The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/23/1986 TENTATIVE AGENDA \ ADJ .REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 23, 1986 Mayor Reinke presiding 1 ] Roll Call at 7 : 00 P .M. 21 RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 31 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 : (Items noted for consent will be received and filed) a] Ann Higgins, League of Mn. Cities re : Support for compromise amendments on stormwater discharge premits in conference committee on reauthorization of federal clean water act b] 51 Public Hearings: a] 7 :00 P.M. - Proposed assessment for the Timber Trails Street Rehabilitation 86-5 - Res. No. 2628 b] 7:30 P.M. - Proposed assessment for 4th Avenue Reconstruction from Fillmore St. to Scott St . 86-3 - Res. No. 2627 c] 8 : 15 P.M. - Proposed improvements to 13th Avenue from CR89 to the East corporate limits 86-9 - Res. No. 2625 d] 9:00 P.M. - Proposed streetscape improvements to 4th Avenue from Holmes St . to Scott St . 86-3 - Res . No. 2626 e] 9 :30 P .M. - Proposed improvements to Valley Park Drive from TH 101 north approximately 350 feet and improvements to the frontage road north of Hwy 101 from Valley Park Drive west to the Peavey Road 86-11 .- Res. No . 2629 6] Boards and Commissions: None 7] Reports from Staff: [Council will take a 10 minute break around 9 :001 *a] Hauer ' s 3rd Addition - Developers Agreement *b] Weiss Company, Inc . (MGM Liquor Warehouse) c] Downtown Streetsdape Improvements Feasibility Report 8] Resolutions and Ordinances: *a] Res. No . 2623 , 'Amending 19P6 Pay Schedule *b] Res. No . 2624, Authorizing Disposal of Unclaimed Property 9] Other Business : a] 1987 Budget b] je" 1 a--/- >E 101 Adjourn John K. Anderson, City Administrator 1 Alert eague of.Vinnesota Cities 183 University Ave. E., St. Paul, MN 55101-2526 CqN( Q (612) 227-5600 September 11 , 1986 TO: Mayors, Managers, Clerks ATTENTION: CITIES IN SEVENTH AND EIGHTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS FROM: Ann Higgins, Federal Liaison SUBJECT: SUPPORT FOR COMPROMISE AMENDMENTS ON STORMWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS IN CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON REAUTHORIZATION OF FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT YOUR ASSISTANCE IN CONTACTING REPRESENTATIVES ARLAN STANGELAND (CD 7) JAMES OBERSTAR (CD 8) AND SENATOR DAVID DURENBERGER IS URGENTLY NEEDED TO GAIN THEIR SUPPORT FOR IMPORTANT AMENDMENTS TO STORMWATER PERMIT REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN THE CLEAN WATER ACT (H.R. 8/S. 1128) . THE BILL IS NOW IN A HOUSE-SENATE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON WHICH ALL THREE MEMBERS OF THE MINNESOTA CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION ARE MEMBERS. THEIR SUPPORT FOR REAUTHORIZATION OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL IN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE FEDERAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROGRAM FOR MINNESOTA CITIES. ADOPTION OF A COMPROMISE ON COSTLY STORMWATER SEWER DISCHARGE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS IS URGENTLY NEEDED TO PROVIDE FOR A BALANCED AND REALISTIC APPROACH TO DEALING WITH STORMWATER POLLUTION . WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL ACTION , CITIES WILL BE FACED WITH STRICT AND EXTREMELY COSTLY STORMWATER REGULATIONS_. PLEASE CALL OR SEND TELEGRAMS URGING THEIR SUPPORT OF THE MODIFICATION OF STORMWATER PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND IMMEDIATE APPROVAL OF THE L J REAUTHORIZATION OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT BY THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE. PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING FOR A BACKGROUND SUMMARY AND STATUS REPORT ON THIS VERY IMPORTANT FEDERAL LEGISLATION: The Clean Water Act that has provided funding for wastewater treatment construction grants to cities expired last fall when Congress failed to reauthorize the program. Only emergency funding has temporarily allowed the program to continue. Representatives Stangeland and Oberstar as well as Senator Durenberger are on the House-Senate Conference Committee where the reauthorization legislation has been held up because of the following issues: * Funding levels for the wastewater treatment plant construction grant program (support full funding at $2.4 billion) ; * Phasing in of a revolving loan program and the phasing out of grants; * Revision of the allocation formula for grant awards to cities across the nation; * Amendments to modify current EPA regulations that require all cities to obtain municipal stormwater sewer permits for all stormwater sewer discharges; It is this section of (underlined above) that is critical to cities at this point in conference committee deliberations. Progress is needed now to permit the bill to gain conference committee support for final adoption on the floor of the U.S. House and Senate so cities can continue to receive wastewater construction grant funds. Failure to gain conference committee approval of reauthorization of the program will cost Minnesota needed federal monies to supply the federal share of construction costs . Failure to adopt the compromise on stoRmwater discharge permits will cost cities thousands of dollars in additional infrastructure costs at a time when federal and state assistance for pollution control and many other urban needs is being withdrawn. (Nationally, the cost of such discharge permit requirements is estimated to be $8 billion. ) The following points need to be made to Representatives Stangeland and Oberstar as well as with Senator Durenberger to urge their support of the compromise on stormwater permit requirements in the legislation: 1 ) Adoption of an alternative stormwater management program in place of current law that mandates all stormwater sewer discharge 1ccations (outfalls) to obtain national discharge permits is absolutely essential to aid cities without resources to pay for additional costs for such comprehensive control measures . (The following are the key elements of the compromise mentioned above: ) Authorization for the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop guidelines for states to develop stormwater management plans; * Requirement to assure that city and other local officials will be directly involved in the development of the state stormwater management plan (as well as assurance that national standards will take into account the costs of implementing such controls as well as the benefits to be obtained from such new standards) . * Provision to require cities under 50, 000 pop . to comply with stormwater discharge standards and with specific requirements in the state stormwater management plan; IMPORTANT This provision would more reasonably require local enforcement of TO ordinances designed to stop discharge of non-stormwater discharges SMALLER into the public stormwater sewer system but would refrain from CITIES requiring smaller cities to undertake more costly and complex measures to eliminate all such pollution sources . Stormwater systems that discharge into publicly-owned treatment facilities or from combined storm-sanitary sewers are exempt from the stormwater management provisions of the bill . All other systems would be required to comply with national standards and the state stormwater management plan. * Provision to allow cities over 50 , 000 pop. to comply with state stormwater management plans and any national standards over a 4-yr. FOUR- period, including the following measures: YEAR PHASE-IN a. stopping non-stormwater discharges into storm sewers; FOR best dur construction LARGER b. requiring list' CJt U@3l. ivaita�,etucn� rircti:uiGc:� .,u. �..g .+ CITIES activities; c. implementing plans to prevent spills and response for oil , petroleum, and chemical product spills at appropriate facilities; d. complying with any national standards and state stormwater management plans. * Elimination of current law requirements that every city must get stormawater discharge permits for every stormwater sewer discharge point (outfalls) ; 2. Limit EPA national stormwater discharge standards to changes in local discharge operations while refraining from requiring cities to make additional investment in stormwater sewer facilities. 0 M-f --- 3 . Focus stormwater discharge permit program on run-off from areas associated with industrial plant locations since those are seen as the sources of the most significant water quality problems . MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineeror )ZA SUBJECT: Timber Trails Street Rehabilitation Assessment Hearing & Adoption of Assessment Role DATE: September 18 , 1986 INTRODUCTION: On August 5 , 1986 , Council adopted Resolution No. 2595 ordering the preparation of proposed assessments and declaring a cost of $28 ,585 . 15 to be assessed to the abutting benefitted properties of the subject project. BACKGROUND: The amount to be assessed is in keeping with the City ' s street rehabilitation assessment policies, that being 25% of the street improvement project cost assessed , minus credits . The one variation from policy is that the maximum credit granted for non- attainment of project life on this project is 5% . Therefore, the amount proposed to be assessed is 20% of the project cost. Attached is a copy of an August 1 , 1986 memo of which Council acted upon to establish four procedural points. Also attached is the proposed assessment role based upon those procedures and the aforestated policies . The project cost is proposed to be assessed on a per benefitted lot basis. The proposed assessments were calculated as follows : Street Improvement Project Cost $142 ,925 .75 Assessed Cost (20%) $ 28 ,585 . 15 Number of Benefitted Lots 44 Assessed Cost per Lot $649.66 per lot Feasibility Report Estimate $641 . 18 per lot Proposed assessment is 1 . 0% higher than the estimate . RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No . 2628 adopting the attached proposed assessment role . REQUESTED ACTION: Offer Resolution No. 2628, A Resolution Adopting Assessments for Project No. 1986-5 , Timber Trails Street Rehabilitation and move its adoption. KA/pmp MEM2628 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator l FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer SUBJECT: Assessment Rale Preparatic,ri and Hearing Timber Trails DATE: August 1 , 1986 INTRODUCTION: Council action is necessary to order, the preparation of the assessment role and set the assessment hearing for the Timber Trails project. BACKGROUND: The bids for the improvement have been taken and awarded. Based upon the structure of the bond issue to finance this project, it is important that the hearing be held and assessments certi- fied by October 10, 1986 to the County. Since this schedule does not allow full completion of the project, the assessment role will be generated from the contract prices. Various assessment procedure questions were presented at the public hearing that I wish to address now such that those proce- dures can be incorporated into the assessment role. please refer to Map A. 1. Outlot A, although not a developable lot, is benefiting and will be included as one lot in the assessment calcul at ions. 2. The number of developable lots in the unplatted area (for assessment calculation purposes) was questioned by the owner. The feasibility report indicated that b lots could front on Lake View Lane and that has been substantiated by further analysis. NOT INCLUDING THE FRONTAGE ABUTTING OUTLOT A, six lots can be de- signed in the unplatted area with a minimum of 150' frontage and 2 1/2 acre area (zoning requirements) . 3. A credit is being applied on this project since the roadway did not last 20 years. The amount of the assessment is being reduced from 25% to 20%. The feasibility report implied that since some benefited areas were not assessed for the original project, the 5% credit should not be applied. The owners gave argument at the improvement hearing that the credit should be applied since there was an original contri- bution to the development, that being the roadway right-of-way. The assessments should be consistent based upon the merits of the improvements for this Timber Trails August 1, 1986 Page 2 project only, therefore, I propose that all benefited lots be treated eg1_ta1, irregardIess of the method of funding for the original improvements. 4. The City' s assessment policy states that City property, including parks, be assessed in the sante manner as private property. This particular project area is somewhat unusual in that there exists three parks, one of which is semi-developed. Referring to Map A, the park area labeled A is benefited by the improve- ment but I would contend that areas B and C do not receive equal benefit. Therefore, I recommend that areas B and C riot be assessed. The following is a per lot assessment depending on the number of park areas assessed : No. of Parks Assessment 0 Parks $664. 77 1 Park $649. 66 2 Parks $635. 23 3 Parks $621. 41 The estimate in the feasibility report was $641. 18. RECOMMENDATIONS: Order the preparation of the assessment role based upon the aforestated procedural items 1 through 4. Also provide direction if Council wishes to modify any of the procedural items. REQUESTED ACTION: 1. Offer Resolution No. 2595, A Resolution Declaring the Cost to be Assessed and Ordering the Preparation of Proposed Assessments for Timber Trails Street Rehabilitation, Project No. 1986-5 and move its adoption. 2. Council direction if modifications to the procedures out- lined in this memo is desired. KA/pmp MEMOS I 5 R0A, D - - — NCLn c_4 •. Y ' Llro —d-- -- -.. -71 1 — l..L63dO8d CIE -IdNn r s ( 3'Z ��vlr+o� OS l slo7 Assessable Amount: $28,585.15 TIMBER TRAILS ASSESSMENTS, PROJECT 1986-5 Number of Lots: 44 ----------------- ---------------------------- PROPERTY LEGAL ASSESSMENT PID OWNER DESCRIPTION -------------------------- 27-061001-0 Shakopee Investment Inc. Lot 1 , Blk. 1 $649.66 5637 Brooklyn Blvd. Timber Trails Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 27-061002-0 Dallas E. & Rosemary Peterson Lot 2, Blk. 1 $649.66 1409 Wood Duck Trail Timber Trails Shakopee, MN 55379 27-061003-0 Shakopee Investment Inc. Lot 3, Blk. 1 $649.66 5637 Brooklyn Blvd. Timber Trails Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 27-061004-0 Franklin 0. Geiger & Wife Lot 4, Blk. 1 $649.66 1425 Wood Duck Trail Timber Trails Shakopee, MN 55379 27-061005-0 Shakopee Investment Inc. Lot 5, Blk. 1 $649.66 5637 Brooklyn Blvd. Timber Trails Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 27-061006-0 Shakopee Investment Inc. Lot 6, Blk. 1 $649.66 5637 Brooklyn Blvd. Timber Trails Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 27-061007-0 Delvin J. & Karen S. Farago Lot 71 Blk. 1 $649.66 1449 Wood Duck Trail Timber Trails Shakopee, MN 55379 27-061008-0 Brian R. & Sue Anderson Lot 8, Blk. 1 $649.66 3 Valley Green Park Timber Trails Jordan, MN 55352 27-061009-0 State of Minnesota Lot 9, Blk. 1 $649.66 %Scott County Court House Timber Trails Tom Lannon, Cty. Auditor 428 S. Holmes Shakopee, MN 27-061010-0 State of Minnesota Lot 10, Blk. 1 $649.66 %Scott County Court House Timber Trails Tom Lannon, Cty. Auditor 428 S. Holmes Shakopee, MN 27-061040-0 Gary L. & Sarah Laurent Outlot A $649.66 2046 W. 13th Avenue Timber Trails Shakopee, MN 55379 27-061011-0 Thomas M. & Penny D. Bechel Lot 1 , Blk. 2 $649.66 1400 Wood Duck Trail Timber Trails Shakopee, MN 55379 Assessable Amount: $28,585.15 TIMBER TRAILS ASSESSMENTS, PROJECT 1986-5 Number of Lots: 44 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROPERTY LEGAL ASSESSMENT PID OWNER DESCRIPTION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27-061012-0 Thomas M. & Penny D. Bechel Lot 2, Blk. 2 $649.66 1400 Wood Duck Trail Timber Trails Shakopee, MN 55379 27-061013-0 Vladimir & Bonnie W. Sokolov Lot 3, Blk. 2 $649.66 1424 Wood Duck Trail S Timber Trails Shakopee, MN 55379 27-061014-0 Vladimir & Bonnie W. Sokolov Lot 4, Blk. 2 $649.66 1424 Wood Duck Trail S Timber Trails Shakopee, MN 55379 27-061015-0 Michael A. Corbey Lot 5, Blk. 2 $649.66 1432 Wood Duck Trail Timber Trails Shakopee, MN 55379 27-061016-0 Shakopee Investment Inc. Lot 6, Blk. 2 $649.66 5637 Brooklyn Blvd. Timber Trails Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 27-061017-0 Shakopee Investment Inc. Lot 7, Blk. 2 $649.66 5637 Brooklyn Blvd. Timber Trails Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 27-061037-0 City of Shakopee City Park $649.66 129 E. First Avenue Timber Trails Shakopee, MN 55379 27-061018-0 Catherine A Rader Lot 1 , Blk. 3 $649.66 1400 Blue Heron Trail Timber Trails Shakopee, MN 55379 27-061019-0 Craig 0. Leaman & Wife Lot 2, Blk. 3 $649.66 1043 East View Circle Timber Trails Shakopee, MN 55379 27-061020-0 Peter N. Shutrop Lot 3, Blk. 3 $649.66 1424 Heron Ct Timber Trails Shakopee, MN 55379 27-061021-0 J. Roger & Goldie Sperling Lot 4, Blk. 3 $649.66 1432 Blue Heron Court Timber Trails Shakopee, MN 55379 27-061022-0 James E. Larson & Wife Lot 5, Blk. 3 $649.66 1440 Blue Heron Trail Timber Trails Shakopee, MN 55379 Assessable Amount: $28,585.15 TIMBER TRAILS ASSESSMENTS, PROJECT 1986-5 Number of Lots: 44 ---------------------------------------- PROPERTY LEGAL ASSESSMENT PID OWNER DESCRIPTION ---------------- 27-061023-0 Joseph T. Johnson Lot 6 Blk. 3 $649.66 1819 W. Old Shakopee Rd. Timber Trails Bloomington, MN 55431 27-061024-0 Dennis Lang Lot 1 , Blk. 4 $649.66 1456 Blue Heron Trail Timber Trails Shakopee, MN 55379 27-061025-0 George F. & Ardyth M. MuenchowLot 2, Blk. 4 $649.66 1464 Blue Heron Trail Timber Trails Shakopee, MN 55379 27-061026-0 William P. & Loraine A. Spray Lot 3, Blk. 4 $649.66 7045 Ticonderoga Trail Timber Trails Eden Prairie, MN 55344 27-061027-0 Richard R. & Corrine M. Sames Lot 4, Blk. 4 $649.66 1040 Pierce Street Timber Trails Shakopee, MN 55379 27-061028-0 State of Minnesota Lot 5, Blk. 4 $649.66 %Scott County Court House Timber Trails Tom Lannon, Cty. Auditor 428 S. Holmes Shakopee, MN 27-061029-0 State of Minnesota Lot 6, Blk. 4 $649.66 %Scott County Court House Timber Trails Tom Lannon, Cty. Auditor 428 S. Holmes Shakopee, MN 27-061030-0 Michael Lichty Lot 7, Blk. 4 $649.66 14525 7th Ave. N. Timber Trails Wayzata, MN 55441 27-061031-0 Dallas E. & Rosemary Peterson Lot 8, Blk. 4 $649.66 1909 E. Shakopee Avenue Timber Trails Shakopee, MN 55379 27-061032-0 Jeffrey & Kristy Ledel Lot 9, Blk. 4 $649.66 2042 W. 13th Ave. Timber Trails Shakopee, MN 55379 27-061033-0 Frederick E. & Cheryl L. SmithLot 10, Blk. 4 $649.66 1463 Lakeview Drive Timber Trails Shakopee, MN 55379 27-061034-0 Dennis E. & Alice L. Furtney Lot 11 , Blk. 4 $649.66 1471 Lakeview Drive Timber Trails Shakopee, MN 55379 Assessable Amount: $28,585.15 TIMBER TRAILS ASSESSMENTS, PROJECT 1986-5 Number of Lots: 44 --------------------------------------- PROPERTY LEGAL ASSESSMENT PID OWNER DESCRIPTION ---------------- 27-061038-0 City of Shakopee City Park 129 E. First Avenue Timber Trails Shakopee, MN 55379 27-061035-0 Daniel John O'Connell Lot 1 , Blk. 5 $649.66 4801 Hanrehan Lake Blvd. Timber Trails Prior Lake, MN 55372 27-061036-0 Daniel John O'Connell Lot 2, Blk. 5 $649.66 4801 Hanrehan Lake Blvd. Timber Trails Prior Lake, MN 55372 27-061039-0 City of Shakopee City Park 129 E. First Avenue Timber Trails Shakopee, MN 55379 27-919014-0 Daniel John O'Connell 19 115 22 87.9 $3,897.98 4801 Hanrehan Lake Blvd. L 2 & 3 Ex A in RLS Prior Lake, MN 55372 #45 & NW1/4 SW1/4 Ex 30.0 ac. in RLS 447 TOTAL $114072.60 RESOLUTION NO. 2628 A Resolution Adopting Assessments Project No. 1986-5 Timber Trails Street Rehabilitation WHEREAS, purusant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council of the City of Shakopee met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessments of: Timber Trails Rehabilitation Project by Street Improvements within the Timber Trails Plat. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1 . That such proposed assessment together with any amendments thereof, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein and each tract therein included is hereby found to be benefitted by the proposed improvements in the amount of the assessments levied against it. 2 . Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of ten ( 10) years, the first installment to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1987 , and shall bear interest at the rate of 8 .5 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added the interest on the entire assesssment from the date of this resolution until December 31 , 1986 , and to each subsequent installment when due shall be added the interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may , at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer , except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty ( 30 ) days from the adoption of this resolution ; he may thereafter pay to the County Treasurer the installment and interest in process of collection on the current tax list, and he may pay the reamaining principal balance of the assessment to the City .Treasurer. 4. The Clerk shall file the assessment rolls pertaining to this assessment in his office and shall certify annually to the County Auditor on or before October 10th of each year the total amount of installments and interest which are to become due in the following year on the assessment on each parcel of land included in the assessment roll. 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 , 19 City Attorney sb MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer SUBJECT: Fourth Avenue Reconstruction Project ; Fillmore to Scott Street Assessment Hearing & Adoption of Assessment Role DATE: September 18 , 1986 INTRODUCTION: On August 5 , 1986 , Council adopted Resolution No. 2596 ordering the preparation of proposed assessments and declaring a cost of $98,033 . 13 to be assessed to the abutting benefitted properties of the subject project. BACKGROUND: The amount to be assessed is in keeping with the City ' s street rehabilitation assessment policies, that being 2510 of the street improvement project costs assessed . Since this project is defined, by policy, as a frontage improvement, the assessed cost is being spread consistently and uniformly over the abutting, benefitted front footage . There will be no zone assessments resulting from this project. Attached is the proposed assessment role for Council consideration. Note that this role has recently been revised to include sanitary sewer service rehabilitation assessments. This rehabilitation work has been complete subsequent to the mailing of notices to the affected property owners. If Council adopts this assessment role by Resolution No . 2627 , those property owners affected by this revision will be mailed notices by the City Clerk of the actual adopted assessment . This is a new change in this law effective April 2 , 1986 . The proposed assessments were calculated as follows : Street Improvements Street Improvement Project Cost $ 392 , 132.55 Street Assessed Cost (25% ) $ 98,033 . 13 Benefitted Abutting Front Footage 4 , 042 feet Assessed Front Foot Cost $ 24.25 per foot Feasibility Report Estimate $ 22.78 per foot Proposed Assessment is 6 .4% higher than the estimate . Fourth Avenue September 18 , 1986 Page 2 Sanitary Sewer Service Rehabilitation Sanitary Service Assessed Cost per Benefitted Lot $ 773 .60 per lot Feasibility Report Estimate $ 800 .00 per lot Proposed assessment is 3 . 3% lower than the estimate . RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No .- 2627 adopting the attached proposed assessment role . REQUESTED ACTION: Offer Resolution No . 2627 , A Resolution Adopting Assessments for Project 1986-3 , Fourth Avenue Reconstruction from Fillmore Street to Scott Street and move its adoption. KA/pmp MEM2627 STREET SERVICE Assessable Amount: $98,033. 13 $773.60 4th AVENUE ASSESSMENTS Front Foot Cost: $24.253619 per service Project 1986-3 ------------------------------------------- PID PROPERTY OWNER DESCRIPTION FF STREET SEW. SVC. TOTAL --------------------------------------------------- 27-001327-0 St. Mark 's Church All of B 46 300 $7,276. 09 $7,276. 09 333 W. 4th Avenue Shakopee Plat Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001328-0 St. Mark 's Church L 1 , B 47 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455. 22 333 W. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001329-0 Shakopee Services L 2 & W 10 70 $1 ,697.75 $1 ,697.75 730 West 3rd Ave. of 3, B47 Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001330-0 Gerald A. Triggs E 50 of L 3 50 $1 ,212.68 $1 ,212.68 219 4th Avenue W. B47 Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001331-0 Laura & E. Lebens L 4, B47 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 211 W. 4th Avenue Ex N 20 Shakopee, MN 55379 of E 20 27-001333-0 Thomas A. Phillip L 5, B47 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 969 Holmes Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001338-0 Norbert H. Nagel S 92 of L 1 , 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 137 W. 4th Avenue B48 Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001340-0 Frank F. Schneider L 2, B 48 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 127 W. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001341-0 Ray F. Siebenaler L 3, B 48 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 119 W. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001342-0 J.C. Yohlrusch W 1/2 of L 4, 30 $727.61 $727.61 2255 W. 145th St. B 48 Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001343-0 William J. Norton E 1/2 L4 & 5 90 $2, 182. 83 $2, 182.83 338 S. Holmes B 48, Ex E 58 Shakopee, MN 55379 of N 54 1/2 27-001350-0 Clare M. Nickolay S 60 of L 1 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 _35 S. Holmes & 2, B 49 Shakopee, MN 55379 STREET SERVICE Assessable Amount: $98,033. 13 $77:1.60 4th AVENUE ASSESSMENTS Front Foot Cost: : 24.253619 per service Project 1986-3 PID PROPERTY OWNER DESCRIPTION FF STREET SEW. SVC. TOTAL 27-001352-0 Harold Ballinger L 3, B 49 60 1 ,455.22 1 ,455.22 123 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001353-0 Jeffrey L. Cronin S 1/2 of L 4 71 $1 ,722.01 : 1 ,722.01 3338 S. Lewis & 5, B 49 Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001360-0 Charles Cavanaugh S 1/2 of L 1 71 $1 ,722.01 $1 ,722.01 333 S. Lewis & 2, B 50 Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001362-0 Robert F. Vierling L 3,4 & S 1/2 180 $4,365. 65 $4,365.65 221 E. 4th Avenue L 5, B 50 Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001369-0 Richard C. Nead L 1 , B 51 60 $1 ,455.22 $773.60 $2,228.82 303 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001370-0 Donald Koopman L 2, B 51 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 313 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001371-0 James B. Leaveck L 3, B 51 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 321 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001372-0 Ethel E. Hirscher L 4, B 51 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 329 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001373-0 Daniel Ballinger L 5, B 51 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 337 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001377-0 John J. Lynch L 1 & 2, 120 42,910.43 $773.60 $3,684.03 409 E. 4th Avenue B 52, Ex RR Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001378-0 City of Shakopee L 3 & 4, B 52 120 $2,910.43 X2,910. 43 129 E. First Ave. Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001379-0 Stanley Stejskal L 5, B 52 N 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 326 Fillmore St. of RR Shakopee, MN 55379 STREET SERVICE Assessable Amount: $98,033. 13 $773.60 4th AVENUE ASSESSMENTS Front Foot Cost: $24.253619 per service Project 1986-3 PID PROPERTY OWNER DESCRIPTION FF STREET SEW. SVC. TOTAL 27-001390-0 James D. Wooldrik L 6, B 53 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 440 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001391-0 Robert J. Moran L 7, B 53 57 $1 ,382.46 $1 ,382. 46 430 E. 4th Avenue Ex W. 3' Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001392-0 Christian Barlage W 3 ' of L 7 63 $1 ,527. 98 $773.60 $2,301.58 420 E. 4th Avenue & all of L 8 Shakopee, MN 55379 B 53 27-001393-0 J. Wermerskirchen E 55 of L 9, 55 $1 ,333.95 $773.60 $2, 107.55 412 E. 4th Avenue B 53 Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001394-0 Rodney D. Clemens W 5' of 9, 65 $1 ,576.49 $1 ,576.49 402 E. 4th Avenue all of L 10 Shakopee, MN 55379 B 53 27-001400-0 Audrey E. Monnens E 45 of L 6, 45 $1 ,091.41 $1 ,091.41 338 E. 4th Avenue B 54 Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001401-0 Thomas W. Schmidt W 15 ' of L 6, 75 $1 ,819.02 $1 ,819. 02 330 E. 4th Avenue all of L 7 Shakopee, MN 55379 B 54 27-001402-0 Raymond J. Winkel L 8, B 54 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 322 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001403-0 Daniel L. Lang L 9, B 54 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 312 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001404-0 Theresa C. Klein L 10, B 54 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 306 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001410-0 Jaime W. Gerold L 6, B 55 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 238 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001411-0 Elmer Andren L 7, B 55 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 226 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 STREET SERVICE Assessable Amount: $98,033. 13 $773.60 4th AVENUE ASSESSMENTS Front Foot Cost: $24.253619 per service Project 1986-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PID PROPERTY OWNER DESCRIPTION FF STREET SEW. SVC. TOTAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27-001412-0 Stanley J. Pint L 8, B 55 60 $1 ,455. 22 $1 ,455. 22 220 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001413-0 Dell F. Osterdyk E 50 of L 9, 50 $1 ,212.68 $1 ,212.68 214 E. 4th Avenue B 55 Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001414-0 David W. Haggbloom W 10 of L 9 & 70 $1 ,697.75 $1 ,697.75 409 Lewis all of L 10 Shakopee, MN 55379 B 55 27-001419-0 Henrietta Deutsch L 6 & 7, B 56 120 $2,910.43 $2,910.43 134 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001420-0 Mary T. Hart et al L 8 and E 5 65 $1 ,576.49 $1 ,576.49 120 E. 4th Avenue of L 9 Shakopee, MN 55379 B 56 27-001421-0 Alice G. Davies W 55 of L 9, 55 $1 ,333. 95 $773.60 $2, 107.55 114 E. 4th Avenue B 56 Shakopee, MN 55:79 27-001422-0 Ernest M. Lebens L 10, B 56 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 108 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001424-0 Scott County Block lying 300 $7,276.09 $7,276.09 Court House Rm 110 between 428 S. Holmes B 56 & 57 Shakopee, MN 553379 27-001430-0 Scott County L 6 & E 1/2 90 $2, 182.83 $2, 182. 83 Court House Rm 110 of L 7 428 S. Holmes B 57 Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001431-0 Scott County W i/2 L 7 55 $1 ,333.95 $1 ,333.95 Court House Rm 110 & E 25 of 428 S. Holmes L 8, B 57 Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001432-0 St. Francis Hosp. E 1/2 of L 9, 30 $727.61 $727.61 325 5th Avenue B 57 Shakopee, MN 55379 STREET SERVICE Assessable Amount: $98,033. 13 $773.60 4th AVENUE ASSESSMENTS Front Foot Cost: $24.253619 per service Project 1986-3 - -------------- PID PROPERTY OWNER DESCRIPTION FF STREET SEW. SVC. TOTAL 27-001432-1 Scott County W 35 of L 8, 35 $848. 88 $648. 88 Court House Rm 110 B 57 428 S. Holmes Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001433-0 St. Francis Hosp. W 1/2 of L 9 90 $2, 162.83 $2, 182.8: 325 5th Avenue & all of L 10 Shakopee, MN 553079 B 57 27-001434-0 St. Francis Hosp. All of B 58 300 $7,276.09 $7,276.09 325 5th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FF STREET SEW. SVC. TOTAL ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- TOTALS 4042 $98,033. 13 $3,868. 00 $101 ,901. 13 RESOLUTION NO. 2627 A Resolution Adopting Assessments Project No. 1986-3 Fourth Avenue Reconstruction From Fillmore Street to Scott Street WHEREAS, purusant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council of the City of Shakopee met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessments of : Fourth Avenue Reconstruction Project from Fillmore Street to Scott Street ; by Street ? Sidewalk , and Sanitary Sewer Service Improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1 . That such proposed assessment together with any amendments thereof, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein and each tract therein included is hereby found to be benefitted by the proposed improvements in the amount of the assessments levied against it. 2 . Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of ten ( 10) years, the first installment to be payable on or before the first Monday in January , 1987 , and shall bear interest at the rate of 8 .5 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added the interest on the entire assesssment from the date of this resolution until December 31 , 1986 , and to each subsequent installment when due shall be added the interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may , at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor , pay the whole of the assessment on such property , with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer , except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty ( 30 ) days from the adoption of this resolution ; he may thereafter pay to the County Treasurer the installment and interest in process of collection on the current tax list, and he may pay the reamaining principal balance of the assessment to the City Treasurer. 4 . The Clerk shall file the assessment rolls pertaining to this assessment in his office and shall certify annually to the County Auditor on or before October 10th of each year the total amount of installments and interest which are to become due in the following year on the assessment on each parcel of land included in the assessment roll. 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 19 City Attorney 4th AVENUE ASSESSMENTS STREET SERVICE Project 1986-3 Assessable Amount: $98,033. 13 $773. 60 Front Foot Cost: $24.253619 per service Revised: 9/27/86 ---------------------------- --------- ----------------- PID PROPERTY OWNER DESCRIPTION FF STREET SEW. SVC. TOTAL ------------------------------------------------- 27-00l"7-0 St. Mark 's Church All of B 46 300 $7,276.09 :57,276.09 333 W. 4th Avenue Shakopee Plat Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001328-0 St. Mark 's Church L 1 , B 47 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 333 W. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001329-0 Shakopee Services L 2 & W 10 70 $1 ,697.75 $1 ,697.75 730 West 3rd Ave. of 3, B47 Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001330-0 Gerald A. Triggs E 50 of L 3 50 $1 ,212.68 $1 ,212.68 219 4th Avenue W. B47 Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001331-0 Laura & E. Lebens L 4, B47 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 211 W. 4th Avenue Ex N 20 Shakopee, MN 55379 of E 20 27-001333-0 Thomas A. Phillip L 5, B47 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 969 Holmes Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001338-0 Norbert H. Nagel S 92 of L 1 , 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 137 W. 4th Avenue B48 Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001340-0 Frank F. Schneider L 2, B 48 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 127 W. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001341-0 Ray F. Siebenaler L 3, B 48 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 119 W. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001342-0 J.C. Kohlrusch W 1/2 of L 4, 30 $727.61 $727. 61 2255 W. 145th St. B 48 Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001343-0 William J. Norton E 1/2 L4 & 5 90 $2, 182.83 $2, 162.83 338 S. Holmes . B 48, Ex E 58 Shakopee, MN 55379 of N 54 1/2 27-001350-0 Clare M. Nickolay 5 60 of L 1 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 335 S. Holmes & 2, B 49 Shakopee, MN 55379 4th AVENUE ASSESSMENTS STREET SERVICE Project 1986-3 Assessable Amount: $98,033. 13 $773.60 5' Revised: 9/23/86 Front Foot Cost: $24.253619 per service ---------------------------- PID PROPERTY OWNER DESCRIPTION FF STREET SEW. SVC. TOTAL ------------------------------------------------ 27-001332-0 Harold Ballinger L 3, B 49 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455. 22 12: E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001353-0 Jeffrey L. Cronin S 1/2 of L 4 71 $1 ,722.01 $1 ,722. 01 338 S. Lewis & 5, B 49 Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001360-0 Charles Cavanaugh S 1/2 of L 1 71 21 ,722.01 $1 ,722.01 .33 S. Lewis & 2, B 50 Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001362-0 Robert F. Vierling L 3,4 & S 1/2 180 $4,365.65 $4,365.65 221 E. 4th Avenue L 5, B 50 Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001369-0 Richard C. Nead L 1 , B 51 60 $1 ,455.22 $773.60 $2,228.82 303 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001370-0 Donald Koopman L 2, B 51 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 313 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001371-0 James B. Leaveck L 3, B 51 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 .321 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001:72-0 Ethel E. Hirscher L 4, B 51 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 329 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001373-0 Daniel Ballinger L 5, B 51 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 337 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001377-0 John J. Lynch L 1 & 2, 120 $2,910.43 $773.60 $3,684.03 409 E. 4th Avenue B 52, Ex RR Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001378-0 City of Shakopee L 34 4, B 52 120 $2,910.43 $2,910.43 129 E. First Ave. Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001379-0 Stanley Stejskal L 5, B 52 N 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 326 Fillmore St. of RR Shakopee, MN 55379 4th AVENUE ASSESSMENTS STREET SERVICE p Project 1986-3 Assessable Amount: $98,033. 13 $773. 60 mfr Revised: 9/23/86 Front Foot Cost. $24.253619 per service PID PROPERTY OWNER DESCRIPTION FF STREET SEW. SVC. TOTAL --------------------- 27-001390-0 James D. Wooldrik L 61 B 53 60 $1 ,455. 22 $1 ,455.22 440 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001391-0 Robert J. Moran L 7, B 53 57' '$1 ,382.46 $1 ,382. 46 430 E. 4th Avenue Ex W. 3 ' Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001392-0 Christian Barlage W 3 ' of L 7 63 $1 ,527.98 $773. 60 $2,301. 58 420 E. 4th Avenue & all of L 8 Shakopee, MN 55379 B 53 27-001393-0 J. Wermerskirchen E 55 of L 9, 55 $1 ,333.95 $773. 60 $2, 107. 55 412 E. 4th Avenue B 53 Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001394-0 Rodney D. Clemens W 5 ' of 9, 65 $1 ,576.49 $1 ,576.49 402 E. 4th Avenue all of L 10 Shakopee, MN 55379 B 53 27-001400-0 Audrey E. Monnens E 45 of L 6, 45 $1 ,091.41 $1 ,091 .41 338 E. 4th Avenue B 54 Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001401-0 Thomas W. Schmidt W 15 ' of L 6, 75 $1 ,819.02 $1 ,819.02 330 E. 4th Avenue all of L 7 Shakopee, MN 55379 B 54 27-001402-0 Raymond J. Winkel L 8, B 54 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 322 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001403-0 Daniel L. Lang L 9, B 54 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 312 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 553379 27-001404-0 Theresa C. Klein L 10, B 54 60 $1 ,455.22 *1 ,455.22 306 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001410-0 Jaime W. Gerold L 6, B 55 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.22 238 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MPJ 55379 27-001411-0 Elmer Andren L 7, B 55 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455. 22 228 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 4th AVENUE ASSESSMENTS STREET SERVICE Project 1986-3 Assessable Amount: $98,031.)-. 17 $773.60 Revised: 9/23/86 Front Foot Cost: $24.253619 per service PID PROPERTY OWNER DESCRIPTION FF STREET SEW. SVC. TOTAL 27-001412-0 Stanley J. Pint L 8, B 55 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455. 22) 220 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001413-0 Dell F. Osterdyk E 50 of L 9, 50 $1 ,212.68 $1 ,212.68 214 E. 4th Avenue B 55 Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001414-0 David W. Haggbloom W 10 of L 9 & 70 $1 ,697.75 $1 ,697.75 409 Lewis all of L 10 Shakopee, MN 55379 B 55 27-001419-0 Henrietta Deutsch L 6 & 7, B 56 120 $2,910.43 $2,910.43 134 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001420-0 Mary T. Hart et al L 8 and E 5 65 $1 ,576.49 $1 ,576.49 120 E. 4th Avenue of L 9 Shakopee, MN 55379 B 56 27-001421-0 Alice G. Davies W 55 of L 9, 55 $1 ,333. 95 $773. 60 $2, 107.55 114 E. 4th Avenue B 56 Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001422-0 Ernest M. Lebens L 10, B 56 60 $1 ,455.22 $1 ,455.2 108 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001424-0 Scott County Block lying 300 $7,276.09 $7,276.09 Court House Rm 110 between 428 S. Holmes B 56 & 57 Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001430-0 Scott County L b & E 1/2 90 $2, 182.83 $2, 182.83 Court House Rm 110 of L 7 428 S. Holmes B 57 Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001431-0 Scott County W 1/2 L 7 55 $1 ,333. 95 $1 ,333. 95 Court House Rm 110 & E 25 of 428 S. Holmes L 8, B 57 Shakopee, MIN 55379 27-001432-0 St. Francis Hosp. E 1/2 of L 9, 30 $727.61 $727.61 325 5th Avenue B 57 Shakopee, MN 55379 4th AVENUE ASSESSMENTS STREET SERVICE Project 1986-3 Assessable Amount : X98 ��33. 13 , • X773. 60 Front Foot Cast: X24. 253619 per service Revised; 9/23/86 -----PID-------PROPERTY-OWNER----DESCRIPTION FF STREET SEW, SVC. TOTAL 27-001432-1 Scott County W 35 of L 8, 35 $848.88 $848. 88 Court House Rm 110 B 57 428 S. Holmes Shakopee, MN 55379 27-001433-0 St. Francis Hosp. W 1/2 of L 9 90 $2, 182.83 x'2, 182.83 325 5th Avenue & all of L 10 Shakopee, MN 55379 B 57 27-001434-0 St. Francis Hosp. All of B 58 300 $6, 127.69 $6, 127. 69 325 5th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 ------------- FF STREET SEW. SVC. TOTAL ASSESSABLE TOTALS 4042 : 96,884.73 $31868. 00 $100,752. 73 Sidewalk Credit $1 , 148.40 (St. Fran. Hosp. ) $98,033. 13 S � �i�✓ G�'-Ltd/�,� t SEP' 21986 CITY OF SHAKOPEe i I< 5b }. .1 O _ I _ �l o y T CA) � d� o z D � 7 0 m � - m �In N OIz 1 COs" of m M N n iii CA IT C z D j MEMO TO: John K. Anderson , City Administrator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer%m_. SUBJECT: 13th Avenue from County Road 89 to the East City Limits Street Improvement Hearing DATE: September 18 , 1986 INTRODUCTION: Council adopted Resolution No. 2597 calling for an improvement hearing on proposed street improvements to 1.3th Avenue frQa County Road 89 to the East City Limits. BACKGROUND: Council has reviewed the feasibility report and has scheduled the hearing for 8 : 15 P . M , September 23 , 1986 . Attached is Resolution No . 2625 , if adopted by Council , will direct the preparation of plans and specifications. RECOMNEKDATIOR: 1 . Conduct the public hearing to receive testimony from the property owners proposed to be assessed. 2. Order the project by adopting Resolution No. 2625. REQUESTED ACTION: Offer Resolution No. 2625 , A Resolution Ordering an Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications for 13th Avenue from County Road 89 to the East Corporate Limits, Project No. 1986-9 and move its adoption. KA/pmp MEM2625 RESOLUTION NO. 2625 A Resolution Ordering An Improvement And The Preparation of Plans And Specifications For 13th Avenue from County Road 89 to the East Corporate Limits Project No. 1986-9 WHEREAS, Resolution No . 2597 , adopted on August 5 , 1986 , fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed street improvements of 13th Avenue from County Road 89 to the East Corporate Limits ; and WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice was given and the hearing was held on the 23rd day of September 1986 , at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1 . That the improvement is ordered as hereinafter described: Street Improvements to 13th Avenue from County Road 89 to the East Corporate Limits 2 . Ken Ashfeld, is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. 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 19 City Attorney 11*0 STUDY AREA BOUNDARY STORM . SEWER I - - --� 1 FRONT FOOTAGE n - - - 13th AV PROJECT AREA — —'—' 1� 1819120121 135 6 17 /// 23 r34 3 4 5 � 133 :77 22 2 32 � 1 � 7 16 2 1131 2 8 15 28 NON-ABUTTING 1= �� BENEFITED AREA 9 14 10 13 11 29 12 10 v' 12 FIG . 1 STUDY AREA F'-7 t REGISTERED SCOT "TC OU Ny M 1 : SCQ�` I MCH = 200 west Z6 47i //4 Cor ', — _._ • ice' S�ZLT' �� '� , 0 1D0 /00 ' /00 50 I/7�7 1/7-47 I `t C /00-OZ /00 2C.0 7' �v e y_� 17. /.50 o � rJ 7 iSD Q /50 7 O Z F7.�br /SO SJ lS0 567 50 wf 5T MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineers —' SUBJECT: Fourth Avenue ; Holmes Street to Scott Street Streetscape Improvement Hearing DATE: September 19 , 1986 INTRODUCTION: Council adopted Resolution No. 2613 calling for a public hearing of proposed streetscape improvements on 4th Avenue between Holmes Street and Scott Street . That hearing is scheduled for 9 : 00 P.M. , September 23 , 1986 . BACKGROUND: Council received the feasibility report at their September 16 , 1986 meeting. That feasibility report addressed the improvements and associated costs . That report also stated estimated assessments based upon the assumption that 25% of this project cost would be assessed. Council directed staff to research other options of assessing cost relative to the overall downtown streetscape proposals . I presume that it' other options were selected for the downtown proposals, those same options would be used for assessing the Fourth Avenue costs. I am uncertain as to if that research will be completed for the September 23 , 1986 hearing, but if an alternate percentage assessment is chosen, that does not invalidate the feasibility report. Any changes such as percent assessed would be addressed through the assessment hearing process. The feasibility report also addressed the deferral of assessments to single family residential properties Council directed staff to determine if deferred assessments can be collected atter the financing bond has been paid off. Rod Krass, the Assistant City Attorney , has determined that deferred assessments can be collected as per his attached letter . Attached also is Resolution No . 2626 , ordering plans and specifications for the proposed improvements . Since the feasibility report provided for flexibility in the selection of design elements, if Council orders the improvements, a discussion of design elements would be appropriate. RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the public hearing and receive testimony from abutting property owners proposed to be assessed. 4th Avenue Streetscape September 19 , 1986 Page 2 REQUESTED ACTION: If Council wishes to order the proposed improvements , the following is requested : 1 . Offer Resolution No . 2626 , A Resolution Ordering an Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications for 4th Avenue Streetscape , Project No. 1986-3 . 2 . Provide direction to staff, in a preliminary nature , as to design elements based upon public testimony. KA/pmp MEM2626 Law Offices of � — KRASS, MEYER & WALSTEN Chartered Suite 300 Marschall Road Business Center Phillip R. Krass Paralegals 327 South Marschall Road Barry K. Meyer 6.rO.raJ.M.dstrom Trevor R. Waisten Joi.ne R.Wagner P.O Box 216 Shakopee. Minnesota 55379 Elizabeth B. Mclauphlin Lori A.W.rmenn kireh. Rochelle M. Anderson Shelly T.Felsing (612)A45-5080 Of Counsel oroce manager Dennis L. Monroe w.no.er.rmnorst June 17, 1985 Mr. John Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear John: This letter is in response to your question regarding the city's ability to collect assessments after the underlying improvement bonds have been paid off. Although there appears to be no case law directly on point, it is clear that the city is able to collect assessments after the bonds are paid off. Minn. Stat. - 429.051 provides that "the cost of any improvement, or any part thereof, may be assessed upon property benefited by the improvement, based urion the benefits received. ..". Thus in Minnesota the amount that each land owner is assessed is based upon the amount the land owner benefits from the local. improvement. There is no indication that a city's ability to mahe a special assessment is tied to the amount owing on an underlying obligation such as an improvement bond. The only limitation on an assessment is that it not exceed the benefit the property received from the improvement. So long as the assessments do not exceed the amount of the benefit to the landowner, the city can continue to assess the property. Thus, a city has the ability to assess a land owner for the amount he benefited from a local improvement regardless of whether or not the underlying funding obligation has been paid. I hope this rather general response is sufficient to answer your question, John. If not, or if I can .be of further assistance, please contact me. Very truly yours, RIASS, METER & WALSTEN CHARTERED nil1ip&PaIK r a s PRK/ln/e g 1� MEMO TO: Rod FROM: Andrea DATE: April 16, 1986 RE: Deferred Assessments In answer to your question whether Shakopee can collect deferred spe- cial assessments after the bond issued to finance the improvement has been paid off, it appears that this is possible. Minn. Stat. §273.111 deals with deferred assessments on agricultural land (the "Greenacres" Statute) . In Subd. 11 , this statute provides that "if the bonds have matured, the deferred special assessments plus interest shall be payable within 90 days." This seems to imply that maturity of the bonds before the property ceases to qualify for the deferment does not absolve the property owner of paying the deferred assessment at such time as it becomes due (property ceases to qualify for deferment) . Concerning the question of collectibility of the assessment where the improvement has ceased to exist by the time payment has come due, nothing in the statute deals with this possibility. From the general language of the statute it appears that a deferred assessment is an absolute debt and is not directly tied to the improvement itself. Thus, I would assume that the assessment is due when the property ceases to qualify for a deferment under this statute, regardless of the state of the original improvement. RESOLUTION NO. 2626 A Resolution Ordering An Improvement And The Preparation of Plans And Specifications For Fourth Avenue Streetscape From Holmes Street to Scott Street Project No. 1986-3 WHEREAS, Resolution No . 2612 adopted on August 5 , 1986 , fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed Streetscape Improvements from Holmes Street to Scott Street. WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice was given and the hearing was held on the 23rd day of September 1986 , at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1 . That the improvement is ordered as hereinafter described : Streetscape Improvements from Holmes Street to Scott Street 2 . Ken Ashfeld, is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. 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 19 City Attorney MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineers?/N SUBJECT: Valley Park Drive and Frontage Road Improvement Hearing DATE: September 18, 1986 INTRODUCTION: City Council adopted Resolution No . 2611 receiving the feasibility study for proposed improvements to Valley Park Drive North of T . H . 101 and Frontage Road Improvements and called a hearing for 9 : 30 P. M. , September 23 , 1986 . BACKGROUND: The feasibility report was not complete relative to the appraised benefit to abutting benefitted properties. Attached is a report from Shenehon and Associates, certified appraisers, addressing the appraised benefit to abutting properties. In summary , the report basically states the following : 1 . The Prairie House Addition is considered to benefit by the full cost of the intersection improvements proposed in Alternative 1 . 2 . The raw , undeveloped land abutting ( Valleyfair & Prairie House Addition) is considered to benefit by the full cost of the proposals of Alternative 4 . Since it is considered that the Prairie House Addition benefits by the full cost of the intersection improvements, the Valleyfair assessment could be only for the frontage road or for the frontage road and a portion of the intersection costs. The question of what is fair and equitable to both parties must be answered. 3 . Under existing zoning and land use , the report determines that Valleyfair does not benefit from either Alternatives 2 or 3 • Valleyfair recently submitted a request for rezoning of a portion of their existing parking lot but withdrew that request, as I understand, until they know what access will be available . Consequently with either Alternative 2 or 3 , it becomes "a chicken and egg" situation . The land does not benefit from ' the road until the zoning is changed and the rezoning is not requested until the road is known to be available. To pursue either Alternative 2 or 3 , auxillary land use that would not be allowed by current access but would be allowed with the frontage road should be addressed. Valley Park Drive/Frontage Road September 18 , 1986 Page 2 Also attached is a letter I sent to Mn/DOT requesting an evaluation of the merits of this project and possible Mn/DOT funding . Obviously , any outside funding would enhance the feasible nature of the project. Also attached is Resolution No. 2629 ordering an improvement as determined by Council upon hearing public testimony at the hearing. For matter of simplicity , the resolution addresses all improvements studied in the feasibility report . If it is desirable to order a scaled back project, I will certainly be available to transmit requested project termini and estimated project cost for an amended resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the public hearing and act upon Resolution No. 2629 . REQUESTED ACTION: Offer Resolution No. 2629, A Resolution Ordering an Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Valley Park Drive from T . H. 101 to the North Approximately 350 feet and Frontage Road Improvements West of Valley Park Drive to Peavy Road , Project 1986-11 , and move its adoption. KA/pmp MEM2629 rye P CITY OF SHAKO E � INCORPORATED 1870 129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612) 445.3650 September 3 , 1986 Chuck Weichselbaum District State Aid Engineer 2055 N. Lilac Drive Golden Valley , HN 55422 RE : T.H. 101 Frontage Road Dear Chuck : The City of Shakopee is considering making improvements to the intersection of Valley Park Drive with T.H. 101 and constructing a frontage road along the north side of T.H. 101 and west of the intersection. Essentially , two issues are triggering these proposals . 1 . Development to the east of this intersection along the north of T.H. 101 (Prairie House Addition) requires a frontage road with a connection to Valley Park Drive . This connection requires the regrading of a portion of this intersection to improve sight distance and reduce conflict points . 2 . Proposed development to the west of the intersection along the north of T.H. 101 (south edge of Valleyfair parking lot ) and also the expansion of Valleyfair campground facility would require a frontage road to the west . Attached is a feasibility report for the various proposed improvements. The report addresses the possibility of extending the westerly frontage road to Peavy Road (extension of C.R. 83 extended north of T.H. 101) . This extension would provide for the elimination of the access to Valleyfair ' s administration buildings and campground facilities . The City requests that you review these proposals for their candidacy as a special- agreement program project for the next fiscal year . Thank you for your time and if you have any questions , do not hesitate to call . Sincerely , RenAshf e d City Engineer T17 t Of 1r0PraCc Vn11011 9ARESOLUTION NO. 2629 19- A Resolution Ordering An Improvement And The Preparation of Plans And Specifications For Valley Park Drive from T.H. 101 to the North Approximate 1 y 350 Feet and Frontage Road Improvements Hest of Valley Park Drive to Peavy Road Project No. 1986-11 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2611 , adopted on August 5 , 1986 , fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed intersection Improvements on Valley Park Drive from T.H. 101 to the North Approximately 350 Feet and Frontage Road Improvements West of Valley Park Drive to Peavy Road. WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice was given and the hearing was held on the 23rd day of September 1986 , at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1 . That the improvement is ordered as hereinafter described : Intersection Improvements on Valley Park Drive from T.H. 101 to the North Approximately 350 feet. and Frontage Road Improvements West of Valley Park Drive to Peavy Road. 2 . Ken Ashfeld, is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 19 ATTEST: Mayor of the City of Shakopee City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 19 City Attorney lo. OPINION OF VALUE ., Proposed Service Road at Valley Fair Shakopee, Minnesota September 15, 1986 86050 Mr. Ken Ashfeld City of Shakopee Shenehon & Associates, Inc. Real Estate&Business Valuations 903 Midwest Plaza East,Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402 •(612)333-6533 September 18, 1986 Mr. Ken Ashfeld City of Shakopee 129 First Avenue East Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 RE: OPINION OF VALUE AND BENEFITS FROM PROPOSED SERVICE ROAD AND UPGRADED INTERSECTION AT VALLEY PARK DRIVE AND HIGHWAY #101, SHAKOPEE, - MINNESOTA. Dear Mr. Ashfeld: In accordance with your request, we have made a before and after study of the above referenced property as of September 15, 1986. The enclosed letter of opinion contains a brief narrative description of the property, a land value analysis, a benefit analysis, and lastly, a summary of our conclusions. Our review of the study area for the proposed service road indicates that Alternative #4 produces enough benefit to the adjoining land to compensate for the cost of the project. Our analysis concluded the following: Average Value Average Value Before Development After Development Parcel I - Bradford Property 58 Acres of Raw Land $28,314.00 per acre $36,808.00 per acre Parcel II - Valley Fair 147.4 Acres of Developed Land $59,677.00 per acre $59,677.00 per acre Parcel III - Valley Fair 89 Acres of Raw Land $28,314.00 per acre $36,808.00 per acre Parcel IV - Peavey Property 15.44 Acres of Raw Land $28,314.00 per acre $28,314.00 per acre In our opinion, only Parcel I and Parcel III of the study area directly benefit from the proposed service road and intersection upgrade. Appraisal • Consultation • Feasibility • Market Research Mr. Ken Ashfeld Page 2 September 18, 1986 It should be clearly understood that a full before and after appraisal has not been made of the above referenced property, and that the value range indicated by this letter is subject to adjustment upon completion of a full appraisal. The value ranges indicated have been estimated by means of generally accepted real estare valuation methods. Please contact us if you have any questions or comments. The undersigned certifies that he has personally inspected the property and has investigated information believed to be pertinent to the preliminary valuation of the property, and to the best of his knowledge and belief, the statements and opinions expressed herein are correct and reasonable, subject to the limiting conditions set forth herein. SHENEHON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Certified to this 18th day of September, 1986 'John T. Schmick Staff Appraiser This appraisal has been reviewed and approved by the undersigned, who certifies that to the best of his knowledge and belief the statements and opinions expressed herein are correct and reasonable, subject to the limiting conditions set forth herein. The undersigned reviewer has inspected the subject property. SHENEHON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Certified to this 18th day . of September, 1986 Robert J. Strachota, MAI, CRE President /pm Page 3 ALTERNATIVE PLANS AND BASIC ASSUMPTIONS The City Council of Shakopee, Minnesota, has been asked by land owners near the intersection of Valley Park Drive and Highway #101 to provide safe and adequate access to their property via a realignment of the north half of that intersection and construction of a new frontage road. Responding to this request, the council has identified four possible alternatives for study of anticipated benefits to the adjoining land. The purpose of this report is to analyze the potential benefits to the adjacent land affected by each alternative proposed. These alternatives are presented below: Alternative #1 The first alternative is the realignment of the north half of the intersection of Valley Park Drive at Highway #101 to accommodate a new service road northeast of the intersection, running parallel to Highway #101. This will allow a safe distance between the service road turnoff and the main intersection. The primary goal of this alternative is to provide access to the Prairie House Addition area in preparation for development. The developer of that land will be constructing the service road east of the intersection, and has requested the intersection improvement. Since the intersection upgrade will be made in conjunction with the east service road, our study included the impact on value of both improvements. One basic assumption associated with this alternative is that the Valley Fair Amusement Park will continue to use North Valley Park Drive as its main customer entrance. With the exception of moving its entrance back from the road precipitated by the loss of some land taken for the project, its status does not change. There is no rerouting of Valley Fair traffic. Alternative #2 This alternative includes the realigned intersection and east service road entrance discussed in alternative one, plus the construction of a new service road extending west from Valley Park Drive to the southwest corner of the Valley Fair customer parking lot, a distance of roughly 950 feet west of the intersection. This alternative assumes that the east and west service road entrances would form a "T" shaped intersection with Valley Park Drive and that the current entrance to the Valley Fair parking lot would be closed and moved to some point on the west service road. Alternative #3 This alternative includes all of the proposals made in the previous alternatives, but extends the west service road to the intersection of Valleyfair Drive, a distance of roughly 2,700 feet west of the Valley Park Drive/Highway #101 intersection. Valleyfair Drive is a two lane semi-private road used mainly by employees and vendors of Valley Fair and customers using the Valley Fair campground near the Minnesota River. This intersection is not controlled by signal lights. Under this proposal, the Valleyfair Drive access to Highway #101 would be closed, resulting in employees, vendors, and campers being rerouted along the west service road to the Valley Park Drive intersection. Page 4 Alternative Plans and Basic Assumptions - Continued Alternative #4 This final alternative includes everything in the previous proposals, but extends the west service road all the way to the intersection of Peavey Road, which is also the extension of County Road #83 at Highway #101, a distance of roughly 5,400 feet west of the original starting point. Peavey Road is currently used by heavy trucks moving grain to the Peavey Company grain terminal located west of Valley Fair. This proposal would create both east and west access points to Highway #101 for the service road, and ultimately for the properties adjacent to the service road. Page 5 Q W \ is m � rr w ---- O � �1 I � aniao �avd,�a�irn c�U H U � a I ' S rr I I w _ W ' I Q, � 0 H x a 0 a ry z H / J w / W a 0 I 'y S �k h H a � � a w 3 ( W I a l n a U 2 10, ;�= x I J Hinos N 'b17 Ividisnow \� o 1 w 1 U i 11 I P4 .. w Page 6 OUTLOT A _ PRAIRIE HOUSE ADDITION VALLEYFAIR � I BLOCK 1 EXISTING 2 I I PARKING LOT 1 I I I I 1I I 1 SEE FIG. 4 I / Y NORTH R - - NORTHERLY R O W TH 101 H _ � W.B. TH 101 Y E.8- TH 101 -- � � --- --- a w LLJ t < !> ALTERNATIVE #1 z Page 7 < o - - _ _ !!� :L o _ - C - - ! / r O O < G U I o - �! I GJ / ; S, f LU n' c', N" � } _ I Z N y i IJ '1 < v u i C O O m N < O .. W W J J Q 4.11 J 2 G 7 j0� L, Q � A C\ ! 1 \ j I b J07.100 N H=nlos � I I c i i `� ALTERNATIVE #2 Page 8 w LJ ---- - i V W - •./ 100 W - = < < IIIiC- ;7- ,,, - r i < iL r F- N L < J w C7 .11 I I J Y 1 �nlli0 H2i:d /. 1 Tl T1: < Q , C ! lye lI , j N it 1 ev � li I > J I 2 is l co < < 1 W � j I Iit Z) p O ,/ < LU w r o Cl) / J p = J y < v 1 .. o Lu H _ � O C� I � J P O A I l7 p / / 1 y1 w iI O�lnO � I N Cl) / H.Lnos 'yl� 1`:I�1SnQNl C N ALTERNATIVE #3 Page 9co o — � � W ° // o G lJIZ W G In % 1 % O rn W O Q C „ / Z W Z 1 G J L I I I r I = w 3Af J ),Ly ;7 > Q a - r:�i I1CIUII � i�ol pl �C U I ' ` C / ry)flv`IJ N " 1 1IiLu u N j I 1 n u G O L' > 2 11 1 co fl = C � C go r ¢ w � r J h J O 2 ¢ v ? U ` zu f / v O O / Z I b10 J 11n0 r ► i N i O H_nOS snow ALTERNATIVE � I �- ALTERNATIVE #4 Page 10 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The overall study area for the various alternatives proposed for this project includes portions of three separate properties. These properties include the following: a) Bradford Property (Prairie House Addition) - Parcel I, located east of Valley Park Drive. This property is affected only by alternative one. Currently this land is in a natural state, with no utilities, no street access, and no access to Highway #101. This property was purchased in 1984 by the current owners, who estimated land development costs at $1,000,000.00 at that time. This included filling or diking the land an average of five to six feet to reach Highway #101 grade level. In its natural state, this property is in the 100 year flood plain area. b) Valley Fair Property - Parcels II and III - This property is further divided into the east and west half for our analysis of benefits related to the various alternatives. The east half (Parcel II) is fully developed with the Valley Fair Amusement Park. Containing 147.4 acres of land, this section of the Valley Fair property is completely diked to prevent flooding, and is served by water, sewer, natural gas, and electricity. Access is provided at two points. The first access point is in the southeast corner at the intersection of Valley Park Drive and Highway #101, and the second access point is at Valleyfair Drive in the southwest corner. Valley Park Drive is a controlled intersection with signal lights. Valleyfair Drive is not a controlled intersection. The west half (Parcel III) of the Valley Fair property is in a natural state, with no access to Highway #101 except by way of the eastern half of the property. It currently is not served by utilities, and appears to be 7 to 10 feet below highway grade in front and about 15 feet or more below highway grade in the rear area. Railroad tracks leading to the Peavey Company grain terminal cross the southwest corner of Parcel III, approximately one quarter mile east of County Road #83 (Peavey Road) . Both sections (Parcel II and Parcel III) are zoned for industrial uses. c) Peavey Property - Parcel IV. The affected area of the Peavey property represents approximately 20% to 25% of the total area which comprises the Peavey grain terminal storage and shipping site. This property is located to the west of the Valley Fair property, and has two access points to Highway #101. These access points are County Road #83 (Peavey Road) on the east side and the Murphy's Landing entrance on the west side. Both of these entrances are used by heavy truck traffic hauling grain to and from the Peavey grain terminal. In addition, a two line railroad truck spur line enters the property from the southwest corner of the Valley Fair property and runs parallel to Peavey Road to the center of the property. The affected area is very similar in topography to the Valley Fair-West parcel in that it is in a natural state. Page 11 LAND VALUE ANALYSIS We have conducted a survey of land sales which are comparable to the property. As a result, we have formed an opinion of the market value range for the different parcels of land affected by the proposed intersection realignment and service roads. In our opinion, the range of values for the different types of property encountered in the study area is estimated to be as follows: Price Per Square Foot 1. Fully Developed Land Low Hijzh (Full utility service, adequate access, soil problems corrected, and either diked or filled. ) $1.25 $1.50 2. Partial Developed Land (Some utilities, limited access, soil problems may be corrected. ) $ .80 $1.10 3. Raw Land in a Natural State (No utilities, no direct access, no soil corrections. ) $ .50 $ .80 In terms of the various parcels identified earlier in this report, the estimated fee simple values, before construction of the proposed service roads, are given as follows: Estimated Estimated Type Size Value Parcel I - Bradford Property Raw Land 58 acres $1,566,000 Parcel II - Valley Fair-East Fully Developed 147.4 acres $8,828,000 Parcel III - Valley Fair-West Raw Land 89 acres $2,404,000 Parcel IV - Peavey Property Raw Land 15.4 Acres $ 416,000 Page 12 )�Y Land Value Analysis - Continued Comparable land sale transactions which were useful in estimating this land value are individually described below: Comparable Land Sale Fact Chart Sale Sale Intended Sale Area Sale Price/ No. Location Use Date Acres Zoning Price Sq.Ft. 1. Hwy. 101 & Industrial Purch. 2.30 I-2 $ 103,000 $1.03 Valley Park Dr. Agree. 2. Boone Ave. , near Commercial 12/85 .951 B-1 $ 30,000 $ .72 124th St. 3. Valley Park Dr. Commercial 3/84 58.00 B-1 $ 400,000 $ .16 & Hwy. 101 4. Boone Ave. near Unknown 5/84 1.04 I-1 $ 19,500 $ .43 123rd St. 5. NWC of Cty. Rd. 16 Commercial 6/84 316.00 B-1, $4,789,607 $ .35 & Cty. Rd. 83 I-1 6. Boone Ave. near Industrial 7/84 3.35 I-1 $ 53,500 $ .37 123rd St. 7. SWC Hwy.101 & Commercial 7/80 3.09 I-1 $ 75,000 $ .56 Hwy. 13 8. Hwy. 101 east of Unknown 9/80 6.03 I-2 $ 180,000 $ .69 Shakopee 3 miles 9. Hwy. 101 east of Commercial 11/80 20.00 B-1 $ 315,000 $ .36 Shakopee 3 miles 10. Viking Steel Rd. & Industrial 8/79 20.00 I-1 $ 145,000 $ .17 Hwy. 101 11. Between 4th Ave. & Industrial 12/79 120.00 I-1 $1,087,500 $ .21 Hwy. 101 12. Between 4th Ave. & Industrial 12/79 28.00 I-1 $ 262,500 $ .22 Hwy. 101 13. Near Cty. Rd. 89 & Industrial 9/78 12.00 I-1 $ 108,000 $ .21 Hwy. 101 14. Near Cty. Rd. 89 & Commercial 9/78 3.00 I-1 $ 45,000 $ .34 Hwy. 101 i Page 13 BENEFIT ANALYSIS The purpose of this report is to determine whether or not the land adjacent to the proposed service road project increases in value (or will benefit) by an amount equal to the cost of these improvements. Traditional appraisal methodology estimates the value of the land both before and after the improvements are theoretically in place. This involves identifying the potential benefit to the property and then measuring the value of that benefit. The primary benefit being addressed by this study is the value of improved access to the adjacent land. Do the intersection and service road improvements increase the accessibility and potential use of the land? This question is related to each of the alternatives below. Alternative one is the realignment of the signalized intersection of Valley Park Drive and Highway #101 to allow for the construction of a service road going east along the Prairie House Addition (Bradford Property) . We stated earlier that this parcel of land is in a natural state, with no access to Highway #101. In order to develop this property, some access point must be established to the highway. The two possibilities are 1) several independent, non-signalized roads directly off of Highway #101; or 2) a service road to a major intersection. We reject the first possibility as being unsafe and impractical. A series of uncontrolled entry points to a major state highway near a signalized intersection can only increase the potential for accidents and traffic congestion, especially if left turn lanes are not provided. Therefore, the second possibility of a service road is the only practical method of highway access. The realignment of the intersection to safely route frontage road traffic into and out of the intersection directly affects the future use and development potential of the adjacent land. Consequently, alternative one has some potential benefits. The remaining three alternatives all relate to a service road extending west of the new intersection, the only difference being the length of the road and termination points. Alternative two proposes the west service road run to the opposite corner of the Valley Fair parking lot. Under the current zoning and current use of the property, this alternative has a marginal impact on the accessibility of the property. Since there is already access to Highway #101 at the corner of the parking lot, simply moving the entrance to the park and routing traffic along a short service road does not really improve its overall accessibility. Consequently, alternative two offers no measurable benefit. Page 14 -.5 �J Benefit Analysis. - Continued Alternative three extends to the west service road to Valley Fair Drive at the southwest corner of Parcel II. The length of the road would run it along the entire length of the Valley Fair Amusement Park. With the connection to Valleyfair Drive, we have assumed that the uncontrolled access point to Highway #101 would be closed, rerouting all employee, vendor, and camper traffic to the controlled intersection at Valley Park Drive. In our opinion, alternative three is also of marginal benefit to the land. Since this area is already fully developed and there is currently highway access, rerouting traffic along the service road to another access point, albeit a better, controlled access point, does little to improve the overall accessibility of the property. Consequently, altnernative three offers no real measurable benefit. Finally, alternative four proposes to extend the west service road to County Road #83 (Peavey Road) , fronting along Parcel III of Valley Fair and Parcel IV of the Peavey land. Both parcels are undeveloped land, with only the Peavey land having highway access by virtue of its use in combination with all of the Peavey property. The potential use and development of this part of the Peavey property is not likely to benefit from the proposed service road based on its current use. Peavey's current use of the land as a grain terminal and shipping station requires long lengths of land and railroad trackage for assembling rail cars into trains, and providing for the orderly assembling and queuing of grain trucks at the terminal. Consequently, the current use requires width, not depth, in terms of land requirements. Since the grain terminal is located in the center of the property, with roads and trackage extending to either side of the property, it is unlikely that the east side of the property would ever be developed or require highway access. Consequently, the Peavey property subject to this study would not benefit from alternative four. Parcel III of the Valley Fair property is just the opposite. It has no improvements, no access, and a great potential for future development. The service road as provided in alternative four would provide access to the parcel and make future development more attractive. Therefore, Parcel III of the study area, would enjoy the greatest benefit under alternative four. The analysis presented above is based on the current zoning of the subject property, which is industrial use. If zoning were changed to commercial use, the potential uses of the land become more flexible. As a result, the value of the land would tend to rise within the established ranges of value presented previously. For Parcel II of the Valley Fair property, which has no measurable benefit under the four alternative proposals as currently zoned, the west service road potential offers some benefit under commercial zoning. Page 15 u� MEASURING BENEFIT VALUE There are two methods available to the appraiser to measure the impact on land values by the installation of the proposed improvements. The first method is a survey of comparable land sales. The second method is matching sales of property with the same characteristics except one, that being the attribute whose value is being measured. Both methods are discussed below. In a previous section of this report, we indicated that we had conducted a survey of comparable land sales. That survey resulted in the various ranges of value for fully developed land, partially developed land, and raw land. After adjustments are made for various differences, that survey indicates that the difference between raw land and land partially developed with streets, water and sewer or other utilities, or some combination thereof, is approximately a 38% increase in value (midpoint range raw land to midpoint range partially developed land) . The second method listed above is matched sales of property to isolate the impact on value of the proposed service road. After searching the Minneapolis and suburban market, we identified two locations in Brooklyn Park that were useful for this purpose. These properties are as follows: 1. 8216 and 8224 Lakeland Avenue was purchased prior to construction of Lakeland Avenue as a service road to Highway #169 and is currently offered for sale, after completion of construction. 2. 8089 Brooklyn Boulevard and Parcel #3440 (no street address available) located behind and across the street from the first property. Both have exposure to heavily traveled roads, but only one has direct access to that road. These sales indicate the following rates of adjustments for improved access and frontage roads. 8216 and 8224 Lakeland Avenue Indicated Time Adj . Value Date Sale Price Sale Price Offer Price Increase 8/84 $2.39/s.f. $2.63/s.f. $3.75/s.f. 42% 8089 Brooklyn Boulevard (A) : Parcel #3440 (B) Time & Indicated Shape Adj . Size Adj . Indicated Value Parcel Sale Price Date Sale Price Sale Price Value Increase A $1.69/s.f. 11/81 -- $2.09/s.f. $2.09 B $1.36/s.f. 3/81 $1.48 -- $1.48 41% To summarize, the two methods used above indicate an increase in value for the land, caused by a new service road and/or better access to heavily traveled roads, ranges between 38% and 42%. Since most of the transactions used in this study are for land parcels which generally are of better quality than the subject parcels, we have selected a rate of 30% as applicable to the subject parcels. Page 16 x �es. - �so 25z5 cli m m r m ,pji go21) G � Z 6" /5 2 0 \� 40 CA I 3500\ 255 0 --- yl 40 W I~SS � IN N I n Si i • 40, W .0 270.14 k.,q//\•D.+`ii a '„H;.N. `c° �pa 27 ..� o 89'17 3 v /70 723 0/4 ,\/a�t ///'01 �/.l.eIBu3t� Vev�u�t\ e46 /7 '71 6 . 300 /)� , `r ,6 .W i0 \�t�l\\ c ';R Ni• �-7 1- 4 a9 A) 8 /6 84.x7 ti93 GN' ^0 1 ti 2 i91, w�� 40 10 ^o Subject Qr `^h µ.q2) (� o N 14 "\13 12 11 (A) I .( 2 /17.2/ 73„m 12 174 0 ,: ^ (43) .. .. c, �� ' •0 b > o n0 Q Q Io- Iii`z 4 8467 73 .. .. oN \q0 o n� M OF `.fit} �9 13 �17), , (911 x(95) 15 16 ' 17 '183 010 0 14(79 /20 `73 •• •. Cep 10 �° ,,, T -- GGILE� 0 10 42 o m 1S �`79� .. 93 75 ,. .. .. ��,• 'r3 j� �b(lil)r(12o),�,(1191` pt7«(if g 060 `1� 1° 0 ^.11116 b, �\ 16 ^ 15 la^ 13„1JJ C10 1 6 q – -s8;,;6 40 w 0 16 s;o. i,p r 01 — J`., ^-+4, '/2546 7S\ . 122.83 3 o ° sj092 (0) 10 9 $ 535 0 30 rp (I8� t'A '1 Nf� ,o ot3 4z IiAz! 2 z L 140 130 140 /002 04280 % 21 20 9 ,00` a (zo1 (A)2 0 90 Bo \ 710.°1 \ M '89.3731"E ( 3 W 937S 80 I (,� '\'\ �` o •n •moi 10 9 8 7 ' 6 (A) 3�7 ^�� `-1 9Q Pt 1010 �)Id11.¢3 n° ••0^ �13�4 4 - •� (31� �3G >J} ( ) 45 6 a \ Z :/�) 94.37 15 CUR ( 5 9 0 _ ) I M 11 12 E 13 14 V /OO ��. bl 0-1° (��23' n°o ys)6 �Sfl X430) C4 6 /OO �� 11 ' .b� � S G1 a – – _ 834. � +a � - 6� \°0 � 16��3�l 1 ,�1 P�•fJ A °jQ-�G° 4� N �f Ymro?_3o ' Go/ _.n fl/q�1�60\�f0ey� /3L8- �tlJ `r_y•/2�7TJ W1 3 Z. 135 ? —3— ....---� B1Go5.72 Res0 ,\&. / 6 ° 10 /40 II • ' O4 �' a ,d6 \ 8216 and 8224 Lakeland Avenue Before Service Road Construction Page 17 -- Brooklyn Boulevard -- UZ9.a/Res. M• 4ys.... ' STATE jijWY—NO. 152 )° 0%93973 3i�J_3rF�) DOC. 33'3 (7) (6) a SITE A Sr' I s � I � e '� •,fx L OVER --9 51? -76T4- — � v �. 40 0;30 04 x 95 4' 70 c, m!0130 C. ..4 1 14^. 13 7J TC ._ .4093 I �c; 2 o0 o c� d 15 16 17 18 '3435) LLJ .:450! 70 70 7317, +x,51 5th `5+,1 5� -� "7 8 2N C34ao) (3� i� 1723 '0 '0 73r 7 0 • rya, �b9J '.Y', 29 ..d :27 In n SITE B 1 31 mal. c e- i � �..' (6229) M r N 3 4zo)\� 1410)/\ ~ —� ;32 t v,"1 v1O°`) .>L'. UJ el c3 o 30 30 85 70 7 a �g2Z5� 3 ) —S 3. `3 ~aq'bo c7i7 m bL5.54 .. G �6\ (aGis) 0996 70 3 a 197) y04) (i� �(3i) � I�t_'fo) 7 74 I 6: 0 70 X89.34 70 94 6 70 0 4 33) (sk) (ss� 16 17 18 19 20 �I2143x t 70 O , 74 TI Relationship between Site- A, 8089 Brooklyn Boulevard And Site B, Parcel #3440. Page 18 ��`� Measuring Benefit Value - Continued In our opinion, the benefits to the subject properties of the proposed service roads and upgraded intersection are as follows: Parcel I - Bradford Property (58 Acres) Average Current % Dollar Estimated Value Increase Increase Cost Alternative #1 $.65/s.f. 1.30 $.195/s.f. $.067/s.f. Alternative #2 $.65/s.f. 1.30 $.195/s.f. $.033/s.f. Alternative #3 $.65/s.f. 1.30 $.195/s.f. $.033/s.f. Alternative #4 $.65/s.f. 1.30 $.195/s.f. $.033/s.f. Raw land. Includes all cost of Alternative 1. Parcel II - Valley Fair (89 Acres) Average Current % Dollar Estimated Value Increase Increase Cost Alternative #1 $1.37/s.f. Alternative #2 $1.37/s.f. 0 0 $.055/s.f. Alternative #3 $1.37/s.f. 0 0 $.11/s.f. Alternative #4 $1.37/s.f. 0 0 $.11/s.f. Developed land. Includes all cost of Alternative #2, less one-half cost of Alternative #1. Parcel III - Valley Fair (147.4 Acres) Average Current % Dollar Estimated Value Increase Increase Cost Alternative #1 $.65/s.f. -- -- -- Alternative #2 $.65/s.f. -- -- -- Alternative #3 $.65/s.f. -- -- -- Alternative #4 $.65/s.f. 1.30 $.195/s.f. $.11/s.f. Raw land. Includes all costs for Alternative #3, less one-half cost of Alternative #1. Page 19 Measuring Benefit Value - Continued Parcel IV - Peavey Property (15.44 Acres) Average Current % Dollar Estimated Value Increase Increase Cost Alternative #1 $.65/s.f. Alternative #2 $.65/s.f. Alternative #3 $.65/s.f. Alternative #4 $.65/s.f. 0 0 $.10/s.f. Raw land. Includes pro rata cost of Alternative #4, less one-half cost of Alternative #1. In conclusion, it is our opinion that alternative four is the most reasonable alternative to pursue, with the benefits accruing to Parcel I - Bradford Property, and Parcel III - Valley Fair. The benefits to these two parcels are equal to, or in excess of, the cost of the proposal. r,. CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS The value estimates and conclusions in the appraisal are made subject to these assumptions and conditions: 1. The property has been appraised as free and clear of all indebtedness under responsible ownership, and good management unless otherwise set forth in the appraisal. 2. No title search has been made and the reader should consult an appropriate attorney or title insurance company for accurate ownership data. 3. The furnished legal description is assumed to be correct. 4. The information contained in this report is not guaranteed, but it has been gathered from reliable sources. The appraiser certifies that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the statements, information and materials contained in the appraisal are correct. 5. No responsibility is assumed for matters which are legal in nature. It is assumed (without survey) that the improvements are located within the legally described property and that the buildings comply with all ordinances except as noted. 6. No analysis of soil conditions was required and none has been made. All value estimates in this report assume stable soil and any necessary soil corrections are to be made at the seller's expense. 7. Estimates herein are based on the present status of the national business economy, and the current purchasing power of the dollar. 8. The plot plan in this report is included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. We have made no survey of the property and assume no responsibility for its accuracy. 9. The market value herein assigned is based on conditions which were applicable at the time the property was inspected and may vary at a later date. 10. The appraiser herein shall not be required to prepare for or appear in court or before any board or governmental body by the reason of the completion of this assignment without pre- determined arrangements and agreements. 11. Surveys, plans and sketches may have been provided in this report. They may not be complete or be drawn exactly to scale. Contingent and Limiting Conditions - Continued 12. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. It may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the party to whom it is addressed without the written consent of the appraiser, and in any event only with proper written qualification and only in its entirety. 13. Information in the appraisal relating to comparable market data is more fully documented in the confidential file in the office of the appraiser. 14. All studies and field notes will be secured in our files for future reference. 15. The distribution of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements applies only under the reported highest and best use of the property. The allocations of value for land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. 16. It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been complied with, unless a non-conformity has been stated, defined and considered in the appraisal report. It is assumed that the utilization of the land and improvements is within the boundaries or property lines of the property described and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless noted within the report. 17. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state and local environmental regulations and laws unless non-compliance is stated, defined and considered in the appraisal report. 18. This property is appraised in fee simple, assuming responsible ownership and management, unless otherwise indicated. This appraisal recognizes that available financing is a major consideration by typical purchasers of income producing real estate in the market, and the appraisal assumes availability of financing to responsible and sufficiently substantial purchasers of the property in amounts similar to those indicated in this report. 19. The appraiser has neither a present nor contemplated interest in the property appraised. The appraiser's employment is not contingent upon the value reported. CERTIFICATION 1. The property has been inspected by the appraisers; and no one other than these appraisers have prepared the analyses, conclusions and opinions concerning real estate set forth in this report unless otherwise stated. 2. Market value as used herein is defined as the most probable price in terms of money which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. 3. The appraisers have no present or contemplated interest or bias regarding the property appraised or relating to the parties involved. Employment is not in any manner contingent upon the value report. The party or parties preparing this appraisal have absolutely no personal interest in the subject property. 4. All facts utilized in this report are assumed to be accurate. 5. All limiting and special conditions as stated on this page and the previous pages are stated to be interpreted as written, not to imply any more or less. 6. Disclosure of the contents of this report is governed by the bylaws and regulations of the Society of Real Estate Appraisers and the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. No part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraisers or the firm with which they are connected, or any references to the Society of Real Estate Appraisers or the SREA, SRPA, or SRA designations; or to the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers or the MAI or RM designations) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or any other public means of communications without the prior written consent and approval of the appraisers. 7. We certify that to the best of our knowledge and belief the statements of fact contained in this report, upon which the analyses, opinions and conclusions expressed herein are based, are true and correct; also, this report sets forth all of the limiting conditions (imposed by the assignment terms or by the appraisers) affecting the analyses, opinions and conclusions contained in this report; also, this report has been made in conformity with and is subject to the requirements of the Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers and the Society of Real Estate Appraisers. QUALIFICATIONS OF JOHN T. SCHMICK BIOGRAPHICAL DATA AND EDUCATION Born near Madison, Wisconsin. Graduated from Southwest High School in Minneapolis. Graduated from St. Cloud State University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Finance. Graduated from St. Cloud State University with a Master of Business Administration degree, specializing in Real Estate. Successfully completed the following real estate and appraisal courses: Feasibility Studies - Graduate Level Limited Partnerships - Graduate Level Commercial Appraisals - Graduate Level Real Estate Appraisal Real Estate Finance - Real Estate Investments Real Estate Law Awarded scholarships by Minnesota Association of Realtors and by the Minneapolis Chapter of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Shenehon and Associates, Inc. , Minneapolis, Minnesota. Appraiser/Analyst, 1986 Duties and Responsibilities: Prepare professional valuation and market analysis reports for all types of real property, business enterprises, and intangible property rights. Typical assignments include studies for highest and best use, mortgage financing, condemnations, tax abatement proceedings, feasibility studies, sales and purchases, leasehold and leased fee interests, and internal management decisions. St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota. Graduate Assistant to Minnesota Chair in Real Estate, 1983-1985 Instructor - Real Estate Principles Course, 1985. Duties and responsibilities during this two year time period include research, tutoring, hosting conferences, teaching introductory courses in real estate, reviewing new textbooks, and assisting with the revising of the Real Estate Principles textbook. PARTIAL CLIENT LIST City of Steamboat Springs, Colorado Opus Corporation Cy Keufler Realty, St. Cloud, Minnesota Shidler Group Leonard, Street and Deinard Thorpe Brothers, Inc. NORENCO, Inc. (Subsidiary of N.S.P. ) Walgreen, Inc. Norwest Bank of Minneapolis QUALIFICATIONS OF ROBERT J. STRACHOTA BIOGRAPHICAL DATA AND EDUCATION Born and raised in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Graduated from Marquette University High School in Milwaukee. Relocated to the Twin Cities and graduated from the College of St. Thomas in St. Paul. Awarded a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Finance with _ honorable distinction. Holds a permanent membership in Delta Epsilon Sigma, a National College Honor Society. Awarded a Master of Business Administration Degree from the University of Minnesota. Successfully completed numerous real estate appraisal courses, of which some are listed below: American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers - Feasibility Analysis American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers - Course IV, Eminent Domain Valuation American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers - Going Concern Valuation Society of Real Estate Appraisers - Course 101 and Course 201 Society of Real Estate Appraisers - Lease Valuation Seminar University of Minnesota - "Advanced Real Estate - 0011C" Robert S. Means Company - Parameter Building Cost Seminar American Institute of CPA's - Valuation of Businesses and Professional Practices PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OR ASSOCIATIONS Counselor of Real Estate - Society of Real Estate Counselors (CRE) Member - American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers (MAI) The A.R.I.E.A. conducts a voluntary program of continuing education for its designated members. MAI's and RM's who meet the minimum standards of this program are awarded periodic educational certification.. I am certified under this program through September 16, 1989. Associate Member/Business Enterprise - American Society of Appraisers Member - Institute of Business Appraisers PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Shenehon and Associates, Inc. , Partner, since October, 1980. Patchin Appraisals, Inc. , Manager from February, 1978 to September, 1980. Shenehon-Goodlund and Associates, Inc. , Appraiser from May 1975 to February 1978. Duties and Responsibilities: Prepare professional valuations and market analysis of real estate, business enterprises and intangible property rights. Assignments have involved numerous types of commercial, multiple family, industrial and special purpose properties. The specific purposes of these assignments have included highest and best use studies, mortgage financing, condemnation, tax abatement proceedings, feasibility analysis, investment counseling, potential sales and purchases, lease and rental analyses, bankruptcy proceedings, charitable donations, internal management decisions, special assessment appeals, allocation of purchase price and insurance indemnification. Teaching experience has been with the Board of Realtors in the University of Minnesota Extension and as an ad hoc professor or lecturer in the College of St. Thomas and the University of Minnesota degree programs. Court experience involves testifying at various commission hearings, district courts and tax courts throughout the Midwest. Writing experience includes an article in "The Appraisal Journal" published by The American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. PARTIAL CLIENT LIST Abbott Northwestern Hosp. Fed. Home Loan Bank Brd. Merrill Lynch-Hubbard Ramsey County City of Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank Munsingwear St. Paul Companies Continental Bank First Nat'l. Bank of Boston Northern States Power Turner Development Control Data General Mills Norwest Twin City Federal Cray Research H.U.D. Opus Corporation University of Minnesota Dain Bosworth Internal Revenue Service J.C. Penney Walgreen's Dorsey Whitney R-Mart Prudential Insurance Y.M.C.A. MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk(---.'t RE: Hauer ' s 3rd Addition - Developer' s Agreement DATE: September 19 , 1986 Introduction• The improvements for Hauer ' s 3rd Addition have been completed and accepted by the City. The developer is asking the City to release the developer ' s agreement against the subdivision. Background• In addition to public improvements, the developer' s agreement includes a park dedication section as well as the future construction of a sidewalk and street along the North side of 13th Avenue when the Outlots are replatted or when 13th Avenue is constructed. In exchange for the release of the developer ' s agreement, the developer is willing to sign a petition and waiver for the 13th Avenue improvements for the two lots affected, as well as sign a park dedication agreement for the 10 lots still owing the park dedication fee. Mr. Coller has prepared the attached petition and waiver. The attached Park Dedication agreement is the same as the one signed by Gary Laurent for Minnesota Valley 3rd Addition, prepared by Mr. Krass. Alternatives• 1) Do not release the developer' s agreement. 2 ) Release developer' s agreement, upon signing and filing of a petition for improvements and a park dedication agreement. 3 ) Release developer ' s agreement. Recommendation: Alternative no 2 Recommended Action: Authorize release of the developer ' s agreement for Hauer ' s 3rd Addition conditioned upon execution and recording of a petition and waiver of assessments for 13th Avenue sidewalk and street construction along the North side of 13th Avenue and a park dedication agreement JSC/jb ) 6�1 PARK DEDICATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of 1986 , by and between the City of Shakopee, a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereafter called "City" , and B & D Development, a general partnership organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter called "Developer" . WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Developer did enter into a Developer' s Agreement, dated the 20th day of August, 1986 , with the City relative to the approval of a subdivision of land within the corporate limits of the City; and WHEREAS, in consideration of the acceptance of said subdivision, the Developer entered into a certain Developer ' s Agreement with the City requiring the Developer to make certain improvements; and WHEREAS, all of said improvements have been made or guaranteed in a manner acceptable to the City; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration hereof, it is hereby agreed as follows: 1. The Developer agrees to make payments to the park fund in lieu of land dedication pursuant to the Shakopee City Code, Section 12. 061, in the following amounts on a per lot basis, all said lots located in Hauer' s 3rd Addition, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Scott County Recorder: Lots 1, 3, and 5 of Block 1; Lots 1, 3 , 7, and 8 of Block 2; Lots 1, 6 , and 9 of Block 3 ; all in the amount of $250 . 00 for each single family lot and $400. 00 for each twin home lot. Said amounts shall be due and payable at the time of the issuance of any building permit for said lots, or on August 20, 1996, whichever occurs first. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors, heirs and assigns of the parties hereto. This agreement is made and entered into this day of 11 1986 . CITY OF SHAKOPEE DEVELOPER: B & D DEVELOPMENT By BY Mayor Stanley P. Brinkhaus By By City Administrator Patricia A. Brinkhaus By By City Clerk Dale F. Dahlke By Janice H. Dahlke STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) On this day of 1986, before me a Notary Public, within and for said County and State, personally appeared Eldon A. Reinke, John K. Anderson and Judith S. Cox, to me personally known, being each by me duly sworn, did say that they are respectively the Mayor, City Administrator, and City Clerk of the City of Shakopee the municipal corporation named in the foregoing instrument; and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City Council and Eldon A. Reinke, John K. Anderson, and Judith S. Cox acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipal corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF SCOTT ) On this day of 1986 , before me a Notary Public, within and for said County and State, personally appeared Stanley P. Brinkhaus, Patricia A. Brinkhaus, Dale F. Dahlke amd Janice H. Dahlke, to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn, did say that they are respectively the Partners of the partnership named in the foregoing instrument, and Stanley P. Brinkhaus, Patricia A. Brinkhaus, Dale F. Dahlke and Janice H. Dahlke acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public This Instrument was Drafted by: KRASS, MEYER & KANNING CHARTERED 1221 Fourth Ave. E. , Shakopee, Mn. 55379 PETITION FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND WAIVER OF NOTICE AND OBJECTIONS TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS THEREFORE WHEREAS, Developer's Agreement was duly entered into on August 20, 1985, by and between the City of Shakopee and B & D Development, a Minnesota Partnership, in connection with the development of land within Hauer's Third Addition, in the City of Shakopee, County of Scott and State of Minnesota. Which agreement was filed for record in the office of the Scott County Recorder on November 18, 1985 as Document No. 215193, and WHEREAS, most of the provisions and conditions contained in said Developer's Agreement have been completed and fulfilled and the same has been or shortly will be satisfied and released of record, and WHEREAS, Kent W. Hoffman and wife Jolene M. Hoffman are the fee owners of record as joint tenants of Lot 8, Block 2 and Dale F, Dahlke and Janine H. Dahlke Y his wife are the fee owners of record as joint tenants of Lot 11, Block 3, all in Hauer's Third Addition, Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota, and WHEREAS, in the said Developer's Agreement the two above described lots are listed under Plan B improvements, where the developer is petitioning for the city's installation of sidewalk and street construction along the North side of 13th Avenue when 13th Avenue is constructed, and now WHEREAS, it is not /advisable to complete the improvements and before any financing can be obtained for either of the above described lots, the said Developer's Agreement must be released. THEREFORE, In consideration of releasing and discharging of records of said Developer's Agreement as to the above described lots and other lots, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the undersigned parties hereby petition the City of Shakopee to install sidewalk and street construction along the North side of 13th Avenue abutting the above described lots, and they do hereby waive all notice of special assessments and do hereby waive all objections to said assessments and do hereby waive all rights of appeal therefrom, together with the right to contest said assessments and further agree to pay the same when they become due and payable. IT IS FURTHER AGREED and understood by this agreement that this agreement runs with the above described land and is binding upon the said Kent W. Hoffman, Jolene M. Hoffman, Dale F. Dahlke and Janine H. Dahlke, their successors, heirs and assigns. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the said Kent W. Hoffman, Jolene M. Hoffman, Dale F. Dahlke and Janine H. Dahlke have hereunto set their hands and seals this day of 1986. Kent W. Hoffman Jolene M. Hoffman Dale F. Dahlke Janine H. Dahlke STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF SCOTT ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1986 by Kent W. Hoffman and Jolene M. Hoffman his wife. STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF SCOTT ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1986 by Dale F. Dahlke and wife Janine H. Dahlke. L bmlll�_j MEMO T0: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerkr_, ci RE: Weiss Company, Inc. (MGM Liquor Warehouse) DATE: September 16 , 1986 Introduction• The Weiss Company, Inc. has not paid the first one-half of the 1986 taxes. Payment is a requirement of the City code prior to renewal of liquor and beer licenses. Background: Payment of the first one-half of the 1986 taxes was made prior to renewal of the 1986-87 liquor license. The check for payment did not clear the bank. The County Treasurer ' s office notified the property owner as well as the City. I talked with Mr. Weiss and he advised me that he would make payments to the County Treasurer' s office and be paid up by September 15 , 1986. As of September 16 , 1986 , no payment has been made and no arrangements have been made with the County Treasurer to make payment. Section 5 . 02 Subd. 8 of the City code provides that, "No license under this Chapter shall be granted for operation on any premises upon which taxes, assessments, or installments thereof, or other financial claims of the City are owed by the applicant and are delinquent and unpaid. " Alternatives: 1. Give applicant a deadline for payment of the first one-half of 1986 taxes and if payment is not made set a hearing date to consider suspension or revocation of the license. 2. Amend the City code eliminating the requirement that the first one-half of the current year' s taxes be paid prior to renewal of a license. Recommendation: Alternative No. 1 Action Recommended: Move that the Weiss Company, Inc. , 8522 East Highway 101, be notified that if payment of the first one-half of the 1986 taxes is not made to the County Treasurer by October 15 , 1986 , a hearing will be held by the City Council on November 18 , 1986 to consider revocation or suspension of their liquor license. JSC/jb c4� -7— t ?Zc..ce2-. t � ct "V." t^°. .41L& �b� � . a MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer SUBJECT: Downtown Redevelopment Project Proposed Streetscape Improvements Feasibility Report DATE: September 17 , 1986 INTRODUCTION: City Council adopted Resolution No. 2610 on September 16 , 1986 referring to me the petition for a feasibility report on proposed streetscape improvements in the downtown area . BACKGROUND: Westwood Planning and Engineering has been commissioned by the City to work with the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee to develop a revitalization plan of the downtown. Westwood has been working with the Committee for the last several years and prepared an overall revitalization plan in 1984 . Due to the diversity of proposed improvements associated with a streetscape project , I wish to retain the services of a consultant in preparing the feasibility report. Since Westwood has considerable background with the City and expertise in this area , they seem to be the logical choice of consultants. Westwood quoted an engineering cost of not to exceed $5 ,000.00 for the feasibility study and preparation of the report. If the project does progress, this cost would become project cost . If the project fails to progress, this cost could be funded by tax increment financing. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the commission of Westwood Planning and Engineering to complete the feasibility study and report for the Downtown Streetscape Improvement Project at a cost not to exceed $5 ,000 .00 . REQUESTED ACTION: Move to approve the. commission of Westwood Planning and Engineering to complete the feasibility study and report for the Downtown Streetscape Improvement Project at a cost not to exceed $5 ,000 .00 . KA/pmp DOWNTOWN Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director 00 Re: Resolution No. 2623 Date: September 16, 1986 Introduction & Background Resolution No. 2623 implements the raise for firemen and Council's lost wages reimbursement that have been previously discussed by Council. Action Offer Resolution No. 2623. GV:mmr RESOLUTION NO. 2623 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2623 ADOPTING THE 1986 PAY SCHEDULE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that Resolution No. 2492 is hereby amended to read that the hourly pay rate for firemen shall be $7.50 per hour effective with the third quarterly payroll in 1986. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and Councilmembers shall be entitled to reimbursement for lost wages from their regular employment when such- loss is due to attendance at required City business. This provision is effective January 1, 1986. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 1986. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 1986. City Attorney MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk i RE: Surplus Property DATE: September 19, 1986 Introduction & Background: On September 16th, Council declared 57 bicycles abandoned property to be sold at auction. Such declaration should have been done by resolution, per the City code. The attached resolution authorizes the disposal of unclaimed property. Action Requested: Offer Resolution No. 2624, A Resolution Authorizing the Disposal of Unclaimed Property, and move its adoption. JSC/jb RESOLUTION NO. 2624 A Resolution Authorizing the Disposal of Unclaimed Property ---------------------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, the Shakopee Police Department of the City of Shakopee has had property in its possession for more than sixty ( 60) days, which property remains unclaimed by the owner; and WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee desires to dispose of said property and additional items declared surplus property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, hereby declares the attached list of Unclaimed Property, dated September 9 , 1986 , describing certain property, abandoned property and that the appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to dispose of said property pursuant to Section 2. 70, Subdivision 2 , of the Shakopee City Code. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 1986 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 1986 City Attorney BICYCLE INVENTORY 09-09-86 y' COLOR SEP,IAL SIZE BOYS G1R 1. Cimaron red HC8039721 26 X 2. Skyway black 26 X 3. Vista brown 26 X 4. Huffy silver HC6711372 26 X 5. Columbia white 80470 26 X 6. Shimano green 26 X 7. Suntour blue 26 X 8. Ted Williams white 26 X 9. BMA yellow HR3402531 26 X 10. Galaxy red 26 X 11. Huffy blue HC4207206 26 X 12. Free Spirit maroone J0773242 26 X 13. Huffy red HC6009904 26 X 14. Olympia red HC2295675 26 X 15. Huffy blue HC3013389 20 X 16. Huffy blue HC3041699 26 X 17. Huffy beige C71729 26 X 18. Magna red 26 X 19. (Unknown) white HC6961665 20 X 20. JUN blue 24' X *20A. Huffy brown 24 X 21. Swan green 45177 24 X 22. Tyler green 80139066 18 X 23. Huffy purple 24 X 24. Min yata blue 26 X 25. (Unknown) yellow K5417350 26 X 26. Huffy green HC5278256 26 X 27. (Unknown) rust 20 X 28. Columbia silver I06510652 26 X 29. Huffy red HC6702883 26 X 30. (Unknown) red HC5490080 20 X E;CYCLE T r!\Ir";T')RY 09-09-86 Page 2 MAKE COLOR SERIAL SIZE BOYS GIS. 31. (Unknown) red 1J12029 20 X 32. Huffy red HC6005644 24 X 33. Schwinn yellow Dn580953 26 X 34. Murrav white 26 X 35. Schwinn green JK636790 26 X 36. SanteFe brown 26 X 37. (Unknown) brown 20 X 38. Pro Thunder silver HK9917381 20 X 39. Pro Thunder yellow HA36310 20 X 40. Hawthorne blue 24 X 41. (Unknown) red 84K1654335 26 X 42. All Pro gold D1012208 26 X 43. Huffy yellow 26 X 44. All Pro white 26 X 45. Schwinn gold 26 X 46. Hiawatha maroone WG24901408489 26 X 47. Schwinn rust EL526803 26 X 48. American Eagle red (frame only) X 49. Columbia silver (frame only) X 50. Huffy black (frame only) HC3097669 X 51. KHS red (frame only) X 52. BMX red (frame only) HCOODS537 X 53. (Unknown) white HC5991967 X 54. (Unknown) black X 55. Columbia red 41145493 20 X 56. Huffy white HP66465 20 X 57. Murray red_. M05006260 26 X N0025288 TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Budget Information DATE: September 17, 1986 Introduction & Background The Council has reviewed and discussed several budget issues over the past few meetings but has not reached a consesus or a decision on what direction to proceed. Below are listed the basic issues on which Council should reach a decision. 1. Expenditure cuts. The budget draft as presented, plus one police officer ($25,000) , transportation lobbying ($10,500) and storm drainage bills ($10,000) has been reviewed without any decision to cut specific items. See attached list. Does Council want to make a specific cut from the list previously presented or otherwise? 2. Does Council want to use General Fund fund balance to buy down the mill rate instead of transferring to the Capital Improvement Fund? The draft budget contains a $296,000 transfer from the General Fund to the Capital Improvement Fund. Using $150,000 of the $296,000 to reduce the tax levy would result in a mill rate about 2 mills lower. 3. Drawing on Tax Increment funds to reimburse General and HRA funds for past and current staff costs. The monies would be transferred in 1986 and 1987 as available. This would enable Council to lower the tax levy for 1986/87. There is about $364,000 that could be pulled into the General Fund between the years 1986 and 1987. $360,000 would meet the budget requests as it stands and the remaining tax levy would result in an estimated mill rate of about 17.4 mills if the whole amount were used in 1987 to meet budget requests and hold down the millrate. 4. Deciding how much tax to levy and thereby trying to determine what the resulting mill rate will be. A mill rate estimate is only an estimate and being within a half of a mill in the end is doing very well. We could end up on the underside of the estimate. That is, try for 17.4 mills and end up with 16.9 mills. The estimate we tried for in 1986 was about 18.6 and we ended up with 17.4 mills. The 1986 average for the 22 cities in the budget survey is 19.6 mills with those in Scott County averaging 26.4 mills. Keep in mind that we will probably still be faced with the same problems next year, although not be as severe due to some tax base growth and the potential for rebating TIF dollars to all taxing jurisdictions. The effort to keep the mill rate down to an estimated 17.4 mills (1986 rate) means a dollar levy of about $1,306,000 (the 1985/86 levy was $1,489,535) . Assuming that all special levies except debt service and the "third year" of the commercial/industrial levy (to preserve the growth in levy limit base) are cancelled, the levy remaining is $145,665 less than the leery limit. The City has made full use the levy under the limit in recent years in order to try to avoid being restricted to a smaller levy limit in future years due to legislative changes to the levy limit base. See attached memo dated 9/15/86. The City Engineer has reported that the railroad will not be making crossing improvements this year and has therefore requested carry over of $30,000 of pavement preservation funds into 1987 to do the rubberized crossings next year. 1 / Ct/ TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: 1987 Budget Issues DATE: September 9, 1986 19871987 Budget issues for discussion issues for discussion 1) One option the Council has is to "buy down" the mill rate by levying less taxes and using General Fund balance in the 1987 budget and not transfer as much to the CIF Fund. The approximate effect on the mill rate of using $150,000 in this manner is; 1986 millrate 17.426 track tax increment value 1.474 track fiscal disparities value 1.1 subtotal 19.9 City levy 1.6 subtotal 21.5 $150,000 buy down -2.0 total 19.5 2) A list of potential cuts which is not all inclusive and not necessarily recommended is; Community Development - prof. services 5,000 Community Development - planner 23,000 Eagle Creek parking lot 2,500 Umbrella Insurance 20,000 ? Comparable Worth 10,000 Street part-time 5,000 ICC promotion 7,000 Ass't Building Inspector remain at 1/2 time 5,000 Receptionist 15,500 Wages at 3% instead of 4.5% 15.000 ? subtotal 108,000 = 1.4 mills less police officer addition 25.000 subtotal 83,000 = 1.1 mills add revenue - liquor license 10% increase 5,000 add revenue - dog license 100% increase! ! ! ! ?? 200 88,200 = 1.16 mills 3) Alternatives A) Council could take the "bite the bullet" approach with the short term pain in order to achieve the long term gain of the improvements financed by TIF. This would be adopting the budget in basically the form presented with an estimated millrate of 21.5. B) Council could buy down the millrate by two mills using $150,000 of General Fund fund balance instead of transferring it to the CIF. This would be a one year tactic and would bring the millrate down to about the average of the 22 cities in the budget survey. In future years the council can on a year by year basis, attemp to buy down the millrate of the other taxing jurisdictions by passing through a portion of the tax increment. C) Same as alternative B but buying down 3 mills. D) Cut budget requests by specific budget line item from the above list in #2 above,or in some other manner. E) Any combination of the above. TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Budget Information DATE: September 15, 1986 Introduction & Background Staff has researched ways to use tax increment monies to reduce the tax burden on the General Fund for 1987. Below are listed the ideas that reviewed. 1. Supplant tax levies for past improvement projects. 2. Lobbying for transportation issues. 3. Expenditures for public buildings. 4. Expenditures for equipment. 5. Expenditures for services such as ambulance service. 6. Pavement preservation within project area. The above ideas were discussed with staff, Springsted and O'Conner Hannen and determined to be inappropiate uses of TIF funds. The below listed items were determined to acceptable. It was noted that the HRA should be the body to order the expenditure if TIF funds rather than the City (i.e. RTD study) . 1. Track district planning study. 2. Share of general staff costs. A. Finance B. Administration C. Community Development D. ICC promotions E. HRA The share of staff costs would be a policy change for charging costs to TIF. Part of the reason that this type of charge was not made prior to this is that funds were not available previously due to committments to debt service. Another idea raised at the meeting was for the utility funds to make a contribution to the General Fund. Currently, direct costs are charged to the Storm and Sanitary utility funds. The contribution would therefore be an administration charge or just a plain contribution. The costs that apparently could be recovered are the planning study and the share of staff costs as shown below. 1979-86 1987 Administration 5% of costs 35,865 5,140 Finance 3% of costs 28,925 5,840 Community Development 45% 183,365 56,615 ICC promotions 8,000 RTD Study 41,000 Total General Fund 289 ,155 75,595 364,750 HRA 80% 147,595 31,985 179,580 The effort to keep the mill rate down to an estimated 17.4 mills (1986 rate) means a dollar levy of about $1,306,000 (the 1985/86 levy was $1,489,535) . Assuming that all special levies except debt service and the "third year" of the commercial/industrial levy (to preserve the growth in levy limit base) are cancelled, the levy remaining is $145,665 less than the levy limit. The City has made full use the levy under the limit in recent years in order to try to avoid being restricted to a smaller levy limit in future years due to legislative changes to the levy limit base. The TIF funds needed to balance the 1987 Budget as it stands for the first draft amount to $340,882 as shown below. Staff has developed some rational for transferring $364,750 into the General Fund in 1986 and or 1987, as funds are available. It should be noted that most of the $364,750 is for prior years and only $75,595 is attributable to 1987. The City should be cautious about becoming dependent on this as a steady source of revenue. Draft Est. mills @ 17.4 Total levy 1,634,706 1,306,000 Less Uncollectable 65,064 52,240 Less Debt Service 126.390 126.390 subtotal 1,443,252 1,127,370 Less Fiscal Disparities 95,000 95,000 Less Homestead Credit 180.000 180,000 net General Fund taxes 1,168,252 852,370 Difference needed from TIF 315,882 add for storm bills 10,000 add for transportation lobbying 10,000 add police officer not in budget 25,000 Total needed 360,882 MEMO T0: John K. Anderson, City Administrator Jim Karkanen, Public Works Superintendent Tom Brownell , Chief of Police FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer>Ag::2-- SUBJECT: Railroad Crossings at Holmes and Lewis DATE: September 18, 1986 The Chicago Northwestern Railroad informed me today that it is imperative that they correct some track condition problems as soon as possible at the crossings at Holmes Street and Lewis Street . As you may be aware , I have been working with the railroad to install rubberized crossings at all the crossings in the downtown area. The indication is that they cannot wait for that coordination this fall but will return next spring to install the rubber at these crossings and others. The goal will be to accomplish a corridor improvement project to include crossing protection improvements as well as surface improvements. The railroad has scheduled to fix the stated crossings beginning next Tuesday. Considering the timing with our other projects , this is not a good time. In my discussions with the railroad, they agreed to the following : Complete the work on Lewis in four working days . Provide barricades and signage at the work site. Provide for detour signage which will essentially direct traffic east and west of the two crossings. Provide for continued operation of traffic on 2nd Avenue on both sides of the track. Assist in coordination of pavement replacement. I have been trying to schedule with the railroad such that Holmes Street would be worked on during the weekend with gravel in place for Monday morning traffic. The crossing could then be paved between the traffic peaks on Monday . In turn, they have requested City Public Works to patch the bituminous next to the rails of which Kark has agreed to. As stated previously, this is looked at as being a temporary repair of a rail condition problem and hopefully over the winter, plans can be developed for a full corridor improvement. If you have any suggestions for a permanent project, let me know. I don ' t expect any major traffic snarls since there are adequate crossings for the local traffic to filter through in the north/south directions. Hopefully, that will be the case . �.� �✓�'%SSS OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR C� SCOTT COUNTY COURT HOUSE 110 � - SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379-1382 (612) 937-6100 R�CCEvC� JOSEPH F. RIES ' Administrator C tp � 21966 F. BRANDT RICHARDSON J Deputy Administrator BARBARA NESS CITY OF: SHHI�OPEE Administrative Asst. September 18, 1986 Mr. John Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear John: With this letter I am confirming my previous oral statements to you that Scott County is no longer interested in acquiring the former site of the Women's Correctional Facility in Shakopee. On September 15th the County acquired the former Lynnville Treatment Center for use as a minimum security facility to alleviate the current population pressures on the Scott County Jail, and to reduce the excessive transportation costs we are now bearing for transporting prisoners great distances. The Commissioner's primary interest in the Women 's Correctional Facility site was as a possible location for a County Criminal Justice Center when provision of additional courtroom space becomes necessary. By abandoning the pursuit of the correctional facility property, the Commissioners have expressed their confidence that future space needs for the courthouse can be met and that the city will permit future expansion in the vicinity of the existing courthouse. Please feel free to call if 1 can further assist you in this matter in any way. Sincerely, Brandt Richardson Deputy Administrator BR:jm An Equal Opportunity Employer