HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/26/1999 TENTATIVE AGENDA
MINNESOTA AUGUST 26, 1999
SHAKOPEE,
ADJ.REG. SESSION -Thursday-
LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South
Mayor Jon Brekke presiding
1] Roll Call at 4:30 p.m.
2] Approval of Agenda
3] New Business
A] Review of Developers Agreement for Target/Oppidan
4] Deleted
5] Deleted
6] Review of FY 2000 Budget Requests
A] Community Development(Michael Leek)
1.Planning
2.Building Inspection
3. Transit Fund
B] City Clerk(Judy Cox)
C] Murphy's Landing(5:00 PM)
D] Police Department(Dan Hughes)
E] EDA(Paul Snook)
F] Government Buildings(Mark McNeill)
G] Unallocated(Gregg Voxland)
H] General Fund Revenues(Gregg Voxland)
I] Follow-up from previous meetings.
1.Five Year Equipment
2. Scott Joint Prosecution
3.Township Billings
7] Other Business
8] Adjourn
NOTE:Bring all previous budget information. If duplicates are needed please contact
Gregg Voxland or Mark McNeill.
TENTATIVE AGENDA
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA
Adjourned Regular Meeting August 26, 1999
1. Roll Call at 4:30 p.m.
2. Approval of the Agenda
3. 2000 Budget
4. Other Business:
5. Adjourn
•
cdagerida.doc
A
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Oppidan's Development Agreement
DATE: August 26, 1999
INTRODUCTION:
The Council is asked to take two actions that will allow Oppidan to close with Target
next week.
BACKGROUND:
Staff has been in contact with Paul Tucci of Oppidan for the past couple of weeks. A
closing has tentatively been set for next Tuesday,August 31st, for the Target property
(Lot 2).
There are several items which Target has negotiated with Oppidan that requires changing
the standard Developers Agreement. In essence,the standard City practice of treating
defaults is not agreeable to them. Typically, if a project defaults,the Developers
Agreement allows the City to go in,remedy the default,and assess the benefited
properties. Target does not want to be assessed later for defaults that are not of its own
doing.
As a result, language in the Developers Agreement has been modified, so that Oppidan
will provide 100%of the financial guarantee for Plan B (CSAH 17 improvements)
develops,vs. the standard 75%. In exchange,the City would agree not to assess Target
for any default remedies.
There is also a Maintenance Agreement which has been drafted for trails and for the
signal light at Sarazin and 17th Avenue. This is as a result of negotiations with all
parties.
RECOMMENDATION:
This is the only meeting before the scheduled closing on August 31st. We recommend
that the City approve the changes the Developers Agreement, and the Maintenance
Agreement.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If the Council concurs, it should by motion approve the following actions, and direct that
the appropriate City officials execute the Agreements:
1. Approve the Developers Agreement, with changes.
2. Approve the Maintenance Agreement for trails and signal lights, subject to final
negotiations and revisions.
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
MM:tw
3, A ,
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: 3.A. Developers Agreement-Target/Oppidan
DATE: August 23, 1999
Target is preparing to close on their property purchase from Oppidan Development this
week. However, one of the items which varies from what has been standard language in
a developers agreement is that Target wishes to have different treatment or defaults and,
therefore financial guarantees.
The"Plan B"improvements involve County Road 17. Standard language involving a
default allows the City to go in and remedy the problem,and assess those costs back to
all of the benefited properties. Target does not want to be included in that. Therefore,
their Lot 2 is proposed to be exempted from that. In exchange, Oppidan has agreed to
guaranteeing the Plan B improvements at 100%,rather than the normal 75%for
assessments.
The details of this are still being worked out, and will be presented at the adjourned
regular meeting on Thursday. Closing on the property is set for the following day,
Friday, August 27th.
You will be asked to approve the revised Developer's Agreement
14P6.1-1
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
MM:tw
Si &t
•
g- 26 -97
do. (w. co--A+ts
AGREEMENT FOR
MAINTENANCE AND PAYMENT OF COSTS FOR OPERATION
OF PEDESTRIAN PATH AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 1999,between the
City of Shakopee,a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota, (hereinafter referred to as the
"City"),and KTJ Limited Liability Partnership Fifty, (hereinafter referred to as the`Developer"). It is
intended that the term Developer shall apply to subsequent or part owners of Lot 1,Block 1,Shakopee
Valley Marketplace,according to the recorded plat thereof on file,Scott County,Minnesota.
WHEREAS,the Developer holds title to certain property within the City of Shakopee, County of
Scott, State of Minnesota,described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof("Developer
Property")which Developer Property is part of a shopping center consisting of Lots 1-6,Block 1
Shakopee Valley Marketplace according to the plat thereof on file, Scott County,Minnesota(Lots 1-6
referred to herein as the"Shopping Center"); and
WHEREAS,the Shopping Center is to be served by a pedestrian sidewalk path to be located
outside the exterior boundary of the Shopping Center and specifically located on the east side of.Sarazin
Avenue as depicted on the site plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS,the Shopping Center is to be served by a traffic signal system to be located at the
intersection of 17dh`Avenue and Sarazin Avenue, Shakopee Minnesota as depicted on Exhibit B(
hereinafter the"Traffic Signal System"); and
WHEREAS,the Developer is responsible for the irrspeetinar,maintenance, rcoil add inopci
•
•
operation of the Pedestrian Path; and
WHEREAS,the Developer is responsible to reimburse the City, from time to time and upon
receipt of invoice from the City for the same, for costs and expenses(but not to exceed three hundred
dollars($300.00)per month as adjusted for inflation)for operating and maintaining the Traffic Signal
System.
THEREFORE,IT IS AGREED between the parties hereto:
l. The City shall construct or cause others to construct the Pedestrian Path_-and-tThe
Traffic Signal System shall be constructed by the Developer as a Plan A Improvement
under the Developer's Agreement between the City,Developer, Dayton Hudson
Corporation and Sharron C.Bernhagen. Both the Pedestrian Path and the Traffic Signal
System will be constructed in the approximate locations depicted on the site plan
attached hereto as Exhibit B.
2. The Developer and its successors or assigns shall be responsible for the i ispcvtioa,
maintenance,rcpai , 'ation(but not replacement or repair)of the
Pedestrian Path. The aintenance of the Pedestri, ' Path shall include •caiod.c removal
of debris end removal of snow.
3. The City shall have access to the Pedestrian Path for, the purpose of inspection,
maintenance,repair and proper operation whenever the City,in the exercise of its
reasonable discretion, shall determine that such access is necessary.
4. Whenever inspectionrmaintenance, cpaar or geopCL ONC1at1OLL of the Pedestrian Path is
necessary,the City may,upon request of the Developer,or on its own volition after
reasonable(under the circumstances)notice to the Developer,perform such work as is
necessary,and the Developer shall reimburse the City for the cost of labor,materials and
equipment used in the work,plus a fixed charge of forty percent(40%)of said costs as
2
reimbursement for the proportionate cost of insurance,PERA contributions,vacations,
sick leave, clerical, and other applicable miscellaneous costs incurred by the City offfot
such work. In the event the Developer, does not reimburse the City for the cost of such
work within thirty(30) days of the receipt of an invoice therefore,the City may levy and
collect such costs as a special assessment against the Developer Property; provided,
however,that such remedy is not exclusive,and the City may enforce the terms of this
Agreement by any means available in law or equity.
5. The City agrees to indemnify and hold the Developer harmless from any claim for
damages or other relief arising out of or in connection with any work done by the
Developer on the Pedestrian Path,unless arising out of the negligence or wrongful acts
of the Developer or its agents.
6. The Developer shall reimburse the City within thirty(30)days following receipt of an
invoice from the City, for costs and expenses incurred by the City to operate and
maintain apt not replace and repair the Traffic Signal System. Costs and enses
to o'crate and maintain the Traffic Si al S stem shall include the cost of
incurred _....—_
electricity to operate the Traffic Signal System,bulb replacement and routine
maintenance but shall not include any costs for repair or replacement of the Traffic
Signal System. However,in no event shall the cost of such operation and maintenance
exceedthree hundred dollars($300.00)per month subject to adjustment for"Constant
Dollars"as set forth hereafter. "Constant Dollars"shall mean the present value of the
U.S. dollar to which such phrase refers. An adjustment shall occur on January 1 of the
Sixth(6th)calendar year following the date of this Agreement, and thereafter at five(5)
year intervals. Constant Dollars shall be determined by multiplying the dollar amount to
be adjusted by a fraction,the numerator of which is the Current Index Number and the
3
denominator of which is the Base Index Number. The"Base Index Number"shall be the
level of the Index for the month of the date of this Agreement;the"Current Index
Number"shall be the level of the Index for the month of September of the year,preceding
the adjustment year; the"Index"shall be the Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers,U.S.City Average,all items,publishedby the Bureau of Labor Statistics of
the United States Department of Labor(base year 1982-84= 100),or any successor
index thereto as hereinafter provided. If publication of the Index is discontinued,or if
the basis of calculating the Index is materially changed,then the Approving Parties shall
substitute for the Index comparable statistics as computed by an agency of the United
States Government or,if none,by a substantial and responsible periodical or publication
of recognized authority most closely approximating the result which would have been
achieved by the Index.
7. It is the intent of the parties that this Agreement be recorded against the title to the
Developers Property and be governed under the laws of the State of Minnesota. In the
event this Agreement is not found to be in acceptable form for such recording,the
Developer will execute such other and similar documents as are reasonably necessary to
effect recording hereof,counterparts of which may be executed and shall be enforceable.
8. The obligations of the Developer under this Agreement shall run with the land of the
Developer's Property, and bind the Developer and the Developer's heirs,successors and
assigns.
4
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF,the Developer and City have caused these presents to be executed
the day and year first written above.
KTJ LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIFTY,
a Minnesota limited liability partnership
By Oppidan Incorporated,its Managing Partner
By:
Joseph H.Ryan
Its: President
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1999
by Joseph H.Ryan,the President of Oppidan,Inc.,a Minnesota corporation, as Managing Partner of KTJ
Limited Liability Partnership Fifty,a Minnesota limited liability partnership on behalf of the partnership.
Notary Public
5
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
By:
John Brekke
Its: Mayor
By:
Mark McNeill
Its: City Administrator
By:
Judith S. Cox
Its: City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF SCOTT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
1999,by John Brekke, Mayor; and Mark McNeill,City Administrator; and Judith S. Cox, City Clerk of
the City of Shakopee,on behalf of the City of Shakopee, a Minnesota municipal corporation.
Notary Public
F:\CLIENI\OPPIDAN\Shakopee-Target\Documcnts\Maintenance Agmt 8 26 99 redlinc.wpd
6
EXHIBIT A
Lot 1,Block 1, Shakopee Valley Marketplace according to the plat thereof on file, Scott
County,Minnesota.
EXHIBIT B
Site Plan dated April 28, 1999 prepared by RLK Kuusisto,Ltd.a reduced part of which
is attached hereto with the Pedestrian Path and Traffic Signal System areas designated
thereon.
. - 'LA
.1.4 ••...••••••1.L....I
Oillsko:An 7: -'. 4,11 • 6 ::. . .
e.arlimr, -,,.9
..."...'4111MMMINNIME1*MilelllinMPA
Tit 40,vg ,r-i,r,,,f, 1,-7 -74:442,_
&is
...„,„.„.......-,,,,rriA• d ri r
soma ob••-•orr,‘41111 _--•a. 0 6,4 1 a ,..-p 42:.... ... ...i. nis .
salsa(dp-apie - - - 4 -7e . 4 .1jb,•,
c4
.... ... -40
• 4 /41:5 "0 75 - 1 • • ,:lix
Affash , ...,,,, ,,,,,,.,,,,, ir4!,:://.f%%/X:1,:, •
—
1-
'''''' ......;:tlif?• i 271 1:•1
8 1
K. I. .• A f 0 0
mk, •,.. •-.2 Am
' = -
IIIIk AMII I ,..iii
I _.- li
;••••.
:••,•
/ II •"
* MINS I
NMI MIN a.hr: ; SIDEWALK c
1/F 111 1 2- Li. ' rei 1 7 SiRa-T e'r
5/
W .
7.: I i• ' . c 1 T7
--. .— . .—.. ..—• N-7. ct. , ...... L...
• •-•, 7... il
---
____
.. — : '''. ;1 IN=11• :1 LOT 2.E
• — „.. :.. ,• P P41 •-• .
.7 ...i. !.
••• :i ....." -. • -..—
:C -•! I !
1 1.- • _
F4 'X mmemp 7. •-,
N - 1 -
. _______ ..., : ...
i--..----=----
e...L .
-- ..,,b - , ,„ . .z. -. I • -
xi • • i.7, ., (f) - ' • •-
1 • • ,..y/az).
...e. . .......••=1.2. ,\ :: ;
A r ' .1.A. -..-\t...... • S .- :.
.. ......... .• •••. , rs
.....••• •
Z.
IRCP1CSE.01 PROPERTY LINE*/ • --s. \ - .
..._ .1 - , ...,.
- `•• . • - i
"TrXT<-7NG PROPE.RTY LINE 17 ti • . •
-. • - . • ..7 , 1:::
...L. .r... 1 :- d .......
.- --••,.•
-: -..=•:•
7 :1
..--,.
:' i I • .:: '
—:: E—A1L ''''' ' • %
1 . i •I 7 ' .E.L
,-• I. i ' ..: :
—77 3.000 SF = it ;'• i .7.C.7.:
-o-
-i
•. - \--4._.___.' i, I -:-: .7.•
_____-• 1 . , r
i
. i
LOT
(SITING •,.. 73,308 sc.-it
- ' 1 1 , PUBLIC E.77.E
.., .....
1 .68 acres 1 -•:,
•
1 . I a a l ab. ......
...RI.••••••,..•• •••••••-........m1111 .1.
%tv.....lre Mir. lig I
Im•IN. ,..... , .
"Plill''
\ PROJECT\ act.:
Rictrr—cr—wAY TCI OE DEDICATED 111, '
MR 17114 AMSNUE PR0PCSEZ: .
SIM ifii CrTY/CCU N-
—.....•
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: August 26th Budget Workshop-Murphy's Landing
DATE: August 20, 1999
Councilor Link has reported to Council previously that Murphy's Landing is experiencing some
cash flow problems.
As a result,he, Commissioner Art Bannerman,the County Administrator and I have met to
discuss Murphy's Landing, and what the two governmental agencies might do to assist it. At this
time,we have scheduled a presentation by Murphy's Landing for the budget review session on
August 26th. In view of the other portions of the budget to be considered,I have asked them to
limit their presentation to 20 minutes.
Assistance is likely to be requested in one or more of the following forms:
1. City financial sponsorship of a specific function or staff position-for example, a
development officer(fund raiser).
2. Annual subsidy. Currently,the City provides in-kind services such as snow plowing,
grass mowing, and the like. Any additional subsidy would be in the form of cash,
similar to the County's $100,000 annual contribution.
3. Debt reduction. Currently,Murphy's Landing has about$93,000 in short and long
term debt, of which about$12,000 per year is due in principal and interest payments.
A reduction of a portion or all of that debt might be an option if the City is looking
for a one-time contribution.
In addition to Executive Director Dennis Kelly,it is likely that board members Becky Kelso,Dr.
Rolland Pistulka, and Board President Steve Griffith will be in attendance.
Attached is information provided by Mr. Kelly in preparation for the meeting.
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
MM/jms
i:jeanette/murphys
•
HISTORIC MURPHY'S LANDING
PROJECTED FY 2000 INCOME/EXPENSES AS OF 7-31-99
Year-to-date Projected Projected
actual remaining FY 2000
thru 7-31-99 7 months totals
Revenues
Admissions 64,577 85,000 149,577
Government grants 7,000 19,084 26,084
Donations 24,065 62,000 86,065
Fundraisers 2,494 50,000 52,494
Memberships 2,193 2,000 4,193
Rentals 31,618 34,360 65,978
Programs 7,775 7,850 15,625
Private events 11,759 26,000 37,759
Net contract services 3,390 3,400 6,790
Net gift shop 8,511 10,000 18,511
Miscellaneous 195 2,625 2,820
Total revenue 163,577 302,319 465,896
Debt reduction
Long-term 2,347 2,900 5,247
Short-term 5,000 - 5,000
Total debt reduction 7,347 2,900 10,247
Expenses
Salaries&benefits 121,744 203,690 325,434
Theater company 4,345 4,000 8,345
Advertising/marketing 8,865 8,960 17,825
Maintenance 8,912 3,500 12,412
Miscellaneous 1,441 1,400 2,841
Printing 6,253 3,220 9,473
Programs 31,294 38,804 70,098
Private events 745 9,500 10,245
Interest 3,571 4,000 7,571
Insurance 3,828 5,075 8,903
Office expense 4,342 6,000 10,342
Professional fees 2,697 1,050 3,747
Utilities 8,473 15,300 23,773
Vehicle expense 608 1,810 2,418
Fundraising 1,792 13,000 14,792
Property taxes 3,416 4,000 7,416
Capital improvements 3,681 1,000 4,681
Total expenses 216,008 324,309 540,317
Total expense/debt reduction 223,355 327,209 550,564
Net gain (loss) (59,778) (24,890) (84,668)
Cash balance as of 3-1-99 54,468
Projected cash balance as of 2-28-00 (30,200)
•_n5.t:-3•J•J 7:C'C w C2 -»,p 5•.. n 5 O,I-ac.„ cc,c-
= CD 03
s� _ _� a0 y O -+a,• , n ,�• O'er -, n �. D•e u,
gc o„i4 r,
0 N-- 1 n2.00 C -, < `c ro = '�C Cw < v' S=n c g <g
=
ON
O o� n <n 0 ?=C-) = cc ztroOcnn=nO '2'cM71 7,1 =11 �.
F:on Sa • ox� o pc .. s.-p•- � oti =ac T • St •S'* a ?� oo7•••;=.cat
col 2co n'n'% 7n 7 n cio" " O a f a 7 -a ,o p,,,
� -O 2. 5.
ax oO > pC)n7n _,
iOCQw ° cn "' 'cc'oc �• 0... 4CA
5, � G.: cTo .a' c - 2. n -.g Qn Q..5 yn n n Fa n " rbc c -
Zill
•
°•n -, co '
A:1=w PITZ ' %id a,
•
�� 7
IIIIIIU
^•n �c� - ax
1181 e _a...A=1
O
V
ci
w - - r 2-222S-. w'eybn•pn _2.` `v Cto.*c' 2"p n 7n a 7 -+ •, n 0.`< w pW -, co J 'Fr— Oo- n
� CD n0 Cy D iWI) •OSS .. _ -, as .... -S: < 7'tQNA •w a n ,; vII...I G., w` Cl. 7� w , �'Sm rroC 5. -+ a w r.'<< tJ im
C C.r �" ^Q0 = TrnI"Cw Q' C yn SVI 6
Z) fitn a
II
100 n v^i ^ --p C n < �s,•< ° S E..Ono ce,,• 7 .^w.b 0•'o ' to
o� B`< �rwy' = �.=a,N.d n �CD c�.ao o.°, �' V 5m
n O Be' =O O S 7 7 O C J n 00 N O OD
(9 co sb Po v' .t o ic
c, DI
- ^c9. n -.i p w 7 wy p O� 2"O ^1�•v9, °.",t c ra
`7 C.
6 p p a=11:`C U CD Ca=73 �O D S O ^O ^. C p m.
=1111 =rn
to ceoloo a.
',..E7..,'oe
z
w
2
7• ,.. w •n COO S,--1 w O Q-o ••n-•,❑ �-N 69 a n S •o m
c =� -+ ,•,,v O �c c S 7C ., -��-w n r-O. << co, m
2: a s a r9 ^+roc a -yn r?�72 ^ n -, w w w a,< n.
c
. 7`< w = can o cp .,OQ .7+ 07n • �n =•n
?•a�-w r„ . 03 ,,,,„,,,, ,.. .
ay c CDC w" v' ac 0 '7 sr9 sw ° nb 40:< n 2' ="
• CC rt. 7 n N N •.c
.w.. 3'2 N f•r�.•
S<<7 avyi'�GO•, 5 n 2'C c. ^, < G 0 +0 aw w cco
no -*co �, p n = o o -, ? a fD
So x a w c9 ^ w 6 5•Q p ,� ^ vn, �,v _.n c' • 2 c wD n ^;�<')
n =r?7C C� c;t<o6 .... ,co CD Cam ..,A...nn ci`< _•v nom " M��� �n
c 3 co !r
C.n _w o f��9 rn p coo 0 y COo co`< co a' C ro c Q'f�x9 GC"a•"p Twp.- -Ci wCID '
.p•,w•a m G <N 0:..,,i0 s O1 Q p r,, S p T; y H =<n Cp,�..., CO g 7
S n
Do re) p w n p w a.. n .0O ,n 00 n n C
E c 2 O2 cr� F CD a.c°'oo03(71 Cf',o C•v OM g 5a�' w T agio p,w 3 < c� V
n c9 n O v, a�•C 7r0° .-, r co.14 w GS•00.fl O O a O- w w
• or co a4
ro0, cc -, OrhoCD , , f1 1 v s" CD z < r0o <<°= 6 w > > 0
0
0
r.
.-3 n'6 CD pi G O S 00 6 0.0.0 co y coo y -'7 O C C a,
6 A , CD 7 w V, 7 w S n 7 w ^ s cD n C O w ', C73
• C'v, S-. S_.sem•69y+ 8y w 74= 03 1C� a o �.cso ss0.-i n =C ' m
�•�Sa7 6 n C•�r)n''"'S. a.•aG.�SCO, a.3 c co u, 69='0 c c c= C .'
o �.°-+' =,'^ ^OCDO E 8n` co rte•, Acta -. wSco C;'-y =•<,S0 •-- =
AD w O a 7 ^ v, n N w v w co .v,'w _ 7,0 07
CD S 7 0o w e n 7 w y T7 a.O _.Q C < S< a v, C 7�.n s
(Dor) .n . •, Tl, v s p O .. p n n co 0o B'5 a c m cin
s= a,3 F cn a,‘-( c o z 0 0-0 3 c -,Prcc° r°n > > 0 0 �' o y f w .. CI
�= •-cn. vwi -"+ S A' 7 7 2 O CL7).✓i < N 7 n A6 ‘4.2..CD a 5". CD B". EA ^"'..,=•twi, 0 7r.'
, y n O� 0.7,. p -n w 0.0.-0 .' n 7 v, c n -1 w 70 nz
• <• n• 4c'R cgctn• �, :'oo w, o7, cocogp.c � ?;,ocn
C co, SO 8w n .n 0--.,0' s n SCD' w E n p w n
w 0 S_.. n. CD aw -, A SO
7 r• no,<`U) C.2. -, =7 et^ - -•C oCD a, -•CD Cv
n c?o -co w COsto t?.rso y'p app !..
M.. Cr.S •°,' 0,w E, . .w o y I c - S.1:0 w 0 -ccoo •3••?2, o w TO
f<9 rD 0 .0 < a. F w c'' -,oco ic- a �F4 n•g7 0o0 acro, p 7•.< O
• 0c �ana.a� r° cnyv, y_.a „,= owo._:i ro -�yxcy3
'-' 411/
0v 01• = ro.�•,7 c 7 C'p'O -_�"2 n_ Cr' •, :
00p
,40 d AD
CD
D p
o A
CD t$
C
cD ft
EEn ^ O d ,.
0 'C3 O < "!
AD D a (D
0
o CD
o m m
B r o
c
O o < c I:: -s
o CD g•CfQ o —
CD o
O O m O o
cn o fi.
o' o° 0
c
* O
10- pz
-. m i! ON . 4110
eo A ee N
o oc sL ~3
�- E C7 et zl—' '
o y eet
eit
r z
o nd
eD x
z n
,,-
.0 4 b4
ecr s"
rd .0 CD
0 CD p
0
w
eD sv
r. S
C CD
.D ut
0 cn
*
CD
CD
R° aCJ
p0 CD
n O
CD cCD Iv . "
- 0
n
eD
.-. ..r
`-.
0
cm
Short History and Present and Future Vision of MVRP
August 26,1999
Mission Statement: Murphy's Landing is a living history museum that
preserves and interprets 19th century life in the Minnesota River Valley
using period buildings, artifacts and reproductions. It provides the public
with a dynamic educational setting in which to learn about the rich
heritage of our region.
Motto- "By studying the past one can more readily understand the
present and hopefully prepare more wisely for the future"
Major thrust: Education, Education, Education - Children & Adult
1966 - a desire and hope for living history museum by a Shakopee high school
English and Art teacher- Margaret MacFarlane
1969 - Beginning of Vision of MVRP by Margaret MacFarlane as a project
the the Scott Co Historical Society
* A living History Museum teaching the trials and tribulations of
our forefathers coming into this area from 1840 to 1890
1972 - MVRP became its own 501 c3 nonprofit organization
* 48 buildings were moved in over 18 years. the last ones being the
Town Hall in 1990 and the replacement of the Ryan Barn in 1996.
* These buildings were saved from the wrecking ball.
* These buildings are representative of the time period
* Location of the buildings were placed in the appropriate setting
according to well developed master plan that was formulated in 1971
and revised in 1976. It is still a sound plan today and is followed.
* 88 acres along the south bank of the Minnesota River. 11/2 miles
long with 44 acres in the flood plain. It was the old City dump.
* Historic Sites:
* Indian burial grounds 1800 BC
* Murphys Landing 1853
* Ruins of Major Murphy's Inn - burned 1963
* Pond grist mill - 1875
* The Land owned by the City of Shakopee and the Building artifacts
owned by MVRP
Management History
* 1969 - 1981: Margaret MacFarlane
* 1981 - 1985: period of multiple leaders( Ed Sharkey, Jan Obst,
Gary Eastland, John Lynch)
* 1985 - 1991: period of holding the project together- Marge Henderson
* Nov. 91 - March 92: period of national search- No director
* 1992 - 1994: Gary Barker- period of financial crises
* 1994 - 1998: Shirley Olson-period of management and debt reorgnization &
debt reduction
* 1998 - present: Dennis Kelly- period of taking Murhpy's to next level-financial
stability 1
Financial Investment: •
*1968-1978: Much time, work and money went into this site. A total of
$1,645,204.00 was obtained from the following:
* Federal Grants: $504,832.00
* State of Minn: $105,000.00
* County of Scott $95,047.00
* Mn Watershed District: $44,924.00
* DNR: $117,000.00
* Wilke Brothers Foundation(Continental Machines): $119,680.00
* Stans Foundation: $292,437.00
* Other contributions: totaling $366,284.00 from such entities as:
* Rahr Malting
* McKnight Foundation
* Peavey Foundation
* Fremont Industries
* Ken Dahlberg
* Shakopee Chamber of Commerce
* 3M foundation
* Astelford Equipment Co.
* Granger Foundation
* other small donations in the $100.00 to $3,000.00 area.
* 1978 thru 1994:
* Scott County: $625,000.00
* City of Shakopee: $100,000.00
* plus: updated and repaired sewer system: $35,000.00
* Corrected the freezing water main problem
* plow snow and grade the road.
* garbage pick up
* Site clean up 1994
*.Pd up past due utilities bills
* Stans Foundation: $1,000,000.00
* 1995 -1999:
* Scott County: $525,000.00
* City of Shakopee:
* Continues to repair the infrastructure as needed
* plow snow, mow the grass, grade the road, garbage pick up.
* Stans Foundation: $75,000.00
* Total financial Investment of the above: $3,970,204.00
* Total volunteer sweat and toil: priceless
* Total replacement: unreplaceable
2
•
Expenses:
* $632,000.00 operation at this point in time
* Labor intensive:
* people is what makes a live museum tic.
* Building repair and upkeep:
* To repair the log buildings as they should be:
* 1995 estimates: $106,000 by Edmunds & CO
* To repair the non log buildings:
* 1995 estimates: $611,000 by local contractor
* 48 buildings were moved in or built plus the HRA apartments
* 6 buildings have been lost due to no money to stabilize or
repair. Most recent one Carlson Log Cabin.
* Debt Load:
* Site has never really been debt free since its inception
* never has been on solid financial footing
* always a cash flow struggle
* highest debt $140,000 during the Gary Barker time
* debt reduced to $86,000, creditors paid, IRS paid during time of
Shirley Olson.
* Management
* Strong management program put in place by Shirley Olson
* Business plan
* organizational chart
* Know exactly where the money is coming from and where
it is going. Accountability •
* Good working relationships with the City of Shakopee and
the County of Scott and Marquette Bank of Shakopee
* weakness- unable to fill all positions in the organizational
chart because of lack of funds - a great need is a
development person
* Strong diversified working Governing Board representing
the seven county area
* present executive director-Dennis Kelly, strong in
management and fund raising
* We have very dedicated people employed who work long hours,
everyday of the week, with minimum salaries and poor benefits.
If it wasn't for these dedicated people plus dedicated volunteers
Murphy's would be no more.
* Sources of income:
* Admissions
* County Grants
* In kind services by City of Shakopee
* Grants from various foundations
* donations
3
•
* Customer complaints:
* admissions fees to high
* not enough buildings open
* not enough interpreters on board.
* not enough crafts people on board.
* need
* furniture maker
* Gun smith
* historic restoration carpenter( full time-year around)
* wagon maker
* cooper
* shoemaker etc
* More special events
* What this all means is that Murphy's is very:
* Labor intensive
* maintenance intensive
* program intensive
* money short to fulfill all it needs
* Are presents needs are:
* recruit a development person so as to
* increase membership
* increase local individual giving
* increase local corporate giving
* increase local foundation giving
* Increase area wide individual, corporate and foundation giving
* this person will not work for minimum wage and no benefits.
* pay off our present debt load
* increase membership
* attract and continue to keep the viewing audience coming thru the gate.
* more special events
* more crafts people on site
* more interpreters on site
* restore the physical health of our site
* increase benefit packages of our employees
* reduce burn out from long hours
* full time historic restoration carpenter
* initiate an endowment fund- Need a major capital campaign.
* We were invited by your City Council liaison Cletus Link to come before you to bring
you up to date. We did not request to appear before you, but we do thank you and
appreciate this opportunity to share our concerns and our struggles. We want to
continue to be a strong asset to the community and continue our good relationship
with you.
Rolland D. Pistulka MD, Board Member since 1988 4
(c) • N
CITY OF SHAKOPEE POLICE DEPARTMENT
Memorandum
TO: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Dan Hughes, Chief of Police �%
SUBJECT: K-9 Program
DATE: August 17, 1999
At the first budget work session Council inquired about the schedules of a police officer
assigned to the K-9 unit. Councilor Sweeney accurately stated that there were some costs
involved in the care and feeding of the animal that were covered by Federal rules. It is my
understanding that officers are required to be compensated for the care and feeding of
their K-9 partner.
Burnsville Police Department schedules an officer seventy(70)hours in a two-week pay
period, and the other ten hours of compensation is used for the upkeep of the animal.
Savage Police Department provides ten(10)hours of additional pay on a monthly basis
for this service.
If Council approves the K-9 program, I will continue to look at other cities to investigate
how to best compensate our employees without having an adverse impact in service
provided, or the City budget.
As always, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
DH:pm
[k-9memo2J
Shako Needs
ee Police Departmehit
Unite
Canine
By: Officer Les TenEyck
3-16-99
• 5
Table Of Contents
Subiect Page Number
General Overview 1
Background 1
Uses 1
Training 2
Liability and Use of Force 2
Savings 3
Budget Impact
5
Using Neighboring Agencies' Dogs 6
Funding/Information from other Agencies 8
Community Input 9
Harrold Armstrong
Mark Freyberg
Mayor Jon Brekke
Recommendations 10
l...l7.m.11.l.I..l.lmmmmimmmmm'm'm.mm' m''ml --------------'
Shakopee Police Department
Canine (K9) Unit Needs Assessment
General
Since the time I was asked by Chief Hughes to look into the necessity of a K-9 program
for the city of Shakopee, I have been able to put together the following information. This
is a compilation of months of detailed research, many hours of interviews, and hands on
training with current K-9 teams. The necessity of any tool/equipment purchase is
determined by weighing the proposed gains against its budgetary impact. Therefore, those
two items are the main focus of this report. I encourage all the readers of this to contact
me with any questions or comments you may have.
Background
A K-9 unit is defined as a patrol unit consisting of a police officer and a proficiently
trained dog. A properly trained dog will:
1. Search buildings and areas for unauthorized persons.
2. Locate lost or disoriented persons.
3. Search for narcotics.
4. Track criminals.
5. Chase and apprehend persons fleeing from arrest.
6. Attack on command only.
7. Present an immeasurable psychological deterrent to criminals.
8. Provide a cost savings to the city.
9. Foster excellent public relations between the police and the community.
Uses
The use of a K-9 would be beneficial to both the Police Department and the residents of
Shakopee. It would be utilized in our rapidly growing community for the apprehension of
criminals and to assist in solving the following types of cases. In 1997 there were reports
of:
• 5 Robberies
• 20 Shots fired calls
• 21 Prowler calls
• 34 Lost Persons
• 80 Burglaries
• 544 Open doors, gates, and alarms
• 665 Suspicion calls
1
This is just a sampling of the potential uses. Attached to any call would be cases of
suspects that flee, and crimes against officers that can arise while responding to any type
of call.
Training
Training for the K-9 unit would be conducted by the St. Paul Police Department. They
have been training dogs for almost 30 years and are recognized nationally for their
accomplishments. The course is 14 weeks in duration and provides the handler and the
dog with extensive training in all areas of patrol. This training places a strong emphasis on
control of the dog. After the dog graduates, he is ready for patrol use. After the dog is
broken in on the street, he is then sent back for about two weeks for narcotics detection
which is not part of the first course. Some departments do this after the dog has been on
the street for a year or two. All the training is in accordance with the standards set by the
United States Police Canine Association(U.S.P.C.A.). To accomplish some of the
previously mentioned tasks, the dog will:
• Obey both verbal and hand commands
• Handle numerous obstacles
• Track human scent
• Apprehend criminals and protect its handler(only biting on command)
• Recover evidence (guns, knives, clothing, stolen property, etc.)
The cost of the course is $2,000. This includes the dog with a complete physical to
include hip x-rays, temperament testing, and necessary equipment for the dog's care and
training -- combs, brushes, leashes, etc.
Liability & Use of Force
In today's society, people(and in particular police officers) must be concerned with
liability. Every time we add a new tool to our equipment list we have to consider the
liability. In the last five to eight years, the ASP (expandable baton) has become very
popular in law enforcement. Many departments were apprehensive at first because it was
something new and they were not sure how the courts would respond to its use. The
departments quickly realized its advantages and discovered that if an officer is properly
trained and utilizes it appropriately, the advantages far outweigh the perceived liability.
The dog is nothing more than a new tool for our police department. Just like an ASP,
gun, or handcuffs, the liability lies in the lack of training and improper or negligent use of
these tools. The greatest shortcoming in lawsuits involving dogs is identical to that of any
other tool we use. Improper or lack of training and/or documentation and negligent use
are the key issues. The standard deployment of these tools is not the shortcoming.
The use of a dog lies somewhere between mace and a baton when it comes to the use of
force continuum. The mere act of taking out a baton has little effect on stopping an
assault. The use of that baton is what generally comes immediately after the baton is
2
opened up. On the other hand, the mere presence of a dog has a great calming affect on a
violent situation and works well as a catalyst to diffuse the situation.
The federal courts have set a precedent and have a long history of ruling in favor of K-9
units in liability lawsuits. The case of Robinette vs. Barns from the Nashville Metro
Police Department and The Officer Sexton case from Tuscaloosa, Alabama were a couple
of high profile cases that set and reaffirmed this tone. Between the two cases the federal
courts held that a properly trained dog that is utilized in accordance with the department
standards and with proper record keeping, is neither considered unreasonable force nor
deadly force (regardless of the injuries sustained).
Throughout my research, I have not been able to find any instance of a city's insurance
increasing due to a K-9 unit. It is actually believed that there is a liability reduction
because the mere presence of a dog can prevent prolonged confrontations and
employment of more life threatening tactics.
Savings
A controlled study was done in Michigan on the effectiveness of a K-9 unit. Five searches
for people were done at varied light industrial and recreational areas. The searches were
completed by an officer or officer team(one to four officers, depending on the size of the
search area). Then identical searches were completed by a K-9 unit. The results
consistently showed that the K-9 was seven times faster than the officers or group of
officers which created a tremendous decrease in man hours spent on the call. And because
some of the officer teams consisted of up to four officers, this would multiply the man
hour factor again. Also, the K-9 units enjoyed a greater degree of effectiveness. The K-9
units had a success rate of 93% , while the officer units only had a completion rate of
59%.
It is clear how the man hours are dramatically reduced and the effectiveness increases just
by adding one dog to a search. This reduction in man hours has a direct effect on the
dramatic reduction in expenses experienced by having a K-9. The sooner the search is
over, the sooner the officers who are on overtime can be released if they were held over.
And for those still on duty, it will allow them to be freed up to handle other tasks. It also
shows the public you are doing everything possible and are serious about solving a
problem.
Projected savings in a couple of areas were computed as follows:
I went through just the prowler and lost person calls for 1997. I added up the time
spent on each call to determine the"total time" spent in a year. Research shows
one K-9 unit will be on duty for roughly 25% of the time that the calls are
dispatched in the year. Therefore, I used 25% of the"total time" from the yearly
figure to determine how much call time the unit could impact. The following
savings are based on the handler earning top patrol pay and a K-9 unit working
seven times faster than a non-K-9 unit.
3
$1,512.00 was spent on wages to respond to 25% of the prowler calls
$ 210.00 would have been spent if handled by a K-9 unit
$1,302.00 would have been saved for prowler calls alone in 1997
$2,856.00 was spent on wages to respond to 25% of the lost person calls
$ 399.00 would have been spent if handled by a K-9 unit
$2,457.00 would have been saved for lost person calls alone in 1997
$1,302.00 (prowler call savings from above)
$2,457.00 (lost person call savings from above)
$3,759.00 in combined savings for 1997
The projected savings for Shakopee Police Department over the lifetime of the dog
(@ 8 years) for just the two researched areas is as follows:
$3,759.00 savings in 1999
$3,759.00 above savings
$3,759.00 savings in 2000
$7,518.00
$7,518.00 above savings total
$3 759.00 savings in 2001
$11,277.00
$11,277.00 above savings total
$ 3,759.00 savings in 2002
$15,036.00
$15,036.00 above savings total
$ 3.759.00 savings in 2003
$18,795.00
$18,795.00 above savings total
$ 3,759.00 savings in 2004
$22,554.00
$22,554.00 above savings total
$ 3.759.00 savings in 2005
$26,313.00
$26,313.00 above savings total
$_ 3359.00 savings in 2006
$30,072.00 Total savings for prowler&lost person calls
4
The total savings for the average service life of the dog for just the two above call areas
($30,072.00) is calculated with the idea that only one officer responded to the two call
areas without a dog in 1997. In reality, several of the calls I researched had multiple
officers responding. This means that the wages in real dollars would most likely be
doubled or higher and the total savings for just these two call areas would be well over
$60,000.00. It is easy to see that if we added up the potential savings from the other types
of calls as listed on page one, the savings would tremendously increase. During my
research I have read a number of statements from police chiefs who have said that, "The
value of a dog is immeasurable." The above savings coupled with an increase in success
by 34% over non K-9 units certainly supports this statement.
So far I have only mentioned the saving of money. The saving of human lives is certainly
so important you cannot put a price on it. Due to the fact Shakopee is located in a cold
winter climate, has (and is attracting) numerous young families with small children, and is
a river city with developed parks, the potential for life saving is immeasurable. It is not at
all a stretch of the imagination that a young child or vulnerable adult could wander away in
sub-zero temperatures, become disoriented, and curl up somewhere and freeze to death
before being discovered by searchers. It is also very possible a child could wander away
from a family picnic at Memorial Park to see the river(a natural attractant) and fall in
while playing. That same child could have been playing on the riverbank for half an hour
before falling in while searchers were frantically trying to figure out where the child was.
Budget Impact
The following is a list of purchases that would be needed to start the K-9 program:
Start up cost
Squad car @$30,000.00
Includes: graphics, lights, push bumper,
radar unit, radio, M.D.T, P.B.T., etc.
Special K-9 equipment for squad car @$1,200.00
Cost of dog and training @$2,000.00
Home kennel and slab @$ 700.00
Total @$33,900.00
Yearly Cost
Annual veterinarian bills @$300.00
Annual trials @$100.00
Food @$300.00
Total @$700.00
5
Second Year cost
Narcotics school @$300.00
The most expensive part of the program is obviously the squad car set up. Two of our
neighboring communities, Burnsville and Savage, have tried using older patrol vehicles for
their K-9 units. Both have changed this type of thinking and switched to new vehicles
based on a number of problems they assessed: more breakdown incidents, more
significant repair problems, and vehicles generally unsafe or unreliable for K-9 and handler
response.
I spoke with Sgt. Carey who is a supervisor at the Moorehead Police Department. I asked
him about his experiences and feelings about K-9 vehicles. He said that he believes that a
squad car(4-door passenger style) is by far the best suited for a dog. He was originally
issued a brand new S.U.V./truck style vehicle when he received his dog as a patrol officer.
He stated that the extra height of the S.U.V. verses a regular squad car caused undue
stress over the years on the dog from constantly jumping in and out. As a supervisor he
feels a department is much better off financially and health wise to stay with the standard
squad car.
All of the supervisors and patrol officers I spoke with stated that when they tried
extending the service life of a regular squad car by converting it to a K-9 vehicle and not
retiring it, it cost them more in the long run. They said that by starting a vehicle fresh, the
equipment does not have to be repeatedly changed out as more squads retire, and there is
far less down time and"nickel and dime" expenses. They also said that due to body style
changes in the vehicles, the ability to swap equipment is about three years. Therefore, it is
financially more advantageous to put the equipment in a new vehicle and leave it there for
the life of the dog.
The general feeling is that the total cost of the K-9 vehicle should not be assessed 100% to
the K-9 unit. Reductions should be made due to the fact that for every mile the handler
drives the K-9 squad, this is one less mile placed on a standard patrol vehicle. Based on
the way we assign squads now, this would extend the life of one of our patrol vehicles by
1/3 to 1/2 of its service life. This savings would be spread across the entire patrol fleet.
Therefore, the actual cost of the K-9 squad is merely an advance purchase of normal
squad usage that would be usually bought at a later date. You are buying that future
squad usage now when the price is lower. Of the $33,900.00 listed for starting a K-9 unit,
only about 47% ($15,900.00) is actually a K-9 only expense. The remainder is a future
expense by general patrol that is being purchased early at a lower cost.
Using Neighboring Departments' Does
In the past couple of years, we have had little success in using other departments K-9
units. This is not due to any type of performance problem by the units, but rather from
being given a no win situation(time delay& scene contamination) or from being
unavailable. There have been multiple situations in which we could have used a dog, but it
6
is not practical to call another agencies' dog for many of the potential uses (alarms,
prowlers, etc.). The following are a few situations where we did call for a dog:
Situation 1
We had an autistic teenager missing. The mother last saw her son sitting on a picnic table
in the yard. The search involved a department patrol sergeant, two patrol officers, and the
Shakopee Fire Department. A neighboring on duty K-9 was also requested. Due to
commonly experienced time delays in bringing in a dog from another city, it took about 35
minutes for the dog to arrive on scene. As the handler was assessing the situation and
readying the dog, the boy was found in the trunk of a car that he climbed into and closed
the lid. The car was right in front of his house and although he was autistic, he finally
made a vocal sound as an officer passed by. Due to the hot August temperatures and that
he had been in the car for about 45-55 minutes, an ambulance had to be summoned to
treat him for a heat injury. The K-9 that was called could have found the boy quite easily,
but there is always a natural time delay when they are coming from another city.
Therefore a Shakopee K-9 could have solved the situation almost immediately, prevented
the medical emergency, and reduced the manpower tremendously by not calling out all the
officers and the fire department personnel.
Situation 2
We had a party flee from a domestic assault in the area of Shawnee Tr. The suspect had a
history of drug use and a history of violent assaults against Shakopee police officers. He
was spotted numerous times in different areas as he fled westbound near First Ave. He
was able to keep his distance from officers by going through apartment buildings and
going through backyards. Several personnel were involved in this incident: A department
patrol sergeant, two patrol officers, four county deputies, two state troopers and a K-9
unit from a neighboring city. At one point a county deputy spotted him near Third Ave.
and Fillmore St., causing the suspect to flee northbound across Second Ave. where one of
the Shakopee officers ensued in a foot chase. The Shakopee officer caught up to him
behind Holiday gas station as another Shakopee officer came from First Ave. and Fillmore
St. The subject was taken into custody. The K-9 unit was unable to take any action
because it arrived in Shakopee at the same time as the subject was caught. This incident
took one hour and twenty minutes and also took a significant number of personnel away
from other assigned duties. According to the research, if a Shakopee K-9 was on duty,
the incident would have been resolved in about 10-15 minutes and involved a significantly
lower number of personnel.
Situation 3
We had an auto theft interrupted by the vehicle owner on Eagle Creek Blvd. near
Montecito Dr.. The suspect fled behind some houses north of Eagle Creek into a densely
wooded area. Once again, several personnel were involved: A department patrol
sergeant, two patrol officers, a Savage officer, a Prior Lake officer, a State Trooper, and a
State Patrol helicopter. Also, a K-9 was summoned from a neighboring community. The
K-9 arrived about one hour after being called followed by the helicopter a half hour after
that. An extensive search was done without success. The entire incident took over two
7
hours and thirty minutes. If a Shakopee K-9 was on duty, the search could have been
done immediately with a 93% probability of success. Also, the reduction in taxpayer
expense by the reduction of personnel and aircraft would have certainly been beneficial.
According to a conversation I had with Captain Mike Haines, who is the chief pilot for the
State Patrol, the cost to the Minnesota taxpayers for the use of the helicopter was between
$300.00 - $400.00.
Other Situations
We have had several other incidents (alarms, prowlers, suspicions) where officers did not
call for a K-9 because it was impractical to justify calling one from another jurisdiction.
The increase in success, safety, and man hour savings is immeasurable by having a K-9 as
part of the Shakopee Police Department.
Funding / Information from other Agencies
I contacted Major Luttenetger, operations commander, of the Burlington Police
Department in Iowa because I discovered that they started a K-9 program about two years
ago. He stated that he is very happy they started the program. He told me that when it
came to funding the program to get it off the ground, they received just under $20,000.00
from local service clubs and private donations. Once the program got off the ground, the
yearly cost was not enough to be an issue. I asked him about the publics' perception of
having a dog and he stated that, "It was the best public relations tool ever purchased "
Officer Kahler of the Ft. Dodge Police Department in Iowa gave me the following
information. They started their program about six months ago. Since then they have been
offered free dog food from a leading manufacturer for the life of the dog, and have a
veterinarian that wants to donate his time. He stated that with these two items covered,
the yearly cost of the dog is basically nothing.
Another department that has started a dog in the last year is the Jackson Police
Department of Jackson, Minnesota. I spoke with Officer Hentges about the cost of
starting the program. He said that he wrote and delivered about 30 letters to local
businesses, The Legion, and public service clubs about the intent to start a program. He
asked the clubs if they could help get it off the ground, and in one month they received
about $10,000.00. He felt that with what he received from a city with a population of just
under 4,000 people, Shakopee's success at raising the funds shouldn't be an issue. As far
as the yearly cost of the dog, they are experiencing a budget impact of between $500.00 to
$800.00 a year.
Sgt. Carey of the Moorehead Police Department said they have had a K-9 unit for several
years. I wanted to know what they experienced with the willingness of people to donate
to the program back when they first started verses now. He stated that when they first
started in 1986, the local V.F.W. bought two squads and two dogs to get the program
going. In 1994 when they had to retire a dog, the V.F.W. donated another vehicle and
another dog. I asked if any other businesses have shown any interest. He said that last
summer his department hosted the 1998 K-9 field trials. To cover the cost they wrote
8
letters to some of the local businesses asking if they would be interested in helping to
sponsor the program. They expected about 20 responses. They actually received about
60 responses for a total of about $6,000.00.
Community Input
I discovered from other departments that as part of being a community policing agency,
the need for a K-9 should be assessed from not only the departments point of view, but
also from the point of view of community members, leaders, and the businesses.
Therefore, I interviewed some people who live and pay taxes in Shakopee, deal with large
volumes of people, or have been elected by the people to represent them as a community
leader.
Harrold Armstrong: Assistant Director of General Services, Valley Fair
Harrold is the head of the security department and is a resident of Shakopee. He felt that
there could definitely be a use for a K-9 if Shakopee had one. As a resident, he felt the
gain to the community would be worth the cost. As the head of security at Valley Fair, he
does not feel there is a need for crowd control purposes there, but rather for keeping the
park safer by helping to control the amount of drugs on the premises. Some of his
thoughts included calling us out if they had reason to believe that there were drugs in an
employees locker, dorm room, or vehicle. He said that as a general rule, all the employees
sign an agreement that their areas are subject to search at any time by the security staff.
However, if a K-9 was called in based on prior information, the dog could simply walk
through the common area and alert the handler if it detected the presence of drugs. If this
matched the suspicions of the security staff, a further investigation could be completed.
Also, if we were called out there for a drug offense/suspicion in the customer parking lot,
a quick walk around the car by a dog could eventually lead to an arrest and help keep the
park a clean and a safe place to visit.
Mark Freyberg: Vice President--Park Operations, Valley Fair
Mark had some of the same ideas for K-9 use as Harold. He had a concern though about
what the public would think if they saw a police dog doing some work out there. He said
they could perceive it in one of two ways: the park and the police are really doing a lot to
keep it a safe place to visit, or the park is becoming so dangerous that they need police
dogs. Due to the fact that this has never been done before, he is not certain how it would
be perceived. However, he did state that "the exposure to the customers would most
likely be low in the parking lots or behind the scenes"and "my general belief is that a
dog is more positive than negative. "
Jon Brekke: Mayor of Shakopee
He believes that Shakopee is definitely in need of a K-9 unit. He said, "I think it increases
general safety of all the officers as well as the general public. " He also felt that from his
personal knowledge as well as from the information provided by other departments, that
there will be great public support in both the area of concept as well as private donations.
During our discussion, he brought up the point that we would be best served if we
committed to having two dogs verses one. He felt that generating donations to fund one
9
dog would not be a problem. Therefore, we should split that between two dogs and the
city should provide 50% matching funds. A goal of starting one dog six months after the
first should be worked on. The idea of having two dogs provides seven day coverage and
less pressure on one officer and his dog (off duty call outs, vacation requests, etc.).
Recommendations
During my research, I had phone contact with several K-9 officers and their
administrators. I also spoke in person with approximately ten K-9 handlers and
participated with at least seven of them in different training scenarios as a back-up officer
and as a suspect. The control and ability of the dogs was very impressive. I can see why
the success rate is so much higher for a search conducted by a K-9 team verses a non K-9
team. I can also see why departments that have them do not want to give them up. The
yearly cost to operate a K-9 is negligible. However, the startup cost can be alarming when
first looked at. The other side of the coin is that I expect both city council support and
community support to be very high. I recommend that we focus on getting two dogs from
the beginning of the planning stage. One could attend the school that starts in the spring
of 2000 and the other could attend in the fall of the same year. We should learn from
other departments that have gone before us and utilize new high quality equipment that
will last. Initial cost is high, but in the long run it is well worth it. Due to school
availability and the process of budgeting this, we should immediately get council's
approval on the project to reserve our school spots (contingent upon next year's budget
approval this fall). The gathering of privately donated financial support should also be
immediately started as well. If we get started now, we can obtain pledges/commitments
from any group, business, person, or organization that would like to donate to the
program. Having the pledges in place as soon as possible will allow council to see what
the community is willing to put forth. Thus allowing the council to budget the remainder
of the cost into next year's budget. After council approves the budget, then the pledges
can be collected and placed into a K-9 trust fund or earmarked in a crime prevention fund.
With all of the background information and the details I have learned throughout this
research, I would like to offer my assistance with the continuation of this project. This
includes but is not limited to: speaking to city council, arranging demonstrations and
information sessions at the meetings of various groups, talking with the general public and
media, and putting together policy and procedure ideas from other departments.
Once again, I welcome any comments or ideas on this subject that anyone may have.
10
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Tax Capacity Values
DATE: August 23, 1999
In response to a question,I received a call from County Associate Administrator for
Finance Jim Berg in regard to when the City could expect its tax capacity values for FY
2000. He responded that their financial software had just arrived from the vendor today
(Monday),and that the County would be running it on Tuesday and Wednesday. He
hoped that by Thursday,August 26th,they would be able to provide us with tax capacity
values.
This has been an ongoing source of frustration for the City. Councilor Sweeney has
noted to me that Hennepin County is able to provide their cities with tax capacity
information by July 1st. It makes it very difficult for cities such as Shakopee which are
undergoing significant increases in growth(both in demand for services, and in tax base),
to do a worthwhile budget review with the City Council without knowing what the tax
capacity rates might be. We as staff can not do any substantive cutting,with an end
target in mind(i.e., no increase in tax rate),until we have this information.
Obviously,we will be working with the numbers on Thursday, should we have the tax
capacity information, so that we hope to be able to advise you what department requests
will have to be reduced by, in order to meet the goal. If the information is not available,
we will have to meet in September on budget items. September 9th was tentatively set
for a fourth budget workshop.
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
MM:tw
CC: Gregg Voxland
SHAKOPEE POLICE DEPARTMENT
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator k
Gregg Voxiand, Acting City Administrator
FROM: Chief Dan Hughes 'j�.
SUBJECT: Police Department Vehicle Request
DATE: August 11, 1999
This memo is a follow-up to items that were discussed at the Council budget work session
on August 10, 1999. The need for additional vehicles in the police department fleet is
apparent to provide the necessary tools for our police officer's to provide efficient and
effective service.
I've enclosed the assessment that was done by Officer Les Ten Eyck, in regards to a
canine unit. Officer Ten Eyck did a very thorough job in researching this issue with the
needs, costs and benefits of such a program. My recommendation continues to be that
one additional police marked patrol vehicle be purchased for this purpose.
Council also discussed whether or not it was possible to extend the life of squad, #960,
that has approximately 57,000 miles on it. Since this is a front line emergency response
vehicle, safety and reliability are of utmost importance.
According to Gene Jeurissen of the City vehicle maintenance operations, squad#960 can
safely and reliably be operated for an additional year. Since this vehicle would be retained
by the police department and not released for other city services, we also asked about the
impact of old squad cars being used by other city departments. Currently two 1996's
were scheduled for retirement. If the police department releases one(#962)for other city
services and retains the other one(960), only one 1996 would be retired, without having
an adverse impact in the overall fleet.
Although the original police department request was for four new police vehicles(two
replacements and two additional), it is my recommendation that three vehicles be
purchased and squad#960 not be retired.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill,City Administrator
SUBJECT: Township Billings.
DATE: August 23, 1999
At the August 12th budget workshop,there was astatement made by one of the
Louisville township officials,concerning a delay in forwarding of fire call bills to the
township, so that they could make billing to the user parties in a timely manner.
This was a problem which was identified in last year's budget,and was traceable to a
delay during a period in 1995 getting the"call"information from the Fire Department.
However, according to the Finance Department,with only rare exception bills are sent on
a monthly basis to the townships.
For your information.
4210
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
MM:tw
r 2000 GENERAL FUND BUDGET-REVENUES A I
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL YTD (6-30-99)
Taxes
Current Ad Valorem $ 2,532,961 $ 2,559,150 $ 2,480,420 $ 2,620,138 $ 2,601,008 $ 1,464,431
Tax Increment 31,605 511 9,894
Moblie Home
Fiscal Disparities 319,487 276,001 272,708 317,008 333,345 143,605
Aggregate Tax - 26,160 10,965
Lodging Tax 99,384 115,432 120,137 124,553 141,329 55,900
Total Taxes 2,951,832 2,950,583 2,873,265 3,093,304 3,102,353 1,684,795
Special Assessment 80
Licenses&Permits
Cable Franchise 40,680 51,568 42,852 - -
Track Franchise - 13,888 10,663 8,503 8,652
Liquor Licenses 60,545 66,847 80,094 81,603 93,491 89,415
Beer Licenses 9,077 3,806 644 1,803 1,933 2,227
Cigarette licenses 645 2,590 3,342 2,300 6,242 292
Misc. Business Permits 5,108 3,326 5,443 3,690 3,579 1,078
Building Permits 201,983 323,876 428,871 431,498 722,665 415,804
Plumbing Permits 31,123 41,789 50,097 71,590 113,047 57,115
Mechanical Permits 26,372 36,159 28,839 70,337 126,237 32,323
Electric Permits 24,374 33,510 43,354 58,261 75,291 45,919
Fire Permit Rev
Septic Permits 1,500 1,802 1,550 1,450 1,800 560
Sewer Permits 5,253 5,981 8,232 9,067 20,774 7,344
Street Opening Permits 3,725 3,500 6,650 5,880 8,330 2,380
Dog Licenses 286 458 559 724 770 446
Misc. Non-Bus. Lic. 321 4 - - 40 60
Total Lic. &Permits 410,992 589,104 711,190 746,706 1,182,851 654,963
Intergovernmental
Grants-Fed 13,306 23,332 47,016 287,668 62,759
State Grants &Aids 158,842 150,866 281,213 9,708
Local Government Aid 158,842 150,866 177,612 194,793 203,588
HACA 450,363 456,586 433,665 443,694 443,531
Mobile Home 593 1,070 928 361 -
Local Performance Aid 15,506 18,943
PERA Aid 9,085 18,170
Police Training 5,911 6,168 6,449 5,406 -
State Hwy Maint Aid 101,085 33,303 101,795 119,473 -
Police State Aid 98,471 96,680 111,412 103,185 115,416
County Grants/Aid 98,471 96,680 - - -
Aggregate Tax 15,807 12,497 21,026 16,912 -
Local Grants/Aids
Total Intergovernmental 1,088,385 1,018,022 876,219 955,431 1,368,529 72,467
2000 GENERAL FUND BUDGET-REVENUES A 2_
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Budget EST. EST. EST. EST. EST.
Taxes
Current Ad Valorem $ 2,749,213 $ 3,112,306 $ 3,299,044 $ 3,496,987 $ 3,706,806 $ 3,929,215
-
-
Tax Increment
Moblie Home 700 400 400 400 400 400
Fiscal Disparities 315,095 330,800 347,300 364,700 382,900 402,000
Aggregate Tax 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000
Lodging Tax 130,000 135,000 140,000 145,000 150,000 155,000
Total Taxes 3,213,008 3,596,506 3,804,744 4,025,087 4,258,106 4,504,615
Special Assessment
Licenses&Permits _
Cable Franchise -
Track Franchise 10,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000
Liquor Licenses 80,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000
Beer Licenses 2,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
Cigarette licenses 3,300 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500
Misc. Business Permits 4,000 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500
Building Permits 450,000 700,000 720,000 740,000 760,000 780,000
Plumbing Permits 70,000 100,000 105,000 110,000 115,000 120,000
Mechanical Permits 40,000 80,000 82,000 84,000 86,000 88,000
Electric Permits 45,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000
Fire Permit Rev 20,000 20,000 22,000 24,000 26,000 28,000
Septic Permits 1,000 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
Sewer Permits 7,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000
Street Opening Permits 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
Dog Licenses 600 750 750 750 750 750
-
Misc. Non-Bus. Lic. - -
-
Total Lic. &Permits 738,900 1,096,250 1,125,250 1,154,250 1,183,250 1,212,250
Intergovernmental
Grants-Fed 89,500 154,525 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
State Grants&Aids 5,600 32,310 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Local Government Aid 213,625 219,200 219,200 219,200 219,200 219,200
HACA 442,945 458,740 458,740 458,740 458,740 458,740
Mobile Home
Local Performance Aid 16,600 -
PERA Aid 11,930 11,930 11,930 11,930 11,930 11,930
Police Training 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
State Hwy Maint Aid - - - - -
Police State Aid 105,000 110,000 110,000 110,000 110,000 110,000
County Grants/Aid 38,500 - - - -
Aggregate Tax -
Local Grants/Aids - 28,450 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Total Intergovernmental 929,700 1,021,155 935,870 935,870 935,870 935,870
2000 GENERAL FUND BUDGET-REVENUES /`C 3
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL YTD(6-30-99)
Charges for Service
Administrative Fee 29,582 61,048 41,863 51,005 115,971 17,076
Plan Check 108,917 177,691 252,211 241,577 400,918 239,031
Sale of Documents 9,354 10,601 9,511 9,750 11,294 4,122
Assessment Search 4,010 4,453 4,431 4,834 9,685 3,200
Release of Dev. Agreeme 490 583 411 420 613 285
Comprehensive Plan Fee 2,470 194 87 175 -
Land Division Administra 18,754 5,877 11,960 13,627 18,343 9,015
Land Use Administration 7,036 26,963 27,539 49,523 22,300 13,652
Radon Kit Sales 1,000 -
Misc. Police Services 4,734 11,241 18,488 27,818 36,707 52,898
Fire Calls&Contracts 29,748 32,973 27,172 39,881 35,449 19,496
Pound Fines&Fees 2,998 2,190 3,260 3,100 3,605 1,210
Valleyfair 13,570 14,927 16,420 18,062 19,868 21,855
Snow Removal 6,228 3,943 5,712 8,737 -
Street Repair 875 - - -
-
Public Works Rentals 803 - - -
Misc. Public Works 8,194 10,401 30,618 19,455 29,039 13,254
Engineering Services 375,527 394,976 546,920 502,118 517,935 308,136
Engineering Grade Fee 2,850 2,401 78,967 53,970 73,012 57,143
Weed Removal 570 - - -
Total Charges for Svs. 781,002 935,196 1,075,570 1,045,052 1,294,739 760,373
Fines and Forfeits
Court Fines 64,914 80,083 95,865 84,708 99,140 54,583
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous 52,267 70,906 57,559 115,161 81,439 106,675
Interest 129,718 219,412 235,918 296,330 317,277
Rent 15,670 29,673 24,576 21,202 15,196 7,052
Contributions 1,635 3,196 - 5,350 -
Total Miscellaneous 199,290 323,187 318,053 438,043 413,912 113,727
Total Revenues 5,496,415 5,896,175 5,950,162 6,363,244 7,461,604 3,340,908
Other Sources
Sale Of Assets 2,059 342 2,462 75,000 400
Operating Transfers 218,885 -
Capital Equipment 747,302 - -
SPUC Contribution 286,197 759,489 789,232 772,660 875,927 360,000
Total Other Sources 1,035,558 759,831 791,694 1,066,545 876,327 360,000
Grand Total $6,531,973 $6,656,006 $6,741,856 $7,429,789 $8,337,931 $3,700,908
2000 Local grants/aids-1999 ISD share Dare Agreement$25,000 + ISD resource officers$(2300*2)*.75
2000 Federal grants $10604 local Iledg +$47200 CSO+42000& 1/3 of 42000 school resource officers+SWMDTF$510
2000 State grants-$17,550 Safe&Siober Grant, $8,000 Auto Theft Prevention Grant, $1,130 Operation Nite Cap,
$5,630 COPS OT Multi Housing Grant
2000 GENERAL FUND BUDGET-REVENUES
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Budget EST. EST. EST. EST. EST.
Charges for Service
Administrative Fee 45,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Plan Check 290,000 350,000 355,000 360,000 365,000 370,000
Sale of Documents 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Assessment Search 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Release of Dev. Agreeme 400 450 450 450 450 450
Comprehensive Plan Fee 100 - - - -
Land Division Administra 14,420 17,000 17,510 18,040 18,580 19,140
Land Use Administration 41,000 30,000 30,500 31,000 31,500 32,000
Radon Kit Sales - - - - - -
Misc. Police Services 10,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000
Fire Calls&Contracts 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000
Pound Fines&Fees 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
Valleyfair 21,860 23,000 25,300 27,830 30,610 33,670
-
Snow Removal - - - - -
-
Street Repair - - - - -
Public Works Rentals - - - - - -
Misc. Public Works 20,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
Engineering Services 525,000 490,000 495,000 500,000 505,000 510,000
Engineering Grade Fee 65,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000
Weed Removal -
Total Charges for Svs. 1,085,780 1,115,450 1,128,760 1,142,320 1,156,140 1,170,260
Fines and Forfeits
Court Fines 90,000 95,000 97,000 99,000 101,000 103,000
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous 60,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000
Interest 245,000 275,600 275,600 275,600 275,600 275,600
Rent 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
Contributions
Total Miscellaneous 320,000 365,600 365,600 365,600 365,600 365,600
Total Revenues 6,377,388 7,289,961 7,457,224 7,722,127 7,999,966 8,291,595
Other Sources
Sale Of Assets -
Operating Transfers -
Capital Equipment
SPUC Contribution 925,000 825,000 849,750 875,243 901,500 928,545
Total Other Sources 925,000 825,000 849,750 875,243 901,500 928,545
Grand Total $7,302,388 $8,114,961 $8,306,974 $8,597,369 $8,901,466 $9,220,139
2000 Local grants/aids-1
2000 Federal grants $106 0
2000 State grants-$17,55
$5,630 COPS OT Multi
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Major revenues
Actual Actual Actual Actual Est Budget
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Building Permit $ 323,876 $ 428,871 $ 431,498 $ 722,665 $ 650,000 $ 700,000
Plumbing Permit 41,789 50,097 71,590 113,047 100,000 100,000
Mechanical Permit 36,159 28,839 70,337 126,237 70,000 80,000
Engineering Services 394,976 546,920 502,118 517,935 525,000 490,000
Plan Check 177,691 252,211 241,577 400,918 400,000 360,000
$800,000
$700,000 - -�"'
--$600,000 - ..;
R
$500.000 -
__• -�&il6ng Permit
............
+�+. �+�'' ... •••.•.••.••.. fPkattVing Perrot
....F-.r!. _ � Mediericel Pemit
..... �+ - -E- rgneering Services
r+,
Plan Check
- -.Log.(Staling Permit)
$400.000 - .... .....o ., •• r"............ -Log. �
Log.(MeCicel Pemit)
.......
• Log.(Plumbing Perrit)
J Log.(Plan Check)
- - -
$300,000 y r .�--•"'. Log.(Engineering Services)
$200,000 ----
........4, i
$100.000 - .�������.s-".�.�� =t .....�-.,_.,..._
S 1 i l t
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
YEAR
9:30 AM 8/26/99 GENERAL.XLS revchart99a
A B C I D E F G H I J K
1 City of Shakopee 8/26/99
2 Pay 99 tax lew
3 - -
4 98/99 99/00 Change
5 General Tax Lev\ Limit revised 3,891,870 1891.870 _ 4A36.435 maximum
6TransitEDA le1p� (354.615)7 0 (459.467)
(75,000)_ .
7 EDA Levy-City
rowth
9 Total Genera Fund Lew Lirrit , 3.462.255, 3.901.968 I 439.713 12.7%
10 Debt Service 135.209 140.415
11 1990A1Imp41.937 41.982 ,
12 1991A Imp cnx24088 _ cnx25014
13 1992A Imp
14 1995A Imp cnx60624 cnx64487
15 1995B Storm Revenue cnx152586 cnx153096 _
16 1996A Imo 64.861 77.186
17 1997B Imp 16,612, 29.783
63.460
Fire R
18 =261235+5000
19 Fire Referendum 250569
20 Total Debt Service J 258.619 I 352.826 94,207 36.4%
21 Changes _
708,293
22 Levy limit cut (491,988)_ _
23 RecreatignTransfer reduction , 70000 _
24 Levy cut (To keep average house at no change J100.0001_ 100000
25 Additional items added
26 Total Levy 1128.886 886 3.546,501 417,615 13.3%
27
28 Fiscal Disp Dist (315.095) (363.265)1 (48.170)
29 Net Lew to spread 2.813.791 3,183.236 369.445 13.1%
30 I
31 Allowance for Uncoil. (62.578) (70.930) (8.352)
) °
32 Budget Amount 361093 13.1/o
33 10.7%
34 General Fund 2.492.594 2.759.480 266.886 °
35 Debt Service Replacement 258.619 352.826 94.207 36%
36
37
38 SUMMARY GENERAL FUND
39 I 1999 2000
40 GF Total Revenue per print+tax changes 7.204.388 0
41 Revenue changes I 0 0 _
42 Total Revenue&Transfers L204.388 1114.961 12.6%
43 I
44 GF Expend+tran.per print 7.535,000 8.006,000
45 Recreation Transfer ' 70000
46
47
48 Total Expenditures and Transfers 7.535.000 I 8.006.000 I 6.3%
59
50 Net surplus (deficit) � 1330.612) _ 108.961
51 I _
52 DS Levy to replace transfer (258.619 (352.826)1
5453 Net surplus(deficit) (589,231) (243.865)
55 Use of Fund Balance
56 One time MIS Y2K I 100.000
57 1st year building depreciation 146.840 "155850
58 Contingency I '50000
59 Net surplus(deficit) I 1342.3911( /243.865)
60 I
61 Underspend/overbudaet facto- 225.000 244.140
,
62 Net surplus(deficit) . -
275
63 0
64 Tax rate change
21.1% 2.9/0
65
66 Subsidy for Recreation Fund 339,170 347,110
67 Under spent factor has been about 7%for 1997 and 8%for 1998.
68 Underspend factor for 2000 shown at 3.0% I I
LEVY99.XLS LEVY99-00 4:10 PM 8/26/99
Auditor's Taxable Mkt Value _ fre/,,0 Ari/
Taxable Tax Capacity f
from Cindy 4/13/99 8/26/99
1998/99 1999/00
C/I $8,882,562 10,152,639 14.3%
Residential 7,579,094 8,962,314 18.3%
Personal 255,877 255,785 0.0%
AG 255,089 227,919 -10.7%
Other 620,315 570,704 -8.0%
Total Net Tax Cap. 17,593,261 $20,169,361 14.6%
TIF (1,231,584) (1,212,399) -1. 6%
FD contribution value (2,762,908) , (3,232,288) 17.0%
Net Taxable Tax Cap. 13,598,769 15,724,674 �.6% i
FD distribution value 1,309,916 1,514,176 15.6%
FD distribution dollars 315,095 363,265 15.3%
Referendum Mkt Value 897,901,119 1,048,730,865 16.8%
LEVY99.XLS DATA pay00 2:24 PM 8/26/99
-.moi
•
D
A B C D 1 E F G H
1 City of Shakopee
2 General Fund Only
3 8/26/99
4 Pay 1999 Pay 2000 'I Change
5
6 Net levy spread 2,813,791 3,183,2361 13.1%
7
8 Total City Net Taxable Tax Cap. 13,607,909 i 15,724,674i
9 City GF only Tax Rate 0.21019 0.20244 -3.7% )
10
11 -
12 ---
13 Assessor's Estimated Market Value $81,000 _$85,050 ; 5.0%
14 Tax Capacity
15 First $76,000 at 1% 750 760
16 Balance at 1.65% 102 149
17 852 909 6.7%
19 City Tax Rate 21.019% 20.244% $ ( 5.00 `'
20 City Tax $179.08 $184.08 \--2 .8%
21 I I
22 Assessor's Estimated Market Value $109,300 $117,700 7.7%
23 Tax Capacity
24 First $76,000 at 1% 750 760
25 Balance at 1.65% 583 688
26 1,333 I 1,448 8.6%
27
28 City Tax Rate 21.019% 20.244% $ 12.93
29 City Tax $280.20 $293.14 4.6%
30 I -------- A C
31 Assessor's Estimated Market Value $117,100 ( $122,400 • 4.5%
32 Tax Ca acity
33 First $76,000 at 1% 750 760
34 Balance at 1.65% 716 766
35 1,466 1 1,526 4.1%
36 I
37 City Tax Rate 21.019% 20.244% $ / 0.76 1
38 City Tax $308.08 $308.84 0.2%
39 1 I
40 Assessor's Estimated Market Value $187,700 $196,900 4.9%
41 Tax Capacity
42 First $76,000 at 1% 750 760
43 Balance at 1.65% __ 1,916 __ 1,995
442,666 2,755 1 3 .3%
45
46 City Tax Rate 21.019% 20.244% $ (2.67)
47 City Tax $560.35 $557.68 -0.5%
4e I I
49 Assessor's Estimated Market Value $187,700 $196,900 4.9%
50 Tax Capacity Commercial
51 First $150,000 at 2.4% 3,675 3,600
52 Balance at 3.4% 1,320 1,595
534,995 I 5,195 1 4.0%
54
55 City Tax Rate 21.019% 20.244% $ 1.78
56 City Tax $1,049.79 $1,051.57 0.2%
57 1 i I I I I
LEVY99.XLS TAXBILL pay 00 4:03 PM 8/26/99
A B I C D E F G H 1
70 City of Shakopee
71 General Fund Fund Balance 25% Min 35%max
72 12/31198 Fund Balance unreserved undesignated $ 3,455,447 $ 3,455,447
73 Cash Flow Target @_%of Expenditures+Tran.(1999) 1,883,750 2,637,250
74 Net available1,571,697 818,197
75 Options for use of fund balance
76 Specific use of fund balance
77 Further buy down of tax levy
78 Transfer to 94195A Capital Projects Fund(Sarazin St.) (400,000) (400,000)
79 Transfer to Building Fund
so Transfer to new project in lieu of tax levy for debt.
81 1,171,697 418,197
82
83 Designations _ _
84 Designated for 1991 A Imp for 1999 (430,000)
85 Designated for 1990 A Imp for 1999 (134,300)
86
87
88 I I
LEVY99.XLS LEVY99-00 3:25 PM 8/26/99
F /
A B C D E F G H I J K
1 City of Shakopee 8/26/99
2 Pay 99 tax levy
3
4 98/99 99/00 Change _
5 General Tax Levi{Limit revised 3,891,870 1891,870 4.436.435 maximum
6 Transit levy I (354.615). (459.467)
7 EDA Levy-City (75.000 (75000)
8' Est.Value growth ,
9 Total General Fund Lew Limit 3.462.255 I 3.90_1.968 I 439.713 12.7%
10 Debt Service
11 1990A Imo 135.209 140.415
12 1991A Imo 41.937 _ 41.982
13 1992A Imo cnx24088 _ cnx25014
14 1995A Imo cnx60624 cnx64487
15 1995B Storm R venue cnx152586 cnx153096
16 1996A Imp 64.861 77.186
17 1997B Imo 16.612 29.783
18 19988 Imp 63.460
19 Fire Referendum 250569 =261235+5000
20 Total Debt Seiiice 258.619 352.826 94.207 36.4%
21 Changes 708.293 _
22 Levy limit cut (491.9881
23 Recreation Transfer reduction 70000
24 Levy cut- I(To keep average house at no change (100.0001 - 100.000
25 /i otal Lew
items added 3.128.886 3.646.501 517.615 16.5%
26 I otal LeW
27
28 Fiscal Dist)Dist (315.095)_ (36 .265) (48.170)
29 Net Levy to spred 2.813.791 /3.283.236 • 469.445 16.7%
30
31 Allowance for Uncoil. (62.578)1 (72.930) (10.352) u
32 Budget Amount 3.210.306 459,093 16.7%
33
34 General Fund 2.492.594 2.857.480 364.886 14.6%
35 Debt Service Replacement 258.619 352.826 94.207 36%
36
LEVY99.XLS LEVY99-00 3:16 PM 8/26/99
A B C D E F G H
1 City of Shakopee
2 General Fund Only
3 8/26/99
4 Pay 1999 Pay 2000 Change
g
6 Net levy spread 2,813,7913,283,236 - 16.7%
7 1
8 Total City Net Taxable Tax Cap. 13,607,909 1 15,724,674 15.6%
9 City GF only Tax Rate 0.21019 0.20880 -0.7%
10 _
11 _
12 - -
13 Assessor's Estimated Market Value $81,000 ($85,050- 5.0%
14 Tax Capacity \\
15 First $76,000 at 1% 750 760
16 Balance at 1.65% 102 149
17 852 909 6.7%
18
19 City Tax Rate 21.019% 20.880% $ 10.78.,
20 City Tax $179.08 $189.86 \ 6.0%
21
22 Assessor's Estimated Market Value $109,300 $117,700 7.7%
23 Tax Capacity
24 First $76,000 at 1% 750 760
25 Balance at 1.65% 583 688
26 1,333 1,448 8.6%
27
28 City Tax Rate I 21.019% 20.880% $ 22.14
29 City Tax $280.20 $302 .35 7.9%
30
31 Assessor's Estimated Market Value $117,100 $122,400 4.5%
32 Tax Capacity
33 First $76,000 at 1% 750 760
34 Balance at 1.65% 716 766
35 1,466 1,526 4.1%
36 -----
37 City Tax Rate 21.019% 20.880% $` 10.46
38 City Tax $308.08 $318.54 3 .41-7
39 1 1
40 Assessor's Estimated Market Value $187,700 $196,900 4.9%
41 Tax Capacity
42 First $76,000 at 1% 750 760
43 Balance at 1.65% 1,916 1,995
442,666 2,755 1 3.3%
45
46 City Tax Rate 21.019% 20.880% $ 14.85
47 City Tax $560.35 $575.20 2.7%
48
49 Assessor's Estimated Market Value $187,700 $196,900 4.9%
50 Tax Capacity Commercial
51 First $150,000 at 2 .4% 3,675 3,600
52 Balance at 3.4% 1,320 1,595
53 4,995 5,195 4.0%
54
55 City Tax Rate 21.019% 20.880% $ 34.81
56 City Tax $1,049.79 $1,084.61 3.3%
57
LEVY99.XLS TAXBILL pay 00 4:13 PM 8/26/99
City of Shakopee
2000 General Fund Budget
Police Projected Revenues for 2000
Description Federal State Local/Other TOTAL
Safe & Sober Grant 17,550 17,550
Auto Theft Prevention Grant 8,000 8,000
LLEBG 10,604 10,604
COPS More, CSO Grant 47,200 47,200
Operation Nite Cap Grant 1,130 1,130
COPS OT Multi Housing Grant 5,630 5,630
COPS School Resource Officer Grant 73,500 73,500
School Resource Officer(ISD 720) 2,000 2,000
Contracted Overtime (Canterbury Park,
Spooky World, ISD 720) 17,000 17,000
DARE Agreement 25,000 25,000
Valley Fair Agreement 20,000 20,000
SWMDTF 51,500 51,500
TOTALS 182,804 32,310 64,000 279,114
1999 Budgeted School Resource Officers
Total Cost of School Resource Officers 79,500
Less: Federal Share (73,500)
Less: ISD 720 Share (2,000)
City Share 4,000
Note: 1 Fulltime position and one position not filled until
March or April 2000.
M
n
O J
co C 0 O0
s 0 -L`h co -p ,.... —
7B
C) CO C P. 0
v m co co °: D co
cvi coo m 13 m co _ co 0
7' -+ co N 0
7 00 a)
o isi
Oo a
7
n
a co O f�0 C
v0
o co Z1 o c0
P. m O
7
CD v) N
n _T
U) _O _1-
3
L _3
co
" 0 n
o co U
N
7 r U1
N x) U)
�+ p (o
Cl)
a V V
CD - 1
j
0
v Cn
c co
, <
0 b u) co
o
co0
-o
o -D
n 7
a o'
o � r
_ .A v
In 71/4-
Z N OD m
co CCO V
n'
m
N
1--
SD
T-
.A m�
b ill _
m
N V
n
7-
0)
7
S
A)
CO N
I m
o 7
o *
*
04
7'
fl)
'' O
a m
CONW N
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Future Moratorium Workshop(s)
DATE: August 23, 1999
INTRODUCTION:
The City Council has given staff direction to proceed with formal review of the proposed
amendments to City Code Sec. 11,Zoning. Staff has scheduled a public hearing on these
amendments before the Planning Commission. The public hearing will take place on
September 9, 1999.
While these proposed text amendments are significant,there are other items that should
be discussed and/or resolved by the City Council/Planning Commission prior to the
expiration of the moratorium period. These include;
Discussion of Reactions to Projects Viewed on the July 29th Tour:
Now that some time has passed, and those who were on the tour have had some
time to reflect on what they saw, it may be worth taking the opportunity to
identify more specifically those design aspects that were viewed as position or
negative.
The Desirability of a Transitional Residential District(s)Adjacent to
Downtown Shakopee:
Identification on the City's Land Use Map of Proposed Locations for New
Commercial and Residential Districts:
It is important as the moratorium winds down that staff be able to incorporate into
the draft comprehensive plan the consensus of the Council and Commission
regarding future land use patterns. As a part of this discussion, staff would
propose to bring forward the comments and requests that are already on the record
from previous public meetings on the plan.
Staging of Public Infrastructure as a Control Mechanism for the Rate of
Development:
Heretofore, it seems that the City has tried to react very quickly to provide
infrastructure as developers have required it. It may be that the City should
examine establishing more formal criteria governing when, and under what
circumstances, the City would proceed with "Chapter 429" improvement
projects.
Possible future meeting dates are as follows;
September 14, 1999
September 28, 1999
ACTION REQUESTED:
Set a date(s)for future workshop sessions.
\i ' . 'l4. '3
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Economic Development Authority
Mark McNeill,Executive Director
FROM: Paul Snook,Economic Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: 2000 Budget
MEETING DATE: August 26, 1999
This is an informational memo outlining items in the 2000 EDA budget.
The community at large was invited to participate in a Downtown Revitalization Strategic
Planning Conference on Wednesday, April 7, 1999. The City/EDA was a major supporter of the
conference, which resulted in nearly seventy Shakopee citizens developing a consensus direction
for the revitalization of the Downtown, 1st Avenue corridor and riverfront. In order to address the
common issues and concerns raised in the conference,and to realize long term revitalization in the
district, it will be necessary to undertake a physical master plan, complete an in-depth market
assessment,and support a fully staffed downtown management office.
Downtown/1st Avenue Corridor/Riverfront Master Plan: S75.000
Vision Shakopee! volunteers and Bert Stitt & Associates, through their work in the downtown
strategic planning initiative, have estimated the cost of a master plan for the Downtown / 1st
Avenue Corridor and Riverfront area to be up to $150,000. The City will be asked to support half
of this cost, with the other half coming primarily from the private sector. The master plan would
not only be a physical plan for the district, it would also require the consulting team to develop
implementation strategies and identify and package financial resources.
Why should the City support the development of a Master Plan for the Downtown / 1st Avenue
Corridor/Riverfront area?
• A successful downtown revitalization program requires a public-private partnership: both
public and private entities must be involved as full partners.
• The City has a stake in the economic and physical development of this district and the
community at large. A Master Plan is a tool to guide economic and physical development of
Shakopee's oldest commercial district
• Previous "downtown plans" are outdated or incomplete (no implementation and funding
strategies/mechanisms).
• No master plan exists to achieve overall goals, policies, programs and implementation
strategies for Downtown/lst Avenue development. Such a plan is needed to realize economic
development and physical development objectives.
• Urban design policies, standards and plans (established in a master plan) are badly needed to
review development proposals in the district.
2
Downtown/1st Avenue Corridor/Riverfront Master Plan(continued)
• A master plan is needed to coordinate plans for a (potential) Special Services District and to
improve connections between the Downtown core, 1st Avenue Corridor,and Riverfront.
• The master plan will help city, county and regional agencies better coordinate downtown/ 1st
Avenue/Riverfront development projects.
• A downtown master plan would address such issues as suitable offstreet parking,the need for
a pedestrian-friendly district, appropriate business signage, proper design for new
construction, protection and renovation / restoration of historic buildings, inadequate green
spaces,etc.
• As Shakopee and the Twin Cities metropolitan area grow, Downtown Shakopee continues to
face several difficult challenges, including:
❑ Repositioning downtown to compete in the metropolitan retail and services market;
❑ Overcoming obstacles such as pedestrian access,traffic flow patterns, signage,
parking, streetscape and building design,etc.
❑ Developing and sustaining a healthy neighborhood to support retail and cultural
attractions; and
❑ Providing a positive image that will attract businesses, shoppers,visitors and
residents.
A master plan would address these challenges.
• The master plan should not be attempted if implementation and financial packaging are not
part of the consulting team's charge. Without these two very important elements, the master
plan will more than likely"sit on the shelf'and end up being a waste of resources.
• The consulting team selected for the master plan should 1.)Have a demonstrated capacity for
identifying, accessing, and packaging the financial resources necessary to underwrite deeper
levels of planning,feasibility analyses,engineering and design,as well as final construction of
projects; 2.) Have the expertise in real estate development and packaging to orchestrate
complex land transactions to the optimum benefit to the downtown/ 1st Avenue area and the
City; 3.)Have a demonstrated ability to organize projects, facilitate the planning process, and
have a proven track record in implementation of master plans; and 4.)Be able to point to their
integral role in significant implementations in other communities.
Downtown/1st Avenue Corridor Market Analysis: $25,000
A market-driven approach is essential to enhancing the Downtown / 1st Avenue area. Vision
Shakopee! volunteers and Bert Stitt & Associates, through their work in the downtown strategic
planning initiative,have estimated the cost of a detailed market analysis for the district to be up to
$50,000. The City will be asked to support half of this cost, with the other half coming primarily
from the private sector.
Why should the City assist in funding a market analysis for the Downtown/ 1st Avenue Corridor/
Riverfront area?
• A successful downtown revitalization program requires a public-private partnership: both
public and private entities must be involved as full partners.
bdgtmo00.doc
3
Downtown/1st Avenue Corridor Market Analysis(continued)
• The City has a stake in the economic development of this district and the community at large.
A market analysis is a tool to guide economic development efforts in Shakopee's oldest
commercial district.
• In order to ensure the successful enhancement of our future downtown, it is essential that we
have a clear understanding of the economic potentials of the district. This understanding is
gained through the completion of a market analysis.
• Physical improvements alone will not enhance downtown. Even physical improvements such
as tree plantings, repair of sidewalks, improvement of public parking areas, and other
streetscape enhancements must be undertaken with an economic intent.Value should be added
through the attraction of greater revenue, more (private) investment should be made in
businesses and real estate, and more taxes should be generated in order to finance other vital
public projects and services. This requires a market analysis - a working knowledge of what
economic activity Downtown Shakopee's market area can(and cannot)support.
• The notion of"if we build it(a new park,parking deck, museum, convention center, etc.)they
will come" does not work. Communities have done these singular projects and "they" did not
come - at least not to the extent desired to justify the cost of the physical improvements.
Downtown's economy needs to be developed comprehensively - not with a single "magic
bullet". Economically healthy businesses, operating in quality space, offering sought after
goods and services bring customers, clients, and revenue to downtown. A market analysis is
necessary to facilitate this.
• Economic development strategies such as business retention and expansion,and recruitment of
new businesses/investors cannot be implemented effectively without a clear understanding of
the downtown/ 1st Avenue market potentials.
• A market analysis gives the business owner, downtown property owner, individual downtown
investor / developer, and downtown revitalization organization 1.) more insight into the
opportunities that exist in the marketplace; and most importantly, 2.) more information with
which to make informed and confident decisions concerning a new or further investment in
downtown.
• Successful downtowns and their community of businesses, elected and other government
officials, and property owners are very aware of their position in the marketplace. They know
who their customer base is, what they earn, what they have the ability to buy, who the
competitive businesses or business districts are, and what the business district market niche or
market niches are. Successful downtowns do not simply dream, guess or speculate to acquire
this market knowledge, they have completed a market analysis and seek additional market
information on a constant basis - with market analysis not being a product as much as a
process of learning and relearning.
• We cannot expect to make gains or even stay in the game of downtown improvement unless
we "play by the same rules" as the best in the business - the retail chains, the malls, the
discounters, the outlet centers,the strip centers and... successful downtowns. That is, we(like
these others) need to know our market in order to take advantage of its opportunities. A
market analysis provides this knowledge.
bdgtmo00.doc
Downtown/1st Avenue Corridor Market Ana ysis(continued) 4
• If a market analysis is not completed,opportunities will not be identified and realized,and will
be enjoyed by others in the marketplace - downtown business districts in other communities,
shopping centers,and other commercial districts.
City Support of Vision Shakopee! Operating Budget: $15.000
A coordinating, managing entity is essential to the long term success of the Downtown / 1st
Avenue area. Vision Shakopee! volunteers and Bert Stitt& Associates, through their work in the
downtown strategic planning initiative, have estimated the cost of a fully staffed downtown
management office (operating budget) for 2000 to be $57,500. The City will be asked to support
26%of this cost,with the other 74%coming primarily from the private sector.
Why should the City help fund a fully staffed downtown management office?
• A public-private partnership is needed to make meaningful, long-term downtown
revitalization possible: both public and private sectors must be involved as full partners, as
neither can bring about change alone. Each sector has unique skills and particular areas in
which it works most effectively; combining the talents of both groups brings together the
skills necessary for revitalization to occur in a unified program.
• The City has a stake in the economic development of this district and the community at large.
Vision Shakopee! is an entity dedicated to economic development of the Downtown and 1st
Avenue Corridor.
• A full-time Program Manager would help the Vision Shakopee! board of directors develop and
implement overall program strategies, and serves as the coordinator for the network of
volunteer activity that makes the program successful. The manager oversees daily operations,
providing the hands-on involvement critical to a successful downtown enhancement program.
The manager also provides a communication link between committees, ensuring that all work
plans and activities are coordinated.
• Without full time coordination, sustainable, comprehensive long-term revitalization will not
occur.
bdgtmo00.doc
VISION SHAKOPEE!
OPERATING BUDGET
Estimated Revenues:
Membership Fees 2,500.00
Donations 22,000.00
City 15,000.00
County 8,000.00
Program Revenues 10,000.00
Savings/Interest
Special Services District Revenues
TOTAL REVENUES: 57,500.00
Estimated Expenses:
Personnel:
Salaries 30,000.00
FICA 2,100.00
Fringe Benefits
Liability Insurance 500.00
Office Expenses:
Rent 6,000.00
Utilities 850.00
Trash Removal 400.00
Equipment 500.00
Office Supplies 1,000.00
Telephone/Internet 1,000.00
Insurance 600.00
Depreciation 200.00
Miscellaneous/Contingency - 550.00
Professional Development:
Conference/Course Registrations 500.00
Training Materials 500.00
Travel/Subsistence 500.00
Other Expenses:
Membership Dues 800.00
Advertising/Printing 1,000.00
Design Services/Architect 1,500.00
Sign Grants 1,500.00
Promotion 5,000.00
Subscriptions/Publications 1,000.00
Postage 1,500.00
TOTAL EXPENSES: 57,500.00
PROJECTS BUDGET
Estimated Expenses:
Market Analysis/Assessment 50,000.00
Downtown/Riverfront Master Plan&
Implementation Plan 150,000.00
Page 1
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
EDA FUND
2000 BUDGET
ACTIVITY:
Activity includes the operation of the Shakopee Economic Development
Authority. The 'smission is to enhance the quality of life in Shakopee
by expanding and strengthening the local economy; broadening the city's job
base and increasing its revenue base through facilitating the preservation,
expansion, creation and attraction of quality businesses and related jobs.
Implement strategies and administer various programs (grants, loans, etc.)
to accomplish above activities. Staff must maintain EDA records and
prepare materials for policy decisions by Commissioners. The Commission is
comprised of the Mayor and City Council.
Section 469.107 of the Minnesota Statutes states that the governing body
may, at the request of the authority, levy a tax in any year for the
benefit of the authority. The tax must be not more than 0.01813 percent of
taxable market value.
OBJECT DESCRIPTION: Description of lines items:
Salaries:
• Economic Development Coordinator, share of City Staff including Planning
Director.
Professional Services:
• Legal and other professional services $8,000
• Downtown / 1st Ave corridor market analysis $25,000 (this is 50% of
total est. cost; other 50% to be funded by Vision Shakopee: DT
Partnership)
• Downtown / 1st Ave. corridor / Riverfront master plan $30,000 (this is
20% of total est. cost; the other 80% to be funded by Vision Shakopee!
Downtown Partnership [50%] and by EDA Contingency [30%] - see below)
• EDA support of Vision Shakopee operating budget $15,000.
Dues:
• Membership dues for professional economic development associations such
as the American Economic Development Council, Economic Development
Association of Minnesota, Mid-America Economic Development Association,
and Council for Urban Economic Development.
C-
Conference/School/Training:
• Various conferences and training courses sponsored by professional
economic development associations as outlined above.
• Economic Development Institute / Certified Economic Developer
• National Development Council / Certified ED Finance Professional
Miscellaneous:
• $150,000 for ADC local effort assistance, $57,000 of ADC payment'
funded as a transfer from the City, and $93,000 from Scott County.
Contingency:
• Downtown / Riverfront / 1st Ave. corridor master plan $45,000 (this is
30% of total est. cost; the other 70% to be funded by Vision Shakopee!
Downtown Partnership [50%] and by EDA Professional Services [20%] - see
above)
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
2000 BUDGET
EDA FUND BUDGET SUMMARY
Revenue
Taxes
1997 1998 1999 2000
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
$ 103,552 $ 101,323 $ 108,570 $ 108,570
Intergovernmental
Charges for Service
Interest
Miscellaneous
Total Revenue
Transfers
Total Revenue and Transfers
5,400 5,387 195,400 98,932
5,200
22,893 27,734 24,200 28,000
7,475 39,430
144,520 173,874 328,170 235,502
75,000 57,000
144,520 173,874 403,170 292,502
Expenditures
Personal Services
Supplies&Services
ADC Payment
Contingency
54,377 49,638 61,320 64,880
51,311 93,129 16,850 87,500
265,000 150,000
- - 60,000 45,000
Total Expenditures 105,688 142,767 403,170 347,380
Excess (Deficiency) Of Revenues
over Expenditures&Transfers $ 38,832 $ 31,107 $ - $ (54,878)
Fund Balance December 31 438,612 469,719 469,719 414,841
r•
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
2000 BUDGET
Division Budget
Object 12/31/97 12/31/98 12/31/99 Y-T-D
DEPARTMENT PROPOSED
Code Description
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET 06/30/99 REQUEST BUDGET
DIVISION 19 - EDA
4101 WAGES FT REG 45,399 44,361 48,830 21,204
4110 WAGES - TEMP 51,960 51,960
769 24 1,000 5 0 0
4121 PERA 1,850 2,169 2,530 1,098
4122 FICA 2,700 2,700
3,501 3,356 3,740 1,698 3,980 3,980
4131 HEALTH 285 244 4,820 1,258
4132 LIFE/LTD 4,840 4,840
0 0 0 108 0 0
4151 WORKERS COMPENSATION 402 384 400
4170 COMPENSATED ABSENCES 129 400 400
2,171 -1,443 0 0 1,000 1,000
PERSONNEL SERVICES 54,377 49,095 61,320 25,501
64,880 64,880
4210 OPERATING SUPPLIES 2,050 765 2,500 482
4310 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000 1,000
7,652 33,643 7,000 13,975 78,000 78,000
4320 POSTAGE 21 0 100
4321 TELEPHONE 0 100 100
277 288 300 106 300 300
4330 TRAVEL/SUBSISTENCE 301 0 500
4340 ADVERTISING 0 500 500
0 300 200 0 200 200
4350 PRINTING/PUBLISHING 642 176 500 116
4360 INSURANCE 500 500
1,314 1,252 1,500 0 2,400 2,400
4390 CONFERENCE/SCHOOL/TRAINING895 150 1,500
4410 RENTALS 15 1,500 1,500
1,500 1,500 1,500 0 1,500 1,500
4430 DESIGNATED MISCELLANEOUS 35,986 43,860 265,000
4433 DUES 0 150,000 150,000
465 465 1,000 575 1,000 1,000
4435 SUBSCRIPTIONS/PUBLICATIONS 208 175 250 647
4490 CONTINGENCY 500 500
0 0 60,000 0 45,000 45,000
SUPPLIES & SERVICES 51,311 82,574 341,850 15,915
282,500 282,500
TOTAL EDA DIVISION 105,688 131,668 403,170 41,416 347,380 347,380
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
PROGRAM BUDGET WORKSHEET
FOR THE YEAR ENDING 12/31/00
PROGRAM PROGRAM
190 191
BENEFITS MANAGEMENT TOTAL
==
EDA
4101 WAGES FT REG 7,500 44,460 51,960
4121 PERA 390 2,310 2,700
4122 FICA 580 3,400 3,980
4131 HEALTH 4,840 0 4,840
4151 WORKERS COMPENSATION 400 0 400
4170 COMPENSATED ABSENCES 1,000 0 1,000
Total PERSONNEL SERVICES $14,710 $50,170 $64,880
4210 OPERATING SUPPLIES 0 1,000 1,000
4310 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 78,000 78,000
4320 POSTAGE 0 100 100
4321 TELEPHONE 0 300 300
4330 TRAVEL/SUBSISTENCE 0 500 500
4340 ADVERTISING 0 200 200
4350 PRINTING/PUBLISHING 0 500 500
4360 INSURANCE 0 2,400 2,400
4390 CONFERENCE/SCHOOL/TRAINING 0 1,500 1,500
4410 RENTALS 0 1,500 1,500
4430 DESIGNATED MISCELLANEOUS 0 150,000 150,000
4433 DUES 0 1,000 1,000
4435 SUBSCRIPTIONS/PUBLICATIONS 0 500 500
4490 CONTINGENCY 0 45,000 45,000
Total SUPPLIES & SERVICES $0 $282,500 $282,500
TOTAL EDA $14,710 $332,670 $347,380
AGREEMENT FOR
MAINTENANCE AND PAYMENT OF COSTS FOR OPERATION
OF PEDESTRIAN PATH AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 1999,between the
City of Shakopee, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota, (hereinafter referred to as the
"City"), and KTJ Limited Liability Partnership Fifty, (hereinafter referred to as the"Developer"). It is
intended that the term Developer shall apply to subsequent or part owners of Lot 1, Block 1, Shakopee
Valley Marketplace, according to the recorded plat thereof on file, Scott County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the Developer holds title to certain property within the City of Shakopee, County of
Scott, State of Minnesota, described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof("Developer
Property") which Developer Property is part of a shopping center consisting of Lots 1-6, Block 1
Shakopee Valley Marketplace according to the plat thereof on file, Scott County,Minnesota(Lots 1-6
referred to herein as the"Shopping Center"); and
WHEREAS, the Shopping Center is to be served by a pedestrian sidewalk path to be located
outside the exterior boundary of the Shopping Center and specifically located on the east side of Sarazin
Avenue as depicted on the site plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS,the Shopping Center is to be served by a traffic signal system to be located at the
intersection of 17th Avenue and Sarazin Avenue, Shakopee Minnesota as depicted on Exhibit B (
hereinafter the"Traffic Signal System"); and
WHEREAS,the Developer is responsible for the maintenance of the Pedestrian Path; and
WHEREAS,the Developer is responsible to reimburse the City, from time to time and upon
receipt of invoice from the City for the same, for costs and expenses(but not to exceed three hundred
dollars($300.00)per month as adjusted for inflation) for operating and maintaining the Traffic Signal
System.
THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED between the parties hereto:
1. The City shall construct or cause others to construct the Pedestrian Path. The Traffic
Signal System shall be constructed by the Developer as a Plan A Improvement under the
Developer's Agreement between the City,Developer, Dayton Hudson Corporation and
Sharron C. Bernhagen. Both the Pedestrian Path and the Traffic Signal System will be
constructed in the approximate locations depicted on the site plan attached hereto as
Exhibit B.
2. The Developer and its successors or assigns shall be responsible for the maintenance(but
not replacement or repair unless assessed in accordance with governmental standards) of
the Pedestrian Path. The maintenance of the Pedestrian Path shall include periodic
removal of debris and removal of snow.
3. The City shall have access to the Pedestrian Path for the purpose of inspection,
maintenance,repair and proper operation whenever the City, in the exercise of its
reasonable discretion, shall determine that such access is necessary.
4. Whenever maintenance of the Pedestrian Path is necessary,the City may,upon request
of the Developer,or on its own volition after reasonable (under the circumstances)notice
ti
to the Developer,perform such work as is necessary, and the Developer shall reimburse
the City for the cost of labor,materials and equipment used in the work,plus a fixed
charge of forty percent(40%)of said costs as reimbursement for the proportionate cost
of insurance,PERA contributions,vacations, sick leave, clerical, and other applicable
2
miscellaneous costs incurred by the City for such work. In the event the Developer does
not reimburse the City for the cost of such work within thirty(30)days of the receipt of
an invoice therefore, the City may levy and collect such costs as a special assessment
against the Developer Property;provided,however,that such remedy is not exclusive,
and the City may enforce the terms of this Agreement by any means available in law or
equity.
5. The City agrees to indemnify and hold the Developer harmless from any claim for
damages or other relief arising out of or in connection with any work done by the
Developer on the Pedestrian Path,unless arising out of the negligence or wrongful acts
of the Developer or its agents.
6. The Developer shall reimburse the City within thirty(30)days following receipt of an
invoice from the City, for costs and expenses incurred by the City to operate and
maintain(but not replace and major repairs unless assessed in accordance with
governmental standards) the Traffic Signal System. Costs and expenses incurred to
operate and maintain the Traffic Signal System shall include the cost of electricity to
operate the Traffic Signal System,bulb replacement and routine maintenance but shall
not include any costs for major repair or replacement of the Traffic Signal System.
However, in no event shall the cost of such operation and maintenance exceed Three
Thousand Six Hundred and no/100 Dollars ($3,600.00)per calendar year(prorated for
partial years) subject to adjustment for"Constant Dollars"as set forth hereafter.
"Constant Dollars"shall mean the present value of the U.S. dollar to which such phrase
refers. An adjustment shall occur on January 1 of the Sixth(6th) calendar year following
the date of this Agreement, and thereafter at five(5)year intervals. Constant Dollars
shall be determined by multiplying the dollar amount to be adjusted by a fraction,the
3
numerator of which is the Current Index Number and the denominator of which is the
Base Index Number. The"Base Index Number"shall be the level of the Index for the
month of the date of this Agreement; the"Current Index Number"shall be the level of
the Index for the month of September of the year preceding the adjustment year; the
"Index"shall be the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers,U.S. City Average,
all items,published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of
Labor(base year 1982-84= 100), or any successor index thereto as hereinafter provided.
If publication of the Index is discontinued, or if the basis of calculating the Index is
materially changed,then the Approving Parties shall substitute for the Index comparable
statistics as computed by an agency of the United States Government or, if none,by a
substantial and responsible periodical or publication of recognized authority most closely
approximating the result which would have been achieved by the Index.
7. It is the intent of the parties that this Agreement be recorded against the title to the
Developers Property and be governed under the laws of the State of Minnesota. In the
event this Agreement is not found to be in acceptable form for such recording,the
Developer will execute such other and similar documents as are reasonably necessary to
effect recording hereof,counterparts of which may be executed and shall be enforceable.
8. The obligations of the Developer under this Agreement shall run with the land of the
Developer's Property, and bind the Developer and the Developer's heirs, successors and
assigns.
4
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF,the Developer and City have caused these presents to be executed
the day and year first written above.
KTJ LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIFTY,
a Minnesota limited liability partnership
By Oppidan Incorporated,its Managing Partner
By:
Joseph H.Ryan
Its: President
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1999
by Joseph H.Ryan,the President of Oppidan, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, as Managing Partner of KTJ
Limited Liability Partnership Fifty, a Minnesota limited liability partnership on behalf of the partnership.
Notary Public
5
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
By:
John Brekke
Its: Mayor
By:
Mark McNeill
Its: City Administrator
By:
Judith S. Cox
Its: City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF SCOTT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
1999,by John Brekke,Mayor; and Mark McNeill, City Administrator; and Judith S. Cox,City Clerk of
the City of Shakopee, on behalf of the City of Shakopee, a Minnesota municipal corporation.
Notary Public
F:\CLIENT\OPPIDAN\Shakopee-Target\Documents\Maintenance Agmt 8 26 99 clean.wpd
t
6
EXHIBIT A
Lot 1,Block 1, Shakopee Valley Marketplace according to the plat thereof on file, Scott
County,Minnesota.
EXHIBIT B
Site Plan dated April 28, 1999 prepared by RLK Kuusisto,Ltd. a reduced part of which
is attached hereto with the Pedestrian Path and Traffic Signal System areas designated
thereon.
This Space reserved for recording purposes
Rev. 3/29/77
Rev.4/6/77
Rev.4/11/77 CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Rev.4/18/77
Rev. 6/1/79 SCOTT COUNTY,MINNESOTA
Rev.9/10/80
Rev.6/29/82 DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
Rev. 11/1/88
Rev. 10/20/98
THIS AGREEMENT,Made and entered into this_day of , 19 ,by
and between the City of Shakopee,a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Minnesota,hereinafter called"City",KTJ Limited Liability Partnership Fifty,a Minnesota limited liability
partnership,hereinafter called"Developer",Dayton Hudson Corporation,a Minnesota corporation,
hereinafter called"Target",and Sharron C.Bernhagen,hereinafter called`Bernhagen".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS,the Developer has made application to the City Council for approval of a plat of land
within the corporate limits of the City which land is described as follows: Shakopee Valley Marketplace,
hereinafter called the"Subdivision",and the individual Lots 1 through Lot 6 of the Subdivision,hereinafter
called the"Lot(s)"; and
WHEREAS,the City Council,by Resolution No. 5165 adopted on June 15, 1999,has granted
conditional approval to the Subdivision on the condition that the Developer enter into this Agreement to
provide for the installation of street,water, sewer and other improvements as described herein; and,
WHEREAS,Developer,Target and Bernhagen are owners of certain Lots located within the
Subdivision and agree that their respective Lots will be bound by the terms of this Agreement.
NOW,THEREFORE,in consideration of the premises and of the mutual promises and conditions
hereinafter contained,it is hereby agreed as follows:
I. Definitions. The following references to improvements as used in this Agreement shall
have the meanings stated below:
(A) Street Improvements. "Street Improvements" -subgrade preparation,permanent surfacing,
right-of-way grading or berm construction,traffic signing, sidewalks,and all appurtenant
facilities(as shown on the approved plans on file in the office of the City Engineer).
(B) Sanitary Sewer Improvements. "Sanitary Sewer Improvements" -sanitary sewers,lift
stations and all other appurtenant sanitary sewer facilities(as shown on the approved plans
on file in the office of the City Engineer).
(C) Storm Sewer Improvements. "Storm Sewer Improvements" -storm sewers,inlets and all
other appurtenant storm facilities(as shown on the approved plans on file in the office of
the City Engineer).
(D) Watermain Improvements. "Watermain Improvements" -watermains,valves and all other
appurtenant watermain facilities(as shown on the approved plans on file in the office of the
City Engineer).
(E) Street Light Improvements. "Street Light Improvements" -street lighting including poles,
crossarms,underground wiring transformers,pedestals and any other necessary
appurtenances(as shown on the Approved plans on file in the office of the City Engineer).
(F) Other Public Utilities. "Other Public Utilities" -whenever electric or gas utilities are
included in a part of the Subdivision they will be required as Plan A improvements and for
purposes of releasing this Developer's Agreement and issuing a certificate of occupancy
(conditional or permanent),the City shall consider the utility improvements approved upon
the Developer entering into an agreement with the utility company whereby the utility
company accepts the improvements and the Developer pays any fees required by the utility
company at that time.
II. Ownership Warranty of Developer/Target and Developer. The Developer,Target,and
Bernhagen hereby warrant and represent to the City as an inducement to the City's entering into this
Agreement,that their respective interests in the Subdivision are:
(A) Developer. Developer is Fee Owner of Lots 1, 3,4 and 5,Block 1, Shakopee Valley
Marketplace, Scott County,Minnesota.
(B) Target. Target is Fee Owner of Lot 2,Block 1, Shakopee Valley Marketplace, Scott
County,Minnesota.
(C) Bernhagen. Bernhagen is Fee Owner of Lot 6,Block 1, Shakopee Valley Marketplace,
Scott County,Minnesota.
III. Designation of Improvements. Improvements to be installed at Developer's expense by
the Developer as provided herein are hereinafter referred to as "Plan A Improvements". Improvements
which the Developer has petitioned the City to install and fmance on a cash and assessment basis are
hereinafter referred to as"Plan B Improvements".
IV. Plan A Improvements. The Developer will construct and install at Developer's expense the
following Plan A Improvements according to the following terms and conditions and the General and
Special Conditions attached hereto and made part of the-Contractthis Agreement.
-2-
Description of Improvement Location of Improvement
(A) Electrical Systems. Electrical Within the plat of Shakopee
system in accordance with the Valley Marketplace
requirements of the Shakopee
Public Utilities Commission
(B) Water System. Water system All looped watermain and Watermain
in accordance with the requirements Improvements within the plat
of the Shakopee Public Utilities of Shakopee Valley Marketplace
Commission
(C) Sanitary and Storm Sewer. Within the plat of Shakopee Valley
Sanitary sewer and storm sewer Marketplace
systems in accordance with
the requirements of the Design
Criteria and Standard
Specifications of the City of
Shakopee
(D) Street Improvements. Street Sarazin StreetAvenue from 17th
Improvements, Sanitary Sewer Avenue to the north plat line of
Improvements,Water Main Brittany Village
Improvements and Street Light
Improvements as more fully set
forth in the Feasibility Report dated
August 3, 1999 for CSAH 17/17th
Avenue/Sarazin Street Improvements
C.P. 1999.7("Feasibility Report")
which is incorporated herein by
reference but is not attached hereto
(E) Street Improvements. Street 17th Avenue from CSAH 17 to Sarazin
Improvements,Water Main StreetAvenue
Improvements and Street Light
Improvements as more fully set
forth in the Feasibility Report
V. Plan"A"Improvements
(A) Construction Plan and Approval Thereof. The Developer has engaged,at Developer's
expense,a duly registered professional civil engineer authorized to practice within the State
of Minnesota which engineer has prepared detailed plans,specifications,and a cost
estimate for complete installation of those Plan A Improvements referenced in Paragraphs
IV(A), (B)and(C)above. The Developer will engage,at Developer's expense,a duly
registered professional civil engineer authorized to practice within the State of Minnesota
to prepare detailed plans,specifications and cost estimates for complete installation of
those Plan A Improvements referenced in Paragraphs IV(D)and(E),in accordance with
City Design Criteria and Standard Specifications. Final construction plans for the Plan A
Improvements referenced in Paragraphs IV(A),(B)and(C)have been submitted to the City
Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utilities Manager and have been approved by all
-3-
necessary City officials. Detailed plans, specifications and cost estimates for the Plan A
Improvements referenced in Paragraphs IV(A), (B)and(C)are attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit"A".
(B) Developer. The Developer shall submit to the City either cash,or a certified letter of credit
approved by City Attorney,made payable to the City of Shakopee upon which the City
may draw,or contract bond approved by the City Attorney,in the amount of 125%of the
estimated cost of the Plan A Improvements(set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. The
City is hereby authorized to draw against the said cash,certified letter of credit,or contract
bond as provided in Paragraphs V(F)and VIII(D). In the alternative,the Developer may
enter into an"Escrow and Payment Agreement", approved by the City attorney,to be
submitted when this Agreement is executed.
The cash so paid by the Developer to the City will bear interest for each year at a rate equal
to one percent(1%)below the average interest rate(rounded to the nearest quarter)on the
investments held by the City on December 31st of the respective year. The interest will
accrue until the deposit is used by the City to install uncompleted improvements. The
deposit plus all accrued interest will be used to pay for the installation of any uncompleted
improvements and any excess in the deposit will be returned to the Developer. If the City
determines that the improvements need not be installed or upon the Developer installing the
improvements,the deposit plus all accrued interest shall be returned to the Developer.
(C) Completion of Traffic Control Improvements. For purposes of releasing this Agreement
from the record of title and issuing a certificate of occupancy(conditional or permanent)
for Lots within the Subdivision,the City shall consider the traffic control improvements
completed when the Developer enters into an agreement with Shakopee Public Utilities
whereby the Shakopee Public Utilities accepts the traffic control improvements. The City
agrees to reimburse Developer,within thirty(30)days from receipt of an invoice from the
Developer,an amount equal to twenty five percent(25%)of the cost of all traffic control
improvements constructed pursuant to the Plan A Improvements. In the event the City fails
to pay such amount within the time periods set forth above,the Developer is entitled to
offset such amounts from any amounts owed hereunder to the City.
(D) Certificate of Occupancy/Building Permit. The City may withhold the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for any Lot within the Subdivision until all Plan A Improvements
are substantially complete. Permanent certificates of occupancy for any Lots in the
Subdivision may be withheld by the City until such time as all of the required Plan A
Improvements are substantially completed and approved by the City Engineer,or until this
Agreement is replaced with a letter of understanding and a letter of credit in the amount of
125%of the City Engineer's estimate of the cost of work remaining to be constructed to
complete the Plan A Improvements,as provided in VIII(D),which replacement shall be
approved by the City Council. Building permits for any Lot within the Subdivision are
available to an individual owner of a Lot following the filing of the plat of the Subdivision
and upon such Owner complying with City requirements for plan review,general building
code compliance for building on the Lot and payment of any standard building permit fees.
(E) Park Fund. Accompanied with the execution of this Agreement will be a payment from the
Developer to the Shakopee Park Fund for Lot 2 of the Subdivision. This payment will be
considered delivered to the City and may be cashed upon filing the plat of the Subdivision.
No building permit shall be issued for any other Lots within the Subdivision until any and
-4-
all payments applicable to such Lot are paid to the Shakopee Park Fund in lieu of land
dedication as provided in Paragraph IX.
(F) Administrative and Technical Costs. The Developer agrees to pay the City administrative
and inspection costs for review of Plan A Improvements(including those Plan A
Improvements referenced in Paragraphs IV(A)through(C). Said fees estimated to total
$68,083. One Hundred percent(100%)of the fees shall be paid by the Developer upon
filing the plat of the Subdivision and shall not be included in the security required
hereunder. Any increase or decrease to such fees shall be adjusted upon completion of all
Plan A Improvements. Services to be performed by the City shall include,but not limited to
the following:
1) Review and Approval of Plans. The City will review and approve plans and
specifications prepared by Developer's engineer.
2) Inspection of Plan A Improvements. The City will provide adequate inspection of
all Plan A Improvements.
(G) Construction of Plan A Improvements.
1) Construction. The construction,installation,materials and equipment for Plan A
Improvements for Street Improvements, Sanitary Sewer Improvements and Storm
Sewer Improvements shall conform to the approved plans and the City of
Shakopee's Standard Specifications and for Watermain and Street Light
Improvements shall conform to the Shakopee Public Utilities Standard
Specifications and the requirements of the Feasibility Report.
2) Easements. The Developer,Target,and Bernhagen,as applicable, shall make
available to the City,at no cost to the City, all permanent or temporary easements
confined to such limited areas as reasonably necessary for the installation of said
Plan A Improvements.
3) Insurance. The Developer will cause each person with whom the Developer
contracts for the construction of any Plan A Improvements to furnish to the City
the Contractor's Insurance Certificates as specified in Article 35 of the General
Specifications of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications for Construction
of Roadways, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer. No construction shall commence
until the City Clerk receives said insurance certificates and said certificates are
approved by the City Attorney.
4) Faithful Performance of Construction Contracts and Bond. The Developer will
fully and faithfully comply with all terms of any and all contracts entered into by
the Developer for the installation and construction of all Plan A Improvements and
hereby guarantees the workmanship and materials for a period of one(1)year
following the City's final acceptance of the Plan A Improvements,said guarantee
to be in writing and in addition to the Maintenance Bond required by Paragraph
8D.
5) As-Built Plans. The Developer shall prepare"As-Built"plans of Plan A
Improvements and deliver them to the City Engineer prior to final acceptance of
the Plan A Improvements by the City.In the alternative,the Developer may receive
-5-
fmal acceptance of the Plan A Improvements by the City if a Letter of Credit in the
amount of five(5)percent of the estimated cost of Plan A Improvements is
provided to the City. The Letter of Credit shall insure that the"As-Built"plans
will be delivered to the City Engineer within 60 days of the City's acceptance of
the Plan A Improvements.
VI. Plan B Improvements. The Developer has petitioned the City for the installation of Plan B
Improvements as listed below:
Description of Improvement Location of Improvement
(A)Description. Sanitary sewer, Location. CSAR 17 from TH 169 to
watermain, storm sewer, street widening, St.Francis Avenue,
turn lanes,concrete median,
concrete curb&gutter,
concrete sidewalk,bituminous
trail,street lighting and pursuant
to the Feasibility Report
VII. Plan B Improvements. Plan B Improvements shall be instituted,constructed and fmanced
pursuant to M.S.A.429 Improvement Projects as follows:
(A) Construction Plan and Approval Thereof The City will engage a duly registered
professional civil engineer authorized to practice within the State of Minnesota to prepare
detailed plans, specifications, and a cost estimate for complete installation of all Plan B
Improvements,in accordance with City Design Criteria and Standard Specifications and
submit same to the Shakopee Public Utilities Manager,when required.
(B) Initiation. Prior to execution of this Agreement,the Developer,Target,and Bernhagen
shall submit to the City Council a Petition as provided for by M.S.A.429.031 subdivision
3,in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B,requesting that Plan B Improvements be made
and assessed against the benefitted Lots,and that the parties hereto agree to the provisions
of VII(E)(1),VII(E)(2)and VII(E)(3)herein.
(C) Construction. Upon the City Council adopting a resolution determining the sufficiency of
each petition(anticipated to be the September 7, 1999 meeting),said Plan B Improvements
shall be administered and constructed,in all respects, as other City improvements made
pursuant to the provisions of M.S.A. Chapter 429 and other applicable statutes and as
follows: That is: 1) The City shall have sole responsibility for administration of the Plan B
Improvements; 2)the City will not be responsible for meeting any completion dates
scheduled by the Developer and shall not be responsible for any damages as a result of
delays in the Plan B Improvements; 3) The Plan B Improvements administered by the City
shall allow for any increase in the cost of the Plan B Improvements as permitted by M.S.A.
429;4) The Developer and its engineer(s)acknowledge that any changes or any additional
work required under the Plan B Improvements shall be approved by the City.
Notwithstanding any attempted limitation of damages or remedies hereunder,by the City,if
the City does not complete the Plan B Improvements by July 15, 2000,Target may incur
additional costs, including overtime labor, in order to meet Target's scheduled store
opening date of July 2000. The City will use its best efforts to complete the Plan B
Improvements by July 15,2000 in order to meet Target's schedule store opening date of
-6-
July,2000. In no event,however,shall the City be liable for any monetary damages of
whatever type or nature to Target or any other party to this agreement if the Plan B
Improvements are not constructed by July 15,2000. If the Plan B Improvements are not
constructed by that date,the City will work in good faith with Target to provide interim
traffic control measures. The City agrees to include a liquidated damages provision in the
contract that is awarded for the Plan B Improvements.
(D) M.S.A.429 Special Assessment Procedures. The Developer and other parties have
executed The Exhibit B Petition for Public Improvements and Waiver of Assessment
Rights Recitals dated August , 1999 for the installation of the Plan B Improvements.
The City Council has ordered installation of the petition for Plan B Improvements with the
cost to be assessed against the benefited properties pursuant to the Feasibility Report. The
Developer,Target,and Bernhagen agree to pay such assessments on the following terms
and conditions:
1) Waiver of Objections To and Right of Appeal from Assessment.
The Developer,Target,and Bernhagen agree to, and hereby do,waive and release
(a) any and all objections of every kind to any assessment levied by the City
pursuant to this Agreement,including,without limitation,objections to procedures
and hearings before the City Council in connection with the Improvements and
assessment therefore,objections resulting from failure to fully comply with any
applicable statute,and objections to the amount of any assessment thereafter levied
against the Subdivision or any other benefited property of Developer due to the
Plan B Improvements stated herein,and(b)the right to appeal,pursuant to
applicable Minnesota Statutes,from any assessment levied pursuant to this
Agreement. It is understood by the Developer,Target,and Bernhagen that the City
is doing this Chapter 429 Public Improvements at the Developer's request and for
the Developer's convenience,and the City would not be installing the
improvements in question without this waiver.
2) Construction.
After approval of preliminary plans and estimates by the City Engineer,an
improvement hearing will be called by the City Council for the purpose of
ordering these Plan B Improvements. After approval of final plans and
specifications by the City Engineer,bids will be taken by the City and contracts
will be awarded for the installation of the improvements under the City's complete
supervision.
3) Levy of Special Assessments and Required Prepayments.
The Developer,Target, and Bernhagen's proportionate share of the entire cost of
the installation of Plan B Improvements, including any reasonable engineering,
legal and administrative costs incurred by the City shall be calculated and
determined pursuant to the terms of the Feasibility Report and shall be paid by the
Developer(with contributions to Developer being made by Target and Bernhagen
pursuant to private Development Agreement(s)between those parties)to the City
FeasibilitrReportwithin ten(10)days of completion of the Plan B Improvements.
-7-
Reference herein to special assessments shall be deemed to include, and shall
include,all interest due thereon in accordance with M.S.A.429.
4) Acceleration Upon Default.
In the event Developer fails to pay any installment of any special assessment
levied pursuant hereto,or any interest thereon,when the same is to be paid
pursuant hereto,the City at its option,in addition to its rights and remedies
hereunder,by written notice given to Developer,Target,and Bernhagen may
declare all of the unpaid special assessments which are then estimated or levied
pursuant to this Agreement due and payable in full,with interest. The City,at its
option,may demand immediate payment thereof and immediately commence legal
action against solely the Developer to collect the entire unpaid balance of the
special assessments then estimated or levied pursuant hereto,with interest,
including reasonable attorneys fees, and Developer shall be personally liable for
such special assessments.
(E) Developer M.S.A.429 Payment Methods Assessed or to be Assessed by the City. The cost
of Plan B Improvements shall be paid by the Developer in accordance with one of the two
methods as set forth hereunder. The Developer will indicate the preferred option,but the
City shall make the fmal selection of the appropriate payment option. The City hereby
agrees to apply any payment made by the Developer,whether received directly from the
Developer or applied from any security,as follows: first,to reduce assessments levied
against Lot 2 of the Subdivision and second,to reduce assessments levied against Lot 6 of
the Subdivision and third,any remaining amounts shall be applied on a pro rata basis on
the then outstanding assessment balances owed on Lots 1, 3,4 and 5 of the Subdivision.
1) Developer Payment Method One(1): One Hundred Percent(100%)Cash Deposit.
The Developer shall pay to the City in cash a deposit in the sum and amount of
100%of the City Engineer's estimated total assessment for all such Plan B
Improvements,said amount to be paid upon such execution of this Agreement.
The cash so paid by the Developer to the City will bear interest for each year at a
rate equal to one percent(1%)below the average interest rate(rounded to the
nearest quarter) on the investments held by the City on December 31st of the
respective year until said deposit equals all remaining assessments levied against
the benefitted Lots then said deposit plus all accrued interest shall be used to pay
the remainder of the assessments due. Any excess in deposits will be returned to
the Developer. If the Developer fails to pay any assessments,interest or penalty as
the same come due,the City may draw on said deposit for any such amounts not
paid. Those assessments as levied shall be paid by the Developer to the City as
special assessments levied against the benefitted Lots.
On or before an occupancy certificate(conditional or permanent)will be granted
for any of Lots 1, 3,4,and 5 or any pieces or parcels thereof,and in no event later
than ten(10)days following completion of all Plan B Improvements,the
Developer hereby agrees to pay to the City the remaining principal balance,plus
any unpaid interest and penalties,on,all assessments levied or to be levied under
this Agreement(including any unpaid balance of assessments made prior to this
Agreement) . . . . • . , .' . .., , , al .n . .
detenninedthe subdivision as of the date said occupancy permit(conditional or
-8-
permanent)is granted. If the assessments governed by this Paragraph have not
been assessed,the Develop agrees to pay the estimated
assessment to be levied against theirbenefittecHandLots 1, 3,4 and 5. The
Developer shall be liable to the City for any deficiency which shall become due
and payable at the time assessments are levied and the City shall pay to the
Developer any overplusoverpayment arising from payment based on an estimate
plus interest for each year at a rate equal to one percent(1%)below the average
interest rate(rounded to the nearest quarter)on the investments held by the City on
December 31st of the respective year from date of payment to date of
reimbursement. It is further agreed and understood that the payments required by
ode to obtain an occupancy permit(conditional or permanent)shall in
no way limit or be used to offset the Developer's,
obligation to pay assessments as they come due for Lots for which obligations shall
continue until such time as all assessments authorized herein have been paid in
full.
Upon the payment of the assessment on any Lot,piece,or parcel within the
Subdivision,the City shall issue a release in recordable form so as to remove the
recording of this Agreement against that particular Lot,piece or parcel on which
such payment has been made,provided all other conditions of this Agreement have
been met.
2) Payment Method Two(2): One Hundred Percent(100%)Letter of Credit.
The Developer shall submit to the City a certified letter of credit approved by the
City Attorney made payable to the City of Shakopee upon which the City may
draw,in the amount of 100%of the City Engineer's estimated total assessment for
all such Plan B Improvements, said letter of credit to be submitted upon execution
of this Agreement. If the Developer fails to pay any assessments,interest or
penalty as the same come due,the City may draw on said letter of credit for any
such amounts not paid. Those assessments as levied shall be paid by the
Developer.The letter of credit shall be renewed annually. If not renewed,the City
shall draw on all of the money in the existing letter of credit before it expires. The
letter of credit shall be terminated upon payment of all assessments due on all the
Lots in the Subdivision and may be reduced to equal the actual amount of
assessments due when 25%or more of the assessments have been paid.
Reductions are limited to one per year.
(F) Payment Method Selected. The Developer will notify the City at the time of filing the plat
of the Subdivision which option it selects.
(G) Easements. The Developer shall make available to the City, at no cost to the City,all
permanent or temporary easements,confined to such limited areas as reasonably necessary,
for the installation of said Plan B Improvements.
(H) Certificates of Occupancy. Notwithstanding the fact that the Plan B Improvements to
CSAH 17 are not yet complete,the City may not withhold issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for any building within the Subdivision as a result of the fact the Plan B
Improvements are not substantially complete.
-9-
VIII. General.
(A) Violation of Provisions of Agreement. In the event the Developer,Target,or Bemhagen
violate any of the covenants and agreements herein contained and to be performed by the
Developer,Target, and Bemhagen,the City has the option to commence an action for
specific performance requiring the Developer,Target, and Bernhagen to live up to the
covenants and agreementsherein contained. However,in no event shall Target or
Bernhagen have individual liability for any amounts owed by Developer to City for
construction of the Plan A or Plan B Improvements. Developer agrees that in the event the
City has a legal basis for such action and prevails,the City shall be entitled to its
administrative costs,legal costs,and reasonable attorney's fees in connection with said
action.
(B) Binding Effect. The terms and provisions hereof shall be binding upon and insure to the
benefit of the representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto and shall be
binding upon all future owners of all or any part of the Subdivision and shall be deemed
covenants running with the land. This Agreement shall be placed on record so as to give
notice to subsequent purchasers and encumbrances of all or any part of the Subdivision and
all recording fees shall be paid by the Developer. Upon the filing of a release from the
City,all agreements contained herein shall thereafter be inapplicable to any property or
Lots covered by said release.
(C) Notices. Any notices permitted or required to be given or made pursuant to this Agreement
ement
shall be delivered personally or mailed by United States Mail to the addresses hereinafter
set forth by certified or registered mail. Such notices, demand or payment shall be deemed
timely given or made when delivered personally or when deposited in the United States
Mail in accordance with the above. Addresses of the parties hereto are as follows:
1. City- City Administrator
City Hall
129 Holmes Street South
Shakopee,MN 55379
2. Developer- KTJ Limited Liability Partnership Fifty
Attn: Paul Tucci
Oppidan,Inc.
5125 CR 101,Suite 100
Minnetonka,MN 55345
3. Target- Dayton Hudson Corporation Property Development
Attn:Property Administrator
777 Nicollett Mall- 14th Floor
Minneapolis,MN 55402-2055
4. Bernhagen- Sharron C.Bemhagen
2173 Eastway Avenue
Shakopee,Minnesota 55379
(D) Release of Developers Agreement. Upon completion or partial completion of the Plan A
Improvements,the City may release all or a portion of the cash,letter of credit or
performance bond deposited under Paragraph V(B),retaining 125%of the City Engineer's
estimate of the cost,including City inspection and administration, to complete the
-I0-
improvements,provided however,that the Developer submit a Maintenance bond
guaranteeing said improvements for a period of one year after final acceptance by the City.
Should the Developer fail or refuse to submit to a Maintenance Bond as provided herein,
the City may retain some or all of the cash or letter of credit as security for the one year
written guarantee as provided in Paragraph V(G)4). Should the certified letter of credit be
for such a period of time so as to preclude its use under this paragraph,the City is
authorized to draw against such letter of credit at any time to complete said improvements
or to make such repairs or additions as would be provided under the one year written
guarantee when,in the judgment of the City,the City determines that the Developer is not
going to complete such improvements or make such repairs.
(E) Incorporation by Reference. All City of Shakopee Design Criteria, Standard
Specifications,including bonding provisions,the approved plans,addenda,change orders,
special provisions,proposals,specifications and contract for the Improvements furnished
and let pursuant to this Agreement shall be and hereby are made part of this Agreement by
reference as fully as if set out herein full.
(F) Changes from Plan A Improvements to Plan B Improvements and from Plan B
Improvements to Plan A Improvements. It is agreed and understood that the Developer,
Target,and Bernhagen at their option,are authorized to enter into this Agreement
providing for some Plan A Improvements and some Plan B Improvements. At such time as
the Developer may choose after the execution of this Agreement,the Developer may,in
writing,request that some or all of the improvements originally designated as Plan A
Improvements be changed to Plan B Improvements. The City,in its sole and absolute
discretion,may enter into a Plan A to Plan B Change Agreement'which shall be recorded.
It is specifically agreed and understood,however,that no changes made in accordance with
this Paragraph will in any way reduce,lessen,obviate or cancel in any way,manner or form
the provisions or requirements of this Agreement respecting improvements under Plan A
Improvements made prior to such change. In the event the Developer wishes to change
some or all of Plan B Improvements to Plan A Improvements,then it shall apply in writing
to the City for such changes and the City in its sole and absolute discretion may enter into a
Plan B to Plan A Change Agreement'which shall be recorded.
IX. Payments to the Park Fund in Lieu of Land Dedication. In accordance with the authority
provided by the Shakopee City Code, Section 12.07, Subd. 5,the Developer and the City hereby
acknowledge that there is due and payable to the City under the terms of said Section by the Developer,the
sum and amount consistent with Resolution No. 5038 ($3,880 per acre)which amount was payable at the
time of final approval of the Subdivision,and payment of which the Developer has requested deferment
until the issuance of building permits for the Lots in said Subdivision. Therefore,the City agrees to accept
payment of said amount on a per Lot basis at the time of the issuance of the building permit therefore. Said
fees shall be charged according to the fee schedule in place at the time of building permit issuance. The
City acknowledges receipt of$52,523.56 as payment for the amounts owed hereunder on Lot 2 which Lot 2
shall thereafter not be subject to the provisions of this Paragraph IX.
(A) Lien. The Developer,Target and Bernhagen hereby agrees that the amounts set forth
above shall constitute a lien against their respective Lots,which lien must be released in
writing by the City prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy on said Lot.
(B) Balloon Payment. The Developer and Bernhagen agree that under no circumstances will
the amounts set forth above be paid any later than ten(10)years from the date of this
Agreement, at which time the entire unpaid amount shall be due and payable immediately.
-11-
(C) Foreclosure of Lien. The Developer and Bernhagen hereby authorize the City to foreclose
the lien herein created in the amounts set forth above but on their respective Lots only,
should the Developer or Bernhagen and their respective heirs,assigns or successors in
interest fail to make payments required hereunder,and Developer and Bernhagen further
agree that in addition to any amounts foreclosed,the City shall be entitled to its
administrative costs,legal costs,and reasonable attorneys fees in connection with said
foreclosure.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,The City,Developer,Target and Bernhagen have caused this
Agreement to be duly executed on the day and year first above written.
DEVELOPER: CITY OF SHAKOPEE:
KTJ Limited Liability Partnership Fifty, By
a Minnesota limited liability partnership Mayor
By Oppidan,Incorporated,managing
partner
By By
City Administrator
Its
and
By By
City Clerk
Its
DAYTON HUDSON CORPORATION BERNHAGEN:
("TARGET"):
By By
Sharron C. Bernhagen
Name
Title
F:\CLIENT\OPPIDAN\Shakopee-Target\Documents\Developer's Agreement clean 8 26 99.wpd
-12-
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss
COUNTY OF SCOTT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this_day of August, 1999 by Jon
Brekke,Mayor;Mark McNeill,City Administrator and Judith S. Cox,City Clerk of the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota,on behalf of said City.
Notary Public,
My Commission Expires
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of August, 1999,by
Joseph H.Ryan,the President of Oppidan,Incorporated.,managing partner of KTJ Limited Liability
Partnership Fifty,on behalf of the partnership.
Notary Public,
My Commission Expires
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of August, 1999,by
the of Dayton Hudson Corporation,a Minnesota
corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public,
My Commission Expires
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of August, 1999,by
Sharron C.Bernhagen, a single person.
Notary Public,
My Commission Expires
This instrument was drafted by
City of Shakopee
129 Holmes Street South
Shakopee,MN 55379
-13-
Exhibit A to City of Shakopee,County of Scott,
Developer's Agreement
for Shakopee Valley Marketplace
I. Plan A Improvements. The detailed plans and specifications for the Paragraph IV(A),(B)and
(C)Plan A Improvements consist of the following:
A. Plans.Those areas depicted by orange highlights on those certain plans,prepared by RLK
Kuussito attached hereto consisting of the following plans sheets together with cost estimates(exclusive of
fees and contingencies)are as follows:
Sheet Name Sheet No. Dated Last Revision Cost Estimate
Erosion Control Plan 4 8/17/99 8/9/99 $10,250
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Plan 5 8/17/99 8/4/99 $208,988
Storm Sewer Plan 6 8/17/99 8/19/99 $49,588
Total Cost Estimate to base Security for
Paragraph IV(A),(B)and(C)Plan A Improvements $268,826
B. Specifications. The Specifications for construction of the Paragraph IV Plan A
improvements consist of the following:
1. Project Manuals for Shakopee Valley Marketplace for Project No. 1105-000, issued June
17, 1999.
2. CPR Book for Shakopee Retail Capital Project Request dated May 4, 1999 together with
Scope Notes dated
C. Plans Controlling. In the event of a conflict or discrepancy between the Plans referenced in
A above with the specifications referenced in B above,the Plans in A will control both the extent and
location of the work to be completed.
II. Additional Plan A Improvements. Detailed plans and specifications for the Paragraph IV(D)and
(E)Plan A Improvements will be prepared consistent with this Agreement and the cost estimates for such
improvements are as follows:
A. Cost Estimates:
1. Estimates of actual construction costs(exclusive of fees and contingencies)to complete the
Paragraph IV(D)and(E)Plan A Improvements,are as follows:
a. IV(D) Sarazin Street per Feasibility Report $237,220
b. IV(E) 17th Avenue per Feasibility Report $120,606
Total Cost Estimate to base Security
for Paragraph IV(D) and(E)Plan A Improvements $357,826
III. Plan B Improvements. Detailed Plans and Specifications for the Plan B Improvements will be
prepared by the City consistent with this Agreement and the estimated cost is as follows:
1. Estimate of Costs to complete Plan B Improvements are as follows:
a. CSAH 17 Marschall Road $334,156
IV. Total Estimates From Which to Calculate Security Required Under This Agreement:.
1.- Plan A Improvements.
a. Paragraphs IV(A),(B)and(C) $268,826
b. Paragraphs TV(D)and(E) $357,826
Total Estimated Cost of Plan A Improvements $626,652
2. Plan B Improvements $334,136
Exhibit B to City of Shakopee,County of Scott
Developer's Agreement
for Shakopee Valley Marketplace
(Petitions attached hereto)
Exhibit A to City of Shakopee,County of Scott,
Developer's Agreement
for Shakopee Valley Marketplace
I. Plan A Improvements. The detailed plans and specifications for the Paragraph IV(A),(B)and
(C)Plan A Improvements consist of the following:
A. Plans.Those areas depicted by orange highlights on those certain plans,prepared by RLK
Kuussito attached hereto consisting of the following plans sheets together with cost estimates(exclusive of
fees and contingencies) are as follows:
Sheet Name Sheet No. Dated Last Revision Cost Estimate
Erosion Control Plan 4 8/17/99 8/9/99 $10,250
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Plan 5 8/17/99 8/4/99 $208,988
•
Storm Sewer Plan 6 8/17/99 8/19/99 $49,588
Total Cost Estimate to base Security for
Paragraph IV(A), (B) and(C)Plan A Improvements $268,826
B. Specifications. The Specifications for construction of the Paragraph IV Plan A
improvements consist of the following:
1. Project Manuals for Shakopee Valley Marketplace for Project No. 1105-000, issued June
17, 1999.
2. CPR Book for Shakopee Retail Capital Project Request dated May 4, 1999 together with
Scope Notes dated
C. Plans Controlling. In the event of a conflict or discrepancy between the Plans referenced in
A above with the specifications referenced in B above,the Plans in A will control both the extent and
location of the work to be completed.
II. Additional Plan A Improvements. Detailed plans and specifications for the Paragraph IV(D)and
(E)Plan A Improvements will be prepared consistent with this Agreement and the cdst estimates for such
improvements are as follows:
A. Cost Estimates:
1. Estimates of actual construction costs(exclusive of fees and contingencies)to complete the
Paragraph IV(D)and(E)Plan A Improvements, are as follows:
a. IV(D) Sarazin Street per Feasibility Report $237,220
b. IV(E) 17th Avenue per Feasibility Report $120,606
Total Cost Estimate to base Security
for Paragraph IV(D)and(E)Plan A Improvements $357,826
III. Plan B Improvements. Detailed Plans and Specifications for the Plan B Improvements will be
prepared by the City consistent with this Agreement and the estimated cost is as follows:
1. Estimate of Costs to complete Plan B Improvements are as follows:
a. CSAH 17 Marschall Road $334,156
IV. Total Estimates From Which to Calculate Security Required Under This Agreement:.
1. Plan A hno ovements.
a. Paragraphs N(A), (B)and(C) $268,826
b. Paragraphs IV(D)and(E) $357,826
Total Estimated Cost of Plan A Improvements $626,652
2. Plan B Improvements $334,136
l•
•
•
{ 1 •
, I
1 1 1 •
I Y., 1 1
• - ' .._ of 4 - ..
... ... r y
. I 1 r
COUNTY
.' :'- i ' • .., fiy ,l:.. I 4 1_ i 1 ie XS'0 - ;7l fel. ! 1'I. Y` ------... (P
f . ..-_--...
•
4W 'l ..._ r' i^ 1 Aqua f,ri 11' �,Q
f
----err-=-.� ..
' �iI � ,,--1.----.----..------'="7"--`
I Y %, �y_ 1 iD)' .� 1 I ' �T_r I --1--w . � --. .,y I At
, i if1 •
I �� I�
SII i ,� ff 1 , , \ '.�. y
•
,• r IV I / a 1. } 1 \1
f, !,, int "/_ a' 1j'
' ! II \2 2\-\'\ ,.\\\\\\ ...'1 '''•,'\ ••,,,
\ 1 172, i
1 s /I I r ! Iti,I 0 (,j 1 \ ,\\.,,, \\ I'\ O
1, is -L. , • ,, �' ( I i ` ..._ _ !
\\;
Vii\ •I 1 , I r 1 „•h"• /. i . / I 1 , 11 B Ir. - �•-_ \� \ t \ \\`1 , I
�'.
h`ff \\\ \
t , . 0 I1 y ) t 1 ` \
,, f�npp•1 Q II ,, -t. 1 !� r/ �� 11 1I6 1 .\ II \\ 1 " !�\,ti� \�\,\ . ,\
.
1 j .i) I f` ^.IQ;cl.:"!. ./� • ,;yyl- �'t" I c.> 21 ; ` Sc •
. , ._•_. i )t) .
•,. 8 \ . it )
' : A \ . . \ . . ' I / \ \\ \12‘I \V,s,\ ‘\ . .
I' ..ice+�w.��41� '•. /' \ \\ '� N1 ``i , \1 \\\\\��\\ 1 • •'
\ 1' =Itikl
h :'':: ; . • i ',:s. ?.. s\\\\I \\ •,.\\
s I\ 1\.\\ -\.\\‘', :\\..l,
c. _.—DI
1, .. i,1 , ,, t \
, i v:ii
1 I .),,. ,t \‘‘\\. ,, ,\.,
........._ 41 .....H..! .1,...4..,.....,... ..!:7,..•
--
1 ' (ir- r- iiir
! 'I! _ qyl t II I I _,. I I .i 1 \ /' ' / ` ':• / I ,�\`'� 11I, ll
/ !_.,l i r ��� % a I I E I I I I Et I H \ , /�'/ 'ft I III +I
)\\''1,11
I'\\'''V'' 1\
1 ! J I I it (' +
•
I ) ! r ( iiur i 1 �� % Di eII' 111
I I +fir 4j_. 1t/c/.7. oil -- . - - N ti i \'A �, 1 ; 'fl 1 \'iI
,�
. Imo � e. 1,''1 II ,I 41 11 EH /;�e � A ` 1 14 111 `
1 / : ,/ .. ;, / i' i ii) let F.
EI 1• / I 1 14° :; 1 1 r Nd Ilk N 2 iA
1
Illi ,' - •i! I
1>' i iii , * \\\I 1 i ti I,N
' I i/ Ft1 I '-- ..' :
^. I I / J._l._ _ — __ i I. 0. 1.i. . \ \, I i 1 to1(..`,\t \ i` 1`,�: ! r O / �1 'Ad -I1: 1 i ,1)+\`\`\I\ ' 1\ 1`1 ,t _' I /L p I , ' `'� ,:x\k,, ii�r \, •� 1l\\I\
II f\\\\\1\`\ I \11�1`b\
\,.0 •' rr ) �� 'c i ,1 4, �te til I 01,17 `� V\
\\ I �! \ \.\\\V. `I 111
t e ,1 1I C`------- ,.•• `�— ---`—r.� ?�ti?i /'• _ • 'r' '11 f , \_ I , �� 1 \\A,
fv1 _l IPSS^I ..r �►_�w a• r `,�` .1 ., 1 ') ' .'11,a .. ;..: 1. cf .
S y .. :?. - —.. 4,....0_g _-�_-- r- 24:x:/ - .. I , 'R
�� •j � A�. ,�1_. f I ` ♦ T 1
SARAZIN } '_�' I_� T :`� `I �,' 1 I i ',� 11`
STREET t0 .'' ^✓ +_. . `' ' \` 1 r .\ ill I;t,\1\ \t, ,i
\\\ 2\•\ •/ •/?,
1\\.•;\'•
• '
LI i 11 i m 3Flit 9i6g P61 4 5 1 1gP,ie _o
3> I\`' r\ JA L I 1 ° 5; iQ ""n 048 9XsgQ mf-la - i2 G�
a Bp ! Vy 9q=
gr �N 1 m 1 ; /*tj
G 1 ; A m ap . 1 (o1' ! ), i I cssa
.
it 4
01
ki !
o R �g i �A Y,81 lig e'p X aq o
r q k a ¢ g g go-ea z
• ! 7 ; o! i4 F 21
Ill :
� � � � ; 81 �� � �14 ..� a ,� � O
� 8 1 ii o aN ,4 eeg' z
� � Q1 Q;
iii
m C) eA�e ec I IIIIII`A J i 1 1 d 1i i `T+j
O,-p to / I Hibbing, HN.
In y _ ; 1 1 .� / 11 F+ /^\ Twin Ports, NN. ,
3 lli�• 13 / / ` Minnelonk., NN.
O t
Z Z D V i i• { n ° �, t Fl; R 1[� Mendol• II.Idh4, MN. !'
n x 13 R'9 zoo p ��r2 D �' 3 �- ` 1. (xutetn'O*TD) Peon.: elz D99-0872 ;
mm c} � �— j1 P.:: �e�z; vaa-l1aD ;_l::
0 Z -1 i'1 1w-♦■� ' J l i i t`` ( i = /tr je St \ wxw.rlk- uu.i.lo.com _
OZ r j V Y . 9I 1 R ,11 6110 DIo* C{/rele Dr.•Suite /100•NInn.tonk., MN. 66S/9 „i
2 1 i 14911
28 2
PIs P.. "R8 ... ._ may '
+i a „ uV COUNTY ROAD.NO.- - --.. - �. . ..,
l. I 1 I,
2.
E•! N [ 1` R_". r,l 1 T.: Pli lt' 'ilYa • °..i : e..i,. „ i i G
'. , is oi......_...../. ex .. ,c1,7,-r- .1�, I. ,i etM-;.. '', NI. -•. ._- ......_.__ .._... ._ ...- -... _------
11.
•
t 6
03
1,
AD
/ 233 LC a PVC 00 4X ►
,e i — — — --ter IT, ii-' .0
11 __ — ,
utu�u lrekal'— -
l•: 1 L. J+M_ I �_ _ — '__ +� Tiral•_.L r �� pp g: 'S.• t Ii
1• o• r• Ir/� 1 .`+• �.3 4 1
....... !
i '', ',.I ?IM l I i i.I I 14
�' 'g i, I
11.,mI - iq XSC ITo ,'�1\�V Ri.I 7 'I Y•
1 EE
a tL _€ -if ! s 0 i S 11. y
l ,• ; 1 I { um ns � •' 4 II I (• M aA 1`��`� I I
i I • � 1
44
bs I � i 1 ` 11 ,� 01
r r-,-.*- 1 I (* 1 I yr; r ;1 It! '1a, 1 �'i i l
1 :i H
i, :i ' 9
hid ■aE am' I 1n N
g _ e ', d " ''e 1 1 1 1 2
: I ,.1 A ti � '._._ _ _ .. 1 I \ :�i 1 '.i , I? PYA
l 1 __.__..__ �- ,.,�
1
l} =1 • E1 } --..._...... -- .._. ..."--I -I I 1 1 \
! j; � � . r I 't I
L
,Lop
101. , i , I , ,
'w t' ;
l� `4`1 iI 1r ?, -'..ark},(�T� I:i •R J \� I '' t I q\"o ' `
I I l 8 to _ i , f 1 1
(i T l L ' V ` <
I • i.'' ;, I ,i L ;11 I ¢ -•° u1 1 I, C� ::, c' i g6 1--.� 1 1 ,'� ,;` , iii
I-.I i�ii t�q �c1e5e�o :
I, ' ;it:.:�� •�. c." t+ i �p �y� 1 1 , E I 0 ,
' 1 I JIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1 . s G ,:1 0.! 1
l I v R
A° i i, - Q I-H-�-�N I I I I I I I 1 I 111•E L'� 8 ®6, r ,I 1�, r• `4".•-', 1
j I <tiI g� 'v • •�`i „ , -, q 8fn ,jl. I„ l ;x 1 I
M 114 i I 1 Illi"1 Ir Vyy ' k�.
, . -.ma :tel LiU1I1ttF tfiliif� ;'1A 14g y I
'�-`O o n t
am . v. ) /!1 I \ 191 I I
•I .r_ ;, �. _ a 1 �� , h' b / I 4I " I , ,,,'
.�� , aa11EIIIII�+11111 I1I o 11 �$ i 1
1 1 1 I''` C i 2 - S \;
r
--11.
'i
I
4
I ' I
d
,, V. a COUNTY LI A„NO.-17..--__-__-_ ,-,-...–__L_, _ n-.`I —� 9-
1 A t e1'+')"�,y•' T'b Y Wn Nr2, y
4.0
• e. 111,1:11.44.... .. •`.
.� b bp�j,*',tA6 _ I • I 'r t
-
01
i
al- , I 7
I I 1 _- , 4ns 1 (P
} 1 �1 -..-43DI5 CI> I I = i
I i i 1 211
E !� i,,,1 . l `,` I y�
I• '. i ! Y fir: I 1 :,1 . Nis it
, « j ppe 9i 1:.'1 ?8 x`11 ' ,
1 I i{4 o f I H ! ! l;;>♦ : LS I •
j 1 - I • tp
i .I ! I...i 1 , 1
ii
it
r Z,
1 1 '
1 '
Oil
��.�; '1 I to, I 6) II • 7N
:I u. Y{ I I i
I o
I ® iii SII• ' Q 1 i
i ! I I• •Liu_ T -.' -.. __ _ _._..._ _ i I
•
>.r r Il ifeos ----it _ _ — - ---- I I
�. I i� 2 ( N 'rte „ ���«... � , �� ,ik -I 'y �� �..I I i 1 1 \1 I �
Hai
1, 1 i 1 �, i 1 ' I11j -•k� ,I It' '11'...-
.4..41
; _ ....._......._. jil 1
r
rff
' I , ,1 I \
9t • -1....;, , •11 g I el , i �� f ' 1 1 I I 1 j •
p��.l _-�., ''i '1 f f M, 11L ` i I i iiifff IIS ,i.i1' I� a� 1•1 \c-ri ,
-N•--�!i \-1::.........../41.4.--4.1 .....� ' l_ 1: LJ 1 I It •7" t.i I
y k.1 \ ... • ;., I. .1 1 s •
1 1 I \ 1 '.
I ii
ggqs ! !! S'�4 I 1 1 I \ I 1,,
q i• 1 1 In r 1--.t 1-...k 1 PA
� D ••. = JIIIIIIIill.lii11111111111 " ).,. _-{ _ ,tv`'I I •y
. I ; Till lilt OIIIILIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�f a 11.1 1
1 :i :I
.1
• : nil.. J•; Ill; , I �:
r:i ..�...._ Ie6■ l •
I i. I II'2 1 r--- ./ — Offififfif I
' 0 1§ 5 r" il, :1' i° i ai8 ti :,, .1 !
I Irl `i
_� , I �� 1 1 1 i II ( '. I s I
I 1 Irl { - I ,� I ! $ i l I M.11
1
1 ' , o .• ICSG
;" i {Il --•-- 1 ;•■ i11111 _ '� G; N � �Ip •I' ► 'li I I
• 1 GIS gC
•
t!
!i` I 1 !1 •79■ Ii 1 1 r 1 I / I \,
II, EG p
11: ; .. 1 e! _ . r � IT�.1 (�'�� ! •�•' ig '` I 1 „ g
.•, {{...1 '�. 1 •� ,am 1:6., •l • yT i i n -Ea2t&Ni !.�^, �at II •
1 I 1.'2 " tg . I �' YVY I I. Y� w , i
wsyl I fin , 1 1 s.
I• y ,1 t•-••r•
r.. I 11�� Is 4?1.¢ r � m8 ti sl ` $� I
xi
1
i'I 2 �.t 1 1 �A 391 \ I ,
i;` j_.....: I
1 '1 I ,. . . , I
"" t ..,;� ,1 11�1111111111 I I I Tl l l l l (l l Ill 1if.L . \ I ,,
a
jso isi' $ LTJ /•(1.....,,2::. no-..: I A
• _ _ __
b .'--..1 ^.rte—.17••••," -rsn, rrritil`NcD�¢6osrY■rOniOK) -_E
SARALIN_ I-.L;.. .. - .L '4.:/-,�,... _ • IN STREET • --- - ` ''1
STREET ,L � iia , $rS
I __ .. r.. ( =E F
( h , �Q " l f t Yaai i iiiti 111 Pv �gC ,
0 o� -'n Q4 �: � � a i; D
fig. �ot� J $ sxg
5
1i8o$ RI $ gAIAgggggg0
I
ig(� ' 12 1 P2 ;1:8i:i ,C3* 74 AO"Pi
' ' �_� Nflfflui
MT 00
- 1 ITt E4I I Q ♦
c a.�� O
� � �� �� Z
f _q
II
& G K K' ou `C x $ x . & & 3 t N N t. N S S 2$ 4)8 X S S 4S & { n i i I I i fY n ('' � yy Q (n
0 o m o 0 0 0 o v x o 0 0 o x x s 'c F i F f�t F F F t F F i i i C I II , ^7 NIF�V' H1
F S i i i • f F F S F F F F F F U u U I h N I I 1 W - s o1 R q 3 i! pg g 8m '� i
X m S3 N i' WIFE')
m m n y i W V m m C m C C n)z C 0 C L L C 4 m tm ZC L LX i i iiiiii § x z = x i xz`xx = xxxx ; mli8i § gi 1g 1 1 ! d a ! i• , 1Q •1Re g ii>d
g �X vii
, i 1 ci gv r
__ — r A Ao rd C
--1 4 I 1 I p p ,y 4 4 4 I U 4 4 4 p p •9 �,' NIN N N A p N N �, �„ pF 2� >Q m
S' C ! ,� R 4 li 08 p N>�.§i� c' g.p
4 4 4 , 1 , 4 N N N N 4 N N N N 1 ' �I
pp a po po N N Np p p (p� p p p np p p p xi
m D (2 r r tD p) m Q A A A > A r A m y A I� A m m A .91
Cn r tet '" �71
_--
r p g p
PP
�y m �(� Hibbing, MN.
p I P / de'---N\ Thin Ports, MN. V
D ` S r?a t I' ; o I( •{,••�� Minnetonka, MN.
0 0 >0 9p l 3 ipq 1 d 1 M i l l i _ j i ; Mendot►Heights, /IN. '#;
•r'� Z fTl rT1 Q y 9 F � a Yip—1�1 D _•31)E (Kumas°LTD) Phone: 1612 933-0972 ";n
J) J
- ,,»-
r C �I'� i «FIZI - INT1q 3 ` tpp1l l wwwxilk8�uue1 to eo93 v c
Z D D b a t I t{' ` o D `. 6110 Blue Circle Dr.•Suite /100•Minnetonka, MN. 55343 F'
7J g 9 ff
Air �Ii Z t1 5.- I
i 7 tlsr4�r a
Exhibit B to City of Shakopee,County of Scott
Developer's Agreement
for Shakopee Valley Marketplace
(Petitions attached hereto)
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
PETITION FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND
WAIVER OF ASSESSMENT RIGHTS
RECITALS
A. The undersigned is the fee owner of certain real Property legally described as
follows:
Lot 2, Block 1, Shakopee Valley Marketplace
B. • As part of the project, the undersigned is willing to convey additional right-of-way for
Marschall Road as necessary.
C. The undersigned property owner desires the City of Shakopee to install the public
improvements and assess the costs to the property owner of the property to be benefited.
D. It is understood by the undersigned that the City would not be doing the Chapter 429
Public Improvements but for the undersigned's request.
E. The undersigned is voluntarily submitting this petition and understands that the
City is relying on it as a condition for proceeding with the public improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned agrees as follows:
1. The undersigned petitions the City to install the following improvements and to
assess them against the benefiting properties pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
429: CSAH 17 from T.H. 169 to St. Francis Avenue by sanitary sewer,watermain,
storm sewer, street widening, turn lanes, concrete median, concrete curb & gutter,
concrete sidewalk,bituminous trail, street lighting and any appurtenant work
("Improvement Project").
2. The undersigned represents and warrants that it is the fee owner of the Property and that it
has the full legal authority and power to encumber the property.
- 1 -
3. The undersigned requests that the cost of the Improvement Project be assessed against
benefiting Property. The undersigned understands that the actual amount of those
assessments cannot be determined at the present time,but understands that the assessments
will be determined in accordance with the City's adopted assessment policy. The current
estimated amount of the assessments is contained in the feasibility report for the project.
4. The undersigned waives notice of hearing and hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
429.031 on the Improvement Project and notice of hearing and hearing on the special
assessment to be levied to finance the Improvement Project pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
429.061 and specifically requests that the Improvement Project be constructed and special
assessments be levied without hearing against the Property.
5. The undersigned waives all right to appeal or otherwise contest or challenge the levy of the
special assessment, including but not limited to the right to challenge whether the increase in
fair market value resulting from the construction of the improvement project is at least equal
to the amount of the project cost that is assessed against the Property and that such increase
in fair market value is a special benefit to such parcel. The undersigned further agrees that
any requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 are waived to the extent that such
requirements are not met.
6. The covenants,waivers and agreements contained herein shall run with the Property and shall
bind the heirs, successors and assigns of the undersigned. It is the intent of the City and the
undersigned that this document be recorded as a part of the land records of Scott County,
Minnesota.
7. The terms and conditions set forth herein shall terminate upon the final payment of all special
assessments levied against the Propertyregarding the Improvement Project, and the City
shall execute and deliver such documents, in recordable form, as are necessary to extinguish
its rights contained herein upon receipt of such final payment.
-2 -
Dated this day of , 19
DAYTON HUDSON CORPORATION
("TARGET")
By
Name
Title
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1999,
by the
Of Dayton Hudson Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires
Drafted by:
City of Shakopee
129 South Holmes Street
Shakopee,Minnesota 55379
- 3 -
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
PETITION FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND
WAIVER OF ASSESSMENT RIGHTS
RECITALS
A. The undersigned is the fee owner of certain real Property legally described as
follows:
Lot 6,Block 1, Shakopee Valley Marketplace
B. As part of the platting of the Property, the undersigned is willing to dedicate right-of-way
for Marschall Road and 17th Avenue and Sarazin Street.
C. The undersigned property owner desires the City of Shakopee to install the public
improvements and assess the costs to the property owner of the property to be benefited.
D. It is understood by the undersigned that the City would not be doing the Chapter 429
Public Improvements but for the undersigned's request.
E. The undersigned is voluntarily submitting this petition and understands that the
City is relying on it as a condition for proceeding with the public improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned agrees as follows:
1. The undersigned petitions the City to install the following improvements and to
assess them against the benefiting properties pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
429: CSAH 17 from T.H. 169 to St. Francis Avenue by sanitary sewer,watermain,
storm sewer, street widening, turn lanes, concrete median, concrete curb & gutter,
concrete sidewalk,bituminous trail, street lighting and any appurtenant work
("Improvement Project").
2. The undersigned represents and warrants that it is the fee owner of the Property and that it
has the full legal authority and power to encumber the property.
- 1 -
3. The undersigned requests that the cost of the Improvement Project be assessed against
benefiting Property. The undersigned understands that the actual amount of those
assessments cannot be determined at the present time,but understands that the assessments
will be determined in accordance with the City's adopted assessment policy. The current
estimated amount of the assessments is contained in the feasibility report for the project.
4. The undersigned waives notice of hearing and hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
429.031 on the Improvement Project and notice of hearing and hearing on the special
assessment to be levied to finance the Improvement Project pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
429.061 and specifically requests that the Improvement Project be constructed and special
assessments be levied without hearing against the Property.
5. The undersigned waives all right to appeal or otherwise contest or challenge the levy of the
special assessment, including but not limited to the right to challenge whether the increase in
fair market value resulting from the construction of the improvement project is at least equal
to the amount of the project cost that is assessed against the Property and that such increase
in fair market value is a special benefit to such parcel. The undersigned further agrees that
any requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 are waived to the extent that such
requirements are not met.
6. The covenants,waivers and agreements contained herein shall run with the Property and shall
bind the heirs, successors and assigns of the undersigned. It is the intent of the City and the
undersigned that this document be recorded as a part of the land records of Scott County,
Minnesota.
7. The terms and conditions set forth herein shall terminate upon the final payment of all special
assessments levied against the Property regarding the Improvement Project, and the City
shall execute and deliver such documents, in recordable form, as are necessary to extinguish
its rights contained herein upon receipt of such final payment.
-2 -
Dated this day of , 19 .
Sharron C. Bernhagen
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1999,
by Sharron C. Bernhagen, a single person.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires
Drafted by:
City of Shakopee
129 South Holmes Street
Shakopee,Minnesota 55379
i:\clerk\judy\pet-svm
- 3 -
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
PETITION FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND
WAIVER OF ASSESSMENT RIGHTS
RECITALS
A. The undersigned has a purchase agreement to purchase certain real Property
legally described as follows:
Lots 1, 3, 4 and 5,Block 1, Shakopee Valley Marketplace
B. As part of the platting of the Property, the undersigned is willing to dedicate right-of-way
for Marschall Road and 17th Avenue and Sarazin Street.
C. The undersigned property owner desires the City of Shakopee to install the public
improvements and assess the costs to the property owner of the property to be benefited.
D. It is understood by the undersigned that the City would not be doing the Chapter 429
Public Improvements but for the undersigned's request.
E. The undersigned is voluntarily submitting this petition and understands that the
City is relying on it as a condition for proceeding with the public improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned agrees as follows:
1. The undersigned petitions the City to install the following improvements and to
assess them against the benefiting properties pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
429: CSAH 17 from T.H. 169 to St. Francis Avenue by sanitary sewer, watermain,
storm sewer, street widening,turn lanes, concrete median, concrete curb & gutter,
concrete sidewalk,bituminous trail, street lighting and any appurtenant work
("Improvement Project").
- 1 -
2. The undersigned represents and warrants that it is the proposed purchaser of the Property and
that it has the full legal authority and power to encumber the property.
3. The undersigned requests that the cost of the Improvement Project be assessed against
benefiting Property. The undersigned understands that the actual amount of those
assessments cannot be determined at the present time,but understands that the assessments
will be determined in accordance with the City's adopted assessment policy. The current
estimated amount of the assessments is contained in the feasibility report for the project.
4. The undersigned waives notice of hearing and hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
429.031 on the Improvement Project and notice of hearing and hearing on the special
assessment to be levied to finance the Improvement Project pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
429.061 and specifically requests that the Improvement Project be constructed and special
assessments be levied without hearing against the Property.
5. The undersigned waives all right to appeal or otherwise contest or challenge the levy of the
special assessment, including but not limited to the right to challenge whether the increase in
fair market value resulting from the construction of the improvement project is at least equal
to the amount of the project cost that is assessed against the Property and that such increase
in fair market value is a special benefit to such parcel. The undersigned further agrees that
any requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 are waived to the extent that such
requirements are not met.
6. The covenants, waivers and agreements contained herein shall run with the Property and shall
bind the heirs, successors and assigns of the undersigned. It is the intent of the City and the
undersigned that this document be recorded as a part of the land records of Scott County,
Minnesota.
7. The terms and conditions set forth herein shall terminate upon the final payment of all special
assessments levied against the Property regarding the Improvement Project, and the City
shall execute and deliver such documents, in recordable form, as are necessary to extinguish
its rights contained herein upon receipt of such final payment.
- 2 -
Dated this day of , 19
KTJ Limited Liability Partnership Fifty
by Oppidan,Inc., its general partner
By
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1999,
by its , and
its ,of
Oppidan, Inc., a general partner of KTJ Limited Liability Partnership Fifty, on behalf of the
partnership.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires
Drafted by:
City of Shakopee
129 South Holmes Street
Shakopee,Minnesota 55379
- 3 -