The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/29/1982 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Non-agenda Informational Items DATE: June 25 , 1982 1 . The letter from Gertrude Houle Rt . 2 Shakopee , on the June 29th agenda poses an interesting situation. She does not live within the City limits of the City of Shakopee. 2 . The driveway restoration required on Jasper Road after the instal- lation of the Hauer Addition sanitary sewer is complete . 3 . The staff processed a net -$62 . 25 Change Order on the Pump House for Water Supply (part of the K-mart T. I .F. ) which was under the 1/ guideline on the $110 ,972 project . There was $672 . 75 addi- tional for brick facing and $735 .00 less due to a reduction in pump starter size and wiring. 4 . The County found two "squaters" on the PCI site , Juresson Black Top and Lee Scheller. They took pictures and have given them a notice to move out . 5 . LeRoy is working with Scott County and the State Building Code Division to get a model "manufactured home ordinance" drafted before August 1 , 1982 . If it isn' t ready he will have an alterna- tive ordinance we can pass to fill the gap until the State gets something its comfortable with. 6 . There are several informational items from Community Services : a ) There has been sufficient interest in a "you can help" column that it will be run in the newspaper to help people who want to volunteer for community groups and projects . b) Slowly but surely the new timers for the lights at the tennis courts are going in (we haven' t forgotten) . c ) The Community Services Board reviewed the Six Year Park Plan without additional comments . The Six Year Park Plan is already included in the copy of the Six Year Capital Improve- ment Plan you received last week. d) A lighting agreement between SPUC , Community Services and the baseball association has been completed. e ) Community Services gave the preliminary go ahead for George to work with the School District to set up 7th and 8th grade sports programs . 7 . Jim Karkanen and George Muenchow have both signed affidavits re : the City ' s ownership of a picnic table that was in the Clifton Apartment commons and "has been claimed by one of their renters". The table had a City ID # on it . Non-agenda Informational Items Page Two June 25 , 1982 8 . I have turned over the attached claim from Parrott Construction, Inc . to Rod Krass . Call me if you want some background on the issue . 9. If you have been asked where the swings are for the Eastside Park the attached memo explains it . 10. St . Francis Hospital has formally withdrawn the application for Industrial Revenue Bonds , I 'm sure you all know they obtained German financing for the project . 11 . Enclosed is the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Newsletter. 12 . Attached are the minutes from the June 3 , 1982 Board of Adjust- ments and Appeals and Planning Commission meetings . 13 . Last night the Planning Commission approved the Six Year Capital Improvement Plan with one additional comment , which was to try to take advantage of lower asphalt costs this year by moving any paving projects up in priority if possible . JKA/jms /r4.4, .J'ED Bus 445-6126 % Res.445-2058 JUN 2 !I 1982 Parrott - Construction Inc. u-r( OlT NiAKOf Lr7 2047 Eagle Creek Blvd. Shakopee,Minnesota 55379 • . 11re c7 3hakonec Offiec of 2u1.1c.'ini. 3hal:epoe, —inn. 55370 2e: Aix Pro''uctr.1 stop Tork Order, :rmed June 15, 12 by II P. Lluurrier. .because lid not:, have rnl -rr tntc Truro+, :or t'ir per-Ct. . 'oh T ,ra-, not required to T t'r In ' -Thor) 1,01- oi f,yr (irrm 100T ::3n.n1 "or “77n.n1 lot,n1 M. due -;o un—e-t-nnablr cIty orf-Th-talc. Pa:,--ent due. . .on or ':lefore Ju27 3, 172. I ,tereltd 1': w..11 be -hrired ot,art!.n1-: fro-1 due date. ATT:I: John Ande=or Olty Ad-1ini3trator I ( h I�2upi (Inmrnunit J PrUireB 9 129 Levee Drive .0agf[1!;2; Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Phone 445-2742 Community Education • Parks • Recreation • Adult Education George F. Muenchow, Dir. 6/17/82 Jim Karkanen: SUBJECT: JR. H.S. PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT I have consulted with Ron Ward and we agreed to remove all of the swing chains. As you know most were broken. It is our opinion now that the chains are of too soft a grade. I have a sample on my desk to show the wear that they have taken in one year. Granted that Jr H.S. students have been a severe test for this equipment, but it shouldn't have become worn like this. I am checking with the Sales Representative about this. C.C. : John Anderson George A COOPERATIVE EFFORT OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND SCHOOL DISTRICT 720 SINCE 1954 Y /I association of ar metro olit.p municipalities JUNE, 1982 183 University Ave. East, St. Paul, Minn.55101 NO.18 AMM ANNUAL MEETING - 1982 The Eighth Annual Meeting of the able.There should be a more visable Association of Metropolitan Mun- system of procedures and reporting 11: icipalities was held on Wednesday, with use of something similar to the May 26, 1982 at the Sheraton Inn- Federal or State Register. Some of Northwest in Brooklyn Park. Nearly the Metropolitan Commissions, 100 local officials representing 37 especially the MTC, are hamstrung cities attended the Annual Business by the council and state legislature Meeting to elect new officers for the getting involved in administration. 1982-83 year and to honor those The State does not allow agencies a who have served the organization full range of independent policy this past year. making, recommending, and im- John Brandi, PHD, Professor at plementation. Because of the the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of system structure there is no unified Public Affairs at the University of 044 or total financial plan or financial Minnesota, State Representative 1r accountability methodology. Al- from Minneapolis, and Chairman of though a major concern is the Legislative Commission on Rep. John Brandi accountability there has not been Metropolitan Governance, add- policy and operations. No one has any viable solutions offered to date. ressed the delegates on 'What we testified or expressed any eager- A number of miscellaneous are learning from the study of ness for expanded operations. comments and issues have been Metropolitan Governance!' (Editor's There appears to be too much raised such as eliminating the note, please refer to page 6 'What is management or intrusion by the council, but the overwhelming a Metropolitan Governance Study?' council and agencies into activities amount of testimony would seem to for background information on how and areas more properly handled by support its continuance with some and why the Commission was cities. Along with this there is a restraint into details and more formed). feeling of not enough leadership for emphasis on planning for the future Representative Brandi primarily the future, not enough thought into in a leadership role. described the Legislative Com- innovative financing or modes of Representative Brandi indicated mission activities to date and service delivery. There is too much he was more surprised by some of summarized the comments received preoccupation with details and the the things they have not heard. at the various public hearings from status quo at the expense of Interjurisdictional finances and those testifying. He very carefully leadership. He felt that possibly the metropolitan financial policy has excluded his views and conclusions decision making process and not been mentioned. No one has and related to the delegates in a organization was not conducive to suggested significant shifts in progress type report what he felt the the leadership role but more responsibilities or services from or commission was hearing. His conducive to a management form of to counties, cities, or council. There remarks were both prefaced and governance. have been no serious criticisms of concluded by a request that those Accountability of the metro- the type of activity delegated to present substantiate or correct his politan agencies is the second major metropolitan agencies or by general impressions as the process con- area of input.There possibily should citizens of local governments. tinues into the 1983 legislative be limits on staff intrusion and Finally, they have not heard of grave session. involvement in matters not apparent- serious defects in the overall He first discussed the powers of ly theirs. The agencies have system. the council and its agencies which authority but are not elected and AMM Annual Meeting include leadership, management, therefore appear to not be account- Continued on Page 5 ._ . AMM OFFICERS ELECTED FOR 1982- 1983 YEAR Mary Anderson Jack Irving both of these Associations,Jack has been extremely involved in various ,';,,..,,.,..t- ,°. ,,. z` i. , l . t, committees dealing with labor „ 'o �� r A negotiations. Mr. Irving has served � � . ``` : on the AMM Board of Directors ;i, since June of 1977 and been active !4 7,* . in several policy committees of AMM since its formation in 1974. He ,i .. .,f,, , * was a member of the Executive ' �,� Committee in 1980 and has been for T �� :' t.-A E'" ' the past four years one of the AMM -: r - , 1• �` = . representatives on the Metropolitan Area Salary Survey Committee. Jack and his wife reside at 7020 North 45th Place in the City of Crystal. Ten officials were elected to ./- J. , i i \ serve on the Board of Directors, 1` f . .: \ - eight for two-year terms and two President Vice-President for one-year terms. They are: Mary Anderson, Golden Valley Mary is past Chairperson and TWO-YEAR TERM Councilmember was elected as member of the Metropolitan Coun- Ron Backes—St. Louis Park, President of the Association of cil's Housing and Redevelopment Council Metropolitan Municipalities for the Authority Advisory Committee and Bill Barnhart—Minneapolis,Senior 1982-1983 year at the Annual serves on the Advisory committee to Planner Meeting held May 26, 1982. Chosen the Transit Commission. She served Jerry Dulgar—Anoka, Manager for Vice-President was Crystal City on the Golden Valley Planning Laura Fraser—Lake Elmo, Council Manager Jack Irving. Also elected Commission and Board of Zoning Jim Miller—Minnetonka, Manager were ten Board Directors. Appeals prior to being elected to the Jackie Slater—Minneapolis,Alder- Mary Anderson was elected to the Golden Valley City Council in 1973. man Association of Metropolitan Mun- She was re-elected to the Council in James Spore-Burnsville, Manager icipalities Board of Directors in 1977 and 1981. Her husband, Bob Sundland—St. Anthony, October of 1979 as a suburban Donald is Manager of the Golden Mayor representative from Hennepin Valley Office of Edina Realty. They County. For the past year Mary has have two sons, Jim 18 and John 14. ONE-YEAR TERM been AMM Vice-President and a Jack Irving has served as the City member of the Executive Committee Manager of Crystal since 1963. Prior Gary Bastian—Maplewood, Coun- and has served on the legislative to his appointment as Manager, he cel study committee on Housing since was the Superintendent of the City Neil Peterson—Bloomington, its origination in 1975. She was Sewer and Water Department for Council Chairperson of the Housing Corn- eight years. In addition to his many mittee for four years and helped responsibilities as City Manager, CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS guide that committee in very de- Jack has found time to be active in Greg Blees—St. Paul, Budget tailed and difficult studies and many city and county affairs, Director deliberations, working constantly including the Jaycees. He is a Bea Blomquist—Eagan, Mayor with local officials to develop member of the International City Bill Sandberg—North St. Paul, legislative policies which have Management Association (ICMA) Mayor helped preserve local government and has served in several leadership Dennis Schneider—Fridley, control in areas of zoning and roles in his chosen profession within Council housing standards. Mary, along with the state. Jack was President of the Bob Thistle—Coon Rapids, Man- her activities in the AMM, has served Metropolitan Area Management ager on the Metropolitan Council Association (MAMA) in 1975 and James Krautkremer—Brooklyn Interstate Study Committee and served as President of the State Park, Mayor Modest Cost Housing Committee. Management Association in 1976. In AMM Past President ..r AMM BOARD AMM STAFF AMM Members Note NEW ADDRESS ' . 183 University Ave. East �fii: 4.. � ' ` • St. Paul, Minn. 55101 �� `,_�I ,.<: .E- NEW PHONE NUMBER '.� I (612) 227-5600 Policy Committees Jim MillerAMM policy committees will Jim Miller, Minnetonka City begin meeting sometime in July or , , f" .: Manager, was appointed to the early August to review and redraft Carol Williams AMM Board of Directors in August policy positions for the 1983-1984 of 1981 and elected to a full two-year legislative biennium. The current Carol A. Williams joined the AMM term at the May Annual Meeting. standing committees are Revenue staff in April of this year as Jim's educational background and Expenditures,General Legisla- Administrative Assistant/Secretary includes: a Bachelor's Degree in tion, Housing, Metropolitan Agen- replacing Cindy Rodd who left to Political Science from the Univer- cies, and Transportation. Commit- relocate in Colorado. Prior to sity of Wisconsin at Eau Claire, a tee members appointed by the accepting the position Carol had six Masters Degree in Public Admini- Board in 1981 will continue to serve years previous office experience as stration from the University of Pitts- in 1982, but there is always a need an office manager. In 1974 she burgh, and Masters and Doctorates for new members and new ideas. If became involved with government degrees in Public Administration any official not now serving on a by being appointed Deputy Clerk for from Nova University in Ft. committee would like to become the City of Hugo. In 1976 she was Lauderdale, Florida. Prior to his involved, please call Vern, Roger, or appointed City Clerk. In 1979 she appointment in January 1980 as City Carol at the AMM office (227-5600). received her Clerks' Certification Manager of Minnetonka, he served from the University of Minnesota as as Assistant City Manager in Des a member in one of the first Moines, Iowa, and has also held AMM Story— graduating classes. She is now various positions in the City Slide Presentation awaiting her International Certifi- Manager's office of Phoenix, cation. Also in 1979 she was A new version of "The Associa appointed Clerk/Treasurer and in Arizona; Monroeville, Pennsylvania; tion of Metropolitan Municipali- and Brown Deer, Janesville, and1980 Clerk-Treasurer with Admin- ties—An Investment in the istrative Duties. While at the City, Eau Claire, Wisconsin. While in Des Future" should be complete by Moines, he was also on the faculty ofCarol established all new office early July. This tape and slide Drake University, teaching in their procedures including a new presentation depicts the accom bookkeeping system, utility billing graduate program in public admini- plishments and goals of the stration. Since coming to the Twinand filing system. She established a Association and will include new assessment record keeping Cities, Jim has been active on the information on policy status AMM Metropolitan Agency Com through the 1982 legislative system and was in the process of mite, Developmental Strategies establishing a new plat and parcel session. file system cross referenced by Committee and Metropolitan Coun If any member community cil Light Rail Transit Study Com- address. In leaving the City of Hugo, would like this presentation made Carol was awarded a plaque for mittee. He is on the Board of the at a local council meeting or other Southwest Suburban Cable Com- eight years of outstanding service to civic affair or knows of a non the City. She resides in White Bear mission and West Suburban YMCA, member city that might be Lake with her husband and two and a member of the West Suburban interested, please notify the AMM sons. Carol's present duties include Chamber of Commerce Govern office (227-5600). managing the office, arranging mental Relations Committee. He is Representatives from the also active in the International andBoard and staff will appear before meetings and assisting the Execu- Metropolitan area Managers Asso- five Director and the Director of your council to show the 15- Legislative Affairs in their work.She teres ns. Jim is particularly in- minute program and be available g terested in the increasing impactalso provides AMM staff assistance to outline current activities and which the State has on the control of to the Metropolitan Area Managersolicies, as well as res and to local government decision-making p p Association (MAMA). Welcome11 and expenditures. questions. Carol Williams to the AMM family. ':;,,,* a a . ' -', t erporttr,; -. ,0 1.`,..:,/,'' ,,;‘," A ,, _lib . vow. N., ebs . .. , , z .... i .4, ..„ , .., , ,,, .. „.,.. ,,,,,„ ti F,...7"r''' PO' -, 1,,,Ii.:;.''I':tA, , .7, ....• • ;711.04•.' ** ' , - -44Pa Air i fmt . gs', $ry / . t - ',„ " ANNUAL . , , , int/ . ..,,,,....,,,. .6),,, ,,,,..... git MEETING I ... ..„.________ ,_ REVIEW . , 982 , r i 14n MAY 1982 414 r-- -1 ., . , . „ ... .„..„...„., ...,.... „... ,.. „ ... . ..„..,..„.„„...,.....,.. . a,,,,...,„,,,,,,,,,,, F „,;..t.,,,,,. .., v.,,, . ,„ a `; ,, , ,,,,..:,...„ :„. .* °# 11 1 4 I AMM Annual Meeting Continued from Page 1 In conclusion, Representative Brandi indicated the commission would hold another hearing, then talk to itself about what it has heard, ' t'.. Or. : and formulate some proposals Then in the fall come hack for a i second round of public hearings. In , I the meantime and all through the process, they will be eager and , ~`,,*` . commentsreceptive to additional comments ! and suggestions. He did indic,rii' ` '� .``. that in his opinion, it was unlikely ' that there would be any recoin ,u mendatrons for sweeping changes " --- — .- ,, `ti. i _.,4 , President President Elect Anderson and Retiring President Krautkremer. Krautkremer support during the past year and for guideway transit modes. Finally,the this, I thank you. In spilt' of the hard AMM has been very active in Addresses times and dire forecasts, I believe lobbying for changes in the the AMM accomplishments of this proposed Surface Water Manage- Delegates past year were significant and merit Policy Guide to have it demonstrate rather dramatically conform to recent State law. President James Krautkremer that the AMM and League of Cities The AMM sponsored a levy limit made some brief remarks concern are even more important to Cities seminar attended by a record ing AMM activities and highlights of during difficult times than in good number of over 200 local officials the past year. These were somewhat times. As the Mayor of Brooklyn and was contracted by the LMC to tempered from previous years Park, I firmly believe that that cost of hold four more seminars in non- Presidential reports by the state's membership in the AMM and L MC is metropolitan areas of the state. The financial woes as indicated in his money very well spent." AMM sponsored with the Metropoli- opening statement. Mr. Krautkremer commented on tan Council an affordable Housing "Last year when Dick Asleson was the fact that of 72 AMM policies, 45 Conference and with the LMC a joint presenting the Presidents' Annual were partially or completely annum- legislative conference for local Report and reciting the significant plr;hed 1 'trough the concerted officials and state legislators. Along events and accomplishments which effort of the membership, staff and with the annual elected official occurred during his term as Board of Directors, a sensible salary survey, a new Survey of president. he forewarned us that the Surface Water Management Act was Municipal Fees and Licenses was AMM and its member cities would passed retaining basic authority and published. face many challenges during the control at the local level. The ability Of the 64 member cities beginning corning year. He based his forecast to use Industrial Development this year, one city dropped member- on the fact that the national Revenue Bonds was not only ship but has since voted to rejoin economy was beginning to crumble retained but enhanced and interest and with 85% of the Metropolitan and the State's financial problems rates remain unlimited until 1986. population represented, the organi- were reaching epidemic propor- Interest rates for general obligation zation voice continues to be a strong tions and cuts in pass through municipal bonds were increased force for cities. It was noted by revenues to cities had become a from 9% to a floating rate based on President Krautkremer that as reality. He also foresaw rather the Bond Buyers Index of 20 notified last July, membership dues accurately that the partisan bicker- Municipals. Tax Increment Financ- will increase for the first time since ing of the 1981 Legislative Session ing was preserved and cities 1978 and, except for cities with large would become even more intense containing active gravel pits will population gains since 1970, the during the 1982 Session. He failed to share in proceeds of an authorized increase will be minimal. He also tell us, however, that we would also county tax. indicated that the eight year AMM have four Special Sessions to At the urging of the AMM, the budget increase has been about contend with in addition to the Metropolitan Council adopted a 5'/% per year as compared to the Regular Sessions! The point that formal procedure for Adopting and inflation rate which has averaged Dick was making was that during amending Regional Policy Plans; over 10% per year. difficult times, the AMM can only be similar to the State Administrative President Krautkremer concluded successful when and if the member Procedure Act. The new method his remarks with, "The real message city officials participate and work includes all recommendations made that I would like to leave with you as together and if the Board of by the AMM. The Transportation the new president and board take Directors, Officers and Staff are Policy plan was modified to reflect office is this—you as the Member supported by the membership at AMM policy calling for the ability to City Officials will determine the large. You have given us that at least consider light rail or fixed Continued on Page 6 r K'ratltkremer Addresses Delegates Continued fromPage 5 What Is A Metropolitan effectiveness and the future of the Association of Metropolitan Muni- Governance Study? cipalities----not the Board, not the President and not the Staff. You are fay Vern Pete!son The main feature of Chapter 250 the Association." rovidfor a legislative commis- Retiring Board Directors were "The legislature finds that institutions of p es g governance in the metropolitan area sion consisting of five representa- congratulated by President Kraut_ have gone through a substantial evolu- tives and five senators. After the kremer for their dedicated service to .tionary process in recent years; that review is completed, the commis- the AMM and were presented with legislation relating to the purpose, sion is to develop and recommend Certificates of Appreciation. They structure, operation and effects of those to the full legislature, a comprehen- included Dick Asleson, Apple Valley institutions and the policies and sive policy on governance in the City Administrator and AMM Past- program is regularly submitted to the metropolitan area. Its report and President; Jan Haugen, Shorewood legislature; and that such legislation recommendations must be finalized City Council member; Jim Lacina, raises important and enduring issues of by January 5, 1983 at which point in Woodbury City Administrator; Jim governmental philosophy and practice. Senden, former New Brighton The legislature therefore declares that a time, the commission is terminated. The issues and policies to be legislative commission should be Mayor; Joanne Showalter, former temporr+rily established as a forum in considered by the commission St Paul City Bloomington Council Ciy Council- member; Tom which to undertake a thorough review of during its examination include: Spies, Bloomington City Cgovernance in the metropolitan area and • The relationships among the member; and Brad Stanius, White to develop a comprehensive state policy Metropolitan Council and the Bear Lake Mayor. President Kraut- on the subject." naw.Igt, r,ha{-t..,1',O, various metropolitan special. kremer then introduced President The AMM was the principal purpose agencies and between Elect Mary Anderson who made a advocate for the metropolitan these metropolitan institutions few brief comments, thanked Presi overnance review commissioned and other units and agencies of dent Krautkremer for his ntstand by Laws 1981, Chapter 250. The government; witservice and then presented him AMM in response to numerous • the structure and powers of the with a plaque containing the concerns raised by its member city Metropolitan Council and Com- Athenian Oath. officials believed that it was time to missions; -- assess how well the institutions of • the appropriate uses of the The AMM would like to thank metropolitan governance, which authority of the Metropolitan Miller-Schroeder Municipals Inc. were essentially created in 1967, Council and metropolitan agen- for hosting the social hour which were functioning after 14 years of cies to review local applications preceded the Annual Meeting. operation. During those 14 years, for state and federal financial the legislature, through numerous assistance; fragmented and uncoordinated • the feasibility of legislative Board Meets pieces of legislation, had trans- approval of the budget and staff formed the Metropolitan Council complement of the Metropolitan Every Month from basically a planning and Council. coordinating body into a policy The commission has held several The Association of Metropoli- making and regulatory level of meetings for the purpose of tan Municipalities' Board of government. The Council's authori- receiving public input and addition- Directors meets on the first ty and responsibility have grown like al meetings will be scheduled. The Thursday of every month (except the proverbial "Topsy." Passage of commission's hearings provide the when a holiday comes on or near Laws 1981, Chapter 250 signified best opportunity that city officials that date). Meetings start at 7:30 that the legislators also believed it have ever had to make their views p.m. and are held in the was time to see if the "whole" about metropolitan governance conference room at the Associa- equalled the "sum of the parts". known in a non-adversary setting. tion office, 183 University Ave. East, St. Paul. Metropolitan Waste Control All city officials are welcome to Coming Events attend the Board meetings, Commission Rates and express their views on any Surface Water Management Charges subject and bring any subject to Seminar A conference concerning the basis the attention of the Board. Due to security regulations,the A seminar concerning implementa- and substance of MWCC Sewer building front door must be and and Char es will be held tion of Chapter 509 will be held g locked at 8:00 p.m. Anyone Friday, August 6, 1982 from 9:30 Friday, p Setember 24, 1982 from arriving after that time, please ring a.m. to 3:30 p.m. at the Earle Brown 9:30 a.m.to 3:30 p.m. at the Hopkins Hopkins. Co-sponsors at the doorbell and wait a few Center, University of Minnesota this House etiine are the AMM and the minutes for staff to open the door. Farm Campus. It will be co For further information or to sponsored by the AMM, Metropoli- Suburban Rate Authority. have a subject placed on the tan Inter-County Association, and Please Watch for further detailed Agenda, please call the Associa- the Hennepin County Bar Associa- communication on these two tion office at 227-5600. tion. seminars in the coming weeks. OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & APPEALS Regular Session Shakopee, Minnesota June 3, 1982 Chrmn. Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7 :30 P .M. with Comm. Coller, Perusich, Czaja and Stoltzman present . Absent : Comm. Rockne and Koehnen. Also present : Acting City Planner, Jeanne Andre; City Admin. , John Anderson and City Engineer, H.R. Spurrier. Wermerskirchen Variance PC 82-16V: Coller/Perusich moved to open the public hearing on the request for an approximate 1. 2 acre lot size variance, a 15 foot lot width variance, 15 foot lot depth variance and 5 . 3 foot and 7. 2 foot variances from the sideyard setback requirements . Motion carried unanimously . Acting City Planner statdd the applicant is Tom Wermerskirchen. The applicant is requesting these variances in order to build a home with attached 3-car garage . The lot is situated in Killarney Hills which was platted before being annexed to the City of Shakopee. The lot is required to be 2. 5 acres but since it was a lot of record prior to April 1, 1978, it could be built upon at 1. 5 acres. She added that the applicant still does not meet Code even with this lot of record provision and thereby, necessitates the variances. She stated that it is the recommendation of Staff to approve the lot size, lot width and lot depth variances being requested but deny the two sideyard variances because of lack of a hardship. Chrmn. Schmitt asked the applicant for any comments or a presentation. Mr. Wermerskirchen had none. Comm. Coller asked the applicant his position on the recommendation of staff for denial of the sideyard setback variances. Mr. Wermerskirchen stated he would go with a double car garage, instead of the requested three-stall garage and this he didn't think would need a sideyard variance . Coller/Czaja moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously . Comm. Stoltzman asked the applicant how large his garage would be without the sideyard setback variance . Applicant replied it would be about 22 ' x 26 ' . Coller offered Variance Resolution No. 301, granting approval of an approximately 1. 2 acre lot size variance , a 15 foot lot width variance, 15 foot lot depth variance and denying the 5. 3 foot and 7. 2 foot variance from the sideyard setback requirements because of lack of hardship, per requirement of City Code . Motion died for lack of second. Board of Adjustment & Appeals Shakopee, Minnesota June 3, 1982 Page -2- Perusich offered Variance Resolution No. 301, granting an approximate 1. 2 acres lot size variance, a 15 foot lot width variance, 15 foot lot depth variance and 5. 3 foot and 7. 2 foot variances from the sideyard setback requirements. Motion died for lack of second. Discussion was then held on the requested sideyard variances and the hardship vs nop-hardship designation for the 3-car garage. Coller/Czaja offered Variance Resolution No. 301, permitting a house and attached garage to be built on Lot 2, Block 3, Killarney Hills, by granting an approximate 1. 2 acre lot size variance, a 15 foot lot width variance, 15 foot lot depth variance and denying the 5. 3 foot and 7. 2 foot variances from the sideyard setback requirements puruant to Shakopee City Code, Section 11. 04, Subd. 5A, Item No. 5, which states "the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship, and moved for its adoption Motion carried unanimously. Chrmn. Schmitt informed the applicant of the appeal process . Mr. Wermerskirchen questioned if he could add a couple of feet to his double-car garage without a variance . Chrmn. Schmitt stated that he could not encroach on the 20 foot sideyard setback requirements and even a couple of feet would still need a sideyard setback variance. He added the applicant could go up to 20 feet but no further without the variance and no hardship has been shown to grant any sideyard setback variance. Discussion was held on the placement of the house and garage which perhaps if placed differently could allow for a larger garage which would not require any sideyard variances . Chrmn. Schmitt once again reiterated the 7-day appeal process whereby the decision of the Board could be appealed to the Council by any interested party , which could include the applicant also but further reminded him that written notice of appeal would have to be made to the City Admin. within seven days . Meyer Variance PC 82-19V: Coller/Czaja moved to open the public hearing on the request for a variance to exceed the 10 percent lot coverage requirement for accessory structures. Motion carried unanimously . Acting City Planner stated the applicant , Laverne Meyer, is requesting a variance to exceed the 10 percent lot coverage requirement for accessory structures in order to construct an approximate 3-car garage on his property located at 817 Bluff Avenue. The requested 3-car garage would be approximately 19. 2 percent of the lot coverage stipulation, therefore, staff is recommending the applicant be granted a lot coverage variance for a 2-car garage. Chrmn. Schmitt asked the applicant for any comments and further asked if he had seen the recommendation of the City Planner. Mr. Meyer replied he had no comments and had seen the report . Board of Adjustment & Appeals June 3, 1982 Shakopee, Minnesota Page -3- Discussion was held on what was to happen to the existing garage located on the property once the new garage had been constructed. Czaja/Stoltzman moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously . Coller/Stoltzman offered Variance Resolution No. 3014 , granting a lot coverage variance to exceed the 10 percent lot coverage requirement for accessory structures by 28 square feet, in order to construct a detached double car garage of 22' x 24 ' , and moved for its adoption subject to removal of the existing garage from the property located at 817 lluff Avenue upon completion of the construction of the new garage . Motion carried unanimously . Chrmn. Schmitt informed the applicant of the 7-day appeal period. Colter/Perusich moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7 : 50 P .M. Jeanne Andre Acting City Planner Jane Wostrel Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Session Shakopee, Minnesota June 3, 1982 Chrmn. Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7: 50 P.M. , with Comm. Coller, Czaja, Stoltzman and Perusich present. Absent : Comm. Rockne and Koehnen. Also present : City Admin. , John Anderson; Acting City Planner, Jeanne Andre and City Engineer, H. R. Spurrier. Czaja/Perusich moved to approve the meeting minutes of May 6, 1982 . Motion carried unanimously . Whipps Conditional Use Permit PC 82-6C : Coller/Perusich moved to continue the public hearing on a request for a Conditional Use Permit to occupy a mobile home as temporary living quarters while assisting in the family farming operation in an AG Zone . Motion carried unanimously . Acting Planner stated that the code had been amended and was in effect May 27, 1982 which allows a Conditional Use Permit to be reissued for a 5-year term(s) at the discretion of the Planning Commission. Chrmn. Schmitt asked for comments from the audience. There were none. Perusich/Stoltzman moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Perusich/Stoltzman offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 296, allowing a mobile home as temporary living quarters while assisting in the family farming operation, and moved for its adoption, subject to the following conditions : 1. The mobile home may not be the only occupied residential structure on the property ; 2. Only the applicant and family may reside in the mobile home and must work on the farm; 3. The mobile home must continue to utilize tie-downs; 4 . The Permit must be reviewed annually; 5 . The Permit shall expire in June 1987. Motion carried unanimously . Final Plat of Hauer' s 2nd Addition PC 82-14P : Acting Planner stated that the City Council had unanimously voted at their meeting of May 18, 1982, to not connect 11th Avenue and Park Ridge Drive. This action was taken as a result of surveys which had been conducted in the area which showed that the, residents on Park Ridge Drive did not want the streets connected. Proceedings of the June 3, 1982 Shakopee Planning Commission Page -2- Acting Planner then reported on findings of several other issues which were of concern to the Planning Commission at their meeting of May 6 , 1982. She stated that the Director of Community Services had requested a trail easemtnt be provided within the "utility and drainage easement" along the south portion of Lots 4 and 5 . However, the City Attorney has indicated that a trail easement cannot be required but could only be included on the plat if the Developer, Mr. Hauer, would agree to it . Chrmn. Schmitt stated that no progress for a trail has been evident since the conception of this idea years ago so it should not be a great problem to anyone. Acting Planner stated that the Park Dedication issue has been resolved in that a letter from Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney, dated May 10, 1982 indicates that no parkland dedication or cash payment in lieu can be requested of Mr. Hauer because of an excess parkland dedication from Hauer ' s 1st Addition. Lengthy discussion took place on the suggested walkway between 11th Avenue and Park Ridge Drive. Chrmn. Schmitt stated he had spoken with the schools and they would like the walkway for their students. The City Admin. stated that the residents in the area were not opposed to the walkway but just to the roadway connecting 11th Avenue and Park Ridge Drive. He added these residents are use to having pedestrian traffic but not the vehicular. Chrmn. Schmitt stated he has a problem with a sidewalk and no street access. He also added that under the new State Code on bussing whereby a student must live two miles or more from school in order to be bussed, if Park Ridge Drive and 11th Avenue were to be connected there would be no requirement for school bussing, currently students must be bussed . Gene Hauer, Developer, stated there was a 20 foot watermain easement on an adjacent parcel that could possibly be used for a walkway as well . Discussion was held on this suggestion. Chrmn. Schmitt suggested that the watermain easement be further investigated to include the possibility of the walkway . He stated this would then move the walkway a minimum of 10 feet from the house to be construction on Lot 1, Block 1, Hauer ' s 2nd Addition. Comm. Coller questioned the emergency vehicular traffic problem for this area in view of the cul-de-sac . Acting Planner stated the Fire Chief had signed off as approving the Final Plat of Hauer 's 2nd Addition, therefore, he must not have any concern with the cul-de-sac and emergency vehicles . Proceedings of the June 3 , 1982 Shakopee Planning Commission Page -3- Perusich/Stoltzman moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Final Plat of Hauer' s 2nd Addition, subject to the following conditions : 1. Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney; 2 . The railroad trestle be removed prior to recording the plat ; 3. Execution of a Developer' s Agreement for the construction of the required improvements : a) Street lighting be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utility Commission; b ) The water system be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utility Commission. In addition, if the two existing water service "stubs" to the plat do not match the planned lots, they must be removed; c ) Sanitary and storm water systems be installed in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer; d) Street improvements be made in accordance with the requirements of City Engineer. Curb and gutter must be installed throughout Austin Court , in addition to Austin Street ; e) Street signing, if needed, be installed in accordance with City regulations; 4 . An easement be included on the hardshells to accommodate a drainage swale across Lots 1, 2 and 3 . This easement shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to recording the subdivision. 5 . The signature block must be changed to conform to the City Code. 6 . No land disturbing activities shall occur within the southern- most utility and drainage easement on Lots 4 and 5, unless approved by the City Engineer. 7 . The 5 foot drainage and utility easements along the side property lines must be increased to 10 feet . Motion carried unanimously . Comm. Coller stated that for the record he feels that not connecting 11th Avenue with Park Ridge Drive in conjunction with the plat of Hauer' s 2nd Addition, presents poor planning. Owens-Illinois Conditional Use Permit PC 82-17C : Stoltzman/Coller moved to open the public hearing on the request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a structure which exceeds the height limitation of 45 feet in an I-2 Zone . Motion carried unanimously. Acting Planner stated Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit request but with a provision that the structure not exceed 47 feet in height , thereby allowing for 2 feet in excess of the 45 foot height limitation for the I-2 Zone. Proceedings of the June 3, 1982 Shakopee Planning Commission Page -4- Chrmn. Schmitt asked for comments from the applicant . There were none other than the applicant inviting questions of the Planning Commission. Chrmn. Schmitt asked for a schematic drawing of the property. A drawing was then presented by the applicant . Chrmn. Schmitt asked for comments from the audience. Mrs . Koskovish questioned which side of the building the height was being requested. Discussion held. Perusich/Coller moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously . Coller/Stoltzman offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 302, to allow a storage bin structure in excess of 45 feet in height and moved for its adoption, subject to the following conditions : 1. No flammables shall be permitted in the storage bin; 2. Structure not to exceed 47 feet in height . Motion carried unanimously . Chrmn. Schmitt informed the applicant of the appeal process . Grannes Conditional Use Permit PC 82-18C : Czaja/Perusich moved to open the public hearing on the request for a Conditional Use Permit to move in a house with attached garage in an R-1 Zone. Motion carried unanimously . Acting Planner stated the property on which the house is to be placed is located on the North side of County Road 16; East of County Road 83; West of Montecito Heights and South of Dean' s Lake. She also stated that a perculation test had been received giving favorable site location for a well. A neighbor directly west of the proposed location questioned the location of the proposed septic system in relation to his well . He questioned if the septic system could not be moved further from his well. Chrmn. Schmitt asked the applicant if the septic tank could be moved further to the east, thereby, moving it further from the concerned neighbors well. Mr. Grannes, applicant , stated he could see no problem with this suggestion. Discussion was then held on whether the applicant would then need another soil borings test if the septic tank were to be moved. Proceedings of the June 3, 1982 Shakopee Planning Commission Page -5- Coller/Czaja moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Coller/Czaja offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 303, allowing for a house to move into an R-1 Zone, and moved for its adoption, subject to 'the following conditions : 1. The applicant must show proof of ownership of the property prior to the issuance of a Buiding Permit and moving of the structure; 2 . The house must meet all requirements of the Building Code within six months after it is moved, as set forth by the City Building Official, as follows : a) Install new roof cover; b) Install new water heater; c ) Install new furnace d) Install one egress window in each bedroom; e) Bring plumbing up to code; f) Bring electrical up to code ; g) Restain or repaint exterior of building; h) Install smoke detectors ; i) Provide energy analysis of unit and correct any deficiencies; j ) Provide survey of lot showing house and garage in relation to property lines and building elevation and drainage pattern denoted; k) Provide fire wall in garage 3. A Performance Bond shall be rquired, in an amount set by the City Building Official , so as to ensure that the house meets the Building Code. 4 . All setback requirements of the R-1 Zone must be met; 5. The City Engineer shall approve a grading plan for the property prior to moving the structure. 6 . Drainfield and septic tank be moved as far East as possible yet still existing within the limitation of the soil borings test conducted. Chrmn. Schmitt informed the applicant of the 7-day appeal process . Amendment to Code - Moving of Structures : Perusich/Coller moved to open the public hearing on the amendment to Shakopee City Code, Section 11. 05, Subd. 9 , "Moving of Structures" . Motion carried unanimously . Acting Planner stated this amendment is being proposed to make special provisions for the moving of accessory structures . The intent is to create a simple procedure to be followed for accessory structure, rather than requiring a Conditional Use Permit and entire public hearing process . Guidelines had been established by the Planning Commission at their meeting of July 23, 1981 but it is the opinion of the Assistant City Attorney to incorporate into the Zoning Code. Proceedings of the June 3, 1982 Shakopee Planning Commission Page -6- Chrmn. Schmitt asked for questions from the audience . There were none . Stoltzman/Coller moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously . Perusich/Stoltzman moved to recommend to the City Council the amending of Shakopee City Code, Section 11. 05 , Subd. 9, "Moving Structures" , to allow for special provisions for the moving of accessory structures , as follows : Subd. 9 , should read, "Moving of Structures . A Conditional Use Permit shall be required before a Building Permit is issued to move any dwelling unit or other structure, except for accessory buildings as hereinafter provided, to a permanent location within the City. The minimum requirements of a Conditional Use Permit must be met for all dwelling units moved to a permanent location in the City shall include the following : " Addition of Item G, to read: "Accessory buildings shall be exempt from the preceding regulations . An administrative staff review of the moving of all accessory structures shall be conducted and the following criteria must be met : 1. The structure must be clearly accessory in nature. 2. The accessory structure must be compatible with adjoining structures in the proposed location. 3. The accessory structure must be equal or exceeding in value of the adjoining accessory structures in the proposed location. 4 . The owner must show proof of ownership of the proposed location. 5 . The accessory structure must meet all requirements of the 13uildint; Code within three months after it is moved. A bond shall be required equal in amount to the cost necessary to abate deficiencies . 6 . All setback and zoning requirements must be met . 7. The accessory structure must be a permitted accessory use in the District in which it is intended to be located. If any applicant shall feel aggrieved by a staff determination relative to an accessory building, that applicant shall have the right to apply for a Conditional Use Permit . Motion carried unanimously . Vacation of Fuller and Atwood Between 4th & 5th Avenues : Acting Planner stated the reason behind the request from St . Francis Hospital for the vacation of Atwood is to provide more adequate parking and further expansion needs . She stated the City is requesing the vacation of Fuller between 4th & 5th Avenues in conjunction with this request . A recommendation from the Planning Commission was requested by the City Council prior to its own consideration of this issue . Proceedings of the June 3, 1982 Shakopee Planning Commission Page -7- Joe Ries, County Administrator, stated that at the May 25, 1982 session of the County Commissioner Board, it was favored to close Fuller Street between 4th & 5th Avenues because this closing would fit in with their future plans for the County Courthouse facilities. He added that it should be noted Dick Mertz, Scott County Commissioner, was the only opposing. vote to this closing. Ery Prenevost , County Highway Engineer, was present to clarify their position in relation to the redesignating of another street as a county road should this closing go into effect . He stated the County cannot afford to lose any funds in county road designation, therefore, should Fuller be vacated, as is proposed, the City and the County would have to come to some agreement and work together to find another similar length of road to be so designated as a county road for financial reasons . Tom Prusak, representative from St . Francis Hospital, was present to formally request the closing of Atwood Street between 4th & 5th Avenues . He stated one small reason for this request was the lack of parking facilities . He stated that progress has been made in acquiring, through different methods , various areas for parking facilities but there is still a shortage due to the expansion of the hospital now in progress. He stated thatthe hospital has conducted a survey of nearby residents, whereby 22 out of 26 people polled were in favor of the closing of Atwood between 4th and 5th Avenues. He stated there are a few issues of concern in connection with the request to vacate; one being the drainage issue which has been resolved. He added the other issue of concern in the Fire Department ' s opposition to the closing because they want a direct route to get their men to the Fire Station. Acting Planner asked the total number of parking spaces the hospital will have if the vacation is granted. She was informed there will be 320 hospital off-street parking spaces . Chrmn. Schmitt stated he thought a two-hour parking limitation should be enforced for on-street parking in the hospital area as well as the Courthouse area. He also suggested that the North portion of Block 57 could be employee parking as well as Block 45, but that the South portion of Block 57 should be parking for short-term use for both the Courthouse and hospital, this due to the location of the main entrances . Mr. Prusak agreed that the hospital is in favor of enforcement of the two-hour parking on streets adjacent to the hospital . Chrmn. Schmitt questioned the City Admin. as to the position of the City on two-hour parking limitations. City Admin. stated this could be handled. Mr. Prusak stated that without the vacation of Atwood, there would be 50 less parking stalls , but also with this vacation the hospital could be able to expand in the easterly direction which is the only direction available for future expansion. Proceedings of the June 3, 1982 Shakopee Planning Commission Page -8- Comm. Coller stated that without the vacation of Atwood, the parking plan would have to be redesigned . He stated that the vacation of Atwood is not a crisis situation today to the operation of the hospital . Mr. Prusak agreed that it was not critical but still important to the hopsital in terms of further development . Chrmn. Schmitt passed the gavel to Vice Chrmn. Perusich. Discussion was held as to how these vacations could affect the Downtown Redevelopment Project with Chrmn. Schmitt stating his opinions as to how these vacations would permit the Central Business District to extend southward in the future. Joe Ries asked if the businesses of Downtown had commented on enlarging the Central Business District to the south. City Admin. replied that the Downtown Committee has been informed of these plans and this Committee comprises many downtown business people. Comm. Coller suggested that the City do a traffic study of traffic patterns should Fuller and Atwood be vacated and further suggested the temporary closing of Fuller and Atwood between 4th & 5th Avenues to see what traffic plans would be developed . Schmitt/Stoltzman moved to recommend to the City Council that Fuller and Atwood Streets between 4th & 5th Avenues be considered for vacation in accordance with a schedule and plan for the use of the vacated right-of-way presented by St . Francis Hospital and the Scott County Board of Commissioners and approved by the City Council, with the following related recommendations : 1. "No Parking" area be designated for the first 30 feet of the west side of Stott Street south of the intersection of Scott Street and 2nd Avenue. 2. A study be undertaken regarding the possible reconstruction of Scott Street . 3. County State Aid Road 16 be redesignated from Fuller to Scott . 4. The Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) be requested to reroute the bus service from Fuller to Scott . 5 . The City Engineer approve plans for handling historic drainage along Atwood and Fuller Streets before the vacation takes place . Further discussion was held. City Admin. then stated that the question before the Planning Commission was why vacate the streets, he suggested that the Planning Commission be asked wiv have the streets? He stated the City is in need of on.-street parks g and has enough Proceedings of the Shakopee Planning Commission June 3, 1982 Page -9- street available for traffic . He also suggested by vacating these streets, it puts taxable land on the tax rolls. Comm. Czaja stated his agreement with the vacation of Atwood but was not ready to accept the closing of Fuller. He stated his concern was with the bus route which has proven to be very efficient . Discussion was then held on the location of the Park 'n Ride lots and the current bus routes . City Eng. stated that the buses should be kept on streets designed for buses because buses are extremely hard on streets . He also stated that the vacation of the streets seems to benefit so many factors . The Chair asked for a vote on the motion. Discussion was then held on the value of vacating Fuller and Atwood between 4th & 5th Avenue in relation to the Central Business District being extended to the south. Schmitt/Stoltzman moved to limit debate. Motion carried. , The Chair asked for a vote on the main motion: Ayes : Schmitt, Stoltzman, Perusich Noes : Czaja Abstain: Coller (not being ready to close discussion on the issue) Motion carried. Vice Chrmn. Perusich passed the gavel back to Chrmn. Schmitt . St . Francis Hospital Conditional Use Permit for Temporary Parking: Acting Planner stated that the Planning Commission in May of 1981 stated that a condition of approval of Conditional Use Permit Resolution No . 275, providing for a parking lot in an R-2 Zone for St . Francis Hospital, was to be "renewed" in one year if a permanent parking lot was not constructed prior to that time. She stated that due to the redefining of "renewal" and "review", she questioned if this condition could be clarified to its intent . She added that "renewal" meant the entire public hearing process over again for the applicant and was recommending a simple staff "review" . Coller/Stoltzman moved to "grandfather" in Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 275 under the new definition of review and require a staff review in one year - May 1983. Motion carried unanimously. Comm. Coller asked staff to research the Conditional Use Permit granted to St . Francis Hospital for parking on Block 45 as to any condition of time. Proceedings of the June 3, 1982 Shakopee Planning Commission Page -10- Coller/Stoltzman moved to set a public hearing for July 8, 1982 to consider the amendment to the Shakopee City Code, Section 11. 03, Subd. 7 I, regarding the issuance of Building Permits on parcels not abutting dedication public streets. Motion carried unanimously . Gary Laurent and Dean. Waldon were present to discuss the plans for their proposed subdivision lying on the south side of County Road 16 and East of County Road 17. They informed the Planning Commission of a time element involved in securing funding and asked to be on the soonest possible Planning Commission agenda. Coller/Stoltzman moved to adjourn to June 24 , 1982 at 7 :30 P.M. Motion carried unanimously . Meeting adjourned at 11: 30 P.M. Jpanne Andre Acting Planner Jane Wostrel Recording Secretary TENTATIVE AGENDA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Special Session June 29 , 1982 Chairman Leroux presiding 1 . Roll Call at 7 : 00 P.M. 2 . Approval of the Minutes of June 1 , 1982 3 . Downtown Redevelopment Project No. 1 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 1A a . Consider Plans b. Propose any revisions or amendments to plans as presented *c . Adopt the Redevelopment Plan for. the Downtown Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Downtown Tax Increment Financing District No. 1A and make 011, application to the Shakopee City Council to consider and approve the Plans 4. Other Business 5 . Adjourn Jeanne Andre Executive Director *Requested action TENTATIVE AGENDA ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 29 , 1982 Vice Mayor Lebens presiding 1 ] Roll Call at 7 :00 P.M. 2 ] Recess to conduct an H.R.A. Meeting 3 ] Reconvene 4] 7 : 00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - Downtown Redevelopment Project and Downtown Tax Increment Financing District (attached are the amendments required to include Berens Market. ) - Bring Redevel- opment Plan from June 22nd agenda packet 5 ] 7 : 30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - Revenue Sharing 6 ] On Sale/Sunday 82/83 Intoxicating Liquor Licenses a ] Vertigo, Inc . , 101 East First Avenue - tabled June 15th b] R. Hanover, Inc . , 911 East First Avenue - tabled June 15th Memo from Tom Brownell re : License Renewal - Richard' s Pub 7 ] Memo from Scott County Assessor. re : 1982 City Board of Review 8 ] Letter from Gertrude Houle re : Passing an Ordinance Prohibiting the Promotion and Dissemination of Obscene Materials 9 ] Report by Fence Viewers 10] Authorize Advertising for Bids for County Road 83 Utilities 11 ] Authorize City Staff to offer $12 , 301 . 51 for Levee Drive Right-of-Way _,J1--- Res . No. 2018 , A Resolution Accepting Work on the 80-10/80-2 Public Improvement Program - Halo 2nd Addition/Bluff Avenue az‘ Improvement 13 ] Res . No. 2019 , A Resolution Accepting Work on the 80-1 Public Improvement Program - Hauer Trail. Laterals 14] Developer ' s Agreement 15 ] Discussion with Volunteer Fire Department about the proposed annual fitness test - Bring item 10m from June 1st agenda 16 ] Adjourn John K. Anderson City Administrator f O 'CONNOR SL HANNAN PATRICK J. O'CONNOR FREDERICK W.THOMAS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1919 PENNSYLIVAN IA00 AVENUE N.W. JOE A.WALTERS THOMAS A.KELLER 7E WASHINGTON, O.C. 20006 MICHAEL E.McGUIRE THIRTY-EIGHTH FLOOR I 0 S TOWER (202)887-1400 ROBERT J.CHRISTIANSON,JR. CHARLES B. FAEGRE 80 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET PATRICK J.O'CONNOR FRANK J.WALZ WILLIAM T.HANNAN• JAMES R.DORSEY MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 EDWARD W. BROOKE. ANDREW J. SHEA JOHN J.FLYNN WILLIAM R.MKG RANN H.ROBERT HALPER• WALTER C.PARKINS JOSEPH E.DILLON KENT E.RICHEY THOMAS M.OUINN• JAMES OTIS REYER (612)341-3800 HOWARD G.FELDMAN• JAMES A.RUBENSTEIN TELEX 29-0584 DAVID R.MELINCOFF• JEREMIAH J.KEARNEY DELANCEY W.DAVIS• WILLEM F.VAN VLIET TELECOPI ER 612 341-3800 (256) RICHARD G.MORGAN THOMAS R.SM ERAN __ THOMASLES V. ROS JOHN A.BURTON,JR. MESJ. AMBROSE. JAMES R.CASSERLY DOUGLAS M.CARNIVAL ROBERT A.BRUNIG VELAZOUEZ, 21 DAVID BURLINGAME • TERENCE P. BOYLE• FREDERICK W.MORRIS MADRID I, HOPE S. FOSTER• WILLIAM E.FLYNNSPAIN MARTIN M. BERLINER• BRIAN P. PHELAN• DOUGLAS J. FRANZEN 431-31-00 GREGORY A.KEARNS• THOMAS R.JOLLY• WILLIAM 0. HULL TELEX 23543 AN N WOOD ROBERTS• BARRY J. CUTLER• DAVID W.KELLEY PATRICK J. CANTY• MICHAEL J.CONLON• DOSTEVEN J.TIMMER LOCAL COUNSEL SUITE 3100 SECURITY LIFE BUILDING AS. VR• LINDA C-.SCHWART2 FRANK J. WIRGA DAVID KANTOR PE ER C.K15SEL • 1616 GLENARM PLACE PATRICK E.O'DONNELL• ARLIN B.WAELTI DENVER, COLORADO 80202 J.WILLIAM W. HARSCH• (303)573-7737 CAROL N,PARK• JOSEPH E.PATTISON• WILLIAM C KELLY /1918-1970) OF COUNSEL CHARLES W.GARRISON B• ('II F+I'T ff7 hllER I-1, MUNE,II • CORDON K.GAYER• ROBERT J,STEELE• CHRISTINA W.FLEPS• o MICHAEL E.VEVE• June 24 , 1982 2 MARTHA PRIDDY PATTERSON• JAMES M. MOLT• MARY SUSAN PHILP• GRANT E.MORRIS,JR.• F.GORDON LEE• DONNA R. FITZPATRICK• BRIAN DUNN• LAURENCE ROSCHER• BRENDA A.JACOBS• J.TIMOTHY O'NEILL OF COUNSEL JOSEPH F. CASTIELLO• T.BROOKE FARNSWORTH B• Mr . John Anderson JOHN FORD EVAN S,JR.• City Administrator NOT MEMBER OF MINNESOTA BAR 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Re: Redevelopment Plan for Downtown Redevelopment Project No. 1 and Tax Increment Financing Plan for Downtown Tax Increment Financing District No. lA Dear Mr. Anderson: Pursuant to our recent phone conversations , I am enclosing twenty-six copies of the revised computer runs, Exhibit C and all affected pages of the Plan which reflect the addition of the Beren property into the District, the consolidation of streetscaping/realignment and municipal parking facility funds , and the addition to Item "c. " on Page 2-2 of the language "and improvements" . I am also enclosing one copy of the revised Boundary Map, Exhibit B. Please verify that we have outlined the correct lots before making copies for distribution. In addition, I am including suggested language that you may wish to use in a cover letter when distributing these revis- ions to the County and School Board. If there are any additional changes or problems, please feel free to contact either myself or Mary Molzahn. Sincerely, c, n\ James R. Casserly % JRC: mm �/ F- T-g < z -- 0 MSC NIMH w z2 0 - '44 .\\ c-) - z 0 U - 0 'o Cl- z z 0 j Agzado id OJ F- < i v %I. ua zag w0 Z N = £t .IMH • 0 > w Li. CO CD 41..1,i(iOado 0 F- ,_ Y _ - uauoojnj • E w a z a Y N .-• CC Q LU U Q a Cr '� fa_ ao ° o �upg z w '� u- a Q :. • T f 4PI\I 4S-1T3 • z Q CIC F- y w , w J N 0• O Q U (n 1.11 J 2 o J - Lo • �{�zado�d Z z z o _J LUQ cn > ›' • quoanL"I • 1 5 =p x > z s > D W f \kis. 2 4: 1 :___--_-_ O m < < = 2 W Z 0 - 0 691 AMHII 0 0 cc cn gi CI,...) m<Y It • z U X82;= = -I ooi . Mitj // I - — — 1 t- 5�1 Q Sehrl - V/ : ate- -:11111 MIN z Z n- z �, . W '� r� D : Vii_ < - } • ` OzZ °' . 2 1 5, 1—c•_ H W F- f� 2 • 1 _c j E 2• •4 5 • 0 — V'a Z w U 4",•••••••A _J i MN a CL w cc 9 cc 0 OO as m0) w p J 0 CC Q CC _ rte11111111.mia I imille, CC 5 E. 7 x W ! }. 4 4- MIS ,...s �. t �• -- .� ---1 ci v 4 .:{. ` , ` i 4 "mss41 ? �`. :iiia �'. .�� - o - 144 Jf ;p 41 rII 7 . . or .1. L'Ilj ani.'00D-11 -771_ / ' . ST i '• ° , - ' 1 ' '' . ' 1 ' - . ss....;-mac...M+..'.t:'4.^ .�ti::i.a.`µ"^.7t I. 1 111121 a 1, 3 s.' OCr cc i f II`` N cn - i 2 J :> ii.{ i +6 ME A . • :�2' N i MIM q E 1 ; ' + �� S ,LIEJIHX3 EXHIBIT C i LE 1 impact on Tax Jurisdictions if Development Occurred Without Public Assistance Tax increment District No . Milk 1_ 1 C �98l Do=ur Jurisdiction Milis Available i. ac_ _. City of Shakopee 19 . 145 19 . 081 - . 064 County of Scott 39 . 046 39 . 002 - . 044 School District/720 52 . 380 52 . 214 - . 166 Other 5 . 594 Other taxing jurisdictions include: HRA, Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Mosquito Control, Metropolitan Transit Commission, Lower Minnesota Watershed District. * Captured Assessed Value C-1 PROJECT NAME : SHKPE.1 PROJECT START DATE : 01/ 1982 PROJEC1 END DATE : 12/2001 T .I . F . DISTRICT NO , 1A CONSISTING OF THE r IRST NATIONAL DANK OF SHAKOPEE/THE L.AURE.NT PROPER I Y/THE MUONEN PRUP- ERT'f/THE DERENS PRUF'ERTY . THE BOND 1 ERil ib 19-1/2 TEARS AT 11 . 5 PERCENT WITH 18 YEARS OF RECE1V].HG INCREMENTS . TAX INC ADJUSTMENT : 100 . 0000 82/06/23 LISTING OF DA1 A INPUT F UR BASE VALUES INJ TIAL STAN f END --- INUREMEN 1 --- NUM . NAME VALUE CAI E_ DATE 1Y PLR VALUE 1 . ) BERENS PROPERTY 74489 01/81 12/00 2 . ) 1ST NATIONAL BANK 260499 01/81 12/00 3 . ) MOONEN PROPERTY 12192 01/81 12/00 4 . ) LAURENT PROPERTY 3387:J 01/81 12/00 82/06/23 LISTING OF DATA INPUT FOR ASSESSED VALUES INITIAL START END --- INCREMENT--- NUM . NAME VALUE DATE DA1E TY PER VALUE 1 . ) BERENS PROPERTY 0 01/82 12/82 120929 01/83 12/01 2 . ) 1ST NATIONAL BANK 0 01/82 12/82 35341/ 01/83 12/01 3 . ) MUONEN PROPERTY 0 01/82 12/82 30480 01/83 12/01 4 . ) LAUREN ! PROPERTY 0 01/82 12/82 1699/Y 01/83 12/01 82/06/'23 LISTING OF DADA INPUT FOR CAPITAL EXPENsE8 INS TIAL S f'AR1 END --- INUREMENT - .- NUM . NAME VALUE DA I E DATE TY PER VALUE 1 . ) MUNICIPAL PARKING FACILITY 0 01/82 02/82 12500 08/32 11/82 0 12/82 12/01 2 . ) GREEN SPACE 0 01/82 07/82 10000 08/82 09/82 0 10/82 12/01 3 . ) CUMNERCIAL REHAB LOAN PROGRAM 0 01/82 07/82 10000 08/82 12/82 0 01/33 1'2'/01 82/06/23 LISTING UF DATA INPUT FOR BOND ISSUES ---REPAYMENT--- ISSUE FACE PRNCPL IINTHS S I ART '1' PAYMNT NUM . NAME OF BOND /EXP . VALUE /INTST MN1HS /END Y /IN . RT 1 . ) PROJECT 06/82 230000 . . . . . . . A . . . . 06/82 0 0 12/01 . f- . . . . . A . . . . 03/84 11 • S00 04/84 2 20845 12/01 11 . ;.,00 82/06/23 LIS TING OF DATA INPUT FUR BOND PROCEEDS INITIAL START END --- INCREMENT --- NUM . NAME VALUE DACE DATE TY PER VALUE 1 . ) PROJECT 0 01/82 05/82 230000 06/82 06/82 0 07/82 12/01 82/06/23 LIS I ING OF DATA INPUT FOR OTHER EXPENSES INITIAL START END --- INCREMENt --- NUn . NAME VALUE LIA1 E DACE IY PER VALUE 1 . ) BOND DISCOUNT 0 01/82 05/82 4500 06/82 06/82 0 07/82 12/01 2 . ) PLANNING CONSULTING- SERVICES 0 01/82 06/82 10000 07/82 09/82 0 10/82 12/01 3 . ) BOND ISSUANCE a LEGAL SERVICES 0 01/82 05/82 12000 06/82 06/82 0 07/82 12/01 4 . ) ADMINISTRATION 0 01/82 05/82 100 06/82 12/95 0 01/96 12/01 82/06/23 LIS TING OF DATA INPUT FOR CITY MILL RACES IN1:T IAL. START END --- INCREMENT --- NUM . NAME VALUE DATE DA FE FY PER VALUE 1 • ) 116 . 165 01/82 12/01 82/06/23 LISTING OF Di; I A INPUT FUR INFLATION RAl ES INITIAL START END --- INCREMENT --- NUM . N A M E VALUE DAIE DATE 1Y PER VALUE 1 . ) 0 01/82 12/01 82/06/23 4 LISTING OF UA FA INPUT FOR BOND ISSUES ---REPAYMENT--- ISSUE FACE PRNCPL MNTHS S FART '1' PAYMNT NUM . NAME OF BOND /EXP . VALUE /1MTST MN1HS /ENO Y /IN . RT 1 . ) PROJECT 06/82 230000 . . . . . . . A . . . . 06/82 0 0 12/01 . F . . . . . A . . . . 03/81 11 . t O0 04/84 2 20845 12/01 11 . :: 00 82/06/23 LIS FINE OF DACA INPIJT FUR BOND PROCEEDS INITIAL START END --- INLREMEN1 --- NUM . NAME VALUE DACE E DA IE TY PER VALUE 1 . ) PROJECT 0 01/82 05/82 230000 06/82 06/82 0 0//82 12/01 82/06/23 LISTING OF DATA INPUT FUR OTHER EXPENSES INITIAL START END --- INCREMENT --- NUrt . NAME VALUE LIAl E DACE IY PER VALUE 1 . ) BOND DISCOUNT 0 01/82 05/82 4500 06/82 06/82 0 07/82 12/01 2 . ) PLANNING CONSUL FING SERVICES 0 01/82 06/32 10000 07/82 09/82 0 10/82 12/01 3 . ) BOND ISSUANCE a LEGAL SERVICES 0 01/82 05/82 12000 06/82 06/82 0 07/82 12/01 4 . ) ADIMINISTRATION 0 01/82 05/82 100 06/82 12/95 0 01/96 12/01 82/06/23 LISTING OF DATA INPUT FOR CITY MILL RAKES INJ: I ]:AL. START END --- INCREMENT --- NUM . NAME VALUE DATE.: DACE FY PER VALUE 1 . ) 116 . 165 01/82 12/01 82/06/23 LIS1 IMG OF DA I A INPUT FUR INFLATION RA1 ES INSTIAL START END --- INCREMENT --- NUM , N A M E VALUE DACE DATE 1 Y PER VALUE 1 . ) 0 01/82 12/01 L 82/06/23 LISTING OF DAIA INPUT FOR INVESTMENT RATES INITIAL START END --- INCREMENT --- NUM , NAME VALUE DA f E DAFE TY PER VALUE 1 . ) 11 . 500 01/02 12/01 ENTER NAME OF ITEM TO BE LISTED ENTER COMMAND PRIN I FALL ENTER START MONTH ? END MONTH ? INCREMENT ? ? ?ANNUAL PROJECT NAME : SHKPE1 T . I . E . DISIRICT NO . 1A CUMSISI1N8 OF fHE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SHAKOPEE/T'HE LAURENT PRUPER I Y/THE MOUNEN PROP- ERTY/THE BERENS PROPERTY . THE BOND TERM IS 19-1/2 YEARS Al 11 .5 PERCENT WITH 18 YEARS OF RECEIVING INCREIIENIS . 82/06/23 T OTAL INCOME FROM 01/1982 TO 12/2001 IN ANNUAL INTERVALS ASSESSED BASE MILL TAX LAND OTHER BOND INVESTMNT MM YEAR VALUE VALUE kA fE INCREMENT SALES INCOME PROCEEDS INCOME 1982 381055 116 . 165 0 0 0 230000 7500 1983 6/4805 381055 116 , 165 0 0 0 0 6139 1984 674805 381055 116 . 165 30711 0 0 0 3827 1985 674805 381055 116 . 165 31123 0 0 0 3921 1986 674805 381055 116 . 165 34123 0 0 0 4348 1987 674805 381055 116 . 165 34123 0 0 0 4884 1988 674805 381055 116 . 165 34123 0 0 0 5546 . 1989 674805 381055 116 . 165 34123 0 0 0 6352 1990 674805 381055 116 . 165 34123 0 0 0 7324 1991 674805 381055 116 . 165 34 123 0 0 0 8485 1992 674805 381055 116 . 165 34123 0 0 0 9862 1993 6/4805 381055 116 . 165 34123 0 0 0 11485 -- 1994 674805 381055 116 . 165 34123 0 0 0 13389 1995 674805 381055 116 , 165 34123 0 0 0 15612 1996 674805 381055 116 . 165 34123 0 0 0 18252 1997 674805 381055 116 . 165 34123 0 0 0 21400 1998 674805 331055 116 . 165 34123 0 0 0 75033 1999 674805 531055 116 . 165 34123 0 0 0 29217 2000 674805 381055 116 . 165 34123 0 0 0 34022 2001 674805 381055 116 . 165 34123 0 0 . 0 39532 PROJECT NAME : SHKPE1 T . I . F . DISTRICT NO . lA CONSISTING OF THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SHAKOF'EE/THE LAURENT PROPERTY/THE MIIUNEN PROP- ERTY/THE BERENS PROPERTY . THE BOND TERM IS 19-1/2 YEARS AT 11 . 5 PERCENT WITH 18 YEARS OF RECEIVING INCREMENTS . Lf 82/06/23 TOTAL EXPENDITURES FROM 01/ 1982 TO 12/2001 IN ANNUAL INTERVALS CAPITAL_ OTHER --0 L 1i Li E B T-- TONAL MM YEAR EXPENSES EXPENSES PRINCIPAL INT ERESI EXPENSES 1982 120000 47200 0 0 167200 1983 0 1200 0 0 1200 1984 0 1200 0 0 1200 1985 0 1200 0 0 1200 1986 0 1200 0 0 1200 1987 0 1200 0 0 1200 1988 0 1200 0 0 1200 1989 0 1200 0 0 1200 -1990 0 1200 0 0 1200 1991 0 1200 0 0 1200 1992 0 1200 0 0 1200 1993 0 1200 0 0 1200 1994 0 1200 0 0 1200 1995 0 1200 0 0 1200 1996 0 0 0 0 0 1997 0 0 0 0 0 1998 0 0 0 0 0 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 0 0, 2001 0 0 0 0 0 PRU,JEC1 NAME : SHKPE1 T . I . F . (:DISTRICT NO . 1A CONSISTING OF THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SHAKOPEE/THE LAURENT PROPERTY/THE MUGHEN PROP- ERTY/THE BERENS PROPERTY . THE BOND TERM IS 19-1/2 YEARS AT 11 . 5 PERCENT WITH 18 YEARS OF RECEIVING INCREMENTS . 82/06/23 T OTAL RESERVE FROM 01/1982 TO 12/2001 IN ANNUAL INTERVALS TOTAL AL TOTAL --N E W D E I+ 1 -- TOTAL TOTAL LEAST MM YEAR INCOME EXPENSES PRINCIPAL INTEREST SURPLUS RESERVE RESERVE 1932 237500 167200 0 6612 63688 63688 0 1983 6139 1200 0 26450 -21510 42177 40876 1984 34538 1200 7620 26450 -731 41446 25314 1985 38045 1200 8058 25573 3213 14659 2.8408 1986 38472 1200 8521 24647 4103 48762 32359 1987 39008 1200 9011 23667 5129 53892 37299 1988 39670 1200 9529 22630 6309 60202 43375 1989 40476 1200 10077 21534 7663 6/866 50754 1990 41448 1200 10651 20375 9215 77081 5962.8 1991 42608 1200 11269 19150 10988 88070 70209 1992 43985 1200 1191; 17854 13013 101083 82740 1993 45608 1200 12603 16483 15322 116405 9/493 1994 47512 1200 13327 15034 17950 134356 1.14176 1995 49736 1200 14094 13501 20940 155296 133236 1996 52376 0 14904 11880 25590 180887 155586 1997 55523 0 15761 10166 29595 210482 182458 1998 59151 0 16667 8354 34135 244617 212334 1999 63340 ti 0 17626 6.137 39276 ' 283894 246794 2000 68146 0 18639 4410 45096 328990 206443 2001 73655 0 19710 2266 51.678 380668 331967 PROJECT NAME : SHKPE1 T . I . F . DISTRICT NO , 1A CONSISTING OF THE FIRST NATIONAL DANK OF SHAKOPEE/THE LAURENT F'RIJPERTY/1HE MUUNEN PROP- ERTY/ THE NERENS PROPERTY . THE BOND TERM IS 19-1/2 YEARS AT 11 . 5 PERCENT WITH 18 YEARS OF RECEIVING INCREMENTS . 82/06/23 SUMMARY TAX INCREMENT ADJ . 100 . 0000 BOND ISSUE PROCEEDS 230000 LAND ,SALE INCOME 0 OTHER INCOME 0 TAX INCREMENT 610810 INVESTMENT INCOME 279608 TOTAL INCOME 111590 CAPITAL EXPENSES 120000 OTHER EXPENSES 62800 CAPITALIZED INTEREST 46287 OLD DEBT 0 101 AL EXPENDITURES 229087 BALANCE OF DEBT SERVICE ::;071911 BALANCE ENTER NAME OF REPORT WANTED 8378b3 ik a. Acquisition of property; b. Site preparation, including demolition and clear- ance; c. Installation of public utilities and improvements; d. Parking facilities and green spaces; and e. Commercial rehabilitation. It is further contemplated by the City that additional public activities may occur within Downtown Redevelopment Project No. 1 in the future, including the potential estab- lishment of a reserve fund system for industrial development revenue bonds. 2 . 3. Environmental Controls. The proposed development in Downtown Redevelopment Project No. 1 does not present significant environmental concerns. All municipal actions , public improvements and private development shall be carried out in a manner consistent with existing environmental stan- dards. 2. 4 . Proposed Reuse of Property. The public improve- ments needed to bring about development and redevelopment activity as set forth in Section 2. 2 above may include acquisition of land, site improvements , rail and street im- provements and utility system improvements . The estimated public improvement costs to be financed by tax increment financing are summarized in the tax increment financing plan for each tax increment financing district to be established in Downtown Redevelopment Project No. 1. The Redevelopment Plan does not contemplate the acqui- sition of private property until such time as a private developer presents an economically feasible program for the reuse of that property. Proposals for the reuse of private property, in order to be considered by the Authority, must be within the framework of the above cited goals and objec- tives of the Authority. Prior to formal consideration of the acquisition of any property, the Board may require a binding contract, performance bond and/or other evidence or guarantees that a supporting tax increment or other funds will be available to repay the public cost associated with the proposed acquisition. It shall be the intent of the Authority to negotiate the acquisition of property whenever necessary. Appropriate restrictions regarding the reuse and redevelopment of property shall be incorporated into any land sale contract to which the Authority or the City are parties. 2. 5. Administration and Maintenance of Downtown Rede- velopment Project No. 1. For purposes of Downtown Tax In- crement District No. 1A, maintenance and operation of the public improvements in Redevelopment Project No. 1 will be 2 - 2 1- SECTION III . TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR DOWNTOWN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. lA 3 . 1. Statement of Objectives. See Section 2. 1. 3 . 2. The Redevelopment Plan. See Section II . 3 . 3 . Parcels to be Included in Downtown Tax Increment District No. 1A. The following parcels are located in the City of Shakopee, County of Scott, State of Minnesota: Legal Description Owner Lot 6 , Block 21 Gary Laurent Randolph Laurent Lots 1, 2 and 3 and the First National Bank West half of the South of Shakopee 102. 00 feet of Lot 4 , Block 23 The northerly 51. 00 feet Karen Moonen of Lots 1 and 2, Block 30 David Moonen Lots 1, 2 and 3 and the Art Berens & Sons , South 102. 00 feet of Lot Inc. 4 , Block 22, Original Shakopee Plat 3. 4 . Parcels in Acquisition. It is intended that the Authority may publicly acquire the following property: Legal Description Owner The northerly 51. 00 feet Karen Moonen of Lots 1 and 2, Block 30 David Moonen Properties identified for acquisition may be acquired by the Authority in order to accomplish the following : a. Demolition and clearance; and b. Installation of public utilities . 3 . 5. Estimated Public Improvement Costs and Supportive Data. The estimated costs of the public improvements to be made within Downtown Redevelopment Project No. 1 and fin- anced by tax increment derived from Downtown Tax Increment District No. lA are as follows : 3 - 1 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS $ 70 , 000 MUNICIPAL PARKING FACILITY $50 , 000 GREEN SPACE $20 , 000 COMMERCIAL REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM $ 50 , 000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 58 , 300 Administrative $16 , 300 Consulting Services, Planning $30 ,000 Legal and Bond Issuance $12, 000 INTEREST ON BONDS PRIOR TO RECEIPT OF TAX INCREMENT - ASSUMES 11. 50 INTEREST RATE $ 46 , 287 BOND DISCOUNT $ 4 , 500 NET BOND ISSUE $230 , 000 The supportive data for the estimated public improvement costs are as follows : ITEM BASIS FOR ESTIMATE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Estimates by City staff COMMERCIAL REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM Estimates by City Staff PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Estimates of Project costs for administra- tive , consulting ser- vices , planning, legal assistance and bond is- suance costs. INTEREST ON BONDS PRIOR TO RECEIPT OF TAX Assumes 11. 50% interest INCREMENT TO FULLY rate FUND PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST 3 - 2 It is anticipated that the above project costs will be paid through the issuance of general obligation tax incre- ment bonds . 3. 6 . Sources of Revenue. Public improvement costs, acquisition and site preparation costs and other costs out- lined in Section 3 . 5 will be financed through the issuance of general obligation tax increment bonds to be repaid by the annual collection of tax increment. 3. 7 . Original Assessed Value and Current Assessed Value. Pursuant to Section 273 . 76 , Subd . 1, of the Tax Increment Act, the original assessed value for Downtown Tax Increment District No. lA is estimated to be $381, 055 based on the assessed value of all taxable real property within Downtown Tax Increment District No. 1A. Pursuant to Section 273. 76 , Subds. 1 and 4 , of the Tax Increment Act, the County Auditor of Scott County (the "County Auditor ") shall certify in each year the amount by which the original assessed value has increased or decreased as a result in a change in tax- exempt property within Downtown Tax Increment District No. 1A, reduction or enlargement of Downtown Tax Increment Dis- trict No. lA or changes in connection with previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current assessed value of Downtown Tax Increment District No. lA declines below the original assessed value, no assessed value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the Author- ity. The current assessed value is the same as the original assessed value. 3 . 8 . Estimated Captured Assessed Value. Pursuant to Section 273 . 74 , Subd. 1, and Section 273. 76 , Subd. 2, of the Tax Increment Act, the estimated captured assessed value in Downtown Tax Increment District No. lA as of January 2 , 1983 , will each year approximate $293 ,750 . This estimated annual captured assessed value is determined in the follow- ing manner : Estimated Assessed Value 1983 payable 1984 $674 , 805 Original Assessed Value 1981 payable 1982 $381 , 055 Estimated Captured Assessed Value $293 ,750 3. 9 . Duration of Downtown Tax Increment District No. lA. Pursuant to Section 273. 75 , Subd. 1, of the Tax Incre- ment Act, the duration of Downtown Tax Increment District No. lA will be eighteen (18) years from the date of receipt by the Authority of the first tax increment or twenty (20) years from the creation of Downtown Tax Increment District No. 1A. The date of receipt by the Authority of the first tax increment will be July, 1984 . Thus, it is estimated 3 - 3 received and expended in that year , the original assessed value, the captured assessed value, the amount of outstand- ing bonded indebtedness and any additional information the Authority deems necessary shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. 3 . 12. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer . Pursuant to Section 273 . 75 , Subd. 5 , of the Tax Increment Act, no more than twenty-five percent (25%) , by acreage, of the property to be acquired in Downtown Tax Increment Dis- trict No. lA as set forth in the Tax Increment Financing Plan shall at any time be owned by the Authority as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to Section 273 . 77 of the Tax Increment Act without the Author- ity having, prior to acquisition in excess of twenty-five percent (25%) of the acreage, concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property acquired and which provides recourse for the Authority should the de- velopment not be completed. 3. 13 . Assessment Agreements. The City may, upon enter- ing into a development or redevelopment agreement, enter into a written assessment agreement in recordable form with the developer or redeveloper of the property within Downtown Tax Increment District No. lA which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements to be constructed thereon, until a specified termination date, which date shall not be later than the duration of Downtown Tax Increment District No. 1A. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the County Assessor , who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be con- structed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and , so long as the minimum market value contained in the assess- ment agreement appears , in the judgment of the County Asses- sor , to be a reasonable estimate, the County Assessor shall certify the minimum market value contained in the agreement. 3 . 14. Cash Flow Assumptions and Analysis. Refer to the Cash Flow Analysis, attached hereto as Exhibit D, for more detail on tax increment assumptions for Downtown Tax Incre- ment District No. 1A. a. Projected Assessed Value . The estimated as- sessed value of Downtown Tax Increment District No. lA as determined by the County Assessor is $674 , 805. b. Projected Timing. The payment of the first tax increment from Downtown Tax Increment District No. lA will be received by the City in July, 1984 . 3 - 5 c. Base Assessed Value. The County Auditor ' s records show the base assessed value of Downtown Tax Increment District No. lA to be $381, 055 . d. Mill Rate. The mill rate is 116 . 165 , 1981 payable 1982 . e. Prior Planned Improvements. The Authority assumes that prior planned improvements pursuant to Section 273 . 76 , Subd. 4 of the Tax Increment Act will be allowed by the County Auditor in Downtown Tax Increment District No. 1A. f . Bond Interest Rate. The interest rate on the general obligation tax increment bonds is based on cur- rent market conditions and is estimated at eleven and one-half percent (11. 50%) . Said interest rate will have to be verified at the time of the final report by the fiscal consultant for the City. g. Bond Term. The term is based on estimated tax increment available. The term of the general obligation tax increment bonds to be issued should remain at twenty (20) years (including years of capitalized interest) . h. Capitalized Interest. Capitalized interest will cover interest payments on the general obligation tax increment bonds to be issued , prior to receipt of tax increment to fully fund the principal of and inter- est on the general obligation tax increment bonds. i . Investment Interest Rate. Investment interest is at eleven and one-half percent (11. 50%) for the first year , eleven and one-half percent (11. 50%) for each year thereafter . This is the estimated rate at which unspent but obligated funds will earn interest as well as any surplus tax increment funds within any given year . This rate is contingent upon rates paid on savings and upon arbitrage considerations . j . Tax Increment. Tax increment has been calcu- lated at approximately $34 ,123, assuming a static mill rate and a valuation increased by zero percent (0%) compounded annually. k. Capital Expenditures . Capital expenditures are a summary of the items associated with the public improvement costs set forth in Section 3. 5 and are to be financed from the proceeds of the general obligation tax increment bonds to be issued . This cash flow assumes that all of the $178 , 300 in general obligation tax in- crement bonds to be issued will be obligated or spent by 3 - 6 5 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Revenue Sharing Public Hearing DATE: June 25, 1982 City Council has a public hearing scheduled for June 29, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. for the proposed use of Revenue Sharing Funds for the 1983 budget. The purpose of the hearing is to receive oral and/or written comments for suggested uses of these monies before the budget is presented for enactment. GV/ljw ,r; � ;� ? : City of Shakopee "" ,-' K° p POLICE DEPARTMENT - \li\/s i �. �� \��' i�q 476 South Gorman Street 01 V0 SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 /ft 1:l`a \, P O _ G Tel. 445-6666t �x , 5 5 3 7 9 �if f " TO: Mayor, Council Members FROM: Tom Brownell SUBJECT: License Renewal - Richard' s Pub DATE: June 24, 1982 INTRODUCTION All known persons who have an interest in the license renewal process for Richard' s Pub have been contacted to appear before the City Council on June 29, 1982 . BACKGROUND City staff and council members have received complaints from citizens regarding various problems which they believe to originate from Richard' s Pub such as parking, litter and noise. I have also received complaints from the Fire Chief regarding patrons exceeding the allowable building capacity which I brought to the attention of Mr. Hanover and vehicles blocking the exits, which was resolved. Mr. Hanover does a good job of controlling patrons and check- ing for underage persons. The most pressing issue involves the permissible noise level which may be resolved with our purchase of noise monitoring equipment which we should receive within two weeks. I would appreciate a very limited discussion regarding the noise problem, as it is a subjective matter at this point which can best be dealt with upon the receipt of monitoring equipment and an ordinance revision which is being reviewed by the City Attorney. 10 Sezve '.go Pzofect COMPLAINT CARO . NAME RICHARD'S PUB ' - ' Surname 1Firtl Middle RESIDENCE 911 East 1st Avenue4Shakopee TELE. NO. DATE COMPLAINT DISPOSITION ICR NO. 01-06-82 N.S.F. Checks J Advised - 82 0095 . - 01-11-82 Alarm �I; _Open Door/Okay 82-0176 02-08-82 Alarm E � �'� Employee Trip 82-0657 03-18-82 Hit & Run Accident, ' State report made 82-1220 04-04-82 Problem with alarm Extra Patrol 82-1488 ' 04-05-82 Alarm 1i All Secure 82-1493 . 04-05-82 Alarm � - All Secure 82-1501 . 04-10-82 Problem with drunk G.O.A. 82-1612 04-30-82 Loud music Advised 82-1963 . r DATE:. COMPLAINT DISPOSITION ICR NO. ' 05-05-82 Deliver letter A , Delivered 82-2072 05-05-82 Loud Music (arrested) Report Made 82-2080 . 05-07- 2 Loud Music (Arrested) Report Made 82-2111 05-09- 2 Alarm Building Secure 82-2143 05-27-:2 Loud Music Unfounded 82-2498 05-28-:2 Loud Music (Arrested) Report Made 82-2551 06-04-:2 Loud music . Unfounded 82-2707 06-09- :2 Noise complaint Advised 82-2797 - ' 06-10-:2 Noise complaint Unfounded 82-2823 06-15- :2 Loud Music (Arrested) Report Made 82-2930 06-16-:2 Alarm Malfunction 82-2932 06-16- 2 Loud ;Music (Arrested) Report Made 82-2947 06-17- 2 Alarm Malfunction 82-2948 • H! i. -2- COMPLAINT CARD NAME RICHARD' S PUB 4s s. Surname II I First Middle RESIDENCE TELE. NO • . DATE COMPLAINT DISPOSITION ICR NO. 06-17-82 Alarm I Bldg. Secure 82-2949 06-19-82 Loud Music Advised 82-3019 06-20-82 Alarm I Malfunction 82-3026 06-21-82 Alarm Reset/All Okay 82-3046 06-21-82 Alarm Working on alarm 82-3051A I ' • • i f • I • . I II • ‘4;.'(//ii)--,(1%f City of Shakopee • J. ✓'" KO �\ /r 5,+ f -.\ POLICE POLICE DEPARTMENT r ,,.., �E 5is,,, I ,:i:> �� 476 South Gorman Street ':- �j SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 P \ �� % Tel. 445.6666 55 379 'May 4, 1982 Mr. Richard Hanover Richard' s In Shakopee 911 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Mr. Hanover : I am writing in reference to complaints received by the police department regarding excessive noise originating from your business establishment. Complaints have been received from persons residing within a two block area and are varified by police officers that the noise level created by the musicians is excessive and a public nuisance . The officers have been directed to charge you under City Code , Section 10 . 53 (Public Nuisance) in the event further viola- tions occur . The area residents have indicated their intent to petition the City Council regarding this matter, however I felt it more appropriate to bring the matter to your attention prior to a petition so that you may correct the situation. Sincerely, Thomas G. Brownell CHIEF OF POLICE TGB:dmh Jo c LLC7 t7o Jn2oEect „00,4,... CITY 0 S li A k o 414- 4l 1 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee. Minnesota 55379 7 - .:„. _...,_,..., . MEMO . TO Shakopee City Council - ram Don D . Martin, Scott County Assessor SUaizcr 1982 City Board of Review • . DATE: June 24 , 1982 Since the Shakopee City Board of Review held on June 15 , 1982 , there has been Ho action taken for the. 1982 assessments; except for the following: 1 . • The Howe Chemical Inc . , made a formal protest of their valuation to the City of Shakopee and the County of Scott via the Scott County Assessor' s Office . A meeting was held between the company' s Manager, Mr. Don Wendt; Mr. William Slavinof the State of Minnesota ' s Property Tax Division; and this office, and it appears the problem involves whether certain tanks which are presently being assessed should be exempted under the attached machinery classification. The result of this meeting .was the decision to have Howe Inc . present a protest to the city and county in order to qualify for - a final protest to the State Board of Equalization. The intent is for the State to clarify the wording of this law. 2 . The Assessment of the Warner True Value Hardware structures 'were reviewed and it was agreed that because of the construction of these pole type structures the depreciation rate of lz% per year to the rate of 2% per year should be in order. The assessment of these structures for the year 1981 was $699 , 000 . The original 1982 assessment amounted to $1 , 050 , 500 , but the result in the depreciation rate would place the final assessment for 1982 of J,9r f the structures at $969 , 000 . The assessment of the land at $208 , 000 would not change. Thank you for your cooperation. ij lif / Aillfr i�Lti 1 z44. _ ;" ✓ / --A .. f=/ w ii� '/ / / A/ / = ' • I. jT A V-:-16-11 S' . -_ e___0_,..-tia7.1,„e_e.,,ie „„i: J -11-4-1- rt s- ,, , ..4 _ • , „,L,ktlatt- - /C-4.-t:z..g. _ A..„,.,..,,<(,, ,,,_-__, , / __ AO , f� �______�✓.r r._, _ (J` ., _ . r ,c.et_e_ ri„,___x_eaee ,, tp, , Detert-- ---e--1'1-e--.'„.7 A., 6g.... :::;47: er 7 , , ... I , _..,.„„ i _ , , 4... , ,• ....._.z__,_, A.....1.,_ ..t . ... , .. , _„. , 0 _____ ii , sr,/ .1 , • „of.' e _ -- • • 4.... 404. , - ...,-; ./ • „L______ / '71.,, / ' eic,r„4/1/ ./ / _1 A4.4)... leziett.Z..„_Q 6---<e(7C-T-- i •, , il I • , 5 . , ani ra -. ��. i. �'_•__.' . ' ,' , ,y' ''' jar..; . 1 1 / w '''' . , , • �/ •l ' /. `,i Ore 4' / f 'i /A .a'_ Iii J/am, v ' l 1' .i:t�-e # ' / / 1,, , a.-p,-4 0-Ay ' i i 4,6,0 at / 1_t72 f ��" �l`�1 / • d / _,_• : t P-c.` r A/]w. P , , ; i • :AI •tom / i ' v ---,/‘--e--- 'ti ,' ,„„....4 l .,_--47 Ov't..._ A ' , f , ____a4,..,14±- __ ' y-0 4.44:- / / s/ / , 1:i I Lie *,....k#-..°00' --4--"1"""L•j"--4:1".4"4" •."4- .41..4/ ". -- le mitiaimasslimoi s / ' _4,d2141 .21A/i,tZ- - 1 4 --IV?2:27:6e424427 )44444 __) i a 6 ' ) 47A- ""e ' -1 r' '�� - . 2,5,4 , , 4 Ar ' / a to , /...„6...)-z-t.27„,_g_ /a.‘ci-z-1. Af ' ' • --- /LA):17('C44: -44i,-/d- 0-+". 2- ,, . / t / , AMY /04,,r.„4.4 a. ___Axii„j/,. ....._eygiaailfazj i• ,/ • if - __ __A„t.... __ 411,., t, L4-e..-<jOt 1 AW , IT ,- , z2,,ed---).,_e___# „,„, ,,„ - _ ... f)---r.....ea ez,s,a "1...4,c-x_qr Pir/,, Z}2_rit_,I4jet-s- .t.e_c ____.e.,_ ..,,,,, / I , -7-/ , , II ,, .0. - / / 7/7t.t.t_t_ez___ Af,z "."-z...e..e,„.4..._ r , . i'" 1 - .1 . .,,,, ,,, ,,,4 . 'Lp . ,)\,. , ''1 ,til -, 1 N' t' e: , . ii r isaI I , IV tArti , 4, 4 aM A '1 : d '�, I t i -111 � i - is 3 t , `''''\ .1‘s J1404r 9 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jerry Wampach and Dolores Lebens , Councilmembers RE: McKenna, Petsch Fence Viewing DATE: June 24, 1982 Introduction This memo is to advise you that on Wednesday, June 23rd, a meeting was called at 7 : 00 p.m. at the Harold McKenna farm with Council- members Dolores Lebens and Jerry Wampach meeting with Harold McKenna and Clarence Petsch at the fence site in question. Situation Mr. McKenna explained his problem with his cattle , how they were going through the fence and destroying the neighbors corn. He also elaborated on the work done by a bulldozer and operator to clear away brush along the fence line on his property to make necessary repairs to his part of the fence. He then proceeded to show where the cows were getting through Mr. Petsch ' s part of the fence. He also mentioned an uneven fence line which he is claiming under the adverse possession law. Mr. Petsch at that point asked what he meant by that statement and all Mr . McKenna answered was , go look it up in the book. Mr. Petsch viewed the fence thoroughly, and agreed to replace the posts on the property along with three strands of barbed wire . Mr. McKenna said three strands of barbed wire were not sufficient , and insisted that the fence have five strands instead of three . After a lengthy discussion Mr. Petsch agreed to four strands , but that did not meet with Mr. McKenna ' s specifications . Finally, in order to compromise , Mr. Petsch agreed to five strands of barbed wire which he said was not necessary. Then Mr. Petsch asked if he could put the new posts in front of the old existing posts and Mr. McKenna refused . He told Mr. Petsch to get a bulldozer like he did and clear out the heavy wooded area on his side and install the fence from his side of the property in question. Mr. McKenna did keep repeating, "what about the bulldozer cost?" . It is the viewers opinion that Mr. McKenna wants Mr. Petsch to pay for some of his own incurred bulldozing expense. Repairs could be made very easily if Mr. McKenna would allow Mr. Petsch to work on the McKenna property. It is also the viewers opinion that Mr. McKenna is more interested in the collection for that bulldozer work than he is in keeping his cows on his property. At present his cows are in the barn and not in the pasture. Mr. McKenna also kept on mentioning the damage to Mr. Hauer ' s corn, what he expects on that issue is unclear. No corn damage estimate can be given at this time , and it is possible that this issue may have to be settled in the fall of the year when the corn crop is harvested. John K. Anderson C Page Two l June 24, 1982 Summary Mr. Petsch was more than reasonable under the circumstances . When Mr. Petsch would give on a point then Mr. McKenna would increase his demands . Mr. McKenna insists Mr. Petsch stay on his side of the fence , which is heavily wooded and with much underbrush and make all necessary repairs . There is no brush or wooded area on the McKenna side of the fence . Mr. McKenna will not allow Mr. Petsch to make the necessary repairs on his property and Mr. McKenna did not say if all his demands were met , that he would do so at that time. Mr. Petsch and the Councilmembers spent two hours with Mr. McKenna with no results . Mr. Petsch did all he could to negotiate the fence question but Mr. McKenna just kept on questioning the bulldozer costs . Insurance liability and City intervention were discussed and both parties are aware of what could take place . Recommendation If Mr. McKenna has his cattle ' s interest foremost then he will call Mr. Petsch and give him permission to use the McKenna property for the fence repairs with the agreed upon five strands of barbed wire. At least this much should be done before he mentions the bulldozer costs to see what Mr. Petsch wants to do about that issue. JW/jms /0 MEMO TO : John K. Anderson City Administrator FROM: H. R. Spurrier City Engineer --- RE : County Road 83 Widening Trunk Highway 101 to County Road 16 Project 1982-1KT DATE : June 25, 1982 Introduction : City staff has completed the plans for the widening of County Road 83 from Trunk Highway 101 to County Road 16. The work proposed for County Road 83 from Trunk Highway 101 to County Road 16 is intended to satisfy 100 percent of the construction needs for that road for the next ten years growth. The work includes the improvement of the embankment area and the addition of 10 foot paved shoulders along with additional structural section on the road proper. The plans and specifications for the project have been reviewed and recommended for approval by the Scott County Highway Engineer. It is the recommendation of City staff that City Council authorize the advertise- ment for bids for the above-referenced project for July 26, 1982. Action Requested : Direct the proper City officials to advertise for bids for County Road 83 Widening, Project No. 1982-1KT for July 26, 1982. HRS/jiw // MEMO TO : John K. Anderson City Administrator FROM: H. R. Spurrier OVA* City Engineer - — RE: Levee Drive DATE: June 25, 1982 Introduction : In order to construct Levee Drive, it is necessary to acquire right-of-way in Block 7, Original Shakopee Plat. Background: That right-of-way crosses property owned by Mr. John B. Andren. Based on ordinary procedure, the City would immediately condemn the property while ordering an appraisal of the property. The City is in receipt of an appraisal of the value of the lots in the vicinity of the property required. That value was $1.69 per square foot. Preliminary conversations with the property owner's representatives indicate that the property owner is interested in selling right-of-way to the City and it is, therefore, the recommendation of City staff that between now and the first meeting in July, City staff approach the property owner with an offer equal to the amount of the appraisal, or $1 .69 per square foot, for the necessary right-of-way . Seven thousand two-hundred seventy-nine (7, 279) square feet of right-of-way are required. The value of the that right-of-way would be $12,301. 51. Action Requested : Approve an offer of $12, 301. 51 to John B. Andren, for 7, 279 square feet of right--of-way for Levee Drive over and across Lot 8, 9 and 10, Block 7, Original Shakopee Plat. HRS/jiw lc•taa TMMinnesota Department of Revenue Read the instructions (Rev, 7Bo) Centennial Office Building on the other side St. Paul, Minnesota 55145 before completing the form, Affidavit For Obtaining Final Settlement Of Contract With The State Of Minnesota And Any Of Its Political Or Governmental Subdivisions Name OI _�._... ("nK rOCXx or Subconlra,.r , �Minnetota Identification Number Valley paving, .Inc. 5565541 Business Address 12494 Wyoming Avenue South City, Town or Post Office 'State I Savage 111 Coos Minnesota 55378 Project Location Project or Contract Number Hauer Trail - Laterals In Shakopee 80_1 Name of State Department of Governmental Subdivision for Which Work Was Performed Total Amount of Contract - City of Shakopee $ 1,552.50 Address of Department or Subdivision City,Town or Post Office Zip Code Amount Still Due 129 E. 1st Ave. Shakopee, MN 55379 $937.50 Statement On Withholding Of Income Taxes On Wages Paid (A) Contractor or Subcontractor — If you pay or supervise the payment of persons employed on this contract or project,you are a contractor or subcontractor and should complete this section. 1, Richard A. Carron president declare (Your name) ITitlr.) under the penalties of perjury and criminal liability, that as provided in Minnesota Statute 290.97, I pay or supervise the payment of the persons employed by Valley paving, inc. ;that the wages of all employees lKaM9 fetor subcontractor) employed by the above contractor or subcontractor were subjected to withholding as provided in Minnesota Statute 290.92 and that all money withheld and all returns required by this section, to date, have been properly deposited or paid and all returns properly filed w Co toner of Reve ue. 7 ,� May 7, 1982 (Y ur signature) (Date) (B) Prime Contractor — If any portion of the above project has been subcontracted, certify below that you have received a certificate of compliance (Form IC-134) from each of the subcontractors involved. I (Your name) ,declare (Title) under the penalties of perjury and criminal liability, that as provided in Minnesota Statute 290.97, I have obtained certificates of compliance from all of my subcontractors, on this project or contract, stating that all of their employees were subjected to withholding as provided in Minnesota Statute 290.92 and that as required by this section,all money was properly deposited or paid and all returns were filed with the Commissioner of Revenue as of the elate of this certification. (Your signature) (Date) Certificate Of Compliance With Minnesota Statutes 290.92 and 290.97 Based on the facts stated in the above affidavit and the facts in the files and records of the Department of Revenue, I find that the above contractor (subcontractor) has, to date, properly complied with all of the provisions of Minnesota Statute 290.92 relating to the withholding of income tax on wages paid to employees and Minnesota Statute 290.97 relating to contract services with the State or ants governmental or political subidivisions. MAY u i ! `i7 r E.,1 (Department-Df Revenue) (Date) RESOLUTION NO. 2019 A Resolution Accepting Work On The No. 80-1 Public Improvement Program Hauer Trail Laterals WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Shakopee on June 19, 1981, Parrott Construction, Inc. , 2047 Eagle Creek Boulevard, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 has satisfactorily completed the construction of the Hauer Trail Laterals by sanitary sewer, in accordance with such contract. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA that the work completed under said contract is hereby accepted and approved; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk and Mayor are hereby directed to issue a proper order for the final payment on such contract in the amount of $2, 568.65, taking the contractor's receipt in full. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this day of 1982. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST : City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 1982. City Attorney MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Developer' s Agreement DATE: June 23 , •1982 Introduction City Council , at its regular April 20, 1982 meeting received and discussed the attached memo dated April 16 , 1982. Items 1-19 have been discussed and in some cases investigated by City staff and/or Gary Eastlund on behalf of the ICC. As requested by City Council we have arrived at a consensus which is reflected in the amendments to the proposed Developer' s Agreement (attached with deletions and additions noted) . ICC Staff Consensus The following changes proposed in the April 16th memo have been incorporated/not incorporated in the proposed Developer' s Agree- ment : Items #1 , #2 , #3 without the clause about bonds provided by sub- contractors , #4 , #5a , #5b, #9 , #12 , #15 , #16 , #17 , #18 and #19 have been incorporated. Items #6 , #7 , #8 , #13 , #14 were not incorporated, that is no changes were made in the initial draft . Item #10 was simply a clarification and no changes were made and #11 has already been implemented. Additional Survey The only item for which an additional survey was conducted was item #17 , the item that would create a third payment method for industrial and commercial property that did not require the pay- ment of all assessments due upon the issuance of an occupancy permit . Nine cities were contacted and eight responded (Eden Prairie didn' t respond) . Chaska, Edina and Savage do not address the issue directly in their present developer' s agreements and have no recent experi- ence with commercial or industrial developers using the assess- ment or 429 option. Burnsville does not provide for the 429 option for commercial , industrial or residential developments , and they realize they are unique because of this practice . Mayor and City Council Page Two June 23 , 1982 Prior Lake and Minnetonka do not require that all assessments be paid for commercial , industrial or residential property when a building or occupancy permit is issued. Thus the assessment can be passed along to the new owner. Prior Lake ' s new developer' s agreement only spreadsthe assessments over five years ; however, assessments from City projects and older developer' s agreements usually run for 10 years . Maple Grove and Chanhassen do not require that all assessments be paid for by commercial , industrial or residential property when a building or occupancy permit is issued. However, they require that a letter of credit equalling 40% and 110% of the assessments be provided the City when the developer' s agreement is executed. Maple Grove said this same procedure was used by Plymouth. Chanhassen reduces the letter of credit as parcels are sold by the developer and developed based upon the theory that those parcels will pay their taxes and assessments and what the City is concerned about is unsold developer owned lots . Based upon discussions with Gary Eastlund and the survey results the staff is proposing that a third payment method be included for commercial industrial property similar to the Maple Grove, Plymouth and Chanhassen approach. Alternatives 1 . Council can approve the proposed amendments to the developer' s agreement . 2 . Council can direct staff to make additional changes to the proposed agreement . 3 . Council can keep the present agreement without making any of the proposed changes . Recommendation Staff and the ICC recommend alternative No. 1 . Action Requested Pass a motion accepting the Amended Developer ' s Agreement dated June 29 , 1982 as the standard agreement for the City of Shakopee . JKA/jms ‘7 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council je FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Developer' s Agreement - ICC Review DATE: April 16,,. 1982 Introduction The City held a meeting March 25 , 1982 with developers to receive their comments of the proposed changes in the City ' s developers agreement ( February 25 , 1981 draft ) . One developer attended , Gary Eastlund. Dick Wiggin also submitted some comments at an earlier meeting. City Council received comments from the above developers and staff at its regular April 6 , 1982 meeting as listed below, and they were forwarded to the ICC. Comments Listed in 3/31/81 Memo Comments 1 and 2 are from Mr. Wiggin , 3 - 9 are from Gary Eastlund , and the balance are from City staff : 1 . Page 9 - permits City to keep the extra 50% until all lots have paid assessment . Questions if legal. . Old agreement 50% kept only until 2/3 lots paid and then the 50% in fact took care of the balance and the agreement could then be released. Staff proposes that a paragraph VII ( F) be added which provides that the 10% deposit in Vii E ( 1 ) and the 50%, overage in VII E ( 2 ) , plus accumulated interest , shall he applied to pay the balance of assessments due once there is sufficient funds accumulated to do so. 2 . Page 8 and 9 - City may wish to chose the payment method rather than leave it up to the developer: a . If its a desirable development where all lots should go fast , 10% up front would be best . b. If there are undesirable lots which may not sell for a long time , or maybe never , 150% method would afford City best protection. 3 . Page 3 paragraph B - add a performance bond option with the City named on any bonds provided by subcontractor rather than the general contractor. 4 . Page 6 paragraph D - drop the "100%" petition, its confusing and may cause problems when an improvement benefits property adjacent to the development . 5 . a . Page 7 paragraph E( 1 ) - Use the 10% downpayment for the final assessment payments rather than holding it at 5% until all the assessments are paid and then returning it to the developer ( same as #1 above ) . Mayor and City Council Page Two , q" April 16 , 1982 b. Page 7 paragraph E( 1 ) - Can the 5% interest paid by the City be changed? 6. Page 7 - Will the City change its policy and allow the assessment to be passed pti to the new owner rather than it being paid at 100% or 150% before the occupancy permit is issued. 7 . Page 8 - Why 150%, why not 125% or some other number? 8 . Page 13 - who should sign the agreement? Should it be the fee owner , all mortgage companies and the developer? 9 . The developers agreement as written does not provide for indicat- ing which payment method is to be used . This needs to be added. 10 . In figuring park dedication, it is based on optimum development permitted by the subdivision ordinance , however, the proposed agreement allows for adjustment at time of issuance of building permit . 11 . Will the City permit the 150% assessment payment on older developers agreements to be changed from collection at the building permit to collection at the occupancy permit? Amend old agreements . 12 . Should the City include the requirement that electrical and gas utilities be included as a Plan A requirement in the developers agreement . Summary and Recommendation Prior to ICC Review I have checked with the cities of Edina and Bloomington about questions No. 1 , No. 5a , and No. 5b. Edina does not require the 10% downpayment or collect assessments on lots at a rate higher than 100%, therefore, they do not deal with interest on the downpayment . Edina only assesses for 3 years , however, rather than 10 or 15 years , Bloomington combines a 10% downpayment requirement with the collection of 125% of the assess- ment on each lot sold. The developers agreement states that the inter- est rateaid on the 10% and the accumulating 257, ( 1257, - 100%) is at a fixed 7Y%. However, Mr. Shuck, who handles developers agreements , says they pay the same interest that the City paid on its last bond issue . Bloomington allows the downpayment and 25% that is accumulating to be used to pay for the final balance on the assessments. Staff recommends that the changes proposed in items No. 1 , 2, 4, 5a, 8 , 9 , 10 and 11 above be incorporated in the proposed amendments to the developers agreement and that items No. 3 , 5b, 6 that are covered again below, & 7, & 12 be discussed before a recommendation is made. ICC Review & Comments Items discussed by the ICC that are listed above and which the ICC' s recommendation matches that already made have not been repeated. New and/or additional comments are listed below: Mayor and City Council Page Three ,- April 16 , 1982 13 . Page 3 paragraph B - can one letter of credit for a Plan 'A' improvement serve as the developer' s "line of credit" for the bank' s and the City' s 1.25% 'letter of credit" . Roc ';rass stated • that this may be in fact what the bank does if the same bank does both, however, the City needs the letter because if both were listed there is no way the City could be sure the money has not been all withdrawn even though all elements of the pro- .ject are not completed. 14 . Page 4 paragraph F ( 3 ) - why can ' t Lhe developer' s design engineer do the as builts to avoid having the City redo them. He could do them or we could include a clause stating that if he doesn ' t do them within 120 days af :er final payment the City will . However, since the City has the inspector on the job, the City is in the best position to do the as builts which primarily include noting ties for service locations , actual rock profiles , etc . The design engineer would have to have his own inspector on the job doing much the same thing the City inspector does for him to do the as builts . 15 . Page 1 paragraph I (A) - add to the end of the sentence. . . "approved plans on file at City Hall " . 16 . Paige 5 paragraph VII ( B ) - add . . . "provision of VII ( E) ( 1 ) and Vii E ( 2 )" . 17 . Pages 7 and 8 payment methods 1 and 2 - can a third payment method be added which would be better suited to platting of larger sub- divisions which was a goal of the committee amending the sub- division ordinance . The primary concern here was that neither method 1 or 2 allowed the assessment to be passed along to the new owner which was typical for commercial and industrial development and which is used by some communities for resi- dential developments . Staff proposes that a third payment method be offered, for commercial and industrial development only, similar to one being offered in Prior Lake . The third payment method would offer an option that included a downpnyment equal to 25% of the engineer ' s estimate of the project cost and a maximum of a 5 year limit on the special assessments . The shorter life of the bonds will mean lower interest costs for the City and thus the developer under our current 2% policy . 18 . Page 7 paragraph E ( 1 ) - can the 5% interest paid by the City be changed? Yes , it can be changed to some other fixed rate or, as staff proposes , it can be changed to "The cash so paid by the Developer to the City will bear interest for each year at a rate equal to one percent (17 ) below the average interest rate -(rounded- to the nearest quarter) on the investments held by E e City on December 31st of the respect ve year' _ • Mayor and City Council Page Four (q April 16 , 1982 19. Page 10 paragraph D - as in item 113 in the pre-ICC meeting list , the ICC questioned if a performance bond option might be added. Performance bonds are regularly used by cities ; however, the City Attorney has cautioned us that should the City have to use the performance bond it often requires time and money to collect it so it is not quite the tool the ether two options are. Recommendation for ICC Comments Staff recommends that changes 13 and 14 not be made for the reasons given and that changes 15-19 be made as proposed. Action Requested Direct staff to revise the February 25 , 1982 drift incorporating proposed changes #.1 -19 except #7 , #13 and #14 . JKA/jms Rev . 3/29/77 Rev , 4/6/77 DRAFT 6/29/82 Rev. 4/11f77 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Rev. 4/18/77 Rev. 6/1/79 SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA Rev . 9/10/80 DEVELOPER' S AGREEMENT COUNTY FILE NO. DATE : THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this day of 19 , by and between the City of Shakopee, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota , hereinafter called "City" and hereafter called "Developer" . WITNESSETH: WHEREAS , the Developer has made application to the City Council for approval of a plat of land within the corporate limits of the City described as follows : hereafter called the "Subdivision" ; and WHEREAS , the City Council , by resolution adopted has granted conditional approval to the Subdivision on the condi- tion that the Developer enter into this Agreement to provide for the installation of street , water , sewer and other improvements as described herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual promises and conditions hereinafter contained, it is hereby agreed as follows : I . Definitions The following improvements as used in this agreement shall have the meanings stated : (A) "Street Improvements" - subgrade preparation, perma- nent surfacing, right-of-way grading or berm con- struction, traffic signing , sidewalks , and all appurtenant facilities (as shown on the approved plans)- on file at City Hall ) . (B) "Sanitary Sewer Improvements" - sanitary sewers , lift stations and all other appurtenant sanitary sewer facilities . (C) "Storm Sewer Improvements" - storm sewers , inlets and all other appurtenant storm facilities . (D) "Watermain Improvements" - watermains , valves and all other appurtenant watermain facilities . -2- I ` ' (E) "Street Light Improvements" - street lighting includ- ing poles , crossarms , underground wiring transfcrmers , pedestals and any other necessary appurtenances . (F) "Other Public Utilities" - whenever electric or gas utilities are included in a subdivision plat they will be required as Plan A improvements to be satisfied when the City receives a copy of an executed contract between the Developer and the utility. II . Ownership 'Warranty of Develo er The Developer hereby warrants arid represents to thety as inducement to the City ' s . entering into this Agreement , that Developer ' s interest in the Subdivision is : Fee Owner Contract for Deed Purchaser Other _ ---- ( specify) If developer is a Contract for Deed Purchaser , indicate Fee Owner. III . Designation of Im rovements Improvements to be installed at Developer ' s expense y t e1SeveToper as provided herein are hereinafter referred to as "Plan A Improvements" . Improvements which the Developer has petitioned the City to install and finance on a cash and assessment basis are hereinafter referred to as "Plan B Improvements" . IV. Plan A Improvements The Developer will construct and install at Developer' s expense the following improvements under. Plan A according to the following terms and conditions and the General and Special Conditions attached hereto and made part of this Contract . Description of Improvement Location of Improvement A] B] C] D] E] F] V. Plan AA",..D,npvovemt s (A) Construction Plan and Approval Thereof The Developer will engage, at Devloper1s expene , a duly registered professional civil engineer authorized to practice within the State of Minnesota to prepare detailed plans , specifications , and a cost estimate for com- plete installation of all Plan A Improvement , in accordance with City Design Criteria and Standard Specifications and submit same to City Engineer (and Shakopee Public Utilities Manager , when re- quired) for written approval prior to commencement of construction. -3- (B) Developer The Developer shall submit to the City either cash, or upon written approval of the Shakopee City Attorney a certified letter of credit made pay- able to the City of Shakopee upon which the City may draw, or performance bond approved by the City Attorney, in the amount of I25% of the total project (as approved by the Shakopee City Engineer) including the costs of City inspection and administration, said cash or certified letter of credit to be submitted when this agreement is executed. The City is hereby authorized to draw against the said cash or certified letter of credit as provided in Paragraphs V (F) and VIII (D) . (C ) Completion of Street Light Improvements For purposes OT—releasing this developers agreement and issuing a certificate of occupancy ( conditional or permanent ) , the City shall consider the Street Light Improvements approved upon the developer entering into an agreement with Shakopee Public Utilities and paying any moneys required by the Utilities at that time . (D) Building Permits The City may issue building permits to en required-improvements are substantially complete , as determined by the City Engineer ; however , no per- _ _ manent certificate of occupancy shall be issued until all of the required improvements are completed and approved by the City Engineer , or until this agreement is replaced with a letter of understanding and a letter of credit in the amount of 125% of the City Engineer' s estimate of the cost of work remaining to be constructed as provided in VIII ( D) , which replacement shall be approved by the City Council . (E) Park Fund No building permit shall be issued for any Tot within the proposed subdivision until any and all payments to the Shakopee Park Fund in lieu of land dedication as provided in Paragraph IX have been made . (F) Administrative and Technical Costs The Developer agrees to pay the City the actual administrative and inspection cost of the project . An estimate of such costs will be prepared prior to starting this proposed construction, after acceptance of the project by the City , and in accordance with paragraph V ( B) above . The City shall bill the developer on a monthly basis for these costs and all such bills shall be due and payable within 30 days of their mailing, and if not paid for within such time by the Developer, the City is authorized to draw against the cash or certified letter of credit submitted in accordance with paragraph V (B) . Services to be performed by the City shall include , but not be limited to the following: 1 ) The City will review and approve plans and speci- fications perpared by Developer ' s engineer. -4- / 2 ) The City willprovide adequate inspection of all Plan A Improvements . 3 ) The City will prepare "As-Built" plans of Plan A Improvements . (G) Construction of Plan A Improvements 1 ) Construction The construction, installation, materials and equipment for street improvements , sanitary sewer improvements and storm sewer improvements shall conform to the approved plans and the City of Shakopee ' s Standard Specifications and for watermain and street light improvements shall conform to the Shakopee Public Utilities Standard Specifi- cations . 2 ) Easements The Developer shall make available to the City, at no cost to the City, all perma- nent or temporary easements necessary for the installation of said Plan A Improvements . 3 ) Insurance The Developer will cause each person with whom the Developer contracts for the con- struction of any Plan A Improvement to furnish to the City the Contractor ' s Insurance Certifi- cates as specified in Article 35 of the General Specifications of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications for Construction of Roadways , Sanitary Sewer. and Storm Sewer. No construction shall commence until the City Clerk receives said insurance certificates and said certificates are approved by the City Attorney. 4) Faithful Performance of Construction Contracts and Bond The Developer will fully and faith- fully comply with all terms of any and all contracts entered into by the Developer for the installation and construction of all Plan A Improvements and hereby guarantees the workman- ship and materials for a period of one ( 1 ) year following the City ' s final acceptance of the Plan A Improvements , said guarantee to be in writing and in addition to the Maintenance Bond required by Paragraph 8C. -5- �} VI . Plan B Improvements The Developer has petitioned the City for the Installation of Plan B. Improvements as listed. Description of improvement Location of Improvement A] B] C ] D] E] F] VII . Plan B Improvements Plan B Improvements shall be insti- tuted , constructedan�ic financed pursuant to M.S.A. 429 Improvement Projects as follows : (A) Construction Plan andel Approyal Thereof The City will engage a duly register—ed professional civil engineer authorized to practice within the State of Minnesota to prepare detailed plans , specifications , and a cost estimate for complete installation of all Plan B Improvements , in accordance with City Design Criteria anc. Standard Specifications and submit same to the Shakopee Public Utilities Manager, when required. (B) Initiation Prior to execution of this Agreement , the Developer shall submit to the City Council a Petition as provided for by M.S .A. 429.031 sub- division 3 , requesting that Plan B Improvements be made and assessed against the benefitted properties , and that he agrees to the provisions of VII (E) 1 ) herei.cr and VII (E) ( 2 ) herein. (C ) Construction Upon the City Council adopting a reso- lution determining the sufficiency of each petition, said Plan B Improvements ahll be administered and constructed , in all respects , as other City improve- ments made pursuant to the provisions of M.S .A. Chapter 429 and other applicable statutes . That is : 1 ) The City shall have sole responsibility for admin- istration of the project , 2 ) the City will not be responsible for meeting any completion dates scheduled by the Developer and shall not be responsible for any damages as a result of delays in the project , 3 ) the project administered by the City shall allow for any increase in project cost as permitted by M.S .A. 429 ( i . e . 125% of estimated costs ) , 4) the Developer and his engineer acknowledge that any changes or any additional work required shall be approved by the City . -6- l (D) MSA. 429 Special Assessment Procedures The Developer will be required to execute a 10670 Petition for the installation of all Plan B Improvements . If the City Council orders the installation of the petitioned for Plan B Improvements with the cost to be assessed against the benefited properties , the Developer agrees to pay such assessments on the fol- lowing terms and conditions : 1 ) Waiver of Objections To and Right of Appeal from Asessment The Developer agrees to, and hereby does , waive and release (a ) any and all objections of every kind to any assessment levied by the City pur- suant to this Agreement , including, without limitation, objections to procedures and hearings before the City Council in connection with the Improvements and assessment therefor, objections resulting from failure to fully comply with any applicable statute , and objections to the amount of any assessment thereafter levied against the Subdivision or any other benefited property of Developer due to the Improvements stated herein, and ( b) the right to appeal , pursuant to applicable Minnesota Statutes , from any assessment levied pursuant to this Agreement . it is understood by the developer that the City is doing this Chapter 429 Public Improvement at the developer' s request and for the developer ' s convenience, and the City would not be installing the improvements in ques- tion without this waiver. 2 ) Construction After approval of preliminary plans and estimates by the City Engineer , an improvement hearing will be called by the City Council for the purpose of ordering these Plan B Improvements . After approval of final plans and specifications by the City Engineer, bids will be taken by the City and con- tracts awarded for the installation of the improve- ments under the City ' s complete supervision. 3 ) Levy of Special Assessments and Required Prepayments The entire cost of the installation of Plan B Improvements , including any reasonable engineer- ing, legal and administrative costs incurred by the City, shall be paid by the Developer to the City as special assessments levied against the benefited land. Reference herein to special assessments shall be deemed to include , and shall include , all interest due thereon in accordance with M. S . A. 429 . 4 ) Acceleration Upon Default In the event Developer fails to pay any install- ment of any special assessment levied -7- r pursuant hereto, or any interest thereon, when the same is to be paid pursuant hereto, the City , at its option, in addition to its rights and remedies hereunder , by written notice given to Developer, may declare all of the unpaid special assessments which are then estimated or levied pursuant to this Agreement due and payable in full , with interest . The City, at its option, may demand immediate payment thereof and immediately commence legal action against Developer to collect the entire unpaid balance of the special assess- ments then estimated or levied pursuant hereto , with interest , including reasonable attorneys ' fees , and Developer shall be personally liable for such special assessments , and , if more than one , such liability shall be joint and several . ( E) Developer M. S .A. 429 Payment Methods Assessed or to be Assessed by the City The cost of Plan B Improve- ments shall be paid by the Developer in accordance with one of the two methods as set forth hereunder. The Developer hav}eg will indicate the preferred option thereef , but the City shall make the final selection of the appropriate payment option. 1 ) Developer Payment Method One ( 1 ) : Ten ( 10 ) Percent Cash Deposit The Developer shall pay to the City in cash a deposit in the sum and amount of 10% of the City Engineer' s estimated total assessment for all such Plan B Improvements , said amount to be paid upon execution of this agreement . The cash so paid by the Developer to the City will bear interest in-the-ameunt-a€-.5 -per-annu for each year at a rate equal to one percent ( 1%) below the average interest rate (rounded to the nearest quarter) on the investments held by the City on December 31st of the respective year until said deposit equals all remaining assessments se levied tegethev-w}th-any-penalties-and-Interest-lave-been pad-lay-f a3ll;-at-wkleh-time-the-depeslt-and-any aeerued-}eterest-shall-be- eturned-te-the-Develeper, against the benefited property then said deposit plus all accrued interest shall be used to pay the remainder of the assessments due . If the Developer fails to pay any assessments , interest or penalty as the same comes due , the City may draw on said deposit for any such amounts not paid. Those assessments as levied shall be paid by the Developer to the City as special assessments levied against the benefited land. On or before an occupancy permit ( conditional or permanent ) will be granted for any of said lots , pieces or parcels , the Developer hereby agrees to pay to the City the remaining principal balance , plus any unpaid interest and penalties , of all assess- -8- ments assessed or to be assessed under this agree- ment ( including assessments made prior to this /7 agreement ) against said lot , piece or parcel , the amount to be determined as of the date said occu- pancy permit (conditional or permanent ) is granted. If the assessments governed by this paragraph have not been assessed, the developer agrees to pay the estimated assessment to be levied against the benefited land. The developer shall be liable to the City for any deficiency which shall become due and payable at the time assessments are levied and the City shall pay to the developer any overplus arising from payment based on an estimate plus interest in-the-ameunt-a€-5%-peF annum for each year at a rate equal to one percent ( 1%) below the average interest rate (rounded to the nearest quarter? on the investments held by the City on December 31st of the respective year from date of payment to date of reimbursement . It is further agreed and understood that the payments required by obtaining an occupancy permit (conditional or permanent ) shall in no way limit or be used to offset the Developer ' s obligation to pay assessments as they come due for those lots for which obligation shall continue until such time as all assessments authorized herein have been paid in full . Upon the payment of the assessment on any lot , piece or parcel , the City shall issue a release in recordable form so as to remove the recording of this agreement as against that particular lot, piece or parcel on which such payment has been made , provided all other conditions of this agree- ment have been met . 2 ) Developer Payment Method Two ( 2 ) : No Cash Deposit With Accelerated Assessment Payments The cost shall be paid by the Developer to the City as special assessments levied against the benefited land. On or before a certificate of occupancy (conditional or permanent ) will be granted for any of said lots , the Developer hereby agrees to pay to the City a sum of money equal to 150% of the remaining principal balance , plus any unpaid interest and penalties , of all assessments governed by the this agreement plus assessments made prior to this agreement against said lot said amount to be determined as of the date the occupancy permit is granted. If the assessments governed by this paragraph have not been assessed, the developer agrees to pay 150% of the estimated assessment to be levied against the benefited land. The developer shall be liable to the City for any deficiency in the 150% which shall become due and payable at the time assessments are levied and the City shall pay to the developer any overplus arising from payment based on an estimate plus interest in-the-ameunt e€-5%-pe -annum for each year at a rate equal to one percent ( 1%) below the average interest rate (rounded to the nearest quarter) on the investments held by the City on December 31st of the respective year from date of payment to day of reimbursement . - i f, 9- The amount so paid in excess of the remaining principal balance ( the 50% overage) plus any unpaid interest and penalties against the lot on which the occupancy permit is granted shall be retained by the City as a deposit for payment of assessments against the remaining lots or parcels , and the amount so deposited shall bear interest at-the-rate-e€-V4-per-annum for each year at a rate equal to one percent ( 1%) below the average interest rate (rounded to the nearest quarter) on the investments held by the City on December 31st of the respective year until said deposit equals all remaining assessments levied against the benefited property shall-have-been paid-IR-€elI-aed-at-seek-t Rae-said then said deposits plus all accrued interest shall be returned-te-the-develeper used to pay the remainder of the assessments due . Any excess in deposits will be returned to the developer. If , however , the developer fails to pay any of the assessments , interest , or penalty as the same comes due , the City may draw on said deposit for any such amounts not paid . It is further agreed and under- stood that the payments required thereunder to obtain an occupancy permit hereunder shall in no way limit or be used to offset the Developer' s obligation to pay the assessments as they come due for those lots which have not been transferred or for which occupancy permits have not been obtained , which obligation shall continue until such time as all assessments authorized herein have been paid in full . Upon the payment of the assessment on any lot , the City shall issue a release in recordable form so as to remove the recording of this agreement as against the parti- cular lot , piece or parcel which such payment has been made , provided all conditions of this agree- ment have been met . 3) Commercial and Industrial Property Developer Payment Method Three ( 3) : Twenty-five ( 25) Percent Letter of Credit The Developer shall submit to the City, upon written approval of the City Attorney, a certified letter of credit made payable to the City of Shakopee uponwhich the City may draw, in the amount of 25% of the City Engineer' s estimated total assessment for all such Plan B Improvements , said letter of credit to be submitted upon execu- tion of this agreement . If the Developer fails to pay any assessments , interest or penalty as the same comes due , the City may draw on said letter -10- i`f of credit for any such amounts not paid. 'Those assessments as levied shall beaid by the Developer or a future lot , piece or parcel owner to the City as special assessments levied against the benefited land. The letter of credit shall be renewed annually. If not renewed, the City shall draw on all of the money in the existing letter of credit before it expires . The letter of credit shall be terminated upon payment of all assessments due on developer owned lots and may be reduced to equal the actual amount of assessments due when 757 or more of the assessments have beer, paid. (F) Payment Method Selected. Payment Method (G) 4-F4- Easements The Developer shall make available to the City, at no cost to the City, all permanent or temporary easements necessary for the installation of said Plan B Improvements . (H) 4-G)- Building Permits The City may issue building per- mits when required improvements are .ubstantially complete , as determined by the City Engineer. VIII . General (A) Violation of Provisions of A:reement In the event the developer violates any of the covenants and agreements herein contained and to be performed by the developer, the City has the option to commence an action for specific performance requiring the developer to five up to the covenants and agreements and the developer agrees that the City shall be entitled to its administrative costs , legal costs , and reasonable attorney ' s fees in connection with said action. ( B) BindingEffect The terms and provisions hereof shall be bining upon the inure to the benefit of the repre- sentatives , successors and assigns of the parties hereto and shall be binding upon all future owners of all or any part of the subdivision and shall be deemed covenants running with the land. Reference herein to Developer , if there be more than one , shall mean each and all of them. This Agreement shall be placed on record so as to give notice to subsequent purchasers and encumberances of all or any part of the subdivision and all recording fees shall be paid by the Developer. Upon the filing of a release from the City , all agreements contained herein shall there- after be inapplicable to any property covered by said release . (C) Notices Any notices permitted or required to be given or made pursuant to this Agreement shall be delivered personally or mailed by United States Mail to the ad- dresses hereinafter set forth by certified or registered -11- mail . Such notices , demand or payment shall be deemed timely given or made when delivered personally or when deposited in the United States Mail in accordance with the above . Addresses of the parties hereto are as follows : If to the City - City Administrator City Hall 129 East First Avenue Shakopee , MN 55379 If to the Developer - (D) Release of Developers Agreement Upon completion or partial completion of Plan A Improvements , the City may release all or a portion of the cash, er letter of credit or performance bond deposited under Paragraph V (B) , retaining 125% of the City Engineer' s estimate of the cost , including City inspection and administra- tion, to complete the improvements , provided however, that the Developer submit a Maintenance bond guaran- teeing said improvements for a period of one year after final acceptance by the City. Should the Developer fail or refuse to submit a Maintenance Bond as provided herein , the City may retain some or all of the cash or letter of credit as security for the one year written guarantee as provided in Paragraph V (G) (4) . Should the certified letter of credit be for such a period of time so as to preclude its use under this paragraph , the City is authorized to draw against such letter of credit at any time to complete said improvements or to make such repairs or additions as would be provided under the one year written guarantee when , in the judgment of the City, the City determines that the Developer is not going to complete such im- provements or make such repairs . -12- / ("/ ( E) Incorporation byReference All City of Shakopee Design Criteria , Standrd Specifications , including bonding provisions , the approved plans , addenda, change orders , special provisions , proposals , specifications and con- tract for the Improvements furnished and let pursuant to this Agreement shall be and hereby are made part of this Agreement by reference as fully as if set out herein in full . ( F) Changes from Plan A Improv^:^.2nts to Plan B Improvements -a-TO - prom Plan B Improvements to Plan A Improvements It is agreed and understood that the Developer, at its option, is authorized to enter into this Agreement providing for some Plan A Improvements and some Plan B Improvements . At such time as the Developer may choose after the execution of this Agreement , the Developer may, in writing, request that some or all of the improvements originally designated as Plan A Improve- ment be changed to Plan B Improvements . The City in its sole and absolute discretion may enter into a 'Plan A to Plan B Change Agreement ' which shall be recorded. It is specifically agreed and understood, however, that no changes made in accordance with this paragraph will in any way reduce , lessen , obviate or cancel in any way, manner or form the provisions or requirements of this Agreement respecting improvements under Plan A made prior to such change. In the event the Developer wishes to change some or all of Plan B Improvements to Plan A Improvements , then it shall apply in writing to the City for such changes and the City in its sole and absolute discretion may enter into a ' Plan B to Plan A Change Agreement ' which shall be recorded. IX. Payments to the Park Fund in Lieu of Land Dedication In accordance with the authority provided by the Shakopee City Code , Section 12 .061 , the Developer and the City hereby acknowledge that there is due and payable to the City under the terms of said Section by the Developer, the sum and amount of $ which amount was payable at the time of final approval of the Subdivision, and payment of which the Developer has requested defer- ment until the issuance of building permits for the lots in said Subdivision. Therefore , the City agrees to accept payment of said amount on a per lot basis at the time of the issuance of the building permit therefore , as follows : Lots $ for each lot . s Lots $ for each lot. Lots $ for each lot. (A) The Developer hereby agrees that the amounts set forth above shall constitute a lien against said lots , which lien must be released in writing by the City prior to the issuance of any building permit on said lot. -13- (B ) The Developer agrees that under no circumstances will the amounts set forth above be paid any later than the 1st day of , 19 when the entire unpaid amount shall be due and payable immediately. (C) The Developer hereby authorizes the City to fore- close the lien herein created should the Developer, its heirs , assigns or successors in interest fail to make payments required hereunder, and does agree that in addition to any amounts foreclosed, the City shall be entitled to its administrative costs , legal costs , and reasonable attorneys fees in con- nection with said foreclosure . (D) The Developer hereby understands and agrees that should the ultimate density used for such a lot be greater other than the density originally presumed to determine the amount to be paid, said amount will be recomputed based on the actual density, and said amount will be paid at the time of build- ing permit issuance . -14- 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and Developer have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on the day and year first above written. In Presence Of : CITY OF SHAKOPEE By Mayor By City Administrator By City Clerk In Presence Of : DEVELOPER By Its and By Its In Presence Of : FEE OWNER, if other than Devr2lopa-,1 By Its and By Its -15- STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss COUNTY OF SCOTT On this day of , 19 , before me a Notary Public , within and for said County personally appeared , and to me personally known, being each by me duly sworn, did say that they are respectively the the and the of the ity o a opee, t e municipal corporation named in the tore- going instrument ; and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City Council and , and acknowledged said instrument to be the Tree act and deed of said municipal corporation. (CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT) STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss COUNTY OF SCOTT On this day of , 19 , before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared and to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn, did say that they were respectively the and the of of the corporation named in the foregoing instrument , and that the seal affixed to said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors and said and acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. (CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF SCOTT On this day of , 19 , before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared and _ to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn, did day that they were respectively the and the of of the corporation named in the foregoing instrument , and that the seal affixed to said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporalion by autherILy of its Board or Directors and said and acknowledged said instrument to be the fee act and deed of said corporation.