Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 06, 2002 TENTATIVE AGENDA ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South Mayor William Mars presiding 1] Roll Call (at 6:00 p.m.) 2] Approval of Agenda 3] Library Design Discussion A. Approve Plans and Specifications, and Authorizing the Advertisement of Bids for Construction of the Shakopee Library - Resolution No. 5667 4] Other Business MARCH 6, 2002 5] Adjourn at 6:55 p.m. TENTATIVE AGENDA CITY OF SHAKOPEE REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, M1NNESOTA MARCH 6, 2002 WEDNESDAY - LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South Mayor William P. Mars presiding 14] Recommendations from Boards and Commissions: None TENTATIVE AGENDA March 6, 2002 Page 2- 15] General Business A] Parks and Recreation B] Community Development 1. Pat Lank Construction Appeal of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals' denial of a Variance from the Rear Yard Setback Requirements — Res. No. 5665 C] Public Works and Engineering 1. Overhead Power Lines Relocation on Valley View Road Project —tabled 2/19 *2. Blue Lake Watershed Drainage Improvement Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) —Res. 5656 3. Pheasant Run Street Sidewalk Project D] Police and Fire * 1. Fire Department Rescue Van — Reject Bid E] Personnel * 1. Completion of Probationary Period for Fire Fighters *2. Accept Resignation of Firefighter and Authorize Filling Two Vacancies F] General Administration 1. Establishing Penalties for the Sale of Alcohol to Minors — Ord. No. 621 *2. Setting Date for Tobacco Violation Hearings 3. Changes to Public Buildings Reroofing Contract and the Architectural Contract 4. Murphy's Landing Action 16] Council Concerns 17] Other Business 18] Adjourn to Tuesday, March 12, 2002, at 4:30 p.m. -#(, 3 1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Library Action DATE: February 28, 2002 #0\ The Council is asked to review cost estimates and final plans for the new Shakopee Public Library. If the Council is comfortable, it will also be able to adopt plans and specifications, and authorize advertisement for bids. x"R e - 19L"I At its meeting on February 26 the Council gave approval to call for a special meeting to begin at 6:00 pm on Wednesday, March 6 to precede the regular 7:00 Council meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to review nearly final plans for the Library building. The Council last met to review the Library plans on January 15 Since that time, BKV Architects has worked to incorporate the changes that were directed. BKV will make a 20 to 25 minute presentation at this meeting, to be certain that Council is completely comfortable with the plans and specifications. By March 6 they will also have the final cost estimate back from the estimator. The estimate may have an impact on the plans as they are finaled. Note that one of things that we will want to discuss are the deduct alternates on the bid schedule. One alternate that was previously on the schedule is that of demolition. The architect and I are recommending that that not be included as a deduct alternate, but instead be specified to be performed by the contractor. Councilor Sweeney had previously suggested that this might be done by Scott County as a cost savings effort. However, there are two problems: 1. Coordination — If there is an undue delay between the time that the project is awarded to the contractor, and when the site is cleared and ready to start construction, the contractor may be able to claim damages for lost productivity. Having demolition be the responsibility of the building contractor eliminates that potential problem. 2. The recent discovery of remnants of dry cleaning chemicals from several decades ago make the potential for groundwater and soil clean up a probability. Part of the soil cleanup will need to take place by cleanup professionals while demolition is underway, and part of it after demolition is completed. There is a concern that having a third party do cleanup may create compliance problems with cleanup standards, if proper precautions are not taken. The original budget for the demolition was anticipated to be $35,000. For a fraction of that in savings, the architect and I feel that the risk is too great. Also please note that the architect and City Attorney are doing some additional work on the need to provide provisions for "prevailing wages" to be specified in the contract. It appears at this time that because no State or Federal dollars are being used, there would not be a requirement to specify prevailing wages to be paid for labor on the project. The Council may choose to include that, however. (In theory, the requirement to have prevailing wages paid may increase the labor costs on the project). If the Council is comfortable with the plans and specifications and wishes to proceed to receive bids, by authorizing the bid tonight, it would assure that an award could be considered at the April 16 City Council meeting. f :3i1T u ' The architect anticipates having the cost estimate at the meeting. The existing budget and timetable is attached. Note that $14,254 is estimated to be the cost of the Phase II investigation; there is $30,000 budgeted for environmental clean up. While total soil corrections will likely exceed that amount, it is also possible that grant monies would be available to offset those soil clean up costs. I��K�a►� ►1: �► If the Council is in agreement with the plans and specifications, and is comfortable with going to bid, I recommend that plans and specifications be adopted, and that staff be authorized to advertise for bids to be taken on the project. If the Council is not totally comfortable, it should direct that the architect make whatever revisions necessary, and that the bid package be brought back to the March 16 City Council meeting. If the Council wishes to proceed, it should, by motion, adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 5667 A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PUBLIC LIBRARY IN SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Mark McNeill City Administrator u - luv l Shakopee Public Library (131,650) (Optional) A2 Reduce Canopy Size PRO ECT6( �DGETANLt: GOSTE57TMA. TE:;:;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::_::::::: Pte�imiliaiy$ tl dget:.:,> :.:.:.:.:.:.::: SD; FStimaYe :.::.fID:f7evi5edstrrrt8fe: '- `���•�•� -` - . ; •�lpne 4 2001 - ; - Nov�mbzr7.20a1 Janriary.T5.,;2002 (4,870) A6 Deduct Site Furniture (8,300) A7 Delete Cork Flooring (3,550) . ............................... ........... . •.•...•... - ..........:.•.•. .... :::: ::•:•:-:....••••- • ... :::::: PROPERTY COST Land Cost 0 City Owned City Owned City Owned Soils Correction allowance $50,000 $50,000 $30,000 Survey allowance $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 Preliminary Soils Testing $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 Financing costs verify Unknown Unknown - Unknown Legal fees verify $10,000 $10,000 $ Other fees verify $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $72,500 $72,500 $52,500 CONSTRUCTION COST Building Cost Budget @ $175 per s.f. Size 24,000 s.f. $4,200,000 $4,137,000 $4,285,100 Site Development Costs $185,000 $163,000 $192,800 (including building demolition) Deduct Alternates (Balance Budget) $0 $0 - $92,900 (See Options Below) Building & Site Subtotal $4,385,000 $4,300,000 $4,385,000 Hazardous Material Assess /Abate Included Above $0 $50,000 SUBTOTAL $4,385,000 $4,300,000 $4,435,000 OTHER PROJECT EXPENSES Professional Fees $395,000 $395,000 $395,000 Needs Assessment Fee $0 $0 $0 Furniture & Equipment Allowance Furniture County Expense $0 $0 Signage County Expense $0 $0 Audio Visual County Expense $0 $0 Telephones County Expense $0 $0 Equipment $0 $0 $0 Moving Expense City Operating Budget $0 $0 Water Availability Charge .. ..., allowance $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 MCES Sewer Charges allowance $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 City Sewer Charge allowance $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 Reimbursables, printing, travel etc. allowance $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 Special Testing costs allowance $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Subtotal $436,000 $436,000 $436,000 Subtotal Project Costs $4,893,500 $4,808,500 $4,923,500 Owner's Contingency 10.00% $489,350 $480,850 $492,350 COST ESTIMATE 382,8501 $5,289,350 $5,415,850 Deduct Alternates Al Delete Roof Monitors (131,650) (Optional) A2 Reduce Canopy Size (19,340) A3 Delete Wood Ceiling (38,140) A4 Revise Susp. Ceiling (9,490) A5 Delete Plaza Pavers (4,870) A6 Deduct Site Furniture (8,300) A7 Delete Cork Flooring (3,550) A8 Delete Rubber Flooring (1,870) Total Deduct Alternates (217,210) Project Budget and Cost Estimate - D Dcost- budget- 01 1502.xls Project: Shakopee Library Project No. 1536.01 CLIENT: Shakopee Public Library - ARCHITECT: BKV Group 1) a) Schedule Review • Construction Documents Phase 1/16-3/19 • Owner Meeting 9:00 — General /M /E Review 1/29 • Owner Meeting 10:30 — Interior Materials & Finishes 2105 • Owner Furniture Meeting — Janet & Jeff Kelley 2108 • Final Furniture /Electrical Location Plan from JKA to BKV 2/15 • Cost Estimate — 85% CD 2125-3/04 • CD Completion 100% 3/06 • City Council Meeting — Scope /Cost/Alts /Approval to Bid 3106 • Owner Final Review and BKV Tech Review 3107-3/15 • Owner Final Review Comments to BKV 3112 • Review Revisions by BKV 3/12-3/15 • Plot Final Documents and Certify 3/18 • City Council Meeting — Approval to Bid (if necessary) 3119 • Print Bidding Documents /Permit Application 3/20 • Bid Period (Including Asbestos Abatement & Soil Clean -up) 3/21-4/16 • Bids Due — 11:00 am 4/16 • City Council Meeting — 7:00 pm (Bid Recomm /Award) 4116 (or 4/23 special) • Contract Preparation /Notice to Proceed 4/17-4/26 • Owner Move -out 4/17-4/26 • Asbestos Containing Material Abatement (By City) 4/29-5/03 • Building Demolition & General Contractor Mobilization 5/06 — 5/15 +/- • Contaminated Soil Removal and Clean -up (By City) 5/13-5/24 • Turn -over Clean Site to Contractor 5/27-5/31 • Construction Period to Substantial Completion 5/27 — 6/30/03 • Furniture Installation and Equipment Move -in 6/30 — 7/31/03 • Full Occupancy 8/01/03 b) Bidding Alternates i) Al — Delete Roof Monitors (Confirmed — include in project base bid) ii) A2 — Reduce Canopy Size iii) A3 — Delete Wood Ceiling iv) A4 - Revise Suspended Ceiling v) A5 — Delete Plaza Pavers vi) A6 — Not used vii) A7 — Revise Stone Foundation Veneer to Brick C) C: \WINDOWS \Temporary Internet Files \OLKE2A5 \Schedule - Alternates 022202.DOC 1 of 1 RESOLUTION NO. 5667 FOR BEDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC LIBRARY IN • PEE, MR WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that there is a need for a replacement Library for the site located at 235 South Lewis Street; and WHEREAS, the City has retained the services of BKV Architectural Group for the programming and design of said replacement Library; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the plans and specifications, and finds that they are acceptable, and deems it appropriate that bids shall be solicited for construction. THEREFORE, • 1 BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF • PEE, MINNESOTA 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file and of record in the Office of the City Clerk, are hereby approved. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The Advertisement for Bids shall be published as required by law. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 2002. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk -# 3 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Environmental Services - Library DATE: March 5, 2002 I spoke with Kevin Pierson of RESPEC Environmental Services about the status of the Phase II environmental investigation. He indicates that they have completed the work plan (at a cost of $1600) and have submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for approval. He also gave me the contact number for an individual at the MPCA to check the status of the work plan. I spoke with Wayne Sharrapo at the MPCA. Normally, this would take a week to review. However, Mr. Sharrapo indicates that because of the State - hiring freeze, they have not been able to replace a vacancy that has occurred (as I understand it). In addition, the "technical" person who would be reviewing this has been off work for a week due to surgery, and there is a considerable backlog. Therefore, while the MPCA will proceed as quickly as possible, we need to be prepared for at least some delay on this. Once the MPCA approves the work plan, RESPEC will send a soil driller to the site, to drill as deep as 60' to bedrock, and take a sample of the groundwater. If there is no groundwater contamination, there will be only minim clean up required. If there is groundwater contamination, monitoring and other wells may need to be installed on site, and soil cleanup will be needed as well. I hope at this time that we will be able to keep the existing schedule, but the uncertainty of the MPCA review is a concern. (As the individual at MPCA remarked, government is often seen as being unimportant, until there is a project such as this that is dependent upon a review and approval.) Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:th CC: Tracy Coenen City Council Shakopee Public Library Shakopee, Minnesota 1536.01 Shak opee Pub x•,' r •,,, NfUX 60AAH"Tiff , • a Presentati • •r and Request t Bid 11 Architect, Structural, Mechanical, Electrical Engineer and Interior Design: Boarman Kroos Vogel Group 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Con i 71ti, �c Architect: Jeff Kelley Architects 4827 Queen Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55410 Civil Engineer: Scoell & Madsen 10580 Wayzata Blvd. Suite 1 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Landscape Architect Damon Farber Associates 253 Third Ave South Minneapolis, MN 55415 Cost Estimator: Constructive Ideas, Inc. Suite 300, 901 Jefferson Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Shakopee Public Library Shakopee, Minnesota 1536.01 documents, BKV Group is pleased to submit to the Shakopee City Council this final Construction Document Phase Report on the completed -• and final cost Completed •`•; available • and we will obtair comments final staff a r incorporation pri• to issuing a • documents. received We request approval to proceed with public bidding, for bids to be on or before April 16, 2002. David Kroos, Principal John Sponsel, Manager Group, Em MEETING MINUTES CLIENT: Shakopee Public Library - Meetings CD #1 &2 Dates: 1122 & 1/29102 ARCHITECT: BKV Group (UPDATE PRESENT: Mark McNeill, Tracy Coenen DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1) General a) Schedule Review • Construction Documents Phase 1/16-3/19 • Owner Meeting 9:00 — General /M /E Review 1/29 • Owner Meeting 10:30 — Interior Materials & Finishes 2/05 • Owner Furniture Meeting — Janet & Jeff Kelley 2/08 • Final Furniture /Electrical Location Plan from JKA to BKV 2/15 • Cost Estimate — 85% CD 2/25-3/04 • CD Completion 100% 3/06 • City Council Meeting — Scope /Cost/Alts /Approval to Bid 3/06 • Owner Final Review and BKV Tech Review 3/07-3/15 • Owner Final Review Comments to BKV 3112 • Review Revisions by BKV 3/12-3/15 • Plot Final Documents and Certify 3/18 • City Council Meeting — Approval to Bid (if necessary) 3/19 • Print Bidding Documents /Permit Application 3/20 • Bid Period (Including Asbestos Abatement & Soil Clean -up) 3/21-4/16 • Bids Due — 11:00 am 4/16 • City Council Meeting — 7:00 pm (Bid Recomm/Award) 4116 (or 4123 special) • Contract Preparation /Notice to Proceed 4/17-4/26 • Owner Move -out 4/17-4/26 • Asbestos Containing Material Abatement (By City) 4/29-5/03 • Building Demolition & General Contractor Mobilization 5/06 — 5/15 +/- • Contaminated Soil Removal and Clean -up (By City) 5/13-5/24 • Turn -over Clean Site to Contractor 5/27-5/31 • Construction Period to Substantial Completion 5/27 — 6/30/03 • Furniture Installation and Equipment Move -in 6/30 — 7/31/03 • Full Occupancy 8101103 b) Bidding Alternates i) Al — Delete Roof Monitors ii) A2 — Reduce Canopy Size ill) A3— Delete Wood Ceiling iv) A4 - Revise Suspended Ceiling v) A5 — Delete Plaza Pavers vi) A6 — Revise Wood Paneling Manufacturer vii) A7 — Revise Stone Foundation Veneer to Brick viii) A8 — Revise Carpet Tile to Broadloom c) Hazardous Materials — City provide Asbestos & Ph. 1 Environmental Reports for Bid Doc's. Q: \PROJ\ 1536 -01 \BUS \Schedule - Alternates 030602.DOC 1 of 1 Shakopee Public Library Updated for Furniture Budget PROPERTYCOST Land Cost 0 City Owned City Owned City Owned City Owned Soils Correction (Not Incl- Haz. Mat) allowance $50,000 $50,000 $30,000 $30,000 Survey allowance $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 Preliminary Soils Testing $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 Financing costs verify Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Legalfees verify $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Otherfees verify $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $72,566F $72,500 $52,500 $52,500 CONSTRUCTION COST Building Cost Budget Site Development Costs $185,000 $163,000 $192,80C $210,400 (including building demolition) Value Engineering Reductions $0 $0 -$92,900 -$113,400 (See Itemized List Attached) Building & Site Subtotal $4,385,000 $4,300,000 $4,385,000 $4,573,570 Hazardous Material Assess/Abate Included Above $0 $50,0 0 $50,000 SUBTOTAL $4,385,000 $4,300,000 $4,435,006 $4,623,570 OTHER PROJECT EXPENSES Professional Fees (Building & Site) 9% $395,000 $395,000 $395,000 $395,6 Professional Fees (Furniture) 9% Included Below Rev. to City Expense $23,400 $23,400 Needs Assessment Fee $0 $0 $0 $0 Furniture & Equipment Allowance Furniture ($260,000 est) County Expense $0 $0 $0 Signage (Included abv) County Expense $0 $0 $0 Audio Visual County Expense $0 $0 $0 Telephones County Expense $0 $0 $0 Moving Expense City Operating Budget $0 $0 $0 Water Availability Charge allowance $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 MCES Sewer Charges allowance $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 City Sewer Charge allowance $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 Reimbursables, printing, travel etc. allowance $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 Special Testing costs allowance $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $436,000 1 $436,000 $459,406 $459,400 Subtotal Subtotal Project Costs $4,893,5 00 � $4,808500 $4,946,900 $5,135,470 Owners Contingency 10.00% $489,350 $4 80:850 $494,690 $513,547 Deduct Alternates All Delete Roof Monitors (131,650) (138,360) (Optional) A2 Reduce Canopy Size (19,340) (21,870) A3 Delete Wood Ceiling (38,140) (30,430) A4 Revise Susp. Ceiling (9,490) (9,680) AS Delete Plaza Pavers (4,870) (6,300) AS Revise Wd. Panel Mfr. (8,200) A7 Delete Stone Fndn. (20,800) A8 Carpet Tile to Broadl. (9,800) (203,490) (245,440) Total Deduct Alternates Building and Site Construction Cost Subtotal (From Above) 4,573,570 Less Deduct Alternates 1 (245,440) Net Building and Site Cost if All Deduct Alternates are Accepted 4,328,130 Project Budget and Cost Estimate '1 C Shakopee Library Comm. #1536.01 March 6, 2002 Item Description I Cost Savings Est. NEW DEDUCT ALTERNATES Alt #6 Wood Panel Substitution: Revise ceiling and railing wood panel product from WISA perforated panel system to 3/4" birch veneer MDO panels. $ (8,200) I Alt #8 Carpet Substitution: Revise all carpet tile to broadloom products. $ (9,800) Total Added to Alternates List $ (18,000) VALUE ENGINEERING REDUCTIONS I 1 Delete Interior Brick at Lobby: Substitute painted drywall, same configuration. Deletion includes Halfen lintel system, colored mortar, raked joints, bonded brick arches. Base? Finish? _ $ (13,500) 2 Window System Revision: Change to storefront in lieu of curtainwall, provide horizontal framing and aluminum cladding to reduce glass height and framing spans. (Excluding curved segmented corner unit). $ (18,70 3 Lobby Curtainwall System: Change to storefront in lieu of curtainwall, provide additional horiz ontal framing to reduce vertic spans. (8,000) 4 Lobby Roof Structure Revision: Reduce roof pitch to 1:12, delete standing seam metal roof, and metal panel fascia/soffit. Substitute adhered EPDM, and standard prefin. s.m. flashing and soffits. $ (10,000) - Reduce Parapet Height: Delete one 8" course of CMU and face brick. Revise south roof cap detail to standard flas hing profile to match remainder of building. Revise NW Round Column Platform: Delete stone paver finish, substitute stained concrete topping with aluminum edg tri $ ( 7,800) 6 7 Delete Fabric Ceilings: Delete from Meeting 110 and Heritage 214, plus delete acoustical batt insulation above and substitute 2x2 lay -in. $ (24,400 Ceiling Height Decrease: Drop main lay -in ceilings 6" for less finishing costs and increased mechanical clearances. South Roof Access: Revise roof access above 214 to delete above - ceiling ships ladder and drywall access panel, steel beam framing. Substitute smaller roof hatch (2 -6 x 4 -6) between regular joist framing, with accessible section of lay -in ceiling assy. I _ Irrigation a Site Furnit Delete all. Misc. Value Engineering Revisio $ (1, $ (2,500 $ (16,500) $ (11,000 8 9 10 11 Total Value Engin eering Reducti to Base Bid $ (11 3,400) CD costreductions.xls Page 1 Shakopee Public Library Shakopee, Minnesota 1536.01 Shakopee • .. Presentation Book and Re quest • Bid 11 Architect, Structural, Mechanical Electrical Engineer and Interior Design: Boarman Kroos Vogel Group 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Consulting Architect: 4827 Queen Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55410 Civil Engineer: Schoell & Madsen 10580 Wayzata Blvd. Suite 1 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Landscape Architect Damon Farber Associates 253 Third Ave South Minneapolis, MN 55415 Cost Estimator: Constructive Ideas, Inc. Suite 300, 901 Jefferson Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Shakopee Public Library Shakopee, Minnesota 1536.01 BKV Group is pleased to submit to the Shakopee City Council documents, final Construction Document Phase Report on the completed -• and final cost request We • p :•, to proceed public bidding, e bids to be received on or before April 16, 2002. David Kroos, • John Sponsel, • Manager BKV Group, sm MEETING MINUTES CLIENT: Shakopee Public Library - Meetings `CD #1 & 2 Dates: 1/22 & 1129102 ARCHITECT: BKV Group (UPDATE PRESENT: Mark McNeill, Tracy Coenen DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1) General a) Schedule Review • Construction Documents Phase 1/16-3/19 • Owner Meeting 9:00 — General /M /E Review 1/29 • Owner Meeting 10:30 — Interior Materials & Finishes 2/05 • Owner Furniture Meeting — Janet & Jeff Kelley 2/08 • Final Furniture /Electrical Location Plan from JKA to BKV 2/15 • Cost Estimate — 85% CD 2/25-3/04 • CD Completion 100% 3/06 • City Council Meeting — Scope /Cost/Alts /Approval to Bid 3/06 • Owner Final Review and BKV Tech Review 3/07-3/15 • Owner Final Review Comments to BKV 3/12 • Review Revisions by BKV 3/12-3/15 • Plot Final Documents and Certify 3/18 • City Council Meeting — Approval to Bid (if necessary) 3119 • Print Bidding Documents /Permit Application 3/20 • Bid Period (Including Asbestos Abatement & Soil Clean -up) 3/21-4/16 • Bids Due — 11:00 am 4/16 • City Council Meet, jg — 7:00 prn (Bid Recort mlAward) 4116 (or 4/23 special) • Contract Preparation /Notice to Proceed 4/17-4/26 • Owner Move -out 4/17-4/26 • Asbestos Containing Material Abatement (By City) 4/29-5/03 • Building Demolition & General Contractor Mobilization 5/06 — 5/15 +/- • Contaminated Soil Removal and Clean -up (By City) 5/13-5/24 • Turn -over Clean Site to Contractor 5/27-5/31 • Construction Period to Substantial Completion 5/27 — 6/30/03 • Furniture Installation and Equipment Move -in 6/30 — 7/31/03 • Full Occupancy 8/01/03 b) Bidding Alternates i) Al — Delete Roof Monitors ii) A2 — Reduce Canopy Size iii) A3 — Delete Wood Ceiling iv) A4 - Revise Suspended Ceiling v) A5 — Delete Plaza Pavers vi) A6 — Revise Wood Paneling Manufacturer vii) A7 — Revise Stone Foundation Veneer to Brick viii) A8 — Revise Carpet Tile to Broadloom c) Hazardous Materials — City provide Asbestos & Ph. 1 Environmental Reports for Bid Doc's. Q: \PROJ\ 1536 -01 \BUS \Schedule - Alternates 030602.DOC 1 of 1 Shakopee Public Library ,FRQJg�PT-RUP�P'gT..4NP:COS VP ... f" ' * * ..... .......... ............ ....................... ..... ..... ........ ... * ...... :7::: Updated for Furniture Budget .......................................... ........... .................... ........ .. .. .... .............. PROPERTYCOST Land Cost 0 City Owned City Owned City Owned City Owned Soils Correction (Not Ind. Haz. Mat) allowance $50,000 $50,000 $30,000 $30,000 Survey allowance $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 Preliminary Soils Testing $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 Financing costs verify Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Legal fees verify $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Otherfees verify $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $72,5 $72,500 $52,500 $52,500 CONSTRUCTION COST ' Eu - ilding Cost Budget Size 24,000 s.f. $4,200,000 $4,137,000 $4,285,100 $4,476,570 Site Development Costs $185,000 $163,000 $192,800 $210,400 (including building demolition) Value Engineering Reductions $0 $0 -$92,900 -$113,400 (See Itemized List Attached) Building & Site Subtotal $4,385,000 $4,300,000 $4,385,000 $4,573,570 Hazardous Material Assess/Abate Included Above $0 $50,0 0 1 $50,000 SUBTOTAL $4,385,000 $4,300,000 $4,435,000 $4,623,570 0 THER P F? OJECT EXPENSESS Professional Fees (Building & Site) 9% $395,000 $395,000 $395,000 $395,000 Professional Fees (Furniture) 9% Included Below Rev. to City Expense $23,400 $23,400 Needs Assessment Fee $0 $0 $0 $0 Furniture & Equipment Allowance Furniture ($260,000 est) County Expense $0 $0 $0 Signage (Included abv) County Expense $0 $0 $0 Audio Visual County Expense $0 $0 $0 Telephones County Expense $0 $0 $0 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 Moving Expense City Operating Budget $0 $0 $0 Water Availability Charge allowance $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 MCES Sewer Charges allowance $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 City Sewer Charge allowance $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 Reimbursables, printing, travel etc. allowance $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 Special Testing costs allowance $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $436,0001 S436,0001 $459,40� $459,400 Subtotal Subtotal Project Costs $4,893,500 $4,808 $4,946,900 $5,135,470 Owners Contingency 1 0'00% W9, $480850 $494,690 $513,547 COST ESTIMATE $5,382,850 $5,289,350 $5,441,590]1 $5,649,6 Deduct Alternates Al Delete Roof Monitors (131,650) (138,360) (Optional) A2 Reduce Canopy Size (19,340) (21,870) A3 Delete Wood Ceiling (38,140) (30,430) A4 Revise Susp. Ceiling (9,490) (9,680) A5 Delete Plaza Pavers (4,870) (6,300) A6 Revise Wd. Panel Mfr. (8,200) A7 Delete Stone Fndn. (20,800) A8 Carpet Tile to Broadl. (9,800) (203,490) (245,440) Total Deduct Alternates Building and Site Construction Cost Subtotal (From Above) 4,573,570 Less Deduct Alternates 1 (245,440) Net Building and Site Cost if All Deduct Alternates are Accepted 4,328,130 Project Budget and Cost Estimate - 1 CDcost-budget-030602-xls Shakopee Library Comm. #1536.01 March 6, 2002 Item Description I Cost Savings Est. NEW DEDUCT ALTERNATES Alt #6 Wood Panel Substitution: Revise ceiling and railing wood panel product from WISA perforated panel system to 3/4" birch veneer MDO panels. $ (8,200) Alt #8 Carpet Substitution: Revise all carpet the to broadloom products. $ (9,800) Total Added to Alternates List $ (18,000) VALUE ENGINE REDUCTIONS 1 Delete Interior Brick at Lobby: Substitute painted drywall, same configuration. Deletion includes Halfen lintel system, colored mortar, raked joints, bonded brick arches. Base? Finish? $ (13,500) 2 Window System Revision: Change to storefront in lieu of curtainwall, provide horizontal framing and aluminum cladding to reduce glass height and framing spans. (Excluding curved segmented corner unit). $ (18,70 3 Lobby Curtainwall System: Change to storefront in lieu of curtainwall, provide additional horizontal framing to reduce vertical spans $ (8,000) 4 Lobby Roof Structure Revision: Reduce roof pitch to 1:12, delete standing seam metal roof, and metal panel fascia/soffit. Substitute adhered EPDM, and standard prefin. s.m. flashing and soffits. $ (1 $ (7,800) - Reduce Parapet Height: Delete one 8" course of CMU and face brick. Revise south roof cap detail to standard flashing profile to match remainder of building. 6 Revisa I W Round Column Platform: Delete stone paver finish, substitute stained T concrete topping with aluminum ed trim 7 Delete Fabric Ceilings: Delete from Meeting 110 and Heritage 214, plus delete acoustical batt insulation above and sub stitute 2x2 lay -in. $ (24,400 Ceiling Height Decrease: Drop main lay -in ceilings 6" for less finishing costs and increased mechanical cle arances. i $ (1,000) South Roof Access: Revise roof access above 214 to delete above- ceiling ships ladder and drywall access panel, steel beam framing. Substitute smaller roof hatch (2 -6 x 4 -6) betwe r egular joist framing, with accessible section of lay -in ceili assy - $ (2,_500) j Irrigation a Site Furnit Delete all. $ (16,500) Misc. Value Engineering R evisions $- ( 11,000) 8 9 10 11 Total Value Engin Reducti to Base Bid - _ - __(113,400) CD costreductions.xls Page 1 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN • it CITY OF •' • . Regular Meeting March 6, 2002 1. Roll Call at 7:00 p.m. 2. Approval of the Agenda 3. Approval of Consent Business - (All items noted by an 4 are anticipated to be routine. After a discussion by the President, there will be an opportunity for members of the EDA to remove items from the consent agenda for individual discussion. Those items removed will be considered in their normal sequence on the agenda. Those items remaining on the consent agenda will otherwise not be individually discussed and will be enacted in one motion.) A•) Approval of Minutes: a00 4. Financial A•) 4 Approval of Bills 5. Appointments to the Economic Development Advisory Committee — Res. No. 2002 -01 6. Small Cities Development Program A.) Update from Carver County HRA 7. Other Business: 8. Adjourn 1 1 I .I :1 SHAKOPEE, MF OTA ; 1 January 2,2002 Mayor Mars convened the meeting of the Economic Development Authority (EDA) at 7:12 p.m. for the purpose of electing officers forzhe EDA. Members Present: Mr. Mars, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Link, Mr. Joos, Mr. Lehman Members Absent: None Staff Present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator, R Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Bruce Loney (7:17), Public Works Director; Jim Thomson, City Attorney; Gregg Voxland (8:20), Finance Director; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinator; Mark McQuillan, Natural Resource Director; Dan Hughes, Chief of Police; Tracy Coenen, Management Assistant. I. Roll Call: Mayor Mars called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. Roll call was noted. H. Election of Officers: Mr. McNeill stated that Mayor Mars recommended that Bob Sweeney be President of the EDA for the year 2002. Joos/Link moved to nominated Bob Sweeney as the President of the EDA. There were no other nominations for president of the EDA. Joos/Link moved white ballot for Bob Sweeney as president of the EDA. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Mars passed the gavel to President Sweeney who now presided at the EDA meeting. Link/Mars moved to nominate Matt Lehman for the position of Vice - President of the EDA. There were no other nominations for vice- president of the EDA. Joos/Mars moved white ballot for Matt Lehman as vice- president of the EDA. Motion carried unanimously. Mars/Link nominated Terry Joos as treasurer of the EDA. There were no other nominations for treasurer of the EDA. Lehman/Mars moved white ballot for Terry Joos as treasurer of the EDA. Motion carried unanimously. Official Proceedings of the January 2, 2002 Economic Development Authority Page —2- M. Approval of the Agenda: Mars/Link moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Consent Agenda: Items on consent were: Item No. 4.a Approval of meeting minutes for November 7, and December 4, 2001. Item 5.a Approval of Bills. Link/Joos moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously. For purposes of voting on the two issues on the Consent Agenda, President Sweeney split the two issues. A.) Approval of Minutes for November 7, 2001 and December 4, 2001. Link/Joos moved to approve the November 7, 2001 and December 4, 2001 meeting minutes. Motion carried 2 -0 under the Consent Agenda. (Commissioners Lehman, Mars, Joos did not vote on these minutes because they were not on the EDA Board at the time). V. Financial: A.) Approval of Bills Link/Joos moved to approve the bills in the amount of $2,628.97 (Motion carried 5 -0 under the Consent Agenda). VI. Small Cities Develo Program: A.) Activity update from Carver County HRA. Mr_ Snook reported on the Small Cities Development Program activity for the month of December and explained the Small Cities Development Program for the new members of the EDA. Mr. Snook stated that the City of Shakopee was granted $741,000 of federal funds to fix up some of the blighted areas of Shakopee. This amount of money is divided into three (3) categories; Commercial, Rental Residential and Residential. This grant money would be available to the City under this program until September 1, 2002. Carver County BRA has been hired by the City to administer this grant and they submit monthly reports as to the status of the program to the EDA_ Carver County HRA reported for the month of December that has been no change in the commitment or allocation of figures to report from the month of December. Commissioner Link thought perhaps this spring the EDA needed to look at expanding the commercial area, so as much of the funds from this grant as possible, were used to improve businesses. Mr. Snook stated another option would be to reallocate the funds in other categories. Mr. Snook stated what the EDA is doing to promote the use of the funds in each category. President Sweeney felt personal contact was important for each business in marketing the grant program. Members of the EDA asked Mr. Snook Official Proceedings of the Economic Development Authority January 2, 2002 Page —3- and a committee, assembled by him, to report back to them monthly as to who and what businesses have been contacted regarding the grant program in the commercial area. Mr. Snook stated part of the problem with the commercial blighted areas taking advantage of the grant program has been the prevailing living wage rule, the Davis -Bacon Act, from the federal government. Other Business - There was no other business. VUL Adiourn: Link/Joos moved to adjourn the meeting to February 5, 2002. Motion carried unanimously_ The meeting adjourned at 7:38 p.m. J dith S. Cox DA Secretary Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary February 5, Ih Roll Call: President Sweeney called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Roll was taken as noted above. H. Approval of the Agenda: Mars/Lehman moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried 4 -0. Approval of the Consent Agenda: Mars /loos moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Motion carried 4 -0. Financial: A.) Approval of s Mars/7oos moved to approve the bills in the amount of $25,901.97 (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). V. CertainTeed Expansion; Application for Tax Abatement and Minnesota Investment Fund. Mr. McNeill presented the recommendations from the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) regarding applications for Tax Abatement and the Minnesota Investment Fund loan for the CertainTeed Corporation expansion. Mr. McNeill noted that an expansion at CertainTeed was needed for the firm to remain competitive. The firm employes 240 employees and with the expansion 44 new jobs would be created with the pay for the newly created jobs in the $17.00/$22.00 per hour range. The EDAC recommended to the EDA in November that the EDA recommend action to the City Council to proceed with this request. Under the Tax Abatement program the City Council can adopt up to 15 years for tax abatement of property taxes for CertainTeed. However, it is City policy and this policy was adopted by Scott County to limit the property tax abatement to six years. The Minnesota Investment Fund is a state fund that is administered by the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development. The value and the number of jobs created meet the requirements for this fund. The benefit to the City with Official Proceeding of the Economic Development Authority February 5, 2002 Page -2- Mars/Lehman moved to recommend to the City Council to proceed with processing CertainTeeds application for tax abatement and application fora Minnesota Investment Fund loan. Motion carried 4 -0. Mars /Joos moved to recommend to the City Council that the setting of a public hearing for the Minnesota Investment Fund loan for CertainTeed Corporation and the tax abatement for certain property within the City of Shakopee be set for March 6, 2002. Motion carried 4 -0. , , J. 3�/ J loth S. Cox EDA Secretary Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary q4 " CDRS CITY OF SAKOPEE Memorandacm TO: President & Commissioners Mark H. McNeill, Executive Director FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: EDA Bill List DATE: February 28, 2002 Introduction Below is a listing of bills for the EDA for the period 02/02/2002. Action Requested Move to approve bills in the amount of $14,779.25 for the EDA General Fund. Check Check Date Number Vendor Description Amount 02/14/02 72285 Carver Cc HRA Prof Service 14,760.00 02/25/02 72387 Qwest Telephone 19.25 Total $14,779.25 R5509FDO LOGIS007 Expenditures by Co (pb), Division CITY OF SHAKOPEE Expenditure Report by Company 2/28/02 Annual Current Month YTD Description Budget Actual Balance Balance 02190 EDA 19 EDA 317,180.00 19,858.22 24,890.06 292,289.94 02190 EDA 317,180.00 19,858.22 24,890.06 292,289.94 Exp. Avail. % 7.8 92.2 7.8 92.2 (�ff.p Imo. #�5 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Economic Development Authority Mark McNeill, Executive Director FROM: Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinat SUBJECT: Appointments to the Economic Development Advisory Committee MEETING DATE: March 6, 2002 Introduction: At its February 26, 2002 meeting, the City Council voted for openings on various boards and commissions. There were three candidates for the two openings on the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC), incumbent Brian Langdon, John Mauritz, and Jim Dorenkamp. For appointment to the EDAC, Brian Langdon and John Mauritz received the majority of votes. Jim Dorenkamp was appointed to the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board. The EDA is asked to appoint Brian Langdon and John Mauritz to the Economic Development Advisory Committee Action Required: Offer Resolution No. 2002 -01 and move its adoption. edacapptmemo 2 002. do c • • Ice • ] WON go U100 1 wa DIVA 6 1 101 . 1 -" • 1 1 Brian Langdon is appointed to the Economic Development Advisory Committee for a three -year term expiring February 28, 2005. John Mauritz is appointed to the Economic Development Advisory Committee for a three -year term expiring February 28, 2005. Adopted in regular session of the Economic Development Authority of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this 6th day of March 2002. President Economic Development Authority of the City of Shakopee ATTEST; Secretary TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEETING DATE CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum Economic Development Authority Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinate Small Cities Development Program (SCDP) - update March 6, 2002 Enclosed is the February 2002 update on the Small Cities Development Program (SCDP) from the Carver County HRA. In summary, the HRA reports the following SCDP funding activity: Amount % of Funds Amount Committed/ Committed/ % Change from Funded Allocated Allocated Previous Month Single Family Residential (goal: 30 units) $369 $204,393 55% +4% Rental Residential (goal: 30 units) $121,500 $82,500 68% NC Commercial $251,250 $70,603 28% +19% (goal: 15 units) TOTAL $741,750 $357,496 48 % +8% Note: The numbers in parentheses next to the property types listed above indicate the "rehabbed property unit goals" by property type for Shakopee's SCDP program, set by the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development. The program is being marketed one to two times per month to property owners in all three categories (not just commercial). This includes informational materials such as brochures and flyers, and staff follow -up with interested property owner I prospects to guide them through the application process at the HRA. Small Cities Shakopee Rehab Single- Family Project Program Rehabilitation Recap on the program To be eligible for the program, the applicant's income must be below 80% of the area median income. The homeowner will be eligible for a 50 to 100% grant depending upon their income. The homeowner would need to provide leverage ranging from 0 to 50 %. The HRA has low - interest loans the homeowner could apply for to use as their leverage requirement. However, if they are not eligible for a leverage source due to poor credit, too many debts, no equity, etc., the leverage requirement will be waived and they will receive a 100% Small Cities grant. The grant is a 0% interest, 10 -year deferred loan. If the homeowner stays in the home for 10 years, they will not have to pay the loan back. The loan is forgiven on a pro -rated basis of 10% per year. For example, if the homeowner moves out 3 years later they would be responsible for paying back to the City 70% of what they borrowed. After their application has been approved, Dave Schaffer, the HRA's Rehab Advisor, will schedule an appointment to inspect the home to determine what improvements can be done. Dave will draw up a work write -up for the homeowner to submit to contractors. It is the responsibility of the homeowner to select the contractor(s). After reasonable bids have been attained, the homeowner will schedule a time to close on the loan with the HRA. The HRA will make the payments to the contractor(s) after the work has been inspected by Dave Schaffer. The HRA will then submit a draw request to the City (to submit to DIED) for reimbursement. Single- Family Rehab Summary 14 applicants have closed on their loans and work is under way. 9 of those applicants have had all of their work completed. We have had no new inquiries. We will be sending out new marketing materials sometime this month to households in the new target area and the old target area as well. The HUD median income has risen, so we are hopeful that households that may have been over income in the past may not qualify. New Income Limits FAMILY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SIZE ANNUAL $36,750 $42,000 $47,250 $52,500 $56,700 $60,900 $65,100 $69,300 INCOME Amount Funded $369,000.00 Amount Committed $204,393.09 (closed on their loans) Amount Allocated $ 0.00 (have been approved) Balance Remaining $164,606.91 Applicants that have closed HRA Loan Number: NO NEW APPLICANTS TO REPORT Household Composition: Loan Amount: Gross Income: Improvements: Market Value of the Property: Rental Rehabilitation Project Recap on the program Any rental owner may apply for the program as long as their property is located in the targeted Small Cities Boundary. 51% of their rental units need to be leased by tenants at or below 80% of Metro Area Median Income, and the rents for all of the units would need to be at or below the Fair Market Rents. If the property is in the targeted area, and both the tenant's income and rent are within the allowable limits a property owner would be eligible for a deferred loan up to $10,000 per unit. A maximum loan amount is currently under advisement with city staff. The owner is required to match these dollars with a 50% match. This is a secured loan, which will be forgiven after seven years. Compliance of rent restriction and tenant characteristics is in force for the full seven years. The loan is forgiven on a pro -rated basis of 14.28% per year. After their application has been approved, Bill Schwanke, the HRA's Rehab Advisor, will schedule an appointment to inspect the rental property to determine what improvements should be incorporated into the scope of work. Bill will draw up a work write -up for the homeowner to submit to contractors. It is the responsibility of the homeowner to select the contractor(s). After reasonable bids have been attained, the property owner will schedule a time to close on the loan with the HRA. The HRA will make the necessary payments to the contractor(s), after Bill Schwanke has inspected the work. The HRA will then submit a draw request to the City (to submit to DTED) for reimbursement Rental Rehab Summary Carver County HRA has had 1 new inquiry regarding the Small Cities Rental Loan Program, however no new applications were received this month. Amount Funded $121,500.00 Amount Committed $ 67,500.00 (closed on their loans) Amount Allocated $ 15,000.00 (have been pre- approved) Balance Remaining $ 39,000.00 Applicants that have closed HRA Loan Number: NO NEW APPLICANTS TO REPORT Loan Amount: Number of Rental Units: Monthly Rent: Improvements: Market Value of the Property: Commercial Rehabilitation Project Recap on the Program Any commercial property owner may apply for the program as long as their property is located in the targeted Small Cities Boundary. Note: this boundary is the small area located in the core downtown area of the bigger Small Cities targeted area. Priority is given to owner occupied structures or where leases are currently in place. Building improvements must be directed toward correcting defects or deficiencies in the property affecting the aesthetics or the property safety, energy consumption, structural/mechanical systems, habitability or handicapped accessibility of the property. Owners are eligible for 50% of the total commercial repair costs, with a maximum loan up to $25,000. The loan is a deferred loan for seven years; which is pro- rated in case of sale. Commercial Rehab Summary 3 applicants have closed on their commercial loans and work in underway or completed. Two applications have been returned to the HRA and are in the process of being approved. The combined amount requested is approximately $47,000. Amount Funded $251,250.00 Amount Committed $23,841.98 (closed on their loans) Amount Allocated $46,762.00 (have been pre- approved) Balance Remaining $180,646.02 Applicants that have closed HRA Loan Number Loan Amount: Gross Income: Improvements: NO NEW APPLICANTS TO REPORT Market Value of the Property: OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MEXNESOTA JANUARY 15, 2002 Mayor Mars called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.. with Council members Lehman, Sweeney and Joos present. Absent: Council member Link. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; R Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Bruce Loney (7:17), Public Works Director, Jun Thomson, City Attorney; Gregg Voxland (8:20), Finance Director; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Mark McQuillan, Natural Resource Director, Dan Hughes, Chief of Police; Tracy Coenen, Management Assistant. The pledge of allegiance was recited. The following items were added to the Agenda. 15 E. 4 Engineering Technician II, Ryan Halvorson and 151.8 Application for Tattoo License for Claudia Baca. Sweeney/Lehman moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Mars reported on a few issues of concern. Mayor Mars wanted to set up a meeting to discuss some goals for the City of Shakopee. Mayor Mars also stated that it would be nice to see a State flag along with the American flag in the City Council Chambers. Mayor Mars stated that at all City Council meetings people would be required to state their name and sign in, when they approached the podium to speak. He also stated there had been some concerns recently at the Community Center and the way the Community Center personnel and the Shakopee Police Department handled the situation was excellent. Mayor Mars commended the Community Center personnel who handled the situation along with the Shakopee Police Department. Mayor Mars also approved of the Zero Tolerance Policy for trouble makers. The following items were added to the Consent Agenda. 15.0 1 School Resource Officer Agreement and 151.8 Application for Tattoo License for Claudia Baca. Sweeney /Joos moved to approve the Consent Agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney /Joos moved to table the minutes for December 4 and 11, 2001 because there was not enough Council members present tonight to vote on the minutes, who had been on the Council at the time the meetings were held. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Mars asked if there were any citizens present in the audience who wished to address any item not on the agenda. There was no response. Sweeney /Joos moved to approve the bills in the amount of $1,024,273.31 plus $137,202.28 for refunds, returns and pass through for a total of $1,161,475.59. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). [The list of bills is posted on the bulletin board at City Hall for one month following approval]. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council January 15, 2002 Page 2- Mr. McNeil, City Administrator, reported on the Scott County Jail Options presentation by Mr. Gary Shelton, Deputy County Administrator. Mr. Shelton was going to update the Council on some options available for the Scott County Jail. Mr. McNeill introduced Mr. Shelton. Mr. Shelton, Deputy County Administrator, gave a presentation of options available for the new Scott County Jail. Mr. Shelton gave a history of the jail and the process that Scott County has gone through to this date and gave a timeline of where Scott County wants to be with this project. Mr. Shelton stated there is great need for a new jail. The present jail was built in 1957 and has been remodeled a number of times and currently has many problems passing regulatory requirements. The minimum standards of the Department of Corrections are not met by the current jail as well as standards of other agencies. Over the years, agencies have been worked with to keep the facility open and operating while corrections are being planned; the current jail does not even meet the pre -1970 requirements. There is a concern for safety for the inmates, as well as, the community and the workers. The current jail will be closed September 2004 if it is not fixed up to meet the Department of Correction requirements. The jail committee offered five recommendations to the County. These recommendations are: 1) remodel and expand the current jail. This would be very expensive and there would virtually be no gain in size; 2) remodel and expand the jail annex out in Jordan. This basically is too remote of a location; 3) privatize the jail system. This option received no response when `s were sent out; 4) expand the pre -trial and alternative incarcerations i.e. home monitoring. This is already heavily used and does not address the problem; 5) merge with Carver County. This would result in very little gain. Scott County already has an agreement in place with Carver County. Because the above recommendations were not satisfactory, a recommendation was made to design and build an entire new facility in the vicinity of the current Justice Center and Government Building. Right now the County does not have a preferred site but is doing an analysis of the possible sites for this new jail taking into consideration many concerns. Some of these concerns were neighborhood concerns (safety, traffic), operational concerns (tunnel), future expansion and accessibility. Mr. Shelton listed the positives and negative of each possible site that was under consideration. Mr. Shelton stated that it would very difficult to meet the department of Corrections deadline of September 2004 to have all the necessary corrections done or to have the new jail ready. Mr. Shelton stated that there are almost daily incidents with offenders /prisoners at the current site and a new jail just makes the most sense for the long -term growth of the County. Mr. McNeill stated that a bond sale was conducted today by the City's financial consultant. Dave MacGillivary, with Springsted, the City's financial consultant, approached the podium and reported on the bond sale. This bond sale was for the award of sale of $1,185,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds series 2002A for the purpose of financing the 2000 street reconstruction project. With the use of electronic bidding being allowed eight bids were received. Springsted recommended that the sale of the bonds be awarded to Cronin & Company, Incorporated. Cronin & Company, Incorporated came in with an interest rate of 4.0126 %. The excellent bond rating (Al) that the City of Shakopee holds was very important to receive the low interest rate. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council January 15, 2002 Page —3- Joos/Lehman offered Resolution No. 5649, A Resolution Awarding The Sale Of $1,185,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2002A Fixing Their Form and Specification; Directing Their Execution and Delivery; And Providing For Their Payment, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Cncl. Joos reported on the School Board meeting. Cncl. Joos stated that according to the School Board there would be many issues regarding budget/budget cuts over the next couple of years. The School Board stated their interest in getting involved with the annexation of parts of Jackson Township. Cncl. Lehman stated that the tour of the City buildings was a very educational experience. Cncl. Joos and Mayor Mars concurred on this issue. Sweeney /Joos offered Ordinance No. 617, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Chapter 12, Subdivision Regulations, Section 12.03, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney /Joos offered Resolution No. 5648, A Resolution Of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota Approving An Amendment To The Preliminary Plat Of Greenfield, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. Leek, Community Development Director, approached the podium and reported on the proposed Valley Green Corporate Center by Ryan Development. Mr. Leek provided an overview of the presentation that would be presented this evening and he also noted some of the issues that have come up with the Planning Commission and the last City Council in 2001 in which some direction is needed. Some of the issues are: the amount of conservation area that is upland versus wetland, the use of mix uses and tax impacts of rezoning and reguiding, annexation issues, traffic impacts, recreational opportunities, and storm water drainage. Mr. Leek stated what is before the Council is a concept review in which the Council is asked to engage in and give their guidance as to whether or not this land use was appropriate and if Ryan Companies should pursue this concept any further. At this time, there was not a formal land use application before the Council for rezoning and reguiding and whatever the Council did tonight would only be advisory. Mr. Leek stated Mr. Jeff Schoenbauer is responsible for the public values and a summary of his report was on the table for all Council members to take a look at. Mr. Leek stated that the variances that would be requested for this residential segment were similar to the variances granted in the Stratford Village Development in Southbridge. The Council and Mr. Leek discussed the original zoning of the Dean Lake area. Mr. Leek stated that the PUD Ordinance allows very little room for flexibility, i.e. street width and setbacks; an amendment to the current PUD Ordinance to correct this flexibility problem is being worked on and will be sent to the Planning Commission for recommendation of approval to the City Council. Official Proceedings of the January 15, 2002 Shakopee City Council Page -4- Jeff Schoenbauer, the City's consultant from Brauer & Associates, approached the podium to give an overall picture of the development and then moved to more detail of the development and gave a summary of the community values that would be realized in the development. Mr. Schoenbauer stated that essentially under the conservation process and working collaboratively with the developer they were really trying to create a self - sustaining development that offers high community values and minimum financial burden on the City for maintenance of parks and open spaces. Mr. Schoenbauer felt he was successful in this effort with this concept. Mr. Schoenbauer highlighted some of the opportunities that he felt this commercial and residential concept of the development presented. The highlights are: 1) a very nice natural area for a residential component that would tie very well into the south side of the lake and take advantage of the infrastructure that is proposed for this area. 2) the Dean Lake master plan has parks planned for this area, 3) under the master plan for Dean Lake is also a high level of ecological protection and Mr. Schoenbauer stated that he wanted to make sure what was done in the Valley Green Corporate Center was done to a high level of ecological preservation. Mr. Schoenbauer stated under this concept of a mix of residential and business more conservation acreage was available by adding in the green space areas. The conservation areas would be encompassed with a conservation easement, a stewardship program that is paid for with development fees. This stewardship agreement would provide the maintenance of the open spaces at the developer's expense. This would put the mechanism in place for lessening the financial burden on the City to take care of the parks and open spaces. Mr. Schoenbauer spoke to the parkland dedication and the park dedication fund. He went through an analysis of the community values. Some of these values are: 1) natural open space areas, (some of these areas would be used for storm water management), 2) all parks and trails were maximized and would be open for public use, 3) stewardship agreement, a legal and binding agreement, with the developer for maintenance (lessening the financial burden to the City) of the conservation areas, as well as 4) larger setbacks from Dean Lake (ecological and visual improvement). Kent Carlson, with Ryan Companies, developer of the project, approached the podium and gave an overview of the business park and the residential community. There are three major components of the business park These are 1) the build to suit clientele area, 2) the lease multi tenant area and 3) the residential area. Mr. Carlson gave a range of figures of a commercial area versus the residential area. Mr. Carlson also stated that a residential area would be built out much sooner than a business area. Mr. Kent Carlson stated he would pick today's numbers and do a net present calculation for the City for a commercial and a commercial/residential mix and he would bring this information back at a future date. Official Proceedings of the January 15, 2002 Shakopee City Council Page —5- Chris Enger, Land Resources Manager for Ryland Homes, Twin Cities, approached the podium and stated Ryland Homes felt the concept they were presenting in conjunction with the Valley Green Corporate Center was an exciting, mixed -use community that combined the old with the new and lended itself to exceptional character. The home settings respect the natural environment in the community with the residential located near to jobs and services. Many of the concepts of the residential have been taken from concepts used in an Eden Prairie development. Ryland Homes is proposing four housing types with an abundance of trails and sidewalks respecting old Shakopee and the natural environment. There would be homes clustered together with the same design theme in an attempt to create small neighborhoods. The town homes (two story with side orientation) would fit the theme of the single- family homes. The homeowners /renters were expected to be young families with pre - school age children, young professionals, and I' and 2na move up buyers. The prices of the homes were estimated to be between $180,000- $250,000. Mr. Enger explained the design of the various homes proposed for the development. Cncl. Joos thought the Planning Commission was looking for direction to be given on side yard setbacks, street width and lot width, especially for the single - family detached homes and is this the type of community The City of Shakopee wanted? Cncl. Lehman stated the Council needed to decide if they wanted to deviate from the Comprehensive Plan designating this land commercial and rezoning the land to residential. Cncl. Sweeney stated that from the stand point of the City's finances, it appeared to him that a residential component would be satisfactory as opposed to an all commercial development in an area, at one time, that appeared completely commercial and industrial. Cncl. Sweeney stated the residential would be built right away and the commercial would be phased in over a ten -year period. Cncl. Lehman felt the residential component would be consistent with the land uses around. He wondered if there was another vehicle available to change the land use because of the location rather than an amendment to the Land Use Plan? Mr. Leek addressed this question and felt the answer was no. Mr. Schoenbauer stated that all Cities that have worked with conservation development projects have accepted variances on setbacks and lot widths. Mr. Schoenbauer stated the City's have weighed all the pros and cons and felt the area lost that required these setback variances was made up in the conservation areas, thus resulting in a better ecological development. The developer appeared to be reacting to what the Planning Commission, City Council, and City staff were asking for. Mr. Schoenbauer stated the City Engineering Department was comfortable with the thirty-foot wide streets. Brian Sullivan, RLK Kuususto, Minnetonka, approached the podium and addressed the 30 -foot wide commercial road. Mr. Sullivan stated that this road is a minor collector street that bisects Official Proceedings of the January 15, 2002 Shakopee City Council Page —ti- the retail development from the office showroom development. Mr. Sullivan stated the reason for this proposed 30 -foot road was traffic generation was not significant. This minor collector street will have traditional turn lanes at the intersection. There was consensus on the Council's part for residential in the area; that the side setback variance was okay but they would like the lot width and street width addressed; they were okay with a formal application being made. Mr. Leek clarified the proposed parking. Sweeney/Lehman moved to send the Valley Green Corporate Center back to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for them to move forward on the issue. Mr. Loney, Public Works Director /City Engineer approached the podium and stated that a thirty - foot street was fine in the residential area with parking on one side; he had been aware of the thirty foot street width in the commercial area. This commercial street would need to be looked at more in- depth. Motion carried unanimously. A recess was taken at 9:35 p.m. Mayor Mars re- convened the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Mr. Leek reported on the petition for annexation of certain lands to the City of Shakopee. Mr. Leek stated that a number of property owners, hired Dave Brown as their representative, have petitioned the City for annexation. Maps of the properties asking for annexation were included in the Council members packets. (Properties owned by Shakopee Valley Training Farms, Inc. LeRoy and Lila Bauer, and Norbert and Corrine Theis.) The amount of acreage in this annexation request is approximately 120 acres. The petition requests annexation by ordinance. If after 90 days there is no opposition to the annexation by the township or the municipality the City can move forward to annex the property by ordinance. The purpose of this item on the agenda this evening is to get direction from the Council, whether they see any objections to the annexation from the perspective of the City of Shakopee; and direction on whether City staff should begin to look at the preparation of an ordinance for annexation subject to the 90 day period. Mr. Leek noted that the subject of annexation is something the County, School District and the City has been discussing. There was a letter on the table from School Superintendent, Jon McBroom, indicating that the school district wished to be included in the discussions on annexation. The school district at this time is not one of the petitioners for annexation but because they have property near the proposed to be annexed parcels, the school district would like to be involved in the discussions. Mr. Leek gave a brief history of the attempt to get an orderly annexation agreement with Jackson Township. Mr. Leek felt a more coordinated approach to annexation would be better than the piecemeal attempts now, but at present the coordinated approach would need to wait. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council January 15, 2002 Page —7- Sweeney /Joos moved to direct City staff to begin looking at the preparation of an ordinance for annexation subject to the 90 -day period for approximately 128 acres lying East and West of county Road 77 and South of T.H.169. David Brown, 1227 Pioneer Lane, Dave Brown Realtors, approached the podium to address the annexation issue. Mr. Brown stated that if the school property were added to the current petition for annexation the acreage would be over the limit allowed for a petition by ordinance. Mr. Brown did state that he did go to the school district to let them know what he was attempting to do. Mr. Brown stated there are other parcels in Jackson Township that want to be annexed. Jon McBroom, 6671 Danbury Curve, School Superintendent for Shakopee Schools, approached the podium and stated that right now the school district is not contemplating annexation; it is a likely proposition for the future, however. Right now the school district needs to get the roads and access determined by Scott County to the future school district site. Mr. McBroom stated that the School Board went on record stating the school district would like to be included as active participants in discussion of this annexation issue be it annexation by ordinance or an orderly annexation agreement. Mr. McBroom declared the school district is prepared to start talking and to work in concert with the City about annexation in the big picture if this is what the Council is prepared to do. Motion carried unanimously. Lehman/Sweeney moved to direct staff to work with school district staff and help them move forward with their piece of property that is adjacent to the proposed parcels for annexation by ordinance, to get the County to determine the access and the road alignment. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. McNeill, City Administrator, approached the podium and stated at the workshop meeting, on January 8 regarding the design of the Shakopee Library and the preliminary design for the new Police station there were some questions raised and David Kroos, Architect/Designer for the BKV Group, was in attendance to answer some of these questions. Mr. Kroos would like some direction as to whether a brick cavity wall or a pre -cast panel should be used. David Kroos, Boarman, Kroos, Vogel Group, Inc., approached the podium to answer the questions that had been raised. David Kroos, Architect on the Library and Police building, reiterated that he had been asked to do a cost analysis comparing a brick cavity wall to various types of pre -cast panels. Mr. Kroos received cost estimates for pre -cast panels from three different companies. After the Council made their tour of the current City buildings last Saturday, the Council now was uncomfortable using pre -cast panels. The Council wanted to make the exteriors of the building as low maintenance as possible based on what they saw. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council January 15, 2002 Page —8- Mr. Kroos was given the direction that the City Council wanted to use a brick cavity wall for the City buildings. There was discussion on the type brick to be used (large or small). The Council went through the cost controls and reduction amounts in the report. Some of the reductions would come in the BKV Group's attempt to economize the brick surface exterior, as well as, interior surface area; windows, outside canopy, operable partition walls, miscellaneous finish options and furniture. Mr. Kroos will bring back some cost saving deductions after the BKV estimator has had a chance to look at the design documents. Mr. Kroos noted that whatever materials were used for the Police building, a precedent would be set for what is done at City lull. Mr. Kroos clarified a few items that BKV had in their Police building budget report for January 15 th . John Sponsel, with the BKV Group, approached the podium and addressed the Council on the library budget. There was discussion at the last meeting regarding maintaining the present library budget. Mr. Sponsel stated that in the cost estimate BKV was about 2 percent over budget. The new updated cost estimate and budget worksheet provided some deduct alternates to get the project within budget and for cost control when bidding. Mr. Sponsel stated that BKV Group was recommending that two bids be asked for. One bid with the three roof monitors included and one bid without the three roof monitors. BKV was comfortable with the budget as it is now and believed they could go into bidding with all three monitors in the design. A couple minor adjustments were made in the budget worksheet. These adjustments were made in 1) soil conditions [property cost] and 2) how some numbers were shown under construction costs, 3) hazardous material and assessment abatement costs have been added and moving expenses were removed to another budget. Mr. Sponsel was looking for direction to proceed into the construction document phase. The dual track of the new Police building and the new Library was discussed. City staff was thinking of accelerating the bidding on the new Library as opposed to holding the Library back until the new Police building was at the same point and running these projects on a dual track. It was felt that because these projects are sizable, so close in area proximity and the timetable for construction is relatively the same that the bidding of the two projects would probably result in the same savings as bidding them simultaneously allowing a job superintendent for each project. The acquisition of the 5.48 -acre parcel for the new Police building was discussed. It appeared this parcel should be acquired on schedule; however, just in case, it was recommended that Resolution No. 5651 be approved authorizing the use of the Quick Take Procedure as a fail/safe measure. Official Proceedings of the January 15, 2002 Shakopee City Council Page —9- Lehman/Joos offered Resolution No. 5651, A Resolution Authorizing And Directing The Use Of "Quick- Take" Proceedings in Pending Condemnation Action, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Mars moved to direct staff to proceed with the new Library as a stand -alone project. Cncl. Joos would like to see the new Library and the new Police building bid simultaneously in hopes of seeing a cost saving. Mr. Kroos felt it might cost more for the Library project if that project was held up waiting for the new Police building. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. McNeill addressed the funding issue and the completion of the construction of the new Library and the new Police building. Gregg Voxland, Finance Director, stated he felt it was acceptable to transfer $1 million into the Building Fund from the General Fund if the Council was comfortable with the reserve that was left in the General Fund after this transfer and with this size reserve left possibly resulting in a lower bond rating. Cncl. Sweeney made several comments. He had a concern about transferring money before the transfer had to be done and he was anxious that the City Council act in an especially responsible manner until the City really could get a handle on the future money forthcoming/not forthcoming from the State. Cncl. Sweeney stated the money could always be transferred. There is no rush at this time and the City will have another bond issue next fall and it would be nice to kept the present bond rating. Cncl. Sweeney did not think that the City would be able to transfer $700,000 annually; he felt the City would be getting cut money each year from the State. Mayor Mars wanted to get closer to the funding goal that is needed for a new Police building. Cncl. Lehman concurred with Cncl. Sweeney that there was not a rush to transfer the funds but he wanted it remembered that there was going to be a shortfall in the Building Fund and funds to cover this shortfall would be needed in the future. No action was taken to transfer funds from the General Fund to the Building Fund. Mr. McNeill reported on the Shakopee Public Utilities (SPUC) request for a waiver of building permit fees for the upcoming well house and water storage tank construction. The argument has been made that in effect this is a transfer of money from one pocket of the City to another. Mr. McNeill stated that the fees for the pump house in Dominion Hffls as well as the water storage tanks could be waived if the Council chooses to do this but a few small fees needed to be passed through. Official Proceedings of the January 15, 2002 Shakopee City Council Page —10- Sweeney/Lehman moved to waive the City controlled building permits fees for the well house building out in Dominion Hills along with the elevated water storage tank in conjunction with this well house. Cncl. Joos was concerned about giving away building permits. Cncl. Sweeney noted that the contribution from SPUC to the City of Shakopee this year was $1,250,000. $450,000 of the $1,250,000 could be forgotten about by SPUC (that is it would not have to be made). Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney /Joos moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the Joint Powers Agreement for 2002 Traffic Markings, Street Sweeping, Crack Sealing and Seal Coating between the Cities of Burnsville, Apple Valley, Eagan, Lakeville, Rosemount, Savage, Prior Lake and Shakopee. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney /Joos offered Resolution No. 5650, A Resolution Accepting Work On The Trunk Watermain Extension, from Southbridge Parkway to Sage Lane, Project No. 2000 -5 and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney /Joos moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to approve the School Resource Officer Agreement by and between Shakopee Independent School District #720 and the City of Shakopee. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney /Joos moved to appoint Bob Gieseke as 2nd Engineer, Mark Myers as 3Td Engineer, Jake Theisen as 4 Engineer and Eric Bender as 5 Engineer for the Shakopee Fire Department for a one year term effective January 2, 2002. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney /Joos moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into an agreement with WSB for the installation design of the Emergency Vehicle Preemption System for the intersection of 1) County Road 69 & County Road 101; 2) 1" Avenue & County Road 101; 3) County Road 101 & County Road 83; 4) County Road 101 & Valley Park Drive and 5) County Road 17 & County Road 78 and obtain quotes for the actual installation. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney /Joos moved to accept the resignation of Erin Lundy, Community Service Officer,with regrets, and request the Shakopee Civil Service Commission begin the testing process to fill the vacant position. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney /Joos offered Resolution No. 5647, A Resolution Amending Resolution No 5600 Which Adopted the 2002 Pay Schedule For The Officers and Non -Union Employees Of The City Of Shakopee, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Official Proceedings of the January 15, 2002 Shakopee City Council Page —11- Mr. Bruce Loney approached the podium and stated that the Engineering Department had successfully completed interviews to fill three positions. Two of the three recommended candidates have worked for the City of Shakopee before. The Engineering Department was pleased to be able to recommend such qualified candidates for hire for budgeted positions. Sweeny /Joos moved to authorize the hiring of the following: Scott Smith for the position of Assistant City Engineer starting at Step D, Grade 9 of the Non -Union 2002 Pay Plan ($63,100.00) per year, effective February 4, 2002; Joseph Swentek for the position of Project Engineer starting at Step E, Grade 8 of the Non -Union 2002 Pay Plan ($50,100.00) per year, effective January 28, 2002, and Cristian Diaz for the position of Engineering Technician II starting at Step E, Grade 4 of the Non -Union Pay Plan ($32,700.00) per year with an adjustment after six months to Step D, Grade 4 of the non -Union 2002 Pay Plan ($34.800.00) effective February 4, 2002. All of these authorizations for hire are subject to a successful completion of a pre - employment physical and background check. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Neill explained the memo on the table regarding Ryan Halverson, Engineering Technician. Mr. McNeill was recommending that a counter offer of going up two steps of technician II be made to Ryan Halverson in an attempt to keep Ryan Halverson in the Engineering Department of the City of Shakopee. Mr. Mc Neill stated this would be a two step pay increase. When the 2002 Pay Plan was addressed just recently the consultant stated that the City of Shakopee needed to be more flexible so they would be able to attract/retain employees. Sweeney/Mars moved to direct staff to offer Ryan Halverson an increase of two pay steps in an attempt to keep Mr. Ryan Halverson in the Engineering Department of the City of Shakopee. Motion carried unanimously. Cncl. Lehman noted that this is a one time counter offer and it was at the recommendation of Mr. Loney that he voted yes on this request. Sweeney /Joos moved to approve the application and grant an On Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor License to Great Lakes, Inc., dba Shakopee Ballroom and Banquet Hall, 2400 East 4 ffi Avenue. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney /Joos moved to approve the applications and grant temporary on -sale liquor licenses to the Church of St. Mark, 350 South Atwood Street, for February 2. 2002 and July 27 and 28, 2002, conditioned upon meeting all requirements of the City Code. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney /Joos moved to authorize the purchase of 2 compact 4x4 pickups from Nelson Dodge - GMC in the amount of $30,786.00 under the Hennepin County contract. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). official Proceedings of the January 15, 2002 Shakopee City Council Page —12- Sweeney/Joos moved to authorize the purchase of a 1 ton 4x4 pickup from Superior Ford in the amount of $19,997.00 under the Hennepin County contract. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney /Joos moved to accept the resignation of Gary Morke, with regrets, from the Shakopee Cable Community Access Corporation. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney /Joos moved to approve the distribution of the state - processing rebate to Shakopee residents serviced through the City Refuse contract with Dick's Sanitation with a one -time rebate on each customer's bill. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney /Joos moved to approve the application and grant a Tattoo License to Claudia Baca, Body Art, 205 South Lewis Street. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Cncl. Sweeney stated that he wanted to put into effect a hiring freeze until it is known what the State of Minnesota is going to do in respect to City funding. Sweeney/Lehman moved to direct staff to put a hiring freeze into effect until it is known what the State of Minnesota is going to do in respect to City funding. Mr. McNeill stated the Council might want to exempt the MIS coordinator position from this hiring freeze. Lehman/Sweeney offered a friendly amendment that the words be added "at the Council's discretion" to Cncl. Sweeney's above motion. Cncl. Joos would like to see this idea tabled for time to think about a hiring freeze. Mr. Leek asked for specific direction on the MIS position because he had interviews coming up within the week. Cncl. Lehman withdrew his amended motion. Motion carried 4 -1 with Cncl. Joos dissenting. Sweeney/Lehman moved to direct Mr. Leek to continue the interview process for the MIS coordinator than has been started. Motion carried unanimously. There was discussion on the hiring process within the Police Department. Mr. Neill stated that he would talk with the Police Chief and bring a report back at a future meeting as to where the Police Department was in their hiring process. Official Proceedings of the January 15, 2002 Shakopee City Council Page —13- There was discussion on the ending time of Council meetings. Mayor Mars wanted to add the goal setting session to the agenda for the workshop meeting on January 29. The rest of the Council was not for this time for the goal setting. Joos /Sweeney moved to adjourn to Tuesday, January 29, 2002 at 4:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. udith S. Cox City Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary OFFICIAL GS OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, S TA FEBRUARY 5, 2002 The pledge of allegiance was recited. The following item was deleted from the Agenda. 15 A.1 Xcel Energy Overhead Power Lines in Valley Park 13'' Addition. The following item was added to the Agenda. 15 F.8 Presentation by Canterbury Park Concerning Casino Gambling Legislation. Joos /Sweeney moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Motion carried 4 -0. Mayor Mars stated that two week ago he and Cncl. Joos attended the conference in Grand Rapids, Minnesota put on by the League of Minnesota Cities for newly elected officials. Mayor Mars felt this conference offered much information and was very beneficial. Mayor Mars also recognized Bruce Loney's efforts to receive State, grant money for future pedestrian bridges. All of the grant money ($400,000) has been received. Dan Hughes, Chief of Police, presented Officer Cody Horner with a plaque recognizing him as the Shakopee Police Officer of the Year. Chief Hughes read part of Officer Cody Homer's nomination for Shakopee Police Officer of the Year. Chief Hughes gave a short background on officer Cody Homer in which he mentioned that officer Homer was involved with various Police programs throughout the City including coordinating the crime free multi- housing program and the Cities annual bicycle program for children. In addition to the police programs officer Homer was also responsible for saving many lives last year in conjunction with the fire at Murphy's Landing. Joos /Sweeney moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Motion carried 4 -0. Mayor Mars asked if there were any citizens present in the audience who wished to address any item not on the agenda. Mary Ann Hoppe, 2545 Highland Road, Maple Plain, Minnesota, with Coldwell Banker, approached the podium and stated she was the realtor involved with the land listing for the 43.5 acres on O'Dowd Lake. She would like this land acquisition to be made by March 30` if possible. She had tried to contact Cncl. Link who was authorized by the City Council to Official Proceedings of the February 5, 2002 Shakopee City Council Page 2- negotiate on the City's behalf for this possible land acquisition but Cncl. Link has not returned any of her phone calls. Ms. Hoppe would like to know what the status of the land purchase is. Mr. McNeill stated that the previous Council directed Cncl. Link to look into this possible land acquisition. Now, this Council will have to determine if they want to continue pursuing this action. Mr. McNeill noted that if this land was purchased, there would be a very significant impact on the Park Reserve Fund and this impact on the Park Reserve Fund would last for a few years if this fund were used for possible land acquisition. No action was taken. Mayor Mars asked if there were any more concerned residents in the audience. There was no response. Sweeney/Lehman moved to remove the meeting minutes for December 4 and 11, 2001 from the table. Motion carried 4 -0. Sweeney /Joos moved to approve the meeting minutes for December 4, 11 and 18, 2001. Tim Thomson, City Attorney, recommended that Robert's Rules be suspended so all Council members could vote on the minutes. Sweeney/Lehman moved to suspend Roberts Rules so the meeting minutes from 2001 could be voted on. Motion carried 4-0. Motion carried 4 -0 on approving the minutes. Joos /Sweeney moved to approve the bills in the amount of $507,796.22 plus $42,029.52 for refunds, returns and pass through for a total of $549,825.74. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). [The list of bills is posted on the bulletin board at City Hall for one month following approval]. Cncl. Joos reported on the school board meeting. He stated the school board was trying to balance the budget for this school year. Cncl. Lehman reported on the Park and Recreation Advisory Board meeting. He felt the top issues discussed that evening were: the agreement with the associations, oversight to the Ryan development out in the Business Park in the Dean Lake area and whether there was a pursuit to continue the purchase of the 43.5 acres of Lake O'Dowd property. Cncl. Lehman reported on the scope of the Vision Shakopee Board meeting. At this time, Vision Shakopee has some plans and these plans will be coming to the Council shortly. Official Proceedings of the February 5, 2002 Shakopee City Council Page —3- Cncl. Sweeney reported on the Shakopee Public Utility Commission meeting. He stated the commission discussed painting a water tower and the size of the logo that should be on the water tower. He felt this would be a public relations issue. Shakopee Public Utilities had involved the neighbors of the water tower in their discussions. Cncl. Sweeney stated that the Shakopee Public Utility Commission also reviewed some of their charge areas (trunk water charge and the connection charge to the trunk water system.) in an effort to upgrade the charges for inflation purposes. Cncl. Sweeney stated the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission approved an RFP for a consultant to review and negotiate a power supply contract from 1/1/2003 to 12/31/2008. Well site # 3, to be located, near C.R. 16 and C.R. 83 was discussed because of its close proximity to the Savage Fen and the possible effect this well may have on the Savage Fen. Cncl. Sweeney also reported on the Scott County Board meeting. He stated the County Board had a presentation by the County Association on Legislative Goals. A recess was taken at 7:31 p.m. for the purpose of conducting the Economic Development Authority meeting. Mayor Mars re- convened the Council meeting at 7:44 p.m Mr. Loney, Public Works Director and City Engineer, reported on the overhead power lines relocation on the Valley View Road project. He used pictures via the overhead to show the location of the overhead lines. This project is under design at this time. A collector street, trail, bike path and sidewalk is designed for this area and therefore, there is cause to relocate the overhead power lines that were installed in 1999. These lines were installed prior to the City's adoption of the new right -of -way ordinance. The City can require that these overhead power lines go under ground. The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission discussed this item at their meeting on January 22, 2002. The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission reviewed the cost of under grounding these overhead lines and they voted unanimously to appeal the decision to underground these lines to the City Council for economic consideration. Mr. Loney stated that when this new street is constructed this line would need to be relocated. Some of the power lines cross over the streets acting as overhead service lines to the residents. This line was originally put in to service Seagate. When this line was originally put in, City staff informed the public utilities that Valley View Road would be reconstructed someday, the exact location was not know at this time and there may be some interest by the City to have these lines under grounded at that time. Some property owners have overhead power service and they would have to convert their overhead service to underground service. There are some residential underground service lines already. Staff has reviewed this issue and the City finds issues that would be promoted by under grounding. These issues are: safe travel over the right -of -way, non - travel related safety around homes and buildings where overhead feeds are connected and orderly development of the City of Shakopee. Since the City can require these lines be under grounded the City needs direction whether these lines should remain above ground or if the City should require that these lines be under grounded. This would be a policy decision for the City Council to make. Official Proceedings of the February 5, 2002 Shakopee City Council Page —4- Joe Adams, Planning and Engineering Manager for Shakopee Public Utilities, approached the podium and recapped the sequence of events for the City Council. At the time this line was put in for Seagate, Shakopee Public Utilities could not meet the needs for Seagate without this line until a new sub - station was built. The contributions from Seagate to put in this temporary line were limited to a portion of the cost of a temporary sub - station, some special switching arrangements, and the standard underground charge that was charged to all customers for facilities on their property. Seagate did not contribute towards the upgrade of the circuit. They were willing to share in some of the costs for permanent service to their facility but this line was to going to be used temporarily for their facility and after they were done using the line, this line could be used to service other developments. Shakopee Public Utilities wanted the cost addressed of under grounding overhead lines in conjunction with road improvement projects. The overhead lines on Valley View Road were new in 1999 and the life expectancy of the lines is approximately 50 years. The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission understands that these lines will have to be relocated but the cost to underground them at this time is substantial versus leaving the lines above ground and the lines are in very good condition. The cost needs to be addressed. There were pros and cons to under ground the lines. Mr. Adams stated what this temporary line now serves. Mr. Loney stated that prior to the new right -of -way ordinance there were other ordinances that required new lines to be installed underground. For new lines it is quite clear that they need to be under grounded, it is the existing lines that leave discretion up to the City. The issue here is the relocation of an existing line. Cncl. Sweeney discussed the economic issue of getting Seagate to locate in Shakopee. Cncl. Sweeney stated that if the City had not pushed to get Seagate into the community this power line would not have been constructed at that time, because, there would have been no need for the power line. It was at the request of the City that this line was point in. Cncl. Sweeney also stated that the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission contributes money to the City of Shakopee on an annual basis. The cost of installing the lines for Seagate has not been recouped. Cncl. Sweeney felt the City should grant the relief the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission was asking for. Mr. Loney stated that a relocation plan for the overhead lines could be looked at in concert with the new Valley View Road plan. Mr. Loney would like to see the overhead lines, if that is what is agreed to, to all be on one side and perhaps the lines that cross the road could be underground. Jim Strommen, Attorney with Kennedy and Gravin, approached the podium and emphasized that all users of the right -of -way are to be treated equally. Mr. Strommen urged the Council to apply the same type of reasoning to all the electric utilities users in Shakopee. Shakopee Public Utilities cannot be discussed in a different light just because it is a municipal electric company. Mr. Stommen stated the reasons to deny or approve the request of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission needed to be the same reasons applied to deny or approve a request by Xcel Energy. Cncl. Sweeney stated that Xcel Energy contributes zero to the City and that contribution is a factor in the decision. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council February 5, 2002 Page —5- Sweeney/Lehman moved that the City of Shakopee should grant the request of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission to relieve them from under grounding the relocation of power lines on the Valley View Road project noting that the Shakopee Public Utilities makes a financial contribution to the City of Shakopee on an annual basis. Cncl. Lehman seconded the motion on the basis that the power lines remain above ground because the lines are only two years old. The cost difference between overhead lines, these overhead lines being very new, and under grounding lines was a consideration. Cncl. Joos felt the lines should be under ground. This was the policy of the City and now was the opportunity to get these lines underground and not disturb a new road. He felt there were some safety concerns also. Mayor Mars was concerned also. He felt it was a requirement of the City to have the lines under grounded. He did struggle with the economic aspect, however. Mayor Mars felt what was best for the City needed to be considered. Motion failed 2 -2 with Cncl. Joos and Mayor Mars dissenting. Mr. Stommen again approached the podium and stated that he believed this did require an affirmative vote to require under grounding. Sweeney/Lehman moved to table the relocation under grounding of overhead power lines on Valley View Road until the February 19, 2002 meeting. Motion carried 4 -0. Mr. Loney reported on the approval of plans for 17 Avenue and Independence Drive for the Greenfield Development and to authorize an agreement between the City and Developer so the developer can construct approximately one - quarter mile of 17 Avenue to the east and approximately three - eighths of a mile of Independence Drive to the Greenfield Plat. The plans for 17 Avenue and Independence Drive were prepared by WSB & Associates on behalf of the City. Mr. Loney stated that with the agreement the City has with the developer, the developer will provide all necessary easements to the City, at no cost to the City, the developer will pay for the local street equivalent of this collector street, sanitary and storm sewer extensions for the development, the street lighting that would be necessary and the assessments to the City park along 17 Avenue. The City would be responsible for the oversizing of the street, the sanitary sewer and the storm sewer in this area, and watermain service to the City park and a bituminous trail. 17 Avenue is scheduled to be built and the City has a memo of understanding from Scott County that when 17 Avenue is complete it will be turned over to Scott County. 17 Avenue is to be a major collector street and is a minor arterial in the City's Transportation plan along with Independence Drive being a minor arterial street in the City's Transportation plan and a minor collector street. The City would receive several benefits with this plan for the Greenfield plat. Mr. Loney included in the Council members packets maps that showed the impacts of the study Official Proceeding of the February 5, 2002 Shakopee City Council Page -b- on the project. The main cost to the City will be the oversizing of the collector streets to meet state aid standards. Mr. Loney felt by diverting the stormwater to the MR Pond Watershed District that goes to the NInDOT ponds, money to pay for the trunk line and the MnDOT ponds that were purchased by the City, would be more than adequate from future developments. Mr. Loney noted that the storm water trunk costs might be higher now. The agreement does allow for some flexibility and the state aid office has approved the plans. The City is waiting for Scott County's approval. The residents adjacent to the area have been involved with this plan so a win - win situation can be achieved for them, as well as, the City. Joos/Lehman moved to authorize the appropriate City Officials to execute an agreement between the City and Tollefson Development, Inc. for 17 Avenue, from 2,650 feet east of Sarazin Street to 4,050 feet east of Sarazin Street and for Independence Drive, from 17` Avenue to the north plat line of Greenfield Development improvements. Motion carried 4 -0. Joos /Sweeney moved to authorize the appropriate City Officials to execute the declaration of easement for the City property adjacent to 17 Avenue and east of Sun Path Elementary School. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Joos /Sweeney moved to authorize the purchase of one (1) new John Deere 5420 Tractor from Siemon Implement, Inc, utilizing State bid pricing for the purchase price of $31,098 with the purchase to be funded from the Internal Capital Equipment Fund, and authorize staff to enter into a re- purchase agreement. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Joos /Sweeney moved to approve a suspension of City Code Sec. 10.60, Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention, Subd. 3, Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations, D, for C &I Water, for Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays, from February 6, 2002 to May 24, 2002 to erect and paint the tower starting at 8:00 a.m. versus 9:00 a.m. and stop at 8:00 p.m. and direct staff to publish notice of the suspension terms with the conditions as recommended by staff: 1) contingent upon minimizin noise exposure near residential areas, and 2) if residential complaints are received by the City, the suspension can be revoked at the discretion of the City Engineer. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Joos /Sweeney moved to authorize staff to utilize the re- purchase agreement from Siemon Implement, Inc. on the John Deere 4600 Mid -size Tractor. The cost of this agreement to be funded from the Capital Equipment Fund (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). A recess was taken at 8:43 p.m. Mayor Mars re- convened the meeting at 8:56 p.m. Ms. Coenen gave the staff report on changing the garbage and recycling pickup from the alley to curbside. Ms. Coenen reported that currently Dick's Sanitation is doing some dual pickup of Official Proceeding of the February 5, 2002 Shakopee City Council Page -7- garbage. Dick's Sanitation is currently picking up some garbage curbside rather than in the alley for some customers. However, some customers are continuing to use the alley. Using the alley for Dick's Sanitation, as well as any other sanitation service, creates some problems for the City as well as the garbage hauler. Some issues that arise from garbage pickup in the 10.1 alley miles are: 1) the safety of alleys for the residents, 2) increased time and cost for the Public Works Department to maintain alleys and snow plowing (because of the use of large trucks) and maintenance in the Spring for the residents, 3) unsightliness of garbage cans left continuously at the alley edge (about 60% of the users do this) and 4) the road restrictions that are put on each Spring and cause notification problems OT gives limited amount of time to notify). Some residents living on alleys have asked Dick's Sanitation (about 60 %) to pick their garbage up on the street. These residents no longer want the alley service. Dick's Sanitation has assisted many elderly residents with curbside service when road restrictions were put on and alley pickup was not possible. Ms Coenen showed some pictures via overhead showing the conditions of the alleys. Staff would like these issues discussed by Council and staff would like time to be allowed for public comment because residents will be affected. Staff does realize not all residents have good access to streets for garbage pickup. Staff and the Public Works department have come up with a compromise for this problem. This issue needs to be addressed. David Domack, representative from Dick's Sanitation, approached the podium to speak on the alley garbage pickup. He stated it was at the resident's request that garbage pickup was changed to the street pickup versus the alley pickup. Dick's Sanitation had not anticipated that street side garbage pickup would be such a popular service. There is additional time involved for Dick's Sanitation with the combination pickup of street side and alley side pickup. Mr. Domack stated there is no problem with parked cars on the streets when the garbage is picked up street side. Mr. Domack stated that time studies can be done and perhaps the contract with Dick's Sanitation can be renegotiated. The Council thought it would be more time efficient to do just a street side garbage pickup and perhaps the contract with Dick's Sanitation could be adjusted to reflect this service adjustment. The Council would like to see the figures for an all- street garbage pickup service versus an alley garbage pickup service. Ms. Coenen stated that figure could be given to the City Council by the next Council meeting. Cncl. Sweeney felt the elderly would need help moving their garbage cans. Mr. McNeill noted that no public hearing was required but this issue could be scheduled for a future City Council meeting and residents could come and make comments at that time. Sweeney /Joos moved to direct staff to come back with the number of residents that a street side pickup would affect with the intent to have a street side pickup and holding a public hearing to bring concerns to the City Council that the Council can address these concerns. This would be a public hearing to address concerns only not a public hearing to make a decision to have the street side pickup. Motion carried 4 -0. Official Proceeding of the February 5, 2002 Shakopee City Council Page -8- Joos /Sweeney moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to approve the Joint Powers Agreement by and between the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and the City of Shakopee Police Department for the use of the Minnesota Predatory Offender Registration Database. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. Themig approached the podium to give a report on the Community Center Mechanical System Upgrades and Repairs. Cncl. Sweeney stated that none of the costs for these repairs is budgeted; he wanted to know where the funds for the repairs were coming from. Mr. Themig stated he went through the budget and identified items that could possibly be moved to a future year and with these savings realized the repairs to the Community Center Mechanical System could be done. Mr. McNeill noted that all of these repairs that are recommended by Mr. Themig would be operational savings for the City of Shakopee. Sweeney /Joos moved to authorize the replacement of the gymnasium dampers at a cost of $5,440 by Uhl Company, the installation of variable speed drives on air handling units at a cost of $8,336 by Uhl Company, the installation of a water softener at a cost of $15,585 by Minnesota Plumbing and Heating, if a cheaper water system cannot be found by Cncl. Joos, and upgrades to the closed circuit television system at a cost of $2,725 by Closed Circuit Specialists, Inc. Motion carried 4- 0. Joos /Sweeney offered Resolution No. 5 63 5, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Resolution No 5636, A Resolution Setting Fees For City Licenses, Permits, Services, And Documents, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Joos /Sweeney moved to authorize the appropriate City Officials to proceed with the purchase of five (5) Compaq CARD stations per the January 25, 2002 price quotation, at a cost not to exceed $14,000. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Joos /Sweeney moved to approve the hiring of Kimberly Ann Henke to the exempt position of MIS Coordinator at Step B of Pay Grade 8 ($57,300), subject to a pre - employment physical and background check by the Police Department. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Joos /Sweeney offered Resolution No 5652, A Resolution Changing The March 5, 2002 Council Meeting Date, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mike Garin, Vice - President of Hospitality at Canterbury Park, approached the podium to update the Council on the proposed casino gambling legislation. Mr. Garin stated he was also actively involved with legislative issues involving Canterbury Park. Mr. Garin stated that the drafting of a bill was being finished to authorize slot machines at Canterbury Park. The bill is expected to be introduced in the House and Senate next week. Mr. Garin presented a brief outline of the proposed legislation to the City Council prior to the bills introduction to the House and Senate. Mr. Garin presented this outline to keep the Council and staff informed and to receive feedback. Official Proceeding of the Shakopee City Council February 5, 2002 Page -9- Mr. Garin stated that the significant points in the proposed bill are: 1) the bill would authorize the Minnesota State lottery to establish slot machines at Canterbury Park, 2) there is no limit on the number of machines that would be allowed, 3) the regulatory and law enforcement oversight would be the same as the Card Club with the addition of the Minnesota Lottery handling the oversight of the machine payout and internal controls, 4) the alcohol and gambling division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety would handle all criminal background checks and gambling related law enforcement issues, 5) the Shakopee Police Department would handle all non - gambling law enforcement issues. Mr. Garin stated that the newly created revenues from the slot machines could be used for a variety of state infrastructure needs. A percent of the revenue would go to the City and County to compensate for local government costs. A gross revenue of approximately $130 million dollars is anticipated at Canterbury Park with the casino gambling. The City and Scott County would receive approximately $650,000 each per year. 1000/1500 new jobs are anticipated in the community and increased spending at area businesses is anticipated. Allowing slots in an already licensed building for gambling minimizes the issue of expanding gambling. Mr. Garin stated that as soon as a bill is introduced, a copy will be provided to the City and staff. Canterbury Park would like the opportunity to meet with the Mayor, Council members, staff and Chief Hughes to discuss specifics and address any concerns. Canterbury Park would appreciate the Council considering a Resolution in support of the legislation. Mr. McNeill would like Council and staff to see a draft before the proposed legislation goes to the legislature so the City can comment while it is easy to make changes to the legislation. Mr. Garin stated he would see what he could do about this request. Chief Hughes approached the podium to answer questions. Chief Hughes stated he would provide Council with the number of calls for service that the Shakopee Police Department has received for Canterbury Park. Chief Hughes stated he has been very pleased with Canterbury Park's cooperation with safety aspects. Mr. McNeill approached the podium and reported on the Boards and Commissions appointment procedure. Mr. McNeill explained how Board and Commission members were appointed. The change to the appointment procedure is suggested as a result from the appointments to the Planning Commission for this year. Mr. McNeill felt the City Administrator, as an appointed official, and on the interview panel was put in a position to make a perceived political recommendation and he felt this had an impact on the effectiveness on an appointed official. Mr. McNeill surveyed other communities to see how they handled the appointments to their Boards and Commissions. Mr. McNeill needed a decision from the Council tonight on how they wanted to proceed. Another interview panel needed to be set up before February 19, 2002. Cncl. Sweeney felt it was important that the City Administrator should not be placed in a position where he was the man in the middle. Cncl. Sweeney did not feel employees should be put in this position. Cncl. Sweeney suggested that the chair of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission Official Proceeding of the February 5, 2002 Shakopee City Council Page -10- be on the interview committee in place of the City Administrator. There was discussion on this suggestion. Because a problem with the interviewing of the candidates did not happen often, Cncl. Sweeney was in favor of the process remaining the same unless the problem kept recurring and then the process would need to be changed. Sweeney/Lehman moved to continue with the present interviewing process (2 Councilors and the City Administrator) for Boards and Commissions through this appointment cycle. Motion carried 4 -0. Sweeney /Joos moved to recommend for nomination all of the candidates who have filed for positions on the various Boards and Commissions and because there are still vacancies remaining on these Boards and Commission to fill, they recommended that the filing period be extended to February 14, 2002. (Shakopee Public Utilities Commission: Mark Miller; Police Civil Service Commission: Kimberly Weckman, John Mauritz; Economic Development Advisory Committee: John Mauritz, Jim Dorenkamp; Park and Recreation Advisory Board: Bradley Gripentrog, Kristi Kruger, Kathy Gerlach; Building Code BOAA & Housing Advisory and Appeal Board: Joe Studnicka; and Enviromental Advisory Committee: Charley Kubler, Colin Wilkinson, Jim Dorenkamp) Motion carried 4 -0. Mr. McNeill stated that two council members needed to be appointed to serve on the interview committee tonight. Mayor Mars asked for volunteers. Cncl. Joos and Cncl. Lehman volunteered for the interview committee. Mayor Mars appointed Cncls. Lehman and Joos to the interview committee for interviewing candidates for the various Boards and Commissions within the City. The interview committee would consist of Cncls. Joos, Lehman and City Administrator, Mark McNeill. Sweeney /Joos moved to agree with the Mayor's appointment of Cncls. Lehman and Joos to the interview committee for Boards and Commissions. Motion carried 4 -0. Joos /Sweeney moved to approve the application and grant a Tattoo License to Susan Prince, Permanent Cosmetics by Susan, 287 South Marschall Road, conditioned upon meeting the requirements of the City Code. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Joos /Sweeney moved to accept the resignation of John Collins from the Park and Recreation Advisory Board effective February 28, 2002, with regrets. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. McNeill suggested February 26, 2002 at 4 :30 p.. for a date for a workshop meeting in which to hear presentations from various City Departments. Lehman/Sweeney moved to set a workshop meeting date for the City Council for Tuesday February 26, 2002 at 4:30 p.m. to 6:20 p.m. Motion carried 4 -0. Official Proceeding of the February 5, 2002 Shakopee City Council Page -11- Mayor Mars noted that he would like staff to generate some ideas and times for early March when goals for the City of Shakopee can be discussed. 7oos/Lehman moved that March 12, 2002 at 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. be set aside to discuss goals for the City of Shakopee. Motion carried 4 -0. Mr. McNeill followed up on the recommendation that the Economic Development Authority made earlier tonight for a tax abatement and application fora Minnesota Investment Fund loan for CertainTeed Corporation. Sweeney/Lehman offered Resolution No. 5654, Resolution Calling For A Public Hearing On The Minnesota Investment Fund Loan for CertainTeed Corporation And The Tax Abatement for Certain Property In The City of Shakopee, and moved its adoption. There was discussion on priority being given to Shakopee residents for the 44 jobs created by this expansion and that 44 new jobs continue to exist throughout the life of the agreement. Motion carried 4 -0. Sweeney /loos moved to direct staff to prepare a Contract for Private Development between the City, Scott County and CertainTeed for consideration at a public hearing on the proposed tax abatement. Motion carried 4 -0. Sweeney/Lehman moved to adjourn to Tuesday, February 19, 2002 at 7:00 p.. Motion carried 4 -0. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. - �'a� udith S. Cox City Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary Official Proceeding of the February 5, 2002 Shakopee City Council Page -7- garbage. Dick's Sanitation is currently picking up some garbage curbside rather than in the alley for some customers. However, some customers are continuing to use the alley. Using the alley for Dick's Sanitation, as well as any other sanitation service, creates some problems for the City as well as the garbage hauler. Some issues that arise from garbage pickup in the 10.1 alley miles are: 1) the safety of alleys for the residents, 2) increased time and cost for the Public Works Department to maintain alleys and snow plowing (because of the use of large trucks) and maintenance in the Spring for the residents, 3) unsightliness of garbage cans left continuously at the alley edge (about 60% of the users do this) and 4) the road restrictions that are put on each Spring and cause notification problems WOT gives limited amount of time to notify). Some residents living on alleys have asked Dick's Sanitation (about 60 %) to pick their garbage up on the street. These residents no longer want the alley service. Dick's Sanitation has assisted many elderly residents with curbside service when road restrictions were put on and alley pickup was not possible. Ms Coenen showed some pictures via overhead showing the conditions of the alleys. Staff would like these issues discussed by Council and staff would like time to be allowed for public comment because residents will be affected. Staff does realize not all residents have good access to streets for garbage pickup. Staff and the Public Works department have come up with a compromise for this problem. This issue needs to be addressed. David Domack, representative from Dick's Sanitation, approached the podium to speak on the alley garbage pickup. He stated it was at the resident's request that garbage pickup was changed to the street pickup versus the alley pickup. Dick'.s'Sanitation had not anticipated that street side garbage pickup would be such a popular service. There is additional time involved for Dick's Sanitation with the combination pickup of street side and alley side pickup. Mr. Domack stated there is no problem withparked cars on the streets when the garbage is picked up street side. Mr. Domack stated that time studies can be done and perhaps the contract with Dick's Sanitation can be renegotiated. The Council thought it would be more time efficient to do just a street side garbage pickup and perhaps the contract with Dick's Sanitation could be adjusted to reflect this service adjustment. The Council would like to see the figures for an all- street garbage pickup service versus an alley garbage pickup service. Ms. Coenen stated that figure could be given to the City Council by the next Council meeting. Cncl. Sweeney felt the elderly would need help moving their garbage cans. Cncl. Lehman raised a number of questions that' staff will be looking into. Mr. McNeill noted that no public hearing was required but this issue could be. scheduled for a future City Council meeting and residents could come and make comments at that time. Sweeney /loos moved to direct staff to come back with the number of residents that a street side pickup would affect with the intent to have a street side pickup and holding a public hearing to bring concerns to the City Council that the Council can address these concerns. This would be a public hearing to address concerns only not a public hearing to make a decision to have the street side pickup. Motion carried 4 -0. O w CONSVOT CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance director RE: City Bill List DATE: February 28, 2002 Introduction and Background Attached is a print out showing the division budget status for 2002 based on data entered as of 02/28/2002. Attached is a regular council bill list for invoices processed to date for council approval. Also included in the checklist are various refunds, returns, pass through, etc. totaling $32,589.15. The actual net expense amount is $258,079.24. Action Requested Move to approve the bills in the amount of $290,668.39. ED M m N � O m m m N � N d C N w a w E a O O U Y = r o CO a N (L W N O } d U a N CL W (9 N J m C � C J Q m 0 0 0 o O O o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O a O o 0 o O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N CO O I` O o O m m m C O O O V cf) m N 7 N 1"i Co Ii O_ N Co Co 7 w m r Co m O m CO Om1 m M N o N lO m W O N m co m N to O V l� M m m co m � I N r 0 0 V O CO O N m O M O O O N r O m (71 M C U d Q 3 M O U O O m m O m m CO m N N m N m I� CO > o Z Q ❑ c� O r r O O O CO m 7 O I- m I� N z o r r r r r r r N W w w N O CO CO O n Co V M N M I-- M 0 CD C, N❑ o O O O M r 7 N m 7 11l m n Cn n tD m C) ° U) o m m co m co m m m co m m CD W n O a m Cn I-- O N to u9 N O N N m co N V c0 V CO N m O N c0 N M to O N ui M Cp 0 m Co C) co to R 0 ui m n I- Co U C (0 I� m V O) m N Co co m O i-- CD m m Co m m r lf7 c0 M co cO C0 r M CO r-_ N n If) ca Q } H } a z W N J p w d m Z 0 O w Q m m oo U U u. .j U 0 a ti z w co U) M cr W co O ).- lzr N m cO t0 CO co h m n o •7 m m m O O Co I� O Co N O N < m M O CO O M (O Co m V O CO N O < O N N Co N O r O 't N N co m co m CI) m m m c0 !� N co O V m M m n m O ll] CO m m LO N C N m O W co m C• (O N Q U r (D N �r O u) r co m N h (� r m CO c0 m O > cc m O m N m N m m N N (D co I- co V• co I� O m cq N V' N Co O O m CD r - CR m f- LO m O Co V c0 0) N N U N m L co It O It m m m m r N (o tO .- c0 m (D a n R O (O r N O m m C CD C' cn m r c0 rl N N c _ m M N 0 N N co to V M m CO (9 N J m C � C J Q m 0 0 0 o O O o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O a O o 0 o O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N CO O I` O o O m m m C O O O V cf) m N 7 N 1"i Co Ii O_ N Co Co 7 w m r Co m O m CO Om1 m M N o N lO m W O N m co m N to O V l� M m m co m � I N r 0 0 V O CO O to Lo Ci Ch • m m > o Q CO CO ci o w CR co N N r- r V V (D U Ln M C Ln M m m N N M M co co co co O U Cl) m ' P) n � } m CO LO L � O _ Cl) cc " J C () (L) Q J U 0 0 0 O m O J m C � C J Q m C n U n CO V M 0 0 0 O CO z z w Q. O J w w z O r O v v N N 0 0 Lq CO m 0 > o Q Co CO m m X c w m m m O (O (O m U ' U O O C CCl C`�7 [0 m m N N m m O O N N U O O V' 7 p ca } cc r r m [O (n (D (n L CO C' to LO C' to C r p OJ r O C U d Q 3 U 0 0 0 0 o o c o O c O Z ❑ c� z c �v o m 2 Z cD w w O O � Z d z W C, N❑ o _) z w z w w, 11 ! C7 z Z) w z a ❑ z C) ° U) o LL 7 w 0 p> Q m O Z W = W Ii. O a Q z Y n O CL z z Q a N w w w 0 z w n O F m� W a U w O z� Q U U -) a p= LL, w U W w z w z J w ❑ rn Q } H } a z W z O w J p w d m Z 0 O w Q z U CD a) d oo U U u. .j U 0 a ti z w co U) M cr W CD o r ` ` r cO - M m m v v c v _ o m o to Lo Ci Ch • m m > o Q CO CO ci o w CR co N N r- r V V (D U Ln M C Ln M m m N N M M co co co co O U Cl) m ' P) n � } m CO LO L � O _ Cl) cc " J C () (L) Q J U 0 0 0 O m O J m C � C J Q m C n U n CO V M 0 0 0 O CO z z w Q. O J w w z O r O v v N N 0 0 Lq CO m 0 > o Q Co CO m m X c w m m m O (O (O m U ' U O O C CCl C`�7 [0 m m N N m m O O N N U O O V' 7 p ca } cc r r m C � G J a m (n 2 0 w q 0 t O I O n O z O O ¢ of C) LLJ (Y- Ul U � O o O LO 10 O ^ O [O (n (D (n L CO C' to LO C' to C r p c0 r O C U d Q 3 U 0 0 0 0 o o c o O c O C � G J a m (n 2 0 w q 0 t O I O n O z O O ¢ of C) LLJ (Y- Ul U � O o O LO 10 O ^ O a r LO M N � O m m N cc N d W m O W N (L 'm Q Y = U U m LL U N O - o V U N O O O O N N (7 O J O w Y U W W W W W W W W ❑ K m w x ir x w Z O O O O O O O O LL w t t t ❑ t � � t t ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ O O O z O (D O O O z z z z j z z z ❑ ❑ ❑ 7 ❑ LL ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ :D ❑ w ❑ LL ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ n Z) ❑ O W ❑ D D ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cl ❑ ❑ ❑ LL. D D 7 Z O D 7 D Z Z Z Z D d Z D z z `C O W O O LL O W O w w O W O O O LL O W O W W W IL W O O W O W O O W W W W LL W W W J of J F J w J J w J= Ir CC J r J F J ' Q J q J F F J r Q J F F Q J Q J J J J J J J N W Er W w x w= W �L d' w w w w x w W m O �L �L �L W W a W K Lll W y K K 2 2' c 2 W 2 2 W w' W 2 w w W W d' w x W o w W w CL' w W r" K W d' Q' Z W w W w W w w w .y w�� w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w Q w w w w w w w w w w w w m U C!) U U CD x C7 U CD C7 U CD U U Cl) C7 rt CD w 0 w 0 a CD ol x O U K U` Cr Cf F C7 C9 L C7 C7 C7 0 C7 w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w F F F r r r F r r r F r F r r F r r r r F U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U W W W w W W W W W W w W W W w w W w w w w J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J OJ CD U < Q m m m CD q CO m m D] CO U U CD CD < < OJ O Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } °maaaaaaaaaaaaa a aaaaaa U y 0 U U 0 U U 0 U U U co U F r F r r r F F F r F F r F r F F F F F r ❑ z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o S U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U o ¢ a Q a a¢¢ a a a Q a a Q a Q¢ Q a Q¢¢ W co Z of Z W W O J A W (� Of Z W a O j C7 K m f- U- O ❑ z QQ W z o U O o m o� O Q= J J U Q � 0 W K — U R' U z J U) a J ¢ o W W co 0 a❑ Q O F U Z J a w K U w❑ CD (If 2 W -j m ¢❑ z Q O o O F z O W v U O O O U J Q O U ❑ d O Z> w w U❑ r ❑ w J w w w a U d w Y �- ❑ 2 M z z >]< Q Q 0 w C7 2 z U U >> Q Q¢¢ Q Q w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w F F F F F r r F F F F F r F F F U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J [D m m 6] 0] m m 0] [D CD ➢7 U m co CO 67 Q ¢ Q ¢ Q ¢ Q Q Q ¢ Q Q Q Q ¢ Q } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } ¢ Q a Q¢ a¢ Q a Q Q Q ¢ a Q Q w w m m m d CL a a n a d a a d a r F F r r F F r r F r r F r F F z x z z z z z z z z z z z x z z z x z D Q D D D m D D n n D D D ¢ D D n Q m O F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 O U w U U U U U U U U U U U w U U U w U a¢ a a a a a¢ a a a a a a a a m U U Co Z Z z W w Z F O ¢ O U O Y w U_ F Z U Z ¢ U z O co w z w ? w W m C ? C7 U a O= U O M O y u¢ Z J a j Q Z 1 O Z Q c6 O w O< w Z �_ Q O W Q Z W 2 O W w U m 0 Z J M CO O a LL F U J M=¢ w C? O m w g 0 0 ¢ 2 O Q o ¢ ¢ m m m m m U U U U U U ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ W W V O m N O O O V CO N O M N O O O 01 O O O lO O O O O O rO O tO O O O O M O O O C � (O O M N M n O O LQ N O LR O O O n a) O O O r tO O n m O n O r O O LO n O N O M O �-- C V O N C m n O O m O ` V m (D N O c0 O O O m M O O O O n m R M LO N N m LO C LO 0) N O M O r IO N CO O N r N N 'ct N O m (D 01 0 l0 N O N O <D N V' C' tO M IO of O M CO (D O Q C CO r O CO r N M r V N L' r r r r r n N r n O r O n r r N co N M 7 '7 n co M N Y m O N M C lO cD n 0 m O r N M Q m n of m O N M N -Ir 4'1 N n M m O N M n m m n m m O CI m O O O O O O O 0 O O N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M V U N M M M M M M M M M M M M N M N N M M ('1 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M L N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n m N C N M m O � m � N N N Q. ❑ z ❑ ❑ LL Z 7 D LL LL F F Z J W W p 2 ❑ ❑ ❑ LLJ ❑❑ =3 ❑ � z z w Z z z p Z � ❑ W O ❑ O p ❑ ❑ O O ❑ p O ❑ ❑ ❑ O LL ❑ O ❑ ❑ t=i,. p ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ L ❑ °' LL � z Z z LL z z z Z z m .,z Z z Z z Z z z z Z Z j W n Z D n > > Z D LL D = 7 7 Z Z d Z w Z > > > > LL C LL O O U- } J J J O J J J J O J Q J Q Q J O O J J O J O J J J J J J J J J J O J -j j N < w w ¢ u� a d Q d w < ¢ rr 5 <1 5 u u� ¢ ug u 4 a 4 a Q d u� w F w w w w w w w w F w w w w w tr w F w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w z O U z z z z z o z z z z U Z a Z Z z z z U U z a z U z o z z z z z z z z z z U z w w w w¢ w w w w w w w w w w¢ w w w w w w w w¢ w w w w w w w w. w w w w w w w w w m N o m O O m C7 C� (7 C7 C7 U 0 CC 0 U C7 C7 C7 C� C7 � � C� U C7 K C7 � C� C7 C� C7 C7 C7 O C7 C7 C7 � C7 W m r M "o M w i w w w w w w w w w w w w w v w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w m . (D F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F m F F F F F LL U N m m m fn y y m (n m N m m W to m m N m m m m m m y m fA m y m m N m � m m m m m O U O } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } y y y y m C? m 0 m w m m m N m m m m m m m m m m j 0 i p N J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J -1 J J J J J J U U C m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m_ m m m m m m m m m m m } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } U } } } } } Q Q a a a a a Q a a¢¢ a¢¢¢¢¢ Q¢¢¢ a a a a¢ Q¢ a¢¢ w¢¢ a Q a IL a n a m a LL m LL a LL LL a LL LL a a. a a LL CL a a LL a a a a a a LL LL a s a a a N I N F F F H H F F F F F I F m m � ❑ x z z z z z z X Z z z z z z Z Z Z z Z z z z z z Z Z z Z z z Z z z z z Z Z X Z z Z o r 0 0 0 0 0 0 F O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O F 0 0 0 w U U o U U U w U w U U 0 U U U U U U o U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U � U o U o o U ¢¢¢ a¢¢¢< ° a a¢¢ a a a a a Q a¢¢ a a a a a s a ¢ ¢ ¢ a Q ¢ a ¢ ¢ _ � w Z U O O Q F W U J U U Cl) U U U F U C U LLI z O U? O ? z F z o- z W Z O U o o ❑ m O W¢ Z U w M Z m 2 7 U w m m � j J Q J tr U U lr U O J m Q [1 Q Q Q W O} a J K U >. W> J Z > W o1 O U Z lY W J w m F m 2 U O p W O p U Z ~ p w m 0 z r J ¢ > z z ¢ O U w Z z U Q¢ w a w> OF F t U W a' U w< F t w Q O z U K 9 z U o U m to LL¢ tr W¢ Z O O }❑ Z¢ W¢ w O w F F w O F O w o U ¢ a F w U U Z S F U z z❑ 2 - 1 > J❑ ' p O¢ Q a O M O ¢ U 2 w z to LLI Z Z J F w O Q? J m Z Z K p¢ Q} t!J tLLL W Q O W W? K n w z lr W m a 0 2 2 2 2 w 0 J m J F w W W¢ m `� a w 0 w lY w m O a¢ J❑ S zm D w t? IE w w p J Z d> Z Z F 11 u o 0 p¢ Z W w w tr O Y W w z Z z LL w 0000 m� FK w-W J J O¢ w O O¢ w O O O Z S Y Z > w w LL ti LL LL LL 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 m 2 2 2 S Y Y Y Y Y J J Z Z Z Z Z C m n m O m m M W m n O CO ul O N V' m O m In m O n n O O N N O O O O CD O O st m O to tb Cp n D] N n m m n O R fC1 v N M m N n n O N 0 Co r O r m tD O LO O m m O V' N O m 0 N N M C, m n m m r m n d m O N l) O m n m Cl) m m N N LO m O N M > O Q r r r N m r N m N N N N N d' r N N r N O N N O O J L) w K Y # m M Lf) V I N V' m n m W O T O N M Q m m n m N M CO m m n m CD O N Cl) et m m m T O N >n �� a c u� u� n m m m w m m m ro m m m m m m m m n 1� n n n n n n n Co co m lr L N N N N N N N N N N N Cl) N N N N N N N N N N Cl) N N N N N N N N Cl) N N co N N co N N N U n n n n n n n n n n 1r n n n n n n n n n n n In n n n 1n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n N , O � � m N cc N LL w N W w IL O � c� Q � = U U � LL U O — o :03 Z C r U N O O O N N O J U W Y U LO of o n z z > > LL LL F F z z w m F w 2 n Z n n n W n 2 z z > z w z z z g z > n n n n n n m n LL n O 0 n p n n O LL n n n m O m LL n W n ti 0 n p 0 0 n 0 0 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LL Z Z Z Z Z Z w Z Z > Z Z Z Cf Z Z Z Z Z - S S O S S S Z n Un S S O S CL S S 0 Z S n>> z 0 Z Z S O O Z Z 0 LL S S S S S c LL LL LL LL LL LL O LL = LL LL LL LL LL LL LL O LL LL LL O O LL O O LL � LL O LL LL LL LL LL LL LL J J J J ¢ J ¢ J F J (7 J J J J J J F J J J = F J F J LL J F J J J J J J J N K w< z < <¢ O w w w w w¢ K ° w w w w W w fY W O W W W W F" w W LL LL w w W w W LL' LL' W¢ W= W W F W W w W w -� Z Z Z Z Z Z U Z -� z z Z z LL Z Z U U Z Z Z m U Z U U Z m Z U Z Z d Z Z Z Z Z m U C7 U U C7 C7 Ir O m O U' U` 0 0 0 0 W� 0 0 U' °2 = O�= `U °� U' z U' o U U' U` o o o 2 w u r. < 0 a Z J m U J J O W } W CL O W w w w w w w w w w w w w w w W W W W W W W W W W W W W y W W W W W W W W W LL w F- F F F F F F F F F F- F F F F- F F F F F F F- F F U F F F F- F F F F F Z F- m m m rn m m m U m m m m Un m m m m n rn rn m rn rn m m m m m m m U m m m 0 0 U p m Un m m m m rn m Un rn m m m U m m rn m m m m U Un rn rn m m m m m m m m m m m m m 2 m W W W w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w Q w w w w w W W W W Z co W J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J > J J J J J J J J J W Z J C3 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m o¢ Q Q¢ Q Q a a Q¢ Q a a Q Q¢¢ Q a Q Q Q¢ a Q a a Q w Q Q a a Q a Q a Q n- O a > r > r r >- > > r r r >- r r > r r r > > > > r > r r r U } > r > > > > > > r ¢ a Q Q a¢ a a a¢¢¢¢ Q Q¢¢¢¢¢ a Q¢ a¢ a a a W¢ a Q¢ Q a¢¢¢ O U a 'U LL LL LL m LL LL LL LL m LL m m m LL LL m m a LL LL a m LL LL LL LL m LL LL a a d LL a m LL LL LL U S a y to N U m U 0 0 U U U U U U U U U U U 0 U U 0 U U U U In U w U U to U U U U to U 0 n 0 F F F F F F- F F F F F F- F F F F F F F F F F F F- F F F F F F F F F F F F F F W w F n z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z Z z Z Z Z z Z Z z Cl Z ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u W O LL S U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U w F U ¢ Q¢ a Q Q¢¢ a a Q¢ a a Q a Q Q¢ Q¢ Q¢¢ a a Q a a¢ a¢ a a Q¢ Q 0 2 a `o a O U Q N r W F U U Z z O O� CO 0 W W J F W x Z Z LL' LL' W O w w� Z �_ 0 d d p m 0 0 0 U Q J p Z W LL O F a Z F2' K X _ m Z Q m Z L) LU Y O W W W LL J N !r LL W Y V Z Q i a FwY- LL' J O O O W O O � n m w 3 m F W=== 0 0> a Q Q Q F_' 3: Q W W W W U U U U U W S 2 O m LL O K K x0� x m m m m U m U rn U Z W z U W W EL O Y ¢ S N F U F D v W w LL K Q tr � O LLI = Z 0 > Z O CO Ui Q U O W p m Z O U w F U O W Z_ 2 a Z U_j z J w-i w m > z :c U Q w 05 m w (� Z p LL > i 3: X ¢ Q OU � U `� O O O O r N O O of 0 7 0 0 0 0 O N O c'J O O O O C O co N O V c0 cD O Ll� O O to cq u� O O V N O N 01 m r O O O O [O O O O r c0 O O cl O O O O cn 4 V O O O co to t° r m co V O W O t0 O N O O N V r N m N O m O O O (2 6) c0 O c0 o N cfl ° to m Lo g co m r c0 cn m m N r V N r m r N N N V" r O O O O m 7 c0 m N r co V E O r N m m r O 07 N co N O cc N r lf) M r c() O r N r 47 V Q Ld � r co O r r c o *' I m '7 m to r W O O N m V cn o r m O O N m Cr m m r O O O .: N v ;i to O r CO OJ O N cl U O w O O O cp w O m W m m m O m W W O O O O O O O O O O N N N N d M m m m m 0'J m m m m of m m m n m m'T 't V V V r V R C V V 7 C' r V t N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U r r r r r r r r- r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r- rn r r r r r r r O U U U) p U w W R U � = J x 0 m z U) J 2= Q O U w Z F J F W _ Un = O Z QQ Q Z U a F U F D v W w LL K Q tr � O LLI = Z 0 > Z O CO Ui Q U O W p m Z O U w F U O W Z_ 2 a Z U_j z J w-i w m > z :c U Q w 05 m w (� Z p LL > i 3: X ¢ Q OU � U `� O O O O r N O O of 0 7 0 0 0 0 O N O c'J O O O O C O co N O V c0 cD O Ll� O O to cq u� O O V N O N 01 m r O O O O [O O O O r c0 O O cl O O O O cn 4 V O O O co to t° r m co V O W O t0 O N O O N V r N m N O m O O O (2 6) c0 O c0 o N cfl ° to m Lo g co m r c0 cn m m N r V N r m r N N N V" r O O O O m 7 c0 m N r co V E O r N m m r O 07 N co N O cc N r lf) M r c() O r N r 47 V Q Ld � r co O r r c o *' I m '7 m to r W O O N m V cn o r m O O N m Cr m m r O O O .: N v ;i to O r CO OJ O N cl U O w O O O cp w O m W m m m O m W W O O O O O O O O O O N N N N d M m m m m 0'J m m m m of m m m n m m'T 't V V V r V R C V V 7 C' r V t N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U r r r r r r r r- r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r- rn r r r r r r r N � O m co M c1 . CL W ° o W A (L 'rn 0 Q Y = U U) L LL U N O = o } U LO U U N p z U- o LL N � Q N C Z U Z m C7 K C7 2 2 F 1--• Cf) co (D U) g } } C a V1 a cn U N p Z Z E 3 O O O Q Q Q z O F- Q U Z 7 X O W U p J cn a W > z G7 m 0 v c O c v Ln v N , m m O 0 Q L m CC) o o o O N I N (7 O J W Y � � U ( N N N O C V V L U � � n N N � O � CT N Cp N a LU Lu a E <Y c M Q = U co CD LL L O U N (� O U o U N CO M O CD O v M O O CO O N O .;m C 3 11- O I- u] O O N O O O N N CO C.D CD C- v co C`7 tom. O to Cn of O.; o L c7 ' gy m E co CA co co v O m C' LO LO m N N Co 1� v_ (O o (o n ` �'CD Q C`7 h r CO uJ r N N Co m 0 �2 N r i N M ° U F o Z � a U- O a) LL LL F y . F W CO Z 1-- ° ° W W W O LL L ° ° N > z Z o W O ° L of � o O L- a a>> LL F — z of o LLI U) of 2 w LL W o Q w� W O m m W°� u) Y i C7 LL F W U 0 U) a' m U) w LO E O O O N O V O O O N N N u) o O O O O O O uJ O d' �[ O O O O O m m co O O 0 N o 0 N 0 N 0 Co o 7 a 7 o O O o h o of Cl m 0 a L! CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinato SUBJECT: Resolution No.5662: A Resolution Approving Property Tax Abatement for CertainTeed Corporation Resolution No. 5666: A Resolution Authorizing Application to the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development for the Minnesota Investment Fund for CertainTeed Corporation MEETING DATE: March 6, 2002 Introduction: At their meetings of February 5, 2002, the Economic Development Authority and City Council directed staff to: 1. Prepare a Contract for Private Development between the City, Scott County and CertainTeed Corporation which would set the provisions of a tax abatement related to the company's expansion at their Shakopee facility at 3303 E. Fourth Avenue, and 2. Set a date of March 6, 2002 for a public hearing on the proposed tax abatement, and on an Application to the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development for the Minnesota Investment Fund. Attached are the following: Exhibit A — Resolution No. 5662: A Resolution Approving Property Tax Abatement for CertainTeed Corporation. Exhibit B - Contract for Private Development between the City, Scott County and CertainTeed Corporation Exhibit C — Tax Abatement Projections from Springsted, Inc. Public Finance Advisors Exhibit D — Resolution No. 5666, A Resolution Authorizing Application to the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development for the Minnesota Investment Fund for CertainTeed Corporation res5662memo.doc Exhibit E — Financial Due Diligence from Kennedy & Graven, Chartered (required for the Minnesota Investment Fund application) Action Requested: After its public hearing, the City Council should: Offer Resolution No. 5662, A Resolution Approving Property Tax Abatement for CertainTeed Corporation, and move its adoption; and 2. Offer Resolution No. 5666: A Resolution Authorizing Application to the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development for the Minnesota Investment Fund for the CertainTeed Corporation expansion. res5662memo.doc P- � RES AP PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY 1 SHAKOP BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council ( "Council ") of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota ( "City') as follows: Section 1. Recitals 1.01. The City has determined a need to grant a property tax abatement to CertainTeed Corporation (the "Developer") for a manufacturing, office and warehouse facility on certain property in the City described in Exhibit A (the "Property"), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.1812 to 469.1815 (the "Act "). 1.02. This Council has previously reviewed information concerning the above - referenced facility, including financial, job and wage projections and a Contract for Private Development (the "Development Agreement ") proposed to be entered between the City, Scott County, Minnesota (the "County") and the Developer. 1.03. The proposed property tax abatement constitutes a business subsidy in excess of $100,000 within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 to 1161995 (the `Business Subsidy Act "), and the Development Agreement includes a business subsidy agreement as required under the Business Subsidy Act. 1.04. On March 6, 2002 the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Abatement (as hereinafter defined) and the business subsidy in excess of $100,000, at which the views of all interested persons were heard. Section 2. Findings. 2.01. It is hereby found and determined that the benefits to the City from the Abatement will be at least equal to the costs to the City of the Abatement. 2.02. It is hereby found and determined that the Abatement and the execution of the Development Agreement are in the public interest because such actions will increase the tax base of the City and provide employment opportunities within the City. 2.03. It is further specifically found and determined that the Abatement is expected to result in the following public benefits: JKP- 207992v 1 1 SH235 -10 (a) Create an estimated $5,758,000 increase in estimated market value for property tax purposes, which will be available to all taxing jurisdictions after expiration of the Abatement. (b) Improve the economic vitality of the community through creation of manufacturing - related jobs and a further beneficial economic impact in connection therewith. (c) Stimulate further development that creates additional tax base for the City. (d) Increase living wage jobs in the City. (e) Make use of and support existing and future transportation systems. Section 3. Actions Ratified. Abatement Approved 3.01. The Council hereby ratifies all actions of the City's staff and consultants in arranging for approval of this resolution in accordance with the Act. 3.02. Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Abatement is hereby approved and adopted subject to the following terms and conditions: (a) The term "Abatement" means the real property taxes generated in any tax- payable year by extending the City's total tax rate for that year against the tax capacity of the Minimum Improvements constructed on the Property in accordance with the Development Agreement, excluding the tax capacity of the land and the tax capacity attributable to improvements existing as of the date of this resolution, and excluding any portion of the tax capacity attributable to the areawide tax under Minnesota Statues, Chapter 473F, all as of January 2 in the prior year; except in no event will the Abatement exceed $29,225 in any year, subject to any additional limits imposed by the Act as described in clause (d) below. (b) The Abatement will be paid for a period of six years, commencing in the first tax - payable year after substantial completion of the manufacturing improvements on the Property in accordance with the Development Agreement or such other date as is specified in the Development Agreement and the Note (as defined in the Development Agreement). (c) The Abatement will be paid by the City to the Developer in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement and the Note. (d) In accordance with Section 469.1813, subdivision 8 of the Act, in no case shall the Abatement in any one year exceed the greater of 5% of the City's levy for that year or $100,000. (e) The Abatement is subject to modification in accordance with the Act, subject to the terms of the Development Agreement. JKP- 207992v1 2 SH235 -10 (f) Approval of the Abatement by the City is conditional upon approval by the County of an abatement of the County's share of taxes on the Minimum Improvements substantially as described in the Development Agreement. 3.03. This Council hereby approves the Development Agreement and issuance of the Note to the Developer as described in the Development Agreement. The Mayor, the City Clerk and City Administrator are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Development Agreement and the Note in substantially the form on file with the City, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and are approved by the Mayor, Administrator and Clerk, provided that execution of the document by such officials is conclusive evidence of their approval. Such officials are also authorized to execute any and all other documents that are required by the Development Agreement. 3.04. The City Finance Director is designated as Registrar for the Note, and shall maintain records for the registration of ownership of the Note and the registration of transfers and exchanges of the Note. Approved by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota this 6th day of March, 2002. Mayor Attest: City Clerk 7KP- 207992v1 3 SH235 -10 Description of Property 1 Z4 =bg 1 • • �'� 1. That the City of Shakopee act as the legal sponsor for the project contained in the Business and Community Development Application to be submitted on March 15, 2002, and that the City Administrator is hereby authorized to apply to the Department of Trade and Economic Development, for funding of this project on behalf of the City of Shakopee 2. That the City of Shakopee has not incurred any costs and has not entered into any written agreements for purchase of property for the proposed project. 3. That the City of Shakopee has not violated any Federal, State, or local laws pertaining to fraud, bribery, kickbacks, collusion, conflict of interest or other unlawful or corrupt practice. 4. That upon approval of its application by the Department of Trade and Economic Development on behalf of the State of Minnesota, the City of Shakopee may enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota for the above - referenced project, and that the City of Shakopee certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in all contract agreements and described on the Compliance Section of the Business and Community Development Application. 5. As applicable, that the City of Shakopee has obtained credit reports and credit information from CertainTeed Corporation. Upon review by the City of Shakopee and its legal counsel, no adverse findings or concerns regarding, but not limited to, tax liens, judgments, court actions, and filings with state, federal and other regulatory agencies were identified. Failure to disclose any such adverse information could result in revocation or other legal action. 6. That the City Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such agreements, and amendments thereto, as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City of Shakopee. Adopted in Minnesota, held this Shakopee, — session of the City Council of day of 2002. PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 xG- 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337 -9300 telephone (612) 337 -9310 fax hrtp : / /www.kennedy-graven.com DANIEL J. G REENSWEIG Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337 -9231 e -mail: dgreensweig @kennedy- graven.com February 5, 2002 Mark McNeill City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 Souih Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mark: As part of the City's application process for a Minnesota Investment Fund loan from the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development for the purpose of assisting in the financing of an expansion of the Shakopee plant of CertainTeed Corporation, the City is required to perform certain financial due diligence in addition to the underwriting independently performed by DTED. At the request of.City staff, we have. undertaken that review. CertainTeed Corporation is headquartered in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Saint- Gobain Corporation, Paris, France. Saint- Gobain is the world's largest building materials company, and its business in the U.S. and Canada accounts for a significant portion of both its worldwide sales and its employees. CertainTeed is a manufacturer of exterior building materials for new construction and home remodeling needs, and the Shakopee, Minnesota site primarily manufactures roofing shingles. The available public records regarding CertainTeed strongly suggest that that it is a financially stable corporation. Specifically, we have requested and reviewed a D &B comprehensive report and a. Capital Lieu PRecor ds & Research, )Inc.. search .ef r�1° tT�t courtand property records. in general, these indicate that'CertainTeed pays its bills in accordance with the practices of other large companies. There are a significant number of judgments pending against CertainTeed, but this too is typical of a large company, especially as many of those are workers' compensation and conciliation court claims. Finally, the security interests filed against certain property owned by the corporation appear to be the result of standard financing mechanisms used by many manufacturers of a similar size. In short, the public information on the company indicates that CertainTeed is a financially stable business with a significant net worth. Nevertheless, CertainTeed Corporation is a privately held corporation, and while we and DTED have been provided with an informal overview of the comp.any.'s performance, we do not have access to any audited financial statements, and because of data practices act disclosure requirements, the company is not comfortable, submitting private DJG- 209677vl SH235 -11 I � t a C H A R T E R E D 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337 -9300 telephone (612) 337 -9310 fax hrtp : / /www.kennedy-graven.com DANIEL J. G REENSWEIG Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337 -9231 e -mail: dgreensweig @kennedy- graven.com February 5, 2002 Mark McNeill City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 Souih Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mark: As part of the City's application process for a Minnesota Investment Fund loan from the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development for the purpose of assisting in the financing of an expansion of the Shakopee plant of CertainTeed Corporation, the City is required to perform certain financial due diligence in addition to the underwriting independently performed by DTED. At the request of.City staff, we have. undertaken that review. CertainTeed Corporation is headquartered in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Saint- Gobain Corporation, Paris, France. Saint- Gobain is the world's largest building materials company, and its business in the U.S. and Canada accounts for a significant portion of both its worldwide sales and its employees. CertainTeed is a manufacturer of exterior building materials for new construction and home remodeling needs, and the Shakopee, Minnesota site primarily manufactures roofing shingles. The available public records regarding CertainTeed strongly suggest that that it is a financially stable corporation. Specifically, we have requested and reviewed a D &B comprehensive report and a. Capital Lieu PRecor ds & Research, )Inc.. search .ef r�1° tT�t courtand property records. in general, these indicate that'CertainTeed pays its bills in accordance with the practices of other large companies. There are a significant number of judgments pending against CertainTeed, but this too is typical of a large company, especially as many of those are workers' compensation and conciliation court claims. Finally, the security interests filed against certain property owned by the corporation appear to be the result of standard financing mechanisms used by many manufacturers of a similar size. In short, the public information on the company indicates that CertainTeed is a financially stable business with a significant net worth. Nevertheless, CertainTeed Corporation is a privately held corporation, and while we and DTED have been provided with an informal overview of the comp.any.'s performance, we do not have access to any audited financial statements, and because of data practices act disclosure requirements, the company is not comfortable, submitting private DJG- 209677vl SH235 -11 Mark McNeill February 5, 2002 Page 2 of 2 financial information in a forum in which the public and its competitors would have access to it. In exchange, however, the company has offered to provide a letter of credit as security for the loan, greatly reducing the need to rely on CertainTeed's internal financial resources as a source of repayment. Please keep in mind that while I have some experience with these types of reviews, I am not an accountant and do not intend for this to serve as a formal opinion as to the viability of the company or the proposed loan. If the City desires more specific financial analysis of CertainTeed, it should consult with its accountants or financial advisors. In either case, please let me know if you have questions or want additional information about this review. Sincerely, DJG: Cc: Jim Thomson JPD- 152601 IG400 -1 First Draft: February 28 2001 This document was drafted by: KENNEDY & GRAVEN, Chartered 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Telephone: 337 -9300 JKP- 207993v1 SH235 -10 Page PREAMBLE..................................................................................................... ..............................1 ARTICLE I Definitions Section1.1. Definitions .................................................................................. ..............................2 ARTICLE II Representations and Warranties Section 2.1. Representations by the City ....................................................... ..............................5 Section 2.2. Representations by the County .................................................. ..............................5 Section 2.3. Representations and Warranties by the Developer .................... ..............................5 ARTICLE III Property Tax Abatement Section 3.1. Status of Development Property ................................................ ..............................7 Section 3.2. Property Tax Abatement ............................................................ ..............................7 Section 3.3. Payment of Administrative Costs .............................................. ..............................8 Section3.4. Records ...................................................................................... ..............................8 Section 3.5. Business Subsidy Agreement ..................................................... ..............................8 ARTICLE IV Construction of Minimum Improvements Section 4.1. Construction of Improvements ................................................. .............................11 Section 4.2. Construction Plans .................................................................... .............................11 Section 4.3. Commencement and Completion of Construction .................... .............................12 Section 4.4. Certificate of Completion ......................................................... .............................12 ARTICLE V Insurance and Condemnation Section5.1. Insurance ................................................................................... .............................13 Section5.2. Subordination ............................................................................ .............................14 ARTICLE VI Taxes; Minimum Market Value Section 6.1. Right to Collect Delinquent Taxes ............................................ .............................15 Section 6.2. Reduction of Taxes ................................................................... .............................15 Section 6.3. Minimum Market Value ........................................................... .............................15 SMS1- 178091v1 SH235 -7 1 ARTICLE VII Financing Section7.1. Financing ................................................................................... .............................16 ARTICLE VIII Prohibitions Against Assignment and Transfer; Indemnification Section 8.1. Representation as to Development ............................................ .............................17 Section 8.2. Prohibition Against Developer's Transfer of Property and Assignment of Agreement ........................................................ .............................17 Section 8.3. Release and Indemnification Covenants ................................... .............................18 ARTICLE IX Events of Default Section 9.1. Events of Default Defined ........................................................ .............................20 Section 9.2. Remedies on Default ................................................................. .............................20 Section9.3. No Remedy Exclusive ............................................................... .............................21 Section 9.4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver ....................... .............................21 Section9.5. Attorney Fees ............................................................................ .............................21 Section 9.6. Default by City or County 21 ARTICLE X Additional Provisions Section 10.1. Conflict of Interests; Representatives Not Individually Liable .............................23 Section 10.2. Equal Employment Opportunity ............................................... .............................23 Section 10.3. [Intentionally Omitted] ............................................................. .............................23 Section 10.4. Provisions Not Merged With Deed ........................................... .............................23 Section 10.5. Titles of Articles and Sections .................................................. .............................23 Section 10.6. Notices and Demands ............................................................... .............................23 Section10.7. Counterparts .............................................................................. .............................2 Section10.8. Recording .................................................................................. ............................. TESTIMONIUM.............................................................................................. ............................. SIGNATURES................................................................................................. ............................. SCHEDULE A Development Property SCHEDULE B Certificate of Completion SCHEDULE C Note SMSl- 178091v1 SH235 -7 11 • ., •, �. it •' 1 THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the day of March, 2002, by and between the CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City'), SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota (the "County') and CERTAINTEED, INC., a Minnesota corporation (the "Developer "). RECITALS WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.1812 to 469.1815 (the "Act ") the City and the County are authorized to abate property taxes in order to increase or preserve tax base and provide employment opportunities; and WHEREAS, the Developer agrees to construct improvements to the Development Property (the "Minimum Improvements ") as provided in this Agreement; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act, the city council of the City and the board of commissioners of the County have each approved resolutions authorizing abatements to a portion of real property taxes on certain property defined in this Agreement as the Development Property; and WHEREAS, the County and the City have determined that the property tax abatement contemplated herein and the fulfillment generally of this Agreement, are in the vital and best interests of the City and the County and the health, safety, morals, and welfare of their residents, and in accord with the public purposes and provisions of the applicable State and local laws and requirements under which the Project has been undertaken. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual obligations contained in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows: JKP- 207993v1 SH235 -10 Definitions Section 1.1. Definitions In this Agreement, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context: "Act" means Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.1812 to 469.1815, as amended. "Agreement" means this Agreement, as the same may be from time to time modified, amended, or supplemented. "Available Abatement" means, on each Scheduled Payment Date, the sum of the City Tax Abatement and County Tax Abatement generated in the preceding six (6) months with respect to the Minimum Improvements and remitted to the City by the County. "Business Day" means any day except a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday, a day on which the City or County is closed for business, or a day on which banking institutions in the City are authorized by law or executive order to close. "City" means the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. "City Tax Abatement" means the real property taxes (1) generated in any tax- payable year by extending the City's local tax rate against the tax capacity of the Minimum Improvements (excluding land and any improvements existing as of the date of this Agreement, and excluding any portion of the tax capacity attributable to the areawide tax under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 473F) as of January 2 in the prior year, and (ii) paid to the City by the County. "City Abatement Resolution" means Resolution No. , approved by the City Council of the City on March 6, 2002, regarding abatement of property taxes on the Development Property. "Certificate of Completion" means the certification provided to the Developer, or the purchaser of any part, parcel or unit of the Development Property, pursuant to Section 4.4 of this Agreement. "Construction Plans" means the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents on the construction work to be performed by the Developer on the Development Property, including the Minimum Improvements and the related site improvements, which (a) shall be as detailed as the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents which are submitted to the appropriate building officials of the City, and (b) shall include at least the following: (1) site plan; (2) foundation plan; (3) basement plans; (4) floor plan for each floor; (5) cross sections of each (length and width); (6) elevations (all sides); (7) landscape plan; and (8) such other plans or supplements to the foregoing plans as the City may reasonably request to allow it to ascertain the nature and quality of the proposed construction work. "County" means the County of Scott, Minnesota. 7KP- 207993v1 2 SH235 -10 "County Tax Abatement" means the real property taxes (i) generated in any tax - payable year by extending the County's local tax rate against the tax capacity of the Minimum Improvements (excluding land and any improvements existing as of the date of this Agreement, and excluding any portion of the tax capacity attributable to the areawide tax under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 473F) as of January 2 in the prior year, and (ii) paid to the City by the County. "County Abatement Resolution" means Resolution No. , adopted by the board of commissioners of the County on , 2002 regarding abatement of property taxes on the Development Property. "Developer" means CertainTeed, Inc., or its permitted successors and assigns. "Development Property" means the real property described in Schedule A of this Agreement. "Event of Default" means an action by the Developer listed in Article IX of this Agreement. "Holder" means the owner of a Mortgage. "Maturity Date" means the date that the Note has been paid in full or terminated, whichever is earlier. "Minimum Improvements" means the construction on the Development Property of an approximately 63,800 square foot manufacturing, office and warehouse facility, as an expansion of the existing manufacturing facility on that property. "Mortgage" means any mortgage made by the Developer which is secured, in whole or in part, with the Development Property and which is a permitted encumbrance pursuant to the provisions of Article VIII of this Agreement. "Note" means the Taxable Limited Revenue Note, Series 2002 substantially in the form attached as Schedule C to this Agreement, to be issued by the City to the Developer. "Project" means the Development Property as improved with the Minimum Improvements. "State" means the State of Minnesota. "Tax Official" means any County assessor; County auditor; County or State board of equalization, the commissioner of revenue of the State, or any State or federal district court, the tax court of the State, or the State Supreme Court. "Transfer" has the meaning set forth in Section 8.2(a) hereof. "Unavoidable Delays" means delays beyond the reasonable control of the party seeking to be excused as a result thereof which are the direct result of strikes, other labor troubles, JKP- 207993v1 3 SH235 -10 prolonged adverse weather or acts of God, fire or other casualty to the Minimum Improvements, litigation commenced by third parties which, by injunction or other similar judicial action, directly results in delays, or acts of any federal, state or local governmental unit (other than the City in exercising their rights under this Agreement) which directly result in delays. Unavoidable Delays shall not include delays in the Developer's obtaining of permits or governmental approvals necessary to enable construction of the Minimum Improvements by the dates such construction is required under Section 4.3 of this Agreement, so long as the Construction Plans have been approved in accordance with Section 4.2 hereof. JKP- 207993v1 4 SH235 -10 Ev"ItudwWri Representations and Warranties Section 2.1. Representations by the City The City makes the following representations and warranties as the basis for its covenants herein: (a) The City is a statutory city duly organized and existing under the laws of the State. Under the provisions of the Act, the City has the power to enter into this Agreement and carry out its obligations hereunder. (b) The City proposes to grant abatement of taxes on the Development Property and the Minimum Improvements thereon, for the purposes of increasing the tax base and creating employment opportunities. Section 2.2 Representations by the County The County makes the following representations and warranties as the basis for its covenants herein: (a) The County is a political subdivision of the State, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State. Under the provisions of the Act, the County has the power to enter into this Agreement and carry out its obligations hereunder. (b) The County proposes to grant abatement of taxes on the Development Property and the Minimum Improvements thereon, for the purposes of increasing the tax base and creating employment opportunities. Section 2.3. Representations and Warranties by the Developer The Developer makes the following representations and warranties as the basis for its covenants herein: (a) The Developer is a corporation, duly organized and in good standing under the laws of the State, is not in violation of any provisions of its articles of incorporation and bylaws, is duly authorized to transact business within the State, has power to enter into this Agreement and has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by proper action of its officers. (b) The Developer will construct, operate and maintain the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and all local, state and federal laws and regulations (including, but not limited to, environmental, zoning, building code and public health laws and regulations). (c) The Developer has received no notice or communication from any local, state or federal official that the activities of the Developer may be or will be in violation of any environmental law or regulation (other than those notices or communications of which the City is aware). The Developer is aware of no facts the existence of which would cause it to be in JKP- 207993v1 5 SH235 -10 violation of or give any person a valid claim under any local, state or federal environmental law, regulation or review procedure. (d) The Developer will construct the Minimum Improvements in accordance with all local, state or federal energy - conservation laws or regulations. (e) The Developer will obtain, in a timely manner, all required permits, licenses and approvals, and will meet, in a timely manner, all requirements of all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations which must be obtained or met before the Minimum Improvements may be lawfully constructed. (f) Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, nor the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement is prevented, limited by or conflicts with or results in a breach of, the terms, conditions or provisions of any corporate restriction or any evidences of indebtedness, agreement or instrument of whatever nature to which the Developer is now a party or by which it is bound, or constitutes a default under any of the foregoing, which default or breach might prevent the Developer from performing its obligations under this Agreement. (g) The Developer shall promptly advise the City in writing of all litigation or claims affecting any part of the Minimum Improvements and all written complaints and charges made by any governmental authority materially affecting the Minimum Improvements or materially affecting Developer or its business which may delay or require changes in construction of the Minimum Improvements. (h) The Developer is not in default under any business subsidy agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 1167.994. JKP- 207993v1 6 SH235 -10 Property Tax Abatement Section 3.1. Status of Development Property The Developer has entered or will enter into a purchase agreement to acquire fee title to the Development Property. Neither the City nor the County shall have any obligation to acquire the Development Property or any portion thereof. Section 3.2. Property Tax Abatement. (a) Generally In order to make development of the Project economically feasible, the City will issue the Note to the Developer in the principal amount of $371,100 in substantially the form attached hereto as Schedule C. The Note shall be secured solely by Available Abatements, and the City and County each pledge City Tax Abatements and County Tax Abatements, respectively, to the debt service fund for the Note. The Note shall not bear interest. The first payment date on the Note will be August 1, 2004, and the Note will mature no later than February 1, 2010. (b) Limitations The pledge of Available Abatements to the Note is subject to all the terms and conditions of the City Abatement Resolution and the County Abatement Resolution. The Note is payable solely from and to the extent of the City Tax Abatement and County Tax Abatement, respectively, and nothing herein shall be construed to obligate the City or County to make payments from any other funds. The City and County make no warranties or representations as to the amount of the Available Abatements, or that amounts payable on the Note will be sufficient to pay all or any portion of the principal amount. Any estimates of Available Abatement amounts prepared by the City's financial consultants are for the benefit of the City only, and the Developer is not entitled to rely on such estimates. The Developer further acknowledges that the total property tax abatements payable by the City in any year may not exceed the greater of $100,000 or five percent of the City's levy for that year; and that the total property tax abatements payable by the County in any year may not exceed the greater of $100,000 or five percent of the County's levy for that year (each such limit referred to as the "Abatement Volume Cap "), all pursuant to Section 469.1813, subd. 8 of the Act. Neither the City nor the County warrants or represents that the City Tax Abatements or County Tax Abatements in the amounts pledged to the Note will be within the City's or County's Abatement Volume Cap. Any abatements granted by the City or County under the Act will be allocated to their respective Abatement Volume Caps in order of the date of approval of each abatement resolution. (c) Delivery The Note shall be delivered by the City to the Developer upon execution of this Agreement. The parties agree that consideration for delivery of the Note is Developer's obligation to complete the Project and meet the business subsidy goals in accordance with Section 3.5 of this Agreement. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and the terms of the Note, the terms of the Note shall control. JKP- 207993v1 7 SH235 -10 (d) Deficiencies In no event will the total City Tax Abatement paid in any 12 -month period exceed $29,225, or the total County Tax Abatement paid in any 12 -month period exceed $32,625. If on any Scheduled Payment Date (as defined in the Note) the amount of Available Abatement is insufficient to pay the full amount of principal owed by the City on the Note on such Scheduled Payment Date, the City shall remit so much of the City Tax Abatement and County Tax Abatement as the City has received as of such Scheduled Payment Date, and neither the City nor County shall have an obligation to pay to the Developer or carry forward such deficiency. Section 3.3. Payment of Administrative Costs The Developer will pay to the City all out of pocket costs incurred by the City and the County (including without limitation attorney and fiscal consultant fees) in the negotiation and preparation of this Agreement and other documents and agreements in connection with the development contemplated hereunder (collectively, the "Administrative Costs "). Administrative Costs shall be evidenced by invoices, statements or other reasonable written evidence of the costs incurred by the City or County. The Developer shall pay Administrative Costs from time to time within 30 days after receipt of written notice thereof from the City. The City shall transfer to the County any portion of Administrative Costs attributable to the County promptly upon receipt of payment from the Developer. The Developer's business subsidy application fee deposited with the City prior to the date of this Agreement will be applied towards Developer's obligations under this Section. Section 3.4. Records The City and its representatives shall have the right at all reasonable times after reasonable notice to inspect, examine and copy all books and records of Developer relating to the Project. Developer shall also use its best efforts to cause the contractor or contractors, all sub - contractors and their agents and lenders to make their books and records relating to the Project available to City, upon reasonable notice, for inspection, examination and audit. Such records shall be kept and maintained by Developer until the Maturity Date. Section 3.5. Business Subsidy Agreement The provisions of this Section constitute the "business subsidy agreement" in connection with the business subsidy provided by both the City and the County for the purposes of Minnesota Statutes Section 116J.993 to 116J.995 (the "Business Subsidy Act "). (a) General Terms The parties agree and represent to each other as follows: (1) The subsidy provided to the Developer consists of payments on the Note, which payments represent a forgivable loan that is repayable by the Developer in accordance with this Section. No portion of the business subsidy is tax increment financing. (2) The public purposes of the subsidy are to provide employment opportunities and increase the tax base of the City and the State. (3) The goals for the subsidy are: to secure development of the Project; to maintain the Project as a manufacturing facility for at least five years as described in clause (6) below; and to create the jobs and wage levels in accordance with Section 3.5(b) hereof. JKP- 207993v1 8 SH235 -10 (4) If the goals described in clause (3) are not met, the Developer must make the payments to the City described in Section 3.5(c). (5) The subsidy is needed to induce the Developer to maintain its operations in this City and the State, thus preserving and enhancing job and tax base growth for the City, County and the State as a whole. The Developer operates an existing facility in the City at a site that cannot accommodate operations without expansion. Absent the subsidy provided in this Agreement, the expansion would likely occur in another state or outside the United States. (6) The Developer must continue operation of the Minimum Improvements as a manufacturing facility for at least five years after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Completion. (7) The Developer's parent corporation is building products conglomerate, St. Gobain, Pairs, France. (8) In addition to the City and County Abatement, the Developer expects to receive a Minnesota Investment Loan through the City in the estimated amount of $ . That loan will also constitute a business subsidy under the Business Subsidy Act. The City and Developer will enter into a separate business subsidy agreement related to that loan. (b) Job and Wage Goals Within two years after the Benefit Date, the Developer shall cause to be created at least 44 new full -time equivalent jobs on the Development Property (excluding any jobs previously existing in the State as of the date of this Agreement and relocated to this site) and shall cause the wages for all employees on the Development Property to be no less than $17.00 per hour, exclusive of benefits. The "Benefit Date" is the earliest of: (i) the date of issuance of the Certificate of Completion for the Minimum Improvements, or (ii) the date the Developer occupies the Minimum Improvements. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, if the wage and job goals described in this paragraph are met within two years after the Benefit Date, those goals are deemed satisfied despite the Developer's continuing obligations under Sections 3.5(a)(6) and 3.5(d). The City and County may, after public hearings held by both the City council and County board and approval by both bodies, extend the date for compliance with these job and wage covenants. by up to one year, provided that nothing in this section will be construed to limit the City's or County's legislative discretion regarding this matter. (c) Remedies If the Developer fails to meet the goals described in Section 3.5(a)(3), the Note and this Agreement will be deemed terminated, and the Developer shall repay to the City upon written demand from the City a "pro rata share" of prior payments under the Note, if any, together with interest on such amounts at the implicit price deflator as defined in, Section 116J.994, Subd. 6 of the Business Subsidy Act, accrued from the date of issuance of the Certificate of Completion to the date of payment. The term "pro rata share" means percentages calculated as follows: JKP- 207993v1 9 SH235 -10 (1) if the failure relates to the number of jobs, the jobs required less the jobs created, divided by the jobs required; (ii) if the failure relates to wages, the number of jobs required less the number of jobs that meet the required wages, divided by the number of jobs required; (iii) if the failure relates to maintenance of the manufacturing facility in accordance with Section 3.5(a)(6), 60 less the number of months of operation - as a manufacturing facility (where any month in which the facility is in operation for at least 15 days constitutes a month of operation), commencing on the date of the certificate of completion and ending with the date the facility ceases operation as determined by the City, divided by 60; and (iv) if more than one of the clauses (i) through (iii) apply, the sum of the applicable percentages, not to exceed 100 %. Promptly upon receipt of any repayment by the Developer, the City will remit to the County any amount attributable to County Tax Abatements. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to limit the City's or County's remedies under Article IX hereof. In addition to the remedy described in this Section and any other remedy available to the City or County for failure to meet the goals stated in Section 3.5(a)(3), the Developer agrees and understands that it may not receive a business subsidy from the City, the County or any other grantor (as defined in the Business Subsidy Act) for a period of five years from the date of the failure or until the Developer satisfies its repayment obligation under this Section, whichever occurs first. (d) Reports The Developer must submit to the City, with a copy to the County, a written report regarding business subsidy goals and results by no later than March 1 of each year, commencing March 1, 2003 and continuing until the later of (i) the date the goals stated in Section 3.5 (a)(3) are met; (ii) 30 days after expiration of the five -year period described in Section 3.5(a)(6); or (iii) if the goals are not met, the date the subsidy is repaid in accordance with Section 3.5(c). The report must comply with Section 116J.994, subdivision 7 of the Business Subsidy Act. The City will provide information to the Developer regarding the required forms. If the Developer fails to timely file any report required under this Section, the City will mail the Developer a warning within one week after the required filing date. If, after 14 days of the postmarked date of the warning, the Developer fails to provide a report, the Developer must pay to the City a penalty of $100 for each subsequent day until the report is filed. The maximum aggregate penalty payable under this Section is $1,000. The City agrees with the County that the City will file, on behalf of both entities, any reports required to be filed with the State under the Business Subsidy Act. JKP- 207993vl 10 SH235 -10 Construction of Minimum Improvements Section 4.1. Construction of Improvements The Developer agrees that it will construct the Minimum Improvements on the Development Property in accordance with the approved Construction Plans and at all times prior to the Maturity Date will operate and maintain, preserve and keep the Minimum Improvements or cause such improvements to be maintained, preserved and kept with the appurtenances and every part and parcel thereof, in good repair and condition. The City shall have no obligation to operate or maintain the Minimum Improvements. Section 4.2. Construction Plans (a) Before commencement of construction of the Minimum Improvements, the Developer shall submit to the City the Construction Plans. The Construction Plans shall provide for the construction of the Minimum Improvements and shall be in conformity with this Agreement, and all applicable State and local laws and regulations. The City will approve the Construction Plans in writing if (i) the Construction Plans conform to the terms and conditions of this Agreement; (ii) the Construction Plans conform to all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations; (iii) the Construction Plans are adequate to provide for construction of the Minimum Improvements; (iv) the Construction Plans do not provide for expenditures in excess of the funds available to the Developer from all sources for construction of the Minimum Improvements; and (v) no Event of Default has occurred. Approval may be based upon a review by the City's Building Official of the Construction Plans. No approval by the City shall relieve the Developer of the obligation to comply with the terms of this Agreement, applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, or to construct the Minimum Improvements in accordance therewith. No approval by the City shall constitute a waiver of an Event of Default. If approval of the Construction Plans is requested by the Developer in writing at the time of submission, such Construction Plans shall be deemed approved unless rejected in writing by the City, in whole or in part. Such rejections shall set forth in detail the reasons therefore, and shall be made within 20 days after the date of their receipt by the City. If the City rejects any Construction Plans in whole or in part, the Developer shall submit new or corrected Construction Plans within 20 days after its receipt of written notification to the Developer of the rejection. The provisions of this Section relating to approval, rejection and resubmission of corrected Construction Plans shall continue to apply until the Construction Plans have been approved by the City. The City's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Said approval shall constitute a conclusive determination that the Construction Plans (and the Minimum Improvements constructed in accordance with said plans) comply to the City's satisfaction with the provisions of this Agreement relating thereto. (b) If the Developer desires to make any material change in the Construction Plans after their approval by the City, the Developer shall submit the proposed change to the City for its approval. For the purposes of this Section, the term "material" means any change that increases or decreases the total cost of the Minimum Improvements by $200,000 or more. If the Construction Plans, as modified by the proposed change, conform to the requirements of this Section 4.2 of this Agreement with respect to such previously approved Construction Plans, the City shall approve the proposed change and notify the Developer in writing of its approval. Such change in the Construction Plans shall, in any event, be deemed approved by the City unless JKP- 207993v1 11 SH235 -10 rejected, in whole or in part, by written notice by the City to the Developer, setting forth in detail the reasons therefor. Such rejection shall be made within 20 days after receipt of the notice of such change. The City's approval of any such change in the Construction Plans will not be unreasonably withheld. Section 4.3. Commencement and Completion of Construction Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Developer shall complete the construction of the Minimum Improvements by December 31, 2002. All work with respect to the Minimum Improvements to be constructed or provided by the Developer on the Development Property shall be in conformity with the Construction Plans as submitted by the Developer and approved by the City. The Developer agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, and every successor in interest to the Development Property, or any part thereof, that the Developer, and such successors and assigns, shall promptly begin and diligently prosecute to completion the development of the Development Property through the construction of the Minimum Improvements thereon, and that such construction shall in any event be commenced and completed within the period specified in this Section 4.3 of this Agreement. After the date of this Agreement and until construction of the Minimum Improvements has been completed, the Developer shall make reports, in such detail and at such times as may reasonably be requested by the City, as to the actual progress of the Developer with respect to such construction. Section 4.4. Certificate of Completion (a) Promptly after completion of the Minimum Improvements in accordance with those provisions of the Agreement relating solely to the obligations of the Developer to construct the Minimum Improvements (including the dates for beginning and completion thereof), the City will furnish the Developer with a Certificate shown as Schedule B . Such certification and such determination shall not constitute evidence of compliance with or satisfaction of any obligation of the Developer to any Holder of a Mortgage, or any insurer of a Mortgage, securing money loaned to finance the Minimum Improvements, or any part thereof. (b) If the City shall refuse or fail to provide any certification in accordance with the provisions of this Section 4.4 of this Agreement, the City shall, within thirty (30) days after written request by the Developer, provide the Developer with a written statement, indicating in adequate detail in what respects the Developer has failed to complete the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, or is otherwise in default, and what measures or acts it will be necessary, in the reasonable opinion of the City, for the Developer to take or perform in order to obtain such certification. (c) The construction of the Minimum Improvements shall be deemed to be complete upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the City. JKP- 207993v1 12 SH235 -10 Insurance and Condemnation Section 5.1. Insurance (a) The Developer will provide and maintain at all times during the process of constructing the Minimum Improvements an All Risk Broad Form Basis Insurance Policy and, from time to time during that period, at the request of the City, furnish the City with proof of payment of premiums on policies covering the following: (1) builder's risk insurance, written on the so- called `Builder's Risk -- Completed Value Basis," in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100 %) of the insurable value of the Minimum Improvements at the date of completion, and with coverage available in nonreporting form on the so- called "all risk" form of policy. The interest of the City shall be protected in accordance with a clause in form and content satisfactory to the City; (ii) comprehensive general liability insurance (including operations, contingent liability, operations of subcontractors, completed operations and contractual liability insurance) together with an Owner's Protective Liability Policy with limits against bodily injury and property damage of not less than $1,000,000 for each occurrence (to accomplish the above - required limits, an umbrella excess liability policy may be used). The City shall be listed as an additional insured on the policy; and (iii) workers' compensation insurance, with statutory coverage, provided that the Developer may be self - insured with respect to all or any part of its liability for workers' compensation. (b) Upon completion of construction of the Minimum Improvements and prior to the Maturity Date, the Developer shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, at its cost and expense, and from time to time at the request of the City shall furnish proof of the payment of premiums on, insurance as follows: (i) Insurance against loss and/or damage to the Minimum Improvements under a policy or policies covering such risks as are ordinarily insured against by similar businesses. (ii) Comprehensive general public liability insurance, including personal injury liability (with employee exclusion deleted), against liability for injuries to persons and/or property, in the minimum amount for each occurrence and for each year of $1,000,000, and shall be endorsed to show the City as additional insured. (iii) Such other insurance, including workers' compensation insurance respecting all employees of the Developer, in such amount as is customarily carried by like organizations engaged in like activities of comparable size and liability exposure; provided that the Developer may be self - insured with respect to all or any part of its liability for workers' compensation. JKP- 207993v1 13 SH235 -10 (c) All insurance required in Article V of this Agreement shall be taken out and maintained in responsible insurance companies selected by the Developer which are authorized under the laws of the State to assume the risks covered thereby. Upon request, the Developer will deposit annually with the City policies evidencing all such insurance, or a certificate or certificates or binders of the respective insurers stating that such insurance is in force and effect. Unless otherwise provided in this Article V of this Agreement each policy shall contain a provision that the insurer shall not cancel nor modify it in such a way as to reduce the coverage provided below the amounts required herein without giving written notice to the Developer and the City at least thirty (30) days before the cancellation or modification becomes effective. In lieu of separate policies, the Developer may maintain a single policy, blanket or umbrella policies, or a combination thereof, having the coverage required herein, in which event the Developer shall deposit with the City a certificate or certificates of the respective insurers as to the amount of coverage in force upon the Minimum Improvements. (d) The Developer will notify the City immediately in the case of damage exceeding $500,000 in amount to, or destruction of, the Minimum Improvements or any portion thereof resulting from fire or other casualty. In such event the Developer will promptly repair, reconstruct and restore the Minimum Improvements to substantially the same or an improved condition or value as it existed prior to the event causing such damage and, to the extent necessary to accomplish such repair, reconstruction and restoration, the Developer will apply the net proceeds of any insurance relating to such damage received by the Developer to the payment or reimbursement of the costs thereof. The Developer shall complete the repair, reconstruction and restoration of the Minimum Improvements, whether or not the net proceeds of insurance received by the Developer for such purposes are sufficient to pay for the same. Any net proceeds remaining after completion of such repairs, construction and restoration shall be the property of the Developer. (e) All of the insurance provisions set forth in this Article V shall terminate upon the termination of this Agreement. Section 5.2. Subordination Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Article V, the rights of the City with respect to the receipt and application of any proceeds of insurance shall, in all respects, be subject and subordinate to the rights of any lender under a Mortgage approved pursuant to Article VII of this Agreement. JKP- 207993v1 14 514235 -10 Taxes; Minimum Market Value Section 6.1. Right to Collect Delinquent Taxes The Developer acknowledges that the City and County are providing substantial aid and assistance in furtherance of the Project through issuance of the Note. The Developer understands that the City Tax Abatement and the County Tax Abatement pledged to the Note are derived from real estate taxes on the Development Property, which taxes must be promptly and timely paid. To that end, the Developer agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, in addition to the obligation pursuant to statute to pay real estate taxes, that it is also obligated by reason of this Agreement to pay before delinquency all real estate taxes assessed against the Development Property and the Minimum Improvements. The Developer acknowledges that this obligation creates a contractual right on behalf of the City to sue the Developer or its successors and assigns to collect delinquent real estate taxes and any penalty or interest thereon and to pay over the same as a tax payment to the County auditor. In any such suit, the City shall also be entitled to recover its costs, expenses and reasonable attorney fees. Section 6.2. Reduction of Taxes Prior to the Maturity Date the Developer will not (a) cause a reduction in the real property taxes paid in respect of the Development Property through willful destruction of the Minimum Improvements or any part thereof; (b) fail to reconstruct the Minimum Improvements if damaged or destroyed, as required under Section 5.1(d) hereof, (c) apply for a deferral of property tax on the Development Property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.181, or any similar law; (d) convey or transfer or allow conveyance or transfer of the Development Property to any entity that is exempt from payment of real property taxes under State law; or (e) seek, through the exercise of legal or administrative remedies, a reduction in the market value of the Minimum Improvements below the value specified in Section 6.3 hereof. Section 6.3 Minimum Market Value The estimated market value of the Minimum Improvements (excluding land and excluding the value of improvement existing as of the date of this Agreement) for tax assessment purposes shall be no less than $5,758,000 as of January 2, 2003 and January 2 of each year thereafter through the Maturity Date. This agreement does not constitute an "assessment agreement" within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, subd. 8 and is not binding on the County assessor. Rather, it is a contractual obligation of the Developer hereunder, breach of which is an Event of Default subject to the remedies set forth in Article IX hereof. Nothing in this Section or Section 6.2 shall limit the discretion of the County assessor to assign a market value to the Minimum Improvements higher or lower than minimum value specified herein, nor prohibit the Developer from seeking through the exercise of legal or administrative remedies a reduction in such market value for property tax purposes, provided that the Developer shall not voluntarily seek a reduction of such market value below the minimum value specified herein. JKP- 207993v1 15 SH235 -10 t •_ / Financing Section 7.1. Financing The Developer warrants and represents to the City and the County that it has or will have available funds sufficient to construct the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the Construction Plans. JKP- 207993v1 16 SH235 -10 Prohibitions Against Assignment and Transfer; Indemnification Section 8.1. Representation as to Development The Developer's purchase of the Development Property, and its other undertakings pursuant to the Agreement, are, and will be used, for the purpose of development of the Development Property and not for speculation in land holding. Section 8.2. Prohibition Against Developer's Transfer of Property and Assignment of Agreement Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the Minimum Improvements: (a) Except only by way of security for, and only for, the purpose of obtaining financing necessary to enable the Developer or any successor in interest to the Development Property, or any part thereof, to perform its obligations with respect to making the Minimum Improvements under this Agreement, and any other purpose authorized by this Agreement, the Developer has not made or created and will not make or create or suffer to be made or created any total or partial sale, assignment, conveyance, or lease, or any trust or power, or transfer in any other mode or form of or with respect to the Agreement or the Development Property or any part thereof or any interest therein, or any contract or agreement to do any of the same, to any person or entity whether or not related in any way to the Developer (collectively, a "Transfer "), without the prior written approval of the City unless the Developer remains liable and bound by this Development Agreement in which event the City's approval is not required. Any such Transfer shall be subject to the provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section, the Developer may assign its rights under this Agreement or the Note to the Holder of a Mortgage, provided the Mortgage is approved by the City in accordance with Article VII hereof. (b) In the event the Developer, upon Transfer of the Development Property or any portion thereof, seeks to be released from its obligations under this Development Agreement as to the portions of the Development Property that is transferred or assigned, the City shall be entitled to require, except as otherwise provided in the Agreement, as conditions to any such release that: (i) Any proposed transferee shall have the qualifications and financial responsibility, in the reasonable judgment of the City, necessary and adequate to fulfill the obligations undertaken in this Agreement by the Developer as to the portion of the Development Property to be transferred. (ii) Any proposed transferee, by instrument in writing satisfactory to the City and in form recordable in the public land records of Scott County, Minnesota, shall, for itself and its successors and assigns, and expressly for the benefit of the City, have expressly assumed all of the obligations of the Developer under this Agreement as to the portion of the Development Property to be transferred and agreed to be subject to all the conditions and restrictions to which the Developer is subject as to such portion; provided, however, that the fact that any transferee of, or any other successor in interest whatsoever JKP- 207993v1 17 SH235 -10 to, the Development Property, or any part thereof, shall not, for whatever reason, have assumed such obligations or so agreed, and shall not (unless and only to the extent otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement or agreed to in writing by the City) deprive the City of any rights or remedies or controls with respect to the Development Property or any part thereof or the construction of the Minimum Improvements; it being the intent of the parties as expressed in this Agreement that (to the fullest extent permitted at law and in equity and excepting only in the manner and to the extent specifically provided otherwise in this Agreement) no transfer of, or change with respect to, ownership in the Development Property or any part thereof, or any interest therein, however consummated or occurring, and whether voluntary or involuntary, shall operate, legally or practically, to deprive or limit the City of or with respect to any rights or remedies on controls provided in or resulting from this Agreement with respect to the Minimum Improvements that the City would have had, had there been no such transfer or change. In the absence of specific written agreement by the City to the contrary, no such transfer or approval by the City thereof shall be deemed to relieve the Developer, or any other party bound in any way by this Agreement or otherwise with respect to the construction of the Minimum Improvements, from any of its obligations with respect thereto. (iii) Any and all instruments and other legal documents involved in effecting the transfer of any interest in this Agreement or the Development Property governed by this Article VIII, shall be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the City. In the event the foregoing conditions are satisfied then the Developer shall be released from its obligation under this Agreement, as to the portion of the Development Property that is transferred, assigned or otherwise conveyed. The restrictions under this Section terminate upon issuance of the Certificate of Completion. Section 8.3. Release and Indemnification Covenants (a) The City and the County and the governing body members, officers, agents, servants and employees thereof (the "Indemnified Parties ") shall not be liable for and the Developer shall indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties against any loss or damage to property or any injury to or death of any person occurring at or about or resulting from any defect in the Development Property or the Minimum Improvements. (b) Except for any willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct or negligence of the Indemnified Parties, and except for any breach by any of the Indemnified Parties of their obligations under this Agreement, the Developer agrees to protect and defend the Indemnified Parties, now and forever, and further agrees to hold the aforesaid harmless from any claim, demand, suit, action or other proceeding whatsoever by any person or entity whatsoever arising or purportedly arising from this Agreement, or the transactions contemplated hereby or the acquisition, construction, installation, ownership, maintenance and operation of the Development Property or the Minimum Improvements. (c) The Indemnified Parties shall not be liable for any damage or injury to the persons or property of the Developer or its officers, agents, servants or employees or any other person who may be about the Development Property or Minimum Improvements. 1KP- 207993v1 18 SH235 -10 (d) All covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the City or County contained herein shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of such entities and not of any governing body member, officer, agent, servant or employee of such entities in the individual capacity thereof. JKP- 207993vl 19 SH235 -10 Events of Default Section 9.1. Events of Default Defined The following shall be "Events of Default" under this Agreement and the term "Event of Default" shall mean, whenever it is used in this Agreement, any one or more of the following events: (a) failure of the estimated market value of the Minimum Improvements to satisfy the required minimum market value pursuant to Section 6.3 hereof, (b) failure by the Developer to observe or perform any covenant, condition, obligation or agreement on its part to be observed or performed under this Agreement or under any loan agreement or business subsidy agreement entered into in connection with the Minnesota Investment Fund loan related to the Minimum Improvements. (c) commencement by the Holder of any Mortgage on the Development Property or any improvements thereon, or any portion thereof, of foreclosure proceedings as a result of default under the applicable Mortgage documents; (d) if the Developer shall (i) file any petition in bankruptcy or for any reorganization, arrangement, composition, readjustment, liquidation, dissolution, or similar relief under the United States Bankruptcy Act or under any similar federal or State law; or (ii) make an assignment for benefit of its creditors; or (iii) admit in writing its inability to pay its debts generally as they become due; or (iv) be adjudicated a bankrupt or insolvent. Section 9.2. Remedies on Default Whenever any Event of Default referred to in Section 9.1 of this Agreement occurs, the City or the County may each exercise any of the following rights under this Section 9.2 after providing thirty days written notice to the Developer of the Event of Default, but only if the Event of Default has not been cured within said thirty days or, if the Event of Default is by its nature incurable within thirty days, the Developer does not, within such 30 -day period, provide assurances reasonably satisfactory to the party providing notice of default that the Event of Default will be cured and will be cured as soon as reasonably possible: (a) Suspend its performance under the Agreement until it receives reasonably satisfactory assurances that the Developer will cure its default and continue its performance under the Agreement. (b) Cancel and rescind or terminate its obligations under the Agreement and the Note, provided that: JKP- 207993vl 20 SH235 -10 (i) if the City terminates its obligations under the Agreement, it shall have no obligation to make payments of City Tax Abatements under the Note; (ii) if the County terminates its obligations under the Agreement, it shall have no further obligations to make payments of County Tax Abatements to the City hereunder, and the City shall have no obligation to make payments under the Note from such funds; (iii) if both the City and the County terminate their obligations hereunder, respectively, this Agreement and the Note shall be deemed terminated and the City shall have no further obligations thereunder. Except as otherwise provided in Section 3.5 (c), the City may not terminate its obligations to make payments under the Note unless both the City and the County have terminated their obligations hereunder. (c) Take whatever action, including legal, equitable or administrative action, which may appear necessary or desirable to collect any payments due under this Agreement, or to enforce performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant of the Developer under this Agreement. Section 9.3. No Remedy Exclusive No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to any parry is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute. No delay or omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right and power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. In order to entitle the City to exercise any remedy reserved to it, it shall not be necessary to give notice, other than such notice as may be required in this Article IX. Section 9.4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver In the event any agreement contained in this Agreement should be breached by either parry and thereafter waived by the other parry, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach hereunder. Section 9.5. Attorney Fees Whenever any Event of Default occurs and if the County or City shall employ attorneys or incur other expenses for the collection of payments due or to become due or for the enforcement of performance or observance of any obligation or agreement on the part of the Developer under this Agreement, the Developer shall, within ten days of written demand by the County or City, pay to the County or City the reasonable fees of such attorneys and such other expenses so incurred by the County or City. Section 9.6 Default by City or County Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, in the event the City or County fails to perform any covenant, condition, obligation or agreement on its part, and such failure has not been cured within 30 days after receipt of written notice to the party from the Developer, or if such failure is by its nature incurable within 30 days, the party does not, within such 30 -day limit, provide assurances reasonably satisfactory to the Developer that the failure will be cured as soon as reasonably possible, then the Developer may exercise such remedies as may be available at law or in equity with respect to the defaulting party. The JKP- 207993vl 21 SH235 -10 terms of Section 9.3 and Section 9.4 (but not Section 9.5) apply in favor of the Developer as well as the City and County. JKP- 207993v1 22 S14235 -10 Additional Provisions Section 10.1. Conflict of Interests; Representatives Not Individually Liable The City, County and the Developer, to the best of their respective knowledge, represent and agree that no member, official, or employee of the City or County shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in the Agreement, nor shall any such member, official, or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects his personal interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership, or association in which he is, directly or indirectly, interested. No member, official, or employee of the City or County shall be personally liable to the Developer, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or County or for any amount which may become due to the Developer or successor or on any obligations under the terms of the Agreement. Section 10.2. Equal Employment Opportunity The Developer, for itself and its successors and assigns, agrees that during the construction of the Minimum Improvements provided for in the Agreement it will comply with all applicable federal, state and local equal employment and non - discrimination laws and regulations. Section 10.3. [Intentionally Omitted] Section 10.4. Provisions Not Merged With Deed None of the provisions of this Agreement are intended to or shall be merged by reason of any deed transferring any interest in the Development Property and any such deed shall not be deemed to affect or impair the provisions and covenants of this Agreement. Section 10.5. Titles of Articles and Sections Any titles of the several parts, Articles, and Sections of the Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions. Section 10.6. Notices and Demands Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, a notice, demand, or other communication under the Agreement by either party to the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally; and (a) in the case of the Developer, is addressed to or delivered personally to the Developer at 3303 East Fourth Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379; Attention: General Counsel; and (b) in the case of the City, is addressed to or delivered personally to City Hall, 129 Holmes Street, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 -1376; Attention: City Administrator; and (c) in the case of the County is addressed to or delivered personally to the County at the Scott County Government Center, 200 Fourth Avenue West, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379- 1376; Attention: County Attorney JKP- 207993v1 23 SH235 -10 or at such other address with respect to either such parry as that parry may, from time to time, designate in writing and forward to the other as provided in this Section. Section 10.7. Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. Section 10.8. Recording The City may record this Agreement and any amendments thereto with the Scott County recorder. The Developer shall pay all costs for recording. JKP- 207993v1 24 SH235 -10 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City, County and Developer have caused this Agreement to be duly executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first above written. CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Mayor City Administrator City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS. COUNTY OF SCOTT ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2002 by Jon Brekke, the Mayor of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS. COUNTY OF SCOTT ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2002 by Mark McNeill and Judy Cox, the City Administrator and City Clerk, respectively of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, on behalf of the City. Notary Public JKP- 207993vl 25 SH235 -10 SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA 0 Its Board Chair Its County Administrator Approved as to form: County Attorney STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS. COUNTY OF SCOTT ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2002 by , and the County Board Chair and County Administrator of Scott County, Minnesota, on behalf of the County. Notary Public 1KP- 207993v1 26 SH235 -10 CERTAINTEED, INC. STATE OF MINNESOTA Its SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2002 by , the of CertainTeed, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public JKP- 207993v1 27 SH235 -10 1 11 DMA ol col OI Diem 8 w . al JKP- 207993v1 A SH235 -10 The undersigned hereby certifies that CertainTeed, Inc. (the "Developer ") has fully complied with its obligations under Articles III and IV of that document titled "Contract for Private Development," dated March , 2002 between the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Scott County, Minnesota and the Developer, with respect to construction of the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the Construction Plans, and that the Developer is released and forever discharged from its obligations to construct the Minimum Improvements under Articles III and IV. Dated: , 200_. CITY OF SHAKOPEE LM JKP- 207993v1 $ SH235 -10 04-PJAIIHIN DKO UNITE STATES ERICA STATE COUNTY OF SCOTT 1. � . 1 F WT No. R -1 LIMITE TAXABLE R EVENUE SERIES 00 $715,511 Date of Original Issue , 2002 The City of Shakopee, Minnesota (the "Issuer "), hereby acknowledges itself to be indebted and, for value received, promises to pay to the order of CertainTeed, Inc. or registered assigns (the "Owner "), solely from the source, to the extent and in the manner hereinafter provided, the principal sum in an amount not to exceed $371,100 (the "Principal Amount "), without interest thereon. This Note is given in accordance with that certain Contract for Private Development between the Issuer, Scott County (the "County") and the Owner dated as of March _, 2002 (the "Contract "). Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning provided for such terms in the Contract unless the context clearly requires otherwise. The Principal Amount of this Note shall be payable in semi - annual installments of $30,925 each, payable on each February 1 and August 1, (the "Scheduled Payment Dates ") commencing August 1, 2004 and ceasing no later than February 1, 2010(the "Final Maturity Date "). The Principal Amount is subject to prepayment at the option of the Issuer in whole or in part on any date after the date of original issue. Each payment on this Note is payable in any coin or currency of the United States of America which on the date of such payment is legal tender for public and private debts and shall be made by check or draft made payable to the Owner and mailed to the Owner at its postal address within the United States which shall be designated from time to time by the Owner. Payments on this Note are payable solely from "Available Abatements," which shall mean, on each Scheduled Payment Date, the sum of the City Tax Abatements and County Tax Abatements generated in the preceding six (6) months with respect to the Development Property and remitted to the Issuer by the County. The pledge of available Abatements is subject to all the terms and conditions of the City Abatement Resolution, the County Abatement Resolution JKP- 207993v I SH235 -10 C -1 and the Contract. In no event will the City Tax Abatements to be paid under this Note exceed $29,225 in any 12 -month period, and in no event will the County Tax Abatements to be paid under this Note exceed $32,625 in any 12 -month period, all as more fully set forth in the Contract. If on any Scheduled Payment Date the amount of Available Abatement is insufficient to pay the full amount of principal owed by the City on the Note on such Date, the City shall remit so much of the City Tax Abatement and County Tax Abatement as the City has received as of such Scheduled Payment Date, and neither the City nor County shall have an obligation to pay to the Owner or carry forward such deficiency. The Issuer shall have no obligation to make any payment on any Scheduled Payment Date if, as of such date there has occurred and is continuing any Event of Default on the part of the Owner as defined in the Contract. If the Event of Default is thereafter cured in accordance with the Agreement, the City Tax Abatement and County Tax Abatement as of such Scheduled Payment Date shall be deferred and paid on the next Scheduled Payment Date after the Event of Default is cured. If an Event of Default is not timely cured and either the City or the County elects to terminate their respective obligations under the Contract, the Issuer shall have no further obligations to make payments hereunder from City Tax Abatement or County Tax Abatement, as the case may be. If an Event of Default is not timely cured and both the Issuer and County terminate their respective obligations under the Contract, the Contract and the Note shall be deemed terminated and the Issuer shall have no further obligations hereunder. Except as otherwise provided in Section 3.5(c) of the Contract, the Issuer may not terminate the Note unless the Issuer and the County have terminated their obligations under the Contract. This Note shall terminate and be of no further force and effect as of the earlier of. (1) the last Scheduled Payment Date; (2) the date the Principal Amount shall have been paid in full; or (3) the date the Contract and the Note have been terminated in accordance with the Contract. The Issuer makes no representation or covenant, express or implied, that the City Tax Abatement or the County Tax Abatement will be sufficient to pay, in whole or in part, the amounts which are or may become due and payable hereunder. The Issuer shall have no obligation to pay any portion of the Principal Amount that remains unpaid after February 1, 2010. This Note is issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.1812 to 469.1815, and pursuant to the resolution of the Issuer adopted on March 6, 2002 (the "Resolution ") duly adopted by the Issuer pursuant to and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota. This Note is a limited obligation of the Issuer, payable solely from moneys pledged to the payment of the Note under the Resolution. The Note shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation of the State of Minnesota, or any political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the Issuer and the County. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the Issuer and the County, shall be obligated to pay the principal of this Note or other costs incident hereto except from the revenues and receipts pledged therefor, and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the Issuer, is pledged to the payment of the principal of this Note or other costs incident hereto. This Note is issuable only as a fully registered note without coupons. This Note is transferable upon the books of the Issuer kept for that purpose at the principal office of the Registrar, by the Owner hereof in person or by such owner's attorney duly authorized in writing, JKP- 207993v1 SH235 -10 C-2 upon surrender of this Note together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Issuer, duly executed by the Owner. Upon such transfer or exchange and the payment by the Owner of any tax, fee, or governmental charge required to be paid by the Issuer with respect to such transfer or exchange, there will be issued in the name of the transferee a new Note of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing no interest, and maturing on the same dates. This Note shall not be transferred to any person or entity unless the Issuer has been provided with an opinion of counsel or a certificate of the transferor, in a form satisfactory to the Issuer, that such transfer is exempt from registration and prospectus delivery requirements of federal and applicable state securities laws. Transfer of the ownership of this Note to a person other than one permitted by this paragraph without the written consent of the Issuer shall relieve the Issuer of all of its obligations under this Note. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions, and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to have happened, and to be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Note have been done, have happened, and have been performed in regular and due form, time, and manner as required by law; and that this Note, together with all other indebtedness of the Issuer outstanding on the date hereof and on the date of its actual issuance and delivery, does not cause the indebtedness of the Issuer to exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation thereon. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota has caused this Note to be executed by the manual signatures of the Mayor, City Administrator and the City Clerk of the Issuer and has caused this Note to be dated as of the Date of Original Issue specified above. CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Its Mayor Its City Administrator Its City Clerk JKP- 207993v1 SH235 -10 C -3 REGISTRATION PROVISIONS The ownership of the unpaid balance of the within Note is registered in the bond register of the City Finance Director in the name of the person last listed below. Date of Registration Registered Owner , 2002 CenterTeed, Inc. Signature of City Finance Director W- 207993v1 SH235 -10 C -4 Assumptions Report City of Shakopee Tax Abatement Projection CertainTeed Expansion Project Scenario C (City and County Abatement) Type of Project Tax Abatement Maximum Duration of Tax Abatement 15 Years Current Year First Abatement Year Final Abatement Year Base Estimated Market Value (Building) Base Estimated Market Value (Land) Times: First $150.000 1.50% Excess 2.00% Base Net Tax Capacity (NTC) Non- Abated NTC 03/01/02 06/01/04 12101/09 (6 Years of Abatement) n- Innnn $5,105,400 $2,046,700 2,250 140,042 $142,292 $142,292 " Increase in EMV is from County Tax Abatement worksheet Prepared by: Springsted Incorporated (printed on 2128/2002 at 10:18 AM) Tax Abatement Scenario C.xls Assessment/Collection Year 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 Base Estimated Market Value $7,152,100 $7,152,100 $7,152,100 $7,152,100 Increase in Estimated Market Value * 0 5,758,000 5758,000 5,758,000 Total Estimated Market Value $7,152,100 $12,910,100 $12,910,100 $12,910,100 Times: First $150,000 1.50% 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,250 Excess 2.00% 140,042 255,202 255,202 255,202 Total Net Tax Capacity $142,292 $257,452 $257,452 $257,452 Local Tax Capacity Rate 106.977% 2001/2002 Fiscal Disparities Deduction 29.8026% Abate City Tax Rate? Yes 35.608% Abate County Tax Rate? Yes 40.358% Abate School District Tax Rate? No 26.027% Other Tax Rate 4.985% Abate Rate Applicable to Market Value? Yes 0.008% Current City Levy 6,282,773 @ 5% 314,139 Max. Abate - 314,139 Current County Levy 25,289,963 @5% 1,264,498 Max. Abate - 1,264,498 Present Value Date & Rate 03/01/02 5.00% Bonds Note (Pay -As- You -Go) Bonds Dated 03/01/02 Note Dated 03/01/02 First Interest Date 02/01/03 Note Rate 0.00% Underwriters Discount 1.50% " Increase in EMV is from County Tax Abatement worksheet Prepared by: Springsted Incorporated (printed on 2128/2002 at 10:18 AM) Tax Abatement Scenario C.xls Projected Tax Abatement Report City of Shakopee Tax Abatement Projection CertainTeed Expansion Project Scenario C (City and County Abatement) Prepared by: Springsted Incorporated (printed on 2/28/2002 at 10:18 AM) Tax Abatement Scenario C.xls Less: Non- Less: Retained Times: Maximum Maximum Maximum Annual Total Abated Fiscal Captured Tax Annual Tax Tax Tax Total Period Net Tax Net Tax Disp. @ Net Tax Capacity Total Abatement Abatement Abatement Tax Ending Capacity Capacity 29.8026% Capacity Rate Tax City' County School District Abatement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12/31102 142,292 142,292 0 0 106.977% 0 0 0 0 0 12/31103 142,292 142,292 0 0 106.977% 0 0 0 0 0 12/31/04 257,452 142,292 34,321 80,839 106.977% 86,479 29,225 32,625 0 61,850 12/31/05 257,452 142,292 34,321 80,839 106.977% 86,479 29,225 32,625 0 61,850 12/31/06 257,452 142,292 34,321 80,839 106.977% 86,479 29,225 32,625 0 61,850 12/31107 257,452 142,292 34,321 80,839 106.977% 86,479 29,225 32,625 0 61,850 12/31/08 257,452 142,292 34,321 80,839 106.977% 86,479 29,225 32,625 0 61,850 12131109 257,452 142,292 34,321 80,839 106.977% 86,479 29,225 32,625 0 61,850 12/31/10 257,452 257.452 0 0 106.977% 0 0 0 0 0 12/31111 257,452 257,452 0 0 106.977% 0 0 0 0 0 12/31/12 257,452 257,452 0 0 106.977% 0 0 0 0 0 12/31/13 257,452 257,452 0 0 106.977% 0 0 0 0 0 12/31/14 257,452 257,452 0 0 106.977% 0 0 0 0 0 12/31/15 257,452 257,452 0 0 106.977% 0 0 0 0 0 12/31/16 257,452 257,452 0 0 106.977% 0 0 0 0 0 12/31/17 257,452 257,452 0 0 106.977% 0 0 0 0 0 12/31/18 257,452 257,452 0 0 106.977% 0 0 0 0 0 $518,874 $175,351 $195,748 $0 $371,099 Includes tax applicable to Market Value Prepared by: Springsted Incorporated (printed on 2/28/2002 at 10:18 AM) Tax Abatement Scenario C.xls Projected Pay -As- You -Go Note Report City of Shakopee Tax Abatement Projection CertainTeed Expansion Project Scenario C (City and County Abatement) Note Date: 03/01/02 Note Rate: 0.00% Amount: $370,700 Semi - Annual Loan Net Capitalized Balance Date Principal Interest P & I Revenue Interest Outstanding (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 02/01/03 0.00 0.00 0.00 08/01/03 0.00 0.00 0.00 02/01104 0.00 0.00 0.00 08/01/04 30,924.96 0.00 30,924.96 02/01/05 30,924.96 0.00 30,924.96 08/01/05 30,924.96 0.00 30,924.96 02/01/06 30,924.96 0.00 30,924.96 08/01/06 30,924.96 0.00 30,924.96 02/01/07 30,924.96 0.00 30,924.96 O8 /01 /07 30,924.96 0.00 30,924.96 02/01/08 30,924.96 0.00 30,924.96 08/01/08 30,924.96 0.00 30,924.96 02/01/09 30,924.96 0.00 30,924.96 08/01/09 30,924.96 0.00 30,924.96 02/01/10 30,525.44 0.00 30,525.44 08/01/10 0.00 0.00 0.00 02101111 0.00 0.00 0.00 08/01/11 0.00 0.00 0.00 02/01/12 0.00 0.00 0.00 08/01/12 0.00 0.00 0.00 02/01/13 0.00 0.00 0.00 08/01/13 0.00 0.00 0.00 02/01/14 0.00 0.00 0.00 08/01/14 0.00 0.00 0.00 02/01/15 0.00 0.00 0.00 08/01/15 0.00 0.00 0.00 02/01116 0.00 0.00 0.00 08/01/16 0.00 0.00 0.00 02/01/17 0.00 0.00 0.00 08/01/17 0.00 0.00 0.00 02/01/18 0.00 0.00 0.00 08/01/18 0.00 0.00 0.00 02/01/19 0.00 0.00 0.00 $370,700 $0.00 $370,700.00 Excess Tax Abatement Total Net Revenue $370,700.00 $0.00 399.49 $371,099.49 Prepared by: Springsted Incorporated (printed on 2/28/2002 at 10:18 AM) Tax Abatement Scenario C.xls 370.700.00 0.00 0.00 370,700.00 0.00 0.00 370,700.00 0.00 0.00 370,700.00 30,924.96 0.00 339,775.04 30,924.96 0.00 308,850.08 30,924.96 0.00 277,925.12 30,924.96 0.00 247,000.16 30,924.96 0.00 216,07520 30,924.96 0.00 185,150.24 30,924.96 0.00 154,225.28 30,924.96 0.00 123,300.32 30,924.96 0.00 92,375.36 30,924.96 0.00 61,450.40 30,924.96 0.00 30,525.44 30,525.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $370,700.00 $0.00 399.49 $371,099.49 Prepared by: Springsted Incorporated (printed on 2/28/2002 at 10:18 AM) Tax Abatement Scenario C.xls City of Shakopee Memorandum TO: Mayor, City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Tracy Coenen, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: Change of Garbage and Recycling Pickup From Alley to Street DATE: March 6, 2002 Introduction City staff would like City Council approval to permanently move garbage and recycling pickup from the majority of the City's alleys, to curbside at the street. Discussion City Council had several clarification questions and new issues that needed to be addressed at the Council meeting on February 5, 2002. Council asked about 1) the potential cost savings to Dick's Sanitation if alley pickup was eliminated 2) effects on elderly residents 3) estimated cost savings to City of Shakopee. If all garbage service was removed from the alleys, Dick's Sanitation estimates it would save $11,830, and this money would be returned to the City or the residents. Several Council members had concerns about certain alley areas that either have steep alleys or retaining walls with a garage on the alley that would make curbside pickup difficult. With this in mind, City staff evaluated the City's alleys and determined that roughly 7- 10% of the alleys in the listed below locations would not be suitable for curbside collection. If residents or Council have concerns about other alleys, those can be evaluated on a case -by -case basis to determine the type of garbage service. Since some curbside locations are not suitable for curbside pickup, Dick's would need to pickup in the alley and curbside, since not all residents have a garage in the alley. Due to the additional work and equipment needed, the cost savings to the City to allow curbside pickup at the other 90-93% of the alleys would be $6,760. Continue Both Alley and Curbside Pickup on the Following Alleys: 1) South side between 3 rd Avenue — Shumway /Apgar 2) South side between 3 rd Avenue —West of Lewis 3) South of 4 and West of Sommerville 4) South of 1" and West of Main Street 5) 7 Street between Minnesota/Dakota 6) Spencer Street between 7th /6th Although the City would receive some cost savings with removing the majority of alley pickups, the Council was also concerned with elderly and/or handicapped residents. Dick's estimates there are roughly 60 residents that fall into these categories. To provide valet/door side pickup, Dick's would charge the City /resident $10,140. Staff does not recommend that the City provide such service to only alley residents that are elderly or handicapped, since there is an equal or greater number of elderly or handicapped residents throughout the City that could qualify for the same service; however, that would be too expensive for the City. Budget Impact Public Works Department estimates alleys are graded at least 5 times /year. Without the garbage trucks collecting trash in the alleys, grading would only need to be done 3 times /year (spring, mid- summer, fall) and routine maintenance would also be decreased. Estimated Grading Costs ❖ $6,500 /grading - (2 gradings @ $6,500 /grading = $13,000 /year) - labor and equipment costs ($65/hour @ 100 hours) Total Grading Savings - $13, 000 1year Estimated Routine Maintenance ❖ $13,000 — ($65/hour @ 200 hours) follow up maintenance after resident calls from individual alley problems. Total Maintenance Savings - $13, 000 1year Total Estimated Public Works Alley Maintenance Savings - $26,000 /year Staff Recommendation City staff recommends that Council approve curbside collection for 90 -93% of the City's alleys, and curbside and alley and curbside pickup for 7 -10% of the alleys that are not suitable for curbside collection due to a steep hill/retaining wall with an alley garage (those listed on the previous page). Since it appears that money the City receives from the State for its annual Clean Up Day will probably be eliminated in 2003, staff also recommends that rather than lowering current residential refuse rates, that any cost savings from Dick's be returned to the City to pay for future Clean Up Days. Action Required 1) Council approval of curbside collection for 90 -93% of the City's alleys, and alley and curbside pickup for 7 -10% of the alleys that are not suitable for just curbside collection. 2) Council approval of curbside garbage collection for all 100% of the City's alleys. 3) Continue garbage collection in the City's alleys. 2 City of Shakopee Alley vs. Curbside Collection Cost savings for curbside collection using automated truck # of drivers Hours Day in Rate /hr Total Cost in Alle Saved Alley Ops Costs Weekly 1 1 Mon $ 65.00 $ 65.00 1 1 Tue $ 65.00 $ 65.00 1 1.5 Thur 65.00 $ 97.50 3.5 $ 10,140.00 Cost Savings per year Cost Savings per year /resident Total Cost Annually $ 3,380.00 $ 3,380.00 $ 5,070.00 $ 11,830.00 $ 11,830.00 $ 1.56 Additional cost incurred for dual pick -up 7 -10% homes -One day alley collection # of Drivers Hours Day in Rate /Hour Total Cost Total Cost in Alley Saved Alley Ops costs Weekly Annually 2 1.5 Mon 65.00 $ 97.50 $ 5.070.00 Additional Costs incurred /year $ 5,070.00 Cost Savings per year $ 6,760.00 Cost Savings per year /resident $ 0.89 Additional cost incurred for handicap /ederly doorside pick -up # of drivers Addt'I Day in Rate /hr Total cost Total cost in alle Hours alley Ops costs weekly Annuall 2 0.5 Mon 20 units $ 65.00 $ 65.00 $ 3,380.00 2 0.5 Tue 20 units $ 65.00 $ 65.00 $ 3,380.00 2 0.5 Thur 20 units 65.00 $ 65.00 $ 3,380.00 $ 10,140.00 Additional Costs incurred /year $ (10,140.00) Cost Savings per year /resident $ (1.33) City of Shakopee Memorandum TO: Mayor, City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Tracy Coenen, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: Change of Garbage and Recycling Pickup From Alley to Street DATE: February 5, 2002 Introduction City staff would like City Council approval to permanently move garbage and recycling pickup from the City's alleys, to curbside at the street. Background Currently Dick's Sanitation provides refuse service to residents on roughly 10.1 miles of alleys, all which are located in "Old Shakopee." Due to road restrictions set by MnDOT each Spring, the garbage trucks cannot use the alleys for normally 3 -4 months, until MnDOT lifts the road restrictions. The condition of the alleys and the road restrictions are not a new challenge for the City's Public Works Department or contracted waste hauler, Dick's Sanitation, as Waste Management (previous hauler) expressed many of the same concerns. Last spring during the road restrictions, many residents brought to staff's attention that they too no longer wanted their garbage service in the alleys. In an attempt to provide better service to these residents, Dick's Sanitation has agreed to service residents that live on alleys either from the alleys or curbside collection. 60% of all residents that live on an alley now receive their garbage collection curbside and not in the alley. Discussion City Council should consider these three reasons to permanently remove garbage service from Shakopee's alleys: 1) safety 2) increasing city costs 3) road restriction challenges. Safety Safety is the foremost concern of City staff to remove garbage collection from the alleys. Utility poles, fences, and untrimmed trees and bushes that overhang on the alleys (Figure 1, Figure 2), do not always allow enough space for large garbage trucks to enter with full view of the alley. In certain alley areas, garbage trucks must back into the alley for garbage collection, a very unsafe practice. (Figure 6) The City was aware of this problem with Waste Management, so City staff mandated a smaller rear load truck in the new garbage contract in an attempt to resolve the ongoing problem, but since garbage trucks do not have a wide turning radius, the problem still exists. (Figure 5) Unlike a normal city street, many families view the alley as an extension of their private driveway, thus children use the alleys as private playgrounds causing safety problems during garbage collection when children are out of school. In addition to using the alleys as "private streets," the majority of alley residents do not bring in their garbage and recycling containers into their garages after collection. (Figures 1,3,4,) This creates safety issues for Public Works and Dick's Sanitation. During the summer, when the garbage containers are used as "dumpsters," bees build nests in the containers, and city staff is aware of incidents with the current and previous garbage hauler whereby bees have stung their employees. In the winter, Public Works either hits or destroys the garbage containers with the snowplows, thus leaving trash in yards and the alley, or the snowplow driver must swerve to miss the garbage container and ends up causing damage to residential property that needs to be fixed in the spring. (Figure 7) Increasing City Costs Since the majority of the alleys are unpaved and the garbage trucks are over road limits by industry design, the garbage trucks continue to do significant damage to the alleys every year, which is resulting in increasing costs to the City and dissatisfied residents with the condition of their alleys. Most Public Works Departments grade the alleys up to three times a year; however, with the significant garbage truck traffic, Shakopee's PW Department has to grade the alleys at least five times a year. This additional grading adds each year to the City's labor, equipment, and materials costs. Not only does the Public Works Department spend time grading the alleys, they must also patch the alleys, repair residential lawns with sod or seed, and clean up broken tree branches and bushes. Public Works cannot trim treesibushes that overhang into the alley, since the treesibushes are on private property. If the garbage trucks were not in the alleys, PW Supervisor, Mike Hullander figures it would cut the alley maintenance cost and time by at least 50 %. Staff cannot provide an exact dollar savings, since alley and street maintenance are coded the same in the business unit in the City budget. Road Restriction Challenges Every spring, MnDOT issues road restrictions (weight limits for trucks). City staff and Dick's Sanitation have worked diligently to inform alley residents of the road restrictions, because residents must place their garbage containers curbside for 3 -4 months during the restrictions. Although notices are sent to residents, paid advertisements are taken out in the Shakopee Valley News, garbage cans are tagged with notices, and City communication sources like the web site, cable channel, and newsletter are utilized to inform residents, each year numerous residents still miss the message. 0 Many times, MnDOT does not issue the road restrictions quick enough, and the alleys are destroyed due to the thawing conditions. Even without road restrictions, this year the warm and long Fall mixed with lots of rain caused the same problems, but City staff were unable to have the residents remove their garbage containers and more damage was caused to the alleys. Since some alley residents don't have good access to curbside collection, City staff and Dick's Sanitation propose these residents are able to place their garbage containers at the end of the alley for pickup or on the side street closest to their home. During road restrictions, this is how Dick's has been able to successful satisfy customer needs. However, the Council should be aware that any permanent change to end alley pickups will be controversial. Budget Impact Unfortunately, street and alley maintenance are itemized together, thus staff does not have a good projection of actual savings to the City, if the garbage cans were removed from the alleys. From estimates staff believes at least 50% of the current alley maintenance costs would be eliminated, due to the amount of time and materials needed to maintain the alleys from garbage truck traffic. Recommended Action City staff would like City Council approval to permanently remove garbage and recycling pickup from the City's alleys. The effective date would be at the same time that MnDot lifts the road restrictions when residents are used to the normal road restriction garbage container removal. Council should discuss and defer final action until the public has been notified and all comments can be acknowledge. City of Shakopee Memorandum TO: Mayor, City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Tracy Coenen, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: Follow Up Alley Information DATE: February 7, 2002 Council had some questions at the Council meeting and in emails in regards to the garbage alley pickup issue. 1) Will the snow from the snowplow push over the garbage or recycling containers? After speaking to Public Works Supervisor, Mike Hullander, he indicated that placing the garbage and recycling containers curbside is no different for the Public Works employees than plowing the rest of the City during the winter on normal garbage pickup days. The snowplow drivers are aware of the streets that have the garbage containers curbside, so they use more caution when plowing those streets. Mike Hullander did mention that sometimes residents would complain that there was some snow in their recycling container, since it is an open container without a lid. However, recycling containers are moved easily to either garbage or next to the resident's home and the same problem occurs whether it is curbside or alley, and the garbage containers have a lid, so it is not an issue. 2) What is the cost to maintain (grade, patch, etc.) an alley and how much time does it take? It takes roughly 4 days to grade the alleys (10.1 miles); however, I need to work with the Public Works Department to identify all hours and costs associated with alley maintenance. This will be ready at the next City Council meeting. 3) How should we deal with residents that have a slope in their backyard that makes moving a container difficult? City staff will bring forth some recommendations at the next City Council meeting and also provide photos of those areas. Please feel free to contact Mark McNeill or myself if you have any further questions or comments. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CASE NO.: 02013 TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Request of Patrick Link Construction for a Variance from the Rear Yard Setback in the Urban Residential (R -1B) Zone MEETING DATE: March 6, 2002 REVIEW PERIOD: 12/21/2001 — 2/19/2002 INTRODUCTION: At its February 19 meeting, the Council considered the appeal of Patrick Link Construction of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals' denial of requested variances for Lots 1 — 8, Block 1, SOUTH PARKVIEW 4 TH ADDITION. At that meeting, the Council directed staff to prepare a resolution upholding the applicants' appeal, and granting the requested variances. Accompanying this memorandum is a draft resolution for Council's consideration. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve Resolution No. 5665, a Resolution of the City of Shakopee Upholding the Appeal of Patrick Link Construction and Approving Rear Yard Setbacks variances for Lots 1 -8, Block 1, SOUTH PARKVIEW 4 TH ADDITION, as presented. 2. Approve Resolution No. 5665, a Resolution of the City of Shakopee Upholding the Appeal of Patrick Link Construction, and Approving Rear Yard Setbacks Variancesfor Lots 1 -8, Block 1, SOUTH PARKVIEW 4 TH ADDITION, with revisions. 3. Deny Resolution No. 5665, and direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the requested variances. 4. Table the action on this item and request additional information from staff and/or the applicant. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to approve Resolution No. 5665 as presented and move its adoption, or provide staff with other direction. R. Micliaef Leek Community Development Director g: \boaa- pc\2002 \0207 \varlink.doc RESOLUTION NO. 5665 RESOLUTION OF OF 1, UPHOLDING THE APPEAL OF PATRICK CONSTRUCTION 1 APPROVING VARIANCES TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR LOTS 1-8, BLOCK 1, SOUTH PARKVIEW 4 TI ADDITION, LOCATED IN THE URBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONE. WHEREAS, Patrick Link Construction Inc., applicant and property owner, has filed an application for a variance under the provisions of Chapter 11, Land Use Regulation (Zoning), of the City of Shakopee City Code, Section 11.28, Subd. 5 to allow rear yard setback variance of up to nine (9) feet to allow a rear yard setback of twenty -one (21) feet instead of the required thirty (30) feet for lots 1 and 8, Block 1, SOUTH PARKVIEW 4T" ADDITION, and to allow a variance of seven (7) feet to allow a twenty -three (23) foot rear yard setback ; and WHEREAS, the subject parcel of land is presently zoned Urban Residential (R -113); and WHEREAS, the legal description for the subject parcel of land for which the request is being made is: Lots I — 8, SOUTH PARKVIEW 4 TH ADDITION, Scott County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, notice was provided and on February 7, 2002, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals conducted a public hearing regarding this application, at which it heard from the Community Development Director or his designee and invited members of the public to comment; and WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals denied the requested variances, and the applicant appealed the Board's determination to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 2002, the City Council reviewed the appeal. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the appeal of Patrick Link Construction is upheld, and that in doing so, the Council adopts the following findings with respect to the requested variances and applicable ordinance criteria: Finding I.A.; The properties as platted are of insufficient depth to be put to a reasonable use for the development of single family residences if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. N Finding I.B.; The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property. Specifically, the taking by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) of thirty (30) feet from the plats of SOUTHPARKVIEWfor CSAH 15 right -of -way has resulted in the subject lots being of insufficient depth to accommodate single family home development. Finding 1. C; The lots are undersized as a result of a taking of property by MNDOT. Finding I.D.; The variances, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding I.E.; The problems do not relate specifically to economic considerations, but rather result from the depth of the lots. Finding 2.; The proposed variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of Chapter 11 (Zoning) in that it would allow the development of reasonable single-family houses consistent with the neighborhood. Finding 3.; The request is not a request for use variance. Finding 4.; The nature and magnitude of the requested variances does not require the imposition of additional conditions. Finding S.; Not applicable since the property is not within the flood plain overlay zone. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the following variances are hereby granted; for a variance under the provisions of Chapter 11, Land Use Regulation (Zoning), of the City of Shakopee City Code, Section 11.28, Subd. 5 to allow rear yard setback variance of up to nine (9) feet to allow a rear yard setback of twenty -one (21) feet instead of the required thirty (30) feet for lots 1 and 8, Block 1, SOUTH PARKVIEW 4 TH ADDITION, and to allow a variance of seven (7) feet to allow a twenty -three (23) foot rear yard setback for Lots 2 -6, Block 1, SOUTH PARKVIEW 4 TH ADDITION. Adopted by the Shakopee City Council on the 6 day of March, 2002. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 11 o JEFFER�GN S�'REE o iy 682.31 0 ° 03'26' ° E - -- ��_OD -- x F C , / j ��¢��� r- -ism � � J I 0 1 ® �� ~/ � 1 m I � I I I � I I Nom_ FT I ® a r ;4 ! i� � I�. 8� , �._. SI I' ..._.. °1 F1 4� I '�' 8200 .. c s.- �f16.46 O p�9 gg3 h � � - I //�� : I 9 I ' e � � Be'• eF , � �~1 !��!`i!• 1�� —O�g e Y I .. LK l P e- �� �.� 4 I �. I : `d 1 L • ' J d ._.. ! V L_.: ; � �.•• L � : i I �. e �4 80.00 v c ®0 � .~ e ►Y Y rn Q ° ® u U o JEFFER�GN S�'REE o iy 682.31 0 ° 03'26' ° E - -- ��_OD -- x F C , / j ��¢��� r- -ism � � J I 0 1 ® �� ~/ � 1 m I � I I I � I I Nom_ FT I ® a r ;4 ! i� � I�. 8� , �._. SI I' ..._.. °1 F1 4� I '�' 8200 ro fi Le Q D - YI 1• G T f i! I .. S. IR � r . P � 87 ^.=•�� ear � E E S W � � Q.e �i °W a �grQ P <^ '� � e „ a ® ... � Ye .y 1 1+- W ......_.`.: .. ..... _ .6. w .. .°_p.. V � � � I � e •O • ® C S .�. Pi w � iP C O 1 M ! � w � � ■ 8 11 � ® • .� *' � : . M � .. I c 6" ..+ • • O • ... - - S . p :6 d �t L � - :c� ['Ii w� rQQr r� ■ e m ~ FFF • a® Q o. -. g aa 1 �. �� i is xa g �°•. 4D i c ro w ec Son ! 7 n n w or ` . ° > 1 e7 .•. ■ .�`: p i vv G7 !! 5 I r A 1 i � �,� Or MS rfC » t• �° l7 v: b °o 1 t .. c s.- �f16.46 7900 L 73 OD 80.00 ►Y Y rn Q ° ® u U O :.. 676.46 0 ". E. ■^ O ■ ° a 0 .°. v 9 ea ° c ° . — o $ f- I ` '. e I - a P A R K { � ` I i - ! � f .' 4`S (". � re F. e � � i` 1 .��'�: _' 4 !--; PA ! tf : - ., ti • ; ..: ; : �% �%U'L - - 1, - I �J � y •` s �` r °O® ° I e+ U CIRCLE ° rz � M s r Ii r c zi 6 so ' g � � � S 1 • ^ 4 e 'm' H ff ~ ff IJ m ' N Q W n . t r B • • ° • I Y ^ ro fi Le Q D - YI 1• G T f i! I .. S. IR � r . P � 87 ^.=•�� ear � E E S W � � Q.e �i °W a �grQ P <^ '� � e „ a ® ... � Ye .y 1 1+- W ......_.`.: .. ..... _ .6. w .. .°_p.. V � � � I � e •O • ® C S .�. Pi w � iP C O 1 M ! � w � � ■ 8 11 � ® • .� *' � : . M � .. I c 6" ..+ • • O • ... - - S . p :6 d �t L � - :c� ['Ii w� rQQr r� ■ e m ~ FFF • a® Q o. -. g aa 1 �. �� i is xa g �°•. 4D i c ro w ec Son ! 7 n n w or ` . ° > 1 e7 .•. ■ .�`: p i vv G7 !! 5 I r A 1 i � �,� Or MS rfC » t• �° l7 v: b °o 1 t .. c g Q ° ® u U O :.. O ■ ° a 0 .°. v 9 ea r •` s �` O r S � ° I e+ U ° rz � s r Ii r c zi g � � � S 1 • ^ 4 'm' H ff ~ ff IJ m m ■ W n r B • • ° Y ^ I p t � l ° ° » r • M ° ° S ° r •c ° H ° n M H e• 2 O 2• O � • w �c yH H p ■ °O b .. .._ ..n....... .. .. m btv.. y Ql 1. ro fi Le Q D - YI 1• G T f i! I .. S. IR � r . P � 87 ^.=•�� ear � E E S W � � Q.e �i °W a �grQ P <^ '� � e „ a ® ... � Ye .y 1 1+- W ......_.`.: .. ..... _ .6. w .. .°_p.. V � � � I � e •O • ® C S .�. Pi w � iP C O 1 M ! � w � � ■ 8 11 � ® • .� *' � : . M � .. I c 6" ..+ • • O • ... - - S . p :6 d �t L � - :c� ['Ii w� rQQr r� ■ e m ~ FFF • a® Q o. -. g aa 1 �. �� i is xa g �°•. 4D i c ro w ec Son ! 7 n n w or ` . ° > 1 e7 .•. ■ .�`: p i vv G7 !! 5 I r A 1 i � �,� Or MS rfC » t• �° l7 v: b °o 1 t "o r ° fr n G A 6 M O i 0 ° ■ . .. c g Q ° ® u U O :.. O ■ ° a 0 .°. v 9 ea r •` s �` O r S � ° I e+ U s c zi g ■rr � S 1 • ^ 4 'm' ff ~ m c ® W n r B • • ° Y ^ I p t � l ° ° » r • M ° ° S ° r •c ° H ° n "o r ° fr n G A 6 M O i 0 ° ■ . .. c g Q 0 ® u U O :.. O ■ ° r ® v r •` s �` O r S � ° I e+ U A c zi CD � 1 cr` Alternative C WHEREAS, Patrick Link Construction Inc., applicant and property owner, has filed an application for a variance under the provisions of Chapter 11, Land Use Regulation (Zoning), of the City of Shakopee City Code, Section 11.28, Subd. 5 to allow rear yard setback variance of up to nine (9) feet to allow a rear yard setback oftwenty -one (2 1) feet instead of the required thirty (3 0) feet for lots 1 and 8, Block 1, SOUTH PARKVIEW 4 TH ADDITION, and to allow a variance of seven (7) feet to allow a twenty - three (23) foot rear yard setback; and WHEREAS, the subject parcel of land is presently zoned Urban Residential (R- 113); and WHEREAS, the legal description for the subject parcel of land for which the request is being made is: Lots I — 8, SoUTHPARKWEW 4 1H ADDITION, Scott County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, notice was provided and on February 7, 2002, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals conducted a public hearing regarding this application, at which it heard from the Community Development Director or his designee and invited members of the public to comment; and WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals denied the requested variances, and the applicant appealed the Board's determination to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 2002, and March 6, 2002, the City Council reviewed the appeal. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, That the appeal of Patrick Link Construction is denied, and the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to deny to the requested variances is upheld. In reaching this decision, the Council adopts the following findings with respect to the requested variances and applicable ordinance criteria: Finding I.A.; Altemative C The property as platted can be put to a reasonable use for the development of single - family residences if used under conditions allowed by the official controls Finding I.B.; The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property. The lots in this subdivision are similar in size to lot in other single family residential plats in the City of Shakopee Area exists elsewhere on the lot which could be utilized for construction of a garage addition. Finding 1. C-; The applicant contends that the lots are undersized as a result of a taking of property by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT). While that may have affected the size of the lots, as noted above they are similar to other lots in other plats in the City. Finding I.D.; The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding I.E.; The problems relate specifically to economic considerations, i. e. the apparent market move to construct larger houses on smaller, existing lots.. Finding 2.; The proposed variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of Chapter 11(Zoning) in that there is no hardship or need to vary from the ordinance. Finding 3.; The request is not a use variance. Finding 4.; Not applicable if the application does not meet all the criteria for granting a variance. Finding S.; Not applicable since the front of the property is not within the flood plain overlay zone. 2 ' Alternative C Adopted by the Shakopee City Council on the e day of March, 2002. Mayor ICY City Clerk 3 15 - 1 c o CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark Mc Neill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Blue Lake Watershed Drainage Improvement Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) DATE: March 6, 2002 INTRODUCTION: C 1111 it Attached is Resolution No. 5656, a resolution making a negative declaration on the Blue Lake Watershed EAW. BACKGROUND: At the February 19, 2002 City Council meeting, the City Council reviewed the comment letters and heard the findings of fact from WSB & Associates, Inc. on the Blue Lake Watershed EAW. City Council approved a motion directing staff to prepare a resolution making a negative declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement. (EIS) A resolution with findings of fact have been prepared and attached for Council review and approval. ALTERNATIVES: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 5656, a resolution making a negative declaration on the need for an EIS for the Blue Lake Watershed Drainage Improvements. 2) Make a positive declaration on the need for an EIS, and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution 3) Table for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 5656, a resolution adopting findings and conclusions and making a negative declaration that there is no need for an environmental impact statement forthe Blue Lake Watershed Drainage Improvement Project and move its adoption. V Bruce Loney Public Works Director I: \CLERK \Kelly \bl blue lake assessment.doc A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND MAKING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE BLUE LAKE WATERSHED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee ( "City') is the Responsible Governmental Unit ("RGU") with respect to the Blue Lake Watershed Drainage Improvement Project ( "Project "); WHEREAS, the City has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet ( "EAW ") for the Project; WHEREAS, the preparation of the EAW, comments received on the EAW, and the Findings of Fact have generated information adequate to determine whether the Project has the potential for significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, the EAW has identified areas where the potential for significant environmental effects exist, but appropriate mitigative measures have or will be incorporated into the project design and permits to reasonably mitigate these impacts; and WHEREAS, the Project is expected to comply with all City standards and review agency standards; and WHEREAS, based on the criteria established in Minnesota R.4410.1700, the Project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental impacts. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA that the Findings of Fact and Conclusions set forth on Exhibit A to this Resolution are adopted, and that based on the Findings and Conclusions, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required for the Project. Adopted in Minnesota, held this day of session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, .2002. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Project Blue Lake Watershed Drainage Improvement Project provides for the construction of drainage improvements within the Blue Lake Watershed as outlined within the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. Three alternatives were evaluated as part of the EAW with potential project acreage ranging from 11.7 acres to 68 acres. B. Project Site Three alternatives were evaluated to provide watershed improvements from the depression located immediately north of Valley View Road along County Road (CR) 83 as outlined below: Alternative 1: Construct storm sewer north along CR 83 to K -Mart Linear Pond Alternative 2: Construction storm sewer north along CR 83 to CR 16 to Dean's Lake Alternative 3: Construct greenway corridor east to existing Prior Lake - Spring Lake Outlet Channel II. PROJECT HISTORY A. The project was anticipated to be subject to the mandatory preparation of a EAW under Minnesota R. 4410.4300, subp. 27. B. An EAW was prepared on the proposed project and distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties. C. A press release containing the notice of availability of the EAW for public review was provided to media serving the project area. D. The EAW was noticed in the December 10, 2001 EQB Monitor. The public comment period ended on January 9, 2002 and was extended to February 12, 2002 to accommodate the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community's (SMSC) schedule. Comment letters were received from the Minnesota Department of Transportation, State Historic Preservation Office, Metropolitan Council, Scott County Community Development, Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Prior Lake - Spring Lake Watershed District, Technical and Regulatory Evaluations Group, and the SMSC. Copies of the letters are hereby incorporated by reference. Responses to the comments are also incorporated by reference and are attached. III. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Minnesota R.4410.1700, subp. 1 states that "an EIS shall be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects." In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the City of Shakopee must consider the four factors set out in Minnesota R.4410.1700, subp. 7. With respect to each of these factors, the City finds as follows: A. TYPE, EXTENT, AND REVERSIBILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The first factor that the City of Shakopee must consider is "type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects," Minnesota R.4410.1700, subp. 7.A. The City of Shakopee findings with respect to each of these issues are set forth below. 1. The type of environmental impacts anticipated as part of this project include: a. Impact to wetlands: Wetlands have been preliminarily identified within each alignment alternative. A wetland delineation will be completed to positively determine wetland impacts associated with this project. Any unavoidable wetland impacts such as filling, draining, or excavation of a Type 3, 4, 5 wetland will be mitigated in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act. Wetland impacts, if any, are anticipated to be minimal. No impact to Blue Lake and its associated wetland complex is anticipated as part of this project. b. Impact to water quantity and quality: Alternative 1 has the potential to lower surface water elevations of Dean's Lake. Alternatives 2 and 3 slightly reduce discharge rates to Dean's Lake as compared to existing conditions. This is a result of anticipated future rate control, ponding and infiltration provided by upstream developments and is not anticipated to be a significant negative impact to the Lake. The P8 water quality analysis anticipates that under all three alternatives the total suspended solids loads to Blue Lake and Dean's Lake may be reduced. This is a result of converting agricultural property to residential and the addition of stormwater infiltration and detention ponds. Alternative 1 increases the area tributary to the K -Mart Linear Pond. This results in higher loading rates to the K -Mart Pond. Alternative 3 reduces the pollutant loadings to Dean's lake in comparison to Alternative 2. This reduction occurs as a result of infiltration within the proposed greenway corridor. c. Erosion and sedimentation: Best management practices to control erosion and reduce sedimentation during and after construction are anticipated to be used for any of the three alternatives. Further, Alternative 3 proposes to stabilize the existing drainage channel in the area. 2. The extent and reversibility of environmental impacts are consistent with infrastructure projects. These impacts will be minimized and mitigated through the permitting and plan approval processes. B. CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF RELATED OR ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS The second factor that the City of Shakopee must consider is "the cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects ", Minnesota 8.4410.1700. supb. 7.13. The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below. The EAW evaluated the impacts associated with construction of drainage improvements within the Blue Lake watershed. The EAW anticipates the implementation of City and State Regulation as related to drainage issues for future development in the watershed. C. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ARE SUBJECT TO MITIGATION BY ONGOING PUBLIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY 1. The following permits or approvals will be required for the project: Unit of Government Permit or Approval Requ US Corps of Engineers US Fish and Wildlife Service State: M PCA DNR DNR DNR MnDOT City /Local: LMRWD PLSLW D Scott SWCD Scott County City of Shakopee City of Shakopee Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community GP /LOP Plan review NPDES Permit Dean's Lake Outlet (permit obtained) Water appropriations Work in public waters permit (for Alternative 2 and 3) Drainage permit Plan review Plan review Plan review Work in right -of -way Plan approval WCA approval Easements 2. The City of Shakopee finds that the potential environmental affects of the project are subject to mitigation by ongoing regulatory authorities such that an EIS need not be prepared. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAN BE ANTICIPATED AND CONTROLLED AS A RESULT OF OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES UNDERTAKEN BY PUBLIC AGENCIES OR THE PROJECT PROPOSER, OR OF EISs PREVIOUSLY PREPARED ON SIMILAR PROJECTS. The fourth factor that the City of Shakopee must consider is "the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, or of EISs previously prepared on similar projects," Minnesota R.4700.1700, subp. 7.D. The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below: The environmental impacts of the proposed project have been addressed in the following plans prepared by the City: Shakopee Comprehensive Plan 2. Shakopee Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan 3. Blue Lake Outlet Feasibility Study 4. Dean's Lake Baseline Water Quality Study 5. Environmental Assessment of Water Quantity /Quality Impacts Associated with Drainage Improvements in the Blue Lake Watershed. The City finds that the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated and controlled as a result of the environmental review, planning, and permitting processes. CONCLUSIONS The preparation of the EAW and comments received on the EAW have generated information adequate to determine whether the drainage improvements have the proposed development has the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW has identified areas where the potential for significant environmental effects exist, but appropriate mitigative measures have or will be incorporated into the project design and permits to reasonably mitigate these impacts. The Blue Lake Drainage Improvement Project is expected to comply with all the City of Shakopee standards and review agency standards. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota R.4410.1700, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental impacts. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. 15. C. 3. TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Pheasant Run and Street Sidewalk DATE: March 6, 2002 This agenda item is for Council to consider whether or not to proceed with a concrete sidewalk project on Pheasant Run Street from Quail Drive to Valley View Road. Previously at the September 18, 2001 City Council Meeting, the Council directed Staff to investigate the installation of a concrete sidewalk along Pheasant Run Street. This street is within the Pheasant Run subdivision which has recently been constructed the past three years. Council did designate Pheasant Run Street as a collector street, thus the cost of a sidewalk would be the City's. City staff did conduct a neighborhood meeting and sent out two surveys on the location of the sidewalk and if a sidewalk is desired at all. Attached to this memo is a survey from the residents. As can be seen from the survey, there is not a consensus of opinion on whether a sidewalk should be constructed. After review of the survey information and the informational meeting, staff would recommend that no sidewalk be placed at this time until Valley View Road is constructed and the construction traffic is reduced in this area. A traffic study shall be conducted again in two years to see what is the volume of traffic on Pheasant Run Street. • 1) Adopt a motion directing staff not to prepare plans for a concrete sidewalk along Pheasant Run Street from Quail Drive to Valley View Road. 2) Adopt a motion directing staff to construct a concrete sidewalk along Pheasant Run Street from Quail Drive to Valley View Road using alternative No. 3 on the east side of Pheasant Run Street. 3) Table for more information? In two years? • • Staff recommends alternative No. 1 to not prepare plans for the concrete sidewalk along Pheasant Run Street at this time. It would be better to restudy the traffic in the area after Valley View Road is reconstructed and the construction traffic is reduced. Adopt a motion directing staff not to prepare plans for a concrete sidewalk along Pheasant Run Street from Quail Drive to Valley View Road at this time and to restudy this area in two years. b wt , 2- Bruce Loney Public Works Director I: \CLERK \Kelly \bl pheasant run.doc February 26, 2002 Re: Proposed sidewalk on Peasant Run. Dear Resident, This letter is to update you on the progress of the proposed sidewalk on Pheasant Run. This project was directed by the City Council at the September 18, 2001 meeting in response to requests from residents living on Pheasant Run. The City Council declared the Pheasant Run Street to be a city collector street. Therefore, the City would pay for 100% of the cost of constructing a sidewalk This proposal has been investigated by the Engineering department. The last action was the residential vote for their choice of the three proposed alignment options, or for no sidewalk. The following are the results: Out of the possible 53 votes: 18 voted — NO to construct the sidewalk 17 voted — YES to construct the sidewalk 18 did not vote Alignment preferred: Alignment 3 — received the most votes. Alignment 3 ran on the East side from Valley View Rd to Quail Dr. Alignment 2 and 3 received 7 and 8 votes, respectfully. The Engineering department has evaluated the results and concluded that there is not enough consensus for a sidewalk on Pheasant Run at this time. This topic will be on the agenda for the Wednesday, March 6 meeting of the City Council at 7 pm. The Engineering department will recommend that this matter be reevaluated in 2 years after Valley View onstructed and the construction c is reduced in this area. weve hma still order that the sidewalk be constructed in the year 2002. Jam. H Ening Technician IV City of Shakopee Engineering Department 952- 233 -3800 ext.110 A o f ' 2 9 TAN �100 z Oaf of 5 As a resident of Pheasant Run or a neighboring street that will be affect by the construction and presence of a sidewalk in this neighborhood, we would like you to state your choice. One choice per address. i vo V6772F Constiuct sidewalk Do not construct si If construction of a sidewalk proceeds, which alignment would be your preference? Please select only one. Alignment 1— West side from Valley View Rd to Chester St. West side from Ponds Way to Quail Drive. (Mainly on west side) Alignment 2 — West side from Valley View Rd. to Chester St then, east side to Quail Dr. Alignment 3 — East side of Pheasant Run from Valley View Rd to l Quail Dr. Z ti o vo 7 Please return via enclosed envelope by dropping off at or mailing to City Hall no later than Jan-23, 2002 0 ou THIAS ROAD A IL DRIVE T� sr REEr PONDS =Y r W W C r N m W W N W Y U W W H N Z r Z Q N W 2 CL PHEASANT RUN STREET SIDEWALK PROJECT OPTION -3 Sidewalk on east side of Street PAGE 3 OF 3 PAGES1 DESIGNED BY: .JAH DATE: DECEMBER 2001 j67 G y CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Update on Sarazin Street, from Mooers Avenue to Valley View Road and Valley View Road, from Sarazin Street to the East Plat Line of Pheasant Run 6 th Addition, Project No. 2001 -5 DATE: March 6, 2002 INTRODUCTION: This agenda item is to update City Council on the project that is currently being designed for Sarazin Street, from Mooers Avenue to Valley View Road; and Valley View Road, from Sarazin Street to the East Plat Line of Pheasant Run 6 th Addition, Project No. 2001- 5. BACKGROUND: Currently, the City is preparing plans and specifications for the above reference project by Bolton & Menk, Inc. and is currently underway in acquiring the necessary right -of- way for this project. Staff would like to update City Council on two major items for this prof ect: 1. Right -of -way acquisition and schedule for this project 2. Assessment agreement for certain parcels within this project areas. Right -of -way acquisition Staff is currently receiving appraisals for land acquisition from Patchin- Messner Appraisals, Inc. and has made offers to various property owners for the right -of -way needed for this project. Currently, staff has reached a tentative agreement with Beta Seed and U.S. Homes, Inc. and will need to bring those agreements to City Council for approval. It was anticipated that all parcels will have appraisals completed by the end of this week and offers made to all property owners with the project. It is also anticipated that not all property owners will agree with the appraised value with the right -of -way taking, thus staff believes that at the March 19, 2002 City Council meeting, a resolution authorizing eminent domain proceedings should be approved in order to complete the project this year. By ordering eminent domain, the City can set a date for possession of the easements needed and begin construction in July and complete the project this year. Assessment agreements Patchin- Messner Appraisals, Inc. also performed an appraisal with respect to the potential special benefit for some of the properties within the project area. The appraisal results indicated that for some properties the proposed assessments exceeded the value of the special benefit. The City can only assessed the proposed assessments if they are less than the estimated amount of the special benefit. At its October 2, 2001 meeting, the City Council authorized staff to meet with the affected property owners to address their concerns with respect to the special assessments. The Council authorized the staff to discuss with the property owners the option of paying some portion of the assessments via a "hook -up agreement." Under this option the property owners would not need to pay the sewer and water assessments until they hooked up to public sewer and water. The City staff and the City Attorney have conducted meetings with the property owners to discuss the proposed special assessments for the project. From those meetings, staff has been able to identify the following major items to be considered in an assessment agreement with the property owners= 1. The property owners were interested in a reduction in the assessment amount because they felt that the City has not contributed enough to this project. City staff, in review of their request, can support a reduction in the assessment amounts of approximately 10% for those parcels that are less than 10 acres in size and those that may be somewhat difficult to prove benefit based on the appraisals. This reduction would amount to approximately $90,000 less than the original assessments and approximately $40,000 less than the amount that the City could potentially assess based on the appraisals. 2. In addition to disputing the amount of the assessments, most property owners did not want to incur the assessments until they hooked up to sanitary sewer and water. 3. The property owners were also interested in an elimination, or at least a reduction, of the interest amount that would typically accrue on the assessments. The City charges interest at 1.5 % over its bond rate for improvement projects to cover administration costs and potential delinquencies that may occur with particular bonds with a particular assessment. Because of the special circumstances surrounding this project, staff can support a 1.5 % reduction in the interest rate that would be charged to the property owners until they hook up to the sewer and water. 4. City staff has reviewed the trunk sanitary sewer charges on building permit hook ups. This fee is based on 85% of the acreage of the lot multiplied by the trunk sewer charge rate of that year. On some of the parcels that cannot be developed, staff would suggest a reduction in the trunk sanitary sewer acreage due to the fact that certain parcels cannot subdivide into more parcels as compared to a %2 acre lot. These are the main items of consideration that staff is considering offering the resident in an assessment agreement with the caveat that the property owners would waive their right to appeal that assessment in a hook up agreement scenario. Also, in the hook up agreement, the proposal would be for a certain amount of the assessment would be current, which would be the benefit of the improved street, in which the property owners would receive immediately. The remainder of the assessment for sanitary sewer and water would be deferred to hook up when that benefit is received in the future. Staff is bringing this update to City Council in order to receive consensus on the following guidelines that staff is considering with respect to the special assessments: • For properties less than 10 acres in size, the special assessments would be reduced by approximately 10% • The portion of the reduced assessments attributable to the streets (approximately $10,000 per parcel) would be levied and paid in accordance with the City's normal assessment practices • The amount of the assessments attributable to sewer and water would not be assessed now. Rather, the City and the affected property owners would enter into an agreement obligating the property owner to pay this amount when they hooked up to City services. This agreement would be recorded against the property and be binding on all future owners. • Interest on the deferred amount will accrue at 1.5 % less than the City's normal bond rate • The amount of the trunk sanitary sewer charge to be paid at the time of hook- up will be based on the number of lots to be developed on each parcel rather than on the total acreage of each parcel ACTION REQUESTED: Staff is asking City Council for direction to proceed further on the settlement concept outlined above. e lye Bruce Loney Public Works Director BL /prop /15� . If CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Terry Stang, Fire Chief Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Fire Department Rescue Van— Rejection of Bid DATE: March 1, 2002 � C The Council is asked to reject the single bid received for the purchase of a medium rescue truck, and direct the Fire Department to modify specifications and readvertise for bids. On December 4, 2001 meeting of the City Council, the Council authorized advertisements for bids for a medium rescue truck, to replace the Department's equipment van #9511 (a 1993 Chevrolet step van). The rescue vehicle carries the Department's hazardous material, dive rescue, swift water rescue, high -level rescue, and confined space rescue equipment. 9511 is no longer large enough to handle the weight and amount of equipment. Bids were advertised, and specifications were also directed to three known bidders. However, on the day that bids were to be received, only one bid was submitted. That was from Custom Fire of Osceola, Wisconsin. The amount of the bid was $272,000, which is $62,000 more than what was provided in the budget. In reviewing, we feel that the truck committee should review the specifications, make modifications so that additional bids might be received, and a readvertisement made. We recommend that the bid of Custom Fire be rejected, and that the Fire Department's Truck Committee be directed to modify bid specifications, and readvertise for bids. Once new bids are taken, the Council will be asked to act upon those. CITQ- 1 1, If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, reject the bid received from Custom Fire, return all applicable bid securities, direct that the Fire Department Truck Committee modify specifications for the medium rescue truck, and readvertise for bids. Terry Stang Fire Chief Mark McNeill City Administrator 15, E. 1. Memo to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members f ' 77 7 1 City Administrator L i From: Terry Stang, Fire Chief Date: 02/25/02 Re: Successful completion of Probation Introduction The Shakopee Fire Dept is taking this opportunity to notify the City Council that Probationer's- Jason Asper, John Fox, Tom Hechsel, Craig Nelson and Ryan Yttreness have satisfactorily completed the one year probation period and recommend they become Fire Fighters for the City of Shakopee. Background The City Council authorized the hiring of Jason Asper, John Fox, Tom Hechsel, Craig Nelson and Ryan Yttreness as probationary Fire Fighters for a one year period. Jason, John, Tom, Craig and Ryan have completed all of the Fire Dept required training and have performed the responsibilities of the position in a satisfactory manner over the past year. Action Requested If the Council concurs, they should, by motion authorize the retention of Jason Asper, John Fox, Tom Hechsel, Craig Nelson and Ryan Yttreness as Fire Fighters for the City of Shakopee. 15 E - 2. CONS"ENT IMMIOUTMA, MY M I I N I I POP% I � 1 1 MM The Shakopee Fire Department has received a letter of resignation from Tom Nendick. Tom has been a member of the department for 2 1/2 years and has been very active in the fire department. I-Es demands at work and home have made him feel that he is no longer capable of fulfilling the minimum level of service to the department. C We ask that the City of Shakopee accept his resignation fi7om the Shakopee Fire Department. If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, direct the Fire Department to fill the two existing vacancies in the Fire Department. This will keep the authorized strength at 47 active fire fighters, and will not exceed the "hiring freeze" directive. Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerks SUBJECT: Establishing Penalties for the Sale of Alcohol to Minors DATE: February 26, 2002 INTRODUCTION: Attached for City Council consideration are two draft ordinances adopting penalties for businesses that are licensed to sell alcohol and who sell alcoholic beverages to a minor. BACKGROUND: At the regular Council meeting on February 19, 2002, City Council discussed identifying and adopting penalties for licensed businesses that sell alcoholic beverages to minors. Staff was directed to prepare an ordinance for City Council consideration to include the penalties as follows: 1 St violation - $1,000 fine and one -day license suspension 2nd violation - $1,500 fine and a five -day license suspension, if within 3 years 3rd violation - $2,000 fine and a ten -day license suspension, if within 3 years e violation - $2,000 fine and revocation, if within 3 years Council also asked for a couple of alternatives for the 4` violation within a three -year period. Both of the attached versions of Ordinance No. 621 contain two alternatives for consideration: 1) $2,000 fine and revocation without ability to apply for a new license for at least 30 days and 2) $2,000 fine and either a minimum 30 day suspension or revocation [this language is included in bold face and in brackets]. In review of the ordinances collected from other cities, all of the cities have presumptive penalties; therefore, the City Attorney has prepared two versions of Ordinance No. 621. Ordinance No. 621, Alternative A, establishes presumptive penalties. Presumptive penalties allow for deviations when there are substantial reasons to do so. Ordinance No. 621, Alternative B, establishes penalties that are mandatory. The penalties for the fourth incident will need to be decided, before the adoption of either versions of the ordinance. To date, discussion has centered on the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors. The penalties proposed in both Alternative A and Alternative B only pertain to the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors. Any other violations of State law will continue to fall within the State guidelines: revocation or suspension, for a period not to exceed sixty days, or a civil fine not to exceed $2,000 for each violation. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Continue with the current State and City penalties for the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors. 2. Ordinance No. 621 (Alternative A) adopting presumptive penalties 3. Ordinance No. 621 (Alternative B) adopting mandatory penalties 4. Penalties: a. $2,000 fine and revocation for the 4 th violation b. $2,000 fine and a suspension of the license for a minimum of 30 days or a revocation of the license for the a violation c. Other RECOM1VlENDATION: Determine which Alternative is desired: A- presumptive penalties, or B- mandatory penalties 2. Determine penalties desired for the 4 violation 3. Offer Ordinance No. 621 (incorporating Alternative A or B and penalties desired), An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Section 5.08 of the City Code by Adding a Subdivision Dealing with Penalties for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages to Minors, and move its adoption. I: \j eanette\licenses \p enalties -2 V ORDINANCE N/ FOURTH SER / i� Q �� Section 1. Section 5.08 of the City Code is amended by adding Subdivision 7 to read as follows: Sub. 7. Penalties. �, The purpose of this subdivision is to establish a uniform set of The followin are the � penalties if a licensee furnishes or sells B. alcoholic beverages to a minor: 1. A $1,000 fine and a one -dam license suspension for the first incident: 2. A $1,500 fine and a five -day license suspension for a second incident o ccurring within three years of the date of the previous incident 3. A $2 000 fine and aten -day license suspension for a third incident oc curring within three years of the dates of the previous t incidents, 4. A $2.000 fine and [?a suspension of the license for a minim of 30 days or] a revocation of the license for a fourth incident o ccurrin g within three years of the dates of the previous three incidents. C. All mu ltiple day license suspensions shall run consecutiv begi nning at 1 2-01 a.m. on the first day of the suspension period and ending at midn on the last day of the suspensi .on period. JJT- 210622v1 SH155 -23 .rirnin ;ctPrp.d by the Citv Adminis upon an admission by the licensee D. An erson whose license to sell alcoholic beverages is revoked under this subdivision may not apply for a new license for at least 30 days after the effective date of the revocation. E. No suVension or revocation shall be imposed by either the City Council or the City Administrator until the licensee has been afforded an oppor tunity for a hearing in accordance with Section 5-02- Subdivision 4 of this Ch a n ter. Section 2 . Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of , 2002. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 2002. JJT- 210622v1 SH155 -23 1' 1 � i :i 1 •' 1 � 11 i, , Section 1. Section 5.08 of the City Code is amended by adding Subdivision 7 to read as follows: Sub. 7. Penalties. A. The p of this subdivision is to establish a uniform set of mandato p for licensees who furnish or sell alcoholic beve to minors. The p enalties for a first or second incident shall be imp osed and admi nistered by the Ci y Administrator upon an admissi b y the licensee that t he licensee furnished or sold an alcoholic beve t o a minor. Penalti for a third or fourth incident may only be imp osed by t he City Council. B. The following penalties shall be imposed if a licensee furnishes or sells alcoholic beverages to a minor: 1. A $1,000 fine and a one -day license suspension for first incident; 2. A $1,50 fine and a five -dU license suspension for a second incident oc curring within three years of the date of the pre incident, 3. A $2,000 fine and a ten - da license suspension for a third incident occu rring within three years of the dates of the pre two incidents; 4. A _ $2-000 fine and f' a suspension of the license for a minimum o 30 day or 1 a revocation of the license for a fourth inc ident occumn within three years of the dates of the previous three incidents. C All multiple day license suspensions shall run consecutively beginning at 12:01 a.m. on the first day of the suspension period and ending at midnight on the last day of the suspension peri od. D. An person whose license to sell alcoholic beverages is revoked under this subdivision may not apply fora new license for at lea 30 days after the effective date of the revocation. JJT- 210559v1 SH155 -23 E . No suspension or revocation shall be imposed by either the City Council or the City Administrator until the licensee has been afforded an o pportunity for a hearing in accordance with Section 5.02 Subdivision 4� of this Chapter. Section 2 — Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of - 2002. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of 1 2002. JJT- 210559v1 SH155 -23 a . + rte + � re roe w �h CD N CD CD 0 (D CD CD Cp O O (D } b9 b9 { b9 G {yg C c { 69 - b9 �- . G ` f b4 N �- N tn Q- vi O O r O O O �• O O i] cn O Q p P) O p �. O �. O �-• O F rJ cn �� N cn N N N W v a CD CD O r- CD n CD CD n CD Z (D (D v) cn h cn cn cn rA . { b9 G+ N F N 6_9 f + N G un N W O O r-)- P. O p cl� O O Q CD `C O � cn `C (D N CD rn CD (�D C/) N N CD CD N N cn cn c cn cn �. , m Ln r N � N N P N A n N �. N �• N �• N O CD p' ¢. A� —N p0i N O (D B CD p' CD O O O M c cn Ln h CD CD cn o� c�oC C) C) CIO c�rcRL + �' o tQ �tQ ��p� (D 0 CD 0 CD CD o. cn � cn �• bs o O � � o '.. G +. b + Ge + b9 + E;e 01 O� 01 W W W o W o ,� � w �' a s CL ¢. CL o CLo W n W ( M W cn n cn � cn CD cn C cn CD (� Q G a `C �. O O O O O CA cn fi's Ol N + N oo + 00 + 00 01 C). Ol O 0 p p Q p ¢, `C CL cn '"h C h N to .� to r W n n co `C r N cn N c En cn c z5 z3 cD LS � . En cn O 0 LO N � � � � � � ,� • CD C CD C CD C C �. � �' C N C O C O �, C� C7 n n � O � O •=� O O CD CD '� CD p MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk DATE: February 28, 2002 RE: Setting Date for Tobacco Violation Hearing INTRODUCTION: City Council is asked to set a date to review the actions of certain tobacco licensees. BACKGROUND: s C i � G , " ' ", I I I ` " 7, T Any licensee who furnishes, sells or attempts to sell tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco related devices to a minor or whose employee furnishes, sells or attempts to sell tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco related devices to a minor shall be charged an administrative fine and shall also have his or her license suspended as outlined in the City Code. Staff is ready to proceed with the setting of a hearing date to consider the tobacco violations that occurred during the compliance check on October 27, 2001. One business has changed hands since this time, Farid Jiryis, dba Jiryis Tobacco. Consistent with past practice, no hearing date will be set for this former licensee. In follow -up to City Council request on February 19, 2002, staff will be researching other cities to compare their penalties with those of Shakopee. That information will be forthcoming at a later time. Please note that the penalties in effect at the time of the violations are the ones that govern. Copy of current penalties attached for your information. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Schedule a hearing for Tuesday, April 2, 2002. 2. Schedule a hearing for another date. 3. Do not hold a hearing. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Set a hearing for Tuesday, April 2, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., or thereafter, to review the actions of the tobacco licensees: Twin Cities Stores, Inc., dba Oasis Market, 615 South Marschall Road SuperAmerica #4035, 1155 East 1S Avenue Twin Cities Avanti Stores LLC, dba Food `n Fuel, 234 West 1 Avenue Budget Liquor, dba Budget Wine & Spirits, 6269 Highway 101 i:licenses4obaccoxio B. Hearing- If -a =person accused of violating this Section so requests, a hearing shall be scheduled before a hearing officer at a time and place which shall be published and provided to the accused violator. C. Hearing Officer. The City Council shall serve as the hearing officer in any hearing requested under this Section. Subd.12. Administrative Penalties A. Licensees. Any licensee who furnishes, sells or attempts to sell tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco related devices to a minor or whose employee furnishes, sells or attempts to sell tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco related devices to a minor shall be charged an administrative fine of $200.00 for a first violation, $500.00 for a second violation at the same licensed premises within a thirty -sic (36) month period and $1,000.00 for a third or subsequent violation at the same licensed premises within a thirty-sic (36) month period. Any licensee who furnishes, sells or _. attempts to sell tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco related devices to a minor or whose employee furnishes, sells or attempts to sell tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco related devices to a minor shall also have their license suspended for not less than one (1) day and no more than ten (10) days for a first violation and- for not less than one (1) day and no more than twenty (20) days for a second violation at the same licensed premises within a thirty-six (36) month period, and either a thirty (30) day suspension or revocation of the license for a third or subsequent violation at the same licensed premises within a thirty -sic (36) month period. Any revoked license shall not be eligible for reinstatement for at least twelve (12) months. B. Other Individuals. Any individual who sells tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco related devices to a minor shall be charged an administrative penalty of $50.00, subject to the right to a hearing before the City Council as provided in Subdivision 11 of this Section. Nothing in this Section shall prohibit the City or other jurisdiction from seeking criminal prosecution for any alleged violation of this Section by any individual other than a licensee or employee of a licensee. Subd.13. Criminal Penalties A. It shall be a gross misdemeanor for anyone to sell tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco-related devices to a minor. B. It shall be a misdemeanor for anyone to fumish tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco-related devices to a minor. CITY OF SHAKOPEE g Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Change — Public Buildings Reroofing Contract; Architectural Contract DATE: February 26, 2002 The Council is asked to approve Change Order No. 3 with Schwickert Roofing Company, relating to the contract for the reroofing of the Public Services Building and City Hall. In addition, it is asked to approve an increase in total compensation to JEA Architects, in recognition of additional time related to construction inspection of this project. Attached is Change Order No. 3 as submitted by Schwickert Roofing. As shown, there are three items being proposed: 1. A reduction of the width of the perimeter edge of the Public Services building, resulting in a less expensive product (deduct of $500). 2. Changing the construction completion date for the Public Services building, and City Hall building, to February 4 th for Public Services, and April 1S for the City Hall building. 3. Use of new metal panels on a portion of the City Hall roof, rather than reusing the existing panels. This would add $5,840. Regarding the third item, in an effort to save money, the architect had originally specified reuse of the existing metal panels that are in the southeastern portion of the original one story part of the City Hall building. This "shed roof' was constructed sometime in the 1970's, and is there to deal with the snow loading problems created when the two -story addition was added. While the panels appeared to be okay for reuse during the initial inspection, and therefore were specified to be recycled in the bid document, further investigation since by the architect and contractor reveals that reuse of these panels will result in an unsatisfactory final reroofing product.. (The "shed" must be removed and replaced during the reroofing project.) Schwickert's has proposed instead to substitute new panels for a price of $5,840. The other major change in this change order is the completion date. Originally, this project was to have gotten started in mid - September, and be done by November 2" d However, a significant delay was encountered by the roofer when completing the Public Services building roof. Major factors relating to this delay are: A. The original structural subcontractor (to fabricate and install metal bracing for the skylights) backed out of his commitment. A second subsequent contractor also withdrew, before the third contractor was able to be found to complete the work. That was a delay of two to there weeks. B. After the "built up" roof was removed, a portion of the roof over the Public Works garage was found to have rusted metal (a result of more than 10 years of water pooling on this 20 gauge steel). There was a two -week delay while new metal was fabricated to replace that. C. The wooden roof edge of the Public Services building was found to be rotted in too many place to be "patched ", and therefore, a complete reconstruction of that needed to be done. D. The skylights took three weeks longer than anticipated to fabricate and deliver. All in all, while a "punch list" walk through on February 25 found very few problems, and that overall it appears to be a very good quality project, the fact is that it took much longer than had been originally anticipated to perform. Therefore, the change order should reflect the increase in amount of time to complete. While the additional time to complete the roofing at Public Works did not result in any additional cost due to the contractor, the architect will need to include 12 additional construction inspection trips (one every two weeks of the additional time) than otherwise would have been necessary had the project been able to be done in the original timeframe. While we are frustrated that the project has taken this much longer to complete than originally anticipated, there doesn't appear to be anything that might have been done to speed it up. The architect has had to continue to do construction inspections as the work continued in order to assure the quality of the work was being upheld. As a result, JEA Architects asks that an additional $4,570 be added to the original contract amount of $25,500 to accommodate the additional inspections and administration costs. BUDGET IMPACT: The additional work proposed by this change order adds $5,340, bringing the new contract price to $482,633. The original contract amount was $443,790. The additional $5,640 in architectural fees would bring the total architectural compensation to $30,070. Both of these costs are to be paid from the Building Fund. I recommend that both the change order and the additional compensation for JEA Architects be approved. If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize the following: The appropriate City officials to execute Change Order No. 3 with Schwickert Company. 2. Authorize the increase in the amount of "not to exceed" compensation to be paid to JEA Architects, Hopkins, Minnesota, by the amount of $4,570. rs ; `L Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:th CHANGE O RDER AIA DOCUMENT G701 OWNER ARCHITECT W CONTRACTOR 12 FIELD 0 OTHER 0 PROJECT: Shakopee Public Services Building (name, address) Reroofing and Remodeling and Shakopee City Hall Reroofing TO CONTRACTOR: (name, address) Schwickert Company 330 Poplar Street Mankato, MN 56001 The Contract is changed as follows: Refer to Attachment 1 hereto. SCHWICKERT COMPANY III III III NINE III IIIIIIIIIpp 11111 �111!111 92"M - The original (Contract Sum) was ... S e Orders . .............................. Net change by previously authorized Chang a Order was .......... 8 The (Contract Sum) ( } prior to this Chang The (Contract Sum) will be (increased) ) $ � ) b this Change Order in the amour tnclu�g this Cha ............... Order will be .. E The new (Contract Sum) CONTRACTOR 330 Poplar Street Address Mankato, MN 56001 The Contract Time will be (increased) (* by Refer to Attachment 1 The date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is March 29, hereto ( ) days. 2002. NOTE: This summary does not reflect changes in the Contract Sum Contract Time or Guaranteed Maximum Price which have been authorized by Construction Change Directive. JEA ARCHITECTS ARCHITECT 6440 Flying Cloud Dr., #202 Address Eden Prai MN 5344 BY CID' Jack An�s fires . , DATE BY CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 3 DATE: February 20, 2002 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 1069A and 1072B CONTRACT DATE: August 8, 2001 CONTRACT FOR: General Construction 443,790.00 33,503.00 477,293.00 5,340.00 482,633-00 CITY OF SHAKOPEE OWNER 129 Holmes Street South Address Shakopee, MN 5537 BY DATE 2- -- Z,5— ® 2— DATE A!A DO CUMENT (i7 I o CHANGE ORDER • 1987 EDITION a AIA • ©1987 • THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS- 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 2 WARNING: UnI photocoWng u S'WWrWd laws and is sub}ee to Iegal Wo"=tlon. 1 2. 43 4. At the Shakopee Public Services Building: Reduce the width of the perimeter edge. Refer to Exhibit A (1 page). At the Shakopee Public Services Building: Revise the Completion Schedule as per Exhibit B. Refer to Exhibit B (1 page). At the Shakopee City Hall Building: Revise the Completion Schedule as per Exhibit C. Refer to Exhibit C (1 page). At the Shakopee City Hall Building: Provide new metal panels at the City Hall shed roof in lieu of reusing existing. Refer to Exhibit D (1 page). 12/27/01 THU 14:42 FAX sales • design • installation • service 1 Schwickert's= For all of your mechanical and roofing needs. Q004 Schwickert's of Mankato, Inc. 221 Minnesota Street, P.O. Box 487, Mankato, Minnesota 56002 -0487 507.387.3106 • FAX: 507.387.4688 December 27, 2001 JEA Architects 6440 Flying Cloud Drive, Suite 202 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Shakopee Public Service Credit for Edge Metal Attn: Jack Anderson Dear Jack: In regards to changing the specified perimeter edge metal girth from a 16" girth to a 12" girth, there will be a credit for $500.00. If you have any questions, please contact me at (507) 3 86 -4184. Sincerely, Schwickert's of Mankato, Inc. Kevin Eichelberger Sales Consultant A 1 A M E R I C A AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER M e m b e r EXHIBIT B Shakopee Public Services Project No.1069A Job Schedule Calendar Peroid For 2001 -2002 Sht. Mtl. /Paintir Steel Framing Plastic Sky Ligl Kal -Wal Sky Lic Electrical Work Schwickert's 0 Q 0 T 1< 0 C 3 CD n s n n� Q Q 7 O O _T W CD CD N Shakopee City Hall Job Schedule Calendar Peroid For 2002 Project No. 1072B Description January February March 71 141 211 28 4 11 18 25 4 11 18 25 EPDM Roofino Sheet Mtl. Mech. Il El ectrical Work 10 ao Schwickert's' -NIq P- si— 17 T O Q O 1 < O c 3 co n s Q A ' Q 0 O O cn CD co CL- N sales • design • installation • service nam.._==3 Schwickert's For all of your mechanical and roofing needs. Schwickert's of Mankato, Inc. 221 Minnesota Street, P_O_ Box 487, Mankato, Minnesota 56002 -0487 507.387.3106 • FAX: 507.387.4688 February 11, 2002 JEA Architects 6440 Flying Cloud Drive, Suite 202 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Shakopee City Hall Metal Panel Replacement Attn: Jack Anderson Dear Jack: As per the owner's request, we propose to furnish labor and materials as follows: • Install new Pro -rib 29 GA Prefinished metal panels in -lieu of reinstallation of existing panels. Color to be selected from standard color chart. • Cut 29 GA panels around all penetrations and caulk joints The net payable sum for the above referenced scope of work and specifications is: Five Thousand Eight Hundred Forty and no /100 Dollars ($5,840.00) If you have any questions, please contact me at (507) 387 -3106. Sincerely, Schwickert's of Mankato, Inc. Kevin Eichelberger Sales Consultant "IN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER A dl'I A M E R I C A M e m b e, March 1, 2002 Mr. Mark McNeill City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379. Re: Shakopee Public Services Building Reroofing and Remodeling And Shakopee City Hall Reroofing - Proposal for Additional Services Dear Mark: The initial Substantial Completion date for the Project was November 2, 2001, and has now been revised to March 29, 2002. Due to this change, the number of site visitations for Construction Administration of the Project has increased. We anticipate the following additional services relative to this issue in order to complete this Project: Site Visits Principal - . . 12 x 2.50 hours x $120 /hr $ 3,600.00 Project Architect 12 x .50 hours x $951hr 570.00 Clerical 12 x 1.00 hours x $40 1hr "480.00 Total $ 4,650.00 If this proposal for Additional Services meets with your approval, please have the appropriate person sign and date below, and return one fully executed copy - to me. As always, if you have any questions, please call. Thank you! SUBITTE Y ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO BY JEAAR COTEW S CITY OF SHAKOPEE Jack EdkrarMAderson, AIA, CID Its By JACK EDWARD ANDERSON AFCH(r'cm, fNa 8440 rLYINa CLOUD DRIVE. SURE 202 EDEN PRAIRIE. MN 55344 (9= 21935.516 FAX(952)93r,2102 CITY OF SHAKOPEE MPmnrrzndu.m TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Murphy's Landing Action DATE: March 1, 2002 The Council is asked to remove from the table action relating to the sale of Murphy's Landing. After review of additional information requested, it should then to take action directing that the sale proceed. At the City Council meeting of February 26 the Council raised questions relating to whether a 30 acre parcel of land acquired from the Hauer family, and used for conservation easements was included in the land to be transferred. We have found that it is not. Councilor Sweeney also asked that language be included that allows for the Minnesota River Valley Trail to access through Murphy's Landing so as to provide a continuous trail. Staff is looking at that, and if any amended language is necessary, it will make that recommendation at the Wednesday City Council meeting. The Council took action extending the time that Murphy's Landing is a tenant of the City until the transfer could take place. Therefore, the other action would be to direct that the sale take place. If the Council concurs, it should, by motion authorize the appropriate City officials to execute a limited warranty deed and conservation and preservation easement with Three Rivers Park District for Murphy's Landing. Mark McNeill City Administrator CITY OF SHAKOPEE MPmnrnndum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Murphy's Landing/Three Rivers Park District DATE: February 22, 2002 The City Council is asked to adopt a motion to authorize the Minnesota Valley Restoration Project, Inc. dba Murphy's Landing to continue to operate as a tenant at will, until the closing of the sale of the property between the City and Three Rivers Parks, formerly known as Hennepin Parks. The City of Shakopee is the owner of land along the Minnesota River that has been operated since the 1980's as Murphy's Landing. Murphy's Landing is a non -profit organization, and is governed by a Board of Directors. Councilor Clete Link has been serving as the City's representative to the Murphy's Landing Board. It operates as a living history museum, and demonstrates life as it existed in the Minnesota River Valley from 1840 to 1890. The City and Murphy's Landing are nearing the end of a five -year lease, which will terminate February 28 For those five years, Murphy's Landing has leased from the City the grounds and improvements for a nominal sum. Murphy's Landing has had ongoing financial struggles throughout its history. Scott County has provided an annual $130,000 contribution to Murphy's Landing; that amount comprised approximately 1/3 of its total operating budget. The remainder of the Murphy's Landing budget has been raised through admission sales, membership fees, and grants. The City of Shakopee has been providing in -kind contributions from its Public Works Department, consisting of mowing, snowplowing, maintenance of roadways, wells, and the like. In 2000, negotiations began between the Parks District (then known as Hennepin Parks), the County, and the City. The negotiations centered around the transfer of the control and operations of Murphy's Landing from the non -profit Board of Directors, to Hennepin Parks. The scope of those negotiations was changed somewhat by a fire which took place in January, 2001, which destroyed the largest structure on the site containing three businesses, the Murphy's Landing offices, and six apartments. Since the fire, negotiations have continued. A delay of several months has happened because of a concern about liability insurance coverage for the outgoing Murphy's Landing Board of Directors. However, the insurance question has now been resolved, and both Murphy's Landing and Three Rivers have come to agreement on the transfer of assets and operations from Murphy's Landing to Three Rivers. As a background for the newer members of the City Council, you should be aware that the previous City Council last Fall approved a purchase agreement between the City and Three Rivers Parks District, transferring the property ownership Three Rivers. This is with the understanding that Three Rivers will continue to operate Murphy's Landing as a 19` century historic interpretive museum. If they cease to do that, or violate the criteria outlined in the list of permitted and prohibited uses, ownership would revert to the City. There is no money being exchanged on this. However the City is being reimbursed $10,000 for costs associated with this transfer (legal, surveying, abstracting, etc.). It is expected that the closing of this will take place in March; however, the documents provide for 60 -days. The "closing" of the agreement transferring assets will not be able to take place for several weeks. As stated earlier in this memo, the City's five -year lease with Murphy's Landing expires February 28` Therefore, action to allow Murphy's Landing to continue as a tenant until the closing of the sale of the property is necessary. It is expected that that closing will take place simultaneously with the closing of the agreement between Three Rivers Parks and Murphy's Landing. A copy of that agreement is attached for your information. I recommend that the City Council adopt a motion authorizing Murphy's Landing to continue as a tenant until the closing of the sale of the property between the City and Three Rivers Parks. If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize the Minnesota Valley Resotration Project, Inc., dba Murphy's Landing, to,continue as a tenant at will until the closing of the sale of the property between the City and Three Rivers Parks. k'a Mark McNeill City Administrator This Purchase Agreement ( "Agreement ") is entered into this day of , 20_, by and between Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota ( "Park District ") and the City of Shakopee, a Minnesota municipal corporation ( "Shakopee "). WHEREAS, the Park District is a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, whose primary duties are acquisition, development and maintenance of large parks, wildlife sanctuaries or other reservations, and means for public access to historic sites and to lakes, rivers and streams and to other natural phenomena, and WHEREAS, Shakopee owns property described on Exhibit A hereto ( "Subject Property") in the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, commonly known as Murphy's Landing, and WHEREAS, Shakopee and Park District wish to enter into an agreement for the conveyance of said property for historical preservation and interpretation from Shakopee to the Park District, NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above premises and the promises contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Conveyance Shakopee hereby agrees to convey to the Park District and the Park District agrees to accept from Shakopee the Subject Property. 2. Consideration In consideration of the conveyance, transfer and delivery by Shakopee to the Park District of the Subject Property, the Park District shall pay to Shakopee the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00). 3. Conveyance of Title Subject to performance by the Park District at the closing of the transaction contemplated by this Agreement ( "Closing "), Shakopee shall convey title to the Subject Property by [warranty] deed executed and delivered to the Park District in the form of JJT- 198995v3 1 SH155 -99 Exhibit B attached hereto. The title conveyed in said deed shall be subject to the following: (i) building, zoning and subdivision laws, ordinances, state and federal regulations, (ii) reservation of any minerals or mineral rights with the State of Minnesota, and (iii) reservation of a conservation and preservation easement as set forth in the attached Exhibit B and a right of reverter as contained in the attached Exhibit B. 4. Real Estate Taxes and Special Assessments The Subject Property is currently exempt from real property taxation. Accordingly, no real estate property taxes are due and payable on the Subject Property for 2000 or prior years. Any liability for real property taxes against the Subject Property from and after Closing shall be the responsibility of the Park District. Shakopee shall pay at Closing any and all special assessments levied or pending as of the date of the Closing. Any and all liabilities for special assessments against the Subject Property following such Closing shall be the responsibility of the Park District. 5. Title and Documents (a) Documents and Information to be provided. Within 30 days after the acceptance of this Agreement by the parties hereto, Shakopee shall provide the Park District with the following: (i) An abstract of title to the Subject Property, including proper current searches covering bankruptcies, state and federal judgments and liens, and a special assessment search with authorities who levy special assessments against the Subject Property. All searches shall be certified to the date of this Agreement. Park District agrees to accept an Owner's title commitment in the amount of one million dollars in lieu of an abstract of title, provided that, Shakopee shall pay the title commitment fee. Park District shall pay the premium for any title insurance policy (ii) Copies of any environmental audits or assessments of the Subject Property which are in Shakopee's possession. (iii) Copies of certificates, authorizations, permits, licenses and approvals which have been issued covering the Subject Property and are currently in force. (iv) Copies of any written agreements affecting the ownership and use of the Subject Property known to Shakopee. (v) A complete roster of tenants with mailing addresses and phone numbers. (b) Review of Abstract. The Park District shall have 30 days after delivery of the abstract or title insurance commitment within which to object to title. If said objections are not made in writing within such time period and delivered to Shakopee, the Park District shall be deemed to have waived such objections. If the Park District objects to title, Shakopee shall have 30 days from the date of Shakopee's receipt of such written objections to make title marketable or to determine to not make title marketable. The parties may by written agreement extend the period allowed for Shakopee to make title marketable. If title is not made marketable within 30 days, or such additional time period agreed to by the parties, this Agreement shall be null and JJT- 198995v3 2 SH155 -99 void at the option of the Park District and neither party shall have any further obligation under this Agreement. (c) Inspections Document Review. With respect to all of the items required pursuant to paragraph 5(a)(ii) -(b), the Park District shall have 30 days after delivery of the items to the Park District during which to inspect all such items. Further, the Park District may inspect the Subject Property and conduct such other and further inspections or other review as seems necessary by the Park District during such period. If such review and/or inspection by the Park District shall be unsatisfactory to the Park District, the Park District may terminate this Agreement by providing written notice of termination to Shakopee within the time period provided by this paragraph for inspection, and this Agreement shall be null and void and neither party to this Agreement shall have any further obligation to the other. If said period should expire without notice of the Park District's intention to terminate this Agreement, then this Agreement shall be considered in full force and effect and the Park District shall be deemed to have waived any objections based upon such review and inspection. Shakopee hereby grants the Park District and/or its agents the right to enter upon the Subject Property for the purpose of inspection and to prepare topological studies, surveys, soil tests and other engineering studies, and environmental inspection and testing that may be deemed necessary; provided however that the Park District shall pay all costs thereof and shall indemnify and hold Shakopee and the Subject Property harmless from and against any and all costs, damages and liabilities arising from entry upon inspection or testing of the Subject Property, including but not limited to costs, damages and liabilities arising from mechanics, materialmens and other liens filed against the Subject Property in connection with work performed or material furnished by or at the direction of the Park District. 6. Environmental To Shakopee's knowledge, Shakopee's operations are in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local statutes, laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, orders, judicial or administrative decisions of any governmental authority or court of competent jurisdiction in effect and in each case, if applicable, as amended as of the Closing relating to (a) pollution of the environment, (b) a Release, as defined below, or threatened Release of Hazardous Materials, as defined below, or (c) the handling, storage, transport or disposal of Hazardous Materials (collectively, "Environmental Laws ". During the period of Shakopee's ownership of the Subject Property, to the knowledge of Shakopee (a) there has been no Release, as defined below, of any Hazardous Materials, as defined below, on the Subject Property, and (b) there have not been, and Shakopee has not received any notices from any governmental authority of any underground storage tanks on the Subject Property. For purposes of this Agreement, "Release" shall mean, in violation of applicable Environmental Laws, depositing, discharging, injecting, spilling, leaking, leaching, dumping, emitting, escaping, emptying, seeping or placing and other similar like actions into or upon any land, water or air, or otherwise entering into the environment, and "Hazardous Materials" shall mean (a) any chemicals, materials or substances defined as or included in the definition of "hazardous substances," "hazardous wastes," "hazardous materials," "extremely hazardous substances," "toxic substances," "pollutant or contaminant" or words of similar import, under applicable Environmental Laws; (b) any petroleum or petroleum products, natural or synthetic gas, radioactive materials, polychlorinate, biphenyls, asbestos in any form that is friable, urea formaldehyde foam insulation or radon, and (c) any other chemical, material or JJT- 198995v3 3 SH155 -99 substance, the handling, storage, transport or disposal of which is prohibited, limited or regulated by any governmental authority under applicable Environmental Laws. Shakopee has disclosed to the Park District all reports and other documents in its possession concerning environmental matters relating to the Subject Property. To Shakopee's knowledge there are no existing claims or causes of action, and there are no pending claims regarding the Subject Property against the Subject Property or Shakopee involving the violation of Environmental Laws, and that Shakopee has no such claims against third parties. Shakopee warrants that it will defend, indemnify and hold the Park District harmless from and against any and all claims brought under Environmental Laws which arise from circumstances or conditions existing prior to conveyance of the Subject Property to Park District. Park District shall defend, indemnify and hold Shakopee harmless from and against any and all claims brought under Environmental Laws which arise from circumstances or conditions created after conveyance of the Subject Property to Park District. 7. Due Authorization Shakopee and the Park District hereby represent to the other that each has requisite power and authority to execute this Agreement and the documents referred to herein and to perform its obligations hereunder and thereunder; and the individuals executing this Agreement and all such other documents that have a legal power, right and actual authority to bind each of the parties hereto to the terms and conditions of the Agreement and all other such documents. Further, each of the parties to this Agreement hereby represents to the other that its execution and performance of this Agreement and all other documents referred to herein shall not violate any applicable statute, ordinance, governmental restriction or regulation, or any prior restriction or agreement. 8. Closing; Contingencies (a) Performance at Closing. Subject to paragraph 5 hereof, the Closing of the transaction contemplated by this Agreement shall take place within 60 days following execution of this Agreement unless extended by the parties. Closing shall occur at 153 East Lake Street, Wayzata, MN. At the Closing Shakopee shall: (i) deliver possession of Subject Property, subject to rights of tenants in possession; deliver an Affidavit of Seller confirming the absence of judgments, mechanic's liens and unrecorded interests against the Subject Property not disclosed herein; deliver any abstracts of title in Shakopee's possession or control to any portions of the Subject Property; (ii) deliver any documents necessary to clear title in accordance with this Agreement, if any, and pay any related recording charges; (iii) deliver the warranty deed and a quit claim bill of sale regarding any personal property located on the Subject Property and pay any related deed tax; (iv) deliver a quit claim bill of sale conveying Shakopee's interest in all personal property and improvements, including historic buildings and artifacts on the Subject Property; JJT- 198995v3 4 SH155 -99 (v) deliver a complete tenant roster with mailing addresses and phone numbers; (vi) deliver copies of notices to tenants of transfer of security deposit; (vii) transfer security deposits together with interest; and (viii) deliver tenant estoppel certificates for each tenant in sworn affidavit form attesting that all rent is current, there is no pre -paid rent, that there are no claims on the part of the tenant against the seller or the property, and adding a copy of the written lease to each affidavit. (b) Contingencies. The parties to this Agreement acknowledge that the Closing is expressly subject to the following contingencies: (i) The Park District shall obtain consent of the City of Shakopee to its acquisition of the Subject Property pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 398.09(b)(1); (ii) The Park District shall obtain all other consents required from governmental or other regulatory authorities; (iii) The Park District shall have the right, at its sole discretion, to terminate this Agreement for environmental reasons pursuant to paragraph 5(c); (iv) The Park District shall have the right, at its sole discretion, to terminate this Agreement for environmental reasons at any time prior to Closing; (v) The Park District shall have reached an agreement with the County of Scott for financial support for operation of Murphy's Landing; (vi) The Park District shall have reached agreement with the Minnesota Valley Restoration Project, Inc., a Minnesota non -profit corporation, conveying its interest in the improvements on the site to the Park District; and (vii) The Park District shall have reached agreement with the Minnesota Valley Restoration Project, Inc., a Minnesota non -profit corporation, conveying its interest in the improvements on the site to the Park District, and (viii) The lease between the City of Shakopee and Minnesota Valley Restoration Project, Inc., d/b /a Murphy's Landing, dated March 1, 1997, shall have been terminated The parties to this Agreement hereby agree that the Closing date shall be extended as reasonably necessary to allow fulfillment of the contingencies, provided that fulfillment thereof is being diligently pursued, provided however that if the Closing does not occur prior to six months following execution of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be null and void. 9. Defaults/Right to Terminate In addition to the other rights to terminate this Agreement granted to each of the parties pursuant to this Agreement, either party may cancel this JJT- 198995v3 5 SH155 -99 Agreement upon 30 days' written notice to the other party at any such time as such other party is in default of its agreements hereunder and remains in such default for 30 days following the notice of such default. 10. Condemnation In the event of the initiation of proceedings for condemnation (or sale in lieu thereof) on any portion of the Subject Property prior to Closing, the Park District shall have the right to cancel this Agreement, in which case this Agreement shall be deemed null and void and neither of the parties shall have any further obligations. Conversely, the Park District may elect to purchase the Subject Property and close the transaction notwithstanding such proceedings and, if the Park District shall so elect, all awards or payments made for such portion of Subject Property by the condemning authority to which Shakopee is entitled shall be paid to the Park District and the Park District shall proceed to close the transactions herein and pay the full property purchase price to Shakopee. 11. Binding Effect The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit and shall be binding on representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto, provided that neither party hereto shall have the right to assign its rights or obligations hereunder without the prior consent of the other party. 12. Waivers No waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of any other provision whether or not similar, nor shall any waiver be a continuing waiver. Any party may waive any provision of this Agreement intended for its benefit; provided, however, such waiver shall in no way excuse the other party from the performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement. 13. Time Time is of the essence of this Agreement. 14. Further Documentation Each party agrees in good faith to execute such further or additional documents as maybe necessary or appropriate to fully carry out the intent and purpose of this Agreement. 15. Headings and Counterparts The headings of this Agreement are for purposes of reference only and shall not limit or define the meaning of any provision of this Agreement. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. 16. Notices Any notices to be provided pursuant to the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be given by personal delivery or by express courier or by deposit in U.S. Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, postage prepaid, addressed to the Park District or Shakopee at the addresses set forth below or at such other address as either party may designate in writing. The date notice is given shall be the date on which the notice is delivered, if notice is given by personal delivery, or the date notice is sent by express courier or U.S. Mail if otherwise. JJT- 198995v3 6 SH155 -99 If to Shakopee City of Shakopee Attn: Mayor 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 If to the Park District Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District Attn: Director of Administration 12615 County Road 9 Plymouth, MN 55441 with a copy to Jeffrey R. Brauchle P.A. 153 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 17. Construction This Agreement shall be construed according to the laws of the State of Minnesota. 18. Complete Agreement This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties pertaining to the subject matter contained in this Agreement. All prior and contemporaneous agreements, representations and understandings, written or oral, are superseded by and merged into this Agreement. No supplement, modification or amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and executed by Shakopee and the Park District. 19. Survival of Covenants All covenants, agreements, representations and warranties contained herein shall survive delivery of the deed from Shakopee to the Park District and be enforceable by the Park District or Shakopee after delivery of the deed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. Dated: Dated: JJT- 198995v3 SH155 -99 with coRy to James J. Thomson Kennedy & Graven 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 7 Suburban Henneloin Regional Park District, a public corporation and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota WIN James Deane, Chair Douglas F. Bryant, Superintendent and Secretary to the Board City of Shakopee, a Minnesota municipal corporation Dated: Dated: This instrument was drafted by: Jeffrey R. Brauchle, P.A. 153 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 (952) 258 -0415 By Its By Its HT- 198995A 8 SH155 -99 �■ 5 '1 1 WHEREAS: 1. The property legally described on Exhibit A to this Quit Claim Deed (hereinafter referred to as the "Property') is primarily woodlands, wetlands, riparian areas, open space, and the site of historical, architectural and cultural aspects of real property (the "Conservation Values "). 2. Grantor intends to retain the right to preserve and protect the Property in perpetuity and to prevent or remedy subsequent activities or uses that are inconsistent with the terms of this instrument; I The Conservation Easement (as defined below) will serve the policies of the State of Minnesota that encourage the protection of Minnesota's natural and historic resources, as set forth, in part, in Minn. Stat., Ch. 84C (2000) or successor provisions ( "Chapter 84C "). 4. Grantor is a governmental body empowered to hold an interest in real property under the laws of the State of Minnesota and thus is qualified to serve as holder of this Conservation Easement in accordance with Chapter 84C ("Holder "). Grantor agrees to assume the obligations of Holder in protecting the natural, scenic and historical, architectural and cultural qualities of the Property in perpetuity according to the terms of this Conservation Easement. NOW, THEREFORE, 1. Reservation of Easement Grantor hereby reserves a perpetual conservation and preservation easement (the "Conservation Easement") on the Property of the character and to the extent set forth herein and hereby accepts the rights and responsibilities as Holder of the Conservation Easement. This instrument is intended to constitute a conservation easement under Chapter 84C. 2. Grantor's Rights as Holder To preserve and protect the Property pursuant to the terms of this Conservation Easement, Grantor shall have the following rights: A. to enter onto the Property at reasonable times to monitor activities and uses and to enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement, provided that Grantor shall give reasonable prior notice to Grantee of all such entries and shall not unreasonably interfere with Grantee's use and quiet enjoyment of the Property; Cp T , �RIDE SINCE 1857 19 olm g 99eet South ° Shakopee, Minnesota ° 55379 -1351 •952 -233 80Q ° FAX 952 -233 -3801 ° www.ci.shakopee.mn.us is .4:r Proposed description of Subject Property All of the property owned by the City of Shakopee currently under lease to Minnesota Valley Restoration Project, Inc., d/b /a/ Murphy's Landing, including land generally located between Memorial Park and the Peavey Grain Terminal, subject to a precise legal description to be prepared after a survey of the property. JJT- 198995v3 SH155 -99 A -1 66 Z^ZLO96I zo uo uotltpUOO zo `uoTSSUUO `10, U, Tu09 i?Tnllnsaz agsuTUp kjiodozd zo `gl,ap `fmfuT I,uoszad (t) of 2ull,Iaz zo jo Ina BuTs `saaj s,Xauzoil, olq,uossaz `uotlu1 Tj lnolltm Tutpnloul `spualapnf zo `spU,uzap `Sump `uoTpou jo sosnuo `sasuodxo `so2ump `sossol ` sisoo `solipuad `satltltq IT isup2 - e pu, uzozg ioluuzo puajap pus `fjl=oput `ssoluinLI piog IIugs aaluuzO •pomsuT paumu I,uoglpp, up su zojuujD om,u lluls XIzadozd oqp i?uuanoo aalueiD Xq pa uT,Iul - em soT011od aouums Xpjuns,D •flz adozd oql zoj oouamsuT fli 2urmejupuz zoj olglsuodsaz Xlolos uT,TUaz ll aalu,zo •0 •f,jiodozd aqI IsuT,2u poTnal sluauzssoss, pue soxul oftallugO of mul Xq poptnozd sllsu XUU asTOZaxa XuTU aaluuzo •slunoure Tlons zoj oaluazj) Ism gu luaumsmquuai Jo IOu , anul It,gs puu Iuauzas,g uoTI,nzasuo� stgl Xq pagstlq,lsa IsazaluT aqI zo fIzadozd aqI Isum2tl patnaI fIITgmul sluauissasss zo soxul jo Iuauz�ud fue o7Tu `ol pals2tlgo lou st inq `Xuuz zolu,zD womosug uotpunzasuoD s1gl Xq pagsTlqulso ToluuiD jo isazalul agl IsuTE2u patnaI XIITTjm sluomssosss zo sox,l Diu, 2ucpnloul flzadozd aqI Isure2u patnaI Xllnjm sluauzssossu pue saxul ti Rud Ilsgs aaluazo •g •aalutuo Xq pazmouT suoTpu2Tlgo zo `ol pagstuznj sluualuTU `zoj pauuojjod 3Izom jo Ino Suism suatl IIu jo aaz� �lzodozd oql daa3l ll,gs aalueiD - u - ell TaIs W agl gptm lualstsuoo flzadozd aqI jo omemIul - em pus `daa3ldn `suotlszado agl ioj olgtsuodsaz Xlolos upu w IIugs oaluuzD :soi ltgtsuodsaz SuTmolloj aqI of polnuq Iou lnq .SutpnlouT `14zadozd agldo dRszaumo s,aalmmo Tuoq Sumzoos pupl Xwjo sa pus sisoo IIu zuoq ll,gs pu, suoTlsBtlgo liu somnssu Xgazaq aalumD •satl?ItgEt�I pTTU slsoD •flzadoz aqI of olitl aaj jo Ized Niue zo llu jo zajsuuzl u zo zoluuiD of uotl,ogtlou ualltzm zoud ,sX,p p£ ant4 Il,gs aaluuiD •fIzadozd agp jo lz,d zo Ilu uT `l plogasual s 2utpnloul `Isazalul Auu szajsuuzl aaluuzo gotgm Xq sluoumzlsuT 113301 zaglo zo spaap iiu uT luauzassg uotl,nTasuoD stgl jo suuoi aqI oouazajaz Xq alu.zodzoouT IIugs aalumo •puaumssg uoTlunzasuoa stgl jo suLTol ogldo ooluuzo gnoigl zo Xq Xlzadozd oql uo ll2u Xuu osiojoxa olm szaglo IIu uuojlq IIugs aaluuzo •luauzasug uopunzasuoD stgl of loafgns Xlzadozd agl jo vud zo Il, zajsuuzl zo Ilos op 111211 aqI puu `olazaq Q ltgtgxg uo gIz03 pas su sasn pauu,Id aqI gltm lualstsuoo sT Iugl nuuuuz , uT S-Izadozd oTp oluo otlgnd aqI Xq ssoom al,jn2az of lg2u oql `luouios,g uotl,nzasuoD s1TII Xq palturtl zo paltgtgoid Iou om I,II �Izadozd aqI jo sasn .10 saTltnTlOu 17 uT 02 of szaglo moll, zo uT a2,fuo of Iqtz aqI `uotp,ipigl lnogptm `$utpnlo X po dozd all jo dMszaumo sit uzozj Ouffmo, slg2u II, an,q IIugs aaluuzO •s r d s,aalTZUZf) •g •luouTasug uotlunzasuo3 st gl .Kq pa.�anuoO st XIiodozd agl jo uop -lod Xue of Otlgnd oql Xq ss000u jo lgftz oN •ssaOOV 5 -q qua • • �I .md IsuoiSo -a uldouuag uugmgnS of aadoVgS jo A41D alp Tuou pol,p paaQ all uT panzasaz Iuauzasug uotl,nzasuoD aqI gltm aOU,pzoOOU uT zapunazag MATE ST l,nozddu„ lugl soptnozd XIluogtoods Iunozdd, Ions rpoj EM4is l uomnoop ualltzm alp B. to prevent and remedy all subsequent activities and uses of the Property not consistent with the terms of this Conservation Easement; C. to enforce any of the terms of the Conservation Easement. 3. Planned Uses Permitted Uses and Prohibited Uses Grantee may use, occupy and operate the entire Property continuously and without interruption for the Planned Uses set forth on Exhibit D hereto and incorporated herein, and shall permanently retain the Property in its predominantly natural and scenic state. Grantee's use of the Property shall be consistent with the Permitted Uses set forth on Exhibit D, and Grantee shall not perform, or knowingly allow others to perform, acts on the Property that constitute Prohibited Uses as set forth on Exhibit D or that would otherwise significantly impair or interfere with the Conservation Values of the Property. Grantor acknowledges that the present use of the Property is consistent with the ternls of this Conservation Easement and the Grantee may, subject to the restrictions set forth in Exhibit D, continue to make such use of the Property. 4. Grantor's Approval A. Any requirement that Grantee obtain the prior written approval of Grantor is intended to let Grantor study the proposed use and decide if it is consistent with this Conservation Easement and maintains or enhances the Conservation Values of the Property. Grantee shall submit a request in writing to the Grantor at least 30 days prior to the proposed date of commencement of the use in question. The request shall set out the use for which approval is sought, its design and location, the impact of the proposed use on the Conservation Values of the Property, and other material information in sufficient detail to allow Grantor to make an informed judgment that the proposed use is or is not consistent with this Conservation Easement or would adversely affect the Conservation Values of the Property. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of its decision within 30 days of its receipt of Grantee's request. Grantor may withhold its approval only on a reasonable determination that the proposed use would be inconsistent with this Conservation Easement, impair the Conservation Values of the Property, or result in violation of any applicable law or regulation, or that Grantor lacks sufficient detail to reach an informed judgment that the proposed use is or is not consistent with this Conservation Easement. Grantor may condition its approval on Grantee's acceptance of modifications which, in Grantor's judgment, would make the proposed use, as modified, consistent with this Conservation Easement, would protect the Conservation Values of the Property or would be required under applicable law or regulation. B. Where approval of Grantor is required under this Conservation Easement agreement, Grantor's approval or denial of the same shall be rendered on the basis of Grantor's rights and responsibilities as Holder to enforce the Conservation Easement. Satisfaction of zoning, subdivision or other regulations requiring municipal or police power approvals by Grantor shall not entitle Grantee to, or be deemed a waiver of, any approval required hereunder. No approval of Grantor shall be deemed effective unless BLW- 195072v2 SH155 -99 B -2 about the Property to the full extent of Grantee's responsibility, (ii) the obligations of Grantee to maintain the Property and pay taxes as set forth in paragraphs 7(A) and (B) above, and (iii) the existence of this Conservation Easement. 8. Enforcement If Grantee has breached, or if Grantor reasonably has reason to believe Grantee may breach, the terms of this Conservation Easement, Grantor may give written notice of the breach to Grantee and demand that Grantee take action to cure the breach, including without limitation restoration of the Property. If Grantee does not cure the breach within 120 days after receipt of such notice, Grantor may commence an action to (i) specifically enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement, (ii) enjoin the breach, ex parte if needed in the event of an emergency, either temporarily or permanently, (iii) recover damages, (iv) pursue any other remedies available to it in law or equity. The foregoing provisions notwithstanding, if Grantor determines in its sole discretion that immediate action is needed to prevent or mitigate significant damage to the Property, Grantor may pursue its remedies under this Paragraph without providing written notice or giving Grantee time to cure the breach. Grantor's enforcement, or lack of enforcement, of the terms of this Conservation Easement shall not be deemed to waive or terminate Grantor's separate Right of Reverter as set forth in Exhibit C to this Quit Claim Deed. 9. Costs of Enforcement If Grantor prevails in an action brought under Paragraph 8 herein, Grantee shall reimburse Grantor for all costs incurred by Grantor in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement including without limitation costs of litigation, reasonable attorney's fees, and costs of restoration or cure effected by Grantor. If Grantee prevails, Grantor shall reimburse Grantee for all costs of defense including without limitation costs of litigation and reasonable attorney's fees. 10. Waiver The enforcement of the terms of this Conservation Easement is subject to Grantor's discretion. The delay or failure by Grantor to discover a breach by Grantee or to exercise a right of enforcement as to such breach shall not impair or waive Grantor's rights of enforcement against Grantee for such breach. Grantor's inadvertent or intentional failure to exercise its rights of enforcement in the event of a breach of a term of this Conservation Easement shall not constitute a waiver by Grantor of such terms, any subsequent breach of the same term, any breach of any other terms, or any of Grantor's rights under this Conservation Easement. 11. Acts Beyond Grantee's Control Grantor shall not exercise its rights of enforcement against Grantee for injury or alteration to the Property resulting from causes beyond the reasonable control of Grantee, including without limitation fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from any prudent action taken by Grantee under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury or alteration to the Property resulting from such causes. 12. Assignment of Easement Grantor may transfer its rights and obligations in this Conservation Easement only to a qualified conservation organization, as provided in Section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 of the United States Code), which may hold conservation easement as provided in Chapter 84C and only with the consent of Grantee. BLW -I 95072v2 SHI55 -99 B -4 13. Notices Any notice of other communication that either party must give to the other shall be in writing and shall either be served personally or sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the following addresses or such other address as either party shall designate by written notice to the other: GRANTOR: City of City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 5537 Attention: City Administrator GRANTEE: Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District 2615 County Road 9 Plymouth, MN 55441 Attention: Director of Administration 14. Governing Law This Conservation Easement shall be governed by the Laws of Minnesota. 15. Amendment Grantor and Grantee may amend this Conservation Easement by a writing signed by Grantor and Grantee, provided that such amendment shall not (i) impair or threaten the Conservation Values of the Property, (ii) affect the perpetual duration of this Conservation Easement, or (iii) affect the qualification of this Conservation Easement under Chapter 84C. 16. Binding Effect The covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions of this Conservation Easement shall bind and inure to the benefit of Grantor, Grantee, their personal representatives, heirs, successors, assigns, and all others who exercise any right by or through them and shall run in perpetuity with the Property. _ 17. Notices. Any notices to be provided pursuant to the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be given by personal delivery or by express courier or by deposit in U.S. Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, postage prepaid, addressed to the Park District or Shakopee at the addresses set forth below or at such other address as either party may designate in writing. The date notice is given shall be the date on which the notice is delivered, if notice is given by personal delivery, or the date notice is sent by express courier or U.S. Mail if otherwise. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. BLW- 195072v2 SH155 -99 B -5 Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, a public corporation and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: This instrument was drafted by: Jeffrey R. Brauchle, P.A. 153 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 (952) 258 -0415 James Deane, Chair 0 Douglas F. Bryant, Superintendent and Secretary to the Board City of Shakopee, a Minnesota municipal corporation By Its By Its BLW- 195072v2 SH155 -99 B -6 A. Planned Uses Grantee plans to use the Property to operate a history museum that preserves and interprets 19 century life in the Minnesota River Valley on a portion of the real estate. The Property shall be used solely and exclusively for the improvement, operation and maintenance of a history museum that preserves and interprets 19 century life in the Minnesota River Valley, specifically including but not limited to, the following: (i). Maintaining and preserving such existing structures and artifacts as may be specified in the Master Plan; (ii). Operating the Property in accordance with that certain Master Plan prepared by Grantee and approved in writing by Grantor, as may be amended from time to time with Grantor's prior written consent ( "Master Plan"); provided, however, that if the Master Plan is not in effect, Grantor, at a minimum, shall make the Property accessible to the general public on a regular schedule and shall operate educational programs on the Property for school groups and the general public. (the "Planned Uses ") B. Permitted Uses The Property may be used for any activities, events, or operations, or construction or installation of any structures or other improvements, that are consistent with or promote the Planned Uses ( "Permitted Uses "). Uses approved in Master Plan shall be deemed Permitted Uses. C. Prohibited Uses The following uses of and activities and operations on or affecting the Property shall be prohibited (the "Prohibited Uses "): (i). Activities or events that -are inconsistent with the Permitted Uses or interfere with the Planned Uses; (ii). Construction or installation of any facilities, buildings, structures or other improvements on the Property that are inconsistent with the Permitted Uses or interfere with the Planned Uses; BLW- 195128v2 SH155 -99 (iii). Subdivision of the Property for residential, commercial, or industrial development or uses, [or subdivision of the Property for any other reason without the prior written approval of Grantor]. (iv). Commercial or industrial uses, operations, or improvements; (v). Exploration or extraction of soil, sand, gravel, rock, minerals, hydrocarbons, or any other natural resource without the prior written approval of Grantor; (vi). The granting of rights -of -way, easements, or other property interests in the Property without the prior written approval of Grantor; (vii). Installation of utility systems or extensions of existing utility systems, including, but not limited to, water, sewer, power, fuel and communication lines and related facilities, without the prior written approval of Grantor, which approval may only be given if said utility is needed to serve a Permitted Use or otherwise further a Planned Use; (viii). Disposal or dumping of refuse or other waste; failure to promptly remove from the Property refuse or other waste generated by a Permitted Use; (ix). Uses that cause or are likely to cause soil depravation or erosion or water pollution either on the surface of the Property or underground; (x). Uses that pose risk of injury to the Property or that violate any insurance requirement or zoning, building, health, safety, or environmental law, regulation or ordinance of any federal, state, or local unit of government or agency that has jurisdiction over the Property. BLW- 195128v2 2 SH155 -99 In the event that Grantee fails to use, occupy and operate the entire Property continuously and without interruption for the Planned Uses set forth in Exhibit D to this Quit Claim Deed, and specifically without limitation as required by the Master Plan, for a period of at least 365 consecutive days, then Grantor shall have the right, upon its election and without requirement to give notice to Grantee, to re -enter and take possession of the Property and to revest in the Grantor the interest of the Grantee in the Property. This right of reverter is in addition to Grantor's rights under the Conservation Easement as set forth in Exhibit B hereto, and Grantor's enforcement of, or failure to enforce, the Conservation Easement shall not be deemed to waive or terminate Grantor's right of reverter herein. BLW- 195129v1 SH155 -99 I r- T-` �pT fi t.. ' • \ , l i J i"tr• J " t 1 - - — • • `+ I 1 ,t ,,` • o f !'�i � N. \\ • , f _ f�' l i l r. dY� " ti •` r' �. \ \ � 1 1�1� i'I� y if r �� / / • y 1 � e tip- ` An '' ,,,' ,,,',' . ' ,,,,/,,, . , , -, .. — i r i 1,r 1 i 3 ) : i IN 4 ►_. - _ k- ___.., __ -:i. • - _ .a- .SLC .�..T....T.Itr A,. .�.�� _ ��" TJQ1 _ -- _ 1104 tY r "•k".:7. cc` xs. ,t,. F _T w ' . - . '.*1. aim. l- ^ *�T I ,,,,i or rid . -..: ; _ _ J II, ` 0 .' i� �� ` � f i . � • 0 41 ' � i & G \ 9 �1 ` 4 ' . ter . } \ , 1,� I � it --A ` . _ ' / tt •. ' , W_ ' L r I , / lk ei�� , yS , • N. 1 it i ► I I - . _ll *_ -� _ , , ? 4 ,, . °r ° , . • : • r t 3 . . r . ' � t �� J,.r r� `t _ ` i - ,. r .„?‘,W,,,,., . it � � y ` �` �\ ' ,' ,. , j , / /• • ` . f r , y, /„. 0... 3 / .f' .., _ A te. , ` v / A 44 ��" \ Jy ! ■ !r te �� ±�_ / it. :4e k r mal - efiii - p,A A %iv- , -1111. , -..-- i , a.. ,yam * -, , e •v ,R � ' , • ; ;.; ' ■ ' r -t :. , �, f > � •�C YY7�- , - At l� '� - ofr i ', V` -` x - _ .� - _ ..�. • .y.4. - i "rte/ - . : '��A�i .- ` i t \ • . l i-ifillibitillijt- 1 • IFF: = 67 X111 �� ^ * — "�� is . tea , ( .R ,* s. i _ -iiiit‘' gilt -*} . - - - - 4 1 �� f 9 . } r te - i ll WY /1.- ,., •-a >._ ., .. I� 3540 James Ave. S Suite 201 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55408 February 16, 2002 Shakopee City Hall- 129S * Holmes St. Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Mayor Mars and Councilors, On January 31, 2002, my husband and I sold our home in Shakopee at 832 East Stn Avenue after having lived there for 28 years. During that time we raised our three children and worked and volunteered in the schools and community. We are downsizing our dwelling and moving to Minneapolis where we will be closer to work and family. I am writing this letter as a former citizen of Shakopee who, along with my husband, cares deeply for this community that was our home for so long. As at least two of you remember, I had the privilege of serving several years on the Planning Commission. We spent hours and hours in conscientious debate over the comprehensive plan and other matters important to the growth and vitality of Shakopee. The beauty of the city was important to us and we spent time quizzing developers on their plans to buffer their buildings with plantings or debating whether or not to allow any variances to proposed signs. We were diligent in insuring that adequate park and green space was planned for. But one thing that always disturbed me during these debates was the non - follow through and lack of enforcement for the plans and ordinances that were recommended to and passed by the City Council. The neighborhood that we just moved from is a case in point. It is a stable, hardworking neighborhood of good neighbors who care for their properties. There is one exception and that is the property that was next door to ours at 820 E. 8 Avenue. I am sending pictures of our neighbor's back and side yards taken on January 27, 2002, from the vantage of our former home. The deplorable conditions of our neighbor's yard are not new and have been reported to the city by us and, I believe, others in the neighborhood over several years. Many of us have spoken to this neighbor about his property but to no avail. After we complained to the city about this neighbor's property, the follow -up was limited and we, and I suspect others, gave up trying to get any relief for the situation from the city. Instead my husband and I made a significant investment in landscaping so that we could enjoy our back yard even though the landscaping doesn't help with the view from the windows. The strong question I am asking you is why the city allows this to continue. Why are there no consequences for repeated abuses of city ordinances or codes. (This neighbor has burned lumber in the barrel in the pictures.) I applaud the conscientious work of the Planning Commission and City Council and I know a city works only when its citizens are willing to abide by its laws. But what is the incentive for a citizen to come before the Planning Commission or City Council to discuss plans or variances, seeking community approval, when they could just as easily do whatever they want to do, as the homeowner of 820 E. 8 1h Avenue does. I strongly urge you to consider tough enforcement of flagrant abusers of city ordinances, whether they are homeowners or businesses. The city needs the voluntary compliance of its citizens to ensure a vibrant, livable city, but that will be eroded if the few people who won't abide by legal community standards are allowed to continue their abuse of the law. Again, sadly, we no longer are living in Shakopee but, because so much of our lives were spent here, we will always care about the city. Please care enough about our former neighborhood and the larger community of Shakopee to take appropriate and, if need be, sustained measures to ensure compliance with reasonable community ordinances. Sincerely, Nancy Cc Mark - McNeill, City Administrator CTI'Y OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Information — Seasonal Hirings/Hiring Freeze DATE: March 6, 2002 Following the implementation of the hiring freeze by the City Council on January 15 tH , we sought clarification from you as to what positions that would cover. In summary, until we got better direction from the State, and you as the Council had an opportunity to give further direction, hirings are to be limited to replacing positions which existed in the 2001 budget, but staff is to hold on filling any newly budgeted positions for 2002. Seasonal employees could be hired; I believe the seasonal employee discussion focused on Recreation. However, Bruce Loney has asked whether this was intended to apply to Public Works and Engineering employees as well. In my interpretation, it would, and that the seasonal employees could be hired for this year. These are not ongoing positions, and that is the focus of the concern on hiring new positions as I see it. (The big crunch will come in FY 2003, and we need to position ourselves for the least number of lay offs or other reductions then). Seasonal employees are typically not retained after September 1 and the Council would have ample opportunity to eliminate any of those positions as part of the FY 2003 budget. If there is a decision not to hire seasonal employees this year, it would be with the understanding that there would be a significantly reduced level of services this summer — seasonal employees are typically used to assist in mowing, ballfield maintenance, and other highly visible services that the public will notice. In addition, the Engineering seasonal employees do stretch public dollars by assisting with certain portions of engineering projects. If I am incorrect in my assumption that the hiring freeze is not to apply to summer seasonal and engineering employees, please advise. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:th