Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/06/2000 �s TENTATIVE AGENDA CITY OF SHAKOPEE REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 6, 2000 -MONDAY- LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Jon Brekke presiding 1] Roll Call at 7:00 p.m. 2] Pledge of Allegiance 3] Approval of Agenda 4] Mayor's Report 5] Approval of Consent Business — (All items noted by an * are anticipated to be routine. After a discussion by the Mayor, there will be an opportunity for members of the City Council to remove items from the consent agenda for individual discussion. Those items removed will be considered in their normal sequence on the agenda. Those items remaining on the consent agenda will otherwise not be individually discussed and will be enacted in one motion.) 6] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS — (Limited to five minutes per person/subject. Longer presentations must be scheduled through the City Clerk. As this meeting is cablecast, speakers must approach the microphone at the podium for the benefit of viewers and other attendees.) *7] Approval of Minutes: August 24, August 29, and September 5, 2000 *8] Approval of Bills in the Amount of $297,299.80 plus $271,478.19 for refunds, returns and pass through for a total of $568,777.99 9] 7 :00 P.M. Public Hearings: A] Proposed assessments for improvements to Vierling Drive from Fuller Street to the west plat boundary line of Orchard Park West, 1998 -3 — Res. No.. 5438 B] Proposed assessments for improvements to Sarazin Street from St. Francis Avenue to 800 feet south, 1999 -3 — Res. No. 5439 10] Communications 11] Liaison Reports from Council Members 12] Recess for Economic Development Authority meeting 13] Re- convene TENTATIVE AGENDA November 6, 2000 Page -2 14] Recommendations from Boards and Commissions A] Text Amendment to City Code Regarding Shoreland Overlay Zone — Ord. No. 586 B] Text Amendment to City Code Requiring Trees and Sod for Single - Family Detached Housing — Ord. No. 582 C] Rezoning Property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Planned Residential District (PRD) for Property N of 17' Avenue Extended and S of Hwy 169 — Ord. 584 D] Tree Preservation Ordinance 151 General Business A] Parks and Recreation 1. Hiawatha Park Shelter Change Order No. 2 2. Hiring Consultant for Southbridge/Dean Lake Park Master Plan B] Community Development *L Final Plat of Brittany Village 3` Addition —Res. No. 5435 *2. Final Plat of Maple Trail Estates 3` Addition — Res. No. 5436 *3. Participation in Metropolitan Livable Communities Act — Res. No. 5437 *4. Clete Link Setback Variance for Property in South Parkview 3rd C] Public Works and Engineering * 1. Revised Assessments for Sarazin Street, Roundhouse Street, and e Avenue, Project No. 1994 -10 —Res. No. 5441 2. Valley View Road Area Traffic Study 3. Order Report for Improvements to Sarazin Street and Valley View Road, Res. No. 5442 *4. Setting Public Hearing for Delinquent Garbage/Recycling Bills — Res. 5443 D] Police and Fire * 1. 2000 -2001 D.A.R.E. Educational Services Agreement — tabled 10/17 *2. Purchase of Unused Holiday Time *a. Deputy Chief Holiday Buy Back *3. Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) Partnership E] Personnel * 1. Completion of Probation — Fire Fighters Jacob Theisen, Eric Bender and Tom Nendick *2. Completion of Probation — Tracy Coenen 1 � TENTATIVE AGENDA November 6, 2000 Page 3 15] General Business continued F] General Administration: * 1. Senior Citizen Deferment *2. Certifying Delinquent Utility Bills — Res. No. 5433 3. Garbage and Recycling Contract *4. City Code Amendment Relating to Licensing the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages *5. Condemnation of Wampach Property in Block 32, OSP — Res. No. 5440 *6. Purchase of Printer for Finance Department *7. Fire Protection System S. Scheduling City Council /School Board Joint Meeting 9. Employee Health Insurance 10. Discussion of Fee to Trust Status — memo on table 16] Council Concerns 17] Other Business 18] Recess for executive session to discuss labor negotiations — Public Works 19] Re- convene 20] Adjourn to Tuesday, November 21, 2000, at 7:00 p.m CITY OF • • MINNESOTA Regular Meeting 1. Roll Call at 7:00 p.m. 2. Approval of the Agenda November 6, 2000 3. Approval of Consent Business - (All items noted by an are anticipated to be routine. After a discussion by the President, there will be an opportunity for members of the EDA to remove items from the consent agenda for individual discussion. Those items removed will be considered in their normal sequence on the agenda. Those items remaining on the consent agenda will otherwise not be individually discussed and will be enacted in one motion.) A.) 4 Approval of Minutes: - S, &000 4. Financial A.) Approval of Bills 5. Small Cities Development Program -Update 6. Informational Items: A.) Downtown Development Workshop 7. Other Business: 8. Adj ourn cdageuda.doc ' 1 NJ September 5, 2000 Members Present: President Amundson, Morke, Sweeney, Link, Brekke Members Absent: None Staff Present: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Jim Thomson, City Attorney; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Dan Hughes, Chief of Police; and Tracy Coenen, Management Assistant. I. Roll Call President Amundson called the meeting to order at 11:00 p.m. Roll call was taken as noted above. Approval of Agenda Sweeney/Link approved the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. M. Consent Agenda President Amundson added item No. 6: 2000 Tax Levy and Budget Adoption Resolution No. 00 -02 to the Consent Agenda. Sweeney/Morke moved to approve the Consent Agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Approval of Minutes for July 5, 2000 Sweeney/Morke moved to approve the July 5, 2000 meeting minutes. (Motion carried unanimously under the Consent Agenda.) V. Financial a. Approval of Bills 1. Sweeney/Morke moved to approve the bills in the amount of $151.30 for the EDA General Fund. This listing is for the period 8 /11 /to 8/31/2000. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) 2. Sweeney/Morke moved to approve the bills in the amount of $1,980.97 for the EDA General Fund and $19,160.93 for the EDA TIF District No. 10. This listing is for the period 7/28 to 8//10/2000. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Official Proceedings of the September 5, 2000 Shakopee Economic Development Authority Page 2 2000 Tax Lew and Budget Adoption Resolution No. 00 -02 Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No. 00 -02, A Resolution Setting the Tax Levy for 2000/01 by the Economic Development Authority for the City of Shakopee and Adopting the 2001 Budget, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Other Business There was no other business. Adiouent Sweeney/Link moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:02 p.m. u ith S. Cox, E A Secretary Carole Hedlund, Recording Secretary CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: President & Commissioners Mark H. McNeill, Executive Director FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: EDA Bill List DATE: November 2, 2000 Introduction Attached is a listing of bills for the EDA for the period 10/13/2000 to 11/02/2000. Action Requested Move to approve bills in the amount of $410.06 for the EDA General Fund (0191) . i E-4 \ R' N O o a \ w H L4' H >+ 44 0 H H rtf H U I II II n ,a u �q u u a ca I \ II O H u x CO as ii P4 H u a q U u w ul II H a M �D M 0aa O II UOp H II FT l< E-' ii ma H II W H U X 20 U] II CQ a O gUUCQ II 0 0 , II II O O O O O O H II O O O O O O W 11 co H N J 11 II 0 0 0 o O o P: II r- L U II Ln da It II ,--1 0 Ln w kO w II H O O1 O o O H II co LO l0 O O O P� II H N l0 ci H H W II M 14' V cr q II II O O O H II N N N W U1 II \ \\ zm a xxx ca n OOo u n u o u o u o O o U1 II N O O is II to r- J+ -k fL II N O N � P.' W II O [- o Hfx a H i Ln I II II n ,a u �q u u a ca I \ II O H u x CO as ii P4 H u a q U u w ul II H a M �D M 0aa O II UOp H II FT l< E-' ii ma H II W H U X 20 U] II CQ a O gUUCQ II 0 0 , II II ■ � II o II II o II ri II � II is a E O H q L7 v� N OD H U A H 0 � W 11 co H N J 11 II Ln m N II II r- L II Ln da It U II N H N U z u 0 0 0 u n n II O 0 O II o 0 O II O O O II N N N II \ \\ W II m m m ii o0 0 q II H 1-1 H II is II -k II � II i Ln II rn rn H c-4 ri ri 0 II z q 11 O z I'7 II H m Ln H 'J W II N M M (x co CT4 O II M C d� C7 H U II p H O w q G4 ii m m m a n ri - I H 04 rx a n o 0 o O O rC > II w rT E� H II 01 Ol O� O q II H ri H a a p u H�� o o C-, 11 H H-4 H H ■ � II o II II o II ri II � II is a E O H q L7 v� N OD H U A CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: President & Commissioners Mark H. McNeill, Executive Director FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: EDA Bill List DATE: October 12, 2000 Introduction Cony SEnJT Attached is a listing of bills for the EDA for the period 09/29/2000 TO 10/12/2000. Action Requested Move to approve bills in the amount of $39.90 for the EDA General Fund (0191). H E-11 N O H a \ W O � H H 0 H � tR H r6 H U II o o O O O O II E+ II O O o O O O II J II II N Ln O O O O O O II � II rn o U II II N W O O O O II � `r rn rn rn rn II H II u o 0 • II H II H w m m rn m II CQ II N H M M M M II W II II LO H Q 11 I W II O H � II P II Q II Cq U] II II - k II M co 11 II H O II II II II O O * II O O H Ln I II O O rn H II co II N N H * O II Ln u z r P O z p:W II Urn FQ It H a 11 O o C!] Ga Q, O u u II II Q ii a z 11 -_o u w x u FX4 a II H W u as II w u H H II z II it O II OU H II H u a H a u H II z w rx it O 3 U II H W II q n z z I II � II O II W N co H U z II M H W II d' co J II II N Ln II II II II o Ln U II rn o Uz II u 00 u n u u 00 u o 0 11 0 0 II N N II \ II LO H W II O H Q II H H II - k II II II * II H Ln I rn rn H II H H H * O u z Q * u O z FQ It M N fY. C!] Ga Q, O II a d O O O H o if H H a q PL n rn m Q4 If z Q z o 0 0 0 rw r�l 1 ii rn rn q u HH a a H * Q II Ln Ln H H z n HH O O C14 11 H H E- � E W N co H U TO: Economic Development Authority FROM: Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinat SUBJECT: Small Cities Development Program - update DATE: November 6, 2000 Enclosed is the October 2000 update on the Small Cities Development Program (SCDP) from the Carver County HRA. In summary, the HRA reports the following application activity: Single Family Owner- Occupied Residential (goal. 30 units) Rental Residential (goal: 30 units) Commercial (goal: 15 units) l Applications Applications Requested/ Mailed in Process or Completed 50 21 11 7 (19 units) 12 5 73 33 Note: The numbers in parentheses next to the property types listed above indicate the "rehabbed property unit goals" by property type for Shakopee's SCDP program, set by the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development. Sma 7 7 Cities Shakopee Rehab Program The single family rehab program is well underway and we have begun closing on loans. Applicants for the rental and commercial rehab have been approved and will be scheduling inspections with our Rehab Specialist, soon to determine what improvements can be done and the applicants can start obtaining bids. Si ng 7 e -Farm 7y Rehab i 7 i to t i on Project Recap on the program To be eiigibie for the program, the applicant's I icorne mus be beluvv 8U% of the area median income. The homeowner will be eligible for a 50 to 100% grant depending upon their income. The homeowner would need to provide leverage ranging from 0 to 50 %. The HRA has low- interest loans the homeowner could apply for to use as their leverage requirement. However, if they are not eligible for a leverage source due to poor credit, too many debts, no equity, etc., the leverage requirement will be waived and they will receive a 100% Small Cities grant. The grant is a 0% interest, 10 -year deferred loan. If the homeowner stays in the home for 10 years, they will not have to pay the loan back. The loan is forgiven on a pro -rated basis of 10% per year. For example, if the homeowner moves out 3 years later they would be responsible for paying back to the City 70% of what they borrowed. After their application has been approved, Dave Schaffer, the HRA's Rehab Advisor, will schedule an appointment to inspect the home to determine what improvements can be done. Dave will draw up a work write -up for the homeowner to submit to contractors. It is the responsibility of the homeowner to select the contractor(s). After reasonable bids have been attained, the homeowner will schedule a time to close on the loan with the HRA. The HRA will make the payments to the contractor(s) after the work has been inspected by Dave Schaffer. The HRA will then submit a draw request to the City (to submit to DTED) for reimbursement. S i ng 7 e -Fam i 7y Rehab Summary We have 8 applicants that closed on their loans and construction is underway. Many applicants are doing exterior work, so the improvements will be very noticeable when driving through the neighborhood. We currently have 8 Summary Sheet 10/23/00 additional applicants that have been approved for the program and are currently out to bid or have scheduled an inspection with our Rehab Advisor, Dave Schaffer. Furthermore, 5 more applications are in the approval process. The amount of inquires has slowly a bit. However, inquires will pick up again now that construction has started and the program becomes more visual. What usually happens is that people will notice that a lot of their neighbors are having work done and will start asking questions and find out about the program by word of mouth. Everyone in the target area received two mailings about the program so they should already know about the program. However, we will consider doing additional marketing if the inquires do not pick up. Amount Funded $369,000.00 Amount Committed $122,561.60 Ai ioun t Allocated $134,575.00 Balance Remaining $111,863.40 App 7 i cants that have c 7 osed HRA Loan Number. Household Composition: Loan Amount. Gross Income. Improvements: Market Value of the NO NEW APPLI CANTS THIS MONTH Renta 7 Rehab i 7 i to t i on Project Recap on the program Any rental owner may apply for the program as long as their property is located in the targeted Small Cities Boundary. 51 % of their rental units need to be leased by tenants at or below 80% of Metro Area Median Income, and the rents for all of the units would need to be at or below the Fair Market Rents. If the property is in the targeted area, and both the tenant's income and rent are within the allowable limits a property owner would be eligible for a deferred loan up to $10,000 per unit. A maximum loan amount is currently under advisement with Summary Sheet 10/23100 city staff. The owner is required to match these dollars with a 50% match. This is a secured loan, which will be forgiven after seven years. Compliance of rent restriction and tenant characteristics is in force for the full seven years. The loan is forgiven on a pro -rated basis of 14.28% per year. After their application has been approved, Bill Schwanke, the HRA °s Rehab Advisor, will schedule an appointment to inspect the rental property to determine what improvements should be incorporated into the scope of work. Bill will draw up a work write -up for the homeowner to submit to contractors. It is the responsibility of the homeowner to select the contractor(s). After reasonable bids have been attained, the property owner will schedule a time to close on the loan with the HRA. The HRA will make the necessary payments to the contractor(s), after Bill Schwanke has inspected the work. The HRA will then submit a dram: request to the City (to submit to DTEC) for reimbursement Rental Rehab Summary Carver County HRA has had 0 new inquiries regarding the Small Cities Rental Loan Program; 7 rental property owners have completed their applications. Those 7 properties represent 19 rental units. One of those 7 has been preliminarily approved and will be inspected and out to bid in the next few weeks. The six other applicants are in various stages of providing additional documentation; after reviewing that additional documentation our inspector should be able to visit the approved applicants properties for and inspection and assistance with the necessary work write -up. Amount Funded $121,500 Amount Committed $0.00 Amount Allocated $0.00 Balance Remaining $0.00 p� 1 l c t, tha ii c: i sed Once we have closed on a loan, we will submit a summary of that loan to the City Council; eg. owner, address, # of units, dollars borrowed. Attached is an example of what the summary will entail: Summary Sheet 10/23/00 HRA Loan Number. Loan Amount. Number of Rental Units: Monthly Rent. Improvements: Market Value of the Commercial Rehabilitation Project Recap on the Program Any commercial property owner may apply for the program as long as their property is located in the targeted Small Cities Boundary. Note: this boundary is the small area located in the core downtown area of the bigger Small Cities targeted area. Priority is given to owner occupied structures or where leases are currently in place. Building improvements must be directed toward correcting defects or deficiencies in the property affecting the aesthetics or the property safety, energy consumption, structural /mechanical systems, habitability or handicapped accessibility of the property. Owners are eligible for 50% of the total commercial repair costs, with a maximum loan up to $25,000. The loan is a deferred loan for seven years; which is pro -rated in case of sale. Commerci a 7 Rehab Summary Currently Carver County HRA has received 3 new inquiries; this is in addition to the original 9 in the early marketing of the program. Out of those inquiries five have completed their applications. Two are ready to meet with our rehab specialist and prepare a scope of work. A request for additional documentation had been sent to the other two applicants. Amount Funded $251,250.00 Summary Sheet 10/23/00 Amount Committed $0.00 Amount Allocated $0.00 Balance Remaining $0.00 App? icants that have closed Once we have closed on a loan, we will submit a summary of that loan to the City Council; eg. owner, address, # of units, dollars borrowed. Attached is an example of what the summary will entail: HRA Loan Number. Loan Amount. Gross Income: Improvements: Market Value of the Property. Summary Sheet 10/23/00 MM t' J 4 8 141 1 ,u TO: Mayor and City Council Economic Development Authority FROM: Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Downtown Development Workshop (10- 10 -00) DATE: October 30, 2000 Introduction & Background: On October 10, 2000 there was a workshop regarding downtown development and redevelopment issues. Members of the Vision Shakopee Downtown Partnership suggested the informal, roundtable workshop, which included a small group comprised of downtown merchants / members of Vision Shakopee, representatives from the post office, Mayor Brekke, EDA President Amundson, two members of the City's Economic Development Advisory Committee, and three City staff members. The workshop was originally intended for August, but due to the City Council's very busy meeting schedule, the most opportune time for the workshop was October 10"'. The intent of the workshop was to gather a small, workable group of downtown stakeholders to identify development and redevelopment issues of the Downtown and 1St Avenue Corridor, and to develop goals and strategies based on the identified issues. The Workshop Meeting: The workshop meeting was arranged in two segments, 1.) Background and review of current development, and 2.) Identification of Issues / Goals / Strategies: Background / Current Developments Workshop participants provided background and updates regarding the following developments: • Phase 2 Application to the Livable Communities Demonstration Account of Metropolitan Council • City Facilities (City Hall, Library) • Small Cities Development Program • Facade Loan Program (2 potential projects) • Office Building Expansion • Huber Park Proposal — Vision Shakopee Riverfront Committee • Post Office Expansion Needs • Scott County HRA Development on Bluff Street DTWorkshopGoals10- 10- OO.doc Identification of Issues / Goals / Strategies Based on background and information on current development, the workshop participants developed the following goals: 1. Retain post office retail service center in the downtown area The retail portion of the post office is considered an important economic asset to downtown; it is a major traffic generator and provides market opportunities for the district. Through a retention plan, City staff will work with Vision Shakopee and other downtown stakeholders to encourage the post office to retain its retail service center in the downtown area. The post office retention plan would include assisting the post office in searching for sites; facilitating communication between downtown stakeholders, post office officials, and local, state, and federal elected officials, urging support for retaining the post office in the downtown; engaging non - elected opinion makers; and developing and implementing a media plan. The City will not be committing resources to acquire property for a new downtown post office. 2. Update 1996 Riverf -ont Master Plan, focusing on Huber Park In 1996, the City retained Brauer & Associates to develop a master plan for the development of the riverfront and blocks 3 & 4. The redevelopment of blocks 3 & 4 has been realized but no other elements of the master plan have been implemented or planned for. Based on information provided in the 1996 riverfront master plan, the Vision Shakopee Riverfront Committee and City staff earlier this year identified Huber Park as an opportunity to continue improvements to the riverfront; specifically an outdoor performance venue similar to the facility in Eden Prairie's Staring Park. The committee met with Brauer & Associates to attain an estimate of an update to the 1996 master plan, focusing specifically on the Huber Park area as an outdoor performance venue. Brauer & Associates estimated the update to cost between $5,000 and 10,000. The committee intended to go before the EDA and City Council to recommend that the update of the master plan be done, however, in the last few months the City has been in the process of applying to the Metropolitan Council for a planning grant (Livable Communities Demonstration Account) that potentially could include costs for Huber Park master planning. Therefore, City staff recommended to the committee that it postpone its recommendation until results of the grant application were known. As emphasized at the workshop it currently looks as if Shakopee's Livable Communities grant application, should it be successful, would not include costs for the planning of Huber Park but would focus on the 1 St Avenue corridor and core area of downtown. Mayor Brekke and EDA President Amundson requested that staff present the Huber Park master plan update at the next Council/EDA meeting in which the Livable Communities grant application is discussed. DTWorkshopGoals10 -1 O- OO.doc 3. Work with Vision Shakopee to establish a Special Service District The Vision Shakopee Downtown Partnership has been researching ways to be most effective in comprehensively revitalizing downtown and the 1" Avenue corridor. This includes considering methods by which to fund the organization's activities. One method being used more by downtown organizations across the country is the "business improvement district' ' (in Minnesota, it's called a "special service district "). In general, a special service district (SSD) is an organizing and financing mechanism used by property owners and merchants to determine the future of their retail, commercial and industrial areas. The special service district is based on state law, which permits property owners and merchants to band together to use the city's tax collecting powers to "assess" themselves. These funds are collected by the city and returned in their entirety to the SSD and are used for purchasing supplemental services (e.g. marketing, promotions, special events, maintenance, sanitation, security, business retention and recruitment, etc.) and capital improvements (e.g. street furniture, trees, signage, special lighting, etc.) beyond those services and improvements provided by the city. In essence the program is one of self -help through self - taxation. A special service district is established through petition support from property owners and merchants who will pay the proposed assessments. A special service district can only be established if the following threshold of property owners, individuals and business organizations subject to service charges in the proposed district file a petition requesting a public hearing on the proposed action a. Owners of 25 percent or more of the land area of property, and b. Owners of 25 percent or more of the net tax capacity of property, and c. 25 percent or more of the individual or business organizations Conversely, if 35 percent of property owners, individuals and business organizations subject to the service charges in the proposed district file an objection to the ordinance establishing the district before the effective date, the ordinance does not become effective. In order to become a more effective organization, members of Vision Shakopee are willing to pursue establishing a special service district. At the workshop meeting Mayor Brekke and EDA President Amundson expressed support for establishing a district, and advised staff to work with the Vision Shakopee board in further researching the feasibility of this. Action Requested No action is requested at this time. This is an informational item. DTWorkshopGoals10- 10- OO.doc OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CrrY COUNCIL ADJ. ; AKOPEE, MI'4NESOTA AUGUST 24,2001t, Mayor Brekke called the meeting to-order at 4:30 p.m. with Council members Deb Amundson, Cletus Link, Gary Morke and Bob Sweeney present. Those absent: None. Also present were Mark McNeill, City Administrator, Gregg Voxland, Finance Director, R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director, Paul Snook, Economic Development Director, Bruce Loney, Public Works Director, Mark McQuillan, Natural Resources Director, Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director; Jason Bullard, Accountant and Tracy Coenen, Management Assistant. Also present were Chief Mary Athmann, Shakopee Fire Department and Jerry Marek from the Jacksonville Town Board. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Sweeney /Amundson moved to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney /Amundson moved to remove the Valley Green Grading Permit from the table. Motion carried 4 -1 with Morke dissenting. Bruce Loney approached the podium. Mr. Loney showed the proposed Parcel C of Valley Park 12 Addition in the Valley Green Business Park. Mr. Loney highlighted the trees on the property. He indicated that the developer applied for a permit to bring the property up to grade to the 100 -year flood elevation. Mr. Loney stated the City was currently working on a tree preservation ordinance. He stated that no grading plan had been submitted for the parcel. Mr. Loney stated that if the grading permit were issued, most of the trees would be removed. He indicated that preliminary and final platting had been approved. Gary Morke questioned whether every grading permit has to be approved. Mr_ Loney replied that he was not sure but that permits could be issued with conditions. Deb Amundson questioned whether the grading was for all surfaces of the property or just the building pad. Mr. Loney indicated that the parking lot on the property might be slightly lower. Cletus Link questioned the timeline for the tree preservation ordinance. Mark McQuillan stated that the Planning Commission was meeting the next week and if the proposed draft was acceptable, it would be sent to Council. Ms. Amundson stated that if the developer chooses to clear the trees, it would experience financial ramifications. Mr. Morke questioned whether the comp plan overrides the zoning ordinance. Michael Leek stated that the comp plan is the lead plan and controls over zoning; however, the goals stated in the comp plan can be met in other ways in individual cases. Mayor Brekke stated that the options were to require $20,000 of tree replacement, defer the matter until the tree ordinance was enacted or approve the grading permit with conditions. Mr. Morke indicated another option was to approve the grading permit without conditions. Bob Sweeney questioned whether the City was holding all grading permits until the tree preservation ordinance was enacted. Mr. Loney replied that no other grading permits had been applied for that would specifically relate to this type of problem. Mr. Leek stated that no building permits were on hold pending adoption of the tree preservation ordinance. Gary Morke expressed his concern that the City was singling out one developer. Mr. Link stated that he did not think the City was picking on one developer because he knew of other developers Official Proceedings of the August 24, 2000 Shakopee City Council Page 2 who have been denied requests also. Mark McNeill stated that if there is not sufficient space to replant trees on the property, the developer may plant trees on other property owned by the developer or City property. Mr. McQuillan stated that the existing ordinance only applied to residential property. Mr. Leek indicated that it would be the City's option to choose where trees will be planted. Mr_ Morke pointed out that the proposed ordinance was not in effect yet so discussion was moot. Mr. Link questioned what the value of the trees on the property was and Mr. McNeill replied that it was approximately $10,000. Amundson/Sweeney moved to approve the Valley Green grading permit with the condition of a $20,000 payment for tree preservation and any other condition the Council may direct. Bob Sweeney expressed his concern that progress needed to be made on the budget and a long discussion of the matter would affect the budget planning. Cletus Link stated that this type of matter should not be scheduled for a budget workshop meeting. Gary Morke agreed. Mayor Brekke indicated that discussion of the matter would last until 5:15 p.m. Kathy Gerlach, 4855 Eagle Creek Boulevard, approached the podium. Ms. Gerlach questioned whether all the land was included in the grading permit and if there were no other options. She also questioned if the tree preservation ordinance was passed if there would be other options for the developer. She also questioned if the developer was in a rush because fill was available at a low price or free. Bruce Loney stated that there is a drainage ditch and unless the City obtained additional easements, there would be a ponding issue. Jon Albinson, Valley Green Business Park, approached the podium. Mr. Albinson stated that he sold the property where the fill is being stored three weeks ago and indicated that his costs keep rising. Deb Schmidt, 8450 Eagle Creek Boulevard, approached the property. She stated that she did not believe the City was picking on one developer. She stated the area was special and if the trees are removed, the property will never regain what is there now. She stated that there are sand storms where other property was cleared. Jon Albinson stated that ADC was granted a grading permit where a significant amount of trees were cleared. Heidi Grg 5310 Eagle Creek Boulevard, approached the podium. She stated she was discouraged to see that this matter had been placed back on a budget agenda when many people were not aware of it. She encouraged the Council to put their foot down. Mayor Brekke stated that the property is privately owned. He stated the City would not have the right to tell a citizen that it could not cut down trees on his or her property. He noted the property was platted five years ago as a private development and the only way the City could save the trees was to Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council August 24, 2000 Page 3 acquire the land. He indicated the penalties being imposed on the developer were stiff and there was no tree preservation ordinance at this time. He stated he was concerned about saving trees. Sweeney /Amundson moved to table the matter until September 5, 2000. Motion carried unanimously. Mark McNeill noted the EDA budget would need to be adopted by the EDA as well as the Council_ Paul Snook reviewed the EDA budget. He indicated the budget was pretty much the same. Deb Amundson questioned whether part of the web site development should be in the EDA budget. Mark McNeill indicated that the web site development was primarily a City function but it could be accommodated. Bob Sweeney noted that the amount budgeted for ADC was undetermined and the numbers were approximated by Gregg Voxland based on assumptions. Mr_ Sweeney indicated that the City did not know what the tax capacity rate was going to be or if substantial increases had been made to the property above what was expected. Mary Athmann approached the podium to discuss the Fire Department budget. Bob Sweeney noted that the Fire Department was requesting $1,000,000 in equipment during the next five years. Mn Sweeney indicated the Council would have to keep in mind the five -year equipment list when considering the Fire Department, Police Department and Public Works budgets. Mark McNeill stated the Council should keep in mind that 30% of the revenues for the City will be coming from development fees which will eventually stop. Mr. McNeill stated that Gregg Voxland had checked with other cities and found that Maple Grove allows 15% of its budgeted revenues for development fees and Eagan allows 5 %. Mr. McNeill stated that if the Council wants to use the 15% figure, it would have to cut $1.5 million in spending or find another funding source. Gary Morke questioned whether the City was self-insured and the ramifications of experiencing a substantial lawsuit. Mark McNeill stated that the City had coverage through the Minnesota League of Cities plus there were statutory limits. Bob Sweeney indicated that some types of liabilities are not covered by insurance. Mary Athmann stated the Fire Department drafted a long -range plan for the years 2004 -2012. He stated the plan was based on experience and the number of calls. Chief Athmann did not anticipate purchasing another pumper when a new station was constructed. Chief Athmann noted that aerial equipment and telescopes were included in the budget. Bob Sweeney questioned why other cities did not have the same type of equipment and Chief Athmann replied that they were smaller cities. He noted that Savage is in the process of purchasing such equipment. Bob Sweeney stated he believed Shakopee had the most elaborate equipment and may need to budget out the items over a longer period of time. He indicated that if the City was looking at levy limits, it had the built -in protection of having paid debt service levy out of general levy. He stated that levy limits are never applied to debt service because it would close down bonding limits of cities and counties. Chief Athmann noted an increase in wages and stated calls were up 17 %. Mr. Sweeney questioned whether wages would increase each year and Chief Athmann thought they would. Mayor Brekke noted an increase in rent Official Proceedings of the August 24, 2000 Shakopee City Council Page 4 from $50,000 in 1998 -1999 to $75,000 in 1999 -2000. Mr. Sweeney thought the increase may be due to going from old vehicles to new vehicles. Gregg Voxland stated inflation may also be effecting the rent increase. Jerry Marek noted that the 1999 actual numbers were higher than projected. Mr. Voxland indicated that the townships are charged standby fees and actual number of calls. Mr. Sweeney thought there was not a lot of room to change things in the Fire Department budget. Gary Morke indicated he would like to see forecast amounts to get a long -term look at things. Mark Themig approached the podium to discuss the Recreation Budget. Mr. Themig distributed a memo addressing changes in the department in the last year. He noted there were currently two recreation supervisors at different levels and he proposed to combine those into one single position_ He requested an additional person to supervise the aquatic program to coordinate the school and summer programs and indicated the position would be a near break -even item because the school would provide the pool and operating expenses. Regarding revenues, Mr. Themig suggested increasing ice rental, placing an administrative fee on programs and increasing memberships at the Community Center. He indicated the biggest detractor from memberships is the location and present equipment. Mr. Themig suggested having a fitness room which would cost approximately $50,000 which would consist mainly of equipment but would increase membership. He stated the gymnastic room could be used as a fitness room and the gymnastic room could be moved elsewhere. Gary Morke questioned whether proper staff was available to show how to use the equipment and to encourage its use. Mayor Brekke indicated his concern that the gymnastic room currently had observation windows and the program could be expanded. He also noted that the referendum had failed for a fitness center. He stated he was not in favor of increasing ice rental because the fees were raised last year and was also not in favor of administrative fees on programs because the citizens pay for the programs in their taxes. Bob Sweeney stated he did not believe in charging an administrative fee for programs but agreed in raising ice rental. Mr. Morke agreed with no administrative fee charge and increased ice rental. He noted that it may be more cost effective to have a fitness room for adults rather than gymnastics. Cletus Link questioned whether there was a lot of interest in a fitness room and Mr. Themig replied that there had been inquiries. Mayor Brekke questioned whether the observation windows in the current gymnastics room could be moved and Mr. Themig stated he could look into that possibility. Deb Amundson stated that she did not want to see an administrative fee added to programs and she was receptive to a fitness room. Mr. Link stated that the Community Center needs improvements and he would support ideas to do the same. Regarding expenditures, Mr. Themig noted some of the proposed expenses were computer improvements, landscaping to assist maintenance, rain gutters for water problems in the locker rooms, compressors and a security system. Mr. Sweeney suggested budgeting for the replacement of compressors instead of using the contingency fund. Ms. Amundson suggested including funds for moving of the observation windows. Mayor Brekke voiced his concern about moving the gymnastics room. Mr. Sweeney indicated the Council needed to prioritize. Bob Sweeney stated that he asked Gregg Voxland to revisit rent on the government buildings and indicated the City may want to put in a levy amount for the building fund, however, that is a policy issue. Official Proceedings of the August 24, 2000 Shakopee City Council Page 5 Mayor Brekke questioned the van needed for Recreation Department. Bob Sweeney questioned whether the maintenance department could transport items needed for programs. Mayor Brekke stated that the people chairing the programs need to transport the equipment. Mark Themig indicated that a pick-up truck would be an alternative. Mr. Sweeney stated that a light rescue surplus vehicle was available. Cletus Link indicated that a different license may be needed to drive the vehicle. Mayor Brekke stated that there was a need for a vehicle for the Recreation Department and Mr. Themig should check into the possibilities. Mr. Link suggested purchasing a good used vehicle. Gregg Voxland stated that state contract prices are better for new vehicles. Bruce Loney discussed the Engineering budget. He indicated that the budget was pretty much the same as last year except that a new position was added. He indicated that technical people were in high demand and the pay plan should be reviewed. Bob Sweeney stated that if one pay plan is reviewed, other pay plans would also have to be reviewed. Regarding the Street budget, Mr. Loney stated another employee would be added. He indicated space was a problem and the building maintenance was moved to the shop. Mr. Loney indicated that there was an error on page 77 and the $70,000 amount should be $30,000 thereby changing the $150,000 amount to $110,000. Mr. Loney stated that he was working on trying to obtain more available funds. Regarding striping, Bob Sweeney questioned whether the county should pay for striping. Mr. Loney replied that it would not. Mr. Sweeney requested staff to draft a memo to the county requesting that the county and city share costs. Deb Amundson noted the recent winters had been mild and if a normal winter was ahead, would the department have enough employees. Mr. Loney replied that there are seasonal employees and the equipment is good_ Mr. Sweeney questioned if there were any issues with private streets. He indicated there needed to be a contract in place to have private streets plowed. Mark McNeill stated the City would have to contact those developments with private streets to ensure that a contract was in place. Mayor Brekke indicated doing so could take a considerable amount of time. Cletus Link stated there could be a medical emergency or fire on a private street and that the street needed to be cleared to get emergency personnel in and out. Mr. Sweeney stated that if there is no contract in the development, it should be advised that the development needs to contact a contractor or contract with the City to plow the street. Mr. Loney questioned whether the City had the legal right to make such a requirement. Mr. Sweeney stated he would be willing to enact such an ordinance_ Mr. McNeill stated he would check into the current ordinance to see what is required. Regarding the Public Works building, Bob Sweeney recommended changing the wording on what the building fund will pay for, i.e. a major repair meaning that if a building cannot be used, it would be considered a major repair. Gregg Voxland suggested looking at the basis for depreciating the older buildings to tie them to the current market. Deb Amundson questioned if the goal of the building fund was for replacement of buildings, how an amount could be built into the fund for significant repairs. Mr. Sweeney stated that the line items being put into the levy may have to be revisited. Regarding the Parks budget, Bruce Loney indicated the budget was significantly higher. He stated there were only four maintenance workers budgeted and there was increased work in keeping up the parks and equipment. He also noted that building maintenance increased. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council August 24, 2000 Page 6 Mark McNeill questioned whether three hours would be sufficient for discussion of the tree preservation ordinance at the upcoming meeting. Bob Sweeney indicated that it would. He stated that the City can levy the maximum amount and reduce at a later date. Mr. McNeill stated that he needed to let the county know by September 19 if the City was ready to proceed with a library referendum. It was the consensus of the Council that it was not ready at this time, however, it continued to look into sites. Sweeney /Amundson moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, (, j . 6 dith S. Cox City Clerk Janet Vogel Freeman Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MMNMSOTA AUGUST 29,20011, Mayor Brekke called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. with Councilmembers Deb Amundson, Cletus Link, Crary Morke and Bob Sweeney present. Also present were Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director; Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director; Jason Bullard, Assistant Finance Director, Judith S. Cox, City Clerk and Tracy Coenen, Management Assistant. Also present was Jeff Kaley, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Gary Morke questioned what items are appropriate for a work session as opposed to regular meetings. Bob Sweeney stated that typically the items included on work session agendas are harmless additions to the agenda and substantial discussions and/or controversial items do not belong in a work session unless the need is there. The request of Embajadora Latina for a temporary liquor license was deleted from the agenda because the application was withdrawn. Sweeney/Link moved to approve the agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Morke moved to authorize staff to have appraisals done to establish a fair market value for the available Block 32 parcels and available Gorman Street parcels and submit those amounts to the respective owners. Motion carried unanimously. Mark McNeill reviewed the Mayor & Council Budget. He noted that the budget was increased slightly regarding the mayor and council salaries. In addition, $900 was added for an appreciation picnic_ Regarding the Administration budget, Mark McNeill noted an increase in the salaries because the payroll/benefits coordinator and natural resource director are now in administration. Also included were funds for a salary plan study and increased training. A request had been received for $10,000 for fireworks for Derby Days which was not included in the budget. Mayor Brekke stated that it would not be appropriate to have public dollars funding this event. Bob Sweeney stated that the City already provided subsidies in the way of public works and police support. Gary Morke stated that the event is mainly limited to the downtown area. Regarding the Legal budget, Mark McNeill noted that Tim Thomson, City Attorney advised Mr. McNeill that the civil rates would be increased by $5 per hour. Mayor Brekke noted that criminal prosecution was increasingly expensive and maybe the City should look into getting its own attorney. Mr. McNeill stated that the cost would probably not be justified since the court system operates four courtrooms at one time and all courtrooms need to be covered. Mr. McNeill stated that the City has requested having one judge hear all matters, but no progress had been made as of yet. Bob Sweeney stated that there was no supervision of judges to ensure adequate fairness between all counties. Mr. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council August 29, 2000 Page 2 McNeill also noted the lack of collection coordination and such a position would be helpful. Regarding the Finance budget, Gregg Voxland stated that it was basically the same as last year's except that there was an increase from part-time to full-time regarding the accounting clerk. Bob Sweeney questioned whether the Finance Department was adequately staffed. Gary Morke suggested budgeting as needed and noted the option of not having to fill all positions budgeted. Mayor Brekke stated the Council needed to be careful not to impact the levy. Mark McNeill stated that the management assistant was drafting an RFP regarding garbage and recycling. He stated that Waste Management currently takes care of this, however, having the City or someone else taking over may be more cost effective. Mark McNeill reviewed the Government Buildings budget. He stated that he would like to renew the lease at the Sr. High Rise congregate dining room for a five -year term. Mr. McNeill indicated that the dining room is used for serving meals to residents on Levee Drive or those who can get there. Regarding the ADA requirements, Bob Sweeney questioned whether there are different standards for government buildings as opposed to private buildings. Regarding the Unallocated budget, Mark McNeill noted that there was a concern that the health/life insurance could significantly increase. Bob Sweeney suggested joining with other cities or counties to try and obtain a better premium. Mr_ McNeill stated there was a clause in the current insurance contract about seeking quotes from other insurers and the possibility of having the current insurance terminated if that is done. Bob Sweeney stated that $125,000 should be specifically levied for the building fund. Regarding the new positions, it was noted that two new police officers were included in the budget and three more would be hired depending on the grant funds available. Regarding Budget Development Fees, Gregg Voxland noted that 30% of revenues were previously anticipated to come from development fees. Mr. Voxland noted that final revenue and expenditure projections have been made and the current amount is approximately 24 %. If a problem was encountered, Mr. Voxland stated that debt service levy could be canceled. A table showing different tax rates was distributed. Bob Sweeney stated that he did not think the City could continue the same level of dependence on development fees. He noted that if the City restricts reliance on those fees, it will be in a better position. He indicated a desire to move general levy funds and surplus to building funds. Deb Amundson expressed her concern that the building fund was earmarked for specific projects and there needs to be a provision for emergencies. Mayor Brekke suggested prioritizing the projects. He also questioned whether the City wanted to fund the library from the building fund. Mr. Sweeney indicated his approval. Gary Morke stated that he was not as comfortable with that idea and thought other projects would be more of a priority. He noted that a referendum would decide if the citizens want a library. Mayor Brekke suggested revisiting the subject. Bob Sweeney suggested final discussions at a work session on September 6, 2000 and certification. Official Proceedings of the August 29, 2000 Shakopee City Council Page 3 Mayor Brekke indicated that the remodeling at City Hall could be reduced to $6,000. Jon Albinson, Valley Green Business Park, approached the podium. Mr. Albinson questioned whether any excess dollars generally go to the building fund. Bob Sweeney stated that excess dollars usually do but not necessarily. Mr. Albinson suggested that if there are excess dollars available, the City would not have to squeeze so hard. Mayor Brekke stated that the Council was open to listen to staff. Gregg Voxland stated that the EDA and transit levy also needed to be addressed. Sweeney /Amundson moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, I / IT, S. C OX City Clerk Janet Vogel Freeman Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY Ct f 1AEGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 5,20)LI The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with Council members Morke, Link, Amundson, Sweeney and Mayor Brekke present. Also present: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Jim Thomson, City Attorney; Mark McQuillan, Natural Resources Director; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Tracy Coenen, Management Assistant; and Dan Hughes, Police Chief. The pledge of allegiance was recited. The following item was added to the agenda. 15.D.5 Surplus property disposal for the Police Department; 151. 6. Exemption for Lawful Gambling License for Big Dreams, and 15.E.4. Hiring of another Tech. H for the Engineering Department. Link/Amundson moved to approve the agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. The Mayor reported this evening that the agenda was very full and there was a full audience. Most of the audience was here for the proposed franchise fee ordinance_ He hoped for a full and productive discussion on the franchise fee ordinance. The following items were added to the Consent Agenda. 15.D.5 Surplus property disposal for the Police Department; 15.E.4. Hiring of another Tech. H for the Engineering Department, and15.F. 6. Exemption of Lawful Gambling License for Big Dreams. Sweeney/Morke moved to approve the Consent Agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke asked if there were any citizens present in the audience who wished to address any item not on the agenda. There was no response. Sweeney /Amundson moved to approve the meeting minutes for July 5, 2000. Motion carried unanimously. Link/Sweeney moved to approve the bills in the amount of $694,365.88. In this amount were various refunds, returns, and pass throughs in the amount of $162,156.94. The actual net expense amount is $532,208.94. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Mayor Brekke stated how he wanted to proceed with the information meeting of the franchise fee ordinance this evening. First there would be a presentation from Jim Stoommen, attorney from Kennedy and Gravin, working with the City on the issues surrounding the franchise fee ordinance. There will be questions from the Council directed to Mr. Stommen. Following these questions to Mr. Stommen and any of the representatives he has, there will be public input taken from the audience. Official Proceedings of the September 5, 2000 Shakopee City Council Page 2 Mr. Strommen, attorney with Kennedy and Gravin, approached the podium and gave a presentation to the Council. He had been asked to advise the Council on gas and electric utilities franchise matters. The Council has the authority to propose a franchise ordinance for the purpose of reallocating utilities fees. Right now these utilities fees are only paid by Shakopee Public Utilities (SPUC) in the form of a contribution. A franchise is a special privilege granted by a city to a public utility to serve and use public right -of -way to serve the citizens. The City of Shakopee is served by four utilities. Three are electric utilities and the fourth utility is one public utility serving gas. Only electric utilities are assigned service territories under state law. The City has different franchise authority over each utility. Xcel Energy (NSP) and Reliant Energy Minnegasco are investor owned utilities and the City has direct franchise authority including franchise fee authority over these utilities. However, the rates and services of Xcel and Reliant are regulated by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative is a cooperative and their rates and services are regulated by the members. The City does have franchise authority over Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative (MVEC) and they are charged a fee. SPUC is a municipal utility whose rates and services are regulated by a three - person commission appointed by the Council. There is no franchise authority between the City and its municipal utility. The municipal utility is subject to the right -of -way ordinance. Currently Xcel and MVEC are operating in the City without a franchise. Reliant has a franchise at this time, but the franchise expires in 2005. Reliant has agreed to enter into negotiations for a new franchise. SPUC is not required to have a franchise in the City of Shakopee. The franchise fees are for the privilege of using the right -of -way and servicing customers. Only SPUC is paying for the use of the right -of -way at this time in the form of a contribution to the City. They are paying a percentage of gross revenue. This contribution goes into the general fund to help pay for City services across the entire City. Earlier this year Council directed staff to pursue the franchise authority and to look at reallocating SPUC's contribution equally among all utilities. The City retained a rate consultant, Dahlen Berg, to examine options for rate implementation. In attendance at the meeting to answer any questions regarding rates is Mr. Allen Barsch. There was an analysis done to determine the equal percentage of SPU contributions distributed equally among all four utilities. In July a letter was sent to representatives of all four utilities. MVEC has returned a letter with minor comments; Reliant/Minnegasco has reviewed this letter but has asked for more time to comment. Reliant/Minnegasco are concerned about the issue of Bypass. NSP has objected to many terms in the franchise as well as objecting to the fee. NSP pointed out they pay taxes and SPUC does not. Rahr Malting objects to its increase in expenses that would result from a franchise fee. The issue of deregulation is relevant and will be taken up in the legislature in 2001. There is no recommendation this evening, this only an informational meeting to hear views. The franchise fee and franchise document are separable. One can be acted upon without the other. The right -of -way ordinance is a freestanding ordinance that is applicable to all utilities operating in the City. Mayor Brekke stated that he had not been involved with this issue prior to this evening based on advise from the City Attorney because of his job relationship with one of the utilities. After further analysis of the legal issues there is no financial conflict of interest and, therefore, he has the duty to participate in this process. Official Proceedings of the September 5, 2000 Shakopee City Council Page 3 Mayor Brekke said what we are dealing here with tonight is a historical contribution from SPUC (our City owned public utility) of $875,000 to the City's General fund. Where are these dollars going to come from: budget cuts, still come from contributions from SPUC, a franchise fee or from the general levy in the form of taxes. We need to deal with some policy decisions of where this money will come from in a fair and equitable way to generate or not generate these funds. The Council was now asked to direct questions to Mr. Strommen. Cncl. Amundson had a question for Mr. Strommen on the $875,000 contribution by SPUC. How is this number arrived at each year? Mr. Sweeney replied this figure is 23.77 % of gross Margin_ Gross margin is revenue minus the cost of purchased electricity. Mr. Strommen added the $875,000 figure is based on a projection at this time. This formula as varied at times but SPUC has always made a contribution to the City general fund. Cncl. Morke wanted to know the reason this change is proposed now. Many years ago there was an attempt to get into a franchise agreement by the City of Shakopee with NSP and that franchise fee met with strong opposition by NSP and by the large industries which continue to purchase power from NSP not SPUC. The currently proposed franchise fee is an attempt to equal out the monies for services between the utilities. The $875,000 comes from all classes of customers, residential, commercial, industrial, etc. Mayor Brekke would like this figure broken down into which customers use what amount so the Council could use that information, when they make a decision on the franchise fee issue. Public Utilities can provide this information. Cncl. Link asked if Western Gas was a utility in the City of Shakopee. Mr. Strommen said it appears Western Gas is not a distribution Company operating in the City of Shakopee_ There are contractors for Rahr Malting. Won't this be passed on to the customer? According to Mr. Sweeney, right now it is the residential customers who are primarily paying this 23.77 %. According to Mayor Brekke, SPUC is purchasing their power from Great River Energies. He clarified Great River Energies is a cooperative owned by 29 electric cooperatives and MVEC is one of the owners. This franchise fee would have a positive impact on SPUC's rates and a commitment from SPUC needs to be made that they will adjust their rates to the residents before a decision is made. This is a question of distribution. Mayor Brekke stated this is a public information meeting and the audience was now given a turn to express their comments and ask questions. Rogers Behrens, attorney with Faegre and Benson, representing Rahr Malting and speaking for many other customers of electric companies and other businesses, approached the podium and addressed the Council on the utility franchise fee. The Council is proposing to add a fee when the government is already concerned about the burden of the high cost of natural gas and is repealing Official Proceedings of the September 5, 2000 Shakopee City Council Page 4 some of their taxes. Energy costs are going up. The 2.71 % increase created by the franchise fee on natural gas and electricity could severely impact Shakopee business. This fee could stagnate the growth of business in Shakopee; then taxes would be affected. 50% of this fee would be paid by six businesses in Shakopee. Another argument used by the utility companies is that they pay taxes and this additional fee would be unfair to them because SPUC pays no taxes. Cncl. Morke said Excel Energy is asking the legislature to give them a tax -free status. Cncl. Sweeney questioned Mr. Behrens on a couple of the numbers. Pat Klein, manager of community government relations for Excel Energy in this area, approached the podium. Excel Energy has submitted a letter to Mark McNeill stating their position on the franchise fee. According to Pat Klein, the City has the right to impose the fee. He did hope there would be another way to impose the franchise fee rather than impose it on the gross earnings. Excel energy did make available to Mark McNeill the breakdown of numbers by revenue class. If the 2.71% franchise fee is imposed Excel Energy could very well be put in a non - competitive state when the electric utilities are deregulated. Excel has a very small service area in Shakopee. He would like the City to get together with the large utilities and discuss this issue. Excel Energy is willing to negotiate. Mayor Brekke questioned Mr. Klein on Excel's peaking plant that is located in Shakopee. This probably is the largest percentage in the cost of their taxes. Mayor Brekke also wanted to know the geographic area that this peaking plant services. Russ Bartol, General Manager of Anchor Glass, approached the podium and said Anchor Glass was not in favor of the franchise fee. He felt this franchise fee was unfair and inequitable. He wanted to know what the money generated from the franchise fee was going to be used for. Mayor Brekke addressed Mr. Bartol's question as to want the money in the general fund generated by the franchise fee would be used for. This would be used for general governmental purposes i_e. police officers, firemen, snow plowing, etc. This is just a replacement for all the money that SPUC is contributing. Ron 7abbs, community relation's specialist for Minnesota Valley Electric Coop (MVEC) brought along Tom Graham, Chair of the Public Relations and Legislative Committee for MVEC Board of Directors, and approached the podium to address the Council. MVEC met with staff in regards to the franchise fee and the ordinance; they want to work with the City on the finer details of the franchise fee and ordinance. Tom Graham, MVEC board member read the resolution the MVEC board developed because this presented their position on the franchise fee. Copies were distributed to all council members. This franchise fee can be a win -win situation for all_ They want everyone to have a fair opportunity. Mr. Michaletti, Representative of Rahr Malting Company, approached the podium and addressed the Council on Rahr Malting Company's opposition to the franchise fee. He submitted a letter from the union representing Rah Malting that stated the union's opposition to the franchise fee. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council This is not fair and not equitable. September 5, 2000 Page 5 Larry Farrell, 2093 Austin Circle and union president local 129 representing Anchor Glass, approached the podium and addressed the Council. He felt this franchise fee would come back to the residents. Anchor Glass needs to be competitive. Connie Hargest, Reliant Energy, approached the podium to reiterate a few points of Pat Klein from Excel Energy. The franchise fee would be an additional cost to the customers as well as the increase in natural gas. She felt this was a regressive tax. This franchise fee will impact their customers significantly. However, Reliant Energy will support the Council if they decide to implement a franchise fee in some way. Lou Van Hout, Utility Manager of Shakopee Utilities, was not aware of many of the details of the franchise fee. Some issues have merit and need to be addressed. We do not have a generating plant here. We buy our power from Great River Energy. SPUC's property taxes are in our rates. We are paying our fair share. He would like to compare SPUC's equipment with NSP's equipment piece by piece. Lou Van Hout felt this was a relevant comparison to make. He felt the franchise fee had been negotiated already. Pat Klein had a concern about SPUC making improvements and increasing their growth at the expense of the other utility companies. He was uncertain about Mr. Van Hout's comment regarding NSP's property taxes being included in NSP rates. They would be adamantly opposed to a franchise fee if it were intended to make improvements to SPUC. Mayor Brekke wanted the services performed by the City (police, fire, public works) spread as equitably among the users of these City services as possible. He is concerned about the balance between the pay for the services and the services used. The franchise fee proposal needs work. He wanted this issue put on the table. Cncl. Sweeney felt perhaps when the written comments were received regarding the franchise fee, then that would be a good time to discuss, look at options and collect the information that Mayor Brekke indicated would be important to collect. He was not sure that you could equate the number of dollars in taxes paid by the utilities to the contribution of SPUC. He felt this evening was not a good time to try and figure out how to equate the franchise fee. Cncl. Sweeney wanted to direct staff to look into the information requested and then come back for discussion when that information is available. Mayor Brekke felt more options on the table were needed. Perhaps a ceiling on the franchise fee percentage. Cncl_ Amundson said in the present form she could not support this franchise fee. She felt the City was raising money at the expense of a few utilities. She did have a few questions and she did not like the percentage of gross revenue being the way of calculating the fee. She could support this if we were moving toward deregulation. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council September 5, 2000 Page 6 Cncl. Morke said he would see an increase in his utility bill with this franchise fee. We need to see what is going to happen here. This does not need to be determined this evening. He was not comfortable why this change needed to take place at all. Cncl. Link wanted the City to watch what they did to the large electric users in the City. Mayor Brekke wanted the cultural, historical and social value of a business in the community examined also. Mayor Brekke stated that the Shakopee Public Utilities is a separate entity from the City. They are owned by the City but are run and managed by a three- member board of commissioners that are appointed by the City Council to a three -year term. Cncl. Sweeney pointed out that many City's have municipal utilities, however most of those utilities are run by the City Council. Mr. Strommen commended the City on all of the work they had done towards this franchise fee issue. This franchise fee is not a way for the City to make money; it is a re- allocation of the money SPUC has been contributing for some time. Mr. Farrell, Anchor Glass, directed a question to Cncl. Sweeney. He was concerned about the number of people working for certain companies. Rick Reick, 1015 Jackson Street, employed by Rahr, approached the podium and addressed the Council. He wanted the Council to watch the tax base of commercial and industrial users. Just make sure what you do is fair to all. Mayor Brekke said the City needed to certify their maximum levy to the County Auditor by September 15 th . This $875,000 figure is part of that picture_ SPUC has been relied upon for this figure for a number of years. We will go ahead with the budget and assume no change for the 2001 budget_ Perhaps there will be an implementation of a franchise fee in time for the 2002 budget. Cncl. Sweeney stated the City could request from SPUC a contribution of $875,000 or City services totaling $875,000 can be cut from the budget. Mayor Brekke wanted everyone to understand that $875,000 is anticipated in the budget and if it is not coming in, then the City needs to make some cuts. Cncl. Morke was unclear. Is this $875,000 going away after all this time. He was informed by Cncl. Sweeney that SPUC informed him that they would pay a maximum of $725,000 of electric revenues plus for water revenues. Mayor Brekke stated that the Council needed to follow this meeting up with communications with SPUC as to their expectations of a contribution to the City in terms of the budget. Their Official Proceedings of the September 5, 2000 Shakopee City Council Page 7 expectations of a contribution will affect the rate changes that they make. By next year, perhaps we will have a more fair franchise fee proposal. The long -term decision of the franchise fee needs to be fair to all. Staff will evaluate the options and ideas available to see how equitability can be achieved. Mayor Brekke thanked the audience for a respectful exchange of information this evening. A recess was taken at 9:15 p.m. The meeting was re- convened at 9:25 p.m. Michael Leek, Community Development director, approached the podium and reported to the Council on the Preliminary Plat of Pheasant Run 6 addition, located north of Valley View Road, east of CSAH 17, and south of 17th Avenue. This preliminary plat includes 10 acres that have been reserved or the community park on the north side. This plat includes six acres for park dedication requirements. The engineering department recommended that Teal Street be connected east to west. In the originally submitted plat this street was not connected. With this street connection, two lots north of the connection will be acquired for purposes of a neighborhood park. The recommendation of the Planning Commission was to make this street connection. If the street connection were made then land for a neighborhood park would need to be acquired by purchase from the developer. The proposed plat is approximately 160 single - family residential lots. These single - family homes would be similar in character to what is now in the present Pheasant Run Additions. There are some modifications to the preliminary plat of Pheasant Run 6 Addition; there will be sidewalks and sidewalk connections, trails and a neighborhood park along with a community park_ There are three additional conditions attached to the preliminary plat of Pheasant Run 6th Addition from the Planning Commission. These additional conditions are: that outlot B be deeded to the adjacent property owner to the east. The Planning Commission requested that the language be inserted pertaining to SPUC of the water supply when this development comes on line. Thirdly, the Planning Commission recommended that Teal Street be connected. The Planning Commission reviewed the plat at their August 17 meeting. After a public hearing on the preliminary plat, they recommended approval after the three additional conditions were added. Michael Leek wanted to draw the Council's attention to one other condition regarding the drainage to the west to the MnDOT drainage ponds. This storm water drainage requires MnDOT approval and this approval has not been received at this time. If MnDOT does not give their approval on this storm water drainage, then modifications would need to be made to facilitate the storm water drainage to the east. Cncl. Sweeney wanted to know why we needed a discussion with MnDOT on storm water drainage in to the linear pond, which the City has paid $1,200,000 for. Bruce Loney responded to this question. He stated this was one of the conditions that the City agreed to when we signed the agreement with MnDOT for the linear pond construction. Cncl. Morke inquired why the Planning Commission recommended the Teal Street connection. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council September 5, 2000 Page 8 Michael Leek responded to this question. The Planning Commission saw the need for another interconnecting street in this development. Mayor Brekke inquired why the City would need to purchase this new neighborhood park area. Teal Street is a City street that was being talked about. Michael Leek responded that he would ask that these two lots be dedicated. It was actually just a shifting of where this neighborhood park would be located. Cncl. Link asked if this land for the neighborhood park was over the requirement of the park dedication of the developer. Michael Leek responded to this question. Yes, this would be beyond what the developer needed to dedicate according to the ordinance. Cncl. Amundson asked if there would be sidewalks. Michael Leek addressed this question and stated yes, there would be some sidewalks and a sidewalk connection to the community park. Mayor Brekke addressed the lack of parks and sidewalks in the Pheasant Run development. Mayor Brekke felt a development, the size of Pheasant Run, needed to broken up with some parkland even if the City needed to invest in some of the parkland. According to Cncl. Morke the connection of Teal Street was not needed_ Michael Leek stated that the planning department has received many calls from the Pheasant Run Additions 1 thru 5 that the community park planned in Pheasant Run 6"' addition which includes a soccer complex is just too far for their small children to get to. Jim Thompson, City Attorney, stated that he thought the Planning Commission was requiring the Teal Street connection because the Planning Commission thought City Code may require a connection because of the length of Teal Street. If it is required by code, then the block line cannot be over 1300 feet without a street connection. This street without a connection does not provide a good local -to -local traffic circulation. These are two reasons the engineering department recommended this street connection. Joel Cooper, representative for Pheasant Run, approached the podium and spoke to the connection at Teal Street. The Pheasant Run developers had a different interpretation of the ordinance than what Mr. Loney described. The developers felt they meet the requirements with their T intersections. It was designed this way because they did not want to create an opportunity for people to cut through this neighborhood. It was their intent to encourage people out to Thrush Street and Valley View Road. The developer is in agreement with the conditions that the Planning Commissions placed on the preliminary plat, except he is reluctant on the Teal Street connection. If the City Council requests this condition, then the developer would go along with it_ Cncl. Amundson felt the residents in the neighboring addition would greatly appreciate the Teal Street connection. Official Proceedings of the September 5, 2000 Shakopee City Council Page 9 Cncl. Morke agreed with Mr. Cooper. He really did not see the need for the street connection for Teal Street. Mayor Brekke asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on this matter. There was no response. Morke/Link offered Resolution No. 5406, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota Approving the Preliminary Plat of Pheasant Run 6 Addition, and moved it adoption. Morke/Link moved to amend the Resolution by removing the condition that Teal Street be made a through street. Mayor Brekke asked for discussion on this motion to amend. Mayor Brekke had a concern on the traffic flow without this connection. Motion carried 4 -1 with Mayor Brekke dissenting. Mayor Brekke said in the future we need to look at the City's sidewalk policy. He was in support of the plat as it stands. Mayor Brekke asked for a follow up motion to direct staff to look at the City's sidewalk policy. Res. No. 5406 as amended carried unanimously. Cncl. Sweeney did not want a sidewalk required for every street. Cncl. Morke supported Cncl. Sweeney. Mr. Loney said the property owner on a local street is responsible for the upkeep of the sidewalk. However, the City receives many liability claims for people tripping, etc. on the sidewalks. There was discussion by the Council on the sidewalk issue. Staff will look at sidewalks on long streets. Joel Cooper approached the podium and asked that Pheasant Run 6` be exempted from the proposed suspension of all grading permits until the adoption of the tree ordinance. This is an item later in the agenda. There are no trees in this addition. Mayor Brekke replied, after the vote on the suspension of the grading permits then this request will be considered if need be. Link/Amundson offered Ordinance No 577, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending The Zoning Map Adopted in City Code Sec. 11.03 By Rezoning Land Generally Located South of Highway 169 And West of 17` Avenue Extended From Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Planned Residential District (PRD), and moved its adoption. Michael Leek pointed out that the proposal is for a site proposed to be zone for Planned Official Proceedings of the September 5, 2000 Shakopee City Council Page 10 Residential. This is consistent with the proposed land use plan in the proposed Comprehensive Plan before the Met Council, as opposed to the formally adopted Comprehensive Plan. This Planned Residential grew out of the moratorium in 1999. In the concept plan submitted by the applicant to the Planning Commission, there was much input from the Planning Commission. This is also one of the areas the City did submit an application to the Metropolitan Council for Smart Growth. Mayor Brekke said the issue tonight was for a rezoning and not a lot of time would be devoted to a concept review. Cncl. Amundson encouraged the applicant to use some creativity in his concept plan to use this development as the Council intended it to be used. Bill Hann, of Town and Country Homes, was at the meeting to answer any questions the Council had. He would like to work with City Staff on the concept plan. The PRD Ordinance is new to developers as well as staff. Cncl. Sweeney said this would constitute a change in the approval process if the Council were to start approving concept plans rather than preliminary plats. Cncl. Morke felt the concept plan review should stay with the Planning Commission. Mayor Brekke asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to address this matter. There was no response. Motion carried unanimously. Mark McQuillan addressed the matter of suspending of all grading permits until the adoption of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Tuesday August 29, 2000 the Planning Commission recommended on a 4 -2 vote to suspend all grading permits until the Tree Preservation Ordinance was adopted or reviewed by the City Council. There are a few policy issues that need to be addressed in the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Mayor Brekke asked if, in the new ordinance, there was a statement in there that would cover harvesting trees on private property in a residential area. Mark McQuillan did believe there was a statement in the new ordinance to cover that problem of harvesting trees. Cncl. Morke asked the intent of the Planning Commission requesting the suspension of all grading permits. Mark McQuillan said the Planning Commission is concerned that by the time they review the final draft and when the final draft gets to the City Council for adoption of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, there may be grading permits out there that will remove trees. Mayor Brekke asked if any one in the audience would like to address the suspension of all grading permits. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council September 5, 2000 Page 11 Joel Cooper, Jim Miller Associates, approached the podium to address the Council on the suspension of a grading permit for Pheasant Run. There are no trees on this parcel and, therefore, no trees to be protected. He asked that the suspension not include all grading permits. Cncl. Amundson said from this Tree Ordinance a more extensive landscaping ordinance may come about. Michael Leek said the grading permits were not related to the landscaping requirements. The landscaping requirements apply when the plat is approved. With this preliminary approval of Pheasant Run 6 ffi Addition, there is in fact approval of this plat. Jim Thomson said that in fact, once preliminary plat approval is received, the ordinances and requirements that are in effect at the time of the preliminary plat approval govern the approved plat unless there is a condition added. Shawn Dahl, representing Pheasant Run, spoke to Cncl. Amundson's concerns about the existing Pheasant Run development as well as the future phases and what their internal landscaping requirements are. Mayor Brekke asked Mr. Dahl to save these comments until the final plat approval. The Mayor really wanted to stay on track and this did not relate to the grading permits. Melanie Smith, 5250 Eagle Creek Boulevard, approached the podium. She wanted the grading document to read that before a permit is issued someone from the City will check the site to what trees are on the site. Dave Czaja, 5262 Eagle Creek Boulevard, said this was a Tree Ordinance not a Reforestation Ordinance. He wanted this grading permit or ordinance to be retroactive and somehow tie it to what is going to be coming up. He believes there will be some clear - cutting soon. Heidi Groff, 5310 Eagle Creek Boulevard, would like to see all grading permits suspended until the Tree Preservation Ordinance is adopted. Kathy Gerlock, Eagle Creek Boulevard, concurred with Melanie Smith. She wanted the grading suspension tied to significant woodland or something that would trigger the tree ordinance to go into effect. Steve Soltau, Shakopee Crossings, expressed to the Council that the Council has control in place right now. He is looking for consistency in application. Cncl. Morke said time is really getting to be a problem for this issue of a Tree Preservation Ordinance. Cncl. Amundson shared the same concerns as Cncl. Morke. Cncl. Sweeney felt the trees would go away with or without the Tree Ordinance. The developer would do whatever the Tree Ordinance told him he had to do. Official Proceedings of the September 5, 2000 Shakopee City Council Page 12 Mayor Brekke felt a solution for tonight was for the developer currently requesting a grading permit to say he would meet the requirements of the Tree Ordinance when the Tree Ordinance is adopted. Cncl. Sweeney said the issue tonight does not allow for exceptions; it says to suspend ALL grading permits until adoption of the Tree Preservation Ordinance Mayor Brekke asked for a motion from the Council. Morke/Link moved to suspend all grading permits until the Council decided if it wishes or does not wish to adopt a Tree Preservation Ordinance. Mayor Brekke thought this was a very severe action to suspend all grading permits. The City of Shakopee just went through a 9 -month moratorium. Mayor Brekke asked if there was further discussion on the motion to suspend_ There was no more. Motion failed 4 —1 with Cncls. Sweeney, Morke, Amundson and Mayor Brekke voting in the negative and Cncl. Link voting in the affirmative. Sweeney/Morke offered Ordinance No. 579, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Repealing City Code Section 4.20 Sewage Treatment System, and moved it adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No. 5405, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving A Conditional Use Permit To Allow Vehicle Sales, and moved its adoption. (S 142 of Block 2, East Shakopee) (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda_) Bruce Loney approached the podium and addressed the grading permit application for part of Lot 3, Block 2, Valley Park 12' addition. Sweeney/Morke moved to remove the grading permit for Valley Park 12' Addition from the table. Motion carried unanimously. Bruce Loney explained Valley Park 12 Addition is next to a grading pond and needs to be three feet above that; there is a limited drainage easement as well. If whoever develops the property does not raise it, then possibly we could be flooding that property without an easement. There are two reasons why this property needs to be filled: 1) It needs to be brought up to 751 and 2) there is no drainage easement on this property. Unfortunately, the only way to fill this land is to remove the trees that are on the site now. One reason this was brought back to the Council, is when this plat was approved there really was no grading plan with the plat. It was intended to be developed area by area. Mr. Jon Albinson has stated that he really needs to grade the property to make it saleable. Official Proceedings of the September 5, 2000 Shakopee City Council Page 13 Cncl. Morke asked what the effect on the adjacent property would be if Valley Park 12 Addition is graded. Bruce Loney said a drainage condition could be added and that would make sure that the other property would not be affected by any drainage. Cncl. Sweeney asked Mr. Albinson if he would agree to the terms of the tree ordinance, when it was adopted. if he graded this property now. Mr. Albinson agreed. Sweeney /Amundson moved to approve the grading permit as proposed for part of Lot 3, Block 2, Valley Park 12 Addition. - Dave Czaja, 5362 Eagle Creek Boulevard, questioned the outflow on Hwy 101, which has small culverts. Bruce Loney addressed the drainage near Hwy. 101. The City has done many studies on this area. Jim Thomson requested there be some time limitation on Mr. Albinson grading permit and the condition added that Mr_ Albinson fully intends to comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance when the City adopts it. Sweeney /Amundson moved to amend the grading permit to include the language that the applicant will fully comply with any final Tree Preservation Ordinance adopted by the City within the next six months. Cncl. Morke had a problem with requiring a developer to agree to an unknown. This should be approved or denied on existing ordinances. Cncl. Sweeney agreed with the City Attorney on the amendment condition. Melanie Smith, approached the podium and dad not what the land of Valley Park 12` addition clear -cut. Mayor Brekke gave a history on this grading permit. Cncl. Sweeney moved the question. Motion to amend carries 3 -2 with Morke and Link dissenting. Motion carried 3 -2 with Cncls. Link and Morke dissenting. Cncl. Morke followed up with the comment that the reason he voted no on the motion was because of the amendment attached to the motion. Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No. 5407, A Resolution Ordering The Preparation Of A Report On An Improvement To Vierling Drive, From County Road 15 To The West Plat Line Of Orchard Park West, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda) Official Proceedings of the September 5, 2000 Shakopee City Council Page 14 Sweeney/Morke offered Ordinance No. 578, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Relating To The Administration And Regulation Of Public Right -of -Way in the Public Interest, And To Provide For The Issuance And Regulation Of Right -Of -Way Permits; Amending Section 7.17, Subdivision 6 To The Shakopee City Code, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No. 5408, A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 5293, Amending Fees For Administration And Regulation Of Public Rights -Of -Way For The City Of Shakopee, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No. 5412, A Resolution Approving Plans And Specifications And Ordering Advertisement For Bids For a Trunk Watermain Extension, From Southbridge Parkway to Stagecoach Road Project No. 2000 -5, and move its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke moved to approve the suspension of City Code Sec. 10.60, Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention, Subd. 3, Hourly Restriction on Certain Operations, D, to permit activities on Saturday and Sunday from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., as requested by TMI Coatings, Inc. for the repainting of the water tank on CR -83 and direct staff to publish notice of the suspension terms contingent upon: 1) minimizing noise exposure near residential areas, 2) if residential complaints are received by the City, the suspension can be revoked at the discretion of the City Engineer, 3) blasting activities, if any, must be done from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No. 5403, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Regarding Participation In The Southwest Metro Drug Task Force, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke moved to accept the $1,000 donation from Shakopee Valley Printing and authorize staff to use the funds in support of the D.A.R.E. /G.R.E.A.T. programs and to purchase stripping and graphics and to equip a vehicle with emergency medical equipment and an emergency oxygen supply. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Police Chief Hughes approached the podium and addressed the Council on the Dial -a -Ride Driver Background Investigations. He stated Council made an inquiry to the feasibility of police personnel conducting background investigation checks on Dial -A -Ride drivers. State Statute requires a criminal background check completed by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension before the school endorsement is issued. The only check required on a bus driver is a driver's license check unless the sub - contractor requires a criminal background check as a condition of employment. The thorough background investigation requires approximately 40 hours, whereas, the criminal history background check requires approximately one hour. The choice for Council is. do you want to continue with the service company doing the checks or do you want the police department to do additional checks. The current transit service currently does a background check. The School bus endorsement, which requires a criminal background check is not required by Laidlaw, the transit service for Shakopee. Official Proceedings of the September 5, 2000 Shakopee City Council Page 15 Sweeney/Morke moved to direct the City Attorney to amend the Dial -A -Ride contract to provide for the contractor to provide proof of a criminal history background check on all drivers assigned to the Shakopee Dial -A -Ride system. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Morke moved to accept the $1000.00 from the Target Store in Shakopee to purchase a digital camera for the police department. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke moved to declare the items stored in the evidence room and garage loft of the police department as surplus property and authorized staff to appropriately dispose of these items. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) [Outlined in the 8/31/00 memo to the Chief of Police from the Community Service Officer, CC Document No. 296] Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No 5404, An August 2000 Amendment to the City Of Shakopee Flexible Benefits Plan Adopted By Resolution No. 3315 and Amended By Resolution NO. 5246, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda_) Sweeney/Morke moved to authorize the transfer of Duane Toenyan to the position of Engineering Tech H starting at Step 6, Grade D of the Non -union 2000 Pay Plan effective September 11, 2000_ (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke moved to accept the resignation, of Duane Toenyan Maintenance Worker for the Public Works Department of the City of Shakopee effective September 11, 2000. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke moved to authorize the appropriate City Staff to utilize Scott County in advertising and hiring a Maintenance Worker. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke moved to authorize the hiring of Ryan Halverson to the position of Engineering Tech H starting at Step 2, Grade D of the Non -Union 2000 Pay Plan effective September 11, 2000, subject to the successful completion of a pre - employment physical and background check. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Tracy Coenen, management assistant, approached the podium and addressed the City Council on the RFP for Refuse and Recycling. Council directed staff in July of 2000 to put together some RFP directives. The current contract with the refuse hauler did not receive a satisfactory rating from the residential garbage survey regarding performance and service issues. There were a few changes made to the preliminary RFP for waste haulers from the current contract. These changes are: who gets refuse pick -up, penalties for poor service, monetary incentives for the City and citizens to recycle, and options for customer billing. Cncl. Sweeney thought the garbage bills would increase greatly with this RFP. This would be very expensive to implement. According to Tracy Coenen, there is a mandatory meeting for all refuse haulers who wish to submit a RFP on September 26, 2000 to evaluate some of the options with this preliminary RFP. Official Proceedings of the September 5, 2000 Shakopee City Council Page 16 Mayor Brekke said the City Council needs to be flexible if necessary. Morke/Link approved the preliminary refuse and recycling RFP to allow for distribution to waste haulers. Tracy Coenen will come back to the Council with the final RFP after adjustments have been made after discussions with the waste haulers have been held on September 26, 2000. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Morke moved to approve and grant a temporary on -sale liquor license to Minnesota Valley Restoration Project, Inc. dba Historic Murphy's Landing, 2187 East Highway 101, for September 16, 2000, conditioned upon compliance with insurance requirements. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) There was a recess at 11:00 p.m. for the purpose of conducting an Economic Development Authority meeting. The meeting reconvened at 11:02 pm. Morke /Sweeney offered Resolution No. 5411, A Resolution Levying A Tax At The Request Of, And Consenting To The Levy Of A Tax By, The Economic Development Authority For The City of Shakopee, and moved its adoption. Mr. Sweeney stated that Mr. Voxland had pointed out that the BRA/City portion of the Levy would only be spent in certain ways and the EDA portion would only be spent in certain ways. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No_ 5409, A Resolution Setting Proposed Maximum 2000 Tax Levy, Collectible in 2001, and moved it s adoption. Cncl. Sweeney stated this is a maximum levy; we can reduce it but we cannot increase the dollar amount of the levy. Gregg Voxland approached the podium and clarified that 30% of estimated revenues are from development fees. Mayor Brekke stated the Council needed to think about the City's reliance on development fees. The Council may want to think about what expenditures are discretionary and may be deferred. Mayor Brekke called for discussion. There was none. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney /Amundson offered Resolution No.5410, A Resolution Canceling Debt Service Levies For 2000 -01, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council September 5, 2000 Page 17 Sweeney/Morke moved to waive the 30 -day review period for the application for exemption from lawful gambling license by Big Dreams Foundation for a raffle at Canterbury Park, 1100 Canterbury Road, on September 8, 9, and 10, 2000. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke moved to adjourn to Tuesday September 19, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. ( ith S. Cox city Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary 1 1101 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance director RE: City Bill List DATE: November 2, 2000 Introduction and Background Attached is a print out showing the division budget status for 2000 based on data entered as of 11/02/2000. Also attached is a regular council bill list for invoices processed to date for council approval. Included in the checklist but under the control of the EDA are checks for the EDA General Fund (code 0191) in the amount of $410.06. Also included in the checklist are various refunds, returns, pass through, etc. totaling $297,299.80. The actual net expense amount is $271,478.19. Action Requested Move to approve the bills in the amount of $568,777.99. CITY OF SHAKOPEE EXPENSES BY DEPARTMENT 11/02/00 CURRENT YEAR ANNUAL MONTH TO PERCENT DEPT DEPT NAME BUDGET ACTUAL DATE EXPENDED 11 MAYOR & COUNCIL 80,130 0 68,532 86 12 CITY ADMINISTRATOR 249,600 0 230,407 92 13 CITY CLERK 219,290 0 142,142 65 15 FINANCE 429,990 0 357,466 83 16 LEGAL COUNSEL 298,500 0 299,493 100 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 574,780 0 489,937 85 18 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS 253,840 0 183,940 72 31 POLICE 2,173,740 484 1,637,849 75 32 FIRE 705,840 0 627,911 89 33 INSPECTION - BLDG - PLMBG -HTG 428,070 0 390,280 91 41 ENGINEERING 541,650 0 574,612 106 42 STREET MAINTENANCE 904,850 0 579,159 64 44 SHOP 156,240 0 120,315 77 46 PARK MAINTENANCE 535,430 0 443,835 83 91 UNALLOCATED 557,010 0 618,693 111 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 8,108,960 484 6,764,571 83 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 509,990 0 308,798 61 TOTAL TRANSIT 509,990 0 308,798 61 19 EDA 247,380 0 118,130 48 TOTAL EDA 247,380 ----- - - -- --------- 0 - -- - -- 118,130 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 48 - -- --- 1n n x o m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m A m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m 1 1r1 G J It J * J * J * J It J * J * J * J It J 11- J * J * J * J * J * J I H v H v H v H v H v H v - H v H v H v H v H v H v o v o v O v 0 1 H H O O O O O O O O O O lD %.D tD lD I H H 0 O J Ul IA W N H O l0 co J m i O C n N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N l n x O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O' O O O 00 O O O 000 O O O O O I p 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 00 O O O 000 O O O O O I tt1 n p 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 00 O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O I H" HHHHHH H H H 0 000000 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 o I d t=1 \ \\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ I G1 N N N N N N N N H H H H H H H H H H H H H H m m m m m m m m to �o D o D o ko ko �o ko ko io w i C11 H I Ct] In x lx t/? {R I t11 In H H H t/i H _ N t/1 t/1 H i11 t/1 I x W W �D W OD IA UI�O HH I tR in — in in - - in in in 1R trr iR to in I H tO IA -(a N in to rn Ul Ui -Milk IA IP IP O W N N ta-M W W J N I? O tat/1 IA IA m m {2 i/1 Ul Ul I O Ul JN NUl tD %D 1D t/?t/t W W IP IA IA IPA w W NN 00 Nm W W p %D % H Ul Ul 00 1 O O NN JO m tDJ UI Ul 00 00 00 Nmm co co mm 0101 JOH IA IP 00 %0 tD Ul Ul 00 i z p W l0 N W O N J �o to 0 0 0 0 H H J lD O H H IP IP J J tO H N In N N 0 0 J J N N 0 0 I r3 O w lDm OOJ NN 00 00 ID IA Ul0 UI 00 00 NN UImW m NN 00 UI UI .PIA 00 1 I I G] ts1 t1i ti] t1i w m n z G m m cn ro H H H r o z ro ZZZ z C [� H H 33 t1 3 m z x CL�t t to H r I ;n [� x n cn tij w tti H H n R O z x r7 H Mw Gz , HHHHHH H tt1 z nnn z I'3 CJ �zzzyzj�zjzyzj H h] H r %h%n%o H x1 7� z z Ul y Ct7 Ct] O H 111 W tr1 to 'o 1 C tij �d nnnnnn z H� xxx o zz H I m HHHH sr o �x t, r o0o r H �� Z t�CL�t�"tiC H stn m zZz m z l x 1 tl] C=1 Ct] Ct1 C 1 H H z z H x x x > x1 x7�7x7sb� H m �to 61 000 r I 1 HHHHHH ,o U] HH tt]C Ct] H I nnnnnn rn z n U'u'U' t11 1 mt-jww m m nn o wcnmmmtn m 1 x z rororo C 0 0 1-3 0 10 1-3 ro n d H H H J xf ro m vi O n > H ro i �y l'roroxrox > Ul roro ro o 7. mm�nO O in W r roro J z z Ott]m tt] z C C x1 I u ro C �1 Ij1 C TJ x W n t1 ` l7 co H H =J n n ' D m n i > ?, t11 m tto [t1 10 00 1 y y tt] H tt1 n ro x 1 C I-3 1-3 r 1-3 to C v1 [n x C C Ul C C 10 H So x I to H H H w\ m x O C11 tt] H m m H to r z z z L=1 I C7 G]G)x0Ox O :v m w 0 t 0 n K m 11] �yv I GxmxCm C O `3H z yr�'nv m i m tr�1 1 1 co ca H rod lu [a C �� to ro x � C I ro Lij I z a CCt t Z1 m Ax C O H I H U] HHZH7oZ CHz 111 r - DI I 0 H t11 t1nt11cn C Hz 3 \ z i z m U] t>:1 (n H m H 1 > n n n t ro � 1 H m co Lti] H O w z Z Hn H H z i p 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O �D m m O lD O W W W �o O O �o kD I H JJHwww H H w m mm �o w 000 w w110 m w I J Ul Ul H H H H J Ul N N m US H N H �o 19 tD N H H N N 1 C n H W IA H H H H m H H Ul W H N LP H H H H Ul H N U1 Ul 1 3 n I i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 i I I i 1 I 10 0 W IP IA IA IA IA IA IA IP IA IP IP IA N IP IP IP W w IA IA N IP IA I m C rA N N W N W W W IA IA w Ul Ul H IP IA W m m N W H W IP I 'a Z H H H W H H W H W W N W W co H H' H H H H lD J N w 1 H IP 0 0 0 0 0 0 O H W H O O w O O O H O O O J H N 1 I J 0 0 0 0 0 0 m J O O H H O O IP N N N O H m O O 1 O 000000 n 0 O O w O m ID J J J \D J Ul O 0 1 H H m m m m m m to H m m tD ID m J N I I I IA 0 m m m I Z Ul IA ,A IA IA IA IA H J IA IA ko Co IA co IA N N N m W 0 IA IA 1 C m W W W W W W IP N N I I N \ N Ul Ul Ul N J \D N N 1 0 000000 N \ to co W W J N IA m m ON N W co m Ul I 0 0 0 U7 N H O O O Vl 0 IA m 000 1 tr1 N 0 IA HHH ill 1z z coo 1 0 0 \\\ I c 1 1z N O b p W 0 p tr1 I� i F I O 1 1 � N H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H I N ro 101010101010 ro ro ro ro 1010 ro ro ro 101010 ro ro ro ro ro 1 C 1 r 'U I � 1 LQ 1 CD 1 H A m n m n m v H v H v H N N N N H O N N N N N N N 0 0 00000 0 0 00000 0 0 00000 H H H H H H H O O 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N m m mmmmm A m � J v H H N N O o OO 00 H H 00 N N mm A m n m A m n * < * J * -7 * v H v H v r v H H � 00 - m N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 00000000 0 0 O O C D O O O O O H H H H H H H H H H O O 00000000 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ N N N N N N N N N N m m mmmmmmmm 0 A m A m A ON n I H v H o F 1-' v I Ul A W N 1 I 1 N N N N N N N N N N N i 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 000 O O 000000 1 N N N N N N N N N N N 1 m m m m ON m m m Cl m m I mm loUl mm to to t/r t/ to -ca . . • , • -Ea to -[a -ca -/r -Ca -(fl -4[a t/r -Ea Ul Ul IA IA Ul -ca-ca H H H N N w {/?i/k Ul Ul --1 H H H 4A {/ti/! H -Ul- m N H N W W (/I- {/t - L2 H I 00 lOw IA 00 oNNN HHlO NN 07 Co W m 00m IA UINmm {/T-/? H mN{R{/f H t/I. H O 1 -7-1 00 W HH(A mm OH lO UI UI mm H000 w CC) 0 OIONN 0o 0o NN L71 m WHN Ul O 1 lO lO NN 1A OO 00 mmm 000 o co 0o W NOOOOOm0 OUt OU7 NN mm O�7 W �POOU7 O 1 mm w W 1000 W W w 000 NN W lO 1P 00000 U10 0000 OD W H 4 UlJNOOO O I I I C Cl CCCCC mm 50 ro zzzzzzzz XX3 x H G1QQG)00 I m m x ti] tslt=7mwmmwt zz`z trl n 'a Iu ' PUPOPU ' n n mmmm H CrJ D4pdD4DC>Cxxx H x t=JCI ntrJt1 w I xx H HHHHHHHH nnn PO y G)G2a0aQ ' \ \ �zE�4z 00 x %a L w xxx 0 000G)G)(7) I H H mmmmm t troll t rrrrrrrr HHH n Z1 ' rrr � L1] CCCCCC I C7 C7 1- 31- 31- 31-31 -3 LIJW nnnnnnnn Ouu r H 000000 I [T1 00000000 r H X>4XXXX I Cl7 m nnnnn I 14 ;U xxxxxxxx mmm PO t"rrrrr I H H XXx33 PO pa 0 �ci rororo C��XX mtil 0 H zz z zzz rororo w 0tft7utj0 HHHHHH H 000 'zi \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 n r � n I � 1 n w n r � I n I � �� H n noon nnn x�zd H rorororororo 1✓ ✓1>> m tIl > > >� -, >>> > H H mm DALIJmtTJ HHHHH V HHHHHHHH H HHHHHH H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H ro ro ro ,d H H H H H H 00 00 0 t+ w 0 00 00 00 0 > >> C K'<F�'�'<� zzzzz '1]'=J zzzzzzzz I<ICIC m mmmmm m corn coca mmm ��x H 0 [a ca zzz IA mmmmmm ZZ HHH J xxxxxx N N HHHHH 11ym 0 HHHHHHHH 000 H 1A 0 ro00HW LO w Di ta w m n HH ro Ul Mnt=7Mt=7ti]ML OoH m w ro Pa roro 1A 0 rrrtiv m> til J rt"rrrrrr HHx r m m0tiJtil> 1A l0 L M m co t1imtIltIlmwt=lm Hot=7 trJ m m I li mmCr rorororororororo N -3� x y�y rororororo 1 � 0 xxxxxxxx by 00000 til > H o 00000000 o1;1u 0 HmHH x1 7. zzzz z H z z z z z zz z z -tlom z ZH > mmt -]L-lm Fm�i[7 Gl t- Jwt- ]wmt -]mm UIUl m GlZ(71Gl 01 m 0 C) co z C H y (' C" y Cl M H Ili 10 H ro 10 ro m z H ro 0 romroroyl-3 m H t HM HH m WCtil t-j n m mHCQrnW C) DI m O O 0 0 0 0 0 0l0 O O Ul00 mmm00 000 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 l0 l0 < W H H W W O W l0 Ul 1A 1A mm m IA H \O lO l0 W lD H H H W w J H H UIH -I UI W NO H H O HH--1 mmNN HHH W H OD Ul UIH H Ul N N rA H N H H H H H N O H lOIA IP UI H o N N N H N H H H H H 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N N 1A 1A IA IA 1A 1A W IA N 1A 1A IP 1A IA IA 1A 1A N N N IA N IA IP 1A 1A 1A rA H H W W W W W H W N H w w w W w W W W H H H W H N W N N W N —1 --1 N N N N N N UI H m N NNNNNN N W o O N J H H H H W W co co H H H H H IA O O w H H H H H H H H H H H H co 0 0 0 0 0 0 IA IA 00000 00 O 0 00000000 000 o IA 000000 < --] 00000 0 0 O O 00000000 0 0 0 O < 000000 —1 �l mmmmm mm m m mmmmmmmm mmH m -3 mmmmmm AA IA IA IA IA IA A 1A IA IA IA 1A IA 1A 1A IA A IA 1A N 1A 1A IA 1A 1A IA 1A W W W W W W W W W W W W w W W w w W W O W W W w W W W lO l0 w l0 I'D Oo 07 --7 m M M M M M M M M 1A W to N H H H H H H J Ul J H 0 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H to ro rorororolro roro ro ro 10 k 10 ro10 10 roro rororo ro ro roro roro roro C) n x 0 � C n z x n H z r 0 C) x x w � n n 7 x x t7 t=] Gl y H ti] In y ti] n � x t� n x 0 C z H C d 0 x C7 ti] m C) `rb H ro H H 0 z Iz> ICn Xn W 0 1 y I ry 1 c 1 0 1 H i n o I tij N I 1 Iz z 0 0 I I z N ro o W 0 O 1 tT1 i I F-' (- I N 1 N I r 1 � I Sli (Q 1 (p A In n x o m n M A Ol n T A Ol A cli n 0) A 41 A Ol n M A Ol A Ol A Ol A cr% A Ol n Ol J n Ol I n * J 1 n C" z -t * J * - I * J * -1 * J * J * J * -7 * J * J * J * J * < H * J v H * v H v H I n H v H v H v H v H v H v H v H v H v H v H v H v H N v N N N N t H W w w w w W w w w W O N �0 N O -7 Ol Ul 4 W r l0 O J 61 Ul 1P W N H i O n N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1 n x N N .0 N O O 00 O O O O O O O 000 O 0 0 0 O I x L=J O O o O o 0 O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 1 trJ n O O O O 0 00 0 O 0 o O O 0 000 O O o 0 0 1 0 �v O O o �7 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H I CI LTJ H H H H H H H H H H H H H HHH H HHH H I H o O I h3 H p p O O O O O O O O O O o O H o 0 o HHH O H o 0 HHH H L=J In H N H H H H N H H H H H H i I [ 1 n � Ix i n N N � U7 h-' W N N -ca i? W W -M-ca 1A 1A 0% 0) 4/2 co co V)r i/? V'k {q l0 k0 I W Ol Ol iR iR vl! - T JJ -M -M - .1 - 4 1F co Ul OO NN OO On UI UI lam] 1J ODHN1? NN UIHHN UI In 1 O W O J J Ul Ul 1 p ,p NN W W 00 Ul lO Ul 00 Ul UI UI UI 00 00 Ul UI - H W 0Ui00 <-] OHOO Elm cr-! W 0 0 UI Ul 1A 1A 0 0 w W l0 0 0 0 0 '7 'l H H o 0 0 0 \0 k0 H *0 1A 0 1A N NNN Ul Ul 00 H O O W J--700 -] -7 I H NN I J 00 00 wto VI Ul HkON 00 00 00 JJ 00 00 1 yy�1 of yy C HHH o I H m H H z O O L �Z �y v1 a�,ra� �' ° z � � z z xxx � z :8 00 0 1 r n w :i:: .o co n r x1 HHH C 1 O C n m H Z to H w 000 zzz 1 CCrJ x w LIJ :31 z :d PO 9d 0 1 x t7 n >r H ro HHH CCC 1 cn try d z xx t�J c�1 G2 y C rl1 m H 1 H n c c 1 n � FC IC IC C cn ' (�] z m H M M H W C ca O , z H CCC H H H O z LIJ 1 1 I O ro ww O H ro ro H m. O �O OOF3 ro HHH d 1 l r1y W 0 N w m nn> O CCC z N 1O o w w n z H > v x1 C +y ro FTJ L>y H 1 I y LCI] w > M H C H � HH-- [a 000 vi W � H t 1 CJ HHU] H zz z H H H n W Gl G2 U] z 0 O O Cl O C O G? G' CTJ co [ U] x Ci] U2 C G" 4" H c7 to ID r x r H H ro ro iA C7 to G c: co , H ro to x n ro 10 H G1 ro ro ro H rn ro H Cr H N m O H H w H CCz H t n Di n m H H n C z ` O U] Ul H F-i U7 Ci] of w H C7 Tn CrJ \ H to m C) n m � H I z , H , z �0 Ol O O 00 0 O 0 0 w l0 O 0 0 0 O 1P 000 H W W o 1 H I z> p m co Ol H w 1P 1P W 1P -1 w co co H O ­I -] -J Ui VI UI N N W N O I N 4. m Ul H 41 1P H N Ul W N H 1P O 1A O H HHH W HHH 1P I n N O O H H H H H J I 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 O w I I 1 1 I 1 I 1A 1P 1 1P 1 1P I 1A I 1t N N 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A W w 1A 1 W Z I "�-" 1A N 1P W 1P N 1A W N N W W N N N N N N N W w H W W w w N N N .A r'C7 H I H N H N H H H W Ul Ul w O H H H H H O H H W H H O o H~ H 0 Ul p O O O 0 0 O O O O O O 1 H H Ul N N H H H Ul N co H 1 10 H W w H H H O O O N H H H 0 0 0 H I H I H 0 < w w w Ol m 0 UI VI co O Ol W Ol H H O < H H H H N W O H co OD N O �l O O O H O < 0 ko 1P O co O H I C O H O N O 0 t0 O Ol W Ol J O H 000 m 000 N 1 O p H O J H O O O 000 O o o 0 1 H 0 0 0 0 H J o f CrJ N , Iz I z 0 0 1 z N C 0 ny o Uy O 0 I � , H 0 N O O O O O 00 O O O O 0 o O 000 0 x 000 O 1 xxx x 1 > N x x x x x xx x x x x x x x xxx IC � lQ m W m n m n m � *-a * � H V H V H U] Ul Ul A w N N N N N o c 00 0 O 00 O o 00 H H H H H H H H O O 00 H H H H A m n Cr) n m n m n m *� *-3 *-j *-Q * V H V H V H V H V H Ul U] IA IA IA H O %D O J N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 00 O o 0 0 0o C) O O O 00 H H H H H H H H H H H H O O O O 00 H H H H H H A m A m n m n m n m n m n m n I * —] * -] * —] * —] * J * --] * J * I V H V H V H V H V H V H V H V I IA IA IA IA IP IP IA I m Ul A W N H O I 1 1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00000000 O O O H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 1 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H I O O O 00000000 O O O 1 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 1 co co N H W HH I -/? {n - ca {a-ca - Ea - M I i/2 IA IA IA IA W N -Ta m m W W N N 'p, m W W w W W W W W W H H V/ . W I �] 00 Om W 1/2{/? mm mm NN IA all m 00 NN wto IA l]w w low www W W Ul UI w W 1 N m m IA --] 1 UI (n IP IP H H - ] — 7 0 00 UI Ul W W --I m m m m m m m m Ul Ul 00 co co O I . . :,3 . . '0 . . . . . ' 0 ' 0 " 0 '0 .. . '0 . . . . ' (D ' C3 W OO in OU] �],] NN OD0 J l0l0 mm OO NN 0000 NN mm W I W cc H H O IA IA H H —] J IP IP m O m W W - 0 0 IP IA 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 H H 0 0 -1 �] < I 1 I nn Cl n n nnnnnnnn n n w I trJ Cr1 C :o 0 G IC Ci O O ww y c 1 `,o z 111 0 0 .. x a 3 zzzzzzzz �a z cc 1 !v n w w m mm x z x HHHHHHHH Q H H 1 CzJ I m H n tij CrJ w L=J Ci] CrJ Ci7 Ci7 CrJ H til z I Z x x C Cy z H PO 'IBS >4 >4 x X;>4 C w t+] 1 C O uo O 5 C z z m C n C w m 1 a mw C ,d 2 H H H xx: � C m I :0 H xax] m 0 x H I li I li z 13 J 00000000 m ;o m z mm x x m n OO O 0 xxxxxxxx k H n OO ti7 z H ,d !a 7o �a mmm C 3 1 zz :4:4 H ED ca x mmmmmmmm 10 C) o� yo y d PC ca co � z Z t" c w 00 ro H H m IC nn C n n x U H k C 0 0 x z z z H nn z z x 0 n n H 0 H t=J3 �o H w 0 00 m C7 3 mHHHHHHH x t=J 0 ro :4 K) Ci] C Iv ro ro >D w w > >D ro M ro CH n H m mt-i G IAIA H C; L=] ;) H tiJ .'Ll Ll ,'d ,d 'o H m Ci] H N N m 0 IA W O Ciy H 'ri] O ro�d m m tI �;, >> to x ro y C :9H > H H H F3 :4 H t x wwwxxx H x H H w ti]> H H z H H H M > 0:a > m H z x zC H G1 z zz z t" nHHHnnn C z z G1 m H O =J G1 00 H m wN1-31AHxxx m H Q z z > x QHIA I-31 -3 HHH m H :4 �a y m In m 3 �a z��� z z z 3 m c,' m � m m H C CG y <0 G) a 0 y C ro H C: m z ro ro ro H w �i 1 < F w w w H ro ro z ro H ro ro ro z n H H H H z ro C H ro C CC H ci 7du 7t75a�d;a H C m z H CI] Ci7 CrJ 7" C C7 ,t1 x1 �7 d t7 d z CIJ m m m mm �C CCC m L ] CiJ w Lam] Ci7 O m Om O 0 O O OO o O O %.0ww%oioioioko 0 O o J m m m -_] H m IA W W W H IA co m m m W OD m W IA W H U1 —] N < Ul IA N N H H N 10 N A IA IA IA IA IA IA IA N H N c o m µ W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IP H H 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I 1 IA IA IA IA A W IA IA IA IA IA IA IA N N N N N N N N IA IA IP N U1 N N N rA N N N N N IA N NNNNNNNN N N N N W A H H W W H H H IA W H H H H H H H H H H IA H N O O Ul H < O O O O O w Ul 00000000 Ul O O N -_] N N H O W w UI V1 H O H H H H H H H H H N co H �] J -] —] O to Ul W --] IA O �] O --] Ul U] Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul O O m (J7 m A N w m Oo W CO O O H J IA IP IA IA IA A IA m O �] W O H N O Ul Ul N O 1 < N m U7 Ul U7 IA IA IA IA m w N H O N Ul O O W W NHW M<M w O H O O < O O W O O Co J O w 0 O O 0 00 O O O 0 00 O O 0 00000000 O O 0 x x x x x x x x xx x x x xxxxxxx x x x n x n x z O n x ti] n x t7 H n x n x S • J s C Ci] 0 O 0 ti] m n H ro H H 0 z z> c :9n w0 w C: Pa H C) 0 x z C) H C C) x r� C) 7 x Gl H m H ti7 H I z IC 0 I H 1 n O I CiJ N I 1 0 C I I z N C: 0 ro o M 0 I CiJ c 1 I � N I N 1C 1 i 1 LQ I 1 IA 1n n , O A m N m n m n m n m n m n m A m A m A m A m A m A m A m h m A m I n C. z * J * J * J * J * J * J * J * J * J * J * J * J * J * J Y * J V Y * J 1 n V Y Ij.' n V Y V Y V Y V Y V Y V Y V Y V Y V Y V Y V Y V Y V Y V Ul Ul Ul 1 H m m m m m m m m m m Ul Ul 00 Ul J m Ul IA i r 70 m J m Ul IP W N Y O kO O i n N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I n x 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 00 O I x o 1 CrJ Ci7 n 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 o O 0 O o F- F- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y i CiJ y Y Y Y Y Y Y In �d I x i 1 (] -ca -Ul YY -(a -Cos -ca �x N N Y Y Y N N W W N - m - m Y - M V)7 - ca iR Y Y I N Y Y Y Y d/? J J N N W m m W Ul Ul NN -m i/2 N N 00 Ul Ul OO Y Y 00 - la{/T --1 —1 Ul UI t0--l--1 IA w w WL?W JO 1 O m P N W YY IAN N 41 El) 1010 00 H YY C> -4 000 YY co co YY 00 00 Ut Ul IA IA JIA IAN NON N ON IAN I z O m IP m m O 0 0 Ul UI Ul Ul 0 N N 0 0 W W 0 0 0 OOo Ul VI 00 Y N N Ul NOo0o01 IP IA O 000 IA IA O 000 l0 Ul 1 H ON I m UIY 000 00 H 000 P A 00 wt0 00 00 I x x x x x x x x 41 41 41 G1 G] G1 =J 'iJ Ill ITJ 'iJ Ili I li 'T] H H 13] I Cif I . n ro ro EEE H H �� Ww � y y iU H H x t' r r1i w H x W x Lli n m tt] O n n n H H H I r I z z r l� r i o zz x � � z 000 H 1 L=J � n n in in m b b b M C�i7 Chi] > to to Z Z C7C07 zz x 0 > 0 r H H 1 I 1 nn nn m I c y H H t H H ro z m r r to o u 7a �a n r x1 x1 y H z H H [� [i] ti] Ci] I O Tn W Ci] m H z Tn G7 � � P1 rO �d 717 �-J H H H ro �d n n I.3 1-3 z m nn 0 00 n H n m HHH �� n > n z I-3 Ci z z 1 0 H H H H WQ M n r 0 z zzz n n n n H H rr n r z F-3 n H H r 1 00 tit tiJ ro t�] t�] trJ A A t�J o ro m N ro x1 0 Ci] n ro 0 y z ro tl] tiJ zzz w w y o t9 t t C: C3 m w Y ul w 11 3 Y Y O H H Co Cif ti] > � >> H > I HH 3 H �� H co Cn [ H H rrr 00 z� H i C C7 H x H m I M In H H W co m H H w m H Cif 'L.' H z H H H w z z Z z z z z H H C) O z z G7 a O O ro �' 1 Tn Gl 41 C z d d Ul I n mm 33 H O x in l U] Ul stn C 1 x1 qq >y z 7o 7o Q r m C r H ro ro 777 HH ro I H ro b H H 41 Cil d r ti yin [n Ci] ro [i] H r r R R r H 0 H ca •ro H C H ti7 m z z ci M z mm > n m n > n C) n CO m n H 1-3 co co �7 z n � 1 00 O O to w 1 ,0 k0 W O O O O 0 Y 0 J 0 0 0 J -,l w 0 0 to W 00 l0 W 1 O I J I z fJ m m P A co O co N Y P J Y Y Y J J VI Ul m Y Y W Y W Ul I c", n N N IA IA .IA O IA It Y N Ul N Y Y Y W IA Y Y W IA W IP W i 3 n l0 \O Y Y O Y O o W Y I 1 I Cf7 0 1 1 I I 1 i I 1 I i IP W IA IA IP IA N W N W IA I t IA IA IA IA N Y N N IA N W w N W w 4 N N w IP IP IA O N O N N 1� �'.,� z N N N N N Ul N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O IA OD IA N 1 r3 Y Y Ul VI Y Ul Y Y Y O Y O IP O O 0 0 0 IAN IAN N O O 00 O O 00 O Ul Ul U7 Ln Y W Y Y Y ko m 0:) Y Y Y IA Ul 0 ao IA IA IA Y Y 10 l0 Y Y co O IA I N I H m m O O J J m A IA O P N co O Y m J N N W O O CC) co Ul I 'Z' J J m m N Y t0 t0 J m O J IA to Y IA Ul Ul J Ul Ul N N m I s N O m m N to Y ON N Ul N O m N IA IA m l0 l0 0 0 W I O VI Y O O J N J �o J IA I A O N m Ul Ul l0 Y Ul Y I n n O � I N 1 Iz z 0 O c Iz N I G' o I � o WO 0 1 xJ i Y 0 I i N 00 00 O 0 00 0 O O O O O 0 x 000 xxx 00 xx 00 xx O I � x N xx xx x x xx x x x x x x 1 t-I I 1 W I I UI A m n m A m * J * J * J V H V H V H co 07 co IA W N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O 00 H H H H H H H H O O O O H H H H A m A m A m A m A m V H V H V H v H V H O W J J J H O 1 .0 m J N N N N N N N N N N O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 000000 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ \ \ \ \\\\\\ H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H \ \ \ \ \\\\\\ O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H H H H H H H H H A m x- J V H J m N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O H H H H H H H H O O O O H H H H A m A m * J * J v H V H J J Ul N N N O 00 O 00 O O O H H H H H H O O O H H H A m A Ol A m A m I * J *J * - i *< I V H V H V H V H I J J J J I W N H O 1 I N N N N I O O O O 1 O O O 01 O O O O 1 H H H H 1 H H H H 1 O O O O H H H H i LS {/T {/? {/2 -(a HH UIUI W H HH HH I {/1• {/t Lk {/t {/f �/2 {/t {/2 {/2 ` 'C/2 {/t {/1 Ka I - E 2 {/2 iR iR mm HH W H UIUI -E/?{/). W W mm WNHJUINw H i/? -EfIr H mNW W W HH {/iiR mm 1 �Ow mm 0 U Ul IA IP W w Ul Ul - - m t0 J 0 l00J W-mm -mm -13 -j JOOm H 0m N N -4 -j I W W IA IA ANN --1 - .3 HH OO Ul Ul 0 L tOJHH IA Oo OIAO W kO tO ONO) - NN NN W W Ul UI I W W aD 07 O O O m m H H m m 0 0 O J l0 O IA N Ln O IP O IP N H H Ul O Ul Ul Ut Ul Ul l0 w 00 1 Ul UI H H 03 IA IA 00 00 00 00 00 O N W lO w m J 00000 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 m m 00 1 I C xx x 7r' x x ;q IN 73 ;l 14' 74 x -xx H H H H H H x F<�C 7y 7d H W M 01WM W W WWt=iW 0 z z x O 1 n 00 O H z F-4 zzzzzz zzzz �4 z �] O y 3 O 7a Czn x r zzzzzz ODU0 00 ry z m 1 0 n H m 0 717rrorrorpl CC > r m 1 rsi ;fro z til m Z t7dt7t7C7C7 HHHH ro ,b> y O 70 C 41 C t7 F- k Ft F< FC FG C] O n o F-3 y t+i a by ci n xxxx -.. H H 0 I li ro F<i I H3 C. x R R^R R z C x H I ro t� H H C7 m O tai LT3 [T! rsi y Cii rli n y n 1 3 t7 yy y y 3 61004)00 Ct-IrC H ei 0 x l C9 H �rl y rsi C w :U:aM [rJnmtrJ :9 0G) z x � y O y m > y > > > > C1 C1 n Cl xJ rb C] m m 1 t7 CCCCCC HHHH O n tl] I t. 3 m til mnwM 7a 7a 7y 7a roro r O 1 H C+ n H zzzzzz HHHH > H y 0 O H H z C] C7 Cl C7 0 0 C] Cl () H H 7y Can m xxxxz y mm 0 z ly �y y til m 7i pa 7y :U 7U C. z C1 zz C t7 C7 t7 t7 d0 H On O z m O m m ro y ro N rorororororo t�7yt=i7� by �� ro ro 0 N [Ii 10 m w 0 7� 7y 7� 7i7 7y I� r rn C ry x m m :C7 m ro w z til t4 0 y H o 000000 W0 w0 H 0n O H m 0u y 77 y y F=J C z A I=J 1 2J 1 3J I=J I=J I=J o w o w C 7o PC I=J z x1 N av y y n m y w triw w wW HHHH 0 wti] w y > C y rr m C H U7 mmmmmm PCr H >> m H y Fly m H m m \ z C mmmmmm Hy Hy z y!•3 m z H 0 z H m 0 C." H H H H H H 0 C7 H H H GZ z z G1 0 C \ tli 000000 4t 00 0 \ 0 CJ z to ro zzzzzz romroOl x z z ro m m m C C4 �����> L=J -3mm > > C m z r H m > rr rrr LnXw z ciQ r wr b ro m y H mmmmmm H0HJ y roro m H ro C C til tli m m Di m ol n m Di y y Ct � x H H 7� z x y mm mx m trJ C C7 H CCCCCC m to HH C H t=i m H ti] z H H H H H H C, a tz w H z m tOxi 0 C=i tsi rsi m w m 0 CZ m mm co m r `ra G7 G1 LzJ th O O O O O O O l0 m m m m m m 0 0 0 0 O 0 o O O O \O IA w J J w w H O m m m m m m w w kD w J J J J l0 W m N N Ul Ul W W J IA m m m m m Ul H w H w m Ul Ul H H H IP J H rA H H H H O H W rA Ul m H w H W H N H H H H H O I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I i 1 I I 1 i I 1 IA IA IA IP IA IA IP N IA IA IA IA IA FA N W N W IA IP IP IA rP IP N A N IA IA w w W N w W W W w w O N O N N N N W w N N H H H H H w 111 H H H H H H H co IA 00 IA W H H H Ul H H O 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W W w O H H O O 0 O W H N N H H m H H HHHH H H H H H N m m H N N H l0 H co W O O H m 000000 H H H H Ul N N W W H J J N N N N O m w N N N N N N k0 \0 I'D l0 O Ul N W J J J N IA l0 1 10 m m O W Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul IA IA W W O H m J m Ul O m N m m O N O Ul N N N N N N A eA w w H m O O IA J J O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 w IA tip A O IA 000000 O O J J O J 000000 H IA A M IA O O 00 O O O 0 000000 0000 0 00 0 0 0 0 x x xx x x x x xxxxxx xxxx x xx x x x x n � x o n ci C) z x C) H z r 0 x x C) x x C7 t=i y G] y H tai m y n 7y x C) x 0 ci z y C tl] d O d t=i m n 7y H ro y H z z> G C] 3 C] W0 I n G' I;az I y 1 H Z I C 10 I H n O 1 tzi N i I 0 C 1 1 � N I O W 0 0 i rli _ 1 r� I H I C 1 N I N I r 1 1 ¢1 1 LQ 1 CD i m In n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n A m n m n m n m n m 1 t+7 C A J �F J >F J x - J x - J J * J * J * J * J * J * J 1 n z n y r V Y V H V H V H V r v H v H v H v H v H v H 1 �5 �O l0 l0 \D lD l0 w O O co O O I H m U1 A W N H O l0 O J m UI i O C 1 n N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N l n x O o 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C>000000000 O O 00 O O 00 I x 0 O O O 00 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 00 O O 00 I t=J n p O 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000 O O 00 O O 00 1 0 x Y H Y H Y r H H H H H H H H H H r H H r H Y H H Y H H " H H H H H H H H H H H Y H r H H H H r H H H H H H H r H H H I CJ L 0 0 00 0o Oo00o0 0000000000 0 0 C) C) 0 0 o01H 1i F-' r H H r H H H H r H H Y H H H H H H Y H H H H H H r H H Y ; C=J y I I ] I to In I x �/? LZ' {/? i/1• - ca {/2-ca � 4.a {!k -ca -C/? 'A rP t/T L2 {/! L1 H L? H 'A W W w W W m J H N �D J H N N W O J In Ul -U2 H i 1. Y W W iR� O Ul Ul 1 UI Ul W W kO i/I-l0 JJO m Ul Ul Ulm mJ ID Om UIm m0NJ W O 00 IP 'A --1 Fl ww mm IO JH 1 0 00 00 JOm JOm m J m JOO UI NONOUIJ IOOJIPJ 00 'A 'A �D OlO rH 00 W W i z 00 00 NIPO JJtO OIP UlHJ00 ID CD 00000 U70 00 JJ IP OIP NN . 00 ONOO I H 00 00 000 wID IP mJOmIA 00 HOo0000ommo 00 �Ln nIPH HH OO lOm W i 1 X:9 X 3 X X. C I r I t. t 7I V V C. I t­` V V t - t r r t -1 V r r I n C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 H H H tt] w > � I C) zEE EE 0000000000 n H 10 I'd trJ > CC I 0 HH SID HHHHHHHHHH 1"3 HH �"` G) po � I H w t4 C Cl 4 4 4 4 4 4 m m m m m m m m m m Z �� � Z z I z y H t7lV [Jt� 000000 yy N z z z z z z z z 0 I m m m m m m m H H H t C I C CrJtrJ [ C k x Z Uo I Z 0 0 000000 10 10 zzzzzz ED r z 1-3H HH nnnnnn " U ' p � �� zzzzzz n H zz r y HH ;� C zz mmmmmm x I H nn I W H CCC� .' ClCCCC" z m z I H H H F 11-3 -3 n r H H H H H H I zzzzzz I N H roH XX HHHNHN Oro lu ba �� to w 0H H n NN O xl C P CrJCrJ Ow�oOO ro :dxlwwt13wmww ,d 10 1 `0 � 'a 0 Om 1 W C w �:d mA NNHIA woozzzzzzz O G" C>:J� � z N C 3N nn LnLnWwJIP :o IllII]HHHHHI _] H =3 O y Ci] ro 7 w t=] w L7 I x y�y C7 C7 CJ t7tJto HmmCCCt'L -, r m 3 HC C �o Clol I zz OOOOOC Hmmmmmmmmm H z zm m z C7 G) I C1 H t7 C: 1- 3 m G7 xi dd � �� C zHH z 67 H (D(-" n MH I HH zzzzzm 00 1 m H W tot" mm HHHHH zz I b7 n z m Ci]C ti]t] zzzzz4 m�> C > :9 M CH H m n 1 .'d 0 H ,bK 0 G�G7Q0 rot LC H to m m n HxJ I H m H Htcl > > romm C H Ct n O i H CCCCCm C[rJt+7 H ro yc ��L>y�tny ty4C C z mn n V z z F-i In ti G� mHH n mtn w y U' xm mm m w H 1 I H H 1 Sd CO>J z � 10 O 00 00 lO O OlO tO ID oo 0o o0 oo o o O o 00 O O `� I co w w w A ,P co O m m O co H J H J W H r H Y H H IP W W H H O CO I z� Ip w Y W 41 'A IP IP IP IA 'A IP J UI J m W J J In Ul Ul m N H H J N IP IP I Cy n W'A HH 000000 NIP NIP HNYm W N H m HH H H 00 I :g I, I, I I,, I, I I I 1 I i I I I I 1 I I W 0 N IP N W IP 'A N N N N N N 'A IP 'A 'A 'A 'A N W O N N N N N N N N N N W W IP IP IP IP IP IP IP W N N W W W N N I �a z H w 00 VI Ul rHHHHH HHHHHYHYHH H IP H W w lO p 1 H O O N H O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000c> O O O O O O 00 H H Y H N N H r H H r H H H Y H H H H H H H H N H H H r H H I p Ul Ul 00 mmm Ul Ul 0000000000 r IP Op O O CC) I H 'A H H o0 Jm m 1Am W NNNNNNNNNN O W NO W ODD 1 z O N Ul Ul m m .A m m IP W W IA IP IP IP IP IP 'A 'A IP IP W O O H t0 O J m 1 C p N CO 0 ' A W H CO m W O co r W O O N O J O i O O Y'A JO O O 00 O I n 0 p Ul N m p i M N p I I 1 z z 0 0 I c I I z N IC o :9 d o I W 0 O M 1 I ~ I O I � N 0 0 00 00 000000 0000000000 O 0 00 O 0 OoI N x x xx xx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx x x xx x x xx IC 1 10 1 111 IQ ID 1 J A m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n *-3 *-j *­3 *-j *-j * � * -] *-3 * V N V N V N V N V N V N V N V N V H H O O O O O O H O 10 OD < m Ul 1P N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 o o O o 0 0 00 00 O O O o 0 0 00 00 0 \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ O O O O O O O 00 0 H H H H H H H H H H m N O w N N N N N N N 0000000 0000000 0000000 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H H H H H H A m n m n m *-A *� * V N V N V N O O O N H O N N N N 0 0 0 0 O o 00 O o O o \ \ \\ H H H H H H H H O O 00 H H H H A m A m h m I * -.l * --1 * -.l 1 V H V H V H I �D w �o I w OD J I 1 i N N N 1 O O O I C) O O 1 O o 0 1 H H H I H H H i O O O I H H H I W W H H t/2 {R O co N N W H H H to to t/r-aa W H t/? t/n r/ -(/I -(a Ul Ul t!i t/r N H in 1P 1P 10 10 I ca co OD 07 N N �ot0 m m (D Ul Ul m O co p 1P OHHmm -13 -.3 p ONJ mm tow I 00 1 10 1 .0 ,P IP Ul Ul m m 0 0 0 m 1P 1P 00 N 00 N H m w m N o 0 Ul Ul UI OD J (D 0 w 10 1P 1P I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 1P 1A UI UI 0 0 O O N N C) 1P N N 0 0 l0 O N l0 H W W CO 0 0 10 10 co m H 0 0 O O UI Ul I w W —1 —1 00 00 00 000 000 00 H -N m1P lJl 0o W W 00 NN 1P U110 00 00 W W I I I z z 3 33 333 3 3 x 0 x 3 CrJ tzj PC z 'z' "z" 'I "1 H H H H H F I H H H C CI] r til tij I tll r ro zzzzzzz z 0 y m z r 1 z y y C 'TJ tiJtil u zzzzzzz z rmpa O d n 1 x > H y >r rr w mwwmmmw m CSJ 00 z til x O x x r r t=]m ro 0000000 > W z CrJ xf O r rr CC ro H '=J G W >> mmmmmmm 0 HH I-3 N O m FC yy O nnnnnnn r til ioio m y 0 00 13 1 0000000 H z C Pct 7a x z z HH �ap m Q r > x Q x 'ziz r ���� � �Dl H HH rC n w n rti 0 I - 3 y H H y \ \ \ \ \ \\ 13 1 z z z z K til 0 mw nz x 0 z m nn y H y til w til til C 0 n H H ty H H >4>4 d m� z 0 r 00 y ro z r 0 O ro n nn o7oy m C GZc~. CCC ro :3: w H y ro ro ro �o O 00 ci ci ci HHHHHHH �d til C10 m m m trJ CrJ 0 z y 1 z' z H H H H H H H H H H O m H C O 0 z x 131 1=J til ro =J rr r rrrr rrr i] n rH O c ro w n ,� CrJ txJ CJ t7 [J HHHHHHH til x 0 ro Cl] CiJ y y to xd H ,'C1x9 HH H yyyyyyy m H x r to H H m t1i y th til z z FCKCC CCK m z \ m z 'z H z 1 z' 0 Q 0 H C7 G1 z t1 m H G� G7 0 n m nn mm mmmmm O H y y x O z by tom :9x m til tij mwm z m x r w z ci C r m mm H H CCCCCCC r H C H r 1b Io 0 0 C] z z HHHHHHH zH m ro ro m x x I-31-3 y nnnnnnn m I-3z w y m r r m O 00 tiJ CSI w m w DI w CSI y r tiI tll H H �d O 00 z rrl c z m L�J ti] C r r r H z d H m m H \ \\ n y y 1-3 0 n m � v m til m H H H z z H H H z z O O o O O 0 0 00 O 0000000 O o co 10 0 O P -1 W J m m 41 H H H W m H H m W m W 1P W w O W H H W H Ul N N N co O 00 W W O D O W W M m 1P N N 1P H Ul H N H Ul w H H H H H 1A o H N co H m 1P H 4 1P O H H I I I 1 i I I i 1 i i I I I I i I I I I I I I I 1P 1P 1P 1P 1P 1P 1P 1P 1P 1A 1A 1P 1P 1P 1A 1P 1P 1P eP 1P 1A N 1P 1A N N W W N w w N N N W w W W w W W w N N N N w W H 4 H W H w 10 w w w O m W W w m m H Ul w 1P H w H O Ul 0 o Ul 00 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O H -.l 10 H Ul H H N N N HHHHHHH Ul m Ul U7 H H W Ul N O O 1P w w H O 1P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ul co m w 1P 0 -.l W m O N H N N N N m H H H H H H O —1 ­l Ul w O H 1P N N H 4 -.l N N W H H 10 l0 10 w 10 w m 41 m H 1A O H --1 10 O J w H10 N NN NN NNO N O Ui N O H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0000000 0 0 00 0 0 0 x x x x x xx x x x x xx xxxx x x z x x x n x n x z 0 n x CSJ n x t7 y CI] n x n x � 0 4 y C tij x t7 ti] �m I H Iro ly I H 0 Z Iz� I zn Ian w 0 I tiJ � I y n 0 z C) H r n x t n x x G� H m y tll I H 1 z 1 C 0 I H I n 0 M N i I 0 0 I C I z N 1 W 0 0 1 Cpl I � I H I c I I � N I N I Cy' �. 1 I I � LQ 00 O 00 O O 00 O O O O O 0000 o O 000 O 00 x xx x x xx x x x x x xxxx x x xxx x xx 0 O ci z n H C CJ x LTJ C1 x Ci] G7 H m H [IJ zn b7 O �z H H C 0 H LIJ N i z z O c ci z N W O o LTJ Y i o I � N i v I I � i r � I LQ I � p 01 p ko o o o o k.0 000 41 O Y I n O 00 O W W J FO W W 01 w o YIP IP H O 1;1 1;1 N N N Ul Ix J Y Y IP M * 01 A 01 A 0, n 01 * 0-1 A M Q1 n M n O1 IF J h m IF J A IF J �F J I n Ul J IF J �F J % J J X J �F J �F J %- J N- J IF J V V V N V N V N I x J �F N V N V N V N V N V N V N_ V N V N V IP N IP IP IP IP I N V IP N N N N Y O l0 O J 61 Ul W W W W N I O J 61 Ul IP W N N N W W N H O Y H H H O OD co Oo H I co Y W Ul N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O 0 0 N O N N I (Z O O i N N N N O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O o 000 0 O O I [=J pp p O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0000 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I C] p 0 p o 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 O O 0 \ O \ Coco J N I1;1 W O O O 1 \\ \ \ \ W O O O 0 0 O 1; IP to Y O Y Y i d }-I Y Y I"' c o Y Y Y Y H Y Y YYYY Y Y \ YYY \ \\ Y \ \\ I Y Y Y \\ Y \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ 0000 \ 0 0 000 0 00 I H \ 0 0 O 0 0 00 0 o O Y o Y 0 Y YYYY Y Y YYY Y Y H I Cs] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y W J W O 1 0 w J o o O i n 0 O o o I x co m J I [>•J N N N (Z WW k0 l0 l0 c x � w W °' °' 4A ter Y H 4A-M Y Y J J co co -Vf V) W I i/a Y Y W W m o1 .P Y Y Y W J J Ul U1 O W I O N tR ih tlr ih N N J J co oD 01 -Ea m Woo W W W W O OD IP IP Co 4A t0 J Y IP lo. NN J J UI M YIP IA 10 co 00 NN ONOO ; cI N 10 W a> OI YY IP IP - 3 -;l W HH %010 0101 00 10%D m OOH 00 z 01 W IPY W � NN 0101 61N IP NN --1 -A 00 Ul V1 NN Ul - 000 U1 00000 0 0 00 00 00 011OJN W to m Olo YY 000 I H *IPO i O 1; �N J IP 1P - 3 - J IP IP o - .3 - .3 UI Ul F F 00 00 �'- � ro ro ro ro ro 10101010 ro 0 ��� 0 o0 O 71 x1 LTJ x7 LTJ o O H �m H 10,010 m mm d ' I.0 �J H i z x x x L�J O 00 `� �� j x ' mm H H O 7. HHHH z H O 0 O x7 d d 1 x :9 0 d z z H 0 0 0 0 0 Ic : Ri H w u tzI CiJ E z z x R, w C. Ce' ;a v VL-1V w m H H I C7 ' � H H 0 HHHH 7d 0 z ��Io n \\ r O q 0000 H H b,t1 I x d d O z 0 H O O W m m 1 kD kD 01m O O z z H H H H C=J O 0 y H 00 m r HHHH CIJ ill Z 1 m z z 0000 n H NN (3 0 t" r H 3: 1010 !7y n H z (] G I z 4 I n X. ro F1 y ,01010 �bz�� o ro HHH IOro y 0u ro 1010 z o t�J C 3 0 0 0 LzJ N H H H O H z H CrJ m b C=J C L=J > CI] C: ,0 H III '=J '=J N I II 1 H� � H HHH W ,0 Jy 3H Hz H HH H C O G1 HHH m H H H H m m m m H - H z z 1 d k H H z z � z HHHH z O mmm O H41 � d G l �GZ G7 H z �zzz w CrJC� m z m G � m C CCC t� xG z m Cc c m H r r y H,0 I H ci 10 H H H z I ro C IIddH ,0 1010 ro z tnmmm ro t:) nnn m 1 C] 10 m C CC r H CtJmw H LTJL=Jm L1J r M H H H H LTJ C] m t1 i7 ZL O Cl] C Ci] L2J CrJ z H H H H m C H ^CZZy In i z 0 0 [�] [�J trJ � t J t-j mm O c m O 00 O O 00 O O O O O 0000 o O 000 O 00 x xx x x xx x x x x x xxxx x x xxx x xx 0 O ci z n H C CJ x LTJ C1 x Ci] G7 H m H [IJ zn b7 O �z H H C 0 H LIJ N i z z O c ci z N W O o LTJ Y i o I � N i v I I � i r � I LQ I � p 01 p ko o o o o k.0 000 41 O Y 00 O 00 O W W J FO W W 01 w o YIP IP H O 1;1 1;1 N N N Ul N N J Y Y IP H U IP Y N m W O J N Y N U1 IA O J J J Y Y Y 1 Ul N Y IP Y Y Y Y W Y Y OD Y YYYY I I I I I I I I I W I co Y 1 I I I I I 1 I I i 1 1 1 1 1 W IP IP IP IP N IP IP IP IP I IP IP /P IP IP IP IP W rP IP IP U1 IP W IP W W W N N W W W W w N N I W W NIP N N N N IP N N W W N H O Y H H H O OD co Oo H IP I co Y W Ul Y Y Y W Y O Y IP O O O O O 000 O 0 0 O 00 O O 00 J O O 07 Ul O H YYYY W Y NNN Y Ul Ul I W Y H Y W W W O O O O O O O co J N I1;1 W O O O 1 Y W O O O 0 0 O 1; IP to Y O J J 1 N M c o N m c o IP Ul W IA J Y l0 01 m 01 (n 0% IP o N N ON N N Ul CO l0 �0 a1 co O o o O O O O F' ' W W Y J N UI IA N Y N p O O O O O W W W O co 0 W J W O Ul Ul 0 w J o o O N N 0 O o o co m J Y Y N N N W W k0 l0 l0 O 00 O O 00 O O O O O 0000 o O 000 O 00 x xx x x xx x x x x x xxxx x x xxx x xx 0 O ci z n H C CJ x LTJ C1 x Ci] G7 H m H [IJ zn b7 O �z H H C 0 H LIJ N i z z O c ci z N W O o LTJ Y i o I � N i v I I � i r � I LQ I � 0 C) P o A m A m A 61 A m A m A 131 n m A m A m A m A m A m A m A m A m I txJ t~' �- J * J * J * J * J * J * J * J * J * J * J * J * J * J * J I n V N V N V N V N V N V N V N V N V N V N V N V N V N V N V N i x Cl 1A 1A W w W W w W W W W W N N N I H H O 10 00 J m Ul IA W N H O 10 0 J I 1 0 1 C] N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I (] x 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O 00 O I :v LrJ o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0' O O 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 O I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 1 (] HHHHH H H H H H H H r H H H H H H H Y H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H I d CrJ 0 0 0 0 0 0000 O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O O 1 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H i trJ H I trJ I x I [zJ �� In H r iir �r t/r 1 x N Ul Ul r H IA H I O iR H H J J 1A -ca iR W N N VI {R H H i/? {/1. IP IA 10 10 H H Ul Ul W m -C/ i/2 m m -M-M. 10 J 1 W 10J 10 wN)4A P. UI 030D H NN HH UI Ul 101.0 H W W NN HRH 00 NHH mw I 0 r100o 0o0 W HN w10 Ul 1010 1010. Ul Ul w W 00 HH co co co OO mm mOm 00 W NH WJ i z cl HNOO IAJN W mOOHOO NN UI U1 00 JJ 00 00 00 JJ UI t1'I IA 1A0 00 WOW UiN 1 H N WOO UI IAN NNN01A 1A 4 OO 00 1010 OO JJ W W mm NN 000 OO IOHOO IPIP I 1 Ul U1 U] W CQ U2 m W U] co co co U] ca U] Ul r'U I rb }V >y > � �'� 0 0 0 x t" Ili z xx PIN xx xxxx H H H 4" t7 CU '1J � H H H xo Ul CIJC=J E-t 00000 0000 v to to CnCn paid y rororororo roroloro H m n u H w I z I t17tiJtrJtilw wWnw C] C) C] N :d O u 33 C H I LAt+]wwW wwL17L17 O O O 0 x 0 0 t W C Gcci �ci 0000 � m m o u ro o �Z�Z � r z wtowww PC ��� m C) m Ct'CCV CJC)C7C7 O H 0 G7 w H .'C HH co 1-C K G) I d HHHHH U] Pd ru .d t4 U] 0 z n0 z K I o C1 C2 0 C) 0 z z z z x1 n n O C •ro Cl. H H H H C1 CZ C] C] z x1 H y 1 C C C C C kI O H 00000 �+ ' H I X X. X. X .X v Z I I I rororororo :9:4Wt3j O 11J ro H N H 5u J xr x HH C I pa ro pa ',d i o t w 7010 ro H ' d 7J W H m w LA M 0 C ' d' a H I 00000 7a paci(:: t=J C 0 Ul o n (n P7 y1H H 11 J 1 1J II] C7 0 H H .'1'7 H I4 J Io to O x H m d x rrJ L1J x DI x x a7 ro z x 10 co coWcoIn 3 3 H G1 m H to H > z z �7 H CC H I rn co ca m co H H H H H 0� z z z I17 H H � H H z 0 a U] W '.4 I d 00000 HHHH Gl m 0 1 71 x r 0 C7 H rorn GC CA I L1J z z z z z Ul m t4 z > z U] w x C=J w w �' W > :[�, > t=J LrJ 3 z co w > p11 ;U x O t k U] U] xa I C] C C C' V C Ci C t=J H m co ,a H H H C I x1 H H ro U] t7 z C H M z co co H I H mU1minio z ro m Q z ro d IA 1-3 H L H ` H to I y t17n01t17w HH C w w H I C U] z 1 H CCCCC zz t1] C Cl z H G nC) l 0 HHHHH U] H b 0 t m I z z I mu u nm �� O m z r7 0 [IJ 1 1 1 m m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 O m 0 10 10 O 10 0 0 0 O O O O 1 m m m m m 1A 1? W W P H m H co W J Oo A 10 W w H H J I z fJ m Ul Ul m m ? P H H H w Oo IP 1A 1A Ul 1A A H w H Ul N Ul I C C) w O H m IA H H N H H r N W (D O H O H W 1A H W W 1A I C) 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 i I 1 i I i I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I 1 w 0 IA 1P 1A IP 1A 1A IA 1A rP 1A 1A 1A W N N IA N IA N W 1A 1A IA 1A I m G' w W W W W N N N N N w W IP N N N N N O N N W W W I �l z H H H H H Ul Ul 1P 4 H H H w H H H H Ul 03 1A w w w 00 I H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O m O J O O H O O rA N O 0 0 O 1 I m co co Oo 00 IA IAN N N H Ul O H H W H r H H N H H w 1 10 10 10 w w co 0o H H W N O 10 1A 1A 1A J t0 Oo co 1A 0 0 W I H 1.0 l0 10 10 10 m Ul H O H O 10 W m J m 10 w m m J N H N l z M l3l 1A w N J o W 0 1A O H O N H W J O Ul Ul m J N co i C OD w H J H O m N l0 O J J 10 1P 1A 00 r 1 0 Co IP J Ul r O IP 0 0 I H O J O co n N H O I M i z Z O 0 c I N z 0 1 C; 0 ro 0 W 0 I LxJ i 1 v - 00000 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 I 1 � xxxxx xxxx x x x x x x x x x xx x xx x C 1 0 I 571 I l4 (D I H I o In n x 0 m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m n m 1 tIJ C J J * J * J * J * J * J * J * J * J * J I n z N V N V N V N V N V N V N V N V N V N V N V N V N V N V N 1 x n Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul IA IA iA 4A 1A IA rP IA I H J Ul .A W N Y O \o Co J m Ui .A W N 1 O r C) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O 0 O O O O O o 0 0 0 00000 O O O 00 O O O I x L] 00000 0 0 0 0 0 o00 00000 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 1 M n 00000 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 00 0 0 O I n 'Jr' Y F: -'YYY Y Y Y Y Y YYY Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y I � Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YYY Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y I d CzJ 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O O 000 0 0 0 0 0 o O O 00 0 O O 1 I H Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y F' I CrJ y I CrJ C) �a Ix 1 [rJ I I x Lk iR '� LT 1 N N N N L? �/k {/k L? iR • � V1. 4A {/T 4A a N N Y i/>! m m {? i/? Y Y O O H iRiR 4 A U'1 i/T {!? F' t/S �P m m m m Y Y -M {?L? N N i/S {/t I J W IAw N H 07 00 NN YY IA IA IA W NJNY YEA coh C/?tir JJ m NIA mm YY V1 U7 1 N W N O Ul O o 1A IA .A 1A W W Y O O O Y OD N Oo O ID 00 to to Ul Ul to co O m m Ul Ul to to mY IA U1 O 00 OO JJ 1010 00 Y W JO UlO00 Ulm 00 mm O o 'PJJ to to Ul Ul 00 1 y co 1.0 mm Ul 00 Ul Ul Ln En JJ 0 N m0 m OY mm�A U1 00 UI L31 00 'AY W Ul Ul 0101 00 1 1 I dCCCG H H H H H H 1-3 F3 wtocowm Ti) to m �� Z ' � a PO x x tanw H1-3H -3H H 10 O xx00 z x x' U2UlU]U]Ul � '� H inn C�=J[�IJC�i]L�=JC�i] ro L�=J xx 0 x' :V4zz::E� :2� w � HHHHH tj H HH 'jv oro L�=J > >> 00nnn C �� gl-3q H ! F3q x ,'tl z H xxxxx - r H H H H Z p] CrJ L=] w CIJ S 0 LTJ CrJ �' PC �cl PU Pd n000n 0 H H C4 ttJ rororo tnulmmtn H tai] t�rlm r H C 1 L 00000 > r xxx HHH H LIJ to V] t- o (2 H Ul V]U] H U]V] n 1 z Z n H H H =J n L CyrJ �' 1 F3 zzz ' �y nnn m z3 1-3 1 H Io Vl r n O I I 1 r X r ' C) ' I H13HHH O H x1 m Y 000 3z:i�z:R: n O I 00 to m ro t CrJ tl] L=J CrJ CzJ ro x CrJ ci rororo ClJ tj] C=J CrJ L=J O ro co to ro G Lz] DJ I rrr'rr CIJ ro z H w trJWW m,amm z LrJ o L=JLTJ m n M I CO LrJCrJCrJLTJLi] 0 H d o xxxI]r. n tE: ro ro ro ro ro H z H H H H H H H H H H I 0 0 0 0 0 H x L%j to z zzz d d z z z z z d H d i u t Gzl Z z G142G1 mmmU)m L] n d 6742 H z 1 w U7 H H in to to CLJ Cl] Cl] w Cl] to Q � � 4" z ro °' z y rororo n ro roro CO G H to to ru O C Pd CV ro ro f ro tv r' HHH O H H C r ' H H w LrJ LIJ r ts] co L=J m m H I U] V7 co \ Ul to U] t I z H Pd n 1 H 3 ' z Fl H O z z 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 \o O o to 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 O l0 00 0 0 �o l Y IA J J m J W W Y rA w A A A IP 41 W W m .P .A Y J O l z 'Jy co N In Ul W Ul N N N A J Y Y .A IA IA IA iA Y Y IA Y Y to Ul O 1 G' n YYIA W O IP O N �P O YYY YYYYY Y Y o YY Y Y Y m0 IA IA A IA IA N w 1 m G w w W W W N N IA N N N N N N N N N N W N N N N IA N W I �O z N N.N N N Y Y Y W H Y Y Y Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul to Y Y Y Y W Y IA I H YYYYY O Ul 0 0 O 000 00000 0 0 0 00 Ul Y Ul I Y I -'YYY Y 61 ID H Y Y N I-' Y F' F-' F' Y m co 00000 O Ul W O IA 000 CC) 07CC) CC) OD Ul O Ul 00 O o 0 1 H N N N N Y N W Y J w W w m Ul Ul Ui W ID N Ul N N N Y N I z mcnUlcn%.0 w x o J o colo YmcnvlJ cn m o 0 .A A m I C N N N N N o N O N Y Y to to UI J J Ul to O Y w N O N O l 0 00000 O Y O JJOo IAJOOY 0 o o 0 O I H o OOOOO Y 1 1 1 0 l O N i n 00000 Ul 00o YYNYN O I L=J I YYY I z 0 C I N z 0 C 0 ro 0 to I I o 1 � N 00000 0 0 0 0 O 000 00000 O O 0 00 0 O 0 1 xxxxx x x x x x xxx xxxxx x x x xx x x xlx I C 'r3 I Sll 1 LQ 1 I Y 1 Y m n m J *J N V N M m M Ul N N 0 0 O 0 o O H H H H O O H H A m V N m N N N N N N N N N N N N OOOOOOOOOOOO Oo0000000000 000000000000 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 000000000000 H H H H H H H H H H H H A m n m * J * J V N V N m m W N N N N O cc 0 00 0 00 H HN H H H O 00 H H H A m n m n m A m n m l V N V N V N V N V N I m m Ul cn Ul 1 H O t0 N J I 1 I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 O O O O O O O O O o O o o O O O O O I H H H H H H H H H H N H H H H H H H H I H H H H H H H H r H H H H H H H H H H I O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 H H i/f t/2 {/2 {/1• {/k l/k ' m m N J J H H N L2 L2 {/2 -C/4 {? i!k {/t - Ea - H J J O H N {/2 N {11 i!? N -VI. N .(/? {J? J N N -(a -E/ 00 Ul UI H H m m W IP H H H L2 {!2 {/2 i!! iR H H i/? H O W W eP 00 HNO UIN W J Ul Ul Ul 0 00 IP J)-,P W W W W 1P IP W W IP OO J H N m H H H J O m ko O H J I O W W to mJ H H J 00.0 0000) W HH Ul0 Ul 1010 00 00 wmNN lO W 0w ON I O VI UI HIPmlO W lO lO WJNOlO IP 1010 Vl UlO mm NN 00 1010 O V1 UlN m JHHHmOUI CO OHm I O 10 000 0000 lP 1P 00 Ul Ul tO HIP IP W IP NHH OON W UIN J co , I 1 Z� C C CCQCCCCCCCCC(i CC' x [_] >> ro CrJ z z I H w U] U] U] M M Ul U] co Ul U] M ca x1 Q Gl UI x H H Ul U] to Ul M U] U1 U] U2 M Ul co U2 MM I H H H H H H H H H H H H H H z z z H H C Ci] H CrJt1 ]Cl]CI]CrJCrJCl]L Ci] CrJL�] N C+] O z x1 U x1 H 0 x1 x1 C�7 Cll Ci] Ci] Ci] t� C� C+7 CrJ Ci7 CA ti7 Ci] Ci] C+] I z z U2 UlU]U]V]U]U]L!]UIUlU]UlU]U]U]U2 I Z m tr?] n H F C n n n n n 0 n n n n n n n n n 1 Ul G7 G� 41 G1 G2 G2 G1 4] 4Z G1 G7 G] on x1 z 000000000000000 r H CrJ[r JtrJti]Lz]CrJCrJti]Ci]CrJCrJCrJ U) HH ti] O r 333333 x 333333333333 ro H X.3xxxxxx 333333 7". C Ci] CrJ C=l t Ci] CrJ L=J C+7 CS7 trJ ti] t2] C H H tI] Cl] n zzzzzzzzzzzz 1-4 nn � H y H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H , ' d n Q H H H H H H H H H H H H 7., i H z z z z z z z z z z z z z n nnnnnnnnnnnn ul o r H O C C) Ul CCCCCCCCCCCC O CtJm C n O I- 31- 3HHHHHH HH H H H O Ul I- 3HHHHHHHHH I ro Cx H H O ro tl] t�t�7[ rJtrJtrJtrJt =Jt�]trJtrJtrJ[�]t�][�l z (Tl HHHHHHHHHHHH C=J t=] H z CrrrrrrCCCrrrrr Ira to CrCCCCCCrCCC x1 n C H '=J x7 Ci] L�JL�[ �J[ i ]Ci]L�]LzJ[�lti]L�7C�JC�JC�JLTJ t s ] H H H H H H H H H H H H H z H O t1i > ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro xl 313HHHHHHHHHH H x10 H Q :d H xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Ci] H �rC �C�{{�rC{r� H Hz FC n M H 000000000000000 "z N z n x z z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz n H m x xl x1 ,'i7 �7 x1 x1 xJ xl x1 x1 U] CI] x1 CrJ \ U] rn � CCCCCCCCCCCC C x1 C r m C C) C H H H H H H H H H H H H ro H r n ro x trJ nnnnnnnnnnnn ro H n C x ro O ti] trJ tl] Ct] LTJ trJ t� trJ trJ trJ ts] t=J ti] H H t t�1 O H t t� m -- m C H � x � _ H H H z z O w 000000000000 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O C C O O O O O O C O O W co JmHH W HIP W mm W J J \0 W H l0 rP W W W W HJHHHH W IPHHHH H lP UlW co OD N 00 NHN W to 1; Ul H W IP H H H HNN 00 Ul J N lO UI WH JNHW H O W HIP N H H H H co O FP H W W H W N H H H IP H N H N OD H H H H H H H H 1 I I I I I I I I, I FP N IP IP �P 1;1 IP .P IP IP �P �P IP IP IP N W �P N �P �P .P �P IP IP .P IP IP .P �P IP IP 1P 1P IP IP W N W W W W W W W W W W W W N O N W H W N W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W w H co m 0000000 co 00 co co co co H 00A co co t0 H NNN N N N N N N N N N N NN O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O W W O l0 O O H HHHHHHHH H HHH H H m H H H H H H H H H H H H O H HP H H H W H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H Ul m H H H H H H H H H H H l O A N N N O H J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H O O O O O O O O O O O W co m m l0 H H J N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N HHHHHHHHHHH0 H HH H 00 Ul J Ut UI UI UI Ui Ui Ui UI UI UI UI UI UI UI UI Ul 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H co O N H O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J lO O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l P m O 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 CDC 0 0 cc O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H O O 000000000000 O 00 O O O O 000000000000000 x x xxxxxxxxxxxx x xx x x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx C) x n x z O n x t�J n x d H tij C) x m n x 0 c" z H C z � O x1 d t� VI n H ro H H O z z� ICn I � n w 0 tly C 1 �o z I H n O C z n H C n x n 7 x t�J 47 H H C17 H �z i C Q I H O I n N I z z O 0 c I I N 1 c:j O 1 :4 O W0 i 1 c i � n I y N 1 7 I I C 1 X11 I LQ (D I H I N n C) x O m n m n I M Ci m n m n m n m n m n m n m n 0, n m n m n m n J *-3 * I n z J * J * J * J * +7 * --1 * —] * J �- J * �] * J * N V N V 1 x n N V N V N V N V N V N V N V N V N V J V V m , H 0 J -7 J —7 J �7 J J �4 J 1 O C 0 t0 co J m Ul IP W N H O I I n N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ; N N N N N N N N O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 . 00 0 0 o O 0 0 o t2] n 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000 0 n x . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o00000000000000 0 0 O0 \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ ; x F, HH H H H H H H H H H HHHHHHHHHHHHHHH H 1 d t�] H F-+I -+ H H F-' H H H H H H HF-'HHHHHHHHHHHHH E-' \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ 1 G1 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000 o N N N N N N N N N N N N I to I n ?d Ix I � i? ilk IA IA H H 1;1 IA m H H IP N IP m H i ilk i? i? Lk iR i/k ` is i/k i/k ih ilk ilk ilk ` ilk {? I N IA N N W W ilk Lk J J -W W 00 0 Ui W W H H i/k to O W O W IA N c7 H U'1 I'D W W I? J m -ca i/k i/k m m U7O ID ID P A NN Ul U7 NN 00 00 HH NN W U7 co A AtO�NHNH W m Vl NN O 1 ld OHIO mm H mm 00 7--1 00 00 00 IP IP 0 k H OD mN W W 4101 W m JIP W UI Ul O m 0 0 0 l d to N N H H 0 0 W W 0 0 O O N N 0 0 V 1 0 ' Ul O U l 0 J 0 0 U l 0 J U l 0 0 0 00 O I H l0 O O O H H IP IA J J 0 0 W W 00 00 W W O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ul 0 0 0 0 Ul 0 0 0 0 O O O �I 1 b U] Ul U1 HH O H CrJ 5y $ $� E McolaEQEIn H ' 6y U] Ul U] L1� U) U] U] CA [l1 U] Ul Ul H tom! HH 3 H C x byUlbyWblbyb7Wb ��, n x 0 H 'rb RI Fn RI RI RI Rr RI R+ RI RI R+ RI 9 RI RI H 1 1 d CC O � � H O Lo 1 K HH C�rJ H O C C d d fnMUoUSUlWinU] U] Ul(nCnmmmm x 1 �_ ['I U]m cam m mmmmm m coca Ul H I C ti Lo 0 Ib H O z x[ O H 000000000000 ` z H o � zz t:j 0 n 0 0 n n n 0 0 n C) C) i to HHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I t-1 H m H 0 y x z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z i x1 m H m H nnnnnnnnnnnnnnn C t co K x n H H w 1 H C (7) O k C) `CI Us 0 0 n ' HH 1 - 3 � ro ro 0 n rorororoo rov roo rorororororo *S H t=] tl] G' H Ill O �1 a� U,tl� 0�'d� b O O �� 03 C 0 z G'l c7 z W z 000000000000000 C I 117 I 1 p C C n H t� n 1 -i I li 1-1 14 I� mm m ro m m x U] rnn�c�rn�rnt��rn���rn�� x F-3 wUlinUlmUlUlmmCnmmmm [ n h] \\ C 0 I17 Ul 7 1 U] R"I H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H n I t7 rn �� 0 C 000000000000000 H 1 tj m zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz H 1U1 co HH G G2 G1 d Cn CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC y i H CQ H H H CiI L� b n C H ro x U] Ul IA U] U] U] Ul U] U] V] U] Ul Ul U] Ul i y H H C O CrJthCi]trJCrJmWwmtilWwmwt-i m d U] H O 11 i1 it b ! d b t1 t1 d 'd pa H a zz m C ccccccccccccccc to Cd n n U] \ H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H z d �� Z H nnnn0nnnnnnnnnn H tj xf CrJL=JDi mmmmMmm 1 C) b tnU]Ul InmcomMmm z z H H 1 � z ' �0 00 ko o o w O 0000mm(nUlmmmmUlm0 -3 1 0 W W O 0 tb 47 co 47 0 co W -7-7-7--7 m m M Ul m m m m M M c 1 z� N W HH O N N N N N N N H W W W W �J OOmmm VI0�7H O I C"in Cn HH H Ul Ul U7 Ul Ul J Ul H HHHH (D CD mm U70ONH O 1 1 i 1 I W 0 IP IA IA W IA IA IA IP IA W IA IA .A IA 1;141 IA IA IA al IP IA IA IA IA IA 4. N W W m W H IP H IP t77 N W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W I? 1 'd z N W W N N O H O W O H ko H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H J 1 H N 00 O H H 0 H N 0 O O 000000000000000 < H H H \o H W O H O H W H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 00 O H n H n H � H H N O O N N N H H H H H 0 0 0 0 w zi 1 H \ NN H \ H \ H \ 1 O N o7HH W W mIO tO JJJO�HHH W i O co w Ul O O O O O N W H H IA IA IA H 47 W W Ul Ul N IP IA IA IA m 1 C O N O N JO \ N U7 N td H H do O 04�0�00 I NO WN WO4]JO l O O \ N N F -' \ LTJ O m O O H �7 O O O O O O O F' U 7 l 0 ,, 1 N HHHHN O 4 IA O IP IA O IPJ O I 1 O m O O 47 0 0 O N V I W H H I m U l U 1 U l m W H N H 1 z NO N E'' I 0 C O 0 I i O 0 N Z o Iq o `j ro O x0 1 0 H HH H H H H H H H H H 000000000000000 O ro roro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x �� I i v LQ I 1 H 1 w rn ro 04 N y O H 0 0 O N O z N O C4 W H H L7 W U w x U a H U z 0 U I I I I al �D i W I H I I I I W I O m I QI � 1 1 zl I O I zl I w I O U I o H I \ Q I H H I H 1 H I N H m z Wi � O PQ U x I Ln UPI N z l m I m I I I W I U z I z OI w HI A E+ I H (a I H I W (1' I U I Cs. Ul I O WI AI W CO I I x U I x I x P4 1 I I x O I AI z I W WI w > I w I F] I 1 w I A I w I 3 I ul i I Lrn oo rn E-I I lfl O O Ol OIL 0 r I CO Ln Ln L - i/} L} V)- I � x I � U I Ln w I x• U I I w I N AI H I H xI \ U I o W I o x l o UI N o I z I H I x I A N A U I K L- * w I v w v x. U I a) rn P4 N O rI O O O N O z N O . x U W x U a H U z z O U O llil Ln l0 m m O cO r� N O L- M Lfl O H O O\ d� N m O m O O M o0 rL O Ln W rA !n L- l0 m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . h rl m O r V' m 00 l0 Ln M m ci LO O M El- m N m rl N 00 N l0 �10 O L-0 N w ci O LO L(1 L- M LO zv r- w r- LO Ol r- M V' r� M O N L- vl- t/1- ; i? V)- co m N M M t11 rl M ri d' M N C� dL t? N t/ N ci N t? t? ri M rl Lf) t0 ME? t? t/ � H H O H H rr z H H x z z Z W H H�D�D W x w x z z Q E Q > `I w Px w w 3 < w z � z O a a w a> w z Q x a w a w H a° U ' l<� o W Q a H H W a Q W H z fx Ul E-L Ei n: m W Q W O W W Ln x H H m rn H fx P �l fx W rn rt fx f14 W M rn O rs, U H U C7 Q H W q W U W H r U1 m 04 D1 W U) W rl m fl Ln m O rI c0 Ol N O O O O rl Ln O O .-L H H N N N d� d' Ln Ii m W Ln co N 1 O ri H . i m � <r w t r r � I— Lp co =M :m =ftz =4- :W- :m 4# 4# g q q q q q q q q q q 2 Q 2 q Q Q x z z x x z z z z z�D z z x x z z w w w w w w w w w rL, w w w FT4 w w 44 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum REVISED TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Assessment Hearing for Vierling Drive, from Fuller Street To the West Plat Boundary Line of Orchard Park West, Project No. 1998 -3 DATE: November 6, 2000 o f Attached is Resolution No. 5438, a resolution which adopts the assessments for the above referenced project. 08 11 This project has been completed and all project costs identified. The final costs are $463,224.00, which consists of construction costs, right -of -way costs and engineering /administration costs. A breakdown of the project costs is as follows: Vierling Drive $376,805.11 Assessments City Cost $ 71,810.70 CIF /State Aid SPUC $ 14,608.19 SPUC TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $463,224.00 This project was to extend a City collector through Orchard Park West starting at Fuller Street. Improvements include street, sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, curb & gutter, bituminous pavement, concrete sidewalk, bituminous trail and restoration work. The City's costs within this project are for the street oversizing and bituminous trail as per City policy. On Friday November 6, 2000 staff met with the developer of Orchard Park West to go over the costs of the project. The developer expressed concern over the costs of the engineering/administration. Since that meeting, we have reviewed the costs and have found the following: 1. An accounting error occurred in the fall of 1997 in which a bill from our consultant was inadvertently coded to this project when it should have been coded to the Vierling Drive Widening Project that was being constructed at the time. This amounted to $6,045. 2. The amount of engineering costs for design and inspection appear to be approximately $10,000 to $15,000 higher than would be expected. Staff feels that this is due to the design being done in metric for state aid and the turnover of staff at the time the project was being designed made it necessary for three different technicians to perform the design, with each one having to learn the metric system. 3. The feasibility report for this project estimated the land acquisition costs and associated legal fees to be $11,475.00. The actual cost for this is $39,278.37. 4. The actual construction costs paid to the contractor are within the 10% contingency amount listed in the feasibility report. 5. Trunk Water Charges of $38,845.74 were not included in the feasibility report. In summarizing the above items, staff feels that besides correcting the accounting error of $6,045, that there is merit for adjusting the engineering design and inspection costs for this project. The City assessment policy for collector streets is to assess the local street equivalent. The local street standard design would have been done in English units. Staff therefore feels that there should be a credit given to the developer for metric design. The City of Shakopee does participate in cost sharing of the project for the oversizing of the roadway and therefore is picking up a portion of the extra engineering design and inspection costs. Staff believes that a $7,500 credit would be fair to the developer, however this is a council policy decision and staff is looking for council direction on this matter. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5438. 2. Deny Resolution No. 5438. 3. Table Resolution No. 5438. 4. Adopt Resolution No. 5438 with modifications as directed by City Council. Staff recommends the adoption of Resolution 5438 with modifications as directed by council as per alternative No. 4. The adjustment in the assessment would increase the city's share of the project cost and would be paid out of the capital improvement fund. Offer Resolution No. 5438 , A Resolution Adopting Assessments for Vierling Drive, from Fuller Street to the West Plat Boundary Line of Orchard Park West, Project No. 1998 -3 as modified by City Council and move its adoption. /Sw 7r Bruce Loney Public Works Director BL /pmp MEM5438 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Assessment Hearing for Vierling Drive, from Fuller Street To the West Plat Boundary Line of Orchard Park West, Project No. 1998 -3 DATE: November 6, 2000 � Attached is Resolution No. 5438, a resolution which adopts the assessments for the above referenced project. This project has been completed and all project costs identified. The final costs are $463,224.00, which consists of construction costs, right -of -way costs and engineering /administration costs. A breakdown of the project costs is as follows: I DESCRIPTION AMOUNT FUND Vierling Drive $376,805.11 Assessments City Cost $ 71,810.70 CIF /State Aid SPUC $ 14,608.19 SPUC TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $463,224.00 This project was to extend a City collector through Orchard Park West starting at Fuller Street. Improvements include street, sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, curb & gutter, bituminous pavement, concrete sidewalk, bituminous trail and restoration work. The City's costs within this project are for the street oversizing and bituminous trail as per City policy. Staff will make a presentation on the project costs and assessments at the public hearing. 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5438. 2. Deny Resolution No. 5438. 3. Table Resolution No. 5438. Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. Mfl ' ! l Offer Resolution No. 5438 , A Resolution Adopting Assessments for Vierling Drive, from Fuller Street to the West Plat Boundary Line of Orchard Park West, Project No. 1998 -3 and move its adoption. /�' Bruce Loney Public Works Director BL /pmp MEM5438 Debra 1 McIntosh Shakopee, 1 Telephone 1 1 402-9248 October 31, 2000 Judith S. Cox City Clerk City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 -1351 In Re: Proposed Assessment Project No. 1998 -3 Dear Ms. Cox: This letter is intended to represent my written objection to the assessment on Parcel Number 27- 266007 -0. It was never disclosed to me at the real estate closing of any possibility of this assessment on my home. I believe the builder should be responsible for the assessment. Mr. DeLacey indicated to me in a telephone call that the City of Shakopee would not have approved the development of this land, if the builder had not agreed to the Vierling Drive assessment. Obviously the builder knew, but failed to inform any of the buyers of his homes, that we could receive an assessment for Vierling Drive in the future. I look forward to expressing my objection to this assessment, together with the other affected homeowners, at the November 6 Council Meeting. - Very truly yours, Debra L. Priebe Cynthia E. Strawman 1517 McIntosh Circle Shakopee, MN 55379 October 31, 2000 Ms. Judith S. Cox City Clerk City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 -1351 RE: Project No. 1998 -3 Dear Ms. Cox: Pursuant to the Notice of Hearing on Proposed Assessment dated October 19, 2000, please consider this letter my written objection to the assessment for Parcel No. 27- 266008 -0. I was never advised by either the builder or my closer as to the possibility of any assessment of this kind when I bought my home in June of 1999. I have written a letter to my closer asking for verification that there is nothing in my closing papers to even suggest the possibility of this new road. There was a entrance to the development when I moved in which was, in my opinion, perfectly suitable for all residents. This new road in no way enhances the development or is more accommodating to the residents of the development. Notwithstanding the above, I have heard from some of my neighbors that there are discrepancies in the assessment amounts for different parcels. If this is true, I would like this subject addressed at the hearing on November 6th as that would make it an immediate grounds for appeal according to Minn. Stat. § 429.081, subd. 16, which states in pertinent part, "Property owner is entitled under this section to contest special assessment on ground involving proportionate distribution among property owners to total costs of improvement Very truly yours, Cynthia E. Strawman A Resolution Adopting Assessments For i Drive, „ iii Fuller Street To The West Plat Boundary Line Of Orchard Park Wes) Project No. WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council of the City of Shakopee met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessments of Vierling Drive, from Fuller Street to the West Plat Boundary Line of Orchard Park West by grading, paving, curb & gutter, sidewalk, sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer and all other appurtenant work. NOW, THEREFORE, E IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIEL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, SOTA: 1. That such proposed assessment together with any amendments thereof, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein and each tract therein included is hereby found to be benefitted by the proposed improvements in the amount of the assessments levied against it. 2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of ten years, the first installment to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 2001, and shall bear interest at the rate of 6.25 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added the interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 2001 and to each subsequent installment when due shall be added the interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; the owner may thereafter pay to the County Treasurer the installment and interest in process of collection on the current tax list, and may pay the remaining principal balance of the assessment to the City Treasurer. 4. The Clerk shall file the assessment rolls pertaining to this assessment in her office and shall certify annually to the County Auditor on or before November 30th of each year the total amount of installments and interest on assessments on each parcel of land which are to become due in the following year. . — -. Shakopee, Minnesota, held this session of the City Council of the City of day of , 2000. Mayor of the City of Shakopee City Clerk N y v - v v r ti v V v PO v N N N N N3 Na N Na N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O v .A A N .A p cc 000 v Cn O O O O O O O O O O O O O cn N 0fn �_�2 � �2wv�SN0 ='DS - o m�C� = == OS�S Z S p Z S= Z S Z Z S, Z= co O Z S CO r Z S � Z = C�= D O = D O m m om ; o 90 OD ODDOD OD OD - IODDO mODm m<Km 7m=X m<0m <gom <z= <gomxr=xrmxp mmmm� -D m m> m m m m m� m m m m w m m m m m r m m n m m� m< K m D m m O m - z z {�Z- 1�'Z -1 =Z-I �Z -I DZn rz0Dz�ZZ -- iZZ - -- z -1�z - �i�z > C T �- Oi���rC_-m -Oi��0 -Oi�cn c c)CCnnzmc� c imp X w r- w m w Z w w w w n w D v ti = i � -4 -4� Z � DC.0 r(D co m(D � z(D C: cc co D co co cor O D D W m Z p O p z m m N m m z Or' Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or O O �O �O �O �O X �O X �O �O X jo O n� n-j C-� C)� n� n� n� C-) --I S� S SCn S� =w Na D = = 0) =M S Sw S N = D D D D D D -' D D D D D D ;o p p ;o co ;o 0 p ;o 03 ;o co ;o p ;o p ;o p ;o w x p ;o W r r r r r p r p p z p z p z O z p z O z O p p p Z p Z Z - 0 7 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 'O - 0 - 0 "0 T D D Ul D Cil D D D D D D. D A Dp D D p D m m m m m m m m m m m m m - n - o c c c c c c c c c c c c c p p p p p p O p p p p p p D D D D D D D D D D D D D p p O p p p p p p p p p p Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z -Go S9 4 CD (o 1 0 CD CD {f) w w W w w co N N N N N CA EA S4 G,9 � co m 00 m O O O O O 69 Id3l CO O CD O CD CD CD CD CD CD CD co CO CD w w w w w w w N N N N N N N rsr 6s r69 ss 40 srs cs> w w w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r m M D r m n M v 0 z N D M N m N m cn cn 90 Mc M -+ z v � � (O � 0 C S Z D S` 1.40 M m N � D m m en --I en mr co z O <_ rr X m vl D X tLI Z y � � O D r � r m X :0 Cl) O L m n -i " m co Cl) 00 w W O c z D r z m O m z 0 CD B CD O O O N) -;4 � � ®< a N N N N N N N N N N N N N A A A A A A A A A A A A A 0 W W W W W co W W w W W N N S r ° ° C." c nn C C cn C cn C C - A O C CD - 74 CA m W N 9 T CD X Z p O O O O O O r O 0 0 O O O ® G) cncnr Cncn cn --- i> m n � = -iD =�D =�� =w m2— �I�m CS °DS °mS�S D f�t1CDf�TICDmCDfmc mCDmCDmCDOXDmCD <D'S D TAN.' > MC: r�N. ��NZ1�N�1T�N�T� .17.T1T�N%nT�ZIDT��7 WT�SZT�S0 o m O o m O o m O o m O o Mob m O o MOM -<0 o m O m z O m D O D O D D X m y M oZSOZSOz -u oZ -0 °z'o °Z -0 °Z -00 C_ - b 0 zT 7 - b 0) m xK - 0 z M -{m m -i - im - im -{m �rn --imm - m - imm mm � <O m mz mZwmZ`m m <Dm I w M z m m z z m m m m � z� z z z m m p m z z Z 0 X Z 0 0 Z Z C N C) Z Oz Oz OZ CZ OZ OZ Oz� 0 �OJ SC n� CEO m — Cn 0 Cn 0 c cyl 0 U m M r — CA cn ;a -fl -r1 cn 0 cn 0 cn CA m w m w m w mw mw m w m w w m w �w — C Iw w —I r 4 < -4 < -4 < � < —+ < -4 < -4 < -4 -4 < m --4 -4 o mo mo mo mo mo mo mo o mo o �o Co 0 �r O O O O O O O O m D o v z X m m m m m m m m m to M Z i - - - O i - z z z z z z z z n C) g �m Or - Or- O O Or O Or O r Or Or Or Or Or cam O ja O ;a O 30 O S 0 ;o O ;a O ;o O ;a O 70 0 ;o O ;a O S 0 oo C)' 0 0-1 n--i W S S S S S 2 S S 2 S S S S Dc' DN D� D� D D D D D DN D' D D� C O m �W X O Coro ;o C3 co � faro x� ;u ED X M �� Z T T� � � z z z z Z z n T� " " � z '0 � '0 "0 � � "0 � � � m D D-4 D y D-4 D C3) D o D D D o D S 70 x S S O X z z z z z z Z z z D m m m m m m m m m m m m m Cl) Cl) cn cn W cn cn Cl) cn cn (n cn cn cn m cn cn in Cl) Cl) cn cf) cn CO C C n n n n n n n n n Cl) o -+ z 0 0 0 0 o D D 0 0 0 ° ° o il cn cn cn cn cn O 0 c w m a cv co c co w o w o w z z cn D (n m �m m Z cn 20 �s e» s� 4 z r CD -CA v 4 v V v v v ti v v v v V v v —f w w w w c c c CD c c 0 0 o to C N Z O D O ea tfs 1.4 16S cfs 6s 6s rfs rfs vs ms's O D Co CD CD CD co co co co m w w w w w w w w w w w w w M o a> rn 0 rn C m 0) m M N N N N N N N N N N N N N D CA m cn � cn rrs tfs .69 cts rs ss rfl sfs f» g rD w s � a w w 0:) m s Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 A A A A 'P A ? A W W co W G7 0 0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 co 0 0) A W Y, N O — C A W N O O O O O O O O O O O O O a��DCn • tncn—c- �;wWn :cncnrcncnrcntnr 2 N r S N o n= o 7= o O= m c D m c y m c D m c D m c �c0m� - � _I7 0 ; � ; rso =T�U'm��ZT�N.f7TN�3.N.77�N�T�N� OKDO OKDOKDOK *OK Oo TOZVC�r��?���? vnr oC?, m m �m - - --im -i m�xm�mm�Spm�mm�07m��m�Om�mm �m r �m �m r Z O G) Z cn m z O m z O Z z O z O o z O z z O co z o Z Z Z o Z o Z o-u U , = cn S: C7 � = = mc„ = �cn = min =m Cn p fn pcn pcn p p m w nN��',,�?N�,�? cn ��',�?���",�? c�n 55 wn wn w mw mw mw mw m to C CD CD CD Co co Z CO co co r CD M Co M CD M O m cn O O O O O O F m r - z z z z m p -i Z Z Z Z Z C7 C7 C7 C7 CJ Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or ;01O ;oO ;uO ;oO ;aO X ju O X jo O ju O ;aO ;aO ;aO 0' n� n� C) --q C) --1 0 C) n-1 n� n-i n C-) -1 n -1 _ _ _ = 2 2 = m 2 2 = S = D°' D-4 D D' D" D�' D D' D D� D Dom' D� C.11 p m p m W m W X p M co m_ m_ p m p m p m p p r p r p r p r p r p r p r p r p r p r p r p r p r 7 7 7 7 o o n o v > r D, D, D, D, D, D D D D-4 D-4 D D-4 Dim r m m m m m m m m m m m m m m n n n n n n n n n o n n n z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o U o, c cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn m CD m CD Co co co c0 O co co 0 co CD D� cn m CA m cn cn Q° �c m-a j s 4 -4 Z r V -4 v v J v v V v v v v W co W w W W W W W W Co W W CD CD Co O co (D CD CD co Co CD co co n C = Z D -Go va .69 fo to ea 64 D CD m D O co CD O O co co CD co co CD C w w w w w w w w w w w w w m rn rn rn rn m b) 6 rn im in rn rn M N N Na N N N N N N N N N N D c M N EA IGq EA fA EA 40 b9 S9 CA Ffl H3 H3 EA m co co O 0 N 0 0 O O O CD O Cb 0 Z O O O<�, n ;a C.') xr ® +) CO D M y � 0 O .1 m � r c D r � r ® m X N O -- I m� 00 -i � m W co is W O c Z X r Z m O -n Z 0 c� 3 CD Z IV O O O N v v v v v v v v V v r V v � A A A A A A A A A A ? A O O O O O O O O O O O O CD O CD 00 7 91 Cn O O O O O O O O O O O O O S -SvXS� m SASS r P S W DS W O zKCAT. =X D7 ' �7 ° K�cn *7 <T. ZT.JCT.w r 0000K Om DOKZOKDOKDOKZOKZOKZOKrOKKOKOOKz - m Smn *mo momtowt o mo =n mo - 00 =n -Un m�mmZ�mzomzs�mzDmz mzDmz m rm m� m� m— i = m�Km . js 2om � K�mgoK�oCZODZO > Z p O mz p OFZ p OXZ O OOZ O oZZ 0 � z DZ n ZSfpz Z =� =-< S SD S S S S =r == m cn(� mcn Cn D Cn mcn T\ CA >Cn Dcn m rcn Can cn CA cn m0;o n mn<cnomcnn ngcn �+ n C C w����0�- IZ� -Ipv�] ����� zv;Z7T`v�] �� ��7r c W co m o m T co co cc o to m o X co cn o m O D U) D m 0 z X z G = O 00 7 m Z z O G) Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or �O SO SO ;6O ;oO X X ja O SO jo O X ;oO ;oO n i C�� n-i n C) � n� n� n� n� "� n n � n� 0-1 S S S S S S S S S = S S S D� D� DS A D c '' D N D DN D Do D D� D D�' D CO ;� ;o cu S CD ;am 70 sp x xC ; 0W 0W 0W 0sp 0W p r p r p r p r p r p r O r p r p r 4 r p r p r p T� m m m m mz �? D D DN W �N �N > N > N > N �N ,TJ .-0 o m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 n n 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c (D A CD m CD cc co CD cc c m co N v v � v co co W W CD CD CD CO c 0 c cD p w w w N N N N 4A 4is 4f> 4A 4A 44 4fl 44 v v v v v v v v W W W W W W W W W CD CD CD CD CD CO CD CD CD -G4 4A 4�i b9 4fl 40 44 4fD 40 CD CD CD cc CD CD CO co CO t w w w w w w w w N N Na N N N N N N M M O m m O Z m X m r m M D r v m cn n 0 z U) D -i N cn m m U� N Qo � C m —i z X n C = Z D 47 D M --1 m M 0 IGq 69 4fD 4f3 4Gq 4fD 4H 4fD 4A 4 m r- 0 0 OD 00 yo a z O O O O O O O O O O O O O n r D �m y C O t C Dr c m . X Gn O L m C7 M c� Cl) O C z D r Z m O ki O CD B a CD N O O O N N Na N N Na N N v N3 v v v J �I J -4 -4 1 14 �4 N N N N N A A A � � A .A.- A A A A O O O O O O O O O O O O O A W N .a O C w v 0) C W N p ' ' O O O 6 O O O O O O CD mC- wm a�°cntnmO C- MM Wm0wrncn(nrnrcnrn�cnrn� -tnrnD w D 2 w m S 4 2 2� DD 2 2 A m OD 2 1 pD 2 2 I D m 2 i D D <D mD zD �_D FD zD ;u> D D O�mOC ��zO��O��000 0 00TO 0 {O -4OOzOO7 °Z-- ;t -u zZ -u Z-m_6— -0ZQ° -0 z��z��z2mZO�ZQo�zD�Z��zD m m kro m m = m m � — m D m � D m z m m m m OO c OO > M Oo m C K OW N� OW - K OW K K OW K(n C K O) C K On y 9 On * O z= n Z S D Z 2 x z= m z= r Z= z 2 m Z= p Z= Z= Z S m Z= O Z= Z '0 U,n cn0p�C)z�n �n cnc�Ocnn(n X co -I c0 0 o cn O CO 0 o Z m o CD co co o r O Z m z z D m X O X Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or ;oO ;oO -;oO ;a O ;o O ;oO ;oO ;oO ;6O ;oO x ;oO ;oO 2 = S = 2 = S = 2 2 2 2 = D� Dw DN D Do Do D°D DJ Do D° Da' Dw D M [D X CO S C3 X a) CO 03 0 a) ;a W ;a c3 ® ca ;o C7 = r O C3 ;o co D D D D D D D D D D D D D W ;o w w w w ;o 2 m m m m m m m m m m m m m C) n n 0 0 0 0 n n n C) n C) C) C) C) C) C7 n n n n n ° c c c c c c c c � 69 69 a lao � �_ s J J J J J J J J J J J J J ci Cl) 0 co cc N co N N co co Gq c° N S9 w N w N w N 4G4 CO w O N W N S9 w N Gq W N w N w N w N -64 469 w w N N 03 c 0 w a m .1 c 4 c � OD a r m G) D r v m n X O z D� cn m N m m m ca -i cn Q° �c m� z -9 ,Z1 n C = Z D Q D M -4 m X cn c M O N -i N D �r z O 0 C/) = r �m M 0 O r C D r ® m X Cn O C- M n M c� Cl) 00 is W O c z D r z m O n z 0 0 a CD N 0 O O N N N N N N N N v v r v r v v v v v v N m m 0) 0) m 0) m rn rn O O O O O O O O p O O O O O p O -4 0) A W N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O S w S S w O S N D S N —{ S N r S S m S o O S O S o S S S S D �� > w ��' �� 'm D mT. = ox CO 07 OnWOnDOnzOnmOnxOnyOn�on =on�On mz O KZ O zm m m mZ m290mZ M M mZ m - z z -Z is m - Om-�mm"{x m mz �Dm'� Om"-i Dm - i-Im -i m-s= -o o �Om�Oz�O�KOKKODKOW�OmKOZEO�ZO�ZOXZO zOmo cn = ��2D�S��S��SZ�S�cn= C�Iicn2MCn =Ncn =Ocn =ycn =c�/�cn =0 m v:(7pvZ7 -4 -4 U�v;1CA V;QK -4 (7 v�7mv:(7 v.Z7 -4 ;0 -4 70 '< co cD co co CO CD D O co m co O O O K CD O Q o z z r- m z� a) m z D z m Z Or Or Or. Or. Or. Or - Or- Or Or Or Or Or Or' ;0O ;oO - 6 O ;oO ;0O ;0O x x ;uO Ja O ;oO ;oO X C) i n n --i C) � 0 -1 n 0 1 C) � C7 0 0 2 2 S S S 2 S S 2 S S S S Dca DN D Do D D D� Dm D D �' D�' D D� Xao Xoo xoo �w x� �m �m p per pm ;o co Co x � -z -z - a 7 \ _ -0 - - - 0 D D D D > X � X M X 7z z x z m m m m m m m m m m m m m '0 - u - V - a v -0 -0 M D - 0 '0 c c c c c c c c c c c c c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N Z Z Z z Z Z z z Z z z Z z D D D D D D D D D D D D D O O O 0 D O O O D D D O 0 0 O O Z Z Z z Z Z z Z z Z Z Z z � �aq � 4 � � S4 � -4 -4 --4 co CD (D (D (D co CD co w w W w co W co co co W W W m N N N N N N N N N N N W W W W co W W W W O O O O O O O O O O O O cc co iD W W W W W W W W W W Cl) W N N N N N N .60 N N N N N N O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 ° °O ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U' � ` CA 0) 0) rn rn a� rn rn rn m m m m m r m D r v m 0 -a z y D m m cn m m N y Q° m z r 0 sz >� ') D M —4 m M D c M O � --I m D m r --I O <a n X C/) r D X M y N 0 O M -n rC r m X � N O m� 0 0 CO C/) m O N co w W O C z X r z m O m z 0 c� a O N O 0 0 N v v v v � v v v v v V v N N � O N N N N N N N O 0) 0) 0) 0) O O O O O O O O O O O O O p U -fl w N —> O T v Ul A O O O O O O O O O O O O O cn m w to 1cn Pv��� cn �OfnCn�Cn D Sa cn SwO Do DACAD Dozy <DoC mD D�0 O - bKOOKmOK m M--< �c��Omoc�s��Z- �Z9mZ- mZDmZ�m- �mznmZ�mZm KOC KOOKOZKOZKOW�OOKO2MOZ2O TKOD�O7OKOs0KO p zc z= mz =D =mz =oz =mz=�z =�z =0z=Gz=5z =2,m m cn - cn cn � cn S 5 cp o m cn o c� 0 -< CA C� o 0 (� - Z i m 0 cn 0 > Ul 0 -X{ cn -4 -4 CD m�����co MCD 0CD coo�Occc cc co co��co� - cc 0 m z z D Cl) = m z z � z -+ O co m N Or- Or . Or. O Or- Or • Or• Or Or- Or Or Or Or ;oO MO ;aO X ju O m ja O ju O ju O ;oO 700 MO ;oO 0 -1 C) � C-) � C) � 0 � C) C) -1 0 'i C) 'i C) 1 0 --1 0 -1 O � _ — 2 S 2 2 2 S 2 S 2 = 2 2 D o D co D °' D-4 D °) D ° D p ' D u ' D" D D m D cn D-N X 0 0 m 0 co 0 co v co 0 ca 0 03 O W 0 co 0 W 0 0 a3 77 T m > > > v > y D D D m r m m m m m m m m m m O m m m m m m m m m m m m m m cn cn C/) cn cn cn cn cn 0 m m m o m m v m m v X c c c c c c c c c c c c c N N N N N N N N N z z z z z z Z z z Z Z z z Z p v v 0 v 0 O 0 v v 0 0 O D D D D D D D D D D D D D v 0 0 O v 0 0 0 O O O O 0 O 0 v 0 0 O v v O 0 O O 0 z z z z Z z z z z z z z z D Cn m cn m m m cn -i cn m� 0) 0) m m m rn rn rn rn rn CD co CD w w w w w w w w w w c w --I X 0 C = z D T` ea &a -Gq 4G4 64 &a E» S9 Fsa Ea 70 N N G) D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD m m co m tO o w w w w w w w w w w w w w D w cn m N N N N N N N N N D CD N N N N m r C) O O O O O O O Cl O Z O O O O O O O O O O O O O � 0) m � m O <a m _ r D �7 M y M 0 O r C >r �r ® m -o X ;a Cl) O C M n C i G CO m CO cn Zq Coo W O C z r z m O z 0 a- CD N O O O v v � � 14 N N N N Na N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W O O O O W O O O CA 0) O O O O O W W W W W N N N W W W W W CD v CO pp v 91 U7 O O O O O O O O O O O O O D�OmD�DDcomnDo,cD - -4 W mD� --I ;r, C 37 -4 CN co Dco co OM = OS�OS- z iOScnO 2 �O 2 �0 �00 OD�OD� D D o D mD MD �- D D <SD -- m< Mm< wm< Dm< �m <Dm<QOM<QOM<Zm<<m<Tm<T.m<"0 m 90 Z�SZ-- izZ -AOZ- wICZ�nZ- �1xz --iz �i Z- �1�Z �IzZ� I�Z�DZ� ccilz c ZO WZ -< WZ�wZDWZ WZZWZ� WZ 4 S-4 Z-4 V Z V V m-4 0 V V 0 - C V V m -4 n O m (D O r co Co CD Cl) CD m CD CD D co cD ..{ CD CD X m m co v 2 m cn m K G X -mi z x 5 z Z O 0 O m N Or Or- Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Or 513O 50 O Ja O ;a O X X MO jo O X ju O ;uO xO xO C) C. C) C) C) C- C-) C) � C-) n n n C- S 2 S = S 2 2 S 2 2 S 2 2 DA Dw D N D DcD Da y� D° Dv' D A DW DN D '' ;om mm 71 m ;o ca ;0m ;o C3 X 13 X mm xao X m m r r r D D DA D D D D D<,� D D DW D D m m m m m m m m m m m m m C c c c c c c c c c c c c o v v O o o v v v v v O v N N N N N N N N N N N N N Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z O O O O O O O O O O O O O D D D D D D D D D D D D D O O O O O O O O O O O O O Z Z Z Z Z z Z z Z z Z Z Z S9 rA Fs ea £a rys en I> , 6r co r� V V V V V V V V V V V V O O W O W O O O O O O CO CO p (D CO co O cD O O CD O O O O O O O O W CA O O W W W W Cl) W W W Cl) W W W .60 EA ffl EH EH Id4 b3 Efl EA Efl Lt7 <GA Na N N N N N N N N N N Na W W W co W W W Cl) W W W W O O O O O O O O O O O O (D O (D Co Co CO CO O CO O CO CD Cl) W W W W W W W W W W W - 9 O a m z m m r m G) D r v m CA 0 X 0 z D Cj) m cn m c� cn Q° 99 m c m -s rn zr (D -q � W C-) C = Z D A N G) D O m m W � c M N Ef9 fA -CA EH S4 EA fA Cl) 'i N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O Z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O cn Un U7 in m C31 CT M Cn cn (n cn U1 O O) O O CA CA O) CA O W O 0) O <a nz� r `J D M y M ® �7 C D r � f m Ln o O -4 C M n :E " m cD Cn co -i W W O C z D X r z m O z 0 CD as N O O O EA 69 E EA EA 6 69 6 69 E O <a nz� r `J D M y M ® �7 C D r � f m Ln o O -4 C M n :E " m cD Cn co -i W W O C z D X r z m O z 0 CD as N O O O 4 V v v v 14 v V T , v v v v N N N N N N N N -0 co N cc co C c Co Co Co Co Co Co Co CD w W W W W co co W co W W W W 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 o p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W N O CO Cp �4 CA cn O O O O O O O O O O O O C) cn - fn CA DCn fn (p <Cn cp cn 2 22 2S 2� m2cn nS SS m2U'22U'DSo'r2 D w D D p �_ D D w T D N O D D o Z D A O D w D co D D w D D D OD ZOD �OD ZO DXODXODOyDODm OT c�� < m�qomxo mx- mx9omxm m m Qom m < m Wm < m �m < m Dm m Dm m D m= m my m� m mm mO m m cn m < < M< M m m m m m z- �i O C 9cl)>Kci) Viz- �iDZ��z- �i�z - �i rr z ii�z�0z- Ixz�xz i -- imz m r - cnr-Zv,rTcnrRocnr—c-rzmr -m ,r - <a,r- cnr�cl m wZ DwZmw Iw I°'� W -q 4 -4 Z-4 7-4 r - --4 D-4 -4 O - 4 cn m - , O - 4 v-4 my Z� -< m o o o D to m m < o � o m < o z Co N o o O T m Cl) _ r- z Z m D m x m Cl) p m O < z O r O r O r O r O r O r O r O r O r O r O r O r O r n ;u O X �O �O �O x �O x �O �O �O jo O ;a0 n� n- n'i C) --I n C) C --1 n� n� n� n� n C)� S 2 2 2 2 2 2 S = 2 2 2 = o D°D D-4 Do DU' D� D" DN D'' DU' D D DN D�cn ;c C3 ;o co ;o co x W ;o W ;o ca X W X co X co m co X co X w m W co p r p r p r p r p r p r p r p r p r p r p r p r p r n T 7% �T� n T7 �Z �� �� T _0 V Z O r DN D DN DN D D D D D D D D D Km ;1 X X x X X m X x X m E: G) Z T Z Z T. O r :�E Z v m m m m m m m m m m m m m M 0 D T C m C C C C C C C C C C C C C z w w w w w w w w w w w w w �7 ;7 Z p p p p p p p p p p p p p D D D D D D D D D D D D D O p p p p p p p p O p p p p p p p O O p p O p p p p Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z z Z z Z z D C/) m cn m m r " (D c Qo rn r� t 469 va ea -Ga 4G �Gq ea cfa rfl -69 9 C N N N N N N N N N N N N N m-j O O O O O O O O O O O O O Z r Ln Ln U Ul cn cl Ul Ul � � cn Ul -� : , 4 -4 -4 CD CD Co to CD CD (D Co 0 = Z D 7 S9 &a rya - <a -Gq ea �Gn f» .60 ;q N N N N N N N N N N N N N m D CA O W O (A O O O CA (A O 01 D1 -q c0 m w Q7 co 0:) m co CA W 90 90 W m v, �n in cn cn cn in cn in 6 in cn cn X rn rn rn rn rn rn m rn M rn rn rn o D cn m Ea FF, Ea rA &3 Ea Ea b3 Ea (fl EfD N to > N N N N N N N N N N N N N GJ CiJ W CJ W W W W W W W W c+W m N N N N Na N N N N N N N N Z O m � Cn Cn Cn Cn C71 Cn tr CP cn c.n M C�II Cn M C Cn Cn Ul to cn Cn cn � 0 < a ry m C1 ® ' C,� D X �m'��3 M ® �7 C O r � r B m cn O m� 0 0 m m cc w � O C Z r z m O n Z 0 CD a- CD a: N 0 N N N N N N Na N N N N v v v v v v v v v v v v v N N N N N N N N W CND CN0 CND CO co W W W W W W co CD O O O O O O O O N N W N O O 00 -1 O Cn A p O O O O O O O O O O O O D m C D 2- �IDS�Z2��2- �I�S�IDS�i � 02�DS� DS�ID D m C D m c D m C D m c D m C D m c D m c D o x D m c D m c D m c �mT�N�T�N� 7T�NZ7T�N�T�N.CIT�NZIZNZ7T� (T7T�N�7T.NZ7T�N� Oomooxo omoomoomoo c )m moomoo - - o mozo imaZmoZ - O o Zm o m Zm Z� mv�m m -+mmnm �m -gym -im -Im �m -+m -imm m -+m -+m -i 9: zizn z� z� z� z� z� z� z�n�� zZ zz z Z p Z 55 o z p Z p Z p Z p Z p Z p Z p Z M m Z p Z p Z p CA 0 CA m cm M 0 Ul Z c 0 1 v(P °c cn 0M 0cn cn °en mcn °cn °cn ° w <w z <-4 <-4 <-4 <-4 < nw mw mw mw mw mw mw mw =w mw mw m � - <-4 <-4 D-4 <-4 <v < o �o _o � � �o NCO � �` NCO mo �` �`° r- co K K 3: m m m m m m m m O m m m z Z Z Z Z z Z Z v Z Z Z -I -i � � -i -i -i --i m � --I � z z Z Z Z Z Z Z z z Z 0 0 0 C7 0 0 0 0 0 0 C7 Or 0r 0r 0r 0r 0r Or Or Or Or 0r 0r 0r ;o 0 MO �oO jo O X XO �O ja O �O �O �O �O JO 0 -� C7 -� C) --1 n --1 0 -1 0 n C) C7 C7 C) C7 n _ Dw DN D Do DCD D D� D°� D D;' c '' D D D� ;o �p �� co co ;a 03 ;a 03 ;o 03 Opr 0 per m x m Z - 0 0 X m Z m z m Z T T Z T z w w w CA) 70 70 w w 7 w x w � w X w x w x w m m m m m m m m m m m m m CO C/3 Cn cn cf) CD (j) c U) U v o v T - u o 0 c c C c c c c c c c c c c v ° ° w w w w w w w w v p 0 ° D D D D D D D D D D D D D ° Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z z z Z Z co G9 N N N N N N N N N N N N N p O O O O o O O O C coffin C-4 -4 v v - v v v v J v v zo (fl ( CO CO C CD CD CD D CD C C CO CO N W W co 0 W m m N N N N N .69 N N W W m 0 0 0 co m W m m m m m m m m m c� rsr en rsi 4a Fn -GS Vjr 4-4 N N N W W W W W W W 0 0 0 O) 0) d1 O) Q) cn (Ti c cn c�'n c c�'n of c�'n c�'n c c - 9 M z O a m X O z m m r m G7 D r v m 0 v -+ O Z N D X cn m CA m m m cn -i to m --I z -i -i M C = Z D (7 M _-4 m M N C.G n: 0 u v D N M m cn �' D �r Z O < a n 70 C/) =r v X m y � O m N D r q r m X co O -- I C M O C cm CD Cl) Z i 0 w W O C Z D X r Z m O m Z 0 a- CD O N O O O Cb N O co v O O O w—xwwr - wwr - = �O = ma >mc DppQ7D T.(D m ;rNNx 7N� m O- m o z m o - m m D m D z��z oz o cm ul < cn 4 <-4 < co z CO M CO m m O O K 0 v v K K Fn m � � X z z n 0 m * mo w O r O r r Az0 Amnm�_ n =O n =O U, OO r > r CO zo � co � � (D � � o SDI, mOOcn �W �U) � �O mz m m A A ' _I —I . Z w 0 D C r w w O z O p D p D -i ® z z --I D r CA) w 0 co j w O) 00 CT1 61 N N � � (D � � o � W v co w w co j O) 00 CT1 61 N N � � (D � � co s s i n 0 n n n 7 0 0 J a cn n n m TI n Qo 'n -Ci zr -I nC aZ D� m� m D cn M C.4 cn O w r M W O <a xmCIO _ � D X Amy � O M - N r C D r ® m ' A cn O C- M -i n O -i M ca cn c tv W O C z D r z m O TI CFA O CD s CD N 0 0 O rn � O) 00 w � � � W O s s i n 0 n n n 7 0 0 J a cn n n m TI n Qo 'n -Ci zr -I nC aZ D� m� m D cn M C.4 cn O w r M W O <a xmCIO _ � D X Amy � O M - N r C D r ® m ' A cn O C- M -i n O -i M ca cn c tv W O C z D r z m O TI CFA O CD s CD N 0 0 O Debra 1513 McIntosh Circle Shakopee, a 9 Telephone 402-9248 October 31, 2000 Judith S. Cox City Clerk City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, NIN 55379 -1351 In Re: Proposed Assessment Project No. 1998 -3 Dear Ms. Cox: This letter is intended to represent my written objection to the assessment on Parcel Number 27- 266007 -0. It was never disclosed to me at the real estate closing of any possibility of this assessment on my home. I believe the builder should be responsible for the assessment. Mr. DeLacey indicated to me in a telephone call that the City of Shakopee would not have approved the development of this land, if the builder had not agreed to the Vierling Drive assessment. Obviously the builder knew, but failed to inform any of the buyers of his homes, that we could receive an assessment for Vierling Drive in the future. I look forward to expressing my objection to this assessment, together with the other affected homeowners, at the November 6 th Council Meeting. Very truly yours, Debra L. Priebe Cynthia E. Strawman 1517 McIntosh Circle Shakopee, MN 55379 October 31, 2000 Ms. Judith S. Cox City Clerk City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 -1351 RE: Project No. 1998 -3 Dear Ms. Cox: Pursuant to the Notice of Hearing on Proposed Assessment dated October 19, 2000, please consider this letter my written objection to the assessment for Parcel No. 27- 266008 -0. I was never advised by either the builder or my closer as to the possibility of any assessment of this kind when I bought my home in June of 1999_ I have written a letter to my closer asking for verification that there is nothing in my closing papers to even suggest the possibility of this new road. There was a entrance to the development when I moved in which was, in my opinion, perfectly suitable for all residents. This new road in no way enhances the development or is more accommodating to the residents of the development_ Notwithstanding the above, I have heard from some of my neighbors that there are discrepancies in the assessment amounts for different parcels_ If this is true, I would like this subject addressed at the hearing on November 6th as that would make it an immediate grounds for appeal according to Minn_ Stat. § 429.081, subd. 16, which states in pertinent part, "Property owner is entitled under this section to contest special assessment on ground involving proportionate distribution among property owners to total costs of improvement " Very truly yours, Cynthia E. Strawman e C / o (oLz AA. �- -�r na-� - � -�-o a pp o ,n a S5Z55kv, e yx+ i wLP used OLt P vo p a + 5 l b L CC le 5I a t�op.ee , PGLKC e n &,W aY\ a 'e,,d;�� �g r�-�-Y COLAnCt tr't�e > ss der C-) vi r l d �5 �uE �o (fc s 7�_._. NOV G ; 2000 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Vemorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director S JECT: Assessment Hearing for Sarazin Street, from St. Francis Avenue To 800 Feet South, Project No. 1999 -3 DATE: November 6, 2000 Attached is Resolution No. 5439, a resolution which adopts the assessments for the above referenced project. This project has been completed and all project costs identified. The final costs are $170,179.37, which consists of construction costs, right -of -way costs and engineering /administration costs. A breakdown of the project costs is as follows: DESCRIPTION 1 SOURCE Sarazin Street $140,800.22 Assessments City Cost $ 26,905.01 CIF SPUC Oversizing Cost $ 2,474.14 SPUC TOTAL, PROJECT COSTS $170,179.37 This project was to extend Sarazin Street, from St. Francis Avenue to 800 feet south to just past Mooers Avenue. Improvements include street, storm sewer, concrete curb & gutter, bituminous trail, concrete sidewalk and restoration work. The City's costs within this project is for street oversizing and bituminous trail, as per City policy. Staff will make a presentation on the project costs and assessments at the public hearing. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5439. 2. Deny Resolution No. 5439. 3. Table Resolution No. 5439. Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. Offer Resolution No. 5439 , A Resolution Adopting Assessments for Sarazin Street, from St. Francis Avenue to 800 Feet, Project No. 1999 -3 and move its adoption. ce Loney Public Works Director BL /p-p MEM5439 Resolution n g Assessments For i Street, From St. Francis Avenue To 800 Feet South Project No. 999 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council of the City of Shakopee met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessments of: Sarazin Street, from St. Francis Avenue to 800 feet south by street, storm sewer, watermain, concrete curb and gutter, bituminous trail, concrete sidewalk all other appurtenant work. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. That such proposed assessment together with any amendments thereof, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein and each tract therein included is hereby found to be benefitted by the proposed improvements in the amount of the assessments levied against it. 2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of ten years, the first installment to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 2001, and shall bear interest at the rate of 6.25 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added the interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 2001 and to each subsequent installment when due shall be added the interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; the owner may thereafter pay to the County Treasurer the installment and interest in process of collection on the current tax list, and may pay the remaining principal balance of the assessment to the City Treasurer. 4. The Clerk shall file the assessment rolls pertaining to this assessment in her office and shall certify annually to the County Auditor on or before November 30th of each year the total amount of installments and interest on assessments on each parcel of land which are to become due in the following year. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 2000. Mayor of the City of Shakopee WHIM City Clerk N N N N v -4 y v --4 -4 -;4 v v 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 07 CC) -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � •_ C 0 O -74 (D CD N � 00 O O O O O O O O O O G�wCCn- , D� - �DCnN W G�oCCnNocnNvCnNvacnN<Cn�cn ON cn2 -4rn =COZ =N QN W D c n J am ., °�OD�' Dv DcD�D��r -�= T. T. T D� X zD�m �OoKmO g z v m�QO� D0 �� 0 - �j� W i z � p U�z - <mm �s0m-- i - < m.im Z - <mm - n =mTn DN im = � ° m =n Mm 9 .m�mm�mm�nm��'p -DOz �Z ) G)ZwmrnDXZo�zOWzO�ZoDZZc•�mm �W0ccnnn0zccnnX Cil���or -0cl, CU',,y CU Cil MCYIDZwDp- cn z M �_ D D r - cn p D G) K z N z W ;r" Z m m ° m m o;o G) cn �r �r - U r - pr 'Or cn r- D � � D D D � � DQ �z it1 v ;i7 O cn '�— X Ca N N a2 r- m M m m m m m m mW zr <_ r <_ r <_ r < r < r < r < r < r < r n Co F � r � r � F � F r � F � � � � ;r' � � m D N y N DN DN DN DN DN D D �DG� m m m m m m m m m r v _ _ _ _ _ _ - r _ = D m n D O O � O O O � O > .� z z z z z Z Z z z C cn O z X D c ® D cn M N_ N � Z cn cf) M CD m q O - n r � r 'n D Z 0 Cn m z C m OD O O O Z 0 CD 3 a ' CD w n' 0 0 O cn D M M � � � . GS m N m c co co co c C m C (D z r p O O O O O O O O =z N D c O O O O O O O O O W m �{ m X 69 cn ffi Efl Efl {fl ffl 6 cn A A - � � -4 -4 � -1h. - co CD co co co co co cc C � cc N m r Z -i X D c ® D cn M N_ N � Z cn cf) M CD m q O - n r � r 'n D Z 0 Cn m z C m OD O O O Z 0 CD 3 a ' CD w n' 0 0 O N N N N N N N N �I v -4 y v v v V -4 ti 00 co N N N N N N N N N p0 co O co O O co OD O O CO O O O O O O 1 W N -' O Co 00 �I � cn .? � � O O 'O p O O O O O O 0 N C A O N C n 0 N C A O N w O N w O N w 0 N w 0 N W O N W 0 N w r 1 = D 1 = D 1 = O 1 = o 1 = o 1 = 0 1 = p 1 m p 1 = p 1 = m m :EOm Om::EOm::EOm::EOm :Eomom:EOm Om O ZDKzDKZDKZDKZDKZDKZDKZ < N m < <N m < N m <Nm <Nm <Nm <Nm <Nm <Nm� D D OD D OD D O D y O> D O> D O> y O> D O> D O> D 0 0 r- 10r- i0 - �O -1O -10 �O -iO --i0 -10m m y m D m D ij D m D m D m D m D "A m D m D m �G00 r0 r0 r0 r0�CO�C0�r Z �z �Z < DZ < DZ < Z < Dz �z �z z �O -i cn cn :j cn cn -1 -1 cn �_ -1 cn �_ v, -1 cn - cn m =1 cn O� O� O� O� O� O� O� Oz z" zN) z� z� z� z� z� z� z� z� -0 r -0r- - Dr -pr - pr - 0 r Mr 7 00 - 0 r - U r � T{'� 0 - pr � � 0 D D DO D 4r1 �y10 co (o /V N Fn N 1 m N 1 m cn N 1 m .P 1 m cw 1 m N N m T D T O N O m N CO m w co m CO -99 w <r w <<' <W <� <� <W <W <W < < �T� r� �� �T. r� -4 A -j A m D W D co D N > N D N D N D N D N D N m D N m 0 D G) m m m m m m m O co r m _ _ _ _ m _ _ _ 0 _ 0 _ 0 _ 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 O z 0 z 0 z D z 0 z X z z z z z z -GS V) -GS Ge � r� m � 4 -4 J 4r1 �y10 co (o CD co CD CD CD CD m - c i 4.9 -99 4 v v z -� -4 A -j A A -;h. � � � -4. N X 0 C = z 0 o a o 0 0 D 0 0 0 o 0 CD O Op ° o ° o y m -i m A cn D cn � m �m XDN O D m m N Cn z 9 � m q -n r X r- 0 CA T D z 0 CA m z C m co O O C/) O z 0 CD s co q P ns 0 0 0 D 4.9 -99 4 v v M -� -4 A -j A A -;h. � � � -4. N A A co A co O r CD co CD O O co O m z cn D cn � m �m XDN O D m m N Cn z 9 � m q -n r X r- 0 CA T D z 0 CA m z C m co O O C/) O z 0 CD s co q P ns 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N v V v v v v v v V V 00 00 O 00 O O O 00 00 Cb -0 N N N N N N N N N N CD O O O O O O O O O O O O N cn O N fA O N Cn O N �n o N Cn O N fn O N Cn O N Cn O N Cn O N cn o� =o� =o ' =o - 'MO :E v = °_ °�_°�_ °�_ m ::Eo *om *Om�Om�Om::EOm::Eom:EOm:�- O ZDKZDKZDKz>Kz>KZDKZDKZDKZDKZDK G Nm < <NmGNm<Nm<Nm<Nm<N D> O D D OD D OD D O D D n D y O D> O D y O D D O D D 0 O - �Or�0��0��0�- 10� I �O� tO� - �O - v m D� m D� m D x m D x m D x m D x m D X m D X m D� m D� m 03 - 0 -< m -0 -< co v -< w -V w -0 -G G m -< W m '0 -< m - m -< m "V 70 r0 r0 r 0 0 K�O : K K< � ZG�Z <�Z <�Z <�z z � z � z D z � z �O cn -I cn -1 cn �_ cn -i cn -� cn -I cn -I Cn -i cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn � O O A O p O O O4�6 O� O� O� O Z z� z� z� z� z� z� z� z� z� z r - p r �� - V r - 0 r �0 m r - p r - p r � - 0 r DO - 0 r DO - 0 r �O V D� V D� V D D V V V N co m Cn 4, Z7 (� N m '�— V '�— CA 77 CA V V W V V V V V V V V V V V r < <W <W F <� F < F T` <� F T <�r F <W F <r F <r F co F D� D� D� Da' D� DW Dom' DW Dom' Dc`' G1 m m m m m m m m m m D r - - i - cn 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 n - O z D z C z C z C z 0 z 0 z 0 z C z 0 Z 0 z 6s V Ge V -6s V � V V V V , V V .69 m V m V V V V V V V V V V N co m co cfl m co m m co ID m� V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V r z co co co co co cc co m X 0 C = Z O O O O O O O O O O D XCC p p O O O O O O O O C - M -i m ;u > cn m �m � Cl) cn ® D M M N CO � CO z � m w �J r K Cn D z n cn D m z C m co O O O z O CD ZS O PV O O O Cn EA 69 69 Efl EA fA V ff3 V ffl V (n -q V m V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V 0) co co co co co cc co m co m co z > cn m �m � Cl) cn ® D M M N CO � CO z � m w �J r K Cn D z n cn D m z C m co O O O z O CD ZS O PV O O O N y v v v Na � V V V V N co N O 00 00 00 O co OD co O W w W W co W W W W t0 OO 4 WO 9) CIS ? co N) e p O O O O O O O O O 0 0 00 C G7 co C 0 00 C G) o C G) CO C G) CO C G) CO C G) aD C = W( 7 D0 N Cn O N ON Cn Do =D ao�r � _� _� =r0 a D-u D Z D k Z D K Z D K Z D K Z D K Z D K Z D K Z D K m =om =M < Nm < Nm <Nm <Nm <Nm <Nm <Nrn <Nrn� M m —;-� D D o D y o D D OD D O D y O D y O D D O D D O p z w z m D m D mD�mD m D m D m D mD�m cn�2cn% - Gw�- <w� -<w� _0 03 Gw�- <w� -Gw�A mcn 0 r0 r0 r0 r0 r0 r0 r0—� CA) r W < K < K < ;u K < < K < � < K < -< V r- Z �z �z Dz �z �z �z �z �O o m o cn —I cn —I cn cn cn �_ cn -� cn —� cn --I � r c " O� O� O� O� O� O� O. O Z r CD ZC Z0 Z� Z� Z0 Z0 z� Z m z m DO �0 DO �O DO �O �O O DO DO d 22 41. � 70 �� �co tea° � � Fn w m mw mw mw moo m m m m <r <<' <r <r <r <r <r fir Cr Gr r T` r r r r r r r r D cn Dcn DCYI Dcn Dcn DC31 D D D D m 0 O G1 0 0 0 0 G) 0 G7 m m m m m m m m m m r _ _ _ _ _ M n 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 z z z z z z z z z z 0 z --I X C) C Z t� cfl to to f» ) = T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o rn D -i m CD v X D (n m Cl) ee m -GS cfl � ss � �, � m O V V 4 m rn V fn V V ? 4 V ? V V A V V V P V Cl) s� cn — I A : co co co co :P� co co co A co co C o m -i m z i �- c�'o C c CO m r C.0 CO c -i C --I X C) C Z t� cfl to to f» ) = T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o rn D -i m �Dcn ® D M M N Cn I Z ic Cn M CD z CO m w —1 0 - n ;u r 0 Cn TI D Z 0 cn D m Z C m Oo O 0 Cn O Z O CD a' CD I P N CD O O D Cl) ee � � � � � m O V V V V V V V V V P V Cl) s� cn — I � m m c�'o C c CO m r C.0 CO c C z �Dcn ® D M M N Cn I Z ic Cn M CD z CO m w —1 0 - n ;u r 0 Cn TI D Z 0 cn D m Z C m Oo O 0 Cn O Z O CD a' CD I P N CD O O N N ~ ~ ~ V N N N O O O O O O O O A A O� 91 9", W N N O O O O O O O O O O O O t A V Cn CnONCnO NWo"WONfn C = C ' =0 = = O ' = O ' = O ' _ m *Om� Om�Om�Om *Om *Orn�Om *Om:EOm 0 zDKZDKZD�ZDKZ>�zDKZDKZ>KZ < m< N m N M < N m< N m N m < N m < N m < N m< N m D D o D D o D D O D D O D D O D D O D D n D D O D D O D D n p r- IO -IO O Or- IO I O' - �Or�O' - QOM mDXrnD�mD�mDxmDxmDXmDxmD�mD�m O C O C O K< O K O<< O K< O K< O K< O -G z �z �z �z �Z �Z D z �z �z �z �® cn -� cn �_ cn � U' u' a' O� Oa O� O� O� O� Oz z Z Z Z Z� Z Z CD Z Z� Z m r r - O r W r - p r - u r m r m r m r r �O �O �O �O �O �O DO �O DO �O N 00 12 V <W <� <W <� <W <W <W <W <� <W F T F r =te F7 r=te r= r� DN y N D D D� D� D-' D� Dcn >cn O G) G) G) G) G) G) O G) G) m m m m m m m m m m D cn cn CYI cn r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 X z z z z z z z z z z 0 z n C ffl b9 EA ff3 EFi 69 ffl &s 69 = Z O O O O O O O O O O D O O O O O O O O O O G) D M -I m M CD > cn m ffl b9 f!i <fi Efl v ffl v Efl f{s 11 m .Ge 69 v 69 � � v 4 V �I N 4mmi cn 41 A A � � ~ P A A CD C A D t CD CD co C O M - CD C.0 CD co CD co z r- Z n C ffl b9 EA ff3 EFi 69 ffl &s 69 = Z O O O O O O O O O O D O O O O O O O O O O G) D M -I m M � D cn O > x cn M M N Cn � Z C/) m CD m W -1 O - r � r O Gn T D Z C7 D m Z C m 00 O O U) O O CD a CD O N O O O (n N ffl b9 f!i <fi Efl v ffl v Efl f{s 11 Efl -4 m o 0 —1 -4 v v v v v v v v 4 V �I v (n 4 A A A A A A O co (o CD M r CD C.0 CD co CD co m Z � D cn O > x cn M M N Cn � Z C/) m CD m W -1 O - r � r O Gn T D Z C7 D m Z C m 00 O O U) O O CD a CD O N O O O N N N N -q -4 -4 � 71 i a e W W W co W W W W Co p O O O O O O O O 0 W N O Co T p p O O O O O O O O 0 ° C G) a° C ONCn ONtnONtnON W ON WONCAONfnONfnON ZDgzDKzDKZDKzDKzDKzDKZDKZDKZ << m< N m< N m < N m < N m N m< N m< N m< N m < N m D D 0 D D 0 D D 0 D D C7 D D 0 D D D D C) D D 0 D D n D D 0 0 r --1 O r —I O r —I O r —1 O °— — O r — O r --1 O r� O r� O r — 0-a mD mDxmDxmD mD mD mD mD mD rjD7Dm - <wT- Gw -o-<m -< <w��w�- <wm- Gw� - <w�� r0 r0 r0�C0�C0 r- Z Z Z Z � z � z §z § Z � z � z O cn �_ cn cn cn — I cn — I cn - � cn cn �_ cn �_ � O� O� O� O� O� O� O O� O� Oz z� z� z� z� z" z z zCY) z z m r 0 -0 r -U r �O -U r �O - 0 r �O - p r �O m r DO - 0 r DO - 9 r �O -U r �O �O �7- �o ;o C" M <W <� <� <r- <� <� <W <W <W F w <r F F F F F .P 9h. Fir D D D� D$' DW DN DN y y N G) DNm G) 0 G) m G) m G) m G) m G) m G) m G) m G) m m m r Uf cn cn cn cn Ul cn Ul _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z z z z z z 0 z cn D� U ) m 4.9 69 69 � , w m v -4 v -4 v v v v v m � � � � -06 cn c c c c co m c CO m zr 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o y 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O O M -q m �Dcn D M M N CA 0 Z cn Cl) CO m c° m7o W --j O - n �7 r K CA D Z n CA D m z C m O O Cn O cz 0 0 9 t7 CD n P N 0 0 0 D M -4 -4 -4 v -4 v -4 -4 CD 0 � � A 0. -lb. .P 9h. -4 ;b. to > :Dl :,N. :D, co :N co co IN. g r co co co co co co co m z �Dcn D M M N CA 0 Z cn Cl) CO m c° m7o W --j O - n �7 r K CA D Z n CA D m z C m O O Cn O cz 0 0 9 t7 CD n P N 0 0 0 v v -4 v m X D Cl) ' `�° 0 w w CA) 0 0 o 07 0 0 0_ _ O W N N 0 0 0 O CO 00 ® m C7 t fn Cfl N (� O O O O O Z C/) M M 2 - 4 m On�,cn0Nto0ttwottwotw Cb oCG�o O Ccm Z >9 -1 r Dp mp t- r — = r — = mp =p C , m CO --1 � O K M m::E O m* O m�:- O m::E O m 0 D O r° U D m Z D� z m xm < �m < D K Z D K z D K z R -<m < - <m < <m < �p mn— >>O> >O>> >>O>�oo IO��O��O W O =Z�- 10�- z y C) m D 70 m ,O�- D m D x m D X m D� m cnr �W - 0 - GW- cnr' r0 �W� <W� - <W�:� r0 r0 r0 r0� C/) < K v Z Z � < < < < -< Z z z co v, Cn I cn -1 cn al cn -� � Z Z7 D N Z N rn rn Z N Z N Z N Z CF) rn rn n cn D m -�,o W mr Z m -n D� r mr - Urr - or �0 �0 �0 �0 Z m r N 00 m r m W m W m CO m W O W <W 0Zo� Fr <r <r <r <r r rT` t=om F: co O r r r r r m > m O O C�C/)> GDj> r0 m G)� 0� G)� m m m m Dr U) O Om� m Z 70 - O -1 -"' I v m C —I Z = >-m _ _ _ = o p C/) 2 o 0 O\ 0 0 m N Z Z Z Z Z < O m Z :�E -i ® 0 D D r W p tt Cl) D X Cl) CA) - v - W m w o w w ra P A �' Cl) Q° Z O v N O O :-4 41 4h. P C CO O CO CO m < CD � Zr 3 -4 :4 a. < CD � � C 0 Z = N O v C) 0 0 0 0 o D T` O w W O O O O p O U1 N m -j m v N ea ee Cl) -4 v O Qp cn O) j O v v Cl) A Cl) D g O O O (3) A p r CO CO Co CO m N N N j z -i CITE' OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to City Code Sec. 11.54, Shoreland Overlay Zone MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 In response to a citizen petition for EAW for the proposed Valley Green Corporate Center and related concerns about Dean Lake, at its November 16, 1999 the City Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to the Shoreland Overlay Zone that would create a 300 -foot "shore impact zone" around natural environment lakes. Staff provided the Planning Commission with proposed language responsive to the Council directive, and on December 9, 1999 the Commission opened a public hearing on the proposed text amendment. Consideration of the proposed amendment was tabled during the preparation and review of the Alternative Urban Area wide Review (AUAR) for Valley Green Corporate Center. The reason for tabling was that it was believed that the GUAR would shed light on whether an increased "shore impact zone" was or should be required. While there was comment in the AUAR process (particularly from the MnDNR) that development on the west side of Dean Lake should be held to the 150' shore impact zone, there was not comment suggesting that the shore impact zone should be increased to 300', as originally directed by the Council in November of 1999. On August 15, 2000 the City Council adopted the AUAR. Subsequently, at its September 21" meetin the Commission took up the proposal to amend the Shoreland Overlay Zone regulations, and initially recommended to the City Council the denial of proposed text amendments regarding Shoreland Ordinance. However, the Commission asked staff to return with proposed definitions or "water- oriented" and "non water - oriented" uses for them to consider. The purpose of these definitions is to clarify when the 75' and 150' shore impact zone and 150' and 300' setback requirement would apply. After consideration of the definitions provided, the Commission recommended their adoption to the Council. The definitions recommended by the Commission are as follows; Uses Wit Water Oriented Needs (Water- Oriented Uses)! A land use that has as an intrin element access to or use of the water for recreatio pu rposes. Such uses include but are not necessarily limited to marinas resorts boat or canoe accesses and fishing docks. Uses W ithout Water Oriented Needs (non water - oriented uses Any land use that does not have as an intrinsic element access to or use of the water for recreational p uEp oses. Commercial industrial or business park land uses that do not meet the definitio of "surface water- oriented commercial use "* contained he rein are by definition "non water - oriented uses." *defined at Code Sec 11 54 Subd 2 35 as "The use of land for c ommercial purpose where access to and use ofa surface water feature is an integral part of the normal conductance of business Mar inas resorts and restaurants with transient docking f acilities are examples of such use. " Ordinance No. 586 incorporates the revisions recommended by the Planning Commission. During consideration of the Council's original directive, and the definitions found above, the Commission received testimony suggesting that other changes be made to the Shoreland Overlay Zone regulations, such as 1) a public hearing process to review screening that is separate from PUD, plat and other public hearing requirements that might already apply, and 2) reworking of the setback requirements. Staff expects that Council will receive additional comment on these and possibly other possible amendments. 1. Approve Ordinance No. 586 as recommended by the Planning Commission. 2. Approve Ordinance No. 586 with revisions. 3. Direct staff to prepare other revisions consistent with its findings. 4. Do not approve any text amendment. 5. Table action on this item to allow staff to provide additional information. Planning Commission recommends alternative 1. 1 1 Offer the attached ordinance no. 586 amending City Code Sec. 11.54, Shoreland Overlay Zone, and move its adoption. r R Michael Leek Community Development Director g: \ c c\2000\nov06\txtamshore.doc 2 ORDINANCE 1 1 : o-• 1 MINNESOTA, • 11 11 E SEC. 11.54, SHORELAND OVERLAY ZONE, ADDING NEW DEFINITIONS UN SUBD. PROVISIONS 1 DEFINITIONS WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is desirable to clarify certain provisions of the Shoreland Overlay Zone regulations as they relate to the imposition of setbacks and shore impact zones; and WHEREAS, notices were duly posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on December 9, 2000, and subsequently, at which time all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council heard the matter at its meeting of November 6, 2000. NOW THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota hereby ordains as follows: Section 1 - That City Code Sec. 11.54, Subd. 2 is hereby amended by adding the following provisions; 41 "Uses With Water Oriented Needs (Water- Oriented Uses): A land use that has as an intrinsic element access to or use of the water for recreational p urposes. Such uses include but are not necessarily limited to marinas resorts boat or canoe accesses and fishing docks. 42 "Uses Without Water Oriented Needs (non water - orient uses) ": Any land use that does not have as an intrinsic element access to or use of the water for rec reational urposes Commercial industrial or business nark land us that do not meet the defi nition of "surface water oriented commercial use "* containe herein are by definition "non water - oriented uses." *Defined a t Code Sec 11 54 Subd 2 35 as "The use of land for co mmercial purposes, w here access to an use of a surface water feature is an integral part of the normal conductance of business Ma rinas resorts and restaurants with transient docking f acilities are examples o f such use. " Re- number subsequent provisions as required. Section 2 - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed in Minnesota held this day of Attest: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, 2000. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of 2000. EA I M(a CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director RE Proposed Text Amendment to Require Trees and Sod for Single - Family Detached Housing MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DISCUSSION: Council directed that the City's Zoning Chapter be amended to require the planting of two (2) trees in the front yards of single - family lots, as well as sod. Staff provided the following language amending City Code Sec. 11.60, Subd. 8 for the Planning Commission's consideration at the October 19 public hearing. Add a new A. For all single-family residential uses the following landscqpingr materials shall be provided rior to the issuance of a final certificate of occu anc ; 1 two 2 oversto deciduous trees orna mental trees or coniferous trees meeting the size re uirements of Sec 11.60 Subd 8.D. shall be planted in the front yard, 2 sod shall be p laced in the front yard and 3) the side yards and rear yard shall be seeded. A specific list of tree species from which to choose was not provided. An alternative that was identified was the use the list provided in the tree preservation ordinance reviewed at the Commission's October 5 meeting. After consideration, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the text amendment with changes as shown below: Add a new A. For all single - family residential uses �^ the R � - R -1B, R- 1 C and Planned Residential District, the following landscaping materials shall be provided prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy; 1) 2) one (1) overstory deciduous trees, Ama m-entak+ees; or eanifer-eus trees meeting the size requirements of Sec. 11.60, Subd. 8.D. shall be planted in the front yard, 2) sod shall be placed in the front yard, and 3) the side yards and rear yard shall be seeded. •�� • • ' AN ORDINANCE OF OF •PMINNESO AMENDING CITY C ODE SEC. 11.60 BY ADDING LANDSCAP r FOR ZO NING DISTRICTS WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is desirable to require the provision of landscaping in connection with single - family uses within the City of Shakopee; and WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on October 19, 2000, at which time all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WH EREAS, the City Council heard the matter at its meeting of November 6, 2000. NOW THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota hereby ordains as follows: Section 1 - That City Code Sec. 11.60, Subd. 8 is hereby amended by adding the following provision; Add a new A For all single - family residential uses in the RI -A, R -11 R - 1C and Planned Residential District the following landscaping materials shall be provided prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy bone (1) overstory /shade deciduous tree meeting; the size requirements of Sec. 11.60 Subd. 8.1). shall be planted in the front yard, 2) sod shall be placed in the front yard, and 3 the side yards and rear yard shall be seeded. Re -letter subsequent provisions as required. Section 2 - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of Attest: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk 2000. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 2000. The accompanying ordinance incorporates the changes recommended by the Planning Commission. 1. Approve the text amendment as presented and recommended by the Planning Commission. 2. Approve the text amendment recommended by the Planning Commission with revisions. 3. Approve the text amendment as originally proposed by staff 4. Do not approve any text amendment. 5. Table action on this item to allow staff to provide additional information. Planning Commission recommends alternative 1. Ex" N U1101 9 91 Bill 1; Offer the attached ordinance no. 582amending City Code Sec. 11.60 by adding landscape requirements for single- family uses in certain districts, and move its adoption. 0 R Michael Leek Community Development Director g: \cc\2000\nov06 \txtamtrees. doe M' Mem T• Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Amendment to the Zoning Map rezoning property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Planned Residential District (PRD) PLICAN: Centex Homes, Inc. Gene Hauer — Property Owner E G ATE: November 6, 2000 Centex Homes has requested that the City amend its zoning map to rezone property currently zoned Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Planned Residential District (PRD). The property is located south of Hwy. 169 and north of 17` Avenue extended. The approved Comprehensive Plan guides this area for a Single Family Residential uses. The draft Comprehensive Plan guides this area for Planned Residential District. At its October 19, 2000, meeting, the Planning Commission took public testimony and reviewed this request. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this request to the City Council. Provided for your reference is a copy of the October 19, 2000 memorandum to the Planning Commission. As the memorandum to the Planning Commission discusses, a portion of the property (1.4 acres) under proposal by Centex is located outside the current MUSA boundary. The City Council also heard a request from Centex Homes to revise the Comprehensive Plan to include this property in the MUSA boundary. In response, the City Council did direct staff to proceed with revising the MUSA boundary to follow property lines in this area as a part of the overall Comprehensive Plan update. At the request of the applicant, the Planning Commission recommended that the rezoning of the property currently outside the MUSA boundary be acted upon by the City Council at this time but that the 1.4 acre portion be rezoned upon revision of the MUSA boundary by the Metropolitan Council and City Council. This approach would negate the need for additional process/public hearing before the Planning Commission to rezone the property currently outside MUSA- A revised ordinance to include the entire property could then be prepared and provided to the City Council for action and signature. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the request to rezone the entire property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Planned Residential District (PRD), with the rezoning of the 1.4 acres to take place after it is added to MUSA- I Approve the request to rezone only the property currently within the MUSA boundary from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Planned Residential District (PRD). 3. Deny the request to rezone property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Planned Residential District (PRD). 4. Direct staff to prepare a resolution directing that upon revision of the MUSA boundary, a revised ordinance, which includes the entire property be brought before the City Council for consideration. 5. Table the decision and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff. Offer a motion to approve Ord. No. 584, An Ordinance Amending the City of Shakopee's Zoning Map by Rezoning Property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Planned Residential District (PRD) and direct staff to prepare a resolution directing that upon revision of the MUSA boundary, a revised ordinance, which includes the entire property be brought before the City Council for consideration (Alternative Nos. 1 and 4). F ff A,c" ; Julie Klima Planner H g: \cc\2000 \cc 1106\rezprdcentex. doc WHEREAS, Centex Homes, the Applicant, and Gene Hauer, property owner, have requested the rezoning of land from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Planned Residential District (PRD), WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as follows: That part of the North one half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 17, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota lying southwesterly of the centerline of the abandoned railroad, and WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on October 19, 2000, at which time all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council heard the matter at its meeting of November 6, 2000, and found that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the area of the City within which it is located. THE CITY COUNCH, OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA O AIMS: Section 1 - That the zoning map adopted in City Code Sec. 11.03 is hereby amended by rezoning the property referenced herein, from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Planned Residential District (PRD). Section 2 - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed in Minnesota, held this day of Attest: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, 2000. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of - 2000. r- TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Amendment to the Zoning Map - Rezone property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Planned Residential District (PRD) DATE: October 19, 2000 REVIEW PERIOD: September 22 — November 21, 2000 Site Information Applicant Centex Homes Property Owner: Gene Hauer Location: South Adjacent Zoning: North South East: West: of Hwy 169, east of Dublin Lane and North of 17' Avenue Agricultural Preservation (AG) Agricultural Preservation (AG) Agricultural Preservation (AG) Medium Density Residential (R2) MUSA: The site is within the MUSA boundary. Discussion The applicant is requesting that the City amend the Official Zoning Map by rezoning property currently zoned as Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Planned Residential District (PRD). Please see Exhibit A for the location of the subject site. The Comprehensive Plan has set basic policies to guide the development of the City. The purpose of designating different areas for residential, commercial, and industrial land uses is to promote the location of compatible land uses, as well as to prevent incompatible land uses from being located in close proximity to one another. The Zoning Ordinance is one of the legal means by which the City implements the Comprehensive Plan. Exhibits B and C provide a listing of the uses, both permitted and conditional, that are allowed in the Agricultural Preservation (AG) and Planned Residential District (PRD) zones. The 1995 Land Use Plan guides this property for Single Family Residential purposes. The draft 1999 Comprehensive Plan guides this property for Planned Residential purposes. Copies of the land use plans areas available for viewing at City Hall and will be made available at the October 19, 2000, meeting. The northeastern most comer of this property is located outside of the MUSA boundary. The City Council, at its October 3, 2000 meeting directed staff to revise the draft comprehensive plan to revise the eastern MUSA line in this area so that it does not bisect properties located along the current MUSA boundary. However, until the revision to the Comprehensive Plan has been reviewed and approved by the Metropolitan Council, the City is unable to, by virtue of its own policies, to rezone property outside of the urban service area to urban densities. Therefore, staff has requested a revised legal description of the property proposed for rezoning and located within the MUSA boundary be provided prior to City Council review of the item. The revised legal description would allow a rezoning, should the Council choose to approve it, of only that property located within the MUSA boundary. Findings The criteria required for the granting of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment are listed below with staff findings. Criteria #1 That the original Zoning Ordinance is in error; Finding #I The original Zoning Ordinance is not in error. Criteria 42 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place; Finding #2 Significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place. The proposed change in the designation of property in this area and the adoption of the Planned Residential District regulations indicate a change in direction by the City Council relative to multi family housing and the integration of housing types and commercial uses. Criteria #3 That significant changes in City -wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Finding #3 Significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred in that development adjacent to Highway 169 has occurred with the opening of the highway, particularly at the locations of the interchanges. Criteria #4 That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. Finding #4 The proposed rezoning would not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Alternatives 1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject property from Agricultural Preservation(AG) to Planned Residential District (PRD). 2. Recommend to the City Council the denial of the request to rezone the subject property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Planned Residential District (PRD). 3. Continue the public hearing and request additional information from the applicant or staff Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, recommending to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Planned Residential District (P RD)- Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Planne Residential District (PRD). "I. e Khma -Planner IEI g:\ boaa- pc\2000 \oct19\rzcentex -doc Proposed Centex & PUD Concept Review Zoning Parcels N W E SHAKOPEE mosmmYr=SNMIW S SEC. 1122. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION ZONE (G). B. single family detached dwellings; C. forestry and nursery uses; D. seasonal produce stands; E riding academies; F. utility services; Ulm G. public recreation; H. public buildings; 1, day care facilities serving twelve (12) or fewer persons; J. adult day care centers as permitted uses, subject to the following conditions: The adult day care center shall: 1, serve twelve (12) or fewer persons; 2. provide proof of an adequate water and sewer system if not served by municipal utilities; 3. have outdoor leisurelrecreation areas located and designated to minimize visual and noise impacts on adjacent areas; 4, the total indoor space available for use by participants must equal at least forty (40) square feet for each day care participant and each day care staff member present at the center. When a center is located in a multifunctional organization iI the required space available for use by participants is maintained while the center is operating. In determining the square footage of usable indoor space available, a center must not count: a. hallways, stairways, closets, offices, restrooms, and utility and storage areas; b. more than 25% of the space occupied by the furniture or equipment used by participants or staff; or p"e reWwd in 19% 1111 Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within the agricultural preservation zone, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit A. commercial feedlots, which include yards, lots, pens, buildings, or other areas or structures used for the confined feeding of livestock or other animals for food, fur, pleasure, or resale purposes; B. (Deleted, Ord. 501, September 18, 1997) C. retail sales of nursery and garden supplies; D. cemeteries; E. churches and other places of worship; F. agricultural research facilities, which are facilities specifically operated for the purpose of conducting research in the production of agricultural crops, including research aimed at developing plant varieties. This term specifically excludes research regarding the development or research of soil conditioners, fertilizers, or other chemical additives placed in or on the soil or for the experimental raising of animals; G. animal hospitals and veterinary clinics; H. kennels. A kennel is any premise in which more than two (2) domestic animals, over six (6) months of age, are boarded, bred or offered for sale; 1. public or private schools having a course of instruction approved by the Minnesota Department of Education for students enrolled in K through grade 12, or any portion thereof; J. commercial recreation, minor, K. utility service structures; L, day care facilities serving thirteen (13) through sixteen (16) persons; M. adult day care centers as conditional use, subject to the following conditions: The adult day care centers shall: 1, serve thirteen (13) or more persons; pe" revised in 1987 1112 R 2. provide proof of an adequate water and sewer system if not served by municipal utilities; 3. have outdoor leisure/recreation areas located and designed to minimize visual and noise impacts on adjacent areas; 4, the total indoor space available for use by participants must equal at least fourty (40) square feet for each day care participant and each day care staff member present at the center. When a center is located in a multifunctional organization, the center may share a common space with the multifunctional organization if the required space available for use by participants is maintained while the center is operating. In determining the square footage of usable indoor space available, a center must not count: a. hallways, stairways, closets, offices, restrooms and utility and storage areas; b. more than 25% of the space occupied by the furniture or equipment used by participants or staff; or C. in a multifunctional organization, any space occupied by persons associated with the multifunctional organization while participants are using common space; S. provide proof of state, federal and other governmental licensing agency approval; and 6. comply with all other state licensing requirements; (Ord. 482, May 15, 1997) N. residential facilities serving from seven (7) through sixteen (16) persons; ® wind energy conversion systems or windmills; P. relocated structures; Q, structures over two and one -half (2-1/2) stories or thirty -five (35) feet in height; R. developments containing more than one (1) principal structure per lot; or S. other uses similar to those permitted by the subdivision, upon a determination by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, may be allowed upon the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. (Ord. 528, October 29,1998) Subd 4 Permitted *Accessory Uses. Within the agricultural preservation zone the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. machinery and structures necessary to the conduct of agricultural operations; Me revised in 1998 1113 1�-k C. fences, D . recreational equipment; E. stables; F swimming pools; G. solar equipment; H . tennis courts; 1, receive only satellite dish antennas and other antenna devices; J. home occupations contingent upon approval of a home occupation permit; or (Ord. 501, September 18, 1997) K. other accessory uses, as determined by the Zoning Administrator- Subd 5 Desi Wit except l in in with the following requirements and no structure sh all be co A. Maximum density: one dwelling per forty (40) acres. S. Lot specifications: Minimum lot width: 1000 feet. Minimum lot depth: 1000 feet - Minimum front yard setback: 100 feet. Minimum side yard setback: 20 feet. Minimum rear yard setback: 40 feet_ C. Maximum height: Thirty -five (35) feet. Grain elevators, bams, silos, and elevator lags may exceed this limitation without a conditional use permit. Subd 6 Additional Require A, All dwellings shall have �dept a least a least twenty (Z) for at feet f at east 50%0 of width. All dwellings shall their depth. B. All dwellings shall have a permanent foundation in conformance 26 i Ord. State Building Code. (Ord. 31, October 25, 1979; Ord. 264, y 279, December 1, 1989; Ord. 304, November 7,1991; Ord. 377, July 7, 1994; Ord. 435, November 30, 1995) SEC. 1123. Reserved. peg® wieeo in 1997 1114 == ti home occupations confingent upon approval of a home occupation permit, o, September 18,1997) K. other accessory uses, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Subd S. Design Standards. Within the medium density residential zone, no land shall be used, and no structure shall be constructed or used, except in conformance with the following requirements: A. Density: a minimum of five (5) and a maximum of eleven (11) dwellings per acre. Streets shall be excluded in calculating acreage. B. Maximum impervious surface percentage: 60% C. Lot specifications: Minimum lot width (single - family detached): 60 feet; (two - family dwelling): 70 feet; (multiple- family dwelling): 100 feet Minimum lot depth: 100 feet Minimum front yard setback: 35 feet Minimum side yard setback: 10 feet Minimum rear yard setback: 30 feet (Ord. 467, December 19,1996; Ord. 544, April 15, 1999) D. Maximum height: No structure shall exceed thirty -five (35) feet in height without a conditional use permit. A. All dwellings shall have a depth of at least twenty (20) feet for at least 50% of their width. All dwellings shall have a width of at least twenty (20) feet for at least 50% of their depth. B. All dwellings shall have a permanent foundation in conformance with the Minnesota State Building Code. (Ord_ 31, October 25,1979; Ord. 60, May 14,1981; Ord. 159, February 28, 1985; Ord. 264, May 26, 1989; Ord. 377, July 7, 1994; Ord. 435, November 30, 1995) SEC. 11.33. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (PRD). (Ord. 563, November 25, 1999) page revised in 1999 1155 A. single family detached dwellings; B. two (2) family dwellings; C. public recreation; D. utility services; E. day care facilities servicing twelve (12) or fewer persons; F. public buildings; G. group family day care facilities serving fourteen (14) or fewer children; H. residential facilities serving six (6) or fewer persons; I, adult day care centers subject to the following conditions; 1, serve twelve (12) or fewer persons; 2. provide proof of an adequate water and sewer system if not served by municipal utilities; 3, have outdoor leisure/recreation areas located and designed to minimize visual and noise impacts on adjacent areas; 4, the total indoor space available for use by participants must equal at least forty (40) square feet for each day care participant and each day care staff member present at the center. When a center is located in a multifunctional organization, the center may share a common space with the multifunctional organization if the required space available for use by participants is maintained while the center is operating. In determining the square footage of usable indoor space available, a center must not count: a. hallways, stairways, closets, offices, restrooms, and utility and storage areas; b. more than 25% of the space occupied by the furniture or equipment used by participants or staff; page revised in is" 1156 •,• 3 Uses Pe w - • 1.151'•Ic - =1111 Within = Planned Residential DistriQ the following uses of - or _ • may be allowed with conditional use permit approval: ( 01 1 1 QON 563, November 25, 199SI A. medium density residential development as allowed under City Code, Section 11.32, Medium Density Residential Zone, and according to the design standards contained therein; B. multiple family residential development as allowed under City Code, Section 11.34 and according to the design standards contained therein; C. neighborhood commercial development as allowed under City Code, Section 11.35 and according to the design standards contained therein; D. clinics; E. nursing homes; F. churches and other places of worship; G. public or private schools; H. relocated structures; 1. structures over two and one -half (2 -1/2) stories or thirty-five (35) feet in height; J. relocated structures; K. developments containing more than one (1) principal structure per lot; L. developments containing more than one (1) permitted use and/or use permitted with site plan approval; M. day care facilities serving thirteen (13) or more persons; N. residential facilities servicing from seven (7) through sixteen (16) persons; 0, other uses similar to those permitted in this subdivision, as determined by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Subd 4 permitted Accessory U ses. Within the Planned Residential District the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses; (Ord. 563, November 25,1999) A. any incidental repair or processing necessary to conduct a permitted principal use; page revised in 1999 1157 am Subd 5 Design Standards. Except as otherwise provided above, design standards in the Planned Residential District shall be as found in City Code, Section 11.28, Urban Residential Zone (R -1 B). (Ord. 563, November 25, 1999) Subd.1. Purpose. The purpose of the muftipie- family zone is to provide an area which will allow six (6) to eighteen (18) multiple- family dwelling units per acre, and. also provide a transitional zone between single family residential areas and other land uses. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within the multiple- family residential zone, no structure or land shall be used except for one (1) or more of the following uses: A. multiple- family dwellings containing three (3) or more units; B. existing single family and two (2) family dwellings; C. public recreation; D. utility services; E. public buildings; F. day care facilities serving twelve (12) or fewer persons; G. residential facilities serving six (6) or fewer persons; H. townhouses; (Ord. 467, December 19, 1996) I. single family detached residences previously constructed as accessory uses to a church, where the resulting lot meets the design standards found in Subdivision 5 of Section 11.28; (Ord. 496, August 21, 1997) J. single family detached dwellings; (Ord 563, November 25,1999) K. structures containing two (2) attached dwelling units; (Ord. 563, November 25, 1999) L structures containing two (2) to four (4) attached dwelling units; (Ord. 563, November 25, 1999) M. structures containing more than four (4) attached dwelling units; or (Ord. 563, November 25, 1999) page revised in 1999 1158 VA116 v a 1 I L �J •' Ah 0 1 October 5, 2000 Project No. 1247 -001 Cit o f Sh 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Valley View Road Area CSAH 83 to CSAH 79 Tr City of Shakopee Scott i es / ii• 111 Valley New Road Area Traffic Study City of Shakopee WSB Project No. 1247 -001 womi sap I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered professional engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Charles T. Rickart, P.E. Date: October 5, 2000 Reg. No. 26082 Valley View Road Area Traffic Study City of Shakopee WSB Project No. 124 7-0 01 / 1 TITLE SHEET CERTIFICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTI •OD / SECTION II EXISTING CO ITIONS ... ............................... Page 3 A. Land Use Page 3 B. Roadway Characteristics Page 3 C Traffic Volumes Page 6 SECTI ONIII ROAD WAYSYSTEM CONCEPTS Page 10 SECTIONIV TRAFFICpRojECTIONS . ............................... Page 18 A. Traffic Generation Page 18 B. Traffic Distribution Page 18 C. Projected Traffic Volumes Page 18 SECTION V TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ............................. Page 26 A. Methodology Page 26 B. Access Spacing Guidelines Page 26 C. Existing 2000 Analysis Page 26 D. Year 2020 Analysis Page 26 SECTION / / / I / '' PEIX ............................. ............................... Page 36 Figure1- Location Map .................... ............................... Page 2 Figure 2 - Existing Land Use ............... ............................... Page 7 Figure 3 - Existing Roadway Geoetrics ...... ............................... Page 8 Figure 4 - Existing Traffic Volumes .......... ............................... Page 9 Figure 5 - Alternative I Concept ............ ............................... Page 13 Figure 6 - Alternative 2 Concept ............ ............................... Page 14 Figure 7 - Alternative 3 Concept ............ ............................... Page 15 Figure 8 -Alternative 4 Concept ............ ............................... Page 16 Figure 9 - Alternative 5 Concept ............ ............................... Page 17 Figure10 - Future Land Use ............... ............................... Page 19 Figure 11- Traffic Distribution ............. ............................... Page 20 Figure 12 - Projected 2020 Traffic Volumes - Alternative 1 ...................... Page 21 Valley View Road Area Traffic Study City of Shakopee WSB Project No. 1247 -001 Figure 13 - Projected 2020 Traf fic Volumes -Alternative 2 ...................... Page 22 Figure 14 - Projected 2020 Traf fic Volumes -Alternative 3 ...................... Page 23 Figure 15 - Projected 2020 Traffic Volumes - Alternative 4 ...................... Page 24 Figure 16 - Projected 2020 Traffic Volumes - Alternative 5 ...................... Page 25 TableI - Roadway Design Geometrics ....................................... Page 30 Table 2 - City of Shakopee Access Spacing Guidelines .......................... Page 31 Table 3 - .Scott County Access Spacing Guidelines ............................. Page 32 Table 4 - Traffic flc Analysis Results .......................................... Page 33 Valley View Road Area Traffic Study City of Shakopee WSB Project No. 1247 -001 The City of Shakopee has experienced significant growth over the past several years. Current development patterns indicate that a substantial part of this growth is occurring south of TH 169 between CSAH 17 and CSAH 83. Based on the City's current Transportation Plan, the population within the study area is estimated at over 4,000 persons by the year 2020. As a result of this growth, the City Council commissioned WSB & Associates to do an analysis of the transportation needs south of TH 169 between CSAH 79 and CSAH 83. The study area is bounded by 17`' Avenue on the north, CSAH 78 on the south, CSAH 79 on the west and CSAH 83 on the east. Figure I illustrates the study area within the City of Shakopee. The purpose of the traffic study will be to evaluate the transportation needs of the future land uses in the study area. This will include: 1. Dete the majornorth- south, and east -west collector roadwaysystemwithin the study area. 2. Determining the location of roadway connections to CSAH 17. 3. Outlining the projected traffic volumes and roadway geometries for the collector roadways in the study area. The following sections of this report outline the findings of this study including: documentation of existing traffic conditions in the corridor; projecting proposed land use development traffic on adjacent roadway system; analyzing both existing and future traffic conditions for several collector roadway alternatives; and developing conclusions and recommendations with respect to the future roadway configurations in the area. Valley View Road Area Traffic Study City of Shakopee WSB Project No. 1247 -001 Page I 350 Westwood Lake Office 8441 Wayzata Boulevard WSB Minneapolis, MN 55426 612541 & Associates. Inc. FAX 541 -1700 INFRASTRUCTURE - ENGINEERS - PLANNERS Valley View Road Area Project Location Map City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota Figure 1 WSti ProfeCt N0. 1L4 /-UUI uaie. uauuei LVVV t : \ 124 7- 001 \study \ fig -01.dgn / EDEN PRAIRIE SECTION II EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Land Use The existing land use in the study area consists primarily of single- family residential, multi- family residential, agricultural and some commercial uses, including St. Francis Regional Medical Center Campus. In addition, anew elementary school is located on 17 Avenue east of Sarazin Street. A map illustrating the City's existing land use designations and descriptions is included as Figure 2. E. Roadway Characteristics 1. CSAH 17. CSAH 17 is a north -south A minor arterial traversing Scott County from CSAH 101 in Shakopee to TH 13 in Spring Lake Township. This roadway in the study area has the following general characteristics: • Two through lanes in each direction from the TH 169 through St. Francis Avenue. • One through lane in each direction from St. Francis Avenue through CSAH 78. • Turn lanes at 17'' Avenue include a northbound and southbound right -turn lanes, a northbound single left -turn lane and southbound dual left -turn lane. • Turn lanes at St. Francis Avenue include a southbound right -turn lane and a northbound and southbound left -turn lane. • Turn lanes at Valley View Road include a southbound bypass lane and a northbound right -turn lane. • Turn lanes at CSAH 78 include a southbound left-turn and right -turn lane and a northbound left-turn lane. CSAH 17 was recently reconstructed from TH 169 south to St. Francis Avenue to include two lanes in each direction and turn lanes at 17' Avenue and St. Francis Avenue. These improvements were primarily the result of the commercial growth along 17 Avenue. The intersections of 17 Avenue and CSAH 78 are signalized with protected left- turn movements. The speed limit on CSAH 17 is 50 MPH south of 17 Avenue. 2. CSAH 83: CSAH 83 is a north -south A minor arterial extending from CSAH 101 in Shakopee to CSAH 82 in the Minnewauken Sioux community. This roadway in the study area has the following general characteristics: • Two through lanes in each direction with 10 -foot paved shoulders from CSAH 16 to CSAH 42. Valley View Road Area Traffic Study City of Shakopee WSB Project No. 1247 -001 Page 3 • Turn lanes at the intersection of CSAH 83 include left -turn lanes for eastbound and westbound CSAH 16. No turn lanes are provided for CSAH 83. The speed limit on CSAH 83 is 55 MPH south of CSAH 16. 3. 17' Avenue. 17' Avenue is an east -west city collector street that currently runs from just past Dublin Lane on the east to just past Weston Lane on the west. This roadway in the study area has the following characteristics: • Two through lanes in each direction. • Turn lanes at CSAH 17 include an eastbound and westbound left -turn lane and westbound right -turn lane. • Turn lanes at Sarazin Street include eastbound and westbound left -turn lane. • Turn lanes at Weston Lane include eastbound and westbound left turn lanes. • Turn lanes at Brittany Drive include eastbound and westbound left -turn lanes. 17`" Avenue to the west has recently been reconstructed to accommodate future growth in this area. It included two lanes in each direction with left -turn lanes at major intersections. A raised concrete median was also constructed on this roadway. 17" Avenue to the east was constructed with a raised concrete median approximately 350 feet east of CSAH 17. The intersection of Sarazin Street is currently signalized. All other intersections are stop sign controlled. A 35 -MPH speed limit is posted on this roadway. 4. Valley View Road Valley View Road is an east -west City collector street extending from CSAH 17 to CSAH 83. This roadway in the study area has the following characteristics: • 24 -foot wide gravel surface. Valley View Road Area Traffic Study City of Shakopee WSB Project No. 1247 -001 Page 4 S. Sarazin Street: Sarazin Street is a north -south City collector street extending from 17`' Avenue south to Mooers Avenue. This roadway in the study area has the following characteristics. • One lane in each direction with eight -foot paved shoulders. • Turn lanes at 17 Avenue including a northbound and southbound left-turn lane. The intersection of St. Francis Avenue is all -way stop controlled. All other intersections are stop sign controlled, stopping the side street. A 30 -MPH speed limit is posted on this roadway. 6. St. Francis Avenue: St. Francis Avenue is an east -west City street which extends from CSAH 17 east into the developments east of Sarazin Street. This roadway in the study area has the following characteristics: • One lane in each direction with 8 foot paved shoulders east of the St. Francis Medical Center Campus. West of the St. Francis Medical Center Campus, the shoulders are 10 feet in width. A 30 -MPH speed limit is posted on this roadway. 7. CSAH 78: This is an east -west County collector road extending from CSAH 69 on the west to CSAH 17 on the east. This roadway in the study area has the following characteristics: • One lane in each direction with eight -foot paved shoulders. • Turn lanes at CSAH 17 include an eastbound right -turn lane. The intersection of CSAH 17 is currently signalized. All other intersections along the roadway are stop sign controlled, stopping the side streets. A 55 mph speed limit is posted on this roadway. 8. CSAH 79: CSAH 79 is a north -south County road extending from 10' Avenue in the City of Shakopee to CSAH 72 in Marytown Township. This roadway in the study area has the following characteristics: • One lane in each direction with eight -foot graveled shoulders. • No turn lanes are provided at any intersections. The speed limit along the corridor is posted at 55 MPH. The existing roadway geometries, including the intersection traffic control and speed limits, is shown on Figure I Valley View Road Area Traffic Study City of Shakopee WSB Project No. 1247 -001 Page 5 C Traffic Volumes Traffic volume data was obtained from the City of Shakopee, Scott County, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) along with traffic counts conducted by WSB & Associates, Inc. Traffic volume data was collected for the Average Daily Traffic and PM peak hour volumes. The existing 1998/1999 traffic Average Daily Traffic Volume are illustrated on Figure 4. The PM peak hour volumes were counted on April 7 and 8, 1999 at the 17' Avenue and St. Francis intersection and on August 30 and 31 at the Valley View Road and CSAH 78 intersection. The PM peak hour volumes are included in the Appendix. Valley View Road Area Traffic Study City of Shakopee WSB Project No. 1247 -001 Page 6 RR Rural Residential. $r�CL1ItU x Cfi3 . ",Multi Family Residential R'tB j = Urban Residential Avrr € o TI ISN Ri u� 4� �CKOR� MINT �.�p 4 LA, � I _�`-'� Nllgy 'LOVE P EE R CIR. 4. G� ' VIERIiNG E VE. dz r ] UND S1� LA n + o 17th Avenue _ N R3 AC7 View, Rd' TR. G t �ClR• pl y, 1 � Q'Dawd Lake C MIKE CT. !p � E ST. NORTON DR. b \1247 -001 \study \fig- 02.dgn C O� ri 0 a v i 0 0 N O O d cG O Z . CL M cn r A � W I— E V ^` y� ` W C tm r— X W cC O U O C c� G) Q O 'C O cd O O � U U c� _G cn O R U o q� z s Z c � g mm� � N N p TQ _ W Z z W U, cr D U a � F o U i ^C Z a la 'a 'S 0 0 The City's existing Transportation Plan currently indicates the following roadway function classifications: A Minor Arterials: 1. 17' Avenue CSAH 69 to CSAH 83. 2. CSAH 78 : CSAH 69 to CSAH 17. 3. CSAH 17 : CSAH 101 south. B Minor Arterials: 1. CSAH 79 : 10`' Avenue to CSAH 72. Collector Roadways: 1. Valley View Road CSAH 79 to CSAH 21. 2. Sarazin Street 17' Avenue to Valley View Road. 3. North -South Collector 17'' Avenue to CSAH 42. 4. North -South Collector 17'' Avenue to Valley View Road. The collector roadways in the study area are the focus of this study. The north -south and east -west collector concepts are discussed in the following sections. North -South Collector Currently, the City's Transportation Plan shows three north -south collectors between CSAH 17 and CSAH 83. The proposed collectors: 1. Sarazin Street This collector is proposed to extend from 17' Avenue to Valley View Road. 2. Middle Collector This collector street would extend from 17' Avenue to CSAH 42. 3. East Collector This collector would extend from 17 Avenue to Valley View Road. After reviewing these locations in greater detail, including the location of property lines, potential developments in the area; the park and school access adjacent to it Avenue; access to CSAH 42 and the proposed traffic volumes in this area, it was determined by City Council at their July 5" meeting that two collectors would be sufficient to provide good north -south traffic flow in this area. The two collectors are: Valley View Road Area Traffic Study City of Shakopee WSB Project No. 1247 -001 Page 10 1. Sarazin Street This collector street provides access to the hospital and -- commercial areas adjacent to 17`' Avenue. It is an outlet for the existing and proposed developments east of Sarazin Street and adjacent to Valley View Road. 2. Middle Collector This collector street would extend from 17`' Avenue to CSAH 42. This collector route would provide access to the residential areas east and west of the collector street, as well as carrying traffic to and from 17 Avenue corridor and CSAH 42 corridor. East -West Collector Currently, the City's Transportation Plan shows one east -west collector between CSAH 17 and CSAH 79. That collector street is Valley View Road. Five alternatives for this east -west collector roadway, including access to CSAH 17, will be analyzed as part of this traffic study. Each alternative is discussed below: Alternative I - Valley View Road as in the City's Transportation Plan This collector alternative would follow the alignment ofthe existing Valley View Road crossing CSAH 17 approximately one - half way between CSAH 78 and St. Francis Avenue. Valley View Road would extend to 17` Avenue. 17' Avenue would extend to CSAH 79. Poor topography on the west side of CSAH 17 and significant impacts to the Betaseed property severely limits crossing at this location. Figure S illustrates this alternative. Alternative 2 - Valley View Road at the Betaseed /Hospital Property Line This east -west collector route would follow existing Valley View Road, curve north along the Sarazin Street alignment and then curve west again along the Betaseed / hospital property line to intersect CSAH 17 approximately one - eighth mile south of the existing St. Francis Avenue intersection. The St. Francis Avenue intersection would then be reconfigured into a 3/4 intersection with the full- movement intersection and proposed traffic signal at the new Valley View Road intersection. West of CSAH 17, Valley View Road would curve north to intersect with the 17' Avenue extension to CSAH 79. The existing Valley View road intersection would be eliminated and access would be from the new Valley View Road. Figure 6 illustrates this alternative. Alternative 3 - Valley View Road to Sarazin Street The east -west collector would follow the existing Valley View Road alignment then curve north to Sarazin Street. Traffic on Valley View Road would then have the option to use St. Francis Avenue or 17 Avenue to access CSAH 17. However, traffic would be encouraged to use Sarazin Street to 17' Avenue. Traffic control at the Sarazin Street/St. Francis Avenue intersection would need to be evaluated to determine if a traffic signal system would be warranted. West of CSAH 17, St. Francis would be extended as a local street to intersect the 17 Avenue extension to CSAH 79. The existing Valley View road intersection would be eliminated and access would be from the new Valley View Road. Figure 7 illustrates this alternative. Valley View Road Area Traffic Study City of Shakopee WSB Project No. 1247 -001 Page 11 Alternative 4 - Va11eK View Road to Sarazin Street to St. Francis Avenue The east -west collector route would follow the existing Valley View Road alignment, curve north to Sarazin Street, then curve west to St. Francis Avenue. The Sarazin Street intersection at St. Francis Avenue would be reconfigured to accommodate the new roadway alignment. Traffic would use St. Francis Avenue to access CSAH 17. West of CSAH 17, St. Francis Avenue would curve north to intersect with 17th Avenue extension to CSAH 79. A new traffic signal system would be proposed at St. Francis Avenue and CSAH 17. The existing Valley View road intersection would be eliminated and access would be from the new Valley View Road. Figure 8 illustrates this alternative. Alternative S - Valley View Road to CSAH 78 : The east -west collector route would follow an alignment straight west to intersect CSAH 17 at the existing signal system at CSAH 78. Poor topography and significant impacts to existing properties limit this alternative. West of CSAH 17, St. Francis Avenue would be extended as a local street to intersect 17 Avenue along extension to CSAH 70. The existing Valley View road intersection would be eliminated and access would be from the new Valley View Road. Figure 9 illustrates this alternative. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 could include options with local street connections to the existing residential streets to the southwest of Valley View Road. These connector roadways would be limited by the topography and property locations. A small portion (approximately 600 vpd) ofthe traffic generated from the area could travel through this southwest area. However, due to the circuitous nature of these connections, this volume will probably be less. Valley View Road Area Traffic Study City of Shakopee WSB Project No. 1247 -001 Page 12 t In order to analyze the proposed the north, south and east -west collector alternatives, projected traffic volumes for each alternative need to be determined. The traffic volumes were determined based on proposed land use in the study area and the City's current Transportation Plan. The following sections outline the traffic generation from the study area, as well as the traffic distribution and projected traffic volumes. A. Traffic Generation The City's Transportation model assumed full build -out of the City by the year 2020. This data was used in the development of the traffic projections or the study area. The following data was developed for the zones in the study area. Year Population Households Employment 1995 2020 122 4520 39 2000 361 854 Figure 10 illustrates the future land use in the study area. B. Traffic Distribution The direction of approach/departure for the proposed study was based on output from the City's Transportation Model. Figure 11 illustrates the direction of approach/departure for the proposed study area. It was assumed that by the year 2020, the 17' Avenue connection to CSAH 83 and the middle north -south collector would be completed and the distribution is adjusted to reflect these anticipated improvements. C. Projected Traffic Volumes The background (non -study area traffic) was assumed to increase at the Scott County standard projection rate of 3.25% per year on CSAH 17, CSAH 83, CSAH 78, and CSAH 79, and 2% per year on 17 Avenue, Valley View Road and St. Francis Avenue for the year 2020 traffic projections. The projected study area traffic was assigned to the street system according to the distribution by direction of approach/departure as discussed above as shown in Figure 11. The total 2020 traffic volumes were determined by adding the development site traffic together with the background growth factor as discussed previously. Figures 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 show the total 2020 projected average daily traffic volumes for each alternative. Valley New Road Area Traffic Study City of Shakopee WSB Project No. 1247 -001 Page 18 • > 5 Office Buildings / p �9 AVE. + .I., TI ISN R. WbdvrgectN0. IL4 / udlc.VuU= 350 Westwood Lake Office T raffi c St 8441 Wayzata Boulevard WSB Minneapolis MN 55426 Future Land Use Map 612 - 641 -48o Valley View Road Area &Associates, 1= FAX 541 -1700 City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota Figure 10 INFRASTRUCTURE - ENGINEERS - PLANNERS t: \1247- 001 \study\ fig - 10.dgn a WOOD DUCK TR. ' � I TT�-�D gg �7 PRIG v � T L` KE Q OKE S7 0,e. 0 HER ON TR. o DR. J TIISN H22W Pri LONOO, I 20 21 Indian 4 \ y 42 29Th AVE. O'Doud Lake "' MIKE CT. I P �J P = m ST. I NORTON 1� OR _ it /� Oi�-���Gii l �� III: a•� ii sr �� a., �i� %IIIIIIII► EM I t . ., . ������� cc y am WbdvrgectN0. IL4 / udlc.VuU= 350 Westwood Lake Office T raffi c St 8441 Wayzata Boulevard WSB Minneapolis MN 55426 Future Land Use Map 612 - 641 -48o Valley View Road Area &Associates, 1= FAX 541 -1700 City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota Figure 10 INFRASTRUCTURE - ENGINEERS - PLANNERS t: \1247- 001 \study\ fig - 10.dgn a WOOD DUCK TR. ' � I TT�-�D gg �7 PRIG v � T L` KE Q OKE S7 0,e. 0 HER ON TR. o DR. J TIISN H22W Pri LONOO, I 20 21 Indian 4 \ y 42 29Th AVE. O'Doud Lake "' MIKE CT. I P �J P = m ST. I NORTON 1� OR _ it /� WbdvrgectN0. IL4 / udlc.VuU= 350 Westwood Lake Office T raffi c St 8441 Wayzata Boulevard WSB Minneapolis MN 55426 Future Land Use Map 612 - 641 -48o Valley View Road Area &Associates, 1= FAX 541 -1700 City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota Figure 10 INFRASTRUCTURE - ENGINEERS - PLANNERS t: \1247- 001 \study\ fig - 10.dgn C P 9 a O O F- � p Q 0 O N N r' !� L CD v > iz M C Z L 25 � 1 Q m CQ r-+ O t:. `4q � U U '2 N 8 Y0Z� g T C t0 N c W W Z Z W W K U o Q � z a I 9 O 0 i o o o CV) � r Cti m iL ca c a� s Q a cC O C C cd Q U 0 0 V c ri P 0 0 I i Om ui Y Z s 0o Z Z 5 �m� m U) ui w LLI Z Z 2 W QQ W K U 3 w o Q Z � L' Z c ri P 0 0 I i n �1 :i r 0 Z IS m a 7 2 I CN O N M a) OD cc C Q� e+ EO cC O U C C c� O C c�C O i O U U C� 4r O U Y3� ss W m z m0z Z 0 co m� W C � Z W W U a � o Q i I-- , w z 0 0 C D V N c i 0 0 F- 0 Q O O Co N � c a) _0) > LL ` (6 o z - 6 - Q m cz O O C Q � O U O 4.. O -' U r = > g` z x0z Z 0 co 'a o W W °� z W W K H U m o y e ti Z a O O r SECTION V TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS j` A. Methodology Utilizing the existing traffic volumes, projected traffic volumes, anticipated roadway configuration alternatives, and traffic control, an analysis of the roadway capacity was -. conducted. The analysis is based on the methodologies used in the City's Transportation Plan with respect to the typical roadway capacities and corresponding roadway cross - section based on the roadway functional classification. The attached Table I is a copy of the roadway design guidelines from the City's Transportation Plan. In addition to the roadway capacity analysis, an operational analysis was conducted for CSAH 17 for each alternative. This analysis was conducted using the Syncro traffic operation software and resulted in an overall level of service for the corridor as well as each intersection for each alternative. P. Access Spacing Guidelines The City of Shakopee and Scott County both have developed access spacing guidelines for specific types of roadways. Table 2 and Table 3 illustrate the access spacing guidelines for the City of Shakopee and Scott County, respectively. Based on both guidelines %2 mile spaces should be desired. Currently there is approximately' /8 of a mile between 17`' Avenue and CSAH 78. Alternative 2 provides the most evenly spaced intersection between 17`' Avenue and CSAH 17. C Existing 2000 Analysis Existing capacity and level of service analysis indicates that the roadways in the study area would be operating at satisfactory levels of service with the existing roadway cross - sections. The traffic operation of CSAH 17 would be at a level of service (LOS) B with an average speed of 33 NTH. Table 4 shows the results of the CSAH 17 LOS analysis. D. Year 2020 Analysis Figure S shows the results of the LOS analysis for each alternate. Alternative 1 • Valley View Road as in the City's Transportation Plan The traffic impact analysis indicates the following: Valley View Road would operate at unsatisfactory levels of service with the current roadway cross - section. This alternative would require the construction of a two -lane facility with turn lanes at major intersections including the new north/south collector Sarazin Street, CSAH 17, and CSAH 79. Valley View Road Area Traffic Study City of Shakopee WSB Project No. 1247 -001 Page 26 CSAH 83 would be operating at an unsatisfactory level of service with the existing lane configurations, especially at the CSAH 16 intersection. Major roadway improvements would be required including turn lanes and a raised concrete median. This issue is currently being studied by the City. CSAH 78, CSAH 79 and 17' Avenue would all be operating at satisfactory levels of service with the existing roadway cross - sections. CSAH 17 would be operated at a LOS C with a speed of 22 MPH. 2. Alternative 2• Valley View Road to Betaseed/Hospital Property Line: The traffic impact analysis indicated the following: Existing Valley View Road would operate at satisfactory levels of service with the current roadway cross - section. This alternative would disconnect this road from CSAH 17, only providing local access. New Valley View Road would require the modification of the existing alignment at Sarazin Street to provide for a continuous route from Valley View Road to Sarazin Street to the property line between Betaseed and the hospital property. This alternative would require the construction of a two - lane facility with turn lanes at major intersections, including the new north/south collector Sarazin Street, CSAH 17, and 17`' Avenue. CSAH 83 would be operating at an unsatisfactory level of service with the existing lane configurations, especially at the CSAH 16 intersection. Major roadway improvements would be required including turn lanes and a raised concrete median. This issue is currently being studied by the City. CSAH 78, CSAH 79, and 17 Avenue would all be operating at satisfactory levels of service with the existing roadway cross - sections. CSAH 17 would be operating at a LOS C with a speed limit of 22 MPH. 3. Alternative 3: Valley View Road to Sarazin Street The traffic impact analysis indicated the following: Existing Valley View Road would operate at satisfactory levels of service with the current roadway cross - section. This alternative would disconnect this road from CSAH 17. New Valley View Road would require the construction of a connection between Sarazin Street and the existing Valley View Road. This alternative would require the construction of the existing Valley View Road to a two - lane facility with turn lanes at major intersections, including the new north/south collector and St. Francis Avenue. CSAH 83 would be operating at an unsatisfactory level of service with the existing lane configurations, especially at the CSAH 16 intersection. Major Valley View Road Area Traffic Study City of Shakopee WSB Project No. 1247 -001 Page 27 roadway improvements would be required including turn lanes and a raised concrete median. This issue is currently being studied by the City. • CSAH 78, CSAH 79, and 17`' Avenue would all be operating at satisfactory _ levels of service with the existing roadway cross - sections. • CSAH 17 would be operating at a LOS B with a speed of 27 MPH. • The unsignalized intersection at CSAH 17 /St. Francis Avenue would operate at a LOS F. If traffic volumes meet warrants, a traffic signal should be considered. If a signal was installed the intersection would operated at a LOS B. • The vehicle storage at the CSAH 17 intersection is adequate for the proposed queues. • 17 Avenue would operate at LOS B with the additional traffic between Sarazin Street and CSAH 17. 4. Alternative 4 Valley View Road to Sarazin Street to St. Francis Avenue The traffic impact analysis indicated the following: • Existing Valley View Road would operate at satisfactory levels of service with the current roadway cross - section. This alternative would disconnect this roadway from CSAH 17. • New Valley View Road would require the construction of connections to the existing Sarazin Street and existing St. Francis Avenue. This alternative would require the construction of a two -lane facility with turn lanes at the new north/south collector, St. Francis Avenue, CSAH 17, and 17 Avenue. • CSAH 83 would be operating at an unsatisfactory level of service with the existing lane configurations, especially at the CSAH 16 intersection. Major roadway improvements would be required including turn lanes and a raised concrete median. This issue is currently being studied by the City. • CSAH 78, CSAH 79, and 17 allbe operating at satisfactory levels of service with the existing roadway cross- sections. • CSAH 17 will be operating at an overall LOS C with a speed of 23 MPH. S. Alternative S • Valley View Road to CSAH 78 The traffic impact analysis indicated the following: • Valley View Road would operate at unsatisfactory levels of service with the current roadway cross - section. This alternative would require construction of a two -lane facility with turn lanes at major intersections, including the new north/south collector, Sarazin Street, and CSAH 17. • CSAH 83 would be operating at an unsatisfactory level of service with the existing lane configurations, especially at the CSAH 16 intersection. Major Valley view Road Area Traffic Study City of Shakopee WSB Project No. 1247 -001 Page 28 roadway improvements would be required, including turn lanes and a raised concrete median. This issue is currently being studied by the City. • CSAH 78, CSAH 79, and 17`h Avenue would all operate at satisfactory levels of service with the existing roadway cross - sections. • CSAH 17 would be operating at an overall LOS C with a speed of 23 MPH. • The unsignalized intersection at CSAH 17 /St. Francis Avenue would operate at a LOS F. If traffic volumes meet warrants, a traffic signal should be considered. Valley View Road Area Traffic Study City of Shakopee WSB Project No. 1247 -001 Page Z9 J I �I co i°° ' r C? J v r C� M a0 I° ��� Q Z ( C M 'D ( .. ' r , CO v T T 1 r 0b � „�tq 00 � 1 CC) 1 N CV N }p� V ' T N r Z ' ° ice e r CN CD Cj N r C ' 4 C%j N lO ' ' l0 N C� I� cq N i d O v r� C'7 s. r : s N T Z ' .� ! Z 1 V N IN N 6� W moo: N U O O OT C) QC z W r CN r r v T O O r �T r U Y T T 1 T N Q Q N � CV - N —1 F CJ O. W — CV O O N LO I CD 4.v N Cry l� tD 00 � Z �� `� ��� �� `� ��� N �s N N CV CN �- UJ O C) r p Z VI LLI ' T T Q _ d `l z ' 00 CD N Co N CO N V r o0 N CD Q , T v , CV H r T 1 T p T T T m O O T r O T I r W > C C C Q 0 M D J J J J J J e J e J v e d• v �' e `� v '� e CN 0 0 O O + O M p O C) O O O O O O O N aj ® Q C) O 1 p v O O p O p ' M O O O O O LO O I LO ~; C) r Z Q ® i `- °- ' Z Q O U y C �I UI .r v 0 o ! z oo: CL Q U U 1 f M Q LL J • U C L 0 L O L = f4 U V C 2 2 2 � # � d� � \ 'RR �= e Q i/ q \ ®_» U) 5. J k \ = / 2 2 / \ \ c oil <_> \ \� 0 7 � \ q O w (; 2 S 8 &2 LL� c J : \I\ ƒ g� g2 q Q 0) / 2 3� o q a a; a 9« zc >c� — —� I M o O e ®' w k S fn k' o CL k� < \ƒ� q \ \_c 2 2g 3,; o \ c e f 7 zc >6i — —� J / Z_ . co e� « /$_� O u C = 2 5 / o « \ 2 2 3 2 33 o E = a e « # 2= >0 — -- CL ( to LLI Z / < � CL « \ k m m a) E 3 k k 3 k $ } � � @ U 7 ; U) @ 7 ;: q \ % cu Q 2 2 LL 7 j. $ @ l7 _ w 7i E E O 3 ® ° E °> > � \ E a� °� � 0 0 '7 ƒ �.0 C O y a) CS C T Ca 3 a ) T c 7 O U (D m m 0 U T cu cn (2) U O C O 0 a U 3 E N uj C m ca L L 4) �• m m m r!1 m U C m � O a) Y m m Ca U m m ca d C) O c O m L O a) is o�E.�c E> o m _ 3 L O 0 C O m 0 L > m 0 U C6 a) c > N�0,Q03MC CL m U m?'oQ0 m O Q "0 - C ) C 4? EQOQ 0— i fl °)000 L .3 m O — O a) O U CC) O m m NO .. � OMC) m Ca Ca � 0 U Ca w L > m p m 0 w W U m :3 a) caEO > C2 c c o o o E a> 0 � c 0 T ) 3 v o m CM -0 CU CQ 0 J = C T W- 0 0 = e= O ®aka ZIL Z � N Cam) y U U cc O U O s U U C) 0 ° m m a) o Z 0 L C L O C U C V C C 'C13 (a m .r O .... cc O C13 y C13 m C h Ca m ca W z S F- C 0 C O a) 0 a) CT c m a Cn - C6 Ca - -m Ca a) CV W V) ca N E o W > ❑ ® a tm CD cm 0) C Z C U ca U cc U m U ca U Ca M m _C Ca U m M to to CL y CL 7E m cm C c a) a) () a) a) m C;) > E E O `D ~ co ❑ w W a o m c c c 03-0 c c 0)7 c c a m e V U ° o U U 0 U Ca U Ca C CII a L6 m ca CL ca ca m ca m ca CO CL E m p m Ca ca m �. W Z m m m m C a) C () n- C a) m ❑ ° m a) E m a) cm c ca m cm c E y ca m a) c a C ) m Cc N W Uj ❑ LL. LL a 0 a m M M-C m-0 O-0 Z ❑ CD O U C m Ca CO m Ca co m Ca Q ca C m U a to cc y C6 to C a) y Ca m C a) w Ca m C N m 75 co n- C 41 C7 W `) CU E N(M C E m ca C E "m m a) m C 'm Ca m 0) C a > 0 z 3 •- 3w �- 3w 3w Z ~ O a m S M-0 M-0 C� U o ° (D U m 0 m 0 ca o Ca °): c O LL o O_ tl) al U m Q a) C6 m d Co m o m a) C) m Co m m y LU _ U a) E Q1 m N E) c Ca m C w m tT c m tT c LLJ IL Z° E c c _cm J W) Z �w a) C '�' E N� E CV w E Ew c 3 LU O W ® C C C G CD C C C c C C ® CD C Ca ° U Ca to 'O d a) d to R m O C Ca m CQ Q) m In E m U ® 0 C: ® m C ® C L7 I C w ° ECC �mca Em` EES mm03 c > cow a) v= E caw E Nw E Ey Z r 3 0 3w 3w 33 �— 32 LU s m c c c c a J C m tl c c V Ca C: U Ca c U N o Ca C a) CD ca a Co M a) m W M O m E a) O) m C a) m m C m C m cm c m C a) c C a) m O) c ❑ j W E C C E m C6 E 'm Ca - 'm Ca m M _> O co Q E N L C N w E E C ❑ p Z � 3 0 3 3 3 3? W � c a+ L C4 ° 0 v a) � E 41 E Qa E m v L o b 3 3 4) WW Z >3 > > a UW U asE 2O ai E m mm p m U ��� E c c Sw c y �m = y a) ns � � N W N O L.L. Z > w C U CC� L G L O 03 > Q ' CL C® Jy gZ JF- �4- =W } dZ LU F- m a m U ❑ W LL. C O y a) CS C T Ca 3 a ) T c 7 O U (D m m 0 U T cu cn (2) U O C O 0 a U 3 E N uj C m ca L L 4) �• m m m r!1 m U C m � O a) Y m m Ca U m m ca d C) O c O m L O a) is o�E.�c E> o m _ 3 L O 0 C O m 0 L > m 0 U C6 a) c > N�0,Q03MC CL m U m?'oQ0 m O Q "0 - C ) C 4? EQOQ 0— i fl °)000 L .3 m O — O a) O U CC) O m m NO .. � OMC) m Ca Ca � 0 U Ca w L > m p m 0 w W U m :3 a) caEO > C2 c c o o o E a> 0 � c 0 T ) 3 v o m CM -0 CU CQ 0 J = C T W- 0 0 = e= O ®aka ZIL Z � N Cam) y U U cc O U O s U U E- I r 1 N N E- W < < Q Q O O O O OHO O N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N O U i C W N . C Q � ���pp�� N Q Q Q Q Q M- J Z Z Z Z Z Z s QQQ�`•QQ w LL Z Z Z r Z Z • • • Z W I N ®-_ Q Q -_ Q -_ m" Q Q C L LLJ CL Z • Z • Z Z W uj ti w Q Q Q c Q Q E- I r 1 N N E- W < < Q Q O O O O OHO O N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N O U i C W N . C Q F- rNM�O W'Q Q Q.Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 O CV N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N � ���pp�� N Q Q Q Q Q M- J Z Z Z Z Z Z s QQQ�`•QQ w W Z Z Z r Z Z Z W I N ®-_ Q Q -_ Q -_ m" Q Q Z J Z Z Z Z Z W ti w Q Q Q c Q Q Z Z Z Z Z ® F- rNM�O W'Q Q Q.Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 O CV N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N 1 M U � cB J U � L RS � O � N C g L O � � J O C U � N s 1 M U � cB J U � L RS � O � N C g L O � � J O C U � N ,, , . I Based on the results of the traffic impact analysis, the following conclusions can be made: • CSAH 78, CSAH 79, and 17'' Avenue are all operating at satisfactory levels of service and are projected in the future to operate satisfactorily with the existing geometrics and roadway cross - sections. • One north -south collector should be constructed between Sarazin Street and CSAH 83. This collector should run from 17`' Avenue to CSAH 42 and have a two -lane cross - section with turn lanes at major intersections. • The new Valley View Road alignment traffic volumes for the selected alternatives will not significantly change as a result of any alternative. • Valley View Road would operate at satisfactory levels of service with a two -lane cross - section and turn lanes at major intersections. • CSAH 17 would not have any significant operational changes as a result of any of the proposed alternatives. • The City and County recommend %2 mile spacing for intersections along CSAH 17. • Alternative 1 - This alternative has significant topography and property impacts. • Alternative 2 - This alternative would create an additional intersection along CSAH 17. • Alternative 3 - This alternative would funnel the majority of the east -west collector street traffic to 17'' Avenue. This alternative would require minor reconstruction. The intersection of CSAH 17 /St. Francis Avenue would operate at a LOS F as a unsignalized intersection and LOS B as a signalized intersection. If traffic volumes meet warrants, a traffic signal should be considered. • Alternative 4 - This alternative would require reconstruction of existing roadways. It will use the existing access points to CSAH 17. • Alternative 5 - This alternative would provide the best alignment for the roadway, however, it has significant topography and wetland impacts. In addition, this alternative would create significant impacts to the existing neighborhoods along the alignment. Based on the analysis found in this study and the conclusions discuss above, the following recommendations are made: Valley View Road Area Traffic Study City of Shakopee WSB Project No. 1247 -001 Page 34 Construct the north -south collector roadway in the alignment as approved by City Council at their July 5' meeting. Phase 1 Construct Alternative 3, which will have minimal impacts on the residential neighborhoods east of Sarazin Street, Betaseed and St. Francis Hospital property. This would disconnect the existing Valley View Road connection from CSAH 17. All other access points along CSAH 17 would remain as they are today. Phase 2 Should significant delays occur at the Sarazin Street and 17'' Avenue intersection or at the Sarazin Street and St. Francis Avenue intersection, the next phase in the construction would be to construct alternative 2, which would create an additional access to CSAH 17 on Betaseed/hospital property line. The existing intersection with St. Francis Avenue would then be converted to a three- quarter access intersection. This would provide for the best spacing available between signalized intersections at CSAH 78 and 17'' Avenue. Valley View Road Area Traffic Study City of Shakopee WSB Project No. 1247 -001 Page 35 Valley View Road Area Traffic Study City of Shakopee WSB Project No. 1247 -001 Page 36 77Z Map - TAl247-0011EXISTING 2000 GEOMETRICS.sy6 Levels of Service October 6, 2000 Baseline I: II14I-UU'IXr-AIa I llm%z /-UUU Timing Plan: Default Map - TAl247 -0011EXISTING 2000 GEOMETRICS.sy6 Volumes October 6, 2000 Co L U ' tq W Q U x,94 1 7 t h Avenue NN x,22 75 St_ Francis Avenue 6��T 0 oo� .�-e° Valle T YViek,Road m N61 f� 4 CSAH 7� 8 461 2 151 V Baseline TAl247 -001 \EXISTING 2000 GEOMET Timing Plan: Default Map - T:11247- 0011EXISTING 2000 GEOMETRICS.sy6 Volumes September 6, 2000 L U h l6 Q U 194 �� rt o 17th Aven 3 e N N O � X122 7g St_ Francis Avenue 6�R 4 mN 0 mN b� Nm 4 CSAH 78 ��, 'a 46 151 Baseline T:11247- 0011EXi5TINU 2000 ULUMt 1 rt,wsyo Timing plan: Default Map - T:11247 -00112020 ALT 1.sy6 Volumes September 6, 2000 L n Q 1 U � ! 43 7 7 t h Avenue i i 80 JQi -,34 St Francis Avenue ROad s� r 11p V a � S'Y g$� CSAH 78 ass Baseline T:11247 -00112020 ALT 1.sy6 Timing Plan: Default Map - 3:19247 - 001X2020 ALT 1.sy6 Levels of Service September 6, 2000 t Y U 17th Avenue 3 3 St_ Fr Avenue } U i V Y view atl CSA 78 v rr m m `m S CO U Baseline r:�1�4i- vul�uwHLt ,.syo Timing Plan: Default Map - T:X1247- 00112020 ALT 2.sy6 Volumes September 6, 2000 L Q Q U6 �- sza l I � 1 Avenue f St. Francis Avenue 11� 2 ~� a;p� ' "O Valley �p e CSAH 78 I� a �6 NCO Baseline 1: \"114/- UUIXZULU HLt L.sy� Timing Plan: Default Map - T:\1247- 001\2020 ALT 2.sy6 Levels of Service September 6, 2000 a m r U H t� 3 � J w� V C 17th Avenue St. Fr ancis Avenue a! /ey View �A Baseline I :1'114! -UUI \ZULU FiL i Z.5y® Timing Plan: Default Map - T:\1247 -001 \2020 ALT 3.sy6 Volumes October 5, 2000 e m in w � m N m � `O� i n m X45 17th A v e nue 313_'<� =s 102 - ' 80� m m X164 111 �°s 110 St Francis Avenue 97 C� 75 �© m L U E2 CD m A Q U - m' 8 CSAH 78 �.48 81�s o m 296 Nan Baseline T: \1247- 901\ZUZU ALi s.sye Timing Plan: Default i Map - T:11247 -00112020 ALT 3.sy6 Levels of Service October 5, 2000 a a! m t U C C Co W c Q l9 U I- U) 17th Avenue St Francis Avenue U Baseline T:11247- 0011ZOZU ALi s.syr Timing Plan: Default Map - T:11247 -00112020 ALT 4.sy6 Levels of Service October 5, 2000 Y n Q U 17th Avenue St. Francis Ave / Valley View Rd Baseline I :11Z4!- UU1XZUZU ALI - +.syo Timing Plan: Default Map - T:11247 -00112020 ALT 4.sy6 Volumes October 5, 2000 X 95 X143 1 7th Avenue 10 I T T 80� n� omc r 298 tiZ , j j� R X S t Francis Ave / Valley View Rd Q7� IT I 92 a 0= m L U R n Q 0mN 8 CSAH 78 d j�, 8 81 o w 236 r� Baseline 1:\1Z41- UU'11LUZU ALI 4.sy0 Timing Plan: Default Map - T:11247- 00112020 ALT 5.sy6 Volumes October 5, 2000 r ° "-�2a <- ss Z -143 17th Avenue 313 102 80 n �N m� r ` - 135 St. Francis Avenue m L U N l9 ` V m no 120 CSAH 78 ) jl� 1 128 Valley View Rd 148 RR 2�� o . Baseline ' . r a c•rr -vv a w`... ... Timing Plan: Default 1 4� To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark J. McQuillan, Natural Resources Director Subject: Tree Preservation Draft Date: October 12, 2000 INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to review the Planning Commission's comments concerning the Tree Preservation Ordinance and to decide if further changes are needed or to adopt the ordinance as presented. BACKGROUND At its September 19, 2000 meeting, the City Council reviewed the draft tree preservation ordinance first time. Subsequently, Council sent it back to the Planning Commission to review it again for changes and indicate which aspects of the ordinance they agree on and which parts they do not agree on. The Planning Commission made the following recommendations at their October 5 meeting: 1) The Planning Commission voted 6 -1, with Terry Joos voting in the negative, to forward the draft tree preservation ordinance with the recommended changes. 2) The Planning Commission voted 4 -3 to recommend approval of the draft tree preservation ordinance to the City Council. Commissioners Mars, Meilleur, Willard and Houser voting in the affirmative and Commissioners Romansky, Gillick and Joos voting in the negative. 3) The Planning Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend to the City Council to have a Comprehensive Natural Resources Study/Inventory of the City of Shakopee. Attachment A is a Summary Sheet of what the Planning Commission agree with and what they don't agree on. Attachment B. is an Executive Summary of the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance prepare y the City Attorney. Attachment C is the final draft form of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. f i T Summary Sheet From October 5, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting DEFINITIONS Unanimous agreement to change............ L. Individual lot single-family residence development means the process where the construction of a new single - family residence occurs on a single lot. , N. Land Alteration means excavation, grading, clearing, filling or other earth change that may result in: a. The movement of more than &, h,, .ice. (350 fifty (50) cubic yards of earth where significant trees are present, or b. Any alteration of land of more than one foot from the natural contour of the ground on any contiguous four hundred fifty square feet of ground where significant trees are present, or c. Any cutting or removal of more than twenty (20) percent of the significant trees on any land within a period of five years. The PC voted 4 -3 to keep cottonwood trees as a softwood tree not to be included in a tree inventory. W. Softwood deciduous trees are: eetteftweed, poplars, aspen eklef, wille w , silver maple and elm. CONCEPT PLAN All agree — no changes. SCOPE OF APPLICATION All Agree — no changes. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS All agree — no changes. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Unanimous agreement to change 3 -A A eefd eate of ° drawing that illustrates the location and types of all existing trees and woodlands to be removed and those to be preserved on the lot or plat. The drawing shall illustrate where protection devices will be placed and areas to be used for material and equipment storage. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS All agree — no changes. MITIGATION On a 7 -0 vote, the Planning Commission recommended that staff develop additional options for 5 -A and if cash is the only option it be placed in a special tree fund. A. In any development that the tree /woodland allowable removal limits are exceeded, the applicant shall mitigate the tree loss by one of the following methods: either reforestation of (tree replacement) appropriate areas within the development area or affected parcel in accordance with the tree replacement schedule; (ii) tree replacement in accordance with the tree r eplacement schedule on other property owned by the applicant in the City; (iii) tree replacement in accordance with the tree replacement schedule on public property owned by the City; or iv) payment to the City of the sum per diameter inch calculated from the total amount of diameter inches of the required replacement trees in accordance with the tree replacement schedule. Staff was only able to come up with one additional option for consideration. [ REQUIRED PROTECTIVE MEASURES All agree — no changes. ADDITIONAL PROTECTIVE MEASURES All agree — no changes. REVIEW PROCESS — CONDITIONS OF PERMIT On a 6 -1 vote, the Planning Commission recommended a Technical Review Team be created to review standards and/or resolve differences. PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE All agree — no changes. REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES REQUIRED All agree — no changes. COMPLIANCE WITH PLAN All agree — no changes. TREE REMOVAL ALLOWANCE All agree — no changes. TREE REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE All agree — no changes. END 1 � �.�.! 1 , .. �, x•11 . What the types of activities will be regulated under the Ordinance? The Ordinance would apply where any excavation, grading, clearing, other earth - change results in: (1) moving more than 50 cubic yards of earth where significant trees are present; (2) a change in more than one foot from the natural contour of any contiguous 450 square feet of land where significant trees are present; or (3) the cutting or killing of more than 20% of the significant trees on any property within a period of five years. The Ordinance does not regulate cutting of trees unless land alteration is taking place. The Ordinance does not require a tree preservation plan for remodeling or expanding buildings on single - family residential lots. 2. What process must a person follow prior to undertaking "land alteration"? A person desiring to engage in land alteration must obtain a tree preservation permit from the City. Before obtaining the permit, the applicant must submit a concept plan or sketch depicting the general site layout and a tree inventory identifying forest stands and specimen trees. The plan must also depict which trees are proposed to be preserved on the site. The preservation plan must include a drawing (not a survey) identifying the trees and woodlands that will be removed and those that will be preserved. The tree inventory must be prepared by a forester or landscape architect. The plan must also depict the location of all replacement trees proposed to be planted on the property. 3. Can any trees be removed before mitigation is required? For an individual undeveloped lot, a property owner may remove up to 20% of specimen trees, significant trees, and significant woodlands without any mitigation requirements. For single lot development on commercial, industrial, major recreation, public projects, and multi - family residential up to 35% of such trees can be removed without any mitigation. For multi -lot, single -phase development, up to 45% of the trees may be removed for single- family residential development and up to 60% for other types of development without mitigation. If a two -phase development is proposed, up to 25% of the trees may be removed as part of the initial site development without mitigation. No mitigation is required for subsequent individual lot development within in a two -phase project provided that no more than twenty percent (20 %) of the trees are being removed for single - family residential development and thirty-five percent (35 %) for other types of development. JTr- 187613v1 SH155 -23 4. If the minimum thresholds are exceeded, what types of mitigation are required? Mitigation must be by one of the following methods A Tree replacement within the development property in accordance with the tree replacement schedule; B. Tree replacement on other property owned by the applicant in the City; C. Tree replacement on public property within the City; The City retains the discretion to select what mitigation measure is appropriate, but must consult with the applicant before making its decision. Replacement trees are in addition to any other landscaping requirements applicable to the development. 5. How onerous is the tree replacement schedule? Other cities use a variety of different formulas for tree replacement. The tree replacement schedule in the proposed ordinance is comparable to Eagan's, Savage's, and Apple Valley's. Some cities, such as Chanhassen and Chaska us a canopy coverage percentage approach. 6. How much of a performance guaranty must be posted to ensure compliance with the ordinance? A performance guarantee of 1,000 per lot must be posted with the City. 7. Can variances be granted? The tree preservation regulations are contained in the City's zoning ordinance. The normal variance process in the zoning ordinance would apply to the tree preservation regulations. 8. Does the ordinance prevent property owners from cutting trees? The ordinance does not prevent the cutting of trees if land alteration, as defined in the ordinance, is not occurring. 7TT- 187613v1 SH155 -23 N �J ORDINANCE NO. , FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO TREE PRESERVATION AND AMENDING THE CITY CODE BY ADDING SECTION 11.63. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 —The City Code is amended by adding a new section 11.63 to read: SEC. 11.63 TREE PRESERVATION Subd. 1. Findings and Purpose. The City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City to protect, preserve, and enhance the natural environment of the community and to encourage a resourceful and prudent approach to the development and alteration of wooded areas. In the interest of achieving these objectives, the City Council has established these comprehensive tree preservation regulations to promote the furtherance of the following objectives: A. Protection and preservation of the environment and natural beauty of the city; B. Assurance of orderly development within wooded areas to minimize tree and habitat loss; C. The evaluation of specific sites as to the development's impact on trees and wooded areas; D. Establishment of minimal standards for tree preservation and the mitigation of environmental impacts resulting from tree removal; E. Provision of incentives for creative land use and environmentally compatible site design that preserve trees and minimize tree removal and clear- cutting during development; and F. Enforcement of tree preservation standards to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare of the community. Subd. 2. Definitions. For purposes of this Section the following terms have the meanings given to them: A. Applicant means any person or entity, which is required to submit and implement an approved tree preservation plan under this section. B. Builder means any person or entity to which a building permit is issued for the construction of a single - family residence. C. Caliper inch means the diameter of replacement trees measured at a height of one foot above the ground level. D. Construction area means any area in which movement of earth, alteration in topography, soil compaction, disruption of vegetation, change in soil chemistry, or any other change in the natural character of the land occurs as a result of the site preparation, grading, building construction or any other construction activity. 1 �a , E. Critical root zone (CRZ) means an imaginary circle surrounding the tree trunk with a radius distance of one foot per one inch of tree diameter, e.g., a 20 -inch diameter tree has a CRZ with a radius of 20 feet. F. Developer means any person or entity other than a builder, as defined herein, who undertakes to improve a parcel of land, by platting, grading, installing utilities, or constructing or improving any building thereon. G. Development means individual lot single - family and multi - residential, commercial and industrial developments occurring during single -phase and two -phase developments, as those terms are defined herein. H. Diameter means the length of a straight line measured through the trunk of a tree at 54 inches above the ground. I. Diameter inch means the diameter, in inches, of a tree measured at diameter breast height (4.5 feet from the uphill side of the existing ground level). J. Drip line means the farthest distance away from the trunk that rain or dew will fall directly to the ground from the leaves or branches of the tree. K. Forester means a person holding a bachelor's degree in forestry from an accredited four -year college of forestry. L. Individual lot single- family residence development means the process where the construction of a new single - family residence occurs on a single lo expansion of any existing single - family Fesidense b ten Pe FGent -y ^° greater sq .per M. Landscape architect means a person licensed by the state as a landscape architect. N. Land Alteration means excavation, grading, clearing, filling or other earth change that may result in: 1. The movement of more than, three hundred fifty (350) cubic yards of earth where significant trees are present, or 2. Any alteration of land of more than one foot from the natural contour of the ground on any contiguous four hundred fifty square feet of ground where significant trees are present, or 3. Any cutting or killing of more than twenty (20) percent of the significant trees on any land within a period of five years. O. Forest Stand means a contiguous group of trees sufficiently uniform in species composition arrangement of age classes and condition to be a distinguishable unit. P. Natural Resource Director means the designated City official responsible for the management of natural resources in the City of Shakopee. Q. Significant woodland means a grouping or cluster of coniferous trees over four feet in height and /or deciduous trees between four inches and 12 inches in diameter with contiguous crown cover, occupying: (a) 1000 or more square feet of property zoned RR, R-1 A, R- 1B,R -1 C, R -2 or PRD; (b) 1500 or more square 2 feet of property zoned R -3, B -1, or BP; or (c) 2000 square feet or more of property zoned for commercial or industrial use. R. Single -phase development means the process where improvement of the entire site occurs in one continuing process. Single -phase development can include initial site grading; installation of utilities; construction of public streets; construction and grading of drainage -ways; filling of any areas; grading of the pad area; utility hookups; construction of buildings, parking lots, driveways, storage areas, recreation areas, private streets; and any other activity within the construction area. S. Coniferous evergreen tree means a woody plant that is, at least, twelve feet or more in height and has foliage on the outermost portion of the branches year round. T. Deciduous tree means a woody plant which, at maturity, is at least 15 feet or more in height, having a defined crown, and which sheds leaves annually. U. Hardwood deciduous tree includes, but not limited to, ironwood, catalpa, oak, maple (hard), walnut, ash, hickory, birch, black cherry, hackberry, locust and basswood. V. Significant tree means a healthy tree measuring a minimum of six inches in diameter for hardwood deciduous trees, defined herein, or a minimum of 12 inches in diameter for softwood deciduous trees, as defined herein, or a minimum of 12 feet in height for coniferous /evergreen trees. W. Softwood deciduous trees are: poplars, aspen, silver maple and elm. X. Specimen tree means a healthy hardwood deciduous tree measuring equal to or greater than 30 inches diameter and /or a coniferous tree measuring 50 feet or greater in height. Y. Two -phase development means the process where improvement of the entire site occurs in at least two distinct phases. Generally the first phase includes initial site grading; installation of utilities; construction of public streets; construction, grading of drainage -ways; and filling of any areas. The second phase generally includes grading of specific pad areas; utility hookups; construction of buildings, parking lots, driveways, storage areas, recreation areas, private streets; and any other activity within the specific construction zone. Subd. 3. Permit Required. No application for a preliminary plat, building permit, excavation permit, grading permit, or any other City approval that results in land alteration shall be considered unless the applicant for such approval has first obtained a tree preservation permit. Subd. 4. Concept Plan. Before applying for a tree preservation permit, an applicant may, but is not required to, submit a concept plan to the City illustrating the general site layout, including streets, parking areas, ponds, storm water basins, utilities and building footprints. The concept plan should also identify forest stands and specimen trees (determined through required tree inventory). Subd. 5. Tree Preservation Plan. A tree preservation plan must be approved by the city and implemented for any land alteration in connection with any of the following: A. New development in any zoning district; B. New building construction in any zoning district; C. Expansion of any existing commercial, industrial or institutional building or impervious surface by ten percent or greater square feet, where an approved tree preservation plan is not on file with the city; or D. Any project requiring a grading permit. Subd. 6. Exemption for Existing Single Family Residences. No tree preservation plan is required for single - family residences desiring to remodel or expand existing buildings or grounds. Subd. 7. Application. An application for a tree preservation permit must be made in writing to the Natural Resources Director on a form provided by the City. For undeveloped single - family lots with existing significant trees or woodlands, a Tree Preservation Plan shall be submitted for review by City staff in conjunction with a building permit application. For other developments, the application for a tree preservation permit must be submitted along with the application for preliminary plat. Subd. 8. Submission Requirements. An application for a tree preservation permit must include the following information: A. Delineation of the buildings, structures, or impervious surfaces situated thereon or contemplated to be built thereon; B. Delineation of all areas to be graded and limits of land disturbance; C. A tree inventory, by a forester or landscape architect, depicting the size, species, and location of all existing significant trees, specimen trees, and significant woodlands located within the area to be platted or within the parcel of record. These significant trees, specimen trees, and significant woodlands should be identified in both graphic and tabular form; D. Identification of all significant trees, specimen trees, and significant woodlands proposed to be removed within the construction area. These significant trees, specimen trees, and significant woodlands should be identified in both graphic and tabular form; E. Measures to protect significant trees, specimen trees, and significant woodlands; F. Size, species, and location of all replacement trees proposed to be planted on the property in accordance with the tree replacement schedule; G. A drawing that accurately identifies the location and types of all existing trees and woodlands to be removed and those to be preserved on the lot or plat. The drawing shall illustrate where protection devices will be placed and areas to be used for material and equipment storage. H. Applicants of new single - family residential building permits are required to prepare an individual lot tree preservation plan when significant tree, specimen trees, and /or significant woodlands exist on site. Tree preservation plans for individual lots will be required to have the plan prepared by a forester or landscape architect. Subd 9. Mitigation. In any development where the limits of the tree removal schedule are exceeded, the applicant shall mitigate the tree loss by one of the following methods: 11 A. tree replacement within the development area or affected parcel in accordance with the tree replacement schedule; B. tree replacement in accordance with the tree replacement schedule on other property owned by the applicant in the City; or C. tree replacement in accordance with the tree replacement schedule on public property in the City. Subd. 10. Required Protective Measures The tree preservation plan shall identify and require the following measures to be utilized to protect significant trees, specimen trees, and significant woodlands: A. Installation of snow fencing or polyethylene laminate safety netting placed at the drip line or at the perimeter of the critical root zone (CRZ), whichever is greater, of significant trees, specimen trees, and significant woodlands to be preserved. No grade change, construction activity, or storage of materials shall occur within this fenced area. B. Identification of any oak trees requiring pruning between April 15 and July 1. Any oak trees so pruned shall be required to have any cut areas sealed with an appropriate nontoxic tree wound sealant immediately after damage occurs. If cutting or pruning of oak trees is to take place between April fifteenth and July first, the applicant shall provide a disease prevention plan within the tree preservation plan. C. Prevention of change in soil chemistry due to concrete washout and leakage or spillage of toxic materials, such as fuels or paints. Washout areas are to be identified on plans and signage of areas provided on construction site. Subd. 11. Additional Protective Measures The following tree protection measures should be utilized to protect significant trees, specimen trees, and significant woodlands intended to be preserved according to the tree preservation plan. A. Installation of retaining walls or tree wells to preserve trees. B. Placement of utilities, where possible, in common trenches outside of the drip line of significant trees, or use of tunneled installation. C. Use of tree root aeration, fertilization, and /or irrigation systems. D. Transplanting of young trees to a protected area for later moving into permanent sites within the construction area. E. Therapeutic pruning. Subd. 12. Performance Guarantee Any applicant of a new development shall provide the required performance guarantee prior to the approval or issuance of any construction and /or grading permits. The amount of the performance guarantee will be calculated as follows: A. For construction on previously platted vacant lots, the developer or builder shall provide a performance guarantee in escrow of $1000 per lot. If damages exceed $1000, the developer /builder can be assessed additional charges by multiplying the total diameter inches of significant trees and specimen trees to be preserved by the rate of payment of $25.00 per diameter inch and the total square feet of significant woodlands to be preserved by the rate of $1.20 per square foot. 5 B. The performance guarantee will be released upon verification by the city that the tree preservation plan was followed and all such requirements have been met. No performance guarantee shall be released earlier than one year after the date of the project closure. Subd. 13. Removal of Diseased Trees Required Prior to any grading, all diseased, hazardous, and nuisance trees on the subject property shall be identified by the city forester, tree inspector or designated agent of the City of Shakopee in accordance with the tree disease control and prevention regulations of the City Code. Any and all diseased and nuisance trees so identified shall be removed from the property, at the time of grading, if so directed. Subd. 14. Compliance With Plan A. The applicant must implement the tree preservation plan prior to and during any construction. The tree protection measures must remain in place until all grading and construction activity is terminated, or until a request is made to and approved by the city forester or designated agent of the City. B. No significant trees, specimen trees, or significant woodlands may be removed except in accordance with the approved tree preservation plan. If any significant trees, specimen trees or significant woodland, which were intended to be preserved, are removed without permission of the city forester or damaged so that it is in a state of decline within one year from date of project closure, a cash mitigation, calculated per diameter inch of the removed /destroyed tree or per total square foot of significant woodlands, in the amount set forth in the city fee schedule, shall be remitted to the city. C. The city has the right to inspect the development or building site in order to determine compliance with the approved tree preservation plan. No person may unreasonably hinder, prevent or delay a city representative while engaged in the execution or enforcement of his /her duties prior, during or after project approval. D. All sites shall be staked, as depicted in the approved grading plan, and the required tree protection fencing shall be installed before grading is to commence. E. The city shall inspect the construction site prior to the beginning of the grading to ensure that protective fencing and other protective measures are in place. F. No encroachment, grading, trenching, filling, compaction, or change in soil chemistry shall occur within the fenced areas protecting the critical root zone of the trees to be saved. Subd. 15. Allowable Tree Removal Schedule. A. Specimen trees, significant trees, and significant woodlands that are destroyed or removed beyond the following amounts must be replaced in accordance with the Tree Replacement Schedule: SINGLE LOT DEVELOPMENT a. Single -unit residential, 20 percent. b. Commercial, Industrial, Major Recreation, Public Projects, and multiunit residential, 35 percent. D 2. MULTI -LOT DEVELOPMENT a. Single -phase development process. L Single unit residential, 45 percent. ii. Commercial, Industrial, Major Recreation, Public Projects and multiunit residential, 60 percent. b. Two -phase development. L Initial site development, 25 percent. ii. Individual lot development. aa. Single unit residential, 20 percent. bb. Commercial Industrial, Major Recreation, Public Projects, or multiunit residential, 35 percent. Subd. 16. Tree Replacement Schedule A. Replacement and Location of Trees 1. Size of Tree Damaged or Destroyed - Number of Replacement Trees. Category A/Category B / Category C Coniferous, 12' to 24' high 1 2 4 Coniferous, 24' or higher 2 4 8 Hardwood deciduous, 6" to 20" diameter 1 2 4 Hardwood deciduous, 21" to 30" diameter 2 4 8 Specimen Tree (Hardwood Deciduous), greater than 30 " 3 6 12 Softwood deciduous, 12" to 24 " diameter 1 2 4 Softwood deciduous, greater than 24 " 2 4 8 2. Significant woodland replacement. Where replacement of a significant woodland is required, the applicant shall be responsible for furnishing and installing one category A replacement tree or two category B replacement trees or four category C replacement trees for every 125 square feet of significant woodland damaged or destroyed, or any increment thereof. 3. Size of replacement trees. Category A trees shall be no less than the following sizes: Deciduous trees, not less than 3.5 inches in diameter. Coniferous trees, not less than 10 feet in height. Category B trees shall be no less than the following sizes: Deciduous trees, not less than 2'h inches in diameter. Coniferous trees, not less than six feet in height. Category C trees shall be no less than the following sizes: 7 Deciduous trees, not less than 1'h inches in diameter. Coniferous trees, not less than four feet in height. 4. Species requirement. Where ten or more replacement trees are required, not more than 50 percent of the replacement trees shall be of the same species of tree without the approval of the city. 5. Warranty requirement. Any replacement tree which is not alive or healthy, as determined by the city, or which subsequently dies due to construction activity within one year after the date of project closure shall be removed by the applicant and replaced with a new healthy tree meeting the same minimum size requirements within eight months of removal. 6. Replacement and location. Trees subject to replacement pursuant to this section shall be in addition to landscape requirements by City Code. Replacement trees shall be planted in one or more of the following areas on land: Restoration areas including slopes, out -lots or common areas, buffer zones between different land uses and /or activities, project entrance areas, and public areas. 7. Replacement trees shall be of a species similar to the trees which are lost or removed and shall include those species referred by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Native Tree Species List )S - A-10 CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM CONSENT To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark McQuillan, Natural Resource Director Subject: Hiawatha Park Shelter Change Order #2 Date: October 30, 2000 INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to approve Change Order #2 for the Hiawatha Park shelter building. BACKGROUND The City's Building Inspector suggested the City construct individual restrooms for men and women. The original building plan specifies one unisex restroom. Staff agrees with the Building Inspector's suggestion and, therefore, recommends the City Council approve the change. In addition, staff also recommends another window on the east wall so the rink attendant has full view of the skating rink. The changes are shown on the attachments. Attachment A = Original Drawing Attachment B = Revised Drawing Attachment C = Costs Breakdown. The cost for the change is $4,700.00. This price includes all costs associated with the additional restroom, new window and the re- designing of the mechanical system. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the Change Order request. 2. No not approve the Change Order request. RECOMMENDATION Alternative #1 ACTION REQUESTED Move to approve Change Order #2 to construct an additional restroom in the new shelter building at Hiawatha Park at a cost not to exceed $4,700.00. I A . Mc uillan Natural Resource Director If /4 m SL WRY "3 �_. " i� � ZOG A � � 4YE -+.t U?�c t7`{ < -{�'�^ �'.�.'.a. i✓�� 1 i' __ _ _ -_. _.--_— � f 1 �1 � _ 1 (tAfeg QD ti All Y t I J� � t n G F TM T - 7 7 l Y_ 4 - 7777 7 7 7- LN e 77 j New cue 575� V�4 � WOOD: PRODUCTS >J �ii�'' r � • � j// FINANCE CHARGE is computed by a periodic rate of 1 percent per month (or a minimum charge of 50 cents for balances under $50) which is an ANNUAL EERCENTACiE RATE of 12 percent applied to the balance obtained after deducting current payments and or credits from the previous balance appearing on statement. In God We Trust - The Rest Pay Cash! PLEASE PAY FROM THIS INVOICE MM 15-19 - ,� - ,f - =112011201- # To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark McQuillan, Natural Resource Director Subject: Hiring Consultant for Southbridge /Dean Lake Master Plan Date: October 26, 2000 INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to approve the hiring of Brauer and Associates to develop a Parks, Trails and Open Space Master Plan for the Southbridge /Dean Lake area. BACKGROUND At its September 19, 2000 meeting, the City Council authorized staff to send out Request For Qualifications to various consultants to develop a parks master plan for the Southbridge and Dean Lake area. Invitations were sent to Ingraham and Associates Inc., Hoisington and Koegler Group Inc., Brauer and Associates Inc., The Kestrel Group Inc., Barr Engineering, and TDKA & Associates Inc. Four of the six companies responded to the invitation and attended a Project Briefing and Tour Meeting held on October 11. Subsequently, two companies withdrew from consideration due to heavy workloads. Therefore, the two remaining companies, Ingraham and Associates Inc. and Brauer and Associates Inc., submitted proposals and were interviewed by a Review Panel consisting of Public Works Director Bruce Loney, Community Development Director Michael Leek and Natural Resource Director Mark McQuillan. What is a Parks Master Plan? A MASTER PLAN IS A SYNTHESIS OF THE BEST ALTERNATIVES. THESE IDEAS ARE DEVEOLOPED TO A LEVEL OF DETAIL SO THAT THE MASTER PLAN CAN SERVE AS THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR PARK CONSTRUCTION. IT ALSO DEVELOPS A PHASING PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION AS WELL AS PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR BUDGETARY PURPOSES. CITIZEN INPUT IS ESSENTIAL TO A GOOD MASTER PLAN. Master Plan Components Site analysis Landscape theme. Architectural character Character sketches. Pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular circulation Conceptual grading Ecological management plan of public areas Environmental analysis Development program or phasing plan. Cost analysis. Timeline The process for developing the master plan will take four to six months. Selection Process The criteria for selecting a firm for this project was based on the following factors: 1. Understanding of project. 2. The needs and requirements of the City. 3. The professional qualifications and experience of project staff. a. Recreation & park planning b. Environmental and conservation planning 4. Approach to the project. 5. Performance on similar projects. 6. Adherence to all conditions and requirements on the RFQ. 7. Consultant fees. a. $19,470.00 &$500 reimbursable expenses Ingraham & Associates Inc. b. $22,500.00 & $1000 reimbursable expenses Brauer & Associoates Inc. The Review Panel was impressed with both companies and what they could bring to the table. Their understanding of the project, the needs of the community and approach to developing the master plan was exemplary. The fee proposal from both companies was very comparable. However, the panel is recommending that Brauer and Associates Inc. be hired as the consulting firm for this project. What separated Brauer and Associates Inc. from the other company was their detail approach to the planning process and assessment of recreational and ecological entities. We anticipate, based on what was presented to the panel, a document that will be very detailed and representative of what the residents and City Council desire for the Southbridge and Dean Lake area. ALTERNATIVES 1. Hire Brauer and Associates Inc. 2. Hire Ingraham and Associates Inc. 3. Solicit more proposals. 4. Do nothing RECOMMENDATION The Review Panel is recommending alternative #1. ACTION REQUESTED If Council concurs with the Review panel's recommendation, it should, by motion, move to authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into agreement with Brauer and Associates Inc. to develop a Parks Master Plan for Southbridge /Dean Lake area at a cost not to exceed $23,500.00 with funding to be allocated from the Park Reserve Fund. r, ark J.R' cQuillan Natural Resource Director ATTACHMENTS: A = CONTRACT B = PROJECT SCHEDULE C = PROJECT APPROACH BY CONSULTANT Nov. 1.2000 12:22PM BRAVER & ASSOC. LAND USE PLANNING AND DESIGN 10417 Excelsior Blvd. Suite Number One Hopkins, MN 55343 November 1, 2000 City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Tel (952) 238 -0831 Fax (952) 238 -0833 ATTN: Mark McQuillan, Director of Natural Resources RE. Professional Services Proposal - bean ]Lake Area and Southbridge Community and Neighborhood Parks B &A 4 00 -38 This letter proposal outlines a scope of services, fee schedule, and other elements which, if approved, constitutes an Agreement between the City of Shakopee herein referred to as the OWNER, and Brauer and Associates, Ltd., herein referred to as the CONSULTANT. The OWNER hereby retains the CONSULTANT to provide professional recreational planning services required to complete the following scope of services for Dean Lake Area and Southbridge Community and Neighborhood Parks , located in the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the PROJECT. The CONSULTANT'S services and fees shall include recreational planning services as follows: A. SCOPE OF SERVICES - Basic Services 1. Focus Meeting ® Meet with project representatives to finalize the scope of the project, discuss the planning process, and develop the project schedule. • Prepare a preliminary assessment of issues surrounding the project. 2. Project Start -Up Work with project representatives to amass all of the information available about the site — ranging from physical features to past projects and so forth. • Prepare computer site base map setup using site survey information provided by the client. ® Complete basic site review with project representatives to familiarize ourselves with the physical aspects of the site (i.e., identifying current land and water features and the relationship of the site to adjacent land uses). • Review of findings with project representatives on as- needed basis. No. 6424 P. 1/6 City of Shakopee, Minnesota Southbridge Community Park and Neighborhood Parks Brauer and Associates, Ltd. Proposal 1 Project 4 0038 Nov, 1.2000 12:24PM BRAUER & ASSOC. No.6424 P, 2/6 3. Site Analysis - Natural Resource / Ecological Features • Site review and general analysis to familiarize ourselves with the natural resource and ecological features of the site. • Review the analysis findings with the project representatives. 4. Site Analysis - Development Features • Site review and analysis to familiarize ourselves with the development features of the site (i.e., identifying current and future land uses and features and the relationship of the site to adjacent land uses). • Review the analysis findings with the project representatives 5. Program Development • Meet with project representatives to review and discuss site programming issues and developmental concerns. • Complete site research review and incorporate into the planning process. • Public meeting to present site analysis and gain perspective on development/ecological issues and prepare program for project area. • Organize and document site programming concerns. • Prepare a final program for the site. 6. Develop Natural Resource Restoration and Management Framework • Meet with project representatives to review and discuss natural resource and ecological restoration and management issues, methodologies, scientific perspectives, etc. • Summarize natural resources restoration and management discussions and implementation priorities. 7. Determine Development Zones and Define Principles for Sustainable Development • Meet with project representatives to review and discuss the pertinent issues affecting the land use zones within the park. • Prepare a Development Use Zone map and supportive text. ® Define Principles of Sustainable Development 8. Schematic Concept Development • Preparation by the Brauer team of two or three alternative schematic concepts that explore various design solutions for the property. • Preparation of rough costs estimates for each schematic concept to illustrate range of costs associated with their development. • Hold a review meeting with project representatives to determine which alternative (or combination thereof) best represents their desires for the site. • Consider input and incorporate comments and ideas for use as the basis for the preliminary master plan. 9. Master Plan (Preliminary and Final) Review and analysis of previous findings. • Preparation of a preliminary master plan and accompanying cost estimate. This refines the accepted concept plan by clearly illustrating the relationship of each use, activity area, and City of Shakopee, Minnesota Southbridge Community Park and Neighborhood Parks Brauer and Associates, Ltd. Proposal 2 Project # 00 -38 Nov. 1.2000 12:24PM BRAVER & ASSOC. No, 6424 P. 3/6 facilities /site amenities. Hold a review meeting with the project representatives. Preparation of a final site masterptan and cost estimate based upon the accepted draft master plan. Present final site master plan to selected groups for approval. l 10, Implementation Strategies Develop cost analysis for each master plan component. Develop project phasing and implementation steps. Hold a review meeting with the project representatives. Documentation and Graphics Preparation Presentation graphics for meetings will be prepared at a level of detail and graphic quality befitting the meeting purpose. It is expected that these will include graphics illustrating the design features. PowerPoint presentation format will be used to document important site planning issues and results during final presentation to the client. The OWNER shall receive one copy of all final graphics. FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1. For services as listed in paragraph A.1 through A.11. above, an Hourly Not to Exceed Fee of Twenty Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars, ($22,500.00). Project expenses incurred by the CONSULTANT will be billed in addition to the fee at cost times 1.1. Project expenses shall not exceed One Thousand Dollars, ($1,000.00). 2. For additional service requested and authorized in writing by OWNER an hourly fee plus expenses shall be charged. Expenses shall be billed at cost X l.l. FY 2000 Hourly Rate Schedule for Professionals and Technical Staff The following define the hourly rate schedule that would be used for this project. $racer and Associates, Ltd. Senior Principal Principal L.A. Professional I Senior Technician WSB & Associates, Inc. Principal Sr. Project Manager Project Manager/ Engin. Specialist III Engineering Technician III Engineering Technician II Engineering Technician I Office Technician 11 Office Technician I $100:00 / Hour $75.00 / Hour $65.00 ! Hour $52.00 / Hour $96.00 ! Hour $89.00 ! Hour $80.00 / Hour $54.00 ! Hour $46.00 / dour $47.00 ! Hour $40.00 ! Hour $19.50 / Hour City of Shakopee, Minnesota Southbridge Community Park and Neighborhood Parks Brauer and Associates, Ltd. Proposal 3 Project # 00 -38 Nov. 1, 2000 12:24PM BRAUER & ASSOC, Applied Ecological Services, Inc. Senior Ecologist/Engineer 5125.00 / Hour Assistant $60.00 / Hour Sub - Assistant $40.00 / Hour Secretarial / Clerical $30.50 / Hour Drafting $40.00 / Hour Data Entry $35.00 / Hour A No, 6424 P. 4/6 PAYMENTS TO THE CONSULTANT 1. Invoices will be submitted to the OWNER on a monthly basis in proportion to the work completed. 2. Payments on account of the CONSULTANTS services are due and payable upon receipt of CONSULTANT'S invoice. OWNER'S RESP0NSIBILITY 1. Full program coordination with one individual representing the OWNER'S interests. 2. For the Scope of Services outlined in this proposal the OWNER shall provide the CONSULTANT with a base map information illustrating all property lines, property comers, easements, rights of way and other legal issues, existing utilities, buildings, recreational improvements, vegetation, pavement, curbing, and other surface materials. This base map information shall be as accurate as possible. The OWNER shall be responsible for the accuracy of this information and shall determine if this information and the resulting base map are accurate enough for this planning process. This base map shall be provided to the consultant in a digital format compatible with AutoCAD version 14. 3. Providing all soils engineering/borings and engineering geotechnical testing required forthe project. 4. All fees and expenses involved in federal, state agency or local permitting, plan review, etc. for the project. 5. Provide copies of relevant plans, planning documents, inventory data, and computer files. 6. Participate in the conditions assessment of study area. 7. Participate in focus group meetings to record critical issues. 8. Be responsible for all community outreach meetings and logistics including meeting places, setting dates and times, and use of print, radio, TV and web page media to publicize. 9. Be responsible for scheduling all planning meetings with staff and advisory committees. 10. Review and comment on technical memos and reports, and drafts of products & deliverables. 11. Actively participate in all major milestones, facilitated by the Brauer team. 12. Be responsible for all mailings sent out to stakeholders and/or public. Brauer & Associates to provide original of all correspondence, as appropriate. 13. Provide all data to be used during the project in an electronic format compatible with the consultant's systems. The CONSULTANT will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, re ligion, sex, national origin, physical condition or age. The CONSULTANT will take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to City of Shakopee, Minnesota Southbridge Community Park and Neighborhood Parks Brauer and Associates, Ltd. Proposal 4 Project # 00 -38 Nov. 1. 2000 12:25PM BRAUER & ASSOC. No. 6424 P. 5i6 their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, physical condition or age. Such action shall include but not be limited to the following: Employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation and selection for training including apprenticeship. F. CONSULTANT'S RECORDS, DOCUMENTS AND INSURANCE 1. The CONSULTANT shall maintain time records for hourly fees, design calculations and research notes in legible form and these will be made available to the OWNER, if requested. 2. The CONSULTANT shall provide the OWNER with a certificate of insurance stating coverage carried by the CONSULTANT to protect him from claims under Workman's Compensation Acts; from claims for damages because of bodily injury including death to his employees and the public, from claims for property damage and professional liability issues. 3, The CONSULTANT reserves the right to secure and maintain statutory copyright in all published books, published or unpublished drawings of a scientific or technical character, and other works related to this PROJECT in which copyright may be claimed. The OWNER shall have full rights to reproduce works under this Agreement either in whole or in part as related to this PROJECT. One copy of each drawing shall be provided in reproducible form for use by the OWNER, but the original drawings will remain the property of the CONSULTANT. G. TERM, TERNIINATION, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS fl, The term of the Agreement shall be concurrent with the work authorized. 2, Termination may be accomplished by either parry at any time by written notice, and shall be effective upon payment in full for all services performed to the date of receipt of such notice. 3. The OWNER and the CONSULTANT each binds itself, its partners, successors, and assigns to the other party of this Agreement, and to the partners, successors, and assigns of such other party with respect to all covenants of this Agreement. 4. Neither the OWNER nor the CONSULTANT shall assign, sublet or transfer his interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated Agreement between the OWNER andthe CONSULTANT and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or Agreements, whether written or oral, with respect to the PROJECT. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both OWNER and CONSULTANT. Clty of Shakopee, Mlnnesota Southbridge Community Park and Neighborhood Parks Brauer and Associates, Ltd. Proposal 5 Project 9 00-38 Nov. I. 2000 12:25PM BRAUER & ASSOC. No. 6424 P. 6/6 IN WITNESS HEREOF the OWNER and the CONSULTANT have made and executed this Agreement, this _day of , 2000. CITY OF SHAKOPEE 129 Holmes Street Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 BRAUER & ASSOCIATES LTD, 7301 Ohms Lane, Suite # 500 Minneapolis, Iv'nnesgta 55439 3 S- Shakopee \CONTR.ACT. WPD City of Shakopee, Minnesota Southbridge Community Park and Neighborhood Parks Brauer and Associates, Ltd. Proposal 6 Project #t 00-39 i Dean Lake/Southbridge Community Master Plan Preliminary Project Schedule City of Shakopee, Minnesota Project Start -up: end of November /early December Meet with city staff to discuss issues, stakeholders, objectives, tasks, and preliminary program development for the project area_ May also include meeting with city council and/or park board members to discuss project. Brauer undertakes site analysis of project area_ Brauer meets with city staff throughout design process, as necessary. Neighborhood/Public Meetings: • 1" Meeting - Early January: Present Site Analysis Boards to neighborhood for comments, develop program for project area, and discuss issues (this includes review of ecological analysis). • 2 nd Meeting - Early February: Present Conceptual Development Plans for review and comment. Look at how concept plans relate /respond to site land use zones and development program. Also discuss ecological restoration and management issues. • 3 rd Meeting - Early March: Present Preliminary Master Plan and preliminary cost estimates for construction for review. • 4 th Meeting (if necessary) - End of March: Present Final Master Plan and preliminary cost estimate for acceptance. Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Meetings: Two meetings with board at appropriate points during the planning process. Maybe combined with other meetings, if desired. City Council Meeting: One to two meetings with city council at appropriate points during the planning process, if desired. Final Master Plan to be presented to council in April. '+j E E M-4* %4- J W Q U O Q 66 n/ w m ,J 0 MA 0 cz cz cz Z t- (.n • .� L -ICJ O c u _ ct cz cz Q) ' cz bIJ U � • � N cn N .0 O 0 Q •U •U p N bA U cry ® < � W E E cz O �_ cti > N U �— ct U w V i _ cz ® c/) > 'U N CZ • un O E U ct C: O • . •� O Q) —� Q C cti U � ct L U �-- cti cz � U � L Q 0 M esi w Q O w m I Lu a. z z .Ls 0 z a LL R Z; z Z U < to Lf) LLJ L) Lf) 0�5 LLI W U . s .. cry • • • 0 0 O � � U Ri aA Q Z El U ,O i cu N Ul) bA U � O O U Q) C U Ul) bA p O Z O w w Z Z W i N M 0 J vi W Q U O w m d U V) U O U0 N 33 -a cz c� w bA cn O . i cz •� ' p 1 4—j O 4-j U L cz N - 'L '� '� •— i b.q cn _ O U bA s I— U Q�j w tp LLJ m 4--j U • i' N a_., O Q) CTS cz cc CZ cz to p cu � cu U O -Z U U 4--j U U U � U v U O v O E O Q ® ° N O U cn aS W Q • • • f— m FO 0 J W Q O Ln Ln w m L ti— O O V) • cn 4 ^L` r O U � O .® w C� j are L CIO < cd -0 u U O c- O C: U • E -� •� U ' C u ^ W o L CL O O 0 � O oz Q U U o- — • 0 • 0 • • FO 0 J W Q O Ln Ln w m a • IN aw • J r-, J W Q O Ln Q w m .j cn U 1 O O un cti U � 4--j c� LE L •� Q N a) N E > U a U U O N c� U - 3 U N U E cn cn � • — �s O ii cn L O U O U • c� � Ln L Ln E (n Z O w s U I— r-, J W Q O Ln Q w m V) 4I n � W n W W 1 . 'I MAN P low, J C/) W Q U O Q w m w ttt Lu , 4 LLI w Lu LLI Y LIJ < Lt.t '. LLJ z - u }_ Ln C4 LU LJ < 0 i LLJ J C/) W Q U O Q w m 0 cfi � E O 0 -i—' N � s— O u L n , O U U 1 +- O � o -� by c� • O 7 0 - � U') U � > O •� 0 E bA N E C w Q O Q w m O U S un • c� un LU 0 c"I 0 w Q v O Ln Ln Q W m � a--' cn cu O O > cn cz U -C 0Z ctS N bA 4--d cn ---J a-=d n O o > C6 U E 0 c"I 0 w Q v O Ln Ln Q W m • t • RRP • L C) O � Q� -+-j -6-1 a.� V) Q) N U � � O LL- bap O" n ' ,, - i j CZ U Q) Z) Oy O L C i O w cC� N on Q� N m Q �E S w Z N 0 J W Q O Q LJJ D m < LL CD o-.j U LLJ Z — z Ou ce L.,., �C Z ti LL- 0 I— J C!J Z cn w w moo, � o o U-) W U ADD 0zQ Z JE W N 0 J W Q O Q LJJ D m c • • i s S U cd O L s cn bA N N • L U � � � U L O > cC� � � s u -F� T Q -6-d � O • Ln O r7I U N bA N • U � � � U s O > cC� u -F� T Q -6-d � O • Ln O r7I U U (7Z O L Q U cc (1) cn N N w Q O cn cn w m N U � � � U s O > cC� u -F� O U (7Z O L Q U cc (1) cn N N w Q O cn cn w m n V 11 W U U Cl) • O i .C) O � � ct N O 1 1 O •� o � •7 cn O •� W O � 4--j cn -� > N � D U N O L (n � � O .2 .� -C- V � W (J7 L � O C j ��— � i un rl T O L • j U •� O un � o L O UO 4- �+- W N L � O U N O E N N ..I s c� 4 L ^1 4--d ` c� L E E O O c� U ` Ln of o 0 o O W W 4--d -F-, E un U - =_ U O E Ov U O t O L 0 0 V� Y.L W cn � +, L � O 11 M N 0 J W Q 0 w m 4 9 • O � U O O � a� cz � O i O O O t � � U �FJ U O •� CTS U CL) > Z CZ EE cz •IJ � .-!►� U z 0 J W F'- J Z 0 J L fi w Q O Lf) n/ w D m N Z� i O z< N z_ > <zu 7:3 - Gz L O �z O V)fCL< ;��Q� =W O _ z z Z�� o LL._ cn =zfl O Ln L U c7 O L �y N s 0 � +- > 0 o V CU Q� U LLJ Q O � N � O Q) � U LLJ z J .- VJ D J > > E z > Z -' • - O O LLJ O J L fi w Q O Lf) n/ w D m g I 1 W O C'CS O cn L cn O > 4 ..j OL , Q) Q) •� L O � m � Q) . p U O L Q) li J O cn cn ^ WJ W O Cn Q� O U ct m cn � C cn O� I � O O � C� ' L L L � N O 1 4-- 1 n, W W C) U L U � � U Q) O cn 's_ N O � un cn W cn cn O p � L U [7 N J W Q O Ln w m • • • N J W Q U O Ln W m N O U 2 •-J CL) un � ti— O 75A c� ° U O M_ y= � E '� un . .� un un > >>1 p O � E > o cn N > � C U O cn � bA U Q cn U U E E u N J W Q U O Ln W m Im im f • N D J W Q O Q W m U O� uj � CCj b�A _ un tip- i U O LL' ,� O 4- O cn un U ° cn L c `n ^ — U Ln (n � U cn ) ` C: cz y� L � U O cti • N D J W Q O Q W m • • • • c� CL CL Ln V) V) vi w Q v O Q n" w m C) a� C) � �� c cz (Ts Cz c c o o t.0 U p p a� • o a E a a) o o IL) o ° Q.) o ° � � 4.) � �•— O O U — — U U CZ C CZ • • — — m p p p E E i i i t • Z Z3 t CL CL Ln V) V) vi w Q v O Q n" w m vi w Q v O Q n" w m • 4 so h � �.JJ..J . cti s O O N � � O bA � s � � O cat � cn O • u bA r - 0 n N � N L cn U c� U O c� C) � U � O N O -� • O O ct U N N � � � O U 1 L � � O � ' � • cd c� � O � N ct .ur) 4-J N O s= CU U O bA O � � O s = C U L � U O � 'cn cn O k 4- L N O 0 b�A T O U CIO � .E cz bdJ � O � O O U O n CIO N �U cn cu L c N Ln w Q O Ln Q w CD /s b.l. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Final Plat of Brittany Village 3rd Addition MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 Site Information `2 Applicant: John Oliver and Associates (on behalf of M.W. Johnson Construction) Location: North of Downing Avenue and south of Highway 169 Current Zoning: Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zone Adjacent Zoning: North: Highway 169 South: Multiple Family Residential (R3) Zone East: Agricultural (AG) Zone West: Highway Business (B -1) Zone 1995 Comp. Plan: High Density Residential Area: 5.49 Acres MUSA. The site is within the MUSA boundary. Attachments: Exhibit A: Location/Zoning Map Exhibit B: Brittany Village 3rd Addition Final Plat Map Introduction John Oliver and Associates is requesting Final Plat approval of Brittany Village 3rd Addition. The property is located north of Downing Avenue and south of Highway 169 (Exhibit A). This property was previously final platted as Brittany Village 2nd Addition. However, a drafting error occurred in the Final Plat of Brittany Village 2nd Addition. The plat of the 2nd Addition showed the actual buildings as solid lot lines and the actual lot lines as dashed_ This replat corrects this error_ All lots and buildings remain unchanged as to location and sizes. The right -of -way was dedicated with the 2nd Addition and therefore is not included in this replat. Considerations Brittany Village received Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Preliminary Plat approval from the Planning Commission and City Council. The submitted final plat is in substantial conformance with both the PUD and Preliminary Plat. The Scott County Environmental Health Department has commented that the proposed area of development is highly susceptible to ground water contamination and that precautions should be taken to minimize the potential for such contaminations. The Building Department has commented that • building construction, sewer and water services, fire protection, and fire access shall be reviewed for code compliance at the time of building permit application; • required separation between buildings is 6 feet, openings require 10 feet; and • all building sites must be accessible to emergency and inspection vehicles. The Engineering Department has provided comments and those comments have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has commented that it is the responsibility of the developer to provide any noise mitigation from existing highway noise. Such noise mitigation should be designed to meet the limits defined in MPCA noise rules chapter 7030. Alternatives 1. Approve the Final Plat of Brittany Village 3rd Addition, subject to compliance with the conditions as required by the Final Plat and Developers Agreement for Brittany Village 2nd Addition. 2. Approve the Final Plat of Brittany Village 3rd Addition with revised conditions. 3_ Do not approve the Final Plat of Brittany Village 3rd Addition. 4. Table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and /or staff to submit additional information or make any necessary revisions. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, approving the Final Plat of Brittany Village 3rd Addition, subject to conditions. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 5435, a Resolution approving the Final Plat of Brittany Village 3rd Addition with conditions. ,f `Jule Klima Planner II g: \cc \2000 \cc 1106\ipbrittanyvillage3. doc 2 RESOLUTION 1 OF 1 MINNESOTA, FINAL PLAT OF BRITTANY VILLAGE 3rd ADDITION WHEREAS, John Oliver & Associates, Inc., is the applicant and M.W. Johnson Construction, Inc. is the owner of said property; and WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as follows: Lots 1 through 23, inclusive, Block I and Lots I through 12 inclusive, Block 2, Brittany Village 2" Addition, according to record, Scott County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Brittany Village 2 Addition was reviewed and approved by the City Council subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, a drafting error in Brittany Village 2 Addition necessitates the need for a replat of the property to Brittany Village 3 rd Addition; and WHEREAS, all notices of the public hearing for the Preliminary Plat were duly sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1 1 BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF 11 CITY OF I' MINNESOTA, as follo That the Final Plat of Brittany Village 3rd Addition is hereby approved subject to compliance with the conditions as required by the Final Plat and Developers Agreement for Brittany Village 2nd Addition. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute said Plat and Developer's Agreement. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of 9 2000. Mayor of the City of Shakopee City Clerk 3 Final Plat of Brittany Village 3rd Addition oning Parcels 10/16/00 N W E S HAK ®PEE C0 AL-r PAmFSu S 10/30/2000 15:28 9528943049 JOHN OLIVER & ASSOC PAGE 02 � Q A u SEEP J91 1521r, Rq All g I D A c � 1 1 I I •�I � } } 1`} } 1 I tri CIO I a 1 1 N s } 3 1 Y n � • 1 a 1 i, d 1 apDlrrAmy cou, e,c.nc,rsnu t Ain o u ® 9 CITY OF SHAKOPE Memorandum Mel Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator Julie Klima, Planner H Final Plat of Maple Trails Estates 3rd Addition November 6, 2000 Enterprise Properties, LLP East of CSAH 17 and surrounding Wood Duck Trail extended Current Zoning. Rural Residential (RR) Zone Adjacent Zoning: North: Rural Residential (RR) Zone South: Rural Residential (RR) Zone East: Rural Residential (RR) Zone West: Rural Residential (RR) Zone 1995 Comp. Plan: Future Urban Area Area: 45 Acres MUSA. The site is NOT within the MUSA boundary. Attachments: Exhibit A: Location/Zoning Map Exhibit B: Maple Trails Estates 3rd Addition Final Plat Map Introduction Enterprise Properties LLP is requesting Final Plat approval of Maple Trails Estates 3� Addition. The property is located north of east of CSAH 17 and surrounding Wood Duck Trail (Exhibit A). The preliminary plat for Maple Trails Estates was approved by the City Council on July 21, 1992. The final plat is in conformance with the approved preliminary plat_ The plat proposes 15 single family lots with a minimum size of 2.5 acres. The developer has also purchased 9 lots within the Chateau Ridge development (those 9 lots are not a part of this plat) allowing a connection to made between the two developments. Considerations The Scott County Environmental Health Department has commented that the proposed area of development is highly susceptible to ground water contamination and that precautions should be taken to minimiz the potential for such contaminations. Environmental Health has also commented that their office should be contacted regarding Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS) requirements. The Building Department has commented that all building sites must be accessible to emergency and inspection vehicles. The Engineering Department has provided comment(s) which have been included in the draft conditions of approval. Alternatives 1. Approve the Final Plat of Maple Trails Estates 3rd Addition, subject to the following conditions: a) The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: i) Approval of title by the City Attorney. Execution of the Developers Agreement for construction of required public improvements: a) Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. b) Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. C) Installation of storm sewer system, and construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. d) Street signs shall be constructed and installed by the City of Shakopee at a cost to the developer of $270 per sign pole. The developer shall provide easements, as required by City Code. iv) The developer shall be responsible for the provision of security for the public improvements and payment of engineering review fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule. V) Park dedication payments shall be required in the amount of $1,250. per unit. The payment of park dedication fees can be deferred until issuance of building permits. If deferred, payments shall be consistent with the City's adopted fee schedule in place at the time of building permit issuance. vi) Final Construction Plans and Specifications must be approved by the City Engineer for Maple Trails Estates 3 rd Addition and for Leavitt Woods Lane and Maple Trail within Chateau Ridge. Leavitt woods Lane and maple Trail must be constructed either before, or at the same time, as the streets within Maple Trails Estates 3 rd Addition. vii) The applicant shall meet the conditions imposed on the preliminary plat for Maple Trails Estates. b) The following conditions shall apply after the recording of the Final Plat: i) The developer shall install all subdivision monumentation within one year from the date of recording the plat. At the end of the one year period from recording of the Plat, the developer shall submit to the City Engineer written verification by a registered land surveyor that the required monuments have been installed throughout the plat. Monumentation may only be installed on a per lot basis at the time of building permit issuance 2 with prior approval of the City Engineer. ii) Shall obtain approval for Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS) from Scott County. 2. Approve the Final Plat of Maple Trails Estates 3r Addition with revised conditions. 3. Do not approve the Final Plat of Maple Trails Estates 3rd Addition. 4. Table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and /or staff to submit additional information or make any necessary revisions. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, approving the Final Plat of Maple Trails Estates 3rd Addition, subject to conditions. Action Requested Offer Resolution No_ 5436, a Resolution approving the Final Plat of Maple Trails Estates 3rd Addition with conditions. Julie Klima Planner II g: \cc\2000 \cc 1106\lpmapletrail sestates3 . doc 3 RESOLUTION OF : OF p. 1 MINNESOTA, APPROVING FINAL OF • . 1 S ESTATES 3rd ADDITIO WHEREAS, Enterprise Properties, LLP is the applicant and owner of said property; and WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as follows: Outlot C, Maple Trail Estates i Addition, according to record, Scott County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, all notices of the public hearing for the Preliminary Plat were duly sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1 1 BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ' CITY OF p. 1P MINNESOTA, follows: That the Final Plat of Maple Trails Estates P Addition is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: a) The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: i) Approval of title by the City Attorney. ii) Execution of the Developers Agreement for construction of required public improvements: a) Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. b) Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. c) Installation of storm sewer system, and construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. d) Street signs shall be constructed and installed by the City of Shakopee at a cost to the developer of $270 per sign pole. iii) The developer shall provide easements, as required by City Code. iv) The developer shall be responsible for the provision of security for the improvements and payment of engineering review fees as required public by the City's adopted Fee Schedule. V) Park dedication payments shall be required in the amount per $ il nt issuanssuan unit. The payment of park dedication fees can be deferred untce of building permits. If deferred, payments shall be consistent with the City's adopted fee schedule in place at the time of building permit issuance. vi) Final Construction Plans and Specifications must be approved by the City Engineer for Maple Trails Estates 3r Addition and for Leavitt Woods Lane and Maple Trail within Chateau Ridge. Leavitt woods Lane and maple Trail must be constructed either before, or at the same time, as the streets within Maple Trails Estates 3r Addition. vii) The applicant shall meet the conditions imposed on the preliminary plat for Maple Trails Estates. b) The following conditions shall apply after the recording of the Final Plat: i) The developer shall install all subdivision monumentation within one year from the date of recording the plat. At the end of the one year period from recording of the Plat, the developer shall submit to the City Engineer written verification by a registered land surveyor that the required monuments have been installed throughout the plat_ Monumentation may only be installed on a per lot basis at the time of building permit issuance with prior approval of the City Engineer. ii) Shall obtain approval for Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISIS) from Scott County. E IT FURTHER S LVEID, that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute said Plat and Developer's Agreement. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of , 2000. Mayor of the City of Shakopee I: City Clerk 5 Final Plat of Maple Trails Estates 0 10/16/00 W E SHAK ®PEE COMIdUfIMFPME9 -XM I&V S ba't shall Calf. pphg S tate t tee Call our* Pdar calm, 454 -0002 .to BO0- 252 -1166 Revisions of �I of <I I I I I I \ I y' 11 -.J EASEMENT M N IvJ W Cn O ' N ' O Note: See final plat document for details. b v hI1 h �MJ h Qtr m ' �a 7 wx' O � h O .I� O 'O b 7� m M ,s4 CC L it C� E `v e'8 a p -� Z 3 m r� -, 3� a D 0-ba 13,200( Sheet No_ C -1.1 .-WEST 1/4 CORNER' R.22 SEC. 20. T.115. R. MI GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FM — — — — — — — — — I I I I I I I I I I I al I 0 I I 30.00 =fir 30 cc of n� I I I I I l AS /.. !). CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum wa FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Introduction: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator Julie Klima, Planner II Participation in Metropolitan Livable Communities Act November 6, 2000 The City of Shakopee has previously participated in the Livable Communities Act program. In order to continue to be eligible for the Incentives Programs funds communities must notify the Metropolitan Council of their intent to participate each year. Participation makes communities eligible to compete for the funds available in 3 funding accounts. Alternatives: 1. Offer and approve Resolution No. 5437, a Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota electing to continue participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act for calendar year 2001. 2. Do not approve Resolution No. 5437, a Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota electing to continue participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act for calendar year 2001. 3. Table the matter for additional information. Action Requested: Offer and pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 5437, and directing staff to notify the Metropolitan Council of the City's intention to participate. g: \cc \2000 \cc 1106\livcomm. doc RESOLUTION NO. 5437 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, 1 UNDER CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM METROPOLITAN COMMUNITIES 1 . WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (Minnesota Statutes Section 473.25 to 473.254) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is intended to address housing and other development issues facing the metropolitan area defined by Minnesota Statutes section 473.121; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base Revitalization Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account and the Local Housing Incentive Account, is intended to provide certain funding and other assistance to metropolitan area municipalities; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive certain polluted sites clean -up funding from the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development unless the municipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under the Minnesota Statutes section 47' ).254 and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires the Metropolitan Council to negotiate with each municipality to establish affordable and life - cycle housing goals for that municipality that are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council as provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide; and WHEREAS, each municipality must identify to the Metropolitan Council the actions the municipality plans take to meet the established housing goals through the preparation of the Housing Action Plan; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council adopted, by resolution after a public hearing, negotiated affordable and life cycle housing goals for each participating municipality; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality which elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program must do so by November 15 of each year; and WHEREAS, for calendar year 2001, a metropolitan area municipality that did not participate in the Local Housing Incentive Account Program during the calendar year 2000, can participate under Minnesota Statutes Section 473.254 only if. a) the municipality elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program by November 15, 2000; and b) the Metropolitan Council and the municipality have successfully negotiated affordable and life -cycle housing goals for the municipality. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that it hereby elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act during the calendar year 2001. Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of November, 2000. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Clete Link Variance DATE: November 2, 2000 11 1 The Council is asked to table the request for variance by Clete Link. PIXXGTK t CONSENT At its meeting of October 17 the City Council gave tentative approval to a request for a setback variance for Clete Link, for a prospective building lot at Lot 15, and Lot 16, Block 1, South Parkview 2nd Addition. Staff was directed to bring back a resolution citing the reasons for granting the variance. However, since that time, Mr. Link has been in discussion with MnDOT, concerning the re- acquisition of the highway right -of -way which had been purchased by MnDOT a few years ago, which now necessitated the reason for the variance. Mr. Link indicates that MnDOT is willing to sell the property back to him; therefore, there is no need for a variance. The applicant requests that the action be tabled. 1 1 1 The City Council should, by motion, table the request for variance for Lots 15 and 16, Block 1, South Parkview 2 nd Addition. Mark McNeill City Administrator fl�.'1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Sarazin Street, Roundhouse Street and 4th Avenue Revised Assessment DATE: November 6, 2000 Associated with the Sarazin Street, Roundhouse Street and 4th Avenue Project No. 1994- 10, there were several assessment appeals from property owners on this project. The City Attorney has advised staff to reassess the assessments associated with the Credit River Pact appeal. Attached is Resolution No. 5441, a resolution which adopts the new assessment for the parcels associated with the Credit River Pact assessment appeal on the Sarazin Street, Roundhouse Street and 4th Avenue Improvement Project. It also voids the original assessment. Previously, the court system ruled that the assessment given to P.I.D. No. 27- 906029 -0 in the amount of $388,730.60 did not meet the benefit test and ruled in favor of the property owner. The court ruling was to reduce the assessment to $85,735.00. Attached to Resolution No. 5441, a resolution adopting a new assessment to reflect the court's decision. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5441. 2. Deny Resolution No. 5441. 3. Table Resolution No. 5441. I l Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. 1. Offer Resolution No. 5441, A Resolution Voiding an Assessment and Adopting a New Assessment for Parcel No. 27- 906029 -0 for Sarazin Street, between 4th Avenue and County Road 16; Roundhouse Street, between 4th Avenue and County Road 16; and 4th Avenue, between Shawnee Trail and Sarazin Street, Project No. 1994 -10 and move its adoption. truce Loney Public Works Director BL /p-p MEM5441 WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 4776, the City Council of the City of Shakopee adopted assessments for the following project and passed upon a ll objections to the proposed assessments of: Improvement of Sarazin Street and Roundhouse Street, between 4th Avenue and County Road 16 by street, sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer and sidewalks and construction of sanitary sewer and watermain on 4th Avenue, between Shawnee Trail and Sarazin Street. WHEREAS, it has been determined by the court that the assessment for P.I.D. No. 27- 906029-0 on November 5, 1997 be voided and reassessed at a lower amount. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE Crry COUNUL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, VESOTA: 1. That the new assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein. Assessments adopted by Resolution No. 4776, for those properties listed on the assessment roll and each tract therein included is hereby voided. 2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of ten years, the first installment to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 2001, and shall bear interest at the rate of 6.25 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added the interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 2001 and to each subsequent installment when due shall be added the interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The Clerk shall file the assessment rolls pertaining to this assessment in her office and shall certify annually to the County Auditor on or before November 30th of each year the total amount of installments and interest on assessments on each parcel of land which are to become due in the following year. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this FUNWIRM day of , 2000. Mayor of the City of Shakopee City Clerk Tr, r • r a • I O O N r r a, a, Z � � 2 rn � N ° 00 U) � LO 69- 69- N Q Z O J 1= c w Q Q J � w r Fn co J L11 Cu J LLJ J J -J J LLU ° a) O E d N E t O O c o c � +-• Z � +--' Z N O O O �-. U ° •-' U ° C 'E co ' o mo LO ° 0) LU r CO W T CO W M ° ° W Q ° 0 Z N LO L-0 N ®_ / li 04 N ° ° LO cY) ti L-6 00 69- J Q Q /° / CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Valley View Road Area Traffic Study DATE: November 6, 2000 .II y Attached is a traffic study that has been prepared by WSB & Associates, Inc. for the Valley View Road area for Council review and consideration. This agenda item is intended to present this study to City Council and ask Council direction on how to proceed with determining the ultimate connections to C.R. 17 in the City of Shakopee. BACKGROUND: Previously, in 1998, City staff did a feasibility study for the extension of Sarazin Street south of St. Francis Avenue to Valley View Road. Contained in this study was an analysis to relocate Valley View Road intersection with C.R. 17 to a different location, as per Scott County Highway Department's comments. The County did review our feasibility study and transportation plan for this area and has commented that the existing C.R. 17 intersection with Valley View Road is not acceptable with future traffic increases. With the possibility of relocating Valley View Road to a different location, the Sarazin Street project was approved only for an 800 -foot segment south of St. Francis Avenue. Since 1998, there have been several homes constructed in the Prairie Village and Pheasant Run developments, increasing the need to construct City collectors to serve these developing areas. Included in the 2001 CIP is the extension of Sarazin Street to Valley View Road, and Valley View Road to past the Pheasant Run development in order to provide another paved collector street access for residents in this area. Since 1998, staff has had several discussions with property owners in this area who wish to know the location of future connections to C.R. 17 so that their plans can be finalized on development of their property. Earlier this year, staff authorized WSB & Associates to prepare a traffic study for the Valley View Road area, from C.R. 79 to C.R. 83, to determine the alternatives and also traffic analysis in looking at this particular transportation collector. With this study there were five alternatives for the east -west roadway and these alternatives are as follows: Alternative No. 1 — Valley View Road as in the City's Transportation Plan and following the alignment of the existing Valley View Road crossing C.R. 17 Alternative No. 2 — Construct Valley View Road in a new alignment at approximately the Betaseed/St. Francis Hospital property line. Alternative No. 3 — Realign Valley View Road to Sarazin Street and then use St. Francis Avenue as the east -west collector to C.R. 17 that currently exists. Alternative No. 4 — Valley View Road to Sarazin Street, curving to St. Francis Avenue, which would put more of an emphasis of traffic on St. Francis Avenue to the C.R. 17 intersection. Alternative No. 5 — Valley View Road to C.R. 78, which would be a new alignment through existing development and would be able to utilize existing signalized intersection at C.R. 78. Valley View Road traffic counts are approximately 3,000 to 4,500 cars per day, depending on the alternatives, which is essentially a minor collector in the City's Transportation Plan. In review of all of the alternatives, Alternative No. 1, which is the existing Valley View Road alignment was eliminated, as this intersection would not be acceptable to Scott County Highway Department due to the steep grade of C.R. 17 and the Valley View Road intersection. This intersection is currently a very unsafe intersection to ingress and egress due to the topography. Alternative No. 2 is the one most favored by Scott County. It would continue to provide an east -west collector route and would be the most appropriate signal spacing along C.R. 17, versus a signal at St. Francis Avenue. Alternative No. 3 is an alternative that would work on a temporary basis until such time as Valley View Road is relocated through the Betaseed property. A temporary traffic control signal at St. Francis Avenue may need to be considered. Alternative No. 4 is essentially Alternative No. 3 with a horizontal curve on Sarazin Street to St. Francis Avenue, which would then put more of an emphasis on traffic to use St. Francis Avenue versus Sarazin Street. Alternative No. 5 is an alternative that would connect Valley View Road to C.R. 78 in a straight -line fashion. However, the difficulty in constructing Alternative No. 5 is that this roadway will go through existing residential development and a major wetland. It may very difficult in terms of cost and disruption to existing neighborhoods. The study completed by WSB & Associates was done in October, 2000. City staff had an informational meeting on October 10, 2000, sending out approximately 100 notices to various property owners. A follow -up letter was sent out to the various property owners with the executive summary and asked for any comments from property owners to be received by City staff by October 31, 2000. Attached to this memorandum are various letters received from property owners and letters received are as follows: • Scott County Highway Department • Tom and Jill Baker, 2305 Promise Avenue • Ms. Joan Schulz, 2104 Valley View Road • St. Francis Regional Medical Center • St. Gertrude's Health Services • Friendshuh Companies • Park Nicollet Health Services • Betaseed, Inc., 1788 Marschall Road • Greg and Nancy Huth, 2095 Hillside Drive The letters attached give an indication of the input of property owners in the area. In particular the St. Francis Regional Medical site and Betaseed, Inc. did have the traffic study reviewed by their own traffic engineers and has put together their comment letters with other considerations. Staff also did receive a phone call from Ms. Carol Konigson, the Executor of the Lloyd Cherne Trust, and issued concerns on the location of the future connections to C.R. 17 and inciated she would be at the Council meeting to address the Council. Staff will make a presentation on the traffic study and summarize the letters received on the traffic study. City Council will be asked for direction on how to proceed with this issue. The first issue staff would like Council to provide direction on is whether Alternative No. 5 should be considered any further or to be removed from the alternative analysis. The remaining alternatives would be Alternative No. 2, 3 and 4 and would impact the intersection connections to C.R. 17 and future development roads in this area. Staff believes the best way to approach this problem is for the City and County to meet and discuss the comment letters. After this meeting, an informational meeting would be held with the property owners to discuss the options available for future C.R. 17 connections. These alternatives would be reviewed and discussed and come back with a recommended alternative for the City Council and County Board to consider. Staff believes that there have been good comments received from the various property owners and a meeting needs to be held with the Scott County Highway Department staff to review these comments and to see if they can be incorporated along the C.R. 17 corridor. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Review the traffic study and provide staff direction on which alternatives City Council feels are appropriate in this area. 2. Direct staff to meet with the County to prepare a plan on future roadway connections to C.R. 17 and to conduct an informational meeting with property owners on the future connections to C.R. 17. 3. Table for additional information. Staff recommends Alternative No.'s 1 and 2. Council can provide staff direction on which alternatives to pursue with the Scott County Highway Department and to discuss the various alternatives and bring back a plan that is acceptable to the County Board and the City Council to review and consider for approval. Also, property owners should be included in the process for input and feedback. • ' 9 1 1. Review the traffic study and provide staff direction on which alternatives City Council believes are appropriate in this area. 2. Direct staff to meet with the County to prepare a plan on future roadway connections to C.R. 17 and to conduct an informational meeting with property owners on the future C.R. 17 connections. k '« 7 ruce on Public Work' BL /PMP TRAFFIC STUDY lU /31 /LUVV lUri lU:Lb VAA 01L4U00j00 tiFJVV� - S IJNY PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 600 COUNTRY TRAII, EAST JORDAN, MN 55352 -9339 (952) 496 -8346 BRADLEY J. LARSON PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/ COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER October 30, 2000 Mr. Bruce Loney, P.E. Public Works Director City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 Subject; Valley View Road Area Traffic Study Fax: (952) 496 -8365 Dear Bruce: We have reviewed the Valley View Road Area Traffic Study outlining the future alignment alternatives for Valley View Road between County Road (CR) 79 and County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 83, and have the following comments in regard to each alignment option provided: Alternative 1 (Existing Alignment) 1. Given the expected traffic volumes for Valley View Road presented in the study for this scenario, a signal would likely be warranted at CSAH 17 & Valley View Road as the area develops. The current intersection location would not be ideal for signal control due to the south approach grade of CSAH 17. 2. Under this scenario, we would still recommend realignment of Valley View Road to the north to square it up with CSAH 17 to provide better sight lines and traffic operation. Alternative 2 (Intersect CSAH 17 at BetaSeed/Hospital Property Line) 1. Considering the existing signalized intersections along CSAH 17 at 17"' Avenue and CSAH 78, this alternative provides the best spacing for an additional signalized intersection between the two. This is important because it will allow for efficient traffic flow as volumes increase along CSAH 17, and it is the safest alternative in that it comes the closest to meeting the %2 mile spacing for full access intersections along 4-lane divided roadways as specified by the County's Minimum Access Spacing Guidelines. 2. It appears that a collector street at this location would better serve the developable parcels on the west side of CSAH 17. Alternative 3 (Curve to Sarazin Street) We consider this option undesirable because it does not fully accomplish the necessary east/west function of Valley View Road. Because of this, we would expect the following problems to occur: 1. The expected traffic needing to turn east on 17 Avenue from southbound CSAH 17 would exceed the lane capacity available for this movement. Excessive delays could result at this intersection, and traffic could backup into the south TH 169 ramp signal. 2. Traffic would likely use the St. Francis Avenue connection to access CSAH 17, especially as the signal at 17 Avenue experiences the problems described above. As noted in the Traffic Impact Analysis chapter of the study, a signal may become warranted at St. Francis Avenue. As we have commented before, because of its proximity to 17` Avenue, St. Francis would not be acceptable location for a future signal along CSAH 17. An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer Mr. Bruce Loney Page 2 Alternative 4 (Intersect CSAH 17 at St. Francis Avenue) We also consider this option undesirable because of the minim spacing it would provide between full access, signalized intersections along CSAH 17. Because of this, Alternative 4 does not provide for the safest and most efficient operation of CSAH 17, Valley View Road, and 17 Avenue, in our opinion. Alternative 5 (Intersect CSAH 17 at CSAH 78) This option makes sense because it would make use of an existing full- access, signalized intersection along CSAH 17, and already dedicated public property along the south side of Hillside Estates Addition. But the one -mile spacing left between 17` Avenue and Valley View Drive may once again make St. Francis an attractive option for accessing CSAH 17 from the east. If this option were selected by the City, we feel it would make sense to limit left-out access at St. Francis for this reason. Recommendation We support the realignment of Valley View Road as -shown in Alternative 2. This location allows fora level intersection, and provides the best possible spacing of access along CSAH 17. This is consistent with correspondence we had with the City in March of 1999. As part of Alternative 2, further study may be required to determine whether or not it would be beneficial to limit left -out access at St. Francis Avenue. We also support the interconnection of local streets as shown in Figure 6 This helps in maximizing the safety and efficiency of roadway systems, and is something we require for development under our planning authority. The recommendation of phasing the alignment of Valley View Road (construct Alternative 3 first, then Alternative 2 later) creates some concern because of the timing unknowns. If this is considered, we have the following suggestions: 1. We recommend the final alignment of the Sarazin Street / Valley View Road intersection be constructed now. In addition to saving future costs, this would make it clear to existing and future residents and developers what the final alignment of Valley View Road would be. 2. Second, we suggest the final segment of Valley View Road be constructed when traffic problems occur at CSAH 17 & 17` Avenue or CSAH 17 & St. Francis, if operational problems occur before development on the two adjacent parcels. Once again, we consider the installation of a signal at CSAH 17 & St. Francis Avenue objectionable. We appreciate the opportunity to review this study. This type of transportation needs analysis will go a long way toward planning a safe and efficient roadway system in this area of Shakopee now and in the future. Please call me at 496 -8060 if you need additional information. Sincerely, Brian K. Soren , P.E. Transportation Engineer C: Brad Larson, County Engineer Michael Leek, Shakopee Community Development Director Chuck Rickart, Project Engineer, WSB & Associates Art Bannerman, County Commissioner W:\ word\ review \plans\agency\ShVlyVw- Study.doc To: WSB & Associates, Inc. City of Shakopee Council Member From: Tom and Till Baker 2305 Promise Ave. Shakopee MN 55379 (952) 233 -0845 Re: Comments regarding Valley View Road Traffic Study Date: Oct. 18, 2000 To Whom it May Concern, C/ v 2 00 f We have in just the last week become aware of the referenced road study and the severe potential impact to our family and our property. This is because the city or the county (whomever generated the letter regarding the Oct. 10 meeting) had our previous address on file and thus the forwarding delay. We just built our home in Dominion Hills and our property backs up to the road alternative 95, and therefore believe the pending decision is absolutely crucial to our family and our future in the Shakopee area. Please consider the following comments to their fullest potential. First and foremost we are in complete support of your firm's recommendation to move forward with Alternative 3. With the proposed future population and development it seems clear an improved roadway is needed. With all considered, your proposal seems to be most agreeable to us and the one which creates the lowest impact on area residents. You seem to have considered that another stop signal is not in the best interest of those whom travel Marshall Rd. (we would prefer not to see any option which places yet another signal on 17). You seem to respect the impact current property owners would face, the impact on the environment and wildlife in the area, and the cost impact to the citizens of Shakopee. Therefore, we are in sport of the suggested proposal in the Executive Summary of the Valley View Road Area Traffic Study We are in extreme opposition to Alternative #5 for many r easons: 1) This Alternative seems to cut through the back of our property. We are currently listening to a city council meeting on local access in which one member in particular is outspoken on the detrimental impact caused residents when property is taken unexpectedly to replat (in this case State Highway 169). 2) We purchased this lot a year ago based on the city's voting down plans to reroute Valley View Road through our neighborhood. After making the investment based on this decision, it seems preposterous to have face the possibility again - especially so soon. 3) The appeal of this neighborhood and the property within which we purchased is its privacy and the environmental benefits regarding solitude, wildlife, wetland, and scenery. A road cutting through the middle of such habitat would severely impact our interest in this property. 4) Our property value would clearly decline as a result of the environmental harm caused the property - not to mention another cost to a development which seems to already have a major suprise in a water tower. 5) It is our understanding there are severe restrictions on the changing / adapting the DNR controlled wetland on our property as it is part of the entire MN Valley watershed. We also understood there to be extreme consequences in doing so. We wonder then how it is so easy for such a major project with obvious impacts to the wetland and watershed to be a serious alternative. This wetland seems the clear reason Valley View Road was originally routed around it. 6) Choosing Alternative 5 seems to be the most costly on nearly all accounts - in property value to already developed land, in construction cost, to the environment, etc. .. . 7) The proposed Alternative seems to have the lowest cost to all the above. It is undeveloped land without such obstructions. Again, we support the proposed recommendation. We vehemently oppose Alternative 5. We regret not having the opportunity to attend the previous informational meeting and have brought our address correction to the city's attention to alleviate future delays. Please accept our comments and consider them to their fullest. We appreciate your attention to this and the respect and concern shown to the Shakopee residents. Sincerely, Tom Baker L ta�lcer JOA L. SCHULTZ - 2104 VALLEY VIEW ROAD, SHAKOPEE - 952 - 445 -2480 October 30, 2000 /" i RE: Valley View Road Area Traffic Study Bruce Oney, P. E. Public Works Director � _ Dear Bruce; -t This letter is to respond to your correspondence to ne of the / October 10, 2000 informational rreeting. Thank you for sending the five alternatives in the executive sum- mary since I was unable to attend that particular rreeting. I'll hake a point to drop this off at city hall in person so you'll have it in hand by October 31th as per request. The alternatives three and four are rry choices for which the city could consider for the relocation of Valley View Road. NLurber five perhaps is the best aligment but should not be done because of the creation of significant impact to the existing neighborhoods along the aligment, as is written on that rmber. My question also is what kind of assessnent would be had by pro- perty owners w/ any of these approvenents. My property would be affect- ed on the southwest corner of ten acres I wwri north of Valley View Rd.. Would the city ness up pore than 1/2 acre on said corner? Would it leave ne to contend w/ thg renaining anourit of footage ofi the parti- cular curve on host of the alternatives? To have pease of rrind, I need the best thing done, for ne, since it involves ne as a land owner. I'n sure nany;rrore things will cone up, as we go along but this is what I see now. As each day arrives, the door will be openert a tirw bit, as we progress. Soon it will be 32 years since we've built here. Since Valley View Road Became a city street & before that, I've been picking up trash every year along nost of it. Since it is not a County road, a sign has not been m-ected but I don't that, in order to be consciencious about our erivirment. Thark you for your consideration. 4� J chu - 21 Valley View Road JI3"S; js Conclusion/Position: Based on our interests, we are opposed to Alternative 4 and would support the City's recent proposal of a 2 -phase approach with Alternative 3 followed by a phase two alternative as was outlined at the October 10`, 2000 informational meeting at City Hall. For phase two, we would support Alternative 2 or commissioning further study to determine if there is a new version of Alternative 2 for phase two that has not been developed as of yet to address the long-term solution needed for Valley View Road. This option best meets the interests that we have identified as campus partners. We have some concern about the additional traffic volume that would develop on St. Francis Avenue prior to implementation of a phase two alternative and would request that if the traffic volume on St Francis Avenue increases by 25 %, a phase two alternative would then be implemented. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the plans for Valley View Road and look forward to the City Council meeting on November 6, 2000. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, St.! Francis Regional Medical Center g a-0- -Z' ,0 -� St. Gertrude's Health Services Park Nicollet Health Services ivc uvi vv ii •' -v rcica vita JJ 11DJ K1,11— I1UUJ1JIV g UUL Engineering - Planning • Surveying • Landscape Architecture October 2:7, 2000 Ms. Tiffany Zitzewitz V.P. Strategic Services St. Francis Regional Medical Center 1455 St. Francis Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 -3380 Dear Ms. Zitzewitz At your request I am writing this letter to comment on the traffic study prepared by WSB & Associates, Inc, dated October 5, 2000 for City of Shakopee. It appears that the objective of the study was to analyze the transportation needs of the area bounded by 17' Avenue on the north, CSAH 78 on the south, CSAH 79 on the west and CSAH 83 on the east. W.S.B. came up with the following alternatives and I have commented on each alternative, as it relates to St. Francis Regional Medical Center (SFRMQ as to estimated land loss for right -of -way, safety for users of the SFRMC facility, future /present access issues, in the attached matrix. Clearly, a :.Iernative 4 presents the most problems for SFRMC in that all of the east/west collector traffic runs through the ultimate campus and the loss of 6.6 acres of land for roadway severely impacts the development potential of the remaining 13.4 acres. Safety of pedestrian and motorists crossing the proposed new collector must also be considered. Please contact me with any further questions. Sincerely, RLK Kunsisto, Ltd. A L 1 ' Garyy B_-own, P.E. Sr. Professional Engineer Attachment Alternate Matrix Offjces Hibbing • Minnetonka - St. Paul • Twin Ports (952) 9 33 -0972 - 6110 Blue Circle Drive - Suite 100 - Minnetonka, MN 55343 • FAX (952) 933 -1153 lvt ovi vv 11:40 rAA 01400011aO KL.A- AUUJIblU I. LNEM IN N r OZ OZ w 0 w O O w CD a n CD ay ° t� D3 CD CD C'� w a' P a( o c� a Q 0 K Jp �p r�C � a a 0 a' C o °� a. CD CD o �O ° CD O _ oo N 6 p w CA ,..,, .•y �+, y o N gyp! `D CD FC O o CD (D ° 0 CD ° !I 2. p , Ft y y o Ft, rA CD o d C, ° m CL < o CD C �' m d ° 1� 11, rh (� p C V a Uaj p P Fy p �` tO1 ° 0 CD tr, �� O 0 G r CD ~ R V p VI w n G ' 0y A G Q CD �rC' N 0 c d fn p R ° r CD 0 C� CD CD � K y. Cam] R Cy CD CD CD �' w In CD !J N w Q. ,..! CD C� C C `C CL 0 '.: � 0 w o p ' R. r a C ! o - ° o n a O ri w �; R w y 0 d WO rn )✓y r p V ?, •. C O "° !Ot g p 0 R�� n C p > 0. ° CD ti a O C p' p n QQ � 9 � U p a p m < w m ° G c CD 0 0 Q• Fl. ( n i O M t Cj w OQ CD o 9 r F�' a ' CD CD . - o Cl w Cr,D ° Cb H CD p C. CCl y' n ° cn p p C/1 «! 2: c �. � w� O - O n b n O � o 0 o C ' En t ' w w d Oq jj CD a Cn e 0 �tyy f j�Q? o g 9 y r1 ti K w 0 °�' i✓ n CD try < k C -< G p n O v", O N v o C3 cn�.. r; , r CD CD p C a r !�• N FS" ° 0 -0 0 CD 0 N. - . < w Cs� Q �- ,C- c�D y d n CD ITIR a+ P•p Ja7 117 Py' CD C ....n NG ,�', w w H .Q' A Cn M" CD n ." S1' C+ 47 Ui �-*. g `� Q4 A N ° fD w CO) CD n a F in Cy A a w fn" 0 byA CD < R .--f W .-�- N �• CD N CD . 8 w C'1 CD 13 r= CD CD o CD CD CL 0 0 CD 0 o I. LNEM BWBR Architects October 27, 2000 Architecture • Interior Design Ms. Tiffany Zitzewitz St. Francis Regional Medical Center 1455 St. Francis Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Re: Traffic Study Valley View Road Area Dear Tiffany: This letter serves to comment on the alternatives under consideration by the City of Shakop --e for routing Valley View Road area traffic. While all the alternatives have some impact on the traffic surrounding the South Valley Health Campus, Alternative 4 is by far the most disruptive to future plans for campus growth. Based on our experience in the design and planning of medical facilities and campuses we have listed some of our concerns regarding Alternative 4. • South Valley Health Campus/St. Francis Regional Medical Center is a vital community asset to Shakopee and the surrounding area. The ability for you tc grow and adapt to changing health care needs is critical to your mission and serving your community. In the last 20 years every hospital campus in the Tw in City area would have benefited greatly by having additional acreage to plan fcr changing health care needs. Taking away land, which Alternative 4 proposes, will reduce or constrain your ability to plan and develop future services for your community. While planning for the southern 20 acres (actual area 17.3 acres) of your campus has been kept flexible by intention (not knowing specifically what net ds or priorities may arise in future years), the reduction in land area significantly impacts your ability to respond to those needs. We have tried to quantify that loss by outlining some of the uses that have been discussed for the parcel -and the impact of losing just one acre of your land: • Loss of approximately 15,000 s.f. health related retail or office space 400 Sibley Strcet. Suite 500 • Loss of approximately 20 - 40 units of senior or assisted living housing St_ Paul. Minnesota 55101 units. • Would limit or eliminate such uses as childcare, education or fitness uses. 6 ?32.3701 fax 651.222.5961 www.bwbr.com tyJUV6 /VU0 Ms. Tiffany Zitzewitz October 27, 2000 Page 2 • In addition to impacting your southern property, Alternative 4 appears to imp act the current campus by chipping the southeastern corner. While this may not result in a net loss of land, it certainly would push planned parking further from the buildings. Accessible, convenient parking is critical in health care for patients, families, and staff. • While we are not traffic engineers, the curves and intersection proposed by Alternative 4 are somewhat disconcerting if not dangerous. A number of curl) cuts along Sarazin (sp ?) Street have been planned for the campus, as well as, anticipating access points along Valley View Road_ This combination seems to create potential problems, and confusion, for many of the people typically coming to use the facility. • Visually and functionally the curve and the increased traffic will also separau: the southern acreage from your current buildings, reducing your campus appearance and feel. • As a part of the PUD requirements for development, the city requires 20% of the land devoted to open space in this zone. Taking additional land further limits your ability to effectively develop the land. The above represents our understanding of the alternatives proposed to date. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me directly at 551/290 -1905. Very truly yours, BWBR ARC I CTS, INC. 13rm V Terry L. Anderson, AIA Principal 30 Octobm 20DO BWBR Archi(edx Inc. 1it.77- (xhin —i. d— BETASEED Cori. Betaseed, Inc., 1788 Marschall Road, P.O. Box 195, Shakopee, MN 55379 -0195 • Phone: (612) 445 -8090 • Fax: (612) 496 -0205 October 31, 2000 Bruce Loney, P.E. Public Works Director City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 -1351 Re: Executive Summary - Valley View Road Area, CSAH 83 to CSAH 79, Traffic Study dated October 5, 2000 Dear Bruce: This letter is in response to your request for comments from property owners impacted by the recommendations included in the subject report. My comments in the following paragraphs will be expressed on behalf of the Betaseed, Inc. management and shareholders. Betaseed understands and supports actions by the City of Shakopee and Scott County to establish both short term and long term plans for roads and land development. We appreciate your individual efforts to keep us informed of the process and providing us with a forum for input on these plans which impact Betaseed. As a responsible corporate citizen, it is Betaseed's intent to support and recommend traffic plans consistent with the objectives of the City, County, our neighbors and Betaseed's own long term interests. Because Betaseed does not have expertise in road planning, we retained the services of Benshoof and Associates, Inc., a traffic engineering and planning consulting firm. A letter from Jim Benshoof is enclosed. Also, Betaseed management has had discussions with the St. Francis Regional Medical Center concerning each other's plans. As we have discussed with you, it is Betaseed's desire to continue conducting its corporate and research activities at its current location on Marschall road which it has done since 1980. Our land is not simply open farmland, but is land which has highly desirable characteristics, both innate and developed over years, that are essential to generate scientifically reliable data for the testing and development of improved sugarbeet varieties. The data generated is of vital importance not only to us as a major sugarbeet seed supplier, but also of prime importance to the well being of the billion dollar sugarbeet industry of Minnesota and North Dakota. Developing replacement land for conducting our specialized research and testing will take at least five to ten years after suitable land is acquired and it does not appear that suitable land will be available in Scott County. Betaseed fully supports the Phase I recommendation. Additionally, Betaseed strongly recommends that at least a temporary traffic signal be installed at the intersection of St. Francis Avenue and Marschall Road as soon as possible. Depending on the fluctuating traffic volumes related to time of day and St. Francis Medical Center, unsafe conditions can already be experienced at this intersection. After discussions with Chuck Rickert, you and Jim Benshoof, our traffic consultant, we understand the need to plan and provide for future traffic growth that is the basis for your Phase II recommendation. Although it has not been recommended for Phase II, Alternative 5 appears to serve the traffic planning objectives better than the other alternatives. Betaseed is not in position to evaluate the reasons given for not recommending Alternative 5, but asks the City to give this alternative serious consideration before proceeding with other alternatives. Phase II, Alternative 2, as recommended would negatively impact Betaseed's research operations and long term value. In fact, Betaseed would suffer the greatest impact as compared to any of the other property owners. As a result, Betaseed strongly opposes this recommendation. If Alternative 5 is determined not be viable for Phase II, Betaseed recommends a modification of Alternative 2 which is consistent with the City's and County's objectives pertaining to collector streets and traffic signal spacing. Additionally, this modification addresses the St. Francis Regional Medical Center's objectives concerning safe levels of traffic volumes and ease of access on St. Francis Avenue which Betaseed had preferred as the access to Marschall Road. In this context Betaseed recommends the following which is conceptually illustrated in the enclosed drawing: Phase IL Construct a curved east /west road (" BWR') between Marschall Road and Sarazin Street with the intersection at Marschall Road 120 feet north of the Betaseed/St. Francis property line and with the intersection at Sarazin Street south of the Betaseed/St. Francis property line, to line up with the existing residential street, Mooers Avenue. Phase III: If some time in the distant future traffic volumes justify the need and Betaseed ceases to use the land for research purposes, the EWR could be extended to the west of Marschall Road along the northern border of the land Betaseed has used for research purposes for nearly twenty years and which Betaseed is in the process of acquiring. This alignment would be similar to that shown in Phase 11 of the Executive Summary, except it intersects Marschall Road at the point described in the previous paragraph. This recommendation incorporates many of the design objectives included in the Executive Summary's Phase II recommendation such as the following: provides an east /west access to Marschall Road, allows for appropriate spacing of the traffic signal on Marschall Road, provides a collector road from Valley View Road to Marschall Road, and if needed in the future, provides a collector road on the west side of Marschall Road. Also, it will potentially provide a safer egress onto Sarazin from Mooers Avenue. Additionally, this recommendation provides an equitable distribution of land loss between the St. Francis Regional Medical Center and Betaseed 2 and it reduces the negative impact of any future road on Betaseed's property west of Marschall Road. Except for Alternative 5, the placement of the roads and streets as recommended by Betaseed will negatively impact the use of our land for research purposes, but we are willing to make these recommendations to accommodate the needs and concerns of the City, County, and our neighbors. We offer our recommendations as a good faith attempt to be constructive in this process and ask the City to first consider Alternative 5 for Phase II. If this is not feasible, we ask that our recommended Phase II and Phase III be accepted. Also, we request timely action by the City to provide a basis for future planning by all parties impacted by these decisions. Sincerely, Y er cc: Chuck Rickert, WSB & Associates Gary Korbel, Betaseed, Inc. Jay Miller, Betaseed, Inc. Art Quinn, Betaseed, Inc. Don Weaver, Betaseed, Inc. enclosures (2) t rb - " ENSHOOF 9 . TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 10417 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD, SUITE TWO / HOPKINS, MN 55343 / (952) 238 -1667 / FAX (952) 238 -1671 October 31, 2000 Mr. Don Weaver Betaseed, Inc. 1788 Marschall Road Shakopee, MN 55379 REFER TO FILE: 00 - 78 RE: Preliminary Comments Regarding Valley View Road Area Traffic Study Dear Don: In response to your request, we have reviewed the Draft Report for the Valley View Road Area Traffic Study dated October 5, 2000. You asked us to review this report relative to the interests of Betaseed, while also accounting for the interests of other stakeholders in this project. This letter is to present our preliminary comments. The principal sources of information for our work on this review are: a) Full draft report for Valley View Road Area :Traffic Study, dated October 5, I NTUII]I b) Shakopee Transportation Plan, dated April 21, 1998 - c) Spacing guidelines for different categories of roadways, as published by the City, County, and Metropolitan Council d) Information from Betaseed staff regarding items that are important to Betaseed, Inc. e)' Discussions with Chuck Rickart of the WSB firm, which completed the draft report for the City, and with Bruce Loney, the City Engineer. 1 1 SEP The draft report is beneficial in addressing multiple important considerations for the Valley View Road area, including: existing conditions, five different alternative concepts, traffic forecasts, and traffic impact analyses. As the City takes further steps towards implementing roadway improvements in the Valley View Road area, we would suggest that additional consideration be given to the following questions: What does the City want to accomplish through this project? What are the County's principal interests in terms of the desired outcome? What are the primary interests and concerns of property owners in the study area? As these items are Mr. Don Weaver 2 October 31, 2000 addressed, we would suggest that the project objectives be expand_ ed to include the following points: ® Avoid significant negative impacts to the Betaseed research operations performed on their properties both west and east of CSAH 17. ® Preserve the long -term highest and best use for properties in the area, including land owned by Betaseed. Preserve effective ingress and egress for existing developments in the area, including the Betaseed Headquarters and St. Francis Medical Center. ® Effectively coordinate future road alignments and access opportunities with land use plans. 1 1 ' Through our preliminary review of the five alternatives presented in the Draft Traffic Study report, we determined that several alternatives have significant negative impacts relative to the preceding objectives. We also identified other serious limitations associated with the alternatives presented. The conclusions portion of the draft report presents a phase 2 action, which would involve implementation of Alternative 2 as presented in the report. This alternative would cause major negative impacts on the Betaseed property both east and west of CSAH 17. In an effort to provide positive input to the City' process for the Valley View Road area, we coordinated with Betaseed staff in order to develop a suggested concept for further consideration by the City and other involved stakeholders. This concept involves three phases of implementation and is shown on a drawing that I understand that you have provided to the City. One key aspect of this concept is to establish an intersection on CSAH 17, which meets the criteria of the City and County for a full access intersection that could have traffic signal control in the future if warrants are met. We believe that this objective is met through placement of a new intersection about 100 feet north of the property line between Betaseed and the St. Francis Medical Center. This location has been chosen, instead of exactly on the property line, in order to minimize negative impacts on the Betaseed property west of CSAH 17. A summary description of this concept and the rationale for particular features are as follows: ® Phase 1. This is consistent with the phase 1 action suggested in the draft report. The two specific items constructed would be: a) a curved connection between Sarazin Street and Valley View Road and b) a cul -de -sac on Valley View Road at CSAH 17. ® 'Phase 2. Under this phase, a new roadway would be constructed between CSAH 17 and Sarazin Street. A high quality intersection with turn lanes Mr. Don Weaver 3 October 31, 2000 would_ be constructed at CSAH 17, probably with traffic signal control upon initial opening of this intersection. This roadway connection is similar to Alternative 2 in the draft report, with some differences in the alignment and the configuration of the intersection at Sarazin Street. The suggested alignment would involve a gradual S -curve extending between a point on CSAH 17, which correlates with Betaseed's property line on the west side of CSAH 17, and an intersection on Sarazin Street opposite a residential street extending to the east. This alignment would involve acquisition of an equivalent amount of property from both Betaseed and the St. Francis Medical Center. We believe that the - suggested four -way intersection at Sarazin Street and the new connection would have two major benefits over the curved configuration shown in the draft report: increased safety and better compliance with applicable design standards. Phase 3. This phase would involve extension of the new roadway connection referenced in Phase 2 west of CSAH 17 to a potential intersection with 17 Avenue. In our judgment, the need for this westerly connection is considerably lower than either the Phase 1 or Phase 2 actions. Depending upon development patterns and further interests of the City and property owners, it is possible that a collector route will never be needed along this alignment. Thus, we suggest deferring a decision on a possible roadway connection west of CSAH 17 until further clarity is established regarding the interests of Betaseed, other property owners in the area, and the City. We appreciate this opportunity to review the Draft Report for the Valley View Road Area Traffic Study on behalf of Betaseed, Inc. I trust that our comments will assist Betaseed and other involved stakeholders to proceed in a cooperative manner to address the needed transportation improvements. Let me know if you have any questions or need further assistance. Sincerely, BENSH OF & ASSOCIATES, INC. J mes A. Benshoof TT BETASEED INC. PROPERTY oLi ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL PHASE 2 / -1o5o' r t R. POTENTIAL PHASE 3 105D' r t R. BETASEED INC. PROPERTY BETASEED INC. S BETASEED INC. I C, F, I .- C-L -1. James R. Hill, Inc. CONCEPT PLAN PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYOR NOU -03 -2000 07:52 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. ® 10/10/2000 chatcr,nr�A Clty Hall 7635411700 P.02i02 TOTAL P.02 October 31, 2000 Bruce Loney, P-E. Public Works Director City of Shakopee Dear Bruce, This lett er, including the attachments from traffic consultant Gary Brown with RLK and architect Terry Anderson with BWBR, is the SouthValley Campus response to the Valley View Road Area Traffic Study commissioned by the City of Shakopee and presented at the Shakopee Town Hall on October 10, 2000 for public comment. The SouthValley Campus partners include Park Nicollet Clinic, St. Gertrude's Health Services, Frauenshuh Companies (owners of the medical office building), and St. Francis Regional Medical _ Center. SouthValley Health Care Campus has two primary interests in the decision regarding the re- routing of Valley View Road. These interests are the result of our combined purpose of serving the health care needs of this community: 1) Minimize traffic volume and disruption on St. Francis Avenue and Sarazin. 2) Preserve land owned by St. Francis Regional Medical Center We oppose Alternative 4, as defined by WSB and the City of Shakopee at their informational meeting held at the :ShakopeIe Town Hall on October 10, 2000. It is an unacceptable alternative in rerouting Valley View Road because it negatively impacts the community that we serve based on the primary interests we've identified as described below. Minimize traffic volume and disruption on St. Francis Avenue and Sarazin: We are concerned about maintaining a safe environment for our patients, physicians and staff. The added volume of traffic as a result of Alternative 4, as presented at the Shakopee City Hall Public Information Meeting on October 10' could impact the safety of pedestrians and motorists. People coming to our campus are generally older, experiencing some stress related to their health, and will likely be slower drivers as they attempt to navigate their way into the campus. If St. Francis Avenue develops into a collector street this could cause - additional stress to those community members, as well as cause some traffic disruption on that street. The health care campus is also planning to expand health care facilities across the street and traffic ; might cross 'from one side to the other frequently. This would also be more difficult, stressful to patients and families.and disruptive to traffic if St. Francis Avenue becomes a collector street. We do not support an alternative in which a collector street bisects our health care campus as is proposed in Alternative 4. Preserve land owned by St. Francis Regional Medical Center: The partners involved in our health care campus assumed a large business risk when we first worked with the city, in developing this unique campus to serve the health care needs of our community. Over the past five years, the community and the campus partners together have realized the value of retaining and enhancing local health care services. It would be of benefit to the community to further extend the range and depth of health care services available by developing the 20 -acres south of the campus, as has been planned since the original campus concept was conceived. The campus partners are currently in discussions around assisted living and other types of senior housing. We would advocate that the potential for these and other new services not be limited by a decision to route Valley View Road across this land to join St. Francis Avenue. In the attached letters from RLK and BWBR we understand that the potential loss of land under Alternative 4 is approximately 6.6 acres. The impact of this loss, in addition to the 20% green space that must be maintained on the remaining land is significant. If we are unable to develop more than 50% of that land, it will drastically limit future health care expansion on this campus. BWBR, in their attached letter, outlined the impact of losing just one acre of this land. The projected loss outlined in their letter should be multiplied by 6.6 to fully understand the loss of future health care services our community would experience if - Alternative 4 were implemented. 1,5 OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Sarazin Street, from Mooers Avenue to Valley View Road And Valley View Road, from Sarazin Street to the East Plat line Of Pheasant Run 6 th Addition DATE: November 6, 2000 . Attached is Resolution No. 5442, which orders the preparation of a feasibility report for the construction of Sarazin Street, from Mooers Avenue to Valley View Road and Valley View Road, from Sarazin Street to the east plat line of Pheasant Run 6 th Addition. BACKGROUND: In the Draft 2001 -2005 Capital Improvement Program, on Page 79, is the proposed construction of City collectors in the area south and east of St. Francis Hospital. The construction of these collectors is necessary to provide an additional paved route in the developing residential areas. Sarazin Street and Valley View Road are both shown as City collectors on the Draft Transportation Plan. These collectors will also include sidewalk, bituminous trail, extension of sanitary sewer and watermain as necessary and storm sewer. Staff is recommending Council initiate this project based on the petitions received from the developments of Prairie Village and Pheasant Run. Staff is requesting authorization to begin a feasibility report now due to the right -of -way acquisition needed and the amount of time needed to complete this report for possible construction next year. Currently, a traffic study is being done to analyze the alternatives of locating Valley View Road to CSAH 17. Staff has met with the County and the extension of Sarazin Street to Valley View Road, and improvement of Valley View Road to Pheasant Run would be required in all alternatives. Continued construction of City collectors in this area is essential in reducing traffic through local residential streets. In selecting the study area, staff is recommending the study go the east plat line of Pheasant Run 6 th Addition. As this includes all of the Pheasant Run plats, that right -of -way has been provided and petitions for public improvement received. It should be pointed that the project area can always be reduced through the public improvement process but cannot be increased once initiated. Staff is recommending to study this area in order to proceed with the construction of City collectors to serve this developing area. Staff is also recommending having Bolton & Menk, Inc. provide surveying services as necessary to assist staff in the preparation of the feasibility report and in particular the right -of -way acquisition necessary for the project. Bolton & Menk, Inc. did assist staff in right -of -way acquisition for the previous Sarazin Street Project. 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5442. 2. Deny Resolution No. 5442. 3. Table for additional information. 4. Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with Bolton & Menk, Inc. for surveying work associated with the feasibility report. 5. Do not enter into an extension agreement with Bolton & Menk, Inc. Staff recommends Alternative No.'s 1 and 4. 1. Offer Resolution No. 5442, A Resolution Ordering the Preparation of a Report on an Improvement to Sarazin Street, from Mooers Avenue to Valley View Road and Valley View Road, from Sarazin Street to the East Plat Line of Pheasant Run 6 t ' Addition and move its adoption. 2. Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with Bolton & Menk, Inc. for surveying work associated with the feasibility report. truce Loney(-,/ Public Works Director BL /pmp MEM5442 o ' ® ai ° o Q ca aD Q1 V1 O > C cu cu (a •L Q N L w rL co E ID Q yQ,.��//�� w E ° o > � c c rL c w 0 ® Cc rn O (D is N —O a� U aD ® n ® f > 0 (D H 0 CL N ` a C s w y d a) N a3 (L CD Y N C > O R + t4 < 5 0 N rL Q V O Q) V t4 c 3 U (D ffi N O L U Q O O O C N : E v� � C 1 3 O U O V O L O $ 4) U 4 U ® 0 E ® 3 r9 O N a> a O ® N A U> U U .L k w O L ii T V O ti a) L V co .a. L 5 a) Q a) a7 > p � p `` V p f�4 �3 y '°�'' rn ®� l J 7 E w3 'B ® CL ca N L. d d N O N C Rl � O >- T U ® ® ® O 40 CD CD O O CD CD O O Q/! O O O O ® O O O W am ® us® � o O ® ® J E CD 4! C3 �+ N d d _ •® L L W d aD 3 c y = LL m U- �7 ++ j - 6 - 6 - 0 c ® = = = o o 31 at a r L V �� = ^ U u..eici�� L a) 0 r= Q 02 5 3Jtl d d y L L Z' aD 0 0 U 2 a d Q 'II O C aD c a) N U) C v N N d y C c O a G E (> U) U) •O ch w c sA V) y E PEP c a7 'Q °2S > +� G y J p W o G U V7 0 O � c F - c Y c Q) L L o G y X c Q Co a c Co as :a ai c c c c 1L Q cd Consulting Engineers Surveyors 1515 East Highway 13 ® Burnsville, MN 55337 -6857 No ember 2, 2000 Phone (952) 890 -0509 ® FAX (952) 890 -8065 Mr. Bruce Loney City Engineer City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street S Shakopee, MN 55379 -1351 RE: Right of Way Acquisition Exhibit Proposed Sarazin Street Dear Bruce: It is my pleasure to write to you today. I hope the construction workload is progressing smoothly for you and your staff at the city this fall. In accordance with Section I -C -2 (Major Project) of our Agreement for Professional Services with the City of Shakopee, this agreement is written to provide a cost not -to- exceed of $1,450.00 for surveying services for an acquisition exhibit of the above referenced project. Any additional work requested by the City forpreparation of easements and for verification of City topography information for City projects will be done in accordance with Bolton & Menk's 2000 fee schedule, which I have enclosed. The City of Shakopee agrees to reimburse Bolton & Menk, Inc. for these services in accordance with Section IV of the Agreement for Professional Services. If this agreement meets with your approval, please sign below and return one copy to our office. Bruce, if you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call. Sincerely, BOLTON & MENK, INC_ Dennis M. Honsa, L.S. Survey Manager Wetland Specialist i-0 1 City Administrator City Clerk Mayor Date F. \_Siuvey \SHhK \contract. ext.wpd MANKATO ® FAIRMONT ® SLEEPY EYE ® BURNSVILLE ® WILLMAR AMES, IA ® LIBERTY, MO An Equol Opportunity Employer WHEREAS, it is proposed to improve Sarazin Street, from Mooers Avenue to Valley View Road and to Valley View Road, from Sarazin Street to the east plat line of Pheasant Run 6 th Addition by sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, street construction, bituminous paving, curb & gutter, concrete sidewalk, bituminous trail, street lighting and any appurtenant work and to assess the benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the proposed improvement be referred to Bruce Loney, Public Works Director, for study and that he is instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. Adopted in Minnesota, held this session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, day of 1 2000. Mayor of the City of Shakopee City Clerk le— p �' CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Joel Rutherford, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Hearing on Delinquent Garbage/Recycling Bills From Waste Management, Inc. DATE: November 6, 2000 mm-z Attached is Resolution No. 5443, declaring the amount to be certified, ordering the preparation of proposed assessments, and setting a public hearing date for delinquent garbage /recycling bills. Since 1998, Waste Mangement, Inc. (WMI) has done billing for garbage /recycling services. Prior to the renewal of the last contract, fees for garbage services were billed by SPUC, along with water and electric rates. Since AM has taken over, there have been a number of people who are delinquent in their accounts with some customers being up to $500 in arrears. WMI had provided staff with a list of delinquent accounts, of which there were approximately 250 (many of since paid, and are no longer delinquent). WMI would like to concentrate on those who owe more than $100, of which we estimate there are about 100. Ordinance 583 was passed on October 17, 2000 which amended section 3.15, subdivision 7 of the City Code and obligated the property owners to pay the charges and costs for the collection and disposal of refuse and recyclable materials. Both the property owner and account holder, of each delinquent account, have been notified. The attached Resolution is for the purpose of preparing the proposed assessment, and setting the date for a Public Hearing. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5443. 2. Deny Resolution No. 5443. I I If . Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. Offer Resolution No. 5443, A Resolution declaring the amount to be certified, ordering the preparation of proposed assessments, and setting a public hearing date for delinquent garbage /recycling, and move its adoption. irk �. �-�• Joel Rutherford Assistant City Engineer A Resolution Declaring the Amount to Be Certified, Ordering The Preparation Of Proposed Assessments,, And Setting the Public Hearing Date For Delinquent Garbage/Recycling Bills WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee contracted with Waste Management, Inc. to provide garbage and recycling services to the residents of the City of Shakopee; and WHEREAS, Waste Management, Inc. billed their customers for this service; and WHEREAS, some customers are delinquent in paying the amount owed for the service provided by Waste Management, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the contract the City of Shakopee has with Waste Management, Inc. does not allow Waste Management, Inc. to halt service due to non - payment; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 443.015 and Section 3.15, Subdivision 7 of the City Code authorizes the City to collect payment from delinquent refuse and recycling accounts by way of Special Assessments to the properties that are delinquent. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE 11 1. The total amount to be certified for all delinquent accounts is $26,211.21 2. The City Clerk shall calculate the proper amount to be certified for each delinquent account within the City of Shakopee, as provided by law, and keep a copy of such proposed assessment in her office for public inspection. 3. That the City Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof. • • •° I 1 1. That a hearing shall be held on the 21' day of November, 2000, in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 7:00 P.M. or thereafter, to pass upon such proposed assessments and at such time and place, all persons owning property affected by such delinquent accounts and proposed assessments will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee at least two weeks prior to the hearing and she shall state in the notice the total amount to be certified as delinquent. She also shall cause mailed notice of such hearing to be given the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 2000. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk cl S SIFFY Mem T: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Authorize Feasibility Report for Blue Lake Watershed Outlet Channel ATE: November 6, 2000 Attached to this memorandum is a scope of work proposal associated with the preparation of a feasibility report for a Blue Lake Watershed Outlet Channel in the city of Shakopee. The scope of work proposal is from WSB and Associates, Inc. as this consultant is the city's consultant in storm water management. :: l�ili1►11�1 At the November 2, 2000 Council Work Session on budget and CIP projects, the Blue Lake Watershed Drainage Improvement project was discussed and why an outlet is needed for development to continue in the area north of Valley View Road and west of CR 83. At this meeting, council directed staff to obtain a proposal to immediately study alternatives in providing a storm water outlet in this area that is essentially landlocked for the short term and long term. Attached to this memorandum is a scope of work proposal from WSB & Associates, Inc. for the preparation of a feasibility report for the Blue Lake Watershed Outlet Channel. Also attached is a copy of the 2000- 2005 CIP project included in the proposed 2001 budget for Council reference. With this study, alternatives will be analyzed and recommendations provided on the most cost effective way to provide a drainage outlet. This study will require meetings with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) and other major property owners in order to determine the most cost effective alternatives. Other meetings have been included with the Planning Commission, City Council and others to be defined by the City to receive feedback on the various options and alternatives. A range of cost has been prepared as the channel design parameters have yet to be defined, and the concerns of the stakeholders are not totally known at this time. The cost is estimated to range from $18,600.00 to $28,750.00 with a cost not -to- exceed of $33,500.00. 1. Authorize the appropriate City Officials to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. for the feasibility report preparation of a Blue Lake Watershed Outlet Channel as per the attached scope of work. 2. Do not authorize a motion for preparing a feasibility report at this time. 3. Table this item for a specific reason. In order to properly address the storm water management in the Blue Lake Watershed that is in the MUSA, staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to authorize WSB & Associates, Inc. to prepare a feasibility report on the Blue Lake Watershed Outlet Channel. 1. Authorize the appropriate City Officials to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. for the feasibility report preparation of a Blue Lake Watershed Outlet Channel as per the attached scope of work. l i rce Loney Public Works irector BI/pmp WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 8441 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 350 Minneapolis, MN 55426 1 7635411700 P.01iO3 B.A. Mittclstcadt. PS. Bret A. Weiss. P.E. Peter R. WIlenbring. P.E. Donald W. Sterna, P.E. Ronald B. Bray, P.E. To: Bruce Loney, P.E., Director of Pubfic Works City of Shakopee ,From: Pete Willenbring, F_ WSP & Associates, Inc. ►, ,; ,- � tai Re: Scope of Work Associated with Preparation of Feasibility eport for Blue Lake Watershed Outlet Channel SB Project lino. 1014 -881 As a follow -up to our meeting on September 13, 2000 and our telephone conversation on Friday, November 3, 2000, outlined herein, please find a description of tasks that should be undertaken to complete a feasibility report for Blue Lake Outlet Channel. Task I -Inventory Background Information As part of this activity, available background information on this portion of the drainage system and the areas tributary to it will be collected. Specifically, we anticipate collecting, reviewing and updating the following information: • Existing Joint Powers Agreements • Hydrologic modeling information for the City of Shakopee, the City of Prior Lake, and other governmental agencies having jurisdiction over this drainage way • Storm water management plans that are available for the upstream tributary drainage areas, including the SMSC properties • Background information on Dean's Lake Task 2 - Define Design Parameters As part of this task, a review and analysis of the various design parameters will be undertaken. A set of draft general design parameters will be reviewed with an advisory committee that is anticipated to be made up of individuals designated by the City Staff and/or Council. The design parameters that will be finalized include the following: • Anticipated design flows from upstream drainage areas. • Alternative channel alignments, if any. • Required base flow capacity. • Required high flow capacity. Minneapolis - Sr. Cloud Infrastructure Engineers Planners F ;%WPWIN11014- 881110600- bl.wpd EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER NOU -06 -2000 17 =19 WSE & ASSOCIATES INC. 7635411700 P.02iO3 Bruce Loney, P.E. Director of Public Works Cty of Shakopee November 6, 2000 Page 2 • Hydrology design standards specifying return frequency storm and land use assumptions. • Needs for additional right -of -way to accommodate potential trail, greenway, etc. • Determine if plan should attempt to secure restoration credits for wetlands. • Define goals regarding maintenance. • Define alternatives to be considered, with potential options including open channel, enclosed conduit with open channel and/or open channel greenway. • Define property acquisition requirements for various alternatives. • Define design parameters for road crossings of Blue Lake Watershed Outlet Channel Task 3 - Complete Preliminary Analysis of Design Alternatives As part of this activity, six design alternatives will be evaluated. This evaluation will include reviewing the various benefits and impacts associated with constructing each alternative. Specifically, the design alternatives that will be evaluated include: • The construction of a vegetated open channel ® _ The construction of an armored open channel • The construction of an open channel that includes a greenway corridor and tail • The construction of an armored open channel that includes a greenway and trail • The construction of an open channel that would include a low flow pipe to accommodate base flows and utilize a vegetated open channel to accommodate peak discharge rates. The alternative to incorporate a greenway and trail into this design will also be evaluated. ® Construction of a temporary or permanent drainage system to the north to provide an immediate outlet for Watersheds BLD8 and BLD 18. Task 4 - Discuss Preliminary Analysis Results With Advisory Committee As part of this activity, we anticipate up to four meetings will be held with the Advisory Committee and/or other stakeholders in this project. Other stakeholders may include representatives from the SMSC, the City of Shakopee Planning Commission, the City of Shakopee Council, property owners in the area, or others to be defined by the City. During these four meetings, the various options relative to the design will be discussed. Based on feedback received as part of this task, we will finalize the analysis on the design alternatives. Task S - Develop Cost Estimates for Alternatives As part of this task, cost estimates for the above - referenced alternatives will be prepared. Task 6 - Prepare Draft Feasibility Report The information collected as part of the above tasks will be refined and presented in this feasibility study. Discussion on the various design considerations and design alternatives will be highlighted in this study for r:\WMIri\1014 -SS \110600 -b1. vpd NOU -06 -2000 17 =19 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 7635411700 P.03iO3 Bruce Loney, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Shakopee November 6, 2000 Page 3 each alternative, along with cost estimates for the implementation of the various alternatives. Draft recommendations will also be prepared as part of this draft feasibility report. Task 7 - Review Draft Report nth Interested Parties, Receive Follow-Up Comments Upon completing of the draft feasibility study, it will be further reviewed with the interested parties, comments concerning the report will be received, and the report will be updated as necessary. Task 8 - Finalize Report /Insert Final Recommendations As part of this activity, comments that are received will be incorporated into the report to a reasonable extent and the report will be finalized. We anticipate this work can be completed within 12 to 16 weeks from the date of notice to proceed. The cost associated with completing these tasks is estimated to range from $18,600 to $28,750, with a not -to- exceed cost of $33,500. This range of costs is proposed based on the fact that the channel design parameters have yet to be defined, and the concerns of the stakeholders are unknown at this time. The level of effort associated with completing this scope of work could vary greatly for these reasons. If you have any questions or comments concerning this work plan, please do not hesitate to contact me at (612) 277 -5788. nm F: \wPwIN \IOI4 -s8 \f 10600- b1.wmA TOTAL P.03 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Police Department Memorandum Honorable Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator Dan Hughes, Chief of Police ^ ; 2000 -2001 D.A.R.E. Educational Services Agreement November 2, 2000 The Police Department is seeking approval of the 2000 -2001 D.A.R.E. Educational Services Agreement between Independent School District #720 and the City of Shakopee. This Council item was tabled by Council action at the October 17, 2000, meeting. During the week of October 22, 2000, staff had an opportunity to address Councilmembers concerns in partnership with Mr. Jon McBroom, School Superintendent. Staff and the school district agreed that they will dedicate 100% of their crime related cost levy to cover the D.A.R.E. expenses. This levy funds approximately 60% of an officer's salary. The City agrees to provide sixty percent (60 %), of an officer's annual work hours in services to the School District. The remainder of the time the officer will be assigned to community policing duties. The agreement identifies $30, 646.50 as the amount the school district determines is available to pay the City for D.A.R.E. services during the 2000 -2001 school year. November 2, 2000 2000 -2001 D.A.R.E. Educational Services Agreement � I 1 If the Council wishes to consider this item, they should, by motion, remove this item from the table. If Council concurs, they should, pass a motion authorizing the appropriate city officials to enter into the D.A.R.E. Educational Services agreement between Independent School District #720 and the City of Shakopee for 2000 -2001 school year. DH:pm Attachments: (1) D.A.R.E. Educational Services Agreement 2000 -2001 November 2, 2000 2 2000 -2001 D.A.R.E. Educational Services Agreement D.A.R.E and Educational Services Agreement Independent School District 720 and the City of Shakopee This Agreement is made and entered into the day and year set forth below, by and between Independent School District No. 720 (hereinafter "School District:") and the City of Shakopee (hereinafter "City "). The parties enter into this Agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statute 1260.44. For purposes of this agreement, the School District's participating elementary schools are, Pearson, Sweeney and Sunpath. For purposes of this agreement, the School District's participating secondary schools are the Shakopee Junior High and the Shakopee Senior High. The parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The City agrees to provide a state certified police officer, certified as a D.A.R.E. instructor, to Instruct the D.A.R -E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program in the School District's elementary schools. 2. The City agrees to provide a state certified police officer in each of the School District's elementary schools for the purposes of educational programming (i.e.: Officer Friendly, Halloween safety, bicycle safety). 3. The City agrees to have an officer available to the District's elementary schools on an "on call" basis for police liaison services. These police liaison services shall include, but not be limited to, prevention of delinquency, protection of life and property, and law enforcement. 4. The parties agree that the police officers assigned to provide educational and police liaison services in the schools are employees of the City and its Police Department. The officers shall operate under the administration and supervision of the police department, but will work in cooperation with school administrators to achieve mutually agreed goals for the police department, school and students. 5. The City agrees to provide approximately sixty percent (60 %), of an officer's annual work hours in services to the School District. In return the School District agrees to pay the City 30,646.50 for these services. The payment shall be made upon receipt of an invoice from the City. 6. This Agreement is effective for the 2000 -2001 school year. This Agreement dated this day of Board Chair, Anne Tuttle Superintendent, Jon McBroom Mayor, Jon Brekke 2000. City Administrator, Mark McNeill Police Chief, Dan Hughes City Clerk, Judy Cox Honorable Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator Dan Hughes, Chief of Police )�� Purchase of Unused Holiday Time October 27, 2000 In accordance with the terms of the existing union contracts, the officers listed below have requested that the City buy back - unused holiday time in the amounts indicated. The police officer and sergeants union contracts contain the following provision: "The Employer may, at his\her option, buy back from any employee so requesting in writing by November 1 st of each calendar year any holiday time off earned but not used by the employee by December 31 st of any calendar year." The City has, in the past, not bought back more than 40 hours of holiday time from any individual. This 2000 holiday buy back request is similar to ones that have been approved by Council in previous years. Attached is a list of officers that have submitted requests for the City to buy back unused holiday time. Staff recommends that the City buy the unused holiday time as requested. Authorize the appropriate City officials to buy back the unused holiday hours from the individuals listed. Name No of Unused Holiday Hours accrued to end of y ear No. of Holiday hours officer has requested the City buy back ARRAS, Jason 48 40 BALFANZ, Erron 40 40 CONWAY, MATT 38 38 CROCKER, Tom C. 38 28 DELLWO, Chris L. 64 40 FORBERG, Bob 55 20 GULDEN, Kevin 40 40 HORNER, Cody 40 40 JOHNSON, Clay 80 40 HUGHES, Dan 52 40 JOHNSON, Clay 48 40 LIPINSKI, Lynn 48 40 RETTKE, Bridget 48 40 ROBSON, Craig 40 40 SCHROT, Molly 64 40 TATE, Jeff 75.50 40 TUCCI, Greg 40 40 TRUTNAU, Angela 88 40 TOTAL: 686 hours -2 of 2- Purchase of Unused Holiday Time [bbh- cc2000] f 1 I ' TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Deputy Chief Holiday Buy Back DATE: November 3, 2000 �w The Council is asked to add the position of Deputy Chief to those eligible for the City buy back of unused holiday time. The attached memo from Chief Hughes (item 15.D.2) contains the language regarding the employer buying back from police officers by November 1St any holiday time off earned but not used. That is applicable to all members of the two bargaining units. In addition, earlier this year, that benefit was extended to the Police Chief in a modification of his employment agreement. Therefore, the only sworn officer in the Shakopee Police Department who does not have this benefit is the Deputy Police Chief. In the interest of equity it should be added for him. I recommend that the Council authorize the position of Deputy Police Chief be added to those for whom the City will buy back unused holiday time, in accordance with the language contained in the two contracts. This should be limited to not more than 40 hours of holiday time from any individual. ► I M13 If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, direct that the position of Deputy Police Chief be eligible for holiday buy back when a request has been made in writing by November 1 of each calendar year, for any holiday time off earned, but not used by the Deputy Police Chief by December 31 of any calendar year. Mark Mc Neill City Administrator CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum To: Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Jerry Poole, Deputy Chief of Police Date: November 3, 2000 Subject: Unused Holiday Time Buy Back Tntrodnction I am requesting the City buy back 24 hours of my unused holiday time. Background The City has elected to buy unused holiday hours from police officers on an annual basis. The practice has been isolated to those officers covered by a labor agreement. The practice this year was expanded to cover police officers with a work agreement. Currently, I am the only police officer at the Police Department who is ineligible to receive this benefit. Action Requested I am respectfully requesting that I be granted the same benefit as the other licensed police officers at the Police Department. I request the City buy back 24 hours of my unused holiday time. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Name No of Unused Holiday Hours accrued to end of y ear No. of Holiday hours officer has requested the City buy back ARRAS, Jason 48 40 BALFANZ, Erron 40 40 CONWAY, MATT 38 38 CROCKER, Tom C. 38 28 DELLWO, Chris L. 64 40 FORBERG, Bob 55 20 GULDEN, Kevin 40 40 HORNER, Cody 40 40 JOHNSON, Clay 80 40 HUGHES, Dan 52 40 JOHNSON, Clay 48 40 LIPINSKI, Lynn 48 40 RETTKE, Bridget 48 40 POOLE, Jerry 24 24 ROBSON, Craig 40 40 SCHROT, Molly 64 40 TATE, Jeff 75.50 40 TUCCI, Greg 40 40 TRUTNAU, Angela 88 40 TOTAL: 710 hours -2 of 2- Purchase of Unused Holiday Time [bbh- cc2000] INTRODUCTION: The Police Department is seeking authorization to enter into a partnership with Scott County in a collaborative effort to address multi jurisdictional issues. BACKGROUND: On October 13, 2000, the City of Shakopee was advised of the opportunity to receive a grant of five thousand seven hundred and seventy -one dollars ($5,771.00) under the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG), with a local match of six hundred forty -one dollars ($641.00). The City collaborated on a successful partnership with Scott County and other cities within the county in 1999 under a similar grant to establish a wide area high -speed network between the cities and the county to allow law enforcement, corrections and court agencies within Scott County to share programs and information. In 2000 the grant was spent for computer technology and software, which allows us to identify and prosecute youth offenders through fingerprint technology. Representatives from Scott County, Shakopee, Prior Lake, New Prague, Savage, Jordan, and Belle Plaine have discussed the possibilities of collaboration and agreed to the formation of another partnership, pending the approval of their respective governing bodies. The partnership will allow for a pooling of resources ($34,223.00 Federal award, $3,803.00 local matching funds) to help reform the juvenile justice system and to provide better accountability for juveniles involved in the criminal justice system. The JAIBG does require a cash match of $641.00 from City. These funds will be available in the 2001 Police Department budget. If Council concurs, the should, by motion authorize the appropriate City staff to enter into a collaborative partnership agreement with Scott County and the Minnesota Department of Economic Security, Office of Youth Development for a Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG). WorkForce Services Branch October 13, 2000 Mr. Mark McNeill Administrator City of Shakopee City Hall 129 Holmes St. So. Shakopee, MN 55379 -1328 Dear Mr. McNeill: Voice_ (651) 296 -0928 Fax: (651) 297 -4689 TTY: (651) 296 -2796 Shakopee has the opportunity to receive a grant of $5,771 under the federal Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) program authorized under Public Law 105- 227. This program is intended to help reform the juvenile justice system and to provide greater accountability for juveniles involved in the juvenile or criminal justice system. Background materials regarding the JAIBG Program are enclosed for your review. Your jurisdiction's allocation of $5,771 is based on a formula prescribed by federal law: two - thirds (2/3) is based on your jurisdiction's share of average expenditures for law enforcement, corrections and court- related activities for counties, cities, townships and tribal governments (using data provided by the Minnesota State Auditor for 1995 through 1997). The remaining one -third (1/3) is based on your jurisdiction's share of the average number of Part I crimes committed between 1995 and 1997. Federal law requires a minimum hard cash match of $641, to secure your award of $5,771. Your jurisdiction has four options available for pursuing these funds: 1. You may choose not to participate; 2. You may choose to contract with the Minnesota Department of Economic Security (MDES) to use JAIBG funding within your own jurisdiction, subject to all terms, conditions and requirements of the JAIBG program (including matching funds); 3. You may combine your allocation with other jurisdictions in your area and organize yourselves into a single contracting entity. For your information, we have enclosed a list of all of the jurisdictions located within your county, including the amount allocated for each and the total resources available, or 4. You may choose to allow your allocation to be offered to another jurisdiction. You must return the enclosed Certification of Use of JAIBG Funds form (even if you choose not to participate) by November 9, 2000 to: Alana Romanowski Minnesota Department of Economic Security/Workforce Services Branch 390 North Robert Street St. Paul, MN 55101 -1812 If your jurisdiction decides to pursue funding either on your own, or as the lead jurisdiction for a larger partnership, the Department of Economic Security will provide you with application materials and more extensive detailed information on the JAIBG program. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact John Olson at (651)282- 2732 (e- mail: jrolson @ngwmail.des.state.mn.us), or Laura Crowder at (651) 296 -2684 (e -mail: Icrowder @ngwmail.des.state.mn.us). Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, K r , irector Offic f Youth D elopment enclosures: Attachment A- Certification of Use of JAIBG Funds Attachment B- Planning Estimates Attachment C -JAIBG General Information Attachment D- Questions and Answers c: Terese McCoy 1. Chooses not to participate in the JAIBG in 2001. 2. Accepts the amount of $5,771 JAIBG funds to be expended under the terms and conditions of the program. We understand and acknowledge that we are responsible for the expenditure of funds and obtaining the minimum required cash match of $641. 3. Will enter into a multijurisdictional partnership. Please attach a sheet with the following information on each partner: -Name of county OR city - Contact Person - Address, phone AND fax number 4. Will allow the allocation to be offered to another jurisdiction. Please identify the contact person and the fiscal agent for your j ror the JHio%J. Primary Contact Person Fiscal Agent Name: Name: Title: Title: Address: Address: Phone: one: FAX: LFAX: Authorized signature Date Title Return to: Alana Romanowski MDES/WSB 390 No. Robert St. St. Paul, MN 55101 -1812 Phone: 651/282-5667 Minnesota Department of Economic Security Office of Youth Development Page 93 11.1. • - Denotes ineligible to receive JAIBG funding directly. .��::�- ;mss,.- r _ _ v_ Minnesota Department or Economic Security TOTAL SCOTT $ 34,223 $ 3,803 Memo to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City Administrator From: Marvin Athmann, Fire Chief %Il Date: 10/18/00 Re: Successful completion of Probation Introduction The Shakopee Fire Dept is taking this opportunity to notify the City Council that Probationer's Jacob Theisen, Eric Bender and Tom Nendick have satisfactory completed the one year probation period and recommend they become Fire Fighters for the City of Shakopee. Background The City Council authorized the hiring of Jacob Theisen, Eric Bender and Tom Nendick as probationary Fire Fighters for a one year period. Jacob, Eric and Tom have completed all Fire Dept. required training and have performed the responsibilities of the position in a satisfactory manner over the past year Action Requested If the Council concurs, they should, by motion authorize the retention of Jacob Theisen, Eric Bender and Tom Nendick as Fire Fighters for the City of Shakopee. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council CONSENT FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Tracy Coenen Probationary End DATE: November 1, 2000 The Council is asked to grant full time regular status to Management Assistant Tracy Coenen. Tracy Coenen began employment with the City on May 16''. As such, her six -month probationary period will end on November 16 th . I have been most pleased with Tracy's performance in the relatively short time that she has been here. She has taken charge of the new Library discussion, and is the staff support for the Library Study Committee. She also handles cable television, and a wide variety of administrative type tasks. In addition, she has single handedly done the solid waste /recycling contract proposal process, which has been a very complex and difficult issue. I recommend her to be granted full time regular status. As agreed to at the time of her initial employment, she would be moved to Step 2 of Pay Grade F on November 16 th . If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve full time regular status for Management Assistant Tracy Coenen, with an increase to Step 2 of Grade F, effective November 16th. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:th CC: Marilyn Remer )5 ° F. I t CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum psi ! TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: Senior Citizen Deferment DATE: October 25, 2000 Introduction Council is requested to approve of a senior citizen deferment of special assessments. Background A senior citizen has not paid property taxes since the city levied a special assessment for street improvements. The property is set for tax forfeit sale in November. Staff believes that the individual would have qualified for a deferment when the assessment was levied. Deferring the assessment may be enough of a financial break to enable the payment of the taxes and avoid evicting the individual from the home. The county will coordinate the necessary paper work. Recommendation Approve of the deferment. Action Move to approve a senior citizen deferment for parcel 27- 001290 -0, assessment code 81, retroactive to 11/3/93 contingent upon the receipt of an executed application. n 1 1 „� r Finance Director • o / / / C ON S ENT TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: Certifying Delinquent Utility Bills DATE: October 25, 2000 Introduction & Background The City routinely certifies past due storm drainage utility bills for collection with the property taxes. Resolution No. 5433 certifies two bills for delinquent storm drainage fees, including a $10.00 certification fee, for collection on the 2001 taxes. The property owners have been notified of this process. Action Offer Resolution No. 5433, A Resolution Certifying Delinquent Storm Drainage Utility Bills For Collection On The Tax Rolls Payable 2001, and move its adoption. r . g� re � � a Finance Director c: \9-regg \memo \cert97 RESOLUTION NO. 5433 A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DELINQUENT STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY BILLS FOR COLLECTION ON THE TAX ROLLS PAYABLE 2001 WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council did create a storm drainage utility pursuant to Ordinance Number 176; and WHEREAS, the storm drainage utility is supported by user fees collected by utility bills; and WHEREAS, a bill is delinquent. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the cost of delinquent storm drainage utility bill for the following listed parcel is hereby certified to the Scott County Auditor for collection with the 2001 property taxes. 27- 914001 -2 $1,123.76 Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of the Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of November, 2000. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk City of Shakopee Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Tracy Coenen, Management Assistant SUBJECT: Award 5 -Year Garbage Contract to Dick's Sanitation MEETING DATE: October 6, 2000 Introduction City Council is asked to consider Dick's Sanitation/Lakeville Sanitation (DSI/LSI) as the successful proposer to the garbage RFP for a 5 -year contract for residential refuse, recycling and yard waste services. Background The City of Shakopee has had an organized (closed) system for residential refuse services for over thirty years, with Waste Management serving the community exclusively for approximately the past ten years. City staff conducted a citywide survey in July that reinforced the majority of Shakopee residents want to maintain the current closed residential refuse system. At the October 3 City Council meeting, Council authorized City staff to proceed with the Request for Proposal (RFP) process for a five -year garbage contract. City staff received ten proposals from garbage haulers throughout the Twin Cities, ranging from start up, to international companies. Recommendation Staff's recommendation is to award the 5 -year garbage contract to Dick's Sanitation of Lakeville, MN for residential refuse to be processed (burned) at the Hennepin County processing facility as well as yard waste and recycling services. Highlights From the Proposed Contract Processing the Refuse at Hennepin County City staff reviewed several options for refuse disposal 1) keep the current practice of land filling the waste 2) have the garbage hauler process (burn) the waste or 3) have the City of Shakopee contract with Hennepin County to process the waste. In the short-term, land filling would have resulted in potentially the lowest prices. However, due to the prospective of a multi - million dollar lawsuit and other liability issues for future clean up of landfills and environmental damage to another community from contaminated groundwater and other landfill hazards, City staff did not see this as the best choice for the residents of Shakopee. In order to keep prices low, carry out environmentally friendly standards, and follow practices recommended by the State's Office of Environmental Assistance and Scott County's Preliminary Solid Waste Master Plan, staff feels the best option is to contract with Hennepin County to process Shakopee's waste. Through contracting with Hennepin County for refuse processing, the City will ensure locked rates for five years, thus protecting our residents from market fluctuations and ensuring the waste is being disposed of properly. Currently, the City can obtain an out of county rate of $61 /ton to process Shakopee's waste; however, the possibility still exists to enter into an agreement with the Hennepin County Board for a lower rate of potentially $39 or $45 /ton which will lower the proposal rates even more — a benefit for the residents of Shakopee. Billing Dick's proposal would add .35 cents for years one and two, .37 cents for years three and four and .39 cents for the fifth year to bill quarterly (current practice) roughly 6,000 residential customers. Dick's Billing Cost for Refuse and Recycling $25,200 — Year 1 & 2 $26,640 — Year 3 & 4 $28,080 — Year 5 After reviewing costs of postage, materials, hiring additional staff, equipment, software and time for the City to do the billing, the City of Shakopee could not match the prices or services for billing as compared to Dick's Sanitation. City staff estimates it would cost the City at least $32,150 /year to bill quarterly. Customers are familiar with the hauler billing option, so this would cause for less confusion throughout the term of the contract. Shakopee resident's can contact Dick's for billing and service questions, thus reducing City staff time and providing a quality service to our residents. City to Pursue Grant From Scott County for Recycling Containers In order to keep refuse costs as low as possible for the residents of Shakopee, the City will apply for a grant with Scott County for the cost of the recycling containers. The City would own the initial containers and negotiate the terms for the replacement and additional containers for the remainder of the contract. By pursuing the grant, the City would save its residents approximately $25,000 in recycling costs. 2 Dick's is the Best Choice for the City of Shakopee As stated in the RFP, staff evaluated several criteria for the award of the garbage contract. 1) Responsiveness to RFP — DSI/LSI submitted an excellent and thorough proposal to the City of Shakopee in both presentation and quality. 2) Qualifications of the Proposer — DSI/LSI has over 34 years of experience in the hauling industry as a family -owned local independent hauler. DSI/LSI has over 20,000 residential and commercial customers in the Twin Cities area, including roughly 1,200 of the 1,400 town homes in Shakopee as well as Valley Fair and other local businesses. 3) Qualifications and Experience of the Staff to be Assigned to the Contract — Dick's will commit some of their most experience staff to the City of Shakopee, which will include individuals with over 15 years of experience in the waste industry. Dick's has also committed to hiring drivers with at least 2 to 4 years of experience to ensure quality curbside service. 4) Performance History Held with the City of Shakopee and Other City Contracts in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area — Dick's has served the City of Farmington contract for five years and services approximately 1,200 of the 1,400 Shakopee town homes. After contacting and reviewing references as well as "industry experts," the City is confident that Dick's reputation for services and low prices throughout the Twin Cities will continue with the City of Shakopee. 5) Customer Service — In Dick's proposal, the company pledged increased and prompt communication with residents and City staff to maintain high- quality service. 6) Demonstrated Capability — Including Financial Ability — to Perform the Type of Work Requested — Dick's will be providing NEW equipment and experienced staff to satisfy the terms of the contract. Although the City of Shakopee will receive new equipment for this contract, Dick's also has a stable inventory of trucks, if needed can be used for backup and special projects. Dick's is Minnesota's third largest independent hauler and has the financial and staffmg means to meet the growing needs of the City of Shakopee. Dick's has also agreed in writing to NOT sell its company to a national hauler over the term of the contract, thus ensuring a local hauler for the residents of Shakopee for the next five years. 7) Overall Cost of the Service - With Dick's serving the residents of Shakopee, there will be no rate increase for any of the accounts served under the current City contract. Shakopee residents currently pay $15.29 /month for refuse and recycling services with Waste Management; Shakopee residents will only pay $14.75 /month with Dick's in 2001. A reduction for the average user of $6.48 for the first year. Single - family homes will see a reduction in prices over the next five years and the average town home will see either a reduction in price or remain at a current price with the City processing the refuse, which is a more expensive short-term choice than land filling. Dick's prices include a new refuse and recycling container for every Shakopee resident as well as refuse, recycling and yard waste pickup for ALL City facilities. For brevity purposes, staff has highlighted the "top" three proposers, you will find a breakdown of all ten proposers costs for yard waste, recycling and refuse services at the end of the memo. As stated in the RFP, the City evaluated the proposals on all service categories; recycling, yard waste and refuse. The intention was not to award the contract based on individual category prices. • its 0 lite 9 r *Price includes 60 Gallon container, hauler billing & 1 Month Recyl. - No container cost Dick's - Dick's Sanitation Waste - Waste Management Town - Town Home Rate 60 = 60 Gallon Rate Dick's has also supplied a recycling rebate formula to produce additional revenue for the resident's of Shakopee, such revenues may range from $30,000 - $100,000 per year depending on market prices. The rebate still allows for a reduction in residents recycling prices and gives them another incentive to recycle. Dick's has proposed to work with the City to use the rebate revenues for 1) refuse and recycling awareness programs 2) establishing a local educational scholarship 3) 0 Average Resident Monthly Bill -Year 1 Average Resident Monthly Bill -Year 2 Average Resident Monthly Bill -Year 3 Average Resident Monthly Bill -Year 4 Average Resident Monthly Bill- Year 5 Five Year Total City Wide Five Year Total BFI - 60 G $13.71 $13.93 $14.15 $14.38 $14.61 $849.36 $3,907,056.00 BFI - Town $9.76 $9.99 $10.23 $10.47 $10.71 $613.92 $859,488.00 BFI - Total $1,463.28 $4,766,544.00 Dick's - 60 G $14.75 $14.75 $15.22 $15.22 $15.69 $907.56 $4,174,776.00 Dick's - Town $9.25 $9.25 $9.56 $9.56 $9.86 $455.04 $637,056.00 Dick's Total $1,362.60 $4,811,832.00 Waste - 60 G $12.25 $12.25 $12.62 $13.00 $13.39 $746.64 $3,434,544.00 Waste - Town $10.96 $10.96 $11.30 $11.64 $11.99 $682.20 $955,080.00 Waste - Total I I I I 1 1 $1,428.84 $4,389,624.00 *Price includes 60 Gallon container, hauler billing & 1 Month Recyl. - No container cost Dick's - Dick's Sanitation Waste - Waste Management Town - Town Home Rate 60 = 60 Gallon Rate Dick's has also supplied a recycling rebate formula to produce additional revenue for the resident's of Shakopee, such revenues may range from $30,000 - $100,000 per year depending on market prices. The rebate still allows for a reduction in residents recycling prices and gives them another incentive to recycle. Dick's has proposed to work with the City to use the rebate revenues for 1) refuse and recycling awareness programs 2) establishing a local educational scholarship 3) 0 additional revenue to offset garbage related expenses at City Hall, which will result in a win -win situation for the resident's of Shakopee. 8) Understanding of Project Requirements — City staff is confident from Dick's proposal and established history and reputation in the Twin Cities that Dick's service will result in total satisfaction for the resident's of Shakopee. 9) References — City staff contacted numerous references and contacts throughout the Twin Cities, which validated Dick's quality service and low prices. Action Requested Council is asked to direct staff to prepare 1) a contract with Dick's Sanitation of Lakeville for refuse, recycling and yard waste collection and billing services for a five year contract 2) pursue a contract with Hennepin County to process (burn) Shakopee's refuse for a five year contract 3) submit an application for a grant from Scott County to pay for the cost of the recycling containers. /j Tracy CoeneA Management Assistant 5 • Recycling Hauler Bill Year 1 Recycling Hauler Bill Year 2 Recycling Hauler Bill Year 3 Recycling Hauler Bill Year 4 Recycling Hauler Bill Year 5 BFI $2.55 $2.61 $2.67 $2.73 $2.79 Buckingham Disposal $2.80 $3.08 $3.70 $4.44 $5.32 Dick's Sanitation $2.10 $2.10 $2.18 $2.18 $2.25 Northstar $7.30 $7.45 $7.60 $7.75 $8.00 Red's & Sons Rubbish $2.75 $2.80 $2.85 $2.90 $2.95 Skyline Waste Systems $2.30 $2.30 $2.51 $2.51 $2.51 Superior Services $3.30 $3.40 $3.50 $3.51 $3.62 Tidy Disposal $1.30 $1.30 $1.60 $1.60 $1.60 Waste Management $2.55 $2.55 $2.63 $2.71 $2.79 Waste Technology $2.00 $2.06 $2.12 $2.18 $2.25 • * 140 gallon bag /sticker Yard Waste City Bill Year 1 Yard Waste City Bill Year 2 Yard Waste City Bill Year 3 Yard Waste City Bill Year 5 Five Year Total BFI $0.75 $0.75 $1.00 $1.25 $5.00 Buckingham Disposal $1.25 $1.50 $1.95 $3.31 $10.56 Dick's Sanitation $1.40 $1.40 $1.45 $1.50 $7.20 Northstar $1.00 $1.05 $1.15 $1.25 $5.65 Red's & Sons Rubbish $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 $3.75 Skyline Waste Systems $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Superior Services $1.00 $1.04 $1.08 $1.16 $5.40 Tidy Disposal $3.10 $3.10 $3.10 $3.10 $15.50 Waste Management $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 $3.75 Waste Technology $0.75 1 $0.77 1 $0.79 1 $0.83 $3.96 * 140 gallon bag /sticker M me •' • Refuse City Processed Year 1 -60 Gallon Refuse City Processed Year 2 -60 Gallon Refuse City Processed Year 3 -60 Gallon Refuse City Processed Year 4 -60 Gallon Refuse City Processed Year 5 -60 Gallon BFI $11.20 $11.36 $11.52 $11.69 $11.86 Buckingham Disposal $16.25 $16.40 $16.68 $17.13 $17.98 Dick's Sanitation $12.80 $12.80 $13.19 $13.19 $13.59 Northstar N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Red's & Sons Rubbish $12.85 $13.23 $13.62 $14.11 $14.53 Skyline Waste Systems $11.56 $11.56 $11.89 $12.00 $12.00 Superior Services $13.95 $14.42 $14.90 $15.40 $15.92 Tidy Disposal N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Waste Management -rear $13.32 $13.32 $13.72 $14.13 $14.55 Waste Management -side $9.79 $9.79 $10.08 $10.38 $10.69 Waste Technology I N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A v CD 0 N N N Z (L J Cl) LL � LU r M Ll W ® IL Q d s a) v rO CD Ci N N N G r r O N � L r M M d N Lri d In M O a) 0) rO p O Q) 411, EA r 4.3, H � L L O O C O O N 04 N CN CN X X X X X OOOOO o000 000l` M to V O Cl! OOn M LO V O ri r 0 OOr- I� V) 0) O r (6 In In 0 C V to u) O et C N CO O W) Ca 0 0 Oi 00 O O (M O M 0 V* C2 O aD O V' In O O R In a (0 V N I- N LO M In C c0 st N I� N to M tf) O It) O O N O r 3 I- O cc In r 111i M N M O V' O N (D O M In O M N M I- M V' 7 M Il- O "IT v M Q) D) V' r O ~ C co LO 0) Cl) N q� LO EFT c0 Efl tD e3. 00 Z; (f3 to E9 00 EA LO (!T - 00 ffT L EA — C 'C (Q E!3 ;; !H (!> fR EfT fFT E!> C 'Ln O O O _ N O U) N O O O O c0 In Cl) O O O O Ur N O LO M O N (D to V* O LO O N (0 In N N U') V N N LO 'IT :D d' M M co Ia D ~ f 0 O O ~ oLOLO(n� 0LOU)X) 7 r�r 00 LO O O O rrmin 3 n O O �T)LOcl)i 7 N N I� N I� rn 1� I` N U r-- O N [n I� O L M CD 00 O U9 In I- D) EfT L ff) L EfT Q9. HT Ef) i EA 6-J. 6. fR EA E{T Ef} EfT fPr ER EfT CfT O � + LO LO LO LO N LO LO V) LO = a v e v <r L' M M M M t v c ' v °' M M M M s In In U In M M co M O) U M M M M 0 0 0 M M co M N 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 631 C 0 ff) EfT EfT Efl ER ffT EfT (fD ft} (fT EA (A EFT ER V3 EFT 69- (fT EH U a) ED ry V) LO InLO LO LO LO In M n M M �ti�� M M M M tititi� M C Cl) M momma) M M M Cl) m M M M M 0 0 0 0 coca O O O O EFT EFT O O O O Eft EfT EfT EfJ 0000 64 EfT E9 03" C (A ffT ER V3. e9T EFT V3- EFT ER (A EfT _ (6 M � L L W r N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O co a0 co O O co O N N N N V N N N N N N N N N N N N EFT ER E9 EfT N N N N EFT (fY (A (A N N N N EfT E9 6 64 U C13 EFT Efl CiT EPr EfT EfT E9 ry 0 to M In O In In In O N m O O O O r M N (M (D M W O �- 00 0 In r- L O) CA V' (0 (D S O W N d' CD 6) N to r- D1 N (C) Il 6-Y O C In I-- U) T 113, EFT EFT ER EfT EfT e3. 4f? (A L CfT EfT E C C c E C C C E C C C E C C C E O O O C C C 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O @ c0 CO C m O 0) 0) = 0) 0) 0) C 0) 0) 0) C 3 III 0) 0) N 0) m 0 3 3 0 M 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M CO Q1 Cn 0 0 o � a$ ° M (D O ° Cl) (D O o It 4 O Q r La cc O O C N of M T O to r � M to Go eP co co 401. V� O O_ H �i y c O r N r r cli X � X X X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N LO Lt) O N O O O r M O 1- 0 0 N O O O N O N O to X 0 0 0 e M U) 0 0 co p N O Lf) O N Lo to t-- N O t0 to E N O N CO O O Of 0) Cl) O 00 0f O to A O CO C7 O co N O N to c0 CO O CO O co CO 00 to O Lo co N rl- t0 n r N r CO N to N (D r- CO n CO t` O O O - G Ln CO N I- to M N n M LO N M I� �' N '7 N V' � I' 0) Cf3 V 6s tD N O O O r O C{} 'T � r- 6cr fPr st d3 CD 691 Qs CfT CA O 6s 1 � 691 v3 » i» ter a cfr Qs CD 0 0 0 OM _ Lo OM O _ 0 0 0 O LO M O 0 0 0 c0 LO M O O O co O N LC) 'IT CO Lo O N f.0 LO 't tb N O LO N LO N M In V M t p! V C O F- O cn Z a y a O r LO M L O r- Lo co O 0) L N N R r- 7 O N CD �t r CD OT O J N 6L IL N V h c0 3 N 7 [� cq � O M (r t() O C O O N C C:) CIS L O J m r M 0 r L � L ` ca C» E!3 Ei3 r r fA Et} [l3 fA M W 6-3. CD EA ER ER U = a) LL J W / � V Z C"' � V r N ti ($ a-0-0-0 c 70 -0 0 0 0 0 0 a1 m a1 m 0 'O U) d m v 'O 'O 't7 V 'O = > > 0 v V 't7 > > ? c 0 O 3 2 � � = � c c c c > > c c 3 c c = n n o 0 x 0 0 X 7E5 0 0 c c c c o o c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c i7L -C ..� Co L M — W co c0 00 CO O 00 co M CO O CO O V' I:r C LO O O O V N N N 0) O C) Cf9 O (0 Cfl M CO M O M U fR (fT ER 64 EFT Cf3 EA C{} Efl EA H3 ER Ef3 d} H3 Cf3 6a CA K3 Cf3 a) ry Oq tN � 1� O C� O M CO O N CO N L LN 1� O [� O N CA r O) N c0 n O CV c0 r O N 6) co O Cl) CA (A H-} Q9 KT eF3 6s d3' 6 CPr y� �p f6 L F- N E N C C c E a) c c c E N C C c E O c c c E O C c C O O O L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O L m m m c c t7) O7 O) C 0) 0) 0) c N c °1°)01 0) 01 01 3 0) m O 000 3 000 3 000 3 � 0 OM Co ( M CO O co CO O O Ch (D O) co CO C N 0) N N 0) to � O � p t$ O tD r Q 4�T O03 EH V> 4M. w C O CO p O O N N T N x X X X X X I� O O O h h [ O O O CO O O O to N UO N O 0) O) O O O 0) co LO C7 O to 0 0 0 r O O r 0 0) 6 10- O to O N to O to O N CA M 'Ir 0 7 C7 CD t7 CV C7 N V' 'T t") O W O 0 to ti r 00 Co tin LO co N C"1 �O O O f- N N N O t� N V_ 7 O O CD r t' O N V: r to N c0 O t` n M O n r M Q) CO C C 1� N CO 00 0 M Ln- � O O 0 F � a C N to r V O V CH ti N L6 f� C' O ff> � � 1 � C' n fA ;; 4i8 C� CA f!3 V► . 69 4a 6E� f f} fA tQ � O O O r O O O O 0 0 rOOO N N CO V N M N C CD Ln l) •�- M r � O 0 0 � (-- F Z F F to a) ( M C;) n ovm� n J Cf) g�j_ or�im� O bcoocoLo (n O N t0 r N O t+) tf) J O N_ �' O y O N_ V' O L t d3 f6 Ef} fA (f3 Eft L EfT ER fPr fR Efl fPr fA fA 99 (A 69- CA fPr E9 W W = F EA } 4) } V } ® W t3 O N M (L rn T N D a a a a a a a a a a a a a a� Q >. to m a) � a a a a a� (1) 70 aaaa aaaa > aaaa > > 1: F - C [n > C C > > > U U U U U U U _ U U U U U U U U U C C C U C C C C C C C C CC C C C C C C C O L v Co m F N to LO V to o tf) V LO tO if) O t CO _ 1� n ti t` ti n m Q1 O N n ti n N U LO CO O N N N N N N N N N N N N FR H3 V9- EPr N N N N 6c). H> ER H3 N N N N T U H> f!> C!> Cf> if) E9 Ef> Ef) a) ry N m C) O cli LO co Cl) 1� O � 0 0 co 0 C O M CO O N 0 O r N if) N O LO tO f� O tO O O N O co O M O t- 0 N 0 n 6) N CO (A d3 ffT r (N co i - (fp (f} r r ff> Ef3 (t} U} ffT Eq M L a) O E O C C C E O C C C E N C C C E C C C E O O O O C C C O O O O 0 0 L O O O 0 O O O L L 0) t0 t0 76 C m ca tT C tT O) 0) C N w 0) 0) C tT 0 ZT 0 0 0 CT O) O O O p M O m 0 0 0 M m M to 0) ... co CD C D co 0 0 0 C ® . CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: City Code Amendment Relating to Licensing The Sale of Alcoholic Beverages DATE: November 1, 2000 INTRODUCTION• City Council is asked to consider adopting an amendment to the City Code which would eliminate an inconsistency between two sections relating to requiring City water and sewer connections with suitable lavatory facilities for an alcoholic beverage license. BACKGROUND: Staff has received an inquiry regarding the availability of an on- sale liquor license for an expansion of the Stonebrooke Golf Course club house located within a Planned Unit Development. Upon reviewing the regulations relating to new licenses, staff became aware of an inconsistency between Section 5.02, Subd. 3.B.2.b. and Section 5.02, Subd. 9. The City Attorney was consulted and it was recommended that the City Code be amended. Section 5.02, Subd. 3.B.2.b. (Exhibit A) requires that a certificate of occupancy be issued prior to the issuance of a license. In order to obtain a certificate of occupancy the premises must be connected to public sewer and water except within a Planned Unit Development. Section 5.02, Subd. 9. (Exhibit B) prohibits a license for any premises which does not have City water and sewer connections with suitable lavatory facilities. It does provide for a waiver of this requirement for any license issued prior to July 1, 1997, provided that water quality from the well is tested and approved by the Minnesota Department of Health in accordance with their standards. The City Attorney has prepared the attached Ordinance No. 585 amending Section 5.02, Subd. 9. to allow an additional exception for premises within a Planned Unit Development, consistent with Section 5.02, Subd. 3.B.2.b. City Code Amendment Relating to Licensing The Sale of Alcoholic Beverages November 1, 2000 Page 2 You may recall that Scott County has taken over the responsibility for management of ISTS. Under the current process, Shakopee will not begin review of a building permit application until the ISTS permit is approved and paid for through Scott County. Under the City Code a building permit will be required for the expansion of the club house at Stonebrooke Golf Course. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Adopt Ordinance No. 585, amending the City Code to correct an inconsistency in the City Code 2. Do not adopt Ordinance No. 585, resulting in adherence to the more strict section of the City Code prohibiting licenses for premises not served by City sewer RECOMMENDED ACTION: Offer Ordinance No. 585, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Pertaining to On -Sale Liquor Licenses and Amending Section 5.02, Subd. 9 of the City Code, and move its adoption. All r k 1 I h: \judy \licenses \Citysewerreq ep �® 1 Svoc�.3.d. Ir�vesrtr�o4coN r9N� �eiR t�cC�eS +[E�uiV2el�. §5.02 (2) All other requirements herein provided for renewal of license shall be complied with. (b) Renewal of License. No license shall be renewed if the building does not meet all code terms at renewal time. (c) When Permits Required. (1) All establishments licensed pursuant to Chapter 5 of the City Code are required to secure permits prior to any construction, remodeling or decorating which will alter floor plans, occupant loads, wall, ceiling or floor covering or any electrical, mechanical or structural change. (2) Prior to the reissuance of such license a code compliance certificate must be issued by the Building Official. 2. Certificate of occupancy and Compliance Required for On-Sale Establishments. (a) No license shall be issued if a suitable location is not part of the application and there must be a certificate of occupancy and of code compliance in effect before a license is issued. (b) Prior to the - issuance of any such certifica the licensed pre mises shall be connected to public sewer and w ater excep within a Planned Unit Development and there shall be posted. therein an Occupant Load Certificate for a maximum permitted occupancy computed by Table 33A of the State Uniform Building Code. 3. Delayed Issuance of License. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Subparagraph B, or Subdivision 4, Subparagraph B of this Section, the Council may, in its sole discretion and in the case of a new facility, grant an application for a license but direct that the license shall not issue until the applicant has fully complied with all of the requirements of this Subparagraph B and Subdivision 4, Subparagraph B of this Section. The time lapse between Council action in granting the application and the issuance of the license shall be limited to a 12 -month period and if compliance is not completed within such time a reapplication shall be required. Subd.4. Action. A. Granting. The Council may approve any application for the period of the remainder of the then current license year or for the entire ensuing license year. All applications including proposed license periods must be consistent with this Chapter. Prior to consideration of any application for a license, the applicant shall P " M reviud In 19" 487 §5.02 Subd. 7. Unlawful Acts. A. Consumption. It is unlawful for any person to consume, or any licensee to permit consumption of, beer, wine or liquor on licensed premises more than thirty (30) minutes after the hour when a sale thereof can legally be made. B. Removal of Containers. It is unlawful for any on -sale licensee to permit any glass, bottle or other container, containing more than a trace amount of beer, wine or liquor to remain upon any table, bar, stool or other place where customers are served, more than thirty (30) minutes after the hour when a sale thereof can legally be made. C. Closing. It is unlawful for any person, other than an on -sale licensee's bona fide employee actually engaged in the performance of the employee's duties, to be on premises licensed under this Chapter more than thirty (30) minutes after the legal time for making licensed sales. Provided, however, that this Subdivision shall not apply to licensees, employees of licensees and patrons on licensed premises for the sole purpose of preparing, serving or consuming food or beverages other than beer, wine or liquor. Subd 8 Delinquent Taxes and Charges. No license under this Chapter shall be granted for operation on any premises upon which taxes, assessments, or installments thereof, or other financial claims of the City are owed by the applicant and are delinquent and unpaid. For the purpose of this Section, "applicant' includes persons and related persons (spouses, blood relatives and spouses of blood relatives), (1) owning at least a 50% beneficial interest in the proposed license or in the entity making the application, and (2) at least an undivided one -half interest in the premises proposed to be licensed, or at least a 50% beneficial interest in the entity owning such premises. Subd 9 Water and Sewer Connection Requirem N o on -sale license under this Chapter, except a temporary beer license, s hall be granted for operation on any premises whic d oes not have City water and sewer connections with suitab lavatory facilities. The Council may waive the requirement of this subdivision for any business having obtaine a n on -sale license prior to July 1, 1997, and operating at premises where potable water is supplied from a well, provided that water quality from the well is tested and approved by the Minnesota Department of Health in accordance with their standards. As a condition of receiving a waiver, the license shall comply with all water quality directives of the Minnesota Department of Health. (Ord. 1, April 1, 1978; Ord. 64, June 18, 1981; Ord. 124, August 4, 1983; Ord. 160, March 14, 1985; Ord. 179, August 22, 1985; Ord. 195, June 12, 1986; Ord. 226, August 27, 1987; Ord. 238, December 24, 1987; Ord. 271, August 25, 1989; Ord. 337, July 23, 1992; Ord. 348, December 10, 1992; Ord. 440, December 28, 1995; Ord. 486, June 12, 1997) • Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Council may, upon a finding of the necessity therefor, place such conditions and restrictions upon a license as it, in its discretion, may deem reasonable and justified. (Ord. 1, April 1, 1978) CONVICTION OF DENIAL OF page revised In 1997 490 �3 F. � U,ui. �� TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Wampach Property Condemnation DATE: November 1, 2000 IWIT o 1 1` CONSENT The Council is asked to authorize condemnation proceedings to commence, so as to acquire property owned by the Jerome K. Wampach estate. I U . 61M"Rel0 Previously, the Council has authorized an appraisal be performed, and that the resulting property value amount be submitted to the executors of the estate of Jerome K. Wampach, as an offer to purchase property fronting on Fuller Street, between 2" and 3rd Avenues. The approximately 30,000 sq. ft. of property would be the first phase of acquiring that entire block, which would be used for a future City Hall site. The appraisal value established was $170,000, which was submitted to the agent listing the property. They said they would not counter offer, citing the fact that it was too much below the listing price of $339,000. The executors of the estate are familiar with the condemnation process, and are accepting of that as a next phase. The City Attorney has prepared the necessary documents to proceed with this. If approved by the Council, a District Court Judge will appoint a three- member panel of individuals who are well versed in real estate knowledge and values, and who will determine a price after reviewing information from both sides. The City is not obligated to buy the property once that price is established; however, it may need to reimburse the condemnee for any expenses incurred as a result of the action if a purchase is not made. If the Council wishes to proceed with this as the first step of the acquisition of that block, it should authorize the condemnation proceedings to begin. KTQV 1 1 If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 5440 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAN Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:th CITY OF SHAKOPEE RESOLUTION NO. 5440 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee is a municipal corporation organized and operating under Minnesota law, and is authorized by Minnesota Statutes Sections 412.211 and 465.01 to acquire private property for an authorized public purpose, using the procedure prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 117; and WHEREAS, the City has identified the need to acquire fee simple title to certain real property located in the City of Shakopee and legally described on the attached Exhibit A (the "Property") for purposes of future construction of a city hall; and WHEREAS, the City staff has been unable to obtain a negotiated agreement with the owner of the Property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee: 1. The City Council makes the following findings of fact: a. The current city hall is inadequate to accommodate the future needs of the city, and it is necessary and desirable that the City plan for the future construction of a new city hall. b. The City has identified the block bounded by Second and Third Streets and Fuller and Atwood as the preferred location for the future city hall. C. The City desires to acquire properties within the identified block as they become available on the market. d. The real property described on the attached Exhibit A (the "Property") is vacant and available for sale, but the City staff has been unable to reach a negotiated agreement for the purchase of the Property. e. The Property owner's representative has requested that the City initiate eminent domain proceedings to acquire the Property. 2. The City Council determines that it is necessary, convenient and reasonable to acquire fee simple absolute title to the Property. 3. The City Attorney is authorized and directed on behalf of the City to acquire fee simple title to the Property described on Exhibit A by the exercise of the power of eminent domain pursuant to Minn. Stat. Chapter 117. The City Attorney further is authorized to take all actions necessary and desirable to carry out the purposes of this resolution. CAH- 188676vl SH155 -97 4. The Property to be acquired is described on the attached Exhibit A. Dated: , 2000. Jon Brekke, Mayor ATTEST: Judy Cox, City Clerk CAH- 188676v1 SH155 -97 IIC Property Identification Number of Subject Property: 270012560 Legal Description of Subject Property Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7, Block 32, City of Shakopee. Interest to be Acquired Fee simple absolute title, subject only to existing easements for street and utility purposes, if any. CAH- 188676v1 SH155 -97 15.F6. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum Introduction & Background As the city was proceeding with the preparations for the new financial software, staff found out that the current finance printer was obsolete and would not work on the new software. The printer currently in use is now three generations past the currently available machines. The current printer cannot print reports longer than 2 to 3 pages and cannot print checks. The new printer will apparently cost something over $5,000. Staff is obtaining quotes for the new machine but they are not available as of this writing. The cost is estimated to be over $5,000 ($4,800 - $5,700) and therefore is a capital equipment purchase and Council approval is needed. Action Move to authorize the purchase of an HP series 8150 printer for the Finance Department. Grei g�V oxland Finance Director C: \gregg \memo\ CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CONSENT TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: Fire Protection System DATE: November 2, 2000 Introduction & Background The 2000 budget for City Hall contains $10,000 for vault fire protection, $5,000 for City hall security system and $2,000 for the alarm system connection to dispatch. Staff considers the vault fire protection system the most important at this time. The fire suppression system would be a chemical agent that displaces the air in the vault thereby avoiding damage to the records by water or chemical residue. The Fire Inspector has obtained quotes for the work. The fire protection system for the vault was quoted (before tax) at $9,500 from Nardini and $10,969 from J. N. Johnson. The alarm panel in City Hall needs upgrading before monitoring and connection to dispatch can be implemented. The quoted price for the panel is $1,305.00 from Simplex and $1,197.90 from Trans - Alarm. The quotation from Simplex is recommended because it is the same company used for the community center. There is an annual cost of $1,495 for the maintenance contract and monthly monitoring fees. Increased cost is $850.00 per year on top of the existing cost for alarm and sprinkler maintenance. A security system has not been investigated. Recommendation Accept the quotation from Nardini for $9,500.00 for the vault fire protection system, the quote from Simplex for $1,305.00 for the alarm panel upgrade and to authorize the proper city officials to execute necessary documents for the maintenance and monitoring services. Action Move to accept the quotation from Nardini for $9,500.00 for the vault fire protection system, the quote from Simplex for $1,305.00 for the alarm panel upgrade and to authorize the proper city officials to execute necessary documents for the maintenance and monitoring services. jilf Gregg Voxland Finance Director C: \gregg \memo\ a V. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Scheduling — City Council /School Board Joint Meeting DATE: November 2, 2000 The Council is asked to establish a date in which to meet with the School Board for I.S.D. 720, as a joint informational meeting. In an effort to facilitate communications between these two Boards, the City Council and School Board have in the past occasionally met to exchange information, and discuss items of mutual concern. In conversations with School Superintendent Jon McBroom, it is desirable that such a meeting again be set. In addition to general updates on development occurring within the City and the School system, there will also be a need for the School Board to update the City on its plans for an anticipated referendum in February, 2001 for a new elementary school and other items, and also discuss issues on the Joint Facilities Agreement which has been under negotiation by staff of the two groups. Mr. McBroom proposes as first preference to meet Monday, November 27 , at 5:00 PM. The School Board has a meeting at 7:30 that evening, so there would a definite end time. If that date is not acceptable to the Council, a second date would be Tuesday, November 28 The Board would also be available at 5:00 PM I recommend that the Council designate Monday, November 27 at 5:00 PM for j oint meeting between the School Board and City Council. In order to accommodate cablecasting, the School Board is okay to meet in the City Council Chambers. If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, call for a joint meeting between the City Council and I.S.D. 720 School Board to be held at 5:00 PM Monday, November 27 . LA j-u Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:th -i O 2 C O 4•+ O O O O V Vi • - V V7 ll O O O O O O O O a 3 3 3 3 v v n v . Yk t c c 3 m ' 0 CL 3 CD 3 � n. rt <a CD CD (D V' fl W' I ON O O W O " O O n" m v M.. o m o n N 3 1r� r Fr CD CD F �v C C O 3 F cr ' N CD 3 rD N- ttn 0= d 3 3 3 3 0� °� v 7�' Ln c 2 3 r* t CD 0 s C7 o o O — n 3 C t rn�NUr , c�'o a LA 7 'vows% co fD 3 t Ni D7G S c,', O O , n n � N O/ y Np�F to y o , $ rD m a n N,GV OW VY' - 'h' 41: 1 O W ylr, � C CO I �: O '. rS t�t`fDDDSS G { V Dw C1 : G O _ \ �� .7 NN •p tJYROJN 'tl y e 1 NN PO N; 4•+ O O O O i RESOLUTION NO. �5 y q 7 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the City contribution for the year 2001 towards health insurance shall be of the following: 2 — Parry Coverage Family Coverage CMM $568.62 $603.44 Triple Gold $614.44 $652.07 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City contribution for the year 2001 for employees selecting individual coverage shall be equal to the cost of that single premium. Further, the City shall provide life, long -term disability, and single preventative dental for eligible employees. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all Resolutions in conflict with this Resolution are hereby repealed and terminated effective January 1, 2001. Adopted in adjourned regular session of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 6 ffi day of November, 2000. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Employee Health Insurance DATE: November 2, 2000 The Council is asked to consider issues related to employee health insurance for 2001. Health insurance rates for the past several years have increased dramatically. The notice 19% increase that the City received for next year is high, but that amount was an improvement over the 31 % increase that was experienced for this year. An employee committee made up of representatives of all departments met in September and October to review the City's health care issues. In addition, staff has met with representatives of Blue Cross to review our current situation. The Blue Cross representatives indicate that the City has been doing good things to keep costs under control: By joining the Southwest Insurance Pool, the City's rates were significantly reduced — had it not been for the pool, the 19% increase this year would have been 30% increase. 2. By offering a manage care system (Triple Gold), long term costs will be able to be more readily controlled. However, there are other things that need to be addressed in order to achieve what should be the major goal concerning health care — that coverage is available for all employees, whether they take individual coverage only, or need to cover an entire family. Insurance coverage is essential for recruitment and retainment of qualified employees. Rebate for individual coverage — Approximately 12 years ago, the City began paying what was then $50 per month to each employee who did not take family coverage. The intent at that time was that that extra money would equalize benefits and could be used to purchase additional insurance, other than health. However, over the years, that "rebate" began to be treated as extra income, and over the years, grew to $207 in 1998. However, the unintended result of this practice was that many employees dropped family coverage, and opted for individual coverage only, with their dependents being picked up on a working spouse plan. Oftentimes, families had been using proportionately fewer medical services, with higher premiums being paid. The net result has been an underfunding of the insurance pool (amount of premiums paid in vs. amount of services required). Blue Cross informs us that the City of Shakopee is one of the very few cities that is continuing to pay this "rebate" which was popular in the 1980's. The result is that the insurance premiums required to offset medical payments incurred have increased faster than they would have otherwise, in part, because of the payment for this "rebate ". Last year, the $207 was reduced to $100 per month maximum per employee. However, there would still need to be $56,000 paid out in 2001, if that practice were to continue for the 44 employees who take single coverage. That amounts to 8% to 9% of the total budget available for the payment of health insurance. Our recommendation at this time is to put all health care resources into the payment of premiums. While the individual policyholders will no longer receive the rebate per month (the net take home is taxable income, thus reducing the effective additional take home pay to $66 to $70 per month). However, it does provide the benefit of helping to preserve affordable coverage for all employees. In addition to family coverage, there are several employees who will be retiring within the next five years, and will need to pay insurance fully on their own. It is critical that as many resources as possible go into the health insurance budget. In order to buffer the impact on those employees who have been receiving the "rebate ", staff is looking at the possibility of phasing this out over several months (i.e.; $75 as of January 1, $50 as of April 1, and $25 as of July 1), rather than the entire amount being eliminated on January 1. The budget impact numbers will be available at the November 6 Council meeting. Employee Dental Insurance — This is offered as an employer sponsored plan now, but the entire cost of the premium is paid by the participating employee. There are currently approximately 28 participants. What is proposed is that individual preventative dental be offered at this time to all employees (family coverage would be available, but the additional cost would be the employee's). The total cost would be approximately $25 per employee per month. In future years, as better dental health is realized as a result of the preventative work, additional services might become more affordable. Continued Subsidy of Triple Gold — Last year, there was a desire to move employees to the Triple Gold Plan, which at that time as more expensive. Triple Gold is a managed care system (similar to an HMO), which allows the insurance company to negotiate with the health care providers more effectively. However, Blue Cross indicates that the current comprehensive plan (CCM) which is in place is also a good plan for both employees and the employer, when compared to other public entity insurance coverages. There is no need to have the City prefer one over the other. Last year, the City subsidized the extra cost for Triple Gold. The recommendation of Blue Cross is to not subsidize this year. If both family coverages are City paid at 70 %, it would mean a payment of $582.63 per month to the City, vs. $629.59 for Triple Gold. The employee cost would be $269.82 for the employee per month for Triple Gold, which would be $20.12 per month higher than the CCM plan. Other variations are available, which result in different costs for the City and employee. By eliminating the individual "rebate ", the total insurance monies available for health insurance is increased. Should it be the desire of Council, the family insurance share paid by the employee per month can be further decreased from the proposed $269.82 for Triple Gold, and $249.70 for CCM. However, the apparent amount for the City to pay would exceed 70% as a result. Other Issues — Other potential changes which might be looked at in future years to help control costs would be to increase the out of pocket maximum for employees (currently at $500 per year per individual for the comprehensive medical plan), and potential elimination of the two party coverage, leaving single and family. The FY 2001 budget does provide for sufficient monies to keep the City's share of the family coverage this year at 70% for both plans. It would also provide for sufficient funds to offer individual dental, should that be desired. 1 I recommend that the Council approve the following insurance changes for 2001: 1. Eliminate or phase out the individual insurance rebate going to employees, and instead put all budgeted monies for insurance into the insurance program. 2. Authorize individual preventative dental for all employees. 3. Provide coverage equal to a 70% amount for both Comprehensive Major Medical and Triple Gold plans, without equalizing the plans. Note that the 70% is for 2001, and may vary in the future years. ' 1 1 If the Council concurs, it should adopt the resolution which will be on the table at the November 6 meeting. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:th 01 Analysis Grp Health City Cost Split Single 2 - Party Family Coverage Coverage Coverage Single 2 - Party 102,298 Family 50,877 Single Cash Included @ 52,800 Coverage Coverac ie Coverage Ix Est 2001 CIVIM 124,465 75,058 Triple 247.86 100% 517.36 88% 529.97 70% 2 No coverage Est 2001 CMM 272.95 568.62 0.88 582.63 0.70 Triple 294.95 614.44 0.88 629.59 0.70 2 No coverage Difference /Emp./Mo. 6.25 20.12 Pifference Total $ 224.94 2,173.39 City Yearly Cost Split Single 2 - Party Family Coverage Coverage Coverage CMM 96,335 62,515 102,298 Triple 26,769 12,417 50,877 Single Cash Included @ 52,800 2 No coverage Ix Est 2001 CIVIM 124,465 75,058 132,840 Triple 31,855 22,120 67,995 Single Cash 16,900 2 No coverage 97group.xis 01 Analysis Grp Health 11/2/00 10:07 AM 01 Analysis Grp Health (2) City Cost Split 485,298 Single 2 - Party Family Single 2 - Party Coverage Family 10/00 Triple Coverage Coverage CMM Coverage 62,515 10/00 Triple 26,769 12,417 50,877 Single Cash CMM 229.37 100% $ 473.60 87% $ 473.60 68% Triple 247.86 100% 517.36 88% 529.97 70% 2 No coverage Est 2001 CMM 272.95 568.62 0.88 603.44 72.5% Triple 294.95 614.44 0.88 652.07 72.5% 2 No coverage Plan difference 45.82 48.63 7 . >< ><'�'.9<�« iiiiii:: >' Plan difference 6.25 18.45 City Yearly Cost Split 485,298 Single 2 - Party Family Coverage Coverage Coverage 10/00 Triple 31,855 22,120 CMM 96,335 62,515 102,298 Triple 26,769 12,417 50,877 Single Cash 52,800 >>> >>> 2 No coverage >>> >>> 404,011 mal i g asm `3 580,357 97group.xls 01 Analysis Grp Health (2) 11/2/00 10:08 AM 485,298 Est 2001 CMM 124,465 75,058 137,584 Triple 31,855 22,120 70,424 2 No coverage Dental 14,100 4,200 8,400 >>> >>> 488.206 `3 580,357 97group.xls 01 Analysis Grp Health (2) 11/2/00 10:08 AM a� CL R3 o � coo a 0 0 A 0 C!S r� Q� O V N O O O O w G O O O a� G cC O cj ' N iG iG y a> iG U y N >G U y N >G U u ¢ 00 1p s. O bA cz N CJ bA cci «i 'O to c�3 0 "0 W cC "0 bA «t Z "0 O X U N N +-' L'3 �. -+ N '� U cz N 'd �^ i., Cd 'd �. 'CS �-+ i.. 'O �•+ i. "C3 . -+ Y O `.� '.�� Y O .� Y . O C 0 N N Y o O o o o ° N UO N N o N r. > o O O O f-Z. O 'C7 U L]. �--� `�"' O C) 00 O O W O Q 00 "� O W O Q 00 ` '' O W O Q '' O W O Q�, Q .•-� G r-+ O .-� 00 O •-+ 00 O -+ W O o N N U O U O O U O O U O O U U Q +'' 'C by y TJ bA y N 'C7 by y N 'C b4 y N 'Lf bp c a N tt5 N «S N M N M U cG N U N •fl ." ..� N> O N N> O N = O C1. N> O N N j O N > O y t]. N N o 0 cz 0 N c 0 CZ 0 as O cz s. 'O f N .1. N 'O > U O N o a.+ N y o \ +-' y y \ �'' N'+ y o \ •..' \ }' N �. > fs. O 'C G U 6. t O r - O tf.•' r 0 F. c Q O c Q O r— Ct"-+ Q O t - - cr-+ Q .�... O -, O . ."�..� G U G U 0 U U O O O cd V1 -•� O 'c1' N U o --� o O c$ cc i� W c ` l c � C "3 y d 0 o 0 � 0 C � y0 N o 0 O O .1 O O O O O O O 3 p O O --� •-� 00 �--� .--i cC U .-. .-. 0 2 � NO � 00 : � Zs o ?? R c S v �O �O v , v 0 E U 0 a 'b bA y C) 'O b0 N 'O bq "O bp Tl bA 'O C R 0 . - ,7s 'b '�fy "CS X. y ' 7 X. y ^� .�G y .� .�+ •� xE •o • cC N> O N N> O N 0> G N U> O N> O N a� c 4 Q a� a� C y Y G Q O p. tt'., y 0 t3. e,.' N G Q. c'f:. N .Y 0 O 0 < O 0 sa. v 'S Q, 00 O ." Q 00 0 . '� < 00 O " Q 00 O � . Q 00 O Q O to N N • = V -. 0 G [� . G U ® •� i_4 C's cn X + ti '''' O •� �I 1 m t•+ .nK O . .,.g O In C� U F'B'I �' •�� in v v' p C Ga cn cz v p C� ,4.a a� cn �+ i. �.� x C ; :5 3 .0 °o al 11/06/2000 17:38 S.M.S.C. a 4456718 Shakopee Mdewakanto Sioux Community 2330 SIOUX TRAIL NW • PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA 55372 TRIBAL OFFICE; 952 - 44 5 -8900 - FAX: 952.445 -8906 November 6, 2000 The Honorable John Brekke City of Shakopee 129 S. Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mayor Brekke: I am writing in response to the letter dated October 31, 2000 in which you join in the request to the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (Dakota) Community to voluntarily withdraw on a temporary basis the Community's pending fee -to -trust application. No.444 9002 15 F ((-? OFFICERS Stanley R. Crooks Chairmar, Glynn A. Crooks vco chairm]r Lori K. Crowchild sscraiary/Traasurar It is imperative you understand the Community's resolve to attempt to address your concerns regarding the decision to take the 776 acres of land into trust status. To that end, I am prepared to visit with you in person to discuss the questions you have regarding the application. I firmly believe we should schedule such a meeting as soon as possible and for certain no later than the end of November. I am informed that during the recent meeting between your staff and the Community's staff, two overriding concerns were discussed: (1) the potential of the County /City losing zoning authority over the land; and (2) the potential of the County /City losing an unknown amount of property tax payments. With regard to the zoning issues, I expect you should take the Community's stated purposes for the land at face value. The Community needs land, first and foremost, for residential purposes. All residential development, we can assume, will be the same as w hat the Community has already developed. Clearly, the existing tribal development, as any future development, falls well within existing zoning standards. Further, the Community remains committed to continue its involvement in joint planning on transportation, drainage, and other environmental issues facing this region. With regard to the potential loss of property tax payments, I point you to three undeniable examples of the Community's good faith efforts regarding financial issues: (1) the Intergovernmental Services Agreement between the Community and the City of Prior Lake by which the Community has paid to the City 31,926,065.00 since 1993 for police and fire services; (2) the Community's voluntary intergovernmental annual donation presently in the amount of 5225,000.00 to Scott County for road maintenance and general administrative costs; and (3) the Community's payments and commitment to assist in the 11/06/2000 17:38 S.M.S.C. 4 4456718 N0.444 ®003 Mayor John Brekke November 6, 2000 Page 2 cost of county road repair, improvements and construction up to an amount of $3,700,000.00 from 1997 to 2001- Over the last seven years, the Community has made intergovernmental payments to local governmental units in Scott County totaling more than $6,000,000.00. Local government has benefited further from the state tax collected by the Community and by the $ 100 million annual positive economic impact the Community has on Scott County. Again, the Community's commitment to assist local government on cost issues is undeniable. when we meet to discuss these issues in the very near future, I am prepared to make two further commitments that I am hopeful will convince each unit of local government to take a neutral position on the Community's fee to trust application: (1) the Community is prepared to make a commitment to Scott County in the amount of $208,780 to be paid over ten years or in one lump sum (this payment would be in addition to the $225,000 presently being paid to Scott County annually and would represent an amount equal to ten years of property tax at the rate currently being assessed on the 776 acres of land); and (2) the Community is committed to negotiate an intergovernmental services agreement with the City of Shakopee at such time the City begins to provide police and fire services to the Community (the agreement would be similar to the existing agreement between the Community and the City of Prior Lake). I see no reasonable need to delay discussing these matters. As you well know, the Community's fee to trust application on much of this land has been pending in one form or another for over five years. I firmly disagree that you do not have sufficient time to review and address the issues and implications of the application. The land is clean agricultural land and there are no new issues regarding the land itself. Your previous assessments of the land should provide you with the data necessary to evaluate the present application. I am of the firm opinion that moving the land into trust status shall not have any negative impact on local government and I believe any objective assessment of the application supports that belief. In response to your specific request, I shall not voluntarily withdraw the application. I have directed Tribal Administrator Bill Rudnicki to work with your staff to schedule a meeting in the very near future. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, St Crooks Tribal .. a CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum T: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek SUBJECT: Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) "Fee to Trust" Application DATE: November 6, 2000 Introduction/Discussion: On or about October 17, 2000 the City received formal notice from the Washington office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) of an application to place 776 acres of land in the Cities of Shakopee and Prior Lake in trust for the SMSC. Even thought the fee to trust application had been actually been submitted to the Midwest regional office of the BIA on or about February 22, 2000, neither the cities of Shakopee and Prior Lake nor Scott County received any prior notice. The BIA rules regarding applications to place land into trust provide for the granting of extensions of the review and comment period without setting a limit. However, the formal notice received by the cities and county limits possible extensions to 30 days. The cities and Scott County have requested a 30 -day extension to continent, but if that extension is not granted, the deadline for comments would be on or about November 17, 2000. City staff, as well as the staffs of Prior Lake and Scott County, have expressed to SMSC staff their desire to meet and work with the SMSC toward a negotiated process for considering this and future "fee to trust" applications. Such a discussion can only take place without the artificial pressures brought to bear as a result of the current application. Absent a willingness on the part of the SMSC to discuss issues cooperatively, and to place the fee to trust application on hold, it would appear that the City's only other option would be to oppose the current application. Considerations that the Council should consider in taking a position on the fee to trust application include, but are not necessarily limited to, the items listed below. These considerations are not in any particular order of importance or preference. 1. The regulatory process for land trust applications is currently under review. The proposed changes to the rules are substantial. As a result, processing of the current application at this time could violate the spirit and intent of those changes. Thus consideration of this application should be suspended pending formal consideration and action on the proposed regulatory changes. 2. At a minimum, the 1998 decision of the BIA correctly found that there was no demonstrated need under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 to take the 594 - acre parcel into trust. As a result, that decision should be allowed to stand, and the 594 -acre parcel removed from consideration. 3. The current application purports to address the SMSC's 50 year needs. Yet, the proposed uses are almost completely different from those set forth in the last application, which was denied. Such a dramatic change does not provide any assurance that the land placed in trust would be developed in accordance with the fee to trust application. Indeed, under current applicable regulations, once the land is placed in trust, the SMSC is under no commitment to use the land for the purposes stated in the application. Moreover, once the land is placed in trust the local, regional and state jurisdictions lose any land use and zoning authority. 4. The application is incomplete in at least two regards. First, the historical demographic information and future projections are, at best, questionable, and do not establish a need for the land to be put in trust. Second, the application gives not indication of any underlying analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed land uses. 5. Despite the current application purporting to address 50 -year needs, the SMSC owns hundreds of acres of other lands in fee, and continues to look at further acquisitions. The general indication is that the SMSC would continue to make application to bring those other lands into trust, even though not needed to meet their own 50 -year projections of need 6. The application is largely based on the assumption that the land has to be in trust in order for members to fully participate in tribal government. The requirement of having a homestead on trust land is not a part of the SMSC constitution, but simply ordinance, which could readily be changed by the tribe to accommodate the needs of members. Nor does the application demonstrate that such a requirement is a cultural imperative; that it exists only in ordinance demonstrates that the contrary is true. 7. All of the land uses identified in the application can be accommodated within local comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances. The City of Shakopee and Scott County have previously indicated their willingness to work with the SMSC to make these lands available to meet the SMSC's land needs. The SMSC has not adequately explored these alternatives to placing the land in trust status. 8. Trust status is perpetual, while agreements between governmental entities are temporary. Once these lands are put into trust, it will become much more difficult to develop transportation, sewer and storm sewer improvements that are required to traverse these properties. Yet, there is little (if any) assurance that negotiated cost - sharing agreements for such services will be upheld in good faith. Moreover, the complex web of tribal, state, and federal law suggests that any such agreements will be relegated to the tribal courts, thereby casting doubt on their ultimate enforceability. 9. The application's assertions as it relates to the environment are both apocryphal and illogical. It asserts that the environmental integrity of the land will be protected if the land is placed into trust, but would be threatened if not placed in trust. Even if the land is not placed in trust, the SMSC remain the fee holders of that land, and thereby the ultimate arbiters of its environmental integrity. The application suggests that if the land is not placed in trust, the SMSC will, of their own volition, take steps that will threaten the land. 1. Authorize the appropriate city officials to engage in further discussions with the SMSC about how to meet their future land use needs, but, in the event that the SMSC shows no interest in or is unwilling to participate in any such discussions, the appropriate city officials are further authorized to take any steps necessary to oppose the current SMSC fee to trust application. 2. Do not authorize the appropriate city officials to engage in further discussions with the SMSC about how to meet their future land use needs, to take any steps necessary to oppose the current SMSC fee to trust application. 3. Table the matter for additional information_ Action Requested: Authorize the appropriate city officials to engage in further discussions with the SMSC about how to meet their future land use needs, but, in the event that the SMSC shows no interest in or is unwilling to participate in any such discussions, the appropriate city officials are further authorized to take any steps necessary to oppose the current SMSC fee to trust application. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director g: \cc\2000 \cc 1106\feetotrust. doc • U , u TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Closed Session November 6, 2000 DATE: November 1, 2000 Following the regular portion of the November 6th City Council meeting, the Council will be asked to go to closed session to discuss Public Works Union negotiations. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw