HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 360-05 `t
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING
HADLEY VALLEY
TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on July 7, 2004, the Common Council of the City of Rochester adopted
Resolution #350-04 establishing the Transportation Improvement District Program (a copy of the
resolution is attached and incorporated herein by reference); and,
WHEREAS, Resolution #350-04 stated that, by an additional resolution, the Council may
establish a Transportation Improvement District for any geographic area of the City experiencing
or anticipating new growth and substandard streets. The Council's determination of those areas
experiencing or anticipating new growth will be based upon its review of the City's urban service
boundaries and all other relevant factors that might reveal development trends over the next 40
to 50 years. The Transportation Improvement District will be established after reviewing the
growth areas containing substandard streets, the transportation system needs of the area based
upon its land use plan and zoning classifications, and the amount of each area's vacant
developable acreage; and,
WHEREAS, Resolution #350-04 states that, In creating a Transportation Improvement
• District, the Council will consider the following factors:
A. The transportation system improvements necessitated by current or
anticipated development in a particular geographic area of the City.
B. The particular geographic area of the City that would be served by the TID
improvements.
C. The total costs for the necessary transportation improvements.
D. The amount of the costs of the necessary transportation improvements to
serve a particular geographic area that should be allocated to the
development and to the City.
E. The method of cost allocation that should be used to establish a
proportional and equitable distribution of the transportation improvement
project costs; and,
WHEREAS, the City's Public Works Department has submitted information to the
Common Council regarding the establishment of a Hadley Valley Transportation Improvement
District consisting of Attachments A— E (attached hereto and incorporated herein); and,
1
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2005, the Common Council met to consider all of the
• information presented to it including Attachments A — E and applied the five factors listed above
as found in Resolution #350-04 ; and,
WHEREAS, upon its review and consideration of the information presented to it in light of
the.five factors listed in Resolution #350-04, the Council has determined that the Hadley Valley
Creek Transportation Improvement District should be established consistent with the provisions
found in Attachments A- E.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Common Council of the City of
Rochester that the City establish the Hadley Valley Transportation Improvement District
consistent with the provisions found in Attachments A— E.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City will not involuntarily impose any of the
charges, fees, costs or costs allocations described in the Hadley Valley Transportation
Improvement District Program (except to the extent the City utilizes the special assessment
process provided by Minn. Stat. ch. 429). Instead, any reference to or mention of any charge,
fee, cost or costs allocation occurs solely for the use by potential developers and City staff in
responding to proposed developments involving inadequate public facilities that might be
made adequate by way of voluntary development agreements.
• PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS �� _ DA OF , 2005.
:�
RESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST: (U'LI
CITY CLERK0
APPROVED THIS a� DAY OF , 2005.
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Res05\P W\Resolu.HVTI D
•
2
�i
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING
TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the United States faces a significant problem in maintaining existing public
infrastructure (streets, roads, highways, bridges, pedestrian walkways, bike paths). In
September, 2003, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that $1.6 trillion dollars
were needed nationwide over a five-year time period to bring public infrastructure up to an
acceptable state of repair and maintenance. This figure had increased by $300 billion since
2001 because of large growth and increased development; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Rochester also faces a significant problem in maintaining its
existing public infrastructure. The City has over 300 miles of local streets for which it is
responsible for maintenance and repair. This network of local streets has been growing by eight
to ten miles per year during the past five years. Currently, the City faces a backlog of unfunded
street maintenance needs totaling about $26,500,000. The City's Public Works Director
estimates that $210,000,000 will be needed to maintain the existing street system and the new
streets added by new development over the next 20 years; and,
WHEREAS, the City's-Public Works Director projects that over the next-40 years, there
• Auld be over $175,000,000 (or approximately 80 miles) in arterial and collector road
construction and reconstruction needed to support new growth; and,
WHEREAS, the City's infrastructure deficit is compounded by new development, its
impact upon adjacent public. streets and the City's future financial and engineering-plans to
improve. the capacity of the adjacent public streets. The Minnesota Court of.Appeals has
recognized the fact that subdivision development*places a great burden on municipal services
including city streets. Middlemist v. City of Plymouth, 387 N.W.2d 190, 193 (Minn. Ct. App.
1986). The City does not have the financial resources to upgrade or improve the available public
infrastructure for each and every new development proposed to. be located somewhere within
the City's boundaries; and,
WHEREAS, the lack of adequate street and road facilities to handle the vehicular traffic
generated by new development results in enormous societal costs in the form of environmental
pollution, energy consumption, increased energy costs, decreased economic productivity and a
general decline in .a citizen's quality of life as a person spends more and more time trying to get
from .here to there. In addition, emergency services suffer as traffic congestion and accessibility
problems reduce response times; and,
WHEREAS, Minnesota law addressing a city's ability to regulate development and
subdivision activities is found in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462; and,
• WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, subd. la, states that "[t]o protect and
i
promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, to provide for the orderly, economic, and
safe development of land, ... and to facilitate adequate provision for transportation, water,
sewage, storm drainage ... and other public services and facilities, a municipality may by
ordinance adopt subdivision regulations establishing standards, requirements, and procedures
for the review and approval or disapproval of subdivisions;" and,
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, subd. 2a, states that "[t]he standards
and requirements in the regulations may address without limitation: the size, location, grading,
and improvement of lots, structures, public areas, streets, roads, trails, walkways, curbs and
gutters, water supply, storm drainage, lighting, sewers, electricity, gas, and other utilities; ... and
the protection and conservation of flood plains, shore lands, soils, water, vegetation, energy, air
quality, and geologic and ecologic features;" and,
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, subd. 2a states that "[t]he regulations
may permit the municipality to condition its approval on the construction and installation of
sewers, streets, electric, gas, drainage, and water facilities, and similar utilities and
improvements;" and,
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes,Section- 462.358, subd. 2a states that "[t]he regulations
may permit the municipality to condition its approval on compliance with other requirements
reasonably related to the provisions of the regulations and to execute development contracts
embodying the terms and conditions of approval;" and,
• WHEREAS, in response to and as authorized by the above-cited provisions of the
Minnesota Statutes, the City of Rochester has adopted subdivision regulations. They can be
found in Chapters 60-65 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances (commonly referred to as the
"Land Development Manual"); and,
WHEREAS, to facilitate the adequate provision of public facilities and services as
authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, subd. 1 a, the City adopted adequate public
facilities standards as part of its adoption of the City's subdivision regulations. These standards
are found in Sections 64.130 = 64.139 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances (R.C.O.). The City
adopted these standards in May, 1999. A copy of these standards is attached, identified as
Exhibit#A and incorporated herein; and,
WHEREAS, adequate public facilities standards have been recognized as one of the
most effective forms of growth management (Gary Pivo, Growth Management Planning &
Research Clearinghouse Local Government Planning Tools, (Aug. 1992)). Adequate public
facilities standards have been judicially approved in cases across the nation and in Minnesota
(Matter of Golden v. Planninq Board of Town of Ramapo, 30 N.Y.2d 359, 334 N.Y.S.2d 138,
285 N.E.2d 291, app. dismissed, 409 U.S. 1003 (1972); Woodbury Place Partners v. Town of
Woodbury, 492 N.W.2d 258 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 2929 (1993);
Freundshuh v. City. of Blaine, 385 N.W.2d 6 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986); Larsen v. County of
Washington, 387 N.W.2d 902 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986); Garipay v. Town of Hanover, 351 A.2d
64 (N.H. 1976); White, S. Mark. Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances and Transportation
• Management (American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 465,
2
1996); and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of Adequate Public Facilities standards is:
1. To economize on the costs of municipal facilities and services to
carefully phase residential development with efficient provision of
public improvements;
2. To establish and maintain municipal control over the eventual
character of development;
3. To establish and maintain a desirable degree of balance among
the various uses of the land; and
4. To establish and maintain essential quality of community services
and facilities; and,
WHEREAS, by these adequate public facilities standards, the City seeks.to regulate the.
'timing and sequencing of development so that the provision of adequate public facilities required
to accommodate the development growth occurs concurrently with the development growth. Put
another way, these. adequate public facilities standards require development be timed and
sequenced in a manner consistent with the capacity of public facilities. The City's goal is to
insure that public facilities are capable of supporting and servicing the proposed development's
physical area and designated intensity; and,
WHEREAS, in addition to the adequate public facilities standards listed in R.C.O. §§
64.130 — 64.139, the City's subdivision regulations also include adequate public facilities
standards within the criteria provided for the City review of particular subdivision processes.
Thus, a general development plan cannot be approved unless on and off-site public facilities are
adequate,-or will be adequate if the development is phased in, to serve the properties under
consideration (see R.C.O. §61.215(5)). And, a preliminary plat (land.subdivision) cannot be
approved unless the proposed land subdivision takes into account the City's six-year Long-
Range Capital Improvements Program (see R.C.O. §61.225(F)); and,
WHEREAS, the City's subdivision regulations allow the City to impose.a condition on its
approval of a proposed development where the condition is needed to insure compliance with
the subdivision regulations (see R.C.O. §61.226); and,
WHEREAS, since the May, 1999, implementation of the City's adequate public facilities
standards as part of the City's subdivision regulations, there have been developments submitted
to the City for approval where the public facilities were inadequate. In these cases, one of three
consequences occurred in the processing of the development applications; and,
WHEREAS, consequence #1 of the existence of inadequate public facilities is City
approval of the proposed development, but with a very restrictive condition attached to the City's
approval. That condition restricts all development until such time as the Common Council
determines there are adequate public facilities to accommodate the proposed development; and,
3
WHEREAS, one example of consequence #1 is the following condition of approval placed
upon the General Development Plan #180 (Prairie Crossing):
Because on and off site public facilities are currently inadequate to handle
the proposed development, the development must be phased-in in a
manner consistent with the City's planned infrastructure improvements.
Specifically, there are no plans for sanitary sewer to serve the property
within the first three years of the City's current six-year Capital Improvement
Program. Further, no other arrangements have been made to ensure that
adequate utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed
development. Additionally, there are no plans to reconstruct 65th Street
N.W., or Bandel Road to handle the additional traffic that this development
will generate. As such, no development will occur and no further
development permit will be issued until the Council determines public
facilities are adequate to accommodate this development; and,
WHEREAS, consequence #2 of the .existence of inadequate public facilities is the City
approval of the proposed development, but with a condition restricting the amount and extent of
development to coincide with the level of adequate public facilities that currently exists or may
occur in the future; and,
• WHEREAS, one example of consequence#2 is the following condition of approval placed
upon General Development Plan #142 (Weatherstone):
The development shall be phased so that 50th Street N.W., north* of 55th
Street N.W., does not exceed approximately 3,000 average daily trips
before it is upgraded; and,
WHEREAS, consequence #3 of the existence of inadequate public facilities is the
execution of development contracts (commonly referred to as development agreements) as
specifically authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, subd. 2a. By these
development agreements, the developer and the City voluntarily agree as to how much each
entity should pay to bring the appropriate public facilities up to a level adequate to accommodate
the proposed development; and,
WHEREAS, the decision to enter into development agreements is completely voluntary
and optional on each developer's part. Some developers have been willing to live with the
adequate public facilities' conditions of approval found in consequences #1 and #2. Other
developers, however, have chosen to help make inadequate public facilities adequate so as to
allow their proposed developments proceed as scheduled. To keep their developments on
schedule, some developers have decided to follow consequence #3; and,
WHEREAS, recently, there have been developers who have expressed an interest in
development agreements for their proposed developments (consequence #3), but have also
expressed concern about the amount of their inancial contributions towards the improvement of
4
• the public facilities. They have indicated an interest in knowing in advance the scope and extent
of the current public facilities, the scope and extent of improvements needed to those public
facilities in order to accommodate future development and the costs associated with making
public facilities adequate; and,
WHEREAS, in response to the developers' call for more information on adequate public
facilities and the costs that might be associated with development agreements, the City of
Rochester Common Council wishes to establish Transportation Improvement Districts ("TID") in
areas of the City where new development is likely to occur. The purpose of a TID is to designate
a geographic area of the City with existing substandard streets that would need to be improved
or renlaiced if new development were to occur within that area. For each TID, there would be
notice and information to a developer as to the costs that are at stake and the manner in which
the City believes the costs should be divided between the City and the developer should the
developer voluntarily enter into a development agreement for that development. The TID seeks
to equitably distribute the. transportation improvement costs created by new development
between those property owners who benefit from the transportation improvements and the City;
and,
WHEREAS, the recently-concluded Transportation Funding Task Force, which met to
discuss the City's growth-related transportation funding needs, supports the City's creation of a
TID. Among the Task Force's 28 recommendations to the Common Council was a
recommendation to create a TID as a tool to fund a portion of the growth in the City's street
• system attributable to new development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Common Council of the City of
Rochester that the City establish the TID program as follows:
1. For purposes of this resolution, the term "development" means any man-made
change to improved or unimproved real estate including a change in use or the
creation of a subdivision. The term "developer" means any person engaging in
any development activity for which city approval is sought.
2. By an additional resolution, the Council may.establish a TID for any geographic
area of the City experiencing or anticipating new growth and substandard streets.
The Council's determination of those areas experiencing or anticipating new
growth will be based upon its review of the City's urban service boundaries and all
other relevant factors that might reveal development trends over the next 40 to 50
years. The TID will be established after reviewing the growth areas containing
substandard streets, the transportation system needs of the area based upon its
land use plan and zoning classifications, and the amount of each area's vacant
developable acreage.
3. In creating a TID, the Council will consider the following factors:
A. The transportation system improvements necessitated by current or
anticipated development in a particular geographic area of the City.
5
B. The particular area of the City that
geographic y at would be served by the TID
improvements.
C. The total costs for the necessary transportation improvements.
D. The amount of the costs of the necessary transportation improvements to
serve a particular geographic area that should be allocated to the
development and to the City.
E. The method of cost allocation that should be used to establish a
proportional and equitable distribution of the transportation improvement
project costs.
4. The additional resolution will establish a cost allocation for each TID. . The cost
allocation will be calculated as 75% of the costs of all the transportation projects
within the TID. These costs will include, but will not be limited to, the costs of
design and construction engineering services, acquisition of right-'of-way and
construction. The cost allocation will be made up of two cost components.
A. A Substandard Street Reconstruction Cost ("SSRC"); and,
• B. A Substandard Street Capacity Cost ("SSCC").
The above two items will be added together based on the proposed street section
cost for the transportation improvements needed in the TID area to establish the
TO cost allocation.
5. An additional resolution will establish a cost allocation for each Interchange TID.
The Interchange TID cost allocation will be calculated as a portion of the cost of
the interchange that would equal the cost of a signalized expressway intersection
that would be necessary to serve properties in the district. The City will assume
the balance of the interchange project cost. Distance/proximity increments may be
used to apportion the Interchange TID cost allocation with property closer to the
interchange assuming a greater amount of the cost allocation. These costs will
include, but will not be limited to, the costs of design and construction engineering
services, acquisition of right-of-way and construction. The Interchange TO will be
made up of two cost components:
A. A Substandard Street Reconstruction Cost ("SSRC"); and,
B. _ A Substandard Street Capacity Cost ("SSCC').
The above two items will be added together based on the proposed street section
cost for the transportation improvements needed in the TO area to establish the
TO cost allocation.
6
6. A. When the TO
proposed D serves an area zoned for low density residential
uses, the SSRC and the SSCC are divided by the gross or net developable
acres in the TO area. The result is a cost per acre that is the basis for the
TO substandard street reconstruction and capacity cost allocation.
B. When the proposed TID serves an area not zoned for low density
residential uses, the SSRC and the SSCC are calculated differently. The
SSRC is divided by the gross or net developable acres in the TO area. The
SSCC is divided by the gross vehicle trips or the p.m. peak hour vehicle
trips generated from the acres in the TO area. The result is a SSRC per
acres and a SSCC per trip that is the basis for the TO substandard street
reconstruction and capacity cost allocation.
C. The City Council may, from time to time, elect to modify the basis for the
TID cost allocation from net or gross developable acres to trips or vice versa
if the Council determines that the alternative basis for the TO cost
allocation represents a more proportional or equitable distribution of costs.
7. A: For each TO area, 50% of the SSRC for the reconstruction of a roadway up
to a 40-foot wide rural section street or the equivalent 36-foot wide urban
street will be allocated to the City. Fifty percent of the SSRC equal to 50%
of the cost of reconstructing a 40-foot wide rural section street or its
equivalent urban section will be allocated to the developer.
B. For each TO area, none of the SSCC for the construction of additional
roadway and intersection capacity will be allocated to the City. The SSCC
equal to 100% of the cost to construct additional roadway capacity up to a
maximum 52-foot roadway width will be allocated to the developer.
Additionally, the SSCC equal to 100% of the cost to construct additional
intersection capacity regardless of the intersection width will be allocated to
the developer.
8. The applicable development agreement will provide the details as to when these
cost allocations are assumed by each party. The time for payment set forth in the
development agreement is related to the timing of the impacts of construction of
the development. In all cases the cost allocations must be assumed within three
to five years of the development agreement's execution.
9. Revenue collected within a specific TO must be spent only within that TID.
Revenue collected in excess of that ultimately needed in the respective TO must
be refunded to the property owners in the TO at the time the TID is dissolved (it is
the City's understanding that cost allocations will ultimately be.borne by individual
property owners).
7
• 10. The City may, from time to time, secure new or one-time revenue such as federal
transportation funds or local option sales taxes for certain transportation projects
within any particular TID or Interchange TID. The City will use these new revenues
to reduce the City's cost allocation of that TID or Interchange TID. If after reducing
the City's cost allocation to zero, the City will apply any remaining revenue to
reduce the TID or Interchange TID cost allocations. In those cases where the
State or County contributes to the funding of certain projects within any particular
TID or Interchange TID, the City will use these State and County funds to reduce
the overall project cost for that TID or Interchange TID project before calculating
the TID or Interchange TID cost allocation.
11. The City Council may from time to time elect to use Municipal State Aid System
(MSAS) funds for TID or Interchange TID projects. In any given fiscal year the
Council's use of MSAS funds for TID or Interchange TID project(s) shall be limited
to not more than 50% of that year's available MSAS construction account
allocation. In no case shall an individual TID or Interchange TID project be funded
with more than 50% MSAS funds.
12. Prior to the award of a contract to construct a proposed TID or Interchange TID
improvement, and by way of a contribution agreement executed by benefiting
property owners, the City may require an initial, upfront commitment of at least
60% of the cost of a particular transportation project in a TID or Interchange TID.
. 13.. The City Council may, from time to time, review and revise by resolution the TID
cost allocation for any specific TID if the Council determines that prior TID cost
allocation established by the City are inadequate to fund the remaining projects
within the specific TID. Revised TID cost allocations will not apply to fully executed
development agreements that'address TID.cost allocation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City will not involuntarily impose any of the
charges, fees, costs or costs allocations described in the TID program. Instead, any reference
to or mention of any charge, fee, cost or costs allocation occurs solely for the use by potential ,
developers and City staff in responding to proposed developments involving inadequate public
facilities that might be made adequate by way of voluntary development agreements.
8
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this policy.becomes effective as of July 8, 2004.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS DAY OF , 2004.
wvv
ESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST:
CI CLERK( .
APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 2004.
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Sea[ of the City of
• Rochester, Minnesota)
Res2000%ResoluTiD
9
EXHIBIT A
64.130 ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITES STANDARDS
The requirements of this section supplement facility standards
established in the Stormwater Management Plan, the Long-Range
Transportation Plan and other adopted facilities plans, and identify
the standards to be followed in the establishment of infrastructure
improvem-ents associated with any development. Adequacy is
defined in terms of the type, availability and capacity of public
facilities.
64.131: Required Facilities: In a proposed development the required
improvements include streets, sidewalks, public sanitary sewer,
and water utility extensions, storm water management,facilities, soil
erosion and sedimentation control and monumentation. Other
• items that are necessary or material to the project, such as school
sites or parkland, may be identified during the development
approval process.
64.132. Public Facilities: Public facilities and utilities shall be installed
according to the standards adopted by the appropriate agency.
The use of private sewage disposal systems and private water
supply to serve any new development shall not be permitted
unless: 1) the Common Council has determined that public utilities
will not be reasonably available and private utilities will not impair r
the ability to extend services in the future, and 2) the Olmsted
County Health Department or County Sanitarian finds that
proposed geologic and soil conditions, and lot sizes are adequate
to support the proposed use of private utilities. There shall be
adequate area to relocate the drain field in case of soil saturation
for any lot authorized for on-site wastewater disposal. City'
Engineer approval shall be required for all planned work involving
the use of public facilities or public right-of-way. The City Engineer
also shall review and decide on all requests to connect private
facilities to public facilities.
• 64.133. Fundin Required
g q red Improvements: Required improvements
reasonably related to the development shall be installed at the sole
expense of the applicant. Assessment of costs to subsequent
users or public participation may in certain instances be applicable
to a proposed project. The City Engineer shall recommend to the
County when such policies may be applicable.
64.134. Guarantees for Improvements: Bonds or surety deposits shall
be required, unless waived in the development agreement prior to
commencing activity involving the installation of public
improvements, which shall be in amounts sufficient to cover the
cost of installation. Any unexpended portion of a surety deposit
shall be returned to the developer upon satisfactory completion of
the public improvements. (See Section 61.250)
64.135 Maintenance: Maintenance of newly installed public facilities shall
remain with the developer for a period of two years from final
inspection or as otherwise defined in an owner contract or
development improvement agreement. Following the expiration of
this period, the city shall assume responsibility for maintenance and
upkeep of public facilities.
64.136. Dedications Required: Development plans, construction plans,
,
land subdivisions and site.development plans shall identify needed
right-of-way or easement locations necessary for the provision of
utilities, drainage and vehicular or pedestrian circulation within the
development and connecting to adjacent development which meet
specified levels of service called for in adopted City plans and
regulations. Easements shall be granted and right -of-way
dedicated to the public by the applicant as part of the development
approval process or through separate instrument, which shall be in
a form approved by the City Attorney.
64.137. Cost Sharing: The City Engineer shall advise the Council
regarding costs and right-of-way widths for major streets. The
applicant shall provide right-of-way in accordance with the adopted
Long-Range Transportation Plan, Official Map legislation and
standards. However, an applicant may appeal a street dedication
requirement to the Council and if the applicant provides sufficient
evidence that the costs are not roughly proportional to the needs
generated by the subdivision, the Council may decide to purchase
a portion of the right-of-way that exceeds such rough
proportionality.
• 64.138. Drainage Easem
ents menu Required: Drainage easements needed for
stormwater management as indicated on an approved drainage or
grading plans shall be provided. The document ENGINEERING
STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC WORKS IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE DEVELOPEMTN OF SUBDIVISIONS COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY, available from the Rochester Public
Works Department, should be consulted for current design
standards adopted by the City of Rochester.
64.139. Utility Easement Required: Utility easements required by the
various public and private utilities shall be provided. The various
utility agencies and the City Engineer shall be consulted as to
current policy on design and required easement widths. Vegetation
located on utility easements shall be placed so as to not interfere
with the free movements of service vehicles. Structures shall not
be placed on utility easements.
•
: .:
d.H a e Valle 'firan s ortation�Im p rovemerif District:
Y • p.
Modified e Rc omme ri dafi �ri��.o Au-yust l 2 005:
ig t
'Roadway of-Way...
Roadways`.-`. : :'Roadwa Limits Descri tion'of Im rovemerifs Len th :Width
=Lane rural undivided ':':�:•;' : :. : . '
.. .. � bituminous road section-with.
ave '
d shoulders a d
- P. n.
48th Street:NE'..
TH 63�easterl .,for 2 miles : ' edestrian facilities ` `.:; :10;380 150'
..::..; 2. rural bituminous,:: .': .;. :;. .
road section With paved: . .:
Hadley Valley. ::`: shoulders and pedestrian ..
Road .48th Street north 2,000.feet facilities 2,000 120
Traffic Si nal -TH 63 and`48th:Street NE'. Tuture Si nal
48th Street,IVE:and Hadley'-
,Traffc Si final , . Valley Road Future Si •nal
.,.
• •. Total Estimated Project Costs
= $5;842,800.00.
• County Share;6f Total]stimated Project Costs $2;136;375.00
.M iDOT Share of Total.Estimated Project Costs $. 371;250:00
City Share of Total Estimated Project Costs .$. 833,79375
Developer's'Share of Total Esthated Project Costs $2,501;381.25.
R-1 /R=1X $1,990 perDevelopable Acre : .
' R-2%R-3. $3,980 per Developable Acre
B=1;f:B-S. . :$7,.164 per Developable Acre
:➢;: B-4/.M-1 $17,910 perDevelopable Acre':
➢'. M>2 $31980 per Developable Acre
is
{
Y
.t
. ..: . . . ..... :t ;i
C k:
t:
.rR..
t
,
czt'
,".4NE'
t..---' .�•. pit r.;,, r:� j '. :� �'••,�,. + " _1�•1 ,O W .
? _ yt
uj
if
Ft
ty
. <�t ems,.,.Jr'( � }� , .W '.,..r •�'�..4,-�.•.�,. .. .f. �•..� •. ?�r2,,;
�' `•�i"`r`,"/,,-r'(�'.'� -,1' i /,. - J ..t�`�,.R. ,'^:- r��',•3r`�/•tfL�'_�� `mob 1,.' '�# 0cl
..
Jc
00
I Tv.U...
in
f � '.. :•:,�,; t tom!/ _ ! T 1+.+„l^
41
IBM
':Total Project GOts for Hadley Valley Transportation Improvement District
::Phase 1:
roject Costs;' . Project Gist Allocated,.Tofa1 HVTI D Project• � .;=_ ;"'., �'," :.:.•.. .;;,' ''.;"•:• .,
Total Project Costs ; .Allocatedao H)/T :to HVTI[? :.Costs
Construction Costs $3,528,000:00 $1;848,000.00 ':`' $360;000.00 $2,208;000 00
1=ufure Traffic Si al§ 2 . .. ..
gn ). . $800'000.00 ". $137,500:00 : :;$125,000.00 ,. °: :' "'"$262;500.00
Design ri and bns C truction
Engineering Costs $649;200:00 $297,8.25,00 :- . :•• $72 750:00':_..`.' `::': $370 575:D0
Right-qf-Way Acquisition Costs $432;800.00 $198,550.00 $48,500:00 $247 050:00
Contingency Costs ." : .:$432,800A0 $198,550.00 .` $48,500:00 :..::::. $247;05000
TOTAL Project.Costs $5,842 800.001 $2,680,425,00 '::$654;750.00 •'' ::.: $3,338.175600
-: . .
1VIE -�A•TTAH NT:D::
Hadle" :•Valle -Trans ortation Im ro:vemerit Dis
.. Y
•
e
:. Allocation:of Trans oftation District Im movement:Costs to Vacant ".p p .
oiled y.:an
ride-vel Propert to d �the
Cty
: ..;
Pha�e.1 :::• :.. :Phase 2' -
Project Costs '`: Project'Cosf :: Total HVTID .
Allocated to HVTID Allocated to HVTID : .: Pro'oct Costs
Construction.Costs $1848;000.00 $2;208;000.00
Future.Traffic $137,500.00 : ' $125,000.00 $262,500.00
Design and Constructior
En ineeriri Costs $297 825.00. $72;750.00 $370,575.00
Right-of-Way Acquisition
• Costs $198,550.00 $48;500'00 $247,050.00
Contin enc Costs $198,550.00 $48,500.00 $247;050.00
TOTAL Project Costs $2,680,425.00 : $654,750.00 $3,335,175.00
TOTAL Transportation Improvement District-Cost. $3,335,175.00
:." 5%0.Share Allocated to 992.476 Acres of Deyelopalile Property. $2,501,381.25
25%.Share AIlocated to.City of Roche
�... 833,793.75
�ster.
-Substandard Street Reconstruction'Costs $1,667,587.50
Substandard Street Capacity Costs $1,667,587.50.
,
:
f.
'A..TTAHME� T
C N.
Hadley Valle Transportation:Im rovement District` HVTID
Y P
_ rge
. c Assessment Rates./.�HVTID
Zoriiri�`District Rate :Ratio to'R=1.
$1;99.0.00 per Developable Acre
:.$.1;990.00.per Deveiopable`Acre,`'..
$3,980.04 per D',d-'opable.Acre:
`` R-3: 3;980:00 per Developable Acre.
Vi164.00 per De"dopableAere :: ;`: .3.:6:.1: ...
$17,910.00 per Developable Acre
B 5 $7,164.00 per-DeVelopable Acre 3.6 1
M-1 _ $17,910.-00'per.Developable Acre.: 9:1
. . . . M-2. $3,980.00 perDeVelopable Acre 2;1