Loading...
CR 94-48 PH Oakridge S Street Reconstruction 1 y 0 \ . V '" . March 9 1 1994 ~ Council Report: 94-48 'i '" 0 P K \ ~ PUBLIC HEARING OAKRIDGE SOUTH STREET RECONSTRUCTION Proposed Action. staff recommends adoption of the following motion: "Move that Council adoot Resolution 94-27. ReSOlution orderinq Improvement After PUblic Hearing. Oakridge South street Reconstruction." This action will continue an assessable project in the Oakridge South neighborhood. Plans and specifications will be developed and bids solicited for construction in August 1994. Overview. Council at its February 15 meeting accepted the feasibility report as it concerned the reconstruction of streets in the Oakridge South neighborhood. Council also ordered a public hearing for March 15. Notices have been published and sent to all affected property owners. The firm of Bolton and Menk has been authorized to conduct the preliminary engineering work in this project, and that firm has . conducted two general information meetings and numerous individual property owner contacts as part of the feasibility report process. Primary Issues to Consider 0 What are current street conditions? 0 What are potential special assessments? 0 Traffic control issues at 5th street North and County Road 73 0 Project timetable 0 Estimated engineering costs 0 Staff recommendation Supportinq Information 0 Notice of Hearing of Improvement 0 Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice 0 Mailing list 0 Preliminary estimates and budget 0 Preliminary assessment roll 0 Location map 0 Benefit analysis by appraiser 0 Resolution 94-27 (~+~ ~ e ~ .. Ja'mes Gessele, Engineering Superintendent council Report: 94-48 Page 2 . Analysis of Issues 0 What are current street conditions? The streets within the Oakridge South area are aged and exhibit wear and distress due to traffic loadings. This is illustrated by alligator cracking, potholes, and the exposure of pavement aggregates. A recent pavement deflection analysis of all the streets in this area confirmed that all the streets in this area should be reconstructed except for Elmo Road. The deflection analysis concluded that Elmo Road was in good shape and did not presently need any sort of rehabilitation. The lack of adequate storm sewer in this area 1-5 fairly obvious and is evident by the flow characteristics within the streets. The water and sanitary sewer systems are in fairly good shape, and only require minor repairs. street lighting in this area appears to be adequate. On and off street parking appears to be adequate for the area. Much of the area has adequate off street parking, and as such, the property owners would like to prohibit on street parking. Robinwood Lane north of 5th Street is the only street where on e street parking is needed. A reconstructed street with a width wider than the existing street could easily accommodate on street parking for this section of Robinwood Lane. 0 What are potential special assessments? Refer to the special spreadsheet attached to this report. It details preliminary assessment amounts for each parcel of land affected. Front footages were adjusted in some cases to account for odd-shaped or corner lots. Once a total assessable footage amount was found, the total amount to assess was determined. Staff then tallied assessment costs for parcels 3-15, divided that total by the 13 parcels, and assigned those parcels a unit cost of $3,405.00. Staff retained the services of an appraiser to conduct a benefit analysis as it pertains to proposed assessments. The appraiser reviewed the proposed assessments, conducted a physical inspection of the project area, and applied the appraisal process ln a very general way to make benefit estimates. The report speaks for itself. 0 Traffic control issues at 5th Street North and County Road 73 At the February 15 council meeting the issue of access to County Road 73 from the east driveway of MGM Liquors was advanced. The . consultant engineer was instructed to develop a layout showing a concrete island in 5th Street North near County Road 73 and opposite the west MGM Liquor Warehouse driveway. This layout was discussed with the property manager, and he registered his opposition to a right-injright-out feature in light of delivery - - -.- ..--- council Report: 94-48 Page 3 4It trucks blocking his east driveway at various times throughout the day. The current design shows a driveway sufficiently offset from County Road 73 to meet safety design criteria. In that sense a concrete island is not necessary. o project timetable Public Improvement Hearing and ordering Plans & Specifications......... March 15, 1994 Approve Plans & Specifications and Advertise for Bids...................... April 19, 1994 open Bids................................... May 13, 1994 Order Assessment Hearing.................... May 17, 1994 Public Assessment Hearing................... June 7, 1994 Award Bid................................... July 19, 1994 Commence Construction....................... August 1, 1994 construction Completion..................... October 1, 1994 o Estimated engineering costs Bolton and Menk has provided an estimate of engineering fees for final plans and construction engineering. Engineering fees are projected at $51,500 for the remainder of the project (approximately 11.4% of construction costs). This is a fair and . reasonable cost and is in line with the current market index. o staff recommendation Staff concurs with the consultant engineer's assessment that this is a feasible project. The estimated costs are in line with past project costs. Staff recommends that Bolton and Menk, Inc. be authorized to draw up plans and specifications for an improvement. e e CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota NOTICE OF HEARING OF IMPROVEMENT TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: WHEREAS, the City Council of the city of Hopkins, Hennepin County, Minnesota, deems it necessary and expedient that the improvement hereinafter described be made, NOW, THEREFORE, notice is hereby given that the city Council will hold a public hearing on said improvement at the following time and place within the said City. DATE: March 15, 1994 TIME: 7:50 P.M. LOCATION: CITY HALL Council Chambers 1010 First street South Hopkins, MN 55343 The general nature of the improvement is the reconstruction of . streets, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water main and sidewalks, City Project 93-17, in the following described area: Robinwood Lane from North Service Road to Hopkins Crossroad, 5th st. North from Hopkins Crossroad to Robinwood Lane, Elmo Service Road and Elmo Road THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF SAID IMPROVEMENT IS $543,297.15 It is proposed to assess every lot, piece or parcel of land benefited by said improvement whether abutting thereon or not, based upon benefits received without regard to cash valuation. Persons desiring to be heard with reference to the proposed improvement should be present at this hearing. This council proposes to proceed under the authority granted by Chapter 429 MSA. Dated this 15th day of February, 1994. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL . Hopkins Sailor February 23 and March 2 -.-- -- - - . AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNCIL OF HOPKINS ) James A. Genellie, being first duly sworn, deposed and says: I am a united States citizen, over 21 years of age, and the city Clerk of the city of Hopkins, Minnesota. On February 23, 1994, acting on behalf of the said city, I deposited in the United States Post Office at the city of Hopkins, Minnesota, copies of the attached notice of public hearing on proposed assessments for reconstruction of streets, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water main and sidewalks, city project 93-17, enclosed in sealed envelopes, with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the fOllowing persons at the addresses appearing on the attached copy of the mailing list. . There is delivery service by united States mail between the place of mailing and the places so addressed. C signature Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23rd day of February, 1994. ~ J i-~-R.. --- Notary Public fie', JAMES T. GESSElE I . .~':: NOTARY ?U911C_MINN~OTA ... HENNEPIN COUNTY J~~s:;~:!~. . 2.t-117~22 22 0007 24-117-22 220007 24-117-22220012 .Odman Real Estate Brentwood Park Townhomes PlIgram Properties /0 Sage Co 1301 State Hwy 7 cia EI Sag- Robinwood Lane Co 1712 Hopkins Crossroad Mtka, MN 55305 1712 Hopkins Crossroad Mtka, MN 55305 Mtka, MN 55305 24-117 -22 22 0013 24-117-22 22 0014 24-117-22 22 0015 Goodman Real Estate Goodman Real Estate Goodman Real Estate do Sage Co clo Sage Co do Sage Co 1712 Hopkins Crossroad 1712 Hopkins Crossroad 1712 Hopkins Crossroad Mtka, MN 55305 Mtka, MN 55305 Mtka, MN 55305 24-117-22220016 24-117-22220017 24-117-12 22 0069 Goodman Real Estate Goodman Real Estate Hopkins House Hotel Corp. do Sage Co cia Sage Co do David Hayes 1712 Hopkins Crossroad 1712 Hopkins Crossroad 3749 Towndale Dr Mtka, MN 55305 Mtka, MN 55305 Bloomington, MN 55431 H~117-22 22 0069 24-117-22220070 24-117-22210031 Hopkins House Hotel corp Herbert Ma son lnd School Dlst 270 1501 State Hwy 7 Don Hagen 1001 State Hwy 7 Hopkins, MN 55305 1569 State Hwy 7 #203 Hopkins, MN 55305 Hopkins, MN 55305 H-117-2222 0067 24-117-22 22 0067 24-117 -22 22 0004 MGM Liquor Store Equities Unlimited Hopkins House Hotel Corp .95 17 Ave No 626B E. Hwy 101 cia David Hayes opkins, MN 55305 Shako pee, MN 55379 3749 Towndale Dr Bloomington, MN 55431 13-117.22 33 0008 13-117-22 33 0008 13-117-22 33 0009 ResldentJOwner Lila M. Johnson Viva O. Alvlg 731 Robinwood Lane 12209 Goldon Acres Dr 725 Roblnwwod Lane Hopkins, MN 55305 Mtka, MN 55305 Hopkins, MN 55305 13-117-22330010 13-117-22 33 0010 13-117-2233 0011 Resident/Owner Richard Van Dick Resid entJOwner 723 RObinwood Lane 3606 Westmark Or 719 Robinwood Lane Hopkins, MN 55305 Mtka, MN 55345 Hopkins, MN 55305 13-117 -22 33 0011 13-117-22 330012 13-117 -22 33 0013 Robert L. Hatlestad Curtis A. Nelson Resid entJOwner 1 530B Willwood Dr 713 RObinwood Lane 711 Robinwood Lane Mtka, MN 55345 Hopkins, MN 55305 Hopkins, MN 55305 13-117 -22 33 0013 13-117-22330014 13-117-22330015 James F. Liska Marian S. Moss Alan W. Meuleners 3722 Sunrise Or E 707 RObinwood Lane 701 Robinwood Lane elVltka, MN 55345 Hopkins, MN 55305 Hopkins, MN 55305 13.117-22 33 0016 13-117 -22 33 0016 13-117-22330017 ResidentJOwner Steven M. Longley Lucille H. Soderholm 726 Robinwood Lane 16275 Temple Dr S 724 Robinwood Lane Hopkins, MN 55305 Mtka, MN 55345 Hopkins, MN 55305 13-117-22 33 0018 13-117-2233 0019 13-117-22330020 .sell J. Long Dorothy A. Schulte Bruce A. Kruger 720 Robinwood Lane 708 Robinwood Lane 704 Robinwood Lane Hopkins, MN 55305 Hopkins, MN 55305 Hopkins, MN 55305 13-117 -22 31 0002 24-117.22 22 0011 Oak RIdge Country Club Hopkins House Hotel Corp 700 Oakridge Rd cio Oavid D. Hayes Hopkins, MN 55305 3149 Towndale Dr Bloomington, MN 55431 . . PROJECT 93-17 OAKRIDGE SOUTH STREETS . Preliminary Estimates/Budget street Reconstruction (70% Resident/30% city) Estimated Construction costs $274,909.25 (with 10% contingency) Engineering Costs @ 20% $ 48,633.89 Total street Reconstruction $323,543.14 Amount to belAssessed @ 70% Share $226,480.20 city 30% Share $ 97,062.94 Sidewalk Repair (100% city) Estimated Construction costs $ 3,044.25 (with 10% contingency) Engineering Costs @ 20% $ 608.75 Total Sidewalk Repair $ 3,653.00 Water Main (100% city) Estimated Construction Costs $ 11,935.00 . (with 10% contingency) Engineering Costs @ 20% $ 2,387.00 Total Water Main Construction $ 14,322.00 sanitary Sewer - Oakridqe South (100% city) Estimated Construction Costs $ 20,564.00 (with 10% contingency) Engineering Costs @ 20% $ 4,112.50 Total Sanitary Sewer Construction $ 24,677.00 Sanitary Sewer - T.H. 7 (100% City) Estimated Construction Costs $ 46,315.50 (with 10% contingency) Engineering Costs @ 20% $ 9,262.50 Total Sanitary Sewer Construction $ 55,578.00 Storm Sewer (100% City) Estimated Construction Costs $ 95,979.13 (with 10% contingency) . Engineering Costs @ 20% $ 19,195.87 Total Storm Sewer Construction $115,175.00 TOTAL IMPROVEMENT $536,948.14 Preliminary Assessment Roll Project 93-17: Oakridge South Streets . 1 700 Oakridge Road 13-117-2231 0002 400.00 $35.80 $14,320.00 2 Address Unassigned 13-117-2233 0003 262.00 $35.80 $9,379.60 3 731 Robinwood Lane 13-117-22 33 0008 86.84 - $3,405.00 $3,405.00 4 725 Robinwood Lane 13-117-2233 0009 74.39 - $3,405.00 $3,405.00 5 723 Robinwood Lane 13-117-2233 0010 72.25 - $3,405.00 $3,405.00 6 719 Robinwood Lane 13-117-2233 0011 79.36 - $3,405.00 $3,405.00 7 713 Robinwood Lane 13-117-2233 0012 96.23 - $3,405.00 $3,405.00 8 711 Robinwood Lane 13-117-22 33 0013 133.38 - $3,405.00 $3,405.00 9 707 Robinwood Lane 13-117-2233 0014 114.68 - $3,405.00 $3,405.00 10 703 Robinwood Lane 13-117-2233 0015 73.23 - $3,405.00 $3,405.00 11 728 Robinwood Lane 13-117-2233 0016 86.55 - $3,405.00 $3,405.00 12 726 Robinwood Lane 13-117-22 33 0017 71.34 - $3,405.00 $3,405.00 . 13 720 Robinwood Lane 13-117-22330018 114. 64 - $3,405.00 $3,405.00 14 708 Robinwood Lane 13-117-2233 0019 88.55 - $3,405.00 $3,405.00 15 702 Robinwood Lane 13-117-22 33 0020 145.32 - $3,405.00 $3,405.00 16 1001 State Highway No 7 24-117-2221 0031 709.50 $35.80 $25,400.10 17 Address Unassigned 24-117 - 22 22 0004 277.00 $35.80 $9,916.60 18 1301 State Highway No 7 24-117-22 22 0007 1,662.65 $35.80 $59,522.87 19 Address Unassigned 24-117-2222 0011 23.00 $35.80 $823.40 20 619 Robinwood Lane 24-117-2222 0012 619.26 $35.80 $22, 169.51 21 626 Robinwood Lane 24-117-2222 0013 65.80 $35.80 $2,355.64 22 622 Robinwood Lane 24-117-2222 0014 65.80 $35.80 . $2,355.64 23 Address Unassigned 24-117-2222 0015 12.40 $35.80 $443.92 24 618 Robinwood Lane 24-117-2222 0016 72.00 $35.80 $2,577.60 25 614 Robinwood Lane 24-117-2222 0017 120.05 $35.80 $4,297.79 26 495 17th Avenue North 24-117-22 22 0067 149.99 $35.80 $5,369.64 27 1501 State Highway No 7 24-117-22 22 0069 532.36 $35.80 $19,058.49 28 1601 State Highway No 7 24-117 - 22 22 0070 118.00 $35.80 $4,224.40 . 6326.57 $226,480.20 - -. - c: 123w\ Ilroj ecis \93 -17 ph2. wid 3-9-94 '\J IV f\\ N ~ I I ~ r<1 I ~ I. . , ('-- f". I I --.... -.... \ -- -......... "" , ( ~, 0' (Y) \t- ;.;, j@ ~ ~ 8; ~ , ~ I ,'2 on ~8~'"-:: w' " $\;>' I' ~:; ",'~fi;; ~I t ~ r-f. - 'ot 0: ~,; I ,> f , , ~.~ , I {;J: -?' . - I I ~. <:l \-,j' - , ,.' _ ,~r~ , I !?l , , ~ 1 'LE , ( , , , ' . ;/ .f ~ 1 I ... r' '. - >.J I ~:~<, , ' ~ 1J'~~i~1 . - ~ ~ r , . tl '1 ff I .: ' - . [ ......'.9). I , "'!- .. I . , I I . 0, r . '?r . .~ , , . ~ ~ . I . , . -~ s: @ : I , . aQ) @ , .:... ,. . -:- ~.., ,->",. ~ , , , ~ - - @g , ~ @b (g) : I - ~ ~ .. ~ -r::: . . , ~ '-' ,:& ~ " d ~~ .. '" . ~ . , ~ ~~ := ':~,:";. on . r::l I!,~ .. . " .,.... ~ iii 0 ~ 0 ;!o : I , ;n '-' :~ 00, ~. J . I i'r ~. , . . """-l %" ~ ~ , 1<;'''' -K;i< . ",0> '-' _n '-' '-' ~, . . ~ ~ - . J. Scott Renne, MAl Real Estate Appraiser' Consultant. REALTOR 2729 IRVING AVENUE SOUTH. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55408 (612) 871-1417 . FAX (612) 871-148 I . PAGER (6121661 3256 March 6, 1994 Jim Gessle, City Engineer Lee Gustafson, Public Works Director City of Hopkins 1010 First Street South Hopkins, MN 55343 Subject: Special assessment benefit analysis on preliminary assessment role for Project 93-17; Oakridge South Streets, Hopkins, Minnesota Dear Mr. Gessle and Mr. Gustafson: Pursuant to your request, I have done ranges of values for the properties listed on the preliminary assessment role for Project 93-17. This was done to assist the City of Hopkins in planning the . project in anticipation of possible appeals based on a property owner~s opinion that the assessment exceeds the benefit. This letter is considered to be a letter of consultation rather than providing specific value estimates. This letter should not be construed as an appraisal report as covered by Standards One and Two, but consultation as covered by Standards Four and Five under the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. None of the properties were physically inspected with the exception of an exterior viewing and none received a specific value estimate before or after the project. The following activities were done in conjunction with this consultation: - Meeting with Jim Gessle and Lee Gustafson on February 22, 1994 to discuss the project - Receipt and analysis of information about the project including maps and an assessment roll - Physical inspection of the project area on February 22, 1994 and March 5, 1994 - Application of the appraisal process in a very generalized way before and after the proposed improvement . in order to estimate an approximate benefit from the public improvement project ----- . Jim Gessle and Lee Gustafson March 6, 1994 Page 2 The public improvement project, as was described in our meeting, consists of: 1. New street surface 2. Concrete curb and gutter 3. ADA compliant sidewalk curb cuts in the Elmo Road area 4. Improvement in storm water drainage 5. Improvement of service road, especially for access of emergency service vehicles 6. Repair of any utility infrastructure on an "as needed" basis, including sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water main 7. Upgrade of landscaping in the area including decorative plantings . There are several property types affected by the assessment. Each of them will be discussed separately and in general terms due to the limited scope of the assignment. Single Family Residential The assessment methodology was on a per unit basis with a preliminary estimate of $3,405. Based on the existing condition of the streets and experience with other special assessment projects consisting of street surfacing and concrete curb and gutter it would appear that the unit assessment of $3,405 can be supported. Multi-Family Residential The five properties have assessments that were based upon the assessable front footage and range from $294 to $537 per dwelling unit. Because these properties sell based on an income approach a benefit must be measured ln terms of increased net operating lncome. Because of the improved access and aesthetics due to the public improvement project one can surmise that either the rent may increase on the units or the vacancy rate may decrease, all other things being equal, in the after status as compared to before the public improvement. In very general terms the rent would have to increase by . approximately 1. 2 to 1. 5% or about $6.00 per month or a vacancy reduction of 1.0 to 1.3% would have to occur. Most probably the result would be a combination of the two with slightly higher rents and slightly lower vacancies. ~ Jim Gessle and Lee Gustafson March 6, 1994 Page 3 Commercial The liquor store and multi-tenant commercial buildings have relatively modest assessments and will benefit from the enhanced entry into their properties off Fifth Street North. These properties also are sold based primarily on an income approach and therefore an increased rent level or decreased vacancy would also have to be proven. An initial analysis would appear to indicate that the benefit would equal or exceed the assessment. The Hopkins House with its preliminary assessment of $28,975.09 for two parcels will have a more clearly defined overflow parking lot and will benefit from the landscaping done in conjunction with the project. It is reported that there has been a storm water drainage problem in the area which will also be corrected. Proving the benefit will require one or more of the following: 1. Increase in average daily room rate . 2. Increase in occupancy 3. Reduction in maintenance or insurance costs due to elimination or reduction in the threat of flooding 4. Increased food/beverage sales The difficulty of identifying any of these factors and proving the benefit due to the public improvement project lies in the inability to isolate the contributory value due to a single factor in a complex and dynamic commercial real estate market, especially for the hotel submarket which has experienced significant change over the past three years. It 1S compounded by the fact that hotel property has a significant amount of furniture, fixtures and equipment and a business enterprise factor related to it. A range of benefits or necessary changes in the above listed value factors was deemed to be beyond the scope of this initial consulting letter. My initial reaction is that the benefit could be proven to equal the cost of the assessment but further analysis would be necessary. I await your direction. Governmental This includes Parcel #2, the City of Hopkins and Parcel # 16, . belonging to the school district. There was not an analysis performed on the City's parcel as it was assumed that the City would not appeal its own assessment. __ - _n _______ . , . Jim Gessle and Lee Gustafson March 6, 1994 Page 4 The benefit to parcel #16 would need to equal or exceed $25,400. The ability to prove that the value of the entire parcel was increased by that amount due to an improvement In a street that appears to be rarely traveled by users of the school facilities is questionable. The parcel is zoned R-1D, Single Family Low Density. Assuming that the highest and best use for the property is to develop either the excess land on the west side or even the entire parcel with single family building sites, the benefit would appear to equal or exceed the amount of the assessment. Golf Course Parcel #1, part of the Oak Ridge Country Club, has a preliminary assessment of $14,320. Their maintenance building is accessed off this road and, as previously stated, the ability to allow for access to emergency vehicles is also improved. The parcel is also zoned R-ID so a secondary approach could be that the highest and best use of the land is to subdivide it which would provide proof . of the benefit in excess of the special assessment. Due to the limited scope of this assignment, an in depth analysis was not done on this parcel. I await your direction if a more complete study of this parcel is desired. As we discussed, an option available to the city is to select one or more properties for a complete before and after narrative appraisal to further assist them in their planning. This would require inspection of the property and a complete appraisal ~n compliance with Standards One and Two of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. If the assessments were to be appealed it would be a necessary step in the litigation. Please call me if you have any questions on the information in this consulting assignment or if there is anything else I can do to be of assistance to you and the City of Hopkins. Respectfully Submitted, ~ --, S I I ( ~~ _~, ~ l' i .~_A ~r.J) ---- J. Scott Renne, MAl, CAE . ~ . CERTIFICATION I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: 1. The statements of fact contained In this letter of consultation are true and correct. 2. The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions and conclusions. 3. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. 4. My compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses, opinions, or conclusions in, or the use of, this report. S. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Standars #4 and . #5. 6. J. Scott Renne, MAl made a personal inspection of the project area and exterior viewing of the affected properties that are the subject of this report on February 22, 1994 and March 5, 1994. 7 . As of the date of this report, J. Scott Renne has completed the requirements under the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. --. r. -h. (( ~. {O.ll r ~~ J. Scott Renne, MAl . .. . CITY OF HOPKINS RESOLUTION NO. 94-27 RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AFTER PUBLIC HEARING OAKRIDGE SOUTH STREET RECONSTRUCTION WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 15th Day of February, 1994, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed improvement of streets within the Oakridge South neighborhood, and WHEREAS, the Council deems it appropriate and expedient to reconstruct Robinwood Lane, 5th street North and Elmo Service Road, including curb and gutter, sidewalk, storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water main, and WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 15th day of March, 1994, at which all persons desiring to be heard thereon, . NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS, MINNESOTA: 1- Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the council resolution adopted the 15th day of February, 1994. 2 . Bolton and Menk, Inc. is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement and shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. Adopted by the City council of the City of Hopkins this 15th day of March, 1994. BY Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor ATTEST: Jim Genellie, City Clerk .