Laserfiche WebLink
CC Regular Session <br />Date: 01/11/2011 <br />By: Tim Himmer <br />Engineering/Public Works <br />Item #: 7. 3. <br />Information <br />Title: <br />Consider agreement with Legacy Christian Academy for reimbursement of engineering design fees related to City <br />project 11 -21; the signalization of Armstrong and Bunker Lakes Boulevards, and associated infrastrucutre <br />improvements to serve the Legacy Christian Academy development <br />Background: <br />Staff has reviewed a development application from Legacy Christian Academy (LCA) for a proposed K -12 school <br />project to be located west of Armstrong Boulevard on a roadway extension of Bunker Lake Boulevard. On <br />September 23, 2010 a petition was received requesting utility and roadway improvements to serve this <br />development. The petition was accepted by the City Council on October 12, 2010, and Bolton & Menk was <br />awarded a contract to undertake the preparation of the study. <br />A public hearing for the feasibility study was held on December 14, 2010, and the report was approved by <br />Council; which included the extension of sanitary sewer and watermain, the westerly extension of Bunker Lake <br />Boulevard to Puma Street (as a reduced /temporary section) with storm sewer and a bituminous trail, a paved Puma <br />Street with a bituminous trail, and a bituminous trail along Armstrong Boulevard from Bunker Lake Boulevard to <br />Alpine Drive. It is estimated that approximately $1.8M is proposed to be special assessed to the benefitting <br />development properties under City project 11 -21, which is also on this Council agenda for award of contract for <br />engineering services. <br />The LCA project also received final plat approval on December 14, 2010. The developer has stated that they would <br />not be in favor of recording the plat and development agreement, or consent to the proposed assessments outlined in <br />the feasibility study until such time that actual construction costs were known. It was agreed to by all parties that <br />the City would go forward with the preparation of plans and specifications for City project 11 -21; the signalization <br />of the Armstrong Boulevard and Bunker Lake Boulevard intersection, and associated improvements to serve <br />the LCA development (estimated at approximately $3.8M). This agreement was conditioned on the fact that an <br />formal agreement be executed between the City and developer such that all design engineering costs associated <br />with the LCA development be paid by the developer. These costs were not to exceed $106,000 and represent the <br />private development design engineering services for City project 11 -21. Should the developer decide to not move <br />forward with their project once final construction numbers are determined through the design and bidding process, <br />they will be responsible for all such attributable costs. <br />Observations: <br />A Request for Proposals (RFP) for engineering services was prepared by staff and distributed to 5 consulting firms <br />in mid - December; the results of which will be discussed under a separate case this evening. The chosen consultant <br />through this RFP process will be responsible to finalize construction documents from previous plans that were <br />developed for the overall improvement of Armstrong Boulevard consistent with the Regional Roadway <br />Improvements outlined in the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with Anoka County for the COR. <br />Since the LCA development project would entail construction of the westerly leg of the planned intersection <br />improvements, Bunker Lake Boulevard extension west of Armstrong, it was always assumed that the two projects <br />would be combined into one and bid as such. Because the developer has stated they want to understand actual <br />construction costs before moving forward with their project staff has a concern related to funding and scheduling of <br />the overall project. If LCA should choose not to continue with their development once actual construction costs are <br />known there is a risk that those design costs attributable to their project would be lost, and the potential exists that <br />