Loading...
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.