Loading...
04/02/1993 - City Council Public Works Committee-11 I MEMO TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE COUNCILMEMBER WACHTER, CHAIRPERSON COUNCILMEMBER MASIN THOMAS A COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS FROM: THOMAS L HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: APRIL 2, 1993 SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING A Public Works Committee meeting has been scheduled for 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 6, in Conference Rooms A & B. The purpose of the meeting is to review the Kingswood 2nd Addition escrow account with Rollie Crawford, legal counsel for Jim Horne the owner and developer of the property, and further to review additional information the Director of Public Works has received discussing safety issues for the Lone Oak/Lexington Avenue intersection project. Enclosed for Council background information is a packet prepared by the Director of Public Works entitled "Public Works Committee Meeting - Review of Kingswood 2nd Addition Escrow Account" and a letter from the Dakota County Traffic Engineer, Peter Sorenson, addressing the safety issues for the Lone Oak/Lexington Avenue intersection project. City Administrator TLH/jj Attachments MEMO TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE C/O COUNCILMEMBER WACHTER, CHAIRPERSON COUNCILMEMBER MASIN THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: MARCH 25, 1993 SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING REVIEW OF KINGSWOOD 2ND ADDITION ESCROW ACCOUNT (PROJECT #88 -SS) At the December 1, 1992 Council meeting, the City Council referred the issue of the outstanding escrow balance for the Kingswood 2nd Addition back to the Public Works Committee for further review and recommendation for full Council action. Due to the fact that the makeup of the Public Works Committee has changed and the period of time that has elapsed from the original request for consideration submitted by the Developer's Attorney, I felt it would be best to forward to the committee background information pertinent to this issue. Attached in chronological order are various copies of correspondence, minutes, etc. that will refresh the Public Works Committee on the issues. After reviewing this information, it would be appropriate for the Public Works Committee members to formally schedule a committee meeting to further discuss these concerns with the Developer and/or his legal representative. Once a meeting has been set, staff will notify all appropriate parties and coordinate the meeting. If you need any additional information, please feel free to contact me and I will be happy to respond accordingly. Thomas A. Colbert Enclosures cc: Jim Sheldon, City Attorney, w/o encl. Gene VanOverbeke, w/o encl. TACAe PIISLIC WORKS COMMITTEE KEETING 4200 P.M. MARCH 31# 1992 At 4:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 31, 1992, the Public Works Committee met in Conference Rooms A i B of the Municipal Center to review the request of the developer of the Kingswood 2nd Addition to reduce the charges associated with the escrow account for Project 88 -SS, Kingswood 2nd Addition. Those in attendance were Rollie Crawford, Attorney for the developer, James Horne; -.Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works; Tom Hedges,, City Administrator; Mike Dougherty, Assistant City Attorney; Mayor Tom Egan & Councilmember Ted Wachter, Chair. The Committee reviewed a memo prepared by Tom Colbert dated March .25 which provided a summary of a previous meeting between City staff -and the developer's representative discussing the outstanding escrow balance for the Kingswood 2nd Addition, Project 88 -SS. The meeting began with Mr. Crawford reiterating the developer's concerns and position as originally stated in his letter of February 19, 1991, and specifically responding to Mr. Colbert's memo of March 25 identifying it (eleven) activities unique to this development justifying the costs incurred. Mr. Crawford requested the Public Works Committee to take into consideration their feelings that many of these costs were incurred either as a benefit to the City or at the specific request and requirement of the City, thereby justifying a reduction in the escrow account through some joint participation by the City. Of the outstanding escrow balance of approximately $42,,500 ($746 per lot),, Mr. Crawford felt that the City should reduce the outstanding escrow balance by approximately $14,000 ($246 per lot) to reflect the City's share for their involvement in this project. At the conclusion of Mr. Crawford's presentation, he excused himself from the meeting to allow the Public Works Committee to consider the developer's request and arrive at a recommendation. After further discussion of the history of the project by various members present, the Public Works Committee recommended that the escrow account be reduced by $31575 ($63 per lot) to reflect 50% of the City's staff time ($7,157) charged to this escrow account. City staff was then directed to review this recommendation with Mr. Crawford in hopes of reaching an agreement that can be jointly presented to the City Council at the next appropriate meeting. The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:30 p.m. Respectful 2 tt zec--c D' ector of Public Wor s TAC/ j j MOMS AT LAW LEVANDER, GILLEN & MILLER, P.A. A33 LO= CONCORD S'= 0=402 ra"U8 8OM a PAUL. UNNESOTA 55075 412-01-1831 EAx all-IS0 TM . November 4, 1992 . Mr. James Sheldon ' City Attorney 600 Midway- National Bank Building - 7300 W. 147th Street Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 ARTHUR GUIM 00= C.UK.= >,>J.Um AUM L EMON lam a. CRAI 7M J=Y it Nam nUML Comm J. NNW suzo fii J.1Y y UUM LE101NDER NIO.1992 RE: Kings Wood 2nd Addition — Horne Development Corporation Negative Escrow Question Dear Mr. Sheldon: I have reviewed the fairly extensive information that the City has provided in connection with the escrow charges for Rings Wood 2nd Addition escrow charges. I have also reviewed with Mr. Horne the considerable information provided by the City Staff in connection with their justification of the charges on this project. It is fair to say that the number of questions that arose as a result of this project are accurately listed in the staff information. The continuing disagreement would appear to be over the responsibility for those questions and who should bear the costs connected with their resolution. As we have stated in our meetings and other conversations, the realignment of the access to Pilot Knob Road was initiated by the City for purposes of requiring the, Kings 'Wood entrance to be aligned. with a proposed future entrace to the City property across the street. This realignment of the access resulted in numerous meetings and time and caused significant additional engineering, including the access to Jim Horne•s own driveway and the curvature of the road around the ,Allen hotvik property. It further caused a considerable amount of engineering effort in connection with the street profile of Coronation Road. There were substantial additional costs to Horne Development Corporation for his private engineering and legal work in connection with these changes to accomodate the City. All of this occurred inspite of the fact that Rings Wood had a previously platted legal access to Pilot Knob Road which Horne Development Corporation had full right and authority to use as part of a previously approved plat, and in fact, had intended to use. 6/ James Sheldon November 4, 1992 Page Two It is our firm position that that the City staff initiative the atypical engineering costs this plat. this redesign of the streets at resulted in the major portion of In connection with the design of While it would be tempting to enter into ■ "dueling banjos` scenario on this matter and deal with each of the occurances on an item by item basis, I believe that we had concluded some time ago. that simply is not the gray to reach resolution. Our preferred approach is. to - step back from the detail In order to diffuse some of the feelings that have,' arisen � over this matter and to try to resolve it by. looking at the `ttpicell, costs of a subdivision and perhaps making some adjustments from that number. It was this latter approach that I thought had resulted in an earlier tentative resolution of the matter whereby the subdivision would be expected to pay $450 per lot for all of the services that were provided. That figure is considerably higher than the "typical" cost (perhaps double) for a subdivision in recognition of some of the unique features that this subdivision enjoys. It is also lower than the actual costs because it is our firm belief that a substantial amount of those costs were caused by the City's actions for its own purposes unrelated to the needs of the developer of the subdivision. To use this type of approach is IIs, an attempt to evade, the reality of the actual costs, it is merely a recognition that if we expend the resources to deal with the details and challenge each of those assumptions, the costs of resolution of the matter will exceed the amounts in dispute. Therefore, based upon our review and analysis we renew our request that the matter be settled. In the interest of demonstrating a willingness to get this matter behind us we will offer to settle the matter at $500 per lot for a total amount of $28,500.00 as opposed to the $42,500.00 which has been charged. I would be most happy to meet with you and discuss this matter at your convenience. ve ly yours, rAa-L /. Rollin H. Crawford RHC:ln cc: James Horne MINUTES OF THE iPUBUC WORKS COMMITTEE "oven 23, 1992 A Public Works Committee meeting was held at 7:30 a.m. on Monday, November 23,1992 at Bakers Square Restaurant to discuss: 1) Kings Wood Settlement, 2) Cedar Grove Appraisals and 3) Parranto Assessment Objection. Those in attendance were Public Works Committee Members Mayor Egan and Committee Chair City Councilmember Wachter. Also In attendance were Director of Public Works Colbert, Director of Finance VanOverbeke, City Attorney Sheklon and City Administrator Hedges. YJNGS WOOD SETTLEMENT Director of Public Works Colbert reviewed the status of the Kings Wood escrow, stating that the amount of the escrow balance has been in dispute by Home Development Corporation for the Kings Wood Development for over a year. He reminded the Public Works Committee that at a Committee meeting on March 31, 1992, the Committee agreed to a 50 percent reduction of the City's staff time, which Is a reduction of $3,575, amounting to approximately $63 per lot. The per lot cost, according to the Public Works Committee recommendation, would be $683, a reduction from the original per lot cost of $746. This recommendation was a direct response to a proposal submitted by Rollie Crawford, on behalf of Home Development Corporation, during March, 1992 to reduce the amount of the escrow to $500 per lot. The Public Works Committee recommendation at $663 per lot was presented to Mr. Crawford in early April. After several months of negotiations, Mr. Crawford has submitted another letter dated November 4,1992 and is again suggesting the settlement at $500 per lot. After a lengthy discussion, it was the findings of the Public Works Committee to again support the March 31, 1992 recommendation which reduces the per lot cost for the Kings Wood escrow balance by $63 per lot, $746 to $663. h was reiterated that the out- of-pocket costs charged In the escrow balance were for services requested by Home Development Corporation and any adjustment would be a direct subsidy to the general fund. it was suggested that the Public Works Committee recommendation be considered by the City Council at the December 1, 1992 meeting. CEDAR GROVE APPRAISALS The Director of Public Works stated that appraisals for the Cedar Grove street and utility reconstruction, Project #617R, will be ready on approximately December 3. The City Attorney stated that the preliminary analysis is $1,500 to $3,000 per lot. The Director of Public Works expressed concern that the City Council be given an opportunity to review appraisals by the December 8 public hearing date. After further consideration, it was agreed that the Public Works Committee would meet at 7.30 am. on Monday, December 7 to review the appraisals and present a recommendation to the City Council for the December 8 special Cedar Grove hearing to be held at Mary, Mother of the Church. PARRANTO ASSESSMENTS City Attorney Sheldon reviewed an appraisal that Dick Heinen has reviewed for the Parranto assessment levied under Project 622. The Director of Public Works has met with Mr. Mark Parranto to discuss his objection to special assessments for the Cedar Industrial Park improvements. it appears that Mr. Parranto's main objection is the direct we for the driveway approach aprons, stating that Mr. Parranto has requested a credit for the recent parking lot hnprovement on his property. Mr. Colbert stated that the only objection with the 25 to 30 parols levied in assessment In the Cedar Industrial Park and the 40 to 50 parcels in Eagandale Industrial Park was Mr. Parranto's. After further consideration, staff and the Public Works Committee both agreed that a 50 percent reduction of the driveway apron assessment, estimated at $3,800, be authorized, which offsets the previous parking lot Improvements paid by Mark Parranto. r� Page 2/PUBUC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES November 23, 1992 OTHER BUSINESS The Director of Public Works and' Cky Adrrdn>drator explained an issue the City has wqwWx)ed regarding detailed engineering plans and specifications for the Lexington Pointe 8th Addition Projea ft was explained that Brad Swenson has been retained by Bob Engstrom to perform the engineering design for City - utBitles and street improvernents. It was pointed out that many of the pians are kxWnpiets, which is causing a delay for final plat approval for Lexington Pointe 8th Addition. The Public Works Committee agreed that no utilities should proceed nor should the final plat in any way be approved prior to an acceptable set of plans for the street infrastructure. 1120-1lei The meeting was adjoumed at approximately 9:00 a.m. Dated: November 23, 1992 6y TLH Agenda Information Memo December 1,1992, City Council Meeting A. Kingswood 2nd Addition, Review of Escrow Account Balance (Project 88-SS)—In an effort to close out the contract for the above -referenced subdivision, City staff has requested the developer to reimburse the City in accordance with the executed escrow and development contract agreements for expenses incurred by the City associated with the development of the Kingswood 2nd Addition. The developer, James Horne, through his attorney, Rollie Crawford, has appeared before the City Council objecting to the amount of expenses incurred by the City contending that they were excessive and requesting the City Council to significantly reduce the amount of their obligation The City Council then directed several City staff representatives to meet with Mr. Crawford to review and discuss the issues and, if an understanding cannot be reached, to then present it to the Public Works Committee for consideration with a recommendation to be returned to the City Council at a later date. On March 16, City staff met with Mr. Crawford and, after reviewing all the various issues associated with this development, it was agreed that the issue could not be resolved and should be directed to the Public. Works Committee. On Tuesday, March 31, the Public Works Committee met and reviewed the staffs report (7 pages, 6 exhibits) and Mr.. Crawford's position. Enclosed on page is a. copy of the minutes from that Public Works. Committee meeting. This Committee's recommendation was then forwarded to Mr. Crawford for a response which is included on pages Q and . With Mr. Crawford's response not being different from the position presented at the March 31 Public Works Committee meeting, it was again reviewed by the Public Works Committee on November 23. A copy of those minutes is enclosed on pages and.. The Public Works Committee concluded that with no change in the developers position, the Public Works Committee recommendation of March 31 should remain as previously stated and the issue forwarded to the City Council for final determination on December 1. Copies of the developer's original letter of February 19, 1991, and the multi page summary report by staff dated March 25, 1992, which were reviewed in detail by the Public Works Committee, is available for any member of the City Council's review if desired. If requested, a copy of this detailed background information will be provided under separate cover. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To review the escrow account balance of the Kingswood 2nd Addition (Project 88 -SS) and determine an appropriate amount to be collected within a specific time frame under the terms and conditions of the development contract and escrow agreements. sf o` •- �---"4 VLvV PAGE 5/EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES December 1, 1992 13NGSWOOD 2ND ADDITION Mayor Egan introduced this item as Kingswood 2nd Addition, Review of Escrow Account Balance (Project 8&SS). City Administrator Hedges reviewed the request by Home Development Corporation to reduce the escrow balance from $746 per, lot to 5500. He stated that the Public Works Committee had met and was recommending a reduction of $63 per lot to $683. Councilmember Pawlenty stated that he did not have difficulty with the recommendation but was concerned about allegations the developer presented approximately a year ago that consulting engineers were overbilling. City Attorney Sheldon advised that his office had reviewed the allegations and through meetings with Rollie Crawford, attorney for Horne Development, the bills referenced by Mr. Crawford had been explained. Rollie Crawford, representing Home Development Corporation, outlined their objections to the costs incurred with Kingswood 2nd Addition. He cited excessive costs associated with changing the Kingswood access to align with the proposed City access as well as going from too few inspections to too many. When asked why Horne Development did not object to the costs when they occurred, Mr. Crawford admitted they should have but said the costs were incurred in 1989 and a bill was not received until 18 months later. He also complained that change orders were necessitated when City staff reviewed and redlined design plans after the plat was approved. Director of Pubic Works Colbert pointed out that several years ago developers complained of having to design projects to such an extent before the City Council even reviewed the project that changes were made to the process. He said technical review of the project drawings does occur after preliminary plat. Discussion continued, however, Mayor Egan stated that the issue had been thoroughly discussed at a Public Works Committee meeting and suggested it was difficult to negotiate during, a City Council meeting. Councilmember Pawlenty agreed that the appropriate forum would be between Mr. Crawford and the City Attorney and Public Works Committee. Mr. Crawford said that if the City Council wished to delegate to the Committee, they would agree to continue to negotiate. While there were some reservations about whether the action would be counterproductive, McCrea moved, Pawlenty seconded, a motion to refer review of the escrow account balance of the Kingswood 2nd Addition (Project 88 -SS) back to the Public Works Committee. Aye: 4 Nay: 0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/OUTDOOR STORAGE TOM THUMB/YANKEE SQUARE Mayor Egan introduced this item as a conditional use permit for Tom Thumb, to allow outdoor storage in a Commercial Zoning District on Lot 1, Block 1, Bicentennial 19 Addition, located along the south side of Yankee Doodle Road in the NE 1/4 of Section 16. The Mayor stated that because the issue is outside storage, the next item, which is also a conditional use permit for the Blackhawk Plaza Tom Thumb, will be handled with this application. City Administrator Hedges advised that both items were considered by the Advisory Planning , Commission meeting on July 28, 1992, and they had recommended denial for reasons set forth in the minutes of that meeting. He further stated that the issue was continued by the City Council at their August 4 megting and discussed in detail at a joint APC/City Council meeting on November 24. Acting Community Development Director Jon Hohenstein explained the applications. He said both applications had proposed outside storage in front of their respective buildings with treated lumber as the MEMO TO: PUBLIC *0RXS COMMITTEE It % MAYOR TOM EGAN, CHAIR, COUNCILXZXBER TED 'WACHTER �. THOMAS L HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: MARCH 27, 1992 FROM: THOMAS A COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORM SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING REVIEW OF XINGSWOOD 2ND ADDITION ESCROW ACCOUNT (PROJECT 88-88) At 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 31, the Public Works Committee will meet to review the issues raised by Mr. James Horne through his attorney, Mr. Rollie Crawford, pertaining to the, outstanding balance of $30,960 for the Kingswood 2nd Addition escrow account (Project 88 -SS). The developer's original concerns were addressed in a letter dated February 19, 1991. Staff has researched the project files and interviewed the individuals involved (both consultant and City staff) and provided a response to Mr. Crawford at the March 16 meeting. Attached you will find a copy of the summary of the issues and staff's response from that meeting. It was agreed that both staff's response and Mr. Crawford's summary comments would be forwarded to the Public Works Committee for their consideration at the next meeting scheduled for March 31. It is hoped that with this detailed background information being provided to the Public Works Committee in advance of the meeting, the discussions at the meeting would be limited to responding to specific questions of the Committee allowing them to render a judgement and a recommendation to be considered by the full Council at a later date. If any additional information. would be helpful prior to or at the meeting, please let me know in advance so that proper preparations can be made. Respectfully submitted, Di ector of Public Wors TAC/jj cc: Mike Foertsch, Assistant City Engineer Jim Sheldon, City Attorney Gene VanOverbeke, Director of Finance Rollie Crawford, Developer's Attorney Attachment XIO TO: PUBLIC WORKS CO LITTEE XAYOR TOS[ NGANS CRAIRs COUNCIL1MKBZR TED WACKTER 6 THOMAS L nDAE8, CITY ADX13118TRATOR DATE: I[ARRCH 25, 1992 FROM: THOXAS A COLB'ERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORIS BIIBJECT: SUMMARY OF ESCROW REPIEW JLEETIUG XXNQ8WOOD 2ND ADOITXON, PRXVXTE PROJECT i8-88 At 3:30 p.m. on Monday, March 16, a meeting was held between the City and the developer's representative to discuss the outstanding escrow balance for the above -referenced subdivision. Those in attendance were as follows: Tom Hedges, City Administrator Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works Jim Sheldon, City Attorney Mike Foertsch, Assistant City Engineer Gene VanOverbeke, Director of Finance Jon Hohenstein, Assistant to City Administrator Rollie Crawford, Developer's Attorney CONCERN Mr. -Crawford initiated discussion by reiterating the developer's (Jim Horne) concern pertaining to the significant outstanding escrow balance for the Kingswood 2nd Addition. . Mr. Horne feels that the costs charged to the escrow account are excessive and beyond what is necessary for a 57 -lot residential development. Mr. Crawford indicated that he had three independent private engineering firms review the costs charged by the City. He indicated that they too felt that the costs appear too excessive for what would be expected for this size of development. Mr. Crawford recognized the difficulty of the City in reviewing and certifying the accuracy of invoices submitted by others on a microscopic evaluation. However, he felt that the overall total billings as a whole exceeded what was expected or anticipated by the developer. Mr. Crawford felt that the developer should not have to pay for everything for a system that appeared to be "out of control" with limited opportunities for the developer to be aware of the costs being incurred so that a "time out" could be called to try and correct and modify the situation. RESPONSE Tom Colbert responded by first acknowledging Mr. Crawford's diplomacy and patience in continuing to work with the City. in trying to address, understand and resolve the issues involved. He proceeded to indicate that it is not possible for the City to be 1 able to verify the number of miles or specific hours charged to a project without having -another City individual present with that consultant the entire time. It was mutually recognized that the City has to rely on the professionalism of the consultants who were hired to perform the services requested by the City as required by the development. Attached to this memo as Exhibit "A" is a summary of the .City's escrow charges broken down between the various eelements charging time or costs against this project. - From discussions, it appears the three primary areas of concern were the costs incurred by Braun Testing Services and the City's two consulting engineering firms of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates (BRAA) and Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 8 Associates.(OSM). Issus's Vb1' our TO TRIS RMILOZOM I. Time Frame This particular development occurred -over a time span of approximately three years. The preliminary plat application was submitted on April 15, 1988, with final acceptance being processed February 5, 1991. During this time frame, there were numerous meetings and discussions that generated chargeable expenses to this account. 2. Pilot Knob Road Acbess While it is recognized that the developer had an existing approved public street access -to Pilot Knob Road, after several discussions andmeetings with City and County staff as.well as Planning Commission and City Council meetings, it was ultimately acknowledged and agreed to that relocating . this access to the north in accordance with the County's spacing guidelines would be. most beneficial for this major arterial roadway and safe access to both the Kingswood Addition and the future Community Center site. There were' numerous meetings and discussions regarding the merits, requirements and/or necessity to reach this final design. 8. Road Alignm+snt/Easemrnt From Allen Notvik (Exhibit pall) Mr. Allen Notvik (1421 Kingswood Road) was an existing homeowner affected by the platting and roadway alignments and its related easements associated with this proposed plat. In response to Mr. Notvik's concerns expressed at public hearings, phone calls and meetings at City hall, City staff met with Mr. Notvik several times in his home and at the site to review the concern he had regarding his existing large trees, driveway access. on a curve, future utility installations within easements outside of right-of-way, etc. Several roadway alignment and elevation changes resulted from these meetings in order address Mr. Notvik's concerns. At one point, with the developer's apparent inability to acquire the necessary easements from Mr. Notvik, the developer petitioned the 2 City to have a portion of the project installed under a public improvement to provide for property acquisition through condemnation. It was as .a result of these meetings involving City staff (and chargeable time) that .this condemnation process was averted and Mr. Notvik subsequently agreed to the modified roadway design. The City agreed to reducing the boulevard width and plat. easement dedication requirements. 4. Outlot C Driveway Access . (Rzhibit 01211) Outlot C is the large tract of land fronting on Pilot Knob Road just south of the Old Town Hall. The developer's interest in rezoning this property to Roadside Business (RB) resulted in several meetings with staff in regards to not only, the appropriateness of the rezoning but the required driveway entrance to Kingswood Road in relationship to the divided median entrance proposed by the .developer. Several alternate designs for the Kingswood Road divided entrance were proposed and revised before the final approved alignment was agreed upon. S. Roar Yard Sanitary favor Alignmout (Ezhibit "C") Due to the City's maintenance needs to ensure accessibility to all sanitary manholes for preventative and corrective maintenance, any alignment through a heavily wooded steep rear yard area effectively precludes ready accessibility. Subsequently, alternate designs were investigated to determine if another design was possible. Recognizing that keeping the sanitary sewer within the dedicated public right-of-way would result in approximately 15' of overdepth construction potentially affecting substantial mature trees, a compromised alignment of the sanitary sewer through the rear yard area was ultimately achieved. G. Jif Horne's Driveway Drainage (hzhibit "B") Due to Mr. Horne's existing residence being located substantially below the future street grade, additional design and review considerations had to be taken into account to ensure that street drainage would not adversely affect Mr. Horne's structurethrough his driveway entrance. 7. Connection to Cutter's Ridge Addition (B=hibit "D") With the Cutter's Ridge let Addition, a half right-of-way was dedicated for a future street connection to the Kingswood Addition. In reviewing the grading and drainage plans, the elevations desired by Kingswood Addition were not compatible with those anticipated and planned for by the Cutter's Ridge development. With both 3 r developers feeling the responsibility was on the other party to revise their plan and perform the additional grading as necessary, considerabletime was spent by staff in discussions with both developers and reviewing alternate plans in arriving at. an acceptable compromise to make both developments compatible for their .street interconnection. In addition to planning and coordination of this street interconnection, additional construction inspection and management was required to address the concerns of both developers. S. Street Profile of Coronation Road Coronation Road (replatted into Kingswood Drive) had an existing water main. The new street elevation had to be modified to ensure that the developer did not incur the expense of removing and relaying this water main to maintain the minimum/maximum depths required by City standards. This was achieved by providing insulation in certain areas and reviewing different profile alternates.. 9. Removal vs. Abandonment of Banitary Barrer By 352 MXhibit.N2") t_ With the reconstruction of I -35E, the City.rs trunk sanitary sewer was reconstructed and relocated. Subsequently, the Kingswood Addition petitioned for the vacation of this abandoned sanitary sewer easement. The developer was resistant to the City's proposal to remove this abandoned sanitary sewer due to .the fact that it would be located underneath future house foundations. After several meetings, the developer subsequently agreed to the physical removal of this abandoned sanitary sewer. During construction operations, the contractor encountered various debris and unsuitable soils which then had to be replaced resulting in additional inspection and contract management services due to the fact that it was located in a -future building pad site. 10. Boi1.Tasting Services Soil testing costs of approximately $5,500 was charged against this account. This is an unusually high number but was necessary due to the number of soil compaction/density failures encountered by the City's inspector during the construction operations. The material was so dry through this project that the contractor subsequently had to bring in A tanker truck to provide the appropriate moisture to achieve required densities. On a City contract, the contractor is responsible for all costs associated with tests that. fail. With this private contract, we are not aware of the developer's financial requirement .of the contractor regarding reimbursement for similar failed density tests.. Subsequently, all costs incurred by the City were charged,to the escrow account. 0 11. Requests For Additional =nspection Due to the problems being encountered by the contractor, the developer had made a :specific request for additional inspection seryices by the City's consultant. The developer expressed concerns that he did not see the City's inspector out there. as often as he felt was necessary to protect the developer's interests in not having to be responsible for any corrective work that may be required due to faulty construction. Subsequently, BRAA was requested to increase the level of inspection services during the month of October when the major utility construction was occurring. This ,amounted to 104 hours ($5,300) with the. next highest month of inspection time being only 31 hours over the entire process. While the developer initially requested this additional inspection service, he now feels that it is inappropriate and should not be billed to him. Of the $42,500 charged against this escrow account, approximately $20,500 (48%) were costs incurred prior to the City's issuance of a "Permit To Proceed". With the exception of approximately $1,500 being spent by BRAA for inspection of the grading operations and related erosion control measures, all other costs are associated with the reviews of the preliminary and final plat applications and detailed plans and specifications as well as numerous meetings with developers, existing property owners, engineers, etc. Based on several of the unique issues described previously, the City acknowledges that there were additional hours and costs incurred beyond what would be expected-bf a "typical" 57 -lot development. This is the part of the process where OSM's total costs were incurred. They are broken down as follows: April & May 188 17h hours Nov., Dec., Jan. 188/189 13k hours April & May 189 94 hours T+OTAL............... 125 ROURS f .1._1_II@ l ii _;r #T.) � Preliminary plat review and staff report preparation. Grading plan review. Detailed plan and specifications and contract review. Again, the major concern with the OSM bill appears to relate to the 94 hours during the Spring of 1989. Itis not unusual for a "typical" development to have approximately 16 hours charged for development contract review.and preparation of financial security requirements. Also, it is not unusual for approximately 30-40 hours (average 36) to be spent on detailed plan and specification 5 review and resubmittal/approval processes. Therefore, it appears that this development had approximately 42 hours of consultant (OSM) time spent due to the unique issues listed previously. As can be seenby the revision section on the plan sheets (Exhibit "F"), there, are eight documented revisions to the detailed plans associated with various meetings with the City, PCA, etc., over a 10 -month period which are considerable more than expected with a "typical" development. Of the $42,500 total cost charged to the escrow' account, approximately $22,000 (528) were associated with costs incurred after the City's issuance of the Permit To Proceed. The major expenses associated with this process relate to the soil testing services explained previously and the charges by BRAA ($13,900). As identified earlier, $5,300 (388) of BRAA's cost ryas incurred during the month of October for an increase in inspection services due to the difficulties associated with utility construction, as requested by the developer. Also, the developer requested that the consulting inspector check in with him every time the inspector visited the site. Many times, this resulted in additional discussions and meetings beyond the actual inspection services required resulting in additional time spent. a While the developer feels that the costs incurred are more than what is associated with a "typical" development, this particular development had several unique circumstances that made it anything but "typical' (i.e., existing homeowners, heavily wooded severe topography, compatibility with adjacent developments, etc.). Also, the consulting services provided during the plan review stage was in direct response to the development community!s request that the City hire additional consultants to provide these services recognizing the heavy development pace that was occurring within the community and the inability of the existing City staff and lone consultant to process development reviews in the time frame desired by developers. The City staff is very sensitive to'the costs charged against any development while trying to ensure that the design and/or construction of infrastructure facilities to be owned and maintained in perpetuity by the City is done so that it minimizes the maintenance and/or corrective expenses to be incurred by the City. If the City staff does not depend enough time in properly reviewing or requiring corrections to the design plans, developers often accuse the City of "not catching" the problem early on where it could be corrected and a subsequent problem eliminated. while Mr. Horne was right to be concerned about his future liability associated with construction and subsequently requesting increased services, apparently he did not realize that there was a cost associated with minimizing this future risk. 6 In summary, if the City. does not spend enough time on the front end of these developments, developers claim that any subsequent problems are the City's responsibility and we should have caught it to begin with. If we spend the appropriate time in the front and, the development will criticize the City for spending too such time and money. Taking into consideration all the unique aspects associated with this development and developer, the City staff felt that it balanced these issues as best ,as possible taking into consideration all the other development and construction activity that was occurring during .the same time frame with. our limited resources available. Respec Uily sub 't t d, a. �•f ; Director of Public Works TAC/jj Attachments r 7 i Exhibit "A" CITY ESCROW CHARGES 8 OF TOTAL _STAFFTOTAL CONST. 00 E LOT ( 571 4-88 - 4-89 - Preliminary Plat App. 48.5 $1',785 4-89 - 9-89 - Final Plat App. 90 $3,054 9-89 - 2-91 - Contract Mgmt. 76 52.318 S2B.790,10"2% $42-.497 15.001S746/Lot 214.5 hr. $7,157 on construction cost of $281,491 (excluding grading, eros EGAL Prelim. & Final Plat Process $20,500 • Plat (Prel. & Final) $6,550 (up to Permit To Proceed) CONSULTANTS Contract BP -kA $22,000 4-88 - 9-89 - Plat Process Review - $1,284 9-89 - 2-91 • Const. Mgmt. - - $13,900 PRIVATE ENGINEER McCombs, Frank & BRAUN 9-89 - 2-91 . Testing - $5,452 $1210/lot OSM 4-88 • 5.89 • Plat Process $7,454 SWCD 0.68 $31 1.08 $54 0.8% $41 2.58 $126/lot, 3.75 hr./lot 2.38 $115 0.48 $22 4.98 $244 1.98 $96 2.68 $131 11 & 12 - 88 Plat Review - $400 0.18 $7 7-89 Const. Insp. $300 0.18 $5 TOTALS _Subtotals CITY CHARGES S2B.790,10"2% $42-.497 15.001S746/Lot , 505 W Based on construction cost of $281,491 (excluding grading, eros ion control) Prelim. & Final Plat Process $20,500 7.38 $360/lot (up to Permit To Proceed) Contract Mgmt. $22,000 7.88 $386/lot (after Permit To Proceed) PRIVATE ENGINEER McCombs, Frank & Roos Design & Staking $69,000 24.58 $1210/lot IZ- CD V) HQo �� m 2 F \ . � Q'F c •� \ o w Exhibit "C" 0 W 93 \ W 4. ••bi in V QLN LLA 121 1 \ I ' O 'p NpLU¢.�JtQ�� t � z so W LLJ ISLU 0> It >S ` r W�'� n a . v, Li ww 0 VI sr�� W� �`�• tr W2G ru?." 7� Wy /-L� N� Op O �ti�e Q W N m ui z OW xam,a h �tJ z�F W �CD OW ` V t�D \ C �X WI Quj i� na? ` IOJ t 1 \,4 3W DODO 1. , vt.'•` - Viz/ V•.IW W �W /, \tom \, 1` 1 huQ vfW� Q efi'I� r W �© in w Cd LU Ing O \ J Q w * \Qul '1 r, A j / N O Q�'.\ tN \ •���'/ O.n.�IOJ V tpJ W tl'1) i (� �� 1 '�,Y - T i tO W n..1! v p •_� v V Ot F O = m Aktl _VNJ •iq,L 02FMW m� tD f in JNh > L W I ;NQS V �O�pp NFQ%L m> "N W L \ W. i V vIn W fT 1 +tib �. N 8Z ng W m �"> _ q m 3t'f N> W h`�.I 40� �J W vt� , : m 3� Wtn 3a�r` �'�-�' 7+R�3W � Z �In W ©'` r �v+� W y WWG l u13Q G tD. 7. �� W-y-Iy/Z W,,nJ F CJ t ; }I N- Q W Z O f h pi T3 t !mj ND INp jvl ~ N Aco ID x0 yWW �'Om NQ ` m m O �J W N Q'110 H MID Ixl uWt V 1I m 1 WN.W O �a .i iLg y O Yin J 01 I F Z J G iC>s 2 p > W W w1 Z aN� 4 Wcc) Z� S jr.Ir. CO tt 01i r e W -\ ; CD W t V V ,W1 VI W t {0 01 + 11 It �+ .I qj ~ink (f1 CD 11D lk NN h j O hin W W n m .m W yw 4.U.N. jt� fV ry jrt` CD it MM ID k LL 1 vW— H �mtnt^3Cm �Om to `1 _ o m , 4m Ch r,9 • 19 ••` N m u W WJ m ��Cyy in J W W O • Q C • J N �j, t�/� ^'t / �mZ� Wtu m m w to lkeN \ to Q t A W O ~ f m M pj tti r �� n,W3 z a m Q > p yf t i m W w 10 t0 ✓mcr t7 l . }, M1 N \ , ��� IDI . N LD I N N A , / H rn w min / LL LL,NW CO IE Ed OD �CY GN G O lyzj ' t v W {GJJ� Z 1876 _ �'� 3;• -, Exhibit "D" P. 1875040 v,/ - - - f - 'r -- - • — Zi r - O C p xZY 00, 476 1 ti00D . ' NI 194 1 CD V 69A Eb r 1947 _ N 192 z —r— ' 1793: S,CREST j,-1 UTTERS !ANE_1 „� ' `T95 20591 794 a , 79 215� (2112KOtY j_LgNE ' t 797?9B ! ' - 113 �.q� , o 4r,1- 2114 r' APPAL D A 7 J - PADDOCK TRAIL .115 E 1 116 1463 fl F, r p ,� y rnn b n'; . 1;:,�_ 1 or Yp� L __ .. .r -4t - I i9 i; 1 -r i° C' � � 7 `cwt 7�0 1460 1 ` 141-4\','� `-``r + \,.�-��� �-', •1778 . �T �A � ( . Exhibit "E" I ' x o u Exhibit a a O 1 >LLIt- S LL O N a ' S yuj z Wa`z — 7 W t 1 D W Y e X O crIL 2 _J = d Q Ur r CD z i z a u M �a Wcc No f Q W W c O gu � rn U-) A rncpO W fA in N Y on a o co = W � a be . S = -J T 0 00 OrOm CID 3 .O ,NCIS - It) O it G UJ W � ? F O Q oaf- ao 2z Z J N O ~ zw 3WW a— UJ >� W J i1QW W Ln W (i f[ in LU r La N W V vu x�.Y N f, Q cr W r d iW Ln m CL ;• Ito W O WWyf — sQ O ¢ ¢ m �p0 y •. ; �' m h CID CID ' — N 11 N O hmlp O O I'► DV O i (� Co CC) CID WON agil iNAmw + . y I MEMO TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MAYOR, TOM EGAN, CHAIR COUNCILMAN TED WACHTER.. MEMBER THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PIIBLIC WORKS DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 1992 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF ESCROW FEES KINGS WOOD 2ND ADDITION, PRIVATE PROJECT 88 -SS Within the last year, the developer, Mr. James Horne, through his representative, Mr.. Rollie Crawford, have raised issues and concerns pertaining to the total fees charged to the developer's escrow account associated with the above -referenced subdivision. A detailed review of the expenses charged to this escrow account have been summarized on the attached sheets. Mr. Crawford believes that the total fees charged by the City are excessive and should be reduced by approximately 67% to what is "typical". The City has not adopted a policy of determining a typical flat "per lot" rate to charge a developer for any particular subdivision process. It was always the understanding that all costs incurred to assist and process the development application and related construction fees would be charged to the developer for reimbursement. The alternative would have all citizens of Eagan sharing in the costs of new development (through general fund subsidizes) for any costs that would exceed a "typical" calculation. A typical fee would be very difficult to determine due to the extreme unique qualities associated with each developer, tract of land and/or development proposal. Some of theunique qualities of this subdivision related to the following: Outlot C (adjacent to Pilot Knob Road) proposed rezoning to general business and the related access orientation. Replatting of the 1st Addition to relocate the access to Pilot Knob Road (County Road 31) to line up with the future community center entrance in accordance with County spacing guidelines. Several meetings and design revisions to accommodate and minimize the concerns regarding roadway alignment, right- of-way dedication, utility installation and tree preservation of the existing property owner in the middle of this replatting, Mr. Allen Notvik. Page Two February 10, 1992 • Unusual number of meetings with the developer and his engineer to achieve a set of plans and specifications acceptable to City standards including several delays with approving the final plat and its recording at Dakota County. • Numerous density failures with deep trench backfilling during construction requiring additional testing and increased inspection services at the request of and in concurrence with the developer. It is felt that it would be best to review the issues of these expenses to: 1) determine if they are in fact out of line in relationship to the unique characteristics of this developer/development; and, 2) if the fees are to be reduced to a "typical" cost, review the -merits of making that a standard set fee for all development applications and dispense with escrow account record keeping. I look forward to reviewing these issues with the committee and providing whatever additional analysis would be helpful. Respectfully submitted, Thomas A. Colbert cc: Jim Sheldon, City Attorney Gene VanOverbeke, Director of Finance Michael P. Foertsch, Assistant City Engineer Attachments TAC/ j f I 11TYPICAL11 EXPENSES Private Engineering (>50 Lots) Grading Plan Street & Utility Plan Plat Drawings Contract Management Grading Staking Utility Staking Street Lot Corners TOTAL Averages City Contract A. Engineering • Preliminary Survey, Plan & Spec Prep., Report • Construction Staking and Inspection • Final Report, As- Builts, etc. Per Lot $ 150 300 100 100 120 145 100 100 $ Is $ 900 - $1,500/Lot 8 - 10% 6 - 8 % 1 B. Legal C. Administration • Plan Review, Contract 2 Management, Records, Etc. • Assessment Rolls, Final 2 Certification, Etc. D. Bonding E. Construction Financing F. Other Unknowns (Special Tests, Disputes, etc.) 15-19% 1.25% 4.00 0.5 7-9% 1.0 29-34% im MEMO TO: Tom Colbert FROM: Jerry Bourdon Re: Kingswood 2nd Addition Escrow Matters file no. 88 -SS DATE: March 12, 1991 This memo is in partial response to Rollin Crawford's letter of February 19, 1991 and is to be added to Leo Pawelsky's information and response. Relevant information from me concerning this subject includes: 1. the comparison of the cost of quality control inspections and project administration of this project -relative to other Eagan projects, and 2. discussion concerning the developer's earlier position concerning his desired level of project inspection. Following is discussion concerning these issues. Cost.Comparison: I am informed that the total cost of BRA inspection services on this project was about 3.6: of the value of the construction (grading, utilities, streets and restoration). Experience with other Eagan municipal projects indicates that costs ranging from 2% to 4% are normal. Although this project experienced costs on the higher side of this range, project circumstances required this level of effort and service. Leo Pawelsky's time -spent breakdown (transmitted separately) addresses this issue in more detail. Developer's Previous Position: The developer's current position concerning project inspection services appears to be in direct contrast to the position he took early in the project. On September 28, 1989 I had a conversation with Mr. Horne about his concern over the quality of the construction and his demand that more inspection time be provided. He was particularly, concerned about his liability as the project developer and wanted increased inspection by our firm to reduce his liability for defective work. Enclosed is a copy of a file memo concerning that discussion. Although we did not let Mr. Horne's position unduly influence our staffing of the project, it did cause us to be concerned about providing enough inspection to minimize Mr. Horne's concerns f i -le no. 88 -SS and avoid future complaints. Considering Mr. Hornes previous Position concerning the level of inspection services, I object to the complaint about the cost of the construction inspection services and in particular the tone of Crawford's letter. u MEMO TO: file FROM: Jerry Bourdon DA-rE: 9/2.8/89 Re: F,ingswood 2nd Addition Ili file no.: 88 -SS This -memo is about the controversy over the density testing of the sanitary sewer trench backfill. Yesterday I recieved a call from Paul Pierson requesting an immediate meeting to discuss the situation. I attended a meeting that began about :30 PM on the site. Parties present included: Paul Pierson, Jim Horne, Tum Ryan, Leo Pawelsky and the foreman. Issues at hand were: 1. The specifics and extent of the problem and 2. The responsibilities of the various parties THE SPECIFICS AND EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM The specifics of the problem as I came to understand them are: The problem is in the sanitary sewer trench backfill compaction in the vicinity of manholes i to ;. * First day of construction was on the 25th. Two Out of three density tests failed. On the second day of construction three out of four density tests failed. As a result Leo issue a written nate advising the project manager that the density problems should be corrected before the next stage of construction (water main installation). Unconfirmed information concerning the density performance on 9/7/89 seemed to indicate passing tests. Perhaps one failure. This information must be confirmed by Braun. * The contractor was in deep trench construction. Sail was very clean sand --angle of repose at least 1:1. Trench was too narrow to allow the sheeps foot to get any closer to the top of pipe than 6 to 8 feet. Therefore they were applying water to increase the moisture content and bucket tamping. They claim density tests on the bucket tamping have proven adequate results. Must get this confirmed. My first impression is that the trench could have been wider thus alleviating this problem. This is probably not d f : 08%s. the exact situation experienced the previous two days when the density test failures were experienced. The difference is that the soil was a siltier sand and the trench was shallower. * They are almost through with the deep portion and I expect that adequate compaction performance will be experienced in the near future due to increased compaction effort and attention and due to easier construction. They will have to excavate and recompact the areas shown to be in question. ,t1&W_ -RESP8NSIBILTIIES OF THE VARIOUS PARTIES - A significant part of our conversation concerned the allocation of responsibilities. The developer argued the position that performance of the project organization is the City's responsibility and specifically Bonestrools. He made i specific attacks and allegations that Bonestroo's inspection was inadequate. Leo not there enough (No full time r inspector). I responded by painting out that city inspects for its benefit not developer. That developer is in must control of the -situation and therefore must accept the responsibility. He chose the engineer, wrote the spec., designed the facilities, chase the contractor and controls payment to the engineer and contractor. With this considered it is logical that he is responsible for quality of the work. This is in addition to the fact that it is his responsibility by contract. I also pointed out that we had significant inspection not only through Leo but Tom Burnham and Braun Engineering's technicians. Also mentioned that laity's quality control did word: since we caught the problem. Mentioned we are not obligated to inspect to assure him of most convenient correction of mistakes but that we most make sure the city does not get a defective product which we succ=eeded in doing. d:w f:88ss ATTORNEYS A7 LAR' -' LEVANDER, GILLEN & MILLER r 402 DR0VERS FIRST AMERICAN BANK BUILDING 633 SOUTH CONCORD STREET P.O. BOX 298 SOUTH ST PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 612-4514831 FAX 612-450-7384 February 19, 1991 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Municipal Center 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 RE: Kingswood 2nd Addition Escrow Matters ARTHUR GILLEN ROGER C. MILLER PAUL H. ANDERSON TIMOTIf' J. KUNTZ DANIEL J. BEESON ROLLIN H. CKAWFORD KELLY J. NEILAN KRUELL HAROLD LEVANDER RETIRED Dear Mayor Egan and Members of the City Council: This is a request for a review, reduction and settlement of the stated amount of the negative balance in the development escrow account for Horne Development Corporation in connection with the above-named subdivision. The reasons which we believe justify the reduction in the amount are as follows: A. General Comments on the Escrow Balance 1. The initial estimate for the escrow amount was approximately $9,000.00, which was deposited, the additional amount of $30,340.75 represents an increase of 330% over original estimate. -3806 Z) 2. The basic engineering f �hproject was done for the developer by McCgaib, Frank, Roos & Associates for a cost of $6,9,000. The supervision and inspection portion of a job of_that size should be 20% or $13,800.00 for the total job compared to the total of $40,000.00 charged by the City in addition to the work done by.the developers engineers. 3. The job has had charged to it time and dollars for engineering and inspection services by a) the City of Eagan b) Bonestroo and Associates c) Braun Engineering and d) OSM. FORUERLI LENANDER. GILLEN. MILLER. ANDERSON A KUNTZ Page 3 - Mayor Egan and Members of the City Council: It will also be noted from Exhibit C that the developer is being charged for 31.5 hours of time "in conjunction with writing of development contract" which is essentially a form agreement and for which the City Attorney was paid approximately $6,000.00 on this project. 4. The City staff charged approximately 170 hours worth of time and $5,500.00 to the project which represents approximately 3 hours and $100.00 for each and every lot in a -project that was completely privately engineered, and received and inspected by three other engineering firms. C. Some Thoughts on the Legal Collectibility of the Negative Escrow 1. The development contract provides that the developer shall pay "all costs incurred by it or the City. ." but modifies that language by referring to "reasonable engineering, administrative and legal expenses". (See Exhibit D) 2. The developers review of the costs constituting the negative escrow with two separate outside engineering experts indicates that the charges for this project went for beyond any definition of "reasonable". 3. The City is entitled to charge for the reasonable costs of its own staff time, but has based its charges on private engineering firms fees which include overhead, profit and other allocations. 4. Witnesses on the job site during the construction period will testify that the hours spent by inspectors on the job was nowhere near the hours reported on time records and invoices. It appears that on certain days a "drive thru" was recorded as 1 hour or more. 5. It is our opinion that a Court would not find the charges constituting the negative escrow to be reasonable and may have some difficulty in finding any legal justification for certain of the charges. 6. Froma practical standpoint, this developer does not want litigation over the amounts now claimed to be due by the City. Sonestroo Rosene PEE Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects ON CL BMW= Ph. aa, W assent. IRS. AmeP+ C. Aroe+rk IRS. l&Mm A Lmff p FL Jsrns C. oismL ". Gkm R. Cook FE. Tomas E. fVeL ►J. Konen Ca SawrW tc ►J. hiaw L small PJ. Rem A GomrL IRS. Rohn W Fomes IRS. obvie [ b.y+a rE Any A boulam rJ. lstrt A Nffm% FE. Tee K Fero IRE 66mw S. Rh n VOL ra aspen L Mkft FL Dead o U610 . IRS. adow W. VolamL K hurow C. synm rJ. JYues R. "Mann IRS. faveM P. Anpeesaa ►J. SM A SIMOWWL FL alert L Asea PJ. koWn C. tvtxk ALA TIWM E. 4-9+L r* ftmo e A ferOM IRE. Dwo t Eape+t t P.E. Gleet A AW RL November 1989 INNIV A CawvcL P.E. Thymes It. Ar&-ftM AW. C -Y F. kM dK rE in rw. PmvlAy Milan LL octan him aL bow CAA City of Eagan P.O. Box 21199 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Re: File No. 49-P Kings Wood Addition Project No. 88 -SS kmlce No. A 9396 Private Development For Engineering Services Rendered October 1. 1989 through October 31, 1989 Inspection i Project Documentation Up. #18 64.0 lira. 1 $38.00 Inspection 6 Project Documentation Emp. #12 40.0 Bra. ! $38.00 Legal, Insurance and Administrative Fee Mileage $2.432.00 1-520.00 $3,952.00 1,185.60 160.30 5 297.90 METHMEM NOV 211989 All bllu due and payaw whhln 30 dayL Irxerest villi be charged at nae annual rate of 12% after $WWW nWh IkaieW Andg"* A Auodstes. Inc. 60 dayL 1 declare under V* pK uiues of perjury nuc t am nae peon naming the wRhn daft ntu 1 have - t"muned said claim and uuc dx same Is just and srue: um the services Vwem "gad were a>calafly wicww and were of the value tMreun charged; nuc rM fees "rein charged are official and are soon as are aim%vw by w*r, and neat no part of lard claim has been pad. The effect by of this verdicaw shill be the same as ff subscribed and sworn W under pan►. bgrw ury of Claimant 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 & 612-636-46M EXHIBIT•A j OR 2021 East Hennepin Avenue SChdffl Minneapolis, MN 55413 Maye�ortA 612-331-8660 surveyors -- Assoaates~aLilc FAX331.3806 Planners City of Eagan Attn: Tom Colbert 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan MN 55122 Invoice June 14, 1989 Project No.-.88—SS iI Comm. No. 124-4069-57 In conjunction with writing of development contract and review of sewer, water, streets, and grading for Kings Wood 2nd Addition, a residential development along Pilot Knob Road. City Project No. 88—SS. Time and expenses for the month of May, 1989. DIRECT PERSONNEL COSTS J. Wingard 9.50 hours @ $28.75 per hour $ 273.13 S. Lexvold 22.00 hours @ $23.00 per hour 506.00 3 Factor x 2._25 This Invoice $1.753.04 L' TOTAL AMOUNT OF THIS INVOICE IS: $1.753.04 tdwhire ujoer der (.W131 0 '.1;;cr;6.r. ..... ..a.::. is lu61 . • Cor .... .. -i Or.J inat tic. pari - o • a5 t" -n ptiKl . .../....� Smna tum EXHIBIT C DAKOTA COUNTY March 24, 1993 HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 14955 GALAXIE AVENUE, 3RD FLOOR Thomas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Rd. Eagan, Minnesota 55122-1897 Re: 28-19, Safety Issues Dear Tom: DAVID L. EVERDS, P.E. COUNTY ENGINEER (612) 891-7100 Fax (612) 891-7031 APPLE VALLEY, MINNESOTA 55124-8579 This is to provide a discussion regarding the written issues handed out at our meeting on March 16, 1993. Al. The speed limit on Lexington Avenue north of Lone Oak Road is 40 mph. The conditions facing driveways downstream from the intersection are normal driving conditions in urban areas and require motorists actions consistent with the conditions at the time. In addition, the ultimate relocation of the post office should serve to diminish the conflicts. A2. The center medians proposed will move the left turning vehicles away from the intersection providing a safer transition for motorists when dealing with the intersection. Once through the intersection, motorists will have the necessary space to deal with the traffic conditions downstream. A3. The design will reduce the unexpected maneuvers close to the intersection. Traffic stream issues are common and not necessarily hazardous when moved away from an intersection. A4. The right turn lane mentioned will not allow a free movement. Traffic in this lane must stop when the signal is red. This movement will have the same motorists rights and obligations as other right turns at signalized intersections. Printed an Recycled Paper AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER r Mr. Thomas Page Two March 18, A. Colbert 1993 A5. The plans indicate over 17' from the face of the curb to the building. The roadway design uses a standard 6" barrier curb design which is common on the County's roads. A6. The median length to the south of the intersection provides full storage for 300 ft. This length is designed to permit room for the storage of northbound left turning vehicles for the traffic expected. The median length to the north of the intersection is designed to accommodate much lower left turning volumes and its length is determined by the tapers required to move southbound traffic away from the center of the roadway so'as to line up with the through lanes south of the intersection. The greater median length south of the intersection is due in part to the higher speed of traffic and the related taper designs to safely move traffic over and in part to the much higher traffic volumes approaching the intersection. B1. The traffic signal designed for this intersection is full -traffic actuated and will vary the signal green times continuously to meet the traffic demands. B2. The traffic counts taken and the traffic forecasts indicate that two car length left turn lane for southbound traffic would be adequate to handle the volume. B3. The double left turn for northbound traffic to turn west is necessary to handle the volume of traffic at the intersection. If the intersection was designed with a single left turn lane the northbound traffic would take 15% more of the signal green times and the forecasted traffic would exceed the intersection capacity. B4. Issues regarding the freeway operation should not be used to justify an inadequate design at Lexington Avenue and Lone Oak Road. Mn/DOT has the latitude to Mr. Thomas Colbert Page Three March 18, 1993 increase the current metered flow rate onto I -35E (currently 630 vehicles per hour in the A.M. peak hour) and Mn/DOT is also looking at a project in 1996 to reconstruct the I -35E Lone Oak Road merge area to reduce the present lane -weaving volume restriction on I -35E. When the problems show up at the correct location they can be addressed by the appropriate agency. At the meeting it was suggested that the intersection of Yankee Doodle Road and Lexington Avenue works well and a similar intersection at Lone Oak Road and Lexington Avenue should be considered. The intersection of Yankee Doodle Road and Lexington Avenue was designed and constructed in 1985 and 1986. The traffic data used as a basis to support that design was substantially lower than the data used to support the proposed design at Lone Oak Road and Lexington Avenue. The traffic data collected indicate over 45% higher traffic volumes at the Lone Oak Road/Lexington Avenue intersection than what was measured at the Yankee Doodle Road/Lexington Avenue intersection to determine its design. In addition, the left turning traffic at the Yankee Doodle Road/Lexington Avenue intersection clearly did not indicate the need for double left turns as is indicated on Lexington Avenue at Lone Oak Road. Please feel free to contact me further as necessary if you have any questions or concerns regarding these issues. Sincerely, Peter L. Sorenson Traffic Engineer PLS/ckj cc: Patrice Bataglia, Commissioner, 3rd District Sandra Masin, Eagan City Council Theodore Wachter, Eagan City Council Thomas L. Hedges, Eagan Administrator w1en ds Dave Everds, County Engineer Jim Roberts P: Colbert r l/ :s siq F e X }-E C I ; T 2-v �K.S �'x ; T � .� � �os -r o �� �: e � vJ� •J c,^.�.s � e.� a MPe `i a �► � t c. � � ► �, 5 - Sa d � ah--A o.J LtFy,) --3 -rD {7s�ss;�1 � i 2u L; J c-- op o-f e rJ T L 1.1 n} 0 k;6 / r VJ � �V I �i'. � �+� 7�1 :>��'�.Fi U nj tS J 11 ca J Ll ,4 c L-v T SS eZeA-3i,�� ,4 �1v Tl��-2 -L Ar-3 6K&or,L4)A-Ti,J� r cc V e teST j it2A-; -:A � I�f� e�Tf+ b� J Taa vi CJS Q-0,0o e- S /N�-en-D) N c Bina-�+ A-7 sFFE L 1 TZ'S Lt1.`~: �J �1"c7 ► 1T '2 pS-7- 0 'CC T4}DSC_ i /wo S T s i�?{� . �1��4 �J z, Q 2 C nom_! ��f��� `✓�CiJf �Qtil6, �12C M/'� tLe.-z-o 4 t �J THEGREIF COMPANIES �� nr � p o� �•• s i U ,L s� -3v � a�.7 3 i s &- 4 A f 71 v .a o A- _ L E' �� r.,.} . _L A.Ai tr W Fit A Leo S �Lpc Vt ma-jT A -SS VAA1(,J4 Ta tt? P— hj T-Ll2 R s > s ice J CIL -A-Cz 1-ntEb)Aa -rz ,J- S A -T -f---5%1 o T-- 2z e7 c - C -FA, -j 7S 1 e tj c7,pts -Fo 2. �,�.+► THEGREIF COMPANIES 7 M 0 MAT CHLINE 9-175 I O — Lone Ock Rocd UTILITY IMPROVcI'd'iENTSSonestroo AH Rosene EEM A EAGr",N, MINNESOTA FIGURE 4 socl�la . Assocfss LEXINGTON AVE.(C_R. 43) & LONE OAK ROAD(C,..S.AA.H. 43) >=rg:rlcors 6 Architocta __. .. _ ✓ / �� 1'w 2335 West Hlghaay 35 8. J I o o Q o� I O — Lone Ock Rocd UTILITY IMPROVcI'd'iENTSSonestroo AH Rosene EEM A EAGr",N, MINNESOTA FIGURE 4 socl�la . Assocfss LEXINGTON AVE.(C_R. 43) & LONE OAK ROAD(C,..S.AA.H. 43) >=rg:rlcors 6 Architocta __. .. _ ✓ / �� 1'w 2335 West Hlghaay 35 W J O a Q) 0 U O C cy- I O — Lone Ock Rocd UTILITY IMPROVcI'd'iENTSSonestroo AH Rosene EEM A EAGr",N, MINNESOTA FIGURE 4 socl�la . Assocfss LEXINGTON AVE.(C_R. 43) & LONE OAK ROAD(C,..S.AA.H. 43) >=rg:rlcors 6 Architocta __. .. _ ✓ / �� 1'w 2335 West Hlghaay 35 J% ' t b -+flo ►�) fI t: I l.. La Detupi W,(*f4T i4�c i IoNe- 6*-<- it D 70T+ If T 7v k,,) �-p W tie,I ae vj y, THE GREIF COMPANIES r' NJ*War/ kA a 00+" al 00++4 YLS 1 Umpuy VIM 'ON !MrOud - WN3PGNOWcn AUM � — Y. t. .... o. �pH t� °a,+.we (6Z •HYS•3) afW WO 3NOi ,..,, ..�..�..o.:,:: .............. YlOS3NNIW 'NYMY3 v a ii J 1 r r P -1 W-1 1 r i 1 i i i -7-� � -� `4 IrIrI 1 r 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 i r ; I I I I I I a Zlie I I I i1 (� a 1 I z O 4 r 1 . 40+ f' r i r C g g Q�� c: m a LU m 0 LL ;I In 2 co 40m ti� a LU m 0 LL ;I In 2 co 40m ti�