The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5. CSAH 42 (US52 to TH55) Assessment Hearing . a . . . � .� - � . . . . �' �� C��l� () ?�1�_tA�,ltl sl W y' tiOSFMUI)N"T. MIfJ►VEtiOIA 5!'iOfiA " �' . . __ �fJ�SE_'}`j�UL{��1� f1? 473-a.�u "I'O: Mayor, Cuuucil, City Adn�inistrator � FRt)M: Uean Johnson, Uirector of Community Deveiopment I)A'fE: pctober 1, 198� SUIlJ: Council A�;enda ttem � „5�, Ei�c(osecl are copies of ihe assessmenl sun��nary �[ the rnad projects (a� revisi�ns} aad final assessment rolts for atl o[ the projects to be '' certified_ We wi(I a�lernpt tc� c'onspicuausly �ost a c�py oC tlie 'final rolls" ' �,' in the front (aGby for Uic put�lic to view before �r durieg the rncelin�. �" Y�u }�reviously receivecl copies of an easen�ent agreement, lot cambination ,'; abreen►ent and delerment agreement. �- � : '� We recomniend a sing{e motion to authorize necessary si6natures on the ! � �w" tliree agreements that will be completecl by prc�perty owncrs ii� scveraF o[ � � " tlie projecls. The n�ayor sl�ould also infarm the residents that a final ' �nailin� of the certifie�i tolls wi!! be sent ta each pr�perly �wner wilh an + ;: assessmen[. Resicie��ts inay pay the City the entire dssessincnt witl�out � ;, i��terest penatty prior to November 7 or pay ttie County l�etween ; � November 7 and Nave�l�er 15. After Novem�er I5, tlre assessments may � 'i not bc prepaid wiihout interest. First year instattmcnts wilt show u� an ��'� the 1988 property tax statemenls distributed by the County in January. � :� ' j There are a few to(Ic�w-u�� coi��men[s Ehat sh�ut�! bc rnade t�y staf[ prior ' ; to a�option of eacl� roa�l project. These reg�rd soa�e of tl�e particutar ' complaints/questi�ns raiyeJ hy residents. I have spc�ken to Uennis ;�i Wippern�ann about his �7olicy recommendation on CR 38. ! should exptain to the pubtic why staff is not recommending any chailge in the nresent policy. There is one inclivicival on 125th Slreet, 3im Rc�ng�:rs, that may recJuest some sort of forrnal c�mmitment frc�w�i tlic C"ity. fle is + exncriencing some a�icfitic>n;�l �oncling on his E�resrcrly aftcr roa�i � '` compietion. Rich lielti is aware af the problem and has spoken to Mr. Bangers about possi�le remedies. i .:.._��ti: � � . . . . f�.� . � . . � � � � � :�7, �..� . . ' . . � . . . �,. �t: . . . � .. � . . � r . d�� . . . . . ' � � �. . . �,{i �. . . . . . . . . �D' � y,! �k� . � � � . . � . . . ��` � � . � . � . � � . . Ll � � ��: . . . . � . . �',�; . � . � . . ,.! '-.. � . . . . . . �' � � � . . � � � . . � c a � //� � {� %y� / l-� t ` 1��/ �� ?141h �4�i}11 ,'iF W /�-� ' Rc�St MOI�N i. MINtJ! �;(>!A S!,pfi(i � ` �,USC'�Yt tll:t!`l� �,i� nza aa�� TO: Mayar, Coui�cil, (>ity Administrator FROM: Uean Johnsun, Uirector of Community Uevel�pme�it UAT�: Artober 1, 19H7 SUBJ: Assessment Crrtifications Attached is an ouUine summary oE' the recommendations t�r the various ' assessment projects. As discussed al earlier hearings, thcre area numher ��f ' instances where benefit may Ue questionabte due ta arainagc issues or the buildability oE cert��in It3lS. Iil these instances we wc�ulit rccommencl drainage easements or lot cr�mbivatians to Iega}ly encun�l�er rroperty or tl�e agreement fo ciefet asscsSments unliJ benefit is ex�rerieuce�l. Co�ies af these agreeu�ents have t»en sent to the parties noted and are attached. I don't believe we have any �utstanding issues c�n the Jay Simvn's impr�vement. You will nate tw� units were drop�ed t�ased «��a benefil. Nrither Brucker nor t)r.ixten have access to the Icrc.il Strerts. The eascment �ayment was scttleJ with Shaemaker. The 130th Streel project s1�c�uiJ be resolved as well. Dave Cirannis has L�een in contact with Lindell anc! doesn't see an issWe. Brucker, Draxten an�i Peters�n abut Bac�rcli t�venue. Earlier we were c�nsidering an agreement that woulci exclucle them irom future parlici�r�liun on Sacardi improvements. We cliai�geci our �nincts Uecause ali ihree h;►ve �lircct access benefit or laieral 6enefit in aciclition to area-wicle t�enefil on Bacarcii Avenue. Exempting Ehem from Bacardi Avenue improvemcnts did noc seem the n�ost �racticat policy decision. Only Peterson was interested in the agreement, anyway. Four objections frc�m tf�c Whiic Lake Acres owncrs c.�used considerablc � rescarct► of �td [iles. It was atleged that nc� nutice of the �u�tic improvemeat heariiig were reecived. I have found se4eral maitings [or thc Simon and 130th Strcet hearin�s and puhlic meetings. Unfur[unatety, I cannot document that any�ne received the second public improvement hearing no/ice, in nctot,er, 198fi. While 15 other owners did not object, t : cannc�t recommend that we tlo any[hing bul drop ,�,� assessments. t knaw this is hard to stomach, but there seems to be na other alternatii�e.' The CR 38 project has bcen resolved except Ior t�anscn, Klasseo, Coffee, Mullery and Bongers. Ntr. 13on�rrs' complaint relates tu a �lrainage prul�lem ra�her th�►n !he actuat assessnient. 'I'lie other four may vcry 'wet) represenl � then�sclves tonighl, We never expected the City af Appie Vatley t� participate because of nc� i�nmeJiate benelit in Rosemoun� for the golf cUurse. We listed the units in an e�fort of fairness to the otlier praperty owners. To our surprise, tlie City has agreed tt� pay halt' of the assessmeut. We werc prc�*arcd tci recomniend droppin�; al! ten. Mickelson has four lots �f record witl�oul existing public access. �t�e recommenci the dcferrals. � �i . ��' Assessmeni t'ertefic�,s � �' �� t)ct�ber l, �98? � � � � � � � €�` �� p�,�� -r��,a ��i �t` Tl�e CSt1,H 42 pr�ject is ttrlresc�lved exce�t f�r Wen•r.eL Tl�e Wenzeis �� actually have two sn�atl Irats c�n tl�e north side ot the highway. 8ecause of �. [he nature of the prt�perly :tnd layout of the buildings, w�E reccan�o�e��! a !ol � cou�bination. 'fhe reniaining own,:rs have yuesti�ned hencfit an�t policy. � , � � � � )' . � . We mailed over 4() lciters witl� a variety oL n�tices aiy�klo�� a�reements tt� �i � � � � lhose on lhe sun�mary �:i�;�.. ( met welh ar contacted everyone (or thcir attcyrney) excepl Kassut�e �riJ Angerman. I think we have trie�l c►ur best lo , res�lve these issues. 1'It leave you with b+�e last note; ,;� We ha� 3 arca-wide strcet assessment j ; �ro ects --- �" 'i'liis invotved 311 assessment unils �''' �'his i��c��lves 220 indivicluals . , ; We l�av� anly 7 iiic�ividuats who have ar��ed benefiL ,, �� :f'.:.:.. . � . . '��:�..::,� . . . . . . . �;i� d:... .. � . . � .. � � � . . � . � . . ;�p.:.'. � . . . . :��{e� � . � � � . � . - . �isi� . � . . . . . . . � . ��;', . . . . . . . � . . . . . � . . � �'..� . . . . . . � . �r.� . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . n� d T�.: . . � . � . !�:'., � . . . � � . . . . , � . � . . . ' I-� ' �. � � . ' ... � � � . . � . . � . � . .. t�� (.�.:..:.:;`:� . . . � � � . . (�� ' . . � � � . � ' . . . . � .. � . ��L � . . . � . . . .. . � . .. ( . . � . . . . C7�< . . . . . . . . . . . . . $�� .. . ' . . . . . . . � ��Y �. . � . � . � � . . � � . � � . . . . � � . . . . � p '�.� . . . . F # !� �' . � . . . . . . . . . 1. . � . � � � � . � � . � . . j�f .� . . . . . . I€. ..1.: . . . . t �x�. : � . . . . . � . � . � . � ��'�� . . . . . �1'.� . � . . . . . � � . . . � ��. . � . . . � . � . � �. ,.f4?-.. . . � . . . � . . . � � � � . . � . . � � . �,a . � . . . . . . �,�.. � � � � � . . . . ��^`• � �. , � � k: .,:. . . . . . . . � . . . , ASSE�SMENT CERTIFICATI�N SUMMARY r �,' Jay Simon's Street Im rap vement ;, � Original Assessment Unit Tota{: 4G �� Nu�nber of Qbjections: 1(} �p� �f , - Fina( Assessment Unit Total: 37 4,: . . . . . . . , . . � � . ' - Statf Recammendations - i'. ,�. n�e Action Proposed Units Drop,ped �� y` '= Jeriu Drainage �asements 2 �c Barion Drainage Fasement 1 ° l.ockter Drainage Easement 1 �� i; Marchand t,c�t Cambination i ��; L.inclhulm Lot Comhination 1 ' Berg Lo[ Combination i �� Brucker Eliminate - No Benefit 1 ' Draxten Eliminate - No Benefit 1 Petersan Sold Property to Marchand 0 .�� Shoemaker Easement Settlemenf 0 �E : �. �E w , C�i . ' 130th S#reet I�n-qroy�ment ; . . . .. . . . .. 1 � t 1 Xzi . . � . . � . . . . � _ �. . 'S` ` Original Assessment UniE Tokal: i}1 ,�.° Nuni��er o( ()bjections: 14 Final Assessment Unit tolat: 82 ' - Staff Recommeadattons - �,;: ,,, 4 '� �m� Act�n Proposed Uni s Dro,�pce! � �. �kr�� , Jerin Drainage �asements 2 ��; BarlUn brainage Easemenls 1 Lockter Drainage Easement i „�' Marchanci Lot C;ombination � ' ' Berg Lot CombinaEion 1 ' ,_;: H, E�anson Loi CombinaUon 1 ° ``' �rucker Eliminate - No Benefit 1 � '� Draxten Etiminate - No Benefit 1 �; ;��, Peterson EliminaEe - I�io Bene[it ] �� ''' Lindet! Easemen# Settlement q ��, , Neissius Eliminate - No Notice 1 Zahorka Elimina/e - No Notice 1 � 'i Lunde Eliminate - N� Notice 1 �� }ielwig Eiiminale - N� Noticc 1 k� , 'Other Wl�ite Lake Eliminate - No NoEice 15 �� ` - r� 1 ;�� -er,�: � � . . . . . . . . . � � � i � i ��. . . . . . . . . . . . . {� � � � � . �. � � � � � ,",;� . . . � � . . . . 1�;: . . . � . . '' Ori�in�) Assessment Unit 7'otal: 155 ,; �'' Nun�(�er o[ �t�jections: 6 ` Fiiial Assessment Unit Total: 145 �,: �`;I ,t, , "� - Stati Recommendations - !I ��. Name Ac�ion Proposed Units Draaaed r �1; � �A�ple Valley Negotiated Benefit 5 �Mickelson Future Benefit Defer 4 * Bongers &�#atc��te�it �Sfcr-4 0 , ftansen Assess per policy p � ''' ` Klasse�t Assess per poliey 0 � 4�' ' �of fee Assess per policy 0 ;�;� Mullery Assess per policy � "" ' Cnrigt�t Assess per pc�licy t) i''� , � �, �� , a �;, �_ N �2/145t�S.treet �r��v-�me�..t_ Y� . . � � . � . . . . f � .,. . . � . � . . . . � � � � . . Ori�inal Assessment Unit Tofal: 45 E; Number ot Objeclions: S �{4 Fina! Assessment Unit Tolal: 44 „ f i�, � . . . .. � . . . � . ' ti ` ,r., �g' ` - Staff Recommendations - r� ��`` ' in Action Proposed Units Dro�ped {�: Wenzel LoE Combination 1 ;` Waldo Assess per policy Q . Sell Assess per �roticy Q Kassube Assess per policy 0 Angerman Assess per policy 0 �� , � ' �� W�itr� I�ke Acrea ��,��+�t'�� ; ��; , . ��; ; No written objectians l(}t�lo assessmenl on 19 lots ��' � �� , ; �� ' �Written C)bjection Not SubntiUed ,'. � � Ja�ES �� e-�^��e►-5 �eem�� outj�a.��C , ;; , � {.'{,, �. 2 � * �s . � :��, >�. >.,:,< �: . . � . . . . . � . . �. � � � . . • ', � . .,. , � � �L-T I-�/VVi' � � , � � �`, �--� �. � r �,�; �' ��, r� � .sr►��; r�r��F1��, w � '�'�.'� . J HUSEMt�UN( A11NN( ;(t!A 5!i1)fiFi � ' 'r;�.t�,r�'i ' � 1C.�.`fC'f`j't[)1�,1I( f;i:� �•r:� 'ai� ' �� r�.. -�' f , . . ; s ��•_. .� �� '�„ x� -j � s 7'U: Mayor, Council, City Adnilaistrator a Y ° �'Rt)hl: Uean Johnson, t)irector of Com�nuniiy t)evelopment ;� � , UATEt September il, 1987 SUBJ: C5AlI 42 Assess�nent lfearing � � Attached are copies o! the follawing: final assessment area map, finai assessment rotl, original cosUfunding �ulline, my ori�inal background information memo and the pubtic improvement hearing potice. There is reatly onty ane change in this project worth noting -- the totat number ol` assessment units decreased from 49 to 45. C)ne 'of the )arger parcets, owned by Marlin and JoAnne Rechtzigel, has been cut in hatf. This reflects !he dual access af the 8t) acre parcel onto boih CSAH 42 and TH 52. ��3 Unlike some "corner" parcels which can be simply included ar exclnded from ,�� a particular impravemeot project, this parcel has similar access or benefit to either rosdway. Hence, we have recommen�ied the number c�C assessment units be reduced fr�m eight to f�ur. The City Council adopced the paticy af assessing SQ°lo of the residential equivalent street cosE to properties benefiting from a 4-lane divided county S� road. The tatal length c�[ lhe reconst�uction project is 4,300 feet. At $21 per lineal foot, the total assessahle cast is $90,3O0. With 45 assessment units the final rate is $2,OOG.671unit. Wc have naE received finat }�iflings fr�m the county an this project. Tl�e originai estimated cosi to Rosemaunt was �405,QU0. ! wiit tcy to determine the final estimated cost prior ko the n+eetiag. As in the case af the past two roadway �rajecls, I will be at the hearing t� make a brief presentaiion ancl answer a�1y qu�stians. ' � ; �`� �;� � �'; �� ,� 't�r � �: M �: �� ,z.x � � � � . �� ' fi� ��,;, �"�. ��., � � � � � � ;�� , �. � t� ��- ; r , o` � � �, � � 1 � ' - . f • � . � � , .� � , :� I. � � h _ —+,_. _.�. — — --___._ _,._,� ; - j ,� ''� s� .�.+,�, �.�� . iy I � �, _�� ; ' � � : �-.`�`'. i � � �S f ; `'��;,,, i L . . . ss-aw � . � � . � / . + . ar!:�.,` . . � `� . . . . { .. '/ � : � � . � . � . � ��`ti . . � � � . . � . � � . . . . fjh . . � i � � � . ' - �o ,.�a"� : , \``! ( � �y�� `�..'"`,��` � i ♦ ; ,Q3 '`�--� �f,�t' ♦ ; ,�� Ay � i `,(�ra se o�° ! oc-ao t ,�' oc-o�o � ,1• 1 �/• ' + � , a i : r j 1 '�, / � ,.� � E - / .r� : l� f , : •j . z-b ��s � ,. � � � � ' '€ . _ _ pj'�' $' � �-tro� ' I � � + i.�S.) p �� O � i� � . . f 1 � O . o , ��. . ' i 1' Y � I � . . . � . d t 4 I ��..�• . � �e.i 1� •�' u , . si-00 . � � � 01 - O . V .J' 'y . �k ♦ �. ;'' ! w-O�0 �I3 � � . . a , . � , �. . . �. � � �orrv ,..er fs wvMm+ { i �� w-rID � � � . . � , � ]��_p�p` � , � ' • tt-O�0 t. . , : . . O 0 ��.� O 0 �. . ; i � � o � �f,-oro � � . � � '� . . . . � � 1 o ' . . . . . . � i j , I ` 1 '�.._: az-ao � ' u j � ' �- � � ' I � 2E-Ot� � �� 9�-0�0� I i � � I , y_�� ,. �o I 'x_'„ ;♦ , ' .o-�o � i � Fa-oro� '°""°' � � ' �,• ' � �_�o 1 ;� : � �- :z_�,o ; :Z.�,a . .z.�, ; ,a_� ;= � , b�►.��.j v��1�,�s�s� �"�'`;'� �� l� �` t � \ i '; ao-b tZ.l �1 i" �L. }'�b�7�� Z�'7' �� j �� . � � s _�3�.� -� � ; 3 ..332liS '+l �e� �� ,y,� � � +� �-�; _"" i ; . : , , � ;_ �- �,- �� - �e. � , . _ ____ .. �. . . #, . , a� ..`..<._ . ':.. ,� , � � ..-. .n- , m r�, �•.ws»� � .,..�' ��`�� .. �� `� � 1s-dv--:--_ __.__-__— ..�c,r�- •..�Y-- _ #�: _ . � _.� ..._ . ,�- , � .�_ �J„ . c . . . . . . �;� �� E �� , �� I�t� C� F: t � R�� - rt�.��j�-t�� ., E � ��,�. . �_ , ...:�,F, ,_.� ,�`� � F �« � � T0: MAYOR & CiTY COUNCIL FROM: DEAN JUHNSON, PLANNING DIRfCT4R DATE: MAY 16, 1986 ; ;,�;� SUBJ: COUNTY RUAD ASSESSMENTS , f - � We have discussed options for assessments on caunty roads for �� several months. The city attarney and I have discussed the need ��, far an overall street assessment policy. The mayor has indicated ;. mounting interest by the public to take action on the county road ��;�, assessment issue. Presently, we have nat compteted the averall :�,f palicy. As we are now in the process of seeking a new city administrator, I am not certain we should rush inta the adoption of ' � major policy. �., f . �� In tfie absence of anyth�ng formal at the moment, I would suggest � the Council endorse the caunty road assessmer�t option that appears '� to be favored. In other words, the Council could, by motion, adopt 1Y the foliowing: . �� that the City Council endorses the cancept of � assessing 75� of the residential equivalent cost of ` ` street construction on two-}ane county roads and 50% ;� of the residentjal equivalent cost of street construction on 4-lane divided county raads and instructs staff to incorporate this concept into an , overall street assessment policy far City Council adoption. I think this would establish the intent of the Council for the moment. It wauld allow sufficient tame to review a much larger - policy issue. It would also alTow a new administrator a chance to � � provide input. Barring any extraordinary efforts to completely ,_ : change street assessment practices, I would expect that the basic �� cnncept would remain intact. There is certainly some risk that our ,�: "� °, thoughts and recommendations taday wi l l not be implemented. '� , Whatever rationate would allaw us to make such a change would $�;� obviously be presented when the comprehensive street assessment p .,, policy was completed. �,�, ��, � ..; ,{, 7 �y � .. . . . . � . � . . . . . .. t�4 �� . .. , t�f� �.*� �� ' �� , E.�..t.;. � . . . . . . . . � �{'� . . . � . . . . . . . .. � � � . . a� . . � � . � . . � . , . . I. ` . .. � . � � � � . . . � . �\.. � � � . f.�� \t�� .. 1 . . . � '� � � \�\ �} . f � . . . . � � . \ %',� \ ,\� �, '}• . . . . . . � . , \1 � ` �� - t, � � �` 4`. `t�( \ .,: � ?, '�~ �� t:'�, * � ; , `t, ` �:\ . , COIiMTY ROAD PROJECTSiASSESSNIENTS � f . �< kSS@S�tlt O • � pttons that so�e cities have used ��; in con�unction with caunty road pro�ects � � �� 2-lane county raads 75� of REQ* �.�� 4-lane divided 50X of REQ � �� "` 757� of REQ on CR 38 - $ 281,925 or $ 2,170Jun i t � �;: 50� of REQ on CSAN 42 - � 90,300 or � 1,845/unit . 1 : , �, � : g �$ GR 38 - � a 143,Q75 iNSA & other funds CSAH 42 - � 314,700 MSA & other funds � :: , , K' �. �. � ,�. .� . �$ � � �� , �'K . . . � . � � ' � � . � � . . �. .. . „ . . . . .:�,.,..:�� . . . . . '��... . . . . . . : . �.'E..��: . .. . . � . � . . !(. . . � . � . .� . . . 'j;,'..:. . . � . . . . . . � . . *REQ - Residential Equivalent : ' '� .. . . � . • � . . � � �. � . � � � � . :�: � � . ' �� - . � � . �� 1 ;.i� .' 1 3� t i `.1� £ ; � kC��E�9GUNi. MtNf�E50`4 .��'Jb�: ��,.��- ��;� _ �os�rnvuf�� t,�- 4 �,� �� , , ; ,�, T0: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FROM: DERN JOHNSQN, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & BUILDING pATE: fEBRUARY 7, 1986 f SUBJ: COUNTY ROAD 38 Pt�BLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT , ;j� . . . . � . . . �; " I will attempt to give some general background information on this project, ' a histary, if you will. Some of you are better aware of the distant past �` : . k � t�� history than I am. Piease bear with me and exe�se any redundaneies o �� , information you are completely familiar with. Some of you, an the other , �°; hand, may nat be aware of past discussions an the praject. ,�,,� ; �� the first public meeting and expasure I had on CR 38 was nearly eigh� years b�� ago. This discussian was prompted largely by residents alang the roadway 3 � who were cancerned of the safety and poor condition of the road. At this time there were no bomes in either of the Mickelson lst or 2nd Additions, nar in either of the Rosemount Hills lst or 2nd Additions. There was an obviaus interest by the developers of these subdivisions to see some improvements done on CR 38. �� Our caunty commissianer and highway ertgineer were involved in the first �� public meeting I attended. CSAN 42 had been built from Diamond Path ta the ' intersection of i45th Street, �ust east of the U �f M staff homes.. The �� basic attitude of the County at this time (1978) was that the prinrity for � ` the County was to extend CSAH 42 eastward. CR 38, an the other hand, should receive same maintenance; but, any reconstructian would be put o#`f until tbe timing far a four-lane, divided highway was warranted. It was obvious to a13 interested parties that there was no need or priority � � for a faur-lane, divided highway on this segment of CR 38, at this time. Requests to construct a two-]ane roadw ay had been and continued t� be met k with the standard response that "the County doesn't build two-lane �: highways." Funding was anather obvious obstacle at this time. Rosemaunt � was officially under 5,000 popwlation and any County pro�ects were funded �:;; �_�� lOQ% by the Caunty. As the 1980 census was on the horizon, most involved ��, assumed that Rosemount wauld pass the 5,�0 threshold. All new pro�ects ;, �'� after this confirmatian would require 45% funding by the City. The County � had gane o� record to start the next segment of CSAH 42, priur Lo the 'y census. i don't think there was any question in anyone's mind that this ��` would be the last 1QOX County funded project in Rosemount. , �; }�` From 1978 to 1983 there were at least three "public meetings" an the disposition af CR 38. The census confirmed our new funding obligations �' with the County. Unpredietably, this see mingly had no affect on the � ' - County's attitude about doing anything on CR 38. The roadway was stiil to ¢ be a four-lane highway; however, there4rwas a change, tentative]y agreed � � ` upan by the County, from a divided tn an undivided design. The priority to ' put the road into a County construction program was still non-existent. ��' 'th the residents and the County, it ;�� After a spring/summer 1983 meeting wi was obvious there was no timetable that the Caunty wauld commit to. Another request for a speed study �y the State resulted in the same old standard response, "all gravei roads are posted at 55 MPN." CUUNTY ROAD 38 F�C IMPROVEMENT PROJECT i Februar,y 7, 1986 ! Page 'Cwo = The Caty Council instructed me to start from scratch again and do whatever � '� was necessary to break the impasse. i called a meeting with the community 4 � development director from Apple Vailey and the public warks director fram ' � Burnsvil �e. After a series of ineetings, we reached agreement that the !" tF�ree cities should support each other in requesting a definite timetable ' `• from the County for the completion of the various segments of CR 38, from � � the west Burnsville city limits to Trunk Nighway 3 (TN 3). Qur latter meetings were attended by Bob Sandeen, Highway Engineer. White Bob agreed that timetables for pro�ects were helpful to everyone, he $ admitted that he would not support each of the projects within our proposed ' timetable. We indicated we would then have no choice bu� to get each City � and their respective county commissioners to endorse the �oint request. �� This was accomplished in September, 1983, when the three cities adopted i; ' �, jaint resolutions calling for a canstruction timetable on CR 38. The . County Board accepted the resolutians and requested that the engineer � `` review the timetable in detail tfie following year when the 1985 budget was ' �A prepared. �� ,; +'� Between the fall of 1983 and the spring of 1984, consideration was finally `' given for a four-lane graded section with two lanes of surfacing. The county engineer indicated ta the City that CR 38 would be an the list of potential i985 projects, but he couidn't support its priority against other �� . projects. ,,, Steve Loeding entered the scene, the fifth county commissianer far # Rosemount since 1978. Hearing from the City Council that it was our tap priority, Steve presented it to other commissioners as fiis only budget priority for 1985. Ne came back to us, indicating that ather commissioners wanted CSAN 42 extended to the TH 52. The City Cauncil went on record stating that the City would agree to the C5AH 4Z extension, if CR 38 was budgeted. Ti�e 1985 County budget was approved with �R 38 recanstructian (regrading and graveling}, We also understoad that the 1986 budget would i nc l ude CSAH 42. From the fall of 1984 to the spring af 1985, the surveying and design of CR , 38 was updated. Bab Sandeen retired in April. Shartly thereafter, the County staff approached us with a new design proposal. Would the City react favorably ta a two-lane rural design? We simply stated this is what , we asked for al a 1 1on . ;:� g � � � � � � � � � • It also became obvious that the DNR would require a permit to cross the ' � wetland east af Dodd Road. I was already preparing documentation for the '• permit required in the White Lake Acres street project. After receiving :�, the go ahead on this permit, we began working on the CR 38 permit. By f early fall the EAW and permit documentation was complete. It was obvious `�' that CR 38 would not be constructed until 1986. We received the CR 38 �� wetTand permit on September 24, 1985. ��; , ��, During this same time (spring to fall), the County was in preparation of their first 5-year capital impravement program (CiP). The pre]iminary CIP `��., included CR 38 as a two-year (1986-87} grading/surfacing pro�ect; CSAH 42 , ��; ; from CSAH 71 to US 52 in 1986; and CSRN 42 �rom US 52 to TH 55 in 1987. }`° , Qur only reactian was that we simply could not afford the eastern segment at this time. I testified this concerro� to the County Board at the CIP public hearing. { � COUNTY RQAD 38 PU� IMPROYEMENT PROJECT � � Fe6ruary 7, 1986 Page Three l � � It was y�ry Clear� that the completion of CSAH 42 ta 'fM 55 was a priority of i the Board. County staff understoad aur position and recommended that the CSAN 42 east pro�ect be a two-lane design and be funded with FAU Secondary ; • Funds (75� federal participation). fAU Secondary Funds are nat usualiy � ' utilized by the County in cities over 5,000. Ihe result was that the City would pay 11X instead of 45� of the cost of this project. 7he City Council was in agreement with this aption and the proposed CIP. The County Board adopted the CIP according ta the timetable above and the revised funding. The only remaining history pertaining to CR 38 regards funding. As early as 1984 the City sfiowed CR 38 funding in our own CIP. and in the MSA proposed CIP. The County had estimated the total cost of CR 38, from CSAN � 32 to TH 3, to be $800,C)OU. The Rosemount share wa�s estimated at �280,000 € - $300,000. fln tap af this, the estimates for the City share af the twa CSAN 42 projects were $495,040 and $135,000. ` During the 1985 budgetJCIP review, City staff realized that the City CIP could not bear the costs of the County projects without eliminating locaT funding priorities. Staff recommended that the Cauncil look at bonding the caunty road projects and using assessments and MSA funds to retire the debt. Since budget time, staff have met with our fiscal consultant ta review tfie funding options. _ We now understand that the City can bond for the three County pro�ects, provided we assess a minimum af 20� of the bonded amount of each indepeadent project. In ather wards, we wauld have to assess 2QX ofi` t�ie $300,000 CR 38 costs, 20� of the $495,000 CSAH 42 costs and 20% of the rernatning �135,000 costs. There is no problem assessing CR 38, and probably not on the easter CSRH 42 segment. The middle CSAH 42 project presents some big problems. A minimum of $100,000 needs to be assessed on the one-mile CSAH 42 segment, unless the total amount of the bond can be reduced. The area is all zoned agricu}ture. The density for deuelapment is one home per 10 acres. There are presently 13-15 residences that would be in an assessment district. � ?he U of M owns one-quarter rnile of frontage along the roadway. The number , of assessment units could be as few as 25, based on the above factors. � " This suggests that the assessment rate could be �4,000/unit. I . � � �° Many cities look at four-lane divided highways as a negative benefit to ��,�'.t residences. In ather words� the amount to be assessed to residential � � property is often less than normal. Another consideration the City must ��"� take into account is that 5.5 miles of CSAN 42 have been built without any ° �� ' area assessments. In shart, the opportunity for bonding this segment has ��,' to be car�full� examined. An assessment to the adjacent property dwners ' ; , may be ,justified, but the amount needed to make the 2Q� minimum remains a � �-�'` significant question. I'll come back to this later. , � �, ��:: The CR 38 project is our immediate concern. I attended a public meeting, ,�,�w requested by the County, on January 7. There were approximately 8Q people ��<� in attendance. I was there ta get information, not unl�ke the residents. !�,`�' The residents wanted the bottom line--the costs. We simply could not ;;:' speculate on any assessment rates at that time. a i i . ., CQUNTY ROAD 38 PU C IMPROVEMENT PROJECT � February 7, 1986 � Page Five i handed out a cast/funding autline to the Council after the February 4 Regular Meeting. This outline contains the basic facts about the project at a quick glance. CR 38 is ciosest in design to the White lake Acres streets. �'wo very big differences are that CR 38 is a 9-tan road and has 10-feet paved shoulders. The White Lake Acres streets are 7-ton with 4- feet gravel shaulders. The contract cost of the lacal streets eomes aut to $42.12 per lineal foot (L.F.). Using this figure as an equivalent cost for assessment purposes is not anly logical, it is fair. The tatal costJL.F. on CR 38 is $104.92. The Rosemount portion of CR 38 is roughly 8,950 feet in length. At $42JL.f. as the residential street equivalent, the assessable value or cost � would be $315,900. We estimate the maximum cost ta the City, including <} right-of-way, at �45Q,000. If all of the above rationale and figures are �. used, the City needs to find another �75,000 to pay for the projeet. We '' can easily draw that amount as an MSA expenditure. � �� I recommend we utilize five acres and the basic assessment unit size. This ` ' is simply based on the fact that one home per five acres is the maximum density permitted in this area by ordinance. We estimate as few as 130 assessment units and as many as 150 units. The range depends on a final determination based on benefit. Any parcel five acres or less wouTd have one assessment. Parcels over five acres =require a little closer scrutiny before guaranteeing the final assessment rate. That final figure is calculated formally at the assessment hearing after the project is , comp]eted. A few of the platted lots exceed i0 acres, yet because of street frontage andJor drainage easements we will probably recommend a singTe assessment. Just as an example, a 40-acre parcel will likely be assessed eight units, because subdivision potential permits future benefits. We are unlikely to assess a 7-acre parcel more than ane unit because we probabiy would not approve a variance to splft it into two lats. We may ass�ss a 9-acre lot with two units, because we may be much more inclined to grant a variance for this lot size. And so on. ,t; Far the purpases of the public impravement hearing an Tuesday, we have som� ,, conservative cost estimates that have been published in the hearing notice. ;: We stated the total cost of the Rosemount segment was $1,000,400. We also �, stated the m�ximum estimated assessment would be $500,000. Officialty, - these figures can not be exceeded as they relate to an assessment praject ` "" without holding another hearing. The worst case scenerio, using $50Q,000 as the assessment amount, and 120 as the number of assessment units, `�� results in $4,167 unit assessment. We know that we won't need another � � assessment hearing, as far as the cost is concerned. '` From an unofficial standpoint, I think the Council � can publicly state that ` � the best estimates are the 5375,900 assessment amount (at �42/L.f.) and 130 '� " assessment units. This results in the a2,892/unit estimated on the one , � page outline. This appears to be a �ery fair assessment, considering the ,�. bene€it and the fact that no one has previausly paid anything for CR 38. ,, ; �' Back to MSA funding and other project funding in the City. i'm sure the �� ; Council is aware of the concern, by at least a few af the residents, that the City is utilizing all of its "grant" optians to fund the road. There will definitely be pressure to utilize as much MSA funding as possible. � � � � � � � ; ' � J COUNTY RQAO 38 PU�C IMPRQVEMEMT PROJECT • February 7, 1986 Page Six In fairness ta other collector street impravements, particularly those without M�A designation (such as i30th Street), the City must stick to the policy of assessing on the residenLia] street equivalent basis. We have proposed assessing the total cost of 130th Street to the benefitted properties. This is iargely due to the fact that it is not an MSA road and the design and costs are essentially that of a local street. To assess the CR 38 pro�ect any differently would jeopardize funding of other projects and also raises legal questions. As far as the use of MSA funds and asse�sments on projects are concerned, we have put projects into twa catego�ies: maintenance or overlay and reconstruction or new construction. We don't propose assessments on the former bur we dfl on the latter. Qne exception of this was the downtawn project. We did not end up assessing a full resident�al equivalent ta benefitted properties, large�y because we ended up utilizing nearly �300,q0a in Cammunity Development Block Grant funds. We'll never see that option again. We have been told by the MnDOfi district office that we can dr�w up to the ' total local cost of the CR 38 pro�ect. We have been told by all of the experts--SEM, Springsted and MnDOT--that we should draw the maximum amount we are entitled to on every project we da We have done this in the past. The unused funds from other pro�ec�ts now totals roughly $120,000, These are set aside for whatever pro�ects we want--4n ar off the MSA system. � I would recommend we draw the maximum on GR 38, even though the residents will point out that th� MSA funds cowtd pay all ar a bigger portion af the ;°p� assessments. We simply have to loak at all of the projects we have at the present time. ' ° We present]y have $a55,000 in our M5A construction fund, through 1986. �a This is in addition to the $12Q,000 mentioned abov�. Listed belaw are some of the pending projects and cost estimates. I make no attempt to propose priority; a]thpugh the Counci} has gone on record as supporting all of the County projects. PROJECT , CITY COST NSA OTHER CR 38 $ 450,000 � 75,Q00 � 375,000 Assessment 33J42 Signal $ 40,000 $ 40,00� -- Chip/42 Signal � 45,000 $ 45,000 -- ' Canada/42 turns � 12,000 � 12,000 General Fund(?) � 42:71 to 52 � 500,000 � 250,040 �25QK GO Bond . . , , �5QK Assessed � 145th Street East $ i50,000 � 150,Q00 - 42:52 ta 55 � 135,000 $ -- $135,000 Assessed 155th (0'Leary's) � 230,000 $ 55,000 �175,OOU Assessed 14�th St. West $ 300,000 $ 3p0,00Q -- TOTALS s 1,862,OQ0 i 927,000 S 935,000 . � COUNTY ROAD 38 PUBLI�M�ROVEMENT PROJECT � February 7, 1986 Page Seven Looking at the same projects from a different angle, I'11 list the projects com mitted for 1986, the maximum MSA draw, and how to fund out of our ��laca]" MSA fund. PRt1JECT CQST M5A DRAMI !�A FUND Lt�AL f UND . Starting Balance -- -- $ 755,000 s 12Q,000 CR 38 s 450,000 � 450,000 � 305,4Q0 � 495,0001 155th 5treet � 230,000 � 230,000 � 75,000 $ 610,OQQ� Chip�42 Signal � 45,OU0 � 45,000 � 30,Q00 $ 670,000 33/42 Signal* $ 40,OOQ -- � 30,000 $ 630,000 Canada Avenue* � 12,000 -- � 30,OOU � 618,000 42:71 to 52* $ 5Q0,000 -- $ 30,000 � 368,OU0� lAdded $315,0�0 from Assessments *Off the MSA system 2Added $175,OflQ from Assessments j 3Re€lects $250,OU0 MSA Contribution The remaining balance is nearly �400,000 for the 145th Street projects or other local priorities. Some other projects not listed here yet include Shannon Parkway (Orrin Thompson and S�ection 31 segments), 145th Street (Cameo to Chippendale}, 42/TH3 signal and 160th Street. 7here is obviausly some concern about funding all of these or others in the near future. The only option we may have is ta bond for street pro�ects and pledge future MSA allocations for bond redemption. There is a considerable amount of information here to be considered. I felt it would be impossible to present any af this verbally, especially at a public improvement hearing. My on3y nbjective is to give the Council enaugh information to evaluate the issues and be able to make a decision, rather than rubb�r stamp a staff recommendation. The immediate decision is limited to ordering the CR 38 project. We have a set of plans that need to be signed by the City before MnDOT will complete its �ormal review, Dakota County can not go any further without a formal ga t ahead by the C i ty. , ` There are a few other comments needed to clear up the questions you may ' have about the cost increases on this pro�ect. Minutes of the staff meeting and my own remarks earlier centered on �100,000 to $120,Q00 additianal casts because of the shouldering. This figure was given by the ��i county staff at the January 7 meeting. Gary Erickson, the new hi9hway `� engineer, has explained the increases as follows. � For some reason, the right-of-way costs ($100,000 estimate} were omitted from the earlier estimate. It was not until the final detailed plans were completed that the true cost of earthwark was known. �'his figure accaunts for about $200,000 extra. MnDOT required turn lanes be added at TH 3. The estimates for shouldering the road added �45-50,OQ0. . � COUNTY RQAD 38 PUBL�TMPROVEMEN7 PROJECT � February 7, 1986 Page Eight Steve Campbe]1 has reviewed the itemized cost estimates and feels they are in order. Gary frickson's only other comment was that he feels estimates were made a couple af years ago. Since that time some sort of inflation figure was added to bring the costs up each year. Unfortunately, the original estim ates were low. As far as the meeting itself is concerned, I wauld offer the follawing II recommendatians. I think a brief summary of the project should be made by the county. This would include the design, costs and timetable. I think the Counci3 should then state it is the City's intention to assess the project on the residentiai street equivalent basis and with the five-acre unit area assessment basis. Tfiese costs could be as high as $4,167 per unit; however, we estimate the actuaT to be under �3,000. I think the Council shauld state right up front that the propased design is ' finally what we asked for 10 years ago. I recommend the Council state up r front that trucks will not 6e prohibitted from using the raadway. Finally, I think the Council should state it wiil formally request that the road be posted with a 35 MPH speed limit. The f act that this isn't likely to happen doesn't matter. We should be positive and just plain go along with , th� request. FinaTly, I would rec�mmend that the hearing be conducted formally. That is to say, we should require people to identify themselves by name and address before speaking. Hopefully, we can get a podium and prevent peQple from simply speaking from their seats. There were occasions when the comment period gat out of Mand at the January 7 meeting. In summary, I am sure the list of pro�ects and methods for funding wi11 raise many questions. We have several aptions to consider at this time. Fortunately, nothing needs to be decided at the �ebruary 11 Speciai Meeting, except whether or not to order the projects. Hopefully, this memorandum provides more clarity than confusion. It has taken some time to get these thaughts an paper, but it seemed appropriate. I would be happy to discuss this in more detail with anyone as time permits. �. � ' • s � � 1j29/86 COUNTY R4AD 3$ COSTSIFUNDING ; 11,581 feet Total length CSAH 31 - TN3 8,950 feet Total length Rosemaunt segment ' 4,850 feet Total length MSA designation 100 feet ROW width 24 feet 2-lane pavement section 10 feet Paved shoulders $ 1,215,150.40 Total cost CSAN 31 - TH3 $ 939,034.00 ?atal cost Rosemount segment $ 422,550.30 Total Rosemount Share � 104.92Jlineal foot Total per foat cost of CR 38 $ 47.64/lineal foot 0'Leary's Hills REQ* assessed � 42.12/lineal foot White Lake Acres REQ proposed � 45.00/lineal foot 130th Street REQ estimated $ 47JL.F. @ 8,950 feet $ 420,654 - Maximum CR 38 Assessment $ 42IL.F. @ 8,954 feet � 375,900 - Propased GR 38 Assessment 5 acre PropoSed assessment unit 130 units Estimated units in assessment district $ 375,900 t 130 $ 2,892 - Estimated unit assessrnent rate , , �� . $ 422,550 Rosemvunt Share + 27,950 Local ROW Expenditure S 450,000 Tata1 City Casts .; - 375,000 Local Assessment ,t � 75,000 MSA Funding Requirement ,:;; *REQ - Residential fquivalent , � � � .. - 12538 llanUury Way Rose�nount� MN 5506$ August 27, 1987 Ptayor l.eland KnuCson � CiCy of ltosemaunC 28�5 11i51:1� SlreeE W. ltosemount, P1�t 55�G8 13ear hlayor Knutson; We t�re requesCi.»i3 tl�e �,�purtuniCy �o nddress ltre council a1: the County Rc��J 3£i (1'l5tl� S�.) assessmet�C hearing scl�eciuled for Se�temUer 8, 1987, tUr tiie purpose of abjecting L-o the �roposecl assessment. Tn regards tio Chls matter we are rec�uesti�ig tlie ��llowir�g informalion: A. ToG�l foota�e of 125th SCreet from Ctie Rosemount-Apple Va13:ey borc3er to Ilwy. 3. Footage of 125th Streei: from llocld Rcl, to Ilwy. 3. 13. Total footage o€ 125th S�reet designatecl as MSA roact. (Is this Clie section of roacl from Si�an�ton I'ky, to }lwy. 3?} C. What was tlie l-atal cost af tl�e Rosemount section of tl�e 125th project� and what is 1:!►e city's eost l�efore assessing? '. ll. I(ow was the total proposecl assessmertC of $281,9'25.00 arrivecl aC? What com��ariso�i pro,jects and Lheir daCes were used to arrive et Li�e proposed assessmeiit total? L. Hc�w n�ar�y properLy ow�iers anci assessment: U{1��5 are locaCec! belween llodd lid. ana tiwy. 3? F. When ciid tlie ci.ty l�e�in receiving MSA all�cations far I25th St? t'lease provicte fl year �y pe�r listing oL I�fSA dollars allc�cated eo 125t1i SC. S G, Wtiat l�as Ueeit tt;e city's ei�tire total MSA a.tlocatia�l for eacli year since 125t1i SL-. has �een designated a MSA road? What are !he total number nf mi.les in the city designated as MSA roads Ior eacti ot tl�ase same years? u !i. I.isting of ��ro�ects that MSh funcls have been used for since 125th S�. was designated a M5A roacl. Listing shouiclinciude name of project� riame of street, whether constructing new road or upgracling existing roacl, fooCage of canstructi�n, total cos� of street . t projecC� and PrSA dollara allocated 40 ll�e project.. :,� , ., ; e y , � . � � . *� � � � � � � � ' . � . . . . . � . . . . . U� . � . � . I. f,isCing of c��rrent proJects in ��rogress for which MSA funcls Irave beer� proposed to t�e used. LisCi��g shnuld inclucle name of {�roject, n��ie of s�reeC� wheLlier construcci�� r�ew street c�r u��gradin�; exisling ro:�cl, Eoc�t�Ke of cc��sLrucC.ic�ri, l-oLal. cos� crl sCreeL- j�rujec�, a+�d F1SA c(allars a11�cnLed lo Ll�e pro�ecC. We are rec;uesting the aGave informaLion �e furnist�ed to us na later than Se��ler�►l�er 2, 1987. If any oF �lie city staff has any c�uesCions regarclirig Ctye ii�forn��Cion being requested, please have them call us at either 4'L3-5728 c�r 887-C�355. Siricerely, �.w.-+-rv✓� �, � � �^^-^'^ f , Dennis 0. Wippermann �- �''>ul-' (�... �.� •�1kJ�.r�t-Ct�c-y`/ � � Jane T. Wippecmann cc: Sce�►l►an Ji.l.k, AdminisLrator lle�t�� Johnson, llirector of Gom�nunity llevelopment , 4 1b'�. . � . . � . � . . .. ��;.: . . � � � � � . � . .. . .. . . +.:.�. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . k .. . � . � . . . . . � . . . i..�..:� . � � . .. . .. .. � . . . . . . . s . � .. . � . . . . . . . . . . . . Y '. . . . � � � . �. . � . . f : s , � � Responses to the Ietter fro�n Dennis & Jane Wippermsnn, dated August 27, 1987 A.l3.C. 11,SH1 feet = Total Project 8,950 feet = Rose�nount Segnyent 4,85U [eef = MSA Designation {Shannon fo TH3) � ' 295,410 = Conlract Total Gc�st to RosemounE {through August, 1987) 30,000 = Engineering Tat�l Cost to Rosemount (Estimated by County) 35,000 = ROW Tatal Cost to R�sernount (Estimated by �ounty) �,5�, � City Engineering & ROW Cost to Rosemount (Estimated by City) 411,910 = Totats as o[ 9/1l87 Tfie total estimate�l cast of lhe Rasemount segment, tess Engineering cosEs anc! the costs ot right-of-way on the new aligqment, was 5939,034. 1'he esUmated sharc o[ the cost to the City, less lhc same exceptians, was 5422,550. ll. "I'I�e Gity uscd S42/Lineal Fo�t (1.f.) as the Residenteal Equivalent {REQ) cost of the street. "This cast was the lowest price per lineal [o�t of three nther }�rojects taking place. !t was the actua! cost fram the While Lake Acres project. The length (8�950 Leet) times cost per lineal [oot (S42) Ct(tlAIS $3'15�9QA. This amc�unt was the tolat estimatec� assessment used at Ehc �ublie improvemcnt hearin�. 7'he CiEy 4:��uncil has since agrceJ that two-tanc cc�unty roads wilt be assessed only 75% of the RE(2. tience, 5375,900 x 75°l0= 5281,925. At the public improvements hearing stat( noted that the iota! cost (5375,900) would be spiit amongst an cstimaled 130 assessment units. This amountecl to 52,892/unit. The final taily on assessment units [ar the project is i55. This (igure inEo �281,925 is the final assessment of $1,818.87/unit. E. Thc area between DodJ and Tti3 is uc�devel�ped and owned by two pariies. The property to the south was forrnally spiit into two parcets which have access io 125th Sireel. Two assessment units were assigned south oE 125th Street. There are two �arcets to the north, totaNing 46.5 acres. There were nine assessment units assigned to lhe area north ot Uodc1. � � �.G. The City's MSA system was established in 1982. There were approximately 58 miles a[ roads in the City that were useci to detcrmine the City's system. '!'hc system thai is desigaated MSA re�resents 2O°fo o[ the tota! qualitying miles. AU MSA strects must Ue into other Siate Aid roa�is, i.e. city, county ar state. The original MSA system consisteJ of 11.3i miles o[ designated streets. tu i984 lhe City pulle� 1.45 miles of clesignated streets out o[ the system. !t was reasoned ll�at th� area ot these streets wss autsictc of the area schc�luted fc�r utilities ar any develapment tor at least 5-14 years. Sh�nnan P�rkway (1.50 miies) [rr►ny Co��nemara Trai1 ta GR 38 was aJdect and CR 3$ (0.9 miles) Eram Shannon Parkw�y to Tti3 was acicleJ. Tlie annuat allocation of M5A [unds is bascct u�ron the totat an�ount of qualitying miies aaJ ihe nature o� the roadways desi�naied. Maximum nee�l iur any system is a designated roadway which doesn't exist, i.e. Shannon Parkway or Connemara Trait. Minimum needs on a system �re roads that are aiready in��oved, hut may reryuire fuEure upgrading or rerlacement, i.e. 145th Street. In tl�c n�icldte are existing gr�ve) r�aJs suct� as 125th SlreeE. F . 1 cic> ��E have ililAj�articular cioltar an�c�unts IIi�I (IiC srltc use� in ceachii�g thc allucatiu�� f�c any o�e city. This (ig��re chan�es annuslty with the amount cif gas tax collecte�l and il�c nun�ber af miles adc�ed to the syslem, as wel! as the overall breakJown o[ needs in the entire statewide system. '['he fact that a rarticular sebment of any road is on ihe sysiem does nOE tClatC to the value in any particutar community. The single iactor that is re{evant is the totat qualiiying mileage. in 1984, Rosemouni had approximatcty 62 miles of qualifying miteage. The total constructian income Ior the 19�34 MSA system was 5194,53G. This brcaks down into � relurn of gas ts�xes paia l�y evcryone in thc City in ihe amaunt o[ 53,137.G8 �cr qualifying mile. 1'his amount is insignificant when looking at the entire system o! qualitying mileage. I f this income is spread over ihe sysEem of designated state aid roadw�ys, the atlocation amonnts to $15,803 per designated mile. The foitowing amounts �er year correspond to annual income and income per designated mite: 1985: $280,222 - �22,?G3.77/mile; 1986: $259,168 - 521,053.451mi{e; 1987: 5221,98G- 518,032.98. At 0:9 rniles length, ihe four-year income that could looscly bc associateJ witti 125th Slreet is $77,G53. The total designated mileage of lhc MSA system has 6een 12.31 miles since 1984. �i. MSA cioilars havc bcen ex{�encied on 1Me 145ih Street (downtown) praject, O'I,eary's Hitis Acldition street �roject, and signals at 145tf�lTli3, CSAH42/CR33 and CSAM 42/Ghippendate Avenue. The following breakdown itlustrates the particulars surrounding each projec�. �4Sth Stree�Recaastruc�on Froiect Totai Lengih - 9$0' Net Assessed Length - 784.25' Total Street C�sts - S 573,7G8.38 Total Assessed - � 77,746.50 Assessment Rale - � 99.i4fl.ineal Foot Total MSA Dr�w - S 391�,976.82 Total MSA Used - S 3b9,000.00 �Includes street, storm sewer, lighEs, sidewalks, beautiticatic�n � . � r : . . . . . K i�'Leary's 11i11s Addltion - T�rta) Length - 1,G7S Nct Assessable Lengtl� - 1,G75' Total Street Costs� - $ 114,q�8.78 Total Assessect - S 79�&54.43 Assessment RaEe - S 4?.67/Lineal �oot Tvtal MSA Draw - � Ill,llt.72 Totat MSA Used - S Z4,661.83 �lncludes strcet, storm sewcr, lights, trait � � � . , l45t1� StreetlT[I�J Slena� City's Cost - S 2G,258.$4 hviSA Uraw - S 2fi,258.84 MSR Used - x 26,25$.84 CSA[I 42lChiRR�ndAle Avep�e S�� City's Cost - S 32,428 MSA t3raw - S 32,428 MSA Uscd - � 32,�28 (:SAIt $2/CR ,}, Sienel City'� Cost - S 49,462 MSA I�raw - S 49,4G2 MSA Used - S 49,4(r2 i. CSAH 42 from just east o[ CSAH 71 to US 52 is a project thaE may require ihe use of some MSA funJs. No amounts have been dedicated to this praject. The City is assessing 50°10 of the REQ an Ihis project since it is a [our-lane divided highway. The assessment rate is half o[ the 5421 L.F. The originai estimated cost to the City was 5405,000. The unassessed cost of this project was estimated a; 5314,700. Again, na finai determination on the amount of MSA contributiaa has been made. CSAit 42 from US 52 • TH3 is anaiher collector street assessn�ent project. The rale of assessment is set at �42/L.F. �t the ?S% tate, as a two-lane county roa�1 assessment. In order to step up the timing o[ consiruction of this project, ihe County is dedicating Federal Aid urt�an funding far the pmject. This is usually reservecl exclusively for cities without MSA fu»ding. The total estimated cost to the City is 5175,000. The entire amount is proposed to be assessed. No MSA iuncls wi{1 be usecl. The City is aiso in the �mcess ol' €onstruciing tw� MSA roac�ways: Shannon Parkway [roro 1GOtfi Street to Connem�ra Trai! and Connemara Trail fron� Diamond Path to Shannan Parkway. Both �[ these projec4s are to be assesseel tor it)(Wlo o[ a residential eryuivalent. The City updated the eslim�ted cost of the REQ !o lhese projecls to a vaiue o[ S55/L.F. The actual contribuUon of MSA funds ta either o[ these projects has not been determined or cc�n�mitteci. The estimatecl assessment income trom these projects may equal 5527,770. The ' amouut eligible fo draw [rom MSA [unds. may be as high as �9U0�000. The totat estimatecl costs oi the above projects is 51,488,923. r r � . i f �� .- {.� � � � 1�1� f1 .�n;. �a�,itrst �v � ..\ t . t 111 1:F I1,111i►N f. Mlnlhtf tit f f A*.4�t1:n ,,, � i ��.�f��1 ��(•�� f.17 .1:,14AtI t P1111LiC NO 'P7. Gr NoC1ce o[ U��rinF oi� Pr.nr��4ett Assessmc�nC 'l'O WFII)ti 17' MAY CQN(:�ItN: . Nt)'J'tt:�; IS lIGRGIiY GIV�N� Llint: th� E:as��►„nr. r,i.�:y c��£�i) aill m�r.L at i:(}() ��.m. o�i S�pCemirnc ti., 19fl7, At tl�� R�aPmo��»t. t;ity linit, 2t�75 145th Street West in Rosemou��t to �rass u�aF� 1:he �ro�►oaed �9SP.SR{IiCil�: EOC the sLreel im�rnvement c�f (:a�nity lto.��l 3(! (135tt� S1:) heLwneE� Cl�e A�pis Vatley �i.i�:y limi.t.a anci Trurik Uinl�w�y :�. 'fhe tollowir��; i.y tl�e �rea �tn�crs��) C� he a.s�e99e�1. AIl ��.�1 rr�p�rty m�e--hr�lf FL/2) n�i.l� unrt.i� nnrl 4nut.1� nf C�tutty itn.��l 3i3 ({35C1� St? hekwe�cn f:h� A�►rlc� Vc�Cley ce�rpncf�tr. 1im[1.4 n�td Y'ri�nk Ili�;tiw.�y 3. , '�f�� R+��k to I�e specic�lly r�sse.as�rl ApA11191: yQilt �ACtilCUTAC lat� piece, ar �accet of lanci is atCncli�d to lhis nntice. Xnu may eL• pnytlme pr.ior to CP_fClI�C8l:ldp of tliA ' r��s9e�smenC i:� th� cn�u�ty ��clil:nr �,ay I:lie enlire a�ases9mpnk ��n s�ich �,ra�>Pxty, wit:li iiik.erest .�ccrried Co tl�e ctate _of �ayment, Co Che ca��nLy auctitor. Na i.»teresl sh:�ll he cl►argecl if thP e��tire .3sse:�sment i.9 f�.�zcl within 3() d.�ys from the Adc,�tion �f tl�i.s i194P.Y.4111P.MI:. Yn�� m�y st any . Cime I:her�*�(Cer, p�y to Ci�P co�n�[y r��i�litnr tl�e e�itir.h n��intRnt: �[ l.he rssegsnF�nC remaini.nn a��p�icl, wit:li }I11:t�CP.9G ACCCIiP.(I Co t�eceini�er Jt o[ the ye:�r itt wha.cl� such p�ymP��t is ma�le. Si�ci� �►�ymen(, nit�,yt {ie e�t�de be[�rr. NOVP.NIIt(±C 1''i c�r inl:ere�l, wl.11 be rh��r�,��t thr.��i�p,li 11ec�ml��c 3L �� th� succeeclin�; yr.nr, I.[ yott cl�cide nol t�� pre{�ay tl�e �ssesRn�ent i�e[�re the d��te Piven above 1:he r�Ce c�t intereat tlyal will �pply is ff.2 p�rr.ent f►er yP�r. 7'ti� ��r��p�5ed nvse4snrenP. rnll i4 ��u f i Ir, Cor �»�hl ic in:�per.l.inn nl. I.i�e c i�:y r.l.erk's nf f ice. 'i'ii� I.ni.r�l �iorr»i�tC �[ I:t�e rrApc,,e�l ��,rssmet�C i4 $?,fll.,�)7.''i.00. t�r.i.i.�ei� or. �r.al crb,j�r.tian:� uill he COi191.(ICCP.tI AL C1�p meeCi.n�;. Nc� ap�►eal. m�y be taken �s t� the .�n�our�G o[ s�n :�ssegsment �mlesg � �ip,nesl, ar.i.l:LFn nla,jeckeo�� i� f i le�l witl� I:lie c.lc�r.k ��r.ior {.r� tt�e hnnrin�; nr preseat.�d Co ll�� jr�:�i�lin�; �t.ficer at lhe i�es�rinf;• '1'h+� cc��ncil mAy ttpoE� s�icl� ` not ice consicier any �l�,jectiait t� I:I�e �nmoEml: �E a rr.opc�an�F i.iui i v e�l��»1 �s.gessn►ent: nL nn ��i.lr�ur��e�l mr.r.i.i.nl, ��j�c�� 4�ict� t��r.tf►at ncylir.c± f.o f:1ir a:[f.ectecl rr�perCy or�r�ecs .7g it cieems fl�lvig.�l�1.e. J f nn A99f?9S141f!pL' l.3 conL�!sCpr) or. CheKe ie 1n nd,jnur.nesl l�eari.ng, i.he fc�ll��wi.��; ��roc�clurp wi.11 �e Cnl.l�we�i: I. . 1'liP �i.Cy will presenl i.f.g cs�se tir.gl hy c�lti.ng �ri.Cneas�R wl�� ns�y t�9tify I,y n.�rrnl:iv� �r Itiy exr�miits�f:inu, �nd hy I:he i�it.rn<i��c:tiot► c�t' exhit,il.s. AEker e�ct� NtCft(?98 h��s I.estifi�d, I.he ��i1:e4t:ii��; n.�rLy wi.11 I�e s�llowt�{1 i:c� s�ak s�ungt.iong. Thig pr.�r�r1��i��± will. he rPpc��eci witlti �ncl� raikne�:a �tnt:il n�i.l.hcr aidr+ i►n9 f��r.t:l�c�r s�iie�f.inn9. r r' . � � � . � . . � . . . . 2• AfCsr Lhe r.ity ht�e pres�nlecl �11 its evidence� tl�e �bj�cCor mAy call FILCIIP.3RQ4 or ��rese»t: guch t�sLimony as the ob.�ector cl�sires. 'fhe samp proc�c)ur.e tor queskic�ning n£ tl�e city'.4 N1(:ItQ,g3P..4 wilt. be fo2lowect wilh (.I1P. C1I),�P.CI:(TC�9 wi.tnesseg. 3. 'i.'I�c oi,,jecLor m�y be rPpr.esr.i�Led 1>y co��i�sel. r` �+. Piirin�sot�► rules oC evictence wi.tl �wl l�e skricl ty ,��ti.ecl; I�owever, ttiey may be eonsi.clererl �ncf r�rpuecl to EI�P c��u�ci1 as Co N�e weir,l�t crf items ot evic)enc� or tesLimor�y ��respntPd to tite council. 5. The entire pr�ce�di��;s will b� I:nped-recnr�la�l. ��. h1_ khe CIOAP. of nrespst.�f:i�n �f �vi.clence� L1�e �I�.j�cLc►r m�hy nr.�ke n IitFrl pre:�enlz�ti�n i:a tl�e ca��ucil IrA9ed �� t.l�n evi.�let�ce a+�d the lr��r. Na ��ew eviclenc� may be �reseifCecl �l- tl�is �roir�C. An owner m�ty Rppeal an t�sse�csment t� ciiatrict courf. ��ctrai�Ant to tiin��esatA Stat��tes SP_CCLAII �IZ�.�BL uy 3P,L'Vlitp I7n1:2CP. Of tlie � ' flt�l�P�+l ��(�n� tlte mayor or clerk of ti�e city Nikhin 3� days atter llie �ci�{�tion r�C thP s�ssegsmenC �nci [ilin� s��ch n�Ci.cr aitls the <Iistric� courC witt�in ten clays A[ter service �rpon t.1�e mAyor �r clerk. U��t:r.�l t:i�i.a 1.231_h clr�y of Au�u;gt� 19Ii7. 13Y QRf�F,R OE TiIE CITY GOUNCIL. , /�'�� ;� `,,,�/i/' ,�,.�i��'i e 7Ci' . �lr 'Sce{�It�fS .liik // ��` Atlmi.ni.st.��l:�r/Glerk City �f Rnsemount !)nh�Cn roiinly� Pfit►��±�c�ls� ' • e Ca �t�i 38 Asses�aaaent Roll ! � US-Auy-87 Legal Descripti�n Aseeseable Nane Unita Rate Amount ---------------------- ----------------------------------- t9ickeTson's E'irat Addn Block 1 Lot i Kenneth Petere 1 81,818.87 81,818.8? Lot 2 Micheal Peteraon 1 82,$18.8? a1,818.87 Lat 3 Jamea Kra�t 1 81,818.8? 81,l318.8? $lock 2 Lat 1 Sharon ltiCkelBon 1 $1.818.87 81.818.87 Lot 2 Sharon Hickelson 1 81,818.87 $1,818.87 Mickel�on`s Second Addn Block 1 Lot 1 Nw Pari,sh 1 b1.818.87 81.818.87 �Qt � Garlton Rctck 1 81.818.87 81.818.87 �Q� 3 EdNard 8ergauer 1 +91.818.87 81,818.87 Lot Q i1N Johnson 1 81,818.87 81,818.87 Lot 5 Dennia Davia 1 81.818.87 81.818.8? Lo4: 6 Daniel Q'Nei2 1 81.818.87 81.818.87 Lot 7 George Bo�amer, Jr 1 81,818.87 81,818.87 Lot A Narry MegdoMa 1 81,818.87 81,828.87 ��t 9 ilayt�e Nauechildt 1 81,818.8� 91,818.8? Lot 10 8SR Enterpriees 1 �1�818.8? 81,818.87 � Lot 11 Erik GundaCker 1 81,8i8.8? 81,818.87 Lot 12 Gharles Parrish 1 91,818.87 81,818.87 Lot 13 Terry Nah1e 1 81,818.87 $1,818.87 Lot 14tpart of) Terry Noble 0 81,818.8? 80.OQ Lot 14(part of} Donald Grunter 1 81,818.87 81,818.87 Lot 15 Charles Uilery 1 51,818.87 81,818.87 Lot i6 John Ruto�ki 1 81,818.83 81,818.87 Lot 17 David Knuts�on 1 81,918,87 81,818.87 Lot 18 Denni� Hyeter • 1 81,818.87 81,li18.87 Block 2 Lot 1 Charlene Delanex 1 81,818.87 $1,818.87 Lot 2 Rot�ert Metzig 1 81.818.87 �1,818.87 Lot 3 Pat Reed 1 �� 81.818.87 81,818.87 Lot 4 Nayp� Dahmea 1 91,818.87 s1,81Q.U7 I.ot 5 LuV�rne Radtke 1 51,818.87 81,018.87 l.c�t G Danald Neeell 1 81,818.87 +91.818.87 LoL 7 pennis Nipper�ann . 1 $1,818.87 81,818.87 Lot 8 Karl BieMald 1 $I,818.87 81,818.87' Lot 9 llark kaldorf 1 81,818.8? 81,818.87 i.ot 10 Jack Tonkin 1 81,818.8? 81.818.87 Lat 11 Janea Ehmer 1 81,818.8? 82,eia.87 Lot 12 Mlchael 3ones 1 81,818.87 81,818.8? [.ot 13 Eric Nef11n 1 81,818.87 81,818.6? Lot 14 Mark Quarford 1 81,8I8.87 81,810.87 �osemount Niils Second Addn < Block 1 „ Lot 1 Joseph 2ousignant 1 81,818.87 81,818.87 Lot 2 � Thoedore Koad 1 91,818.87 82,818.87 Lot 3 Kenneth Marcotte 1 81,818.87 �9i,818.87 Lot 9 Jeffreg itilfart 1 �1,818.87 +l1,818.8? Lot 5 Daris Lahner 1 81,818.87 $1,819.87 Slock 2 Lot 1 i�illisa� Norri� 1 �1,818,$T 91.818.87 Pg 1 , � Co Rd 38 Assess�ent Roli � � Q5-Aug-07 �egal ll�ecri�tion Asaeae�ble Naae Units Rate A�eount -----�------------------------------------------ I.ot 2 fiillia� Norria 1 81,818.�7 +d1,818.87 Lot- 3 Paul Linkert 1 5�1,818.87 81,818.8'7 Lat 4 Noward Etaschke 1 81,818.87 $1,818.8? Lot 5 Nillias Bahl 1 81,818.87 91,818.87 Lot 6 Dale Yanderaee 1 81,8i8.87 41,818.87 Got 7 Ja�ees Norn 1 81.818.87 81,818.8? Lot e Robert Kub�t 1 81,818.87 81.818.87 Lot 9 Jack Kar,�ten 1 +91,818.8? 81,818.87 ililde Birch Eatatea Lot 1 Harry Lehn�ann 1 81,818.87 81.818.8? Lot 2 Richard Blundell 1 +�1,818.87 81,818.87 Lot 3 Michael Klassen 1 +91,818,87 81,818.87 Lot 4 Reid Mansen 1 81,818.67 +91,818.87 Reg Land Survey No 12 Part o� Tract "D" Karen Coffee 10 81,8i8.87 �18,188.71 Aart of Tract •p" Qennia Clancy 0 81.918.87 84.00 Part af Tract "D" Ja�aes Bongere 0 �1,818.87 80.Q0 Traat "E• Craig Adana 1 81.�18.87 81.818.87 Section 7 Metes & Bounde 39-00710-011-25 M F Hickeison 1 81,819.8? 81,818.87 -�- 34-01710-020-30 !! F Mickelson 1 +91,818.87 $1,818.87 �,�. Section 1? Metea & Bounda 34-017I0-010-17 alga Treiee 7 �1,818.87 812,732.14 39-U1710-Q13-2? Olga Treise 2 82,818.87 83.537.74 34-01710-q10-2b S E �nright 2 81,818.87 81,818.87 39-01?10-012-27 Ronald Enright 1 +�1,818.87 81,818.87 34-U1710-020-27 Ronald Enright I 81,818.8� 81,818.8? 34-Q171U-010-31 Ronald Enright 1 81.@18.87 81.818.87 34-01710-010-� Ropald Enright 1 81,81�.87 81,818.87 39-0171U-010-29 Ruesell Johnsort 1 81,818.87 81,818.87 34-0171Q-010-30 Dauglas Liden 1 +9I,818.97 �1,818.87 34-01710-010-3+{ Marvin Gill 1 �1,8i8.87 $1,818.87 � 39-01710-010-35 Ja�es Anderaon 1 81,818.8? �1,818.8� 3�-01710-019-50 Ed�aund Bunn 2 81,818.87 �3,637.79 34-01710-01?-b0 Nilliam Norria 2 41,818.87 83.637.74 34-Q1714-Qi9-60 Fan Lahner 1 4�1.818.87 �91.818.87 Section IF3 Metea 6 Bounda 34-AI710-010-19 tteinold Sieg 8 �1,818.87 814,550.9� 34-01810-013-28 Earl Ada�s 4 81.818.87 87,275.98 34-01810-011-33 PennvieM Ino 2 8I,81S.8? 93,637.74 39-01ti10-012-33 Joan Boyd 1 +91,818.87 81,818.87 34-01810-012-36 City of App1e Valley 10 81,818.87 818.188.71 34-01810-Q13-36 Bruce Ivereon 1 81,8i8.87 81,8i8.87 39-01810-012-42 M � Mickel$nn 2 81,818.8? 83,63�.74 � 3�-41810-013-42 Sharon Nickelson 1 �1,818.87 �1,818.87 34-01810-010-44 3ames Feilen 1 +A1,818.8? 81,918.87 34-01810-810-AS Frieda SchMana 1 +�1,818.87 81,818.8? 34-018Y0-010-55 Georqe Linkert 1 81,818.9Z 81,818.87 34-01810-010-72 Milcired Mu11erY 8 81,818.8? 814,550.97 34-01810-01i-75 The Great Stock Co 16 81,818.8? 829,141.94 34-0181U-012-?5 Randy SchMartzhaff 1 81,818.87 $1,818.87 34-018:10-Q10-84 Marvin Karnick 2 si,818.8� �3,637.74 34-01810-010-E31 Sidney Fletcher 1 81,818.87 81,818.87 Pg 2 Y` t Y Co Itc� 3U As$eaament Roll � � U5-Auq-87 I.egal Description Aesessebl�°� Na�e Unite Rate A�►ount 34-01810-011-U2 aa+�ee Bongers 1 8i,028.87 s1,818.87 34-01810-010-83 3a�es Bongers i 81.818.87 AL.81H.87 34-01810-012-f32 Charles Streae 1 51,818.8? +�1,818.87 34-01810-010-85 Dennis Clancy 1 +�1,818.87 81,818.87 Totals 155 A281.925.d0 Pg 3 i L ..Y � . � � � ' . � • �� ; � �,;;. C�',�.. ..�� ,�, f `�r� � J �� j! �l �) :/47!� 1•i5►f��i� {+V 1�'"��t� 1 �< �,• � • N<.litMf)i:IN i. MIWN[::t t i� !iSf1l:N }z��,..,� �,Usc ri-t vc.r�r l ��z .,�:r.�9„ " a;�=,: � ,�. TO: Mayor, Council, C[ty AdminlstraEor FRUM: Uean Jol�nsvn, Uirector ot Corn�nunity I)evetopment UATE: Sepiember 3, 19�37 SUBJ: County Road 38 Assessment Project Attachec! you wiil find copies of ll�e following information: the assessment hearing notice, the assessment r4le, the assessment area map, a letler Crom Dennis and Jane Wippermann, my response to the "Wippermann" letter, ihc public imrravcmcnts hearing notice, my originat c�st/Iuncling autline and my ariginal background menfo on the project. We have received no written objections to dale. I believe the information attachect is adequate to proaide a history and [inal su�nmary of Ehe project. As notcd in lhe "Wippermann response," the [inat cosls are not known, but estimated. It is ot�vious, however, tliat the amount to be assessed is less than ihe known costs. We do not know what actual amount may be dtawn from the stale [rom our MSA [unds. We do know that the a�uount wilt be limited to the actual amount billed by the County [or the MSA segmeat (ap�rroximately 4,85U teet) plus IocaC engineering and right-oi-way costs. Therc may very weU he a need to use ather funding sources lo close the gap betwe'en the total cosE ancl the amount assessed. - '1'�vo clianges I�ave taken �Iace si�ce tl�e puUlic im�roven�ent i�earing helcl February 11, 1986: the Council agreed lo assess 75% of the resiclential equivatent slreet cost on Ewo-lane county roacls, and the actuat number af assessment units has reached 155, up fr�m the esiimated 130 units. The oUvious result is that the firta) assessment value has dro�ped from an cstimalecl ,�2,892 lo si,818.t? {�cr unit. 1 will be availaUle to n�ake a sio�ilar presentatian at tl�is beari��g as wc �fid at the September 1 hearings, if the C�uncil desires. The same pracedures [or public comment ancl subaequeut inquiries with .statf shoul�l be ,followe�i. ., flo�c[ully, tliis heari��g can move as pcoperly as ihe Jay Sirnan and 130t1i 5treci l�earings. ' C � �� t.6��fr�c�c�-�.. s�t.lo�e�f of w..,�.��st �oY a�"' � /T' t��d Y; — S r L o w�n..-� �e-yvtn��s--a-.�-e�,a�.' i4G��•r� �s w v�' G�t..�ct,� f G..a v��..✓�-�..�„ -- ;e�,f�'�:�, t��F�..a.. c� �,r/. � B\ �, I I� �-� �s+�u.�l-�Re so� �r C t� ��3 zo,-ri�for "' �'J`�Y�v�o� t �4 �tn�n'�'�� 5t.� +1 rn�wq T o� �w�.�'Y'B�IY�� :/� S�o--g� p�,r.�� — ..Td..�v.wa�+ � � 1�1a�a Ptn b�1'c Y�'t'� �� ot.�.w'�]� —'t�.1� �t..+�.e.�v�'�---�j ��i�v�. ` �-ebr�.o.r� ! l� 1�t� �UI�};c 1,�.�,�-0%►��5 t�r�--we11 ar.�f�cC��.j.Vo ►�cG. •--�Cos7- i � � y � � C(R1NTY it0110 3i3 COSTSjFUNUING � 11,581 feet Total length CSAH 31 - TN3 f3,950 feet Total length Rosemount segment 4,a5U feet Total lenytl► MSti designatian -- Sr9-Dfn �x �s��"� ��'jfi�. U 100 feet ROW width 24 feet 2-lane pavement section 1Q feet Paved shaulders $ 1,2I5,150.40 Total cost CSAH 3I - Ttf3 � 939,03�1.00 Total casL Rosemaunt segment $ 422,550.30 Total Rasemaunt Share $ 104.92/lineal foot Total per foot cost of CR 38 � 47.64/lineal faot Q'Leary's tiills REQ* assessed � � 42.12/lineal foot White Lake Acres REQ propased $ 45.00Jlineal foot 130th Street REQ estimated $ 47J[,.F. @ a,950 feet $ 42U,650 - Maximum CR 3II Assessment > $ 42/L.F. @ 8,950 feet � 375,900 - Proposed CR 3a Assessment 5 acre Proposecl assessment un�t 130 units Estimated units in assessment district � $ 375,900 t�30 ' � 2,II9� Estimated unit assessment rate > X 7s��, _ a.e�,qzs . �ss= l8ig $ 422,550 Rosemount Share M�� +_ 2�,450 Local ROW Expenditure �f-�.�-�-a-� � 450,i�00 Total City Costs �� ,�Sc�. - 375,000 Local Assessment � ��'�� 75,000 MSA Fund i ng Requ i rement �zo�� t � �l� �7 �ES�; �'� � � �� .3 O / � � *REQ - Residential Equivalent �sgess . a�t� q2.� _ /�s� I�,q, °�SS /�t�`�!r �,..k. r. Z. C't rq — �pr.v�n.c�..�. W�E0. �{�-c� �D �i C,�/ � J ,,1 C.�.a-�t.e��:s �,_,_,�/t> 0 ("�' �� TOY' ,c." �t�Q C..�f�.�� C?Q� ; � � , ' � � �'w��ti.Q. �iv�.s� �.> ,H,,�z,�:r -� ' Q �ii r� u�-"�+'( �'t �� {�. � t , ' �'t�t., t vr.l-�_ - 1 (' [;� f`�i r ),,� 1 i ... - '� ; , � �°� � " �.� ' . , .. . I�""i . . �� . : . . nr.. � a (s:...�.,: u..�.. f � �-- , •' �_� ( �d�' 'i � i� €asw�� I�� " : - °'°''° 1 � c I j t . :o �a, t � �...x� � _ � , � �� a+-s' � // � e n.�cr c ! ' �-•� � � t � . : . t � . . , . . S.t•,�. /.` v ( �eo-�r� � � �� a't-» �,� �� 1 1 � ' � �! �: � � . �w�H aro-�t . . 1 j � J*� ' � ? no-as �•� J � "'t'l i 1 I • °a'q ; r' �- � �w..� ao-a \, ao-� J "i"= �,�.�� ` � o�a-a a��.�a I ! \ '�' -- ,�r !•ro»-. ! : • ! � \ .�a � 3%� ' a+:•�a + . � � � ! � m.as Y _:� ' cl.,�� ` � �'�� 1 rw.cr o � �ae-Hr' �+.r \. a0aa ��;i �P+ � . �. . Ob�� .��.� ,a � � • , � �� '� `J _� ' �� +. � tmo-•. � s �� 3t . � ��...� ' / P�"' ��,s �, � _ .I t `; ,p_� j ' �"' � � ��_� !n.-::� d�tS':.. � 'z. . 1��a �"'\� ' i �� ! � i •i � �� /`1 l� Y �� a � , _ '•. I I I � 1 r i ' S a �.y a i 'os-ss�rP as.y� �f rr-s+ •. �} �, .�TM T t � .� � �. . � s �. J�'. i ab"� .�.�� .� ...rst�'� � . .�:sm:�Z""�� \ � �f.�+ • ;� ' ' , ',O�t.�� // + � sr : , = - __ ..-� _ .__ +�_ � \� �'�D i s�"� � . . 1 .. .i ,.'i+n � ar-�t '� o � i ?�•r &' � .s � \� a. ' t.- ,��'. . ,� � � 1. ° � . s �'$! ,�i ,. ; { x .\ _ �i/' u . ; a�-: _._. � � �; � a - ' \� m � y :�s • .� ` i r . t—'�-�-'� . � � q �.._�K��. - '� �_..� f.? !po_n�+ ` � 1 s � �� o � • ' � y g • :.r �e° � j : � �� / � I � � .s � •t � ��.� � ! ao'�s "` � /� / s %� 6_� � "' i ' � —� � +:'�M� �1 ��.e�¢''�� * � � ��i� a1�` i , � • /.Y �� f'. ,. 's � I . 3 2. �Rs y4. L�% \ � .o.e � oso�s � : ; :`��-� /, � `•.\ � I � a s I x i `.� . ae-*t 1 � /� 2 � . ��u.as � . . . . . o �� 1 I � � ' t s : ' ,�; '' Z �f � ' � � �t 'y�/% �� 1 i j � '. f. � �' �r i ; �--.-} f , � � L .u-es a'r-w • •_� i � qp_.xi �,., j \ .,� . � + � . ,d ....�3Ei � � , , � +�-�,s. ; j ; • . �aa8uxr M� � � o�-u an. � �� .. aso-a �=�I '�� . , ,i�' ; J � w . 1 �: �.d ,t „"'� ; r 1 .s`�� '� ' . `\\ 1 •. :�� a��-w-„�'�"�», ' . Z �-^3� •.. `�•, �— � . `\ ' j---, ,� t /�°°°-m a' i : I ��, � �s V �'sr f'�'.,...--""1 �� ; E ai ! � , 1 • .o i { j .i/ . � . . . � { . \ ��N�-q �\��% ,0 .+ �� . ��i . i �q ��o �' ;� � � � �� .j J �Y'. � I � S �. �a IOwO .�jO' •�.r'l i , y �• �� . . . S a . - � �'.II� � � � . ��O.0 ,// �\ . , '. .' -0 ' ,:'1 . Ox�01 ''i. . i � . ..� � . �# . � 1 . . .. �1 t= ' .� �,�, / � . ` � � � : . .... ��.�� . t , OM�!f ,. ' � � . . . . . . . ' '" � � y • ] ,{' ,f �� x sr_ ��_r�r . � ^� e.a-� i� o�,.-s _� t , : f . : :�� -' ' ��c ' Rr � I , . � : . �� •�� 3'y - � .<2:a. � s � � � Js • + '{i� aa-o� 4 z�Y . ou.h . . ( � `� ��11?'_�32`�0 ' ar N �� . . o t�r o��_:� ` ' �, oa•e � �� i � � . � x-a �: � ` . , ( . . �� . � . � �'» � � � � �q�.�� i r . . . � �.ii� . . � j+ . � . . �q•.z }' ��. . � ' � �011•2! . - � � .1 - `^'�•a , � �� r � � � � . � \ [. . ... ��..�.�... .. . . . . i . ' . � . ` ` � � , �� -- � �� r****�r�r**********�****��**��r***********�P1EI•t0*�*******��**�***�x***�**�r****�*��*�* DATE: SEPTEPiB�R 28, 198$ T0: PtAYOR & COUNGILAtEPiBERS C/Q CITY ADI'tINISTRATOR JILY. FROAt: CITY ENGINEER/PUBLIC WaRKS DIREGTOR HEFT � RE: ITEriS FOR OGTOBER 4, 1988 COUNCIL PiEETING PUBLIC HEARINGS Project ��164, County Road 42 East Assessment tie�rin� The Public Works Department will present a shc>r.t. �resrnt:at.ic�n on t hc> pro ject, project cost and proposed assessments for the improvements within tliis projeet. All necessary legal notices have been mailed and publishecl in the le�;al newspaper , to meet the le�;al requir�ments for this �ublic hearin�;. Attached is a copy of the proposed final assessment ro11 for Gourity Road 42 East Improvement. Also attached for your reference is a map of the assessment area. Recommended action for Council to consider is to cl�se the pt�blic hearing and adopt the attached resolution which ado�ts the as,sessment rnll. � . � � }':��;c, N�>. l. t)�j14/88 t:�c�,ur7t:,,y [?c>��.1 �12 �lC,��,{�m�r�t �:,r:>:1. 1 � � � � As�essma77#a Eie�r�i.n�: t)e�.t<�hF�r. 4 , 9�'.=af;€� � Asses�mPr�t., Dt.t��: No�rF'��l:�r,r `� , l.'.�Fit3 YPa�s �;t�rc�ac3 : 1 t:t 1'_I Lt NAME i! [;r1't'E�; �1P�1c�IiN'1' N 1 '�° w'�' AFzFlA#-tl�M?1+:N � ;�54 t.�:�31;1�t1(i t;)�t.t�a r�O �1k3TZt�HAM�.�FN f�3A.IV;:a .T . � F; 1 1 �'.�1�. ,�t�., <�19�';� . �3t7 :k�F: ;�;i.zt��.��t;,� �. ** s; ':�l.y!.?. 4,�1 �::� n�>��i��r�r� �4 0:3t)(.)1.� C�:lt) 1�� A,,'I'f,�:t+nN.T"? ML+;I.,VTAI t;. �} t 14�� . �i`; 4r;�3'7 . 7ii ;�4 C1��at1C► (1t.C) 35 ��;`I'LL+:FC)T1D MFLVTN r. 4 11 �'.� . 4;'. 4.'.>97 . 'lc� 3� i:►�'.�ttt.-i tt10 ��> A�;'i'L.EF'tJ}?]� M�LVIN G. � t. l �� . 4� 4��47 . `lr� .7.r� Or^.,�3t1(� tllt) 2t) l�:i'I'(.�t�F+'C_)P.�7 MEI,VI'.N C. ;i 11.�'� . G;' 344f3 . 2f3 3� t:rF.lUf� ()].f� `l� A.;']'I.,Fl�tih'T� i��:LV1:N C�. f'. ] l hs�. ��2 22�£� . �i"; 34 t:►�E3ttt:J t�10 ;3Ct �;�,TI�EFUR,1> MFLVIN G. ;3 t t�Sa . 4;•'. 344�� . ?f3 , r, t.1 ��E� . �r: �,r'.�3�i. 8`� :i4 1)�t3t)0 t)I:� 3F ��3TLEFURr) r3�'T�YIN i�. 34 C►lSOt1 01t1 2.�j A;TLEF'ORU M�:I,�VTN G. 1 1 � 49 . �� 114� . 42 �;:a; ;,�_�t�t.ot,�:l. :�k� . ,�:;� ��f;43`, . ?� *�: t3tTh'.i,ER ", 1_ 1 /�:i . 4;' �;�'.!�t3 . €i i:y 34 �)1y�)ti 0].() 10 }?UItGEI� EZ10E� T. � �=k :.'atl l_�t�t�l:�l. ��: ,; 2:'.�8. �t!� ��: t;f)t�iF'�t�Y :�� )3tttlt} illt) 4t:) t:;C?h�F'ANY :;Crt.�r�i+.��t, c:'C}N;,'I'��,_ l 1 i4�� . :t%� 11 �!� . �k;•'. ►:� ��;�al.>t�.>I..,�l. �:�: � 1 I �� . �.�? ;�::�: i��:)RfaF_,,'� ;�� t�i��t�i� t710 t;E� t,i:)F�.I)L;� �?,ICtIA}?I? �v 1�11t�fi{)N11 'i 1 1 �1ta . �1;? ftr��, !�'l �+ �� ;.;�,I,t,��I,.� t -+�� "i ti t�q!",- S�7 �t;:+ I{f�Jt�[�C� :;4. �r:3��far� t)j 2 7',; K.N�:it�l:, �'Rt�N}C LIfZ_ ,3�: ��ts'I"l'I!; 1 i ] h:a . �t.�, 1 1 �t!�. 4:' t: +. �;i,,t�i,r�t:,ri:L +�-+� " � � 1 S �I!a . �-' }.,�: }}l+:f� � :�►� tr 2t�t��1 E)�1�0 t�;f) �3'F:L? �11�G�,F�'f1 �. (��'�{'�� # F�; 1 1��4 S�� 1'-: t�:t'=�iti. t�i� � �t:;t. :;�,lrl �,1,<:a1 �:;�: 1 4; 1 ,�i't!-1(1 . t�ii � � �+�� I�.!1f�h�d � � � � � � :-t=1 C►:-4��►r1 Ct J ti `�tl i�tti�i�! T?!t�'hic7T�11� !�_ :�. l,�{i;";l+.i,(,!1 �� i i �t,� �1;:' �.',S�7 : ��f � � � ,3� i��it:Et) f�1t�► ti�fi tt.A��I�N� }�,AYM�:t�dl► t�, ,�, bt�,>.�l�'��,l�A � 1 14t� . �'' ��,i�7�. 'r"it � ' _ _ _ __ _ _ � , . '1 . . - , . .�. � .�� . . �'� . . . 1 li,., .. ��. . -' . .. . . � \�� .. � . � .. _ ' ' "—, �' __' `'J -.___ �._ �.• -, '� _ _ __ '� `\ "' .__ -- . � . . . . � � � � f �,• � ' � . � . . . . �. `\\'� � . . . . . . �'i . �.. . . . , . . a. . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . �.� . . � �. � . . . . +� + � � � .. . . `�x . . � . � � :1 � � }~ � .. . . . . �,.I�a � I.. . . . � . . .� ,` S�,r . . . . . . .� . . .. �`�\�. _ � -- _- _ - '-- i ' . .. � . 'ti S _, __ . ..' -- `� ,... ,... ' ' S t - � � - ; � �,...- . 140 t h S t. E, . . , . - _.- - - - - - � . ` OT0-25 011-35 010-25 010-01 ��.,,-•. .,,�\\ " fl10-04 OTO-35 010�25 010-20 :.-� \ j ,.�, .. y 11-4 010-30 a10-19 � 010-3 -! .� �, .� � 010-10 �3� � � �� C.S,A.H. 42 l � ��-� ; ,:� '��•� F� � .. . � . . .� . � � � . � � . . . .. � � � . . � . . !t� O� . � N � . . . ^ � � � . . .. . . . = 011-35 � O , � � � 010-50 Oi�-90 010-50 Q10-75 � > � � _., ,. , � 01 '-75 010-60 v A} 41 C-ri9 e j�j w __._ _ .� --.. �!_ — -- -- - - --- � � �w,.�+"T",'�'=► . . . � � � . . . � . , `""-�-_- Deferred Assessment Area .. ; � . . . . .. . . �5��1�� . � � . . . � . � � � . � � . �. �. . . � . . '1.►„�� : . . . ; i _ 87 Uni ts ---: -- - , ; "a-�.�.,,, i � (24) Deferred " ~ -:- ��' i � . — _" _ �--_ _ —- — - _ ;t ; _• .. -�, ,� , � .. --.:,,,,., .� � �. 3 - - .�' .'� �� PRCJ. N0. //'�(�'.'/� County Road 42 164 \./j4,L � Assessment Area r7 F1 GIiRE �� . . � � � CITY OF ROSEMdUNT RESOLUTION 19$8 - � A RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSPiENT ROLL COUNTY„ ROAD 42 EAST IMPROVEg1ENTS PROJECfi I�O. 16G WHEREAS, pursuant to notice duly given as required by law, the GiY_y Council has met, heard and passed upon all objections to ttle pro�ose�l assessment for Coant Road 42 East Improvements of 1987, Pr.oject No. 164, and has amended such proposed assessment as it deecns just. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Gity Council of the City of Rosemount, PS"innesota, as follows: (1) Such proposed assessment, in the amount of $100,000.00, a copy of cahieh is in Clerk's File 1988-28 is hereby aecept�d and shali constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract af land therein is hereby found to be benefitPd by the proposed improvement. (2) Such assessmenfis shall be as follows: a. The assessments shall be payable in equal annual. installments extending aver a period af ten (i0) years, the €irst of said installments to be payable with general taxes for the year 1989, ---- colleetible with such taxes during the year 1989. b. To the first installment shall be addecl interest at the rate of eight and two-tenths percent (8.2%) per annum on the entire princi{�al amount of the assessment from the date of Chis resoiution until December 31 of the year in which such installmettt is payable. To each subsequent installment, when due there sha11 he added interest for one year at saic� rate on the unpaid principal amot;nt of ttie assessment. c. The owner of any property so assessed may at any ti.me prior to the certification of the assessment or the first ins�allment tl�ereof to tlie County Auditar, pay the whoie of the principal amount of th� assesstnent on such property with interest accrued to the date of payment to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be eT�arged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the date hereof; and such property owner may at any titne prior to November Z5 0� any year pay to the County Auditor the entire princi.pal amount of the assessment remaining due with interest accrued t� Uecember 31 af the ye�r in which said payment is made. a,. ` . � � � � - Page 2 Resolution i988 - � (3) The Aaministrator/Clerk shail forthwith transmit a eerti:fied dupiicate cogy of this assessment roll to the County Auditor to be extended on the tax list of the County. ADOPTED this 4th day of October, 198$. Ro l l ar� Hoke, rlayo r hTTrST: Stephan Jilk, Administrator/Clerk � � l. � � � �� ;��1� �>�` jt � . (�' P...� @ ��'F.Ti��,�� N, � � .. . � . . . . . . : . . . �; . . . . . . . . f�FFZDAVIT OF MAILED ANII PflSTED HEARING N(�TIG'E COUNTY ROAD 42 EAST IMPROVEMENTS PROJEGT i64 STATE OF MINNES4TA ) COUNTY OF DAKOTA )ss. CITY dF R4SEMOUNT ) Stepl�an Jilk, hein� £irst duly sw�rn, �e�ns�s a►tc? �ays: I am a United States Gi_tizen and tlie clt�ly qu�lifiecl Clerk �f tl�� City of Rosemount, Ptinnesata. Qn SeptembPr 15, 1988, acting e�n behalf of thP saicl Ci_t:y, .I posted at the Gity Hall, 2875 145th Street West, an�l �le�c�sitr�d in the Unzted States Post �ffice of Rosem�rirrt, rlinnesnta, copies of the attacfieci rte�tice oE Ptablic hear.in� r��rclir��; �sse.ssmet�t r�ll for County Road 42 East Improvements, Pr.�jeet 1(iCi, c�ncicasecl in sealed envelopes, with postage thereori fully prepaid, addressed ta the persons listed on the attaehed listings at the addresses listed with their names. There is delivery service�by lTnited States Ptai.2 hetween t.he �laee of mailing and the plaees so addressed. < Step n ,Ji1k Admi istrator ' lerk City of Rosemount Dakota Co�nty, Minnesota Subscribed and sworn to before me this �� ..day of Septemi�er, 1988. � � ,/�'�� tary P . . . . . . . . � . qtnrnwn,A�r:,n.hrnt•,•,ni.^., . . . l.•n .,-t. � . . . � . � . . � � � _. ,. . . . .� . � � . . � . �. � . � � . . � � *, � .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ry.s5."r'v".^. �y:.'.i'u 5^v'•�t�.f.aV:�,. . , .. � . , . . . rinrr.ir�c: i,tsT ro[� cou�v� izonn 42 rnsr tAit'i20V1�,r�rN�t°:; � cr�rv rr�r�,�r�T 1b4 , � til1N;� .1 . /11�l,',11t111MSF;N ✓ MI�.fi,VIN t;. ll;;'Tf,f�'i+(�}ti) . �, • �.,. 17t7(1 i�l�;f�f,t)W.; ,,. Pil t,V[�J (,. A,,ti,i�;►tt�l�.tt W�+.S'1' S'T. E� MN (i511.f3 1 �.Ut) tIWY. 1."i W. 1 .'.t'itt tIWY. 1 :i W. I3URNSVIGL�C MN �"i�337 )3t)i?Pd:.iV i f,l,l�. t1Cd f;r�:33'1 Mb;i:,VIN [,. 11:;'Ti�i�'T'C)tt11 MI�;[,V1N (,. A:3'Pfi.�l,f'C?kO f�ll�:i.VIN �:. �;;7't.lil�'��ltt) 120C.) i1WY. 1.� W. t.�t)t� T3WY. ]3 W. BtII�NSVIt,J.�i. MN r•ra33? �. 1 :'r�t► IIWY. 3:� td. IiiJFtN.�vrr,i,f: MN 55337 }tt�i�N:;Y11�t�l�: t1tJ !,l,:137 MF,f_.VIN G. Ji,;'C(�I,C'C}RU M�(�VIN t,_ i►;;`I'f,1�,rC�iZf) htC?t,VtTJ �;. /1:;�t'i�i�;i�r�itt� 1?0� f1WY. t3 W. 1.2��0 fiWY. I3 W. L�UI2N;.�VI f..L,I: t�CJ a�337 1 ?.t`ir� tlt�)Y. l :l W: I3URNrViLLi+: MN :i!�3;17 1"II11tt;;V I i,l�l�: �tFJ !+!i:137 ' Ft1.(:;tt `i'. 13U}�{;T�;1� ,/ .;t if,13F�:t2.f, C;(3N.,'I'i?. t-;f)t-if'/1NY � i;.!t:tlAi;.i� �C. tr.11f tt tldil t;��i��){�,;;. 1�1)� f1WY. l ;3 W. 13�4r� CI,AY7't)N AVI�:: �I��s��l I�t!,'}'ll ;�'1'. i�:: L�t1KNSV.It�LI�, t�tN 4�5�37 �t03rMUi)N'I' MN S�;�G£3 t;:t);;la;t�i��t1F�'L' t�it� !',!,t�t;ti r'1�11N{� Ji�. t'v. ft��,��T: KNUt.,f��f AOC)L I'(� R; (►`C't't) F'C:I:) f ,, , �3�2 l �I','1.`[1 ;,'i'. t�:. �, ' i�n��r��►r�a�► /1 . �.. I,.�i,,l+.t,i.fl }t/11i�d �� , �.�. ��9.. 1�1"iTC1 �;'C. t?. :'.:',l ��, /11,(iA'i'ft.�t�>,; t:;l f,'.. I�U.,I�MCj{1N'I hfN ��.,t)6n R(7SI:MUUN'I' hSN hE►()6t3 I�'Ai7P1rNr;'('1tF� t�tlJ r�r�O,?� I�/1YMO��I) A . ,G. lt�l,;l?(�[�l1 IlAtiN t�(111�1,(N ��. ,lt►ANN lt.i�:t.,ti'I"I,I t:l?1, Pt/11;.1,i IJ .C. .1�►RtdPJ ltl+;1;11't`7�(t;h:l, :_'�'. 12!; fif�itll'1'Itt�,;:; t�]It. 1472'I r,t�llYTi�N AVi+:. �:. ' �• � „ [�'/iRt�(1.NCf't'ON Mt�} riE�02� c� ,. �� 1 �1 1'. ! 1.1,11Y l t►N 11V1�;. 1�:. ItC),�I'MUf1N�r ci� r,<<�Eac ��,U:;i+;tlt�tif3'[' t•1t�1 !,►�t�F;f1 r JOIlN 11: 17i�.f�.;;{? ✓ .Jc)ItN f�i�:l�::;(�; �?3Q l�!�i"('f l :�'('. 1?. �!�3fJ l��i'I'11 ;'1'. l�.. ' R��I?MUi)N'I' hfN !i5068 I�O:;�.hfOUN't' MN �i5t)f�F3 , „ . � ;4 ��. � . . . � ��( � 1.1 . � . . � . � � t , . . .. ,�, . . . . � . ,� . . . �, f . t7(15CMc:�(It!t "tlr�r� � �� ,'`•;�., � �,f1t'�CYI��.(�L[.1Z•� ,�� czT�r oF xos�rloi.rN�r NOTICF OF iIEARING ON ASSFSSAIFNTS : FQR CQllNTY i2(3A1) 42 FAS'T IPIPROVEtifiNTS fl� 198T, GITY PROJrGT N0. 164 : T0: • , i . � T1PiE AND PLAGF Notice is liereby given t.h.�t the City � GGNFRAL NATURE OF Council af the City of R�semotant, ' IP#PROVEAtENTS: t�tinnesata, wiil meet in the Gity H�I1 tn I the City o£ Rosemount, Atinnesota, on the � 4th day of Qctober, 1988 ��t �3:0� �.m: , or 4 j as saon thereafter as �c�ssihlP, to i consider �bjections to t.tie pr�posed � assessments for County Road 42 East � impzovements �f 1987, Cik_y Pr�ject. No. ' 164, heretofnre orclered t�y i:lie Ci ty Council. ASSrSSi`tENT ROLL The proposecl assessment roll is on file QPEN TO INSPEGTION: with the Administrator/Clerk and open to ' p�iblie ias�ecti�n. � : AREA PR4POSED The area proposed to be assesse�l c�nsists TQ I3E ASSESSED: of every lot, piece nr parr.el of tand heneLikecl ijy s�zicl i.m�rovements, whi.ctt ta�s been ordereel macle and i.s as L�1l.�w.g: �;enerally all r.i�at ar�� in s��rio►,R 2f3, 29, and 30, T�wnship 1i5, R��nge I£�, one- half mile eitiier side of the east-w¢st center line of said sections between U. S. Hi�hway 52 and Pfinnesota itighway 55. TOTAL APiOUNT The total amaunt proposecl to be assessed OF PROPOSED is $100,000.00. i WRLTTEN OR ORAL Written or oral c�bject:ions will be � 0}3JECTIONS: consiclereci at ttie hearing. 1 RIGItT QF APP�AL: An owner of �roperty to be asgessed may � appeal the assessment to the district ! eourt of llakota County �ursuar�t to j Ptinnesota Statutes, Secti�n 429.(�81 by - � servin� ttotice �f t}ie a�peat u�on the � Ptayor or Glerk of the Gity wzthi:n 3i� d�ys � aftpr thc+ adoption of the assessment and ; filin� si�ch ncrCice with the distr.ict eoi�rt � � � � wi�th�n� tPt� ciays �aEte�r servire ��pan th+� � rlayor or Glerk. i � � � t,IPiITATION ON Nv appea2 may be taken as to the amount o�f APPEAL: any assessment adopted by the City Cauncil ctnless a written objection signed by thP af€eeted pro�erty owner is filed with the Clerk priar to .the assessment her�ring �r �resented to the presidi.n�; c�fficer at tt�e liearin�;. All 4bjectic�n� to t}te assessments not receivect' at the assessment hearing in tl�� manner prpserihed by , rtinnesota StatWtes, Section 429,OFil are waived, unless the tailirre #o ohject at ', the assessment hearing is clue to a j reasonable cause. ,� � bEFEttrt�NT nF ilnder the �rovisions of Plinnesota I ASSESS�tENTS: Statutes, Sectic�ns 435.193 to 435.195, ki�e ( City may, at its discretion', ciefer the payment of assessments £or any hamPstead � property own��i l,y a person h5 ye3r.s of age , or older for -whc�m it woulcfi be a t�ardshi}� � to make the �ayments. Ei�wever, tlje Gity � has elected not to establish �ny �3eferment � Frocedure �ursnant to thvse Sections. i S�'ECIFIC A1�t0UNT TO The amnunt to be sPecif.ically assessed � IIE ASSESSED against your �artiettlar ,l�t, �i�ce of ' parcel of land is shown �r� the att�chec! i � Exhibit A. � PREPAYMEAIT: Xou may prPpay the entirc� ��s5essment to ' tlte Tr.easurer �f tl►e Ci.ty r�r7til tl�e ; asse;�sment rol.l is cer.ti.Ii.�r} to t.he Gc�tmt:y � Auditor; after certi€icaCi:c�n to the Co�,tnty Auditor, pre�ayments +�f thF eitr.ire �m�imt ' rQmaining due may be made to the City � TreasurPr at any time �ri�r. t� Nc�vem[��r 15 � in f.l�e year this assessmetot i s a<l��fec1. ' NO PARTIAL Tlte tizty Gaunci:l. Ifas r�ot auth�eizeci �tie partial prepayment of assessments pri�r to certifieation of the as9essment or tlie first installment thereaf to the Gounty , Auclitor. : A � PREPAYI`tENT WITIIOUT No inter.est stiall. be ehargec{ if the entire � INTEREST, OR WITH assessment is paid within 30 days from � INTEREST T� END OF the adoption oL the assessment r�li. At I YEAR: any time prior to November I5 of any year i i following the year the assessment is certified, the �wner may pre�ay to the G�unty Treasurer the catiole assesgment , � remaining di�e with interest accrued to { 2 ; I { ; � � � * + necemb�r 31 c�f Yhe y��r in which the prepayment i.s macie. INTEREST RATE: If the assessment is not prepaicl within 3� days from the .ad�ption of the as4essment � r�ll, ini.erest wi12 accrue on ttte assessment at the rate of R.2�. Interest accrues fr�m the clate to i�e speei_fiPd in the resolution levying the assesgment, b�it not earlisr than the clate of such j resolution. � , i � Dated this 13th day of September, 19$8. i ,. � BY QRDER OF TNE CTTY GOUNGIL. i I ,G�'�, !� ' Step n Jilk Administrator/ erk I City of Rosemount � Dakota Cot�nt.y, �1N I , � ; � ; � i � � r � 3 i � , 1'rt�;e N��. 1 of 2 EXftIBIT A 0�/l+!/8$ Gour�ty Raacl �?., liss�ssmpr�(, F{c�:L l /ls:;es�merat [�earl.ttg: Uct��f,�;r �4 , l.!�i�£i . �lssessmer�t llue: Nov�mt��r :;, 1�8f3 • Years S�r�acl: 10 ['tI) � NI1MI; tt ItA'1'1�: Aftt.ltitJ'i' . N T '�' ' ; ** I1T11t/1tlAM�rN 34 030(lU �1.� �q A�3I211FiAht;;rN f)AiJ,, J. f; 1 t ��i. 4`1, �It{t!i. �ltt �� :iuF�l;ot�tl. �:* ! �3 !I i�l!i. �il) ; , _ � �� n:",'r t�3�:I�ott D � 34 03t)CtU U1.0 1J A�;'t't�i+.l+nRi� M1�;t..ViN C:. � i. t �t�t. �17 �t!;�'t . 'Itt :3� 0:?90U Ot(� 3'i AS'Pt►T:L�()Rn tdT�;LVIN f:, �1 # t �tl. �l:� 9!►S#7. 'Fr1 34 U?.��t�cl 01U 2� A�TLi�FOI7f� r1f:t,�'TN U. �t tl�l��. �� d!i�'l.'1�► 3� 0?.9C1d O�LI .7,t) !l�'PLi:3!UItI) MELV.It3 (,. .`i i i.��). 4� :�A�i3. ;?si 34 r1��lU(1 Oltl 75 A�7'LF:Ct�E�II MELVI:N G. '.'. t fi RE). �J :?7.�€t. �t!; 3� U?.a00 010 .'�Cl Aa`C[►T!:�'ONi) Mi�.[�YIP� G. 3 fitAc�. �4Z :l��fi. >t� � 3�t �)?f�t)tl U1� 3G AS'1'[,r��'OFtI) ' ht1;i,VIN t;. � 1 i �l�l. q: :'.;'4i�#. A'� ; 34 01f10t1 QlU 26 A.�Tt�GI+ORD M�:LVjtJ G: 1 1i �9. �1� 1 i99. 47. :k:�: 5uU4oLa1 ** "J_.3 ::Ei43Ei.'1#3 ��: It(ifZf;CR 34 U'?.�t�0 Olt� 10 I3UttG�:tt I21C,U 7'. ; t 14c►. �� ^.:'�tn. i!!� �k* Suk�l;oLal *� 1 :'.:�ltt, it!> *� t:c1MPANY 3� C13t)OU 01(3 �o cor�rnt�� su��[31+:It(; t;f)�I�:;'I'1�. 1 .1 1�'1. 9� ! ! A',:1. �11 ��:* 5ul:�t;atal �* , 1. 1 iA�. 4: �t,�k G(:�Ttt)r5 34 02900 011) GU Cf)Rl)C:S ItTC11t1CtU 1C: It/1MUN11 ,�' 11�1;�. �?, Rt7q!"i. !�'T �� :iul�l:oi;al ��k '1 �ft�Ci.97 =�v' KNt')t�t, 14 U 3r)l►U t112 7 5 KNUGt� T'RANK J tt. r�. l;i�,'i"I'i�: 1. 1 J�:). 4�? 1 i �!1. �t;? �� S„bl:�t�l ** i i • 1 11 �fy, q;� � .�:t C'l�:C► :i�4 t��s�r�� +��.o �r� I�Lll �11�uLC�f1 � ta�I��C�� ]E; i t�l�l. �� :)sa«. t�� Sc�1�f.:Ut;a1 �:�: � , A i Ei l it't�iil. �t�t �:�+: ftlltiN :t�l tt:3r��tr) U l n '1('► 1�/1l1N itJtYt�it:►PJIi A . �4., ir�'r�t�:t,t./! �! t t �t�t . -1;' Al,�r'T . 'lt� :!4 U;3tttiE} UIa tt�� ttflliN ItAYMCtNt) A. ��, lxt�,cb,��i,A h i t A�l. �l;, �!!,►�'� , 'tr) F . . . �� . . . . . . . � � . . � . .. . � . � . . � . � . . . � � �� . . . � I.'��e Nc�. � of 2 EXNLnIT A 09/14/$8 C�a»ty Ii�ad �; As��+�cm.�nt. Rcjl.l Assessment, Idear.:i.t��: Oc#i;+_�l,«�• 4, t.�)s�ti 11sse5smertt I)�re I �yC�V .P.ti1I)PI,• 5� 19Bf3 Years fa��reac3 s i 0 � - I'I1) NRh1i+: F1 R.N'f1�; JiMt)i1tJ'1' r� T` '{' .�'=ti :3ul►L-hLal �* � ' �1' St t �i!i. �lI1 � ��t� l"t1�:C�11'I'ZtGT:L :�4 O:IUUU 013 35 RC!;GtiT7lt;i�:L MAIZt,l N R, Jt,►ANN !; i i �t'►. �;•', !�'T�t'� . t Z 34 03�Ot) 010 y0 R�►.Cti'1"I,YGEL MAI2LIN �S► JUANN t; 1 1 Rs.1. A; l;fiJfi. !*i► =«� uul�t;ol:al �I:�k � 1 t l :f��!3.[i'� :�v: Cti±;1�.ST�: �3�1 03t}U(1 OI.I 7ri Ftt�.r;�1�: .1t�I1N A. �) i 1�t�l. A:? ltl:ih�1 . i�7 34 07_3Utl tli0 69 }2T'C;I+. .1�E1N } } lA�l. 91 � .4�I�. A; � *�k �ut��total ** , � ti�r �. i�:�� . >� ! �*:k �Cotal *�* i , , El'� ;);�5�!)�. fl�', i � � , � i i � � , ; � ' I i , � . , � , � I , , � � f � :L s' � x� _ � � � i,— � �� ic f�'(�Y'It�r, �� ,� - , �' + � } ,� 1'r !tr �,� ,ill� O� �� ;��;�� r��,iGr�;� �., � � � � `� � �,o�se�vi�a�� ►��,;��M�,,,��, �,,r��►�, �,�„� -...,,,., � �., , ,,:,� ,,,, '��): Mayor, Cify Conncii� Ctfy Attminisirnfor FROR1: I1ean J�hnson, Uirecter of Cemmoni#y {)e��etnptncnl t)ATE: September 30� 19fi8 '� SUfIJ: CSAH 42 Assessment tiearing Att�ched is a len�lMy packet of infc�rmalinn in acsist ��E�u tn rrcraring f��r ancrther area-wide c�unty ro�d asse�smcnl. The inf��rm�tian inelucles c1rlails on this particular project, the earlicr C.SAH d2 prc►.ject, ihe ('tt :t$ rrr�.ject and inf�rmation relating to c�ur asSessment p�licy rati�tinale ancl relati��nshi�, t� N15A funding. There is nn �oinl in rewritin� any of tl�al infc►rmati�n; 6��1 1 will atiempt a brie[ Summ�ry, r�rlicul�rly thcsse �lctails rc{ating i�i the prcr.jecl iri hand. This CSA1� 42 roacl improvemen! cxie��cls nearly Z.S �nilec, hcl�acc�a tIS 52 anci T}1 55. Right-o[-way has hcen expanclec# frnm (iF i'eet ir� iO(1-12n fcel. 1'he impr�ved rpacl secti�n inciudes a 24 t�r�t iravef «irface with in foot �r3vcci shnulders. The project includes the modificalion �r rc�lignmen! i►f ('R :�R at ihe eastern end. CR 3R now intcrsects with CSAti d2 ratl�er ihan 7'H 55. C)ur a�sessment p�licy i� 1�� assess a portinn of Il�c c��stt c,n an „arc.�-�vidc" I�atic rat[�er than a "fronl fo��t" h�sic. T'his is itte eritienl critcria t►r ratit�»alc in ��i�r - poliey. This is tl�e norrn�l criteri:� nsed hp m�st cities in clistri#,uling the c�sts of utility imprc�vemenit; h�wever, m�ist citie5 asse�� ilte c�►�ls of ro�d im�arc�vements �n the fr�nt foc�t h�si:s, 11 h�s heen ��nr c�rinian thAl Ilfc Arc�- wicic basis fc�r r�ad im�torements is nic�re equitaEifc fi�an the fr�►nt foc�t melhod. T'he increment or unit esl:�l�lisl�ecl tc� etctcrminc thc ant�>nnt �►f Ihe a�seti�ment i5 based a�on "cievelo�menl �c�[eniial." in the A�ticttltt}rat Ili�trici, �1e��ei�►pment potcntial is limited to rc�iiicntial Inls, �ti•liich is Iimitccl t�� a Int ciie rrr m�ximum dcnsily of �nc d�vcllii�� ►cr Irn �cres. 1'hr acrc:��+c• t�� hc i�rcln�lcc) in tltc .�s�cssment district i� th;�t arc� e�te�iding one-half milc eill�cr cide r►f the roadway. One-half mile has been estal�lishccl hrcause tl��E is nne-half ihe d'rst�nce between tt�ditir�nal s�acing �f maj�rr rnacl�v�ys. Asstiming m�j��r r�adways are in fact �paced �t one-milc intcrv�ls tl�rn �ssessmcnl ciisirictc, at one-half mile depths, will :�liut or he cnnli�u�,ii� an�l a11 �r�i�icrtie5 �vii1 he ipcluded itt assessntents for ma;ar road�vay imprc�veme»ts. . As in Ihe recenl CSAii 42 as5essmcnt pr�+jcct, wcsl ��( T11 51, �vc h:��e Ihc rrescncc of an�thcr major rflad�vay (C'R 3R} nne-haff ntile n�rth nf �`S11i1 d2. This relatit►nshi� or s�acing reqtiires th�1 ihe a;�sc�sn�cnt dislrict be Sct �1 the mid�ioini hctween thc two rc�:idiv�y5. 'This �uill all�►�ti� .��srsemcE►ls to I�c #�.�sec� upon henet'it to the r�rtictrlar rr,ac) hcii�� imprci��e�l, �nci ��re•t�c��l ;inY clr,tit,lc assc�sments trom occurrinp, in c�11�cr �vt�r<ts, lhe asscss►r�cnl dislrict i�► +I�c ��F�rtt� c�t' C'SA{� 42 extends T ma�imum �f cine-qi�arier mile. 7�hc ��illrer ��arlcr i»ile,� woulcl Ije included in any assessmenls resttllin�; from ii��r�vements 1�� ('R .1;i. � � � . � � . . . � . � . � �i,_ _} . �-..# � . . . . � . � P E T I T I O N We as residents of Independent 3chooi District 196 request that the A[ullery �roperty on Cauntyr�Road 38 in Rosemount not be used as a school site . The Mullery Property " has several wetlands and is hilly and heavi2y wooded and serv�s as habitat for an abundance of w.tldlife. To locate a school on this site would destroy the wildlife habitat . We, therefore, encourage the 196 School Board t4 seek another site removed from this rural residential area for an elementary or any ather public school and advise the Rasemount City Council to act in whatever manner necessary to discourage and, prohibit the fulfillment of such a praprosal . Name Address /ass . -- /�.��.r,r�.,. Z Z c,�. S` � • _ �� . �r�� f S � ..��(� Q t1 � ! _ � -� U _ �: — � ` SS ��-.. �.,� . � � - , � , f ��/i�'`_`" c -� � �,,�,.. �,�__ i � . � ; �� (�( ' .7- - � , �1{ 5 ,a�� 7�. /�5'�t ;�, � . �a�-q � � �-�r �: .t..� �Z � - 1�� ,2 '"� . ` o�u� 1�S�S��a n,�.��T1d�,��- � t,a�s �� L�� f.2 s�� Q��v4u/'� �JA i�os��n�uf �'I v. . r-- �.� � �� ti �$� ��Q�� LJJ�V'�G��"!d�•V V f"/�✓ A, �� ' � -� .r�. . _ � .i � . . . � . , . . . . . . . . .� � � � . � . � . . P E T I T I 0 N We as residents af Independent Scho.ai District i96 request that the I�ullery �xvperty on Gounty Road 38 in Ros�mount not be usad as a sehool site . The �' Mullery Property " has seve'ral wetl.ands and is hilly and heavily wooded and serves as habitat for an abundance of wildlife . To 14cate a school on this site wquld destray the wildlif� habitat . A We, therefore, encourage the 196 School Board to seek another �y � site removed from this rural residential area far an e2ementary '�' or any other public school and advise the Rosemount City Council to act in whatever manner necessary to discourage and, prohibit the fulfillment of such a proprosa2 . Name Address . �.�s�„�Q � - /�.�-/ � u;� , � . � . � �c��c�x{-, �'t 8� t �-�'�' �,`�-' .tc� '�mf�vv �' , 7�� /� /� � �.e ��e x.e..��co�c / f r � � C��c'� �t�-�'�� "T ,E7:1/E �' ,�tL• RZLr?�-a',tt9-z•-tl r ' ^ `� F �a`'�'3�3 t' �^�1�.�x� 52�«-�� 1.� �'�3 g ,��.z . �� c�1�.��.��--�� `�' 1�S'� �,� �,�� l�<<.�, �o�,5� /'x ,� �"� �S'� � �o��.1.�....,''�`" �s�;�•�� ,�#/��w,.�' ��/ .�o� �, ..�ev.� r"� -- r pC� r e . „ , t��1 l.2 S�.Z L Q,.rL /��'-e'-.��' `z<-.-,��'" 7 � Ft-- v��0 1 c�1 � df . r � 1 � �'�� `J.� �,�-�t.�. c'S�'tr1.� v� i z.S—G �--J`_ �� . � � �---- '''_' , /�S� �,,,-...�ctt�, �(-�`l�-L , �,�.�' � � � � •� 1 _.t4Q_G�-��tsr�,' � /�� l�� V ..�...� �S�� . . . . . � . .. . ��/ � . . . . . �/t ��..�, / —.�.. /.�31'�0 � �t1 _ �.��v�.��Ld-�L�-�-! ' " � •�� /�-� � ��` ��i%�� yL "` �y� ��- 4'�`r l ��" �. ._ ` ,2_G- 1z..f*' __ __ � � � � '��i�� v �SGG� ...>�r /o"�� -��?L��t.-#�,r �!�-� `,.� '-�92 c �� C�'`. � � ,�'� �rlt, s�2 �(�' � � �� `�6 6� �!� �� v :.Y`'�'--r.`i � G .�r...G.�....._ yG,n-� ,.. l2� � s/� ��^ ,_ , P E T I T I 4 N . S9e as residents of Indep�ndent School District 196 request that the l�ullery �roperty on County Road 38 in Rosemaunt not be used as a school site . The " Mullery Property " has several wetiands and is hilly and heavily wooded and serves I as habitat for an abundance of w3.ldlife . To locate a school � on this site would destrop the wildlife habitat . , We, therefore, encourage the 196 School Soard tb seek another site removed from this rural residential area for an elementary or any other public schaol and advise the Rosemaunt City Councfl to act in whatever manner necessary tv discaurage and , prohibit the fulfillment of such a proprosal . � Name Address � --G'c.l.�'��-- - ..�.:3 ��-<--� ��" ` � {� �.�,--�., - � .�,, �/;� ��.�' �a�.:� L � c� � � l�p7 C��c,�--l.c -r �.... K_�...� C��: : ,-t�. �� . �.- c�� c.�'_e- �� cz.�. ,./ / p �,� ;,1"� ''�� " �:) ? � � f� -'��i c>�� Z�( ) C:' � f . � � ,.� �, �--s � � ��. �,' � 3�� ' .,�� ' ��..y � .5��-�� - P E T I T I 0 N � , We as residents of Independ�nt School District 196 request that the Mullery �roparty on County Road 38 in Rosemount not be used as a �school site . The �� MuZl.ery Property '� has several wetlands and is hilly and heavily wooded ana serves as habitat for an abundanee of wildli:fe, To locate a schooi on this site would destroy the wildlife habitat . We, therefore, encourage the 196 School Board to seeIc another site removed from this rural residential area for an e2ementary or any other public schoox and advise the Rosemount City Council to act in whatever manner necessary to discourage and, prohibit the fulfillment of such a proprosal . a e r Address _ /z �� '\\ � . . . . . . ! �J .. , 7,.�� r' G��s��i/7—' � _ � � „ �s r � �� ` , l�3 �Z' � (j? f c�� ,,,�.� ... . s`� . � � i t - _1 �S4� �r1-�vl�ta�4' t�vr►� �Os�r1Xk�-, � V�� ,r' � � . �� . .. �' �4 O�r w f �'� . � 1 �" , -�� . I�1 s� �/. �1�� ' `�..`� � � � � �� o � YN .,, t � � . / ��'z' ? ._..,- /r � � f r ! � t� �fs7� _ a . r{ o �. �, � � �� cs— rz� � s�. cv, � � � � , �. , � '� '� CSAH 42 Assessme Hearin� September 30, 1988� • Page Two It is important to keep in mind that this projcct is a "maior roac�w.3y" im�rovement, which triggers our area-wide assessmenl pc�ticy. (°SAI-t 42, in this particular setting, also provides �rimary or loca) street access to the existing parcels as well. In one sense, one could argue that the asses�ment should sim}�ly be based upon a front foot method hecause it serves as a tocal street. On the other hand, additional lacal streets could serve khis area, as in other similar projecls, which then complicatc thc rneih�cl ins�tring thai all rarce}s ultimatcly participate in and contriliutc tc� thc ccasts of c��Ilcci��r c►r major rnaciway improvements. CSAH 42 is also being constructed in excess �f local street criteria, i.e, t�nnage limits. The city will assess only bcat sireet e�{uivatent cotts, which is only equitable. The city has also adopted a p�licy to take int� acc�unt that cc►unty roads serve an addilional purpose beyr.�nd city use. That pc�licy limits assessments to 5(Ml� of thc resicicniia) cquivalent c�n 4-lanc ctivicled county rc�acls and 75% of the residcntial cquivalent on 2-lanc couniy r�►acls. The fnrmer policy was utilized on the previous CSAH 42 �roject, west �f Tti 52. The latter policy applies to this segment. '` As you look at the ontline on Ehe hreakdown of costs, yc�u wi11 note that the proposed assessment on this project is less than the actual residential equivalent that could have been ased. This is due to the fact that the c�unty has utilized FAU (Federal Aid to Urt�an Highways) Funds on the project to the extent of 75% of the construction casts. Hence, the city is paying 45°10 of the remaining 25�;'0 of the project costs. Consistent with preuious county road assessments, we assess the applicable portion of construction costs and right-of-way eosts. That Eotal is approximately $lOfl,Q00, which results in the per unit assessment of $1,149.42. Rich Hefti has secured those costs trom the county and has incivded this information in his packet t� the c�unciL Rich witt gc� through these details at the meeting. Due to my previous involvement, I will teacl the discussinn �n the policy issuss. At the public improvement hearing, staf f presentea an option to the e�uncit for considetation, related t� nur assessment �c�iicy. We acknowfcclgect that i�enefi[ tn property beyond the "front quarter mile" on the south side oE CSAH 42 r3ised the issue of forcing or encouraging road cc�nstruction to meet maxitnum dcnsity. An exarnple is needed here to ex}�lain this. An 8Q-acre parcet with one-quarter mile frontage on CSAH 42 (orienting north-south) would be assessed eight units. Our minimum lot width or frontage reqairements are 30(� feet. Only four lots at 300 feet width would have public road access aiong CSAH 42 in that quarter mile width of the 80-acre parceL The remaining fo1�r 1il-acre parcets v��otticl be in lhe "back 40," requiring new puhiic road access. nt�r ecjm�rehensive guide plan policies discourage new pubfic roads for residential purroses in commercial agricuttural areas. In addressing our own policy inconsistency and in attempting tc� create an equitable assessrnent on hoth sides of CSAN 42, v��e� suggested that �ve creatc a deferment option for [he "l�ack 40" o:� the sotith sicic oP CS�N 42. Whi1e thi� is obviousty a precedent to �ur assessment pqticy, it a�►pears it is one that e�ulc� logically be extended Eo c�ther projects �vith identical circumstances. The exception would be limited cc�mparal�le situatic�ns when agricultural (and is invo(ved. � � � CSAH 42 Assessme�eariog • September 30, 1988 Page Three The details of the de[erment have not been estahlishecl, that is up to thc City Council to determine. It is not al�solutely necessary that these details he cietermined on October 4; however, the affected landc�wners will ohviousty be interested in the city's position. Ultimately, any deeision must be made pr3or tn finat certification of assessrnents. The city att�rney will have a draft agreement on the deferment a�tion [or review prior to the meeting. 1n conclusion, the final assessment of $1,149 is significantly less than the $i,$�S proposed at the public irnprovement hcaring. The city is assessing the entire cost of the city's porkion of the construction co5t, $72,0(}Q, The city is assessing a portion of the ROW eosts, $28,000 (existing alignment). The eity is not assessing any casts of engineering, estimated at $65,000. 5taff feels the assessments are totally defensible, and particalarly fair and equitable (and consistent with other city policy) if the deferrnent opti�n is added. The tc�tal number af assessment units is 87, of which 2d units could' �e cleferred. � � �•' � � ; �. � �� f•�� Hox 5te�� ; ' � .�:� , ��•,�� .r. w _� ,!�!� l� � � e � � RU�EnrK?utd�. ��,ir�r�t�,��,�t.. bsae� , , ,�i ,� . �;c��er�xc�r.�� ., a�i� '3::r �� ... ,t,.� � 'CO: Mayar, Couacil, City Administrator EROM: Drt1A ,TOIIASOII} Uirector of Community llevelopmeat DATE: December 11, 19li7 SUBJ: CSAH 42 Public Improvement Hearing ..4 �.�� . . � . � . . � � +i� You have previously received copies of an upda[ed feasibility siudy, prepared hy Sh�rt ��,, � � EllioU Hendrickson. The numbers inclucled in [he report are updated estimates af c�sts- �� origi�nally prepared by D�akota County Highway Departmen�t. It is impor[�ant to note that � � "� � these numbers represeat the gross cost to the City of Rosemount. They are not an ,�; � ; accurate reflection of the c�sts proposed to be assessed. The proposed assessable costs �� are much lower. Let me explain. :,�_:�� R� "�� As y�u are aware, we have haci three pubtic improvement hearings for county roaci �4=e.4 � ., projects over the past two years (CR 38; CSAH 42, west of TH 52; and CSAH 42, east " 'T of TH 52). A presentation of the design and costs have always been made by the �� c�unty, fallowed by a discussion of the proposed assessments by the City. In each Uf �� the county road projects, the amount to be assessed was limited to a percentage ol' the �+ � construction costs and a percentage of the expanded right-of-way costs. In athc:r ��? • words, we have not previously listed engineering costs or excess right-of-way (new r �'t ' a(ignmeAt) costs as part of the assess�ble gortion of any of the county projects. ,t, '�� (Previous engineer's estimates and assessment estimates far each of the prnjects are �* attached). }�� , ,�� %�� This public impravement hearing is being repeated, because lhere has been a design ir'- change and because one year will have lapsed since the City approved the �rc�ject. Frojects to be assessed under Chapter 429 of the statutes require that a contract l�e awarded within one year of approving the plans. One year will have run out on , ; December 11. The revised cc�sts that are proposed to be assessed are illustrated on the atEuched � outline. I will use this in my presentation to the property owners. The assessable cosl $ is estimated at $166,000. This breaks down into $136,000 in construction and $30,000 in �f ` ri�ht-of-way cost. Last year's assessmeai was based on $148,500 total costs. �: Because of this design change, some af Che original parcels that receiveci benefit have ,�� ,, been deleled. The estimated number of assessment units has b�c:n rec�uced fram 100 to '�"��: �' 9t). Our policy is to assess one-IYalf mile either side of the roadway. Because CR 3'� �a�` lies only one-haif mi}e to the north, the assessrnent district an this side of CSA�I �2 is ��:` '' cut in haif. The assessmenl unit si�e is 10 acres, which reflects the maxirnum density ��;+, � � � � � � A� of` lots or dwelliags in the Agriculture District. This is the same criteria used in the '�' CSAF# 42 assessment project, west of TH SZ. The resulting estimated assessment rate is �� $1,84�3.44 per ien acres within the assc:ssmenl district. �� `'�` . � � � � R fi�^ . . . v . � . . . x�. 3 � . . . . . . . � . . �t �� . � � ;. _.. . . . . . . . ��` � . . . � � . . .�.Y.tf�...:". . . . . :p� �.. . . � . > f i ��w (`.SAH 42 Pubttc tm�ment tieuring � g: llrcember 9, 1987 Pu�e 1 wo ', � There is a situation, regarding our area-based assessment policy, which is unique to this k project. This particolar assessment district is virtually al1 commercial agricultur�tl i property. We bave a poticy ia the Comprehensive Ciuiae Plan which discoura�es new t; r�ad constcuction in commercial agricultural areas (this regar�ls constructing new roads, �• n�t upgrading existing roads), While our area-based assessment policy is defendat�le o�i � „ a cost/benefit basis, there is a conflict of sorts wiEh this poliey. We require 30p feet �}, of frontage for metes and bounds divisie�ns of property in the non-sewered areas of tlie �'� City. An 80-acre parcel with one quarter mile of frontage and one-half mite of depth, w�uld technicatly be allowed only four lots, unless new roadways wzre to be coastructcd fc�r access. In other words, the "back 40" does not receive conipaxable benefit ta ihe `front 40" unless a cul-de-sac or roadway were to be construcled. This situation does not jeopardize [he road policy; however, it is not consistent �vith � ; our intent to limit housing and new roadways in the commerciat agriculture areas. lf ��',rj' th�re were amen'tties, such as lakes, ponds and wooded areas, an exception to o��r ne�v �� roaci limitation might be appropriate, This was the exact siluati�n evaluated with ' R' St��nebcidge Aelditian. The. "back 80" of this project was entirciy woodcd ancl (oacle�l �� a�� with smail ponds. The property was never utilized as farmland. Th� Gity approveci a ��;,,, rather lengthy cul-de-sac t� provide access for a higher anci better use of the properly. t The ar�a surrounding Stonebrid6e is slill agricuitural land. �� 'Che CSAN 42 area is devaid of such amenities and is not conciucive lo resiclential " t� dzvelopment that requires additional investments in roadways and corresponding c��ts «f a,.,¢ -.; services and mainEenance. A divisioc� of property is permilted, however, for every 300 {: f�et of frantage along CSAH 42. This provide& for addilional housing oplic�ns for farm f t�: family members or for the outright sale to offset the costs of assessments. Tu be � ��`` c�nsistenE with our own policies, I don't believe we wanE to encouxage adctitional ,<�< divisions of property thaE require new road improvements. s�, t � � � � Therefore, I am recommending that the City Council embrace [he concepk of deferreci � ; assessments for all of the "baek 4Q's", south of CSAH 42. This w�uld not jeapardire the area-based assessment poticy which we have used, and it would be consistent with our agricultural land use policies. It would result �n a comparable assessment on both sides of the roadway; that is, only the 1tl-acre units with existing frontage would lae immediately assessed. The deferment would allow for reimbursement in the future, if either the use changed or dimensional standards were reduced. This concept would result in the additional participation by lhe City of approximately i<;: $45,000. I believe this c�Qtion is fair to the general taxpaying public and is certainly , �� ' f�ir to the property owners. Our land use policies �romote the distinction between '�� urban, rural and a�ricultural uses by establishing orderly growth patterns. We clearly ��,� . ��,� identify this area as commercial agriculture and attempt to promate agriculture by j t protecting farm investments. At the same time, reasouable participation by all � �..: landowners for road improvements that benefit property must he adhered to. .� AssessmenEs on CR 38, CSAH 42 west and ihose proposed oa CSAH 42 east are �� c�mparable in unit rates. In spite of cocnments receiv�:d at all of the ��u�ilic in�pravement hearings �nd the assessment hearings, the final attitude of those ass�ssed ' has been favorable, if not satisfactory. The City Cauncil previously approvect this �� project on December 11, 1986. I would recomrnend the same action at this time. ,� Because this project involves assessments and there was no petition for �he �j improvements, a four-fifths vote of the City Council is requireci. � �. :� > � :` � � � � � � � � `yr�.;.� ,. � - .. � � � . :�3>,.i ..� � __. � � � z i CSAN A2 Fub13c Imp�nient Hearing � 1}rcember 9, 1987 ' Puge Thre� F(7�nTNOTE: I have not discussed residential equivalents in this memo. Because of the priority the county has placed on this project, and c�ue to concerns the City expressed ;1; �n our own abili[y to fund a ihird county project in a two-year time frame, the county ,�; elected to utilize additioc�al fed�ral aid on Ehis prajec[. � This decision by the cattniy has � ;�� resulted in a significant reduction in the total cos[ to the City. The nel assessments to property owners are significancty less than the costs of tbe residential equivatencs. We rc;cognited this severat years a�o and workecl with the ct�unly [o reach a caupromisc. �� The bottom line is that the proposed assessments for this projecl have bec�me ei�uil�bte � ' with those af ocher county projects and the City has not haci to jeopardize its policies qr burden the general public with excessive City partieipation. }, � i y k� � ;� ... . . . . . . . . . z '� �i � � b�. ¢�'� f ,.s: �� ,;:<< •�r �:�. ,�: � � � � �� ,� k 8 . ��" . . . . . . . . . . �4 ^� . . � . . � � � � . Y � �� . . . � � .. . . F ' 1 t y� . �� . � . . . � � . �� . . . . � .. . . � . � . . . . ,�s� d°.. . . . . . . . . . �„} ,..�. . . , � . . � . � . . . € . . . . . . � � � . � . y�' � � . � . . . � . . . . . . . . � !} S q .. . � . . . C . . � . . � . . . . � � . �`,�{E '� . . � . .� .�. � � . � . ��„ � . . � . � . . �� . � . . � � � � . � . . . j � � . . . . � � � . . � . . . �� . . � . . . . . � . �"��. . �. � . � � . � � . � � � . it ....�$�. � � � .. , '... . . � . . % � . . � � ' . �� .. . � . . . . . -: :h�.';,.. . � . � � . . . �� 0. �..R . . . . . . . €+ � . . � � . . . . . . , . ; `:&' . � . � � . . y% ;, ; �� t l # ^"` .j � � y � ' � � �` i, �' . ' i I s �,.F..�, . . . . .. j.;: � � � . . . .. �,. ._�_.i.,�; � . � . . . � ,4; Dece�ber 11, 1487 ,, ;; :�' ;�; CSAH 42 EAST COSTS/FUNDING (East of TH 52) '.i.:..4�!� � . � . . � . �:":j�...,. . � . � . 12�582 feet Total length of project l0U feet ROW width x,; 24 feet 2-lane pavement section ' <<`' 10 feet Pave shoulders r�S,4.: 4��' . �� . . . . � . . . � . . . . . � . ��g�.'�..;�.�. � � . � . . . � �. D ,�. . . . . . � .� . � . . � � . . ��; $ 1�442,000.00 Total estimated cost �,�� $ 262�400.OQ Estimated Rosemount share 5 $ 166,040.00 Estimated assessable share r .�� ;�,'` r` �P $ li4.b1/lineal foot Total per foot cost of CSAN 42 �°_:, $ 42.Q0/lineal foot Reside`ntial equivalent cast * � ;,� � 42.00 1 .f. @ 12�582 $ 52$,444 - Maximum assessment by REQ �";.r � J° 10 acre Proposed assessment unit size � 90 units Estimated number of assessment units $ 166,OOQ = 94 $ 1,844 - maximum assessment rate $ 528,444 = 90 $ 5,812 - maximum assessment rate ,� t' �. . ' . � � . . � . . � .�:1`-�. � � � . . .. . . . . . � . $ 5,812 x 75% ' $ 4�404 2-lane county road rate � $ 1�844/unit Proposed rate per unit �� x=, , :� ��a s ��' � . . . . .. .. . . . . . �r' � . . . � . � . j�,�. �... . . � . . � . � � � � � ;�� *REQ - Residential Equivalent � : ,� ,� �, ;* �. �' , :,;, : � ' � � i . 3 y ,• � � � . � . . � . . . � . . . � . . ,� �._- . . . . . . . . . . . . '� . . . . . . . . . . . . . � t� � '.�. � ,� � - � fJ �'� ,.; �� " `,.... �'. �c + +��rf,-.., I'.1�'� "�=- .� ; � � � _.., _ .�, :; � � � � � � �.1�1� C.> >�3�� fn�;�i� s:r E� � ��SC-Y�'[VL�� RUSEM�1tINi. MIP�N{ S()1�1 '�.51►Ft3 Fi12 A23-A411 PUBLIC NOTiCE ;=." NpT10E OF PURLIC HEARING ON IMPROYEMENTS s , ,. ; , , ; � ,.,,; ` � TO WI1tNN IT MAY CONCERn. ,f ;�� ,��,�,. � �� NOTICE IS ttEftEC3Y GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Rasemount, � M inr�es�ta, w i � 1 meet at 7:30 p.m., Thursday, December 11, lga6, in the � � Cour�c i 1 Ch��Erit�ers of th� City Hal l of the City of Rosemount, 1367 - 145th , ,� � : Street East, ta consider the foilowing improvements: ;r-; `" s` Fteconstruction of Dakota County Road 42 between U.S. Highway �� ` 52 an�i St.ate Trunk Higi�way 55. _;,'�� 7he total f�stirnated cost of said improvement is 5�.,100,000. � �; ��, �� The amount to be assessed is ,estimated to not exceed $175,000. ��;� ��- The area praposed to be assessed for the foregoing improvements would �; ' generally be all that area in Sections 28, 29, and 30, Township 215, Range 18, une-half n�ile eitt�er side of the east-west center line of said �� sections uetween tl.S. Nighway 52 and Minnesota Highway 55, whether �'A abutt i ng thereon or nat, based on benQf i ts rece i ved and w i thout regard to cash valuation. � Suci� persc,n as desires to be heard with reference to the prapased � improvements will be heard at this meeting. Written ar oral o��inions r% wi11 be coFisidered. �i<;� �� ' Dated this 21st day of November, 19$6. �.6 ..� . . . . . . . . �� -� � . � � � � . . �' BY OItDER 01= TIiE CITY COUNCIL. �� ,J y&j ` ,, � .z{�' 'L• '� ��, .:,1� ;�' , ' �p n � ;� ��S Aciministrator/C�erk -�:� �� ° i� City of Rosemount � �` � � . � Dakota County, Minnesota ��X �� •��_ � ��: �,� � � � � €.., �,�� _, ..y.�:t':-.� . . . . . ,3g.�:: / .'# . . t: ��` � ��s 1 � 8�, �►t� A � AffIDAVlT Of PUBI.ICATION �i,� �.;t� ' � STATE �F MlNNESOTA ) c �.fi � � �J . .. ''' County of Dakota ) �''' � ,; � . �, � �� .�; � �'' i�� NANCY 1. GUSTAFSON,�eiag duly swarn,a�aath soys N►� she ls on euN►ori:ed oq�t ond ` �` empioyea of thm publisher of the newspope�known aa Dokoro Coantlr Tribune,oad hoa lull knowledgo ;" , oF the facts which we sra►sd�elow: i� , PUBLIC NOTI�.E l/r,y��s r hos com i.a w��n�� . NOTICE Of�PUBtIC ME�RIN<i � . P� P� 1'8�ui��ItMi COASHRY#�11�{�4C�IfICtlt�011 O�O IO� . � ' ONIMPROVEMEN/S news Tu W u01w 1'P M:�5'c�►Nt'Ei tN: poP�,as Provided bY Minnesoto Statuie 331l►A2,331A.03 oad other appNcoble lowa,os omanded. ��`� NOTICEJ 15Ii�:ltt:{11 t,tVhit9,t►w1�he t'i- '"��'� ly('tw�kil of fl�e t'ily nt Ros�m�x�ul. �tin- `+ - ne�Ma. will mtti�t ul 7 pi��.m i'liursclay. sM � � f� ' Uttrmix�r It.1!Ni6,iu Il�e Wum•tl('hamh��rs (B)The priMed_. . �f ].�- _ _^ �` o(Ihe('ily Ilnll nf lhe(;Ily n� Rosrmuuiil, /' �, ', t.'N�7 • 14SIh Slrc�•1 i�'a�s{, (�i �:unsiilcr Ihe l,_ ,�. fu1H�N•iog improveninuls: �=;f Itcca�slrucli�w�of Uak�da Cu�uUy It�wd 42 ,t,t< hetwcen U.S.lii�;l�way 5'd and Slate Trwde .,i1. lliqhw:�y55. � 7he lo�al�s�imuti�d cost ut sai�l{ny�rnva � mthtl is SI.IIX1,111M).. . . . � . � � . `� ' 'iltC an�uwd in hn a.se:sect ir eslinwted lo ^ rt " a��l ezcMd i175;iNM�. 1he areB�N'11�NK;�•(I 11/Ile 8v�,=a;sed i+w i��e wtueh is ottoehed wos eut from the columns of sad newspopar,aind wos ptiMed ond publisaed onee �eb ' (oceg��ing(mpio�uue�iis wuuld gcner.rlly he � �II Ihal arc� m ti�ti tiuns 2x x� .ind :q, y ; Tox�shi�ItS diau{;e Iri,m�e-h��l(mtli•cilher • shie of�K e.�.�wi�sl c�•nier{in�i�f�:�id ua eoch wcel�,1w �-�--E..t.�c'� _^sueeessire weeks,if was �'i ` iha�a belwcen U.ti. Ilighway 5'l and Mim ; ` ncsota flighway 55, whcUrer abuUing ►�Crdm or not,based ai benv(i1s received end withoul mbard�o cash�ahialion firsf pubNshed on Thwsday,the��dor of��v`�='�'t' "''(` , Such pers�a�as desires ln I�e hen�d wilh referetxre to 1he pruFx��K1 imEu nvemcnls wi11 . � I!C IMSN'tI 9I QIIS ItIPCUAIK�.W[III�•n or��ral��pi- . . . � � . � . nio��s witl b�.e antii�lored. 19 _V�� , ond we►s the►eoh� pr{rtted ond publisl�ed oe erery Thunday to oad ieelu�ng . � I)uled llus 21s1 di1V n(NU�'1Mu�N•�.GA6. . � � . . � . IiY OItI11Slt ON 7'Uh:<'1'1'Y�'UtIN1'll. SI'E:{'l1AN.111.K �� .i- ' Adrninislra�wlc7rik Tku�sda ,t�te.__S'�du �� `_.E_'�"Y\ �� l'ilyidNur��i�uuid Y 14f P � ��'�r ___.19—=1=--i I�,�k��n coumy, Miun�•.��ie ond i�ted below is o co of Mre towet ea�e r, t��r, ' :jv:p� P� pr alph�t hom A to Z,both inclusira,which ia hasby ,��.+ ocknowledged us boing tbe sire oad kind d typt usad ia N�e composiHon ond publicotion af 1he notko: �5 , ahcdi:(gbijklmthpM�rsluvwxyz +'�;� � � � � � � � �t� � ( / ' ' ��, �� '� � � � �� eY: � _,.� �/ ��-..� �.i�� s. TITLE:Seeret ro ublis �G�� , �,�� ;. � ft , . . . �. � . �� ; Subscribad omf�worn to before m�on thi� t. "(.,..._dor d��r2ryrit:Y'-r�14 "�. ��_, — �` ��,� ---.�,� �� ., � c -�( ,�..�.,�`�.�, �°d Norory�►uaic � � � ; �� ,""^ti�.�...�,�,,,,, �� .�,"""";, CAt�OC J. NAVCtiIAND �' +� t� tJOTAf1W PtJGIIC—ti�ItN►dESOTA ��` ��' DhK07A CO!lNTY � �,�� Y Commbslon FapUe�pep,3.1MI1 �3f� €r, . ,' U [ ; �� . ' � . . , � .,�,,� /� ). I 9 $b � 7 : . . � . � l r�� ►� �� ,� , ',� �� ., � � ,y_, .( � , .,.., ,,,. ,, ��,� � ,,, , ,.�,�,� ,, � -, 1 ` � f�,"►t'lt't(11ll�l� , � � , �.,� � 5 . F �� •�y�.? . }� . . I f8 . �� .• � . ''. AFFI�AVIT OF MAILING F�EARING NOTICE ' STATE �� MINNESOTA ) COUNTY QF QNCOTA )ss CITY UF ROSEi�UNT ) � ' Stephar� Ji ik, beiny first �iuly sworn, deposes and says: � I am a lln i teci States c i t i zen over 38 years of age ai�d the Clerk af the City of Rosemount, Minnesota. � ` �r On Noveml�er 21, 1986, acting on behalf of the City I ��,E de�osited in the United States Post Office of Rosemount, �,; M irmes�ta copies of the attact�ed notice of a heariny on �,,r the County Road 42 Improvements between US Highway 52 x,;�,: and STIi 55, enclosed in sealed envelopes, with postage �,�'F' there�n fully prepaid, addressed to the persons l�sted ori the attacF►ed listings at the addresses Iisted with f ' ti�e i r naines. ��,., � :�.k t„� . . . . . ; � There is delivery service by United Stat�s Mail between �, �, the place of mailing and the places so arJdressed. ;,. �ti. �xj . . . . . � . . � . . F�� . . . � . � j}x. . . . . . . . 1� . . � � �` . � {c � � . � �r� �� . tep a Administrator/Cler City of Rosemount Dakota County, Minnesota ,:�, .�;.;'` ��t�� Subscrit�Fsd and sworn to before me tiais 21st �day of � � � �� },� Nav�i��l�er, 19�36. � � � � a�,� f� � ;� � � ' �� .�'`."..," ` ''''�..�.- �.. , � � ��Notar Publ ic � . �A � _ . a�;x� ,� ._ SUSAN M..10NNSON � � NOIAHY F'UUI�G—htIMNES0IA � qAKhlA f:(;UNTY � �4Y COR�A �IlWiiiS JUNE 11 19J2 c; 1� "�JWVWM/WV'• �� ' { ;��.;' �� . ,� ,<.. �� '� µ� 4 A . . . . . . . . � � � � 9/3D186 Meeting CSAN 42 f�ST HEARING NOTICE ��5 � � �b { MAILING' L1ST � � l. Melvin G. Astlefc�rd 34-02800-010-15 . 1200 Highway 13 West 34-0280Q-010-25 � ' Burnsville, MN 5533) 34-02800-01�-30 (Pine Bend Develop Co/Fee} 34-Q2800-010-36 - � 34-02800-a10-50 34-02900-Q10-20 34-Q2900-010-25 34-02900-010-35 � � 34-029Q0-010-75 ,. ;' 34-03000-010-19 ;,; ; �,, 2. Rich T. Burger 34-02900-014-10 � 1200 Highway 13 West '��t� Burnsvi 1 le, MN 55337 � �$ � � .� . � �,�"M 3. Adal ph & Otto Pect 34-029U0-010-50. � � 4992 145th Street fast ; Rosemount, MN 55U68 �� 4. Riehard C. & Ran�ona A. Cordes 34-02900-010-60 t` 4594 245th Street East ��;; � Rosemount, MN 55068 �,� ��' 5. John Reese 34-02900-OI0-69 �� ' 4230 145th Street East 34-03000-021-15 �� } Rosemount, MN 550b8 �; (Ervin A. & Leona Oldenburg) , � � ` # ;��; �� ¢ 6. Marvin Karnick 34-030QD-OlU-09 � � 35b2 125th Street West 34-03000-010-30 �� '�" Rosemount, MN 55068 �+�; :. � � � � � �. ; �. Marlin & Joann Rechtzigel 34-03000-013-35 3540 140tfi Street East � + ` Rosemount, MN 55068 , , , �� 8. The Salt�erg Construction Co. 34-03000-010-4fl ` �,}}` 13245 Clayton Avenue �^� aasemount, MN 55068 � x;,,., , z, , � �� ' 9. Nans J. Abrahamsen 34-43000-010-50 _ �. : ' ' � ll00 Bellows � �'�t West St. Aaul , MN 55118 � �, � � � ; ; : I0. Frank A. Jr. & Betty J. Knoll 34-03000-012-75 4322 145th Street East �� Rosernount, MN 55068 ��' 11. Marlin W. & Joann Rechtzigel 34-03000-010-90 � � ; 14721 Clayton Avenue East Y �� Rosemount, MN 55068 �� k . � � � . � . � . a �.'.. . . . . � � . }. �. :-,. . . . . . � . . . �; ' Meli�in G. Astleford � , 1204 Nighway 13 West � � Qurnsville, MN 55331 Ri ct� 7. Buryer , , i200 t{ighway 13 West Burnsville, MN 55337 Adolph & Otto Ped - 4992 i45th Street East -;' , Rosemount, MN 55068 g': ; Richard C. & Ramona A Cordes �i �' 4594 145th Street East ; '� ;' Rosemount, MN 55068 � . 3 Y � 1 � � � � ,a � � � � � t.ii:,;.' . . , � � John Reese � � 4230 145th Street East ;� = Rosemount, MN 55068 ,� ., . �� ;; (Ervin A. & leona Oldenburg) �� ,,. j{�:� Marvin Karnick �� ° 3562 125th Street West ..' Rosemount, MN 55�68 . � �4 ';t.. � . . �}�„f . . . , .. .� . . . . � � ��. . . . . . . !�.. ` . . . � . . Marlin b Joann Rechtzig�l 3540 140th Street East � � Rosemount, MN 55068 `� � . � : � �;� Zhe Solberg Construction Co. ;' �; 13245 Clayton Avenue / `�`°y Rosemount, MN 55068 ;u;,< �,�,. � �� F ; . . � . . � . . . � z. �� . �'�� Hans J. Abrahan�sen .f�..,.�.,t�:� � . . "��`,�� 1700 B�l l�ows � �� + West St. Paul , MN 5511�3 a �_ _:,- �; s; : �,{ , , ,;� ;�, Frank A. Jr. & Betty J. Kr►oli �_ . �'�` 4322 145th Street East y � Rosemount, MN 55068 ,E ;,:: � :} Marlin W. & Joat�n Rechtzigel �`�-� ` 14127 Clayton Avenue East " �� Rosemount, MN 5506£3 � � � � � � � ��,� �:.�. ,�. . � 1. ° z �� '�$`+� �+�� j O t:ifi�-tASI{1 S'i F ' t`` . � � / t � 1 1 AI�dtJ .`,t�1 h !�!,(tha y� � �,.,� \ {, �} /� } 1 R( SF R Ut iJ � f „� ",�.t"..; ��J��l�l..�l��t � (i12 A:�•4411 t, �� ,! � �,, � i �.';', ��,i.,::,; . � � . . . � � . - 2'.:'',�i. � . � . � ��' T0: MAYOR, COUNCiL AND A�ITNISTRATOR �., ` � FROM: OEaN JONNSON, DIitECTOR OF PLANNING & BUiLDING � , � � � ; ' .1 r;;� ' DATE: OECEM�ER 8. 1986 �� ' � SUBJ: COUNTY ROAD 4z EAST PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT NEARING �� , ; .�. ..1.y.,: � . � . � . . � . . E� �� . � . . . . . . � � . . Attached is another outline with the particular informatian " `�' regardiny the easternmost segment of CSAN 42. The county is 4�`.�� dedicating FAS (federal aid secondary) funds to �his project, � ��.� . `��' because they feeT the completion is a priority. The City will pay , ,; � � ;�� only 45� of one-fuurth af the project costs, since 75� is paid by ' ��r�- federal funds. The actual cost to the City is far tess than even a ��. � � subsidized rate of a residentlal street equivalent cost. Steve �� Jilk, Rich Nefti and I have discussed the project together and will ��4 be at the hearing Thursday. g�` � �� _ . X,� .�,, x�,' �r' �"' ��. ��' ,: � � .�; ; �'' �: '� ,� • � ; ,: '��:` ,,n _ , � • .> � , ,. �� _ �, �€ , . .�: - i i Ey � � � � � �,k . . . . . . . . . . , . d t � � 1 r.r,�,�,., �-.�. ,•,.� �t , , �;.� : 4� 41 „ .. ; �' - , . � 12/5/86 � f, � CSAt� 42 EAST COSTSJFUNDI�lG ,: ,,. ` , .; ` � 13,229 feet Total length of project � 1QU feet ROW width ,�' ` 24 feet 2-lane pavement section �� 10 feet Paved shoulders �j' I � $ 1,320,004.00 Tota1 estimated cost $ 148,50Q.00 Estimated Rosemount share €� .(; ��: ; .a �� $ 99.78/lineal foot Total per faot cost of CSAH 42 :�; ' $ 42/lineal foot Residential equivalent cost .�; ;� $ 42 1.f. @ 13,229 feet $ 555,618 - Maximum assessment ,�:: ,. t ;; � 14 acre proposed assessment unit size � 100 units Estimated number of assessment units ;, � $ 148,500 t 100 $ 1,485 - minimum assessment rate $ 555,618 t 100 $ 5,556 - maximum assessment rate �,j - rn�j L��I�{-" �,� i=� x ?.%,, �-73 S � $ 5,556 x 75� $ 4,16� 2-lane county road rate $ 1,485/uniC Proposed rate per unit �," � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ,�; , �j M . � . . . . . � x, ��' ��{, '�Y �� . . .�2. . � . . • . . . . . � �. . . . . . . . t � ,1. �. , p„: . � � � . .� . � � � . . � �.: � � . . . .. . . . � . . . ��'�� .� . � � �� . . . .� . �` . . . .. . . . �� . � . • . � � . . � .. . . � � . �. �m r� ,,#..� �. . . . . . � . . � . � . � � . . � . . ..��.': � � � . � . � � � �� . , � � � � � � � ��'�• ;,�� ,.�,.. ,,i'1 �' � � /- j� ,� �^ , � � ` `} lf titt r �' _._._. F Y �� f �� 1 � � � , �7'r" •a ?�•�.� 1 ' t� +_� � .'t: . . � . . . . . T0: MAYOR b CITY COUNCIL '��; '. r,� f 1 � , , � _ � � � , FROM: DEAN JOHNSON, DIRECTOR 0�' PLANi�ING & �UILDING ,, � ��_ DATE: APRIL 11, Z9$6 �, 1"� ��^ SUBJ: COUNTY ROAD 42 PROJECT/COUNTY ROAD ASSESSMENT OPTIONS Attached is a quick glance outline of the particulars on the CSAN 42 pro�ect, from CSAM 71 to TH 52. Alsa attached ts the similar outline for the CR 38 project. As we have touched an earlier, the CSAtI 42 pra,�ect is rathe►~ cost intensive. If any assessments are based upon residential street equivalent casts, the total cost af the caunty ' prajeci. is not relevant to those being assessed. The City obviausly has to accuunt for all costs nat assessed to area properties, „ . ,E CSAH 4� is located in the Agriculture zoning district. The surrounding , � area is designated Agriculture in the Comprehensive Guide Plan. The ' �; maximum development density in the Agriculture district is one home per � 10 acres. For this reason, the praposed assessment unit size is 10 acres. We propUse the assessment area to be one-half mi le either side � of CSAti 42. Because CR 38 is ane-half mlle to the north of CSAN 42, the � boundary to the north would actually be one-quarter mile from CSAH 42. a > � f ': Based upon the number of parcels and total acreage involved, there are an estimated maximum of 49 assessment units. This includes one unit for any parcel 10 acres or less. One problem, not unlike the Apple Valley � � Golf Course on CR 38, is the University of Minnesata prQperty. The ll of M owns 110-115 acres in the assessment area, or 11 assessment units. If ttie U c,f M fails to participate, there would be two likely aptions: the City picks up 11 units nr the total assessment is spread over 38 units. On the CSAN 42 cost outtine, we've illustrated another funding option, or assessment policy optian, whicli some cities have used. The policy essentially recognizes a difference (even if only a perceived difference) in county raads versus local roads. A 25X credit or� reduction is �pplied against the cost of the residential equivalent ' street for two-lane county roads and a 50� reduction on faur-lane divided roads. This foliows the argument that there is benefit provided beyond area residents, and for that matter, beyond the City, :f�' `� If this policy were implemented by the City, it would certajr�ly ease the g��. pain in assessing caunty road projects. At the same time, it increases � � the CiLy's participation, whether using MSA funds or general revenues. �Y Tl�ere are certainly arguments to be made that the entire tax paying �'��"< ; put�lic could be exposed to county road improvements. Wfiile no City Y� • funds are presently budgetted for' county pro�ects, manies could be set aside and shifted; i.e., City CIP and Council Designated. Another � � option could be that some of tMe liquor store sale proceeds go into a road fund. Fortunately, we don't anticipate a lot of county pro�ects �' after the '86 and '87 projects are completed. �" �� I submit th�s informatian for diseussion ancl review on1y. N�thing has �%�: ' been Wi�es�nted for staff review or comment at this time. I make no � �: re{,resent�ti��►a c�F any�ne e1sP's com�ents or concerns at tliis tinte. b,��- . � �; . e. � . �-�. ," �--� � .. � c..' G�.,. . . .. . ar:.�, . . . . . . . . � _.. . . .......__........_9�1�1�� . . CSAN 42 COSTS/FUNDING �� J� 4,300 feet Total length of project 170-210 feet ROW width 4-lane divided 7ypical raad section $ 900,0t3U.OQ Total estimated cost $ 405,000.00 Estimated City share $ 209.30/lineal foot Total per foot cost of CSAH 42 $ 42/lineal foot Residential equivalent cost $ 42/l.f. @ 4,300 feet �180,600 - Maximum assessment 10 acre Proposed assessment unit 49 units Maximum estimated` assessment units $ 1�0,600 t 49 $ 3,685 - Miniroum unit assessme�t rate Assessment options that some cities have used " in conjuaction with caunty road projects 2-lane county roads 75X of RfQ* 4-lane divided 50� of REQ 75� af REQ on CR 38 - $ 281,925 or $ 2,170/unit 5DX of REQ on CSAN 42 - $ 90,300 or � 1,845/unit CR 38 - � 143,075 MSA � other funds CSAH 42 - $ 314,700 MSA & other funds ,_ *REQ - R��siclential Cc�uivalent i � AFFIDAYtT QF PUBUC�►T14N P�,JBLIC NOTICE STATE O� NIINNESC}TA GTY OF ROS[MOUNT � C� N4T�E Qi HEARINGON#55E3SAIENTS J fORCQUNTYROAq��EAST �OUrlty Of DQ�Q�Q � IMPROVEMENT50i 19l7, qTY PROIECT NO.1 A4 TU W[{OM 1T MAY CONCERN: TIME AND PLACE.GENERAL NATURF. ' OF iMPROVEMENfS:NoEice is hereby gi- ven thnk the City Councit of the Cify ot RAse- m+wnt,MinnesMa,wilt mett itt the City Haii in the City ot Ra4emount,Minnesota,on the NANGY 1. Gl1STAFSON,being duly swom,on oath s�ys that sNe is an cn�fF�arixeel ogeM ond 4th day of Octnher,1989 at A:00 p.m.,or as soon thereatter as passiWe,to consider ob• emptoyee of the puWisher of the�ewspuper known os Dokofo County Tribune,and hos full k�awledge jectim�s to the propased assessments for County Road 92 F�ast tmprouement�af tPA7, of fhe facts which tne stafed bc low: <'ity I'rnject Nn. 169.heretofore otdered by IhrtNy('ouncii. ASSP:SSMN:N'f kt�LL UPEN TO !N. ShECTiON:The propaaed assessment rott is on tile with the Administrator/Cierk aml (A)The newspager hos complied with oll of the req+riremenfs constitu#ing quatiiication as a legof �en topobiic inspection. A}2EA PRDPt�SED TO BE ASSE5SF.Di newspnper,as p�ovided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02,331 A.Q7 oed ofhe�oppficable(aws,as amee+ded. The area prc�nsed to be assessed eonsists o[ every lot,piece or parcet ot lami beneftted by said impravements,which has beee ncdered ` ', madr.�nd is as foibws: gerreralty ell that � �e �nt� _^�„� .L �,- _ -- _ _ ,_-- --- area in Sections 28.89,and 34.Township 1i5, -- ___ � ) W _- - Range tA, om+-haif mile either s9de of the �'' _ east-west center lirre ot said seetiona between U.S.Hiqhway 52 end Mineesota Nighwaq 35. TOTAI.AMt)UNT OF PROPt�.SED: The __ __, --------- --- ---__- -------- - trttaF amount ---... - _.__ _. pr�e+i to be ass�ssed ia EtOD,0�.0U. WRI'PTEN �R OAAL OBJECTIONS: Written or oral objeeti�wili be coasidered _. .--_ . _--. . -_.. __�___._:_�_..-. at the hearing. --- ----------�—.--—_ _: ___ RtGtIT(3F APPEAL: Aa owner ot prup- which is#rttached wos eut from!he ealmm�s of said newspaper,cmd wos prirrfed and pubiisheti ohea erty to tae asse4sed may appeal the assess- roent to the district ceurt�Dakota Can�nty pursuant to Minnesota Statoles, Sectton �� 429.�t by aerving naticc o[tlee appeel upun eaeh week,fex __..__.T._ �• < < _sueeeasive wcekn;it wan the Mayot or Clerk of#he City withie 30 daye _, . .:_.� . ._. ____ . _ a(trr the adoptian ot the assessmeM aml ti4 ing such notice with the district court within c, t ten days a[ter service upon the Mayor or /� #�,� . 7'i f.► �_..�i>`.. �� .__._�_�__�._., C�erk. first published on Thueaday,the___L ..__..__,..d�y af_ :�_. LtMiTATiON ON APPEAG: No appeat � -. _a� may be taken as W tirc amount ot any as- sessmenf a�ed by t#e City Counicii unlesa '` a wrilten ob ection signed by the sttected 19 ,��--- , aad wos tt+�ereoker priaMd ond publishecF on every Thursdoy te and 'entludi� properly oa•ner 1s filed witN khe Cterkprior to -T the assessment hearing a�r presented to the t . pre+eiding o[ticer at ti�e heating. All objec- �-). , ( tio�ta ti�e assessmenta not reccived at tAe ''S �1�<'� • C t� , . t �'_i.`_�___---- -----�19-J 1�� . assessment he�ring in the mantrer �ue- Thursdor,the_`�_t- �_day of--:� - ._ .� ---• scribed by MinnesMa Sistutea, Section � azs,os�are waived,unless the failure ta ob• and printed belaw is a copy of the(vwer case alphabet fiam A to Z,both inciusive,which�s la.veby ject aE the assessment heari�g is due to a reasonable cause. eck»owledged as l�ing tfie size ond kind ot type used in flre eompasitian or►d pubiicotian of the notice: DEFERMENT OF ASSESSMENTS: Under the ircovisions of MinnesOta StaWtes, atx��icf�!hi,jkimnr,�xpstuvwxez Sections 435.193 to 435.195,ttie City may,at 9ts discretion,defer the paynnent of assess- ments tor any homesteadproper tp owned by I � r a person 65 years ot age ar oider[or wham it �, ` would be a harc�hip to make the papments. jl.t' ' � ' i,' ' Nowever,tMe City hss elected not W esiab- gY _ _ �,(.L.i.; _� ��.-�L�.� .-',f-��+/.� L�—------- - ...., lish any deferment procedure pursuant to TITLE:Seereto►y to the�u�tisi�er i those Sections. � ' Daled this 13th day af SEptember,l�. �. BY ORDER OFTtiF.CITY COUNCIL. '} { STEPf1AN JIt,K Subscribed oed swom M beiore me on this t�,�y,_•,e,�i d,�,af •';_�V f)��`1-s�t?i{`�19 � � ' Administrafor/Cterk l � Cily ot R�semAunt � � i t�aknla Coonly.Min»Psnta ,i . � � t � � � � ,� i 459 2g.;N1 / � � } ,t�.. -�1, /. � (�i,l�t y.�.t�.. c..i..� Notory Public . .� �. � . � � . � � � +�M�tfllfllfJtRaNM/Ill1�N1#JwlNMF! � . � �. •::. CAfif�L .!. NIAVE�tLI�N(7 � ... `. �� NttihfiY f llCl If.--MINk�&OIA ; ..' '� ,., ,1 t�nt:E�t n cc��rr�tY � � `. f'y E'�rnn�s^i�v�Ex�,ir�+s Dc+c.3. 1rrJ� ♦�.^r�r sF,sWr.a*..!tct�arse*s<ratt:«csssra� �, . - • i ,.,,,.�,�►:�� ,..` J(�f-1NSC�N, 1Y�Cl(�f�, i'{il,f�(�f?It t�c )tit ;I�t(�1�(� 11 II Il \ti'. k�1INSi�N �11�l�ASf' I AI.1� ti11�)1�'I nll� II.0 I \ I "'b.lrl ��,iiN�r �r��,. �u, 1C'r11'/�\In, �itNNl:titjlil �,5i�11 i.�nir• �i �i�i�� r� ctqR1'I.1�t11lt:lit { � �tri� ��i�z1r:1 1C'Al�IiLN\' Itp:PIIRY', �i2. �1'�I'I�I1l1N�' N��1i�li�I+I`'i ':1lPlil N .\ 1'\I All R \C'IIJJAA11t.k��FNit� Tl:l:l�:f'tll`flilt il+1?)•1iiililt AtiN t . `('I11!1 7 �� •�, �� (': ti�y��I �IA�tilli f.1t?11 I P:IIi�11'I�'1t }.� i iu� c•. n��anu_�I►t �tp,c t�I�STiI•it� I� iti j1�t I�\:�Itl� t��fl,,i, ni,�F�*�r:��.� ti1t)l►NI), �tINNt:;�tlfil 55 t�,�} � (f,l_'! 17)Jtkdt , t:i,'1'l l' tt�: \Yi15'7A1;\ ��tember 23, 1�83 City of Rosemount 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 Attention: Stephan ,7ilk City Administrator Re: Assessments for eounty Road 4?_ F�st Improvements of 1987, City Pr.oject No. 16� Dear Mr. 3ilk: This letter constitutes written objection by Melvi.n G. 11st1e�fc,rci and Rich T. Burger regarding t}�e proposecl assessments �g�ir�s�: their properties arisinc� from City Froject Nc�. 7.G�I. 1:t is my understanding that a public hearing on objections wiil be ftelc� on October 4, 1988, �t 8:00 �.m. 'I'lii.s wr.i.tt:c�n r�b.j�c�t:io�i i�: suk�tnitted sittce we wil]. b� unabl e to attr_nc� t:ia�at li�,�r.i ttc�. Our objection has s�ecifi.c a�pl.icati�!� t� ,}.1 c�f �he �;�-�,�c;el� listed on the Exhibit �1 �ttached to the City's No�.ice af Near.i rj<� dated September 13, 1988, including but not l�.mited to �he fallowing properties• 34 03000 01Q 19 34 a2900 O10 35 34 02900 010 25 34 02900 O10 20 34 02900 O10 75` 34 02800 Olti 30 3� t�2800 O10 36 34 02800 Ol� ?.5 34 02900 010 10 , � • ......_ ._... _ ... ,_.__ ,.�.....,.... ........... . ..... ..... . . C:i t_y c�fi Izo�emoi.�nt ,;��t:enil�c�r. ?.�), ].�)R!I ['��qe 7'wo c�l��i��t:ion �.s h��;�c� ��rim��t-ily u�c�ii i.h�� t:�f�t Ii�,�( tf��! r�,,,�i im��t:��v�met�t5 ti� not. e»li�nc� t:l�e valt�� c�C tli� �,a1��1 �; ,t,;r:��:,:c•,}. Ilowever, ttie c�w��r.� a:l so ob jn�-� �n t.h� fc�l.l t�tid i n�{ ,��ici i 1 ,i��i�,i 1 c�r�,tttads: A a . Ttte C i t:y :�nd Co�.tnt;y fa i 1 c�d t�.� ��►�r,�,r��1 y� ,� I I c��•,�1 �� i I��. co:�t �f' :i.mpravemer�i�s t�et:ween C.i.t:y *�tul c'cnrtif.y. t:�. `.l'1te C i i-.y h�7.^, f�� i l.�cl t o t,t-o��r l y �� I l ��•,rt ,� 1 I�� r� l ii,, ��I " i.m��rovetnenL" ��i�cr.ti.inc� to eacii of i:h� v�7riaus; ��-c.>�,F>>�f i��; �:��l, j��c;f. t:c� pi•oposeci assessment, 7 f_ t:t�e Ci.ty has p�-e��t-eci a ri�mm�r-y oC i t:.� c�:� lr.�tl�1 i��i��: ��1 coi�si.derations r.eg�rc�:i.ng ,#:l�e ��s�s�m�rit-, t w��iitci ,��,i:��c.�i��i � rec�iving a copy, C)�)Vl.Ol151-Y, I wi.l.l },<ay Cor t:h� r.�orL r,� photoccrpying, coll�tion �-�nd mlil i_»q. Ve1-y t.r.ta.l.y yottrs, rJO11NFON, WO01�, F'tiL�.GE ',& B7Gt�t,UW . r.� ,�� -- t��. �-� ` . ; � ; ., Pe��r S9. Johnsan -� -- F[�J:mb