Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.05.00 Work Session Packet City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP City Council Chambers Wednesday April 5, 2000 - 7:00 p.m. TENTATIVE AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ADOPT AGENDA 3. WELCOME DAKOTA COUNTY OFFICIALS 4. DISCUSSION a) Background Information - Review b) Dakota County Position on Akin Road c) City Position on Akin Road d) AdministrativeILegal Review - Project Agreement e) City Council/Commissioner Harris - Discussion 5. ACTION ITEMS 6. ADJOURN City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor and Council Members Dakota County Commissioner Harris FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Council Workshop - Akin Road Revocation Issues DATE: AprilS, 2000 INTRODUCTION . The purpose of this Council Workshop is to meet with Dakota County Commissioner Harris to review issues associated with Dakota County's position regarding financial participation in the turn back of Akin Road to the City. As Council is aware, Dakota County has taken the position that the jurisdictional control of Akin Road has already been transferred to the City due to the completion of CSAH 31, and that the County does not intend to financially contribute in any road improvements associated with the revocation of Akin Road. At the February 15, 2000 Council workshop, Council directed City administration to schedule a joint meeting with Dakota County Commissioner Harris to review and discuss the County's position. DISCUSSION In review of this issue, background information has been attached that will hopefully generate a more concise understanding of the issues under review by both jurisdictions. The attached items include: 1) Letter dated February 22,2000 from former City administrator Larry Thompson 2) Correspondence to Dakota County Administrator Richardson, dated February 16,2000 3) Correspondence from Dakota County Administrator Richardson dated January 10,2000 4) Council Communications dated December 16, 1999 on Akin Road Revocation - Status and Issues 5) Correspondence to Joel Jamnik, City Attorney dated December 7, 1999 from this office that includes a number of historical document attachments pertaining to the current situation 6) Council Agenda Item - Acknowledge Interim Maintenance Agreement dated December 6, 1999 7) Legal Opinion from Joel Jamnik, City Attorney dated October 21, 1999 8) Copies of the May 5, 1995 Agreement, Section 2 and 5 specifying certain actions. 9) Dakota County Board historical document dated April 2, 1990 adopting new County Cost Sharing Policy. The table below represents jurisdictional positions that have already been advanced and previously studied by City and County staff relative to Akin Road. This information may be helpful in terms of identifying any new positions raised by either jurisdiction during the upcoming workshop. Dakota County: The County does not financially City: Historical documents suggest otherwise and participate in R.O.W. on new alignments as a indicate that the County has participated on several Council Workshop - Akin Road Turnback April 5, 2000 Page 2 of 4 matter of policy or practice Positions and Issues Responses to Positions Dakota County: County had an understanding with former City staff that the County would not participate in Akin Road revocation costs given the County's agreement to purchase ROW on the new CSAH 31 Alignment Dakota County: ROW costs associated with CSAH 31 Alignment were higher than expected, and as such the County will not participate in Akin Road Dakota County: The 1995 Agreement, contrary to what it actually says, is not an accurate representation of what the County's role should have been relative to Akin Road Dakota County: That it was never the intention of the County to financially participate on two separate north-south corridors within a 1/2 mile of each other. Dakota County: The Dakota County Board has already adopted a resolution transferring ownership of Akin Road to the City. occasions in ROW acquisitions dating back to 1990. This aspect of County participation is articulated in County policy and is without distinction for new or existing alignments. County Board resolution #90-378 grants authority to decide cost splits for ROW acquisitions on new County Corridors from 0-55%. City: No documentation is available supporting this County contention. City staff has obtained both verbal and written statements from former City officials indicating no recollection of such an arrangement. Further, no Council or County Board action was ever taken approving this alleged agreement. No reference of such an agreement has been identified in any correspondence. City: These are two separate projects. The fact that the County paid more than expected for ROW is a project variable, and not a valid justification to abrogate their contractual obligations in this revocation process. The City also contributed 45% to the cost of acquiring project ROW on CSAH 31 that was more than originally anticipated. In addition, the 1995 Agreement calls for the County to participate in a Revocation Agreement on Akin Road without any reference to ROW costs associated with CSAH 31. City: In the absence of any contrary information or agreements, the County is legally bound to observe the requirements of this agreement that was approved by the County Board, upon review by the County Attorney and recommendation of County Administration. Point of fact, the agreement is a legally binding document calling for a specific action on the part of the County. City: The City Council and/or the County Board were never advised of this intention relative to these two streets at the time of the CSAH 31 Alignment project. The 1995 Agreement does not reference this intention or suggest that this was an issue/concern in any agreement or correspondence. County officials never raised this as an issue at the time the project was before the City Council for approval in 1998. City: The action by the County Board, without a turnback agreement, is contrary to its own Transportation Policies relative to participation in County road turn backs. Furthermore, the Board's action violates the terms of the 1995 Agreement as the City has not accepted the improvements nor has a revocation agreement been negotiated. Finally, the Board's intention to take this action was taken without Council Workshop - Akin Road Turnback AprilS, 2000 Page 3 of 4 Positions and Issues Responses to Positions Dakota County: The City agreed to take jurisdictional control of Akin Road in the 1995 Agreement. City: The City does not have jurisdictional control or ownership of Akin Road until a revocation agreement has been negotiated City: A revocation agreement is required prior to City acceptance of Akin Road. Issue: Contrary to the 1995 agreement, a revocation agreement was not executed prior to the award of a construction contract on CSAH 31. Issue: The City would assume total liability for a road it did not construct or design. Issue: Without financial participation by the County, the City and affected properties would bear the entire cost of any improvements. This issue is a key financial concern for the City. ACTION REOUESTED the courtesy of notification to the City nor was the City afforded the opportunity to discuss this action prior to its adoption by the County Board. City: The City did indicate its "intention" to take jurisdictional control of Akin Road upon negotiation of a revocation agreement and acceptance of CSAH 31 improvements. No action has been taken by the City on either of these two conditions. City: The 1995 Agreement reqUires the City to formally accept the CSAH 31 improvements prior to the turn back of Akin Road. The Council has not taken formal action on project acceptance. It should be noted that CSAH 31 improvements remain incomplete at this time. City: The 1995 Agreement requires that a "fully executed agreement for the revocation of county road must be completed..." prior to City acceptance of Akin Road. City: The City is unaware of the reasons for the County's failure to perform a feasibility study on Akin Road prior to the award of the contract on CSAH 31. Typically, the County has the primary responsibility for performing feasibility studies on County roads identified for turnback, and working with the local jurisdiction on the revocation process. The City is in the process of performing a feasibility study for the revocation of Akin Road. The City was never informed of any issues or concerns during the CSAH 31 contract award process regarding Akin Road turnback. City: The City should not be required to accept this road until a feasibility study has been completed and improvements discussed with Dakota County. City: City residents, are also County taxpayers, and should enjoy the same benefit of County financial participation in this revocation as other City/County taxpayers have In similar projects across Dakota County. County transportation policies and past practices provide that a revocation agreement be negotiated with an affected jurisdiction pnor to revocation. The question remains "Why is Farmington being treated differently than other communities in this process and why is the County Board deviating from its own transportation policies?" For consideration and discussion at the AprilS, 2000 City Council Workshop. Council Workshop - Akin Road Turnback April 5, 2000 Page 4 of 4 ReSPectfull~ J n F. Erar ity Administrator File Cc: Dakota County Board Brandt Richardson, County Administrator Don Theisen, County Engineer Michael Ring, Assistant County Attorney Joel Jamnik, City Attorney Lee Mann, City Engineer February 22, 2000 Sent via fax John Erar City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Re: CSAH #31 Turnback Dear John: This letter serves as a follow up to our recent discussions regarding the County turn back of Akin Road (CSAH #31) and dispute over upgrading. As I understand, the County is alleging that I made a commitment during 1995 to accept Akin Road "as is" without further upgrades after the realignment of CSAH # 31 was completed. First, I do not recall making any such commitments to County staff. Also, I have reviewed my notes from 1995, and can find no record of such meeting or commitment. I did talk to Dave Everds and Dave Zeck on a number of occasions regarding CSAH #50 and access issues regarding CR #72. The only conversations I can find with Leslie Vermillion and David Everds occurred on August 17th, during which the main topic of conversation was a wetlands dispute concerning the realignment of CSAH #31. Second, even if I did make such a commitment, it is a moot point without City Council affirmation. Throughout my tenure I was always careful to point out that I did not have the legal authority to make such commitments without specific Council action. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. I Sincerely, City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us February 16, 2000 Mr. Brandt Richardson Dakota County Administrator Administration Center 1590 Highway 55 Hastings, MN" 55033-2372 Dear Brandt: In response to your letter dated January 10, 2000 regarding Dakota County's pOSlt10n on the revocation of Akin Road, the Farmington City Council recendy met to discuss a variety of issues and concerns associated with the County's position. First and foremost, the City Council has indicated a willingness to discuss this situation further to gain a better understanding of the County's position, and hopefully resolve this matter amicably. The Council would like an opportunity to understand first hand why Commissioner Harris, the County Board and County administration have taken a position contrary to what historically is suggested to be a negotiated process between the County and affected municipal jurisdictions. Similarly, in review of the County Board's action revoking Akin Road. there appears to be a clear absence of any compelling documentation that would indicate the County has acted in accordance with its adopted transportation policies, or in keeping with the signed 1995 CSAH 31 agreement executed between the City and County. Language again I would reference as requiring "a fully executed agreement for the revocation of county road status of Akin Road (a portion of CSAH 31) between the City and County must be completed...". The County Board's action adopting the resolution revoking Akin Road on October 5, 1999 also occurred without the courtesy of notification to our jurisdiction, apparendy at the behest of the Dakota County Highway Department. Finally, while my office has requested information regarding the County's contention that the City had agreed to waive County financial participation in the revocation of Akin Road in 1995 in exchange for special dispensation on the CSAH 31 Alignment, no such information has been received In terms of the County's argument that the acquisition of right-of-way on the CSAH 31 Alignment was unique, again County records suggest otherwise and in fact point to a number of other projects where the County acquired right-of-way. Former City officials have also gone on record indicating no recollection of any such agreement, nor has any correspondence been located to suggest such an arrangement had been approved by either the County Board or City Council. With regards to the documentation provided by County staff. there appears to be overwhelming evidence indicating that the County has consistendy negotiated revocation agreements with affected municipalities. Moreover, I would point to the recent revocation of County Road 72 to the City wherein the County agreed to participate in 55% of the project cost per the executed tumback agreement. Relative to the documentation your own office provided, there is historical precedent dating back to at least 1990 of County participation in revocation negotiations with municipalities. Without belaboring these points, the Farmington City Council is at a loss as to why the County Board has decided to unilaterally deviate from its own policies with respect to Farmington. 2, ~ - "Oot, .... ~ .... Mr. Brandt Richardson February 16, 2000 Page 2 of 2 . Accordingly, based on the information discussed and received on this matter, the City has t2ken the position that absent any COrroboClting evidence to the contrary, the City respectfully declines jurisdictional control of Akin Road citing County Transportation Policies, past pr.u:tices with respect to negotiating revocation agreements with affected municipalities and the 1995 CSAH 31 agreement requiring a revocation agreement prior to acceptance by the City. It should also be noted that this same agreement required the City to formally accept CSAH 31 improvements prior to revocation, an action the Council has not yet taken. While the City acknowledges the County's statutory authority to revoke County roads, this authority has always been subordinated to negotiations with the municipal jurisdiction prior to revocation. However, in an effort to further discuss these issues and gain a better understanding of the County's position, the Council has requested that Commissioner Harris and involved staff attend a Council work session. Dates for this work session have been tentatively identified as Wednesday, March 22 or Thursday, March 23, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. at the Farmington City Hall. Upon confirmation from your office, I will take the appropriate steps to schedule the selected meeting date. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. s~ hn F. Erar . ty Administrator File Cc: Mayor and City Council Members Dakota County Board Donald Theisen, County Engineer Michael Ring, Assistant County Attorney Joel Jamnik, City Attorney Lee Mann, City Engineer -. ~ '.. Brandt Richardson County Administrator Dakota County Administl'2tion Center 1590 Highway 55 Hastings. MN 55033-2372 65 I. 438 .4528 Fax 651.438.4405 www.co.dakota.mn.us brandt.richardson@co.dakota.mn.us o Prine_ on ~ papr w;ctI___ NlIIQUIIL QII9IIO<<ft.NN 8'1\.0'" ~~ January 10, 2000 Mr. John Erar City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Dear John: You have asked for a written statement from Dakota County concerning the County's position on jurisdiction over Akin Road. The position of the County Board on the jurisdictional status of Akin Road, between C.S.A.H. 50 and the intersection of Akin Road and C.S.A.H. 31 (Pilot Knob Road) in the Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 114 North, Range 20 West, is that the road belongs to the City of Farmington. That position is evidenced by the language in County Board Resolution No. 99-554, the terms of the Agreement between the County and the City of Farmington for County Project No. 31-31/Farmington Project No. 95-12 and the operation of law as set forth in Minn. Stat. 9 163.11, subd. 5. The Preamble and Section 5 of the above-referenced Agreement, signed by the City of Farmington on May 15, 1995, indicate the willingness of the City to accept jurisdiction over Akin Road following completion of construction of C.S.A.H. 31 south of 190th Street. Further, revocation of county state aid road status on that segment of road was approved by the Commissioner of Transportation on August 17, 1998. Finally, Minn. Stat. 9 163.11, subd. 5 provides as follows: "The county bnard, by resolution, may revoke any county highway. The highway shall thereupon revert to the town in which it is located; provided that any such revoked highway or portion thereof lying within the corporate limits of any city shall become a street of such city." Subdivision 5b of Minn. Stat. 9 163.11 does state that a county highway revoked by a county board resolution "to a town" under this section shall be maintained by the county for a period of two years from the date of revocation. That section, however, does not apply since the turn back of Akin Road was to a city. Given the expressed willingness of the City of Farmington to accept jurisdiction over the road upon completion of County Project 31-31 and the fact that all necessary steps have been taken by the County to revoke county road status on this segment of road and turn the jurisdiction of the road over to the City of . - John Erar January 10, 2000 Page 2 Farmington, the County's position is that the above-described segment of Akin Road replaced by a new segment of highway is now under the jurisdiction and control of the City of Farmington. I trust that this explanation settles this issue. Sincerely, f5i~ Brandt Richardson County Administrator cc: Joseph Harris, Commissioner, First District Louis Breimhurst, Director, Physical Development Donald Theisen, County Engineer Michael Ring, Assistant County Attorne}' City of Farmington 325 Oak Street. farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 9- .... COUNCll. COM:MUNICATIONS TO: Mayor and Council. Members JohnF. Erar, City Administrator FROM: $UBJEcr: Akin Road Revocation - StatUS and Issues DATE: December 16, 1999 INlRODUCITON Council was briefly informed at the December 6, 1999 Council meeting of a potential situation with Dakota County relative to disagreement over the jurisdictional status of Akin Road. I have attached a memorandum that was recently sent to City Attorney Joel Jamnik that identifies the issues currently under review with County officials. The reason for this memorandum is to update Council on a recent turn of events that suggests the County is now taking a final position on Akin Road that will be adverse to City interests. DISCUSSION I Council should review the attached document to gain a better understanding of the situation before attempting to work through some of the following questions and issues presented below. Executive Summary In review of the County's arguments in support of their position that Akin Road is now the City's jurisdictional responsibility, City staff finds nothing that sustains the administrative or legal merit of the County's position. Apparently, the County believes that their financial participation in right-of-way for CSAH 31 eliminated any need for them [the County] to participate in the revocation of Akin Road. 1bis County belief is not grounded in any written agreements or documented in any correspondence, and, in fact, is not supported by any historical practice or in any County policy the City has knowledge of. Historical documents and agreements that the City possesses serve to demonstrate that the County should negotiate a separate turn back agreement before City acceptance of Akin Road. However, certain County officials have suggested {in so many words} that should the City challenge the County on this matter other City projects could potentially suffer, or in some regard would be negatively influenced from a political standpoint. Assuming that the outcome of this situation results in the absence of any County financial participation in the revocation of Akin Road, and results in the City taking premature jurisdictional control of Akin Road, the following issues need to be addressed. 1) Without County financial participation of 55% in the costs of potential turn back upgrades, special assessments for benefiting properties will be levied at 35% of the total reconstruction cost as opposed to 35% of the remaining 45%, after typical County participation. As this will directly affect City residents in ** terms of special assessments, and significantly increase the City's costs, the County's pOSltl.On, if unchallenged, will mean significantly higher City and resident project costs. 2) Relative to issue #1, how would the Council and staff explain this decision to these residents with their expected demands that they be treated similarly to residents along County Road 72 in terms of assessments? 3) Along similar lines, the question remains what is the qualitative difference between Akin Road and County Road 72, in terms of the County choosing to fund 55% of the turn back cost for CR. 72, and deciding not to fund Akin Road? County policy does not discriminate with respect to revocation as the essential outcome remains the same-County divestiture of a roadway. 4) If the City accepts jurisdiction of Akin Road now, as opposed to after improvements have been made, the City is assuming a liability position for a road whose existing design has been effectively blamed for numerous accidents and several fatalities. For example, any accidents occurring on this road and resulting in personal injuIy means the City will be named as the jurisdictional defendant; a fancy term for the "owner with deep pockets. " To make matters worse, the City would be forced to accept the road without the benefit of an updated feasibility report that speaks to design considerations. While I am not suggesting that design changes will be necessary, how could the City speak intelligibly of this roadway element one way or another, if public pressure were to be placed on the City? 5) Council has not taken any official actions accepting Akin Road. If Council accepts Akin Road without the completed feasibility report, the City is essentially accepting singular responsibility for unknown financial costs associated with upgrading the road to City standards. Again, while engineering staff is not suggesting that significant upgrades will be needed, we will not know until after the feasibility report is completed. 6) If the consensus of the Council were to be 'let's not fight this battle because of the negative political undertones and associated publicity', how would the Council publicly defend its decision to accept jurisdictional control of Akin Road without County financial assistance, in light of the fact that City and County legal documents clearly require certain eontractual obligations of the County. Moreover, how would this be accomplished without publicly criticizing or laying the blame on the County for the Council's decision? TIlls latter aspect is especially important as the original goal would be to avoid a negative political confrontation with the County and any related negative publicity. 7) On the other hand, if the Council does challenge the County on this, is the Council prepared for a protracted public argument that may or may not result in the City winning its position. Understate law, the County can unilaterally revoke the road to the City. However, and this is an important point, the County has always chosen to work with cities to negotiate a revocation agreement. (The underlying thought at this point is why, then, is the County taking this position against the City?) The questions and issues presented above are not designed to be exhaustive. Similarly, these issues are presented from an a~TT1il1istrative and legal perspective, and do not suggest a particular policy direction at this time. Essentially, staff s role in this siruation is to identify issues and potential scenarios that need to be considered as Council comes to a final policy conclusion. Admittedly, this will be a very difficult siruation to resolve given the financial, legal, political and community ramifications. BUDGET IMPACT Unknown at this time. ACTION REQT.JESTED Failing to take some type of action, either for or against could result in undesirable public perceptions, and considerable policy inconsistencies and problems. Up to this point, Council and staff have taken the public position that the County remains the owner of Akin Road when responding to citizen requests for stop signs, turning lanes, speed etc. Reconciling this previous position will require a politically sensitive approach. .' '. ,. In addition, if there are accidents on this road, the City and County will be perceived as trying to shift blame and public responsibility. As the County Board has taken the public position that the road is no longer their responsibility, the City Council has no choice but to take a position that either affirms or rejects the County's position. Please feel free to contact Joel Jamnik or my office should you wish further clarifying information. Council should consider whether to hold a worltshop to discuss these issues as a group prior to formally reviewing this matter at a Council meeting. In discussions with the City Attorney, Council should decide whether to formally accept jurisdictional status of Akin Road, or communicate its collective disagreement with the County's position for the record. Taking the latter position will result in the need to discuss just how far the Council is willing to take this issue. Respectfully submitted, J!i~ hn F. Erar Qy~or File Cc: JoelJamnik, City Attorney Lee Mann, Director of Public Works Robin Roland, Finance Director City of Farmington 323 Oak Street, farmington, MN 53024 (651) 463-7111 fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ~ December 7, 1999 Mr. Joel Jamnik, City Attorney Campbell, Knutson P.A. Suite 317, Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 Dear Joel: This letter shall serve to formally apprise you of issues that have been discussed with County officials regarding the jurisdictional status of Akin Road. In October of this year, my office learned that the County Highway Department had taken the position that Akin Road was now under the jurisdiction of the City. County officials indicated that given the completion of CSAH 31, the road had effectively been transferred and accepted by the City in "as-is" condition. Furthermore, County officials conveyed to City staff that the CSAH 31 project had been approved in 1995 contingent upon the City agreeing to the "as is" acceptance of Akin Road in exchange for the County's financial participation in right-of-way (ROW) costs for the new CSAH 31 alignment. Ostensibly, the unfortunate 9utcome of this County position suggested that any improvements to Akin Road in terms of upgrading the road to City standards would not include the benefit of County financial participation. In taking this position, County staff referenced a 1995 Preliminarv En~ineering. Right-of-wav Pre- Acquisition and Highwav Revocation Agreement (hereafter "1995 Agreement") signed by the City. In their interpretation, this agreement allegedly revoked County jurisdictional control over Akin Road upon completion and acceptance of the new CSAH 31 Alignment. Further, it was my understanding that the County was taking the position on the basis of the County's unique cost-sharing participation in CSAH 31 right-of-way acquisition. Their participation was, in effect, an "exchange of value" that had been allegedly agreed to by former County and City officials. Notwithstanding the County's argument, the City has examined the language in the 1995 Agreement, and believes that this agreement requires a separate revocation agreement prior to the City's acceptance of Akin Road. 1 Consequently, City staff has taken the position that the County remains in jurisdictional control of Akin Road until a separate revocation agreement can be negotiated, which includes the expectation of County financial participation for up to 55% of the revocation improvements. Moreover, the City rejects any suggestion that a quid pro quo ar:-angement was negotiated in 1995 in the absence of any corroborating language in the 1995 Agreement, or in the 1997 CSAH 31 Construction Agreement. On November 10, 1999, City and County officials met to discuss these related issues. While no agreement was reached, one outcome of this meeting resulted in both jurisdictions agreeing to produce supporting documents that would substantiate their respective positions. On November 18, 1999, City staff received a number of historical documents from the County. Staff completed a review of these County documents, with findings that suggest the County had policies in place dating back to 1990. These policies appeared to authorize County staff the ability to negotiate cost-sharing arrangements on new alignment right-of-way acquisitions for up to 55% of the cost. In particular, County Board Resolution 90-378 specifically authorized I See Exhibit #1: County Project No. 31-31, May 5, 1995. Section 2, Page 4. Mr> 1 D~~~99 Page 2 of 3 " the County to participate in right-of-way acquisition for new alignments on an individual project basis.2 Other documents indicate that the County actually participated in right-of-way acquisition on a new alignment in Apple Valley in 1990.3 . Another aspect of the County's argument was that CSAH 31 was delayed by the City, and consequently should not benefit from more fmancially generous County transportation policies that were formally adopted in 1996. According to the 1997 County CIP, it appears that the actual construction of CSAH 31 was dependent on factors totally unrelated to any formal City request to delay the project, and in fact no request was ever made by the City:~ Unlike Ash Street that was specifically identified in a County Board Resolution dated October 1, 1996 that referenced projects that were to be treated under pre-1996 County Transportation Policies, CSAH 31 Alignment is not identified.; Nor, to the best of my recollection, was there ever any suggestion that CSAH 31 was delayed due to City causes during my tenure as city administrator. In another example of County participation in new alignment ROW, Project No. 64-04 (195th Street), prepared in 1993, called for the County to participate in right-of-way acquisition at 55 percent of the total cost.6 While this project did not go for.vard due to other factors, it should be emphasized r:hat the County was prepared to participate in new alignment ROW costs. Apparently, a practice of County participation in new alignment ROW acquisition costs existed prior to 1996. While the County has maintained that an agreement was reached with former City officials regarding the "as is" acceptance of Akin Road in exchange for their financial participation in CSAH 31 ROW, there is no substantiating information relative to their contention. Moreover, in speaking with the t"W-o former City officials, both have denied recalling such an agreement ever existed. It would appear that the County's position on Akin Road, absent any supporting correspondence, agreements or documentation, remains largely unsubstantiated. The City can find no evidence in its own files that establishes that a "swap of value" had been discussed or agreed to by the City in 1995. Moreover, significant questions are raised as to how such an agreement could have been approved without either City or County governing body approval. Given the fact that neither jurisdiction had completed an assessment of the value they would be exchanging for the County's willingness to underwrite 55 percent of the right-of-way costs for the alignment vis-a.-vis the City's assumed willingness to forgo County financial participation on the revocation of Akin Road, the City can only conclude that a swap was unlikely. In very practical terms, the City will need to prepare a feasibility report to develop recommendations on the scope and value of revocation improvements to Akin Road prior to formal City acceptance. This engineering assessment is vital to our jurisdictional interests, and consequently is being planned for in early 2000. Upon completion of the feasibility report, Cit'1 engineering staff will share the results of this study with County staff. In terms of the intent of the 1995 Agreement, the City acknowledges that while the intent of the agreement is clear, the final disposition of the revocation is subordinated to a separate agreement process. 2 See Exhibit #2: Board of County Commissioners, Resolution No. 90-378, Apri124, 1990 3 See Exhibit #3: Physical Development Board Committee, March 27, 1990. Authorization to Enter into Cost-Sharing Agreements with Apple Valley for County Road 38. 4 See Exhibit #4: 1997-2000 Dakota County Capital Improvement Plan,City Comments and Proposed County Responses, Page 4, No comments were received by the County from the City relative to CSAB 31 planning schedule. S See Exhibit #5: Resolution adopted by the Physical Development Committee of the Whole on 10/1/96. Specifically mentions projects that are to be excluded under 1996 Policies. 6 See Exhibit #6: County Project No. 64-06, December 8, 1993. Page 5, Section 7. Mr. Joel Jamnik December 7, 1999 Page 3 of 3 Consequendy, consistent with the City's recent experience on the revocation of County Road 72, it is staff's position that efforts to negotiate a separate agreement need to occur, and should include a funding provision for Dakota County participation for up to 55 percent of the cost for revocation improvements. In the final analysis, the City would respectfully challenge any suggestion that the intent of the 1995 Agreement was to release the County from any further financial participation relative to the future revocation of Akin Road. Pursuant to the City's stated intent to accept revocation of Akin Road, contingent upon the negotiation of an acceptable revocation agreement, and without releasing the County from any of its obligations to negotiate a separate turn back agreement with the City, the City has offered to accept limited interim maintenance responsibilities, at no cost to the County. These limited responsibilities will consist of, at the City's sole discretion, providing snow plowing, sanding and street cleaning services on that portion of Akin Road described as beginning at 190th Street, just east of the CSAH 31 intersection, traveling south to the CSAH 50 intersection, but not including the intersection of CSAH 50 and Akin Road. In offering to provide these described services, the City neither accepts or agrees with the County's position on the jurisdictional status of Akin Road, nor accepts any other maintenance, traffic control, administrative, liability or additional statutory responsibilities, and further does not admit, agree or accept any prima facie ownership of the road that may correspond with these interim and limited City maintenance activities as described. The City makes this offer in the spirit of intergovernmental cooperation, and in recognition of the dual maintenance burden that would be placed on County highway services. In closing, while this office appreciates the desire of the County to resolve this outstanding matter, the City has no choice but to rely on written agreements, or, in' this particular case, the absence of any documentation that would suggest otherwise. In review of the County Board Resolution approving the 1995 Agreement, no mention of any alternate agreement is contained within this document. Similarly, this same resolution specifically references that this agreement is consistent with Dakota County POli~T in two separate passages, and that the agreement was reviewed and approved by the Dakota County Attorney's office.7 While the nature of our conversations regarding this matter have been direct, the City has appreciated the candor and willingness of County officials to provide us with pertinent and timely information. I have met with County Administrator Brandt Richardson on this matter and we have agreed to submit our respective positions for final legal review to both City and County attorneys. I believe it is the desire of both jurisdictions to resolve this matter with an appropriate amount of discretion. Please contact Assistant C~unty Attorney Mike Ring at 651.438.4445 to facilitate this process. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. SinC~ _ tF. Erar A: Administrator File Cc: Brandt Richardson, County Administrator Don Thiesen, County Engineer Lee Mann, Director of Public Works 7 See Exhibit #7: County Board Resolution No. 95-366, June 6, 1999. .:::.. :..~. County Project No. 3~-3~ May 5, ~995 Preliminary engineering costs for new sanitary sewer, water mains and services, lighting, and other municipal facili ties shall be the responsibility of the City. 2. Plans. Soecifications. and Lettina. The County will hire an engineering consultant to prepare complete grading, paving, storm sewer, and other municipal utility plans and specifications consistent with State Aid design standards and the Dakota County Transportation Plan. City and County approval of the plans and specifications is necessary prior to adve~ising for bids. [A fully executed agreement for the county road status of Akin Road (a portion of CSAH 31) the City and County must be completed prior to award of construction contract. 3. Riqht-of-Wav. The County shall be responsible for preparing right of way maps and Obtaining appraisals and attorney's certificates of title for all required permanent and temporary highway easements for this project. The cost of this highway right of way preacquisition work shall be shared in the "amount of 55% by the County and 45% by the City. The City shall be responsible for the preacquisition work and costs of easements for ponding, sanitary sewer, water mains and services, and other municipal facilities. 4 " . -'U.i i ; \ I BO.ARD OF COtJ~ COMMISSIONERS DAKOTA COu"NTY, MlNNESOTA -- .,J "/ . DATE Anril 24. 19-90 RESOLUTION NO. 90-378 Motion by Commissioner. Lcedins: - Seconded by C.,mmissioner. TUl"!1er ~S, the' prasani: policy under i:.."1e Dakota County T:-ansportaticn .Policy Plan for right o.f way on new County Highway Corridors, in cities over 5/000 population requires .i:..~e cit~es to pay ~OO% of the ac~isitian cost; anc . . WHUEAS, this policy has been reviewed and it is now desirable. to consider right of way acquisition cost splits far new Cc~,ty highways en an individual project case basisj' and WHERUS, the factor:; to be consider~c in making cost s~lit detar:ninat:ions include t."!e amount of :::ight of way acquir=.e by 1:..~e city in i:..~e plat~ing pr:cess, ~~a relative city-county benefit to have the road const=uctad and special consideratioil.:3 invcl~Jed Tlli't.."l indivieual projects. NOW I TH~EFORE, BE !T RZSCLVED, Th.at city-county cos.t s?lit.3 =or::-ight of wav ac~~isition on na~ Countv cor::-idcrs be data~ined on an individual project basis 'ilfith the c;unty shara to be f=om 0% 'co 55% as det.ermined by. the Dakota County Beard of Commissioners i anc. BE: IT" P'TJRTSZR RESeLV::::: 7 That Coun~y Highway and At-:or:1ey sta::fs taka ~~e actions necassa=y to maka this change in ~~e Da~ota County T=ansportation Pelicy Plan. YES NO Hams ~ A HalT." Maher Maher """ '" C:lapGelaine x Chapdelaine !.oedin~ v- A ~eding Turner ~ A "'Jmer .~ ,.._ . ... i\3Z . Oiw:\tSOI J.'1llnneS01;a C.,unty 01 DUQCa I. Joan r.. Xendall. Cleric to the Board or the <Aunt:/ of Dakota, State ot Minnesota, do hereby ~ry ~at I have compared the (oregoine ::::IOY o( a resolution with the original minutes of to'!. !,~inp oi the Board oi County Commissioners. Oalcota County, Minnesota. ~t their session held on the 24 t h day ot A'O r i 1 19 ~ now on 5!e in the CoNDty Administration Department, and haye :ound ::.'le :ame ~ be a aue and e:l~ ~y theAOi. ....t.a, ~ /1'11 '" 1Vl..... my hand ond ,llldal3al >{!)wta C,,,".!<hl: ,''''~ , ", , daY;; ~ ',:.._ ,;.~ ' 0/ ~~ Lo U1e Soard Attachmeut #4 needed joint County-City Highway projects will not be constructed. Project,s. opted 5-year Highway C~ will not be done when planned and preliminary work for" projects cannot progress ~n an orderly manner. . ilIlnediate conc!:rn of the County highway staff are the right of way costs for projE:"lo- 38-09 and CP 38-08 in Apple Valley. It would seem desirable to consider right of acquisition cost splits for alignments involving new highway corridors on an individt......... project basis. Factors which could be considered' for cost split determination include the amount of right of way acquired by the City in the platting process, the relative City- County benefit to have the road constructed and special circumstances such as the airport acquisition on CP 38-09. The County's share of constructing roads on ne~>l corridors will increase by up to 55% of the right of way costs that remain after platting has occurred if this policy is changed. This amount is estimated at $120,000 for CP 38-09 and $165,000 for CP 38-08. Other projects in the current Highway CIP that involve new County alignments are CP 5-19 and CP 5-24 in Burnsville and CP 46-07 in Apple Valley and Rosemount. The additional County right of way cost for revising the cost sharing policy if the County paid 55% of the cost is estimated to be $1,200,000 for all projects in the 5 year CIF. A change in policy on the cost splits for new highway corridors will require a change in the County Transportation Policy Plan. This will also require approval by t."J.e Metropolitan Council, which in initial contacts, would consider this a minor cb.ange requiring a 10 day review after a County Board resolution to adopt the policy change. ~CN/SU~.GSrED :RE....<'CUJTICN: At their April 17, 1990 meeting, the Physical Development Board Committee recommended by a 2 to 1 vote, with Corcmissioner Maher voting no, that the County Board adopt the following resolution. t-lHEREAS, The present policy under the Dakota County Transportation Policy Plan for ri of way on new County Highway Corridors in Cities over 5,000 population requires the Cities to pay lOO/~ of the acquisi tion cos t; and tffiEREAS, This policy has been revie~.;ed and it is now desirable to consider right oE 'Nay acquisition cost splits for net.oj' County highways on an individual project case basis; and WHERE.A.S, The fac tors to be cons idered in making cas t spli t de tentina tions inclL..'<ie the amount of right of way acquired by the City in the platting process, the relative City- County benefit to have the road constructed and special considerations involved wit.h individual projects. ~ NOW, J'HEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, Tnat City-County cost splits for right of 'Iiay acquisi don on ne~.; County corridors be determined on an individual project basis with tZle County share to be from 0% to 55% as deterrnined by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners. BE IT Fl.JRTItER RESOLVED, Tnat Colmty H1 ghway and Attorney staffs take the actions necessary to make this change in t.~e Dakota County Transportation Policy Plan. Louis J. Breimhurs t, DIRECTOR PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION A'. ..-' .' ,,'~. / ~(,e.'--(.~ 7C.'::'A!'''~~.1-- David L. Everds, P.E. HIGHWAY ENGINEER Lyle D. Wray, COU~Tl IDtINISTRATOR (.::t:t 2- ') ./ r ~::~-"!/If"- . ' . ,'~. ... ". ~ ,'"" . .. ... ~_..'.' ~ ..",~_ . ....' ...... -- ~ PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD REQJEST FeR. ~ RE.VIEi COMM!TTEE tvISICN: PHYSrCAL nEi/ELOPHENT LiEPAR'.!MENr: HIGmolAY Ccntaet Person: DAVID L. EVERDS Telepncne Number: 431-1150, E;(:t. 7101 ~ DATZ: M.oI\RCi 27, 1990 Budgeted Ncn-3u:getad Ct:-..sr F-;ntli ~g NIA x L~: AU11iORIZATION 1"1.) ENTER INIO CCST Sl1i\RnK; AGRE...~rrS wITH APPLE V Poi T '2f EiJR COUNTY ROAD - PROJECTS 38-09 AND 38-08 . Ref~!:rad by: ff.anagement Team _ ~FP or HS C=mmittee ~ 1!A~:. "!\.Io segments of County Road 38 in Ap!?le Valley are proposed fer ir!'~rcveme!'lt in the Ei';-e yeaI:' ClP. In 19907 the segmen t oE Caun t.y Read 313 fr-om Johnny Caka Ridge Read to Pilo t Kneb 'Read is proposed to be c::nst-=uc::ed. In 1991, t::e segment of Cot.m~:r Read 38 f::-cm Coun ty Read 11. to Pennoc~< Avenue is sc~e~uleci fa I:' cons tr..:c. tion ~ TI1e aligrnnent of the t."oad W;1.S established by the cities of Burnsvi:'le, AppLe Valley am Rosemount and the County oE Dakota on ik',y 10, 1977 by County 8eard Resolut.i.on. !n the inte~vening years, Apple Valley has acquiced right of way fer :his r=ad alignment as part of the platting process. Cur:-e!1tlYJ S6;~ of the dght of way has Ce~ acquired on t...~e ster-1y segment and 85% has been acqui::-ad or! the 'Nestedy sC!:?;!lent of this road, ISSUES ft.ND ~s: TIlis alignment for County Read 3S b~s been designated as the County Read 38 c~rridor since 1977 and bas been indicated on County ma!:Js as a pcojected route for many years. Dakot,~ County is proposing to entel:' into a cost shacing agreement with the Ci~l of Apple Valley fot' cons truc tion? engineering ar:c. remaining righ t of way at 55% Cour. ty and. 45% Ci ty . . Cake ta Cot..'t1ty has <1 pe l.icy of c:. des payi:1g 100% of t.o,e r-:ght of way ~osts for new alignments. TIlis road has been planned for 13 years and shewn on ma!?~. as such so that the!:."e is some question as to wne:her it is a ne',o/ alignment under- this poiicy. In thoat Ap~le Valley has acquired the lal:'ge tl".ajcrity of t.he righc. of TNay for these f:Jrojects, t;,,= Cot..1f1ty E..'1gineedng Staff feels it is appcopciate to split the remaining right of waY cos':s 55% Countjr, 45% Cit.y, Tnis is &"1 important link to the County r=ad systarn and staff believes the only i.;ny to get Ccenty Read 38 const:-ucted is l..n.t;,'-l cost sl-:a=i.ng rer: t.he remaining z:ight of way costs to be 55% County and 45% City. The Cakota County Soard of c....~issioners sl:ould be aware of ongoing disc~si.cns f...;ith Apple Valley regarding (L) ring road funding) (2) unresolved issue of restoration ~f the porriing ares. at the \~estern Se~Tice Canter and (3) grant of an easement. fer right oE way] utilities and a monument fer the C-al~ie Avenue porti.cn of t.~e ring road along the east side of the Western Se~lica Canter. Attachment #3 ON/pBOPOSED RJO:C;[)I11IICR: cr RESOLVED, n1at the Physical Development Board Coauiittee recomnend to the County ~a'rd th-:\t the County of Dakot.:1 enter into cost sft::lring agraements with the City of Apple valley for design and construction of C 38-09 and C 38-08 according to Dakota Coun policy and that the remaining right of way costs be s11ared at 55% County ani 45% City. BE tr FUKmER RESOLVED, That the appropriate Dakota County officials be authorized to execute the agreement, subject to approval by the County Attorney's Office as to form and execution. . - ", Louis J. Breimhurst, DIRECTOR PHYSICAL DEVELOPHENT DIVISION ~ :: , ,'} R k) 1 .' foAl <:JAC ; \. 111..1.-, - , (\ - '-1"1 Dlvid L. Ev~rds, P. E. f HIGHt-lAY ENGINEER Lyle D. Wray, COUNIY AI:MINISI'RA'l"OR (-1t~) -,a- . '. V2 IlI1 CIJ ~ Clo 1IJ IlI1 1IC >t i o tJ liii Clo ~ I tJ >t to 104 tJ .lII W o :I III W o lW lU .Q >0 >.J = ::l 8 lU .c >.J .c >.J ... :I lU 01 = ~ 01 lU ell: ~ = ::l o CJ >.J = lU e lU lU W 01 >0 111 -a ::l 01 >.J = UI ... W ro- Ql '" lU '" = ... ... 01 111 = Ql ,.. o >0'" ,.. 111 = = ... ... 01 e lU ... .Q .... III = W 111 Co CJ >.J UI OJ ~ OJ 1IC UI OJ ... ~ ... CJ \ ". = ... UI -a .... III -a ~ = W 111 ~ at ~ CJ UI GI 111 0:1 w = Co 0 .... ... 111 >.J ::l CJ -a ::l ... w > ~ .... 111 -a = = 0 ... tJ = 111 ~ UI CJ 111 ~ = 0 :I W o Co .c UI ... ~ M o I = ~ .~ .OJ .c ~ ~ ~ c .,-. .... o -a W lU Co-a tIl ::l ... U ~ ~ C en ... ... on OJ OJ .lII = 111 >t W o lW OJ .... ::l -a OJ .c u ro- UI '" OJ '" .c ... ~ o Co~ ::l GI GI > > -c ~ Q >0 = ~ 0 = ~ ::l 8' o ... u .c OJ 01 .c 111 ~ 3: ~ ~ 111 111 .c ~ -a UI ell: -.J OJ 111 .... GI -a & 0 OJ 0 ell: Q on at GI ... > .c... ~ at -.J at 111 8 .... lC ... OJ 111 OJ ,.. W ~ 111 -a .... 111 ... o 111 W W lW ~ lW OJ o -.J III 111 -.J W 111 111 W Co 111 GI Co 111 ~ 111 -.J CJ GI ..... o ,.. Co -a 111 o W 111 .c 111 ~ ~ -.J 111 :I U -.J = ::l 111 0 W 0 ... ~ CJ -.J at CJ = - = o 0 ::l U...~ ... ~ = 000 = , 0 .... ~ = .... at ... ... = 3 8 >- ... :: 5 CJ GI = o ~ -a e= ... o = ~ ~ ~ e= -: 'i '" e c. o ~ w CJ lW OJ ,.. -a ::l ell: ~ lW lW ... ... .... = CJ ... w a; o -a lW ... >- UI 111 .c 3 ... .... ::l ... 0 ~ .! ~ 111 '"' ... ::: o to = 0 o ~ ... ... ... 'tl 'tl 111 Ql ~ = UI 0 -.J ~ lD g' OJ ... & lC OJ GI ell: ..:l '" -a c III .... 0 > .... ~ 111 ... 01 Co :I = ... ... a 01 >0 lC = -.J GI 0 ... C ..:l ~ ~ ::l at 0 e w atUl...CJ 0 III ... 111 lC w lW .c IIIl11lWGI -.J 0 ~ w UI III 0 M .c .lII ,., OJ ... 111 lD Q ~ :l CIJ .... CJ c. w o GI CII .c en >.J en ... >0 -.J C 8 III .c ,., Eo< .., = w .. ... OJ .c ell: >0 ~ CJ >.J 0 = e ::l III o 0 .c w CJ ~ lW GI >0 ~ N .c >.J 111 N ,.,.w'" ,., CJ .... ~~GI-=~= tIl .c w CIJ 0 CJ-a>.J"'CJ... III -.J 01 111 lW CJ coo ::l ... Co w -.J 0 III -.J uw.... -a at ::l Co... ow ... = ,.. 111 ow lD 0 ~UlWO CJ UI 111 -.J .c 5 w ~ ~ ~ U 111 0 3 OJ III 'tl w >- 111 ~ C. ~ ~ g ~ ~ c::: ...., UI CJ :: -a = ow = o w 111 o III >0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ,... ~ S ..-f ... O::l 3 111 CJ .Q 111 I >.J ... 0 ~ = 'tl -a = 111 111 0 w GI .c ,g -.J ... :I = GI lIS .c :I .... = 111 o C .... ... .... ... lW 111 0 w OJ -.J III -a -a 111 III ... e .lII at ... .c ~ -a :: 111 0 o UI w OJ c: .c o -.J ~ 0 OJ >0 -a 111 .... :I > lU -a o .lII 111 W ... 0 Co.Q w ... .... ... OJ :: .c .Q ... III W 111 III ... = OJ e lU > o w Co e ... r-.. , I ro- '" '" ... ~ ;: w ... III :I >.J III = = III 0 CJ ... III >.J o 0 ....'" > -a w UI III ... CIJ ~ = .,.., w .... 41 111 .c 0 >.J 0 ~ ..:l Z ~ f"'" ... ~ w ... o 01 ... = III .... ... w .... Co III 01 .... .... ... = :: ... o I ... r0- C. U ~ .... lU -a UI III III o 1\I = 0 -;, ~ III .Q 2! o ':i ... .... .... ... 3 ~ = :: o CJ ... ... t'" '" '" ... 3 ~ ~ .... ~ 5 ... e e C'l 0 = 0 .... > III 1\I ... .c .... o ... '" '" '" ... ... ~ III .... 1II W -a 1II 1II ... ... :: 111 .... tJ = ~ 111 100 'tl lU C. -a III ... ~ .~ ~ ~ = III ~ III ~~I<O 111 w III -;: .... III 100 -8~~~ lDlII>o= ... e ... w ~ 5 U 41 ~ tJ :5 lU02!1oo ell: Z E=: ~ e o w ... ... o , ... ro- ... ... = o ~ ~ = = ... .... e ~ ftI 111 roo ::: lU > o 100 o lD ... 100 .c 41 01 > - = 41 ... ::: 'V' OJ > 111 .c lD : ~ ~ ~ ::l ow ... I ~ 100 ..... ~ :: ':i ell: o CJ 100 Ql Ql .c 'tl ... = ... ::l 111 lD III .... 'tl 111 111 = 0 ~ 100 lD lU >0 01 lW 111 ... ... ~ = _ 0 Qj W -a .... ... -a >0 = ... ftI = 01 ::l Co o e CJ 111 ~ ).I ~ ~ ~ ... 111 100 .c 0 ~ ... 01 01 t: ... III ~ ::l ..... C' 0 lU W on ell: Co'" ... lU .... .... .... > Ql .lII 111 ..:l .... 111 = 01 ... 01 OJ S' ;:; .c o w lU ~ = .... GI ... :: ~ ::l lW III .c ... = ... ... .., ~ tIl CJ -a = 111 = on ell: CJ ~ 111 01 .... 111 = 01 ... UI lU -a :: .... o = .... >0 W o 01 lU .... ... .... 111 ... 0 3 tIl >. ~ ... III = ...... ::l 0 o W CJ Co M 'tl = 111 CII ll'l ell: CJ -.J 111 .... 111 = 01 .... UI 111 >0 lW ... ~ III -a ... >0 -.J = :: o CJ lU .c -.J ... 111 .c >.J 111 ... ... ~ '"' &- GI < ell: ~ at -a >.J GI CJ > lU .... ~ ill o 0 ~ ~ w III lU ... .c = >.J OJ o ~ w 0 lU CJ -a = 0 ::l Z N III ... lU .c ... -.J ,.. 111 Co lIJ lIJ 111 -::: -a ~ ~ W 111 Ql ,.. 'tl 0 ... Co 01 W = 0 o CJ ... 0,S'"'-g o e 111 .... Q .... '"' .... ... ::: :I ... - o ':i ... 111 C. g -g ~ 111 CJ .... -a e ::~O\MI :.'d~O >o::l ... ... w e = = >.J III OJ ::l tIl ... e 0=0101 u8?l~ ... e o W >0 ... .... tIl -:: ... '"' 0 >0 ~ '"' lU ... ell: ~ 3 ~'::8 .c g Ql >.J .... .c 111 III ... C. 111 C\j C\j OJ .lII UI 1\I .... ... >. .... OJ >.J 111 ... 'tl -a 01 Ql -g ~ t: ~ ~ g ~ ... 111 W C' -.J .... -.J GI OJ Q UI 100 Ql = ,.. ... 0 .... -.J 00"'00 = OJ g .c o ,Q ::l >.J ... 00 ~~CJ~ -a OJ >0 GI ~ ::; >.J > 1<.0;_ ... OJ 00 CJ OJ CJ CJ ~ 0 ~ ~ ':i >.J ... lW o = o .... -.J CJ OJ .u.u .... -.J~OJ 'tl = ':i ~ ~ .: OJ -.J ,.. ~ * : ~ .~ CJ ::l -.J - W o t:l' 0 Z GI z~~-;~ ... 111 UI ... ... .g -& c: ... OJ GI z: :c -a ... ~ OJ c: ... ::l ~ ~ ... OJ w lD o 0 Z ell: f"'\ r i-. ',;4 WHEREAS. Dakota County has conducted meetings with cities and townships to solicit their input on draft transportation policies; and .. ..(, ::.,. .. 0;- . WHEREAS, the Dakota County Board of Commissioners has participated in a Transportation Policy Workshop and provided review. comment. and direction to staff. NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED. That the Dakota County Board of Commissioners. hereby adopts the Transportation Plan Policies as presented to the Physical Development Committee of the Whole on October 1, 1996. to be effective on October 8. 1996; and ~. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Dakota County Board of Commissioners hereby directs the County Highway Engineer to use funding formulas and policies in effect prior to the adoption of the Transportation Plan Policies as' presented to the Physical Development Committee of the Whole on October 1, 1996 for the following projects: (1) County HighwaY Project 14-12 inctuding 73-06; (2) County Highway Project 42-45; (3) County Highway project 32-28; (4) County Highway Project 74-04; and (5) County Highway Project 43-14. . _.....-1 BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED, That the Physical Oevelopment Director is directea to notify tile c;ties ana tCwnSlitpS iii Dakota County of the changes in Transportation Plan Policies adopted by the Board of Commissioners. · ?o~~-;h~~:-~~ PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISiON ~.a Ja . Ditmore. Deputy Director PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION &~~r:-f~ Brandt Richardson COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Attachment 1: Transpor"'12tion Plan Policies Attachment 2: Letters of Cemment n:jta 1 0-1 . - 3 ooooo€ CQun~y Proj.~ No. 64-06 December a, 1993. Approva~ of the plans by the city !s necessary prior ~o 1:1\e County advQ~isin9 ~or bids. 7. Riah~-..-.s-e-;.;a'l. The Cou.n~y shall be the lead a.gency :tor ~~e acquis~~ion of all rQ~~ired permanent and temporarl highway right of way and land for ~itiqatinq wetland iapacts for ~is project. The County yill keep ~e city 1nfo~Gd about the proposed riqht of way sQttlamen~ of~ers. The rsla~ive cost shara of new highway right of way and land , tor mitic;atinq wetland impacts shall be funded 2S~ by the County and 75l: by the ci.ty, except the city sha~l rornish 1:.he n..ded hiqhway riqht of way on City owned land adjacent to CR 64 at no cost to the project. The County shall reimburse the c~~y ~o~ 2~' of ~~e cost of City ownea land used for mitiga.ting ~.tland i::npaets caused by CP 64-06. (iH ':'- ;:r-.r) s. p~vmAnt. The County shall act as the paying aqent for costs of acquirinq new right of way, adjusting private utili~ies and for all payments to the Contractor. Payments to the contractor shall be made as the project work progresses and wnen certified by the County Enqineer. Upon presentation of an itemized claim by one aqencf to the other, the receivinq aqency will reimburse the invoicing aqency for its share of the costa ~ ;~ 5 .."....,.. .t ~~"~,.. ~~,. .. ..... '. . .. J BOARD OF COTJNTY COMMISSIONERS DAXOT.~ cotJNTY, ML.'lNESOTA DATE June 6 lqg5 RESOLUTION SO. 95-366 MoaonbyCo~~on~ Maller Seconded by Commissioner Mueller WHE.~EAS. Oakota.County and the CIty of Farmington need to enter into a cost-snaring agreement for preliminary engineering, right of way preacqWsition and highway revocation for County Flroject Z1-31; and WHeREAS. this agreement is consistent with Dakota County peliC'f. NOW. THERE.=ORE. BE IT ~ESCLVE:l. That the Dakota County Board of Commissione~ authorizes entering into a cost-sharing agreement with the Clty of Farmington for preliminary engineering, right of way preac:::juisition and highway revocation for County Flrojec: Z1-31; and BE IT r=uRTHE.~ ~ESOL'IED. ihat the Dakota County Physical Oevelopment Oivision Oirec:or is hereby authorized to execute the agreement. subjec: to final agreement approval by the County Attorney's Cffice as to form and execution. YES NO Harris X Harris Maher X Maner ilatagH. X l.tagHa Mueller X Mueller Tumer X Turner Krause X Krause Laeding X Laeding State of Minnesota COWlq of Dakota t. Mary S. ScJzeide. Cleric :.0 the Board of the Count'! of Oako~ SCte of ~innflOl'.:1. do hlt~or eerci~' ~t [ h~ve c:ompane Co"e fO"lOiftC copy of a. resoluaon wids the onema! minuteS oi :.lte proceecings of the 30ard oi County CommtSSloners. Oajco~ County. MinnelGQ. u their 5eSS1On held on the 6th day of June L9 fi no'" on 51e In the County A~n Oeparcnenc. a.nci have Counei :he same to be a. trUe a.nd C:Or':"!Ct copy thef'eoi. I ",'i-L. ~ Ida.r Witzl_ my IIacd a.cci official seal of Qajcoca. Coun:y chis" day of 1 I.J \. ".1'/1 C C 'P . " City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-1111 fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmin~on.mn.us ~ TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Acknowledge Interim Maintenance Services - Akin Road DATE: December 6, 1999 INTRODUCTION Over the course of the last several weeks, Citv staff has received information from the Dakota County Highway Department regarding their desire to have the City accept jurisdictional responsibility for Akin Road. Essentially, the City's jurisdictional responsibility for Akin Road would begin at its northerly intersect with Pilot Knob and southerly terminus at County Road 50. While it remains the City's position that the County continues to own the roadway segment until formal revocation, the City is receiving Municipal State Aid (MSA) funds for Akin Road and could consider the County's request with resp~ct to providing interim and limited maintenance support activities. DISCUSSION A review of the 1995 PreliminarY EnQ:ineerinQ:. RiQ:ht-of-wav Pre-acquisition and HiQ:hwav Revocation AlZI'eement signed by the City indicates that upon completion and acceptance of the CSAH 31 Alignment and upon execution of a separate revocation agreement, the City's intent would be to accept jurisdictional responsibility for this roadway. As the revocation agreement will not be completed until some time after the completion of a City feasibility report scheduled for 2000, the County would be forced to maintain both roadways until formal revocation occurs. The revocation process, upon completion of the Feasibility Report, will consist of presenting report findings to Council; holding informational meetings with affected residents on proposed project improvements; meeting with the County to discuss proposed upgrades to Akin Road and negotiating the extent of their respective financial participation; determination by Council of the desired method of underwriting project improvements that is likely to include special assessments to benefiting properties; and, in general, including the revocation project in the City and County's capital improvement planning processes. Consequently, these process considerations could result in a 2001-2002 project reconstruction time period. Given the fact that the City's stated intent has been to accept jurisdictional responsibility for Akin Road pursuant to the satisfaction of previously described stipulations, and has already taken steps to include this segment of the roadway in the City's MSA route calculations, it would appear ~onable fur the City to provide interim maintenance services on Akin Road until a revocation agreement is formally adopted by Council. Preliminary discussions with Dakota County staff have suggested that the City would be willing to tentatively consider the provision of limited road maintenance services prior to the formal execution of a revocation agreement. City staff has already indicated to the County that the interim municipal provision of limited street maintenance services on Akin Road should not be interpreted and would not constitute City acceptance of the roadway or of any other maintenance, traffic control, administrative, or additional statutory responsibilities. Further, these limited and interim maintenance services will consist of, at the City's sole discretion, providing basic snow plowing, sanding and street cleaning services on that portion of Akin Road described as beginning at 190th Street parallel, just east of the CSAR 31 intersection, traveling south to the CSAR 50 intersection, but not including the intersection ofCSAH 50 and Akin Road. BUDGET IMP ACT The City receives approximately $88,000 annually in MSA funds for this segment of Akin Road. Typically, in addition to other funding sources, the General Fund normally underwrites the cost of providing routine street maintenance services. ACTION REQUESTED Council acknowledgement of the City's inteI].t to provide limited and interim maintenance services on Akin Road beginning at the easterly point of the intersection of Akin Road and Pilot Knob, but not including the intersection, and extending south to the intersection of Akin Road and County Road 50, but not including the intersection. File Cc: Brandt Richardson, Dakota County Administrator CAMPBELL KNUTSON 7 Professional Association Attorneys at Law Thomas J. Campbdl Roger N. Knutsl)n Thomas M. Scott Elliott B. Knetsch (651) 452~jOOO Fax (651) 452~j55C Joel J. Jamnik A.ndrea ~lcDowell Poehler :Vlatthew K. Brokl* John F. Kdlv ~latthew J. Fd.i :Vlar!Zuerite :VI. McCarron October 21, 1999 ~. ~.lstJ ii,..:,;n.~~J in \\,;'is~, f'....in Mr. John Erar City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Re: Farmington CSAH 31 - County Turnback Dear John: You asked for my opinion regarding the obligation of the City to accept the revocation of Akin Road as a CSAH. The agreement between the County and the City dated May 5, 1999 specifies that the "County intends to revoke" and that the "City has indicated its willingness to accept transfer" of the road, but it also specifically provides on page 4 (at the last sentence of Paragraph 2) that "a fully executed agreement for the revocation of county road status of Akin Road (a portion of CSAH 31) between the City and County must be completed prior to award of a construction contract. " It is my opinion that Section 5 regarding the road revocations must be read in light of the parties intent to draft a separate agreement regarding turnback prior to the County proceeding with road construction, and that the City should insist upon the preparation and execution of a formal rurnback agreement 'Nhich addresses the terms and conditions under which the City will accept responsibility for the affected segment of Akin Road. Very truly yours, Campbell Knutson Professional Association BY:~'.~ -:L- Joel J. . JJJ:cjh Suite 317 . Eagandale Office Center · 1380 CL)rporate Center Curve · Eagan, MN j j 121 ; ~-~. '.- '" s county project No. 31-31 May 5, 1995 . Preliminary engineering costs for new sanitary sewer, water mains and services, lighting, and other municipal facilities shall be the responsibility of the city. 2. Plans. SDecifications. and Lettina. The County will hire an engineering consultant to prepare complete grading, paving, storm sewer, and other municipal utility plans and specifications consistent with state Aid design standards and the Dakota County Transportation Plan. City and County approval of the plans and specifications is necessary prior to advertising for bids. [A fully executed agreement for the county road status of Akin Road (a portion of CSAH 31) between the City and County must be completed prior to award of construction contract. 3. Right-of-Wav~ The County shall be responsible for preparing right of way maps and obtaining appraisals and attorney's certificates of title for all required permanent and temporary highway easements for this project. The cost of this highway right of way preacquisition work shall be sharad in the "amount of 55% by the County and 45% by the city. The City shall be responsible for the preacquisition work and costs of easements for ponding, sanitary sewer, water mains and services, and other municipal facilities. 4 - .-.."-- County Project No. 31-31 May 5, 1995 4. Pavment. The County will pay the costs associated with preliminary engineering for roadway and municipal utility design and highway right of way preacquisition. The city will pay the costs associated with right of way preacquisition for municipal utilities. Upon presentation of an itemized claim by one agency to the other, it is mutually agreed that the receiving agency will reimburse the invoicing agency for its share of the costs incurred under this agreement within 30 days from the presentation of the claim. If any portion of an itemized claim is questioned by the receiving agency, the remainder of the claim shall be promptly paid, and accompanied by a written explanation of the amounts in question. 5. Road Revocation. If the new pilot Knob Road alignment of CSAH 31 is constructed south of 190th street, and after acceptance of the completed project by the city and County, the County will revoke its state Aid designation and jurisdiction of Akin Road between CSAH 50 and 190th street to the City, and the city will accept jurisdiction over the road. 6. Rules and Requlations. The County and City shall abide by Minnesota Department of Transportation state Aid rules and regulations. 5 .. '01 I I' ~ ;i :i ;i i , -.~/ DAKOTA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQJEST FOR BOARD ACIION 9 ~. ISION: PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT AIm1ENr: HIGHWAY Contact Person:. DAVID L. EVERDS Telephone lbDber: 431-1150 EX!'. 7101 BOARD MEErllC DATE: APRIL 24, 1990 Consent: Regular: --r Inf01:!lBticn: - Budgeted X Non-Budgeted - Other FtDiing - N/A= II'EM: AOOPTION OF NEW COUNTY COST SHARL.'1G POLICY FOR RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION FOR NEW COUNT! HIGHWAY CORRIDORS Reviewed by: Management Team _ Beard Ccamittee Ot..tu!r ~: Dakota County policy for obtaining right of way on ne~v County Hi,~hway Cor::-idors requires that Cities over 5,000 population, in whic~ the road is located, pay 100% of the cost for perman en t and temporary easemen ts . This policy has been in effect si~ce at least 1960. The ~olicy was rev~ewed in 1982 by the Dakota County Transporation Policy Advisory Group. This group recorr.mended that the County Board change this policy so that the County fund 5S/~ of the cost for ne~.; right of way. The Coun ty Board did no t approve t..~e 1982 comni t tee recoamenda tion . The County Transportation Policy Plan, adopted in 1982, also states that right of way r"""uired for ne'Nly established COlZlty highway. 'Corridors must be obtained by the local unit ;overnmen t. Several cities in the County have recently objected to various County Highway cost sharing policies. rnver Grove Heights and P~stings have rejected proposed County Highway projects late in the project development ~rocess during 1990 and the County's cost sharing policies appear to be the main reason. Apple Valley staff believes that it is uncertain as to whether CP 38-09 improve.'I1ents will be approved by the City unless the cur='ent cost sharing policy for right of way on new highway corridors is changed. The alignment of County Road 38 TNas established by the cities of Burnsville, Apple Valley and Rosemount and the County of Dakota on May 10, 1977 by County Board Resolution and has been indicated on County maps as a projected route for many years. In the intervening years 7 Apple Valley has acquired right of way for this road alignmen t as part of the pla t ting process. Currently, 56% of the right of way has been acquired Ear CP 38-09 and 85% has been acquired for CP 38-08. Fiite projects on ne\" alignments are scheduled in the 5 year CIP. These. projects include CP 38-09 located from Jobrmy Cake Ridge Road to Pilot Knob in Apple Valley, CP 38-08 from COlZlty Road 11 to Pennock Avenue in Apple Valley, CP 5-19 from Dupont Avenue to I-3S"'w in Burnsville, CP 5-24 from Tn 13 to Dupont Avenue in Burnsville, and CP 46-07 from Pilot Knob Road to 1:'1 52 in Apple Valley and Rosemount. ISSUES AND CONCERNS: The County requires a cost sharing agreement with cities over 5,000 population in order to : true t Coun ty Highway iml?rove.'I1en ts . If ci ties are unwilling to en ter in to cas t sharing ~ Aneeded joiOt. Comty-City. Highway projects will not be construc;e<i. Pro jec ts .' ~. adopted 5-year Highway CD? will not be done when planned am prelimi.nary work for .& ed pro j ec ts canno t progress In an orderly manner. 111e irmnediate concern of the County highway staff are the right of way costs for project CP 38-09 and CP 38-08 in Apple Valley. It would seem desirable to consider right of w acquisition cost splits for alignments involving new highway corridors on an individual project basis. Factors which could be considered for cost split determination include the amount of right of way acquired by the City in the platting process, the relative City- County benefit to have the road constructed. and special circumstances suc.~ as the airport acquisition on CP 38-09. The County's share of constructing roads on new corridors will increase by up to 55% of the right of way costs that remain after platting has occurred if t..'Us policy is changed. This amount is estimated at $220,000 for CP 38-09 and $165,000 for CP 38-08. Other projects in the current Highway CIP that involve netoJ' County alignments are CP 5-19 and CP 5-24 in Burnsville and CP 46-07 in Apple Valley and Rosemount. The additional County right of way cost for revising the cost sharing policy if the County paid 55% of the cost is estimated to be $1,200,000 for all projects in the 5 year CIP. A change in policy on the cost splits for new highway corridors will requi=e a change in the County Transportation Policy Plan. This will also require approval by t..~e Metropolitan Council, which in initial contacts, would consider this a minor cr-.ange requiring a 10 day review after a County Board resolution to adopt the policy ~~ge. ~CN/SUG{;-~ RE-c::cwrICN: At their April 17, 1990 meeting, the Physical Development Board Committee recommended by a 2 to 1 vote, with Corrmissioner Maher voting no, that the County Board adopt the following resolution. , tvHEREAS, The present policy under the Dakota County Transportation Policy Plan for righ of way on new County Highway Corridors in Cities over 5,000 population requires the Cities to pay 100% of t..~e acquisi tion cos t; and \~~S, This policy has been reviewed and it is now desirable to conside~ right of way acquisition cost splits for ne'N' County highways on an individual project case basis; and w1iEREAS, The factors to be conside~ed in making cost split determinations include the amount of right of ,..ay acqui=ed by the City in the platting process, the relative City- Count.y benefit to have t...~e road constructed and special considerations involved with individual projects. NOW, J"dEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That City-County cost splits for right of 'Nay acquisition on ne~.; County corridors be determined on an indiv-idual project basis with the County share to be from Oi~ to 5S/~ as determined by the Dakota County Board of Cotmnissioners. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That County Highway and Attorney staffs take the actions necessary to make this change in t..~e Dakota County Transportation Policy Plan. LDuis J. Breimhurs t., DIRECTOR PhYSICAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION ------ .'--'" .-f 'd:~ /--' c:;.. / ~.,-&z,--(.,.' . c,c:>(:'.4!a-L.. David L. Everds, P.E. HIGHWAY ENGINEER Lyle D. Wray, COUNTY ACMINISTRATOR