HRA 1985 12 19AGENDA
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
DECEMBER 19, 1985, 7:30 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes.
3. Broaden Study Area Update - Fred Hoisington.
4. CHADDA Presentation and Update - Brad Johnson.
5. Old Business.
6. New Business.
7. Approval of Bills.
8. Adjournment.
** This agenda is the same as the last packet distributed for the
November 21, 1985 meeting. If you need another copy /packet
call Vicki at 937 -1900.
r
AGENDA
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
NOVEMBER 21, 1985, 7:30 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes.
3. Broaden Study Area Update - Fred Hoisington.
4. CHADDA Presentation and Update - Brad Johnson.
5. Old Business.
6. New Business.
7. Approval of Bills.
8. Adjournment.
a2.
�.
CHANHASSEN HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .,
f y
■ ■
690 COULTER DRIVE P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 r t
(61 2) 937-1900
u
y
I s
I N
MEMORANDUM,
}
Housing
and Redevelopment Authority [
'�
V-1. 1 1 ,
(� is �
�
AS.
gg�
gn #
FROM: Barbara
{r
Dac , City Planner yy1 Tt7 "a M
y • ) ) y J
ZYj,IA% KM ''l
DATE: November
�J¢0.fA
ti
15, 1985
SUBJ: Minutes
yyy ffiln
g !� y`�q•
The minutes of
the November 7, 1985 special meeting will be sub y �r»
mitted to you for review at the next regularly scheduled meeting. `
M
t
.,i It�rvf �dy
�i
�.
-
}
7
M
tr
�U
>.�•,
�,
x :4r
., ? .t, s ,o�. ,.,"
d.ey .c
>, ': i ri
.: tt
1`4,..�!L.4 : rA s -
3 1,v
;Y�i(:1 '�
!
(�.�
_� a �•1'.. _�i��a
. ✓A�''1 �.e.w
Jam.. .�cL.��l.u�uv(ex
-u.a
a�kei: air. as4L .a....
3
CHANHASSEN HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
' ®1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
.(612) 937 -1900
MEMORANDUM
SUBJ:
Fred Hoisington will make a presentation regarding the status of
the Broadened Study Area project in conformance with the attached
schedule.
r
Hoisington Group inc.
August 20, 1985
Land use Consultants
Revised Nov. 7, 1985
WORK SCHEDULE - CHANHASSEN
BROADENED STUDY AREA
Aug 19
Initial team meeting; review schedule;
define study area limits; define goals
of study'. -
Aug 19 -30
Basemapping; meet with MnDOT .& Eden
Prairie.Staff; meet with Chanhassen City
Staff to'refine work program, define
objectives, etc.
Aug 26 - Nov 18
Collect /Review /Map background information;
define opportunities and constraints;
prepare memo on issues, objectives,
criteria, constraints; meet with Central
MnDOT office and Metropolitan Council on
_
process for traffic forecasting.
Nov 18 -20
Meet with City Staff.
Nov 21
Meet with HRA & City Council (1) to
review background info & project status.
Nov 22 - Dec 16
Develop plan alternatives; design
traffic forecasting model, meet with
MnDOT & Counties.
Dec 16 -18
Review alternatives with City Staff,
Dec 19
Review alternatives with HRA & City
Council (2). Agree on alternatives
to be tested.
.Dec 20 - Jan 13
Test plan alternatives.
Jan 13 -15
Meet with City Staff.
Jan 16
Meet with HRA & City Council (3) to
review and select one plan and
identify modifications.
Jan 17 - Feb 17
Refine and detail plan and seek
public agency concurrence.
_ Feb 17 -19
Meet with City Staff.
Feb 20
Meet with HRA & City Council (4).
7300 Metro Blvd.
Sulte 525
-
Edlna, MN 55435
_ '...
(612) 835 -9960
Feb 21 - Mar 17
Mar 17 -19
Mar 20
Feb 21 - Mar 31
Apr 1
Apr 3
Apr 4 -8
Apr 17
Apr 18 -24
May 1 or 15
Prepare implementation, staging,
funding recommendations.
Meet with City Staff.
Meet with HRA & City Council (5) to
present implementation, staging,
funding recommendations, set public
hearing date.
Prepare preliminary plan report.
Submit preliminary report for staff
review.
Notice Public Hearing.
Modify plan and make available for
public hearing.
Conduct public hearing on plan (6).
Prepare & distribute final report
& plan.
Present final report to HRA & City
Council (7).
Hoisington Group Inc.
MEMO
Land Use Consultants
To: Chanhassen HRA & Planning Commission
From: Fred Hoisington, Consultant
— Subject: Broadened Study Area Alternative Plans
Date: 12 -12 -85
On December 18 and 19 we will be reviewing alternative land use
and street plans with the Planning Commission and HRA
respectively. The purpose of this review will be to settle on one
land use concept with some minor options and two street concepts
to serve as the basis for traffic analysis.
Plan A is basically in accordance with the City's adopted
Comprehensive Plan. It includes the connection of TH 101 to TH 5
at Dakota Avenue. It also includes interchanges with TH 212 at
County Road 17 and Dell Road. With this alternative we can also
test a partial intersection (rignt -in and right -out) between Great
Plains and the railroad bridge.
Plan B includes an interchange at Highways 212 and 101 and only a
minor departure in land use from Plan A. It includes additional
commercial development in the southwest quadrant of Highways 5 and
101 plus some higher intensity development in the vicinity of the
212/101 interchange.
This new interchange is shown at a location which provides good
access to downtown but does not encourage significant commercial
development due to the presence of the MUSA and a wetland area.
There are alternative locations for the interchange but others
will generate much more commercial development.
If this major departure from the present TH 101 is pursued, an
alignment will have to be established, purchased and a road
constructed in concert with the timing of TH 212. Since TH 101 is
classified as a temporary state highway and one which the
Department wants to eliminate from the trunk highway system. Plan
- B could also include an evaluation of interchanges at County Road
17, Dell Road and TH 101.
This plan proposes no connection of Highways 101 and 5 at Dakota
Avenue. While it clears up the access problems at this
intersection, it also routes 101 traffic through downtown.
— Plan B proposes a new full movement intersection with TH 5 between
Great Plains and the railroad bridge. By eliminating the railroad
crossing at Dakota, our chances will be enhanced for the new
railroad crossing into downtown. We can also test a
sub - alternative which connects TH 101 to TH 5 at Dakota but has
only a limited access intersection between Great Plains and the
railroad bridge.
7300 Metro Blvd.
Suite 525
Edina, MN 55435
(612) 835 -9960
fil 11 /
l •a F
all RIPA
1�.
11�. r� �' ���' �l �•cr ��I
a�an
6'::::::.i' .�.. �1\ Yet ►'�� ''G..N�
aI i
OPF
<I I?• v t - may. \♦0.�`' umm 1 _
a
�. ♦ Wv4 v a
Yi
Wit
N
1-
■ 1.
► ll -
1
1 M
OHM
✓a`� s�i
r�l �II
f7 �I
\V•" ��� r{I YXIM IY INNI '3
i
J '
y
:
1
I III,
-WAI
wN
1.
r
r
1
r
1
Hoisington Group Inc.
Land Use Consultants
MEMO
To: Don Ashworth & Barbara Dacy
From: Fred Hoisington
Subject: Meeting with MnDOT on 12 -9 -85 _
Date: 12 -11 -85
Present: Evan Green
Carl Hoffstedt
Denise Hill
Jim Benshoof
Mitch Wonson
Fred Hoisington
We reiterated the purpose of the BSA Study and identified specific
intersection issue areas including Dakota Avenue, downtown, and
the prospective 212 interchanges (Dell, 101, 17). Carl Hoffstedt
explained that the TH 212 /CR 17 interchange is a given at the
request of the County. He further stated that he thought the 212
interchanges were already agreed upon and expressed concern that
any changes would slow down the official map process.
We explained that the City is supportive of 212 and does not want
to slow progress and that we expect to test several alternatives
for review by MnDOT within 60 days. We also explained that one
alternative to be tested would replace Dell Road with an
interchange at 101. Carl said MnDOT's primary concerns would be
spacing (1 mile minimum), weaving volumes, forecasts and
operational characteristics.
We offered to review the alignment of 212 immediately to stay on
schedule with the official mapping process. Carl seemed to feel
that would be appropriate and said that interchanges could be.
decided later and the official map amended to accommodate them.
The meeting ended on a positive note. We had every indication
that MnDOT would. give consideration to alternative intersection
locations. We are to meet again with MnDOT within 30 days to
review our progress and discuss any alignment adjustments.
7300 Metro Blvd.
Suite 525
Edina, MN 55435
(612) 835 -9960
CHANHASSEN HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
'-' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
,u�• (612) 937 -1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Housing and Redevelopment Puthority,
FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner.
DATE: November 15, 1985
SUBJ: CHADDA Presentation
Brad Johnson has submitted the attached for your review in
advance of his presentation at the meeting.
®AFA
'/ Ik /lousing Alliance
MEMORANDUM
TO: CHANHASSEN HRA
FROM: CHADDA — Downtown Coordinating Developer
RE: Progress Report
DATE: November 14, 1985
CHADDA spent the first month of our roll as Coordinating Developer
initiating the market research, gathering information and meeting with
owners of businesses in downtown Chanhassen.
MARKET RESEARCH — We have commissioned Lee Maxfield of Maxfield,
Palm, Cevette and Company to lead the team performing the market
research commissioned by the BRA. The Maxfield proposal is attached.
Maxfield, Palm, Cevette and Company will be responsible for the
"convenience retail" portion of the study and any housing elements that are
needed. Laventhol and Horwath will conduct the hotel research and Carol
Perry of Retail Real Estate Concepts is responsible for the concept and
feasibility study of the specialty center ( "Micro Mall "). Lee Maxfield is
organizing a meeting to discuss their preliminary findings with us next
week. We will give an oral report at the BRA meeting the 21st of
November.
FINANCING UP DATE — The proposed changes in the Federal tax laws
relating to Real Estate development has everyone up in the air. The
changes that are proposed will make it more difficult to do a development
such as Downtown Chanhassen. Two key elements relate to the use of Tax
Increment financing: One proposal would limit the use of Tax Exempt
financing to true public improvements; The other would cap the amount
Tax Exempt money of any kind IRE, HRB and TIF to be allocated to a state
at $175 /person. The maximum Chanhassen would be associated under this
scenario is just over 1 million dollars per year. HRB's (Housing Revenue
Bonds) will have additional income restrictions. We are working with bond
underwriters and the city staff to see if there are any windows of
opportunity you should take advantage of for downtown, between now and
December 31. As of yet we have not found any feasible action you should
take. We will report more November 21.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
E WED
d:I L ^' �I q'I II :ila li ll ll'.(. tilllll• _oo
PJOVq 5 . .ill l`u'.�: \w•uln \ul'I II -'
ll d � .•Iil.. ?.IuunoWn. -�lu;
":i1ASS €N PLANNING DEPT, 11 1 111,1m 61 I;i22
page 2
Chanhassen HRA
BUSINESS COMMUNITY — Brad Johnson has met with the owners of Country
Clean, Chanhassen Lawn and Sports and Klingelhutz Realtors to explain the
role of Coordinating developer and to ascertain their business needs and
_ expectations for downtown. Response has been positive. They appreciate
the update on whats going on and have given us some good ideas. Those
we have visited want to stay in Chanhassen and appreciate the fact their
needs will be considered as we plan the first two phases of the
development. Country Clean and Chanhassen Lawn and Sports can see
benefits to relocating. We will contact the balance of the business
community between now and December 15.
Thanks for your continued cooperation.
BCJ /jw
enclosure
cc: City Staff
Fred Hoisington
l
AND
COMPANY
November 12, 1985
Mr. Brad Johnson
Housing Alliance
200 Butler North
510 First Avenue North
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Attached is our proposal for preparing a market feasibility analysis on the
mixed use development that you are proposing for Chanhassen, Minnesota.
For your information and convenience, we have subdivided the research into
separate studies for the hotel and commercial /retail components of the develop-
- ment. This will allow us to analyze each use separately, identify the best
interplay of uses and recommend additional research on recommended uses as
needed. Other consultants to be brought into the study process as needed are:
Laventhol 6 Horvath for hotel work and Retail Real Estate Concepts (Carol
Perry) for retail work.
To execute this contract, please sign and return one copy along with the re-
tainer and we will begin our work immediately. We look forward to working
with you on this project and are pleased to act as coordinator of additional
research as it is needed.
Sincerely,
MAXFIELD PALM CEVETTE AND COMP NY
Lee A. Maxfield
LAM:lmd
Attachment
620 KICKERNICK, 430 FIRST AVENUE NORTH'S
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401
612- 338 -0012
P:
November 12, 1985
Mr. Brad Johnson
Housing Alliance
° 200 Butler North
510 First Avenue North
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403
CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Maxfield Palm Cevette and Company proposes to provide and coordinate market
analysis and consulting services for the mixed use development proposed in
Chanhassen, Minnesota.
The purpose of this market research is to determine whether there is a demand
for your proposed development. The study will include: an analysis of area
demographics, the appropriateness of the site and location for additional com-
mercial development, compatibility of the proposed development components,
impact on the neighborhood, tenant /merchant mix, pricing, market positioning
and leasing absorption rates.
We will pay particular attention to the impact of the Chanhassen Dinner Theater
on retail and hotel demand in addition to demand generated from the traditional
local market area. As part of this study, we will work with Laventhol 3
j Horwath on the hotel element and Retail Real Estate Concepts on the retail
element.
SCOPE OF SERVICES AND REPORT OUTLINES
Retail /Commercial
A. Site and Location Analysis
1. Site visit to evaluate property, adjacent land uses, neighborhood
setting and visibility.
2. Determination of appropriateness of site for community and specialized
retail development.
3. Traffic counts, access and ingress.
4. Review of site plan.
Mr. Brad Johnson November 12, 1985
Housing Alliance Page 2
"— B. Demographic Trends
1. Study of local population, household and employment growth.
2. Determination of household income levels and spending patterns.
3. Identify local draw area for retail development and analysis.
4. Identify impact of Dinner Theater customers on retail sales.
C. Market Situation Analysis
1. Identification and analysis of existing and proposed competitive
retail /commercial development in market area.
2. Determination of additional supportable retail /commercial development.
3. Market demand analysis.
D. Analysis, Conclusions and Recommendations
1. Site plan review.
2. Recommendations on design, ingress /egress and parking.
3. Recommended size and scale of retail /commercial development including
specialty and community retail.
4. Provision for recreation and mall facilities.
5. Proposed tenant mix.
6. Rent and pricing projections.
7. Marketing program recommendations.
8. Procedural considerations.
Hotel
A. Site and Location Analysis
1. Site visit to determine suitability for hotel development.
2. Analysis of traffic patterns; access, ingress /egress, and visibility.
B. Demographic Trends
1. Study of area population, household and employment growth.
2. Profile of area employment.
3. Impact of area convention business and tourist trade.
C. Market Situation Analysis
1. Determination of competitive market area.
2. Identification of existing and proposed competitive hotels.
3. Analysis of occupancy, room rates, banquet and meeting space, and types
of facilities.
4. Survey of nearby employers as to need for hotel rooms and meeting
space.
5. Market demand analysis.
Mr. Brad Johnson November 12, 1985
Housing Alliance Page 3
D. Analysis, Conclusions and Recommendations
1. Site and location considerations.
2. Recommended number of rooms, function space, recreational amenities and
- type of hotel(s).
3. Room rate projections.
4. Occupancy projections.
5. Market positioning.
Coordination
1. Work with other consultants in developing work program.
2. Review work product.
3. Develop strategy for overall development concept.
WORK PRODUCT
These findings will be presented in a Feasibility Study format and will cover
the basic market criteria from which a decision can be made on each element of
the project. The Feasibility Study format is accepted by many lenders, limited
partners, investors or governmental bodies who require such documentation to
satisfy their financing requirements.
COST OF SERVICES - COMMERCIAL /RETAIL
The work outlined in the Scope of Services will be performed for Eight Thousand
Three Hundred Eighty -five Dollars ($8,385), plus the direct costs incurred for
travel, graphic preparation, and printing. A detailed breakdown of costs is
indicated below. Upon completion of the initial commercial /retail study addi-
tional consultants may be needed on an hourly basis to help define further the
concept.
A retainer in the amount of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500) will be
required upon submission of the contract and before commencement of work.by
Maxfield Palm Cevette and Company. The remaining portion shall be payable
monthly as costs in excess of the retainer are incurred.
Task(s) Hours /Hourly Rate Total
1. Orientation Meeting 4 Hour @ $75.00 /Hour $ 300.00
2 Hour @ $40.00 /Hour 80.00
380.00
Mr. Brad Johnson
'- Housing Alliance
_
Task(s)
Hours /Hourly Rate
2.
Site /Location Analysis
6
Hours
@
$75.00 /Hour
3.
Definition of Market Area/
2
Hours
@
$75.00 /Hour
Demographics
12
Hours
@
$40.00 /Hour
4.
Cataloguing Upcoming
8
Hours
@
$40.00 /Hour
Developments
5.
Identification and Analysis
4
Hours
@
$75.00 /Hour
of Comparable Retail
10
Hours
@
$40.00 /Hour
6.
Field Interviews
8
Hours
@
$40.00 /Hour
_ 7.
Development Plan Review
16
Hours
@
$75.00 /Hour
and Concept Definition
8
Hours
@
$65.00 /Hour
8. Determination of Commercial/ 6 Hours @ $75.00 /Hour
Retail Needs 4 Hours @ $65.00 /Hour
9. Research Review Meetings
(In -House and Client)
10. Market Feasibility Report
Writing and Preparation
COST OF SERVICES - HOTEL
4 Hours @ $75.00 /Hour
3 Hours @ $65.00 /Hour
3 Hours @ $40.00 /Hour
6 Hours @ $75.00 /Hour
12 Hours @ $65.00 /Hour
28 Hours @ $20.00 /Hour
Total
November 12, 1985
Page 4
Total
$ 450.00
$ 150.00
480.00
$ 630.00
$ 320.00
$ 300.00
400.00
$ 700.00
$ 320.00
$1,200.00
520.00
$1,720.00
$1,200.00
260.00
$1,460.00
$ 300.00
195.00
120.00
$ 615.00
$ 450.00
780.00
560.00
$1,790.00
$8,385.00
The work outlined in the Scope of Services will be performed for Four Thousand
Nine Hundred Sixty -five Dollars ($4,965), plus the direct costs incurred for
travel, graphic preparation, and printing. A detailed breakdown of costs is
indicated below. Additional refining of hotel concept may be necessary using
hotel consultants on hourly basis.
A retainer in the amount of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000) will be required
upon submission of the contract and before commencement of work by Maxfield
^, Palm Cevette and Company. The remaining portion shall be payable monthly as
costs in excess of the retainer are incurred.
Mr. Brad Johnson
Housing Alliance
November 12, 1985
Page 5
^
Task(s)
Hours /Hourly Rate
Total
1.
Orientation Meeting
1
Hour
@
$75.00 /Hour
$
75.00
1
Hour
@
$65.00 /Hour
65.00
$
140.00
2.
Site /Location Analysis
2
Hours
@
$75.00 /Hour
$
150.00
1
Hour
@
$65.00 /Hour
65.00
$
215.00
6 3.
Definition of Market Area/
2
Hours
@
$75.00 /Hour
$
150.00
Demographic Analysis
8
Hours
@
$40.00 /Hour
320.00
$
470.00
4.
Cataloguing Upcoming Hotel
3
Hours
@
$40.00 /Hour
$
120.00
Developments
_ 5.
Identification and Analysis
6
Hours
@
$75.00 /Hour
$
450.00
of Comparables (Rates,
16
Hours
@
$40.00 /Hour
640.00
Occupancy, Facilities)
$1,090.00
Including Field Work and
visits
6.
Concept Definition and
2
Hours
@
$75.00 /Hour
$
150.00
-
Relationship to Other
3
Hours
@
$65.00 /Hour
195.00
Facilities in Mixed Use
3
Hours
@
$40.00 /Hour
120.00
Development
$
465.00
^ 7.
Recommended Rates /Occupancy
2
Hours
@
$75.00 /Hour
$
150.00
Projections
2
Hours
@
$65.00 /Hour
130.00
4
Hours
@
$40.00 /Hour
160.00
$
440.00
8.
Market Positioning
2
Hours
@
$65.00 /Hour
$
130.00
2
Hours
@
$40.00 /Hour
80.00
$
210.00
9.
Research Review Meetings
2
Hours
@
$75.00 /Hour
$
150.00
^
(In -House and Client)
2
Hours
@
$65.00 /Hour
130.00
4
Hours
@
$40.00 /Hour
160.00
$
440.00
^ 10.
Market Feasibility Report
5
Hours
@
$75.00 /Hour
$
375.00
Writing and Preparation
8
Hours
@
$65.00 /Hour
520.00
24
Hours
@
$20.00 /Hour
480.00
^
$1,375.00
Total
$4,965.00
Mr. Brad Johnson November 12, 1985
Housing Alliance Page 6
COST OF SERVICES - COORDINATION
The work outlined in the Scope of Services will be performed for One Thousand
Six Hundred Fifty Dollars ($1,650), plus the direct costs incurred for travel,
telephone, graphic preparation and printing. Any meeting time beyond that set
forth in the following task outline requested by the Client will be billed at
our normal hourly rates for staff time.
A retainer in the amount of Five Hundred Dollars ($500) will be required upon
submission of the contract and before commencement of work by Maxfield Palm
Cevette and Company. The remaining portion shall be payable monthly as costs
in excess of the retainer are incurred.
Task(s) Hours /Hourly Rate Total
1. Develop Work Program 4 Hours @ $75.00 /Hour $ 300.00
2. Review Reports 4 Hours @ $75.00 /Hour $ 300.00
3. Develop Overall Strategy 10 Hours @ $75.00 /Hour $ 750.00
for Development
4. Client Meetings 4 Hours @ $75.00 /Hour $ 750.00
Total $1,650.00
COMPLETION TIME
If all studies completed concurrently, the work outlined under Scope of Ser-
vices will be completed within forty -five (45) days of the execution of this
contract, unless delayed by unexpected emergencies, forces beyond the control
of the parties, or by request of one party and acquiescence of the other party.
If only one study is chosen, completion time would be thirty (30) days.
PAYMENT
All costs incurred will be payable to Maxfield Palm Cevette and Company as
specified previously. Any work billed on a monthly basis is payable within
thirty (30) days of receipt of a statement showing the work completed and the
cost of the work. To each statement not paid within fifteen (15) days, a ser-
vice charge of one and one -half percent (1.5X) per month will be added to the
unpaid balance.
DISCLAIMER
The objective of this research assignment is to gather and analyze as many
market components as is reasonable within the time limits and projected staff
hours set forth in the Contract for Professional Services.
Mr. Brad Johnson November 12, 1985
Housing Alliance Page 7
We assume no responsibility for matters legal in character. The property /land
has been considered as though it were free and clear of any indebtedness, liens
or encumbrances; and good and marketable title and competent management is
assumed, unless otherwise stated.
If sketches of floor plans or plats are included in this report, they are to be
considered only approximate and are submitted to assist the reader in visual-
- izing the property. We assume no responsibility for the accuracy of any floor
plans.
Certain information and statistics contained in this report, or which are basis
of information for conclusions contained in this report, were furnished by
other independent sources. While we believe this information is reliable, it
has not been independently verified by us and we assume no responsibility for
its accuracy.
The conclusion in this report are based on our best judgments as market re-
search consultants. Maxfield Palm Cevette and Company disclaims any expressed
or implied guarantee, assurance or representation that the projections or con-
clusions will be realized as stated. The results with the proposed project may
be achieved, but also may vary from those projected due to changing market
conditions characteristic of the real estate industry, or a change in facts
that were the basis of conclusions in this report, or to other unforeseen cir-
cumstances.
In the event payment is not received on a timely basis, Maxfield Palm Cevette
and Company shall be entitled to a lien against the subject premises.
This agreement will be construed according to the laws of the State of Minne-
sota.
TERMINATION
This agreement may be terminated upon written notification of either party to
the other. In the event of termination, the Client will pay Maxfield Palm
Cevette and Company for staff hours performed at the firm's normal hourly rate,
plus expenses incurred.
Mr. Brad Johnson
Housing Alliance
November 12, 1985
Page 8
If this proposal meets with your approval, please sign and return one copy to
the offices of Maxfield Palm Cevette and Company.
Agreed to this day of November 1985.
MAXFIELD PALM CEVETTE AND COMPANY
6/ 14 /#/-
Lee A. M xfie d
HOUSING
(� V, V/
LAM:lmd
.1
AVAVA
AWAF ` /lousing Alliance
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chanhassen Housing Redevelopment Authority
FROM: CHADDA
RE: December Report
DATE: December 19, 1985
This report will deal with three items for your information and
consideration:
1. Summary of market analysis
_ 2. Preliminary phasing and timetable for development
3. Activities for participants during the next 45 days
MARKET RESEARCH - CHADDA requested the HRA spend up to $15,000
j toward market research to firm up the downtown development program and
f to use as background information to validate the plan, attract potential
anchor tennants, other developers, members of development team, and
equity to bring the plan to construction. Following is a summary of the
results:
_ I. HOUSING - Using a separate study CHADDA has determined there
is a market in the downtown vacinity for an additional 80 units
of market rate housing. We feel comfortable that the rental
housing demand will continue to grow in Chanhassen and
recomend that, if possible, it become a component of the
development.
_ 2. CONVENIENCE RETAIL - Both Maxfield A. Solmonson and Retail
Concepts have concluded there is demand for a full service,
upgraded grocery store of approximately 20,000 sq. ft., plus a
_ hardware store, drug store and other convenience stores for an
additional 20,000 sq. ft. There is also a local demand for an
additional 10- 20,000 sq. ft. of specialty retail stores that
could be included in a convenience center if a "specialty center"
is not developed as part of the plan.
3. HOTEL - Laventhol and Horwath report a need at this time for a
_ 80 -100 unit full service hotel in the community. Ideally
located near the Dinner Theatre, but with visability from
Highway 5. Fifty percent of the occupancy would come from
tourists to our area with the balance from local business
related stays. Many business people are not housed in the
Chanhassen area because of the lack of a full service,, ho �P, }r,il lin C. sui • 9nn
' .I�i P'i i'.� \n n ur• \ni'l li
\linmsil...li,. \liu n�s��i❑ G3.In
"R
page 2
Average daily rate would be $51. Laventhol and Horwath also
feel the ultimate success of the hotel will depend on its
relationship to the Dinner Theatre and the development of a
retail specialty center.
— 4. RETAIL SPECIALTY CENTER - Retail Real Estate Concepts
reports a potential for 20- 60,000 sq. ft. of specialty shops and
and restaurants. 20 -30% of the proposed space would be
occupied by restaurants. Shopping pattern in the greater
Chanhassen vacinity and Dinner Theatre patrons would need to
be studied in detail to determine the exact size of the facility
and mix of tennants. Development of such a facility will take
2 -3 years including design, tennant selection and construction.
It is very important that 75% of a retail specialty stores be
occupied the day the center opens because synergism creates
the sales and traffic.
PRELIMINARY PHASES AND TIMETABLE - Based upon the above information
the extension of many Real Fatate oriented tax incentives through 1986
and our own "gut" feeling, we feel the following primary phases are
obtainable as a goal:
1. HOUSING - 40 -60 units located on Chan View and the dry
cleaning site. Construct fall 1986, occupancy April 87.
2. SPECIALTY RETAIL - 40,000 sq. ft. of retail space north of 78th
St. Construct fall 1986, occupancy spring 1987.
3. HOTEL - Determine need to have specialty center in place prior
to opening hotel. Should specialty center not need to be in
place we could start earlier. Construction start late 1986 or
early 1987.
4. SPECIALTY CENTER - Construction 1987, occupancy 1988. We
need to spend another 6 months on market studies and design to
determine true feasibility and how many sq.ft. can be consumed.
Because of tax increment law changes project may have to have
a construction start late 1986 or mid 1987.
page 3
ACTIVITIES FOR NEXT 45 DAYS
CHADDA
1. Establish land control for housing site.
2. Negotiate contract with Retail Real Estate Concepts for
specialty retail center design.
3. Meet with existing businesses.
4. Study various methods of finance.
5. Prepare preliminary feasibility package for HRA and potential
equity partners.
6. Identify parcels of land needed to implement program.
7. Begin planning a potential relocation program for existing
businesses in conjunction with the city.
8. Begin discussion with various grocery store operators.
9. Determine feasibility of realignment of Highway 101.
HRA /CITY
1. Start to formulate potential land aquisition and relocation
policy for affected businesses and owners.
2. Determine posture related to tax increment financing, HRB and
IRB assistance to the project.
3. Determine potential for participation in the development of the
community center.
4. Timetable, costs and financing of the infrastructure to support
the various phases of the developments.
5. Report existing or planned developments within the community
in conflict with the proposal.
RETAIL
REAL ESTATE
CONCEPTS, INC.
— Consulting and.SerYce.
for Retail Dereopnient
I
r
1 1
F
i
l
Ir
December 18, 1985
Mr. Brad Johnson
Housing Alliance
510 - 1st Ave. No.
#200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Dear Brad:
Enclosed are the Chanhassen study results
any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
� I
Carol Perry -
CP/km
Enclosures
If you have
hIOSt Hllildnnq at Rit etplace. 10 Seated S'brel /V l:' Srtile 205, .IllnneaPulis, :Ilittnecuta 55413, 7hlc phone 671/3.31 -5900
RETAIL
REAL ESTATE
CONCEPTS, INC.
December 13 1985 (,ollsullil {�anelSeir/ces
Jor Retail 1)evelopmerrt
Mr. Brad Johnson
Vice President /Finance
Housing Alliance
510 First Avenue North, Ste 200
Minneapolis, MN 55403
Dear Brad:
I have enclosed for your review a summary of our services and qualifica-
tions and two examples of downtown studies where I have been responsible
for the retail analysis.
I thought I should also give you a brief background of Retail Real Estate
Concepts, Inc. After working for Dayton Hudson for 13 years, I joined
James McComb & Associates to develop and head the retail division where I
began to realize the tremendous need for retail expertise in the develop-
ment field. Frequently when we would bid on jobs I found that we had a
competitive edge because of my strong retail background whereas many of
our competitors' backgrounds were in real estate and /or leasing. As a
consequence, I decided to put together a team with a strong retail back-
ground and form a company which would focus on retail development with a
high level of expertise in the area of specialty retail. Combined, our
three principles have 56 years of retail experience. This experience,
coupled with each principle's individual area of expertise, gives us some
unique qualifications which enables us to produce a top quality product.
We are positioned to work with developers in all phases of retail develop-
ment, from site analysis through leasing.
At Tuesday's meeting you requested that I make a list of those tasks that
typically make up a retail study that can be used for acquiring finan-
cing, wooing tenants and generating interest in developers. You will
note in our summary of services and qualifications on the first page
under professional services I have checked those tasks which should be
considered in Phase I for a project of this nature. These tasks are
necessary to secure financing and sell the project to potential tenants
and /or developers. The cost of a study of this nature would range bet-
ween $20,000 and $35,000 depending on the tasks selected. If your pro-
ject is targeted to open in the next 24 to 36 months, these are tasks
that should be under way now.
We hope that we can be of continued assistance to you.
Sincerely,
RETAIL REAL ESTATE CONCEPTS, INC.
Carol M. Perry
Enclosures
r
hiN lirir /or /frri/rlin,r; al /tirerlr /aa•, /U.tie »nd.Slrrel A'.li.. STdlr 'OS..Ilinnerrlur /is..Ilinncarla SS�I,i, li• % /rbone G/3/.3,37 -5900
i
SITE EVALUATION
Located '15 miles southwest of downtown Minneapo lis, Chanhassen is
situated on the southwestern edge of the Minneapolis /St. Paul
urbanized area. From its early beginnings as a rural community,
Chanhassen has evolved into an outer tier suburb. Although indus-
trial and office development is occurring in arid adjacent to
Chanhassen, the city functions primarily as a bedroom community
with a majority of residents commuting to jobs outside of the city.
Historically, downtown Chanhassen has contained a small number of
retail operations which have provided for some of the everyday
conveniences and shopping needs of residents in the immediate area.
Limited population resources have not permitted the development of
a larger retail function. In the past, these stores also benefited
from traffic on State Highway 5 which passed through the center of
town. The relocation of State Highway 5 around the southern edge
of of the downtown area eliminated congestion caused by through
traffic, but also resulted in eliminating direct exposure of down-
town Chanhassen's stores to highway travelers.
Today, downtown Chanhassen is a small retail and service area which
provides some of the day -to -day services required by people who
live and work in the immediate area. The primary retail facility
is the small shopping complex located on the north side of 78th
street, anchored by a Kenny's Market. Addititonal retail and
service facilities have been recently developed on the south side
of the downtown area, south of the railroad tracks. These facili-
ties are primarily highway oriented with visual exposure and access
to State Highway 5. An MGM Liquor Store is the major retail
facility. The major attrac- tion in downtown Chanhassen is The
Chanhassen Dinner Theaters, which draw approximately 300,000 dinner
and theater patrons each year.
The sites proposed for retail development are oriented to 78th
Street. In this location, they are not readily visible from State
Highway 5. however, this is not seen as a significant drawback to
the establishment of retail facilities in this location. The
downtown area is readily accessible from State Highway 5 and can be
reached with a minimum amount of effort by potential customers
attracted to the downtown area.
Primary access to Chanhassen is via State Highway
5 (east -
west)
and State
Highway 101 (north - south) . State
Highway 5
will
eventually
be upgraded to four lane status from
I -494 to
State
P
Highway 41
with completion possible in about 1991.
No plans
have
been made
for upgrading Highway 101.
State Highway 5 is Chanhassen's primary link with commercial,
industrial areas and shopping centers to the east. It also
provides the primary access to Chanhassen from communities and
scattered residential areas to the west. Highway 101 links Chanhas-
sen with the shopping complexes at the intersection of 101 and 7.
County Road 17 provides access to Excelsior and residential areas
to the northwest of Chanhassen.
RETAIL REAL ES'IA'I'E CONCEI "IS, INC.
l
i
i
F
r
RETAIL MARKET POTENTIAL
The potential for development of two types of retail facilities was
examined. Convenience retail facilities which would serve the every-
day shopping needs of residents of the immediate area - - a
primary trade area not exceeding three miles; specialty shops which
would be oriented toward serving specialized and less frequent
shopping needs of residents of a larger trade area and visitors
drawn to downtown Chanhassen primarily by the Chanhassen Dinner
Theaters.
A convenience shopping center would have to be anchored by a
supermarket. The potential for a supermarket at this location is
limited somewhat by the presence of significant competition in
several locations. The listing of competitive supermarkets is
shown in Table 1. The most significant competition is presented by
the new Cub Foods store located at Highways 7 and 101, the Country
Store at Highways 7 and 101, and Driskill's Supervalu at State
Highway 5 and Eden Prairie Road. Supermarkets in Excelsior and
Waconia are significant competitors for potential customers living
in those directions.
TABLE I
COMPETITIVE SUPERMARKETS
SUPERMARKETS TOTAL SQ. FT.
Driskill's Super Valu 22,300
Highway 5 & Eden Prairie Road
Driskill's Super Valu 19,000
Highway 7 & 41
Country Store 38,000
Highways 7 & 101
Country Club 21,400
Highways 7 & 101
Cub Foods 80,000
Highways 7 & 101
Country Club 15,000
Excelsior & Eden Prairie Road
Haug's Super Valu 25,000
Excelsior & Eden Prairie Road
Super Valu 10,000
Waconia
IGA 15,000
Waconia
Source: Retail Real Estate Concepts, Inc.
RETAIL REAL ESTATE CONCEPTS, INC.
The market study performed for the Housing and Redevelopment Author-
ity in 1934 delineated a trade area which was elongated to the
r west, extending as far as Victoria. This trade area contained a
l 1930 population of about 7,200 persons. A three-mile radius
centered on downtown Chanhassen delineated for this analysis indi-
cates a 19530 population of about 14,400 persons. However, many of
the residents of the three -mile radius reside in the northern and
eastern sectors of the three -mile circle closer to major competi-
tors than they are to downtown Chanhassen.
Considering the size and location of population resources within
the trade area and tire competition presented by existing supermar-
kets, it has been determined that a supermarket of 15,000 to 20,000
square feet could be supported in downtown Chanhassen. The super-
market could serve as the anchor for a convenience shopping center
with an additional 15,000 to 20,000 square feet of convenience and
service stores and shops. Thus, a potential for a convenience
shopping center of approximately 30,000 to 40,000 square feet is
projected.
Family incomes and other demographic characteristics of residents
of the immediate area indicate that the convenience shopping center
should have art up -scale orientation. The center could include such
stores arid shops as a quality cleaners, shoe repair, pharmacy,
variety store, etc. Existing stores and service shops in downtown
Chanhassen should be given the opportunity to become a part of this
shopping center.
The potential for specialty stores in downtown Chanhassen is depen-
dent upon three primary market sources: (1) residents of a primary
trade area -- defined as a five -mile radius, (2) residents of the
Twin Cities metropolitan area (TCMA) who live beyond the five -mile
radius, arid (3) visitors to the Chanhassen Dinner Theaters.
It is axiomatic that specialty shopping centers are heavily depen-
dent upon market support from a primary trade area. Even success-
ful specialty centers which attract large numbers of tourists,
i.e., Ghiradelli Square and Faneuil hall Market Place, receives
much of their trade from people who live or work in proximity to
the center. A specialty center or theme center in downtown
Chanhassen would be no different.
A brief analysis of residential support for a specialty center in
downtown Chanhassen indicates that there are approximately 50,000
people living within a 5 -mile radius. The residents of this area
generate a current expenditure potential of approximately $33 mil-
lion for specialty store type merchandise (excluding restaurants
r
arid bars). However, there would be significant competition for
these retail dollars. In addition to the Dales, these dollars are
currently being spent at such shopping centers arid shopping areas
as 3onaventure, Galleria, St. Anthony plain, Riverplace, downtown
RE "PAIL REAL ESI'ArE CONCEITS, INC.
Excelsior, downtown Wayzata, and other scattered stores and shop-
ping areas. Furthermore, the bulk of the primary trade area
population is located inboard of Chanhassen (in the direction of
most economic, shopping, employment, and entertainment opportuni-
ties) and is oriented directionally away from Chanhassen. A
specialty shopping center in Chanhassen would have to overcome this
directional orientation in order to be successful.
A similar situation exists with regard to attracting customers from
other parts of the TCMA. The multitude of alternative shopping
opportunities available in the TCMA would necessitate the develop -
ment of a specialty center in Chanhassen which is unique and not
duplicated elsewhere in the TCMA.
The Chanhassen Dinner Theaters provide an additional source of
sales potential for a specialty shopping center. The dinner
theaters draw approximately 300,000 visitors a year to Chanhassen.
The theater draws from long distances, with about 1/3 of its
clientel coming from outside the TCMA and more than 10% coming from
outside the State of Minnesota. Locally, the theater draws heavily
from Minneapolis and the western suburbs. An analysis of theater
patrons showed that they include a high proportion of people in
better paying occupations and a high proportion of young to middle-
age adults.
No research is available to indicate the amount of retail expendi-
ture potential which might be generated by visitors to the Chanhas-
sen Dinner theaters. The propensity for dinner theater patrons to
spend money in specialty stores in Chanhassen would be affected by
such factors as the ability of the proposed complex to attract
overnight visitors, entice TCMA theater goers to arrive early or
stay late, and entice TCMA residents to return for a separate
shopping trip after, becoming aware of the total complex during a
dinner theater visit.
A rough cut at estimating the availability of sales potential
indicates that sufficient potential probably exists for support of
j the proposed specialty center provided a theme and /or tenant mix
can be developed which will be unique and different enough from
existing competition in the TCMA to draw area residents away from
existing competition. As indicated above, the population of the
5 -mile radius generates a specialty store potential of about $33
million annually. It is conceivable that a unique center in
Chanhassen could capture about 10% of this potential, about $3
million annually. It is also conceivable that the 300,000 visitors
to the Chanhassen Dinner Theaters could spend an average of $10
(this figure should be verified by detailed research) per visit in
specialty stores adjacent to the dinner theaters. These two
RETAIL REAL ESTATE CONCEPTS, INC.
sources would provide an annual sales volume of about $6 million,
which could potentially support 40,000 square feet of retail space.
Additional sales dollars could be drawn from beyond the 5 -mile
trade area increasing the potential for specialty store space to
perhaps 60,000 square feet.
In summary, a rough cut at the numbers indicates the possibility of
supporting specialty store space of perhaps 60,000 square feet in
downtown Chanhassen. We cannot emphasize strongly enough that a
detailed market analysis should be performed to examine closely the
various sources of retail trade and more accurately determine sales
volume and square footage potential.
RETAIL KCAL ESTATE CONCI, VFS, INC.
a Laventhol &Horwath
Certified Public Accountants
Brad Johnson
Vice President, Finance
Housing Alliance
Butler North Building, Suite 200
510 First Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55403
Dear Mr. Johnson:
100 Washington Square
Minneapolis, Minn. 55401
(612) 332 -5500
At your request we have prepared the following letter
report which summarizes our findings from the preliminary lodging
market analysis which we recently performed for a proposed hotel to
be built in conjunction with the redevelopment of downtown Chan-
hassen, Minnesota. Our analysis indicates that the lodging market
offers a high potential for the successful development of an
approximate 80 to 100 room hotel. This conclusion is based on
the preliminary findings of our study, which are presented below.
LODGING SUPPLY
Presently, there is only one hotel in Chanhassen, the
Chanhassen Inn, a 66 unit, independent economy lodging property.
Since this property's opening in May of 1982 it has expanded
twice, adding 23 rooms in 1984 and 19 rooms in 1985. Although
there are several hotels located in the adjacent cities of Eden
Prairie and Shakopee, these facilities were not considered com-
petitive due to their location relative to the proposed site.
Our research revealed a 48 -room country inn proposed for
development in Chanhassen. The proposed hotel is located approx-
imately 2 miles south of the site for the proposed hotel on County
Road 17. Plans for its development are still in their- preliminary
stages, with no timing having been established as to it's construc-
tion nor has financing been arranged. Should this facility be
built, it would have an adverse impact on the operations of the
proposed hotel.
LODGING DEMAND
Commercial and corporate demand is generated primarily by
area corporations and manufacturing concerns in Chanhassen, Chaska
and to a lesser extent Jonathon. Most of the commercial development
in Chanhassen has taken place in the last five years and is expected
_ to continue to show moderately strong growth in the future, as
Chanhassen and the surrounding community continues to develop.
r-
A member of Horwath & Horwath International with affiliated offices worldwide.
Group lodging demand is a relatively insignificant part
of total lodging demand as there are not enough hotel rooms avail -
able in the area to support large groups. Most of this demand
consists of area corporations holding smaller meetings and training
seminars. Little to no growth is expected in this market segment.
Tourist demand comprises the largest segment of total
roomnight demand. This segment consists primarily of theatre
patrons to the Chanhassen Dinner Theatre. The dinner theatre
annually attracts over 300,000 patrons, with over 308 of these
emanating from outside the Twin Cities metropolitan area. In
addition, tourist demand is also generated by the high volume
of summer tourists traveling to the south suburban areas of the
Twin Cities to visit Valleyfair Entertainment Center, Canterbury
Downs Race Track, the Minnesota Zoo and the Renaissance Festival.
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
We recommend the development of a hotel to be built in
conjunction with the redevelopment of downtown Chanhassen. We
recommend that it be configured with approximately 80 -100 rooms,
based on the competitive supply and existing and future demand. It
is assumed that the hotel would be built adjacent to the dinner
theatre, that the specialty retail component of the proposed re-
development of downtown Chanhassen be developed concurrently with
the development of the proposed hotel, and that commercial growth
in the area maintain its present strong pace.
It is anticipated that, due to its location near the
dinner theatre, the proposed hotel will capture primarily tourist
demand, which is presently being accommodated in Bloomington.
It will also capture a significant amount of commercial lodging
demand, which currently stays in Bloomington due to the lack of
full - service facilities in Chanhassen.
We also recommend a full- service lodging facility he
developed. The following facilities and amenities are recommended
for the proposed hotel:.
100 -125 seat restaurant
50 -75 seat cocktail lounge
2,400 square feet of meeting space
divisible into four sections
Indoor pool
Sauna
Whirlpool
Airport limousine service
A full- service hotel is recommended based on interview
with local demand generators who indicated a preference for a
facility of this type as well as creating a more marketable entity
for weekend tourist packages.
Based on the above information and our preliminary analysis
of the competitive market, we have estimated that the proposed
hotel will reach a stabilized occupancy of approximately 70 percent
annually. We have also estimated that the rate structure should be
approximately $51 single and $58 double (1985 dollars) which, after
some discounting for corporate rates, group demand and tourist
weekend packages, would result in an average daily rate of approxim-
ately $50 in 1985 dollars.
Since the projections are based on estimates and assump-
tions which are inherently subject to uncertainty and variation
depending upon evolving events, we do not represent them as results
that will actually be achieved.
Due to the preliminary nature of our analysis, this letter
is intended solely for your internal use; it may not be referred to
or quoted in any registration statement, prospectus, loan or other
— agreement or document.
December 13, 1985
I
M
AND
COMPANY
December 19, 1985
MEMORANDUM
y
W
To: Brad Johnson
Housing Alliance
From: Lee A. Maxfield
Maxfield Palm Cevette and Company
Re: Chanhassen Community Retail Shopping Center
We have had the opportunity to review community development in the Chanhassen
area, including the level and location of existing retail activity, and are
making recommendations for addition community retail development in Chanhassen
based on this analysis.
Community Growth
Our research indicates that growth in the Chanhassen area will continue at the
pace it has over the previous 15 years, and that the population will increase
by approximately 2,100 persons during the 1980'x, compared to 1,500 in the
1970's. In the entire Chanhassen market area, which extends to the central
portion of Minnetonka on the north, County Road 18 on the east, the Minnesota
River on the south, and the western borders of Laketown Township on the west,
population growth will be approximately 22,800 persons during the 1980'x, for a
total population of 89,000 by 1990. Households growth will follow a similar
Pattern during the 1980'x, with approximately 3,000 households in Chanhassen
and 32,000 households in the study area by 1990, 925 new households in Chanhas-
sen and 10,400 in the study area. Employment growth in the area has fueled
much of the new housing development since 1970, and between 1970 and 1980,
1,800 jobs were added in Chanhassen and 35,000 in the study area. Between 1980
and 1990, an additional 1,000 jobs are projected for Chanhassen and 12,000 for
the study area.
620 KICKERNICK, 430 FIRST AVENUE NORTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401
612- 338 -0012
Mr. Brad Johnsod December 19, 1985
Housing Alliance Page 2
Geographically, Chanhassen is on the western edge of development in the metro-
politan area, and most of the study area population, (Eden Prairie, Minnetonka)
is found to the east and north of Chanhassen, closer to developed portions of
the metropolitan area. Although there is considerable development and growth
potential in the study area as a whole, most of this growth will occur between
Chanhassen and the more developed portion of the Twin Cities.
Since people tend to drive to, rather than away from more developed areas, any
retail development in Chanhassen must be oriented to the immediate community"
rather than the larger study area, since few people in the outlying, more de-
veloped portions of the study area (particularly northern Minnetonka and east-
ern Eden Prairie), will have a reason to drive to Chanhassen to shop. As shown
on the graphic, the developed areas currently have a good variety and selection
of grocery stores and other convenience shopping services, which eliminate the
need to leave the area for basic shopping purposes. Therefore, we have assumed
that the greatest potential demand for grocery stores and other convenience and
retail stores will be generated from Chanhassen itself, and areas to the west
and south.
As indicated earlier, both the population and household base of Chanhassen are
increasing. Chanhassen is one of several communities in the study area with a
high level of home ownership and married couples with children. The population
is also younger than in many other areas of the Twin.Cities. Average income in
the study area is considerably above average, estimated at $42,000 compared to
$32,000 for Hennepin County and the Twin City metropolitan area. These higher
incomes, combined with a significantly large owner /occupied family - household
base, suggest that these households will have significant disposal income for
food purposes as well as other convenience items. Higher incomes also tend to
suggest a greater demand for a higher grade of merchandise, and "specialty"
shops such as delicatessens and bakeries.
Existing Convenience Shopping
There are currently no major grocery stores located in Chanhassen and there is
only one store located within three miles of the community. There are however,
11 grocery stores located within three to five miles. Combined, these 12
stores have approximately 285,000 square feet of floor area, and other than the
Cub Food Store at Highways 7 and 101 with 63,000 square feet, and the 12,000
square foot Country Club Store on Excelsior Boulevard in Minnetonka, all of the
stores have approximately 20,000 square feet each. Each of the major metro-
politan grocery store chains are represented in this area, and three of the
stores, (Driskill's Super Valu) are managed by the same operator. There are
seven Super Valus in the area, a Cub Store, a Country Store, a Red Owl Store, a
Country Club Market, and one independent operator.
Assuming average annual sales per square foot of $250 for all stores operating
in the area, these stores are doing approximately $71 million dollars in annual
sales, with the Cub Food Store accounting for a major share. Since these
f
Mr. Brad Johnson December 19, 1985
Housing Alliance Page 3
stores are located on the periphery of the market area, many of their customers
could be coming from outside of the Chanhassen market area, and are relying on
this market area for only a portion of their sales,
Convenience Shopping Potential
Since Chanhassen does not currently have a major grocery store, we have calcu-
lated the potential supportable square footage for grocery stores in Chanhassen
as well as the remainder of the study area. Table 8 shows that there are ap-
proximately 42,000 supportable square feet of grocery store space from Chanhas-
sen households alone, in addition to 118,000 square feet from the three mile
radius and 300,000 square feet from the five mile radius. Since we calculated
an existing inventory of approximately 285,000 square feet of grocery store
area within the five mile radius, the existing grocery stores appear to be
serving the expecting market. However, since we have calculated a potential
for 42,000 square feet of grocery sales from Chanhassen residents, we feel that
Chanhassen can capture a share of this grocery market. We estimate that a
grocery store in Chanhassen could capture one -third of the grocery store sales
and supportable square footage from Chanhassen residents, In addition, resi-
dents of the remainder of the study area, particularly people from Chaska,
Laketown Township and Victoria, and portions of western Eden Prairie, would
also consider purchasing groceries in Chanhassen. For these reasons, we feel
that a 20,000 to 25,000 square foot store could be supported in Chanhassen.
Since household incomes in the Chanhassen area are higher than the Twin City
average, and since higher income households tend to buy a broader selection of
grocery store items, we recommend that the store be positioned as an upgraded
store with a broader selection of specialty merchandise, an in -store bakery,
and a delicatessen counter.
Recommendations
A neighborhood or community shopping area cannot exist without a major tenant,
the grocery store. Having proved the demand for a grocery store in Chanhassen,
we conclude that additional retail stores are feasible. Given a 20,000 to
25,000 square foot grocery store, we would recommend that the center itself
contain 35,000 to 40,000 square feet, including a drug store and hardware store
as additional anchor tenants. Since the Chanhassen redevelopment area may also
have a specialty center, we would recommend that the subject convenience center
not include a wide variety of apparel stores or restaurants; especially if the
specialty center is built. These are more appropriate to create a dynamic
atmosphere in a specialty center, and the neighborhood convenience center
should be more oriented to providing daily necessities. Service stores such as
drycleaners, barber and beauty shops, video rental, shoe or appliance repair,
sporting goods and take -out delis, would be appropriate for the convenience
center,
Mr. Brad Johnson December 19, 1985
Housing Alliance Page 4
Since there is an existing hardware store and drug store in Chanhassen and
given the small scale of the Chanhassen market, we recommend that these two
stores be offered the opportunity to relocate to the proposed convenience cen-
ter, since we do not feel the market is deep enough for two drug stores and two
hardware stores in downtown Chanhassen. The success of the proposed conveni-
ence center would be predicated on the cooperation and interest of existing
merchants in Chanhassen desiring to become part of the new center. Once the
grocery store, drug store and hardware store are in place, we feel that the
additional 10,000 to 15,000 square feet of retail area can be filled easily by
the smaller merchants, those desiring 800 to 1,300 square foot average bays.
In order to compete in the marketplace, rents for the smaller retailers should
average close to $6.00 per square foot net, competitive with other centers in
the west suburban area.
Whether or not development of a specialty center or hotel as part of the Chan-
hassen Dinner Theatre complex goes forward, we see a strong need for the neigh-
borhood convenience center in Chanhassen. If development of the specialty
center does not occur, we see an opportunity to expand the neighborhood conven-
ience center to 45,000 or 50,000 square feet, adding smaller fashion merchants,
mens' and womens' clothing, children's clothing, as well as other stores which
might include a fabric store, stationary, jewelry and gift store; those mer-
chants that would have otherwise located in the specialty center.
Our preliminary analysis of the Chanhassen area indicates a strong potential
for development of the aforementioned community retail shopping center. Furth-
er analysis of the local market as development plans continue will help refine
the positioning of this retail development, and we will be available to provide
this additional market research as future plans require it.
TABLE 1
STUDY AREA POPULATION
1970 -1990
Change
Change
- -U. S. Census --
-Metro Council
- --
1970 -1980
1980
-1990
1970
1980
1985(1)
1990(2)
No.
Pct.
No.
Pct.
Chanhassen
4,839
6,359
7,380
8,500
1,520
31.4
2,141
33.7
Eden Prairie
6,938
16,263
24,060
32,000
9,325
134.4
15,737
96.8
Minne-
tonka(part)
17,067
18,051
18,800*
20,000* 984
5.8
1,949
10.8
Woodland
544
526
510
540
(18)
(3,3)
14
20
Deephaven
3,853
3,716
3,660
3,500
(137)
(3.6)
(216)
(5.8)
Greenwood
587
653
660
630
66
11.2
(23)
(3.5)
Tonka Bay
1,397
1,354
1,410
1,800
(43)
(3.1)
446
32.9
Excelsior
2,563
2,523
2,590
2,900
(40)
(1.6)
377
14.9
_ Shorewood
4,223
4,646
4,750
4,800
423
10.0
154
3.3
Victoria
850
1,425
1,930
2,200
575
67.6
775
54.4
Chaska
4,352
8,346
9,260
9,600
3,994
91.8
1,254
15.0
Laketown
1,750
2,424
2,380
2,600
674
38.5
176
7.3
Study Area
Total
48,963
66,286
77,390
89,070
17,323
35.4
22,784
34.4
- Metro Area
Total 1,874,502 1,985,873
2,086,350 2,182,450
111,371
5.9
196,577
9.9
*estimates by
Maxfield
Palm Cevette and Company
Sources: Bureau of the
Census,
U.S. Census
of Population
&
Housing,
1970
and
1980.
Metropolitan
Council:
1. 1985 estimates as
of April, 1985
2. "Metropolitan Development
and
Investment
Framework (draft)"
October,
1985
Maxfield Palm
Cevette
and Company
TABLE
2
-
STUDY AREA HOUSEHOLDS
1970 -1990
~
Change
Change
- - -U.S.
Census - --
-- -Metro
Council --
1970 -1980
1980 -1990
1970
1980
1985(1)
1990(2)
No.
Pct.
No.
Pct.
Chanhassen
11448
2,075
2,565
3,000
627
43.3
925
44.6
Eden Prairie
11653
5,383
8,5071
11,500
3,730
225.7
6,117
113.6
Minne-
tonka(Part)
41037
5,471
6,100*
7,100*
1,434
35.5
1,629
29.8
Woodland
159
183
183
200
24
15.1
17
9.3
Deephaven
1,062
1,223
1,269
1,300
161
15.2
77
6.3
Greenwood
194
234
248
250
40
20.6
16
6.8
Tonka Bay
433
495
540
700
62
14.3
205
41.4
Excelsior
895
1,149
1,268
1,400
254
28.4
251
21.8
Shorewood
1,112
1,484
1,568
1,650
372
33.5
166
Victoria
212
427
598
700
215
101.4
273
.11.2
63.9
Chaska
1,306
3,006
3,376
3,700
1,700
130.2
694
23.1
Laketown
406
521
505
550
115
28.3
29
5.6
Study Area
Total
12,917
21,651
26,727
32,050
8,734
67.6
10,399
48.0
Metro Area
--
Total
573,911
721,444
788,439
853,370 147,533
25.7
131,926
18.3
11985 Household count
from special census
conducted
in April,
1985
*estimates by Maxfield
Palm Cevette and Company
Sources: Bureau of the
Census,
U.S. Census
of Population
and
Housing 1970 6
1980
r Metropolitan
Council:
1. 1985 estimates
as
of April,
1985
2. "Metropolitan
Development
and Investment
Frame -
work (draft)," October, 1985
Maxfield
Palm
Cevette
and Company
TABLE 3
—
STUDY
AREA EMPLOYMENT
1970 -1990
Change
Change
Forecast
1970 -1980
1980
-1990
1970
1980
1990
No.
Pct.
No.
Pct.
,0000000
Chanhassen
1,200
�3
4,000
1,800
150.0
1,000
33.3
Eden Prairie
12,200
24 000
3 , 00
16,800
137.7
9,000
31.0
Minnetonka
18,000
32,000
33,000
14,000
77.8
1,000
3.1
Woodland
50
50
50
No
Change
No
Change
Deephaven
160
300
300
140
87.5
No
Change,
Greenwood
100
100
100
No
Change
No
Change
— Tonka Bay
50
50
50
No
Change
No
Change
Excelsior
3,000
3,000
3,000
No
Change
No
Change
Shorewood
520
550
550
30
5.8
No
Change
Victoria
310
600
600
290
93.5
No
Change
Chaska
3,600
5,500
6,500
1,900
52.8
1,000
18.2
Laketown
100
200
200
100
100.0
No
Change
— Study Area
Total
39,290
74,350
86,350
35,060
89.2
12,000
16.1
Metro Area
— Total
853,293
1,069,650
1,299,400
216,357
25.4
229,750
21.5
Sources: Metropolitan
Council
"Metropolitan Development
and
Investment
Frame-
work
(Draft"
October, 1985
Maxfield
Palm
Cevette and
Company
TABLE 4
STUDY AREA HOUSEHOLD TYPE
1980
Note: Percentages may not add to 100.0 due to rounding.
Sources: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1980
Maxfield Palm Cevette and Company
- - - - Percen
-- Non- Family-
Other
Living (Room -
Alone mates)
16.3 4.9
12.6 4.9
10.2 2.9
11.9 3.7
29.0 7.5
9.1 4.6
21.0 5.7
10.5 1.4
t Of All Households - - - -
---------- Family--- - - - - - --
Married Married
Couple /No Couple /w
Children Children Other
26.3 44.6 8.0
28.1 44.7 9.6
29.6 50.0 7.4
36.6 41.5 6.3
29.4 23.2 10.9
33.6 44.7 8.1
24.2 36.5 12.7
31.8 51.1 5.3
14.6 4.5 29.0 43.1 8.9
24.5 6.4 26.6 31.4 11.1
-- -
- - - - -
Number Of
Households
- - - -
- - - -
--- Non - Family - --
--------- Family----
- - - - --
Total
Other
Married
Married
House-
Living
(Room-
Couple /No
Couple /w
Other
holds
Alone
mates)
Children
Children
Family
Chanhassen
2,075
338
101
545
926
165
Eden Prairie
5,383
680
264
1,514
2,406
519
Minnetonka (Part)
5,471
556
156
1,617
2,738
404
Woodland /Deephaven
1,406
168
52
515
583
88
Greenwood /Tonka Bay/
Excelsior
1,878
544
140
553
436
205
Shorewood
1,484
135
68
498
663
120
Chaska
3,006
632
170
727
1,096
381
Victoria /Laketown
948
100
13
301
484
50
Study Area Total
21,651
3,153
964
6,270
9,332
1,932
Metro Area Total
721,444
176,977
46,065
191,747
226,489
81,166
Note: Percentages may not add to 100.0 due to rounding.
Sources: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1980
Maxfield Palm Cevette and Company
- - - - Percen
-- Non- Family-
Other
Living (Room -
Alone mates)
16.3 4.9
12.6 4.9
10.2 2.9
11.9 3.7
29.0 7.5
9.1 4.6
21.0 5.7
10.5 1.4
t Of All Households - - - -
---------- Family--- - - - - - --
Married Married
Couple /No Couple /w
Children Children Other
26.3 44.6 8.0
28.1 44.7 9.6
29.6 50.0 7.4
36.6 41.5 6.3
29.4 23.2 10.9
33.6 44.7 8.1
24.2 36.5 12.7
31.8 51.1 5.3
14.6 4.5 29.0 43.1 8.9
24.5 6.4 26.6 31.4 11.1
Sources: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1980
Maxfield Palm Cevette and Company
TABLE 5
STUDY AREA
HOUSEHOLD
TENURE
1980
Rental
Total
- - -- Owner - - --
- - -- Renter - - --
Vacancy
Households
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Rate (Pct.)
Chahassen
2,075
1,572
75.8
503
24.2
8.0
Eden Prairie
5,383
4,378
81.3
1,005
18.7
4.1
_ Minnetonka (part)
5,471
4,791
87.6
680
12.4
12.4
Woodland /Deephaven
1,406
1,295
92.1
111
7.9
1.8
Greenwood /Tonka Bay/
Excelsior
1,878
1,066
56.8
812
43.2
3.2
Shorewood
1,484
1,306
88.0
178
12.0
5.8
Chaska
3,006
2,192
72.9
814
27.1
4.7
Victoria /Laketown
948
807
85.1
141
14.9
3.4
Study Area Total
21,651
17,407
80.4
4,244
19.6
5.8
Metro Area Total
721,444
478,731
66.4
242,713
33.6
4.1
Sources: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1980
Maxfield Palm Cevette and Company
TABLE 6
STUDY AREA AGE DISTRIBUTION
1970 & 1980
(In Percent)
Study Area Total 46,363* 66,286 45.6 35.5 18.3 26.7 24.3 25.5 5.8 6.9 6.0 5.4
Metro Area Total 1,874,502 1,985,873 40.0 31.8 22.7 29.2 20.9 21.4 7.5 8.2 8.7 9.5
*1970 Age Breakdown unavailable for 'Victoria and Laketown. Totals for 1970 do not in-
clude these communities.
Note: Percentages may not add to 100.0 due to rounding.
Sources: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1970 and 1980
Maxfield Palm Cevette and Company
Total
Age 19
Age
Age
Age
Age
65
Population
and
Under
20 -34
35 -54
55 -64
and
Over
1970
1980
1970
1980
1970
1980
1970
1980
1970
1980
1970
1980
_ Chanhassen
4,839
6,359
44.3
36.4
21.1
26.6
23.1
26.1
5.8
5.9
5.7
4.9
Eden Prairie
6,938
16,263
50.1
36.0
19.3
31.8
23.0
24.9
4.6
5.1
3.0
2.2
Minnetonka (part)
17,067
18,051
48.3
36.9
16.5
21.0
26.1
29.2
4.6
7.7
4.6
5.2
- Woodland /Deephaven
4,397
4,242
42.4
33.5
15.8
18.6
26.8
29.8
7.8
10.2
7.2
7.9
Greenland /Tonka Bay/
Excelsior
4,547
4,530
36.2
26.3
21.8
29.9
21.8
21.4
9.1
10.7
11.1
11.7
Shorewood
4,223
4,646
46.1
35.2
17.0
22.6
25.5
27.8
6.2
8.5
5.1
5.9
Chaska
4,352
8,346
41.7
35.4
20.7
33.7
19.4
18.1
7.1
5.6
11.1
7.3
Victoria / Laketown*
- --
3,849
N/A
39.5
N/A
26.1
N/A
22.7
N/A
6.0
N/A
5.7
Study Area Total 46,363* 66,286 45.6 35.5 18.3 26.7 24.3 25.5 5.8 6.9 6.0 5.4
Metro Area Total 1,874,502 1,985,873 40.0 31.8 22.7 29.2 20.9 21.4 7.5 8.2 8.7 9.5
*1970 Age Breakdown unavailable for 'Victoria and Laketown. Totals for 1970 do not in-
clude these communities.
Note: Percentages may not add to 100.0 due to rounding.
Sources: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1970 and 1980
Maxfield Palm Cevette and Company
1970--1980
COMPARISON REPORT
PAGE 1 OF 2
CHANHASSEN. MN
AREA REFERENCE:
RADIUS:
OUTER 3.00
78TH ST k HWY 101
L.ATITUIIE!
44 51 32
IIEGREES
NORTH 44.86
0 -3 MILES
L-ONGITIUDE:
93 31 51
DEGREES
WEST 93.53
1970
1980 1970
-1980
ANNUAL
CENSUS
CENSUS
CHANGE?.
CHANGE
POPULATION
9974
14397
4423
3.747.
HOUSEHOLDS
2508
4588
2080
6.237
FAMILIE:.S
2319
3746
1427
4.91%
-
AVG HH SIZE
3.87
3.09
-0.78
-2.24%
AVG FAM SIZE
4.08
3.48
-0.59
-1.56%
-
TOT INC(MIL$)
34.5
140.7
106.2
15.09%
PER CAPITA INC
$ 3461
$
9776
6315
1004%
•---- -- --•-•- - -- -- -•------•-----------
1970
1980
1970 -1980
-
CENSUS
%
CENSUS
%
CHANGE
TOTAL POP
9974
100.0
14397
100.0
^
RACE DISTRIBUTION
WHITE
9926
9945
14176
98.5
-1.1%
BLACK
22
0.2
41
0.3
0.1%
OTHER
26
0.3
180
1.3
1107
HISPANIC
14
0.1.
79
0.5
0.4%
AGE DISTRII'UTION
0-- 4
1065
10.7
1.189
8.3
-2.4%
5--1.1.
1867
18.7
1844
12.8
-5.9%
j�
12- -16
17.-21.
1240
12.4
1534
10.7
-1.8%
695
710
1165
8.1
1.1%
22-29
900
9.0
1876
13.0
4.0%
r
30--44
1989
19.9
3929
27.3
7.3%
ll
4Ci -54
895
9.0
1431
919
1<0%
55-64
637
6.4
816
5.7
-0.77
65+
686
6.9
612
4.3
-2.6%
AVERAGE AGE
28.32
29.48
MEDIAN AGE
23.05
28.33
HOUSEHOLD INCOME:
$ 0 -- 9999
920
36.7
444
9.7
-27.0%
$10000- 14999
779
31.1.
384
8,4
-22.77
$15000 - -24999
619
24.7
1061
23.1
-146%
$25000 -34999
65
2.6
1189
25.9
23.37
$35000- -49999
?8
984
21.4
17.5%
$50000 -74999
• 7
1.9
365
7.7
6.77.
$75000+
0
0.0
171
3.7
3.7%
AVERAGE HH INCOME:
$ 13764
$
30674
MEDIAN HH INCOME
$ 12144
$
27889
-- •-------
COPYRIGHT 1985 CACIF
-------- ---
ARLINGTONY VA
-- - --
(800)
--------------------------
336• -6600 X- -7807 DATE 11/25/85
1970 -1980 COMPARISON REPORT
PAGE 2 OF 2
1970
1980 .
1970 -1980
CENSUS
7
CENSUS
%
CHANGE
FAMILY INCOME
$ 0- 9999
738
31.8
225
6.0
-25.87
$10000 -14999
773
33.3
238
6.4
-27.0%
$15000 -24999
619
26.7
822
22.0
-4.77
$25000--34999
65
2.8
1073
26.7
25,97
$35000--49999
98
4.2
901
24.1
19,87
$50000 -74999
26
ill
324
8.7
7.57
'.875000+
0
010
161
4.3
4.37
AVERAGE FAMILY INC. $
14434
$
32971
MEDIAN FAMILY INC. $
12726
$
29807
_
OCCUPATION
MANAGER /PROFESSIONAL
1036
28.6
2871
38.3
9.6%
SALES
311
8.6
1025
13.7
5.1 /.
CLERICAL.
528
14,6
1275
17.0
2.47
j
CRAFT
476
13,1
786
10.5
-2.77
OPERATIVES
544
15.0
445
5.9
-9.17
LABORER
131
3.6
237
3.2
°'
FARM
221
6.1
83
1.1
-5.07
SERVICE
321
8.9
778
10.4
1.5%
PRIVATE
53
1.5
4
0.1
I'=DUCATION(ADULTS ? 25)
0. 8 YEARS
1106•
22,8
404
5.0
- 17.87.
9 -11 YEARS
537
11.1
380
4.7
-6.37
12 YEARS
1716
35A
2660
33.2
-2.2%
%
13--15 YEARS
682
14.1
1984
24.7
10,77
16+ YEARS
806
16,6
25$9
32,3
15,77
HOUSEHOLD PARAMETERS
FAMILY POPULATION
9451
94.8
13041
90.6
-4.27
HOUSEHOLD POPULATION
9714
97.4
14175
98.5
1.17
r
GROUP RUARTERS POP
260
2.6
222
1.5
=1.17
`
TOTAL POPULATION
9974
100.0
14397
100.0
UNITS IN STRUCTURE
i
1
,,
2225
89,7
3E219
77.6
- 1:'.1%
135
5.4
170
3.5
- 2.0'/.
-
3 --4
54'
26
1.0
117
2.4
1.3%
MOBILE
61
33
2.5
809
16.4
14.07
1.3
:'
011
-1.27
HOME VALUE
AVERAGE $
29606
$
92277
MEDIAN $
27091
$
84725
7 OWNER
88.2
77.2
RENT'
AVERAGE $
111
$
330
MEDIAN $
109
$
297
7 RENTER
- -- -- ---------------------
11,8
22,8
NOTE: 1970 CONTRACT RENT
--- --- --- --
AND 1980
--- ----------
GROSS
-- - - --
RENT(INCLUDES
UTILITIES) -
ARE NOT COMPARABLE.
I�
--------•-----------------•--•--------------
COPYRIGHT 1985 CACI, ARLINGTONY VA
(800)
336 -6600 X- 7807 - DATE
11/25/85
r
-
1970 -1980
COMPARISON
REPORT
PAGE 1 OF 2
CHANHASSEN' MN
AREA REFERENCE:
RADIUS;
OUTER 5.00
78TH ST & HWY 101
LATITUDE!
44 51 32
DEGREES
NORTH 44.86
0 - -' MILES
LONGITUDE!
93 31 51
DEGREES
WEST 93.53
1970
1980 1970
--1980
ANNUAL.
CENSUS
CENSUS
CHANGE
CHANGE
POPULATION
36112
46461
10349
2.55%
HOUSEHOLDS
9437
15420
5983
5.03%
FAMILIES
8528
12208
3680
3.65%
AVG HH SIZE
3.74
2.96
-0.78
- 2.31%
AVG, FAM SIZE
4.00
3.40
-0.60
-1.60%
TOT INC(MIL$)
137.8
454.1
316.3
1:.67%
PER CAPITA INC
---•---•--------------•--
$ 3816
$
9775
5959
9.86%
1970
1980
1970 -1980
CENSUS
%
CENSUS
%
CHANGE:.
TOTAL- POP
36112
100.0
46461
100.0
RACE DISTRIBUTION
WHITE
35925
99.5
45715
98.4
-1.1%
-
BLACK
OTHER
85
0.2
165
0.4
0.1%
102
0.3
581
1.3
110%
HISPANIC
96
0.3
265
0.6
0.3%
AGE DISTRIBUTION
0 -- 4
3632
1011
3664
7.9
-2.27
5 -11
6450
17.9
5540
11.9
-5.9%
12 -16
4552
12.6
4711
10.1
-2.5%
17 -21
2587
1 .2
39 47
8. 5
1.3%
22--29
3265
910
6399
13.8
4.77
30 -44
7083
19.6
11434
24.6
5.0%
45 -54
3478
9.6
4755
10.2
0.6%
55 -64
2547
7.1
3218
6.9
-0.1%
-
651
2517
7.0
2794
6.0
-1.0%
i
AVERAGE AGE
28.98
30.84
^
MEDIAN AGE
24.02
28.68
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
$ 0- 9999
3462
36.7
1843
12.0
-24.7%
r
$10000 -14999
2635
27.9
1641
10.6
-17.37
I
$15000 -24999
2405
25.5
3730
24.2
-1.3%
$25000- 34999
303
3.2
3575
23.2
20.0%
$35000 -49999
456
4.8
2797
18.1
13.3%
$50000 -74999
176
1.9
1192
7.7
5.97
$75000+
0
0.0
644
4.2
4.2%
AVERAGE HH INCOME
$ 14604
$
29451
MEDIAN HH INCOME.
$ 12384
$
26101
r
•---------------------•--------------------•----
COPYRIGHT 1985 CACIP
ARLINGTON? VA
(800)
336 -6600 X -7807 DATE 11 /25 /65
1.
1970 -1980
COMPARISON REPORT
PAGE 2 OF 2
1970
1980
1970 -1980
CENSUS
%
CENSUS
%
CHANGE
FAMILY INCOME
$ 0- 4999
2624
30.8
797
6.5
-24.2%
$10000 -14999
2594
30.4
1071
818
-21.6%
$15000 -24999
2385
28.0
2905
23.8
-4.2%
$25000 -34999
302
3.5
3208
24.3
22.7%
$35000•-49999
454
5.3
2555
20,9
15.6%
$55000 -74999
169
2.0
1073
8.8
6.81.
$75000+
0
0.0
600
4.9
4.9%
AVERAGE FAMILY INC. $
15497
$
32263
MEDIAN FAMILY INC, $
13161
$
28744
OCCUPATION
r
MANAGER /PROFESSIONAL
4128
31.2
8682
35.9
4.7%
SALES
1227
9.:3
3415
14.1
4.8% +
CLERICAL.
1994
15.1
4194
17.3
2.3%
CRAFT
1599
12.1
2220
9.2
-2.9%
OPERATIVES
1810
13.7
2224
9.2
-4.5%
LABORER
509
3.8
757
3.1
--0.7%
FARM
596
4,5
199
018
-3.7%
SERVICE
1199
9.1
2448
10.1
1.1%
PRIVATE
174
1.3
65
0.3
-1.0%
EDUCATION(ADULTS > 25)
0- 8 YEARS
3598
20,2
1714
6.5
-13.6%
9--11 YEARS
1785
10.0
1466
5.6
-4.4/„
r
12 YEARS
13 -15 YEARS
6285
2779
35.2
15.6
8551
32.6
-2.6%
6250
23.8
8.3%
16+ YEARS
3407
1911
8258
31.5
12.47
r
HOUSEHOLD PARAMETERS
`
FAMILY POPULATION
34078
94,4
41518
89.4
-5.07
HOUSEHOLD POPULATION
35319
97.8
45692
98.3
0.5%
r
GROUP QUARTERS POP
793
2.2
769
1.7
wo.5%
TOTAL POPULATION
36112 10010
46461
100.0
UNITS IN STRUCTURE
L
8204
87.3
12057
74,4
•-12.5%
2
465
09
562
3.5
-1.57
3--4
5+
130
1.4
400
2.5
1.1%
450
4.8
2768
17.1
12.3%
MDf ±ILE
146
1.6
410
2.5
1,0%
_
HOME VALUE.
AVERAGE $
30702
$
91194
MEDIAN $
27412
$
80349
% OWNER
84.6
75.9
RENT
AVERAGE $
117
$
301
MEDIAN $
119
$
283
7. RENTER
-------•-----•--------------------------•-------------------------•-
15.4
24.1
NOTE: 1970 CONTRACT RENT
AND 1980
GROSS
RENT(INCLUDES
UTILITIES)
r
ARE NOT COMPARABLE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT 1985 CACI, ARLINGTON, VA
(800)
336 -6600 X•-7807 DATE 11/25/85
----------
r
'LIN
... .. .... ...
T
Rt�
A
MIINNE"TON"
AV�
i Its mo
clvt
. t4 2. —DE Cooper's Super Valu
19, 000 Sq Ft.
C
ub � Foods GpN ffie.;
A ore
63 0 Ft.
To N 1
Driskill's Super Yalu i j'
Country Club Ma
t
IN
Driskill's Super Valu 12, 000 Sq. Ft.
Driskill's Super Va
M
0 w
.. . ..... ... Baron's Supermarket
f 20,000 Sq. Ft.
Cooper's Super V alu Cleves Red Ow
21, 000 Sq. Ft.
..• 20, 000 Sq. Ft.
; :C H A S K'A
u a, s Super Valu
000 Sq. Ft.
11 A C K T
G R:,
•
I I-L-1" ", (
{Jerry's Super Valu
23,000 Sq. Ft.
Existing Grocers
TABLE
7
STUDY
AREA
GROCERS
^
Radius
Years in
Square
Sales
Cus-
Major
Name and Address
Operation
Footage
Volume
tomers
Competition
Cooper's Super Valu
8
20,000
N/A
15 Mi. W
Country Store
_ 709 Walnut Street
2 Mi. E
Cub Foods
Chaska, Minnesota
Conven-
ience Stores
Cub Foods
1 -1/2
63,000
N/A
5 - 6 Mi.
Country Store
4801 Hwy 101
W. Mtka.
Super Value
Minnetonka, Minnesota
Country Club Market
20
12,000
N/A
5 Miles
Cub Foods
14625 Excelsior Blvd.
Super Valu
Minnetonka, Minnesota
Cleve's Red Owl
25
21,000
N/A
10 Mi. SW
Juba's Super
828 S. 1st Avenue
5 Mi. E
Valu
Shakopee, Minnesota
Country Store
Country Club
_ Baron's Supermarket
40
20,000
N/A
5 Mi.
Cub Foods
123 West 2nd
Shakopee, Minnesota
Jerry's Super Valu
6
23,000
N/A
5 - 7 Mi.
Country Store
Preserve Village Center
Cub Foods
Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Conven-
ience Stores
Juba's Super Valu
9
20,000
N/A
Within 5 Mi,
Red -Owl
^ Minnesota Valley Mall
Fairway Foods
Shakopee, Minnesota
Super Valu
Cub Foods
— Country Store
20
22,000
N/A
5 -8 Mi.
Super Valu
4900 Hwy 7
Mtka., Excel.
Cub Foods
Minnetonka, Minnesota
Deephaven
Cooper's Super Valu
12
19,000
N/A
2 Mi. Mtka.
Convenience &
17501 Minnetonka Blvd.
Hopkins
other Grocery
Minnetonka, Minnesota
Stores.
r
Cub Foods
f
Country Store
TABLE 7
STUDY AREA GROCERS
(Continued)
Source: Maxfield Palm Cevette and Company
Radius
Years in
Square
Sales
Cus—
Major
Name and Address
Operation
Footage Volume
tomers
Competition
Driskill's Super Valu
N/A
20,000
Est. N/A
N/A
N/A
Hwy 7 & Hwy 41
Excelsior, Minnesota
Driskill's Super Valu
N/A
20,000
Est. N/A
N/A
N/A
Hwy 5 & Hwy 4
Eden prairie, Minnesota
Driskill's Super Valu
N/A
25,000
Est. N/A
N/A
N/A
14400 Excelsior Blvd.
Minnetonka, Minnesota
Source: Maxfield Palm Cevette and Company
TABLE 8
CHANHASSEN GROCERY STORE DEMAND
1985
Sourc: Maxfield Palm Cevette and Company
Chanhassen
3 Miles
5 Miles
1980 Households
2,000
4,588
15,420
1985 Households
2,500
7,000
18,500
Household Income 1985
$42,300
$42,300
$40,600
Total Household Income
$105,750,000
$296,100,000
$751,100,000
Times: 10 percent of
household income as food
store expenditures
.10
.10
.10
Equals: Total food store
sales
$10,575,000
$29,610,000
$75,110,000
Divided by $250 per square
_ foot as required sales
$250
$250
$250
Equals: supportable square
footage
42,300
118,440
300,440
Sourc: Maxfield Palm Cevette and Company
I
l
r
i
—1
I
l'
t
f
TIF, IDBs on
shaky ground
RACE IS ON TO
BEAT THE CLOCK
to Jennifer Waters
here are few things that get cities
more riled than federal changes in
tax - exempt bonding power, particularly
%hen there are projects afoot that are
believed to make or break a city's —and
potentially its leaders!--futures.
Such is the case in Minneapolis and
Bloomington where the two cities are
scrambling to get together multi - million
dollar financial packages for their respective
convention center and retail projects before
the House Ways and Means Committee fin-
ishes tinkering with such essential tools as tax
increment financing (TIF), industrial
revenue bonds (IRBs), industrial develop-
ment bonds (IDBs) and general obligation
bonds.
While it appears that Minneapolis' conven-
tion center is less dependent on getting its
binds sold before a possible Dec. 31 dead-
line, the success of Bloominbaon's mega -mall
is directly tied to beating Congressional law
changes.
"Anytime Congress starts writing rules,
everything's injeopardy," says Minneapolis
Councilmember Tony Scallon, DFL -9th
Ward.
That may be subject to debate, but Scallon
and his colleagues on the City Council see
any rule rewriting in Washington as being
perilous to their redevelopment plans on the
homefront — particularly downtown Minne-
apolis. And they are desperately trying to
jump the gun on any laws concerning tax -
exempt bonding that are likely to go into
effect Jan. I.
Of particular interest to them is a proposal
in the House that would do away with tax
increment financing, and industrial revenue
and development bonding, while putting tight
restrictions on other forms of bonding. Ac-
cording to Janel Bush, federal lobbyist for the
city, the bill is still in its preliminary stages,
but for all intents and purposes, it should be
considered law.
Besides abolishing TIF, IDBs and IRBs,
what it will do is impose what Bush calls the
"5 percent test" in which proceeds of a bind
cannot benefit one individual or gimp by
more than 5 percent of the total issue. There
are exemptions to that, such as solid waste
facilities, and single - family and multi - family
housing, but a $650 million statewide cap on
binding would limit the numbers of bonds
Minneapolis and Bloomington would be
eligible to float.
The city's publicly owned convention
center proposal and its plans to sell about
$170 million in bonds to finance it are not
likely tube greatly a0'ccled by such a change
in the law. But it definitely will become more
costly afier Jan. I because eliminating the tax
exemption on the interest earned will cause
investors to seek a higher interest return,
ultimately ricocheting to higher costs to the
developers and cities borrowing the money.
Meanwhile, any development linked to the
convention center probably would be affected
—like the 800 -room Hilton Convention
Center Hotel or the 800DW square foot retail
mall proposed by the French developers.
Both will need tax increment financing for
land acquisitdm, skyways, private parking
ramps. etc.
Issuing the binds and then "parking" them
until they are needed may sound like a viable
alternative, but Congress is attempting to
curtail that too. The House proposal also
calls fir eliminating arbitrage, or re- investing
the bond money at a higher interest rate to
make money off the interest.
"Traditionally, cities could keep the (bond)
money and reduce the costs of the debt by
parking say 50 percent of the bond :' says lob-
byist Bush. "Now, they're saying if you make
money off the bond, we want you to send it to
us in Washington. So it becomes much more
expensive for a city to issue a bond :'
At the same lime, the arbitrage restrictions
also increase the costs of borrowing money
for building public improvements such as
sewers, roads, etc. and is likely to hike prop-
erty taxes to cover those expenses.
"This stops cities dead in their tracks in
doing normal things," Bush adds.
Not wanting to be stopped in mid -step,
Minneapolis city officials are hoping to leap
over the potential federal obstacles to their
300,000 square foot convention center and
800-room Hilton Hotel. But because there
are no development contracts in hand and
because there are no guarantees of state
legislative approval on city tax authorizations
that ultimately would back the bonds —Min-
neapolis really could have used a special ses-
sion too —thc council is faced with a pressing
problem: Go to market now and hope for the
best, or wail, probably pay more later and
hope for the best.
There's another whole slew of problems
that are tied to the bonding questions. For
starters, because this would be a federal law,
cities all across the country are faced with
similar dilemmas. As Councilmember Bar-
bara Carlson, III, 7th Ward, says, "If
everyone goes to market before the end of the
year, there's not going to be anyone out there
to buy them:'
And that's a strong possibility, according to
Finance Officer John Gunyou, who told the
committee that should it decide to sell the
bonds, time is of the essence because its tides
many weeks to put together and sell a bond
package, what with public hearings and all.
At press time the Executive Committee of
the City Council, the Finance Department
and the Minneapolis Community Develp-
ment Agency were poring over a variety of
options to bring before the council:
• Sell bonds to pay for $23 million of land,
$1 million in replacement housing and land
bank if no convention center funding comes
from the Legislature. If the city does this, it
needs a revenue source of aboul $3 million
annually to pay off the bonds.
• Sell anywhere from $25 million to $50
million in lax increment bonds for the pro-
posed hotel and retail developments and
escrow those dollars pending separate
development agreements.
• A $75 million bond issue to cover both
expenses.
• Or do nothing.
Bloomington, unfortunately, does not have
the array of options afibrded Minneapolis.
Fur Bloomington, which has set its sights
on issuing a $140 million tax increment Mond
for the parking facilities, and capitalized in-
terest and bond reserve for the proposed $1.3
billion mega -mall, the problem is more
heady.
Not only does the city have to contend with
meeting the Dec. 31 deadline to beat Con-
gress' new laws, it also has to be guaranteed
state authorization to raise and create new
taxes. The dollars generated from such things
as an increase in the hotel -motel tax unit a
new liquor tax will nut only help pay titer
operating costs of the 500,000 square latl
convention center and entertainment portioru
of the 10 million square foot mall, but also
will cower the bond debt.
The city's double -edged problem lies in the
development agreement it recently signed
with Triple Five Corp., developers of the
proposed Mall of America. While it has
become common knowledge that the agree-
ment is contingent on a special session of the
Minnesota Legislature and its ultimate
approval of the public subsidy concessions,
it appears to be a lesser known last than the
lengthy agreement hinges on the city's uhil-
ity to obtain the tax increment financing.
Without the TIF, the Gher iciimh brothers,
owners of Triple Five, can terminate the
agreement on Dec. 31.
Any other fomhs of financing the I8,000- to
20,000 -space parking ramp anJ interest and
bond debt are "totally out of die questions for
the city, says Lyle Olson, Bloomington's
finance director.
So, for example, if the legislative leaders
finally decide there are enough votes in both
Houses to puss Bloomington (and Minne-
apolis) requests, but don't make the decision
early enough to sell all the TIF hands licibre
Dec. 31, all those summer political Jug - fights
over the costs of a mega -mall could be for
naught. Hence Bloomington's urgency fir a
special session before Nov. 1.
Nothing, of course, is etched in concrete in
Washington until the bill is actually soled on.
but local officials are wiry of taking any
chances.
Bloomington also worries about other city
developments, particularly public purpose
projects. "Unfortunately, I might add, this is
very frustrating for people in my position;'
says Olson. "It's a situation of throwing the
baby out with the bath water. They're threat-
ening to eliminate the traditional typos of
public purpose financing for busies like
sewers, schools, city halls, roads.
"I don't totally disagree with doing away
with some of the other TIFs lbr all of those
purposes used now (such as office park+):' he
adds. "But what they're doing here is almost
too sweeping, too broad. There are a lot of
good things that will go out with the had:' fit
TEAM CONCEPT
BLOOMBERGI COMPANIES
& HOUSIN ALLIANCE
COORDINAT DEVELOPERS
CO+S➢f TO r(U
ltd
1�
r
t
M
✓,`
1120 2S.0
fOtiLAIF
�
ASXC1AiYN OL]ifDi
I I
ORH�
WA NO0.Rlt6iB
.
1 �
'
Ra °C'f
AS C[6anAiN9 _
0EYAa93S
�L
ISLES 10.0
10/1 5.0
10/10 5.0
10 /17 20.0 11 11-05
0.0 11/1. 10.0
1210 20.0
1/0 10.0
1 /20 r 10.0
rN, A4Ra.E]
IsK OC�8001FNf
6Al5Ol
?
'iW1 (OCIDi"
C(f)
WiLLAIE
N
Si1CKRR
KOS4ilp1
OEVFL�FJI
WA i0.0YiO10
fii1651T15
T5q R�86'rfl(f
TV
�Tpµ5r2%RIM�
0(VB6iHR
d H/30Ff Sitaf3
7[111 CO�f'
C6191Ai®
IV.fIIFf
RaWM
oUIDIM
Ara WOI$wH
)01{U
CmaruiM
AOK]5O
♦<U3V.11
R0 A].0
9/A 12.0
•
�)��
RABID f IIA 4tN
DOWNTOWN
HANHASSEN
row�vu
REDEVE
OPMENT
RVBm'Ert rvKffif
t
TEAM CONCEPT
BLOOMBERGI COMPANIES
& HOUSIN ALLIANCE
COORDINAT DEVELOPERS
CO+S➢f TO r(U
ltd
1�
r
t
M
CHANHASSEN H.R.A. A C C 0 U N T S PA Y A B L E 11 -18 -05 PAGE 1
CHECK I A M 0 U N T C L A I M A N T P U R P O S E
027088 ees sn uruu rc n.e u� nnio
1 445.50 NECESSARY EXPENDITURES SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING
V
_•��� ��U rim ��., if„,t.�.., ���-} ,
I
CHANHAS EN
H.R.A.
A C C 0 U N T 5 P A Y A B
L E 11 -18 -85 PAGE 2
CHECK 0
A M O U N T
C L A I
M A N T
P U R P O S E
025790
26,662.86
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
SPL ASSESSMENT PAYMENTS
025791
203.65
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
UTILITIES
025792
1,700.00
DOLLIFF
INSURANCE INC
INSURANCE, BUILDINGS
025793
77.00
GRANNIS,
CAMPBELL,
FEES, SERVICE
025796
119.22
MERLIN'S
HARDWARE HANK
MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
5
26,762.53
CHECKS
WRITTEN
TOTAL OF
6 CHECKS
TOTAL
27,208.03
1
IHANhnvaCH
,
H.R.A.
A C C 0 U N�T S P A�V
A 8
L E 12 -16 -85 PAGE 2
`
CHECK i
A M O U N T
C L A I M A N T
P U R P O S E
025889
6,066.65
BRAUER d ASSOCIATES
FEES, SERVICE
025890
12.00
CARVER COUNTY RECORDER
PRINTING AND PUBLISHING
025891
299.67
GRANNIS, CAMPBELL,
FEES, SERVICE
025692
0,500.00
HOUSING ALLIANCE
FEES, SERVICE
`
025893
1,140.78
MARSH HEATING 6 AIR COMB
REP. a MAINT.,BLDG
♦ ONO
5
12,019.10
CHECKS WRITTEN
TOTAL
OF 6 CHECKS
TOTAL 192,019.10
V
w
C
J
J
J
J
0
C
J
J
J
J
J
CHANHASSEN
M.R.A. A
C C 0 U N T
S
..
P A A B
L E 12 -16 -85 PAGE 1
CHECK f
A M 0 U N T
C L A I M A
N T
l�
P U g P O 5 E
023141
180,000.00
CHANHASSEN
BOWL
LOAN PAYMENT -
y
1
180,000.00
NECESSARY
EXPENDITURES
SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING
L
L
V
L
v
C
J
J
J
J
0
C
J
J
J
J
J
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager
DATE: December 11, 1985
SUBJ: School Board Meeting of December 5, 1985
As can be seen from the attached materials, Mayor Hamilton and
myself were invited to attend the School Board meeting of
December 5, 1985. The invitation was extended following a pre-
- sentation by the Manager of the City of Chaska of a proposed tax
increment district in that community (all new districts must be
presented to the local School Board) The Chaska discussion sti-
mulated the School Board to request that officials from
Chanhassen be invited to meet with the Board to discuss tax
implications of our district.
As can be seen from the attached materials, it was the desire of
this office to insure that all of the arenas in which the
City /School jointly operate were included as a part of the
discussion rather than just tax increment implications.
The meeting with the School Board did provide an opportunity for
both the Mayor and myself to discuss other issues which may be
desirable goals for 1986 (see page 7).
The meeting concluded on a very cordial basis. School Board mem-
bers agreed that additional meetings like this should occur in
the future. Assuming that we can establish a regular basis to
meet with the School Board, the Council may wish to establish a
more formal process to review joint School /City goals for the
upcoming year and establish mechanisms to convey those to the
School Board.
Ve--'Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Y
December 3, 1985
CITY OF
a, q
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900
School District 112
Attn: Superintendent Carol Ericson and
District 112 School Board
1700 Chestnut Street
Chaska, MN 55318
Dear Superintendent Ericson and School Board Members:
Thank you for inviting Mayor Hamilton and myself to attend your
December 5, 1985 School Board meeting. Given the time available,
I am sure we will not be able to discuss the multitude of
programs which jointly affect us. To expedite the process, I
have listed a number of these below and have included reference
material:
° Property Usage
° Community Education
° Tax Base
° Community Support
Hopefully, the attachments emphasize the support that exists be-
tween the City of Chanhassen and School District 112. I have
never heard anything but...praise from our citizens for the
Chanhassen Elementary staff /administration and programs. I am
unaware of any school referendum which was not passed by
Chanhassen residents. I am unaware of any decision by our City
Council which has not considered the effects of such on our
school district. In summary, it is gratifying to work in a com-
munity where cooperation and support exists between the City and
School at every level of responsibility.
Again, thank you for providing the invitation for Mayor Hamilton
and myself to meet with you.
Sincerely,
Don Ashworth
City Manager
DA:k
I
r
I
PROPERTY USAGE
Objective: To Reduce Redundancy in Capital Expenditures by Cost /Physical Facility Sharing when Needs /Activities are of Mutual
Benefit.
Current Status: See Chart Below
Project /Pr ogram Desc.
Original
Cost
Cost
Paid By
Location
Constructed
By
Usage
Federal /State
Participation Projects
$30,000
35,000
) 35,000 C
` 4,000 J
50% State/
) Federa
)25% 37 112
i25% City
District 112
Chanhassen
Elementary
School
Cit y
gMaintained
t Priority: School
Scheduling: City
Tennis Courts -1st Phase
Tennis Courts -2nd Phase
Tennis Court Lighting
Vita Course
Ballfields
8,000*
City
City /School
City*
Shared
1st Priority: School
Scheduling: City
Track
1,000*
Cit y
School
City*
Shared
let Priority: School
Scheduling: City
Soccer Fields
1,000*
City
City /School
City*
Shared
1st Priority: City
Bleachers
2,000
City
School
City Purchased
City
let Priority: City
* Construction costs represent City employee /equipment values. Otherwise, no material /capital outlay costs
were involved.
COMMUNITY EDUCATION
Objective: To identify community needs and to reduce costs/
program redundancy by jointly sharing facilities/
_ staff to meet community needs.
Current Status:
Program Evaluation /Coordination Activities
° Quarterly evaluation meetings - Superintendent /City Manager
° Weekly evaluation meetings - Community Education Director/
Chanhassen Park and Recreation
Coordinator
° 20 hours per week program coordination /program activity.
Results: The City Council /School Board are fully aware of the
100+ community education programs offered and presented
in the community school brochure. However, this is
only a partial listing of program activities at the
Elementary School. Community group /charitable organi-
zations (City Council hearings, National /State elec-
tions, Girl Scouts, etc.) usage of the Elementary
School is jointly coordinated by the City /Community
Education. Similarily, a high building usage exists
for athletic programming (youth basketball, volleyball,
gymnastics, etc.) as well as City programming (men's
basketball, open gym, Halloween Party, Easter Egg Hunt,
etc.), all of which being jointly coordinated by the
City /School. An approximate 80% to 90% night /weekend
usage rate exists at Chanhassen Elementary. Most
programs are run over a 6 to 10 week period at a set
time each week. As such, usage rates will never be
100 %. More Chanhassen programming would occur if
additional building space were available.
-2-
TAX BASE
Objective: Encourage a diversified tax base to reduce the
dependency of local government taxation on a singular
group of tax payers, i.e. solely residential.
Activities:
Prior to the 19801s, less than 1% of Chanhassen's land was zoned
and had municipal facilities available for industrial develop -
ment. The tax increment district created by the City signifi-
cantly changed this statistic. At full development, the
industrial lands created by the tax increment district will
generate a tax base of 258 to 40% of total land values. The
current ercenta a is P g approximately 8%.
The attached analysis attempts to measure the tax implications of
Chanhassen's tax increment district today (1984/85 School Year),
as well as projected "impact if the district were to exist in
1995 ". While the analysis considers tax impacts to both a
Chanhassen resident as well as a citizen of another city in our
school district, such is not a reasonable comparison. For
example, the cost of developing our business park was high, i.e.
the trunk sewer, water and storm sewer systems were significantly
higher than usual. A major well house was constructed as a part
of this project including widening of a county road, two railroad
bridges, and street signalization. These costs, if not paid
through the tax increment district, would have been borne as
general obligation costs to Chanhassen residents (see "Add
Oversizing Costs of $1.164M). The analysis shows that, without
the district, the total cost of establishing the business park
would cost Chanhassen taxpayers over $100 more in 1985. In com-
parison, by 1995, both a Chanhassen resident as well as a City
XYZ resident, would benefit from terminating the district.
Currently, the Chanhassen City Council and Housing and
Redevelopment Authority are looking to ceasing the district in
1994. This projection is based on very conservative growth esti-
mates. The district could logically be debt free by 1990 -91 - a
desired goal of the City.
A secondary factor considered by Chanhassen in establishing our
tax increment district was the Minnesota tax laws in existence at
that time, i.e. 40% of the valuation of all industrial /commercial
development is placed into the fiscal disparities pool. The law
is highly skewed against developing suburban communities. The
taxes lost by Eden Prairie (same for Shakopee, Maplewood, etc.)
would have built every new school /municipal building /county
building in that City without increasing taxes, i.e. Eden
Prairie's contribution has exceeded $1,000,000 per year, every
year, since 1978. Chanhassen's district, being sheltered from
r fiscal disparities, allows the City /School District /County to
share nearly $200,000 in taxes from the pool leaving 100% of the
new taxes (tax level prior to formation of district continues to
be distributed to all taxing districts) for oversizing, developer
incentives and relocation
j program costs. When the district
-3-
r
ceases, Chanhassen will lose its "industrially poor" status, i.e.
the $200,000 /year distribution amount and, as an "industrially
rich" community will contribute approximately $6 million in
assessed valuation ($700,000 in taxes /year) to less fortunate
communities. This factor is included in the attached analysis
and represents a major reason that the district is of benefit to
our residents in 1985. Again, this statistic will change as the
district continues to grow.
-4-
Dec -85
ANALYSIS OF TAXES
BOTH W & W/O CHANHASSENS TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT
1984/1985 SCHOOL YEAR
• Property and Assessed Values shown in Millions
NOTE: CITY XYZ IS AN ACTUAL SCHOOL DISTRICT CITY OTHER THAN
CHANHASSEN OR CHASKA
-5-
Chanhassen
--- ---- ----
Resident
- -- - --
City
XYZ Resident
W /TID
W/O TID
-----------------
W /TID
W/O TID
PROPERTY VALUES
Real Property
55.0
60.6
Pars. Property
1.2
1.2
Fiscal Disparities
Cont. to Pool
1.0
3.2
Dist. from Pool
2.6
1.6
TOTAL VALUATION
57.8
60.2
TOTAL ASSESSED VALUATION
Carver County
233.1
235.5
233.1
235.5
School Dist 112
95.8
98.2
95.8
98.2
City
57.8
60.2
N/A
N/A
MILL RATES
Carver County
31.25
30.93
31.25
30.93
School Dist 112
57.74
56.33
57.74
56.33
City
26.20
25.16
32.75
32.75
Misc. Agencies
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
TOTAL MILL RATE
119.19
116.42
125.74
124.01
INDIVIDUAL TAX IMPLICATION
Home w/ Value of: $120,000
$2,659
$2,582
52,841
$2,793
Home w/ Value of: $100,000
S1,967
$1,906
$2,111
$2,073
Home w/ Value of: $80,000
51,276
$1,231
51,382
51,354
INDIVIDUAL TAX IMPLICATION (for
above 5100,000
home)
-Add Oversizing Costs
of 1.164M /20 yrs
51,967
51,948
$2,111
$2,073
-Add Costs of Incentive
Prog of $140,000 /yr
51,967
$1,958
52,111
$2,073
- -Add Costs of Business
Relocation @ 2.8M/10 YRS
$1,967
$2,009
52,111
52,073
-Total Cost of Above Adds
$1,967
$2,101
$2,111
$2,073
• Property and Assessed Values shown in Millions
NOTE: CITY XYZ IS AN ACTUAL SCHOOL DISTRICT CITY OTHER THAN
CHANHASSEN OR CHASKA
-5-
ANALYSIS OF TAXES
BOTH W & W10 CHANHASSENS TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT
IMPACT IF DISTRICT EXISTS IN 1995
PROPERTY VALUES
Real Property
Pers. Property
Fiscal Disparities
Cont. to Pool
Dist. from Pool
TOTAL VALUATION
TOTAL ASSESSED VALUATION
Carver County
School Dist 112
City
MILL RATES
Carver County
School Dist 112
City
Misc. Agencies
TOTAL MILL RATE
INDIVIDUAL TAX IMPLICATION
Home w/ Value of: $120,000
Home w/ Value of: $100,000
Home w/ Value o£: 980,000
Chanhassen Resident
-----------------
W/TID W/O TID
Dec -85
City XYZ Resident
-----------------
W /TID W/O TID
55.0
68.9
home)
1.2
1.2
1.0
6.6
of 1.164M /20 yrs
2.6
1.6
52,111
57.8
65.1
233.1
240.4
233.1
95.8
103.1
95.8
57.8
65.1
N/A
31.25
30.30
31.25
57.74
53.65
57.74
26.20
23.26
32.75
4.00
4.00
4.00
119.19
111.21
125.74
$2,659
$2,437
52,841
$1,967
$1,792
92,111
$1,276
91,147
$1,382
INDIVIDUAL TAX IMPLICATION (for
above 9100,000
home)
-Add Oversizing Costs
of 1.164M /20 yrs
$1,967
51,830
52,111
-Add Costs of Incentive
Prog of 9140,000 /yr
$1,967
51,840
$2,111
-Add Costs of Business
Relocation m 2.8M/10 YRS
51,967
51,887
52,111
-Total Cost of Above Adds
240.4
103.1
N/A
30.30
53.65
32.75
4.00
120.70
$2,701
$2,001
91,301
$2,001
52,001
52,001
$1,967 $1,972 $2,111 $2,001
Property and Assessed Values Shown in Millions
NOTE: CITY XYZ IS AN ACTUAL SCHOOL DISTRICT CITY OTHER THAN
CHANHASSEN OR CHASKA
COMMUNITY SUPPORT
Objective: To heighten community recognition of our Cities/
School District and thereby achieve a better
understanding of City /School needs /activities.
Potential Discussion Items:
I. Improved Communication:
° _Announcements/Meeting Notices /News: Effective January
1, 1986, City announcements, notices, etc. will appear
bi- monthly in a specific section of the South Shore
News. This is a free publication and the City hopes
that this publication will increase citizen readership/
awareness. Community School /City programming will con-
tinue to be a major portion of the total 1986 news we
will print. City /School staff are exploring the
feasibility of including school announcements in or
adjacent to the City section.
Cable Television: Monies /equipment will be available
in 1986 for cable programming through the City's cable
company. Although this company is different than that
serving the City of Chaska, reciprocal programming is
r included in the contract. School /City staff will be
investigating the ability to enhance City /School
programming in 1986.
7 II. School Name Change: The number one issue brought out by
Chanhassen residents when discussing potential school
changes is to change the School District's name.
Generally, a school name, not identifying a particular
City, would improve overall identification with the
school, i.e. Jefferson, Lincoln, Mariner, etc.
III. Joint City /School Board Meetings: Although City /School
staff meet regularly, at all levels of responsibility, it
may be desirable to continue having the Mayor /Manager
meet annually with the School Board. Your thoughts?
IV. Rotate Location of School Meetings: The Board may wish
to consider the desirability /problems with occasionally
rotating School Board meetings to other locations in the
district. This idea was offered at a meeting I recently
_ attended and may not be desirable /practical.
-7-
0
Municipality Population
i - I - -- i I I " - - - -i 1 -- i - - - -I i - - -1 - I 1
a
TABLE 1
.1
� ``Y' ASSESSED AND TAXABLE VALUATION, TAX BURDEN, HOMESTEAD AND AG AID CREDIT, AND NET BORDEN
V
FOR METROPOLITAN CITIES WITH POPULATION 2000 AND OVER
41 I , !' 1978 LEVY PAYABLE IN 1979
V Iluatl II Gross Burden
As secs - lonprt putt on axa a Dtstn ub on c too peoa ax
Y City pi
Value Value Value Value Count Homestead Agricultural
v C s r ict District Contribution Total Le
1 Minneapolis ..
Paul
.. 434,400
31,518,270,427
$ 3,650,638
$1,188.61],321
_
j 18,148,3]6
S 13.028,485
j 64,637,252
j 73,]29,727
S
y
redit
Credit
Net Burden
Bloomington . ..
. . 81,970
1]5,1]2,27
,
20,802,44]
, ,
, ,
2 ,
, ,
,5,854
8,698,368
4,196,443
j 4St.
977,505
72 815
$190,511,377
j 2],776,058
j -0-
$166,795 , 219
Ed sna
48,92°
116,601,475
13,851,121
154,]00,176
4
],508,]25
124,4
71,01
,
, ,
, ,7
2,3]90]1
115,731,667
47,944,555
16819,156
7,
5,96202
-0-
1,840
98,912217
1
,
, ,
359
624,]35
18,597,]42
1,852,818
1574,07 3
38 376 409
1,024,941
-D-
d1 ,980, 011
St. Louis Park
1 Richfield
1
18,883
41,231
219,251,919
162 ,]32,3]3
6,590,406
1,632,656
239,580,964
160,225,371
4,496,872
5,819,640
7,603,583
5,085,074
1.137,zJ7
12,013,923
7,305,5]5
15],711
26,135,029
3,130,380
31,351,468
Minnetonka
Roseville
40,850
228.491,200
15,915,836
212,505.961
4,355.099
6,744,304
2,803,623
3,950,910
8,11],652
10,658,312
803,766
186,718
1fi,992,8]3
3,283,184
-0-
-0-
22,404,649
13,109,649
..
39,450
193,29],936
9.078,228
184,219,708
3,]38.698
6.507,763
2,527,870
10,164,051
881,170
649,225
1,820,211
24,054,910
3,159,566
1,597
20,893,]46
kRapids Park
144 786.593
5,242.725
139,543,868
6,021,572
4,428,705
1,038,233
20,887,145
2,618,489
113
78,268,543
Coon . .
Burnsville
.. 36,310
35,920
114.642,721
191,857,630
4,731,316
109.910.905
6,362,168
2,668,531
2,038,875
1,897,318
6 632,869
5,241,688
564,594
322,2]5
599,584
14.264,627
2.347 941
29.292
18,
Brooklyn Center
..
35.173
131,357,639
9.]54,243
6,172,992
182,103,387
125,184,647
3,659,218
4,108,800
3.605,648
3,382,752
10,385,130
552,806
541,154
1.175,544
10,610,96fi
19,0/2,180
2,472,252
7,026
891,fi88
3,912,985
2,196.615
6,071,910
506 :497
705,974
13,453.981
2,329,125
2.341,445
12.200
16,700,855
Fridley . ...
Crystal
. 33,450
30.925
163.331,036
11,720,528
151,610,508
4,344,311
3,682,165
2,282,799
7,605,250
-0-
11,112,536
...
Blaine ..
. .
30,110
92,698,012
1,389,153
91.308,859
4,153,655
2,891,811
1,389,44fi
4,462,446
457,370
369,344
1,340,418
15,368,002
2,017,214
-0-
13,350,788
.
Anoka . . ...
. .
79,95],260
5,412,212
74,545,048
6,170,511
1,810,477
158,870
9,277,977
2,210.453
-0-
1,06],524
Ramsey . . ...
Plymouth
28,500
132,732
5,114
12],218
2,072
4,496
1,185,564
2,023
3,958,430
7,251
232,005
618,967
],805,443
1,709,442
11,033
6,084,968
117,539.181
11,371,233
166,167.948
2.757 29
5,2]3,6]3
1,735,790
7.837,138
491
651,338
584
74,845
-0-
-0-
14,845
Maplewood
7
28,270
148,787,703
13,166,196
135 21.607
2,753,053
4,790,982
1,300,471
16,798,410
2,008,592
57.218
14,738,540
South St. Paul
'Golden galley
25,016
24,216
67.951,889
-0-
63.621,939
3,348,121
1,109,800
2,684,230
1,879,187
11599,791
4,289,697
449.741
720,111
1,505,757
1],030,501
1,840.658
1,704
15.186,539
. ..
New Brighton
.
21,210
166,081,605
79,110,051
7,927.298
2,859,867
158,163,307
1,895,832
5,019,630
2,493,286
8,282,071
589,271
905,919
U.
6.366 725
76,250,184
3,468,866
2.693,629
1.002,083
4,336,973
314.22]
327,068
17,290,833
2,026,197
17,241,614
Columbia Heights
23,997
72,822,907
1,491,361
71,331,526
3,311,002
1,563,089
1,558,379
8,673,980
1,432,337
29
White Bear Lake .
Ramsey
.. 23,150
3,212,486
216,394
170,561
6,120,909
1,559,432
-0-
5,161,4]1
...
Washington
64,142,285
21],957
1,550,670
-0-
62,591,615
217,957
3.596,925
4,571
2,211,121
5,520
964,790
4,238,869
216,278
177.342
7.808,400
1,114,015
New Hope ..
Eagan
23,180
19,950
702,328,192
1,]53,086
91,9]5,]06
3.159,35]
3,109,458
3.359
1,319,340
14,398
4,]88,268
773
-0-
24,050
650
1.783
-0-
6.092,602
23,400
102,010.531
8,212,505
93,798,026
1,96],633
1,857.202
1,225,377
5,368,603
363,783
279,668
497,840
70,018,679
1,435,375
-0-
9,643,314
West St. Paul
78,820
J4 ,359,6]0
2,602,716
71,756,954
2,328,892
1,420,789
939,223
9,670,0]3
1,282,646
55,]37
8,331,69°
Apple Valley ..
Cottage Grove
.. 18,440
18,280
64.989,515
1,980,918
63,008,597
2,432,631
1,247,571
1,431,694
1,268,867
3,]41,650
1,017,916
212,544
186,631
297,659
7,110,336
1,213,564
1.596
5,895,176
..
Inver Grove Hgts.
. .
17,610
62,659,828
64 $6,655
2,639,203
60,020,625
2,51],330
1,519,724
1,216,966
3,732,204
17],780
6,947,532
5,589,059
. .
],906,802
56,949,853
2,412,067
1,127,609
876,970
3.120,488
168,685
308,832
904,261
1,40),501
28,45]
I Ropp inhale
16,845
58,631,399
987,048
56,216,010
1.867,9]8
1,784,130
6,197,013
89),362
18,292
5,202,359
Shoreview . .
Maple Grove
.. 15,650
58.738,335
1,925,639
56,812,696
1,946,422
2.00 977
1,157,471
]79,246
2.747,388
379,503
112.87)
6,181,335
1,355,240
-0-
9,826,095
1 Hopkins
15,4]0
15,180
63,911,384
2,158,666
61,152,718
1,986,711
1,959,819
1. 069,786
3,222,]83
2,920,258
196,153
220,226
6,425,385
1,215,092
3.202
5,207,091
...
. .
83,287,843
7,10/,608
71,315,090
1,623,623
2,453,775
7, 547,Bfi4
3,895,997
625,084
1,269.536
38,1015
5,111,441
Anoka
15,110
54,512,830
1,434,052
51,017,778
2,059,6]0
7,163,117
355 058
8,87],]18
838.2)4
8,039,504
Hastings .....
1 Dakota
I3, 160
1,146,290
2,532,178
158.387
164,005
5,163,977
919,169
579
4,244,229
.
Washington . ...
. .
36,233,687
64,952
1,109,720
8,244
34,601,122
56,708
2,445,492
685,103
976,409
1,966,935
84,999
126,913
3.840,359
Lakeville
13,700
44,795,408
2,415,545
42,]19,863
3,535
1,770,273
1,438
8]9,124
1,600
769,911
3,223
49
942
7,252
793,602
2,938
3,043,819
Stillwater . . .
.. 7),4]0
31,719,401
1,022,018
30,]5],386
2,581,082
7,086,542
488,644
2,fi09, ]J9
1, 753.208
36,404
2]6,253
1,531,131
844,599
41,415
3.645,360
Stillwater
.. 13,200
34,736,152
307,122
118,785
116,883
3,561,062
750,945
-0-
2,813,117
1 North St. Paul
12,520
31.177,376
870,604
34,429,030
30,255,852
2,071,189
2,135,676
823,]49
1,068,826
1,072,283
530,051
1,940,971
101,634
35,124
3,97],161
887.121
1,173
3,085.164
r Eden Prairie
Oakdale
12,330
102,051,587
8,999,890
93,057,697
937,432
2.953,374
1,49],856
1,]00,206
4,869,268
109,059
99.567
3.507,112
824,°22
-0-
2,68),69°
12,070
31,128,267
44],081
30,981,186
2,725,558
7Ba ,444
60],355
1,144,624
388,287
122,217
1,029.212
10,738,057
978,9]1
46.861
9,112,222
Z Shakopee . . ..
Z
10,620
53,517,360
8,426,450
45,150,910
1,183,493
1,855,203
758,651
SI ,1 JO
3,309,800
779,853
6,594
2.523,353
St. Anthony ....
rn Hennepin
9,696
2,522,968
158,718
963,693
6.259,233
639,610
27,327
5.592,296
. .. ,
0 Ramsey ... .
.
29,104,695
12,5]4,426
723.246
144,524
28.381,449
12.429,902
741,474
332,856
900,743
439,102
324,258
1,577,866
110,092
82,714
2.995.673
540,356
Woodbury
~ Mound y
9.590
18,128.522
1,461,137
16,667 ,OBS
951,973
1,181,460
142,011
832,900
691,040
2,599,453
16.736
16,529
1.3]5,418
82.]12
-0-
-0-
2,455,317
1,252,616
D
9.290
35,125,158
2]4,]07
34,851,051
1,238,1°6
1.106,0]0
487,984
2,002.]15
114,630
141,492
167,823
1,926,266
698,632
15,071
1,182.561
(i Andover . . .
0,72°
28,584,403
31,116
3.772,617
69],682
3.413
3,071,352
y Ramsey
[lamp]to
8,510
29,621,828
882,898
1.064.160
27,701,505
28.557,668
1,391,886
1,343,796
672,788
693,581
266,266
323,187
1,378,161
1,402,746
29,151
10°,9]2
2,447,338
628.223
25.362
1,193,753
m 1 .....
N Chaska
8.5)0
7.920
25,147,309
221,964
25,225,345
1,365,711
800,579
00
22.617
3 661
121,702
2.563.833
610.004
14,305
1,879,521
26.426,083
2,383.930
24,016,688
1.142,967
725,064
344,012
1 514,294
14,768
272,650
2,990.188
13],500
14,061
2,538,621
a
nA
b
[
Municipality Population
Mendota Nghts.
E Spring Lake Park
Anoka
Ramsey ,
Orono
Little Canada .
Arden Hills
Nam Lake
Prior Lake
Chanhassen
Carver
Hennepin . . .
St. Paul Park .
East Bethel . ,
Falcon Heights
Lake Elmo . . .
Rosemount .
11dnais Hghts.
Lino Lakes
Shorewood
Forest Lake .
1 Farmington
Mahtomedi
1 Wayzata
Savage .
Circle Pines
2 Dayton ,
Deep Haven .. .
Hugo ,
Minnetrista .
Corcoran
Newport
2 New Prague .. . .
Bayport .
Excelsior ..
Osseo
Jordan
North Oaks
Medina
I Wacdnia
Belle Plaine
Independence . . .
Alton
Lauderdale
Lexington , ,
Oak Park Hghts. .
2 Rockford . , , . .
TOTAL:
5D
7,520
7,340
7,290
7,120
7,000
6,830
6,480
6.220
5.730
5.600
5.530
5.440
5.210
4,590
4,570
4,570
4.540
4.520
4.230
4.230
4.140
4,080
3.880
3.853
3,850
3,830
3,640
3,570
3,185
2,989
2.970
2.908
2,890
2.870
2,860
2,830
2,750
2,580
2,550
2,530
2,340
2,090
2,060
12,155,210 4
245,800 1
11,909,410 4
432.938 2
233,544 1
TABLE I (Cont-)
550,289 3
3,802 -
-0- 6
651,659
313.302 1
11,245,230 4
433.425 3
356,892 1
ASSESSED AND TAXABLE VALUATION, TAX BURDEN. HOMESTEAD AND
FOR
AS AID CREOTT,
AND
65,21; 1
1,050,835
4.301,237 1
169,047 4
4,132,190 J
-
139,856 5
METROPOLITAN CITIES
WITH POPULATION
2000 AND OVER
NET BURDEN
22,424,3]9 7
90,522 2
22,313,857 1
706,915 1
169,178 1
192,980 2
217,610
5,503 1
19,333 6
1978 LEVY
PAYABLE IN 1979
]32,169 1
14,259,102 2
269,832 4
452,593. 1
113.534 1
1,300,671 ]
]0,642 1
10,352 2
f a3.7A3G3
3, y31, 87�
314,607 2
251 532 2
210,863 4
120,693 2
2),808
83,734 1
1,5]9,142
6.202,457 1
150,302 6
6,052,155 4
486,08] 2
246,670 6
24,522 8
60,181 1
1,075,255
11,315,203 2
87,333 1
11,188,742 2
Valuations
355,099 1
P
359,648 8
8,060 1
1],190 8
827,586
],5]3,065 1
11,12] 7
7,561,938 ]
210,581 2
280,825 1
A
Value
ontr. moon
axe a
ztn bub on
1,128,094
1,103,371 1
Gross
Burden
84,618 4
414,614 Y
Y7 2d4 2
25,640 1
Value
Value
Yal ue
County
City
Chou
015 trio
Specie Tax
Ois [rict
Contribution
Homestead
Agricultural
f 39,372,999
S 1,049,712
3 38,323,287
S
308.205 1
1,935.544 1
_
521,566
Total Lev y
Credit
Credit
Net Burden
19,6981998
683,082
3 758,B02
$ 5]9.831
3 2,001,$10
$ 713,823 f
120,050
339,678
402,250
2']91
19,254,462
336,887
1,300,154
461,634
236,252
1,198,628
S 3,571,016
3 628,422
S 6,312
$ 2.9]9,282
47.429,064
26,800,783
397.881
/],031 .Ie1
25,295
551,583
11,902
1,492,630
4.133
19.202
59,265
1,301
46.003
2,00],782
463,151
-0-
1,X4,631
2,154,486
24,646,297
1,033,065
810,659
658,136
625,525
2,538,397
194,991
319
45,503
36.85]
4,929,957
9,]09
-0-
21,148
36,713,020
21,592,744
2,178,407
34,534,613
613.964
1.219.976
1,380,144
gg 143
246,397
3,201,868
614,338
325,941
16,589
1,449
4,299,030
2,874,478
25,745,956
409,848
602,288
21,182,896
21,543,668
1,068,966
514,110
304,561
234,706
1,965,647
1,025.371
129,850
249,133
7,869,167
24,99],408
721,121
1,008,474
516,937
1,441,964
26.689
1.113
46,8]2
1,848,108
175.266
464.304
369
21
3,39],532
163,03]
359,052
24,416.011
6]1,119
]31,120
68,881
3,140,969
519,989
:369
21,060
1,362,200
2,599,920
85
162,952
3,230
5,174
425,195
2.835
l,db], 636
8.542
106,300
41,065
2,117,3,6
446,548
12,831.597
16,919,679
707,075
12.124.582
1,130,466
fi81
9
17,241
650
21,171
1.101
2,7C3.592
1],8 5,285
289,113
151,293
16,629,906
17,143,992
841.312
306,997
403,893
246,801
177.374
612,805
1,052,504
35,791
80,857
1,343,257
15.490
19,085,738
761.561
18,324,117
784,323
680.157
626.827
463,910
264,120
972.888
13,110
56,452
33,139
1.680,080
336,201
375,736
_p_
24,012
1,00],056
11029,915
23,168,288
239,196
1,038,358
86,368
1]•302
87.095
1,937,589
1,914,907
1,280,401
1.594.103
1 496.203
11,496,119
509,105
10,98],614
470,850
470,614
526,966
7,469,488
295,189
26,11]
1,593,681
13.024,386
25.354,589
453,]61
12,570,625
843.567
766,952
388,153
305,305
225.631
133,692
70.401
35,208
11],786
58,224
2,655,255
331,3]5
29.299
2,294,581
570,384
24,]84,205
411,666
786,577
20],792
352,580
766,432
1,289,828
47,328
51,894
1,441,108
1.3]8.751
239.956
3.548
1.198,604
14.315.539
14,668,060
790,438
13,521,101
748,300
323,508
102,827
65.231
2.597,043
283.549
378.299
17.512
4.425
1,011,690
11.494.1]2
]53,543
112,669
13,911,702
11,382,703
622,375
215,454
422,263
363.856
772,893
853,969
21,861
90,855
,,631,386
2,214,319
32,185,9]8
696,115
31,201.095
597,568
327,979
288,196
232.997
751.924
55,836
40,432
1.589,547
237,212
284,88]
2.503
1,391,617
20,941,231
991,500
396,003
1,455,668
40,950
134,156
12,885
1,326,952
295
17,663
1,292.997
9,750,592
1,63]•531
104,652
,9,309,706
369,244
793.416
465,123
,02,491
3,019,858
234,4949
70
3,843
2,848,605
11,819.382
23,872,952
310,582
9,245,940
11.508,Boo
846.859
624,264
220,557
365,256
145.244
1,083,031
584,068
73,585
30,040
187,289
2.605.045
215,]46
13,542
210,008
23,622,944
294,944
749,]23
85,586
567,699
20,048
11,968
15,519
995,871
216,008
-0-
2,313,]51
719.789
11 445,802
911,6]5
10,974,127
370.809
1,223,591
98.182
24,011
1,074,108
2,466,328
241,596
27.912
804,607
17.316,568
70,21],530
84,380
11.262.188
498,400
277,866
547.851
- 136.110
688,198
21,716
351.607
618
2,113,903
14,258,801
161;424
BI S,B36
14,052,106
73,442.965
452,016
445,914
390,159
176,775
962,027
702,827
36,583
53.943
9.650
1,177.833
235,493
25,051
911,289
461.585
321,678
353,213
745,963
24,418
18,461
7,946,210
7,368,515
257,331
249,476
38,403
1,650.530
1,838,035
-0-
4,838,035
39,683
93,303
1.553,800
222,922
58,523
1,060,516
10.331.275
570,219
9 761 056
.0_
198,791
104,874
344 192
231
1,330,641
12,155,210 4
245,800 1
11,909,410 4
432.938 2
233,544 1
112,975 5
550,289 3
3,802 -
-0- 6
651,659
313.302 1
11,245,230 4
433.425 3
356,892 1
65,21; 1
1,050,835
4.301,237 1
169,047 4
4,132,190 J
139,856 5
531,899 4
48,753 2
J5, 830 1
1.343,064
22,424,3]9 7
90,522 2
22,313,857 1
706,915 1
169,178 1
192,980 2
217,610
5,503 1
19,333 6
9,013,434 5
]32,169 1
14,259,102 2
269,832 4
452,593. 1
113.534 1
1,300,671 ]
]0,642 1
10,352 2
615,204
314,607 2
251 532 2
210,863 4
120,693 2
2),808
83,734 1
1,5]9,142
6.202,457 1
150,302 6
6,052,155 4
486,08] 2
246,670 6
24,522 8
60,181 1
1,075,255
11,315,203 2
87,333 1
11,188,742 2
256.788 3
355,099 1
194.018 3
359,648 8
8,060 1
1],190 8
827,586
],5]3,065 1
11,12] 7
7,561,938 ]
210,581 2
280,825 1
211,316 6
624,646 2
20,101
9.98] 1
1,128,094
1,103,371 1
141,869 4
4,561,502 1
84,618 4
414,614 Y
Y7 2d4 2
25,640 1
1,763,806
J4, 332,1]8 6
'0_ 3
34,332,778 1
628,653 1
110,787 9
91,416
288,259 1
14,820 1
16.224 5
65,164 6
649,068 6
68,875 2
20 599 3
308.205 1
1,935.544 1
101 350 0
521,566
9,682 36,461 1131 - - 3.214,406
2,014,173 $7,968,230,570 $ 252,201,992 $7,673,024,875 $244,590,013 fZ2B.860,525 7.521 15,394
' 5182,125,966 $400,369,980 331 218 230 f2
135.260
11],932
139,151
177,917
725,425
240,101
184.225
205,010
184,418
199,645
95,478
20,450
104,2]2
149,691
8,238
559
134
218
7
t 1,282
4.688
32.140
636
2.010
51.424
23.859
295
-0-
-0-
36
515,$40
902,169
1,203,695
928,306
488.497
2,099,]19
1,363,077
869,609
641,158
877,025
944,469
674,139
417,294
3,064,715
67.120
8,843,094 $874,417,795 $127,020,593 $1,022,817 $746,374,385
0
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 112
Serving the communities of;
CARVER • CHANHASSEN • CHASKA • EAST UNION • VICTORIA
Dr. Carol J. Ericson, Superintendent
December 6, 1985
Mr. Don Ashworth
Chanhassen City Manager
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Don:
Thank you so much for your excellent presentation to the District 112
School Board last night. You brought valuable information and insight
to our attention. Your materials were effectively organized and pre-
sented with clarity.
I deeply value our collegial relationship and look forwrd to our con -
tinuing cooperative effort.
Warm regards,
Carol Ericson
Superintendent
CJE:dl
1700 CHESTNUT (HIGHWAY 41 NO.) CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 (612) 448 -28WC 111985
Equal Opportunity for Education and Employment
CITV nc
M
MEMORANDUM
r
CITY OF K
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900
TO: Roger Knutson, City Attorney
FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager
DATE: October 23, 1985
SUBJ: Various Items
Please respond to the following:
A/, o A-
i3Sc�e
1. 1986 Joint Powers Agreement Prosecution Contract: Please
review the attached contract as received from Marsha
Rowland of the County Attorney's office. Written
response is not required. I anticipate placing this item
on the November 4th City Council agenda unless you notify
me of issues which should be addressed; and
2. Charitable Gambling: The Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce
does not wish to pursue charitable gambling as a function
of that organization. In discussing the item with mem-
bers following their meeting, they appear to be interested
in participating as one member of a multi- membered
organization that would be organized solely for gambling.
Questions posed to you include:
- Can and how difficult would it be for your office to
draft incorporation papers for the "Chanhassen
Charitable Gambling Association "?
- Would it be legal to have the membership consist of
one appointed member from the City, School, Chamber
of Commerce, Chanhassen Jaycee's, Chanhassen Lions?
- Would the above organization meet state definitions
of a charitable organization and therefore be
allowed to receive and disburse monies from pull
tabs and other gambling devices?
- What is the estimated cost to prepare the incor-
poration papers and bylaws?
r—
Mr. Roger Knutson
October 23, 1985
Page 2
3. Housing Revenue Bonds: Brad Johnson, the developer
currently working with the HRA, received favorable com-
ments from the City Council on October 21 regarding the
issuance of revenue mortgage bonds for a housing project
_ he anticiApates starting in 1986. According to Mr.
Johnson, the bond sale would have to occur in 1985 with
the bonds "parked" until the project got underway in
1986. Mr. Johnson's impromptu presentation to the
— Council was made recognizing the number of steps that
must be completed prior to year end and accordingly, he
asked the City Council to officially act on the public
hearing date as a part of Monday night's meeting. The
Council acted to pass that resolution and authorized
staff to set the hearing date. Mr. Johnson noted that a
number of hurdles would have to be crossed and that the
hearing may never occur if we find that such is simply
unaccomplishable. The general indication of the Council
was that they would not consider housing revenue bonds
for a vast majority of the community, but would be recep-
tive to this technique for housing constructed within the
downtown area and as a part of the redevelopment process
by the HRA. Although the Council was supportive, their
action triggers a number of issues which we must tackle,
i.e:
- Our current IRB resolution (see attached) prohibits
the use of revenue bonds for housing projects - oops!
I would propose placing an amendment onto the agenda
of November 4th (assumes other issues continue to
show# that the project can be a go) which would add
an exception for housing revenue bonds for projects
located within the HRA Tax Increment District No. 1.
I would prefer rewriting the entire resolution, but
it is too early to tell what the federal government
may do regarding tax exempt bonds in 1986. Do you
agree with the approach proposed in the interim?
Please consider this letter as authorization for
your office to begin an intensive review of MSA 462C
(the Housing Revenue Bond statutes). I need to know
if we are getting into issues /requirements over and
above those we have traditionally handled as a part
of IRB sales. Please advise me of differences. I
think we can verbally discuss these and determine
whether a written report would be required when the
item goes back to the City Council.
The statute appears to require a "housing plan ".
The housing plan is supposedly a separate document
from the housing element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Is your office familiar with this document? Time
Mr. Roger Knutson
October 23, 1985
Page 3
involvement for creation of such? Potential resour-
ces available to help in the preparation of that
document? Whether the document would need to be
completed prior to the public hearing, actual sale,
commencement of construction?
Brad Johnson is to furnish me with details of the
proposed bond sale. This is to include specifics of
the concept to "park" the bonds. Additionally, he
is to submit details of the sale itself, i.e. public
vs. private offering and specific form of guarantees
if it is to be a public offering. I will need your
help when this material is received. No additional
work is required of your office immediately.
4. Instant Web Building: I was unable to get Kirt to volun-
tarily take care of the groundwater seeping into our
corridor /bowling center from under the floor of his por-
tion of the building. George will contact a structural
engineer to determine specific design techniques for our
future construction of a corridor and also determine if
structural damage is occurring as a result of the water
seepage. If damage is occurring /will occur, George will
issue official notification ordering correction. I con-
tinue to believe Kirt should pay. Consider this a
forewarning of potential suit and notify me if you
disagree with proposed initial steps.
CC: Jim Castleberry, Public Safety Director
Barbara Dacy, City Planner
George Donnnelly, Building Official