HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/10/1985 TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ .REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 10, 1985
Mayor Reinke presiding
1] Roll Call at 7 : 30 P.M.
2] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS
3] 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. )
41 Communications:
51 Reports from Staff:
*a] 1984-4 Shenandoah Drive - Declaring Cost and Setting Assessment
Hearing - Res. No. 2429
*b] 1984-5 Valley Park Drive & 12th Avenue - Declaring Cost and
Setting Assessment Hearing - Res. No. 2435
*c] 1985-2 Eaglewood Street Rehabilitation - Declaring Cost and
Setting Assessment Hearing - Res. No. 2436
d] Housing Mortgage Revenue Bond Policy - Res. No. 2431
*e] Application for Housing Mortgage Revenue Bonds by Canterbury
Apartments I , a Minnesota general partnership , of which
Scottland, Inc . will be a general partner - Res. 'No. 2437
*f] Application for $7, 500,000 Industrial Revenue Bonds by Canterbury
Business Park I , A Minnesota general partnership , of which
Scottland, Inc. will be a general partner
61 Continuation of Budget Worksession - bring budget and the Finance
Director' s S_applementary Budget Information memo of 8/23/85
71 Other Business:
a] Renaming of CR-83
b] Traffic Officer Posted at the Intersection of Hwy 101 & 169
d] � �/
81 Adjourn to Tuesday, September 17th at 7 :00 P.M.
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
�CcJ
C I T5V OF_ SHA_K_ OPEa
INCORPORATED 1870 T
* ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
129 E. 1st Avenue - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Stephen Hurley, Engineering Technician
SUBJECT: Shenandoah Drive Road Construction
DATE: September- fes, 1985
INTRODUCTION:
A Resolution is necessary declaring the cost to be assessed
and setting a Public Hearing for Shenandoah Drive Street Con-
struction.
BACKGROUND:
The proposed total assessment for Shenandoah Drive was estimated
to be $243, 000. 00 calculated as follows in the Feasibility
Report, June 18, 1984:
Estimated Total Pro j ect Cost $568, 600. 00
Less Tax Increment -238, 000. 00
Less Minnesota Racet rac k Cont r i but i on - 88, 000. 00
Total Deferred Special Assessment $243, 000. 00
The actual total prod ect cost is $457, 000. 00, or $111, 600. 00
less than the $568, 600. 00 estimated.
Given the same deductions for Tax Increment and Minnesota Race-
track, the total deferred special assessments would now be
$131, 000. 00.
Attached is Resolution No. 2429, A Resolution Declaring the
Cost to be Assessed and Ordering the Preparation of Proposed
Assessment, Project No. 1984-4, Shenandoah Drive Construction.
- ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt Resolution No. 2429, A Resolution Declaring the Cost
to be Assessed and Ordering the Preparation of Proposed Assess-
ment, Pro j ect No. 1984-4, Shenandoah Drive Construction.
SH/pmp
MEM2429
6✓
RESOLUTION NO. 2429
A Resolution Declaring The Cost To Be Assessed And
Ordering The Preparation Of Proposed Assessment Project No. 1984-4
Shenandoah Drive Construction
WHEREAS, a contract has been let for the improvement of:
Shenandoah Drive Construction by Roadway Improvement
and the contract price for such improvements i s $237, 972. 30,
and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of
such improvements amounts to $219, 027. 70 so that the total cast
of the improvements will be $457, 000. 00 and of this cast the
City will pay $326, 000. 00 as its share of the cast.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1. The cost of such improvement to be specially assessed
is _hereby declared to be $131, 000. 00.
2. The City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer
shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially
assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot,
piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without
regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and he shall file
a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public
inspection.
3. That the City Clerk shall, upon the completion of such
proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
f�
1. That a hearing shall be held on the 1st day of October, -
1985, in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 7:30 P. Mto pass
upon such proposed assessments and' at such t ibe anc piace of
persons owning property affected by such improvements and proposed
assessments will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference
to such assessment.
c. That -the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice
of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once
in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee at least two
weeks prior to the hearing and he shall state in the notice
the total cost of the improvements. He shall also cause mailed
notice of such hearing to be given the owner of each parcel
described in the assessment roll not less
than two weeks prior
to the hearing.
Adopted in session of the City Council
of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of
19
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , i9
City Attorney
s
C T TY CD F- E5HAKO1=>aa
INCORPORATED 1870
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
129 E. 1st Avenue - Shakopee, binnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Stephen Hurley, Engineering Technician
SUBJECT: Valley Park Drive and 12th Avenue Street
Improvement and Road Construction
DATE: September 6, 1985
INTRODUCTION:
A Resolution is necessary declaring the cost to be assessed
and setting a public hearing for Valley Park Drive and 12th
Avenue road improvements.
BACKGROUND:
The proposed total assessment for Valley Park Drive & 12th
Avenue is calculated to be $875, 300. 00 which is also the total
project cost. This is $4, 809. 97 less than the proposed original
front footage assessment of $8.50, 109. 97 as documented in the
Feasibility Report from Valley Engineering dated May 23, 1984.
This does not require the use of Tax Increment or other cost
sharing as was anticipated.
Should Tax Increment or other cost sharing be implemented,
the assessments would be reduced proportionally.
Two parcels both owned by Valley Industrial Park, Ltd. , are
subject to the total assessments based on front footage.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt Resolution No. 2435, A Resolution Declaring the Cost
to be Assessed and Ordering the Preparation of Proposed Assess-
ment, Project No. 1984-5, Valley Park Drive from Hwy. 101 to
12th Avenue and 12th Avenue from Valley Park Drive to County
Road 83.
SH/pmp
MEM2435
RESOLUTION NO. 2435
A Resolution Declaring The Cost To Be Assessed And
Ordering The Preparation Of Proposed Assessment Project No. 1984-5
Valley Park Drive from Hwy. 101 to 12th Avenue and
12th Avenue from Valley Park Drive to County Road 83
WHEREAS, a contract has been let for the improvement of:
Valley Park. Drive from Hwy 101 to 12th Avenue and 12th Avenue
from Valley Park Drive to County Road 83 by Roadway Construction,
and the contract price for such improvements is $755, 156. 50,
and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of
such improvements amounts to $120, 143. 50 so that the total cost
of the improvements will be $875, 300. 00 and of this cost the
City will pay $ -0- as its share of the cost.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1. The cost of such improvement to be specially assessed
is hereby declared to be $875, 300. 00.
2. The City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer
shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially
assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot,
piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without
regard t•� cash valuation, as p=Dvided by law, and he shall file
a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public
inspection.
3. That the City Clerk shall, upon the completion of such
proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That a hearing shall be held on the 1st day of October,
1985, in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 7:30 P. M. to pass -
upon
assupsn such proposed assessments and at such time and place a 1 1
persons owning property affected by such improvements and proposed
assessments will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference
to such assessment.
2. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice
of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once
in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee at least two
weeks prier to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice
the total cost of the improvements. ' He shall also cause mailed
notice Of such hearing to be given the owner of each parcel
described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior
to the hearing.
Adopted in session of the City CoUnci 1
of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of
19
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 19 -
City Attorney
a
CTTY OF SHJ4K01=>1_= a
INCORPORATED 1870
* ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
129 E. 1st Avenue - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Stephen Hurley, Engineering Technician
SUBJECT: Roadway Improvements in Eaglewood 1st, 2nd, & 3rd,
Improvement Project No. 1985-2
DATE: September 6, 11385
INTRODUCTION:
Bids were received for the above work on August 5, 1985, ranging
from $151, 1341. 73 t o $197, 355. 35.
BACKGROUND:
The proposed assessment is on a per lot basis. Property owners
will pay a minimum 20 percent of project cost in assessments
with the balance paid by General Obligation Bond sales that
are funded by special levy.
Estimated Total Project Cost $257, 297. 00
Less 20% Assessment $51, 459. 23
City Matching Cost $205, 837. 77
Proposed assessments would be an estimated $1, 390. 00 per lot.
Attached is Resolution No. 2436, A Resolution Declaring the
Cost to be Assessed and Ordering the Preparation of Proposed
Assessment, Project No. 1985-2, Eaglewood Street Rehabilitation.
ACTION REQUESTED :
Adopt Resolution No. 2436, A Resolution Declaring the Cost
to be Assessed and Ordering the Preparation of Proposed Assess-
ment, Project No. 1985-2, Eaglewood Street Rehabilitation.
SH1pmp
MEM2436
RESOLUTION NO. 2436
A Resolution Declaring The Cost To Be Assessed And
Ordering The Preparation Of Proposed Assessment Project No. 1985-2
Eaglewood Street Rehabilitation
WHEREAS, a contract has been let for the improvement of:
Eaglewood Street Construction by Roadway Improvement
and the contract price for such improvements is $ 187, 1 25. 00,
the construction contingency amounts to $18, 712. 50 and the expenses
incurred or -to-be incurred in the making of such improvements
amounts to $51, 459. 38 so that the total cost of the improvements
will be $257, 296. 87 and of this cost the City will pay $2055837. 77
as its share of the cost.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1. The crest of such improvement to be specially assessed
is hereby declared to be. $51 , 459. 23. _
c. The City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer
shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially
assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot,
piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without
regard to cash valuation, as prate�vided by law, and he shall file
a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public
inspection.
3. That the City Clerk shall, upon the completion of such
proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That a hearing shall be held on the 1st day of October,
1985, in the Council Chambers of City_ Hall at 7:30 P. M. to pass
upon such proposed assessments and at such time and place all
persons owning property affected by such improvements and proposed
assessments will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference
to such assessment.
2. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice
of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once
in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee at least two
weeks prior to the hearing and he shah state in the notice
the total cost of the improvements. He shall also cause mailed
notice of such hearing to be given the owner of each parcel
described in the assessment roll not less than, two weeks prier
to the hearing.
Adopted in session of the City Council
of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of
iS
ATTEST: Mayor of the City of Shakopee
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of iS
City Attorney
TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Community Development Director
RE: Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bond Policy
DATE: September 6 , 1985
Introduction:
At the September 3 , 1985 Council meeting a draft multi-
family mortgage revenue bond policy was discussed. Revisions
were recommended and have been incorporated into the attached
policy.
_ Background: --The revised policy has been sent out to interested parties - - -
who participated in the September- 3rd discussion. Assuming
- Council members and other parties are satisfied that proposed
revisions are adequately covered, the policy is ready for adoption. :_a_=_..
Recruested Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 2431, A Resolution Adopting Policy,
Criteria and Procedures for the Review of Housing Revenue Bonds
and Mortgage Subsidy Bonds.
3
tw
RESOLUTION NO. 2431
A Resolution Adopting Policy, Criteria and Procedures
For the Review of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds
And Mortgage Subsidy Bonds
WHEREAS , The City of Shakopee, under Minnesota Statutes , may
develop and administer programs to: ( 1 ) Finance the acquisition
and rehabilitation of single family homes by low-and moderate-
income families ; and ( 2 ) finance multifamily housing developments
or the rehabilitation of multifamily housing developments for
low-and moderate-income families ; and
WHEREAS, The City Council also has found that- there is a need
for housing low-and moderate-income families and to assist in the
rehabilitation and preservation of the City of Shakopee housing
- stock and neighborhoods;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA that the following policies , as attached
hereto and made a part hereof , identify the conditions and
circumstances under which the administration and financing of
multifamily housing programs should take place in the City of
Shakopee.
Adopted session of the City Council of
the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this
day of l9
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of 19
City Attorney
5�
City of Shakopee, Minnesota
POLICY, CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR THE REVIEW OF MULTIFAMILY
HOUSING REVENUE BONDS AND MORTGAGE SUBSIDY BONDS
SECTION I : General
The City of Shakopee, under Minnesota Statutes, may develop
and administer programs to: (1) Finance the acquisition and
rehabilitation of single family homes by low-and moderate-income
families; - and--- (2 ) - finance --multifamily -housing-developments -or---
:= the rehabilitation of multifamily- housing developments for low
and moderate-income families.---lies - The City Council also has. found -�
that there is a need for housing low-and moderate-income families
and to assist in the rehabilitation and preservation of the
City of Shakopee housing stock and neighborhoods. The following
policies identify the conditions and circumstances under which
the adminsitration and financing of multifamily housing programs
should take place in the City of Shakopee.
SECTION II : Definitions
A. "CITY" Means the- City Shakopee, Minnesota.
B. "COMPREHENSIVE PLAN" Means the Comprehensive Plan
for the City of Shakopee, adopted by the City Council on August
4, 1981.
C. "HOUSING. PLAN" Means- information -required under Minnesota- .-
Statutes Chapter 4620. 03 .
1 -
D. "LOWER INCOME" Means a person or family whose income
by family size does not exceed 80 percent of the median family
income for the Metropolitan Area as determined by United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) .
E. "TARGET AREA" Means a redevelopment project as defined
under M.S.A. Chapter 462. 421, Subd. 13 . or a housing development
project as defined under M.S.A. Chapter 462.421, Subd. 25.
Section III-: Policies and Criteria fortheuse of Tax-Exempt
Financing for Multifamily Rental Housing.
A. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
The City, as the issurer of tax-exempt housing revenue
bonds, confers a significant benefit to the developers
and financiers of multifamily rental housing. Therefore,
the City has the right and, indeed, the obligation
to be sure that a commensurate public benefit is realized.
The City' s policies and criteria governing the use
of Housing Revenue Bonds goes beyond the minimum public
benefit required by the United States Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) .
B. NEW CONSTRUCTION
For new proposed construction of multi-family housing
projects , one or more of the following City objectives
must be met to be considered as suitable for publically
_subsidized housing financing.
1. The proposed project shall target 20 percent _
of the units to lower income families for 10-
years from initial mortgage closing or 1/2 the
term of the bonds, whichever is greater; or
2. The proposed project shall provide. affordable
housing to special population segments such as
.Lower income elderly and handicaped; or
3 . The proposed project shall provide housing within
and consistent with the development objectives
of designated target areas.
2 -
C. EXISTING HOUSING
1. Buildings Eligible for Reconstruction
An existing rental property must have more than
four units which are more than three years old
and require substantial rehabilitation. A property
will be considered substantially rehabilitated
if the cost of the repairs shall exceed 15 percent
of the financed cost of the acquisition of the
building.
2- Objectives and Required Standards
For the proposed rehabilitation - of multi-family
housing projects all of the following city objectives
and requirements--- must_ be
met----to be _considered --
suitable for publically subsidized housing financing
a. _ The completed project shall meet the minimum
standards for rehabilitation set forth by
the City;
b. The project shall not cause major dislocation
of existing tenants;
C. The owner shall provide relocation assistance
as required by State Statutes;
d. The completed project shall target 20 percent
of the units to lower-income families.
D. GENERAL CRITERIA REGARDING TENANT INCOME REQUIREMENTS,
RESTRICTIONS ON OCCUPANCY, CONVERSIONS, AND EQUAL
OPPORTUNITY REQUIREMENTS
1. Tenant Income Reauirements
Any project financed by housing bonds of the
City shall comply with all income and tenant
requirements under Minnesota Statutes Chapter
462C and Sections 103 or 103A of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954.
2. Over Income Tenants
The owner must reexamine the income of tenants
occupying the units targeted to lower-income
families each year. If a tenant becomes over
income, the owner must - target the next vacant
comparable unit as a lower income unit.
- 3
3 . Restrictions on Conversions
The owner cannot, without City approval, convert
the targeted units in the project to condominium
or cooperative ownership during the 10 year period
from the date on which the units are available
for occupancy or for a period of 1/2 the term
of the bonds , whichever is greater.
4. Eaual Opportunity and Non-Discrimination Certifi-
cations
The owner shall certify compliance with all laws
and regulations affecting equal opportunity to
minorities and the handicapped in their marketing
efforts and rental
procedures. _
E. OTHER CONDITIONS
1. Availabilitv of Public Services
Project must not be a burden on existing City
services or utilities beyond that which can be
reasonably and economically accommodated.
2. Exterior Construction Materials
•
Projects financed under with these auspices will
be constructed -of brick, stucco, or other low
maintenance exterior materials as approved by
the City Council on a case-by-case basis.
SECTION IV: Proaram Administration
A. FEES
A one time nor.-refundable fee will be reauired at
the time of application. Fees are established in
the Citv of Shakopee Fee Schedule which is revised
annually.
E. RIGHT TO DENY APPLICATIONS
The City Council reserves the right to deny any application
for financing at any stage of the proceedings prior
to adopting the final resolution authorizing issuance
of the housing revenue bond financing.
4
C. CITY HELD HARMLESS
The City is to be reimbursed and held harmless for
and from any out-of-pocket costs related to the actual
or proposed issuance of the bonds.
D. APPLICATION RETENTION AND DISCLOSURE
All applications and supporting materials and documents
shall remain the property of the City. Note that
all such materials may be subject to disclosure and/or
public review under applicable provisions of state
law.
E. ANNUAL REPORT
The staff shall, at least once a year, prepare a summary
report containing information on " all applications
submitted for that year, as well as previously approved _
projects. Such report shall include:
1. Total number of applications processed;
2.. Total number and dollar volume of projects;
3. Amount of tax base provided;
A. Number of neer low-income households provided
for; and
5. Default information, if any.
SECTION V: Procedures
A. APPLICATION SUBMISSION
1. Application
The applicant shall make an application for financing
on forms available from the City of Shakopee.
The completed application is to be returned to
the Director of Community Development, accompanied
by the processing fee, whereupon the application
will be forwarded to the City . Council for consid-
eration at a public hearing.
5 -
2. Additional submissions
The applicant shall furnish along with the appli-
cation, a description of the project, site plan,
rendering of proposed building, etc. , and a brief
description of the applicant company, all in
such form as shall be required at the time of
application.
3. Application for State Review
The applicant shall concurrently complete the
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency application
for such- financing and submit such completed
form to the City, which will submit the form
to appropriate state officials when City approval
has been granted.
4. Time of Submission
Eight ( 8 ) copies of the fully completed application
and supporting documentation and payment must
be submitted at least one ( 1) week before the
City Council will set a public hearing.
B. PROCESSING
I. - Review of Application
Prior to the established public hearing a review
will be conducted to establish:
a.. Findings regarding the satisfaction of policy,
criteria and other purposes of the act.
b. Findings regarding City Code and other require-
ments including but not limited to zoning
provisions , building plans , platting, - streets
and utility services.
2 . Preliminary Approval
The City Council may deny the project or request
preparation of the appropriate resolution for
preliminary approval for consideration at its
next meeting following the public hearing. All
City code findings and requirements must be met
prior to adoption of a resolution of preliminary
approval_
6
/4-
2
3. Final Resolution
Approval of the final resolution will be considered
by the City Council after the required criteria
for firm approval have been met. The City Attorney
shall review and approve all legal documentation
as to form, including mortgage and trust indentures ,
prior to approval of the final resolution.
C. CONSISTENCY WITH LAND USE PLAN
The application cannot be granted preliminary approval
by the City Council unless the proposed project is
consistent with the land-use designated in the Compre-
hensive Plan and current zoning. All applications
-- i -- - must include preliminary site and building plans of
the proposed project-
D.
rojectD. COMPLETION TIMETABLE
The applicant shall submit - a timetable for completion-
of the project as part of the application. Any apparent
major deviation ( 12 months or more) from that timetable
will automatically cause the application to be brought
back to the City Council for review.
E. USE OF INDEPENDENT BOND COUNSEL
The City reserves the right to hire independent bond
council to assist in application review at the expense
of the developer.
F. ANALYSIS OF FEASIBILITY
The applicant is to select qualified financial consultants
and/or underwriters to prepare all necessary documents
and materials. The City may rely on the opinion- of
such experts and the application shall be accompanied
by a preliminary financial analysis by the underwriter
as to . the economic feasibility of the project and
the underwriter' s ability to market the financing;
or in the case of mortgage placements the applicant
will be required to furnish the City, before passage
of the preliminary resolution, a- comfort letter (but--
not necessarily a---letter of commitment) from the lending
institution, to the effect that said lending institution
has reviewed the economic feasibility of the project,
including the financial responsibility the guarantors
and find that, in their professional judgement, it
is an economically viable project.
7
5�
TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director
RE: Multifamily Housing Bond Request of Scottland, Inc.
DATE: September 6 , 1985
Introduction:
Scottland is requesting the use of multifamily housing bonds
for a project it is proposing for a parcel at the intersection of
Shakopee Avenue and CR 17 . If Council is willing to proceed with
this application following the adoption of its new policy, criteria
and procedures on the use of such bonds, adoption of a resolution
setting the public hearing on the Scottland Program is now in order..
Background-
Staff have- not yet received the Scottland application but it
is anticipated to be submitted September 6 , 1985. The project has
been described to -staff as _a planned residential development of 92
units to have aluminum siding as the exterior construction material.-
Scottland
aterial:Scottland has elected to submit the application and have Council
review the exterior construction materials during the review process,
understanding that the application -fee is non-refundable. Staff
review of the proposal will be undertaken during the 30 day period
prior to the public hearing.
. Requested Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 2437 , A Resolution Establishing the Date
for a Public Hearing on a Proposed Housing Program Pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes , Chapter 462C, Authorizing Publication of Notice
Therefor.
tw
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
RESOLUTION NO. 2437
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC
HEARING ON A PROPOSED HOUSING PROGRAM PURSUANT
TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C , AUTHORIZING
PUBLICATION OF NOTICE THEREFOR
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes , Chapter 462C, authorizes a
city to plan, administer and make or purchase a loan or loans
to finance one or more multifamily housing developments or the
rehabilitation of multifamily housing developments after adoption
of a housing plan; and
-- - - WHEREAS, the program for the issuance of bonds to finance
a multifamily housing development must be considered at a public
hearing after notice published at least 15 days prior to the
date of said hearing after which the program may be adopted
by resolution of the governing body of the city with or without
amendment; and
WHEREAS, there has been presented to this City Council
(the "City Council" ) a proposal for the acquisition of land
and construction of a 92-unit rental housing development by
Canterbury Apartments I , A Minnesota General Partnership, of
which Scottland, Inc. will be a general partner, in the City
(the "Project" ) ;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
I. The City Council of the City of Shakopee will conduct
a public hearing on the proposed housing program for the Project
on October 15 , 1985 , at 8 : 00 p.m.
2. The City Administrator of the City is hereby authorized
to cause a public notice, substantially in the form of the notice
attached hereto as Exhibit A, to be published once in a newspaper
of general circulation in the City at least fifteen (-15 ) days
prior to the date establ;' shed for the public hearing by the
preceding paragraph of this resolution.
3 . The Citv Administrator of the City is hereby authorized
to submit the housing program relating to the Project to the
Metropolitan Council for its review.
Adopted in session of the City Council
-. -of the--:City of--- Shakopee,-Minnesota,- held•-this-- - ----- — --day of .of 19
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of 19
City Attorney
EXHIBIT A
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON A HOUSING
PROGRAM UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES,
CHAPTER 462C TO FINANCE A MULTIFAMILY
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota (the "City's will meet on October 15, 1985, at 8:00 p.m. at the
City offices in Shakopee, Minnesota, for the purpose of conducting a public hearing
on the adoption of a housing program for the City, prepared in compliance with
Minnesota Statutes. Chapter 462C to finance the cost of a multifamily rental
housing development (the "Project"). The initial owner or operator of the Project
will be a Minnesota general partnership to be formed of which Scottland, Inc. will_
be a general partner. The proposed Project will consist of the acquisition of land,
the construction of a building or buildings thereon and the installation of equipment -in connection therewith for use as a 92-unit residential rental apartment building.
The site of the proposed Project is located at:
The North 643.0 feet (as measured at right angles), of all that part of
the North one-half (1/2) of the Northeast one-quarter (1/4) of Section
7, Township 115, Range 22, in Scott County, lying Westerly of the
Westerly right-of-way line of County Road No. 17, EXCEPT the
Westerly 300.0 feet (as measured at right angles) and EXCEPT the
following:
that part of the South 321.50 feet of the North 643.00 feet (as
measured at right angles) bf the North one-half (1/2) of the
Northeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 115, Range 22, Scott
County, Minnesota lying Easterly of the West 570.00 feet (As
measured at right angles); and Westerly of the Westerly right-
of-way line of County Road No. 17.
in the City. The size of the bond issue proposed for the Project is presently
estimated not to exceed $4,250,000. The bonds shall be limited obligations of the
City and the Bonds and interest thereon shall be payable solely from the revenues
pledged to the payment thereof, except that such bonds may be secured by a
mortgage and other encumbrance on the Project. No holder of any such bonds shall
ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City of
Shakopee to pay the bonds, or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment against
any property of the City except the Project.
All persons interested may appear and be heard at the time and palce set
forth above.
Dated: , 1985
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE
By /s/ Judith Cox
City Clerk
TO: John R. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: 1986 Budget Follow-up
DATE: September 4, 1985
Introduction and Background
Listed below are follow-up items from the 8/27/85 budget worksession.
1. Fees charged for Economic Development Director.
A quick check of some other cities has revealed no cities that charge
for that service, they are funded by general revenues.
2. Risk Manager retainer.
Mr. Tange has revised his minimum monthly retainer down to $150 per month.
This would encompass whatever work the City wanted done at the $45 per hour
rate for 40 hours per year. Any hours over the retainer would be billable
at the $45/hr rate.
3. Increase filing fees to offset county recording fees.
It is suggested to raise the platting fee by $25 to offset the recording
fee. Torrence property -varies so that the best way to approach it is to collect
a fee at the time of final plat based on number of lots involved and the documents
that need to be recorded. This issue can be resolved in detail with the 1986
fee schedule. Estimated revenues are at most $1,000.
4. Fees for abstracting. '
These would be collected with the final plat. Mr. Coller estimated that
we could collect about $1,000 depending on activity.
5. Fine revenue.
Increasing the parking ticket fine from $5 to $10 could produce an additional
$5,000 from calendar parking.
6. Garage door panel replacement - salavging panels from public Works to
repair Fire Station doors.
Mr. Houser reports that the doors are different sizes and therefore panels
from Public Works can not be used to repair the Fire Station on a temporary
basis, assuming that Public Works doors are rep[laced.
7. Building permit revenue revision.
Due to the State revising the fee schedule, building permit revenue is
increased by $12,500.
8. Additional cost to start a Police Officer in March vs. July.
The draft of the 1986 budget contains as officer starting in July, the
additional cost to start in March would be about $6,750.
9. Used traffic counters vs. new. Note: would decrease transfers in by $4,000
for the General Fund. Used counters from the State would cost about $25
each. Total estimated cost would be $200 instead of $4,000 and would be funded
with General Fund revenues instead of Revenue Sharing.
10. Cost of one additional person for Public Works.
The lowest estimated starting rate for a Public Works employee (Street
and Park_ are the same) would be $16,900 plus $5,200 for fringe benefits, for
a total of $22,100. This is for the full year of 1986.
d
f
TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: 1986 Budget Alternatives
DATE: September 5, 1985
Introduction and Background
Listed below are some options for Council to consider in the 1986 Budget
process.
1. Revenue Options
A. Increase Fines due to parking ticket increase $5,000 X
B. Increase Platting fees (recording and abstracting) 2,000 R
C. Increase Building Permits (fee revision) 12,500 X
D. Decrease Transfers in (traffic counters) 4,000 X
2. Expenditure options
A. Police Officer start 3/86 vs. 7/86 6,750 X
B. Add Public Works Emp. (st/park) (start 4/1/86) 16,575 X
C. Add Water Mgt. Study 15,000 X
D. Decrease contingency for insurance -15,000 X
E. Cut Police remodeling -15,000 R
F. Cut pavement preservation -20,000 X
G. Cut unmarked contingency -20,000 X
H. Cut Dept. Head training program -3,000
I. Cut Risk Manager -3,000
J. Cut Code Enforcement program -6,030
K. 2 year phase in of Camp. Worth -20,000 X
L. 4% vs. 5% salary built in -16,000
M. Add dumpster program 3,000
N. Add Council sound system 3,400
0. Increase City Attorney compensation (add' l 5%)? 1,200
P. Add 600 for cong. dining cleaning 600 X
Q. Cut shop door replacement -10,000 X
R. Cut traffic counters - captial -4,000 X
S. Add Eng. supplies for traffic counters 200 X
3. One time expenditures to reduce operating costs or
promote efficiency. Funded by the $42,000 track fee
that was reserved in contingency for 1985.
A. Shop garage door replacement 10,000
B. Fire station door replacement 9,800
C. Police remodel 15,000
Note: suggested to do in 1985 before the heating season.
Summary: the items marked with an X are recommended by staff and the net
effect is a $80,375 reduction on the 1986 budget which is close to one mil.
7a,
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Renaming of County Road 83
DATE: September 6 , 1985
Introduction
After renaming County Road 83 to Canterbury Drive at its Tuesday,
September 3 , 1985 meeting, I contacted the City of Prior Lake.
The City of Prior Lake said they had no major problem with the
idea of renaming the road Canterbury, but did have a problem
with the term Drive.
Problem
The City of Prior Lake has two terms it uses to describe north/south
roads. Those terms are Avenue and Road. The City of Prior
Lake has two terms it uses to describe east/west roads. Those
terms are Street and Trail. These are the only four terms the
City uses and the City Manager indicated that his City Council
might have some difficulties with the term "Drive" selected
by the City of Shakopee. Therefore he has asked that we reconsider
naming County Road 83 from Canterbury Drive to Canterbury Road.
In Shakopee east/west roads only are described as avenues.
Alternatives 10
1. Maintain the name selected at the last meeting which was
Canterbury Drive and send a representative to the Prior
Lake City Council Meeting in an attempt to convince them
to change their normal street naming procedures.
2 . Change the name to Canterbury Road. Either the term Road
or Drive has been used for north/south roads in Shakopee
in the collector class. We have Marschall Road and Shenandoah
Drive as examples.
Recommendation
I have no strong recommendation one way or the other. If Council
selects alternative No. 1 we should send someone to the Prior
Lake City Council meeting. If we select alternative No. 2 we
need to get an opinion from Canterbury Downs which initiated
the request. This is important for the City of Prior because
they are inclinded to rename all of County Road 83 , even that
portion south of County Road 42 .
Action Requested
Select alternative No. 1 or 2 .
JKA/jms
%6
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Traffic Officer Posted at the Intersection of Highway
101 and 169
DATE: September 6 , 1985
Introduction
The Chief of Police has asked specifically that I get Council ' s
desires regarding continued use of police officers at the above
mentioned intersection on Wednesdays , Thursdays, and Fridays.
Background
On Friday, September 6 , 1985 I spoke with Bill Crawford to obtain
an update on the expected completion of the Highway 212 bridge
repairs. Mr. Crawford stated that the detour would continue
for another two weeks.
As Council may recall, we estimated that putting two officers
at the intersection would cost approximately $21 . 00 per hour
per officer. Tom has asked that Council make a clear decision
as to whether or not they wish to continue this extra traffic
work at the cost estimated.
Alternatives
1. Continue placing two officers at the intersection of Highway
101 and 169 on Wednesdays , Thursdays , and Fridays until
the Highway 212 detour is ended.
2. Discontinue use of the two traffic officers at the intersection
of Highway 101 and 169 .
Recommendation
Tom Brownell is still of the opinion that the officers are only
having a marginal affect on traffic flow. He recommends alternative
No. 2 .
Action Reauested
Direct City staff to discontinue providing two police officers
at the intersection of Highway 101 and 169 .
JKA/jms
7c,
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Federal Aid Urban Funding Allocations
DATE: September 6 , 1985
Introduction
The City of Shakopee receives a Federal Aid Urban allocation
of $45 , 381 per year. Our cummulative total to date is $181, 100 .
This amount had been approximately $36 , 000 higher, but we are
presently being penalized for not having expended the money.
Background
The City had planned to use Federal Aid Urban for the acquisition
of the Opera House ( Cactus Jacks) and the construction of a
right turn lane prior to the Downtown Committee ' s adoption of
a more complete intersection improvement program. Bruce Warzala
from Barton Aschman has indicated that the $36 , 000 is not necessarily
lost, and that the City should send a letter to the Federal
Aid Urban (FAU) planners at Mn/DOT. What the City needs to
do is indicate in that letter that the City has been planning
and accumulating the money for a specific road project. Attached
is a copy of our recently adopted five year capital improvement
plan and a copy of our present Federal Aid Urban map. Matching
the two provides an indication as to which projects or project
would be appropriate to mention in a letter to Mn/DOT.
Alternatives
1 . Project No. 4 listed as Fourth Avenue, Filmore to Scott,
construction 85-86 at a total cost of $500 , 000 .
2 . Project No. 12 listed as Market Street, lst Avenue to 4th
Avenue, construction 86-87 at an estimated $700 , 000 . .
3 . Project No. 46 listed as 13th Avenue, County Road #17 to
County Road #16 , scheduled for 86-87 at an estimated $800 , 000 .
4 . Other projects could be listed based upon the Federal Aid
Urban map even though they are not currently listed in
our five year capital improvement plan such as a complete
overlay of 10th Avenue.
Summary & Recommendation
In considering which projects might be best for obligation of
Federal Aid Urban money, Council should know the following:
( 1 ) the administrative paperwork for Federal Aid Urban is extreme
and all of our allocation should be spent on one project for
this reason, ( 2 ) the right-of-way acquisition and relocation
requirements that are part of a Federal Aid Uuban project are
extreme and it would be advantageous to avoid a project including
either of these items, ( 3 ) the City should try to avoid using
a project for which a large amount of the design work is completed
because it will appear to the Federal Aid Urban people that
we have initiated a project before receiving proper clearance,
( 4 ) the project we select should have a high probability of
being completed in the next couple of years so we can avoid
losing our Federal Aid Urban allocation, ( 5 ) the project undertaken
should be independent so that if there are delays in processing
Federal Aid Urban monies a project would not be delayed that
the City cannot afford having delayed, and ( 6 ) the City should
maximize its flexibility by paring a Federal Aid Urban project
with a state aid project so that the Federal Aid money can reduce
the amount of state aid money required to complete the project.
Based upon the requirements above staff, in consultation with
_Bruce Warzala our consultant from Barton Aschman, feel that
the four block Market Street project might be the most logical
choice. If we send the letter with the Market Street project
listed this does not preclude Council from changing the project
in the future.
Action Requested
Pass a motion directing the appropriate City officials to write
to Mn/DOT to indicate that the City was and has been reserving
its Federal Aid Urban allocation for the four block Market Street
project in Shakopee from 1st Avenue to 4th Avenue at an estimated
cost of $700 , 000 with a construction schedule of 1986-87 .
JKA/jms
tg + N `- - ul- w N � o = a. = - - - - ---- c -, - + w.. - ` cle,
_ - �-o - •c` .� � •.cmc � v iZ
- -
A =+ O w? �, w I..I D 4.•� .o .-.�.
i
W a P P P ----- - -- -
F
m4O- 2 m 2
- a m � .,.� ► w m o. _ .-..� � � to � o �v w -• � -.
.moo n a '•.. >- P .v � .. i� m m - � _ i� � o :: .10, c t � o.� ... � m z < r � � o-
.m. wsx.c � la o : two -•�_+am o o .° m ., ...
a wrr a Rm •e-
o
Raw .
1
_ me�mm mmm '-mmam i � Pmo-m+mmw � Pmmm� i mm mm m t, m
m.mo a r i
tO V m P m V m m y � mmma m6 to
1
1 r
1
+O NIP.P+-N ; Nw O++ tom m �Oa MI _++ m OO WOPIO N000100 I
0 / O
o$o 0 0 o 0 0 o e i o 0 o a$ i sb e o .o. e i o o e o o i o 0 0 0 o i o e o 0 0
a r.why-f•;:�'y�11q„
s
1 •'ice al..
M O- O N ;
-
- O 1 �--
-- �-
'
1 1
� 1
' I �
C
O O O O O O O OO O 0 0 O O O •^
C
_ 1 -
1 O N 1
P+
O O
t I .
4 G
:
F I .
^-�...++!i?III®a '-'•-,�+.•moi-ire++-c-_. ._�- _—.�iass-,r�-r-' _._.__.` �.T•� .._.-.- ..-a-.+- V.
1-. �.�. Y� _�. ��� .��..'—'a'-"' _ --__ _ .�_ � _ _ _ _ `_:•iia
" r.r..
-
_. ..--
.._ __. .-.... .:... �..V -a +l • �IP-Pas• a'--u .mss r'�w aw �.�•.�•u'- .0 �e- ...w n.• � 'o ar o~..r.r��:
•
:-. _ ..- - ...... r..� I o ...m�I.P ani • e m � o m n �
- .W•.+a P P P�m m �� W a P P P P P �m m m.No .o � � �� tT -
.
.. t"l N Iw Iw Cr P m N
= 1
T T „ O O V.O w � � O ^ � O w — 1 _ 7 � � A S 6 �S _— 4 r ��^ N i .r•. 1
T ^ Ir N ���^� � � •e 6 n � � R _ �.O ^ � �A w a.mo T R S A � 1
s .'�- le_ �� �R� w � o IT s o rr aea Asn R�•a e s � �� sow ^t r �.� e
� a 1�,� � • .- rs � ��. a m� .e — �•'c �,mr'`' � i o m o'er
o. - =^� sae c i �m v e rIT V �'a a 11 i w 1"�a r•s .r-
•1-
'^ -
a "-
a IS.—1.e
� •• • i „� 1 a � r 1 r w I ., i tc �n I ;
a1902 11
r
w
w
1-
• 111 r 1 � -.-.����-_�_� _-. t - �"�__-. I a I 1..
_ 6m11 Om•'
m m m m• m 1 N • ' • m I 611 P Ln ' �
I c6 m 1�m m m m m m m I m m m m m l p m P t
• mN m I.IIJmNI P m.O t Nm mP ; m a 01.11.0 �•PO mO ; PO•N trm ; N �.r
v a Y1•m YI N �,+O N O � U O N N O t tJl m M _
a a; m411 NIN OPW Vm 1 ?fs 6.11�N _N OOON I'_m OOO_ i� Oi0 1 OOO4II O•; OGOP'N 1 r
611
� Y01� _ OOOO OOOOp 00001.11 0000 O OOOO 00000 1 00000 1 00000 1
1 i i
LNA 6Nj11 - '.p - 1 O 1 O O 411•; 1 t 1 -. t 1 • -
-
1 1 Op
1 1
_ 1 Y N _ �• 1 M fJl N -.j n
.5.35 -
1
O
1
... .1 .. p 1 I P W
OOi .. O 1 • i N 1 - 1 O - 1.611' __ 1 "_ . -.-... 1 O ... _ �.�
1
O
O O• O O O I C t
0 1
_ 00• O G I r G • I - G I I I ' O
CJ
V 1S NI1SnV
nim M a
Z O
� _ n
1118 10 1118a3w
L 3M
U I IdItla3W 10 013131tltl3w
Q y
\'t t 131Ms
is
.�• G� 15 A3SWVa � -
J Q' '!S 431815
o�.
850
o'.
� r
a
cfl -
M - 0 V90
15 9V 3MWf1VN - -
LO
1 a - _ 1tt777rrrrj"'� 1S 31tllVtld
W
T \ JU S VIONVo --
\", < 15 0� _ -. W 1sW - V1WItl0
-- yl 1 ]a a 1S V10S3NNIW '
L _... N
\ 15 15 Vl p53pNIW ^�
5 _
• tll 3N
\ is 9 05 TV�j 71
N
z
73NN3H m NIV `1i W„li < o❑ W 9 'b'
a
O. ; '� i rc 1 =1� a 3llin a3w S --. _ -
x
\ , rN nl { =1� N SIM3lF '•' 0 cli
1S IM31 ..
ZCQ
In
^ W fp a 83lln
� rn
Ix
OOOMl • ..
1
x 1100 ,
-
Z ay9e •
N � � O
is N W ;AVMWn C OF
a o W
i15
r/ a
3 $ o lso Av >,tlw
g Oa s, v1 �\� � • F •
I O
.ion Mi— 2 i m ; V0 1W-O W -
W �Nis GO QtL�O ±1• -.-� 'g :/ ___ e- - - -
9 cid — r w
_ a cn[r�3
~ \� O is 831583M
1`100S\` _ o W
Cyt_
w 00905 fl t1 5929 S d
IS n Y 15 AONIf:C -
iN Z 1S a
x N�_ NOSa 3.ii 3f T _
IS
15
NO 7V 1 NCS1gYf
O 15 N3tln8 NVn .._.'
a
i
_;� n_
�o�,�NNESOT,4Zo
Nlinnesota
D Department of Tmnsportation
Q Transportation Int-iilcling
St. Paul, Nlinnesota 55155
OF T IR
�)III('C' VI l_UI1tr1115S1Ullt'f
1 i1 r!I ,?Ufj31H)O
December 14, 1984
TO Municipal Engineers
Metropolitan Planning Organizations
FROM Richard P. Braun � ,
Commissioner of Transportatio
SUBJECT Federal Aid Urban Allocations
1985 Fiscal Year (October 1, 1984 - September 30, 1985)
The Federal Aid Urban allocation to the State of Minnesota for Fiscal Year 1985
is $11,915,473.00. A deduction for highway planning and research of 1 1/2%
(.$178,732) plus an additional 1/2% ($59,57.7) for planning and research has been
made. The attached tabulation shows the F.Y. 1985 F.A.U. allocation and the total
F.A.0 funds available as of this date.
COMMISSIONER'S MEMORANDUM NO. 36 DATED JULY 7, 1978, STATED: "STARTING WITH THE
FISCAL YEAR 1979 FAU ALLOCATIONS TO THE URBAN AREAS (POPULATION 5,000-200,000)
FAU FUNDS SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR OBL2GATION FOR FOUR (4) YEARS. THE UNOBLIGATED
FAU BALANCES THAT HAVE ACCUMULATED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1, 1978, (THE ACCUMULATED
BALANCES PLUS THE 1979 ALLOCATIONS) MUST BE OBLIGATED AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1982,
THE 1980 ALLOCATIONS MUST BE OBLIGATED AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1983, ETC.
THE FAU FUNDS THAT ARE NOT OBLIGATED WITHIN THE FOUR (4) YEAR TIME PERIOD SHALL
BE WITHDRAWN AND REDISTRIBUTED ON A PROPORTIONAL AND/OR SELECTED NEED AND PROJECT
BASIS."
Since that memo was issued, some urban areas -have obligated their FAU funds up to and
including their estimated 1986 allocation.
In 1983, the unobligated FAU funds that were .allocated for the Years 1974 thru 1979
were withdrawn. Last year, the unobligated FAU funds allocated in 1980 were withdrawn.
This year, we are withdrawing unobligated FAU funds allocated previous to 1982. This
is keeping in line with the policy of utilizing the funds on local urban area projects
that are of high priority but lack adequate federal funding.
As stated in previous letters, this does not mean that projects presently programmed
and following federal procedures will be discontinued due to withdrawal of funds.
It means that those urban areas that are not actively developing a project under
appropriate federal procedures at this time will forfeit any unused allocations for
the Years 1974 through 1981. Any future project will then have to be funded from
future allocations from 1982 and beyond.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
_17 , -
Page 2
Municipal Engineers
Metropolitan Planning Organizations
December 14, 1984
We do not anticipate delay of any projects presently being actively developed and
following federal procedures due to this adjustment. Any urban area that has an
adjustment made to their total FAU balance by this action will have their project
financed when the project reaches the letting authorization state provided that
they had enough funds in their account on this date, plus future allotments if
required, to fund their currently active projects.
We can permit you to advance only one additional year's allocation in order to
expedite use of FAU funds, since the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982
expires after F.Y. 1986. Unless congress passes another act, the program will end.
The enclosed data sheets show your annual FAU allocations with adjustments, if any,
and your authorized FAU projects, costs and allocation balance. If you find any
discrepancies or omissions, please notify the Office of State Aid.
Keep in mind that the 4-Year limitations will continue to apply. That is, those
unobligated allocations for the Year 1982 will be subject to withdrawal on
October 1, 1985.
Commissioner's Letter dated November 17, 1983, is hereby superseded by this notice.
Sincerely,
Richard P. ra n
Commissioner of Transportation
Attachment:
Tabulation
F
G
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1985 FEDERAL AID URBAN ALLOTMENT
(October 1, 1984 thru September 30, 1985)
F.Y. 1985 Total F.A.U.
Urbanized Areas Population Allotment Funds Available
Metropolitan Area 1,787,564 $8,223,594 $12,960,619.67
Sub Total 1,787,564 8,223,594 $12,960,619.67
Duluth 102,434 467,612 1,980,184.60
Rochester 60,473 276,060 940,076.37
Moorhead 32,669 149,134 756,565.87
La Crescent 3,879 17,708 17,708.00
St. Cloud 58,375 266,482 509,587 .40
East Grand Forks 8,545 39,008 112,882.00
Sub Total
266,375 $1,216,004 G� $ 4,317,004.24 $g 3
Urban Places
Albert Lea 19,435 88,721 358,305.61
Alexandria 7,608' 34,731 2,548.00
Austin 23,046 105,205 -162,865.38
Bemidji 10,949 49,982 199,462.01
Brainerd 11,489 52,447 109,299.32
Chaska 8,346 38,100 178,178.00
✓" Chisholm 5,930 27,070 9,262.07
Cloquet 11,142 50,863 202,978.69
Crookston 8,628 39,387 142,714.00
Detroit Lakes 7,106 32,439 - 18,115.80
East Bethel 6,626 30,248 120,709.00
Elk River 6,785 30,974 13 ,606.00
Eveleth 5,042 23,017 91 ,853.00
Fairmont 11,506 52,525 209,609.00
Faribault 16,241 74,140 195,869.09
% Fergus Falls 12,609 57,560 139,537.00
Grand Rapids 7,934 36,219 144,538.00
Hastings 12,827 58,555 221 ,572.26
Hibbing 21,193 96,746 138,565.61
Hutchinson 9,335 42,614 169,602-.54
International Falls 5,671 25,888 - 26,112.00
Urbanized Areas Population F.Y. 1985 Total F.A.U.Allotment Funds Available
Litchfield 5,904 $ 26,952 $ 107,557.48
Little Falls 7,250 33,096 132,076.00
Mankato 28,651 130,792 0
Marshall 11,163 50,959 155,255.00
Montevideo 5,882 26,851 56,661 .49
Morris 5,385 24,583 124,000.00
New Ulm 13,755 62,792 250,581 .96
Northfield 12,562 57,346 228,848.65
North Mankato 9,145 41,747 11 ,645.00
Owatonna 18,632 85,055 328,723.29
Prior Lake 7,284 33,251 132,695.00
Red Wing 13,736 62,705 48,646.00
Redwood Falls 5,210 23,784 94,913.00
St. Peter. 9,056 41,341 159,974.63
Savage 5,237 23,907 23,907.00 Ic A6
Shakopee 9,941 45,381
�- - 322,
Stillwater�'`" Stillwate � 121.81 ,100.00
56,250 224,330.00
rte' Thief River Falls 9,105 41,564 41,563.94 3(0
Virginia 11,056- 50,471 -408,040.22
Waseca 8,219 _ 37,520 �`o '
113,202.30
Willmar 15,895 72,561 183,271 .77
Winona 25,075 114,468 - 72,137.31 LL
Worthington 10,243 46,759 97,350.00
Sub Total 490,156 $ 2,237,566 (� $ 4,857,241 .00
TOTALS 2,544,095 $11,677,164 $22.,134,864.91
The populations are as determined by the U. S. Bureau of the Census
and changes as permitted under Mn. Stat. Chap. 414, Subd. 14.
�,1
71
MEMO TO: `- Udhn-_K.- Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Ray Ruuska, Engineering Coordinator
RE: 4th Avenue Project No. 1985-1
Inspection Services
DATE: September 10, 1985
Introduction
Attached is Contract Amendment No. 4 with Barton-Aschman Associates ,
Inc.
Background - - -
The
ackground - - -The 4th Avenue project will require full time inspection. With
the current work land, the Engineering Department cannot assign
one person full time to this project. Other options have been
explored. Scott County Engineering and some other agencies were
contacted regarding "renting" an experienced technician. Shakopee
"rented" one of our technicians to Suburban Engineering about
two years ago. However, the other agencies were busy as well
and couldn't spare any of their people. Therefore , Barton-Aschman
was asked to submit the attached proposal to provide inspection
services.
Action Requested
City Council authorization for proper City officials to execute
Contract Amendment No. 4 to Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
in the amount of $21 , 483 . 00 for project inspection services.
RR/jms
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
1610 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454 612-332-0421
September 10, 1985
Mr. Ray Ruuska
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Re: Proposal for full time inspection services for 4th Avenue (S.A.P. 166-108-01)
in Shakopee, Minnesota.
Dear Mr. Ruuska:
As you requested, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc;—is submitting this proposal for
the above referenced project.
Based on the specified time for completion as provided for in the Special Provi-
sions of the contract and other anticipated technical administration duties we
have prepared the following cost estimate for daily inspection services.
LEVEL OF EFFORT- person days
Technician Clerical
Pre Construction Meeting 0.5
Daily Inspection Services 45.0 -
Contract Administration 10.0 2.5
Total Person Days 55.5 2.5
Rate Per Day $96.00 76.00
Subtotal $5,328.00 190.00
Total Direct Salary = $5,518.00
Overhead Cost (1.5360 x 5518.00) = 8,475.65
Fixed Fee = 6,789.35
Direct Expenses (reproduction, Mileage, etc. ) = 700.00
$21,483.00
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Mr. Ray Ruuska
September 10, 1985
page 2
The above estimate is based on our standard hourly rates for staff personnel .
The City of Shakopee will be reimbursed by State Aid in the amount of 8 per-
cent (maximur of the total construction contract for construction engineering
and inspection services. Based on the apparent low bid the City would be
eligible to receive $19,477.47 in State Aid.
If this proposal meets the approval of the City of Shakopee, please return
one copy of the attached Amendment No. 4.
We are looking forward -to- providing these services which will afford us the -
opportunity to have total project involvement.
S' c rely,
ave Warzala
Senior Associ to
DBW:slw
AMENDMENT No. 4 to AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the CITY OF SHAKOPEE (CLIENT) and BARTON-ASCHMAN
ASSOCIATES, INC. (CONSULTANT) have entered into an Agreement dated July
10, 1984, for technical and professional services and;
WHEREAS, CLIENT and CONSULTANT
hereby wish to amend this Agreement to provide for daily inspection services
associated with the 4th Avenue reconstruction project (S.A.P. 166-108-01).
NOW THEREFORE, it is the purpose of this amendment to change the original
Agreement to include those design services documented in the attached letter
dated September 10, 1985.
It is the intent of this amendment that all other provisions of the Agreement
remain the same.
Executed this day of , 19_, by:
CONSULTANT: CLIENT:
BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. CITY OF SHAKOPEE:
ohn C. Muli , Vice President Eldon R. Reinke, Mayor
As Its Contracting Officer
John K. Anderson,
City Administrator
Judith S. Cox, City Clerk