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.