HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/23/1985 TENTATIVE AGENDA
Housing Authority in and for the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota
Special Session July 23 , 1985
Chairperson Vierling presiding
Roll Call at 7 : 00 P.M.
ccept Special Meeting Call
uthorize appraisal for downtown housing project
4 . Other Business
b.
D�
5 . Adjourn61
_ 1
w Jeanne Andre
Executive Director
CITY OF SH KOP E
r rild&y
V /GJ l C
TO: Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Jeanne Andre, Executive Director
RE: Appraisal for Downtown Housing Project
DATE: July 19 , 1985
Introduction•
The Housing Alliance has previously submitted a preliminary
proposal to request tax-incrementfinancing assistance for proposed
senior citizen housing on Block 32 in Downtown Shakopee. City
Council was favorable to this proposal but requested that the HRA
undertake an appraisal of the property to be acquired.
Background:
Council action on December 11 , 1984 was as follows :
Lebens/Vierling moved to refer back to staff the appraisal
of the property to be purchased by Housing Alliance , to be
brought back to HRA after formal application has been made.
Motion carried with Cncl. Wampach abstaining.
The Housing Alliance has submitted the $500 application fee
for the formal tax-increment assistance application and would like
to proceed as quickly as possible. City Administrator , John
Anderson has secured the attached proposal to undertake an appraisal
of the four vacant lots in question.
Requested Action:
Authorize appropriate officials to execute an agreement with
Shenehon and Associates to conduct an appraisal of Lots 4 , 5 , 6
& 7 , Block 32 , in the original Shakopee plat, for a fee not to
exceed $800 .
tw
Shenehon
& Associates Inc
Property Valuation Er Market Analysis " a `'
9o3 Midwest Plaza East, Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402 (612)333-6533
December 13, 1984
Mr. John K. Anderson
City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
RE: APPRAISAL OF FOUR. LOTS IN THE DU&UOWN REDEVEWPHENT DISTRICT
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Pursuant to our recent telephone conversation, we are pleased to do an
appraisal of the four lots located in downtown Shakopee. The purpose of the
analysis will be to estimate the market value of the land for possible
acquisition. We will develop a documented report with four copies for your
use. We will get started on the assignment as soon as you give us the
authorization to do so and you can expect to receive a report within
approximately two weeks after we begin.
'before we begin the assignment, we would like the following information.
1. Legal description of the various lots;
2. A plat map of the lots;
3. A zoning map; and
4. Copies of the comprehensive plan information that relate to
these lots.
This information is essential to begin the appraisal. However, I am sure that
we will have some additional questions as we get into the assignment.
We handle our accountsT n an burly` basis. The hourly rates for appraisers
range between $45.00 and $85.00 per hour. We keep careful time sheets on each
job and the information is available to you at the time of billing. We
guarantee that the cost of this analysis will fall between $750.00 and $800,00.
Alan P Leirness • Timothy E.Mardell • Howard E.Shenehon • Robert J.Strachota
Mr. John K. Anderson
Page 2
December 19, 1984
Our firm has an established tradition in the Twin Cities com mity and has a
talented staff of appraisers with a wide variety of experience in the appraisal
of vacant land. We hold designations in the recognized national appraisal
organizations and continue attending real estate appraisal courses to maintain
our designations. Enclosed you will find a brochure on our company explaining
its history and purpose. I have also enclosed a list of my qualifications as
an appraiser/analyst.
If this proposal meets with your approval, please sign the enclosed duplicate
of this letter which will serve as your authorization to proceed and return it
to us. Thank you again for contacting us and we look forward to working with
you on this assignment.
Respectfully,
SHENEHON AMID ASSOCIATES INC. AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED
BY
Robert J. Strachota, MAI, SRPA Date
/vt
Enclosures
7/85
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
FOR
ENTERPRISE FUND PROJECTS
1] Order Pre-design study
2] Review pre-design study
3] Public meeting date selected by staff
and public informed through news media
a] legal notice two weeks prior to public meeting
b] press release one week prior to public meeting
4] Mailed notice to property owners in affected- basin, approximately
10 days prior to public meeting
51 Public Meeting Held (unless no additional special benefit charge )
6] Order preparation of plans and specs
7] Receive and approve plans and specs
Order an for bids
8] Advertise for bids
10 days if over $5 ,000 and under $100,000
3 full weeks if over $100, 000
9] Accept bid and order project by Resolution
10] Officials execute contracts and work begins
11] Work is accepted by Resolution
12]- Adoption of Resolution establishing the method by which the special
benefit and the City match cost is allocated within the district
and within the City and list the current rate addition as a result
of this project
13] Include with next quarterly billing an explanation of increases
as a result of the project
CITY HALL SITING COMMITTEE MEETING
Tuesday, July 23 , 1985
7: 30 p.m.
Council Chambers
1. Call to order by Chairman Leroux.
2. Additions to the agenda.
3 . Approval of the May 28 , 1985 minutes (attached) .
4. Analysis of need (attached) .
5. Review of Committee activities to date for audience.
a. Committee selection
b. Original criteria and ranking ( attached)
c. Final criteria and ranking (attached)
d. Trip to view other city halls
e. Trip to view sites rating highest of original 24
f. Traffic survey of people using City Hall - (attached)
g. Financing - Capital Improvement Fund and/or Bond
Issue placed on ballot
h. Future committee schedule
6. Review of survey results with 576 of approximately 4500
returned and tabulated (attached) .
7 . Open meeting to citizens comments .
8. Other business:
a.
b.
c.
9. Adjourn
John K. Anderson
CITY HALL SITING COMMITTEE
Tuesday, May 28 , 1985
6 : 30 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
Chairman Leroux called the meeting to order at 6 : 38 p.m. Committee
members present were John Leroux, Gloria Vierling, Dave Czaja,
and Dave Rockne. Committee member Dolores Lebens was absent.
Also present were John Anderson, City Administrator and Bill
Wermerskirchen, Jr. and Gary Laurent.
M/S/P Czaja/Vierling to approve the minutes of April 9 and April
15, 1985 as mailed.
Chairman Leroux opened up discussion on the criteria rating
of the remaining eight sites. He questioned if any site should
be removed from the list before a public meeting was held by
the Committee. Discussion focused on the site south of the
Post Office. The Committee finally decided to take the list
of all eight sites to the public meeting.
The City Administrator discussed those topics that the Committee
might cover at the public meeting: e.g. financing, site selection
process by the Committee, Committee process, needs analysis
(possible use of a video of current City Hall space) , space
requirements (fact sheet) , history on how we obtained the buildings
currently occupied by City Hall, selection of an architect to
study final site selection and general discussion by the audience
regarding the whole subject.
The Committee then discussed mailing a survey using the monthly
utility bills as the vehicle for distributing the survey. It
was decided that:
1. The survey should state that there is a need - i.e. not
ask if there needs to be a new City Hall built, but when
and where one would be built.
2. The survey should cover items in the April 15 , 1985 minutes.
3 . The Chairman and City Administrator were appointed to draft
a rough copy of the survey for review by the Committee
members.
4. The survey was to include an invitation to the public meeting.
5. The survey was to include a blank for other comments.
6. The Committee discussed listing other questions in the
survey such as, "do you agree that a new City Hall is needed
or do you have any objections to using taxes to support
a new City Hall?" The Committee decided that questions
of this nature would not be included in the survey.
7. The Committee discussed whether or not we needed to reserve
a meeting room for the meeting. It was decided to hold
the meeting at City Hall.
8. The Committee decided that the site question would be listed
by general categories.
Gloria Vieriing suggested that after the survey and general
public meeting that civil groups should be invited to tour City
Hall to review the needs for a new City Hall.
A tentatively public meeting date was selected for June 25 ,
1985 at 7 : 30 p.m. if the survey could go out in the June utility
mailing.
Chairman Leroux opened up the meeting to questions from the
audience. Bill Wermerskirchen asked if the Committee was serious
about all of the remaining eight sites . He suggested that if
the Committee selected site No. 3 it would further spread out
the commercial area of Shakopee. Bill noted that with the Post
Office construction public funds were used to remove blight
and that the City did the same thing when it constructed the
parking lots in 1967. He suggested that perhaps more weight
should be given to the removal of blight in the Committee siting
process.
Bill also noted that the City Halls in White Bear Lake and Hopkins
are located very close to the downtown central business district.
He also noted that the Downtown Committee had been working for
years to revitalize downtown Shakopee, and that they would like
to see City Hall stay downtown with the City Council, Committee
and staff behind a downtown location.
Gary Laurent stated that he came to the meeting because of his
concern that the City Hall might not be located downtown. He
noted that the site that scored the highest in the rating was
in a multi-family residential area, and questioned if that would
truly be the best location for a City Hall. He supported Bill
Wermerskirchen' s comments that the construction of a new City
Hall would be an excellent opportunity to achieve downtown redevelop-
ment and remove some blighted buildings. He said that Shakopee
was extremely fortunate to have . a downtown and that certain
suburbs such as Plymouth were now in the process of trying to
create a downtown. Gary questioned why certain buildings such
as the Opera House were not given more consideration. The Committee
said that it had looked at the Opera House and there were problems
with size and parking not to mention the building structural
problems.
Chairman Leroux thanked the members of the audience for attending
the meeting and participating.
M/S/P Czaja/Vierling to adjourn at 7: 22 p.m.
John K. Anderson
Recording Secretary
John Anderson
Page 6
June 1 , 1.981
}Financing:
The total cost of the project we 'uel could be funded without
increasing; the mill levy by selling the two buildings presently
used ne City Hall . Preliminary esti:n:�tc.:. ine;icute lov, oi'
$x'00,000 to a h:igh of' $2,15,000. The h:dance 1 am told could
come out of the Revenue Sharing; Accc,unt..
FINAL RECOMMENDATIOhr:
It is staffs recorrunendation a committee be formed to survey
public attitudes and assist in site selection, building design
and selection of the architect.
SALIENT FACTS :
Present Building Areas
Community Services
City Hall = Gross Building Area 4, 650 sq. ft .
Apportioned:
Council 769. 5
Traffic Area 787
Rest rooms 159
Public Holding -Area 72
Conference room 140
-- Storage 500
I_,unch room 168
Mayor' s office 144
Ne-t remaining to staff office & work area 1 , 910.5 sq.ft.
Total area needed 11 ,000 sq. ft.
There are 18 in house employee ' s in City Hall . This amounts -to
an average of 106. 14 sq. ft. per person which includes file
cabinets, equipment and machines.
It should be pointed out that the above average of 106. 14 sq. ft .
per person does not reflect an accurate portrayal of the situa-
tion, as many are working with less than 70 sq. ft. including
equipment.
LFH :plk
Comparison of Population Projections
Past population projections offer insight into anticipated population growth.
First, existing local plans and public facility reports contain projections;
the Shakopee 1962 land use plan, local water and sewer plans, along with regional
and state projections. Table 8 and Chart 7 compare these projections with a
projection which continues 1970-1977 Shakopee population increase.
Table 8
Comparison of Population Forecasts
for Shakopee
1970 1980 1990 2000
1. 1962 Comprehensive Plan 7,840 14,200 --
2. Metropolitan Council
Development Framework 7,716 11 ,300 16,300 22,700
3. Latest Metropolitan
Council 7,716 11,000 15,700 211000
4. 1976 Water Plan 10,800 16,300 22,700
5. Sewer Plan 83,000*
6. Continuation of 1970-75 rate
(5% per year) 12,078 18,100 27,100
7. As percent of State
Demoaraphers Scott
County Share 7,716 9,260 11 ,297 13,443
* Ultimate Development
As readily seen, there is a wide variation between the most optimistic and
pessimistic projections. The 1962 plan offers the highest projection, while using
the state demographer's estimate as a percentage of expected Scott County
population growth, gives the lowest projection. The three projections of the
regional agency and continuation of 1970. population growth appear reasonable and
relatively close together.
1 ct8 o Census mop -hon - 9 9 4-�
r_Ma4r•wl om /4B1 !'OMp►-ck;emivZ man of 4iic j!�j�47 o f Ji�aLyee_
-19-
P4
time ��
?4,000
b
PAW
�4 5~
?0,000 hyo o
�o
o�
R
I.,000
^Qbti 110�P,
A
12,000
E
S
OP�P
cE�cJ
4,000
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
CHAR•( 7 POPULATION FORECASTS
BU
150
= gp
T
a
00��1
60
3
19)0 1980 1990 2000
s
CHART 8 COMPARISONS OF FORECASTS
-21- _N 4,. �rcn� 198/ -Sna�Pu. L'o►�,�. pian
5b
MEMO TO: City Hall Siting Committee
FROM: John K. Anderton , City Administrator
RE: Weighing of City Hall Siting Evaluation Criteria
DATE : February 22 , 1985
Introduc ion
I have discussed the criteria for evaluating the City Hall sites
that the Committee will be reviewing with some department heads
and one suggestion was that the criteria themselves be weighted .
I believe that that will be a useful exercise and encourage
you to weight the following list of site criteria without flipping
to the matrix which is attached as the next item on the agenda .
Procedures for Weighting
There are 27 criteria to be used in evaluating the 22 sites
the Committee has identified to date. The criteria are listed
below and I would like each Committee Member to rank the criteria
in importance by giving it 1 point for very little importance .
and 10 points for very important. I will collect your scores
on the critiera and tabulate them for future use by the Committee.
Critiera Criteria Weighing 1-10
1 . New building site . . . . 6.2
2. Two level entry . . . . . . . .
3 . Good , convenient street access . . . . . . . 8
4 . Easy to locate. i.4
5 . Center of urban population. . . . . . . , , 3.8
6 . Site size • �-
.6
7 . Site cost to. acquire. . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Redevelopment , relocation costs . . . 7.4
9 • F.ock problems . . g
10 When site is available . . . . . . . • • . . 5.2
11 . Condemnation required . . •. . . . . u
12. Other projects required 5.
13 . Adequate parking. . . .. . , • . . . . 8.8
14 , On major arterial . . .
, . . . • 3.4
15 . Close to major thoroughfare orintersection 5-2
16 , Proximity to central business district ( CBD) . •4
17 . Site expansion possibilities. r.8
18 . Degree of distruption of existing businesses '
or housing. 5.4
19 . Aesthetic potential . , , : .' .* . 6.4
20 . Land use conflict with adjacent area. . . • 6.4 -
21 . Area compatible with a city hall. . . .. . .0.6
22. Affect on traffic patterns and flow . . 5.2
23 . Centralization of City functions. D.4
24 . Relationship to other governmental agencies . 3
25 . Loss of property tax potential. . . . . . . 4
26 . Exposure-focal point. 4 ,
27 . Needs other agency OK . . . . . . . . . , , .n
3
M I N I ; 1�1 1 '-••I Q]1 IT I •1 y l v!1 I'O 1 I O I �1 �i �I I �I t �1
v 1 V I r=1 �' �1 •••'1 r' r 1 1 �I 1 <'.I r', v i 1 1 ; V I r 1
� I
r•'1 I 7S '7E. T�1!"�'V')Lff'-'-STI 1 r.G1 1 r7•�!2Q I�C-Q 1 116 I T 1 lam)1_.._+.1 Qd S 312.1.•1�I ��1 2Cr>p•' QT1 1 iZ I HT1 1 =1
Y 1!J d l m I r• LTi 1 SV X 1�'••'1 rt C'••'I�b•""1 0.+-1 ••••I 79' 1 1 Y 1 1.-~t W�.I T-�I m 1 T 1 0••+��;�Y ;r••.•�G 1 G y 1 Y 1
N I^�I N 1 a 'rO• 1 R r.I m•i l r-'r�l'r'O 110 1 1^-I I O 1 -• 1 m rn I O O Q 1>!•'m ZI
1 1+1 n l ZT••Yt I b�� 1 G- I I�O I I r n 1 ✓'^1 IYR 1 n O m I s 1 4'• I ... I n 1�I'•r; 1�'Ir 1 n l�r•1 � 1 r•
T I n T l I )T 1 O O I Orr+1 rJ�J I ti Q�1 IZm I TyJ7 1 1-1 >T I •'••'C 1 m ry 1 fm 1 1 •=I ro Y 1 10 I O l T /
O Iro0 101 I 1 r�1 1 Y• 1a"•1 t m.-1--0 100-''1 �1 1 O N I{rz.CJ 1 IN• 1 1 m ; 1 lir: ,aN 1
•w, 1 r•I !I�/0 1 r I m••"I lr t 7 Y 1 I"I'tlw� 1�$] 1 r I I ry r•T 1 wQ_o I 1 rP� I -• I O 1 I �•t rG I Y(�1 1
1 -1 T d l L.rl 1 m M=, l Y d[•}I•--•n 1 11a N 1 O• 1 00
1 •�rL l rb I Y 1 V37 I r I m I m 1 f•S= 1 Tf�
T], me l ro 1 1 1 I r �••1 0 0 I$I n l • •+I C 1 1 V i m n Y I O n C-); <1 1 r'r l O m l -1 I„ r!0 1 10 I�1 I•�C 1 r I / S•
1 \1 1 1 S i 1"r 1'p 7 I I O 1 I N 1 1-T n 1��•• lr I S IZ•--•I I , r••I•rO I ' 1 T 1 O 1 f--)
1 I i O 1 m O 1 r 2 T I�• 1••-1 r 1 0 G7 1..a I �i I n
,C 1 l y l 1 ro t 1`Ll]1- TJ"l I I { . L 1 I Q N I < I O 1 O T 1 n l y l
1 1 1 1 • 1 1 -••1 1 1 1 m l 1 1•••• 1 1 r I`-�\1 •'�•1 1 1 i ro 1••- I I i 1 �
r••+
ro!V 1 , I 1 1 1 �! I I O•i N I I 11 1
1 Cr' `r_ }r 'r��O 'sem'`� �•C 1�.._=w TS Ir_.r_Ir1�i✓tir•�1� 1•�•C I\p �ry.� Iru-Q�r
< \t 1 .�C 1 ••C�•rCuM'-••C P\ `� \ D`
Its a�< ••c �•C \ r�l
ro p.la 1 ri.�l m m m 1l•� m mI m 1• p 1 m 1 m m m ,• o YV m m IQ +0 1 m m TO IqV��\ m 1 VA m 1}�.m 1' p
N-1••G•'r 11.0�Jr N , (w "1 1�, t
T10`1'm\ yi^ \1 m\1 /�\1 m\1 m\�.J 1 l�IC_ 11�VI�� � � V! 1 IAG
t� { 1 < I!, 1{ 1 � 1 •� 1 I(
IT)
(• r`o i, m i� o f �' i o f o O T1 m 11 a i m i
�✓ 1�7
I 1 1� N 1\� N I- N II�N IQ � � M 1 1�♦ I. 100 N�,N I�N Icy 1 r to I. I• �N i�<n m
1� 1 Of, 1 O- 1�• �1� I � , 1(^ � 1 V ,OQ 1 1• '�\ ��J 1� 1 �. , 1� /�\ 1 1 m
, 1 0� 1/•' 1 I 1 1 1 1� IOG 1� 1 I I 1 V ��-rr'�1
,-�r r•�_ _ _r_r�.__r_r_hC_r_r_r_r_r_r-r_r _ _r_zr_r_.�'_�1�_r ___
< < 1< 1 ra i'r< 1•..O O 1 < 1 "1 l < 1 w -� 1 'K 1 < I••�O I•-•O O 1•-�O 1 < 1 < .{ I O 1 •'� r�< 1 < 1 Pp�l < I N N r e••)Q7
m 1 m 1 m 1 10`^'C 1\ -ro 1 C-�C t� ro t 1/�m I_k m ro ti Ln ; ; umi 11\umi ' N i ImJ, i ImJ, '\umi i�KV\Vm, i n >>o
N ^ In I N 1.p I N 1-p p� N 1 1�+un N , N 1` i� [.r)1 1 A m.+
P ,\ ,1 �•1.•R� 1 1- � r 4 1 �1 1 W 2 1 1 '^1 N\ � � <IZA
1
�!.! I• 1:•-�'c Z`�J C <Z� 1 O 1 � IV 1 1 l� r `{Z 1�-�1 �C L 1 1 I a I 1� 1� I N. 1 1 N�• p
1- . IQ' 1 I 1 - I 1 I • 1 •ylr 1 I yl I r l I I 1 1 I
_{�r_r-r_r_r_r_ �^ -ar.-r_r_r_r_ r-
K I p 1 r < 1 1 r l ,F .O I_ O 1 �� O 1 < 1� ...L W a -< 1 E.
t C.1 1 < 1 O 1 a ���l•.A i A omi lz
m 1� Ir'4o.� ro l o IVS p 1� wVo 1 0 l 0 1•�0 �'<5m IN o 1• m I_� m I• p �ro I:ro Irl.\ m IV0 �a i o
N I N N N 1�1. I m 1M N
to I T.. 1� � 1 r-_�.r � 11.�V � i A i � ;1/ 1`r`• I IT 1�• I� ;YI'p°••--5 p.
1 1 �� 1� `� rl� Ir 1 , I �r_'r•� ' _�r_rS��r_r-�_
< 1 •K '.dp1 < < p \ 1 < I < 1 -"� < 1 < < < r�r r rl,.1i< C O
1 1 1 1 7 I I I I < •{ t r, i rw 1 < 1 •{
iImr, i vmi Iroi, iRJ Iroi, i o i�a ip Iror, i®vroi 'p7�..�' vmi i�um, i�vmi i� Ln i� IIT, m++ i� umi 'Imr+ 1r`t In i.�p i i (W� in ICA vmi i0 umi i�a�io�pvmi.i�Q rm
,QQ 1 1 I 1 I i .(j i�•�/ 1 , 1 L r-�' 1 0 t `; l•\ i•_
1`+ IM 1 � 1� 1 i 1♦� �� Ili I I r•rl .rte ' _r. r r _r _r_
��•_r_r_r-.r<r_r_r_ 'k'____r_.,.•l �2r_r
1\N I�r 1�(l�_1 \J►1 N N
- ul 1 �1 ,�1 O� + 1 W r 1 't�, �J `I ` I(,V 1 W 1 1• I^r-f• /� L n GJ1 •t 'y-,� I.V T _
'^ 10 r i 4T1 E� �f If6� v i�T 1`_I n n 1� n i�n �- n i O n i t/• rt i•c rW \f n N, i
` ,7•. 1 61'r ,� 1-�L 1r�'�^ 1 'v i� �1 rte. �� , 1 9C'-WA
•\���' 1 (per QQ 10� IN ; N 1
- 1 1 �r r�r�+`� ' �...►-�33r- ' _� _� '�r��L.i�'rr_
- ,� 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 I` 1 1 ...Iii.•.1 1 I 1= 1 1 1 1 1 / I i\� i\ i i�j, i� i� i� rl_r i s�^~-
I 1 t� I� _ I �O• �I 1 1 1 1 _ 1 I I 1_ �\ I N .•r'
r\ w 1 1` 1 I• I 1 a
1• IQ- 1� 1� lO - 1� =�.1/sid i� iW tW i-1 W .wi i n i^ i ice{
' 1 I 1� I Iv} {� 1 I 1 1 1 1 O, 1'CJ.• 1�1 i' 1 1LIM N r r.1 in
a
o ro ro
I N r 1.� N , N 1. N 1• N 1 r N i` 1 i• N /NrG S
IaC1- 1�^ \�, I��1�� 1 yw
1 1 lyl I• 1�• i*W' f'L' '� 1 ` 1 N1 _IpQ I N n K
r_r+r_r.��-�`_r._r._r'_r_'.�...r'- - r-l�rrl+Nl
l`.{ I.p`I~�.0 lop O 1 O 1�T0 1�< 1► 1 W O I 1\p Iw O 1 1 •< ` _� •J^O -1�< .0 1 1 1 < I�V< `,rt,
� 1 O Irr•C'1 r-.rr_
r,Lp ;IP1 �, N ;- o ; a ;- n I• N �o �- o o t• 0 1 o ro �( 11�v0 �� m I 1f�r7r w 1• m ;• N
p' ,1 -L ((�' 1���`' oo If N L�, ` 10% '
.�.�Y_...j I 1 _.�
I O l p 1. N 1` 1 = i �� 17••1 1 p I O 1 O 1 1 N I O I� - L N 1 N 1 1 N I, N 1 J I 1 p 1\7 l 7 1\O 1 Y N S r
o 1p o ,Kra
, 1 � � 1• - 1• 1 ! 1 a l 1 - i I h r M •1 i I• P S L Ir.+'m
-i ` !• I^ N 1� 11.- �a N1N I>� 1\ 1� I�N I,• �G 1,1• N (�N -
1
N
< Ir O 1 l-C Ir 1Irl < 1�.{ 1_••C j.J j _I.��. 1> I.� > ��_>- 1' i m O�•)
m 1 1 n te,� l yl a l -i m l m l ro l l ro l l 1 1 0 I�a Iv�n ' 1- p l m Y 0
1 1 Imo(. N 1 1 1 1 1l1 I I In I 1"�+1 1 1 N N ItN 1 N 1 1 1p,., 1. 1� t` 1 J IL•+O
�1 l 1`\ I• I 1 •�]1. 1� 1 1- 1 1 L. 1• 1� 1 I -111 I '1 i� I ra -JC
1� � 1� ' I I 1 Y � 1- 1 1`• I� I I� 1L� 1 .1 1 1 r!� � I�`1 1 O 1 O m
1r* 1 11 1 1 h -1: 1 1' Ir 1 7 r i TK�I 1 I TG 1 TK IrZC�j�•�•C�Ir a _I' l 1 rl/'1� ,r•�^r�!"'��i��o r_
-"� vi �I� ro �qQ n l� a L ro lm-"1>,-{iso l� o f o lroro-1;� o roro I�roro IrorolroroR� I t0mro i� 1 0 0 1 ^rn r .-
�p i v_1� N � _ I� 1- N 1 c411L1� �1® t d�Q- �dN 1 dul I ay/L fL dtT 1 1 Y.••41�1• 1(`� rl_ N 1�'` r
` ,` I ' 11'1TTTr•.. 1 hl� 1 m\ 1 1 m\ N 1 m\1�'•I m\1 m\�Lro 1 l do-1� 'Z J � IN 1- �l9
-• I`' 1 _r� _ 'hf'rl.)J '1�(� 1.�1 ��. ir�r'��.r._r I\ � `I (� 1l A 1�j'� �� I�rl.�_IiJ 1 ni I lI1.O s r- r
1.n1- �V �i�• �`••'�l �~� �:� I:l ;(�_ 1� 1p�� 1. IO 1'h I O i { I-`1 11,111 I I� I� 1� 1� IJCI 1� _, �
Iul _ r
tr_.rl� -IX N r
7 I 1���1 < 1 •< I < •••[ 1. I�1, 1 1•<s' 1 1�`•C Ir_<1 < 1 ' O 1 Il< 1 1 v �C 1 p 1 1 •<-L
P �\ \ 1 1 1 m l O,a l o I�ro
I�O 1 r� 1I. ro I• ro l- m 1. m l n F_ a i' O l m a 1` ro 1. ro l m 1. a 1 I' ro i'
I I t�r•1�0 N I S N I N 1 N I� Il/` I\ I N� 1� N 1 - N 1� N 1� I� i� N 1 1\ 1• N
1 1 ___"x`1111 fir_ I�� I�1 I�•J I� IIJ- 1(y I 1 1-\' t I 1 1 �� t_�rl C 1 I.••�I t _
r_�_r'-r-r�ir-r_r�..�_X-r_r�r•r+u____�_-__r-r-r_r•��
'1 � 1-C --C < K 1 �- > > I � 4 ti 1 -•G •C 1 7 � 1� 1 I > > 1 < i � ,-'•+r-r+C7
n ' 1t^;• N ; N ir'� N ;_ N1 It. t I I- NI NI N1w\ �` i �• V i 'r ;. Ni4� Irom O�✓OI1� �
n =_7 r
R<I S'�--r-o -
1 p 1 O••j�_1� < 1�1 p 1\r O Imo[....� ,�[`-•c 1�••C 1-i �C 1�-G \p Iv m 1• O ♦1Jm 't'(O �
NI-,
1 i'1 p,1• n 1�0
In i O^9
7 !1 O I pRl m 1 n 1� O 1-\O 1-•�Tt7 h m 1` m I m L 1• 1 IIw I I A r
1- N I N 1� x]1\ 1\ p,. p\ •C 1
mN N N 'W'
rI '�
J I 7 1 I 1 p r .� 1\t r,_C 1 1 1�1 O 1 1-• 1 I\1 1 1 O 1 "K 1I I`a 1\IO 1\< I 1 , O < 1\�C 1 < 1�O I�N m to
ON-1. ro >�ro Ip n lorxr. to -
N
1\•p 1 r l\ a l r k� ' N 1 1 1 O 1 O 1 1 �'Ir' O I 1 •�I 1 ..._ 1 �r-r p l , O I N p ti O iL\..111 I N
1� a Ngo �a t^o l O I�o O I o 1\ a 1� c 16�n '1°oa i�a 1 a lno°Ci�o L n 100 1=Lft-
:� r=n m i� vi i�j uTi N i6\N rao i i � m ir�r?dti :momcuN+=.n Ta
i Ory r•" � �` �j i i� i �{:'jO�G1r1 ,� I
1(,� 1 1 1�•a
1 1 1 1 I - 1 "' 1 Imo• 1 I I -1- - + 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1�� -Q
•-t .a^.cam.n I�.a� 1• ,\o c�i[�o 1(� 0 1�a
1\1••. n I\ O 1 ar 1� X X 1 �fx 11„�a I O� •r'\a Mme•a 1(J1 a 1 r••1�o E I��o '�J T 1\0 1 1� •••'-1\1r� 1•-I(�o I`1�1 O m
d i• t�A�^ `I^o `i110 �q'��-1�\1 d i(6\�" 1� a i\ i �� d i9p�ad i�a i(r`a 1iC/�a i �1y\'\� o i� l/•y\` �od i� In
IM 1. ' fO r''L, ��r rr� 1 0 I . 1��� rte_11r�.1 1� r-1 -_1� 1J,J 1_ I
Irk O 1_SCJ 1 \Tj 1 S'.-1 Y1 1 3A IrC'r1Ir7.Tr- 1'GsR 1 11T`I N I m�N 1 L 7 l IrOtR G�r N-1 1 CQ r m.�i¢C i 90 1 Qfn t-z^I
iw rw ;Oj 1 G-O 1 r �O 1 CYII O 1(..F1 1 r0 'c•!O , t�70 I,((��r.X7 t,q4�1 r MTI O 1 C•fD O I'•"•�O.1 tib 1 qL-•-- i``•r rTC t�10 1 N 1•1J r.O p 41' 1 \O W
1p ir\� m• ,=y i l)u ry 1 ( Y j0 1 ,m I wm I��A 1 r=0 1;♦ -f�0 1�A i\Yam i=�m-I(\ m i•\ i�R•1 ra I m i\m IW rs0 i cm.d=a
- _I V 1 1` 1 {fes 1 1 per. I 1`�I 1 Imo./• _ ��.j? I��((�``\ N1c1� ,o(� p�
IT, 1 1 S U' !� �• W\ +'v 1+' ; `"'Tc _
i m < iSL o m i i•z1rt1-i 0 ry 'I j,rw i\io i 0 m iW -r<o i 0 m iW mm Iltt���y o f i� m i..•,-,p,. r
1mr, ; If,
N 'WI•�' N 'l/• N 1 v j N N N N m r C
1� 1 ly� I`_ 1� 1]✓ I� ' � I� -IN - ;�`\ I� W I -�_.r'�'Ir-r_r'- -r_r�?Irr_r_'r_r-r~'r'r
7 1,� � 1� i � 1_r 1 � ' 7 Ir = 1' 1 I 1 O 1 1 O 1' O 1 1 •L I `L, Ir- 7 1 i.J I O 1 O 1 1 O I O k. = 1 7- �� rC•••^O 9
ON
T_I�p 1�� 1 p.11. � 'y_ ��h01� O I O O Ir0 1 O t� CT I� �1 O 1� I(�.O Q\O I I(. O 1�0 1`�O �O 10 I_•y 1pr. .
1 0.7.1((�� .J,1•``"•VV _ i'-.VV •J 4\= 1. 7 1/� O O 1��_ 1 O 1 •J 1 •�.1 t O t` 1"�O 1,,(( 1 - 1 W O 1• m 4 O 1• O I- O 1 O r••-01 r.
Iv ro 'IVV• 1 1\ ro - I�ro IQ ro IO ro 1• m r ro I�.m t 1 1 Q ro IC4 t�m IXl 10 1 1 m Ip ro L{m w m \ ro I x.�'•, m t
1\ 1\ I I v t I W - 1 I i l•- IJ` ; I i-- Cl-
ly - ,TI- 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 n
I I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 I t I 1 7
Ln i_r=1'��_�1'_�1~-=Ir 1 i+r_r-=r _-�+i^r7 Ir�1'�Ir 0 1� Rl 1`m 1 RI lr O I �Ir�O~iv f•')
� i\nio � l -ri' ' 1T .- i alfa : ni t � 11" 1'1A01(�� i � o ;pl a ; l0 ; l01 (0 � i\ ^ iwn �4jloi ai�%�
i�id'� i i� i"� � i" i , � ^ I 1/„ .t S\ 1� 1 �, IQ I 1\ 10. � 17� ' I-.+•aY
1 1 OC
�1 7 1 r�`r�1'r 7 1`�Ir�I.till `.p ��-,-rt'_�� -_=i_�..�Ir`_� ' N I r•wll Ir � 1 1(.' �_I � I' � Ir O ' N I QUO u I••r-7J
0 1 0�1 a i 0 1 1 0
a l�� l f,O 1( O Irl O f O O 1 O"'F I• O 1` n I r, i�\ O I O h G 1 r�J 1+��OI li .�� •�V \!1 1 c-+•ra
-•p ro 'mty V m '�d/ m i\ m IQ\m 'lO m 1-,m IQ, 1�.`'r� a m I m I� m m I-,l�1• m 1 -I�j\ m I m 1 r•�vcl a Y,<
_i_
i9•a _ UI 1 N 1 --r-___..-1`) 1 1 11-1 r J._r_r 1 t-_- _.1` I I✓1 1 1 -�`I~((��-��~I 1 1 1 N_ ' .._I'' O 1 1 r i O 1 1 O 1 I C� 1 O 1 0 o O O fig O
i a_�!'�(Y� o f 0 � a 1\0 Imo 1 1 a 1� a 1'-�•O a l 0 1 0_r, o I o 1 � 1"�l ,�1�„-,�•�� �® 1.-x o N
`; 1-y m ;N I� N ;��\ N jam\ m R\m 4�'m ;(.�m i m 1�`_�m �N ; \' r9 i(�� N ;[y/'�•�' m i�tfl ;�m 1- m i ;` N 'I�.yl �N i m (`.__m 1 m t_N <
1 '� 1 I�V` 1" I .' 1\•` ;_ If I� 1�1 I 1 �) I t 1 I� I 1 - I 11`•S1 1 a _
11`� 1 � I`v a IQ .. '1\0 �1�-ice- �n IbTf,�c'-I• o I• '�o nl.� ills ^^I �rU.lo 11=�,1„ loocx
y,,d I� n /�).) O i n �O I f Ci I• d� G I�.1 G I` d 1=O 1:+.I(1 d I d O I1�^G 1 v U 1y.1 d 1 f\ 11 I�d I• O 1�''•T�� ca.:
^TI•'Tn ti
j - I G 1"t � G�.f I ✓.i � �G 1 C ni.]!•1
��.------- ---'-----I--.._----1--- +r'- -----r--------Ir-�_��...•�...-��_
I Ir I ••.c 1 Ort-.� Irl-•r- 0- `_ -c 1 ' V � 1 1 ••C 1 O •� 1 O 1 Iq 1 1 1 O I O Y O
I•"vl �V O 1 m IO 1. m IW�O I m (V m O 1 t o I alp
I V 1 1 N I_ 1 1• n 1 lr I 1 I• N I• I N 1• I N I. "` _.
{]��� 111����� ' I�(` 1 - I I� I 11� I 1 11\\r � I 1 _1/� I I 1•"C O m I,•� y
;� T- ;(��. ;� �� � �� 11� �� I r 100 1� I� 1� l O\ ^•"C\ ' i ISL � t� I� r n•'1
It 1 <
O-i O O -Gm Ym I m •�. I ••� 1 -KRI -•Cm 1 O I 1 _o I < --O
ro I < 1 0 1 < I U,311L
O lm -I R� r m l R� 1 I l l l m l m 1 T 1 ry l 1 O I I ro l l ry l O I ry 1 =I�C y,1
1 O I N 1 YI 1 y1 I 1 U, I 1 N I N I YI UI I N i N I Y1 V I I N I I 1 N I Ifl I N I I N 1 0=�•r�'S.
t 1 1 1 1 I i I 1 I I ' 1 I 1 I 1 I ( I I I I I Z dti_•T Q.
�-
I
-I
-'\ -� � -I\--I� -� -�-i� _.{ __- i\-i-�� `it ~-I -i��~i\ 1i� _' _'`_-
`----i-r-I\ 1� _-_S.
1 1`.? 1 1����7 1 '\ 13• 1\ 1•'\; 1- I- 1� ,vv�V �n� I •� N 1 I� - 1 d^ T\ - Ir� t\ ,Ut r•r T7
�1\ F-l' � r�, '� 1 e't, 1 n 1:\ 1� 1\ .�j_ i• r v i,\ i• 11N i i� i` v ti 1"\ i•V i -
MEMO TO : City Hall Siting Committee
FROM: John K. Anderson , City Administrator
RE: Weighing of City Hall Siting Evaluation Criteria
DATE : May 10, 1985 (Revised May 14 , 1985 )
Introduction
We have revised the criteria for evaluating the City Hall sites
that the Committee will be using. Two additional criteria need
to be weighted.
Procedures for Weighting
There are 21 criteria to be used in evaluating the remaining
12 sites the Committee has decided to re-evaluate. The criteria
are listed below and I would like each Committee Member to rank
the criteria in importance by giving it 1 point for very little
importance and 10 points for very important. I will collect
your scores on the criteria at the May 14 , 1985 meeting and
tabulate them for future use by the Committee.
Criteria Criteria Weighting 1-10
A. Two level entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....4 .8
B. Utilities available . . 8
C. On major thoroughfare or near intersection. 7 . 5
D. Land use conflict with adjacent area. . . . . 6 .4
E. Good , convenient street access. . . . . . . . 8
F. Easement problems . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
G. Center of urban population. . . . . . . . . . 3 .8
H. Site size 7 .6
I. Land.cost to acquire. 5
J. Redevelopment , relocation costs . . . . . . . 7 .4
K. Rock problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .8
L. Affect on traffic patterns and flow . . . . . 5 .2 --
M. Centralization of City functions. . . . . . . 5 .4
N. Aesthetic potential . . . . . . . . . . 5
0. Condemnation required . . . . . . . . . . . 4
P. Degree of distruption of existing businesses
or housing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 .4 _
Q. Other projects required . . . . . . . . . 5 .6
R. Relationship to other governmental agencies 3
S. Loss of property tax potential . . . . . . 4
T. Exposure-focal point. . . . . . . 14 .2
U. Proximity to central business district (CBD) . 4
MEMO TO: City Hall Siting Committee
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Explanation of the Siting Rating Criteria (Factors)
DATE: May 10 , 1985 (Revised May 14 , 1985 )
The list below provides the explanation for each of the remaining
siting criteria.
A - Two level entry - This item should rate higher if the site
provides for City office entry on one level and Police
or Public Service on a second level .
B - Utilities - This criteria should be rated high if all utilities
such as water , sewer , storm sewer , electric and gas are
available at the site' s boundaries.
C - On major thoroughfare or near _intersection - This criteria
should be rated higher the larger the street or nearer
the intersection the site is located.
D - Land use conflict with adjacent areas - This criteria should
be rated high if the zoning is appropriate and there are
few land use conflicts.
E Good convenient street access - This criteria should rate
high if it is easy to direct a stranger to the City Hall
site.
F Easements - This critiera should rate high if there are
no public utility easements crossing the site.
G - Center of urban population - This criteria should rate
high if the site is located in or near the center of the
urban population.
H - Site size - This criteria should rate higher the larger
the site for future expansion.
I - Land acquisition costs - This criteria should rate higher
the lower the acquisition costs.
J - Redevelopment and relocation costs - This criteria should
rate higher the lower the redevelopment and relocation
costs.
K - Rock - This criteria should rate higher the less the problems
in excavation caused by bedrock.
L - Affect on traffic flow patterns - This criteria should
be rated high if traffic to and from the City Hall site
will not negatively affect traffic flow patterns on adjacent
streets .
M - Centralization of City functions - This criteria should
be rated high if the site brings together existing City
functions such as Police , Fire Public Works , and General
Administration.
N - Aesthetic potential - This criteria should be rated higher
the more flexibility the site provides an architect to
build a suitable City Hall and that would befit the general
area.
0 - Condemnation required - This driteria should rate higher
the less likely condemnation wo ld be required to acquire
the site.
P - Distrub existing businesses or housing - This criteria
should be rated higher the less the City Hall constructed
on the site would disturb existi g businesses or housing.
4 - Other projects required This criteria should rate higher
the fewer additional projects required to make the site
work, e. g. need for new roadways , etc.
R - Relationship to other governments - This criteria should
be rated high if it locates the ity Hall adjacent to other
governments such as the Scott County Government Center.
S - Loss of property taxes - This criteria should be rated
high the less the City will loose in property taxes if
the property is taken off the to rolls for City Hall building.
T - Exposure/ focal point - This criteria should be rated high
if the site will provide a granC 2Dvroachto the City Hall
and/or provide a visual focal point that will draw one ' s
attention to the structure.
U - Proximity to central business district (CBD) - This criteria
should be rated higher the closE r to the CBD the site is
located.
Rating: Each site should be rated on each criteria (A through
U) with a score -3 , -2 , -1 , +1 , +2 , +3 with +3 being the highest
rating.
JKA/jms
Employee Traffic Survey (Outgoing)
Total Leaving - 208
with other stops - 50
downtown stops - 69
.Eng. - total trips - 59
other stops - 13
downtown stops - 29
Bldg . - total trips - 75
other stops - 26
downtown stops - 13
Adm. - total trips - 30
other stops - 5
downtown stops - 9
Comm. Dev. - total trips - -21
other stops - 3
downtown stops - 7
Fin. - total trips 23
other stops - 3
downtown stops - 11
Traffic Survey ( Incoming)
Total Incoming - 156
with other downtown stops - 19
Building 58
Planning/Zoning 18
Comm. Development 8
Finance 13
Adm. 14
Engr. 18
Other 27
Realators - 5
Builder/Contrators - 57
Keep in mind the downtown stops may have been made because
of convenience .
Cf
CITY HALL SITE SURVEY
Site # of votes o
East sicae , annex to police or utility Zd' . Gr 4'C: 8'4
building, least expensive site ,
consider cost of land, all offices
should be in central location
Near downtown, between 2nd & 3rd Street, 177 . 0 29 . 40
1st or 2nd Avenue
Don' t need a new City Hall 49. 0 8 . 14
Southeast corner 38 . 0 6 . 31
Blank 11 . 0 1 . 83
Present site as part of D.T. renovation, 11. 0 1. 83
north side of 1st Ave. , present site -
2nd floor
Old Woman' s Correctional Facility 6 . 0 1:00
Vacant Building 5. 0 0 . 83
MV Gas Building, 2nd and Lewis 6 . 0 1. 00
Courthouse 2. 0 0 . 33
No City Hall anywhere 2. 0 0.33
No preference 2. 0 0. 33
East of Cavanaugh funeral home 1. 0 0. 17
239 W. 1st Ave. 1. 0 0. 17
Multiple suggestions 1. 0 0. 17
Let Council decide best site 1. 0 0 . 17
Southside of senior high 1. 0 0 . 17
Old Shakopee Valley Publishing Building 1. 0 0 . 17
Minnesota Valley Mall 1. 0 0. 17
Montevideo 1. 0 0. 17
City doesn't listen to citizens 1. 0 0 . 17
Concerned about senior citizens 1. 0- 0. 17
Geographic center of City 0 .5 0 . 08
West End 0. 5 0. 08
Total 602. 0 100 . 00