Loading...
HRA 1986 05 22AGENDA CHANHASSEN HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THURSDAY, MAY 22, 1986 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. Call To Order 2. Approval Of Minutes - April 17, 1986 3. Special Assessment Reduction Program: a. Victory Envelope b. Rome Development Corporation 4. Lake Susan Park Acquisition 5. Consider Feasibility Study Proposals: a. Downtown Streets /Utilities /Storm Sewer - BRW, RCM b. Stormwater Management Plan - Barr Engineering 6. Approval of Bills 7. Old Business a. Special Assessment Reduction Program 8. New Business 9. Adjournment Ada eo '71 r MINUTES HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 17, 1986 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Whitehill.called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Present were Commissioners Horn, Bohn, Swenson and Robbins. Also present were Don Ashworth, City Manager, Barbara Dacy, City Planner, Fred Hoisington, Jim Benshoof, Brad Johnson, Larry Smith and Bob Siegel. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion by Bohn, seconded by Horn to approve the minutes of the March 20, 1986 meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Swenson abstained. BROADENED STUDY AREA UPDATE: Hoisington stated that he and Benshoof are continuing to work with the MnDOT staff regarding the Broadened Study Area project. He said that MnDOT remains concerned about the extent of traffic issues in the Chanhassen area and is willing to cooperate and participate in the study process. Hoisington stated that they will come back with a draft report which would be considered by the HRA at the June meeting. Benshoof reviewed the results of the second computer run that was based on Plan B. He stated that they still want to test addi- tional alternatives and discuss those further in the draft report and with the HRA. He stated that the results of the second run clearly show a need for a 101 intersection along 212 as well as a north /south road on the west side of downtown to relieve the West 79th problem and provide better access for the west end of the downtown area. Commissioner Swenson asked if the 101 connection to 212 may cause more of a problem at 101 and 5. Hoisington stated that the traffic from the east will use the Dell Road interchange. Benshoof stated that congestion at the intersection would be relieved because of the proposed 101 rerouting through the cement plant. Commissioner Swenson asked how large of land area is needed for a full interchange at 101? Benshoof stated that they are now reviewing design requirements to be included in the draft report. Commissioner Swenson stated her concern about water quality from the 101 interchange area. Commissioner Horn asked what the level of traffic would be on Highway 5 in the future? Benshoof stated that traffic projections indicate a very heavy volume of "flow through" traffic. HRA Minutes April 17, 1986 Page 2 Commissioner Bohn asked what the benefits would be of having three intersections along Highway 5 near the downtown area? Hoisington stated that the intersections would help traffic flow along 5 but not necessarily for TH 101. Benshoof also noted that the jurisdictional status of TH 101 would also play a role in its future function. CHADDA UPDATE: Larry Smith distributed a memorandum outlining the activities conducted by CHADDA in the recent month. Smith stated that a meeting was held with staff and Fred Hoisington to review the proposed zoning plan for the downtown area. He also stated that CHADDA met with the City Manager and staff to discuss the possible conditions of a redevelopment agreement. It was suggested that a letter of understanding should be signed between the City and CHADDA. Smith stated that a draft of the redevelop- ment agreement would be presented to the BRA. Smith stated that CHADDA may also be requesting additional assistance in the amount of $6,000 for appraisal fees for initial proposed projects. Brad Johnson stated that the letter to Chanhassen residents from the BRA Chairman and the Mayor will be distributed soon along with the promotion newsletter. He stated that an article will also appear in the Excelsior Sailor regarding the downtown effort. He stated that he has been negotiating with several gro- cery stores, Gary Kirt and the Hanus property owners. REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE - VICTORY ENVELOPE AND ROME DEVELOPMENT CORP.: Ashworth stated that no action was necessary on these items and they were.included in the packet to provide the HRA with background information. Motion by Whitehill, seconded by Horn, to table the request for assistance to the next regular meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. DOWNTOWN FEASIBILITY STUDY PROPOSAL: Ashworth stated that he has met with various consultants to seek proposals to carry out the utility and public improvements within the downtown area. He stated that their proposals would be available at the next regu- lar meeting. Motion by Bohn, seconded by Horn, to table consideration on the downtown feasibility study proposals until the next regular meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Motion by Bohn, seconded by Robbins, to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried. J CITY OF __.. CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Don Ashworth, Executive Director DATE: May 8, 1986 SUBJ: Special Assessment Reduction Program A. Victory Envelope: Attached please find a request from Mr. Jerome Carlson asking that the HRA consider amending its special assessment reduction program so as to allow some form of financial relief associated with his construction of Victory Envelope. The Mayor, Chairman Whitehill and myself met with Mr. Carlson to discuss this issue. This office was asked to explore the options presented by Mr. Carlson. The item appeared on our last agenda, but action was tabled. Mr. Carlson's concern is that he is being treated in a similar manner to other businesses in the Business Park; i.e. multiplying the construction value of Victory Envelope ($3.3 million) times 7% (special assessment reduc- tion percent) yields for less than the outstanding assessments against the property ($61,375.84). Mr. Carlson asked if this difference could be paid to them in some other form, i.e. building, SAC, sewer and water units, park charges, etc. Certain forms of site improvements were also suggested. Justification considered the fact that one of Mr. Carlson's new facilities in northern Minnesota has received these forms of help. This office has been reluctant to move away from the traditional area of help embodied in our current special assessment reduction policy. To do such would be a statement that the HRA is prepared to consider similar proposals on other properties within the redevelopment district. I do not believe we are in a position to consider this type of financial commitment. Secondarily, the HRA would receive significant criticism from other developers who did not receive similar cost payment considerations, i.e. Chanhassen Inn, Prairie House Restaurant, Erich's Cafe, Bowling Center, etc. - all of which being required to pay all charges associated with their developments. Recommendation County Road 17 is not complete. It was built by the County to County rural standards. At the time of widening Highway 5, County Road 17 is anticipated to be completed to urban standards. Urban standards (filling the ditches, completion of curb and gutter, and installation of street lighting/ Housing and Redevelopment Authority May 8, 1986 Page 2 landscaping) will benefit both the abutting properties as well as the City. The fact that current assessments are for less than typical attests to the fact that the project is not complete. The fact that County Road 17 is not complete is the reason that Mr. Carlson is not receiving bene- fits similar to other properties in the Business Park. Mr. Carlson currently recognizes the real problem, i.e. the need to complete County 17 improvements and the need to have these improvements included in the special assessment reduction program. Of concern is the fact that the credit would normally be calculated on the basis of assessments of record rather than future assessments and, secondarily, that the City (HRA) would in fact complete these improvements at a future date. It is the belief of this office that the concerns of Mr. Carlson can be resolved. If the HRA desires to see this office continue to explore resolu- tion of the item, we will need to determine costs of improvements and scope of work. I would request that the HRA, if in agreement with this concept, move to authorize preparation of a feasibility study to itemize the scope,, cost and benefits of completing County 17 to urban standards as a part of our downtown improvement study. -- -- B. Rome Development Corporation: Roman Roos would like to complete the construction of an additional facility similar to the building completed by him this past year in the Business Park (see attached locational map). As Mr. Enebak's property abuts the Roos prop- erty, it would be a desirable lot. Mr. Enebak acquired the parcel as payment for grading work completed by Mr. Enebak's firm within the Business Park (private contract with Ed Dunn - previous owner of the Business Park). Since date of acquisition in the late 1970's, Mr. Enebak has been attempting to market the property. He finds himself in the unusual position of having a parcel where the outstanding special assessments /property taxes /penalties exceed the current value of the property. He has offered Mr. Roos the prop- erty at a cost of $1.00. Although desirous of owning the lot, Mr. Roos correctly notes that it would be a poor business decision to purchase the Enebak lot at a cost of 62¢ per square foot (see attached Exhibit reflecting costs of taxes, specials and penalties on a square foot basis) when he could purchase a lot from Opus for 46t per square foot. The position Mr. Enebak finds himself in is not commonplace, but does occur. The solution to his problem typically would be one of allowing the property to go tax forfeiture. This would occur in 198/ and potentially clear title may exist for development in 1988 or 1989. The process is one in which both the local units of government and the property owner lose. Mr. Roos approached this office asking whether this lose /lose position could be changed into a win /win situation. The current course of events definitely point to a eventual lose /lose situation. Withholding the property from development potential for a two to three year period exacerbates the situation. I have considered various con- cepts during the past month to potentially change this situation. Most of Housing and Redevelopment Authority May 8, 1986 Page 3 those thought processes have deadended. Any form of relief which involved a reduction in taxes, abatement of taxes, or direct financial support could be disasterous, i.e. the City would not want to send out a signal that we will forgive non - payment of taxes if they are not paid. One potential concept may be worthy of further consideration. Specifically, the number of times that this situation occurs is minimal. In an instance such as this, the property owner ( Enebak) may reasonably be willing to simply get out on the basis of ten cent dollars (the property would be appraised with the owner then being paid 10% of current market value). The HRA would not enter into an agreement to purchase prior to being approached by a separate party (Roos) who would be willing to enter into a contract to repurchase at a higher value - say 50% of market value. The contract would have to include specific guarantees to carry out construction within a speci- fic timeframe, otherwise the property would revert back to the HRA. In con- - summating this type of purchase /resale, the HRA would be responsible for paying all outstanding taxes and assessments which would, again, necessitate the financial guarantees being in place for the new construction. I believe the above concept does have the potential of being a win /win situation. A property owner, such as Mr. Enebak, would at least receive something for the unfortunate situation he finds himself in. The HRA wins in that other property owners, such as Opus, would not willingly let themselves get into the position of Mr. Enebak knowing that they would be receiving 10% on their investment dollars. And, finally, both the HRA and new developer (in this case Mr. Roos), benefit in getting the property back on the tax roles and construction commenced at an earlier date than would have been achieved through the forfeit process. This office would request that the HRA authorize this office to pursue this concept in further detail. I doubt that this concept (Roos Enebak purchase /resale) would ever occur again (it has not been necessary in the past ten years). As such, establishing such as a formal policy applicable to all properties does not appear warranted. However, should it be necessary, I do not see where the HRA would be harmed through a similar arrangement. I IYSZ 47 IZ`17 &P7 ��/3c�7 ss zssZ.zO $ S'l073 5- 1 of P)3 197- � / 170 4 36 I � �y3 � 7- ois . 0 2-2.14, yZ, 11 t 353 7z 3--iy c, z- 16 997, oG t 1 ylS 2J &7 Ors JQ 573 O Qj Zo 73. Z7 I Ll9, O P. -r OF 7.5 x'77. Ga 3772-.3. 7/ s/ �/ y V7 I C/ Al Z 35-8.57 1000_ 7_`/L JpiALS � 4 %'G. /y 9-'/7731.17 � / 3 / 5-7 �/. e/7 -P rM 27 i 792 S. Z. ' �,, i z z Ass:ssh, _. Y2 rfi z �e..� -TV ac Assrss_ �vrs to WTED MMLM C March 19, 1986 TO: Mayor Tom Hamilton Cliff Whitehill, Chairman H Don Ashworth, City Manager Centlamen: Thank you for visiting with Jules Smith and me this afternoon. My whole point in requesting a meeting was to clearly state that Victory Envelope, Inc. needs every dollar of help available through the 77, HRA program. We are a privately held company, stretching as far as we can to construct the new Victory Envelope building. We are hoping that creative ways will be found to allow us to fully utilize the 7% program. We would greatly appreciate your time and attention regarding this matter at the earliest possible date. As you know, construction is already underway. Our commitment to our community (Frank Beddor and I both live in Chanhassen) is long -term and constantly growing. We need your continued financial assistance through the 7% program. Kindest regards, Jerome Carlson President /CEO INSTANT WEB, INC. JC /dl cc/Chanhassen City Council Chanhassen HRA Members Frank Beddor, Jr. Julius C. Smith Lawrence B. Carlson MAR 2 1 °86 CITY OF CHANHASSEN1 INSTANT WEB, INC. • 7951 Powers Boulevard • Chanhassen, MN 55317.(612) 474 -0961 STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 103 ]93 5 ROBERT O 1 ENEBAK LANE ENVELOPE 5.01 ACRES 1 GUY SCHOENECKER, 924 INC. 2 386 DUNN PARK COURT 4.17 ACRES & ROOS COMPONENT W ENGINEERING > ' 63i pia EXCEiI 544 �+ /� 239 6 a ,0b BLOCK 1 ' 7.02 ACRES 9m 2.92 ACRES 622 CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS »a d CENTER II 200 V' 5AACRES O m 4.64 DAY -CO UNITED MAILING LL I 4n+ CONCRETE COMPANY Z 313 9� 0M W 4 CHANHASSEN CAP LAKES BUSINESS r I nO 6.32 ACRES CENTER �Or 0 6g5 5p3 3 Q 268 196 3.95 ACRES Pr CHANHASSEN 209 59 n N L C�F�G 6q6 LAKES BUSINESS p P CENTER ' 1.66 ACRES ENERGY 1.90 ACRES X66 CONTROLS, MURPHY INC. p S� . ` MACHINES J OUT' OT I FLUOROWARE -- ., �, •-^°' INC. $ s, ',`' 16.94 ACRES CITY OF / �l _... .. JHAS__.. MEMORANDUM CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 TO. Housing and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Don Ashworth, Executive Director DATE: May 14, 1986 SUBJ: Lake Susan Park Acquisition This item was presented to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority at the time that Opus requested consideration of extending the Special Assessment Agreement for the 3rd Addition of the Business Park (properties lying south of the railroad tracks between County Road 17 and TH 101). The City Council has reviewed an initial feasibility study for street /sewer /etc. improvements to serve these properties. Additionally, the City Council approved the development plan for Sunnybrook (lying approximately mid -way between County Road 17 and TH 101 off of the new road proposed to serve this area). The City Council acted to authorize amending the feasibility study to reflect road alignments as a part of the development plan approval process. This amended feasibility study is anti- cipated to be considered in the near future. Additionally, Opus / Sunnybrook are moving forward to complete the plat of these properties - again, based on City Council approvals in the development plan process. Of concern to this office is the effects of the replatting on our existing well house site lying north of Lake Susan. Specifically, the road was required to be moved to the north to accommodate stormwater needs /avoid poor soils. In that process, a new lot has been created lying between the new road and our existing well house property. The net effect of the movement is to create the City's parcel as a landlocked piece of property. Again, these concerns were discussed, very briefly, approximately two months ago and the HRA authorized this office to proceed with finding solutions to the problem. During the past 60 days, I have met with our planning /engineering /park and recreation departments. This process concluded with preparation of various exhibits depicting our existing parcel including uses if left as is, potential uses of the new lot created as a part of the road movement and means to serve the park property, and potential uses of the new lot if acquired by the City. These exhibits are of such a scale that they could not be included as a part of this report. I will have them available for our meeting Thursday evening and will seek HRA advice as to which alternative should be further pursued. CITY OF 6; CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Don Ashworth, Executive Director DATE: May 8, 1986 SUBJ: Consider Feasibility Study Proposals Background: To date, costs associated with Housing and Redevelopment Authority activities have been operational, i.e. preparation of a T redevelopment plan, traffic analysis, market studies, etc. We are now ready to begin implementation of that plan. State law is very specific as to how that implementation is to occur and the coordinated approvals which are required of both the HRA and City Council. Specifically, the redevelopment plan establishes new streets to be constructed, streets closed /re- routed, sewer and water infrastructure improvements to be made, etc. These costs are capital expenditures and must be accounted for as a public improvement project. The first phase of this process represents ordering the feasibility studies which will identify design Stan- - dards, itemization of work functions by phases, costs by phases, and potential special assessments to benefitting properties. The cost of the feasibility study itself is a project cost. As such, the City Council will be asked to act on the same items that the HRA does — including authorizing the feasibility study (tonight's proposed action by the HRA). Similarly, following completion of the feasibility study and after the HRA has completed its prioritization /phasing plan, such will be required to be sub - mitted to the City Council to hold the necessary public improve- ment hearings. The final step would be issuance of bonds and construction. One potential liability exists. Should either the HRA or City Council determine that no further work should occur, the costs incurred in the capital improvement fund would be required to be repaid by the HRA. I do not consider this to be a significant liability. For this liability to exist, either the HRA or City Housing and Redevelopment Authority May 8, 1986 Page 2 Council would in fact be saying that our redevelopment efforts have failed and should not be further pursued. This option effectively ceases HRA activities. Sufficient monies would exist to pay any potential liability as items such as "required reserve" would no longer continue to be necessary. Current Status: I. Feasi Downtown ilities Pursuant to authorization from the HRA, this office and the City Engineer met with BRW and RCM to solicit feasibility study proposals. Recognizing that the City has had the opportunity to work with both firms, we suggested that pro- posals simply deal with the scope of services /costs. As RCM has not directly worked for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, their proposal includes reference /other background information. Both BRW and RCM are excellent engineering firms. The HRA can anticipate a quality product by either and cost factors are not significantly different. I would be pleased to work with either firm. This office would recommend that the BRA select BRW for the following reasons: - BRW has completed extensive work within the downtown area as a part of the previous project. The cost savings for not re -doing this work has been estimated by BRW to be approximately $10,000. In comparing the two fee schedules, BRW's estimate appears to be correct, i.e. using an estimated total project cost of $3 million would produce an approximate $10,000 savings in engineering fees; and - Most of the information compiled by BRW is public information. RCM, again, is an excellent firm and will glean through the files to extract this information. However, that extraction process can be extremely time consuming. The person who would face the most signifi- cant amount of work in the gleaning process would be our City Engineer. I have simply assigned too many current work functions to that office and, given a choice, would prefer not to place any additional workloads on that office; and - The City has established a policy under which various engineering firms are used on City projects. I firmly believe that this is a good policy and would not recommend Housing and Redevelopment Authority May 8, 1986 Page 3 change. However, RCM is currently under contract for two other relatively large projects. Given the number of projects occurring in any one year, having one firm under contract for three projects is not unu- sual, i.e. OSM currently has three such projects in_ progress. However, where all factors are approximately the same, I would prefer award to a different firm. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Housing and Redevelopment Authority authorize the Chairman and Executive Director to enter into an engineering services proposal from either BRW or RCM for completion of feasibility study services within our downtown area. This office is recommending that the HRA select BRW as the firm to complete this work. II. Stormwater Management Plan: In contrast to the above selection process, only one pro- posal to complete the Stormwater Management Plan has been solicited. Staff did not believe it to be reasonable to request proposals if it was known in advance that one firm, Barr Engineering, clearly has an advantage position, i.e: Barr Engineering is the engineering firm for the Watershed District within which the downtown district lies. As such, they maintain significant data on all of our projects to date, i.e. Chanhassen Lakes Business A Park, Hidden Valley, etc. These were major projects which dealt with water originating within the tax increment district. They are keenly aware of the downstream problems incurred from water originating within our district; and Barr Engineering has been selected as the engineering firm to complete an extensive water quality improvement project for Chanhassen's chain of lakes, i.e. Lucy, Ann, Susan, Rice Marsh and Riley. This project, being primarily funded through federal /state resources, includes significant engineering services related to the construction of additional holding ponds, wetland harvestation /sedimentation, chemical treatment, aera- tion, etc., Barr Engineering's proposal reflects the cost savings of non - duplication of work efforts; and Preparation of a Stormwater Management Plan has been discussed for the past ten year period. During that timeframe, various initial cost estimates had been generated. The current proposal is approximately 1/3 of those earlier estimates - such reinforcing the points made above. Housing and Redevelopment Authority May 8, 1986 Page 4 Recommendation: Barr Engineering is an excellent firm. They specialize in the type of work proposed by the City. Previous and current work activities of Barr Engineering provide the opportunity for significant cost savings to the City. Accordingly, this office would recommend that the Housing and Redevelopment Authority approve the proposal for a Stormwater Management Plan prepared by Barr Engineering and authorize the Chairman and Executive Director to enter into a engineering services agreement in accordance with Barr Engineering's proposal. Monies are included in the 1986 Housing and Redevelopment Authority operating budget for this work. e (t PLANNING TRAENGINEERING Il ARCHITECTURE BENNETL RINGROSE. WOLSFELD. JARVIS, GARDNER, INC. • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS, AN 55415 • PHONE 6121370-0700 DATE: May 1, 1986 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth - Chanhassen City Manager Bill Monk -Cha nhaste City Engineer FROM: Don Ringrose 1' RE: Engineering Services Proposal /Chanhassen Redevelopment District Please call if you have any questions. We look forward to the opportunity to get back on track with this project. MINNEAPOLIS DENVER BRECKENRIDGE PHOENIX MAY - 21986 CITY. OF CHANHASSE+1 I Our proposal is attached as requested. It is generally self - explanatory and — brief. I would like to emphasize a few items. 1. There are still a lot of unknowns involved, so that a percentage of — construction cost and hourly fee basis is required. 2. The majority of the cost savings from our prior work will be reflected in reduced hourly costs. For example, all of the data collection and surveys performed several years ago are applicable and will be used. i This work, from the past, was orginally paid for on an hourly basis. 4 The topo surveys which we performed and for which we were paid are all — ? useable and have a value in excess of $10,000. I v Additionally, our past involvement, knowledge and experience in the area has been reflected in our proposal fee for the initial feasibility study. 3. We are anticipating that the feasibility study will involve significant Input from impacted property owners; and require substantial time for discussion and meetings, well beyond a more "normal" city project. In addition, we feel that the design and cost estimate must be accurate prior to the feasibility report and public hearing in order to avoid surprises, after the fact. Therefore, we anticipate a higher level of detail and analysis in the feasibility study, beyond the effort required for a "normal" city project. 4. 1 have assigned most of the same staff to the project, based upon work- - load and availability. 5. 1 will personally be responsible for BRW's performance and public presentation, etc., as I was in the past. Please call if you have any questions. We look forward to the opportunity to get back on track with this project. MINNEAPOLIS DENVER BRECKENRIDGE PHOENIX MAY - 21986 CITY. OF CHANHASSE+1 I r Proposal for Engineering Services Proposal Submitted to: City of Chanhassen, Minnesota (City) Proposal Submitted by: Bennett, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis, Gardner, Inc. (BRW) Proposal Submitted for: Comprehensive Engineering Services for the Chanhassen Downtown Redevelopment Project. Background - During the past several years the City has developed a plan for the redevelopment and revitalization of the Chanhassen Central Business District, generally located between 78th St., T.H.5, and T.H.101. The planning process has progressed to the point where there is an approved concept plan for the redevelopment of the area. That plan is titled "Alternative Sketch Plan 2, Chanhassen Downtown Redvelopment Project", prepared by Brauer 8 Associates, Ltd., Inc. The concept plan referenced, is the basis for many of the assump- tions and projections contained in this proposal. With the completion and approval of the concept plan, the City is now ready to proceed with the design of the initial improvements. One element of the ongoing plan and implementation program is the installation of basic public utilities, drainage and street systems for the area. This proposal is intended to address the -issue of Engineering Services, as are required, to plan, design and construct the City utility systems, drainage facilities and raodway and parking facilities in the project area. Scope of Services to be Provided by BRW. Based on the approved concept plan, BRW will provide the following services. To the extent that the project is implemented in phases over, a number of years, some work tasks would be repeated as necessary, based on the phasing program determined by the City. Work Task 1.0 - Conceptual Design and Feasibility Stud 1.1 Collect all relevant data, based on existing records and plans and com- pile a project base map. 1.2 Review planning studies, and traffic studies previously performed and consult as required with the professionals who prepared such studies, to insure an understanding of the design intent and recommendations. 1.3 Assist City Utility Departments to determine the adequacy of the inplace utility systems and to define required improvements or upgrading. 1.4 Develop conceptual design (and alternatives as are appropriate) for the basic utility, drainage and street systems. Prepare, estimate and analyze alternatives. I 1.5 Review design concepts and alternatives with City and select agreed upon alternative. 1.6 Prepare Preliminary Engineering Report and Feasibility Study in suf- ficient detail to predict the project costs, required right -of -way and _ major issues. The Feasibility Study will be adequate to allow the City to proceed with assessment procedures as per Minn. Stat. 429. Review study and report with City and modify as required. 1.7 Work with City staff and others to develop a proposed assessment program for the project. Based upon the program, prepare a "preliminary assessment roll" for the project which estimates the pro- posed assessment for each parcel in the project area. 1.8 Present the study and project at the formal public hearing. Also par - ticipate as requested by the City in informal meetings with property owners, developers and staff. Work Task 2 - Final Design. (To be repeated as subsequent phases are ordered.) 2.1 Refine preliminary design of improvements and cost estimates. 2.2 Determine exact areas to be acquired for right -of -ways and easements, prepare legal descriptions as required for acquisition by the City. 2.3 Prepare final working drawings, specifications, proposal, etc. for formal competitive bidding for the improvement work. 2.4 Submit applications and secure the required permits and approvals from the other public agencies that have jurisdiction over the project. 2.5 Assist in the advertisement for bids and securing of a Contractor(s) for the performance of the construction of the pro- ject. Work Task 3.0 - Construction Period Services. (To be repeated as subsequent phases are ordered.) 3.1 Provide project coordination and contract administration during the construction period. 3.2 Provide on -site inspection of the construction and coordinate the soils and material testing that will be performed by an independent testing laboratory. - 2 - 3.3 Maintain project records, measure the quantities of work and approve contract payments. 3.4 Provide survey crews and equipment to stake out the work to guide the Contractor(s). 3.5 Prepare "as built" drawings of the completed project. 3.6 Approve final payment and perform a final inspection. 3.7 Perform a "warranty inspection" prior to the end of the warranty period, and assist in the completion of any defect or defficient work. 3.8 Assist City in the preparation of the assessment roll and in the assessment process (public hearing). BRW Personnel. It is proposed to assign the following BRW staff to the project. To the extent possible, the staff assignments will include BRW staff who were previously involved with the project, and who are familiar with the project area and objectives. Donald W. Ringrose, P.E. /Project Coordinator - Overall BRW cor- porate responsibilty, public presentation and conceptual design and consultation. Gary Ehret, P.E: /Project Engineer (Manager) - Ongoing project management and coordination, detailed engineering design and document preparation. Tom Arneson, R.L.S. /Project Surveyer - All work involving land acquisition and property issues. Supervise and manage survey crews and data collection. Bob Jackson /Project Technician - Supervise plan preparation, assessment roll and internal BRW coordination. The designated staff are all very experienced in similar types of projects and are available. Project Schedule. The overall schedule is not fixed. BRW is prepared to start work as soon as requested. The schedule will be determined as the project progresses. BRW com- mits itself to maintain the schedule as determined by the City. - 3 - Fees /Terms /Conditions. The final scope and size of the project will be determined by the feasibility study process. Therefore, it is not possible to determine a fixed fee that is equitable to the City and BRW at this time. The fee arrangement must be flexible to accommodate charges in scope and schedule. Therefore, it is pro- - posed by BRW to perform the design functions, based on a fee that adjusts with project size. Those functions which are not within the control of BRW, pri- marily the field related activities, are proposed to be paid for on an hourly basis. Design Fees (Fixed). — Work Task 1- Conceptual Design and Feasibility Study Fee to equal 1.75% of estimated construction cost. Work Task 2 - Final Design Fees to equal 4.75% of estimated construction cost for those _ projects or phases that are less than $3.0 million. A reduction of 0.1% will be made for each increment of $1.0 mi-Ilion over $3.0 milion on a prorated basis. Hourly Fees (Variable) Work Task - 1 and 2 - Data collection, utility inventory, right -of -way acquisition services, soils investigation. Work Task 3 - All Services Hourly fees will be determined, based upon a factor of 2.0 multiplied by the salary cost of the employee. Salary cost is defined as direct labor plus labor additives and shall be determined by the most current audit of BRW by the State of Minnesota. Reimburseable Expenses BRW shall be reimbursed, at actual cost, for the following expenses for the project: • Purchase of records, documents, etc, for right -of -way, maps, photos, etc. • Photographic reproduction and prints. • Travel expenses, beyond local area, if authorized by City. • Sub - Consultants retained for work not related to fixed fee payment. -4- Terms of Payment Invoices shall be issued monthly and payment shall be made within thirty (30) days. F.19910 M, Submitted by Approved by City of Chanhassen BENNETT, RINGROSE, WOLSFELD, JARVIS GARDNER, INC. Title Title Date Date MW J C September 11, 1985 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Attn: William Monk, P.E., City Engineer RE: PROPOSAL /LETTER AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES (paw % 6�E, 4-y iQ �P iC� �pros�s�l /,1r1fi Engineer shall submit monthly statements for Basic and Additional Services rendered and for Reimbursable Expenses incurred. The statements will be based upon Engineer's estimate of the proportion of the total services actually completed at the time of billing for basic services. Additional services will be billed according to the attached schedule of rates. Owner shall make prompt monthly payments in response to Engineer's monthly statements. Upon conclusion of each phase of Basic Services, Owner shall pay such additional amount, if any, as may be necessary to bring total compensation paid on account of such phase to the following percentages of total compensation payable for all phases of Basic Services: Phase Percentage Study and Report % 15 Preliminary Design % 30 r Final Design % 40 Bidding or Negotiating 016 55 Construction % 10 TOTAL %100 1011 first street south C 17 Post office box 130 hopkins, minnesota 55343 _ 612- 935 -6901 CITY C; We propose to provide engineering /architectural services in connection -- with municipal improvement projects as directed by the City of Chanhassen according to this letter agreement, the attached General Provisions, Exhibit A, fee curve and schedule of rates. Authorization for _ each project will be provided in writing by the City. This proposal is based on the information provided at our September 9, 1985 meeting. Our services will consist of Feasibility preparation of Reports, plans and specifications, and construction services as outlined in rieke Section 1 - Basic Services of Engineer in the attached General Provisions. mul lelr We propose to provide these services for a fee determined by a percentage associates, inc. of the construction cost according to the attached curve. architects engineers land surveyors We propose to provide additional services as outlined in Section 2 of the — attached General Provisions according to the attached rate schedule, when authorized by the City. These rates shall be adjusted annually to reflect changes in employees and their compensation. Engineer shall submit monthly statements for Basic and Additional Services rendered and for Reimbursable Expenses incurred. The statements will be based upon Engineer's estimate of the proportion of the total services actually completed at the time of billing for basic services. Additional services will be billed according to the attached schedule of rates. Owner shall make prompt monthly payments in response to Engineer's monthly statements. Upon conclusion of each phase of Basic Services, Owner shall pay such additional amount, if any, as may be necessary to bring total compensation paid on account of such phase to the following percentages of total compensation payable for all phases of Basic Services: Phase Percentage Study and Report % 15 Preliminary Design % 30 r Final Design % 40 Bidding or Negotiating 016 55 Construction % 10 TOTAL %100 1011 first street south C 17 Post office box 130 hopkins, minnesota 55343 _ 612- 935 -6901 CITY C; C City of Chanhassen September 11, 1985 Page 2 This letter agreement including the attached General Provisions, Exhibit A, fee curve and schedule of rates, dated September 11, 1985, will constitute the entire agreement between us. If this proposal is agreeable to you, please sign both copies of the proposal, retain one for your files and return the other to us. Sincerely, RIEKE CARROLL MULLER ASSOCIATES, INC. ACCEPTED: CII \TTY // OOF/, /CHANHASSSEE N Mileage $0.205 1mile SCHEDULE OF RATES - September 11, 1985 Principal $70 /hour Sr. Civil Engineer $60 /hour — Civil Engineer $40 /hour Sr. Civil Technician $55 1hour — Civil Technician $39 /hour Sr. Draftsperson $30 /hour Draftsperson $20 /hour 3- Person Survey Crew $80 /hour 2- Person Survey Crew $62 1hour Reg. Land Surveyor $40 /hour Secretary $26 /hour Mileage $0.205 1mile 14 13 VA IN U V C. c 9 c 0 N C Q E 0 U 7 9 3 in Ld 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.5 1 5 10 50 100 Construction cost, in millions of dollars September 11, 1985 Net Construction -- 50,000 250,000 9.75 1500,000 750,000 7.90 000,000 6.82 4.000,000 ill 111 • 6,000,000 1 8,000,000 6.10 10,000,000 . I 20,000,000 :1 I � 1 ' ■1 I■ ■■ � 1 t � � ■11 � II■11 1 11 ■� 11 u '■ I■1 ■11 11 11 ■I111 u■1111 ■■1 1 � ■ ■11 lu � ■ 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.5 1 5 10 50 100 Construction cost, in millions of dollars September 11, 1985 M I -n.40.lirt- • y 'T ! - f% `� I /.l I�� �i v 1111Y111/NYiI ' ---- ;';'iii ' _ . !! � ,_ �+9� �'�;�' 71. �li lo.,. '� �� i �� ll. 11.,---- 111111•z.11::.r:41, Cr''\4----Z:'7 :.ice► �r� y r '~ 1 - - _ ..... =Y�•.1 '!•�1I ��'li%.. i -- - �I ' -rq , _ - - —....7 I0 il, I /' / 4 a 7 I _ lfr,,laill :=- _-_ - --,,, /dr, M . .e. ;— 001 L r:! 1 )) 1111, (A.:ji 1,..1.41 [ .1,4 PJ'. --, I i IIII I ir A 11011 "--.. 1%19 li; .---7---I--'-..---'---. r 7'-------' .--' _-"•----" /rte _ -_ _ E : sJoAatuns pueI II sjeeuibua r e1 sioaliLDJe aui'se{e1aosse KIII '''---------\--(---. raii)lariaJ u.u. ('----1 7-memill N.,.....,_ j_____(_______ , '' ii . a . _ pup Sa141I14n ':1 ' ;uauudolanapa ■ uMo4uMo I �% ��`� .1 o � n T T T s a _ . ,, ik, i 3 p lIpci d _.,, . uassrquPgD I /cliff ai p io; jP sodoi j 1•111 11= 11111 IIMM INS NM MR MR NM NM GM MI MI MI MI May 1, 1986 Mr. Donald Ashworth, Executive Director HRA City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Qualifications Statement Dear Mr. Ashworth: In response to your request, we wish to thank you for the opportunity to present our proposal to provide engineering studies and designs for Chanhassen's Downtown Redevelopment. RCM is an engineering and architectural firm devoted to the needs of the clients in the public and private sectors. Our multi-discipline capability and match of experience with municipal projects benefit the many communities that RCM presently serves. Chanhassen's downtown development provides a unique and challenging project for our project team. Information about RCM's experience and qualifications has been included to assist you and the HRA in your consideration of our proposal. This information and our recent work for the City (Park One and Business Park Fifth Addition) provides the basic technical background and local knowledge for your review. Our understanding of the project, engineering issues and suggested fees is included in the Project Approach section of the proposal. We look forward to the opportunity to work with you and the many interested participants in Chanhassen's downtown redevelopment. Respectfully submitt . C. Robertson, P.E., Manager, Municipal Engineering Department RIEKE CARROLL MULLER ASSOCIATES, INC. Introduction NM MI • MI - I INS OM an M MI OM INN OIN FIRM BACKGROUND Rieke Carroll Muller Associates, Inc. (RCM) is an employee-owned firm, incorporated in the State of Minnesota. RCM began operations in 1955 in the areas of municipal and environmental engineering. From that time the firm has grown into one of the regions largest multi-service engineering and architectual firms with approximately 110 employees. RCM is organized principally to serve the needs of Minnesota cities. To accomplish this, a full range of technical design services are available in-house. The technical services most often used by cities civil engineering and surveying - are decentralized to better serve a large geographic area. These skills area available from branch offices in Minnesota in , addition to the headquarters office in Hopkins. Technical skills for architectural design, mechanical, electrical and structural engineering are available in our Hopkins office. RCM recognizes the significance of adequate municipal facilities to the economic vitality of cities such as Chanhassen. From this beginning we recognize that our clients would require transportation, drainage, sewer and water as well as adequate facilities to house city functions and have committed ourselves to the development of these skills within our firm. Today these services are typically provided to a city utilizing a combination of engineering specialities related to the facilities they require in our Hopkins office and general engineering and survey skills available in the branch office which serves the municipality. RCM's policy is to encourage participation from its clients. We invite our clients to review methods and alternative solutions with us. We will work closely with the involved agencies includin g MN/DOT, DNR, Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife Service, State Historical Society, Metropolitan Council/Waste Control Commission, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Watershed Districts. We are organized to serve the City of Chanhassen in the development of their municipal improvement projects and have the staff and qualifications to provide the services you require. Qualifications - - MN - - - - MI - — — — In — - — MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING RCM's municipal engineering and survey department includes nine professional engineers, 16 engineering technicians, three registered land surveyors, 17 draftsperson/survey crew personnel and five clerical personnel. The principal activities of this department include the design of sanitary sewer, watermain, storm drainage systems, county and judicial ditches, site grading and transportation systems. The department performs as a consulting engineer to various communities throughout the State of Minnesota. To better serve Minnesota cities, the department is decentralized with personnel located in Hopkins,St. Cloud and. Gaylord. Transportation and drainage design services are a specialty function of this department. Available services range from project design reports and feasibility studies, preliminary and final design of facilities and construction services by personnel familiar with the MSA system using MN/DOT methods and specifications. Clients that have used these services include cities, the State of Minnesota (Camp Ripley), MN/DOT, US Corps of Engineers, the US EPA and private clients. Our approach employs the use of a team of civil, electrical, mechanical, and structural engineers, together with architectural personnel appropriate to the specific project. Our experienced staff can design grading, paving and sidewalks, roadways, parking lots, street lighting and signals, street scape and downtown renovation including store front remodeling. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Regardless of the project planned, RCM structural engineers are responsible for the analysis, design and specification of materials, and when required, for construction sequences to assure structural integrity. They interface with soils engineers to develop foundation concepts that consider a building's reaction to different soils characteristics, with architects to design framing systems to safely support all applicable loads, and with the technical staff providing mechanical and electrical systems. In restoring a historic building, for example, structural specifications for necessary changes in beams, columns, foundations, and load bearing walls are mandatory. I • M • M . NM • - - r r MI MS r - I M O The same holds true for environmental engineering projects where form must be given to wastewater plants, underground tanks and tunnels and appurtenant structures. And in the case of airport runways and roads, assistance is needed in meeting specified load requirements, slab joints, etc. RCM clients have benefited from various advanced structural design techniques such as the use of a computerized critical path method for design and construction. This can include control and a running record of material costs and man hours, savings on the cost of materials by purchasing when prices are most favorable, and phasing and scheduling all aspects of construction in order to provide the client an accurate completion date. Because of current economic conditions and inflation, RCM's technical staff has been increasingly concerned with client expenditures. This is reflected in the firm's desire to fully investigate existing buildings; bridges or sites for build or rebuild potentials or limitations. Resulting feasibility studies with conclusions and recommendations assist clients in making decisions. Through education, training, research and the use of the most current computational techniques available,RCM structural engineers will continually meet client needs,as attested to by their involvement in a wide range of project types. ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING RCM's in-house Electrical Engineering staff offers both diagnostic and design services. We maintain a wide array of test instrumentation for analysis before design and to assist the client once the project is operating. Part of our design services include power distribution, street, area and ramp lighting, peak shaving and fully automatic stand-by power generation systems. Capabilities related to street lighting include design, specification and construction services for standard or decorative lighting. Other systems such as traffic signal systems are just a part of the varied capability of this department. NM N - - MN N r I r i NM NM - I r r O MN M ARCHITECTURE RCM's Architectural staff has varied experience including multi-unit housing, commercial/industrial buildings, banks, motels and hotels, warehouses, research centers, cultural facilities (interpretative centers and museums), recreational facilities, community activity centers, governmental buildings (city halls - fire/police stations - correctional facilities - maintenance garages - courthouses), medical facilities, rehabilitation and restoration. Other capabilities of this department include beautification studies, site planning and urban design. CONSTRUCTION SERVICES RCM's Hopkins Construction Services Department includes six permanent technical persons. In addition, each branch of the Municipal Department is staffed with personnel that are qualified for inspection and surveying. The principal activities of Construction Services personnel include: contract administration, shop drawing review, observation of construction to determine conformance to plans and specifications, construction staking, coordination of project start-up and assistance with grant administration. All of these activities have certain unique features on MSA, FAU, MN/DOT, EPA, MPCA, FMHA and HUD funded projects. This is particularly true when a combination of local and federal financing is utilized. Several of our current personnel are experienced with inspection and contract administration services for projects with a combination of local, state and federal funding. In addition to transportation, our Construction Services staff has experience with the following types of projects: municipal utilities, bridges, multi-family housing, commercial buildings, and renovation of older structures. The skills derived from this variety of construction types is of great value in projects of the nature being considered by the City of Chanhassen. N M OM N MI all NM NM NS N N MN 0111 NS UM MI SUPPORTING SERVICES Other major departments of RCM: Environmental and Mechanical Engineering. When needed, these skills are available for transportation projects. Environmental assessments and applications for State and Federal grants are a normal service provided on many of our municipal projects. OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS Due to our in-house capabilities, the need for outside consultants will be limited. The use of geotechnical consultants would be needed for soil borings and testing. Traffic engineering services to supplement those available at RCM can be provided by the use of local consultants as needed that are suitable to the City. RCM currently associates with Benshoof ac Associates for traffic engineering expertise. MI MB I In ON • MN 1 M In = Ell N N 1 In all I M RECENT CLIENTS RCM has a number of previous clients they would like to refer you to, however, we feel that those on the following list are the most familiar with our current work: CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Carl Jullie, City Manager Eugene Dietz, Director of Public Works (612)937-2262 CITY OF MANKATO Paul Baker, Director of Public Works Ken Saffert, City Engineer (507)625-3161 CITY OF HUTCHINSON Marlow Priebe, City Engineer (612)587-5151 CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS Glen Hodgson, City Engineer (218) 327-2802 CITY OF FARIBAULT Brian Wagstrom, Street & Park Superintendent (507)334-2222 CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON Les Proper, Director of Public Works (612)633-1533 References .r - - - • M r r = • MI NM - MI MI MI = V MI PERSONNEL RCM is an employee-owned firm of engineers, architects, and land surveyors committed to meeting the needs of clients in the public and private sectors. Since our beginning in 1955, RCM has cultivated a talented and knowledgeable staff with a broad range of specific skills and design experience, on the premise that our clients deserve the best available consulting services. The professional services required will be performed by the following team: IN-HOUSE: Civil Engineers: R. C. Robertson Duane Cramer Charles Barger Environmental Engineer: Sam Claassen Electrical Engineer: Paul F. Kaeding Structural Engineer: Jim Gerber Architect: Bill Hennemuth Technicians Dick Potz Lloyd Erickson Construction Services: Alan Gray Mike LaFrance Maynard Grochow Registered Land Surveyors: LeRoy Grewe Avery Grochow CONSULTANTS: Geotechnical: As directed by City Traffic: Benshoof Associates or as directed by City Personnel 1 ( ° c coo onc c.,, .D a ..- ,+ a n r► a , ?CD n ., ,-+ c N 0 (1) (.D D a ro, ,-+, O c0 p i, 0 7 a 011 7 X' 0 \° .• co ° " '+ ° g I ° un °° 0c •cn. a O C >o CD osa • c cm•v o R 1 re + a� wrta- ,+ 0 yw .'. — o c -1 n �• hC n'° o a R 0 = c oofD � o °' moo °' I n o00 " w ^ _. r w a _S -o Q < wncoBa N - . -s � = w On • '- o cC � a ri- s -1 - al ./m7co O e-1- J __- I E X ‘. 7:,,i,„..„.....,„ U rD 1 ,, .... T 1 . . . ,.., .. , . 1 Iii I hi* t'-'. - 4 ____ I 114':, w� Li I N Ii t It, I - \":1=1K 4 • 1 0 -+ "0 N o w n I Cl.) 7• rn —1 () < cro -, cr .« o o ca„ 7" a — ow co '' 3n =' ''.4-1 - a.0 `< CD v car °;V y o• = a .. w o u '"' < 1 -, o . a0 w .4 woo rn ( o w w ., a • (D 7 r. 7 w = ,_... fr j FD- A) �,.' as - w .tip " o 'tip I 3 w -vim x- z- c < � -, w a � -. N rnF. ,(Alw ° :71. . P C, o .,, w :� w ,� 7 co I 0 v, 7' � o- y0 -- w �c n a 1 Oc w D < y �- a M h. r gv � Ln fD -1 n w` � ;j �w CD 1 = 0 0 0 .< -I3n3CDoacCD '0 ° � 0 � � yw > CD 1 < -o a. -1 0 n 77 x0 � vfD, �. m.D < o a � � '° , aQ Q3 � � a3F, � a n 1= � rt N'o w,� it r, CI. V) ". v, fr x. C -0 v, lD w ' -, U co 0- -, b w : c a C 2OQ Co o• .0 w o C a a . o r, w n a C O n •0o O.. on ,-, o yoQ I-1, 1 � 1 �`� ,i. .' ill.-I . -4111:-\''*, I'''-"---.piji.../..fk., . '.. aitiaw-...1''I 1 1 ' ` \ I .� • I.. .�\� : ..-.• I I /; �./- . ,.. , ( w w 5 0 30 o w' CA o a3 .• Q rt � � CD' =a0 was o a, c- < wow, = 4 poi I .c+ �o' w a,, ac a ni o fD '° cn fD 74oaco w c E roc .,, n 3 c 3 ►-• co r+ w lD rD fD o o c rD .0 al °: S c w rt ,•+ C n w `^ � E 3' w ‹ f<ow` aara) Ln 3 ° r+ 5.4 22 -10 F r� n r aN � ` 0-0 3 w n r+-0 cOn �L a �Sn 3. 0 (I) � '<• -. wc rDOIfli fl• CD w wm i- v 00 3 -1 , v- ,,N ,+ o ' a 0 H. S,� N �• rSO '+ (D CD o.a° -°c° (ND w y''� ? rD CDD c"(19 N c w c CD r+ O� �.rD N Z ' o7acm' a 3n o o o CU w • oc° n) (D _ �c ^• r+ oaCD +, C w '< c � . a o 0 +• -I � n n ' • w C = p_ - D D w v rD 7. ,, 5• f o r+ . c � c ',m- n n ocaoa 1=14 rD S C o w .0 p, a y 0 0 0 ., .+, < ,-• rD c c • , o c CD CD O N C 7 a Q a =• r1 .� a (/) CD CD Cl 03. 0 '�'. � o �, c -, �. 3 v rD oo .- v •, c � orD n o o` c -• w 3 n cv " w w .o ` a, a ° •< a=o :^ -1 rCD oia CD CCD 7 w °o w I Wir r r J mss. / s,. lir \ 1 i • �1 1 i ,1 4 i' , , 1'_I, ...y. _ I ?,* I I I a f+ c o r+ v '-• '+ b —1 rn < a, DC .., c- -, 0o S aW (Inv) • llj !! w a) m C�, w °a' o ,� D• CD (D 0 _. ., fD O O a) < `^ ° n -o '' a ` o n . 4 ,-+ c` o' a a 3 � 0- w a c < a a (D w c ( a rn - o 1 w ,i (DM 0 W 0 coq w ,< acs ,* ,* • C• °ou C_) -- � < °, w ' n O n S .. °n w. .- r+ C) co P.) a f D v, 7 --1-n, 0.. `_ '+ n _. ° o p ' 11) ciii c fD C n r+ oo W -, (D (D C n ' "' c 1 3 "-1 1 . • c a c c < Q0 a " n fix. n, � � o r+. � w � w o' '� y _ rt W• y a 0 a' O W o w -, c -, r►!D �t = Oil 0- CD °, (ND °, 3 (?D v,wC I MINlip\f ,• 11,E 1 ti • , %; 'ft; 1:, , I . ,i , K r I,'� • ' ..40 ,\ , , , t - v,'4.':*,i,:l ■ siii , I 1\r \, .. d `■ %$ k \ikOl ilk 1,i-, t,,, ' Ulf i ilk 1\11/V I' `! I i I, 1 1 . \ [} I 1 tif t . , 1 ar iii. \ • i 1 i .al A 1 ^r1 v- cr n n E 5 v) o —1 u 1 C• � a ' nn) ,, a „, o "" 0. 7 (D '� lD .< 7 c (D , '+ O • C� � y — a °-ovmyr) F "dx- ••+ r) .v o � w `< ;' y � co •o n o 3 n � w x- ���" N • c (D (D n w * C 7 (D n a ,rtc- m � ter. I o m .o o ;* ,_, o fD "3 7 ,_.. ... may r+ ^1 x. a y �, fDeD a. ywy (D (D :0 0• '+ c r+ < > > w vlw c v ((t "/b rt T. O a rn+, Vr n N • r* c ,_- D.O ..12 n (p " P � � awP (I) '' fD N _ p' —1"0 y a` = yew y S o vnw ( y , M ( x- y (D y • G o cr d c o r+-CV 17 -1 ola o z-1-.; c• a °' �• D o ; w w (DD _ I ° N coo ( 'A-rD (cD y K vl a v, -1 y 'CJ (D r+ ,..a'c) v, w w co S ° n 7 a :+ O, ccn I I �X' 1 n R n 1.,�.. ■ , 1 ill 1 II , . -& .:,--,- , ri ... . _ _.:1,,-' . ' Ili u4L�e 9. ;,i spy; .T, Il te. t 11 I 1 f� I : { � _ -, ' t r� .� I II. I xi ^t 3 3 n cm co .. n I co 0 st to fp Oho I a n "1 0 00'0 N O. co °. g a r+ a 1— ON a ,"" 7' < a o a o w o I x > '='� � -+ � 0 H• OK n (/) w > > r ..s +1 a 0 I y °Qnowevti �- �, o 7 1-• (( DJ • —1w 0. co < 7 n v n < C • rolo � ... a en— (D a C ti o • 3 Pi �. ■-• rr+ C' ooa „t *: v`:-", 's ytk� tQ6 5F= ii- . . - l•.;''..*Tl 1 . . .. I F• C �s I fir.-arl..�•' { ., -� 7� I• I • NM UM OM • MI N - i - • MO MI N - - - • MI s INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT NEEDS This proposal is submitted in response to a request by Don Ashworth, Executive Director of the HRA and our preproposal meeting with Mr. Ashworth and the City Engineer. Our study of the materials provided at that meeting, current local knowledge and past experience provide the basis for our proposal and approach to the Chanhassen Downtown Redevelopment Projects. Chanhassen is entering a particularily important period regarding its downtown development. The planning process for the redevelopment is in its second generation with revisions to the plan by Brauer & Associates proposed by CHADDA (Chanhassen Downtown Development Associates). Coordination during the development phases of the project will be essential among the city staff, RCM, the Brauer/Hoisington group and Benshoof Associates. RCM has a working relationship with Benshoof Associates that we feel is an added plus for your consultant team. Our review of background materials and the preproposal meeting identified key project engineering issues in the following areas: - Drainage - Streets - Utilities A more detailed examination of these needs will be presented in the following paragraphs. ENGINEERING ISSUES Overall engineering issues will be studied in the feasibility report. The solution of problems associated with drainage and underlying soil conditions may determine phasing of work associated with these problems causing them to be addressed in the initial phases of the feasibility study. The engineering issues will be addressed individually in the following paragraphs: • Soils. Some geotechnical investigation was done with the original concept plan for the downtown project. Additional subsurface determinations may be required in those areas where roadway alignments have changed. The original soil work indicated soft materials and swamp deposits below fill in the southwesterly area of the project just north of the tracks. The solution to roadway and possible pipe settlement problems must be established to coordinate with any drainage facilities that must be constructed in the first phase construction. • Drainage. No overall drainage plan exists for the project area. The original downtown concept plan indicated a drainage divide just west of the intersection of Main Street and Highway 101. A pipe system draining Main Project Approach L OM MI MI MI = O r MB • NM • • MI I • r - - Street following the westerly street (to be constructed) across the tracks to the commercial/highway/service area between Highway 5 and the railroad tracks was proposed. The existing open drainage system from south of Highway 5 to Rice Marsh Lake should be reviewed to determine if this projects runoff can be handled. Careful consideration of surface drainage from the project area will be required with adequate consideration of the need for detention areas and future development of the highway and general commercial areas. The system design should also consider current development occurring south of Highway 5 on both sides of Highway 101. The area in the northeast part of the project may be able to be accommodated by the existing drainage system. At least some relief will be provided by the proposed system west of the dinner theatre parking lot. A review of the existing system would be made as a part of the feasibility study. • Streets. The proposed street system shown in alternate sketch plan 2 by the Brauer/Hoisington group is somewhat different than the CIiADDA system. Benshoof and Associates and the planners are currently developing final recommendations for the transportation system and it is my understanding that the Highway 101 segment proposed to traverse the dinner theatre parking lot section may be revised. RCM will work closely with your transportation and downtown planners to provide appropriate cost estimates and engineering design assistance for the project. West 78th Street will be reviewed to determine if the existing pavement structure will be adequate (with minor revisions) or if a complete new section is required. The soils information will be evaluated and additional information will be requested in those areas of new alignments where current subsoil information is not available. • Sanitary Sewer. The existing system in the development area will be reviewed with respect to capacity required to handle the planned uses in the area. The condition of the sewer should also be considered prior to construction of road improvements to allow repair/replacement as needed. Appropriate revisions will be recommended as needed. RCM's experience regarding public sewer systems is quite extensive including master plans for the cities of Eden Prairie and Mankato. • Water. The existing city water plan will be used to develop any new facilities required to serve the final downtown project as developed. No surprises are expected with providing service from this utility. • Gas and Electric Service. These utilities will be contacted for any proposed revisions to these utilities prior to completing our report so that these considerations can be included in the final downtown plan. Mr NM MN SI UN O r MB OM NM I - - - - ■r NM MI • Assessments. The Chanhassen downtown project will derive the majority of its funds from the established tax increment district in the downtown area and business park. A secondary source of funds for the project is through the special assessment procedures provided by Minnesota Statute 429. This method of financing public improvements is the same as used in the Park One Development where RCM recently completed the feasibility study. Plans and specifications for that project as outlined have been ordered by the City Council pursuant to the property owner waiving his right to a public hearing so the project can proceed as rapidly as possible. Analysis of project costs and phasing considerations along with the funds available from the tax increment district and special assessments will be an integral part of the feasibility study and report for the downtown projects. We propose to handle the financing considerations for the project in a similar manner to that used in Park One or as directed by the HRA/City. PROJECT PHASING A project of the magnitude being considered for Chanhassen's Downtown Development would naturally lend itself to phased construction. Several of the issues mentioned above affect the necessary construction for each phase and will have to be given consideration with respect to project budget and other factors affecting the timing of improvements. It is our understanding that the first phase construction would involve relocation of Highway 101 from the tracks to West 78th Street as well as construction of the roadway on the westerly side of the downtown area. A second phase may possibly include Main Street and the connection to the City Hall and public area. The highway service/commercial area between the railroad tracks and Highway 5 would be involved in the last phase of the project. SCHEDULE The schedule discussed at our preproposal meeting indicated 60 days for the initial draft of the feasibility study and 60 days for the city staff to review and comment. We will commit the personnel and resources to meet that schedule. If all the pieces of the project can be put together so that plans and specifications can be authorized for the initial phase, by early fall of 1986; design could be accomplished to provide an early 1987 bid letting for the project. PROPOSED FEES We propose to provide these services on the same basis as our existing contract with the City of Chanhassen. r a� all I - -. r M OM M = I M r - - - - Chanhassen Consultant Selection Committee: RCM has unique qualifications to serve the Chanhassen HRA/City as follows: A. Complete in-house multi-disciplined design capability. B. Extensive related experience in municipal project types as well as unique projects. C. Experienced project teams that have previously worked together on several projects. D. The capability to meet the project design requirements within project budget and time frame. E. A sincere desire to work with the Chanhassen HRA. We would be pleased to meet with you and look forward to the opportunity to provide engineering services for the Downtown Redevelopment Project. Robert C. Robertson, PE Manager Civil Engineering RIEKE CARROLL MULLER ASSOCIATES, INC. Summary t► _ Engineering Company '— Douglas W Barr John D. Dickson L. R. Molsather Allan Gebhard Leonard J. Kremer Dennis E. Palmer May 2, 1986 Mr. Donald Ashworth City Manager /HRA Executive Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Stormwater Management - Downtown Area: Chanhassen Dear Mr. Ashworth: Barr Engineering Co. is pleased to submit the enclosed proposal to the — City of Chanhassen for the preparation of a stormwater management plan for the downtown redevelopment area. Barr Engineering Co. has extensive experience in the area of stormwater management and planning and is uniquely qualified to provide the City of Chanhassen these engineering services. Barr Engineering Co. has prepared management plans for the Cities of Anoka, Annandale, Bloomington, Brainerd, Burnsville, Eden Prairie, Edina, Golden Valley, Hastings, Mankato, Maplewood, New Brighton, and Worthington, Minnesota; Grand Forks, North Dakota and Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The company is currently assisting the City of Wayzata in the preparation of a management plan for that community. We look forward to the opportunity of working with the City of Chanhassen in the area of stormwater management. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact either Bob Obermeyer or me at 830 -0555. Sincerely, 'John D. Dickson Senior Vice President JDD /111 enc. DA /303,0 7803 Glenroy Road Minneapolis, MN 55435 6121830 -0555 r C r Fig ( I� r CHANHASSEN H.R.A. A C C O U N T S P A Y A B L E 03 -31 -86 PAGE 1 CHECK # A M O U N T C L A I M A N T P U R P O S E 026422 72.51 ASHWORTH DONALD TRAVEL + TRAINING © 026423 9,081.82 BRAUER & ASSOCIATES FEES, SERVICE Q 026424 2,654.00 CPT CORPORATION OFFICE EQUIPMENT 026425 80.95 DOLLIFF INSURANCE INC. WORKMENS COMP. n 026426 435.00 GRANNIS, CAMPBELL, FEES, SERVICE r 5 12,324.28 CHECKS WRITTEN TOTAL OF 5 CHECKS TOTAL 12,324.28 C C r Fig ( I� r Bill To: Ks. Barbara Dacy City Planner Chanhassen HRA 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Terms: 011E UPON RECEIPT INVOICE Date: 3/25/86 Invoice No: 1986150 B &A Job No: 35 -41 Broadened Study Area For professional services including: • Meeting with Don, Barb and Bill on 3/5/86 • fleeting with HRA on 3/6/86 • meeting with Jim Benshoof and Bill Monk on 3/12/86 • Meeting with MnDOT on 3/18/86 • reneral Project coordination • Traffic engineering including: • Preparation of trip tables for internal anti external study area trips • Trip assignment of'Chanhassen 2005 development scenario • Calculation of through traffic intersection volupes • Calibration and refinement of intersection forecasts • Meetings with HPDO T and Net Council staffs regarding resolution of growth projections and forecasts of Net Council projections FEES: Senior Pro ----- - - - - -- 37.00 hrs. 0 60.00 hr. g 1,920.00 Pro - -------- -- ------ 31.50 hrs. 0 45.00 hr. 1,417.50 Pro ---------- - - - - -- 149.00 hrs. 0 35.00 hr. 5,215.00 Senior Tech ---- - - - - -- 8.00 hrs. 0 28.00 hr. 22n.&I Tech III ------- - - - - -- 9.25 hrs. t 25.00 hr. 231.25 Tech II -------- - - - - -- 1.50 hrs. @ 22.00 hr. 33.00 TOTAL FEES T-9,040.75 Expenses., Base Map Preparation ----------------- - - - - -- 5 12.51 Copies------------------------------- - - - - -- 22.95 Mileage ------------------------------ - - - - -- 5.61 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 41.07 TOTAL 3/25/86 INVOICE $ 9,081.82 DAVID L. GRANNIS -1874 -1961 DAVID L. GRANNIS, JR. - 1910 -1980 ^ VANCE B. GRANNIS VANCE B. GRANNIS, JR. PATRICK A. FARRELL -- DAVID L. GRANNIS, III ROGER N. KNUTSON LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE Box 57 403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 TELEPHONE: (612) 455-1661 May 8, 1986 Mr. Don Ashworth City of Chanhassen _ P.O. Box 147, 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Special Assessment Reduction Program 7, TELECOPIER: (612) 455 -2359 THOMAS L. GRUNDHOEFER DAVID L. HARMEYER M. CECILIA RAY ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH VIA MESSENGER Dear Don: _ Enclosed are the documents we have drafted for the two -tier Special Assessment Reduction Program and for including the Sunnybrook Development Property in the program. Once you have aproved the changes to the Assessment Agreement, we will incorpor- ate the new language into the Agreement and have it all retyped. We will then prepare the necessary resolutions for implementing the amended program. Please notice that we also need an exact legal description to the Sunnybrook property. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. ru ours, R)NNIS, GR NIS, AARPiELL KNUTS P.A. _ BY OcI N. K on RNK:srn Enclosures g May 9, 1986 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 Opus Corporation Attn: Mr. Robert Worthington and Ms. Michelle Foster P.O. Box 150 Minneapolis, MN 55440 Dear Bob and Michelle: Attached please find correspondence received today from the City Attorney's office regarding amendments to the Special Assessment Reduction Program. I have not had an opportunity to proof this document myself, but am forwarding such to expedite the reviewal process. Our Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting of May 15th has been postponed to May 22nd. To meet this schedule I will need to include proposed amendments in the packet scheduled to be sent out on May 16th. Please contact me by May 13th if you desire changes. Sincerely, Don Ashworth City Manager DAX. Enclosure ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT CHANHASSEN HRA SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REDUCTION PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT, made on or as of the day of 19 by and between The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Chanhassen, a public body corporate and politic (the "Agency "), established pursuant to Laws of Minnesota 1947, Chapter 487, as amended, being Minnesota Statutes, Sections 462.411- - 462.711 (the "Act "), and (the "Redeveloper "). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Agency was created pursuant to the Act and was authorized to transact business and exercise its powers by a — resolution of the City Council of the City of Chanhassen (the "City "); and WHEREAS, in furtherance of the objectives of the Act, the Agency has undertaken a program for the clearance and reconstruction or rehabilitation of blighted, deteriorated, deteriorating, vacant, — unused, underused, or inappropriately used areas of the City, and in this connection is engaged in carrying out a redevelopment project known as the Chanhassen Downtown Redevelopment Project (the "Project "), in an area (the "Project Area "), located in the City; and WHEREAS, as of the date of this Agreement there has been prepared and approved by the Agency and the City a redevelopment — plan for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Agency requested the County of Carver (the "County ") to certify the current assessed value of the real property — within the Project Area pursuant to Section 462.585 of the Act thereby establishing the Project as a tax increment financing district; and WHEREAS, the major objectives of the Redevelopment Plan are to: acquire for rehabilitation economically or functionally — obsolete or underutilized buildings and land; provide a redevelopment site of character that will encourage future development of the area and improve sources of public revenue; eliminate blighting influences which impede potential development within the aforementioned redevelopment project; provide maximum opportunity for redevelopment by private enterprise, consistent with the needs of the City as a whole; encourage private rehabilitation of structures within the — redevelopment project; and WHEREAS, in order to achieve the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan and particularly to make the land in the Project Area available — for redevelopment by private enterprise for and in accordance with the uses specified in the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency has determined to provide substantial aid and assistance to the Project through — the sale of bonds to finance the public costs of the redevelopment of the Project Area; and WHEREAS, the Agency believes that the redevelopment of a portion of the Project Area pursuant to this Agreement, and fulfillment generally of the Agreement, are in the vital and best interests of the City and the health, safety, morals, and welfare of its resi- dents, and in accord with the public purposes and provisions of the applicable state and local laws and requirements under which the Project has been undertaken and is being assisted; and WHEREAS, the Agency has concluded agreements for the redevelop- ment of the various properties to be acquired in furtherance of the Project; and WHEREAS, said agreements provide recourse for the Agency should such redevelopment not be completed; and WHEREAS, Section 273.76 (Subd. 8) of Minnesota Statutes empowers the Agency to enter into written assessment agreements with redevelopers of properties within the Project Area; and WHEREAS, the Redeveloper will construct certain minimum improvements upon the Redevelopment Property; and WHEREAS, the Agency, and the Redeveloper desire to establish a Minimum Market Value for the Redevelopment Property and the Minimum Improvements to be constructed thereon pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, §273.76, Subd. 8, and §462.445, Subd. 4 (1 and 16); and WHEREAS, the Agency and the Assessor have reviewed the Construc- tion Plans for the Minimum Improvements; and WHEREAS, the Assessor, acting pursuant to §273.76, Subd. 8 of Minnesota Statutes, has executed a Certification By Assessor as to the Redevelopment Property and the Minimum Improvements to be constructed thereon; and WHEREAS, the original copy of said Certification By Assessor, or a true and correct copy thereof is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "C" and made a part hereof: NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows: ARTICLE I. DEFINITIONS. Section 1.1 Definitions. In this Agreement, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context: "Act" means the Municipal Housing and Redevelopment Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 462.411 et seq., as amended. "Agency" means the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Chanhassen. -2- "Agreement" means this Agreement, as the same may be from time to time modified, amended, or supplemented. "Assessment Agreement" means any agreement substantially similar to this Agreement providing for payment by the Agency of eligible assessments from the tax increments received by the Agency in connection with the Project. "Assessment Reduction Payments" means payments made by the Authority to either the City or to the County's auditor, as a credit against eligible assessments, pursuant to Article III of this Agreement or pursuant to agreements similar to this Agreement with other redevel- opers of land in the Project Area. "Assessed Value" or "Assessed Valuation" means the value of real property as determined by the assessor in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.13 (or as finally adjusted by any assessor, board of equalization, commissioner of revenue, or any court) against which the real property tax is imposed. "Assessor" means the Carver County Assessor or a City Assessor having the powers of the Carver County Assessor as to properties within the Project Area. "Bonds" means the general obligation bonds or obligations issued by the City or the Agency to finance the costs of the Project including but not limited to the Assessment Reduction Payments made by the Authority pursuant to Modification No. 6 to the Plan. The term "Bonds" shall also include any general obligation bonds or obligations issued to refund any Bonds. "Certification By Assessor" means the Assessor's certification pursuant to Section 273.76, Subd. 8 of Minnesota Statutes, and Section 3.3 of this Agreement that he has reviewed the Construction Plans for the Minimum Improvements and the Market Value previously assigned to the Redevelopment Property, and that upon completion of said Minimum Improvements the market value assigned to the Redevelopment Property shall not be less than a specified dollar amount stated therein, and that the Market Value of the Redevelopment Property as of the date of execution of such certification is a specified dollar amount stated therein. "City" means the City of Chanhassen. "Construction Plans" means the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents on the construction work to be performed by the Redeveloper on the Redevelopment Property which (a) shall be at least as detailed as the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents which are submitted to the building inspector of the City, and (b) shall include at least the following for each building; (1) site plan; (2) foundation plan; (3) basement plan (if any); (4) floor plan for each floor; (5) cross sections of each (length and width); (6) elevations (all sides); (7) landscape plan. -3- "County" means the County of Carver. "Date of Execution" means the date on which the Redeveloper signs this Agreement or the date on which the Agency signs this Agreement, whichever is later. "Eligible Assessments" means those special assessments pending, levied, or otherwise for Chanhassen public improvement projects 78 -3, 84 -4 and 85 -13. The term "Eligible Assessments" does not include any building permit fees, any park charges owing to the City under applicable ordinances, or any availability or connection charges owing to the City pursuant to Section 444.075 of Minnesota Statutes or other applicable statutes or pursuant to applicable City Ordinances, or any sewer availability charges or similar charges imposed by the Metropolitan Council or Metropolitan Waste Control Commission or similar governmental unit. The term "Eligible Assessments" does not include any interest imposed by the City in connection with special assessments, unlevied lateral unit charges, or unlevied trunk unit charges. "Event of Default" means an action by the Redeveloper listed in Article IV of this Agreement. "Market Value" or "Market Valuation" means the estimated fair market value of real property as determined by the Assessor in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.11 (or as finally adjusted by any assessor, board of equalization, commissioner of revenue, or any court). "Maturity Date" means the date when the principal of, premium (if any), and interest on the Bonds are paid in full. "Minimum Improvements" means those improvements which are more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. "Minimum Market Value" means Market Value established pursuant to Section 3.3 of this Agreement. "Modification No. 6" means the sixth amendment to the Plan adopted by the Agency amending the program of Assessment Reduction Payments and the resolution adopting the same. "Plan" means the Chanhassen Downtown Redevelopment Plan as described in the "Chanhassen Downtown Redevelopment Project Amended Plan, February, 1980, Revised March 20, 1980" booklet, as further amended from time to time by the Agency. "Project" means the Chanhassen Downtown Redevelopment Project as described in the "Chanhassen Downtown Redevelopment Project Amended Plan, February, 1980, Revised March 20, 1980" booklet, as further amended from time to time by the Agency. -4- "Project Area" means the real property located within the boundaries of the entire redevelopment district as described in Figure 1 contained in the "Chanhassen Downtown Redevelopment Project Amended Plan, February, 1980, Revised March 20, 1980" booklet. "Real Estate Taxes" means ad valorem taxes on real property pursuant to Chapter 273 of Minnesota Statutes and not including any special assessments levied pursuant to Chapter 429 of Minnesota Statutes. "Redeveloper" means or its successors and assigns. "Redevelopment Property" means the real property which is more particularly described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. "Redevelopment Plan" means the Plan. "State" means the State of Minnesota. "Substantial Completion" means sufficiently complete, in accordance with the Construction Plans for the Minimum Improvements, so that the Redeveloper (or its successors and assigns) may occupy the work for the use for which the Minimum Improvements are intended. If the Minimum Improvements are to be occupied by one or more tenants rather than the Redeveloper and no leases have been entered into with any tenants that would serve as the basis for constructing and installing interior improvements in the Minimum Improvements, then "Substantial Completion" shall mean that the structure, common building systems and utilities are substantially complete so that a Certificate of Occupancy may be obtained by Redeveloper upon comple- tion of the construction and installation of normal and customary interior improvements for the benefit of tenants occupying space in the Minimum Improvements. "Tax Official" means any City or County assessor, County auditor, City, County, or State board of equalization, the commissioner of revenue of the State, or any state or federal district court, the tax court of the State, or the State Supreme Court. ARTICLE II. REPRESENTATION AND WARRANTIES. Section 2.1 Representation by the Agency. The Agency makes the following representations as the basis for the undertaking on its part herein contained: (a) The Agency is a housing and redevelopment authority duly organized and existing under the laws of the State. (b) The Project is a "redevelopment project" within the meaning of the Act and was created, adopted and approved in accordance with the terms of the Act. -5- (c) The Project is a "tax increment district" created, adopted, certified and approved pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.585. (d) The Agency has established the Project Area as a "tax increment district" and has requested that the County auditor of the County certify the Assessed Valuation of all taxable real property in the Project Area pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.585. (e) The activities of the Agency are undertaken for the purpose of removing, preventing or reducing blight, blighting factors, or the causes of blight, and for the purposes of eliminating or preventing the development or spread of deteriorated or deteriorating areas. (f) To finance the cost of the activities to be undertaken by the Agency, the Agency proposes to use the proceeds of Bonds issued either by the City or the Agency and to pledge tax increment generated by the Project Area to the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds. Section 2.2 Representation and Warranties by the Redeveloper. The Redeveloper represents and warrants that: (a) The Redeveloper is a duly organized and in good standing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, is not in violation of any provisions of its articles, partnership or incorporation, as the case may be, or the laws of the State of Minnesota, has power to enter into this Agreement and has duly author- ized the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by proper action. (b) The Redeveloper will construct the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the Plan and all local, state and federal laws and regulations (including, but not limited to, all known applicable environmental, zoning, building code and public health laws and regulations), as such laws and regula- tions are enacted and enforced during the period the Minimum Improve- ments are being constructed, and substantially in accordance with the Construction Plans which have been approved by the Agency. (c) The Minimum Improvements constitute a permitted use or authorized conditional use under the zoning ordinance of the City, a permitted use under the Plan and the Act. (d) That at such time or times as may be required by law, the Redeveloper will have complied with all known applicable local, state and federal environmental laws and regulations, will have obtained any and all known applicable environmental reviews, licenses or clearances as to the Redevelopment Property, and that Redeveloper has received no notice or communication from any local, state or federal official that the activities of the Redeveloper in violation of the law or regulation (other than those notices or communications of which the Agency is aware). The Redeveloper is aware of no facts the existence of which would cause it to be in violation of any local, state or federal environmental law, regulation or review procedure or which would give any person a valid claim under state environmental rights statutes. (e) The Redeveloper will use all reasonable efforts to construct the Minimum Improvements in accordance with all existing local, state or federal energy- conservation laws or regulations. The Minimum Improvements shall be completed on or before January 1, 19 (f) The Redeveloper will obtain, in a timely manner, all required permits, licenses and approvals, and will meet, in a timely manner, all requirements of all local, state and federal laws and regulations which must be obtained or met before the Minimum Improve- ments may be lawfully constructed. (g) The real estate taxes and any installments of special assessments levied against the Redevelopment Property are not in default and that further real estate taxes will be paid when due. ARTICLE III. ASSESSMENT REDUCTION PAYMENTS. Section 3.1 Obligation of Agency to Make Assessment Reduction Payments. Upon completion of the Minimum Improvements the Agency, from the tax increment generated by the Project, shall make payments (in the manner and in the amount provided hereinafter) in reduction of the eligible assessments which have been imposed on the Redevelopment Property and which were unpaid upon the date of execution of this Agreement. The Agency, at its option, may satisfy its obligations to make assessment reduction payments under this Agreement by either making one lump sum payment or by making a series of semi - annual payments as individual installments of eligible assessments become due and owing to the City. In the event that the Agency elects to make said assessment reduction payments in the form of a series of semi - annual payments as individual installments of eligible assess- ments become due and owing to the City, the Agency shall also pay the interest imposed thereon by the City; but only that portion of such interest which is attributable to that portion of any such installment which the Agency is obligated to pay under this Agreement. Any such payments of interest shall not be a credit against the amount of any assessment reduction payment which the Agency is obligated to make under this Agreement. In the case of eligible assessments which have then already been certified to the County's auditor for collection with real estate taxes, said assessment reduction payments, together with any interest which the Agency is obligated to pay under this Section 3.1, shall be made directly to the County Auditor in full or partial satisfaction, as the case may be, of said eligible assessments. In the case of eligible assessments which have not then been certified to the County's auditor for collection with real -7- estate taxes, said assessment reduction payments, together with any interest which the Agency is obligated to pay under this Section 3.1, shall be made to the City's treasurer in full or partial satis- faction, as the case may be, of said eligible assessments. In the case of eligible assessments which have been paid by the Redeveloper subsequent to the date of execution of this Agree- ment, said assessment reduction payments, together with any interest which the Agency is obligated to pay under this Section 3.1, shall be made directly to the Redeveloper or its designated successors and assigns. Section 3.2 Amount of Assessment Reduction Payment. The amount of any assessment reduction payment made pursuant to this Agreement shall be $ which amount is computed as the lesser of the following amounts: (a) the sum of the principal balance of the eligible assess- ments imposed on the Redevelopment Property, together with accrued interest thereon, both principal and interest being computed as of the date of execution of this Agreement; or (b) 1. where the principal balance of eligible assessments imposed on the Redevelopment Property is equal to or less than $30,000.00 per acre, seven percent (7%) of the excess of the Minimum Market Value of the Redevelopment Property and the Minimum Improve- ments constructed thereon as established pursuant to Section 3.3 of this Agreement over the Market Value of the Redevelopment Property as of the date of execution of the Certification By Assessor, and as certified in said certification; or 2. where the principal balance of eligible assessments imposed on the Redevelopment Property exceeds $30,000.00 per acre, twelve percent (12 %) of the excess of the Minimum Market Value of the Redevelopment Property and the Minimum Improvements constructed thereon as established pursuant to Section 3.3 of this Agreement over the Market Value of the Redevelopment Property as of the date of execution of the Certification By Assessor, and as certified in said certification. Section 3.3 Construction and Value of Minimum Improvements. The Redeveloper agrees to construct (or cause to be constructed) upon the Property the Minimum Improvements described in the attached Exhibit "A ", which together with existing improvements shall have an Assessor's Market Value, as determined by the County Assessor of Carver County in accordance with applicable law, of not less than $ on January 1, 19 . The Redeveloper shall not through (a) tax abatement proceedings, and /or (b) any proceeding :FE commenced pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 278 or any similar law, and /or (c) willful demolition of Minimum Improvements on the Property, and /or (d) any other means, cause the Assessor's Market Value of the Property and the Minimum Improvements, and any other improvements constructed on the Property, to fall below such amount. Except as expressly provided otherwise herein, no provision of this Agreement shall restrict the Redeveloper from the construction of additional improvements on the Property. The Minimum Market Value established in this section shall be of no further force and effect and this Agreement shall terminate on the later of the two following dates: (a) the date on which the Bonds are retired, or (b) the date on which all assessment reduction payments due the Redeveloper (or its successors and assigns) pursuant to this Agreement have been made. Provided, further, that nothing in this Agreement shall limit the discretion of the Assessor to assign a market value to the Redevelopment Property in excess of the Minimum Market Value set forth in this section. Section 3.4 Termination of Entitlement to Payment. Notwithstanding any language in this Agreement to the contrary, the obligation of the Agency to make any assessment reduction payment to the Redeveloper (or its successors and assigns) shall become null and void on , 191 unless the Minimum Improvements are in a state of Substantial Completion (as defined in Section 1.1) on or before said date. Nevertheless, in the event Redeveloper is delayed in substantially completing the construction of the Minimum Improvements on or before the date specified herein by reason of labor disputes, casualties, acts of God or the public enemy, governmental embargo restrictions, shortages of fuel, labor or building materials, action or non- action of public utilities or of local, state or federal governments affecting the work, or other causes beyond the reasonable control or fault of Redeveloper, then the date for substantial comple- tion of the Minimum Improvements shall be extended for the additional time caused by such excused delay. Any such extension resulting from an excused delay shall not serve to extend the effective date of the Minimum Market Value or the real estate taxes levied with respect to the Minimum Market Value provided for in this Agreement. In the event the Minimum Improvements are not in a state of Substantial Completion on or before the date specified herein or such extension thereof as may result from an excused delay, and as a result the Agency elects not to make any assessment reduction payment in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, then this Agreement shall cease and terminate without further obligation or liability on the part of the Agency or Redeveloper. ARTICLE IV. EVENTS OF DEFAULT. Section 4.1 Events of Default Defined. The following shall be "Events of Default" under this Agreement and the term "Event of Default" shall mean, whenever it is used in this Agreement (unless the context otherwise provides), any one or more of the following events (and the term "default" shall mean any event which would with the passage of time or giving of notice, or both, be an "Event of Default" hereunder): (a) Failure of Redeveloper to pay when due any real estate taxes on the Redevelopment Property; (b) Failure of the Redeveloper to complete the Minimum Improvements on or before the date stated in Section 3.4 of this Agreement. (c) Failure by the Redeveloper to observe and perform any covenant, condition, obligation or on its part to be observed or performed hereunder, within thirty (30) days after written notice to the Redeveloper specifying such failure and requesting that it be remedied (or within such other period as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement); or if the failure is by its nature incurable within such thirty (30) days, failure by the Redeveloper to furnish to the Agency satisfactory assurances that the Redeveloper can and will cure such failure or failures within reasonable time. (d) If the Redeveloper shall admit in writing its inability to pay its debts generally as they become due, or shall file a petition in bankruptcy or shall make an assignment for the benefit of its creditors, or shall consent to the appointment of a receiver of itself or of the whole or any substantial part of the Redevelopment Property. (e) If the Redeveloper shall file a petition or answer seeking reorganization or arrangement under the federal bankruptcy laws. (f) If the Redeveloper, on a petition in bankruptcy filed against it, be adjudicated a bankrupt, or a court of competent jurisdiction shall enter an order or decree appointing, without the consent of the Redeveloper, a receiver of the Redeveloper or of the whole or substan- tially all of its property, or approve a petition filed against the Redeveloper seeking reorganization or arrange- ment of the,Redeveloper under the federal bankruptcy laws, and such adjudication, order or decree shall not be vacated or set aside or stayed within sixty (60) days from the date of entry thereof. Section 4.2 Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default referred to in Section 4.1 of this Agreement occurs, the Agency may make any one or more of the following actions: -10- (a) Cancel and rescind this Agreement. (b) Withhold the Certificate of Occupancy. (c) Cancel any pending Assessment Reduction Payments due under the terms of this Agreement, causing a forfeiture of such payments in favor of the Agency. (d) Take whatever action at law or in equity may appear necessary or desirable to the Agency to collect from the Redeveloper full reimbursement for any Assessment Reduction Payments previously made pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding the prior provisions of this Section 4.2, it is agreed that the Agency shall not be entitled to withhold a Certificate of Occupancy in the event that the Agency elects to cancel and rescind this Agreement under clause (a), or Redeveloper reimburses Agency for any Assessment Reduction Payments made by Agency prior to the occurrence of such Event of Default, together with any reasonable expenses incurred by Agency in enforcing the provisions of this Agreement, or Redeveloper cures any Event of Default to the satisfaction of Agency and the parties are restored to their former positions under the provisions of this Agreement. Section 4.3 No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to the Agency is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies,-but each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statutes. No delay or omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right and power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. In order to entitle the Agency to exercise any remedy reserved to it, it shall not be necessary to give notice. Section 4.4 No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver. In the event any agreement contained in this Agreement should be breached by either party and thereafter waived by the other party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach hereunder. ARTICLE V. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS. Section S.1 Conflict of Interest; Agency Representatives Not Individu- ally Liable. No member, official or employee of the Agency shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in the Agreement, nor shall any such member, official, or employee participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which affects his personal interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership, or associ- ation in which he is, directly or indirectly interested. No member, official, or employee of the Agency shall be personally liable to -11- the Redeveloper or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the Agency or for any Assessment Reduction Payment which may become due under the terms of this Agreement. Section 5.2 Duty of Agency to Act Reasonably. Wherever this Agreement requires the Agency to approve any action of the Redeveloper, it is understood and agreed that the Agency will not unreasonably withhold or delay such approval. Section 5.3 Titles of Articles and Sections. Any titles of the several parts, Articles, and Sections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions. Section 5.4 Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, a notice, demand, or other communication under this Agreement by either party to the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally and (a) in the case of the Redeveloper, is addressed to or delivered personally to the Redeveloper at (b) in the case of the Agency is addressed to or delivered personally to the Agency at Chanhassen City Hall or at such other address with respect to either such party as that party may, from time to time, designate in writing and forward to the other as provided in this Section. Section 5.5 Counterparts. This Agreement is executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. Section 5.6 Covenants Running With Land. The recording or filing of this Agreement with the County Recorder or County Registrar of Titles shall constitute notice of this Agreement to any subsequent purchaser or encumbrancer of the Redevelopment Property, or any part thereof, whether voluntary or involuntary, and shall be binding upon them. The Redeveloper agrees to supply the applicable Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, if any, so as to permit the recording of a copy of this Agreement in the office of the Carver County Recorder. It is intended and agreed that the covenants and agreements set forth in Section 3.3 of this Agreement shall be covenants running with the land and that they shall, in any event, and without regard to technical classification or designation, legal or otherwise, be binding to the fullest extent permitted by law and equity, for the benefit and in favor of, and enforceable by the Agency, its successors and assigns. In the event that any transferee or assignee of the Redeveloper (including without limitation any mortgagee taking possession of or title to the Redevelopment Property as a result -12- of any default in the terms of any mortgage to which the Redevelopment Property is now subject or may be subject in the future) breaches any one of the covenants and agreements set forth in said Section 3.3, the Agency may treat such breach as an Event of Default as provided in Article IV of this Agreement and may exercise any one or more of the remedies set forth in Section 4.2 of this Agreement. Section 5.7 Limitation of Liability. The Redeveloper and its succes- sors in fee title ownership of the Redevelopment Property shall be responsible for performing and observing the covenants and agreements set forth in this Agreement only during the time that the Redeveloper or a successor is the fee title owner of the Redevelopment Property. In the event fee title to the Redevelopment Property is conveyed j to a successor in interest, the grantee shall be automatically respon- sible for performing and observing the covenants and agreements herein contained and then the grantor shall be automatically freed and relieved from and after the date of such conveyance of all obli- gation and liability in connection with the performance and observance of such covenants and agreements. Section 5.8 Discharge from Land Records. The Agency agrees promptly upon request by Redeveloper or its successors and assigns, after the expiration or termination of this Agreement and the satisfaction of the covenants and agreements contained herein required to be performed by Redeveloper, to execute a termination agreement or other similar document in recordable form that shall serve to release and discharge the provisions of the Agreement as a lien or encumbrance of the Redevelopment Property from the records of the office of the Registrar of Titles of Carver County, Minnesota. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Agency has caused this Agreement to be duly exeucted in its name and behalf and its seal to be hereunto duly affixed, and the Redeveloper has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its name and behalf and its corporate seal to be hereunto duly affixed, on or as of the date first above written. (Seal) THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Its AND Its -13- REDEVELOPER BY: Its AND Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 198_1 by and , the , and , of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 191 by , of a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation Notary Public -14- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 191 by of a Minnesota partnership. _ DRAFTED BY: Grannis, Grannis, Farrell _ & Knutson, P.A. 403 Norwest Bank Building 161 North Concord Exchange South St. Paul, MN 55075 (612) 455 -1661 -15- Notary Public E X H I B I T " A" "SPECIMEN ONLY" "Minimum Improvements" means a 51,140 square foot multi - tenant office /warehouse building constructed of concrete block and masonry. X H I B I T " B" "SPECIMEN ONLY" Lots 4 and 5, Block 5, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Regis- trar of Titles, in and for Carver County, Minnesota. r- E X H I B I CERTIFICATION ,. C .. ASSESSOR Tax Parcel No. Street Address: The undersigned having reviewed the Construction Plans for the Minimum Improvements and the Market Value assigned to the Redevelop- ment Property upon which the Minimum Improvements are to be constructed pursuant to the attached Assessment Agreement, and being of the opinion that a "Minimum Market Value" set forth in this Certification appears reasonable, hereby certifies as follows: The undersigned Assessor, being legally responsible for the assessment of the Redevelopment Property (more particularly described in Exhibit "B" to the attached Assessment Agreement) hereby certifies that the market value assigned to such land (the Redevelop- ment Property) and improvements (the Minimum Improvements) upon completion of construction hereon shall be not less than Dollars ($ ) until termination of the attached Assessment Agreement. The undersigned further certifies that the market value of the Redevelopment Property as of the date of execution of this certification is Dollars ($ ) For the purposes of this certification, the words used herein have the definitions utilized in the attached Assessment Agreement. Assessor for the City of Chanhassen STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 , by the Assessor for the City of Chanhassen. Notary Public