The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/28/1984 TENTATIVE AGENDA ADJ . REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 28, 1984 Mayor Reinke presiding 11 Roll Call at 7 : 00 p .m. 21 Recess for H. R. A. Meeting 31 Reconvene 41 RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 51 Approval of Consent Business - (All items listed with an asterick are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests , in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. ) 61 Communications : None 71 Public Hearings : a ] 8: 00 p.m. - Continuation of Public Hearing on $600 ,000 Commercial Revenue Note Application from Shakopee 84 Partnership 81 Boards and Commissions: None 91 Reports from Staff: a] Issuance of Tax Increment Bonds for On-Site Improvements to the Race Track Site b] Nomination to Planning Commission (bring item 11j from 8/7) c] Appointment of Citizen to Serve on Scott County ' s Criminal Justice Advisory Committee (bring item 11k from 8/7) d] On Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses - Limited Number (bring item 11n from 8/21 ) e] Nominees from 3rd Commission District to Scott County Study Commission (bring item 13b from 8/21 ) f] Guard Rails for City Streets (bring item 11j from 8/21 ) g] Downtown Revitalization Report (bring item 10h from 8/21 ) #h] Probation Termination i ] Tahpah Park Utility Improvements - report from City Engineer on table j ] Stop Work Order on Curb Replacement at 980 East View Circle (memo on table) k] 1985 Proposed Budget 11 Six Year Capital Improvement Plan - bring CIP copy 101 Resolutions and Ordinances : None 111 Other Business : a] Adjourn to Executive Session to discuss 84/85 Police Labor Negotiations - memo to be provided at executive session b] 121 Adjourn John K. Anderson City Administrator F7 11 S'PRINGSTED - VAPUBLIC FINANCE ADVISORS V11 r 1.1r- Z5l•"1AKOPrU n -Site Improvements to the Race i the race track total financing ave gained a general impression gess of arranging for all of the ing completed without your full •e, we wish to bring the above ve sufficient early warning that :ompleting this part of the total s assuming they will manage and issue, and have set a meeting for inning work on the program. The and the actual marketing, would ,740,000 (estimated amount) tax nd the outstanding K -Mart issue. open to you. )r financial advisor our fee for the same regardless of the option Ns listing of options is done with e options, other than the method > you are shown below, without ie bonds through negotiation with view of competitive proposals. ix increment bonds with a public, innesota 55102 (612) 222-4241 Wisconsin 53005 (414) 782-8222 AUG 2 4 1984 23 August 1984 Mr. Eldon Reinke, Mayor Members, City Council Mr. John Anderson, Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East I st Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 RE: Issuance of Tax Increment Bonds for Track Site While we have been involved extensively it package for only a short period of time, I h some of you feel that the complicated pro( financial commitments you have made is be awareness and/or initial consent. Therefor referenced issue to your attention so you ha there are some options available to you in < financial program. Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Incorporated i underwrite this approximately $7 million plus Wednesday, August 29, for the purpose of beg process of readying the bonds for marketing, then be done in the some manner as the $3 increment revenue bond issue required to refu That method of sale is only one of five options At the outset you should know that as yoL involvement in this issue is going to be about listed hereafter you might select. As a result 1 as much objectivity as possible. The alternat assumed by Miller & Schroeder, available tc , , n,-_eC,A n,S tr3 I. Issuance of tax increment reven( an underwriter, selected after re 2. Issuance of general obligation competitive sale. 800 Osborn Building, Saint Paul, Mi 250 North Sunnyslope Road, Brookfield, City of Shakopee, Minnesota 23 August 1984 Page 3 approximately twice as large as the refunding issue, so the interest savings between a general obligation and revenue issue will be greater than this comparison. You should be aware that while the K -Mart refunding bonds could be issued now as general obligations at a reduced cost, it does not dictate any change in the current concept of issuing revenue bonds for that purpose. Because of the vagaries of federal arbitrage regulations which affect advance refunding bonds, if you received a lower interest rate on the refunding issue much of the savings would be eliminated or lost by having to increase the size of the issue to offset the lower permitted reinvestment rate in the escrow account. A reduction in that reinvestment rate creates a need for a larger initial deposit to guarantee sufficient cash flow to pay debt service on the refunded bonds. Reduced interest cost in the new money race track issue would have one of two direct positive impacts. It would either reduce the required time that the tax increment would have to be tied up and pledged for bond payments, or it would increase the total debt capacity which could be supported by the available increment. The second advantage to general obligation sales is reduced issuance costs. As a means for comparison we have shown below the estimated issuance cost developed by Miller & Schroeder for the K -Mart refunding program, and our estimate of those some costs if that issue were sold on a general obligation basis. (1) Since the City will pay only costs actually billed, and since no one can estimate these costs precisely, we have used the some estimate as Miller & Schroeder used for the revenue bonds. (2) Estimate by Springsted Incorporated. No provision was made by Miller & Schroeder for this expense, but equity in a comparison dictates we include it Revenue General Obligation Bonds Bonds Bond Counsel $ 20,000 $ 5,000 Underwriter's Counsel 20,000 0 City's Counsel 5,000 5,000 Official Statement Printing 4,500 1,500 Bond Printing 3,000(1) 3,0000) Rating Agency 4,200 3,000 Accountant's Verification 2,8000) 2,8000) Escrow Agent Fees 3,000(1) 3,000(1) Publication of Notices 1,000 200 Miscellaneous Expenses 1,500 500 Fiscal Advisory Services 10,000(2) 25,350 Discount 93,500 74,800 Total $168,500 $124,150 (1) Since the City will pay only costs actually billed, and since no one can estimate these costs precisely, we have used the some estimate as Miller & Schroeder used for the revenue bonds. (2) Estimate by Springsted Incorporated. No provision was made by Miller & Schroeder for this expense, but equity in a comparison dictates we include it City of Shakopee, Minnesota 23 August 1984 Page 4 even though it may be billed later. It would be advantageous to include a provision in the refunding for our fees since it would be largely recoverable through earnings in the escrow account, whereas if the City pays it separately from some other issue it will cost the City on a net dollar for dollar basis. A third advantage with general obligation bonds would be a reduction in the number of bonds which would have to be issued since no reserve would be required. However, in our view this does not represent a significant advantage since the reserve, if not used, should be invested at or near the interest rate required on those bonds issued for that purpose, thus providing an offsetting income. There are several potential disadvantages to a general obligation sale. One of those would be the potential liability to levy taxes to support the debt service in the event of a shortfall in tax increment income. However, the some revenues available to pay revenue bond debt are available to pay the reduced level of required general obligation debt, and if anyone is apprehensive about the adequacy of the revenues to support general obligation debt, I suggest you should not be issuing the number of revenue bonds now being contemplated. A second potential disadvantage is the impact of general obligation bonds on the City's general obligation bond rating. Some will indicate concern about the additional debt adversely affecting the rating. However, I can assure you in our opinion it would not cause any rating reduction, and it would be a limited factor, if a factor at all, in the rating agency's analysis of your request for an upgrading of a rating beyond the current "A" level. If you should issue the bonds and not be upgraded, it will not be because of this issue, but because of those some factors we have discussed with you previously. issuan�ov i'ax mzrem�rTrrtLver�uencirfdst�YrvrSirci t3rY� i�rivC Win --i:l .-_ c,,_ There are two apparent advantages to public sale versus a private negotiated sale of revenue bonds. The first advantage is reduced issuance costs. In an effort to provide a valid comparison we have again shown below the Miller & Schroeder estimate of issuance costs for the $3,740,000 K -Mart refunding, and have also shown the verifiable actual issuance costs incurred in a sale of $3,435,000 of utility revenue refunding bonds we recently sold for the City of Billings, Montana. You will note the primary reductions in cost relate to legal expenses and required discount. City of Shakopee, Minnesota 23 August 1984 Page 5 K -Mart Refunding Bond Counsel $ 20,000 Underwriter's Counsel 20,000 City's Counsel 5,000 Offering Statement Printing 4,500 Bond Printing 3,000 Rating Agency Fee 4,200 Accountant's Verification 2,800 Escrow Agent Fees 3,000 Publications and Notices 1,000 Miscellaneous Expenses 1,500 Fiscal Advisory Services 10,000 Discount 93.500 Billings Refunding $ 5,000 0 0 1,102 1,400 3,000 2,500 2,750 1,892 175 25,560 58,194(1) $101,573 (1) Discount converted to an equivalent issuance size of $3,740,000. Actual discount taken was $15.56 per bond. A second advantage to a public, competitive sale is the certainty that on the day of sale you have received the best offer available for the issue. This certainty results from having a number of firms competitively price the issue based on their perception of the market on that day and the marketability of the bonds. In a private, negotiated sale you have in essence one firm's perception of the market and the issue. This will not necessarily guarantee a lower interest rate on the bonds, but as City Council members, you may feel more comfortable with the knowledge that the results were obtained through competition. There is also a potential disadvantage in this method of sale. A private, negotiated sale may permit readying bonds for market but delaying the actual sale of bonds, depending upon market conditions. Some would argue that this flexibility will permit the sale of bonds within a short time frame in a better market, whereas with a public, competitive sale you must establish a sale date three to four weeks in advance, becoming locked in to that date even if the market is rising. This alleged inflexibility with a public sale has been mitigated in large part by 1984 changes in State law which now permits the City to indicate its intent to issue a maximum amount of bonds within a 45 -day period, and then provide four working day notification to interested underwriters that the bonds will be sold on a specific day and time. Therefore the time required to pick a specific public sale date has been effectively cut from three to four weeks to four to seven days. Private Negotiated Sale With the City Retaining the Management of the Project Under this option the City, through Springsted Incorporated, would manage the issue. Management would include such responsibilities as establishing the structure of the issue, applying for and doing related work to permit the City of Shakopee, Minnesota 23 August 1984 Page 6 assignment of the rating, drafting of preliminary official statements, scheduling the events leading up to the sale of bonds, selection of a registrar, arranging for the printing of the bonds, and being responsible for the details of settlement. Miller & Schroeder, under this scenario, would purchase the bonds through a negotiated sale at a discount price reduced by the savings in their management costs. The primary advantage to this concept is the retention of full control of the issue by the City rather than by the underwriter, without any significant net increase in costs. As indicated, we do not have a strong preference for the option you might select, but we do feel you should make that decision and not let this matter drift until it is too late to permit optional decisions. We do think you must make this decision at a very early date if the total schedule of financing is to be met as required by the development agreement. We will be available to discuss this matter at your convenience. V incerely yours, Robert D. Pulscher /kup cc: Mr. Rod Krass, City Attorney Mr. James Casserly - Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director RE: Probation Termination DATE: August 24, 1984 Introduction & Back round: Toni Warhol was hired as Community Development Secretary February 8, 1984. She has performed in a commendable manner and I recommend that her probation be terminated effective August 8, 1984. Alternatives: 1. Continue probation 2. Terminate employee 3. Terminate probation Recommendation: Alternative No. 3 Action Requested: Move to terminate the probationary status of Toni Warhol effective August 8, 1984. INCORPORATED 1870 * ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 129 E. 1st Avenue - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 TO: John K. Anderson, City Admin: FROM: H. R. Spurrier, City Engineer SUBJECT: Tahpah Park Sewer and Water DATE: August 28, 1984 q'4 D Thursday, August 16, 1984, I was asked to have my staff check the water supply to Tahpah Park to determine whether all of the valves were open and whether the system was fully func- tional. unc- tional. I customarily double check the design file in order to determine what the operating conditions are supposed to be and in that process immediately discovered that I had failed to catch an error in sizing the water supply line. My failure to catch this error resulted in undersizing the supply line so that the facility c 'L -%+a 1 d "c�t w'or'k a�5 I immediately_ looked for some alternative supp_Iv_ to the facil- ity. These alternatives consisted of line replacement or alter- nate supply. The existing line will supply approximately 30 gallons per minute to the facility. The facility needs 65 gallons per minute. That 65 gallons a minute is an instantaneous demand because the average demand will fall below 30 gallons per minute In order to make the difference I concentrated on an alternative supply and found that by adding a pressure tank the missing flow can be made up. The pressure tank would have to be fabricated for this facil- ity. It would cost approximately $1,100-00 plus installation costs which would add at least $1,000.00 more, for a total estimated cost of $2,200.00. I can place the blame for this error on no one but myself be- cause I failed to see the error and I should have seen it in checking the size calculations. John K. Anderson 2 August 28, 1984 It is my recommendation that City Council authorize staff to proceed with the preparation of a Change Order to provide for the installation of a 350 gallon pressure tank for the Tahpah Park Sewer and Water System, the Change Order in an amount of approximately $2,200.00. ACTION REQUESTED: * motion authorizing staff to undertake negotiations with T * S Excavating for a Change Order for the installation of a pressure tank for the Tahpah Park Sewer and Water System, in an amount of approximately $2,200.00. 0 1 M �„'! fi ♦ S 40 `moi Y TlA hf � s 41 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson , City Admin. r FROM: Judith S . Cox , City Clerk Ri : "On Sale" Intoxicating Liquor Licenses - Limited Number- . DATE: August 17 , 1984 INTRODUCTION : On July 17th Council directed staff to prepare necessary information on methods and time table involved for increasing the number of "On Sale" liquor licenses in Shakopee . BACKGROUND: State law sets , by population , the number of "On Sale" intoxicating liquor licenses a municipality may issue . The law also permits the voters to approve , by ballot , an additional number , or they may approve taking the lid off entirely. Shakopee is a City of the fourth class with a population under 10,000 with the ability to issue seven "On Sale" licenses . When Eagle Creek was annexed , we were able to issue eight be- cause` the license issued in Eagle Creek was in addition to Shakopee ' s seven . When the license in Eagle Creek was not re- newed , we lost that additional license . A number of year ' s ago , the voters did approve the City issuing two licenses in addition to the number set by State statute . The City has now issued nine "On Sale" liquor licenses . If the City wishes to take to the voters in a special election the question of issuing more then two additional licenses , it would be economically desireable to do so in con- junction with another election, such as November 6 , 1984 or November, 1985 . Upon checking with the League of Minnesota Cities , the law does not provide for language on the ballot limiting to whom the additional license ( s ) would be issued . Any Resolution Council may adopt limiting to whom additional licenses would be issued would not be binding upon future Councils . No one has a right to a liquor license . Liquor licenses have been deemed to be a privilege , not a right . However , denial of a license should not be arbitrary and capricious . The League also suggested not taking the ceiling off entirely. If you increase your limit to two at a time , you have some control . If you put a question on the ballot eliminating a maximum number altogether , you lose a lot of control- . 19 Tolt Free Mie lesota (800) 862-6002 Toll Free Other States (800) 328-6122 Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. Northwestern Financial Center, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 • (612) 831-1500 August 28, 1984 Mr. Eldon Reinke, Mayor Members, City Council Mr. John Anderson, Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Issuance of Tax Increment Revenue Bonds for On -Site Improvements to the Race Track Site As you know, we have been personally involved in the City's general development program for the last three years. We believe the financing approach taken by the City, designed by us and other personnel at O'Connor & Hannan, was an important contributing factor in Shakopee being designated as the Race Track Site. The issues that had to be addressed were and still are exceedingly complex. One direction the City has taken is to make the developer as responsible as possible for the success or failure of a specific project. To this end, we suggested that the City issue tax increment revenue bonds which clearly allocates that risk. On April 27, 1984, we submitted a proposal to the City to have Miller & Schroeder perform these functions (a copy of my letter is attached). On May 2, 1984, we received a letter from the City indicating the council voted unanimously to authorize Miller & Schroeder to proceed (a copy of the City's letter is attached). With the assurances contained in the May 2 letter, Miller & Schroeder has worked diligently throughout the summer to meet the City's goals. The efforts expended by personnel at Miller & Schroeder have been tremendous. A sampling of the issues we hpve had to address are as follows: 1. Restructuring of the Development Agreement to allow for the proposed syndication by Minnesota Race Track, Inc. This involved multiple meetings and conferences. 2. Review of the Mortgage and Security Agreement, Promissory Note, Subordination Agreement, Intercreditor Agreement, and accompanying resolutions. Headquarters: Minneapolis, Minnesota Branch Offices: Downtown Minneapolis • Solana Beach, Califomia • Northbrook. Illinois • St. Paul, Minnesota • Naples. Florida • Tallahassee, Florida • Carson City, Nevada August 28, 1984 Page Two 3. A complete financial analysis indicating the City's exposure to the Amended Development Agreement. 4. Two trips to New York to consult with various insurance companies and Moody's regarding security enhancement devices and potential ratings. 5. Review of documents involved in the refunding and participation in the development of model documents for the on site tax increment revenue bond (the documentation has been extremely time consuming because to the best of our knowledge, this is the first refunding in the State of Minnesota of a tax increment revenue bond). 6. Resolution of an extremely serious problem with the investment of funds in the K -Mart bond issue. The trustee had invested funds to mature at inappropriate times; for example, the funds in the reserve account which are supposed to be invested so that they are readily available in the event of a default were invested for 15 years. Thus when the K -Mart bonds would be defeased, the various securities would be sold at a loss of approximately $80,000. With a number of conferences and with help from both bond counsel and underwriter counsel, the matter was resolved to the City's benefit. 7. A number of conferences regarding the issue of the impact of fiscal disparities on the K -Mart Tax Increment District. Underwriter counsel is acting as special tax counsel for this issue and will be rendering an opinion. 8. Preparation of multiple analyses using different assumptions. Attached you will find one such analysis that we did at the request of Moody's which shows the increment in the K -Mart District increasing at one percent per year. 9. Conferences with the County Assessor regarding the K -Mart law suit. 10. Detailed explanations of the City's changing mill rates. All of this work has been done in the anticipation of issuing revenue bonds. Much of the work would be necessary no matter what kind of bond was issued. Finally, we must add a personal note. We met with representatives of Springsted, Incorporated to review the tax increment revenues and the refunding bond issue. We were most clear that we were using the most conservative and worst possible case scenarios. Our worst case projections were then used as an illustration by Springsted of the typical differences between issuing a revenue bond and a general obigation bond. To say this is unfair is an.understatement. Two points are illustrative: August 28, 1984 Page Three 1. Springsted indicated that the general obligation schedule would produce a t1total estimated savings of $416,246 when compared with the 1CVUO L& j Z1'e l,Ul ~1 CIILly Ul Cn-g USed." iWie dTE- -p7ese-ritly negotiating with a purchaser in which the total debt service on the bonds would be $6,256,218, which is a $437,000 savings over our worst case scenario land incidently, a net savings of $21,000 by using revenue bonds instead of general obligation bonds according to the Springsted schedule). 2. The issuance costs are maximum issuance costs. Under normal circumstances, you would rarely have $45,000 in legal fees. As indicated above, the various legal counsels have been performing a number of functions only incidentally related to the bond issue. Total legal expenses would customarily be in the range of $30,00 to $35,000 for a $3.5 million revenue bond issue. Furthermore, in a revenue bond issue, you have no need for fiscal advisory services, so there is an obvious $10,000 savings. The real comparison of issuance costs would put the revenue bonds at approximately $140,000 to $145,000 This memo has become much longer than I anticipated. At Miller & Schroeder, we have spent hundreds of hours working on the various problems related to these two bond issues. During this time, I knew the City was being lobbied and harassed from every side. I did not think that the City would want to know about every legal and fiscal problem we were encountering. Communication is obviously the key to good relations. We have helped the City embark on a very innovative development program. We are not here for the short term, and we certainly want to participate in the City's programs for many years to come. Thank you for taking the time to review this memo. We will do everything possible to make your projects as successful as you intend them to be. Very truly yours, JJ LLER & SCHROEDER MUNI ALS, INC. 7sR. IQ. Casserlyesident X Richard R. Graves Vice Presdient /njf Enclosures cc: Rod Krass Robert D. Pulscher Toll Free Minnesota (800) 862-6002 Toll Free Other States (800) 328-6122 Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. Northwestern Financial Center, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 • (612) 831-1500 April 27, 1984 Mr. John Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee City Hall 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Services to be Performed by Miller & Schroeder Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1 Dear Mr. Anderson: INTRODUCTION The City of Shakopee has now been designated as the site for a horse racing facility and, in anticipation of that project and other projects, approved expansion of an existing project area now known Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1. Additionally the City gave concept approval to Tax Increment District No. 4. The City has also examined the availability of increments for authorized project expenses from the "K -Mart" tax increment district. Finally, the City has entered into a Contract For Private Development with Minnesota Racetrack, Inc. The City has explored the option of issuing tax increment revenue bonds, which are not backed by the full faith and credit of the City, to finance the improvements necessitated by the racetrack and related developments. In addition to not absorbing the City's debt capacity, the revenue bonds being proposed may have a higher bond rating and a lower interest rate than the City's general obligation bonds. Finally, using a revenue bond approach puts the responsibility for the -success of the project clearly on the developer, who should be the party assuming the greatest risk. SCOPE OF SERVICES To proceed as rapidly as possible, the City should retain Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. to design, structure, and purchase the revenue bonds if the City so chooses to issue them. Once Miller & Schroeder is authorized to proceed, they will do the following: Headquarters: Minneapolis, Minnesota Branch Offices: Downtown Minneapolis • Solana Beach, California • Northbrook, Illinois • St. Paul, Minnesota • Naples. Florida • Carson City, Nevada Mr. John Anderson April 27, 1984 Page Two 1. Analyze the number and size of revenue bond issues that will be needed to accomplish the stated objectives of the redevelopment and tax increment plans. We will analyze whether the bonds should be short term or long term; whether a single issue should be done immediately and then rolled over into a larger issue this fall; whether an advance refunding should be a separate issue or part of a larger issue. 2. Prepare disclosure documents "the preliminary and final official statements" for the benefit of potential and actual purchasers of the bonds as required by federal and state securities laws. 3. Obtain the highest possible rating on the bonds from Standard and Poor's Corporation. A "AAA" rating, the highest possible, will be our objective. 4. Work with an insurance company, probably St. Paul Fire and Marine, to insure the bonds and secure the highest possible rating. 5. Work with the City's bond counsel, O'Connor and Hannan, in the preparation of all documents relating to the bonds and the project. 6. Register the offer and sale of the bonds (or obtain exemptions from registration requirements) in those states in which the bonds are proposed to be offered for sale and sold. 7. Work with bond counsel and City staff to amend the "K -Mart" tax increment district so that the available increments can be utilized for authorized project costs. 8. Partition the parcels in Tax Increment District No. 4 so that there is no overlap of parcels between the adjacent tax increment districts. 9. Work with bond counsel and City staff to complete the negotiations of the security agreements with Minnesota Racetrack, Inc. The security provisions must be in order and acceptable to the City before the City should proceed. This negotiation process should be initiated immediately. 10. Work with the City's financial consultant, Springstead, Inc. Any general obligation bonds will be the responsiblity of Springstead, and Miller & Schroeder will assist in every way possible, including providing any analysis and financial data that they have prepared for the revenue bond financings. Mr. John Anderson April 27, 1984 Page Three FEES The fees for Miller & Schroeder to act as underwriter with respect to the revenue bonds is proposed to be three percent of the principal amount of the bonds. This fee includes providing all of the services listed above. If the City does not authorize the issuance of the bonds, or the City issues general obligation bonds rather than revenue bonds, then no fee will be owing to Miller & Schroeder. If Miller & Schroeder wishes to retain an underwriter's legal counsel, then Miller & Schroeder shall be eg-! s V L . --�:� �,.� U��k �-ounsi-�; whether or not the revenue bonds are issued. All other costs of issuance, :i-nd ► ud o ng `oora counsel -fees, city 'attorney -tees, priniz ncq pXt.Pn.s.?s., fi.n.�nri.�i. c_t-.n.-,0.tant fear_., surety fees., rating agency fees, trustee and paying agent fees, registration and filing fees, will be paid from an initial disbursement of the proceeds of the bonds. DESIGNATED PERSONNEL A number of people from Miller & Schroeder will be working to accomplish the services outlined above. Jim Casserly has been designated by Miller & Schroeder as its principal contact person with the City, and he will participate in the coordination and delivery of all services. Mr. Casserly will also be involved in all negotiations with Minnesota Race- track and will, at the City's direction, act as liaison with the appro- priate parties. Other employees of Miller & Schroeder who will be involved in the project include: Steven Emerson, George McMahon, Jeffrey Molde, Tim Long, Paul Ekholm, and Richard Graves. CONTINUING RELATIONSHIP In addition to acting as underwriter for the proposed revenue bonds, Miller & Schroeder wishes to be designated as the managing underwriter for the City's Redevelopment Project No. I. In addition to providing all of the above services, Miller & Schroeder will specifically provide the services of Jim Casserly and Dick Graves for any project or program analysis. Miller & Schroeder will provide the City with any financial „ „ runs it makes to determine the amount of public investment and the feasibility of a project or program. There will be no fee for this service, but the City will recommend usin-g Miller & Schroeder as the underwriter for revenue bonds in the project area. AUTHORIZATION AND CANCELLATION This agreement can be revoked by either party for any reason with a 30 day written notice. In order for Miller & Schroeder to commence, they should have a letter of authorization from the City simply stating the following: 1. Miller & Schroeder is the managing underwriter for Redevelopment Project No. 1; Mr. John Anderson April 27, 1984 Page Four 2. Miller & Schroeder should proceed immediatley to perform the services outlined and for the fees described in the Letter of April 27, 1984. CONCLUSION Miller & Schroeder is extremely pleased to be able to play a supporting role in the City's development. We look forward to a very satisfactory relationship. Very truly yours, MILLER & SCHROEDER MUNICI ALS, INC. J 'mes R. Casserl y �J ce President JRCInf CITY OF SHAKOPEE INCORPORATED 1870 129 E. First Ave. - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 •B�o ti t May 2, 1984 Mr. Jim Casserly, VP Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. Northwestern Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55431 Re: Services to be Performed by Miller & Schroeder Minnesota River Valley Housing & Re- development Project No. 1. Dear Mr. Casserly: The Shakopee City Council, at its regular May 1, 1984 meeting, voted unanimously to authorize Miller and Schroeder to proceed immediately to perform the services outlined in your letter of April 27, 1984 for the refinancing of tax in- crement District No. 1 and the packaging of the financing for tax increment District No. 4. The fee for the services pro- vided by Miller and Schroeder for these two tax increment projects in the Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment project No. 1, is subject to the City being able to negotiate a preliminary bond purchase agreement with Miller and Schroeder which will set forth the fee to be paid. Thank you for your patience and cooperation in getting these two projects moving. As you know, we have a critical timeline on these projects and I appreciate your willingness to get started by taking the "bull by the horns". We need to schedule a meeting before Wednesday of next week with Rod Krass, Bob Pulschar and other key people if you feel Council needs to take any formal action at its May 15, 1984 meeting. If there is nothing pressing; -Council's next regular meeting would be June 5th with the possibility of a meeting May 22nd, which is being set aside for a Council work session. If you have any questions regarding Council's action, please contact me. S'nceely, on Ai ers�on JKA/bn City Administrator cc: Rod Kra Bob Pulsc Ar 1I`'�: rl o Progress 'acu (Irpoa 1Invl and .- . uj -+ -+ . M r-, u1 h 00 N N M "D u1 O Q ¢ ON O O - -t O\ R — j' 00 00 �,D a 00 :D ml u1 f\ O -+ u-� h o0 00 — u1 0o O ZLLI %4 ON O O O O O O -+ — •-y N N N Z> --� --+ N (-4 N N N N N N N N N N U LL) F- # r Z � 00 M sD O ND 00 -Zi' -,It to -t f� u1 L] > Ltj -+ u1 N u1 u1 O N u1 # ul O N O O N X:E ul N u1 eD N f� u1 u1 -+ N u'� M %D "D 00 u1 O - + M -t ON N h h u1 ON .D `,D N M � O u\ M 00 .D o0 N fi N 00 M O N V% u1 a u1 tiD -t v1 00 ON M -t V a' — N N ^+ --+ 00 -+ N LL) Z T d -t Z --� -r .--� f,- O aN � 00 O\ N N O N M O N N -t -J' Le% u, ND 00 O\ O O M Z°� Z:DVIN -t -t -r -+ -t +'.t --t -t --t --t u'\ u1 O\ U_ M uj -+ -+ . M r-, u1 h 00 N N M "D u1 O Q ¢ ON O O - -t O\ R — j' 00 00 �,D a 00 :D ml u1 f\ O -+ u-� h o0 00 — u1 0o O ZLLI %4 ON O O O O O O -+ — •-y N N N Z> --� --+ N (-4 N N N N N N N N N N U LL) F- # Z � 00 M sD O ND 00 -Zi' -,It to -t f� u1 L] > Ltj -+ u1 N u1 u1 O N u1 O ul O N O O N X:E ul N u1 eD N f� u1 u1 -+ N u'� N u1 00 O u1 i. V) cc Q LL] !D •-+ C\ M -+ 00 ON M ID f, ••-e -:1, Oo v Z) O M oo N f� \D 00 M — �D � 61'1 f\ O U %�D N N N '-' -+ — N N ^+ --+ 00 -+ N LL) Z T d -t -t � � -t � 4t -t 4t -:t 4t cc Li] � Q uj U_ M LLI > N .I ry -t •--q 00 M I'D O M 00 � -' P,• -t f� u1 Cc W — Qe 00 .D — u1 \D u\ M M M \D N h Q tr O u1 M N N N M u, 00 — \D -- h •; (, O O, N 'D � M ` W M 41- u1 u'\ I'D n 00 ON O\ O --+ N M jQ N 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 O• � O\ O\ 00 oo � � Q` � a\ � ON � � 41 Q O\ O\ Qo O\ ON OO 01 Q1 ON O\ ON 27N Oo (3,A a i` 0 U. til V) > 0L✓ O o O O O O O O o 0 0 CD 0 0 u, CD O O O O Oa O O O o 0 0 V) O. m OI rn O� (7 (1 m o! "I O' o: N v, u1 an tr\ LIJZ F- # Z � 00 M sD O ND 00 -Zi' -,It to -t f� u1 Ltj tiD O` oo -.D -+ v1 0o v1 M ON M 4 h f� X:E u1 �D 4 o0 u1 cc Q LL] ^ u1 M -+ u1 N u"% � N -- O\ 00 h oo a\ O — \.D N M d u\ \,D N U N N t\ r- 00 00 fl, 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Z � � 00 M N C+0 Q oD N oo O ^+ N M � u1 \D h 00 > � LL.i oo 00 00 00 00 00 oo � � Q` � a\ � ON � � 41 Q O\ O\ Qo O\ ON OO 01 Q1 ON O\ ON 27N Oo (3,A a i` SCOTT COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT COURT HOUSE A106 SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379.1396 (612Y445-7750, E,1. 346 BRADLEY J. LARSON' Highway Engineer DANIEL M. JOBE Asst. Highway Engineer August 13, 1984 The Honorable Robert T. Schmitz Senator, 36th District 235 Capitol Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Dear Senator Schmitz: Your request for information on the CSAR 18/Bloomington Ferry Bridge status is more than welcome. I hope the following data and time table addresses your concerns. At present, the comments and a:ecormnendations of FHWA and the Stage are being incorporated -into the Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS). This work is to be completed shortly with approval of the FEIS expected this fall. Concurrent to the processing of. the FEIS, efforts have been made to gain Discretionary Bridge Fund appropriations. The Discretionary Bridge Fund was provided for in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 and $200,000,000 per year is allocated on a 80-20 matching ratio. Early in 1984, we were informed that the Bloomington Ferry Bridge replacement did not have a rating factor low enough to qualify for these funds; however, a review of the data used to determine the rating factor revealed three items that we deemed to be incorrect. They are -- 1. The present bridge was considered a permanent bridge which it is not. This bridge is a temporary bridge constructed under special permit issued by the Coast Guard. Therefore, the bridge should receive a rating based on it being a temporary bridge. 2. The waterway adequacy cannot be considered adequate since the approach roadway is continually under water :in the spring. This has been clearly shown this past year. 3. The estimated cost for the replacement of the Bloomington Ferry Bridge was shown as $95 million. This is the total cost for all roadway and bridge construction from I-494 to T.H. 101. The Bloomington Ferry Bridge replacement is estimated to be approximately $40 million and this figure should be used. An Equal Opportunity Employer 19t. August 13, 1.984 Page 2 These items were reviewed by Mn/DOT and they concurred with our findings. Mn/DOT has since revised the data for computing the rating and submitted this to the Minnesota Division of FHWA. They in turn have submitted the data to Washington for approval. At this time, we have not received confirmation from the Washington office; however, no problems are expected. The revised rating factor will make the Bloomington Ferry Bridge replacement eligible for discretionary funds. Therefore, upon approval by the Washington office, a request for discretionary funds will be made. Assuming that the remaining processes proceed under normal conditions and that funding is available as needed, the following outlines the time table that "optimistically" we are striving for. * Final Environmental Impact Statement completed and Record of Decision made Fall, 1984 * Design Study Report and Design Hearing 1985 * Final Design 1986- 1988 * Construction 1988-1991 This is the present status of the CSAR 18 project. If you have any further questions or concerns, please contact this office. Thank you for your interest and support of this vital transportation project. espec fully, iCv' Zldle J. "'s' on, Y County Hi Ay Engineer BJL/sal bcc: Rep. Chuck Dimler Joseph F. Ries Scott County Board Bo Spurrier ,/