HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.c. Public Improvement Policy CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 2, 1996
AGENDA ITEM: Public Improvement Policy AGENDA SECTION:
New Business
PREPARED BY: Bud Osmundson AGENDA NQL.
City Engineer/Public Works Director ITEM - C
ATTACHMENTS: Policy, Resolution, Eagan Article APPROVED BY:f7 _
For many years the City has allowed developers to chose two ways of installing public
improvements in new developments. They have the option of petitioning to have the
City provide the financing, engineering, legal and construction costs through the Chapter
429 process where all costs are then assessed to the property within the development.
Another option is where the developer finances the construction of the public
improvements and pay for a engineer of their choosing to design these public
improvements. What we are proposing to do is to require all developers to utilize the
City Staff and its designated consultants to provide the engineering design and
construction engineeering of all newly installed public streets and utilities.
Why are we doing these things? One is to ensure the consistency and compatibility with
the City's existing utility systems and its comprehensive plans for storm sewer, sanitary
sewer, water distribution and transportation systems. The second major reason is to
ensure that the public facilities are built to the highest quality so that the City does not
have to spend City funds prematurely to reconstruct or rehabilitate in some manner these
facilities. We have had numerous cases of premature costs which were borne by the
City taxpayers because there is not an economical mechanism in place to make
developers come back and pay for the costs of the rehabilitations.
At this time we have a mix of developers choosing either option. There are financial
reasons to choose either method which I will go over in more detail at the Council
meeting.
At this point, Staff is recommending that the attached policy be adopted through the
resolution. The Public Infrastructure is a major investment by the Community and should
not be compromised to save money initially instead of looking at the ultimate
operating/ownership costs of these facilities. The policy will also assist Staff in
determining when a public improvement is required. It will also allow the developer to
chose one of two methods, either the City financing or financing by the developer, the
details of which are described in the policy.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN
IMPROVEMENT POLICY FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLATION.
COUNCIL ACTION:
4
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 1996 -
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN
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 obligations 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, all plans and specifications for improvements will be prepared by the City Engineer or the
Consultant designated by the City Engineer and there will be two options for which the developer and
City Council may choose for actual construction of the improvements, which are listed within the
policy.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount adopts the
"IMPROVEMENT POLICY FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLATION".
ADOPTED this 2nd day of July, 1996.
Cathy Busho, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk
Motion by: Second by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
Public Works
Policy No.
IMPROVEMENT POLICY Adopted by Council
FOR on:
PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLATION
L, PURPOSE:
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 obligations it is important for the City to clarify
the City's policy towards constructing new public improvements in developments.
II. STATEMENT OF POLICY
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.
All plans and specifications for improvements will be prepared by the City Engineer
or the Consultant designated by the City Engineer and there will be two options for
which the developer and City Council may choose for actual construction of the
improvements.
Last Revision:
IMPROVEMENT POLICY
The only exception to this rule is where trunk facilities are to be constructed through
a developing area. In this case, Option 1, the State Chapter 429 process will be
followed which will allow for the most appropriate cost spreading of the project
benefits. In all cases, construction observation will be completed by the City or its
designated consultant and a two year warranty will be provided by the contractor
after final acceptance of all utilities and streets by the City.
A, OPTION 1:
This option is the basic City financing and construction of all improvements which is
completed through the State Statute, Chapter 429, Public Improvement Process.
In this process the Developer/Land Owner will be required to sign a petition (Exhibit
A) requesting public improvements, waiving their rights to the preliminary hearing and
requesting that the entire cost of all engineering, planning, legal or other required
work be assessed against their property, including Feasibility/Preliminary Reports,
even if the project does not proceed past this point.
If the Developer/Land Owner desires, they can submit a petition and include funding
to pay directly for the Feasibility/Preliminary Report and then for the preparation of
Plans and Specifications in lieu of assessing the costs, per the attached Schedule A.
In the Development Contract the Developer will be required to submit security for
25% of the public improvements and appurtenances.
B. OPTION 2:
This option is where the Developer/Land Owner will finance the construction. The
Developer will submit in writing its request and will be required to submit funding
which will establish a "Construction Account" for the project. Initially the Developer
must submit funding for the Feasibility/Preliminary Report stage, then the preparation
of the Plans and Specifications per the attached Schedule A. If the project proceeds
to construction the Developer will have to submit the bid amount plus a 10%
contingency to pay the Contractor for construction, plus any other costs including:
• Construction Engineering 4%
• Construction Surveying 4%
• Testing Services 2%
• Attorney Fees As Determined
• Administration Fees 5%
The percentages at the right are estimates of construction costs as based on past
experiences and could increase or decrease depending on the individual projects.
2
IMPROVEMENT POLICY
The City will have the sole authority and responsibility to pay the construction costs
plus those described above from the "Construction Account", in the same manner as
is done with Option 1.
The Development Contract may describe other requirements, financial or otherwise,
which the Developer is responsible for, above and beyond the "Construction
Account".
3
EXHIBIT "A"
Proj #
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS
(100% Petition)
To the City Council of Rosemount, Minnesota:
We, the undersigned, being the owners of all the real property legally described as
follows:
hereby petition the City Council to undertake without a public hearing under
Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.031, the following improvements to such property
and agree to pay for all costs for the preparation of the Feasibility Report for these
improvements in the event the improvements are not ordered in:
Sanitary Sewer Walkways
Watermain Streets
Storm Sewer Curb & Gutter
Street Lights Other
—
and to pay the entire assessable costs thereof against our property encompassing or
abutting said improvements based on benefits received without regard to cash
valuation.
Signature of Owner(s)* Address Date
1.
2.
3.
4.
We also agree to guaranty payment for the preparation of plans and specifications for
the above petitioned improvements in order that the plans and specifications may be
prepared simultaneously with the Feasibility Report.
For City Use Only
Date Rec'd: By: To Council:
*Property owned in joint tenancy should be signed by each owner.
10/88
SCHEDULE "A"
REQUIRED ENGINEERING SECURITIES
Preliminary Report
$155/lot single-family
$100/unit twin homes
$ 75/unit quad homes or multi-plex
Estimated actual engineering cost for all other developments.
Plans and Specifications
$400/lot single-family
$300/unit twin homes
$200/unit quad homes or multi-plex
Estimated actual engineering cost for all other developments.
„ ILA.5� Z • • 1141 ' . siRi - 4 i .� 3 i_.
• r As 4 112 JA4 .1 Ai ....2.H .. g
iIIiIIiliJUI!PiflIIII!IIIIiiii
_ a q ° 3 mgod _Zf 'J .� a� P.1411
i 3 5y23 Y 1 aa,
'��//�� °�� a. >' r � m l3 °34$ Ss 54'2.1a >11'
. 1 iiii!i !� , T 7, 1 m.Q 'O 5,-'E3 - >. IIJUhIIiJI
m
-.I-;'''.', .:.- 7 1.o. ;.,§h..° VLail E fie311 ghl'aFerr-s12.9
... - - .1r 4A . 4 SL1....4...1 4,... RI: b °1
. 4 7,:„-1.„, v: : 0 81 .1 gyp r) mtIi ; E.
= 4' 1 1 a 421f.a *la -7; 01
i4 BA , 4 Ni tIP'1I4 '4g. lin. xE4
• Wa.F_ > Toom•
. il/ Wigillti40,110111011P1
__ r
111ssaVa� 5� v
.•�,� �.+ o `' 3gT as aluZ liv 8.21-11
Al Jan Ny0�+5 �9>,a ° smy� 3 }��u•
• �, �1 o 3 '�=� 3 3 .22...3 • 3 ��5. �" t A p-;_,g.1. g.r., 2 a-al :-.-Fg, ..
1 I fie N
JUL 02 '96 14:26 HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT P.2
HERITAGE
W . (1..DEVELOPMENT
•
June 23, 1996
Mayor and City Council
City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068-0510
Mayor and Planning Commission Members:
•
Heritage Development opposes the City of Rosemount's proposal to require developers to do all projects within
Rosemount as a City Improvement. Heritage Development has been placed in an unfair market situation by having to
comply with this policy change,when James Allen's neighboring plat did not comply to this policy change. An
additional 25%of construction cost becomes difficult to meet when the purchase of the property and plans have been
submitted based on our engineers ability to perform this work.
Occasionally we as private citizens,municipalities and Land developers need to review our rights under the US
Constitution in regard to the use of property. The Eight amendment of the Constitution states,"No State shall ...
abridge the privileges or immunity of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life
liberty,or property,without due process of law,"
it is the Eight Amendment which granted Municipalities and States the right of police power. Police power became
the basis for the City's right to zone and regulate land. In 1926 this power was challenged and upheld in the case of
the Village of Euclid v.Amber Realty Company and again two years later in Nectow v City of Cambridge. Two
important principles were established by these challenges, first zoning is legal and enforceable as a police-power
responsibility,even when private property value is lost and secondly the purpose of zoning is to promote the health,
safety,morals and general welfare of a community.
When the court's ruled to uphold zoning as a legitimate use of police power, municipalities were also granted the
right to pass and enforce subdivision ordinances. These ordinance in contemporary Metropolitan Minneapolis-St.
Paul regulate everything from street widths and construction, lot size and setback widths,wetland encroachments
and ponding requirements,housing size and appearance, landscape requirements and tree preservation. Nearly every
decision a private property owner might have over the use of their property has been determined by municipality's
regulation.
When a city then proceeds to enact law which requires the private developer of land to use and pay for the services of
one engineering firm to design and implement construction of property without regard to the needs and wishes of its
owner,I would submit that the City has removed all the owners rights,but the right to pay for the city's decisions.
Where as an argument could be made that the City's consulting engineer is within the City's Constitutional right to
design and plan subdivisions as a function of its police-power to promote the health,safety and general welfare of a
community it could also be argued that such action is a violation of the Eight Amendment's intent.
450 East County Road D•Little Canada,MN 55117•Phone:(612)481-0017•Fax:(612)481-1518•Tog{Free:(800)644-0017
20720 Watertown Road,Suite 102•Brookfield,WI 53186•Phone:(414)796-8129•Fax:(414) 796-8149
JUL 02 '96 1-..27 HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT P.3
Larger lots sizes,increased setbacks,oversized ponding areas,increased street widths are in fact not simply imposed
as a method to promote health and safety to a couunwuty but are in reality a method to promote a larger tax basis to
a community. When the only remaining rights the private developer has left is the right to purchase property and pay
for all improvements, perhaps the City should consider buying and developing property.
Heritage Development opposes the City ofRosemount's proposal require developers to use only the consulting
engineer named by the City.
Sincerely,
. j e-7y` e.'°/47'
Thomas D.Bisch
Director of Heritage Development Inc. of Minnesota