The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9B - Maple Hills Second Addition H :\forms\delayrpt.doc elt" II ^ ~ t ~6i Sl~ coond: ~,nda item ~Q will De o~ulDutld to Cooncllmemners ''i} t :1 "'j 't Y"'P' 't4F <tit '\V'V"/ ii:</<>':~ \{ ){i't>< {8 "\f)' '<>> Vi '{)-'j~;; t 'o;::{<:~) -;;1 '~ 'uf '1; ~&:n lWi\$'t-\{y 00 Fr~I~I JlnUI~rl29tn W'litn tOO "'''_:_:'''_ ";': ":. .,,'. :~::;. -r--"""" '~Z>'~:.; ,,:;-::: ,;,),::,: '::~:':::::;::;:, :,." ;;? <:{","';., "::::,,,::,i," ';:' ::' ~k:';<;:::;: \:,.:>"' .\~;<</ A.. "c< "__ ....,~, '. '<<c,,;"-:> "x}",' '''~'! . .,,,,.,... t .. ,,, d , >., 'q" "I'M A .,., ,,~ ,?, '" j Y.: l .V W'ee'Kil'~" u.~' ~"I.ta~ Il- ~ :;: i : If I i ~ H ~I ,;,;} -,:;,-;~7 \:,:<f j .-..J.'" \..:dl'i::} ;;,:..j \~.:t'::', .<~ '::::{:~~) +' ,. } """ "O;~ '" ,\", J %"" l,v '0/" "<ll"<' \.. .,,,,> i! \1 { Please add the following to vour Agenda packets as Item 9B. DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT February 1, 1999 98 Suesan Lea Pace, City Attorney APPROVAL TO REIMBURSE THE DEVELOPER OF MAPLE HILLS SECOND ADDITION FOR CERTAIN EXPENSES PURSUANT TO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND MAPLE HILL COMPANY, LLC DATED SEPTEMBER 2,1997. History The City Council addressed this matter on two previous occasions: February 17, 1998 and January 19, 1999. At the January 19, 1999 meeting, there was some degree of confusion about whether the Developer, represented by Mr. Jim Allen, in entitled to reimbursement from the City for certain items relating to Maple Hills Second Addition. On February 17, 1998, the City Council considered reimbursement requests from the Developers of Knob Hill Second Addition (Horst Glaser on behalf of Gold Nugget Development) and Maple Hills Second Addition (Jim Allen on behalf of Maple Hill Company). Attorney David Sellegren represented the Developers at the meeting. The developers maintained that pursuant to the terms of their Development Agreements, they were entitled to compensation for certain storm sewer improvements. We provided Mr. Sellegren with a written explanation of why we disagreed with his interpretation of the pertinent contract language. The City Council voted to deny the Developers' requests. Current Circumstances On October 21, 1998, Mr. Allen met with certain members of the City Staff. The purpose of the meeting was to request reconsideration of the Council's February 17, 1998 decision. I did not attend the meeting and therefore was not privy to the intricacies of the discussion. Since the January 19, 1999 meeting, the City Manager has asked me to re- evaluate whether the Developer is entitled to any additional compensation over and above the $8,865.76 authorized by the Council on January 19, 1999. Conclusion In order to be as clear as possible, it is important to understand why the Developer believes it is entitled to reimbursement from the City in the amount of $26,875.86. There are three separate components that together total $26,875.86, indicated as follows: Additional Work Ordered by Staff: Area Charge Recalculation: Storm Sewer Improvements: $8,865.76 $6,696.35 $11,313.75 162~~\1i4€lFlh~oOOEj:.:..'OO:WcLake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ISSUES: At this point I will discuss each of the components separately: (1) Additional Work Ordered bv City Staff. There is no dispute that the ,Staff requested the Developer to do additional work for which the Developer requests compensation in the amount of $8,865.76. The Developer should be reimbursed for this City-initiated additional cost. (2) Area Charqe Recalculation. The area charge was calculated based on the acreage submitted by the Developer as part of the Preliminary Plat. After execution of the Development Agreement and improvements constructed under the Final Plat, the actual developed acreage was less than that provided for in the Preliminary Plat. The calculation to determine the acreage charge in the Development Agreement was based on the Preliminary Plat numbers. The Developer should be reimbursed for the Acreage Charge Recalculation. (3) Storm Sewer Improvements (Pond Excavation). This component appears to have created the most confusion. Both the Developers of Knob Hill Second Addition and Maple Hills Second Addition claim they are entitled to reimbursement for storm sewer improvements. Attached is a copy of our response to Mr. Sellegren dated February 10, 1998. Mr. Sellegren was at the February 17, 1998 City Council meeting when this matter was initially discussed, but he did not ask to address the Council. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Based on the foregoing, the City Council should approve the attached resolution which authorizes and provides findings of fact to authorize reimbursement to Maple Hill Company for Maple Hills Second Addition in the following amounts: Additional WorKOrdered by Staff: Area Charge Recalculation: Storm Sewer Improvements: $8,865.76 $6,696.35 $-0- 1~~~l~1~[~iJI:i~~~;.l!~~~~~~~I~~~~~~~ll~m~~~~~~~l~~~~~~l1~~~!1!1l1l~1~~~11111~111l1l11~~111l~~1~~~~~~~~~~~~1l1!~l~~~~~~~~~~~~~ll1~II~~~~;;.~If~~~J~ffljiJjJ.~11~~ The Developer has been apprised of this recommendation. I :\Council\Agdrpts\99\020 1_ 9B.doc "-- RESOLUTION 99-XX '"'\ L: ~ jj A Resolution Reimbursing the Developer of Maple Hill Second Addition for Certain Costs Under the Developer's Agreement and Providing Findings of Fact Therefore Motion By: '\i I" \.l.l, Second By: ft./, ;I.( I WHEREAS, The City of Prior Lake entered into a Development Contract with Maple Hill Company, LLC for Maple Hill Second Addition on September 2,1997; and WHEREAS, The Developer has requested reimbursement from the City in the amount of $26,875.86 for the following: $8,865.76 $6,696.35 $11,313.75 WHEREAS, the City Attorney, Staff and City Council have considered this request. Now THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake that the following Findings of Fact are hereby adopted: (1) City records do confirm that the City Staff requested that additional work be accomplished over and above the work agreed to in the Development Agreement. The value of said work is established at $8,865.76. (2) The area charge calculation for the final plat are different because the correct acreage in the final plat is less than in the preliminary plat. The difference between the incorrect acreage in the preliminary plat and the correct acreage in the final plat results in a credit to the Developer of $6,696.35. AND FURTHER, that in accordance with these Findings of Fact, the City Council of the City of Prior Lake hereby determines that the Developer is entitled to reimbursement in the amount of $15,562.11, and Staff is directed to make such reimbursement. Mader / Mader Kedrowski i~\ Kedrowski A Petersen , Petersen Schenck ( Schenck Wuellner {, Wuellner f\ YES NO {Seal} City Manager, City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 01/28/99 THU 18:48 FAX 612 452 5550 CAMPBELL [4J 004 CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Attorneys at Law ThOffi(\S}. Campbell Roger N. Knutson Thomas M. Scott Elliott B. Knccsch' Suesan Lea Pace '. (612) 452-5000 Fax (612) 452-5550 . ,.. . . Joel J. ]amnik Andrea McDowell Poehkr Ml'trhew K. Brokl* John F. Kelly Matthew J. Foli Marguerite M. Mc::C3rron George T. Stephenson . A!/tlliccru<d in Wij(oruin OjCQld"di Oilry G. Fuchs Writer's Direct Piah 234-6226 Weiter's Fax: 452-5550 ,February 10, 1998 Mr. David Sellegren Dougherty, Rumble & Butler 3500 Fifth Street Towers 150 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Re: City of Prior Lake / Knob Hill 2nd Addition & Maple Hill 2nd Addition Our File No. 3693/068 (CPL-127) .Dear Mr. Sellegren: Suesan Lea Pace has asked that I respond to your letter of January 22, 1998 regarding the issues relating to the Development Contracts referenced above. In response to your letter dated January 22, 1998, I will first address the issue of costs associated wirh the construction of the drainage faciliry as it relates to each of your clients, and will then address the Development Fees for Maple Hill 2nd Addition. The City disagrees with your position that Exhibit "E" has no relevance to paragraph 33 as to what costs are to be reimbursed for items mentioned therein. Paragraph 33 specifically states that: liThe Ciry will reimburse the Developer fa,. costs to construct drainage facilities as required for SIorm water control as determined and approved bv the City Engineer. [emphasis added] ". The plans to construct the drainage facilities for storm water ("Stonn Sewer") and the costs related to said construction ("Costs") (See Exhibit "E'1, were submitted by your client to the City Engineer who approved the Costs. Those Costs were then incorporated into the respective Development Contracts. (See paragraph 7c. Stonn Sewer; Paragraph 28 under Developer Improvement Costs; and Exhibits D & E). The Costs for Storm Sewer reimbursement ($166,526.90 and $54,516.00) in the Development Contracts for Knob Hill and Maple Hill are specifically set forth in Paragraph 28 under Developer Improvement Cost and in item B of Exhibit "DII in each Development Contract. Exhibit "E" is incorporated in Exhibit liD" and is the amount that the parties agreed the City would reimburse your client ,under Paragraph 33. just as item A of Exhibit D references the amount (if any) that the City would reimburse your client for oversizing various items. The amount set forth in Exhibit liD" for Stonn Sewer is the amount that the City actually reimbursed each of your clients pursuant to the Development Contract. If the Storm Sewer improvements did not cost your clients that amount, the City is not entitled to be reimbursed for the difference between the actual costs and the amount agreed upon. Conversely I the City is not obligated to reimburse your clients if the actual costs are greater. Suite 317 · Eagandale Office Center · 1380 Corporate Center Curve · Eagan, MN 55121 01/2S/99 THlT 18:49 FAX 612 452 5550 CAMPBELL I4l 005 D. Sellegren February 10, 1998 Pae:o 2 of 2 The Development Fees paid by your client under'the Maple Hill 2nd Addition again were agreed to by your client, Maple Hill Company.LLC, under the terms of the Development Contract:. Your client provided the information used to calculate the Development Fees and had the opportunity to review the same prior to executing the Development Contract. Therefore, the City is not required to recalculate the Development Fees. after the fact. If you have any questions or further comments, please call me at your convenience. Thank you. Very truly yours, CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association By: 1FK.:kgm CC:' Suesan Lea Pace, City Attorney Frank: Boyles, City Manager Don Rye, Planning Director Jane KansierJ Planning Coordinaror