HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/27/1981 t-
)1,6t
t ,
TENTATIVE AGENDA
AD,f . S r,CIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JANUARY 27 , 1981
Mayor Harbeck presiding.
1 ] Roll Call at 5 : 00 P.M.
2] Joint Meeting with the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission
a] Discussion of Trunk Watermain Policy
b]
3] Pool Table applications
4] Update on Police Negotiations
5 ] Link Law Suit - CR17 Public Improvement
6] Other Business
John K. Anderson
City Anderson
1
WILLIAM D. SCHOELL
2- O✓
- CARLISLE MADSON
JACK T. VOSLER
JAMES R. ORR
HAROLD E. DAHLIN
LARRY L. HANSON SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
JACK E. GILL
THEODORE D. KEMNA ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS
JOHN W. EMOND -1111.
KENNETH E. ADOLF
WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT -
R. SCOTT HARRI (612) 938-7601 • 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH • HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343
GERALD L. BACKMAN
January 23 , 1981
The Honorable Mayor and
City Council
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Subject: Trunk Water Assessment Policy
Gentlemen:
Continuing growth of the City of Shakopee requires that
•
municipal services such as trunk water facilities be expanded.
Trunk facilities are the water production and storage facili-
ties and the system of larger diameter trunk watermains which
are required to provide adequate water for domestic and in-
dustrial needs and for fire protection. Approximately one year
ago the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission initiated a study
of the methods of funding these trunk improvements. Our firm
was retained by SPUC as the engineering consultant for this
study. We will herein present the background and concepts of
the trunk water policy study.
It was determined that future trunk improvements could not
continue to be funded from water sales and connection charges,
and it was recommended that the City adopt a trunk assessment
policy. This trunk assessment would fund primarily future over-
sizing and trunk watermain construction. The trunk policy
should provide funding for the future improvements and insure
that all benefitting properties are charged on an equitable
basis for the improvements. It is the intent of the proposed ,
policy that trunk water improvements necessitated by new devel-
opment would be assessed to this development and not be pais by
existing water customers who have already paid their way. The
funds collected from assessments would be placed in a separate
account which would absorb fluctuations in the trunk costs on a
project to project basis. The connection charges would then be
reserved for future production and storage facilities, and the
water sales would fund operation, maintenance, and improvements
to the existing water system.
SCHOELL 8. MADSON, INC.
The Honorable Mayor and January 23 , 1981
City Council
City of Shakopee
Page 2
As trunk construction benefits an area beyond the fronting
properties , and since trunk construction may nct strictly follow
each individual land development, the trunk water assessment is
proposed to be a flat per-acre charge on all properties to which
trunk water service is made newly available. Properties which
have previously been assessed for trunk water, or which presently
have existing water service , would not receive a trunk assessment.
Areas which are construed to presently have municipal water ser-
vice available are all properties immediately abutting an existing
watermain and extending a distance of 150 feet in depth back from
the watermain into the property, provided that the watermain
extends the full distance across or along the edge of the property.
The trunk water assessment rate is proposed to be the total
cost of oversizing the trunk main costs divided by the total area
receiving future trunk service. The study area was limited to
areas within the City and also within the normal service pressure
boundary which is elevation 825. The proposed assessment areas
in general are shown on Map No. 10794-1.
The future trunk watermain corridors are also shown on this
map. The trunk costs would consist of costs for sizing mains over
6-inch diameter in the R1 , R2 and R3 zoned areas , over 8-inch
diameter in the B1 , B2 and R4 zoned areas , and over 12-inch dia-
meter in the I1 and I2 zoned areas. The oversizing cost is obtained
by multiplying the total length of main times the lineal foot
oversizing cost shown on Tables 1 , 2 and 3 and times a factor of
1.67 to cover the cost of watermain appurtenances and restoration.
These costs are tabulated on Table 5-A. An additional 25 per cent
was added to the construction cost for financial , legal , engineer-
ing and inspection costs.
Table 6-A shows the assessment rate calculation resulting in
a rate of $435 per acre. The total area was reduced by 15 per cent
to allow for future right-of-way and unassessable property. This
assessment rate would be adjusted each January in accordance with
the increase in the construction cost index as reported in the
Engineering News Record.
It is intended that in all areas of the City in which trunk
water service is made newly available by either the City, SPUC, or
private development, the trunk assessment shall be levied; or , in
the alternative , if costs are not assessed , an additional connec-
tion fee in the same amount be paid. If assessed, the improvement
would be funded by sale of City bonds to be repaid in the same
manner as assessments for other municipal improvements.
SCHOELL & MAOSON, INC.
Honorable Mayor and City Council January 23 , 1981
City of Shakopee
Page 3
It should be noted that the trunk water assessment is proposed
in addition to the existing connection charges. The present con-
nection charge schedule will be analysed in the near future to
check its adequacy to fund future storage and production facilities.
We will be available to attend your meeting to further discuss
the proposed trunk water policy and to answer your questions.
Very truly yours,
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
KEAdolf :sg
attachments
cc: Shakopee Public Utilities Commission
TABLE 1
Watermain Oversizing Cost
(Cost per lineal foot)
Pipe Diameter 6 8 12
8 $ 2 . 00 -- --
12 $ 8 . 00 $ 6. 00 --
16 $14 . 00 $12. 00 $ 6. 00
18 $17 . 00 $15. 00 $ 9 . 00
TABLE 2
*Additional Rock Excavation Costs
(Cost per lineal foot)
Pipe Diameter 6 8 12
8 $ 0 . 50 -- --
12 $ 2 . 01 $ 1. 38 --
16 $ 3. 66 $ 3 . 03 $ 1 . 65
18 $ 4 . 58 $ 3 . 96 $ 2 . 57
*Rock Excavation - $28 . 00/cu. yd. $1 . 037/cu. ft.
TABLE 3
Watermain Oversizing Cost With Rock Excavation
(Cost per lineal foot)
Pipe Diameter 6 8 12
8 $ 2 . 50 -- --
12 $10 . 01 $ 7 . 38 --
16 $17 . 66 $15. 03 $ 7 . 65
18 $21 . 58 $18 . 96 $11 . 57
. SCHOELL s. MADBON.INC.
October 3 , 1980
Revised October 15 , :981/4:
Revised Decem:.er 23 , 1980
TABLE 5-A (Revised)
Low Pressure Zone Oversizing
Oversizing (Linear (Oversizing
From - To
Feet) (Factor) Cost) = Cost
12" - 16" • 25, 630 (1. 67) ($ 6. 00) _ $ 256 , 813
16" (Entire Cost) 2,600 (1. 67) ($27 . 00) in 117 , 234
8" - 12" 14, 560 (1. 67) ($ 6. 00) • 145 , 891
(No Rock)
8" - 12" 6, 890 (1. 67) ($ 7 . 38) = 84 , 916 ,
(Rock)
8" - 16"
3,100 .(1.67) ($12 . 00) = 62 , 124
6" - 12"
48 , 500 (1. 67) ' ($ 8 . 00) . = 647 ,960
6" - 16"
15,410 (1.67) ($14. 00) = 360, 286
Total Low Pressure Zone Oversizing $1 , 675 , 224
(Construction Cost Only)
25% Overhead for Financial, Legal,Eng'g, Inspection Costs $ 418,80c
TOTAL $2,094,030
TABLE 6-A (Revised)
Acreage Tabulation
Total Area (Acres)
5, 668 ( . 85) * = 4 ,818
Assessment Rate Calculation
Assessment Rate = Total Cost
= 2,094430 = $435/:::RE
Assessment Area 4, 818 Ac.
* Reduced 15 percent for Road ROW
and Unassessable Property
P ,
RESOLUTION # 222
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A TRUNK
WATER POLICY, SETTING FEES, AND
REPEALING RESOLUTION #217
Be it resolved by the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission as follows:
WHEREAS, there are trunk charges incurred in the construction and
operation of a municipal water system which are in addition to those costs of
installing lateral service to abutting property; and
WHEREAS, those costs have been, and are expected to be, borne by the
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission, and the present water connection charges
are deemed to be insufficient to fully fund these trunk expenses; and
WHEREAS, an engineering study has been conducted to determine a fair
and reasonable charge required to provide for water system trunk construction
made necessary by system growth; and
WHEREAS, the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission on the 8th day of
September, 1980, adopted Resolution #217 which the Commission now finds to be
inconsistent with newly developed information and studies;
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Shakopee Public Utilities
Commission as follows:
1. There is hereby created a trunk fund to accumulate funds collected
by trunk water assessments or connection fees in lieu thereof, which funds shall
be utilized to pay costs incurred by the construction of trunk water facilities.
2, That in all areas of the City of Shakopee in which water service
is newly made available by the City of Shakopee, the Shakopee Public Utilities
Commission, or private development, there shall be charged a trunk assessment
in the amount of $ 435.00 per acre; or in the alternative, if no such trunk
assessment is levied, a connection fee in addition to all other connection fees
which connection fee shall be equivalent to a trunk assessment, with said
additional connection fee to be paid within thirty (30) days of the date said
water service becomes available.
3. Areas which are construed to presently have municipal water service
presently available are all properties immediately abutting an existing watermain and
extending a distance of 150 feet in depth back from the watermain into this property, .
provided that the watermain extends the full distance across or along the edge of the
property in question. Also construed to have water service presently available is
all land which has previously paid a trunk water assessment and which has lateral
watermain extended to within 150 feet to the point of use of the water, Such
lateral extensions shall be in accordance with existing City of Shakopee design
criteria and specifications,
4. The land area against which said trunk water assessment shall be
charged, shall be at a minimum, all the property abutting a proposed new water
main and extending a distance of up to one half the difference between the
proposed watermain, and the next parallel anticipated watermain, unless a different
configuration is determined by the Commission to be appropriate due to land
•
terrain or other logical barrier.
5. The trunk costs paid from the trunk fund shall include but not be
limited to the cost of oversizing material , and the costs of construction labor
due to oversizing as determined by the Commission. In addition to such construction
costs, there shall be paid from the trunk fund an allowance for engineering, fiscal ,
legal and inspection costs, Oversizing, for purposes of this paragraph, shall be
based on a standard pipe size of six (6) inches in areas zoned and used resi-
dential ; eight (8) inches in areaszoned or used for schools , business or
commercial purposes, or high density residential , and twelve (12) inches for
areas used or zoned industrial ,
6, The trunk water assessment established in paragraph 2 shall be
increased on the first day of January each year, commencing January 1, 1982, by
an amount equal to the present trunk water charge multiplied by the percentage
increase in the construction cost index for the previous 12 months as reported
by the Engineering News Record.
Be it further resolved by the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission
that Resolution #217 shall be and hereby is in all respects repealed,
Adopted in regular session of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission
this day of , 1981,
Wally Bishop, President
ATTEST;
Louis Van Mout, Utilities Commission
Manager
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk
RE: Pool Table Licenses
DATE: January 23 , 1981.
INTRODUCTION:
I have received applications for a pool table license from
R. Hanover Inc . , and House of Hoy Inc .
BACKGROUND:
R. Hanover Inc . dba/Richard ' s Pub has applied for a pool
table license for four pool tables .
House of Hoy has a license for two pool tables and is applying
for a license for a third pool table .
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1 . Approve application and grant a pool table license for
1981 to R. Hanover Inc. , 911 East 1st Avenue , for four pool tables .
2 . Approve application and grant a pool table license to
House of Hoy Inc . , 101 Last 1st Avenue for, a third pool table .
jc
MEMO TO : Mayor and City Council
FROM : John K. Anderson , City Administrator
RE : Status of Police Labor Negotiations
DATE : January 23 , 1981
Introduction
The Police union rejected our latest offer at their meeting on
Thursday , January 22 , 1981 . Larry Evans , their negotiator ,
said their main reason for the rejection was longevity , other
items in the proposal caused them less difficulty and we are
apparently "close" .
Background
On January 20, 1981 you received a memo from me dated January 16 ,
1981 regarding the City ' s latest offer . Please bring the memo
for background info Tuesday . The union wants salary and longevity
combined to approximate the combined salary and longevity of other
metro cities including MAMA cities . We are currently checking
with metro cities and will have averages Tuesday . The MAMA cities
have the following 1980 monthly schedule :
MAMA
Salary Longevity Total
Top Patrol $1750 plus longevity after 4 yrs @ 3% or $52 . 50 = $1802 . 50
8 yrs @ 5% or S87 . 50 = $1837 . 50
12 yrs @ 7% or 122 . 50 = $1872 . 50
16 yrs @ 9% or 157 . 50 = $1907 . 50
SHAKOPEE
Top Patrol $1782 plus longevity after 6 yrs @ $20.00 = $1802 .00
11 yrs @ $40 .00 = $1822 .00
16 yrs @ 60 .00 = $1842 .00
From this it is apparent that we are approximately $50 .00 less per
month for a 12 year man and $55 .00 less per month for a 16 year man .
By holding salary constant , ie . , using the 1980 top patrolman rate , and
applying the proposed ' 81 and ' 82 longevity schedules , Shakopee
-compares to MAMA as follows :
Status of Police Labor Negotiations
January 23, 1981
Page -2-
MAMA 1981 Shakopee 1982 Shakopee
4 yrs 52 . 50 or 1802 . 50 6 yrs + 35 = 1817 . 00 6 yrs +45 = 1827 . 00
8 yrs 87 . 50 or 1837 . 50 11 yrs + 55 = 1837 . 00 11 yrs +65 = 1847 . 00
12 yrs122 . 50 or 1872 . 50 16 yrs + 75 = 1857 . 00 16 yrs +85 = 1867 . 00
16 yrs157 . 50 or 1907 . 50 20 yrs + 95 = 1877 . 00 20 yrs +105= 1887 . 00
Thus if MAMA settled for 9% (our proposal is for 97 ) in 1981 without
any change in their longevity schedule , Shakopee patrolman would be
on a par with MAMA patrolman through the 11th year of service and then fall
behind. If MAMA settled for 97 in 1982 without any change in their
longevity schedule , Shakopee patrolman would be slightly ahead of MAMA
patrolman through their 15th year of service and then fall behind. MAMA
currently is proposing 107 for ' 81 and 970 for ' 82 and we don ' t know
what their proposal for fringe benefits include .
SUMMARY
The above detail is provided so that you fully understand where we are .
It is my recommendation that the City request mediation so that the
package can be finalized. I do not see this as a negative step, but as a
way to formally finalize the negotiations . There is no- charge for
mediation services .
JKA/jsc
The alternative is to try to settle it ourselves , with additional
negotiating sessions .
MEMO TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson
RE: Link Law Suit - CR-17 Public Improvement
DATE: January 23, 1981
INTRODUCTION:
The City Council , at its January 6 , 1981 meeting, was informed
about the Link Law Suit by Jack Ccller . Jack, along with other city staff ,
reviewed the award and Jack will have final information for Council action
on January 27 , 1981 .
BACKGROUND:
The award is for $131 , 290. 71 plus interest . The award does not
eleminate (abate) the city' s assessment of $128 , 887 . 33 with interest
totalling $156 , 826 . 71 ; therefore , Mr. Link will still be obligated to
pay the higher assessment . What the judge has done is required the city
to provide Mr. Link with the assessment amount exceeding the alleged
"original agreement" of $21 ,000 for use in paying the higher assessment .
Because the judge chose to make the award in this fashion, the
original project assessment schedule for payment of the bonds is intact .
What the city must do is pay the judgement with excess funds and then decide
how to replace the borrowed funds .
ALTERNATIVES FOR REPLACING BORROWED FUNDS
1. The city can levy a special levy on October 10th to pay for the
the judgement against it .
2. The city can make a general levy for the judgement against it on
October 10th.
INTERIM FINANCING ALTERNATIVES :
A. Unappropriated general fund money of approximately $490, 000 used
for cash flow purposes .
B. Unappropriated PIR funds with a present balance of approximately
$190,000. Jack Coller is checking to insure that we can use these funds
for interim financing.
Link Law Suit - CR-17 Public Improvements
January 23, 1981
Page -2-
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff ' s recommendation that Council direct staff to use
alternative "B" for interim financing and alternative #1 for
reimbursing the PIR fund in 1982 . Alternative (B) is recommended because
of the uncertain nature of state aid payments due in 1981 , and
alternative #1 is recommended because it can be levied outside ( in
addition to) the 8% Levy Limit .
JKA/jsc
` F CITY ® F AOP
,:-71,-_-_-:,.j1� 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Vii',. i
MEMO
TO: Mayor & Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Admr.
SUBJECT:
DATE: 1/23/81
1 . Minutes of Industrial Commercial Commission regarding the
trunk policy are attached .
2 . Rod Krass ' letter responding to the ICC question about the
assessment is attached.
3. Planning Commission approved the trunk policy at its meeting
on January 22nd , without any additional comments .
JKA/jsc
J.7\;\ssi 1 91981
Law Offices of CITY OF MAKOPEE
KRASS , MEYER & KANNING
Chartered Phillip R. Kress
Shakopee Professional Building Barry K. Meyer
1221 Fourth Avenue East Philip T. Kenning
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Trevor R. Walston
(612)445-5080
January 16, 1981
Mr. John Anderson
City Administrator
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: Shakopee Public Utilities Commission
Trunk Water Assessment Policy
Dear John:
You called me and indicated that the Industrial Development
Commission had some questions about the SPUC trunk water assessment
policy and whether or not it would be considered a lien against the
land in question. Please keep in mind that an assessment policy is
simply that, a policy. It is guidance for future City Councils as to
how assessments will be made at the time they are made. The City
presently has many assessment policies such as assessing lateral
benefits by front footage, and assessing the corner lots in a certain
manner. Those policies are not considered liens or assessments against
any property, simply a method of determining what the assessment will be
at such time in the future that improvements are actually made which
benefit the property.
If the policy is adopted by SPUC it will replace the previous
trunk water policy and will mandate that the City Council utilize that
policy in assessing future water projects within the City.
Specifically, with respect to the question of how a mortgage
company might view this policy, in my opinion, a mortgage company literally
won' t view it. The policy doesn't get filed with the Register of Deeds and,
consequently, will never get picked up on an abstract to be seen by an potential
lender. Lenders at this point don 't have an opportunity to see other city
assessment policies and would not see this one unless they come to City Hall
and ask for all resolutions involving policies for future assessments . There
is no lien against the land until the project is ordered and the assessment,
therefore, becomes pending. With respect to any particular parcel of land,
the policy may change a half a dozen times before an improvement is ordered and
an assessment therefor levied.
(;
Mr. John Anderson
Page 2
January 16, 1981
I am hopeful this will help explain the situation and will
satisfy the legitimate concerns of the Industrial Commmission.
Yours very truly,
KRASS, MEYER & KANNING CHARTERED
(. 0
Phillip R. Krass
PRK:ph
cc Mr, Lou Van Hout
MINUTES OF INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL COMMISSION
SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA January 14, 1981
Comm. O 'Neill called the meeting to order at 5 :05 P .M.
Present were : Furrie , Raduenz , Woodward , Eastland , and O ' Neill .
Absent : Peterson , B . Wermerskirchen , Liaison , and M . Henderson ,
Chairman
The minutes of the December 10 , 1981 meeting were approved .
Larry Martin , City Assessor , was in attendance and reviewed his
appraisal process in regard to industrial real estate tax valua-
tion . O 'Neill questioned the inequity of single tenanted build-
ings vs . unoccupied buildings (Spec buildings) . The ICC felt
that there were two problems they would like to have consideration
given to : 1) Construction costs vs manual 2) Spec buildings : some
consideration , formula , or policy should be made to make a gradual
assessment until they are fully leased .
City Administrator , John Anderson , who was also in attendance ,
suggested that he and the City Assessor study the problems presented
and report back to the ICC .
City Planner , Tim Keane , addressed the ICC regarding amending the
City Code permitting sales in I-2 zone . Discussion followed .
Furrie/Raduenz moved to concur with the City Planner ' s recommenda-
tion permitting sales in an I-2 zone as a Conditional Use only
where there is no sales or displays in the front yard and the
sales are accessory to a permitted principle use within a struc-
ture not to exceed 157 of the total floor area . Motion carried
unanimously .
Lou Van Hout and an engineering consultant for the utility commis-
sion explained the Water Trunk Policy . Discussion followed .
Woodward/Furrie made a motion stating that the ICC felt that
basically it could go along with the proposed policy . Motion carried
unanimously .
Eastland/Woodward moved that a deferred assessment be looked into .
Motion carried unanimously .
O 'Neill/Raduenz moved that as soon as a resolution is passed , the
City Attorney investigate/clarify whether or not this become a
pending assessment . Motion carried unanimously .
O 'Neill/Furrie moved that the City Council allow the ICC the
opportunity to give input on the Industrial Revenue Bond applica-
tion and procedure prior to Council action . Motion carried unani-
mously .
Industrial/Commercial Commission
January 14 , 1981
Page Two
A date for a followup meeting to finish the agenda was set for
January 28, 1981 at 5 P .M.
Woodward/Raduenz moved to adjourn the meeting at 8 : 10 P .M . Motion
carried unanimously .
J . O 'Neill
Acting Chairman
Rose Schleper
Recording Secretary