Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
February 16, 2016
ORDINANCE NO. 929 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ADOPTED IN CITY CODE SEC. 151.003BY REZONING PROPERTY AT 2525 JENNIFER LANE FROM AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION (AG) ZONE TO URBAN RESIDENTIAL (R-1B) ZONE WHEREAS , Donnay Homes, Inc., applicant,and Howard and Mary Dearborn, property owners, haveapplied to rezone the property at 2525 Jennifer Lane (formerly 2460 Marschall Road) from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Urban Residential (R-1B) Zone; and WHEREAS, the property is legally described as: The North 332.00 feet (as measured at right angles) of the South 996.00 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (SW ¼ of the NE ¼) of Section 19, Township 115, Range 22, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Scott County, Minnesota (PID No.27-919015-7) WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on February 4, 2016,at which time all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council that the subject property be rezoned as stated; and WHEREAS , the City Council heard the matter at its meeting on February 16, 2016; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED ,that the City Council of the City of Shakopee hereby adopts the following findings of facts relative to the above-named request: Criteria #1The original zoning ordinance is in error. Finding #1The original Zoning Ordinanceis not in error. Criteria#2Significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place. Finding #2Significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place. The demand for single family development in this area of the city has increased. Combined with the fact that street and utility improvements have occurred in this area, development consistent with what is proposed is appropriate. Criteria#3Significant changes in development patterns have occurred. Finding #3 Significantchanges in development patterns have occurred. This specific site is viewed as an attractive residential development area because of the location and the availability of services and street improvements. There are limited remaining parcels for single family residential within the City. Criteria#4The Comprehensive Planrequires a different provision. 1 Finding #4 The Comprehensive Plan does not require a different provision. The Comprehensive plan guides this property as single family residential, which is consistent with the developer’s concept. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED , that the request to rezone the property as stated in this ordinance is hereby approved. th Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this16day of February, 2016. _______________________________ Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: _________________________ Lori Hensen, City Clerk Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the ______ day of _____________, 20___. 2 Memo For the Table CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CASE NO.: 16-011 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Noble, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Final Plat of Valley Park Business Center 4th Addition MEETING DATE: February 16, 2016 Discussion After staff drafted the Final Plat of Valley Park Business Center 4th Addition Resolution for the Council's considering at their Feb. 16th meeting, staff discussed several of the conditions with Opus Development representatives. After the discussions, and follow up discussion with Legal staff and with Natural Resources staff, it was determined that we could remove three (3) conditions from the Resolution. On the table is the revised Resolution for the Councils consideration. Also attached is the Resolution that was included in the packet, with the three (3) conditions removed identified by being crossed e1 Action Requested Adoption of the revised Resolution No. 7687, approving the Final Plat of Valley Park Business Center 4th Addition, and move its adoption. Mark Noble Senior Planner h:\cc\2016\02-16\16-011 fp_VPBC 4th.doc RESOLUTION NO. 7687 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF VALLEY PARK BUSINESS CENTER FOURTH ADDITION WHEREAS,Opus Development Company,LLC,applicant and property owner, has made application for final plat approval of Valley Park Business Center Fourth Addition; and WHEREAS,the subject property is legally described as: Outlot A, Valley Park Business Center Third Addition, Scott County;and WHEREAS,the City Council reviewed the final plat on February 16, 2016. NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota that the final plat of Valley Park Business Center Fourth Addition is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: I) The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: A. Approval of title by the City Attorney. B. Provide electronic files (Auto CAD and Adobe Acrobat formats of the Final Plat to be recorded with datum on the Scott County coordinate system. C. Payment of park dedication fees in the amount required by the City Code and adopted City fee schedule. That amount equals the area of the dedicated lot minus public utility easement area, calculated at$6,930/acre. D. Easements will be shown on the Final Plat as approved by the City Engineer and SPUC. II) The following items need to be addressed/completed prior to approval of a grading permit and/or a street and utility plan: A. The applicant will grade the entire site, as proposed in the approved plans, in one (1) phase within one (1) year from the date of approval of the grading permit application. B. The applicant will obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction site permit prior to any land disturbing activity. Copies of the permit, coverage card and coverage letters will be submitted to the engineering department. C. The applicant will provide a landscaping plan in compliance with the City of Shakopee's Easement Fencing and Landscaping Policy. However, the City engineer may allow some landscaping to be placed in the drainage and utility easement encompassing the storm water basin if space is limited elsewhere. D. The applicant will submit a detailed impervious surface drawing. E. The Trunk Storm Water Charge will be paid, as required by the most current City of Shakopee Fee Schedule. This charge is due at the time of building permit issuance. III) The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit: A. Record plans need to be provided per the City of Shakopee Design Criteria. The record plans need to be submitted to the engineering department. B. Municipal water service shall include the installation of a lateral water main distribution system in accordance with utility policy, and payment of the associated inspections costs, Trunk Water Charge and Water Connection Charge. Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,Minnesota, held the day of ,2016. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: Lori Hensen, City Clerk .R D N OIT AV ON NI SITE . RD K R AP Y EL LA V February 11, 2016RE:City of Shakopee 2016 Sanitary Sewer Lateral Pipe Rehabilitation SEH No. SHAKO 13536914.00 Bruce Loney, PE Public Works Director City ofShakopee 129 Holmes St. S. Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Bruce: Thank you for again asking us to assist the City with its Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Program. In accordance with the Master Agreement forProfessional Services between the CityandSEH, effective July 13, 2011, this Supplemental LetterAgreement dated February 11, 2016authorizes and describes the scope, schedule, and feefor ourwork on this project. For your convenience, the Supplemental Letter Agreement is divided into sections titled Scope, Schedule, and Fee. SCOPE The City needs assistance with bidding document preparation phase services to rehabilitate the segment of the sanitary sewer pipe circled in Exhibit A (pipe) at each of the properties shown in Exhibit B. The property owner owns both pipe segments C and D shown in Exhibit A on the street and house side of the right-of-way line respectively. Furthermore, the City needs assistance educating property owners in the project area about what to expect during rehabilitation. The City will likely need a right-of-entry from each property owner to complete its rehabilitation work. The City will likely request right-of-entry in exchange for City payment of the rehabilitation cost. The Citywill pay for the rehabilitation using its sanitary sewer fund. Due to the fact that both the sanitary sewer trunk pipe and street pavement in front of each property are in good condition, dig-and-replace method is not feasible to rehabilitate this pipe. Therefore rehabilitation will occur using trenchless method structural cured-in-place pipe lining. If a property owner chooses to rehabilitate the rest of their pipe at a future date using their own plumber and dig-and-replace rather than trenchless method, rehabilitating the pipe to about 5’ beyond the back of the concrete curb and gutter will protect the concrete curb and gutter from damage. In addition to the 114 sanitary sewer laterals that are identified in the 2016 Project Area as shown on Exhibit B, the City will include 3 sanitary sewer laterals that were not rehabilitated in the 2015 Project Area. Engineers | Architects | Planners | Scientists Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 300, Minnetonka, MN 55343-9302 SEH is 100% employee-owned | sehinc.com | 952.912.2600 | 800.734.6757 | 888.908.8166 fax Bruce Loney, PE February 11, 2016 Page 2 The City needs assistance encouraging the property owners in the project area to rehabilitate the rest of their pipe using their own plumber after the City’s contractor completes their rehabilitation work. The encouragement effort will likely include the following items: 1.Host an Information Meeting for the property owners to educate them about all aspects of this project. Private plumbers will attend themeeting to answer property owner questions about rehabilitating the rest of their pipe after the City’s rehabilitation contractor completes their work. 2.Record the Information Meeting and post it on the City’s YouTube page for on-demand viewing by propertyowners unable to attend the meeting. 3.Establish a project web page, updated throughout the project, containing important information about this project. 4.Verify, and if necessary adjust, the City’s Permit Application and Inspection Processfor property owner use should they choose to rehabilitate the rest of their pipe using their own plumber and a trenchless method. 5.Use the City’s eNotification tool to: a.notify property owners to review important documents and videos posted on the project’s web page, and b.ifneeded, remind property owners to submit their executed right-of-entry before its due date. SCHEDULE The schedule below explains the timing of key milestones for this years’pipe rehabilitation program. We anticipate that the program in future years would occur following the 2016 schedule. 20162017 Key Milestone JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOct NovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOct NovDec Send Invitation to Information Meeting Information Meeting Send Project eNotification Update No. 1 Bidding Documents / Advertise / Open Bids / Award Verify Permit Application and Inspection Process Meet with Private Plumbers Post YouTube video describing Permit Application and Inspection Process Send eNotification Updates During Pipe Rehabilitation City Contractor Rehabilitates Lateral Pipe (1) Private Plumbers May Rehabilitate Rest of Lateral Pipe (2) Bruce Loney, PE February 11, 2016 Page 3 FEE The enclosed task hour budget describes in detail our approach to complete this project’s scope and calculates our fee.Ourfee is hourly(not to exceed)and estimated to be $71,400including expenses.A schematic level construction cost for this project is $600,000.Our fee to provide property owner education and bidding documents is approximately 12% of the schematic level construction cost. Afterthe City opens its bids for this project, and we develop our scope of work to provide construction phase services we will submit a separate proposal for construction phase engineering services. Experience indicates that our totalengineering fee for the construction phase services will be less than 10% of the schematic level construction cost, because we will not be providing full time inspection services. We understand that the City will havean inspector from its Engineering Department monitor the City contractor’s rehabilitation work. Because the City’s inspector learnedhow to inspect thefield activities associated with thetrenchless rehabilitation tool used during last year’s Sanitary Sewer Lateral Rehabilitation Program, the City anticipates a reduced need for assistance with the construction phase services at this time.Therefore we will wait to calculate in detail our construction phase services fee until after this project’s bid opening. At that time the City will know whether their inspector will be assigned full- time to this project, and to what extent our construction phase services will be needed to complete the 2016 Sanitary Sewer Lateral Rehabilitation Program. Please contact me with questions and comments at 952.912.2611 or ppasko@sehinc.com. Sincerely, SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. Paul J. Pasko III, PE Project Manager JLS Enclosures c:John Rodeberg, SEH Jen Schumann, SEH p:\\pt\\s\\shako\\135369\\1-genl\\10-setup-cont\\03-proposal\\02 11 16 proposal letter.docx City of Shakopee, Minnesota City of Shakopee Authorized RepresentativeDate City of Shakopee MayorDate City of Shakopee City AdministratorDate 45 LATERALS EXHIBIT B AREA 3 14 LATERALS AREA 2 55 LATERALS AREA 1 when do I need to be done rehabilitating the rest of my ble to use to rehabilitate the rest of my pipe? 11. if yes, d other thumbnail images to this same sidebar g, we will add a link to the recorded neighborhood he rest of my pipe was done properly? 16. Does the City project will accomplish 5. brief discussion of why roperty owner questions about rehabilitating pipe e adequate equipment to capture not just audio be page describing the permit application and presentation and a question and answer he City rehabilitate? 3. how much will it cost mount of my pipe? 5. will the City need a permit to rehabilitate the rest of my pipe all the way to my ave a sidebar capable of holding an thumbnail EH can provide the names of plumbers that eside in a category named 'utilities.' When an ent needs to be able to clearly record staff's ect information via City communication tool o print, sign, and return to the Engineering ceive future project information via City d postage and send from City Hall. ation Meeting. Meeting occurs during March 2016. The City will reserve a room large enough to accommodate the neighborhood and support a PPTX artment. Agenda will be similar to the 2015 meeting agenda for the Shakopee Sanitary Sewer Lateral Rehabilitation Program Public Inform image that is the link to the recorded neighborhood meeting posted to the City's YouTube page. Throughout the project we may ad The meeting agenda will answer the following questions 1. why is the City rehabilitating my pipe? 2. how much of my pipe will t Update will include 1. request that property owners view the portion of recorded Public Information Meeting on the City's YouTu City staff will complete all work needed to secure this recording. This includes verifying Government Access Channnel staff hav City will choose and invite up to 4 private plumbers to attend this meeting to answer property owner questions. Upon request, S Department their right-of-entry 4. The due date by which they need to return their signed right-of-entry to the Engineering Dep City staff will create the page as a 'Current Road & Insfrastructure Project' on its Engineering web page. This web page must h of the presentation; but also audio from the Q and A session between staff and property owners. In particular, the audio equipm period. The City will also provide folding tables for up to 4 private plumbers to setout marketing materials needed to answer p Property owners can signup to receive information about this project via their eNotification subscription. This project would r Initially, the web page will contain information similar to that given in the Neighborhood Meeting invitation. After the meetinContains 1. meeting date and time 2. meeting location 3. map showing the limits of the project 4. brief description of what the complete the rehabilitation? 6. who will obtain that permit? 7. how will I know the rehabilitation was done properly? 8. can I 'eNotifications' 3. reminder of the address for, and brief discussion about the contents of, the project web page 3. Reminder t We will provide enough folded paper copies on City letterhead for City staff to insert into envelopes, attach address label, ad private plumbers will be present at the meeting 6. sketch explaining pipe ownership limits 7. instructions for signing up to re update is made to the project's web page, eNotification will announce the update and contain a link to the project web page. inspection process necessary to complete rehabilitation of the rest of their pipe 2. reminder to sign up to receive future proj who can rehabilitate the rest of my pipe? 12. if yes, how much will it cost me to rehabilitate the rest of my pipe? 13. if yes, me for the City to rehabilitate that amount of my pipe? 4. how much will it disrupt my life for the City to rehabilitate that a house? 9. if yes, what methods can I use to rehabilitate the rest of my pipe? 10. if yes, are there any methods I will not be a pipe? 14. if yes, will I need a permit to rehabilitate the rest of my pipe? 15. if yes, how will I know the rehabilitation of t communication tool 'eNotifications' 8. address for, and brief discussion about the contents of, the project web page attended the 2015 Shakopee Sanitary Sewer Lateral Rehabilitation Program Public Information Meeting. need a right-of-entry to do this work on my pipe? 17. If so, why should I give the City a right-of-entry? Page 3 of 5 Expectation is that plumbers will answer property owner questions 8 -13 in foontoe No. 3. that are links to other project related videos also posted on the City's YouTube page. City staff will create the mailing labels, apply postage, and mail this document P:\\PT\\S\\Shako\\135369\\1-genl\\10-setup-cont\\03-proposal\\\[Shakopee 2016 CIPPLL THB FINAL.xlsx\]Hours-Costs Ask private plumbers to sign up to receive eNotifcations for this project too City staff will complete all work needed to establish the 'utilities' category. meeting posted on the City's YouTube page. answers, but also property owner questions. on private property. NOTES (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9) (10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15) of recorded Public Information Meeting on the City's downstream manhole. 3. A standard plate dealing with uctions to bidders 2. bid form 3. agreement 4. special andard plate dealing with the installation of a clean date after which a property owner's private plumber YouTube page describing the permit application and n reverse curve between 10th and 11th Avenue West), igned right-of-entry to the Engineering Department. ar of the web page that is a link to the YouTube lity Construction dated May 2010 to include work h a color code on parcels indicating properties with contents of, the project web page 8. Reminder to of what to expect next 4. project schedule 5. date ring addenda 5. attending the bid opening 6. l color code parcels on the plot indicating work pipe 7. reminder to sign up to receive future h of the service pipe. 4. A tabulation of the rbed by neighborhood street reconstruction) djustments need to be made. ct web page that week. g department. ogram. Review the Permit Application Process, and determine with the City's Engineering and Building Inspections Departments whether a Includes 1. preparing ad for bid 2. posting bidding documents on QuestCDN 3. answering bidders questions 4. If necessary, prepa what expectations are for restoration in the event a dig-and-replace rehabilitation becomes necessary somewhere along the lengt The appearance of the plan will be very similar to the plan used for the 2015 Shakopee Sanitary Sewer Lateral Rehabilitation Pr Update elaborates on information contained in the eNotification update. City staff probably adds a thumbnail image to the sideb YouTube page describing the permit application and inspection process necessary to complete rehabilitation of the rest of their Web page will feature a graphic based project schedule. The schedule will be a color GIS level plot of the project area. We wil If possible, model the document off of documents the City might already use (i.e. for the reconstruction of driveway ends distu number of services that exist upstream of the project area for potential use during contractor designed bypass pumping. 5. a st We will prepare technical special provisions to the City's General Specifications and Standard Detail Plates for Street and Uti project information via City communication tool 'eNotifications' 8. reminder of the address for, and brief discussion about the Update will include 1. contact information for City's contractor 2. contact information for City / SEH inspector 3. update the Update will include 1. contact information for City's contractor 2. contact information for City / SEH inspector 3. description after which a property owner's private plumber can begin rehabilitating the rest of their pipe 6. reminder to view the portion print, sign, and return to the Engineering Department their right-of-entry 9. The due date by which they need to return their s Sheets will be included in an Appendix to the project manual. Sheets will likely be 1. a GIS level plot of the project area wit can begin rehabilitating the balance of their pipe 4. link to the portion of recorded Public Information Meeting on the City's We will use the City's front end for the project manual. 'Front end' documents inlcude, but may not be limited to, the 1. instr Post document on the project web page with a deadline for property owners to print it, sign it, and return it to the engineerin specific needs like 'service closer than 10' to outside edge of manhole', service requiring a clean out due to length issues (i inspection process necessary to complete rehabilitation of the rest of their pipe 5. a brief discussion of what is on the projepresence of organgeburg pipe etc. 2. If it exists, a tabulation of the services with their estimated size and distance from the Page 4 of 5 Because this is a sewer service pipe rehabilitation project, no permit submittals are necessary. Submit 2 paper copies of the bidding documents and opinion of probable cost Update elaborates on information contained in the eNotification update. Send update after the Council awards a contract to their contractor. Opinion will be a XLSX file containing a 15% contingency factor Send Update after the March Neighborhood Information Meeting preparing a letter of recommendation to the City Council video describing the permitting process complete vs. underway vs. upcoming. conditions to the agreement. out over the pipe. on the pipes. Not UsedNot UsedNot Used (16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36) ct submittals 4. publishing a list of qualified Process could include 1. facilitating a mandatory prebid meeting at City Hall 2. reviewing bidder submittals 3. reviewing produ Page 5 of 5 SEH will attend the bid opening, and obtain the original bids to scan them for our records. Includes preparing the bid tabulation and a letter of recommendation to the City Council bidders and products soon enough to not interfere with the bid opening date. We will determine our effort for this phase after the bid opening. (37)(38)(39)(40) RESOLUTION NO. 7681 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO SUBMIT AFEDERAL RECREATIONALTRAIL PROGRAM APPLICATIONFOR THE MEMORIAL PARK BRIDGE WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee supports the grant application made to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for the Federal Recreational Trail Program. The application is to constructa pedestrian bridge from the MN Valley State Trail to Memorial Park. The trail system and bridge are located within 136.9 acres of Memorial Park, and WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee recognizes the twenty-five (25) percent match requirement for the Federal Recreational Trail Program, and has secured the matching funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, thatiftheCity of Shakopee is awarded a grant by the Minnesota Department of Natural resources, the Cityof Shakopee agrees to accept the grant award, and may enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota for the above referenced project. The City of Shakopee will comply with all applicable laws, environmental requirements and regulations as stated in the grant agreement, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Shakopee names the fiscal agent of the City of Shakopeefor this project as: DarinNelson Finance Director City of Shakopee 129 Holmes St S. Shakopee, MN 55379 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City of Shakopee hereby assures the Memorial Park Bridge will be open, available for use and maintained for a period of no less than 20 years. Adopted in adjourned regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesotaheld this th 16Day of February, 2016. ______________________________ William Mars Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: ___________________________________ City Clerk FundstransferredelectronicallyFebruary3,2016toFebruary16,2016 PAYROLL $ 273,900.76 FIT/FICA81,136.82$ STATEINCOMETAX16,600.51$ PERA79,147.57$ HCSP23,256.34$ $14,851.85 NATIONWIDE ICMA1,709.62$ MSRS2,998.01$ HEALTHSAVINGACCOUN$5,895.78 T FSA1,022.06$ $144.23 MN Wage Levy $500,663.55 Page 1 of 1 2/11/2016 3:30:09 PM Page 1 of 1 2/11/2016 3:32:34 PM RESOLUTION NO. 7682 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING INDIVIDUALS TO VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the following appointments are hereby made: 1.Michele Herntierand Warren Moserare appointed to the Bicycle Advisory Committee for three-year terms expiring February 28, 2019. 2.Karen Cahoonand John Ottoare appointed to the Park and Recreation Advisory Board for three-year terms expiring February 28, 2019. 3.Joseph Collins and Kent Robbinsare appointed to the Planning Commission/BOAA for four-year termsexpiring February 28, 2020. 4.Jon McBroomis appointed to the Police Civil Service Commission for a three-year term expiring February 28, 2019. 5.Joe Helkampand Aaron Weyerareappointed to the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission for three-year termsexpiring March 31, 2019. Adopted in adjourned regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, th held this 16day of February, 2016. _________________________________ Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: ________________________________ City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. XXXX A RESOLUTION APPOINTING INDIVIDUALS TO VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the following appointments are hereby made: 1.xxand xx are appointed to the Bicycle Advisory Committee for three-year terms expiring February 28, 2019. 2.xx and xx are appointed to the Park and Recreation Advisory Board for three-year terms expiring February 28, 2019. 3.xxand xxare appointed to the Planning Commission/BOAA for four-year termsexpiring February 28, 2020. 4.xx is appointed to the Police Civil Service Commission for a three-year term expiring February 28, 2019. 5.xx and xx areappointed to the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission for three-year termsexpiring March 31, 2019. Adopted in adjourned regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, th held this 16day of February, 2016. _________________________________ Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: ________________________________ City Clerk PLEASE VOTE PRIOR TO THE MEETING AND GIVE TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE THE ROLL CALL ON FEBRUARY 16, 2016 Bicycle Advisory CommitteePlanning Commission/BOAA (Vote for 2) (Vote for 2) _____ Jody Brennan _____ Michele Herntier* _____ Warren Moser*_____ Joseph Collins* _____ Brett Padfield_____ Joseph Ditto _____ Daniel Hennen _____ Syed Husain _____ Kent Robbins Economic Development Advisory _____ Calvin TenEyck Committee (Vote for 3) _____ David Bruns* Police Civil Service Commission _____ Tom Frazier (Vote for 1) _____ Timothy Johnson _____ Ryan Thorman*_____ Douglas Forsman _____ Martin Thurber_____ Jon McBroom* _____Sarah Olson Park and Recreation Advisory Board (Vote for 2)Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (Vote for 2) _____ Karen Cahoon _____Bradley Edstrom_____ James Cook _____ Julie Maynard-Johnson_____ Joseph Helkamp* _____ John Otto*_____ Bryan McGowan _____ Kevin Wagner_____ Benjamin Monnens _____ Amy Mytnik _____ Steven Ott _____ Aaron Weyer _____ Robert Wood *Incumbent ______________________________ Council Member RESOLUTION NO. 7683 A Resolution Designating Individuals Authorized to Perform Certain Banking Transactions WHEREAS, Anchor Bank is designated as a depository of City funds; and WHEREAS, the City must designate individuals authorized to sign checks, transfer funds and approve transactions on behalf of the City; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that checks, drafts or other withdrawal orders issued against the funds of the City on deposit with said bank shall be signed by both the Mayor and the Finance Director. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Finance Director, Accounting Manager, Payroll & Benefits Specialist and HR Specialist are authorized to make transfers into and out of the City accounts for various purposes including investments, payroll withholdings and debt service payments and other banking transactions as deemed appropriate. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that effective February 16, 2016 this Resolution supersedes all prior and conflicting resolutions, including Resolution No. 7683. Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, this 16th day of February, 2016. _____________________________________________ Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: _________________________________ Deputy City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 7686 A RESOLUTION CLOSING THE 2004C DEBT SERVICE, TIF#10 CHALLENGE PRINTING AND TIF #13 OPEN SYSTEMS DEBT FUNDS BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, COUNTY OF SCOTT, MINNESOTA, that the following debt service fund is closed due to the final debt payment being made: 2004C GO Improvement Bonds BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIYT OF SHAKOPEE, COUNTY OF SCOTT, MINNESOTA, that the following TIF districts are closed due to decertification of the districts: TIF #12 Challenge Printing TIF #13 Open Systems BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the remaining funds of $332,790.75 in the 2004C GO Improvement Debt Service fund are to be transferred to the City Hall Fund. Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this 22nd day of February 15, 2016. ________________________________ Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: ________________________________ City Clerk City of Shakopee, Minnesota SEWER AVAILABILITYCHARGE (SAC) CREDITPOLICY I.General Purpose and Objective for Creating this Policy. 1)POLICY PURPOSE For the purposes of this document, the term “City” includes the Shakopee City Council, staff, the Economic Development Authority, advisory boards and commissions, financial consultants and legal counsel. In September 2008, the City received 1,494 Metropolitan Council SAC credits valued at $3,331,620 when Rahr Malting discontinued use of the regional sanitary sewer system. As a result, the City has a limited ‘bank’ of SAC credits that can be applied city-wide. Thepurposeofthispolicy isto establishprocedurestoregulate,coordinate, and facilitatetheapproval of SewerAvailability Charge (SAC) loans or grants for eligiblebusinessesor properties. To help sustain the local economy and to maintain and strengthen the tax base, the City often considers ways to stimulate economic development. The City is committed to promoting quality development, redevelopment and reuse of properties. In certainsituations, up front utility costs may prevent business start-ups, renovations or expansions. In any of these situations, they City may consider assessing, granting or borrowing loaningthe funds necessary for sewer and water availabilitycharges. This will be determined on a case by case basis for each fee and/or a combination of all of these fees. At any time, the City may discontinue the option to provide any assistance for these fees and approval is contingent upon funding. II.Background. A.Metropolitan Council Sewer Availability Charge When there is new construction or a change in use of a propertythat requires additional sanitary sewer capacity, a fee is charged by the Metropolitan Council-Environmental Services. The fee is based on a determination of the number of sewer availabilitycharge (SAC) units. One SAC unit equals 274 gallons of daily wastewater flow (based on the Metropolitan Council’s calculationof what a single family dwelling produces in one day). The fee for each Metropolitan Council SAC unit is as charged by the Metropolitan Council. If the property has a change in use, the SAC fee is reduced by any previous SAC payments. In September, 2008, the City received 1,494 SAC credits from Rahr Malting coming from the regional system. As a result, the City has a limited ‘bank’ of Metropolitan Council SAC credits that can be applied city-wide. A credit is equivalent to the fee for one SAC unit. The total number of City credits is automatically reduced when new SAC units are required for new construction or additional SAC units are required for a change in use of a property. The Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) is a one-time fee imposed by Metropolitan Council Environmental Serves (MCES) to customer communities for each new connection or increase in capacity demand of the metropolitan disposal system. H/SAC Policy/sewer availability charge/4-17-2012 The customer communities may pass the SAC fee along with possible local fees to the building or property owners. The SAC fee is usually assigned when a building permit is issued for either a new building or a remodeling permit or when a connection permit is issued for an existing building connecting to the sanitary sewer system for the first time. One SAC unit equals 274 gallons of maximum potential daily wastewater flow capacity. A freestanding, single-family residence is charged one SAC unit, a base unit. Other types of buildings may pay a SAC fee based on the estimated potential capacity of wastewater. The MCES allows cities to appeal determinations for properties built prior to January 1, 1973. To appeal, the City must provide documentation the building was built and/or hooked up to the regional sewer system before January 1, 1973.If connection documentation is not available, MCES may also allow cities to pay a fee at the 1974 rate rather than the present rate, i.e., $300 per unit as opposed to current rate of $2,485 per unit. B.City Sewer Availability Charges In 1994, the City adopted access fees for the sanitary sewer system (SAC). Those fees are used for construction of other MCES interceptors and long-term maintenance of the City sanitary sewer system. For any construction project or change in use, the City SAC is the same as the number of units determined by the Metropolitan Council. However, city fees will be imposed only for theunits resulting from an expansion or a change of use that requires additional charges. The total number of units for a project may be reduced in instances where the use was established prior to adoptionof the City fees. The City of Shakopee established the fixing of rates and charges for sewerage service in City Code Section 50.02: 50.02FIXING RATES AND CHARGES FOR SEWERAGE SERVICE. All rates and charges for sewerage service including, but not by way of limitation, rates for service, availability, connection, disconnection, and reconnection fees, including penalties for non-payment, if any, shall be fixed, determined, and amended by the Council and adopted by resolution. (2013 Code, § 3.02)(Ord. 1, passed 4-1-1978; Ord. 402, passed 2- 16-1995) III.Potential Situations for City AssistanceProjects The following list provides examples of potential projects/instances wherethat may benefit from City assistancemight be granted: CR69 Sewer Extension of sewer to existing businesses East Shakopee IndustrialReuse or expansion of existing spaces that result in increased jobs III.PotentialSituations for City Assistance Industrial DevelopmentDevelopment of industrial properties, job creation Commercial DevelopmentDevelopment of underutilized commercial properties, job creation H/SAC Policy/sewer availability charge/4-17-2012 In making a decision or considering a request under this assistance policy, the Council may wish to consider the number of available City-owned Metropolitan Council SAC Credits, the City’s future need for credits, and the benefits to the economic base of the community. Request specific to construction of single family homes are not eligible under this program. a)Extension of sewer services to existing businesses b)Reuse or expansion of existing businesses c)Development or redevelopment of underutilized commercial properties d)Matching grant funds for government programs (housing and/or economic development) e)Ifthe request providesthe community with: Increased employment or job retainage o Additional spin-off development o Potential for increased property tax capacity o IV.Basic RequirementsFinancing Structure In addition to the requirements of the application/approval process described below, the following basic tenets shall apply: Agreementsmay be developed to bear interest with a maximum term of 15years or as negotiated by staff and approved by the City Council.as determined. Period agreement shall not exceed five (5) yearsor as approved by Council. The following table should be used as a guide, the City Council has the authority to deviate from this guide at any time. The owner of record must execute an agreement and waiver wherein the amount of the assessment or loan (per agreement) shall be recorded and assessable to the property in the event default according to the terms of the agreement. LOW INTEREST LOANS TOTAL PROJECT COSTSASSISTANCE PROVIDED $0 -$200,000SAC credits will be provided as a 3% interest, 5 year term loan. $200,001-$500,000SACcredits will be provided as a 3% interest, 7 year termloan. $500,001 -$1,000,000SAC credits will be provided as a 3% interest, 10year term loan. Over $1,000,000SACcredits will be provided as a 3% interest, 15year term loan. FORGIVABLE GRANT Downtown Redevelopment or Proven Hardship (i.e. SAC credits will be provided as a grant with partial repayment (20% bedrock, excessive reduction annually) required if the property is sold within 5 years. infrastructure costs, etc.) 1 Job Creation/Retention( SAC credits will be provided as a grant with partial repayment credit for every 10 full- required if job goals are not met within two years. time positions created or retained paying a minimum of $19/hour) Any applicant who has not been in good standing with the City, in regards to licenses, fees or other specific charges will not be considered for this program. H/SAC Policy/sewer availability charge/4-17-2012 V.Financing Upon application, the City may consider an interest bearing loan or assessment that allows financing of sewer access charges. The loan or assessment must be approved by City Council. In general, payments shall be placed in a pre-determined fund. Use of funds will be subject to Council approval. Nothing herein shall imply or suggest that the City is under any obligation to provide incentives to any applicant. VI.Criteria for Evaluating Requests The following may be utilized in evaluating request for use of SAC Credits: Does the request provide for a redevelopment project? Does the request provide the community with Increased employment of job retainage? o Additional spin-off development? o Potential for increased property tax capacity? o Has the project met the requirements of the comprehensive plan, building code, o zoning? Are there any other identified sources of other public assistance? o SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGE (SAC) CREDIT POLICY Page 3 VII.Application/ApprovalProcess The City may charge a fee for requests under this policy, and these fees will be adopted annually during the fee schedule review. The City reserves the right to determine and limit the amount of SAC credits that are applied for by any one applicant. This is to allow for the maximum utilization and benefit of the credits. The following information must be submitted for application for request of SAC Credits: Business Name Address Legal Description Name of Authorized Representative or Contact Name of Property Owner (if different from Business Owner) Description of Business Description of Improvements and Any Anticipated “Change of Use” that the project will result in Narrative Explaining the Request When the complete packet of information is received, staff will review the application and contact the applicant for any additional information needed to process the application. Upon review, the appropriate documents and information will be presented to the City Council for their consideration. H/SAC Policy/sewer availability charge/4-17-2012 a)Applications must be submitted by the property owner(s) or the building tenant in conjunction with the owner(s). The application shall become the property of the City and/or EDA and is subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (the Government Data Practices Statute). b)Funds for this program are limited and shall be awarded to qualifying applicants on a first- come, first-served basis. c)City staff and/or the Economic Development Advisory Commission shall review the application materials and make a preliminary recommendation regarding the completeness of the application and whether the application meets the criteria outlined in this policy. d)In the event that the City Council concurs with the recommendation above, the City Council may either deny or grant final approval ofa grant, interestbearing loan or assessment that allows financing of sewer access charges. e)When necessary, a “Deferred Payment Agreement” shall be executed between the eligible business, the fee property owner, and the City, shall be recorded with Scott County. 6. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS a)The City reserves the right to determine and limit the amount of SAC credits that are applied for by any one applicant. This is to allow for the maximum utilization and benefit of the credits. Nothing herein shall imply or suggest that the City is under any obligation to provide incentives to any applicant. b)The City may charge a fee for requests under this policy, and these fees will be adopted annually during the fee schedule review. c)Any applicant who is notin good standing with the City, in regards tolicenses, fees or other specific charges, will not be considered for this program. d)Requestsspecific to construction of single family homes are not eligible under this program. e)If the benefiting building is sold within the period of the loan, the loan must repaid. The EDA Board may consider alternatives to immediate repayment, including but not limited to transfer of the loan to a new owner or a mutually agreeable loan repayment schedule. T f)he City can deviate from this policy for projects that supersede the objectives identified herein. H/SAC Policy/sewer availability charge/4-17-2012 #¨³¸ ®¥ 3§ ª®¯¤¤Ǿ -¨¤²®³ 3%7%2 !6!),!"),)49 #(!2'% Ȩ3!#ȩ 0/,)#9 1)0/,)#9 0520/3% &®± ³§¤ ¯´±¯®²¤² ®¥ ³§¨² £®¢´¬¤³Ǿ ³§¤ ³¤±¬ ȏ#¨³¸Ȑ ¨¢«´£¤² ³§¤ 3§ ª®¯¤¤ #¨³¸ #®´¢¨«Ǿ ²³ ¥¥Ǿ ³§¤ %¢®®¬¨¢ $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³ !´³§®±¨³¸Ǿ £µ¨²®±¸ ¡® ±£² £ ¢®¬¬¨²²¨®²Ǿ ¥¨ ¢¨ « ¢®²´«³ ³² £ «¤¦ « ¢®´²¤«ȁ ) 3¤¯³¤¬¡¤± ΑΏΏΗǾ ³§¤ #¨³¸ ±¤¢¤¨µ¤£ ΐǾΓΘΓ -¤³±®¯®«¨³ #®´¢¨« 3!# ¢±¤£¨³² µ «´¤£ ³ ͡ΒǾΒΒΐǾΕΑΏ ¶§¤ 2 §± - «³¨¦ £¨²¢®³¨´¤£ ´²¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ±¤¦¨® « ² ¨³ ±¸ ²¤¶¤± ²¸²³¤¬ȁ !² ±¤²´«³Ǿ ³§¤ #¨³¸ § ² «¨¬¨³¤£ ȋ¡ ªȌ ®¥ 3!# ¢±¤£¨³² ³§ ³ ¢ ¡¤ ¯¯«¨¤£ ¢¨³¸-¶¨£¤ȁ The purpose of this ¯®«¨¢¸ is to establish procedures to regulate, ¢®®±£¨ ³¤Ǿ £ ¥ ¢¨«¨³ ³¤ the ¯¯±®µ « ®¥ 3¤¶¤± !µ ¨« ¡¨«¨³¸ #§ ±¦¤ Ȩ3!#ȩ «® ² ®± ¦± ³² ¥®± eligible businesses ®± properties. 4§¤ #¨³¸ ¨² ¢®¬¬¨³³¤£ ³® ¯±®¬®³¨¦ °´ «¨³¸ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³Ǿ ±¤£¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³ £ ±¤´²¤ ®¥ ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤²ȁ ) certain ²¨³´ ³¨®²Ǿ ´¯ ¥±®³ ´³¨«¨³¸ ¢®²³² ¬ ¸ ¯±¤µ¤³ ¡´²¨¤²² ²³ ±³-´¯²Ǿ ±¤®µ ³¨®² ®± ¤·¯ ²¨®²ȁ ) ¸ ®¥ ³§¤²¤ ²¨³´ ³¨®²Ǿ ³§¤ #¨³¸ ¬ ¸ ¢®²¨£¤± ²²¤²²¨¦Ǿ ¦± ³¨¦ ®± loaning ³§¤ ¥´£² ¤¢¤²² ±¸ ¥®± ²¤¶¤± £ ¶ ³¤± availability ¢§ ±¦¤²ȁ 4§¨² ¶¨«« ¡¤ £¤³¤±¬¨¤£ ® ¢ ²¤-by-¢ ²¤ ¡ ²¨² ¥®± ¤ ¢§ ¥¤¤ £ȝ®± ¢®¬¡¨ ³¨® ®¥ «« ®¥ ³§¤²¤ ¥¤¤²ȁ !³ ¸ ³¨¬¤Ǿ ³§¤ #¨³¸ ¬ ¸ £¨²¢®³¨´¤ ³§¤ ®¯³¨® ³® ¯±®µ¨£¤ ¸ ²²¨²³ ¢¤ ¥®± ³§¤²¤ ¥¤¤² £ ¯¯±®µ « ¨² ¢®³¨¦¤³ ´¯® ¥´£¨¦ȁ 2)BACKGROUND A.-¤³±®¯®«¨³ #®´¢¨« 3¤¶¤± !µ ¨« ¡¨«¨³¸ #§ ±¦¤ 4§¤ 3¤¶¤± !µ ¨« ¡¨«¨³¸ #§ ±¦¤ Ȩ3!#ȩ ¨² ®¤-³¨¬¤ ¥¤¤ ¨¬¯®²¤£ ¡¸ -¤³±®¯®«¨³ #®´¢¨« %µ¨±®¬¤³ « 3¤±µ¤² Ȩ-#%3ȩ ³® ¢´²³®¬¤± ¢®¬¬´¨³¨¤² ¥®± ¤ ¢§ ¤¶ ¢®¤¢³¨® ®± ¨¢±¤ ²¤ ¨ ¢ ¯ ¢¨³¸ £¤¬ £ ®¥ ³§¤ metropoli³ £¨²¯®² « ²ystem. 4§¤ ¢´²³®¬¤± ¢®¬¬´¨³¨¤² ¬ ¸ ¯ ²² ³§¤ 3!# ¥¤¤ «®¦ ¶¨³§ ¯®²²¨¡«¤ «®¢ « ¥¤¤² ³® ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨¦ ®± ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ®¶¤±²ȁ 4§¤ 3!# ¥¤¤ ¨² ´²´ ««¸ ²²¨¦¤£ ¶§¤ ¡´¨«£¨¦ ¯¤±¬¨³ ¨² ¨²²´¤£ ¥®± ¤¨³§¤± ¤¶ ¡´¨«£¨¦ ®± ±¤¬®£¤«¨¦ ¯¤±¬¨³ ®± ¶§¤ ¢®¤¢³¨® ¯¤±¬¨³ ¨² ¨²²´¤£ ¥®± ¤·¨²³¨¦ ¡´¨«£¨¦ ¢®¤¢³¨¦ ³® ³§¤ ² ¨³ ±¸ ²¤¶¤± ²¸²³¤¬ ¥®± ³§¤ ¥¨±²³ ³¨¬¤ȁ /¤ 3!# ´¨³ ¤°´ «² ΑΖΓ ¦ ««®² ®¥ ¬ ·¨¬´¬ ¯®³¤³¨ « £ ¨«¸ ¶ ²³¤¶ ³¤± ¥«®¶ ¢ ¯ ¢¨³¸ȁ ! ¥±¤¤²³ £¨¦Ǿ ²¨¦«¤-¥ ¬¨«¸ ±¤²¨£¤¢¤ ¨² ¢§ ±¦¤£ ®¤ 3!# ´¨³Ǿ ¡ ²¤ ´¨³ȁ /³§¤± ³¸¯¤² ®¥ ¡´¨«£¨¦² ¬ ¸ ¯ ¸ 3!# ¥¤¤ ¡ ²¤£ ® ³§¤ ¤²³¨¬ ³¤£ ¯®³¤³¨ « ¢ ¯ ¢¨³¸ ®¥ ¶ ²³¤¶ ³¤±. 4§¤ -#%3 ««®¶² ¢¨³¨¤² ³® ¯¯¤ « £¤³¤±¬¨ ³¨®² ¥®± ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤² ¡´¨«³ ¯±¨®± ³® * ´ ±¸ ΐǾ ΐΘΖΒȁ 4® ¯¯¤ «Ǿ ³§¤ #¨³¸ ¬´²³ ¯±®µ¨£¤ £®¢´¬¤³ ³¨® ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨¦ ¶ ² ¡´¨«³ £ȝ®± §®®ª¤£ ´¯ ³® ³§¤ ±¤¦¨® « ²¤¶¤± ²¸²³¤¬ ¡¤¥®±¤ * ´ ±¸ ΐǾ ΐΘΖΒȁ )¥ ¢®¤¢³¨® £®¢´¬¤³ ³¨® ¨² ®³ µ ¨« ¡«¤Ǿ -#%3 ¬ ¸ «²® ««®¶ ¢¨³¨¤² ³® ¯ ¸ ¥¤¤ ³ ³§¤ ΐΘΖΓ ± ³¤ ± ³§¤± ³§ ³§¤ ¯±¤²¤³ ± ³¤Ǿ ¨ȁ¤ȁǾ ͡ΒΏΏ ¯¤± ´¨³ ² ®¯¯®²¤£ ³® ¢´±±¤³ ± ³¤ ®¥ ͡ΑǾΓΗΔ ¯¤± ´¨³ȁ B.#¨³¸ 3¤¶¤± !µ ¨« ¡¨«¨³¸ #§ ±¦¤² ) ΐΘΘΓǾ ³§¤ #¨³¸ £®¯³¤£ ¢¢¤²² ¥¤¤² ¥®± ³§¤ ² ¨³ ±¸ ²¤¶¤± ²¸²³¤¬ Ȩ3!#ȩȁ 4§®²¤ ¥¤¤² ±¤ ´²¤£ ¥®± ¢®²³±´¢³¨® ®¥ ®³§¤± -#%3 ¨³¤±¢¤¯³®±² £ «®¦-³¤±¬ ¬ ¨³¤ ¢¤ ®¥ ³§¤ #¨³¸ ² ¨³ ±¸ ²¤¶¤± ²¸²³¤¬ȁ &®± ¸ ¢®²³±´¢³¨® ¯±®©¤¢³ ®± ¢§ ¦¤ ¨ ´²¤Ǿ ³§¤ #¨³¸ 3!# ¨² ³§¤ ² ¬¤ ² ³§¤ ´¬¡¤± ®¥ ´¨³² £¤³¤±¬¨¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ -¤³±®¯®«¨³ #®´¢¨«ȁ (®¶¤µ¤±Ǿ ¢¨³¸ ¥¤¤² ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¨¬¯®²¤£ ®«¸ ¥®± ³§¤ ´¨³² ±¤²´«³¨¦ ¥±®¬ ¤·¯ ²¨® ®± ¢§ ¦¤ ®¥ ´²¤ ³§ ³ ±¤°´¨±¤² ££¨³¨® « ¢§ ±¦¤²ȁ 4§¤ ³®³ « ´¬¡¤± ®¥ ´¨³² ¥®± ¯±®©¤¢³ ¬ ¸ ¡¤ ±¤£´¢¤£ ¨ ¨²³ ¢¤² ¶§¤±¤ ³§¤ ´²¤ ¶ ² ¤²³ ¡«¨²§¤£ ¯±¨®± ³® £®¯³¨® ®¥ ³§¤ #¨³¸ ¥¤¤²ȁ 1 February 16, 2016 #¨³¸ ®¥ 3§ ª®¯¤¤Ǿ -¨¤²®³ 3%7%2 !6!),!"),)49 #(!2'% Ȩ3!#ȩ 0/,)#9 4§¤ #¨³¸ ®¥ 3§ ª®¯¤¤ established ³§¤ ¥¨·¨¦ ®¥ ± ³¤² £ ¢§ ±¦¤² ¥®± ²¤¶¤± ¦¤ ²¤±µ¨¢¤ ¨ #¨³¸ #®£¤ 3¤¢³¨® 50.02: 50.02 &)8).' 2!4%3 !.$ #(!2'%3 &/2 3%7%2!'% 3%26)#%ȁ !«« ± ³¤² £ ¢§ ±¦¤² ¥®± ²¤¶¤± ¦¤ ²¤±µ¨¢¤ ¨¢«´£¨¦Ǿ ¡´³ ®³ ¡¸ ¶ ¸ ®¥ «¨¬¨³ ³¨®Ǿ ± ³¤² ¥®± ²¤±µ¨¢¤Ǿ µ ¨« ¡¨«¨³¸Ǿ ¢®¤¢³¨®Ǿ £¨²¢®¤¢³¨®Ǿ £ ±¤¢®¤¢³¨® ¥¤¤²Ǿ ¨¢«´£¨¦ ¯¤ «³¨¤² ¥®± ®-¯ ¸¬¤³Ǿ ¨¥ ¸Ǿ ²§ «« ¡¤ ¥¨·¤£Ǿ £¤³¤±¬¨¤£Ǿ £ ¬¤£¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ #®´¢¨« £ £®¯³¤£ ¡¸ ±¤²®«´³¨®ȁ ȨΑΏΐΒ #®£¤Ǿ ȷ ΒȁΏΑȩ Ȩ/±£ȁ ΐǾ ¯ ²²¤£ Γ-1-ΐΘΖΗǿ /±£ȁ ΓΏΑǾ ¯ ²²¤£ Α-16-1995). Βȩ 0/4%.4)!, 02/*%#43 4§¤ ¥®««®¶¨¦ «¨²³ ¯±®µ¨£¤² ¤· ¬¯«¤² ®¥ ¯®³¤³¨ « ¯±®©¤¢³²ȝ¨²³ ¢¤² ¶§¤±¤ #¨³¸ ²²¨²³ ¢¤ ¬¨¦§³ ¡¤ granted: a)%·³¤²¨® ®¥ ²¤¶¤± ²¤±µ¨¢¤² ³® ¤·¨²³¨¦ ¡´²¨¤²²¤² b)2¤´²¤ ®± ¤·¯ ²¨® o¥ ¤·¨²³¨¦ businesses c)Development ®± red¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³ ®¥ ´£¤±´³¨«¨¹¤£ ¢®¬¬¤±¢¨ « ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤² d)- ³¢§¨¦ ¦± ³ ¥´£² ¥®± ¦®µ¤±¬¤³ ¯±®¦± ¬² Ȩ§®´²¨¦ and/®± ¤¢®®¬¨¢ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³ȩ e))¥ ³§¤ ±¤°´¤²³ ¯±®µ¨£¤ ³§¤ ¢®¬¬´¨³¸ ¶¨³§Ȁ )¢±¤ ²¤£ ¤¬¯«®¸¬¤³ ®± ©®¡ ±¤³ ¨ ¦¤ o !££¨³¨® « ²¯¨-®¥¥ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³ o 0®³¤³¨ « ¥®± ¨¢±¤ ²¤£ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ³ · ¢ ¯ ¢¨³¸ o Γȩ &).!.#).' STRUCTURE ) ££¨³¨® ³® ³§¤ ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤³² ®¥ ³§¤ ¯¯«¨¢ ³¨®ȝ ¯¯±®µ « ¯±®¢¤²² £¤²¢±¨¡¤£ ¡¤«®¶Ǿ ³§¤ ¥®««®¶¨¦ ¡ ²¨¢ ³¤¤³² ²§ «« ¯¯«¸Ȁ 4§¤ ¥®««®¶¨¦ ³ ¡«¤ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ´²¤£ ² ¦´¨£¤Ǿ ³§¤ #¨³¸ #®´¢¨« § ² ³§¤ ´³§®±¨³¸ ³® £¤µ¨ ³¤ ¥±®¬ ³§¨² ¦´¨£¤ ³ ¸ ³¨¬¤ȁ ,/7 ).4%2%34 ,/!.3 4/4!, 02/*%#4 #/343 !33)34!.#% 02/6)$%$ ͡Ώ - $200,000 3!# ¢±¤£¨³² ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ² Βυ ¨³¤±¤²³Ǿ Δ ¸¤ ± ³¤±¬ «® ȁ $200,001-$500,000 3!# ¢±¤£¨³² ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ² Βυ ¨³¤±¤²³Ǿ Ζ ¸¤ ± ³¤±¬ «® ȁ ͡ΔΏΏǾΏΏΐ - $1,000,000 SAC ¢±¤£¨³² ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ² Βυ ¨³¤±¤²³Ǿ ΐΏ ¸¤ ± ³¤±¬ «® ȁ /µ¤± ͡ΐǾΏΏΏǾΏΏΏ 3!# ¢±¤£¨³² ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ² Βυ ¨³¤±¤²³Ǿ ΐΔ ¸¤ ± ³¤±¬ «® ȁ &/2')6!",% '2!.4 3!# ¢±¤£¨³² ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ² ¦± ³ ¶¨³§ ¯ ±³¨ « ±¤¯ ¸¬¤³ $®¶³®¶ 2¤£¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³ ®± 0±®µ¤ ( ±£²§¨¯ ȨΑΏυ ±¤£´¢³¨® ´ ««¸ȩ ±¤°´¨±¤£ ¨¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¨² ²®«£ ¶¨³§¨ Ȩ¨ȁ¤ȁ ¡¤£±®¢ªǾ ¤·¢¤²²ive infrastructure costsǾ ¤³¢ȁ) Δ ¸¤ ±²ȁ *®¡ #±¤ ³¨®/Retention (ΐ ¢±¤£¨³ for ¤µ¤±¸ ΐΏ ¥´««- ³¨¬¤ ¯®²¨³¨®² ¢±¤ ³¤£ ®± ±¤³ ¨¤£ ¯ ¸¨¦ 3!# ¢±¤£¨³² ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ² ¦± ³ ¶¨³§ ¯ ±³¨ « ±¤¯ ¸¬¤³ ¬¨¨¬´¬ ®¥ ͡ΐΘȝ§®´±) ±¤°´¨±¤£ ¨¥ ©®¡ ¦® «² ±¤ ®³ ¬¤³ ¶¨³§¨ ³¶® ¸¤ ±²ȁ 4§¤ ®¶¤± ®¥ ±¤¢®±£ ¬´²³ ¤·¤¢´³¤ ¦±¤¤¬¤³ £ ¶ ¨µ¤± ¶§¤±¤¨ ³§¤ ¬®´³ ®¥ ³§¤ ²²¤²²¬¤³ ®± «® Ȩ¯¤± ¦±¤¤¬¤³ȩ ²§ «« ¡¤ ±¤¢®±£¤£ £ ²²¤²² ¡«¤ ³® ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¨ ³§¤ ¤µ¤³ ®¥ £¤¥ ´«³ȁ 2 February 16, 2016 #¨³¸ ®¥ 3§ ª®¯¤¤Ǿ -¨¤²®³ 3%7%2 !6!),!"),)49 #(!2'% Ȩ3!#ȩ 0/,)#9 Δȩ !00,)#!4)/. 02/#%33 a)App«¨¢ ³¨®² ¬´²³ ¡¤ ²´¡¬¨³³¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ®¶¤±Ȩ²ȩ ®± ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨¦ ³¤ ³ ¨ ¢®©´¢³¨® ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ®¶¤±Ȩ²ȩȁ 4§¤ ¯¯«¨¢ ³¨® ²§ «« ¡¤¢®¬¤ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ®¥ ³§¤ #¨³¸ £ȝ®± %$! £ ¨² ²´¡©¤¢³ ³® -¨¤²®³ 3³ ³´³¤²Ǿ #§ ¯³¤± ΐΒ Ȩ³§¤ '®µ¤±¬¤³ $ ³ 0± ¢³¨¢¤² 3³ ³´³¤ȩȁ b)&´£² ¥®± ³§¨² ¯±®¦± ¬ ±¤ «¨¬¨³¤£ £ shall ¡¤ ¶ ±£¤£ ³® °´ «¨¥¸¨¦ ¯¯«¨¢ ³² ® ¥¨±²³-¢®¬¤Ǿ first-²¤±µ¤£ ¡ ²¨²ȁ c)#¨³¸ ²³ ¥¥ £ȝ®± ³§¤ %¢®®¬¨¢ $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³ !£µ¨²®±¸ #®¬¬¨²²¨® ²§ «« ±¤µ¨¤¶ ³§¤ ¯¯«¨¢ ³¨® ¬ ³¤±¨ «² £ ¬ ª¤ ¯±¤«¨¬¨ ±¸ ±¤¢®¬¬¤£ ³¨® ±¤¦ ±£¨¦ ³§¤ ¢®¬¯«¤³¤¤²² ®¥ ³§¤ ¯¯«¨¢ ³¨® £ ¶§¤³§¤± ³§¤ ¯¯«¨¢ ³¨® ¬¤¤³² ³§¤ ¢±¨³¤±¨ ®´³«¨¤£ ¨ ³§¨² ¯®«¨¢¸ȁ d)) ³§¤ ¤µ¤³ ³§ ³ ³§¤ #¨³¸ #®´¢¨« ¢®¢´±² ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ±¤¢®¬¬¤£ ³¨® ¡®µ¤Ǿ ³§¤ #¨³¸ #®´¢¨« may ¤¨³§¤± £¤¸ ®± ¦± ³ ¥¨ « ¯¯±®µ « ®¥ ¦± ³Ǿ ¨³¤±¤²³ ¡¤ ±¨¦ «® ®± ²²¤²²¬¤³ ³§ ³ ««®¶² ¥¨ ¢¨¦ ®¥ ²¤¶¤± ¢¢¤²² ¢§ ±¦¤²ȁ e)7§¤ ¤¢¤²² ±¸Ǿ ȏ$¤¥¤±±¤£ 0 ¸¬¤³ !¦±¤¤¬¤³Ȑ ²§ «« ¡¤ ¤·¤¢´³¤£ ¡¤³¶¤¤ ³§¤ ¤«¨¦¨¡«¤ ¡´²¨¤²²Ǿ ³§¤ ¥¤¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ®¶¤±Ǿ £ ³§¤ #¨³¸, and ²§ «« ¡¤ ±¤¢®±£¤£ ¶¨³§ 3¢®³³ #®´³¸ȁ Εȁ '%.%2!, 4%2-3 !.$ #/.$)4)/.3 a)4§¤ #¨³¸ ±¤²¤±µ¤² ³§¤ ±¨¦§³ ³® £¤³¤±¬¨¤ £ «¨¬¨³ ³§¤ ¬®´³ ®¥ 3!# ¢±¤£¨³² ³§ ³ ±¤ ¯¯«¨¤£ ¥®± ¡¸ ¸ ®¤ ¯¯«¨¢ ³ȁ 4§¨² ¨² ³® ««®¶ ¥®± ³§¤ ¬ ·¨¬´¬ ´³¨«¨¹ ³¨® £ ¡¤¤¥¨³ ®¥ ³§¤ ¢±¤£¨³²ȁ .®³§¨¦ §¤±¤¨ ²§ «« ¨¬¯«¸ ®± ²´¦¦¤²³ ³§ ³ ³§¤ #¨³¸ ¨² ´£¤± ¸ ®¡«¨¦ ³¨® ³® ¯±®µ¨£¤ ¨¢¤³¨µ¤² ³® ¸ ¯¯«¨¢ ³ȁ b)4§¤ #¨³¸ ¬ ¸ ¢§ ±¦¤ ¥¤¤ ¥®± ±¤°´¤²³² ´£¤± ³§¨² ¯®«¨¢¸Ǿ £ ³§¤²¤ ¥¤¤² ¶¨«« ¡¤ £®¯³¤£ ´ ««¸ £´±¨¦ ³§¤ ¥¤¤ ²¢§¤£´«¤ ±¤µ¨¤¶ȁ c)!¸ ¯¯«¨¢ ³ ¶§® ¨² ®³ ¨ ¦®®£ ²³ £¨¦ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ #¨³¸Ǿ ¨ ±¤¦ ±£² ³® «¨¢¤²¤²Ǿ ¥¤¤² ®± ®³§¤± ²¯¤¢¨¥¨¢ ¢§ ±¦¤²Ǿ ¶¨«« ®³ ¡¤ ¢®²¨£¤±¤£ ¥®± ³§¨² ¯±®¦± ¬ȁ d)Requests ²¯¤¢¨¥¨¢ ³® ¢®²³±´¢³¨® ®¥ ²¨¦«¤ ¥ ¬¨«¸ §®¬¤² ±¤ ®³ ¤«¨¦¨¡«¤ ´£¤± ³§¨² ¯±®¦± ¬ȁ e))¥ ³§¤ ¡¤¤¥¨³¨¦ ¡´¨«£¨¦ ¨² ²®«£ ¶¨³§¨ ³§¤ ¯¤±¨®£ ®¥ ³§¤ «® Ǿ ³§¤ «® ¬´²³ ±¤¯ ¨£ȁ 4§¤ %$! "® ±£ ¬ ¸ ¢®²¨£¤± «³¤± ³¨µ¤² ³® ¨¬¬¤£¨ ³¤ ±¤¯ ¸¬¤³Ǿ ¨¢«´£¨¦ ¡´³ ®³ «¨¬¨³¤£ ³® ³± ²¥¤± ®¥ ³§¤ «® ³® ¤¶ ®¶¤± ®± ¬´³´ ««¸ ¦±¤¤ ¡«¤ «® ±¤¯ ¸¬¤³ ²¢§¤£´«¤ȁ T §¤ #¨³¸ ¢ £¤µ¨ ³¤ ¥±®¬ ³§¨² ¯®«¨¢¸ ¥®± ¯±®©¤¢³² ³§ ³ ²´¯¤±²¤£¤ ³§¤ ®¡©¤¢³¨µ¤² ¨£¤³¨¥¨¤£ §¤±¤¨ȁ f) 3 February 16, 2016 CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 7675 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MODIFICATIONS TO THE SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGE(SAC) POLICY WHEREAS, on April 17, 2012 the City Council for the City of Shakopee adopted Resolution Number 7184, A Resolution Adopting a Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Credit Policy, and WHEREAS,the Sewer Availability Charge Policy will provide a basis for decision making that will follow the guidance and recommendations for consistent application of these credits; and WHEREAS, the Sewer Availability Charge credits shall be available to existing businesses as well as new businesses within the community; and economic WHEREAS,the City Councildesires to be proactivein the promotion and stimulation of growth, and WHEREAS,as each application for the use of the remaining SAC credits is made, it willbe presented to City Council for their consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVEDBY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, thatthe attached modified Sewer Availability Charge (SAC)Policy attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby adopted. Adopted in regular session of the City Council ofthe City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this 16thDay of February,2016. _________________________________ Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk, City of Shakopee RESOLUTION NO. 7684 A Resolution Ordering An Improvement And Preparation Of Plans And Specifications For The 2016Street Reconstruction Project No. 2016-1 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 7670adopted on January 19, 2016, fixed a date for Council hearingon the proposed improvement of the 2016Street Reconstruction Project and all appurtenant work; and WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing through two weekly publications of th the required notice was given and the hearing was held on the 16day of February, 2016, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. That the improvement is necessary, cost effective and feasible and is ordered as hereinafter described: 2016Street Reconstruction Project and all appurtenant work. 2. Bruce Loney, Public Works Director, is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement.He shall prepare plans and specificationsfor the making of such improvements. 3. The work of this project is hereby designated as part of the 2016-1Public Improvement Program. 4. The City Council shall let the contract for all or part of the improvements as authorized by Minnesota Statutes 429.041, no later than three years from the date of adoption of this resolution. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 2016. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk ENGR/2016-PROJECTS/2016-RECONSTRUCTION/WORD/RES7684-ORDERING-PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. 7685 A Resolution Ordering An Improvement And Preparation Of Plans And Specifications For The 2016 Bituminous Reclamation Project No. 2016-3 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 7671adopted on January 19, 2016, fixed a date for Council hearing on the proposed improvement of the 2016Bituminous ReclamationProject and all appurtenant work; and WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing through two weekly publications of th the required notice was given and the hearing was held on the 16day of February, 2016, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. That the improvement is necessary, cost effective and feasible and is ordered as hereinafter described: 2016Bituminous ReclamationProject and all appurtenant work. 2. Bruce Loney, Public Works Director, is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement.He shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvements. 3. The work of this project is hereby designated as part of the 2016-3Public Improvement Program. 4. The City Council shall let the contract for all or part of the improvements as authorized by Minnesota Statutes 429.041, no later than three years from the date of adoption of this resolution. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 2016. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk ENGR/2016-PROJECTS/2016-RECLAMATION/WORD/RES7685-ORDERING-PROJECT 1O1F1, Introduction tt.4 �. a a City of Shakopee Transition to Republic Services took place in May/June 2014 Pik Support from the City was fantastic SHAKOPEE Calls,questions,concerns from residents have dropped Annual Report on Waste and Recycling dramatically. Now mostly just general questions/inquiries Services from Republic Services Rich Hirstein February 16,2016 4REPUBLIC SERVICES Customer Service and Bulk Pickups kd,4- Shakopee Recycling Breakdown eS•4 12/31/2015 In January,2016: Commodity % Tons We took a couple-hundred calls from Shakopee residents For December of 2015,here are cardboard 12.8% 27.14 We picked-up and recycled several hundred Christmas trees the curbside recycling Other Fiber 43.2% 91.78 Aluminum 1.6% 3.44 commodity types by weight steel scrap 0.5% 113 Steel Cans 1.6% 3.36 Bulky Items: for the whole year of 2015 we picked up: --- ---- 36 PET 3.6% 7.59 99 appliances/electronics items o HDPEN 1.2 2.49 Recycling Participation is 90-92/ __. __._. 124'small'household furniture items HDPEC 1.0% 2.06 233'large'household furniture items Retail Plastic Shopping bags are Other Plastics 0.4% 0.85 Mixed Rigids 0.8% L68 25 mattresses/box springs NO LONGER accepted in carts Glass_ 25.6% 54.30 Aseptic 0.1% 0.28 Residue 7.7% 16.45 100.0% 21 : Shakopee Clean-Up Day Yardwaste Services 4�7) There are two different Yard Waste Removal Options for you: Clean-Up Scheduled for Saturday,April 30, 2016 It's a Drop-off event at Shakopee Public Works SUBSCRIBE for the annual service($62.74/year). You'll receive a free yard Trash, Small amounts of Construction/Demolition waste, waste cart and have weekly pickup of leaves/branches,etc.from April 15 thru yard waste, and small scrap metal items are accepted. November. You won't need to call us to have your cart emptied---it's already scheduled for you. 2,119 HH's are signed-up for this service now. In 2015 we collected OR 36.76 tons of trash .80 tons of c/d SCHEDULE a pickup(at a cost of$1.50/bag)by calling Republic Services at 30 cubic yards of yardwaste (952)941-5174 or emailing CSTwinCities(WRepublicServices.com. This might 7.44 tons of scrap metal be the best service option if you only have occasional bags of yard waste. Rate Adjustment ��y Customer Service ts.4 There will be a Disposal Rate increase this year. The Republic Services Customer Service The increase will be $.90 per month, per phone number is (952) 941-5174 household. This is due solely to disposal site increase. This will be effective March 1, 2016. Our Customer Service E-mail is: CSTwinCities@RepublicServices.corn Republic Services is NOT seeking a increase in our rates this year—just the disposal cost increase. February 8, 2016 Dear Mayor/Councilmember: We are part of a coalition of County and City leaders from the suburban metropolitan area who have become increasingly concerned with a lack of accountability from the Metropolitan Council, especially as its scope of authority and involvement in regional issues continue to expand. It is our belief that an updated Metropolitan Council governance structure, one that makes the Council accountable to the regional constituency of those impacted by its decisions, would benefit this region greatly. We seek your support for the attached principles for reform that would increase local participation and collaboration to help guide orderly growth and economic development in our region. We ask that you adopt the attached resolution calling for substantive change tothe Council. Structure Limits Local Representation Metropolitan Council members are non-elected individuals answerable only to the Governor, an office that has often been elected without majority support from metropolitan-area voters. We believe the Council, which has the ability to levy taxes on metropolitan-area residents, should be answerable to the citizens and taxpayers of the area it represents rather than a single officeholder and should feature strong county representation and representation from other local elected officials. This call for reform echoes the 2011 conclusion of the nonpartisan Office of the Legislative Auditor. In the evaluation report Governance of Transit in the Twin Cities Region, Legislative Auditor Nobles recommended a Council with a mix of gubernatorial appointees and elected officials from the region http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/pedrep/transit.pdf . Substantial Changes In Role of Council Since 1967 The Metropolitan Council was established in 1967 to provide regional planning services for the Twin Cities area. However, at the same time the Council’s management of growth, and in particular its coordination of regional serviceshas changed dramatically. The Council’s scope has increased, but not its level of accountability to the local governments and citizens of the metropolitan-area. Many citizens and local government officials feel disconnected from the present Metropolitan Council, undermining its credibility and preventing it from functioning as an effective regional governance body. In closing, we hope you will join us in our call for reform by adopting the attached resolution with principles to strengthen regional planning and development. We welcome the opportunity meet with you andyour colleagues to present this and discuss further. Please contactGary Shelton for more information or to schedule a presentation to your Council or Board. We look forward to working with you Please return the adopted in this effort to unite the region for continued growth and prosperity. th resolution to Scott County, Attn: Gary Shelton, 200 West 4Avenue, Shakopee, MN 55379 by Tuesday, March 8, 2016; or, as soon thereafter as practical. Sincerely, Jon UlrichMichael Beard Scott County CommissionerScott County Commissioner -¤³±®¯®«¨³ '®µ¤± ¢¤ 2¤¥®±¬ Local Government Coalition -Statement of Objectives- A coalition of local governments throughout the metropolitan area has joined together to develop a position statement and a set of principles for improving metropolitan governance in the Twin Cities. The Coalition supports the need for regional planning, collaboration and coordination, but seeks to expand local government representation on the Metropolitan Council. The objectives for its collective effort to improved governance are: 1.To articulate a vision of responsive and effective metropolitan governanceas represented by a Statement of Belief and Principles for Reform of the Metropolitan Council 2.To align local government interests behind a reform effortthrough formation of a broad coalition of metropolitan Cities and Counties and a common position. 3.To be prepared for any effortslegislative and otherwiseto reform the governance structure and functioning of the Metropolitan Council. Attached is the Coalition Statement of Belief and Principles for Reform. Principles for Metropolitan Council Reform The following principles were developed by a coalition of cities and counties in the metropolitan area, a coalition created to advocate for reform of the Metropolitan Council. The group believes that an effective core Statement of Belief (printed below). STATEMENT OF BELIEF: ŷĻ aĻƷƩƚƦƚƌźƷğƓ /ƚǒƓĭźƌͲ ķǒĻ Ʒƚ źƷƭ ƷğǣźƓŭ ğƓķ ƦƚƌźĭǤ ğǒƷŷƚƩźƷǤͲ ƭŷƚǒƌķ ĬĻ ğĭĭƚǒƓƷğĬƌĻ Ʒƚ ğ ƩĻŭźƚƓğƌ ĭƚƓƭƷźƷǒĻƓĭǤ ƚŅ ƷŷƚƭĻ źƒƦğĭƷĻķ ĬǤ źƷƭ ķĻĭźƭźƚƓƭ͵ LƷ ƭŷƚǒƌķ ƓƚƷ ƚƦĻƩğƷĻ ğƭ ğ ƭƷğƷĻ ğŭĻƓĭǤğƭ źƷ ķƚĻƭ źƓ źƷƭ ĭǒƩƩĻƓƷ ŅƚƩƒğƓƭǞĻƩğĬƌĻ Ʒƚ ƚƓƌǤ ƚƓĻ ƦĻƩƭƚƓͲ ƷŷĻ DƚǝĻƩƓƚƩ͵ Principles for Metropolitan Council Reform: I.A majority of the members of the Metropolitan Council shall be elected officials, appointed from cities and counties within the region. II.Metropolitan cities shall directly control the appointment process for city representatives to the Metropolitan Council. III.Metropolitan counties shall directly appoint their own representatives to the Metropolitan Council. IV.The terms of office for any Metropolitan Council members appointed by the Governor shall be staggered and not coterminous with the Governor. V.Membership on the Metropolitan Council shall include representation from every metropolitan county government. VI.The Metropolitan Council shall represent the entire region, therefore voting shall be structured based on population and incorporate a system of checks and balances. Α Background and Justification of Position The Metropolitan Council was created to provide for the orderly and economic development of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. It has the responsibility and authority to guide the provide important regional services. The Counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, and Scott support the concept of a regional approach, and have no wish to abolish the Council or diminish the importance of regional collaboration. However, and in particular the coordination and delivery of regional services has changed dramatically. At the same time, the role of counties has evolved. Increasingly, Counties have undertaken direct provision of regional services including: hazardous and solid waste management, transit funding and transitway development, regional parks, regional highways, water resources planning and watershed management, greenway and bikeway development, farmland and open space preservation, the regional library system, fiber communications networks, and the 800 MHz radio network. the governance structure there is understanding and improved coordination with county programs--- which exclusively provide economic assistance, social services, workforce development/employment, housing programs and many other anti-poverty and human services. In these and many other circumstances, the State, Metropolitan Council and city governments have all looked to counties to provide both the financial and political leadership needed to address key regional issues. Thus, while a strong regional approach is necessary for many issues, it is necessary for the regional governing body to feature strong county representation, as well as representation from other local elected officials. Currently, the members of the Council are non-elected individuals answerable only to the Governor, an office that has often been elected without majority support from metropolitan-area voters. The Council, which has the ability to levy taxes on metropolitan-area residents, should be answerable to the citizens and taxpayers of the area it represents rather than a single officeholder. ŷĻ ĬĻƭƷ ǞğǤ Ʒƚ ĻƓƭǒƩĻ ƷŷğƷ ƷŷĻ źƓƷĻƩĻƭƷƭ ƚŅ ĭźƷźǩĻƓƭ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒĻƷƩƚƦƚƌźƷğƓΏğƩĻğ ğƩĻ ƩĻƦƩĻƭĻƓƷĻķ źƭ Ʒƚ ŷğǝĻ ğ ƦƩĻƦƚƓķĻƩğƓĭĻ ƚŅ ƌƚĭğƌƌǤ ĻƌĻĭƷĻķ ƚŅŅźĭźğƌƭ ƚƓ ƷŷĻ /ƚǒƓĭźƌΏΏźƓķźǝźķǒğƌƭ ƷŷğƷ ķƚ ƓƚƷ ƭĻƩǝĻ ĻǣĭƌǒƭźǝĻƌǤ ğƷ ƷŷĻ ƦƌĻğƭǒƩĻ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ DƚǝĻƩƓƚƩ͵ This will have the added benefit of allowing the Council to meet federal guidelines , a move encouraged by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHA) to make the Council 1 regional body to be effective it must be credible, meaning that regional citizens must feel that the body effectively represents their goals and values. Citizens currently feel disconnected from the Metropolitan Council, preventing it from functioning as an effective regional governance body. The coalition of suburban counties is working to join the Metropolitan Council with the people it represents, so the region as a whole can unite for continued growth and prosperity. 1 Letter from representatives of FTA and FHA to Ann R. Goering of Ratwik, Roszak, & Maloney, P.A., Aug. 3 2015 Β FAQ:MCRP REQUENTLY SKED UESTIONS ETROPOLITAN OUNCIL EFORM RINCIPLES 1)Why now? Reform of the Metropolitan Council has been an issue on the minds of many local governments for many years. However, political realities have created obstacles that thwarted many previous attempts at reform. The release of ThriveMSP2040 reinvigorated the drive for reform in many cities and counties who were unhappy with aspects of the plan. However, our call for change is not a reaction to the specifics of the plan, or to how it allocates resources. Instead, the experience drove home what little incentive the Council has to take into account the opinions of local governments. Councilmembers do not answer to the local constituency, but rather to a constituency of one: the Governor. We realized this was the core problem, and the release of Thrive2040 was the catalyst that renewed our efforts to build a coalition for governance reform. 2)Who makes up the coalition? The coalition originated with officials from Anoka, Carver, Dakota, and Scott Counties, who share a collective opinion that the Metropolitan Council must be more accountable to the regional constituency. They made the decision to develop principles for reform, and, knowing it was important to have the perspective of cities represented as well, invited certain city officials with interest in reform to join the group. The city officials (listed in Attachment A) represent themselves alone, and do not necessarily represent the views of their entire councils. Together this group developed a mutually-agreed-upon set of principles for reform. 3) the work of the Metro Cities organization? We believe that Metro Cities plays a vital role in advocating for city interests, and we did invite them to play a part in the development of the shared principles. However, they ultimately decided to withdraw from the group due the incompatibility of our positions. We had hoped to work together toward reform, and we hope to work together in the future if the position of the organization changes. However, in the meantime we are aware of many cities with positions on Metropolitan Council reform that contradict the official Metro Cities position, and we believe that those cities should have their voices heard in the Legislature. 1 4)What are the next steps? These draft principles have been distributed to every city and county in the metropolitan area, and we hope to have as many as possible adopt these principles. We are happy to discuss the principles, along with our reasons for wanting reform, with any Board or Council in the area. During the Legislative Session we will present these adopted resolutions to Legislators to illustrate how important reform is to local governments in the metro-area, and we will work with Legislators to advance reform proposals that meet the adopted principles. 5)How do other cities do it? (see Attachment B), as well as every other regional planning organization in Minnesota, is made up of a majority of local elected officials. 6)Is this an effort to get rid of the Metropolitan Council? Absolutely not. Regional governance is important, but it would be more effective and credible with local representation. In the current system, Metropolitan Council members are non- elected individuals answerable only to the Governor, an office that has often been elected without majority support from metropolitan-area voters. The Council, which has the ability to levy taxes on metropolitan-area residents, should be answerable to the citizens and taxpayers of the area it represents rather than a single officeholder and should feature strong county representation from local elected officials. 7)Is this a reaction to the ThriveMSP2040 plan? for reform is not a reaction to the specifics of the plan, or to how it allocates resources. Instead, the experience drove home to many what little incentive the Council has to take into account the opinions of local governments. The Council does not answer to the local constituency, but rather to a constituency of one- the Governor. We realized that this was the core problem, and the release of Thrive2040 was the catalyst to renew our efforts to build a coalition for governance reform. 8)Is there other support for this? Yes, many other entities and organizations have come out in support for reform. In 2011, for example, the Office of the Legislative Auditor released a report recommending that the limits accountability. 2 The City of Minneapolis also passed a resolution on January 14, 2011, asking the Legislature to reform the Council so that Furthermore, representatives of the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, responsible for certifying the Council as eligible to receive federal transportation 9)Would these principles turn the Metropolitan Council into a Council of Governments (COG)? No. Councils of Governments have little authority beyond transportation planning and regional coordination of service. The level of authority that the Legislature has granted the Metropolitan Council, including the authority to levy taxes, is unique. None of the proposed principles diminish Council authority in any way, and will not transform the Council into a COG. 10)Do you oppose the Governor? No. This is not a partisan issue- we would feel the same way whether the Governor was a Republican or a Democrat. What troubles us is that the entire membership and focus of the Council can shift depending on who is in power. The Council should represent the interests of the region, not a single individual. 11)Is this about the suburbs complaining? No. This is about ensuring that the entire region feels represented by the Metropolitan Council. 12)Is the Met Council accountable to their constituents? No. Although the Met Council has the power to levy taxes on metropolitan area residents, it is not accountable to those residents and is instead solely accountable to the Governor, an individual that over the last five election cycles was only once elected with majority support from metro-area voters. 3 QPT: UESTIONS ABOUT THE RINCIPLES HEMSELVES 13) There is a time commitment to serving on the Council, true, but it is only a part-time engagement. Many current Metropolitan Council members hold other full-time jobs. Furthermore, local elected officials serve on the metropolitan planning organizations of every other large city in the country. If these principles are enacted it will be part of cities and counties that those appointed to the Council are comfortable with the time commitment. 14) city or county to represent an entire region? Local elected officials already serve in many capacities where they must consider regional i allocation of transportation and transit funding throughout the region, is made up of majority of local elected officials. The Counties Transit Improvement Board and the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District Board are two other examples where local elected officials serve and represent the interests of an entire region. Even the structure of County Boards and City Councils requires local elected officials to represent the interests of the entire city/county, rather than the specific district that elected them. 15)What happens if a local elected official leaves office in the middle of his/her Metropolitan Council appointment? We purposely made these principles high-level. We do not want to get into the details of a specific plan; that is the job of the Legislature. These issues will be considered as a plan develops. 16) that. True, and many of us do have thoughts on the role of the Council. However, we believe that the first step is to reform the governance of the Council. Once the Council is accountable to its metropolitan constituency we can consider the role that it should play i 17)You mention a system of voting and checks and balances- can you elaborate? We purposely made these principles high-level. We do not want to get into the details of a specific plan; that is the job of the Legislature. However, we do believe that the Council should represent all citizens in the area, without allowing the large urban core to drive all decision making. 4 AA:PMGWG TTACHMENT ARTICIPANTS IN THE ETROPOLITAN OVERNANCE ORKING ROUP tğƩƷźĭźƦğƷźƓŭ /ƚǒƓƷǤ hŅŅźĭźğƌƭʹ Anoka County: Commissioner Matt Look Commissioner Scott Schulte Commissioner Rhonda Sivarajah County Administrator Jerry Soma Carver County: Commissioner Randy Maluchnik Commissioner Tom Workman County Administrator Dave Hemze Dakota County: Commissioner Chris Gerlach Commissioner Nancy Schouweiler Commissioner Liz Workman County Manager Brandt Richardson Scott County: Commissioner Mike Beard Commissioner Jon Ulrich County Administrator Gary Shelton tğƩƷźĭźƦğƷźƓŭ /źƷǤ hŅŅźĭźğƌƭʹ Bethel: Councilmember Brian Kirkham Burnsville: Councilmember Bill Coughlin Chanhassen: Mayor Denny Laufenburger Elko New Market: Mayor Bob Crawford Jordan: Councilmember Mike Franklin Lino Lakes: Mayor Jeff Reinert Prior Lake: Mayor Ken Hedberg Rosemount: Councilmember Jeff Weisensel Shakopee: Mayor Bill Mars Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas Attachment B Name Governance Structure The Board includes 20 local elected officials as well as non-voting members from various San Diego Association of state and federal agencies and other organizations. Governments Summary: All voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. The Council consists of 16 citizens appointed by the Governor. Metropolitan Council Summary: All voting members are citizens. There are no elected officials on the Council. The Board consists of 15 local elected officials, 4 other government representatives, and 1 citizen representative (position is currently vacant). North Jersey Transportation The 3 other government representatives are from the Port Authority, the NJ Governor's Planning AuthorityAuthorities Unit, NJ Department of Transportation, and NJ TRANSIT. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There is one citizen member. The Board consists of 16 local elected officials, 2 representatives of the federal government, 1 representative of state government, and 2 representatives of local organizations. The state representative is from the California State Transportation Agency. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (Oakland CA) The 1 organizations are the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. The Board consists of 30 local elected officials, 6 judges, and 1 representative of the Independent School Districts. The local elected officials represent cities and counties in the metro area, although some Houston-Galveston Area Council cities and counties are represented by judges. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas Attachment B Name Governance Structure The Board consists of 9 local elected officials, 3 judges, and a non-voting member of the Texas Legislature. The metro-area cities are represented by mayors or councilmembers; the counties are North Central Texas Council of represented by judges. Governments Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials (although there are no county elected officials- counties are represented by judges). There are no citizen members. The Board consists of 14 local elected officials, 8 representatives from other governments and organizations, and 2 nonvoting representatives from the federal government. The elected officials are all mayors and selectmen of local towns; there are no county representatives. Boston Region MPO There are 2 representatives from regional planning organizations, as well as representatives from regional transit and transportation authorities and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. Summary: The majority of the voting members are local elected officials. There are also no citizen members. The Board consists of 23 local elected officials, 15 citizens, and 1 non-voting representative from the Georgia Department of Community Affairs. There is 1 citizen representative from each of 15 districts in the metro area, elected by the Atlanta Regional Commission 23 public officials. Summary: All voting members are either local elected officials or are citizen members selected by local elected officials. The Council has a general assembly consisting of all elected officials from all member jurisdictions. The Assembly establishes the budget and elects representatives to the Executive Board. The Executive Board consists of 30 elected officials and 2 representatives from the Puget Sound Regional Council Washington State Transportation Commission and the Washington State Department of Transportation. Summary: All voting members are either local elected officials or are selected by local elected officials. There are no citizen members. Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas Attachment B Name Governance Structure The Board consists of 32 local elected officials and 2 representatives from state government. The 2 state representatives are legislators from the Maryland and Virginia General National Capital Region Assemblies. Transportation Planning Board Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen members. The Council consists of 32 local elected officials, 4 state representatives, and 1 member of a citizen organization. The elected officials are mayors, councilmembers, etc. from metro towns, cities, and reservations. Maricopa Association of There are also 2 representatives each from the State Transportation Board and the Arizona Governments Department of Transportation. Finally, there is a representative from the Citizens Transportation Oversight Commission. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There is one citizen member, a representative of a citizen oversight commission. The Executive Committee consists of 11 local elected officials, 3 at-large members, and representatives from the Pennsylvania Department of Economic Development, Department of Transportation, and Governor's Office. Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are 3 at-large members. The Board consists of 16 state government appointees, 24 local government elected officials and staff, and 2 attorneys. as well as a number of non-voting members. There are 4 representatives from the PA Department of Transportation and 3 from the NJ Department of Transportation. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission There are also 3 representatives from the PA Governor's Policy Office, 1 other PA Governor's appointee, 3 from the NJ Department of Community Affairs, and 2 appointees from the NJ Governor. Summary: The majority of voting members are either local elected officials or local government staff members. There are no citizen members. Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas Attachment B Name Governance Structure The Board consists of 5 local elected officials, 3 city representatives, 1 state representative, and 7 non-voting members from various federal and state agencies. The 5 local elected officials are the County Executives of the 5 metro counties. The city New York Metropolitan representatives are heads of the New York City Transportation Authority, Department of Transportation Council Transportation, and Department of City Planning. The state representative is from the New York State Department of Transportation. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials or representatives from city government. There are no citizen members. The Board consists of 7 local elected officials and 4 representatives from state departments (3 non-voting). Baltimore Regional Transportation Board A representative from the Maryland Department of Transportation has voting privileges. Summary: All voting members, except one, are local elected officials. The Council has a general assembly consisting of delegates from all local governments in the region. The Executive Committee consists of local elected officials as well as representatives from community colleges and the Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Southeast Michigan Council of Michigan. Governments Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. The Board consists of appointments from each of the metro counties- the members are a combination of elected officials and representatives of nonprofits and private industry. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for There are also 2 non-voting Governor's appointees and a non-voting representative of the Planning Regional Transportation Authority. Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials and all are appointed by local jurisdictions. There is a Citizens' Advisory Committee created by the Board. The Regional Council consists of elected local officials representing 67 districts, all members of the Los Angeles City Council and the Mayor, as well as 1 elected representative from each of the 6 counties in the district, and representatives from Southern California Association regional transportation commissions and tribal governments. of Governments Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Minnesota Attachment B NameGovernance Structure The Board consists of 15 local elected officials from Minnesota and Wisconsin, 2 citizens, and one representative from the Duluth Transit Authority. There are two citizen members, one representing the City of Duluth and one the City of Duluth-Superior Metropolitan Superior. Interstate Council Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are two citizen representatives. The Board consists of 6 local elected officials as well as 2 representatives from the Grand Forks - East Grand Forks Planning Commissions of the City of Grand Forks and the City of East Grand Forks. Metropolitan Planning Organization Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. The Board consists of 11 elected officials and 3 representatives from the Fargo and Moorhead Planning Commissions. Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Council Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. The Board consists of 11 local elected officials as well as representatives from the Central Minnesota Transportation Alliance and St. Cloud Metro Bus. St. Cloud Area Planning Organization Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. The Council consists of 16 citizens appointed by the Governor. Metropolitan Council Summary: All voting members are citizens. There are no elected officials on the Council. The Board consists of 16 local elected officials, including 2 representatives from school districts, and 2 citizen members. Rochester-Olmsted Council of Governments Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are two citizen representatives. The Board consists of 10 local elected officials. La Crosse Area Planning Committee Summary: All voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. The Board is made up of 6 local elected officials. Mankato/North Mankato Area Planning Organization Summary: All voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. Bill Reynolds From: Patricia Nauman <patricia@metrocitiesmn.org> Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 2:58 PM To: Patricia Nauman Subject: Four Counties' Metro Governance Proposal - Metro Cities Policy Position Good afternoon: Representatives from Dakota, Carver, Scott, and Anoka counties have sent a request to metro area city officials seeking support for their proposal to restructure the governance of the Metropolitan Council to one made up of county and city officials. Metro Cities has received requests by city officials for clarification of our policy positions on this topic. I am sending this communication so that you have an understanding of Metro Cities' policy positions and how they were generated, and Metro Cities' perspective on the four counties' proposal. Metro Cities supports the current statutory appointment process for the appointment of Metropolitan Council members by the Governor, and in contrast with current law, supports staggered terms and modifications to the selection process for Metropolitan Council members to more fully involve local officials in the selection process. Metro Cities has initiated and continues to support these legislative changes. Such changes would enhance the governance of the Council by providing more local official input into member selection and stabilize ideological shifts in Council membership. These are pragmatic changes that could reasonably be accepted by the Governor and Legislature. On the surface,the proposal by Dakota, Anoka, Scott and Carver county officials, to have the Metropolitan Council made up of local officials, would appear to be a solution to the tensions that exist between a regional level of government and local governments in the metro area. However, a 2011 Metro Cities Governance Task Force identified several problematic implications for this structure and did not recommend this model of metropolitan governance. Metro Cities subsequently has not recommended this model in its positions on the governance of the Metropolitan Council. Task force members identified several concerns, primarily related to the incompatibility of holding the offices of local official and Metropolitan Council member. Concerns centered on: • Local officials who are elected in one community and are appointed to serve other communities through Metropolitan Council membership could face actual conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts in determining regional investments, funding and policy. • Local officials would be serving and voting on two political subdivisions, generally considered to be incompatible functions. • The Metropolitan Council could become overly parochial and politicized, which could hamper regional planning, and service delivery effectiveness and efficiency. • Appointments to the Metropolitan Council could potentially be geographically imbalanced. • There could be an infusion of special interests and political campaigns into the selection process for Metropolitan Council members. • Local officials would serve as both the "regulator" and "regulated"party, which are generally considered to be incompatible roles. • This governance structure could result in less scope of expertise on regional issues on the Metropolitan Council. • A Metropolitan Council with this structure could be more resistant to legislative oversight. 1 The.2011 Task Force also identified a concern about the impracticality of having sitting city officials serve as Metropolitan Council members. Unlike county commissioners, most city officials are not full time mayors or city council members. The Task Force concluded that the practical result could be to narrow the pool of potential candidates from which to draw future Metropolitan Council members. Metro Cities' policies do align with the counties' proposal in support of staggered terms for Metropolitan Council members. Staggered terms would confer significant benefits for regional governance,providing more knowledge continuity on the Council, more political and philosophical diversity, and fewer possibilities for narrow policy agendas to emerge from the Metropolitan Council. Metro Cities' governance policies on the Metropolitan Council recognize the importance of a separate regional government, more input by local officials into the selection process for Metropolitan Council members, staggered terms, and a high and consistent level of collaboration and engagement between local governments. Metro Cities, through its representation of metro cities' shared interests, works to ensure that city needs are accounted for all Council functions and planning, and for local officials to have adequate input and opportunities to contribute their expertise and perspectives on regional issues. Please let me know if you would further information or if you would like to discuss these issues. I can be reached at 651-215-4002 or email: patricia@metrocitiesmn.org Sincerely, Patricia Nauman Executive Director Metro Cities 2 Bill Reynolds From: Shelton, Gary <GShelton@co.scott.mn.us> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 12:42 PM To: mpingalore@ci.belleplaine.mn.us; hpressley@ci.belleplaine.mn.us; pchard@ci.belleplaine.mn.us; ccoop@ci.belleplaine.mn.us; gtrost@ci.belleplaine.mn.us; bcrawford@ci.enm.mn.us;jjulius@ci.enm.mn.us;jberg@ci.enm.mn.us; jstern@ci.enm.mn.us; ptimmons@ci.enm.mn.us;tivelishek@hotmail.com; brendalieskel @cijordan.mn.us;tbum16@aol.com;weinerman59@comcast.net;jrgoebel@gmail.com; mikefranklinl@cijordan.mn.us; cnickolay@ci.new-prague.mn.us; dbruzek@ci.new- prague.mn.us; sryan@ci.new-prague.mn.us; ajirik@ci.new-prague.mn.us;jtuma@ci.new- prague.mn.us;Janet Williams; ckelly@ci.savage.mn.us; gabbott@ci.savage.mn.us; jvictorey@ci.savage.mn.us; mjohnson@ci.savage.mn.us; khedberg@cityofpriorlake.com; rkeeney@cityofpriorlake.com; mmcguire@cityofpriorlake.com; mmorton@cityofpriorlake.com; athompson@cityofpriorlake.com;William Mars; Matt Lehman (External); Michael Luce; Kathi Mocol;Jay Whiting Cc: Holly Craft; Nikunen, Tom (City of Jordan);Thomas Terry; Michael Johnson; Bill Reynolds; Frank Boyles; Barry Stock; Ulrich,Jon; Beard, Michael; Robling, Claire; Kohner, Lisa Subject: RE: Support for Metropolitan Governance Reform All, Following my distribution,to all of you,of the information and letter asking cities to consider passing a resolution in support of principles related to reforming the metropolitan council; we received some feedback and concerns related to (1)the concern that passing this resolution might result in some type of retaliation by the Council with some cities saying maybe they should not touch it; and, (2)questions raised by Metro Cities regarding a task force they had study the question in 2011. I wanted to take a few minutes to address both of these ahead of your various council discussions. First,while it is not out of the realm of possibility the Met Council has not generally retaliated in any meaningful way against political subdivisions that have taken political positions regarding the composition of the Council itself. I would also note that if there is genuine concern that this un-elected body might take some sort of reprisals—then this alone should make the case for reform. Second, Metro Cities distributed a list of concerns primarily related to what they term the incompatibility of holding the offices of local official and Metropolitan Council member. The concerns sent forward by Metro Cities were as follows: The first group of concerns all related to the same general question and that is the ability of local elected (city) officials to appropriately serve the cities that elected them; and, at the same time make decisions related to regional policies, investments, and planning on a larger regional basis. The concerns raised falling into this category include: 1. Local officials who are elected in one community and are appointed to serve other communities through Metropolitan Council membership could face actual conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts in determining regional investments,funding and policy. 2. Local officials would be serving and voting on two political subdivisions, generally considered to be incompatible functions. 3. Local officials would serve as both the "regulator" and "regulated" party,which are generally considered to be incompatible roles. 1 Response: These concerns are often cited by those who support the current structure. However, at last count there were 404 Metropolitan Planning Organizations across the United States with varying degrees of authority from transportation only,to land use, and other long range planning for their regions. With the exception of our Metropolitan Council all 403 of these entities have elected officials serving on them from their regions. And,this includes the seven other MPO's within Minnesota. The St. Cloud Area Planning Organization consists of elected officials from six cities (St.Cloud, St. Augusta,St.Joseph, Sartell,Saulk Rapids, and Waite Park) and three counties (Sherburne, Stearns, and Benton); as well as the Township of LeSauk. This body makes decisions determining regional investments,funding, and policy. This entity and all 403 of the other MPO's in the nation seem to do so without the actual or appearance of the conflicts. And,there is absolutely no reason to believe that City and County Officials within the MSP Region are not capable of doing the same. Today there are already examples of this within the MSP Region. The Metropolitan Emergency Services Board (MESB),the County's Transit Improvement Board (CTIB),the Solid Waste Management Board) are just a few entities already in the MSP Region wherein local elected officials are making decisions determining regional investments,funding, and policy. There is no reason to believe the same could not or should not be true of the Metropolitan Council. The second group of concerns revolve around the potential that the Council would become politicized and parochial. The concerns raised falling into this category include: 1. The Metropolitan Council could become overly parochial and politicized,which could hamper regional planning, and service delivery effectiveness and efficiency. 2. There could be an infusion of special interests and political campaigns into the selection process for Metropolitan Council members. Response: These concerns have also been largely overcome by the 403 other MPO's and the other joint policy bodies within the MSP Region. However, as we all know, it is impossible to overcome the politics, parochialism, and special interests in any body that makes public policy, has taxing authority, and controls hundreds of millions of dollars. I would be shocked if anyone reading this email would honestly say that the current Metropolitan Council is not heavily influenced by politics and special interests. We simply believe that local elected (city and county) officials in this region are more than capable of dealing with the politic and special interest pressures—as they do it already on an almost daily basis. The last group of concerns revolve around the geographic balance,technical expertise,and legislative oversight of a Council of appointed local elected officials. The concerns raised falling into this category include: 1. Appointments to the Metropolitan Council could potentially be geographically imbalanced. 2. This governance structure could result in less scope of expertise on regional issues on the Metropolitan Council. 3. A Metropolitan Council with this structure could be more resistant to legislative oversight. Response: These so called concerns should not even be taken serious. Simply because those being appointed to the Metropolitan Council are local elected officials there is no reason to believe that this will result in geographical imbalance. And,the last of the six principles being put forward by the coalition would negate this concern "The Metropolitan Council shall represent the entire region,therefore voting shall be structured based on population and incorporate a system of checks and balances." To be frank the concern about the "scope of expertise on regional issues"is almost laughable. If you look at the current Council, it is relatively obvious that their political and social leanings was more important than their expertise on regional issues. And,the same was true of the Council appointed by Governor Pawlenty. Regarding the last concern—resistance to legislative oversight—I have to wonder why this is a concern. First, the Met Council, current and previous, have generally been very reluctant to any oversight by the Legislature as they are accountable to the Governor. The Legislature has control over the structure, authority, and some aspects of the Council's funding and the Council generally has the same cover as any other State Agency—which the Governor controls or is advocating for. However, with a Council comprised of locally elected officials and acting independent of the Governor—there might actually be more accountability; but, certainly would be no less. 2 In closing, I would thank you all for taking the time to give this serious consideration. I hope you will join us in our call for reform by adopting the proposed resolution with principles to strengthen regional planning and development. Regards, Gary Shelton, County Administrator Scott County, Minnesota 3 RESOLUTIONNO. 7688 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, SUPPORTING PRINCIPLES FOR REFORM OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ____________________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS , regional planning and local government cooperationis vital to the continued success of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and WHEREAS , the Metropolitan Council is,by statute, the regional planning agency for the Minneapolis-St. Paul MetropolitanArea,with broad authority, including the ability to levy taxes, charge fees and set regional policy; and WHEREAS , cities and counties are the entities most directly affected by policies and financial decisions of the Metropolitan Council, making them the primary constituents of the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS , the Metropolitan Council’s scope of authorityand involvement inregional issues has expanded significantly over the years; and WHEREAS ,a governmental entity, particularly one with taxing authority, to be effective, must be credible, and responsiveand accountableto those it represents; and WHEREAS ,the appointment of Metropolitan Council members resides solely with the Governor, effectively making the Governor the primary constituent of the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS , manycities and counties believe that the Metropolitan Council lacks accountability and responsiveness to them as direct constituents; and WHEREAS , many cities and counties believe that theauthority to impose taxesand set regional policy should be the responsibility of local government elected officials; and WHEREAS , reform is necessary toensure that the Metropolitan Council is an effective, responsive, and accountable partnerfor regional developmentand progress. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEDBY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA , thatthe Metropolitan Council, due to its taxing and policy authority, should be accountable to a regional constituency of those impacted by its decisions; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , thatthe Metropolitan Council should not operate as a state agency answerable to only one person, the Governor, as it does in its current form; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that theCity Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota supports reform of the Metropolitan Council that adheres tothe following principles: I.A majority ofthe members of the Metropolitan Council shall be elected officials, appointed from citiesand counties within the region; II.Metropolitan cities shall directly control the appointment process for city representatives to the Metropolitan Council; III.Metropolitan counties shall directly appoint their own representatives to the Metropolitan Council; 1 IV.The terms of office for any Metropolitan Council members appointed by the Governor shall be staggered and notcoterminous with the Governor; V.Membership on the Metropolitan Council shall include representation from everymetropolitan county government; VI.The Metropolitan Council shall represent the entire region, therefore voting shall be structured based on population and incorporate a system of checks and balances. th Adopted in the regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the 16 day of February, 2016. ________________________________ William Mars Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: ____________________________ Lori Hensen City Clerk 2 Section 151.039 High Density Residential District (R-4) Subdv. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the High Density Residential Zone is to provide areas for the development of high density residential uses that are in close proximity to collector and arterial roadways or transit. The High Density Residential zoning district allows for the development of multiple- family housing from 14.01 units per acre to 40 units per acre, and provides increased housing choices and affordability in the community. Increased density also allows for the clustering of units near environmentally sensitive areas and the downtown and riverfront area. Subdv. 2 Permitted Uses: A.Multiple Family Dwellings B.Utility services C.Utility service structures, subject to the following requirements: 1.shall not be a water tower or electrical substation, or a building to house sanitary lift station controls; 2. 3.may only be used to provide weather protection for utility equipment; 4.shall be designed, placed, and landscaped as necessary to assure that it blends with the neighboring uses, and is unobtrusive; and 5.shall comply with all applicable design standards D.Public recreation E.Residential Facilities serving 6 or fewer persons F.Day care facilities serving 12 or fewer persons Subdv. 3. Conditional Uses: A.Daycare Centers serving greater than 13 persons B. C.Residential Facilities serving 7-16 persons D.Multiple principal structures on one lot Subdv. 4. Permitted Accessory Uses: A.Apartment Leasing Offices B.Open off-street parking spaces not to exceed 2.5 spaces / unit for a development C.Garages D.Fences E.Gardens and other horticultural uses not involving retail sales F.Solar equipment G.Swimming pools H.Tennis courts I.Receive only satellite dish antennas and other antennas J.Communication service apparatus / device(s) as permitted accessory uses, subject to the following conditions: 1.Shall be co-located on an existing tower or existing structure. Any co-located other portion of any structure. Such co-located apparatus/ device shall be designed and located in such a way that its appearance and surface finish minimizes visibility off-site; 2.Lights and or flashing equipment shall not be permitted unless required by state or federal agencies; 3.Signage shall not be allowed on the communication service apparatus / device(s) other than danger or warning type signs; 4.Must provide proof from a professional engineer that the equipment will not interfere with existing communications for public safety purposes ; 5.Applicable provisions of the City Code, including provisions of the State Building Code therein adopted, shall be complied with; 6.All obsolete or unused antennas and accompanying accessory facilities shall be removed within twelve (12) months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the City. After the facilities are removed, the site shall be restored to its original or an approved state. The user of the antenna and/ or accessory facilities shall be responsible for the removal of facilities and restoration of the site. 7.The applicant shall submit a plan illustrating all anticipated future location sites for communication towers and/or communication device(s)/ apparatus; 8.Wireless telecommunication towers and antennas will only be considered for City parks when the following conditions exist and if those areas are recommended by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and approved by the City Council: a.City parks of sufficient size and character that are adjacent to an existing commercial or industrial use; b.Commercial recreation areas and major playfields used primarily by adults. 9.All revenue generated through the lease of a City park for wireless telecommunication towers and antennas shall be transferred to the Park Reserve Fund. K.Other accessory uses, as determined by the Zoning Administrator Subdv. 5. Design Standards Within the R-4, High Density Residential Zone, no land shall be used and no structure shall be constructed or used, except in conformance with the following requirements: R-4D (R-4 Lots within the area that lies east of the intersection of 3rd Ave W and CSAH 69 and north of 3rd Avenue (both East R-4T(R-4 Lots within and West) extended east 1/4 mile walking to Sarazin Street, south of distance by sidewalk the city boundary, and or trail to an operating west of the extension of R-4 transit station) Sarazin Street northward) Minimum Lot Width 150' 150' 142' Minimum Lot Depth 200' 200' 100' Minimum Lot Size 1 acre 1 acre 20,000 square feet 14.01 units / Minimum Density Acre 14.01 units / Acre 14.01 units / Acre Maximum Base Density 24 units/ Acre 28 units / Acre 36 units / Acre Density Bonus for lots within 1/4 mile walking distance by sidewalk or trail to public park or open space greater than 2 acres, that is intended to be used for recreation purposes 2 units / Acre 2 units / Acre 2 units / Acre Density Bonus for developments with at least 50 square feet per unit of indoor community space, indoor or outdoor recreation facilities such as swimming pools, tennis courts, outdoor cooking facilities, and similar facilities available for use by occupants. Open space is not counted in this calculation. 2 units / Acre 2 units / Acre 2 units / Acre Maximum Impervious Surface 60% 65% 75% 1/2 Building Height, or Minimum Front Yard Setback 50' 50' 15', whichever is greater 1/2 Building Height, or Minimum Rear Yard Setback 40' 40' 15', whichever is greater 1/2 Building Height, or Minimum Street Side Setback 30' 30' 15', whichever is greater 1/2 Building Height or 20', 1/2 Building Height or whichever is 20', whichever is 1/2 Building Height, or Minimum Side Yard Setback greater greater 15', whichever is greater Minimum Structure Setback to Arterial 1/2 Building Height, or Roadway 50' 50' 15', whichever is greater Minimum Distance Between Buildings within a development 25' 25' 20' Minimum Parking Setback to Arterial Roadway 25' 25' 25' Maximum Structure Height 45' 45' 45' 2.25 spaces / Minimum off-street parking spaces unit 2.0 spaces / unit 1.75 spaces / unit Off-street parking requirement reduction (for sites within 1/4 mile of a transit stop accessible 0.10 spaces / by a sidewalk or trail) unit N/A 0.10 spaces / unit S TS NOIGEL INGSLN R S TS TUMWAHS TS SARAM RD LIART S TS GAEKMUAN RIC G S TS EIRIARP STS RD EDISREVIR ATOKAD S TS ETAVI RP LRT YAWAKCUT S TS ATOSENNIM LIH E RD ELADL S TS ATOSENNIM S TS ATOSENNIM ST S RKET MA MARKETSTS S TS N IAM S TS NIAM TC EYR S LRT LLIHTOOF NL ERIHSKROY STS 07 MLOH S TS SE EN LRT EKAL EKIP DR EKAL EKIP LP DROF XO YDR EWA STS NL A NL DOOWGOD S TS YALC RD GNIWDER M TS S DR SKRA WN DR ANNE KCM DR ANNEKCM RD KRAP YELLAV DR EKAL SNAED S TS SMADA DISON MA EORNOM S TS D J S TS NOSKCA S TS NERUB NAV RRAH S TS NOSI RD C SID S TS RELYT N NL KRALWODAEM TS RD NROHGA O MEG ADR W Y T N AC RD ECNEDNE PEDNI J RD DNOMRO TS SMAILLIW H DR ANDOA SHEN ED NL YNAL YAW SDNOP S NL DLA REM E P NL NILBUD TSEHC RL A TS DRIBGN IMMUH A E DR TS TTIRREM S NEZAH T TS DLEIFIRREM SNEHOH TC NIET S TS RELLIM S TS TFIWS S TS YESMAR AHCSRAM DR LLS DR LLAHCSRAM S TS NOIGEL S TS TUMWAHS NL NEERGREVE IRIARP S TS E DR S S DAKOTAST S TS ATOSENNIMTCREVOLC S TS ATOSENNIM S TS TEKRAM T SYT O S TS NIA M S TS NI AM TS H CRA NO M 97 DR OC tS recnepS97 DR OCVA ENI LNWOT VA ENILNWOT 97 DR OC V A ENILESAB 97 DR OC TS N APRAT O P TS ERIH S O NL ETAGELPPA L STSRE LLUF S TS RAGPA T TS SEMAJ S TS YALC TS NAISEIRF S DR S KRAM T S INIP TS A S TS S MAD A DR N WOTSYRAM S TS SMADA S TS YCNIUQ RIC YCNIUQ REFFEJ S TS NOSIDAM OESTS MONR S TS NOSKCAJ S TS NERUB NAV RRAH S TS NOSI S TS RELYT S KLOP S T HC \\ \\ S DR LLAHCSRAM S TS GA EKMUAN TS EIRIARP S NL RPS GNILIOB SGNI TS SARAM S TS ATOKAD RD LIART S TS ATOSENNI M RD EDISREVIRCS TS TEKRAM DR TDRAHNELHUM E TAVIRP S TS NIAM LRT YAWAKCUT E RD ELADLLIH \\\\\\ \\ E RD ELAD NITRAM L L IHTOOF NL ERI HSKROY S TS SIWE L S TS RELLUF DR EKAL EKIP RD S TS DOOWTA S TS TTO CS GPA S TS RA N TT ST SCO P S TS ECREI Y DR A S TS YALC A NL DOOWGOD S DR SKRAM TNIAS RD GNIWDER W N DR ANNE KCM DR ANNEKCM RD KRAP YELLAV E DR EKAL SNAED S TS SMADA LP KRAP S TS NOSREFFEJ S TS EORNOM S RIC LAIRTSUDNI S SON ST JACK S DR YRUBRETNAC RD CSID P N NL KRALWODAEM OHGATS RD NR M K CANERBUR RD ECNEDNEPEDN I J RD DNOMRO LIW TS SMAIL RD LANIDRAC ODNANEHSS RD HA DR LLAHCSRAM NL YNALED YAW SDNOP YJ A TN URA S S S S NL NILBUD EHC APL M E RIC ECAEP TS TTI RREM TS NEZAH NL YBUR TS DLEIFIRREMD S SCHALL R TS NIZARAS S TS RELLIM S TS YELBIS E TRL AWNE SH S TS NOIGEL N TC NOTSEW E W NL NEERGREVE D RDS EDIOC E DR TC REVOLC T TEBI YL TS TS DAETSE S TS RECNEPS VA ENILN WOT 97 DR OC 97 DR OC S TS SIWEL S TS REL LUF S TS ECREIP TS NAISEIRF NIP TS AI T S TS SMADA S TS YCNIUQ S TS NOSIDAM S TS EORNOM S TS NOSKCAJ S TS NOSIRRAH LYT S TS RE S TS KLOP 43,726.0038,088.00246,654.00134,466.0048,716.00100,094.00280,474.0050,420.00273,582.00410,268.00130,158.0088,820.0036,210.00285,596.002,450.00 Est. $450,000-$600,000 2015 Prop. Taxes $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 44124718693351248128334599181501201261861 Est. PM Peak 5231841699372319871131218145790590720612776871344199510 Est. ADT PM Peak Rate 33.48/1000 SF12.46/1000 SF10.35/1000 SF25.82/1000 SF 7.49/1000 SF10.5/1000 SF3.46/1000 SF4.15/1000 SF2.37/1000 SF3.83/1000 SF4.24/1000 SF0.45/1000 SF 0.62 / unit 0.59/Room 0.62/unit 1/unit ADT Rate per ITE 8.17 / Occ. Room 102.24/1000 SF 89.95/1000 SF36.13/1000 SF24.87/1000 SF79.26/1000 SF 29.8/1000 SF66.4/1000 SF41.8/1000 SF5.06/1000 SF 496/1000 SF148/1000 SF 88/1000 SF 6.65 / Unit 6.65/Unit 10/unit 1 unit 202 units300 units 5814371068393200007952104736102708719414131640662144904644 87 Rooms, 26259 Square-footage 1.551.179.092.461.292.5512.111.447.1716.613.441.61.0413.9812.60.25 Acres Wells Fargo (Vierling Dr) Addison Buildings 1 & 2 Arby's (Southbridge) Sand Cos Proposal Dean Lakes Health Median SF Home Hampton Inn Discount Tire Home Depot Slumberland Applebee's Walgreen's Kindercare Sam's Club Kohl's Cub Use