HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.15.00 Work Session Packet
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street. Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
City Council Chambers
Tuesday, February 15,2000 - 7:00 p.m.
TENTATIVE AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ADOPT AGENDA
3. DISCUSSION
a) Background Information - Attachments
b) Dakota County Position on Akin Road
c) AdministrativeILegal Review - Project Agreement
d) City Policy Issues
e) Council Deliberations
4. ACTION ITEMS
5. ADJOURN
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.cLfarmington.mn.us
TO:
Mayor and Council Members
FROM:
John F. Erar, City Administrator
SUBJECT:
Council Workshop - Akin Road Turnback Issues
DATE:
February IS, 2000
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Council Workshop is to provide Council with an opportunity to review a variety of
City issues associated with the revocation of Akin Road. 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 they do not intend to financially contribute to any improvements
associated with the revocation of Akin Road.
DISCUSSION
In review of this issue, background information has been attached that will hopefully provide a better
understanding of the issues under review. The attached items include:
I) Correspondence from Brandt Richardson, Dakota County Administrator dated January 10, 2000
2) Council Communications dated December 16, 1999 on Akin Road Revocation - Status and Issues
3) Correspondence to Joel Jamnik, City Attorney dated December 7, 1999 that includes a number of
historical document attachments.
4) Council Agenda Item - Acknowledge Interim Maintenance Agreement dated December 6, 1999
S) Legal Opinion from Joel Jamnik, City Attorney dated October 21, 1999
6) Dakota County Board historical document dated April 2, 1990 adopting new County Cost Sharing
Policy.
ACTION REOUESTED
For Council review and discussion at the February IS, 2000 Council Workshop.
itted,
file
....
-.
Brandt Richardson
County Administrator
Dakota County
Administration 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
Printed on recycled paper
with 30% post-consumer waste.
AN EQUAL OPPOft.TUNrTV E/"PLOYER
~~
COUNTY
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
board, 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 turnback 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,
I?wt!-
Brandt Richardson
County Administrator
cc: Joseph Harris, Commissioner, First District
Louis Breimhurst, Director, Physical Development
Donald Theisen, County Engineer
Michael Ring, Assistant County Attorney
" .
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
TO:
Mayor and Council Members
John F. Erar, City Administrator
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Akin Road Revocation - Status and Issues
December 16,1999
INTRODUCTION
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
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, Gty 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
Gty 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 reconstnlction 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 significandy increase the Gty's costs, the County's position, if
unchallenged, will mean significantly higher Gty 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
assessrnents?
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 Gty accepts jurisdiction of Akin Road now, as opposed to after improvements have been made,
the Gty 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 injury means the City will be named as the jurisdictional defendant; a fancy term for the
"owner with deep pockets. " To make matters worse, the Gty would be forced to accept the road without
the benefit of an updated feasibility report that speaks to design considerations. Wl:llle I am not
suggesting that design changes will be necessary, how could the Gty speak intelligibly of this roadway
element one way or another, if public pressure were to be placed on the Gty?
5) Council has not taken any official actions accepting Akin Road. If Council accepts Akin Road without the
completed feasibility report, the Gty is essentially accepting singular responsibility for unknown financial
costs associated with upgrading the road to Gty 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 Gty and
County legal documents clearly require certain contractual 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? This 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 mayor may not result in the Gty winning its position. Under state law,
the County can unilaterally revoke the road to the Gty. 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 Gty?)
The questions and issues presented above are not designed to be exhaustive. Similarly, these issues are
presented frorn an administrative and legal perspective, and do not suggest a particular policy direction at this
time. Essentially, staff's role in this situation is to identify issues and potential scenarios that need to be
considered as Council cornes to a final policy conclusion. Admittedly, this will be a very difficult situation to
resolve given the financial, legal, political and community ramifications.
BUDGET IMPACT
Unknown at this time.
ACTION REQUESTED
Failing to take sorne 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 workshop to discuss these issues as a group prior to formally reviewing
this rnatter 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.
J!iRespe~
hn F. Erar
City Administrator
File
Cc: JoelJamnik, City Attorney
Lee Mann, Director of Public Works
Robin Roland, Finance Director
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
Decernber 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 Departrnent 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. Furtherrnore, 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 outcome 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 Preliminary Engineering. Right-of-way Pre-
Acquisition and Highway 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 arrangement 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 docurnents from the County. Staff completed a review of these County docurnents, 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 arrangernents 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.JoelJamnik
December 7, 1999
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 rnore financially 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.4
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.s Nor, to the best of my recollection, was there ever any suggestion that CSAH
31 was delayed due to City causes during rny 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 forward due to other factors, it should be ernphasized that 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 two 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 assessrnent 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, City 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 agreernent process.
2 See Exhibit #2: Board of County Commissioners, Resolution No. 90-378, April 24, 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 CSAH 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.JoelJamnik
December 7, 1999
Page 3 of 3
Consequently, 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 Agreernent was to
release the County frorn 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 frorn any of its obligations to negotiate a
separate turn back agreernent 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 rnaintenance activities as described.
The City rnakes this offer in the spirit of intergovernrnental 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 agreernent is consistent with Dakota County Policy in two separate passages,
and that the agreernent 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 rnatter 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 County
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.
Sin~ _
f F.E=
e~~ 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.
-#-1
..~
...~;~ r...,.~...
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. 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 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 a
construction contract.
3.
Riaht-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
\0,;- !
BOARD OF COlJNTY COMMISSIONERS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MiNNESOTA
~}.
. DATE Anril 24, 1990
RESOLUT!ON NO. 90- 378
Motion by Commissioner Loedinl!'
- Seconded b-y C"mmissioner Tu Tn e r
WHEl\EAS, the. present policy under the Dakota County Transportation
Policy P~a'n for rig,ht of way on new County Highway Corridors in cities
over 5 I 0;00 population requires the cities to pay 100% of the
acquisition cost; and
I . .
WH.EREAS, this policy has been reviewed and it is now desirable- to
consider right of way acquisition cost splits for new County highways
on an individual project case basis; and .
WHEREAS, the factors to be considered in making cost solit
deta:nninations include the amount of right of way acquired by the. city
in t..~e platting process, the relative city-county benefit to have the
road constructed and special consideratioil~ involved with individual
projects..
NOW, THER.EFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That city-county cost splits for right
of way acqui.sition on new County corridors be determined on an
individual project basis. with the County shar,e to be from 0% to 55% as
determined by.the Dakota County Beard of Commissionersj anc
BE IT FURTHER R.ESOLVED 1 That County Highway and Attorney staffs take
the actions necessary to make this change in the Dakota County
Transportation Policy Plan.
YES
X
NO
Harris
Harris
Maher
CMpcielaine
Loeding
Maher
x
Turner
x
X
X
Chapdeiaine
~eding
T>.nner
State of Minnesota
C"unty 01 Dakota
I, Joan 1. Kendall, Clerk to the Board of the County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, do hereby certily that I have compared the
foregoing copy of a resolution with the original minutes of to;e proceedings of the Board oi County Commissioners. Dakota County,
Minnesota, at their session held on the 24 t h day of A:o r i 1 19 9 0 . now on tile in the County
Administration Department., and have !oundthe same to be atnJe and corn!C~ copy thereoi.
WitnesliI my hand and official seal 01 Dakota County Uti:s
.~,~~
t?J
Attachment #4
/~eded joint County-City Highway projects will not be constructed. Projects
...abpted 5-year Highway CIP will not be done when planned and preliminary work 'for'
~projects cannot progress in an orderly manner.
h.... /J."nediate concern of the County highway staff are the right of way costs for projec--
38-09 and CP 38-08 in Apple Valley. It would seem desirable to consider right of T
acquisition cost splits for alignments involving new highway corridors on an individt..L....
. 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 new 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 $220,000 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 the
Metropolitan Council, which in initial contacts, would consider this a minor change
requiring a 10 day review after a County Board resolution to adopt the policy change.
RE<Dt1ENDATION/SUGGFSrED RE..,<:"OllTl'ION:
At their April 17, 1990 meeting, the Physical Development Board Committee recommended by a
2 to 1 vote, with Commissioner Maher voting no, that the County Board adopt the following
resolution.
t.JHEREAS, The present policy under the Dakota County Transportation Policy Plan for rig
of way on new County Highway Corridors in Cities over 5,000 population requires the Cities
to pay 100% of the acquisi tion cos t; and
tJHERFAS, This policy has been reviewed and it is now desirable to consider right of way
acquisition cost splits for new County highways on an individual project case basis; and
WHEREAS, The factors to be considered in making cost split determinations 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 considerations involved with
individual projects.
~ NOW, JHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That City-County cost splits for right of way acquisition
on new County corridors be determined on an individual project basis with the County share
to be from 0% to 55% as determined by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners.
BE IT FURTIfER RESOLVED, That County Highway and Attorney staffs take the actions necessary
to make this change in the Dal<eta County Transportation Policy Plan.
Louis J. Breimhurs t, DIRECTOR
PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
~' -C-
~t.i2v<.~ LCCA,~(d'~
David L. Everds, P.E.
HIGHWAY ENGINEER
Lyle D. Wray, COUNTI ACMINISTRATOR
(-* 2- ') /' f"
. :.: . ~." .,....
~
~~..,'..;..~,. .'----.. ....
., ..
. ~ .. ''-'"
PHYSICAL
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REQJt.ST FOR CQ'.MTITEE RE.VIE.i
COMMITTEE
~?
~.'
)J:'IIISICN: PHYSICAL nEVELO~1ENT
)EPAR1MFNl": HIGH\~AY
Contact Person: DAVID 1. EVERDS
Telephone NUmber: 431-1150, Ext. 7101
MEE1'ING DATE: MARCH 27, 1990
Budgeted X
Non-Budgeted
Ot.l....ar Funding
N/A
rnM: AU1liORIZATION TO ENTER IN'ID COST SHARING AGREEMENTS WITH APPLE VATT r::i roR COUNTY ROAD 38
PROJECTS 38-09 AND 38-08 .
Referred by:
~..anagemen t Team
Ai!"-P or HS Ccmmittee
Bca:-d
BA~:'
Two segments of County Road 38 in Apple Valley are proposed for improvement in the five
year CIP. In 1990, the segment of County Road 33 from Johnny Cake Ridge Road to Pilot
Knob 'Road is proposed to be const-.:uc1:en. In 1991, the segment or County Road 38 from
County Road 11 to Pennock Avenue is scheduled for construction.
TI1e alignment or the road was established by the cities of Burnsville, Apple Valley am
Rosemount and the County oE Dakota on i-iay 10] 1977 by County Board Resolution. In the
intervening years] Apple Valley has acquiced right of way for this read alignment as part
of the platting process. Currently, 56% of the right of way has been acquired on the
sterly segment and 85% has been acquired on the westerly segment of this ~cad.
ISSUES AND CCNCERNS:
TI1is alignment for County Read 3S ~ls been designated as the County Read 38 corridor since
1977 and has been indicated on Collnty maps as a projected route for many years. Dakota
County is proposing to enter into a cost sharing agreement with the City of Apple Valley
for construction, engineering and remaining right or way at 55% County and 45% City.
Dakota County has a policy of cities paying 100% of the right of way costs for new
alignments. TI1is road has been planned for 13 years and shewn on map~. as such so that
there is some question as to whether it is a new alignment under this policy. In that
Apple Valley has acquired the large majority of the right of way foe these peojects, the
County ~~gineeeing Staff feels it is appropriate to split the remaining right of way costs
55% County, 45% City. Tnis is an important link to the County read system and staff
believes the only \o/ay to get County Road 38 constructed is with cost sb.aring ror the
remaining right of way costs to be 55% County and 45% City.
The Dalmta County Board of Commissioners should be aware of ongoing disc~ssicns with Apple
Valley regarding (1) ring read funding, (2) unresolved issue of restoration of the por~ing
area at the ~~estern Service Center and (3) grant of an easement for right of way,
uti Li ties and a monument for the C-alaxie Avenue porticn of the ring road along the east
side or the Western Service Center.
Attachment #3
ON!pROPOsm R.ESOIlJTI~:
"
r.r RESOLVED, 'U,at the Physical Development Board Committee recolIl1lend to the County
~ard tll-:1t the County of Oakom enter into cost sharing agreements 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 shared at 55% County and 45% City.
BErf FUKfHER 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.
f\
. ...
Louis J. Breimhurst, DIRECTOR
PYfYSICAL DEVELOP~1ENT DIVISION
:~ , ,)? J
':1'_'" R. 0._-<:( (rl
Dav~d 1. Evefds, P. E. ~
HIGHt-lAY ENGINEER
Lyle D. Wray, COUNIY ALt1INISfRATOR
( -1t -3) 72..
,-
~
~
U)
IrJ
U)
:z:
o
'"
U)
IrJ
CIl
>0
~
U
Q
ii
'"
~
i
o
U
>0
~
M
U
..I(
~
o
:J
41
~
o
.....
41
,Q
>0
..,
C
='
o
U
41
.c:
..,
.c:
..,
....
:J
41
III
C
o
III
41
i:l::
..,
C
41
e
41
41
~
0'1 >0
III "C
='
0'1'"
C III
....
~ r-
41 C7\
41 C7\
C ....
....
0'1 III
C
41 l-<
o
>0.....
~
III C
C ....
.... 0'1
e 41
.... ,Q
~
41 C
~ III
C. t)
..,
C
='
o
u
..,
III
41
41
II::
C
....
III "C
.... 41
"C ..,
C ~
III :l
.., III
~ III
.,.., III
o :J
l-< C
C. 0
~ ....
III ..,
=' t)
"C ='
.... ~
> ..,
.... III
"C C
C 0
.... U
C
III ..,
III ~
III .,..,
C 0
:J l-<
o c.
.c:
III ....
.., N
o I
C ~
.~ .41
.c:
.., ..,
~ C
.~ .rot
o "C
~ 41
c."C
III ='
.,.-1 ..... \D
.c: g g:
Eo< .... ....
Ltl
41
41
-2
III
>0
~
o
.....
Q)
~
='
"C
41
.c:
t) r-
III C7\
41 C7\
.c: ....
.., 0
..,
c.
=' 41
41 >
> ....
o ~
e Q
>0 C
.., 0
C ..,
=' ~
o ....
t) .c:
41 III
.c: III
.., ~
.., ..,
III III
.c:
..,
"C
III II::
.., 41
:J ....
&'8
41 0
II:: Q
Ltl
.~ 41
.c: .~
.., III
.., III
III B
.... l(
.... 41
III 41
~ ~
.., III
"C ....
III ....
o III
~ ~
..... ..,
..... 41
o ..,
41 III
.., ~
III III
~ C.
III 41
C. III
~ III
III ~
..,
t)
41
.,..,
o
~
C.
"C
III
o
l-<
III
.c:
..,
....
.., III :J
t) .., C
=' III 0
~ 0 ....
.., t) ..,
III t)
C C C
8 .~ .;:;
... .., C
o t) 0
C ~ t)
~ tl .9
~ C
.... 0 41
:J t) c::
>0 41 .g
... .c:
c:: Eo< ...
::l 0
8 C
41 ~ ~
.c: .... .c:
Eo< ... :J
\D
e '"
o H
~ t.I
..... 41
~
"C ='
i:l:: ~
..... .....
~ rtS
~ C
U ....
~ 41
o "C
..... ....
>0 III
III .c:
:J ...
.... ::l
.... 0
~ III
..,
III ,.,
..... :I:
o Eo<
c:: 0
o .j.J
....
.:: 41
:g ~
III C
III 0
... ...
:J ~
& 'Q
~ ~
'"
>0
...
C
='
o
U
41
.c: ,.,
Eo<
:I:
Eo< Ltl
C7\
o C7\
.., ....
~
o
41
t)
C C
.... ....
U)
>0
..,
....
t.I
41
.c:
...
,., C
~ ....
41
N .c:
,., ...
>0
..,
....
U
>0
,Q 41
.c:
"C ..,
41
III
o
C.
o
~
c.
41 .c:
,Q ..,
....
"C :J
....
::l ..,
o t)
t) ....
....
.., .....
.... C
o
..... t)
....
o
. ..,
C
41
III .c:
:J
III
~ ..,
41 t) ,.,
"C ='
.... ~ :I:
::l .., Eo< 41
o III III
.c: C 0 C
III 0 .., 0
t) C.
C III
o 41
.., ~
0'1
C ....
.... ==
l(
41 0
..:I ..,
e l-<
o 41
~ .....
..... 41
~
~
(J)
U
0'1
C
....
..,
t)
::l
~
..,
III
c::
o ~
t) III
41
~ >0
41
"C '"
.... H
III U
C
o ~
t) 41
...
.... III
~ ....
....
:J
....
~ ~ C
~ (J) 0 ~
... U .... .... .....
.., III 0
t) ~
~ ..,
.., 41
III ..I(
c.... 41
o ,Q .c: ~
t) .., III
"C ='
>0 III 0 III
III 0 III ..,
:J ~ c::
"C 41 41
III C .c: e
o 0 .., 41
~ >
ceo
III 0 ~
C.
41 >0 e
"C III ....
.... :J
> 41 "C
o ..I( III
~ .... 0
c.,Q ~
"C "C .....
CillO
III 0
~ 41
.... "C
-1'"1 ...... .1'"1
III ..... III
III ~ 0
Ill... .c:
C ...
Q) III ::l
c:: 0
o "C III
C
III ::l Q)
"C ..... .c:
c:: ..,
::l "C
..... C
III
>0
.., "C
C ~
::l ....
o ::l
III U ,Q
~
C III
o C
....
.., .....
....
.... 41
::l .c:
,Q ..,
41
Q) "C
"C III
.... e
III
~ :::
l-< ....
41 :J
... D1
c:: c::
41 0
u.... III Q)
4Itl "CZ
t).... III
.... "C 0 l-<
> III l-< 41
~ .... >
41 ~ Q) 0
(J) =' lr
c.,.., .., 8
~ ~ c....
Q) III 0...
.c: t) ~ t)
.., 0 ......... Eo<
~..:I "C"C8
Z C .~ ...
4Ir- lIl~z
.c: C7\ \D.,..., :E
... C7\ ~ 0
~.... i:l:: ~ ..,
o 0'1 t.I.c: "C
..... c:: Q) 41
Q).... .c: Eo< "C
... ~ III .., 0 l-<
.... C. III Q III
IIlIllB4I~~
cO"C:EO
III .... ~.:: .....
..... 0'1 t)
o Q) C Q)
41 ,Q l! .... tl ,Q
III 0 .., .... 41 ~
n:s oW ~.,.., .....
.c: 0.... 0 ....
t)"C"':J~:J
~ Q) C C.
::l ~ .... >0 ..,
c.::l ... ~ lJl
"C .., C III Q)
41 41 ::l ::l C ::l
.c:.c: 00'10'
Eo<~.5U'U;~
r-
C7\
C7\
....
~
....
...
c::
::l
~
o
I
....
r-
'"
t.I
""
C
::l
o
U
....
....
r-
C7\
C7\
....
:J
41 >0
C ..,
....
Q) C
.c: ::l
... ~
0'1 0
C t)
....
> III
III ...
.c: ....
.., C
III ....
41
~ "C
Q) Q)
"" ..,
C III
.... t)
C oS
III
"C ~
41 2
III C
III Q)
~ u
c. Q)
>: t)
41 ....
>
III l-<
III 41
.c: (J)
>0 C
... l-<
.... Q)
U .c:
..,
41 ~
.c: 0
Eo< Z
o
..,
\D
C7\
C7\
....
e
o
~
....
~
o
I
....
r-
'"
U
....
41
>
o
~
o D1
..,
~ .c:
41 0'1
> ....
C 41
... =
41
>
III
.c:
41 .~
~ .c:
B ..,
::l
..... III
III ~
III III
III l-<
....
I
H
~ .....
41 \D
.c: ~
.., i:l::
o U
~ 41
41 .c:
"C ..,
C ...
::l III
III III
.... "C
III III
C 0
~ l-<
III 41
>0 0'1
..... III
.... ..,
.., C
c:: 0
41 ~
"C ....
.... "C
>0 C
.., III
5 III
o ~
U III
41 l-<
.c: 41
"" .c:
.., ..,
III ~
.c: 0
.., .....
III III
... ..,
III t)
41 41
g..o'
Q) ~ Ltl
i:l:: c.,.,
....
41
....
~
....
>
41
..I(
III
..:I
41
0'1
C
III
.c:
t)
~
41
..,
C
....
41
~
::l
..,
::l
.....
41
.c:
..,
C
....
....
,.,
~
(J)
U
"C
C
III
CD
Ltl
i:l::
t.I
..,
III
III
~
III
C
0'1
....
lJl
41
"C
=' >0
.... ~
g 0
.... Z'
~ ...
.... III
.... t)
3 lJl
>0""
.., ~
C .,..,
::l 0
o ~
U C.
N
"C
C
III
CD
Ltl
i:l::
U
..,
III
~
III
C
0'1
....
III
III
>0
.....
....
""
C
41
"C
....
>0
..,
C
='
o
U
41
.c:
..,
""
III
.c:
..,
III
.., ....
:J ,.,
&~
41 (J)
i:l:: t.I
III "C
.., 41
t) >
41 ....
.,.., 41
o t)
~ Q)
~
~ III
41 ..,
.c: C
.., 41
o ~
~ 0
41 t)
"C
C 0
=' :z:
N
lJl
....
41
.c:
..,
III
.... C
.c: 0
..,
C
o
"C ....
41 D1
.., ::l
t) ....
::l t)
~ C
.., ....
lJl
C 101
o 0
t) ....
..,
101 i:l::
III U
C.
III
III III
-::! "C ....
- 41 ,., ....
..,.., ....
101 III = 3
41 101 Eo<
"C 0 .c:
.... c. 0 ..,
lJl 101 .., III
CO'"
o g ~ "C
u.... C
.., "C ~ ~
o C (J) III
C III U ....
~ "C e Q
.... 41 0 ....
3 tl .t: 0
>0 ='
... 101 e
C .., 41
::l lJl ..,
o C III
U 8 ~ ~
...
C
41
....
e
o
101 >0
..... ~
III
::l ..,
,., 0 >0'"
,., 41 ..,
C C
i:l:: III ='
U .., 0
.... U ....
.c:~Q)2
.., .... .c: III
III III .., ..-1
'" "C
"C III 41
'g2tl~
~ t) 41 ..-1
III ~ 50..,
..-1 .., 41 41
Q III 101 41
C 101
..... 0 ~ ..,
o U .... (J)
t)
C 41 C .c:
o ,Q ::l ..,
..-1 0 0
lJl N U \D
C ~ ....
"C 41 >0
41 .., = .., ....
>>:<(....0
.4l~~uc
t).c:ol!.S
~ .., .., Eo< ..,
t)
III ~ ~ :a
~.c:4I\D1Il
41 .., .t: ~ t
~ il (J) eJ ::l
t)~Z.c:1ol
o 0' 0 .., 41 z~~-;~
III
C'\J
C'\J
41
..I( III
III ....
...
....
III III
.., ..,
o .c:
"C 0'1
C ....
41 41
:E =
"C
.... ..,
41 C
.... ::l
~ ~
.., 41
101 III
o 0
Z i:l::
.....
#'~
WHEREAS, Dakota County has conducted meetings with cities and townships to solicit their input on draft
transportation policies; and
~ ~ "" '\, ;/
.......:.. ~
~... .
.... c.
- .
~
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 fonnulas 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 including 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.
. __",,:..J
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Physical Development Director is directed to notify lne ciiies ana LOwnsiilps In
Dakota County of the changes in Transportation Plan Policies adopted by the Board of Commissioners.
· *~h~~--~
PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
~~
Ja Ditmore, Deputy Director
PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
&~~c(J~
Brandt Richardson
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Attachment 1: Transportation Plan Policies
Attachment 2: Letters of Comment
n:jta 1 Q-1
.
.
3
00.0086
#(,
County Project No. 64-06
December 8, 1993.
Approval of the plans by the city ts necessary prior to the
County advertising for bids.
7. Riah~-of-W.aV'. The County shall be the lead agency ~or
the acquis~tion of all required permanent and temporary hiqhway
right of way and land for mitiqatinq wetland impacts for this
project. The County will keep the City informed about the
proposed right of way settlament offers.
The relative cost share of new highway right of way and land
for mitigating wetland impacts shall be funded 25% by the county
and 75% by the City, exoept the city shall furnish the n..ded
hiqhway right of way on city owned land adjacent to CR 64 at no
cost to the project. The County shall raimburse the city for 25'
of ehe cost of city owned land used for mitigating wetland
impacts caused by Cl? 64-06. (iqitl-S~t-)
8. Payment. The County shall act as the paying aqent for
costs of acquiring new right of way, adjustinq private utilities
and for all payments to the Contractor. Payments to the
Contractor shall be made as the project work progresses and when
certified by the Coun~y Enqineer. Upon presentation of an
itemized claim by one ~qQncy to the other, the receivinq aqency
will reimburse the invoicing aqency for its share of the costs
5
=tF -7' t
. I " ~ J'
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
DATE June 6 1.995
RESOLUTION ~O. 95-366
Motion by Commissioner
Maher
Seconded by Commissioner
Mueller
WHEREAS. Dakota. County and the CIty of Farmington need to enter into a cost-sharing agreement for preliminary
engineering, right of way preacquisition and highway revocation for County Flroject 31-31; and
WHEREAS, this agreement is consistent with Dakota County policy.
NOW, THE.~EFORE, BE IT RESOL VEO, That the Dakota County Board of Commissioners authorizes entering into a
cost-sharing agreement with the City of Farmington for preliminary engineering, right of way preacquisition and
highway revocation for County Flroject 31-31: and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. That the Dakota County Flhysical Development Division Director is hereby authorized
to execute the agreement. subject to final agreement approval by the County Attorney's Office as to form and
execution.
YES NO
Harris X Harris
Maher X Maher
Bataglia X aataglia
Mueller X Mueller
Tumer X Tumer
Kraus. X Krause
Loeding X Loeding
State of Minnesota
Coanty of Dakota
r. Mary S. Scheide. Cleric :0 the Board of the County of Dakot:L State of ~inne50t:1. do he~DY ce1't1i~' that [ have compared the
foregoing copy of a resoluaon wlth the origtnal minutes of the procee<iings of the Board of County Commwl1oners. Dako~ County.
Minnesara. at their 5eSSlOn held on the 6th day of June 19 M. now on file in the County
Administr:Won Department. and have found the same to be a. trUe and correct copy thereof.
WI_ ..., ..... "'" ot!lciaI '"" ol Oaka~ C._ <his l.:l -H... d>y .r ~ I 'i'l S
\. .A/'\'" <:" C U . "
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
/070-
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, City 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 respect to providing interim and limited maintenance
support activities.
DISCUSSION
A review of the 1995 Preliminary Engineering. Right-of-way Pre-acquisition and Highway
Revocation Agreement 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
reasonable for 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 CSAH 31 intersection, traveling south to the CSAH 50 intersection, but not
including the intersection of CSAH 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 REOUESTED
Council acknowledgement of the City's intent 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.
bmitted,
File
Cc: Brandt Richardson, Dakota County Administrator
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
Attorneys at Law
Thomas J. Campbell
Roger N, Knutson
Thomas M, Scott
Elliott B. Knetsch
(651) 452-5000
Fax (651) 452-5550
JoelJ- Jamnik
Andrea McDowell Poehler
Matthew K, Brokl*
John F Kelly
Matthew J, Foli
Marguerite M, McCarron
October 21, 1999
* AL~() licensed in \Visconsin
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 turnback agreement which 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:~~.~ :,J.
Joel J. .
JJJ:cjh
Suite 317 · Eagandale Office Center · 1380 Corporate Center Curve · Eagan, MN 55121
,~
h'
DAKOTA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQJEST FOR BOARD ACTION
IIVISION: PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT
>EPAKIMENT: HIGHWAY
Contact Person: DAVID L. EVERDS
Telephone Number: 431-1150 EXT. 7101
BOARD MEEIIr<<; DATE:
Consent:
Regular: X
Information: -
APRIL 24, 1990
Budgeted X
Non-Budgeted -
Other Funding -
N/A=
ITEM: AOOPTION OF NElV COUN'IY COST SHARING POLICY FOR RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION FOR NEW COUN'IY
HIGHWAY CORRIDORS
Reviewed by: Management Team _ Board Coomittee
Other
BACKGROUND:
Dakota County policy for obtaining right of way on new County Highway Corridors requires
that Cities over 5,000 population, in which the road is located, pay 100% of the cost for
permanent and temporary easements.
This policy has been in effect since at least 1960. The policy was reviewed in 1982 by
the Dakota County Transporation Policy Advisory Group. This group recommended that the
County Board change this policy so that the County fund 55% of the cost for new right of
way. The Coun ty Board did no t approve the 1982 corrmi t tee recolIlI1enda tion.
TI1e County Transportation Policy Plan, adopted in 1982, also states that right of way
required for newly established County highway 'Corridors must be obtained by the local unit
governmen t.
Several cities in the County have recently objected to various County Highway cost sharing
policies. Inver Grove Heights and Hastings have rejected proposed County Highway projects
late in the project development process 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 improvements will be approved by the City unless the current cost sharing
policy for right of way on new highway corridors is changed.
The alignment of County Road 38 was 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,. Apple Valley has acquired right of way for this road alignment as part of the
platting process. Currently, 56% of the right of way has been acquired for CP 38-09 and
85% has been acquired for CP 38-08.
Five projects on new alignments are scheduled in the 5 year cIP. These projects include
CP 38-09 located from Johnny Cake Ridge Road to Pilot Knob in Apple Valley, CP 38-08 from
County Road 11 to Pennock Avenue in Apple Valley, CP 5-19 from Dupont Avenue to I-35W in
Burnsville, CP 5-24 from TII 13 to Dupont Avenue in Burnsville, and CP 46-07 from Pilot
Knob Road to TII 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
IstruCt County Highway improvements. If cities are unwilling to enter into cost sharing
s, needed joint County-City Highway projects will not be constructed. Projects'
~'adopted 5-year Highway cIP will not be done when planned and preliminary work for
.ded projects cannot progress in an orderly manner.
ihe immediate concern of the County highway staff are the right of way costs for projects
38-09 and cP 38-08 in Apple Valley. It would seem desirable to consider right of way
quisition 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 such 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 this 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 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 cIP.
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 the
Metropolitan Council, which in initial contacts, would consider this a minor change
requiring a 10 day review after a County Board resolution to adopt the policy change.
RErnMMENDATION/SUGGFSl'ED RESOIlJ'ITON:
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.
~S, The present policy under the Dakota County Transportation Policy Plan for right
of way on new County Highway Corridors in Cities over 5,000 population requires the Cities
to pay 100% of the acquisition cost; and
m-IEREAS, This policy has been reviewed and it is now desirable to consider right of way
acquisition cost splits for new County highways on an individual project case basis; and
WHEREAS, The factors to be considered in malting cost split determinations 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 considerations involved with
individual projects.
NOW, JHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That City-County cost splits for right of way acquisition
on new County corridors be determined on an individual project basis with the County share
to be from 0% to 55% as determined by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners.
BE IT FUR'TIIER RESOLVED, That County Highway and Attorney staffs take the actions necessary
to make this change in the Dakota County Transportation Policy Plan.
Louis J. Breimhurst, DIRECTOR
PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
-A ,/ C-
' .
.' -", /
~(v(..~ lc.c~'-e~u;;:t,l.-
David L. Everds, P.E.
HIGHWAY E~INEER
Ly Ie D. Wray, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR