HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.H. Building Fund/Energy Savings Projects
3. fl'.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and Council
Mark MCNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
SUBJ: Building Fund/Energy Savings Projects
DATE: October 22, 2008
If Council chooses to go ahead with energy savings/mechanical
improvements for city buildings, the follow sources of funding are
available.
1. General Fund - Fund Balance. Council could use fund balance to
finance the projects. The savings from reduced energy use
benefits the General Fund. Fund balance may dip below the target
of 40 - 45% of uses.
2. Building Fund. The Building fund was established to provide for
the construct or major addition/improvement of major city
buildings. Council later amended the use to include
maintenance/repairs without which the building would be
unsuitable for its intended use. Council could change the
definition of what the building fund is used to finance or could
treat this as an exception. This fund is below recommended
funding levels and annual charges are currently not at a level to
support these projects.
3. Capital Improvement Fund. The elF was established to for local
capital improvements, one type of which is buildings. To extend
council considers the projects capital improvements, the CIF
could fund those projects.
4. Outside borrowing. Other than bonded debt, council has not used
outside financing since 1976. If council prefers this option,
there are several avenues to explore.
S. Operating budget. Council could chose to finance some portions
of the project with current operating budgets. Budget offsets
would need to be identified.
6. Combination of the above.
Action
Discuss and give staff direction"
Gregg Voxland
Finance Director
H.\Finance\docs\
. Lj
.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor & City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Consider Scott County and City of Shakopee
Memo of Understanding for Holmes Street Bridge and Parcel No. 75
DATE: November 5, 2008
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is draft Memo of Understanding for Council consideration between Scott County and
the City of Shakopee for the City to obtain Parcel No. 75 in the Southbridge area.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Shakopee has been trying to acquire Parcel No. 75, approximately a 50 acre parcel
from Mn/DOT since 1996. Earlier this year, Mn/DOT had approached the City of Shakopee on
taking over the Holmes Street bridge, which is Bridge No. 4175 constructed in 1927 to be
rehabbed for a pedestrian bridge to meet Mn/DOT's requirements in the EIS done for the Mini-
bypass. In exchange for taking over the bridge, Mn/DOT would allow the City to retain the
amount of money the City owes for stormwater ponds, which is $519,164.09 for maintenance of
the bridge, and Mn/DOT would give the City Parcel No. 75.
Due to the long term liability and maintenance obligations for a pedestrian bridge, which does
not have a City function but rather a regional trail function, staff did' not consider this a good
arrangement. In meeting with Scott County personnel, particularly Greg Felt and Lezlie
Vermillion, discussions then centered on a three-way partnership in which the County would
take over the bridge, then receive the City's funds for stormwater ponding which is owed
Mn/DOT and receive property at the corner of Pike Lake Road and C.R. 21, which was to be
considered a future City fIre hall parcel and the City would receive Parcel No. 75. Attached to
this memo are the following documents for Council to review in consideration of the Memo of
Understanding and as follows:
1. Draft Memo of Understanding between the City of Shako pee and Scott County
2. Draft Concept for three-way partnership, as presented to Scott County Board in their
workshop on September 30th.
3. Proposed site layout for fIre station and emergency access for Windsor Drive North and
the villages of Southbridge.
4. Proposed site layout of the parcel owned by the City east of Pike Lake Road and south of
proposed C.R. 21.
.
5. Special assessment search on Parcel No. 75 for the assessment due to Southbridge
Parkway construction.
In review ofthe three-way partnership, staff would have the following comments:
1. The City does owe Mn/DOT $519,164.09 and would owe this money to Mn/DOT or
Scott County depending on the final arrangement of the agreement.
2. Staff had discussed that there was a deferred assessment on Parcel No. 75. The principal
amount of the assessment is $368,441.17, but the total payoff being $592,170.75, as a
deferred assessment. In discussion with City Council, previous consensus but no formal
direction was to waive the interest on this assessment but to have the principal paid out of
Park Reserve Fund. The Finance Director has provided three options for the assessment
such as (1) Write off the assessment, (2) Pay the assessment principal from the Park
Reserve Fund when money is available, (3) Pay the assessment from the General Fund.
The Finance Director notes that the bonds have been paid off.
3. The fire hall site east of Pike Lake Road and south of C.R. 21 is approximately 5.71 acres
and has 3.43 acres of upland and 2.28 acres being wetland. The value of the parcel, due
to its limited amount of upland, may have been drastically reduced due to the recent
housing market slump in the area.
4. The City of Shakopee is not set up to do bridge maintenance and in particular on the
bridge the size of the Holmes Street bridge. All the maintenance would have to be
contracted out if the City was to do the maintenance. Also staff would question the
reason for maintaining this bridge for a trail that does serve a regional trail needs, not a
local trail need.
5. Mn/DOT has valued Parcel No. 75 which is approximately 52 acres at approximately
$1,000,000. The City of Shakopee by providing the stormwater ponding payment and the
parcel by C.R. 21 to Scott County would essentially meet the $1,000,000 purchase price.
The County would be maintaining a rehab bridge and would have the future liability of
that bridge, but not the City of Shakopee or Mn/DOT.
6. In staffs opinion, the Fire Department does prefer the fire station to be on Parcel No. 75,
versus the previous site located at Pike Lake Road and C.R. 21. Fire Chief, Rick
Coleman, has been in contact with his Building Committee, and they do prefer the Parcel
No. 75 site. The County can utilize the site at Pike Lake Road and C.R. 21 for ponding
and wetland mitigation to support the C.R. 21 project, and the County Board has been
supportive of taking over the bridge on Holmes Street for perpetual maintenance.
The one item that the City needs to discuss further would be the assessment on Parcel No. 75. In
previous discussions with Council, the interest would be waived and the principal would be paid
out of Park Reserve Fund. Council can discuss this further to see how those payments can be
made in lieu of the Park Reserve Fund balance.
This Memo of Dnderstanding (MOU) will affect the C.R. 21 project design, as the previous fire
station site will be utilized for a storm water pond. County and City staff have met recently to
discuss a MOD for a right in/right out access off of C.R. 21 to Hansen Avenue and county staff
can update the council as to the progress of those discussions.
The MOD for C.R. 21 access to Hansen Avenue will be presented to the City Council in the near
future.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Review the Memo of Understanding between the City of Shakopee and Scott County for
Mn/DOT Parcel No. 75 and provide direction.
2. Approve a motion approving the Memo of Understanding with modifications, as
determined by the City Council.
3. Do not approve the Memo of Understanding between the City of Shakopee and Scott
County.
4. Table for additional information.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed this agreement and believes this is in the best interest of Shakopee to meet the
goal of obtaining Parcel No. 75; to utilize the parcel by Pike Lake Road and C.R. 21 in a manner
that is beneficial to the C.R. 21 project; and the City would not be involved in the maintenance of
the Holmes Street bridge. Per the MOU, a future Cooperative Agreement will be presented to
the City Council for formal action and dependent on County and Mn/DOT tumback agreements.
Council should provide direction on whether this MOU should move forward or not and what
items should be included in the agreement.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Review the Memo of Understanding and the attachments and provide staff direction.
~~
Public Wor s Director
BLlpmp
ENGR/2008-PROJECTS/2008-COUNCll.-P ARCEL-75
.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Bridge #4175, Parcel #75 (Pill 279110040), CSAH 21 Ponding Location (Pill
279140172)
This memorandum of understanding is entered into by the City of Shakopee (City) and
Scott County (County) on ,2008.
WHEREAS, the State Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has approached Scott
County about their desire to tumback bridge #4175; and
liif(g~,
/;~'~Bfr
WHEREAS, this is one of 22 bridges statewide C011,.s~fied historically significant and is
to be preserved under an agreement with FHW A, SHPQ:~~ihJ/DOT; and
c~'''..
,...........,...;'.. .."",'"";"".
~~~;ity, "..i~~~~~
~t _'.:~'''''..'~'
WHEREAS, this bridge does not provide~sta~e lrunk hig1l;~~X function at this time and
is no longer appropriate to be on the trunk highway system; and '~;;,~til~!k
'<'~~t~r.~~,
WHEREAS, Bridge #4175 needs signitfban.t maintenance and Mrl1'ij~;r is planning a
$5.1 million dollar rehabilitation project in 2012; arid>. "'1~tI;i:'>
i~~~r;1~",,/ ';&~i~
WHEREAS, Scott County piQyi&'~l1he bridge insp~ction for most non-Mn/DOT bridges
\'ti'!f'""'~, ''<li:(i{~~'i;;;~~~_
within the County. and 10>Jli. '''''~l'''';!~!>..
, \~~Ir~;\ ~1\0J!l~l~l~l~~( . 'tV
WHEREAS, Sco~1:g()unty is the ap~1;Qpriate\'j~~~pf regiollal trail connections within
Scott County; .00,::'+< ..... '. < ,~~:,
WHEREAS, Sco~County is-ilie owned5.t~e CSAH 101 Bridge and Bridge #4175
which provides the pedestriap.andpicycl~.conne6ijQns for this bridge; and
.1IIil1l" ,./ ........//.> '\~.:t.~ib
.-,;_,_:'.,,'.'~i1~'ie';'- +J.iI%~ja;~, "" ..:.':,-,........... ...., -.:'-i..,:"'-' .. \~J~~.~~.}
f~EREAS~R;~q~l #75 is currently oWl1~<:lbY].MntnOT and was purchased as part of the
,t\)~'" ~~"rq~~{'l.
TH 16g~SS constructi~~;~~d
~~~~~~ '~~~'t,~
~' Parcel #t~ an ap]lli>ximate value of $960,000 with 51.86 acres; and
WHERE1tlthe City iJ~~ds to put a conservation easement on the forested portion and
'''4C;(~ ~s:';:;'#
designate the foresteWl~J1~ion~;;~park; and
~~~~;:t?;,~
WHEREAS, the C1t)l'lfntends to construct a Fire Hall and related improvements with the
approximate 9.4 acres of buildable land and an emergency access trail to the Villages of
Southbridge; and
WHEREAS, the City had obtained about 6 acres adjacent to CSAH 21 north of CSAH 16
that is an important site for ponding on CSAH 21; and
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee still owes Mn/DOT approximately $520,000 payment
for their share of storm sewer from the TH 169 by-pass project; and
.
WHEREAS, The City of Shakopee is aware of the deferred assessment for Parcel 75 of
approximately $368,000: and
WHEREAS, Bridge #4175's annual maintenaIlce costs are estimated at $5,200/year plus
the need to spot paint members at 10 years and completely repaint at 40 years for an estimated
cost of $2,024,000; and
WHEREAS, Mn/DOT is willing to allow the City of Shakopee to pay Scott County the
storm sewer payment to establish an account to maintain Bridge #4175; and
WHEREAS, the preliminary financial analysis for a fort~year projection anticipates a
shortfall in maintenance funding established by the initial $5~~;g~0 deposit but coming close to
covering those costs with some of the annual maintenance,~g(1,Ifcovered by Scott County; and
~(tll~.~~~ .
WHEREAS this partnership has the potential to:~J&fberi~~,?Ji! to Shakopee, Scott County
and Mn/DOT in the following respects: ''',il~'t\;:1;)"
":tf~~t~
Mn/DOT would no longer be the ownerc)fa pedestrianlbike br1a~~,that is not a part of
~~':::~<.'~
the trunk highway system; .), . . ';~4ff~tpf5)'''
~';~:':~JF:'~~
Shakopee would own the land for the park pl.lrposes at1d. the construc1fQ~gf a fire hall and
. ,/~~\,,,,,' '..,'"',.'.',,".'.',,.,' ,.","""".':"<,:,.:"(d:~'::t1J
related Improvements ~1;,~t';,~~4If}>i'" ". ';>i/ ""'1>
Scott County has the parcel rl~aa~d~f9J CSAH 21 pOllding and almost adequate funding to
~";,<i!tJ1\ ~:'~i;{'>:~;~"f
maintain the bridge for 40 years; and '(;%~l'~~, '4'~~~~~f~f"i&
\~~t1~\ """fi~lt~'l,,~,
WHEREAS, the).(~ityal}~,..County d~~~e to d9'9~~~ltheiri~spective understandings
regarding commitmell.t.~of each agency to tk~~~~'I~~"6~t~f~~t],~;&and tumback agreements that
'11 d b f d d V ,.,'.',.".."<",,, '<e:~""'/
WI nee to e execu e .; an \~*~02f~';f}Jjl' ":1:;;'
'\igJ~
~~t\S, the ti111ll;9;.9t ~f'uturetoopd!~ii~e Agreement between the City and the
County }~~i~jf4~Qit~~tlt uponMn/DOT and.the ~~~~J1tion of the tumback agr~ement between
Scott ~~~ty and MD.JQ;~Ji,~d a future CooperatIve Agreement between the CIty and the
County'f~7,~Wi~ 21 Improv~i~ts.
~~,1>')", ','\,0\
NOW~\l!!EREFORE;~W~!S HEREBY UNDERSTOOD THAT:
"~f~iJ%!\,>, \ii~\t
A. The Cf~;)bt: Shakopd~:1:,'.:
'{;~~0;t~ b~1'~~~7
1. Acknowle~,~,~lJ;s;responsibility for the deferred assessments of approximately
$368,000 OlN?arcel 75.
2. Acknowledges that it owes Mn/DOT storm sewer payments of approximately
$520,000 for the City's share of the storm sewer costs associated with the TH169
by-pass project.
3. Will agree to pay the approximately $520,000 to Scott County when a cooperative
agreement for is entered into between the City and the
County.
4. Will provide fee title to the County to the approximate 6-acre parcel adjacent to
CSAH 21 for ponding purposes when a cooperative agreement for
is entered into between the City and the County.
B. The County will:
I. Enter into a tumback agreement with DOT for Bridge #4175 and after completion
of MnlDot's rehabilitation project programmed currently for 2012 commit to
maintain the Bridge as a bicycle and pedestrian facility.
2. Establish an escrow account for maintenance of Bridge #4175 when the City
makes the storm sewer payment of approximately $520,000 to the County.
3. Use the 6-acre parcel adjacent to CSAH 21 only for CSAH 21 ponding purposes.
4. Provide fee title to parcel #75 to the City when a cooperative agreement for
is entered into and the County.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE SCOTT COUNTY
Recommended by: Recommended by:
Bruce Loney, Public Works Director Lezlie A. Vermillion, Public Works
Director
City of Shakopee Sco~founty
1~.'
JiIII'
',,~~r:w
I""
Dated: j': ; {}B.:ted:
~~":! '~
Approved by: ~~, '{J'~'"
Approv~P,li2Y:
"
""'~~
'~~~~
John J. Schmitt, Mayor R b J V*""l Ch .
o ert . og~.J~"" au
City of Shakopee County Bcfis!,of
~f@l!l<,
.",,~I"
~'''j
'-'"",~'$
Dated:
Unmacht
Scott County Administrator
Dated:
Dated:
w:\word\mou\shakopee_bridge 4175 mou.doc
Draft Concept for Three Way Partnership
Mn/DOT -Shakopee- Scott County
Scott County Board Workshop
September 30,2008
Assets beim~ discussed in the partnership
1. Background on the TH 101 Bridge #4175 (see attached management plan cover page) (see
attached location map)
a. Bridge 4175 was constructed in 1927 to carry Trunk Highway (TH) 5 over the Minnesota
River.
b. Highway later designated TH 169/TH 101.
c. Early 1990's was closed to vehicular traffic when TH 101 bridge was built parallel to this
structure and designated for pedestrian and bicycle use.
d. One of 22 bridges statewide considered historically significant and is to be preserved
under an agreement with FHWA, SHPO and Mn/DOT.
e. Bridge needs significant maintenance and Mn/DOT is planning a $S.l million dollar
rehabilitation project in 2012.
f. Annual maintenance costs are estimated at $2,OOO/year. There will be a need to spot
paint members at 10 years conservatively estimated at $1,000,000 and completely
repaint at 40 years for an estimated cost of $2,024,000.
2. Parcel 75 (see attached location map)
a. Parcel7S is currently owned by Mn/DOT and was purchased as part of the TH 169
bypass construction. It has an approximate value of $960,000 with 51.86 acres. This is a
combination of land that is forest (city intends to put a conservation easement on this
portion), under a power utility easement, and about 9.4 acres of buildable land.
3. CSAH 21- City Fire Hall Parcel (see attached location map)
a. City had obtained about 6 acres adjacent to CSAH 21 north of CSAH 16 that is an
important site for pending on CSAH 21. This parcel is estimated at about $545,000.
4. Storm Sewer Payment
a. City of Shakopee stills owe DOT approximately $520,000 payment for their share of -
storm sewer from the TH 169 by-pass project.
Proposed Partnership
Mn/DOT
1. Mn/DOTwould like to turn back the Bridge to Scott County.
2. Mn/DOT is willing to turnover Parcel7S to the County in exchange for taking over the bridge.
3. Mn/DOT is willing to provide Scott County the $520,000 cash from the storm sewer payment to
Scott County.
4. Mn/DOTto complete a $5.1 million rehabilitation of this historical structure in 2012. This is to
include a total repaint of the structure and re-deck of surface and joint areas. Structure is
otherwise considered in good condition for a ped/bike bridge.
City of Shakopee
5. Shakopee would like to own Parcel 75 for creation of a park and fire hall.
6. Shakopee acknowledges they owe Mn/DOT storm sewer payment and are capable of paying in
2008/09.
7. Shakopee is willing to provide the County with CSAH 21 ponding parcel.
Scott County
8. Has staff capable of doing the bridge inspections except for underwater, scour and fracture
critical. (Those to be provided through technical agreement with DOT similar to our other
bridges. State aid currently provides fracture critical and scour inspections. To be included in
the turn back agreement).
9. Is the right agency to own regional trail connection and provides the parallel trail crossing for
the CSAH 101 Bridge.
10. Receives the $520,000 from Mn/DOT to put in an escrow account for maintenance of this
structure. The estimated value is $1,024,000 in 10 years and $(404,906) in 40 years after
deducting $2,OOO/year for annual maintenance.
11. Receives the parcel from Shakopee for ponding on CSAH 21.
So this has the potential to be a three way win!
. DOT is no longer owner of a pedestrian/bike bridge.
. Shakopee owns the land for their park and fire hall.
. Scott County has parcel for CSAH 21 ponding and funding to maintain the bridge for 40
years. (Historical bridge will be eligible for enhancement or equivalent funding source
at that time if additional funds are needed).
i
I
I
~
~lO'1ll" ... ". ,m
".
-
./Scott
~
i
I
---.-- ------<----
~~~~o~~~
.:.
" 2008 Oblique Photography Th!s dra'.'flng Is nsmer a reg:;flojretOfCed m~ nor ,a.
~@. 'W.rv<:j am! Is rot lnteocfEd to t~ used as one. This
- r:: !~. fi"aI~inJ is a compHatim ot recnrdi. intlrmation" and
, data Iocaect in VGrious city, COlCity, and stae offices.
) y----- al{2 oltler SC\.lrCe$ a'reclffig tte area shOwn, end 15
IScotft Created by: Scott County GIS - JKH b be usro tor reference ptrp05eS onl'{. Scott.
COUf\~1 is not respCl1sible lor Cin'{ hiaCCU"3cles
Date: 9/19/2008 reran ccrlzired.lt discrepanr.es ~ rourd, please
a:mt;;ct [M Scot! Crur.ty Survt,'Ors Office.
" I
~[tenDm~U€nr!]1W
.
I
i
I
I
I
I
i..j
.,......
:.:,! ~
";'" :~nr:
'" '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
x I
~ 2008 Aerial Photography This dra-.~ir.g is R.::v.L'lcr " !eg:3iJy mcccded map nor a
\t"~1 ~. SUl'\.1!'f af'.d is n(ll inten.:ed ta be used as or:e. This
dlawing is a ~i!aHon cf records. infrmnaliCl1. and
, ) ,/ q.........,,,.... data located :n varl'OlS my. county, and sta:e I
(SCott offices:. and other sources alfectin.J lh~ area stuwlO,
Created by: Scott County GIS - JKH and is to be used tor ref::rence purpos:es only. Stelt
Coun:y is not responsibte for en'i 1n8ccufficies
Date: 9/24/2008 herein con13:ned. If discepSl::''eS are fourn, p!e3se
conlad: die Scott Counl., surveyors Offlte.
- .. ~
- --
I
I I
~ ~ 77@ I I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
r:~' 2008 Oblique Photography I
'S' TI1is drawing i:l nElt.'1~ a I
.....cottt w!Vef aM 1$ net jnta'l~eg3!J( recorde:;f mql nOf a I
Created by. S a-a-<'fJng Is 3 com ,iJ~t1~ to ::e u:;ed 3S one. Tnts
, catt County GIS - JKH d3ta loc<L~ in Jtous c:r r&CJros, information, aM
Ntd o11er SClJfCe5 Sf Ii'l. comly. and stae OlilCe5 I
Date: 9/19/2008 l!J be used {Oi ref~~~~ tre .area 5tu::~n. Grld Is
CCtl.:t! is Mt respon;i""PO ~r:s;::3 on}(" Stoll
~r~n cootzlned. If dlsC; ...\~ . ~I inaconcle) I
contQct the Scott CUlll"-/ ~r:;:~~~~~' ~!eaS2
I
I
I
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
Historic Bridge Management Plan
Bridge Number: 4175
Executive Summary
Bridge 4175 was completed in 1927 to cany vehicular traffic on Trunk Highway 5 (now TH 169/11) over the
Minnesota River and into the city of Shakopee in Scott County. Located at the foot of Holmes Street and
known as the Holmes Street Bridge, it also spans a road and a trail. It has an overall structure length of
645 feet and an out-out width of 42.4 feet. The four main spans are steel deck-trusses, with three parallel
Warren trusses supporting the deck in each span. Two approach spans on each end, comprised of
reinforced-concrete deck girders, and the piers and abutments have Classical Revival detailing. In the early
1990s, after completion of a parallel bridge to carry TH169/11, Bridge 4175 was closed to vehicular traffic
pending rehabilitation as a pedestrian and bicycle bridge.
Bridge 4175 has several components in poor condition and will require significant rehabilitation to function
as a pedestrian and bicycle bridge for the 20-year period of this plan. Rehabilitation is required to address
deterioration of the piers, cast-in-place approach spans, truss components (specifically those below the
expansion joints and at the edges of the deck), and railings.
The recommended future use of the bridge is rehabilitation for less-demanding use on-site. The bridge
should be rehabilitated based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards) [36
CFR Part 67] and Guidelines for Bridge Maintenance and Rehabilitation Based on the Secretary of the
Interiors Standards (Guidelines).
Until the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) have signed a historic bridge Programmatic Agreement,
all proposed work on this bridge (including maintenance, preservation and stabilization activities) needs to
be sent to the Mn/DOT Cultural Resources Unit (CRU) for formal review.
MFAD HNTH
"'l;lUNf
r"-J:.. "_ JUNE 2006
~j~~;..~.;~~, ,
.
Worksheet on Historic Bridge Funding
Earnings Rate 5.25%
Expenses
Annual Income
Year of Service Year Beg. Balance Maintenance Bridge Painting Earnings Ending Balance
1 2009 630,000 (2,000) 32,970 660,970
2 2010 660,970 (2,000) 34,596 693,566
3 2011 693,566 (2,000) 36,307 727,873
4 2012 727,873 (2,000) 38,108 763,981
5 2013 763,981 (2,000) 40,004 801,986
6 2014 801,986 (2,000) 41,999 841,985
7 2015 841,985 (2,000) 44,099 884,084
8 2016 884,084 (2,000) 46,309 928,393
9 2017 928,393 (2,000) 48,636 975,029
10 2018 975,029 (2,000) 51,084 1,024,113
11 2019 1,024,113 (2,000) 53,661 1,075,774
12 2020 1,075,774 (2,000) 56,373 1,130,147
13 2021 1,130,147 (2,000) 59,228 1,187,375
14 2022 1,187,375 (2,000) 62,232 1,247,607
15 202.3 1,247,607 (2,000) 65,394 1,311,001
16 2024 1,311,001 (2,000) 68,723 1,377,724
17 2025 1,377,724 (2,000) 72,226 1,447,949
18 2026 1,447,949 (2,000) 75,912 1,521,862
19 2027 1,521,862 (2,000) 79,793 1,599,655
20 2028 1,599,655 (2,000) (1,000,000) 31,377 629,031
21 2029 629,031 (2,000) 32,919 659,951
22 2030 659,951 (2,000) 34,542 692,493
23 2031 692,493 (2,000) 36,251 726,744
24 2032 726,744 (2,000) 38,049 762,793
25 2033 762,793 (2,000) 39,942 800,734
26 2034 800,734 (2,000) 41,934 840,668
27 2035 840,668 (2,000) 44,030 882,698
28 2036 882,698 (2,000) 46,237 926,935
29 2037 926,935 (2,000) 48,559 973,494
30 2038 973,494 (2,000) 51,003 1,022,497
31 2039 1,022,497 (2,000) 53,576 1,074,073
32 2040 1,074,073 (2,000) 56,284 1,128,357
33 2041 1,128,357 (2,000) 59,134 1,1 B5,491
34 2042 1,185,491 (2,000) 62,133 1,245,624
35 2043 1,245,624 (2,000) 65,290 1,308,915
36 2044 1,308,915 (2,000) 68,613 1,375,528
37 2045 1,375,528 (2,000) 72,110 1,445,638
38 2046 1,445,638 (2,000) 75,791 1,519,429
39 2047 1,519,429 (2,000) 79,665 1,597,094
. 40 2048 1,597,094 (2,000) (2,000,000) 0 (404,906)
.
Report Name: City of Shakopee Printed: 10/8/2008
Assessment Search Page: 1
Special Assessments Search
Pronertv ID Lot Block Addition Addition NamefLee:al
27-911004-0 000 000
SEC 11 TWP 115 RNG 22 51.86AC W1I2 SEl/4 EX S 992.09'
Pronertv Address Pronertv Status - - - - - Special Flags - - - - - 2008P&I Cert:
Active 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 $0.00
Shako pee, MN N N N N N N N N N N
SA Nbr Descrintion Year Term Rate Total Curr Prin Payoff Status
27110 97-4 EAST DEAN LAKE 1999 10 6.0000 $368,441.17 $0.00 $592,170.75 Deferred
Summary of Levied: $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Summary of Deferred: $368,441.17 $592,170.75
Summary of Closed: $0.00
Pending Estimate: $0.00
Future Estimate: $0.00
Hookup Fee Estimate: $0.00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
i
I
I
!
I
!
I
I
!
I
\
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
[
I
\
I
I
!
\
I
I
I,
I
I
!
I
I
!
I
~ PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT DATE: FEB 2008 FIGURE No. I
SHAKOPEE FIRE STATION DRAWN BY: RTH 1 I
SlHAKOJPJEJF Mn/DOT PARCEL
Cl:aAd1NllYPlmESlliClIll SHAKOPEE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
I
I
!
-
------=------
" " /~\ /
" " \./
/ /
" /
\ /
"
i
'......1
,
i
1....
I
I
_.-,~~
.....--/-- '\
\
x 5\
751 . .~ ~1
DESIGN VEHICLE
~~-
o.
~\
~~ ~ r;;? 1
....J ,...' ~
0
BUS-45 0.
feet 0
Width : 8.50 g:
Track
Lock to Lock Time : B.50
: 6.00
steering Angle : +t-.30
R34'....
EX. WETLAND EDGE/
~'
. : \
I '. ,.
\ \, ' ' \ . \ \
\'\. ~9,,~ i \ I
""l "" )
'>", ..... "~ \
',," ......." ,...... "'"
,<:=...,""~ 11
..,....... \
........' \ .
';' \>\ \ '"
! II \\ \
\1 I I .1
I I \
-, ,,\\ I I
X ?(~\ I '1
"'~~ '. .... Ii i\1 I I, 7, 1 6
>( 751.:3 '~'~""~....""''.''....,.,,,' I
. "Z..~. ""'" I
!
"- ............ ....~ I
~.,
\".~,...... ---
..~
".>.:.:::~:>.: j
,
, (-(-
X 751.3 \ ~..I--~
i' ">
i
\
\
)
/1
/
,//'
K:\1l1'7S'-tllJ\cal!\ep\ep..acalF\l'alt-rHlldeGP.dwg,HOOel
.
'" '
yrl -(\OJ ags of the August 29, 2006
/I..'\)-'c v~ 1;-
'::) , ." puncil Page -3-
1 aAA~'-..P 7 ~....
S ~!'l -J [
'- (). : 11..f)JlA,~_.-~ t 33.668 closer to 32.774 or lower. Mr. McNeill also clarified that staff should
, ~ !ed with the hiring of the one-halftime Communications Coordinator,
c:vV-cJl) fintendent, and the part time Accessibility Coordinator that are scheduled to be
lllll:'U HI .<"VVv. ~bul1cil members agreed.
Mayor Schmitt stated that he would like recOlmnendations for budget reductions by November
1 st.
Menden/Clay moved for a five minute recess at 8:48 p.m. Motion carried 5-0.
Mayor Schmitt re-convened the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Gregg Voxland presented Council with a list of requested capital equipment items for 2007 and
projected items for 2008-2011 that are to be purchased from the Equipment Internal Service
Fund. Mr. V oxland provided a list of eight items that need to be replaced in 2007. They are as
follows:
1. Squad cars being replaced will be cycled down and the worst cars in the fleet sold.
2. 1999 Malibu - Police Department replacement requested but at the ranking of four.
Council should consider pushing replacement back one year.
3. 1999 Dodge - Fire Department replacement and current truck cycled down out of
front line service.
4. Street division is requesting to replace the 1995 Ford dump truck. Council has
already authorized the early purchase of a replacement truck.
5. Street division is requesting to replace the 1990 front end loader. With a ranking of a
four, Council should consider pushing replacement back one year.
6. Park division is requesting replacement of a 1997 Toro mower.
7. Recreation is requesting replacement ofthe 1996 ice resurfacer. Council should
consider pushing replacement back one year.
8. Stoml Drainage is requesting replacement of the 1992 jetter. Council has already
authorized the early purchase of a replacement truck.
ClaylMenden moved to approve the 2007 recommendations for purchases from the 2007-2011
Equipment List. Motioned carried 5-0.
Mr. Vox1and asked if it was okay to add the skid steer and large mower in Park for 2007. There
was consensus to leave them in for 2007.
Mark Themig addressed COUhcilregarding the MnlDOT Parcel 75 outstanding spe~iaJ
assessments. Mn/DOT was assessed for 35.89 acres of the 50 acre parcel. The developer was
assessed the remainder. The outstanding assessment is $368,000 and there is an additional
$117,000 in accumulated interest.
Mr. Themig pointed out two options to resolve the outstanding assessments.
.
.. Official Proceedings of the August 29, 2006
Shakopee City Council Page -4-
1. Modify the proposed CIP to include funding for the assessment and/or interest from the
Park Reserve fund. Paying the base assessment of $368,000 fTOm the Park Reserve, in
addition to the $500,000 allocation for the river bank stabilization, would result in the
delay in at least one project. Delaying Killarney Hills Park ($437,500) from 2009 to
2010 would have the least impact and would ensure a positive end-of-the-year fund
balance unti12011.
2. Write-off the assessment, since the bonds have been paid in full. However, assessments
and interest ii-om early payments are a primary source of funding for the CIF.
There was consensus of Council members that Option 1 would be the best solution; the $368,000
as part ofthe acquisition cost to come out ofthe Park Reserve Fund.
Gregg Voxland asked Council ifhe should include a Tmth in Taxation insert to go out with the
tax notices tl1at will be sent out in the middle of Novembet in preparation of a Tmth in Taxation
hearing. Mr. Voxlal1d provided the example of what was sent out last year. Council conquered
that the insert should be sent out with the cunent year revisions.
Gregg Voxland provided Council with the 2007-2011 CIP Mupicipal Projects. It was Council's
consensus that the project sheet looked good and to continue with it.
Michael Leek presented council with the Final Plat of Southbridge Fields Addition. He stated
that at the August 22, 2006 meeting Council requested staff to place the final plat of Southbridge
Fields 011 the August 29~h Council agenda. Specifically, the Council wished to discuss the
conditions noted in the resolution of the final plat and detemline whether there should be
revisions to several ofthe conditions, one of which relates to the limitation on access to a light-in
only condition.
If Council approves the final plat with a right-in/right-out access, staff asks that Council reinstate
the verbiage previously deleted that states that the applicant or future businesses are responsible
for future costs incurred in making improvements or modifications to Crossings Boulevard.
Second, it was not clear from Council's initial action whether it intended to delete the fom foot
trail on the west side of the private drive.
Mr. Steve Soltau, applicant of Southbridge Fields Addition, advised Council that it was his
understanding ft.-om the previous meeting that he was to provide an 8 foot trail located on County
Road 18 and that the 4 foot sidewalk was eliminated from the project.
Cncl. Lehman stated he would like the wording changed in the lI.P to read. . . costs of any future
closing of the light-out access.
Joos/Clay offered Resolution 6469, a Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Southbridge Fields
Addition, subject to the conditions excluding the second half of condition M, which would
eliminate the sidewalk on one-side of the second western access to the intemal street, which
. b.b.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
From: Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Director
Meeting Date: August 29, 2006
Subject: MNDOT Parcel 75 Assessment
INTRODUCTION
As part of the staff report on the 2007-2011 CIP, I provided information on the MN/DOT
Parcel 75 outstanding assessments. However, I neglected to include that information in
my presentation. City Council is asked to provide direction on how it would like to handle
the assessment, should the property be conveyed to the City.
DISCUSSION
Bruce Loney reviewed the file on the assessment for Parcel 75. According to the files,
MN/DOT was assessed for 35.89 acres of the -50 acre parcel. The developer was
assessed the remainder. The outstanding assessment is $368,000, and there is an
additional -$117,000 in accumulated interest.
Option 1 - Fund from the Park Reserve Fund
If Council wishes, we can modify the proposed CIP to include funding for the
assessment and/or interest from the Park Reserve fund. According to Mr. Voxland, this
would be consistent with past practice.
Paytng the base assessment of $368,000 from the Park Reserve, in addition to the
$500,000 allocation for river bank stabilization, would result in a delay in at least one
project. I've examined the project timelines and funding, and it appears that delaying the
Kilarney Hills Park ($437,500) from 2009 to 2010 would have the least impact and would
ensure a positive end-of-the-year fund balance until 2011. The attached updated CIP
summary sheet shows these changes.
Option 2 - Write Off the Assessment
The second option would be for the Council to write-off the assessment, since the bonds
have been paid in full. However, as Mr. laney noted, assessments and interest from
early payments is the primary source of funding for the CIF.
REQUESTED ACTION
City Councills asked to provide direction on the MN/DOT Parcel 75 Assessment.
. .
, ~-..... ...-" ,- ..,,~.. - ._..~~,........~.." .
" -. .
;.;~e:'-2~~~ GIP SU~mary - (FU~~~~_ for Riv=~r:~~ ~~~~;~~~~~~~~~~~~IentslROL _-1Q~-1-'~'ll9-~t--_l.<UL~J~."'a\:.-I_~~!"J!!~~"--------- _.____________...___
3 ..~!!!!l!~~JY.!:H..~.Q!!!{~~nl_.. Q~JQ'Bf!!t2!~l.,IcliofL........_.__'-~_ _~_~~2\:~, ~r!~-1~1.. ___, - ,....~- ----"...11--...... ..~__ _____ ~~__.-1Ji~~Ln.g.e.!!:imJ!n.L__._.....,,~......~_ .................. -.........--.--~_..~....
4 Church Adt:tICICI'I Nelghbod'load Park Cansl.~Of\ 4<)O,COO B)' Developer I 200,000 l Andrei!
~~~o..~~..,'"p~~o.;~_... [~~~~~~~!~:~==~:-~! !~;;~~=- --~~~,~!== -=~'I:-= --l-"- T-- -==::::======---=--==
a ~I"'t:$i~ P6velo-pmen\.?ntks (3) Oe::;rgn 1lIl"ld CGl'l5lructlon 659..00.1 Bj O1wdc.per ij69.000 I Andrea
9 CQn.:lhuc(I()n:Admtm~!t.Q.tiOn \;;AN flaJkResf!Ne 16..4i5
10 T~hpDh Park lmp(Ol/eOl.t\rli:l ....... f-leIFlliijifOVimic!ili.S"UiiSiQI'\3M Oin'S.t. -----g.:,Q.:lw PM"i:Re's&;ve -"'!"~~llID OO.fiopt--...... y ......-- -....--.... -- --'y -- 29Q.900 A~a---- park1ecev'UiGPme~Biiii"~I(i ~e'(;N~mon~dU~'20ti'...". ~~-
11 P.ar((J(IQ: lOt.PlaY91uutld Oe.-stgn.ani C<in~( :A.)4(J OOI1<JlIOrJ.!J 54.340
t2 Potll.>ng t.uI;.Pl.a-f9(OUM Desl9n and Connt ,.q"..6,.JSCI T~ Levy 1.05&.300
13__ h Par~O!:Pt__!Y9f!?,!!'l4~Jlg!!..!.~~n$! -L1lJ.~ qt~'L--___ ~<&9 --- --- --." -- .~~-------
14 ttl..lb~r Park t<<'pro~~nw.~\t$ Phase 1. P'<ItK Oel/(!/opm.ent J.~lSG$l4 Park. Rc-sel'\llil 1,4QQ.4l);! 1,4~o..4021 Mark Rofl~t~ rull c.<>nttad. wllh roeommepdnc{ deductilS aod cor~lruetlr;u, fata ~7
15 {b'd\.ld~ bo~ lauflch. ltTofee Oriv$ ParlUna. Pha'fle 1. Park, O~Vefcpm6nt ::::>>.4lIl Grant-a 226..SOO I I I ON~ bo<ll faullCb grMf. ONR IraiJ grant, U.iRWQ tlo~ lalttld\gran(
16 and pmver Sine undetgroonQlnQ) ?11aSEt 1: Patk De-"dopme-nt ~3<).t~ OQt'\;o.tlOml 235,658 . fnc=ludes.illt dDnati{J[J$ and oUter {lIndlrll;J S>.lUt'Cejlj in PfI))-ect
11 .,. ." ~. ..Ptla:Ktl.Parkneyeto~nt ,'. Zl::"'.anj; ~~m!>>,lS. ~ ',,, ..~.~?1.~!~ .,'~ _. . "'< ,h' '"" ~~.' ~ _~ " ''''', ".,.......~,. ... ".,
':"~i: ,'. :~.!:2:...'. t&S.......l1.~..;;'.~~....'~-~.:::...~.,~.]}"'~t~~:I~~~on -2'~ ~~'.~~ ~ }'J.,:-.:;:\~~~Sf/!om!l~'f'!. tt':.l')~.:t"tI,y~..., ('h"\~~>"-':,\'"s::.:;"14j,,;~,.,"",, ~--"'" ~"r_'_-M-""",'
~!~~~Ro~ca':-=-~~I::~:~::'::==~=~~i~~~,~=:"~~~C==~~=-J-' ---~~.I".==-=~= Mill, __~~~~~~.~:~~::~:2~::~:::::=~~=~=_=-=~
~: i?~~:~:~~!~-99_fE~~l!_~-~"~~~~~~1~~~f:~~~~- ~~i~~~ ~-- --.~b~~"[_n'-~I]$H[~-~~~_)I_~T"--''i6:060.~-~~'QQQ- ~~~_.MW~.,"" ~~~~~'~~r:~~~tf~~fa~~~1~~~'k~lal~~>d (u~-;~OO~:anup~~'-
.25 ,(;qt'l${\Wt\Qn 7ro,!t.)iJ 1~(renIS 210.500 2.80,00{) 260.000 R<<:.oai~2.1(),500i.t\grat'lI$Il\2006.2000,
2S , '~N_'-~"''''''H,-~~~_\*-!i~--_...._-,--~-~~!!QQ'IQg$,J..tl~~ ---~~---- -...--- __1~.Q29".!~...J!lgr.ggQ__~'H_~__''''_''____ ~!1{!j!:t9..l~~Ql~~~.!...J?,1t~!!l!"Jl~~__"N____""u_____________""",
27 LiOf\/l P.ark tmptov-ement'i> ----i.~ns1(Uctlon and lrnp{ovemcols. 2-tj~c:l Park ResElI'.'e f 195,25D ~ 5[}J"lD Andrea Second sheet of lOll in 2007. Picnic she[tIH in 2010..
"~;;;;~~~1~1~~1;;J;::~~,
..----- --- ..- -- f ,- f 1 F - ~._'-"'" - , -- --
~~~~~~i~~~i~;;ff-:flli~~~~--=~=-=;~~~
45 .!!'Y~~"'!.!lli'!!~f!'H!i~~!l1~~)_jf!!,jll!l!!l"_CS!m;ffi!."~~_-_- "__~.E~H ~~~..;;;---+--.----'-.-.-t"-,..---." --:t:,~~~!50 ... ------ A119L~_..__ -----. -.---." .-.-=- -- ~----..-.::.'""-
~~~Ai:~i~~~~I~-=:~~~~~~:-=i~~~-==-==:::-=:::~:~= - =-~=- -~
6\ "\It!'!ffi!.2g!!J<..~J.!;h,W!l'!~._ .=I'~"~llr_~~!l1'~!~!t____ _.......:__.!'.-'!;!':..R.~~.~ "_._"_"_ ----~-----..l-.,~-.....- ---.~.~ []l?~~ ..!P.!:1........_ ~~e:st.!2~()11~~H______.........~M_ .._M..........K....K...... .~ -"--=:.................-==-~..._-
~ ~~:~~li~t~r.;;ti~:~~--::f~~~~'i;~!""ti2t'--:--__.-.-.-:t~~-lfi.~~~~~..-::::c---"--~ ... ____ :...----- :'-=::-- ----.-..::j.__~~~~t----=- ~~~t:11---:::--=-------:-==_-:-_._-=- --=---=
~~'::li;JI:;~';s:~-~~i~ - ~~:rUo~' ai' ack 1~~~~W~~:=: _"_20QW_ aqlQQQ ""~4~:~ 4~~~- 4~:~-i~~ ~Q~... ~~e~~:~t~~~=r~~~:~d(J&ln2012. - ""' -- ...-...... .-........ "'''''~
50 Tatd 2Z.5t1~ 52::! 4,SSL:l'.!:? 5.75191S J,OJZ.~so <\,E:",...,7$) ~_t21"'..5ii .L.2.,O,OOQ
51 flG,vefluelCrecfit6" Oa"t1 two ~Gt:lmAtlil { 6l3Q,'2G<Je 1;H2CoQ7 tl1i2iXiS iitf.2OOil 1:il2()10 1ni2010 Co mvnffJ
~~~.=~~~~~~~.~~~~:~~~:=~-=:
"--"'---- ~-""" ~-~--~--+-~-~-~..'j"".'""",........,;~_:--~
I~~t~~~~~~~-~~~~~~
77 ii"AI~!!I!fI! ~ ~~~.l!'..~~enl.,,~, _~ .....--1 __ . '.' 4;1v,9UOL...~O.l)f)O t_ .!.'hlooo 440 9r)i) ~EOOO~l'rlenf Qn M!l02.. . -....--. -,- .'-"'~
E ~!~*')t~~-",,:.<.. c* - .', ~".,! ",'N",,-" <..1 ,;-::~""',.,,...;, '''f'''' "'-.;;; ,~. .",.,,;,: ',,,',,<', I"" l~;t ~02.llii1 "","~~ '".'~~%.~l' "-""'::~:, .;:;;,,::.:, ,"" >>=~.,;: WI<,iT-,,,,:,,,,..;_' ~",- .. "''''-'"'''V:J~:'_''~''~:~::;:;:''''\:''-'-~'')~_ :;~""&~,,\_4'@,,~"_;::::
5'1 Total Revenue/Credits 6.144,300 .i';2.4.H7 4,Q4t3. ~7 4,00: ,1fJ7 1 2~OO,Qa1 1,C5li 7.37
: f>alkR$l;lr...~f'oJndE"f'G''od\tures 2,611,621 4,8S8,8S? 2.701.75>;;i I 2.191,150 l,:560,25C I 3.TtlH.oo
65 Total }(frturl!s 4 1.jS 5767 9tq 3032.260 '\ 653. 160 120.2..';1) 4270,000 ---
.ae 1.2131 SIding f'atk fflt$eNQ BaUl\.:&. 493,033 935.402:1 1,014,611 ~33.9S7 815,737 ..:3.'f83J-63:
01
. BS a..1B.06