HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.05.07 Work Session Packet
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
Mission Statement
Through teamwork and cooperation,
the City of Farmington provides quality
services that preserve our proud past and
foster a promisingfitture.
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
SEPTEMBER 5, 2007
7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. Call To Order
2, Approve Agenda
3, Discuss Mill and Overlay Project
4. Adjourn
PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
Council workshops are conducted as an informal work session, all discussions shall be considered fact-finding, hypothetical and unofficial critical thinking exercises,
which do not reflect an official public position.
Council work session outcomes should not be construed by the attending public and/or reporting media as the articulation of a formal City policy position. Only
official Council action normally taken at a regularly scheduled Council meeting should be considered as aformal expression of the City's position on any given matter.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, Minnesota
651.463.7111 . Fax 651.463.2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO: Peter J. Herlofsky Jr., City Adrllinistraro@
FROM: Lee M, Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: 2006 Mill & Overlay Workshop Information
DATE: August 31, 2007
I have attached the following information pertaining to the 2006 Mill & Overlay project:
. A project analysis showing current total project costs
. A copy ofthe City of Farmington Assessment/Improvement Policy
. A copy of the Special Benefit Consultation for the project
. A spreadsheet showing what the assessment would be based on current project costs and
the City's assessment policy
. A copy of your September 18, 2006 Council memo containing information and costs for
the different project options, as well as the minutes from that meeting.
. A memo from Jim Fruechtl containing a review of project options.
. A copy of the current project work order showing items that have not been completed to
date.
. A list of options and costs that would address current project concerns.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
cc: file
en
'w
>.
ro
C
co
5'0
..... Q)
g> "[ f'.
.- a.0
E >.0
~cor::!
LL"t:~
.....Q)~
0>-
000
~~
t);:::
:2:
co
o
o
N
.....i
Q) 'c
Ol.-
-c co
::I E
CD Q)
...
.....
Q)
Oleo
-Co
::10
.oN
-C-
Q)~
enN
.- -
>0>
Q)
0:::
~I
~I
~I
I
00 00
00 00
00 00
~O ~O
~~ Nco
NN ~
co~ ~
~~ CO
~~~~~
000
000
000
O~ ~
ONN
N N
~ ~
N N
000
000
000
O~~
O.NN.
N N
~ ~
N N
~
000 0
000 0
000'0
~OO ~
~~O 00
NNN ~
co~~ 00
~~N 00
~
00
00
00
~~
~N
NN
COO
~~
~
II)
CD
:=
c
CD
>
CD
0::
~
Q)
c::
3=
o
Q)
E-C
~C-C
.2c::
~Q).2~
......g>(j)0
l5 'C ro ~
ECD>..!!!
(/)~>Q)
(/) -C E U
~ CO ..... ~
(/) 0 .8 .-
<(0:::00:2:
o
o
o
o
o
~
CO
~
(/)
Q)
::I
c::
Q)
>
Q)
0:::
ro
.....
o
I-
O>Momt::'LO'oocoS
O>~O~'<t~OOO~N
~ooNm~~o<riN~
~NOOOO~O>~O~co~
~O>~O,.....OO~OO~.....
Lri"Lri"aioON~cri~"""~ ~
~'-"I'-"'-"~"'-"'-c-M '-"" V
0> ~
0> ~
~O
~N
~ 0>
~~
N
00
O>~~O
~'<t~0
Nm~~
OO~O>N
O,.....OON
OON~
00
coO~'<t
O~N ~
~N~~
~co~~
~~ 0>
'<t 0>
N
0>
N
~
N
o
'<t
Lri"
~ 0
~O
~ ~
O>N
O. N.
0> ~
o
~
~
o
~
~~
CO~
~O
~ N
0> 0>
~~
~
00
O>~~O
~~~~
N~O~
OOco~N
o CO. CO. N
OO~~
~
mo
~ ~
~N
~co
'<t~
~
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 00
o ~
CO ai
~ ~
~
00
00
00
~ 0
CO. 00
~~
~ ~
o
o
~
~
'<to
N
~
~
,.....0
m~
~~
O~
~ N
~M
~ ~
~
00
N
~
~
N
CO
II)
!
:=
-
:s
c
CD
><
W
en
C
o
(/)
~
CO
(jj
<(
Ol- U
c: CO (/)
._ en .-
.!Q 'co E
t 6....
Q) a. Q)
>CO.c::
-C ..15
~ ..
(/)
.....
l;:::
Q)
I c: c>
'0 ~ c: -OlCO
CO ... 'C
..... -CQ) Q)
c: c:Q)...J
o CO .S ~
~ Ol~~ ~()
:p COO ~c::
g ~ '53 Q)~ g c> ~ Q)
Z; := ~ a.. en C .S g>
~ 2:'0, >. ~ t5 E :g
O::lC:~OQ)-CO
t)OOWOCDI-<(t)
co~
NOO
<rico
N~
00
~
~
O>~
0> ~
oocx:i
N
~
~
~
0>
~
~
~
N
,.....
~
~
t:::.
........
~
00
CO
~
00
~
~
......
M
~
cx:i
~
00
~
o
t:::.
o
o
o
~
00
CO
00
00
o
o
o
o
o
~
CO
~
en
Q)
...
::I
~
-C
c::
Q)
a.
X
W
ro
.....
o
I-
CO
+-'
o
.....
.....
U
Q)
"[
a..
CITY OF FARMINGTON
ASSESSMENT / IMPROVEMENT POLICY
April 27, 1988
PREPARED BY: LARRY THOMPSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
First Draft:
Approved:
Revised:
Revised:
Revised:
Revised:
Revised:
Revised:
Revised:
Revised:
04/27/88
06/20/88
05/06/91
10/21/91
02/14/92
03/16/92
09/20/93
01/03/94
06/01/94
03/02/98
INTRODUCTION
This document sets forth the methods and policies relating to local improvements and special
assessments practiced in the City of Farmington. It is emphasized that the following
summarization is general in nature and that certain circumstances may justify deviations from
stated policy as determined by the City Council.
A local improvement involves one or more of the following types of improvements:
. Roadway grading and base
. Bituminous surfacing
. Curb and gutter
. Sidewalks and driveways
. Water trunks and laterals
. Sanitary sewer trunks and laterals
. Service connections
. Storm sewer trunks and laterals
· All appropriate appurtenances associated with the above
Improvements are classified as follows:
1. New Developments - The construction of improvements related to newly
developed areas, normally made in conjunction with the plat approval process,
2. Rehabilitation - Complete or partial reconstruction of the above-mentioned
improvements, including bituminous overlays.
3. Extensions - Construction of improvements generally made to extend services to a
certain area. Extensions normally pertain to water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer trunks
and limited access streets.
The special assessment is a financing tool employed by the City as a means to allocate the cost of
specific improvements to benefited properties and to spread those costs over a number of years.
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 regulates the procedure for the construction and financing of
local improvement projects when at least part of the cost is defrayed by special assessments.
Special assessments are collected from the property owner along with real estate taxes. When an
improvement is of benefit to certain areas, it is the intent of the Council that special assessments
be levied against benefited properties. A major goal of this document is that special assessments
be allocated and levied in an equitable and consistent manner,
2
SECTION I
DEFININTIONS
Sanitarv Sewer Lateral
Sanitary sewer mains 8" or less in diameter and buried to a depth of 8' or less, 4' diameter or less
manholes, and all appropriate appurtenances or equivalent costs of oversized mains.
Water Lateral
Water mains 8" or less in diameter and buried to a depth of 7' or less, hydrants, leads, gate
valves, and all appropriate appurtenances on equivalent costs of oversized mains.
Storm Sewer Lateral
Storm sewer mains 21" or less in diameter and buried to a depth of 8' or less, 4' diameter or less
manholes, catch basins, leads, and all appropriate appurtenances; or equivalent costs of oversized
mams.
Sanitarv Sewer Trunk
Sanitary sewer main costs that are not considered sanitary sewer lateral costs.
Water Trunk
Water main costs that are not considered water lateral costs.
Storm Sewer Trunk
Storm sewer costs that are not considered storm sewer lateral costs.
Drivewav Apron
Portion of a private driveway extending three feet (3') behind the curb line.
Drivewavs
Portion of private driveway excluding apron.
Limited Access Street
Minor arterial and collector streets as defined in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
3
Appraisal of Benefit
Appraisal of Benefit is defined as an independent estimate of value to the affected property or
project area resulting from proposed public improvements to the supporting infrastructure as
specified under Section VI, Subd. III, Subsection A.
Fees. CharJ!es and Suretv
Per schedule adopted annually by the City Council. (See Appendix ).
SECTION II
GENERAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
The following are general principles, policies and procedures applicable to all types of
improvement:
1. Project costs shall include the cost of all necessary construction work required to
accomplish the improvement, plus engineering, legal, financing, easement acquisition,
fees or charges and contingent costs.
2. Assessable costs are project costs minus the City share, County share and other credits.
MSA funds will not be credited.
3. Special assessments will be levied as soon as practical. Normally, this will be within one
year after completion ofthe project.
4. Pursuant to M.S. Chapter 429.051, the City does not defer assessments to benefited areas
outside of the City, but rather assumes any non-assessable cost as the City share, When
property is annexed and served by the original improvement, the City can create a new
assessment to be reimbursed for all or any portion of the prior assumed municipal costs,
including interest, related to the improvement.
5. Publicly owned properties, including municipal building sites, schools, parks, State and
Federal building sites, but not including public streets and alleys, are regarded as being
assessable on the same basis as if such property were privately owned.
SECTION III
SPECIFIC POLICIES
Project Initiation and Hearing Process
This section intends to describe the initiation of improvement projects and the administration
required to final Council action, pursuant to the requirements of M.S. A 429.
4
A. Project Initiation
1. By Petition: Petitions for initiating improvements will be prepared by City staff
upon request. Such petitions, circulated by the affected owners, should bear the
signatures of the property owners of 35% of the benefited property. Petitions may
be requested and submitted at any time. The normal time required for receiving,
processing, scheduling hearings and preparing construction documents is six
months. Projects for petitions received after February 1, will not be scheduled
until the construction season of the following year.
2, By Council Action: If the Council determines that an improvement is in the best
interest of the City, it can, without petition, initiate the improvement.
3. By 100% Signed Petition: When a petition is signed by 100% of the property
owners benefited by the improvement, and there is no City cost participation, the
Council may order the improvement without holding an improvement hearing.
4. By Developer's Agreement: Improvement projects for new development will
only be considered upon execution of a developer's agreement signed by 100% of
the benefited property owners. The Council may order the project without a
public hearing.
B. Hearing Process
1, Improvement Hearing: After a petition is filed and its adequacy determined, or
the Council initiates the project, the City Engineer is directed to study and report
as to the feasibility of the improvement. If, after reviewing the report, the Council
feels the project has merit, a public hearing is scheduled, notice published twice,
and all persons benefited by the project notified in writing,
When an improvement project is to be financed by the sale of improvement
bonds, there is a statutory requirement that at least 20% of the total costs of the
project be assessed against the benefited property.
If after the improvement hearing, at which all persons are heard, the Council feels
that the project has merit, then the Council will authorize the preparation of
necessary plans and specifications, and upon receipt and acceptance of those
plans, will authorize the advertisement for bids by resolution.
C. Final Hearing (Assessment)
After the improvement is ordered and bids received, or the improvement is completed or
nearing completion, a roll will be prepared and the affected property owners will be
mailed a Notice of Assessment Hearing stating the time and date that an assessment
hearing will be held. An assessment roll will be prepared and will be posted at the City
5
Clerk's office for review prior to the assessment hearing. All interested parties shall have
an opportunity to be heard regarding the assessment.
Necessary and proper adjustment to the assessment roll can be made by Council at the
time the hearing is being held. If an appeal is made regarding the amount of the special
assessment, written notice must be filed with the Council prior to or at the assessment
hearing.
After the hearing, the assessment roll is adopted by the Council. The property owners
have a 30-day period in which to pay their assessment in part or in full at the City Hall,
interest free. After this period, the assessment begins to accumulate interest. On or about
October lOth of each year, the assessment roll is certified to the County Auditor's office
where it is added to the tax roll for the following year.
The assessment shall be levied over a period to be established by the City Council, in
equal annual installments on the principal with interest on the declining balance, The
annual interest rate shall also be established by the City Council upon the sale of the
improvement bonds,
SECTION IV
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND EXPECTED LIFE
Minimum Design Standards
The following are minimum design standards. Oversizing may be required to serve areas
extending beyond the scope of the project.
A. Sanitary Sewer Laterals
Minimum 8" PVC (SDR35) or DIP (CL52). Manholes a maximum of 400' apart.
B. Sanitary Sewer Services
Minimum 4" PVC (SDR35) or CISP.
C. Water Main Lateral
Minimum 6" loop or 8" dead-end DIP (CL52).
D. Water Main Services
1. Single Family Residences - Minimum I" DIP (CL52) or type K cooper.
2, Multiple Family Residences - To be determined by City Engineer based on UBC.
3. CommerciallIndustrial- To be determined by City Engineer based on UBC.
6
E. Storm Sewer System
Pipe size shall be designed to handle a five-year event and pond shall be designed to
handle a 100-year event. Catch basins shall be placed so that overland drainage does not
exceed 1,000'. Concrete swales a minimum of 3' wide shall be installed where overland
drainage crosses an intersection,
F, Residential Streets
A minimum of 38' curb back to back with concrete curb and gutter. Minimum seven ton
design.
G, Truck Routes/CommerciaVIndustrial
A minimum of 44' curb back to back with concrete curb and gutter. Minimum nine ton
design.
H, Driveways
A minimum of 12' and a maximum of 24' with 6" of concrete extending from the curb
line to the property line.
I. Trees
Per City Code. See Appendix
Useful Service Life
Public improvements are judged to have a normal useful life expectancy. For the purpose of this
policy, this life expectancy shall be as follows:
A. Surface Improvements
Concrete Curb and Gutter
Bituminous Roadways
Sidewalks
Subsurface Improvements
30 Years
30 Years
50 Years
B.
Water Main
Sanitary Sewer
Storm Sewer
50 Years
50 Years
60 Years
7
C. When any existing improvement is ordered to be renewed or replaced, the assessments to
be levied will be pro-rated from 0% at one-half life expectancy to 100% at full life
expectancy or beyond.
SECTION V
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN NEW DEVELOPMENTS
General Procedures and Policies
City Code requires execution of a developer's agreement at the time of land platting. The
developer's agreement normally references means and methods of providing for public
improvement construction.
As a standard, the City of Farmington has pursued policies by which all costs of improvement
are directly attributable and fully paid by cost allocation or assessments against the development,
developer or properties requiring and benefiting by the improvement. The policies are
established with the intent that no developmental costs are incurred by existing lots or parcels, by
the existing residents, or by the City in general. The exception is for improvements that are
determined to have an area-wide benefit that exceeds the scope of the development.
At the time of platting, the cost responsibilities for any development for trunk improvements
shall be defined, This responsibility includes trunk sanitary sewer facilities, trunk water facilities
(including source, supply, storage and distribution components), storm water drainage and
control facilities, arterial street, park dedication, pedestrian walkway systems and other public
improvements, existing or proposed, of an area-wide benefit. Normally, the City will require a
cash payment by the developer for the development's share of improvements of an area-wide
benefit. However, it may be assessed equally against each parcel of property over a 10-year
period with interest set at I 1/2% over the prime rate at the execution of the development
agreement as stated in the Wall Street Journal. The amount to be determined annually by
resolution by the City Council.
At the time of platting, the development agreement may provide details on construction and
timing of local or lateral improvements of various nature for the benefit and improvement of the
individual properties as required by the Farmington Subdivision Ordinance.
Minor arterial and collector streets shall be assessed, or the developer shall be charged in
accordance with Section VII of this policy,
City Improvement Financing and Construction
As a general policy, the City of Farmington will assist developers in the financing and
construction of public improvements through authority granted to the City by Chapter 429 of
Minnesota Statutes. Such assistance is granted by specific Council action for each development
proposal based on perception by the Council of the project, viability, and development benefit to
8
the City. The City may elect to sell bonds for such improvement and assess the costs of bond
retirement against individual benefited land parcels for a period of repayment as seen
appropriate.
Typically, the total project costs for improvements benefiting the development will be assessed
on an equal basis against all buildable lots in the development.
For such City assessed developments and improvements, the City, through the development
agreement, requires a cash deposit, letter of credit or escrow agreement equal to a minimum of
two years principle and interest payment on project costs to protect the City from potential
project default, and requires assessment payment concurrent with building permit issuance. For
such City assisted projects, the City Engineer provides design, construction supervision and
assessment certificate services, and other City staff provides legal, fiscal and administrative
input. The standard form for such agreement is found in Appendix _ and incorporated as
part ofthis policy,
Public Improvement Work by Private Developers
No public improvements may take place before a developer's agreement has been executed, The
standard form for such agreement is found in Appendix _ and incorporated as part of this
policy.
A private developer may have his plans prepared by other than City forces under the following
conditions:
1. All plans, drawings, specifications and related documents required shall be prepared by a
professional engineer, registered in the State of Minnesota and approved by the City.
2, The developer must keep the City informed as to the time table of development and
design, the letting date of a construction contract, and the starting date of construction
work.
3. In order to warrant the construction for the life expectancy as previously set forth, the
City will provide inspection of all phases of construction as set forth in the contract
documents.
4, The City of Farmington may perform construction surveys, staking and other engineering
services when requested by the contractor or developer, The City will also assist the
contractor in interpretation of the contract documents, ordinances, codes and other items
necessary to meet the criteria as established by the City of Farmington.
5. No public improvement work shall be performed by any developer or other private party
in City right-of-way or easement unless a developer's agreement has been executed.
6. The City will require a surety deposit of 125% of the estimated project costs in the form
of cash, escrow deposit, certified check or irrevocable letter of credit.
9
The City and its representatives shall at all times have access to the work in order to complete the
services as herein provided, and the developer shall give the City timely notice of this readiness
for inspections or other work to be rendered, Permits, licenses and easements or permanent
changes in existing facilities shall be secured and paid for by the developer.
The developer shall be charged for these services, and the value of the services shall be
determined on a percentage basis as agreed upon by the developer and the City before the project
is started. The fee for plan review and City administration is set annually by resolution of the
City Council. All inspection costs will be billed on an hourly basis.
Upon proper completion of sanitary sewers, storm sewers, water mains, curb and gutter, roadway
base, surfacing and sidewalk by the developer, the City will accept said improvements by
resolution under a one-year guarantee to the City.
SECTION VI
IMPROVEMENTS IN EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS
I. Goal
It is the goal of this section to equalize assessments for public improvements as much as
practical. Assessments will be generally based on a per unit basis as opposed to area or
front footage, Because of the various characteristics associated with different sections of
the City, it may be necessary for the Council to adjust the policy in order to achieve a
more equitable assessment.
II. Initiation
Public improvements may be initiated by petition pursuant to M.S. Chapter 429 or by
Council action.
III. Assessable Costs
A. Project costs for the following improvements shall be assessed on a pro-rated
basis:
1. Street Base and Bituminous Replacement
2, Curb and Gutter Replacement
3. Sanitary Sewer Lateral Replacement
4. Sanitary Sewer Service Replacement
5, Water Lateral Replacement
6. Water Service Replacement
7, Storm Sewer Replacement
8. New Sidewalk and Sidewalk Replacement
9. New Driveway Apron and Driveway Apron Replacement
10
10. New Sanitary Sewer Lateral Enhancing Existing System
11. New Water Lateral Enhancing Existing System
12. New Storm Sewer Lateral Enhancing Existing System
13, New Trees, Tree Replacement and Sod
B. The above-mentioned improvements shall be pro-rated on the following basis:
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992 and beyond
25% assessed
25% assessed
25% assessed
30% assessed
35% assessed
The City shall obtain an appraisal of benefit generated by the proposed
improvements on subject properties, and such appraisal of benefit, when deemed
appropriate, shall be the basis for developing a preliminary project financing plan,
The appraisal of benefit may include either a general or specific appraisal of
benefit as determined by the City. In cases where the appraisal of benefit is less
than the percentage established by this policy, the special assessment shall
conform to the amount, as deemed sustainable by the appraisal of benefit.
C. The following improvements shall be 100% assessed:
1. New Sanitary Service Lines
2. New Water Service Lines
3. New Water Main Laterals
4. New Sanitary Sewer Laterals
5. New Storm Sewer Laterals
6, Driveways
7. New Street, Curb, Gutter and Driveway Aprons
D. The following improvements shall be 100% financed by the City:
1. Sanitary Sewer Trunk
2, Water Main Trunk
3. Storm Sewer Trunk
E. Seal Coating shall be assessed at a 50% rate.
N. Typical Method of Assessment
A. Assessments shall be based on the following method:
1. Services - per service unit
2, Street/Curb/Gutter - per building unit
11
3. Sanitary Sewer - per building unit
4. Water - per building unit
5. Storm Sewer - per building unit
6. Sidewalks - per building unit
7. Driveways - (including apron area)
8, Trees/Sod - per building unit
9. Seal Coating - per building unit
NOTE:
· Service units are the actual numbers of service lines extended to the property.
. Building units are defined as the number of buildable lots possible by
reasonably subdividing based on minimum lot requirements of the City
Zoning Ordinance and existing development. Such determination will be
made at the project hearing. The Council shall take the shape of the lots,
location and condition of buildings and the likelihood of the property splitting
into consideration when determining the number of lots.
. Service lines will be installed to the maximum number of potential lots.
· Lots exceeding 125' will be assessed on a per foot basis for seal coating
projects.
B. Assessments shall be based on the number of affected units within each
improvement district. For the purpose ofthe section, the following rules apply:
1. Assessable Improvements, except sanitary sewer, minor arterial and
collector streets.
a. Improvements abutting predominantly short sides -
Actual building units in the improvement district.
b. Improvements abutting lots with predominantly long sides -
To midpoint. (If the improvement area long side lots abut only one
assessable street, all building units within the entire improvement
area shall be assessed.)
2. Sanitary Sewer Improvements
a. Improvements abutting predominantly platted short sides -
Actual building units within the entire improvement area.
b. Improvements abutting lots with predominantly long sides - City
pays 100% ofthe project.
12
NOTE: If20% or less of the front footage ofa lot abuts the improvement or falls
within the midpoint of an improvement district, it shall not be assessed, If 80% or
more of a lot abuts the improvement or falls within the midpoint of an
improvement district, it shall be assessed one building unit. Lots which abut
between 20% to 80% of an improvement area or within the midpoint of an
improvement area, shall be assigned a service unit on a pro-rated basis.
3. Driveways and Driveway Aprons
a. Aprons shall be replaced III conjunction with curb and gutter
replacement.
b. Driveways between the apron and property line shall be replaced
as determined by the City Engineer. Driveway replacement
beyond the property line shall not be made unless written consent
is given by the property owner. No driveway replacement shall be
made until the owner is notified, in writing, as to the section of
driveway to be replaced, new width and estimated assessable cost.
A copy of the notification shall be initialed by the owner and kept
on file.
4. Minor arterial and collector streets shall be assessed in accordance with
Section VII of this policy,
5. Storm Sewer Improvements
a. Total assessable (lateral) storm sewer project cost shall be divided
by the actual number of buildable lots within the drainage area.
The resultant shall be multiplied by the number of buildable lots
determined for each individual property owner. The percentage of
each owner's buildable lot(s) that are actually drained by the
project is then multiplied by this assessment amount. The resultant
shall be the owner's storm sewer assessment.
C. Method of Payment (Interest on the assessments will begin accruing from the date
of the adoption of the assessment roll.)
1. The owner may pay the entire or partial amount of assessment within 30
days of adoption of the assessment roll without interest. The remaining
amount shall be paid in equal principal installments (typically 10 years)
plus interest as determined by the Council (typically 1.5% above the net
interest rate of the bond issue). Annual payments will be remitted with the
property taxes. An owner may payoff the assessments in full at any time,
but will be charged the entire year's interest.
13
V. Assessment of Sanitary Sewer to Unserviced Areas
1. All improvements, except sanitary sewer mains and services, shall be assessed in
accordance with Section IV.
2. Sanitary Sewer mains and services shall be apportioned in accordance with
Section IV, but may be offered a credit of up to 50% of the proposed sanitary
sewer assessment upon inspection and certification by a City contracted inspector
that the septic system has been constructed and maintained in accordance with
current Minnesota Rules 7080 regulations or may be offered a credit of up to 25%
of the proposed sanitary sewer assessment upon inspection and certification by a
City contracted inspector that the septic system is an older system that does not
meet the letter of Minnesota Rules 7080, but could reasonably be modified to
meet the current criteria of Minnesota Rules 7080.
Systems that shall not be issued a credit are cesspools or seepage pits without both
drainfields and adequate soils, or systems where raw, untreated sewage has been
observed pooling at the surface, running down slopes, or discharging directly to
surface or underground waters.
The owner shall agree to pay 50% of the cost of this inspection before the
inspection is made, which shall be paid to the City before the inspection is
performed.
3. Property owners will be required to pay a fee equal to the apportioned cost plus
accrued interest as determined by the City Council at the time of hookup to the
sanitary sewer,
4, Property owners will be required to connect to the system and pay such fees upon
failure ofthe septic system to meet Federal, State or local laws,
SECTION VII
IMPROVEMENTS ON LIMITD ACCESS STREETS
(Minor Arterials and Collectors)
The City recognizes that while property abutting minor arterials or collectors does not receive the
total benefit of a minor arterial or collector because of limited access, the property does
nonetheless receive benefit. It is determined that abutting properties which have been platted
and which access an alternative street receive marginal benefit and, therefore, are not assessed.
Unplatted property or property having direct access to a limited access street shall be assessed
the following:
14
A. Extension
1. As part of proposed subdivision:
100% of the assessable costs per Section VI, Part 3, shall be assessed to the owner
of the improved frontage (50% per side). Non-improved frontage, to a depth of
1,000 feet, shall be assessed at a pro-rated basis of 25%. One-half of the
assessment would be assessed at the end of the project, while one-half would be
deferred until access or connections to the improvements were made by the
property owner. Said total assessable costs shall be multiplied by the unimproved
frontage and divided by the total frontage of the project.
2. Without proposed subdivision:
Assessed equally on both sides to a depth of 1,000 feet, shall be assessed at a pro-
rated basis of 25%. One-half of the assessment would be assessed at the end of
the project, while one-half would be deferred until access or connections to the
improvements were made by the property owner, Said total assessable costs shall
be multiplied by the unimproved frontage and divided by the total frontage of the
project.
B. RehabilitationlUpgrade
Assessments shall be on a per homesite/buildable unit basis and/or lineal foot of non-
improved frontage to a depth of 1,000 feet.
Any residential dwellings or businesses having direct access to said limited access street
shall be assessed equally, on a per buildable unit basis. One Hundred fifty lineal feet will
be designated as frontage for said buildable units.
Non-improved frontage, to a depth of 1,000 feet, with or without an included residential
dwelling, shall be assessed equally, on a per lineal foot basis, The assessable costs shall
include the improvements included under Section VI, Part III,
35% shall be used to pro-rate the assessable cost under Part III of Section VI for the
buildable units. The applicable total assessable costs shall be multiplied by the front per
buildable unit and divided by the total frontage for the project.
25% shall be used to pro-rate the assessment costs under Part III of Section VI for the
unimproved frontage. One-half of the assessment would be assessed at the end of the
project, while one-half would be deferred until access or connections to the
improvements were made by the property owner. Said total assessable costs shall be
multiplied by the unimproved frontage and divided by the total frontage of the project.
15
. .
SPECIAL BENEFIT CONSULTATION
2006 MILL & OVERLAY PROJECT
FARMIN(3TON, MINNESOTA
DATE OF REPORT:
March 20, 2006
PREPARED FOR:
City of Farmington
. Department of Public Works
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
PREPARED BY:
Patchin Messner & Dodd.
Sunset Pond Executive Offices
13967 West Preserve Boulevard
Burnsville, MN 55337
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
PATCHIN JVIESSNER & DODD
VALUATION COUNSELORS
March 20, 2006
City of Farmington
Department of Public Works
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
ATTN: Mr. Lee Mann
Director of Public Works/
City Engineer
RE: Special Benefit Consultation
2006 Mill & Overlay Project
Farmington, Minnesota
. Dear Mr, Mann:
At your request, we have investigated and analyzed probable special benefit to be derived
from the above-referenced street improvement project. Included in the City improvement
project is the mill and overlay reconstruction of bituminous surfaced streets, along with
replacing cracked and heaving sections of concrete curb and gutter,
The purpose of this consultation is to estimate special benefit anticipated for residential
properties in the proposed project area. The function of this analysis is to provide guidance
to the City of Farmington in assessing the feasibility of the 2006 Mill & Overlay Street
Improvement Project.
This real estate consultation is intended to comply with Standards 4 and 5 of the Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). In estimating anticipated special
benefit to properties in the project area, individual residences or lots in the area have not
specifically been appraised. Rather, this analysis attempts to quantify probable special
benefit directly, which can then be applied to typical residential properties within the street
improvement project area. '
Based on the data and analyses as summarized in the attached report, as well as additional
information and documentation retained in the appraisers' files, it is anticipated that
properties benefiting from the proposed improvement project will be enhanced in value by
up to $2,000 per assessable unit/lot.
Sunset Ponds Office Park · 13967 West PreseNe Boulevard · Burnsville, MN 55337
Phone: (952) 895-1205 Fax: (952) 895-1521
II
This consultation has been made in conformity with accepted professional, ethical and
performance standards of real estate appraisal practice. The "Contingent and Limiting
Conditions" section of this report should be thoroughly read and understood before relying.
on any information or analysis presented herein,
Thank you for allowing our firm to be of assistance in this matter. If you have any questions
after reading this consultation, feel free to contact us at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
PATCHIN MESSNER AND DODD
)J JA~
. Sherril L. Brumm
Minnesota Certified General Real Property.
Appraiser liCense 20249948
'd.~~
Jas n L. Messner, MAl
Minnesota Certified General Real Property
Appraiser License 4000836
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
20610
III
CERTIFICATION
(Real Estate)
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
1, The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.
2, The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the
reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, un-
biased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions,
3. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject
of this report, and I have no persona! interest or bias with respect to the
parties involved.
4, My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined
value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of
the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence
of a subsequent event.
S, My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report
has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Profes-
sional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Foundation.
6, I have made an exterior inspection of the properties that are the subject of
this report.
7. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this
report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code
of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice
of the Appraisal Institute,
8. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Insti.
tute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives.
9. No one provided significant professional assistance to the persons signing
this report, except as noted herein,
10. The appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valua-
tion, a specific valuation, or the approval of a loan.
11, This appraisal cannot be completely understood without reading the "Con-
tingent and Limiting Conditions" section of this report, which should be
thoroughly read and understood before relying on any information or
analysis presented herein.
)J~J?-----
1/ Sherril L. Brumm
d--<.) ~()b
Date
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
IV
(ERrl FICA TION
(Real Estate)
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
1. The statements of fact contained in this report are,true and correct.
2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the
reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, un-
biased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions,
3. I have no pres~nt or prospective interest in the property that is the subject
of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the
parties involved.
4, My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined
value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of
the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence
of a subsequent event.
5. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report
has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Profes-
sional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Foundation,
6. I have made an exterior inspection of the properties that are the subject of
this report,
7, The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this
report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code
of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice
of the Appraisal Institute.
8, The use of this report is subject" to the requirements of the Appraisal Insti-
tute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives.
9. No one provided significant professional assistance to the persons signing
this report, except as noted herein.
10. The appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valua-
tion, a specific valuation, or the approval of a loan.
11. This appraisal cannot be completely understood without reading the "Con-
tingent and Limiting. Conditions" section of this report, which should be
thoroughly read and understood before relying on any information or
analysis presented herein.
12. As of the date of this report, Jason L. Messner has completed the
requirements under the continuing education program of the Appraisal
Institute.
51~f.i'~~
Jason L. essner, MAl
:3 ( ~D / IJ ffl
IDat~
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM PAGE NO.
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ............................ .........,.....,.................,................. ......... i-i i
CERTI FICA TI 0 N .......,...............,..""....,.............................,........."..........................". i i i
TAB LE OF CONTENTS..,......................,............,...............:......................................... v
PHOTOG RAPHS OF S U BJ ECT .................................................................. ................. vi
SUB J ECT LOCATIO N MAP....................... ..... ............. ........... ................................... xii i
PU RPOSE OF CO NS U L T A TIO N ................. '" .......................,............................... ,...... 1
F U NCTI ON OF CONS U L TAllON.......................... ...:......... ......... ................. .............. 1
II NT E N DE D USE R ...................................................................,................................... 1
DESCRI PTION OF PROJ ECT ....................................,..................................... ........ ....... 1
SCOPE OF CO NSU L T A TI ON ................... ............................... ........ ......... ................... 2
MARKET VAt UE DEFI NE D .................. ...................................................................,.... 3
DESCRI PTI 0 N OF NEIG H BORHOO D .................,.................. ............"........ ..............4
PROJECT AREA MAP,........"..",...............,.......,...".............,.... ...",.................."..,....... 5
SUMMARY OF PROPERTIES IN PROJECT AREA.......................................................... 6
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ........... ...................................... ............ .............. 12
ROSEMOU NT ............................................................... .................. ...... ..........." 14
LAKEVI LLE .......",.,... .......,..,......." ,'........., ,...,......."..".".".: ......"....".......,."......... 15
CARVER............,..........".,..,........."",.. ............,.... ....."".,. ......"..,..............",.... ..... 18
SUMMATION.,...,. ,.....,.."...".........".........."....,............ ,..,..."..,."....................... 20
ADDENDA
CONTI NGENT AN D L1MITI NG CON DITIONS .................. .................................. 23
APPRAISING QUALIFICATIONS OF SHERRIL L. BRUMM ..................................28
APPRAISING QUALIFICATIONS OF JASON L.MESSNER ...................................29
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
VI
PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBjECT
Looking East along Centennial Drive from Sunnyside Drive
Looking South along Centennial Circle from Cul-de-Sac
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
VII
PHOTOGRAPHS Of SUBJECT
Looking East along Centennial Drive near Chippendale Avenue
Looking South along Centennial Drive from Park Drive
P A TClliN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
VIII
PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBjECT
Looking East along Heritage Way from Centennial Drive
Looking West along Heritage Way from Centennial Drive
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
IX
PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBIECT
Looking South along 6th Street from Heritage Way
Looking West along Lower Heritage Way from 6th Street
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
x
PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBjECT
Looking South along Lower Heritage Way from Heritage Way
Looking East along Heritage Way from Cul-de-Sac
,PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
XI
PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBjECT
Looking North along FailView Lane from Heritage Way
Looking West along FailView Circle from Cul-de-Sac
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
xii
PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT
Looking West along Park Drive from First United Presbyterian Church
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
XIII
'.
.~"'" W GR 42.
- @:I,
n
;0
'"
f-:l
6Apple Valley
... ~.y CF: ~;2
~
j
~
1~. \..1".~"
CD
~'
0::
U
<>
;0
"
'"
;e
~
<C
o
",
LU
C.
cu
3'5
u.
II
r
l
>
~"o
8\\
CD
GROt';
"....-_C&'65..._..-... ". ... ..... ....._.._..GR 6L._ .___
"',
N:
0::;
o.
, Ii'i' "
.8'
ui
;a
~. /,4/(0'!.l
~"_..--.- . ~I.l.EBIM .' .
~ D-.-i-&'EliiLLO.el;vO_______, ____.___ Q
~ ElM;sr. 'ij
FarmlnClton ;l\
J ~
~@~.....~.~..._._--~. .
~;
5
CD
C')
:0
l:l
"Eureka Center
9>
't>
n
:0
l:l
~
"'.
U'
CD
_.~"." ".' @-",'--~"-"--' -..,.,
~
8'
~.
'"
u
. +9-~~~ _~~:.~____,__,._ __.___cIUL____.._ __.CRBL_,_..,_ ,_.___________
~
_.._ ,..ell 85... ..CR23 __ .CR U____.___ _..____.___....
LOCA liON MAP
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
1
PURPOSE OF CONSULTATION
The purpose of this consultation. is to provide a typical range of special benefit
anticipated for residential properties in the proposed project area,
FUNCTION OF CONSULTATION
The intended use of this consultation is to provide guidance to the City of Farmington in
assessing the feasibility of the 2006 Mill & Overlay Street Improvement Project.
I NTEN OED USER
The intended user of this consultation report is the City of Farmington and its legal
counsel.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The following project description is based on the Feasibility Report for the 2006 Mill &
Overlay Project referenced as Project No. 06-01. The project area includes Centennial
Drive from Sunnyside Drive to. Heritage Way, Centennial Circle, Park Drive, Fairview
Lane.from Heritage Way to Park Drive, Fairview Circle, Heritage Way, Lower Heritage
Way, and 6th Street.
According to the feasibility study, many sections of the pavement are experiencing large
pop-outs and surface deterioration. Street maintenance staff has attempted to patch these
areas and has hired specialty pothole repair crews (blow patching) to try and keep up
with the pop-out issue, but the street condition continues to deteriorate too quickly for
these methods to be effective. In addition, because of the condition of the pavement,
some streets have been passed over in the last few years for crack sealing and
sealcoating since these pavement life-extending strategies would no longer be effective,
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
2
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The proposed plan for the project would first involve identifying cracked and heaving
sections of curb and replacing them, Then, the pavement in the project area would be
milled to a depth of one inch and the street would be repaved with a new layer of
asphalt.
Farmington staff have reviewed video tapes of the sanitary sewer and the water main and
storm sewer history in this area. According to the City, this infrastructure appears to be
in good condition and a full utility reconstruction is not warranted at this time.
SCOPE OF CONSULTATION
In order to estimate special benefit from the 2006 Mill & Overlay Street Improvement
Project, the following methodology was employed.
1. Researched other mill & overlay projects in various cities in Carver and
Dakota Counties.
2. Investigated.sales that sold before and after the mill & overlay projects in
order to isolate benefit.
3. After investigating the above sales, and adjusting the sales for market
conditions, the sales that occurred before the mill & overlay project were
compared to sales that occurred after the project was completed.
4. The multiple indications were then reconciled into anticipated special
benefit for single-family residential properties in the proposed project
area,
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
3
MARKET VALUE DEFINED
Market value as utilized in this appraisal report conforms to the following definition
obtained from Pages 177-178 of The DiCtionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fourth Edition,
The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and
open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller
each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected
by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of
a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions
_ whereby:
1. Buyer and seller are typically motivated;
2. Both parties are well informed or well advised, and
acting in what they consider their own best
interest;
3. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the
open market;
4. Payment is nuu1e in terms of cash in United States
dollars or in terms of financial arrangements
comparable thereto; and
5. The price represents a normal consideration for the
property sold unaffected by special or creative financing
or sales concession granted by anyone associated with
the sale.
Unless otherwise noted in the appraisal. report, market value shall represent cash
equivalent terms where the seller receives all cash for their interest. The property may
be financed at typical market terms under this definition.
The above definition describes market value as an exchange concept. According to The
Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fourth Edition, at Page 104, exchange value is
defined as follows: "In economics, the attribution of value to goods or services based on
how much can be obtained for them in exchange for other goods and services," The
definition goes on to say, "Market value as an appraisal concept is a type of exchange
value."
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
4
DESCRIPTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD
The subject project area is located in the city of Farmington. More specifically, the
neighborhood boundaries can be described as follows:
North:
South:
East:
West:
220th Street West
Farmington City Limits
State Highway 3 (Chippendale Avenue)
Dakota County Fairgrounds
The neighborhood can be characterized primarily as a residential district, with both
multifamily and single-family properties in the project area. In addition to the residential
properties, the Farmington Municipal Pool and First United Presbyterian Church are
located in the project area.
The single-family residential properties in the subject project area range from
approximately 17 years old to 45 years old, with the majority of the properties being 30
to 45 years old. These properties include two-story, rambler and split-level homes wit:
an average residential square footage of 1,938 SF, Residential lot sizes range from 0.21
acres to 0.58 acres, with an average of 0,278 acres or 12,110 SF. Overall, the average
2006 assessed value is approximately $218,676.
A Project Area Map and summary grid showing the affected properties in the project area
are included on the following pages.
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
5
1--
, .' f-----J II Ji ( 1'\ \.__, I
\ rr-l ~~L_-- ~ : ill
/"1/ \ \ \---J' \ \---1../ l"-. 1
I \ '\ /"-.-/ "l
! \ ~,'\---, /' ~\
, , \ " I ! I \
" \ \ i / I
\\ \ 1\----, I 1\
L- ).--L-L_J: ...-"----'---..,
~___/ /I~t I (;=.---.-------:
LJ f---t, S~, R -) ),
~' Ir---f \ / / I '\ r----l
I \--<-- '_ I 'j I
[---1 V- --/--,---:
l--....JI'~ ~~---< L I
__~ \ ..... z r---j l
\ ~~,---1___ ~ j I _._J
----.. z
I /-------,---J& --
...--/ /. I' r I .
I { : .,,1
I
L
~~i~
+
___L
I
, I
rl
L......l..
I I
I---i.-.--
I
~
2006 Mill and Overlay Project
Affected Properties
300 150 0
300 Feet
::"..,' ",.:,-', .., '.
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
605 Heritage Way
Fanninglon, Minnesota
Fndtn Size: 1.216
Finished SF: 2,152 2,152
1336 Falrview Lana
Farmington, Minnesota
601 Heritage Way
Farmington. Minnesota
501 Heritage Way
Farmington, Minnesota
62B Heritage Way
Fannlngton. Minnesota
704 Heritage Way
Farmington, Minnesota
630 Heritage Way
Farmington. Minnesota
706 Heritage Way
Farmington. Minnesota
632 Heritage Way
Farmington. Minnesota
10 708 Herltege Wey
Farmington. Mimesote
11 700 Heritage Way
Farmington. Minnesota
12 710 Heritage Wey
Farmington. Minnesota
13 702 Heritage Way
Farmington. Minnesota
14 712 Herltage Wey
Farmington. Minnesota
15 714 Herltage Way
Farmington. Minnesota
18 728 Heritage Way
Farmington, Minnesota
17 726 Herltage Wey
Farmington, Minnesota
1B 71B Herltage Way
Farmington. Minnesota
1 9 724 Heritage Way
Farmington, Minnesota
20 722 Herilage Way
Farmington. Minnesota
21 718 Heritage Way
Farmington, ~lnnesota
22 720 Heritage Way
Farmington. Minnesota
23 Fannington Pool
Fannlngton, Minnesota
24 City of Farmington
Fannington, Minnesota
25 610 Heritage Way
Farmington. Minnesota
Fndtn Size: 1056
Finished SF: 1 a96 1,a9S
Fndln Size: 1266
Finished SF: 2334 2,334
Fndln Size: 100B
Finished SF: 1512 1,512
Fndln Size: 640
Finlshe,! SF: 1240 1,240
Fndtn Size: 640
Finished SF: 1240 1,240
Fndln Size: 640
Finished SF: 1240 1,240
Fndln Size: 640
Finished SF: 1240 1,240
Fndln Size: 640
Finished SF: 1240 1,240
Fndln Size: 640
Finished SF: 1240 1,240
Fndln Size: 640
Finished S.: 1240 1,240
Fndln Size: 640
Finished SF: 1240 1,240
Fndln Size: 640
Finished SF: 1240 1,240
Fndln Size: 640
Finished SF: 1240 1,240
Fndtn Size: 640
Finished SF: 1240 1,240
FndlnSize: 640
Finished SF: 1240 1,240
Fndtn Size: 640
Finished SF: 1240 1,240
Fndln Size: 640
Finished SF: 1240 1,240
Fndln Size: 640
Flnlshad SF: 1240 1,240
FOOtn Size: 640
Finlshed SF: 1240
1,240
Fndln Size: 640
Finished SF: 1240
1,240
Fndtn Size: 640
Finished SF: 1240 1,240
Fndln Size: N/A
Finished SF: N/A
FOOln Size: NIA
Finished SF: NIA
Footn Size: 1856
Finished SF: 2720 2,720
SUMMARY OF PROPERTIES IN PROJECT AREA
3
3
3
3
3
NlA
NlA
NIA
NlA
1973
0.25 (AC) Land
10,B90 (SF) Buildings
Total
1971
029 (AC) Land
12,632 (SF) Bulldinge
Total
1973
0.29 (AC) Land
12,632 (SF) Buildings
Total
1971
0.26 (AC) Land
12,197 (SF) Bulldinge
Total
1974
Townhome Land
NJA Buildings
Total
1974
Townhome Land
NIA Buildings
Total
1974
Townhome land
N/A Buildings
Total
1974
Townhome Land
NJA . Buildings
Total
1974
Townhome Land
NIA Buildings
Total
1974
Townhome Land
NJA Buildings
Total
1974
Townhome Land
NIA Buildinge
Total
1974
Townhome Land
N/A Buildings
Total
1974
Townhome Land
NIA Buildings
Tole!
1974
Townhome land
NIA Bulldinge
Total
1975
Townhornll Land
N/A Buildln9s
Total
1975
Townhome Land
N/A Buildings
Tote!
1975
Townhome Land
NlA Buildings
Total
1975
Townhome Land
N/A Buildings
Total
1975
Townhome Land
NIA Buildings
Total
1975
Townhome Land
NJA Buildings
Tolal
1975
Townhome land
N/A Buildings
Total
1974
Townhome Land
NlA Buildings
Total
NIA
2.BB (AC) Lend
125,453 (SF) Buildings
Tolal
N/A
0.32 (AC) Land
13,939 (SF) Buildln9s
Total
1973
0,32 (AC) Lend
13,939 (SF) Buildings
Total
$49,200
$176,200
$227,400
$53.900
$135,900
$1B9,600
$49,200
$176,900
$226,100
$56,500
$135,400
$191,900
$19,500
$126,400
$147,900
$17,700
$124,900
$142.600
$17.700
$126,100
$143,BOO
$17,700
$124,BOO
$142,500
$17,700
$119,200
$136,900
$17,700
$125,600
$143,300
$17,700
$123,600
$141,500
$17,700
$129,400
$147,100
$17,700
$124,300
$142,000
$19,500
$120,200
$139,700
$19,500
$122,400
$141,900
$19,500
$123,BOO
$143,300
$17,700
$133,400
i15DOo
$17,700
$123,500
$141,200
$17,700
$123,500
i141.2oO
$17,700
$124,900
$142,600
$17,700
$125,400
i'i43.'iOo
$17,700
$126,300
$144,000
$72,000
$137,200
$209,200
$37,300
$0
$37,300
$49,200
$221,100
$270,300
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$227,400 Total
Net r ax
Spec Asmt
$169,BOO Total
Net Tax.
Spec Asmt
$226,100 Tolal
NetTax
Spec Asmt
$191,900 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$147.900 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$142,600 Tolal
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$143,600 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asml
$142,500 To1al
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$136,900 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$143,300 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$141,500 Tolal
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$147,100 Tole!
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$142,000 Tolal
Net Tax
SpocAsml
$139,700 Tolal
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$141,900 Tolal
Net Tax
SpecAsmt
$143,300 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$151,100 Tolel
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
5141,200 Tolel
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$141,200 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$142,600 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$143,100 To1al
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$144,000 Total
Net Tax
Spec Aimt
$209,200 Tolal
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$37,300 Total
Net Tax
Spec Aimt
$270,300 Tolal
6
$2,362.30 14-17101-030-01
$0,00 Last Sale: 11/90 $94,900
$2,362.30
$1,960.72 14-17101-030-02
$64.36
52,025.iiB
$2,441.60 14-17101-040-01
$64.36
52,505.96
$1,964.6S 14-17101-120-02
$64.36 Lasl Sele: 2/90 $79,000
$2,029.04
$1,307.2B 14-17101-020-00
$64,36
$1,371.64
$1,240.12 14-17101-070-00
$0.00 Lasl Sale: 4197 $66,000
$1,240,12
$1,263.64 14-17101-030-00
$0,00 Last Sale: 4192 $55,500
$1,263.84
$1.257.22 14-17101-OBO-OO
$64.36 Lasl Sale: 4103 $151,500
$1,321.5B
$1,170.2B 14-17101-040-00
$0.00 Last Sale: 51B9 $53,500
$1,170.2B
$1,544.08 14-17101-090-00
$505.24 Last Sale: 4J04 $146,900
$2,049.32
$1,242.74 14-17101-050-00
$64,36 Last Sele: 3/02 $135,000
$1,307.10
$1,551.46 14-17101-100-00
$64.36 Last Sale: 6/93 $56,900
$1,615.62
$1,222.96 14-17101-060-00
$0.00 Last Sale: 7/99 $B2,OOO
$1,222,96
$1,192.70 14-17101-110-00
$0.00 Lest Sale: 3/9B $69,900
$1.192.70
$1.263.64 14-17101-120-00
$64.36 Last Sale: 4/94 $59,BOO
$1,328.20
$1,273.06 14-17101-190-00
$64.3B
$1,337.42
$1,36B.5B 14-17101-1BO-OO
$64.36 Last Sale: 12/01 $115,000
$1,430.94
$1,474,12 14-17101-130-00
$49B,06
$1,972.1B
$1,209.60 14-17101-170-00
50.00
$1,209.60
$1,234.84 14-17101-160-00
$64,36
$1,299.20
$1,240.12 14-17101-140-00
$64.3B Lasl Sele: 11/B9 $54,500
$1,304As
$1,240.12 14-17101-150-00
$64.3B Last Sale: 1190 $51,900
$1,304.4B
$0,00 14-00600-010-20
$0,00 Exempl Property
$0.00
$0.00 14-17101-010-04
$0.00 Exempl Property
$0,00
$2,964.60 14-17101-030-03
$64.36
$3,02B.96
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
SUMMARY OF PROPERTIES IN PROJECT AREA (CONTINUED)
26 500 Heritage Way Fndtn Size: 1056
Farmington, Minnesota Finished SF: 1832 1,832
27 1400 Lower Heritage Way Fndln Size: 1410
Farmington. Minnesota Finished SF: 2226 2.226
28 504 Heritage Way Fndtn Size: 1248
Farmington. Minnesota Finished SF: 1872 1,872
29 SOB Heritage Way Fndtn Size: 1248
Farmington, Minnesota Finished SF: 1248 1.248
30 512 Heritage Way
F armington, Minnesota
Fncltn Size: 984
Finished SF: 984
31 516 Heritage Way
Farmington, Minnesota
Fndtn Size: 1204
Finished SF: 1204
32 60B Hertlage Way
Farmington, Minnesota
Fndtn Size: 1401
Finished SF: 2130 2,130
33 520 Heritage Way
Farmington, Minnesota
FOOtn Size: 1424
Finished SF: 2104 2,104
34 604 Heritage Way
Farmington, Minnesota
Fndtn Size: 1100
Finished SF: 1604 1,604
35 524 Heritage Way
Farmington, Minnesota
Fndtn Size: 1052
Finished SF: 1508 1,508
38 600 Heritage Way
FSl11llngton, Minnesota
Fndtn Sizs: 1056
Finished SF: 1392 1,392
37 City of Farmington
Fannlngton, Minnesota
Fndtn Sizs: NIA
Finished SF: NIA
38 1404 lower Heritage Way Fndtn Size: 1040
Fannington, Minnesota Finished SF: 1040 1,040
39 1405 Lower Heritage Way Fndtn Size: 1034
Farmington, Minnesota Finished SF: 1784 1,784
40 1404 - 6th Street Fndtn Size: 1470
FSl11lington. Minnesota Finished SF: 2674 2,674
41 501 Lower Heritage Way Fndtn Size: 1232
Farmington, Minnesota Finished SF: 2156 2,156
42 505 Lower Hertlage Way Fndtn Size: 1264
Farmington, Minnesota Finished SF: 1537 1,537
43 509 lower Hertlage Way Fndtn Size: 1,482
Fannington, Minnesoa Finished SF: 2,960 2,960
44 513 Lower Heritage Way Fndtn Size: 1387
Farmington, Minnesota Finished SF: 2075 2,075
45 517lowerHertlageWay FndtnSIze: 1444
Farmington, Minnesota Finished SF: 2244 2,244
46 601 Lower Heritage Way Fndtn Sizs: 1320
Fannington, Minnesota Finished SF: 2370 2,370
47 605 Lower Heritage Way Fndtn Size: 1482
Fermlnglon, Minnesola Finished SF: 2148 2,146
48 609 Lower Heritage Way Fndln Sizs: 1034
Farmington, Mlnnesola Finished SF: 1554 1,554
49 613 Lower Heritage Way Fndln Sizs: 1136
Farmington, Minnesota Finished SF: 1804 1,804
50 1408 Lower Harttage Way Fndtn S~ze: 1164
Farmlnglon, Minnesola Flnlshad SF: 2130 2,130
964
1,204
NIA
3
3
2
N/A
4
4
1971
0.29 (AC) Lend
12,632 (SF) Buildings
Total
1971
0,24 (AC) Lend
10,454 (SF) Buildings
Total
1971
0.28 (AC) Land
12, '97 (SF) Buildings
Total
1971
0.28 (AC) Land
12,197 (SF) 8uildlngs
Total
1971
0,28 (AC) Land
12,197 (SF) Buildings
Tolal
'971
0.28 (AC) Land
12,197 (SF) 8ulldlngs
Total
1972
0.29 (AC) Land
12,632 (SF) Buildings
Tolal
1871
0.28 (AC) Land
12,197 (SF) Buildings
Total
1972
O.29>(AC) Land
12.632 (SF) 8ulldln9s
Total
1971
0.28 (AC) Land
12,197 (SF) Buildings
Total
1872
0.28 (AC) Land
12,197 (SF) 8ulldln9s
Total
N/A
0,26 (AC) Land
11,326(SF) Buildings
Total
1972
0.25 (AC) Lend
10,890 (SF) Buildings
Total
1973
0.25 (AC) Land
10,890 (SF) Buildings
Total
1973
0.29 (AC) Lend
12,632 (SF) Buildings
Total
1973 .
0.28 (AC) Land
12,197 (SF) Bulldin9s
Total
1973
0.26 (AC) Land
12,197 (SF) Bulldinge
Total
1978
0.28 (AC) Lend
12,197 (SF) Buildings
Total
1974
0.28 (AC) Land
12,197 (SF) Buildings
Total
1974
0.26 (AC) Land
12,197 (SF) 8uildlngs
Total
1974
028 (AC) Lend
12,197 (SF) 8ulldlngs
Total
1973
0.28 (AC) Land
12,197 (SF) Buildings
Total
1972
0,28 (AC) Lend
12,197 (SF) Buildings
Tolal
1973
0.28 (AC) Land
12,197 (SF) 8ulldlngs
Total
1973
0,34 (AC) Land
14,810 (SF) 8ulldings
Tolal
$49,200
$146,300
$195.500
$53,900
$163,200
$217.100
$50,700
$151,600
$202,300
$49,200
$129,700
$178,900
$49,200
$117,600
5166,800
$50,700
$145,800
$198,500
$49,200
5156,800
$206,000
$49,.200
$179,400
ffi8.6oO
$49.200
$132,000
$181.200
$49,200
$120,000
5169,200
$49,200
5137,800
$167,000
$37,300
50
537,300
553,800
$128,900
$180,800
549,200
$166,500
5216,700
$49,200
5238,900
$288,100
$50,700
$163,400
$214,100
$49,200
$183,200
$212,400
$50,700
5250,300
$301,000
$50,700
$191,700
ffi2:4oii
$50,700
$202.200
$252,900
$50,700
$205,100
$255,800
$50,700
$178,900
$229.600
$50,700
$149,300
S2oD.OOo
$49,200
$160,900
$21D.1Oo
$55,400
$218,000
$273,400
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$195,500 Tolal
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$217,100 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$202,300 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$178,900 Tota'
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$166,800 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$196,500 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
5206,000 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
5228.600 Total
NetTo.
Spec Asmt
$181,200 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$169,200 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$187,000 Total
NatTax
Spec Asmt
$37,300 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$180.800 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$215,700 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$288,100 Tolal
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
5214,100 Tolal
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$212,400 Tolel
Net Tax
Spec Asml
$301,000 Total
Net Tax
SpecAsmt
$242,400 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$252,900 Total
Net Tax
Speo Asmt
$255,800 Tolal
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$229,600 Tolal
NetTax
Spec Asmt
$200,000 Tole'
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$210,100 Totel
Net.Tax
Spec Asmt
$273,400 Tolal
7
$2,031.86 14-17101-130-03
$64.36
$2,096.22
$2,299.30 14-17101-13Q.02
$0.00
$2,299.30
$2,118.82 14-17101-12Q.03
$0.00 Lesl Sele: 6/95 $89,000
$2,118.82
$1,827.B6 14-17101-11Q.03
$64.36 Last Sale: 2191 $62,000
$1,892.04
$1,676.16 14-17101-100-03
$64.38 Last Sele: 5/03 $184,900
$1,740.52
$2,00420 14-17101-09Q.03
$0.00 Last Sele: 3/86 $57,447
$2,004.20
$2,17020 14-17101-040-03
$64.38 Last Sale: 6/97 $122,000
$2,234.56
$2,444.22 14-17101-08Q.03
$64,38
$2,5oB.5e
$1,661.94 14-17101-05Q.03
$64.36 Lest Sele: 10/87 $74,000
$1,926.30
$1,709.12 14-17101-070-03
$64.38 Last Sele: 9103 $190,000
$I,rn:4B
$1,894.86 14-17101-060-03
$0.00
$1,894.66
$0.00 14-17101-020-04
$0.00 Exempl Property
$0.00
$1,850.08 14-17101-140-02
$0.00
$1,850.08
$2,216.94 14-17101-140-03
$0.00
$2,218.94
$3,121.38 14-17101-020-03
$64.38 Laol Sale: 5/93 $109,000
$3.'i85.74
$2,247.92 14-17101-160-03
$64,36
$2,31228
$2,24926 14-17101-170-03
$0.00 Last Sole: 12/05 $168,500
$2,249.26
$3,325.56 14-17101-18Q.03
$64.38 Leilt Sele: 6/96 $160,000
$3,389.92
$2,594.42 14-17101-19Q.03
$64.38 Lesl Sale: 5/03 $210,000
$2.858.78
$2,751.18 14-17101-20Q.03
$64.36
$2,815,54
$2,763,04 14-17101-210-03
$0,00 Last Sale: 7105 $189,000
$2,763.04
$2,466.62 14-17101-22Q.03
$64.38 Last Soie: 4/93 $107,000
$2,530.98
$2,017.38 14-17101-23Q.03
$64.38 Lest Sale: 9/02 $184,300
$2,Oii1T4
$2,221.58 14-17101-24Q.03
$0,00
$2.221.58
$2,537.76 14-17101-150-02
$0,00 Lasl Sale: 11/04 $227,000
$2,537,76
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
51 City of Farmington
Farmington, Minnesota
SUMMARY OF PROPERTIES IN PROJECT AREA (CONTINUED)
8
Fndtn Size: N/A
Finished SF: N/A
52 1409 Lower Heritage Way Fndtn Size: 1136
Fanrilngton, Minnesota Finished SF: 2044 2,044
53 617 Lower Heritage Way Fndtn Size: 2042
Farmington. Minnesota Flnlshed SF: 3738 3,738
54 1412 lower Heritage Way Fndtn Size: 1603
Farmington, Minne90ta Finished SF: 1759 1.759
55 City of Farmington
Farmington. Minnesota
Fndln Size: NIA
Finished SF: N/A
56 1416 Lower Heritage Way Fndtn Size: 1370
Farmington. Minnesota Finished SF: 3814 3.814
57 City of Farmington
Farmington. Minnesota
Fndtn Size: N/A
Finished SF: N/A
58 1420 Lower Heritage Way. Fndtn Size: 1376
Farmington, Minnesota Finished SF: 2416 2,416
59 500 Lower Heritage Way Fnd'tn Size: 1493
Farmington, Minnesota Finished SF: 2046 2,046
60 504 Lower Heritage Way Fndtn Size: 1440
Farmington, Minnesota Finished SF: 2122 2,122
61 506 Lower Heritage Way Fndtn Size: 1128
Farmington, Minnesota Flnls.hed SF: 1980 1,980
62 512 Lower Heritage Wey Fndln SIz.: 1175
Farmington, Minnesota Finished SF: 2225 2.225
63 516 Lower Heritage Way FndtnSIze: 1144
Farmington, Minnesota Finished SF: 1144 1,144
64 600 Lower Heritage Way Fndln Size: 1425
Farmington, Minnesota Finished SF: 1425 1,425
65 604 Lower Heritege Way Fndln Size: 1536
Farmington, Minnesota Finished SF: 2400 2,400
66 60B Lower Herftage Way fndtn Size: 1490
Farmington. Minnesota Finished SF: 2434 2,434
67 616 Lower Heritage Way Fncltn Size: 1482
Fannlngton, Minnesota Finished SF: 2724 2,724
68 City of Farmington
Farmington, Minnesota
69 705 Centennial Circle
Farmington, Minnesota
70 707 Centennial Circle
Farmington, Minnesota
71 703 Centennial Circle
Farmington. Minnesota
72 709 Centennial Cln::1e
Farmington. Minnesota
73 617 CentennlaJ Drive
Farmington, Minnesota
74 711 Centennial Circle
Farmington. Minnesota
75 1219 Sunnyside Drive
Farmington, Minnesota
Fndln Size: N/A
Finished SF: NIA
Fndln Size: 960
Finished SF: 1560 1,560
Fndln Size: 960
FlntshedSF: 1920 1,920
Fndln Size: 980
Finished SF: 980
Fndln Size: 960
Finished SF: 1440 1.440
Fndln Size: 960
Finished SF: 1320 1,320
Fndln Size: 960
Finished SF: 1680 1.680
Fndtn Size: 980
Finished SF: 1440 1,440
N/A
N/A
N/A
'NIA
960
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
0.25 (AC) Lend
10,890 (SF) Buildings
Total
1973
0.31 (AC) Lend
13,504 (SF) Buildings
Tolal
1972
0.31 (AC) Land
13,504 (SF) Buildings
Total
1974
0.53 (AC) Land
23,087 (SF) Buildings
Total
N/A
0.25 (AC) Lend
10,890 (SF) Buildings
Total
19B9
0.58 (AC) Land
2S,26S (SF) 8u1ldln9s
Total
N/A
0.26 (AC) Lend
",326(SF) Buildings
Total
1974
0.26(AC) Land
11,326 (SF) 8uildlngs
Total
1974
0.27 (AC) Land
11,761 (SF) Buildln9s
Total
1974
0.27 (AC) Land
11,761 (SF) Buildings
Total
1973
0.27 (AC) Lend
11,761 (SF) Buildings
Total
1973
0.27 (AC) Land
11,761 (SF) Buildings
Total
1973
0.27 (AC) Lend
11,761 (SF) Buildings
Total
1973
0.27 (AC) Land
11,761 (SF) Buildings
Total
1972
0.27 lAC) Lend
11,761 (SF) Buildings
Total
1974
0,41 (AC) Land
17,860 (SF) Buildings
Total
1971
0.45 (AC) Lend
19,602 (SF) Buildings
Total
NIA
0.26 (AC) Lend
11,326 (SF) Buildings
Tolal
1961
0.26 (AC) Lend
12,197 (SF) Buildings
Total
1961
0.31 (AC) Lend
13,604 (SF) Buildings
Total
1001
0.29 (AC) Lend
12.632 (SF) Buildings
Total
1961
0.23 (AC) Land
10,01 g (SF) Buildings
Total
1961
0.22 (AC) Land
9,583 (SF) Buildings
Tolal
1961
0.21 (AC) Lend
9,148 (SF) BUildings
Total
1981
0.25 (AC) Land
10,890 (SF) Buildings
Total
$37.300
50
$37,300
$51,200
$171,SOO
$222,700
$49.200
$269,200
$318,400
$Sg,OOO
5211,000
3270,000
$37,300
50
$37,300
$56,SOO
$327,900
$384,400
$37,300
30
$37,300
$52,900
$192,400
3245,300
$53,000
3162,000
3215,000
351,300
5170,600
3221 ,gOO
353,000
5168,900
3221,900
351,300
$171,000
3222,300
$51,300
$172,400
$223,700
$51,300
3180,600
321',900
351,300
319S,800
3247,100
356,SOO
3196,200
$252,700
$56,SOO
$202,600
$259,100
$37,300
$78,800
$116,100
$54,100
$127,000
$181,100
$49,200
$201,900
$251,100
$54,100
$11 9,300
$173,400
$49,200
$138,900
$188,100
$SO,700
$127,700
$178,400
$44,300
$122,900
$187,200
$SO,700
$121,900
$172,600
Net Tax
Spec Asml
$37,300 Total
Net Tax
Spec. Asmt
$222,700 Totel
Net Tax
Spec Asnrt
$318,400 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$270,000 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$37,300 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$384,400 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$37,300 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
324S,300 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$215,000 Total
Net Tax.
Spec Asmt
$221,900 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
3221,900 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$222,300 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asml
$223,700 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$211,900 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$247,100 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asml
$2S2,700 Tolal
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$259,100 Total
. NetTax
Spec Asmt
$116,100 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$181,100 Totsl
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$251,100 Total
NetTsx
Spec Asmt
5173,400 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
51B8,100 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$178,400 Tolal
Net Tax
Spec Asml
$167,200 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$172,600 Total
$0.00 14.17101-03G-04
30,00 Exempt Property
$0.00
$2,378.34 14-17101-1S(}-()3
$64.36 Last Sale: 11/01 $172,000
$2.442.70
$2,B24.70 14-17101-O1(}-()3
$0.00
$2,624To
$2.92S.0B 14-17101-16G-02
$64.36 Lest Sele: 2/92 $124,000
$2,9a9M
$0,00 14-17101-04G-04
SO.OO Exempt PfDperty
$0.00
34,36B.94 14-17101-181-02
$64.36
34,433.30
$0.00 14-17101.{)SG-04
30,00 Exempt Property
$0.00
32.649.74 14-17101-182-02
$64.36 Last Sele: 2/01 $185,000
32,714.10
$2,278.26 14-17101-19(}-()2
$64.36 Lest Se'e: 3/02 $1B9.7DO
$2.342.62
32.365.18 14-17101-2~2
364.36
32,429.54
32.338.82 14-17101-21(}-()2
3385,34 Lest Sale: 5/01 3176,000
32,724.16
$2,367.82 14-17101-22G-02
364.36 Last Sale: SlOl $179,000
$2,432.ii
$2,355.96 14-17101-23G-02
$0.00 Last Sale: 9102 $160,000
32,355.96
$2.237.38 14-17101-240-02
364.36
32,301.74
32,677.40 14-17101-2S(}-()2
$0.00
$2,677.40'
$2,745.90 14-17101-27G-02
$0,00
32,745.90
32,823,64 14-17101-2B(}-()2
30.00 Last Sele: 4/89 3124,000
$2,823.84
30.00 14-17101-06G-D4
30,00
$0.00
$1,8S4.02 14-731DO-18G-04
$64.36 Last Se'e: S/93 $92,000
31,918.38
32,730,10 14-7310G-19G-04
364.38 Lest Sale: 6/87 $71,000
32,794.48
$1,757.86 14-731DO-17G-04
364.36
$1,822,22
$1,921.20 14-7310G-20G-04
364.36
31,965.S6
31,818.46 14-731DO-1SG-04
364.36 Lest Sele: 10196 $108,SOO
$1 ,882.82
31,885.32 14-731DO-21G-04
3408.78 Last Sere: 9101 3156,000
$2.294,10
31,748.64 14-7310G-14(}-()4
$242,58 Lest Sale: 9100 31S0,900
$1.991.22
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
9
76 701 Centennial Circle
Farmington. Minnesota
77 715 Centennial Circle
Farmington. Minnesota
78 719 Centennial Circle
Farmington, Minnesota
79 614 CentennIal Drive
Farmington. Minnesota
80 616 CentennIal Drive
Farmington. Minnesota
61 618 Centennial Drive
FSllT1ington. Minnesota
82 620 Centennlal Drive
Farmington, Minnesota
83 1301 F airview Lane
Farmington. Minnesota
84 605 Park Drive
Farmington, Minnesota
85 609 Park Drive
Farmington, Minnesota
66 613 Pari< Drive
Farmington. Minnesota
87 617 Pari< Drive
Farmington, Minnesota
B8 621 Park Drive
Farmington. Minnesota
89 625 Park Drive
F armington, Minnesota
90 629 Pari< Drive
Farmington, Minnesota
91 633 Peri< Drive
Farmington. Minnesota
92 637 P.ark Drive
Farmington, Minnesota
93 641 Park Drive
Farmington. Minnesota
94 1321 & 1337 Centennial
Farmington, Minnesota
95 1304 F alrview Lane
Farmington, Minnesota
96 1308 F shview lane
Farmington, Minnesota
97 1321 Centennial Drive
Farmington, Minnesota
9B 600 Peri< Drive
Farmington, Minnesota
99 604 Peri< Drive
Farmington, Minnesota
100 608 Par1c Drive
Farmington, Minnesota
Fndtn Size: 1100
Finished SF: 1436 1,436
Fodtn Size: 960
Finished SF: 960
Fndtn Size: 960
Finished SF: 1704
Fndtn Siza: 1376
FInished SF: 2120
Fndtn Siza: 960
Finished SF: 1704
Fndtn Size: 960
Finished SF: 1584
Fodtn Size: 960
Finished SF: 960
Fndtn Siza: 1468
Finished SF: . 2365
Fndtn Size: 1034
Finished SF: 1514
Fndtn Size: 1064
Finished SF: 2126
Fndtn Siza: 1260
Finished SF: 1968
Fndtn Size: 1279
Finished SF: 2110
Fndtn Size: 1590
Finished SF: 2344
Fndtn Siza: 1218
Finished SF: 2436
Fndtn Size: 1126
Finished SF: 1692
Fndtn Size: 1122
Finished SF: 1698
Fndtn Size: 1176
Finished SF: 2008
Fndtn Size: 1274
Flolshed SF: 1848
Fndtn SI..: N/A
Finished SF: N/A
Fndtn Size: 1268
Finished SF: 2916 2,918
Fndtn Size: 1352
Finished SF: 2019 2,019
Fndtn Siza:
Finished SF:
Fndtn Size: 1144
Finished SF: 2028 2,028
Fndtn SI..: 1318
Finished SF: 2156 2,156
Fndtn Size: 1236
Finished SF; 1800 1.800
960
1,704
2,120
1,704
1,564
960
2,365
1,514
2,126
1,968
2,110
2,344
2,436
1,692
1,698
2,008
1,848
N/A
Apartment
Building
N/A
N/A
1961
0.26 (AC) Land
11,326 (SF) Buildings
Total
025 (AC) Land
10,690 (SF) 6ulldings
Total
1961
1961
0.29 (AC) Land
12,632 (SF) 6ulldin9s
Total
1967
0.21 (AC) Land
9,148 (SF) Buildings
Total
1961
0.21 (AC) Land
9,148 (SF) Buildin9s
Total
1981
0.21 (AC) Lend
9,148 (SF) Bulldin9s
Total
1961
0.23 (AC) Land
10,019 (SF) Buildings
Total
1972
0.30 (AC) Land
13,066 (SF) Buildings
Total
1971
0,23 (AC) land
10,019 (SF) Buildings
Total
1971
0.23 lAC) Land
10,019 (SF) Buildings
Total
1970
0.23 (AC) Lend
10,019 (SF) Buildings
Total
1970
0.23 (AC) Land
10,019 (SF) Buildin9s
Total
0.25 (AC) Land
10,890 (SF) Buildinge
Total
1968
1968
0.24 (AC) land
10,454 (SF) 6ulldin9s
Total
1968
0.30 (AC) Lend
13,068 (SF) 6ulldin9s
Total
1968
0.29 lAC) Land
12,632 (SF) Buildin9s
Total
1968
0.26 lAC) Land
11,326 (SF) Buildings
Total
0,30 lAC) Land
13,068 (SF) Buildings
Total
1969
N/A
0.38 lAC) Lend
18,553 (SF) 8uildings
Total
0,23 lAC) Land
10,019 (SF) Bulldln9s
Total
1969
1970
0.23 (AC) Land
10,019 (SF) Bulldln9s
Total
0.88 (AC) Land $167,200
38,333 (SF) Buildings $862,800
Total $1,050,000
1973
1970
0.28 lAC) Land
12,1971SF) Bulldln9s
Total
1970
0,24 (AC) Land
10,454 (SF) Bulldin9s
Total
1970
0.23 (AC) Land
10,019 (SF) Buildings
Total
550.700
$138.100
$168,800
$44,300
$131,800
Si76.1Oo
$46,700
$135,500
$1B2.2oO
$49,200
$149,400
$198,600
$49,200
$126,400
$175,600
$49,200
5138,400
$167,600
$49,200
$119,000
$168,200
$50,700
$236,000
$286,700
$50,700
$134,300
$185,000
$50,700
$174,600
S225.3oO
$50,700
$181,600
$232,300
$49,200
$165,400
$214,600
$49,200
$195,000
Sw:2Oo
$49,200
$155,000
5204,200
$49,200
$144,700
$193,900
549,200
$156,800
$206,000
$51,700
$151,300
$203,000
$51,700
$159,400
$211,100
$23,500
50
$23,500
$53,900
$205,200
m9.1oO
$53,900
$163,400
$217,300
$49,200
$166,600
ffi5.iili5
$49,200
$178,700
$227,900
$49,200
$161,900
$211,100
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$188,800 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$176,100 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$182,200 Tolat
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$196,600 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$175,600 Tole'
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$187,600 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$168,200 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$286,700 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$185,000 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$225,300 Total
NetTBx
Spec Asmt
$232,300 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$214,600 Toter
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$244.200 Toter
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$204.200 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$193,900 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asml
$206,000 Tolal
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$203,000 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$211,100 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$23,500 Tolal
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$259.100 Totel
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$217,300 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$1,050,000 Totar
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$215,800 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$227,900 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$211,100 Total
$1,910.68 14-73100-160-04
$0.00
$1,910,68
$1.776.30 14-73100-220-04
$64.36
$1,840.66
$1,673.76 14-73100-230-04
$64.36
$l,93B.'i4
$2,074.04 14-73100-080-03
$64.38 Last Sale: 5/03 $169,000
$2,"i3B.40
$1,751.28 14-73100.090-03
$0.00
$1,751.28
$1,913.30 14-73100-100-03
50.00
$1,913.30
$1,659.04 14-73100-110-03
SO.OO last Sale: 5/04 $183,900
$1,659.04
$3,077.68 14-17100-100-01
$64.36
$3, 142.24
$1,902.76 14-17100-090-01
$64.36
$l,967T2
$2,402.06 14-17100.080-01
$64.36 Lest Sele: 11/98 $129,900
$2,4B6T2
$2,494.30 14-17100-070-01
$64.36
$2,558.66
$2,272.94 14-17100-060-01
$84.36
$2,337.30
$2,639.22 14-17100-050-01
$0.00 Last Sale: 6/04 $254,500
$2,639.22
$2,139.90 14-17100-040-01
$64.36 Last Sele: 6/02 $169,900
52,204.26
$2,009.46 14-17100-030-01
$0.00
$2,009.46
$2,141.22 14-17100-020-01
$0.00 .
$2,141.22
$2,126.74 14-17100-010-01
$0.00 Last Sale: 8/05 $225,400
$2,126.74
$2,228.16 14-17100-010-00
$0.00 Last Sale: 2/05 $215,145
$2.228.16
$325.60 14-17100-020-00
$&4.38
, $389.Bfi
$2,822.32 14-17100-020-02
$648.24
$3,470.58
$2,494.10 14-17100-030-02
$0.00
$2,494.10
$15,187.86 14-17100-022-00
5240.08 Lest Sale: 12/04 $1,196,900
515,427.94
$2,308.26 14-17100-031-03
$64.36 lest Sele: 6/98 $132,800
$2,372.62
$2,436,34 14-17100.041-03
$64.36
$2,soo.ro
$2.229.48 14-17100-050-03
$64.36
$2,293,84
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
SUMMARY OF PROPERTIES IN PROJECT AREA (CONTINUED)
10
101 612 Park Drive
Farmington. Minnesota
$2,455.32 14-1710Q.060-03
$0.00
$2,4ii5.32
102 616 Park Driv"
Farmington, Minnesota
103 620 Park Drive
Farmington, Minnesota
104 1320-40 Centennial Dr.
Farmington, Minnesota
105 624 Park Drive
Farmington, Minnesota
108 1312 fairview Lane
Fannlngton, Minnesota
107 N/A
Farmington. Minnesota
108 first Presb Church
Farmington, Minnesota
109 1316 feirview lane
Farmington, Minnesota
110 1317 Falrvlew Lane
Farmington, Minnesota
111 605 Fairvlew Circle
F BnnJngton, Minnesota
112 609 Falrview Circle
Farmington. Minnesota
113 1320 Fatrview Lane
Farmington. Minnesota
114 812 Falrview Circle
Farmington. Minnesota
115 1337 Centennial Drive
farmington, Minnesota
116 , 324 Falrview Lane
farmington, Minnesota
111 701 HerftagB Way
farmlngton. Minnesota
11 B BOB falrview Clrele
Farmington. Minnesota
119 604 Falrvlew C1n:le
F annJngton, Minnesota
120 600 Falrvlew Circle
Fannlngton. Minnesota
121 1328 Fairview Lane
Farmington, Minnesota
122 1332 Feirview Lane
Farmington, Minnesota
123 1329 Falrview Lane
Fannlngton, Minnesota
124 505 Heritage Way
Farmmgton, Minnesota
125 509 He!itag~ Wa.y
Fa1ll1ington, Minnesota
Fndtn Siz.e: 1476
Finished SF: 2364 2.364
Fndtn Size: 119'
Finished SF: 1608 1,608
Fndtn Size: 1206
Finished SF: 1950 1,950
Fndm Size:
Finished SF:
Apartment
Building
Fndtn Size: 1160
Finished. SF: 1736 1.736
Fndtn Size: 1612
Finished SF: 2470 2,470
Fndtn Size: N/A
FInished SF: N/A
Fndtn SiZe: NlA
Finished SF: NlA
Fndtn Size: 1468
FinIshed SF: 1696 1,696
Fndtn Size: 1034
Finished SF: 1554 1,554
Fndtn SiZe: 1192
Finished SF: 2192 2,192
Fndtn Size: 1276
Fmlshed SF: 2328 2.328
Fndtn Size: 1510
Finished sF: 2264 2,264
Fndtn Size: 1540
Finished SF: 2472 2,472
Fndtn Size:
Finished SF:
Apartment
BUIIdI~g
Fndtn.SiZe: 1176
Finished SF: 1764 "1,764
FndIn SiZe:
finished SF:
Apartment
Building
Fndtn Size: 1414
Finished SF: 20-86 2,086
Fndtn Size: 1443
Finished SF: 2127 2,127
Fndtn SiZe: 1196
Finished SF: 1938 1,938
Fndtn Size: 1100
Finished SF: 2124 2,124
Fndtn SiZe: 1709
Finished SF: 2541 2,541
Fndtn Size: 1120
Finished SF: 2100 2,100
Fndtn Size: 1056
Finished SF: lBOO 1,800
Fndtn S2.~: 1008
Finished SF: 1608 1,608
N/A
NlA
NlA
NlA
N/A
NlA
NlA
1970
0.23 (AC) Lend
10,010 (SF) Buildings
Total
'968
0.23 (AC) Land
10,019 (SF) Buildings
Total
1969
0.29 (AC) Land
12,632 (SF) Buildings
Total
1973
0.82 (AC) Land
35,719 (SF) Buildings
Total
196B
0.24 (AC) Land
10,454 (SF) Buildings
Total
'971
0.23 (AC) L.nd
10,019 (SF) Buildings
Total
NlA
0.12 (AC) Land
5,227 (SF) Buildings
Total
N/A
3.48 lAC) Land
151,589 (SF) Buildings
Total
1971
0.23 (AC) Land
10,019 (SF) Buildings
Total
1971
0.42 (AC) Land
18,295 (SF) Buildings
Total
1972
0.25 (AC) Land
10,890 (SF) Buildln9s
Total
1973
0.38 (AC) Land
16.553 (SF) Buildings
Total
1971
0.23 (AC) Land
10,019 (SF) Buildings
Total
1972
0.32 (AC) Land
13.939 (SF) Buildings
Total
$49,200
$180,900
$230,100
$49,200
$156,100
$205,300
$53.900
$169,300
$223,200
$117,100
$732,900
$850,000
$49,200
$160,300
$209,500
$58.500
$196,600
$253,100
$22,200
$0
$22:200
$83,200
$4n ,500
$560,700
$55,400
$166,000
$221,400
$71,200
$172,100
$243,300
$56,600
$185,500
$242.100
$55,800
$171,100
$226,900
$55.500
$184,300
$239.BOo
$55,600
$197,200
$252,800
1971
0.68 (AC) Land $160,600
38,333 (SF) Buildings $839,400
Total $1,000,000
1971
0.23 (AC) Land
10,019 (SF) BUIldings
Total
1973
0.81 (AC) Land
35,284 (SF) Buildln9s
Total
1973
0.39 (AC) Land
16,988 (SF) Buildings
Total
'972
0,24 (AC) Land
10,454 (SF) Buildings
Total
1972
0.28 (AC) Land
12,197 (SF) Buildln9s
Tbtal
1972
0.23 (AC) Land
10,019 (SF) BuiJdings
Total
1972
0.22 (AC) Land
9,583 (SF) Buildings
Total
1972
0.25 (AC) Land
10,690 (SF) Bulldln9s
Total
1972
0.40 (AC) Land
17.424 (SF) Buildings
Total
1971
0.24 CAe) l...Jtt
10,454 (SF) Bulldln9s
Total
$55,500
$147,800
$203,300
$117,100
$732,900
$850,000
$54,100
$197,000
$251,100
$54,100
$168,000
$220.100
$49,200
$154,600
$203.800
$53,900
$165,900
$219,800
$56,500
$182,400
$238,900
$49,200
$159,600
$208,800
$53,900
$147,000
$200,900
$146,700
$203,200
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$230,100 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$205,300 Tot.l
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$223,200 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asm1
$850,000 Total
Not Tax
Spec Asmt
$209,500 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$253,100 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$22,200 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asml
$560,700 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$221,400 Total
Net Tax
Spse Asmt
5243,300 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$242,100 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$226.900 Total
Not Tax
Spec Asmt
$239,800 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$252,800 Total
Not Tax
Spec Asmt
$1_000.000 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asml
$203,300 Total
Not Tax
Spec Asmt
$850,000 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asml
$251,100 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$220.100 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$203,800 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$219,800 Total
NelTax
Spec Asmt
$238,900 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asmt
$208,800 Total
Net Tax
Spec Asml
$200,900 Total
;58,500
Ntn iux
Spec Asmt
$203,200 Total
$2.155.70 14-1710Q.070-03
$64.36 last Sale: 4/04 $188,000
$2,220.08
$2,382.30 14-17100-080-03
$64.36 Last S.I.: 7/96 $132,000
$2,446.66
$12,530.56 14-1710Q.030-00
$240.08 Last Sale: 3/GB $430.200
$12,nO.64
$2.207.10 14-1710Q.010-04
$64.36 Last Sale: 1/03 $200,000
$2,27iAii
$2,723.54 14-17100-040-02
$0.00 Last Sale: 5195 $115,000
$2,723.54
$247.94 14-17100-021.03
$0.00
$247i4
$0.00 14-0080Q.010-15
$884.36
$884.38
$2,355.96 14-17100-050-02
$64.36 Last Sale: 4193 $100,000
$2,42032
$2,590.46 14-1710Q.023-03
$64.36
$2,654.82
$2,557.52 14-17101-110-01
$0.00
$2,557.52
$2.428.42 14-17101-100-01
$64.36
$2,4a2.7B
$2,583.86 14-1710Q.060-02
$532.88 Last Sale: 8188 $97,500
$3,116.74
$2,747.22 14-17101-090-01
$198.48
$2.945To
$14,049.34 14-1710Q.021-00
$240.08
514,289.42.
$2,129.34 14-1710Q.07D-02
$0.00 Last Sale: 6105 $227,500
$2,129.34
$12,530.56 14-171O().(J31-00
$240.08 Lasl Sal.: 12/03 $945,750
$12,770_64
$2,698.48 14-17101-080-01
$64.36
$2,762.84
$2,344,10 14-17101-070-01
$0.00 Last Sala: 8/04 $219,900
$2,344.iii
$1,955.48 14-17101-060-01
$64.36 Last Salo: 4105 $187,000
$2.0iil.ii2
$2,330.94 14-17101-010-02
$84.36 Last S.le: 5196 $104,000
$2,395.30
$2,575.96 14-17101-020-02
$0.00
$2,575.96
$2.200.48 14-17101-050-01
$64.36
$2.264.84
$2,076.64 14-17101-110-02
$64.36 Last Sal.: m7 $105,000
$2.141.00
$2,.i26.74 14.i7101-iQO-02
$64.36 Last Sele: 5103 $191,000
$2,191.10
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610 11
. SUMMARY OF PROPERTIES IN PROJECT AREA (CONTINUED)
126 513 Heritage Way Fndtn Size: 1008 1971 0.26 (AC) Land $53,900 Net Tax $1,857.96 14-17101-{)90-02
Farmington, Minnesota Finished SF: 1512 1,512 11.326 (SF) Buildings $127,600 Spec Asmt $0.00 Lasl Sale: 5/89 $75,000
Total $161,500 $181,50D Total $1,857.9a
127 517 Heritage Way Fndln Size: 1008 1971 0.26 (AC) L.and $55,400 Net Tax $1,914.64 14-17101-{)80-02
F armington, Minnesota Finished SF: 1512 1,512 11,326 (SF) Buildings $130,600 Spec Asmt $64.36 Last Sala: 6/00 $132,900
Total $186.DOO $166,000 Total $1.979.00
128 521 Heritage Way Fndtn Size: 1008 1971 0.26 (AC) land $55,400 Net Tax $1,890.94 14-17101-070-02
Fannlngton, Minnesota Finished SF: 1512 1,512 11,326 (SF) Buildings $128.700 Spec Asmt 50.00 Last Sale: 11/94 $88,500
Tolal $184,lDO $184,100 Total $1.890.94
129 525 Heritage Way Fndtn Size: 984 1971 0.26 (AC) Land $53,900 Net Tax $1,807.90 14-17101-060-02
Fannington. Minnesota Finished SF: 964 984 11,326 (SF) Buildings $123,800 Spec Asml $64.36 Last Sala: 9104 $185,000
Total $177,500 $177 ,500 Total $1,872.26
130 529 Heritage Way Fndtn Size: 1008 4 1971 026 (AC) land $53.900 Net Tax $2.046.36 14-17101-{)SO-02
Farmington, Minnesota Finished SF: 1764 1,764 11,326 (SF) Buildings $142,6DO Spec Asmt $64.36 Lest Sale: 2/93 $83,700
Total $196,500 $196,500 Total $2,'i1OT2
131 533 Heritage Way Fndln Size: 1088 1971 0.25 lAC) Land $53,900 Net Tax $2.109.60 14-17101-040-02
Farmington, Minnesota Finished SF: 1592 1,592 10,890 (SF) Buildings $153,000 Spec Asmt $64.36 Last Sale: 1103 $188,592
Total $206.900 $206,900 Total $2,m:96
132 613 Heritage Way Fndln Size: 1454 1970 028 lAC) Land $49,200 Net Tax $3.465.20 14-17101-{)10-01
Farmington. Minnesota Finished SF: 3274 3,274 12,197 (SF) Buildings $264,300 Spec Asml $64.36
Total $313,500 $313,500 Total $3,529.58
133 609 Hertlage Way Fndln Size: 1034 3 1972 0.25 (AC) Land $49,200 Net Tax $1,929.12 14-17101-{)20-01
Farmington. Minnesota Finished SF: 1602 1,602 10,890 (SF) Buildings $137,900 Spec Asmt $64.36
Total $187,100 $187.100 Total $1,ge3.4ii
MEAN: 1,833 1971 $222,032
MEOIAN: 1,784 1972 $206,000
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
12
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
The sales comparison approach to value examines the sale prices of other properties
similar to. the before and after conditions of the subject project area that have sold in the
marketplace. This approach is good evidence of value because it represents the activities
and reactions of sellers, users and investors as they respond to the marketplace.
The theory behind the sales comparison approach is based on the "principle of
substitution," which implies that a prudent person will -not pay more to buy or rent a
property than it will cost to buy or rent a comparable substitute property. The validity of
this approach is based on the assumption that continuity exists between similar
properties of like adequacy and their market values. The reliability of this technique is
dependent upon the availability of sales data and the degree of comparability of the sales
studied.
To apply this approach to the 2006 mill & overlay project area, information has been
sought on mill and overlay projects located in areas similar to the subject
neighborhood. Since the function of this appraisal is to estimate the value of the special
benefit resulting from the proposed street improvement project, sales have been selected
which occurred both before and after similar projects in other _nearby communities.
Several projects have been identified with before and after sales which are useful to this
analysis. The comparable mill and overlay projects are summarj'zed on the following
pages.
I ntrod ucti on
For the purpose of this appraisal, several cities were contacted to inquire about recent
mill and overlay projects that took place along residential streets. This research revealed
such projects in the cities of Rosemount, Lakeville and Carver.
I n order to isolate benefit, the before project sale prices must be trended for changes in
market conditions. Residential sales data, excluding new construction, has been
extracted using the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) in order to estimate appreciation.
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation GDunselors
20610
13
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
Introduction
Sales data from 1995 through 2005 was obtained from MLS for the following cities: Belle
Plaine, Chaska, Farmington, Hastings, Jordan, New Prague and Rosemount.
The following grid summarizes appreciation rates extracted from the market. These
appreciation rates will be used for the projects in this analysis.
OVERALL APPRECIATION (1995-2005)
Number of ' .. '-,
Properties Average Average .., " Annual.. " ,'"..M.ortthli:
. Year Sold SF'" Sales Prite. Price/SF AppreciatiOn :,A,:> ':reciation.
2005 1512 2,070 $275,925 $133.30
4.03% 0.3358%
2004 1545 2,025 $259,484 $128.14
8.46% 0.7050%
2003 1522 1,992 $235,331 $118.14
5.62% 0.4683%
2002 1354 1,936 $216,543 $111.85
0.51% 0.0425%
2001 1258 1,820 $202,536 $111.28
10.59% 0.8825%
2000 1130 1,825 $183,635 $100.62
9.24% 0.7700%
1999 1127 1,763 $162,398 $92.11
12.40% 1.0333%
1998 1222 1,770 $145,053 $81.95
5.69% 0.4742%
1997 977 1,758 $136,310 $77.54
1.52% 0.1267%
1996 892 1,695 $129,456 $76.38
1.77% 0.1475%
1995 806 1,582 $118,730 $75.05
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
14
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
Rosemount Study
In 2005, a mill and overlay street improvement project took place along 145th, 146th,
147th, Lower 147th, Upper 147th, 148th, 149th, Upper 149th, and Lower 150th Streets,
Upper 149th Court, Canada Avenue, Chevelle Court, Chili Avenue, Chianti Avenue,
Camfield Circle, and Charleston Avenue. This mill and overlay project included
resurfacing the roadway and minor storm sewer work. The project also included an area
of total street reconstruction, but the total reconstruction area was excluded in this
analysis.
After researching this project, 4 residential sales were found before the project, and 5
sales were found that occurred after the project was completed. These sales are
summarized as follows:
Rosemount 2005 Mill & Overlay Project Analysis
Sales After Project
1 3260 149th Street West Dee-05 1,760 $225,000 $223.493 $126.98
2 14976 Camfield Circle Dee-05 2,231 $247,500 $245,842 $1 10.19
3 3325 Upper 147th Street W Nov-05 1 ,230 $206,000 $205,300 $166.91
4 15000 Camfield Circle Aug-05 1 ,152 $218,250 $219,712 $190.72
After Project Averages Oct-05 1,593 $224,188 $223.587 $140.36
Sales Before Project
1 3260 Lower 150th Street W Oct-04 1 ,680 $199,000 $209,348 $124.61
2 14975 Camfield Circle Sep-04 1 ,615 $203,500 $215,568 $133.48
3 14645 Canada Avenue W Apr-04 2,107 $217,000 $237,745 $1 12.84
4 3330 - 146th Street West Apr-04 1 ,184 $192,150 $210,520 $177.80
5 3335 - 148th Street West Feb-04 1,632 $210,000 $233,121 $142.84
Before Project Averages May-04 1,644 $204,330 $221.260 $134.59
After Project: 1,593 SF x $140.36 = $223.593
Before Project: 1,644 SF x $134.59 = $221.266
Indicated Benefit: $2.327
1.05%
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
15
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
Analysis
Rosemount Study
An adjustment for market conditions is necessary to account for changes which have
occurred in the market between the dates of sale of each of the comparables, both
before and after the street improvement projects. As stated earlier, market data was
extracted from MLS to determine the amount of appreciation per year for the time period
analyzed. Each individual sale was then adjusted to the average date of sale after the
. reconstruction project using these rates of appreciation.
After the appreciation adjustment, the before comparables indicate an average sale price
ot $221,266. This can now be compared to the average adjusted sale price for the sales
after the reconstruction project.
Project Year:
Sale .Price After the Project:
Sale Price Before the Project:
Indicated Special Benefit:
2005
$223,593
$221,266
$ 2,327
Percentage of
Market Value
1.05%
The Rosemount study indicates a special benefit of $2,327, which is 1.05% of the
average market val ue before the project.
Lakeville Study
Sales data used to estimate appreciation rates for the Lakeville study was obtained from
MLS for the cities of Lakeville and Apple Valley for the years 1995 through 2005. The
grid on the following page summarizes appreciation rates extracted from the market for
the Lakeville project.
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
16
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
Analvsis
Lakeville Study
OVERALL APPRECIATION (1995-2005)
I'._fll.'_-
2005 1136 2,459' $328,137 $133.44
5.14% 0.4283%
2004 1198 2,361 $299,651 $126.92
6.20% 0.5167%
2003 1273 2,337 $279,289 $119.51
7.55% 0.6292%
2002 1214 2,309 $256,581 $111.12
-0.93% -0.0775%
2001 1139 2,136 $239,578 $112.16
9.01% 0.7508%
2000 1000 2,086 $214,637 $102.89
9.61% 0.8008%
1999 1099 2,091 $196,284 $93.87
11.59% 0.9658%
1998 1255 2,075 $174,559 $84.12
6.32% 0.5267%
1997 1046 2,039 $161,316 $79.12
-0.65% -0.0542%
1996 972 1,981 $157,773 $79.64
4.84% 0.4033%
1995 890 1,938 $147,213 $75.96
In 2004, a road project took place along Hayes Avenue and 170th Street, from 175th
Street West to Cedar Avenue. According to the Lakeville Engineering Department, this
was a mill and overlay only, with no utility work.
After researching this project, 7 residential sales were found before the project, and 6
sales were found that occurred after the project was completed. These sales are
summarized on the following page.
P A TCHlN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
Analysis
Lakeville Study
17
Lakeville 2004 Mill & Overlay Project Analysis
:::::"::::..:::/:::::Uffipf.9~~W$~i~'::,:::::':,::':::::'::::::':::':::::~fl~:::::::::::0!:m#jili::::'::;,::':#~r~:::.::::.::::...%~~~ttl::::::::.::::::~I:~t:::::.:
Sales After Project
1 17291 Hayes Avenue
2 17010 Glencoe Avenue
3 8153 - 172nd Street West
4 7584 - 170th Street West
5 17458 Hayes Avenue
6 16972 Grenadier Avenue
After Project Averages
Sales Before Project
1 17010 Glencoe Avenue
2 17011 Hayes Avenue
3 17047 Hayes Avenue
4 7723 - 170th Street West
5 17291 Hayes Avenue
6 7584 - 170th Street West
7 16950 Harbor Court
Before Project Averages
After Project:
Before Project:
F eb-06 3,392 $355,000 $341,830 $100.78
Jun.:{J5 1,891 $245,389 $244,334 $129.21
May-05 1,764 $260,000 $260,000 $147.39
May-05 1,416 $191,500 $191,500 $135.24
F eb-05 2,215 $322,000 $326,122 $147.23
Dec-04 1,800 $225,000 $230,040 $127.80
May-OS 2,080 $266,482 $265,638 $127.71
Sep-03 1,891 $219,900 $243,517 $128.78
Aug-03 2,162 $233,900 $260,611 $120.54
Jul-03 2,002 $245,000 $274,645 $137.19
Jun-03 1,870 $224,900 $253,620 $135.63
Feb-03 3,392 $330,000 $381,117 $112.36
Feb-03 1,416 $175,000 $202,108 $142.73
Jan-03 1,521 $202,500 $235,244 $154.66
May-03 2,036 $233,029 $264,409 $129.87
2,080 SF x $127.71 = $265,637
2,036 SF x $129.87 = $264,415
Indicated Benefit: $1,222
0.46%
After the appreciation adjustment, the before comparables indicate an average sales price
of $264,415. This can now be compared to the average adjusted sale price for the sales
after the reconstruction project.
Project Year:
Sale Price After the Project:
Sale Price Before the Project:
Indicated Special Benefit:
2004
$265,637
$264,41 5
$ 1,222
Percentage of
Market Value
0.46%
market value before the project.
This Lakevi!le study indicates a special benefit of $1,222, which is 0.46% of the average
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
18
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
Analysis
LakeviJle Study
In addition to the preceding special benefit study, there are several sales/resales of
properties within the Lakeville project area. After adjusting for market conditions, these
pairings indicate a range of benefit from no benefit to approximately $1,000 in benefit.
However, each market transaction varies according to motivations of and negotiations
.between individual market participants. Even though both sales may represent arm's-
length transactions, there are specific circumstances that can influence sale. prices,
reducing the reliability of one particular pairing. Therefore, special benefit of a mill &
overlay or reconstruction project is best derived from an overall comparison of sales that.
occur before the project to sales that occur after the project.
Carver Study
Sales data used to estimate appreciation rates for the Carver study was obtained fror
MLS for the cities of Carver and Chaska for the years 1995 through 2005. The following
grid summarizes appreciation rates extracted from the market for the Carver project.
OVERALL APPRECIATION (1995-2005)
li:~~~~llilillllllll~ml'I~lillllll"'JI~llllilll~~II~i11111J.11~lliiil:~~'lil.~~i:
2005 277 2,399 $332,249 $138.49
5.66% 0.4717%
2004 324 2,298 $301 ,195 $131.07
8.33% 0.6942%
2003 293 2,246 $271,750 $120.99
3.77% 0.3142%
2002 279 2,143 $249,854 $1 16.59
0.52% 0.0433%
2001 238 2,099 $243,473 $1 15.99
12.98% 1.0817%
2000 254 2,145 $220,196 $102.66
14.70% 1 .2250%
1999 247 2,078 $185,984 $89.50
6.38% 0.5317%
1998 292 1,925 $161,945 $84.13
0.61% 0.0508%
1997 209 1,925 $160,974 $83.62
6.64% 0.5533%
1996 181 1,925 $150,944 $78.41
-4.13% -0.3442%
1995 164 1 ,679 $137,327 $81.79
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
19
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
Analysis
Carver Study
In 2004, a street improvement project took place along Skyview Lane in Carver. The
properties along the northwest side of Skyview Lane benefited from a mill and overlay
only, while the properties along the southeast side of Skyview Lane also benefited from
the addition of public utilities. Only the properties along the northwest side of Skyview
Lane are included in this analysis.
After researching this project, 6 residential sales were found before the project. One sale
occurred at the beginning of the project, anp the buyer was aware of the project and
special assessments at the time of sale. Therefore, this sale is representative of the after
condition of the project These sales are summarized as follows:
Carver - Mill & Overlay Project Analysis
Sales After Project
1 506 Skyview Lane
May-04
2,176 $242,500
$242,500
$111.44
After Project Averages
M ay-04
2,176 $242,500
$242,500
$111.44
Sales Before Project
Before Project Averages
Apr-03 2,527 $257,400 $272,046 $107.66
Sep-OO 1,360 $183,000 $232,520 $170.97
Nov-99 1,146 $146,000 $204,984 $178.87
May-99 1,700 $171,354 $248,189 $145.99
Apr-99 1,628 $167,900 $244,446 $150.15
Mar-99 2,480 $164,800 $241,135 $97.23
Mar-OO 1,807 $181,742 $240,553 $133.12
1 490 Skyview Lane
2 516 Skyview Lane
3 488 Skyview Lane
4 504 Skyview Lane
5 508 Skyview Lane
6 510 Skyview Lane
After Project:
Before Project:
2,176 SF
1,807 SF
x
x
$111.44
$133.12
= $242,493
= $240,548
Indicated Benefit:
$1,945
0.81%
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
20
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
Analvsis
Carver Study
After the appreciation adjustment, the before comparables indicate an average sales price
of $240,548. This can now be compared to the average adjusted sale prices for the sales
after the reconstruction project.
Project Year:
Sale Price After the Project: .
Sale Price Before the Project:'
Indicated Special Benefit:
2004
$242,493
$240,548
$ 1,945
Percentage of
Market Value
0.81%
This Carver study indicates a special benefit of $1,945, which is 0.81 % of the average
market value before the project.
Summation
Average Market Indications of Percentage of
Value Before Proiect Special Benefit Market Value
Rosemount Pr?ject
2005 $221,266 $2,327 1.05%
Lakeville Project
2004 $264,415 $1,222 0.46%
Carver Project
2004 $240,548 $1,945 0.81%
The reconstruction projects researched in all three cities together provide a fairly tight
range of benefit indications. Overall, these projects indicate a range of benefit from
$1,222 to $2,327, with an average indication of $1,831. Alternatively, the indications of
benefit range from 0.46% to 1.05%, with an average of 0.76%, of the average market
value before the reconstruction project.
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
21
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
Summation
As stated previously, the single-family residential properties located within the subject
project area have an average 2006 assessed market value of approximately $218,676.
Based on the average percentage of special benefit indicated above (0.75%), a special
benefit of $1,640 is indicated when applied to the average 2005 assessed market value
within the proposed project area.
The subject area's assessed value is slightly below the market value of the analyzed
projects. There is an indirect relationship between value and percentage of indicated
benefit. Therefore, the indicated benefit of $1,640, based on 0.75% of the subject's
average assessed value, likely understates benefit for the subject project area. However,
as stated previously, the Rosemount project included minor storm sewer work, which is
not included to the same extent in the subject mill and overlay project.
Given the reported condition of the existing street improvements, we conclude to an
anticipated special benefit of up to $2,000 per residential unit for the properties in the
subject project area. This equates to approximately 0.91 % of the 2006 average assessed
market value of the subject properties.
Furthermore, based on previous analyses that are retained in our files, the observed
benefit of a total reconstruction project, including repair/replacement of utilities, can
approach $7,000 in the subject's area. While the subject street improvements area in
need of mill & overlay improvements, a total reconstruct is not warranted and the
existing infrastructure is in good condition. Therefore, the estimated benefit of up to
$2,000 per residential unit appears reasonable.
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
22
ADDENDA
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
(Pages 24-26)
23
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
24
CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
The value estimates and conclusions in the appraisal are made subject to these assumptions
and conditions:
1. No title search has been made and the reader should consult an appropriate
attorney or title insurance company for accurate ownership data. Title to
the property is assumed to be good and marketable unless otherwise stated.
2. The legal description, furnished or otherwise, is assumed to be correct. No
responsibility is assumed for the legal description or for matters including
legal or title considerations.
3. The information contained in this report is not guaranteed, but it has been
gathered from reliable sources. The appraiser certifies that, to the best of
his knowledge and belief, the statements, information and materials
contained in the appraisal are correct.
4. All value estimates in this report assume stable soil and any necessary soil
corrections are to be made at the seller's expense, unless otherwise noted.
5. The site plan, if any, in this report is included to assist the reader in
visualizing the property. I have made no survey of the property and
assume no responsibility for its accuracy.
6. The market value herein assigned is based on conditions which were appli-
cable as of the effective date of appraisal, unless otherwise noted.
7. The appraiser herein shall not be required to prepare for, or appear in
court, or before any board or governmental body by the reason of the
completion of this assignment without predetermined arrangements and
agreements.
8. Surveys, plans and sketches may have been provided in this report. They
may not be complete or be drawn exactly to scale.
9. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right
of publication. It may not be used for any purpose by any'person, other
than the party to whom it is addressed, without the written consent of the
appraiser, and in any event only with properly written qualification and
only in its entirety.
10. Information in the appraisal relating to comparable market data is more
fully documented in the confidential file in the office of the appraiser.
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
25
CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
(Continued)
11. All studies and field notes will be secured in our files for future reference.
12. It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions
have been complied with, unless a non-conformity has been stated, defined
and considered in the appraisal report. And, it is assumed that the
utilization of the land and improvements is within the boundaries or
property lines of the property described and that there is no encroachment
or trespass unless noted within the report.
13. The distribution of the total valuation in this report between land and
improvements, if stated, applies only under the reported highest and best
use of the property. The allocations of value for land and improvements
must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if
so used.
14. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state
and local environmental regulations and laws unless non-compliance is
stated, defined and considered in the appraisal report.
15. The appraiser was not aware of the presence of soil contamination on the
subject property, unless otherwise noted in this appraisal report. The effect
upon market value, due to contamination was not considered in this
appraisal, unless otherwise stated.
16. The appraiser was not aware of the presence of asbestos or other toxic
contaminants in the building(s), unless otherwise noted in this report. The
effect upon market value, due to contamination was not considered in this
appraisal, unless otherwise stated.
17. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous material,
which mayor may not be present on the property, was not observed by the
appraiser. The appraiser has. no knowledge of the existence of such
materials on or in the property. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to
detect such substances. The value estimate is predicated on the assumption
that there is no such material on or in the property that would cause a loss
in value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, or for any
expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The client
is urged to retain an expert in this field, if desired.
18. The value stated in this report is fee simple, assuming responsible owner-
ship and management, unless otherwise indicated. This appraisal recog-
nizes that available financing is a major consideration by typical purchasers
of real estate in the market, and the appraisal assumes that financing is or
was made available to purchasers of property described herein.
19. The appraiser has neither present nor contemplated interest in the property
appraised and employment is not contingent upon the value reported.
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
26
CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
(Continued)
20. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the appraisers have not made a
surveyor analysis to determine whether the property is in compliance with
liThe Americans with Disabilities Act" (ADA). If the property is not in
compliance with the ADA, it could have a negative effect on the value of
the property.
21. The property is appraised free and clear of any or all liens or encumbrances
unless otherwise stated.
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
27
APPRAISER QUALIFICATIONS
(Pages 28-30)
PATCIDN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
PRO FESSIO NAl
AFFILIATIONS
BUSINESS
EXPERIENCE
EDUCATIONAL
WORK
SPECIALIZED
REAL ESTATE
TRAINING
APPRAISAL
EXPERIENCE
APPRAISAL
ClI ENTS
INCLUDE
28
QUALIFICATIONS Of
SHERRIL L. BRUMM
Certified General Real Property Appraiser, State of Minnesota, License #20249948.
Associate General Member, Appraisal Institute, November, 2001.
Patchin Messner & Dodd, Inc., 2001 to Present.
Patchin Messner Appraisals, Inc., 1998 to 2000.
Kelly Appraisal Services, Staff Appraiser, 1995-1996.
Valuation Counselors, Inc., Staff Appraiser, 1986-1989.
United States Army R~serve, 1983-1989.
Mid America Title Company, 1981-1984.
Bachelor of Science Degree, Northern Illinois University, majored in Finance, minored in Economics,
graduated Magna-Cum-laude, 1986.
Appraisal Institute/American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers Course Work:
Real Estate Appraisal Principles
Basic Valuation Procedures
Residential Case Study
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice
Basic Income Capitalization
Advanced Income Capitalization
Highest & Best Use and Market Analysis
Advanced Sales Comparison and Cost Approaches
Report Writing and Valuation Analysis
Advanced Applications
Preparation of appraisals for condemnation, tax appeal, financing, acquisition and disposal.
. Properties appraised include: nursing homes, hospitals, apartment complexes, office and industrial
buildings, shopping centers, single family residences and development land.
Bloomington, City of
Brown County
Burnsville, City of
Carver, City of
Chaska, City of
Chanhassen, City of
Dakota County Community Development Agency
Dakota County
Elk River, City of
Evergreen land Services Company
Farmington, City of
Hennepin County
jaspers, Moriarty & Walburg
johnson, johnson, Burkhardt and johnson, L.L.P.
Kennedy & Graven
lakevi lie, City of
Minneapolis Community Development Agency
Mi nnesota Department of Transportation
Monticello, City of
New Brighton, City of
New Prague, City of
Prior lake, City of
Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority
Richfield, City of
Richfield HRA
Robbinsdale, City of
R.S. Eden
51. Paul, City of
Saint Paul Port Authority
Scott County
Shakopee, City of
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission
The Green Institute
University of Minnesota
Upper Midwest Management
Wells Fargo
Xcel Energy
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation CounselDrs
20610
PROFESSIONAL
AFFILIATIONS
BUSINESS'
EXPERIENCE
EDUCATIONAL
BACKGROUND
SPECIALIZED
REAL ESTATE
TRAINING
APPRAISAL
EXPERIENCE
29
QUALIFICATIONS OF
JASON L. MESSNER
MAl Member, Appraisal Institute
Certified General Real Property Appraiser, State of Minnesota, license #4000836.
Member, Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors.
Member (#6591), International Right of Way Association.
Patchin Messner & Dodd, Inc., President/Principal, 2001 to Present.
Patchin Messner Appraisals, Inc., Principal, 1995 to 2000.
Peter J. Patchin & Associates Inc., Associate Appraiser, 1986 to 1994.
Century 21 Granite City Real Estate, Residential Salesperson, 1985.
Bachelor of Science Degree, S1. Cloud State University, majored in Real Estate, graduated Magna-
Cum-Laude, 1986.
. Associate in Arts Degree in Business Administration, Willmar Community College, graduated with
honors, 1984.
Basic Valuation Procedures, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, 1986.
Real Estate Appraisal Principles, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers,1986.
Capitalization Theory and Techniques (Part A), A.I.R.E.A., Minneapolis, MN, 1987.
Standards of Professional. Practice, A.I.R.E.A., Minneapolis, MN, 1988; Appraisal Institute,
Minneapolis, MN, 1994.
Capitalization Theory and Techniques (Part B), A.I.R.E.A., Minneapolis, MN, 1989.
Case Studies In Real Estate Valuation, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, Mpls., MN, 1990.
Report Writing & Valuation Analysis, Appraisal Institute, Minneapolis, MN, 1991.
SEMINARS ATTENDED:
. Appraisal Institute
Income Property Valuation for the 1990's
Condemnation: Legal Rules And Appraisal Practices
Special-Purpose Properties: The Challenges of Real Estate Appraising in limited Markets
New Industrial Valuation
USPAP Update: Standards and Ethics for Professionals
The Road Less Traveled: Special Purpose Properties
National Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update
The Appraiser as Expert Witness
The Appraisal of Local Retail Properties
Valuation of Detrimental Conditions in Real Estate
Minnesota Institute of Legal Education
Hazardous Waste litigation
Eminent Domain
Property Tax Appeals
Preparation of appraisals for condemnation, tax appeal, litigation, financing, debt restructuring,
acquisition/disposal, and special assessment appeal. Properties appraised include: office buildings,
warehouses, service stations, manufacturing plants, medical and veterinary clinics, shopping centers,
restaurants, apartment buildings, subsidized housing, research and development buildings, grain
elevators, flour mills, special-purpose properties, lands, air rights, avigation easements, utility
easements, highway easements, and environmentally impaired properties. Specialize in litigation
valuation of commercial, industrial, development land and investment properties.
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
20610
RELATED
EXPERIENCE
APPRAISAL
CLIENTS
INCLUDE
COURT
EXPERIENCE
30
QUALIfiCATIONS Of
JASON L. MESSNER (CONTINUED)
Participant in the writing of The Effect of Contamination on The Market Value of Property, Federal
Highway Admin.; Office of Right-of-Way, Washington, DC 1993.
Faculty participant at the Hazardous Waste Litigation seminar, Minnesota Institute of Legal Education,
1995.
Adjunct lecturer on environmental appraisal issues, University of St. Thomas, Mpls., MN, 1996 and
2002.
Faculty participant at the Eminent Domain 101 seminar, Hennepin County Bar Association, 2003.
Faculty participant at the Annual Right-of-Wav Professionals Conference, Minnesota Department of
Transportation, 2004.
Metro/Minnesota Chapter of the Appraisal Institute; Education Coordinator - 1997 through 2001,
Secretary - 2001, Vice President - 2002, President - 2003.
Alliant Techsystems, Inc.
Bank of America
B.P. Oil Pipeline Company
Burlington Northern Railroad Company
Campbell Soup Company
Ceridian Corporation
CMC Heartland Partners
Deluxe Check Corporation
Equitable Life Assurance Co.
Exxon Mobil Corporation
Farm Credit Services
First Bank Systems
Heitman Realty Company
Honeywell, Inc.
IBM Corporation
IDS Financial Services
Internal Revenue Service
Jostens, Inc.
LaSalle National Bank
Lockheed Martin
Louisville Regional Airport Authority
Medtronics, Inc.
Mpls. Community Development Agency
Minnesota Department of Transportation
3M Corporation
Northwest Airlines, Inc.
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co.
Old Dutch Foods
Philips Lighting
Resolution Trust Corporation
Reynolds Metals Company
500 line Railroad Company
Unisys Corporation
University of Minnesota
U.s. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish & Wildlife
U.S. Postal Service
Wells Fargo
Williams Pipeline Company
Xcel Energy
Other clients include various Cities (Andover, Belle Plaine, Bloomington, Brooklyn Center,
Burnsville, Chaska, Cokato, Columbia Heights, Crystal, Duluth, Elk River, Farmington, Jordan, Lake
City, Lino Lakes, Marshall, Medina, Minneapolis, New Brighton, Osseo, Prior Lake, Ramsey,
Richfield, Robbinsdale, Rochester, St. Paul, St. Louis Park, Savage, Shakopee and Victoria), and
Counties (Benton, Brown, Carver, Clay, Dakota, Douglas, Goodhue, Hennepin, Jackson, Mcleod,
Murray, Nicollet, Otter Tail, Ramsey, Scott, Sherburne, Stearns and Steele) in the State of Minnesota.
Qualified as an expert witness in Minnesota Tax Court, U. S. District Court (Minnesota), Anoka,
Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Rice, Scott, Wabasha, Washington and Wright County District Court,
various Commission Hearings.
PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD
Valuation Counselors
...
u
CI)
.-
e c
0.. ~
~.-
co ...
_ co
... Q.
~ ~
00
"C...
C C
co CI)
== E
:E =
CD CI)
o tn
~~
s
CO
E
000
l() l() 0
t-- ('.l 0
('.l~ ('.l~ l()~
\00\0
......rrl'<:l'"
~~~
+:i
tn
W
...
(.)
CD
'0'
...
0..
~8ti
o .... 0
l()"Eju
O..ot)
"e 'S Q)
Q) s:: '0'
~ 0 '""
Q) u ~
~"e"e
~ S ~
..o~S
B 8'.0
~ ~ ~
o ~]
~ 1:: 0
ti:l 'a E-<
]::E
O"e
E-< ~
s::
o
....
.....
~
rn
s::
o
U
]
~
-
CO
C
.-
en
.t:
o
c
o
"C
CI)
tn
CO
OJ
CI)
...
ca
E
+:i
tn
W
...
c
CD
E
tn
tn
CD
tn
~
l/'l
QC)
e'I
. .
~
U
.-
-
o
0..
fJ':}
...
C
CI)
E
tn
tn
CI)
tn
tn
<C
tn
~
o
CI)
.c
...
"C
C
CO
tn
...
tn
o
o
...
u
CI)
'0'
...
0..
;:)
w
a::
...
CD
Q,
-
CO
~
...
u
<C
c
o
"C
CI)
tn
CO
OJ
...
C
CI)
E
tn
tn
CI)
tn
~
...... '<:l'" l()
0'\ 00 t--
'<:l'" '<:l'" 0'\
l()~ -<i' 0:;
('.l 0 ('.l
rrl \0 0'\
~~~
~8ti
o .... 0
l()"EjU
O..ot)
"e '1:: Q)
~ 1:: .=
v, 8
~ 8 ~
~]]
Q) :::s 0
..o~E-<
B 8
~ ~
o Q)
~ 1::
ti:l 'a
]::E
O"e
E-< ~
s::
o
....
.....
~
s::
o
U
]
~
~
~
~
fJ':}
;:)
w
a::
...
CD
Q,
....
c
CI)
E
tn
tn
CI)
tn
~
"C
CI)
tn
o
Q.
o
...
0..
...
c
CI)
...
...
~
o
o l() l()
l() ('.l t--
t-- ('.l 0'\
('.l~ r-: 0:;
\0 \0 ('.l
...... t-- 0'\
~~~
~8ti
o .... 0
V:"Eju
t--..o~
~'S as
- s::'=
v 8
~ 8 ~
rn
Q)"e]
~ S 0
d~E-<
Q) Q)
..0 u
B ~
1:: ~
:::s 1::
o 'a
~::E
~]
E-< s::
o
....
.....
u
E
rn
s::
o
U
]
~
l/'l
QC)
e'I
fJ':}
;:)
w
a::
...
CD
a.
'.'
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463~7111 Fax (651) 463~2591
www.cLfarmington.mn.us '
TO: Mayor and Councihnembers
FROM: Peter J. Herlofsky, Jr.
City Administrator
SUBJECT: Supplemental Agenda
DATE: September 18,2006
It is requested the September 18, 2006 agenda be amended as follows:
CONSENT AGENDA
7c) School and Conference - Fire Department
Attached is additional information regarding the Fire Chief s Annual Conference.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Hc) Mill and Overlay Project - Engineering
Attached is the following information for the Mill and Overlay project:
- Proj ect description
- Time schedule
- Financing
lil
/.i:~
t./ !
CITY of FARMINGTON
2006 MILL & OVERLAY PROJECT
Project No. 06-01
Construction options for completing project
Work to be done in all options:
· Leave in place 8,000 SY of bituminous in good condition for overlaying.
· Remove 2-1/2" of bituminous/sub-soils with milling equipment on 16640 SY
· Subbase stabilization with rec1aimer and blending flyash into subbase to 16640 SY
· It is anticipated that 1,000 TN ofCL5 will be needed to complete the work
· Remaining work to be picked from options listed
Approved Method
I"
1-1/2"
2"
6"
Updated Cost
1"
1-1/2"
2"
6"
OPTIONS
1
1-1/2"
2"
6"
2
I"
2"
6"
3
I"
2-1/2"
6"
4
1-1/2"
1-1/2"
6"
Bituminous wear overlay on saved good area
Bituminous wear on milled out area
Bituminous base on milled out area
CL 5 aggregate on milled out area
Bituminous wear overlay on saved good area
Bituminous wear on milled out area
Bituminous base on milled out area
CL 5 aggregate on milled out area
Bitumihous wear on all roads
Bituminous base on flyash treated area
F1yash treatment on milled out area
Bituminous wear on all roads
Bituminous base onflyash treated area
Flyash treatment on milled out area
Bituminous wear on all roads
Bituminous base on flyash treated area
F1yash treatment on milled out area
Bituminous wear on all roads
Bituminous base on flyash treated area
F1yash treatment on milled out area
Existing subbase
Existing subbase
..
$609,700
$756,000
$697,000
$663,000
$690,000
$670,000
"
z
o
1=
t
o
LlJ
o
Z
LlJ
::iE
::iE
o
C)
LlJ
0::
00
VV
<0 <0
<D~
...N
8g8888g~8gggggggggg~gggggg~~~
~~~~~~:gg~~gg~~gggg~~~g~~gggg~~~~
~lo~vN ~OO~ v~ V__~m~N~~ONmN-
~=-E~~~ M_~~ ~~ ~O~M~N~~~W~~~O
m~~<e m -~-~ ~~ -~-~~-~~~~-~~~
jE~- ... ~~~ ~~ ...~~ ~~ ~<O <0
~~~ ~ ~ ~ 0
e~o~ ...~OOOOOO 00 OOOO~O~~<ONO
. ~~:~ g g~~~ ~~ ~m~~~g~<o"''''g
0CC~ ~ __-v W~ N- -~- --
~~>.>O N --
u:lJll:!l
~~
... ...
00
vv
<0 CO
<D~
...N
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo~-
O~OOOO~VOOCOOOOOO~OO~OOOOOON~~
o/S g~~~gg~~gg~ggg~ggg~g~~gggg~~~~
(1)= OCO"'l:tN .-00(,,)""'- Q) &n'l"'"f'.Q)(l')('Iu."'J"Il;tOC'll''CI'N
~m:<(Er~~~ ~...~~ ~~ V ~~~~N~<ON<ONCO~O
~~~ I~ C>> 5_~N ~~ ~ M_~.__0___~0C
jE~- ... ~-~ ~~ ~ ...~ ~* ~<O CO
m-g~ (I,t- f& 69- .,.
. g&~ _~gogg~~o~~o ~ gg~~g~~~~g--
~~g~ $ ~~~~ $$ ~ ~M~~~ ~
~.>>a N --
u:lJll:!l
~;-
N
00
vv
COCO
<D~
...N
000 0000 00 0 OOOOODOOOOONN
c~~~ I ~~~~ .~:. I ~ I . ~~~~~cici~~~~~~
~ g~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~g~8~~~~
~m ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~<ONco~g~~
Q)as; __ 'I"'" <0 CD
;i~; ~_~~~~~IMIM~~~*~_______M__-*---
~&~ -~8og8g~o~~o ~ ~8~~8~~~~8--
-~~g!~ ~ ~~~~ m~ ~ N~~~~ ~
~.>>a N ~-
u:lJ!l:!l
: :
N'"
00
VV
CO <0
<D~
...N
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoOO~~
O~OOOO~VOOCOOOOo~...oo~oooooo~o~
~ ~~~~gg~~gg~~lggggg~~g~~gggg~~~~
co- OCOvN .-00(") v~ vM_.....O>(il')(\lU)"'IIlI"ONOlO(D
~=~<(E~-~ ~...~~ ~~ <OCO~~~N~I~NCON~~<D
~~_ ~ m ~__N ~~ _O=__--I~~~-~~m
jE~~ ... ~~~ -~ ...~~ -- _CO CO
1ii"8~ f& flit...,,, 69- 69-
~~&~ -~8og8~~ ~~ ~~g~~8~~~~g
OiE~i~O $ ~~~~ m~ ~N~~~~ ~
~>> u --
u: lJ! :g
~~
...
~
c 000000 00000 00 OOOOOOOOOOOCOtD
~ o~OOV<O vOOOO OCO NOOOOOOOOO~V'P"
0 ~j~C"':"':dc:i";"': g:gggg -ti"": ciodci-.idciciocON.ocO
X C) 'i:::>N~"'~NV N~ _69-100......10000<0('1').....0
... ~oco ~ ...co ~~ m r--NN,.....U)...ID~-Il)....
W } o~~ V r,.N ~~ ~ CO ... ~N~~~NNCO~Na>
::E _"'0 m_ ~t;' N <0 ... t&t&I"--- 51&_0(&0
~8~ ;; -- ;;; -- -CO tD
C - ....
W ~Oo/S
~ Q.O~ _(1)0000 00 C> 00 0 OOOO~~CO"'O ...
Q)e.2: 0 vCO V~ VCO N U')(\lOIlll:t' .- 0
a: 0">'" ~ (') COCO ~~ N N'" V
=cZ.!-5 CO ~CO N 'P" CO N
II. N...
~ ~o/S~
moo~o~___~~v(f)oom-~-oOvOOOON
~~~~N~;~~~~~~~~;~cicid~ci~~d~~~
S.II.CN~NN_M~~EB__W_~~~~i~-........,O~O-
m ~_0f& f&~~~I~ __~__U)
~~~~ - -~-~
<(;:)
~W$~~~~~~~~~~~zzzzz~zz~~~~~ w
;:)~>~~~WWWWWWWW...............~......WWWWW ~
S
~
o
e
o
~
"C
10
Gl Gl
~ =12
;; I..". ~ .0 ~
~~ ;~ ~ go_
oS!! "t:.2 ;:: >112 C m
g~ ~~ 10 ~I~_~ gB
~~~ ~2 j m~8~~ ~~ ~
15lii'l:!l;;I-':'CDGl 0 flll~'c6 5<.2: ;:)
;:; _i:= 0' 0 J: Cf) ~ ::J ..,;. 0': -. _ - m 0
€€-~icmm~~ ~~m8~$I'= S~~ ~
Jaal':J~iill; ~~~2~~~~ III~~ 5
cBB~~~~Cf)m~~g~I~8i~~i~ i~ -<
8~~CD~s~~g<o~~8egGl~~~! Q)~o/S ~O'"
ge~~Gl~~~~}~>~~"C~~~~~2GlO~~ ~...
_-.- ~o-()::JEE-" asCDa>mCIE~ o.c:..c C
ee~~ceco::>::>~~~;::;::~oe mo~i5>~ .80
e - - e e 8 0 8 e "" "" - .' GI :> C 0 ~ :> ~ c: E 0 LlJ
oe8m~GI e E.o.o~~ v(')(')~e::>:>o ~ e00 m~
~ eGlGlGl8~::>GlGlEE5>>>>>o>8EGlSQ)mme<(
~oo555 0::_55--E~::iE~~~~~...-ol~o8-o~
~li:~EEE~ ~EEIIE~~I~EEEIE~'~I~i~~I~1=
m~~~a>~0~-~a>u~o.~~I~.~~~I~~~~~I~~~~~
o~<(o::o::o::eO::::iE~o::o::o::C)...~.........oo...C)<(O::wO::O::w~LlJ
E- N~~~ ~~ ~ ~O~N~~~W~
~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~g ~~-~~~~~
N
1)
!
~
,"
-
0"0
5 ~ !!
~~~oooooooooooooooooooooooooo
~~u~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~E"O~~~~~~re~~~~~~go~g~~~g~gg~g~
Gl- N ONO VV N V~ ~ ~ ~o ~o
8~~ N ~~~ ~~ ~ roM ~ ~ ~~ ~~
~~~ ~ ~M~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ 0 ~~ w~
o 0.....J --
U<(oIl
rn
t)
0",
()~
00
W"C
~~
11.'6'
;:)<(
g~",1U'
:J:~:ll'C
I-U"'Gl
w}<(>
::E == "8 :0
Q~o~
w.cC>oIl
> - 0:
O ~c~
", Gl.- ~
-0>.
lI.-b1l~
~~oIl~
00000000
O~OOOO~'V
'E~~~gg~u;g
5~i~~ ;.;~~~
~.~ ~ ~;;e;;Z::
i&;
o
~MOOOOOOOO
o OO~'VO'V
~ o.....~~o~
Q) .....~.....vo(O
Ne;;~
MM
M~
<i..;
OlM
~~
~cO
~'V
;;
00000
00000
~ggg~
'V NN
..... MOl
~ ~~
OOOOOOOOOOOOOlOlM
~NOOOOOOOOON""'OlCO
oo..;oo<iOOOOedNai"':..;
CO~N~~""'~OOO""''''''~'VM
~Ol~""'ONNIt)'VONO~NIO
l'2 :: ~IZ?I~ ;!:? ~ CO N ~ ~ ~ ~ 18 ;
~ e;; ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~;;
000000
01t)00'V~
'E~~ggre~
5 ~I~ 01 ie;; CO
E I~ ~z::
<( Ie;;
00000
'Voooo
oedooo
It)~
M.....
..........
~z::
00
~~
~
~
OOOO~O~~~NO
~NOIt)It)O~CO~~O
~NMN ~ CO
'C""'"N ..... co ,-
I&;
o
.....r?OOOO
o 'V~
.., M
CO
000
'V 'V
~~
'V~
N~
00
O~
..~
N:;
01 CO
Z::~
OOOOOOOOOOO~IO
NOOOOOOooo.....'V~
~ggg~gggg~~;el8
0'> .....NN.....~'V~M~~.....
~ - -
~~..,~ IC'I'C'I~""'i.!::!f3>
................ 1...'...'~Oi-.O
~~ '~I~:1
0 0000 00
0 00'V~ 00
,..: ooed"': ~ci
N CONN~ co.....
-~ It) ~Ie;; ON
gl~ ~IZ:: ~ O~
~
"0 E Ie;;
jjj <(
1ii ~ 0000 00
c OO'V~ 00
.5> O~ M ~ CO
~ ..... .....M
(5 0 N
....
~
;;
00 OOOOO~~~~O .....
.....~ N ~NO'V ~ 0
It) CO N N..... ...,.
..... N ..... CO N a;
Gl
.c
'"
0 000000000 0
0 000000000 0
N edoooooooo 0
~ 'VOO.....~O..,O'V 0
0 NCONlt).....~.....lt)~ 0
M o ~ z:: CO ..... ~IZ:: M ~
m ~ ~ ;; ~ Ie;; .....
M
....
0 OOOO~~~~O
N OONO 0
..... CO CO .., 0
..... ..... N
~OOVOO...............~~V~OO(O...............OOVOOOON
"C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gl~.....NN~M....................N~'VIt)'VMOOO~ONOOOO~
m~N"'NN 1t)1t)~~~........:-~0~0...
~_(Oi~~M ~~ ~~M""''''''~
'6'~~- - ~- ...
<(::>-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ZZZZZ~ZZ<(<(<(<(~ rn
::>~>~~~rnrnrnrn~rn~rnl-I-I-I-I-~I-I-wwwwrn ~
Ia;
~
U
c
8
~
III
Gl a;
~ :(l!2'
:E ,_g _ .D.S
'Ui :E · 2 .c
~~ ~u ~ ~B ~
::::::: ~1ii :0- >!!! C ~x
22 ~Ic ~ ~--:E ~o
'-"""' = ~ .... ";;;;6;cuu 1:.0
~~~ M2 ~ ~~8m~ _~ ~
~~S~I~,tGlGl '" 0 ~$~CS ~~ ::>
c::::1lI uu.c_ "'Ql ~...u~_ E 0
_~~~~3:~~~:(lg 2~~85~~~ mS~ ~
guu~I:JE~~12 ~5~g~2~! a~~ <(
cQl~IlI>~~Gl>"''''~o~oc~u8~c-IlI~''C "C1lI_u ~<(
8u - ~~ - og_llI~ "CQl "'oil -
!!Ql~B~OOClO~~ucC~IlI~....c Qla cl-
~~~~Gle"'~E-~E}Ql~~~'C1lI';1ii2~~~~~ !g
- ua;u~ -- u~~ c'E......oc .D
e~"C"Cc~coo~~~~x~~~oc IlI~U.c1ll5>"C go
c - ... ceo u c :=: ::= =1 I: Q) ;>> C 0 1/1 ~ c:: E ,... 0 w
OS1iimmocU.E-.D.Dlt)~ 'VMMMc~ 0 III C~0 1ii1-
~UCGlQlQl8~~QlQlEES>>>>>g>gEQl~Glm1iic<(
~uo>>> ->o>o--E~~~~~-~-_o~u~-o~
~E~~~~!~~EE;;E~~~JGlJQl~JGl"'~I~III~~
GlIll"CQlQlQl"'~-GlQl~Qlo.>.>.> ~ ~~Ql~GlGl~"Crn
o~<(~~~C~~Ir:~~~Ul-l-l-l-l-ml-u<(~rn~~rn<(w
E..... NM'Vlt) co..... CO O'>O.....NM'V~~.....
~ m m m~u~ mDO ~~~~~~~~
- ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~
",,#
2006 MILL AND OVERLAY PROJECT
CITY OF FARMINGTON
REVISED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
September 18-21
Remove 2 ~" of mix from designated areas (16640 SQ)
September 22-29
Re-stabilize existing aggregate base and inject fly ash (8%)
October 2-6
Adj. manholes, replace gate valves, replace damaged curb
October 9-12
Install bituminous non-wearing course
October 13-17
Install new valley gutters
October 18-26
Install bituminous wearing course
October 27-31
Punch list items
November 1
COMPLETE
\0
o
o
C'l
~
d)
~
d)
~
~
d)
rfl
....
t'U
en
"'l
0..
'0
......
"i:
LL
......
00
......
......
::J
.c
I-
r-....
":I-
......
"'C
Q)
==
'0
<'V")
......
Q)
~
......
"'l
......
c
o
:E
":I-
......
......
C
::J
en
<'V")
<:::>
......
<'V")
"'l
"'l
"'l
..d
'"
<
>-
~ -S
S ~
<8 c.s
.... C!)
~~
......
"'l
~~
.s S
t:i c!)
..... :>
~ c.s
c!) p.,
...... '"
o ;j
~ .~
~ a
~:E
<:::>
"'l
~~
.s S
t:i c!)
'>< :>
c!) c.s
...... p.,
o '"
;j
~ .~
~ a
~:E
0..
......
~-s
.s e
t:i c!)
.>< :>
c!) c.s
...... p.,
o ~
'; 0
~ 'J
~:E
00
......
~-s
.s e
t:i c!)
.>< :>
c!) c.s
...... p.,
o ~
~ .~
~ a
~:E
r-....
......
".,"
<:::>
<'V")
0..
"'l
..d
'"
<
>-
~ -s
S ~
.g ~
~~
00
"'l
..d
'"
<
I
..Q
~ -s
S ~
.g ~
c!) ....
p..F-<
r-....
"'l
..d
'"
<
I
;>.
~ -s
S ~
<8 c.s
.... c!)
~~
'0
"'l
..d
'"
<
I
;>.
~ -s
S ~
.g ~
~~
......
"'l
..d
'"
<
>-
~ -s
S ~
.g ~
~~
":I-
"'l
\0
o
o
~
~
(J)
~
o
~
u
o
....
ca
en
"i:
U.
::::J
.c
I-
"C
~
CI)
~
c
o
:iE
C
::::J
en
t-..
'0
Q)
~ s
'" <II
Q) "0
~ ~
gfr..o
I'< .... t:l
1;; tI)'" u
;::l Q) "0
::s ~ Q)
-( ~ ~
.,...,
Q)
~~
Q)
...... Q)
~]
g fr..o
I'< ....~ t:l
ti en 0
.g, ~ "0
'3 <; ~
....... > <II
"'"
Q)
~~
Q)
...... Q)
~]
<II p,...o
13 ~~ t:l
ti (I) 0
.g, ~ "0
'3 <; ~
....... > <II
"""
~
01) S
rJ}~ ~
Q)
:;130 ~
~ fr..o
.... t:l
~ ~~ u
::s~]
-( ~ ~
~
Q)
~ ~
"'''0
Q) Q)
~]
s ~~
1;; tI,) 0
. ::; ~ "0
'3 <; ~
....... > <II
.......
"'"
.......
"""
.......
>.
Q)
......
......
<II
>
i::
~
...... rJ}
Cd ~
~ ~
~
.......
d
g
rJ}
;::l Q)
'j ~
:0 01)
.S
Q) ~
~ ~
.......
.......
d
g
rJ}
;::l Q)
.j ~
~ .~
~ ~
t:l-< i::
c
.......
I
s:::
g
rJ}
;::l Q)
o rJ}
.J ~
:0 .~
Q) <II
> Q)
~ i::
0..
d
g
rJ}
;::l Q)
.J ~
..... 01)
~ .5
~ ~
co
.......
~
c
~
rJ}
;::l Q)
.j ~
:0 gp
.1:
Q) <II
> Q)
~ i::
0..
.......
rJ}
;::l Q)
g rJ}
.~ ~
...... 01)
..0 .S
Q) ~
~ Q)
t:l-< i::
co
.......
rJ}
;::l Q)
.j ~
:0 gp
Q) .~
> Q)
~ i::
t-..
.......
>.
~
......
<II
>
i::
~
...... rJ}
...... ....
<II Q)
~~
'0
.......
>.
~
<;
>
i::
~
...... rJ}
...... ....
j[
.,...,
.......
co
~
~
o
i::
t-..
~
-
rJ}
:..:=
..s:::
u
~
t:l-<
'0
~
rJ}
;::l Q)
.j ~
~ .~
~ Q)
t:l-< i::
.,...,
~
rJ}
;::l Q)
.~ ~
.a ~
:0 .S
Q) ~
> Q)
~ i::
"'"
~
rJ}
H
~ .~
~ ~
t:l-< i::
"""
~
rJ}
;::l Q)
g rJ}
.~ ~
...... 01)
..0 .S
Q) ~
~ ~
~
~
~
..
~
,.Q
e
~
i>
=
Z
2
Q)
i
o
u
-
u
Q)
'8'
t:l-<
~
o
i::
.......
"""
-
rJ}
:a
~
t:l-<
~
o
i::
c
"""
-
<I.l
:a
~
t:l-<
0..
~
COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR
SEPTEMBER 18, 2006
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Soderberg at 7:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Soderberg led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
3.
ROLL CALL
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Also Present:
Audience:
Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson
None
Andrea Poehler, City Attorney; Peter Herlofsky, City
Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll,
Community Development Director; Brian Lindquist, futerim
Police Chief; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee
Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lisa Shadick,
Administrative Services Director; Lee Smick, City Planner;
Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant
Bryce Olson, Don Hunter, Dave Steinke, Doug Bonar, Dave
Graham, Rick Morcomb, Nick & Stacey Schultz, Jon Brimacomb,
Susan Poirot, David Domack, Denise May
4. APPROVE AGENDA
Councilmember Pritzlaff noted the item regarding the mill and overlay will be moved
ahead on the agenda prior to the public hearings.
City Administrator Herlofsky stated there is additional information to item 7c) School
and Conference - Fire Department.
Mayor Soderberg noted there is also a supplemental item for the mill and overlay project.
Item 10e) Text Amendment regarding reforestation committee and tree trimming
notification will be moved to the Consent Agenda.
MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by McKnight to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS
6. CITIZEN COMMENTS
7. CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION by Fogarty, second by Pritzlaffto approve the Consent Agenda as follows:
a) Approved Council Minutes (9/5/06 Regular) (8/31/06 Special)
b) Approved School and Conference - Parks and Recreation
c) Approved School and Conference - Fire Department
1-5
Council Minutes (Regular)
September 18, 2006
Page 2
d) Received Information August 2006 Financial Report - Finance
e) Received Information Customer Service Response Report - Administration
1) Adopted RESOLUTION RI05-06 Approving 2007 Safe and Sober Grant-
Police Department
g) Approved Wetland Alteration Permit - 195th Street Extension - Engineering
h) Received Information TH3 Cooperative Agreement Application Update-
Engineering
i) Approved License for Utility to Cross Protected Waters - Engineering
j) Approved Assessment Agreement - Ash Street Proj ect - Engineering
k) Approved Bills
1) Adopted ORDINANCE 006-563 Approving Text Amendment Section 10-6-10
regarding Reforestation Committee and Tree Trimming Notification - Community
Development
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
c) Mill and Overlay Project - Engineering
City Engineer Mann stated since the last Council Meeting staffhas identified
some additional issues in the specifications for the project that did not include pay
items for some of the items that will be necessary to resolve the project in the way
determined. The option was anticipated to be $610,000. Since staffhas
completed their investigation of the specification and identified the missing pay
items that cost would be revised to $756,000. Staff presented a spreadsheet
showing the differences in costs. The most significant item had to do with the
removal of soils in order to replace the Class 5. There was a pay item for the
Class 5 to be placed but there was no pay item for the soils to be removed. This
amounted to $83,200.
Councilmember Wilson noted some of the options mentioned flyash and asked if
it was a new program or experimental. He was concerned with not knowing
much about this product. Councilmember McKnight had the same questions and
also asked about an item on the spreadsheet shown as R&R 6" concrete driveway.
City Engineer Mann replied that concerned the driveways discussed at the last
Council meeting that had a 4" lip at the curb rather than having a smooth curb
transition. The cost to fix this issue is $13,051.
Regarding the flyash, staff looked at an option that would be closer to the amount
Council approved two weeks ago. Flyash allows a soil treatment that has been
allowed in other cities. Mr. Jim Fryktal, Bonestroo Engineering, explained flyash.
It has been used in Waseca and Cottage Grove. A machine blends the existing
soils with flyash and water. It stabilizes the soil similar to Class 5. Waseca used
it 7 years ago and the streets are holding up well. It is a cost effective alternative
to removing the soils and replacing Class 5. It does not stop water from going
through. It is mixed with the existing soil and a specific amount of water. This
cannot be done if it is raining. You can drive on it that day and pave on it in a
couple days. It is done in 500 ft. sections from curb to curb. Many states ( .
1-6
Council Minutes (Regular)
September 18, 2006
Page 3
experimented with this 7-10 years ago. Mayor Soderberg noted there is a
significant cost savings using flyash so why wouldn't it be used all the time. Mr.
Fryktal stated it is used in reconstruction projects. With new construction you do
not have to take soils out and bring Class 5 in. It is already down at the sub grade
elevation and Class 5 can be hauled in.
Councilmember Pritzlaff stated ifthere is a crack in the asphalt and the water hits
the flyash base, does it stop the water from going through where it could freeze
and break up the road. Mr. Fryktal replied it should not go through. In Waseca
the roads are not cracking after 7 years. The flyash is mixed 6" deep with the
existing soil. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted the milling machine was taking off
4" today and they were leaving good compacted soil. He asked why loosen the
top 6" and not just pave over it. The roads in this area lasted 35 years. If we take
offthe 4" and put the asphalt over thesoils left and get 10-15 years more before
doing a total reconstruct would we be further ahead. Mr.Fryktal stated the
contractor dug 20 plus test holes throughout the site and they found there is
minimal Class 5 under the existing pavement. There are veins of clay on top and
sand and rock. By blending this together the roads would last longer.
Councilmember Pritzlaff asked who generated the test holes and when were they
done. The contractor dug the test holes last week. Councilmember Pritzlaffwas
curious that was done now this far into the project. That is what the asphalt was
sitting on for 35 years. Why not just leave the solid base down that has been
packed all these years and put down 4" of asphalt and not expect 10-15 years out
of this road. Mr. Fryktal replied technology has advanced in 40 years. Putting a
stable sub-base under the pavement will ~ake the road last longer. After 15 years
it is not anticipated that the road will need to be reconstructed again. It could be
edge milled and overlaid with a 1" layer of asphalt and get another 15 years out of
it. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated because of the water and sewer underneath is
why we would have to do a total reconstruct. They only need 10-15 years out of
this road. City Engineer Mann stated someday the utilities will need to be
replaced. They cannot determine when that will be. Councilmember Pritzlaff
stated they do not need a road that will last 40 years. Mr. Fryktal stated if you are
looking for a short-term road and having to do patching during that time when it
breaks up because the material underneath is not stable that could be done.
Councilmember Pritzlaff stated the flyash will be mixed with the existing soil and
will there be as good a compaction as the ground is sitting on today. Mr. Fryktal
stated he would expect it to be better and more stable.
Councilmember Fogarty stated if flyash is successful in reconstructs why was it
not suggested in the first place. It seems Class 5 must be far superior for the cost
difference. Mr. Fryktal stated they thought of the flyash after they say what the
cost was getting to after the updated version to complete the project. They looked
for alternatives to keep the cost down.
Councilmember Pritzlaff noted an item on the spreadsheet for Class 5 was
$75,000. He asked where the pay item is for the amount to be hauled out. That is
1-7
Council Minutes (Regular)
September 18, 2006
Page 4
why we have a different proposal because there was not a pay item for the amount
of material that has to be hauled out. City Engineer Mann noted the item for
common excavation is the cost to remove the soils that the Class 5 would
displace, which is $83,200. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated figuring we were
putting Class 5 down why and who did not have that figured in. City Engineer
Mann replied there are two ways this item could have been shown in the
specification. One way is to have two pay items. One would be the common
excavation and then another pay item for the Class 5. Another way to show this
would be to have the entire cost as part of the placement of the Class 5 which
would include removing the soils and placing Class 5. It is a matter of how the
specification is written. The specification did not say that the Class 5 included the
common excavation and there was no line item for common excavation.
Councilmember McKnight asked Mr. Fryktal about the number of roads Waseca
and Cottage Grove constructed with flyash. Mr. Fryktal did not know about the
number of roads for Waseca. Cottage Grove used this material on one road.
Councilmember McKnight asked City Engineer Mann for his thoughts on using
bituminous on the existing surface. City Engineer Mann replied the standard is
3.5" of asphalt and 6" of Class 5. That is why staff brought back that option two
weeks ago. Realizing that cost became more and taking into account the types of
soils we have on this project, staff saw an alternative to save some money and still
meet the goals of the proj ect which is to have a road that wi11last 10-15 years.
City Administrator Herlofsky distributed financial information showing the
original budget, the budget after the bids, and the revised budget based on the
$670,000 proposal. There is also a column showing the year-to-date costs ofthe
project. At the top it shows the revenues. Assessments to homeowners of
$162,752 remains unchanged and other funding sources were also shown. This
includes the proposal using the flyash. Councilmember McKnight stated Council
left two weeks ago thinking this was $610,000 now it is $670,000. He asked
where the revenue portion is for the $670,000. Finance Director Roland replied
the road and bridge fund.
Ms. Mary Swanson, 1404 Lower Heritage Way, asked what the subsoil was in
Waseca. Mr. Fryktal replied it was clay. Ms. Swanson asked if it changes the
quality of the flyash mixture if you have sand, clay or gravel. Mr. Fryktal stated it
does not change. Ms. Swanson stated if it is less cost and it is a quality road, is
the City using them as an experiment or will this be done in the future everywhere
because it is a good deal. She feels the spray material they put on the road was an
experiment and it was not a good idea. If it is that good a deal it should be good
enough for all of Farmington. Mayor Soderberg stated it sounds like it is new to
Minnesota. Flyash is used in concrete.
Councilmember Wilson stated MnDOT does test materials for how well they will
work. If there are only two communities in Minnesota using this, is this material
better for a warmer climate. City Engineer Mann stated they would need to do
1-8
Council Minutes (Regular)
September 18, 2006
Page 5
further research to determine if those are the only two communities in Minnesota.
Mr. Fryktal stated he looked on the internet and found it was used in North
Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota.
Mr. Dave Steinke, 1412 Lower Heritage Way, stated he has not heard a clear
explanation to the questions asked. How does $100,000 worth of material get
missed? Last time it was $609,000 and that was supposed to be all. Now we are
looking at considerably more. Who is responsible for missing that and who is
being held accountable for missing that? Why are the taxpayers ofFannington
being asked to make up for that item that was missed. He felt they deserve that
answer. It was also mentioned the existing base was there for 35 years and it
worked fme according to the City's own evaluations in October 2005. Since we
are asking for a 10-15 year road why are we spending any additional money on
something that appears to be experimental? Even if we. do have to maintain it and
fix a pothole here and there why can't we save that money and use the existing
base. A simple answer would be nice to get. It is a simple question we should get
a direct answer. Who is the consultant employed by? Is it Bonestroo
Engineering, is it an independent individual? Where is this information coming
from? How credible is it? He did not mean to be disrespectful but at this point in
time, the residents should be hearing that information as well. Not being able to
tell us how many miles of roads this was used on, we should know that. If it was
used somewhere else we should know that. Doing some research on the internet
is a great tool, but it is not the end all as a research tool. There should be better
answers available before we spend the money on flyash. A person can find a case
on the internet to support anything you choose to have it support.
Mr. Jerry Ristow, 516 Lower Heritage Way, stated at the last meeting a motion
was made and passed unanimously to fix the road per the City standards. It is the
code of the City to use 6" of gravel and 4" of blacktop. Now he was hearing
something different. Does this meet the City code?
Mayor Soderberg stated this is different than the standard. City Engineer Mann
replied that is correct. Typically we have Class 5 base. The standard detail plates
show Class 5. Mayor Soderberg stated if we were going to remain true to the
motion made at the last meeting we would need to do the Class 5 base. There
have been some points raised that this is experimental or outside the standards.
City Attorney Poehler stated Council could limit themselves to the former motion,
they could amend the specifications if there is enough evidence to do so and
amend the motion to include the new option. The specifications should be
changed for this project or on the City standards. This could be done as a test
project.
Councilmember McKnight asked if there was an estimate for putting the asphalt
on the base as is. City Engineer Mann stated staff would have to calculate that.
He believed it would be less than the $609,000, but there were some driveways
that needed to be replaced that added some cost so they would have to see how
1-9
Council Minutes (Regular)
September 18, 2006
Page 6
that balances out. Councilmember Wilson would also like to see the numbers, but
the next meeting is October 2,2006. We are coming into the time of year where
it could be too late to put down asphalt.
Mayor Soderberg stated there is no way to determine how long the utilities will
last. With the flyash there is the potential to extend the life of the road 30-40
years with an edge mill and overlay. The utilities have been in the ground for 40
years. City Engineer Mann replied there are areas where utilities are 60-70 years
old and are still functioning. The Main Street project had utilities that were 80-90
years old. Each situation is different. It is possible the utilities could last another
20-30 years, but it depends on conditions.
Councilmember Wilson stated if we put down bituminous over the existing base
and put this on the 7-year seal coat cycle would it last 10-15 years or would the
lack of a Class 5 base cause issues. City Engineer Mann replied based on what
has been experienced with the roadways thus far we could expect a similar
experience as in the past. Councilmember Wilson stated he would be inclined to
look at the asphalt without the Class 5. This would reduce the cost below what
was stated two weeks ago.
Councilmember McKnight asked if staff looked at maintenance for the first 10-15
years or the last 10-15 years. City Engineer Mann replied the first 10-15 years
would be less maintenance. Councilmember McKnight stated this is not the area
to experiment with flyash ifit will be tom up in 10-15 years for the utilities. He
agreed with putting the asphalt over the existing base. We struggled to get to the
$609,000 at the last meeting now to look at $670,000 is a lot more money.
Councilmember Pritzlaff stated if we use flyash we are saving money. From his
standpoint we are not saving money if it is more than what was approved last
time. He asked again out of $609,000 knowing that we were going to put $75,000
worth of Class 5 did we miss a $100,000 pay item. City Engineer Mann replied
because when staff looked at the bid items, they used the bid items as they were
bid to estimate the cost. There was an item for Class 5 and knowing that the Class
5 was meant to patch the roadway areas, staff utilized that number to expand the
amount of Class 5 from what was originally planned for to cover the rest of the
project as proposed. After doing that, staff reviewed the specifications and found
that the original Class 5 as listed in the project did not include the subgrade
excavation which has to be part of it in order to put the Class 5 in.
Councilmember Pritzlaff stated initially in the contract the Class 5 was stated to
address a few areas that might be bad. City Engineer Mann replied staff wanted
to make sure there were quantities in the contract that would allow patching in
some areas if needed. Councilmember Pritzlaffunderstood that, but when
Council approved the $609,000 it said 6" of Class 5 throughout the whole project.
Why at that point in time did we not know that we have to dig 6" of fill out in
order to put 6" of Class 5 in. That was the pay item that missing that we now
know increased the amount of Class 5 because we are not fixing certain areas, we
1-10
Council Minutes (Regular)
September 18, 2006
Page 7
are putting a 6" base on everything. He cannot see how $100,000 was missed
when we knew we were going to put a 6" base over everything. City Engineer
Mann replied because the original contract had 6" of Class 5 for those patching
areas. Had the project gone as planned, where there was good asphalt, but there
were a couple areas of patching, there would have been a change order to cover
the common excavation because the specification did not include the common
excavation with the Class 5. When staff came up with the $610,000 they looked
at the pay item and it is reasonable where the common excavation is listed along
with the Class 5 placement as one pay item. Knowing there was already patching
included, staff assumed that is the way it was listed. When the entire specification
was reviewed, staff found that was not the case, and the pay item was missing. If
the original project would have gone as planned, there would have been a change
order for any patching to include the common excavation. Councilmember
Pritzlaff stated as far as maintenance and edge mill was mentioned. Mr. Fryktal
stated that would be done every 15 years. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if that
would affect the seal coat project done every 7 years. Would we have to do a seal
coat 3 years after this was done? City Engineer Mann replied the purpose of a
seal coat and a mill and overlay are different. The seal coat is to keep the water
out of the cracks and keep the pavement from deteriorating. It also puts another
layer of rock on top that helps the road from wearing down more. The mill and
overlay provides structural strength to the pavement in a way seal coat does not.
Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he has to assume the City will stick with seal coat.
In Hill Dee we were going to do a seal coat in three years and from then in seven
years. Now the question becomes we have had two seal coats, how does that
affect the edge mill? City Engineer Mann replied the edge mill can still be
accomplished. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated when talking about the Class 5, is
the $75,000 the total originally figured for patching or is that after the 6" base.
Staff replied that was from the last meeting. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated if we
use $10,000 of Class 5 to bring us down to $65,000. Why can't he assume
$65,000 off of the $609,000 project they ordered at the last meeting? City
Engineer Mann replied the Class 5 is not the only issue they found since the last
meeting. There is also $13,000 to remove and replace the driveways mentioned
that have the 4" lip. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked where the 4" lip came from.
City Engineer Mann replied that was a description from Council that had been out
there. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he saw one driveway in Centennial Court
that had a very abrupt lip, but that is the only one he saw. City Engineer Mann
replied Mr. Fryktal reviewed the driveways and included all of them in this cost.
There are several driveways. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if that was created
by the project or by the contractor that was doing the work. City Engineer Mann
stated they need to find out if the contractor made that decision or ifhe was
directed to do that. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked why assume the $13,000 now
until we find out. He was not going to spend money on something that was not
out there. Last time he stated $609,000 was the last number he wanted to see.
Even if the issue with the Class 5 had not come up, staff would still be coming
back to Council for more money. He saw on the revenue portion where it says
1-11
Council Minutes (Regular)
September 18, 2006
Page 8
miscellaneous he saw nothing as a dollar amount for engineering. He
recommended milling off the 4" which he saw today and put down the asphalt.
CounciImember Wilson asked about the borings and if that was a new budget
item included. City Engineer Mann stated the contractor dug some holes to see
what the soils looked like and that is not an additional cost.
CounciImember Fogarty stated this is not where she wanted to see this project
going and she has a lot of concerns. She has concerns with the flyash and does
not know enough about it. There is not enough time to be educated on it and a
decision has to be made tonight. This is not the area for us to do an experiment.
She also had a concern with not being able to do it when it is raining. Ifwe hit
two weeks of rain this project will not get done this year and we cannot have that.
When a complete reconstruct is done, is all of the Class 5 removed? City
Engineer Mann replied the Class 5 gets mixed in and contaminated with the other
soils. New Class 5 would be brought in. CounciImember Fogarty stated she
would like to see the streets built up to code. If the Class 5 could be used again, it
could save money in the total reconstruct, but that cannot be done. Putting the
asphalt down on the current soil seems to be the right thing to do. City Attorney
Poehler stated there is no liability to the City for not building it up to code.
Mayor Soderberg stated by placing blacktop over the existing sub-soils we are
guaranteeing that we will have to do a total reconstruct in 15 years. City Engineer
Mann stated we would expect similar performance out of these roads as we have
seen since they were built.
CounciImember Pritzlaff stated where the new concrete was replaced, the valley
gutters and the new curbs he assumed the City would not be responsible and that
the milling company would be. He noticed Apple Valley milled off Cedar
Avenue and he did not see any curbing being replaced. He asked if it was typical
that curbing has to be replaced in a mill and overlay project. Mr. Fryktal replied
the Cedar Avenue project was done by the County. The curbing varies from area
to area depending on the soils. CounciImember Pritzlaffnoted it was budgeted
for 1/3 of the curbing to be replaced and now it is up to 50%.
MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson to retract the motion from the last
meeting and mill off all the asphalt, grade the soil, fix bad spots and put asphalt
down over the current sub-soils. This will save money from the Class 5 that will
not be used.
City Administrator Herlofsky stated his concern is that the condition of the road
will arrive back to the current condition sooner. Weare trading off investment for
routine maintenance. CounciImember Wilson had a concern with not knowing
the cost of the project. We are approving an open ended expenditure.
CounciImember McKnight stated we cannot afford to wait. He should not assume
it will be cheaper but he does. CounciImember Fogarty stated we are fishing
1-12
Council Minutes (Regular)
September 18, 2006
Page 9
blind and it is frustrating. Mayor Soderberg does not like experimenting but
understood engineering brought the flyash option forward to keep costs down.
The overlooked common excavation amount needs to be mitigated somewhere. It
would be good to experiment with the flyash during a total reconstruct
somewhere. When we build something we need to do it right. Ifwe overlook
costs, we overlook costs and that is unfortunate. He will not support the motion.
Mr. Jerry Ristow stated he knows the Mayor was not here at the last meeting, but
per the direction of the City Engineer to the four Councilmembers that were here,
it was sub-standard and he would not recommend doing a road without 6" of
Class 5 and 4" of blacktop. That is what the motion was. A good portion of the
residents left that meeting with that anticipation. We could have had all new curb
put in the area and they said no, the time was getting short and the proj ect was
supposed to be done September 1, 2006: So to settle for the checkerboard curb
and not take any other option we were going to get a road recommended by the
City Engineer per City standards. If you are going to do something, be consistent.
Don't give us a halfway road that will not work. Next spring you will be patching
if you do not put the gravel in now. Mr. Ristow stated Councilmember Pritzlaff
was out there today and saw the chunks. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated we have
gone down 4" now for the asphalt and would have to go down an additional 6".
There was something missed and in the financing there is nothing from
engineering, but there should be. In trying to get the road back together and not
see the costs go up, going over the old sub-soils would not be a bad thing to do
because the road has lasted 35 years. Trying to minimize the extra dollar amount
takes more off the amount of the project by not using all the Class 5 and is saving
the City money in that aspect. It is sub-standard from the roads, but in this case
we will be in there in 15 years digging up the utilities. Saving the money now
would be better. Mr. Ristow stated he saw the large rock today that will pull out
with the blade and it will mix the clay and black dirt and you do not know what
you will have. When it freezes you will have frost heaves and you will pay for it
next spring. Do it right now. You are halfway there, fInish the project.
Councilmember McKnight noted Mayor Soderberg would not support the motion
and asked for his recommendation. Mayor Soderberg stated he does not like the
idea of experimenting with the flyash, but knows flyash is a concrete like
substance and would create a suitable base for the asphalt. Class 5 would be his
fIrst choice, but they are trying to keep the cost down. Ifwe mow we will be
digging it up and cannot reclaim the Class 5 it would be prudent to put down a
suitable base, but keep the cost as low as possible. To use Class 5 we are looking
at another $83,000 over the flyash cost. We need a suitable base or it will shift. It
is some experimentation. The recommendation of the City Engineer is to do the
flyash treatment and he will have to go with that, although his fIrst choice would
be the Class 5. Councilmember McKnight stated he is assuming in 15 years there
will be a total reconstruct. When looking at $670,000 compared to $609,000 are
we risking $60,000 by approving the motion. Will that money be spent in the
next 15 years if they do not do flyash? City Engineer Mann replied the flyash will
1-13
Council Minutes (Regular)
September 18, 2006
Page 10
1-14
give a more suitable base. Whether it will be the same as Class 5 remains to be
seen over time. There will be a more stable base with the flyash than without.
Finance Director Roland confirmed the spreadsheet assumes the $670,000 flyash
option. It also assumes there will be no increase to special assessments.
Councilmember Wilson withdrew his second to the motion because they do not
know what the cost will be. He would rather spend more on a known than spend
money on something he does not know what the cost will be. Mayor Soderberg
asked City Engineer Mann ifhe has reviewed the specifications enough to know
that we are in good shape. City Engineer Mann stated Mr. Frylctal has reviewed
the specifications thoroughly and he has been doing mill and overlay projects for
25 years. He trusts he has done what is needed to come up with an accurate cost
with the knowledge we have today.
Mayor Soderberg asked if there was a second to the motion to lay asphalt over the
existing soils. MOTION DIED for lack of a second.
MOTION by McKnight to go with option 4 as recommended by staff which is
the flyash option at a cost of $670,000 and asked that staff investigate the
potential sharing of costs with the parties involved. Councilmember Fogarty
stated she is very concerned with this proj ect not getting paved this year. At this
point in the year it is a reality that this could not happen. Approving a project
with this product when it is so weather sensitive sits badly with her. She does not
want the residents not having a road this winter. In that case, you do the Class 5
because it can get done this year. Hopefully we will get 20-25 years out of the
road and the infrastructure will not need to be redone. This project will not get
cheaper. She cannot vote for anything that she does not know will have pavement
this winter. Councilmember Fogarty recommended the $756,000 option. Mayor
Soderberg stated it is an additional $83,000 to put down Class 5. That is our City
standard and that would be his first choice, but it is a lot of extra money. He
asked where the money would come from. Finance Director Roland replied the
gentleman referred to City standards being followed as to how the road is
constructed. The City also has a standard in the special assessment policy, that
assessments on projects cannot exceed the amount of the appraisal. Council has
agreed to not increase the amount of the special assessments to cover the
additional costs on this project, but she reminded Council that the appraisal value
is $2,000 per property. With regard to the limiting of the costs it was our attempt
to keep it under the $985 amount. There is still the option of increasing the
special assessments. As far as revenues to support the additional funding, the
road and bridge fund does have money we have been putting away over time as a
result of the CSAH 31 project where MSA funds were used and we have been
paying ourselves back. Those funds are revolving funds used to up front projects.
There is ample funding at this time because the funds are over $1 million. The
$985 assessment was based on a much lesser cost project and it still is under the
$2,000 appraisal limit which is sustainable to a challenge in court. Due to the
lateness of this particular project, at this point we would not be able to hold an (
Council Minutes (Regular)
September 18, 2006
Page 11
assessment hearing within enough time to bring these assessments onto the 2007
tax rolls. Consequently the assessments would not come onto the rolls until the
2008 taxes.
Mayor Soderberg seconded the motion.
Councilmember Wilson stated the CIP for this project is $750,000.
Councilmember Pritzlaff stated to the residents from what he heard last time it
would be acceptable to have the asphalt over the existing sub-soil. The only way
he could support the project is if the residents supported the higher amount of
$756,000. He noted Councilmember McKnight's motion included all parties
involved. He asked what parties would be involved in sharing this cost.
Councilmember McKnight stated all parties. The amount for the residents has
been capped at $985. City Attorney Poehler stated they can look into that, but
there would be no guarantees.
Mr. Nick Schultz, 18869 Euclid Path, stated it sounds like time is of the essence.
With the Class 5 it sounded like you had to haul the old base away. Will that take
more time than using the flyash? Mr. Fryktal stated it would take at least as long
or longer. Class 5 you should also not lay down in the rain.
Mr. Jeff Thelen stated what they have heard over the last month is that these roads
were laid over poor soil with 1.5" of blacktop and they survived very well for 35
years. Now we are going to take that same soil and strip off another 1.5" and
have 4" of blacktop. Logic does not tell him those roads will not last for 30 years.
He assumes the blacktop is better than 35 years ago. The biggest thing that
confuses him is that Council is struggling with this and he sympathized with what
they are going through. He hoped the one lesson we have allleamed is that if we
cannot trust our engineering firm, maybe we have the wrong engineering firm.
He has heard two motions and assumed he will hear a third before the night is
over. We should all be able to get on the same page and ask engineering for their
recommendation and be able to trust that. Right now, there are very few people in
this room that can trust them.
Councilmember Wilson stated Council has mentioned a number of different
options. The flyash option and the Class 5 option. It seems like every meeting
we are being set back another meeting because we do not have all the
information. He does not think the three options presented are outside the scope
of what you might reasonably expect Council to be looking for.
Mayor Soderberg stated there is a motion and a second to go with option 4 which
is the 6" flyash option on the milled out area and 1.5" of bituminous on the flyash
and bituminous on all roads and to explore options for funding from parties
involved. Voting for: Soderberg, McKnight. Voting against: Fogarty, Pritzlaff,
Wilson. MOTION FAILED.
1-15
Council Minutes (Regular)
September 18, 2006
Page 12
CounciImember Pritzlaff asked how much money is saved if there is a 3" base of
Class 5 instead of 6" and what does that do for the road. City Engineer Mann
replied some Class 5 will give you a different benefit than no Class 5. The cost
would have to be calculated. MOTION by Pritzlaff to look at a 3" base of Class
5 and have all parties involved have some responsibility. Mayor Soderberg stated
if we are going to start changing the standard, and he recognized the flyash was a
recommendation from engineering, then we need to do a regular cross section just
like City standards. Then the only thing we need to address is the additional cost
of $756,000. MOTION by Wilson, second by Fogarty to complete the project
using the Class 5 as standard also noting the project estimate of $756,244.99 is
roughly $6200 over the original capital improvement plan as identified in the
2006 CIP. Voting for: Soderberg, Fogarty, Pritzlaff, Wilson. Voting against:
McKnight. MOTION CARRIED.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1-16
Mayor Soderberg noted a public hearing was advertised for Castle Rock annexation
issues and due to an Orderly Annexation Agreement which will be addressed later, that
hearing will not be held.
a)
Amend CUP Mining Operation ISD 192 - Community Development
ISD 192 has requested an amendment to the original CUP approved on July 17,
2006. The original approval was for 60,000 cubic yards of sand to be mined from
the 5.8 acre borrow pit site located in the southeast comer south ofMeadowview
Elementary School. There was a miscalculation by the school district's engineer.
They miscalculated by 100%. It was determined that in that borrow pit there was
not 60,000 cubic yards, but 120,000 cubic yards. Therefore, the original CUP
needs to be amended. The other situation is after the July 17, 2006 meeting the
DNR and the SWCD reviewed the original haul route and stated the route should
go 680 ft. to the west. There is a drainage ditch just south of the original route.
The agencies proposed that the original haul route would cause more adverse
problems to the drainage ditch because of the number of trucks passing through.
They proposed a new haul route that would go straight west. The DNR and
SWCD along with the City Attorney and City Engineer approved a 7 ft. diameter
corrugated metal pipe instead of the original box culvert. This is because it is one
section and the width is not as large as a box culvert. The borrow pit is open right
now and they are allowed to haul. Currently they are doing erosion control
measures, stripping some ofthe top soil and putting in the new haul route with the
corrugated metal pipe. The 120,000 cubic yards will add 3,000 additional trucks.
The new route will have less of an impact to the roadway and the residents. The
school district has requested the borrow pit remain open until December 15, 2006
rather than the original closing date of November 1,2006. Flagstaffwill be
closed in certain areas during the hauling operation. The proposed closure will
occur at the curve on Flagstaff and CR64. It will be open for local traffic. The
other closure will be just south of the new high school property line. The hauling
(
Bonestroo
Memo
To: Lee Mann
From: Jim Fruechtl
Date: August29,2007
Re: 2006 Mill & Overlay bituminous mix
The original bituminous mix design for this project was MVWE4 for the 1" overlay and LVNW3 for the
driveways and patching. After the milling was underway and it was discovered that the original scope of
the project would need to be changed, several options for continuing and completing the project were
identified.
There were 5 options, 4 with f1yash treatment to the existing subgrade and one with removing the
existing subgrade and placing new 100%crushed limestone CL 5. Included in the 5 options were also
alternatives for using different types of bituminous mixtures, MV (for medium volume roads) and LV (for
low volume roads).
After all the options were put together we met with Peter Herlofsky to discuss the cost differences in the
bituminous mixes and the differences between mixing f1yash with the existing subgrade and replacing
the existing subgrade with CL 5. We came up with a recommendation of option #4 using the f1yash
treatment and L VWE3 bituminous mix. The LV mix is less expensive and per MnDOT pavement
specifications it is appropriate for the streets in the project. This suggestion was brought to you and then
to Peter and it was agreed that the LV mix was an acceptable mix to use.
The f1yash recommendation was presented to the City Council at their September 18, 2006 meeting.
Council selected the option with the replacement of the existing subgrade with CL5. This option with the
updated costs included the LV bituminous mix as shown on the spreadsheet presented to Council.
The contractor incorrectly used MV mix for the first two days on Lower Heritage Way, 6th Street and
partially on Heritage Way, after which time LV was used for the rest of the project.
2360.3
B2a Mixture Aggregate Requirements
The aggregate fractions shall be sized, graded, and combined in
such proportions that the resulting mixture will meet the requirements
listed in Section 2360.2-E and Table 2360.3-B2a shown below.
TABLE 2360.3-B2A
MIXTURE AGGREGATE RE OUlREMENTS
Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic SMA
Aggregate Blend Property Level Level 3 & Level 4 Level 5 T.
2& LV MY Level 6
<I 1-3 3 - lO lO - 30 See
20 year Design ESAL' s million million million million SMA
Provo
Coarse Aggregate Angularity
(ASTM 05821)
(one face / two face), %- 30/- 55/- 85/80 95/90
Wear 30/- 55/- 60/- 80/75 -
(one face / two face), %-
NonWear
Fine Aggregate Angularity
(FAA)
(AASHTO T304, Method A) 40(2) 42(1) 44 45 -
%- Wear 40(2) 40(1) 40 40
'Yo-Non-Wear
Flat and Elongated Particles, 10 lO 10
max(2) % by weight, (ASTM - (3:1 (3:1 (3:1
04791) ratio) ratio) ratio)
Clay Content'" (AASHTO T - 45 45
176)
Total Spall in fraction
retained on the 4.75mm (#4) 5.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 -
sieve
Maximum Spall Content in 5.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 -
Total Samole
Maximum Percent Lumps in
fraction retained on the 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 -
4.7Smm (#4) sieve
Class B Carbonate
Restrictions
Maximum% -4.75mm (-#4) 100/100 lOOIlOO 80/80 50/80
Final Lift! All other Lifts
Maximum% +4.75mm (+#4) I 001l 00 100llOO 50/l00 Oil 00
Final Lift! All other Lifts
Gvratorv
Max. allowable RAP 30/40 30/30 30/30 30/30
percentage
Wear/Non Wear
Marshall
Max. allowable RAP 30/40 30/30
oercenta2e Wear / Non Wear
(1) For Marshall design, the Contractor may determine -4 crushing
266
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
July 25, 2007
Gerald Aslakson
Aslakson's Blacktopping Services, Inc.
1550 Roving Hills Dr.
Redwing, MN 55066
RE: City of Farmington, Minnesota
2006 Mill & Overlay, Project 06-01
Dear Mr. Aslakson,
Upon inspection of the punch list items that have been worked on, it was found that some of the work
does not satisfy the requirements ofthe project.
There are a few manhole castings and gate valves that have been readjusted that remain too high for
acceptance as they pose a hazard to the City's plowing operations. The manhole patches may be
milled, larger than at present, and re-patched. The gate valve top sections may be heated (torched)
and turned down. Also, the valley gutter patches ought to extend the full length of the gutter on both
sides. This will minimize the number of patches and potential for failure at the seams due to water
flows.
Please contact me with a date and time to meet onsite to discuss the items. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Cristina Mlejnek
651-492-7859
cc: Peter Herlofsky, City Administrator
Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
File
30" RCP 36
U 6"RCP
III
>
if
c
....
:!i
z
z
. I!!
... ~
'"
1 Len
m
y' m
-0
)>
G)
m
~
I 0
...... 0
- - -
~ to
...
....
..
i!:
...
VNSHIP
)HIC SCALE
400
-I
(IN FEET)
nch = 200 ft.
800
I
I
\PAGE 99.dwg
REVISED MARCH 2004
C.SAH5
PAGE 99
I
l'
~
i
I
1
j!
@
f I
,q;"G m iC1TY OF FARMiNGTON!
~ ~_---i _____
~-
S"DIP
2 "RC
w
z
:5
;=
w
~
~
0-
5
&.
S"VCP
J
~
HERlTA WAY
24 CP
'\
05G~
- - - - - - - - -
CASTLE ROCK T
GR
200 0 100
~-.., ~
K:\GISDATA\BASEMAP BOOK SH
Cost of Options to Address 2006 Mill and Overlay Concerns
Option 1: Mill %" and Overlay 1"
This work would involve milling %" of the existing road surface, adjusting the gate
valves and manholes, tacking the milled surface and placing 1" of bituminous material.
Cost- Approximately $118,000
Option 2: Mill 1114" and Overlay 11/2"
This work would involve milling 1114" of the existing road surface, adjusting the gate
valves and manholes, tacking the milled surface and placing 1112" of bituminous material.
Cost- Approximately $161,000
Option 3: Sealcoat the project
This work would involve sealcoating the entire project.
Cost- Approximately $20,600