split the Chippendale Project into TWO Projects. Project A: The upgrading of Cty Road 42 /Chippendale intersection which we support Project B: The widening of Chippendale Avenue from Upper 149th to 145th which we do not support WE PETITION THE ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL TO DISAPPROVE PROTECT B 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 We the undersigned, petition the Rosemount City Council to split the Chippendale Project into TWO projects. A: The upgrading of County Rd 42 /Chippendale intersection- Which we support. B. The widening of Chippendale Ave from Upper 149th to 145th- which we do not support. NAME ADDRESS ­7 .it s L► , L ,6 May 2, 2003 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, We wish to make the Rosemount City Council aware of the very difficult position we feel that we are in with respect to the proposed median on Chippendale Avenue. Our agreement with the City of Rosemount dated April 2,1985 (copy attached) includes the following provisions: 1.The City had approved plans for a raised median between 151 st and CSAH 42. 2. City agreed to permit unrestricted access to our driveway when median was constructed. 3. We agreed to limit our request for access to this one point. 4. This agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors, or assigns. 5. This agreement shall run with the land and shall be recorded. Besides ourselves, others who have purchased property and tenants who operate businesses in our building have relied on this agreement. We are not aware of any accidents resulting in personal injury at our drive entrance. The entrance, as it exists, operates at an acceptable level and we believe that the proposed median with a cut to allow access to our driveway will improve traffic flow and safety. Out of an obligation to our tenants, we cannot, in good conscience, sign an agreement as proposed by the city, that would take away rights that we currently have provided by our existing agreement. We have spent our lives in this community and the income from Chippendale Center provides for our retirement. We fear for the financial well -being of our tenants and ourselves. Sincerely, / , , r.G DEVELOPMENT CO NTRACT i i - i AGREEMENT dated April 2, 1985, by and b etween t h e CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, a Minnesota municipal corporation, ( "City "), ar..d Clifford W. Carlson, Ronald C, i j Carlson and Richard J. Carlson, ( "the Developer "). I. Request For Subdivision AP2rvv 1 . The Developer has asked the City to i approve a metes and bounds subdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, South Rose Park Addition Replat ( "the Subject property ") into two separate parcels, generally d ^ribed as•!' �Ae Parcel A. The north 208.33 feet of the west of � Lot 1, Block 1. Parcel S: The west 200 feet, except the north 208,33 feet of Lot 1, Block 1. 2. The City hereby approves the concept of the foregoing metes and bounds subdivision subject to the terms of this agreement and formal survey. 3. .. Compliance wit Laws and Regulatio, The Developer represents to the City that the subdivision complies with all city, county, metropolitan, state and federal laws and regulations, including but no tL limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances and environmental regulations. 4. Access on Chippendale Ave nue. A.. -- Request for.- Acce -s - - The - - Developer has asked. the - C:i ty f-or.. unrestricted driveway access to the subject property to be located on the westerly I lot line, approximately 208 feet south of the northerly tot line, to permit left And right turns in and out of the site. B. Chippendale Avenue Street and Utility Improvements. The City has approved plans for improvements to Chippendale Avenue, which inClude a raised median between 151st Street and County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 42. The median is designed to facilitate turn lanes at CSAH 42 and 151st Street. The City agrees to permit unrestricted access to the driveway described 1n paragraph 4.a, when the median is constructed. The Developer agrees that no other access points, restricted or unrestricted, will be permitted to Lot 1, Block 1, 5outh Pose Park Addition Replat j from Chippendale Avenue. - •plosouq W 'X�unoo a ;o�pa 'aapaooab �4uno3 aqj 4o aoLjj o a44 u L papaoaaa aq L L e4s pue We L 344 4; E M u nA L L PqS I s � 41 •Q 'aspaLaa ao aaAlVM E eq *ou Lleas ;uaw0aa6V $ � 4; asJo ;ua 04 U0 WR L"SO L a�V4 SL 4dwoad o4 a m l t e; s,443 a41 ' L l Dunoo X;j) aqq 4o uo nlosaJ uajILaM Rq panoadd'e pug saL1aed 41oq Sq Pau 6 }S 'BuLalaM uL aq LLe-4S SJOAL�eM ao SIU@aipuawe 'Uu puLq aq of •a.uawMAV S }44 10 SUO�S aql of 4uawpuawe JO -A p a4n ;psuo� jou LLe4s �%2 o a4; � O ua L40V uL a o uoLIoR a 1 41 'j •suawaaAy sLyj 10 uo L ;aod BULUEewaa 841 ,40 XJLpL a 4l 4oa4�e Icu LLe4s UOMOap 4ans'PLLeAUJ 1 La4 uoseaa Kue .4o3 sL ;uawae.A6y s}4l 3o- asea4d ao gdpj6e.Aed 'asneLO 'aOUaquas `uQ�ioasgns 'uol;:)as 'uoLIjod Cue 11 •3 •sj }waad 6uipLpq ;o MWV .toy. spunoab aq LLe4s aadoLanad 941 4q Juawaaaby SL44 30 SWJej 044 10 40eaag •Q , aq krw am a41 so 'suSEsse _to saossaoons 'saLa4 ata4j 'sat4aed 344 uodn 6uLpujq aq LLegS Iuawaaa6d SL 41 '0 •saa; s 6uLpnL04 'swteLa Mons ;o aouanbasuoo ut anouL ,w Sud few 410 a44 40L4M sasuadxa to sa6ewPp 's�sOa Lle .AQj saagoldwa pug s,�a0 ;�.3o s4L puE X;JO a44 A Luwapul lMs aadoLaAaa a4l •juawdoLaAap pue LeAOadde UO�SEALp+jns 'suo«o�,ajsaa ssane woa; Bu�4lnsaa paaandui sjsoo ao paq-* ;srs saUump Ao; sasz.xed p,(L44 pue 41as4L 4q apaw SWO10 wo.t; ss8Lwae4 seaSoLdwa pue saaO�JJO S4j pue SIO a44 PLo4 JLV4s aadoLanaa 041 'S 'sasuadxa 6uLa8aut6ua pue Bu}uuvLd LOBOL '04 palm l IOU 4nq '6uEp%-auL ' %uawaea6V sL41 14 ;uawaaao4 a pug u011eaVdaad a44 44LM uo��ounpuoo uL X�LO a4; ao 46 Xq paaanoul s4soo L Le Xed Ll e4s jadoLaAap a4l •y 'snoauaLLaoS M •g •V L a Ad pasodo.Ad D41 04 4 ISTST do ausl XVM'40 -146ta Stla4 ;.y 8 44 waa3 'w.,o; aLgppao:)aa UL i 's ;uawasea X4LLL;n ap�M 4a8; 02 ap�Ao.Ad o} saaa6e IeglAn4 aadolanad a4l luawaaaBy SL4q sa ;noaxa R. }0 a4.1 aw�j aqj IV 't 4dVAR Red UL pagL.aasap sjol pasodoad aMl ayl ; au�L IOL u0ww00 a4l ISO.0e 'waod algepaooaa ul 'sluawasea klLL��n OPLM 1884 p£ wnw�uLw OPLAOad of sa jadOLa.NaQ a4l 'sluawase3 S imin 'S �'4� V- .4 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 8 H. er 10 li onalb C. Carlson Ric drd . Carlson STATE OF MINNESOTA) (SS COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The for going instrument was acknowledged before me this -;? day of 1985, by L eland S. Knutson, Mayor, and Don F. Darling, Clerk /Ad rA inistrator of the City of Rosemount, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by the City Council. Notary Public AA. AAAOUi4441 ,R,AA/+/t.RJ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) C R I . - Ir } ( SS COUNTY OF DAKOTA YY�rl� r �r • ` ly The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this � day of M AP e#4— , 1985, by Clifford W. Carlson, Ronald C. Carlson and Richard J. Carlson, of Clifford W. Carlson, et al, a Minnesota partnership, on behalf of the partnership. ARLO WIGGERT p NOTARY P118 , _ r•I + M aAXQTA GOUtav 1 Notary Publ i Y COMMIep,h holm Iu" 1, In$ �ti1.r111/111/r14...V... �.... �..r►111.. 11 W-....� 1 -3- FROM FAX NO. : 6516365975 May. 05 2003 02:30PM P2 sK'NG Monday, May 05, 2003 Jamie Verbrugge' Rosemount City Hall 2875 -145"' St. West Rosemount, M.N. 55068 Dear Mr. Verbrugge, My name is Tom Connolly and I am the owner of the Burger King franchise and Building, I would like to express my concern for the proposed road changes to Chippendale and County road 42. As you know the fast -food business is built on the fact that easy access is essential for our customers. The proposed changes would hurt our ind ess /egress. Any permanent change to the access on Chippendale Would most definitely hurt our Business. I oppose the changes, as it would affect my livelihood and my family's as well. Could you please put my concerns into the packet for Tuesday's 7:30 meeting, Sincerely, Tom Connolly President T.-A-13. of Rosemount, Inc. Connolly L.L.P. THE CONNOLLY GROUP TAB of Burnsville, Inc. - T.A.B. of Shakopee, Inc. - T.A.B, of Rosemount, Inc. - Connolly L.L R 2213 Northwest 5th Street, St. Paul, MN 55112 Office 651- 6363639 • Fax 651.636 -5875 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: As a owner /operator of a business in the Chippendale Center, I would like to make a plea to add a out in the median to access the stores in the Center which in turn may benefit the traffic flow. Thank you for your time and consideration concerning this issue. Respectfully, 4 , ".,Q 'Ov Y�� Roger and Pat Du Four Total Care Cleaners 15076 Chippendale Center Inc, 070 Chippendale Ave. 11 I P.O. Box 14 Liquors, Rosemount, MN 55068 Phone 651 -423 -9065 To: Rosemount City Council: Fax-651-423-1003 Mayor: William (Bill) H. Droste Council Members: Mary Riley, Mark DeBettingnies, Kim Shoe - Corrigan, Kevin Strayton Re: Proposed Median on Chippendale Avenue Date: May 5, 2003 Dear Mayor and Council Members, My name is Rishi P. Mohabir, a resident of Rosemount and CEO of Rosemount Liquors, Incorporated. I am writing with respect to the proposed median on Chippendale Avenue between County Road 42 and 151 st Street: The proposed median with no left turn lane into the western side of the Rosemount Market Square will have major financial impact on my business and all other businesses in the center. Over 99 % of customers that comes to my store and the other businesses utilize the access on Chippendale into the Center. The proposed median will force customers to enter to the -back way of the Center. This is unacceptable as it will inconvenience customers and create confusion. The case has not been made for such a drastic measure to deny customers. access to the Center. If there is a public safety issue I would like to see a case is made using documented finding of facts and impact statements. These facts must be reviewed in light of the public safety guidelines and standards: Additionally, the City of Rosemount and Carlson Properties entered into a legally binding agreement on April 2, 1985. This, agreement permit unrestricted access to the Center from, Chippendale Avenue when and if a median is constructed. f ask of all our elected officials and City'administration to find a win -win solution for all parties and save my business and other businesses in the Center. Thank you for your time. Sincerely Rishi ohabir Your one -stop location for all your Wine, Liquor, and Beer needs.