04/06/1999 - City Council Special AGENDA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday
April 6, 1999
4:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers
I. ROLL CALL & ADOPTION OF AGENDA
II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD
III. STREET RECONSTRUCTION/OVERLAY POLICY
IV. DISCOVERY PARK/SKYLINE DISPLAYS UPDATE
V. OTHER BUSINESS
VI. ADJOURNMENT
MEMO
city of eagan
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: APRIL 2, 1999
SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING/APRIL 6, 1999
A Special City Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 6, beginning at 4:30 p.m. in
the City Council Chambers. There are two items on the agenda: 1) Street Reconstruction/
Overlay Policy and 2) a brief update on the status of the Discovery Park proposal by Skyline
Displays. In keeping with City Council policy, the special work session will be adjourned at
approximately 6:00 p.m. to allow the Council to eat a light lunch in the upstairs lunchroom.
STREET RECONSTRUCTION/OVERLAY POLICY
At the January 19, 1999 regular City Council meeting, staff was directed to schedule an
agenda item for the February 9 Council work session for the purpose of defining what
information should be prepared for future discussion on the City's assessment policy. At the
regular City Council meeting on February 2, it was suggested that if any member of the City
Council had specific questions in regard to the City's assessment policy, they should be
forwarded to City staff and included in the information packet for the February 9 meeting.
At the February 9, staff was directed to prepare answers to five specific questions agreed
upon by the City Council after considerable discussion on the various issues related to
special assessments. That material was to be presented to the City Council at a special
meeting scheduled for March 16, 1999 and subse yptly postponed and rescheduled for
April 6, 1999. Enclosed on pages through Al is a copy of a memo prepared by
Director of Public Works Colbert including a number of attachments that address these
specific questions.
During the round table discussion at the February 16, 1999 City Council meeting,
Councilmember Blomquist proposed that the Finance Committee meet with City
Administrator Hedges and Finance Director VanOverbeke to discuss ideas that have been
proposed for funding road repair (reconstruction, overlays and recycling) projects.
Following that direction the Finance Committee has met on two occasions; the first on
February 23, 1999 and the second on March 11, 1999. Director of Public Works Colbert
also participated in the meetings. A memo summarizing those discussions as well as
meeting minutes are enclosed on pages_through_.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To provide direction to the staff regarding the City's special assessment policy.
DISPLAY PARK/SKYLINE DISPLAYS UPDATE
The City Administrator and Director of Parks & Recreation have had meetings in recent
weeks with the owners of Skyline Displays Inc. regarding a proposal to develop Discovery
Park, located adjacent to Skyline Displays at the intersection of Lexington and Yankee
Doodle, for public use on their property. The City Administrator and Director of Parks &
Recreation have also continued holding meetings with a subcommittee of the Rotary Club
chaired by Dr. Tom Wilson for their plans to participate in the funding of a band shell/small
amphitheater to be located in Discovery Park.
Before staff proceeds further with discussions and meetings with the Beaulieu's, the City
Administrator and Director of Parks & Recreation felt feedback was necessary from the City
Council. Our parties, including the Beaulieu's and Rotary Club, have been extremely
cooperative in their efforts to collaborate on this joint public/private project.
Enclosed on pages QJ through,3D is a copy of a memo from the Director of Parks &
Recreation including a map and other discussion points.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To provide staff with direction regarding further discussion with Skyline Displays relative to
the development of Discovery Park for public use.
OTHER BUSINESS
There is no other business anticipated.
/S/ Thomas L. Hedges
City Administrator
MEMO
city of eagan
TO: MAYOR& CITY COUNCIL
C/O THOMAS L HEDGES, CITY ADMININSTRATOR
FROM: THOMAS A COLBERT,DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: APRIL 1, 1999
SUBJECT: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY
COUNCIL INQUIRY RESPONSES
On February 9, 1999, a Special City Council Workshop meeting was held to discuss the special
assessment policy as it pertains to street rehabilitation public improvements. As a result of that
meeting,the City Council collectively directed staff to respond to the five following questions:
1. What is the difference in cost for a special assessment public improvement project
vs. a general fund public improvement project?
2. How many miles of private streets are in the community and where are they
located?
3. If property taxes were used to finance street rehabilitation public improvements,
what is the comparative obligation on commercial vs. residential properties?
4. What is the rationale for the City's policy of assessing a townhome unit 75% of the
cost assessed against a standard single-family residential property?
5. What are some details of comparable assessment policies of other communities, and
are they contemplating moving away from special assessments?
The following will provide a response to each of these questions with supporting documentation.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT VS, GENERAL FUND PROJECT COSTS
The ability for a City to levy special assessments is authorized by Minnesota Statutes 429.
Subsequently, there are several specific steps and processes that the City must adhere to. These
steps inherently add extra work effort and additional costs to a public improvement process. These
are categorized and summarized as follows:
Work Effort Average Cost '
• Feasibility Report $3,800
• Council Resolution $225
• Original Public Hearing/Notices/Meetings $800
• Final Assmt. Hearing/Notices/Meetings $250
Total $5,075
'Average cost based on a"typical"public improvement contract of$200,000.
1 J
In addition, there are other costs associated with special assessment improvement projects
categorized and summarized as follows:
Work Effo Average Cost '
• Administrative costs(4%) $8,000
• Interest(5 '/Z%) $11,000
• Bonding(0.5%) $1,000
• Legal fees (1.0% $2,000
• County recording fee($2/parcel/levy/year) $1,000
• Appraisals and other misc. costs $2.80
Total $25,800
'Average cost based on a"typical"public improvement contract of$200,000.
This information is explained in further detail in the attached memo from the Finance Director,
Gene VanOverbeke.
PRIVATE STREET SYSTEM
Currently, there are approximately 18 miles of private streets within our community. These are
highlighted in yellow on the enclosed City street map.
Private streets only have to meet City standards in relationship to the installation of concrete curb
and gutter and current City Code specifies minimum width requirements based on number of
units served. There are no structural design standards for private roads required by the City.
There is no public right-of-way dedication and, subsequently, no boulevard area from the back of
curb to a property line for snow storage, sight distance clear zones, etc. Access rights are
conveyed by way of a private easement dedicated on the deeds to all properties using the private
roads. Setback requirements are reduced to just 20' from the back of curb instead of 43' from the
curb in public right-of-way(30' setback plus 13' boulevard area).
These reduced right-of-way dedications provide for greater densities of development within a
given area. This reduces the cost of the road system to each unit as compared to a public street
system. The reduced setbacks also allow for shorter private driveways to the common street
system. In addition, the reduced construction standards lower each dwelling unit's proportionate
cost share. In summary, due to the higher densities and lower costs, there is a significant
reduction in the cost per dwelling unit in providing a private road access system.
GENERAL FUND VS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT TAX IMPACTS
Property tax revenue is based on the tax capacity of individual properties. It is a progressive tax
system. As the market value increases, the tax capacity increases at progressively greater rates.
In addition, the formula for calculating the tax capacity of commercial industrial property is
greater than residential property. Please see the attached table showing the tax impact on various
properties for each $100,000 of additional tax levy and what the impact would be if an additional
2 q
$800,000 were to be raised each year to replace the current special assessment revenue for the
street rehabilitation program.
It is extremely difficult to determine whether there would be an overall burden or benefit to the
commercial industrial zoned property. While the annual property tax would obviously increase,
it is uncertain whether the summation of those annual tax increases would be more/less than the
related special assessment (at 100%) for the local C/I street rehabilitation project. In the next 5-
Year CIP (2000-2004), the vast majority of the rehab street improvements are local residential
with a limited number of C/I properties.
TOWNHOME VS. SINGLE-FAMILY ASSESSMENT RATIO
Currently, the Special Assessment Policy for street rehabilitation approved by the Eagan City
Council in 1991 uses a formula to calculate the assessment obligation for a single-family (R-1)
residential dwelling unit. A duplex dwelling unit (R-2) is assessed the same rate as the
calculated single-family rate. Townhome and condominium developments (R-3) are assessed at
75% of the calculated single-family rate. High-density apartments (R-4) are assessed on a street
frontage basis instead of per dwelling unit. The formula for calculating the front foot rate
allocates more of the cost to this zoning classification than the single-family formula because of
the overall greater traffic generation of comparable street frontage.
The premis for the reduced rate for townhome and condominium dwelling units (R-3) is based on
the reduced trip generation associated with this land use. The following represents the average
number of trips per day per dwelling unit as contained in the 1991 edition of the Institute of
Traffic Engineers Manual:
Residential Type Trips Per Weekday
Single Family 9.55
Condominium/Townhome 5.86
Apartment 6.4
The townhome average trip generation rate is approximately 61% of the average single-family
rate but the densities are approximately 80% greater.
SURVEY OF OTHER COMMUNITIES
A telephone interview was conducted with 15 other suburban communities and the metro's two
core cities, Minneapolis and St. Paul, as selected by the City Council. Staff found that, while
each community obviously conforms to the basic requirements of Minnesota Statutes, their
formulas, methods and philosophies for levying special assessments for street rehabilitation
public improvements varied widely. Many communities' policies were flexible on a project-by-
project basis while other communities have a very fixed and predetermined policy with few
deviations. Attached is a matrix summary of the communities' responses. Some of the
communities (Eden Prairie, Inver Grove Heights) have not entered into a street rehabilitation
program yet. Cottage Grove bases their assessment rate in direct proportion to the market value
of each individual property. (Different assessments for next door neighbors on same street.) The
3
9
referenced footnotes within this matrix provides additional insights into the uniqueness of each
City's policy.
Staff did not receive a response from any community that indicated knowledge of intent to move
away from special assessments if the City had a current policy using special assessments.
Enclosed is some material from a research memo from the League of Minnesota Cities (February
'99) addressing the pros and cons of special assessments for local improvements.
HISTORICAL INFORMATION
Also enclosed is a matrix of 19 street rehabilitation public improvements that have been assessed
over the past six years. It identifies the type of rehabilitation, assessable rates, assessment
amounts, percentages and information regarding the number of parcels, objections, adjustments,
and appeals resulting from the special assessment process. The assessment revenue associated
with street rehabilitation projects in 1998 was $739,000 and estimated at $585,000 for 1999
based on projects that have been approved to date.
In the adopted 5-Year CIP (1999-2003), the estimated revenue from special assessments for the
5-year period is approximately $5,100,000 from local access street improvements, and
approximately $1,000,000 from collector/arterial street rehab projects, for an estimated 5-year
grand total of approximately$6,100,000.
Respectfully submitted,
irector of Public Works
TAC/j j
Attachments: • Special Assessment Project Costs
• Private Street Location Map
• Property Tax Impact Analysis
• Assessment Survey
• LMC Publication
• Street Rehab Assessment History
C: Gene VanOverbeke, Director of Finance(W/attach.)
Russ Matthys, City Engineer(W/attach.)
Arnie Erhart, Superintendent of Streets/Equipment(W/attach.)
4
W
MEMO
city of eagan
TO: Director of Public Works Colbert
FROM: Finance Director/City Clerk VanOverbeke
DATE: March 31, 1999
SUBJECT: Special Assessment Project Costs
am writing this memo to provide information for response to the City Council's request to
compare costs for projects using General Fund revenues as compared to the use of special
assessments. To make this comparison some assumptions are obviously necessary as we are
trying to project known facts to different circumstances.
The following table provides a comparison of project expenditure classifications assuming that
an assessed project is compared to the same project, if it were not assessed.
CITY OF EAGAN
ASSESSMENT COST COMPARISON
ASSUMING
SPECIAL NO
EXPENDITURES ASSESSMENTS ASSESSMENTS
CONSTRUCTION Actual Actual
ENGINEERING Actual Approximately 88%
LEGAL 1.25% Of Contract 0.25% Of Contract
BONDING 0.5% Of Contract None
INTEREST Actual Opportunity Cost (1)
ADMINISTRATION 4% Of Contract None (2)
EASEMENTS Actual Actual
OTHER Actual None
(Appraisals, Fiscal
Consultant,
Parcel Charge)
(1) Under the current system, projects (property owners) are charged interest on the money that
the City uses to pay the bills related to individual projects. Those charges become a part of
the project cost and are assessed. If the City simply pays the bills from the General Fund,
the money will be spent and no interest earnings will accrue to the City. The dollar amount is
a function of the size of the project and the length of time between when the bills are paid
and when the project is assessed.
7
(2) The General Fund is currently reimbursed a dollar amount equal to 4% of the contract
expenditures on all projects that are assessed. That transfer covers a number of costs that
are incurred by the City but not billed back directly to individual projects to simplify record
keeping, e.g. accounting, management, clerical, etc. This is a revenue source to the
General Fund that will need to be replaced by other revenues in the event that projects are
not assessed. The total dollar amount is a function of the number and size of projects that
are assessed each year.
The following table is an illustration applying the above referenced changes in methodology to
four projects that have been assessed. Changes in cost include a reduction of engineering by
12%to reflect work effort that is not necessary when projects are not assessed. It is also
assumed that legal fees can be reduced from 1.25% of the contract cost to .25% of the contract
cost because there would be no potential assessment appeals. For this illustration the
administrative fee, interest cost and bonding fee are all eliminated as are the appraisals, fiscal
consultant charges and the County's parcel charge all related to special assessments. The costs
used in this table reflect only those costs related to the street portion of the improvement. The
utility costs have been removed at a pro-rata basis to try to provide for a meaningful comparison.
This table reflects project costs and not assessments. The costs are assessed per the
assessment policy. Evergreen Park and Wilderness Run 5th and 6th are overlay projects. McKee
and Oak Pond are reconstruction projects.
EVERGREEN PARK WILDERNESS RUN
6TH&6TH
Expenditure Item Assessed Not Assessed Expenditure Item Assessed Not Assessed
Contract $141,942 $141,942 Contract $324,090 $324,090
Engineering 13,560 11,933 Engineering 25,159 22,140
Easement - - Easement - -
Administration 5,678 - Administration 12,964 -
Interest 2,190 - Interest 6,158 -
Legal 1,774 355 Legal 4,051 810
Bonding 710 - Bonding 1,620 -
Other 3,919 - Other 8,725 -
TOTAL $169,773 $154,229 TOTAL $382,767 $347,040
MCKEE ADDITIONS OAK POND HILLS
(Estimated Costs)
Expenditure Item Assessed Not Assessed Expenditure Item Assessed Not Assessed
Contract $361,337 $361,337 Contract $182,533 $182,533
Engineering 115,174 101,353 Engineering 39,700 34,936
Easement - - Easement - -
Administration 14,453 - Administration 7,301 -
Interest 1,192 - Interest 10,039 -
Legal 4,517 903 Legal 2,282 456
Bonding 1,807 - Bonding 913 -
Other 9,757 - Other 3,652 -
TOTAL $508,237 $463,593 TOTAL $246,420 $217,925
impact would probably vary b the size
It is important to note that the actual bottom line financial m
p P P Y rY Y
and complexity of individual projects. The cost reduction on each of the above referenced
illustrative projects is approximately 10%.
The classification "other" breaks down by project as follows:
Evergreen Wilderness McKee Oak Pond
Park Run 5th &6th Additions Hills
Appraisals $ - $ - $ - $ 1,873
Fiscal Consultant 214 104 222 414
Est. Cost to Complete 2,735 6,605 6,587 1,206
County Parcel Charge 970 2,016 2.948 159
Total $ 3,919 $ 8;725 $ 9,757 $ 3,652
Without drawing any conclusions I believe this is the type of information requested to allow for a
comparison of the costs between projects that are assessed and those that are not assessed.
Please let me know, if you would like anything else.
Fin T
Director/City Clerk
9
Tax Impact On Various Property For Each $100.000 Additional Levy At The 1999 Tax Capacity Rate
Additional Taxes Additional Taxes
Market Value Tax Capacity Per$100.000 Levy at $800.000
Single Family Residential
$ 80,000 $ 835 $ 1.46 $ 11.71
100,000 1,175 2.06 16.48
135,000 1,770 3.10 24.82
150,000 2,025 3.55 28.40
200,000 2,875 5.04 40.32
250,000 3,725 6.53 52.24
Multiple Residential
$ 200,000 $ 5,000 $ 8.77 $ 70.12
500,000 12,500 21.91 175.30
1,000,000 25,000 43.83 350.60
2,000,000 50,000 87.65 701.20
Commercial/Industrial
$ 200,000 $ 5,425 $ 9.51 $ 76.08
500,000 15,925 27.92 223.33
1,000,000 33,425 58.59 468.75
2,000,000 68,425 119.95 959.59
0.00175265 0.81%
0.01402123 6.51%
An increase of$100,000 to the tax levy increases City taxes by .81% on all taxable property. An increase
of$800,000 to the tax levy increases City taxes by 6.51% on all taxable property.
U p)
L o C
7a L) O) l9 O w
�s 0 d a) O N C O 2 i j ( ' 0 O >+ �
} } } d m ¢ z d rn m N 2 (O } z
a
si/oa
E
o a) L c
NSG o = LL u) LL U- o
a)
u
@ N
W (D (D M
_Y d a) O O O N S M O o ._
} } z d z d �-' E9 (fl EA 611.) N z
co
a)
/ry o E
m
0 0 0 ¢ a a ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a a a w m
z z z z z z z z z z z z z m (rin
E E -0
•iN a) Haw
i'G R of ° o
% 0) U) CL U)
O o O a a ¢ ¢ a a a a a ¢ m 'c in x >
z z z z z Z z z z z Z z z n�
`'co L C E
a)
ID
/ o U C
0 0 o a a ¢ a a a a a a a (amu E N ('
z z z z z z z z z z z z z o g m a
0
c
'VO N E
O' v cu
G o c c E
oA� 0 0 0 a a ¢ aaaa a a ¢ a ° = N8'
z z z z z z z z z z z z z o m 0
3 O y >n+
Z5 n T ` m m
N m a o m o (fl > QHO
yJ m aNi aNi o aN) a) o 0 0 o N
z
O s
0 0 0 ¢ ¢ a ¢ a a a a a a
z z z z z z z z z z z z z
J
N
U 'o
--
o
LU 0d' o m o 0 0 o a s ('ten o a o 0 a s
z } z a z (L z z N z z z U)
E � >.
c
N (Nn c o o e N co o m
z z° am ¢ z° a z z (on v z ��^, aEL
E h
C d L N m
t
SD € � =UCJ•0
O 70 m N •O 1 >. O o c a a)
40 0y M C c 0n N o 0 o N O U 'C
} �- z d m a z F d M m M m Cl) } z N ? m y
z O) N O N
W 7 Q) C L a)
Q m O U N
NO U d N
�O' U o m n c
`> a o c a c
Cl) N U N o O o N S) Co
U) z z a z a° z z o 0 0 } z y n w E a)
� M
C O N C
> y a) U N E
Q d L L >•. N m N
A,�OJ 0 a E aa)) E 0) :o m m
0 4)) O 0 O O OR m o m ' O O > O � C a
} } z a z a > 04 > m z z 'D n >
m o E y
N C U
O •O N n O N
9000, u a` o o m m c m
ay) ay) 0 0 c o 0 0 0 o e 0 0 d dv� a �
> } z a. z n. M Cl) Cl) z z (D )-� co m
m
�16 N N CL
a) N
z° } z° a z > z°
iCDi
C N
7
m Co a N N U
O d > v , a� CD , 2
U)
d O N C O n N ' 'C
>' } z d m a z H d t > sT > N } z c
O
U
d
\G0,t6 0
G/ �j o m
U) T a) >
� o aNr o 0 0 ¢ a
z } z d z M Z Z N (on N z z O
D c o
> > E
E
a) c >, m
a o o •O O U N
V d (/� o O e O o N Q O 4) 0 !n
aNi m o 0 o 0N) > o 0 0 (° o (n d a
} } z a U >- a (n rl Cl) } o x
U O A O S
-O O)
C aL C N OC .C. >
C
O Oa) aa)
o N ° •y oE o C'. -0 0oUO
�moU m n o H0 m '0 m W 0) c
O ) f
0 o 2 o Q - OON m
a�
Z y m y C N O N E N O y m m cC C > a) N y N O m '�_- �. n V U DO)
W m ) a) O m V a E a N m a=i U c°i m N > a) 4N) a) °, c m C n m C p) 1
N m N U N m 3 d N N ¢ > > 0 0 C U N N O. O E +L„ O a W O I
N > N a) a a) O N n N o N N N a x
Q QO a2 < U) S. � ¢ as o O O W U m a ¢ a N (V Cl)' V' (n (D
LMC 'CwMa research memfor City officials
515a1a.3
February 1999
Local Improvement Guide
r T $ 30.00
League of Minnesota Cities
H
developer prior to awarding contracts for construction. The petitioner
must then reimburse the city for any and all expenses incurred by the
city.
Minn.SUL 429.092, Bonds for fire protection or pedestrian skyway systems are revenue
snba.2 bonds. These types of bonds must contain a promise to pay solely out
of the proper special fund or funds pledged to the payment.This is
somewhat anomalous because other bonds payable solely from
assessments are called improvement warrants. It is the duty of the
municipal treasurer,to pay maturing principal and interest on these
revenue bonds out of funds on hand in the proper funds and not
otherwise, as is also the case with improvement warrants.
P. Pros and cons of special assessments
The following is a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of
special assessment financing. The council can avoid many of the
disadvantages with adequate plans and a long-range capital
improvement program.The advantages of special assessment
financing include the following:
Special assessments are a means of raising money outside
general city tax sources.
♦ Special assessment bonds do not count toward statutory debt
limitations.
♦ Special assessments provide a means of levying charges for
public services against property otherwise exempt from
taxation.
Special assessments lower the cost to the community of
bringing undeveloped land into urban use, and of increasing
the usefulness of urban land.
Perhaps the chief value of special assessments is that by charging the
property owner for the benefit received,they prevent or minimize the
possibility that a property owner will reap a financial profit from the
improvement at the expense of the general taxpayer.
28 League of Minnesota Cities
j
The disadvantages of special assessment include:
♦ First and foremost, the difficulties of special assessment
administration. In addition to the subjective difficulty of
relating assessment charges to special benefits,the
administrative procedures require careful execution in order
to avoid court litigation.While assessment determinations
necessarily involve judgment,many communities have
instituted procedures making this determination as objective
as possible.
♦ Cities have frequently used special assessments to underwrite
premature public improvements.
♦ Because the city generally bears some of the cost of every
public improvement,land speculators sometimes urge
councils to do unjustifiable special assessment programs.
The availability of special assessment financing often tempts
city officials to underwrite the cost of governmental programs
that should be an obligation of the entire city.
Unless they conform to a long-term city financial and capital
improvements planning program, special assessments can also subject
the city to two serious financial dangers:
♦ First, if the city frequently undertakes special assessment
bond issues backed by the full faith and credit of the city, in
an unplanned manner, city credit might be overextended. This
leads to higher interest charges on all city and school district
borrowing, and increases the possibility of default.
Second, if special assessments, along with regular property
taxes, become too heavy a burden on individual property
owners, they will encourage tax delinquency and imperil the
city's credit and borrowing position.
From the council's point of view,the public's reaction to a proposed
special assessment program might be the most important determinant
of feasibility. Special assessment programs receive greater public
support if the council adequately informs the people of its intentions
to make the improvement,the benefits the improvements will provide,
and the financial demands. Adequate advance education is crucial to
the success of public improvement programs whether or not they are
financed by special assessment levies.
Local Improvement Guide 29
Part III. Alternatives to special
assessments
Because of the administrative and legal problems associated with
special assessment financing, the Legislature has authorized several
alternative programs cities may use to finance public improvement
projects, including special service districts, housing improvement
areas, storm sewer improvement districts, and sidewalk improvement
districts.
A. Special service districts
Minnesota Statutes Chapter The 1996 Legislature authorized cities to establish special service
A28A
districts without special legislation. Prior law contained no general
grant of authority for cities to form these special tax areas to finance a
particular improvement or government service. The self-executing
provision is scheduled to sunset on June 30, 2001. Enabling
legislation will once again be required for special service districts
created thereafter.
Minnesota Statutes Chapter Special service districts have their own set of limitations and
428A
procedures. The steps necessary to create a special service district are
as follows:
♦ Twenty-five percent or more of the owners of the land area
of property that would be subject to service charges and
owners of 25 percent or more of the net tax capacity of
property subject to the district must file a petition calling for
a public hearing or otherwise modified so that the 25 percent
requirement is lost, a new petition will be required.
♦ The city council may create an advisory board. Before the
adoption of any proposal by the governing body to provide
services or impose service charges within the district, the
advisory board, if created, must have the opportunity to
review and comment on the proposal.
♦ A hearing must be held on the creation of the district and/or
the imposition of charges. The hearing must be preceded by
two published notices (in two issues of the official paper)
two weeks apart, and must be held at least three days
following the last publication. Not less than 10 days before
the hearing, notice must also be mailed to the owner of each
parcel of property within the area proposed to be included in
the district, including tax-exempt parcel owners or property
30 League of Minnesota Cities
15—
paying on a gross earnings basis such as public utilities.
Notice of the hearing must include the time and place of the
hearing, a map showing the boundaries of the proposed
district, and a statement that all persons owning property in
the proposed district that would be subject to a service
charge will be given an opportunity to be heard at the
hearing.
♦ The hearing may be adjourned from time to time, and the
ordinance establishing the district may be adopted at any
time within six months after the date of the conclusion of the
hearing by a vote of the majority of the governing body of
f the city.
♦ At the hearing, or before the ordinance is adopted, any
affected landowner may file a written objection with the city
clerk asserting that the landowner's property should not be
included in the district, or should not be subjected to a
service charge. The governing body must make a
determination on the objection within 30 days of filing. The
owner may appeal the council's determination to district
court.
♦ The charges can be fixed on any equitable basis, but shall be
reasonably related to the special services provided and shall
be as nearly as possible proportionate to the cost of
furnishing the service.
♦ Only public utility and commercial/industrial land, or vacant
land zoned as commercial/industrial, is subject to service
charges. Other types of property may be included within the
boundaries of the district, but are not subject to any service
charges.
♦ The ordinance adopted must have an effective date at least
45 days after adoption. A summary of the ordinance must be
mailed within five days of adoption to the same property
owners in the district notified of the hearing. The notice
must also state that 35 percent or more of the affected
property owners may veto the ordinance by filing an
objection with the city clerk prior to the effective date of the
ordinance.
♦ File a copy of the ordinance with the commissioner of
revenue within 30 days of its adoption.
Local Improvement Guide 31
l�
B. Housing improvement areas
Minn.StaL§§428A.11-.21 Housing improvement areas may be created in which housing
improvements are made or constructed, and costs are paid from fees
imposed in the area.The council decides the appropriate basis for the
fees. The city may issue bonds to finance the improvement expenses.
Minn.staL§428A.12 and A petition by at least 25 percent of the affected property owners is
428A.13,sued.i required before the council may adopt an ordinance creating the
district . The ordinance must specify the portion of the city included in
the area, the basis for imposing the fee, and the number of years the
fee will be in effect. The ordinance also must include findings that the
improvements would not occur without the housing improvement
area, and that the improvements are necessary to preserve housing
units in the area.
Minn.Stat.§428A.13,sued. Before the council may adopt the ordinance, a public hearing must be
2 held. Notice of the hearing must be published in the official
newspaper of the city, and must include the time and place of the
hearing, a map showing the improvement area boundaries, a
statement that all owners of housing units within the area that would
be subject to fees will be given the opportunity to be heard. The
hearing must be held at least seven days after publication of the
notice. Notice must also be mailed to owners of housing units within
the area at least 10 days.The council has six months from the date of
the conclusion of the hearing to adopt the ordinance. At the hearing,
the city must provide a preliminary listing of the improvements to be
made. Property owners may file a written objection asserting that
their unit should not be included because their property will not
benefit from the improvements. The council must make a
determination of the objection within 60 days of its filing.
Minn.scat.§428A.13,sued. Within 30 days of the council's determination of the objection, any
s aggrieved party may appeal to district court. A public hearing is also
required before fees are imposed. Seven days published and mailed
notice is required. This notice must include the following information:
interested persons will be given the opportunity to be heard; the total
estimated costs of the improvements to be financed by the fee
imposed; the specific amount to be charged to the particular parcel;
the right of the owner to prepay the total fee; the duration of the fee;
and a statement that the 25 percent petition requirements have either
been met or do not apply to the proposed fee. Cities may amend the
ordinance provided these same notice requirements are met.
8
32
League of Minnesota Cities
/7
Minn.Stat.$428A.1s Ordinances establishing areas and imposing fees must have effective
dates at least 45 days after adoption by the council. Within five days
of the adoption, a summary of the ordinance must be mailed to the
owner of housing units within the area. A notice must be included in
the meeting that owners subject to a fee have a right to veto the
ordinance by 35 percent or more of the housing units or tax capacity
filing an objection with the city clerk prior to the effective date of the
resolution, in which case the resolution does not become effective.
Minn.stat. 428A.21 Enabling legislation will be required for housing improvement areas
established after June 30, 2001.
C. Other programs: storm water and sidewalk
i improvements
Cities may also use the following programs for specific purposes of
I storm sewer improvements and sidewalk improvements:
1. Storm sewer improvement districts
Minn.Stat. 444.16-
"4.21 §§ The council of any city may adopt an ordinance, by atwo-thirds vote,
to establish a storm sewer improvement district within its limits after a
public hearing, preceded by two-weeks' published notice. The
adopted ordinance must be filed with the county auditor and county
i
recorder.
I Minn.stat.3§4a4.18,subd. After the district is established, the council may acquire, construct,
1 and 444.20 reconstruct, extend, maintain, and otherwise improve, storm sewer
systems and related facilities within the district. Storm water holding
areas and ponds within and outside city limits may also be so
acquired, maintained, and improved for the benefit of the district. The
city may levy a tax upon properties within the district in order to pay
for one of the above improvements.
I
Minn.stat.§444.18,subd.3 There is a special procedure the city must follow before awarding a
i
j contract for an improvement in such a district. The city must hold a
public hearing on the proposed improvement after giving published
notice twice in the city's official newspaper. The notice must include
the following: -
♦ The time,date, and place of the hearing.
♦ The general nature of the improvement.
♦ The estimated cost of the improvement.
Local Improvement Guide 33
♦ The area over which any levy will be imposed.
♦ The term over which the costs will be recovered.
Minn.stat.§444.18,sued.3 The two publications must be a week apart and the hearing must be at
least three days after the last publication. Notice must also be mailed
to the owners of property within the district. The mailed notice must
be mailed at least 10 days before the hearing and include the estimated
tax to be levied against each parcel in the first year.
Before the hearing, the city must secure a report from the city's
engineer advising the council in the following areas:
♦ Whether the proposed improvement is feasible.
♦ Whether the improvement should be made as proposed or in
connection with some other improvement.
♦ The estimated cost of the improvement.
Minn.stat.§444.18,subd.3 The resolution adopting the improvement may be adopted at any time
within six months after the hearing.
2. Sidewalk improvement districts
Minn.stat. 435.44 A"municipality" (the term is undefined) may establish, by ordinance,
a sidewalk improvement district to pay all or part of the cost of
sidewalk construction and repair by apportioning the cost throughout
the property in the district on a"direct or indirect benefit basis."The
council may establish districts in order to provide all areas with safe
pedestrian walkways to and from schools, schoolbus stops,public
transportation facilities, and other neighborhood and community
services.
The total cost may be apportioned and assessed to all property in the
district on a uniform basis as to each classification of property. An
indirect benefit assessment may involve all property in the district
without regard to location of sidewalks. A direct benefit may be
assessed to abutting property for the additional cost of an extra
sidewalk width. Assessments may be spread over a five-year period,
but there is no provision in the statute for issuing obligations to
initially finance the cost, nor is any procedure prescribed for making
the assessments. The law makes no mention of Chapter 429.
34 League of Minnesota Cities
D. Local improvement policy
Some cities have attempted to minimize the controversy over special
assessment financing by adopting an ordinance establishing a local
improvement policy. A council may consider such an ordinance for
several reasons.
Fairness among property owners requires that assessment policy be
consistent. With a frequent turnover on the council, it is much easier
to be consistent on such financing if the policy is set out in advance in
an ordinance. Any change in financing a particular project then
requires a change in the ordinance--a process which will focus proper
attention on the general policy involved. If the council has established
the general policy in advance, it is easier to justify decisions in a
particular case.
An ordinance establishing a local improvement policy may also
facilitate the development of along-range capital program for public
improvements. A special assessment policy ordinance reflects basic
policy decisions on financing local improvements --decisions which
the council must think through carefully, taking into account past
practice, equity, revenue productivity, political acceptability, and the
rest of the city's revenue system.
Local Improvement Guide 35
O/1)
N M O 01 M (0 (D N O N N O n O O r GO v N (0 M O
N m O O (O
N N a7 a0 a m N O M Ic (R r O r O O N M n aD N
r r n N (0 (0 M O r N Ol M N r N m a N M < Ov
� 40 � N '�v M N �" � � M
O �
Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O Z Z 2
0 M
LL O O O O N N O O N ON O O O
_Q Q Q QI O O N O
O Z Z Z � Z 10
LL M N O M O M M O O M O N r Q Q Q M O O N O
O Z Z Z n
O
O O ' r O r Ot M u) N r O N fND (0 Opi O r O n
LL O M M O M 10 N N m
� r a
N
0 Ww 0 o e e e o 0 e e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e e a e e
O r r u) 0 n O O v O a N N N O O O N a N N W m O
w M � m a a (n o m q o 0
3t K v N (n m ao 0 of o au a m vi v o m ai a r- o m
N
LL J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 m
O F m N a N O O n O (0 V O) N O D7 O N N N O C N n M i o1
N C� (`7 Cl 1-� I m
i O N OI 7 n O 0] w n Ol 01 a M N O O OD M n m d'
�.., N N N N V M V VI O N N M M M N N (0
r M r (0 OJ Ic N M n V M O O n le
z N V r V M 4) V V M N n Of M n (O N N O M M M M
~ N
r r r r r ?
Q M
Qj' W N r O O M M V (O (0 O O 1n OD v Ot r n D7 r , M
W Z � U� n t0 q O r M N M a V N M n O (0 N M r W n 01
�- J 00 O — 7 — O O O O O O O O O O O N O
LU
U
W W O W W W 000 W W O W O W Q O O o W O O o W W
w w z w w w Z z z w w z w z w Z z z z w z Z Z w w
W LL > >
Q N n Y W W
00 O r
MC6 0 0 0
z n N r V A7 N 10 N
N N n v mo
(/1 O Cl) n N
N
n
W N
N F N
Q ON OI
W p
M0
D)
Cl)
N
0 w O CD (0 O O 07 w N ^ 0, (D 0) m Cl)
O N N O O (7) N Q M (O N M r l0 O O
07 Q N a1 N N O N n N (0 r N a Opt v (0 O N
zz N M N �'
O O N
O O N
O (0 N
N M M
N 9 M 9 � M N m OD m N (0 O r M (D O O N M 0 W n O M
O O O O O O O r .- O O O O O O O O O O O O
M R O a 7 V 'C N O to N to N N O r r r r � 00 4) D7 00 m
rn m m m rn m m rn rn m m rn rn m m m m m m m m m rn m m
F
L z M v v a a (n (n m m (o m m (o (o n r r r r w ro au m m aD
O m rn m m m m rn rn rn m m rn rn m m m m rn m rn m m m m m
d' fq m m m rn m m rn m rn m m m m m m m m rn m rn m m m rn m
Q
H
O
Z Z p w z Z Z z z Z = O
z Q O o Q Q 0 0 0 0 0 o w0
w m p rc p p p p p r ¢ m
2 0 U U 0 0 U U U U U U S c9
W (L 7 w Z) d d Z) D D :) S w 7 U IL
> > x o w F- > U a
°a (0 LL O fnQ Q Q (n (� u) V) U) LL Q 2 2 V1 Q Q Q O a5
1 Z Z Q' Q z Z J J J z z z Z z z w J Z J J J 2 Z
O O u O O W W W O O O O O O W Q Q U U OU Cl)W W w O O
w w w a w w > > > w w w w w w w > w w w > > > w w
S S D w m O O O w C K S K S S O w C� w O O O S x
U
J w
Q Q
U
N W Q
mLU w w O
47 v a Ow
J
N Q x S J
U
z Q Q m U
N M O w O U N
7 N
O
W �
ci Y Q Z D m K 2 ae z U
S
(n z Q QO O �of w _� y Y Y W F Z 7 O
w O � w m x J_ X W z 0) O d o M
xo W a a? 3 z W � 2 3 x a o a Ir a > w O w �' S N
Oz u w Df = i w x o = � W x w W o N ¢ 3 w Z z
x w U p c7 Y F w F z Y Q Q pU a w U z c7 w Oa w
w J O O J w O N J w Q O Q w W O W Q O > Q U
U 3 m a v m 3 3 N o m 3 z 2 3 0 o x o o w 3 o m
M
� o m rn N
(0 O (0 (0 O O O M V O M O C O
� n n (o
n
.W-I
MEMO
city of eagan
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: April 2,1999
SUBJECT: FINANCE COMMITTEE REVIEW OF FINANCING OPTIONS TO
REPLACE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON STREET
RECONSTRUCTION,OVERLAY AND RECYLCE PROJECTS
During the round table discussion at the February 16, 1999 City Council meeting,Councilmember
Blomquist proposed that the Finance Committee meet with City Administrator Hedges and Finance
Director VanOverbeke to discuss ideas that have been proposed for funding road repair(reconstruction,
overlays and recycling)projects. Following that direction the Finance Committee has met on two
occasions;the first on February 23, 1999 and the second on March 11, 1999. Director of Public Works
Colbert also participated in the meetings.
The Finance Committee came up with the following ideas as revenue sources to potentially replace special
assessments on the road repair type projects:
• Savings in the General Fund,if the State again makes cities tax-exempt,
• Utilization of the appropriations from sunset programs e.g. Eagan Forever Green,
• Project cost savings(engineering,legal, staff preparation of assessments,etc.),and
• Designation of money within the Major Street Fund to be used to generate dedicated.
interest earnings.
In addition to these potential new revenue sources,the Finance Committee also discussed the additional
money levied for the Major Street Fund in 1998 to be collected in 1999. No definitive conclusion was
reached as to whether that money was levied to begin the replacement of special assessments or if it was
levied to enhance continuation of the current policy. The need to see information on potential tax impacts
for additions to the ad valorem levy was also discussed.
Each of these ideas was discussed in detail and provide options for the City Council to consider, if the
policy for financing street reconstruction,overlays,and recycling projects is to be changed to eliminate the
use of special assessments on these projects. The Finance Committee also discussed options that would
change the financing policy at this time or at a time in the future either for all projects or for those
subdivisions facing a second reconstruction,overlay or recycle project. Additional information is included
in the meeting minutes that are attached.
Staff has also researched answers to the five questions raised by the City Council at the special meeting
held on February 9, 1999. That material is being provided under a separate memo to the Council for the
special meeting scheduled for April 6, 1999. The Finance Committee material is provided to help arrive
at answers to the public policy issues revolving around the financing of the street reconstruction,overlay
and recycle projects.
P contact tthe office of the City Administrator,if you desire any other material at this time.
1
City AdministratOr Hed s
` Q
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE
OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL
Eagan Minnesota
February 23,1999
A meeting of the Finance Committee of the Eagan City Council was held on Tuesday, February
23, 1999 at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were Councilmember Blomquist, Chair,
Councilmember Masin, City Administrator Hedges, Director of Public Works Colbert and
Finance Director/City Clerk VanOverbeke. Chair Blomquist called the meeting to order at 4:15
p.m.
Chair Blomquist opened the meeting by explaining her desire for the City to stop using
assessments for road repair. Those assessments generally include the costs of reconstruction,
overlays and recycle projects used to extend the life of City street infrastructure. She suggested
that the cost of$1,000,000 per year of this type of assessment included in the CIP could be
reduced through certain cost savings generated by not using the assessment process on these types
of projects. She expressed her desire to find revenue sources to make up the net loss of special
assessment revenue without increasing the City's tax capacity rate.
Chair Blomquist shared her idea of using the potential savings on sales tax expenditures, if the
State Legislature again makes Cities tax-exempt. It was pointed out that only a share of the
savings would be available for street maintenance, as a significant amount of the savings would
belong to the utility funds and to construction funds. It was agreed that there should be no
subsidies from utility funds to street repair. Chair Blomquist suggested the possibility of
redirecting appropriations from certain programs to street maintenance. It was agreed that this
could work for programs that had a definitive end point such as the Eagan Forever Green program
to which$68,100 was appropriated in the 1999 budget. However, it was noted that the full
Council would need to address the reallocation of appropriations through the normal budgeting
process.
General discussion followed concerning the current and appropriate balance in the City's Major
Street Fund and what the best use of that balance is both in the short-term and in the long-term.
Chair Blomquist suggested earmarking some or all of the interest earnings on the current balance
to replace the subject assessments. It was noted that currently the interest earnings are returned to
the Major Street Fund to finance the overall street portion of the CIP. If certain amounts were to
be designated to replace special assessments, the CIP would have to be prolonged to match the
level of funding available.
A general discussion followed about why the current financing method for street renewal and
replacement was implemented in the first place. It was explained that the City has a long history
of trying to maximize all revenue sources before turning to property taxes. It was noted that
assessments allow the City to recover some revenue from the tax-exempts. It was also explained
that the City Council that instituted the policy wanted to effect a public private partnership
between the City and the residents to maintain the streets. The funding arrangement is one way
of doing that. A concern about equity in application of the policy across the City was discussed.
It was pointed out that equity should be addressed with the same types of projects across the City
and caution should be used when comparing different types of projects between or among
subdivisions.
45
There was some discussion about transitioning to a new financing arrangement either in a given
time frame or in a manner to be applied after each subdivision had been assessed once for
renewal and replacement. There was also discussion about a slightly different assessment process
in which the probable final assessment amount, rather than the estimated amount per the policy
would be presented to the property owners earlier in the hearing process. The possibility of using
annual predetermined assessment rates depending on the type of construction was discussed.
Staff was directed to complete the following:
1. Determine an estimated amount of potential general fund sales tax savings, if tax-exemption
is restored.
2. To look through the budget for any other programs such as Eagan Forever Green that might
have a sunset and be available to free up dollars.
I To continue working on the questions raised at the Special City Council meeting held on
February 9, 1999.
Another meeting of the Finance Committee was scheduled for 4:30 p.m. on March 10, 1999.
There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
February 23, 1999
Date City Clerk
EN
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE
OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL
Eagan Minnesota
March 11, 1999
A meeting of the Finance Committee of the Eagan City Council was held on Thursday,March 11,
1999 at the Eagan Municipal Center. Chair Blomquist called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
Present were Councilmember Blomquist, Chair,City Administrator Hedges,Director of Public
Works Colbert and Finance Director/City Clerk VanOverbeke. Councilmember Masin joined the
meeting at 5:18p.m.
Chair Blomquist opened the meeting by reviewing the minutes of the February 23, 1999 meeting.
The overall objective of trying to identify potential revenue sources to replace special
assessments on reconstruction,overlays,and recycle street improvement projects was reiterated
as the purpose of the meeting. Due to expected cost savings through elimination of the assessment
process, Councilmember Blomquist estimates that replacement funds of approximately$800,000
per year would be needed to accomplish her desire to eliminate that type of assessment.
In response to the direction from the earlier meting,staff reported potential General Fund sales
tax savings of approximately$90,000 based on the 1999 operating budget, if cities again become
tax-exempt. Staff reported that they had found no other programs beyond Eagan Forever Green
that are scheduled to sunset and thereby free up resources to become a funding source to replace
the assessments. Any other reallocation of funding sources is a matter for the full City Council to
determine through the normal budgeting process.
Staff was directed to summarize information as part of the report to the full City Council for the
special meeting to be rescheduled from March 16, 1999. The following six areas are to be
included with particular attention being paid to noting the difference between"new money"and
money being reallocated from other uses:
1. Sales tax savings ($90,000),
2. Sunset program(s) e.g. Eagan Forever Green($68,000),
3. Project cost savings (already estimated to reduce the requirement for annual new
money from$1,000,000 to$800,000),
4. Tax impact on various property types to raise additional money,
5. Designation of money within the Major Street Fund to generate interest earnings, and
6. Report on the additional money levied in 1998 to be collected in 1999 for the Major
Street Fund. There is a question as to whether that money was levied to begin the
replacement of special assessments or if it was levied to enhance continuation of the
current policy. The full Council will ultimately be required to make that
determination.
City Administrator Hedges reported that a resolution sponsored by the League of Minnesota
Cities supporting tax-exempt status for cities would be on the March 16 City Council agenda for
Council consideration.
Oi�
Although,no additional meetings were scheduled,there was discussion about meeting again to
review the draft of the staff report to the City Council for the special meeting. Councilmember
Masin questioned the timing of any change and the potential impact on projects that are currently
being approved. It was agreed that the critical time is at the point of assessment,although tb the
extent that there would be cost savings through elimination of the assessments those saving could
not be fully realized as projects are undertaken based on the premise that they will include
assessments.
There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
March 11, 1999
Date City Clerk
EJV
OIC
S, meati MEMO
` - city of eagan
TO: TOM HEDGES,CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: KEN VRAA,DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION
DATE: MARCH 31, 1999
SUBJECT: SKYLINE DISPLAYS' DISCOVERY PARK
PURPOSE:
This memo is intended to update the City Council on the proposal from Skyline Displays to
develop Discovery Park for public use on their property.
BACKGROUND:
Several months ago Skyline Displays Inc. purchased property on the northeast intersection of
Lexington and Yankee Doodle for their new corporate headquarters. The owners (Mr. and
Mrs. Beaulieu)proposed to develop a public park on private property in lieu of a cash park
dedication estimated at approximately $130,000. The park area would encompass nearly 10
acres.
The Beaulieus hired a designer to prepare concept plans for the park based on the Beaulieu's
vision. Skyline Displays' corporate culture incorporates giving back to the community a park
that represents their creativity. Mr Beaulieu has made the commitment that his employees
will help construct portions of the park. It is hoped that other corporations will also want to
participate in other areas of the park that need development; making this a community "barn
raising"project. The Eagan Rotary Club has already expressed an interest in the park, which
has been altered to reflect the Rotary's desire to have a community band shell or performance
area included in the park.
REVIEWS:
The City Council reviewed the first concept plan for this proposal several months ago at a
workshop session. The consensus was that this idea had merit, but would need additional
review and work. The Advisory Park Commission also reviewed it several months ago and
suggested several changes. An on-site visit with the parks designer and owners was also
conducted last year to better understand the proposed design and to make suggestions.
Neither the Commission nor Council has given formal approval to the park plan. The only
formal action taken was the deferment of the cash dedication fees. These fees are normally
collected at the time of the buildingpermit but have been deferred until the certificate of
occupancy is issued.
p y
0�7
CRITICAL QUESTIONS:
The City Council, Advisory Parks Commission and Rotarians have raised several questions in
regard to this proposal. For example, who maintains the park?What happens to investments
made in the park by others should Skyline Displays Inc. be purchased or sold? What about
insurance? Who schedules the park for use? Who oversees the parks development and
design?
In an effort to respond to these and other issues, a meeting was held with the Beaulieus, their
legal representative Peter Coyle, Mike Dougherty from the City Attorney's office, and the
Director of Park and Recreation. The purpose of that meeting was to start to develop a
"skeletal outline" of an agreement that would cover these and other questions. (A copy of the
main issues discussed, and presented in brief paragraph form, is attached.) If there are
additional questions that need to be raised and responded to, or if there are concerns about the
direction of these issues, this would be an excellent time to provide direction.
OTHER ISSUES:
In regards to the park plan, additional details need to be completed. A grading plan, phasing
plan and projected costs to complete have been requested. It was also suggested that an
organizational structure be defined that outlines who will be responsible for carrying out the
various aspects of this ambitious project.
WORKSHOP PRESENTATION:
At the April 6'h City Council workshop, if time permits, staff will provide a brief verbal
overview of the plan for the park as they understand it along with the desired involvement of
the Rotary Club.
DIRECTION;
Staff is seeking direction from the Council on this proposed project. Are there additional
issues staff should address before submitting plans and/or an agreement to the Council for
consideration?
CW
:-,e45,
,11
LJ
00
co
O 1)Pi
!' - --
A � II 1 � J' ' •- ' j /
bong F E E I
C) S
_ 0 4,0
i o 0 1 11 I
'1 'I !• i
�,� i
� l
SEN'!' BY: 9-25-99 ; 14:34 SEVERSON SHEL.DON-* 651 681 4612;# 2/ 2
DISCOVERY PARK
• Lot 1, Block 1, Eagandale Corporate Center No. 2, shall remain as one parcel owned
by Skyline Displays.
• Skyline Displays as landlord will enter into a lease with the City of Eagan as tenant,
whereby the City would have possessory rights over the approximate ten acres
comprising Discovery Park.
• Skyline Displays will also make a portion of their parking lot available to the City for
functions that do not conflict with Skylines needs.
• Use of Discovery Park will be managed by the City of Eagan consistent with the use
of other parks.
• All physical improvements to Discovery Park from grading to buildings, require prior
approval by the City Council.
• The City shall be responsible for maintenance of the overall area comprising
Discovery Park.
• Skyline agrees to undertake the construction of certain improvements to Discovery
Park(e.g. outdoor performance stage).
• Any physical improvement to Discovery Park made by Skyline Displays, as required
by the City, shall be purchased by the City upon completion.
• At the time of the City's purchase of any improvement, the parties shall prepare a
statement reflecting the value of the asset and its life expectancy, the statement shall
further reflect a method of ascertaining the value of the asset during its life.
• Should Skyline Displays sell the property, it shall pay to the City the value of any
purchased assets, in accordance with the schedule, together with the amount of park
dedication due and owing for the property together with interest.
R-93% 612 432 3780 03-25-99 03:43PM P002 #07