HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/21/1981 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items
DATE: April 15, 1981
1 . The Metro Waste Control Commission (MWCC) has let a contract
for the 1981 construction season that includes improving
the accuracy of Shakopee ' s main sewer flow meter.
2 . Judy has started a new "Clerk' s File" for staff memos that
are acted on by Council referencing their content in the
motion. The file will thus serve as our ordinance and
resolution files do, that is , given a "Clerk' s file number"
the Clerk can go to the specific staff memo in question to
review its content .
3 . Attached is a new Administrative Policy that reflects a clear
statement of consequences for City_ employees operating the water
system. The policy is a follow-up on the Mayor ' s December 11 ,
1980 memo to SPUC.
4. Attached is a memo from Gregg responding to the Mayor' s ques-
tions about the frequency of abatements .
5. Attached is a memo from Gregg responding to the Mayor ' s ques-
tions about the difference between State and private snow
removal charges by the City.
6 . Attached is a copy of a letter from Gary Laurent to Jack
Coller regarding the City' s billing policy and two specific
engineering bills . In response to the letter, I have attached
a copy of the new written Finance Department Invoice Procedure ,
a copy of the two bills Gary questioned, and Bo ' s belated
clarification of the bills that has been mailed to Gary.
7 . Legal action:
a. Attached is a copy of the settlement in the Valley Fair
Suit.
b. Attached is a copy of a second Mechanic ' s Lien on the Ice
Arena. Rod is following up on this .
8. Attached is the Building Permit Report for the month ending
March 31 , 1981 .
9 . Attached is a very interesting report on State and Federal
aid to cities in Minnesota of 2500+. The figures are on a
per capita basis and Shakopee doesn't fare all that well .
Non-Agenda Informational Items
Page Two
April 15 , 1981
10. Attached is a letter from Jack regarding our efforts to collect
the Liquor License fee from Empire Vending Company. It is
uncollectable.
11 . Attached are the minutes of the March 23, 1981 Ad Hoc Cable
Committee Meeting.
12 . Attached are the minutes of the March 2 , 1981 and two March 9 ,
1981 SPUC meetings .
13. Attached are the minutes of the March 12 , 1981 Planning Commis-
sion meeting.
14. Attached are the Planning Commission Actions of April 1 , 1981
that do not require formal Council action.
15. Attached is the monthly financial report for the period ending
March 31 , 1981 .
RECEIVED
K MART CORPORATION APR 15 1981
SHAKOPEE DISTRIBUTION CENTER
901 COUNTY ROAD 83 CITY OF SHAKOPEE
POST OFFICE BOX 507
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379
April 10, 1981
The Honorable Walter Harbeck, Mayor
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minn.-55379
Dear Mayor Harbeck:
I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the services
provided by the Shakopee Police Department during the past month.
Specifically an assault on one of our Security Officers, a theft of
merchandise and picketing of our Distribution Center by the steel workers.
All incidents were handled with extreme effectiveness. From time to time
incidents like these occur and it's very reassuring to know that they will
be dealt with firmness, equity and common sense. I feel the Shakopee
Police Department possesses a unique combination of professional dignity
and friendliness that is too often rare in today's world.
Thanks again.
Sincerely,
`w
1011
1
GarryE. ott
Director
Security/Safety
GES/lw
3
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
MEMO TO: All Department Heads
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Water System
DATE: April 10, 1981
The City and the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC) are
attempting to more clearly clarify areas of responsibility as
they relate to the City' s water system. SPUC has recently taken
over the complete administration, including inspecting all water
improvement projects . We are also channeling all water system
problems and informational requests to SPUC .
As part of this effort I would like to remind all employees that
SPUC personnel are the only ones authorized to operate the City ' s
water system. Other than in clear emergency situations , the
City will take disciplinary action in the form of written reprimand,
suspension or dismissal against any City employee who operates
water system equipment . This does not include the use of hydrants
by the Fire Department or Public Works Department when the Public
Works Department has prior authorization to use hydrants .
JKA/jms
Zi/
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg M. Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Abatements
DATE: April 13, 1981
In response to your memo regarding abatements of special assessments:
1. Council has to take action in order for the county to act on
abatement before they forward it to the state for final approval.
2. The need for abatements arises from human error or machine error
on the part of the city or the county or from the timing factor
when assessments are levied less than 30 days before certification
or when assessments are changed after certification.
3. Keeping track of assessments is a difficult and involved process
due to volume of assessments, pending assessments, developers
agreements, splits, and assessments levied but not yet certified.
4. The majority of abatements that Council have acted on have been
due to County actions, the most recent abatement was a City staff
error.
GMV/dan
.5-
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg M. Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Snow Removal Rate
DATE: April 13, 1981
In response to your memo regarding snow removal:
1. We put in a bid for state snow removal each year.
($30/hr. for this season)
2. This bid amount was determined by adjusting upward the previous
bid based on Mr. Karkanen's estimate, inflation and what a couple
of other cities were doing.
3. The state looks at the "going rate" for cities and won't pay
anything higher.
4. The $38/hr. rate is the "going rate" for contractors for
equipment rentals as determined by Mr. Karkanen and does
not necessarily relate to snow plowing.
GMV/dan
APR 8 1981
circK4PE
April 3 , 19$1
Julius A . Coller, II
Attorney at Law
211 West First Avenue
Shakopee Minnesota 55379
Dear Mr. Coller,
We recently received your letter of March 31, 19$1
concerning a bill to us in favor of the City of
Shakopee for engineering services for Minnesota Valley
2nd Addition and 3rd Addition in the amount of $616.09.
We realize the existance of this bill and acknowledge
having received the billing along with several notices
regarding the same. Upon reciept of such billing and
notices we have always contacted by phone or in person
the Engineering Department or Accounts Receivable
Department or both requesting an explanation of charges.
On each occasion we expressed our willingness to pay
any justifiable bill and have been told that someone
will get back to us with this explanation. To date
this has not happened.
We have also recently received a bill for $51.00 for
engineering services with no itemization or explanation .
Sara called concerning this on March 30, 1981, was not
able to get that information at that time and as of yet
has not received a return call of explanation.
We have reservations in supporting the policy of billing
all time directly to the development because 1.) it is in
direct opposition to other positions of encouraging
development and growth and 2 .) such development is a
benefit to the entire city and 3 .) it unfairly places the
burden directly upon the residents of the new area .
Nevertheless, please do not construe our nonpayment as
our way of demonstrating this reservation . As a purely
business approach we feel we have the right of knowing
what we are paying for. Again we are very willing to
pay any justifiable bill and are repeatedly endeavering
to resolve this .
As a resident, businessman and developer I 'm very
concerned that the City of Shakopee operate in an
efficient manner and realize that from time to time
problems may develop that need resolving. In this
light I offer the following suggestions:
page 2 of 2 April 3 , 19$1
1 .) Itemize all bills so parties being billed
know what they are being billed for.
2 .) Send all statements promptly and periodically
( preferably monthly) so questions can be resolved
while fresh in mind.
3.) If someone has a question regarding a bill try
to resolve it immediately so the city can collect
payment sooner.
4 .) Before including the council and City Attorney
have a staff person call the delinquent account
to see if there is a problem or nonwillingness
to pay.
In our case, any one of the above would have probably
resolved the case. As it is, considerable staff time
council time and City Attorney time has been spent at
taxpayers expense when a simple phone call would probably
have solved the whole problem.
A copy of this letter will also be sent to the City
Administrators, City Engineering and Accounts Receivable
Department. A copy will also be forwarded to Council
Members only because they have already been involved.
We have a reputation of fairness and integrity we wish
to preserve and are anxiously awaiting a response .
Sincerely,
Gary L . Laur t
Renden Development Co .
GLL:lm
Copy to City Administrator
City Engineering Department
Accounts Receivable Department
Mayor and Council Members
4/13/81
INVOICE PROCEDURE
A. Daily
1. Information is received from various sources that the City needs
to bill someone.
2. Type invoice and fill in all pertinent data (see sample) .
3. Mail white and yellow copies to invoicee.
4. File pink copy in unpaid invoice file.
5. Add invoice data to listing of invoices.
Do above steps as soon as possible to keep bills current. (i.e. 3 days)
6. When payment is received, enter paid, the date and the receipt
number on the pink copy of the invoice, the invoice list, and
notify the City Attorney if bill had previously been sent to
him. Then put the paid invoice in the file for paid invoices.
B. Monthly
1. At the end of every month go through invoice file and send first
reminder notice to every party whose bill is older than 30 days
and/or send second notice to every party whose is older than 60
days (see sample) .
2. Ten days after the 30 day reminder notice, contact the party
by telephone to follow up if payment has not been received.
3. When a bill is 90 days old make copy of bill and send to City
Attorney for collection action. Make list of bills sent to
City Attorney for file and one copy to Finance Director (see sample) .
C. Bills for Fire Calls
1. Type in "Pay to Township"
Louisville Township Jackson Township
c/o James Theis c/o Ray Vyskocil
Rt. 2 Box 317 Rt. 3 Box 458
Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee, MN 55379
2. Cross out "Make checks payable to City of Shakopee"
3. Send copy of invoice and Fire Report to Township.
4. Do not send delinquent invoices to City Attorney.
5. Send reminder to Township.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379 INVOICE'
To: Gary Laurent 612/445-3650 /
118 Fuller
No.
Shakopee, MN 55379 Date 3/1':' 19
Engineering r Services for January 198i .; . V.911ey 4th Addn. _
3 hrs. 4 . 17 . 00 X1. 40
"Payable upon receipt of invoice"
Please return yellow copy with remittance.
Please make checks payable to City of Shakopee. "1/m 280"
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379 INVOICE
P0: Renden Development 612/445-3650
118 Fuller St. No.
Shakopee, MN 55379 1-30-
Date 19
MINN VALLEY 2nd ADDN - Instant Testing (copy attached) $430. 00
Minn V: lley 3rd Addn _ Instant Testing (copies attached)
Engineering Services November & December- Minn Valley 3rd
2 hrs $12. 17/hr 24.34
1 hr. @ $8. 75/hr 3. 75
c2,7�j K't c , r_. 7 TOTAL $616. 09
J r\XL-1.Li /0 .j—�g 6
...dam) I 1 - n 2
lease make checks payable to City of Shakopee.
MEMO TO : Julius A. Coller, II
City Attorney
FROM: H. R. Spurrier ' "
City Engineer VA
RE : Engineering Department Bills
DATE : April 15 , 1981
I am in receipt of a copy of a letter addressed to your office
requesting an accounting of a bill recently sent to Gary L.
Laurent , Renden Development Company. Pursuant to the request
in that letter, I have the following accounting of the expenses
for Minnesota Valley 2nd Addition and Minnesota Valley 3rd
Addition.
Taking the invoice dated 1/30/80, for $616 . 09; the $430 . 00 bill
from Instant Testing Company is for pavement inspection, including
some retesting, as a result of failed tests . The second item,
$153. 00 for Instant Testing was concrete testing for curb and
gutter which was placed. The $33. 09 of Engineering services
represents the on-site inspection time by City Inspectors in order
to supervise the testing and inspect the progress of the work.
The bill dated March 16, 1981, for Engineering services for
Minnesota Valley 4th Addition was the time required to perform
an assessment split for that subdivision. This time was billed
to the Subdivision.
In the future, the Engineering Department will itemize all b lis
upon written request to do so. The Engineering Department now
has the procedure ___in__place and fees- established so that statements
will be- made promptly and on a monthly basis .
Any questions regarding the amount of the bill or anyone
desiring a more detailed itemization of bills should contact
the Engineering Secretary, Jane Wostrel, at 445-3650.
HRS/j iw
1,/d/c : John Anderson
City Administrator
yea e c din 7a
GISLASON AND MARTIN, P.A.
\ 4 Attorneys and Counselors at Law
7600 Parklawn Avenue South
N.obert W. Gislason Minneapolis (Edina), Minnesota 55435 Telephone
James T. Martin p
John E. Varpness (612) 831-5793
April 9, 1981 RECEIVED
APR 1 0 1981
Mr. Rod KAves
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
1221 4th Avenue East
Shakopee, MN 55379
Mr. John Anderson
City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: Crowson v. City of Shakopee and LeRoy Houser, et al
Gentlemen :
As you are both aware, a conditional settlement was reached in
this case on 3/27/81. Settlement discussions had been taking place
between the defense counsel for over a week before trial and on and
off with the plaintiff for a similar period. Basically , plaintiff
accepted the last offer on the table even though it was not as ad-
vantageous to them, particularly to their attorneys, as other pro-
posals that had been offered to them earlier. The case was settled
just minutes before the trial was to begin that afternoon.
It is important to note that the settlement that was reached is
a conditional one. The agreement integrates monies that had already
been awarded to the plaintiff in the worker' s compensation proceed-
ing along with new money that had been contributed by the various
defendants. Since worker' s comp money is included in this settle-
ment the worker' s comp court of appeals must approve it . We have
been assured that this is a virtual certainty and it should occur
within the next month. If the settlement for some reason should not
be approved by the worker' s comp court of appeals the case would be
put once again on the trial calendar and would probably not be tried
for at least a few months. At all times during this litigation we .
have seen this as a case with absolutely no merit against the City
or Mr. Houser. At no time did any evidence come to light indicating
that Mr. Houser or the City knew that this grate was present or that
they had anything to do with placing it there. In addition, the
City ' s responsibility concerning the construction of the Flume ride
was solely to see that the applicable building codes were complied
with. The City and Mr. Houser in no way participated in the design
or construction of the ride other than to see that the codes were
complied with. As you know, the codes that are involved are perfor-
mance codes which deal with the structural integrity of the structure,
not with each and every little detail concerning the actual function-
ing of the ride itself . In that regard, there were absolutely no
Mr. Rod Krass zi 62L /
Mr. John Anderson
April 9, 1981
Page Two
code provisions that dealt with water diversion boxes or with any grates
inside them. In short , neither the City or Mr. Houser had any duty to
protect Mr. Crowson or specific individuals against the type of harm
that occurred in this case. Their responsibility was only to the
public in general . There are a couple of recent Minnesota Supreme
Court cases that were on point and would have gone a long way in ob-
taining a directed verdict for the City and Mr. Houser at the close of
plaintiff' s case.
Based upon our analysis that neither Mr. Houser or the City had any
liability in this matter, the contribution toward the settlement on
their behalf was only $2, 500. 00. This is by far the smallest amount
contributed toward settlement. This was based only upon a cost of de-
fense basis . The other contributions were $100,000. 00 from the insurer
for Rauenhorst , $250,000. 00 from the insurer for Barr Engineering.
Valley Park' s insurer waived any right that it had to subrogation to
the comp that has been awarded and its worker' s comp insurer contri-
buted $315, 000. 00 which was the sum which they felt they would be
ultimately responsible for in comp money up to this date to the plain-
tiffs. Thus , the total amount of money in the package was approximate-
ly $670, 000. 00 with only $2 , 500. 00 coming from the insurer for the City
and Mr. Houser. With the use of annuities various things could be done
for the plaintiff such as spreading payments out over time. The con-
tributions and the total cost of the settlement has not been made a
matter of public record and is being kept in confidence by the
attorneys and parties involved.
The terms of the settlement are basically as follows :
$125,000. 00 for a house in Florida for Daniel Crowson' s use as
long as he shall live and the remainder to his mother , Gloria Camp,
provided that she continues to care for him during the remainder of
his life; such house to include facilities as are necessary for
Daniel ' s care including an addition for a live-in nurse.
$70, 000. 00 for a home or a townhouse in the Burnsville area for
Dawn Crowson.
$10, 000. 00 to be paid to Gloria Camp , mother and guardian, at the
time the settlement agreement and dismissals are signed.
$10 , 000. 00 to be paid to Dawn Crowson at such time.
$2000. 00 payable monthly to Gloria Camp for the care of Daniel
,
Crowson as long as she continues to care for him and as long as he
shall live.
$100, 000. 00 payable to Gloria Camp fifteen years from the date
the settlement papers are signed.
•
$100,000. 00 payable to Dawn Crowson fifteen years from the closing-
Mr. Rod Krass 76e
Mr. John Anderson
April 9, 1981
Page Three
of the settlement .
$10, 000. 00 payable to Dawn Crowson five years from the date the
settlement papers are signed.
$600. 00 per month to Dawn Crowson for 13 years exclusive of any
social security and worker ' s comp that she is entitled to .
$200, 000. 00 payable in one lump sum in 29 years to the oldest
Crowson child.
$200, 000. 00 payable in one lump sum in 30 years to the youngest
Crowson child.
A total of $200 , 000. 00 in attorneys ' fees with $60, 000 . 00 payable
now and $140, 000. 00 payable on 1/1/82 .
It is fully understood and has been approved by the Court that
this settlement takes care of any wrongful death claim that may arise
when Daniel Crowson dies. In addition , Judge Fitzgerald did approve
in open Court the settlement concerning the minor children.
If either of you should have any question at any time , please feel
free to give Mr. Martin or myself a call. We should know within the
month what action the worker ' s compensation court of appeals will take
on approving the settlement .
I would like to thank both of you for the cooperation and assis-
tance that you have shown throughout this matter. Both Mr. Houser and
and the City have been very gracious in making themselves available at
short notice to discuss and assist us in the handling of this case.
We appreciate that these things can take a lot of time, but with the
kind of cooperation and assistance that we have received from all of
you, we were able to achieve a successful resolution of this matter
against the City and Mr. Houser. Please pass along our sincere thanks
to Mr. Houser for his assistance throughout .
Very truly yours ,
;?4,if
J E. Varpness
JEV/km
Y f , C. 12m; 1i k.
q�/ � C �'A . L
LAW OFFICES APR 13 1981 / I /
CULHANE 8� CULHANE / V
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS CM OF $HAKOP
EE
1015-16-17 500 LINE BUILDING "LJ.I-ICG
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
M,E, CULHANE TELEPHONES
1906-1959 332-1650
332-1929
M. L. CULHANE AREA CODE 612
J. E.C U L H A N E
M. J. CULHANE
April 10 , 1981
City Clerk
City of Shakopee
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: Shakopee Ice Arena
Dear Sir:
Enclosed you will find photo copy of Mechanic ' s Lien
Statement which was recorded today on behalf of our
client, Northland Electric Supply Company, with the
County Recorder of Scott County.
Very truly yours,
CULHANE br. CULHAN
By: )( )(
� 4
MLC:c c
Enclosure
cc: Shak--o-Valley Amateur Ilockev, Inc .
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
nuc ♦r F(11'I11 No. SO-M.
11y C, rp rarinn. II I. I (:nn%•cy$neine 131.ini.. (1%p)
Notice is Hereby Given, That it is the intention of NORTHLAND .L3CTRIC. SUPPLY
COMPANY
a corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota , with its address at F
521 S. 10th St. Mpls,Minn.55�}4o Scott -
to claim and hold a lien upon the tract of land lying in the County of
State of Minnesota, described as follows, to-wit:
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Qarter of
Section 12, Township 115, Range 23, Scott County, Minnesota
described as follows:
( See Attached legal description)
for the sum of --Nina thousand eighty nine and 33/100 -49,089.33 Dollars
with interest thereon from the 30th day of January , 19 81
That said amount is due and owing to said claimant for electrical materials
( supplies and apparatus)
furnished and performed in that certain improvement of said land described as follows, to-wit:
Construction and improarements of Shakopee Ice Arena
•
I !�
That the name of the person for whom and atwhose request said material was furnished and
• said labor performed . as follows, to-wit:
Associated Mechanical Contractors, Inc .
That the date of the first item of said claimant's contribution to said improvement was the
1st day of October , 19 80 ; and the date of the last item thereof the
{ 30th . day of January ,19 81;
That a description of the premises to be charged with said lien, to the best of said claimant's ability to
ascertain the same, is as above given:
That the name . of the owner of said land and premises, at the date of making this statement,
according to the best information said claimant now has or is able to ascertain, is 'are
City..of.. Shakopee, . a Minnesota Municipal 'Corporation
That a copy of this statement has been served personally or by certified mail on the owner or his
authorized agent or the person who entered into the contract with the contractor as provided by Minnesota
Statutes Section 514.08.
That notice as required by Minnesota Statutes Section 514.011, Suhd. 2, if any, was given.
Dated this 10th day of April , 19 81 ,
Nortl a ectric Supply Company,
By /-•
,r ,
-
7 4
/L)/
, vit/Q
1141p/I
crf
Commencing at the southwest corner of said Southwest
Qarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence on an
a sumed bearing of North along the west line of
s id Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a
distance of 671 . 24 feet to a point hereinafter
referred to as point "A" ; thence continuing North a
distance of 135. 73 feet; thence South 84 degrees,
17 minutes, 30 seconds East a distance of 492 . 19 feet
to the point of beginning of the land to be described;
\ thence continuing South 84 degrees, 17 minutes, 30
seconds East a distance of 354 . 81 feet; thence South
100 degrees, 15 minutes, 00 seconds West a distance
of 658 . 57 feet more or less to the intersection
with a line drawn South 54 degrees , 08 minutes,
30 seconds East from the aforementioned point "A" ;
thence North 54 degrees 08 minutes, 30 seconds West
a distance of 442 . 80 feet; thence North 00 degrees ,
minutes, 00 seconds East a distance of 79 . 95
eet; thence North 54 degrees, 08 minutes, 30
econds West a distance of 270 . 42 feet; thence
North 49 degrees, 14 minutes , 22 seconds East a
distance of 3e0. 37 feet to the point of beginning .
1
to y State of Minnesota, ss. 74--/‘
County of Hennepin i
C. A. ,Krueger being duly sworn, on oath says, that he is the
Vice President & Secretary of -'northland Electric Supply Company
..
the corporation which is the claimant in the
within statement, that he has knowledge of the facts stated in said statement by reason of the following
facts, to-wit: This account is kept under his supervision and direction.
that he makes said statement at the instance of said corporation claiming said lien; and that the statement
is true of his own knowledge.
I .
// 7
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th ... ! y of _. , /pril ,,. ... ._.., 19 81
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY
Culhane & ,Culhane, a�tty)s• Notary Public Hennep' M; L; GUL ty, Minn.
HENNEPIN COUNTY
1015-17 Soo Line Bldg. � w OTARYpus. IC-MINNESOTA
(Address)dress) My commissio - e'x`piie� 1993
MY COµµtE9lpN EXP4RE8'DEG.1Q,
Iv,p l s, I` inn. 55L 02 ,,.�. �..,,� _
AFFIDAVIT OF PERSONAL SERVICE
State of Minnesota,
ss.
County of
being duly sworn, on oath says that on the
day of .. , 19 he served the foregoing
Mechanic's Lien Statement upon
(the owner therein named) (the authorized agent of the owner therein named) (the person who entered
into the contract with the contractor)* by handing to and leaving with said
a true and correct copy thereof.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of .. , 19
•
Notary Public County,
My commission expires .... . 19
I AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY CI:R'IIFIED MAIL
State of Minnesota,
ss.
County of ..Hennepin
I.:.L.Culhane of the City of 1•Anneapolis
County of Hennepin , State of Minnesota, being duly sworn, says that on
the . 10th day of . April , 19 81 , he served the foregoing Mechanic's
Lien Statement on City of Shakopee . (the owner therein named) (the authorized
agent of the owner therein named) (the person who entered into the contract with the contractor)* by
mailing to said City, o City Clerk . a copy thereof by certified mail,
enclosed in an envelope, postage prepaid, and by depositing the same in the post office at ..lanneapol i s
I. nn., , directed to said City Clerk
at ... Shakopee, Kinn. -,,/7--"7 , known his last own address.
I
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th ay of A pr�-- , 19 81
*and upon Shak—O—Valley Amateur Hockey Inc. -'-,
Shakopee, Minn. 55379 Notary Pu Hennepin County, i
v My commission e pires ' 19
e""„'".. JAMES E. CULHANNE 4
—1:,. NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA
*Strike out portions not applicable. "�` HENNEEPIN000NTY __
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAR.A,1Y35 I
C Vr r.+
G C C' L
c c v y, i Z ->`-
c
x == t c S CA G 1 3 0
IO... C :2 .A C C C ...j,
ri '
N
'i C
o , iZaL: lA
C �^ w d = tv. v � z J
Z I 0 r urn a ). - �dj ^‘ 02
' ! c cis • u r >, 3 rJ w .B.1:1 v - 3 2 Z
=7 C)'C E o(LI 3 ❑ -. 0. ---. \
C� °i2 I z
I n o , o c, W
- - --s .7, ,
1
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN MARCH, 1981
5287 Valley Fair Alter. $ 7 ,000
'
5288 Valley Fair Addn. 3 , 000
5289 William Nevin 612 E . 7th Alter. 500
5290 Francis J . Kreuser 1033 Atwood Ga. Addn. 700
5291 Warners True Value 1570 Hwy 101 Addn. 22 ,000
5292 Gary Nelson 218 #. 8th Ave. Garage 6,000
5293 Ronald Karst 946 Shumway Garage 8 ,000
5294 Joe Link L/9 11l14934- �Monroe .� n .. (,/:: ..s.cHouse 51 ,000
5295 Leonard Wetzel 630 Jefferson Garage 6,000
5296 Howard Larson Rt. 1 , Box 1000M Garage 5,000
5297 Mark Pidde 751 Shumway Addn. 24,000
5298 Wallace Welter 1149 Jefferson Swim.Pool 10,000
5299 Richard Teschendorf 805 W. 4th Ave. Deck 500
5300 Paul Gregory 1117 Jefferson St. Wood Stove 1 , 600
5301 Valley Fair Addn. 4,000
5302 Valley Fair Addn. 5,000
5303 Valley Fair Addn. 6,000
5304 Goodwin Bldrs(HRA) 406-408 M'njiesota Duplex 70,000
•- r.-r-r i 1,t.? /=1Lk_• f •-.A 0- -{_. .
5305 Rich Logeais 1081-10 3 Eas_tview Cr.' Duplex 90,000
X
5306 Valley Fair Addn. 25 ,000
5307 Valley Fair Foundation 47 ,000
5308 Carl Vierling 1007 S . Atwood Garage 10,000
5309 Sheldahl 1650 Hwy. 101 Alter 25 ,000
5310 Wally Perry 922 S . Pierce Deck 500
5311 Floyd Dueffert 630 Madison Garage 6,000
$433 ,800
si/
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT March, 1981
PERMITS ISSUED Mar. Yr. to Date Total Previous Year
5287 - 5311 Number Number Valuation Number Valuation
' MO . YTD.
Single Fam. -Sewered 1 3 159,000 1 2 158 ,000
Single Fam. -Septic - 1 75 ,000 - - -
Multiple Dwellings 2 2 160,000 1 3 2 ,010, 338
(Mo.Units) (YTD Units) (4) (4) (4) (72)
Dwelling Additions 2 2 34,000 - - -
Other - - - - - -
Business District - 1 40,000 - 1 1 , 400,000
Agricultural - - - - - -
Industrial -Sewered - - - 2 4 17 , 752 ,000
Industrial -Septic - 1 425 ,000 - 1 63,000
Accessory/Garages 6 7 47 ,000 - 1 3, 100
Signs & Fences - - 100 3 6 1 , 600
Fireplaces/Wood Stove 1 2 2 , 200 - - -
Grading/Foundation 1 1 • 47,000 - - -
Remodeling (Res. ) 4 5 3, 400 5 11 18,000
Remodeling ( Inst . ) - 1 - - - -
Remodeling (Other) 8 13 307, 900 4 14 177 ,800
TOTAL TAXABLE 25 37 1 , 300, 600 16 43 21 , 583 ,838
TOTAL INSTITUTIONAL - 1 - - - -
GRAND TOTAL 25 38 1 , 300, 600 16 43 21 , 583,838
MO . YTD . MO . YTD .
Variances - - 1 2
Conditional Use 1 2 1 2
Re-Zoning - - 2 2
Moving - - - -
Electric Permits 15 41 11 34
Plmbg. & Htg. Permits 17 34 9 31
Razing Permits
•
Residential - - - 1
Commercial - - - -
Total dwelling units in City after completion of all construction permitted
to date 3, 441
Phyllis Knudsen
Bldg. Dept . Secretary
;DITOq
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR
SAINT PAUL 55155
A.RNE H. CARLSON
296-2551
STATE AUDITOR
STATE AND FEDERAL AID TO MINNESOTA CITIES
Cities with over 2,500 in Population
For the Year Ended
December 31 , 1979
Issued By
Office of the State Auditor
Arne H. Carlson
State Auditor
April 7, 1981
For further information contact:
Governmental Information Division
(612) 296-4722
//'11 e e e t (jCityAG a2.1vt,.z? St .. ,.-,- 267.-'161 /
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY4MPLOYER � . �� � �
PREFACE
This report for the cities over 2,500 in population ranks the
cities in the order of their total state and federal grants and shared
revenues per capita for the year ended December 31 , 1979.
We have generated the report by computer, using System 2000
(a data base management system) , and the State Auditor's 1979 city
data base.
The tables show state aids to cities (intergovernmental revenues )
and do not include the circuit breaker payments by the state, nor any
of the Department of Education aids to schools, state aids to counties ,
or any other local governments.
The population figures used are 1979 populations, as adjusted by
Metropolitan Council estimates, consolidations and annexations. We
believe the readers will find it useful in understanding state and
federal grants and their impact on individual cities.
April 7, 1981 •
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables
Page
Table 1 - Cities in Minnesota Per Capita State and Federal
Aids - For the Year Ended December 31 , 1979.
(All State and Federal Intergovernmental Revenue
of the Governmental Funds divided by the city
population) 1
Table 2 - Cities in Minnesota Per Capita Federal Aid - For
the Year Ended December 31 , 1979. (All Federal
Intergovernmental Revenue of City Governmental
Funds divided by population) 5
Table 3 - Cities in Minnesota Per Capita State Aid - For
the Year Ended December 31 , 1979 (All State
Intergovernmental Revenue of City Governmental
Funds divided by population) 9
Table 4 - Cities in Minnesota Per Capita Federal Revenue
Sharing - For the Year Ended December 31 , 1979.
(Federal Revenue Sharing received in 1979 divided
by population) 13
Table 5 - Cities in Minnesota Per Capita Local Government
Aid - For the Year Ended December 31 , 1979.
(State Local Government Aid Formula Revenue
divided by population) 17
TABLE 17
CITIES IN MINNESOTA
RANKED BY PER CAPITA STATE $ FEDERAL AIDS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31 + 1979
COVER 2,500 IN POPULATION]
PER CAPITA
STATE AND
RANK NAME OF CITY POPULATION FEDERAL AID ,---
1 MOUNTAIN IRON 3.294 1 , 361 . 06
2 GILBERT 2: 655 816 . 97
3 FERGUS FALLS 12 .443 435 . 34 ,/
4 CHISHOLM 5. 913 432 . 83
5 INTERNATIONAL FALLS 6, 439 430 . 76
6 ELY 5, 254 374 . 38
7 HOYT LAKES 3, 634 354 . 36
B AURORA 2+ 793 332 . 56
9 PRINCETON 2.531 316 . 33
10 MINNEAPOLIS 369 , 090 302 . 85
11 ST PAUL 268+ 710 275. 42
12 MORRIS 5 . 366 264 . 77
13 GLENWOOD 2 , 584 256 . 21
14 LITTLE FALLS 7. 467 248. 88
15 MONTEVIDEO 5, 745 247. 00
16 EAST GRAND FORKS 7, 891 242. 47
17 MANKATO 30 .895 240 . 95
18 TWO HARBORS 4 + 437 239 . 77
19 VIRGINIA 12 . 450 226 . 68
20 DULUTH 100 . 578 222 . 57
21 SILVER BAY 3 .504 218 . 35
22 BABBITT 3+ 076 217 . 92
23 ST JAMES 4 , 027 209 . 31
24 HIBBING 16, 104 201 . 98
25 BRECKENRIIDGE 4 , 200 201 . 91
26 GRAND RAPIDS 7.247 201 . 51
27 BEMIDJI 11 ,490 200 . 08
28 AUSTIN 26, 210 196 .20
29 EVELETH 5. 176 193 . 78
30 CROOKSTON 8+ 499 191 . 76
31 WORTHINGTON 10 . 362 186 . 16
32 WELLS 2.791 181 . 00
33 DETROIT LAKES 6 , 352 174 . 38
34 SOUTH ST PAUL 21 + 300 172 . 27
35 CLOQUET 11 , 439 168 . 86
36 WILLMAR 13 ,632 165 .49
37 ROCHESTER 59, 337 165 . 10
38 ST CLOUD 42 + 223 157. 29
39 FARIBAULT 16+595 156.56
40 RED WING 12.834 154 .26
41 NORTH MANKATO 7, 347 152.89
42 THIEF RIVER FALLS 8,618 151 .71
43 TRACY 2,516 151 .33
44 HERMANTOWN 7, 170 150.86
45 WINONA 26,438 149. 74
46 MOORHEAD 29, 687 148 .08
47 STAPLES 2,761 146.92
48 ALEXANDRIA 6.973 146 .85
1
7)
CITIES IN MINNESOTA
RANKED BY PER CAPITA STATE 1 FEDERAL AIDS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31 , 1979
COVER 2 , 500 IN POPULATION]
PER CAPITA
STATE AND
RANK NAME OF CITY POPULATION FEDERAL AID
49 BENSON 3 ,549 146 . 48
50 ANOKA 15, 250 146 . 22
51 BRAINERD 11 ,667 145 . 57
52 PARK RAPIDS 2, 772 141 . 87
53 LITCHFIELD 5, 262 141 . 66
54 WASECA 6, 966 140 . 86
55 ORTONVILLE 2, 665 138 . 99
56 MORA 2, 582 132 . 59
57 LE SUEUR 3, 745 131 . 39
58 PIPESTONE 5, 328 125' . 79
59 GRANITE FALLS 3 , 225 126 . 83
60 JACKSON 3, 550 126. 10
61 ROSEMOUNT 5 , 260 125 . 28
62 SPRING VALLEY 2 .572 125 . 2%
63 WAITE PARK 2,824 125 . 20
64 HASTINGS 13 , 870 124 . 87
65 SAUK RAPIDS 5 . 099 123 . 96
66 SAUK CENTRE 3 . 750 123 . y?2
67 NEW ULM 13, 051 123 . 83
68 HUTCHINSGN 8, 2E3 122. 51
69 SLEEPY EYE 3, 461 121 . 93
70 ALBERT LEA 19 , 415 120 . 42
71 REDWOOD FALLS 4 , 774 119. 92
72 HOPKINS 15, 300 116 . 51
73 MARSHALL 10, 215 115 . 81
74 NORTHFIELD 10 , 235 114 . 70
75 STILLWATER 13 . 480 113 . 34
76 ST LOUIS PARK 44 ,000 111 . 98
77 LUVERNE 4, 703 111 . 55
78 OWATONNA 15, 341 110. 38
79 WINDOM 3 , 952 109 . 73
80 SARTELL 2,665 107 . 69
81 FAIRMONT 10, 751 107 . 40
82 OLIVIA 2,553 107 .29
83 STEWARTVILLE 2, 802 107.29
84 ST PETER 8 , 539 105 . 02
85 ROBBINSDALE 14 , 510 104 . 06
86 LAKE CITY 3,857 103 . 76
87 BROOKLYN CENTER 32, 950 103 .28
88 GLENCOE 4,217 100. 47
89 CALEDONIA 2,619 98. 85
90 CAMBRIDGE 3, 177 97 .54
91 BLUE EARTH 3, 965 95. 97
92 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 21 ,270 94. 93
93 WOODBURY 10, 150 93. 60
94 SPRING LAKE PARK 7.290 92. 86
95 COON RAPIDS 36, 810 • 91 . 86
96 FOREST LAKE 4 ,570 91 . 75
2
7
CITIES IN MINNESOTA
RANKED BY PER CAPITA STATE & FEDERAL AIDS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31 , 1979
[OVER 2, 500 IN POPULATION]
PER CAPITA
STATE AND
RANK NAME OF CITY POPULATION FEDERAL AID
97 WADENA 4 , 640 89 . 32
98 FARMINGTON 4 , 670 89. 20
99 MINNETONKA 40,590 88 . 78
_100 SHAKOPEE 10, 770 88 . 22
101 SPRINGFIELD 2, 530 85 . 55
102 EDEN PRAIRIE 13, 7220 85 . 46
103 NEWPORT 3, 470 84 . 68
104 FALCON HEIGHTS 5, 770 84 . 36
105 ROSEAU 25`2 83 . 51
106 NEW PRAGUE 3, 099 83 . 32
107 OAKDALE 12 . 320 82. 50
108 CRYSTAL 26 , 970 82 . 30
109 WHITE BEAR LAKE 23, 510 22 . 13
110 BLOOMINGTON 78 , 780 79 . 46
111 GOLDEN VALLEY 22, 920 79 . 16
112 RICHFIELD 40 , 830 79. 15
113 COTTAGE GROVE 18 , 5:',0 73 . 82
114 ST PAUL PARK 5, 600 78. 17
115 FRIDLEY 32,670 77 . 52
116 MAPLEWOOD 27, 530 77 . 33
117 BUFFALO 4 , 332 75 . 53
118 SAVAGE 4 , 200 76 . 11
119 LITTLE CANADA 7, 140 74 . 8
120 WEST ST PAUL 18, 680 74 . 28
121 EXCELSIOR 2, 890 71 . 6
122 WAYZATA 4 , 220 70 . 93
123 NEW HOPE 22, 550 70 . 21
124 MAPLE GROVE 17, 750 67 . 40
125 LA CRESCENT 3 , 296 67 . 20
126 MOUNDS VIEW 13 , 340 66 .04
127 APPLE VALLEY 20, 300 65. 25
128 MINNETRISTA 3, 760 64 . 06
129 CHASKA 8, 290 63 . 93
130 BURNSVILLE 36 ,240 63 . 11
131 SHOREWOOD 4 , 580 62. 04
132 BAYPORT 2 ,940 61 . 95
133 BROOKLYN PARK 40, 380 61 . 44
134 DEEFHAVEN 3 ,670 61 . 43
135 PROCTOR 3, 123 61 . 40
136 ORONO 7, 120 60. 54
137 ST ANTHONY 8,710 59. 51
138 HAM LAKE 7,010 57. 96
139 EAGAN 20, 460 57 . 89
140 BLAINE 31 ,070 57.87
141 MAHTOMEDI 4,000 56 . 24
142 MOUND 9,490 54 .67
143 ELK RIVER 6, 183 54 . 39
144 CIRCLE PINES 4 ,090 54 .26
3
7 CITIES IN MINNESOTA
RANKED BY PER CAPITA STATE I FEDERAL AIDS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31 , 1979
COVER 2,500 IN POPULATION]
PER CAPITA
STATE AND
RANK NAME OF CITY POPULATION FEDERAL AID
145 CHAMFLIN 8,580 53. 97
146 INVER GROVE HEIGHTS 17, 750 53 . 12
147 MENDOTA HEIGHTS 7, 400 52. 99
148 CHANHASSAN 6 , 330 51 . 82
149 NEW BRIGHTON 23, 620 51 . 50
150 OSSEO 2, 840 51 . 48
151 NORTH ST PAUL 12, 310 50 . 95
152 RAMSEY 8 , 780 50. 00
153 LAKEVILLE 13' 980 49. 78
154 ROSEVILLE 38 , 120 48 . 90
155 LINO LAKES 4 , 660 48 . 26
156 GOODVIEW 2 , 581 46 . 97
157 EDINA 46 , 700 45 . 58
158 PLYMOUTH 29, 850 43 . 61
159 SHOREVIEW 16, 540 42. 88
160 VADNAIS HEIGHTS 4 , 860 41 . 22
161 LAKE ELMO 5, 100 40 . 42
162 ARDEN HILLS 7 , 450 40 . 40
163 ANDOVER 8 ' 790 39 . 82
164 HUGO 3 , 780 37 . 22
165 EAST BETHEL 5, 820 36 . 42
166 LAUDERDALE 2 , 530 29 . 74
167 DAYTON 3 , 948 22 . 84
168 PRIOR LAKE 6 . 650 . 00(
# FAILED TO REPORT
4
. 7
TABLE 2
CITIES IN MINNESOTA
RANKED BY PER CAPITA FEDERAL AID
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31 , 1979
COVER 2,500 IN POPULATION)
PER CAPITA
RANK NAME OF CITY POPULATION FEDERAL AID
1 MOUNTAIN IRON 3,294 434 . 77
2 GILBERT 2. 655 312 . 84
3 PRINCETON 2 , 531 203 . 14
4 AURORA 2.793 192 . 99
5 FERGUS FALLS 12, 443 173. 22
6 CHISHOLM 5. 913 161 . 20
7 INTERNATIONAL FALLS 6 .439 160. 62
8 MORRIS 5. 366 160. 16
9 EAST GRAND FORKS 7, 891 144 . 49
10 ST PAUL 268 . 710 133 . 23
11 MINNEAPOLIS 369,090 118. 85
12 HOYT LAKES 3 , 634 116 . 75
13 DULUTH 100 ,578 112. 43
14 MONTEVIDEO 5 .745 112. 23
15 MANKATO 30 .895 111 . 41
16 BRECKENRIDGE 4 .200 101 . 94
17 TWO HARBORS 4,437 100. 77
lb ST JAMES 4. 027 93 . 48
19 ELY 5 . 254 85 . 61
20 SOUTH ST PAUL 21 , 300 82. 67
21 BEtMIDJI 11 . 490 74 . 45
22 WELLS 2. 791
73 . 84
23 ROCHESTER 59 . 337 72 . 43
24 CROOKSTON 8 . 499 67. 52
25 GLENNWOOD 2.584 60. 93
26 THIEF RIVER FALLS 8. 618 58 . 45
27 MOORHEAD 29 , 687
57. 67
2►, WINONA 26 . 438 55. 81
29 AUSTIN 26 . 210 52 . 96
70 DETROIT LAKES 6.352 52. 83
31 GRANITE FALLS 3.225 47. 12
32 HOPKINS 15. 300 44 . 55
33 WORTHINGTON 10. 362 43. 55
34 RED WING 12. 834 39. 28
35 ST CLOUD 42,223 38 . 76
h SAUK CENTRE 3 . 750 37.22
37 BROOKLYN CENTER 32 , 950 36 .51
38 SHAKOPEE --_ ____ 10. 770 35. 80
39 WAYZATA
4,220 ---- 34.51
40 TRACY 2.516 34 . 45
41 LITTLE FALLS 7.467 33.83
42 BENSON 3,549 33. 18
43 ORTONVILLE 2.665 31 .25
44 ST PETER 8.539 31 . 23
45 ST LOUIS PARK 44 ,000 30 . 35
'4 WILLMAR 13 .632 29. 48
47 WHITE BEAR LAKE 23.510 29.30
48 FARIBAULT 16.595 25. 72
49 SPRING VALLEY 2.572 25.71
5
X
CITIES IN MINNESOTA
RANKED BY PER CAPITA FEDERAL AID
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31r 1979
COVER 2,500 IN POPULATION]
PER CAPITA
RANK NAME OF CITY POPULATION FEDERAL AID
50 WASECA 6 , 968 25. 43
51 SARTELL 2, 665 25 . 33
52 CLOQUET 11 ,439 23 . 19
53 F'IPESTONE 5' 32B 24 . 69
54 NORTHFIELD 10,235 24 . 29
.5 BRAINERD 11 , 667 24 . 17
56 OAKDALE 12 ,320 23 . 81
57 STAPLES 2, 761 23 . 51
59 ALEXANDRIA 6 ' 973 '2 , 06
59 ALBERT LEA 19, 416 21 . 66
60 ROBBINSDALE 14 , 510 21 .48
61 NEW ULM 13 , 051 20. 80
62 BLOOMINGTON 78 , 780 20. 44
63 MORA 2 , 582 20 . 34
64 COON RAPID`• 36 , 910 20 . 34
65 SAUK RAPIDS 5,099 20. 25
66 GRAND RAPIDS 7, 247 19. 81
67 LE SUEUR 3, 745 19 . 37
68 SHOREWOOD 4 . 530 16 . 41
69 WAITE FA1;N 2, 824 18 . 78
70 ROSEAU 2 , 552 17. 9 '
71 STEWAF:TVILLE 2. 60: 17 . 66
72 GLENCOE 4 . 21 -, 17 . 61
73 HUTCHINSON 8 , 289 17 . 43
74 OLIVIA 55? 17 . 35
75 COTTAGE GROVE 18 , 530 17 . 08
76 CR'iSTAL 26 , 970 15 . 71
77 FARMINGTON 4 . 670 16 . 58
79 PARK RAPIDS 2772 1,:. . 11.1
79 MARSHALL 10, 215 15 . 69
80 EVELETH 5 . 176 15. 47
81 OWAT'ONNA 15, 341 15 . 44
92 WADENA 4 , 640 15. 1 ;
83 SLEEPY EYE 3, 461 15. 05
84 REDWOOD FALLS 4 ,774 14 . 63
85 STILLWATER 13, 480 14 . 47
86 FOREST LAKE 4 , 570 14 . 1:'
87 VIRGINIA 12. 450 13 . 49
88 MINNETRISTA 3 ,760 13 . 32
89 MINNETONKA 40, 590 13 . 27
90 WOODBURY 10, 150 13 . 15
91 SAVAGE 4, 200 13 . 13
92 BROOKLYN PARK 40,380 13 .08
93 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 21 , 270 13. 00
94 JACKSON 3,550 12 . 35
95 FRIDLEY 32, 670 12 . 13
96 NEW PRAGUE 3, 099 12. 03
97 MAF'LEWOOD 27 ,530 , 12. 02
98 FAIRMONT 10,751 11 . 83
6
•
7
CITIES IN MINNESOTA
RANKED BY PER CAPITA FEDERAL AID
FOR THE YEAR ENDEI+ DECEMBER 31 , 1979
COVER 2.500 IN POPULATION]
PER CAPITA
RANK NAME OF CITY POPULATION FEDERAL AID
99 LITCHFIELD 5,262 11 . 75
100 LAKE CITY 3, 657 11 . 61
101 SPRING LAKE PARK 7, 290 11 . 29
102 HIBBING 16, 104 11 . 19
103 NORTH MANKATO 7,347 10 . 71
104 ANOKA 15, 250 10. 65
105 EXCELSIOR 2'890 10 . 61
106 LA CRESCENT 3, 296 10. 47
107 BLUE EARTH 3 ' 965 10. 28
108 NEWPORT 3 , 470 10. 27
109 CALEDONIA 2, 619 10. 20
110 ROSEMOUNT 5 . 260 10 . 15
111 BAYF'ORT 2, 940 10 . 06
112 ST ANTHONY 8 , 71092
113 HUGO 3, 780 0. 'F
1 1 4 MAPLE GF:O!'E 17, 750 9. 73
115 SILVER BAY 3. 504 9. 73
116 CIRCLE FINES 4 , 090 9. 69
117 BUFFALO 4 . 332 9 . 65
118 HASTING'E 13 - F70 9 . 59
119 OSSEO 2, 840 9 . 50
120 SPRINn IELD 2. 530 9. 47
121 NEW HOPE 22, 550 9 . 28
122 EDEN PRAIRIE 13. 720 8 . 95
123 CAMBRIDGE 3, 177 8 . 65
124 GOLDEN VALLEY 22 , 920 F_ . 72
125 CHASKA. 81290 8 . 71
126 PROCTOR 3. 123 8. 69
127 HF.RMANTOWN 7. 170 8. 59
128 WINDOM 3 , 95: 8 . 51
129 LINO LAKES 4 , 6.60 8. 20
130 ELK RIVET: 6 ' 133 8 . 03
131 ST PAUL PARK 5, 600 7. 96
132 MOUND 9. 490 7.87
133 EAST BETHEL 5, 820 7. 65
134 BLAINE 31 . 070
7 . 11
135 BURNSVILLE 36,240 7 . 37
136 WEST ST PAUL 18, 680 7. 19
137 MOUNDS VIEW 13 , 340 7. 13
138 LAKE ELMO 5' 100 7.08
139 LUVERNE 4, 703 7. 04
140 APPLE VALLEY 20 . 300 7.04
141 RICHFIELD 40, 830 7.04
142 EAGAN 20 , 460 6. 75
143 NEW BRIGHTON 23. 620 6. 65
144 CHANHASSAN 6. 330 6 .51
145 LITTLE CANADA 7. 140 6 . 31
146 VADNAIS HEIGHTS 4.860 • 6 .22
147 MAHTOMEDI 4.000 6. 16
7
I
CITIES IN MINNESOTA
RANKEI+ BY PER CAPITA FEDERAL AID
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31 , 1979
(OVER 2, 500 IN POPULATION]
PER CAPITA
RANK NAME OF CITY POPULATION FEDERAL AID
148 G00DVIEW 2,581 6 . 07
149 INVER GROVE HEIGHTS 17, 750 5 , 58
150 MENDOTA HEIGHTS 7, 400
151 ROSEVILLE 38, 120 5 . 65
152 SHOREVIEW 16, 540 5 . 62
153 HAM LAKE 7, 010 5 . 55
154 NORTH ST PAUL 12, 310 5 . 06
155 EDINA 46 , 700 4 . 92
156 LAKEVILLE 13, 980 4 . 92
157 DEEPHAVEN 3 , 670 4 . 85
158 RAMSEY 8, 780 4 . 70
159 ORONO 7 , 120 4 . 67
160 ANDOVER 8, 790 4 . 58
161 FALCON HEIGHTS 5 , 770 4 . 47
162 ARDEN HILLS 7, 450 4 . 34
163 BABBITT 3 . 076 4 , 3.3
164 CHAMPLIN 8, 580 4 . 25
145 LAUDERDALE 2 . 530 3
1.66 PLYMOUTH 29 . E: ,O 3 3 . _99
. 2
•
167 DAYTON 3 . 48 3 . 09
168 PRIOR LAKE 69650 . 00#
# FAILED TO REPORT
8
7
TABLE 3
CITIES IN MINNESOTA
RANKED BY PER CAPITA STATE AID
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31r 1979
COVER 2 , 500 IN POPULATION]
PER CAPITA
RANK NAME OF CITY POPULATION STATE AID
1 MOUNTAIN IRON 3, 294 926 . 30
2 GILBERT 2+ 655 504 . 13
3 ELY 5,254 288 . 77
4 CHISHOLM 5, 913 271 . 64
5 INTERNATIONAL FALLS 6+ 439 270 . 14
6 FERGUS FALLS 12+443 262 . 12
7 HOYT LAKES 3. 634 237. 61
8 LITTLE FALLS 7 , 467 215 . 04
9 BABBITT 3+076 213 . 59
10 VIRGINIA 12, 450 213 . 19
11 SILVER BAY 3 ' 504 208 . 61
12 GLENWOOD 2+ 584 195 , 25
13 HIBBING 16 , 104 190 . 79
14 MINNEAPOLIS 369 , 090 184 , 00
15 GRAND RAPIDS 7,247 181 . 70
16 EVELETH 5 , 176 178 . 30
17 CLOQUET 11 , 439 143 . 66
16 AUSTIN 26 , 210 143 . 24
19 WORTHINGTON 10 , 362 142 . 61
20 HERMANTOWN 7. 170 142. 28
21 ST PAUL 268 , 710 142. 19
22 NORTH MANKATO 7, 347
23 AURORA 142 . 16
2. 793 139 . 57
24 TWO HARBORS 4 , 437 139 . 00
25 WILLMAR 13 ,632 136 .01
26 ANOKA 15+ 250 135 . 56
27 MONTEVIDEO 5. 745 134 . 77
28 FARIBAULT 16+ 595 130. 84
29 LITCHFIELD 5 '262 129 . 91
30 MANKATO 30+ 895 129 . 53
31 BEMIDJI 11 , 490 125 . 63
32 PARK RAPIDS 2, 772 125. 33
33 ALEXANDRIA 6r973 124 . 80
34 CROOKSTON 8, 499 124 . 24
35 STAPLES 2. 761 123 . 41
36 DETROIT LAKES 6 ' 352 121 . 56
37 BRAINERD 11 ,667 121 . 40
38 ST CLOUD 42,223 118 . 53
39 TRACY 2,516 116 .88
40 ST JAMES 4 + 027 115 . 83
41 WASECA 6. 968 115. 42
42 HASTINGS 13, 870 115 . 28
43 ROSEMOUNT 5, 260 115 . 13
44 RED WING 12,834 114 . 98
45 JACKSON 3,550 113 . 75
46 BENSON 3,549 113 . 30
47 PRINCETON 2'531 113 . 19
48 MORA 2,582 112.24
49 LE SUEUR 3,745 112.03
9
7
CITIES IN MINNESOTA
RANKED BY PER CAPITA STATE AID
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31 , 1979
COVER 2 ,500 IN POPULATION)
PER CAPITA
RANK NAME OF CITY POPULATION STATE AID
50 DULUTH 100,578 110. 14
51 ORTONVILLE 2, 665 107 . 74
52 WELLS 2 , 791 107 . 16
53 SLEEPY EYE 3 , 461 106 . 87
54 WAITE PARK 2, 824 106 . 42
55 REDWOOD FALLS 4 , 774 105 . 29
56 HUTCHINSON 8 . 238 105. 09
57 PIF'ESTONE 5, 328 104 . 90
58 MORRIS 5 , 366 104 . 61
59 LUVERNE 4 , 703 104 . 51
60 SAUK RAPIDS 5 . 099 t03 . 70
61 NEW ULM 13, 051 103 . 04
62 WINDOM 3 , 952 101 . 22
63 MARSHALL 10 , 215 100 . 13
64 BRECKENRIDGE 4 ,200 99 . 97
65 SPRING VALLEY 2' 572 99 . 56
66 STILLWATER 13. 480 98 , 87
67 ALBERT LEA 19, 418 98 . 76
63 EAST GRAND FORKS 7, 891 97 . 98
69 FAIRMONT 10, 751 95 . 57
70 OWATONNA 15 , 341 94 . 94
71 WINONA 26, 438 93 , 93
72 THIEF RIVER FALLS 8 , 618 93 . 26
73 ROCHESTER 59, 337 92 . 67
74 LAKE CITY 3 , 857 92 . 15
75 NOF:THFIELD 10.235 90 . 42
76 MOORHEAD 29 , 687 90 . 41
77 OLIVIA 2. 553 89 . 94
78 STEWARTVILLE 2i802 89 . 62
79 SOUTH ST PAUL 21 , 300 89 . 60
80 CAMBRIDGE 3 , 177 88 . 69
61 CALEDONIA 2,619 88 . 65
82 SAUK CENTRE 3, 750 86 . 70
83 BLUE EARTH 3 , 965 85. 69
84 GLENCOE 4,217 82.86
85 ROBBINSDALE 14 : 510 82 . 58
86 SARTELL 2, 665 82 . 36
87 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 21 ,270 81 . 93
88 ST LOUIS PARK 44 ,000 81 . 63
89 SPRING LAKE PARK 7,290 81 .57
90 WOODBURY 10. 150 80. 46
91 FALCON HEIGHTS 5, 770 79. 89
92 GRANITE FALLS 3,225 79 . 71
93 FOREST LAKE 4,570 77. 64
94 EDEN PRAIRIE 13 , 720 76. 51
95 SPRINGFIELD 2,530 76. 07
96 MINNETONKA 40, 590 75. 51
97 NEWPORT 3,470 74 . 42
98 WADENA 4,640 74 . 15
10
/F
CITIES IN MINNESOTA
RANKED BY PER CAPITA STATE AIt'
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31 , 1979
COVER 2. 500 IN POPULATION]
RANK NAME OF CITY PER CAPITA
____ FOF'ULATION STATE AID99 ST PETER 8 , 539 73 . 79
100 FARMINGTON 4 ,670
101 RICHFIELD 72 . 61
40,830 72. 11
102 HOPKINS 15, 300 71 . 96
103 COON RAPIDS 36 , 8102
3
104 NEW PRAGUE 71 . 30
1099 71 . 30
105 GOLDEN VALLEY 22, 920 70. 44
106 ST PAUL PARK 5, 600
107 LITTLE CANADA70 . 21
108 WEST ST PAUL 7, 140 66 . 55
18 , 680
109 BUFFALO 67 .
4 , 332 66 . 8888
110 BROOKLYN CENTER 32,950 66 . 76
111 CRYSTAL 26 , 970
112 ROSEAU 65 . 59
2, 552 65 . 559
113 FRIDLEY 32, 670
114 MAF'LEWOOID 27. 530 65 . 39
7r30 65 . 311
115 SAVAGE 4 , 200 62 . 97
116 COTTAGE GROVE 18, 530 61 . 74
117 EXCELSIOR 2. 890
118 NEW HOPE 22. 550 6 . 93
60 . 93
119 BLOOMINGTON 78, 780 59 . 02
120 MOUNDS VIEW 13 . 340 58 . 91
121 OAKDALE 12. 320
122 APPLE VALLEY 59 . 69
�0, 30G 588 . 21
1
123 MAPLE GROVE 17, 750 57 . 66
124 LA CRESCENT 3. 2962
125 DEEPHAVEN6 . 58
3' 670 56 . 58
126 ORONO 7, 120 55. 87
127 BURNSVILLE 36.240
128 CHASKA 8, ' 55 . 73
c90 55 . 22
129 WHITE BEAR LAKE 23.510
3
130 PROCTOR ., �"7
311..3 52 . 72
131 SHAKOPEE 14._,_775 ___ -.52..._42
132 HAM LAKE 7.010
52 . 41
133 BAYPORT 2. 940 51 . 89
134 EAGAN 20. 460 51 . 13
135 MINNETRISTA 3, 760 50. 74
136 BLAINE 31 ,070 50. 47
137 MAHTOMEDI 4 ,000
138 CHAMPLIN 8,580 50 . 08
139 ST ANTHONY 49. 72
140 BROOKLYN PARK 8 , 710 49. 59
40.380 488. 366
141 MENDOTA HEIGHTS 7,400 47. 34
142 INVER GROVE HEIGHTS 17,750 47 .24
143 MOUND 9,490 46 . 79
144 ELK RIVER 6. 183 46 . 36
145 NORTH ST PAUL 12.310 45 . 88
146 CHANHASSAN 6.330 • 45. 32
147 RAMSEY 8.780 45. 31
11
7
CITIES IN MINNESOTA
RANKED BY PER CAPITA STATE AII►
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31 , 1979
(OVER 2, 500 IN POPULATION]
PER CAPITA
RANK NAME OF CITY POPULATION STATE AIL
148 LAKEVILLE 13, 980 44 . 86
149 NEW BRIGHTON 23, 620 44 . 84
150 CIRCLE PINES 4 , 090 44 . 56
151 ROSEVILLE 38, 120 43 . 25
152 SHOREWOOL 4 , 580 43 . 13
153 OSSEO 2, 840 41 . 98
154 GOODVIEW 2 , 581 40 . 90
155 EDINA 46 , 700 40 . 65
156 PLYMOUTH 29 , 850 40 . 31
157 LINO LAKES 4 , 660 40 . 06
159 SHOREVIEW 16, 540 37 . 26
159 WAYZATA 4 ' 220
36 . 42
160 ARDEN HILLS 7, 450 36 . 06
161 ANDOVER 8, 790 35. 25
162 VADNAIS HEIGHTS 4 ,860 35 . 00
163 LAKE ELMO 5, 100 33 . 33
164 EAST BETHEL 5 , 820 28 . 76
165 HUGO 3 , 780 27 . 44
166 LAUDERDALE 2 . 530 25 . 76
167 DAYTON 3 . 948 19 . 75
168 PRIOR LAKE 6 , 650 . 00#
# FAILED TO REPORT
•
12
7
TABLE 4
CITIES IN MINNESOTA
RANKED BY PER CAPITA FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31 + 1979
COVER 2,500 IN F'OF'ULATIONJ
PER CAPITA
FEDFSAL
RANK NAME OF CITY REVENUE
POPULATION SHARING
____
1 RED WING 12,834 36 . 54
2 SPRING VALLEY 2,572 21 . 46
3 ST CLOUD 42 ,223 21 .26
4 TRACY 2+516 21 . 25
5 MINNEAPOLIS 369 , 090 21 . 16
6 ALEXANDRIA 6 ' 973 20 . 58
7 STAPLES 2,761 20. 32
8 ORTONVILLE 2 + 665 19. 41
9 FERGUS FALLS 12+ 443 19 . 00
10 WAITE PARK 2' 824 18 . 78
11 ST PAUL 268 , 710 18 . 76
12 MANKATO 30, 895 18 . 72
13 WINONA 26 + 438 18 . 35
14 INTERNATIONAL FALLS 6+ 439 18 . 07
15 SARTELL 2' 665 18 . 04
16 SAUK CENTRE 3 , 750 17 . 92
17 DULUTH 10C + 578 17. 57
18 CLOQUET 11 .439 17 . 32
19 CHISHOLM 5 , 913 16 .95
20 MORA 2, 582 16 . 64
21 LITTLE FALLS 7, 467 16 . 42
22 ST JAMES 4 + 027
16 . 25
23 GRAND RAPIDS 7, 247 16 . 08
24 ALBERT LEA 19, 418 16 . 07
25 HUTCHINSON 8,288 15 . 91
26 GRANITE FALLS 3+225 14 . 81
27 BENSON 3 ,549 14 .24
28 SOUTH ST PAUL 21 , 300 14 . 06
29 CROOKSTON 8+499 13 . 99
30 MONTEVIDEO 5, 745 13 . 76
31 NEW ULM 13,051 13 .67
32 FARMINGTON 4 ,670 13. 61
33 REDWOOD FALLS 4 , 774 13 . 50
34 MORRIS 5+ 366 13 . 44
35 EAST GRAND FORKS 7 +891 13 . 41
36 SLEEPY EYE 3 , 461 13 . 10
37 MARSHALL 10,215 13. 07
36 BRAINERD 11 , 667 12 . 88
39 DETROIT LAKES 6 , 352 12 . 79
40 FARIBAULT 16, 595 12. 71
41 PIPESTONE 5. 328 12.54
42 BEMIDJI 11 , 490 12. 51
43 SAUK RAPIDS 5,099 12. 42
44 WOODBURY 10, 150 12. 30
45 LE SUEUR 3,745 12. 11
46 ROCHESTER 59,337 12.08
47 AUSTIN 26,210 11 . 84
13
7
CITIES IN MINNESOTA
RANKED BY PER CAPITA FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31 , 1979
COVER 2, 500 IN POPULATION]
PER CAPITA
FEDERAL
REVENU=
RANK NAME OF CITY POPULATION SHARIOi
48 FAIRMONT 10 , 751 11 . 83
49 VIRGINIA 12, 450 11 . 77
50 LITCHFIELD 5 , 262 11 . 75
51 JACKSON 3,550 11 . 62
c,-, LAKE CITY 3, 857 11 . 61
53 STEWARTVILLE 2' 802 11 . 48
54 WASECA 6, 968 11 . 26
55 PRINCETON 2, 531 11 . 17
56 COON RAPIDS 36 ,810 11 . 11
57 PARK RAPIDS 2, 772 11 . 03
58 OLIVIA 2 ,553 10 . 94
59 OWATONNA 15 . 341 10 . 83
60 FOREST LAKE 4 , 570 10 . 80
61 MAF'LEWOOD 27 , 530 10 . 79
62 NORTH MArNKATO7, 347 10 . 71
63 WELLS 2, 791 10 . 65
64 NEWPORT 3 , 470 10 . 27
65 NORTHFIELD 10,35 10 . 16
66 ROSEMOUNT 5, 260 10 . 15
67 OAKDALE 121320 10. 08
68 SHAKOF'EE 10.+ 770 10 . 01
69 MOORHEAD 29, 687 0 . 94
70 CALEDONIA 2, 619 9 . 91
71 WORTHINGTON 10, 362 9. 82
72 BAYPORT 2, 940 9 . 79
73 GILBERT 2, 655 9 . 64
74 GLENCOE 4 , 217 9 . 5„
75 GLENWOOD 2, 584 9. 53
76 SPRINGFIELD 2, '330 9 . 47
77 COTTAGE GROVE 10, 530 9 . 46
78 ANOKA 17 .250 9 . 41
79 HOYT LAKES 3, 634 9 . 33
80 WILLMAR 13,632 9 . 23
81 BLUE EARTH 3, 965 9. 02
82 CAMBRIDGE 3 . 177 8 . ;;;
83 THIEF RIVER FALLS 8' 618 8. 85
84 NEW PRAGUE 3 ,099 8 . 82
85 HASTINGS 13. 870 8. 78
86 BUFFALO 4,332 8 . 61
87 WINDOM 3,952 8. 57
88 STILLWATER 13, 480 8. 45
89 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 21 , 270 8. 30
90 BLOOMINGTON 78, 780 8.24
91 LINO LAKES 4, 660 8. 20
92 BRECKENRIDGE 4,200 8 .08
93 HIBBING 16, 104 8. 08
94 ST PAUL PARK 5,600 • 7. 96
14
7
CITIES IN MINNESOTA
RANKED BY PER CAPITA FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31 , 1979
[OVER 2 , 500 IN POPULATION ]
PER CAPITA
FEDERAL
REVr NL�E
RANK NAME OF CITY POPULATION SHAFT I N
95 EVELETH 5 , 176 7. 65
96 EDEN PRAIRIE 13 , 720 7. 57
97 TWO HARBORS 4 , 437 7. 50
98 BURNSVILLE 36, 240 7. 37
99 LA CRESCENT 3,296 7. 25
100 CIRCLE FINES 4 , 090 7. 23
101 WADENA 4 , 640 7 . 07
102 LUVERNE 4, 703 7. 04
103 FRIDLEY 32, 670 6 . 87
104 NEW HOPE 2', 550 6 . 79
105 BROOKLYN CENTER 32, 950 6 . 67
106 WEST ST PAUL 18, 680 6 . 64
107 AURORA 2, 793 6. 63
108 SPRING LAKE PARK 7, 290 6 . 60
109 CHANHASSAN 6 , 330 6 . 51
110 LAKE ELMO 5 , 100 6 . 50
111 CHASKA 8 , 290 6 . 50
112 MOUNDS VIEW 13, 340 6 . 45
113 LITTLE CANADA 7 , 140 6 . 31
114 EAST BETHEL 5 , 820 6 . 25
115 SAVAGE 4, 200 6 . 17
116 MAHTOMEDI 4 . 000 6 . 16
117 BROOKLYN PARK 40 , 380 6 . 14
118 MOUNTAIN IRON 3, 294 6 . 11
119 GOODVIEW 2, 581 6 . 07
120 WHITE BEAR LAKE 23, 510 6 . 05
121 PROCTOR 3 . 123 5 . 81
122 INVER GROVE HEIGHTS 17, 750 5 . 75
123 ST LOUIS PARK 44 , 000 5 . 69
124 SHOREVIEW 16, 540 5. 62
125 ELY 5 . 254 5. 61
126 BLAINE 31 , 070 5 . 58
127 HAM LAKE 7,010
5 . 55
128 ROSEAU 20:.52 5 . 48
129 HOPKINS 15, 300 :5 . 42
130 EXCELSIOR 2,890 5. 27
131 NEW BRIGHTON 23,620 5 . 24
132 ELK RIVER 6, 183 5. 21
133 EAGAN 20,460 5 . 20
134 MINNETONKA 40, 590 5. 20
135 ROSEVILLE 38 , 120 5. 18
136 ROBBINSDALE 14,510 5. 17
137 APPLE VALLEY 20, 300 5. 15
138 NORTH ST PAUL 12,310 5. 06
139 RICHFIELD 40, 830 5. 02
140 MINNETRISTA 3,760 5. 01
141 MENDOTA HEIGHTS 7,400 4 . 94
15
7
CITIES IN MINNESOTA
RANKED BY PER CAPITA FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31 , 1979
COVER 2, 500 IN POPULATION]
PER CAPITA
FEDERAL
REVENUE'
RANK NAME OF CITY POPULATION SHARING
142 ST ANTHONY 8,710 4 . 94
143 GOLDEN VALLEY 22 . 920 4 . 09
144 HUGO 3 . 780 4 . 05
145 DEEPHAVEN 3. 670 4 . 85
146 WAYZATA 4 , 220 4 . 83
147 EDINA 46 . 700 4 . 77
148 VADNAIS HEIGHTS 4, 860 4 . 75
149 CRYSTAL 26, 970 4 . 71
150 ORONO 7, 120 4 . 67
151 HERMANTOWN 7. 170 4 . 63
152 SHOREWOOD 4 , 580 4 .5£,
153 MOUND 9, 490 4 . 54
154 ST PETER 8, 539 4 . 50
155 FALCON HEIGHTS 5. 770 4 . 47
156 OSSEO 2, 840 4 . 4;.
157 SILVER BAY 3 , 504 4 . 37
158 ARDEN HILLS 7 , 450 4 , 34
159 BABBITT 3, 076 4 . 33
160 LAKEVILLE: 13 .9130 4 . 31
161 MAPLE GROVE 17 , 750 4 . 29
162 CHAMF'L IN 8 , 560 4 . 25
163 ANDOVER 0. 790 4 , 15
164 LAUDERDALE 2 . 530 3. 93
165 RAMSEY 8. 780 3. 83
166 DAYTON 3 ,940 3 . 09
167 PLYMOUTH 29 , 850 2. 29
168 PRIOR LAKE 6 ,650 . 00
•
16
-71712147(A.4 L. ..rt-124tAik
E 5
CITIES
TINLMINNESOTA �1C "jG67 'L 'fuL���
RANKED BY PER CAPITA LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID `� l'`'° ��'�t � � � ��
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31 ► 19?9 Z k.4/ 1:'tCOVER 2.500 IN POPULATION] % �� �`k
CiL''f 2. -<-T'''7
PER CAPITA
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
RANK NAME OF CITY
POPULATION AID
1 MINNEAPOLIS 369.090 123 . 16
2 CHISHOLM 5. 913 110. 11
3 STAPLES 2. 761 102 . 00
4 GILBERT 2+ 655 100. 93
5 PARK RAPIDS 2. 772 98 .26
6 LITTLE FALLS 7. 467 96 . 57
7 MORA 2 .582 95 . 65
B FERGUS FALLS 12. 443 95. 60
9 DETROIT LAKES 6 + 352 95. 11
10 TWO HARBORS 4 . 437 94 . 01
11 VIRGINIA 12 . 450 91 . 12
12 BEMIDJI 11 + 490 90 . 63
13 ALEXANDRIA 6 . 973 89. 19
14 TRACY 2. 516 86 . 13
15 WAITE PARK 2 .824 85 . 40
16 ST PAUL 268. 710 84 . 64
17 GLENW00D 2.564 83 . 09
IB NORTH MANKATO 7. 347 82 . 81
19 BRECKENRIDGE 4. 200
20 HIBBING 79 .89
16x104 79. 41
21 ST CLOUD 42. 223 77. 89
22 INTERNATIONAL FALLS 6 .439
76 . 90
23 CROOKSTON 8 . 499 76 . 60
24 WELLS 2. 791 76 . 57
25 FARIBAULT 16.595 75. 90
26 ST JAMES 4 .027 75 . 87
27 BENSON 3.549 75 . 70
28 JACKSON 3. 550 75. 24
29 ALBERT LEA 19. 418 74 . 63
30 SLEEPY EYE 3. 461 74 . 17
31 MORRIS 5. 366 73 . 65
32 BRAINERD 11 .667 73 . 42
33 CLOQUET 11 , 439 73.07
34 WASECA 6. 968 72 . 83
35 SAUK RAPIDS 5.099 72 . 24
36 LE SUEUR 3. 745 71 . 53
37 LUVERNE 4 .705 71 . 46
38 SPRING VALLEY 2.572 71 . 38
39 CAMBRIDGE 3. 177 71 . 29
40 PRINCETON 2.531 71 .20
41 MANKATO 30.895 70. 83
42 WORTHINGTON 10. 362 70 . 19
43 CALEDONIA 2.619 69.82
44 LITCHFIELD 5.262 69.80
45 PIPESTONE 5.328 69.50
46 EVELETH 5, 176 69. 12
47 EAST GRAND FORKS 7.891 69.04
17
1 CITIES IN MINNESOTA
RANKED BY PER CAPITA LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31 ► 1979
COVER 2, 500 IN POPULATION]
PER CAPITA
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
RANK NAME OF CITY POPULATION AID
48 MONTEVIDEO 5, 745 68. 82
49 DULUTH 100, 578 60 . 53
50 STEWARTVILLE 2, 802 67 . 36
51 HUTCHINSON 8, 288 67 . 27
52 REDWOOD FALLS 4 , 774 67 . 08
53 OLIVIA 2 '553 66 . 54
54 AUSTIN 26, 210 66 . 43
JJ SAUK CENTRE 3, 750 66 . 29
56 ORTONVILLE 2,665 66 . 08
57 OWATONNA 15 , 341 66 . 07
58 ELY 5 , 254 65 . 22
59 WINONA 26 . 438 64 . 90
60 THIEF RIVER FALLS 8 , 6113 64 . 54
61 NEW ULM 13,051 63 . 19
62 BLUE EARTH 3 , 965 63. 01
63 WILLMAR 13, 632 62. 55
64 WINDOM 3 , 952 62 . 4=
65 GRAND RAPIDS 7, 247 62 . 43
66 FAIRMONT 10, 751 62 . 27
67 LAKE CITY 3. 857 60 . 90
68 MOORHEAD 29, 687 59 . 12
69 WADENA 4 , 640 58 . 84
70 NORTHFIELD 10, 235 58 . 77
71 RED WING 12,834 57 . 66
72 GLENCOE 4 , 217 56 . 34
73 GRANITE FALLS 3, 225 56 . 22
74 ROCHESTER 59 , 337 51, . 07
75 FOREST LAKE 4 ,570 55. 39
76 ROSEAU 2, 552 55. 33
77 SPRINGFIELD 2, 530 53. 82
78 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 21 , 270 53 . 75
79 AURORA 2,793 52 . 91
BO HASTINGS 13, 870 49 . 93
81 NEWPORT 3, 470 49 , 50
82 MARSHALL 10 ,215 49 . 37
83 SARTELL 2,665 48 . 21
84 NEW PRAGUE 3, 099 48. 15
85 FARMINGTON 4 ,670 47. 60
86 HOYT LAKES 3, 634 45 . 31
87 BUFFALO 4,332 44 . 24
88 RICHFIELD 40,830 44 . 17
89 ST PETER 8 ,539 44 . 14
90 STILLWATER 13,480 44 . 12
91 ROBBINSDALE 14 ,510 43 .80
92 LA CRESCENT 3, 296 41 . 25
93 COON RAPIDS 36,810 41 . 14
94 SOUTH ST PAUL 21 . 300 ' 40 . 94
18
1
CITIES IN MINNESOTA
RANKED BY PER CAPITA LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31 , 1979
EOVER 2, 500 IN POPULATION)
PER CAPITA
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
RANK NAME OF CITY POPULATION AID
95 HOPKINS 15 , 300 40 . 46
96 ANOKA 15, 250 39 . 99
97 EXCELSIOR 2, 890 39 . 77
98 ST PAUL PARK 51600 38 . 97
99 SILVER BAY 3 ,504 38 . 57
100 WEST ST PAUL 18. 680 38 . 20
101 MINNETONKA 40, 590 38 . 05
102 ST LOUIS PARK 44 , 000 37 . 17
103 COTTAGE GROVE 18, 530 37. 00
104 GOLDEN VALLEY 22 , 920 36 . 33
105 DEEF'HAVEN 3, 670 36 . 30
106 MINNETRISTA 3, 760
107 CRYSTAL 26, 970 35 . 30
. 7
53.
J J . 3 O
108 NEW HOPE 22 , 550 35 . 28
109 BROOKLYN CENTER 32, 950 35 .25
110 PROCTOR 3 , 123 34 . 38
111 MAPLEWOOD 27, 53C :44 . 22
112 FRIDLEY 32 , 670 ;3 . 77
113 MAHTOMEDI 4 , 000 33 . 29
114 OAKDALE 12 , 320 3:A . 22
115 BAYPORT 2 , 940 32 . 00
116 BLOOMINGTON 78 . 780 31 . 56
117 CIRCLE PINES 4 , 090 31 . 60
118 NORTH ST PAUL 12, 310 31 . 61
119 MOUNDS VIEW 13 , 340 31 . 20
120 WHITE BEAR LAKE 23 , 510 31 . (F,
121 ROSEMOUNT 5, 260 30 . 13
122 WOODBURY 10, 150 29 . 5 '
123 SHOREWOOD 4 ,580 29 . 43
124 SHAKOPEE 14,77 G 28 . -'a
125 OSSEO 2, $4G 28 . 38
126 BURNSVILLE 36 ,240 28 . 32
127 BROOKLYN PARK 40, 380 27 . 73
128 LINO LAKES 4 ,660 27 . 46
129 HERMANTOWN 7, 170 27 . 23
130 MENDOTA HEIGHTS 7, 400 26 . 65
131 ST ANTHONY 8, 710 26 . 62
132 ELK RIVER 6, 183 25 . 54
133 LITTLE CANADA 7, 140 26. 45
134 ORONO 7, 120 26 .07
135 NEW BRIGHTON 23, 620 25 . 89
136 BLAINE 31 ,070 23 . 71
137 VADNAIS HEIGHTS 4, 860 25 . 62
138 GOODVIEW 2,581 25. 42
139 LAKEVILLE 13, 980 25 . 13
140 MOUND 9,490 . 24 . 61
141 CHAMPLIN 8,580 24 . 56
19
CITIES IN MINNESOTA
7
RANKED BY PER CAPITA LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31 . 1979
COVER 2.500 IN F'OFULATION]
PER CAFITA
LOCAL
RANK NAME OF CITY GOVERNMENT
____ POPULATION AI )
142 FALCON HEIGHTS 5,770 24. 53
143 INVER GROVE HEIGHTS 17. 750 24 . 34
144 EDEN PRAIRIE 13, 720 24 . 33
145 CHANHASSAN 6+ 330 24 . 31
146 SPRING LAKE PARK 7,290 23 . 48
147 SHOREVIEW 16 + 540
148 WAYZATA 4 . 220 22 . 28
22 . 98
149 ROSEVILLE 38+ 120 22. 72
150 MOUNTAIN IRON 3 , 294 22. 66
151 APPLE VALLEY 20+ 300 21 . 99
152 LAKE ELMO 5+ 100 21 . 88
153 SAVAGE 4,200 21 . 77
154 MAPLE GROVE 17, 750 21 . 15
155 ARDEN HILLS 7,450 20 . 44
156 EDINA 46, 700
157 LAUDERDALE 19 . 69
2+ 530 19 . 29
158 CHASKA 8 . 290 18 . 85
159 HAM LAKE 7.010 18 . 04
160 PLYMOUTH 29, 850 17 . 93
161 HUGO 3. 780 16 . 71
162 EAST BETHEL 5 .820 15. 94
163 EAGAN 20, 460 15 . 75
164 RAMSEY 8. 780 12. 88
165 DAYTON 3. 948 12. F;
166 BABBITT 3,076 11 . :'1
167 ANDOVER 8+ 790 10 . 21
168 PRIOR LAKE 6. 650 .004
• FAILED TO REPORT
20
JulIus A.GOLLER, II i\
JULIUS A.COLLER ATTORNEY AT LAW 612-445-12/4
1859-1940
2 1 1 WEST FIRST AVENUE
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
553Z9
March 13, 1981
7,,, ,,,;, a , v
x
AtiA3 1. 7 1981
CITY OF SHAK P E
Mrs. Judy Cox, City Clerk
Shakopee City Hall
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Mrs. Cox:
In re: Liquor license fee
Empire Vending & Music Co. , Inc.
This is a followup on your memo to me regarding the above dated February 3,
1981.
Attempt was made to contact Mr. Thomas Green at 155 Gleason Road, Wayzata,
Minnesota, 55391. The letter was returned marked 'Unknown. '
Subsequently, Mr. Green was again sent a letter at tthe Empire Vending &
Music Corp. 3185 Casco Circle, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 and this letter
was returned marked 'Moved: No forwarding address. '
Under the circumstances, I am returning the 'rubber check' which was the
subject matter of the above correspondence as uncollectible unless we
get further information as to the whereabouts of Mr. Greenand of course
Garcia's Bar & Restaurant are no longer at the Valley Mall. Should you get
further info that looks promising, return the check to me and we'll try it
again.
Very truly yours,
Julius Coller, II
Shakopee City Attorney
JAC/bpm
THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SHAKOPEE
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ACCOUNT/UNUMBER
0. —$
A— 1 WE CHARGE YOUR ACCOUNT AND € RETURN UNPAID THE FOLLOWING ITEMS,ENDORSED BY YOU. 05-012--0
REASUN FOR RETURN KEY DRAWN BY DRAWN ON AMOUNT
1. INSUFFICIENT FUNDS Carlyle
`�f nnn tJ� �# fly#.yp� 5A; epa �y {i!i
2. PAYMENT STOPPED 1 Cart 'a Sar & Rest* 0109845 2550-0.00
3. ACCOUNT CLOSED
4. SIGNATURE IRREGULAR
5. ENDORSEMENT C.
6. DATED AHEAD - O
7. AMOUNTS DIFFER I� V
8. NO ACCC.INT , ,A '.. ' :r -5 W
4 "'_{
1g TOTAL 2550.00 LL
`)-• ' City of Shi,kopee J t ‘,'; 7 - I z
- � APPROVED BY: Q
?_,y L'e m'r CO
3\ CITY F s ~_OS E
Shakopee, :-tN 55379
o:09 L90 L943�: C50,0120xt 11'F 2'
t
Preset), i twice
-- 'I'viukt$ eigmiek RESTAURANT - 1 0 5 7
Date • PHONE 612-445-2694
75 -984
MINNESOTA VALLEY MALL No. 28
f�' 4 SHAHOPEE, MN 55379 / t_ s.5-199 O F/
/ 75-984
10
LOOF
� /,�/�Q�+_ :____._:: „.7... _ .::,
(fic
--f'4(�lC�CJ//�`�L - -✓ Os
E F. Gam( -e► "' .ED NOT PDOLL
LLA •S
�� a The 'EASY PLACE - [(�:/18‘ NSF
K.
Bank WA OTA 4 v PRESENTED 0
and Trust Compaq 55341 1` —
91:09 L00913451: 06 58 7 1'0 2 .00000 2 5 5000.1'
Ec;:kw
MEMO TO : Julius A. Coller, City Attorney
FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk
RE: Liquor Licensee Fee
Empire Vending and Music Co . Inc .
DATE : February 3 , 1981
In conjunction with an application for an on sale intoxicating
liquor license I received a check in the amount of $2 ,550 .00 .
Of this , $2 ,350.00 was also one-half of license still due for
Garcia ' s fee , which the new owner was now going to pay - the
$200 .00 was for a Sunday license which Garcia did not have .
The check for the Empire Vending and Music Co . Inc . license was
run through the bank twice and returned to the City because of
insufficient funds . Unfortunately the check is written on an
account entitled Garcia ' s Bar and Restaurant , I suppose because
the new owner was acting as the manager in the interim and had
authority to do so .
Does the City have any recourse to obtain the lost revenue?
JSC/jms
cc : Fi ance Director
i3Oity Administrator
/
AD HOC CABLE COMMUNICATION COMMITTEE
Shakopee , Minnesota
Adjourned Regular Session March 23 , 1981
Vice-Chairwoman Christensen called the meeting to order at 7 : 10 p .m.
in the Council Chambers of City Hall , with Committee members present :
Abeln, Christensen , Davis , Gorman and Kirchmeier . Chairman Foudray
was absent . Also present was guest speaker Ms . Vicky Long from the
Minnesota Cable Communications Board , Jeanne Andre Administrative
Assistant , and John Anderson City Administrator .
The Committee decided to meet at the Junior High parking lot for the
Dakota County tour which will be held on March 30 , 1981 from 6 :00 p .m.
to 8 :00 p .m.
Those Committee members who attended the workshop made a brief report
on the different workshops they attended .
Vice-Chairwoman Christensen opened the floor to the guest speaker ,
Vicky Long from the Minnesota Cable Communications Board .
Question 1 . What are the considerations in establishing a filing
fee? What amount is most appropriate for a CST the size of Shakopee?
Answer : You must be realistic when determining the amount of the
filing fee . Only 50 percent of the households take cable in about
5 years . You can estimate 1700 houses will be covered in the City
of Shakopee in five years . Another consideration would be how much
work the Committee will be doing or how much work will be required
by a consultant . Vicky commented that the $10,000.00 filing fee was
a little high for the City of Shakopee .
Question 2 . What are the advantages and disadvantages of completing
a draft cable ordinance prior to publication of the Invitation for
Application ( IFA) ? Should a draft of the ordinance be included in
the IFA?
Answer : In the past a preliminary ordinance was not done but if
the Committee wants the companies to know what the Committee has
accomplished , it is a good idea to draft an ordinance before the
publication of the Invitation for Applications (IFA) , which is
now called a Request for Proposals (RFP) .
Question 3 . What are the regulations and considerations involved
in establishing a 3 percent or 5 percent franchise fee?
Answer : The City can automatically charge a 3 percent franchise
fee . However it must request a waiver from the FCC in order to
charge a 5 percent fee . To be granted a waiver, the City should
demonstrate that it has incurred additional expenses related to
regulating the cable system.
Ad Hoc Cable Communication Committee 11
Page Two
March 23 , 1981
Question 4. Is there any advantage to a line extension policy of 40
units per mile versus one of 10 units per quarter-mile? What are the
considerations in establishing a line extension policy?
It will be easier for the Cable Companies to install the cable for
the 10 dwellings per quarter mile , as this is a less restrictive
policy. The Southwest territory used 40 homes per mile , which is more
restrictive . The later policy would require extension to a new
subdivision a mile from existing service . The impact of the policy
on overall rates is a factor in adopting a policy .
Question 5 . Is the requirement of an active two-way system for the
Shakopee CST realistic and what are the cost ramifications of such
a requirement? Is requirement of a two-way trunk a better alterna-
tive?
Answer : Vicky suggested that this is not a realistic request . The
active two-way system is very expensive and the areas having this
two-way convenience are not currently making a profit on this service ,
thereby driving up overall rates .
Question 6 . What are the considerations in establishing a policy on
underground cable installation if all other utilities are underground
versus if any utilities are underground .
Answer : It costs more for installation of the cable underground .
If other utilities are underground , it is economical to have the
cable run underground . However , if poles are available for rental
by cable company , this is the most economical alternative and will
lead to the cheapest rates .
Question 7 . What is a reasonable amount for a performance bond?
Are there any guidelines to establish the amount of a performance
bond?
Answer : Again, Vicky remarked that the Committee should make a
reasonable request . The amount for a performance bond depends
upon the cost and amount of work done in the City , however she
knows of no set formula.
Question 8 . Should the RFP be specific and require the Cable
Companies to furnish many different requirements?
Answer : Some communities are very specific and feel they will get
what they want by being specific . Other communities have a more
general RFP and ask the company what they can offer the City. Vicky
recommended not to get too specific , as some of the channels speci-
fied may be changed or improved in the near future . Regarding
access studios and equipment , she recommends modest initial requests
with an understanding the City will request the Company to provide
additional equipment as access gains in popularity . Expensive
unused equipment drives up rates without benefiting the community .
Ad Hoc Cable Communication Committee
Page Three
March 23 , 1981
Question 9 . Should you be specific when stating the priorities and
criteria for the different Cable Companies?
Answer : Whatever priorities or criteria are established for the
Cable Companies should be followed and utilized in the evaluation
process .
Davis/Abeln moved to adjourn the meeting. Meeting was adjourned
at 9 : 10 p .m.
Eileen Christensen
Vice-Chairwoman
Mary Arlt
Recording Secretary
/ 2
MINUTES OF THE
SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
(Regular Meeting)
The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in regular session on
March 2, 1981, at 4:30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room.
Commissioner Bishop offered a prayer for divine guidance in the delibera-
tions of the Commission.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Bishop, Nolting, and Reinke. Also
Superintendent Leaveck, Manager VanHout and Secretary Barbara Menden.
Motion by Nolting, seconded by Reinke that the minutes from the February
2, 1981, regular meeting be approved as kept. Motion carried.
BILLS READ
City of Shakopee 20,032.00
Marvin Athmann 170.20
Auto Central Supply 21.15
Anderson Machine 141.46
Battery and Tire Warehouse 179.94
Burmeister 35.43
Burroughs 358.86
Burroughs 700.06
Burroughs 1,263.64
Capesius Agency 2,145.00
City of Shakopee 4,888.10
City of Shakopee 1,015.90
Chanhassen Lawn & Sports 123.44
Chas Olson & Wheel Service 166.14
Chicago & NW Transportation 180.00
John Dellwo 9.26
Dicks Service 13.00
Dressen Oil Co. 177.45
Dunnings Hardware 43.19
Fresco 941.00
Ray Friedges 20. 17
Graybar 5,994.53
General Electric 177.60
H & C Electric Supply 4,102.94
Hennen's Skelly 18.95
Krass Meyer & Kanning 88.00
Layne Minn. Co. 60.34
Leef Bros. , Inc. 19.62
MMUA 2,261.66
Northern States Power 886.86
Northern States Power 264.10
Pitney Bowes 89.25
Gene Pass 155.48
River Electric Ass'n 4,000.00
Sand Mechanical 88.85
Kent Sanders 4.06
Schilz Ornamental 123.50
Schoell & Madsen Inc. 5,858.45
Serco Laboratories 3.1.50
Shakopee Services 36.00
Shakopee Public Utilities 162.13
St. Regis Paper Co. 5,094.00
Suburban Engineering 539.50
Suel's Business 11.51
Water Products Inc. 2,609.12
Ar-Jay Equip Co. , Inc. 60.13
Northern States Power Co. 160,246.27
Motion by Nolting, Seconded by Reinke, that the bills be allowed and
ordered paid. Motion carried.
A public hearing was held on rules and regulations for co-generation
and small power producers. Motion by Reinke, seconded by Nolting, to open
the public hearing to comply with the federal regulatory agency for the
purpose of co-generation and small power producing plant. Motion carried.
No one was present for the public hearing.
A discussion was held on the rules presented.
Motion by Reinke, seconded by Nolting to close the public hearing in
regard to the rules and regulations for co-generation and small power
producers. Motion carried.
Manager VanHout reported on the favorable decision by the Minnesota
Supreme Court on the co-op lines.
Motion by Reinke, seconded by Nolting to present Resolution #224 A
Resolution Designating an Official Publication. Ayes: Commissioners
Bishop, Nolting, Reinke. Nayes: none. Motion carried Resolution passed.
A discussion was held on the electric bills for the ice arena. A
letter will be sent to them.
Motion by Reinke, seconded by Nolting, to offer Resolution #225. A
Resolution authorizing entry into a contract with Shive-Haddery and Associates.
Ayes: Commissioners Bishop, Nolting and Reinke. Nayes: none. Resolution
passed. Motion Carried.
Superintendent Leaveck reported no loss time accidents for February 1981.
Motion by Reinke, Seconded by Nolting that the meeting be adjourned.
Motion carried.
olo
Loui VanHout, Manager
I 'a-1
MINUTES OF THE
SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
(Special Session)
The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in special
session on March 9, 1981, at 7:30 P.M. in SPUC offices.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Bishop, Nolting, and Reinke.
Also Superintendent Leaveck and Manager VanHout.
Derick Dahlen of Peat Mauvick & Co. presented some findings
in his financial studies.
The findings were discussed, and will be put into form to
present to a joint SPUC/City Council meeting to be requested
March 24.
Motion by Nolting, seconded by Reinke, that the meeting be
•
adjourned. Motion Carried.
v
'6.44-)(/‘""74'
Louis VanHout, Manager
MINUTES OF THE
SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
(Special Session)
The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in special session on
March 9, 1981, at 7:30 P.M. in SPUC meeting room.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Bishop, Nolting and Reinke. Also Manager
VanHout, City Engineer Spurrier, and City Administrator Anderson.
Commissioner Bishop offered a prayer for divine guidance in the delibera-
tions of the Commission.
City Engineer Spurrier presented the feasibility study of Bluff Avenue.
Commissioner Reinke questioned why is 8" needed. City Engineer stated that
B1 district may need 2500 GPM maximum. Commissioner Bishop questioned if the
tie on Prairie from 1st. to Bluff was needed now. City Engineer stated that
it was not necessarily needed now. Commissioner Nolting questioned on why
SPUC is charged with oversizing. City Engineer stated that one side of the
street is B1 and one side is R3. Commissioner Nolting stated that this is
not the way SPUC intended to do things. A consensus of the SPUC Commission
shows that the mains between 2 zones are to be sized at a higher size and
extra cost is to be paid by the higher use area for the oversizing on the
other side. The Commission questioned the need for cross tie up on Prairie
St. City Engineer stated that it is needed to meet possible future needs of
that area due to zoning. A consensus of the Commission is if the tie is to
be put in, it is not a proper SPUC expense now and is not in the future if
put in due to development needs.
Motion by Commissioner Nolting, seconded by Commissioner Reinke that
in regards to Bluff feasibility report to concur with 8" main in Bluff; and
do not concur, or see need at this time, for the 8" main on Prairie between
Bluff and 1st. and also not to pay any part of oversizing on Bluff Ave. due
to commercial development So. of Bluff. Motion Carried.
Motion by Nolting, seconded by Reinke, that the meeting be adjourned.
Motion Carried.
dt.,14^491—
.ui
anHout, Manager
/-5
PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MARCH 12, 1981
Chrm. Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with Comm. Koehnen, Coller,
Perusich, Stoltzman and Vierling present. Comm. Rockne appeared later, as did H.
R. Spurrier, City Engineer. Also present were Tim Keane, City Planner and John K.
Anderson, City Admr.
Coller/Koehnen moved to approve the minutes of January 8, 1981, with the correction
of Page 2, Paragraph 6, "pumping stacks" inserted instead of "covers". Motion
carried with Comm. Perusich abstaining.
Koehnen/Perusich moved to amend the minutes of February 12, 1981, to read on
approval of January 8, 1981 minutes, "motion failed; lack of majority vote".
Motion carried unanimously.
Koehnen/Perusich moved to approve the minutes of February 12, 1981, as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
Coller/Perusich moved to approve the minutes of February 26, 1981. Motion carried
unanimously.
Public Hearing (cont. from 2-12-81) Conditional Use Permit for Class II restaurant/
game room - Gary Shehan (PC 81-3C) :
Coller/Perusich moved to remove the request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate
a fast food restaurant in a B-1 Zone from the table. Motion carried unanimously.
Comm. Koehnen expressed her concern about the lack of input from Mr. Fleck. He had
said he would try to appear at the meeting, but he did have a previous meeting to
attend.
Comm. Rockne arrived.
The City Planner presented the revised site plan. The applicant received a
recommendation from Mn/DOT concerning the access drives to the site. Mn/DOT
recommended the access for this property and that of Shakopee Ford be combined into
one access drive, and the other accesses to each property be eliminated. Staff is
willing to accept this shared driveway arrangement on a trial basis.
The Planner stated City Council is presently considering putting sidewalk along Co.
Rd. 17 and he recommended sidewalk along Highway 101, since it is an arterial
road.
Loren Habegger spoke for the applicant and stated they have no problem with putting
in sidewalk as long as the other businesses did also, so it would go someplace.
He also stated the highway dept. is still evaluating if the combined driveway will
be shifted a little. He said they would be sure there was some division on the west
side for parking containment, and he thought there was already some existing curb
and possibly a fence there.
Comm. Coller expressed his concern with tie traffic going west on Highway 101 backing
up and motorists unable to make a left turn off the premises onto the highway.
• . Proceedings of the March 12, 1981
Shakopee Planning Commission Page -2-
The City Engineer arrived.
Chrm. Schmitt stated that this business will create an additional magnet and should
be addressed as far as enforcement. We are asking for a safety risk if the traffic
is not regulated closely and more regularly. He asked the City Admr. to make these
concerns knows.
Comm. Rockne stated 4 traffic problem will exist at this location regardless of
the use of the property. He then suggested approaching the state with the
intention of moving the speed limit slow-down out further.
Loren Habegger stated that in the future a left turn area may be considered for
Co. Rd. 17.
The City Engineer stated that if there is any desire to move speed limits, a study
must be undertaken by the State Traffic Engineer -- That is the only agency that
has the authority.
Comm. Coller asked about exterior lighting and Loren Habegger replied that it will
be lit in the rear. He also stated that Mr. Shehan is buying the building and will
own the whole operation, it is not a lease . Mr. Shehan will beeputting in quite
an extensive amount of equipment in the kitchen especially, and is concerned about
the short length of the permit.
Chrm. Schmitt stated this is standard for the first couple of years of operation,
after that time if there are no problems it is usually extended to 2-5 years.
This is our vehicle of control in the event we encounter any problems.
Comm. Perusich stated that if the applicant takes care of the needs identified by
the CUP, there shouldn't be any problem with renewal.
Mr. Shehan asked about the possibility of having the business open after curfew hours
for adults only. Discussion was held about enforcement problems , after which
Comm Colldr suggested restricting the hours of the game room which would still
allow adult patrons in the restaurant after curfew hours.
Comm. Coller expressed his concern about outside loitering. Mr. Shehan stated
it would be strictly supervised, with no loitering allowed. Comm. Coller stated
his concerns that this area be policed and tightly supervised.
Comm. Koehnen said her conversation with Mr. Fleck centered on his basic concern
with the traffic, and that has been addressed thoroughly here.
Perusich/Coller moved to close the public hearing. motion carried unanimously.
Coller/Vierling moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 270,
a permit to allow the operation of a fast food facility in a B-1 zone, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The permit is granted to Gary Shehan for annual renewal.
2. Submission of a drainage plan to be approved by the City Engineer.
3. Submission of a landscape plan with a schedule and quantities of plant materials.
4. Adult supervision of the premises at all times of operation to insure reasonable
standards of behavior and litter control.
5. Game room hours of operation are limited to curfew regulations.
6. Submission of a plan to contain parking along the west property line.
7. All parking areas to be paved with asphalt or concrete.
8. Submission of a lighting plan with illumination of minimum of one candlepower
over all parking areas during all evening hours of operation, to be directed away
from residential areas. Motion carried unanimously.
• Proceedings of the March 12, 1981 `,3
Shakopee Planning Commission Page -3-
Discussion - Century Plaza 2nd Addition (PC 81-4P) :
The City Planner stated that the sketch plan of Century Plaza 2nd Addition had
been first reviewed at the February 12, 1981, meeting at which time discussion
was tabled until all members could be present. The Planner stated the principal
concern is that it is zoned B-2, Community Business, and as such subject to 5
acre minimum lot size. The plat consists of approximately 15 acres. The
developer has indicated his pinas are not so much to develop a specific lot
layout as to get a plat approval so he can market lots to potential buyers as
the need arises. Under the new subdivision regulations, he will be permitted to
plat a parcel of land and then come back and subdivide with a simple split.
He really is in effect limited to two lots, 7 acres on one side of the road and
8 acres on the other.
Chrmn. Schmitt said the original shopping center concept was going to consume
the entire B-2 area. If County Road 17 will change in character along the
frontage, maybe we should change with it.
The Planner stated that if the property is rezoned up to B-1, it is a zone where
anything goes, so if you are thinking of a specified land use you should be
looking in the direction of creating a new zoning district. Additional districts
allow you more flexibility.
Chrmn. Schmitt stated that if the general trend is going to change, we should
change with it, maintaining reasonable standards. He wouldn't be opposed to
some zoning changes if the land is not practical for a shopping center.
The Planner suggested examination of the surrounding land uses and deciding
what land uses are compatible; what community needs have to be served in this
area, and suggested the possibility of amending the zoning to allow business with
less than 5 acres as conditional use.
Chrmn. Schmitt suggested office to the west side and commercial to the east. Mr
Link didn't think there was a demand for office buildings in Shakopee.
Comm. Koehnen asked if the rest of the Commission felt the plan has been in
effect long enough to give it a fair test; are we into the process far enough
to really know.
Discussion continued on the zoning for this area on whether it was practicable
and if this zoning had been given a fair length of time to be workable.
Dick Wiggin stated the real problem is the tax bill, it makes it difficult to
hold property for any future project. He would like to see some highrises
with ground level commercial and apartments over them.
Comm. Koehnen asked if Mr. Link had had an opportunity to follow up on the City
Admin. suggestion of trying to recruit outside interest for an office complex.
Mr. Link answered "no". Chrmn. Schmitt mentioned there are two office and
medical buildings before the Council now for that area.
Mr. Link said that even if his two parcels were combined, it would not be much
area for a shopping center.
. Shakopee Planning Commission
March 12, 1981
Page 4
The City Planner said if you are thinking of shopping there, you need to identify
what level of service you are trying to attract. If you want another dale, you
should leave the whole 100 acres. You have generally designated 3 potential sites
for shopping centers without identifying needs more specifically.
Mr. Link said he didn't think there was a place in Shakopee where a small store
could set up. The Planner suggested all along B-1 on First Avenue, but only by
acquisition and demolition. Chrmn. Schmitt asked if we can offset that cost by
alternatives like tax increment and IR Bonds and how much further can the City
go with that type of financing.
Discussion was then held on financing through IR Bonds as it would pertain to
small businesses.
Mr. Link asked about the Commission's feeling on high density. Chrm. Schmitt said
it already exists as an adjacent use. Comm. Vierling said that if you put in high
density of the west side, it would be more conducive for shopping center for east
side.
Comm. Perusch and Stoltzman both thought the parcel could be broken down smaller.
Chrm. Schmitt summarized by stating we think we can be reasonably flexible in terms
of what we can do that is constructive to allow it to be developed, but in terms
of specifics, it is hard to do without further plans.
Comm. Koehnen expressed the concern of the CBD relative to opening of more land
outside the area for development. Chrm. Schmitt stated we haven't seen much action
on the part of the CBD and part of that shared concern implies some concern on
their part, and some evidence on their part that they want to do something.
The City Admr. said the City is trying to get a commitment from the businesspeople
to get things rolling again for the CBD, and he thinks that planning and coordina-
tion effort will take about 12 years for payoff.
Sandlewood 1st Addition - Extension of, Final Plat Application:
Discussion was held on the request by Dave McGuire, developer, on extension of
Final Plat application for Sandlewood 1st Addition.
Coller/Koehnen moved to recommend to City Council extension of the final plat
application for Sandlewood 1st Addition to December 31, 1981 because of delay en-
countered by City in acquiring street easement required in preliminary plat ap-
proval. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion: Traffic Circulation Plan, Minnesota Valley Mall area
The City Planner gave a presentation of a drawing illustrating what the extension
of 13th Avenue would look like and how it would abut the bypass right-of-way.
He talked to Mn/DOT District No. 5 Engineers in terms of connecting into the
off ramp, and was told this is not acceptable.
A discussion was held regarding dead-ending 13th Avenue into the MV mall parking
lot, but the City Engineer thought this was not possible because 13th would be a
collector street and the velocity is too high to link it into a parking lot, and
it would violate the expectations of the motorists and thereby put the city in a
liable position. The City Engineer stated it would be most appropriate to ask
staff to retain the services of a professional traffic engineer who is qualified
to address the various alternatives.
_ Shakopee Planning Commission
March 12, 1981 `3
Page 5
Dick Wiggin stated he didn't think this traffic problem would affect his plats of
Minnesota Valley 5th & 6th. People have already made 12th Avenue an arterial street,
and if Polk was completed, that would do something quick to help the traffic.
The City Engineer stated that everything they have looked at shouldn't affect the
first two filings. The part that caused the most problem was the safety part of
it. We could consider the platting of the frist 2 filings, but he would like to
reserve any opinion about the last plat until there is a study done.
The City Planner said he doesn't have any problem with the plat of 5th, but the
further south we go, the more we cut off our options. The City Engineer didn't
think that the development of 5th & 6th would interfere with any option of doing
something with 13th Avenue or any other access to the mall.
Dick Weigel of Watson Investments, Inc. stated that it is his company that is ab-
sorbing the carrying costs for this project, which they have been trying to get
going since last fall, and he couldn't see how any traffic study should affect
5th & 6th. With the utilities in and part of the roadway, it has to be developed
similar to this.
The City Admr. suggested the funding for the traffic study be from the general
fund contingency fund.
Coller/Vierling moved to recommend to City Council that they employ a traffic con-
sultant
to develop a proposal with several alternatives to effective traffic move-
ment for the area that includes the shopping center mall and a target response
time be established of 30 days. Motion carried unanimously.
Coller/Stoltzman moved that the Planning Commission go on record to
recommend to the developer that he proceed with the proposal of Minnesota
Valley 5th & 6th Additions and plat the proposed Minnesota Valley 7th
Addition as an outlot and that park dedication be in cash. Motion carried
with Comm. Vierling abstaining.
Mr. Wiggin invited the Commission out to look at a finished townhouse he had built,
at 1222 Polk.
A discussion was held about some screening to separate residential from the commer-
cial, and Chrm. Schmitt said it is the responsibility of the commercial developer to
do the screening, but it is maybe too late with the shopping center. Lr Wiggin
said the property does belong to Kmart and Minnesota Vallley Shopping Center. Chrm
Schmitt said Kmart is still under the obligation of the existing ordinance to screen,
but it might be worth Mr. Wiggin's checking into in terms of selling his lots.
Discussion: Sign Ordinance
Coller/Vierling moved to approve the section of New Definitions with the changes
under Free Standing Ground Signs - Any business free standing ground sign which
projects less than 7 feet above ground level is considered a ground sign; and the
title of the last paragraph is Non-conforming Signs. Motion carried unanimously.
Coller/Stoltzman moved to approve the section of Industrial/Flood Plain Standards
with the change under A. Area Identification 1) Freestanding - Not more than 75
sq. ft. nor higher than 15 feet. Motion carried unanimously.
is
• Shakopee Planning Commission
March 12, 1981
Page 6
Coller/Rockne moved to approve the section of I-2, Heavy Industrial District with
the change under A. Area Identification 1) Freestanding - Not more than 100 sq. ft.
nor higher than 15 feet. Motion carried unanimously.
Coller/Vierling moved to approve the section of Complex Center Signs with the change
under B. Area identification 1) Freestanding - Not more than 200 sq. ft. nor higher
than 30 feet. Motion carried unanimously.
Coller/Koehnen moved to approve the section of Setbacks and Site Lines as presented.
Motion carried unanimously.
Coller/Koehnen moved to approve the section of B-1, Highway Business, Sign Limita-
tions as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
Vierling/Perusich moved the recommendation of the Sign Ordinance to the City Coun-
cil as amended for incorporation into the ordinance. Motion carried with Schmitt
voting no.
Discussion: Zoning Height Limitations
The City Planner informed the Commission that he has continued his search with
various agencies and nobody has done anything directly pertaining to the question
of permitting structures for wind generators, and would therefore suggest each
request be treated as a Conditional Use Permit and analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
Coller/Perusich moved to amend the Code in all districts to treat heights in excess
of the height limitations as Conditional Use Permit in all zones. Motion carried
unanimously.
Park Dedication Sliding Fee
Coller/Koehnen moved to approve the Park Dedication Sliding Fee Schedule with the
modification that the City may require provision of on-site parks. Motion carried
unanimously.
Subdivision Ordinance
The City Planner said the Security Agreements that are obtained have historically
been adopted by City Council Resolution and to incorporate them into the Ordinance
reduces the flexibility, so he would suggest having the agreement as a city policy.
Coller/Vierling moved that in the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 12.06, Subd. 11
be amended to strike the words "if required by City Council" and Section 12.08
be amended to include under the Waiver Conditions the words "Developer's Agreement".
Motion carried unanimously.
Coller/Vierling moved to recommend the adoption of the Subdivision Ordinance to
the City Council, subject to clarification by Mr. O'Neill. Motion carried
unanimously.
Comprehensive Plan
The City Admr. explained the compromises made with Met Council regarding the two
major problems of total sewer flows and the 22 acre rural residential lots.
Coller/Koehnen moved to go on record supporting the memo submitted by the City Admr.
dated March 11, 1981 regarding total sewer flows and the 22 acre rural residential
lots. Motion carried with Vierling abstaining.
Proceedings of the March 12, 1981
Shakopee Planning Commission Page -7-
Comm. Koehnen asked to have the Shakopee Sports Center's conformance of the
parking regulations checked out.
Comm. Rockne asked staff to call Mr. Wiggin to thank him for the invitation
to tour his townhouse, but to explain that because of the lateness of the
meeting we were unable to accept it.
Coller/Vierling moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting
adjourned at 11:50 PM.
John Schmitt
Chairman
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
/V
MEMO TO; John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger
City Planner
RE: Planning Commission Actions of April 9, 1981
DATE : April 14, 1981
At the Planning Commission meeting held April 9, 1981, the
Planning Commission heard and acted on the below listed cases :
Strehlow Conditional Use Permit Request ; This was a request for
a Conditional Use Permit to operate a nursery school in the down-
stairs apartment section of residence located at 3059 Hauer Trail.
This was given approval, subject to seven conditions . For your
information, I am attachingthe case report which lists these seven
conditions.
Sullivan/O' Sickey Conditional Use Permit Request : This is a request for a
Conditional Use Permit to operate a game room center in a B-3,
Central Business District . This request was denied by the Planning
Commission for reasons as cited in the case report , attached.
Michael Sullivan, one of the applicants, has indicated to me that
they will be appealing the Planning Commission decision to the City
Council. Should this be the case, the City Council will be hearing
the appeal at its meeting scheduled for May 5, 1981.
Newly Revised Sign Ordinance : A public hearing was held at the
Planning Commission level on this case and it was recommended by
the Plannning Commission for City Council adoption. The newly
revised Sign Ordinance has been submitted to the City Attorney for
his reviewal and subsequently will be coming to the City Council
at the May 5 , 1981 meeting.
Kmart Garden Center : Kmart Retail of the Minnesota Valley Mall
requested to have a temporary garden center constructed in their
parking lot (area of approximately 20 ' x 100' ) . The duration of
this center would be from April 1 to June 30th, 1981. The Planning
Commission approved this request with the direction to City staff
to monitor the garden center operation over the period of duration.
Horizon Heights 4th Addition: Walt Muhlenhardt , developer, discussed
this proposed plat with the Planning Commission. This was just a
sketch plan and met with favorable approval by the Planning Commission.
They did recommend, however, that the developer meet with the City
Engineer to discuss road grades .
John Anderson April 14, 1981 l
Planning Commission Action of 4/9/81 Page -2-
Austin Street Extension: Discussion was brought to the Planning
Commission by Gene Hauer, developer, who had his concerns as to
the extension of Austin Street southward. The developer would like
to plat this area and felt this was a necessary decision before he
could do so. The Planning Commission formally agreed to the
concept that Austin Street should not be extended further southward
from its present terminus but instead suggested the possibility
of a cul-de-sac at the end of Austin Street and the time of platting.
Comprehensive Plan/Sewer Flows : The Planning Commission concurred
with the City Council action of March 24, 1981, to designate two
75 acre areas of V.I. P. Ltd. property as Moratorium Alternative
Areas "X" and "Y" on the City' s 1980-90 Comprehensive Plan Sewer
Map.
jiw
Attachments
006
DATE: April 9, 1981
CASE : PC 81-8C
ITEM: Conditional Use Permit
APPLICANT: Maureen Strehlow
LOCATION: 3059 Hauer Trail
ZONING/LAND USE: R-2, Urban Residential/Home with downstairs
apartment
AREA: 3/4 Acre
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 11. 04 , Subd. 6; Section 11. 26,
Subd. 3C; Section 11. 05 , Subd. 10
FINDING REQUIRED: Section 11. 04 , Subd. 6A
PUBLIC HEARING
CASE HEARD BY PLANNING COMMISSION
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL:
Proposal :
The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use
Permit to operate a nursery school as a home occupation at the
above location.
Land Use Compatibility :
Surrounding land uses : North - R-2, Urban Residential/Vacant
hillside
South - R-2, Urban Residential/Residential
East - R-2, Urban Residential/Residential
West - R-2, Urban Residential/Residential
Urban services : All urban services are existing to the
proposed facility
Considerations :
1. The applicant desires to operate a nursery school in
the basement level of her home. The lower level has been used
as an apartment in the past .
2 . The nursery school is intended for 15-20 children. The
hours of operation are planned from 9 AM to Noon, Monday through
Thursday. Because of the relatively small size of the proposed
operation and because of the limited operating hours, the proposed
nursery school should not be detrimental to the existing surrounding
land uses .
3 . Tie homeowner (applicant ) and one certified teacher will
operate the school, which is in compliance with the home occupation
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance .
011% Aft LF
Maureen Strehlow PC 81-8C
Conditional Use Permit April 9, 1981
4 . The facility is intended to be operated within the
lower level of the home. No playground equipment is planned
for outside, however, a sandbox may be built . The home
occupation requirement of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits any
exterior indication of the operation, therefore, the nursery
school would have to be operated totally within the building.
5 . No exterior sign is planned for the operation of the
proposed nursery school.
6. The Zoning Ordinance requires five off-street parking
stalls for the proposed nursery school; plus two stalls for the
principle use of the building (single family homes) . The
residential parking requirement is satisfied by the existing
garage, while the nursery school parking requirement can be met
by four parking stalls existing at the side of the garage and by
the existing long, wide driveway .
7 . An increase in traffic will result from the operation
of the proposed nursery school. However, the number of cars
will not be great and only minimal impact on the surrounding
neighborhood should occur. The applicant intends to promote
carpooling to the greatest extent so as to further reduce
vehicular traffic .
8. The proposed nursery school will have to obtain a
state license for the facility prior to operation.
Staff Recommendations :
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit
to operate a nursery school subject to the following conditions :
1. The operation be conducted entirely within the
lower level of the existing building.
2. Only one person from outside the dwelling unit
be employed.
3. No exterior sign be used.
4 . The enrollment and hours of operation be limited to
9 : 00 AM to Noon, Monday through Thursday (as stated
above) .
5 . The nursery school be licensed by the State of
Minnesota prior to operation.
Planning Commission Action :
Approved Conditional Use Permit No. 271, subject to the following
conditions :
1) The operation be conducted entirely within the lower level
of the existing building.
DS/j iw
Amok 40",
Maureen Strehlow PC 81-8C
Conditional Use Permit April 9, 1981
2) Only one person from outside the dwelling unit be
employed;
3) No exterior sign be used;
4 ) The enrollment and hours of operation be limited to 9 : 00AM
to Noon, Monday through Thursday ;
5) The nursery school be licensed by the State of Minnesota
prior to operation;
6) The number of children be limited to a maximum of 20;
7) Annual review of Conditional Use Permit .
DATE: April 9, 1981
CASE: PC 81-9C
ITEM: Conditional Use Permit (Game Room Center)
APPLICANT: Michael Sullivan and Delbert O ' Sickey
LOCATION: 112 Lewis Street
ZONING : B-3, Central Business District
LAND USE : Vacant Commercial Building
LOT AREA: 4 ,650 Square Feet
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 11. 04, Subd. 6; Section 11. 31,
Subd. 3A
FINDINGS REQUIRED: Section 11. 04 , Subd. 6A
PUBLIC HEARING
CASE HEARD BY PLANNING COMMISSION
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
Proposal :
The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use
Permit to allow the operation of a game room center at the
above location.
Land Use Compatibility :
The game room center is proposed to be located in the
former Ben Franklin building. The area is zoned B-3 , Central
Business District and is surrounded by typical downtown land
uses : retail shops, services, entertainment businesses , second
story apartments, parking lots , etc .
Considerations :
1. The game room center is proposed to be located in the
building formerly occupied by the Ben Franklin store. The 4 ,575
square feet of floor area is intended to be used for game room
equipment consisting of pinball machines , foosball, pool tables,
electronic games , etc . Food vending machines and restrooms are
also included in the floor plan. Commercial amusement operations
require a Conditional Use Permit in the B-3 Zone.
2. It is anticipated that the proposed use will be an
attraction for a younger clientele (primarily teenagers) . Because
of this, several concerns need to be raised :
PC 81-9C April 9, 1981
Sullivan/O' Sickey Page -2-
a) The need may exist to supervise the younger
users of the game room center. The applicant
has indicated that two adult employees will
be available for the center' s operation and
supervision.
b) The proposed hours of operation are : Monday -
Thursday, 10 : 00 AM to 10 : 00 PM; Friday and
Saturday, 10 : 00 AM to 11 : 00 PM; Sunday, Noon
to 8 : 00 PM. City curfew hours for minors under
age 16 are from 10 : 30 PM to 5 : 00 AM. Because
the center' s operating hours extend beyond
the curfew hours on Friday and Saturday evenings,
enforcement of curfew hours could be difficult .
c ) With a younger clientele , the use of bicycles
to the game room center is increased. No facilities
currently exist or are planned by the applicant
for the parking of bicycles . Due to the relative
narrowness of the front sidewalk, the parking of
bicycles at this location could become a signifi-
cant problem. The rear alley is also highly
restrictive to the parking of bicycles.
d) Although the rear alley could accommodate a
dumpster for trash, an exterior litter problem
must also be addressed. Vending machines , such
as are planned in the center, tend to promote
exterior litter due to the type of food product
sold (snack-type food) .
3. The existing building has no on-site parking available,
which is typical of most businesses in the downtown. Parking does
exist within close proximity to the proposed game room center,
both on-street and within municipal parking lots . The block
of Lewis Street, within which the center is proposed to be located,
contains approximately 18 on-street parking stalls and 43 parking
lot stalls (across the street ) . A considerable number of both
on-street and parking lot stalls also exist within a city block of
the proposed business . Parking is shared by all businesses in the
downtown and the demand for parking varies by time of day and day
of the week.
4 . Signing for the proposed game room center is intended
to be placed on the upper front of the exterior of the building
(above the awning) .
5 . A major factor to be considered when reviewing the
game room center proposal is the potential effect of the operation
on neighboring businesses and residences ( 2nd story apartments ) .
Should a younger clientele prove to be the dominant user of the
center, congregations of youths and resulting noise may have a
PC 81-9C April 9, 1981
Sullivan/O' Sickey Page -3.
detrimental effect on existing businesses in the immediate area.
Apartment dwellers in the vicinity of the center may also be
adversely affected, particularly by any noise factor. Mitigat-
ing any potential detrimental affect on the surrounding land
uses should receive a high priority.
Staff Recommendations :
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit
to allow a game room center with the following conditions :
1) Two adult supervisors shall be present during peak
use hours to effective operate the business . The
operators of the game room center shall not permit
congregations of patrons or excessive noise to occur
at the exterior of the business .
2) So as to mitigate potential adverse effects on
existing neighboring businesses and residences
(apartments ) , operating hours on Friday and Saturday
shall be limited to a 10 : 30 PM closing time . The
proposed operating hours for the remaining days
shall be 10 : 00 AM to 10 : 00 PM, Monday through Thurs-
day and Sunday, Noon to 8 : 00 PM, (as stated earlier
in this report ) .
3) The applicant shall submit a plan which effectively
deals with patron bicycle parking.
4 ) The dumpster in the rear alley shall be enclosed
and the applicant shall submit a plan indicating
how trash and litter will be managed on the site.
5 ) The Conditional Use Permit shall be renewed annually
to review the operation of the game room center.
The Permit can, however, be revoked at any time
throughout each year if the conditions are neglected.
Planning Commission Action :
Denied subject to City Code requirements of Section 11. 04,
Subd. 6 A, Items No. 1 and 9.
1. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use
and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity
for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish
and impair property values within the immediate vicinity.
9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion.
DS/j iw
14 p 4 4 W N 4 4 • p J 3.131: 313 O� A.3 W W W U Wlll N ."8-•,•NN V N 41 N N NdN O 0,* V 0 4 ► U N O0 0 'Ila
p 4 AIW
1 I
I
(44(40"0""4,01W(04W * W W W W W I W W W W G1 WIC..W W rA * W W W W W iW W tN W W G1 W W t,.CA • (A.W W W I 11 r
U LA UI rs N S Ui N N • W W W W Wild W W W W W I W W W W •I • C,G7 0 0 ID.-C .O
.700 * TU1 .WWWWNNNNi•auu .) * WuuWWICAWWWWr!rrrr • r4-N..". (1Z m
aWNrC) 00 VT * 0.7c� FNrOWNc-.1DO VT • 0:n V TJ11aWNI-' .. U1.0WNr • N00.- Ino r
10
'0NbCmm.4>H Cl NlnbNi2.rnNANIncxx r 2rnmV) LISmcA03nmor -1 mO ✓fOIC n
r2.v) r Z22A2 A 13 A0 7-HO..1O1jm • 00 r •,1r '111Imrcoo ...•-••,m.. 0. .-sr = 'I 2J •••
1.ro aG1G)o 2C a C var2.'1ncnr v-smx'D n N Am crnCI-. 00GG)2m0 X Nr D2 �1r -•i
1 m m 2 • 1 . .-.> z n 2 Z•. 1!A n s..4 -4 '
... .-.d . m.-. m n m C)m rig S r r n > O..)C m 000 * N, -4
CO N l2 Z r -1 1 1 n m 1n r r m n m'I O V)r Z • M -12 ! 90 r • 1A O 0 co D. f'1 ,co
• O Vin .7mm r.. VI MO-CM dZ. m M .0 .-Om N .• A DIZ.-.r1.-4 m rA r• 0 r Ir'10 0
p '1 2 2 OOm< V)0 -c 1 C 0 0'O nm m m 2 •-. G• "11..1 2 2 D. n D i v.. A-1 r'1 N m m
!1
m m n S m -4 a• 2 0 w o s'o o m r 1 A O G1 O 2 co o o n A n a1 G) o m c-1 n r c, 0 < n 2
1V Z Z n 0 ••Z A O •-/-r 0 1< cm /. 2. 1. .. m D 2 > r 3`n r z to m 0 1'1 - .•1 0 m < Im m V)•
G>1 Xf1za > 0 > • _ » • 17C1P1Z > 2 > 3 )' 1 inr > rlr vvm N.. >2n 0mm a...m Z
210 1G)r-4C. -. arm 01312.• 22 ...-1 C.Z in 'DZ 11Ir mm fZ,r2Nm !!A 1 o O
1 GO v) -i m .-.r'1 0 2 A m>In V) •. Z 1) 72 1 b C$-. V.'10I.O A A r G:'11•-•tom,r')Z 1.-40 -41.' X
c .1mmoc cn N W I't DC7.-. n 11 U) -7CA max Onr V)N 11 V ..n .• n
> > I'111m o m -, r ... •• 03 z l A a .,..n cam.. m .. N c 0--n '9
A 0 A2 1 ...0 co.. 1I O0 o 1 2 Z 0 T-41m 22 N 1-Im m 2:C I'1
I n - <C1) l me a.7 • s ClAN .. A O•.11 .44102 rV)C '-4.nSA 2 m
n I I•• m C 1.-. '4. O •a C1 1 -. m I.1 -1 P ;-4 U• -ri m X v)m O
0 m ;n 'Tim • 0 >'O z > A n N 70 A(o 3 N In nor corn m 2
Z N mr1 v) 0 0 .41 -.421. 4 23 v i N m 04 V) -
O Io f 1 m C m ol 1 L f'1 .,., -1 2 n
• z I -• ...1 .4 1) u) •
c , 1., n IX V)V) m
v) 1•• N
r/ 1 V)44 0 I I
I
Cl
co
-4
m
<
i,,
• Z
C
In n
IC
A
31 1\1 Os 32
+
O V a N A
• • m
Wal to N 0 N N Co 1-• U).WWN m
r UIi(91•) .+'.,as. CO W U1 O Nrr ())N r O N 2.2
7 W1.' -1 NA) T N .0 a U)0V0 uNN0J1 n c
• • I• • • • • • • • I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -•-4
.�: c. H. ..i..,u u..J c:: GCI a 0 :1 .')O V C: u c)+J r) ,a u T O J 0 v I-.r 0 u c.)0 0 J J o u au 0.:r 0 r.:. C m
c1CA a J1 ..Ino .,.� u •', a.. ., u lu c 0 r,r c: o u u'a T U•0 c r r T u 0 c)u '♦ u u u u o a+u u o 0 r_ 2
O C
2 Cl
1 I I 1
a = 32
1 I I z m
a
2
0
I I C1
1
17
n
1
I
•,i
.Qi N I W I r C' - T co
.N CP'uof a IV N•"N UW rN 0( N W a N N 1
a _ u UI v, CO C) V VI ID CO r r u Ur a a W T u F A W O W •
• • 1• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1• • • • • • • -•- •
.:, yIJ1 V W IU O u,U UI W u rr'41.a a W N .A 000 a U)0 W 0 I.)0 0 V W a a a N(0 N 0 U) 2
.:, o•-, cJ CJ,:,7 Cl c..;. r O O u J ca .Q(n W O u o N V 0 u o O O O,7 52 0 010 C)O N .0 0 .0 T'1
c)., •onCIl � '1'v .0 a •0000 mON '3 000 O 000000 O 0 OV0000 V r* V 1C
• • • . • • '1. • • • I• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •- • • • Irl
a r•,i CL C; •r)•- r l c, - C, n O V Cr GIGO 0 O.7 C).)C)0 co m 0 O O O J 0 0•0 O 0•7 0 '.0 O h O O 0 O O I2
.2 )1,, '- )IC) c. :iI J IL IJ .:, Cl C, fC) C]0.., G .)f0.'1 t.) ..• .4 C)O .l C) J o 0 7 C,C)•' 0 ::1:)O O •)o :� O 'C
I I I I
I I ri
1 r - n
.- a T r r r r
N IrN T a .01 V 0 r 0 . s-.. A
• • • • • 1 • • • •
•.Nr T l 10,J T 0 MI N r a' I.0(0 T.0 P• 11-.• N V V >
r r•Q. W Ni.)O r Cr. .QI 0 I u C'N VN'arNOWNPO u 0 N n-.) 0
u('l:1 a rIC7•-) U) a .+r1 a u Vt r .O 0 NT N W lCl r UI Q.C) V V n
• • . • • I• • • I. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I • 1 O O
o..1a'•-+ W .,.'ip.a a,f.... ul u•J u u u u O u u u-s u u u u MOI .....W......V u u a it u a u L.
Co .11
C.'1,.1 rJ 010 0 L.1 1 n 0 0.0 o ,-2,0 r2 0 0. 0-, :, -(Pb,, a O O to o b r-O V o )b Z2 C.,:J,^. Cr, 0 U ON 0 Ir 0
GA
n 1
w
1 r
I V N 1 Nr T Y• I
iv Ur,N IO 0 V N IN.O W r N T W W N. r N m OO
W 1W OIc r c• u V 002r r r Ca Jt 03 N N N W a a.0 r o r W r
• 1 4 4 5 15 5 5 l• • • • • • • • • • • 4 . . • I • • • t • • IC
co(IW.O Nia o 010 rD W 10 L4 VIC)N WN CO I 0 d a W 01O+r(41c,r W N r W N NN CO 0 VIA D
.O COW W -V 1N O o 10 .0 N C_ O Ole.a U1Ic.10 i C2 4.'10 WI 01V u V;rn CO V C.)T V a OV W O (n.0 A
.. ..;Ln a .O.: .0 O ).,.IO a G IN •% • Cr'-�1 . .G CA )1,1,. u CO IW 0 T ' .o uta C.,G .D U V V .,
•
• • •
• • • • • • • • I• • • ,• • • • • • • • •- • • • • • • • • • • • •-1• •. • • • •'• • • 2.
0 U)U •D rJ C1 '-I u 0 0 0lu C) ,21.4.5 0 CV .J a _),..4 u 4.4.4... r u calm z, .1,i5... ..Mk., -)ca u au 0 c, Ji I) u a u Z 0
C` vlu N n.J) IJ.I ') n.,I., .II 1i0.20 , 21, ...40-,r1 .4 C .4( -)V I.Q _ W s 'i U. u ". a ) J) 4 In n
1 1 •) 1 11 1 1 1 III I 1 1 ) I1 1 1 1 1 11 1 I r 1 1 1 1 11 1 I • 1 1 1 I I I a m 0
•- I I I I r r m
r rnlW UI a rl, r TI r 1 I'I 1,-.ocis W r(N- W 1.a
u V i W UI VIN u iv! T N I A y u u T (1 it W W.D W . r
• • ''�• • • :• • • l • • 1 • • • • • • i• • • • • • ,,Li..• • • • 13
W0'0c C,IG .a p1 •
V uI (0I I r gar V oIT N r T -r T o o 1a. '.2 n
M 1 r
I
I1 ! `.
4.'It
1N'2.3P 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 PP3 3 4!4 3Y 3 34U • 3 A 3 3 \3,,t, :.12..4 WO W'?W Y?.._.'_l__W+yyNINNN UNN3 N+N O p.41•0 A W1=11'22!*4.\YLiI\-.... /
CIRC[IUCTION.S iNC •0I 1 - -- --
<V O U • ,1 NIU O O • V O I Y P Y N • O O • V p Y •I W N W I OW O 0 I V • Y I 3 W Il N 0 •I• V O I• • W N - 0 0 • V I• • •I W N -
* JI (44.4 W WW W WiW W G W W WIU G G W G WIG G W W W W W W W G W I TI•
* .0.0 .0 Co CO CD"D 731-4 V a.o Ln oIN N UI UI N UI N N U)U1 N UI N UI'U)UI U1 iD C .0
* W N N WNNrrIi*urm a w1>.i G W W W G WNNNNNyNrrr n . CO
•
•
• .... ..0„. .....,....w.,..... . „,„.............. .... .. !n.7 ►'
O 3rA Orto I--I-r AG)n D ; NDND 'T1T V Ynn �l V) Scco(oZN IC n
r •rZrlmztt, Zzmocto -.rOc•inr..,71.-1oo1-+a .rmz -�.rc Zu -
X W o I•11 V<r 0 --4 A C C.n r Z e•n A .n C Co Z Z A r V)M O A cn A J r V
M n• C3DMCMaozrn3Ir N•"CmMznnnrMnO. ZMn< \ -4
A M !Z D r 07304D-4-4• 3000 O•- M.M z • M• M 10
rnIOz•-• '01MzO< r(/)ZMZn N V)ClO TnA -I < Mo O
CO r r V)M O T A(n M M m T z r Z C D rt 'O N N mapM 9 IV)M T1
r. 70,Mr. 70, z -4 -40 n Ao )o -4-yzrmorr A • -42AAn nz
T < z N IQ•-+J n n o o o z r CO r m r o o n G7 c -4 0 M o m lam N
1 I C M Mat Oiry 110 CO r-r-Vl n.am Cn V)IF-+-ZZ2a 74 r< T -0rl r-p. S
Iii z z O N IA -4 C. -1 0 Mr A 3 M I A !n 7C.M N V)O N n Z n D m n nib D
O C C IMAM < A M r-1'W r N 'Ori V a• w�M 1-01 1 M O• O r r A X .4("' X
.n
M Q•IrDn M Ncn
• DZ0-♦0T MT :0 -4 r 0
-4 N ZZ-413M Tf nJ.JNXIf•IN '71'NrO rMn -4T IOT 10
o o IC7 N am n r r O Z Ir 1 -'+M J r I(+i y n z A 2 m Z C I'I
-r M IC T O 1'1 XZ Z './) '0 0 ;o n 2 ICO n r MCW MM Z M
i f n -1173M MZ DM M 0 2 M1aC A M f O
r -I INA. i'1 -1 .. f O. O o 1. n o L
Lit anti A 0 r CO In. MM. -r
+ 1 M 3 -i 1 R < 'r1- N 0n
z rt < w co r
1'1 z T N
Z -I M
10 M
•
Im
N
r
•
I xi
M
z
i I iPI n
C
I A i
r
r N CO
N Cs 0)• M r V pA
. ,
• .. • • •
m to at at u N 0 N 4.
M
0• .0 # U1.0 r .0 W N.0 J•• O r D z
J7 J S G Cf O .0 J J - O V G O N IV J C
• •
4, V V'3 0 0 0 u V L7;J W(4.J r U O O C7 N O 0 u O O r W UI L7 O CJ O L• C M
- W u 1J O G IJ U I..U OON V J I-. '7 O L)O C1 CJ 1.+V O rIp V - 1.3 c,C) U 3.
Ir z z
{ I o c
z M
• •~
<= z
a
a 11
r
D
Z
n O
M
.0
-4
I f13
N 1
• pi
u ♦ co
m A co r .p N r r V
a co yI CO ,0 W.p' UI a r UI W W r G •
• • • • • • • • ♦ 0- • • 0 •
.4) 1 O N 0N -40 O N W N O U1 W N 00 O• UI O N CO
co c.1 O Ut 0000 0000 000 O O G) 0000 M
r O O O 0000 0000 000 0 00 0000 <
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 'M
L7 0 0 0 0 J G 0 0,J O O 0 7 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 0 Z
O ,1 O C a CJ(3 Q O C3 U O O C3 u2 u J O C3 O Cl O L) O O O O O ) 0 0 0 C) O
Irl
K
Cl•
r a
JD * r N
00 r a •N T •• A
• • • • • 0 •
N .4 N O .0 P O W r N O) D
C� O UI V ..1 b• C'a CO C) N .000 GN D-1 V)
CO 0 UI 0 WW r y1 r V U)V J•0 O r C)
• • • • • • • • • • +•. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -1 0 0
SW W Y. I UI V..+u V u W u)r V G u Q. If
N W fir) UIhO•.7700 .Om'ry.)OlOOOin O'JOQQ'3 V ONOOO%1 CO
a 1 r o
u
D I
I W
•
• -4- r
CO a 1
.Q O • • • �
Ea
r VN r N f't Aco O 0 CO .0 0tr• NOV 4 W V VD)
• • • • • • • • • • •. ,..eJ 0T V ICN ON VU) OIN Wr CO r G N AG W N0)N CO1
.0 A V N O O N CO O 10 0 G.0331-.Cl G) d n A 0.0 0 f V IM
NI UI d Ate. Ca L'1 CT .:.•J..).0 N r W •3 .ON A 1.T 0,Z.. .0 Ir
• • • • '•
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I• • • • • I• • • • • • • •
1 V I O W G ..Li O r c]u .J IO{T� O+•J L7 u C).:i O oO,La U.J iu r O O O Y Ul I• 1D
IP. r MI
„"1, V 4,-.-. N 447.J:]G.)o r N a 1-•L) :2 O O LJ 0 G)I0•7 C7 c.)(•1 a IJV.:)C) v,J In CO
I I I I I 1 1 1 1 Ills III I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IM m
N W Ad •..N u r
CO W UI yt W u (� V N d -4,22
I • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • (T
W G r r W UI W a• U a Co O.? 10 N
i V l► NIYiIN-Ot'iVU'►YNpOy0jPVj: 0' IOU. W i.O a a a WL WN uyN S V O U :Y N 5:0
O• V••• YN-O•I•V• •i•W N r,
aC .. - _ - - - - - _ -
/V O 4IY !1 N ~ O • • V CIC L YIN ! O,O O VIp 4 YIU N �10 O N•�V p UIl W l.w2 O • • V C II . W N .. 0 • • V1. q . W N
• a • IFFa aA• • a F I a a as.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 as A a a aaa A •I 11r
• w • IwGG • r(9C(N W w * NNNNN4NNNNNNNNANN NNNNN • /7.CZ W
• (A • Nr1N • • U1UI4'1A1aaaAwwwwrl( NNNNNr • Jt UIU1a A .W Wr0 Int co
• O • 1.,)r V • :,)1a(')rO • (g 1.... O 42.1WNr.0 Aw Nr O0a W NImo =J a • Nr ON r O N C)N !J Cl 7 •-
-• -4 n I7--1 'D •C 10 17 m a r- IN 0 0 L).4141(n'0 a C n1C Orn N V)n s n n O T) C c z L no 0 co J .5 IC n
M a 0 (7 11 0 a I-I r 2 C rn ;C C -.r n Amba - .) m r O 2 a r 0 2 r'1 T MZ 0 m i'1 r't m m a< b 2 0 I.
Z. n 3 r'1".0 0Z a al 0 4t v U) a C)m 10 a 1 a r 3 T O C a '1 0 1 m 2 �1 A m a b z z a< m r 1-.r r
oc c 3 -•m-. m 1,12,.. x V -4.-. 2 IC r n o r a...Q r r 1'1 -1 0 2 rn r N 3 7C r U) N a rt a %. > '. t
M rn C 1'C 17322 -4r ,r
> 0 � 22 -.r 12002 3n• -r -4xml.. :n o 13311331".... 33303330 " ,3.3 -- -• :a ,3 0
r r z co
u1 .,m r n.. wolonr2 ,Si r3• rr nam z rm300 a-..... m0 0
Ia m U, •O 2 m a • N m o z to z Iy o z n <N m s. 2-4 z-rI a r a oz 22 z m 3 m N m m
Cl n .42 a0a m 454) 111 4cl -I(ii-4 4-4n0 U) 0 Cr to r row00 nC'1N n2
x a I ''1 O 10 r •1 A -V 03 -4 I'1 1 N 3 Z r o C 1 I 1 CO N C 3 se n It a.1 L)
ZI -1 „co' 2 rn 2r< 4 r 3 r Ola.-.3 a I.1-4(a-r 2 r D mit Cm N m n r m m 1 11 fl �r a 2
1 a c „ fn- 1... G)2•• I 2 1 a r it 2 n r 2
3rn WO• moo yr m Orrr V CC -4n n
N < IL) N m (m 0 2 21-( •)m r 3 3-ii • C>+CO W r r < 1'�I*1 m a .c torr I.-.-4 r V
m .n 1-. co :m r'1 N in 117 • 0 O I• a N a 31• a IS a I'1. .r m r n • z IO 11 '0
!n m . Am b -.1 r ..a II nCm r m V) n Orr r11 2C m
,I71A 1r.. < :4 1r 3,11-1 a 2 r w MMI OIC N m I 322 .. -. 2 I'1
< 1+
! 4 r< I.0 b D13f r 12 a-ma• -49 (AI MOO -. -C Z O
{ r 'n n I-' 0 -4'''.f.4 U/ a r'S)Cu)N ria •
M Im mn ma:r'1 . masm 9r vm
1
in U) 4)m z r!a w '0 r(n 3(n a n n•1
0 a L) a Cl .o. a• a Li t2)rz
I
)
✓ !r a a
V!...1 m Ci
U) 1U) 2 IN
1
a
-0
12
.0
1
a
s-•
a
1
11a
an
I
I C Cl
1 , a
x
r m IT a
O+ 1W G 1" N .0 r N 0.w N F CA w Z1
W I • • • .• S • • • • • • • • • m
I;Ir4., r to . O... a „ . N a. u a r 4OrO NdF;D N r 400 (A 0- NUf O• Cl
W 1 r 0' G OF N W r w0'O'ww a Ta Cl .OG NN)G Ia2
`
A 4 I UI U) u 1a Cr, W N r O'NO` oo aWr . v W WOD. ►' V r.4N It) 2
I• • • ;• • • • ,•. • • • • • • • • • • . • • . • • • • • . • • . • . • • • • • • • • • • • -4.4
!F A y) :.r O. -4 'r D)G u 0. w C- N a•.7 u o N ' 010,41 a N,j •J A 0 r r .0 c.w G.3 [J N ca N 0 O C O
r r N ,J .O J ,4) N'u.7 V •r ca 4. u C., '.J w L.r O N 0••' N 0 c u N 63 W O w N O W'3 U N 4)O' r A a
I 1 r 3 Ir
0 -1
2 C
-• a
tS rn
I 1 a
I 1a a
Ill rn
rn
-e
0
Ia
I�
( r
( • i•
r iN r r a IV
1 r r c) A r N O. ��0 r N r 0. w r w A r w 0. O r cJ
kit w •
V w w N 0000 .* IN rr w Vb• o..1 4.-0•IW I NrUI ur. V N a CON rlwUI O' OO ca A
4 • • . • • • • + • • • 1. - • • • • • • • • . • . . . I0
U v A V -. r 1,1100 ...o 0 ..I .JO OIA 000 UI O.i s r0 W NINNO T a m ,)D .D wN 0a -4 ...4 a
m OD 4I 00 .) Ir O O o f N 0 0 UI 0 O V C)0 0 N F 0 .1 C 0 0 0'D O(•.1 W0 N Cl 7o N co O N la
+J O Cl 0 0 O .0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 C.V 0 O O N 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N O U I 4'7 47 G 1,..,
• • • • • • I• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •C. .4
D
II,•'.'.', C7 C) 10 U r) O 0 0 t3 t.)O O C.O O O(0 0..7 4 0 0 0 0 0 O w O O 0 0 0 CI w O 7 n C)II3 C)0 t: C)
C) • ....1 O._1 C 0 O I.3 O C) O ca O O O .'+ O O •3.3 O g O O O C7 O O O O r] ClO C)C)O O O O J G O O -(
0
L V
rn
N r i a
w r v w r 41
W. r N r T V. CO a N r a V r F a W,4 V CA m CA r a
1• • • • • • • • •- • • • I• • • • • C be • • •
IL( W V OS CO UI til N3 V !r- A 00.. 0.0u0-'N N(+i m w W a u..4.0 0 ,4 4."40'
II"
CO -4 V W r N N 0' V 0' OCA W OW aw L40.(.4.40 0' LAVA.) ... c..1
1iw.ON i
- N
O 4. V V A UI 5-. 0) N N 41.,... aU0aO .0(CVm W rVa • • 0 • A4LnI• • • I• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • 100
w w a Wu y' ' ••wr.1 w 4wUI.✓uwFVVaWWWNu.•fWW... 0 %vwr.1
II
V .1 V 13s041 G IV 7 0 0 0' (0' O i-)o c.O.a r r n N 0'w N w 0 '•IF 0 V 0 W( N .1 1 •.I G(./ .0 0' 13.
ro
s it
I w
I N O) 0' V 1
r r m 1 r r ,N w 1r N r UI N a c.d.-N w .p w m co
0' a r N N OO N a'0 W No r r a V N O A O'r wow 4o r N r 0 LA N V w N w w 0' Ii' a V a W i r
IO' 0' 0' mm 0' aO-i- .4 w V 100 O!a O.0141 UI WI UI 0' O N WNO wa 0' O' wW wW 'O�N AI,40 ;n I
W N N0 UI + 0M0(.4 lA olo rp C'I'3 .la o u C,,c1 W 0' O P O O'0 0' N 0'CA'0 C 0'I41 O'Io'0 a
0 N I NN N A O C n r i.l 0 o v o 1c3 u 0 m 0(3 .0 W 0 r -) 0'10'W N Ir .� r.r U1 N . ;0' Cl j►' -+ !-4
I. • • •• • •. •• 1• • • • • .• •• • . • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • . • • • • •. • 'n.
a to 4:)O'W w r 4.0 O N 'T O'-J(A ca,,..v w V IJ IJI Ico o 0.t o 4)IW N r W w O co U1 CJ N co w O'Ia N > h
G w 1.„,...„, .1 �w R.J O a a .,,..................„...,„, .....„1„...„ r NT,,,..„ ,, , u ..I O' - 'n D
�
r r 1V r Ir w •- W r IN G 'r N r N N r N II)'N N N
~ V UI Wa 0' Yi. r r IG W i 0'•- -IIIVrW W -5IV Ir GI`- F rN r1a V W w '
• • • C • 1• • • I• • I • I• •• • •• • • •• •I• •• . • • j •• • • I• • 4 . h
N W .41%.1 N `a UI W U N i wW NrWGN ( AN4 W O' '.'u 0'I.0 V W W In I
1 I I�
_ _ J
1 1 yy II•• I I
v V V V:V V V p'p p P p•O pp q q U�q U g q q q q . .♦ . a . .. . .U W WIW W I�I UN+O tl0 V 0 U'>W N N 0 0 0 Vi0 q.a.,-...,::O tl•'1°q..W"_:>L__
q. C'•V p q .W N�.0•• V�p q .W N -O O•V p q'.W-N-0 0• V p U
-- - 044C1(.FRIG...4.0 •c,
/V O N 2 U N u O • Q J 3r U L L N - 0 I O J P U 1 N = O • O V p V ► U G " 0 • • V ..I Y ► W I N - ' .V"----Th
* 00aa • • • • aaa • AA 71 0-
4)0.040 -C 0. * N UI N UI * 010 40 a A • 0 4 4(A W • C.►W W W4W U CN u * u Wu * cm LA aC .0
W O• A N r r • r r 1r r . .0 I.0 N r r • .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 * 2 2 2100 A V v - r •. 0. 0.0• * 0 UI 10 2 00
r O O.)O r * .0 Nr o • .0;.2 UI r 0 * 0`A N r U * AGI N r O W N r 0 * N r'3 •. r0 Ino r
1 1 0
NAZ At..• n onnn ro ;i.ranc. n zOron c lotar < m0 O rzln 1-• < Oyr. C n
ammm 'I z a -rasa 9 .rZrCa 0 10►.00 -4 0 /I0Caaa ar 2 MMM A AZO •r
4"11 /720 -4 1I 211.9 'D •r Nf<022 2 (0nm 2 1-C M 1IOr22-rym N T 0 •r 2 1 1-+ C) yr -4
PCC, -12m '-1 m►+I-- N n:aC2.-. 1I -4* (1( 11 r .- Sr)l0m Cn C 1'- O0 • 2. Za -(
0 2 2 -4 a 2 -r 9-I Iy-I 0 m Ir O m-r -r 1,)2 I'1 •r m.1 n H C • 2 A -r 2 n• -4 -or O
o 0 4 2 m a a'4* > z I- 2 O N 2 N W 2 -r 0 m Z" C) a 2 a r a M .r m O 0
-4oz amp /- .rrlrr r,o-1-r2 n 0)am m .+ C P12m.r r 2 ma• 2 22 Nm TI
> 022-1 2 I I C al m ,. 2 OW2 In .rm 20) 2N of n r C) Gln nZ
x 6-4 CI 1 r tol4I o , 000Ca -1 4115 C: CI N 1Do <� O 0.•1 P1 a a•• 2 1 N
Nm v 2 -nqo a I+t(a-+Nr o xa 2ln 2C 2so a .4 o4* 0:.. a.4 04 2
m -I1a .r O 71 C< 9 O.C.4/41r .132 NN a 4104 Mr/r co N -cf Cl.r cc n as a
1217.( 1 <....rII O CIf'1 N v1 my n z -171112 a I or • 2 Am -•r x
71 a 2 T m n 17 t (/1;n nm Z 2 A G. 2 -m -c21-4 r a cm Cl Cl N H 0
4o-oz h'1 A 21'13.4 a -/ CA 0r. .. m m 1a \ r A.r 'D "0 ;0'1 2
A O N IZ 0 m Im n L le s c 0. MM MN 2 2 2 a r 0 2 '0 .r N 2 > C j2 2-
CO T -4 < z 1 I2 r > '1 A -s -I -r n -r m -4 r C -4 _ m
A m lCl) t -40)r-r m 2 '2 n R N Z a 2 t 11 Z C: 0 O 2 0
1102 2 NC; CO •r mm N 00 r -42 V 209 C. Cr
(.4M(41 y .rt -r USN 20 N am NC a n n.4
a ''1 N I-CII
.3 Lo r r z 1 Cl • A 2 .4 -4 N
mn IC Co -4 2 2l ro ori
v zI r N n z z
-41 • Cl 0)
a
la
ro
2
0
-o
9
.r
a
-4
1-•
O
Z n
C
m
A
x
Ir I,. 0. 2
p,• .. N r UI 31 N N r r V
• CI
.•I -4 a r W a n 01 M)4 N W 32 4 A 0 W Cl
CO N ON r 4 N W .4 M.0 0) O W N. Or NN 0' 'U >2
N N NNW W S • A
rN .0 •1 .0...1O a vA N ra n Z
•
,o ...4,-.. _ ,.. .4- UI a Illo r r47S 'Oo :. 4-1U1ov0 r .1) TO•a o .00NN O 000 .I WA C O
La.a' ..)•.(u r 3,-'r O u c,14.3 c+0 u .0 u CO OCA a co W 4 .1'4 u.0 u v a u u o u W W u a
r 2 •r
0 -C
z C
y 2
.0 lc ,n
a
A
M
a A
2
n I'1
m
Y
O
4,
n 2
y
a
•. r '0
P. ON M) r p N co r N W r r r r N �'0
II-.
ICuWIa .010'OD 1P rIW rr Y• P.... 0 .4A - W0) P.0,-.0a .0 N.02 CO MC 2
I• •U1 u;. •V • .* • • • !r. 41 .4 • • • • • • 4• • • • • • • • • • • • a • •• 0
N a IIT O O CO 1U1 UI UI 0 UI ,..)WW...).. W O r UI W a a 0• W J ' N W U N 0 .14 V
;u c..IO OD WIN o u ..)1•.4*o o0 N 0-4 UI N N CA Ouo 000 CA C3 o N .I UI O N UI .I A
,J J 0 C. .30 u .0 010000 UI 004200 v 000000000 O o O 0 (A 0 Ui i..
• • I. • • 1• • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • X.
O C.12 t)_,Icl C+ :) a';C: O O O O O O 3 O C)O O O C) O 0 .2 0 0 0 0 C)CS O O O O O O O O -4
CS O.... .1 u 1 C. 1 c :O Cl O I(3 C3 q cl O C)O C)O ca O 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 Cl Cl o'4 H
O
Z 4im
a
I.. r W r
r W 'N N N ' ••+ N r 43 .I 0• VI 4 :r A
• • •• + • • • • • • • • • • • •
M r N1.0 0 A 0 r W 0 T co co r N a r 0 UI .I r N A -r s
r .O 0,4 r r 4 0• 0 N.0 M -4 r o A a 0 W 00 M r N N .40 1> -. N
N W N,0 r 0�N.0 .0 r a ►-4 •1 al N Ul ..• U .1 W N I-• .0 OS •, -/ n
• • • • • • • • ,• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -r O I7
V Ulu u'4 Iv Y. V...IV S.1 W. Y•1V V V u u UI aJ V r W N r 1.1..•..UI V IV Y. r r u V W W W V •1
r3 a 7,a In 0 104T. 0 A a IO 7 O n N 00:20 .4 W 0 N r', 0 0 0 0 CO N MC).') W 0A I Ia O
I
I I i a Cr.
1 r -4 r
U a r 1U) I IV r a r 0) r r II a r r N r Cl 03
r p. L44,1
'-% W IW 2 W 1 ...1...
W r r 0.1 r r 4.4. a r N.1 r CD r IV'0` 0 N.0 O) UI ow r
• • • I• • • • •. • • • • • • • • • • • + • • • I• • • • • • • •. ,• • <
CO 0• N14 N ...'.4 a A 'IA a co Ca OoI ovN.10 .4 0.N W0.400C 0.CM Ui NOW P N 0.I a
r 0 Co1O 0.'r O 'N 410•(.I O co N! N ODILD a UI W W N 0,0 n 0•UI N N CI 0'N.4 .0 .A r 9
N ') OI..] r VFW n S *3.13 r n Cl UI, .O CO 0 td r N A.1 AIA ��0• ca N3 0• N rdr 0) .O •I .1
• •• • • • • I • • • • • • • • I• • • • • • • • .
•
O UIu .m::1:,.: W o 0•IV o ,W 0..:"G UIO N '+UIIC).(121 T W S .OI'4 u a O r W r ru U r r0 12 'O
G a u o :Vo a .3 1-=14*.a 01 A 4,'-J 01) •p I U u o UI W I J r N .p i0 V N O N CA N N O '4 .b r 0. 1n a
I 1 I I rl 7
r m
f.. W 0• r r N r N a N r i0 r .. r r
A
r..1.4•
r �-4 U •• N.0 W ....1 r a V W 0• 0• 0 ,.. r UI r N P
• • 1. • • • j ,• • • a
o a'4* a .40 3) 0 O A N.0 I N C N U1 d a as a Ut 2 -I (.4 r co Cl
y N
YtU!MVO1 Oz pU :YN!Is OO vi8&►U 8 0.►• ►OV•u >LN - 088548UYWNu 881 V OUI!YN+i0;; ri•Y .Y'N-0••J•Y'.►CiN-- /
C - -- - _. - - -
Gmre(1[Q ON.a INC. 00 a 1
a C u _ _ _ _ _ /USI^�yT
? N ♦ 11 Y V O b O J ?i t A YIN • Olb O VIP U :'Y N Y1O • D V O Ul: U IJI+ O 010 J C;Y z ,1
+ O O a .Ii (• ♦,Y N -�
I I
♦ A A '11 r
• ►.N hO 1-'
0
7 n -4 C n
-4 O n Z- H
r Z x -4 r -4
I E m -41i <
IZ PI 4-1 0
m G) as rI 11
• X 1,1 n z
T -0 Z 7a t't N
I C IT r �.• 77 z
z Z -< y Is D
0 0 I-1 r x
< -IO '1 v
<o Iz Z PI
D. na I o
Ir I
. I i I C
D
XI
ro
..•
D
I0
Z n
C
m
I-. x
W 70
A 11
rt
as r1
W W sa
A q1 a In Z
• • • 1-4-4
I, r. a .._1 lc O
-i V . V Ira
r 2 •'1
0 1
•
Z C
y .A)
i i f9
I*
M
ID A
iz
In C'1
in
I0
In l '"
I ~
I 1
D
ca r ►. fy
aN v
+1 r .J Ip
• • O
.- A w Iv
A CO as Ip
I.• r P w
• • • ID
0 0 u0 1-4
,a o o c.) i.o
.Z K
rt
w r r p
Y A A
.• s.O a S
• •
as .0 IL ID
C0 A p un
• • • • I-4 0 '0
vo I-. ho•-• I0 L:
N A J 0 ID
ro
D II
I r IW
I to -4 Y
1 1.11 II
A
I Q• r+ I r
r
• t
N to IN D
A A ISO W Xi
I • N 0• IN W 1-+ I
I. u o.
co A u z IIS
as 0' c ..1 n In
I 1 In
N -1 W
N
•
C...: W O n
(A
1 i 1
I I 1 y I
Y ► UN-1 O C 9 V i.1 O C az p:'O O O 4::Y j U N 4 8 O m • ) J , • a O O 4 4 0 4 Y WN y O 9 H 1p V m N'A W 3 N '8.: . J,0 U♦ Y',N+O OO J•MA.Y N_, /
TENTATIVE AGENDA
SHAKOPEE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Special Session April 21 , 1981
Chairman Hullander presiding
1 . Roll call at 7 : 15 P.M.
2 . Accept Special Meeting Call .
3. Approval of Minutes of April 7 , 1981 .
4. Fourth and Minnesota Neighborhood Revitalization Project
a. Authorization to execute contracts for home construction
b. Authorize payment of bills :
Jerome Jaspers , CPA, $3 ,023.00 for Community Development
Block Grant Audit
5. Other business
6 . Adjourn
Jeanne Andre
Executive Director
}
1011*1
'Yr TIT
CITY OF SHAKOPEE ..
INCORPORATED 1870 �'.
129 E. First Ave. - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 (612) 445-3650 410:
ri
11/77
April 20, 1981
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: Special Meeting
Dear Commissioners :
You are hereby notified that there will be a Special
Meeting of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority
at 7 : 15 P.M. , on Tuesday, April 21 , 1981 , in the Council
Chambers at City Hall .
The purpose of this meeting is to conduct a regular
business meeting per attached agenda.
If you are unable to attend this meeting, please contact
Jeanne Andre, HRA Director.
Sincerely,
Richard Hullander (U
Chairman
Shakopee HRA
RH/jms
enclosure
•
The Heart of Progress Valley
An Equal Opportunity Employer
PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 7, 1981
Chrm. Hullander called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. with Comm. Leroux, Lebens,
Colligan present and Comm. Reinke arriving later. Also present were John K.Anderson,
City Admr. and Jeanne Andre, HRA Director.
Colligan/Lebens moved to approve the minutes of March 3, 1981 as kept. Motion carried
unanimously.
Colligan/Lebens moved to authorize the payment of $43.20 to James Manders for reloca-
tion costs.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Lebens/Colligan moved to use the remaining funds available from the 1978 grant to:
1. Prepurchase sod and landscaping for lots scheduled for construction in 1981, with
seeding of those areas to be held back from development at this time.
2. Final grading work on lots on Block 3.
3. Install asphalt curbing on Outlot A adjacent to Market Street to guide water
traveling north on Market Street to Fourth Avenue from diverting, if after a study
of this project, the City Engineer recommends it.
Roll Call: Ayes; Hullander, Lebens, Colligan
Noes; Leroux
Motion carried.
Colligan/Lebens moved to recommend to Council to have the Public Works department
demolish the smokehouse and haul it away. Motion carried with Leroux opposed.
Leroux/Lebens moved to accept the auditor's report. Motion carried unanimously.
The HRA Director displayed blueprints of three contractor's proposals for single and
double residential units in the Fourth and Minnesota Neighborhood Revitalization
Project. Discussion was held on the summary of proposals received.
Comm. Reinke arrived and took his seat at 6:45 P.M.
Colligan/Hullander moved to authorize staff to negotiate contracts with Goodwin
Builders to build two double buildings and Pomije Custom Homes to build two single
family homes in the project, and to prepare contracts for HRA approval.
Hullander/Colligan moved to amend the motion to include a second choice of contrac-
tor; to wit, Johnson-McDonald Construction, in case something can't be worked out
with the first choice.
Motion on amendment carried with Reinke abstaining.
Motion on main amended motion carried with Reinke abstaining.
Leroux/Reinke moved to pay the bills as presented: Von Klug and Associates, $428.40
and J. G. Manders Trucking, $43.20
Considerable discussion was held regarding the company which is reviewing the reloca-
tion bills and the City Admr. suggested that when we close this project out, staff
could review the services performed and make a recommendation.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Shakopee HRA
April 7, 1981
Page 2
Colligan/Leroux moved to direct staff to bring back a report on the relocation
services provided for the 1978 Community Development Block Grant and to advise
as to whether these functions could be done in-house for future projects involving
relocation. Motion carried unanimously.
The Commissioners discussed a letter received by the HRA Director from HUD, which
changes the terms for 235 funding, and delays the start of the second phase of
construction in Macey Second Addition. Chrm. Hullander instructed the HRA
director to be sure all interested contractors are informed of these changes
before agreements are executed.
Chrm. Hullander also instructed the HRA Director to send a letter outlining the
problems to our Congressional officials.
Colligan/Leroux moved to approve payment of $550 for the cost of a letter of
credit to the contractor, Joseph Miller Development Co. , for construction of
unit on Lot 1, Block 1, Macey Second Addition.
Leroux/Colligan moved to amend the motion to authorize payment of 50% of the
charge for the letter of credit, up to an amount of $550.00.
Motion on amendment carried unanimously.
Roll Call on amended main motion: Ayes; Unamimous Noes; None Motion carried.
Chrm. Hullander informed Council that an open house would be held at the Senior
Citizens Multipurpose Center on April 22, 1981 from 10:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. ,
and he suggested special invitations be sent to the Council, Planning Commission,
Building Inspector, Fire Chief, City Department Heads, County Commissioners, County
HRA, Chamber of Commerce president, Representative Rees and Senator Schmitz, Repre-
sentative Hagedorn and Senators Boschwich and Durenberger.
Reinke/Colligan moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned
at 7:12 p.m.
Jeanne Andre
HRA Director
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
+a.
MEMO TO: Members of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment
Authority (HRA)
FROM: Jeanne Andre, Executive Director
RE: Authorization to Execute Contracts for Home Construction
DATE: April 20, 1981
Introduction
At the April 7 , 1981 meeting of the HRA, negotiations with Goodwin
Builders , Inc. and Pomije Custom Homes , Inc. were authorized to
provide for the construction of six additional units in Macey
Second Addition. Both companies have been contacted and are will-
ing to execute agreements with the HRA to construct units as pro-
posed and selected by the HRA.
Background
Goodwin Builders , Inc. is willing to construct four units (two twin-
homes) on Lots 6 and 7, and 8 and 9 , Block 3 Macey Second Addition.
These units would be constructed at a cost of $37 ,750 per unit.
Goodwin has asked that special provisions be included in his con-
tract providing 1) that the HRA would pay the cost of FHA appraisals
if 235 mortgage financing is not available , and 2) allowing renegotia-
tion of prices if a 235 conditional commitment is not arranged within
80 days of the execution of the contract .
Pomije Custom Homes , Inc. is willing to construct two single family
homes:
1 . Lot 10, Block 3, Macey Second Addition at a cost of $42 ,929 with
the option of a two-car garage at an additional cost of $3,573.
2. Lot 11 , Block 2 , Macey Second Addition at a cost of $48,548
including a two-car garage. An option without a garage will
also be developed.
Both contractors understand the potential problems with 235 mortgage
financing and are willing to initate the process in anticipation of
funding.
Recommended Action
Authorize appropriate HRA officials to execute contracts-for-deed
for the following:
1 . Lots 6 & 7 , Lots 8 & 9 , Block 3, Macey Second Addition with
Goodwin Builders , Inc. for the construction of twin-homes at
a unit cost of $37 ,750, with clauses providing for renegotiation
of prices 80 days after initial contract execution and allowing
for HRA payment of FHA appraisal costs if 235 financing is not
available.
1.
Members of the Shakopee HRA '7
Page Two
April 20, 1981
2 . Lot 11, Block 2 , Macey Second Addition with Pomije Custom
Homes , Inc. for the construction of a single-family home
with two-car attached garage at a cost of $48,548.
3. Lot 10, Block 3, Macey Second Addition with Pomije Custom
Homes, Inc. for the construction of a single-family home
at a cost of $42 ,929, with the option of a two-car garage
at an additional cost of $3,573.
JA/jms
� s
TENTATIVE AGENDA
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
ADJ.REG. SESSION APRIL 21 , 1981
Mayor Harbeck presiding
1] Roll Call at 7 : 30 P.M.
2] Approval of minutes of April 7 , 1981
3] Communications :
a] Rep. Hagedorn' s Office regarding Federal Bill Affecting
Relocation of Rail Line in Shakopee
b] National League of Cities re: Cuts in Revenue Sharing
c] Mn. Dep ' t . of Health re : Shakopee ' s New Well Site
d] Ray Deutsch re : tree trimming
e ] JoAnn Welter re : Damage Claim
f ] League of Mn. Cities re : Shade Tree Disease Funding
g] League of Mn. Cities re : Industrial Revenue Bonds
4] RECOGNITION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ANYONE PRESENT IN THE AUDIENCE
WHO DESIRES TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA
a] Cable Communications Committee
b] Mrs . Roger Luedloff
c]
5] Old Business :
a] Hospital/County Parking - Block #57 , Original Shakopee Plat
b] Request for Closing of Atwood Street Between 4th & 5th, and
posting "No Parking" on Fifth Avenue Between Scott & Atwood
for 12 months - St. Francis Hospital
c ]1. Appointment to Police Civil Service Commission
d] Res . No. 1822 , Establishing The Ad Hoc Downtown Committee
e] Appointments to Ad Hoc Downtown Committee
f] Proposed Manufactured Housing Legislation - clarification of
definition attached
g] 1981 Sewer Fund Budget (bring 5d of April 7th agenda)
6] Planning Commission Recommendations :
a] Ord. No. 58, Amending the Subdivision Ordinance
b] Revised Sign Ordinance
c ] Preliminary and Final Flat of Link' s 3rd Addition
d] Preliminary and Final Plat of Case 1st Addition
e ] Ord. No. 59, Establishing Retail Sales As A conditional Use
In I-2 Zones
f] Ord. No. 60, Amending City Code Dealing With Height Limitations
g] Extension of final plat application deadline - A & G 1st Add'n.
7] Routine Resolutions and Ordinances :
a] Res . No. 1827 , Accepting Bid on Water Supply Well No . 6 ,
Contract No. 81-1KT
b] Res . No. 1818, Requiring Utility Company(s) Review of all
Street and Alley Vacations to Establish Needed Present and
Furute Easements
c ] Res . No. 1821, Amending Res . Nb 1706 Adopting the 1981 Budget
8] New Business :
a] Contract for Fill and Grading - Macey 2nd Addition
TENTATIVE AGENDA
April 21, 1981
Page -2-
b] Review of Mn. Housing Finance Agency Rent Subsidized Housing
Proposals
c] Sergeants' Wages/Non-Union Employee Medical Benefits
aa] Res . No . 1825, Establishing A Pay and Benefit Agree-
ment for Police Sergeants ' for 1981-82
bb] Res . No. 1826 , Amending Res . No. 1571 Adopting A
Personnel Policy for the City of Shakopee
d ] Authorize payment of the bills
9] Consent Business : (Any item a Councilperson wishes to discuss may
be removed by requesting such action before a vote on the consent
agenda item. )
a] Prairie View Concrete Cross pan
b] Application for an On Sale Temporary Beer License
10] Other Business :
a] Engineering Department Monthly Report
b] Verbal Report from City Admr. on Physical Development Committee ' s
Review of Shakopee ' s Comprehensive Development Plan
c]
d]
e ]
f ]
11 ] Liaison Reports
12 ] Adjourn.
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
8/(t}
MEMO TO : John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Glenda D. Spiotta, Planner
RE : Status of a Federal Bill Affecting Relocation of
Chicago-Northwestern Rail Line in Shakopee
DATE : April 8, 1981
Attached is a letter received from Rep . Hagedorn ' s office
stating the status of bill HR 6417 .
To sum up, there is currently no legislation offering funds
for the proposed national pilot study to relocate Shakopee ' s
Chicago-Northwestern rail line from the downtown; legislative
action will likely amount to an introduction of a similar bill
as HR 6417 but expect difficultly in passage .
Until this fall , there is no necessary action required
of Shakopee . The Congressman will contact us for assistance
when appropriate .
GDS/jms
enclosure
cc : Mayor Harbeck
-'TOM HAGEDORN Gt-- DISTRICT OFFICES:
2ND DISTRICT,MINNESOTA P.O.Box 3148
MANKATO,MINNESOTA 56001
COMMITTEES: (507)387-8226
PUBLICICULTURE WORKS AND CotI re55 of t e 1niteb *tate
(� 211 SOUTH NEWTON STREET
.Lu7 ALBERT LEA, MINNESOTA 56007
TRANSPORTATION
Aouce of ikepreZentatibe� (507)377-1676
WASHINGTON OFFICE: RONALD K.ENCS
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
2344 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
Ink rating/ton,� r. 20515
WASHINGTON,D.C. 20515
(202)225-2472
RECEIVED
TO : Glenda Spiotta APR 7 1981
FROM: Susan Chesley
CITY OF $HAKOPEe
DATE : April 6 , 1981
Thank you for contacting our office for information on the
status of federal legislation that included Shakopee as one
of three cities funded under a new assistance program called
Energy Impacted Rail and Highway Transportation.
This new program was intended to alleviate problems directly
related to increased domestic energy production and the
corresponding increase in the transportation of energy
materials . Shakopee qualified for a project to separate
the rail and highway surfaces so that automobile traffic
would not be blocked by long trains .
This new program was included last year in H . R. 6417--the
Surface Transportation Act of 1980--which passed the House
Committee on May 14, 1980 , but was later defeated before
the full House .
Congressman Hagedorn will make every effort to include this
program in a surface transportation bill again this year.
However, there is a good deal of question as to whether
any surface transportation bill will be acted upon by
Congress this year. The administration has sent a four-
year surface transportation bill to Congress but it does
not include this new assistance program.
Congressman Hagedorn is cosponsoring a separate bill which
includes Energy Impacted Rail and Highway Transportation,
and he will work to again name Shakopee as one of the cities
for funding.
I have included background information on Energy Impacted
Rail and Highway Transportation. The future of legislation
at this point is questionable , and the earliest a bill
would be introduced is this fall .
Congressman Hagedorn wants to assure your city of his
interest and his support for the inclusion of Shakopee
under this funding program.
frequently comprise'. substantial portions or t r r r and 4
subs to the prohibition if mariuradureall or Peed4aela-
vitt lir. The term ristru on' also specifically incl des yehi-
el.weighing scab,both Axed and portable,which alearly are uted-
nfactured item. The Cornnwittic eeet- no dittinC14011 hetweexi t
---
use of c nvi t- r on or off the pry site if the rriater°i cr item
ia i # ; into and a fthe pr�.
The itt Laien that noconvict r jai
be employed
and tar aurterials cr itents manirfacttiredcararoduced ay con i
labor sal be testal 11 the constriction f an Federal-aid
projector id any other - . per* t c
Title 23, United States Cocie. that is siabject to the provisions of
Chapter 1 or ate 23, United Statese, anal:cable to Federal d
sways or `edema-aid highway fends, = highway safety -
pram under section 402 e f T=t e ., Unitedtatter} e
' O3* 134-4- . 1 Y 1A41% R,.-aft..At Hp P€(ti *Y ritAt.1. 11RTATION
1112;11 on authorizes a new newrizeista' am program to eviate
problems directly related to increased domestic energyr u {nn
and air pondin in i n the 'tion e heavy and
hulk on. _ InateriaU, Per ettamp1e reosgmtiori d cordas one of - -
the primary domestic ern has generated considerable s '
fortstot new fields and to continue a d tie o
capacity
of
exn raining activities. a .=r 'stance c f our crime
reliance on ,the amount°resell being ipped ay rail and hAgh. -
way has increased drsuriatically, y.affictirig many ( atti-
nities and t err trrumportation ,„
Recant studies have indica .. that 3000miles of rated ia 21
States are wed for -haulm and threeapiarters ofthe vial road
Lionel
structiiral deficiencies w sr ..1 ..wig -
lt ► to-be- i t` i s ;caber .,.: a ri is �, u x
airtithe expeditintisly and Ioi#ti trerisported to,where they '
-
arr~
Section 104 =ea&_ ° 1 of Ttie. United t _ ' :_ �
adoing
new on
to tocenstrica tosurface, restores and rehabilitate iloritall clic
ramie which aro laicttratwavatststrittalattarnasaatdarfalseareata--
portation
of ene y iteral* and ti continue to incui such
`tion,the >to s authorizedto make - nts for p , '
:
which alleviate the iitipacte iriffeaeed train tic which results
from the Leansportrition cr ceergy resources,.,
The Committee felt that a minor chew 1209tildi tang-doge
regarding what the Secretary might require firr Sates to qualay -
for funds under this ' *tion. Ifa to`m prove that it
incurreda substantial increase la use of cal roads and oto
etterga impacted highways, regulations might by f rthc min
,mom arid: States as Pn #1 from acquit fug
This could be the Carte because the traffic many of-thre toads Has
been substantial far many years with little margipal incre
intent of the lane change to bare incurring a substantial uses`
was to insure that funds hail* flowed to ire areas + tzar.
-
:lc s heavy now and expected to stay at a high level.
. Y - 'za '*a gyne 4 Y
1
•
T..
•
The tinder of I p under this on i port?-
Wh pry ll lie built-- �a� iii to FAQ end; . I
{ for radar earn, t when t i
.; Secretary ins ` t - standardsnot mat . 1
she increase in caw. transportation aim � an ads
imp on cmmmunity transportation. This is particularlyr
able in western motes due to the rapidlyding w E mai
field tions, niti
ues*refrequently • t
: coal t causingalb t travel at public
and ting t� public r
way -
-: i trait ltd are li itad to a is hie
but occur along any -aul ate Ems-
-
" --•:e1,....,.%,-` , rf .....-4.w.
s mmunl es incl mooShakopee. i on i
-,7-ii..; intendsi.-.,i oma, and Allentown, pinmaylvatila, The Qimmittee
under utlibted for pr„.-tiocts in these m i- 1 _
I
r is _ n r + ;' `8 t t for_ _, vn bra .- . 1._
, loaf-in-re atififf%. we
., ____, _ ,*—: . t q� 3 gSperiai4ophgaus saes Axton' ,y le n 9 w e .,, ,,
Y •- y -E` - --'ii , t t�t1 tea. . .. :tit' h co pF opnnte 6 � -.z.�R'- .
• -:777:-
`
_ Nik-BfEto' ` Iz ;-rojects which will reduce
i+�� �, or 1'R'/t t`- +.rir '..stout I tot,`_ .g
.,- ` -�. t., - to"Lei a 3 . it the intent of,#� - t- _- .
:_ - _, mitt that low-cost em managerrient rnprovements„be _
conaidem$ first in the alleviation of these bie Fore hater
cost i saprovena t uc grade tion or rail t do tiosni t
implemented. to no c can a � involve the relocation of a
tali line unlens the Secretary determines that the cost cf that rein
€ do is 1 than the of relocating the highway UIf le?or f -
i3W t�,`� stem management ment inip v =tints i eltude lan€I i
• ; planning ain at t:aitnim ng the. adverse i cf unit trains,
- -= . vehicle rorouting to avoid crossings, staggered work houts to help
i
:} reduce rush hour ups, and providing more information to citi- 3
•-- about train schedules to help them avoid train-related . . i
Other techniciues involve better coordination with the raiiroad 1
erators, including rail rerouting over mostin# alternative routes
wherever possible, direr Communitycommunications with orncorn-
gig trains better schedulingc4'trains to avoid sikdrivin peri I
increasedtrain `n areasand a fou m t �existing
- time and speed.ruire _ .
Finally, of impr i rats in t_ � ntrol f rpt I
.. warning have new madecontrol systems a l
:- i. that moreruble and . .more r totraffic conditions,
4 z welt thosethat calculate the and i f trains
w' - moving toward grade c `nom. This allowsvehicular traffic to
avoid -ttnn engine idling for lung periods of time prior
2 a .rain {dam providelite gredo inf.t atior: r�rdi
a dall t l Asn ofd i
t and a the vehicular traffic to1
ij„. maximize free raevement of vehicles in iwallet i
- r 1
•,.s: u.ssy. .asS.,r..„,,,,fv3✓r p . ,„ .x,, ” :, ,,..,F;;:f-tfr,.Y,..:: `.^.....,..,rc.} _` ..c..,.. ,='";.s..,.4.r'^n<, s. .„.-.+ .1: 75:..,.u6..c._;.n+.,:t .,..v5',1 ..... :....41_.,x.'...:A.' _ _4
} b
RECEIVED
National 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Officers:
.4PeqPe League Washington,D.C. President APR 1 } 19 81
Mayor,n H dnut
apoli I,I
of 20004 Mayor,Indianapolis,Indiana
Cities (202)626-3000 First Vice President
James F Conway �/ Hpy K P E
Cable:NLCITIES Mayor,St Louts. 0 � �j -
Second Vice President
Ferd Harrison
Mayor,Scotland Neck,North Carolina
Immediate Past President
Jessie M.Pettey
Councilwoman,Newport News,Virginia
Executive Director
Alan Beals
NLC LEGISLATIVE HOTLINE
202-626-3275
To: (1) Mayors and Managers of Direct Member Cities
(2) Executive Directors of State Municipal Leagues
(3) Steering Committee Members
From: George Gross, . Director, Federal Relations
Subject: NLC Legislative Letter: 10 April 1981
In this issue: House Budget Committee Cut in General Revenue
Sharing
Last week the House Budget Committee approved its First Budget
Resolution for FY 1982, which includes a $350 million cut in the
$4. 6 billion general revenue sharing program. The cut was made
in two stages : first, Chairman Jim Jones (D-OK) , recommended a
$250 million cut, to be achieved through formula changes reducing
funds to " less needy" communities (an effort to restore these
funds was defeated 16-8) ; and second, Congressman David Obey (D-WI) ,
recommended an additional $100 million cut, to be achieved through
eliminating state energy severance taxes from the tax effort component
of the GRS allocation formula (this cut was adopted by voice vote,
but the severance tax intent was later dropped) . The Committee also
directed the House Government Operating Committee to report legisla-
tion to acheive the_ ,$3.511_ million -cut.
The House is now in recess, scheduled to resume work on April 27.
Upon its return, it is expected to take up the budget resolution
adopted last week by the Budget Committee. Consequently, city
officials have nearly two weeks to contact their Representatives
concerning this proposed cut in GRS.
All members of the House should be contacted and urged to support
an amendment to the First Budget Resolution for FY 1981 restoring
$350 million for GRS. Stress the following points:
Peat Presidents:Tom Bradley,Mayor.Los Angeles.California•Henry W.Maier.Mayor.Milwaukee.Wisconsin•Tom Moody Mayor.Columbus,Ohio•John P.Rousakis.Mayor.Savannah,Georgia•Directors:Stephen C.Bauer,Executive
Director.League of Oregon Cities•Arne Boyum,Executive Director North Dakota League of Cities•Charles G.Clack,Mayor.Garland,Texas•Malcolm Ctark,Council Member.Port Arthur.Texas•Thomas J.Clark,Council Member.
Long Beach,California•Joanne Collins,Council Member.Kansas City.Missouri•Thomas H.Cooke,Jr.,Mayor,East Orange.New Jersey•Willie Dell,Councilwoman.R.c'Imond,Virginia•Woody Etherly,Jr.,Council Member Flint.
Michigan•W.Elmer George,Executive Director Georgia Municipal Association•Anne Gresham.Council Member.Grand Prairie.Texas•Paul E.Haney,Council Member,Rochester.New York•George Latimer,Mayor St.Paul,
Minnesota•Ronald P.Lurie,Commissioner Las Vegas.Nevada•Ruth W.Messinger,Council Member,New York New York•Robert H.Miller,Executive Director,South Dakota Municipal League•Ernest N.Mortal,Mayor.New Orleans.
Louisiana•Mary Neuhauser,Council Member,iowa City.Iowa•Hernan Padilla.Mayor,San Juan.Puerto Rico•Kenneth Payne,Executor Director.Rhode Island League c&ties and Towns•Donald R.Peoples,Chief Executive,Butte.
Montana•Jayne H.Plank,Mayo,Kensington.Maryland•Patricia Roach,Commissioner.Dayton,Ohio•Charles Royer,Mayor.Seattle.Washington•James T.Ryan,Mayor.AI,ngton Heights.Illinois•Arthur E.Trujillo,Mayor.Santa Fe.
New Mexico•Fred Turnage,Mayor.Rocky Mount North Carolina•John F Watkins,Executive Director Alabama League of Municipalities•Daniel K.Whitehurst,Mayor.Fresno.C al,f ornta•Don A.Zimmerman.Executive Director Arkansas
Municipal League
2
(1) Local governments are bearing a substantial portion of the
program cuts recommended by the President - in housing, community
and economic development, transportation and environmental pro-
grams. GRS funds are the only "no strings attached" source of
federal funds for cities, enabling them to use the funds to make
up for deficits resulting from cutbacks in these and other pro-
grams. It is unfair to cut GRS funds in the current budget situa-
tion.
(2) It would be extremely risky to open up GRS for amendment this
year. Congress will be dealing with budget cuts most of the
year, and trade-offs involving GRS could easily result, particu-
larly in the House where general support for GRS is weaker than
in the Senate. Furthermore, reopening a debate over the GRS formula
could easily lead to changes other than those suggested by the
Budget Committee.
(3) Since GRS was extended by the Congress late last year for a
three-year period, cities have already budgeted or are now budgeting
the use of these funds in FY 1982. Approval of the Budget Committee' s
cut by the House, which could result in a long deadlock with the
Senate, would produce uncertainty for thousands of local budget
decisions.
All members of the House should be urged to support an amendment
to restore $350 million to the GRS program.
action
APR I 6 Its
IIIF
11 III lin 1 ,., - -- ko
league of minnesota cities
April 15, 1981
TO: City Councilmembers (c/o City rks), May rs, Managers, Legislative Contacts
FROM: Donald Slater, Executive Direct r y ,
n �
RE: Revenue Sharing - Proposed Cutback
The U.S. House of Representatives Budget Committee recently approved its First Budget
Resolution for FY 1982, which includes a $350 million cut in the $4.6 billion general
revenue sharing (GRS) program. The cut was made in two stages : first, Chairman Jim
Jones (D-OK), recommended a $250 million cut, to be achieved through formula changes
reducing funds to "less needy" communities (an effort to restore these funds was
defeated 16-8) ; and second, Congressman David Obey (D-WI) , recommended an additional
$100 million cut, to beachieved through eliminating state energy severance taxes
from the tax effort component of the GRS allocation formula (this cut was adopted
by voice vote, but the severance tax intent was later dropped) . The Committee also
directed the House Government Operating Committee to report legislation to achieve
the $350 million cut,
The House is now in recess, scheduled to resume work on April 27. Upon its return,
it is expected to take up the budget resolution adopted last week by the Budget
Committee. Consequently, city officials have nearly two weeks to contact their
Representatives concerning this proposed cut in revenue sharing.
All members of the House should be contacted and urged to support an amendment to
the First Budget Resolution for FY 1982 restoring $350 million for revenue sharing.
Stress the following points:
(1 ) Local governments are bearing a substantial portion of the program cuts recommended
by the President - in housing, community and economic development, transportation and
environmental programs. GRS funds are the only "no strings attached" source of federal
funds for cities, enabling them to use the funds to make up for deficits resulting from
cutbacks in these and other programs . It is unfair to cut GRS funds in the current
budget situation.
(2) It would be extremely risky to open up GRS for amendment this year. Congress will
be dealing with budget cuts most of the year, and trade-offs involving GRS could easily
result, particularly in the House where general support for GRS is weaker than in the
Senate. Furthermore, reopening a debate over the GRS formula could easily lead to
changes other than those suggested by the Budget Committee.
(OVER)
300 hanover building, 480 cedar street, saint paul, minnesota 55101 C6123222-21361
-2-
(3) Since GRS was extended by the Congress late last year for a three-year period,
cities have already budgeted or are now budgeting the use of these funds in FY 1982.
Approval of the Budget Committee's cut by the House, which could result in a long
deadlock with the Senate, would produce uncertainty for thousands of local budget
decisions .
City officials should contact their Congressmen to urge them to support an amendment
to restore the $350 million to the revenue sharing program.
:cmt
4/15/81
I?) 1 K 7'
\ i .C....,
41 D
� r
minnesota department of health 31
O 717 s.e. delaware st. minneapolis 55440 cr ry OF S.' . ;<OPEE
612 2965221
April 2, 1981
Shakopee City Ccuncil
c/o Douglas S. Reeder, Clerk
129 E. 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Gentlemen:
On Tuesday, March 24, 1981, a well site survey of proposed Well #6
was conducted by myself with the assistance of the Public Works
Department. The Consulting Engineer was not present during the
investigation. The proposed well is located just north of CSAH 16
to the west of County Road 83 (SWa of NWa Section 9 T115N R22W) .
The site appears to be satisfactory from a sanitary viewpoint and is
approved provided all aspects of the Water Well Construction Code
concerning Location of Wells (MCAR §1.217) are met.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 612/296-5275.
Si rely,
;'
eZeirleg
David B. Engstrom, P. .
Public Health Engineer
Section of Environmental
Field Services
DBE:bjp
cc: Ken Adolf
Schoell & Madson, Inc.
otti : 2 6141 U 41"4.tt UAt4SV piALO"it' d 43/t6
A:tk.)
tAd
tit.
c u„ - ,
an equal opportunity employer • *i
JULIUS A.GOLLER, II
JULIUS A.COLLER ATTORNEY AT LAW 612-445-1244
1859-1940
2 1 1 WEST FIRST AVENUE
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA R
55329
ECEIVED
April 10, 1981 APR 13 1981
e."QTY OF SHAKOPEE
Mr. John K. Anderson
City Administrator
City Hall
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Mr. Anderson:
This is the information you requested for your file in response to the
letter from Mr. and Mrs. Ray Deutsch regarding tree trimming along
Holmes Street which they claim was necessitated by the Holmes Street
improvement program of 1980.
Until very recently the planting, trimming and caring for boulevard
trees has always been the responsibility of the adjacent property owner.
In the event the trees interferred with utilities they were trimmed
by the City and not done by the owner. With this exception, maintenance
of the trees were the responsibility of the adjacent land owner and I
assume this would be true even if the trees were replaced by the city as
a result of some improvement program or as part of the development but
maintenance would still remain with the abutting owner.
As far as Mr. Deutsch's claim is concerned he should have contacted the
City before doing anything. The bill that he has contracted would not
be, in my opinion, the responsibility of the City under any circumstances,
but had he secured authorization in advance any reimbursement would have
come out of the Holmes Street budget.
If you need any further amplification on this please contact me.
Ver ly y•` s,
, 7``, ,
Julius 'A. Coller, II.
JAC/nh
ybv
3 k
A( G ,ZOL7
'; l' .: . 5)3;2' 0 -..' ZI:,,,?,17,,../,.--i i-z--fe--::-/,./: 6,- -7--.c.' Ifij ,-,.
O mO `�
e.,
J �s �1 1 "Jai
(-1:70.
i CZ
f c---, J.y, �
a
- ?in = 5,' c ;% ,..e...-c.„-r.. ..‹.....-2___e___- --Y
x . x
• F.,o , ; x m O p 1 -- 1,1_L-t L-✓ e:„.„ ate- -£_. -„�..0_,',;,�( 'i-
BmC , r• 2 �..
M _
. ,s'cZ� C /” y h r iy,s ,.��✓Is�(.c•�/! �`"' G'"'3x1' L�1-� S.t/c� C,�` � _�Z-c.:6-J,
V m • y 5
_5 g°� t�� tri y _ J�^LLC_ i --V---e
q
a
.- :.. j- " YY1.�.'\ 2
1.--C-4 7,,,- X'-"C -2:-"--1.--....,..}L G -t,""C-1... t ` t,3 �../'ti_•
IP 1
C - CZ-- e-,u '--.':%---/- . - C. .--.1-t- e.--,-1..
:,:7
. ••• . • . ,--- ' a_L-L 7 --"" d L2..--(,`--e, - 6-.:-----e / e'") G''' , c*. ' ji''
J
f 1 -L LG.--,---e- �v e:6< s . .,' J-coo---1 (."—el----; �� I-2
F
AO co
C-- -z-7 e_iLA.,--f/ rk)
50 '2/( C114e"
A a11 �_ N RECEIVED
A .�(0 FA
APR 61981 ✓ ., ,. 4!.-"'"--.3.--Z.../'
}
CITY OF SHAKOP
/4'211\'' Cf )'2-1 .}"."1 /2' ‘---' ' ,:•9(./)..2..-C.-..1.'t ,7, _. , ,..„...)-- /4-6-'1,-,7-,...-,.' - ' 9
3
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Damage Claim
DATE: April 16 , 1981
Background
Jo Ann Welter' s damaged car problem has not been forgotten. The
City Engineer and Project Engineer, Ken Adolph of Schoell & Madson,
have made periodic calls to the general contractor stating that
the final $3000 on the project will be withheld until the claims
are resolved. Ken Adolph has reminded the contractor as recently
as last week that we will not pay the $3000 until all claims
(there is one other similar claim) are resolved.
Action Requested
1 . Direct the City Engineer to continue to withhold final payment
to the-general contractor for the installation of the elevated
tank until the claim of Jo Ann Welter is resolved by Larson
Tank Company.
2 . Direct the City Administrator to write to Jo Ann Welter inform-
ing her that the City will continue to withhold final payment
to the contractor until Larson Tank Company resolves the
problem.
JKA/jms
RCEVED
APR i 4 1981
P►KOpEE J. Welter
CITY ®F 1149 Jefferson St.
Shakopee, MN 55379
April 10 , 1981
City of Shakopee
129 E. First Ave.
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Sirs :
I am writing to you with regard to the damage that was done
to my car in September of 1980 , as a result of the careless
paint spraying of the new Shakopee water tower.
On several occasions I contacted the City of Shakopee and was
constantly referred to other companies. I am extremely dis-
appointed at the way this matter has been handled by all the
parties I have contacted.
I have a 1977 Lincoln, Mark V, Collector' s Edition, which now
is a total mess. At the suggestion of the people who did the
painting, I took my car to have the paint marks buffed out. It
now is completely covered with swirl marks from the buffing.
Therefore , I will not be satisfied with the payment of $80 . 60 ,
which was the cost for the buffing of the car. My car now needs
to be completely repainted. After speaking with Larson Tank
Company on April 3 , 1981 , it is quite clear that they do not
intend to make any restitution for having this done, although
I would be open to an equitable solution.
Therefore, I intend to pursue this matter in small claims court.
Please recognize this as formal notice to the City of Shakopee
of my intent.
I would hope that the City of Shakopee would continue to withhold
payment to the contractors until this matter has been settled.
Sincerely,
Jo Ann Welter
v
cc : Larson Tank Company
Enclosures (3)
AUTO BODY REPAIR • PAINTING 4! GLASS&SUNROOFS INSTALLED
SHAKOPEE AUTO REPAIR
1503 West 3rd Ave.,Shakopee, MN.55379 3
Phone 445-1540 * WILLIE WELTER,OWNER
. -
ESTIMATE for REPAIRS
A Dore ?/ 5 Ise°
_ir 1 / r '
(-
NAME -'27-,i-zif-eiza--e. 1.--,121cc-.)•ADDRESS A / / ,--"ynt---1-#'1 CI TY-no-., .../.x._, 51 PHONE
i , /
Me , ,i.e.s..e. t/ Yec. 77 Ser,ol No Body Style Style No
. -
Mdeoge 1.,cen$e No Po,n1 No Tr.rn No Insone Co
,-- —
---•....1 ....: / ESTIMATE OF REPAIR COSTS LABOR
PARTS SUBLET
HRS
_____
el:-_-_--3p.".44
A1 I 1
1 ./ 1
. _
I
---
- trod -
e-.e:'-- --..,-
, 1
___ __ _
:=:-.:- -- ----- -
_. „ I 1
- ,
_ ... ,
. f
.. t
i
_
. . . 1
_ , 1
1
— .
_ ! 1 i
. ,
. .
,
— --- — -------- - -
-
tarAt.
REMARKS
•
i . .
F., • THIS YORK AUTHORIZED HY
173
___
•
TUWAY MESSAGE ,3
TO Brach Szoboda ( Lu ✓f 1 FROM Jodi, Welter
/ -
T �
SUBJECT: Enclosed Estimate \ , _ 7� Q/ DATE 1-20-31
.:N 14 that T had my car buffed, to re:�ove the nairt fro?n the_ water tv _r, it
is -now covered with swirl l.mics. I —LQ ^by, th hc;d-y sbr -_ `i: t. 1-1-1:-, cn1
PA way to remove these marks is to repaint the car, 'ihiel was e -mated at 050.
Who will pay for that?
S --
S
G __
E
J
SIGNED, f 3. .c, L\--(,1:_y_}..:_7_,...._„ ----'1
•
E .
Ip —
L
Y
DATE: SIGNED J
•
—
PRR TED IN U.S.A.
CASCADED L1-C2375
SENDER: DETACH THIS PART AND FILE FO? FOLLOW U?.
•
1
•
:, of, QUALM' UNCOLN MERCURY inc..
astha .
» .r tt of 1 1001 CIovsr Dr. T eie? .ona 83&2271 f
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55 .20 3
BODY AND FENDER REPAIRS • EXPERT REFINISHING
NAME
Lti \ 'keArs
DATE 21-...z&(
ADDRESS /1/ ! 64r-ZO„ PHONE ���`�
-57
il+�rn 12-Q - t DATE
WANTED
YE.yk-CMfODEL-COLOR MAKE OF CAR �� g YIY,RE LICENSE NO. SERIAL NO. MOTOR NO. MILEAGE
-
REPAIR REPLACE LABOR PARTS AND SUBLET ,
MATERIALS WORK
n
rargyaw 7.......__
i .
lis
E
IIIIIIIlIM
IIII I.
s s
IIMI
TOTALS P 1111111MEMIN
LABOR / V III I ',0'��0
PARTS AND MATERIALSIIIEN t../
THIS ESTIMATE IS BASED ON OUR INSPECTION AND DOES NOT COVER/ADDITIONAL PARTS OR
LABOR WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED AFTER THE WORK HAS BEEN STARTED. AFTER THE WORK SUBLET WORK
HAS STARTED, WORN OR DAMAGED PARTS WHICH ARE NL.T EV MEN 6N FIRST INSPECT ION MAY
PE DISCOVERED. NATURALLY THIS EST IMATF_ C.A ,NO:VOOV 0 CCH CONT INGENC IES PARTS. I PRICES SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOT CE. TH E-T MATE I"- FOR,I MM. (ATE,AiCEPTAN E. TAX ! -J{,',a- 0/
THIS WORK AUTHORIZED BY -ill ,j� y,_-.`-'---,e94" GRAND TOTAL \.� {�UL v��j
i
ESTIMATE SHEET AND REPAIR ORDER
- inn
ne - -
_____ e . _
Established 1867 .Charles W.Bailey Editor ,,
Wallace Allen Associate Editor "
Prank Wright Managing Editor
i �, Leonard Inskip Editorial Editor f
'.
'' Donald R.Dwight Publisher LI
LI
8A �- Tuesday, April 14, 1981 ;*
IHOW much are , in ta's trees worth") t
Minnesota responded quickly and effectively when .,, _ - s•? - ,,,,,1,-;:; .;„-4 ,,
it began losing thousands of its shade trees to Dutch4. +r
elm and oak wilt diseases nearly a decade ago Pel ' n-Z.{ 4 -r " ,t ,
Since 1974, the state and local governments have -tx , ,s _ e,
spent more than$105 million to protect still-healthy $ � ` '� - I �;-
.7' D p : ;y,, "s_ t c` e es•t z "s s 413:,tea v. kr. ae..
trees,to remove dead or dying trees and to replace _ a -
them with new, disease-resistant varieties. The of 6 • K
, fort has been working. Although more than 800,000 T .:::-."> :..4:., yy.�.�� ' -
trees were lost, more than 16 million have been .pts " � l
- saved -- and nearly 550,000 new trees have al 7' ' :. s 'k.t,,,;;;F.
,
ready been planted.Minnesota is the only state that .�� :• , .
has had such success once Dutch elm disease had i', " ;
spread to its trees. N b ' eeel ..` .
But that success may be short-lived. GThe• 'state, " ` �.. 0,f f ` ` ', � '� ,
faced with the need to cut spending, is considering Y
reductions of 50 percent or more in funding for the ;, end s4 - a �
Minnesota Shade Tree Program.Such cuts wouldn't x ""I �- `
3
An invitation to our readers
just slow the program. They would limit it to a „, , , ewe i .,4; ,3 .;,4--...4.- A5,31;
±
* point of ineffectiveness.'And that would undo the Victory Memorial Parkway(1976 photo)
gains of the last decade, for any slackening of ef-
forts to control Dutch elm disease would permit it
to spread to the state's surviving elms.That's exact- do about the shade tree program. If so,they should
ly what happened in Syracuse,N.Y.,which relaxed be heard before a choice is made. How important
its control program once the spread of Dutch elm is it to save the state's shade trees? Important..
disease was halted.Within five years,nearly all the enough to take priority over some other state pro
city's elms were gone. grams? Important enough to warrant a tax in •
-
- crease? Should local governments, financially
Legislators know that,but they see no choice but to hard-pressed themselves, nonetheless try to make
reduce spending on the shade tree program. Some up for cuts in state spending?Are there other ways
see themselves faced with a choice of spending to pay for the shade,tree program?Should affected
limited state money on people or on trees. "Trees property owners be assessed for part of its cost,for
have to be a lower priority than people,” said one instance?
senator. Donald.Willeke, chairman of the state's
Shade Tree Advisory Committee, doesn't see the a
choice that way,however.Instead,he contends,the Your answers to such questions could help the
choice is between diverting a little money from oth- Legislature make its hard decision about the
ermoney latus F neve r innesota Shade Tree Program. We invite those
_. programs now or a Ic;.of . t.,., .o:;:.
dead trees -- something that would cost far more answers Letters with your thoughts on the shade i
than maintaining the disease-control program. tree program should be in our hands by April 22.
"Dead elms don't melt like snow inthe spring,". We will publish them early the following week.
1
Willeke points out. "People will pay for trees--ei- Please sign your letters, keep them brief and in-
Cher to save them or to remove them." _ elude your home address (for verification only).
Send them to Letters Editor, Minneapolis Trib-
Sooner or later, then, the people of Minnesota will une,425 Portland Av.,Minneapolis,Minn.55488.
pay a price for whatever the Legislature decides to
action alert
���� IIII-i111
league of minnesota cities
TO: All Legislative Contacts; and Mayors, Managers,
Administrators and Clerks
FROM: Duke Addicks, Legislative Counsel
RE: SHADE TREE DISEASE FUNDING
BACKGROUND
The House Appropriations Subcommittee has slashed the Governor's requested
$19,000,000 for shade tree sanitation and reforestation to a total of
$4,000,000 for 1981 and 1982, and the Senate Finance Subcommittee has reduced
it to $10,000,000. It is possible that state participation in the program
may be eliminated, and cities expected to bear the entire cost of this program.
The Minneapolis Tribune recently contained an editorial about this problem
(see over) and requested that interested persons send their comments to the
Tribune.
ACTION REQUESTED
1. Read the Tribune Editorial (over) .
2. Write the Tribune and your own legislators concerning your city's
willingness and financial ability to cope with the shade tree
disease problem if state financial assistance is greatly reduced
or eliminated. Please do this as soon as possible!
DA/cr
4/15/81
(OVER)
300 hanover building, 480 cedar street, saint paul, minnesota 55101 [612] 222-2861
action alert
111T-)
league of minnesota cities
April 15, 1981
TO: Mayors, Managers, Clerks, Legislative Contacts
FROM: Peggy Flicker, Legislative Counsel
SUBJECT: Industrial Revenue Bonds
Senate StatusRe_aort - S.F. 73
S. F. 73, which the League originally opposed, has been amended so that the League now
supports the bill . It has passed out of both the Local and Urban Affairs Committee
and the Government Operations Committee and has been sent to the Senate floor. Senator
Myrton Wegener is chief author of the bill , and the second author is Senator Jim
Pehler, who was chief author of S. F. 205, the original "League bill . "
What S. F. 73 does:
1 . Requires a city to adopt local guidelines specifying the authorized
uses for revenue bonds within the city before an IR bond project can
be approved.
2. Requires more thorough reporting of information to the state, such
as who buys the bonds, the interest rate on the bonds, and wage scales
for the new jobs created.
3. For each project, requires city to make several findings, among which are:
a) that the project will not directly compete with existing
business in the city, or if it does that the existing business
won't suffer substantial detriment or that the project would
serve the overriding needs of the area as a whole; and
b) that the project would not be likely to occur without the use
of IR bonds - a "but for" finding that the financing is truly necessary.
4. Expands the law to allow hotels, motels, and convention facilities within
the metro area.
(OVER)
300 hanover building, 480 cedar street, saint paul, minnesota 55101 16123 222-2861
-2-
The bill does not apply only to certain types of cities or restrict IR bonds to
certain types of projects. It leaves the decision of when and how to use IR bonds
essentially up to local officials .
What you can do
1 . Contact your Senator personally, by phone or mail . Ask him or her to
support S.F. 73 as reported to the floor when it comes up for a vote
on the floor. We do not anticipate any further amendments, and would
oppose amendments.
2. Contact Senator Wegener, R. 328 State Capitol , 296-4156, and thank him
for working with the League to help pass a reasonable bill .
House Status Report - H.F. 22
The situation in the House is dramatically different from that in the Senate. The
House Local and Urban Affairs Committee last week killed H.F. 22, by the narrow margin
of 14-13. Thanks to all of you who contacted your legislators-the input from local
officials was crucial .
The League decided to aggressively oppose the bill after it became apparent that under
the House proposal many cities would be able to use IR bonds for anv purpose, while
many others would be severely restricted. The Board felt the League could not support
a bill that so arbitrarily includes some cities and excludes others.
The problem now is that the Chairman of the Committee, Representative Gordon Voss, is
strongly committed to passing H.F. 22 out of the committee and apparently is still
working to do just that. The bill may come up for reconsideration any time before
April 24. We need to hold the "no" votes together, and make sure all our supporters
are present and voting.
What H.F. 22 does :
The bill would restrict uses of IR bonds for retail projects . Office buildings could be
built without restriction, but grocery stores, shopping centers, individual retail stores,
and restaurants could not be built unless :
a) The project is in a city under 2,500 population.
b) The project is in a city contiguous to the border (except Canadian border) .
c) The project is in a narrowly defined "blighted area", which is geographically
contiguous and at least 2 acres in size.
Note - the bill does not restrict hotel , motel or tourism projects beyond the metro area
restriction currently in the law.
COMMENTS:
The bill as it now stands comes down particularly hard on newer suburban cities that may
not be able to meet the "blighted area test" and on non-metropolitan cities over 2,500
that also may find it difficult to meet the blight test but may be interested in doing
worthwhile retail projects, such as revitalizing a Main Street shopping area that is not
yet "blighted. "
-3qv
-
The League is particularly concerned that by restricting some cities and not others
there would be potential for unfair competition between cities and even more problems
than have arisen under the current law.
What you can do
1 . Contact members of the House Local and Urban Affairs Committee. Thank
supporters for their "no" vote. (See list with members ' votes . ) Ask
others to consider changing their vote.
2. Contact your Representative. Ask him or her to oppose H.F. 22, if it
gets to the House floor. Remember the League does support S.F. 73, as
amended in committee.
District Committee Member Home City 4/7/81 Vote on H.F. 22
(LEAGUE POSITION-"NO")
47B Voss, Gordon Blaine Yes
8A Lehto, Arlene Duluth Yes
10B Anderson, Robert* Ottertail Not Voting
8B Berkelman, Tom Duluth Yes
61A Brandi , John Minneapolis Yes
59A Clark, Karen Minneapolis Yes
19A Clawson, John Center City No
63B Drew, John* St. Paul Yes
17B Gruenes, David* St. Cloud Not Voting
62B Hanson, Walter St. Paul No
31A Haukoos, Robert* Albert Lea Yes
9A Hoberg, Dwaine* Moorhead No
30A Kalis , Henry Walters Not Voting
40B Knickerbocker, Gerald* Minnetonka No
51A Laidig, Gary* Stillwater No
50A Levi , Connie * Dellwood No
56B Long, Dee Minneapolis Yes
46A McCarron, Paul Spring Lake Park No
18B McEachern, Robert St. Michael No
16A Niehaus, Joseph* Sauk Center Yes
55A Pogemiller, Larry Minneapolis Yes
53A Rodriquez, Carolyn Apple Valley No
30B Schoenfield, Jerry Waseca No
45A Schreiber, William* Brooklyn Park Yes
42B Searles, Robert* Orono No
(OVER)
-4-
District Committee Member Home City 4/7/81 Vote on H.F. 22
(LEAGUE POSITION-"NO")
32A Shea, Thomas Owatonna Yes
34B Sherman, Tim* Winona No
49A Valento, Donald* St. Paul No
19B W6aver, John* Anoka No
18A Welch, Richard Cambridge Yes
* IR Legislators
PF:cmt
4/15/81
CITY OF ' SHAKOPEE
r 1-I\L' ff. •
b
�2 ; ,..,
i f 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
i , •4
„...._y
..,..:, __,,.,,,... ,,„
„...,, ,,....e
MEMO
i
TO: John Anderson
FROM: Jim Karkanen
SUBJECT: Luedloff sewer sewer repair
DATE: April 6, 1981
Introduction:
This memo is to notify you of a possible claim for sewer damages
at the Roger Luedloff residence at 132 W. 8th Ave, which occurred on
April 6, 1981. The obstruction in the sewer system was ultimately
found at the main line in the section of pipe which contains the Luedloff
service line to the main. Because of this evidence, which was discovered
as a result of the digup, the City may have to accept some responsibility
for the sewer problem at that location.
Background:
The Luedloff sewer line is the last service line connected to a
dead end main (with no Manhole) line which flows from the front of
their house, easterly toward the 8th & Holmes St. manhole in the inter-
section. The main sewer line is approximately 240 feet from the manhole
at Holmes St. Whenever the City crews maintain this sewer line, they
have to stop the rodding operation when they estimate that they -have
.reached the dead end, or take the chance of damaging the sewer cleaning
equipment when they hit the dead end. We have sent crews to rod this
line several times in the past few years on a preventive maintenance
schedule, or whenever someone in 'this area has experienced trouble with
their service lines . This maintenance has seemed to clean enough of
the main, in the past, to keep the sewer lines flowing. In checking our
records, this line was cleaned on Oct. 27 , 1980 and Jan. 19., 1981 on
a preventive maintenance schedule, and also on Friday, April 3, 1981, at
the request of Mrs. Luedloff who complained of backup problems on that
. date. At that time, we •rodded the main line as far as we dared without
breaking our equipment, and the backup seemed to disappear. .
Luedloff sewer Page 2
At 6 : 20 a.m. , the following Monday, April 6, 1981, Mrs. Luedloff called
to inform me that the backup had re-appeared and that she was going to
dig it up. She asked for my opinion as to where she should dig it up.
I informed her to consult the plumber who had been rodding her service
line, and ask him where the specific trouble spot was located and
commence to dig it up at that location. I also informed her that if
she had to dig in the street, that she would need a street opening permit.
Later that day, when I went to the location, I noticed that they had
elected to install a new service line starting at the house and going
toward the street. At that time, it was noticed that a large growth
of roots had grown into the last section of pipe. The cause of this
growth of roots was caused, in part, because of the failure of someone
to install a plug (or "cookie") at the last section of pipe. (This is
normally done to seal off the end of the pipe. ) This growth of roots
obviously affected the flow of the service line to the main. It also
was obvious that our rodding efforts in the main were not sufficient
enough to chew up the clump of roots as anticipated. At that point, I
told Mrs . Luedloff that the City would repair the street excavation
at no cost to her. A manhole is also scheduled to be built at the dead
end of the main later in the summer so the main can be adequately
maintained. I also believe that the City may be required to pay for
several hours of labor by the plumber for removing the roots and repairing
the pipe. I told Mrs. Luedloff that thee -City should not be expected to
pay for the pipe replacement to her home because that decision was
apparently made by her and/or the plumber .
Recommendation:
A conference should be set up with Mrs. Luedloff to negotiate
a fair settlement for the City' s responsibility toward the problem.
I feel that the City should make the street repair, install a manhole
at that location, and reimburse her for the plumbers efforts while
repairing the main and removing the root growth. I do not believe that
the City should make any payment for the installation of the new service
line to the house.
This memo is for informational purposes only at this time. No
Council action is requested until Mrs. Luedloff indicates what her
intentions will be regarding this matter.
c
v
t
..,t-----"
---1
V_
'„_,
ti-.
0 ..j..,.'1 z
-4 \;, L -
. J
,13ti
e
vl S
, T
1 IJ E s
T
J
1J 1. Vi .
i
r,
1
if
1
1
1
I
1
C)
i ,/
. 1
X
i =>
(/\�
li
A
✓)
ay
Z
0_
/ V
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Hospital/County Parking Block #57
DATE: April 16 , 1981
Introduction
In March, City Council directed staff to prepare, by April 21 , 1981 ,
a draft of an agreement that would incorporate the goals of the
City, Hospital and County in providing parking in the area around
St. Francis Hospital and the Scott County Courthouse.
Background
Attached is the draft of a "Redevelopment and Financing Plan" (Plan)
prepared by the assistant City Attorney after meeting with the City
Engineer and City Administrator. The Plan would provide the basis
for implementing a "pre-assessment agreement" . The Plan was sent
to the County and Hospital and a meeting was held with all parties
involved on April 9, 1981 .
At that time, the cost estimates listed on page three of the Plan
were revised as noted. The land acquisition figures were increased
to $692 ,000 to reflect purchase of the County and Hospital held
properties in Block #57 with full reimbursement for any acquisition
and relocation expense they had incurred. The parking lot con-
struction costs were increased by $24,600 to $202 ,700 to accommodate
a resurfacing so that bonds could be sold for more than a 10 year
improvement .
Also attached and available at the April 9, 1981 meeting were several
computer analysis of the potential bond issue required to finance
the Plan. The annual debt service costs to the City (i .e. County
and Hospital through the proposed "pre-assessment agreement") are
highlighted in the printout .
Summary
After discussing the cost of the Plan, several other concerns were
expressed by the County and Hospital representatives at the meeting,
such as:
1 . Fairly sharing the storm sewer with all who benefit.
2 . Timing of storm sewer construction given the need for City
storm sewer area assessments.
3. Other parties benefiting from use of the parking lot without
paying.
Hospital/County Parking Block #57
Page Two
April 16, 1981
4. Control of the lot by the parties who would be paying for the
240 stalls .
5. Re-couping of acquistion and relocation costs to date if the
already acquired lots were transfered (or sold) to the City.
6. The City' s inability to legally condemn another government ' s
property (i .e. County held lots) .
With the complexity of implementing the Plan growing more and more
apparent , both the Hospital and the County again asked what was
really required to resolve the parking problem to the satisfaction
of City Council . Staff was not able to provide a definitive answer;
however, I suggested that both parties clearly lay out their plans
in writing so that if the plans were acceptable (i .e. the quantity
and the timing of the off-street parking provided was satisfactory)
the plans could be the basis of a FORMAL agreement to provide off
street parking that would replace the Plan. Those plans are attached.
Action Required
Direct staff to either:
1. Obtain a formal agreement to provide off-street parking with the
Hospital and/or County.
2. Obtain a "pre-assessment agreement" and move to initiate condemna-
tion proceedings on all property in Block 57 except that owned
by Scott County.
JKA/jms
Preliminary Draft
`• April 2, 1981
s. 'JL
REDEVELOPMENT AND FINANCING PLAN 13 EC rdnirrs*
HOSPITAL COURTHOUSE PARKING LOT
AP}; 3 1981
I.
Statement of Need CITY OF ' K®pEEE,
There is a need for redevelopment in certain areas of the City to
provide for increased parking facilities in order to facilitate growth and
sound planning, and to further provide for desirable development and redevelop-
ment and encourage and enhance the general health and welfare of the residents
of the City and of the surrounding area. The actions herein proposed to be
taken by the City with respect to this Redevelopment District No. 2 (the
District) , are necessary to secure the development and redevelopment of the
property included in the District, at this time and in a manner which will best
meet these needs.
II .
Statement of Objectives
The objectives sought to be accomplished by the City in establishing
a district and in carrying out this redevelopment plan and financing the costs
thereof as specified herein in the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the District
(the Financing Plan) are to meet the needs specified in Paragraph I :
1. By promoting and securing the development and redevelop-
ment of certain property in the District in the manner
consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and needs
and with a minimal adverse impact on the environment;
2. By promoting and securing additional employment opportunities
within the District and City for the residents of the District
and surrounding area, thereby improving living standards ,
reducing unemployment and preventing areas of chronic unemploy-
ment and loss of skilled and unskilled labor and other human
resources in the City;
3. By securing the construction and providing monies for the
payment of the cost of public improvements in or adjacent to
the District, which are necessary for the orderly and bene-
ficial development of the District and adjacent areas of the
City; and
4. By securing and providing additional parking facilities badly
needed by residents of the City and surrounding areas who
utilize the facilities at St. Francis Hospital , and the Scott
County Courthouse.
III.
Property in District; Zoning
The property within the following boundary line is included in the
District:
je,
i Block 57, Original Shakopee Plat; the South Half of Block 47,
Original Shakopee Plat; Atwood Street from its intersection
with the North boundary of Fourth Avenue to its intersection
with the North boundary of Second Avenue; Third Avenue from
its intersection with the West boundary of Atwood to its
intersection with the East boundary of Fuller;
The zoning of the above-described parcels is as follows:
IV.
Property to be Acquired by City; Present Use, Future Use
The property in the District proposed to be acquired by the City is all
of Block 57, Original Shakopee Plat. The present use of said property is partially
for parking and partially for residential use. The future use of said property will
be as a parking lot in the first phase of redevelopment, and as an office building
and parking ramp in the second phase of redevelopment.
V.
Preparation, Disposition and Development of Property
After acquisition by the City of Block 57 , Original Shakopee Plat, the
City will undertake the following activities with respect thereto.
Preparation of Property
The City will :
1. Remove or relocate five residences presently located on
said property;
2. Construct a storm sewer and other drainage control
facilities designed to serve the property;
3. Will perform certain grading, stripping and grubbing
on the property; and
4. Will perform other necessary work on the property inci-
- dental to the foregoing, all as more fully described in
the engineering report on the District provided by the
Shakopee City Engineer, dated the day of
1981, now on file at City Hall .
Disposition and Development of Property
Phase One
In the first phase the City will construct a parking lot on the property
covered with a bituminous surface, which parking lot will contain 240 stalls for the
parking of vehicles. During Phase One, the City will undertake the maintenance and
upkeep of the parking lot.
17&-•
Phase Two
In Phase Two, the City would propose to sell some or all of the
property to a private developer for the construction of a building together with
an attached parking ramp. Said parking ramp would provide 240 stalls to replace
the stalls previously located on the surface of the parking lot, together with
all required additional stalls necessary to accommodate the building to be con-
structed. The private redeveloper would be obligated to maintain the ramp for its
own use as well as for the use of public parking patrons utilitizing the facilities
of St. Francis Hospital and the Scott County Courthouse.
VI .
Costs
Initial Costs
It is anticipated that the initial costs of acquisition, removal and
construction of a parking lot facility with a bituminous surface on Block 57,
Original Shakopee Plat is as follows: i
1. Land acquisition and relocation - $474,500.00 TofCv4�1G0 y)
2. Parking lot construction - $178,100.00 f�/a41, I-- ) �
3. Off-site storm sewer - $104,100.00CA� Ih� �(��
Total - $771,700.00 V(14/1 V
Phase Two (J
1401
It is estimated that the cost of construction for 240 parking ramp stalls
would be $
VII.
Financing Plan
Phase One
Financing of the land acquisition relocation parking lot construction and
storm sewer construction of Phase One in the approximate total cost of $771,700.00
together with costs of administration, financing and capitalized interests would be
provided by the issuance of general obligation improvement bonds by the City. These
bonds would be retired by a levy of special assessments on St. Francis Hospital and
the County of Scott over a period of 20 years pursuant to a written agreement between
these two entities and the City whereby the Hospital and County would agree to the
level of special benefit and the dollar amount of the special assessments. Said
agreement would provide that the City could later sell all or part of Block 57 to a
private developer who would be required to provide an equivalent amount of parking
spaces on a parking ramp.
Phase Two
Phase Two would provide for the construction of a parking ramp which would
replace the 240 parking stalls located on. Block 57. The City would sell all or
portions of said land at a nominal price for the construction of an office
building pursuant to a redevelopment contract with a private developer who
would then construct a building at a guaranteed valuation. A parking ramp
would be constructed to serve that office building, as well as replace the
above-mentioned 240 parking stalls. The cost of that portion of the parking
ramp needed to replace the 240 parking stalls would be financed by the issuance
of general obligation bonds of the City payable primarily from the tax incre-
ments derived as a result of the construction of the office building, and from
special assessments on the building, if necessary. Neither the Hospital nor the
County would be asked to pay additional money for the capital costs of that por-
tion of the ramp needed to replace the above-described 240 parking stalls. If
either the County or Hospital requested additional parking spaces, an assessment
agreement would be entered into requiring the Hospital or County, as the case may
be, to pay the additional debt service on bonds sold to finance the additional
parking facilities.
Tax Increment Information
Original assessed valuation - $
Anticipated new valuation - $
Captured valuation - $
Tax Increment - $
SPRINCSTED -� 7°
INCORPORATED arzt vow
PUBLIC FINANCE
ADVISORS R lb 19d
14 April 1981 r1TY OFICOP
Mr. John Anderson
City Administrator
129 East I st Ave.
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
RE: Parking Lot Improvement
Dear Mr. Anderson:
I am enclosing Schedules 4-6 to supplement the three previous schedules
developed last week.
These schedules provide for capital financing of the following costs:
Land Acquisition $692,000
Construction of Lot 178, 100
Storm Sewer 104, 100
$974,200
Schedule 6 includes provision for an additional $24,000 for future lot
resurfacing. In reality, you would probably not wish to borrow that amount if
you were not going to expend the funds for an extended period.
Each of the schedules provides for capitalized interest for the payment of
interest incurred on the bonds between October 1981, and February I, 1983. As
with the first three schedules, this assumes no income from Scott County or the
hospital until 1983. In the event income was available earlier, the issue could
be reduced by eliminating some or all of the interest capitalized. Each of the
programs provide sufficient moneys for needed development of the lot, based on
your estimates.
I increased the interest rate on the 10-year schedule because of market
condition changes during the past week. The increase from 8.75% to an
estimated 9.0% is not related to the increased size of the issue.
If you have any questions about these schedules, please feel free to contact me.
Very sincerely yours,
Robert D. Pulscher
Enclosures
/gf
•
800 Osborn Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 (612) 222-4241
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA PREPARED APRIL 6, 1981
$755, 000 GENERAL OBLIGATIONBY SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED INCREMENT BONDS OF 1981 //' SCHEDULE 1 \
DATED: 10/ 1/1981 \,,,,___-
MATURE : 1/ 1
8 . 750%
COUPON Al LEVY
REV. MATURE PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL 4y1 (105%)
(1) (2) (3) (4) ( 5) ) (6)
1981 1983 0 82, 578 82, 5780 86,707
1982 1984 50, 000 66, 063 116, 063 121, 866
1983 1985 55, 000 61 , 688 116, 688 122, 522
1984 1986 60, 000 56,875 116, 875 122, 719
1985 1987 65, 000 51 , 625 116, 625 122, 456
1986 1988 70, 000 45, 938 115, 938 121 , 735
1987 1989 75, 000 39, 813 114, 813 120, 554
1988 1990 85, 000 33, 250 118, 250 124, 163
1989 1991 90, 000 25,813 115, 813 121 , 604
1990 1992 100, 000 17, 938 117, 938 123, 835
1991 1993 105, 000 9, 188 114, 188 119, 897
TOTALS: $755, 000 $490, 769 $1, 245, 769 $1 , 308 , 058
30ND YEARS : 5, 609 COUPON INTEREST COST: $490, 769
AVERAGE MATURITY: 7. 43 DISCOUNT (PREMIUM) : 0
AVG. ANNUAL RATE : 8 . 750% TOTAL INTEREST COST: $490, 769
AVERAGE ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIRED $116, 618
(COLUMN 5 , REV. YEARS 1983 THRU 1990)
AVERAGE WITH 5% OVERLEVY $122448
(COLUMN 6 , REV. YEARS 1983 THRU 1990)
ck_
n
CITY OF SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA ---=2-------- PREPARED APRIL 6, 1981
$865, 000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BY SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED
TAX INCREMENT BONDS OF 1981SCHEDULE 2-
/ i
DATED: 10/ 1/1981 K,
MATURE : 1/ 1
8 . 750%
COUPON LEVY
REV. MATURE PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL (105%)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1981 1983 0 94 , 609 94 , 609 99, 339
1982 1984 55, 000 75, 688 130, 688 137 , 222
1983 1985 60, 000 70, 875 130,875 137 , 419
1984 1986 70, 000 65, 625 135, 625 142, 406
1985 1987 75, 000 59, 500 134 , 500 141 , 225
1986 1988 80, 000 52, 938 132, 938 139, 585
1987 1989 90 , 000 45, 938 135, 938 142, 735
1988 1990 95,000 38, 063 133 , 063 139, 716
1989 1991 105, 000 29, 750 134, 750 141 , 488
1990 1992 110, 000 20 , 563 130, 563 137 , 091
1991 1993 125, 000 10, 938 135,938 142,735
TOTALS: $865, 000 $564, 487 $1 , 429, 487 $1 , 500, 961
BOND YEARS : 6, 451 COUPON INTEREST COST: $564, 487
AVERAGE MATURITY: 7. 46 DISCOUNT (PREMIUM) : 0
AVG . ANNUAL RATE: 8 . 750% TOTAL INTEREST COST: $564, 487
AVERAGE ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIRED $133, 532
(COLUMN 5 , REV. YEARS 1983 THRU 1990)
AVERAGE WITH 5% OVERLEVY $140, 208
(COLUMN 6 , REV. YEARS 1983 THRU 1990) )
l'61- .
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA PREPARED APRIL 6, 1981
$975, 000 GENERAL OBLIGATION \ BY SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED
TAX INCREMENT BONDS OF 1981 SCHEDULE 3
DATED: 10/ 1/1981
MATURE: 1/ 1 ----
8 . 750%
COUPON LEVY
REV. MATURE PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL (105%)
(1) (2) (3) (4) ( 5) (6)
1981 1983 0 106, 641 106 , 641 111, 973
1982 1984 65, 000 85, 313 150 , 313 157 ,829
1983 1985 70, 000 79 , 625 149 , 625 157 , 106
1984 1986 75, 000 73, 500 148 , 500 155, 925
1985 1987 85, 000 66, 938 151 ,938 159 , 535
1986 1988 90, 000 59 , 500 149, 500 156 , 975
1987 1989 100 , 000 51, 625 151 , 625 159 , 206
1988 1990 110, 000 42,875 152, 875 160, 519
1989 1991 115, 000 33, 250 148 , 250 155, 663
1990 1992 125, 000 23, 188 148 , 188 155, 597
1991 1993 140, 000 12, 250 152 , 250 159 , 863
TOTALS: $975, 000 $634, 705 $1 , 609, 705 $1 , 690, 191
BOND YEARS : 7 , 254 COUPON INTEREST COST: $634, 705
AVERAGE MATURITY: 7 . 44 DISCOUNT (PREMIUM) : 0
AVG . ANNUAL RATE: 8. 750% TOTAL INTEREST COST: $634, 705
AVERAGE ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIRED $150, 063
(COLUMN 5 , REV. YEARS 1983 THRU 1990)
AVERAGE WITH 5% OVERtEVY $157,5 6
C(COLUMN 6 , REV. YEARS 1983 THRU 1990)
, 6,,„„
CITY OF SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA --,- EPARED APRIL 6, 1981
$870,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BY SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED
TAX INCREMENT BONDS OF 1981 / SCHEDULE 4
DATED: 10/ 1/1981
MATURE: 1/ 1
9. 250%
COUPON LEVY
REV. MATURE PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL (105%)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1981 1983 0 100 , 594 100, 594 105, 624
1982 1984 30, 000 80, 475 110 , 475 115,999
1983 1985 30, 000 77 , 700 107 , 700 113, 085
1984 1986 35, 000 74, 925 109 , 925 115, 421
1985 1987 40, 000 71 , 688 111 , 688 117 , 272
1986 1988 40, 000 67 , 988 107 , 988 113, 387
1987 1989 45, 000 64, 288 109 , 288 114 , 752
1988 1990 50, 000 60 , 125 110 , 125 115, 631
1989 1991 - 55, 000 55, 500 110 , 500 116, 025
1990 1992 60 , 000 50 , 413 110 , 413 115,934
1991 1993 65, 000 44, 863 109 , 863 115, 356
1992 1994 70, 000 38 , 850 108 ,850 114, 293
1993 1995 75, 000 32, 375 107 , 375 112,744
1994 1996 85, 000 25, 438 110, 438 115, 960
1995 1997 90, 000 17 , 575 107 , 575 112, 954
1996 1998 100 , 000 9 , 250 109 , 250 114 ,713
TOTALS : _$870, 000 $872 , 047 $1 , 742, 047 $1 , 829, 150
BOND YEARS: 9, 428 COUPON INTEREST COST: $872, 047
AVERAGE MATURITY: 10 . 84 DISCOUNT (PREMIUM) : 0
AVG. ANNUAL RATE: 9. 250% TOTAL INTEREST COST: $872, 047
AVERAGE ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIRED $109 , 364
(COLUMN 5 , REV. YEARS 1983 THRU 1995)
AXERAGE WITH 5% OVERLEVY $114,83
COLUMN 6 , REV. YEARS 1983 THRU 1995)
CITY OF SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA PREPARED APRIL 14 , 1981
$1 , 090 , 000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BY SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED
TAX INCREMENT BONDS OF 1981 SCHEDU . 4
DATED: 10/ 1/1981
MATURE: 1/ 1
9. 000%
COUPON LEVY
REV. MATURE PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL (105%)
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1981 1983 0 122 , 625 122, 625 128, 756
1982 1984 70, 000 98 , 100 168 ,100 176, 505
1983 1985 80, 000 91 , 800 171 , 800 180, 390
1984 1986 85, 000 84 , 600 169 , 600 178, 080
1985 1987 95, 000 76, 950 171 , 950 180, 548
1986 1988 100 , 000 68, 400 168 , 400 176, 820
1987 1989 110, 000 59, 400 169, 400 177 ,870
1988 1990 120, 000 49, 500 169, 500 177 , 975
1989 1991 130 , 000 38, 700 168 , 700 177 , 135
1990 1992 145, 000 27, 000 172 , 000 180, 600
1991 1993 155, 000 13, 950 168 , 950 177, 398
TOTALS : $1 , 090, 000 $731, 025 $1 ,821 , 025 $1 , 912, 077
BOND YEARS: 8, 123 COUPON INTEREST COST: $731 , 025
AVERAGE MATURITY: 7. 45 DISCOUNT (PREMIUM) : 0
AVG. ANNUAL RATE: 9. 000% TOTAL INTEREST COST: $731, 025
AVERAGE ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIRED $170, 169
(COLUMN 5 , REV. YEARS 1983 THRU 1990)
AVERAGE WITH 5% OVERLEVY $178,677
(COLUMN 6 , REV. YEARS 1983 THRU 1990)
J°
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA PREPARED APRIL 14 , 1981
$1 , 100 , 000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BY SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED
TAX INCREMENT BONDS OF 1981 SCHEDULE
DATED: 10/ 1/1981 __-
MATURE:
MATURE: 1/ 1
9. 500%
COUPON LEVY
REV. MATURE PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL (105%)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1981 1983 0 130, 625 130, 625 137, 156
1982 1984 35, 000 104, 500 139, 500 146, 475
1983 1985 40, 000 101 , 175 141 , 175 148 , 234
1984 1986 45, 000 97 , 375 142, 375 149, 494
1985 1987 50, 000 93, 100 143, 100 150, 255
1986 1988 50, 000 88 , 350 138 , 350 145, 268
1987 1989 55, 000 83, 600 138 , 600 145, 530
1988 1990 60, 000 78 , 375 138 , 375 145, 294
1989 1991 70, 000 72 , 675 142, 675 149, 809
1990 1992 75, 000 66, 025 141 , 025 148 , 076
1991 1993 80, 000 58 , 900 138 , 900 145, 845
1992 1994 90, 000 51 , 300 141 , 300 148, 365
1993 1995 100, 000 42,750 142 , 750 149 , 888
1994 1996 105, 000 33, 250 138 , 250 145, 163
1995 1997 115, 000 23, 275 138 , 275 145, 189
1996 1998 130, 000 -12, 350 142, 350 149, 468
TOTALS : $1 , 100, 000 $1 , 137 ,625 $2, 237, 625 $2, 349 , 509
BOND YEARS : 11 ,975 COUPON INTEREST COST: $1 , 137, 625
AVERAGE MATURITY: 10. 89 DISCOUNT (PREMIUM) : 0
AVG. ANNUAL RATE: 9. 500% TOTAL INTEREST COST: $1 , 137 ,625
AVERAGE ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIRED $140, 396
(COLUMN 5 , REV. YEARS 1983 THRU 1995)
: 1 RAGE WITH 5% OVERLEVY $147;416
(COLUMN 6 , REV. YEARS 1983 THRU 1995)
a/
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA PREPARED APRIL 14 , 1981
$1 , 125, 000 GENERAL OBLIGATION /7"-- BY SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED
TAX INCREMENT BONDS OF 1981 SCHEDULE
DATED: 10/ 1/1981 -
MATURE: 1/ 1
9. 750%
COUPON LEVY
REV. MATURE PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL (105%)
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1981 1983 0 137 , 109 137, 109 143,964
1982 1984 20, 000 109, 688 129, 688 136 , 172
1983 1985 20, 000 107, 738 127, 738 134 , 125
1984 1986 25, 000 105, 788 130 , 788 137 , 327
1985 1987 25, 000 103, 350 128, 350 134 , 768
1986 1988 30, 000 100, 913 130, 913 137 , 459
1987 1989 30 , 000 97, 988 127, 988 134 , 387
1988 1990 35, 000 95, 063 130, 063 136, 566
1989 1991 40, 000 91 , 650 131 , 650 138, 233
1990 1992 45, 000 87, 750 132,750 139, 388
1991 1993 45, 000 83, 363 128, 363 134 , 781
1992 1994 50, 000 78 , 975 128, 975 135, 424
1993 1995 55, 000 74 , 100 129, 100 135, 555
1994 1996 60, 000 68 , 738 128, 738 135, 175
1995 1997 70, 000 62, 888 132, 888 139, 532
1996 1998 75, 000 56, 063 131 , 063 137, 616
1997 1999 80, 000 48 , 750 128, 750 135, 188
1998 2000 90 , 000 40, 950 130 , 950 137 , 498
1999 2001 100 , 000 32, 175 132, 175 138, 784
2000 2002 110 , 000 22, 425 132, 425 139, 046
2001 2003 120, 000 11 , 700 131, 700 138, 285
TOTALS: $1 , 125, 000 $1 , 617 , 164 $2, 742, 164 $2, 879, 273
BOND YEARS : 16 , 586 COUPON INTEREST COST: $1 , 617 , 164
AVERAGE MATURITY: 14 . 74 DISCOUNT (PREMIUM) : 0
AVG. ANNUAL RATE: 9. 750% TOTAL INTEREST COST: $1 , 617, 164
AVERAGE ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIRED $130, 204
(COLUMN 5 13E . YEARS 1983 THRU 2000)
AVERAGE WITH 5% OVERLEVY $136,74
(COLUMN 6 , REV. YEARS 1983 THRU 2000)
i .. CID
f
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
'$ �f SCOTT COUNTY COURT HOUSE 110 APR 15 1981
SHAKOPEE, MN.55379
(612)-445-7750, Ext.100 CITY OF SHAKOPEE
JOSEPH F.RIES
Administrator April 15, 1981
JAMES M.SULERUD
Asst.Administrator
TO: Mr. John Anderson, Shakopee City Administrator
FROM: Joseph F. Ries, Scott County Administrator
SUBJECT: Development of County Off-street Parking on Block 57
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Pursuant to our discussion at the meeting with St. Francis Hospital
representatives last Thursday, I am submitting herewith, the lay-out plan
for county off-street parking on Lots 6, 7 and the east 25 feet of Lot 8
on Block 57.
301
The plan includes that property (Lot 6 and E. .2,-H'r of Lot 7) acquired
and developed by the County in 1974 as well as the recently purchased por-
tions of Lots 7 and 8 from the Jeurissen estate (214 West Fourth Avenue) .
Also enclosed is the time-table for the construction of a parking lot on
the latter property which will provide 25 additional stalls to this parking
complex and elevate its capacity to accomodate 54 vehicles. The county's
Application for Conditional Use Permit for this project will follow.
This effort is in keeping with the county's commitment to the City of
Shakopee to expand off-street parking on Block 57 in joint with St. Francis
Hospital and demonstrates our support for this project.
Kindly place this matter on the City Council Agenda for April 21, 1981
and advise of the time it is expected to be heard. I plan to be present
at that meeting.
Sincerely,
'7 4/1
siF. Ries
,j" Administrator
Encls. (2)
cc: R. Kathleen Morris, County Attorney
E.W. Prenevost, County Highway Engineer
Ed Monnens, County Maintenance Engineer
JFR:bn
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Ski` ; ���.�.,�° .=FICE OF THE ADMINISTRJ, . OR
SCOTT COUNTY COURT HOUSE 110
SHAKOPEE, MN.55379 (612)-445-7750, Ext.100
JOSEPH F.RIES
Administrator
JAMES M.SULERUD
Asst.Administrator
MEMORANDUM April 15, 1981
TO: Joe Ries, Administrator
FROM: Jim Sulerud, Assistant Administrato
SUBJECT: Estimated Time Frame for Parking Lot Development, Block 57
April 20 Completion of Specifications for Removal of Structures
April 20
& 29 Publication of Notice for Bids for same.
April 30 Application for Conditional Use Permit Due
May 14 Shakopee Planning Commission approval of Conditional
Use Permit
May 15 Bid Opening for structure removal
May 19 Award of Bids for structure removal
June 20 Structure removal completed
July 17 Parking lot construction completed
cc: Ery Prenevost, Highway Engr.
Ed Monnens, Maint. Engr.
R.Kathleen Morris, County Atty.
JS:bn
•
An Equal Opportunity Employer
1;(!!!!! lil
St.Francis Hospital
325 WEST FIFTH AVENUE/SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA 55379/(612)445-2322
April 15, 1981
Mr. John K. Anderson
City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: Parking
Dear John:
Pursuant to the joint meeting held on April 9, 1981 with the City, County
and Hospital representatives , I would like to reiterate our support for
the development of Block 57 for parking.
"St. Francis Hospital supports the City of Shakopee
exercising its power of eminent domain to condemn
Block 57 to facilitate the development of the area
for parking".
(see Resolution dated November 2, 1980, attached)
However, our preference is to acquire the property and develop a parking
lot without going through condemnation. If, in the judgment of the City
Council , this cannot be done in a reasonable amount of time, St. Francis
Hospital agrees to assume the costs associated with the condemnation of
the Pass Residence (Lot 2) and the Schultz Residence (E 1/2 Lot 9 and the
W 1/2 Lot 8) .
These parcels in addition to the property currently owned by St. Francis
Hospital would account for approximately one half of Block 57.
I would like to take this opportunity to submit information to the City
Council in hopes of convincing them that adequate parking can be developed
in a reasonable amount of time and that condemnation will not be necessary.
Attached are Schematic Parking Plans which include the following:
- Survey for St. Francis Hospital
- Addendum A Lots 3,4,5, Block 45
- Addendum B Block 58
- Addendum C Lots 1 ,2,10 and West one half of Lot 9 in Block 57.
The Survey indicates that there are currently 79 spaces available for parking
on St. Mark's Lot at 4th and Atwood (Block 43) and St. Francis' Lot at 4th
and Scott (Block 59) .
•
•
SPONSORED BY THE FRANCISCAN SISTERS OF ST. PAUL, MN
• • SGV
Mr. John Anderson
April 15, 1981
Page Two
Addendum "A" indicates that there will be 66 spaces available for parking
on St. Mark' s playground area (Block 45) This lot is scheduled to be in oper-
ation on June 1 , 1981 .
Addendum "B" indicates that there will be 15 spaces available for parking
on the hospital site (Block 58) . The lot near the Emergency Room is scheduled
to be operational by July 1 , 1981 .
Addendum "C" indicates that there will be 60 spaces available for parking
on the property currently owned by St. Francis Hospital on Block 57. This
lot may be available as early as August 1 , 1981 . The renters of these
properties have been given notice to vacate the premises effective May 31 ,
1981 . The buildings are scheduled to be razed or moved concurrent with the
razing of St. Francis Hospital ' s "Old Home" on approximately June 1 , 1981 .
As you know, hospital consultants (Alexian Brothers Health Management, Inc.
and Hamilton Associates , Inc. ) have identified a need for 200-300 parking
spaces to serve St. Francis Hospital . Ideally, these spaces should be off-
street.
By August, 1981 , St. Francis Hospital plans to have available 220 spaces to
serve its employees , physicians and visitors, well within the minimum guide-
line.
Block 59 . . . . . 24
Block 43 . . . . 55
Block 45 . . . . 66
Block 58 . . . . 15
Block 57 . . . . 60
TOTAL 220
Efficient use of these lots can be ensured with appropriate signage, re-
stricting street parking to two hours after the lots are available, and sur-
veillance.
A recent Parking Survey conducted through the office of the City Engineer
dated 1/29/81 , analyzed the average total number of cars parked on 12 blocks
(streets) adjacent to St. Francis Hospital . The study clearly showed the
need of 183 off-street parking spaces for 140 full-time parked cars and
43 temporary parked cars. The study includes the impact of the parking needs
of the Scott County Court House. With the development of the Jeurissen parcel
(Lot 7, Block 57) , the County will have an additional 28 off-street spaces.
The remaining parking needs should more than adequately be met by St. Francis
Hospital in August, 1981 . However, we will continue to pursue the acquisi-
tion of the remaining parcels on the West half of Block 57.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to call me.
Best wishes.
Sincerely, C'
G/f»ICC / Lc-c
Thomas K. Prusak
Director of Operational Services
TKP:hme
• i
\I- Vs.k n QLN 3Qicl v 5-- ,.../13 .3z.tus
LLO3S ..
, ___ .
. .
. .
•• . • .,
.,, . .• .
. . .
. . i
•
. . .
--\
�........1 /- ''''...*.' . • 1
,
1 1 I / . / , /
N m I /1 / i \
U %
4.
_� —a „0-,"� c7I —I� „0-,6 �S3Dt�dS 8 t 4 ,8I 1-4f_____
QI s3�dds z �° „0-16 o S30VciS b j
D I
I u- a.Z -I
kW. \ -.... ,
i0 m j
m rt Ti o i I -
N I o
, !
c7'i
,� a •
i N „0-,6 & S3�t1dS 9 N:
N M
N
i - +
„0-,6 & S30tydS 9
wI -�> , o; !
o m �
i
j (!) N
Q W
U
C7 d
N1
N
O,
IC
' .81 'F` ,Z Z �`0- „0-,6 a S 3 3 tyd S 9 + ,Z Z
N
N
L.---
r
I
I
I 1
1 -
1 I i.
It .
r>I
V ♦ ' Zl _ 4� I 1 N '
•
` '1
- , - <,1 � � off _ .Er - 1H� )! �
I �a I `J - i'2'11/,: ',i-------'--- . .. I ,.—.: '4-
j---,1 1;-,.2
7 ! 1—'Tr`— I -
(_— ,.,,.4 I 1\1 r _ _ _ L9L —_
. _af____ i______. ___ _,\
• —fin .. ..
o. , `
1 ,,
... ,,
.--ku
N. i - 16- N 4. ,_ v, / \,,, ‘„ 1 .I-
- , ,,,l/ , 4 , ..... ........ ,
_ ... ..... _ .:- .•_••
_ _ .... c,„,i...„... — .
1T
:II
/ � > .1 ., fill,A-../-: )-1‘ *1_,- +_
rx e.
i111d,_ ( 1 �r
•
a gJ 1
♦ • cf1 ' f
/
Q1) _ �' (, _ N m f____ es'
► , i ,,
• 0 % I i 3 r V 3
L1, ti L ; �/ � a1- 10
1 vi I ,,, -? l ,,
\^
1 i-- � I x 7
1 }' — i
i
J
0 . . .t
‘ ,
1 . ' t . . . .,-,
• �J 17
�+ ,�' �-- ' y e _ 111
�� - - _ ti. ,.,_ _, ,,,,
WI
a� L
•
1= r ----4
;1 / .„,___I
:1 . ,,
,ki
•t1• 1.1: �� ��' 3
z
�], i �� 'I
‘ -n / .') I , r ,
,
/ 111 01 - • ��0� cs N
' II
. .
_
UINALK
t •. • jGjji %/•
% 11 ..• ,,,c,- ,01,71. ,i/- ,Ix'4,,/, i \
t -tV ERN �•//
A I ; // //:,.. I 11
Q I
ri"-^12 .: ,,.•C /1114444%.
• I 1 /
I
\ w t)
1
1 _
1 1 I r•,.,1
I I I
11 1 ••. „— ,o•i 0 s3DVdS • 1
A 1 i
A ,
.
t . 1 I
A
t r .
1 I •
1 . . 1
1 t ,1- xf, ii%' I 1
l POWER POLE
C 1 •
t 1 � P011ER POLE 1
A i b• ' I
1 , i[ I I /
t / h� 1 ( _
d, I I 'l--J
® I
t 1 ilikis ,,
I if I‘'./ g ,
Au
(45.0),
1 V / ;./. ,:fr ,
A A I • ow, / '/:. 0 4,
1/ I 1
% . I t
1 ' v1
r'
1 0
1 /
1 /
I
•1
1
— •
11
K. :• ....
11 �, Y j �� ,
j
/ r
1 _
54/4 I
f i//- . I
r
mUlIF
St.Francis Hospital -
325 WEST FIFTH AVENUE/SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA 55379/(612)445-2322
April 9, 1981
Mr. John Anderson RE: Construction Program
City Administrator
City of Shakopee
Shakopee, MN
Dear John,
As you know, St. Francis Hospital 's building program is
slated to commence June 1 , 1981 . The first phase of the
program will be the demolition of St. Francis Hospital 's
"old home" and the construction of a new North East wing
concurrent with a new Emergency Services Department.
For the purposes of safety, I would request permission to close
Atwood Street during this period of demolition and construction,
approximately twelve (12) months.
I would also request that there be "No Parking" on the west half
of the south side of Fifth Avenue between Scott and Atwood during
the period of construction.
The hospital will be providing a new emergency entrance on
Fifth Avenue to allow access to the existing Emergency Services
Department until the new construction is complete.
I will be happy to discuss this matter further with you.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,/
�riil�• /�•C ,Gwo�
Thomas K. Prusak
Director of Operational Services
TKP:hme
Approve request and direct staff to take appropriate actions to implement
the request.
SPONSORED BY THE FRANCISCAN SISTERS OF ST. PAUL, MN
March 6, 1981
Mr. Virgil Mears
Shakopee Police Commission
Shakopee, Mn. 55379
Dear Mr. Mears,
I have enclosed my personal resume and would like to submit
my application for the Shakopee Police Commission position.
Thank you for extending this opportunity, and if any questions
arise, please contact me.
Thank You
Daniel G. Steil
853 Minn. Str.
Shakopee, Mn. 55379
PERSONAL RESUME
NAME Daniel G. Steil
853 So. Minnesota Str.
Shakopee, Minn. 55379
445-2067
DATE OF BI1TH 5/10/48
SPOUSE Mary M. Steil
DEPENDENTS Jeffrey, Timothy and Andrew.
EDUCATION St. Boniface High School
Cold Spring, Minn.
Graduated in June, 1966.
St. Cloud State College
St. Cloud Minn.
Graduated in July 1970
B.S. in Business Management.
Wisconsin Graduate School of Banking
Madison, Wisc.
Graduated in August, 1979
EMPLOYMENT First National Bank of Shakopee
Shakopee, Minn.
October 1974 to the Present
Thorp Finance Company
Hibbing, Minn.
January, 1973 to October 1974
Donnay Farm Services
Watkins, Minn.
May 1972 to December 1972
U.S. Army
October 1970 to May 1972
Cold Spring Bronze Foundry
Cold Spring, Minn.
June 1966 to September 1970
ACTIVITIES Shakopee 'notary Club
Shakopee Chamber of Commerce
Shakopee Knights of Columbus
Bank Administration Institute
Scott-Carver Cooperative Center.
ROBERT A. MEADOWS
1004 Swift St. , Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
(612) 445-8738
PROFILE
34 years old, married, two sons . Excellent health.
School board member. Marketing instructor at Hennepin
Technical Center. Current management responsibilities
include customer service, order entry, production
planning and scheduling, and traffic functions.
Two business degrees . Teaching and research experience
in marketing with a state university. Three years of
government vehicle procurement contracting. Direct
production supervision.
EDUCATION
BBA and MBA, (Marketing) 1968, 1973, Eastern Michigan
University.
EXPERIENCE
Certain-Teed Corp. , Shakopee, Minnesota 1978-present
Manager, Planning and Scheduling. Forecasting, raw
material and production scheduling, traffic and customer
service . Asphalt roofing manufacturer.
HydraMatic Div. , GMC, Ypsilanti, Michigan 1977-1978
Production Supervisor $26, 000 . Direct supervision of
production departments, gears for automatic transmissions .
Authenticity, Inc . , Chelsea, Michigan 1975-1977 .
Designed, produced and marketed quality hardwood repro-
ductions of antique home furnishings .
Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Michigan 1972-
1973 and 1975 . Visiting Lecturer, Marketing $22 . 000 .
Taught undergraduate marketing courses . Also Graduate
Assistant.
AM General Corp. , Wayne, Michigan 1970-1972 and 1974
Contract Specialist $13,600 . Wrote proposals and directed
bid preparation for government vehicle procurements .
North American Rockwell Corp. , Chelsea, Michigan 1970
Accountant $8, 400 . Budget analyst.
Fisher Body Div. , GMC Tecumseh, Michigan 1968-1969
Cost Accountant $7, 600 . Also summers; 1965 in Personnel ,
and 1966 in Production Control .
References and transcripts upon request.
e4 GILL IL}
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Glenda D. Spiotta , Planner
RE: Resolution Authorizing the Establishment of a Downtown
Committee , a Sub-Committee of the Industrial-Commercial
Commission
DATE: April 14, 1981
Introduction
As instructed at the City Council meeting of April 7 , 1981 , this
resolution is submitted to establish a sub-committee of the
Industrial-Commercial Commission to focus on promoting economic
development within the central business district of Shakopee ,
Minnesota.
Background
During the past two months , there has been increasing interest
in preparing a strategy for the downtown area which would offi-
cially describe specific activities , costs and an implementation
schedule. A special planner was designated to organize this
approach, which culminated in a Chamber of Commerce sponsored
meeting on March 30, 1981 . At this meeting Fred Corrigan and
Marge Henderson were asked to accept names of individuals who
were willing to serve on an ad hoc committee . Nine persons are
recommended to be appointed as voting members and four additional
persons will serve ex officio: Joe Topic , Don Martin, Dan Steil ,
Kay Benson, Gene Pearson, Bill Wermerskirchen, Jr. , Terry Link,
Nancy Christensen and Dick Hullander with the City Planner, ICC
Chairman, Chamber of Commerce Chairman and a Planning Commission
Member. The group will immediately commence work on developing
an appropriate strategy for improvements to the downtown, investi-
gate actual costs and financing tools , and propose the timing for
each identified activity.
Action Requested
Offer Resolution No. 1822 , A Resolution to Establish the Ad Hoc
Downtown Committee, a Sub-Committee of the Industrial-Commercial
Commission, and move its adoption.
GDS/jms
RESOLUTION NO. 1822
A RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH THE AD HOC DOWNTOWN COMMITTEE,
A SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE INDUSTRIAL-COMMERCIAL COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shakopee is the
official governing body of the City of Shakopee empowered to
provide for the public health, safety and welfare of its citizens ;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has established the Industrial-
Commercial Commission charged with the responsibility to consider
matters dealing with economic development within the City of
Shakopee and then making recommendations to the City Council , and
WHEREAS, the Industrial-Commercial Commission is attempting
to focus on economic development potential in the central business
district of Shakopee , and
WHEREAS , the Industrial-Commercial Commission seeks additional
representation from the downtown business people , the Chamber of
Commerce , the City staff , and the general public, and
WHEREAS , the Industrial-Commercial Commission has requested
that an Ad Hoc Downtown Committee be established to assist in the
preparation of a downtown economic development strategy.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA, that :
1 . An Ad Hoc Downtown Committee is hereby established and
shall continue to exist until a downtown economic development
strategy is prepared and recommended to the Industrial-Commercial
Commission and the City Council .
2 . The Committee shall consist of at least nine members and
four ex officio members (the ICC Chairman, the City Planner, the
Chamber of Commerce President and a member of the Planning Commis-
sion) . All members shall be recommended by the Mayor and the
Council with approval by the full Council . ' Members` shall serve
without compensation and may be removed from office at any time by
the City Council .
3 . A Chairman shall be elected by the Committee at its first
organizational meeting , and a brief set of by-laws will be also
Resolution No. 1822 Page 2
adopted. A monthly meeting schedule shall be adopted for the next
6 months and filed with the City Clerk.
4. The Committee shall record the minutes of each meeting
which shall be filed with the City Clerk within one week following
a meeting. The minutes shall be delivered to the City Council , the
Planning Commission and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority.
5 . The responsibility of the Committee is to propose an
economic development strategy that :
1 . Identifies specific activities and locations .
2 . Identifies costs and a finance schedule .
Adopted in _ session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee , Minnesota , held this day of
1981 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
Attest :
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1981 .
City Attorney
R•
ECEW
STATE OF MINNESOTA REQUEST FOR SAA APPROVAL
OMHS REQUIREMENTS NOT MET AND
APR 131981
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEEDED
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
The definition of "mobile home" in the State statute must be
consistent with the definition found in the Federal Manufactured •
Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. -
5401 et seq. Congress has recently amended the definition of
mobile home contained in the Federal Act , making the following
changes: .
(1) Title VI of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 is amended by striking out
"Mobile Home" each place it appears, other than in
section 601, and inserting in lieu thereof
"Manufactured Home" and by striking out "mobile home"
each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof
"manufactured home" .
(2) Section 601 of the Federal Act is amended by
striking out "Mobile Home" and inserting in lieu
thereof "Manufactured Housing" .
(3) Section 603(6) of the Federal Act , 42 U.S. C .
102(6) , is amended to read as follows:
"Manufactured home means a structure,
transportable in one of more sections, which
in the traveling mode, is eight body feet or
more in width or forty body feet or more in
length, or, when erected on site , is three
1L - hundred twenty or more square feet , and which
is built on a permanent chassis and designed
to be used as a dwelling with or without a
permanent foundation when connected to the
required utilities, and includes the
/ plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and
electrical systems contained therein ; except
that such term shall include any structure •
r' which meets all the requirements and with
respect to which the manufacturer voluntarily
files a certification required by the
RECEIVPXL
STATE OF MINNESOTA REQUEST FOR SAA APPROVAL APR 13 1981. -
OMHS REQUIREMENTS NOT MET AND •
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEEDED GiTY.AF SHAXOPEE
The definition of "mobile home" in the State statute must be
consistent with the definition found in the Federal Manufactured -
Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 , 42 U.S.C. -
5401 et Ag_a. Congress has recently amended the definition of
mobile home contained in the Federal Act , making the following
changes:
(1) Title VI of the Housing and Community _
Development Act of 1974 is amended by striking out
"Mobile Home" each place it appears, other than in
section 601, and inserting in lieu thereof
"Manufactured Home" and by striking out "mobile homer'
each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof
"manufactured home" .
(2) Section 601 of the Federal Act is amended by
striking out "Mobile Home" and inserting in lieu
thereof "Manufactured Housing" -
(3) Section 603(6) of the Federal Act , 42 U.S.C .
02(6) , is amended to read as follows:
"Manufactured home means a structure,
transportable in one of more sections, which
in the traveling mode, is eight body feet or
more in width or forty body feet or more in
iI/ length, or, when erected on site , is three
l hundred twenty or more square feet, and which
is built on a permanent chassis and designed
�l to be used as a dwelling with or without a
permanent foundation when connected to the
required utilities, and includes the
plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and
electrical systems contained therein ; except
that such term shall include any structure
r-- which meets all the requirements and with
respect to which the manufacturer voluntarily
files a certification required by the
Secretary and complies with the standards
established under this title."
As a result of these amendments , it is necessary for the
State to make corresponding changes in the definition of "mobile
home" as it appears in Minnesota Statutes 1978 , section 327.31 ,
subdivision 6 and .as it is used throughout the statute.
MEMO TO : John K. Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger
City Planner
RE: Proposed Manufactured Housing Legislation
DATE : April 1, 1981
Background :
A bill has been introduced in the State Legislature
(H.F . 671) which would require municipalities to consider
manufactured housing and mobile homes as permitted single
family uses of property under local zoning regulations . This
proposed legislation would permit mobile homes in any zoning
district in which conventional single family homes are allowed,
as long as the mobile home is placed on a permanent foundation.
Considerations :
Because of my past experience with mixing mobile homes
in conventional single family neighborhoods , I find the proposed
legislation to be very distrubing. Specifically, I foresee the
following problems :
1) Allowing mobile homes in single family neighborhoods
has a definite tendency to reduce the value of
surrounding conventional single family properties .
Whether the reduction in home values is real or just
perceived, the net effect is the same (i . e . conventional
single family homes adjacent or in proximity to
mobile homes tend to have a lower market value .
2) Allowing mobile homes in conventional single family
neighborhoods tends to be aesthetically detrimental
to the neighborhood. Mobile homes are generally
perceived to be unattractive and tend to require a
higher degree of maintenance .
3) Because mobile homes are generally considerably
lower in value than conventional single family
homes, they generate lower taxes per unit . However,
mobile homes on individual lots still require the
same level of City and public services as conventional
homes . The cost/benefit ratio to the City is ,
therefore, not as good.
John Anderson April 1, 1981
Proposed Manufactured Housing Legislation Page -2-
Recommendation:
Based on general planning principles and on my direct
experience with mobile homes , I strongly recommend that the proposed
bill not be supported. While recognizing a definite need for
alternative and lower cost housing, I feel that mobile homes
should be permitted only in mobile home courts or parks .
DS/j iw
cc : Leroy Houser
Building Inspector
Recommended Action:
Direct staff to send a letter to the State Representatives f,9i
Shakopee, expressing the City' s opposition to passage of a billiw'ould
require municipalities to consider manufactured housing and mobile homes
as permitted single family uses of property under local zoning regulations .
recent CITY OF SHAKOPEE
t tqu. °a 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
MEMO
TO: John Anderson. City Administrator
FRCJM: LeRoy Houser, Building Official
SUBJECT: Proposed Manufactured Housing Legislation
DATE: March 31 , 1981
Background:
As stated in my previous memo to you, the proposed legislation
is deceptive. Instituted by the mobile home manufacturers, they
have convinced your legislators to change the name of mobile
homes to "Manufactured Housing" for the purpose of slipping
this bill through which will in effect allow any one to park
a trailer house or mobile home on any city lot in any subdivision
not covered by restrictive covenents.
The net result could very well be extremely detrimental to
the property values of existing dwellings located within our City.
Recommendation:
I strongly recommend this bill lacks your support.
LFH:plk
action aier
III�II
- „
league of minnesota cities
March 20, 1981
ti
TO: Member City Councils (through tcity clerks) Mayors,
Managers, and Administrators
FROM: Duke Addicks, Legislative Counsel
RE: Manufactured Homes
In the Action Alert of March 17, dealing with bills opposed by the League, it
was not made clear that the bill dealing with MANUFACTURED HOMES does a $ply
to all cities .
Thus, if the bill passes,tall mobile and other manufactured homes which meet
the federal standards must be permitted on any and all residential lots in your
city, subject to being placed on a permanent foundation, and other minor
installation requirements. Please let your legislators know your opinions as
the first hearing will be Thursday, March 26, at 12:00 in Room 51, SOB. The
subcommittee members are:
Name District Phone (A.C. 612
Kalis 30A 296-4240
Hoberg 9A 296-4066
McCarron 46A 296-4242
McEachern 18B 296-4237
Niehaus 16A 296-4379
Shea 32A 296-8636
DA:rmm
300 hanover building, 480 cedar street, saint paul, minnesota 55101 C6123222-21361
[ REVISOR ] HMW/BC 81 :fesEIVFD
MAR 2 7 1981
Introduced by Rees, Voss, R. Anderson H.F. No. C'I AXOEE
March 5th, 1981 Companion S.F. No.
Ref. .to Com. on Local E Urban Affairs Ref. to S. Com. on
Reproduced by PHILLIPS LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, INC.
1 A bill for an act
2 relating to manufactured homes; requiring provision
3 for manufactured homes in planning and zoning;
4 amending Minnesota Statutes 1980, Section 462 . 357, by
5 adding a subdivision.
6
7 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
8 Section 1 . Minnesota Statutes 1980, Section 462 . 357, is
9 amended by adding a subdivision to read:
10 Subd. 9 . [MANUFACTURED HOMES. ] ( a) The legislature finds
11 that manufactured housing offers individuals and families an
12 additional opportunity to own and live in decent, safe and
13 affordable housing on a permanent basis.
14 (b) For the purposes of this subdivision the following
15 terms have the following meanings:
16 ( 1 ) "Local government unit" means a home rule charter or
17 statutory city, a county and any town, whether or not having
18 powers pursuant to section 368. 01 .
19 (2 ) "Manufactured home" means a structure defined in
20 section 603 ( 6) of the National Manufactured Housing
21 Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, as amended.
22 (3 ) "Foundation system" means a permanent foundation
23 constructed in conformance with the state building code.
24 (c ) A manufactured home certified under the National
25 Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of
26 1974, as amended, on a foundation system shall be considered a
1
[REVISOR ) HMW/BC 81-0706
1 iermitted single family residential use of property for the
2 purposes of zoning regulation in the territory of a local
3 government unit.
4 (d) A local government unit may designate lots zoned for
5 single family residential property to be used for manufactured
6 homes on foundation systems. The lots may be subject to any
7 subdivision regulations which apply to other single family
8 residential property.
9 (e) A local government unit may subject a manufactured home
10 and the lot on which it is placed to any of the development
11 standards to which another single family residential dwelling on
12 the same lot would be subject, including but not limited to,
13 building setback standards, side and rear yard requirements,
14 standards for access and vehicle parking, minimum and maximum
15 square footage requirements, and architectural and aesthetic
16 requirements. .However, any architectural requirements imposed
17 on the manufactured home itself shall be limited to its roof
18 • overhang, roofing material and siding material. A local
19 government unit may not apply any development standards which
20 will have the effect of totally precluding manufactured homes
21 from being installed as permanent residences.
U.y
l0 KJ
MEMO TO : John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger
City Planner
RE : Newly Revised Sign Ordinance
DATE : April 16 , 1981
Attached is a copy of the newly revised Sign Ordinance .
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the revised
ordinance at their meeting of April 9, 1981. After hearing
public input , they made the recommendation to City Council
for adoption of the newly revised Sign Ordinance.
This revision was then forwarded to our City Attorney for his
review and comments . It has been returned to us with his
comments and recommendations so noted in this revision.
Action Requested :
City Council approve the newly revised Sign Ordinance and direct
staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance for adoption.
j iw
Attachment
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
SIGNS
from
THE SHAKOPEE CITY CODE
April 1981
iC
SECTION 4. 30 . SIGNS - CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND PERMITS
Subd. 1. Purpose and Intent .
A. The purpose of this section is to protect and promote
the general welfare, health, safety , and order through the
establishment of a comprehensive series of standards , regulations,
and procedures governing the erection, use and display of devices ,
signs and symbols serving as a visual communicative media to
persons upon public right-of-way .
B. The provisions of this section are to encourage a
reasonable degree of freedom of choice, an opportunity for
effective communication, and a sense of concern for the visual
amenities on the part of those designing, displaying or otherwise
utilizing communicative media of the types regulated by this
section, while at the same time, assuring that the public is not
endangered, annoyed, or distracted by unsafe , disorderly , indis-
criminate or unnecessary use of such communicative facilities .
Subd. 2. Definitions.
For the purpose of this section, the following terms , as
used herein, shall have the meanings stated :
A. "Advertising Sign" . A sign advertising a business,
commodity , or service which is not located or performed on the
premises on which the sign is situated.
B. "Address Sign" . A sign for postal identification
numbers only , whether written or in number form.
C. "Business Sign" . A sign which identifies a business
or profession, commodity or service sold or offered upon the
premises where such a sign is located.
D. "Area Identification Sign" . A free-standing sign, on
the identified premises , which identifies the name of a neigh-
borhood, a residential subdivision, a multiple residential complex,
a shopping center or area, an industrial area, an office complex
or any combination of the above .
E. "Banners and Pennants" . Any attention-getting devices
which resemble flags and are of a non-permanent paper, cloth or
plastic-like material.
F. "Directional Sign" . A sign erected on private property
for the purpose of directing vehicular and pedestrian traffic
to public facilities or functions .
G. "Canopy and Marquee" A roof-like structure
projecting over the entrance to a building.
H. "District" A specific zoning district as defined
in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code.
I. "Free-standing Sign" . A sign which is placed in the
ground and not affixed to any part of any structure.
1. Free-Standing Pylon Sign: A business sign
erected on free-standing shafts , posts or walls
which are solidly affixed to the ground, and
which projects more than 7 feet above ground
level.
2. Free-Standing Ground Sign: A business sign
erected on free-standing shafts, posts or walls
which are solidly affixed to the ground and
completely independent of any building or other
structure. Any business free-standing ground
sign which projects less than 7 feet above
ground level is considered a ground sign.
J. "Government Sign" , A sign which is erected by a
government unit.
K. "Flashing Sign" , An illuminated sign on which such
illumination is not kept constant in intensity or color at all
times when such sign is in use .
L. "Illuminated Sign". A sign which has an artificial
•
light source directed upon it or one which has an interior
light source.
M. "Institutional Sign" . A sign or bulletin board which
identifies the name and other characteristics of a public or
private institution on the site where the sign in located.
N. "Motion Sign" . A sign which revolves , rotates or
moves in any way by mechanical means .
0. "Non-conforming Sign" . Signs and their structures
which identify, advertise or provide direction to a use,
business, industry or service which has ceased existence for
thirty (30) days or more shall be prohibited and removed with-
in thirty ( 30) days after written notice from the City Building
Inspector.
P. "Portable Sign" . A sign so designed as to be movable
from one location to another and is not permanently attached
to the ground or any structure.
Q. "Projecting Sign". A sign, any portion of which,
projects over public property.
787-
7
R. "Roof Sign" . Any sign erected upon or projecting
above the roof line of a structure to which it is affixed.
S. "Sign" . Any letter, work, symbol, device, poster,
picture, statuary, reading matter or representation in the
nature of an advertisement , announcement, message , or visual
communication whether painted, pasted, printed, affixed or
constructed which is displayed outdoors for informational or
communicative purpose .
T. "Sign Area" , The area within a single continuous
perimeter enclosing the extreme limits of the actual sign surface,
but excluding any structural elements outside the limits of each
sign and not forming an integral part of the sign. The stipulated
maximum sign area for a free-standing sign refers to a single
facing.
U. "Street Frontage" . That portion of a parcel of land
abutting one or more streets . An interior lot has one street
frontage and a corner lot, two such frontages .
V. "Wall Sign" . Any sign which is affixed to the wall of
a building, but shall not include a sign painted directly on the
wall of the building.
Subd. 3 . General Provisions Applicable To All Districts .
A. No sign other than governmental signs shall be erected
or placed within any street right-of-way or upon any public
easement .
B. Free-standing advertising signs are prohibited in all
districts .
C. No sign shall contain any indecent or offensive material.
D. Illuminated flashing signs , moving signs , revolving
signs , illuminated revolving beacons , zip flashers or similar
devices shall not be permitted in any district . All illuminated
signs shall have a shielded light source.
E. Signs shall not project over public property more than
15 inches .
F. Signs shall not be painted, attached, or in any manner
affixed to trees , rocks or similar natural surfaces , nor shall
signs of any type be painted directly on the wall or roof of a
building.
G. Signs which interfere with the ability of vehicle
operators or pedestrians to see traffic signs or signals , or
which impede the vision of traffic by vehicle operators or
pedestrians are prohibited.
L88-
H. Roof signs shall not be permitted in Commercial
Districts .
I. Signs shall not obstruct any window, door, fire
escape or opening intended to provide ingress or egress to
any structure or building.
J. Campaign signs posted by bona fide candidates for
political office or by a person or group promoting a political
issue or a candidate may be placed in any zoning district .
Signs must be no larger than 20 square feet nor higher than
5 feet and may be posted for a period riot to exceed sixty (60)
days and shall be removed within seven ( 7) days following the
date of the election. Signs must be erected at least 2 feet
back from the curb line of any street and at least 30 feet
away from any street corner and should not in any way obstruct
traffic . Signs placed on private property or on the road right-
of-way in front of any private property , must have the approval
of the property owner. Campaign signs may not be placed on
any publicly-owned property other than City-owned street right-
of-way . Signs located in conflict with this section shall be
removed by the City at the expense of the owner or property
owner.
K. Temporary banners and pennants employed for grand
openings of business establishments , special events and holidays
shall be permitted upon issuance of a Temporary Sign Permit
for fourteen ( 14 ) days after erection.
L. One temporary identification sign setting forth the
name of the project , architects, engineers , contractors and
financing agencies may be installed at a construction site
in any district for the period of construction only . Prior
approval of a majority of the Council shall be required for the
use of any such temporary identification sign in excess of 24
square feet in area.
M. Temporary real estates signs may be placed in any
district for the purpose of advertising the , lease or sale of
property upon which it is placed . Only one such sign shall
be permitted per street frontage.
1. Such sign shall be removed within seven ( 7 )
days following the lease or sale .
2. The maximum size of such sign for each
district is as follows :
a. Residential Districts - 6 square feet .
b . Multiple Districts - 18 square feet .
c . Commercial and Industrial Districts
(office buildings) - 32 square feet .
-89-
l� (Y
N. Except as may be specifically authorized by this
subdivision, portable signs are prohibited. A portable sign
used for the purpose of directing the public may be permitted
upon issuance of a Temporary Sign Permit under the following
conditions :
1. Said sign is coincidental to, or used in
conjunction with, a public function.
2. The period of use of said sign shall not
exceed ten ( 10) days .
3. Prior approval of a majority of the Council
shall be required for the use of any such sign.
0. No free-standing projecting signs shall be permitted
in any district . Projecting wall signs shall be permitted only
in Commercial Districts provided the total sign area does not
exceed 10 square feet per facing and does not project over
public property more than 15 inches .
P. One address sign shall be required per building in
all districts .
Q. Canopies and marquees shall be considered an integral
part of the structure to which they are attached. One sign
may be permitted on each side and front of a canopy or marquee
but such structure shall not be considered as part of the wall
area and thus shall not warrant additional sign area.
R. Signs located on the interior of a building are exempt
from the provisions of this section.
S. One directional sign for each separately owned tract
of land is permitted in all districts . Directional signs shall
bear no advertising and shall not exceed 4 square feet in area.
Temporary directional signs shall be removed within seven (7)
days after termination of the function for which said signs
are employed.
T. No free-standing sign lower than 10 feet to the bottom
of the sign shall be located within 10 feet of the front lot
line .
U. No sign shall be located within 30 feet of the property
line at the intersection of two streets .
V. No snow storage shall be placed at the base of free-
standing signs within the front yard setback area so as to
obstruct vIsion of vehicle operators at driveway entrances .
L90-
Subd. 4 . District Regulations .
In addition to those signs permitted in all districts ,
signs as herein designated shall be permitted in each specified
district and shailconform as to size, location and character
according to the requirements herein set forth :
A. "R" Districts , Residential and Multiple Dwelling.
1. Nameplate Signs : One sign not to exceed 2 square
feet in area for each dwelling unit , indicating only
name and address . One nameplate sign for each
dwelling group of six to twelve dwelling units which
shall not exceed 6 square feet in area per surface .
One nameplate sign for each dwelling group of eight
or more dwelling units which shall not exceed 12
square feet in area per surface , and no sign shall
have more than two display surfaces. Said signs
may indicate the names of the buildings , project ,
be a directory for occupants or state any combination
of permitted information.
2. Institutional and Recreational Signs : One sign
or bulletin board per street frontage for a church,
public institution or recreational facility . Such
sign or bulletin board shall not exceed 50 square
feet in area and shall not be placed closer than 10
feet to any street right-of-way line.
3. Area Identification Signs: One sign, not to
exceed 24 square feet in area, for each development
district entrance .
4. Free-Standing Signs : Free-standing signs shall
not exceed 6 feet in height as measured from the eleva-
tion of the centerline of the adjoining roadway;
except that at those sites at which the elevation of
the abutting property is higher than the centerline
of the adjoining roadway, the height of any such sign
shall not exceed 6 feet as measured from the elevation
of said abutting property at the site of such sign.
B. "B-1" Highway Business District .
Within the "B-1" District, business signs are permitted
subject to the following:
1. The aggregate square footage of sign space per
lot shall not exceed the sum of 2 square feet per
front foot of building, plus 1 square foot for
each linear frontage of building siding on a street ,
plus 1 square foot for each front foot of lot not
occupied by such building which fronts on a public
right-of-way 50 feet or more in width.
-91-
2. The least width of a lot for purposes of
this section shall be the front .
3 . No individual sign surface shall exceed 200
square feet in area, nor shall two or more signs
be so arranged and integrated as to cause an
advertising surface over 300 square feet .
4. Area Identification Signs : One sign per
development , not to exceed 100 square feet .
5. Free-Standing Signs :
a. Free-standing signs shall not exceed 20 feet
in height as measured from the elevation of
the centerline of the adjoining roadway, except
that at those sites at which the elevation of
the abutting property is higher than the center-
line of the adjoining roadway , the height of any
such sign shall not exceed 6 feet as measured
from the elevation of said abutting property
at the site of such sign.
b . For property adjacent to roads with a speed
limit of less than 35 m.p .h. , the gross area
of a free-standing sign shall not exceed 100
square feet .
c . For property adjacent to roads with a speed
limit of greater than 35 m.p.h. , the gross area
of a free-standing sign shall not exceed 150
square feet .
6. Public Service Informational Signs : One wall
or free-standing sign showing weather, time, temp-
erature and similar public service announcements
for each building may be granted. Such sign shall
be operated automatically and shall furnish accurate
and current information which shall occupy not less
than 25 percent of the sign area. The balance of
the sign area shall display only the name of the
owner or lessee of the sign.
C . "B-2" Community Business District .
Within the B-2 Districts the following signs are
permitted :
1. The number of square feet in gross surface
area of all business signs on a lot shall not
exceed the sum of 3 square feet per front foot
of building, plus 1 square foot for each front-
age of building siding on a street .
2. No individual sign or integrated group of
signs shah exceed 200 square feet in area per
surface .
-92- '
3. Illuminated signs shall be permitted
provided that the source of light shall not
beam upon an existing residence , or into an
"R" District or into a public street .
4. A shopping center type of development
operating under a common name may have a
maximum of two pylon-type signs not over 35
feet in height . No part of the sign shall
be closer than 30 feet from a street right-
of-way nor 60 feet from a side lot line.
5 . Area Identification Signs : One sign per
development not to exceed 100 square feet .
6. Free-Standing Signs : Free-standing signs
shall not exceed 20 feet in height as measured
from the elevation of the centerline of the
adjoining roadway, except that at those sites
at which the elevation of the abutting property
is higher than the centerline of the adjoining
roadway , the height of any such sign shall not
exceed 6 feet as measured from the elevation
of said abutting property at the site of such
sign.
7. Public Service Informational Signs : One
wall or free-standing sign showing weather,
time, temperature and similar public service
announcements for each building may be granted.
Such sign shall be operated automatically and
shall furnish accurate and current information
which shall occupy not less than 25 percent of
the sign area. The balance of the sign area
shall display only the name of the owner or
lessee of the sign.
D. "B-3" Central Business District .
Within the "B-3" District, nameplate signs and
business signs are permitted subject to the following
regulations :
1. The aggregate square footage of sign space
per lot shall not exceed the sum of 3 square
feet for each front foot of building plus 1
square foot for each front foot of building
siding on a street .
2. No individual sign shall exceed 200 square
feet of area per surface.
3. Signs located withinthe "B-3" , Central Business
District , may be permitted to extend within the
street right-of-way up to a distance of 36
inches, but shall not be permitted to so extend,
•
-93- '
at an elevation below 12 feet above the
established sidewalk grade, nor shall any signs
project into or over any alley , or other public
property .
4 . Area Identification Signs : One sign per
development not to exceed 100 square feet .
5 . Free-Standing Signs : Free-standing signs
shall not exceed 20 feet in height as measured
from the elevation of the centerline of the adjoin-
ing roadway, except that at those sites at which
the elevation of the abutting property is higher
than the centerline of the adjoining roadway, the
height of any such sign shall not exceed 6 feet
as measured from the elevation of said abutting
property at the site of such sign. ;
6. Public Service Informational Signs : One wall
or free-standing sign showing weather, time, temp-
erature and similar public service announcements
for each building may be granted. Such sign shall
be operated sutomatically and shall furnish accurate
and current information which shall occupy not less
than 25 percent of the sign area. The balance of
the sign area shall display only the name of the
owner or lessee of the sign.
E. "I-1" Light Industrial District or Flood Plain
District .
1. Area Identification Signs : Only one free-
. standing sign may be erected on the subject
property, not more than 75 square feet nor higher
than 15 feet .
2. Institutional and Single or Multiple
Occupancy Business Structure Identification Signs : The
total sign area for the subject property may not
exceed 15 percent of the front building facade
(both front and side facades may be counted when
on a corner lot ) . Signs chosen to comprise the
total sign area shall be consistent with the
following provisions :
a. Free-standing - Not more than one sign
per subject property. Sign area may not
exceed 75 square feet with a maximum height
of 15 feet .
b. Wall, Canopy and Marquee - Not more than
one sign per subject property, or two signs
( 1 per building side ) where free-standing
sign is not utilized. Individual sign area
may not exceed 75 square feet with the height
maximum set at top of parapet or eaves .
-94- •
F. I-2" Heavy Industrial District .
1. Area Identification Signs : Only one sign
may be erected on the subject property .
a. Free-standing - Not more than 100 square
feet nor higher than 15 feet .
2. Institutional and Single or Multiple Occupancy
Business Structure Identification Signs : The total
sign area for the subject property may not exceed
15 percent of the front building facade (both front
and side facades may be counted when on a corner
lot ) . Signs chosen to comprise the total sign
area shall be consistent with the following
provisions :
a. Free-standing - Not more than one sign
per subject property. Sign area may not
exceed 75 square feet with a maximum height
of 15 feet .
b . Wall , Canopy and Marquee - Not more than
one sign per subject property, or two signs
( 1 per building side) where free-standing
sign is not utilized. Individual sign area
may not exceed 70 square feet with the height
maximum set at top of parapet or eaves .
G. Complex Center.
In the case of multiple occupancy commercial build-
ings , the signs shall be subject to the following standards :
1. A sign plan for multiple occupancy commercial
centers shall be approved by the Planning
Commission.
2. Area Identification Signs : Only one sign may
be erected on the subject property .
a. Free-standing - Not more than 100 square
feet nor higher than 30 feet .
3 . Multiple Occupancy Business Structure Identi-
fication Signs : The total sign area for the subject
property (including free-standing) may not exceed
15 percent of the front building facade (both front
and side facades may be counted when on a corner
lot ) , but no single sign may exceed 100 square feet .
Subd. 5 . Administration and Enforcement .
A. Permit Required . Except as herein exempted, it is
unlawful for any person to maintain, install, erect , relocate
or modify any sign without first obtaining a permit .
-95-
r V
B. Application and Fee . Applications for Sign Permits
shall be made in writing upon forms furnished by the City .
Each application for a permit shall set forth the correct legal
description of the tract of land upon which the sign presently
exists or is proposed to be located, the location of the sign
on said tract of the land, the manner of construction and
materials used in the sign, a complete description and sketch
of the sign. At the time of application, the applicant shall
pay a fee based on the size of the sign; such fees to be set by
resolution. if a sign autnorized by permit has not been installed
within 120 days from date of issuance of the permit , said permit
shall become void. No fee shall be refunded.
C . Maintenance . All signs shall be constructed in such
a manner and of such material as to be safe and substantial.
The exposed backs of all signs and sign structures shall be
painted a neutral color. Signs determined by the Building
Official to be in a state of disrepair shall be restored to
good repair by the sign owner, or property owner on which the
sign is situated, within thirty (30) days after the mailing of
written notice to repair from the Building Official. In the
event of non-compliance with said notice, the City shall be
authorized to remove said sign at the expense of the sign or
property owner.
D. Annual Inspection. There shall be an annual sign inspection
by the City Planner in the first part of May, to see that every sign
complies with the minimum standards set forth in this section.
E. Exemptions . No permit shall be required for the
following signs ; provided, however, that all signs herein exempted
from the permit requirements shall conform with all other require-
ments of this section:
1. Window signs placed within a building.
2. Signs having an area of 2 square feet or less .
3. Signs erected by a government unit , public or
parochial school, or church.
4. Signs as described in Subdivision 3, Subparagraphs
M, P and S of this section.
5. Signs which are entirely within a building and
not visible from outside of said building.
F. Variance . The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may
grant a variance from the requirements of this section as to
specific signs where it is shown that by reason of topography
or other conditions strict compliance with the requirements of
this section would cause a hardship; provided that a variance
may be granted only if the variance does not adversely affect
the spirit or intent of this section. Written application for
a variance shall be filed with the City and shall state fully
all facts relied upon by the applicant . The application
shall be supplemented with maps , plans or other data which
may aid in an analysis of the matter. The application shall
be referred to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for its
consideration and action.
Subd. 6 . Existing Non-Conforming Signs .
Any sign existing at the time of the adoption of this
section which does not conform to the provisions hereof shall
not be replaced or repaired if damaged beyond 50 percent of
its value .
Source : City Code
Effective Date :
(Sections 4 . 31 through 4 . 34 , inclusive, reserved for future
expansion. )
-97-
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger
City Planner
RE: Preliminary and Final Plat of Link' s 3rd Addition
DATE: April 15 , 1981
At the Planning Commission meeting held April 9, 1981, the
Planning Commission considered the Preliminary and Final Plat
of Link' s 3rd Addition. At that time, they made the recommenda-
tion to the City Council for approval of both Preliminary and
Final Plat , subject to conditions . These conditions have been
so noted in the resolution attached.
Action Requested :
City Council to approve the Preliminary Plat of Link' s 3rd
Addition and offer Resolution No. 1823 , A Resolution Approving
The Final Plat of Link' s 3rd Addition, and move for its adoption.
DS/jiw
Attachment
• c. .• •
RESOLUTION NO. 1823
A Resolution Approving The Final Plat Of
Link ' s 3rd Addition
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee
has approved the Final Plat of Link' s 3rd Addition and has
recommended its adoption; and
WHEREAS, all notices of hearing have been duly sent and
posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given
an opportunity to be heard thereon; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has been fully advised in all
things .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the Final Plat of Link' s 3rd
Addition, described as follows :
Lots 1 and 2, Block 27 , EAST SHAKOPEE, Scott County ,
Minnesota. Together with that part of the vacated alley
in said Block 27 and that part of vacated Prairie Street
in said plat described as follows :
Beginning at the SW corner of Lot 1, Block 27 , of
said plat; thence westerly along the westerly
extension of the southerly line of said Block 27 ,
a distance of 48. 00 feet ; thence northerly
parallel with the westerly line of said Block 27 ,
a distance of 142. 00 feet to the intersection with
the easterly extension of the northerly line of
Lot 5 , Block 13 , of said plat ; thence easterly
along said easterly extension of the northerly
line of said Lot 5 , a distance of 26 . 00 feet ;
thence northerly parallel with said westerly line
of Block 27 , a distance of 8 . 00 feet to the inter-
section with the westerly extension of the center-
line of the alley as shown in Block 27 , of said
plat; thence easterly along said westerly extension
and the centerline of said alley a distance of 142. 00
feet to the intersection with the northerly extension
of the easterly line of Lot 2 , Block 27 , of said
plat; thence southerly along said northerly extension
a distance of 8. 00 •feet to the northeasterly corner
of said Lot 2 ; thence westerly along 1:he northerly
line of Lots 2 and 1, a distance of 120. 00 feet to
the northwesterly corner of said Lot 1; thence
southerly along the westerly line of said Lot 1, to
the point of beginning.
be, and the same hereby is approved and adopted with the requirements
that :
Resolution No. 1823 Page -2-
1) Favorable Title Opinion by the City Attorney ;
2) Common ( shared) utility trenches be used to minimize
street cuts (i. e . one trench per each duplex
structure) ;
3) Removal of existing garage at the rear of Lots 3 and
4 , prior to the issuance of a Building Permit on
these lots ;
4 ) Execution of a Developer' s Agreement to
contain :
a) New curbing shall be installed between
Lot 5 , Block 13 of East Shakopee and Lot 1,
Block 1 of Link' s 3rd Addition, so as to match
with existing curb ;
b) Sidewalk be installed along 4th Avenue.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk be
and the same are hereby authorized and directed to execute said
approved Plat and Developer' s Agreement .
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee , Minnesota, held this day of
1981.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1981.
City Attorney
PC 81-5P April 9, 1981 6,C>
Preliminary & Final Plat of Link' s 3rd Addn. Page -3-
7 . Because vacated Prairie Street will need to be closed
off by curbing, new curbing should be installed so as to match
the existing curb line.
8 . No sidewalks currently exist along either side of
4th Avenue or vacated Prairie Street . A postponed construction
agreement along 4th Avenue may be desirable should sidewalks
be constructed in the future.
9. An old garage currently exists at the rear of proposed
Lots 3 and 4. This garage should be removed prior to building
on these two lots .
Staff Recommendations :
Staff recommends Preliminary and Final Plat approval with
the following conditions :
1) New curbing be installed so as to match with existing
curb .
2) Execution of a postponed construction agreement
along 4th Avenue for sidewalk.
3 ) Removal of existing garage at the rear of Lots 3
and 4 prior to the issuance of a Building Permit on
these lots .
4) Execution of a Developers Agreement .
5) Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney.
6) Common (shared) utility trenches be used to minimize
street cuts (i.e. one trench per each duplex structure) .
Planning Commission Action :
Recommended Preliminary and Final Plat approval subject to the
following conditions :
1) Execution of a Developer' s Agreement:
a) New curbing be installed so as to match with existing curb;
b) Sidewalk be installed along 4th Avenue;
2) Removal of existing garage at the rear of Lots 3 & 4, prior
to the issuance of a Building Permit on these lots;
3) Common (shared) utility trenches be used to minimize street
cuts (i. e. one trench per each duplex structure) ;
4 ) Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney.
DS/jiw
•
Attachments
ci
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger
City Planner
RE: Preliminary and Final Plat of Case 1st Addition
DATE : April 15, 1981
At the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1981, the
Preliminary and Final Plat of Case Addition was considered .
At that time , the Planning Commission recommended to the City
Council approval of the preliminary and final plat , subject
to a list of conditions . These conditions have been so noted
in the resolution attached.
Action Requested :
City Council approve the Preliminary Plat of Case 1st Addition
and offer Resolution No. 1824 , A Resolution Approving The Final
Plat of Case 1st Addition, and move for its adoption.
j iw
Attachment
RESOLUTION NO. 1824
A Resolution Approving The Final Plat Of
Case 1st Addition
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee
has approved the Final Plat of Case 1st Addition and has
recommended its adoption; and
WHEREAS, all notices of hearing have been duly sent and
posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given
an opportunity to be heard thereon; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has been fully advised in all
things .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, that the Final Plat of Case 1st Addition,
described as follows :
That part of the SW4 of Section 2, Township 115,
Range 22 , described as follows : Commencing at the
intersection of the W line of said SW4 and the
southerly right-of-way line of State Highway No. 101;
thence E along said southerly right-of-way line 200. 00
feet to the actual point of beginning; thence continuing
E along said right-of-way line 400. 00 feet ; thence So.
parallel with the W line of said SW4 to the northerly
right-of-way line of the Chicago, St . Paul , Minneapolis
and Omaha Railroad; thence northwesterly along said
northerly railroad right-of-way line to its intersection
with a line drawn parallel to the W line of said SW4
from the point of beginning; thence No. along said
parallel line to the point of beginning.
be, and the same hereby is approved and adopted with the require-
ments that :
1) Favorable Title Opinion by the City Attorney;
2) Park dedication be in cash;
3) Plat ' s name be designated as Case 1st Addition;
4) Execution of a Developer' s Agreement to contain :
a) City Engineer' s approval of the drainage plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the following conditions of
the previously approved Conditional Use Permit Resolution No . 268 ,
remain in effect :
1) Submission of a dust control plan subject to
approval of the City. Engineer;
2) Verification of the structural capacity of the
sanitary sewer for parking and loading;
3) Specific designation of the exterior storage area
screened in accordance with the ordinance .
Resolution No. 1824 Page -2-
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk be
and the same are hereby authorized and directed to execute said
approved Plat and Developer' s Agreement .
Adopted in session of the City Council
of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of
, 1981.
Mayor or the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1981.
City Attorney
/9 ' (4/
DATE : April 9, 1981
CASE : PC 81-6P
ITEM: Preliminary and Final Plat of Case Addition
APPLICANT: J. I. Case Company
LOCATION: T. H. 101 (West of Raceway Park)
ZONING/LAND USE : I-2, Heavy Industrial/Parking lot for race track
patrons
AREA: 6. 03 Acres
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS : Section 11. 33; Chapter 12 Subdivision
Ordinance
PUBLIC HEARING
CASE HEARD BY PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: April 21, 1981
Proposal :
The applicant is requesting Preliminary and Final Plat
approval of a one-lot plat at above location.
Land Use Compatibility :
Surrounding Land Uses : North - AG/Vacant
South - I-2/Vacant
Last - I-2/Raceway Park
West - I-2/Landy ' s
Land Use Plan: Heavy Industrial (I-2)
History : Several months ago, the applicant was granted a
Conditional Use Permit for the site of the proposed plat for the
operation of an open sales lot and on-site exterior storage. The
applicant intends to develop the site for the sales and service
of construction equipment . The Conditional Use Permit was granted
subject to the following conditions :
1) City Engineer' s approval of the drainage plan.
2) Submission of a dust control plan subject to approval
of the City Engineer.
3 ) Verification of the structural capacity of the sanitary
sewer for parking and loading.
4) Specific designation of the exterior storage area
screened in accordance with the ordinance .
PC 81-6P April 9, 1981iL
Preliminary & Final Plat Case Addn. Page -2-
Considerations :
1. The plat is a simple one-lot plat intending to accommodate
the Case Equipment sales and service operation. Because the
Conditional Use Permit for the actual operation of the business
and site plan have been previously approved by the Planning
Commission, only review of this proposed plat is necessary at
this time. The plat , located in the I-2 District , conforms to
all the requirements of the zone (i . e. lot size, setbacks, etc . ) .
2. The plat is in compliance with the Zoning and Land Use
Plan for the area, and the intended use is compatible with
existing and potential future uses of the area.
3 . All utilities are available to the proposed plat .
Separate 140 and 50 foot easements for utilities and drainage
have been provided along the northern portion of the proposed lot .
No objections to the plat have been received from appropriate City
utility staff.
4 . Access to the plat will be from the existing frontage
road. Two access points are indicated, which are sufficiently
separate so as not to cause traffic conflict problems .
5. To accommodate possible platting in the future and
clarify this proposed plat, it is desirable to change the plat ' s
name to Case 1st Addition.
Staff Recommendations :
Staff recommends Preliminary and Final Plat approval with the
following conditions :
1) The plat ' s name be changed to Case 1st Addition.
2) The following conditions of the previously approved
Conditional Use Permit remain in effect :
a) City Engineer' s approval of the drainage plan;
b ) Submission of a dust control plan subject to
approval of the City Engineer;
c) Verification of the structural capacity of the
sanitary sewer for parking and loading.
d) Specific designation of the exterior storage
area screened in accordance with the ordinance.
3) Execution of a Developer' s Agreement .
PC 81-6P April 9, 1981 / /l'i
Preliminary & Final Plat of Case Addn. -
Page 3-
4 ) Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney.
5 ) A payment-in-lieu be made to the City for park
dedication.
Planning Commission Action :
Recommended for approval subject to the following conditions :
1) The plat ' s name be changed to Case 1st Addition;
2) The following conditions of the previously approved
Conditional Use Permit remain in effect :
a) Submission of a dust control plan subject to
approval of the City Engineer;
b ) Verification of the structural capacity of the
sanitary sewer for parking and loading;
c ) Specific designation of the exterior storage area
screened in accordance with the ordinance .
3 ) Execution of a Developer' s Agreement :
a) City Engineer' s approval of the drainage plan;
4) Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney;
5) A payment-in-lieu be made to the City for park dedication.
City Council Action:
DS/jiw
Attachments
MEMO TO : John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger 12>,
City Planner
RE: Retail Sales As A Conditional Use In 1-2 Zones
DATE : April 14 , 1981
At the Planning Commission meeting held February 12, 1981,
the Planning Commission recommended the amending of the City
Code Section 11. 33 in order to allow retail sales as a conditional
use in I-2 Zones .
Ordinance No . 59 has been prepared by our City Attorney and
reflects this amendment .
Action Requested :
City Council adopt Ordinance No. ..5Y which amends City Code
Section 11. 33, Subd. 3, by adding Subdivision N.
j iw
Attachment
ORDINANCE NO. 6,9
Fourth Series
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AMENDING SECTION 11.33 Subd. 3 of
CITY CODE BY ADDING A NEW SUBDIVISION N.and by ADOPTING BY REFERENCE
SHAKOPEE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 and SECTION 5.99
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
SECTION 1 Adding new subdivision to Section 11.33 Subd. 3 as follows:
N Retail Sales and displays in front yards when necessary to a permitted
principal use carried on in a structure located on the premises but the area so
used shall not exceed 15 percent of the floor area of said principal building.
SECTION 2 Adopted by Reference
The general provisions and definitions applicable to the entire City Code
including the penalty provisions of Chapter 1 and Section 5.99 entitled "Violation
a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated
verbatim herein.
SECTION 3 When in Force and Effect
Atter the adoption, signing and attestation, this Ordinance shall be
published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee and shall be in
full force and effect on the day after the date following such publication.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota, held this day of , 1981.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved and prepared as to form this
8th day of April„ 1981.
Julius A. Coller, II
City Attorney
r
MEMO TO : John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger `
City Planner` I )v
RE: Height Limitations - Amending of City Code
DATE: April 14 , 1981
At the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1981, the
Planning Commission recommended to the City Council the amending
of City Code Section 11. 24 , 11. 25 , 11. 26 , 11. 27 and 11. 28
by adding the provisions that all structures in excess of
35 feet (45 feet in the R-4 Zones ) be allowed as a conditional
use .
Action Requested :
City Council adopt Ordinance No. 'O which allows for structures
in excess of 35 feet and 45 feet in R-4 Zones to be a conditional
use in the AG, R-1, R-2 and R-3 Zones, and amends the word
"structure" to read "building" in Section 11. 28, Subd. 3B.
j iw
Attachment
6
ORDINANCE NO. tk)
Fourth Series
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AMENDING SECTION 11.24, 11.25, 11.26,
11.27 and 11.28 BY ADDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS BY AMENDING WORDING AND BY
ADOPTING BY REFERENCE SHAKOPEE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 and SECTION 5.99
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
Subd. 1 Amendments hereby adopted as follows:
A. Amending Section 11.24 Subd. 3 by adding
L. All structures in excess of 35 feet in height
B. Amend Section 11.25 Subd. 3 by adding
N. All structures in excess of 35 feet in height
C. Amend Section 11.26 Subd. 3 by adding
I. All structures in excess of 35 feet in height
D. Amending Section 11.27 Subd. 3 by adding
L. All structures in excess of 35 feat in height
E. Amending Section 11.28 Subd. 3 R by striking the word "Structure"
and substituting therefor the word "building".
F. Amending Section 11.28 Subd. 3 by adding
M. all :.'tructures in excess of 45 feet in heipht.
Subd. 2 Adopted bL reference
The generalprovisions and definitions applicable to the entire
City Code including the penalty provisions of Chapter 1 and Section 5.99 entitled
"Violation a Misdemeanor" are herebyadonted in their entirety by reference as though
repeated verbatim herein.
Subd. 3. When in Force and Effect
After the adoption, signing and attestation, this Ordinance shall be
published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee and shall be in
full force and effect on the day after the date following such publice ion.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota, held this day of , 1981.
ATTEST: Mayor of the City of Shakopee
City Clerk
Prepared and approved as to form
this 89 day of April, 1981.
Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney
I
/EMO TO : John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger 3. \y....S
City Planner
RE : Planning Commission Action of 4/9/81
Final Plat Application Extension for A & G 1st Addition
DATE : April 14 , 1981
At the Planning Commission meeting held April 9, 1981, the
Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that an
extension of final plat application be granted for A & G 1st
Addition to July 17 , 1981.
Attached, for your information, is back-up material which had
been presented to the Planning Commission in order for a recommendation j
to be made at that level to the City Council.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning
Commission recommendation and extend the final plat application
deadline date to July 17, 1981, for the A & G 1st Addition plat .
NOTE : The "Staff Recommended Policy on Extensions" was not
endorsed by the Planning Commission due to the term "legal
transactions" being too broad.
jiw
Attachments
Aft
MEMO TO : Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: Don Steger, City Planner
RE : A & G 1st Addition Final Plat Application Extension and
Extensions for Final Plat Applications
DATE: April 1, 1981
At the February 26, 1981, Planning Commission meeting, a request
for an extension of the Final Plat application for the A & G 1st
Addition was tabled. The Planning Commission was concerned that
by granting such an extension, an undesirable precedent may be
established , whereby all plats could request extensions .
From time to time , it is very likely that circumstances may prevent
developers from meeting the one-year time frame for plats . It
seems appropriate that if such circumstances are reasonable , a
one-year extension may be justifiable. Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances can in no way regulate every conceivable situation.
Therefore, I would suggest that the Planning Commission officially
go on record as providing extensions for final plat applications
when unique circumstances truly exist . Each case must be reviewed
individually by the Planning Commission . However, such circumstances
should be strictly limited so as not to open the door for all
plats . The Planning Commission may want to limit the extensions
to only plats where the delaying circumstances involve legal
transactions , that is , where legal delays held up final platting.
The Planning Commission should also make it clear that all plat
extension requests be made prior to the one year time frame
indicated in the Subdivision Regulations .
Because the A & G 1st Addition delay involved legal transaction
problems and because the developer simply was not aware of the
one-year time frame, and since A & G 1st Addition' s extension request
was considered prior to adoption of the revised Subdivision Ordinance,
staff recommends that an extension for final plat application be
granted to July 17 , 1981, the anniversay date of Preliminary Plat
approval .
Staff Recommended Planning Commission Policy Regarding Extensions
For Final Plat Applications :
The Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee hereby states that
extensions for Final Plat applications shall only be approved
when delays are unique to the plat and tyre due to legal transactions .
Requests for extensions will be reviewed on an individual plat-by-
plat basis, and shall be filed prior to the expiration of the
Preliminary Plat one-year time frame .
DS/jiw
•
Cy>
PROCEEDINGS OF THE Pl ANN I N(, COMMISSION
Adj . Reg . Session Shakopee , M i nnet;i t ,i February 26 , 1981
Vice Chrmn . Perusich called the meeting to order at 8 :03 PM ,
PRESENT: Vice Chrmn . Perusich , Comm . Colley , Rockne , Vierling , and
Stoltzman
LATE : Comm . Koehnen and Chrmn . Schmitt
ALSO PRESENT : City Admin . , John Anderon ; City Planner , Tim Keane ;
City Eng. , H . R . Spurrier and Cncl . Colligan
A & C 1st Addition :
This is a request for an extension of the final plat application
one-year time frame from approval of the preliminary plat . This
extension is being requested after the one-year time frame had
expired . Preliminary Plat approval was ;liven to A & G 1st Addition
by the City Council on July 17 , 1979 and Iinal plat application should
of been filed on or before July 17 , 1980.
City Admin . stated the alternatives available to the Planning
Commission in consideration of the requested extension aa.:,
1 ) Planning Commission can deny this request for extension based
on the language and/or intent of the existing City Code
Section 12 .03 , Subd . 4A , which City Iall has in [act done .
In this
of action as outlined in the Assistant City Attorney ' s letter ;
that of „ � I , t ,l ct,n,,.,
2 ) The Planning Commission could eo . .
period of Lime based again on the interpretation of the language
and/or intent of Section 12 .03 , Subd . 4A .
A copy of the legal opinion dated December 18 , 1980 submitted by
Trevor R . Walston i•,u•.;.% Meyer & Kanning Chartered , was given to
the Planning Commission . The statement /paragraph of particular
concern in the legal opinion is as follows :
"Nevertheless , it is our considered „pinion ! hal the Council
does have the authority to , and hence may , extend the one
year time limit , in one year increments , which a subdivider
has to file a final plat , upon request of such subdivider
even if such request is made of the Council subsequent to
the one year filing limit , and hence , subsequent to the
preliminary approval of such subdivider ' s plat becoming
null and void" .
Proceedings of the February 26 , 981
Shakopee Planni g Commission Page Two
James Allen , applicant and part owner of the parcel under consider-
ation was present for discussion . He asked that the Planning
Commission read his letter which had been submitted to them requesting
this extension . He further slated he had nut been aware 1)1 the
one-year time frame extension period and had he been aware of such ,
he and Mr . Don Green , co-owner , would have been in before the one-
year time frame had expired .
City Admin . stated that originally the applicant came in under the
old ordinance which did not require a minimum lot size of 20 acres .
If an extension would not be granted , the• applicant would be
made to start all over with preliminary plat approval and would now
be under the new ordinance which requires a minimum lot size of
20 acres in an I-1 , Light Industrial zone . He further stated this
plat consists of 7 . 5 acres . He stated that Mr . Allen had not come
in within the one-year time frame from preliminary plat approval due
to a misunderstanding of the law.
Comm . Koehnen arrived at 8 : 17 PM .
Discussion was held at length as to whether this request for extension ,
if approved , would set a precedence with other plats which had not
met the one-year time frame or if there were some extenuating
circumstances which could be applied to this case thereby preventing
the "opening of the door" to other null and void preliminary plats .
Mr. Allen stated he would have no other land alternatives if this
extension were denied .
City Planner slated that one alternaI ivy w��cti (1 bet � develop the
land without it being spl i_ t . He could also seek legal counse l and
appeal the administrative decision . city Planner stated- there were
no City services being planned for this area until at least 1990 .
Mr. Allen stated this parcel was being platted for a small office
warehouse facility with no office rental facilities . He stated he
is asking for consideration of a lot split for the 7 . 5 acre parcel
which had been detailed out in the preliminary plat . He stated that
all the conditions of the preliminary plat approval had been met ,
other than the condition of park dedication in cash .
Rockne/Col l er moved to recommend to the City Council that chic to
mitigating circumstances , the extension request for final plat
application for A & C 1st Addition be gr;inled for an extension to
and not beyond July 17 , 1981 , which would be one year subsequent
to the one-year conformance time frame of the Subdivision Ordinance .
Col.ler/Rockne moved to table any decision on the request fur extension
of final plat application to enable staff to further study and
provide background for justification of the extension and to once
again be reconsidered by the Planning Commission at their meeting
scheduled for March 1 2 , 1 e)81 . Motion carried nna n i muffs 1 y .
Proceedings of th4 February 26 , 1981
Shakopee Planning Commission Page Three
Coller/Rockne moved to amend the motion to April 9 , 1981 , to enable
the applicant , James Allen , to be present when the Planning Commission
once again considered the request for extension of filing Final
plat application. Motion carried unanimously .
Subdivision Ordinance - PublicHearing :
Schmitt/Vierling moved to open the public hearing on amending the
Shakopee City Code , Section 12 . 01 through 12 .09 of the Subdivision
Regulations . Motion carried unanimously .
City Planner explained the rccommc.. Aei changes to the Subdivision
Ordinance which had been added since the Planning Commission meeting
of January 22 , 1981 .
Discussion was held on the ree mmendations made by the City Planner
to the Subdivision Ordinance .
Specific discussion was held on the proposed changes of park
dedication fees for residential zones .
Comm . Schmitt stated that he would like to see the developers of
high density complexes be responsible for establishing and maintaining
a playground facility for their developed complex . He recommended
that staff consider making this a part of the provision for park
dedication fees .
Jim O 'Neill stated that he had heard where the State Supreme Court had
made a ruling making it unconstitutional for the City to obtain park
dedication from industrial land . He luith r staled that industries
do not create a need for park land , t hers by the reason behind this
ruling.
Comm. Coller suggested a legal opinion from the City Attorney -on
this Supreme Court ruling,
Discussion was specifically held at length on the recommendation
made by the City Planner for the provision of Street Trees to be
included in the Subdivision Ordinance .
Wynne Ventling , Charmn . of the Subdivision Review Ad Hoc Committee ,
stated that the Committee had taken the general consensus that street
trees should be the responsibility of the homeowner at their
discretion .
Gary Eastland stated that all FHA approved plats require at least
one boulevard tree per lot in the front yard before receiving FHA
approval . Discussion continued at length on the provision of
street trees .
Gary Laurent stated that if a stipulation for the provisi-on of tree
is placed on the Developer ' s Agreement , this could be another
consideration that would have to he cleared up prior to closing .
MEMO TO: Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: John Anderson
City Administrator
RE: A & G 1st Addition -- Extension Request
DATE: February 23, 1981
Introduction:
A & G Industrial Park 1st Addition is a plat consisting of approximately
7.50 acres, lying East of County Road 89, North of Patch 1st Addition
and West of Maras Addition, within the SE4 of Section 12, Township 115,
Range 22.
Background:
A & G Industrial Park 1st Addition received Preliminary Plat approval by
the Planning Commission on July 12, 1979, subject to the following
conditions:
1) Favorable Title Opinion of the City Attorney.
2) Park Dedication be in cash.
j) Access to County Road 89 be limited to one juiut access fur the
two lots.
k) :;oil tests which demonstrate the suitability of the soils for septic
:system be submitted for both lots before final plat approval.
5) .'as line easement be included.
f') .:elete "Industrial" as part of the name for the development.
Bien went to the City Council and received preliminary plat approval
',sur the Council on July 17, 1979, subject t.o the same conditions as set
rth by the Planning Commission.
.'.,bsequently, final plat application should of t,tr( n made on or before
.;,; ;Nr 17, 1980.
. .ached is Mr. Allen's request explaining why he did not make final plat
tlication or request an extension of his plat by the one-year dead line.
t ' :2ase note that he was inexperienced, relying on his engineer, and was
w :,ting for the Contract for Deed to be cleared up.
Shakopee Planning Cors sion -2- February 23, 1981
City staff asked the Assistant City Attorney for an opinion citing Section
12.03, Subd. 4A. That opinion is attached. Please note the "boxed" paragraph
on Page 3.
Mr. Allen approached City staff asking if there was some other appeal method
available to him, other than suggested by the Assistant City Attorney's office
(consultation with Mr. Allen's own legal counsel ) since this is such a small
plat. Therefore, we suggested that he make a formal request for a review of
the "administrative decision" that the time had lapsed and that the plat was
null and void.
Summary:
To date, Condition:; nurnbcrtt,l I , • % [. 1 II'' • L'_` 7eL ; c riditions r.ur:ibered
4, 5 and 6 have been satisfied, as set forth in prelim nary plat approval.
It is apparent from legal opinion by the office of the Assistant City Attorney
that the language is not clear on the time frame a : ubdIvider has to request
the extension.
Alternatives:
The alternatives available to Mr. Allen are one of the following:
1) Planning Commission can deny this request for extension based on the
language and/or intent of the existing City Code Section 12.03, Sub. 4A,
which City staff has in fact done. In this circumstance, Mr. Allen will
be left to the course of action as outline;. in the A_:•_l:stant City AL,torney's
letter; that being seeking legal counsel.
2) Mc Planning Cununi;;sion could grant rui ;t •::. qi ;'ii .i p.:r'iud
of time based again on the interpretation of the language and/or intent
of Section 12.03, Subd. 11A.
Recommendation:
It is the recommendation of City staff that the Planning Commission make a
recommendation to the City Council based on one :;f the alternatives outlined.
JKA/ jiw
004 —
February 23, 1981
Shakopee Planning Commission
City of Shakopee
129 E. 1st Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: A & G 1st Addition
Dear Members of the Shakopee Planning Commi":;Hh:
Donald Green and myself, owners of the above-referenced plat, are requesting
an extension to the one-year time limit on new plats.
We had received preliminary plat approval on July 17, 1979. Our engineering
firm was asked to make the changes requested by the Council while they
were redoing the hard shell. It was brought to our attention that the
Contract for Deed would be paid off in August of 1980. This would put
us in Fee Title and the hard shell would have to be redone when the Vendors
were paid in full and gave us title.
Not being aware of the one-year time limit, we elected to wait until the
land was paid off in August.
All the conditions were set for final plat approval. The work had been done,
as requested. Our only error was waiting too long to ask for final approval.
We are not land developers by profession, we only want to put up two
buildings for our own business.
We feel this would be rather a harsh penalty for not having an over-all
understanding of the City Ordinance.
Sincerely,
, ---. \ (;;;;;
r
James Allen
�
416 41/$4i
Law Offices of ‘T
KRASS , MEYER & KANNING
Chartered Phillip R. Krass
Shakopee Professional Building Barry K. Meyer
1221 Fourth Avenue East Philip T. Kanning
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Trevor R. Walsten
(612)445-5080
December 18, 1980
Mr. Tim Keane L.. .,
Shakopee City Planner
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379 CITY
Re: Legal Opinion Concerning
Jim Allen Plat Problem
Dear Mr. Keane:
Please be advised that I am in receipt of your letter of November
26th, 1980. In response thereto, I will set forth, herein, our considered
legal opinion relative to your inquiry concerning Jim Allen, a developer, who
did not request final plat approval within one year of preliminary plat
approval as required per code ; but first, is a summary of the applicable law.
The specific statutory authorization enabling the City of Shakopee
to promulgate and subsequently enforce the whole of Chapter 15, Subdivision
Regulations, Shakopee City Code, is found in Minn. Stat. S462.358. Specifi-
cally, Minn. Stat. S462. 358, Subd. 1 , provides in pertinent part as follows :
"Subd. 1. Authority to Regulate. To provide for orderly,
economical , and safe development of land and urban services
and facilities, and to promote the public health, safety,
morals and general welfare, a municipality may adopt
subdivision regulations . . . -land procedures for plat
approval , including a procedure for appeals from actions of
the platting authority. "
Pursuant thereto, the City of Shakopee did promulgate procedures for
plat approval in Chapter 12 of the Shakopee City Code and, as you are aware,
Section 12.03, Subd. 4A, thereof, provides as follows :
"Subd. 4. Final Plat.
A. The subdivider shall file with the Planning
Commission through the City Administrator (within
one year from the date of approval of the preliminary
plat) a final plat conforming substantially to the
preliminary plat as approved; such approval shall
become null and void on plats which are not filed
within the time herein specified. If requested by
the subdivider, the council may extent the time
limit on a yearly basis:. The subdivider may with-
draw the preliminalry plat at any time within the
year at which time approval shall become null and
void on the plat. "
I J
bt
Mr. Tim Keane
Page 2
December 18, 1980
Supplemental to the statutory authority, aforementioned, authorizing
the promulgation of procedures of plat approval , is that statutory athority in
Minn. Stat. S462.358, Subd. 6, which authorizes municipalities to provide for a
procedure for varying subdivision regulations as they apply to specific properties,
as follows :
"Subd. 6. Variances. Subdivision regulations may provide
for a procedure for varying regulations as they apply to
specific properties where an unusual hardship on the land
exists, but variations may be granted only upon the specific
grounds set forth in the regulation. "
Consistent therewith, the City of Shakopee did promulgate Section 12.09 , which
section sets forth two principle grounds upon which variations and exceptions
to the standards and requirements of those subdivision regulations located in
Chapter 12 of the Shakopee City Code may be had. Speificially, to obtain such
variation or exception, the subdivider must allege hardship resulting from
strict compliance with the subdivision regulation, Section 12.09, Subd. 1 , or
that the subdivision is a planned unit development, Section 12.09, Subd. 2.
Finally, to reiterate, Minn. Stat. S462.358 authorizes municipalities
to adopt subdivision regulations which include a procedure for appeals from actions
of the platting authority. In conformance therewith, the City of Shakopee has
promulgated Section 12. 10, Appeals, of the Shakopee City Code. Such section provides ,
as follows :
Section 12. 10. Appeals. Any person acyrieved by an
objection to a plat or a failure to approve a plat may, within
sixty (60) days of notification of such objection or rejection
of the plat, have such decision reviewed by an appropriate
remedy in a proper court of record. "
This, then is the law, on the state and local level , which is most directly appli-
cable to the fact situation as posited by you in your letter of November 26, 1980,
concerning the Jim Allen plat problem. In resolution of such problem, application
of these laws must be had with respect to the facts.
In the first instance, you are correct in your assessment of Section
12.03, Subd. 4A, insofar as said subdivision makes mandatory the subdivider' s obli-
gation to file with the Planning Commission through the City Administrator within
one year from the date of approval of the preliminary plat, a final plat conforming
substantially to the preliminary plat as approved, and that upon failure to do so,
such preliminary approval shall become null and void. Indeed, the usage of the
word "shall " with reference to said filing and the effect of lack thereof, within
the time period set forth, without more, leaves nothing to the discretion of the
Shakopee City Council . However, mitigating against this conclusion is the further
language of Section 12.03, Subd. 4A, which states that "If requested by the
subdivider, the Council may extend the time limit on a yearly basis. " Clearly,
inclusion of the word "pray" by the drafter of this section, bestows upon the '
Shakopee City Council a certain amount of discretion to abrogate, in yearly incre-
ments, the harsh effect of the one year time limit in which to file a final plat
_ f
•
Mr. Tim Keane
Page 3
December 18, 1980
from the date of approval of the preliminary plat. Conspicuously absent from
the language of Section 12.03, Subd. 4A, is a date certain, or a deadline, which
a subdivider must adhere to in order to request that the council extend the time
limit for filing of a final plat. What is clear is that such an absence gives
rise to ambiguity relative to the council 's authority to grant extensions of
time subsequent to the lapse of the one year time limit allowed a subdivider
to file a final plat.
Nevertheless , it is our considered opinion that the council does have
the authority to, and hence may, extend the one year time limit, in one year
increments, which a subdivider has to file a final plat, upon request of such
subdivider, even if such request is made of the council subsequent to the one
year filing limit, and hence, subsequent to the preliminary approval of such
subdivider's plat becoming null and void.
We advance this legal opinion based upon two considerations . First,
Section 12.03, Subd. 4A does not specify a time f.er•tain, or time limitation,
with which a subdivider must comply to request, or be eligible to request, the
council to extend the one year time limit for the filing of a final plat. Second,
assuming the council honors such a request, the subdivider may yet fulfill the
bare language of Section 12.03, Subd. 4A which requires that the final plat to be
filed conform substantially to the preliminary plat "as approved". Clearly, the
language of this section does not require the subdivider to file a final plat
conforming substantially to a then approved preliminary plat. While not blatant,
this distinction is readily discernible.
Based thereon, it must be concluded , that the council may extend the
one year time limit which Jim Allen has in which to file a final plat with the
Planning Commission through the City Administrator.
Relative to your succeeding inquiry, that being, whether the council
would "want" to grant such an extension, I am ill -equiped to convey the subjective
desires of the council . Assuming your inquiry, however, to be a request for
discernible criteria to guide the council in making such a determination , reference
again may be had to the Shakopee City Code.
While Section 12.03, Subd. 4A does not set forth criteria upon which
the council may base its decision to grant or deny a request of extension of time
for the filing of a final plat, we would advise that the council not act in an
arbitrary or capricious manner. Instead, the council should seek to base its
decision upon readily discernible criteria , havinn a nexus with the substanative
matter for which the procedural extension of time as requested. Available for
such purpose are those criteria set forth in Section 12.09, Subds. 1 and 2 upon
which the granting of variations and exceptions to the standards and requirements
of the subdivision regulations in Chapter 12 are to be based.
Review of these criteria is concurrently dispositive of your third
inquiry, that being, availability of alternatives for f-1r. Allen at this time.
Applying such criteria to the facts as set forth in your letter, absent knowledge
of the particular physical conditions of the specific property involved, it seems
that any findings based upon Section 12.09, .Subd. 1 , 3. , C. , and D. , would not be
favorable to Mr. Allen, as a subdivides. What is more, the criteria set forth in
Mr. Tim Keane
Page 4
December 18, 1980
Section 12.09, Subd. 2, A. , B. , C. , and D. , appear to be similarly unfavorable
as applied to the facts posited in your letter. I emphasize, however, that such
assessment is not meant to influence Mr. Allen in his choice of alternatives, or
influence the council , Planning Commission or other body considering the matter.
In this respect, the City should seek only to make known to Mr. Allen these
potential courses of action. Having done so, the final assessment of the merit
of these alternatives must be made by Mr. Allen. The only recommendation I would
advise the City to make to Mr. Allen, regarding a course of action, is to consult
private counsel on the matter.
If you have questions, please feel free to contact either Rod or
myself.
Yours very truly,
KRASS, MEYER & KANNING CHARTERED
Trevor R. Walsten
TRW:ph
File #1-1373-106
cc Mr. John Anderson
000 fo.04 '
The Council may require the subdivider to reimburse the City for
the cost of such services ; and if such services are rendered by
a salaried employee of the City, the charge therefor may be com-
puted on the basis of such employee ' s regular hourly, daily,
weekly or monthly wage or salary.
Subd. 4. Final Plat.
A. The subdivider shall file with the Planning
Commission through the City Administrator (within one year from
the date of approval of the preliminary plat) a final plat con-
forming substantially to the preliminary plat as approved; such
approval shall become null and void on plats which are not filed
within the time herein specified. If requested by the subdivider,
the Council may extend the time limit on a yearly basis . The
subdivider may withdraw the preliminary plat at any time within
the year at which time approval shall become null and void on the
plat. --- — -B. The subdivider may file a final plat limited
o such portion of the preliminary plat which he proposes to re-
cord and develop at the time , provided that such portion must
conform to all requirements of this Chapter. If some portion of
the final plat has not been submitted for approval within this
period, a preliminary plat for the remaining portion must again
be submitted to the Planning Commission and the Council for ap-
proval.
C . The final plat shall be filed with the Plan-
ning Commission at least two ( 2) weeks before a regularly schedOR
-
uled monthly meeting.
D . The City Administrator will refer the final
plat to the Planning Commission and one ( 1 ) copy each to the City
Engineer, the Utilities Manager , and the City Planning Consultant,
if any , for their review and report.
E . The Planning Commission, with assistance of
the City Engineer and the City Planning Consultant, if any, shall
check the final plat to see that it is in substantial agreement
with the preliminary plat as approved and that it meets all ordi-
nances and regulations of the City.
F . When a final plat meets all of the conditions
of this Chapter, the Planning Commission shall recommend approval
to the Council and the Council shall act thereon. Following fi-
nal plat approval or disapproval by the Council, the City Admin-
istrator shall notify the owner or subdivider of the Council 's
action. If the plat is not filed within ninety ( 90) days after
approval by the Council , the Council may rescind its approval and
shall notify the Scott County Recorder/Registrar of Titles . A
reproducible copy and four (4) paper prints of the final plat af-
ter the plat has been recorded with the County Recorder/Registrar
of Titles of Scott County shall be filed with the City Adminis-
trator.
SEC. 12 .04 . DATA REQUIRED FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT.
Subd. 1 . The preliminary plat shall be clearly and
legibly drawn. The size of the map shall not be less than 12 in-
-333- 4-1-78
WILLIAM D SCHOELL -
CARLISLE MADSON
JACK T. VOSLER ft`'", : 1 5 1981
JAMES R. ORR
HAROLD E DAHLIN
LARRY L. HANSON SCHOELL & MAOSCSAYAbNiAKOPEE
JACK E GILL
THEODORE D. KEMNA ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS
JOHN W. EMOND
KENNETH E. ADOLF
WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT
R. SCOTT HARRI (612) 938-7601 • 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH • HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343
GERALD L BACKMAN
April 14 , 1981
City of Shakopee
c/o Mr. John Anderson, City Administrator
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Subject: Water Supply Well No. 6
Contract No. 81-1 KT
Gentlemen:
Enclosed is a tabulation of bids which were received for
the subject project on April 10 , 1981. Four bids were received
ranging from a low bid of $74 , 615 . 00 to a high bid of $82 , 510 . 00 .
The low bid from E. H. Renner & Sons , Inc . is 16 percent below
our cost estimate of $87 , 000 .
The Specifications for this project were submitted to the
Lower Minnesota Watershed District for review and approval .
Mr. Larry Samsted, Engineer for the District, has indicated that
he would recommend approval. While Mr . Samsted indicated in his
opinion this proposed well would not affect Dean Lake, he felt
the question should be addressed in light of the controversy with
the pumping at the Shiely pit.
The proposed well is located approximately a mile and a quarter
west of Dean Lake and will have a 1000 gallon per minute capacity.
The well will draw water from the Jordan Sandstone while Shiely
is pumping from the Shakopee Limestone which is above the Jordan.
However, there is not a confining formation between the Shakopee
and Jordan and therefore both are in the same aquifer.
We have discussed this matter with Hedia Rieke, Supervisor
of Water Appropriation Unit of the Department of Natural Resources .
The DNR did extensive monitoring of wells near Dean Lake and found
that the 5000 gpm pumping rate at the Shiely pit did not affect the
ground water level at the lake. For these reasons , the DNR
indicated that the proposed well would not affect Dean Lake and
also that a water appropriations permit would be approved.
n J
SCHOELL g. MADSON, INC. W
City of Shakopee
c/o Mr. John Anderson, City Administrator
Page Two April 14 , 1981
E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. , the low bidder, is one of the
oldest and most reliable well contractors in the area. We,
therefore, recommend award in the amount of $74, 615. 00.
Very truly yours,
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
KEAdolf:mkr
enclosure
cc: Mr. Lou Van Hout,
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission
RESOLUTION NO. 1827
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID ON
WATER SUPPLY WELL NO. 6 CONTRACT NO. 81-1KT
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the con-
struction of Water Supply Well No. 6 , Contract No. 81-1KT including
a 30-inch by 24-inch Jordan Water Supply Well , 1000 gpm deep well
turbine pump with electric motor to be located in the extreme corner
of the NW 4 of 9-115N-22W, bids were received , opened and tabulated
according to law, and the following bids were received complying
with the advertisement :
Bidder Amount
E. H. Renner & Sons , Inc . $74 ,615 .00
Bergerson-Caswell , Inc. $75 ,225.00
Layne Minnesota Company $79 ,600.00
Keys Well Drilling Company $82 ,510.00
AND WHEREAS, it appears that E. H. Renner & Sons , Inc. of
Anoka, is the lowest responsible bidder.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1 . The Mayor, City Administrator and City Clerk are hereby
authorized and directed to enter into a contract with E. H. Renner &
Sons , Inc. of Anoka, Minnesota, in the name of the City of Shakopee
for the construction of Water Supply Well No. 6 , Contract No. 81-1KT
according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the
City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk.
2 . The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return
forthwith to all bidders the deposit made with their bids , except
that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest
bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1981 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1981 . City Attorney
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Resolution/Policy Requiring Retention of Easements when
Streets or Alleys are Vacated
DATE: April 9, 1981
Introduction
City Council , at its April 7 , 1981 meeting, approved the vacation
of Prairie Street . In so doing, Council asked that staff bring
the City ' s policy (resolution) on maintaining easements to the
next meeting.
Background
The City staff was unable to find an existing policy or resolu-
tion. The need for such a policy was discussed by the Mayor and
SPUC in late 1980; however , City staff did not draft a resolution,
incorporating the ideas discussed, into a coherent policy.
It appears that the policy (resolution) could reflect either of
the following two approaches :
1 . Reserve all of the former street R/W in the form of an
easement(s) .
2 . Require staff to meet with all utilities with each outlining
in writing the specific easement(s) needs of their utility
so that only the required easements would be maintained.
That is , require a meeting of easement users , but have each
vacation evaluated on it ' s own merits .
Summary & Recommendation
The City' s experience with vacations has been limited because we
simply don' t have that many. However , based upon that limited
experience , staff recommends approach #2 because it provides
flexibility while requiring that all utilities review the vaca-
tion and provide written statements as to their present and future
needs for easements .
Action Requested
Approve Resolution No. 1818, A Resolution Requiring Utility
Company(s) Review of All Street and Alley Vacations to Establish
Needed Present and Future Easements .
JKA/jms
/7
RESOLUTION NO. 1818
A RESOLUTION REQUIRING UTILITY COMPANY(S) REVIEW
OF ALL STREET AND ALLEY VACATIONS TO ESTABLISH
NEEDED PRESENT AND FUTURE EASEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee has the authority to vacate
certain public right-of-way, and
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee desires to retain any and
all easement required for present and future utility services .
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that prior to action on any Resolution
vacating public right-of-way the City shall obtain written state-
ments from all utility companies indicating their present and
future easement requirements su that said easement requirements
can be so noted and retained in the vacating resolution.
Adopted in _ session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee , Minnesota , held this _ day of
1981 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this — day
of , 1981 .
City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 1821
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 1706
ADOPTING THE 1981 BUDGET
WHEREAS, the annual budget of the City of Shakopee for the fiscal
year beginning January 1 , 1981 has been formally adopted by Resolution
No. 1706 , and
WHEREAS, changing financial conditions require a modification to
the 1981 Budget as adopted September 16 , 1980.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY TI-IE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1 . That said 1981 Budget with total General Fund appropriations
of $2 ,084,981 not be changed as approved in Resolution No . 1706 .
2 . That the appropriate City officials are hereby authorized
to amend the interfund transfers and line item appropriations con-
tained in the 1981 Budget as indicated in the attached without
further Council authorization.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee , Minnesota held this day of
1981 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1981 .
City Attorney
ATTACHMENT 7
AMENDED GENERAL FUND INTERFUND TRANSFERS
AND LINE ITEM APPROPRIATIONS*
General Fund Revenues
Line Item Decreases : Line Item Increases :
Liquor Licenses $ 4,000 Sewer Permits $ 300
Beer Licenses 400 Police State Aid 4,700
Misc. Business Licenses 3 ,600 Eng. Services 3,000
Non Transient Theme Parks 12 ,000 Plan Check 10,000
Administration (1%) 10,000 Pool Admin. 600(1 )
Street Repairs 1 ,000 Interfund Transfer from
Sale of Gasoline 9 ,000 Cert . of Indebtedness
Court Fines 5,000 Fund 26 ,400
Total $45 ,000 Total $45 ,000
General Fund Expenditures
Line Item Decreases : Line Item Increases :
Sale of Gasoline (4222 ) $ 9 ,000 Legal (Prof Sery 4310) $13 ,000
Admin. (Dues & Sub 4391) 300 Fire (P.T. Salaries 4130) 7 ,000
Admin. (Fuel & Lub 4222 ) 200 Workman' s Comp 6 ,000
Assessing (Supplies 4220) 240 Planning (Prof Sery 4314) 4,000(3)
Finance (Audit & Fin 4311 ) 450 Total $30,000
Govt Bldgs (Bldg Maint 4231) 300
Police (Fuel 4222) 4, 500(2 )
Police (Veh Maint 4232 ) 2 ,000
Police (Conf & School 4390) 2 ,000
Fire (Safety Supplies 4224) 500
Planning (Books 4394) 200
Inspection (4715 Other Prof) 250
Engineering (4390) 560
Forestry (Supplies 4220) 1 ,000
Street (Mach Rental 4382) 1 ,000
Street (Land Rental 4380) 1 ,400
Street (Seal Coad 4241) 3 ,000
Street ( Ice Cont Mat 4244) 800
Street (Conf & School 4390) 300
Park (Ground Maint Mat 4243) 1 ,000
Total $30,000
*Footnoted items vary from the City Administrator ' s April 3 , 1981 memo
on budget changes as noted in each footnote . Note the total dollar
amount for the General Fund Appropriations do not change (see Resolu-
tion) .
1 . Changed from $800 in April 3 , 1981 memo to $600 to make the total
1981 revenues appropriation remain unchanged .
-2-
7
2 . The Chief of Police has recommended a $4, 500 cut in Motor Fuel
and Lub. as one cut in his budget to cut the 1-1/27. He antici-
pates that this will mean some doubling up in police cars . This
might be a good way to test this concept for the 1982 budget .
3. On April 13, 1981 the City received approximately $7 ,000 in
Engineering expenses for this Comp Plan line item reflecting the
time and effort expended to finalize the Comp Plan Sewer Flows .
The budgeted $5 ,000 should be increased to $9 ,000.
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne Andre, Executive Director , HRA
RE: Contract for Fill and Grading
Macey Second Addition
DATE: April 16 , 1981
Introduction
Minor fill and grading work remains to be done in Macey Second
Addition to prepare the project for construction of the second
phase of homes .
Background
At the April 7 , 1981 meeting of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelop-
ment Authority the Commissioners directed staff to arrange for
final fill and grading of the project site to prepare for the
second phase of home construction. This work is to be undertaken
with funds remaining in the 1978 CommunityDevelopment Block Grant .
As this is a small project (under $10,00it is possible under
state law and federal grant regulations to negotiate a contract
rather than take bids . The staff solicited quotes from two
local contractors and received the following proposals :
Dean Smith Trenching Beuch Excavating
Fill Dirt (per yard , delivered) $1 . 50/yard $2 .45/yard
Grading (per hour) $35.00/hour $52 .00/hour
As the Housing and Redevelopment Authority has previously requested
the City of Shakopee to undertake the engineering functions of this
grant , it is appropriate now for the City Council to authorize a
contract for this work.
Recommended Action
The Shakopee City Council authorize appropriate City officials to
execute a contract with Dean Smith Trenching for fill and grading
to be done according to existing plans and specifications for the
Minnesota Street Project (Macey Second Addition) , at a cost of
$1 . 50 per yard (delivered) for fill and $35 .00 per hour for grading,
not to exceed $3000.
JA/jms
MEMO TO: Don Steger, City Planner
FROM: Jeanne Andre, HRA Director
RE: Review of Section 8 Proposals for New Construction
Minnesota State Housing Finance 1981 Allocation
DATE: April 8, 1981
Conformance with HAP (Housing Assistance Plan) goals and
performance should be included in the response by the City of
Shakopee to proposals for two multi-family residential develop-
ments proposed in the above-listed allocation. The City of
Shakopee currently has no one year HAP goal . In the three year
HAP to be completed in 1981 , the City has exceeded the 95-unit
goal for new construction by 27 units . The goal included 70
elderly units and 25 family units . Actual performance included
66 units of elderly and 56 units of family housing. Therefore
the proposed projects of 18 and 24 units of additional family
housing definitely exceed the current HAP goals .
The City has fallen short of its goals in other categories
of the HAP such as assistance for existing rental units (goal
70 units , performance 61 units) and rehabilitation of existing
homesteads (goal 50 units , expected performance 30 units) .
Therefore the City could consider amending its goal allocation
between categories if there is a desire to promote the construc-
tion of either of the proposed projects .
In addition staff is in the process of developing a HAP
for the next three year period. The local representatives of
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) have
strongly encouraged use of the HUD or Metropolitan Council
"fair share" allocation of units in various housing categories .
This allocation is determined in the following manner:
1 . The total number of federal funds for housing assistance
is estimated for the whole metropolitan area.
2 . This amount is allocated to communities by a formula
that takes into consideration population, demographics ,
and previous performance.
HUD is recommending that the goals established be no higher
than the fair share allocation, although they can be lower if so
desired by the City. This recommendation is rational because the
City does not want to establish goals beyond what is likely to be
achieved and then be penalized for not meeting the goals .
For the next two year period the Metropolitan Council alloca-
tion for new rental construction for Shakopee is 35 units , 27
family and 8 elderly. Based on the above explanation, this number
is likely to be the goal recommended by City staff for the new HAP
to be adopted this year. Council could therefore promote the
development of either of the proposed projects based on the HAP
anticipated to be adopted later this year.
JA/jms
f
. -i L.y,A.. MINNESOTA f
HOUSING c1-4
"AV
FINANCE AGENCY APR h'I'fl 1 i: 61.
March 30, 1981 CITY OF ` H; KOPEF
The Honorable Walt Harbeck
Mayor of Shakopee
129 E . First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Mayor Harbeck:
The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency was established to provide af-
fordable housing for low and moderate income households in Minnesota.
The Agency provides assistance in homeownership, home improvement, and
development of multi-family rental housing.
Each year the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allo-
cates funds to the Agency under the Section 8 Housing Assistance Pay-
ments Program which provides rental assistance payments to low and
moderate income households throughout the state. The Agency uses
these Section 8 funds in the new construction or substantial rehabili-
tation of multi-family housing developments. Because of the temporary
"freeze" placed on this year's allocation by the new administration,
the number of units is not known at this time. Assuming the freeze is
removed and no reduction of funding occurs, approximately 350 units
will be available for this fiscal year.
The Agency began advertising for multi-family housing proposals on
February 8, 1981 , and by the deadline of March 20 had received 143
applications requesting 3,850 units. We will not be able to fund all
of the proposals due to limited Section 8 funds.
Agency staff visits each proposed site. After the site and proposal
have been evaluated, the selection of proposals will occur. The eval-
uation involves an examination of local market information, local
Housing Assistance Plans, Farmers Home Administration plans, HUD' s
Fair Share Plan, the Agency's Allocation Plan, and Regional Develop-
ment Commission priorities and recommendations.
We are enclosing information on the applications received from your
community, emphasizing that no selections have yet been made for fund-
ing. The selection of proposals to be financed will occur in May,
assuming that HUD has released the funds by that time.
We invite you to submit any comments which are relevant regarding the
proposed development; for example, comments on the site, whether the
development is approvable under local codes and ordinances, etc.
333 Sibley Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (612) 296.7608
C.......I ru.n.,ri.mi+., Lies..,iet" -,nrl Fr...ol nnnnrt.mit,, Grnnln,,mon+
The Honorable Walt Harbeck
March 30, 1981
Page 2
Under the provisions of an agreement with the Department of Housing
and Urban Development and in an effort to expedite our joint process-
ing responsibilities, we are including in this notification a request
for your comments pursuant to Section 213(a) of the Housing and Com-
munity Development Act of 1974. Your unit of government has the op-
portunity to object to approval of a proposal on the grounds that the
proposal is inconsistent with your local Housing Assistance Plan (HAP)
as approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. An
objection, if any, must be based on one or more of the following
1 . The proposed number of dwelling units exceeds the three year HAP
goal by housing type or by household type.
2. The proposed location of newly constructed or substantially reha-
bilitated units is not within the general locations specified in
the applicable HAP.
3. The proposed housing assistance is inconsistent with any other
limiting factors set forth in the approved HAP .
In accordance with federal requirements, you are required to submit
any objections based on the above grounds no later than 30 days after
receipt of this letter. If you do not intend to object, please notify
us as soon as possible in order to expedite our review process. If
the development conforms to your HAP but for any reason you do not
recommend approval , please explain.
Your comments should be identified as pursuant to this letter and Sec-
tion 213(a) and shall be mailed to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agen-
cy, 333 Sibley Street, St. Paul , Minnesota 55101 . A copy of these
comments must also be forwarded to Mr. John Buenger, Deputy Director,
Multi-Family Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
220 South Second Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 .
If you have any questions or comments or if there is information your
city has which would be helpful to the Agency in making selection de-
cisions, please notify us. Your comments are needed to assist us in
selecting the best development for your community.
Sincerely,
James J. Solem
Executive Director
/wpc
Enc✓
cc: John K. Anderson, Administrator
The following applications for multi-family housing have been submitted to the
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency:
CITY Shakopee New Construction X
REGION 11 Substantial Rehabilitation
LOCATION . . I. :•. . .- , -- I I ' ., , . . .• 0. a- ' .. .
ELDERLY No. of Units Proposed No. of Section 8 Units
FAMILY X No. of Units Proposed 24 No. of Section 8 Units 24
•
New Construction X
Substantial Rehabilitation
LOCATION 3rd Avenue & Cass
ELDERLY No. of Units Proposed No. of Section 8 Units
FAMILY X No. of Units Proposed 18 No. of Section 8 Units 18
c
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Sergeants Wages/Non-Union Employee Medical Benefits
DATE: April 14, 1981
Introduction
City Council , at its March 17 , 1981 meeting , voted in favor of the
mediator ' s proposed settlement with Police Local #320 finalizing
all union wages and benefits for 1981 . There remain two areas
that need attention to establish relative equity in wages and bene-
fits for 1981 : 1) the sergeant ' s wages and benefit package ; and
2) the non-union employee ' s health benefits .
Sergeant ' s Wage and Benefit Package
Background Since 1978 the sergeants have been separately
dealt with by the City. They have not formed a formal bargaining
unit . In 1979 , Resolution No. 1402 was passed establishing their
wages and benefits for 1979 , 1980 and 1981 . The Resolution was
in agreement form and was never executed by the sergeants who
foresaw problems in signing a three year agreement that was directly
tied to clauses in a two year patrolman' s contract (Local #320 ' s
contract) .
Problem With the approval of the 1981-82 contract with Local
#320, the problem is now quite evident . Attached are copies of
Resolution No. 1402 and my staff memo of March 11 , 1981 outlining
the proposed changes in the patrolman' s contract . The key problem
is that the 1981-82 contract with Local #320 held the top patrolman' s
salary at 8% and increased the longevity benefit . Resolution No.
1402 establishing the 1981 top sergeant ' s pay is tied to a $200 per
month pay differential over top patrol which floats with the top
patrolman' s wages , but has a fixed longevity schedule for 1981 .
The combined effect is to nullify nearly half of the sergeant ' s
$200 differential over the patrolman they supervise .
Alternatives The City, since 1978 , has held the sergeant ' s
pay in alignment with that of the patrolman they supervise . This
probably explains why the sergeants have not organized (formed
their own bargaining unit ) even though they didn' t execute the
last agreement . This alignment , however , will be broken if the
City attempts to hold the sergeants to Resolution No. 1402 with
its 1981 pay and longevity scale inappropriately related to
a changed 1981-82 patrolman' s contract . Given the potential con-
sequences of any City effort to hold to the Resolution, i . e.
unionization, it appears to be in the City ' s best interest to
pursue its practice of keeping sergeant ' s pay and benefits aligned
with that of the patrolman. The alternatives discussed above are :
Sergeants Wages/Non-Union Employee Medical Benefits g
Page Two
April 14, 1981
1 . Maintain Resolution No. 1402 establishing 1979-80-81 wage and
benefit rates .
2 . Pursue the past practice of aligning sergeant ' s pay to that of
the patrolman they supervise.
Recommendation I recommend alternative #2 . Furthermore , I
recommend that the whole process be simplified by compensating
sergeants according to our 1981-82 agreement with Police Local
#320 with two additions . First , that sergeants be paid $150 per
month over top patroman for the first 12 months in grade and $225
per month over top patrolman thereafter. Second , that in recogni-
tion of their supervising role , all sergeants understand and ack-
nowledge their responsibility to effectively evaluate , annually,
those they supervise as directed by the Chief of Police.
Impact A sergeant with 12 months in grade will receive $25
more per month over top patrol than he did in 1980. However,
in comparing their 1981 wage of $2150 ($1925 top patrol plus $225) ,•
with 16 Cities that have reported 1981 sergeant ' s wages to Cy
Smyth' s office , we find that they are $56/month under the $2206
average of those 16 cities . Therefore , like the City ' s contract
with the patrolman, 1 recommend a rate of $.250/month in 1982 so
the metro area norm is more closely followed .
Non-Union Employee Medical Benefits
Background It has been the practice of the City to finalize
non-union benefits after union contracts have been settled. By
waiting as we have in 1981 , and because of union contract differ-
ences , the City now contributes toward the employee health, major
medical and life plan at four different rates :
Police $103/mo.
Public Works 95/mo.
Sergeants 90/mo.
Non-Union 75/mo.
Approach It would be my approach, and I have heard this from
several Council members , to make an effort to equalize the above
benefits for both equity and good personnel management reasons .
I do not believe it can be accomplished completely in 1981 , but if
the non-union City contribution were raised to $95 effective May 1 ,
1981 then the major variance would be rectified . Upon finalizing
the Public Works contract for 1982 (there is a wage reopener only
in their existing 3 year contract ) , the numbers can again be
re-evaluated pursuing again the philosophy of equity and good per-
sonnel management .
Alternatives City Council can choose from a number of
alternatives :
Sergeants Wages/Non-Union Employee Medical Benefits
Page Three
April 14, 1981
1 . No change in CiLy contribution .
2 . Increase the contribution to that of the lowest union contract
i . e. Public Works at $95.
3 . Other formulas for increase including retroactive contributions .
Recommendation Alternative #2 for the reason outlined above
under the section entitled "Approach" .
Budget Impact The recommendation for the police sergeant ' s pay
package for 1981 would mean approximately a 11 . 9% increase , compared
to the patrolman' s pay package which was 11%. While this is . 9%
higher it is necessary to remain near the metro area norm. This last
1981 pay plan adjustment would bring our estimated salary adjustment
needs to $102 , 360 (note we have reserved $100,000 in 1981 General
Fund Contingencies for 1981 salary adjustments and have an unencumbered
contingency balance of $49 ,401 ) .
The recommended increase for non-union employee medical benefits
will fit within the current budgeted Health & Life benefit line item
in the 1981 Budget .
Requested Action
1 . Approve Resolution No. 1825 establishing a 1981 and 1982 agree-
ment for sergeant ' s pay and benefits for 1981-82 as that of
Local #320 ' s plus $150/month for the first 12 months in grade
and thereafter $225/month for 1981 and $250/month for 1982 , and
requiring effective annual evaulation of employees supervised .
2 . Approve Resolution No. 1826 establishing the maximum City
health and medical contribution for 1981 at $95 .00 per month
effective May 1 , 1981 .
JKA/jms
MEMO TO : Mayor and City Council V>//
FROM : John K. Anderson , City Administrator
RE : Mediation Results/Police Local #320
DATE : March 11 , 1981
Introduction
City Council , at its January 20, 1981 meeting received the attached
Staff Memo dated January 16 , 1981 , regarding Police Labor Negotia-
tions . I reported that evening the Local #320 had rejected the
proposal as outlined in the memo and recommended that the City
request a mediator .
Background
The Union and City met in a mediation session on March 3 , 1981 at
City Hall . Cy Smythe , the League ' s (and City ' s) labor relations
consultant , attended the meeting to assist management in the media-
tion process . As a result of the mediation session , Local #320
representatives and City representatives agreed to take a "media-
tors proposal" back to their respective groups . On Wednesday ,
March 4, 1981 , Local #320 voted to ratify the mediator ' s proposal .
That proposal is attached in agreement form for Council review and
action . The changes from the 1978-80 agreement are noted to assist
in your review by underlining or notes in the margin .
Summary of Mediator ' s Proposal
The format for this information isidenti_cal to that of the January 16 ,
1981 memo attached so that you can see where changes have been made .
Present 1981 1982
1 . Salary Top Patrol $1782/mo . 98%=1925/mo .** @9%=2098/mo .
2 . Longevity Year 6-$20/mo . 5-$ 77/mo . 5-$ 84/mo .
11-$40/mo . 8-$ 96/mo . 8-$105/mo .
16-$60/mo . 11-$115/mo . 11-$125/mo .
15-$1.35/mo . 15-$147/mo .
3 . Detective $75 .00 $85 .00 $85 .00
4. Severence Pay After Probation After 5 years After. 5 years
5 . Health & Life $103 (1981 because $103 $105
of CIP = 83%)
6 . Uniform $278 lump sum $309 . 32* Depends on
with CPI CPI*
7 . Holidays 11 with .6 paid at 11 with any 11 with any paid
2-1 /2 time if paid at 2- 1 /2 at 2-1/2 time if
worked time if worked worked
ediation Results/Police Local 1/320 IC-,
Mage Two
March 11 , 1981
{ * Includes detectives that were 1 /2 lump sum and 1/2 voucher in
i -t 1980.
** This is the 1981 top patrol salary for a MAMA City . The proposal
calls for the following steps in the police pay scale again using the
existing MAMA approach :
a) After 36 months $1925 .00 Top Patrol Rate
b) After 24 months 90% of Top Patrol Rate
c) After 12 months 80% of Top Patrol Rate
d) Start 75% of Top Patrol Rate
Steps c) and d) represent a major change from the 1978-1980 agree-
ment which froze these two steps at the 1978 level while steps a)
and b) were regularly increased .
Discussion
Management ' s approach (Cy Smythe and myself) during mediation was to
aim at the Metro area average (not always synonymous with MAMA) for
the items under discussion . Using this approach, items 3-7 in the
list above did not change and are identical to times 3-7 on the
January 16 , 1981 memo with one exception . Item #5 , Health & Life
benefits are expressed in dollar amounts vs . percentages for 1981
and 1982 resulting in the same amount paid by the City in 1981
($103/mo . ) , and a potentially lessor dollar amount for 1982
($105/mo . ) which is the Metro average for 1982 .
The changes in items #1 and #2 above were the greatest . Again ,
to simplify the whole process both parties opted for the metro
average . The average , computed by Cy Smyth , was $1925 in 1981 and
$2098 in 1982 for a top patrolman . The average longevity pay ,
computed by Cy Smyth , was $77/mo . in the 5th year and $135/mo . in
the 15th year which became the parameter for the longevity scale .
The City insisted on flat dollar amounts rather than the 3%, 5%,
7%, 9% scale employed by roughly half of the MAMA cities . This
lead to the compromise whereby we increased the proposed 1981
longevity scale by 9% in 1982 which created an effect similar to
a percentage longevity scale which is the most widely used type
(Cy felt that most cities were trying to get to the flat dollar
amount and recommended the above approach as a compromise for
this wage package) . The impact of this change from the January 16 ,
1981 memo is that a top patrolman will receive $42/mo . more after
16 years of service .
Comparative Contract Information
This data is the same as that in the January 16 , 1981 memo as it
relates to other communities in the Metro area . The overall cost
of the mediators proposed package is 11% (was 9 . 97) for 1981 and
8 . 9% (was 9 .4%) for 1982 compared to MAMA ' s current proposal for
wages of 10% for 1981 and 9% for 1982 .
.
,ediation Results/Police Local /1320
Page Three
March 11 , 1981
Summary & Recommendation
Council can either accept or reject the mediator ' s proposed package .
If Council rejects it we will have another session with the poten-
tial for arbitration growing even closer . If Council accepts the
package, negotiation will be completed for 1981.-1982 .
It is my recommendation that Council approve the attached 1981-1982
agreement and authorize its execution by the appropriate personnel .
The 1981 budget included an 11% salary contingency for the police
budget of $38 , 947 .00. This agreement will require $43 ,093 for all
personnel related costs . The $4 ,000 difference falls within Work-
men ' s Compensation rates which went from $14 ,800 to $19 ,000. The
necessary contingency monies would he reappropriated when the 1981
budget is amended during the 1982 budget cycle .
JKA/jms
MEMO TO : Mayor and City Council
FROM : John K . Anderson , Ci t v :\dmi ni st r rater
RE : Status of Police ',ahoy Ne}y t i nt i on
1)A'fE : January 16 , 1 c)8 1
Introduction
At the January 6 . 1981 City Council weed in:; . 1 reviewed the status
of the City ' s Police Labor Negot i at i „ns le eht ;lin some general
direction (parameters ) from City Counci I . have had a neguti.aL-
ing session since that meeting and ! he pHice should be voting on
a proposed package January 19 , 1981 totaling . with benefits , approx-
imately 9 . 9% for 1981 and 9 . 47. ler : 982 . I wi I I cenvey the results
of that vote to Council at TuesdayH, met t i n;, .
Proposal Now On The Table
Present I98 1 1982
1 . Salary Top Patrol $ 1 782 /me . 'r ;' $ 194! /mu . 9% $2117/mo .
2 . Longevity Year 6 -- 21) '( a :- 6 35 Year 6 - 45
11 - 40 11 - 55 11 - 65
16 - 60 16 - 75 16 - 85
20 - 60 20 -- 95 20 -105
3 . Detective $75 $85 $85
4 . Severence Pay After Probation After- 5 years After 5 years
5 . Health & Life $103 equaling 837., ti et 8), of
of premium Hremium premium
6 . Uniform $278 lump sum $306 . 36 Depends on
with CPT CPI-
7 . Holidays 11 with 6 paid at i 1 with any 11 with any paid
2-1 /2 time if paid 2- 1 /2 at 2- 1 /2 time if
worked I imp if e' rked worked
lncludesdetectives that were 1 / 2 lump .aim and 1 /2 voucher in 1980 .
Comparative Contract information
The City of Shakopee has set t I ed with all ;' roup:, except the PHI i ce
for 1981 . The Public Works Exmployees received a 97: salary increase
with a $10 increase ($85/mo . to $95/mc, . ) in their health and life
insurance package for 1981 ( 2nd year Pi a 2 year agreement ) : and ,
non-inion employees received a 97 mini mn71 inc regia s,e with numeruu�,
.layor and City Council U
January 16 , 1881
Page 2
increases of 10 , 11 and 122 and some even in t he ; 4 Co 15% range .
(Some of these reflected job status changes ) . "Ilre proposed police
package For 1981 for wages and benefits rd 9 . 9;' ( 9 .4% for 1982 )
appears consistant with these prior sett l emcnts (adjustments to the
non-union $75/mo . health and life insuram:e employer contribution
have not been made ) .
The 9 . 9% for ' 81 and 9 .4'/ for ' 82 compare wi th Mi-MA's current
proposal for wages ( they haven ' t settled ) of 1 ',2 for ' 81 and 9%.
for ' 82 . Bloomington , Hopkin , Minnetonka and i Iymouth have
set l l ed for 1981 with a 10, c o', I ,i l ;i; ind N. I i ii, anal I,:il�
vii Ie with a 97 wage package . Thus our package appears to be.
nsislant with the police settlemews settlementsnow coming in from other
metro area communities .
Recommendation
if the union agrees with the package uftBred I recommend Council
instruct City staff to draft the 1981 -82 contract for its February 3 ,
1 981 meeting . If the union does not agree , I recommend that_ the
City initiate mediation and that we lake a hard line .
At this point this is sti 1. 1 just an "offer" , and should be kept
confident . If the police vole to accept it on January 19 , 1981
it could become a tentative agreement iC Council accepts it on
January 20, 1981 . After Council action , we can discuss it as
a "tentative agreement " with the press if they want the informa-
tion .
JKA/jms
RESOLUTION /9"'
REGARDING SALARIES FOR POLICE SERGEANTS
BE, IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shakopee that
WHEREAS , the following shall cover the wages , hours and other
conditions of employment for the Sergeant job classification in the
Shakopee Police Department :
Stipulation 1 : Work Schedules
The normal work year is two thousand and eighty (2 ,080)
hours to be accounted for by each Employee through:
a) hours worked on assigned shifts-
b) holidays
c) authorized leave time
Stipulation II : Employee Grievance Procedure
An employee claiming a violation concerning the inter-
pretation or application of this resolution shall notify the Chief
orally or in writing . The Chief shall respond orally or in writing
within 10 days . If the employee is not satisfied with the answer
given, he may file the violation with the City Administrator. The
City Administrator shall meet with the employee and submit a written
response to the claimed violation . If this response to not acceptable
to employees , he may request that this matter be placed on the next
City Council agenda for their review and final decision.
Stipulation III : Insurance
The Employer will contribute up to a maximum of eighty
dollars ($80.00) per month per employee toward health and life
insurance during 1979 .
The Employer will contribute up to a maximum of eighty-
five dollars ($85 .00) per month per employee toward health and life
insurance during 1980. The Employer will contribute up to a maximum
of ninety dollars ($90.00) per month per employee toward health and
life insurance during 1981 .
Stipulation IV : Uniforms
The Employer shall provide required uniform and equipment
items .
Stipulation V : Injury on Duty
Employees injured during the performance of their duties
for the Employer and thereby rendered unable to work for the
Employer will be paid the difference between the Employee ' s regular
pay and Worker' s Compensation insurance payments for a period not
to exceed sixty (60) working days per injury , not charged to the
employee ' s vacation , sick leave , or other accumulated paid benefits ,
after a ' five (5 ) working day initial waiting period per injury .
The five (5) working day waiting period shall be charged to the
employee ' s sick leave account less Worker ' s Compensation insurance
payments . For 1980 and 1981 , the sixty (60) working days maximum
shall be changed to seventy-five ( 75) working days .
Stipulation VI : Holidays
All employees shall be eligible for eleven (11 ) paid
holidays
Effective January 1 , 1980, any employee required to work
on any of the following listed holidays shall receive an additional
one-half ( 1/2) times his/her base pay rate in addition to the day ' s
pay and the regular holiday time off :
ge
. .
( 1 ) New Years Day
(2 ) Memorial Day
(3) July 4th
(4) Labor Day
( 5 ) Thanksgiving Day
(6) Christmas Day
Effective January 1 , 1979 , the Employer may , at his option
buy back from any employee so requesting in writing by November 1st
of each calendar year any holiday time off earned but not used by
the employee by December 31st of any calendar year.
Stipulation VIi : Funeral Leave
Employees are allowed funeral leave up to three ( 3) days
with pay for death in the immediate family, as defined in Paragraph
3 of Stipulation VIII .
Stipulation VIII : Vacation
permanent and probationary employee shall accrue vacation
time on the following basis :
0-5 years of service - 10 days per year
6-10 years of service - 15 days per year
over 10 years of service - one ( 1 ) additional day per year
not to exceed 20 days per year
Any employee leaving the municipal service in good standing after
giving proper notice of such termination of employment shall be compensated
for vacation leave accrued to the date of separation.
Vacation leave is intended as a period of rest and relaxation and
may not be waived by an employee for the purpose of receiving double pay .
No more than ten ( 10) vacation leave days shall accumulate beyond
December 31st , except in emergencies an4l exceptional cases to be determined
by the City Administrator . An employee who is separated for any reason
. •
shall be paid for any accumulated vacation leave provided , however,
that should an employee resign without giving two weeks written
notice and except for reasons of ill-health, he shall forfeit his
right to accumulated vacation .
Stipulation IX: Sick Leave
An employee shall accumulate sick leave at the rate of
one ( 1 ) day per month of service to a maximum of one hundred twenty
( 120) days . After one hundred twenty (120) days is reached , one (1 )
day of sick leave per month shall accumulate to a sick leave bank.
Any employee absent from work for. fiteen ( 15) consecutive calendar
days shall have said sick leave deducted from the sick leave bank
until such time as the sick leave bank is exhausted before deductions
are made from regular accumulated sick leave .
Stipulation X: Severance Pay
An employee who is separated from his/her position by
retirement , discharge , death or resignation shall receive severance
pay of thirty-three and one-third percent (33 1/37) of a maximum
of one hundred twenty ( 120) days of accumulated regular sick leave
and banked sick leave calculated on the basis of his/her current
wage scale . Should any employee resign without giving two (2) weeks
written notice , except for reasons of ill health , shall forfeit
his/her right to all accumulated leave .
Stipulation XI : Court Time and Standby Pay
Employees shall be compensated for Court Time and Standby
Time in the same manner as Police Officers employed by the City of
Shakopee . Employees shall be compensated for working extra shifts
(over and above the normal work week) in the same manner as Police
Officers.
1 v
Stipulation XII : Wage Rates
0-12 months service as Sergeant - $100 over top patrol
12- 24 months service as Ser-wani - $ 175 over top patrol
Over 24 months service as Sergeant - $200 over top patrol
Stipulation XIII : Longevity
At the start of the sixth (6th) year of service , an employee
shall receive twenty dollars ( $20 .00) per month additional .
At the start of the eleventh ( 11th) year of service , an
employee shall receive an additional twenty dollars ($20 .00) for a
total of forty dollars ( $40.00) per month additional .
At the start of the sixteenth ( 16th) year of service , an
employee shall receive an additional twenty dollars ($20.00) for a
total of sixty dollars ($60 .00) per month additional .
Stipulation XIV: Seniority
Seniority shall be determined by the employee ' s length of
continuous employment with the Police Department and posted in an
appropriate location . Seniority rosters may be maintained by the
Chief on the basis of time in grade .
During the probationary period a newly hired or re-hired
employee may be discharged at the sole discretion of the Employer .
During the probationary period a promoted or reassigned employee
may be replaced in his previous position at the sole discretion of
the Employeer.
A reduction of work force will be accomplished on the basis
of seniority . Employees shall be recalled from layoff on the basis
of seniority. An employee on layoff shall have an opportunity to
return to work within two (2) years of the time of• his layoff before
any new employee is hired .
Senior employees will be given preference with regard to
transfer , job classification assignments and promotions when the job
relevant qualifications of employees arc equal .
I
Ke>'
Stipulation XV: Term of Resolution
The term of this resolution shall be effective as of
January 1 , 1979 , except as herein noted , and shall remain in full
force and effect until the thirty-first day of December 1981 .
Retroactive salary payments will be made after final approval .
NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED that the above changes be
effective immediately .
Adopted in Adj . Reg. session of the Shakopee City Council ,
Shakopee , Minnesota , held this 2nd day of May , 1979 .
Walt C. Harbeck, Mayor
ATTEST:
/-- lLe,,
Douglas Reeaer, City Administrator
Approved as to form this 2
day of A7 , 1979 .
City At orney
g15
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger
City Planner
RE: Review of Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MEFA)
Rent Subsidized Housing Proposals
DATE: April 9, 1981
Two proposals for rent subsidized multiple-family housing developments in
Shakopee have been received by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA).
One proposal is sited between CSAR 16 and the abandoned rail line, and
consists of 24 units on 2.58 acres of land. The area is zoned R-4+ and
would accommodate all the proposed 24 units if they are 3-bedroom or less
in size. This proposal is, therefore, consistent with the City's Zoning
Ordinance.
The other proposal is located in an R-3 Zone, at the intersection of 3rd
Avenue and vacated Webster Street. The proposal consists of three buildings,
each containing six units. This proposed development would also be consistent
with the City's Zoning Ordinance.
Sewer utilities (sanitary and storm) could be made available to both
sites and would be adequate for the proposed developments. To determine
if water service would be adequate to the sites, the Shakopee Public
Utility Commission (SPUC) procedure is for the developer to have his engineer
examine existing system flow data and take any additional flow tests they
desire to determine the adequacy of the water flow to the proposed development.
Therefore, the developer will have to make the determination as to whether
or not the proposed sites could be provided with water service.
Requested Action: City Council move to concur with the City Planner's
recommendation on the review of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
rent subsidized housing proposals (24+ units east of Marschall Road between
County Highway 16 and the abandoned rail line; and 18 units near 3rd Avenue
and vacated Webster Street), as presented in the City Planner's memo dated
April 9, 1981 and recorded in the City Clerk's Official Record of Documents.
DS/jiw
Attachments
Pv
RESOLUTION NO. 1825
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PAY AND BENEFIT
AGREEMENT FOR POLICE SERGEANT' S FOR 1981-82
WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Shakopee wishes to
establish a formal pay and benefit agreement for Police Sergeants
in the City of Shakopee , and
WHEREAS , said Police Sergeants wish to establish a formal pay
and benefit agreement with the City of Shakopee .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1 . That said 1981-82 pay and benefit agreement is inclusive
of the pay and benefits in Local No. 320 ' s two year labor agreement
effective January 1 , 1981 through December 31 , 1982 .
2 . That said Police Sergeants be compensated at the rate of
$ 150 per month over top patrolman for the first 12 months in grade ,
and, thereafter, $225 per month over top patrolman in 1981 and $250
per month over top patrolman in 1982 .
3 . That said Police Sergeants understand and acknowledge their
responsibility to effectively evaluate those they supervise as
directed by the Chief of Police .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Resolution No. 1402 be rescinded
in its entirety.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee, Minnesota , held this day of
1981 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this _
day of , 1981.
City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 1826
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 1571 ADOPTING
A PERSONNEL POLICY FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE
WHEREAS , the annual premiums for the City ' s group hospitali-
zation, major medical and life insurance plans have increased
regularly over the last several years , and
WHEREAS , unionized employees have been able to increase the
City ' s contributions to said insurance plans , and
WHEREAS , it is the City of Shakopee ' s intent to eliminate the
wide variances in the amount of its contribution to said insurance
plan for various employee groups .
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1 . That Section 9 . entitled Croup Insurance be amended to read
. . . maximum of $95 toward the total cost of these coverages . . . " .
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee , Minnesota, held this day of
1981 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1981
City Attorney • •
• •
riN U . U 0,N P P A > > • U 4 t:;,", N _ N N N N W N N - ; ; ,1 ;•., • 0 V; O 4 &f,. . - ,.`� •
Il V P N' • - O V P JI > U tit • P J� U O :0 S: 0 U N O • 0 J 0 ; O �O/
r • ! r N! r r 1• r • r.r • r' • r • fr.,- r-Irr r'r -.rr •I r r
a • a a 0 • O • O.O •; a. • O • 'a a 0 0 1 0 a'a 0 010 1 01 n .J
N • UI UI o '• UI * N:UI • N: • N •• U1 LI 01 N 101 o Ui'U1 Ui N IN •I U1 S 0 .
O • O a 0 • O • 0,0 • 01 • O I• a s 00!4000,00010 •1 0' .1 r .
O. • i N • 0 :11 • •c • 1.r1.W •1 WI • W :• NN IV N:NN Ni1VNN'N •I 0 n
a • W N r * .O • O.1 0+ • A• • r '.,• V r 0C' 0C' 1/47110.0' 00 * 2 x n
1 1 I •
0
O u 0 a I a O O ! O I 1 O I a O O O I 0 0 00000 T
a O a
a a a A 1 1a a I a a A a s AAA A AIA A A A O -$ 0
N. -. - -.� . �'41. N. m 3
r r r r r r r r r r r r D
0 N N L1 l 01 0UI '!1 0 NUI UIo N U10 UI N UII UI o 0
a 33 p C) 03 CO 33 73 D moo CCICCCCCCIC m I-0
r r r r I r ►•r r r rr r •r'1
I I
a
1
0
Aa ( C
. . 1 2
NN N N Or N) r r .4
a t. •-• Nto 00 AA W WO oo WrN 9dW aUIa N W W
0• a a ON ..1 ....1 00 .43.0 ,,a .0.0 ON .0 00 InrrNr-1 .1 U1rJ rr
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
dO• T 0c- NN Oa NNO OO m9 A aO NNAN aMO• OaN Aa
0I Aa 00 0 WWIO o NN Nrr ryS0 ..0 O's u00. 44 Q 43
{ • * !• * • * • • • •
I
1
I
.yl 0 I 07 ' 2 !D C.c. 1 a tt aaaaaaaa a a
0 m a a In ! o o a r mm c C c c c c C c c .-I
-<'', A -i I z j x i 2 2 73 o a s A
a• m ..4 x m Z z - < 2 2 00000C) 003
2; z m I m IC) 2 2 n <
N 77 I 73 2 7171 Is 0 mm nnnnnnnnn . O m
a, .< N a • I• • 5, m m I*i m m m m m m 1 2
0 1 ,2 a aa z z z z z z z z z 1 0
cu L r ! s1 a a 13 2 2 0
731 : 2 .r x 2'2 A 2 00 7373 ,'373737)707X77 M
it; N m IC Oa r r 7373 aDaDDD Dsa n
7' m I m rn m,m --1 Cl mm rrrrr
rrrI- =
al •
1 47373 m
-I1 I 10 010 yowoomoNN n
mi 2 I I 3 00 C C C C C C C C C x
rn. • n mm
I-• z2 MmmTimmmm m 73
a rrrrrrrrr r'1
• ..
1
m
73
731 0 m 73 im (I)-/ O Cl -4.4 mc<<ccmm C) n •'•
of m o m •o n'm -4 in 7377 ommmmmaolm 0 -I
DI z C 3 C 2•a I 2 AD 0222SSCC,2 3 m I
0! m w .r -4 0 < m m << r f-1 *IM SI 3
73 13 -a : m A 73 5 vv O m m C •
31 a • r r a r r • 1j1 3 2 3 ID 0
A l • r C) N' l V r a l a a a D ir N m
.11 3 _a '2 in 1. 73 MM 1 —IM M - M 2 21 <I N
in • N • a Z r. r x ! O N x x a 2 2 2 2 2 a att.") co n 1
M I c r x .. "Q m o r 1 z
c 13 ' .. ...1C
2 m z ! C) m • '9 mm z• • • • V 2210 m r
a -0 -/ 73 j -i o',. B ZZ -i -1 I 3 0
r : r • 0 I • z,v) N r N N • Q• Q•Q• Q• 4•• • r -4
In': 71;ri m m m .. _ 0. I
111 Q• r I ?• I • 73 1'1 ?a 73 73 73 73 73 W o 19 a O
0 I i-4 1 I I I < 0 m'm m m m N •-• z
73 m I 73 I •1 33 -0 -0'01O137373 L
m m Cl I n rn V• • • • • m m
V V m
•
• • in
• • 1
♦)I O I O 73 o clic, a O 00 -40000000 a O a
r' r 1 r r 'r rIr r r r r r r r r... r,r r n.
1 I 1 1 I 1 11 III 1 a 1 1 1 n
Aj a ( a a IA AIA a a• a A a O
01 N ( W W N 1 .OI1IN W a
0 O O N !043c(14 •+1 N W W W WW W W W W(A a N 0 00 O N N N N N O OIO W .4
1 ! 1 l 1 1 1 ' 1 111 1) 1 11 111111110 1
AI r O' .0 !A •-•1••• r A r r a a a W W W 201.1.O• W z .
NI C) N 1 r :a 1 .IIN ! N ••- NN (ANr WNrN NIN r 0
V I r r r r t.,.. N r N r 01.1.600.1....M1...1..00.� N •
1 1 ! I I ! I I i I 1 I I I I
Ai r Q• .0 '1A r.r r. A r+r 4) .4.1.044(.1010400 u H
NI m N r I A V,N N _ r NN N NIr W N r N N N •. c
IW ! W
a ( v se �O
a A
O N
1 ! • I !I a 3,3
r
•
1 1
I 3
I
• '• •' •:
„ Y.
�
Y 77
/i• J 'f f 'ft A •0' O J N O;N A U S O.D O t', :4,' >� J �W N L O_L 0'N P U > t=I t' 0 9: 0 V O N W' N O • O V O U • W N I.
, 1
• 0.F. • r • r • 0.. .+,.r r r.. 1 • r • F. • ''.r • 0. F•
* ,71c2 * a • 0 Ra 0 -,0,7 O O 0 0, * O(7. • • O '* 0 J 0 • 'O C) .3
* UI VI • UII * Ul * N UI UI U1 N U1 U1 UI 0 1 • 0 UI! * JI • U1 UI UI * UI m
* O .0 * OI • 0 • ',3 7 .300 ._s U 701 * :JOI • '7 • J O .3 • 7 II ••
* 0.O • 431 * OD • 'A D X 9 .0 37 W 9 col • • -4-41 • Cr, * ON 04 04 {* T n
• U1 UI * NI • -1 * N N N:N N N N N Ni * N Ni • OD 0� U
• 1 N • . X• • C1
1 I •
i I 0 11
0 O 6. G 0 0.710 0 010 0 0 O O 0 ,7 0 0 ,C2 a
A A -0 A I A.I. A I IA A A A 41 CA
\\ \ \ -.\' 1"..1 \\ . P S
r r r r h.h• r I~ h•r h• a
UI(Al UI U1 al N UI UI N UI U1 U1 UI N UI U1 U1 UI UI UI 7C
-. 1. 0
OD.D CO - 23032:10) 33 ,7) 332123 33 OD CO JD 33 JD CO 12
.•r r .• I rI- r 1-••-• r r1
m
1
I
I
a
0
r 1 +IN C
• 1 i.* 2
4 4 UI UI •J N r h•h•J F• r N N ANN J•i A -4
-Y IT 0+04 r400.OD CO r O1 r ON UI Ar 00 A P•(CAd.I -.11.1 A
O VIN NN 0101 S 4 d N JN UI 44 014 04 WN 00 CO 32 .10 U11 UI 0'
• • I• • • I• • • • • • • • • .• • • • • • • • • • • • • • I•
•5 U11N ..,/ r •017, a' OO10A1\731N003 o UI UI q0 NUI A 01 CO .11r -4
.0 0;A J u '.•r a'NJ-4 CO 0 4 0 04.3 U1 a 0 a 0 0 0 O N N 0 r-4 UI
• * I• * • • * • • •
nn C)' A CACfnn AAC)n 00 CD ..DO m
r r- 21 O a a a a a a a a a .4..4 I o C C x
a s a, ro '0 'D v v x 'D O V T a s 0 I 0 (R CO <
« v1 rn PI rn rn rn m m m C•1 zz Z .•.• a
00 7C, ” CA N(A CA CA 0 0CA CA mm a 2 z 2 G
yi z (A a m m rn
T T C) IC C C C C C C C CI N U) IyN N A Z
AC 2: •• VI N(A N N N N(A N • •• G7 IVl NN 0 0
H.4 >0 I,. n I O
z 2 -0Ia a a a a ala a s CO S O Iz T T 7C 32
-4 -1 .•.! QD 4/O GI 0 7I70 0 Cl m x ;0 C C In
,..,r z' Irn m mi rn O Irn rnlrn rn rn C c m A 70 T IS
zit Cl, z z z z z zIz z zI n n E Ina z Z 77 !m
4'I:.n i nnnln0CInnn =z z
( 'i p-. -• o n
I I-
I-1 10 x
c c
mi m lc
en z
1 I m rn H rn
o
M
N
i
II
73
1 •
L•^7 S -C. C 7)T S'9 '9 9 Gr 0 0 0I -4 '67 n n C7 r
x'X "1: x 11°73313 x73 x x rn m -4•33 73 rna s x ••1
21 .. ISO 010 O OIO z z1 2 SI a z (T T 0 rn I
ZZ I • t• 2 -o'� 9 TT • • I rnmI G m • • 'C 2
-.:- •.. le. • • • • • • P P 73 x I rn 77 z
.,• 3' .. ClIP P r ri r a 0 0 0 o
a:. z O P P PCC 03 IX r I T '9 r T T N m I
CI 0 •4... 0 O O a s x x. rn T"I N
z: IC..0'S'S .. tC CO'SI I O OI X N ••1"'• n
Q. •. 1 a• IT OO.orr!.O• • 11 111 x c 'nn :a 77
• I• r
Clrn ;.'• • • rn Im Cl .r
xx x I rr'r73 .Ir.- .
'9
z Iv z T
Cl 19 1 P Cl •.•.m r^r1rn z 2 CA IA• N If. 1111 m ••
.0 1277 33:73 ..I77NU) I rlmi m I .r 0 0 I• P4
.Ti A 73 I x ',I !N z Z • • x 731I•I IC C 0 ,
a ) in I '• h•,M..•.N N••• CGI ICA 1..•~ :Z z
0 � 0! o I z a p • • z .J., v v n
• • IllC•
N • N nn • • I-1
• • • • m rn I•
N N)
• jI j
0'CG • O Oi0 Ca 0'Y7 a O 0 O 0 O O O Ia 0 '.'0 D
..r r I . rr..,...r rir rr rr ... r 1•r r r)
I 1 I I I .1 I I 1 III 1 III 11 11 1 1 11 11 Cl
r'H a A' A A A AI A A A I A A A A A A 0 A A '- CO
4 u N 4 4 4 0+14 4 414 4 4 4 4 4 I N N N IN C
U1•U. 4 I UI P V•0"0' IC 0`1 J1 0M 0. I ••••• 4 N r N :F' '
.• I NI r N r ri.+r rir 0 O I U(UI o O N N I:4 I '-1
-4
1 I I 1 ' ' 'I ' s 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1
A'CA 41 40 4 T A•(4 r 1-41.• 00(.4 r rI Co I4 4►• jC' I
.-•r .•I i )4 Ir r NIN S OD I O N N -4 r1 r !N Ir U1 N 0
1.-•,... nal r r r 1..!•.•CA P.) Po 'r r Ir r r i V •
1 I • 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 .1 11 I I I I 11 I I 1 1 1
33.4 41 ,D !CA T 3314 r.+,.•0•(4 p.Po 4 1 .4 I 4r •0, ..
F. P. • F.! 0. 1r r 1‘311%1(D m D N NI .Y r i r iN r U1 IN 2
G
• LAI• I I •
-41I I ! a
I I A,
r i I • r
0
• I
CO
, a .,•
ij Cl '9
I I N n
• •- • I • * ! • • 1 I• (A 0
•' • * * • * * ' I • j D
•I * • * I • • i !• i ' * 43
1 I 1 I1 •
I 1 1 I I I 1 m
r)! CI n! I: n , - n i n n In I
7C1 7C X j X 7C 7C >< ,7C N
N N�. y • N I CA N 'N I N .
1 1 •
• ' I i
•
\U • N On } v OOaW• OO U VJ N U J WNUVO ] VT • a & • • OWi V ?WWWNW ONVN N :u NNN 0 O J 0 U . W
N O •O V • U •W N-
:•,C!IIC010..C1.0 I'J 11
'V lU ; A ! J '- '0'
U > n 4 s A l 'CII:.'-
.I _------ N I V N N N N N v --
P N O 0 ] P O J 0 s • • • U 1 UNI- O ,0 • J •,U 1 V IN O Y O �? U ♦ V N
1 � �
I ': V - :� U Y - � O > � `�
•I I I •
r • I-.'h. • r.r- • .-'r- • �Ir r r r.- .. .-- .-.-' I. • it •• r • I r r
0 r; 0 c * J,.7 • oaa • 0 :2 .3'o ] a,J a.5 • • O * 10 •I O • J n 41
:I • LAIN *I CA IA • U1 LA UtUt UI 0'0 LA CnicA LA C,) • U) • IN •. LA! • A I Co
r •. *44.41., -- • r
� I • *4 1-... 1 r r r r r 0. r r r * r * :r •i ri • r rl r
•d •' COLO •I 4*'4* * uWW • UIU WIu a uW W(d • rV .• ,r •! O' • C) C)
r.) •. 4,..t. •. .4 .4 *• NM)N '• In a O.c) .a UO O a,. * N • !r •1 0+' • N 7; Cl
•
• I I•
!�
• ' 0•
•
i I
1 I O IT
o CIC) 010 O,O a ;O a O O a 0 0 a O 0 a a, a D
A PIP PIP 04. 0.41.• 'A P IA PI A -4 10
I.• .4,4.4 . -' 1- -
- ,4i.- .--.- Iv � m s
r r!r 0- .- .- r 1 r Ir - r a
-N LAIN NIDI :.) U1 co UI N N U1 UI N N N N N10 UI \ 0 PC
1N •1 \1\ \\ -4. N. •I \
Ir r!r .+r r- r r r Ir r r Im
I
' 1
I I
n
I 1 a
rlr 1 N Nj r r r r C
• + • • • •• • • z
cftics.
,4,1 a- N r APjAP 0 P r •*.4r. .0� 00 mao
3:1',D .4N ...40030. 0000 NrrPA(4 c0 .0( UI .0.0 AP
*4•.4 W W
• • • • I• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
WIW N a''N NNO 0000 0r N A N N 0010 UI. as rr 8:6 0' JO
'.0 D ! WOIL. soca aOIaaa LA LA m9 D APPmP as CD31 -1 -4 40 .d
1 I I
•1 • • • • • • • *
1
I
I
II I I
, •
m m',m mlm -1i'< !O O OIO O O O O O O n C.. d
Irr',r cirri a n m ,c c C c c c C c c .• ino
11 <,.0 i lnl n i'22 IZ Z ZIZ Z Z Z 2 Z -i !� I V 1
'X j ..I.. -4104 1 r't.m m :Z Z ZIZ Z Z Z Z Z n lr •• -c
.•-' z!z 1 3 13 I 212 77 7: NC < i
2 I a.D m'mm 12221222222 10 N ri r'1
Ir •
NIm 212 2,22 10 00000000 C ,Z 0 2
'm Din C),n n IU)rn d)V1 V)01V)0t NI .`. D C O
'
"r1•-t1 O10 I m'm m1 O-4 • r,i
� m m, 1 xlm ,2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 I f) 13 - A
11-4 CIC ]*;D, )* ''
J 0 0 0 0 01:7 0 0 2 n n • In
'0 < < I 0 0 • • • C C LL C C:C L i C) 0 I '2
r1 m m rn m rn rnim m m I-ti r -, Im
(n In I o o o • • • • • • • • • o r z n
'-• C.0 1O00 X/ m n 7C
C 12.12 < << z •
o 1:11!-CI I r- rr 1 a
r rir 19..1M .... m
•
<,< I .. 0)
...
N
ti
CI
r't C)I.rn 00 6<< 1 10030)000000 m m r m .•
o no -Im mlmrn IClrrCCImmmm I a O m 10 -. •
C 'CC 2'2 III / I 1202222222 C C 0 c r`1
l rlI • '• • Im Wmm mmmmm •.1 .• ni -. M 1
, m.v zM ! I 1M• aazXIaz7) •o M r v
• a • r• III D a n a a D D a • • • 0
r' Mr- n n n r ;r r r r r r r I N i rn
; 2 I 731 .-i .-..-. • > 2C 3 m I !n
n
1 .0 O10 Z.Z Z 'O .-8010000001 D n X n n
T'C --4 -,-, C Z C C C C C C C — .. < •-• A '
C :4 • m . • V TJ -1 'Dl m L m '0 m 0 2 Z .. Z ..
-4 .+ -- 'D 'D • '91 2 X 1) 1)1) 1 1 1 C) -4
-7 . 0.r- e. a 2* •r- r l r r r r r r l • I'r 0 -1
• r^ .-• F1 Q•0.41.4 r.41. •H (I) 1-•
(• a 014 A l l rl I I r�m ..rl m r1 Q• Iw v 0
<: CA mmr'1 I0=00001000 I --
R X --•I U 'Cr 2 I9 7) 1A co
.' 1 In m n! • • • V m m
o v 1 ml • 0 112 V
rn 1 • • •
i
1 I
J '', pl0 0 0 0100 IN C5 ,000000 O O O 0 n
,- r'r r-lr rirr (A rrrrr r W.w. r r r )- r')
I I • ;1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • n
IP P1P F'4. 4.14. A P P P A o
IN LAIN ult..) N'N N N N N N N N N N N N N W N C '
W 0.!La 1 .`•,N WIW W I N W NiN N N N N N W IW r W - I
,C r'O (A'0 NIN N is r Ola 0 0 0 0 0O 0 O a -( I
iI 1i1 111 I tll 1 I1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 II 1 I
'P Laic. I W14* WIW W 10+01P01.40•0.0P 0• r P Z
'(d NIN rlr I-ir r '02 N N N.+r O m UII N I N 0' r 0
N 4-4-r Wlr iv IV N !P 2 r r 1 rIN r rl r lr rI r e
;1 1 '.• 111 1'1 1 I !l 1 111 111 1 1 1 II 1 1
A ! Lai(I) W10 I WiW W 'r 0(014* P LA W.r W. A I01 r a ..4•
r rII
N NN t r! r r fD N NIN r r a m UI N IN 0' 1
-' Z
•
• 1 1 0 <
! j ,
r 2 II
I1 I 1 I 0 UI
a 2
I ' m 2
* • 1 • * I r 1 , • 1 rn C)
•• * • • I • 1• I • • I a Cl
•' •, •' • • I • •1 I • c)
1' •• 1' • I I I I 1 1 it I I I m :
n; n, n' a n n n n I•
�: �: XI 7c I 7c I i s 7t 7C I
NI ! yl i yl N N II N V)1 I N I W
1
( } yO '• .
�1 4 O U N-1 O L P NU PI T.8 4 OV 4 j4Y 4 = 4 4 4 t ? } ] 1 4 1 4 4 9V } VVUN - ONJ P } N NJN N O 0• J 0 4 1 U.4-0
• 0
0
`.'°►V N�
______I 1
_
. rl
IM y1 U N N N.N N d d,d • d • • IU U IW W U N N,N N N N N N N +
J • N • U N;+ O '0u • U • W N 0.• 0 U O U N _ Ob O • U N O •r• V 0 N • 1,1i.i• O • • V • U •IN N� __Th
I-• • r r I,-. *I r,N. •I .+ • r 1• r 1r • r',IA.A IA PA r 1-.11-• •I r • r r
7 • 001/47 •'. •)O •': U, • C '• O O •' ,)700.00017 •1 0 • 0 n '0
UI • N UI:N • UI.LA • N • N • N ,Ut • N U1 0 0'0 UI N 10 • N * N S co
N • N N NN •i N N •• N • N !• "N N • r r r r r r.-.4.6 • r • r m r
W • W GIG •- 1-• PA • r • 0 • 0 1O • 72000D'O1SOIA • V • . n
N • N NJ'NJ • Ui UI • I•••I * .0 '• UI 'a ► - r - 1•••'H r r it * 71 • W X A
•
.•
•
2 -1
•• 0
0 '11
U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D
A a a a a s a a I :a a a a -4 co)
-' N. N.N. N. N. N. N. N. \ m s
4- rrr .-r r r :r r r r D
UI UI UI U) UI IN I UI Ul I Ui N UI UI N Ut UI UI N 0 N UI 71
-.. N.N.N. \ \ N. N. I'''. N. N. N. O
b 31 31 •• OD Iii 0 33 1D 31 D CO S O)CO OD Co p 31 0 D
✓ r r r r•r r r '.r r r r m
Cl
L
2
0
Co CO C
44 a z
✓ 00 N W N r r W r -4
o r r.0 r 00 0C NN as 1.P•11 I.•1.1 W Or WN N N N N NUI
O 40 ara .INN 1.11 IA Aa .0,0 .0 1/40 UIy CO O U10 N Ut N -4 -4 A0.0
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • - • •
<r UI 0 N O N el NI 00 00 -4-4 UI UI NN J7000000 ON O0
.I O 0 0 CI (JIO U1 0 0 0 O 0 O W W A 0 z 0000 I) h C)O CI 0
• • • • • • • • •
H HHI-• 21T 2 T r 2 oaoCf 0 CI CI T m
O 2212 C:C Z O 0 72 2 PP•Y•Y•IG• P• G• P Z 37
C
r n nIn 71 m ri m 4 0 2 2 S S x = S S Nd • C
H 0 0 0 2 z 2 I m m
m 73=1X1 Oil (y 1 2 y y y/A(N N N V1 U) m 1" 2
m U 9- m ill 2 0 .s... . . 2 0
• • • y C C I 2 2 2 2 2 221. m 2 0. Cl O
'O','l I X 73 0) O H►V..H HHH A 71 A
z .o 1p m -0 m c • n
vI! MIH r
I z Cl S
• z z r < • m m
-41-1 -' ti n
1 I m I 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 7 c
c 2 z z z z z z z z 00
21
-a m
67
• .•
y
-4
xr
72 mmm G)0 c m N G) Cs C1000C7C1G7 11 -4 H
CI 000 71 11 Cl O •n Cl . a0. s s . a z A -1
z CCC z-rt I C ,2 z 7270 .'0727377A73 H s m
H*41. m H • ,-. i 0 m CO CO 07 COCO CO CO CO z C 2
H '7. V 1-0A n V 10 0 a. ... . . . -1 m
., • • • .m 2 • Ir I. 610 c7OG7 )C)) r 0
r . 'N r m m m m m m m m Z m
O 2 212 V) H 2 1 G) m N 1
N s .13. y C Z a r y 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 x
1 r...11,-• C �
-0 -I r C P L A
O 2 Z12 "01'0 • •2 I ''n D (/)IV)0)y y(n U)IN m r
19 -r.41-4 V r -4 0 D D 7) 9•0 D 10 DID A Z -0
-I . • I• 1 r-r,-,, 0 • IZ r • • • • • • • • m (11 -,
• I rlm I T1 or -a m --'I
P• 45 C• i',iy 01 P • I'1 A O
01 m y O 2
VI AAArn r1 PI D• 0 0
I 13-011 a
1I• • • •
9' 0 0 0 Ola 0 0 i0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,- O .
r 1 r r r r10A r r r r 1-1 4- n
I I I I I 'I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n
Al A a A A a A a I ,a a a A 0
501N N N N N N N G N W(A W W W G W(A G G C
N1 0 I w(CA Nir G G N rd-1VV V VV U11 G 2
-/ 0 1 0 010 N 0 1 0 0 W W W G W W W G r 1 O -4
I I 1 1 1 1 III 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1
•0 A tat Glr G a 1 W A
N. V0s0( a WWr A W 2
rl ( r►-IN uiN r G IG N S r N N N N r O
"10. 0
1 r 4_ r,r N N I0" r A r COr r r r r r a
r
I I I l l i 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 t 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1
.0 1 A WIN G r+ W A ;G a r d ON CR AP W W r Al W •+
F. r ri(11 L.10 r N G N O r N N N N r OD r r 2
r •
N
a a
D a
• r+
`" II U1{ �
1 I 1 1 I •
m
I ! ! I I I a r
1 • I 1 2
1 I m v
1 1 (n a
• ►' •, •• * * •1 * to
• •' •, • * •' I .1 ► I I n m
• •' •' • .• • * 1 • • 1
1 I 1 1 li 1 '1 1 I 1 •
1 m
CI ; n! ni n n n ! I ni n
7C 71(' 711 i 7C R : 7C 7t1 71
y i I y1 j N y Vl N I 1 yI y �A
`�__LWU N •I Q O.i V O U S U Z!'ll:4 4 P U I U 4 N 8 . 9 t ? J > W N , t G ] V T U i i 4 U 0 1 9 V 9. J d ..1 N + O .O V O a . .'N +0 '••V. .'U N r I /
J U '' • JI U U 0 0 Y J T i UN U N • O l Y Y '41 T U e',U U U JN M!N O 4 • N NN N i^Ol J O U • Y! r IJ4 •IY N
-�
T �
•
r r • r• • 0. 0. 0.r.. • I • . T
•1 I1 .14G 9 .of • !o • ol0.o 1► C7 •
JI CA • 101 •! LA l CAI cnlul UI • 10 N UII • ;A CM .• N * IN •' NIIUI N • 2 :p •
u W • IN C)
•I N N! n31n31.4 N N N N N I ;• INI • NI • • IN • CU IA)N '�• m r•
r r • ka • .O 0i 73 73!03 3) • IV V-All •
• OI Clli • j A • 'CA • u lCA u ,• f'1
9 i V ► IV • 0 p.0I 010 • ,c .4 W .0 7 0 O • VI • * • V .4 V 1• 7f
00.
•
I Z �V
O <
l I O
a n
O a p O U G t.70 000 0 0 O O 0.0 0 A
0 A '0 A A 0 0 0 O A A 0 0 Aa 0 0 A -4 N-' j.' .....•••• .4.0.4.• ..N. ......••• m 2
r r 10. 0. r rrr 0.140. 0.r r r rrr a
all UI U1 N N U)0 UI N UI UI UI UI N CJI (A I N N 7C
® 1-' \ -' \N.\ - N'\ \.... ' \\ 0
O co !co co :A OIL UI 9 s 0 as s 0 0 .0 .0 0m
r r '... r r 0.1r.h. rrr 0.14 r r .+0.r t'1
Cl
I
• a
• I o
0.r 0.r I N N C
1 • • • • • • z
1..4 V V V A A 0.P. UI 0 u N 0.14 2N UI P. -r
A00 00 0.r V V P O,0 N o Uf N CA LA W .043 NN OCT CAA 0
0. INN I a o UIUI 40 40 0)043 N O UI Nr 0) O Ni CACA V V CA O UI V O
• ',• • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
UI IV V NUI OO os os r 000 1000 000 CA CM OI CA 0.0 V A 0
C 1U1 U1 W,W 00 3303 900.,43 O 0 a a UI UI O OA OO .O 3 A UI 0
1
•2 ! t Ir r r r r r X X 7C 7C 7C .r r• 04.4'4
a a 10 Cl a a.av 737373 00 Z Z Z1Z.Z
r 0 -G) a -1 1,.1"1 a a a mm .4 -4 0,00
7C co Ir- 0 o i i2 CA0N XI Cl r CICC
0.n C ! '(4 C C 7J 73 73 0 VI 0 Z Z A • N 0 N <
77 m m 73 0.900 \\� 0 '1 N -• 14-• Cl
N r1 V T. -0 2Z2 Z 2 1 S 777373 Z
O 7 O N m m f'1 N N a a 14 14.• 0
2 '71 2 v"-J is -4 -4 -4 -/ 0 a a a 0
Cl o 7.,a a mmm In 0 P1 C r r r" A
a O ! 2 m • 0.1 r, 73 73 73 11 Cl 0
O C ! Z Z:2 Z A N N a sO N 0 0 0 I
1 .-. • NI, 0.H 1 7C 7C 7C Z Z� Pr .4 0 0 0 m
C 17 i n 11 aaa 00 m f'1 000 0
.0 . 0. 0' In.(n(n 1 1 Z a s! N 70 0173 A 7C
Cn i
..,l ;- 0-0-0 .Z4.44.,I 73a Cl 73
m ! vw� jzzz a r
Cl
0.n r-0.' ` I•)0 G) o
y
•
in
• • 0
•
C I m m o m CDmo rrr << m Cl 0Cac 'r
rn ' o0 -r o r Om mmm mm 0 0 A 0 0 -r
x ' C v x CI 01C 000 XI C C '000 Cl
• .r m 011 G),,.•Cl Ia a a w I-
• • • 0.4 0 0 Z
m � 73 v1 • lo 7D rrr ' w -II• •
X , o • • a• 2 2 • • a o
P. C v a' r Cn00 as 022 I ii
-'-'i
3 •, 73 a IP-2 m m m 0.-4 NA 1 1 a s V)
Z a "C 0 A -. n N .0.0 .0 Z 2
• •-•L' 1 r•.
'• T ., 2 -.0 I C C< -1-II r 4.1 0 1 1 Ai .4 •"
• Z• Z 11 I Ir•• • • 1 1 C .;0 I -•I • . 73 !f1 C)AI •-4 -i r.• • X,
.?•c 4 -� N • , I• r Im m m F•P • 13 .~-4
•
77 ii. '.1 73I C. ••I ?°OP Ir N N N .73.73 Y• 9S fie fN C7
m :a CI I 7730 m m 73.2 I
7 2 :r 1 AI mI A -0 V A la m 1,1 ( j
• PI • C)1 11 vlm ! • • Cl I') '0 1
Cl V • 0 ! 13 '0 • •
1 I j
O 00 O', t'3I'"')O IIA UtO O O 0 O 000 D
0. 0. I0. r r, 0.,.+r p1 Cr,14 0.r r r rrr (t
1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 A
A A IA 0 O! 0 0 0 AOA 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O
N N ' jW •N N. NNN CAN W N N N N NNN C
CA L. 1 IC0 r W• CA W N rrr u u W W
0.uCA z
N o Lip N O, r u CO O O O N N O 0 rrr 1 I
1 11 1 1 I III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LA r ' '14 r C7`_ 0,•0 01 ICA UIP. W 0. 0 0 0.W- a 0.CA o I
r N ', S N •J nlIN N 0 0 0% 0. A N N
N I-• 0. r R, 1-'N N O r r N 14 r r 0.10.r
1 1 1I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 II 1
W A0. r 0y C7`�QI cr. '0 O r W 0 0 4,6140 0 CA r,
14 N 10 n.11 N N,N N it r CA 0. 0 N N 0.'0 r K
• ! V Ir
•• O
1 o I ,43
1
O U1
.9
1 ! 1 I I ' a 0.
I I
• 2
m v
jI ! ! fn a •
•
• • •: . • ► • I • * • N CI
• •' I• 1 • i • 1• i * • a m
'• • '•r • I • !• • • G)
1 ' 1 , l 1 I(I I 1 I , 1 I 1. i 1 m
C'1 C'f1 0 I Cl C1 r IC1 I AI C1
7C 7V >< 7C x I '7C I 7<I 17< U1
•V! NI CA N I N 1 N NI N •
k U i : N l•
l' O 14 V O U Z U N 2 O p••• 2Ia 4 i U N u O • S V ? J > U N O O YO v19 J Y O N -' O p O V Q 3 e Y N 2 0 4• J O Il • ..N -. 0i•J•1•••Y"A
0..1(I MM..,K. IO>,
,+ U•M '' U U U1
'U J • • i > • i U U WsUW N U 0 N Nv N N N N NN N
J .• la N1. O •0 ] P'U > W - O 0 9 . • W - O 'O do 1' • W Ni- O O' 0 - P'U • U NO{y m V P U N
•
-,
UI rt �+ ••
o .'
N • +I • .616*I •
0 ♦ J O! •
UI N 1 • .- At.
O ♦
•
UI• rOCI !rrr!4-r.+4- s
0 0 0'0 0 0 0 •1N U1 0 N UI NU • 1.-. •-• 4-I
00 •
C 'J1 ► r I
Jr!
0 r ''
r
0' f1 .O
UII Z �
W (A '• W A W • W W • (A • W .:(.01 W(II W W CA 10.1 • CA CA •1 WI
C•11 W m ••
m O • Im • UI • UI N! • a • A 1A a a.a A ala • :.A W •, N r r c•1
V M i. is • .0 • a a • '.,• v Ir ON 0't P a1 O.I(T • I-20 • O .OI 22, 7C c7
7 -4
0 -4
•
O
I 1 o T
o E.0 a 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 o c 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 a
a a a ( a a s a a a s a a A V1
C
rLy�r 4- r 4-r r r rt.. r 4-• r s
UI I UI UI UI U1 UI UI UI UI CJI UI UI UI 0 0 1I N U1 JI U1 1 7C
\I\\ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ 44 \ 0
.72 •• S 03 02 JD CO 2 ! 0 OF 0 aim CO 0 22 161 a a CO T
Fa r r r 4-1... r r r*r r r r m
PI
•
1
s
2
0
c
Z
NN 4-r CA GA W W 0. '.I
a - W J3 43 GU (A Nr NN 0O(A r 4-r (A4-r 0(0. T r
u Jr NN UIS W 4-N 00 00 OCOM.0010r41 010.0 NUI WM 061
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
0 0 J (a 00 a a0 00 OO .0 .001mr N mN Jr 0 00 00.i 0 sO
c7 . N C7 a0 OCU C2 0O N(A OD 0 -40 AN .O .O 0 OO co 0 UI UI
•, * • • * * • 0 * •
I
7.122 2 2 22 a s 22252't2 F r s 2 s
r I= Z m 30 14. OQ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 AIA A 7•
77 01 2 2 pp fn O 0000000 las 0 s A
mfnrn D m V/(n z a 7070 .'9A .T73 O « s m <
r:4- r Z a -4 Os A m
r-4-r co ss r 'IIT TTTT "17 2,2 r 0 2
I C)- (0 C c 2 s a s s s s s s s s r o 0
2 -4 n 7721 Ala 7321A 73A 2 0
• 0 0 n 4-1 -4 -4 -4-4 a• A
r 22 ! r z NNNNN VIN ••-4 2 n
m 0 O rn 2 0 0Is m
s-4-+
Fd y 1-..-. N r !7 n
T a 74
2 ('1 m U!
m -4
XI 73
PI
0
.r
I I -4
•PI
a
-4-4-4 C 2 l <rn 0 n < c<rnN G)67 N..1 CO N t •.,
rn;m m ,r 1 s m o -4 a► m rn rn o 2 m rt n 13 0 n P1 -4
rrr — n S x -0 222CD22 ss 0 x x m I
rn:rn m r s I . .. rt4-4 • • . •.r m m o I< x 0 . 2
vITS v 4-•( .0 a -( r�+7a Orn 0 0
x,2 x 2 2• s 3 3 2• s s 4- r r 3I 0
0 0 1y rn! s I ! '17 r 1300701 ...Orr 0 40 N s m
Z 2 2 ,< XI r=, a H. F.4-4 2 0 I rn .•.I CO I
1'1 in in ' I(n -(I z sj !, a m Iz z z s O 0I(A a•,x T T z n
,..r c'c T s I -4I 73
I 1rn pl I •z! • 0 --I •-.4 2 my nm z n • I .4
12 '1 -4i i .. -4 v 13 o1z 0 0 I v
I I ! a.. o -0 a•a•a•. crr z'ti I 2 w1 -4
.•
I2 -41 (n • = 4-4 sy 11 1 r -n 4-
•
i ' s I s1 a 40 .Z7 a s 73 a•nmll'I • • I aI z I
Ir 4-I rn M immm sot")
z , ! 17 21 -0TTAs Cl, 17
I� • m ! n • • • m N
I I• m m
I ; Cl) I • v1
I ,
0,00 i0 0 O O,, 0 0 0000000 00 O 0 O s
- 041a' ! I • 4-.' r r I r r l4- 4-r r r 4-1 n
I :1 I I1 I 1 1i I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I n
..^'a a a a a A. A a a s a a a1 0
:.. (A (A IN W WN, (A N N N N N N N N CAW W (Al NC
N.N N :(A CD C. (A; r r W W(4-1 W N N N .O(A .O ..11CAI i
4- r 1- a N N a, N 4- N N N 0 01 0 0 0 0 a o! NI -4
I 4 I !1 I • I I , I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I
4- r .- 'a W u a' C. CA .a CA W a a ala 4-!r W C-., (Ai Z
a N r N r CA N; UN I N '10..0.N30.1+0+0.
N N r N a a N .0. .0W NI WI 0
4-r r ',r co r r! r •4- 4-r N r r 4-4- r 4- r r r' •
I !I I I( j I, I I I I I (I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I '
4-'r r •a (Al CA ai I W W .a W W a a a s •-••-• W 4- CA --.
.0'N r UI r u 4-v'. ! Cr, N iN N r N a a N .00W N LA C
v, I 1 ,
N 1 l I 1 R '0
! I a
a 1 ' 'V I
UI I I O U1
• I I 0
I 1 I I I a 4-
•
1 i
1 I II s
•
II •
m '7
Vl
!� ! ! •, 1 •I I CA ss G)
• • • • • •
► I •
• •
1 ,•
1. If
n ni ! n I n I -n � nl r►
7c xI 1 x • ><l ! s!
N I NI N N N I NI 01 j
•
I
V Ui N O ? •VOUPWOT3 U 4 : 41 :4'4 ! O • ] vT wNiO U 4 W 88: J`W y 8N:14 A ,".1:!! 0 •• V P . • W N -O •'•V UiNTjL.,_______I
wr.C[tl[Cr.O..,, Ao t 1
A
4MA A. A U A,0 4 • • • • • • V • • •I W U W W W U l U -! U N N 1 l'.'4
N N N N O p'. 0 -I 01.0 • u , �. 0 0 0 V p u •I U N ��
V 0. Ili' • W N,__,.._9_2o.. p J 0..U O N - ole a .... p N •. - 0 0 pI V p p • N,y
r r rI * r I* r r rI • r r! * 1* r N * 1r * I-, rrr.+r1r r rI r
!0001 * n ,* 0 C2 01 • O J'! u' • O • a J * .o • ...31(a O0 00010 O ".3! ('1 .O
'UINN! 4 N • NUI NI • UI 0 01 ► Ut * U1N 1• UI • U1INUIUI N(.IICAINN NI 2 9
100 .♦l $ 0 '* Jo♦DI • j AA' 0 * R . • AF I• 14 • WI W W W,4W G114 W GI m •"
laS 0• T! • 0. I• ,N N NI * N N 0,1 • A • N N :• ;.O * (p I9 OD ODIM W WI W S 3331 f1
ia0. 0•i • r I* .0 .0.0 * .r r.a' • :.,1 .
• .R1S '• Ir • -1i.( .1v -.4'4- vd -4 X Cl
.4
•
I • 2 -1
0
0 T
O 0 0 n 000 00 0 0 00 0 00000000 to o s
000 -0 AAA. 00 0 s O0 0 (11
I.•�N ��� ••..••• .. 7.7. .. .71 2
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r D
CA UI N UI N UI UI UI:A N UI U)to UI UI 0 0 NIN U1 UI U1 U1 CAI C
\
991' CO IA 903 Jab Co 9 CD CD 01 CD I' 99 CD 13) 9313331 -0
Ir r r r r r r r r r r r r r
m
I
I
I s
IC
0
r r N'.N C
• • 2
NN N N Nr 4.p* Ni O N .0 4F" -I
.414.3 0 r -4 d CO N 4 Al O N.4 O.O. 4P O 0;0 n CAM .40.M ...1 ♦a'N O r '4
3300.63 G4 40Cad ONA rr NO 000 00 .0N G.O..IN0.4 Nr
• ,• • • • • • • • • ' • • • • • • • • • e • • • • • • • • • • • • •
NI0 O N I4 W 4 0 0 41 N ,O 0. O C, 00 0 0 0 .0.O 0 lD 311 N.D N LD 0.0 3 N
010 C)0 O 0 io a ca 0 W 0 4 0 U I 00 O'0 0 CA 01 0 r ? ?0 -4 r 0.O r r
•I * • * 1 • I • • • •
II
1l
1 I 1
11171/21 ( a' 727J31 V= aI T MM G 2 2 2 7 2 2 2 7 2 2
.,.y r.1 I IrI MMM DD Al I 0 IDD m CCCCCCCCCC!
'Z Z 2' -t 000 00 (11 C -1 . a
4
ICI c)ol 2 11111"r% o-4.-.. O m C)C) a mmmmlmmm!mmml
I o t•••••. I 00 a IS 1 mmmmmmmmmm <
T TTl r l m('im I 0 0.... rrrrrrrrrr m
IH.y • 0 Ir r r 1 y ul rr1 0 2 2 z rrrrrrrrrr 2
j7:17373j7:173731N 000 X2 ri c m O
mmrnl ss .. ss r 0
C mmm no ' ,O It N a'
mmm I,I rrr 7C 7C -0 9 m C1
x x x r Al Al m r a s 2 I
I-I -.I-i. C C)n m 2 s s m
7 C X71 r -1 r r CD ..M Cl
:• • • 2 1 9 D a' I • NN X
I O IC1 C)C11 1 r r
a
NV) IAI
' H
iCA
• -4
j m
a
n mml G) mm07 NC) 3 m 00 -4 "1-4-4 -41"1 -4 .41 .1 ••
nCCI m rrr 3m o o -4 -1 a mmmmmmmmmm -4
Tccl Iz coo szl -4 c s2 s rrrrrrrrrr m
.,....1 m coo rml o 04 rnm < mmmmmmmmmm 3
-112-01 I a • • • ' r•=I a -0 a ' 59 v -aroIIa� 17133
n • • ' D i sI r 23222331222 1 0
IC. I r 3 133 -I �1 1777 0010
3 3! 1707>7.1 r 0 CI 0 0 0 00 0 0 Al
3 a ' m 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Z N
''m Dn' 0 j..0. ..i 0 C ml D 0u x m('Immmmmmmm a . rC)
.-.. , C !222! c r ` ; ; 71,C Z Z'. T I '��-1 -4 '17 N 2
-11 -0I • • 'O 17 1 2 T
'O • • r 1 C r • (n N 1 y -I
0. IP)Q•P• a'..'. mm I Al C
Pa P' ' ' n pc Pa' '
(4 la A ' 2 N M M 2
77771. 19 m Al n A
Al• II 3 '17 17 N m m n
0 T. . • . I m z m m
• . j N • (A CA i
•
•0 o of 0 N O OI O OI O 0 NO to 1A000000,000 n
:rrr+ r O r r r r1 r r 0 0• ►• N
I I 1 1 1 1 I I l I I! 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1, C)
..s. .0 .01 0 1..01 0 A 0 a 0
'N N NI N IN N N N NI 0 •N N G W 4 (4(4(4(4(4(4 4 W 4 4I C
A'-'4.04(41 N (4(4(4 NA)! N W r r W CO N N N N N N N N N Z
r0n' O r•••1..* UI 01 N O NN 0 rrrrrrrrrr -1
! I 1 11 W I 1 ashI 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ur1 0 rrr La A 0' NN 0• r00 W G44r rr T
NNmI N .O90)! NN. N N ro CO 0)N r U1 W Nr C ' U 0
PoPNil r N 4r1 ! rr. r r 63 CA r •
1 I I! I a 11 11 1 I l i I I 1 11 1
(4(4 r1 0 4.4.4.I a A: 1 I T ♦ 0 0. r 0 0 G C CA CA r r r N
N N ODi CO .0 Co 011 ^p Ni ro i N rr N 0) NrCA WNr9 dN Z
i ,..j r •
I
1 401 I .0 1 o
a
P
i 1 I 1 ( 0
I x
' ! , j I
1 i t* r
I , I m
I I11
I C)>
• • •• • I• * *1 Cl)
* • • • • • 1 * 41 a m
* • 4 * • * I •1 Cl
1 I 1 1 I !i 1 II Cl
n n n n C1 n l (-It •
! X X , X X •X X X •
�•
v
N N N Cl) CA N N I
yy N�.t
to N. i N v 0 . 9, O U .Y N p 0 O 9 V * U .:a Y p U0 V 9 t a ,•A O u O O '1"4'31 tiUD i 4l lu U V m ti m J1• W H .2 O O. V'.U . W N-0 0 O V.p',•W 1:;(.___________.
I
•
UU U UU
U > PV P A • W N - OW W V UU > W W O 4P_N N U N N N
N 0 P'U uT � O I • 0 JP U W N//// ' L•
•
•
• rrr . r....1 • 1.•.. + rrrr ,-•r r
'rrr • r Irr i • 04 401 • I r
IU 7 o10 0 O ICJ U .JP O C7 J I.7 I.70i * I 0 C).) 07�j C)O'.J 0 • ,3,0 O.. • 0 coca! I& 0.7i • 0 47
N UI U!U U U1 I.UI N CJI'U UI U LA U UI • N LA ILA U Ln'Ln U U.0 U '• U U U1. • U I UI UI • I U 01 • 2• i0
IUI U u1tU1 U1 u11N U U'Ui UI N IU U NI * UI Uo N U lU U)UI:U U .• ,0001 r UI 4. 4..1 • .0 .0I • m lr
r r rIr r rir r r r r r;r . r', • Z .1;41 o oto 0 c, •3 !• 'o U o • 0 WW1 0 sO .Oi • n
-1 v d -1 -1 V it r -r;r V M 1-1-1 -1I * m OoD m m Ira m m m m !• 1.11(710, • ( '7 W COI • -4-41 r X In
1 2 -4
I o .r
I •
I
I I 0 011
a o 0 o O 000n C.) n O00oI 0000C)ooalcc •o00 4 04-D 00 D
10000000000000001 0010000001.00 000 O 00 04. -4 N
I \\I\\\I\\\I.\ \\\ \ \\ \\ m 5
4-•' 4-' ' r r r r- ,rrr r I ....4-4 r r I D
-fl U U U UI U U U U U U U71 U UI UI UIul U UIUI U UI U U U UI U U I UU Uut X
10mmCDDm030)W M pm WM W 'AC01,02S19m1-4r4,1.-4r r Xr2 Wm 32 .32[711.3332[711.33m XCD m -17
rr r'1
P1
1 �
1
Z
✓ 0
• • , • 2
u'D JI N• r r a% r W N r U N r N r d1 T rl r N0.4 -$
N a O N I 0 W N N CO C7 r N 0 -1 a m N CO N m CD N r U N I V W 0-414-4 0 4-41.4 rr 001-4
-1001ANOCAN0-1•.OrWNrU NN-IO[pO W WN100% mIONNO UUI -IUN Nrr
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
'D a O0, r 00;p OWN U•-os COr0 D .pr•.00 W VrWIUN Q/r00 00 -ION oar
0 C7 V a J u,.p r U o n .D 0 -I CD 1D u N r m a u r N r,.O .O mono-.4 U U o U U O. a N.
• I 0 I • • • •
I
N11 M-OMNMM -0,TIM DIITTIM 1 531= 22222SC 222 2 nn nn
C C C C C C C C C.G C CIC C C .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0.0 Solon n 00 00
nnnnnnnn nnn nnnn I XXX X XXXXXX XXX I X -'11 -I"1
0000000000 000 0 -4-1 -4-I <
I 1 M13by 'OMMM o -13 92M v • m
M001,1000000 m m m rn nn nn z
mmmmmmmmmm I ra1•im m -1-4 -1-1 0
.4.4 -(< 0
1 c< << <I<< << < Ir r r -m. • • • • m n
s s s D sID s p a s 0 C C
rr,rrmr.mmrr 2Z m -4-, N1nI 2
--- - -'-rrrr Q7m9 m 7373 00 m
m m m m mIm m m m m m m m MM MM n
A ra m O D D m m X
m WO r N
1 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 2 Z V cc -Tim m
1 • mmmr'immmmmm -1 mm ill m
I LL =)CLLLCL )C • mm 0
I I t 0000000000mm 1"'•
i I CO
7a
'A A 0ir'1 m min m m'm m mIm mo I r r r r r1r r r r r lx o o . C)c1 mm ..
'mm-11-7r4- rrrrmrrl mmlmmmlmmmmm rmm 0 mm o0 -4
12 3 S m m m lm m m m m m Ira m 2l C 01 0 G-) G)G)0 0 G) G•) O Z Z N ZZ cc m
lr...m n n n n n n n n n In n m, .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0.0.0 .0.0 C m m -, mm r.r I
i-,H.'Di--1-1 -1.-1-1 -4 -ti--1-i1-1-4AI r r r rr rrrirr • m A I D 72m v0
z A m1m m mZ) m mIm m I nn C D.0 • • C
!OO '9'•-• •-. •r.Mrr. - .rr�!ArN MI 222 ZZ2ZZZZ Zrr 1 m rr m
''.-•-4 m,n n n'n nn n n n'nn mi j 00 .7 00000100 D 221 CI
S
I 0.•••. •-•'.• .4..'.. M.4t44 44 01 -' -1:-1-4-1,-1-1.41.4 1 4. 0 N I N UI D D n
1
r11 m 11:-I-I -I'-1 -4 -441-4-1 .4 1 r.. r 1 -411 .-. 4-.1,-.I-1.-11.-•.4 1 Z C C C C 1
ram • -( « « « « Cn ....m7)
-4:- <• • I C 'nnnlnn;nn 1MMI
.-L)
i 2Z I
I m m m m flim m m'm m . -um -O vI I rr I 7
!Ono! U)I (.4)U) NCI)U)NNolo C/) ( • rr rr I • • -.
rrml I Al V V''92 -OM IMIMM 19 ;1) 1,1 r41 MM o
:rr<i I <1 i CccCC.CCCIcc AQUI NO I Z
rn PI.41 441 m ,7 p mlo M'AIM A J1 MA 1
In n nI n
I , • . •• • 1• • I• • 1� I M 2 I
-,1m ml f
(• • UI •
N1 •
1 I • • 1
1 I •
l•
1
13) rD V'C)'7 CI C) C3 C)10 0. 0 0 Col N NIU UI UI UI U UIIN O I 000 O 0 O• O 0ID
u W rrr r r',.... ....r.1 .O m Co CO Co T 0.0+ W r 1 Ir r r r r r r 4-41I n
II 1 1, 1 1
( 'I4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 I I I I II n
•O 0 O:a 0 a; '4. 4.40 a aa aa 0
ICO .O W u u W u1W W W C„W W W CA CA W u u u W u W(G W N N N W N NN N+ C
W
• W r'-1 -1 -1 -1 -1 VId V -1 V r r1 UI UIC,U U U U U UlU1 U IW N NI N N.)1\3 W W 10 c) 0 -'
C) n ca.
co C70000 0 0 UI 000 0 00000 r C3 CI o 00 00 -4
1 1' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1'1 1 I• 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
IU 4) .07) OC m,O, 0 0 W CA W10-.r -J, U 40 U U U1 sQ UI U U r ,0. a 0 W r r W W Z
1r r u4N N N'ir N N N N r'm C.. r1 r.-104 r OIr O OIr N IN O N j N Oa m2,-1 0
r r 01CD U N1r -1 rlr r r.N r r:. N ri3O 0 W Ir a r m y 1 r r r P.r r r •
1 1 1 1: 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 I •I I I 11 I 1 1 1 1 1 1,1 1 1 Icor..
I I I I I I I
hO CO 0;01 T CM,CM 0 A;u W Lair r V',, a vO a A asO 0 010 r ,05 .0 .0 u r r W W •'1
;r r N N N Noir N NIU N rm m r i iN #N N 00 1.3,-•
e
a CI
1•
I .0
1I I I j 1 ( O 7).'1
•
•
1
1 •
m
•
I 1 I j m 7)
•
•
1
1 1 i N D
I I • • i• • • • D m 1
• •
• • • • 1 I rn
1 1 n 1 1 m n 1 • n I n
x ! ••' 'X x I X X
N •
:N 1 N 1 '. N m
p U�✓-.Z‘.,
O ?'}v P L':U ON P 0 U 0 v U u i 2 N U 2
.O ♦ ♦ A > u N A 0 U 9 U ; + ; d - • 0 2 N J A , N NIOV A W N -O O'0 V P P N-
......
flf(1.0141(3 INC. 40 21
•
/N u 0 'f__'4'
.a 0 N N a s >•
A s . v' u Y�
(/J 0 N y N - O0' O J 0 N > U f77"0.—C1 T U W N U O O O: 0 U :1 N N O '• 0 z O N A W. N - p I tl a V 0 N ..U N
N >I l
I .•IN"a+ •j.+ r • r.. • ,-•r•a• a'.+i/.r. .a• ;a•a•a.!a'a+a+a• ai
O * OI • O 0:7 O O J'0 J 0i47 O '3'3 10 7 710.0 O O •1 rI 4310 0J • .7. In
jOul NIN UI UI * o I Ul U) • U • )UUU1UUNULUUU1UII
•
IUI UI • U! • (11 U1 N U) N NIUN U1UUU10 1111 N NUI UUIU •i •
UUL11 LA
A A • 41 • N N'.NJ N N N N N N i IV NJ NIN jN N NIN N NIN •i NN N) N NI * 1+ n
!•••• o• r, • - .ti r r a+ a'as a' a' a+ a• a• i a. UI UI all Nun UI!UI •j r I O O 0 o * 9 7c n
1 I II
I 0 j ,
j
i 0
O 11
!O IC. all 0 0 0 0 Cl'3 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0000 O D
ID IA Ai F A D F A A A F a A F FIA F F A R O A 1 N
j\ 1\ •\ \\\\ \ \\\\ \ m 2
Ia' r r a•a•a•a+ r a+F.a+a+ r is
(,JI UI S NUI :II!f N N UI UI UI UI LA LA UI NUI UI S 111 N N UI UI N U1 UI UI 74
I\ \ \ \\\ \ \ \\•\ \ O
,9 9 91 0799Ji 999399999 9999999 CO 079779 9 V
Irr •a+ a+h.P.•r a• a•a•.+r r m
m
I
•
a
2
r a+ 0
"" 9 W W C
. • • 2
NN CA 1+ Nab N W NON 1
NN NN N G 0,P.41 4(N r+NJ P. 9 F N O O N.0 a. (AU 41 a•N*1(4 A a
NN 44 CA L4 LAI ua.a (Aa+ a(N a•a+LA CA 9 A 0Gr1 O,l3 LA a•O0. a+d OO .1WUIU1 W TT
• • • j • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
U)U1 "''" O0! N-4 ON UI N 0 ..1 U).9 O F F.0 '7 a. C1 N 00.) 00 N 00 N UI UI Ln CI OO
0 0 O t.J Cl C7 iF N.O 9 A a• 0 O 41 03 A 44 J N a• o 0 0 0 0 O.7 0 .3 to (3 0 0 C2,) 0 O
* a! * � • a a 1 • • a
I
•
•
•
:7' n yr V)NI UA N Cl)N.V)VI N N U)IA VA N N N N Cl)N N N N N N N N
O r S cCICC CCICCCCCCC CCCCCCC -1 -11-4 -1 -+
(!1 PI n• 7 7
. O rnmmrnmmmrnrn OEIIDID 999m a s a n a •
,n 'z 7c mrn�7 mm rrrrrrrrr ccccccc -+ 702771
o • O' 9701.99 877:0770770 m XI 7C 7[ x T t
,N n 7' a alar s 947 CO 9 CO CO 40 CO ID CO a7 CO CO ID 9 03) N N N 41 '70 rn
n M: Z 2 3 2 CCCCCCCCC a s ala a ala -i n 2
I N r1' rn rn m in N NI N C4 N CO)V1 V7 N Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 9 A n o n z O
r v 33311.7313 a,adv.+.-1 a..-•.+.+ m r r r r n 0
m �. ,..•....,a• 22222222Z mmrnmmrnm a 40404040 7
▪ O .+• n n1;1 n m m m in m tel m m rn 2222222 N a a a It. 1/) n
'In -. r. a Di a s N N N N co(4 !A 41 N 41 G)G)C) 0 41 G) C 2 2 2 2 =
7 1 NU)N N N N N Na1 a•
N • • • • • • • A •.+P. S rn
,D Cl 2222 O n
' ! rnrnmmm1.1mmm 7 G) 0 G) 0 0 x
1 i 000000000 -0
CCCCCCCC0 1 m
-O 'C 9-a -o -o -o'V -a a 0
jI • • • • • • • • • r ..
I j y
rn
77
o to j c', 20'00 0 o00oo00 mm PI PI mom r mIDIDID 0 "
1 '-+ m' O mI m m m Cl-I'11-I -r1-1 71 T z Z Z Z Z 1 7_ .+ rrrr r -+
I 'I I I -1 Z:Z Z Z ZI�t-1 711'II T/1 T G1 GI 01 6) 0 1 0 C11 (novo o m 1
PI m • OmIrnm 737:17:117370m A rn 000)GI O 3 !
7 77 737177 A7lnnnnnf n • • • • • 70• z • • • • O
Di a s I S.alrn rn Cl m m mm N O
7 'V a• 21 I nr1rr rr NWN (AV)7 VA m 2221 -+ rn
'.7 ,7' •-•1 C I N N V).N N(Al,N m m m m m 7o m N a s a s1 rn N
•O '0 21 rn NI(A N 0V)C C CIC CCIC AAA 770070 a+.. .+a. N n
1 r C!1 C c c Ci L 7 'D c <c'9 17 o c Cfl zl z z z -+ 7
•I • • 0 171 -0 17 'O oro -o-17(-o • �c.4 111 1 1 0 .+
f I 1317 -13 13-a r r rlr r rlr 00000 co
• • • • .
•
v) to ! ••I r;r r r r a+.•+a+l•+•+a.a4 m m m m m(A m -4 in 1.1 PI V)N..•.+I
r1
ClM 1 ..i.+a+ '1 71 rn r•1 R1 m m N N 0 to to m to a.a a. •• ~O
7 7 701 oil •1 NNN 7
< < Cli NIiNN NN •C 77077 Z
'r. .. n '0 '7 0 V
rn ri 11 M
'n n • •! m • • • •
!rn m ,
C/1 (/) N
j
1
,n •
� of O a10 O *3 0 0 0'3 0 0 0 0 0) U)U)co UI o o 0 0 0 0 0 O -a
I" F. rrrr C2.13 iiiii in
1 ! 1 rI Illi a '
'a :a F a F A a a F a A A O C
'(71 W NI N N N N N N1N N N N N NI N LA 44(+1 U 44+I W W N N N N
!r ,a+ 4i N NIN N I N Nir r a+lr a+*.••-• •r a+r a+a•1.-.1*. .0 W(.1 N W ry z
!Id 0 I N I N 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 01 0 N N N N N 011%1 N 1•'a•a'a+ N -1 I
,, ' 1 j 1 j 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1
'N '.+ F Wal r a.W.0 A alc a'a•i a• N .0 4411,13.O a+IF u A 41 a•a• u 1 1
N -.1 a+, N a•i. A I N NI a+ NJ"!a+N MIN) N a'a'a+r NI a• a• N r CO 9 " O I
'r 'a+ a+1 N a+1 a+r UI r••-)a.a..!a+r UI!" 41 a.nal a•a' F 1+ N r r N F. LA
I 1 11 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1; 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r
N I" 1 al u FI 41 a• j r w:.G A 0141 a•a•.a- -a.a al.0 'O r F a a W 1 r (4 `+
N . r; P.a•l r a N N "N a•1 r UI N N r a+a+i a+ a.. r a. r N r 907 • "
2.
St Ir,
1 I O
i 'O 1
j O LI
•
1
I CO
1 I I a " .
I I I I � m n
N
a • 1 I I •1 1 • N .0
• • I j a 1 ! I • D Cl
•, • • I •1 I a a
1 1 1 I I r I 1 rn
ni n - •
1 7c1 ni l 7t 1
• 0 y ' I I NI 1 N I .O
•1
• l •
I
1 1
•;Z..1 ; .-41'' O 0 444J T u000tl4 4 N4 :U YN O > 9VOJ > . N � OO4 � P j ♦ UN= NO V 0UAUNNN•• V O N . WAN -O 0.
. . . . ...
��4.::,.-
.
�v yyII ,-.7-4
U U U U U A A A • A • u - V N N N N N
J • ,, u N � 0 IO• 0 U A u N C d P N - O . O P U A u NI O • O T'U A ,N - O • • J' P U •'U N
1
r • I r ••••• r r • r ♦ r .+'�•'D r s ,r r r r • ,r ♦ r r r r
0 • O .7 -)I J',.7 • O' • .J 0'.0 7 • CJ O .0 0 ♦ O •: 01 • Q n .1
0. • 0) I 0, T :: :
0 • 0 • 0 1 • I W rn o u v • m • Ul I • a nr 0 0 • .• • U1 I • N X• j•
IO o 6 OOI O 'O O O D F F a a -.) N
r r r r 1-.0-0 r 1.......0+.0-. r r r r r r r in
c71 N N N Ul 0 0 0 0 0 0 j 0 UI Cil Ul 0 0 0 !X
0 a 9 Co :D Co 37 Co 0'37 74 3307 37 0 I03 37 Co ro
r r 1-•,..4 P.1.. r rr.+r 0+0+ r r r r r rn
rn
I, I
at
0
rC
i. .4 z
r ;UI U1 a W NN 0• N r r rr rr -I
UI IS o W N N.O W ...10.4 ,N 0,W W .0 Ula W W 1+0. m m 00
0 ANN N IT T 3) O V as 0M r0 rN W WO cr 00 as WG a a O a
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
- 'rr Wc)(01 a .13UI 000 0 .40000 000 J0 0,01 as Q0 NN
F 00 NUN 4Joo W W NC0 .0 UIQ 0,40 100 00 U%07 00 NUI
* •' • • !• • • * • • *
z c oG7! c''c c cc cc CC C C !-• 1 O
ri a 7377 no - n ex;D. D 1ZZ • ''iI D 0
r
0 Z i rn' 2'�2 I 74 r r r r ,. -
-. . 4) O r r. 2
3 -
00' •• r r'r r MM • -I rl I >
M y G) :), X7C 2 rnrnrnrn 100 0 CO r C
v .. • r r 0 < <I< -a iA 77 - t < o rn
CO Cl •
0 0, CC ....r.4-11.4 I �V)V) f/7 Cl O CO 0
•• r X X I O I O CO 1 22,22 -. C 1 0
z rn r r'' Q• O rn O 0'0 O C C 3 TJ r rn 32
Cl I a Di rl • • • • z z a 'o z G) n
2 a 221 a D r Ir' r c) CO 0 Cl 2
Cl I r coo! NIN ro ro ro ro r... -. - a Cl2 r �/1N �
I S7Ja 33 9 C)
rn oto 0000 •• X
nz rrn rorororo -11
s •
1• >znzlz'z 1701 I m
N
rn m rn rn 0
I i r,
co
--4
rn
O O 11
V7 00 C 2 2 2 0 rt n -oo O 2 0 0.4
-• 1 nm! 1-I 1 anon or O rn 'n > n 1
2 2 201 MX •'• 001-4Z ! CO N z II n Z rt
r9 rio c rl i rn r 2 x o r1 -.1 1 rn r. X o 3
XI 1 73 o rl 3!A • r4.40373 ro S 0 A n .. o
rr' 2 n • .-, m a rn zf r o
ro I ro co rolro co m rn tit r z rn r rn N rn
77 x I rn' 72137 ! < 37 37 C3 O IN 73 N
O O Q. x C3 C) N < < rn N Ia 1 N C f Q• n
nrr9 .'. In 73 2:1 12 rn 9 Ili a n p
O 2' I 3I r'1 rn ro 177 9 Ir. rn O ro
N 0 20. OM z z r • • r M a Z -1
'1 '9 T ri rnIrn 21 11 .. H Irl 1 71 r
73 .A • 77'73 al 0 > 1'1 W m M N n • O
cI 4,4 ..I r r N o cor z
.. r. •
i z C I I
nl n nn 11 .rn.--4
12
N ^ •
rely • I •ll•
1
cD ,, O O NIN of o J O O 10 O O O O O O D
r r 0.041 a N r� r r�r r Ir r r- r r r r0
1 1 • 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I t 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 rt
44 F • F a a s a a a a a a s F a a a a O
to u u G ult.,. N G U N N N N G N N W W C
r r .oWI rlr W3D fDN N W N N N r CO .D Z
UI 0O OI UIiN a N NIN O ! 'C:)W O O 0 N 0 "1
II t r 1 11 I I 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1
r• c,, r r rr aI a GIF F W W G W a F r Z
MJ 0+'Ma N Ir r .•' N r G N b
N! r r r: N 0M rl 1,....+4+ , r N r r !r NI W
I I 1 • 1 1' 1 •1 1 1 1 11 1 I I 1 1 1 I t 1 1 r t-,
rt u r r r r al ..14u;44-0 IW W G W is F -.
C1 W00• ,D .11 Utl Nr NN rr 1 r N ;r Ni d
•
•
•
1 0 N
•
m r
m v
C.0&)
D
• 1 1 ; 71
0
i I 1 1I
n nl n
x x x 7XC X 7C1 X I o
co , N N N N • NI N !
•
J ryr0�•
J 1
' U
JTOPPPTPPPObO UJi+ N40 0 ? 1 ! V w - _ O ] irJyD T A • N - ) O P �J P U A u N •O J 0 u'
u N_
0 /L_______./
a
4 G U- U U 4 1 4 4 O p - ♦'p ♦ p \ ♦ ♦ U U V, U W W U. U N N N N Zit N
(V :� 4 ♦_U - O b' P a P U ♦ U N - O'.0 0 P U > N -IO O O. • G N U NI- O al' • P'U A - 01. O V P G \ W N -
r r I.• 0+!.+6 r YI r r ,o, r' ► r • r •1 ri • -. ,► lr r
o I O O 0 0 O 0I a• ,7 4 a • .7 •- 'x • O I • '1 * O a .0
UI ! LI) N UI U1 UI UIl U1 UI, Jl' J1 a UI • 'JI • 01 • UI I• UI 2 CO
S j co o O O co co 1 CO co CO. CO• a CA ► 'ON • 01 * o �• 0' P1 r
J NN
O a O 0 0 OI o o: o • f CA • * I 3 N • - r C1
.0 I O N 0N ON CJI 411 lA N' r• 0, •• LT a +1 ••! U1I * r 'a 4O I 7C a
, I 1 Ir
1 0
0, I0
O 0 l o o o a o a.. a o, 0 0 0 0 a o s.
aa a a s a a a F F a a a a a a -1 IN
N 1 \ I \ \\ • .5 N. \I \ \ .....\ \ I \ P1 S
r r i r ....... r r r r r r r r r r r A
JI UI Uf UI N in UI N UI UI UI o N UI N 0 7C
\\ '5 \ \ N. '5 \ '5 \ \ '5 \ O
O O Oi CO co 31 O CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO• CO v
✓ r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r I.1
m
I �
A
Z
I NCA 0
CA CA _ r r c
j • • . . 2
co CO NN 1+0+ rr NN r -a
(A �r r 0 in NJ N N NJ CA CA W IA 0 a 0 0 .0 -0 r r G U 00 0)0) N
a ON rr O 0 OM 4.O O .0 OO 00 MO 4. 0 00 I as as NN N
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
..1 0 Ca .Da JI 0 O F a r r N N 0%0% 1 0 O O N N '.1L4 N.1 O O O O .1
J1 'a U 'a a 0 0 0 a s a s UI 0 0 0 O O O u ,y N 0 0M -4-ti 00 0 0 a
• '•• a a * • • • * • * • • • •
•
a - 73 CC 0 CO CO 9 A 2 X f• C tC
o COA a -41 2 • O A 2 2 I-• Pi
.. II'
a r I A O r C C • X O 2 O r N
-n fell D 2 <1 Z 21 2 C -a 2 r N O O I.1 P1 1
O 1 m P1 v 2 • N 2I In x A CO -< G
Z a a O co Cl v In
Z i -71 C7 n o PI v z -1 a n G P CO C 1
0 CO CO 2 A •I O • CO CO O
Ii▪ r t'1 C O O CO A r r CO O CO -4 v r 0
CO -i z j 22 2 OI 2 1 • 5 v C OCO r CO
• O 7C 7C •-• r1 -ti VI PI • .a. O A N C�
•
c. 2 CO S Z v 01 -4 • A r 0 .. I 2
:a 1 CO -( r r CI • N r PI NI r PI
• • O1 j -4 -II CO 0 CO Cl P1 a A -5,. C1
CO• i m In C • A v I+1 2 I r 0z
+4 XI O 0 32. • CO VI CO
2 0 • PI P1
P1 N 2 0
►a
N
-1
In
CO
•
0 CO O O 0 • C N 0 O O 0 -ti 0 O CO •a
T C P1 P1 P1 P1 A -a m C C -*1 CO P1 ti O -a
P -11 v T 5 1 O7C I 2 In PI -*1 CO 2 2 O P1
• N C C C P1 P1 .4/ P1 N r N t P1 P1 i 3
Z 2 21 O O v
r I 211 Cl P1 O O Cn •
• CO COO O O 2 CO w W PI C. CO O
A . N IA N r AI 2 r r v P PI
✓ v> •+i 0I N VI PI II O Lt
2 C j N 2; i VI C C 0 K cn O a
T • 1 C 21 C C CO C v A C I 11 '
0 v 0IA I '01 CO Int •-a Pt v • 2 r
a I -a -a a; a1 ml v z v
CO21 v -
CO r . r • IN r U) I -I I
.. N r .-• •1 P1 r m COr
1 ' 1�I -til .1 '0 vI O 1'I O 11'1 0 '
a : N CO; VII : -• P1 N ,4 -a 2
- • , I • • Z r a
I -a C)
CO m
• r o
••0 O Iii MO N) NI aI O o 0 O o a Ut j o A
✓ r 0' CA r N U r r r r r r r 0 I r C)
1 I 1 1 (I 1 11 I 1 1 1 1 • • 1 ! 1 a
a
a a a s a 40! F a a a -o a a a a o
N u .0 43 0 N 01 N I N CA CA (A G NJ L. to C
CA .p CO CO O N r U1 1 N .0 .0 O CA N r W Z
N I a a a OI 01 rI rl O r. r C4 0 O UI a -a
1 1 4 1 1 II 11 11 1 1 •01 I I I I I I
CA to N .D(Al COI o1 NI rI CA A. to N NI O N 0
• N G *. L41 m
N r r r r1 a N rl r, r r) r r r1 r r •
I 1 I 11 I I •I 11 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I
r N r r to not rl NI rI (Al ral 4.1 4s1 1 r N (Al a r r
I-. ; Na 2
L
r •
NI WI 1 0
• OI I r A a
wI r'
"! I I
al (Al
• r
0 CJI
1 1 i I x
i n "
•
•
•
• N A
• • • a 1• V)
i • • I •i • 1• I A P1
1
•
• 1 0 •1 m i �� i m I,•� m
•
7C !7C 7[I j 7C j7C l ►'
i i N N I N! I N !N '-•
•
•
I
I� •
--- _ Z2 !:Zu0P,PU v'4 44uv4U saa AWA ♦` U v�'UU2yUIN yNINy I NNN b,OVO4 ♦WN ^7
'e U \ r N - 7 �I� } p H - O b D 7 U ♦ - O b 9 P Up N - O O D }U \ U 'J O P P U p u N- O O P V • U \ U N O J --1
OF,E(LICMONMS,.., 0021
• n l
U Y U •a Y U.U U 0 3 J T t Y N a > 0 0 r ' Y Y. W N V O N r N N N N N :I! N -' i V •'U + Y: N O Ir O V- 0 U • Y N
•
•
•
•
I • •
1.,„. Ir ✓r N 103..4 r+ .+ r.. r �-•.4 '.4 ,.• •.4 Y :.4 •..4 .4 Ir r r
.) j0 '�n J0 J 7 O' ,-� O :] 'J O O. O U �..] •'J 'J O n ,a]
4.11 IILII IN JI UI N N •Ut UI UI. N 0'0 't.r1 'U1 LD Ul ;UI UI Ut t.fl N 2 9 .
1,9 1m i0D -07 S Op CD _D 0 0. OO'9 0 ,j03 _A '0 ':W 0 0 0 0O in •. '
N ''.N NNNN N N N• N r'r 'r '.►+ r .. ►' r r •- •'• n
a w NNNN r r r, o .p j.0 :A ,r Cr. lul A (.• N •
.4 •O x n
j I I I T '"--4
O <
I•
t' H
a O 0 0 0 O O C. O( O O G I O O a O IO O O a O I.
a a A A A A a a a a a s a a a a F a a a F I 7 N
\ \ \ \\\\ \\\ \ \I\ I\ N. \ \ \ \ I In x
P.. r 103 - r r r r P. r• P.r r r r u+ r .4 r r r a
UI UI IU)ut UI U) UO N UI N 0ILII U1 C)) UO .; Ut UI s to Ut x
\ \ \ \\\\ \\\ \ \i\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O
a s 2 a a CO CO CO CO CO a;A .a a 3 CO IDi 3 CO a 3 1'0
r 4-• P.r 03'0. r r r r r,.4 P. •+ r r .4 :r r l- .r I If11
� P1
I
.+r a
0
•
Cd(4 C
z
.IIv vJ wu 0303 1
CO •- 031.4 N N N' r a s a a r r W N r r 01 0.. rd W U 0• UI UI J J N N a s u
.O • a'a 010 u,W d u a w,u u w a s co a ut ,.0 .0 1-•*••• N J1 a CO 13 UI 0 01 .i LA N N P s a
• • • 1• • 1• • • • • • • • • • • • • • !• • • • I• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
a - P-.11-. LII ILII tI1 u O La-4 NNNN AA CA LA 10 WIW o OO o0 UI LA OO A A as a 0 UI
a 6710 a.a UI ON A O•N O O O a 0.0 a N w ofO O O OOOUN OO
IO ' ' 1 0 0 O O a r r N
* * *I * * 1
* * I r I a 111 r • a • a r r
II
z a i 3tza a33 r, I-r" G. .4 ., 2 2 G. C 2
hO a ;0000 a a a •. a!n '-. 2 17 a �r o r. a r
O z Uf 'a 0 0 co z z z ZI L'= 2 V) s a Z rn r P•1 a
II D IO (i1'1r*1 Ira 000 0 -I A 2 z 1 0 1
,n r '2 •A a a;z 1 1 m m Vl rn rn A a O Cl 2 IN C
a 0 I !2 7 21Z z z 70 1 7 z IaC z a 0 2 2 031
Iz - I V)cn ti ai -111*1 la 2 j. '. z a o 1 z
1 z IC �'rn rn in'Irn O • !• ,x • CI z 03.1 A C C 0
I• r a x X xIx 1 1 1 z I is r ID3 CO 1 (a 0
a LIa A a a V) m'n iz N ID 0 a rn Cl j a
JT a jrr •A A AIa 1C C C COI !r^I m 'N 0 s a :ti a
1... a 1N 'rn rn rn IM 1(1 rt (1 C C 2 a N C Z IX j+. 2
IA V)O 12 N N.0 I 7C 1<x. -r.~ C - 2 2 C Cl
rn o 1r v) rn Ul IN .4• •
••. a a w .4 a a
3 12 ZZZ • • A 1 I m
IC) G> C1 c) N. Cl
0 0 Na a
0 rn
• • •
I I 1 C)
1 .,
N
1
I rn
I a
O O a a G)0 0 -4-4 O CD rn N N Cl 0 C91 0 0 LA a 0 «+
:71 -r co rn P1 Cl rn ClIm 1 rl O s .a a c o rn m a rn rn --4
'2 'a o z z 2.2 ,r 03 2 O, C,m 1a C Cl . C z Z s m z mt '.71 x fn rn 1 1.4•1 !rn Cl 031 0 .-.ern !O0 N H Cl P•1 O C rn 3
'a IA C� A A AIA Ia AI • 1 !O I•0 117 a !a a z a 1,
a aaala ix • s 'r • A . a •n r o a o
r a �• .403- 1 r oaa z, j w I I r 'r y y r II
A I j2 z A s a,V0 2 N 12 I V, i
'V) 0 '-0 U) V)0,60 Pt in O - a C A la C la N rn A IN
.c Tt 'a •c c C'C -n z .. a ., •a .r. C C C ! A
,a • 3 "013 '0IV I • 1 Z a ',a .z ',V) z a 1a P1 a -
a 3 A V
' a I' 1 • -1 r 'O :'1 ,- 1 a :.a 'o a a
r ti I •r r- r 1 CA l • I.. Z a a Ir jr Z r
r
,' 1.,1'1 r .-..-r II- P11 li'• im m1 YO ' P1 •'r
.r,, a '.P1 E.l VI Vi[PII a A N • 'A i'V A rn I1•1 1.1 0
.(n <-. 1.4 N N NIN .C. V) IN N 2
.
U P1 A a • la
1
n a v rn Cl Cl
PI t t1 • '0 I.0 I'D
1 'n (/) • •
•
1
•
•
IO c- I,' N] IO O O IN N N O OIo o a o Io O a O I(it N a
it r r j Ut r r r N N N r .4103 r r r r r r r .0 U.1 (1
'1 • i II 1 1 1 ,1 I I 11 I I • I II I I II I I I 1 I Cl
IA a IA (F a A a A a A a aI A A a A a a a a a a O
Ire (+. iW N N N N Iw u u N NIN W N u 10 N N w 0 N C
ifV r 10 !N N N N N N rw WN 00 w w
I 0 IN N 0 a N Z
•
O .LII 'a 1 a 010 IP r Ur I a s a O Ia ;a O O O 0 .,
'I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 � I 1 I i IIr I ' I , 1 11 i t 1 1 II 1
u --• :w I.4wr.4 .- .-r .4 w1w 4 w 41 t. a W r r I Z
IV 0) '..4 co .4 ala 10 0 �0 3l r,.4 ',N Ir r N i.4 N r :O a O
•r 'r :••• a r N,.r '0N O. 0,1 4 NIN r N Ir r r r r 'r A
1 �1 11 I1 1 111 IIII . II 1 I 'i4I 1I I :l it I I 'i II
'(.f •-' W 103 r,c r.4 r •- .4i rl wIw lA W • w 'a a 'W r 1a Ir `"
' Ir ',N r �i.4 'o Z
N CO r I Oa r m!Co .a J : rD I r l r N ►• �" N I 1 C
I F
II Iill I o I• O
I
a
ol
Ii I a I a
•
•
1 •
I O U1
•I •
a
1 1I 017
! f 1 .' 1 i 1N
!• • I.
�Y• i N ! 4 O'?VO :-.."...' 7. 484 3 444 4 444 4 UY05JO • > 1 ♦ - 8 4l 2 8 JYJYy 422 2 N 4 > J N -OOO V r Y aYN +O •'O VOVY N-
a ,
�
'fir U U . . U . 0 f � • • • > • • •I W W W - U N N p O V O U • W N
V O U • U O D 6 0 u • __.._ 0,• O V N - J J2 6.__. a____-_ N ITO L a U O • - O
I I I
It 'J .1 7 O J. in '2 ,O 10 10 O J n '11
* N •U1 UI UI UI iUI U1 UI !Li, ''UI UI UI 2 O F.
• of co 2 403 co IO .A Oo O jO CO '. JJ i m r
:• CA CA CA W CA IW (A 'N IN 'N N N n
• 0+ UI a .0 N 'r 'IO Ig 'O I� r T 7C ,r)2 I-4
0
• !
I 0 11
O O L.J 0 O 0 O 10 O O o O D
• a l a • a a a 'a • a s a i -s cn
4- Ir IN - IN r Ir r r N r .\- rn a
U1 ICO UI Ui N UI I,:11 UI N UI X71 UI R
9 I� �m :n CD'4,4 ..p CO 03-'4444`41. CO 10
1 m
I
I
CA
I 1 c
O. a.awro a u oi. C
. 1 2
.0 LA ILA O at I CA 41 .0 aa .O CA cr., -Ir -.1 V ...IIr UIUI -1
U1 4.10,.1 a'NJ N m l4 r r1 0 r r OI O Li 'A O O L. LA r.1.• (A',CA N N a .•N a s
(.4 0 14(A.O CA O.•;W 0 O!, UI 43 a;a 0• Cr. O O IV IV .0 O N'.N r.r 0r.CT a a N CA.0 ON Q.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1• • • • a • I• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I
.O CC)'.N CA LI.0 O " �1.D rl J 37 -, C]•C1 (A(.i I-'•+ .0 .0 .0..0 0't0 a a 010 co co a• 0'.0 O 0
r.) O'.(b" 'J',N 0• O'.0 U (A',0 r CAI 0I 0 C O O 0 O O O.GJ .7 O U1',C11 O O 0•O' 0 CA V O 0
•, •'.. •; • •I *' •I * * * *
I I I
Gl O D m CUf - D 0 N G7 G) 2
y r1 n , I O C D D m -4 rn m 11
7 "1;"1 T 11;11 T 11;11 m T T 11 T' D D •-t S -4 CD CD m 2 2 -'1
.1 C,C C C'C C C.0 C C'.0 C C. 2 -4 1 IN S n X D C .2 2 O
. ' Z22Z;Z7ZZZZIZZZ' D r 'N I2 - O Ir ri -4-4 O C
'r 00 0 0;0 0 0 0 0 0,0 0 0. A I•+ Iy 1 L O m
O V) m . n m '1) -4-4 A 2
F"1J -A 0.1 Ur c11 UI NJ N NIN .. J' n 1CD 17C "( O m 0 x S r 0
;A••r 0 .0 .n c1• U1 a CA N u - (/12 m Clt . f O • -O O 2 ••I.r D 0
I I :n I1 12 t 0 3 0 OCA D A
-11 1-
' 1 ;-I -, -,'-4 - r•--1 -1 -, 2 Cl iD I r r 0 0 2 n
01000.000000,00 7 .2 A '.r m 00 IS
11-4 -1-.1 t-.I -4 -4 -1 1 r.-4 -4 -,. PA 2 m n rn m m
a'a a aln n a n o A:D is n' -4 0 'A 0 C G ICC
rrrr;rrrrrrrr ;- -1 o •
12
1
I I Cf
tnIm
I 1
A4
. I L I o a I O !o (n rn o N z o o Cl -•
I x -1 -t I a c z 11 x s v Cl
r'l C Cl fel r 1.r Cl 1O C m r'1 .1 3
iZ D 1 D r D O 10 2 A A -+
1 T 0 • D Cl 0 is O
CD N -I r v1 ti v v r Cl
D D CD 10 2 t D D N
0 .210 0 D '.U1 ;a• 0 0 ;1 n
• Cl I. r z C
In . .C ...I...II10 • CD
•
N 'C) IN ICD I-i CD C I• Cl I` NN 17 ""4
M - !rn D I j71 im I9 I
n Ia.
D D (D I•i • D D O
j
C 'C C 2 'N I <<
H H D D IN r•
I n I n 'n N m I 1n n
Cl I 'mrn Cl v I Irn m
I (n I N N ICA • I CA N
j ! 1 1
I
I
Io I{n o '0 0 o Io 0 U1 0 0 o D
1 r 1O. r Ir r r r r T r r r n
I 1 1 I ''I I I 1 I I I 1 I C1
a a la I a a a a a a baa a O
! I I I U I.0 CA ICA N N N ((A .0 'W W r Z
I I U1 N •LA M 0 0 a 0 UI U1
I I I 1 1 1 1 ( I 1 1 1 I I ~
1 I I CA C) r r a ... rte+ 'r 0 N r O O
Go.a I o T ON
Ir r r r IN !N IN r r r I W •
1 II 1 II 1 I• 11 1 • , 1 1 .,
ic_ is r it a Ia N ICA a a(A r
1 1 'W I•- 0' 1 a N !N 1r Ir r N r O 2
1 II I •• o
• O Ln
a r
3
I rl 12 1
I N D
•
m
• I m
n
N
Qu .,:1' N � ;' : ;:1 : 3 :j •ao 4 p 4 4 ;7.: v - , o ] w . - 0 a s . a j : J y = c � � a 'I'. • • N t o V a u . W'N -o •O V O u •W -N:2L.
----/
0 0 C O 0 00 0 C O 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O a - �'.
r r r r r-' r.., ,- r' r r-, r- r r r r ,- r r r r r r r r 01
r r-' r r r F- r-' r-, N N N N N N \C) N N N N (.,.) LO co W CO Co r j H-
r-' O r o r' O O O N N N N N N Co NJ N N N LID c 'O 10 c0 C
N) O N) O N) O O O W W L) GO (,O ( ) O W W W O C 0 o 0 o r
n co
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W () W W W r-, U l� - r r O" C) I---
•-• r-' r-• r-, r-, r• r r'' r-• r r r r r r--, r r ., CO r r N l,n N O
r r ' r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r A r r r r r r I
CO •
W W W LO (,,,) COW Lo W W W W W W Co W W r Lo .A r r r ON H 'd
r r r r r , r r r r r r r r r-• - r - co r r 4 N In N) W
04
M
r--
0 0 0 0 O O O o O O C O O o C o 0 C C o C C 0 0 O n
I- r r r r r r r r r r r r r-• r r r r r r r r r r r
•
-, r r r r r r r r r-' r-, r
00 00 00 C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r r r r r r
0 0 0 00000 o >
r r r r ,-, r r r r r r-' r - r r r r r r r r r r r r n
CC Co Co O C C C O O O C O O O O O C C C O O co n
H
W N Cl.) Cl.) Cl.) Cl.) Cl.) Cl.) Cl) Cl.) Cl.) Cl.) Cl) U.) �r
Co 0 N N -J C N C O O C o C o - O O o r r N
Cl.) Cl.) r ,D Cb N c0 CO cO W '.0 'O '.O CP, CT Co CO CO CO In O
C,
•r O� In N W C,,) Cr, Cl.) Cl.) Cl.) Cl.) W Cl.) r Cl.) W W Oo Ln N N Ni N 0 G
'P- C C Co Cl) 4N Co -I N N N N N N CT N N N CO O In In In In Cpri
v)
O Cn O Cl) O Cn Cl) co r r r r r r "pd r r r O n n n n n co H
c W c W C a) a) W cp 'D W 'C (D 0 0 0 0 0 G ,Z
(D H (D -� (D H, I-, H-, CO C Co 00 C CO ml co Co Co G G G G G G H.
rt ri rt ri rt ri rt ri r r r r r r G r r r C M rh h+) M M H,
H' m m m m m 0 CD CD CD o C a G G C W-- rfD m (CD M (CD a
(D Cn 0 m CD m C)) (A H. H. H. H. H. H. x H. H. H. G G G G G 01 27
I I 1 I I 1 I I rh rh rfi Hi rh M CD Ht, Hi rh Cn n n n n n 01
ri1 '71 rt7 fti '11 'TJ d 'T1 0 0 0 0 0 0 W O 0 0 G (D (D (D (D CD C •Y
G G G G GG G G ri 11n 11r-I 11I--, 111 ti •0 (n (n ;n Cn Com 5
I~-' r~-, ,- N- r~- H
H- "-, i__, 5 0 rt r 5 o '0 0 x
,
a a a a a a a a a H a cn
H H H H H H H H I-, H, I- H' H' N 2'+ i--, H, F-, (1) C Cl) Cn Cl) Cl) H,
H H H• H H H. H. H. H- H, H' H, I-, H- H' I-' I-' U) n n n n n
M n n n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 r' ' 0 0 0 G' 0"' 0" G'
£ £ £ £ £ £ H £ £ £ 0 0 0 0 0
W W W W W W M W W W 0 0 0 0 0
G G G G G G (D G G G H' H' H, H' H,
n n n n n n n n n m W m Cr) U
rD (D CD (D (D (D (D (D (D
('1 c, H C C7 C O O C =-, (1 L--i H 'C Ci E n Cl)
W : 0 n 0 0 0 m W G 0 W 0 (0 0 0 W _ _ : : H• rr
a G G G ri ri (n 11 a' a' G G r-t rr W
H' G (CD Co W W W `C Cn G H, G (D W W G `< n
rxd 'T1 - fp H' I-' H, H' (D PI ' r-' N n
- - G 0 I-,a a a. a z H, -ri d (0 a a ri -- -- -- : 0 C
H' I-- G G r h H Z
n C) C Cl) rb [n `-< aD C n C) C C ri C7
C CD (D W H• n c C7' r' G n o (D W H• W ,fn O
ri (!) a" 0 G W G T H. ri U) ri ri W i`C
0
0 H' (D (D H' m £ CJ) C) H• (D Cl. : :: :: :: H• (n
`< x 0 m G" CO0 0 xw a G
_ i
I--, G ri G H' G PI (D (D
M n n n `. ri
CO
W N W W Cl.) Cl.) W W W W W (..0 W U.)
CO In C N Co o O 0 C O o v O C O r .� N
C C O 1/4.01/40 '. W 1/4.01D '. ON 1O Urin
C CO Cr" Cr, v W W W W W W r W W W C In O
o C V Cl.) -J N N) N) N) N N.) G N N N CO O O
H
n
COc0 c.0 CO co 00 Co co co co C co 00 00 CYO C CO 00
0 0 10 1/40 1/40 10 'C 10 10 iO lO 'C Co Co Oo C co Cb •z.
r-, CD 'C CO -1 C Ln F- La N r--• 0 '.O CO v CT In LN
CO V 0 H O CO CO O ' CO CO -) V O O O O O O 0 0 c7 • y
r r r 0 F-� r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r it a b •
rt C%1 ri
I 1 I W � .N - 4- � - - 4> .� - -A H H.
N w 10 10 w 10 10 r r r r r r r r H r-+
'd U) CD CA 10 t..) N) N N.) N) r r r 0 r 0 r 0 r 0
A) (D (D O i--' w r r O N r NO NO NO NO ;t- '
ri (D (D `C F-' 10 VD N '.0 '.0 '.0 .D U.) w L..) w W U.) W l.) C)
0 ri ri V r r N r r r r r h-• r r r r r r 0
F-' '-ri I---` '" 1--, r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r I
F--' '.0 V0 N) lO '.O '.0 '.0 W (..) W U.) W U.) (.,.) C..) H rd
Hg i C 0. V /-` r N) r r r r r r r r r r r r (U
G G 0U
m a •
rt Na
O Co CO O Co CO V V O O O O O O O co n
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 73
N r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
O O 0 O O O 00 00 00 00 O O Z.
.-ci> -co- r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r n
W . 4 CT O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O n
H
L..) co VO In
In r N r
1=` w D r
'.D O LD 1O
10 V - CO
L.)
0\ W Co '.D 00
Cr (....) N N.) Ui 00 r C-.) U: C,) U.) y
U.) In V O w Ui 00 � V 0\ r V N CT r O
O O O r - V V N) r 10 10 r V CO 10 V
• • C:
O O 10 N -N CP, CS\ w CO r N Ui w U) N) In Z
O O V Ul '.D r N) N k.0 lD Ul r 00 10 Ui N H
9'
C '1:1 rd rd cn rd n Oto O cn O co O cn -1
() C' C'7 0 rt (D 0 G C W C W C Cil C A) n
• C 7y r W R. to PK (D r-' (D H (D F-, (D rx
o ri .- rt rt (D M ri ri U) rt A) rt w rt A)
O 0 A) (D ri ri (D rt ri rt rr ri rt ri
H I-' 00 W C G H. H. H. H. H• H• H. H.
U) H' H. (D :Cr'_, I-' (D rt 0 (D .0 (D 0 (D 0 (D
rt H. (D Cn M U) (D U) (D co XI
Q' Cn G' Cn rt E n C I I I I I I I I til
A) G' rt G'' H. W co 'T1 'TJ 'i7 'T1 'T1 ,ri ,-ri 'TJ ['r'''
n < O w 0) rt 'C (D G G G G G G G G Y
o H. H' 0 0 G' A) r' r-1 H' r--' F-' H' r✓ H'
G G A. Ti H' G• n r-' H' H' H' r-' F-' H' H' 7:
Hi 00 H. U) GL 0 H. co
co G H. N rt H H H H H H H H
00 G A. '.0 H. H. H. H. H. H• H. H.
°4 G mDD NDDD( M
00
n r til C CD r 73 C7 C7 7::,
O U) X 0 co (D 0 (D W G
• rt Cn rt : rt _ G _ ri : ri _
ZPI U)
rt t7 • Z 0 H' 1-� (D r.
1-1rtrt n 0 0 rt E Co (0 0 FHITI
-' Z
G - co Hi - A) CI) rd C)) Z.
GP I-' rt F-' : U) C) o a' r, d
rd 5 Pzi • rt G' : 0 r. G W O
Cn I rrr�ri D 0 I (D :: 0 F.-, (n _ £ U
1 G. 9 rt (D G. C7 a) O ;T N
H. ''i G G n
C) O N O : rt (D I
(D 'C1 '0 ri I
(D (D 0
(D (D r
CT w CO CO
O1 W Na N Vt O A W � w
L,..) Ui V O w Ui N) N) 00 O 00
O O O r .A V 10 r O Ui CT n
•
O O '.0 N .N 0\ 10 O V 10 V
O O V Ui r CO CT V V 9
.-a
V V V V V V V V V ` V V C)
10 10 '0 '.0 10 kr) 10 '.0 1O 10 10
I--, r — O O O O O O O O
N r 0 10 00 V D' In -N w N 0
?a-2
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Prairie View Concrete Crosspan
DATE: April 10, 1981
Introduction
City Council at its regular March 24, 1981 meeting agreed to pay
for half of the $3 ,460.00 crosspan in Prairie View. Staff did
not , at that time , indicate what fund the $1 , 730.00 should be
taken from.
Summary and Recommendation
This expenditure can appropriately be taken from General Fund
Contingencies or the PIR Fund . Staff recommends that it be
taken from the General Fund Contingencies which has a current
unencumbered balance of $51 , 131 .00.
Requested Action
Authorize the expenditure of $1 , 730.00 for the City' s share of
the Prairie View concrete crosspan from 1981 General Fund
Contingencies .
JKA/jms
V
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S . Cox, City Clerk
RE: Application for an On Sale Temporary Beer License
DATE: April 14, 1981
Introduction
I have received an application from the Shakopee Jaycees for a
temporary 3. 2 beer license for May 2 and 3, 1981 .
Background
I am in receipt of a certificate of insurance in the proper
amount. I have also checked with the Chief of Police and he
offered no reason why the application should not be approved.
Recommendation
Approve the application and grant a temporary On Sale 3. 2 Beer
License to Shakopee Jaycees for Tahpah Park Ball Fields for
May 2 and 3 , 1981 .
JSC/jms
Co - ., r-,- i is,)
'-' I('1-1 U I'i 1,7
Cr, ._,7 C t---- La; r,_) (i_:_), Pr.,,/,-1•rtr. r,HrT.H.q.•
0 L,, ',. i'' -C 1. : •", t.•,: ,'•1 PI __*. trl r•Z: pi _l:
. ,-D ri--
:. ; co cr.) p (..:2 ,..D U) u 0
:
'-(2. 1--- c+ 0.. c+ 'r:2 (.+ •:: ct- CI) cf H. cf- ISi cf- H-,
H• 1-•• 0 V, H. • V-, ct I-, '73 1- ..1 '1 1-•.• -.2
0 -' S •+, ',.4 HI5 <1 ',.'-g
P P H ) )il 0 +( C.
co ri P CD P '. P f- • ¢ ...--; sic.n P cl
H c+ c+ c+ C, c+ (U (-4- Cl ct- (D r.) c+
(-+
(D 0 0 CD a (D D. O " (-1- 0 '1 ,4) '-', (1)
Cl ••••• Cl 'r •-1 Cl 1 1:-•-• Cl e. ''-' Cl <1
••-- 1-3 o r-1 :::- 0 1
n 6-, P C.: CD C: CD 0‘ r--.. C) 5 O o (_i 1.--, Ci) o :
c m .--- 0 • . C ti 0 0 E0 0 '1 01 I--, 0
'I, 7- ,-, (.;) c-+ 'Crr . c-T - tr. !:: U !-$ C.1 ft CB ct CL C11-
••• I c' c"' 0 c-,- • c- 0 C! U) c 0 ct
0 1- ei.
.,
M 0...,
0 ..
U.) .'
1.--, .
-
_., ''•••••I'r; :•', :• ::
•Efl ct •rfi- ti: ff., P 47,.. -(+-• (1) .;,.,-„, -€17- 0 47/.)- 0
il• H 1 ' I-) '...-; :73 H < 1-' '.1
C.: PC' to l•'• ,0 t' •.• P ,.. (f)
IN) CT • U..) (-( LAJ (! N) CI 0 H 0 Ct
0 tii 01 0 P 0 (0 \_.,9 \J1 0 0 CO tl
0 H H n 0 ) -s \....n ‘..31 0 c.), 0) r.
..• -1 •• c•c!, . :-) ... , .., I)
0 C. ---.1 . 0 0 '1'0 (_.) M 1'0 H
0 • 0 0 Ci) C) 1--• C) 8 0- 0 H L„, H.
(-) 0 0 o (j2 0 ..15 0 0 0 w c
• (--,- . Cl) • . • . • • • • C.5
0 0 C) '7.1 0 Cu • 0 0 0 P -1
n 0 o ..; o ,) C' 0 74 c)
.-,
...,
.co
1---
•cr" SPUC
-....,,.
.cx.,
.H ..
.:'. ..
.' .. ..n
-,
-4
ri'...:i.!
1 !1•1
.
Approval
.- • .-.;
.1-
. •• . L..
.... :
0) 111•11.1•11•C
.1,
:;.•
.•
0. .
0:1
..-
-•-•
I-I
•0 , \11 PlatILI: ..).:IC1 ...-':
--..„..
..---..,.
03 Spec II ical- ions
•
' ') . . . o
ri
-L,
• •
....,, .
'---?, 'tight-of-Way
2........ • ... .
.`.11 •....„
-,....
Co OD
• Acquisition -e
•N) . • . . te,
..--3
Bid
....)
!--7\ -•
:--,..ch
..,...
•OD C3.-.3
C)
(7> Dii.tt_! .,
. 0 •.•-•
•
t---
• , .
E.I.:!..
C-.. . • • .
:CO •OD •„ :;SeS;;N•'II!.
--, , • •..,,,_
' .OD .CO .--• neu .' c,
P1
•N) •• . . : ,,,.)
!t1
, I
•
H •i---, ' • 1-,
: \-', COIriplet• I k,ri
•0 •C..) ..,,, •Li) •0 :
-,
•-., •-.. ., ...„ • ' c:o Date
• •co °Lk? •o3 •63 • • i--,
•N.) •,----. •1 •fp •t...) •- "
:•,-..• •-: to ':-.-. n n. :-.: , 2 , ' . : 2 I . . ' . ,,.. . .. . , : : n! :•.:
. •
H i- r\..) • [---, • . , \o '..,_
H H CO (3-,, 003 . CO H, I H -. C)' ' o\ • \...,1 N.) cl• 1.•11i;i11••• :'
(..A) OD 0 0 0 N..) \,10 '- H I--( a c.r..\ --., 4-s- 0 ,:. \..J! \.0,,,) R.) 01(..:,
I '
{'' CO .. •i' i ' CD(.
k 0 ...--'.\./1 : H H H H C- --Q /-' C)VP ---.0\J1 IC('1)ri i C i•I 1 1 .. I I P
0 Lk) 0 0 .`C), \O 0 .. H --Q C)(..,t) 0".. H ----lju Lot) \11 C.) H Cr\C.:
0
1.\) r,
"...-i
. ,..
C-) LA)\-1 I e C i i:1 LC i,•tn II '--"
(.:,
H H r, (.".) Ch,-• \•0 0, 1" • CO r. Oo\...n r-\•,
CJ
0 OD 0.) G.> (..-, Lk) ‘..n :.. 0 0 (.....) (....A..)(..,3 0 \J") 0 0 CO ! 0,••,, H 0 in,..;pect.or f I. 0
.; p
P. c+
Ci' r)
CL
(-.) fl\2--• ''''uhrl it! I.a.il I cf-
•• .
o \..o w w ,, .L--- ---- 0 —3 0 H _„- o o ••••• CD 0 !,j GO Co 0 Ilisl)eCtOr I 0
.--1
^ 0
c\ cr\ co(„, n) 1---' r•) H 1-1 H' LA)
00 VI Sec i•etat.;,.
1--, H c, os\\o -.:, H --1 n) -Lm , 0 --4 0-„, o 0 ) 0 ‘4:13 vi 1\)
. •.,
r• , • • -•r"-\,,, 1 VD
ODto
H
I , CO •P'. 0:f.: , CO (., H r , vfi VD f I
i(.)t.N.1
C) COO) ,... \il -P--. ,C) U.) \O . ,IL-,-,, ‘...ri j• -4-----H r,-,
(A) OD ----) •-•4• -r-"----.1 '. u.., C, H -,7 , vr. as, ,-. CO .01,0 01 0
41')
H .- f---! _. \O ..-
H \_11 0,-- F--! ----'- -0 . LU Co t0 . ..
11.) \.....,-. \...ri
ft) " '• . ,. ,, . ., . ,. ,. V ,.., F.Jrii:1 en r i Ii
CO '\....n 0\ 0_> H \J-,
(-- 0 N) 0\(-)., H Cr\r„)
OD OD \fl CO co ---3 01,-: 0-\--..1 co\0_1 (....) --..] N., o --4 ‘..fi f\.) .-, Dept. 1.%.,2,2
--4 C\ \A CO
a) c..0 L...).--..,', 0 0 U.) H , 0”\CO 0,,, vi \_)+ :-.) -P• --0\‘-
‘...r.
CO Co 0 • • • • • . • • •
_ .
•
. /
*
H
*H i--. H r-' 1--•
‘-`-' r:)riority
IH
i---''' t--,
,
t".1 < F."' W :=.1 :l.. V Cl)s L,• :IP. t..i (i) t--.1 'IL! 1.,-*,
U)
c co 0 co r,-, 1--, Lr; ;-•.: Go P (i) C (..0 t3
CI" F- Cf CS' 1--. CS' Cf r.-- CS- .4 I--. C' P
I-'• H •-, (C) H- 0 H. Ft H- () HCH.. H. ;---, X' P. '
(Cl
-_-1 :-.1 '1 P 0 b 0
P `-`-' P.) H lal 1'0 P ,i P H' P P (-1' Cf: P
(1- c+ w c+ c+ y, (-4- c, c+ Cli '1 c-.- (-.' c+ i---
CD 1-0 F'D 0- CD O (Cl < G P (Cl < • a)
P, P
R. p, 0, (Cl ci, c-f- G. Cil p, .-_. 1i 0
0 (-4- U) < V '1
C) ...: (Th P. 0 • . a 0 (--) -: cr • 0 n a o C) CD
0 0 P., 0 n., o- 0 o P o 1.:. 0 • fl) c
co 0 CO H• Cl) 1.-, M P- Cf) ......•-•" CD Cl) O. (:-J a)
c-f '1 0- cF c'f cl- 0 1-F c" F-; c''' C '1 (-4 0 )-•
P !-..i. •• • c' .-
P. 0 G ..ci --, f,• _.,• :;(-/-i !)t. :or.
0
-07Y.• P .4f... -c-f} -Eli O 4,,, 'V.'. -EFF- '' CD E') CD) H. 4 Cl' I-'
0 q Cf- C+ Cil
(Cl (Cl Ca IHI 1---' t. 0-
ll) I---' 1-0 -.--. a, UF P Cl.) '1 .
--.1 H 0 r,..) o \...n 0 c" CI- Co > Cfl \/1 P. •
o 0\ 0 0 Cl) 0 • O\ H. 0 < Ci- 0 0
... . . . cf- ••• 0 . . a) r . e-
o o o o n .o CD 4- < n 0 • 1--, 0
0 0 0 0 0 .---..--- . 0 (D 0 tti 0 *...,
0 0 0 0 ..0) • H. 0 0 (Cl
'.13 • I • F-'
0 0 0 0 (-_, o (--_, 0 I--,
0 0 0 0 , C C 0
. . .
:';,--1 '(....., • :::', • --- EeasIbility
..,_
. .---,
--_,
•-,
'co •co • ...› . 07,
kel.-.0rt
'1----, .. •1-• l• •.,-,
. .
.
::: •• -- • .---• • •::.- ••11 ISPUC
•,- ••,-.., .-...
'o •.
.• 0:, ...r. • .:7-. • 05 ApprOWli
,
'1--• . .
• F-F
• ' . . P.-'.'
• . , • . (1\ Publ ',.,' -•
. .
...• . .-..._
. .„
It'::It7
•G . .
• .. . ....-.. •
l ,
• . • I ,
--- • . 4- • PlanL.. and ._
'c.t, • • --... . .-
UpecificationL;
• • LJ i • CD
U
r..1
• . . • • iiigt-of'- ay
. •;„,
•
Et
' 1_11 • ---1 .
-..., , • ,, • --„,, •
• H
•CO ' CO • CO • ' . • Acquisition ..n.
"H .
-F-, .. .. rr"
.._.
H. • . . .
• ' rill --
,1 • • G\ . ) c . .
. .
• . ., • -., • - • • ,...'
• Cr) .
• 0) . ,I) . ):I Lt.' •....]:
• 1 • • I ' .. .. H;
=
• • . • •-.:
• Cr) • . • • ,,
. • ,, • •. ; • ' 1 : '5:f.III,'Ill,
• '- • • • -- - • •`-- .70
• CID • •,-..
.. • Co • U•• • Cc., • • :v)-- Hearing
••i---, - ,---, ••H "H •• ,
C
'..x
• • f-' • -• .
• ' ' Completi
• • . •
Completion
•\j,, • oo • 1--.' • P-• •
• ....„ • \ • •••....„ • •••„, .
• CO • 00 • CO • CID • 0) . OD
• Date
••f\) " H •• p, .. 1 •• M .. ..
hi (--) a' ;?..- C) (I) ::: , • ':• •-. ".' LT:' : ' ' '-'- :; t7.J LF :) ".d
:
CO h, , H al.1-'0 k_ii \ft - VI l J Engineer
0 H 0, -o -o - 1 N) _,I' 1--' 1-." . a) 4_-- i.) (1) o C) , o o
•
I..'
!-
R.) Ci (...0) H H 0 . IVI H H 1 Technician Ili
o 013 (7, 0 0 (-, 0 01 PH . - COO : 00W CA1U) ,".:, 00
--)
'1
s
..,
H 4 N, -4
0 ;...• 0 0 Technician II '
CD
0 0 0 00 p r\) -P-.;:.-
cs• 0
03 (201-' 000 00 ,, \.00 oo Inspector Er P
_ -
.1.--
- ,- ..,, . . c-!'
\....I1 .
, . :t:C n 11 tc Ian f r•
1-1
0
0 I-' -',
0 0 0 0 t--, ' ' 00 -' 00 (-.' CO 0 Co Cu 0 00- i tiSpeCtOr I. P
1-1
•.-1.: :.5'
'1
41- 1-4 M r k I 1 4:-
.2ecret,ary C", 1,...)
0 Vi 0 0 0 0 VI \.0 `-i, 0.) 0_) '..)- 0 4:- F.AF cp 0.'.1-, coo :. - :,-, IV
,_,.. ..
H
\CD
CO
•' ..',01 '1,1_ I--"
.
H '' 'J ,
'1H (2-'i---4 -•
CD) - .-, 1---, wL., -.1 ---4 ' co c-‘ • .0 .0- r,.4. 0 i.----, .-
o uo H' --1 -..) -1 .0 r.)r-, co co ''
4-.-:
,---, .__ H .-_,
r..) ,.)--, ,..!--, _A :',1'I tjr,i neer iii
(,) --: .__, 4.-.- H H ;-- 4 . 0 h) i ,-cit . Fee
4 ...
. •
4 • n) ,c- '..' rv, in) i---, 0 c i i"--)
0 '-II n) R) 7-) ---'---1 0'• \CD \O UJ IH -",'-;' 01 01 OD \O a\ ,,,
vr, ' 00 C' C) 00 CCN) - N) 0 ' H 1-4 \./1 • • •
013 0, U) CA) '-^) -.1 H c'' (JJ UJ . • • •• ' • • •
. • • . . .
*
N N N * *
W r.) 0 F✓N ' _�
\J \ 1 v,
N N N IV r,: F-'
L-- w N r' 0 \, H Program i'; ,nb-r
ti H3 LTJ H tri M t'l C ti? C, trl .0 (.1 0 L'-.1 '71
(n 0' m 0 m m 'c7 u) (D cn O m u) K
c+ p• c+ H c+ H c+ ty c+ < c+ c+
N• K H. P. N• (D -• 0 (G N• R' P. r b' 0
5 gl)
W (D (D ¢, m n K n 'o cD 8 7J c+ n P 'i
c
c+ (D c+ K c+ c+ < :c C 1 c4 • (1 c--,7 L `< vi
�+ + U• r
(D co < rD ;n m P .T. 0K m o m 7,J (o � w
a C a n• a c+ a H .. £ • a ,-4) .— a o a
K N O
o 9 o fD o 'm . . o - t< o A- Ct o •�• C 0 o c 0
co < (n H (n c* co U) co c, 0) ct m Co u, <
c-( Cf(D c+ 0 c+ c+ U c+ " c* • w c+ (D
.. w r cu F,.
a w w e N• K Description
c+ P. -'. - ) Cf I" H
-Eh- {fy
P
H
M (U m U
Co OD 1-' N O w N.) P• --I I
oU.) 0 (n 0 tr.) +-• -ter H. 0 0 'D
0 0 '.n cn 00 0 0 0 d
O • '. .. (D
o 0 0 0 0 0 Cl) 0 0 P
0 0 0 w 0 n 0 0 0
u,
0 O 0 0 0 0 O\ 0 0 rr
of•
• �sib.ilii y
(D .• ..
n o..
• c* c...
• • o
• S• • n• 1'UC
•• N a :• • :. • 'b• : Approval
cr
•
•
• �
. 0: •
Hearing•
•,
c„ 0)
: cp •
: H •• Plans and
•
:• a •
. : cn Specii'ica'. ii ns c
C• .. U
• Cl C) CTl
• m E• : dight-Of-w >
• P :
a
*
W N R) N
-� Q` v` (Priority
II
\n \n Vn
N N N Program Ni.unbF.r
S
-1 v,
i
a � P r•: tc '1
+ c- PHa
i r• r• Ojm erne+
P x � �+ �
En RI
rt-
`r- m `'a � cp (1) a <3 ' • C ca m� G
o C D O •
o tjm 0 t1
n
u)& 0 ] cc+ •
- 0 -.7 .• o rihticn
P rr
Fri M R. b> 'd)
OD c+ m
N • CO N :)
0 m
0 m
a
0 00 a 0
0 o ti o 0
0 CD 0 0
O
0 0 0 O 0
•
easibilit,y
Neort
•
• • • SPUC
.• : :. ;, Approval
oval
c-
• IPubl:. : is
0
Hearini- :"
tr
01
: : • flans and `-:
•
•. :: . (Spent icat ion:; c'
v
01
• Right-of-Way �.
• Acquisition -3
•• 01
: : : ; ; : ;'id
Pat e
x
• :. :. Hear1i.ng isi
.-Ti
0
01
(Completion
L>ate
x (; t o () co C•) tri :. C'i c• .. ?: . ,-1-1 S r.,. W s .-)
'ti
N N
Cb 'n i':nf,lneer
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
• H t-,
N o 0 0 0 0 .Nr Technician 1 1 I cy
0
;J
N v, Technician II N'
oN)"0 o o 0 0 0 0 1 nspect.ur I i '
•r
�, - Fr ' �ec-hnician I N
O
0 `° 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inspector I oo
N o o : o o o secretary U P
ND
H N
O Total
O
----• x 0 0 o 0 0 01
ji
co
H
-
(Z JO Engineering
a> E- 03 Dept. I'e e
N 0 0
O 0
-,
0 0 0 C. C• 0 0 y'I' .l'r..Lr'!
u ' Number
C.1
c4- 8 U. d. w a
(7) r• C. W � n eD
r• I.._, N. a c.f. c+ F.,. N
PD U 1---, a w c* 1
tri c+ Ya P CD
�; a tri a
r+ p m 0 . cr
F..,• •� N r• I,. H. r•
0 C to " c" O
O
'-/ n
,-
Cf '1 (D
H. H. n
7 c+ 0
ri N r.$ C:
I-, Cl) CD
PD n
if
I sb i-,
C17 O
• • • cy
P
'i'.5-,
N
P.
• 7
. w
PI
•
,1 `i
w
w
• ci _H
cf
• •
• U
c' Li.
Pe [,
to L7
•
'd
O '-3
• • : Cl)• 0
Q,P. r-9
H
' •
H.
CD• �J
' • En ti
0
y
s CI r; a_ I. tr. r-.. .V •• ..
I I I
I 1 F-' F-' I N NI I I I F-' I-' I :'Iir;IIi'•I'I'
0 0 0 0 .' .P-' CO CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 O\ 0\
I I I I I I I I "
I I II I I . -' I I i'i•hr1 I F' i(LI:
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ‘..n ‘...ri C"
I I
I I I F-' F-- I hr.i c i tri t i G'
.p----p- 1 I II I I I
—1 -1 0 0 0 0 W W N N 0 0 0 0
's t-
H.
1 I I I I I I t
I I I �•c'f1TllCltiti 1 c'•
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0I I r•
0 0 dl O\ 0 0 1 N N I . ',e.Ct.Ot' I O
PD
•
I I-' F--' I I I t I I I ') o
00 00 00 00 00 00 - 00 H., H, ••t'c'I'e'1,ary
N
N
I IV
-P'.-' I F•-' F-' I H N I W W I I I I I H
—I—7 O O 4 -PN 11.) O\ O\ I 0 0 I 0 0 i
Co
EA-
I 1 I H� I
—I---4 I H H I -P- I OD Col I H H I IV N I O\O\ I I.:tit i Neer'. '. -
'O'O I F-' H I 0 0 I O\ ON W W I 0 0 I "fi'"I I
'O\O I 0 0 I ON O\ I W W 1 ' 4' I ro N 1 0 0 I H F-' I 1)r•fil • H't'
4-- .L.-- .--
H H H H H o Program
�' 0
Number
m 0 cn U) is t;
W W H
b
(C `C Ci H e- M
•TJ Pco
'.J e-• n 0
Qt s",,,
N
cl-
1, N.
a P ' c.•,, CD
N C,1 ( 0
0 0
(C H. co
n ~' c+
cam
I- .11.H•
H
r•
P.
(C
m •
cnU)
C
n
U
• 0e
•
• : •• . U'
tn
H�
• (C N
•d 01
•
. •
. C /—I
. :1 Cl
t_e 01
• p 'v
• H,
•
: • (o
U) N
U)
• • O '-3
•
:. .. ; P.
0
P. 0—j
P' x
(D•
Cn X7
Nb
0
• U1
• r-3
3 r) tri 3 ,7 tr. Z n rr { r. 2.7. (. •-. ' '
H I--' I W W 1 N N I I I I W Co
01 O\ I OD OD I f:T O\ I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I O\ ON I ..!
IOC
SHAKOPEE
Illi
P.O. BOX 133, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379
'\ 1,97/C6F6'
April 19, 1981
TO THE CITY COUhNCIL OF SHAKOPEE:
On behalf of the Shakopee Jaycees I would like to thank the city of
Shakopee for your cooperation and assistance in developing the The
Tahpah Park Complex which was very much needed in this community.
There is a matter which at all possible we would like to resolve before
May 1st. That is the ag-lime at Tahpah Park. In the past, the city
Park Maintenance Budget has covered the expence of the ag-lime. This
past year we have received a bill for $1700.00 and a recent bill of
$2400.00 and we expect additional costs of $2500.00 for the three newest
fields. I would like to make it clear that we do have access to funds
to pay this expence. However, any assistance you could give us in this area
would be greatly appreciated. A prompt decision on this matter would clear
your past due bills and ours. Again thank you.
Shakopee Jaycee President
RECEWFD
,, '��'✓
APR 2 0 1981
CITY OF aHAKOPEE
0.:BER
8 ,$
A�Eg8
10 (
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne Andre, Administrative Assistant
RE: Fiscal Year 1981 Application/LAWCON/LCMR Funding for
JEJ Park
DATE: April 20, 1981
Introduction
Pre-applications for the federal Land and Water Conservation (LAWCON)
and the State Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR)
grants are due May 1 , 1981 . Council direction on the City' s appli-
cation is needed.
Background
At an informational meeting held March 26 , 1981 , representatives
of the State Planning Agency reviewed the program and estimated
funding levels for 1981. At that time no LAWCON funds were antici-
pated to be distributed at the federal level, and State LCMR funds
were anticipated to be approximately $1 million for the seven-county
metropolitan area. State budgetary problems which subsequently
surfaced may decrease or obliterate LCMR funds for 1981 . If both
federal and state funds are available, the funds available to the
City would be available on the basis of a 757 grant 25% local match.
If only federal or state funds are available the funds would be pro-
vided on the basis of a 5O7 grant and 50% local match.
Last year the City of Shakopee submitted two applications for LAWCON/
LCMR funding, O'Dowd Lake Park and JEJ Park. O'Dowd Lake was selected
by the State for funding so JEJ was not given further consideration
by the State for that funding cycle. As the City Council has elected
to undertake no further acquisition for O'Dowd Lake Park, staff has
presumed that the current application should be directed to JEJ Park.
George Muenchow, Director of Shakopee Community Services has selected
JEJ as the top choice for current park acquisition. He has coordinated
a citizen advisory committee to advise the City on the acquisition and
development of this park. The Park Reserve Budget for 1981 provides
$33,000 for JEJ land acquisition and $18,000 for JEJ redevelopment
and earth-work.
The LAWCON/LCMR application submitted in 1980 estimated a cost of
$77 ,000 for land acquisition. Assuming 10% inflation the application
for 1981 would be submitted with an estimated total cost of $85,000
for acquisition. If a 50% match is required the City would be liable
for $42 ,500 if it ' s proposal were funded ($21 ,250 for a 25% match) .
Although efforts would be made to use park dedication to offset the
City' s match, it is possible the acquisition could exceed the 1981
budget allocation for acquisition for JEJ Park. If a 50% match is
required, one alternative source of funds would be reallocation of
some funds allocated to JEJ redevelopment to JEJ acquisition. It
is also possible that the total project cost would be lower than the
current estimate.
Fiscal Year 1981 Application/LAWCON/LCMR Fundingfor
PP / 0 /i/
JEJ Park
Page Two
April 20, 1981
Alternatives
1. Submit a pre-application for LAWCON/LCMR funding for JEJ Park
anticipating possible 50% local match requirement .
2 . Submit no pre-application for LAWCON/LCMR funding.
3. Select an alternative project to submit for LAWCON/LCMR funding.
Recommended Action
City Council authorize appropriate officials to submit pre-application
for LAWCON/LCMR funding for JEJ park acquisition. Such action pre-
suming possible utilization of funds allocated for JEJ land acquisition
and JEJ redevelopment and earth-work in the Park reserve budget to
provide the local match.
JA/jms
low
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
. 0,
FROM: H. R. Spurrier �''!�►
City Engineer ��
RE: Furrie's 2nd Addition
DATE: April 20, 1981
Introduction:
In the City Council meeting of December 2, 1980, City staff was
directed to meet with the Developer's engineer and the Developer regarding
City participation in the cost of the improvement for the above-referenced
project.
Background:
Pursuant to Council request, City Engineer contacted the Developer's
engineer and discussed the computation. Subsequent to that meeting, the City
Engineer, City Administrator and the Developer met to discuss the extent of
City participation in the above-referenced project.
City staff and the Developer appeared to be in agreement with all but one
item. Referring to a letter dated February 17, 1981, addressed to Mr. Al Furrie
from Ralph D. Wagner, P.E. , Probe Engineering Company, Inc. , there are six
items for which the City is asked to participate in (see attached letter).
In order to simplify the discussion each item in the Probe letter is
taken individually, as follows:
1) City agrees the adjustment of the manhole as a City
cost. $ 785.50
2) It is the City's position that the valley-type-
gutter driveway is a cost of the Developer. 0.00
3) The storm sewer at the north end of the property is
judged to be City cost. 2,765.00
1 ) The agrees to pay that part of street construction
that would have been City cost in the even Shawmut
was not vacated; that cost is as follows:
a. Subgrade Preparation 13.47% of $871.88 117.41
b. Class 5 Aggregate 13.47% of ($770.27)($7.40) 767.56
c. 2331 Binder Course 13.67% of ($269.18)($19.75) 724.43
d. 2341 Wear Course 13.67% of ($322.53)($24.60) 1,081.16
e. Clean and Tack 13.63% of ($586.25) 79.89
f. Patching 0.00% of ($2,620.50) 0.00
g. Black Dirt 9.00% of ($1,017.00) 91.51
h. Curb and Gutter ($143.81)($5.00) 719.05
John K. Anderson April 20, 1981 D
Furrie's 2nd Addition Page -2-
Subtotal Roadway $3,581.01
i. Storm Sewer ($3,581.01)($1,750) 450.48
$37,759.13
Total Roadway $4,031.49
5) Engineering fees for improvements 788.00
6) Engineer's fees for analysis 260.00
TOTAL 58,629.99
Recommended Action:
Based on the City Engineer's computation and the computation of the
Developer's engineer, it is the recommendation of City staff that City Council
authorize a payment of S8,629.99, as the amount of City participation in the
cost of City improvements as a part of Furrie's 2nd Addition and that the
proper City officials be authorized to disburse those funds to the Developers
of Furrie's 2nd Addition.
Funding for this project will come from the PIR Fund or the General
Funding Contingency Fund. Staff recommends that the $8,629.99 come from
General Fund Contingency. Staff will discuss Item No. 2 regarding valley-
type-gutter driveway cost to the developer at the meeting.
HRS/j iw
Attachment
PROBE ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. f
1000 E. 146th Street
Burnsville, Minnesota 55337
February 17, 1981
Mr. Al Furrie
1221 E. 4th Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55337
RE: Furrie's 2nd Addition
Dear Al:
I am writing this as requested, to set forth those cost items in the develop-
ment of the above referenced project on which the City of Shakopee should
reimburse you for their share of the costs. These are as follows:
1. The existing Sanitary Sewer Manhole east of Shawmut
Street on Third Avenue had to be lowered to match
street grade. $ 785.50
2. The City notified us, after commencement of curb
and gutter construction, that their requirements
called for a valley type gutter driveway serving
Lot 2 Block 2 to facilitate the runoff from said
Lot 2 and from the Shakopee Professional Building.
They claimed that we had been made aware of this
requirement quite some time prior to curb and
gutter installation; however, if you recall the
meeting on July 24, 1980, with yourself, Mr. Reader,
Mr. Spurrier and Don Dethlefs of my office, it was
shown that the City had notified Kraus Anderson
of this driveway requirement and, in fact, we had
not been notified at all. In effect, requiring this
facility to be provided in this hasty manner forced
you to pay for it without having the opportunity to
negotiate its cost back to the property developer
as it should have been. $ 672.00
3. The storm sewer at the north end of the property
was constructed to eliminate the problems of storm
water coming onto the site from the west and flow-
ing under the railroad onto the property to the
north. Attached is a copy of our original Engin-
eer's estimate indicating your intention of peti-
tioning the City to do this.
100 l.f. of 18" Conc. Pipe @ $23.50/1.f. = $2350.00
1 18" Apron w/Trash Guard = 415.00
3. Total: $2765.00
Mr. Al Furrie ® `'e-�
Re: Furrie's 2nd Addition
February 17, 1981
Page 2
4. The City had agreed to pay their fair share of
the Street Construction related to the street
vacations in the Shawmut Street area and ex-
tending the street to connect up with the
existing street in front of adjacent properties.
We feel the City's share should be everything
westerly of the westerly boundary of the plat.
The cost breakdown is as follows:
a. Subgrade Preparation 14.73 % of 871.88 $ 128.43
b. Class 5 Gravel 120.95 Ton @ 7.40 895.03
c. 2331 Binder 41.04 Ton @ 19.75 810.54
d. 2341 Wear 41.04 Ton @ 24.60 1009.58
e. Cleaning and Tack 14.73% of 586.25 86.39
f. Patching 15.00% of 2620.5 393.07
g. Black Dirt 15.00% of 1017.00 152.55
h. Curb and Gutter 177.64 1.f. @ 5.00/1.f. 888.20
Street Sub-Total for City $4363.79 -
i. Storm Sewer
The costs of the storm sewer facility serving the
street should also be reimbursed on a proportionate
basis. This can be evaluated as follows:
Total Storm Sewer Cost excluding Northerly Portion
set out in (2.), above ($7,515.00-$2,765.00=$4,750.00)
Of this amount the City proportion would be:
$4363.75 (City Share of Street Construction from above)
X 4750 $548.94
$37,759.43(Total Street Construction)
TOTAL STREET FOR CITY: $4912.73
5. Our Engineering Fees break down as follows:
a. Storm Sewer @ North End $ 434.00
b. Street Improvements 129.00
c. Valley Gutter Driveway 225.00
TOTAL: $ 788:00-
6. Added Engineering Fees to assess cost:
Discussions and meetings with City Engineer and Client,
Letter outlining City cost and added computations
therefor.
Engineer: 2.0 hrs. @ $40.00/hr. $ 80.00
Senior Technician: 6.0 hrs. @ $30.00/hr. 180.00
TOTAL: $ 260.00
Mr. Al Furrie A
Re: Furrie's 2nd Addition
February 17, 1981
Page 3
TOTALS 1 thru 6: $10,183.19*
NOTE:
According with the previous meeting which I attended on Tuesday,
December 9, 1980, with you and Boe Spurrier present, it was my
understanding that at that time the total generally arrived at for
the City portion of the costs amounted to approximately $9,950.00.
Also, not accounted for in the above estimate is a matter of grading out the
ditch from the inlet of the northerly storm sewer. My advice in regard to
this is to remind the City that this yet has to be performed, and have them
arrange to do it themselves.
Very truly yours,
y,J, ✓ 01k,.
�EtaldD. Wagner,W /. E.
RDW/je
•
action alert
1111 1111F1APR 2 .) 1981
league of minnesota cities
arr OF 3+AKOPE
April 17, 1981
TO: Mayors, Managers, Clerks and Legislative Contacts
FROM: Peggy Flicker, Legislative Counsel
RE: TAX INCREMENT FINANCING - S.F. 635
On Friday, April 10, a subcommittee on the Senate Tax Committee passed S.F. 635 on to
the full Tax Committee. The bill as amended has numerous unacceptable sections which
pose serious threats to Tax Increment Financing (TIF) . The chief author of the bill
is Senator Mary Hanson of Hallock, who is also assistant majority leader.
The League is aware that Senator Hanson has some serious concerns with TIF, particularly
as it relates to use in economic development districts (as opposed to redevelopment
districts ). The League has already told Senator Hanson that city officials hope to
work with him in addressing his concerns, and he has been responsive to some of our
input thus far. It is unclear at this point just which of our amendments he will
accept and which he will oppose.
THE LEAGUE NEEDS YOUR HELP SO THAT WE CAN AMEND THE BILL IN THE SENATE TAX COMMITTEE°
THIS ACTION ALERT SUMMARIZES EACH UNACCEPTABLE SECTION OF S.F. 635, DESCRIBES THE
LEAGUE AMENDMENT WHICH WILL BE PROPOSED, AND EXPLAINS THE PROBLEMS WHICH CAUSE THE
NEED FOR AN AMENDMENT.
WHAT YOU SHOULD DO NOW
o Contact your Senator now - in person, by phone, or by mail . Contact Senate
Tax Committee Members (see attached list), particularly Senator Hanson and
Senator Doug Johnson, Committee Chairman.
o Ask your Senator and members of the Senate Tax Committee to support the
League of Minnesota Cities' sponsored amendments to S.F. 635.
o If your city has used TIF, remind your Senator of that fact and point out
the good things that have been accomplished through TIF.
o Come to the Senate Tax Committee meeting when S.F. 635 is heard. The League
will notify you of time and place.
300 hanover building, 480 cedar street, saint paul, minnesota 55101 [6123222-2861
(OVER)
-2-
If the League amendments don' t go on to S.F. 635, TIF will be a much less workable tool
and fewer cities will be able to take advantage of it. As discussed below, more and more
smaller cities are beginning to use TIF. Certain parts of S.F. 635 as amended would be
especially harmful to smaller cities and projects . Those parts are pointed out in the
section - by - section - summary.
WHO IS USING TIF?
It is worth noting that since 1968, 105 cities in Minnesota have initiated or planned
193 TIF projects.
Over two-thirds of the cities using TIF are located outside the metropolitan area. Of
the 193 projects in the state, 99 are located in cities under 10,000 population.
More and more cities under 10,000 population are taking advantage of TIF. In 1978 15
of these small cities started their first TIF project, and 10 more followed in 1979.
In 1980, 15 more of these small cities have started or are planning their first project.
A total of 53 projects were begun in small cities in the last three years. Even if your
city is not now using TIF, this option for community development must be preserved
SUMMARY OF S. F. 635 PROBLEM AREAS
1 . S. F. 635 WOULD CAUSE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TIF DISTRICTS TO RESULT IN HIGHER
SCHOOL MILL RATES.
Summary M.S. 273. 73, subd. 4, defines captured assessed value (CAV) under
the tax increment law. Under section 1 of S.F. 635, the CAV of parcels in
economic development districts would be included in adjusted assessed value
of each school district for purposes of computing school aids. The state
would end up paying less school aids and the school district would still
receive the same amount for pupils, but the local tax payer would pay a
higher school mill rate.
League Amendment
Strike Section 1 .
Explanation of Amendment
This part of S.F. 635 would build into every economic development proposal a high level
of local opposition to TIF. Since a higher school levy would be the direct result of any
economic development project, city officials would be understandably much more reluctant
to approve such a project. Since school district boundaries are hoL conterminous with
city boundaries, there would be increased pressure from county or township officials to
oppose the use of TIF for economic development.
By removing Section 1 of S.F. 635, the League amendment would prevent this indirect
attempt to restrict the use of TIF for economic development.
NOTE: Senator Hanson has indicated he feels strongly about including this particular
provision in the bill .
2. DATE FOR DETERMINATION OF "ORIGINAL ASSESSED VALUE" MODIFIED - THE INTENT IS TO
INCREASE THE BASE VALUE OF DISTRICT AND DECREASE THE TAX INCREMENT.
Summary M.S. 273. 73, subd. 7, now defines "original assessed value" as the value
of taxable property in a TIF district as most recently certified by the Commissioner
of Revenue. Section 2 of SF. 635 would change that date to January 2 of the year
in which the request for certification of a TIF district occurs.
s3-
League Amendment
Strike Section 2
Explanation of Amendment
The way the bill is currently drafted, the January 2 value is not definite because it
is subject to appeal and change. It is essential to have a "real number" at the time
the district is certified so that the appropriate cash flow projections may be made.
That is why it is necessary to refer to the most recently certified value.
Given the major administrative and practical problems with this section of the bill ,
the best answer to to delete it. The problem it is meant to address, that of "windfall "
gains in captured assessed value, is not really that great. In most circumstances the
value of property in a tax increment district is not increasing very much, if at all .
There is no evidence that a significant amount of value is being captured that would
otherwise end up in the base value.
3. DEFINITION OF REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TIGHTENED UP - MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO
QUALIFY AS A—'81I GHTED AREA".
Summary M.S. 273.73, subd. 10, defines the types of projects which may qualify
as redevelopment districts . Paragraph 2 of that subdivision contains an
objective "blight finding" requirement. 20% of the buildings must be structurally
substandard and an additional 30% of the buildings must be "found to require
substantial rennovations or clearance" in order to remove specified problem
conditions. Section 3 of S.F. 635 would increase the 20% requirement to 25%
and the 30% requirement to 40%.
League Amendment
The League opposes this particular change because it will make it much more
difficult for a blighted area to qualify as a redevelopment district.
Explanation of Amendment
The S.F. 635 approach would tend to encourage a spot renewal approach to redevelopment
as opposed to a more comprehensive area approach. Second, it would be necessary to
conduct much more thorough inspection of buildings in order to qualify the district.
This would add substantially to planning and administrative costs of the project, and
would particularly harm smaller cities and smaller TIF projects . The current blight
finding requirement is quite strict and there is no need for it to be made stricter.
This portion of the bill would make TIF much more unworkable, especially for smaller
cities .
4. INCLUDES BOND COUNSEL AND CONSULTANT COSTS INTO ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, WHICH
ARE LIMITED TO 5% OF TOTAL TAX INCREMENT EXPENDITURES
Summary M.S. 273.73, subd. 3, currently limits administrative expenses to 5%
of the total tax increment expenditures.
Section 4 of S. F. 635 would include as administrative expenses, and thus subject to the
limit, "amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel , fiscal consultants, and
planning or economic development consultants. "
(OVER)
-4--
League Amendment
Strike Section 4
Explanation of Amendment
By requiring that payments for bond counsel and consultant services fall within the
5% administrative expense limit, the bill would effectively stop the use of TIF in
most cities. The administrative expenses of most projects are currently at the 5%
limit, so there would be no room to add the costs for bond counsel and consultant
services. It particularly discriminates against smaller cities and projects where
the city does not have sophisticated planning staff, and finds it necessary to use
outside consultants to assist in planning and implementing a TIF project. The
effect of the provision in the bill may also be to discourage the use of outside
professionals and thereby cause problems because of poor work done by inexperienced
or untrained persons.
5. WRITTEN COMMENT BY COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON TIF PLAN PROPOSAL
Summary M.S. 273.74, subd. 2, currently allows county commissioners to
present comments on a TIF plan at a public hearing. Section 6 of S.F,
635 would allow the county to have a more meaningful input into the process,
by giving the county 45 days to make written comment on the proposal .
League Amendment
Reword the section to clarify that the county should not be able to use its
authority to make written comment as an effective veto power.
Explanation of Amendment
The county should be able to make written comment, but not be able to effectively
exercise veto power.
6. CITY REQUIRED TO WRITE DOWN SPECIFIC AND DETAILED REASONS FOR FACT FINDINGS,
Summary M.S. 27374, subd. 3 now requires a municipality to make various
fact findings before or at the time of approval of the TIF plan. Section
7 of S.F. 635 requires that detailed and specific reasons for those fact
findings be made in writing.
League Amendment
Strike the words "detailed" and "specific" and simply require the municipality
to "set forth in writing the basis or reasons for each determination. "
Explanation of Amendment
A requirement to set forth detailed and specific reasons is too cumbersome and expensive,
and would invite litigation. The League's amendment would retain the general principle
of requiring written reasons for the fact findings, but would not create as many practical
problems.
/6 iff';'
-5-
7. REVERSE REFERENDUM REQUIREMENT FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
Summary S.F. 635 adds a new requirement to the TIF law which allows for a
reverse referendum in the case of economic development districts. A reverse
referendum would be required if requested by a number of voters equal in number
to 10% of the votes cast in the city in the last general election.
League Amendment
Strike sections of S.F. 635 which relate to the reverse referendum requirement.
Explanation of Amendment
The League opposes this reverse referendum provision for several reasons. First, the
concept in general is contrary to trust in the accountability of local elected
officials . It could allow for a minority of voters tostand in the way of worthwhile
economic development projects. Second, the TIF law currently contains safeguards to
that public opinion forms an important part of the TIF planning process . Third, the
referendum provision applies only to economic development districts, and is a fairly
transparent attempt to ;sake it more difficult to use TIF for economic development
purposes. It is extremely important that this particular provision be removed from
the bill if it is to be acceptable to the League.
8, CHANGES THE "KNOCK-DOWN" PROVISION FROM FIVE TO THREE YEARS
Summary M.S. 273. 75, subd. 6, currently contains a significant restriction called
the "knock-down" provision. If no demolition, rehab, etc, have begun on a parcel
within 5 years after certification of the district then no additional tax
increment may be taken from the parcel and the base value is adjusted to exclude
the original assessed value of a parcel . S.F. 635 would lower the limit to 3
years.
League Amendment
Retainthe 5 year provision in current law.
Explanation of Amendment
There are two major problems with the bill . First, it does not recognize the importance
of timing in the implementation of a TIF project. It may reasonably take as long as
five years to begin necessary work, given problems with acquisition, relocation, etc.
It would "knock-down" parcels prematurely. Second, it would result in many parcels
going "out" and then back "in" to the base value of a district. This would be
expensive and time consuming to administer.
9. REQUIRES "PRIOR" PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN BASE VALUE
Summary M.S. 273.76, subd. 4, now authorizes a county to increase the base
value of a TIF district by the assessed value of the improvements for which
building permits were issued 18 months before approval of the TIF plan -
"prior planned improvements. " The idea is to prevent a TIF district from
benefiting from development which was occurring or going to occur anyway.
(OVER)
-6-
S.F. 635 would require the base value to be increased by the prior planned improvements,
or in other words to exclude prior planned improvements from the captured assessed value.
League Amendment
Retain current statutory language relating to prior planned improvements.
Explanation of Amendment
Counties already have the power to increase the base value by the value of prior planned
improvements. There is no reason to make the process mandatory statewide. If an
individual county is concerned about loss of taxable value to which it would otherwise
be entitled, it could choose to exercise its power under the current law.
Passage of S. F. 635 as it now stands would make it much more difficult to establish
workable TIF projects - particularly the economic development type.
10. NOT MORE THAN 5% OF TIF PROCEEDS MAY BE USED FOR TRUNK HIGHWAYS
Summary S.F. 635 was amended in subcommittee to include a new provision that
would essentially prohibit any TIF proceeds from being used for any improvements
on trunk highways. The law currently allows for TIF to be used to improve streets
and roads as part of a project to encourage development.
League Amendment
Strike the "no roads" section.
Explanation of Amendment
The "no roads" part of S.F. 635 represents an overreaction to legislative concerns that
TIF will somehow supplement the state's current system for financing highways . The
problem is that many TIF districts, particularly in non-metropolitan cities, involve
improvements to "Main Street" business areas that include trunk highways. In such
cases there is often much work done on the street - e.g. parking, curbs , lighting,
plantings, etc. If the League amendment is not passed many worthwhile projects would
be unnecessarily restricted. There is no rational reason to say that TIF may be used
for utilities such as water or sewer but not for roads. The purpose is the same - to
make underutilized or marginal properties attractive to develop.
CONCLUSION
The League has worked long and hard with the Legislature in previous sessions to achieve
a reasonable and responsible TIF law. Unfortunately, many provisions of the present
S.F. 635 are unreasonable restrictions on TIF and go far beyond mere "tinkering" or
"tightening-up" in their total effect. Cities cannot afford to ignore this foot-in-
the-door to desimating the TIF law.
-7 / /
-
('
SENATE TAX COMMITTEE MEMBERS
DISTRICT NAME STATE CAPITOL PHONE NUMBERS
6 Johnson, Douglas, Chair 296-8881
10 Peterson, C.C. , Vice-Chair 296-4135
39 Bang, Otto 296-4122
15 Berg, Charles 296-5094
59 Berglin, Linda 296-4261
22 Bernhagen, John 296-4131
14 Chmielewski , Florian 296-4182
60 Davies, Jack 296-4841
62 Dieterich, Neil 296-8867
32 Frederick, Mel 296-4123
1 Hanson, Mary 296-4835
47 Merriam, Gene 296-4154
20 Nichols, Jim 296-4474
11 Olhoft, Wayne 296-4178
17 Pehler, James 296-4241
27 Peterson, D.L. 296-3988
36 Schmitz, Robert 296-7157
21 Setzepfandt, A.O.H. 296-8086
63 Sieloff, Ron 296-4310
8 Ulland, James 296-4314
52 Vega, Conrad 296-4101
f
C �'t
■
iv
'K 00-4. baa P d
IIII 1 ME 2 -11931
lin Il�ll
league of minnesota ciIPMAF SHAK P
April 17, 1981
TO: Mayors, Managers, Clerks and Legislative Contacts
FROM: Peggy Flicker, Legislative Counsel
RE: TAX INCREMENT FINANCING - S.F. 635
On Friday, April 10, a subcommittee on the Senate Tax Committee passed S.F. 635 on to
the full Tax Committee. The bill as amended has numerous unacceptable sections which
pose serious threats to Tax Increment Financing (TIF) . The chief author of the bill
is Senator Mary Hanson of Hallock, who is also assistant majority leader.
The League is aware that Senator Hanson has some serious concerns with TIF, particularly
as it relates to use in economic development districts (as opposed to redevelopment
districts). The League has already told Senator Hanson that city officials hope to
work with him in addressing his concerns, and he has been responsive to some of our
input thus far. It is unclear at this point just which of our amendments he will
accept and which he will oppose.
THE LEAGUE NEEDS YOUR HELP SO THAT WE CAN AMEND THE BILL IN THE SENATE TAX COMMITTEE°
THIS ACTION ALERT SUMMARIZES EACH UNACCEPTABLE SECTION OF S.F. 635, DESCRIBES THE
LEAGUE AMENDMENT WHICH WILL BE PROPOSED, AND EXPLAINS THE PROBLEMS WHICH CAUSE THE
NEED FOR AN AMENDMENT.
WHAT YOU SHOULD DO NOW
• Contact your Senator now - in person, by phone, or by mail . Contact Senate
Tax Committee Members (see attached list), particularly Senator Hanson and
Senator Doug Johnson, Committee Chairman.
• Ask your Senator and members of the Senate Tax Committee to support the
League of Minnesota Cities' sponsored amendments to S.F. 635.
o If your city has used TIF, remind your Senator of that fact and point out
the good things that have been accomplished through TIF.
o Come to the Senate Tax Committee meeting when S.F. 635 is heard. The League
will notify you of time and place.
300 hanover building, 480 cedar street, saint paul, minnesota 55101 C6123 222-2861
(OVER)
-2-
If the League amendments don' t go on to S.F. 635, TIF will be a much less workable tool
and fewer cities will be able to take advantage of it. As discussed below, more and more
smaller cities are beginning to use TIF. Certain parts of S.F. 635 as amended would be
especially harmful to smaller cities and projects . Those parts are pointed out in the
section - by - section - summary.
WHO IS USING TIF?
It is worth noting that since 1968, 105 cities in Minnesota have initiated or planned
193 TIF projects.
Over two-thirds of the cities using TIF are located outside the metropolitan area. Of
the 193 projects in the state, 99 are located in cities under 10,000 population.
More and more cities under 10,000 population are taking advantage of TIF. In 1978 15
of these small cities started their first TIF project, and 10 more followed in 1979.
In 1980, 15 more of these small cities have started or are planning their first project.
A total of 53 projects were begun in small cities in the last three years. Even if your
city is not now using TIF, this option for community development must be preserved.
SUMMARY OF S.F. 635 PROBLEM AREAS
1 . S. F. 635 WOULD CAUSE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TIF DISTRICTS TO RESULT IN HIGHER
SCHOOL MILL RATES.
Summary M.S. 273. 73, subd. 4, defines captured assessed value (CAV) under
the tax increment law. Under section 1 of S.F. 635, the CAV of parcels in
economic development districts would be included in adjusted assessed value
of each school district for purposes of computing school aids . The state
would end up paying less school aids and the school district would still
receive the same amount for pupils , but the local tax payer would pay a
higher school mill rate.
League Amendment
Strike Section 1 .
Explanation of Amendment
This part of S.F. 635 would build into every economic development proposal a high level
of local opposition to TIF. Since a higher school levy would be the direct result of any
economic development project, city officials would be understandably much more reluctant
to approve such a project. Since school district boundaries are hot conterminous with
city boundaries, there would be increased pressure from county or township officials to
oppose the use of TIF for economic development.
By removing Section 1 of S.F. 635, the League amendment would prevent this indirect
attempt to restrict the use of TIF for economic development.
NOTE: Senator Hanson has indicated he feels strongly about including this particular
provision in the bill .
2. DATE FOR DETERMINATION OF "ORIGINAL ASSESSED VALUE" MODIFIED - THE INTENT IS TO
INCREASE THE BASE VALUE OF DISTRICT AND DECREASE THE TAX INCREMENT.
Summary M.S. 273.73, subd. 7, now defines "original assessed value" as the value
of taxable property in a TIF district as most recently certified by the Commissioner
of Revenue. Section 2 of S.F. 635 would change that date to January 2 of the year
in which the request for certification of a TIF district occurs.
m3_
League Amendment
Strike Section 2
Explanation of Amendment
The way the bill is currently drafted, the January 2 value is not definite because it
is subject to appeal and change. It is essential to have a "real number" at the time
the district is certified so that the appropriate cash flow projections may be made.
That is why it is necessary to refer to the most recently certified value.
Given the major administrative and practical problems with this section of the bill ,
the best answer to to delete it. The problem it is meant to address, that of "windfall "
gains in captured assessed value, is not really that great. In most circumstances the
value of property in a tax increment district is not increasing very much, if at all .
There is no evidence that a significant amount of value is being captured that would
otherwise end up in the base value.
3. DEFINITION OF REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TIGHTENED UP - MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO
QUALIFY AS A nlIGHTED AREA".
Summary M.S. 273.73, subd. 10, defines the types of projects which may qualify
as redevelopment districts. Paragraph 2 of that subdivision contains an
objective "blight finding" requirement. 20% of the buildings must be structurally
substandard and an additional 30% of the buildings must be "found to require
substantial rennovations or clearance" in order to remove specified problem
conditions. Section 3 of S.F. 635 would increase the 20% requirement to 25%
and the 30% requirement to 40%.
League Amendment
The League opposes this particular change because it will make it much more
difficult for a blighted area to qualify as a redevelopment district.
Explanation of Amendment
The S. F. 635 approach would tend to encourage a spot renewal approach to redevelopment
as opposed to a more comprehensive area approach. Second, it would be necessary to
conduct much more thorough inspection of buildings in order to qualify the district.
This would add substantially to planning and administrative costs of the project, and
would particularly harm smaller cities and smaller TIF projects . The current blight
finding requirement is quite strict and there is no need for it to be made stricter.
This portion of the bill would make TIF much more unworkable, especially for smaller
cities.
4, INCLUDES BOND COUNSEL AND CONSULTANT COSTS INTO ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, WHICH
ARE LIMITED TO 5% OF TOTAL TAX INCREMENT EXPENDITURES
Summary M.S. 273073, subd. 3, currently limits administrative expenses to 5%
of the total tax increment expenditures.
Section 4 of S.F. 635 would include as administrative expenses, and thus subject to the
limit, "amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel , fiscal consultants , and
planning or economic development consultants."
(OVER)
-4-
League Amendment
Strike Section 4
Explanation of Amendment
By requiring that payments for bond counsel and consultant services fall within the
5% administrative expense limit, the bill would effectively stop the use of TIF in
most cities. The administrative expenses of most projects are currently at the 5%
limit, so there would be no room to add the costs for bond counsel and consultant
services. It particularly discriminates against smaller cities and projects where
the city does not have sophisticated planning staff, and finds it necessary to use
outside consultants to assist in planning and implementing a TIF project. The
effect of the provision in the bill may also be to discourage the use of outside
professionals and thereby cause problems because of poor work done by inexperienced
or untrained persons,
5. WRITTEN COMMENT BY COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON TIF PLAN PROPOSAL
Summary M.S. 273.74, subd. 2, currently allows county commissioners to
present comments on a TIF plan at a public hearing. Section 6 of S.F.
635 would allow the county to have a more meaningful input into the process,
by giving the county 45 days to make written comment on the proposal „
League Amendment
Reword the section to clarify that the county should not be able to use its
authority to make written comment as an effective veto power.
Explanation of Amendment
The county should be able to make written comment, but not be able to effectively
exercise veto power,
6. CITY REQUIRED TO WRITE DOWN SPECIFIC AND DETAILED REASONS FOR FACT FINDINGS.
Summary M.S. 273,74, subd. 3 now requires a municipality to make various
fact findings before or at the time of approval of the TIF plan. Section
7 of S.F. 635 requires that detailed and specific reasons for those fact
findings be made in writing.
League Amendment
Strike the words "detailed" and "specific" and simply require the municipality
to "set forth in writing the basis or reasons for each determination. "
Explanation of Amendment
A requirement to set forth detailed and specific reasons is too cumbersome and expensive,
and would invite litigation. The League's amendment would retain the general principle
of requiring written reasons for the fact findings, but would not create as many practical
problems.
/ 6 3'
-5-
7. REVERSE REFERENDUM RESUIREMENT FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
Summar,_ S.F. 635 adds a new requirement to the TIF law which allows for a
reverse referendum in the case of economic development districts. A reverse
referendum would be required if requested by a number of voters equal in number
to 10% of the votes cast in the city in the last general election.
League Amendment
Strike sections of S.F. 635 which relate to the reverse referendum requirement.
Explanation of Amendment
The League opposes this reverse referendum provision for several reasons. First, the
concept in general is contrary to trust in the accountability of local elected
officials. It could allow for a minority of voters tostand in the way of worthwhile
economic development projects. Second, the TIF law currently contains safeguards to
that public opinion forms an important part of the TIF planning process . Third, the
referendum provision applies only to economic development districts, and is a fairly
transparent attempt to make it more difficult to use TIF for economic development
purposes. It is extremely important that this particular provision be removed from
the bill if it is to be acceptable to the League.
8, CHANGES THE "KNOCKDOWN" PROVISION FROM FIVE TO THREE YEARS
Summary M.S. 273.75, subd. 6, currently contains a significant restriction called
the "knock-down" provision. If no demolition, rehab, etc. have begun on a parcel
within 5 years after certification of the district then no additional tax
increment may be taken from the parcel and the base value is adjusted to exclude
the original assessed value of a parcel . S.F. 635 would lower the limit to 3
years.
League Amendment
Retainthe 5 year provision in current law.
Explanation of Amendment
There are two major problems with the bill . First, it does not recognize the importance
of timing in the implementation of a TIF project. It may reasonably take as long as
five years to begin necessary work, given problems with acquisition, relocation, etc.
It would "knock-down" parcels prematurely. Second, it would result in many parcels
going "out" and then back "in" to the base value of a district. This would be
expensive and time consuming to administer.
9. REQUIRES "PRIOR" PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN BASE VALUE
Summary M.S. 273.76, subd. 4, now authorizes a county to increase the base
value of a TIF district by the assessed value of the improvements for which
building permits were issued 18 months before approval of the TIF plan
"prior planned improvements. " The idea is to prevent a TIF district from
benefiting from development which was occurring or going to occur anyway.
(OVER)
-6-
S.F. 635 would require the base value to be increased by the prior planned improvements,
or in other words to exclude prior planned improvements from the captured assessed value.
League Amendment
Retain current statutory language relating to prior planned improvements.
Explanation of Amendment
Counties already have the power to increase the base value by the value of prior planned
improvements. There is no reason to make the process mandatory statewide. If an
individual county is concerned about loss of taxable value to which it would otherwise
be entitled, it could choose to exercise its power under the current law.
Passage of S.F. 635 as it now stands would make it much more difficult to establish
workable TIF projects - particularly the economic development type.
10. NOT MORE THAN 5% OF TIF PROCEEDS MAY BE USED FOR TRUNK HIGHWAYS
Summary S .F. 635 was amended in subcommittee to include a new provision that
would essentially prohibit any TIF proceeds from being used for any improvements
on trunk highways. The law currently allows for TIF to be used to improve streets
and roads as part of a project to encourage development.
League Amendment
Strike the "no roads" section.
Explanation of Amendment
The "no roads" part of S.F. 635 represents an overreaction to legislative concerns that
TIF will somehow supplement the state's current system for financing highways . The
problem is that many TIF districts, particularly in non-metropolitan cities, involve
improvements to "Main Street" business areas that include trunk highways. In such
cases there is often muchwork done on the street - e.g. parking, curbs, lighting,
plantings, etc. If the League amendment is not passed many worthwhile projects would
be unnecessarily restricted. There is no rational reason to say that TIF may be used
for utilities such as water or sewer but not for roads . The purpose is the same - to
make underutilized or marginal properties attractive to develop.
CONCLUSION
The League has worked long and hard with the Legislature in previous sessions to achieve
a reasonable and responsible TIF law. Unfortunately, many provisions of the present
S.F. 635 are unreasonable restrictions on TIF and go far beyond mere "tinkering" or
"tightening-up" in their total effect. Cities cannot afford to ignore this foot-in-
the-door to decimating the TIF law.
-7- 16
SENATE TAX COMMITTEE MEMBERS
DISTRICT NAME STATE CAPITOL PHONE NUMBERS
6 Johnson, Douglas, Chair 296-8881
10 Peterson, C.C. , Vice-Chair 296-4135
39 Bang, Otto 296-4122
15 Berg, Charles 296-5094
59 Berglin, Linda 296-4261
22 Bernhagen, John 296-4131
14 Chmielewski , Florian 296-4182
60 Davies, Jack 296-4841
62 Dieterich, Neil 296-8867
32 Frederick, Mel 296-4123
1 Hanson, Mary 296-4835
47 Merriam , Gene 296-4154
20 Nichols, Jim 296-4474
11 Olhoft, Wayne 296-4178
17 Pehler, James 296-4241
27 Peterson, D.L. 296-3988
36 Schmitz, Robert 296-7157
21 Setzepfandt, A.O.H. 296-8086
63 Sieloff, Ron 296-4310
8 Ulland, James 296-4314
52 Vega, Conrad 296-4101