HomeMy WebLinkAbout4. County Road 38 Street Improvementsq4
TO:
of
osernount
Mayor, Council, City Administrator
FROM: Dean Johnson, Director of Community Development
DATE: September 3, 1987
SUBJ: County Road 38 Assessment Project
2875 -145TH ST. W
ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA 55068
612-423-4411
Attached you will find copies of the following information: the assessment
hearing notice, the assessment role, the assessment area map, a letter from
Dennis and Jane Wippermann, my response to the "Wippermann" letter, the
public improvements hearing notice, my original cost/funding outline and my
original background memo on the project. We have received no written
objections to date.
I believe the information attached is adequate to provide a history and final
summary of the project. As noted in the "Wippermann response," the final
costs are not known, but estimated. It is obvious, however, that the
amount to be assessed is less than the known costs. We do not know what
actual amount may be drawn from the state from our MSA funds. We do
know that the amount will be limited to the actual amount billed by the
County for the MSA segment (approximately 4,850 feet) plus local
engineering and right-of-way costs. There may very well be a need to use
other funding sources to close the gap between the total cost and the
amount assessed.
Two changes have taken place since the public improvement hearing held
February 11, 1986: the Council agreed to assess 75% of the residential
equivalent street cost on two-lane county roads, and the actual number of
assessment units has reached 155, up from the estimated 130 units. The
obvious result is that the final assessment value has dropped from an
estimated $2,892 to $1,818.17 per unit.
I will be available to make a similar presentation at this hearing as we did
at the September 1 hearings, if the Council desires. The same procedures
for public comment and subsequent inquiries with staff should be followed.
Hopefully, this hearing can move as properly as the Jay Simon and 130th
Street hearings.
;two Of,
0 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
RESOLUTION 1987-
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL,
COUNTY ROAD 38 (BETWEEN APPLE VALLEY CITY
LIMITS AND, TRUNK HIGHWAY 3), CITY PROJECT NO. 150
WHEREAS, pursuant to notice duly given as required by law, the City
Council has met, heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed
assessment for County Road 38 (between Apple Valley city limits and
Trunk Highway 3) Street Improvements of 1986, and has amended such
proposed assessment as it deems just.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Rosemount, Minnesota, a follows:
(1) Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and
made a part hereof is hereby accepted and shall constitute the
special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract
of land therein is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed
improvement.
2. Such assessments shall be as follows:
(a) The assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments
including principal and interest extending over a period of
ten (10) years, with interest at the rate of eight and two-
tenths (8.2%) percent per annum, in the amount annually
required to pay the principal over such period at such rate,
the first of said installments to be payable with general
taxes for the year 1988, collectible with such taxes during
the year 1988.
(b) The owner of the property so assessed may at any time prior to
the certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay
to the City Treasurer, and thereafter at any time prior to
November 15 of any year pay to the County Auditor, the whole
of the principal amount of the assessment on such property
provided that no such prepayment shall be accepted without
payment of all installments due to and including December 31
of the year of prepayment, and the original principal amount
reduced only by the amounts of principal included in such
installments computed on an annual amortization basis.
3. The Administrator/Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified
duplicate copy of this assessment roll to the County Auditor to be
extended on the tax list of the County.
ADOPTED this day of September, 1987.
Leland S. Knutson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Stephan Jilk, Administrator/Clerk
PfPoem ott 1 i l
• Mrl 145111 ST W
nOSEMOUNT. MINNFS01A rSnrn
(M .423.4411
P U B L I C N O T I C E
Notice of Hearing on Proposed Assessment
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the. Rosemount City Council will meet
at 7:00 p.m. on September 8., 1987, at the Rosemount City Hall,
2875 145th Street West in Rosemount to pass upon the proposed
assessment for the street improvement of County Road 38 (135th
St) between the Apple Valley city limits and Trunk Highway 3.
The following is the area proposed to be assessed.
All real property one-half (1/2) mile north and south of County
Road 38 (135th St) between the Apple Valley corporate limits and
Trunk Highway 3.
The amount to be specially assessed against your particular lot,
piece, or parcel of land is attached to this notice. You may at
anytime prior to certification of the assessment to the county
auditor pay the entire assessment on such property, with interest
accrued to the date of payment, to the county auditor. No
interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within
30 days from the adoption of this assessment. You may at any
time thereafter, pay to the county auditor the entire amount of
the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to
December 31 of the year in which such payment is made.
Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be
charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. If you
decide not to prepay the assessment beforethedate given above
the rate of interest that will apply is 8.2 percent per year.
The proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at
the city clerk's office. The total amount of the proposed
assessment is $281,925.00. Written or oral objections will be
considered at the meeting. No appeal may be taken as to the
amount of an assessment unless a signed, written objection is
filed with the clerk prior to the hearing or presented to the
presiding officer at the hearing. The council may upon such
notice consider any objection to the amount of a proposed
individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon such further
notice to the affected property owners as it deems advisable.
If an assessment is contented or there is an adjourned hearing,
the following procedure will be followed:
1. The city will present its case first by calling witnesses
who may testify by narrative or by examination, and by the-
introduction
heintroduction of exhibits. After each witness has testified, the
contesting party will be allowed to ask questions. This procedure
will be repeated with each witness until neither side has further
questions.
2. After the city has presented all its evidence, the
objector may call witnesses or present such testimony as the
objector desires. The same procedure for questioning of the
city's witnesses will be followed with the objector's witnesses.
3. The objector may be represented by counsel.
4. Minnesota rules of evidence will not be strictly applied;
however, they may be considered and argued to the council as to
the weight of items of evidence or testimony presented to the
council.
S. The entire proceedings will be taped -recorded.
6. At the close of presentation of evidence, the objector may
make a final presentation to the council. based on the evidence
and the law. No new evidence may be presented at this point.
An owner may appeal an assessment to district court pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes Section 429.081 by serving notice of the
appeal upon the mayor or clerk of the city within 30 days after
the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the
district court within ten days after service upon the mayor or
clerk.
Dated this l.8th day of August, 1987.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
'StephgA Jilk
Administrator/Clerk
City of Rosemount
Dakota County, Minnesota
Co Rd 38 Assessment Roll
•
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Legal Description
Sharon Mickelson
Assessable
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name
Units
Rate
Amount
Nickelson's First Addn
Block 1
Wm Parish
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 1
Kenneth Peters
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 2
Micheal Peterson
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 3
James Kraft
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Block 2
Dennis Davis
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
05 -Aug -87
Lot 1
Sharon Mickelson
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 2
Sharon Mickelson
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Nickelson's Second Addn
Block 1
Lot 1
Wm Parish
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 2
Carlton Rock
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 3
Edward Bergauer
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 4
Wm Johnson
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 5
Dennis Davis
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 6
Daniel O'Neil
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 7
George Bommer, Jr
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 8
Harry Meadows
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 9
Wayne Hauschildt
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 10
BSR Enterprises
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 11
Erik Gundacker
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 12
Charles Parrish
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 13
Terry Noble
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 14(part of)
Terry Noble
0
$1,818.87
$0.00
Lot 14(part of)
Donald Grunter
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 15
Charles Ullery
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 16
John Rutoski
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 17
David Knutson
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 18
Dennis Hyster
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Block 2
Lot 1
Charlene Delanex
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 2
Robert Metzig
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 3
Pat Reed
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 4
Wayne Dahmes
1
$1,818,87
$1,818.87
Lot 5
LuVerne Radtke
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 6
Donald Newell
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 7
Dennis Wippermann
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 8
Karl Biewald
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 9
Mark Waldorf
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 10
Jack Tonkin
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 11
James Ehmer
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 12
Michael Jones
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 13
Eric Heflin
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 14
Mark Quarford
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Rosemount Hills Second Addn
Block 1
Lot l
Joseph Tousignant
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 2
Thoedore Wood
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 3
Kenneth Marcotte
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 4
Jeffrey Wilfart
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 5
Doris Lahner
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Block 2
Lot 1
William Norris
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Pg 1
Co Rd 38 Assessment
Roll
0
Legal Description
Assessable
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name
Units
Rate
Amount
Lot 2
William Norris
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 3
Paul Linkert
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 4
Howard Raschke
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 5
William Bahl
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 6
Dale Wandersee
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 7
James Horn
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 8
Robert Kubat
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 9
Jack Karsten
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Wilde Birch Estates
Lot 1
Harry Lehmann
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 2
Richard Blundell
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 3
Michael Klassen
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Lot 4
Reid Hansen
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Reg Land Survey No
12
Part of Tract *D*
Karen Coffee
10
$1,818.87
$18,188.71
Part of Tract *D*
Dennis Clancy
0
$1,818.87
$0.00
Part of Tract *D*
James Bongers
0
$1,818.87
$0.00
Tract *E*
Craig Adams
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Section 7 Metes & Bounds
34-00710-011-25
M F Mickelson
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
34-01710-020-30
M F Mickelson
1
$1,818.87
81,818.87
Section 17 Metes &
Bounds
34-01710-010-17
Olga Treise
7
$1,818.87
$12,732.10
34-01710-013-27
Olga Treise
2
$1,818.87
$3,637.74
34-01710-010-26
S E Enright
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
34-01710-012-27
Ronald Enright
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
34-01710-020-27
Ronald Enright
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
34-01710-010-31
Ronald Enright
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
34-01710-010-32
Ronald Enright
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
34-01710-010-29
Russell Johnson
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
34-01710-010-30
Douglas Liden
1
sl,818.87
$1,818.87
34-01710-010-34
Marvin Gill
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
34-01710-010-35
James Anderson
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
34-01710-019-50
Edmund Dunn
2
$1,818.87
$3,637.74
34-01710-017-60
William Norris
2
$1,818.87
$3,637.74
34-01710-019-60
Fam Lahner
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Section 18 Metes &
Bounds
34-01710-010-19
Reinold Sieg
8
$1,818.87
$14,550.97
34-01810-013-28
Earl Adams
4
$1,818.87
$7,275.48
34-01810-011-33
Pennview Inc
2
$1,818.87
$3,637.74
34-01810-012-33
Joan Boyd
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
34-01810-012-36
City of Apple Valley
10
$1,818.87
$18,188.71
34-01810-013-36
Bruce Iverson
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
34-01810-012-42
M F Mickelson
2
$1,818.87
$3,637.74
34-01810-013-42
Sharon Mickelson
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
34-01810-010-44
James Feilen
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
34-01810-010-45
Frieda Schwanz
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
34-01810-010-55
George Linkert
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
34-01810-010-72
Mildred Mullery
8
$1,818.87
$14,550.97
34-01810-011-75
The Great Stock Co
16
$1,818.87
$29,101.94
34-01810-012-75
Randy Schwartzhoff
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
34-01810-010-80
Marvin Karnick
2
$1,818.87
$3,637.74
34-01810-010-81
Sidney Fletcher
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
Pg 2
05 -Aug -87
Co Rd 38 Assessment
Roll
0
05 -Aug -87
Legal Description
Assessable
Name
Units
Rate
Amount
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
34-01810-011-82
James Bongers
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
34-01810-010-83
James Songers
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
34-01810-012-82
Charles Strese
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
34-01810-010-85
Dennis Clancy
1
$1,818.87
$1,818.87
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals
155
$281,925.00
Pg 3
12538 Danbury Way
Rosemount, MN 55068
August 27, 1987
Mayor Leland Knutson
City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street W.
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dear Mayor Knutson
We are requesting the opportunity to address the council at the County
Road 38 (125th St.) assessment hearing scheduled for September 8, 1987,
for the purpose of objecting to the proposed assessment.
In regards to this matter we are requesting the following information:
A. Total footage of 125th Street from the Rosemount -Apple Valley
border to Hwy. 3. Footage of 125th Street from Dodd Rd. to Hwy. 3.
B. Total footage of 125th Street designated as MSA road. (Is this
the section of road from Shannon Pky. to Hwy. 3?)
C. What was the total cost of the Rosemount section of the 125th
project, and what is the city's cost before assessing?
D. How was the total proposed assessment of $281,925.00 arrived at?
What comparison projects and their dates were used to arrive at
the proposed assessment total?
E. How many property owners and assessment units are located between
Dodd Rd. and Hwy. 3?
F. When did the city begin receiving MSA allocations for 125th SO
Please provide a year by year listing of MSA dollars allocated
to 125th St.
G. What has been the city's entire total MSA allocation for each
year since 125th St. has been designated a MSA road? What are
the total number of miles in the city designated as MSA roads
for each of those same years?
H. Listing of projects that MSA funds have been used for since 125th
St. was designated a MSA road. Listing should include name of
project, name of street, whether constructing new road or upgrading
existing road, footage of construction, total cost of street
project, and MSA dollars allocated to the project.
I. Listing of current projects in progress for which MSA funds have
been proposed to be used. Listing should include name of project,
name of street, whether constructing new street or upgrading
existing road, footage of construction, total cost of street
project, and MSA dollars allocated to the project.
We are requesting the above information be furnished to us no later than
September 2, 1987. If any of the city staff has any questions regarding
the information being requested, please have them call us at either
423-5728 or 887-6355.
Sincerely, 1
Dennis 0. Wippermann
`C
Jane E. Wippermann
cc: Stephan Jilk, Administrator
Dean Johnson, Director of Community Development
Responses to the letter from Dennis & Jane Wippermann, dated August 27, 1987
A.B.C. 11,581 feet = Total Project
8,950 feet = Rosemount Segment
4,850 feet = MSA Designation (Shannon to TH3)
295,410 = Contract Total Cost to Rosemount (through August, 1987)
30,000 = Engineering Total Cost to Rosemount (Estimated by County)
35,000 = ROW Total Cost to Rosemount (Estimated by County)
51,500 = City Engineering & ROW Cost to Rosemount (Estimated by City)
411,910 = Totals as of 9/1/87
The total estimated cost of the Rosemount segment, less Engineering costs and
the costs of right-of-way on the new alignment, was $939,034. The estimated
share of the cost to the City, less the same exceptions, was $422,550.
D. The City used $42/Lineal Foot (U.) as the Residential Equivalent (REQ) cost of
the street. This cost was the lowest price per lineal foot of three other
projects taking place. It was the actual cost from the White Lake Acres
project. The length (8,950 feet) times cost per lineal foot ($42) equals
$375,900. This amount was the total estimated assessment used at the public
improvement hearing. The City Council has since agreed that two-lane county
roads will be assessed only 75% of the REQ. Hence, $375,900 x 75% _ $281,925.
At the public improvements hearing staff noted that the total cost ($375,900)
would be split amongst an estimated 130 assessment units. This amounted to
$2,892/unit. The final tally on assessment units for 'the project is 155. This
figure into $281,925 is the final assessment of $1,818.87/unit.
E. The area between Dodd and TH3 is undeveloped and owned by two parties. The
property to the south was formally split into two parcels which have access to
125th Street. Two assessment units were assigned south of 125th Street. There
are two parcels to the north, totalling 46.5 acres. There were nine assessment
units assigned to the area north of Dodd.
F.G. .The City's MSA system was established in 1982. There were approximately 58
miles of roads in the City that were used to determine the City's system. The
system that is designated MSA represents 20% of the total qualifying miles. All
MSA streets must tie into other State Aid roads, i.e. city, county or state. The
original MSA system consisted of -11.31 miles of designated streets.
In 1984 the City pulled 1.45 miles of designated streets out of the system. It
was reasoned that the area of these streets was outside of the area scheduled
for utilities or any development for at least 5-10 years. Shannon Parkway (1.50
miles) from Connemara Trail to CR 38 was added and CR 38 (0.9 miles) from
Shannon Parkway to TH3 was added.
The annual allocation of MSA funds is based upon the total amount of
qualifying miles and the nature of the roadways designated. Maximum need for
any system is a designated roadway which doesn't exist, i.e. Shannon Parkway
or Connemara Trail. Minimum needs on a system are roads that are already
improved, but may require future upgrading or replacement, i.e. 145th Street.
In the middle are existing gravel roads such as 125th Street.
I do not have thelarticular dollar amounts that the A uses in reaching the
allocation for any one city. This figure changes annually with the amount of
gas tax collected and the number of miles added to the system, as well as the
overall breakdown of needs in the entire statewide system.
The fact that a particular segment of any road is on the system does not relate
to the value in any particular community. The single factor that is relevant is
the total qualifying mileage. In 1984, Rosemount had approximately 62 miles of
qualifying mileage. The total construction income for the 1984 MSA system was
$194,536. This breaks down into a return of gas taxes paid by everyone in the
City in the amount of $3,137.68 per qualifying mile. This amount is
insignificant when looking at the entire system of qualifying mileage.
If this income is spread over the system of designated state aid roadways, the
allocation amounts to $15,803 per designated mile. The following amounts per
year correspond to annual income and income per designated mile: 1985:
$280,222 - $22,763.77/mile; 1986: $259,168 - $21,053.45/mile; 1987: $221,986-
$18,032.98. At 0.9 miles length, the four-year income that could loosely be
associated with 125th Street is $77,653. The total designated mileage of the
MSA system has been 12.31 miles since 1984.
H. MSA dollars have been expended on the 145th Street (downtown) project,
O'Leary's Hills Addition street project, and signals at 145th/TH3, CSAH42/CR33
and CSAH 42/Chippendale Avenue. The following breakdown illustrates the
particulars surrounding each project.
45th Street Reconstruction Proje
Total Length -
Net Assessed Length -
Total Street Costs -
Total Assessed -
Assessment Rate -
Total MSA Draw -
Total MSA Used
980'
784.25'
$ 573,768.38
$ 77,746.50
$ 99.14/Lineal Foot
$ 391,976.82
$ 369,000.00
Includes street, storm sewer, lights, sidewalks, beautification
O'Leary's Hills Addition
Total Length
Net Assessable Length
Total Street Costs'
Total Assessed
Assessment Rate
Total MSA Draw
Total MSA Used
- 1,675'
- 1,675'
• $ 114,438.78
- $ 79,854.43
- $ 47.67/Lineal Foot
$ 111,111.72
• $ 74,661.83
Includes street, storm sewer, lights, trail
45th Street/TH3 Signal
City's Cost - $ 26,258.84
MSA Draw $ 26,258.84
MSA Used - $ 26,258.84
CSAH 42/Chigipendale Avenue Signal
City's Cost - $ 32,428
MSA Draw - $ 32,428 .
MSA Used - $ 32,428
CSAR 42/CR 33Slgnal
City's Cost $ 49,462
MSA Draw - $ 49,462.
MSA Used - $ 49,462
I. CSAH 42 from just east of CSAR 71 to US 52 is a project that may require the
use of some MSA funds. No amounts have been dedicated to this project. The
City is assessing 50010 of the REQ on this project since it is a four -lane divided
highway. The assessment rate is half of the $42/L.F. The original estimated
cost to the City was $405,000. The unassessed cost of this project was
estimated at $314,700. Again, no final determination on the amount of MSA
contribution has been made.
CSAH 42 from US 52 - TH3 is another collector street assessment project. The
rate of assessment is set at $42/L.F. at the 75% rate, as a two-lane county road
assessment. In order to step up the timing of construction of this project, the
County is dedicating Federal Aid urban funding for the project. This is usually
reserved exclusively for cities without MSA funding. The total estimated cost
to the City is $175,000. The entire amount is proposed to be assessed. No
MSA funds will be used.
The City is also in the process of constructing two MSA roadways: Shannon
Parkway from 160th Street to Connemara Trail and Connemara Trail from
Diamond Path to Shannon Parkway. Both of these projects are to be assessed
for 100010 of a residential equivalent. The City updated the estimated cost of
the REQ to these projects to a value of $55/L.F. The actual contribution of
MSA funds to either of these projects has not been determined or committed.
The estimated assessment income from these projects may equal $527,770. The
amount eligible to draw from MSA funds may be as high as $900,000. The total
estimated costs of the above projects is $1,488,923.
(�t�( ))(• %/ } (i_ �loc�: naourv� fA1N aV1;0to !1!,069
f, 1 a: 1 A A I I
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON IMPROVEMENTS
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Rosemount,
Minnesota, wi 11 meet at 7:00 o'clock p.m., Tuesday, February 11, 1986,
in rooms 1306 A & 8, Dakota County Area Vocational Technical Institute,
1300 145th Street East, to consider the following improvements:
Reconstruction (realignment, regrading, surfacing) of Dakota
County Road 38 (125th Street) between the west limits of the
City of Rosemount and State Trunk Highway 3.
The total estimated cost of said improvement is $1,000,000.00.
The amount to be assessed is estimated to not exceed $500,000.
The area proposed to be assessed for the foregoing improvements would
generally be all that area in Sections 17 and 18, one-half mile either
side of the east -west centerlines of said sections between the west
limits of the City of Rosemount and Highway 3, whether abutting thereon
or not, based on benefits received and without regard to cash valuation.
Such person as desires to be heard with reference to the proposed
improvements will be heard at this meeting. Written or oral opinions
will be considered.
Dated this 27th day of January, 1986.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
aq� C-,
Don F. Day,71
Administrator/Clerk
City of Rosemount
Dakota County, Minnesota
CERTIFICATE
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )ss.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT }
ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS
Special Meeting
February 11, 1986
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a Special Meeting of the City
Council of the City of Rosemount was duly held on Tuesday, February 11,
1986, at 7:00 p.m. in room 1-306 A & B, Dakota County Area Vocational
Technical Institute, 1300 145th Street East, Rosemount, Minnesota.
The meeting was called to order with all members present.
City Planner Dean Johnson provided information with regards to estimated
costs for the project. The Planner further provided a recommendation on
a proposed residential equivalent to be used in this project as well as
the proposed assessment unit, the estimated units in the assessment
district and the estimated unit assessment rate. See Clerk's File 1986-
4.
Much discussion ensued regarding the costs, funding and design of the
project; followed by a vote on the shoulder configurations and an off-
road biking/hiking trail.
MOTION by Knutson to close the Public Hearing. Second by Tucker. Ayes:
5. Nays: 0.
MOTION by Knutson to order the County Road 38 project and to approve the
specifications and plans as presented by the Dakota County Engineer.
Second by Walsh. Ayes: Walsh, Napper, Knutson, Tucker, Willard. Nays
0.
I, Don F. Darling, duly appointed, acting and qualified
Administrator/Clerk of the City of Rosemount do hereby certify that I
have examined the City of Rosemount City Council records and the Minutes
Book of the City Council for the meeting of February 11, 1986, and
hereby certify that the above stated motion by Knutson is a correct copy
of the Minutes of the Special Meeting held on February 11, 1986.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
day of May, 1986._
Dakota County, Minnesota
,.44`1 ,
$ 422,550 Rosemount Share
+ 27,450 Local ROW Expenditure
$ 450,000 Total City Costs
- 375,000 Local Assessment
$ 75,000 MSA Funding Requirement
*REQ - Residential Equivalent
COUNTY ROAD
38 COSTS/FUNDING
11,581
feet
Total length CSAH 31 - TH3
8,950 feet
Total length Rosemount 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 CSAH 31 - TH3
$
939,034.00
Total cost Rosemount segment
$
422,550.30
Total Rosemount Share
$
104.92/lineal foot
Total per foot cost of CR 38
$
47.64/lineal foot
O'Leary's Hills REQ* assessed
$--42.12/lineal
foot
White Lake Acres REQ proposed
$
45.00/lineal foot
130th Street REQ estimated
$
47/L.F. @ 8,950 feet
$ 420,650 - Maximum CR 38 Assessment
$
42/L.F. @ 8,950 feet
$ 375,900 - Proposed CR 38 Assessment
5 acre
Proposed assessment unit
130
units
Estimated units in assessment district
$
375,900 f 130
$ 2,892 - Estimated unit assessment rate
$ 422,550 Rosemount Share
+ 27,450 Local ROW Expenditure
$ 450,000 Total City Costs
- 375,000 Local Assessment
$ 75,000 MSA Funding Requirement
*REQ - Residential Equivalent
.r:
• C i
osemount 612 4234411
TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DEAN JOHNSON, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & BUILDING
DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 1986
SUBJ: COUNTY ROAD 38 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
I will attempt to give some general background information on this project,
a history, if you will. Some of you are better aware of the distant past
history than I am. Please bear with me and excuse any redundancies of
information you are completely familiar with. Some of you, on the other
hand, may not be aware of past discussions on the project.
The first public meeting and exposure I had on CR 38 was nearly eight years
ago. This discussion was prompted largely by residents along the roadway
who were concerned of the safety and poor condition of the road. At this
time there were no homes in either of the Mickelson 1st or 2nd Additions,
nor in either of the Rosemount Hills 1st or 2nd Additions. There was an
obvious interest by the developers of these subdivisions to see some
improvements done on CR 38.
Our county commissioner and highway engineer were involved in the first
public meeting I attended. CSAH 42 had been built from Diamond Path to the
intersection of 145th Street, just east of the U of M staff homes. The
basic attitude of the County at this time (1978) was that the priority for
the County was to extend CSAH 42 eastward. CR 38, on the other hand,
should receive some maintenance; but, any reconstruction would be put off
until the timing for a four -lane, divided highway was warranted.
It was obvious to all interested parties that there was no need or priority
for a four -lane, divided highway on this segment of CR 38, at this time.
Requests to construct a two-lane roadway had been and continued to be met
with the standard response that "the County doesn't build two-lane
highways. Funding was another obvious obstacle at this time. Rosemount
was officially under 5,000 population and any County projects were funded
100% by the County. As the 1980 census was on the horizon, most involved
assumed that Rosemount would pass the 5,000 threshold. All new projects
after this confirmation would require 45% funding by the City. The County
had gone on record to start the next segment of CSAH 42, prior to the
census. I don't think there was any question in anyone's mind that this
would be the last 100% County funded project in Rosemount.
From 1978 to 1983 there were at least three "public meetings" on the
disposition of CR 38. The census confirmed our new funding obligations
with the County. Unpredictably, this seemingly had no affect on the
County's attitude about doing anything on CR 38. The roadway was still to
be a four -lane highway; however, there was a change, tentatively agreed
upon by the County, from a divided to an undivided design. The priority to
put the road into a County construction program was still non-existent.
After a spring/summer 1983 meeting with the residents and the County, it
was obvious there was no timetable that the County would commit to.
Another request for a speed study by the State resulted in the same old
standard response,"all gravel roads are posted at 55 MPH."
COUNTY ROAD 38 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
February 7, 1986
Page Two
The City Council instructed me to start from scratch again and do whatever
was necessary to break the impasse. I called a meeting with the community
development director from Apple Valley and the public works director from
Burnsville. After a series of meetings, we reached agreement that the
three 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 Highway 3 (TH 3).
Our latter meetings were attended by Bob Sandeen, Highway Engineer. While
Bob agreed that timetables for projects 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 but to get each City
and their respective county commissioners to endorse the joint request.
This was accomplished in September, 1983, when the three cities adopted
joint resolutions calling for a construction timetable on CR 38. The
County Board accepted the resolutions and requested that the engineer
review the timetable in detail the following year when the 1985 budget was
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 to the City that CR 38 would be on the list of
potential 1985 projects, but he couldn't support its priority against other
projects.
Steve Loeding entered the scene, the fifth county commissioner for
Rosemount since 1978. Hearing from the City Council that it was our top
priority, Steve presented it to other commissioners as his only budget
priority for 1985. He came back to us, indicating that other commissioners
wanted CSAH 42 extended to the TH 52. The City Council went on record
stating that the City would agree to the CSAH 42 extension, if CR 38 was
budgeted. The 1985 County budget was approved with CR 38 reconstruction
(regrading and graveling). We also understood that the 1986 budget would
include CSAH 42.
From the fall of 1984 to the spring of 1985, the surveying and design of CR
38 was updated. Bob Sandeen retired in April. Shortly thereafter, the
County staff approached us with a new design proposal. Would the City
react favorably to a two-lane rural design? We simply stated this is what
we asked for all along.
It also became obvious that the DNR would require a permit to cross the
wetland east of 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
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
wetland permit on September 24, 1985.
During this same time (spring to fall), the County was in preparation of
their first 5 -year capital improvement program (CIP). The preliminary CIP
included CR 38 as a two-year (1986-87) grading/surfacing project; CSAH 42
from CSAH 71 to US 52 in 1986; and CSAH 42 from US 52 to TH 55 in 1987.
Our only reaction was that we simply could not afford the eastern segment
at this time. I testified this concern to the County Board at the CIP
public hearing.
COUNTY ROAD 38 PUBLI IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
February 7, 1986 •
Page Three
It was very clear that the completion of CSAH 42 to TH 55 was a priority of
the Board. County staff understood our position and recommended that the
CSAH 42 east project be a two-lane design and be funded with FAU Secondary
Funds (75% federal participation). FAU Secondary Funds are not usually
utilized by the County in cities over 5,000. The result was that the City
would pay 11% instead of 45% of the cost of this project. The City Council
was in agreement with this option and the proposed CIP. The County Board
adopted the CIP according to the timetable above and the revised funding.
The only remaining history pertaining to CR 38 regards funding. As early
as 1984 the City showed CR 38 funding in our own CIP and in the MSA
proposed CIP. The County had estimated the total cost of CR 38, from CSAH
31 to TH 3, to be $800,000. The Rosemount share was estimated at $280,000
- $300,000. On top of this, the estimates for the City share of the two
CSAH 42 projects were $495,000 and $135,000.
During the 1985 budget/CIP review, City staff realized that the City CIP
could not bear the costs of the County projects without eliminating local
funding priorities. Staff recommended that the Council look at bonding the
county road projects and using assessments and MSA funds to retire the
debt. Since budget time, staff have met with our fiscal consultant to
review the funding options.
We now understand that the City can bond for the three County projects,
provided we assess a minimum of 20% of the bonded amount of each
independent project. In other words, we would have to assess 20% of—t-Fe-
$300,000
$300,000 CR 38 costs, 20% of the $495,000 CSAH 42 costs and 20% of the
remaining $135,000 costs. There is no problem assessing CR 38, and
probably not on the easter CSAH 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
agriculture. The density for development is one home per 10 acres. There
are presently 13-15 residences that would be in an assessment district.
The U of M owns one-quarter mile 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.
Many cities look at four -lane divided highways as a negative benefit to
residences. In other 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 CSAH 42 have been built without any
area assessments. In short, the opportunity for bonding this segment has
to be carefully examined. An assessment to the adjacent property owners
may be justified, but the amount needed to make the 20% 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,
requested by the County, on January 7. There were approximately 80 people
in attendance. I was there to get information, not unlike the residents.
The residents wanted the bottom line --the costs. We simply could not
speculate on any assessment rates at that time.
COUNTY ROAD 38 PUBLI IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
February 7, 1986 •
Page Four
I learned on the day of this meeting that the total project cost had been
adjusted to $1,100,000. 1 learned at the meeting that the shoulders were
proposed to be paved instead of graveled. The City share was now estimated
at $385,000. Since that time the "official" cost estimate is $1,215,150
and the City share is $422,550.
At the January 7 meeting, which was opened by Commissioner Loeding, a
neighborhood "group" emerged. Jim Dobrahner, 12765 Chinchilla Avenue West,
was the first to speak. He indicated that the area residents had met in a
private home to discuss the project. He stated he was the secretary of an
area committee that was farmed. He indicated the group had appointed
George Coffee as its spokesperson.
Mr. Coffee spent a considerable amount of time giving a project history,
including criticism of foot dragging by the City and losing funding
options. A considerable amount of time was spent on speed limits and
design issues. His commentary resembled a list of demands.
While a number of people did choose to speak, most of the commentary
centered on ill-founded rumors about assessment rates and traffic
congestion. 1 observed many more people in the audience, through their
groans and facial expressions, that were not in agreement with actual
comments being made. Unfortunately, few of these people actually voiced
their opinions.
While the County and City staff tried to address the concerns and
criticisms, the vocal persons in the crowd remained unsatisfied. I don't
think anyone believed us when we said we, as a county or city, cannot set
the speed limit. They want 35 MPH posted. They would not listen when we
said the State would not allow us to prohibit trucks. The county engineer
went on record saying he wouldn't prohibit trucks anyway.
The claims of a few people that the road was presently a race track and
that there was considerable truck traffic on it already, was not shared by
all. Several people approached me after the meeting to say that the
chronic speeders were the very same people that were complaining. I have
had many people approach me in person and call me on the phone to indicate
they are not represented by the "committee and are in favor of the
improvement. I have pleaded with all of them to speak up at the hearing.
I think there is genuine interest by the great majority of the residents to
see the project go forward. There is also understandable concern about
costs. I had at least five different individuals claim that they were
informed by non -city and non -county sources that the cost to each home
would be $10,000.
I stated at the meeting that it was impossible to give any estimate of cost
at that time. I did go on record as saying the City's policy was to assess
a local street equivalent cost to all of the benefitted properties on an
area basis. I also informed them that the City had done a 50/50 cost share
on one collector street (Chippendale Avenue, south of CSAH 42). This was a
complete reconstruction with utilities and the 50/50 City split was agreed
upon to bring the assessment rate closer to a local equivalent cost.
COUNTY ROAD 38 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
February 7,1986 � •
• Page Five
I handed out a cost/funding outline 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 closest in design to the White Lake Acres
streets. Two very big differences are that CR 38 is a 9 -ton road and has
10 -feet paved shoulders. The White Lake Acres streets are 7 -ton with 4 -
feet gravel shoulders. The contract cost of the local streets comes out to
$42.12 per lineal foot (L.F.). Using this figure as an equivalent cost for
assessment purposes is not only logical, it is fair. The total cost/L.F.
on CR 38 is $104.92.
The Rosemount portion of CR 38 is roughly 8,950 feet in length. At
$42/L.F. as the residential street equivalent, the assessable value or cost
would be $375,900. We estimate the maximum cost to the City, including
right-of-way, at $450,000. If all of the above rationale and figures are
used, the City needs to find another $75,000 to pay for the project. 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 would 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
completed. A few of the platted lots exceed 10 acres, yet because of
street frontage and/or drainage easements we will probably recommend a
single 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 one unit because we probably would not
approve a variance to split it into two lots. We may assess 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.
For the purposes of the public improvement hearing on Tuesday, we have some
conservative cost estimates that have been published in the hearing notice.
We stated the total cost of the Rosemount segment was $1,000,000. We also
stated the maximum estimated assessment would be $500,000. Officially,
these figures can not be exceeded as they relate to an assessment project
without holding another hearing. The worst case scenerio, using $500,000
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 $375,900 assessment amount (at $42/L.F.) and 130
assessment units. This results in the $2,892/unit estimated on the one
page outline. This appears to be a very fair assessment, considering the
benefit and the fact that no one has previously 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 of the residents, that
the City is utilizing all of its "grant" options to fund the road. There
will definitely be pressure to utilize as much MSA funding as possible.
COUNTY ROAD 38 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
February 7, 1986
Page Six
In fairness to other collector street improvements, particularly those
without MSA designation (such as 130th Street), the City must stick to the
policy of assessing on the residential street equivalent basis. We have
proposed assessing the total cost of 130th Street to the benefitted
properties. This is largely 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 project any differently would jeopardize funding of other projects and
also raises legal questions.
As far as the use of MSA funds and assessments on projects are concerned,
we have put projects into two categories: maintenance or overlay and
reconstruction or new construction. We don't propose assessments on the
former but we do on the latter. One exception of this was the downtown
project. We did not end up assessing a full residential equivalent to
benefitted properties, largely because we ended up utilizing nearly
$300,000 in Community Development Block 'Grant funds. We'll never see that
option again.
We have been to 1 d by the MnDOT d i str i ct off i ce that we can draw up to the
total local cost of the CR 38 project. We have been told by all of the
experts --SEH, Springsted and MnDOT--that we should draw the maximum amount
we are entitled to on every project we do. We have done this in the past.
The unused funds from other projects now totals roughly $120,000. These
are set aside for whatever projects we want --on or off the MSA systema
I would recommend we draw the maximum on CR 38, even though the residents
will point out that the MSA funds could pay all or a bigger portion of the
assessments. We simply have to look at all of the projects we have at the
present time.
We presently have $755,000 in our MSA construction fund, through 1986.
This is in addition to the $120,000 mentioned above. Listed below are some
of the pending projects and cost estimates. I make no attempt to propose
priority; although the Council has gone on record as supporting all of the
County projects.
PROJECT
CR 38
33/42 Signal
Chip/42 Signal
Canada/42 turns
42:71 to 52
CITY COST
$ 450,000
$ 40,000
$ 45,000
$ 12,000
$ 500,000
-145th
Street East
$
150,000
42:52
to 55
$
135,000
155th
(O'Leary's)
$
230,000
145th
St. West
$
300,000
MSA
$ 75,000
$ 40,000
$ 45,000
$ 12,000
$ 250,000
$ 150,000
$ 55,000
$ 300,000
TOTALS $ 1,862,000 $ 927,000
OTHER
$ 375,000 Assessment
General Fund(?)
$250K GO Bond
$50K Assessed;
$135,000 Assessed
$175,000 Assessed
$ 935,000
COUNTY ROAD 38 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
February 7, 1986
Page Seven
Looking at the same projects from a different angle, I'll list the projects
committed for 1986, the maximum MSA draw, and how to fund out of our
"local" MSA fund.
PROJECT
COST
MSA DRAW
MSA FUND
LOCAL FUND
Starting Balance
--
--
$
755,000
$ 120,000
CR 38
$
450,000
$ 450,000
$
305,000
$
495,0001
155th Street
$
230,000
$ 230,000
$
75,000
$
670,0002
Chip/42 Signal
$
45,000
$ 45,000
$
30,000
$
670,000
33/42 Signal*
$
40,000
--
$
30,000
$
630,000
Canada Avenue*
$
12,000
--
$
30,000
$
618,000
42:71 to 52*
$
500,000
--
$
30,000
$
368,0003
lAdded $375,000 from Assessments *Off the MSA system
2Added $175,000 from Assessments
3Reflects $250,000 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 Section 31 segments), 145th Street
(Cameo to Chippendale), 42/TH3 signal and 160th Street. There is obviously
some concern about funding all of these or others in the near future. The
only option we may have is to bond for street projects and pledge future
MSR allocations for bond redemption.
There is a considerable amount of information here to be considered. I
felt it would be impossible to present any of this verbally, especially at
a public improvement hearing. My only objective is to give the Council
enough information to evaluate the issues and be able to make a decision,
rather than rubber 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 formal review, Dakota County can not go any further without a formal go
ahead by the City.
There are a few other comments needed to clear up the questions you may
have about the cost increases on this project. Minutes of the staff
meeting and my own remarks earlier centered on $100,000 to $120,000
additional costs because of the shouldering. This figure was given by the
county staff at the January 7 meeting. Gary Erickson, the new highway
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 earthwork was known. This figure accounts
for about $200,000 extra. MnDOT required turn lanes be added at TH 3. The
estimates for shouldering the road added $45-50,000.
COUNTY ROAD 38 PUBLIC IfOVEMENT PROJECT
February 7, 1986
Page Eight
Steve Campbell has reviewed the itemized cost estimates and feels they are
in order. Gary Erickson's only other comment was that he feels estimates
were made a couple of years ago. Since that time some sort of inflation
figure was added to bring the costs up each year. Unfortunately, the
original estimates were low.
As far as the meeting itself is concerned, I would offer the following
recommendations. 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 Council should then state it is the City's intention to assess the
project on the residential street equivalent basis and with the five -acre
unit area assessment basis. These costs could be as high as $4,167 per
unit; however, we estimate the actual to be under $3,000.
I think the Council should state right up front that the proposed design is
finally what we asked for 10 years ago. I recommend the Council state up
front that trucks will not be prohibitted from using the roadway. Finally,
I think the Council should state it will formally request that the road be
posted with a 35 MPH speed limit. The fact that this isn't likely to
happen doesn't matter. We should be positive and just plain go along with
the request.
Finally, I would recommend 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 people from
simply speaking from their seats. There were occasions when the comment
period got out of hand at the January 7 meeting.
In summary, I am sure the list of projects and methods for funding will
raise many questions. We have several options to consider at this time.
Fortunately, nothing needs to be decided at the February 11 Special
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 thoughts on paper, but it seemed appropriate. I would be happy
to discuss this in more detail with anyone as time permits.